1 20 1839 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/630c0a383bbd4cafac53907a7c212c5a.pdf 64da97e30e6f30c5822fe85988b98a65 PDF Text Text Jus ides Let Norfolk End Court-Ordered Busing Plan By A1 Kamen and Donald P. Baker Washington Post Staff W riters T h e S uprem e C ourt, in a m ove th a t m ay spur efforts to d ism an tle school busing p ro g ra m s, allow ed N orfolk y esterd ay to b ec o m e th e firs t school d istrict in th e c o u n try to en d c o u rt-o rd ered busing of e le m e n ta ry pupils. T h e ju stices issued no ruling b u t sim ply let stan d a decision la st F e b ru a ry by the 4th U.S. C ircu it C o u rt of A ppeals in Richm ond th a t p e r m itte d Norfolk to end its 1 5 -yearold busing program . N orfolk officials b egan a “n eig h borhood schools" policy th is fall for e le m e n ta ry schools in o r d e r to s te m w hite flight from the m ajority-black school system . A t th e sam e tim e, th e ju stice s, also w ithout explanation, le t s ta n d a so m e w h at co n tradictory ruling by th e 10th U.S. C ircuit C o u rt of Ap p ea ls in D enver last Ju n e th a t had blocked O klahom a C ity ’s plan to end busing. T h e mixed sig n als left b o th sides guessing as to th e high c o u rt’s thinking on th e basic issues. But law yers on both sid e s a g re e d th at, a t a m inim um , a n u m b e r of school d istric ts now w ould b e te m p te d to try to em u late N orfolk’s exam ple and re tu rn to c o u r t to en d busing plans. T h e 4 th C irc u it’s jurisdiction technically e x te n d s only to M ary land, V irginia, W e st V irginia and th e C arolinas. Ja m es M. N a b rit III, a law yer with th e N A ACP L egal D efen se and E ducational F und, Inc., anticip ates fu rth e r litigation a s a re s u lt of the c o u rt’s actions. “We w an t school d istric ts who try to e m u la te Norfolk to know th a t w e will furnish [black p aren ts] w ith la w y e rs,” he said. “T h ey o u g h t to know th a t w e a re going to be in th e re fig h tin g .” In both th e 4 th an d th e 10th cirSee NORFOLK, A8, Col. 1 m Supreme Court sets back stale elforts to restrict abortion. Page AH �Supreme Court Lets Norfolk Limit School busing N O RFOLK, From A t cuits the underlying question was: at what point does a federal court's supervision over a previously seg regated school system cease? In Riddick v. School Board of Nor folk, the Richmond appeals court said its decision to permit the board to impose the neighborhood plan was limited, “applicable only to those school systems which have succeeded in eradicating all ves tiges’’ of segregated schools. In those systems, the school boards and not the federal courts, will run the schools,” the court said. But the Denver court, in Board of Education of the Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Doiccll, sharply dis agreed with the Richmond court's reasoning. It ruled that any changes in a court-ordered desegregation plan must be carefully reviewed at a full hearing and that judges should be careful to ensure that integrated systems remain integrated. The justices, who have not issued a school busing ruling since 1979, have been reluctant to thrust them selves into these cases unless there appeared to be a consensus on a rul ing. Otherwise, the court would only further complicate an already complex question. Former solicitor general Rex E. Lee, an attorney for the Oklahoma City board of education, said it was “ironic, but it sometimes happens, that really important cases arc sometimes too important, and the justices prefer to let it simmer awhile and wait for a later period." The Norfolk plan, which went into effect in September, ended a 16-year-old program of busing for integration. Under the plan. 18,000 pupils in kindergarten through the fifth grade, 57 percent of them black, were assigned to the schools nearest their homes. The school board pledged to continue cross city busing for integration in grades 6 through 12. The reassignment made 10 of the city's 36 elementary schools virtu* ally all-black, with no school more than 70 percent white. Blacks in Norfolk were divided on yesterday's court action, as they have been for years. Lucy R. Wilson, one of the three black members of the seven-mem ber Norfolk school board that voted unanimously to end busing for pri mary grades, said she is “still a pro ponent of busing, and probably al ways will be, as the best way . . . . On the other hand, attempts to con tinue the busing plan have been foiled, and we have to live with that. "The neighborhood plan is going well, and some of the compromises that we got in our negotiations with the administration and the board have yielded some very good things for black children.” Henry L. Marsh III, a lawyer who brought the original court action in behalf of 22 black parents, foresees "tragic days for black Americans when the Supreme Court condones racial segregation in 1986.” Marsh vowed that "the battle is not over yet. Blacks arc still com mitted to fight segregation in Nor folk.” Board member Wilson, associate vice president for student services at Old Dominion University, said the compromises won by the black board members before lending their sup port to the board's decision last l SUPREME COURT CALENDAR The Supreme Court will hear oral argum ent today from 10 a.m. to 3 p. m. in the following cases: N o . 851217. C t y o f S p o r g f t k J * 0»il nghty Whether a city may bo Juc<J foe negligent t/aming alter police, ctusing a Iteemg knjnaper by automoWe. Jhot and lulled him rather than shooting out the tires. (1 hr.) No. 85-1088. B u r l i n g t o n N o r t h e r n R j i l r o j d C o . v W o o d s . Equal protection. Constitutionality ol a state taw penalising defendants who lose appeals in crwl cases but not unsuccessful plaintiffs. (1 hr ) No. 85-1233. I n t e r n j b o n j l P j p e r C o. v . O u e l l e t t e . Water Pollution Control Act. Whether property owners harmed by water pollution may sue the polluter m Uie federal court in wlujse iunsd<tion the damage was done or must sue m the polluter's home state. (I hr.) No. 85-781. B u r k e v. B s r n e s . Pocket veto Whether members of Congress may use the courts to cnaHenge the president's pocket veto ol legislation (1 hr) K tO O e. I I ___________ spring include a parental involve ment plan that is working well. It shows low-income black parents how to help their children study; gives them a calendar of daily events at school, and offers them a chance to perform tasks in the classroom. Another of the compromises, proposed by board member G. Wes ley Hardy, is a voluntary, afterschool, multicultural program de signed to bring the races together. It has been oversubscribed since school opened two months ago and there are more than 300 children on the waiting list. Since Oct. 1. about 3,000 third-, fourth- and fifth-graders, two-thirds of them black, are bused to one of a dozen schools out of their neighbor hoods four afternoons a week for extra study in language, math, sci ence, music and art, in an inte grated setting. Attorney Marsh, a former Rich mond mayor and now a member of the City Council there, dismissed the after-school program as some of the "little booby prizes that arc not fooling anyone." He said enrichment programs “all could have been done in integrated schools as well.” Last week, the school system an nounced it had hired Dr. James P. Comer, a nationally recognized black educator who is associate dean of the medical school and head of the child study center at Yak University, to work with school of ficials on improving test scores. Comer, who has worked for the Prince George's County. Md.. and New Haven, Conn., school systems in a similar capacity, visited Norfolk last week, and will make periodic visits to Norfolk, as well as invite Norfolk teachers to study with him. George Raiss, school board clerk and spokesman for the 36.000-pupil system, said a goal of the plan was to "stem out-migration" from the Norfolk system, but said "it's too early to say that white flight is over." After the advent of busing in 1970, the Norfolk schools went from 60 percent white to the current 57 percent black. The Justice Department, which had entered both cases on the anti busing side, felt the court's action fa vored its view. “It is always risky business to infer anything from the court’s .action” when there is no opin ion, said spokesman Terry II. Eastland. “But we are pleased the (Nor folk] ruling was left standing.” Eastland said the Oklahoma case involved more of a procedural question. Norman Chachkin, also a lawyer with the NAACP defense fund, which represented the black parents in both cases, said it was "far too early to say the lid is o ff and school sys tems arc free to "resegregate.” , | \ j I ' | ; � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 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 Newspaper article, "Justices Let Norfolk End Court-Ordered Busing Plan", Washington Post, November 4, 1986, pg. A1. Description An account of the resource Newspaper article, "Justices Let Norfolk End Court-Ordered Busing Plan", Washington Post, November 4, 1986, pg. A1. 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 Washington Post, Al Kamen and Donald P. Baker 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_56 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/d244a3a90da063472e13c38f887ea1f6.pdf 5f1df27d7d4c5dd0f0527ba5c37f1d41 PDF Text Text ARLINGTON FUBLIC SCHOOLS TRANSPORTATION 2770 SOUTH TA“LCR STS ITT ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 222Co Qc MEMORANDUM TO: FROM, be ^Margarec Heckard f Thomas A. Newman, Jr., Superv i s o r o r T? sP 9. 1936 o r ^ clon - s cudencs C ra n s SU3JECT: Scudencs cransporced for desegragJc *cn _ ... . . h a fS Hasegregac ion: The t o l l o w mig is a break down bv school of cha tiu®[ g oc a by n°a porced during che emenCary - 257 Ab ingdon Ash lawn Barcrofc Jamestown Long Branch McKinley Noc c ingham Oakridge Randolph Taylor Tuckanoe , 1935-36 school year for che p u r?c scudencs 56 10 65 9 23 6 5 35 25 9 9 Intermediate - 104 scudencs Kenmore 4 1 Swanson 15 Williamsburg 43 Senior High - 104 scudencs W - L 49 Yorkcown 55 Tocal syscem wide - 465 ‘itecloJjW ’ oi o S ^ , ^ k ld h C to � 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 Memorandum: to Margaret Heckard from Thomas A. Newman, Jr., Supervisor of Transportation, "Students transported for desegregation", October 9, 1986. Description An account of the resource Listing by schools and number of students with handwritten notes. 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, Department of Transportation. 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_54 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/c73c29b40edbde1fb287d7f33e627daa.pdf 977a3372e27a45f90ed29c0bf71bab97 PDF Text Text ARLINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS October 27, 1986 Ms. C i n d y Perry A s s i s t a n t County Attor n e y 1400 N. C o u r t House Road, R o o m 106 Arlington, V A 22201 Dear Ms. Perry: I hope the enclosed documents will be hel p f u l as you analyze our current status on desegregation, particularly in light of the Norfolk Decision. I am sending y o u the breakdown of Page, H-B Woodlawn, and Drew students into home schools. I am also sending the number of students c u r r e n t l y transported o u t of their home school districts. Although the October, 1986 memorandum indicates that they are transported for the purpose of desegregation, we do not have information regarding their races. T h e A p r i l 30, 1986, statistics indicate the breakdown, by grade, of Nauck area black students, into schools where they are bussed. The total number of black students in each school is also shown. The civil rights statistics show the c u r r e n t breakdown by school membership into five ethnic groups. P l e a s e let me know if I may be of help in providing any other information. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, V i r g i n i a C. Vertiz, Ph.D. Enclosures VCV:jh 1426 N. QUINCY STREET - ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22207 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 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 Letter to Ms. Cindy Perry, Assistant County Attorney, from Virginia C. Vertiz, Ph. D., October 27, 1986. Description An account of the resource Cover letter about documents enclosed with statistics on Page, H-B Woodlawn and Drew students that breakdown by grade, of Nauck area black students and into the schools they are bussed. Includes civil rights statistics that show breakdown by school membership into five ethnic groups. 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, Virginia C. Vertiz 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_50 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/f6daf0dbca9b5856df176cdbb633b86a.pdf 1997fefeb843d5fb870cf9b9dd1296fa PDF Text Text H A R T v. C O U N T Y S C H O O L B O A R D OF A R L I N G T O N CO., VIRGINIA 981 C ite a s 450 K.2d 981 (1972) w e a r e c o n s tr a in e d by th e S u p re m e C o u r t’s c le a r h o ld in g in T o w n s e n d v. S a in , 3 7 2 U .S . 2 9 3 , 83 S .C t. 745, 9 L .E d . 2d 770 ( 1 9 6 3 ), to v a c a te a n d re m a n d f o r an e v i d e n ti a r y d e te r m in a tio n o f a p p e l la n t’s a l le g a tio n s .3 G erzin v. B e to , 4 5 9 F .2 d 671 ( 5 th C ir., 1 9 7 2 ). W e in t i m a t e no o p in io n a s to th e m a n n e r o r f o rm o f th e p ro c e e d in g s b y w h ic h a p p e lla n t’s a lle g a tio n s a r e e v a lu a te d . S e e M a c h ib ro d a v. U n ite d S ta te s , 386 U .S . 487, 82 S .C t. 510, 7 L .E d .2 d 473 ( 1 9 6 2 ) ; Townsend., supra. T h e ju d g m e n t o f th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t is v a c a te d a n d th e c a se re m a n d e d f o r f u r th e r p r o c e e d in g s n o t in c o n s is te n t h e r e w ith . V a c a te d a n d re m a n d e d w ith tio n s. in s tru c K N MIt SSC (T U B TTM C o u r t o f A p p ea ls h eld t h a t w h e r e , u n d e r p ro p o s e d u n ita r y sch o o l s y s te m p lan , f e w e r b lack s tu d e n ts w o u ld be tr a n s p o r te d t h a n w h ite s tu d e n ts , a lth o u g h a v e r a g e tim e o f tr a v e l f o r b lack s t u d e n t s m ig h t be s o m e w h a t g r e a t e r th a n a v e r a g e tim e o f tr a v e l f o r w h ite s tu d e n ts , a n d f o r m e r ly a ll-b la c k e le m e n ta ry sc h o o ls w o u ld b e c o n tin u e d a s sp e c ia l p u rp o s e sch o o ls to w h ic h p re d o m in a n tly w h ite s t u d e n t p o p u la tio n w o u ld be tr a n s p o r te d , p la n w a s n o t d is c r im in a to r y on th e o r y t h a t b u r d e n o f t r a n s f e r a n d tr a n s p o r t a t i o n fe ll m o re h e a v ily on b lack s tu d e n ts . A ff ir m e d . 1. Schools and School Districts €=13 In p ro v id in g f o r t h e t r a n s i t i o n fro m a d u a l s y s te m o f sc h o o ls to a u n i t a r y s y s te m , school o f fic ia ls a n d th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t p o sse ss a m e a s u r e o f d is c r e tio n how s y s te m to b e d is m a n tle d is to b e r e a r r a n g e d , in c lu d in g w h a t sc h o o ls a r e to be c o n tin u e d to b e u se d , so lo n g a s th e en d p r o d u c t is a u n ita r y s y s te m . 2. Schools and School Districts €=>154 John K. HART et al„ Appellants, v. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ARLING TON COUNTY, VIRGINIA, and Robert L. Chisolm, Division Superintendent of Schools for the County of Arlington, Appellees. No. 71-1791. U n ite d S ta te s C o u r t o f A p p eals, F o u r t h C irc u it. A rg u e d A p ril 13, 1972. D e c id e d M a y 1, 1972. T h e U n ite d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r the E a s te r n D i s t r i c t o f V ir g in ia , O re n R. L ew is, J ., a p p r o v e d a u n i t a r y sc h o o l system p la n , a n d a p p e a l w a s ta k e n . T h e 3 The need for mi evidentiary hearing does not arise in every ease. Townsend v. Sain. 372 U.S. 293. 83 S.Ct. 745. 9 L. Ed.2d 770 (19t!3). Where the reeord be fore the distriet court is sufficiently de veloped. the court may enter summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings as may be warranted. Here the Attornev W h e re , u n d e r p ro p o sed u n ita ry sc h o o l s y s te m p la n , f e w e r b la c k s t u d e n t s w o u ld b e tr a n s p o r te d t h a n w h i t e s t u d e n ts , a lth o u g h a v e r a g e tim e o f t r a v e l f o r b la c k s tu d e n ts m ig h t be s o m e w h a t g r e a t e r t h a n a v e r a g e tim e o f tr a v e l f o r w h ite s t u d e n t s , a n d f o rm e r ly a ll-b la c k e le m e n t a r y sc h o o ls w o u ld be c o n tin u e d a s s p e c ia l p u r p o s e sch o o ls to w h ic h p r e d o m i n a n tly w h i t e s t u d e n t p o p u la tio n w o u ld b e t r a n s p o r te d , p la n w a s n o t d i s c r i m i n a t o r y on t h e o r y t h a t b u rd e n o f t r a n s f e r a n d t r a n s p o r t a t i o n fell m o re h e a v ily o n b la c k s t u d e n ts . L a w r e n c e J . L a tto , W a s h in g to n , D . C. ( S . W . T u c k e r, H e n ry L. M a rs h , I I I , a n d H ill, T u c k e r & M a rsh , R ic h m o n d , V a., General's rosjionsr to the distriet court's show cause order was in the form of no tice pleadings containing contrary allega tions and denials. It was not supple mented with documentary records and without more was an insufficient basis to render judgment. �982 459 F E D E R A L R E P O R T E R , 2d S E R IE S R o b e rt M . A le x a n d e r , A r lin g to n , V ’a., w h ic h a p la n f o r a u n i t a r y sy stem should A lliso n W . B ro w n , J r . , W a s h in g to n , D. b e d e s ig n e d to o b v ia te . W e disagree. C. , Ja c k G re e n b e rg , Ja m e s M. N a b rit, III, [I] In p ro v id in g f o r th e transition a n d N o rm a n C h a c h k in , N e\v Y o rk C ity , on f ro m a d u al s y s te m o f sch o o ls to a unitary b r i e f ) , f o r a p p e lla n ts . s y s te m , school o f f ic ia ls a n d th e district J a m e s H . S im m o n d s , A r l in g to n , V a . c o u r t p o sse ss a m e a s u r e o f d isc re tio n how (Gregory U . E v a n s , A r lin g to n , V a., a n d th e s y s te m to be d is m a n tle d is to be re a r r a n g e d , in c lu d in g w h a t schools a re to be R. D. M c IIw a in e , I I I , R ic h m o n d , V a ., o n c o n tin u e d to be u se d , so lo n g a s the end b r i e f ) , f o r a p p e lle e s . p r o d u c t is a u n i t a r y s y s te m . Brow n v W illia m H . A lle n , J o h n B. J o n e s , J r . , B o a rd o f E d u c a tio n , 349 U .S . 294, 75 a n d C o v in g to n & B u r lin g , W a s h in g to n , S .C t. 753, 99 L .E d . 1083 ( 1 9 5 5 ) ; Swann D. C., on b r i e f , f o r a m ic u s c u r ia e , v. C h a rlo tte -M e c k le n b u r g B oard of A r l in g to n C o u n c il o n H u m a n R e la tio n s , E d u c a tio n , 402 U .S . 1, 91 S .C t. 1267, 28 A r l in g to n E d u c a t i o n A s s n ., A r l in g to n L .E d . 554 ( 1 9 7 1 ) ; A d a m s v. School Dis H e a lth a n d W e lf a r e C o u n c il, A r l in g to n t r i c t N o. 5, 444 F .2 d 99 (4 C ir. 1971b V iew C iv ic A s s n ., L e a g u e o f W o m e n c e r t, d en ied , W in s to n -S a le m F orsyth V o te r s o f A r l i n g t o n , N a u c k C iv ic A s s n C o u n ty B o a rd o f E d u c a tio n v. S cott, 404 N o r t h e r n V a . C e n te r f o r S o cia l D e v e lo p U .S . 912, 92 S .C t. 230, 3 0 L .E d.2d 186 m en t ( f o u r p a ris h e s : O ur L ady of ( 1 9 7 1 ). O f c o u rs e , w h e n th e discretion L o u rd e s , O u r L a d y Q u e e n o f P e a c e , S t. is e x e rc is e d in su c h a m a n n e r a s to create A n n ’s, a n d S t. C h a r le s ) N o r t h e r n V a. a n o t h e r fo rm o f in v id io u s d isc rim in a tio n , C h a p te r o f t h e A m e r ic a n C iv il L i b e r t i e s ju d ic ia l in te r v e n tio n to r e d r e s s th at U n io n o f V a ., P o s itiv e A c tio n C o m m itte e w ro n g w ill s u r e ly fo llo w . G re e n v. School f o r E d u c a tio n , R o c k S p r in g C o n g r e g a B o a rd o f C ity o f R o a n o k e , 316 F.Supp. tio n a l C h u r c h B d . o f S o c ia l A c tio n , ‘‘S u p 6 (W .D .V a .1 9 7 0 ), r e v e r s e d on other p o r t C h r i s t i a n A c tio n ” H o u se o f th e g ro u n d s , 428 F .2 d 811 (4 C ir. 1970). L itt le F a lls P r e s b y t e r i a n C h u rc h . See also, A llen v. A s h e v ille C ity Board o f E d u c a tio n , 434 F .2 d 902 (4 C ir. 1970). B e fo re H A Y N S W O R T H , C h ie f J u d g e , and BRYAN. W IN T E R , CRAVEN, R U S S E L L a n d F I E L D , C i r c u it J u d g e s , in b an c . P E R C U R IA M : In th is a p p e a l, a p la n , a p p ro v e d b y th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t, to a c h ie v e a u n i t a r y sc h o o l s y s te m in A r l in g to n C o u n ty is a t ta c k e d b e c a u s e tw o f o r m e r ly a ll-b la c k e le m e n ta r y sch o o ls h a v e b e e n c o n v e rte d in to s p e c ia l p u rp o s e sc h o o ls, a n d th e b la ck p u p ils w h o fo rm e r ly a t t e n d e d th e m h a v e b e e n a s s ig n e d a n d a r e b e in g tr a n s p o r te d to o t h e r fo rm e rly a ll- w h ite sc h o o ls. I t is a r g u e d th a t , f a c tu a lly , t h e p la n is d is c r i m in a to r y b e c a u se th e b u r d e n o f t r a n s f e r a n d t r a n s p o r ta tio n f a lls m o re h e a v ily o n th e b la c k s tu d e n ts t h a n o n th e w h ite s tu d e n ts , th u s p e r p e tu a ti n g ■ th e s ti g m a o f i n f e r i o r i t y [2 ] In th e i n s t a n t c a se , h o w ever, we d o n o t p erc eiv e a n y in v id io u s d isc rim in a tio n . In th e e n t i r e s y s te m , w hich is sm a ll g e o g ra p h ic a lly , f e w e r b la c k stu d e n ts w ill be tr a n s p o r te d t h a n w h ite stu d e n ts, a lth o u g h th e a v e r a g e tim e o f tra v e l fo r b la c k s tu d e n ts m a y b e s o m e w h a t g r e a te r t h a n th e a v e ra g e tim e o f tr a v e l f o r w h ite s tu d e n ts . T h e f o rm e r ly a ll-b la c k elem en t a r y schools w ill n o t be c lo s e d ; th e y will b e c o n tin u e d a s s p e c ia l p u rp o s e schools. T h e y w ill h av e a p r e d o m in a n tly w h ite s tu d e n t p o p u la tio n w h ic h w ill b e tr a n s p o r te d to th e m . In a d d itio n , o t h e r w h ite s tu d e n ts a r e tr a n s p o r te d to r e g u la r schools in o th e r p a r ts o f th e s y s te m . I t cannot, th e r e f o r e , be sa id t h a t w h ite s tu d e n ts will a t te n d “ n e ig h b o rh o o d ” sc h o o ls to a n y g r e a t e r e x te n t th a n b la ck s tu d e n ts . A ffirm e d . �H A R T v. COUNTY SCH OO L B O A R D O F A R L IN G T O N CO., V IR G IN IA 953 CiU- h k 32(1 K.Supp. 053 (1071) q u e s te d d i s a b i l i t y in s u r a n c e b e n e f its . T h e p l a i n t i f f h a s fa lle n s h o r t o f m e e tin g h is b u r d e n o f s h o w in g t h a t he is p re s e n tly u n a b le to e n g a g e in a n y s u b s ta n tia l g a i n f u l a c tiv ity . In fa c t, th e m o st r e c e n t m e d ic a l r e p o r ts c o n c e rn in g th e p l a i n t i f f ’s c o n d itio n w ould seem to show q u ite t h e o p p o s ite to be th e c a se . A c c o rd in g ly , su m m ary ju d g m e n t should b e a n d h e r e b y is g r a n te d to th e d e fe n d a n t. w o u ld b e r e q u ir e d to s p e n d a b o u t a n h o u r a d a y b e in g b u se d to a n d f r o m sch o o ls a w a y fro m t h e i r n e ig h b o rh o o d s . P la n a p p ro v e d . 