1 20 87 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/52dc989321d79805c7a6584e515cffcf.pdf ec8e5a1d253d2eb54d724b64763007da PDF Text Text Arthur W. Gosling Desegregation Decisions and Required Action 1. Increase Drew percentage to 25%. Actions needed: (a) Notify principal (state that efforts should be made to maintain 25% throughout the grades). (b) Change policy. (c) Alternative School enrollment committees - review admittance practice, etc. 2. Redistrict Nauck as per recommendation. Actions needed: (a) Notify principals. (b) Prepare address review process at school level. (c) Review principal letters - mail - letter from receiving principal as well as the current principal ( - northside to include explanation of options. (d) Prepare new attendance maps. (e) Prepare written materials (ASDs?, other?) as needed. (f) Develop planning teams for short term adjustments to over crowding (April 28 target date). (g) Include blow-up maps of new attendance area in letters to parents. (h) provide special information session for community leaders. 3. Initiate long-range facility planning to address overcrowding. Actions needed: (a) Identify planning team and technical staff. (b) Build in replacement staff for technical staff. Board action? (c) Target date: October 1987. 4. Confirm Dolley Madison attendance. Actions needed: (a) Advise principals. (b) Prepare new attendance maps. 5. Redistrict Arlington View to T.J. and W-L; provide a sibling preference option for current families with children at Wakefield. Actions needed: (a) Notify principals. (b) Develop letter for current families at Wakefield. (c) Redraw attendance maps. (d) Send letters to families in Kenmore area -- future, to T.J. - 1- �6. Instructional Transfers. Actions needed: (a) Notify principals of change. (b) Make needed policy change. (c) Include information to all parents receiving letters 7. Develop recommendations, re: alternative school application process, ethnic targets, etc. Actions needed: (a) Continue current planning team. (b) Obtain legal review. (c) Target date: first Board meeting in May — (April 28 or earlier). 8. Continue enrollment of Kindergarten students from Nauck at Drew. Actions needed: (a) Advise principal. (b) No further actions required. 9. Redistrict Orme, Ode, and Oak streets from W-L to Wakefield, initiate sibling preference for the one family attending W-L. Actions needed: (a) Advise relevant intermediate and high school principals. (b) Redraw boundary maps. (c) Letter to one W-L family explaining sibling preference option. (d) Letters to students/families currently attending Wakefield — confirm status (e) Letters to grade 8 students, re: attendance change to Wakefield � 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 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Description An account of the resource RG69 contains information related to the integration of Arlington County Public Schools including the history, redistricting, pupil distribution, and boundary maps. The collection was donated by Lisa Farberstein, Director of Community Service and Public Information for the Arlington County Public Schools 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 "Desegregation Decisions and Required Actions", March 1987. Description An account of the resource Nine actions to be undertaken to continue the implementation plans and alternatives in longer range policy alternatives. 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 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Arlington Public Schools, Office of the Superintendent 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 69_3_1_11_29 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/8712e61d68c8e7951e609a8301bceaa4.pdf 6c13cd98f8a24b0c481dd51d869e4659 PDF Text Text 1985-86 HOHE SCHOOL ENROLLMENT OF DREH STUDENTS AS OF MARCH, 1986 Grades K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Abi ngdon 6 5 5 6 6 5 525 Ashlawn 1 2 3 2 1 3 294 + 12 558 + 11 = 317 Barcro ft 3 6 6 7 4 5 323 + 36 359 + 22 = 381 3arrett 5 3 3 4 3 2 283 + 20 303 ♦ 24 Glebe 4 4 3 4 4 1 307 + 20 327 + 31 = 353 Glencarlyn 5 5 5 2 6 3 448 + 26 474 + 9 = 483 Henry 4 7 3 5 2 5 366 + 26 392 + 11 = 403 Jamestown 0 0 0 2 4 0 308 + 6 314 + 32 = 346 Key 2 2 1 4 1 1 623 + 11 634 + 4 = 533 Long Branch 3 4 3 4 4 4 514 + 22 536 + 55 = 591 M nley cKi 3 3 3 3 6 10 358 + 28 386 + 15 = 401 Notti ngham 2 0 2 1 0 1 293 + 6 299 + 21 = 320 Oakridge 3 6 4 3 5 7 569 + 28 597 + 3 = 605 Randolph 2 3 3 3 1 2 467 + 14 431 + 10 = 491 Taylor 2 0 1 2 3 4 568 + 12 580 + 48 3 628 Tuckahoe 3 0 2 3 3 3 362 + 14 376 + 24 3 400 TO TALS 53 50 47 55 53 56 Schools none TO L TA 33 314 553 + 16 574 r 327 3 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Description An account of the resource RG69 contains information related to the integration of Arlington County Public Schools including the history, redistricting, pupil distribution, and boundary maps. The collection was donated by Lisa Farberstein, Director of Community Service and Public Information for the Arlington County Public Schools 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 "1985-86 Home School Enrollment of Drew Students as of March, 1986." Description An account of the resource Listing by school, grade and total students. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Arlington Public Schools 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 69_3_1_13_53 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/643016b530cd82d4ec0e4239d30a675d.pdf 09a45a5eed7aa710125f6468891c1ebd PDF Text Text 1 9 8 5 -8 6 HCKZ SCHOOL ENHOLLME2TT OF H-3 W OODLAW STUDENTS AS OF MARCH. 1986 N * Schools 1 1 Grades 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTAL 1 I Jefferson 18 16 566 + 34 » 600 Kenmore 29 23 469 + 52 - 521 Swanson 10 15 479 + 25 = 504 ■ Williamsburg 11 7 384 + 13 = ■402 I 1 1,682 + 99 - 1,78 Waite fie id 20 27 34 18 HILT 13 2 0 1 I Washi n g c o n - L e e 27 25 12 21 1,571 + 85 - 1,5S| 3 0 0 0 19 14 15 15 0 0 0 0 HILT Yorlccovn HILT | | 1,271 + 63 > 1 1" 1 • TOTALS 68 61 92 68 61 55 405 � 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 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Description An account of the resource RG69 contains information related to the integration of Arlington County Public Schools including the history, redistricting, pupil distribution, and boundary maps. The collection was donated by Lisa Farberstein, Director of Community Service and Public Information for the Arlington County Public Schools 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 "1985-86 Home School Enrollment of H-B Woodlawn Students as of March, 1986." Description An account of the resource Listing by school, grade and total students. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Arlington Public Schools 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 69_3_1_13_52 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/9e8169bce17116a29f7c3108292f3cdf.pdf b8ac87dd17e0b30c3b2ad85f8b1da82b PDF Text Text 1 9 8 5 -8 6 HOM SCHOOL ENROLLMENT OF E PAGE STUDENTS AS OF MARCH. 1986 Grades TOTAL Schools___________ K______ 1_ 2 ‘ 3 4 5 6 Abingdon 0 3 2 5 0 3 3 525 + 16 - 541 Ashlavn 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 294 + 11 - 305 3arcrofc 3 5 4 1 0 4 5 323 + 22 - 345 3arrett 2 3 3 5 3 2 6 283 + 24 - 307 Glebe 4 7 4 2 3 5 6 307 + 31 - 333 Glencarlyn 0 0 1 3 3 1 1 448 + 9 - 4 5 7 Henry 1 2 1 0 3 2 366 + 11 - 377 Jamescovn 1 1 4 1 11 6 3 308 + 32 - 340 Key 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 623 + 4 - 6 2 7 Long Branch 5 13 7 7 9 8 6 514 + 55 - 569 McKinley 1 0 0 4 2 3 5 358 + 15 - 373 Mo ct Ingham 1 3 2 2 4 3 6 293 + 21 - 314 Oalcridge 0 1 0 1 1 3 Randolph 1 0 3 1 1 3 1 467 + 10 - 477 Taylor 3 5 7 10 12 8 3 568 + 48 = 616 Tucicahoe 1 0 4 5 4 5 5 362 + 24 = 386 7 569 + 8 - 5 7 7 Jefferson 9 566 + 9 - 5 7 5 Kenmore 5 469 + 5 - 4 7 4 Swanson 7 479 + 7 - 4 8 6 Williamsburg 9 384 + 9 - 3 9 3 TOTALS 24 45 44 49 59 59 61 30 371 � 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 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Description An account of the resource RG69 contains information related to the integration of Arlington County Public Schools including the history, redistricting, pupil distribution, and boundary maps. The collection was donated by Lisa Farberstein, Director of Community Service and Public Information for the Arlington County Public Schools 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 "1985-86 Home School Enrollment of Page Students as of March, 1986." Description An account of the resource Listing by school, grade and total students. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Arlington Public Schools 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 69_3_1_13_51 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/fb4d0e757aab1a015777f2d00dd6f7e1.pdf 60cd952587cec9a7a5d777aef79461e2 PDF Text Text KENMORE INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL 845-7979 ARLINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 200 SOUTH CARLIN SPRINGS ROAD, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22204 Kenmore Students W Are Affected By The Boundary Changes ho Incoming 7th Graders: Moore, Rosie - Swanson (Abingdon) Clark, Kevin - Thcmas Jefferson (Oakridge) Epps, Andrea " " Laws, Zeporia " " White, Karsha Stewart, Clayton " " Present 7th Graders: Barbee, Rashida - Williamsburg Davis, Keisha - Thcmas Jefferson Moore, Earl " Scmers, Shawnitte - Swanson Present 8th Graders: Aldrich, S h elita - Washington-Lee Allen, Rowena " Butler, Marcus " Harris, Sonja " Hubbard, Cynthia " Syphax, Delino " W illis, Horace " � 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 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Description An account of the resource RG69 contains information related to the integration of Arlington County Public Schools including the history, redistricting, pupil distribution, and boundary maps. The collection was donated by Lisa Farberstein, Director of Community Service and Public Information for the Arlington County Public Schools 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 "Kenmore Students Who Are Affected By The Boundary Changes", no date. Description An account of the resource Listing by grade, name and 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 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Arlington Public Schools, Kenmore Intermediate School 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 69_3_1_11_174 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/5d60fdd5b1e086ecd43cdac55c7aaf4c.pdf fbd4eadcb0de741b9e925c057cd04782 PDF Text Text STUDENTS COMING TO RANDOLPH FRO OTHER SCHOOLS M 1987-88 Drew Name Address Goode, Synthi a Grande, Alba Hali m, Ghadeer Hamm, J o i c e T a y l o r , Roland 2025 2025 2116 2116 2110 S. S. S. S. S. Quebec S t . Quebec S t . Pollard St. Pollard St. Lowel l S t . 1 1 1 1 1 04 04 04 04 04 2530 S. 18th S t . 04 2108 S. Ne l s o n S t . 04 Taylor Hamm, Chri st opher From: Oxford S t . 04 Oakland S t . 04 Wa ke f i e l d S t . 04 P o l l a r d S t . 04 Oxford S t . 04 Ashlawn Ba r be e , Maya Crawl ey, Jamila From: S. S. S. S. S. McKinley Chowdhury, Tania Chowdhury, Floura D a v i s , Joy D a v i s , Toni R i d l e y , Sharron From: 2138 2020 1138 2139 2124 U1 IO lb U1 U From: Grade 2139 S. P o l l a r d S t . 04 Ba r c r o f t Armeanu, Nora Armeanu, Sabin D a v i s , Tamika Denney, Jerry Garner, Latonya H u f f , DeJuan L e wi s , Monique Le wi s , N i c o l e McBee, Antoine Ro s e , Lakisha Ros e, T i f f a n e S h o r t e r , Leel a T a y l o r , Nakiyha W i l l i a m s , Jynan 2140 2140 2134 2013 2146 2140 2138 2138 2135 2212 2212 2133 2014 2148 S. P o l l a r d S t . 04 S. P o l l a r d S t . 04 S. P o l l a r d S t . 04 S. N e l s o n S t . 04 S. Oxford S t . 04 S. Oakland S t . 04 S. Oakland S t . 04 S. Oakland S t . 04 S. N e l s o n S t . 04 S. P o l l a r d S t . 04 S. P o l l a r d S t . 04 S. P o l l a r d S t . 04 S. Langl e y S t . #2 04 S. Oakland S t . 04 W From: � 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 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Description An account of the resource RG69 contains information related to the integration of Arlington County Public Schools including the history, redistricting, pupil distribution, and boundary maps. The collection was donated by Lisa Farberstein, Director of Community Service and Public Information for the Arlington County Public Schools 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 "Students Coming to Randolph from Other Schools, 1987-88." Description An account of the resource List of students to Randolph from Drew, McKinley, Ashlawn, Taylor and Barcroft. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Arlington Public Schools 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 69_3_1_11_142 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/b4027ca1e03bdb5c96a07fe546251e33.pdf 6b2941e757beedabb07e909d55003f0e PDF Text Text A L G O PUBLIC SC O L R IN T N H OS April 30, 1386 Students Enrolled in Arlington Schools from the Nauck area as of April 2, 1936 - f a ir c A . K 2 A i ngdon b 2 12 14 3arcro ft 5 10 12 Randolph 3 6 6 As hi awn 2 5 6 ( Naucic Area) Total Slack Total 31ack Students Students In In school K-6 qrades 7 6 4 4 49 127 3 3 7 1 51 103 9 4 6 5 5 35 147 1 1 3 23 2 2 13 2 Jamestown Soec. Ed. soU clenLt^ 1 3 McKinley Nottingham 1 2 3 3 17 4 1 1 1 1 3 6 23 3 1 6 19 3 1 4 37 3 3 6 30 3 2 Taylor 2 Tuckahoe 3 1 � 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 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Description An account of the resource RG69 contains information related to the integration of Arlington County Public Schools including the history, redistricting, pupil distribution, and boundary maps. The collection was donated by Lisa Farberstein, Director of Community Service and Public Information for the Arlington County Public Schools 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 Public Schools, Students Enrolled in Arlington Schools from the Nauck area as of April 2, 1986, April 30, 1986. Description An account of the resource Listing by school, grade and total Black students in grades K-6 and total Black students in 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 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Arlington Public Schools 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 69_3_1_13_55 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/ba1cc63cd1d93c7ccdd25829a48985b9.pdf bd154b9a54bfeb4a09e83678ca546058 PDF Text Text ARLINGTON VIEW AREA REVISED SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ASSIGNED INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL ASSIGNED SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL ASSIOJED ST R E E T DESIGNATIONS FROM TO EVEN OR ODD O N L Y Columbia Pike 1700 1806 E v e n only Long Br a n c h Jefferson Wa sh ing ton-Lee Pierce Street 1300 1315 Both Sides Oak ridge Jefferson Washington-Lee Poe Street 1300 1319 Both Sides Oakr idge Jefferson Washington-Lee Q u e e n Street 1000 1199 Both Sides Long B r a n c h Jefferson Washington-Lee 1200 1299 E v e n only Oakr idge Jefferson Washington-Lee 1300 14 22 Both Sides Oakr i d g e Jefferson Wa sh ing to n-Le e Quinn Street 1000 1121 Both Sides Long Br a n c h Jefferson Wa sh ing ton-Lee Rolfe Street 1000 1109 Both Sides Long B r a n c h Jefferson Wash ing ton-Lee 1200 1430 Both Sides Oakr idge Jefferson Washington-Lee 10th Street 1600 17 31 B o t h Sides Long B r a n c h Jefferson Washington-Lee 11th Street 1512 1625 Both Sides Long Br a n c h Jefferson Wa sh ing ton- Lee 12th Street 1511 1633 B o t h Sides Long B r a n c h Jefferson Washington-Lee 1700 1806 Even only Oakr idge Jefferson Washington-Lee 1701 1805 O d d only Long B r a n c h Jefferson Wa sh ing to n-Le e 1501 1639 Odd only Long Branch Jefferson Wa sh ing ton-Lee 1530 1634 E v e n only Oakr idge Jefferson Washington-Lee 1700 1799 Both Sides Oakr idge Jefferson Washington-Lee 13 th Road 1502 17 35 B o t h Sides Oakridge Jefferson Washington-Lee 14th Street 1700 17 28 Both Sides Oakr idge Jefferson Washington-Lee 14 th Road 1700 1741 B o t h Sides Oakr idge Jefferson Washington-Lee" 15th Street 1700 1751 B o t h Sides Oakr idge Jefferson Washington-Lee 13th Street A r lingView Effective 9/87 � 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 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Description An account of the resource RG69 contains information related to the integration of Arlington County Public Schools including the history, redistricting, pupil distribution, and boundary maps. The collection was donated by Lisa Farberstein, Director of Community Service and Public Information for the Arlington County Public Schools 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 View Area Revised School Assignments, September, 1987. Description An account of the resource School assignments by address. