# Appendix — Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385004_0761%3A3 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1977 - **Citation:** 429 U.S. 1060 ## Text or ve Su, 2 Coutt, U. S ki LED MAR 15 jg7T a APPENDIX Volume II — Exhibits | MICHAEL RODAK, JR., CLERK J IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 1976 No. 76-539 DAYTON BOARD OF EDUCATION, WILLIAM E. GOODWIN, JOSEPHINE GROFF and JAMES D. HART, Petitioners, v. MALEK BRINKMAN, PATTY BRINKMAN, and PHILLIP BRINKMAN, By Their Mother and Next Friend, Donna Brinkman, et al., Respondents. se ere ee On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit Petition For Certiorari Filed October 18, 1976 Certiorari Granted January 17, 1977 ._ ea ee ss errs . Pls. Pls. Pls. . ISA APPENDIX — VOLUME II EXHIBITS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page One Race Schools and Classrooms .... 311 Racial Overview 1951-52 ............ 312 Racial Overview 1963-64 ............ 313 Racial Overview 1971-72 ............ 314 School Segregation Overview ........ 315 Building Racial Identifiability ........ 316-317 Black Teacher Employment Placement 319 Racial Pattern Faculty Assignment .... 320 Three Resolutions of December 8, OS ee 321-330 Minutes of January 8, 1972 Board SS aS 330-353 Report of the Committee of 75 ...... 354-369 Desegregation Study by Dr. Foster, ee ta kdeakhensswreenens 370-414 H.E.W. Letter of Mar. 17, 1969 to a ee a eee eee e he 415-416 H.E.W. Letter of Oct. 14, 1970 to i , ee 6 eee eebedeies oe 416-418 Greer Letter of June 7, 1971 to Dr. Carle and Recommendations of State Board of Education ................. 419-455 Tate Letter to President of Dayton REET ay ee eee 456-457 Pls. Pls. 13B 13N 15A 1I5Al . I5B1 . 16B . 16C Pls. . 16D Pls. unmkd. 16F S & eas 8 ~l uw 100A Page French Letter of Oct. 19, 1965 to Board 458 NAACP Letter of Nov. 15, 1954 to EA ae a ae me 459-461 Roosevelt-Colonel White Optional i TD ook cconcduscbsve 462-463 Roosevelt-Colonel White Optional Area Enrollment: 1959-1960 to 1970- ERE ee eR ee em ee es 464 Colonel White-Kiser Optional Area EE reer rs err 465 Freedom of Enrollment Guidelines; SE wacttsudisdovanaabsncs -. . 466-467 Goff Letter of Feb. 28, 1972 to Stover . . 467-468 Listing of Students and Letters ...... 469-477 1972-73 Freedom Enrollment Transfers 478 1972-73 Other Student Transfers ...... 479-480 Policy Regarding Integration ........ 481 1954 Facts and Figures Regarding BE swcdccnctesnsocseceacane 482-483 Staff Integration Report .............. 484-485 Clerical Placement by School ......... 486 Greer Letter of Mar. 20, 1972 to Carle . . 487-488 Touche Ross & Co. Report ........... 489-498 Estimated Enrollment for West Side PS i vattcneknwehsesucedss 499-501 Black Student Enrollment and Faculty | RS heey e Sai ones 502 Pls. 100B Pls. 100C Pils. 100D Pls. LOOE Pls. 130B Pls. 130C Pls. 130D Pls. 143B Pls. 143] Pls. 1501 Pls. 157C Pls. 157D Pls. 161A Pls. 161B Pls. 162 Def. B Def. D Def. E It. Page Black Student Enrollment and Faculty Pins coctandeGetwassedcecnes 503 Black Student Enrollment and Faculty DT ch nkchedneekeanees ess eaedees 504 Black Student Enrollment and Faculty Dt inusske baduadareseadaewkeut enaeoeies of Patterson Co-op (69.0% vers . white), Valenmie (36.5% white), Cettysdur Cleveland 1956 100 100 (85.5% white), and Belle Haven (89.7% white). , — 1967 100 100 ° Eastmont 1955 100 100 1958 100 100 1967 100 97 Fairview 1950 100 100 see = re Source: ».0.8. Poveanaes Seperses Guaptiotion of the D.P.S. Division of esearch an -P.S. ice of Cqual Educational Opportunity; and Fort McKinley 19S5 100 100 ’ ore oe ptt cos 100 the D.P.S. Building Schedule. 1°67 100 97 Gettysburg 1950 100 100 1952 100° : 100 Grant 19$2 100 100 1955 100 100 Huffman 1907 98.5 $3 Kemp 195 100 100 e 1954 100 100 1987 100 100 Lewton 19$1 100 100 1954 100 100 1957 100 100 e 319 PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT 5A 1963-64 New Black Teacher Employments/ Placements ' 46 43 Full-time assignments 40 To schools with pupils racial composition 80% or more black 1964-65 New Black Teacher Employments, Placements 73 68 Full-time assignments 57 To schools with pupil racial composition 80% or more black 1968-69 Assignments of New and Transfer Teachers Schools with Schools with Predominantly Predominantly White Enrollment Negro Enrollment Total Negro Teachers 40 95 135 White Teachers 223 64 287 Source: D.P.S. Personnel Reports; D.P.S. Superintendent's Compilations Year 1950-51 1963-64 1963-69 Source: 320 PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 5D RACIAL PATTERN IN THE ALLOCATION OF PUPILS AilD FACULTY Faculty Faculty Allocated Allocated To Pupil To Pupil Populations Populations No. Black Teachers No. Vhite Teachers 90% + Dlactk 00% + white 4 ” 1616 - 1847 Ohio Civil Rights Survey. All Black No Biack tlo white All \"ite 304 (74.5%) 51 (12.7%) 151 ( 7.3%) 1280 (79.2%) 633 (84.8%) 172 ( 9.35) 172 ( 9.3%) 1299 (70.3%) D.P.S. Personnel Reports and Division of Research Compilations, 321 PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT 7 THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF DAYTON, OHIO WEDNESDAY — DECEMBER §8, 1971 — REGULAR MEETING The following Resolution was introduced for adoption by Mr. Lucas, seconded by Mrs. Sterzer: RESOLUTION SEEKING JOINT ACTION TO END SEGREGATION IN EDUCATION, HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT IN THE METROPOLITAN DAYTON AREA WHEREAS, the Committee of 75, in reporting to this Board, has called renewed attention to the widespread racial and economic isolation of pupils in the Dayton Public Schools and in schools of the metropolitan Dayton area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Education of the City School District of Dayton: 1. That this Board hereby recognizes and admits that racial and economic segregation exists in the Dayton schools because of the actions and inactions of this and predecessor boards in the establishment of attendance districts, the location and expansion of school buildings, pupils assignment practices, design of curriculum suit- able to urban needs, the assignment of teachers and other staff, and the conduct of student activity programs; the past actions or inactions of the Ohio General As- sembly, the State Board of Education, and other agen- cies of Federal, state, and local government in con- tributing to the development and continuation of segre- gated housing, education, and employment in the Day- 322 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7 ton metropolitan area and other parts of Ohio; and the actions in inactions of lending agencies, real estate interests, employers, unions, private schools, colleges, churches, and other organizations that have reinforced segregation. That this Board recognizes that past actions or inac- tions of the Board of Education and residential racial segregation are interdependent phenomena. That this Board recognizes that the black minority popu- lation of the Dayton metropolitan area, as illustrated by the existence of schools of opposite racial composition in districts with contiguous district lines, essentially is contained within the central city of Dayton, as a result of discriminatory practices. Such containment works against a viable integrated school system within the city, and the Board asserts that a truly effective solu- tion is possible only through a metropolitan approach. That this Board of Education recognizes that racial and economic integration of student bodies in each school is imperative to providing equal educational opportuni- ty, a broad curriculum capable of serving the individual needs of pupils, and a democratic environment in which future citizens can be prepared to live in America’s multi-ethnic society. That this Board views the racial and ethnic mix of the Dayton City School District and of the metropolitan area as assets; that this population, if reflected in each school, could itself contribute to people’s learning from each other; and that, as a whole, the metropolitan area represents a nearly ideal cross section of the nation that could permit schools here to become a model of Ameri- can democracy in action. That this Board hereby invites and urges agencies of the federal, state, and local governments and organizations —~I 323 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7 of religious, business, labor, education, communications, civic service, and real estate to assist the Board in de- segregation of Dayton schools and to pledge publicly their accelerated efforts to bring about desegregation in housing, education and employment throughout the Day- ton metropolitan area. That the Clerk of The Board be and hereby is directed to forward a true copy of this resolution to the following: Governor of the State of Ohio President of the State Board of Education Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives President of the Ohio Senate Montgomery County Members of the Ohio General Assembly and United States Congress Montgomery County Commissioners Dayton City Commissioners Montgomery County Council of Governments City Plan Board Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission Miami Valley Regional Transit Authority Metropolitan Housing Authority Apartment Owners Association Area Progress Council Assembly of Area Councils Chairmen of Democratic and Republican Organiza- tions Community Affairs Committee Congress of Representatives East Dayton Organiza- tions Dayton Advisory Council on Education Dayton Area Board of Realtors Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce Dayton Area Junior Chamber of Commerce Dayton Building Trades Council Dayton Classroom Teachers Association 324 Plaintifis’ Exhibit 7 Dayton-Miami Valley AFL-CIO Dayton Model Cities Planning Council, Inc. Dayton Public Service Union Dayton Urban League Deans of Area Colleges of Education Elementary Principals Association Metropolitan Churches United Miami Valley Consortium of Colleges and Universities Montgomery County Community Action Agency Montgomery County Council of PTAs National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Ohio Association of Public School Employees Presidents Club Secondary Principals Association Southern Christian Leadership Conference After introduction of the motion to adopt the Resolution, Mrs. Groff asked that the following statement be made a part of the Minutes: “I feel that this resolution is beyond the jurisdiction of this Board because first of all it doesn’t require a vote because it is in violation of this Board’s present policy. Even though you sent out and stated that the policy we have on record referred to the election back in November 10, 1970, I would like to refute that because I have here a newspaper clipping quoting Dr. Carrell. It was when we were about to sub- mit the policy on middle schools. On the question of middle schools, and I'd like to quote, “It has been alledged that there are 9 middle schools already chosen but not revealed by the Board. That they will be implemented over a week- end.” Answer: “On both counts the answer is “no”. First, I have not heard of any such proposal for 9 middle schools. | have no idea whether there will be 9 or 3 or 18. There is no proposal before the Board at this moment for any one of those figures. The Board adopted a policy some time ago 325 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7 which said there would be 4 month’s notice given to the public prior to the adoption of any significant policy decision. I feel that we still feel bound by that.” Now, this is a new policy decision. This is the first time it has been before the Board. I feel this resolution is out of order. It’s invalid because you are violating the Board's policy.” Upon completion of further discussion, it was moved by Mr. Ridenour, seconded by Mr. Hart, that action on the Resolu- tion be tabled until the next regular meeting. Roll Call on the motion to table: YEAS: Groff, Hart, Ridenour — 3 NAYS: Carrell, Seaman, Sterzer, and Lucas — 4 The motion to table was declared defeated. Roll Call on original motion to adopt the Resolution: YEAS: Carrell, Hart, Seaman, Sterzer, and Lucas — 5 NAYS: Groff, Ridenour — 2 The Resolution was declared adopted. The following Resolution was introduced for adoption by Mr. Lucas, seconded by Mrs. Sterzer: RESOLUTION ASKING FOR STATE ASSISTANCE TO DESEGREGATE PUBLIC SCHOOLS WHEREAS, The Committee of 75 has recommended school integration on a metropolitan basis, and WHEREAS, the State of Ohio has responsibility and authority for the operation of public schools, and the State Board of Education has the duty to administer the laws relating generally to the operation of the schools, and WHEREAS, the Ohio Attorney General has ruled that the State Board of Education has the authority to restrict fiund- 326 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7 ing in any school district in which said Board finds as a matter of fact that racial segregation exists, NOW. ‘THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Education of the City School District of Dayton: 1. That this Board hereby petitions the State of Ohio and the State Board of Education (a) to obtain from Ohio Civil Rights Commission, U. S. Office of Education and such other sources as it may deem useful, data on racial isolation of faculty, staffs and pupils within and among the several school districts as presently constituted in the metropolitan Dayton area; (b) to develop guide- lines and criteria as may be necessary to assure an educationally and socially viable mix of pupils, within the socio-economic characteristics of the metropolitan area as a whole; (c) to require said districts to cooperate in preparing and implementing a plan for assignment of faculty, staffs and pupils in accordance with said guidelines and criteria, and (d) to assure adequate funding from state and district sources to continue the operation of the schools and the implementation of said plans throughout the period of transition and thereafter. to That said plans be developed by September 1, 1972 and fully implemented not later than September 1, 1973. 3. That the Clerk of the Board forward a true copy of this resolution to the Governor of the State of Ohio, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President of the Ohio Senate and the President of the State Board of Education. After introduction of the motion to adopt the Resolution, Mrs. Groff asked that the following statement be made a part of the Minutes: “Yes, I object to this resolution because it is also invalid and in violation of this Board’s policy too. Also this is the 327 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7 responsibility of the State Board of Education and the State Legislature and not this Board of Education to make these kinds of laws.” It was moved by Mr. Rinenour, seconded by Mr. Hart, that action on the Resolution be tabled. Roll Call on the motion to table: YEAS: Groff, Hart, and Ridenour — 3 NAYS: Carrell, Seaman, Sterzer, and Lucas — 4 The motion to table was declared defeated. Roll Call on original motion to adopt the Resolution: YEAS: Carrell, Hart, Seaman, Sterzer, and Lucas 5 NAYS: Groff and Ridenour — 2 The Resolution was declared adopted. [PROPOSAL TO SUBMIT RESOUTION ASKING FOR STATE ASSISTANCE TO DESEGREGATE PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION | It was moved by Mrs. Sterzer, seconded by Mr. Seaman, that the Resolution asking for State Assistance to Desegregate Pub- lic Schools be carried by a committee representative of the school district to the next State Board of Education meeting and presented at their public hearing. Roll Call: YEAS: Carrell, Hart, Seaman, Sterzer, and Lucas — 5 NAYS: Groff and Ridenour — 2 The motion was declared approved. 