1. Schools and School Districts ©=13 P r im a r y r e s p o n s ib ility f o r s o lv in g p ro b le m s o f c o n v e rs io n to u n i t a r y sch o o l s y s te m r e s t s w ith sch o o l b o a rd , a n d i t h a s d u ty to ta k e w h a te v e r s te p s a r e n e c e s s a r y to c o n v e rt to a u n i t a r y s y s te m b e f o r e J u ly 1, 1971. 2. Schools and School Districts ©=13 John E. HART et al„ Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ARLING TON COUNTY, VIRGINIA, e t al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. I93-70-A. U n ite d S ta te s D is tric t C o u rt, E . D. V irg in ia , A le x a n d r ia D ivision. A u g . 10, 1971. S u it w a s b r o u g h t to r e q u ir e c o u n ty school b o a r d to a d o p t an d f o r th w it h im p lem en t p la n w h ic h w ould p ro m p tly and e f f ic ie n tly c o m p le te e lim in a tio n o f racial s e g r e g a ti o n in p u b lic sch o o ls o f county. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u rt, O re n R . Lewis, J . , h e ld t h a t w h e r e p la n f o r d e s e g re g a tin g tw o e le m e n ta r y sch o o ls a n d a s sig n in g th o s e p u p ils to e le m e n ta ry schools th r o u g h o u t th e school s y s te m elim in ated r a c ia l s e g r e g a ti o n a n d th e lim ited b u s in g o f th o s e p u p ils n e i t h e r risked h e a lth o f c h ild r e n n o r s i g n i f i cantly im p in g e d o n e d u c a tio n a l p ro c e ss, the p a tte r n o f a s s ig n m e n t did n o t v io la te equal p r o te c tio n c la u s e o f F o u r te e n th A m endm ent a n d p la n w o u ld be a p p ro v e d despite c la im t h a t all b u rd e n s w e re imposed e n t ir e ly o n b la c k c h ild re n a n d th eir p a r e n t s s in c e w h ite s w ould c o n tinue to a t t e n d sc h o o ls in th e i r ow n n eig h b o rh o o d s w h ile b la ck c h ild re n 329 F.Supp — 6OV1 C o n s titu tio n a l d e m a n d to d e s e g r e g a t e sch o o ls d o es n o t m e a n t h a t e v e ry sc h o o l in e v e ry c o m m u n ity m u s t a lw a y s r e f le c t r a c ia l c o m p o s itio n o f school s y s te m a s a w hole. 3. Constitutional Law 0=220 Schools and School Districts 0=159'/J W h e re p la n f o r d e s e g r e g a tin g tw o e le m e n ta r y sc h o o ls a n d a s s i g n i n g th o s e p u p ils to e le m e n ta ry sc h o o ls th r o u g h o u t th e sch o o l s y s te m e lim in a te d ra c ia l s e g r e g a ti o n a n d th e lim ite d b u s in g o f th o s e p u p ils n e i t h e r r is k e d h e a lth o f c h ild r e n n o r s ig n i f ic a n t ly im p in g e d on e d u c a tio n a l p ro c e ss, t h e p a t t e r n o f a s s ig n m e n t d id n o t v io la te e q u a l p r o te c tio n c la u s e o f F o u r te e n t h A m e n d m e n t a n d p la n w o u ld b e a p p ro v e d d e s p ite c la im t h a t a ll b u r d e n s w e re im p o s e d e n tir e ly o n b la c k c h ild re n a n d t h e i r p a r e n t s sin c e w h ite s w o u ld c o n tin u e to a t t e n d sch o o ls in t h e i r o w n n e ig h b o rh o o d s w h ile b la ck c h ild r e n w o u ld b e r e q u ir e d to sp e n d a b o u t a n h o u r a d a y b e in g b u s e d to an d f r o m sc h o o ls a w a y f ro m t h e i r n e ig h b o r h o o d s. U .S .C .A .C o n st. A m e n d . 14. S. W . T u c k e r, H e n r y L . M a rs h , I I I , H ill, T u c k e r & M a rs h , R ic h m o n d , V a., R o b e r t M. A le x a n d e r, A r l in g to n , V a., L a r r y L a tto , A lliso n W . B ro w n . J r ., W a s h in g to n , D. C., J a c k G re e n b e rg , J a m e s M. N a b r i t , I I I , N o r m a n C h a c h k in , N e w Y o rk C ity , f o r p l a i n t i f f s . R . D. M c llw a in e , I I I , R ic h m o n d , V a., J a m e s H . S im m o n d s, G r e g o ry U lr ic h E v a n s , A rlin g to n , V a ., f o r d e f e n d a n ts . �954 329 F E D E R A L S U P P L E M E N T M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N AN D ORDER O R E N R . L E W I S , D is tr ic t J u d g e . T h e b la c k p l a i n t i f f s b r o u g h t t h i s s u i t in M a y o f 1970 1 to r e q u ir e th e A r l i n g to n C o u n ty S ch o o l B o a rd to a d o p t a n d f o r t h w i t h im p le m e n t a p la n w h ic h w o u ld p r o m p tly a n d e f f ic ie n tly c o m p le te th e e lim in a tio n o f ra c ia l s e g r e g a ti o n in th e p u b lic s c h o o ls o f A rlin g to n C o u n ty . T h e A r l in g to n C o u n ty S ch o o l B o a rd d id j u s t t h a t — in J u n e o f 1971— w h e n i t a d o p te d th e p la n f o r d e s e g r e g a tin g D re w a n d H o ff m a n -B o s to n E le m e n ta r y S ch o o ls. B r ie f l y s t a t e d , th e p la n p r o v id e s t h a t th e s t u d e n t s in g r a d e s o n e th r o u g h s ix o f D re w a n d H o ff m a n -B o s to n w ill b e a s s ig n e d to e le m e n ta r y sch o o ls th r o u g h o u t th e A r l i n g t o n sc h o o l sy s te m . K in d e r g a r t e n s w ill c o n tin u e a t b o th D re w a n d H o f f m a n - B o s to n . N o p r e s e n t sc h o o l b o u n d a r ie s w ill b e c h a n g e d . A sc h o o l w ill n o t b e a s s ig n e d s tu d e n ts in s u c h n u m b e rs t h a t i t s to ta l e n r o llm e n t w ill ex ceed i t s r a t e d c a p a c ity b y m o re t h a n fiv e p e r c e n t. E v e r y e le m e n ta ry sc h o o l w ill b e i n t e g r a t e d . T r a n s p o r ta t io n w ill b e f u r n i s h e d w h e r e n e c e s sa ry . T h e D re w b u ild in g w ill be u se d f o r a m odel sc h o o l, to b e o p e ra te d on a n i n t e g r a te d b a s is — f o r th e M o n te s o r ri p r e k in d e r g a r t e n , th e D re w k in d e r g a r t e n , a d u lt e d u c a tio n a n d f o r o th e r sc h o o l p ro g ra m s. T h e H o ffm a n -B o s to n b u ild in g w ill b e u s e d f o r th e H o ff m a n -B o s to n p r e - k in d e r g a r te n , k in d e r g a r te n a n d f o r th e s e v e n th g r a d e o f th e T h o m a s J e f f e r s o n ( i n t e g r a t e d ) J u n i o r H ig h S ch o o l. T h e S c h o o l B o a rd h a s , a s sh o w n b y th e ta b le a p p e n d e d h e re to , e lim in a te d th e la s t v e s tig e s o f th e old d u a l school s y s te m a n d h a s c o n v e r te d to a u n i t a r y s y s te m th r o u g h o u t th e C o u n ty . [1 ] N o o n e s e rio u s ly q u e s tio n s t h a t th e p r i m a r y r e s p o n s ib ility f o r s o lv in g th e s e p r o b le m s r e s ts w ith th e S ch o o l B o a rd ( B r o w n I I , 349 U .S. 294, 75 S .C t. 753, 99 L .E d . 1083 ( 1 9 5 5 ) ) — o r t h a t it I. The hearing in this case was deliberateIy postponed awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court in the then pending school cases. h a s th e d u ty to ta k e w h a te v e r ste p s m ight be n e c e s s a ry to c o n v e r t to a u n ita r y sys te m (G re e n v. C o u n ty S chool B oard, 391 U .S . 430, 88 S .C t. 1689, 20 L .E d .2 d 716 ( 1 9 6 8 ) ) — o r t h a t i t m u s t do it on or b e fo re J u ly 1, 1971 ( A d a m s v. School D is tr ic t N u m b e r 5, 4 4 4 F .2 d 99 (4th C ir. J u n e 10, 1 9 7 1 ). P a r a p h r a s i n g J u d g e C ra v e n in Allen v. A sh ev ille C ity B o a rd o f E d u catio n , 434 F .2 d 902 ( 4 t h C ir. 1 9 7 0 ), i t is plain to see t h a t th e A r l in g to n C o u n ty School B o a rd h a s g o n e f u r t h e r d o w n th e road to w a r d d e s e g r e g a tio n t h a n a n y school b o a rd h a s e v e r b e e n co m p e lle d to go, and p ro b a b ly m u c h f u r t h e r th a n could be re q u ir e d . N e v e rth e le s s , th e p l a i n t i f f s f a u lt the S chool B o a rd ’s p la n *— T h e y sa y all of th e b u r d e n s a n d in c o n v e n ie n c e s o f the d e s e g r e g a tio n p ro ce ss are im posed e n tir e ly on th e b la c k c h ild r e n a n d th e ir p a r e n ts — W h ite c h i ld r e n w ill c o n tin u e to do j u s t w h a t th e y a r e d o in g — a tte n d in g sc h o o ls in t h e i r o w n n e ig h b o rh o o d s , w hile th e b lack c h ild r e n w ill b e r e q u ire d to sp e n d a b o u t a n h o u r a d a y b e in g b u sed to a n d fro m sc h o o ls a w a y fro m th e ir n e ig h b o rh o o d s — T h e y s a y th is w ill have a n a d v e rs e e f f e c t o n th e b la c k c h ild re n b y c a u s in g th e m to b e lie v e t h a t th e y a re d i f f e r e n t fro m w h ite c h ild r e n — t h a t th ey a r e no good. T h e y f u r t h e r s a y th e c lo s in g o f th e b la c k sch o o ls a m o u n ts to a n u n la w fu l d is c r im in a tio n a g a i n s t t h e b la c k ch ild ren — w h e n th e r e q u i r e d d e s e g r e g a tio n can b e a c c o m p lish e d b y o t h e r m e a n s, such a3 in te r c h a n g i n g a lik e n u m b e r o f black a n d w h ite c h ild r e n b e tw e e n th e a d ja c e n t w h ite sch o o ls— o r, i f n e c e s s a r y , b etw een a ll o f th e o th e r e l e m e n ta r y sch o o ls in th e C o u n ty . T h is C o u r t r e j e c t s th e p l a i n t i f f s ’ con te n tio n t h a t th e A r l in g to n C o u n ty S ch o o l B o a rd u n la w f u lly d is c rim in a te d a g a i n s t th e b la c k c h ild r e n w h e n i t de s e g r e g a te d th e D re w a n d H o ffm a n B o s to n E le m e n ta r y S ch o o ls. 2. Their original complaint was amended on the morning of this hearing. �H A R T v. C O U N TY SC H O O L BO A RD O F A R L IN G T O N CO., V IR G IN IA 955 Cite Re 320 K.8upp. 953 (1971» » # # # [ T 'jh e m e c h a n ic s o f in t e g r a tio n , w h e re th e p u r p o s e is o b v io u sly to im p le m e n t th e B r o w n I I p rin c ip le a n d e ffe c tiv e ly a c h ie v e s t h a t e n d , is o r d in a r ily a m a t t e r w i t h i n th e d is c re tio n o f school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . The q u e s tio n is n o t w h e th e r w e m ig h t h a v e se le c te d d i f f e r e n t sc h o o ls f o r e x tin c tio n , n o r ev e n w h e th e r s u b s t a n tia l e v id en c e s u p p o r ts th e B o a r d ’s d ec isio n , b u t is in s te a d w h e t h e r th e B o a r d ’s d e c isio n is so p la in ly u n f a i r t h a t i t c le a rly a m o u n ts to in v id io u s d is c r im i n a tio n in v io la tio n o f t h e e q u a l p r o te c tio n c la u s e .” (A lle n , s u p r a .) O n th e r e c o rd h e r e m a d e , t h i s C o u r t is u n a b le to p e rc e iv e o f a n y in v id io u s d is c rim in a tio n . [2 ] In o r d e r to a c c o m p lis h r a c ia l b a l a n c e 3 a n d to e s ta b l is h a u n i t a r y sy ste m , th e S chool B o a rd fo u n d i t n e c e s s a ry to t r a n s f e r th e D re w a n d H o ff m a n B o sto n s tu d e n ts — g r a d e s o n e th r o u g h s ix — to o th e r e le m e n ta r y sch o o ls th r o u g h o u t th e C o u n ty w h e r e th e a d d e d s tu d e n ts w ould n o t c a u s e th e e n ro llm e n t to exceed th e s c h o o l’s r a t e d c a p a c ity b y m o re th a n fiv e p e r c e n t. T h e b u s in g tim e f ro m h o m e to school a v e ra g e s tw e n ty -tw o m in u te s , w ith a m a x im u m o f n o t m o re t h a n tw e n ty -n in e m in u te s — T h e a d d e d tr a n s p o r t a t i o n c o s ts w e re e s tim a te d to b e $ 1 1 ,0 0 0 .0 0 p e r y e a r — C ro ssto w n b u s in g b la c k s tu d e n ts to th e w h ite schools a n d a lik e n u m b e r o f w h ite s tu d e n ts to th e D re w a n d H o ff m a n B oston schools w o u ld c o s t m o re th a n $130,000.00 p e r y e a r — T h ir te e n n ew buses, p lu s d r iv e r s , w o u ld b e r e q u ir e d . T h e p l a i n t i f f s ’ c la im t h a t all th e b u rd e n s a n d in c o n v e n ie n c e s o f d e s e g r e g atio n a r e im p o s e d e n t ir e ly on th e b lack c h ild re n a n d t h e i r p a r e n t s is n o t s u p p o rted b y th e e v id e n c e in t h i s case. O u t o f so m e 11 .2 3 3 p u p ils e n ro lle d in A rlin g to n C o u n ty ’s e le m e n ta r y school sy ste m — eleven p e r c e n t o f w h o m a r e 3. The constitutional demand to desegregate schools does not mean that every school in every community must always reflect the racial composition of the school sys tem as a whole. Swann v. CharlotteMecklenburg Board of Education, 402 b la c k — tw e n ty - f iv e p e r c e n t a r e n o w b e i n g b u s e d fro m th e i r h o m e s to t h e i r sc h o o ls — A ll o f th e s e v e n th g r a d e w h ite s t u d e n t s r e s id in g in th e T h o m a s J e f f e r s o n H ig h S chool a tte n d a n c e a r e a a r e now’ b e in g b u se d to th e H o ff m a n -B o s to n sc h o o l— w h ite s tu d e n ts f ro m th r o u g h o u t t h e C o u n ty w ill b e b u se d to th e D re w M o d e l E le m e n ta r y S chool. Bus t r a n s p o r ta tio n has been an i n t e g r a l p a r t o f th e p u b lic e d u c a tio n s y s t e m f o r y e a r s — I t s p e r m is s ib le sco p e h a s n o t b ee n d e te rm in e d b y t h e S u p re m e C o u r t o f th e U n ite d S ta te s — o r t h a t i t m u s t b e e q u a lly s h a re d b e tw e e n th e r a c e s ( A lle n v. A sh e v ille C ity B o a rd o f E d u c a tio n , s u p r a ) . T h e S u p re m e C o u r t h a s d e t e r m in e d , h o w ev e r, t h a t th e b u s i n g o f s t u d e n t s to im p le m e n t d e s e g r e g a tio n m a y b e u s e d w’h e n th e tim e o r d is t a n c e o f t r a v e l is n o t so g r e a t a s to r i s k e i t h e r t h e h e a lth o f th e c h ild re n o r s i g n i f i c a n t ly im p in g e on th e e d u c a tio n a l p r o c e s s . S e e S w a n n v. C h a rlo tte -M e c k le n b u r g B o a r d o f E d u c a tio n , s u p r a . I f A r l in g to n is to c o n v e r t to a u n i t a r y s y s te m , a n d th e S u p re m e C o u r t h a d d e c r e e d t h a t i t m u s t— th e r e w ill o f n e c e s s i t y b e so m e b u s in g . T h e lim ite d b u s in g o f th e D r e w - H o f f m a n - B o s to n c h ild r e n , h e r e r e q u ir e d , r i s k s n e i t h e r th e h e a lth o f t h e c h ild r e n o r s ig n i f i c a n t l y im p in g e s o n th e e d u c a t i o n a l p ro c e s s . [3 ] In a so m ew h at s im ila r fa c tu a l s i t u a t i o n , t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a ls h e ld t h a t t h e p a t t e r n o f a s s ig n m e n t a s s e t f o r t h in t h e A s h e v ille p la n , im p le m e n te d b y f r e e sc h o o l b u s tr a n s p o r t a t i o n , d id n o t v io la te t h e e q u a l p ro te c tio n c la u s e o f th e F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t. T h i s C o u r t so h o ld s h e re . T h e A r lin g to n C o u n ty S ch o o l B o a rd h a s n o w f u lly co m p lied w ith t h e S u p re m e C o u r t d e c is io n in B ro w n I — A u n i t a r y sc h o o l s y s te m a s r e q u ir e d b y G re e n a n d A le x a n d e r4 has b ee n e s ta b l is h e d — U.S. 3. 1)1 S.Ct. 3267. 2K L.Ed.2d 554 (1073). 4. Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education. 306 V.S. 10. 90 S.Ct. 20, 24 L.Ed.2d 19 (190!)). �956 329 F E D E R A L S U P P L E M E N T A r lin g to n w ill h a v e n e i t h e r w h ite sc h o o ls— j u s t sc h o o ls. b la c k nor T h is w ill b e a c c o m p lis h e d w ith o u t a b o lis h in g th e n e ig h b o rh o o d school c o n c e p t— B o th D re w and H o ff m a n B o s to n w ill c o n tin u e to b e u se d fo r sc h o o l p u r p o s e s — p r e - k i n d e r g a r t e n , k in d e r g a r t e n , a s a m odel i n t e g r a t e d e le m e n t a r y sc h o o l— a d u lt e d u c a tio n a n d fo r in t e g r a t e d j u n i o r h ig h sc h o o l ( s e v e n th g rad e , T hom as Je ffe rso n ). The p la n a d o p te d by th e A rlin g to n C o u n ty S c h o o l B o a rd on J u n e 28, 1971 f o r th e d e s e g r e g a tio n o f D rew and H o f f m a n - B o s to n E le m e n ta r y S chools, a n d t h e e s ta b l i s h m e n t o f a u n ita r y s y s te m t h r o u g h o u t th e C o u n ty , is h ere b y a p p ro v e d . T h e C le r k w ill se n d a copy o f th is m e m o r a n d u m o p in io n a n d o r d e r to all c o u n sel o f r e c o rd . A P P E N D IX ARLINGTON PUBLIC SCH O O LS Department of Research June 25, 1971 ELEM ENTARY FUPIL M BERSHIP—E s t. 1971-72 EM GRAOES I thru 6 Only With D EW A HOPPM R AN-BOSTON - G rs. 1-6 Housed Outside Their Present Elementary D is tr ic ts SCHOOLS Ab 1nqdon Ash 1awn B arcroft B a rre tt C1aremont C1ay-F11Imore C ustls Drew F a l r l 1nqton F t. Myer Geo. Mason Glebe Glencarlyn Henry Hoff-Boston Jackson Jamestown Key Mad 1son Maury McKinley Nottlnqham Nat *1 Orth. Oakrldqe Paqe Randolph Reed fay lor Tuckahoo Woodmont TOTAL: CA4J901 Momb. -------- HECEiJ PUPILS------E st. Est. Rated No. Add From Tota 1 New Tota 1 Neqro Orew and Neqro Tota 1 Capacity Now 1971-72 H-B 71-72 1971-72 470 11 675 52 63 522 14 358 44 385 30 508 314 42 350 3 39 555 rre 375 3 -05 475 408 54 450 5 49 457 27 300 527 325 6 33 34 253 34 287 300 -0590 -0309 341 550 8 32 40 277 277 425 50 -050 69 70 12 -012 69 500 421 89 -089 421 4 59 7 425 42 446 35 553 632 100 -0100 553 114 -014 408 400 2 12 420 409 575 -066 66 555 666 11 24 645 15 677 263 -0325 36 299 36 156 1)5 3 — n— 20 173 323 13 425 30 43 353 496 2 28 524 500 30 5 -0------5----519 n— 705 29 66 556 326 44 425 2 42 368 435 54 475 8 46 481 510 77 -0~TJ----550 510 586 59 10 650 69 596 465 58 500 2 60 523 301 41 455 J1 -6342 11,233 546 704 1,250 11,233 — PerPerCent Cent Over Neqro Capacity . 12.1* 11.3 ------Ti---------11.9 1 0.7 9 11.8 2 i 10.1 11.8 11.7 18.1 If .4 21.1 9.4 18.1 3.3 11.9 3.5 12.0 11.6 12.2 5.7 11.5 12.0 11.2 - - 5 - 5 - 5 - 5 12.5 1 5 - I I . I* - "7 5 7 1 — 11 .6 rr.5 � 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 John K. Hart et al, Appellants, v. County School Board of Arlington County, Virginia and Robert I. Chisholm, Division Superintendent of Schools for the County of Arlington, Appellees, No. 71-1791. Description An account of the resource Copy of case with highlighting. 6 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_44 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/3155063ad9820da4a27aebe379a2b925.pdf f2c1adf1583d38b490d9b061874f1ef3 PDF Text Text R ID D IC K HY R ID D IC K v. S C H O O L B D . O F C IT Y O F N O R F O L K 521 Cite u 784 FJtd 521 (4< hC lr. 1984) P a u l R. R ID D IC K , J r ., a n d P h e lic ia Ridd i r k , in f a n ts , by P u u l R. R ID D IC K , th e i r f a th e r a n d n e x t frie n d , C y n th ia C. K erobec. J o h n n y F e re b e e . G a ry F creb ee, a n d W ilb e rt F e re b e e , in fa n ts , by R ev. L u th e r M. F e re b e e , th e ir fa th e r a n d n e x t frie n d . A n ita F le m in g , in fu n t, by B la n c h e F le m in g , h e r m o th e r a n d n e x t frie n d , D a r re ll M c D o n u ld a n d C a r o ly n M c D o n a ld , in f a n t s , by R a m io n M c D o n a ld , S r., t h e i r f a th e r a n d n e x t frie n d , K ric E. N ix o n a n d J a m e s L. N ix o n . in f a n ts , by P a tr ie iu N ix o n , th e ir m o th e r a n d n ex t f r ie n d , J o h n n y O w ens; T re n t O w en s; M y ro n O w e n s, S h a w n O w en s, a n d A n to n io O w en s, in fa n ts , by A n n e tte O w en s, th e i r m o th e r a n d n ex t frie n d : P a u l It. R id d ic k , R ev. L u th e r M. F e re b e e , B la n c h e F le m in g , R a m io n M c D o n a ld , S r „ P a t r i c i a N ix o n , a n d A n n e tte O w en s, A p p e lla n ts , v. T h e S C H O O L B O A R D O F th e C ITY O F N O R F O L K , T h o m a s G. J o h n s o n , J r ., D r. J o h n II. F o s te r , I>r. L u c y R. W ilso n , J e a n ('. B ru c e , C y n th ia A. H eide, R o b e r t L. H ick s, H o r te n s c It. W ells, A ppel lees. T h e L a w y e rs ’ C o m m itte e fo r Civil R ig h ts U n d er L a w , A m ic u s C u ria e. N o. 84-1815. U nited S ta te s C o u rt o f A ppeals, F o u rth C ircuit. A rg u e d J a n . 8, 1985. D ecided F eb . 