Appendix — Board of Education v. Newburg Area Council, Inc.

Supreme Court brief1977

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

NOV 20 1976

SUPREME COURT: OF THE UNITED-SB#TRs ».oc

October Term, 1976

46-710

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF JEFFERSON

COUNTY, KEN/UCKY and

ERNESTGRAYSON - - - - - Petitioners

versut

NEWBURG AREA COUNCIL, INC.,

SARAH WHITE,

JOHNIE WRIGHT and

SUZANNE POST - - - - ~-_ Respondents

AND

BOARD O/* EDUCATION OF LOUISVILLE,

KENTUCKY and

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF JEFFERSON

COUNTY, KENTUCKY - - Petitioners

JOHN E. HAYCKAFT and

HAZEL K. LANE . Respondents

(Other parties respondent o on inside cover)

APPENDIX TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

SIXTH CIRCUIT

JOHN A. FULTON

WILL H. FULTON

1805 Kentucky Home Life Bldg.

Louisville, Kentucky 40202

Counsel for Respondents, Jeffer-

sun County Board of Educa-

tion

E. PRESTON YOUNG

722 Kentucky Home Life Building

Louisville, Kentucky 40202

Counsel for Petitioners, Jeffersun

County Board of Education

WESTERFIELD-BONTE CO., 619 W. KENTUCKY-?.©. BOX 3251, LOVISVILLE, KY.

Additional Respondents in Board of Education v. Newburg:

Lyman Johnson, Richard Miller, Aaron Howard, John

R. Hughes, Theresa Black, John Schmidt, Ear! Alluisi,

and American Federation of Teachers

Additional Respondents in Board of Education of Jefferson

County and Board of Education of Louisville versus

Haycraft:

Lyman Johnson, Richard Miller, Aaron Howard, John

R. Hughes, John Schmidt, Ear! Alluisi, and Louisville

and Jefferson County Federation of Teachers, Local

672, Newburg Area Council, Inc. and Kentucky Human

Relations Commission.

INDEX

PAGE

Order Directing the Filing of a Plan of Desegregation

Di. Mh. sé6do0u 00 sbe¥ cecescsectbacces 1- 3

Proposed Desegregation Pian Pursuant to Order of

January 29, 1975 As Modified March 31, 1975 (JET

Plan Filed April 30, 1975, Some Exhibits Omitted) 4-43

Supplement to Proposed Desegregation Plan (JET)

Filed July 30, 1975 (Some Exhibits Omitted)..... 43-50

Adopted Desegregation Plan, Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of Law, United States District Court,

Western District of Ky., July 30, 1975 (Some Ex-

I «cco ckbasugtucasad codenckesdesse

Order Dispensing with Hearing on Proposed Desegre-

gation Plan, Advice to the Court................ 90-91

Resolution of Jefferson County Board of Education,

ins .cncedtcesesceespesenesosseeens 91-93

Judgment, Memorandum Opinion and Order, August

i ¢¢esethhekdonngnesoeneds 60 edenanceuten 94-108

Slip Opinion, August 23, 1976.................... 109-123

Order Denying Motion for Stay.................. 124-126

Letter to Counsel Acknowledging Denial by U.S.

Supreme Court of Motion for Stay............. 127

an ae eee.

a tee ee ee

ORDER DIRECTING THE FILING OF A PLAN

OF DESEGREGATION, MARCH 31, 1975

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Western District of Kentucky

At Louisville

Newsure Area Councn, Inc., et al. - - Plaintiffs

v. Civil Action 7045

Boarp or Epucation or Jerrerson County,

Kentucky, et al - - - - = Defendants

Joun E. Hayornartr, et al - - - - #£Plaintiffs

v. Civil Action 7291

Boarp or Epvucation or Lovisvitiz, Ken-

Tucky, etal - - - - - - £Defendants

ORDER—Entered March 31, 1975

This cause coming on to be heard on the motion of the

. Board of Education of Jefferson County, Kentucky as con-

stituted prior to April 1, 1975, and the Board of Education

of Louisville, Kentucky as constituted prior to April 1,

1975, requesting the Court to clarify or modify its Memo-

randum Opinion and Order of January 30, 1975, entered

herein for the purpose of instructing the merged Board how

to proceed, and it appearing that:

(1) On the 28th of February, 1975, the State Board of

Education of the Commonwealth of Kentucky in the manner

prescribed by state law and later reaffirmed by its Order

of the 27th day of March, 1975, ordered the two districts

(the Louisville Independent District and the Jefferson

County District) merged into one school district, to be

known as the Board of Education of Jefferson County, Ken-

tucky, and provided that all five members of each school

board as presently constituted should compose the school

board of the merged district;

(2) The respective boards as presently constituted

before the effective date of merger desire instruction of the

Court as to how to proceed under this Court’s Memorandum

Opinion and Order of January 30, 1975;

(3) The Board of Education of Louisville, Kentucky

and the Board of Education of Jefferson County, Kentucky

as constituted prior to April 1, 1975, have held and main-

tained throughout this litigation different views and posi-

tions as to the type and nature of the desegregation plan

this Court should order, if any;

(4) This Court has sought throughout this litigation to

arrive at a desegregation plan which would comply in all

respects with the Constitution and has welcomed all re-

sponsible suggestions concerning same, and that at the

previous hearings herein permitted both Boards and the

Plaintiffs to submit whatever material each believed would

best accomplish this Court’s responsibilities;

Ir Is Trererorr Consiperep, OrpeRED AND ADJUDGED

that:

(1) The Board of Education of Jefferson County, Ken-

tucky as constituted prior to April 1, 1975, shall file with

this Court no later than April 30, 1975, a desegregation

plan devised by it in compliance with this Court’s Memo-

randum Opinion and Order of January 30, 1975, as modified

herein ;

(2) The Board of Education of Louisville, Kentucky

as constituted prior to April 1, 1975, may file with this

Court, within 30 days after April 30, 1975, or any time

prior thereto, any desegregation plan which it conceives to

be in compliance with this Court’s Memorandum Opinion

and Order of January 30, 1975, as modified herein ;

—— ee ee ee

(3) The Plaintiffs may file with the Court such de-

segregation plan or such suggestions or modifications to

rs of e+ desegregation plans set forth in (1) and (2)

above, as they may be advised withi i

roger n 30 days after April

(4) It is the intention and purpose of this Court that

the parties hereto, the Board of Education of Jefferson

County, Kentucky as constituted prior to April 1, 1975, and

the Board of Education of Louisville, Kentucky as con-

stituted prior to April 1, 1975, shall, for the purposes of

this litigation only, and until final Order of this Court has

been rendered, retain their legal identities;

(5) In the event that the Board of Education of Jeffer-

son County, Kentucky as it was constituted before April 1

1975, or the Board of Education of Louisville, Kentucky

as it was constituted before April 1, 1975, shall be dissatis-

fied with any Orders of this Court, such legal entity shall

be permitted to appeal from such Order, notwithstanding

the Order of the Kentucky State Board of Education of

February 28, 1975, as modified March 27, 1975.

March 31, 1975

(s) James F. Gordon

United States District Judge

Copies to: -

Counsel of record.

PROPOSED DESEGREGATION PLAN PURSUANT TO

ORDER OF JANUARY 29, 1975 AS MODIFIED

MARCH 31, 1975 (JET PLAN, FILED APRIL 30, 1975

SOME EXHIBITS OMITTED)

May Iv Piease tHe Court:

PREAMBLE

Following the decision of the Sixth Cireuit Court of

Appeals December 11, 1974, in which that Court interpreted

the Milliken decision of the Supreme Court of the United

States and reinstated its Opinion of December 28, 1973,

with certain modifications directing the district court to

approve a desegregation plan that would eliminate all ves-

tiges of state-imposed segregation, the plaintiffs in this

action moved the Court to reinsiate its Judgment of July 24,

1974, in which the Court had adopted a desegregation plan

entitled Plan X and ordered its implementation. On Jan-

uary 25, 1975, this court in its “Memorandum Opinion and

Order” rehearsed the proceedings pending in this Court

since 1971, identified the positions of the various parties

plaintiff, the Jefferson County Board of Education and

Louisville Board of Education, and directed the Jefferson

County Board to undertake to prepare a desegregation

plan which would comply with the congressional amend-

ments to the Educational Acts of 1974 and also the obliga-

tion of the Court under the mandate of the Sixth Circuit

Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United

States to accomplish the orderly removal of any vestiges of

a dual school system which had previously existed in the

view of the Sixth Cireuit Court of Appeals. This Court was

careful to provide that the desegregation plan thus sub-

mitted not only comply with the guidelines contained in the

Congressional amendments of 1974, but at the same time

meet the Court’s constitutional responsibility to the plain-

tiffs and the children of Jefferson County.

— eee 6

The Jefferson County Board of Education was directed

to file not later than April 30, a desegregation plan pre-

pared without regard to existing school district lines, and

incorporating the provisions of this Court’s Judgment of

1974 relative to implementation of the plan. The Court

then permitted the Louisville Board of Education, the plain-

tiffs, and any other parties to file objections within 30 days

or such alternative plan or plans as the parties saw fit

consistent with the views set forth in the Court’s Opinion

of January 29, 1975.

At the time the Court’s January 29, 1975, Order was

entered there were pending proceedings before the State

Board of Education looking to a merger of the Louisville

Independent School District and the Jefferson County

School District. This merger, accomplished under Ken-

tucky statutes enacted in 1974 for the merger of the two

districts, became effective April 1, 1975. The present Jef-

ferson County Board of Education consists of ten members,

five of whom were formerly elected to the Louisville In-

dependent school board and five of whom were elected to

‘the Jefferson County school board. The Court is aware of

the fact that throughout this litigation there has been a

significant difference in the viewpoints of the two original

boards on the subject of an appropriate desegregation plan

and that these differences have been asserted in the various

pleadings in this Court and throughout the litigation on

appeal. The primary difference in philosophy between the

boards relates to the extent and degree of pupil reassign-

ment required to create an educationally sound and admin-

istratively feasible desegregation plan which will enable

this Court to comply with its responsibilities to fashion a

remedy for the unconstitutional segregation of children in

Jefferson County which the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

determined to exist in its two opinions.

The Supreme Court of the United States, on April 21,

1975, denied petitions for certiorari filed by both school

boards. Each board claimed that the school district which

it represented was a unitary system and did not violate the

constitutional rights of children in the district to equal

educational opportunity without regard to race, color, sex

or national origin. The denial of certiorari by the Supreme

Court of the United States removes this question from fur-

ther consideration by this Court and leaves solely the ques-

tion of an appropriate remedy for the elimination of the

vestiges of dual school systems which the Sixth Circuit

Court of Appeals found to exist in Jefferson County, Ken-

tucky. The Congress, in the Equal Educational Opportun-

ity Act of 1974, determined that it was necessary and

proper that the Congress, pursuant to the powers granted

to it by the Constitution of the United States, specify

appropriate remedies for the elimination of the vestiges of

dual school systems without modifying or diminishing the

authority of the courts of the United States to enforce fully

the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitu-

tion of the United States.

This Court recognized the difference in philosophy of

the two former school boards in its Order of January 19,

1975, as modified March 31, 1975, by providing that both

boards should have an opportunity to submit plans con-

taining specific remedies for the elimination of the vestiges

of the dual school systems. In order to accomplish this the

Court provided that each of the boards, as well as the plain-

tiffs, might submit their views as to an appropriate de-

segregation plan and provided that the boards should

retain their legal identities solely for the purpose of this

litigation.

Throughout this litigation the Jefferson County Board

of Education has endeavored to make it apparent that the

filing of various desegregation plans was solely for the pur-

pose of complying with the orders of this Court and that

such plans did not necessarily reflect the educational policy

ee ee ee

of the board. It is perhaps necessary to reiterate this posi-

tion at this point in order that the Board may specifically

reserve its right to appeal from the action of this Court

adopting any plan of desegregation involving the school dis-

trict which the Board considers to impose requirements or

remedies in excess of those required by statutory and case

law. This caveat is required solely because of the fact that

during the appellate procedures the plaintiffs in this litiga-

tion have urged that the mere filing of a desegregation plan

constituted a statement of the Board’s educational policy

which prevented it from maintaining its legal position on

appeal.

I. DEFINITIONS

Certain words, terms or phrases used in this plan re-

peatedly may have a special or technical meaning, particu-

larly to the professional staff engaged in the preparation

of this plan and to school officials and administrators gen-

erally. These words or phrases are defined below for

clarity and for the assistance of the Court.

1, Jefferson County School District—The Jefferson

County School District is that geographic area contained

within the boundaries of Jefferson County, Kentucky, which

serves public school students residing therein with the ex-

ception of the geographical area and the students residing

within the boundaries of the Anchorage Independent School

District.

2. Subdistrict Attendance Area—A Subdistrict Attend-

ance Area consists of a geographic area defined by an

artificially established boundary line created administra-

tively for the purpose of the school assignment of pupils

living within a particular geographic area. Public school

pupils living within the defined area are assigned to and

will attend the subdistrict school which contains the appro-

priate grade level for each pupil.

9. Barriers—Natural and artificial Barriers such as

creeks, arterial highways, industrial complexes, parks,

cemeteries, railroads and certain subdivision street confor-

mations directly affect administrative decisions in delineat-

ing sub-district attendance areas.

4, School Capacity—School Capacity is a numerical en-

rollment figure for a particular school building which is

administratively feasible and is determined by the number

of classrooms and the type of program offered in a partic-

ular school building. Generally, in a building with a reg-

ular school program, 25 to 30 pupils are assigned to a class-

room, but administrative decisions including federal guide-

lines restricting class size or special educational programs

requiring numerically smaller classes may reduce the “seat-

ing capacity.”

5. Closest School—Closest School as that term is used

in the Equal Educational Opportunity Acts of 1974, Title

90 $1714 and in this desegregation plan refers to the “crow

flight” or straight line distance from a pupil’s home to the

nearest school building containing the appropriate grade

for such pupil. Basically, the closest school has been de-

termined for each pupil by means of computer coordinates.

In practice, the determination of the closest school depends

upon the geographic factors involved in the travel distance

between a pupil’s residence and the school offering the ap-

propriate grade level and type of instruction, taking into

account the capacity of the school involved.

6. Neat Closest School—The term Next Closest School

as used in Section 1714 of Title 20, Equal Educational Op-

portunities Act, as interpreted by this desegregation plan

refers to the “crow flight” or straight line distance from a

pupil’s residence to the appropriate school building which

offers the appropriate grade level and type of instruction

for that pupil, taking into account the capacity of the

school involved, which is nearest the pupil’s residence if

eee ee eee eee a ee Pe

ee ——

_" Bae wan

i A

the Closest School defined above is eliminated. The Next

Closest School may also be determined precisely by means

of computer coordinates. Practically, geographic factors

which affect the travel distance between the pupil’s resi-

dence and the school building are taken into account and

ape a formula of multiplying straight line distance

. ni rina will provide a reliable estimate of actual

7. Home School—A Home School is the school buildin

closest or next closest to the pupil’s place of residence which

offers an appropriate grade level and to which the pupil is

administratively assigned during a particular school year

Generally, it is the school building to which the pupil will

report each morning and to which he will return each after-

noon even though the pupil may be transported to an Awa

mer a major portion of the day’s instruction. 4

- Away School—A pupil’s Awa i i

to be a school other than the Home or peor

ticular pupil may be assigned during any part of the school

day. The Away School also offers the appropriate grade

level and type of instruction for a pupil so assigned and is

administratively selected on the basis of its racial composi

tion for the purposes of this desegregation plan. rie

9. School Day—The School Day as used in this de-

segregation plan and defined by KRS 158.060 i

six hours of actual school work. = aaa

10. Grade Structure—Grade Structure

ministrative classification of schools as retest ede

and senior high schools. At present there is varying Grade

Structure in the Jefferson County school system and the

former Louisville Independent school system. Schools pres-

ently are classified as elementary, middle, junior and da

high schools. Some elementary schools include Headstart

kindergarten and grades 1 to 6. Other elementary ssheale

include grades 1 to 5. Middle schools generally include

grades 6 through 8, although one middle school now in use

provides only for grades 7 and 8. J unior high schools gen-

erally contain either grades 7-8 or 7-9. High schools are

made up of either grades 9-12 or 10-12. As a result of the

merger of the two school systems, it is contemplated that

a uniform grade structure consisting of elementary schools

containing grades 1-5 or kindergarten-6, middle schools

with grades 6, 7, and 8 and high school with grades 9-12

will be accomplished. Reclassification of some school build-

ings with accompanying physical plant modifications will

be required to achieve uniformity of Grade Structure

throughout the school system.