328 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7 The following Resolution was introduced for adoption by Mr. Lucas, seconded by Mrs. Sterzer: RESOLUTION ORDERING THE RACIAL AND ECONOMIC INTEGRATION OF PUPILS IN THE DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS WHEREAS, the Board of Education of the Dayton City School District recognizes a moral and legal duty to provide quality non-segregated education for all students in the district, and, WHEREAS, integrated education is vital to the achievement of quality education for all pupils, black and white, rich and poor, and, WHEREAS, the Fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution and the mandate of the United States Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education decision and sub- sequent court decisions place an affirmative duty to dis- establish the segregated attendance patterns which result in whole or in part from its actions and inactions in order to equalize educational opportunity, and, WHEREAS, segregated educational opportunity and unequal educational opportunities for minority and poor students now exist in the Dayton Public Schools, and WHEREAS, this inequality exists as a result of the acts and omissions of this Board and preceding Boards in their de- cisions concerning the site selection of school buildings, size of school buildings, changes and adoption of school attendance boundaries, pupil assignment practices, faculty and staff hiring and assignment practices and, WHEREAS, this Board has requested and received reports of findings and recommendations from the State Department of Education and the Committee of 75, 329 Plaintifis’ Exhibit 7 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Education of the City School District of Dayton that it is the policy of this Board that each school shall enroll pupils in a manner which substantially reflects the racial and eco- nomic characteristics of the district as a whole. The Board recognizes that implementation of this policy requires de- parture from past practices and requires special planning to assure a smooth transition. The Board therefore directs: 1. That the superintendent in consultation with professional staff and the representatives of employee organizations, design and implement a mandatory program of in-service education involving all staff members to prepare staff for changes in enrollments and to develop an individu- alized, multi-ethnic curriculum in each school. 2. That Dayton Advisory Council on Education be re- quested to organize a Community Involvement Advisory Committee and a Lay Citizens Financial Review Com- mittee to advise the superintendent during the course of planning and implementing integration programs, as recommended by the Committee of 75. 3. That the superintendent be and hereby is directed to develop and implement plans for the racial and eco- nomic integration of pupils using the following guide- lines and criteria: a. Attendance districts as presently constituted are re- scinded effective September 1, 1972. b. No building shall have a racial composition and family incuise characteristics substantially dispropor- tionate to the district as a whole. c. After determination of building capacities and racial and economic characteristics of attendance areas, pupils will be assigned to a school in which such assignment would contribute to a mix as in b. above. 330 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7 Plaintifis’ Exhibit 8 d. Freedom of Enrollment policy with the exception of transfers for course enrollment shall be eliminated by September 1, 1972. e. Desegregation is to be completed by September, 1972. f. Nothing herein shall be construed to limit the es- tablishment of magnet, demonstration, specialized or other education complexes, provided that the sites for instruction meet the criteria in c. above. g. Transportation shall be held to a minimum, but is specifically included as one means of implementing this policy. PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT 8 THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF DAYTON, OHIO MONDAY — JANUARY 3, 1972 — REGULAR MEETING [RESOLUTION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS FOR PURCHASE OF SCHOOL BUSSES] It was moved by Mr. Lucas, seconded by Mr. Lawson, that the following Resolution be adopted: RESOLUTION ON SCHOOL BUS PURCHASING WHEREAS, it has been determined that it is necessary to purchase one hundred and thirty, sixty-six passenger con- ventional or seventy-three passenger transit type buses, and, 331 Plaintifis’ Exhibit 8 WHEREAS, it is recommended that school buses be purchased and operated by the Board of Education, and, WHEREAS, plans and specifications have been prepared by the Business Department, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Clerk- Treasurer be and hereby is authorized to advertise for bids to be opened and read publicly in accordance with the provisions of Section 3313.46, Revised Code and that they he tabulated and reported to the Board at its carliest meet- ing after the bid opening. YEAS: Lawson, Lucas, and Sterzer — 3 NAYS: Goodwin, Groff, Ridenour, and Hart — 4 The Resolution was declared defeated. [RESOLUTION REGARDING PREPARATION OF BUDGET] It was moved by Mr. Goodwin, seconded by Mr. Ridenour, that in the preparation of the 1972 budget the Superintendent be directed by the Board to maintain line items in the same categories in order to give Board members direct comparison across the line, to maintain cost comparison from one year to another and with monthly reports to be made to the Board. YEAS: Goodwin, Groff, Lawson, Ridenour, and Hart ~— 5 NAYS: Laicas — 1 ABSTENTION: Sterzer — | The motion was declared approved. 332 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8 [RESOLUTION FOR AUDIT] It was moved by Mr. Goodwin, seconded by Mrs. Groff, that the Clerk-Treasurer be authorized to seek bids immediate- ately for a complete audit of 1970 and 1971 income and ex- penditures of the Board of Education in each category rela- tive to all items listed in the Appropriation Budget and amend- ed budgets with the audit to be made according to the use of State and Federal guidelines. Mr. Lucas stated that boards of education do not have statutory authority to employ independent auditors to audit their records. The chair then requested that the motion be tabled and a ruling sought as to whether or not the action indicated in the motion could be legally carried out. It was moved by Mr. Lucas, seconded by Mr. Lawson, that the matter be tabled in accordance with the request of Presi- dent Hart. YEAS: Goodwin, Groff, Lawson, Lucas, Ridenour, Stetzer, and Hart — 7 NAYS: None The motion to table was declared approved. [CONSIDERATION OF THREE RESOLUTIONS DRAFTED DECEMBER §8, 1971] Mrs. Groff asked the Chair whether the motion to recon- sider the three resolutions on integration could be brought up at this time. President Hart called up the motion on the vote to reconsider at the request of Mrs. Groff and then read the following statement: “On December 8, 1971, there was presented to this hoard three resolutions by Mr. Lucas, to-wit: 333 Plaintifts’ Exhibit 8 1. Resolution Seeking Joint Action to End Segregation in Education, Housing and Employment in the Metropolitan Dayton Area. 2. Resolution Asking For State Assistance to Desegregate Public Schools. 3. Resolution Ordering The Racial and Econcinic Integration of Pupils in The Dayton Public Schools. The motion was seconded and passed. Thereafter Mr. Hart moved, seconded by Mrs. Groff, that the above resolutions offered by Mr. Lucas, (titles being read) be taken up at the next meeting, that the questions be re- considered and entered upon the minutes of the December 8, 1971, meeting. Mr. Lucas ruled that the motion to reconsider was out of order. Later Mr. Lucas, publicly, withdrew this ruling. The chair concurs that Mr. Lucas’ ruling was in itself out of order for the reason that — whether a point of order is raised or not, all actions in violation of the by-laws are null and void auto- matically. Our by-laws provides for reconsideration and for the use of Robert’s Rules of Order which also provides for motions to reconsider and enter. The December 8, 1971 meeting then by unanimous vote was recessed to a definite date and never reconvened. On December 30, 1971, an assemblage of various board members was held and a purported vote taken on the re- consideration heretofore entered on the minutes of the De- cember 8, 1971 meeting. This was NOT convened as a spe- cial meeting as the notice did not indicate that the call was for a special meeting and did not list reconsideration or any agenda which under our rules of order must be done. Sec- ondly, it was not signed by members calling the meeting. 334 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8 Thirdly, the notice merely recited action taken at a previous assemblage of December 16, 1971. We must not examine the proceedings of the December 16, 1971, meeting. The December 16, 1971 meeting was a special meeting called at the instance and under the signature of two board members. Under the statutes and under our own rules and regulations it must be served on each member at least two days prior to the date of the called meeting. One mem- ber, Mr. Hart, did not receive the notice within the required time. A copy of that notice and the envelope within which it was sent shows that the special delivery department of the posal service did not receive this notice until 15 De- cember 1971, which made it physically impossible to serve the notice at least two days prior to the meeting of December 16, 1971. The attorney general has held and courts have decided that the proceedings of a school board are invalid where the re- quired notice is not given and the member not receiving notice is absent. The chair therefore rules that: 1. The ruling of Mr. Lucas ruling the motion to reconsider and enter made at the December 8, 1971 meeting to be out of order was itself out of order. 2. The proceedings of the December 16, 1971 meeting are invalid and this includes all votes taken at this meeting including the vote to reconsider and the vote setting a regular meeting for December 30, 1971. 3. That you cannot set a legal meeting at an illegal meeting. 4. Since the last legal meeting was recessed until January 3, 1972 the only meeting that could be called after re- cess was a special meeting. 5. That the December 30, 1971 meeting was invalid since it was convened as a regular meeting at a special mect- 335 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8 ing which itself was invalid and no call of a special meet- ing was made in accordance with the statutes governing special meetings. 6. That proceedings and votes taken at the December 30, 1971 meeting are invalid because of the illegality of the December 30, 1971 meeting. 7. That the Clerk of this board should confer with the pres- ident of this board to determine which actions this board would deem it necessary to confirm or ratify. 8. That the motion to reconsider, having never been acted upon, is now before this board under the category of new business and the question to reconsider may now be called up.” 1 call up the motion on the vote to reconsider the three resolutions which has been pending before this Board since the December 8, 1971 Regular Board Meeting.” Mr. Lucas asked that the record show that the action of the Chair at the January 3, 1972 meeting is invalid because the Board that dealt with this matter as a parliamentary procedure had adjourned sine die and this Board has no jurisdiction whatsoever. It was moved by Mrs. Groff, seconded by Mr. Ridenour, that the motion to reconsider the three resolutions of December 8, 1971 on integration be brought before the Board for vote. YEAS: Goodwin, Groff, Ridenour, and Hart — 4 NAYS: Lucas — 1 PASS: Lawson and Sterzer — 2 The motion to reconsider the three resolutions was declared approved. 336 - Plaintifis’ Exhibit 8 eiieiiecuiemas [RECONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION SEEKING ; : the existence of schools of opposite racial composition in districts with contiguous district lines, essentially is contained within the central city of Dayton, as a result of discriminatory practices. Such containment works against a viable integrated school system within the city, and the Board asserts that a truly effective solution is possible only through a metropolitan approach. JOINT ACTION TO END SEGREGATION IN EDUCA- TION, HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT IN THE METROPOLITAN DAYTON AREA} The Clerk read the Resolution at the request of the Chair: WHEREAS, the Committee of 75, in reporting to this Board, has called renewed attention to the widespread racial and 4 economic isolation of pupils in the Dayton Public Schools and in schools of the metropolitan Dayton area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Education of the City School District of Dayton: . That this Board of Education recognizes that racial and economic integration of student bodies in each school is imperative to providing equal educational opportuni- ty, a broad curriculum capable of serving the individual needs of pupils, and a democratic environment in which , future citizens can be prepared to live i ica’s i- 1. That this Board hereby recognizes and admits that prepared to live in America’s multi racial and economic segregation exists in the Dayton schools because of the actions and inactions of this and predecessor boards in the establishment of attendance districts, the location and expansion of school buildings, pupil assignment practices, design of curriculum suit- able to urban needs, the assignment of teachers and other staff, and the conduct of student activity programs; the past actions or inactions of the Ohio General Assembly, the State Board of Education, and other agencies of Federal, state, and local government in contributing to the development and continuation of segregated housing, education, and employment in the Dayton metropolitan area and other parts of Ohio; and the actions and in- actions of lending agencies, real estate interests, em- ployers, unions, private schools, colleges, churches, and other organizations that have reinforced segregation. That this Board recognizes that past actions or inactions of the Board of Education and residential racial segrega- tion are interdependent phenomena. That this Board recognizes that the black minority popu- lation of the Dayton metropolitan area, as illustrated by ethnic society. . That this Board views the racial and ethnic mix of the Dayton City School District and of the metropolitan area as assets; that this