1 20 57 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/de1b65b9df6773a109b30e9c54c3365b.pdf f551cb73bba57f440bf3151500ace40c PDF Text Text AMJHOTOH ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR AND SUPERVISORS Statement to School Board April 26, 1979 We do appreciate the delay in your action on Dr. Cuban's recommendation of February 26th on the subject of proposed changes in P-scale seniority. At the School Board Meeting when this recommendation was an agenda item the AASAS rep resentative did make a statement saying that the seniority idea was not the big issue, and that the real concern is job security. The whole problem of a diminishing school population ana the decrease in positions available is a very difficult situation to meet and so we P-ecala employees are very cogni zant of the problems you face in dealing with the situation. We have found it very difficult to come up with any one proposal, or a set of proposals, that would provide any im provement over our P-seale subcommittee1s previous report on this subject to' the Superintendent. Let.'3 look at what is gcin. on. Currently personnel placement actions are based on the existing ASD's. These may or may not be satisfactory and there is nothing sacred about them - they can be revised or terminated. The Alloca tion of Administrative Resources plan which was developed over a period of two years and approved by the School Board had �2 m a n y elements t h a t w e r e m o r e a c c e p t a b l e to P - s c a l e p e r s o n n e l t h a n s eme o f t h e c u r r e n t p e r s o n n e l a c t i o n p o l i c i e s . o f t h a t p l a n w a s good. be co m m e n d e d The tone T h e top s c h o o l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n is to for m o v i n g ahead w i t h some o f the p a r t s o f the t , p l a n and w e w o u l d e n c o u r a g e f u r t h e r i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t hat d ocument. I I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e A S D ’s a n d t h e p a r t s o f t h e A l l o c a t i o n o f Administrative Resources that have been implemented, con s i d e r a t i o n c o u l d be g i v e n to r e v i s i n g the c u r r e n t A S D ' s so 1 / i t h a t m o r e of th e A l l o c a t i o n o f A d m i n i s t r a t i v e R e s o u r c e s c o n cepts an d r a t i o n a l e c o u l d be i n cluded. t his a c o m p a r a t i v e In o r d e r t o a c c o m p l i s h r e v i e w a n d d e v e l o p m e n t o f a n e w p l a n by S c h o o l B o a r d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a nd P - s c a l e c o u n t e r p a r t s m i g h t be c o nsidered. W e K n o w t hat t he S c h o o l B o a r d a n d t h e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t h a v e m a n y concerns about the personnel situation n o w confronting t h e A r l i n g t o n P u b l i c Sch o o l s . too have cern s , We several major con a n d t h e y i n clude t h e f o l l o w i n g . 0 J o b s e c u r i t y n u m b e r one c o n c e r n ! ^ T h e i n t o t he c a t e g o r i e s is the reasons for classifying vacancies o f a d v e r t i s e d a n d non-aclvertised p o s i t i o n s is a n o t h e r c o n c e r n ^ ? ) T h e e r o s i o n o f P = s e a l e p o s i t i o n s b y the ^ a n y p l a c e m e n t s o f T - s c a l e p e r s o n n e l in p o s i t i o n s t h a t p r e v 1m ” iously had P-scale status is a n o t h e r i t e m o f c o n c e r n . W e see the s u r p l u s P - s c a l e p e r s o n n e l s i t u a t i o n a c o n t i n u i n g p r o b l e m that needs the p o o l i n g o f t h e b e s t t h i n k i n g o f a l l c o n c e r n e d in _ y �r order to meet the needs of the total school system* Camay Brooks will fellow my comments with some suggestions and ideas for improvement of the current approach to meeting the situation. We hope you will give serious consideration to each of the ideas* � 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 Association of School Administrators and Supervisors statement to School Board, April 26, 1979 Description An account of the resource Arlington Association of School Administrators and Supervisors statement to School Board, April 26, 1979 re Dr. Larry Cuban's recommendation on the subject of proposed changes in P-scale seniority. 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 Association of School Administrators and Supervisors Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1979-04-26 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_114 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/865d5c45974cb634aaa7074ee59817b0.pdf 9c9f59a54c0acc9d4414cbea5e815cbc PDF Text Text / \ L..