11. Reclassification—Reclassification is the process of

rearranging the Grade Structure of particular schools. In

cases where high school’s capacity permits addition of a

grade the school historically containing grades 10-12 could

accommodate grades 9-12. A junior high school can be re-

classified as a middle school by moving the 9th grade of

that former junior high school to an adjacent high school

building and adding a sixth grade from an elementary

school to the former junior high school An elementary

school may be utilized as a middle school by adding physi-

eal facilities for shop, home economics and physical educa-

tion (gymnasium). In addition to structural changes, when

a school is reclassified program adjustments are required to

accommodate the new grade structure. Eventually elemen-

tary schools can house pupils in grades 1-5 or kindergarten

through 5 when sufficient middle school Reclassification

takes place to absorb the present sixth grades in most

elementary schools.

12. Quarter—The Jefferson County School District’s

school year is divided into four Quarters of approximately

60 days each. Kentucky statutes require attendance of

pupils during three of four Quarters.

ee ete

13. Elective Quarter Plan—A pupil may elect to attend

any three of the four Quarters (fall, winter, spring or

summer). The fall Quarter, generally beginning in late

August, is considered the beginning of the school year.

Tuition is not required of pupils attending three Quarters

im any one school year. In the event a student elects to

attend four consecutive Quarters, tuition is assessed. The

tuition is based upon the division of the state costs and the

local costs of a Quarter’s attendance. A pupil is required

to pay as tuition that portion of the cost customarily pro-

vided by the state during Quarters of compulsory attend-

ance. The school district provides for the remaining cost

of a pupil’s fourth Quarter from local funds.

14. Activities—Extra-Curricular—Extra-curricular Ac-

tivities are those school-related activities which are sched-

uled and occur preceding or following the school day. Par-

ticipation is voluntary. These activities include, but are

not restricted to, athletic teams, drill corps, cheerleading

and any other activities not engaged in during the regular

school day. A letter or award is usually given for such

activities. 3

15. Activities—Co-Curricular—Co-curricular Activities

are those directly connected with the instructional program

and may occur preceding, during or after the regular school

day. Participation is generally based upon the academic

achievement of the pupil or instructional courses selected.

Examples are language clubs, student counc!], Beta Club,

* voy Honor Society, school publications, dramatics and

others.

16. Advanced Program—The Advanced Program is a

course of instruction designed for students who demon-

strate certain traits of maturity, intelligence, motivation,

achievement and academic proficiency.

17. Basic Subjects—Basic Subjects include the lan-

guage arts (listening, speaking, reading, writing, composi-

tion and penmanship, spelling, and literature) and mathe-

matics. These subjects are essential to a foundation re-

quired for academic progress leading to a high school

diploma.

18. Computer Scheduling—Computer Scheduling is a

method of scheduling which permits the principal to. build

a master schedule and efficiently assign pupils to classes

previously selected from an extensive list of course offer-

ings. Computer scheduling makes for a more efficient

system of teacher assignment.

19. Certificated Employees—Certificated Employees

are those employees of the Jefferson County school system

who have completed the requirements specified in KRS

161.020, et seq., and have secured state certification for the

position for which they are employed.

20. Non-Certificated Employees—Non-certificated Em-

ployees of the Jefferson County Board of Education are

those employees who are not required to obtain a state

certificate for employment in the position they occupy, but

who must meet requirements established for their employ-

ment by the Jefferson County Board of Education.

21. Paraprofessionals—Paraprofessionals are uncer-

tificated personnel who receive special training to enable

them to assist teachers with classroom procedures.

29. Team Teaching—Team Teaching is the activity of

two or more teachers in instructing the same group of

students utilizing each teacher’s individual skills for the

benefit of the students.

93. School Grouping—School Groupings are the admin-

istrative designation of two or more schools of comparable

classification selected to facilitate pupil exchange and effi-

cient transportation in the JET Program.

24. J E T—JET is the designation for Jefferson Edu-

cational Trip, an instructionally oriented exchange of stu-

FT ee ee ee oe ee

ater i Seti hike

ee patel Nea insti babs elt 4

dents between schools of similar classificati ilizi

vehicles equipped with sound systems. At the worn

school level a teacher accompanies the pupils in a class for

the purpose of instruction and general supervision. At the

middle and high school levels, either a teacher, a Para ro-

fessional or a study hall monitor accompanies the a

25. Magnet School—A Magnet School is a specialized

school which provides programs in selected areas such as

science, visual and performing arts or vocational education.

The types of courses offered and the faculty of a Magnet

School permit students with special interests to pursue a

course of training beyond that offered in the general courses

in regular middle or high school programs. Students are

selected from the entire school distri

istrict i

evaluation for enrollment. airy ry sagem

26. Census Tract and Block—Census Tracts

graphic areas of varying sizes and shapes drawn aaterte

Geographic Operations Branch of the Data Preparation

Division, U. 8. Bureau of the Census, and approved b

the Geography Division in Washington, D. C. A Cens 4

Block is a subdivision of a Census Tract. Pepelation is.

acteristics are compiled from Block and Tract data. =

II. INSTRUCTION AND CURRICULUM

Educational philosophies of the former Louisville Inde-

pendent School District were compatible with educational

philosophies of the Jefferson County School District in the

area of curriculum and instruction. As a result of merger

the Elective Quarter Plan and the courses and pacherate can

guides used in conjunction with this method of structurin

the school year and instructional program will be oe

throughout the Jefferson County School District beginnin

per the a Quarter of 1975. Planning has been silent

or several months to i i

sioii oF Gas cmt provide all students with the advan-

It is proposed that the senior class during the first year

of implementation of this plan be excluded from considera-

tion for transportation between schools and that the seniors

be permitted to attend the home school to which each senior

pupil is assigned for the first year of the implementation

of this plan only. Involuntary participation in the exchange

proposal during the first year of implementation of this

plan might unreasonably interfere with f ulfillment of gradu-

ation requirements for some seniors due to the special

nature of the courses which the pupils have previously

selected. For this reason, during the first year of the im-

plementation of this program, it is suggested that senior

pupils be permitted to participate in the exchange program

if they wish but that such participation be entirely volun-

tary and that the number of exchange students from the

senior class be subject to administrative decisions necessary

to carry out the pupil assignment methodology described

in this plan.

Special Schools and Programs Excluded

From Exchange Program

It is proposed that pupils in the Headstart and kinder-

garten programs and first grade pupils be excluded from

the exchange program of this plan and that such pee

be assigned only to the Home School. The tender age 0

these children and the necessity to adjust to the routines of

a school setting for the first time indicates that exclusion

of these pupils from an exchange program 1s not only ad-

ministratively feasible, but educationally sound.

Voeational Rehabilitation schools, state and local gov-

ernment institutional schools, deaf-oral classes, orthopedi-

cally handicapped classes, emotionally disturbed classes,

Youth Development and alternative schools, and trainable

classes, and any other programs requiring special equip-

ment and housing shall be excluded from the exchange

program.

ie a

Advanced Program

Pupils who qualify for and elect enrollment in the Ad-

vanced Program as defined herein should be included in

any desegregation plan of this court. Pupils in the Ad-

vanced Program selected for exchange in accordance with

the provisions of the Pupil Assignment Method of this de-

segregation plan would be provided with the same course

offerings at their Away School as at their Home School.

Provision will be made for offering the Advanced Program

throughout the metropolitan area by an equitable distrivu-

tion of the schools offering the Advanced Program.

Co-Curricular Activities

Co-Curricular Activities as defined in this plan permit

the pupils involved in the daily school program of formal

instruction to engage in these activities whether at the

Home School or the Away School.

Faculty and Staff

Certificated Staff who work directly with children in the

schools will be assigned so that as far as possible the racial

composition of a specific school staff would not indicate that

the school is intended exclusively for black pupils or for

white pupils. Insofar as possible, assignment of principals

and teachers will be made so that the ratio of Certificated

Staff in a particular school is roughly equivalent to the

black-white staff ratio system wide. The following guide-

lines with respect to the assignment of faculty and staff

will be observed:

A. Certificated Staff members who work directly with

children and Certificated Staff at the administrative level

will be employed, promoted, paid, demoted and dismissed in

an equitable manner without regard to sex, race, color, or

national origin. Black teachers and supportive staff such

as counselors and all categories of administrative staff shall

be assigned in all areas of the school program.

B. Whenever it appears that the racial composition of

the combined staffs of the two systems is disconsonant with

the system-wide pupil racial composition, every effort will

be made in employment and promotion to alleviate this

condition. If there is to be a reduction in the number of

principals, teachers, or other professional staff employed

by the school district which will result in a dismissal or

demotion of any such staff members, the staff members to

be dismissed or demoted must be selected on the basis of

objective and reasonable non-discriminatory standards. In

addition, if there is any such dismissal or demotion, no

staff vacancy may be filled through the recruitment of a

person of a race or national origin different from that of

the individual dismissed or demoted unless each displaced

staff member who is qualified has had an opportunity to fill

the vacancy and has failed to accept an offer to do so.

Merger of the former Louisville Independent District

with the Jefferson County School District will require

equalization of pay and benefits and the adoption of uni-

form policies relative to faculty and staff.

In order to facilitate the implementation of the neces-

sary teacher assignment policy outlined above in an equita-

ble manner, consideration will be given to the following

variables:

1. Preparation; 2. Experience; 3. Certification; 4.

Tenure; and 5. Willingness to volunteer for majority-to-

minority transfer.

In effecting teacher transfer, the following procedures

will be used to the extent possible:

1. Determination of the number of teachers needed in

each school by race; 2. Notification of all teachers of the

needs of each individual school; 3. Encouragement of teach-

ers to indicate three choices for voluntary transfer; 4. The

implications of seniority; 5. The consideration of other

factors such as the recommendation of principals, the need

for transfer to the same grade level as in present assign-

ment and the transfer of secondary teachers to a subject

area within their expertise, ete.; 6. Bi-racial administra-

tive staffs will be assigned to the following areas, central

office staff, local schools and special programs.

It is believed that whatever pupil assignment method

and desegregation plan is finally adopted by the Court, the

assignment of faculty and staff will be dictated by a formula

approved by the courts in the Singleton decision and this

desegregation plan proposes that that formula be followed.

III. PUPIL ASSIGNMENT

A. Compliance with the Equal Educational

Opportunity Acts of 1974

In undertaking to formulate a desegregation plan pur-

suant to this Court’s order of January 29, 1975, the Jeffer-

son County Board of Education recognized its duty to

adhere strictly to the congressional directive found in the

Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C.

$1701, et seq. The formulation of the desegregation plan

set out herein of necessity was prepared to conform with

20 U.S.C. 81701, 1703-05 and 1712-14 with particular aiten-

tion being directed to the priority of remedies provision of

20 U.S.C. $1713 which is set out in full below for the benefit

of the Court. Other relevant provisions of said Act are

attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

20 U.S.C. 1713. Prionrry or Remepres

In formulating a remedy for a denial of equal edu-

cational opportunity or a denial of the equal protection

of the laws, which may involve directly or indirectly

the transportation of students, a court, department, or

agency of the United States shall consider and make

specific findings on the efficacy in correcting such denial

of the following remedies and shall require implementa-

tion of the first of the remedies set out below, or of

the first combination thereof which would remedy

such denial:

(a) assigning students to the schools closest to their

places of residence which provide the appropriate

grade level and type of education for such students,

taking into account school capacities and natural

physical barriers ;

(b) assigning students to the schools closest to their

places of residence which provide the appropriate

grade level and type of education for such students,

taking into account only school capacities ;

which a majority of the students are of their race,

color, or national origin to a school in which a minor-

ity of the students are of their race, color, or na-

tional origin;

(d) the creation or revision of attendance zones or

grade structures without requiring transportation

beyond that described in section 1714 of this title; .

(e) the construction of new schools or the closing of

inferior schools;

(f) the construction or establishment of magnet

schools; or

(g) the development and implementation of any

other plan which is educationally sound and adminis-

tratively feasible, subject to the provisions of sec-

tions 1714 and 1715 of this title.

The Board of Education of Jefferson County, Kentucky,

must advise the Court in the exercise of good faith that its

legal position with respect to 20 U.S.C. $1713 is that no

single subsection of said provision provides an adequate

remedy for the constitutional violation determined by the

Sixth Cireuit Court of Appeals in its opinions of Decem-

ber 28, 1973, and December 11, 1974 (certiorari denied, 48

U.S.L.W. 3571, April 21, 1975). As will be developed here-

inafter, it is the position of the Board of Education of Jef-

ferson County, Kentucky, that a combination of the rem-

edies outlined by 20 U.S.C. $1713 is required to adequately

remedy the violations mentioned above.

In obtaining compliance with 20 U.S.C. 81713(a)-(f) it

was determined ab initio that the utilization of subsec-

tion (e), to the extent that it directs the construction of

new schools and subsection (f) could not be utilized in a

plan of desegregation not only because of the strictures of

time but because such construction is not necessary because

of declining enrollment. There are facilities in the Jeffer-

son County school system which are considered Magnet

Schools and their existence was utilized to the greatest

extent possible for the purposes of the preparation of this

plan. Magnet Schools might well be established by the

Jefferson County school system, but as a practical matter,

establishment of additional such schools for initial imple-

mentation of a desegregation plan in accordance with this

Court’s order is not feasible in the short term. The Jeffer-

son County Board is undertaking an examination into the

further development of Magnet Schools and can report upon

this inquiry to the Court from time to time.

The primary tools for desegregation utilized by this

plan for the purposes of compliance with 20 U.S.C. 81713

are subsection (a), (b), (d) and (e) of that section. Utiliz-

ing Census Block and Tract data and school records, an

initial determination was made of the residence, age, grade,

school and race of all public school children in Jefferson

County, Kentucky, for the 1974-75 school year. Building

upon this data base, it was then determined which school

offering the appropriate grade level and type of education

for each such student was the physically closest school oper-

ated by the Jefferson County School District, taking into

account (1) School Capacities and (2) natural physical

Barriers.

A similar function was performed to determine the

Closest School operated by the Jefferson County School

District to each such student, taking into account only

School Capacities. Once this material has been collated,

a determination of the racial composition of every school

was made assuming that students who lived closest to the

school would attend that school. This cumulation was

necessarily bounded by the capacity of each school. In per-

forming this function and for all other purposes in this

section, presently recognized school Subdistrict Attendance

areas were completely disregarded, and any dislocations

brought about by the Open Transfer Policy of the former

Louisville Independent District were also corrected.

The result of this examination of the racial composition

of all schools in the school system revealed few changes

except for example in the northcentral and northwestern

sections of the Jefferson County School District. The com-

mittee preparing this plan then proceeded to reformulate

all Subdistrict Attendance Areas based on the following

criteria:

(1) no student would be required to attend a school

more distant from his place of residence than the Closest

or Next Closest school offering the appropriate grade level

and type of education for such student; (2) wherever pos-

sible, schools that were not in conformity with a Grade

Structure of grades 1 through 5 or K-5 for elementary

schools, grades 6-8 for middle schools, and grades 9-12 for

high schools were reclassified to conform with such Grade

Structure; (3) selective school closings were made to reflect

the overall decline in enrollment throughout the system

and diminution in usefulness of some physical plants pres-

ently under-utilized. All such closings were carefully

scrutinized to effect, wherever possible, a useful change in

racial composition of the .chool Subdistrict Attendance

Areas in the immediate vicinity of the schools selected to

be closed. Exhibit 16 shows all such proposed closings;

(4) Reclassification of some schools was effected (and Re-

classification of numerous others will be proposed over the

next several years) to broaden the geographical reach of

that school’s Subdistrict Area and to contribute to desegre-

gative aspects of that school’s racial composition; (5) dur-

ing the reformulation of school Subdistrict Attendance

Areas, practicalities of efficient pupil transportation and the

effect of Barriers upon transportation routes were contin-

ually kept in mind; (6) foregoing guidelines are subject to

the criterion that an attempt would be made to establish

school Subdistrict Attendance Areas resulting in pupil

racial composition of no less than 10% black pupils and no

more than 50% black pupils in each school.