population, if reflected in each school, could itself contribute to people’s learning from each other; and that, as a whole, the metropolitan area represents a nearly ideal cross section of the nation that could permit schools here to become a model of Ameri- can democracy in action. That this Board hereby invites and urges agencies of the federal, state, and local governments and organizations of religious, business, labor, education, communications, civic service, and real estate to assist the Board in de- segregation of Dayton schools and to pledge publicly their accelerated efforts to bring about desegregation in housing, education and employment throughout the Day- ton metropolitan area. The the Clerk of the Board be and hereby is directed to forward a true copy of this resolution to the following: Area Board of Education Presidents Governor of the State of Ohio 335 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8 President of the State Board of Education Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives President of the Ohio Senate Montgomery County Members of the Ohio General Assembly and United States Congress Montgomery County Commissioners Dayton City Commissioners Montgomery County Council of Governments City Plan Board Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission Miami Valley Regional Transit Authority Metropolitan Housing Authority Apartment Owners Association Area Progress Council Assembly of Area Councils Chairmen of Democratic and Republican Organiza- tions Community Affairs Committee Congress of Representative East Dayton Organiza- tions Dayton Advisory Council on Education Dayton Area Board of Realtors Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce Dayton Area Junior Chamber of Commerce Dayton Building Trades Council Dayton Classroom Teachers Association Dayton-Miami Valley AFL-CIO Dayton Model Cities Planning Council, Inc. Dayton Public Service Union Dayton Urban League Deans of Area Colleges of Education Elementary Principals Association Metropolitan Churches United Miami Valley Consortium of Colleges and Universi- ties Montgomery County Community Action Agency 339 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8 Montgomery County Council of PTAs National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Ohio Association of Public School Employees Presidents Club Secondary Principals Association Southern Christian Leadership Conference Jewish Community Council Prior to voting on the Resolution the Chair announced that a “Yes” vote would support the Resolution and a “Nay” vote would be one to defeat the Resolution. YEAS: Lawson, Lucas, and Sterzer — 3 NAYS: Goodwin, Groff, Ridenour, and Hart — 4 The Resolution was declared defeated. Mr. Lucas left the meeting at this point. |RECONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ASKING STATE ASSISTANCE TO DESEGREGATE PUBLIC SCHOOLS | The Clerk read the Resolution at the request of the Chair: RESOLUTION ASKING FOR STATE ASSISTANCE TO DESEGREGATE PUBLIC SCHOOLS WHEREAS, The Committee of 75 has recommended school integration on a metropolitan basis, and WHEREAS, the State of Ohio has responsibility and authori- ty for the operation of public schools, and the State Board of Education has the duty to administer the laws relating generally to the operation of the schools, and WHEREAS, the Ohio Attorney General has ruled that the State Board of Education has the authority to restrict fund- ing in any school district in which said Board finds as a matter of fact that racial segregation exists, 340 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Education of the City School District of Dayton: 1. That this Board hereby petitions the State of Ohio and the State Board of Education (a) to obtain from Ohio Civil Rights Commission, U. S. Office of Education and such other sources as it may deem useful, data on racial isolation of faculty, staffs and pupils within and among the several school districts as presently constituted in the metropolitan Dayton area; (b) to develop guidelines and criteria as may be necessary to assure an educationally and socially viable mix of pupils, within the socio-eco- nomic characteristics of the metropolitan area as a whole; (c) to require said districts to cooperate in preparing and implementing a plan for assignment of faculty, staffs and pupils in accordance with said guidelines and cri- teria, and (d) to assure adequate funding from state and district sources to continue the operation of the schools and the implementation of said plans throughout the period of transition and thereafter. 2. That said plans be developed by September 1, 1972 and fully implemented no later than September 1, 1973. 3. That the Clerk of the Board forward a true copy of this resolution to the Governor of the State of Ohio, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President of the Ohio Senate and the President of the State Board of Education. Prior to voting on the Resolution the Chair announced that a “Yes” vote would support the Resolution and a “No” vote would be one to defeat the Resolution. YEAS: Lawson and Sterzer NAYS: Goodwin, Groff, Ridenour, and Hart The Resolution was declared defeated. 341 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8 {RECONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ORDERING THE RACIAL AND ECONOMIC INTEGRATION OF PUPILS IN THE DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS] The Clerk read the Resolution at the request of the Chair: RESOLUTION ORDERING THE RACIAL AND ECONOMIC INTEGRATION OF PUPILS IN THE DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS WHEREAS, the Board of Education of the Dayton City School District recognizes a moral and legal duty to provide quali- ty non-segregated education for all students in the district, and, WHEREAS, integrated education is vital to the achievement of quality education for all pupils, black and white, rich and poor, and, WHEREAS, the Fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution and the mandate of the United States Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education decision and subse- quent court decisions place an affirmative duty to dis- establish the segregated attendance patterns which result in whole or in part from its actions and inactions in order to equalize educat'onal opportunity, and, WHEREAS, segregated educational opportunity and unequal educational opportunities for minority and poor students now exist in the Dayton Public Schools, and WHEREAS, this inequality exists as a result of the acts and omissions of this Board and preceding Boards in their de- cisions concerning the site selection of school buildings, size of school buildings, changes and adoption of school attendance boundaries, pupil assignment practices, faculty and staff hiring and assignment practices and, WHEREAS, this Board has requested and received reports of findings and recommendations from the State Department of Education and the Committee of 75, 342 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Education of the City School District of Dayton that it is the policy of this Board that each school shall enroll pupils in a manner which substantially reflects the racial and eco- nomic characteristics of the district as a whole. The Board recognizes that implementation of this policy requires de- parture from past practices and requires special planning to assure a smooth transition. The Board therefore directs: 1. That the superintendent in consultation with professional staff and the representatives of employee organizations, design and implement a mandatory program of in-service education involving all staff members to prepare staff for changes in enrollments and to develop an_ indi- vidualized, multi-ethnic curriculum in each school. 2. That Dayton Advisory Council on Education be request- ed to organize a Community Involvement Advisory Com- mittee and a Lay Citizens Financial Review Committee to advice the superintendent during the course of plan- ning and implementing integration programs, as recom- mended by the Committee of 75. 3. That the superintendent be and hereby is directed to develop and implement plans for the racial and economic integration of pupils using the following guidelines and criteria: a. Attendance districts as presently constituted are re- scinded effective September 1, 1972. 343 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8 d. Freedom of Enrollment policy with the exception of transfers for course enrollment shall be eliminated by September 1, 1972. e. Desegregation is to be completed by September, 1972. f. Nothing herein shall be construed to limit the estab- lishment of magnet, demonstration, specialized or other education complexes, provided that the sites for instruction meet the criteria in c. above. g. Transportation shall be held to a minimum, but is specifically included as one means of implementing this policy. That to the maximum feasible extent consistent with this policy statement, recommendations of the Committee of 75, are hereby adopted and may be used in planning and implementing school integration. . That the superintendent report on progress and prob- lems concerning implementation of this policy at least every sixty days and that a program for continuous evaluation throughout the phases of implementation be developed by July 31, 1972. That the superintendent prepare applications for sup- plementary financial assistance from state, federal and other sources that may become available to improve the quality of education and achieve the goals of the Committee of 75 repvit. b. No building shall have a racial composition and fam- Prior to voting on the Resolution the Chair announced that ily income characteristics substantially disproportion- a “Yes” vote would support the Resolution and a “No” vote ate to the district as a whole. would be one to defeat the Resolution. ce. After determination of building capacities and racial YEAS: Lawson and Sterzer — 2 and economic characteristics of attendance areas, ; ; NAYS: Goodwin, Groff, Ridenour, and Hart — 4 pupils will be assigned to a school in which such as- The Resolution was declared defeated. signment would contribute to a mix as in b. above. . . 344 Plaintifts’ Exhibit 8 [STATEMENT AND RULING OF THE CHAIR] At this time President Hart made the following statement and ruling: “Gentlemen, since this board has voted to reconsider these questions and has defeated them, the Chair now rules that under the form to reconsider and enter upon the minutes, that this is all that must be done to stop execution upon mo- tions or actions of this Board because that to permit otherwise would deprive the board of its right to reconsider. Since it is possible that there may have been a premature execution of these questions, the chair further rules: 1. That the superintendent under his signature communi- cate with all persons and agencies named in said motions ad- vising them of the premature execution thereof, requesting a withdrawal of said premature communications and counter- manding the communications that were premature where the premature communication cannot be withdrawn; and _ that communications upon said motions that were made prior to this date are premature and invalid.” Mr. Lucas returned to the meeting at this point. [STATEMENT OF MRS. GROFF] The Chair recognized Mrs. Groff who made the following statement: Mr. President, Members of the Board, and Citizens: Quoting from THE CREATIVE SOCIETY by Ronald Reagan, “We have the privilege of living on the only island of freedom that is left in the whole world.” There is no other place in the world to go. We stand together and defend free- dom here or it is gone. We must work together and take a 345 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8 stand. If we fail, I think we face telling our children and our grandchildren what it was we found more precious, or more important than freedom. “Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It comes only once to a people. Those who have had it and lost it have never known it again.” The Dayton Schools are the people's business, and every man, woman and child becomes a shareholder with the first penny of tax paid. The most meaningful words of the Constitution are the first three, “We the people.” Therefore, the time has come for the Board to recognize that the schools belong to the people and that the people have a right to know all the facts about their schools. The time has come for the Board to decide whether we can afford everything we think of simply because we think of it. The time has come to run a check to see if all the services we have taken away from the people or the innovations we have provided are just goodies dreamed up for their supposed betterment. The time has come to balance outgo to income, instead of always doing it the other way around. What we need is a system of an objective evaluation be- fore changes are implemented. The people should have the opportunity to give their opinion on supposed changes and the Board act on the decisions of the people. Supporting and implementing the basic principles that have made America great is not turning back the clock but it is taking the dream that has made this country progress, updating it, and making it practical for the 20th century. A High Quality Education which will insure that every child in the Dayton School System can reach his full potential so that he can be- come a responsible contributing member of society is the goal of this Board of Education. 7 346 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8 With these thoughts in mind I would like to present the following three resolutions.” The following Resolution was introduced by Mrs. Groff, seconded by Mr. Ridenour: RESOLUTION ORDERING DEVELOPMENT OF PLANS THAT ARE WITHIN THE FINANCIAL ABILITY OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF DAYTON FOR IMPROVE- MENT OF QUALITY OF EDUCATION. WHEREAS, the present enrollment patterns of the Dayton Public Schools are not related to the policies or decisions of the Board of Education; WHEREAS, the racial and economic imbalance that exists in the Dayton Public Schools is not a result of any act of discrimination on the part of the Dayton Board of Educa- tion; WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States does not require a Board of Education to balance racial concentra- tions in schools where such racial concentrations are not the result of any act of the Board of Education; WHEREAS, the Dayton City Schools have been found to be in compliance with HEW rules and regulations as evi- denced by the statement of Mr. James Mancini, a compli- ance review attorney in the Civil Rights Division of HEW; WHEREAS, no massive movement of pupils back and forth across the City or County could be accomplished without an expenditure of thousands and thousands of dollars; WHEREAS, the reasons given by the administrators of the Dayton School System for the 10.5 mill additional levy did not include an expenditure for bussing and for other transportation of pupils for the purpose of eliminating eco- 347 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8 nomic and/or racial segregation of pupils, nor do the ad- ditional State appropriations require this; WHEREAS, this Board of Education has consistently sup- ported the concept of neighborhood schools; WHEREAS, the Freedom of Enrollment policy of the Dayton City School District has been considered a successful ven- ture; WHEREAS, this Board of Education is concerned about all the children of the Dayton City School District and is con- sistently searching for ways and means to improve the auality of education offered to them and; WHEREAS, this Board of Education has adopted various plans and approaches toward improvement of the quality of the education offered to the children of Dayton; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Education of the City School District of Dayton that the Superintendent and his staff submit to this Board by the end of the 1971-72 school term a feasibility report and plan that is within the financial ability of the City School Dis- trict of Dayton, Ohio, providing for improvement in the quality of education offered at each of the schools within this district. It was moved by Mr. Lucas, seconded by Mrs. Sterzer, that action on the Resolution be tabled. Roll Call on the Motion to Table: YEAS: Lawson, Lucas, and Sterzer — 3 NAYS: Goodwin, Groff, Ridenour, and Hart — 4 The motion to table action on the Resolution was declared defeated. 