__.. > .. . J A R L IN G T O N E D U C A T IO N A S S O C IA T IO N • 915 North Stafford Street. A rlin gton, V irg in ia 22203 • (703)522-0850 Florence L President L K.tns-n f.» srner Vice President Harvey W Wynn Treasurer Lee Vosper Worth. Past President George R Long. Executive Board Weston Willis. Executive Board Michele B Milden. Executive Board Sharon E. Boyd. Executive Board Marjorie P. Sale, UniServ Director March 13, 1979 Mrs. Mary Margaret Whipple, Chairperson Arlington School Board 1426 North Ouincy Street Arlington, Virginia 22207 Dear Mrs. Whipple: At its regularly scheduled Delegate Assembly on March 12, the Arlington Education Association adopted the attached resolution expressing "no confidence" in Superintendent Larry Cuban and urging his resignation. The staff of the schools has witnessed the third year of recommenda­ tions from Dr. Cuban for salary adjustments well below increases in the Consumer Price Index. The impact on the employees I represent is a 12 percent drop in the value of the salaries received in just three years' time. In spite of well articulated advice through proper channels supported with data and rationale, the Superintendent has stubbornly refused to alter the pattern of his advice. The School Board was able to adopt a budget below that recommended by the Superintendent which included a larger pay adjustment, program improve­ ments and additional capital improvements without eliminating or reducing any current service. The resources were available when Dr. Cuban prepared his budget, and others came to light during the budgeting process. Still the Superintendent would take no initiative to protect the employees of the schools from a sharply diminished living standard. The salary schedule is now worth less real buying power than in 1967 and has lost $900 per step in just five years. Teachers now believe this will be Dr. Cuban's pattern as long as he remains here. We can stand no more. The draft of the attached resolution was discussed at our meeting in February. Delegates were urged to discuss the matter with the staffs they represent and come prepared to vote the consensus they received. After a full discussion and several amendments, the resolution was overwhelmingly passed. We urge the School Board to consider whether the good of the Arlington Schools will be served by Dr. Cuban's continued employment. MPS/ljf ■ Attachment O R G A N IZ E D T O A D V A N C E T H E P R O F E S S IO N A L S T A T U S O F T E A C H IN G ■ � 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 Education Association (AED) letter to Mary Margret Whipple, chair of Arlington School Board, March 13, 1974 urging resignation of School Superintendent Larry Cuban. Description An account of the resource Arlington Education Association (AED) letter to Mary Margret Whipple, chair of Arlington School Board, March 13, 1974 urging resignation of School Superintendent Larry Cuban. 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 Education Association Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1974-03-13 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_112 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/bd8f71769d6208ef18cb447f3365a5cd.pdf f8481df625ea9a7e7565abe4fdde3eed PDF Text Text ARLINGTON EDUCATION ASSOCIATION 915 North Stafford Street Arlington, Virginia 22203 RESOLUTION OF DELEGATE ASSEMBLY ADOPTED ON MARCH 12, 1979: WHEREAS, Superintendent of Schools Larry Cuban has consistently exhibited a callous and cavalier attitude toward employees by presenting a series of budgets which have consistently lowered the standard of living of Arlington school employees, and WHEREAS, his reluctance to seek adequate financial support for the schools has resulted in a decline in morale which, if unchecked, will cause the deterioration of the Arlington schools, and WHEREAS, the Delegate Assembly of the Arlington Education Association feels that an "adequate budget" with a less than adequate salary improvement is a contradiction in terms, BE IT RESOLVED that the Delegate Assembly of the AEA has lost confidence in Dr. Cuban’s leadership of our school system and urges his resignation. � 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 Education Association resolution adopted on March 12, 1979 calling for resignation of Superintendent Larry Cuban Description An account of the resource Arlington Education Association resolution adopted on Marcy 12, 1979 calling for resignation of Superintendent Larry Cuban 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 Education Association Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1979-03-12 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_113 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/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/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/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/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/249db22bd847a3974e24ebcbc6643448.pdf 097d7ed512f9fa1ddc4c11e47f94fc3e 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 notes on school buildings, etc. Description An account of the resource Handwritten notes on school buildings, etc. 1 page, 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 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 1960s 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_8 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/9ad8f8d11643eb17a8061309afaf9e9e.pdf 903636c578d3fcd2d924bd1f27d287af PDF Text Text HISTORY ARLINGTON 1952 Last Year Open SCHOOL - 1985 S t u d e n t s To: School 1952-53 1956-57 1961-62 1963-64 1963-64 1964-65 Shirley Hume Marshall School & Annex H o f f m a n - B o s t o n Sr. H i g h K e mper H o f f m a n - B o s t o n Jr. H i g h 1965-66 1967-68 L a n g s t o n (Gr. 1-6) Monroe Wilson Cherrydale Elementary Drew E d i s o n Center Hoffman-Boston Elementary L angston (Kindergarten) Lee E l e m e n t a r y Stewart Elementary Woodlawn Elementary None Clay/Fillmore Elementary Maury Elementary None Madison Elementary * None Page E l e m e n t a r y Gunston Junior High * * Stratford Junior High** Hoffraan-Boston Jr. H i g h (alternative program) Woodlawn Program ( a l t e r n a t i v e G r . 