6, 1986. R ehearing an d R e h e a rin g En Banc D enied M arch 19, 1988. C lass of black school children b ro u g h t sm t challenging n e ig h b o rh o o d pupil assig n m ent plan n o t re q u irin g b u sin g . The U nit ed S ta le s D istric t C o u rt fo r th e E astern D istrict of V irginia, 627 F.Supp. 814, John A. M ucKenzie, C h ief J u d g e , refu sed to in validate the new a s s ig n m e n t plan, and ap peal w as tak en . T h e C o u rt o f Appeals, W nlcner, C ircuit J u d g e , held th at: (1) dis trict court o rd e r in p rio r case determ ining th a t school sy stem w a s no lo n g er discrim i n a to ry w a s binding on p r e s e n t cla ss; (2) d is tric t c o u r t w as n o t c le a rly e rro n e o u s in fin d in g th a t school sy ste m w a s u n ita ry ; (3) b u rd e n o f p ro v in g d isc rim in a to ry in te n t a t ta c h e s to p la in tiff once a d e ju r e s e g r e g a t ed school s y s te m h as b e e n fo u n d to be u n ita ry ; (4) school h o ard could le g itim a te ly c o n s id e r p re se n c e o f " w h ite f lig h t” in p u r s u it o f v o lu n ta ry plan to sta b iliz e school in te g ra tio n ; an d (5) it w a s n o t sh o w n th a t p la n , w hich did n o t r e q u ire b u s in g , w as m o tiv a te d by d isc rim in a to ry in te n t. A ffirm e d . 1. S c h o o ls «=13( 1) Six a s p e c ts o f public e d u c a tio n m u s t b e fre e fro m racial d isc rim in a tio n b e fo re a s y s te m can becom e u n ita ry : fa c u lty , s ta f f , tra n s p o r ta tio n p ractices, e x tr a c u r r ic u la r a c tiv itie s, facilities an d pupil a s s ig n m e n t. 2. J u d g m e n t <£=654 D is tric t c o u rt o rd e r d ism issin g sch o o l d e s e g re g a tio n case a f te r d e te rm in in g t h a t ra c ia l d isc rim in a tio n h ad b een e lim in a te d fro m sch o o l sy ste m w as n o t a c o n s e n t o r der in settlement of suit but wus an order on th e m e rits; a s a re s u lt, o r d e r h ad c o lla t e ra l e sto p p e l e ffe c t on p la in tiffs in s u b s e q u e n t s u it ch a lle n g in g new pupil a s s ig n m e n t p lan n o t re q u irin g b u sin g . 3. S c h o o ls <J=I3(20) D is tric t c o u rt is u n d e r an o b lig a tio n to r e ta in ju risd ic tio n o v er school s y s te m u n d e r p ro p o se d in te g ra tio n p la n to determine its effectiveness in achieving desegregation. 4. S c h o o ls <£=13(20) D istric t co u rt is re q u ire d to re ta in j u r isdiction o v er school sy ste m u n til it d e te r m in es t h a t school sy stem h a s becom e u n i ta ry . 5. S c h o o ls e=13(18) P la in tiffs challen g in g new pupil a s s ig n m e n t plan not req u irin g b u s in g h ad no s ta n d in g to raise claim th a t p rio r d istric t c o u r t o rd e r in d e se g re g a tio n c a se d e te rm in in g th a t school sy stem w as u n ita ry sho u ld n o t be given effect b ec au se U n ite d S ta te s , �522 784 F E D E R A L R E P O R T E R . 2d S E R IE S a p a r ty to th e prior ac tio n , w a s n o t given n o tic e of, nor co n sen te d to , t h a t order. G. J u d g m e n t ©=651 T h a t d istric t co u rt, w hich h ad previous ly d e te rm in e d in d e s e g re g a tio n c a se th a t sch o o l sy ste m was u n ita ry , g a v e p a rtie s an o p p o rtu n ity to re in sta te th e c a u se upon the d o c k e t w ith a show ing o f g o o d cau se, did n o t com pel finding th a t p rio r o rd e r w as not a fin al o rd e r with c o lla te ra l esto p p el e ffe c t on p la in tiffs challen g in g new pupil assig n m e n t plan as racially d isc rim in a to ry . 7. J u d g m e n t ©=724 O nce c o u rt decides an issu e o f law or fa c t n e c e ssa ry to its ju d g m e n t, th a t deci sion ca n be binding upon a p a r ty to it if p a r ty w as given full a n d fa ir o p p o rtu n ity to litig a te th e issue in e a rlie r case. 8. J u d g m e n t ©=614 P rin cip les of c o lla te ra l esto p p e l o r is s u e p reclu sio n are a p p lic a b le to school de s e g re g a tio n cases. 9. J u d g m e n t ©=678(1) F ir s t class, w hich r e p r e s e n te d black s tu d e n ts in school sy ste m , a n d w hich liti g a te d fo r alm ost 20 y e a r s b e fo re d istrict c o u r t o rd e r d eterm in in g t h a t s y s te m w as u n ita ry , an d second c la ss, m a d e u p o f sy s te m 's b lack children c h a lle n g in g new pupil a s s ig n m e n t plan not re q u irin g b u sin g , w ere in s u ffic ie n t privity fo r p rin c ip les o f collat e ra l e sto p p e l o r issue p rec lu sio n to apply so a s to b in d second class to d e te rm in a tio n in f ir s t a c tio n th a t school s y s te m w as no long e r racially discrim inatory. 10. S c h o o ls ©=13(6) M ere im plem entation o f d e s e g re g a tio n p la n d o es n o t convert a d u a l s y s te m into a u n ita r y one. 11. F e d e r a l C o u rts ©=858 F a c tu a l findings b y d is tric t c o u rt in sch o o l d eseg reg a tio n c a se s, especially w h e re presiding judicial o ffic e r h a s lived w ith c a se fo r many y e a rs , a r e e n title d to g r e a t d e fe re n c e on review . 12. S c h o o ls ©=13(18) D istric t court's finding t h a t school s y s te m w a s u n itary and no lo n g e r racially d isc rim in a to ry w as n o t clearly erro n eo u s; fa c u lty a n d s t a f f w ere fully in te g ra te d , th ree o f se v en b o ard m em b ers w e re black, s u p e rin te n d e n t an d tw o of th re e regional a s s is ta n t s u p e rin te n d e n ts w ere b lack , and o v erw h elm in g m ajo rity o f s tu d e n ts a tte n d ed racially m ixed schools. 13. S c h o o ls «= 13(4) S ta te -sa n c tio n e d dual school sy stem s m u st ta k e w h a te v e r ste p s a re n e c e s sa ry to co m pletely elim in ate racial discrim ination 14. S c h o o ls «= 13(4) E ach in stan ce o f a re fu sa l o r fa ilu re to p e rfo rm its d u ty to d e s e g re g a te co n stitu te* a c o n stitu tio n a l violation by school board. 15. S c h o o ls ©=13(4) O nce p la in tiff sh o w s th a t se g re g a tio n e x ists in sch o o l sy ste m th a t w as au th o rized o r re q u ire d by s ta te law a t tim e Broun w as decided, it follow s a s a m a tte r of co u rse t h a t school a u th o ritie s h av e d u ty to elim inate su c h se g re g a tio n ; b o ard can n o t sa tisfy its d u ty b y m erely a b a n d o n in g it* p rio r d isc rim in a to ry p u rp o se, n o r c a n it ta k e an y actio n t h a t w ould im pede p ro cess o f c o n v e rtin g to u n ita ry sy stem . 16. S c h o o ls ©=13(19) S chool b o ard is u n d er heavy b u rd e n of sh o w in g t h a t a n y action it ta k e s th a t con tin u es e f f e c ts o f illegal dual s y ste m serve* le g itim ate end; b u rd en re m a in s upon school b o a rd to d ism an tle s e g re g a te d s y s tem a n d c o n v e rt it to a u n ita ry s y s te m in which ra c ia l d iscrim in atio n is elim in ated ro o t a n d b ra n c h . 17. S c h o o ls « = 1 3 (6 ) R escissio n o f v o lu n tary d e s e g re g a tio n plan its e lf m ay be found to be a n a c t of s e g re g a tio n fo r school board w hich has been fo u n d to h a v e p racticed de ju r e s e g re g atio n a n d h a s n o t com pleted tra n s itio n from d u a l to u n ita ry school sy ste m . 18. S c h o o ls « = 1 3 (6 ) In sc h o o l s y ste m th a t h as n o t becom e u n ita ry , sch o o l b o ard is n o t b a rre d fro m e v e r c h a n g in g a d e s e g re g a tio n plan; in such situ a tio n , h o w ev e r, b o ard m u s t show th a t p ro p o se d c h a n g e s a re c o n s iste n t w ith �1 R ID D IC K BY R ID D IC K v. S C H O O L BD . O F C IT Y O F N O R F O L K CU« *■ 784 F.2d S21 (4th C lr it* co n tin u in g a ffirm a tiv e d u ty to elim inate discrim ination. 19. SchoolH «=13(19) C ontinued ex iste n c e o f sm all n u m h e r of u ne-race schools w ith in school d istric t tlocs n o t estab lish in a n d o f its e lf a co n sti tu tio n al violation; b u rd e n is upon school board, how ever, to sh o w th a t ex iste n ce of such schools a re g en u in e ly nondiscrim inato ry and n o t v e stig e s o f p a s t se g re g a tio n . 20. S c h o o ls ©=13(20) D istric t c o u rt is u n d e r a d u ty to e n te r d e s e g re g a tio n o rd e r t h a t will go a s f a r as possible to w ard e lim in a tin g se g re g a tio n . 21. S c h o o ls ©=13(20) D istric t c o u rt's e q u ita b le p o w ers in d e se g re g a tio n dec rees a r e b ro a d b u t th e y a re not p len ary ; th ey a re lim ited to th o se cases in w hich a c o n stitu tio n a l violation h as oc cu rre d , e ith e r w h e re a de ju r e s e g re g a te d sy ste m ex ists, w h e re in te n t to d iscrim in ate is p resu m e d , o r w h e re a de fa c to s e g re g a t ed sy ste m ex ists a n d in te n t to d iscrim in ate has been proven. 22. S c h o o ls ©=13(20) In situ a tio n s in w hich school b o ard h as d e fa u lte d on o b lig a tio n s to d e s e g re g a te , d istric t c o u rt can u se its b ro a d p o w ers to fashion a rem ed y in o r d e r to a s s u re a uni ta ry sy stem . 23. S c h o o ls 0=13(20) O nce rem ed y fo r d e s e g re g a tio n is fashioned, d is tric t c o u r t r e ta in s ju risd ictio n until it is clea r t h a t u n la w fu l se g re g a tio n has been com p letely elim in a te d ; b u t once goal o f u n ita ry sch o o l s y s te m is achieved, d istric t c o u rt's ro le en d s. 21. S c h o o ls ©=13(19) B u rd en o f p ro v in g d isc rim in a to ry in te n t a tta c h e s to p la in tiff once de ju re s e g reg a ted school s y s te m h a s b een found to be u nitary. 25. S c h o o ls ©=13(10) "W h ite f lig h t” c a n n o t be used a s a ju stificatio n fo r fa ilin g o r re fu s in g to d is m antle a dual school sy ste m . 523 I9M ) 26. S c h o o ls * = 1 3 (6 ) S chool b o ard legitim ately co n sid ered p re se n c e o f "w h ite flig h t" in p u r s u it o f v o lu n ta ry p la n to stabilize school in te g ra tio n in a s y ste m previously d e c la re d u n i ta ry . 27. S c h o o ls ©=13(19) E v id e n ce w as in su fficien t to s u p p o rt fin d in g th a t new pupil a s s ig n m e n t plan b ased on re sid e n c e of child an d n o t r e q u ir in g b u s in g w a s a p re te x t fo r d isc rim in a tio n b ased on ra c e . 28. S c h o o ls ©=13(18) D is tric t c o u rt, in ap p ro v in g n ew pupil a s s ig n m e n t p la n n o t re q u irin g b u s in g in school s y s te m prev io u sly d e te rm in e d to be u n ita ry , w a s n o t clearly e rro n e o u s in fin d ing th a t w h ite s tu d e n ts w ere le a v in g th e public sc h o o ls b ecau se o f b u sin g . 29. S c h o o ls ©=13(18) F in d in g by d istric t co u rt, in a p p ro v in g new p u p il a s s ig n m e n t plan n o t re q u irin g b u sin g , t h a t school b o a rd ’s re lia n c e u p o n d e c re a s e in p a re n ta l in v o lv em en t u n d e r b u s in g p la n w a s n o t m erely a p r e te x t fo r d is c rim in a tin g o n basis o f rac e, w a s n o t clea rly e rro n e o u s . 30. S c h o o ls ©=13(6) D ec isio n m a k in g p ro ce d u re fo llo w ed by sch o o l b o a rd in a d o p tin g new p u p il a s s ig n m e n t p la n n o t req u irin g b u sin g in school s y s te m p re v io u sly d eterm in e d to b e u n i ta ry , w a s re a s o n a b le and n o t in d ic ativ e o f d is c rim in a to ry in te n t. 31. S c h o o ls ©=13(6) S chool b o a rd 's failu re to p ro v id e fo r a lte r n a tiv e p la n sho u ld n eig h b o rh o o d p lan f o r a s s ig n m e n t o f pupils, n o t re q u irin g b u s in g , b e u n su c c e ssfu l a t s to p p in g e x o d u s o f w h ite s tu d e n ts did not d e m o n s tra te a d is c rim in a to ry in te n t on p a r t o f b o ard ; su c h a fa ilu re w o u ld no t have had a n a p p re c ia b ly d if fe r e n t e f f e c t th a n c o n tin u atio n o f b u sin g p la n u n d e r p r e s e n t tre n d s, sin c e in e ith e r c a se , sch o o l s y s te m w ould becom e p re d o m i n a n tly b lack. �524 784 F E D E R A L R E P O R T E R . 2d S E R IE S 32. S ch o o ls © = 1 3 0 8 ) D istrict c o u r t w a s n o t clearly e rro n e ous in fin d in g t h a t school board, w hich adopted n eig h b o rh o o d school a ssig n m e n t plan not re q u irin g b u sin g , an d h o u sin g a u th o rity did n o t a c t in co n c ert with in te n t to discrim inate on b a s is o f race; d iscrim in ato ry im pact a lo n e w a s n o t su fficie n t to m ake o u t such claim . s tu d e n ts a re a ssig n e d in m o st in sta n c e s to n eig h b o rh o o d schools, w ith a tr a n s f e r pro vision w ith fre e tra n sp o rta tio n fo r m inority s tu d e n ts who d esire i t 1 P lain tiffs contend th a t adoption o f th e new a s sig n m e n t plan w as racially m o tiv ated an d th a t its imple m e n tatio n v io lates th e ir co n stitu tio n al r ig h ts u n d e r th e F o u rte e n th A m en d m en t to th e U nited S ta te s C onstitution. W e affirm . I. H enry L. M a rsh , III (S.W. T ucker, R a n dall G. Jo h n so n , H ill, T u ck er & M arsh, Richm ond, V a., on brief), and Ju liu s I>evonne C h a m b e rs (Ja m e s M. N ab rit, III, N a poleon B. W illiam s, J r ., N ew Y ork C ity, Gwendolyn J o n e s Ja c k so n , Delk, Ja m e s & Jack so n , N o rfo lk , V a., E lizabeth T u rley , Little, P a rs le y & C luverius, Richm ond, Va., on brief), f o r a p p e lla n ts . Ja c k W ayne G reer, brief), E. G re e r (J. A n d erso n S taln a k er, M. R in g e r, W illiam s, W orrell, K elly & P hilip R. T ra p a n i, N orfolk, Va., on fo r a p p e lle e s. William B ra d fo rd R eynolds, A sst. A tty . Gen. (C h arles J . C ooper, D eputy A sst. A tty . G en., M ichael C arvin, D ept, o f J u s tice, W a sh in g to n , D .C ., on brief), fo r a m i cus cu ria e U .S. (F red N. F ish m a n , N ew Y ork City, R ob e r t H. K app, W a sh in g to n , D.C., N o rm an Redlich, W illiam L. R obinson, C onrad K. H a rp e r, E le a n o r M. F ox, R ichard E. M eade, Sim pson T h a c h e r & B a rtle tt, N ew Y ork City, on b rie f), fo r am icu s cu ria e T he L aw y e r s ’ Committee for Civil R ig h ts U n d er Law. B efo re W ID E N E R , SPR O U S E an d E R VIN , C irc u it J u d g e s . W ID E N E R , C irc u it Ju d g e : T he p la in tiffs , P a u l R. Riddick an d o th e rs, u p p eu l th e d is tric t c o u rt's re fu s a l to in v alid ate a n ew pu p il a s sig n m e n t p lan fo r th e e le m e n ta ry sc h o o ls (g rad es K-fi) o f th e City o f N o rfo lk . 027 F .S up p . 814. U n d e r th e new a s s ig n m e n t plan, m an d ato ry c ro s s tow n b u sin g , r e q u ire d a t firs t by c o u r t o rd e r in 1971, is ab o lish ed . In its p lace, I. Secondary schools are not affected by the B ackground To b e tte r u n d e rsta n d th e issu es involve I in th e in s ta n t ap p eal, th e h isto ry o f litig a tion a ris in g o u t o f racial se g re g a tio n in N o rfo lk ’s public schools should be ex am ined. P rio r to th e S u p rem e C o u rt’s opinion in Broum v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L-Ed. 873 (1954), se g re g a tio n o f public schools in N o rfo lk and e lse w h e re in V irginia w as sa n c tio n e d by s ta te law. In 1956, litig atio n b e g a n w hich so u g h t th e in te g ra tio n o f N o rfo lk ’s public schools. Beckett v. School Board of the City of Norfolk, 148 F .S upp. 430 (E.D .V a.), a f f d 246 F.2d 325 (4th Cir.), cert. den. 355 U.S. 855, 78 S.Ct. 83. 2 L .E d.2d 63 (1957). Fol low ing in te rv e n tio n o f additional p la in tiffs, th e ca se becam e sty le d Brewer v. School Board of the City o f Norfolk, se e 349 F.2d 414 (4th Cir. 1965) (re fe rre d to h ere in as Brewer o r Beckett). In 1970, th is c o u rt upheld a fin d in g th a t th e N o rfo lk school b o ard o p e ra te d a dual school sy ste m b a se d on race. Brewer, 434 F .2d 408, 410 (4th Cir.), ce rt. den. 399 U S. 929, 90 S.C t. 2247, 26 L.Ed.2d 796 (1970). T h e d is tric t c o u r t w as o rd ered to imple m e n t a p lan in o rd e r to achieve a u n itary sch o o l s y s te m in N o rfo lk . Brewer, su p ra, a t 412. F o llo w in g th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s decision in Swann v. Charlotte-Meek tenburg Board o f Education, 402 U .S. 1, 91 S .C t. 1267, 28 L .E d.2d 554 (1971), th e co u rt a g a in re m a n d e d Brewer to th e d istrict c o u r t fo r im p lem e n ta tio n o f a d e s e g r e g a tio n plan c o n fo rm in g w ith Sw ann 's e x p a n d e d scope o f rem ed ies. Brewer, sub nom . Adams v. School District No. 5, Or angeburg Co., S.C., 444 F.2d 99 (4th Cir), plan. Busing is continued for them. �RIDDICK BY RIDDICK v. SCHOOL BI). OF CITY OF NORFOLK 525 C llc»> 7 8 4 F J d 3 2 t (41b Clr. I9M ) c e rt. den. 404 U.S. 912, 92 S.C t. 230, 30 L Kd.2d 18G (1971). N o rfo lk ’s public schools fro m 1975 u n til th e p re s e n t action w as filed in 1983. F ollow ing rem and, th e d is tric t co u rt ad o p ted a d ese g re g a tio n p la n w h ich utilized p a irin g and c lu ste rin g o f sc h o o ls in N or folk, us well as cro ss-to w n b u sin g in the a s s ig n m e n t o f s tu d e n ts to acco m p lish de s e g re g a tio n . This c o u rt a ffirm e d imple m e n ta tio n o f th e b u sin g p la n w ith a m odifi catio n o f th e plan to p ro v id e fo r fre e tr a n s p o rta tio n fo r th o se s tu d e n ts b u se d . Brew- A lth o u g h no lo n g e r u n d e r c o u rt o rd e r, th e N o rfo lk school b o ard co n tin u ed c ro s s town b u sin g until 1983. A t th a t tim e, th e board con clu d ed th a t declining w hite e n ro ll m en t fig u re s re q u ire d t h a t th e b u sin g p lan be m odified to abolish m a n d ato ry b u s in g of e le m e n ta ry school s tu d e n ts . In its s te a d , th e b o ard ad o p ted a pupil a s sig n m e n t p lan based on g e o g ra p h ic zones fo r its e le m e n ta ry schools. T h e b o a rd so u g h t d is tric t c o u rt approval o f its p ro p o sed p lan by filin g a m otion to r e in s ta te th e Beckett case a n d by filing a civil actio n , School Board o f the City o f Norfolk v. Bell, et al, N o. 8 3 229-N (E .D .V a.1983). T he Riddick p la in tiffs (th o se p re se n tly b e fo re th e co u rt) th e re a f te r filed th is class actio n s u it ch a l lenging th e p ro p o sed pupil a s s ig n m e n t plan. T h e b o ard v o lu n ta rily d ism isse d th e Bell ca se an d w ith d rew its m otion in th e Beckett c a se . T he iss u e s ra ise d in th o se p ro ce ed in g s a r e ra ise d here. rr v. School Board of the City o f Norfolk, 456 F.2d 943 (4th Cir.), c e rt. d en . 406 U.S. 933, 92 S.C t. 1778, 32 L .E d .2 d 136 (1972). T h re e a n n u a l re p o rts b y th e sch o o l board w e re review ed by the d is tric t c o u r t follow ing its 1971 o rder. In 1975, th e d istric t c o u r t d e te rm in e d th a t ra c ia l d isc rim in a tio n h ad b een elim inated fro m th e N orfolk school sy ste m and th a t th e sc h o o l sy stem h ad becom e u n ita ry . T h e re fo re , th e dis tr ic t c o u rt dism issed th e Beckett action. T h e full te x t o f th a t o rd e r is: ORDER I t a p p e a rin g to th e C o u rt t h a t all issu es in th is action have b ee n d isp o se d of, th a t th e School B oard o f th e C ity o f N orfolk h a s sa tisfie d its a f firm a tiv e d u ty to de s e g re g a te , th a t ra c ia l d iscrim in ation th ro u g h official action h a s b ee n elim in at ed fro m th e sy ste m , a n d t h a t th e N orfolk S chool S ystem is now " u n ita r y ,” th e C o u rt d o th acco rd in g ly O R D E R A ND D E C R E E t h a t th is action is h e re b y d ism issed, w ith le a v e to any p a r ty to re in s ta te th is a c tio n fo r good c a u se sh o w n .’ / s / JO H N A. M a c K E N Z IE U nited S ta te s D istric t J u d g e D ated : F e b ru a ry 14, 1975 We ask fo r this: / s / H e n ry L. M arsh, III (x iu n sel fo r P la in tiffs / » / A llan G. D onn C ounsel fo r D e fe n d a n ts N o ap p e a l w as ta k e n fro m th e o rd e r dis m issin g th e case. N o le g a l a c tio n w as ta k en w ith re sp e c t to th e d e s e g r e g a tio n o f II. F a c ts In 1970, th e p o p u latio n o f N o rfo lk w as 307,951, 70% (215,069) w h ite a n d 28% (87,261) b la ck . T h e N o rfo lk p u b lic sc h o o ls e n rolled 56,830 p u p ils d u rin g th e 1969-70 school y e a r, 57% (32,586) o f th o se s tu d e n ts being w h ite a n d 43%> (24,244) b ein g b lack. In 1980, th e p o p u latio n o f N o rfo lk h ad declined m o re th a n 11%- to 266,979, 61% (162,300) w h ite an d 35% (93,987) b lack . The p u b lic school e n ro llm e n t, rac ially an d o th e rw ise , h a d even m o re d ra stic a lly ch an g ed . By th e 1980-81 school y e a r, e n ro llm e n t h a d s h ru n k to 36,643. a 37% d ro p in o v era ll e n ro llm e n t. E v e n m o re s ta rtlin g , th e w h ite e n ro llm e n t th a t y e a r w as 15,629 o r 42.6%* o f th e to ta l school en ro llm en t. Black e n ro llm e n t (21,014) now c o m p rised 57.4% o f th e to ta l school en ro llm en t. W hile th e o v e ra ll p e rc e n ta g e o f w h ite e n ro llm e n t h a d d ro p p ed 14.4%, w h ite school e n ro llm e n t h ad d ro p p ed 52%, a lth o u g h th e w h ite p o p u la tio n d e c re a se d only 24%. B y 1983, sc h o o l e n ro llm e n t w as d o w n to 34,803, 58% (20,191) black an d 42% (14,611) w hite. �526 784 F E D E R A L R E P O R T E R , 2d S E R IE S L a rg e ly b ecause o f th e d ro p in o v erall s tu d e n t en ro llm e n t d u r in g lth o s e y e a rs , 17 e le m e n ta ry schools w e re ilo s e d . M ost o f th o s e schools closed w e re lo c ate d in p re d o m in a n tly black n e ig h b o rh o o d s. S ince 1971, th e school b o a rd h a d u se d a 70% -30% ra tio in a s sig n in g s tu d e n ts u n d e r th e b u sin g plan. A school w as co n sid ered a s a racially identifiable b la ck school if its e n ro llm e n t co n siste d o f m o re th a n 70% b la ck s tu d e n ts . In 1977, o n e e le m e n ta ry school w as o v er 70% b lack. By 1981, se v en e le m e n ta ry schools w ere o v e r 70% black. D u rin g th is sa m e period, p a r e n ta l inv o lv e m e n t, a s show n by P T A m e m b ersh ip , d ro p p e d d ram a tic ally , fro m 15,0001-20,000 dow n to 3,500. Alarmed a b o u t th e c o n tin u e d loss o f w h ite s tu d e n ts fro m th e p u b lic school s y s te m a n d the d ra stic d ro p in p a r e n ta l in v o lv e m en t, th e school b o a rd a p p o in te d an ad hoc co m m ittee in 1981 to e x a m in e th e fe a sib ility o f re d u c in g c ro ss-to w n b u sin g . T h e co m m ittee m em b ers in itially w e re M rs. J e a n B ruce, M rs. H o rte n s e W ells, T om m y Jo h n so n , R o b e rt H icks, a n d J o h n F o ste r. I t w a s la te r ex p an d ed to a c o m m itte e o f th e w hole. T h e C o m m ittee m e m b e rs v isited o th e r school sy ste m s to s tu d y th e ir d e s e g re g a tio n p ro g ra m s, in c lu d in g th e S h re v e p o rt, La. an d R ichm ond, V a. sc h o o l s y s te m s. A ta sk fo rce w a s a p p o in te d to p ro d u c e d a ta fo r th e com m ittee.