348 Plaintifis’ Exhibit 8 Roll Call on the Resolution: YEAS: Goodwin, Groff, Ridenour, and Hart — 4 NAYS: Lawson, Lucas, and Sterzer — 3 The Resolution was declared adopted. The following Resolution was introduced by Mrs. Groff, seconded by Mr. Goodwin: RESOLUTION ORDERING DEVELOPMENT OF FEASI- BILITY REPORTS AND PLANS FOR PROVIDING FREE TRANSPORTATION OF STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN THE FREEDOM OF ENROLLMENT PROGRAM IN THE DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS WHEREAS, the present enrollment patterns of the Dayton Public Schools are not related to the policies or decisions of the Board of Education; WHEREAS, the racial and economic imbalance that exists in the Dayton Public Schools is not a result of any act of discrimination on the part of the Dayton Board of Education; WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States does not re- quire a Board of Education to balance racial concentrations in schools where such racial concentrations are not the re- sult of any act of the Board of Education; WHEREAS, the Dayton City Schools have been found to be in compliance with HEW rules and regulations as evidenced by the statement of Mrs. James Mancini, a compliance re- view attorney in the Civil Rights Division of HEW; WHEREAS, no massive movement of pupils back and forth across the City or County could be accomplished without an expenditure of thousands and thousands of dollars; 349 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8 WHEREAS, the reasons given by the administrators of the Dayton School System for the 10.5 mill additional levy did not include an expenditure for bussing and for other transportation of pupils for the purpose of eliminating eco- nomic and/or racial segregation of pupils, nor do the ad- ditional State appropriations require this; WHEREAS, this Board of Education has consistently sup- ported the concept of neighborhood schools; WHEREAS, the Freedom of Enrollment policy of the Dayton School District has been considered a successful venture; WHEREAS, this Board of Education is concerned about all the children of the Dayton City School Distrigt and is consistently searching for ways and means to improve the quality of education offered to them and; WHEREAS, this Board of Education has adopted various plans and approaches toward improvement of the quality of the education offered to the children of Dayton; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Education of the City School District of Dayton that the Freedom of Enrollment policy of the Dayton Public Schools shall be continued with the exception that the Superinten- dent and his staff be, and hereby are, directed to develop and submit to this Board of Education before the start of the second semester of the 1971-72 school year a feasibility report and plan providing for the free transportation of the students participating in such program. It was moved by Mr. Lucas, seconded by Mr. Lawson, that the action on the Resolution be tabled. Roll Call on the Motion to Table: YEAS: Lawson, Lucas, and Sterzer — 3 NAYS: Goodwin, Groff, Ridenour, and Hart — 4 The motion to table was declared defeated. 350 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8 Roll Call on the Resolution: YEAS: Goodwin, Groff, Ridenour, and Hart — 4 NAYS: Lawson, Lucas, and Sterzer — 3 The Resolution was declared adopted. The following Resolution was introduced by Mrs. Groff, seconded by Mr. Goodwin. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ARRANGEMENT OF STU- DENT TRANSFERS BETWEEN DAYTON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS WITHIN THE DAYTON METROPOLITAN AREA. WHEREAS, the present enrollment patterns of the Dayton Public Schools are not related on the policies or decisions of the Board of Education; WHEREAS, the racial and economic imbalance that exists in the Dayton Public Schools is not a result of any act of discrimination on the part of the Dayton Board of Education; WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States does not require a Board of Education to balance racial concentra- tions in schools where such racial concentrations are not the result of any act of the Board of Education; WHEREAS, the Dayton City Schools have been found to be in compliance with HEW rules and regulations as evi- denced by the statement of Mr. James Mancini, a com- pliance review attorney in the Civil Rights Division of HEW; WHEREAS, no massive movement of pupils back and forth across the City or County could be accomplished without an expenditure of thousands and thousands of dollars; WHEREAS, the reasons given by the administrators of the Dayton School System for the 10.5 mill additional levy did 351 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8 not include an expenditure for bussing and for other trans- portation of pupils for the purpose of eliminating economic and/or racial segregation of pupils, nor do the additional State appropriations require this; WHEREAS, this Board of Education has consistently sup- ported the concept of neighborhood schools; WHEREAS, the Freedom of Enrollment policy of the Dayton City School District has been considered a successful venture; WHEREAS, this Board of Education is concerned about all the children of the Dayton City School District and is con- sistently searching for ways and means to improve the quality of education offered to them and; WHEREAS, this Board of Education has adopted various plans and approaches toward improvement of the quality of the education offered to the children of Dayton; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, 1. That with the concurrence of one or more of the school districts within the Dayton Metropolitan area and fol- lowing the Freedom of Enrollment guidelines as amended of the Dayton City School District, the Superintendent is authorized to arrange for the payment of tuition for students requesting tuition-paid transfers to schools out- side of the Dayton City School District providing, how- ever, (a) that the transfers are arranged during the sum- mer for the succeeding school year, (b) that the entire sum for all such tuition payments paid by the Dayton Board of Education shall not exceed the amount of tu- ition received by the Board from other school districts during the preceding calendar year and (c) that such transfer shall improve the racial balance of the public schools of the Dayton City School District. It is further suggested that this policy be implemented for 1972-73 school year. 352 Plaintifis’ Exhibit 8 2. That with the concurrence of one or more of the school districts within the Dayton metropolitan area and fol- lowing the Freedom of Enrollment guidelines as amend- ed of the Dayton City School District the Superintendent, upon mutual exchange of students or upon payment of tuition, is authorized to accept any student from an out- lying school district within this District provided that the acceptance of such student at a school within this district shall improve the racial balance of such school. It was moved by Mr. Lucas, seconded by Mr. Lawson, that action on the Resolution be tabled. Roll Call on the Motion to Table: YEAS: Lawson and Lucas — 2 NAYS: Goodwin, Groff, Ridenour, Sterzer, and Hart — 5 The motion to table was declared defeated. ° ° ° ° Roll Call on the Resolution: YEAS: Goodwin, Groff, Ridenour, and Hart — 4 NAYS: Lawson and Lucas — 2 ABSTENTION: Sterzer — 1 Mrs. Sterzer indicated that she abstained from voting be- cause she felt Mrs. Groff resolution was not valid since it fell outside the jurisdiction of the Board. The Resolution was declared adopted. ~- oo. eee Oe =. = eee 353 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8 [INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK AND SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS] The following motion was introduced by Mrs. Groff, second- ed by Mr. Ridenour: Mr. President: 1 move that the Clerk of the Board be and hereby is di- rected to forward true copies of the three Resolutions to all persons and agencies who received copies of the tentative package of three Resolutions on Racial and Economic Ra- tions, of the December 8, 1971 Board meeting. He shall inform them by separate letter of the three new resolutions, namely: on IMPROVEMENT OF QUALITY OF EDUCA- TION, on DEVELOPMENT OF PLANS FOR PROVIDING FREE TRANSPORTATION OF STUDENTS PARTICIPAT- ING IN THE FREEDOM OF ENROLLMENT PROGRAM iN THE DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS, and on AUTHORIZ- ING ARRANGEMENT OF STUDENT TRANSFERS BE- TWEEN THE DAYTON SCHOOL DISTRICT AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS WITHIN THE DAYTON METRO- POLITAN AREA. He shall inform them by separate letter of the three resolutions as adopted, and forward a copy of the letter to all members of the Board of Education. I move also, that the Superintendent is directed to publish in the next issue of SCHOOL DAY Mrs. Groff’s introductory remarks and the three resolutions as adopted by the Dayton Board of Education on January 3, 1972. YEAS: Goodwin, Groff, Ridenour, and Lucas — 4 NAYS: Lawson, Lucas, and Sterzer — 3 The motion was declared approved. 354 PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT 9 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF 75 Advisory Committee To The Board of Education To Reduce Racial Isolation and Improve Educational Opportunities Dayton Board of Education @ 1971 THE COMMITTEE: ITS ORIGIN AND ACTIVITIES The Committee of 75 was organized to advise the Dayton Board of Education how best to deal with racial and economic isolation in the public schools and improve the quality of education therein. Origin It originated in a resolution adopted by the Dayton Board of Education on April 29, 1971. Resolution to Seek Assistance To Reduce Racial Isolation and Improve Educational Opportunities WHEREAS, THE Dayton Board of Education recognizes that unequal educational opportunities for minority students now exist, and WHEREAS. current resources available to the Board have been fully used to extend learning opportunities and are now stretched to their limit, and WHEREAS, the Congress is considering the Emergency School Assistance Program that may supplement other funds for improving education and reducing racial and economic isolation, 355 Plaintifis’ Exhibit 9 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the super- intendent of schools be authorized and directed to request the assistance of the State Department of Education, Office of Equal Educational Opportuni- ties, to provide technical assistance for the develop- ment and submission to the Board of alternative plans for reducing racial and economic isolation of pupils and improving educational opportunities in the Dayton Public Schools and for developing pro- posals for outside funding to implement the same, subject to the approval of the Board. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the President of the Board, in consultation with the Board, appoint a broadly representative committee to evaluate and advise the Board on plans that are developed pur- suant to this resolution; and to communicate with and seek the cooperation of civic, governmental, higher educational, religious, communications, labor, business and other segments of the community in the Dayton area regarding such plans. Meeting first on August 30, 1971, at Frigidaire’s Moraine plant auditorium on Springboro Pike, the committee received the following charge from Leo A. Lucas, Board President: The Charge To The Advisory Committee of the Board of Education To Reduce Racial Isolation and Improve Educational Opportunities We, the members of the Dayton Board of Education, are deeply grateful for the presence of each of you here this evening. This is an historical event — one that is even more historical than the decision of the Dayton Board of Education of the 1930's to construct the original Dunbar High School. 