10-12) Custis Elementary Fairlington Elementary Jackson Elementary George Mason Ft. Myer Woodraont E l e m e n t a r y Claremont Reed 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 ♦ -Firs t school in A r l i n g t o n CLOSINGS closed because Unknown ■ J a m e s t o w n , T aylor Wakefield, Washington-Lee U n k nown G u n ston, S t ratford, S w anson, T h o m a s J e f f e r s o n Lee, Reed, T a ylor, W o o d m o n t Key Key Glebe, Key, Page, W o o d m o n t T h r o u g h o u t the C ounty McKinley T h r o u g h o u t the C o u n t y Glebe, Reed, Taylor Reed, N o t t i n g h a m Tuckahoe Glebe, Reed Long Branch L o n g B ranch, Jamestown, Page Taylor G l ebe, J a c k s o n , Key, W o o d m o n t Jefferson, Kenmore J e f f., Swa n s o n , W i l l i a m s b u r g H-B Wood. S e c o n d a r y P r o g r a m (at Stratford) H-B Wood. S e c o n d a r y P r o g r a m (at Stratford) Oakr idge Abingdon Ashlawn, McK i n l e y J a c k s o n (opened as Spl.Ed.) Long Branch Taylor Abingdon McKinley, Tuckahoe of shrinking enrollment. ♦ ♦ - R i s i n g n i n t h g r a d e r s in all j u n i o r h i g h s w e r e m o v e d to the three schools. T h e r e m a i n i n g j u n i o r h i g h s b e c a m e i n t e r m e d i a t e schools G r a d e s 7 and 8. high for � 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 -Arlington School Closings; 1952-1985 Description An account of the resource History -Arlington School Closings; 1952-1985 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 unknown 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_7 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/4122114796d27b5c28d89063deea7f34.pdf 710cd0f01e97309ec2fa43fecc4f5b14 PDF Text Text HUMAN RELATIONS Pi^QGRA.*! FOR .ARLINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS Board■ Superintendent Appointed 1 Central office 1 School Board 1 Senior High 3 Junior High 4 Elementary Assembly 1 Team from each school 1 Black 1 White Each School Human Relations Committee Principal or Representative Staff Students Parents Supporting Services � 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 Human Relations Program for Arlington Public Schools Description An account of the resource Human Relations Program for 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 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 unknown 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_48 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/f133b30260f6bfef2282249bdd71f8f5.pdf 59e3ed703032cf2b2f4fd5fb51430862 PDF Text Text 1971 June 30 Mrs. Rebecca Ann S. Lincoln 5824 Syphax Drive Bailey's Cross Roads, Virginia 22041 Dear Staff Member: The School Board on Monday, June 28, announced a plan that it is submitting to the U.S. District Court to desegregate Drew and HoffmanBoston Elementary Schools. Under the provisions of the plan, students and staff from the two schools in question are to be distributed among all of the remaining elementaries. Drew is to be used for Adult Education, kindergarten, Montessori-pre-school, and a model elementary program. Hoffman-Boston will be used by Thomas Jefferson Junior High and as a kindergarten. Enclosed is a plan at the direction of the as to how the plan will tunity to meet with you teachers lounge at Drew questions. for staff desegregation that has been prepared School Board. Undoubtedly you have many questions affect you. As a result, I would like an oppor­ on Wednesday, July 7, at 2:00 o'clock p.m. in the to discuss this matter further and respond to any Sincerely yours, *r^ , '■ > ■■ c" V / -V . . o f e ; "L'ia-4.