* T h e co m m it te e com m unicated w ith e x p e r ts in th e field fo r c o n su lta tio n , in c lu d in g D r. R on E d w a rd s, D r. R o b e rt G reen, D r. S a r a h L ightfo o t, a n d D r. D avid A rm o r. T h re e m e m b e rs o f th e ad hoc c o m m itte e fa v o re d a p ro p o sal en d in g b u sin g o f e le m e n ta ry school s tu d e n ts . D r. F o s te r o p p o se d th e change. T h e b o ard e n g a g e d D r. A rm o r to p re p a re a r e p o r t on th e p ro b lem s o f c o n tin u e d in te g r a tio n o f N o rfo lk ’s sc h o o ls. A rm o r con clu d ed th a t m a n d a to ry b u s in g h ad led to 2. Its members included Dr. Jane Carter. Dr. John McLaulin, and Dr. Aaron Gay. 3. An alternate plan, Plan II, was also presented at these hearings. That plan provided for changing but not eliminating busing but did not meet with public support. sig n ific a n t w h ite flig h t an d th a t if b u sin g continued, th e N o rfo lk school sy ste m w ould be 75% black by 1987. A t th e p o in t o f 75%- b lack, no m a tte r in w hich y e a r it o ccurred, o f c o u rse th e av e ra g e black child could not e x p e c t to be ed u cated in a d e s e g re g a te d school according to th e 7 0 /3 0 definition u sed an d w hich A rm or s ta te d w as c o n s iste n t w ith m o st definitions o f s e g reg atio n . B u sin g , he said, had aided th e o b ta in m e n t o f ra c ia l balance b u t su c h b a l ance w as o f little aid as th e sy stem w as re s e g re g a tin g w ith th e rap id loss o f w h ite stu d e n ts. H e co n clu d ed th a t u n d er su ch circ u m sta n ce s b u s in g did n o t sig n ifican tly aid black acad em ic ach iev em en t an d th a t w hite s tu d e n t e n ro llm e n t w ould sta b ilize if b u sin g w e re elim in a te d . T he b o a rd held a se rie s o f public h e a r in g s to p r e s e n t th e new pupil a s s ig n m e n t plan.3 G ro u p s b o th opposed to an d s u p p o rtiv e o f th e new p lan p re se n te d th e ir view s a t th e s e h e a rin g s. S u p p o rte rs o f th e plan w ere co n c ern ed w ith th e le n g th y tra n s p o rta tio n o f th e ir children, w ith prob lem s in h e re n t w ith having th e ir ch ild ren i i schools f a r fro m th e ir hom es, w ith lack o f p a re n ta l in v o lv e m e n t in th e se d is ta n t schools a n d w ith a g e n e ra l fee lin g t h a t b u sin g w a s n o t w o rk in g . T h o se o p p o se d to ch a n g in g th e b u s in g plan ex p re sse d co n c e rn s o v e r th e n u m b e r o f schools th a t w ould b ec o m e a lm o s t com pletely b lack, th e ad v e rse e f f e c ts o f su ch se p a ra tio n o f th e races, f e a r t h a t th e se g re g a tio n o f th e p a s t w as r e tu r n in g a n d co ncern th a t b u sin g w as n eed ed to g u a r a n te e eq u al allo catio n of both m a te ria l a n d h u m an reso u rce s. III. T h e P ro p o sed P lan On F e b r u a r y 2, 1983, th e N o rfo lk school b o ard a d o p te d th e "P ro p o sa l F o r a V o lu n ta ry S ta b ly D e s e g re g a te d School S y ste m " by a v o te o f 5 -2 .1 U n d er the plan, c ro s s tow n b u s in g o f e le m e n ta ry school s tu d e n ts 4. Those school board members in favor of llic new plan included Thomas Johnson (while), Jean Bruce (while). Cynthia lleidc (while), Mis. Hortense Wells (black), and Robert Hicks (while). Those opposed were Rev. John Foster (black) and Di. I.ucy Wilson (black). �RIDDICK BY RIDDICK v. SCHOOL BD. OF CITY OF NORFOLK C lle ua 52 7 7B4 F-2d 321 (4th Clr. I1S6) w as e lim in a te d .4 All of th e e le m e n ta ry schools b e c a m e sin g le a tte n d a n c e zone schools (neig h b o rh o o d schools). T h o se^ sin g le a tte n d a n c e zones w ere g e rry m a n d e re d an a s to ach iev e m axim um ra c ia l in te g ra tio n .6 S tu d e n ts a tte n d in g a n y c e rta in e le m e n ta ry school w ere fed into a c e rta in one o f e ig h t ju n io r high sch o o ls. U n d e r this fe e d e r p la n , all th e ju n io r h ig h sch o o ls w ere fu lly in te g ra te d racially. T h e m a x i m um b la c k /w h ite ra tio w as 7 2 /2 8 , a n d th e m inim um .>6/44. r d en ts choosing su c h a tr a n s f e r . T h e school b o ard e stim a te s th a t 10-157" of eligible s tu d e n ts w ould ta k e a d v a n ta g e o f th e M /M tr a n s f e r th e firs t y e a rs . Five y e a r projec tio n s show a s m any a s 407" o f th e s tu d e n ts m ay o p t fo r M /M tr a n s f e rs . I f 207" of th o se eligible b lack s tu d e n ts opt fo r M /M tra n s fe r, only o n e school w ould rem ain m ore th a n 70% w h ite . Som e o f th e ten schools w ith 957» o r m o re black pupils w ould have sm a lle r p e rc e n ta g e s o f black s tu d e n ts b u t all w ould y e t be ab o v e 957". U n d e r th e plan, tw elv e o f N o rfo lk 's th ir ty-six e le m e n ta ry schools will b e 70% o r m o re black, co m p ared to fo u r u n d e r th e b u sin g plan p re se n tly in e ffe c t. O f th o s e tw elv e sch o o ls, ten will be 95% o r m o re black. Six schools will becom e 70% o r m ore w hite." T be plan also p ro v id es fo r m ulti-cultural p ro g ra m s to e x p o se s tu d e n ts in racially isolated e le m e n ta ry sch o o ls to s tu d e n ts of o th e r races. A p a r e n ta l involvem ent pro g ram is also in clu d ed . T he p lan co n tain s a m a jo rity -m in o rity tr a n s f e r op tio n , describ ed in Swann, 402 U.S. ]). 2G, 91 S.C t. p. 1281, a s a " u s e f u l p a rt o f e v e ry d e s e g re g a tio n p la n .” U n d e r this o p tio n , a n y s tu d e n t a ssig n e d to a tte n d a school a t w hich his ra c e c o n s titu te s 707" or m o re o f th e s tu d e n t body ca n t r a n s f e r to a sch o o l w h e re his ra c e c o n s titu te s less th a n 50% of th e s tu d e n ts . T he p la n p ro vides fo r f re e tra n s p o rta tio n fo r th o s e stu - 5. Of thirty-seven elementary schools at the time of trial, there were twemy-two elementary schools attended by students that were bused. One of those, Ghent Elementary School, offered an open classroom program and accepted stu dents from anywhere in the city. The remain ing fourteen schools were single attendance zone schools whose students were not bused. 6. Plaintiffs do no! challenge the method by which the zones were drawn, or the zones them selves. but instead challenge the plan as a whole. 'k lltH .I lUt View It*•a ling |*k ( -1. f.H t dim|i Allen 1 ••rilci lirld *•drinan I'Ijc c l"u;v l-l 1< lilWII ill G'-ul.y II It'glrMilt I*..* 1• • llltlM ttl Pro/cvicii Alignment White 710 84 589 1 563 61 689 62 572 1 970 47 714 37 381 2 282 73 674 44 665 38 769 1 6RS $2 Minority 16 V 9 39 38 99 53 63 98 27 56 62 99 48 A P lan II w as d ra w n up by Dr. Jo h n F o ste r w hich re d u c e d th e le n g th o f bus rid es fo r e le m e n ta ry s tu d e n ts b u t increased th e n u m b er o f s tu d e n ts th a t w ould be b u sed. N o school w o u ld h av e been less th a n 257" o f a n y o n e ra c e . P lan II w ould h av e req u ired th e re d ra w in g o f all o f the atten d a n ce zo n es in th e school sy stem . T h a t plan w as also p re s e n te d a t th e public h earin g s. N o s u p p o rt w as ex p re ssed fo r P lan II a t th o se h e a rin g s , and th e plan w as n o t ad o p ted by th e b o ard . P lain tiffs do n o t Projected H H Assignment While Minority 69 768 I«arrymore 31 79 492 21 1.indents ood 25 75 Little Cr. H & Pri. 1037 I. 39 61 Mcadowbrook 512 0 100 831 Monroe 32 68 Norview 602 35 65 415 Oakwood 29 71 672 Occanair 586 22 Oceanview 78 57 43 Poplar Halls 388 100 0 Roberts Pk 401 98 St. Helena 2 355 64 36 664 Sewells Pi 30 70 627 Sherwood For. 45 Suburban Pk 539 55 52 48 Tarrallion 548 54 46 Taylor 98 Tidewater Pk 2 2r 97 Tucker 3l> 3 74 26 Willard 802 Willoughby 65 35 558 99 Young Pk 510 1 (open classroom proGhent 600 gram) School �K. . • 784 F E D E R A L R E P O R T E R , 2d S E R IE S h e re se e k a n adoption o f P lan II in lieu o f th e plan ad o p ted ; they se e k a r e tu r n to th e o rig in a l b u sin g plan. IV. D istric t C o u rt Opinion On J u ly 9, 1984, th e d istric t c o u r t u pheld th e c o n s titu tio n a lity o f N o rfo lk 's p ro p o sed p lan fo r e le m e n ta ry school a s s ig n m e n ts . A s a p re lim in a ry m a tte r, th e c o u rt held th a t its 1975 ru lin g th a t N o rfo lk ’s school s y s te m w a s u n ita ry w as fully su p p o rte d by th e re c o rd a n d rem a in ed in e f f e c t a t th e tim e o f th is su it. In so concluding, th e c o u r t re je c te d p la in tiffs’ a r g u m e n t th a t th e 1975 o rd e r w as m erely a c o n s e n t d ec ree a n d th e re fo re had no e ffe c t u p o n th e se p la in tiffs. T h e c o u r t held th a t th e 1975 o rd e r had th e effect of placing the b u rd en o f p r o o f on th e p la in tiffs in ste a d o f th e d e fe n d a n t .-school b o ard . T he b u rd e n w as on th e p la in tiffs to show th a t th e p ro p o se d plan w a s a d o p te d b y th e b o ard w ith a n in te n t to d isc rim in a te on th e b a sis o f ra c e . U pon e n try o f th e 1975 o rd e r, th e c o u r t re a so n e d , th e N o rfo lk school b o ard had d isc h a rg e d its a f firm a tiv e d u ty to d e s e g r e g a te its sch o o ls. T h u s, a s o f th e 1975 o rd e r, th e school b o a rd w a s no lo n g e r o p e ra tin g a d e ju r e d u al school s y s te m w ith a c o n c o m ita n t d u ty to d e s e g r e g a te a s re q u ire d by Brown an d la te r c a se s. B ecau se no de ju r e d isc rim in a tion w a s p re s e n t, th e p la in tiffs w e re re q u ire d to sh o w th a t th e school b o a rd a c te d w ith a n in te n t to d isc rim in a te a s re q u ire d by Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 97 S .C t. 555, 50 L .E d .2 d 450 (1977), a n d Wash ington v. Dains, 420 U.S. 229, 96 S .C t. 2040, 48 L .E d.2d 597 (1976). «gg ftl [1 ] F in ally , th e d is tric t c o u r t fo u n d th a t th e p la in tif f s h a d n o t s a tis fie d th e ir b u rd e n o f p ro v in g d isc rim in a to ry in te n t. In r e a c h in g t h a t co n clu sio n , th e c o u rt re v ie w e d th e six a s p e c ts o f public e d u c a tio n w hich m u s t b e f re e fro m rac ial d isc rim in a tio n b e fo re a s y s te m c a n becom e u n ita ry : f a c u lty , s ta ff , tr a n s p o r ta tio n p ra c tic e s, e x tr a c u r r ic u la r a c tiv itie s, fac ilities a n d pupil a s s ig n m e n t. 8. Studenls were lost from the public schools in two ways, those who left the schools after once being enrolled and those who settled in commu- Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430, 435, 88 S .C t 1689, 16912, 20 L.Ed.2d 716 (1968). ^ T here follow s, b riefly s ta te d , th e district co u rt's findings o f fa c t an d conclusions of law in its an a ly sis o f th a t q u estio n . N orfolk’s school b o a rd w as racially mixed, com posed o f fo u r w hite and th ree black m em bers. T h e s u p e rin te n d e n t o f the schools, D r. G ene R. C a rte r, w as black. Two of th e th re e R eg io n al A ssista n t S u p er in ten d en ts w ere black. T h e facu lty w as 56% w hite and 44% black. Black personnel com prised 52% o f th e to ta l. Such d ata reflected th a t th e fa c u lty an d s ta f f w ere fully in te g rate d . R ely in g on this, th e dis tric t c o u rt re je c te d p la in tiffs ' alleg atio n th a t school re so u rc e s w ould in eq u itab ly be d istrib u te d w ith p re d o m in a n tly w hite schools receiving a g r e a te r p e rc e n ta g e of th ese reso u rce s. In addition, th e c o u rt not ed the new p lan its e lf req u ired periodic judicial review o f th e school b o ard ’s alloca tion o f educatio n al re so u rc e s. The c o u rt fo u n d cre d ib le th e testim o n y o f e x p e rt w itn e sse s t h a t N o rfo lk w ould continue to lose w h ite s tu d e n ts b ec au se of b u sin g and th a t o v e r a period of tim e the school sy stem w o u ld becom e p red o m in an tly black. N o rfo lk ’s school sy ste m m ig h t well becom e 90% b la ck a s a re sy ste m s in cities such as B a ltim o re a n d W a sh in g to n , D C , or 86% black a s in R ichm ond, re su ltin g in re se g re g a tio n r e g a r d le s s o f b u sin g and pu pil a s sig n m e n t p la n s. T h e c o u rt fo u n d th a t N orfolk had lo s t b e tw e e n 6000-8000 w hite s tu d e n ls b e c a u se o f busing.* As a re s u lt o f this w h ite flig h t, N o rfo lk ’s schools w ere r e s e g re g a tin g u n d e r th e b u sin g plan. T he d is tric t c o u r t reco g n ized th a t whit flig h t c a n n o t b e u se d a s a re a so n fo r fa il u re to d is m a n tle a d u a l school sy stem . United States v. Scotland Neck Board of Education, 407 U .S. 484, 92 S.Ct. 2214, 33 L.Ed.2d 75 (1972). T h e co n sid eratio n of w hite flig h t in d e v isin g a v o lu n ta ry plan to im prove th e ra c ia l b a la n c e o f th e schools nitics surrounding Norfolk instead of Norfolk itself. j «V * *2?*/;. w for. from bers t of de< to bo i indue parer »t tit forts convi ment m . . ttte n Close fP keces ^•*V &,■ •*4i' �RIDDICK BY RIDDICK v. SCHOOL BD. OF CITY OF NORFOLK 529 Cite as 784 FJld 521 (4th Clr. 1986) Higgins v. Board o f Education o f City o f Grand Rapids, 508 w as p ro p e r h o w e v e r. K.2<! 77!) (6th Cir.1974). It found th e h o ard 's c o n sid e ra tio n o f w hite flight w as p roper b e c a u se it w a s voluntarily a tte m p t ing to k eep its sc h o o ls stably in te g ra te d . It w as u n d e r no a ffirm a tiv e co u rt o rd e r to d e s e g re g a te a t th e tim e. Such c o n s id e ra tion w as n o t a p r e te x t fo r racial d isc rim in a tion. In su m , th e d is tric t co u rt found th a t keeping w h ite s tu d e n ts in the schools w as | n ecessary to in s u re a d e se g re g a te d e d u cation, and, sin c e th e w h ite s tu d e n ts h ad been lost b e c a u se o f b u sin g , the board w as ju stified in re d u c in g th e b u sin g in an e f f o rt to keep w hite s tu d e n ts . ony m id e of the ntty well itiei ).C„ g in 1 puthat vhite esult v/ere vhite fail- item. rd of 4,88 tn of an to hool* orfolk Likew ise, th e c o u r t found as a fac t an d credited th e b o a rd ’s second reaso n fo r adoption o f th e p ro p o sed plan, th a t of s e e k ing an in c re a se in th e level of p a re n tal involvem ent. All th e evidence a t trial, both from p la in tiffs an d th e board, indicated th a t p a re n ta l in v o lv e m e n t a t the elem e n ta ry level w as e s s e n tia l to the w ell-being o f the school s y s te m . B ecause of b u sin g , how ever, p a re n ta l involvem ent th ro u g h th e vehicle o f th e PTA h a d been v irtually de stroyed. PTA e n ro llm e n t had d ropped from a p p ro x im a te ly 15,000-20,000 m em bers to 3,500 m e m b e rs. D u rin g this period o f declining e n ro llm e n t, th e board had trie d to b o lster m e m b e rsh ip by various m eans, including p ro v id in g f re e tra n sp o rta tio n to p are n ts to en a b le th e m to a tten d m e etin g s a t th eir c h ild re n ’s school. The b o a rd ’s e f fo rts w ere u n s u c c e s s fu l. Evidence a t tria l convinced th e c o u r t t h a t p are n tal involve m ent declined a s a r e s u lt of th e ir children a tte n d in g schools a c ro s s tow n in stead o f close to th e ir h o m e w ith re su ltin g ea sy access o f p a re n ts to th e school. T he pro|M»sed plan o ffe re d by th e board re p re s e n t ed a re a so n a b le p ro p o sa l to try to solve th e dilem m a o f d eclin in g p a re n ta l involvem ent. p u rp o se o f try in g to c re a te a s ta b ly in te g r a te d s tu d e n t body n o r its e f f o r t to in c re a s e n ec essary p a re n ta l in v o lv e m e n t w as p re te x tu a l. T h erefo re, th e d is tric t c o u rt fo u n d th a t p la in tiffs had n o t c a rrie d th e ir b u rd e n o f proving in te n t to d isc rim in a te on th e p a r t o f th e school board. T h e co u rt also rejected th e p la in tiffs ’ claim th a t d iscrim in ato ry in te n t can b e in f e rre d from th e p ro ced u re u se d b y th e b o a rd in co n sid erin g and a d o p tin g th e pro: p o sed plan. I t found th a t th e b o a rd had ’ follow ed a th o ro u g h and re a so n a b le p ro c e d u re , including c re a tin g a sp e cia l co m m it te e, h irin g e x p e rts and ho ld in g six public h e a rin g s th ro u g h o u t th e c o m m u n ity . I t a lso fo und no basis in fa c t fo r th e p la in tif f s ' claim th a t th e b o ard h ad a c te d in c o n c e rt w ith local hou sin g a u th o rity o ffi cials to d eterm in e th e location o f h o u sin g p ro je c ts “ and th e re b y d e te rm in e th e loca tio n o f black elem en tary schools. P la in tiffs appeal th e d is tric t c o u r t’s o rd e r re je c tin g th e ir claim of in te n tio n a l d iscrim i n a tio n by th e school b o ard in a d o p tin g th e p ro p o se d plan fo r neigh b o rh o o d e le m e n ta ry sc h o o ls in N orfolk. Specifically, th e y claim e r r o r in (1) th e d istric t c o u rt’s h o ld in g th a t th e 1975 o rd er d eclarin g th e N o rfo lk echool s y s te m to be u n ita ry rem ain s e ffe c tiv e an d ap p lica b le to this law suit; (2) th e d is tric t c o u r t's conclusion th a t N o rfo lk 's school s y s te m is in fa c t u n itary ; (3) th e c o u rt’s co n clu sio n th a t th e b u rd en o f p ro o f in th is a c tio n is upon th e p la in tiffs to p ro v e in te n t to d isc rim in a te by th e school b o ard ; a n d (4) th e c o u r t’s holding th a t th e school b o a rd ’s ac tio n s w ere n o t m o tiv ated by racial c rite ria in violation of th e F o u rte e n th A m en d m e n t. W e will consider th e se a r g u m e n ts in tu r n . V. E ffe c t o f 1975 O rd e r B ased upon th e ab o v e re a so n in g an d fa c t findings, th e c o u r t re je c te d th e p la in tiffs' contention th a t th e proposed plan w as adopted fo r th e p u rp o s e o f racial discrim i nation. It found t h a t n e ith e r th e b o a rd 's i/i 1975, the d istric t co u rt in Beckett fo u n d t h a t th e N o rfo lk school sy ste m h ad “ s a tis fie d its a ffirm a tiv e d u ty to d e s e g r e g a te , th a t racial d iscrim ination th ro u g h o fficial actio n [had] been e lim in a te d fro m th e s y s te m and th a t th e N o rfo lk School S y s te m [w as] ‘u n ita ry ’.” T h a t h old in g 9. Twenty-five percent of Norfolk's black fami lies live in public or subsidized housing projects. These twenty-two projects are occupied almost exclusively by black residents. �530 784 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES m a rk e d th e cu lm in atio n o f a lm o st tw o d ec ad e s o f d e s e g re g a tio n litig atio n in N o rfo lk . T he Beckett litig atio n w as e ffe c tiv e ly com p le te d in 1971 w hen a b u sin g o r d e r w a s e n te re d . F ollow ing its e n try , th e d is tric t c o u rt m o n ito re d th e school s y s te m fo r fo u r y e a rs a n d b ec am e sa tisfie d t h a t th e s y ste m had rid d e d its e lf o f racial d isc rim in a tio n . B eing s a tis f ie d t h a t th e plan h ad su c ce ed ed in e r a d ic a tin g se g re g a tio n , th e c o u r t d is m issed th e su it. [2 ] P la in tiffs contend th a t th e 1975 o r d e r is n o m o re th a n a c o n sen t o rd e r e n te re d by th e p a r tie s an d th e re fo re is n o t b in d in g upon th e m . W hile the p la in tiffs a r e c o r re c t in s ta tin g th a t, a s a g e n e ra l ru le , all c o n s e n t o rd e rs do n o t n ec essarily h a v e col la te ra l e s to p p e l effect, United States v. International Bldg. Co., 345 U.S. 502, 73 S.C t. 807, 97 L.E d. 1182 (1953), w e b eliev e th a t th e 1975 o rd e r w as n o t a co m p ro m ise ju d g m e n t. Id. a t 506, 73 S.Ct. a t 8 0 9 .,u As p re v io u sly n o te d , th a t o rd e r c u lm in a te d a le n g th y a n d hotly co n tested la w s u it w hich re s u lte d in th e ending o f s e g r e g a te d sch o o ls in N o rfo lk . T he c o u rt m o n ito re d th e d e s e g r e g a tio n plan fo r se v e ra l y e a rs and, a f t e r fin d in g th a t all o f th e claim s ra ise d in th e com plaint had b ee n d isp o sed of, d ism isse d th e case. B ecau se th e c o u rt m a d e fin d in g s on th e m e rits o f th e p la in tif f s ’ c la im s fo r relief, th e o r d e r is n o t a c o n s e n t o r d e r in s e ttle m e n t o f a s u it b u t is a n o r d e r on th e m e rits o