356 Plaintifis’ Exhibit 9 We recognize, and the statistical data substantiates, the fact that unequal educational opportunities for the poor and black students now exist in the Dayton School Dis- trict. The Board of Education has gone on record by setting quality integrated education as its goal. We have admitted that the district is guilty of procedures which have led to the racial isolation of school children. It is this committee’s responsibility to establish the evaluation elements to be applied to a developed plan or plans and advise the Dayton Board of Education accordingly. We do hope that you would set up guide- lines and/or methods by which the community will become meaningfully involved. You are an arm of the Dayton Board of Education with the task of supplying input to the Board. It remains the responsibility of the Board of Education to make official approval of your input. We feel very strongly that the establishment of this committee is not an attempt to abdicate its responsibility or delegate its authority, but rather an attempt to utilize the enrichment of citizen participation. It is hoped that the school councils, and organized groups of school-oriented citizens of the school district, will be an avenue you may use for additional participation. If there be a fear that you are here to architect a master plan for “busing” — “t’ain’t true.” You are here in an attempt to supply your input of the ingredients for extellency to any plan that the administration and/or consultants may recommend. It is our sincere hope that when a plan is set for implementation, it should be that one or the one that embraces the wishes of the citizens of the Dayton School District and not one imposed by federal, state or court mandate. Again, we are happy to have your view joined with us to place our input on what may be called The Dayton 357 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9 Peoples Plan for the elimination of racial and economic isolation among the pupils of the Dayton School District. Now acting by the authority invested in me as President of the Dayton Board of Education, I hereby officially appoint this committee and also name Dr. Irvin W. Bat- dorf as Chairman, and request that the termination date be set at December 1, 1971. At this meeting an address was brought by Dr. William Self, Superintendent of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system in North Carolina, setting forth the process of integra- tion accomplished there under order of the courts. Mrs. Virginia McNeal was elected vice-chairman of the Committee and Dr. Irvin W. Batdorf appointed as chairman. To address the problem of racial and economic isolation in each of the areas considered as integral to the operation of the public schools the committee was divided into nine subcommittees, the names of whose personnel appear on pages ii, iii, iv of this report. As listed there the committees include not only the original 75 members but also eleven students who were added to the committee later at the invitation of President Leo Lucas of the Board, in response to growing feeling that more student input was needed. As a basic document to spark deliberations, each subcom- mittee member was given a copy of the publication, Recom- mendations of the State Denartment of Education to the Dayton Board of Education (2). This paper had been sent to each member of the Dayton Board of Education on June 7, 1971, and a copy is filed at the Board offices where the records of the committee of 75 are kept. Pages 13-16 of this paper list ten alternate responses to racial imbalance in the Dayton schools which the State Department did not consider adequate. On pages 16-30, the State Department recom- mented an eleventh proposal, on the basis of which the sub- committees began their deliberations. This latter recommenda- tion included the substance of a paper by Dr. Charles Glatt 358 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9 entitled “Parameters and the Future,” which was printed in a report made to the Dayton Board of Education on December 15, 1970 bearing the title School Integration (14). This report also was made available to each member of the committee together with whatever materials each subcommittee found pertinent to its work. Members also profited much from the advice and wisdom of the schools central office staff through consultants assigned to each subcommittee. PRIORITIES FOR THE PRESENT What We Felt Nothing can replace the experiences we had working with each other because the problem we had tackled forced us to put ourselves on the line. There was literally no place to hide. That's the way it is when you take integration seriously. And that’s why something must be said about what we felt, painful and embarrassing as that is. As we moved ahead, week after week and month after month, short as our time was together, the level of our encounters deepened until, at the end, without our knowing what lay below the surface or expecting what finally did happen, the depth of our relationship to each other suddenly stood revealed. We knew who we were once and for all, and each of us knew what he in particular had to do. I as a white man had to explain to other white men what it’s like. The blacks had done their part long since and now it was my turn. Through the words and the endless explanations came the fear of our black brethren that they were being sold down the river once again. For all of them — without exception — this was an old, old story. As one of them said, “Before I came to Ohio my oldest children were doing all right, but here in Dayton the younger ones are being crippled by segregation. I'm determined to change all that one way or another. We've . suffered too long.” 359 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9 When we could not believe we were hearing rightly another’ black man pounded the nail one more time. “You know,” he asked, “what the unemployment rate is for Dayton? — 6 per cent for everyone else and 20 per cent for ghetto blacks. You know how many more blacks you'll find at the Lebanon Correctional Facility? — 4 out of 5. And education — segrega- ted education — is largely to blame.” So it was whitey’s turn to be angy, frustrated, utterly down! “Suppose,” said one, “we demand integration now. Our report won't have a chance! Better half a loaf than none at all. I can predict just what will happen. They'll never give us a hearing. Better to be Machiavelli than go tilting at windmills with Don Quixote.” So we were honest and shocked by turns until one white man said, “I’m not sure what will happen politically but so long as one black life is being snuffed out T'll go along with pressing for integration now. Hereafter ['m not going to simply listen to what everyone says, I'm ready to take a stand and be a leader, to do what I feel compelled to do and to say what I think ought to happen!” So some of us switched roles and we all went off to lick our wounds and make what reaccommodations we could with ourselves — with “intellectual honesty” and “practicality” and “confrontation” and “gut feeling.” But ever thereafter we all knew — both black and white — that we could not explain to our fellow Daytonians what integration and segregation are all about apart from this embarrassing reference to the deep valley we had walked together. What We Must Do Having been “through the mill” of confrontation with each other we accept these priorities for ourselves, and recommend their adoption by the Board and the citizenry of Dayton. 1. Segregated education, because it perpetuates and condones economic and racial isolation, is both illegal and inferior. 10. 360 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9 The school children of Dayton have suffered far too long under the crippling handicaps imposed by racial and economic isolation. We must resolve now as a total community to end inferior segregated education once for all. Time is running out. Unless we act now the divi- sions generated by segregation will destroy us. Un- less we act now court orders may impose upon us what all of us will regret. Initiative in the struggle against segregated educa- tion belongs to the Dayton Board of Education. We cannot wait for housing and job patterns to change while we defy the law of the land. To lift the plague of segregated education in Dayton immediate appeal must be addressed to the school systems surrounding Dayton as well as to the appro- priate state and national agencies involved. Desegregation is not enough. To end racial and economic isolation we must not rest until we have achieved true integration, until the differing ethnic and racial groups among us are able to live side by side in mutual respect. The personal cost of achieving such true integration will be high because to achieve such integration we must persist in dialogue until the differences that divide us have been resolved. We can no longer allow the fear of busing stifle such dialogue. The financial cost of true integration will also be high. At least 1 per cent of the current budget, exclusive of federal and state grants, should be allo- cated to this sector. Integrated quality education requires constant vigi- lance. We must not only develop support systems to undergird every group involved in the changes proposed but we must nurture these groups by con- 361 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9 tinuing attention to curricula, buildings, and_in- service training. What Is Involved To Impose Racial Isolation on Public Education is IHlegal The 14th amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees “equal protection” under law to every citizen, and the Supreme Court has interpreted this provision to mean that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal” (“Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka” in Race and Place A Legal History of the Neighborhood School, by Meyer Wein- berg pp. 4, 14, 31, 55, 76, 92, 96) (8). In this 1954 decision the Supreme Court said of black children: To separate them from others of similar age and qualifica- tions solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. Statement of The United States Commission on Civil Rights concerning the “Statement by the President on Elementary and Secondary School Desegregation”, May 15, 1970, page 9 (7) is the source of the above statement. Quality Education In the spirit of this declaration and in the light of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which put the executive and legislative branches of government solidly behind the judiciary, we as a committee go one step further. We believe that to impose racial and economic isolation on public education is not only illegal but detrimental to the quality of that education, for both white and black, for both advantaged and disad- vantaged. Where such isolation breeds alienation, quality must suffer. The twin concerns that created our committee are inseparable. 362 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9 Quality education cannot thrive where racial and economic isolation of whatever sort divides the children and citizens of one community from those of another. The reason for this is plain. The quality of any educational system depends upon how well it prepares today’s children for tomorrow's world. Tomorrow’s world will be integrated and any child who has not been educationally prepared to deal with this world will be severely handicapped. He will receive a distorted view of a multi-racial society that will leave him incapable of dealing with the world as it is. Therefore we believe segregated education to be inherently inferior for ALL children, whether white or black, advantaged or disadvantaged. Urgency of Action Since it is clear that segregated education is both illegal and inferior, it is also clear that the Dayton Board of Education must address itself to this problem since latest reports indicate that 75 per cent of our school children attend schools that are 90 per cent racially isolated. The Board has already indicated its intention to do so through the resolution that created our committee of 75, and through many statements and actions leading up to that resolution of April 29, 1971. We now recommend that the Board should not wait for this problem to be solved otherwise, as by a change in attitudes toward public housing patterns or by a non-compliance finding from H.E.W. Without waiting for other cities to take the lead, we recommend that our Board strengthen the impetus initiated by the appointment of our committee to solve this problem by all means within its power now. The urgency of such action is made clear both by the poor record of Dayton in dealing with racial and economic isolation and by the court actions already taken to force school integra- tion in cities other than Dayton. Poor record. Where segregated education is concerned the City of Dayton has not been quick to act. In 1926 the State 363 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9 Supreme Court acted to require the Dayton Ohio School Board to cease forcing Negro children to occupy one part of the school building with their own entrances and exists (Race and Place, page 38) (8). The situation was equally stringent in 1966 when the Mayor’s Ad Hoc Riot Study devoted two pages of its Preliminary Report to a detailed description of the deterioration then being suffered by Dayton’s west side schools in buildings, services, equipment, teaching and morale (pages 7-8). It is little wonder then that in 1967 the education task force committee, working under the Dayton Committee on Civil Rights in cooperation with the Ohio State Advisory Committee to the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights took as the focus of its concern “the education of the deprived ghet- toized child” and particularly “his inability to learn the required and necessary tasks through the traditional methods practiced by our institutions” (page 2 of Dayton’s Call To Action. Recommendations for the Solution of Human Problems in the Community) (16). While there was some progress then and the spirit of the community was aroused, our findings five years later indicate that there is still much to be done. One measure of this is a report issued just recently, (November 1971) by the Dayton Public Opinion Center, entitled How Dayton Views the Public Schools (4). The last paragraph on page 3 reads as follows: Racial conflicts in public schools have been the subject of much newspaper and television coverage in the past few years. Yet even with this type of adverse publicity, more people in the Dayton School District felt that school integration has improved relations between blacks and whites than believed that it has hindered them. A total of 48 per cent believed it was improved and 39 per cent felt that it has worked against interracial relations. In this attitude there is perhaps some ray of hope. On the other hand the last part of this same paragraph continues: People were about evenly divided about whether school 364 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9 integration has improved the quality of education re- ceived by black students (45 per cent saying it has and 43 per cent saying it has not). Over one-half, however, felt that integration has not improved white students’ education. Only 35 per cent responded that it has. (See Table 7). One can see from this last quotation that we in Dayton still have a long way to go. Integration in Other Cities Beyond Dayton we may quote from a recent paper, referred to before in this report, Statement of the United States Com- mission on@#il Rights (7) concerning the “Statement by the President on Wlementary and Secondary School Desegregation,” issued on May 15, 1970; On page 3 we read: The school systems of New Rochelle, New York; South Holland, Illinois; Pasadena and Los Angeles, California; and Pontiac, Michigan, are among those which have been found by the court to have practiced deliberate school segregation in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. There is no doubt that there are many more instances of school segregation resulting from conscious decisions of school officials than the relative handful that have come to the attention of the courts. We may now add to this list the school situations in Detroit and Indianapolis. In the former case U. S. District Court Judge Stephan J. Roth declared that what appears to be de facto segregation in the Detroit School System is actually de jure and must be abolished. (Time, October 11, 1971, page 23). In the Pontiac case the U. S. Supreme Court recently refused to “tamper with this city’s court-ordered school busing pro- gram” (Journal-Herald, Wednesday, October 27, 1971). 