Utilizing the aforementioned criterion for the redraw-

ing of school Subdistrict Attendance Areas, many changes

were made in the present Subdistrict Attendance Areas

utilized by the Jefferson County School District. Exhibit 2

lists alphabetically all elementary, middle and junior and

high schools presently in operation in the Jefferson County

School System. Page 1 of the Exhibit gives a summary of

the September, 1974, enrollment in the Jefferson County

School System indicating the type of schools such pupils

attend and the racial composition of each type of school

as well as the total enrollment of the system and its overall

racial compusition for the 1974-75 school year.

The balance of Exhibit 2 lists alphabetically each school

presently operated by the Jefferson County School System

with the total number of white and black children in each

school, the total membership of the school and its overall

racial composition. In schools managed and controlled by

the former Louisville Board of Education at the beginning

of the 1974-75 school year, these figures reflect the Open

Transfer Policy Figures for each school managed and con-

trolled by the five-member Jefferson County Board of Edu-

cation at the beginning of the 1974-75 school year, reflect

total membership and overall racial composition as a result

of school assignment by subdistrict residence.

Exhibits 3 through 5 show, among other things, the

racial composition of each school in the Jefferson County

School System after the application of the criteria enumer-

ated above for the reformulation of all school Subdistrict

Attendance Areas. This information for elementary schools

is found in Exhibit 3, column 7, for middle schools in Ex-

hibit 4 column 6 and for high schools in Exhibit 5 col-

umn 4. The data contained in such columns reflects school

closings, Reclassifications and all reformulations of Sub-

district Attendance Areas.

An examination of Exhibits 2-5 reveals, for example,

that the racial composition of Male High School, located in

a northeentral section of the Jefferson County School Dis-

trict, was reduced from 98% black to 43.5% black. Simi-

larly, the racial composition of Ahrens High School was

reduced from 39% black to 26.2% black after the applica-

tion of the Equal Educational Opportunity Act guidelines.

The new Subdistrict Attendance Areas reflected by the

data contained in Exhibits 3-5 have not yet been reduced to

a form which ean readily be filed with the Court, but this

data will be made available to any interested parties in

the litigation at the Richard VanHoose Education Center

until such time as the data can be filed with the Court as a

matter of record herein. It is anticipated that this data

cannot be filed with Court for between 30 to 60 days. In no

event will such material be filed with the Court at a time

later than ten days prior to the hearing herein on the merits

of any plans filed pursuant to the Court’s order of Jan-

uary 29, 1975.

B. An Additional Pupil Assignment Plan—JET

It is the position of the Jefferson County Board of Edu-

cation that the previously outlined remedia) steps and the

resulting racial compositions in various schools throughout

the system reflected by Exhibits 3 through 5, columns 7,

6 and 4 respectively, not oniy conform with the congres-

sional directive of the Equal Educational Opportunity Act

of 1974 (20 U.S.C. $1701, et seq.), but also that the applica-

tion of such remedial steps brings the school system into

full compliance with the Opinions of the United States

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Cireuit rendered Decem-

ber 28, 1973, and December 11, 1974.

It is the position of the Jefferson County Board of Edu-

cation that the requirement of any additional remedial

action to comply with the Order of this Court would not

only violate the strictures of the Equal Educational Oppor-

tunity Act of 1974, and in particular, 20 U.S.C. 817 13-1715,

but would also require of the Jefferson County Board of

Education a remedy disproportionate to the violation in

question, thus needlessly disregarding the directive of Chief

Justice Burger in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board

of Education, 402 U. S. 1 (1971). “As with any equity case,

the nature of the violation determines the scope of the

remedy.” 402 U. S. 1, 16. The Board of Education of

Jefferson County, Kentucky, respectfully submits that the

remedial measures previously outlined sufficiently remedy

the violation in question, while keeping in mind the neces-

sity for careful balancing of the individual and collective

interests involved. 402 U.S. 1, 16.

The additional remedy outlined in this Subsection is (as

is the entirety of this proposed desegregation plan) pre-

sented by the Board of Education of Jefferson County, Ken-

tucky, solely under compulsion of law in compliance with

this Court’s order of January 29, 1975, as set out in detail

in the Preamble hereinabove. The Board of Education of

Jefferson County, Kentucky, proposes the J ET remedy set

forth herein not as an indication of its educational policy

but only as an alternative to be considered by the Court

should it make an express determination that the steps out-

lined previously in conformity with the Equal Educational

Opportunity Act of 1974 are insufficient to remedy the vio-

lations denominated by the Court of Appeals. rae

In formulating the JET remedy, two principal criteria

were utilized. The foremost criterion is that contained

in 20 U.S.C. $1713(g) which mandates that any remedy

not specifically enumerated in its other Subsections must

ab initio meet the test of being “educationally sound and

administratively feasible.” The second primary criterion

utilized during the formation of the JET remedy was the

anticipation of any criticisms this Court might have of the

racial compositions of the various schools in the J efferson

County School District which resulted from the application

of the remedies enumerated in 20 U.S.C. S1713(a-f) out-

lined hereinabove in Subsection A. In this regard the JET

remedy focused primarily on schools which still had a black

racial composition in excess of 50% or white racial composi-

tion in excess of 90%.

Several curriculum-related assumptions were made at

the beginning of the conceptualization of the JET remedy.

It was determined that during the first year of implementa-

tion all seniors would be exempted from the JET plan.

Curriculum-related problems concerning matriculation of

this group of pupils necessitate this step as the merger ~-

the two previous districts and other problems have resulte

in certain curriculum disparities among various schools

within the Jefferson County School District. It is also felt

that this exemption would allow the retention at each high

school of a stable group which could provide the necessary

leadership for an orderly implementation of a desegrega-

tion plan in its critical early stages.

As the Jefferson County School District presently oper-

ates only a limited number of kindergarten facilities, the

JET plan contemplates the exemption of first graders at

least until such time as a sufficient number of kindergartens

are in operation that a group of school-experienced “first

graders could be identified. Upon the identification of such

group, there is no compelling reason why the JET remedy

could not be extended to their number. For children with-

out any previous school experience prior to the entry into

the first grade an exemption from involvement in the JET

plan is dictated not only by sound educational policy but by

common sense as well.

All the data illustrated in the Exhibits attached hereto

concerning the pupil reassignments involved under the JET

plan reflect the exemption of all first graders and all seniors.

It should be noted that the exemption for seniors is pro-

posed for the first year of implementation only and that

the proposed exemption for first graders would only be

applicable until such time as a sufficient number of kinder-

gartens are in operation as to eliminate the problems in-

volved with the first formal school experience of a young

child.

The first step taken in the development of the JET plan

was to identify schools to be exempted from its operation

on the basis of their racial compositions after the applica-

tion of the remedies enumerated in Section II-A herein-

above. Exhibit 12 identifies the elementary schools in the

Jefferson County School District which qualified for ex-

emption from the JET plan.

The shaded dots on the Exhibit indicate the locations of

all such exempted schools, and next to each such dot is the

name of the school and its racial composition. Exhibits

13 and 14 portray similar information for the middle

schools and high schools in the Jefferson County School

District. Racial compositions of exempted elementary

schools ranges from 10% black to 48.7% black. Racial

compositions of exempted middle schools ranges a

12.7% black to 37.4% black and racial egy ie

exempted high schools ranges from 26.27% black to 43.5%

ae remaining schools in the Jefferson County School

District are involved to some degree in the JET plan. The

Home Schools for students residing in the Subdistrict At

tendance Areas of the non-exempted schools were desig-

nated by establishment of school Subdistrict Attendance

Areas for all schools in the Jefferson County School Dis-

trict pursuant to the guidelines in Section ITI-A. Thus,

a student’s Home School is the appropriate school contained

within the school Subdistrict Attendance Area within which

the student resides regardless of whether or not such school

is exempted from the JET plan. The denomination of a

Home School as the theoretical underpinning of the JET

plan is designed to exact conformity with the congressional

policy evidenced by 20 U.S.C. $1701, 1705, and 1713-1715,

as well as the congressional policy evidenced specifically

by 20 U.S.C. $1713(g) requiring that any desegregation

remedy ordered by this Court be “educationally sound and

administratively feasible.” Further, it is the educational

policy of the Board of Education of J efferson, Kentucky,

thatthe concept of the Home School is indeed the most

educationally sound and administratively feasible basis for

compliance with the Board’s duty to provide an equal edu-

cational opportunity for each pupil in the system of public

schools in Jefferson County, Kentucky, and as such, should

be utilized to the fullest extent possible. |

At the elementary school level, the JET plan is designed

to deal with classroom units of pupils and specific grade

levels at a school involved in the plan rather than individ-

ual pupils per se. An exception to this overall approach

is envisioned for majority-to-minority transfers. This con-

cept will be discussed in greater detail in Section ITT-C.

Having once determined that a particular elementary

school would necessarily be involved in the JET plan,

School Groupings were made whereby a predominantly

black elementary school was grouped with one or more

predominantly white elementary schools. Disparity in

numbers of pupils enrolled precludes matching individual

schools on a one-to-one basis. The major criteria for de-

termining schools in a particular School Grouping were:

(1) the geographic location of each school; (2) the capacity

of each school; (3) the racial composition of each school

prior to its involvement in the JET plan; and (4) the trans-

portational feasibility of the exchange of students between

the schools under consideration.

Exhibit 6 is a series of maps indicating the elementary

School Groupings which evolved from an application of the

above criteria. An examination of Exhibit 6 (A) reveals

that Shawnee Elementary School in the northwest section

of the Jefferson County School District, a predominantly

black elementary school prior to its inclusion in the JET

aspect of this desegregation plan, is grouped with Franklin

Elementary School, Dunn Elementary School, Norton Ele-

mentary School and Wilder Elementary School. Exhibit

9 (A). which is designed to be utilized with Exhibit 6 (A),

reveals the grade levels at each of the elementary schools

in question which will be involved in JET, the number of

children who will be involved at each school in a particular

school year, the racial composition of each school prior to

its involvement in JET, and the racial composition of each

of the schools following application of the JET plan.

It will be noted, for example, that at least a portion of

the pupils in grades 2 through 5 inclusive at Shawnee Ele-

mentary School will be involved in JET each year. Fur-

ther, 174 children in the Shawnee Elementary School Sub-

district Attendance Area will be transferred to either Dunn,

Norton, Wilder or Franklin Elementary Schools under the

JET plan. The racial composition of Shawnee Elementary

School prior to the application of JET is 95.01% black.

This racial composition is changed to 49.97% black by the

application of the JET plan. The utilization of Exhibiis 6

through 11 will reveal similar data for all the schools in-

ed in JET.

wer the elementary school level under the JET plan,

pupils would proceed to their Home School each morning

throughout the Jefferson County School District. After

spending an initial period of at least one hour at the Home

School learning Basis Subjects, pupils involved in JET,

accompanied by their teachers, would then board a JET

bus which would transport them to their Away School.

Each bus utilized in the JET plan will be equipped with a

speaker system which will make possible continuation of

instruction during the time the pupils are on the JET bus

traveling to their Away School. Upon the arrival of these

pupils at their Away School, JET pupils are assimilated

into the education milieu at the Away School. The pupils

involved in JET would then spend 31% to 4 hours at their

Away School during which they would continue their train-

ing in Basie Subjects as well as undertaking additional

training in music, art, social studies, science and physical

education. The JET pupils would also eat lunch at their

Away School. At the end of this approximate four hour

block of time, the JET pupils would then return on a JET

bus to their Home School. At the end of the School Day,

these pupils would return to their homes in the normal

fashion.

It should be emphasized that at the elementary school

level entire classes of pupils would be involved in the JET

exchange. Voluntary participation of minority students in

any class involved in the JET program would be permitted.

By utilizing this level of administrative organization as the

basis for JET in the elementary schools, pairing of an

ee ee

Sew ee

entire class from, for example, Shawnee Elementary School

and Dunn Elementary School, is made possible for a com-

plete school year. This organization structure will also

allow Team Teaching in large group learning activities

which insures the presence of a teacher who is fully familiar

with the particular educational needs of one-half of the chil-

dren in the paired class. In schools without facilities for

combining two classes in a large group setting, racially

mixed classes of regular size would be established for each

teacher involved in class pairing. After a short time, each

teacher would be familiar with individual needs and abil-

ities of each child in the group.

JET further contemplates that the exchange of pupils

between a predominantly white and a predominantly black

school equalizes for each pupil the amount of time spent

each year at an Away School. By taking advantage of the

Elective Quarter Plan, pupils involved in JET would spend

six weeks at a time only at their Away School. An example

of this aspect of the plan is presented here for the benefit

of the Court.

From an examination of Exhibit 6A it is determined

that a portion of the total second grade at Shawnee Elemen-

tary School is to be involved in JET. A. administrative

determination is made that Mrs. Smith’s second grade class

would be paired with Mrs. Green’s second grade class at

Norton Elementary School. For the first six weeks of the

fall Quarter, Mrs. Smith’s second grade class would remain

at Shawnee Elementary School (its Home School) through-

out the entire school day. During this time, Mrs. Green’s

second grade class would travel to Shawnee Elementary

School (its Away School) each day after the appropriate

period of time at the Home School as indicated above. Mrs.

Green and Mrs. Smith would work closely together to in-

sure that proper scheduling of the entire School Day for

each class was carried out.

At the end of the first six weeks, Mrs. Green’s second

grade class would then spend the entire day at their Home

School and Mrs. Smith’s second grade class would be trans-

ported to Norton Elementary Schvol for the designated

portion of the day. The two paired classes would then

alternate throughout the remaining two Quarters the ome

spent at the Home and Away schools. Thus, Mr. Smith 8

second grade would spend one-half the school year in ques-

tion at its Away School, Norton Elementary School, and

one-half the year at its Home School, Shawnee Elementary

School. Correspondingly, Mrs. Green’s second grade class

would spend one-half of the year in question at its Home

School, Norton Elementary School, and one-half of the year

at its Away School, Shawnee Elementary School. .

Since racial compositions at schools are not uniform,

the frequency with which pupils are involved in JET will

vary. Clearly, a pupil who lives in a Subdistrict Attend-

ance Area of an elementary, middle or high school exempt

from JET will not be involved in JET over his total school

career with the same frequency as a pupil of the same race

in Subdistrict Attendance Areas where each elementary,

middle and high school is involved in JNT. Also, the num-

ber of children who must be involved in JET in a particular

school will vary with the pupil racie’ composition of each

Subdistrict Attendance Area, even in schools which are in-

eluded in JET, as will the frequency of a pupil’s involve-

ment in JET. For example, Frayser Elementary School’s

racial composition is 5.64% black and 21 children would be

involved in JET each Quarter at Frayser. Semple Elemen-

tary School, however, has a pupil racial composition of .2%

black and 49 pupils would be involved in JET at Semple

each Quarter. Thus, the percent of pupils involved in

JET &t Semple would be higher than the percent of Frayser

pupils participating in JET.

te we -

At the middle school level, School Groupings were also

developed for all middle schools not exempted under the

JET criteria. Exhibits 7 and 10 illustrate the four School

Groupings which evolved for the middle schools in the

Jefferson County School District. Again, a predominantly

black school was placed in a School Grouping with one or

more predominantly white schools using the same criteria

established for the formulation of School Groupings of

elementary schools. An examination of Exhibit 10-A re-

veals that Meyzeek Middle School is grouped with Car-

rithers Middle school, Jeffersontown Junior High School

and Fern Creek Junior High School. Columns 3 through 5

of this Exhibit indicate the number of pupils who will be

involved in JET in a given year at each school and the

racial composition of each school before and after the trans-

fers proposed under JET.