•< 'Henry D. Gardner Assistant Superintendent For Personnel HDG/sau Enc. J ‘ � 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 from Henry Gardner, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel, Arlington Public Schools to staff member Rebecca Ann S. Lincoln regarding plan to desegregate Drew and Hoffman Boston saying a plan for staff desegregation has been prepared and enclosed, June 30, 1971 Description An account of the resource Letter from Henry Gardner, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel, Arlington Public Schools to staff member Rebecca Ann S. Lincoln regarding plan to desegregate Drew and Hoffman Boston saying a plan for staff desegregation has been prepared and enclosed, June 30, 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 Arlington Public Schools Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1971-06-30 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_58 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/a17a3590a3c118696740e95748865c70.pdf 4f1688b10b5ae3850bdaefd98763f764 PDF Text Text June 30 1971 Mr. Thomas Bellamy 2914 S. 23rd Street Arlington, Virginia 22206 Dear Staff Member: The School Board on Monday, June 28, announced a plan that it is submitting to the U.S. District Court to desegregate Drew and HoffmanBoston Elementary Schools. Under the provisions of the plan, students and staff from the two schools in question are to be distributed among all of the remaining elementaries. Drew is to be used for Adult Education, kindergarten, Montessori-pre-school, and a model elementary program. Hoffman-Boston will be used by Thomas Jefferson Junior High and as a kindergarten. Enclosed is a plan at the direction of the as to how the plan will tunity to meet with you teachers lounge at Drew questions. for staff desegregation that has been prepared School Board. Undoubtedly you have many questions affect you. As a result, I would like an oppor on Wednesday, July 7, at 2:00 o'clock p.m. in the to discuss this matter further and respond to any Sincerely yours, v > J ■■ Henry D. Gardner Assistant Superintendent For Personnel HDG/sau Enc. �VyiAUHUudd July 30, 1971 mo-sf 131 friW 0 .0 -io'i zJoclH 29 } tdW Dear Staff Member: 0:0 I etoortoS 2 ^ 3 6 f8 e.S iia a liiu i 0.0 natHHJ I moiY II aajrriW |] u.O ''ot expai~8 2s.1rrtH a^unia aloorto-:_ 0.0 O.S 0.0 nobgrlfi'; As you have probably learned through the media, the Arlington Schools are -• - U.Q 0 .U . .-til 0 ■ ,fl 0. 2 ■v nr - currently engaged in litigation over plans for the desegregation of Drew and ! j ;..o 0-0 i.S 0-0 nddiA-ifr O'­ Hof fman-Bos ton Elementary Schools. While at this writing a decision has not been .jj,-.’-‘ ;j : •: o.o o.r o.o ztjaio rendered, the time factor requires that we proceed with planning for impTemen-noinnr I1 o.S o.O C.C O.S nv.hsonelD tation of the Board's plan. Transfers o f personnel on the elementary school -.ptir.: t j ! ?. 0.0 O.f ...e nwalasa;... level will be required and will have to be made prior to the return of staff - members next month. He have also been advised by our attorneys that our secondary staff should be balanced racially. A listing of the positions and/or needs to accomplish this are shown on the reverse side. I intend to keep affected staff members informed of all actions relating to them as soon as they become known to me. At this point, I can only say that what­ ever transfers will have to be made will be made taking into account as much as possible the wishes of all staff members concerned. Requests will be made initially for voluntary transfers, giving applicants an opportunity to state preferences for new school assignments; however, involuntary transfers may have to be made in the event of an insufficient number of applicants for voluntary transfers. We have included on the reverse a listing of available vacancies and a form upon which you may make an application for a voluntary transfer and state your preference of a new school assignment if you so desire. Your returned application must be postmarked no later than August 6, 1971. I want to thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. Sincerely yours, RLC/ses Robert L. Chisholm Superintendent > . �SECONDARY ELEMENTARY Schools Vacancies for Blacks Whites Transfers from Whites Blacks Schools & Subjects Vacancies for Whites Blacks Transfers from Blacks Whites 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 .5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 .5 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 .5 .5 .5 0.0 1.0 2.0 .5 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 ‘MODEL SCHOOL - vacancies for: 9 Classroom Teachers, 1 CDC , 1 Librarian, 1 P.E. Teacher, and 1 Resident Specialist. ‘These vacancies are for either Black or White. *S Schools not listed are not directly affected at this time. 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 T. J. 1.0 Eng. .17 P. E. 0.0 1.17 0.0 0.0 T. J. Annex 1.0 Eng. 1.0 Read. 1.0 Soc. St. .17 P. E. 0.0 3.17 0.0 0.0 Stratford 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Swanson .5 Math .17 Bus. Ed. 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.33 Wmsbq. 1.0 Math 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Wakefield 0.0 3.33 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Yorktown 1.0 Bus. Ed. 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 9.