365 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9 We in Dayton should note that court orders have hit cities both larger than ours (Los Angeles and San Francisco) and smaller (New Rochelle, Pontiac, Pasadena and South Holland ). We should also note from the report quoted that there may be other cities in non-compliance not yet confronted by the courts. Of particular interest is a letter written by superintendent of schools for the San Francisco Unified School District, Dr. Thomas A. Shaheen, on the eve of the desegregation of that city’s elementary schools. Although not under court order San Francisco met the same problems that face all segregated school systems in the process of complying with the law. These will not be easy days| What happens to us, not only in the next few weeks, but throughout the year, is tremendously important for San Francisco. I who have a deep commitment, as you know, to the value of de- segregation do have many concerns, many uncertainties, about what the year holds. I am sure that there are many of you who have the same deep commitment to desegre- gation as I do. I am sure, also, that there are some of you who are still searching in your own minds the extent to which you have a commitment to desegregation. Yes, I know that some of you do not believe that desegre- gation is in the best interest of the schools of San Fran- cisco, nor in the best interest of America. I feel that you have reached this position after very careful study of the issues, of the values, of this country, and your profes- sional obligations to the children. I respect your convictions. Whatever your personal feel- ings, and mine, we have the obligation to show our students and our community the importance and value of compliance with the law. We can be models at this time of what it means to live in a democracy. The stakes and the issues which lie before us are high. It goes, I think, to the very heart of whether public school education can continue in this country of ours... . (11) 366 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9 In the light of these facts, both at home and abroad, we believe that the Dayton School Board should address itself to the racial imbalance of segregated education not simply to insure respect for law and order and provide quality education but also to secure that justice and human understanding with- out which law and order are meaningless. We ask how we can urge law and order on our children and defy the supreme law of the land as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Not long ago the Kerner report was brought up to date by a Federal Commission appointed by President Nixon. It de- clared that the division of our nation into two armed camps, which was noted two years ago, still exists, only with greater impact now than then. In 1966 over 95 per cent of our nation’s black people lived in the North and the majority of these in the city. Now that percentage is greater than ever with whites fleeing to the suburbs and the inner city left black and bank- rupt. Under these conditions the “peaceful co-existence” spoken of in the Kerner Report will be increasingly impossible unless strong action is taken. Our time is short! The opposite of integration is disintegration. Responsibility Beyond Dayton Since quality integrated education should be available to all, equality of opportunity should be accessible to all children of the Dayton Metropolitan area as also to all children of the State of Ohio. The time is upon us when the old boundary lines are disappearing and there will be no place to run from the changes that must be made. Therefore, the Dayton Board of Education should begin immediately to: 1. Initiate action with the Boards of Education of subur- ban communities surrounding Dayton, looking toward possible consolidation. 2. Initiate action with the State Board of Education looking toward possible consolidation. te ee 367 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9 3. Initiate action to insure that dollars expended per student be equalized on a statewide basis. This would require the development of state-established minimal standards and some form of state evaluation. 4. Begin the necessary political action in the state legis- 'eture for the above changes to take place through the rule of law. 5. Check with the United States Office of Education concerning possible forms of assistance in pursuing this endeavor. 6. Begin preparing the people of Dayton educationally for the changes which are surely to come. Attacking Isolation Racial and economic isolation may be attacked broadly and basically on two fronts: The reassignment of students and the preparation of these students to work, share, learn, and live with each other in a productive way. Concerning the reassignment of students. Various methods should be analyzed, evaluated and tabulated in order from least traumatic to most. We recognize that under present conditions of racial and economic isolation in Dayton some form of busing would be necessary either to implement or supplement whatever other methods are employed to effect school desegregation. In no case should we be content with piecemeal desegrega- tion since this procedure tends to focus tensions, fears and hostilities upon specific schools and this in turn creates prob- lems that militate against true integration. At the same time careful attention must be given to the fears arising from dis- tance, safety and busing “out” of the “neighborhood” area. Preserving the human being. Whatever combination of methods is used, the Board must not allow people to be de- 368 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9 humanized in the process, i.e., to be treated simply and solely as bodies to be pushed around. Let it be noted that our committee is concerned with true integration not simple de- segregation. There is a vast difference between desegregation and integration. Desegregation breaks apart old patterns of isolation and division but integration aims to bring people together in mutual respect rather than mere mutual proximity. We must emphasize, however, that integration is not in- tended to erase all identifiable ethnic and racial characteristics nor to homogenize them toward bland conformity. The result- ing loss of spiritual and cultural heritage would be immense. Integration does not require that we all copy one another; only that we respect one another, learn from one another and move together toward fruitful achievement contributing to the common good. Individual rights must be protected and expanded but no one can justly claim for himself what he will deny to others. _Continuous curriculum change. Reassignment will be in- effective unless curricula are periodically reshaped, the teach- ing staff held to strict accountability for productive pertor- mance and the facilities used continually reassessed in the light of changing needs. Only so can quality education be made available to all children on an equal basis. The detailed reports of each subcommittee in the chapters that follow should make this abundantly clear. Concerning the preparation of people. All the people in- volved in reassignment should be given some part in the decision-making process by which it unfolds. People excluded from the social processes that affect them are thereby de- humanized and alienated, whether black or white, rich or poor, teacher, students or community residents. Support systems. All the people involved in reassignment should be undergirded by well thought out support systems to make the readjustments called for, whether those affected 369 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9 be students, teachers, parents, custodians, paraprofessionals, central office staff, clerical staff or community residents. Funding. The magnitude of such preparation should be acknowledged by the provision of adequate funds. Ideals wither without the resources to implement them in a realistic way. At the same time we must remember that while action may be costly, inaction may ultimately be more costly. Planned immediate action. We recognize that time for change in Dayton has run out! We must act now. But the action we take must be well planned to give the persons in- volved a true opportunity to adjust themselves to the demands placed upon them. Evaluation. Whatever the process, it must be evaluated periodically by a representative group reflecting the entire community to make certain that no segments are given priority at the expense of others. Summary. The presence and magnitude of the problem before us needs to be recognized by all the citizens of Dayton. Quality integrated education can help stop the flight to the suburbs, break the cycle of poor education, and the lack of job skills which handicap the minorities. The cost of this type of education will be small in relation to the total benefits society will reap. 370 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT No. 10 DESEGREGATION STUDY DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS By Doctor Gordon Foster January 3, 1972 For several years the Dayton School Board, the Dayton Superintendent of Schools, professional school associations, var- ious citizens advisory groups representing the Dayton com- munity, and cooperating governmental agencies have been formulating policies and initiating efforts to equalize oppor- tunities for education in the Dayton schools and improve the learning experience for all children who attend the Dayton system. The elimination of racial imbalance in the schools, the impartial employment and assignment of all staff personnel, a more relevant curriculum, broader community involvement, and an end to racial isolation and discrimination were the major goals to which these groups expressed commitment. In August of 1967 the Board issued a “Statement of Intent” establishing directions and policies to effectuate these major goals. A “Freedom of Enrollment” policy was initiated in September of 1969. The Dayton Advisory Council on Edu- cation was established to advise the superintendent on plan- ning and implementing desegregation efforts. In 1971 the “Committee of 75” was organized as an advisory body to deal with racial isolation in the schools. Outside assistance was arranged through such agencies as the Ohio State Department of Education, the Equal Educational Opportunities Office of the U.S. Office of Education, and the Office of Civil Rights. The Dayton Classroom Teachers Association and the Dayton Principals Association lent support. 371 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10 All of these activities came to “a head” in a sense on December 8, 1971 when the Dayton Board adopted a series of resolutions committing itself to an integrated system in the fall of 1972. Specifically, it directed the superintendent to develop and implement plans for the racial and economic integration of pupils — by September 1, 1972. This study is a direct result of the resolutions by the Board on December 8, 1971. Data for the study were furnished by the superintendent and his staff for the most part. The con- sultant team spent a total of 11 days on site and expedited the completion of the study to the maximum extent possible for two reasons: the study team has commitments beginning in January, 1972, for desegregation studies in other major cities; and the Dayton system will need to proced with its planning for desegregation in the fall of 1972 as quickly as it can. It should be noted that adequate pupil locater maps were not available by race or grade level so that recommended changes in pupil assignments had to be estimated on the basis of present elementary attendance areas. Since estimates for September, 1972 assignments also have to be made on the basis of 1971-72 figures, a margin of error must be allowed. It should also be noted that in most desegregation studies the local school administrative staff is by far the most knowledge- able body in terms of finalizing pupil assignments and de- veloping transportation arrangements. The job of the out- side expert is primarily to demonstrate possibilities and fa- cilitate ideas and policies for a framework within which the local staff can complete the task. In developing the Dayton plan an attempt was made to follow these general guidelines: (1) Equitable treatment of both majority and minority pupils (2) A plan that would meet constitutional requirements (Brown v. Topeka and Swann v. Charlotte-Meck- lenburg) 372 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10 (3) Economic feasibility: transportation would be kept to a minimum in getting the schools desegregated (4) Safety factors would be observed (5) The concept of schools as “community centers” would be maintained where possible (6) Available classroom space and building facilities would be used to best advantage In summary, the Dayton Board of Education and the Day- ton Superintendent are to be commended for their leadership and wisdom in deciding to meet constructively the problems of racial and economic isolation in the Dayton schools. It is hoped that this study will provide the impetus to achieve their goals in September, 1972. CURRENT STATUS OF DESEGREGATION IN DAYTON The Dayton system has made considerable headway in cer- tain aspects of school desegregation, not so much in others. A summary review will be given here of the current status of desegregation efforts with regard to the school faculties, classified personnel, administrative personnel, pupil assign- ment, and community and staff involvement. SCHOOL FACULTIES Desegregation of school faculties in Dayton has been ac- complished under an agreement reached with the Office of Civil Rights (HEW) in 1971. The pattern of assignment has followed basically the court’s ruling in Montgomery vy. Carr which indicated that facultics should be assigned to each school in substantially the same racial proportion currently in effect at the elementary and secondary levels in the total system. Thus, 31 per cent of the faculty at X high school would be black if there were approximately 31 per cent blacks employed by the total system as secondary faculty personnel. According to available data, district assignment and recruit- 373 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10 ment practices were seeking to maintain this pattern and, at the same time, attempting to improve faculty racial balance in employing new staff. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL “Classified personnel,” also known as “noncertificated per- sonnel,” for the purposes of this report refers to clerical, custodial, and food service job classifications in the Dayton Public Schools. Information released by the Superintendent's Office states the degree of desegregation of classified person- nel as of mid-1971. (1) While 33 per cent of the clerical personnel within the school system are black, 665 of them are work- ing in predominantly black schools. (2) While 47 per cent of the custodial personnel within the school system are black, 82 per cent of them are employed in predominantly black schools. (3) While 39 per cent of the food service personnel with- in the total school system are black, 83 per cent of them are located in predominantly black schools. It would appear that blacks hold the lesser-ranked and lower- paying jobs among classified personnel positions. The tenden- cy to find blacks in classified posts stationed in predominantly black schools is common to urban schools; typically, people prefer to work close to home. ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL The black-white ratio for administrative personnel as of 1970-71 is portrayed by the following table. 