Because the conversion to a uniform grade structure

throughout the Jefferson County School District is not pos-

sible immediately due to the necessity of remodeling the

physical plants of many schools, the school groupings illus-

trated for the middle schools in Exhibits 7 and 10 will

not stabilize until all contemplated reclassifications have

occurred.

The School Day in middle schools involved in JET

would proceed somewhat differently from the timeline out-

lined for elementary schools involved in JET. It is again

proposed that middle school pupils throughout the Jeffer-

son County School District proceed to their Home middle

school regardless of that school’s involvement in JET.

Upon a middle school pupil’s arrival at a middle school,

a pupil involved in JET at that school would have his first

period of instruction for the day in the Home School. He

would then board a JET bus and be transported to his

Away School. For example, al! middle school pupils resid-

ing in the Meyzeek Middle School Subdistrict Attendance

Area would arrive at school each day at the normal time.

A pupil involved in JET would attend his first period class

at Meyzeek, and then board a JET bus with a monitor to

be transferred to either Carrithers Middle School, Jeffer-

sontown Junior High School or Fern Creek Junior High

School. During the time required for transportation to the

Away School, the pupils’ appropriate learning activities

would occur. Upon arrival at the Away School, the pupil

would then have four periods of instruction and lunch.

At the end of the fifth period, the JET pupil would again

board a JET bus with a monitor for transfer to his Home

School. The time spent during the trip would be devoted

to appropriate learning activities and the pupil would com-

plete the remainder of the School Day at Meyzeek. At the

end of the School Day, all pupils would then return home

in the normal manner.

It must be noted that the JET plan at the middle school

level deals with individual pupils rather than classrooms

of pupils. This is required by the curriculum structure of

the middle schools and recognizes the advanced maturity

of pupils at this age level. Further, the frequency of in-

volvement in JET at the middle school level will again

vary somewhat between pupils both of a different race

and of pupils of the same race. The same factors are in-

volved in this discrepancy as were involved at the elemen-

tary school level.

As the JET plan for the middle schools does not involve

the reassignment of entire classes, Paraprofessionals or

study hall monitors will usually accompany the pupils on

their JET buses. Some teachers may also accompany the

pupils on the JET buses, but this will vary from school to

school.

The JET plan for high school is also geared to the

unigue flexibility of the Elective Quarter Plan. Appro-

priate class scheduling for all high school pupils, whether

——

—-

-_—e

involved in JET or not, will be accomplished by Computer

Scheduling. Three School Groupings were developed for

the non-exempted high schools in the Jefferson County

School District. These School Groupings were developed

utilizing the same criteria as those used for formulation of

the elementary and middle School Groupings. Exhibits 8

and 11 illustrate the School Groupings for high schools.

An examination of Exhibit 11 reveals that Manual High

School, a predominantly black high school prior to its in-

clusion in the JET plan, is grouped with Doss, Iroquois,

Moore, Southern, Durrett, Fairdale and Atherton High

Schools.

The number of pupils involved at a particular high

school involved in JET during the first year of implemen-

tation is based on the adoption by this Court of an exemp-

tion for seniors during that year. After the first year of

implementation, the number of pupils involved in JET at

each high school will increase by about one-third to reflect

the inclusion of seniors. The racial composition at each

high school involved in JET will not, however, vary sub-

stantially from the racial composition indicated for the

school in Exhibit 11 after its involvement in JET.

A high school pupil’s involvement in JET will be based

primarily on the Elective Quarter Plan. A black pupil who

resides in the Subdistrict Attendance Area of a predomi-

nantly black high school involved in JET will be requested

to voluntarily select six or fewer Quarters of the twelve

Quarters required for graduation to spend at his Away

School. A white pupil residing in the Subdistrict Attend-

ance Area of a predominantly white school involved in

JET will be asked to select three or fewer Quarters of the

twelve Quarters required for graduation to spend at his

Away School. If a sufficient number of pupils do not vol-

unteer to fill the JET requirements of a particular Home

high school, a method of random selection will be utilized

to determine which pupils will be required to spend a given

Quarter of twelve weeks at the Away School. Credit will

be given for each Quarter a pupil spends at an Away School

so that participation in the JET program is equitably dis-

tributed according to the requirements for that school.

The School Day of a pupil involved in JET at the high

school level will progress in the same manner as that of a

pupil involved in JET at the middle school level. The high

school pupil would arrive at his Home high school in the

normal manner. The pupil would then have the first period

class at the Home high school. At the conclusion of this

period, all pupils involved in the JET plan would board

a JET bus for transfer to their Away School. A monitor

would accompany the group on each JET. The homeroom

period would take place during the time required for this

transfer. Upon arrival at the Away School the pupil would

then have four periods of instruction and lunch prior to

again boarding a JET bus for transfer back to the Home

School. The time spent on the JET bus during the latter

trip would be devoted to study hall and this period would

be completed at the Home School upon the pupil’s arrival

there. At the end of the School Day the pupils would

return home as usual.

©. Majority-to-Minority Transfer

At the high school level a pupil can volunteer for par-

ticipation in the JET program for more than the required

number of Quarters if the pupil so desires. Such voluntary

majority-to-minority transfer is contemplated by 20 USC.

$1713 (c). Beeause of the strain on the transportational

facilities of the Jefferson County School District oceasioned

by the implementation of the JET plan or any other de-

segregation plan involving the busing of large numbers of

pupils, the Jefferson County Board envisions the possibility

of having to restrict majority-to-minority transfers to

schools within a given school grouping. Majority-to-

minority transfers would be possible at all three levels of

the Grade Structure if there is sufficient space at the re-

ceiving school, but it might prove to be im i

»b possible to pro-

vide transportation to such pupils. :

D. Reclassifications

Exhibit 15 indicates the name and geographic location

of several schools in the Jefferson County School District

which are proposed for Reclassification in order to facilitate

making any desegregation plan adopted by this Court both

more efficient and administratively feasible. It is proposed

that DuValle Middle School be Reclassified as a high school

This would make possible changes in numerous Subdistrict

Attendance Areas which would result in changes in the

racial composition of the Subdistrict Attendance Areas

thereby hopefully reducing the number of pupils involved

in JET in each of the affected schools. However, even if

dramatic results were not achieved in this regard ‘the pro-

ay se would make the administration of

ny desegregation plan o i i

= pp yc = rdered by this Court more feasible,

) It is also proposed that Foster Elementa

Ridge Elementary School, Chenoweth ao. me

and St. Matthews Elementary School be Reclassified as

middle schools. The Board of Education of Jefferson

County, Kentucky, is presently studying additional elemen-

tary schools for proposed Reclassification to middle schools

and will advise the Court as soon as such determination has

been made, These Reclassifications are primarily required

by declining enrollment and the adoption of a uniform

Grade Structure throughout the Jefferson County School

District. These Reclassifications may, however, in some

instances, have direct desegregative effects when affected

Subdistrict Attendance Areas are redrawn pursuant to the

guidelines of the Equal Educational Opportunity Act of

1974. The primary desegregative aspect of these Reclassi-

fications as envisioned by the Board of Education of Jeffer-

son County, Kentucky, would be, however, the facilitation

of the orderly administration of any desegregation plan

adopted by this Court and the reduction in many instances

of travel distance required by any desegregation plan. The

Board of Education of Jefferson County, Kentucky, must

advise the Court, however, that all the aforementioned

Reclassifications cannot be done immediately as changes

must be made in the physical plant of the schools involved.

As soon as a desegregation plan is ordered by this Court,

however, the Board of Education of Jefferson County, Ken-

tucky, will take immediate steps to effect Reclassifications

upon their ap, voval by the Court.

E. Anticipated Involvement and Adjustment

The JET plan, during the first year of its implementa-

tion, contemplates the involvement of 5,093 pupils at the

elementary school level, 3,733 pupils at the middle school

level, and 3,773 pupils at the high school level for a total

of 12,599 pupils. It is anticipated that this figure would

increase to approximately 14,000 pupils during the second

year of implementation upon the inclusion of high school

seniors in the plan. The figure would require an additional

upward adjustment upon the involvement of first graders

in the plan.

As shifts occur in the racial composition of the various

Subdistrict Attendance Areas contemplated by the plan, the

Court might wish to direct the revision of the number of

pupils at each school involved in the JET plan, or perhaps

even a realignment of School Groupings. It is anticipated

that additional schools would qualify for exemption from

the JET plan at such point in time as the racial composi-

tion of the school reached a minimum of 10% black or a

maximum of 90% white. Adjustments in surrounding

schools necessitated by the exemption of a school in this

manner would be then made along the same guidelines

utilized in the initial formulation of the JET plan.

IMPLEMENTATION

Any desegregation plan necessarily deals primarily with

logistics and methods of obtaining the goal of equal educa-

tional opportunities. Since the methods to obtain the elimi-

nation of all vestiges of a dual system require the use of all

the tools prescribed by the Congress and the Courts includ-

ing clustering, pairing, pupil assignment, faculty assign-

_— ewe adjustment, ete., this plan has dealt pri-

marily wi ese factors as well as t ecessary

portation of pupils. fm “sage

Once this proposed desegregation plan or some alterna-

tive has been ordered by the Court, the complex require-

ment of implementing the Court’s plan must be begun and

meticulously carried out.

An implementation team given the full authority of the

school board, properly financed and vigorously supported

by elected officials and staff and personnel of both school

systems, is plainly required. It must be borne in mind that

at the very time the desegregation plan is being imple-

mented, the school system is engaged in the most difficult

problem of merging two formerly separate schoo! systems

and that the implementation of the desegregation pian must

be coordinated carefully with the implementation of the

merger itself.

On July 19, 1974, in a Bench Opinion rendered by this

Court in earlier proceedings, the Court expressed and de-

lineated certain requirements for implementation which are

now incorporated herein as follows: (1) the implementa-

tion tean: will devise a procedure for the hearing and re-

view of unforeseen family hardship cases to be conducted

by a bi-racial group within the school administration. This

group’s decisions relative vo such matters shall, on request,

be reviewed de novo by this Court and the Usited States

Magistrate. It is proposed that this Court’s final judgment

incorporating a desegregation plan incorporate those pro-

visions of the Court’s findings of July 19, 1974, relative to

the United States Magistrate as Special Master pursuant

to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. 636 (b) with the author-

ity and power provided therein.

CONCLUSION

The Jefferson County Board of Education is prepared

at evidentiary hearings which the Court has indicated it

will conduct to furnish full detailed information, including

specific assignment of children within the Subdistrict At-

tendance Areas. Information and data relative to the as-

signment of particular children to particular schools will

be compiled by the staff pending final determination of this

Court as to the pupil assignment method..

John A. Fulton

Will H. Fulton

Woodward, Hobson & Fulton

1805 Kentucky Home Life Building

Louisville, Kentucky 40202

E. Preston Young

722 Kentucky Home Life Building

Louisville, Kentucky 40202

Counsel for the Board of Educa-

tion of Jefferson County

It is hereby certified that a copy of the foregoing Pro-

posed Desegregation Plan Submitted Pursuant to Order of

January 29, 1975, was served on all counsel of record on

this the day of April, 1975.

John A. Fulton

SP DNMAMS w

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

EXHIBITS

Excerpts from 20 USC 1701 et seq.

The Jefferson County School System as Presently Con-

stituted

Elementary Schools After Redistricting

Middle and Junior High Schools After Redistricting

High Schools After Redistricting

(a-f) Elementary School Groupings Under JET

(a-b) Middle School Groupings under JET

(a-b) High School Groupings Under JET

(a-f) Elementary School Grouping Charts

(a-b) Middle School Grouping Charts

(a-b) High School Grouping Charts

JET Exempt Elementary Schools

JET Exempt Middle Schools

JET Exempt High Schools

(a-b) Proposed Reclassifications

Proposed Elementary School Closings

SHDVINAOUAd AG—STIOOHOS AUVLINANGISA

z . g @ 3 $ 38

5 . 3 : 3 3 S KS ks =

< = = = : = = 2 = = Ss 3

5 = a) be bo =

dabsdsdadalsd si .d 8

E ac s rE 8 be ~E ow

a ory ‘os . 4 N : ) ° >

: 22 8G Ra FB Se Se SS 32 32 FEZ

= K

a 5 #2 8 :

-_ ° aa 3 s ' . 2

+ § cs = = & ‘ ne 3 6 =

5 5 fe § > S §, 4 °° @

a £ ° pe

pa 3 %S 2 @ 6 = ; = >

x > x 4 tg SE es f &

2 86 See 28 s8 se 22 sek 323 3 3:

a ~

x " . =

c ¢ : a3 3 3 : |

° ° Mh

iy 3 g $ | L . ; AA : ms

eo og & ic E a a ;

: j ma

. ¥ _ % © . |

Sf 33 $66 33 32 32 32 32 oF: SH SE3

A119 g pueyyog riauyeqos yoos1yg 3001}8200IS

£0 8°88 SPT Ser etl ae

- - louvyy psoyyseg uoWON Sw een for

oun, 1-98 9 PI 9éT rit 1A

J9qO11g sqeus uanog UM0J2[PPTIL euRy] sI0UTIY ome] WOISP A

FoOrmMyNoG ; uoysuUqor B1OpeTT Tjeuuniay,

paepysed 08 ove Ser OTT eue] e1OUl[Tf)

uBid eed) def

— a3ptiue M[9ZB vy end

ujoour'y pliueqooig poomeze Hy W.194S}18 fT amor] worl

sury r'6e PR und wed

10180] wosuly} rer sor epepuamnqny

acti pavyqe[sug 8st oun ror

00g PPC soyhey, Azwyouz — Zor WSs |! AA

$ pooaue ad 20199.

#un0 x ea werpuy en aqn’y JOTT®

soUMEys e8e “et ay2P}ORYS aostt YB INOS

StlepuBig JoshVl oJ moo|q SlepuRyg

oor —— qos ~ SCL gol psojsoyiny

souor ed EE outer]

; MO819}}2B euskug yoqyne’y]

8'6F 104q3nVIg BUOTOYO OII SI0ATIS yoo y

e ye A : ajduieg UMO}UOSUYO(*

uny euRD 0°08 ger SMOTNEW “IS qynuieyny)

L8P JOPTEUM BIUOIS0 poo ued f)

eld TR 0'T aoySUTTI? A Apeuuey Vv aytpuoly euv'| SuITia )

oP ost est it UMo}UOSIE Be (* asia je

puvlesuvy uBIyo0g auBIyoo?y qyemMouey() yyUISp[OL oye

Por OFT rel PIL o[epsrey oor

HIGH SCHOOLS—BY PERCENTAGES

10.0 10.5 26.2

Moore Doss Ahrens

Stuart

Pleasure Ridge Park 10.8 30.4

Jeffersontown Fairdale Thomas Jefferson

Ballard

Westport 11.0 414

Valley

10.1 Butler

Seneca 11.1 43

Fern Creek Atherton et

Waggener °

Eastern 11.4 50.0

Iroquois Southern ; -_

10.4 11.5 wen

Western Durrett .

JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM

SUMMARY

Total Total Total %

School Classification White Black Membership Black

Elementary ... ....-+seeceereeceeee 48,168 15,259 63,427 24.06

Middle and Junior High............ 12,432 6,480 18,912 34.26

Secondary ... ...-seeceeeecceceecees 45,252 7,220 52,472 13.76

Special Schools-Elementary ... ..-.- 315 15 330 4.55

Special Schools-Secondary........-- 148 68 216 31.48

ToPAL SCHOOLS... ..0--cccccccecees 106,315 29,042 135,357 21.46

EXHIBIT #3

JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM

ELEMENTARY SUMMARY

TOTAL

JET

GRADES 2-5

5,093

EXHIBIT #4

JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM

MIDDLE SCHOOL SUMMARY

TOTAL TO JET, GRADES 6, 7, & 8

3,733

EXHIBIT #5

JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM

HIGH SCHOOL SUMMARY

TOTAL TO JET, GRADES 9-11

3,773

SUPPLEMENT TO PROPOSED DESEGREGATION

PLAN (JET) FILED JULY 30, 1975

(SOME EXHIBITS OMITTED)

May it please the Court:

This supplement to the Proposed Plan of Desegregation

filed by the Board of Edueation of Jefferson County, Ken-

tucky, as constituted prior to April 1, 1975, is submitted

pursuant to this Court’s Order of January 29, 1975, as mod-

ified Mareh 31, 1975. The Preamble of the plan submitted

on April 30, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the “JET

Plan”) is fully reiterated as if copied verbatim herein. In

no wise is the document filed here today to be considered

a voluntary action of the Jefferson County Board of Edu-

eation as constituted prior to April 1, 1975, or the educa-

tional policy of such board.