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Gunston .5 Bus. Ed. 1.0 Ind. Arts 1.0 Gen. S c i . Wash-Lee Abingdon Ashlawn Bancroft Barrett Claremont Clay-Fill. Custis Fai rl ington Glencarlyn Jackson Jamestown Key Madison Maury McKinley Nottingham Oakridge Page Randolph Taylor Tuckahoe Woodmont 2.0 0.0 0.0 1 .0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Lib. 2.0 Read. .33 Latin Woodlawn Proq 1.0 Eng. 1.0 Soc. St. TRANSFER REQUEST EMPLOYEE'S NAME RACE h o me p h o n e PRESENT ASSIGNMENT SHADE AMO/OR SUBJECT ON POSITION REQUESTED ASSIGNMENT SCHOOL ON DEPT. ( L i l t ) * f t choict SHADE AND 'OH SUBJECT ON POSITION OATE. SCHOOL PHONE � 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 from Henry Gardner, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel, Arlington Public Schools to staff member to Thomas Bellamy regarding plan to desegregate Drew and Hoffman Boston saying a plan for staff desegregation has been prepared and enclosed, June 30, 1971. Description An account of the resource Letter from Henry Gardner, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel, Arlington Public Schools to staff member to Thomas Bellamy regarding plan to desegregate Drew and Hoffman Boston saying a plan for staff desegregation has been prepared and enclosed, June 30, 1971. Enclosure included. 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 1971-06-30 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_59 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/263ea1f43de175516f9499fad6e8bee4.pdf 371fcf0a7e44cfc0837550ed484fffd8 PDF Text Text ARLINGTON PU BLIC SCHOOLS 1 4 2 6 N O R T H Q U I N 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 7 R o b e r t L . C h is h o lm . S u p e r in te n d e n t January 8, 1971 Mrs. Marianne Karydes 4934 North 27th Street Arlington, Virginia 22207 Dear Mrs. Karydes: Attached herewith are copies of responses to the questions submitted to the School Board by the Committee for Equal Education. Upon review you will understand that our delay in responding to the questions was caused by the need to go to many sources in order to provide the informa tion requested. I trust you will find this information responsive to your questions. Sincerely yours. Superintendent R LC :b:S Att: 2 cc: Members of the Board Superintendents Cabinet - �ARLINGTON PU BLIC SCHOOLS 1 4 2 6 N O R T H Q U I N 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 7 January 7, 1971 INFORMATION FOR THE COMMITTEE FOR EQUAL EDUCATION INQUIRY: 1. What is the number of reading teachers in each school? Separate table attached from Account #22 Budget Detail. 2. What is the average expenditure per pupil at each school? See separate table for Staff Expenditures Per Pupil. In addition to Staff Expenditures (see separate table), general pupil expenditures are made for textbooks, instructional supplies, library materials (see Budget Document - Pages F6, 7, and 8). 3. What is the expenditure per pupil for textbooks at each school? Minimum basic text outlays are assigned to schools according to a county formula. This amounts to $10.13 per elementary pupil and $19.65 per secondary pupil in the 1970-71 budget. 4. How many black administrators are there in the school system? Spanish surnamed? Am. Indian? Oriental? Of the 122 Negro and 2 Oriental full-time instructional staff, there are II black administrators. 5. What is the average number of years of teaching experience among the full­ time professional staff at each school? (See separate table.) 6. What is the number of full-time professional staff members at each school with Master's or additional advanced degrees? (See attached table.) 7. Which elementary schools have a gymnasium separate from a multi-purpose room? The following schools either have separate gyms or they are under construction: Key Glebe (new) 8. McKinley (new) Tuckahoe (new) Taylor (new) Oakridge (new) Jackson Abingdon (new) Are there any elementary schools with neither a gymnasium or a multi-purpose room? Maury has basement area used for library, cafeteria, and limited physical education areas. �CONTINUED - 9. INFORMATION FOR THE COMMITTEE FOR EQUAL EDUCATION INQUIRY: Are there any schools without separate library facilities? Maury Elementary only. 10. What is the number of books in each school library? Use latest library report (attached). 11. Are there any schools without teacher aides, and if so which ones? (See attached table.) 12. Which elementary schools do not have kindergartens in their own buildings? For 1970-71: In 1971-72: 13. Barrett, Cherrydale, Fairlington, Henry Page, and Wood lawn. Only Henry will be housed elsewhere. What is the distribution of ESEA funds by school? See attached memorandum from Mr. Joseph Guter. 14. D o you have data on family income by school attendance area which we may have? The 1970 census data, when available, will have to be used by the Committee to approximate this computation for each attendance area. 15. Is English, as a second language, offered as a regular part of the curricula in our Junior or Senior high schools? Yes. 16. How many Spanish speaking teachers do we have? Information not available. 17. Is there any kind of bilingual education program in Arlington? The Foreign Language offering is a bilingual secondary education program some exists at the elementary level. 18. What program do our schools offer for autistic children? None. 19. Do we accomodate all applicants in any programs for the hard-of-hearing? Yes. 20. Please list all programs available for Arlington students other than regular or seminar classes. In particular those programs for students who have any type of "learning disabilities". Programs other than regular or seminar classes include: Page - 2 - �CONTINUED - 20. 