374 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10 Administrative Posts: Racial Balance, 1970-1971 Position White Black % Black Central Office 73 29 27.1 Building Principals 51 18 26.1 Assistant Principals 25 17 40.5 (Principals & Assts. ) (76) (35) (31.5) Total Administrative’ 176 72 29.0 ‘) Data taken from Dayton Public Schools “School Inte- gration,” a report dated December, 1970, Table 2, p. 17. Under “Central Office” this table excludes person- nel classified as “resource teacher,” “psychologist,” or “child accountant” although including them would not affect the proportion. >) All administrators, including those excluded under the “Central Office” category were included. The 1971-72 comparable data were not available at the time this report was being prepared. It is understood, however, that the proportion of blacks in administrative posts has increased somewhat in the past year. PUPIL ASSIGNMENT, 1971-72 Pupil assignment data are given in Table I for grades K-5, in Table 2 for grades 6-8, and in Table 3 for grades 9-12. There were 51 school buildings housing regular elementary (K-5) programs; eight of these were really double buildings occu- pying the same site so that there were only 47 elementary attendance zones. A total of 26,380 pupils were assigned at this level with a racial pattern of 44.4 per cent black. There were five middle schools and 34 additional elementary 375 Plaintifis’ Exhibit 10 buildings housing grades 6-8. Pupils in these grades totalled 12,298, and 44.9 per cent of them were black. There were 11 high schools. Patterson Co-op drew pupils from the entire system so that there were only 10 high school attendance zones. Grades 9-12 included 16,464 students, 38.3 per cent of whom were black. A summary of student enrollment by race in 1971-72 is given in Table 4A, and a summary of attendance areas in Table 4B. These data indicate the existence of severe racial isolation in pupi) assignment patterns. If the criterion of “90 per cent or more pupils being of one race” is used to define a racially identifiable or racially segregated school then 40 of the elementary schools were segregated insofar as pupils in grades K-5 were concerned. Three middle schools and 7 high schools were also segregated under this criterion. If the criterion of “more than 15 percent above or below the average racial distribution” is used to define a segregated school — a guideline that has been used in some cities and states — only five Dayton schools would be nonsegregated: Fairport, Hawthorne, McGuffey, Colonel White, and Patterson Co-op. The characteristics of economic isolation, or a concentration of pupils in schools by similar family income levels, are equal- ly clear although the data are not as readily available. Using Title 1 (ESEA) eligibility as an indicator of income levels (Table 4C), it is apparent that a high concentration of low- income families is assigned to schools in the southern and central parts of the district. COMMUNITY AND STAFF INVOLVEMENT On August 30, 1971, at its first meeting, the Committee of 75 heard the president of the Board comment that data showed “unequal educational opportunities for the poor and black students now exist in the Dayton School District . . ./and/that 376 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10 the district is guilty of procedures which have led to the racial isolation of school children.” Community involvement to correct this situation was en- couraged by the Committee of 75's recognition of the fact that desegregation — the physical mix of races in enrollment patterns — was not enough; that integration — living and working “side by side in mutual respect” was the necessary goal for the Dayton school community. Other examples of good communications existing between the schools and the community are the passage of school mill- age funds, the activities of the Dayton Advisory Council on Education (DACE), the various programs with the Office of Economic Opportunity and other community agencies, plus the large amount of coverage given schools in the news media. Communication has also occurred with employee groups through involvement of faculty and staff on committees, in interracial workshops, and in various eflorts to complete facul- ty and staff desegregation successfully. The program of Equal Educational Opportunities in the Dayton Schools is to be commended for its efforts in this regard in working with staff, with students, and with the community. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESEGREGATION OF PUPILS The Board in its December 8 resolutions rescinded attend- ance zones as presently constituted, effective September 1, 1971 and asked for pupil assignment to schools by race and family income characteristics substantially proportionate to the total system pattern. MIDDLE SCHOOLS The first step in fulfilling this resolution would logically be the completion of the middle school program already stated. 377 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10 Recommendation 1, — All pupils in grades 6-8 should be as- signed to middle schools in September, 1972. This will require establishing LO present clementary build- ings as middle schools. Based on data obtained from = the administrative staff, on data in the recent Ohio State Educa- tional Vacilities Evaluation, and on team site visits and dis- cussion the following schools were recommended as new middle schools: Jane Addams Lincoln Belmont Elementary Meadowdale Brown Webster Gettysburg Westwood Grant Wogaman These schools are located around the district in such a way as to complement the five existing middle schools. Even though the buildings cannot be prepared as proper middle school fa- filitics for several years, the change should be made immedi- ately. Dayton’s adoption of the “middle school” concept is educa- tionally sound and, coordinated with the direction toward a unitary school system, can achieve two goals. One, education for pre-adolescents and early adolescents can be improved. Two, the resultant rezoning of attendance areas around middle schools can aid desegregation. The middle school as a concept is in many ways comparable to junior high schools. They are intended to provide an or- derly transition in learning experiences from the homeroom, one-teacher organization of the elementary school to the pla- toon system of the high school with the student’s being ex- pected to exert more self-direction. Many “middle schools” originated because a junior high school had to take in the sixth grade (or possibly the fifth and sixth) to relieve crowded conditions in elementary schools. Sometimes this caused a re- view of the curriculum. ‘ . ~e a Table 1 Student Enroliment by Schoul and Race Pre Kind orgarten and Graces K-5 Dayton Public Schools, 1971-72 Pre-Kdq. Kdg Gr. 15 So. Ed. Total Total et 3 w UW a ae —— Jane Addams 33 5 41 4 214 6? 10 2 203 82 3e0 78% Alien 0 i) 0 58 3 wm vi) fr) 3 6435 432 07 Belle Haven fr) 0 7 wi » 473 ti) ti) 4 «664 620 > Belmont Elementary 0 rt) ° 72 o 80287 ) 0 o 80389 359 oo Brown 0 fr) o 129 2 882 t) 0 2 om 713 03 Carlson 0 0 $1 ! 333 ! o ° 344 2 386 295 Clevetand ) 0 o 162 1 725 rt) ) 1 677 878 G1 Drexel 0 0 ’ 74 23.0~=Cé«338 1 ? 260s 4416 441 57 Eastmont 0 Q i) 63 o 33 t) ty) o 31% 376 “* Euison 89 0 103 1 436 1 16 f) 643 2 645 997 Emerson 6 57 8 68 22«4 0 15 3% 0S 58) 61 Fau port 0 f) 58 2s «102 244 0 =—s «388 2 7 3344 0=—s 807 B11 9? Faw view 0 0 6 65 19 «=. 382 0 4 2% 86451 476 53 Fi. tacKinley 0 0 0 50 5 247° 0 0 6 297 302 7 Franktin e. 4 0 es) 0 663% 0 8. 0 8632 632 oo Gardendate 32 5 43 19 211 e6 0 0 2350—Ctis«éat0 393 72.2 Gettysburg 0 0 6 47 29 «(24 t) ft) 45 321 106 123 Grant 0 0 0 89 3 #348 0 0 3 «(447 450 0.7 Greene 4? ' 42 1 463 18 ? C) 659 20 579 965 Havathorne 23 13 18 ai 61 176 0 t) so WwW 329 30! Hickorydate 0 0) 10 4? 34 194 ° 8 “4 86249 293 150 Highview 40 (1) 73 0 449 10 16 Cy) 47? 10 48? 97.9 Huffman 0 40 0 n 1 805 ti) o 1 625 626 02 sing 78 ' 102 0 576 3 20 0 176 4 780 995 duck son Elementary, 0 0 0 t) 291 10 t) v1 > 302 927 SLE OL HGINX2 SHUMIEId Table 1 Student Enroliment by School and Race Pre-Kindergarten and Grades K-5 Dayton Public Schools, 1971-72 Pre-Kdg. K Gr. 15 So. Ed. Total Total % 8. i aw a "ss a = = Jackson Primary 138 0 136 0 397 5 0 0 671 6 67? 991 Jetterson Elementary 0 0 0 ry) 20s 23 0 25 0—Cti«*S 660 913 Jetterson Primary ry 0 100s “30—CtiS 0 0 633s 86 719 330 Kemp 0 0 s | (444 0 4 4. «627 583 2 Lewton o 0 o)| O&M 1 262 0 ? 1 33 314 93 Lincoin ry 0 1 3 2 «516 2 . Ss 637 632 03 Loos 0 0 4 6 27 233 ' 4 32-386 418 7 Horace Mann 0 0 0 % o 154 0 0 o 189 189 0.0 nicGulfey 2 OH an) 151315 0 ? 2250415 640 Sad thcNary 40 0 69 0 316 0 + 0 433 0 423 109.0 Merdowdale ry 0 o «4 2 256 0 0 2 28 300 67 Miami Chapel 127 0 0 0 354 rt) ry 0 481 0 481 100 0 Patterson Elementary o 3 o 8 |(6 1 34 0 o 1 430 431 02 Residence Park Elementary 0 0 e o 286 ' 4 0 294 ' 295 097 Residence Park Primory o* 0 102 0 46 ' 0 0 448 ' 449 998 Ruskin . ©¢ 0 436 o 6s 0 S65 565 00 Shiloh 0 o o 66 5 204 0 0 5 35 370 14 Shoup Milt 0 0 o 862 1 16 0 0 1 136 137 0.7 Louise Troy 0 0 143 0 447 2 0 0 590 2 $92 99.7 Valerie ry ry 6 #4 2 406 0 3 32? 218 14.2 Van Cleve " 23 Ss «113 ay st 0 o 130647 760 149 Washington 6 6 an) $9 0451 ' 9 92 842 634 145 Weaver 129 0 14 0 734 3 2 rt) 998 3 1001 99.7 Webster t) 0 o oo 1 273 o «4 1 37 338 0.3 Westwood 64 o 107 o 526 s 7 0 764 5 769 993 OL HqI4x2 SHNUICd 6LE Table 1 6 Student Enrotimant by School and Race Pro-Kindergarton and Grades K-5 Dayton Public Schools, 1971-72 Pre-Kdo. K Gr. 15 Soe. Ed. Total Total % BI. G a an rw a —_ — Viogaman 43 0 67 0 499 ! 14 0 643 1 644 994 Gorman 12 e9 12 89 101 We¢d Kennedy 24 129 24 129 153 15.7? TOTAL BLACK 945 1597 8966 211 11719 TOTAL WHITE 271 2296 11755 339 14661 TOTAL ENROLLMENT 1216 3893 20721 650 26380 26380 444 aegi OL Hq!4X3 SHHUICId Table 2 Student Enroliment by School and Race Grades 6 8 Dayton Public Schools, 1971-72 Jane Addams Cornett Hgts 4S. Orenel Eastmont Emerson Fairview Ft. tAcKinley Gardendale Gettysburg Grant Hickorydate Highview Gr. 6-8 Ss wW 167 23 ’ 180 ss 0638 0 183 9 5 187 ' 3 365 667.27 14 142 o 27 1 = o20 30 233 2 1? 14 43 “42 190 1 198 23.—Coé«#Ns2 209 5 i) 268 40? 2 1 162 5 314 485 325 6 205 2 93 eeZeeteaonveenadeeeeeeeeeeee « k one weeaecoceoocscoeonewecaeacocoeceesecs «= Total TM 404 1 190 56318 o 86183 9 M5 187 ’ 3 365 667217 4 (146 o 2 10 219 30-235 2 147 4043 42-190 1 198 236 218 5 o 273 42) 3 1° 186 5 39 909 08-329 6 207 2 «93 723 126 161 16.5 978 OL HGIGXZ SHNUIEId I8t 8 ° Student Enrotiment by School and Race Dayton Public Schools, 1971-72 Gr. 68 Sp. Ed. Total Total % Bt. rm a Ww s ww —_ — Back arlane M.S. 858 5 58 C) 016 5 921 995 AicGuifey 4?) s 189 0 4 4?)0= 63 210 22.4 Meadowdale 41a 0 t) 4) 188. 222 185 Patterson Elementary ! 18) 0 0 1 187 183 05 Residence Para Elementary 393 ’ rn 406 ' 407 998 Ruskin 1 260 @ s 1 268 269 04 Shiloh 0 86180 0 0 o 180 180 co Shoup Mitt 2 68 0 0 2 68 70 29 Valerie 15 830 108 ti) ’ 16 ©6109 124 12.1 Webster 1 152 0 2 + 164 155 06 Westwood 638 ' 10 0 548 ’ 549 998 Whittier B.S. 729 4 23 0 744 4 748 995 Wogaman 335 1 8 0 x43 ! 4 99.7 Or. Viright M.S, 5? = 877 8 21 656 40898 963 67 TOTAL BLACK * 625) 174 $525 TOTAL WHITE 695 n 6773, TOTAL ENROLLMENT 12047 251 12298 12298 449 OL HOINXE SBHUIPId o8t Colonel Vénite Wilbur Virigit Continuing Education Home Teaching TOTAL BLACK TOTAL WHITE TOTAL ENROLLMENT Gr. 9-12 Ww $4 1923 1284 0 272, «1154 45 «G5? 82 1639 S460 «1218 1877 ' 1080 38 471014 1570918 68 1230 5912 2842 15754 16464 38.3 OL HqI4xXT ,SHHUIeld ] = a = ae - - ' ° — os ’ . ’ 384 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10 TABLE 4A STUDENT ENROLLMENT BY RACE: SUMMARY TABLE 4C DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 1971-72 TITLE 1 ELIGIGLE SCHOOLS, 1971-72 Numbers of Children Resid ng in Attendane: Areas 1971-72 - Renan hee tmen Estimated Numter of Children rom w incone eticiaave i ; Black White _—‘ Total %Black Public Non Not + wenaecions Phe to oy a School Public Enrotict Schools Bclow ° Pre-Kg and Grades K-5 11,719 14,661 26,380 44.4 Grace Enroll Enrol Droo Grades 6-8 5,525 6.773 12.298 44.9 NARIE OF SCHOOL Sean ment ment Outs Total Number Percent Pumice Non Public . Total Grades 9-12 6,300 10,164 16,464 38.3 A Ti Cc D € F G H r J K TOTALS 23,544 31,598 5,142 42.7 ° Edison K-5 §79 20 599 296 49.4 120 120 MacFarlane Mid. 6-8 993 31 1,029 489 47.9 a} Weaver K-5 959 25 457 47.5 120 120 Irving K-5 612 33 645 265 44.0 80 80 Grace A. Greene K-5 551 25 576 243 42.2 40 40 McGutfey K-8 781 82 863 343 39.6 80 80 Jackson K-8 1,294 ‘as 1,294 498 38.5 120 120 Miami Chapel-Troy K-5 969 33 Tr 1,002 333 38.2 120 120 Roosevelt H.S. 9.12 1,582 222 575 2,379 714 30.0 Wogaman K-8 954 30 Sas 984 288 29.3 40 40 TABLE 46 Dunbar H.S. 9-12 1,222 73 195 1,490 430 28.9 : Highview K-8 715 30 i 745 211 28.8 40 40 ATTENDANCE ARGAS: SUMMARY Whittier Middle 68 807 33 840 202 24.1 Emerson K-8 872 204 1,076 227 21.1 80 80 ‘ Gardendale K-8 526 ro 526 106 20.2 40 40 Stivers H.S. 9-12 1,062 250 225 1,537 293 19.1 Huffman K-8 837 53 ber 945 174 18.4 40 40 Jefferson K-5 1,593 104 1,702 303 17.8 80 80 47 elementary attertance areas: = Map| Longfellow Mid. 6-8 941 305 TT 1,24G 210 16.9 (primary and elementary units on same site are counted as one attendance area) Kiser H.S. 9-12 6234 193 278 1,105 78. 15.8 Jane Addams K-8 579 eee 579 91 15.7 40 ‘ 40 Ruskin K-8 813 98 nae 911 132 14.5 40 40 5 middle school attendance areas: Overlay | Colone! White H.S. 9-12 1,676 340 130 2,14G 204 14.1 - Patterson K-8 563 53 — 616 87 14.1 a) 40 10 high school attendance areas: Map II Van Cleve K-5 778 350 1,128 157 14.0 40 40 (Patterson Co on. not cn attendance arca) Westwood K-8 1,322 20 1 34 2 188 14.0 40 40 Washington K-8 622 70 7 692 97 14.0 40 40 Roth H.S. 9-12 1,143 50 118 1,311 120 13.7 McNary K-5 417 26 ans 443 60 13.5 40 40 10 Belmont Elementary Fort McKinley Brown Lewton Fairview: Elementary Kemp 295 Van Cleve K-5 14.0 Westwood K-8 14.0 Washington K-8 TT 14.0 Roth H.S. 9-12 118 13.7 McNary K-5 _ 13.5 Carlson ne K-8 11.7 Lincoln K-8 7.7 Cornell Hats. Mid. 6.8 7.4 Residence Park K-8 7.1 Franklin K-5 5.7 Orville Wright Mid. 68 5.5 Allen K-8 5.1 Webster K-58 Jos 5.0 Wilbur Wright HS. 9-12 324 4.3 Orexcl K-8 fea 3.4 Fairport K-5 3.1 Cleveland K-8 1.9 Hickoryciale - K-8 ee 1.6 Fairview $1.5. 9-12 194 1.5 Gettysbura K-8 1.4 Belmont HS. 9-12 1.4 K 1.4 K 1.3 K. 1.2 K 1.1 K 0.7 K 0.7 K 0.6 Loos S2OoeOnDDN@ OL 4!4X2 SBUMIEId Numbers of Chilhhon Resding in Attomlance Areas ° ’ Picdoter Non Not School Porstotec Tneotiont Grade Cmott Enso Drop NAME OF SCHOOL SHan merit ment Outs A 0 ae ra) i ee Grant K-8 651 217 waite Mea lovidale H.S. 9-12 1,650 220 15f Valerie K-8 A23 63 vr Shiloh K8 637? 489 MeadowdaleElementary| K-8 5/5 252 Belle Haven K-8 1,028 253 Eastmont K-8 659 180 Horace Mann K-8 323 207 Shoup hill K-8 284 20 Patterson Co-op H:S. 9-12 1,710 47 Gorman (Spec) 105 Kennedy (Spec) 165 Others in School (Spec) 126 1 TOTAL 54,240 8,858 2,550 From tow Income 1971-72 Estimated Numtirer of Chittiren Who Véill Participate in Tite t Activities from the Eligible F amvities Schools Briow Total Nurnber Peorcem Prstotic Non Public Total ee _— " ' 4 K 868 4 0.5 sak is 2,058 10 05 ohare ABG 2 0.4 hs ae 1,124 3 0.3 ae 827 2 0.3 a ea 1,281 2 02 rit 839 0 0.0 : 530 0 0.0 304 0 0.0 ne 1,757 | 235 13.4° 105.) 