This supplement to the JET Plan consists of nine ex-

hibits which illustrate the specifie pupil assignment meth-

odology of the Plan as applied throughout the system, the

proposed solution to the Newburg Area problem, a proposed

solution to the Cane Run Area problem, the changes re-

quired in the transportation and curriculum schedules in

order to implement the plan without the purchase of ad-

ditional buses, a list of JET exempt schools, specific infor-

mation concerning the schools in each JET Cluster and a

cost summary for implementation of the JET Plan. While

the exhibits are largely self-explanatory, for the conven-

‘ence of the Court, they will be described briefly herein.

Exhibit 1A explains in detail the development of .the

JET Plan specific pupil assignment methodology. The

methodology is based on the concept that whenever possible

the burden of pupil reassignment should be equalized as

among blacks and whites. By building on the strong points

of the quarter system and utilizing a six-week alternating

exchange program between paired black and white classes,

it will be noted that the burden of reassignment on black

children is significantly reduced, while at the same time,

insuring that the involvement of all white pupils in the

Jefferson County school system in a plan of meaningful

desegregation.

Exhibit 1B sets out the JET Plan specific pupil assign-

ment on a Cluster-by-Cluster basis. Utilizing this exhibit,

parents in the community can, on determining their proper

home school, tell what year or years their children will be

required to be reassigned to an away school. Also con-

tained in Exhibit 1B is a matrix which was followed to

_—..

determine which quarters particular classes would be in-

volved in the exchange program.

Exhibit 2, maps of the proposed sub-districts for all

schools in the Jefferson County school system under the

JET Plan, will not be filed with the Court at this time. but

is available at the Richard VanHoose Educational Center

for inspection by any of the parties and will be produced

for the Court upon its order.

Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4 outline in detail specific pro-

posals under the JET Plan for the Newburg and Cane Run

areas of the former Jefferson County school district as con-

stituted prior to April 1, 1975. These proposals are outlined

in detail due to their unique nature.

Exhibit 5 explains the typical school day under the

JET Plan. It should be noted that this exhibit proposes

a time schedule which is substantially different from that

offered in the main body of the JET Plan filed on April

30, 1975. Children who will be transported to an away

school will no longer receive any instruction at their home

school but will simply board a JET bus at their home school

with their teacher or a monitor and then proceed to the

away school for the remainder of the school day.

Exhibit 6 explains the transportation schedule required

to implement the JET Plan. It should be noted that ele-

mentary school runs will be made after the peak rush hour

time and therefore the time pupils will be on these runs

will be significantly shortened. It should also be noted

that the transportation schedule outlined in Exhibit 6 al-

lows the implementation of the JET Plan without the pur-

chase of any additional buses by the school system.

Exhibit 7 lists all schools which are proposed to be ex-

empted from the JET remedy. Elementary schools are

listed together alphabetically in Exhibit 7A with the racial

composition of the school and its pupil membership. Ex-

hibits 7B and 7C give similar information for middle and

junior high schools and high schools respectively.

Exhibit 8 gives transportation and cost information on

a Cluster-by-Cluster basis. Exhibit 9 is a cost summary of

the JET Plan.

Respectfully submitted,

(s) Will H. Fulton

John A. Fulton

Will H. Fulton

Woodward, Hobson & Fulton

1805 Kentucky Home Life Building

Louisville, Kentucky 40202

(s) E. Preston Young

E. Preston Young

722 Kentucky Home Life Building

Louisville, Kentucky 40202

Counsel for Jefferson County

Board of Education

It is certified that a copy of the foregoing Supplement to

Proposed Desegregation Plan filed April 50, 1975, was de-

livered to all counsel of record on July 30, 1975, in Chambers

of Hon. James F. Gordon, Chief Judge, United States Dis-

trict Court for the Western Disirict of Kentucky.

(s) John A. Fulton

CLASS PAIRING CONCEPT

JET Addendum Exhibit 1-a

The class pairing concept as a tool for desegregation

was developed as a part of the total desegregation plan im-

plemented in the Denver Public Schools at the beginning

of the 1974-75 school year. Thirty-seven Denver elemen-

tary schools exchange classes to provide a desegregated

setting for grades 4-5-6 in the morning and grades 1-2-3 in

the afternoon. This exchange is described as a “part-time

pairing program.”

Jefferson County Public Schools operate on a quarter

plan schedule for all grades. This division of the school

year lends itself to class pairing and individual pupil ex-

change in an orderly and equitable manner. Both ele-

mentary and secondary students can be exchanged without

placing an unfair burden on any class or individual pupil.

In addition, a transportation schedule can be arranged to

establish a desegregated instructional day covering a mini-

mum of 51% hours of the state-required six-hour day, with

each class or individual pupil beginning and ending the

day at the home school.

The fundamental concept of elementary class pairing

can best be illustrated with an example of two classes at a

predominantly black school and two classes at a predomi-

nantly white school. All four classes are of the same

grade level.

During the first six weeks of the 12-week quarter one

black class and one white class remain at their respective

home schools. The other black class and the other white

class travel to their respective away schools. The teacher

of each traveling class accompanies that class. Space left

behind by the traveling class at each school is utilized when

the visiting class arrives to provide a team-teaching situa-

tion for the entire group made up of one white and one

black class, or two-self-contained classrooms with the chil-

dren distributed equally between the two teachers. Classes

reverse directions the second six weeks of the quarter.

Traveling classes the first six weeks become the home class

the second six weeks, while “home” classes and their teach-

ers become the traveling classes. No change takes place

in the association of the two paired classes. The setting

simply changes to the other school.

SIXTH GRADE ADJUSTMENT

All schools in Jefferson County cannot be converted im-

mediately to the 5-3-4 elementary, middle and high school

pattern. Until enough middle schools can be established,

some elementary schools will house grades 1-6.

In order to exchange students at the sixth grade level

it will be necessary to maintain a certain number of sixth

grade classes at DuValle, Parkland and Shawnee Middle

Schools on an elementary schedule and curriculum so these

pupils can be paired with predominantly white 6th grade

elementary classes. This adjustment will require move-

ment of 700 students daily. DuValle Middle School will

have ten elementary 6th grade classes; Parkland eight and

Shawnee, ten.

MIDDLE SCHOOL AND HIGH SCHOOL

PUPIL EXCHANGE

Pupils will not be paired by classes at the middle and

high school level. Instead, each participating school will

be assigned the number of places needed to achieve a de-

segregated school. Each pupil will know how many

quarters the pupiis at that school will be required to par-

ticipate, and have an opportunity to volunteer for a place

in any unfilled quarter. If all places are not filled by volun-

teers, birthdate selection according to the national draft

lottery will be used to designate those who participate.

Students will be draft-proof when they fulfill their exchange

obligation by volunteering the needed quarter or quarters.

Places will be allocated by grade classification to make

exchange administratively feasible. Pupils spend the entire

quarter at their “away” school, and may choose to partici-

pate more than the required number of quarters if they

wish. White students will have no choice of middle or high

school exchange assignment. Black students may choose a

school in their home school cluster as long as there is space

available.

Any student wishing to utilize the majority-to-minority

transfer may participate all quarters at the middle or high

school and remain for extra-curricular activities. Trans-

portion for such students will be provided as required.

JET ADDENDUM EXHIBIT 1-a

—_—-— -

JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

JET EXEMPT

Schools ‘Gutntt ‘Gnint?! stud

BS be wins déwticks 545 13.8

Bashford Manor ........ 418 36.1

Breckenridge... ........ 443 29.1

Cane Run .............. 462 48.7

Crums Lane ............ 350 10.0

Englehard.............. 311 24.1

Hazelwood ............. 653 13.8

Indian Trail ............ 387 22.2

SE os an ekededeces 320 12.5

Luhr SEL a a ere 604 10.3

Mill Creek ............. 325 20.0

a cs os aka saves 384 38.8

tie da ote aie 514 47.5

Rangeland... .......... 396 40.4

Roosevelt... ........... 314 21.3

PTERS S66cc denne eons 344 30.8

Slaughter.............. 370 20.0

Watterson.............. 405 11.6

JET ADDENDUM EXHIBIT 7-b

JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM

MIDDLE SCHOOLS

JET EXEMPT

Membership Membership

Schools Grades 7-8 Grades6,7,8 % Black

Barret Middle .......+---- 651 14.7

Bruce Middle ........---+-- 881 22.3

Butler, Jr. ...--eeeee eee 436 27.7

Myers Middle .....-..---: 815 12.7

Newburg Middle ........-- 961 37.3

Noe Middle ....cccccccces 995 41.7

Western Middle ........-- 1,221 32.8

Woerner Middle .........-- 811 36.6

JET ADDENDUM EXHIBIT 7-c

JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM

HIGH SCHOOLS

JET EXEMPT

Membershi

Schools Capacity Grades 9-11 % Black

ADGOMS . oo cc cevcescsseses 1,470 1,051 26.2

tee oo c cnnqenncovesases 2,450 1,220 41.4

Jefferson, Thomas ........ 2,200 1,268 30.4

Perrrerrrrr 1,488 1,202 43.5

ADCPTED DESEGREGATION PLAN, FINDINGS OF

FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT

OF KENTUCKY, JULY 30, 1975

(SOME EXHIBITS OMITTED)

JUDGMENT —Enter2d July 30, 1975

Pursuant to findings of fact and conclusions of law

made this day and attached hereto as a part of this judg-

ment and decree of court,

Ir Is Consmperev, OrpeRED AND ADJUDGED:

> 1. The various desegregation plans presented to the

Court by the respective parties for the desegregation

of the school districts in Jefferson County, Kentucky

as heretofore ordered are rejected.

The plan contained in the Findings of Fact and Con-

clusions of Law prepared by the Court with the ad-

vice, aid and assistance of the staff of the Jefferson

County Public Schools and the demographic expert

of the plaintiffs and :

pes 4 and others is hereby ordered imple-

Included in the plan hereby ordered are the followin

integral parts: student assignments; schools to “e

closed; procedures relating to hardship; method of

transportation ; assignment of school employees, in-

cluding teachers, administrators and other corti.

ficated personnel; human relations programs; trans-

portation schedules; procedures for enforcement aad

implementation; and monitoring and reporting pro-

cedures for this plan. Further, this plan details what

actions and activities are considered by the Court to

be vital to the successful implementation of the plan

and what acts in violation thereof will be treated b

the Court as obstacles by the Court to the Ancora

implementation of the plan for which appropriate

action by the Court will be taken.

The taxable court costs of these proceedings

throughout are hereby taxed against the Jefferson

County Board of Education and the attorneys for the

plaintiffs may make appropriate separate application

for attorneys’ fees in accordance with existing law

which will be considered by the Court and allowed b

subsequent order. ’

This 30 day of July, 1975.

(s) James F. Gordon

United States District Judge

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

These Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are

made this day as a part of the Judgment entered this day.

The Court has from time to time, in its various opinions and

orders, rehearsed the facts and the chronology of this litiga-

tion, all of which may be referred to in the various orders

of this Court from the beginning of the case to date, anc it

is not necessary that they be repeated here.

The Court previously ordered the former Jefferson

County Board and the former Louisville Board to file pro-

posals for a desegregation plan and gave the plaintiffs and

all other parties appropriate opportunity to file such ob-

servations and criticisms as they desire. The Court has

concluded that no plan of desegregation submitted to it

entirely meets the requirements which the Court believes

that the Congress and the Courts have imposed upon this

Court in carrying out the mandate of the Sixth Circuit

Court of Appeals and all vestiges of state-imposed segrega-

tion be eliminated from the dual school systems which the

Supreme Court of the United States found to exist and

which the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, as late as the

seventeenth day of July ordered this Court to eradicate by

the implementation immediately of a desegregation plan.

In developing the following desegration plan, the Court

has utilized to the fullest the staff of the J efferson County

School System, as well as an expert provided by the yume

tiffs, and others, and wishes to express publicly the Court s

sincere regard to these individuals for their expertise and

competence. The Court feels that this community should

be aware of the fact that it was not necessary, as many

Courts have been required to do, to go outside the compe-

tent available professional school personnel already at work

in this community to enlist the aid of “outside experts”

who, despite their competence, may not after all have the

*~ 4

intimate knowledge of the school system that the profes-

sional staff of these school systems already has.

The Court recognizes and commends the public officials

who compose the school board who were formerly members

of the Jefferson County and Louisville Boards of Educa-

tion. The Court recognizes full well that individual mem-

bers of the merged Board do not concur or agree with the

philosophy or the methods that are involved in the Court's

desegregation plan, or even the necessity for such a plan at

all. But those members of the Board, despite their differ-

ent views, have recognized that as responsible and mature

public officials, they have an obligation under the rule of

law to carry out the orders and directions lawfully imposed

upon them by the courts of this land and the Congress. This

Court is grateful to those Board members who have under-

taken to abide by and obey the law. The Court is confident

that they will do so throughout the remainder of their

public service.

In a judgment rendered in this action on J uly 25, 1974,

certain guidelines were recognized by the Court as being

basically sound. Since that time, additional action by the

Congress of the United States in the Equal Educational

Opportunity Act of 1974 reflected the policy of Congress in

the legislation which this Court has scrupulously attempted

to follow to the extent that the Court believes that the Act

complies with the Constitution as interpreted by the current

decisions of the federal courts, including the Supreme Court

of the United States. Accordingly, the Court, in formulat-

ing a remedy to correct the denial of equal educational

opportunity or a denial of the equal protection of the laws

which the Supreme Court found to exist in this case, has

considered and hereby makes specific findings that Section

214 dealing with the priority of remedies has been consid-

ered and followed by this Court to the best of its ability and

the priorities therein delineated have been meticulously

followed as well as the other provisions of the amendments

adopted by the Congress in 1974.

The Court has considered four factors essential to any

plan which would carry out the mandate of the Sixth Cir-

cuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United

States in this case. They are:

1. Stability—A plan to be appropriate and worthwhile

must be stable over an extended number of years.

A plan which requires constant revision from year

to year would damage public confidence as well as

the quality of education. In an attempt to insure

stability over an extended period, a student selection

methodology involving the use of minimum and max-

imum ratios at particuar schools has been devised.

Equity—A plan to be successful must treat students

within racial categories with equity. No person or

student should be required to bear an unreasonable

or disproportionate burden in the desegregation of

the schools. Because the black students in the school

system as a whole constitute only 20% of the total

student body, it is inevitable that they will be re-

quired to be transported more often than white

students.

3. Predictability—In addition to stability and equity,

the ability of all persons in the community to know,

and predict the impact of the plan on individual stu-

dents during their twelve-year school experience is

imperative. The student selection methodology

utilized in this plan permits students, as well as

parents, teachers, and other in the community, to de-

termine within reason what years students may ex-

pect to be transported in the desegregation plan dur-

ing all the years they are in school.

4. Simplicity—Within the limits permitted by stability,

equity and predictability, the plan has been the sub-

ject of the most careful investigation in order that

those responsible for the transportation system, the

community at large, and especially the parents and

the students may quickly understand how the plan

functions and what it will require of each individual.

The following specific guidelines are enumerated to ac-

complish the general requirements set forth above. In

order to accomplish the racial ratio in individual schools

by a methodology of student selection that would promote

stability, equity, predictability and simplicity, the plan in-

corporates the following:

1. All elementary schools in the Jefferson County

School System will have a black population of no

less than 12% and no more than 40%.