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Arlington Public Schools 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 69_3_1_11_36 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/fb50be3811fba1af16276e3a498ab9d7.pdf e316036e6224371ce453a843334bdb09 PDF Text Text Summary of Board Actions Taken 3/19/87 Desegregation and Related School Attendance Issues On March 19, 1987, the Arlington School Board culminated many months of intensive review of school attendance assignments related to the 1971 desegregation plan and subsequent modifications. Following i a summary of actions taken by the Board, s effective for the 1987-88 school year: 1 . Drew Model School. The percentage of the student population at the school, excluding kindergarten, from the local Nauck community was increased from 20 per­ cent to 25 percent. Kindergarten children residing in the Nauck community will continue to attend Drew Model School. The Montessori Program will continue to admit students under existing policy. 2. Nauck community grades 1-6, 7-8, 9-12 attendance. Attendance boundaries for chil­ dren grades 1-6 residing in the Nauck Community were redesigned so that children will attend only one school for these grades and will attend school with children residing in the same general neighborhood within Nauck. All the streets below are located in south Arlington, and most have "south" as part of the street name -- e.g. South Glebe Road. This designation has been omitted from the following descriptions to reduce confusion. Barcroft-----> Williamsburg----- > York town Beginning at the intersection of Walter Reed Drive, Glebe Road, and 17th Street, the boundary runs east along 17th Street to the Army-Navy Country Club; south along the border of the Club to the intersection of Glebe Road and 24th Road; west along 24th Road to Drew Elementary School; north along the western boundary of the school property to the intersection of 22nd Street and Lowell Street; north on Lowell Street to the intersection with 19th Street and Kenmore Street; east on 19th Street to Glebe Road; and north on Glebe Road to the intersection of Glebe Road, Walter Reed Drive, and 17th Street. Abingdon---- Kenmore------- ^ Wakefield Beginning at the intersection of Glebe Road and Route 395, southwest along Route 395 to Four Mile Run Drive, northwest on Four Mile Run Drive to Oxford Street, north on Oxford Street to Oakland Street, continuing north on Oakland Street to 22nd Street, east on 22nd Street to Nelson Street, south on Nelson Street to 24th Road, east on 24th Road to Glebe Road, and south on Glebe Road to Route 395. Randolph-----> Swanson---- ^ Washington-Lee Beginning at the intersection of Walter Reed Drive and Four Mile Run, north on Walter Reed Drive to Glebe Road, south on Glebe Road to 19th Street, west on 19th Street to a straight line extending from Lowell Street and then south along Lowell Street to 22nd Street, continuing south along the western border of Drew Elementary School to 24th Road, west on 24th Road to Nelson Street, north on Nelson Street to 22nd Street, west on 22nd Street to Oakland Street, south on Oakland Street to Oxford Street, continuing south on Oxford Street to Four Mile Run, and west on Four Mile Run to Walter Reed Drive.A map is attached for reference. �Phasing in Process. Students currently in grades 5 and 7 may remain in their current schools to complete their current levels of education for grades 6 and 8, should they wish to do so. Younger siblings also may stay in their current schools, but only until the older sibling leaves. Transportation will be provided. Students currently in grades 4 and 5 assigned to schools located in the north part of Arlington may complete their elementary school experiences at their current schools, should they wish to do so. Younger siblings attending these same schools may continue to attend them only as long as the older sibling remains in that school. Transportation will be provided. Barcroft 4th grade students given special permission by the School Board in spring 1986 to stay in that school through sixth grade will be able to do so. 3. Dolly Madison Apartments. Students will continue their existing school attendance pattern of Oakridge Elementary School, Thomas Jefferson Intermediate School, and Wakefield High School. 4. Arlington View Community. Elementary school assignments remain as they currently exist. All Arlington View students will attend Thomas Jefferson Intermediate School and Washington-Lee High School. Students currently attending Kenmore Intermediate School or Wakefield High School may complete their education at that level in their current schools, should they wish to do so. Transportation will be provided. Younger siblings may elect to attend Wakefield High School if an older sibling cur­ rently attends the school and will continue to be attending that school when the younger sibling enters grade 9. 5. Orme, Ode, and Oak Streets. Students were reassigned from Washington-Lee High School to Wakefield High School. The one student currently attending, and younger siblings, may continue to attend Washington-Lee High School, with transportation, should they wish. No school attendance changes were made at the elementary or intermediate levels. 6. Instructional Transfer Policy. Racial/ethnic quotas were eliminated from this policy. The four (4) percent limit was retained for the numbers of students any school may admit under this policy. The Instructional Transfer Policy is available to all students in elementary and intermediate schools but i not applicable to high school attendance. s - 2 - �In other action, the Board directed the Superintendent to do the following; 1. Develop interim plans to address overcrowding in Randolph, Barcroft, and Abingdon Schools for the 1987-88 school year. Due date: May 7, 1987. 2. Develop recommendations to improve the student enrollment process at the three alternative schools -- Drew, Page, and the H-B Woodlawn Program -- with attention to increasing participation of minority students at Page and H-B Woodlawn. Prepare written program descriptions for each alternative school for parent information purposes. Due date: May 7, 1987. 3. Develop long-range plans to relieve systemwide overcrowding at the elementary school level, beginning with the 1988-89 school year. Due date: Fall, 1987. 4. Notify the lessee using Claremont Elementary School (Northern Va. Police Academy) that the school district intends to occupy the building for school purposes beginning with the 1988-89 school year. AWG:cb -3- � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Description An account of the resource RG69 contains information related to the integration of Arlington County Public Schools including the history, redistricting, pupil distribution, and boundary maps. The collection was donated by Lisa Farberstein, Director of Community Service and Public Information for the Arlington County Public Schools 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 Attachment 1: "Summary of Board Actions Taken 3/19/87, Desegregation and Related School Attendance Issues", March 19, 1987. Description An account of the resource Summary of Board Actions taken in the 1987-88 school year after a review of school attendance assignments related to the 1971 desegregation plan and subsequent modifications. 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 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Arlington Public Schools, Office of the Superintendent 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 69_3_1_11_16 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/2c4adb0bf38b7f4065750aa4090b6b1e.pdf 16a362e3484e5486182d7fe221750593 PDF Text Text Arthur W. Gosling Desegregation Decisions and Required Action 1. Increase Drew percentage to 25%. Actions needed: (a) Notify principal (state that efforts should be made to maintain 25% throughout the grades). (b) Change policy. (c) Alternative School enrollment committees - review admittance practice, etc. 2. Redistrict Nauck as per recommendation. Actions needed: (a) Notify principals. (b) Prepare address review process at school level. (c) Review principal letters - mail - letter from receiving principal as well as the current principal ( - northside to include explanation of options. (d) Prepare new attendance maps. (e) Prepare written materials (ASDs?, other?) as needed. ( ) Develop planning teams for short term adjustments to over crowding f (April 28 target date). (g) Include blow-up maps of new attendance area in letters to parents. (h) provide special information session for community leaders. 3. Initiate long-range facility planning to address overcrowding. Actions needed: (a) Identify planning team and technical staff. (b) Build in replacement staff for technical staff. Board action? (c) Target date: October 1987. 4. Confirm Dolly Madison attendance. Actions needed: (a) Advise principals. (b) Prepare new attendance maps. 5. Redistrict Arlington View to T.J. and W-L; provide a sibling preference option for current families with children at Wakefield. Actions needed: (a) Notify principals. (b) Develop letter for current families at Wakefield. (c) Redraw attendance maps. 6. Instructional Transfers. Actions needed: (a) Notify principals of change. (b) Make needed policy change. - 1- �7. Develop recommendations, re: alternative school application process, ethnic targets, etc. Actions needed: (a) Continue current planning team. (b) Obtain legal review. (c) Target date: first Board meeting in May — (April 28 or earlier). 8. Continue enrollment of Kindergarten students from Nauck at Drew. Actions needed: (a) Advise principal. (b) No further actions required. 9. Redistrict Orme, Ode, and Oak streets from W-L to Wakefield, initiate sibling preference for the one family attending W-L. Actions needed: (a) Advise relevant intermediate and high school principals. (b) Redraw boundary maps. (c) Letter to one W-L family explaining sibling preference option. - 2 - � 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 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Description An account of the resource RG69 contains information related to the integration of Arlington County Public Schools including the history, redistricting, pupil distribution, and boundary maps. The collection was donated by Lisa Farberstein, Director of Community Service and Public Information for the Arlington County Public Schools 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 Attachment 2: "Desegregation Decisions and Required Actions", March 1987. Description An account of the resource Nine actions to be undertaken to continue the implementation plans and alternatives in longer range policy alternatives. 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 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Arlington Public Schools, Office of the Superintendent 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 69_3_1_11_20 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/9b3976207f5f36e17378e8d202127cf2.pdf 5d202878e1960c47b8d2ddbccf827048 PDF Text Text INFORMATION SHARING TO IMPLEMENT DESEGREGATION BOUNDARY CHANGES 1. A l l schools review addresses of all students for correct school assignments 'a. Consider the P h a s i n g - i n Process descr i b e d in"Summary of Board Actions Taken 3/19/87" when reviewing school assignments. b. Ascertain school preference for students with options. c. Consult revised boundary maps for appropriate school assignments. 2. Prepare lists of students exiting your building a. Prepare separate list of students with addresses for each receiving school. b. List students' grade placement for next year, 1987/88. c. Send list to receiving principal with copy to Assessment Office. 3. Prepare letter for par e n t s of students changing school assignments with core information supplied by Assessment Office. a. Sending principal prepare letter for parents of students leaving your school. b. Receiving principal prepare letter for parents of students entering your school. 4. S e n d letters to par e n t s of exiting and entering students. a. Principal's letter b. Core information c. Maps JLC/ehs DESEG-IMPL � 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 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Description An account of the resource RG69 contains information related to the integration of Arlington County Public Schools including the history, redistricting, pupil distribution, and boundary maps. The collection was donated by Lisa Farberstein, Director of Community Service and Public Information for the Arlington County Public Schools 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 Attachment to Memorandum from John L. Crowder: "Information Sharing to Implement Desegregation Boundary Changes", April 9, 1987. Description An account of the resource Outline of actions that need to be taken. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Arlington Public Schools, Assessment Office 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 69_3_1_11_43 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/5814bdcebeb48de8e66120669fbf9c57.pdf 85c6130bc87f66dc942f6ddd17a8596e PDF Text Text INFORMATION SHARING TO IMPLEMENT DESEGREGATION BOUNDARY CHANGES 1. All schools review addresses of all students for correct school assignments a. Consider the Phasing-in Process described in"Summary of Board Actions Taken 3/19/87" when reviewing school assignments. b. Ascertain school preference for students with options. c. Consult revised boundary maps for appropriate school assignments. 