21. INFORMATION FOR COMMITTEE FOR EQUAL EDUCATION Educationally mentally handicapped - elementary, Jr. Trainable " " - ages 5 thru 20. Hearing handicapped - preschool, elementary, Jr. and OrthopedicaI Iy handicapped " " Visually handicapped " " Emotionally " " " NeurologicaIly handicapped " M Homebound Instruction " " Speech handicapped - Kindergarten thru 12th grade. INQUIRY: & Sr. High Schools. Sr. High Schools. " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " Is black history taught in any of our Junior or Senior high schools? which ones: If so, Black History is included in the study of Virginia and U.S. History in each of our secondary schools. In addition, a semester elective, "History of Africa", and a semester elective, "The Black Man in U.S. History" is offered at senior high level. 22. Please name any schools with ungraded classes. No school is completely ungraded - most elementary schools have some elements of urigrading. Mentally retarded classes are maintained at Key, Drew, Ash lawn, Thomas Jefferson and Wakefield. 23. Please list any schools with modular or flexible scheduling? No secondary school has variable-module scheduling. Independent study arrangements and team teaching arrangements provide some students some of the benefits of this type of flexible scheduling arrangement. * * * * * * Page - 3 - �ARLINGTON COUNTY PUBLIC D e p a r t m e n t of R e s e a r c h Jan. 1 971 Date SCHOOLS Q. #6 0. #1 0- I I AIDES Read ing Advanced Teachers Decrees Attendants Teacher Kind. Library A b in gd on UP . 9 . ___ 1 As tlawn i u o ___ LQ_ .. . ______J . ____L . Bareroft _UQ. . _ 3 . _ . . . L J. J _ Barrett _____ _ 9 . . / . ,- . Q-. _L . __ . 4. - . .Q . J _ . Q 1 .. Cnerr yd a 1e 4 1. 5 -0 _ ..I,0. .. C1aremont 6 2 . . UQ . . C-iay . . . ........ _ -Q-. . . .. . . __l t _ ...3_. .. . . . t . ... IiL j more -0-0... L . J _ Cus tis 1.0 2 ____ ___ i _____ . D rew 2.0 ’ 7.0 1 5 i Edison J i _ --. . _ Q.. . -0 .. -Or. _ . . . . fairlington ! -0- _. . . !. 0 2 i t . Mye r i 1.0 3 _ .. 25 Geo Mason _ -0- . 3 _ _-0- ..___ j 4 .... - . .. _ Glencari yn _ .UO-... . 2 ! . _ L5_... ___ 2 5 ^. Henry ....0 .I.. i . . ... -0 l o f f • os t . i B . 0.5 1 1.0 } jacKson 1. 0 6 _ 1 . . james town 1 _J.°. J 5 ..,.. Hey j 1.5 8 2 __ ... .. . ... . . . . ... L.D . J ... . Langston -00.5 4 -o- _ . 1 ! Lee -Reed 1 0 2 1 .. . .. L . . . 1-5 . .. 1 I .J Madis on 1.0 4 0.5 i Maury 0.5 0.5 i 2 . KcKinic y 1.0 5 1. 0 1 No ring nam 1. 0 ._ 8 . 1.5 Oarcridge 5 !. 0 1.0 Page 1. 0 8 -0- . R"ndoipn a 4 1. 0 i 2.0 • . TtVw arc-Tuckj 1. 0 4 1.5 L ___1 __ SCHOOLS Tay1or wood lawn woodmont TOTAL ELEM. Gunston Jefferson K enmore Stratford Swans on Wmsburg, | 1. 0 |.Q 0.5 29.5 . . ... . ___ _ ! I 9 5 1 1.0 . -00.5 . 165 5 TOTAL JR. H. 67 73 69 209 32.5 1.0 j i i _ ______ _______ 11 2 Via Re field t ash -Lee v Yor K .own t 20.5 ___ _ . . .. ___ . . 1 ..... .16. : 9 .. . . _.. 9 _ 2 _ 24__ L__ 1 1 9 1 24 TOTAL SR. H . ..... . 1 __1 . .____ _ . . .. .. J . ____ .. . . _______ ____ J Aides used i lieu of teacher assign-i J n ment at rate of 3 aides f i 1 teacherj o* �ARLINGTON! PUBLIC SCHOOLS D epartm ent of R esearch HOOLS A in o n ’ o oo ' cvoit ydalo AVERAGE EXPENDITURE PER PUPIL ARLINGTON.PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 1970-71 FOR SCHOOL BASED PROFESSIONAL STAFF _l/ WITH AVERAGE STAFF EXPERIENCE IN YEARS. BY SCHOOL *5= Average Staff 0. //2i Staff Expenditure) Per PupiIjy Experience in Yrs. 7.7 I I.4 10.7 14.6 I I.5 12.6 - ;1 14 J? 16.7 Falrlincton Joe. Mason : o; f-Doscon : 2 2 .6 J i2 _ S January 5, 1971 505■40 683.17 624.42 533.77 651.99 542.38 577.85 66.V JJL. 717.3-3_2J.23J5.2_ __55QJ>5_ JJL JA - _S>-3_ _LLC_ -UI2Z-Z3- ! 1.1- _fi42-9i- 14.0 J 2 .L 460_63_ _£za-oj_ _5 5 5 .7 I.. _5Z5_U_ 532-95- ___2fi4— 56_ Lar.crston Medison Mnv.ry McKinley 8.8 581.94_ _645.87_ Taylor vrooclawn _£6±JS- I I .0 I I .2 551.85 _653.33_ 13. I Rar.coloh 14.4 15. I 17.6 554.20 10.7 _5V7.73 jz e _ J..CUQ- J}££l J>1 I I. I I ! .4 Geo. Mason :: for son ■ Stratford , Wnuburej Geo. Mason akofield York tov/n (Sr r ahove) 14.8 8.9 I6 ,.6_ I2 ,4 17.8 14.4 599.09_ 509 .6 6 .1/ 526-42- _fi2U-2_ J3ZLS12-. _jU 4J-2_LL2-3£_Z S Z J2 _ (S<ae above) 14. I ______ 16.4 11.8 5/70 - Ai-S, Research D e p t . _8I7.98_ Staff includes budget principals and librarians together with teachers, staffed at different ratios, i.e., Reg. teachers Gr 1-3 @25.0, Gr 4-6 @27.0, Kind, teachers @45.0, Spec. Ed.