2. All secondary schools within the Jefferson County

system will have a black student population of no

less than 1242% and no more than 35%. Only the

Newburg Middle School deviates from this guideline

and it is specifically found to be acceptable to the

Court for the reasons discussed hereinafter.

3. The method of selecting students to be transported

for the purpose of this desegregation plan insures

that every student, within racial categories, partic-

ipates as equally as possible. The only exception to

this rule occurs when a student attends a school that

this Court has determined is already at this time

sufficiently desegregated within the guidelines set

out above so that transportation is not required. As

set out hereinafter, if any individual school ratio or

population changes in a material fashion, appropri-

ate steps will be taken to include that individual

school and its students in the general transportation

plan. The student selection method chosen reduces

to the minimum the number of students required to

be transported to implement this plan and the min-

imum cost factor commensurate therewith.

STUDENT ATTENDANCE AREAS, SCHOOL

CLOSINGS, AND CLUSTERING

The Court utilized base student membership data and

other information supplied by the Jefferson County School

System regarding racial composition, program capacity,

and other factors relating to all the schools within Jefferson

County. The figures used are based on student membership

and demographic data in the community developed early

in 1975 by the staff of the. school system. It is important

that the community understand that the demographic data

and student attendance figures reflect the best available in-

formation to the Court and that any demographic changes

in the county since the time the figures were obtained may

cause some inaccuracy which will require minor revision

of this plan. The school administration will make the ap-

propriate revision as a part of the implementation of this

plan. |

As previously stated, the Court has meticulously fol-

lowed the priorities and remedies set forth in the Equal

Educational Opportunity Act of 1974. New boundary lines,

within practical limits, have drawn for school attendance

areas to insure the maximum desegregation of the schools

without the use of any other remedy, including transpor-

tation. In creating the new attendance areas, the Court

observed that a number of schools in the Jefferson County

School System, because of declining enrollment, are pres-

ently under-utilized. In short, there are not enough stu-

dents in the school buildings to justify their continued use

as a school building in light of all the circumstances. The

pr ee

closing of these schools will affect a substantial dollar sav-

ings without impairing the capability of the school author-

ities to comfortably house the student body; therefore, as

an integral part of this desegregation plan, necessary to its

successful implementation, the schools listed below will be

closed. The facilities may be used for other purposes at

the discretion of the school board with approval of court.

In no case has any predominantly black school been closed

to reduce the burden of desegregation upon the white com-

munity. The list of schools closed is as follows:

Audubon Elementary

Beechmont Elementary

Carmichael Elementary

Clark Elementary

Dolfinger Elementary

Emerson Elementary

Heywood Elementary

Longfellow Elementary

Southwick Elementary

Tingley Elementary

Washington Elementary

Russell Junior High

Certain elementary schools, upon examination, were dis-

covered to have a school attendance area which fixed the

black-white ratio within the school from 12 to 40% hlack

without the necessity of using any remedial tool other than

specific assignment of the students to the school. In other

words, the Court considered the schools to be desegregated

Likewise, certain secondary schools in the newly designed

school attendance areas will have a black student percentage

from 1214% to 35% and are considered desegregated for

the purposes of this plan. The list of the schools and the

percentage of black student population resulting from re-

o .

districting and the creation of the student attendance areas

are:

Atkinsen Elementary .........-++-: 27% black

Bashford Manor Elementary ....... 33% black

Breckinridge Elementary ........-. 32% black

Engelhard Elementiry .......--+--- 29% black

Hazelwood Elementary ..........-- 12% black

Indian Trail Elementary ..........- 22% black

Johnston Elementary ..........++:+- 15% black

Mill Creek Elementary ..........-- 20% black

Portland Elementary ........-..++-+ 34% black

Roosevelt Elementary ...........++- 22% black

Shelby Elementary ...........++++: 28% black

Slaughter Elementary ..........+-- 20% black

Watterson Elementary ............. 12% black

Bruce Middle School .............. 12% black

Myer Middle School ............+-- 13% black

Newburg Middle School ............ 37% black

Butler Junior High ...........+++- 14% black

Noe Junior High ..........-.0+e0- 24% black

Southern Junior High (City) ....... 16% black

Western Junior High (City) ....... 27% black

Western Junior High (County) ..... 13% black

Woerner Junior High .............. 28% black

Ahrens High ..........ecceeeceees 24% black

Butler Bligh ....cccccccccccccccece 22% black

Iroquois High .............++ee0e- 23% black

Manual High ............+eeeeeees 29% black

Thomas Jefferson High ...........- 27% black

Western High ..........eeeeeeeees 26% black

The Newburg Middle School, created by the school

board, exceeds the Court’s guidelines for desegregated

ete a ee

F< cerry ST TN eR a a

——-~

schools by two percent; however, in considering all the

factors carefully, the Court will not include Newburg Mid-

dle School in any transportation plan at this time. The

Board of Education, in the opinion of the Court, has by

recent action used appropriate remedies available to it to

desegregate the Newburg area. The Court commends the

Jefferson County Board of Education for this action and

feels that any further action on the Court’s part would be

an unreasonable and counterproductive interference in the

efforts of the school board to arrange its own affairs in ac-

cordance with law.

After creating new school attendance areas by the use

of redistricting (Appendix 1A) and fixing minimum re-

quirements for student racial ratios within limits which

this Court considers to be constitutionally permissible,

the Court reluctantly determined that these remedies by

themselves or in combination with all the additional rem-

edies provided by the Equal Educational Opportunities

Act would not meet the constitutional requirements as in-

terpreted by the courts to dismantle the existing dual school

system and eliminate all vestiges of state-imposed segre-

gation found by the Supreme Court of the United States

to exist in this community.

The additional tool or remedy approved by the courts,

including the Supreme Court, of clustering and pairing

schools was adopted. The Court has therefore, as a part

of the plan, clustered and paired black schools with white

schools and requires the Jefferson County Board of Educa-

ton to transport students between these schools in order

to achieve the appropriate desegregation of the school

system. The elementary school clusters and pairings, as

well as the secondary school clusters and pairings, form a

part of this desegregation plan and are designated Ap-

pendix 1B.

Appendix 1B demonstrates the degree of desegregation

achieved at schools within certain clusters and schools

which have been paired following the application of the stu-

dent assignment methodology described hereinafter.

There is disparity in grade structure among elementary,

middle, junior and senior high schools in the Jefferson

County School System. During the first year of implemen-

tation of this plan a 6-2-4, 6-3-3, or 5-3-4 grade structure will

be utilized. The school system will move as quickly as it

is instructionally and financially feasible to a system-wide

5-3-4 grade structure. This transition will not affect the

desegregation plan, since all grades are proposed to be

desegregated.

The Court observes at this point that the Cane Run and

Schaffner Elementary Schools share a common elementary

attendance zone under this plan as will the Price and Hart-

stern Elementary Schools. The Rangeland and Luhr Ele-

mentary Schools will also constitute a common attendance

area, although these two attendance areas are not contig-

uous. These schools will become graded centers housing

three grade levels as indicated in Appendix 1B. The 7th

and 8th grades at Seneca have been eliminated.

STUDENT ASSIGNMENT METHODOLOGY

The Student Assignment Methodology incorporated in

this desegregation plan is as follows:

1. First grade students will remain at their district

school in the student attendance area in which they

live for the entire Fall Quarter in every school year.

During some portion of the Winter and Spring

Quarters in elementary schools which are required

to have children transported for the purpose of this

desegregation plan, first grade students will partici-

” pate in a class exchange program. These pupils will

be transported as a class unit rather than as individ-

uals and their teacher will accompany them. The

first graders Leiug transported during these quarters

will be involved in a program with strong emphasis

on human relations.

- Students who qualify as seniors (12th grade) for the

Fall Quarter of 1975 will not be required to be trans-

ported from the district school in their school attend-

ance area for the purposes of desegregation during

the first year of implementation of this plan of de-

segregation. Senior students, like all other students,

will be required to attend the high school within the

school attendance area where they reside.

. The following categories of children will not be trans-

ported under the provisions of this plan relating to

desegregation because of their unique educational

requirements—they will be exempted from the trans-

portation requirements of this plan:

Orthopedically Handicapped

Trainable Mentally Handicapped

Deaf

Hard of Hearing

Learning Disabilities (self-contained unit only)

Emotionally Disturbed

Visually Handicapped

PAA Aw >

. The following educational facilities or programs will

not be included in that portion of the desegregation

plan involving student transportation because of the

unique nature of the facility or program:

A. Kindergarten

B. Head Start

C. Teen-Age Parents Program

Alternative Schools

Brown School

Ormsby Village

Mill Creek Rehabilitation School

Melbourne Heights Trainable

Lynwood Girls Schools

Jewell Manor School

Jeffersontown Annex (Special Education Classes)

State Reception Center

. Re-Ed School

Lyndon Rehabilitation School

. Schools which the Court considers desegregated by

reason of the racial ratio in the school attendance

area have been previously described. Students who

attend the schools heretofore designated as being de-

segregated for the purposes of this plan will not

participate in the transportation requirements of this

plan.

. Only those students in the categories specifically

listed hereinabove, will be exempted from the trans-

portation provisions of this plan unless other stu-

dents are specifically exempted under the hardship

policy provisions of this plan set forth in the Student

Personnel Section.

ZErAsSsrRewAsay

ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS FOR STUDENT

ASSIGNMENT

. All assignments for students in grades 2 through 12

will be a whole-day and whole-year (three quarters)

basis. Students will particpate in extra-curricular

activities at the school where they are assigned and

instructed.

2. All white students have been divided into six groups

equal in number based upon the first letter or letters

of the alphabet with which their last names begin.

(For example, the number of students whose last

names or surnames begin with A-B-F-Q may be equal

in number to the students whose last names or sur-

names begin with I-J-K-S and four other groups of

letters. On Table I below, W1, W2, W3, Ww4, W5,

or W6 each is a group of letters roughly equal in

terms of student population with any other group

of letters). The actual letter groupings have not

been established and these letter groupings are used

for purposes of illustration only.

TABLE I

Student Assignment Chart

Letter Groups Letter Groups

Wi Ww2 w3 W4 WS W6 Grade Bl B2 B3 B4 BS B6

Cless_ Interchange |(Winted, Sprint) l Clays_Interthange |(Winter|_ Sprint)

v 2 v Vv v Vv

v 3 v v v Vv

Vv 4 v Vv Vv Vv

7 5 v v viv

v 6 v v viv

v 7 Vv Vv v Vv v_

v 8 v Vv Vv Vv v

v 9 v Vv v viv

v 10 v v v viv

v 1! v Vv v v Vv

v 12 v v Vv viv

3. Each group of white students represented by W1,

W2, W3, ete. will be randomly assigned one or two

grade levels to be transported for desegregation con-

sistent with the Table I above. (For example, those

white students whose names begin with A-B-F-Q

might be the W3 group on Table I and be transported

for desegregation for the third and eight grades.

They would attend their district school at all other

grade levels).

—

It should be noted that the W1 group is assigned to

two consecutive years based on the educational and

social value of continuity at the junior and senior

years.

All black students have been divided into six groups

of equal number based on the first letter or letters

with which their last or surnames begin. (For ex-

ample, the number of students whose last names

begin with A-B-F-Q may be equal im number to stu-

dents whose names begin with I-J-K-S and four

other groups of letters. B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, and B6

each is a group of letters roughly equal in terms of

student population with any other group of letters).

Each group of black students represented by a letter

group such as B1 will be randomly assigned eight or

nine grade levels to be transported under the deseg-

regation plan consistent with Table I. For example;

those black students whose last names or surnames

begin with A-B-F-Q might be the B3 group on

Table I and be transported to an assigned school

from second grade through ni:ith grade. They would

attend their district school from tenth grade through

twelfth grade).

(An assigned school is the school where the child

receives instruction and is to be distinguished from

the district school which is the school building in the

school attendance area in which he lives.

Students from a black school which is in a cluster

must be assigned among a number of white schools

in the same cluster. This will require the students

at a black school to be further sub-divided. This divi-

sion will be accomplished by random assignrient of

black students to the several white schools with which

they are clustered. Because there is only one black

tae.

————————————— ee

10.

‘IL

school in a cluster, white students will not need to be

further sub-divided for purposes of assignment.

This assignment methodology provides for equitable

particiation in the desegregation plan. If a student

is required to be transported at a given grade level,

that requirement will apply to any public school the

student attends in Jefferson County unless that

school is exempted from the transportation of stu-

dents for purposes of desegregation.

A student’s grade level assignment at the beginning

of the Fall Quarter of a given school year will deter-

mine the student’s school assignment for the entire

year.

The Court directs the Jefferson County School Sys-

tem to apply this method of student assignment and

to assist students and parents by providing specific

information when necessary.

Letter groups (B1, ete. and W1, etc.) will be assigned

in a random fashion to the transportation patterns

by.the Court as soon as possible. The school admin-

tration will be notified of the random selection by

the Court.

Some of the results of the method of student assign-

ment and selection are as follows:

Eighty-four percent (84% of the white students in

grades 2 through 12 who are transported for the

purposes of desegregation will be transported for

two years, usually one year in the elementary grades

and one year in the secondary grades. Sixteen per-

cent (16%) of the white students assigned to be

transported for desegregation will be transported

for one year.

2. Sixty-six percent (66%) of the black students in

grades 2 through 12 will be transported for the pur-

pose of this desegregation eight years. Thirty-three

percent (33%) of the black students will be trans-

ported for purposes of desegregation nine years.

Black students will attend the district school in the

school attendance area in which they reside for two

or three successive years during their twelve-year

school experience.

3. Black percentages in all elementary schools will be

no less than 12% and no more than 40%. Black per-

centages in all secondary schools almost without ex-

ception will be no less than 14% and no more than

23%. One of the major accomplishments of this de-

segregation plan evolved by the Court with the

assistance of the staff is to reduce to a marked degree

the number of students which the Court had antici-

pated would be necessary to transport in its judg-

ment of July 25, 1974, when from the bench, the Court

was required to order Plan X. The Court is con-

vinced that the maximum number of students which

will be transported under this plan approximates

23,000 rather than the very substantially larger num-

ber in Plan X ordered by the Court in July of 1974.

Furthermore, the Court as assured by the trans-

portation officer of the school system that Plan xX

could not have beer accomplished without obtaining

buses which were not available.

4. By ensuring that a student will be assigned the same

assignment pattern for purposes of desegregation

no matter where the student resides in the County

and by maintaining a limited range of acceptable

racial ratios in individual schools, the Court has at-

tempted to minimize the possibility of white flight.

STUDENT PERSONNEL

Hardship Cases, Sick Child, and Student

Attendance

At the direction of the Court, the Superintendent of

the Jefferson County schools and his staff have prepared

policies and procedures dealing with hardship cases, student

illness, student personnel and student attendance. The

Court hereby approves those policies and incorporated them

into and makes them part of this desegregation order and

they will be implemented.

1. Student Hardship Policy and Procedures

The administration of ihe Jefferson County School Sys-

tem shares the concern of parents relating to each in-

dividual student and the health, safety and welfare of

all students. There will be legitimate reasons for stu-

dents to be transferred to schools other than their as-

signed location. The student hardship policy is intended

to be a practical and administratively feasible method

of equitable application to individual children within the

policies set forth in the desegregation order of the

United States District Judge and adopted by the Jeffer-

son County Board of Education.

Due consideration will be extended to students with

severe emotional, health or social problems. The follow-

ing procedures must be followed if a parent or guardian

desires consideration of a hardship transfer for a stu-

dent to a school other than the school to which the

student is regularly assigned.

A. A parent may obtain a hardship application form at

any school or administrative office of the Jefferson

County School System.

B. The completed application for a special hardship re-

quest may be returned to any school or administra-

tive office or mailed to the Director of Special Trans-

fer, Richard VanHoose Education Center, 3332 New-

burg Road, Louisville, Kentucky 40218.

C. Approval or denial of the special hardship request

will be the responsibility of the Director of Special

Transfers and a Hardship Request Committee. Sup-

portive evidence and recommendations from qualified

persons having knowledge of the student’s need for

transfer will be given careful consideration.