2. Prepare lists of students exiting your building a. Prepare s e p a r a t e list of students with addresses for each receiving school. b. List students' grade placement for next year, 1987/88. c. Send list to receiving principal w i t h copy to Assessment Office. 3. Prepare letter for parents of students changing school assignments with core information supplied by A s s e s s m e n t Office. a. Sending p r i n c i p a l prepare letter for parents of students leaving your school. b. Receiving principal prepare letter for parents of students entering your school. 4. Send letters to parents of exiting and entering students. a. Principal's letter b. Core information c. Maps JLC / e h s DESEG-IMPL � 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 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Description An account of the resource RG69 contains information related to the integration of Arlington County Public Schools including the history, redistricting, pupil distribution, and boundary maps. The collection was donated by Lisa Farberstein, Director of Community Service and Public Information for the Arlington County Public Schools 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 Attachment to Memorandum from John L. Crowder: "Information Sharing to Implement Desegregation Boundary Changes", April 9, 1987. Description An account of the resource Outline of actions that need to be taken. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Arlington Public Schools, Assessment Office 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 69_3_1_11_46 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/63fb6a35cbfa23384d443e2f3f0b9a61.pdf 7d1df1e615426457a36c3ab306bb82d9 PDF Text Text w el come t o i i i jW \< 5 < y S " { i ■ '|' ' ■ \-yy.■ ; S\ 5 5 ■ ■V ■V ■V ■V "V V 'ABINGDON SCHOOL �YOU ARE INVITED TO A RECEPTION AT ABINGDON ON WEDNESDAY. SEPT. 2ND AT 7=30 P.M. IN THE LIBRARY COME MEET THE STAFF. SEE A SLIDE SHOW. AND HAVE A TOUR OF THE SCHOOL! PLEASE CALL 845-7664 FOR DIRECTIONS. � 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 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Description An account of the resource RG69 contains information related to the integration of Arlington County Public Schools including the history, redistricting, pupil distribution, and boundary maps. The collection was donated by Lisa Farberstein, Director of Community Service and Public Information for the Arlington County Public Schools 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 Booklet: "Welcome to Abingdon School", 1987. Description An account of the resource Includes an invitation to a reception to meet staff and get to know school. 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 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Arlington Public Schools, Abingdon Elementary School 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 69_3_1_11_144 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/52cc231e0c1a76f455e5ea5edf391182.pdf e93b40c300d2acc2c75a1dd47397d8d6 PDF Text Text CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL MEMORANDUM ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM November 12, 1986 TO: Arthur W. Gosling, Superintendent of Schools FROM: Cynthea L. Perry, Assistant County Attorney SUBJECT: Changes to Busing Plan You have asked for a legal memorandum explaining the impact of Riddick v. School Board of City of Norfolk, 784 F.2d 521 (4th Cir. 1986), on the School Board's ability to consider changes to the busing plan. You have also asked whether the School Board is bound by the busing plan approved by the federal district court in 1971. The Riddick case indicates that once a school system has eradicated all vestiges of segregation and is unitary, it can modify its busing plans without review by the federal court, absent a showing of an intent to discriminate in the modification of the plans. Therefore, it is my opinion that because the federal district court found that Arlington has a unitary school system the School Board can modify the plan approved in 1971. Care must be exercised in any modification, however, as explained below. Discussion Both Supreme Court precedent and the Riddick case make clear that once a school system has eliminated any vestiges of desegregation and has a unitary system, the school system is not bound to continue to follow every aspect of an earlier courtordered desegregation plan. See, e.g., Pasadena City Board of Education v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424, 96 S.Ct. 2697 (1976); Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 91 S.Ct. 1267 (1971). These cases indicate that the School Board is not responsible for demographic shifts in populations which might cause schools to slip out of compliance with the original plan, and accordingly is under no duty to adjust school attendance figures to reflect those changes to maintain the racial balance in schools approved in the plan. Once a school system has achieved unitary status, a court may not order further relief to counteract resegregation that does not result from the school system's intentional discriminatory acts. Vaughns v. Board of Education of Prince George's County, 758 F.2d 983 (4th Cir. 1985). �The Riddick case gives helpful guidance on other points. As you know, in that case, the Norfolk School Board abolished mandatory cross-town busing which had first been required by court order in 1971. In its place, all of the elementary schools became single attendance zones or neighborhood schools. The attendance zones were structured to achieved maximum racial integration. Under the plan, 12 of Norfolk's elementary schools became 70 percent or more black, compared to four under the busing plan previously in effect. Of those 12 schools, 10 became 95 percent or more black. Six schools became 70 percent or more white. The plan also contains a majority-minority transfer option, under which any student assigned to attend a school at which his race constitutes 70 percent or more of the student body can transfer to a school where his race constitutes less than 50 percent of the students, and receive free transportation. The trial court considered this plan and found that the school system no longer operated a dual system. This meant that the plaintiffs had to show that the school board acted with an intent to discriminate in adopting the new plan in order for the action to be found unconstitutional. The court found that the plaintiffs had not satisfied the burden of showing this discriminatory intent. In reaching that conclusion, the district court reviewed six factors which the Supreme Court has held must show freedom from racial discrimination before a school system can be found unitary: faculty, staff, transportation practices, extracurricular activities, facilities and pupil assignment. Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430, 88 S.Ct. 1689 (1968). The district court found that the Norfolk school system is a unitary one. Three of the seven school board members, as well as the superintendent and two of the three regional assistant superintendents are black. The faculty is 56 percent white and 44 percent black. The court also found the staff to be fully integrated. There was no contention that the extracurricular activities, transportation network or school facilities were operated in a dual fashion. In addition, the court found that Norfolk offered legitimate reasons to support the change in busing. The city was concerned that the school system continued to lose white students because of busing, and was concerned about a substantial drop in parental involvement in the PTAs. The Riddick court found that while white flight cannot be used as a reason for failure to dismantle a dual school system, consideration of that factor is permissible in devising a voluntary plan to improve the racial balance in the schools. So too was it legitimate to seek greater 2 �parental involvement in school affairs, the other reason proffered for the busing change. Therefore the appellate court affirmed the district court's decision allowing the change. Once the goal of a unitary school system is achieved, said the Riddick court, the district court's rule ends, and the school system should be left free to manage itself. The Court also pointed out that the concept of a neighborhood school system in and of itself is not violative of the Constitution, citing Crawford v. Los Angeles Board of Education, 458 U.S. 527, 102 S.Ct. 3211 (1982); Swann, supra, 402 U.S. at 28, 91 S.Ct. at 1282; Thompson v. School Board of Newport News, 465 F.2d 83 (4th Cir. 1972). The Riddick holding is a limited one. The court by express terms found it applicable only to those school systems which have succeeded in eradicating the vestiges of c e jure i segregation. In those systems, the school boards and not the federal courts "will run the schools, absent a showing of intent to discriminate." Because the court found the Norfolk School Board had done a reasonable job in seeking to keep its schools integrated in the face of a "massive exodus of white students," the court stated that it would not refuse to allow the school board to try another plan that might be successful in stopping the exodus. Applying the Riddick principles to our case, the Arlington County School Board should be permitted to alter the 1971 courtapproved busing plan. The federal district court approved the plan by its order of August 10, 1971. In that order, the court ruled that the school system was "converted to a unitary system throughout the county." Since Riddick stands for the proposition that a unitary school system should not be required to adhere to a prior court-ordered desegregation plan, we can conclude that the Arlington school system, having been found unitary, need not follow the terms of the 1971 plan. I must add several notes of caution in stating this conclusion, however. First, in the Riddick case, the court found important the continuing oversight by the district court of the Norfolk plan. The district court had retained jurisdication over the case, and hence reviewed progress under the busing plan for four years after the litigation had ended. In the Arlington case, however, the judge reviewed the plan after it had been followed for approximately three months and found at that point that Arlington had established a unitary system. Therefore, one major difference between Arlington's situation and Norfolk's is that in finding Norfolk's system was unitary the Norfolk court was able to evaluate more thoroughly the school system's adherence to and progress under the busing plan, because the court had followed the case for four years. 3 �Second, the Riddick court found the Norfolk school system was unitary after reviewing the six factors identified by the Green case. I lack sufficient information to know what the result would be if those six factors were examined in Arlington, but can examine them if provided the necessary information. In the alternative, of course, someone from your staff can apply these factors to the pertinent data. These differences between the Norfolk and the Arlington cases should not mean that Arlington cannot deviate from the 1971 busing plan. I point out these differences, however, so you are aware that these differences could be identified in an effort to distinguish the two cases and thus contend that the Riddick case does not permit the Arlington County School Board to deviate from the busing plan. Finally, you should also be aware that the Supreme Court declined to review the Riddick case, 55 U.S.L.W. 3311 (U.S. Nov. 4, 1986), and the Riddick opinion therefore is binding precedent in this judicial circuit. At the same time the Court denied review in Riddick, however, it also denied review in a case from the Tenth Circuit in which the appellate court reached conclusions contrary to those stated in Riddick. Therefore, we cannot assume the Supreme Court has endorsed the Riddick opinion by refusing to review it, or that the Supreme Court would come out the same way when a similar issue is before it. The Riddick opinion does stand as good authority in this judicial circuit, however, and supports the conclusion that Arlington can make changes to its busing plan. CLP/jm - 4 - � 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 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Description An account of the resource RG69 contains information related to the integration of Arlington County Public Schools including the history, redistricting, pupil distribution, and boundary maps. The collection was donated by Lisa Farberstein, Director of Community Service and Public Information for the Arlington County Public Schools 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 Confidential Legal Memorandum Description An account of the resource Legal memo from County Attorney Cynthea L. Perry to Superintendent Arthur W. Gosling about the impact of Riddick v. School Board of City of Norfolk, 784 F.2d 521 (4th Cir. 1986), on the APS School Board's planned changes to the schools' busing plan, dated November 12, 1986. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials 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 Photograph Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986-11-12 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource PDF 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 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RG69_SG3_S1_F13_Confidential Legal Memo https://projectdaps.org/files/original/104363a1aacb8e2d59ca8f2616174981.pdf 5081d0c07e5cbd66c8f241cfa72eb35d PDF Text Text CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL MEMORANDUM ARLINGTON COUNTY, V IR G IN IA INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM November 12, 1986 TO: Arthur W. Gosling, Superintendent of Schools FROM: Cynthea L. Perry, Assistant County Attorney SU B JEC T: Changes to Busing Plan You have asked for a legal memorandum explaining the impact of Riddick v. School Board of City of N o r f o l k , 784 F.2d 521 (4th Cir. 1986), on the School Board's ability to consider changes to the busing plan. You have also asked whether the School Board is bound by the busing plan approved by the federal district court in 1971. The Riddick case indicates that once a school system has eradicated all vestiges of segregation and is unitary, it can modify its busing plans without review by the federal court, absent a showing of an intent to discriminate in the modification of the plans. Therefore, it is my opinion that because the federal district court found that Arlington has a unitary school system the School Board can modify the plan approved in 1971. Care must be exercised in any modification, however, as explained below. Discussion Both Supreme Court precedent and the Riddick case make clear that once a school system has eliminated any vestiges of desegregation and has a unitary system, the school system is not bound to continue to follow every aspect of an earlier courtordered desegregation plan. S e e , e .g . , Pasadena City Board of Education v. S p a n g l e r , 427 U.S. 424, 96 S.Ct. 2697 (1976); Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of E d u c a t i o n , 402 U.S. 1, 91 S.Ct. 1267 (1971). These cases indicate that the School Board is not responsible for demographic shifts in populations which might cause schools to slip out of compliance with the original plan, and accordingly is under no duty to adjust school attendance figures to reflect those changes to maintain the racial balance in schools approved in the plan. Once a school system has achieved unitary status, a court may not order further relief to counteract resegregation that does not result from the school system's intentional discriminatory acts. Vaughns v. Board of E d u c ation of Prince George's C o u n t y , 758 F.2d 983 (4th Cir. 1985). �The Riddick case gives helpful guidance on other points. As you know, in that case, the Norfolk School Board abolished mandatory cross-town busing which had first been required by court order in 1971. In its place, all of the elementary schools became single attendance zones or neighborhood schools. The attendance zones were structured to achieved maximum racial integration. Under the plan, 12 of Norfolk's elementary schools became 70 percent or more black, compared to four under the busing plan previously in effect. Of those 12 schools, 10 became 95 percent or more black. Six schools became 70 percent or more white. The plan also contains a majority-minority transfer option, under which any student assigned to attend a school at which his race constitutes 70 percent or more of the student body can transfer to a school where his race constitutes less than 50 percent of the students, and receive free transportation. The trial court considered this plan and found that the school system no longer operated a dual system. This meant that the plaintiffs had to show that the school board acted with an intent to discriminate in adopting the new plan in order for the action to be found unconstitutional. The court found that the plaintiffs had not satisfied the burden of showing this discriminatory intent. In reaching that conclusion, the district court reviewed six factors which the Supreme Court has held must show freedom from racial discrimination before a school system can be found unitary: faculty, staff, transportation practices, extracurricular activities, facilities and pupil assignment. Green v. County School B o a r d , 391 U.S. 430, 88 S.Ct. 1689 (1968). The district court found that the Norfolk school system is a unitary one. Three of the seven school board members, as well as the superintendent and two of the three regional assistant superintendents are black. The faculty is 56 percent white and 44 percent black. The court also found the staff to be fully integrated. There was no contention that the extracurricular activities, transportation network or school facilities were operated in a dual fashion. In addition, the court found that Norfolk offered legitimate reasons to support the change in busing. The city was concerned that the school system continued to lose white students because of busing, and was concerned about a substantial drop in parental involvement in the PTAs. The Riddick court found that while white flight cannot be used as a reason for failure to dismantle a dual school system, consideration of that factor is permissible in devising a voluntary plan to improve the racial balance in the schools. So too was it legitimate to seek greater 2 �p a r ental involvement in school affairs, the other reason proffered for the busing change. Therefore the appellate court affirmed the district court's decision allowing the change. Once the goal of a unitary school system is achieved, said the Riddick court, the district court's rule ends, and the school system should be left free to manage itself. The Court also pointed out that the concept of a neighborhood school system in and of itself is not violative of the Constitution, citing Crawford v. Los Angeles Board of E d u c a t i o n , 458 U.S. 527, 102 S.Ct. 3211 (1982); S w a n n , s u p r a , 402 U.S. at 28, 91 S.Ct. at 1282; Thompson v. School Board of Newport N e w s , 465 F.2d 83 (4th C i r . 1972) . The Riddick holding is a limited one. The court by express terms found it applicable only to those school systems which have succeeded in eradicating the vestiges of jure segregation. In those systems, the school boards and not the federal courts "will run the schools, absent a showing of intent to discriminate." Because the court found the Norfolk School Board had done a reasonable job in seeking to keep its schools integrated in the face of a "massive exodus of white students," the court stated that it would not refuse to allow the school board to try another plan that might be successful in stopping the exodus. Applying the Riddick principles to our case, the Arlington County School Board should be permitted to alter the 1971 courtapproved busing plan. The federal district court approved the plan by its order of August 10, 1971. In that order, the court ruled that the school system was "converted to a unitary system throughout the county." Since Riddick stands for the proposition that a unitary school system should not be required to adhere to a prior court-ordered desegregation plan, we can conclude that the Arlington school system, having been found unitary, need not follow the terms of the 1971 plan. I must add several notes of caution in stating this conclusion, however. First, in the Riddick case, the court found important the continuing oversight by the district court of the Norfolk plan. The d i s t r i ct court had retained jurisdication over the case, and hence reviewed progress under the busing plan for four years after the litigation had ended. In the Arlington case, however, the judge reviewed the plan after it had been followed for approximately three months and found at that point that Arlington had established a unitary system. Therefore, one major difference b e tween Arlington's situation and Norfolk's is that in finding Norfolk's system was unitary the Norfolk court was able to evaluate more thoroughly the school system's adherence to and p r o gress under the busing plan, because the court had followed the case for four years. 3 �Second, the Riddick court found the Norfolk school system was unitary after reviewing the six factors identified by the Green case. I lack sufficient information to know what the result would be if those six factors were examined in Arlington, but can examine them if provided the necessary information. In the alternative, of course, someone from your staff can apply these factors to the pertinent data. These differences between the Norfolk and the Arlington cases should not m e a n that Arlington cannot deviate from the 1971 busing plan. I point out these differences, however, so you are aware that these differences could be identified in an effort to distinguish the two cases and thus contend that the Riddick case does not permit the Arlington County School Board to deviate from the busing plan. Finally, you should also be aware that the Supreme Court declined to review the Riddick case, 55 U.S.L.W. 3311 (U.S. Nov. 4, 1986), and the Riddick opinion therefore is binding precedent in this judicial circuit. At the same time the Court denied review in R i d d i c k , however, it also denied review in a case from the Tenth C i r c u it in which the appellate court reached conclusions contrary to those stated in R i d d i c k . Therefore, we cannot assume the S u p r e m e Court has endorsed the Riddick opinion by refusing to review it, or that the Supreme Court would come out the same way when a similar issue is before it. The Riddick opinion does stand as good authority in this judicial circuit, however, and supports the conclusion that Arlington can make changes to its busing plan. CLP/jm - 4 - � 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 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Description An account of the resource RG69 contains information related to the integration of Arlington County Public Schools including the history, redistricting, pupil distribution, and boundary maps. The collection was donated by Lisa Farberstein, Director of Community Service and Public Information for the Arlington County Public Schools 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 Confidential Legal Memorandum, Arlington County, Virginia Inter-Departmental Memorandum to Arthur W. Gosling, Superintendent of School from Cynthia L. Perry, Assistant County Attorney, "Changes to Busing Plan", November 12, 1986. Description An account of the resource Attorney opinion on the School Board's ability to consider changes to the busing plan and whether the School Board is bound by the busing plan approved by the federal district court in 1971. 4 pages. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Arlington County, County Attorney Office, Cynthea L. Perry 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 69_3_1_13_59 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/ac9ff5e6b48e51871e1774bb7f7fbbb4.pdf 7b0fcd3d68c65853c6f04271d178dc28 PDF Text Text CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A m endm ent V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or other wise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand |ury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. A m e n d m e n t VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the Slate and district wherein the crime shall have been commit ted. which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accu sation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. A m e n d m e n t VII In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. A m e n d m e n t VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines im posed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. A m e n d m e n t IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. A m endm ent X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Con stitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The first ten amendments, which make up the so-called Bill of Rights, were designed to calm the fears of the mild opponents of Ihe Constitution in its original form. The amendments were proposed to the state legislatures by the first Congress that assembled under the Constitution in 1789 and were ratified in 1791. Some of the framers had argued that the Bill of Rights was not necessary since the national government did not in any case have the power to do what was ex pressly forbidden in the proposed amendments. A m e n d m e n t XI The judicial power of the United States shall not be con strued to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of an other State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. The Supreme Court's acceptance of jurisdiction in a suit against a Rate by a citizen of another state in 1793 provoked such angry reac tions in Georgia and such anxieties in other states that, at the first neeting of Congress after this decision, what became the 11th Amendaent was proposed by an overwhelming vote and quickly ratified P798). The amendment has afforded the states protection against suits for debts, but in other respects it has proved comparatively ineffective I* protecting states' rights against federal judicial power. The Supreme Court has held that a suit is not "commenced or prosecuted" against a Rate by the appeal of a case that was instituted by the state itself against a defendant who claims rights under the Constitution, laws, or Rtaties of the United States. This permits a person to sue a state in a federal court by appealing a decision in a state court. A m e n d m e n t XII The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with them 221 selves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as VicePresident, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as VicePresident, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the-President of the Senate;—The President of the Senate shall, in the pres ence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;—the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not ex ceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a mem ber or members from two-thirds of the stales, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President when ever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.—The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a major ity, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. This amendment, ratified in 1804, supersedes Article II, Section 1, paragraph 3, prescribing Ihe operation of the Electoral College. Of par ticular interest is the spelling out of the process to be used in the event that no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes. A m e n d m e n t XIII Section 7. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. A m e n d m e n t XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or �222 CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or stitution, within seven years from the date of the submission under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a hereof to the States by the Congress. member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or A m e n d m e n t XIX as a member of any Stale legislature, or as an executive or ju The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not dicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appro thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each priate legislation. House, remove such disability. A m e n d m e n t XX Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for pay Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President ment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing in shall end at noon on the 20th day of lanuary, and the terms surrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of the United States nor any Statd shall assume or pay any debt lanuary, of the years in which such terms would have ended or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their suc against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emanci cessors shall then begin. pation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in ev shall be held illegal and void. ery year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by of lanuary, unless they shall by law appoint a different day. appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Section J. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice A m e n d m e n t XV President elect shall become President. If a President shall not Section 7. The right of citizens of the United States to vole have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a servitude. President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a article by appropriate legislation. Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to The 13th, 14th, and 13th amendments are known as the RECON act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly STRUCTION amendments. They were passed in the years following the until a President or Vice President shall have qualified. Civil War in order to end slavery and guarantee blacks the right to Section 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of vote and other important rights. Over the years, however, the 14lh Amendment has been broadened by judicial interpretation to become the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of an important weapon in the continuing defense of the civil rights and individual liberties of all Americans. Its due process clause is generally choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of regarded as protecting almost all rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall from state invasion. The equal protection clause has been invoked to have devolved upon them. integrate schools, to reapportion electoral districts, and to outlaw a Section 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day multitude of invidious discriminatory acts and actions. of October following the ratification of this article. Section 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall A m e n d m e n t XVI have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportion seven years from the date of its submission. ment among the several States, and without regard to any census of enumeration. A m e n d m e n t XXI Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the A m e n d m e n t XVII Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for elec thereof, is hereby prohibited. tors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall When vacancies happen in the representation of any State have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitu writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the leg tion, within seven years from the date of the submission islature of any State may empower the executive thereof to hereof to the States by the Congress. make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacan A m e n d m en t XXII cies by election as the legislature may direct. Section 7. No person shall be elected to the office of the This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the President more than twice, and no person who has held the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes office of President, or acted as President, for more than two valid as part of the Constitution. years of a term to which some other person was elected Pres A m e n d m e n t XVIII ident shall be elected to the office of the President more than Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be hold within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the ing the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from hold jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby ing the office of President or acting as President during the prohibited. remainder of such term. Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by legislation. the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within Section J. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall seven years from the date of its submission to the States by have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the Congress. the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Con � 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 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Description An account of the resource RG69 contains information related to the integration of Arlington County Public Schools including the history, redistricting, pupil distribution, and boundary maps. The collection was donated by Lisa Farberstein, Director of Community Service and Public Information for the Arlington County Public Schools 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 Constitution of the United States starting with Amendment V through Amendment XXII. Description An account of the resource Constitution of the United States starting with Amendment V through Amendment XXII. 2 pages. 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 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource United States Government 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 69_3_1_13_42 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/ec79a2b62af27dde6c56171dad25f8d0.pdf 1c2441abd94c33805651e1ee561707d8 PDF Text Text United States Court of Appeals F O R T H E F O U R T H C IR C U IT No. 71-1791 JO H N K. HART, et a l ., A p p e lla n ts, v. C O U N T Y SCH O O L BOARD OF A R L IN G T O N CO UN TY , e t a l ., A p p ellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia a t Alexandria — cC ti ClCc '-£<___ BRIEF FOR APPELLEES ISSU E 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. STA TEM EN T OF T H E C.ASE On M ay 6, 1970, plaintiffs initiated this action to com plete the elim ination of racial segregation in the public schools of A rlington County (App. 5) .l .An answer on behalf 1 All references App. are to pages in the printed appendix �Felder v. I I n ih 'U (anility lSt>is > of Edncnlinii, Ill9 l ‘.?il 10/0 ( ,'ih 1 Cir., 1969) .............................................................................. iv», | ?J< I.S.iU B I'KlttiKrfTKW f u l l K liV IB W .............................................................. ;................ 1 .Si-Ari::ii-..\ r o v t u b ( U : i k ......................................................................... 1 Given v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 190 ( ............................................................................................ . ..8 , 27 St 3 Creen v. School Hoard of City of Roanoke, 316 F.Supp. 6 (W .ll. Va. 1970) ..................................... /....................................................... 21 a t k mk n t u i' t u b Fa c t s ............ .................................................................. Ak o iim b n t The. Desegregation Plan Adopted And Pul Into Ell'ccl By Tlic Arlington County Scliool Board Is Constitutionally Valid.......... C o n c i.iis io n llancy v. County Board of Education of Sevier County, 429 l\2 d 361 (8th Cir., 1970) ............................................... 21 7 ............... - ............................................................................ 26 ClCilYll-TUATK ..................................................... 'i A u /.ii o f 28 c a ses denied 10! ll.S. 912 (1971) ..........4, 8, 9, 10, 12, 19, 22, 23, 26 All-.'.and. t v. Holme.. County Boaul of Education, 396 U.S. 19 (1969) .................................................................................................. 8 Allen v. A.lievillc City Hoard of Education, 434 l''.2d 902 (4lli Cir., 1970) ................................................................................. 17, 19, 20, 25 Bindley v. School Hoard of City of Richmond, 323 1\ Snpp. 828 (li.n . Va., 1971) ........... 25 V. I.andis, 314 F. Sup. 971 (N .l). Cal., 19G9) *............ 14, 20, 22 r.u.v.o v. i:.»..d of l'aliu.'liiHi, 317 U.S. 188 (I9 .il) .................... 8 " 8 I n v. I'.oaol of I'.ilui'.iliiui, a!9 U.S. 2 ''I (lOn.'i) ................... 3 .uni.' i . ( ••!' « i* v. f. In ' I I . lo » II f'oiiiiiy P.Mid of V'di.t' ilio.i, !‘'3 l'.2d til3 l* I’liMj l!i, 19, ■ '.< .1 I ■ .1 . ■ . . (I •/ I f Mims v. Duval County School Board, 329 F. Supp. 123 (M l). Fla., 1971) v.;..................................................................................23, 21 Swann v. Charlottc-Mccklcnburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. I (1971) .................................................. 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12, 19, 22, 27 A il. 'ms V. S il'.i.n l I tistiii.l No. 5, I!! F.2d 99 ( l i l t Cir., 1971) cert, Brim Lee v. Matron County Board of Education, 418 l\2 d 716 (5th Cir., 1971) ......... :........................................ 21 ' I I 11. Walton v. Nashville, Arkansas, Special School D i'tiiit No. I, -101 F.2d 137 (8th Cir., 1969) ................................................................. 26 Wanner v. County School Board of Arlington County, 337 F.2d 152 (4th Cir., 1966) ................................................................................. 16 �3 2 of i!u‘ ('.ouuty School .Hoard ol Ailiuglon County and the Divi- i. a Superintendent of Schools of Arlington County was timely hied (App. 8 0), and discovery procedures in volving interrogatories to defendants and requests for (lie production of documents wore thereafter initiated by the plaint ills (App. 1). On March 5, 19VI, 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. Charloltc-McckIcnbur» Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, and its companion cases (App. 10).^ 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 to be pul into effect in September, 1971 (App. 19 2.9). On the morning of the hearing, plaintiffs aiiundcd their complaint to state their objections to the plan (App. 6-7, 11), which objections were subsequently oveiruled 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). Sec, 329 I\ Snpp.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 Com I the same day. Thereafter, plaiiitilis filed a similar application in this Court, w'liich apphea-jon was denied on September 3, 1971. See, Record in i\o. /I-1/92 (4 flir., 1971). A fm Iher.such application v. ■| • ‘ ill• d to the (llii. f justice of the I htiled Stall » e. , (an >i• jn tin: fi« ihe 15an ill ( ui cuil, and deni.. I him on • . by !a pi* i..!»• i !. l'i/1. Sec, r!o. A 2t>’', I1 I <n.i, . )/1 ■ i I * i i.«* I1 .‘i** l >> |. ., 1 i! .1 i.*i»i*l. .j I A l b m I*., i i O i' j 11 !* ,*/ f; i ,S j 'I he Arlington Comity Si.liool Divi.ion m .brace., ih, inlire county of Arlington and has an area of 25.7 squam miles, ft is less than one-half the size of the City of l-’iiii mond which has an area of 63 square miles, and les 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 9,903 w'crc while and 1,250 uric Negro. Thus the racial ratio in the elementary schools was 09% 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' aiul 1IoffmauBoston-- -were attended solely by Negro students, as the geographical boundaries of those schools encompassed all Negro residential areas, while eleven of the twenty-nine were attended by all, or virtually all, white students (App. 15, 35, 42). The IIofTmnn-Boston school also housed seventh grade students, of which some 70% were white students h.i- ed in from other districts in the comity (App. 12). On Dee. ml . i 18, 1969, the school board adopted a res.>h.!ion dinning the Division Superintendent and his si.ill t« prepare a si • i * study of the various alternatives available for de-egi. ,i the Drew Kir nent.uy .Vhnol (App. 29 50). I li; i, !i.• . ■i ‘ suggested e. ■ 'illation with appropriate haler d . .. • '. . a % step win. I. ha ! .the :d) Iie> n taken by toe 1' i- .« i * . ■ • �•I tendenl who (1) li:ul discussed the matter generally with representatives of the Department uf Health, Education and Welfare (lil'AV) earlier in llio month (2) had caused data requested by 1I1CW to be compiled by his stall and sub mitted and (3) was awaiting return of specific suggestions from HEW for consideration by his stalT 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 IIEW, 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 Charlotlc-Mecklcnburg 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 and its staff returned to a consider ation of the Drew school situation, but this time did so in the huger context of establishing a unitary school system throughout the county in compliance with Swann (App. 41). On June If), 1971, while these deliberations were going on, i 1 i . flout t derided a seiiex of cases under the style of Attains v. School District j\'o. !>, O rangeburg Co., S.C ., 4 14 V»> •i,, <ilii dly Ci uphn ■i/.iiig for district com ls and . 1 ■1 1 11. \\* • 1 iir: rep. >l ; of So',m i l and D o r i s V l i n o n l 1 /<</../ r'.// •» i IS n j . \ i , , l n h C o u n t y , 101 I). 1.. •< V • i ! . ..ft. , . 1t i n , ii \, ilit-: rh<mi! 1•• ‘.iid ad*<pli d end . filed in the District (limit its plan for the operation of a unitary system in Arlington County (App. 19). As staled by the Division .Superintendent, the purpo.es of the school board’s plan were “first of all, primarily to elimi nate all vestiges of a dual sysli m, to move to establish a u ue unitary system throughout the county, to provide and to establish racial balanced schools, and I think, then, to gd 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 IIufirnan-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 1lolTman-Boston school would also be utilized, as in previous years, for the integrated seventh grade of the Thomas JcITerson Junior High School (App. 10, 19-20). Former Drew and IIofTman-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 while pupils in each school would be as close to 11 % as practical, u ilhin a range of 7 % to 15%, with the exception of four element uy schools whose cut rent enrollment already exceeded 15% (i.c. I5»% to 22%). C. Family groupings would be taken into .itv.-i ei ni assignments to a particular school, s o that I m i!;, e m . would not he broken up. I). T ran .jiort.ilion would he provided a*, u. .d .l �G V lim in' lln' school board's plan, all oiie-racc schools in Arlington County aiv eliminated there remain no one ran: white schools aiul no one-race black schools. Moreover, stu dents advancing from an elementary school will attend ihc junior l»i?_;h school serving thal clcmcnlary 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. 39-10). 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 nincti on schools fall within one percent of the 1 1% racial ratio in the system as a whole (App. 15). Finally, faculty di x'gregation is achieved by establishing a ratio in each sc In ml 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 •!% deviation from the sys tem wide ratio (App. 25). The longest bus ride (in terms of lapsed time) fpr the former Drew and 1 loffman-Bostnu pupils i.< 29 pinnules, while the average bus ride for such children isT?2 minutes (App. 12, '10-11). Similarly, the average bus ride for ele mentary children in the system as a whole is also 22 minutes (App. II). The additional transportation costs involved in the i hi o! lai id’s plan is appro, imately .$11,000 per year. Adoj•t'i mi iif an all cinale p Ian to achieve the same dr give of ..f lh. |)i. vv and inlegi i: " a would involve hii-ing 90 ill 1hili’i, i !’•• M ' 1udi ills to III III 1 ' 1IIIml. uid i• | il.il ill;; ill. Ill '.Mil .ill 1•|1li. di nl in'.ill.i i i.f \. hile ‘ t.i'l- ill . 111III 1 1 i 1 .III 1. 1 ' 1 . • ■ * l • 1 1 , .i,l.