f th e sa m e . T h e fa c t t h a t th e p a rtie s a g re e d to th e o rd e r d o e s n o t a lte r th a t conclusion. Interna tional Bldg. Co., su p ra , a t 506, 73 S .C t. a t 809. U n lik e a n o rd er co m p ro m ising a claim by a g r e e m e n t, th e d istric t c o u rt in th e o r d e r n o w c o n te ste d ru led on th e q u e s tio n s o f law a n d f a c t in disp u te. B e ca u se th e o r d e r r e p r e s e n ts th e c o u rt’s fin d in g s on th e is s u e s r a is e d a n d n o t a co m p ro m ise e n te re d in to b y th e p a rtie s, th e c o n s e n t o rd e r e x ce p tio n to application o f c o lla te ra l e sto p p e l p rin c ip le s is inapplicable here. [ 3 ,4 ] S uch a conclusion is c o n s is te n t w ith th e d u ty placed upon d is tric t c o u r ts in 10. See generally IB Moorei Feil. Practice II .4-44(3) for a discussion of the collateral estop- disposing o f school d e s e g re g a tio n c a se s. A d istric t co u rt is u n d e r an o b lig a tio n to re tain jurisdiction o v e r th e school s y s te m u n d e r a proposed in te g ra tio n plan to d e te r mine its e ffec tiv e n ess in ach iev in g d e s e g re gation. Swann, s u p ra , 402 U.S. a t 21, 91 S.Ct. a t 1278; Green, s u p ra , 391 U.S. a t 439, 88 S.Ct. a t 1695; Raney v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 443, 449, 88 S.Ct. 1697, 1700, 20 L .E d .2d 727 (1968). I t is req u ired to reta in ju risd ic tio n u n til it d e te r m ines th a t th e school s y s te m h as becom e u n itary . United States v. Texas Ed. Agen cy, 647 F.2d 504, 508 (5th Cir.1981). S uch a d eterm in atio n sh o u ld only o ccu r a f te r th e d istric t co u rt h a s re ta in e d ju risd ic tio n o v er th e school sy ste m to m ak e c e rta in th a t " it is o p era ted in a c o n stitu tio n a lly p erm issib le fashion so th a t th e g o a l o f a d e s e g re g a te d , non-racially o p e ra te d sch o o l sy ste m is rap idly and finally a c h ie v e d ." Raney, su p ra , 391 U.S. a t 449, 88 S .C t. a t 1700; Felder v. Harnett Co. Board o f Education, 409 F.2d 1070, 1075 (4th Cir.1969) T he d istric t c o u rt follow ed th e m o n ito rin g p ro ce d u re as it w as req u ired to do. I t did n o t en d th e litigation until it w a s sa tisfie d t h a t the school sy ste m w a s f re e fro m racial s e g re gation. Such a c tiv e p artic ip a tio n b y th e c o u rt belies an y a r g u m e n t th a t th e 1975 o rd e r is a n y th in g le ss th a n a ju d g m e n t on th e m erits. (51 P la in tiffs n e x t co n ten d th a t th e 1975 o rd e r sh o u ld b e g iv e n no e ffe c t h e re b ecau se th e U n ite d S ta te s , a p a rty to th e p rio r action, w a s n o t g iv en notice of, n o r co n sen ted to, t h a t o rd e r. P la in tiffs have no sta n d in g to r a is e su c h a claim , especially since th e U n ited S ta te s d o es n o t c h a lle n g e th e 1975 o rd er. S ee g e n e ra lly th e g o v e rn m e n t’s b rie f 12-15. [6] W e lik ew ise r e je c t p la in tiffs' a r g u m en t th a t th e 1975 o r d e r is n o t to be given e ffe c t h ere b e c a u s e it w as n o t a final o rd er. T h a t co n ten tio n d e riv e s fro m la n g u a g e in th e o rd er th a t th e a c tio n "is d ism issed, with leave to an y p a r ty to r e in s ta te this action pci effect of consent orders. �R ID D IC K RY R ID D IC K v. S C H O O L H I). O F C IT Y O F N O R F O L K Cite u 7K FJd 521 (4th Clr. I9H 4 6) fo r good cau se sh o w n ." If w e consider th a t only final o rd e rs a re to be g iv en p re c lu siv e e ffe c t, Kaspar Wire IForAs, Inc. v. Ia t o Engineering & Mach., 575 F .2 d 530, 5 3 7 -3 8 (5 th C ir.1978)," w e find no violation o f t h a t m axim h ere. T he 1975 o r d e r con c lu d ed a com plex legal b a ttle o f a lm o st tw e n ty y e a r s ' d u ratio n in w hich all p a rtie s h a d a m p le o p p o rtu n ity to b e h eard . T h a t o r d e r could have b een a p p e a le d u n d e r 28 U.S.C. § 1291 if th e p a rtie s so chose. T hey did n o t. T he o rd er finally d isp o sed o f all re m a in in g issu es in th e litig a tio n , an d it could h a v e been appealed. A s su ch , p rec lu sion p rin cip les atta c h . T h e fa c t th a t th e d is tric t c o u r t g a v e the p a rtie s a n o p p o rtu n ity to r e in s ta te the c a u s e u p o n th e docket w ith a sh o w in g of good c a u se does n o t a lte r o u r holding. T h a t la n g u a g e is n o t d issim ila r to th e la n g u a g e in F ed.R .C iv.P ro. 60(b) w hich allow s p a r tie s to seek re lie f fro m a ju d g m e n t u n d e r c e rta in p rescrib ed c irc u m sta n c e s. R ule 60(b) sp ecifically p ro v id es, h o w e v e r, th a t su c h o p p o rtu n ity to se ek r e lie f fro m ju d g m e n t d o es n o t a f fe c t th e fin a lity o f an o rd e r. W e believe th a t th e sa m e re a so n in g sh o u ld a p p ly here. P la in tiffs fu rth e r a r g u e t h a t th e 1975 o r d e r sh o u ld not be b in d in g on th e m be c a u s e th e d istric t c o u rt did n o t com ply w ith F ed .R .C iv .P ro . 23(e) by g iv in g n o tice to m e m b e rs o f th e class p rio r to d ism issa l or co m p ro m ise o f th e class a c tio n . W e have found th a t th e 1975 o r d e r is n o t a volun ta ry d ism issa l o r co m p ro m ise b u t in stead r e p r e s e n ts an ad ju d icatio n on th e m erits. T h u s, su c h an o rd e r is n o t s u b je c t to 23(e)’s notice req u ire m e n ts. S ee Shelton v. Pargo. Inc., 582 F.2d 1298, 1300 n. 1 (4th Cir.1978); Hutchinson v. Fidelity Inv. Assoe., 106 F .2d 431 (4th Cir.1939); W rig h t & M iller, Federal Practice and Procedure, 1972, § 1797, p. 235-236. 17) O nce a c o u rt d ec id e s a n issu e o f law o r fa c t n e c e ssa ry to its ju d g m e n t, t h a t deci sion c a n b e binding u p o n a p a r ty to it if the p a rty w a s given a "fu ll a n d f a ir o p p o rtu n i ty to litig a te [the] issu e in th e e a rlie r c a se ." Allen v. McCurry, 449 U .S. 90, 94-95, 101 • I. See 18, Wright, Miller & Cooper Federal Prac 531 S.Ct. 411, 414-15, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980). T he C o u rt h as su m m a riz e d its th o u g h ts in Montana v. United States, 440 U .S. 147, 153-54, 99 S .C t. 970, 973-74, 59 L .E d.2d 210 (1979): A fu n d a m e n ta l p re c e p t o f com m on-law ad ju d icatio n , em b o d ied in the re la te d d o c trin e s o f c o lla te ra l esto p p el and r e s ju d i cata, is th a t a rig h t, qu estio n o r fa c t d istin ctly p u t in iss u e an d d irectly d e te r m ined by a c o u r t o f c o m p ete n t ju ris d ic tion . . . c a n n o t be d isp u ted in a s u b s e q u e n t s u it b e tw e e n th e sa m e p a rtie s o r th e ir p r iv ie s ___ ' Southern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 168 U.S. 1, 4 8 -4 9 [18 S .C t. 18, 27, 42 L.Ed. 355] (1897). U n d er re s ju d ic a ta , a final ju d g m e n t on th e m e rits b a rs f u r th e r claim s by p a r tie s or th e ir p riv ies b a s e d on th e sa m e c a u s e o f actio n . (C ita tio n s o m itted ) U n d e r col la te ra l esto p p u l, o n ce an issu e is a c tu a lly an d n e c e s sa rily d e te rm in e d b y a c o u r t o f co m p e te n t ju risd ic tio n , th a t d e te rm in a tion is co n clu siv e in s u b s e q u e n t s u its b ased on a d if fe r e n t ca u se o f ac tio n in volving a p a r ty to th e p rio r litig atio n . (C itation o m itte d ) A pplication o f b o th d o c trin e s is c e n tra l to th e p u rp o se fo r w hich civil c o u rts h av e been e s ta b lish e d , th e co n clu siv e re so lu tio n o f d is p u te s w ith in th e ju risd ic tio n s . (C itatio n o m it ted) T o p rec lu d e p a rtie s from c o n te s tin g m a tte rs th a t th e y h av e had a fu ll an d fa ir o p p o rtu n ity to litig a te p ro te c ts th e ir a d v e rs a rie s fro m th e e x p e n se an d v e x a tion a tte n d in g m u ltip le la w su its, co n se rv e s ju d icial re so u rc e s, an d f o s te r s re liance on ju d icial action by m inim izing th e p o ssib ility o f in c o n siste n t d ecisio n s. (F o o tn o te o m itted ) [8] T h e p rin cip les o f c o lla te ra l e s to p p e l o r issu e p re c lu sio n a r e applicable to sch o o l d e s e g re g a tio n c a se s. Los Angeles Branch NAACP v. L.A. Unified School Dist., 750 F.2d 731 (9th Cir.1985); Bronson v. Board of Education o f City School DisL, 687 F.2d 836 (6th Cir.1982); 525 F .2d 344 (6th Cir. 1975). tice and Procedure, § 4432. .< �784 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES 532 [9] P la in tiffs' fin a l claim on this point is th a t they h av e n o t h a d a full and fair o p p o rtu n ity to litig a te th e u n ita ry finding. T he Beckett p la in tif f class re p re se n te d black school s tu d e n ts in th e N orfolk school sy ste m . I t litig a te d f o r a lm o st tw en ty y e a rs. N o rfo lk 's b la ck schoo l children are th e p lain tiffs h e re . W h ile th e actu al m ake up of class m e m b e rs m a y be d iffe re n t be ca u se of th e p a s s a g e o f tim e (as it is bound to have been a t th e b e g in n in g and ending o f Beckett), w e b e lie v e t h a t th e tw o classes a re in su ffic ie n t p riv ity fo r th e principles of co llateral e s to p p e l- o r is s u e preclusion to apply. Bell v. Board o f Educ. Akron Pub lic Schooln, 683 F .2d 963 (6th Cir.1982); Bronson, su p ra , 525 F .2 d a t 349. The Beckett p la in tiffs h a d a fu ll and fair oppor tu n ity to c o n te st th e d is tric t c o u rt’s 1975 u n ita ry finding. T h e se p la in tiffs can n o t now relitig ate t h a t is s u e h ere . Los Ange les Branch NAACP, s u p ra ; Bronson, s u p ra; see Azalea Drive-In Theatre, Inc. v. Hav.fi, 540 F.2d 713 (4 th Cir.1976), cert, den. 430 U.S. 941 (1977). s u it ch a lle n g in g th e freedom o f choice plan in itiated in N ew K ent C ounty, V irg in ia .1* N ew K e n t C ounty is a ru ra l c o u n ty in e a s te rn V irg in ia. Its school s y s te m con s is te d o f tw o schools, a w hite school s e rv ing g ra d e s 1-12 and a black school s e rv in g th e sa m e g ra d e s. School se g re g a tio n had ex iste d , o f c o u rse , in all p a rts o f V irg in ia p rio r to Brown I, u n d er both c o n stitu tio n a l an d s ta tu to r y com m and. W hen th e Green c o m p la in t w a s filed, pupil a s sig n m e n t in th e co u n ty w as governed by a pupil p lace m e n t b o a rd c re a te d by sta te law. Green a t 391 U.S. 432-3, 88 S .C t a t 1691. S tu d e n ts w ere g e n e ra lly reassigned each school y e a r to th e sch o o l th ey had atten d ed th e p rio r y e a r u n le s s th e y so u g h t re a ssig n m e n t by th e p la c e m e n t board. A fter th e Green s u it w as filed, th e school board adopted a f re e dom o f choice plan to d e s e g re g a te th e ir tw o sch o o ls. T h e q u estio n o f w h e th e r th e N orfolk school sy ste m w a s u n ita r y a t th e tim e of th e tria l w as e x p lo re d a t tria l, p erh a p s w ith th e in te n t to sh o w t h a t th e school sy stem w as not u n ita ry in 1983 a n d 1984 a lth o u g h it m ig h t h av e b ee n in 1975. In fin d in g th e freedom o f choice plan c o n s titu tio n a lly in adequate as a re m e d y u n d e r th e f a c ts o f th a t case, th e C o u rt f ir s t co n clu d ed t h a t th e county had e s ta b lish e d a n d o p e ra te d a school system u n d e r s ta te law like t h a t forbidden by Brown — a “ d u al s y s te m , p a r t ‘w h ite’ and p a r t ‘N e g r o ’." Green, s u p r a , 391 U.S. a t 435, 88 S .C t. a t 1692. A dditio n ally , the county h ad d elay ed th e d is m a n tlin g o f th a t dual sy s te m , and th e fre e d o m o f choice plan h ad induced only 1571 o f N e g ro stu d en ts to a tte n d th e fo rm e rly a ll w h ite school. No w h ite s tu d e n t h a d a tte n d e d the all N eg ro school. W ith in th a t fa c tu a l setting, the fre e d o m o f ch o ice p la n did n o t provide any m e a n in g fu l a s s u ra n c e t h a t th e dual sy stem w o u ld be p ro m p tly d ism an tled . The fa c ts sh o w ed o th e rw is e b e c a u se , a fte r th ree y e a rs o f o p e ra tio n u n d e r th e freedom o f ch o ice plan , 85% o f th e co u n ty ’s black s tu d e n ts still a tte n d e d a ll black schools. In Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430, 88 S .C t. 1689, 20 L.Ed.2d 716 (1968), th e C o u rt f o r th e f ir s t tim e spoke of th e goal o f school d e s e g re g a tio n as th e tra n sitio n o f a d u a l school sy ste m into a u n ita ry one. T he Green p la in tiffs b ro u g h t U n d e r th e m an d ate of Brown “ [s]chool b o a rd s . . . th e n o perating sta te -c o m p elled d u a l s y s te m s w ere . . . clearly c h a rg e d w ith th e a f f ir m a tiv e d u ty to take w h a te v e r s te p s m ig h t b e n e c e s sa ry to convert to a u n ita ry s y s te m in w hich racial discrim ination w ould 12. The freedom of choice plan allowed the stu dent to choose the public school he wished to attend, with minor qualifications not pertinent here. M indful o f th e C o u r t’s adm onition in 440 U .S. p. 163, 99 S.Ct. p. 978, th a t ‘‘[u n jre fle c tiv e in v o c a tio n o f collateral esto p p el a g a in s t p a r tie s w ith an ongoing in te re s t in c o n s titu tio n a l issu es could fre ez e do ctrine in a r e a s o f th e law w hen resp o n siv en e ss to c h a n g in g p a tte rn s of co n d u ct o r social m o re s is critical," we n ev e rth e le ss co n c lu d e th a t th e d istric t c o u rt did n o t e r r in fin d in g th a t its 1975 o rd e r w as b in d in g u p o n th e s e p arties. Montana, V I. N orfolk a s a U n ita ry School S ystem �RIDDICK BY RIDDICK v. SCHOOL BD. OF CITY OF NORFOLK Cite m 784 F.2ti 321 (4th Clr. I9S4) be elim in ated ro o t an d b ran ch ." Green, su p ra , 391 U.S. a t 437-8, 88 S.Ct. a t 169394. All a s p e c ts o f public education m u st be freed fro m th e v e s tig e s o f s ta te san ctio n ed racial s e g re g a tio n b e fo re a school sy ste m becom es u n ita r y . In te g ra tio n m u st o ccu r in th e s y s te m 's fa c u lty , s ta ff , tr a n s p o r ta tion p rac tice s, e x tra c u r ric u la r activities, fa cilities an d p u p il a s sig n m e n t. Green, s u pra, 391 U .S. a t 435, 88 S.Ct. a t 1692-93. (10J A s w e h a v e p rev io u sly s ta te d , th e m ere im p le m e n ta tio n o f a d e s e g re g a tio n plan d o es n o t c o n v e r t a dual sy ste m into a u n ita ry one. United States v. Texas Ed. Agency, s u p r a , 647 F .2d a t 508. -. T he d is tric t c o u r t h e re found th a t its \ ', m fin d in g tb & t th e N o rfo lk school sysI (cm h ad ac h ie v e d a u n ita ry s ta tu s w as a | co rrec t o ne a n d th a t th e school sy ste m reta in ed its u n ita r y s ta tu s until th e p re se n t. I t fo u n d t h a t " th e N orfolk School B oard is a n in te g r a te d body, th e N o rfo lk ! school a d m in is tra tio n is racially b alan ced , the racial co m p o sitio n o f th e fac u lty a n d s ta ff is m ix ed , a n d th e o v erw h elm in g m a jority o f sch o o l c h ild re n , of b o th ra c e s, on th e e le m e n ta ry , ju n io r a n d senior h ig h school lev els, a t te n d sch o o ls w hose s tu d e n t bodies a re ra c ia lly m ixed. In addition, th e re h a s b ee n n o co n ten tio n , n o r could th ere b e one, t h a t th e e x tra c u rric u la r ac tiv ities, tra n s p o r ta tio n n e tw o rk and school fa cilities a r e o p e ra te d in a dual fashion. Fii nnlly . . . th e re h a s been no challenge to any of th e B o a rd 's ac tio n s in th e Beckett litigation sin ce so m e tim e befo re th e 1975 ord er w as e n te r e d .” 1111 O u r rev iew o f th e d istric t c o u rt’s finding th a t th e school sy ste m is u n ita ry is under F ed.R .C iv .P ro . 52(a)’s re q u ire m e n t I hat fin d in g s o f fa c t be s e t aside only if clearly e rro n e o u s . Vaughns v. Board of Education of Prince George's Co., 758 l'2 d 983 (4th C ir. 1985). F actu al findings by a d is tric t c o u r t in school d eseg reg a tio n ruses, especially w h e re th e p residing ju d i cial o ffic er h a s lived w ith th e case for many y e a rs, a r e e n title d to g r e a t d eferen ce 13. following the district court's order, the wliool board defined racially identifiable «Mi i< u »— 533 Vaughns, su p ra , a t 990; se e Goldsboro City Board of Education t>. Wayne Co. Board of Education, 745 F.2d 324, 327 (4th C ir.1984); Columbus Board o f Education v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449, 457 on rev iew . n. 6, 99 S.C t. 2941, 2946 n. 6, 61 L .E d .2 d 666 (1979). U n d e r th e clearly erro n eo u s s ta n d a rd , a re v ie w in g c o u rt m ay n o t re v e rs e th e fin d in g s o f th e tria l c o u rt sim ply b e c a u s e it w o u ld h av e decided th e c a se d iffe re n tly . " I f th e d is tric t c o u rt's ac co u n t o f th e evi d e n c e is p lau sib le in lig h t o f th e re c o rd v iew ed in its e n tire ty , th e c o u r t o f a p p e a ls m ay n o t r e v e rs e it even th o u g h co nvinced t h a t h a d it b een sittin g a s th e tr ie r o f fa c t, it w o u ld h av e w eig h ed th e ev id en ce d if f e r e n tly . W h e re th e re a re tw o p erm issib le v iew s o f th e evidence, th e f a c tfin d e r 's ch o ice b e tw e e n th em c a n n o t be c le a riy e r r o n e o u s .” Anderson v. City o f Bessemer City, N.C., — U.S. ------ , ------ , 105 S .C t. 1504, 1512, 84 L .E d.2d 518 (1985). T h is ru le a p p lie s ev en w h en th e d is tric t c o u r t’s fin d in g s r e s t upon physical o r d o c u m e n ta ry ev id en ce. W e a re cau tio n ed t h a t o u r a p p e l la te ro le is violated if we seek to d ecid e th e m a tte r anew . 1121 W e ca n n o t sa y th a t th e tria l c o u r t’s fin d in g th a t th e school s y s te m is u n ita ry is clearly erro n eo u s. T h e ev id en ce in th e rec o rd su p p o rts th e c o u r t’s c o n c lu sion t h a t th e faculty and s t a f f a r e fully in te g ra te d . T h ree of th e seven b o ard m em b e rs a re black. The s u p e rin te n d e n t and tw o o f th e th re e regional a s s is ta n t s u p e rin te n d e n ts a re black. No se rio u s q u e s tio n is ra ise d th a t th e faculty and s t a f f a r e still s e g re g a te d , and we ag re e t h a t no su c h s e g re g a tio n exists. T h e d istric t c o u rt found th a t th e o ver- i w h elm in g m ajority of N o rfo lk ’s s tu d e n ts ji a tte n d racially mixed schools. T h e s ta tis tic s in th e record b ear o u t th a t conclusion. A s a g e n e ra l rule, th e school b o ard h as b ee n ab le to keep its ele m e n ta ry sch o o ls w ith in th e 707<>-30% g u ideline a d o p te d in th e e a rly 1970’s .'3 We a g re e w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s finding th a t N o rfo lk ’s s tu d e n ts schools as those with fewer than 30% or more than 70% minority or non-minority students. �534 784 F E D E R A L R E P O R T E R . 2d S E R IE S a r e a tte n d in g in te g ra te d sc h o o ls. N o one a r g u e s t h a t th e school fa c ilitie s, e x tra c u r ric u la r activities o r tr a n s p o r ta tio n sy ste m a r e o p e ra te d in a d u al m a n n e r. W e note a g a in th a t th e b u sin g o f s tu d e n ts c o n tin u es in g ra d e s 7-12. T h e d istric t c o u rt rev ie w e d all six fa c to rs s e t o u t in Green and fo u n d th a t N o rfo lk 's school sy ste m had re m a in e d u n ita r y since 1975. T h ere is s u b s ta n tia l e v id en c e in th e rec o rd to su p p o rt su c h a fin d in g . We th e re fo re affirm its ho ld in g . V II. E ffe c t of th e U n ita ry F in d in g T h is b rin g s us to th e p rin cip al issu e in th is appeal: W h at e f f e c t d o e s th e fin d in g t h a t N o rfo lk ’s school s y s te m is u n ita ry h av e upon th e p ro se c u tio n o f a c o n s titu tio n al ch allen g e to th e p ro p o se d n eig h b o r hood school a s sig n m e n t p lan ? W h a t p roce d u re g o v e rn s a c h a lle n g e to a s tu d e n t a s sig n m e n t plan for a sc h o o l d is tric t th a t historically p racticed d e ju r e s e g re g a tio n b u t h ad obtained a valid ju d ic ia l o rd e r th a t it h a s ridded itself o f all v e s tig e s o f th a t racial discrim ination? A r e la te d inquiry m u s t be to w h a t e x te n t a n d fo r how long m u s t a previously d is c rim in a tin g school s y ste m su b m it to ju d ic ia l co n tro l. Does judicial involvem ent e n d w h e n u n ita ry s ta tu s is achieved o r d o es ju d ic ia l involvem ent co n tin u e in p e rp e tu ity to p r e v e n t re s e g re g a tio n a b s e n t a sh o w in g o f in te n t to d is c rim in a te ? " T he d istric t c o u rt co n c lu d e d t h a t its find in g th a t the N o rfo lk sc h o o l s y s te m is u n i ta ry had the e ffe c t o f s h if tin g th e b u rd en o f p ro o f from th e d e f e n d a n t school b o ard to th e p la in tiffs. I t h eld t h a t p la in tiffs had th e b u rd en o f p roving t h a t th e school b o ard im p lem en ted th e c o n te s te d pupil a s sig n m e n t plan w ith an in te n t to d isc rim in a te on th e b asis o f race. im p lem en tatio n o f th e new a s sig n m e n t p lan will n o t p e rp e tu a te th e v estig es o f th e p a s t de ju r e d u al sy stem . W hile w e fin d no case w hich h as ad d re ssed th e issue u n d e r a fa c t situ a tio n th e sa m e a s p re se n t h e re , w e a g re e w ith th e d istric t c o u rt’s allo catio n o f th e b u rd en o f proof. [1 3 ,1 4 ] Since 1954, de ju re racial s e g r e g atio n in public schools h as been u n la w fu l a s in violation o f th e F o u rte en th A m en d m e n t to th e C o n stitu tio n . Brown, s u p ra . S uch d isc rim in a tin g schools w ere placed u n d e r an “ a ffirm a tiv e d u ty to ‘e f f e c tu a te a tra n sitio n to a racially no n -d iscrim in ato ry school s y s te m ’.” Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, Detiver, Col., 413 U.S. 189, 200, 93 S.C t. 2686, 2693, 37 L.Ed.2d 548 (1973), q u o tin g Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 301, 75 S .C t. 753, 756, 99 L .E d. 1083 (1955) (Brown II). S ta te san ctio n ed d u al school sy ste m s m u s t ta k e w h a te v e r s te p s a re n ec essary to com pletely elim inate rac ial discrim in atio n . Dayton Board o f EdL v. B rin km a n , 443 U.S. 526, 537-38, 99 S .C t. 2971, 2979, 61 l.E d.2d 720 (1979) (Dayton II); Columbus Bd. o f Ed. v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449, 458-59, 99 S.C t. 2941, 2946-47, 61 L .E d.2d 666 (1979); Swann, s u p ra , 402 U.S. a t 15, 91 S.Ct. a t 1275; Green., s u p ra , 391 U.S. a t 437-38, 88 S.Ct. a t 1093-94. E ach in stan ce o f a re fu sa l or fa ilu re to p erfo rm its d u ty to d e s e g re g a te c o n s titu te s a co n stitu tio n al violation by th e school b o ard . Columbus Bd. of Ed., s u p ra , 443 U.S. a t 459, 99 S.C t. a t 2947, citin g o th e r cases. P la in tiffs d isa g re e w ith th e allo catio n of th e b u rd en of p ro o f by th e d is tric t co u rt. T h ey claim th a t th e b u rd e n o f pro o f re m ains on th e school b o a rd to prove th a t [1 5 ,1 6 ] O nce a p la in tiff show s t h a t s e g re g a tio n e x ists in a school sy ste m t h a t w as a u th o rized o r req u ired by s ta te law a t th e tim e Brown w as decided, it follow s a s a m a tte r o f co u rse th a t th e school a u th o ritie s h av e a d u ty to elim in ate su ch se g re g a tio n . Keyes, su p ra , 413 U.S. a t 200-03, 93 S .C t. at 2693-95. T he b o ard can n o t s a tisfy its d u ty by m erely ab an d o n in g its p rio r d isc rim in a to ry p u rpose. N o r can it ta k e an y action 14. We decide the case under the tie /acto/de jure distinction which we think is the law. See. e g.. Keyes v. School Disl. No. /, 413 U.S. 189. 93 S.Cl. 2686. 37 I..P.d.2d 548 (1973). One respected commentator, however, has predicted the dis- Unction could not survive. See Bickcl, liman gling the Busing Snarl, The New Republic, Sept. 23. 1972. The separate opinions of Justices Douglas and Powell in Keyes take the position that it should not. �RIDDICK BY RIDDICK v. SCHOOL BD. OF CITY OF NORFOLK Cll* u 7MFJd 321 (4it. Clr. I«M) t h a t w o u ld im pede the p ro c e ss o f c o n v e rt in g to u u n ita ry sy stem . Dayton II, su p ra , 443 U .S. a t 538, 99 S.C t. u t 2979. T he b o a rd iB u n d e r a heavy b u rd e n o f sh o w in g t h a t a n y action it ta k e s t h a t c o n tin u e s th e e f f e c ts o f th e illegal dual s y s te m s e rv e s a le g itim a te end. Id. T he b u r d e n re m a in s upon th e school board to d is m a n tle th e s e g r e g a te d sy ste m and c o n v e rt to a " u n i ta r y s y s te m in w hich rac ial d isc rim in a tio n [is] elim in a te d ro o t and b r a n c h ." Green, s u p r a , 391 U.S. a t 438, 88 S .C t. a t 1694. 117, 18] R escission o f a v o lu n ta r y d e s e g re g a tio n plan its e lf m ay b e fo u n d to be a n a c t o f se g re g a tio n fo r a sc h o o l board w hich h a s been found to h a v e p ra c tic e d de j u r e s e g re g a tio n and h as n o t c o m p le te d the tr a n s itio n from a dual to a u n ita r y school s y s te m . NAACP v. Lansing Bd. o f Ed., 559 F .2d 1042 (6th Cir.), c e rt. d e n . 434 U.S. 997, 98 S .C t. 635, 54 L .E d.2d 491 (1977). In a school sy ste m th a t h as n o t b e c o m e u n i ta ry , th e school board is n o t b a r r e d from e v e r c h a n g in g a d e s e g re g a tio n p la n . In su c h a situ a tio n , how ever, th e b o a rd m u st sh o w t h a t th e proposed c h a n g e s a r e con s is te n t w ith its co n tin u in g a f f ir m a tiv e d u ty to e lim in a te d iscrim ination. Clark v. Board o f Educ. of Little Rock School Dist., 705 F.2d 265 (8th C ir. 1983). [19] T h e contin u ed e x is te n c e o f a s n a il n u m b e r o f one rac e schools w ith in su c h a school d is tric t does n o t e s ta b lis h in an d of its e lf a co n stitu tio n al v io latio n . Swann, s u p ra , 402 U.S. a t 26, 91 S .C t. a t 1281; Clark, s u p ra , 705 F.2d a t 272. T h e b u rd en is upon th e school board, h o w e v e r, to show th a t th e ex isten ce of such sc h o o ls a r e g e n u inely nondiscrim in ato ry and n o t v e s tig e s of p a s t se g re g a tio n . Swann, s u p r a . 402 U.S. a t 26, 91 S.Ct. a t 1281; Davis v. E. Baton Rouge Parish School Bd., 721 F .2d 1425, 1434 (5th Cir. 1983). 120-22] A d istric t c o u rt is u n d e r a d u ty to e n te r a d eseg reg a tio n o r d e r t h a t will go us fu r a s possible to w ard e lim in a tin g s e g re g a tio n . Green, su p ra , 391 U .S. a t 438 n. 4, HH S.C t. a t 1694 n. 4. T he c o u r t’s e q u ita b le p o w ers in such d ecrees a re b ro a d indeed, b u t th ey a r e not plenary. T h e y a r e lim ited 535 to th o se c a s e s in which a co n s titu tio n a l violation h a s o cc u rre d , e ith e r w h ere a de ju re s e g r e g a te d s y s te m ex ists, w h e re in te n t to d is c rim in a te is p resu m ed , o r w h e re a de fa c to s e g re g a te d sy stem e x ists an d in te n t to d isc rim in a te h as been p ro v en . In s itu a tio n s in w hich a school board h a s d e fa u lte d on its o b lig a tio n s, th e c o u rt ca n u se its b ro ad p o w e rs to fashion a rem e d y in o rd e r to a s s u r e a u n ita ry sy stem . Swann, su p ra , 402 U .S. a t 16, 91 S.Ct. a t 1276. [23] O n ce su c h a rem edy is fash io n e d , th e d is tric t c o u r t re ta in s jurisdiction u n til it is c le a r t h a t th e u n la w fu l s e g re g a tio n h a s been c o m p le te ly elim in ated . B u t o n ce th e goal o f a u n ita ry school sy stem is ach iev ed , th e d is tric t c o u r t’s role ends. See, g e n e r a l ly, Pasadena City Bd. of Ed. v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424, 96 S.C t. 2697, 49 L .E d.2d 599 (1976). F o re s e e in g su ch a tim e, th e Swann C o u rt s ta te d : A t so m e po in t, th e se school a u th o ritie s and o th e r s lik e th em sho u ld h a v e ach iev ed fu ll com pliance w ith th is C o u rt’s d ec isio n in Brown I. T h e s y s te m s w o u ld th e n be ‘u n ita ry ’ in th e s e n s e re q u ire d b y o u r decisions in Green a n d Alexander. I t d o es n o t follow th a t the co m m u n ities se rv e d by su c h sy ste m s will re m a in dem o g ra p h ic a lly sta b le , fo r in a g ro w in g , m obile so c ie ty , few will do so. N e ith e r school a u th o ritie s n o r d istric t c o u rts a re c o n s titu tio n a lly req u ired to m ak e y ea rb y -y ear a d ju s tm e n ts o f th e racial co m p o sition o f s tu d e n t bodies once th e a f f ir m a tive d u ty to d e s e g re g a te has been acco m plished a n d ra c ia l discrim ination th ro u g h official actio n is elim inated from th e s y s tem . T h is d o es n o t m ean th a t fe d e ra l c o u rts a r e w ith o u t pow er to deal w ith fu tu re p ro b lem s; b u t in th e ab sen c e o f a sh o w in g t h a t e ith e r th e school a u th o ri ties o r so m e o th e r agency of th e S ta te h as d e lib e ra te ly a tte m p te d to fix o r a lte r d e m o g ra p h ic p a tte r n s to a ffe c t th e rac ial com position o f th e schools, f u rth e r in te r v en tio n b y a d is tric t c o u rt should n o t be n e c e s sa ry . Swann, s u p r a , 402 U.S. a t 31-32, 91 S .C t. a t 1283-84. A �784 F E D E R A L R E P O R T E R . 2d S E R IE S In Pasadena, s u p r a , 427 U.S. 424, 96 S.Ct. 2699, th e C o u rt a g a in recognized th a t th e r ig h t o f th e fe d e ra l c o u rts m u st end w hen th e o b je c tiv e s o u g h t has been achieved. A c o u r t o rd e re d d eseg reg a tio n plan w as a d o p te d in 1970 which provided th a t s tu d e n ts m u s t be a ssig n e d in su ch a m a n n e r so th a t no sch o o l in the d is tric t w ould be c o m p rise d o f " a m ajority o f a n y m inority s tu d e n ts .” Id. a t 428, 96 S.Ct. a t 2701. T h e d is tric t c o u r t re ta in ed ju risd ic tion in th e c a se . N e ith e r p a rty appealed, an d th e p la n b e c a m e e ffe c tiv e th a t sa m e calendar year. F o u r y e a r s la te r, th e school board r e tu rn e d to c o u rt, se e k in g , am o n g o th e r th in g s , re lie f fro m th e no "m a jo rity o f a n y m in o rity s tu d e n ts ” p ro v isio n in th e fo rm o f a liftin g o f th e c o u r t’s injunction. T h e d istric t c o u rt r e f u s e d to g r a n t the school b o ard relief fro m its o r d e r prim arily b e c a u se it p e rc e iv e d t h a t th e school b o ard h ad n o t p ro p e rly c o m p lie d w ith its o rd e r a f te r th e f ir s t y e a r it w a s in force. The school b o ard h ad a d ju s te d a tte n d a n c e zones in 1970 to com ply w ith th e o rd e r b u t had n o t re a d ju s te d e a c h y e a r th e r e a f te r . As a r e su lt, schools slip p e d o u t o f literal com pli an c e w ith th e n o t to e x c e e d 50% m a n d a te by th e n e x t sch o o l y e a r . By th e tim e o f th e d is tric t c o u r t h e a rin g , five of th e s y s te m 's 32 sc h o o ls n o lo n g e r m e t th e le ss th a n 50% ru le . Id. a t 431, 96 S.Ct. a t 2702. T h e d is tric t c o u r t m a d e c le a r th a t it ex p e c t ed th e school b o a rd to re a d ju st s tu d e n t a tte n d a n c e f ig u r e s y e a rly to com ply w ith th e c o u rt's ru lin g . Id. a t 433, 96 S.C t. a t 2703. T he c o u r t o f a p p e a ls found th a t th e d is tric t c o u rt h a d n o t a b u s e d its d isc re tio n in im posing su c h a n a n n u a l re q u ire m e n t. ^ T h e S u p re m e C o u r t d isa g re e d . In itially , it fou n d t h a t th e d is t r ic t c o u rt w as im p e r m issibly r e q u irin g a " p a rtic u la r d e g re e o f ra c ia l b a la n c e o r m ix in g " which Swann ex p re ssly c o n d e m n e d . Id . a t 434, 96 S.C t. a t 2703-04. W h ile su c h a racial b alan ce can b e a s ta r t in g p o in t on th e ro ad to com plete d e s e g re g a tio n , it reasoned, it can n ev e r be an in fle x ib le re q u ire m en t. N ext, th e C o u rt re je c te d the d istric t c o u rt’s a u th o rity to im pose such a re q u ire m e n t a b s e n t a show ing t h a t th e d e fe n d a n t school board w as resp o n sib le fo r th e in te r v e n in g ch a n g es in th e ra c ia l com p o sitio n o f th e schools. The C o u rt relied ap p ro v in g ly on th e cau tio n ary la n g u a g e o f Swann th a t " ‘it m u s t be recognized t h a t th e r e a re lim its ’ beyond which a c o u r t m ay n o t g o in se e k in g to d ism an tle a d u a i school sy stem . [C itatio n om itted] T h e se lim its a re in p a r t tied to the necessity o f e s ta b lis h in g th a t sch o o l a u th o ritie s h av e in so m e m a n n er ca u se d u n co n stitu tio n al s e g re g a tio n , fo r '[a ]b s e n t a c o n stitu tio n al vio latio n th e re w ould be no basis fo r ju d ic ia lly o rd erin g a s s ig n m e n t o f s tu d e n ts on a ra c ia l b a s is’." Id. a t 434, 96 S.Ct. a t 2703-04. 1 T h e d istric t c o u rt h ad fo u n d a c o n s titu tio n a l violation in 1970 a n d th u s h ad th e initial au th o rity to c a u se th e re a s s ig n m e n t o f s tu d e n ts on the b asis o f ra c e . B u t once P a s a d e n a adopted a rac ia lly n e u tra l s y s tem , no fu rth e r c o n s titu tio n a l violation could be found u n less by a c ta a ttr ib u ta b le to th e school board. A t t h a t point, the d is tric t c o u rt exceeded its a u th o rity by r e q u irin g th e re a d ju s tm e n t o f a tte n d a n c e zo n es a b s e n t such a c o n s titu tio n a l viola tion. B ecau se th e school b o a rd w a s not re sp o n sib le fo r th e d e m o g ra p h ic s h if ts in th e p o p u latio n which c a u se d th e sch o o ls to slip o u t o f com pliance, it w a s u n d e r no d u ty to a d ju s t school a tte n d a n c e fig u re s to re fle c t th o se ch a n g es. T h e C o u rt concluded t h a t " h a v in g once im p lem e n te d a racially n e u tra l a tte n d a n c e p a tte r n in o r d e r to re m edy th e perceived c o n s titu tio n a l v iolatio ns on th e p a r t o f th e d e fe n d a n ts , th e D istric t C o u rt h a d fully p e rfo rm e d its fu n c tio n of p ro v id in g th e a p p ro p ria te re m e d y fo r p rev i o u s rac ially d isc rim in a to ry a tte n d a n c e z o n e s.” Id. a t 436-37, 96 S .C t. a t 2704-05. W e h av e only re c e n tly e x a m in e d both and Swann a n d co n clu d ed th a t a d is tric t c o u rt's p o w er to e f f e c t ad d itio n a l re m e d ia l o rd e rs is lim ited. “ O nce a sc h o o l1 s y s te m h a s achieved u n ita ry s ta tu s , a c o u rt m ay n o t o rd e r fu rth e r re lie f to c o u n te r act re s e g re g a tio n th a t does n o t r e s u lt fro m the school s y s te m ’s in te n tio n ally d isc rim in a to ry a c ts .” Vaughns, s u p ra , a t 988. O th er c o u rts h av e reached th e sa m e conclusion Pasadena A �R ID D IC K HY R ID D IC K v. S C H O O L HD. O F C IT Y O F N O R F O L K Cite u7MFJd 321 (4th Clr. 1984) Davis, su p ra , 721 F.2d a t 1435 ("C hanges in neig h b o rh o o d eth n icity ta k in g place a f te r school officials h av e tra n s fo rm e d their s y s te m into a u n ita ry o n e n eed not be rem e d ied , o f course, fo r scho o l officials are u n d e r no d u ty to a d ju s t f o r th e purely p riv a te a c ts o f th o se w ho ch o se to vote w ith th e ir feet."); Ross v. Houston Inde pendent School Dist., 699 F .2 d 218, 225 (5th C ir. 1983) ("W hen s t a t e o ffic ia ls have n o t only m ade good fa ith e f f o r ts to elimi n a te th e v e s tig e s o f s e g re g a tio n , b u t have a c tu a lly achieved a school s y s te m clean of ev e ry re sid u e o f p a s t o ffic ia l discrim ina tio n , im m u tab le g e o g ra p h ic fa c to rs and p o st-d em o g ra p h ic c h a n g e s th a t p re v e n t th e h o m o g e n atio n o f all s tu d e n t bodies do not b u r ju d icial reco g n itio n t h a t th e school sy s tem is u n ita ry ." ) B u t se e United States v. Hendry Co. Sch. Diet., 504 F .2d 550, 554 (5th Cir.1974) (“ We c a n n o t to le r a te resegreKntion of a former dual school system, and th e school b o ard o f su c h a sy ste m m u st d e m o n s tr a te th a t th e n ew c o n stru c tio n will n o t te n d to pro m o te su c h a re la p s e .” The d ecision w as p rio r to Pasadena, however.) W e a g r e e w ith th e d is tric t c o u rt th a t a n d th e c a se s th a t follow , both in th e S u p re m e C o u rt an d in th e courts of a p p e a ls , re q u ire a p la in tiff to prove dis c rim in a to ry in te n t on th e p a r t o f th e school b o ard o f a u n ita ry school sy ste m . Swann W e th in k th e ra tio n a le o f th e s e cases is ap p lica b le here. W e re c o g n iz e so m e factu al d iffe re n c e s b etw e en th o s e c a se s, w here f a c to rs o u tsid e th e school b o a rd ’s control su c h a s dem o g ra p h ic c h a n g e s ca u se the racial com position o f sch o o ls to ch an g e, and th e c a se w e co n sid er to d a y , w h e re an act of th e school board in c h a n g in g a p a r t of a d e s e g re g a tio n plan r e s u lts in th e shifting rucial com position o f th e sch o o ls. We do not ta k e lig htly th is fa c tu a l d istin ctio n b u t co n clu d e th a t th e p la in tiffs m u s t be re q u ire d to c a rry th e b u rd e n o f pro v in g dis c rim in a to ry inte n t. IS. The district court had previously refused such a request, which refusal was affirmed on appeal. Spangler, supra, 519 F.2d 430, rev'd on other grounds, 427 U.S. 424, 96 S.Ct. 2697, 49 l..Ed.2d 599. 537 W hile w e find no case decided in th e sa m e s itu a tio n a s th a t befo re us, th e N in th C ircu it h a s allu d ed to m arkedly sim ila r fa c ts in h o ld in g th a t th e d istric t c o u rt m u s t re lin q u ish ju risd ic tio n o v er th e Pasadena case fo llo w in g rem an d . Spangler v. Pasa denat, 611 F .2d 1239 (9th Cir.1979). F ollow in g th e S u p re m e C o u rt decision in Pasa dena, th e school b o ard so u g h t to h a v e th e d is tric t c o u r t disso lv e th e in ju n ctio n e n te re d in th e c a se an d relinquish ju risd ic tio n .,s T h e d is tric t c o u rt refu sed to en d its o v e r s ig h t o v e r th e P a sa d e n a school s y s te m . T h e c o u r t o f ap p eals concluded t h a t th e d is tric t c o u r t’s re fu s a l w as b ased u p o n a b e lie f t h a t " u n le s s it reta in ed ju risd ic tio n , th e B o a rd m ig h t a t som e fu tu re d a te , by actio n o r in actio n , cau se or s u f fe r to o ccu r so m e d e g r e e o f avoidable ‘r e s e g re g a tio n '." Spangler, s u p ra , a t 1240.I In r e v e rs in g 16 . S th a t d ecisio n , th e N in th C ircuit relied u p o n th e th r e e f a c to rs s e t o u t In Miltikin v. Bradley, 433 U .S. 267, 280-81,97 S .C t. 2749, 2757, 53 L .E d .2 d 745 (1977) (Millikin ID, in a s c e rta in in g th e p ro p rie ty of th e re m e d ia l m e a s u re s to be u se d follow ing a fin d in g o f d e ju r e sch o o l seg re g atio n . F irs t, th e c o u rt m u s t co n sid e r th e n a tu re a n d sco p e o f th e c o n s titu tio n a l violation; seco n d , th e re m e d ia l o b je c tiv e so u g h t is to be th e r e s to ra tio n o f th e victim s o f d isc rim in a tio n to th e p o sitio n th e y w ould have occu p ied a b s e n t th e c o n s titu tio n a l violation; an d , th ird , co n s id e ra tio n m u s t be given to th e in te r e s ts o f allo w in g s ta te and local a u th o ritie s to m a n a g e th e ir ow n a ffa irs . F in d in g all th re e f a c to rs w ere m et fo llo w in g n in e y e a rs o f c o u r t su p erv isio n , th e N in th C ir cu it co n c lu d e d t h a t th e tim e had co m e to end c o u r t in te rv e n tio n in P a sa d e n a ’s sch o o l s y s te m . 611 F .2d a t 1240-41 (Ju d g e G oodw in). J u d g e K e n n e d y ’s opinion s e t o u t in m o re d etail th e b a s is fo r th e d istric t c o u r t's co n c e rn s o v e r re s e g re g a tio n . T he d is tric t c o u rt fe a re d th a t once ju risd ic tio n te rm i- 16. Judges Goodwin and Kennedy delivered sep arate opinions. Judge Anderson concurred in the reasoning and result of both, thus both arc opinions of the court. �538 784 F E D E R A L R E P O R T E R , 2d S E R IE S n a te d , th e school b o ard planned to r e tu r n to a n eig h b o rh o o d school plan a s h ad e x is t ed b e fo re th e 1970 c o u rt o rd ered d e s e g r e g a tio n p la n . If th e neig h b o rh o o d plan w e re re a d o p te d , th e racial com p o sitio n o f P a s a d e n a ’s sc h o o ls w ould re v e rt to a p p ro x im a te ly w h a t it w as b efo re th e d e s e g r e g a tio n p lan . Spangler, su p ra , a t 1243. School b o a rd m e m b ers had m ade it know n publicly th a t th e y en d o rse d r e tu r n to a n e ig h b o rh o o d school plan. I t w a s upon th e s e fa c ts th a t th e d istric t c o u rt b ased its fin d in g o f c o n tin u in g intentional d isc rim i n a tio n by th e school board. Spangler, s u p ra , a t 1244. T h e c o u r t fo u n d (Ju d g e K ennedy) th a t th e d is tric t c o u r t had com m itted e r r o r s o f law in re a c h in g th a t conclusion. In itially , th e d is tric t c o u rt ap p e ared to be re q u irin g a c e rta in rac ial b alan ce to be m a in ta in ed in P a s a d e n a ’s sch o o ls, a concept d isa p p ro v e d by th e S u p re m e C ourt. I t said " [ tjh e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s em p h asized th a t w h en a la rg e p e rc e n ta g e o f m inority s tu d e n ts in a n e ig h b o rh o o d school re su lts from h o u sin g p a tte r n s fo r w hich school a u th o ritie s a r e n o t re sp o n sib le , th e school b o ard m a y n o t be c h a rg e d w ith u n co n stitu tio n al d isc rim i n a tio n if a rac ially n e u tra l a s s ig n m e n t m e th o d is a d o p t e d . . . . F rom th e s ta n d p o in t o f ra c ia l b alan ce in pupil a s s ig n m e n ts, co m p lian ce w ith th e [c o u rt’s d e s e g re g a tio n p la n | fo r nine y e a rs is s u ffic ie n t in th is ca se , g iv e n th e n a tu re and d e g re e o f th e initial violation, to cure the e f f e c ts of p re v io u s im p ro p e r a s sig n m e n t p o licies.” Spangler, s u p r a , a t 1244. I t re je c te d th e d is tric t c o u rt’s ju s tific a tio n th a t c o n tin u in g ju risd ic tio n w a s r e q u ire d to p re v e n t rea d o p tio n o f a n e ig h b o r hood school p lan w ith its co n c o m ita n t c h a n g e in ra c ia l b alance, and fo u n d th a t a d o p tio n o f a neig h b o rh o o d plan w a s n o t n e c e s sa rily sy n o n y m o u s w ith an in te n t to d isc rim in a te . "A d o p tin g a s tu d e n t a s s ig n m e n t m e th o d d iffe re n t from th e [ c o u r t’s plan ] m ay h a v e th e fo re see ab le e f f e c t o f in c re a sin g rac ial im b alan ce in th e P a s a d e n a sch o o ls. T h is fa c t is re le v a n t in d e te rm in in g w h e th e r a p lan w as ad o p ted as a r e s u lt o f in v id io u s in te n t, b u t o th e r f a c to rs m u s t a lso be e x a m in e d ___ T h e fa c t t h a t th e B oard h as ex p lo red a s s ig n m e n t a lte rn a tiv es which m ay in c re a se ra c ia l im balance provides little s u p p o r t fo r th e conclusion . . . th a t th e p ro p o sal, if a d o p ted , would re s u lt from c o n s titu tio n a lly in firm mo tiv e s.” Spangler, s u p ra , a t 1245. Both