@3-15.0, Special Teachers @varying rates and in selected schools. Variations in cost in^ony given school are contributed to by many factors of which the five most important are: I. Difference from budgeted,estimated number of pupils reporting to school; 2. Average years of staff experience; 3. Whether school has a kinder­ garten program, or serves as a kindergarten center; 4. Whether school is used as a center for special exceptional children— from gifted to handicapped; 5. Inclusion of Federal Programs. �ARLINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS Division oi Instruction l Department of Libraries R I P O R T S L I 8 R A R Y SCHOOLS AVERAGE DAILY MEMBERSHIP Abingdon Ashlawn l are ro it > Barrett Cherrvdalc Claremont Cl a v—Fillmore Custis Drew Edison Pairlington Ft. Mvor Glencarlyn Henrv Hoi fma n-Boston Jackson Jamestown Key Langston* Lee-Reed Madison Maury McKinley Nottingham Oakridge Page Randolph Tavlor Tuckahoe Woodlawn Woodmont Gunston JeffersonJefferson Annex Kenmore Stratford Swanson Wakefield Washington-Lee Williamsburg Yorktown TOTAL 550 . 397 34 7 405 280 483 360 289 765 21 402 369 584 574 154 4 63 557 747 F O R 1 97 0 NO V E M n E R MATERIALS COLLECTION BOOKS AUDIO-VISUAL 2146 1325 2076 2000 1271 1543 1417 1064 2302 256 1729 1928 2071 2092 874 1985 2122 1955 303 2313 14 96 985 1454 2904 1486 2026 973 1286 2450 1499 1132 2029 801 300 190 302 567 439 465 486 607 546 130 185 870 8791 8720 7956 8588 7768 9800 7062 7330 13383 693 7575 8916 8590 10016 4597 8701 10068 12336 2092 13435 6781 4861 7962 11051 8060 7908 7811 8589 9207 7268 6324 13795 1035 1144 879 875 1909 1898 1168 1841 15057 15630 11804 12300 38575 2 9750 17202 34169 2678 2469 1884 2183 4065 3307 2655 4289 24,387 1 440,521 76,022 . (18 days) BOOKS CIRCULATION AUDIO-VISUAL TOTAL 2925 2233 2110 2180 1155 3341 3040 2438 3246 90 3425 2254 4236 4 704 1808 2948 3144 3371 4 917 1852 753 2303 5136 1909 3384 2103 3143 3920 1243 1695 1645 • n 300 560 156 104 141 226 85 141 578 55 331 213 . 482 199 252 173 153 376 290 241 115 12 7 157 130 261 273 84 1057 152 465 226 5207 2093 868 2430 52 93 2039 3645 2376 3227 4977 1395 2160 1871 1862 1591 1123 3160 1682 1269 1907 2258 434 211 283 268 186 68 466 348 2296 1802 1406 3428 97,514 10,447 107,961 . 3225 2804 2206 2364 1206 3567 3125 2579 3824 '14 5 3756 2467 4718 4 903 2060 3121 3297 3747 i Nor operating as a central library ' \ 1S68 133 7 2373 2606 �LIBRARY RKRORT FOR NOVKMURR 1970 INSTRUCTIONAL MATH RIALS Average per pupil Books Other Materials 21.2 18.1 3.1 CIRCULATION Average per pupil Books Other Materials 4.4 4.0 .4 r erage per day Books Other Materials 5418 580 �ARLINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS Division of Instruction MEMORANDUM Docomber 22, 1070 TO: John Palmer PROM: J. G. Guter SUBJECT: Question 13 - Committco for Equal Education Currently Arlington has grants from the following titles of the Elemental Secondary Education Act of 1965, Public Law 89-10: Title I, Program for Disadvantaged Children; Title II, Library Resources; Title III, Supplementary Educational Centers and Services; Title VI, Education of the Handicapped. The breakdown of funds allocated to various schools in Arlington by program is as follows: School Drew Hoffman-Boston Gunston Stratford Jefferson Woodlawn Cherrydale Children in Program No. of Teachers No. of Aides 4 1/2 1 1 2 0 0 100 16 100 100 200 25 25 Amount of Allocation $61,650 6,994 10,000 11,292 20,000 4,397 4,397 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 A speech therapist and a psychologist have been employed to work with the Title I children in the above schools. Cost.- - - - 19,970 Total cost of. Title I Program - - - -- -- -- - $137,700 Title II, ESEA School Randolph Washington-Lee No. of Pupils Amount Allocated 422 1988 Total - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $190 885 $1075 �Title III, ESEA School Lany.aton Loo-Rood O.lenoarlyn Hoivoy Randolph Jackson No. of Pupils in Program 23 113 GO 109 55 150 No. of Toachors 3 i i i i . i Amount Allocated $30,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 Title VI, ESEA This grant provides for the hiring of a teacher trained in the area of Special Education to evaluate tho existing programs throughout the county and to recommend changes, additions, deletions, etc. in the existing program. Total Cos' $19,0^6 � 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 Marianne Karydes from Robert Chisholm, Superintendent of Arlington Public Schools, January 8, 1971, and enclosed copy of responses to questions submitted to the School Board by the Committee for Equal Education Description An account of the resource Letter to Marianne Karydes from Robert Chisholm, Superintendent of Arlington Public Schools, January 8, 1971, and enclosed copy of responses to questions submitted to the School Board by the Committee for Equal Education. 