| , in i •1 . .i i. i.: ■ 1 M. i i.l . • and an additional cost of 0 1iff),000 per yini i l ni e a f n r for transportation. Thirteen new buses, plus ihiveis, would b : required for such an alternative “90% out 90% in” plan (App. 12, 45-48). Sec also, Jhief fur the Appellants, p. 17. No alternate plan .submitted by the plaintiffs would ilinnnatc all one-race schools in the county, nor achieve as mueli actual desegregation as the school board’s plan (App. 50, 64). ARGUMENT Tlic Desegregation Plan Adopted And Put Into F.flcct Hy The Arlington County School Hoard Is Constitutionally Valid. Plaintiffs in the ease at bar arc 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 a- signed to the Drew Elementary School were Negioes, plnintiils alleged that the Arlington County School Poarcl hail failed to adopt and execute a plan “to c o m p le te ly c o u n c il said public school system to a u n ita r y n o n ra cia l s y s te m ." (App. 4 ). (Emphasis supplied.) They sought an order from the District Court requiring the defendant school hoard “to adopt and forthwith implement” such a plan (App. 5 ). Even before this suit was filed, the school hoard had been aware of the Drew situation and had, by formal resolution, directed a stall study to be made of various alternatives for desegregating the Drew School. This resolution, however, did not .specifically embrace the 1 Inffm.m Po»lon f l u : , ,i tary School, the only oilier all Negro school in the Coe .> , nor did it envision ilie desegregation of the view i .ill or virtually all while, elementary schools in die i . . . .school system. After the study co-ilvni| I lied by the i> o*. . i '■ I t , i iiiiii-i. d and piior to tee dale set lq the 1' ’ . t' �9 8 hearing of this matter (July M 1 9/1), IIn* Supreme (loitrl l*, the S w a n n ami / h.vy’.v cases, s u p ra , (/\p» il M , 1971), O mwl this Court decided tho A d a m s cases, s u p ra , (June 10, 1971). Because of the existence of A ih n n s , no independent analysis need now be made of S w a n n and D a v is, nor of their progenitors, B r o w n , G re e n and A le x a n d e r .* In A d a m s , 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 S w a n n and D a v is. I d ., 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 1 1\ 2d at 100-1.01): d e c id e d “It is now clear, we think, that in school systems that hav e previou ly been operated separately as to the races by reason of slate action, “the district judge or sch o o l a u th o r itie s .should m a le, e v e r y r fj o i l to a c h ie v e th e "rea li st possible d e g re e o f a c tu a l d e seg re g a tio n , tairing in to a c c o u n t th e p r a c tic a litie s o f th e s itu a tio n .” 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 a d e q u a te c o n sid e ra tio n be g iv e n " t o th e possible use o f bus tra n sp o llu tio n a n d sp lit z o n i n g Davis, supra at ...... , 91 S.Ct. til 1292. Wherever schools arc “all or predomi nately of one race in a district of mixed population (there will be required) close scrutiny to determine t h a t m I i o o I assignments are not part of stale-enforced si egalion.” Swann, supra at ......, 91 S.Ct. at 1281. Although the existence of “some small number of nuei:><e, or vitlnally one-race, schools within a district is o'.t in and o f h .\e |f die maik of a system which still ■■ ■!• 11 i .., ■ .i I/ t: o, ■• . i ■ • i • .'') c •, > /: f.s . . <■ :■ .< ( f i i i) if) t is.'/><i i V. . . - t : . , a i. ./ / ' . "ui i, practices segregation by law,” fiwanii, supra at ... , 91 S.Ct. at 12b I, b o th th e s c h o o l a iil.'io iily a n d th e d i //<■ l ju d g e m u s t n e v e r th e le s s be c o n c e r n e d w ith th e e l i m i n a tio n o f o n e -ra c e sch o o ls. The school authorities and the district court should consider the use of till techniques for desegregation, in cluding pairing or grouping of schools, n o n c o n tig u o u s a tte n d a n c e zo n e s, restructuring of grade levels, a n d th e tr a n s p o r ta tio n o f p u p ils .” (Italicssupplied.) Emphasizing the imperative nature of the commands itali cized above was (1) (he 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 lc.-s actual desegregation than would be achieved under an alternative plan must find facts that made impracticable the achieving of a greater degree of integration " e s p e c ia lly i f th e r e re m a in a n y schools a ll or p r e d o m in a n tly o f o n e ra ce.” I d ., at 101. (Emphasis supplied.) ■/ With the prescriptions of S w a n n and D a v is thus focused in the commands of A d a m s , it was obvious that any plan for the establishment of a unitary school system in Arlington County which contemplated the desegregation of Do w School only and which left another elementary seb.e.l with an all-Negro student body and eleven other element u v schools with all-while, or virtually all-white, student I .-.I;. ' —could not possibly survive judicial appraisal. U a unit uy j'/slem was to be eslabli-.hed, all of the t le.e.eni u s -e! comprising that sjsle.n would have in be coudde. -I I desegregated il rea.-.on.iblj po« ible. Conti n \ to a; . !! �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 onc-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 onc-race schools in the county was not only possible, but feasible. A d a m s , su p ra , 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 onc-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 S w a n n and D a vis and the com mands of A d a m s was possible in only two ways. One method — that adopted by the school board- entailed the conversion of the Drew and HofFman-Boston ehools from traditional elementary facilities to other educational programs anti the <-nahlishment within the all-Negro v< ographic areas of those .schools of a series of “satellite” /< i.' by which elementary pupils formerly assigned to Drew and HolTman-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 tbe 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 HofTman-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 HofTman-Boston schools arc n o t being closed or removed from the public school system or converted to administrative or non-cducational 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 cdu- �12 13 cation. In this setting, appellants’ assertion that the school hoard'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 CharlottcMecklenburg school system in S w a n n , which was subsequently 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 lloflmanBoston, 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. 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 Hoffinan-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, th e r e b y s u b s ta n tia lly d e se g re g a tin g e v e r y ju n io r h ig h sc h o o l in th e s y s t e m (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 F e ld e r v. H a r n e tt C o u n ty B o a rd o f E d u c a tio n , 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 S w a n n and D avis, as well as the command of A d a m s , would be one which entailed assigning 90% of the black students in Drew and I Tollman-Boston to other schools in the county �14 main a l white, five other schools (Barcroft, Jackson, Nott­ l ingham, Page and Tuckahoo) 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-racc, or virtually one-race, schools under this plan (App. 16, 38-39). The appellants’ suggested plan for the desegregation of Hodman-Boston i even more inadequate. It i the result s s of “ hasty preparation”by Mr. Richardson, a witness for the plaintids, and manifestly represents an cdort 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’plan exists. It contem­ s plates pairing Hodman-Boston with three other elementary schools in the vicinity. While edectivcly desegregating the Hodman-Boston Elementary School and the previously a l lwhite Custis Elementary School, i makes no provision for t 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 al one-race black schools; l however over onc-third (ten of twenty-nine) of the county’ s elementary schools would s i l remain 98-100% white. And tl no racial balancing of the county’ s elementary schools would even be attempted, much less achieved. Obviously, even i combined, the plans which appellants put forth as alter­ f natives to the school board’plan (1) would not achieve s a unilniy system (2) would not eliminate a one-race, ll 15 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 S w a n n and D a vis nor comply with the commands of A d a m s . It i also inter­ s 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’plan which docs meet these standards. If the s defendant school board had adopted both of the appellants’ suggested alternatives, we submit that i would have been t required, as were the various school boards in A d a m s , to prepare a “ new”plan which would “ effect to S w a n n give and D a v is ” according adequate consideration to the “ by use of bus transportation and split zoning.”A d a m s , su p ra , 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, i i difficult to conceive how the plan t s 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 clo sin g of any school, merely the c o n v ersio n 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 a l or predominantly, l, Negro neighborhoods. On the contrary, the record discloses that a majority (70%) of white students have for yeais been transported to the formerly all-black 1InlTmnn Iuslon ’ �16 17 Junior High School (JelTcrson Annex) located in that com­ pletely Negro residential area (App. 42). See, W a n n e r v. C o u n ty S c h o o l H oard o f A r lin g to n C o u n ty , 357 F. 2d 452, 156 (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 i located in an alls Negro residential area, and that feature of the school board’ s plan i even now in effect. See, Brief for the Appellants, p. 7 s . Significant in this context, i the decision of this Court in s C h a m b e r s v. Ir e d e ll C o u n ty B o a r d o f E d u c a tio n , 423 F.2d 613 (4th Cir., 1970). Under consideration in that case was a school desegregation plan in which one school, Unity School, remained a l black with 285 students. That facility was to be l replaced the following school year by a new school which was then under construction. When completed, the new facility would absorb Unity’285 black students and some s 475 white students from three other schools, at which time the formerly all-black Unity School would be closed. Plain­ t f sthere alleged that the decision to close Unity was racially if motivated “ because i arose out of a disinclination to put t white pupils into a previously all-black school.” d ., at 616. I Rejecting this contention, this Court stated (423 F.2d at 616): “ This contention i not persuasive in light of the fact s that the school board has already integrated Amity School, which was previously all-black and i now twos thirds white. There appears to be no pattern of simply closing black schools because they have been black.” school i not indicative of racial motivation when a school s 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 (he 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 i the decision s of this Court in A lle n v. A sh e v ille C ity B o a rd o f E d u c a tio n , 434 F.2d 902 (4th Cir., 1970). In that ease, the Asheville School Board decided that i was necessary to close two t formerly all-black elementary schools and one formerly a l lwhite 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 i s opinion, t 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. Similarly, in (he case at bar, the Arlington County School Board long ago integrated the 1foffman-Boston Junior High School “ which was previously all-black and i now twos ihiids while.”We submit that i the closing of an all-black f * * * “ Plaintiffs i s s , however, that the school board’true nit s reason for selection i undisclosed and i simply i s ‘ s s t re­ luctance to send primary grade white children into traditionally all-black schools located in all-black neigh­ borhoods.’ ” �19 18 Rejecting plaintilTs’ contention that the Asheville School Board luil 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): In the f r t place, we think th e m e c h a n ic s o f in te g r a is tio n , where the purpose i obviously to implement the s B r o w n I I principle and effectively achieves that end, is o r d in a r ily a m a tte r w ith in th e d isc re tio n o f s c h o o l a d m in istr a to r s. T h e q u e stio n is n o t w h e th e r w e m ig h t h a v e s e le c te d d iffe r e n t sch o o ls f o r e x tin c tio n , n o r e v e n w h e th e r s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s u p p o r ts th e B o a rd ’s d e c i sio n , b u t is in ste a d w h e th e r th e B o a r d ’s d e c isio n is so p la in ly u n fa ir th a t it c le a r ly a m o u n ts to in v id io u s d is c r im in a tio n in v io la tio n o f th e e q u a l p ro te c tio n clause. * # # . .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. T h i s is so b e c a u se i f th e tw o b la ck sch o o ls th a t h a v e b een clo sed w e re r e o p e n e d , 70 p e r c e n t o f th e b la c k s tu d e n ts fo r m e r ly in e a c h s c h o o l w o u ld h a v e to be m o v e d o u t in to o th e r sch o o ls a n d th is 70 p e r c e n t re p la c e d b y w h ite stu d e n ts . * # * I i urged upon us that even so, both schools that t s were closed are newer and physically better than most of the other schools retained. W e agree that this i a s relevant factor. But neither alone nor in context docs i t establish invidious discrimination. Such a factor i only s one of many that enter into a school closing decision. W e r e p e a t th a t w e d o n o t sit to re v ie w s ta te a d m in is tr a tiv e d ecisio n s b e y o n d th e v e r y lim ite d rea ch o f th e C o n s titu tio n . (Italics supplied.) Similai ly, in the ease at bar, as previously pointed out, i f Drew and I lolfinaii-Uoston had been retained as traditional elementary schools, or i they were reconstituted as such, 90 f 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’plan here i not merely to implement the s s B ro w n I I principle, but also to implement S w a n n , D avis and A d a m s . That the plan “ effectively achieves that end” i acknowledged even by the appellants. Sec, Brief for the s Appellants, p. 19. In addition, the school board’ s plan i the s only demonstrably rational and practical plan that will comply with the requirements of S w a n n , D a vis and A d a m s . In C h a m b e r s , this Court expressed doubt that many school systems had achieved a higher degree of integration than then prevailed in Iredell County. Subsequently, in A lle n , this Court stated that Asheville was “ or near the at pinnacle of arithmetical desegregation in America.” d ., at I 903. So far as we arc aware, Asheville i sil n e a r the pin­ s tl nacle of arithmetical desegregation in America; however, we submit that a t the pinnacle of arithmetical desegregation in America i Arlington County. Here again, i should be s t pointed out that this distinction was achieved without closing any school, while in the C h a m b e r s and A lle n cases, the all­ black facilities there under consideration were selected “ for extinction” were removed from the public school system. and A lle n v. A s h e v ille C ity B o a rd o f E d u c a tio n , su p ra , at 905. None of the cases relied upon by appellants derogates from the principles enunciated in the C h a m b e rs and A lle n cases. In F e ld er v. I l a r n e t t C o u n ty B o a rd o f E d u c a tio n , su p ra , the basis of this Court’decision was the complete s failure of the school board to disestablish an entrenched dual school system in which only 4.3% of the black children were attending previously a l white schools. Moreover, in l that case there was not the slightest assurance of achieving �20 21 a unitary school system and the selection of the schools for closing was therefore suspect. See, A lle n , su p ra at 006. In G reen v. S c h o o l B o a rd o f C ity o f H o a n o k c , 316 F. Supp. 6 (W.D. Va. 1070), 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 i s desegregation plan or otherwise, to t justify discontinuance of the school in question B rice v. L a n d is , 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 options, alternatives and in the system. I d ., at 977. Other “ courses of action” were available to the school board. I d ., 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, i a good faith, s reasonably adequate implementation of constitutional principles involved, m u s t be d e te r m in e d in th e lig h t, among other things, o f th e a lte r n a tiv e o p tio n s a n d co u rses o f a ctio n a v a ila b le to th e D istric t.” (Italics supplied.) Commenting upon this decision in A lle n , succinctly slated (434 F.2d at 907): su p ra , this Court “ e are advertent to Brice v Landis (N.D. Cal., W . Aug. 0, I960), 314 F.Supp. 974, which held on th e p e c u lia r f a i l s of I h e case that the closing of a Negro .