opinions a g r e e d th a t if a new s tu d e n t assig n m e n t p lan w e re ad o p te d in P a s ad e n a w ith th e in te n t to discrim in ate, a new su it could b e b r o u g h t to challen g e su ch a plan. In th e a b s e n c e o f su ch in te n tional acts, a u th o rity to ru n th e school sy s tem should be r e tu r n e d to th e school board. Spangler, 611 F .2d a t 1241, 1242, 1247. [241 The 1975 o r d e r o f th e d is tric t co u rt in N orfolk re tu rn e d c o n tro l o f th e city ’s schools to th e sch o o l b o a rd b y its finding th a t th e school s y s te m w as u n ita ry . N o th in g in th e reco rd a b o u t e v e n ts betw een th en and the p ro p o sal o f th e pupil a s sig n m e n t plan h ere in q u e s tio n h a s ch an g ed th a t situ atio n . T h e N o rfo lk b o a rd recen tly took the very action th e c o u r t co n sid ered to be contem plated b y th e P a s a d e n a school bo ard . While th e N in th C irc u it had only th e qu estio n of te rm in a tio n o f d istric t c o u rt ju risd ictio n b e fo re it, t h a t c o u r t m ade clear th a t follow ing su c h re lin q u ish m e n t, a p lain tiff m u st prove t h a t th e sch o o l b o ard acted w ith an in te n t to d is c rim in a te in a d o p tin g a new s tu d e n t a s s ig n m e n t p lan . W e find th a t reaso n in g p e r s u a s iv e a n d c o n siste n t w ith o u r re a so n in g in Vaughns. W e hold th a t th e b u rd en o f p ro v in g d iscrim in ato ry in te n t a tta c h e s to a p la in tif f once a de ju re s e g re g a te d school s y s te m h a s been found to be u nitary. O nce a c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n h a s been rem edied, any f u r th e r ju d ic ia l ac tio n re g a rd in g s tu d e n t a s s ig n m e n ts w ith o u t a new sh o w in g o f d is c rim in a to ry in te n t w ould am o u n t to th e s e ttin g o f rac ial quo ta s, which h av e b een c o n s is te n tly con dem n ed by th e C o u r t in th e c o n te x t of school in te g ra tio n a b s e n t a n ee d to rem ed y an u n law fu l co n d itio n . Pasadena, su p ra , 427 IJ.S. a t 433-34, 96 S .C t. a t 2703; Millikin v. Bradley, 418 IJ.S. 717, 740— 94 11, S.C t. 3112, 3125, 41 L .E d .2 d 1069 (1971) (Millikin I ); Swann, s u p r a , 402 U.S. a t 24-25 be us* ju re ! goal t since with mixed cial b N orfo it tak its sc! the sc ingles ftndin tion ii mg, c to r e t ly dis tional mini S .C t feder; U.S. deper its ex S.Ct. trimii not i Bold, 1503, of th rule > of th It* V £ to re bis to: it is the r Pit luvil U.S. Edui S.Ct. It); 2636 1267 �1 R ID D IC K HY R ID D IC K v. S C H O O L HI). O F CITY O F N O R F O L K 539 Clle u 7H4 I-'_2d 521 (4(hClr. IVM) 24-25, 91 S.C t. a t 1280. Racial q u o ta s a re to he used as a s ta r t in g p o in t in rem edying de ju re se g re g a tio n b u t n o t as an u ltim ate goal to he co n tin u e d in p e rp e tu ity . Indeed, since alm o st e v e ry action o f a school board w ith re sp e c t to pupil assig n m e n ts in a m ixed school s y s te m n ec essarily a ffe c ts r a cial balance, if w e w e re to req u ire th e N orfolk school b o ard to ju s tify ev ery actio n it ta k e s th a t a f f e c ts th e racial balance o f its schools, w e w ould m ak e a finding th a t th e school s y s te m is u n ita ry v irtu a lly m e an in g less in th a t c o n te x t. T h e 1975 u n ita ry finding m a rk s th e end o f de ju re s e g re g a tion in th e s y s te m . F ollow ing such a fin d ing, control o f th e s y s te m m u st be allow ed to r e tu rn to local o fficials. No one se rio u s ly d isp u tes t h a t p u b lic ed u catio n h as tra d i tionally b een a local concern. G enerally, Millikin I, s u p ra , 418 IJ.S. a t 741-42, 94 S.C t. a t 3125-26. A nd th e pow er o f th e fed eral c o u rts is n o t p le n a ry , Swann, 402 IJ.S. p. 16, 91 S.C t. p. 1976; ra th e r, it dep en d s upon a c o n s titu tio n a l violation fo r its ex ercise. Pasadena, 427 U.S. p. 434, 96 S.C t. p. 2703. We re je c t p la in tif f s ’ a rg u m e n t th a t the N orfolk school b o a rd m u s t co ntinue to ju s t ify all o f its a c tio n s b e c a u se o f th e h isto ry o f se g re g a tio n . W hile th a t histo ry o f dis crim ination c a n n o t a n d sh ould n o t be ig nored, it " c a n n o t in th e m a n n e r o f original sin, condem n g o v e rn m e n ta l action th a t is not its e lf u n la w fu l.” City o f Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55, 74, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 1503, 64 L .E d.2d 47 (1980) (p lu rality opinion o f th e C o u rt b y J u s tic e S te w a rt). If th e ru le w ere o th e rw ise , v irtu a lly ev e ry action o f th e school b o a rd w ith re s p e c t to any o f its v ario u s a f f a ir s w o u ld b e su sp e c t. And, to re p e a t, w e k e e p in m ind th a t w hile th e h isto ry o f d isc rim in a tio n is n o t dispositive, il is re le v a n t to a c o u r t’s d eterm in a tio n o f 1lie school b o a rd ’s in te n t. P la in tiffs ’ re lia n c e on c a se s such a s Co lumbus Board o f Education, su p ra , 443 U.S. 449, 99 S .C t. 2941; Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman, 443 U.S. 526, 99 S C I. 2971, 61 L .E d .2 d 720 (1979) (Dayton II)', Keyes, s u p ra , 413 U.S. 189, 93 S.Ct. 2686; Swann, s u p r a , 402 U.S. 1, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 28 L .E d.2d 554, a n d Green, su p ra , 391 U.S. 430, 88 S .C t a t 1690 fo r placing th e b u rd en of p ro o f on th e school b o ard is m isplaced b ecause all o f th o se c a se s in volved s la te sa n ctio n ed d isc rim in a tin g school d istric ts th a t h a d n o t d ism an tled th e ir d u al sy stem s. N o n e h ad rea ch ed th e g o al o f a u n itary s y s te m a s N o rfo lk h as done. V III. P la in tiffs ’ P ro o f [25] W e n e x t c o n sid e r w h e th e r o r n o t p la in tiffs m et th e ir b u rd e n o f p ro o f. P lain tif f s ra ise e rro rs both o f law a n d fa c t in th e d is tric t c o u rt’s decision m a k in g p ro cess. In itia lly , th ey claim th e d is tric t c o u r t e rre d in its ap p ro v al of th e sch o o l b o a r d ’s consid e ra tio n o f w hite flig h t aa one reason for a b a n d o n m e n t of b u s in g o f e le m e n ta ry sc h o o l children. W e a g r e e w ith p la in tiffs th a t w h ite flig h t ca n n o t b e u se d a s a ju s ti fica tio n fo r failin g o r r e f u s in g to d ism a n tle a d u a l school sy ste m . United States v. Scotland Neck Board o f Education, s u p ra , 407 U.S. a t 491, 92 S .C t. a t 2218; Monroe v. Board o f Commissioners, 391 U .S. 450, 459, 88 S .C t. 1700, 1705, 20 L .E d.2d 733 (1972). W h ite flig h t c a n n o t be u se d a s an ex c u se to r e s is t o r e v a d e a p r e s e n t d u ty to d e s e g r e g a te . B u t th e N o r folk school b o ard is n o t o p e r a tin g a d u al sch o o l sy ste m w ith a p r e s e n t d u ty to d e s e g r e g a te . C o n sid eratio n can b e g iv e n to th e p h e n o m en o n o f w h ite flig h t u n d e r c e rta in cir c u m sta n c e s . As th e S ix th C irc u it sa id in a m u ch q u o te d opinion " (i]t d o e s n o t follow t h a t a b o ard m u s t ig n o re th e p ro b a b ility o f w h ite flig h t in a tte m p tin g to f o rm u la te a voluntary plan w hich w o u ld im p ro v e th e rac ial b a la n c e in th e sc h o o ls w ith o u t a t th e s a m e tim e losing th e s u p p o r t a n d a c c e p t an c e o f th e p u b lic ___ [T jb e re is a valid d istin ctio n b etw e en u sin g th e d e fe n s e o f w h ite flig h t a s a sm o k e sc re e n to avoid in te g r a tio n a n d re a listic a lly c o n s id e rin g an d d e a lin g w ith th e p ra c tic a l p ro b le m s in v olved in m a k in g v o lu n ta ry e f f o r t s to a c h ie v e in te g ra tio n .’’ Higgins, s u p ra , 508 F .2 d a t 794 (em p h a sis in th e o rig in a l). T he c irc u its h av e c o n s iste n tly fo llo w ed th is la n g u a g e an d allo w ed c o n s id e ra tio n o f w h ite �784 FEDERAL REPORTER flig h t in th e fo rm u latio n and ad o p tio n o f in te g ra tio n p la n s. Lee v. Anniston City School System, 737 F .‘ d 952, 957 n. 3 (1 1 th 2 Cir.1984); Liddell v. State of Mo., 731 F.2d 1294, 1314 (8th Cir.1984), ce rt. den. — U.S. ------ , 105 S.C t. 82, 83 L.Ed.2d 30; Johnson v. Bd. o f Education o f City o f Chicago, 604 F.2d 504, 5 1 6 -1 7 (7th Cir.1979), v a c a t ed on o th e r g ro u n d s, 449 U.S. 915, 101 S.Ct. 339, 66 L .E d.2d 162 (1980); Parents Assn, o f Andrew Jackson High School v. Ambach, 598 F .2d 705, 719-20 (2d Cir. 1979); Stout v. Jefferson Co. Bd. o f Ed., 537 F .2d 800, 802 (5th Cir.1976). [2 6 ,2 7 ] W e a r e o f opinion th e d is tric t c o u rt c o rre c tly concluded th a t th e school board could le g itim a te ly co n sid er th e p r e s ence o f w h ite flig h t in th e p u r s u it o f a v o lu n ta ry plan to stab ilize school in te g ra tio n in N o rfo lk . W e re je c t p la in tiffs ’ a rg u m e n t th a t u n d e r Regents of the Uni versity o f California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 98 S .C t. 2733, 57 L.Ed.2d 750 (1978), the n e ig h b o rh o o d school plan is s u s p e c t bec au se its a s s ig n m e n ts a re b ased upon race. S chool a s s ig n m e n ts a re b ased upon the re sid e n c e o f th e child, n o t th e ra c e of the child. P la in tiffs p re s e n t no evidence to su p p o rt a fin d in g th a t such a re sid e n tia l c lassific a tio n is a p r e te x t fo r d iscrim in atio n based on ra c e . T h e board a s sig n e d s tu d en ts to sc h o o ls u n d e r th e new plan solely on th e b a s is o f th e ir residence. T h e only c o n sid e ra tio n o f ra c e involved w as a n e f fo rt on th e b o a rd ’s p a r t to g e rry m a n d e r th e school a s s ig n m e n t lines to re s u lt in th e m axim um a m o u n t o f in te g ra tio n possible. T he c o n c e p t o f a neighborhood school sy ste m in a n d o f its e lf is n o t violative of ( th e C o n stitu tio n . E .g. Crawford v. Los ' Angeles Board o f Education, 458 U.S. 527, 537 n. 15, 102 S .C t. 3211, 3217-18 n. 15, 73 17. An a g reed tria l exhibit reveals the fo llo w in g race d is tr ib u tio n s fo r public school stu d e n ts, e le m e n ta ry a n d seco n d ary : W hile |967-ft8 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-7) Black Total White** 13.838 33 10) 32.S86 30.246 2S.8S8 24.224 22. Sift 23.02) 24.244 24.42$ 23.9)0 2).*78 Sft. 184 $6,126 $6,830 $4,671 49.788 47.802 60 00 59.00 57.00 $$ 32 51 94 SO.ftH otherw ia to m ove 1981, for and adjr m ost th t in Virgil half ag a 816). T fin d in g I w hite fa ginia Be L.Ed.2d 948; Swann, su p ra , 402 U.S. a t 28, 91 S.Ct. a t 1282; Thompson v. Sch. Bd. of City of Newport News, Va., 465 F.2d 83 (4th C ir.1972). C o n g re ss h a s reco g n ized th a t ab sen t discrim ination th e n eig h b o r hood school is th e a p p ro p ria te basis fo r school a ssig n m e n ts. 20 U.S.C. § 1701. W ith o u t more, w e find n o th in g c o n s titu tionally su sp e c t in th e b o ard 's p referen c e fo r a neighborhood school plan. [28] W h e th e r w h ite flig h t w as p re se n t in N orfolk d u rin g th e re le v a n t tim es is of co u rse a q u estio n o f fact. T he d istric t c o u rt concluded t h a t th e evidence rev ealed a sig n ific an t a m o u n t o f w hite flig h t from N o rfo lk ’s public schools. It fo u n d th a t th e sy ste m lo st 6000-8000 w hite s tu d e n ts be c a u se of b u sin g . I t f u r th e r fo und th a t b ec au se of this ex o d u s o f w h ite stu d e n ts, th e school sy stem w a s becom ing m ore and m o re black and faced th e re a l d a n g e r of re se g re g a tio n . As s e t fo rth in P a r t VI, s u p ra , our review o f su ch fa c tu a l findings is lim ited by th e clearly e rro n e o u s rule. W e conclude th a t th e re a re su ffic ie n t fac ts in the record to s u p p o rt the d is tric t c o u rt's fin d in g th a t w hite s tu d e n ts a r e leaving th e public schools b ecau se o f b u sin g . The school a tte n d a n c e fig u re s sh o w th a t w hite s tu d e n ts have go n e fro m a 60%- m ajo rity to a 42% m inority d u rin g the d ec ad e o f the 1970’s. By 1982. w hites com prised only 40.87% of the to ta l school e n ro llm e n t.” D u rin g this sam e tim e fram e, w hite re si d e n ts continued to b e a m ajo rity o f th e city, Tailing from 70V5 to 60%. C learly, w hite s tu d e n ts are leaving N o rfo lk ’s public schools a t a m uch h ig h e r ra te th a n they a re leav in g the city itself. In addition to s tu d e n ts w ho a tte n d p ri v a te schools, N o rfo lk ’s public schools w ere lo sin g th o se s tu d e n ts w hose fam ilies w ould vsT’ s b *. v VS-f Pluck Total While** 24.337 23.536 22.957 22.080 20.412 18.913 16)73 15.629 14.435 24.714 24 451 24.420 2 3.97ft 23.282 22.68 ft 21.395 21.014 20.385 49.0$ 1 4 7.987 4/..177 46.056 41.694 41.$99 17.768 16 643 1$. 120 49 P laint findings th eir scl I w hite er stabilize fig u res Btudentf populati sistently represer 1982, t! 68.8% £ Plaintiff w hite st show th ended, show tl m ent si housing time. 1 plaintiff not su ff co u rt i IS. Percent White 197.1-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-/7 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 D r. G. N orfolk denta ha cause of m er sup opponen theless r leaving 1 i™ ** "W hile"—iiu Im lo appn M inattl) V o th e r mnu'riiN ft/ 49 0$ *if u 4 8 4ft :•£ - 1/94 46 72 45 47 43 1$ 42 ft$ 41) 87 V r 1969 CV.*;‘ * 1970 3971 1972 s g f * *4*^ 1973 1974 1975 �R ID D IC K BY R ID D IC K v. S C H O O L BD . O F CITY O F N O R F O L K 541 Cite «■ 7H4 I-'.2d 521 (4 lh C lr. I )M ) o th e rw ise m ove in to th e city b u t who chose to m ove e lse w h e re to avoid busing. In 1981, fo r exam ple, V irginia Beach (273,600) an d ad jo in in g N o rfo lk (273,000) w ere al m ost th e sa m e siz e b u t th e school sy stem in V irginia B each (54,776) w as m ore th an h a lf ag a in la rg e r th a n th a t of N orfolk (35,816). T h is s u p p o rts th e d istric t c o u rt's fin d in g th a t a d isp ro p o rtio n a te num b er of w h ite fam ilies a r e ch o o sin g to move to V ir g in ia B each. D r. G ene C a rte r, su p e rin te n d e n t o f the N o rfo lk school sy ste m , te stifie d th a t s tu d e n ts h ad le ft th e c ity 's public schools be c a u se o f th e m a n d a to ry b u sin g plan. F o r m e r s u p e rin te n d e n t, D r. A lb ert A yars, an o p p o n e n t o f th e n eig h b o rh o o d plan, n ev e r th e le s s reco g n ized th a t so m e stu d e n ts w ere le av in g th e s y s te m b e c a u se o f busing. P la in tiffs a r g u e th a t th e d istric t c o u rt’s fin d in g s a re c le a rly e rro n e o u s because th e ir school e n ro llm e n t fig u re s show th a t w h ite e n ro llm e n t in th e public schools had s ta b iliz e d d u rin g th e e a rly 1980's. T hese fig u re s s e t o u t below 18 re v e a l th a t black s tu d e n ts co m p rised 42.4% o f th e s tu d e n t p o p u la tio n in 1969. T h a t p e rc e n ta g e con s is te n tly in c re a se d u n til 1981 w hen blacks re p r e s e n te d 59.2% o f th e stu d e n ts. In 1982, th e b lack p e rc e n ta g e dropped to 58.8% a n d to 58% th e follow ing year. P la in tiffs rely u p o n th is s lig h t in crease in w h ite s tu d e n t e n ro llm e n t o v e r tw o y e a rs to sh o w th a t w h ite flig h t, if e v e r prese n t, had en d e d . T h e re is e v id en c e in th e reco rd to sh o w th a t th is o v e ra ll in c re a se in en ro ll m e n t sin c e 1980 is a n a b e rra tio n due to h o u sin g p a tte r n s o f th e N a v y d u rin g this tim e. E v en a b s e n t su c h a n ex p lan atio n , p la in tif f s ' e n ro llm e n t f ig u re d iffe re n c e s are not s u ffic ie n t f o r u s to find th a t th e d istric t c o u r t w a s c le a rly e rro n e o u s. "W h ere th e re a r e tw o perm issible view s o f th e ev i den ce, th e factfin d er's choice b e tw e e n th em c a n n o t be clearly e rro n eo u s.” Anderson, s u p ra , — U.S. a t ------, 105 S .C t. a t 1512. (29] I t is also claim ed th a t th e b o a rd 's re lian ce upon a decrease in p a r e n ta l in v o lv em en t u n d er th e b u sin g p la n is m e re ly a p r e te x t fo r discrim inating on th e b a s is of race. A s w e have previously n o te d , o n e of th e b o a rd ’s concerns in a m e n d in g its b u s in g p lan w as th e d ram atic d ro p in p a r e n ta l involvem ent. No one d isp u te s t h a t su ch in v o lv e m e n t is critical to th e w e ll-b e in g o f a school sy ste m . F o rm e r S u p e rin te n d e n t A y a rs te stifie d th a t according to a G allup poll p a re n ta l involvem ent w a s c h a r a c te r ized a s th e “ m o st sig n ific an t f a c to r in th e ed u c atio n o f a child.” D r. A y a rs h im s e lf co n sid ered p are n tal involvem en t " v ita l” to th e h e a lth o f a school sy stem . T h e d is tric t c o u rt found t h a t N o rfo lk ’s p u b lic sch o o ls w ere facin g a c ris is b e c a u s e o f th e s h a rp decline in p a r e n ta l in v o lv e m e n t. P T A enro llm en t had d ro p p e d fro m 15,000-20,000 to 3500. D r. A y a rs te s tifie d t h a t b u sin g "v irtu a lly d e s tro y e d ” N o rf o lk ’s P T A . E f f o r ts to in crease p a r e n ta l in v o lv e m e n t h ad b een so m ew h at s u c c e s s fu l b u t m u ch m o re needed to be done to e n c o u r a g e p a r e n ta l in te re st. S u p e rin te n d e n t C a rte r te s tif ie d th a t m a n y p a r e n ts had ap p ro ach ed h im r e g a r d in g th e ir inability to p a rtic ip a te in th e ir c h ild re n ’s ed u catio n u n d e r th e b u s in g p lan . S chool b o ard m em b ers also e x p r e s s e d co n c e rn o v e r th e lack o f p a re n ta l in v o lv e m e n t in th e p u b lic schools. T he d is tr ic t c o u r t fo u n d th a t N o rfo lk 's public sc h o o ls fa c e d a c risis b e c a u s e o f th e s h a rp d eclin e in p a r e n ta l in v o lv e m e n t d u rin g th e y e a r s o f b u s in g an d t h a t th e new plan o ffe re d a re a s o n a b le IH. W S um m ary seventh day cm o ilm a n N orfolk Public Schools 1969-1983 B T 1976 1977 1978 22036 20365 18873 23949 23251 22658 45985 43616 41531 52.1 53 3 54.6 16336 15600 14427 14521 14611 21361 2099S 20892 20735 20191 37697 36595 35319 35256 34802 56.7 57 4 59.2 588 580 W U T HB 1909 1970 . 1971 19/? 1971 32603 30229 2S836 24196 24304 24000 24418 23921 23568 24699 56603 54647 49757 47764 49003 424 44.7 48.1 49.3 504 1979 1980 1981 1982* 1983* 1974 I97S 23504 22934 24442 24411 4794o 47345 51.0 51.6 * 1982 an d 1983 figures fur w hiles include “oth ers." �542 784 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES a lte r n a tiv e to co u n te r such a d eclin e. W e a g re e . T h e N o rfo lk school b o a rd w as fa c e d w ith th e difficu lt ta s k o f b rin g in g p a r e n ts b ack into th e school sy ste m . T h e s e p a r e n ts sto p p ed p a rtic ip a tin g d u rin g th e tim e th e ir children a tte n d e d sch o o ls a c ro s s to w n . F or m any, a lack o f tr a n s p o r ta tio n to th o se d ista n t schools co u ld h av e s e rv e d a s a stu m b lin g block to th e ir p a rtic ip a tio n . F o r o th e rs, th e e x t r a tim e and e x p e n se re q u ire d to drive a c ro s s to w n m ay h a v e p re v e n te d th e ir p a rtic ip a tio n . For still o th e rs , th e feeling o f a lack o f co m m u n ity w ith a cross-tow n sch o o l m ay have b ee n a fa c to r. R e tu rn in g th e s e ch ild ren to sc h o o ls close to th e ir hom es r e p r e s e n te d a re a s o n a b le a tte m p t to once a g a in o b ta in th e involvem ent o f th e ir p a r e n ts in th e sc hool sy ste m . P la in tiffs contend th a t th e d is tric t c o u r t’s fin d in g s re g a rd in g p a re n ta l in v o lv e m e n t a r e c le a rly erro n e o u s b e c a u s e p rio r a t te m p ts by th e school b o a rd h ad b e e n su c c e s s fu l in o b ta in in g th e r e tu r n o f p a re n ts to th e schools. F o rm e r S u p e rin te n d e n t A y a rs did te stify th a t a p a s t e f f o r t had su c c e e d e d in o b ta in in g m a n y p a r e n ts to v o lu n te e r to a s s is t in p la n n in g sc h o o l pro g ra m s . D r. A y ars a d m itte d , h o w e v e r, th a t m uch m ore needed to be d o n e to in c re a se th e n u m b e r o f p a re n ts involved a t th e ele m e n ta r y school level. P la in tiffs a lso con te n d th a t PTA en ro llm e n t fig u re s a r e an in a p p ro p ria te m ethod o f m e a s u r in g p a re n ta l involvem ent. T hey o f fe r no a lte rn a tiv e m e th o d , how ever. W e k n ow o f no b e tte r g a u g e o f p a re n ta l in te r e s t in a sch o o l s y s te m th a n involvem ent in its P T A p ro g ra m . W e fin d su b sta n tia l ev id en c e in th e rec o rd to s u p p o rt th e d istric t c o u r t’s conclusion t h a t th e school b o a rd ’s c o n c e rn o v e r p a re n ta l in v o lv em en t w as n o t a p r e te x t fo r racial d iscrim in atio n . topic w as n o t on th e a g e n d a and w hen bu sin g 's le ad in g p ro p o n en t, Dr. Jo h n F o s ter, w as a b s e n t. P la in tiffs also fa u lt the board fo r fa ilu re to solicit th e opinions o f Dr. A y ars an d fo r failin g to inv estig ate th e psychological im p a ct o f such a n eig h b o r hood plan on b lack children. The d is tric t c o u rt p ro p erly found th a t th e decision m a k in g p ro ce d u re followed by th e board w as re a s o n a b le and not indicative of d iscrim in ato ry in te n t. T he actions ta k en by the b o ard sh o w n o th in g sh o rt o f a r e a sonable, d e lib e ra tiv e p ro ce ss w here th e c iti zens o f N o rfo lk w ere en co u rag