10 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 1971-01-08 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_20 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/0475e55ec52176fc798f3b51c271ffcb.pdf df6ed1444332cc64752341862211a383 PDF Text Text DREW MODEL SCHOOL Arlington, Virginia March 30, 1972 Dear Parents, In Jul7 , 1971 the Arlington School Board approved a proposal for the establishment of an integrated model elementary school (Grades 1-6) to be located in the Drew School building, 3500 South 24th Street. In August of that year, I vaa selected to be principal of the new school. Staff and curriculum were organized and school began for us on September 27th. Now we are entering our second year and want to make you aware of plans for 1972-73. The Model School is an attempt to provide families with an alternative educational option to the regular elementary school program. The faculty and staff at Drew are concerned with arranging learning experiences around Individual differences. The school, however, is not an alternative for spe cial education of children with severe learning or emotional disorders. In order that we may fulfill our function as a model school, our pupil population must be comparable to the other schools in the county. The pupil population will consist of 300 boys and girls who volunteer to attend the school. At the present time, there are vacancies on all grade levels. If the number of applications exceeds the number of vacancies, quotas for each school will be established. Teachers are assigned on a pupil-teacher allocation formula of 25/1. Three teacher teams have been organized, each serving one hundred children. Each team la composed of one team leader, three team teachers, and one teacher aide. In Team I there are 6 , 7, and 8 year olds, in Team II, 8 , 9, and 10 year olds, and In Team III, 10, 11, and 12 year olds. Children are reorganized for skills, for interests, and for special projects. C In addition to the inatructional teams, the staff includes a child develop ment consultant, principal, librarian, library aide, reading teacher, mathematics resource teacher, physical education teacher, educational secretary, Ins truetional secretary, supervisors, and supportive personnel. Parent* are welcomed to volunteer as tutors for individual students, to raaa" art, music and social science labs and to participate in a Thursday after t noon prograa to teach children of all ages leisure time skills and activities. The school curriculum has been and will continue to be developed by staff and advisory committees of parents and of pupils. It is tailored and kept flexible to meet the abilities and interests of children. Instruction Is per sonalized for both skills and concepts. Children have freedom to explore, to choose nany of their own learning activities, and to work individually or to gether with guidance from the teachers. �- 2- We balieve in having a balance between a concept program and a skills program. We have a strong skills prog ran becanse without such a base, the ability to apply ideas, especially in reading/language arts and mathematics will be beyond the child's reach. Concepts are emphasised, for without them, •kills are not meaningful. Subject matter is integrated. For 1972-73 social studies and reading/ language arts will be taught during one block of time, while science and mathematics will be taught at another. Learning will be related to attitudes, feelings, and ways of thinking. There are a reading/language arts laboratory and a mathematics laboratory in the model school for all pupils, but especially for those who need skill strengthening as well as for those who would profit from extension. Art, music, and movement will be emphasized. Special rooms are available for these activities. Pupils will, as interest is shown, be engaged in pro jects such as writing and producing a school handbook, newspaper, and magazine. Drew is for children who wish to become or remain independent, creative, and self-disciplined. Although the atmosphere is relaxed and informal, the children are expected to act responsibly. The staff believes that a motivated child learns more readily and effect ively than one who is not motivated. Learning motivated by success is preferable to learning motivated by failure. Therefore, children need practice in setting realistic goals for themselves. Active participation is preferable to passive reception when learning. We believe these theories are valid and their imple mentation is our goal. If you are interested in having your child attend Drew, please call to make an appointment to visit the school. Upon application, and before a final decision is made - hopefully by your child as well as you - the child may spend a day participating la the school program. Applications are available in all the neighborhood elementary schools and at Drew. Initial registration will be closed on Friday, May 12, 1972. Transportation Is provided for those children who attend the model school. If you have any questions, please call 979-1500. Sincerely, Beth Hoffman Principal B H :h h � 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 parents of Drew Model School informing them of the establishment of an integrated model school (Grades 1-6) to be located in the Drew School building, March 30, 1972 Description An account of the resource Letter to parents of Drew Model School from principal Beth Hoffman informing them of the establishment of an integrated model school (Grades 1-6) to be located in the Drew School building, March 30, 1972. Program and goals discussed. 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 1972-03-30 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_86 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