<l was invidiously disc iimiuutoi y and subject to ins iool junction. W e t h in k it m e a n s no m o r e th a n I lint and agree there may be such a ease, but think i i not this ts one. I f it is re a d to i m p ly th a t it is o r d in a r ily fo r th e d istric t c o u rts to d e te r m in e w h ic h schools sh a ll be closed r a th e r th a n fo r th e sc h o o l b o a rd , w e re je c t th e p r o p o sitio n .” (Italics supplied.) Even lessapposite i L e e v. A t a eo n C o u n ty B o a r d o f lu lu s c a tio n , 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. I d ., 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 f]cc the school system altogether. I d ., 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 S w a n n v. C h a r lo ltc -M e c k le n b u r g B o a rd o f E d u c a tio n .” I d ., at 753. In short, L e e i a s school closing, racially motivated, white-flight, non-unitary, n o n -S w a n n school desegregation ease. Not one of the abovelisted considerations obtains in the ease at bar. H a n e y v. C o u n ty B o a rd o f E d u c a tio n o f S e v ie r C o u n ty , 429 F. 2d 364 (8 Cir., 1970) i equally inapplicable. In that s 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 be utilized and, only i these facilities proved inadequate, would those of the f formerly all-Negro district be used. There was nothing in the record to explain the closing of the facilities fonneily used �22 for ( i instruction of black students. After referring to this le Court’decision in the l u h l r r ease and B rice v. L a n d is , s s u p r a , the Court of Appeals observed (429 l\2d at 372): “ matter of utilization of available facilities i w i t h The s in th e p r o v in c e a n d d isc re tio n o f th e sch o o l b o a rd . There i a statement in the record that the class rooms s 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 f acilities. T h is is n o t a m a tte r fo r c o u rt c o n sid e ra tio n b u t r a th e r sh o u ld be re so lv e d on s o m e r a tio n a l n o n -d is c r im in a to r y basis b y th e lo ca l s c h o o l b o a r d ." (Italicssupplied.) Throughout their briefs, both appellants and amici curiae make only glancing references to S w a n n , pay no respect to A d a m s and do not even mention D a vis at a l Indeed, refer­ l. ence i made to A d a m s only for i s one line affirmance of s t the district court’retention of the Addison School in Roan­ s oke; so far as appellants and amici are concerned, the rest of what this Court said in A d a m s does not even exist. Thus do they seek to avoid any consideration whatever of the school board’clear obligation to eliminate one-race schools s and achieve the greatest possible degree of actual desegre­ gation as required by S w a n n , D a v is and A d a m s. Thus, too, do they seek to insinuate that the school board in this case can get by with something less than f l compliance with the ul commands of these decisions, even though f l compliance ul can be had, as demonstrated by the plan which the school hoard 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 23 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 staling that there “ ” i such a s plan or informing this Court of the details, or even the outlines, of such other plan. The reason for this equivocation i quite obvious— both appellants and amici know full well s that there i no plan other than that adopted by the school s board which rationally and practically accomplishes what this Court said in A d a m s must be done. The assertion that the school board’plan unfairly bur­ s 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, i i one which these t s 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, i especially true when one remembers that the bus ride s they are asked to take i, on the average, only ten minutes s longer than the time i would take them to walk to the t Drew and Hoffman-Boston fa i i i s and the walk to those clte, facilities had to be made in a l weather conditions through­ l 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 s i l attend their neighborhood schools (App. 15). tl In A lle n , a similar contention was rejected by this Court in language subsequently deemed controlling and quoted at length in M im s v D u v a l C o u n ty S c h o o l B o a rd , 329 F. Supp. . 123 (M.D. Fla., 1971). In M im s , approving a desegregation �24 plan which involved the closing of seven black elementary schools, the district court observed (329 F. Supp. at 132133): “ their second argument plaintiffs seek to have this In Court require the School Board to bus white children to the core city for a l elementary grades, not just to l 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: W e arc asked to decide whether the district court, in approving the plan, unconstitutionally placed ‘ the burden of desegregation’ upon black pupils in the school system. I i urged upon us that the plan ap­ t s 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 i said to be an unfair allocation of the s ‘ burden’ integration, and i i suggested that the of ts 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. W e hold that such a pattern of assignment imple­ mented by free school bus transportation docs not violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The ra tio n a le in the Second Circuit i essentially the s same. In Norwalk Core v Norwalk Board of Education, . [123 F.2d 121, 124 (2 Cir., 1970)] the Court noted: 1‘ laiulilfs would <liminate what they call unequal treatment by having, in elfect, one while child bussed 25 out of his neighborhood for every black chili1bussed out of his— in other words, deprive as many whites of neighborhood advantages as blacks arc deprived by being bussed to schools predominantly white. But the problem i not as simple as a one black, one white s ratio. It i a question of the Board, with the facilities s 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 i do to assert that the school board’plan sug­ t s gests to black children that i would be dangerous i “ t f blacks make up more than 15% o f the enrollment of any school.” See, Brief for the Appellants, p. 15. This assertion i instantly s blunted by the fact that four elementary schools in Arling­ ton County already had black students in excess of 15% when the school board’plan was adopted. Moreover, the s alternative arrangements for the Drew school espoused in plaintiffs’ would limit black enrollment to 21% in each brief of the schools affected. Does this arrangement suggest that any number of black students in excess of 21% in any school i dangerous? Was any such message explicit or implicit in s the racially balanced plans approved by this Court in C h a m b e rs and A lle n ? Neither, we submit, does the plan adopted by the school board in the case at bar carry such an inference. It i,of course, primarily the obligation of the school board s to frame and put into effect a plan which establishes a uni­ tary school system, and, as pointed out in D a vis, su p ra at 37, the “ measure of any desegregation plan i i s effectiveness.” st From B ro w n I I to A d a m s , the decisions confirming this principle have been legion and consistent. As stated in B n a l le y v. S c h o o l B o a rd o f C ity o f R ic h m o n d , 325 F. Supp. 121 51, 832-833 (E.D. Va. 1971): �27 26 “ second principle guiding the Court— almost as ob­ A vious as the doctrine of precedent— i that it is p r im a r ily s tin ' S c h o o l B o a r d ’s d u t y to ru n th e schools, a n d n o t th is C o u r t’s n o r th e p la in tiffs ’ . . . Because both expertise and responsibility arc the School Board’ i i to their s ts , proposals that courts look f r t for a legally sulficicnt is plan. . . . When they assume the ‘ responsibility which Brown II placed squarely on the School Board,’ Id., 412, 88 S. Ct. 1696, c o u rts w ill n o t p re su m e to d ic ta te a se le c tio n b e tw e e n p la n s .” Wanner v. e q u a lly e ffe c tiv e d e seg re g a tio n 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 A d a m s , su p ra , at 102: “ I think the only pattern the school authorities and ... the Courts must observe i one honoring the prescrip­ s tions of S w a n n and D a v is. So long as i i in keeping t s with these decisions, my understanding i that formu­ s lation of a plan is e n tr u s te d to th e d isc re tio n o f th e sc h o o l a u th o ritie s ...” (Italics supplied.) W e 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 S w a n n and D a vis, complies with the commands of A d a m s , and i therefore constitutionally s valid. CONCLUSION In v. N a s h v ille , A rk a n sa s, S p e c ia l S c h o o l D istric t N o . 1, 101 F. 2d 137, 144 (8 Cir., 1969), Judge Blackmun, speaking for a court which sustained the non-rccmploymcnt of certain Negro teachers in a school desegregation case, made the following observations: W a lto n “ e arc conscious in this case, as we have been in W earlier ones, that the process of school integration i not s easy and that there will be hurls and disappointments as integration i accomplished. Certainly, under the s precepts of the B ro w n decisions, i has been too long t delayed at Nashville. B u t w e a re to ld th a t it lias n o w b een f u ll y a c c o m p lis h e d th e re . T h a t fa c t s h o u ld be a so u rce o f sa tis fa c tio n fo r a ll citize n s, w h ite as w e ll as b la c k .” (Italics supplied.) In the case at bar, this Court i also informed that inte­ s gration has now been fully accomplished in Arlington Coun­ ty It i so informed by the plan i s l , which i currently . s tef s before this Court and was adopted to carry out the following policy of the school board (App. 40): “ purposes that the board had was, f r t of a l pri­ The is l, marily to eliminate a l vestiges of a dual system, to l 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 i the education of s young people.” It i similarly informed by the appellants who admit that s the plan i one “ s 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 i “ undisputed that the Arlington School t i s Board has put into effect a plan that fully complies with the primary mandates laid down in” ro w n , G re e n and S w a n n . B Sec, Brief for the Appellants, pp. 1 9. , Finally, this Court i so informed by the District Court in s the following language of i s opinion, 329 F. Supp. at 955t 956 (App. 14): “ Arlington County School Board has now lolly The complied with the Supreme Court decision in Bnmu I �*1 A unitary school m Mc iii as required by Green and Alexander lias luvii cMablidied .\iliii:*l<ui will liavo neither black nor \\ bile schools jn.«.( schools.” In light of tin* foregoing, and for the reason heretofore slalod. we. submit that tlu* decision of the Dislirc.l C’otirL is clearly eon eel and should he affirmed. Respectfully submitted, II S i m m o n d s . G r e c o k y U. E v a n s 1500 North Courthouse Road Arlington, Virginia Jam es . R. D. M c I l w a i n e , III P.O.Box705 • Petersburg, Virginia C o u n se l fo r A p fic llc c s C K t a 'i l 'I C A T K I certify that two copies of the within brief for appellees u'eio mailed, with f r t class postage prepaid, to S. W. is Tucker, L-quirc, 211 East Clay Sheet, Richmond, Virginia 2:1219; to Robert M. Alexander, Esquire, 2011 South Glebe Road, Ailiuglon, Viiginia 22201; to Allison W. Brown, J . r, Esquire, Suite 501, 1421 Sixteenth Street, N.YV., Washing­ ton, 1 2 0 0 5 6 ; to Laurence J. Latin, Esquire, 734 Lif­ t r nth Stieel, N.W., Washington, l).C. 20005; and to Jack e Gre> nbiirg, Iv-quire, Suite 2050, 10 Columbus Circle, New Yoi I, \v York 10010, conn <Ifor plainlilfs; and to William 1 . All' u, l equitr, and |ohn I. Jones, Jr., Esquire, BBS Six1 * leu h I N.'.V., W. hiiigi"ii, D.C. 20(.(‘ cm il.l for , !, l e > ;1 iii. i■■ . l ' i d.. i! . I’", 10/2. 1 1. • ,I! O l j • ' ■* > I’. ■). ; li f. V ■ .; , '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 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Description An account of the resource RG69 contains information related to the integration of Arlington County Public Schools including the history, redistricting, pupil distribution, and boundary maps. The collection was donated by Lisa Farberstein, Director of Community Service and Public Information for the Arlington County Public Schools 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 Cover page: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No. 71-1791, John K. Hart, et al v. County School Board of Arlington County, et al, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Alexandria. Description An account of the resource Contents include Brief for Appellees, Issue Presented for Review and Statement of the Case. 16 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 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource United States Court of Appeals 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 69_3_1_13_2 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/284f0ada8b067e0eea1a78a867240737.pdf 7e43c0cef6df114bc07434971e127bd4 PDF Text Text NAUCK AREA REVISED SCHOOL ASSIGNMENT S = RBXHGDOH s BANCROFT = RANDOLPH ABINGDON ELEMENTARY ) [TTlb— �N AUCK F ile : R e p o rt: p - Qe STU D E N T D ATA NAUCK COMMUNITY S e l e c t i o n : ADDRESS c o n t a i n s EDGEWOGD GRADE LAST F IR S T RACE ADDRESS T H IR D W R IG H T M A R C IA B LA C K 1730 S. SEX ED6EW 00D S T R E E T F E M A L - E 1 �NAUCK ’ F ile : STUDENT DATA R e p o r t : NAUCK COMMUNITY S e l e c t i o n : A D D R E S S c o n t a i n s G A R F IE L D GRADE LAST F IR S T RACE AD D R E S S F IR S T 1700 P U L L IA M KEON B LA C K Page 3. SEX G A R F IE L D S T R E E T # to U X « frJ M ALE 1 �NAIJCK File: Re p e r t : LAST GRADE r/of ( A L O T A I B I thjcx'i C A M P B E LL FOURTH 93 K -A M SECOND 93 93 99 SECOND /S IX T H fFO URTH T H IR D F IF T H F7I RST F IR S T /S IX T H > 93 ..F IR S T SECOND Page S T U D E N T DATA NAUCK COMMUNITY F IT C H F IT C H GOODE H A M IL T O N H A M IL T O N H A M IL T O N H A M IL T O N HARGROVE HARGROVE H A R R IS H E IG H T HENDERSON JO RDAN M c D A N IE L N E LSO N PETERS F IR S T M IL E RUN RACE ADDRESS N O U PA H W H IT E CLARENCE BLACK M A U R IC E BLACK AVA BLACK D A N IE L BLACK A N T O IN E BLACK DAVI D BLACK M O N IQ U E <Z BLACK T E R E 3A BLACK M A R V IN BLAC K IN G R ID BLACK D AR VELL BLACK D O M IN IQ U E BLACK EBONY BLACK M O N IQ U E BLACK M E L V IN BLACK G EN ESE BLACK A Q U A N N E T T E BLACK 4115 5609 371 1 371 1 3625 3701 370 1 3701 3701 3535 3535 3713 371 1 3643 371 1 3645 3327 3305 1 SEX C S . FOUR M IL E RUN DR FEM ALE?