D. The Director of Special Transfers will be responsible

for providing the Court with accurate documentation

by school, grade, race of all hardship requests ap-

proved or disapproved.

EK. When a transfer request is granted and the student

is unable to utilize the regular school transportation

service to reach the assigned school the parent or

guardian will be responsible for the student’s trans-

portation and regular attendance.

. Hardship Requests for Curriculum Needs

A request based upon curriculum needs is subject to the

following procedures:

A. Only senior high school students (9-12) will be con-

sidered for transfer on the basis of academic hard-

ship.

B. A request for a transfer for academic hardship will

be considered and if granted the school system will

assign the student to the school which offers the

needed program.

(. A student making a transfer request on the basis of

academic hardship must register at his assigned

school. Consideration for a transfer can be given

only after all students are registered and class sched-

ules are completed.

Tae

3. Hardship Requests for Health or Behavioral Problems

A hardship request for a transfer for severe physical,

emotional or social problems will be supported by the

written evaluation of a physician, psychiatrist, psy-

chologist, and/or social worker. Written evaluations

shall be forwarded to the Director of Special Transfers

with necessary documentation attached. All informa-

tion will be treated as confidential.

. Hardship Cases or Unusual Situations

Requests based upon extreme hardship or other unusual

circumstances must be submitted to the Student Per-

sonnel Office of Transfers with written evidence support-

ing the need for transfer. Each request will receive

careful consideration by the Director of Special Trans-

fers and the Transfer Committee.

. Student Iiness

A. If a student becomes ill during transportation to an

assigned school, the bus will continue to its destina-

tion at which time the student will be referred to the

proper school authorities.

B. When a student is too ill to remain in school, it shall

ultimately be the responsibility of the local school ad-

ministration to decide upon the method of transport-

ing the student home.

C. In no ease will a student be removed from the school

“without first notifying the parent or legal guardian.

Should this be impossible and the student’s health is

in jeopardy, the burden of responsibility must neces-

sarily fall upon the local school administration.

D. When possible, parents will be asked to come to the

school to pick up the student too sick to remain.

School personnel teams (i.e. social workers, coun-

selors, nurse , etc.) will be available in designated

areas to reti ‘n a sick student to home or to a hos-

pital emergency room when necessary.

In serious emergencies, the present policy of calling

the police will continue.

. Student Attendance

The parent or legal guardian bears the primary re-

sponsibility for the punctuality and regular attend-

ance of the student. The provisions listed in the

Kentucky Revised Statutes will prevail.

In the case of a transported student, it is the re-

sponsibility of the parent or legal guardian to see

that the student gets to the departure point (bus

stop) on time.

In the event the student misses the bus, the parent

should make every attempt to get the student to the

assigned school, even though the student may be

tardy. As stated in 6-A above, this will be the parent

or legal guardian’s responsibility.

EMPLOYEE PERSONNEL

The certificated staff who work directly with students at

schools will be assigned so that the racial composition of a

specific school staff does not indicate that the individual

school is intended exclusively for white students or black

students. Principals, assistant principals, counselors, in-

structional coordinators and teachers will be assigned so

that the ratio of whites to blacks within these categories in

an individual school is roughly equivalent to the black-white

staff composition of the school system.

The following rules with reference to the policy regard-

ing administrative staff and teachers of the school system

will be followed:

. Staff members who work directly with students and

the professional staff who work on the administrative

level will be employed, promoted, paid, demoted, dis-

missed and otherwise treated equitably without re-

gard to race, sex, color, or national origin. Black

teachers and supportive staff, such as counselors and

all categories of administrative staff, will be assigned

in all areas of the school program to parallel the

racial composition of staff in the entire school system.

. Although classified personnel are not specifically in-

cluded in the reassignment plan, Singleton will apply

to this category of personnel. The school system will

attempt to ensure through placement procedures that

further desegregation occurs within all categories of

classified personnel assigned to school buildings and

administrative offices.

. Whenever for any reason it will appear that the

minority or majority personnel in particular situa-

tions fall below the prescribed racial composition,

every effort will be made in new employment and

promotion to correct this situation. If there is to be

a reduction in the number of principals, teachers, or

other professional staff which will result in a dis-

missal or demotion of any staff members, the staff

members to be dismissed or demoted must be selected

on the basis of objective and reasonable non-discrim-

inatory standards from the entire staff. In addition,

if there is any such dismissal or demotion, all staff

vacancies will be filled through the recruitment of a

person of a race, sex, color, or national origin that

will contribute to and enhance the desegregation of

the staff, after each displaced staff member who is

qualified has had an opportunity to fill the vacancy

and has failed to do so.

In order to facilitate the implementation of the neces-

sary teacher transfer policy required to carry out the de-

segregation plan in an equitable manner, consideration will

be given to the following: (1) preparation; (2) experience ;

(3) certification; (4) tenure; and (5) willingness to vol-

unteer. ;

In effecting teacher transfer, consideration will be given

to the following factors: (1) determination of the number

of teachers needed in each school; (2) seniority; (3) con-

sideration of other factors, such as transfer to the same

grade level as in present assignment, transfer of secondary

teachers so far as possible to a subject area matching their

expertise, ete.

Bi-racial administrative teams will be assigned, where

possible, in the following areas: central office, area or dis-

trict offices, local schools and special programs.

HUMAN RELATIONS

At the direction of the Court, the Superintendent and

professional staff have submitted a Human Relations Pro-

gram which is made part of this plan as Appendix 2 which

the Court has approved and directs be vigorously prose-

cuted as a part of the implementation of this plan.

TRANSPORTATION

Reference has previously been made, and the Court finds

it a fact, that the plan hereby ordered reduces to a mini-

mum the number of students necessary to be transported

for the purposes of carrying out the desegregation order

of the Court to eliminate all vestiges of state-imposed

tion.

a The Court finds as a fact that the Jefferson County

School System presently has sufficient transportation equip-

ment to begin the implementation of the transportation

provisions of this plan, provided the transportation of

school children in this community is confined by the Jeffer-

son County School System to public school students. There

is not adequate transportation equipment available to the

Jefferson County School System to complement this Court’s

plan if non-public school students of this community are

transported. The Court has previously determined and

announced publicly that the necessities and practicalities

require a limitation upon transportation and that no non-

public school students will be transported. In order to

accomplish the transportation of public school students and

to carry out this desegregation plan, the Court finds as a

fact that the transportation fleet will be required to operate

from early in the morning until late in the evening to carry

out the transportation provisions of this plan.

In order to ensure the safety of all children being trans-

ported for the purposes of this desegregation plan, monitors

shall accompany all students being transported for the pur-

pose of desegregation. The Court finds that as a fact,

based upon the evidence supplied by experts in the field of

transportation, that the transportation of students from

their homes (where required) to the district school in which

they reside and from the district school to the assigned

school is the most efficient method for reducing the number

of pupil miles, for the conservation of equipment and fuel,

and for the accomplishment of the minimum amount of

transportation commensurate with the Constitutional re-

quirements involved in this plan.

The Superintendent and the staff have supplied the

Court with estimated costs of transportation for desegre-

gation purposes based on a maximum load of 50 students.

The transportation fleet will be required to make double

runs, taking high school students first, and elementary

school students later. Transportation will be provided for

extra-curricular activities as set forth. A speaker system

will be installed for use by teachers involved in first grade

class interchange program.

The following transportation schedule for the first quar-

ter of the school year 1975 forms a part of the desegrega-

tion plan and will be implemented. Experience may dictate

less burdensome or more burdensome transportation sched-

ules which shall be adjusted by the school administration

consistent with the spirit of this desegregation plan to

achieve the most practical transportation method with the

minimum amount of hardship to all students involved.

Transportation Schedule

Middle/Secondary Schools—School Day 8 :00 a.m.-2:30 p.m.

A. Morning

Time Activity

7:00 a.m. Pick up for District School

7:30 a.m. Transportation to Assigned School

B. Afternoon

2:30-3:00 p.m. Return from Assigned School

3:00-3:30 p.m. Transportation to Home

Elementary Schools—School Day 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.

A. Morning

Time Activity

8:30 a.m. Pick up for District School

8:30 a.m. Transportation to Assigned School

B. Afternoon

3:00-3:30 p.m. Return from Assigned School

3:30-4:00 p.m. Transportation to Home

Students transported to an assigned school from their

district school in the school attendance area in which they

live will be provided transportation from that assigned

school to the district school from which they originated

when they choose to participate in extra-curricular activities

at the assigned school.

Based on information supplied to the Court, the approx-

imate number of pupils and the daily cost of transportation

is as follows:

1. F’rst Grade Pupils (Class Interchange

Program)

a. 9,000 pupils x 22% = 2,000

2,000 pupils x 42¢ per day == $840.00

$840.00 x 120 days = $ 100,800.00

b. 100 buses x $110.00 per speaker 11,000.00

Total Cost for First Grade $ 111,800.00

2. Grades 2-11 Pupils

a. 22,600 pupils x 42¢ per day = $9,492

$9,492 x 175 days = $1,661,100.00

b. 300 monitors for buses and school

duties

8 hrs. x $2.50 = $20.00 per day

$20 x 300 = $6,000 per day x 185

days = 1,110,000.00

$2,771,100.00

3. - recraamaacel Activities for Grades 7-

a. 30 buses at $12 per day = $360.00 x

173 = $ 63,000.00

$ 63,000.00

Kstimated Total Cost $2,945,900.00

INSTRUCTION

The Elective Quarter Pian (EQP) is made a part of this

desegregation plan. The following procedures govern the

Mlective Quarter Plan and student selection of quarters:

Re) |

The Jefferson County School System will begin the

Fall Quarter on September 4, 1975, and all public

school students will be required to attend.

Students being transported in any year for purposes

of desegregation must attend their assigned school

Fall, Winter, and Spring Quarters and are not eli-

gible for the elective procedures outlined in Section 3

below.

All students not being transported for desegregation

who desire not to attend the Winter Quarter of the

1975-76 school year must indicate that choice to

school officials by October 15, 1975. In the event

that the number of students who choose not to attend

the Winter Quarter is excessive and/or negatively

affects the desegregation plan, the superintendent in

consultation with the Court will make attendance

mandatory during the Winter Quarter. in the event

that the desegregation plan remains balanced with-

out those students attending, they would be free not

to attend that quarter.

Students who do not choose to attend the Spring

Quarter in 1976 must indicate that choice to the

school administration no later than January 21, 1976.

The superintendent will exercise the options pro-

vided by the Court as outlined above and has the

Court’s authority to determine whether or not the

Spring Quarter will be optional for any student.

Beginning in the school year 1976-77, students will

select the school quarters of attendance by March

12,1976. Based upon the results of the choices made

by the students, the superintendent will exercise the

options previously set forth.

Students choosing to atiend the Summer Quarter,

1976, will report that to school officials by May 14,

1976. Following the collating of that data, attend-

ance areas which will enhance desegregation will be

drawn for the Summer Quarter. The availabiiity of

air-conditioned facilities in combination with factors

relating to desegregation will determine the location

of the Summer Quarter schools.

7. Cutoff dates for quarter selection will be published

in order that parochial students may be informed.

Cutoff dates for selection will govern all students

who are residents of Jefferson County as of those

dates.

IMPLEMENTATION

The Board of Edueation of Jefferson County and the

Superintendent of Schools of Jefferson County are respon-

sible to the Court for the full, complete and impartial im-

plementation of the desegregation plan hereby ordered.

The Court will look to the Superintendent of Schools of Jef-

ferson County to act as the principal administrative and

executive officer for this purpose. If the Superintendent

determines at any time to establish an implementation team

to act for him or in his behalf, he may do so with appro-

priate public notice.

A United States Magistrate’, in conjunction with the

implementation team if designated as stated above will

carry out and enforce the provision of this Court’s orders

and judgments and will serve as Special Master herein, pur-

suant to the provisions of Tithe Twenty-Eight U.S.C.

636 (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the

United States District Courts.

The United States Magistrate shall have full authority

and all powers provided by law to carry out the judgments

und decree of this Court and wake such reports to the

"Phe Court may designate a Special Commissioner with identical

powers.

Court from time to time as may be necessary, or as the

Court may require.

As provided in Title Twenty-Eight, Section 636(D) in

any proceeding before the Special Magistrate in this action,

any of the following acts or conduct will constitute a con-

tempt of the District Court of the United States for the

Western District of Kentucky:

1. Disobedience or resistance to any lawful order, proc-

ess or writ;

2. Mishehavior at a hearing or other proceeding or so

near thereto as to obstruct the same;

8. Failure to produce after having been ordered to do

so any pertinent document;

4. Refusal to appear after having been subpoenaed or

upon appearing, refusal to take an oath or affirma-

tion as a witness, or having taken the oath or affir-

mation, refusal to be examined according to law;

Any other acts or conduet which is conunitted before

a judge of the District Court which would constitute

a contempt of that court.

In addition to the powers and duties conferred, the

United States Magistrate, as Special Master in this matter,

shall exercise the powers provided by Rule Fifty-three of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and may procure the

attendance of witnesses in the manner prescribed in 53

(d-2), and may eall such hearings to be conducted over

which he shall preside, or if necessary, the Magistrate may

cause hearings to be condueted by a member of the Bar

appointed and designated by the Magistrate to receive evi-

dence, Said Magistrate may, in the manner prescribed by

Rule 52, and anv hearing officer appointed by the Magis-

trate rule npon the admissibility of evidence and make such

record of the evidence offered and exeluded as is provided

by law and may conduct such meetings and hearings as, in

the Magisirate’s judgment, are necessary, or as may be

directed by the Court to carry out the provisions of order

and judgment.

MONITORING PROCEDURES

As part of this plan, the Court will order its Special

Master to continually monitor the implementation of its

desegregation plan. Such Special Master will sit at all

Board meetings and express the view of the Court in regard

to all matters before the Board which relate to desegrega-

tion. In order to ensure the ability of the Court’s Special

Master to judge whether the plan is being sufficiently im-

plemented, the superintendent is to report the following

data to the Court’s Special Master beginning October 15,

1975:

1. Planned locations and construction of any new

schools or additions to schools, or expansions or re-

classifications of existing schools, and a description

of how such facilities will relate to the desegregation

efforts of the school system.

2. Planned modification of attendance zones within the

school system.

3. Deseription of the status of the training and orien-

tation progran:s.

4. Status of programs for community edueation.

Number and pereentage of students by grade and

race in each school, and the systemwide totals by

grade and race for eleicentary, junior, middle and

seniur high schools within the school system.

i. Number of students by race enrolled in each class-

room of the schools of the school system.

10.

11.

13.

14.

15.

Number and percentage of teachers by grade (or

subject taught) and by race in each school, and the

systemwide totals for elementary, junior, middle and

senior high schools.

Number of principals, assistant principals, counse-

lors, and instructional coordinators by race in the

school system and the totals in each category (prin-

cipals, assistant principals, counselors, and instruc-

tional coordinators) within the system.

Number of fulltime and parttime paraprofessional

and clerical personnel by race in each school and in

the administrative offices of the school system and

the totals in the school system.

Number of tenure teachers by race in each school

and the totals of such teachers by race in the school

system.

Number of substitute teachers by race in the school

system.

Number of students who dropped out, were sus-

pended, failed, retained, and the number expelled by

school, by grade, by race, for the prior year.

Number of professional administrators by race in the

administrative offices of the school system and the

category and job responsibilities of each adminis-

trator.

Description of progress made in the implementation

of any necessary affirmative action program dealing

with rectifying racial imbalance in any employment

category.

Hardship requests approved and disapproved by

school, race, grade and category of reason.

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS RELATIVE TO IM-

PLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THIS

DESEGREGATION ORDER

Safety and Discipline

Normally in civil lawsuits, such as this case, the Court

entertains no concern that its final judgment will be fully

and in good spirit complied with to the letter. Such is

generally true, for though some are always disappointed

with the eventual outcome of any litigation, all recognize

that it is only through established legal procedures that

we can resolve our differences and dwell in safety in our

homes and with our possessions.