14 13.4" 165 22 13.4° vs 137 18 13.4" ; :; 65,648 8,788 13.4 *District-.vide Schools June, 1971 OL HOGS SHNMICId dl 387 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10 [PHOTO OMITTED] School organization of grades has, historically, been de- termined not always by educational research but often by state legislation or by physical facilities. The middle school can be an administrative aid in solving some problem such as racial isolation, but research indicates that it should be, if properly handled, a way to improved education. The Dayton middle schools should offer eventually such things as differentiated staffing and team teaching, modular scheduling, short exploratory courses, a wide range of elec- tives and activities, increased emphasis upon student govern- ment, and greater concern about and communication with the community. The middle school, beginning with grade 5 or 6 and ending with grade 8 is for that “between-ager” or transitional period covering early adolescence. Grades 6 to 8 cover this 11 to 13 year-old age span and constitute the most common middle school grouping. It cannot follow either an elementary or secondary model in content or process; it must focus upon the problems of puberty and understand the needs of the learners at this age. Research indicates that youngsters are reaching physical and social maturity earlier. The middle school should not be established merely as an aid to desegregation. While it might permit children to get out of segregated neighborhood schools at an earlier age, high quality education will not result without careful pre- planning of the instructional program. This “planning” can he simultaneous with the preliminary work which is necessary to develop an effective, integrated school system. CLOSING SCHOOLS e The Dayton system does have some extra space available in some of its schools, and the student population projection in- dicates a declining number of students over the next five years. Some of the older, less-suitable buildings could there- fore be abandoned. 3858 Plaintifis’ Exhibit 10 Recommendation 2. — Hawthorne Elementary, Washington Elementary, Ft. McKinley Elementary, and Roosevelt: High School should be closed as regular classroom facilities by Sep- tember, 1972. Hawthorne was originally constructed in 1887 with an addition in 1909. It is in a poor location hemmed in by an interstate highway and has an inadequate site of 0.8 acres. Washington was originally constructed in 1898 with additions in 1926 and 1969. It is on an inadequate site of 2.3 acres. Ft. McKinley is a newer building (1924) but is rated as in- adequate for an instructional facility. Its site is only 2.7 acres. Roosevelt High is generally considered to be the least adequate Dayton high school facility with a poor site of 5.2 acTes. ELEMENTARY ASSIGNMENTS, 1972-73 Elementary attendance zones for 1971-72 are illustrated on Map 1 and middle school zones on Overlay 1. If two ele- mentary schools discontinued (leaving Ft. McKinley as op- erational for the moment) and 10 elementary schools are changed to middle schools, a total of 35 elementary attendance zones would remain (Overlay 2). Estimated enrollment fig- ures are given for these (Table 5) and for the 15 middle school zones that would be hypothetically created (Table 6 and Overlay 3). Without considering prekindergarten chil- dren as part of the basic K-5 pattern, it is possible to de- segregate these clementary schools by leaving four of them as they are and by joining the remaining schools in 11 clus- ters (Table 7). Recommendation 3. — The following assignment of K-5 pupils to elementary attendance zones be made September, 1972. Fairport: same as 1971-72 McGuffey: same as 1971-72 Drexel: Cardendale: Cluster A: Cluster B: Cluster C: Cluster D: Cluster F: Cluster F: Cluster CG; Cluster H: Cluster 1: Cluster ]: 389 Plaintifis’ Exhibit 10 same as 1971-72 plus Jane Addams zone same as 1971-72 plus 2/3 of Gettysburg zone Irving (Ky-1) imerson (Gr. 2-5) Patterson (Gr. 2-5) Kastmont (Kg-2) Lewton (Kg-2) MC-LT (Gr. 3-5) Cleveland (Kg-2) Highview (Gr. 3-5) Mann (Kg-2) Carlson (Kg-1) Huffman (Gr. 2-5) Ruskin (Gr. 2-5) Van Cleve (Ky-1) Kdison (Gr. 2-5) Jefferson (Kg-2) Fairview (Gr. 3-5) Valerie (Gr, 3-5) Belle Haven (Kg-2) Jackson (Gr. 3-5) Ft. McKinley (out) Allen (Kg-2) Kemp (Kg-2) Res. Pk. (Gr. 3-5) Hickorydale (Ky-2) Loos (Kg-2) Weaver (Gr. 3-5) lranklin (Kg-2) Greene (Gr. 3-5) 209) TABLE 6 « Plaintifis’ Exhibit 10 ESTIMATED ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL AND RACE REVISED ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ZONES Cluster K \lceNarw | Ky 9 ) PRE KINDERGARTEN AND GRADES K 6 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS Shoup Mill (Gr. 3-5) — Ne ee SS Shiloh (Gr. 3-5) Oe ee ee Se ed ee et a ns DBs tsa ei Pre Kdo. _Kdg Ge 1 5 Se td Total Total % BI 8 Ww y Ww 6--CCMW — 4 Ww s =~ hWW 0 The redistribution would leave all elementary schools with- iin P P - — - . — _ a in a range of 27.6 per cent black to 54.5 per cent black with Belle Haven 0 > vw 39 86473 0 0 “6 (64 629 r4 most of the schools hovering closely to the 44.9 overall average. Cortson 21 0 0 ' 582 2 } 104 3 707 09 6 » ; Cc ' | 0 0 ? 2 An effort was also made to cluster schools by economic levels levetans o 8616 + 621 0 , 997 993 01 Drexel 33 § 42 62 2737 402 A) 323 498 821 93 = 6 wes phy TE ae west. (Rew a | - Table 7A illustrates the percentage of Title | (ESEA) fami cae . . . = — . . — om an . lies in each assigned cluster. Edison Hie 13 118 42 49? 77 16 0 142 232 974 2 >. . all tinerwn ob 5) is) 68 22 4ii 0 16 Mw 551 687 61 2 eo) lt should be noted that il total ol 34 elementary (K-5) at Fawport 0 0 58 102 274 398 2 ? 134 60? p14 oJ m © tendance areas would be left with Ft. McKinlev not used Peuvien 0 0 6 130 2 23««673 0 4 7% wo 833 7 z The clustered Fones are based on the revised ZONVICS and not Ft McKinley 0 0 0 50 5 24) 0 0 5 297 302 1? = Frankha ) 4 3 123 1) 760 0 12 46 903 919 4a - . — (j” aod ® | . wee . oOo the current 1971-72 attendance areas atte - es “ mn non . . -— we pa a rr . Gor ows 4) 4 1 ] % 2 6 ‘ uy 5 Recommendation 4 The assignment of pupils to carry out , 7 : . _ - : : om ans 2 ; , bhechow yodole 0 0 1 63 4) 2763 0 fn 54 9 13 41 Recommendation 3 should be made in each of the clusters teen = 5 ms " -= « a " -—= ate ose by the principals affected in cooperation with the central office Huffman 0 40 ) 101 ’ 642 ny) ih 1 194 196 01 staff. Pupils moved should in all cases be the farthest located : te veeny 8 ' 102 0 576 3 20 0 116 ‘ 740 99S . ] . . lLuckson 1348 0 136 i?) 6&4 7 10 0/2 7 9/9 99 3 from their present school assignment where a choice has to Jetterson 0 0 100 35 12705 126 23 0 1418 161 18/9 698 he made Kemp 4 4 4 192 64 669 1 4 8) 798 BUS 08 Lewun 0 0 0 84 2 ws 0 2 62 4u4 04 ; . we —_ —_—_ - - Loos 0 0 a 129 28 608 1 4 33 741 7,34 43 MIDDLE SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS. 1972-73 18 Estimated enrollment for the 15 revised but hypothetical — middle school zones is shown in Table 6. These are all contiguous zones made up merely as a paper operation to es tablish an intermediate base for final recommendations for the middle schools. Estimated enrollment figures for the recom- mended desegregation plan for middle schools are given in Table 8 and zones are shown on Overlav 5. The school zones listed are 1971-72 assignment areas. Thus, Jane Addams Middle School would be assigned pupils from the current Jane Addams Elementary zone. the Drexel zone. and the Shoup Mill zone 393 Plaintifis’ Exhibit 10 16 TAGLE G TABLE 6 ESTIMATED ENNOL' ACNT GY SCHOOL AflD RACE REVISCD MIDOLE SCHOOL ZONES, GRADESGA ac ESTIMATED ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL AND RACE BASED ON MEVI“TID ELCMCNTARY ATTESOANCE ZOFIES REVISED ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ZONES ' PRE-KINDERGAHTEN AND GRADES K5 DAYTOS PUBLIC SCIIOOLS DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS Pre Kde Kulg Gr. 16 Sp. Ed Tota Tous * BI a a Ww a s)6hCtw 8 w tHiorace Mann 0 0 QO 83 0 345 0 0 0 428 429 00 Ay wit e f, ‘ : ‘ ‘ A 5 Gulley 39 j4 35 59 15! 316 0 ; 226 415 640 352 : 2 Gr. 6-8 & So. Ed \cNery 63 0 96 7) 462 1 12 0 623 ’ 624 99 9 = yi Total 1. me -4T 127 0 143 0 80) 2 0 ry 1071 2 1073 998 FS p kh — %6)_ Patterson Elementary i) A) ' 106 2 $99 ' 4 4 748 762 05 - as Jane Aridams 0.1.$ Resuience Park a 0 182 v 1072 6 21 0 1316 6 1327 a0 5 | e © Drexel 188 170 8 zx ) Rustin 0 37 0 134 ’ 694 ! 19 2 884 Cae c? gs 128 170 388 525 ~ Shiluh fy) 0 ) 6! 5 we ty) te) 6 365 370 14 vt sh coeazy Matt 0 0 0 20 ' 116 0 0 ' 136 17 0 S Belmont M!.5. Valerie 0 0 6 “0 270422 0 3 ee 618 6: , Morey 2 215 217 Von Cleve TT 23 16 3 87 611 r) ) 193 64) 260 149 Cleveland 3 426 429 eaves 129 0 14 rt) 734 3 21 0 993 3 1001 oj) 5 641 646 0.8 Gorman 12 80 12 i | wo me Brown, MS Keoowrnly 24 129 24 179 15) 5% » ——— TOTAL BLACK 945 1597 866 201 719 Fairview 34 408 442 TOTAL WHITE 271 220 11756 339 144.61 Loos we 379 390 L)t-s J 2 be = . ——- = Shoup Mill 2 68 70 TOTAL ENROLLMENT 12716 393 270721 650 26 540 26 380 144 4? 855 902 $2 Cornel! Hats. MSs F airport 199 208 407 Jefferson 667 24 691 866 232 1098 78.9 Gettyshurg MS Fr NicKinley 2 147 149 Gardendale 145 18° 330 Hickorydale 34 163 198 181 496 677 26.7 Grant his Eastmont 1 363 364% Lewton 1 222 223 ° 2 £85 §87 0.3 Lincoln MS Huftinan 0 350 350 ’ Ruskin a 427 431 4 777 781 0.5 . 7 ‘ ’ e . i 394 TAGLE 7 Plaintifis’ Exhibit 10 ESTIMATED ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL AND RACE GRADES (K 6) & SP. ED. RECOMMENDED ELCAMENTARY ZONES, 1972-73 TADLI & (Cont'd) DAYTON PUSLIC SCHOOLS Gr.G-8% Sn. Ed _5p. Ed __ vow! 8 Ww 8 w 8 WW 6 W Total Cap *. 8) 5S Ww Tota! %.B1 - = = - = - - - = ——— _ Longiciiow (1.5 i(Mamtain 1971-72 Attendance Zones) Greene 235 4 229 Kg. Gr. 1-5 Van Clove 56 238 294 Fospon $80 s«0? 274 398 2 ? 334 0«=— 807 Bat 98! 397 291 242 533 546 McGulley 35 59 161 315 ) ? 186 381 667 981 28 MecFarlane (15. (Maintain Revised Attendance Zone;) Py pm Mt nn Re a , 3 Edison 349 74 423 me a8 FS Weaver 394 2 396 Orvexel 42 62 237 402 " 9 200 493 783 919 370 “ w 743 76 819 90.7 Gardendale 48 65 24) 291 0 29 «| 46 635 702 455 m oC > (Cluster A) co PAcaclowdale (1S x , Gr.25 e- ¢- Belle Haven 56 318 374 me! = Shilon 0 180 180 Emerson °°. o@ 254 326 21 19 275 345 620 1399 444 Valerie 56 290 346 ving 217 300 i) 0 0 fy) 217 380 697 1059 36.3 112 788 900 12.4 Patterson 0 0 240 48) 0 ve) 240 46! 721 879 333 Orville Wright M.S. Kg 1 in teving remain Gr. 2 6 im Patterson remain Franklin 4? 416 462 Kg — 1 in Emerson and Patterson to Irving Gr. 2 ~ 5 in teving: 245 to Emerson; 236 to Patterson Gr.2 —5 in Emerson remain Kemp 18 482 500 65 898 963 87 (Ciuster 8) Kqg-2 Gr. 36 Webster 0.1.5 — Eastmont 224 334 0 0 0 0 724 334 558 1130 401 — 2 267 269 , ? 2262284 479 684 470 McGulfey 4? 163 210 Lewiton 225 247 oO 0 0 7 epee MC -LT 0 ) 499 650 0 0 499 550 1049 1747 476 43 430 479 10.2 19 Westvrood {1.S. Jackson 421 3 424 PAcNary 229 1 230 Res. Park 817 2 819 1467 6 1473 99.6 Whittier ALS. Emerson 10 219 229 Irving 311 ? 313 Patterson 3 7 350 324 568 892 36.3 Vioqaman [4.S. Highwiew 390 6 396 Carlson 358 1 389 MC-LT 433 2? 435 1181 2 1190 99.2 TOTALS 5525 6773 12298 449 18 20 TASLE 7 (Cont'd) So. Ed. Tetal u i 8 w 8 LY) Total Cap. % Bt. Kg —2 in Eastront and Le-vton remain Gr. 3-5 in MC — LT remain Kg -2 in MC — LT: 226 to Eustmont; 224 to Lewton Gr. 3 — 5 in Eastmont and Lewton to MC — LT (Ctuster C) Kq-2 Gr.35 Cieveland 242 632 0 CY) i) 0 242 632 774 1412 333 Hghview 0 ) 357 675 22 0 379 675 1054 1191 33.0 Mann 3 223 i) 0 t) 0 118 228 46 646 Ki Kg —2 remain in Cleveland and Mann Gr. 3 — 5 remain in Highview Kq -—2 trom Highwew: 245 to Cievetand; 119 to Mann Gr. 3 —5 trom Cleveland and Mann to Highview (Cluster O) Kq- 1 Gr.2-5 Cartsan 2c; #53 0 0 i) 0 208 453 661 927 5 Mullan ty) 0 236 618 ty) 0 236 618 854 1225 276 Ruskin 0 t) 234 605 8 28 242 633 775 1170 31.2 Kg — 1 remain in Cartson Gr. 2 = & remain in Hultman and Ruskin Kg —1 from Huffman and Austin to Carson Gr. 2-5 trom Cartson: 236 to Ruskin; 233 to Huffman (Cluster E) Kyg-1 Gr. 2-5 Van Cleve 231 336 0 0 15 0 246 336 682 713 42.3 Edlison 0 0 486 607 t+) t) 486 607 993 1130 48.9 Kg — 1 in Van Cleve remain Gr. 2 —% in Edison remain Kg - 1 from Edison to Van Cleve Gr. 2 —§ trom Van Cleve: 346 to Edison (Cluster F) Kq-2 Gr. 35 Jelferson 689 714 0 0 23 7? 712 721 1433 1447 49.7 OL HqIYX2 Syuuielg 96¢ s ° ‘ ’ TABLE 7 (Cont'd) Sp. Ed. Total 8 Ww 4 w 8 vi 8 w Total Cap. % BI. Fowview 0 0 416 44a) 0 ) 416 441 £5? 653 485 Valerie 0 0 m9 291 0 0 349 791 640 765 545 Kg -—2 in Jefferson remain Gr. 3 —& in Valerie and Fairview remain Kg —2 from Fairview ard Vulerie to Jefferson Gr. 3 —5 trom Jeflerson: 446 to Fairview, 366 to Valerie (Cluster G) Kg -2 Gr. 38 Belle Haven 423 448 ty) 0 0 0 423 “48 871 1263 486 Jackson 0 0 452 430 10 0 462 430 8692 1747 512 Ft. McKinley 0 oO 0 0 0 t) 0 0 0 $42 Kg — 2 in Belle Haven remain Gr. 3 — 56 in Jackson remain Kg —2 from Ft. Mc See 4 H.tann 2 OF _s 0 > MB 459 807 1157 43.1 TOTALS 5525 6773 12299 449 25 26 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10 ESTIMATCO CHROLI TIENT BY SCHOOL AND NACE RECOMMENDED HIGH SCHOOL ZONCS, GRADES 912, 1972.73 BASED ON CURNCNT CIOMACNTARY ATTENDANCE ZONES DAYTON PUBLIC SCIIOOLS Gr. 9.12 & So. Ed. G. Ww. Belmont _ —_ Beimoant MS. 312 $45 (Beirmont - Eastmont - Edison) Grant MS. (Grant - Highview - Lewton) (+) Mann El Ourbw Lincoln M S. (Lincoln - MC - LT - Ruskin) Wogaman M S. (Cleveland - Mann Wogaman) Fairview MacFarlane MS. (Fairview - Ucile Haven - Weaver) (+) Webster El (+) Res Park 1/4 Kiser Long'ctlow MS. (Allen - Greene - Hawthorne - \'an Cleve) 348 774 1227 1012" 2618 2453 1845 1245 %8I. 32.2 39.2 na 27 407 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10 TABLE 9 (Cont'd) Gr. 9-17 & So Ed. 5. wi. Total Cao. Maadovidalr Cornel! His A1S 379 474 as} (Famrport - Fe Mekinley - e Jetterson 1/4) Meatlowsdlale 11S 493 622 1995 (Jackson . Me xtowelale - Shiloh - Valerie) 872 1096 1963 (+) Shoup Att El a _89 _o 674 861185 2089 2950 Rein J. Adidas MS 1906 313 $09 (J. Addarms - Orexel - Shove Mil!) Gettysburg fA S. 290 4$9 749 (Gardendale - Gettysburg . Hickorydale - Res. Park 1/4) — —_— waa 486 772 1258 ( =) Shoup ft EI = _89 2! 4u4 683 1167 1856 Stovers ° Wetster MS 314 $62 876 (Huffman - Res Park V4 - Webster) Whittier M.S. 332 $36 8638 (Crnerson - Irving: Patterson) — — 64 1098 1744 (=) Webster E! 1 202 203 (~) Res. Park 1/4 104 —2? 104 SAI 896 1437 1$30 Brown (AS $3) 749 1280 (Brown « Jetfersuon 3/4 - Loos) (+) tAeNary El 190 3 193 (4) MeGuilfey E! 48 214 262 769 966 1735 2288 374 443 Wi, Virvgivt Or. Wright 11S (Carlson - Kemp - MeNary) Westwood 61S - (Franklin « MeGuttey - Wastungion - Wesiwvcod) (-) McNary EI (-) MeGulley Et Sub- Totals (4) Patterson Co-op (+) Ungraded (+) Home Teacinag TOTAL HS. 408 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10 TANLE 9 (Contd) Gr. 912 f Sv Cd 6. we Tot Cap. “BI. 383 $0! 8384 $86 897 1483 190 3 193 48 214 262 73) «1161 1912 2075 38.2 5699 6900 14999 390 51601218 1764 2337 31.0 [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385004_0761%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.