^ S . FOUR M IL E PUN D R IV E -s r.S jM A L E J \ MALE * s . FOUR M IL E RUN D R IV E e FEM ALE FOUR M IL E PUN D R IV E 3 . FOUR M IL E RUN D R IV E MALE MALE 3 • FOUR M I LE RUN D R IV E o• • MALE — FOUR M IL E RUN D R IV E F EMA L E 3 . FOUR M IL E RUN D R IV E ~ EMA L E ( q ) a 3 • FOUR M IL E RUN D R IV E M ALE s . FOUR M I LE RUN D R IV E o , FOUR M IL E RUN D R IV E FEM ALE o . FOUR M IL E RUN D R IV E M ALE SOUTH FOUR M I L E RUN D R IV E M ALE C • FOUR M IL E RUN D R IV E * FEM A LE SOUTH FOUR M IL E RUN FE M A LE OfftO S . FOUR M IL E RUN D R IV E MALE S . FOUR M IL E RUN D R . ' S * * * FEM ALE S . FOUR M IL E RUN D R IV E 1 FEM ALE �NAUCK File: STUDENT DATA R e p o r t : NAUCK CO M M UNITY S e 1 e c t i o n : A D D R E S S c o n t a i n s G LEBE GRADE LAST F IR S T PRESCHOOL BRENT T H IR D COOPER 98 S IM M S SECOND S IM M S T H IR D S IM M S M A R IA GREGORY E R IC A M A R IA ERIC P age *t RACE BLACK BLACK BLACK BLACK BLACK ADDRE : ss 1330 1747 1912 s. s . s. s. s . 1912 1912 SEX GLEBE GLEBE GLEBE GLEBE GLEBE ROAD ROAD ROACTn ROAD ROADJ * FEM ALE M ALE f emal e FEMALE MALE �NAUCK File: STUDENT DATA R e p o r t : NAUCK CO M M U N ITY S e l e c t i o n : A D D R E S S c o n t a i n s KEM PER GRADE F IR S T LAST RACE F IF T H F IF T H S IXTH SIXTH 93 F IF T H THIRD FIR S T 98 98 93 93 FOURTH F IR S T K-AM 98 98 FOURTH F IF T H F IR S T SECOND THIRD PRESCHOOL SECOND TH IR D TH IR D B LA C K B LA C K B LA C K B LA C K B LA C K B LA C K B LA C K B LA C K B LA C K B LA C K B LA C K B LA C K B LA C K B LA C K B LA C K B LA C K B LA C K B LA C K B LA C K B LA C K B LA C K B LA C K B LA C K B LA C K B LA C K B LA C K A D E D IR A N BALL BRADSHAW BUTLER COLEMAN DAW I S H A S K IN S H A S K IN S , JA C K S O N JO N E S JO N E S JO N E S LOMAX M A R B LE M AR BLE ORR SAUNDERS SAUNDERS S M IT H S M IT H S M IT H S M IT H TEASLEY TRACY WARE W I L L IA M S III N IK K I JAW AN ANG ELA EUGENE AN GE L I C DAWN S A B R IN A B R IC E JE FFE R Y W IL L IA M TAW ANA DA RON JARM AR SH AN TELL ANTAWON T O M IC A KAREEM JAW ON C A R M E L IT A JOHN IA N T H E N I C JE AN ETTE J E S S IC A L A K IS H A D AN YELLE DON Page SEX ADDRESS 3413 3423 3403 3403 340 2 3423 3300 3300 3514 371 0 3710 3710 3400 3622 3622 3610 •3 7 1 3 3713 3702 3700 3700 3700 3629 3451 341? 3622 S. S. S. S . S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. 3. S. S. S. S. S, S. S. S. S. S. 1 KEMPER KEMPER KEMPER KEMPER KEMPER KEMPER KEMPER KEMPER KEMPER KEMPER KEMPER KEMPER KEMPER KEMPER KEMPER KEMPER KEMPER KEMPER KEMPER KEMPER KEM PER KEM PER KEMPER KEM PER KEM PER KEMPER RD. ROAD ROAD \ ROAD L .SWftiOscW ) ROAD ROAD ROAD ROAD ROAD ROAD ROAD ROAD ROAD ROAD ROAD ROAD ROAD ROAD ROAD ROAD ROAD ROAD ROAD ROAD ROAD ROAD FEM A LE M A LE F E M A LE ^) M ALE (.K6)1 FEM A LE FEM ALE FEM A LE M ALE M ALE M ALE FEM ALE M A LE M ALE FEM ALE M A LE FEM ALE M A LE M A LE FE M A LE M A LE FEM ALE F E M A LE F E M A LE F E M A LE FE M A LE M A LE �NAUCK File: S TUDENT D ATA R e p o r t : NAUCK COM M UNITY S e l e c t i o n : ADDRESS c o n t a i n s LAN G LEY GRADE LAST F IR S T RACE (F IR S T W fO U R T H JEFFR EY JEFFR EY C A A jM jS fifL yf £ n 5 7 7 ? . 77? ST EC EH STEW ART B LA C K B LA C K 1 AD D R ESS 1914 1914 S. S. SEX LA N G LE Y S T R E E T ^ J & iu HALE LA N G LE Y STRE ET 0t+ Jj M ALE �NAUCK ' File: STUDENT DATA R e p o r t : NAUCK COMMUNITY S e l e c t i o n : A D D R E S S c o n t a i n s LOUJELL GRADE F IR S T LAST RACE ADDRESS SIXTH FIFTH FOURTH K-PM SIXTH SECOND THIRD BLACK BLACK BLACK BLACK BLACK BLACK BLACK 2454 240? 2447 2447 2443 2420 2466 ALSTO N GREEN JO YNER JO Y N E R SELLERS S IM M O NS STEW ART YO LAN D A RACHELL SH AW N D ALE D A R I US DARRELL K IM B E R L Y F R E D E R IC K Page S• 3 * s . S • C‘ ■ s. 1 SEX LO W E LL LO W E LL LO W E LL LO W E LL LO W E LL LO W E LL LO W E LL STREET STREET STREET STREET STREET STREET STREET f e m a l e #A (k ^ F E M A LE M A LE M ALE » M A L E U<£fV FE M A LE M A LE �STUDENT DATA Page 1 Report: NAUCK COMMUNITY Selection: ADDRESS contains MONROE GRADE LAST FIRST RACE ADDRESS SEX FIFTH SIXTH 2520 S. MONROE STREET 2203 3. MONROE STREET MALE FEMALEj&V/V} DRAYTON MOORE DeVAUGHN ROSIE BLACK BLACK �NAUCK * File: STUDENT DATA Report: NAUCK COMMUNITY Selection: A D DRESS contains OXFORD GRADE LAST FIRST RACE HUTCHINSON &>.&>- JASON BLACK Page ADDRESS SEX 2141 S. OXFORD STREET MALE 1 �' STUDENT DATA Page Report: NAUCK COMMUNITY Selection: ADDRESS contains QUINCY GRADE LAST FIRST /'"RACE :IRST BOWDEN £ ( J S i 77?, L31 VXrJC- 3rJ ALLISON 1 SEX WHITE )2204 S. QUINCY STREET IKArffrOLf*) FEMALE" �NAUCK File: STUDENT DATA Report: NAUCK COMMUNITY Selection: ADDRESS contains 17TH STRggT GRADE LAST FIRST RACE FIRST THI R D FIFTH BRANDON EATON HOPKINS delante lakeisha- CASSANDRA BLACK BLACK BLACK P age ADDRESS 2912 S. 17TH STREET # 6 2912 SO. 17TH STREET 2S00 S. 17TH STREET 1 ____ ^ E X _____ ccmL p ptnHLt �NAUCK • File: STUDENT DATA Report: NAUCK COMMUNITY Selection: ADDRESS contains 13TH S T k EZ t GRADE LAST FIRST RACE ADDRESS SECOND 2801 5 . THOMPSON LAURli BLACK Page SB< 13TH S T P £ E T j B ^ t ^ 0 ^ r ) FEMALE 1 �NAUCK File: STUDENT DATA Report: NAUCK COMMUNITY Selection: A D D R E S S contains 1?TH STREET' GRADE LAST FIRST RACE THIRD SECOND FORD WHITEHEAD ERIC BARRIE Page ADDRESS BLACK 2 6 1 7 S . BLACK 2 9 1 0 S. SEX 19TH STREET l'?TH STREET MALE MALE i �NAUC K File: STUDENT DATA Report: NAUCK COMMUNITY Selection: A D D R E S S contains 20TH STREET GRADE LAST FIRST RACE ADDRESS- SEX K-AM FIRST 30 1? S. 20TH STREET 3009 S. 20TH STREET MALE MALE HENDERSON WILLIAMS DUTRELL NATHAN BLACK BLACK Page 1 �NAUCK File: STUDENT DATA Report: NAUCK COMMUNITY Selection: ADDRESS contains 22ND STREET FIRST GRADE LAST RACE SECOND FOURTH FOURTH CANOLES MLAKAR SNOW ANT H O N Y JULIE LAKISHA WHITE WHITE BLACK Page ADDRESS SEX- 5024 s . 2 2ND STREET) /JO T MALE ,FEMALE 50 1 6 s . 2 2ND STREETj /JfKJCK 341 1 s. 2 2ND STREET H 2 2 ( O l< A tn ) FEMALE 1 �NAUCK " \ I \ File: STUDENT -DATA Report: N A U C K COMMUNITY Selection: A D D R E S S 'contains 25TH STREET GRADE LAST FIRST RACE FOURTH SIXTH DIGGS KIRKLAND MUHAMMAD KEISHA Page ADDRESS BLACK 3404 S. BLACK 5021 S. SEX 25TH STREET #41 25TH STREET - t*oT fiSAVOK. MALE FEMALE 1 � 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 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Description An account of the resource RG69 contains information related to the integration of Arlington County Public Schools including the history, redistricting, pupil distribution, and boundary maps. The collection was donated by Lisa Farberstein, Director of Community Service and Public Information for the Arlington County Public Schools 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 Cover sheet and printouts, "Nauck Area Revised School Assignments" from Abingdon, Barcroft and Randolph, no date. Description An account of the resource Printouts include grade, name, address, race and school. 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 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Arlington Public Schools 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 69_3_1_11_151 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/0eeb545a1883c36c97be7a82b4d068f0.pdf ab5dbbfa2902b533be4e056f8eeef3d3 PDF Text Text , M illtam slm n ; Jttte rm ritfa ie ^ rlim il 3600 N. Harrison Street, Arlington, Virginia 22207 Phone: (703) 538-1060 A pril 8, 1987 D e a r Mr. and Mrs. Re: On March 1 9 , 1 9 8 7 , t h e A r l i n g t o n C o u n t y S c h o o l B oa rd r e d e f i n e d t h e a t t e n d a n c e a r e a f o r e l e m e n t a r y and i n t e r m e d i a t e s c h o o l s t u d e n t s who l i v e i n t h e Nauk c o m m u n i t y . As a r e s u l t o f t h i s r e d i s t r i c t i n g , th e in t e r m e d ia t e sch o o l s e r v in g your a d d r e s s i s Swanson I n t e r m e d i a t e S c h o o l , 5800 W a s h i n g t o n B l v d . , p h o n e number, 5 3 8 - 1 1 0 0 . I s i n c e r e l y r e g r e t any i n c o n v e n i e n c e t h i s S c h o o l Bo ard d e c i s i o n c a u s e s y o u and ___________________ . I f you w i s h t o a t t e n d W i l l i a m s b u r g , you may do s o u n d e r tw o c o n d i t i o n s p e r m i t t e d by t h e S c h o o l Board P o l i c i e s : 1. I f t h e r e i s an o l d e r c h i l d i n y o u r f a m i l y who w i l l be a t t e n d i n g W i l l i a m s b u r g i n ' 8 7 - ' 8 8 . 2. You may r e q u e s t an i n s t r u c t i o n a l t r a n s f e r fr o m Swanson t o W i l l i a m s b u r g , J e f f e r s o n o r Kenmore. I w o u ld a p p r e c i a t e y o u r c o m p l e t i n g t h e form e n c l o s e d and r e t u r n i n g i t t o me i n t h e e n c l o s e d r e t u r n e n v e l o p e b y A p r i l 3 0 , 1987. F o r y o u r i n f o r m a t i o n , W a s h i n g t o n - L e e High S c h o o l w i l l s e r v e y o u r a d d r e s s a s a r e s u l t o f t h e S c h o o l Board a c t i o n on March 1 9 , 1 9 8 7 . �TO: Mr. Michael FROM: ______________________________ RE: ______________________________ ( S t u d e n t ' s Name) ( P l e a s e check o n l y o n e .) I u n d e r s t a n d t h e c h a n g e and r e q u e s t t h a t _____________ s c h e d u l e be s e n t t o Swanson. I understand t h a t the Swanson G u i d a n c e s t a f f w i l l c o n t a c t me a b o u t t h e sch ed ule fo r '8 7 -'8 8 . We h a v e an o l d e r s o n o r d a u g h t e r who w i l l be a t W illiam sburg as a s tu d e n t in ' 8 7 - ' 8 8 . The c h i l d ' s name i s ____ I w ill ca ll you a t 5 3 8 - 1 0 6 0 to d iscu ss t h is change. I w i s h t o r e q u e s t an i n s t r u c t i o n a l t r a n s f e r t o _________________ In term ed iate School. Parent Signature Please return by April 30, 1987. � 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 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Description An account of the resource RG69 contains information related to the integration of Arlington County Public Schools including the history, redistricting, pupil distribution, and boundary maps. The collection was donated by Lisa Farberstein, Director of Community Service and Public Information for the Arlington County Public Schools 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 Draft letter and form (Option 2) to be sent to Nauck parents concerning the option of transferring students to Williamsburg Intermediate School, April 8, 1987. Description An account of the resource Draft letter and form (Option 2) to be sent to Nauck parents concerning the option of transferring students to Williamsburg Intermediate School, April 8, 1987. 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 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Arlington Public Schools, Williamsburg Intermediate School, William A. Michael 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 69_3_1_11_25 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/f856fad20e263422496c2d53310e744b.pdf 3b90e98a6e796c9ccb39c093078f774e PDF Text Text UtUramfihunj Jntmitpftiatp ^rhnol 3600 N. Harrison Street, Arlington, Virginia 22207 Phone: (703) 538-1060 A p ril Dear Mr. 8, 1987 and Mrs. Re: On March 1 9, 1 9 8 7 , t h e A r l i n g t o n C o u n t y S c h o o l B o a r d r e d e f i n e d t h e a t t e n d a n c e a r e a f o r e l e m e n t a r y and i n t e r m e d i a t e s c h o o l s t u d e n t s who l i v e i n t h e Nauk c o m m u n i t y . As a r e s u l t o f t h i s r e d i s t r i c t i n g , th e i n t e r m e d i a t e s c h o o l s e r v i n g your a d d r e s s i s Swanson I n t e r m e d i a t e S c h o o l , 5 8 0 0 W a s h i n g t o n B l v d . , ph one n u m b e r , 5 3 8 - 1 1 0 0 . I s i n c e r e l y r e g r e t any i n c o n v e n i e n c e d e c i s i o n c a u s e s you a n d ___________________ . th is School B oa rd I f y o u v/is h t o a t t e n d W i l l i a m s b u r g , y o u may do s o u n d e r two c o n d i t i o n s p e r m i t t e d by t h e S c h o o l B o a r d P o l i c i e s : 1. I f t h e r e i s an o l d e r c h i l d i n y o u r f a m i l y who w i l l be a t t e n d i n g W illia m sb u r g in ' 8 7 - ' 8 8 . 2. You may r e q u e s t an i n s t r u c t i o n a l t r a n s f e r f r o m Sw an son t o W i l l i a m s b u r g , J e f f e r s o n o r Ke nm or e. I w o u l d a p p r e c i a t e y o u r c o m p l e t i n g t h e fo r m e n c l o s e d and r e t u r n i n g i t t o me i n t h e e n c l o s e d r e t u r n e n v e l o p e b y A p r i l 3 0 , 1987 . F o r y o u r i n f o r m a t i o n , W a s h in g t o n - L e e High S c h o o l w i l l s e r v e y o u r a d d r e s s a s a r e s u l t o f t h e S c h o o l B oar d a c t i o n on March 1 9 , 1 9 8 7 . �TO: Mr. Michael FROM: _______________________________ RE: _______________________________ ( S t u d e n t ' s Name) (P lease check o n ly on e.) I u n d e r s t a n d t h e c h a n g e and r e q u e s t t h a t _____________ s c h e d u l e be s e n t t o Swanson. I understand t h a t the Sw an son G u i d a n c e s t a f f w i l l c o n t a c t me a b o u t t h e sch ed ule fo r '8T -'88. We h a v e an o l d e r s o n o r d a u g h t e r who w i l l be a t W illiam sb urg as a s tu d e n t in ' 8 7 - ' 8 8 . The c h i l d ' s name i s ________________________________ I w ill ca ll I w ish to you a t 5 3 8 -1 0 6 0 to d iscu ss th is change. r e q u e s t an i n s t r u c t i o n a l t r a n s f e r t o In term ed iate S c h o o l. P arent Sign ature Please return by April 30, 1987. � 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 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Description An account of the resource RG69 contains information related to the integration of Arlington County Public Schools including the history, redistricting, pupil distribution, and boundary maps. The collection was donated by Lisa Farberstein, Director of Community Service and Public Information for the Arlington County Public Schools 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 Draft letter and form (Option 2) to be sent to Nauck parents concerning the option of transferring students to Williamsburg Intermediate School, April 8, 1987. Description An account of the resource Draft letter and form (Option 2) to be sent to Nauck parents concerning the option of transferring students to Williamsburg Intermediate School, April 8, 1987. 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 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Arlington Public Schools, Williamsburg Intermediate School, William A. Michael 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 69_3_1_11_27