ed to sp e ak up and e x p re s s th e ir view s. The b o ard ’s adoption o f th e neighborhood plan w as n o t the re s u lt o f a sin g le m eetin g behind closed doors. In ste a d , th e b o ard firs t e stab lish ed a co m m ittee to in v e stig a te th e issue. T h a t com m ittee ap p o in ted a ta s k force to o b ta in d ata on th e su b je c t. T h e com m ittee v isited sev eral school s y s te m s to stu d y th e ir p la n s. The b o ard so licited th e opinions of se v e ra l e x p e rts in th e field an d reta in ed Dr. Arm< r for m ore e x te n siv e findings. Six p u b lic m eetin g s w e re held to elicit public co m m ent an d c riticism . W e know of little e lse the b o ard could h av e done to m ake th e p ro ced u re m o re fa ir and open.1* We find p la in tif f s ’ rem ain in g claim s to be w ith o u t m e rit. P la in tiffs fe a r th a t school reso u rce s will b e inequitably d istrib u te d u n d er th e n ew p lan so th a t schools w ith p red o m in an tly w h ite s tu d e n ts will receiv e m ore th a n th e ir fa ir sh a re o f both m a te ria l and h u m a n re s o u rc e s . As w e have p o in ted out, th e school ad m in istra tio n is co m p letely in te g ra te d . T h e su p e rin te n d e n t and tw o o f the th re e re g io n a l a s s is ta n t s u p e rin te n d en ts a r e b lack . B lacks com prise 41% o f th e s y s te m ’s p rin c ip a ls an d 44% o f its te a c h e rs . We co n clu d e th a t p lain tiffs' fe a rs a re n o t en o u g h to p ro v e a claim such as th is w h en th e d ec isio n -m a k ers in th e sy ste m a r e [30] P la in tiffs also a r g u e t h a t d isc rim i th e m se lv es in te g ra te d . We are ad d itio n a l n a to ry in te n t can b e s e e n in th e b o a rd 's ly rem in d e d t h a t th e plan itself p ro v id es fo r fa ilu re to follow n o rm a l p r o c e d u re s in judicial rev iew o f re so u rc e allocation. a d o p tio n o f the p ro p o sed p la n . T h e s e im [31] P la in tiffs in fe r d iscrim in ato ry in p ro p e r p ro ce d u re s in clu d e ra is in g th e b u s in g issu e a t a b o ard m e e tin g w h e re su c h a1 te n t fro m th e b o a rd ’s failu re to p ro v id e fo r 9 Acting with the utmost caution, the board also sought judicial review of the proposed plan 19. before- implementation, �K ID D IC K BY R ID D IC K v. S C H O O L BD . O F CITY O F N O R F O L K 543 Clie •• 7M F.Jd 321 (4th Clr. I486) in te n t, indicate a c o n stitu tio n al violation. I 433 U.S. 406, 413, 97 S.Ct. 2766, 2772, 53 L .E d.2d 851 (1973) (Dayton I) Swann, s u p ra , 402 U.S. a t 17-18, 91 S.Ct. a t 1276-77. H ence,, th e p rese n ce o f one-race sch o o ls w ithin a 1 co m m u n ity , stan d in g alone, is n o t a viola tion o f th e C onstitution. S ee Washington, [32] We find no ev id en ce in th e record s u p ra , 426 U.S. a t 240, 96 S .C t. a t 2047; Swann, su p ra , 402 U.S. a t 26, 91 S.C t. a t to su p p o rt the p la in tiffs ’ contention th a t 1281. th e school b o ard an d th e h o u sin g a u th o rity have acted in co n c ert w ith th e in te n t to W e a g re e w ith th e d is tric t c o u rt th a t th e d iscrim inate on th e b a s is o f race. As th e ev id en ce rev eals th a t N o rfo lk ’s n e ig h b o r d istric t c o u rt p o in te d o u t, N o rfo lk ’s h o u s hood school assig n m e n t p lan is a re a so n ing p ro jects w e re c o n s tru c te d a s a g e n e ra l ab le a tte m p t by th e school b o ard to k eep as ru le to rep lace slu m a r e a s in th e city. m a n y w h ite stu d e n ts in p u b lic ed u c atio n as T hose re sid e n ts d isp laced by th a t dem oli p o ssib le an d so achieve a s ta b ly in te g ra te d tion w ere g iven p rio rity in a ssig n m e n t to sc h o o l sy ste m . It also r e p r e s e n ts an a t te m p t to im prove th e q u a lity o f th e school th e new h o u sin g p ro je c ts. No one d is a g re e s th a t m o st o f th o se resid e n ts w ere s y s te m by seek in g a p ro g ra m to gain black, an d b la ck s still re p re s e n t th e v a s t g r e a t e r p are n tal involvem ent. W hile th e m ajority o f h o u sin g p ro je c t te n a n ts in N o r e f f e c t o f th e plan in c re a tin g s e v e ra l black folk. T his rec o rd sh o w s no evidence by sc h o o ls is d isquieting, t h a t f a c t alo n e is n o t e ith e r th e h o u sin g a u th o rity o r the school s u ffic ie n t to prove d isc rim in a to ry in te n t. b o ard to a s sig n su c h h o u sin g by ra c e fol W hile th e n u m b e r o f s u b s ta n tia lly all black low ing th e c u lm in a tio n o f th e Beckett. sch o o ls in th e sy stem w ill n o t b e d e c re a s e d by th e m in o rity to m a jo rity o p tio n , th e ca se .20 n u m b e r o f s tu d e n ts a tte n d in g su c h schools W e th in k th e d is tric t c o u rt w as c o rre c t in will be sig n ifican tly d e c re a se d . its holding th a t th e d isc rim in a to ry im pact nn a ltern ativ e plan sh o u ld th e n eig h b o r hood plan he u n su c c e ssfu l a t stopping th e exodus of w h ite s tu d e n ts . We a g re e w ith the d istric t c o u rt t h a t su c h a failu re w ould not have un ap p re cia b ly d iffe re n t e ffe c t th an co n tin u ation o f th e b u sin g plan u n d e r p re s e n t tren d s. In e ith e r case, th e school sy stem w ould becom e p red o m in an tly black. Dayton Bd. of Ed. v. Brinkman, alone show n h e re is n o t su ffic ie n t to m ake o u t su ch a claim . Arlington Heights, s u pra, -129 U.S. a t 266, 97 S .C t. a t 564; Wash ington, su p ra , 426 U .S. a t 242, 96 S.C t. a t 2049. Such im p a c t is c le a rly re le v a n t to a d eterm in a tio n o f in te n t, how ever. Colum bus Bd. o f Ed., s u p ra , 443 U.S. a t 464, 99 S.C t. a t 2950; Dayton II, s u p ra , 443 U.S. a t 536 n. 9, 99 S.C t. a t 2978 n. 9; Washington, su p ra , 426 U.S. a t 242, 96 S .C t. a t 2049. In a school d e s e g re g a tio n c a se in w hich in te n t is not p resu m e d , a p la in tiff m u st show a d iscrim in ato ry p u rp o se on th e p a r t of th e d e fe n d a n t in o r d e r to m a k e o u t a co n stitu tional violation. T h is p u rp o se , o r in te n t to d iscrim in ate, m a rk s th e d iffe re n c e betw een de fac to and de ju r e s e g re g a tio n . T he fin d i n g th a t a school p o p u la tio n is n o t hom oge nous, s ta n d in g b y its e lf, d o e s not, a b s e n t O u r holding is a lim ited one, ap p licable only to th o se school s y s te m s w h ich h av e su c c e e d e d in e ra d ic a tin g a ll v e s tig e s o f de ju r e s e g re g a tio n . In th o s e s y s te m s , th e sch o o l b o a rd s and n o t th e f e d e ra l c o u rts will ru n th e schools, a b s e n t a sh o w in g o f a n in te n t to d iscrim in ate. W e do n o t th in k th is is a c a se in which a sc h o o l b o a rd , upon o b ta in in g a judicial decisio n t h a t it is unita ry , tu r n s its back on th e r ig h ts o f its m in o rity s tu d e n ts an d r e v e r ts to its old d isc rim in a tin g w ays. If s u c h w e re th e c a se , w e w ould, of c o u rse , n o t ap p ro v e N o rfo lk ’s new a s sig n m e n t p la n . B u t su ch is n o t th e case. T he school b o a rd o f N o r folk h a s d o n e a re a so n a b le jo b in s e e k in g to k ee p its sch o o ls in te g ra te d in th e fac e o f a m a ssiv e e x o d u s o f w h ite s tu d e n ts . W e sh o u ld n o t tie its h a n d s a n d r e f u s e to allow 20. In 1969, the district court rejected such an argument in the Beckett litigation. 302 F.Supp. 18, 27. It concluded that housing patterns re sulted from de facto segregation or a desire of blacks to live with blacks and whites to live with whites. This court did not disturb that finding when it considered the matter on appeal and reversed on other grounds. Brewer, supra, 434 F.2d 408. ! I i I ! | ; .' �784 F E D E R A L R E P O R T E R , 2d S E R IE S it to tr y a n o th e r p la n th a t m ay be s u c c e s s ful in sto p p in g t h a t ex o d u s. T h e d is tric t c o u r t h a s th o u g h tfu lly an d ca re fu lly c o n s id e re d th e com plex issu e s b e fo re it, a n d its ju d g m e n t is ac co rd in g ly A F F IR M E D . V- | V m ore; Ju d g e . A lexander H a rv e y , J r ., D istric t R ansom J . Davis, S t u a r t R. B la tt, B alti m ore, Md., W. G ary K o h lm a n , W a sh in g to n , D.C., C harles Lee N u tt, W illiam H. M urphy (H. R ussell S m ouse, H a r r y J . M atz; Melnicove, K aufm an, W ein er & S m o u se, P.A ., B altim ore, Md., on b rie f), fo r a p p e lla n ts. J . F rederick M otz, U .S. A tty ., B altim ore, Md., fo r appellee. U N IT E D S T A T E S o f A m e ric a , A p p ellee , P rio r rep o rt: 4 th Cir., 776 F.2d 455. v. ORDER T h o m a s C a lv in R IC K S , etc.. A p p e lla n t. U N IT E D S T A T E S o f A m e ric a , A p p ellee , v. J a m e s A. C A R T E R , A p p ellan t. U N IT E D S T A T E S o f A m e ric a , A p p ellee , v. M a rc e ll M O F F A T T , etc.. A p p e lla n t. U N IT E D S T A T E S o f A m e ric a . A p p e lle e , v. S ta n le y R O D G E R S , A p p ellan t. U N IT E D S T A T E S o f A m e ric a , A p p e lle e , v. K e rn e y W illia m L IN D S E Y , e tc .. A p p e lla n t. U N IT E D S T A T E S o f A m e ric a , A p p e lle e , v. C lifto n L e o F R IS B Y , A p p e lla n t. T he appellee’s petitio n fo r re h e a rin g and su g g e stio n fo r re h e a rin g in b a n c w ere su b m itted to this C ourt. In a r e q u e s te d poll of th e C ourt, J u d g e s R u ssell, H all, M urnag h a n , C hapm an, W ilkinson a n d S needen v o te d to re h e a r th e c a se s in banc; and C h ie f Ju d g e W in ter a n d J u d g e s W idener, Phillips, S p ro u se an d E rv in voted a g a in s t re h e a rin g the c a se s in b an c. A m ajo rity o f ju d g e s having voted to g r a n t re h e a rin g in b an c, IT IS O R D E R E D t h a t re h e a rin g in banc is g ra n te d . IT IS F U R T H E R O R D E R E D th a t th e se c a s e s sh all be ca le n d a re d fo r a rg u m e n t a t th e A pril, 1986 se ssio n o f C o u rt. E n tered a t th e d irectio n o f C hief J u d g e W inter. U N IT E D S T A T E S o f A m eric a, A p p e lle e , v. B e a tric e R O B E R T S , A p p e lla n t. S_ J » U N IT E D S T A T E S o f A m e ric a , A p p e lle e , M a u ric e D a v id K IN G , etc., A p p e lla n t. N os. 8 3 -5 0 6 0 to 83-5066 a n d 83-5081. U n ite d S ta te s C o u rt o f A ppeals, F o u rth C ircuit. F eb . 13, 1986. A p p e a ls fro m th e U n ite d S ta te s D istric t C o u rt fo r th e D istric t o f M ary lan d , a t B alti- J � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 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 Riddick By Riddick v. School Bd. Of City of Norfolk. Description An account of the resource Copy of case. 24 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 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_18 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/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/3c9742374b6dd0bda91ff64cee0760cc.pdf de3cda5f5fc6655b7f2d5ea0eafba537 PDF Text Text Grade Name Address 1 Davis, 1 Marshall, 1 Palmer, 1 Smith, 1 Wright, 2 Elisha School S Kemper Rd Abingdon 2447 S Oxford St Abingdon Daryl 2442 S Lowell St Abingdon Janelle 3703 S Kemper Rd Abingdon Crystal 2418 S Oakland St Abingdon Butler, Santo 2436 S Oakland St Abingdon 2 Talley, Richard 2433 S Oxford 3 Fleming, 2441 S Kenwood 3 Smith, Nichole 3625 S Kemper 3 Smith, Sean 3610 S 24th 4 Lewis, Ricardo 2446 S Oakland 5 Brown, Charonda 3806 S Kemper Rd Abingdon 5 Cameron, 3727 S Kemper Rd Abingdon 5 Cooper, 2448 S Oakland St Abingdon 5 Johnson, Natia 2440 s Oakland St Abingdon 5 Lomax, Frannie 3623 s Kemper Rd Abingdon 5 * 3717 Norris, 244 1 s O x f o r d St Abingdon * Has i n s t r u c t i o n a l Donald Brigette DeLaunte Danielle Taiwan tra n sfe r from B a r c r o f t t h i s St St Rd Rd year Abingdon Abingdon Abingdon Abingdon St Abingdon � 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 Handwritten note: "Randolph", Listing by grade, name, address and school (Abingdon), no context, no date. Description An account of the resource Handwritten note: "Randolph", Listing by grade, name, address and school (Abingdon), no context, no date. 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_173 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/2949d2ac6d93906ee9b3105745487bba.pdf b4a7ec66128dd509b77cd5c59481436c PDF Text Text (703) 553-2333 TO: FR M O : SUBJECT: * Margaret McCourt, Principal, Abingdon Elementary School Nancy King, Principal Nauck Youngsters to Abingdon from Barcroft = possible exception due to space for 098 placement or right to school preference Grade Placement Fall 1987 Name Address Brown, Aleta 2806 S. 24th Rd., #6 Arlington, V 22206 A 098 Buenaventura, Richard 3408 S. 25th St. Arlington, VA 22206 2 Cooper, Kesha 2513 S. Kenwood St. Arlington, V 22206 A 1(R) Cooper, Zachary 2513 S. Kenwood St. Arlington, VA 22206 4 Douglas, Russell 2806 S. 24th Rd. Arlingotn, V 22206 A 2 Drayton, Maruice 2450 S. Oxford St. Arlington, V 22206 A 3 Evans, James 3422 S. Kemper Road Arlington, VA 22206 3(R) Marshall, Shakita 3404 S. 25th S t . , #38 Arlington, V 22206 A 2 McNeil, LaShawn 2610 S. Shirlington Rd., #102 Arlington, V 22206 A 2 * Ruffin, Jennifer 2808 S. 24th Rd., #1 Arlington, VA 22206 6 * Simmons, Kelvin 2420 S. Lowell St. Arlington, V 22206 A 098 Tabron, Jaquel 2441 S. Kenwood St. Arlington, VA 22206 2 * Terry, Alvin 2439 S. Lowell St. Arlington, VA 22206 098 * Terry, Calvin Same as above 098 * Terry, Catrina Same as above 098’ * �SM AY U MR No. to Abington Grade 1 1 Grade 2 5 Grade 3 2 Grade 4 1 Grade 5 0 Grade 6 1 (1) Grade 098 5 (5) Total 15 P ossib le Exceptions 6 Total cc: 9 Assessment Office � 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 Memorandum: to Margaret McCourt, Principal, Abingdon Elementary School from Nancy King, Principal, Barcroft Elementary School, "Nauck Youngsters Going to Abingdon from Barcroft", Draft, April 15, 1987. Description An account of the resource Listing of students from Barcroft Elementary School going to Abingdon Elementary School by name, address and grade. 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, Barcroft Elementary School, Nancy King 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_171 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/85c3038ef8dea21eefcfa5d79c100a4b.pdf cf8c10d1c37fd0f2c6b43765e7d9b073 PDF Text Text E lem entary School (703) 553-2333 TO: Gloria Hoffman, Principal, Randolph Elementary School FR M O : Nancy King, Principal SUBJECT: Nauck Youngsters to Randolph * = possible exception due to space for 098 placement or right to school preference Name Armeanu, Nora Grade Placement Fall 1987 Address 2140 S. Pollard St. Arlington 22204 same as above Armeanu, Sabin Dandridge, Nakia * Dandridge, Ray 1(R) 4 2 2140 S. Oxford St. Arlington 22204 098 same as above Davis, Tamika 2134 S. Pollard St. Arlington 22204 2 Denney, Jerry 2013 S. Nelson St. Arlington 22204 2 '' Douglas, Tamieka 2024 S. Oakland St. Arlington 22204 5 Flakes, Kesha same as above 4 V F lak es, Lianne C 3523 S. 19th St. Arlington 22204 00 C oh A 098 Gamer, Latonya 2 Hamm, Christopher 2024 S. Monroe St. Arlington 22204 2 Hinkle, Eddie Joe A 2146 S. Oxford St. Arlington 22204 2137 S. Pollard St. Arlington 22204 1 Hinkle, Russell same as above Ho, Bao-Chau 2124 S. Lowell St. Arlington 22204 098 6 *» �Grade Placement Fall 1987______ Name Address Ho, Thai-Khoung 2124 Lowell St. Arlington 22204 5 Huff, DeJUan 2140 S. Oakland St. Arlington 22204 3 Johnson, Crystal 2130 S. Oxford St. Arlington 22204 098 Lewis, Monique 2138 S. Oakland St. Arlington 22204 4 Lewis, Nicole same as above 2 Mangum, Michael 2148 S. Oxford St. Arlington 22204 098 McBee, Antoine 2135 S. Nelson St. Arlington 22204 3(R) Puryear, Anthony 2105 S. Oakland St. Arlington 22204 3 Puryear, John same as above 5 Rose, Lakisha 2212 S. Pollard St. Arlington 22204 4 Rose, Tiffane same as above 4 Shorter, Leela 2133 S. Pollard St. Arlington 22204 3 Snead? Tanya -20H~~&r-MenroQ -St. Ari-rngton—22204 A Taylor, Nakiyha 2014 S. Langley S t . , #2 Arlington 22204 3 Williams, Jynan 2148 S. Oakland St. Arlington 22204 4 �SU M R M AY No. to Randolph Grade 1 2 Grade 2 s Grade 3 5 Grade 4 E Grade 5 3 (3) Grade 6 1 (1) Grade 098 6 (6) Total 27 P ossible Exceptions 10 Total 17 cc: Assessment Office � 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 Memorandum: to Gloria Hoffman, Principal Randolph Elementary School from Nancy King, Principal, Barcroft Elementary School, "Nauck Youngsters Going to Randolph", Draft, April 15, 1987. Description An account of the resource Listing of students from Barcroft Elementary School going to Randolph Elementary School by name, address and grade. 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, Barcroft Elementary School, Nancy King 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_168 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/88bb59c113bf760d09ee87bc62b3cf9a.pdf f78c80d23d9ce68397c2ba7336e44f05 PDF Text Text RANDOLPH E L E M E N T A R Y SCHOOL 1306 S o u t h Q u i n c y Street A r lington, V i r g i n i a 22204 553-2307 Dear On T h u r s d a y , M a r c h 29, 1 9 8 7 t h e A r l i n g t o n S c h o o l B o a r d v o t e d t o c h a n g e t h e s c h o o l a t t e n d a n c e b o u n d a r i e s in t h e N a u c k a r e a . A s u m m a r y of their actions t h a t n i g h t and a m a p of the N a u c k a r e a s h o w i n g s c h o o l b o u n d a r i e s f o r S e p t e m b e r 1987 are a t t a c h e d . B e c a u s e of t h e s e c h a n g e s , your child may attend Abingdon n e x t fall. S i n c e ______________ i s a f i f t h g r a d e r y o u m a y c h o o s e t o l e t _______ s t a y at Randolph to finish the elementdry years. Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n will be p r o v i d e d . P l e a s e let me k n o w y o u r w i s h e s b y F r i d a y , M a y 1, 1 9 8 7 . in If y o u h a v e a n y g u e s t i o n s o r concerns September, please call me at 553-2307. about this Sincerely, Ms. G l o r i a Principal Hoffman G H : jp RETURN Yes, No, I'd like please S ig n a t u r e TO Ms. Gloria ______________ reassign Hoffman by to at R a n d o l p h . stay ______________ t o Friday, Abingdon.S Date May 1 placement � 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 Example of notification letter and form sent to parents of students being transferred due to redistricting of Nauck District from Randolph Elementary School, no date. Description An account of the resource Example of notification letter and form sent to parents of students being transferred due to redistricting of Nauck District from Randolph Elementary School, no date. 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, Randolph Elementary School, Gloria Hoffman 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_150 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/12b5d12744a0c8791995b73321a5c527.pdf d6bd111bd2a04fe13ca1364fe1bf650c PDF Text Text jL . U d C C U ^> *= / ^ tc t s u ^ A --/* -^ - ja . M ta & z- u ^ M ^ - � 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 Handwritten note to John to go with the examples of letters being sent to parents about school boundary changes, no date. Description An account of the resource Handwritten note to John to go with the examples of letters being sent to parents about school boundary changes, no date. 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_149 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/934fb38213d1a214018ba3c235d04a49.pdf fee0845ddd0b8b0c372e3eb707633027 PDF Text Text RANDOLPH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1306 S o u t h Q u i n c y S t r e e t Arlington, Virginia 22204 553-2307 Dear * ■ f c e On T h u r s d a y , M a r c h 19, 1 9 8 7 t h e A r l i n g t o n S c h o o l B o a r d v o t e d t o c h a n g e t h e s c h o o l a t t e n d a n c e b o u n d a r i e s in t h e N a u c k a r e a . A s u m m a r y of their actions t h a t n i g h t a n d a m a p of t h e N a u c k a r e a showing school boundaries for S eptember 1987 are attached. B e c a u s e of these changes, your child will attend Abin g d o n Elementary School b e g i n n i n g in S e p t e m b e r 1987. Bussing to the n e w s c h o o l w i l l be p r o v i d e d . The principal of Abingdon, Ms. Margaret McCourt Dirner, will a l s o be s e n d i n g y o u a l e t t e r w i t h more information. I will work very closely with you and your c h i l d so t h e t r a n s i t i o n is a s m o o t h one. A s m a l l n u m b e r of i n s t r u c t i o n a l t r a n s f e r s f o r c h i l d r e n w h o s e pa r e n t s w o u l d like for t h e m to remain at R a n d o l p h are a v a i l a b l e on a first come first serve basis. Howe v e r , you w i l l be responsible for providing transportation for your c h i l d if t h e transfer is approved. P l e a s e call the school secretary, Mrs. J e a n i e P a y n e at 5 5 3 - 2 3 1 3 to r e q u e s t a t r a n s f e r a p p l i c a t i o n . Call me at 5 5 3 - 2 3 0 7 if c h i l d ' s S e p t e m b e r 1987 s c h o o l you have any placement. questions about Sincerely, Ms. G l o r i a Principal G H : jp Hoffman your � 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 Example of notification letter sent to parents of students being transferred due to redistricting of Nauck District from Randolph Elementary School, no date. Description An account of the resource Example of notification letter sent to parents of students being transferred due to redistricting of Nauck District from Randolph Elementary School, no date. 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, Randolph Elementary School, Gloria Hoffman 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_148