In this instant matter however certain individuals in

our community have publicly declared their intended resist-

ance, by the use of force if necessary to prevent the imple-

mentation of our Judgment and Plan of desegregation.

These declarations of resistance have caused inquiry to

be made to me by many parents concerned for the safety of

their children; seeking to know what actions I intend to

take to guarantee the safety of the children affected by my

judgment.

In this connection, though I am ever m‘ndful that the

majesty and dignity of the law and of this court is not

founded upon the use of its power to enforee—but rather

upon its courage, fairness and equality of treatment; all

persons are entitled to know where I will stand when the

safety of their children is at stake. As United States Dis-

trict Judge I will unhesitatingly employ the full power of

the United States to guarantee the absolute safety of your

children.

This is not a threat; it is a fact, and all persons would

do well to believe it.

I say to those who would resort to public disorder and

violence—think twice! Remember that contempt of the

orders of United States courts and violations of the Civil

Rights of others, be such others black or white, are serious

matters, for such invite enforcement procedures by the

Court which carry severe and heavy penalties of fines and

imprisonment as well as personal civil liability in damages.

Accordingly, the Court thinks it well and necessary in

view of developments that the following “rules of the road”

so to speak are announced and proscribed in the interest

of child safety.

1. Those persons wishing to protest the Court’s judg-

ment may in the exercise of their constitutional rights of

freedom of speech and assembly do so. Such persons may

employ signs or placards, or voice, so long as their actions

are not violent, are not profane, and are not threatening

in nature, and provided further; that those persons occupy

the protest areas to be designated and defined at each school

by the United States Marshal in charge, or the police offi-

cers in attendance. Such fixed areas shall be in proximity

to the schoolhouses in question but not so close thereto as

to impede school activities nor to be frightening to those

who wish to avail themselves of school facilities. In the

event however; in the sole judgment of the United States

Marshal, or ranking police official in charge, that any such

protest is being conducted in violation of any of the above

standards of conduct herein fixed for persons protesting

such officer is hereby specifically authorized in this Court’s

name to order the dispersal and disbanding thereof. Any

protestor refusing his order shall be then subject to federal

custody and federal enforcement procedures.

2. Parents must understand that under the law they

are legally responsible for the acts of their children and

both parents and children are subject to the judgment and

orders of this Court and the acts of our national Congress

protecting the Civil Rights of others.

—— —_ te a EE a

3. Matters of student discipline as to purely school

management may not be subject to the purview or judgment

of this Court unless, and until, such breaches thereof reach

the proportions of violation of our desegregation judg-

ment and plan, or result in a denial of the constitutional

rights of other students, black or white. Such breach so

occurring the principal in charge of any school or any

teacher thereof, any bus driver, or any person in the posi-

tion of bus monitor is hereby authorized, yea obligated, to

forthwith suspend said student from attendance at any

school and to order in the Court’s name that such student

vacate the premises or bus in question immediately, upon

pain of federal custody and federal enforcement proce-

dures. Any student so suspended may thereafter request

of this Court and receive by it, or its Special Master, a hear-

ing as to the propriety and fairness of such suspension

action so taken and the Court’s judgment pursuant to such

hearings shall be binding and conclusive thereof.

4. No parent or guardian shall present any child for

enrollment for the school term of 1975-76 without the clear

understanding that such presentation and enrollment

carries with it the parental consent and authority to all

provisions of our judgment and desegregation plan per-

taining to the assignment or transportation of students.

Any violation hereof subjects one to federal custody and

federal enforcement procedures.

| In this connection the Court invites the publie’s atten-

tion to the possible violation of state laws by parents or

guardians who boycott or fail to present their child

public school education. ren for

5. No person shall by the use of any automobile, or

otherwise, attempt to block or impede the authorized we

of traffic in, to, or from any school building property; nor

shall any person, not authorized by his official position

’

attempt to enter upon or board any school bus either to

place thereon or remove therefrom any enrolled student;

nor shall any person threaten to or impede the right of any

enrolled student to walk to, from, or into, any school facility

when said student is about the business of attending school

or walking in return to his home following school hours.

Violations hereof will subject one to federal custody and

federal enforcement proceeding.

6. No person shall interfere with, nor cause threats

to be made, or unlawful pressures to be exerted, against

any employee of the school system or members of their

families, or school board member, or volunteer, intended

or directed toward the prevention of the performance of

their official duty by them, or intended in any manner to

prevent their carrying out and complying with the desegre-

gation judgment and plan of this Court.

Appendix 1-A

ELEMENTARY CLUSTERS

Grade Centers B WwW Bink

EE donk sd cccubedéedeess 126 327 28

Hartstern (Gr. 3-4-5) ......... .... 173 502 26.

Cane Run (Gr. 1-2-3) .............. 176 364 33

Schaffner (Gr. 45-6) .............. 175 423 29

Rangeland (Gr. 1-2-3) ............. 110 500 13

Luhr (Gr. 45-6) .............0008: 85 435 16

Cluster #1 |

ie il ied en we teat Lee 194 458 30

EL cog cc tubesctésaee souen 64 348 16

Fairdale Elem. ................2:- 79 439 15

Filson ii eitieehe ed bee ehe he eek ad 87 477 15

I oe ik akin 90 496 15

a a 98 498 16

Cluster #2

Ee re delete 143 544 21

PC CRTC EP OS FOE 71 274 21

a a 50 194 20

i a ae ee 71 278 20

Cluster $3

i be ee 163 404 %9

ny ee ee 75 437 15

EO ee eee 82 450 15

ee es i cance newenss one 77 447 15

PS oe i nt cs al 76 433 15

Conway (Grade 6)*................ 36 211 15

Cluster #4

Coleridge-Taylor.................. 218 542 29

Deéh bdeceddncesctadsscatéeces 86 452 16

Ld Owns ctiehuaes ducaseusebous 92 485 16

Grade Centers BO

ee cdawinecusensssbaeees 134

St. Matthews......... il ta il tec tviaieh aa 71

, | REE re er ee 106

Kammerer (Grade 6)*............. 38

Cluster #5

ee ee ie aeheneaeeese 157

i CS os de wanekuheees 82

a +s knee ceshaneaubebatas 86

ED dol oe peace cecueesiaanncee 89

,. errrerrrrrre rrr rr 86

Williams (Grade 6)*............... 28

Cluster #6

Dic. siuséobeuiaegnh ehesaeewes 6 123

ree ere ree 123

i, -t.. 2 Seer 129

Cluster #7

ee Enc cceccnccesecccuccie 272

ee ee dune embene bee ¥ 74

RAED oo ccccccccccccecsccescveces 88

Di dt oe cdecucn Vadneese seater 109

Ns dec cvncebaeneeteews 100

Vala TIBOR, «oc cc ccccccccnccccces 97

in) ne snenbesete ens 105

Prast Ciemte Gp? ... ccccccccsccsecs 33

Cluster $8

Bes oe cncascccndcccseccescccuses 181

i . . «Jc. ceeeuetieseenes 86

ti Din edunv ed cape auwenan ted 83

ED von ceccccccesecssousetesses 105

Es 6 Cae eee ceLenUaeeeuuee 112

Cluster $9

I ee 144

a. sslued Jdvnes (eseuereausuee 96

Ww Black

604 18

373 16

563 16

202 16

363 30

346 19

434 17

450 17

414 17

134 17

324 28

533 19

555 19

571 32

356 17

426 17

501 18

470 18

458 17

475 18

156 17

398 31

425 17

411 17

537 16

572 16

567 20

416 19

Grade Centers

ae i

MY MEP ck.n cncoceccesscoese

Crosby (Grade 6)*.................

Cluster #10

NEE EE Enel ee ee eae

ATES TAR a ane

SD NE ccs ccueccecnccuse

Cluster #11

sere ef @ ee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

PT .c/ occcucautesedéeans

ia i as,

te i

CN ad Ku coe kibhe ck Kaveseu wes

Cluster #14

B Ww

140 § 556

113. 493

47 194

192 494

80 440

89 = 495

106 = 587

94 515

48 267

201 443

104 498

96 444

122 = 526

74 8 =6334

58 277

85 239

66 291

91 425

100 458

196 471

68 323

73 = 350

98 418

65 308

71 =. 306

95 445

127 §=340

71 =—s 3331

Grade Centers B Ww Biack

Te il oe ee 112 536 17

PR o66 Kedccscosiacoecsecseess 81 388 17

Cluster #15

0 rrr rerrrer TT rr. 178 502 26

ee ae eee enek ban 93 514 15

Jeffersontown Elem............... 99 493 17

Be Bhs 0 cc socvecccccvccceces 94 518 15

ET Soe cdeuteaceseeatcoueiaes 98 565 15

Carrithers (Grade 6)*.............. 43 233 16

Cluster #16

WR obo ccccccccéccsccscascccese 234 461 34

Dt. .c peneueteteetacsuset 97 417 19

Dd + cicheneneeeseeanneees 108 463 19

6 «cee eeteus deebneheenees 95 421 18

so aes ceeteeees 79 347 19

IG o.oo ccc cvecescccocecsessces 127 553 19

*Grade 6 in these middle schools is included in the elementary

clusters. Grade 7 and 8 are in the middle and junior high school

clusters.

Appendix 1-B

SECONDARY CLUSTERS

Middle and Junior High Schools, Grades 7 and 8

Grade Centers B

Cluster #1

DED GOED 6.0 ec socceccasovcesess 144

DNS CED oc oo cc ascccccececeses 80

Southern (Co.) 7-8............0006- 111

ROROED CFB) 2.o n cccccccsccscccccs 101

Biigmiamd (7-B) ... . ccccccccccccccce 132

RD GED « o's encnscesccssssons 124

BEE GED ooo ce sccceseccscoeces 64

RD CD nc ccccpeccccccccces 165

Grade Centers B

Cluster #2 oe

a 96

ES Rte ein 55

Mammorer (6-6)... ........cccccss 54

PT area ene artes 50

as a ln 44

WU GOD ooo ccccccccccccccce 164

I eg ites es 161

Cluster $3

I li 136

Jeffersontown (7-8)... ............ 147

Perm Ovesk (7-3) .......ccccccccccs 157

Carrithers (6-8)... ............... 162

I i 85

I ic a 227

Cluster $4

6 pee 139

EE en ee 91

Pleasure Ridge Park (7-8)......... 141

i a 156

\ 2 . Pee Resaateeunde 97

I ie ie ae es ui 109

DP Ss chk oeccadéeeccuscdd 80

Williams (6-8) peverwereereders 73

SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS

Grades 10-11

Grade Centers B

Cluster #1 *

ND EN a ccccecévseceénes 159

SY CEES 6 6 6 “ei ccocdececss 127

os ihn vec duic adeain 151

Waggener (9-12)... .............. 138

Westport (9-12)... ......... 0.0 eee 116

Grade Centers B Ww Block

i re oi sicpescceuussdee 118 562 17

Jeffersontown (9-12) .............. 148 737 17

Ee GED ¢ 0 6 onlin sccoecesconce 126 634 17

Cluster #2

Cn 2. 5 cds nedesasenene 86 747 10

PED HEED» oe nccecoccousvecese 122 533 19

Southern (Co.) (9-12)........ccce0. 160 744 18

i CD oo¢ scacdeueanteenteet 148 687 18

GE ev cccccceccoceeue 126 562 18

Cluster #3

See GEER 6 6 6 cccccécoodvces 123 724 15

Py GED o 4» ee 0dsanshcesonennes 129 655 16

Pleasure Ridge Park (9-12)......... 138 697 17

0 BS Pr rrrerr rrr rrr 122 597 17

VEE GED 6 ce cecscccscescsseces 134 646 17

DD GED coe cocccvceseszeces 128 649 16

ORDER DISPENSING WITH HEARING

ON PROPOSED DESEGREGATION PLAN

ADVICE TO THE COURT

In order to obviate the necessity of further hearings in

this matter, and the resulting delays attendant therewith,

and further in view of the fact that time is now of the

essence by virtue of the holding of the Sixth Circuit Court

of Appeals this day entered, directing full implementation

of a desegregation plan this coming September in Jefferson

County, the parties in this litigation acquiesce to a judg-

ment by the Court upon the pleadings and the entire record

herein, without the necessity of further hearing, that he

may impose and pronounce a desegregation plan for Jef-

ferson County. Nothing contained herein shall be inter-

preted to prejudice the right of any party to perfect and

prosecute an appeal from any order composed and directed

by Judge Gordon pursuant hereto.

For the Plaintiffs

(s) Robert Allen Sedler

For the Defendants

Jefferson County Board of Education

By (s) Don M. Randolph

Chairman

Attest: (s) E. Grayson

Secretary

RESOLUTION

Wuenreas, since March 31, 1975, the United States Dis-

trict Court permitted former members of the Jefferson

County Board of Education and former members of the

* Louisville Board of Education to retain their separate iden-

tities solely for the purpose of pending desegregation liti-

gation, and

Whereas, members of the Jefferson County Board of

Education desire to seek a stay of the recent action of the

Court of Appeals and to seek certiorari to the Supreme

Court from any judgment entered by Judge Gordon and

apply for all appropriate stays, and

Wuereas, members of the former Louisville Board of

Education earnestly believe that continued legal action is

not im the best interest of the children of the community, and

Wuereas, former members of the Louisville Board of

Education do not desire to be the instrument which would

prevent any rightful access by the Jefferson County Board

of Education members to the Courts, and

Wuexeas, the Jefferson County Board of Education

members believe it in the best interest of the community

at large to prosecute appeals to the highest court of the

land,

Now, Tuererore, Be Ir Resotvep sy THE Boarp or Epvuca-

TION OF JEFFERSON CounTY, KENTUCKY

1. Counsel is authorized to proceed expeditiously to

apply for all appropriate stays, appeals, or petitions for

certiorari in the name of the Board of Education of Jeffer-

son County, Kentucky ;

2. Counsel for the five (5) former members of the

Board of Education of Louisville, Kentucky, is authorized

to resist any application for a stay, petition for certiorari,

or appeal;

3. Certified copies of this resolution shall be attached

to any application for a stay, petition for certiorari, or

appeal; and

4. Counsel will give notice to counsel for the five (5)

former members of the Board of Education of Louisville,

Kentucky, and all other appropriate parties of any actions

taken as provided by law.

CERTIFICATION BY THE SECRETARY OF THE BoarpD oF EpvucaTion

It is certified that the foregoing resolution came on for a

vote on July 28, 1975, before the Board of Education of

Jefferson County, Kentucky, at a regular meeting and the

motion was carried by a vote as follows:

Don Randolph Yea

Orville Miller Yea

Fred Pfannenschmidt, Jr. Yea

Mrs. Jean Ruffra Yea

Mrs. Roberta B. Tully Yea

Scott Detrick Yea

Dr. John P. Bell Abstained

Carl R. Hines Abstained

Mrs. Carolyn G. Hutto Abstained

William E. Summers, II Abstained

I, Ernest C. Grayson, Superintendent and Secretary of the

Board of Education of Jefferson County, Kentucky, certify

that this is a true and correct copy of the action taken by

the Board of Education of Jefferson County, Kentucky,

on July 28, 1975.

SEAL

Certified to be a true copy of business duly adopted by

the Board of Education of Jefferson County, Kentucky,

on the day of , 1975, and is on record

in the official Minute Books of said Board of Education.

JUDGMENT. MEMORANDUM OPINION

AND ORDER, AUGUST 2, 1976

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

AT LOUISVILLE

Civil Action No. 7045-L(G)

Newsure Area Councn, Inc. etal. - - - Plaintiffs

Boarp or Epucation or JErrerson County,

Kentucky,etal. - - - - - - - Defendants

AND Civil Action No. 7291-L(G)

Joux E. Haverart, etal. - - - - - - Plaintiffs

Boarp or Epvcarion or Lovisvitte, Ken-

tucky, etal. - - - - - - - = Defendants

JUDGMENT

For all of the reasons stated in the Memorandum Opin-

ion of this day, the Court hereby makes an express deter-

mination that there is no just reason for delay and the

Court hereby directs the Clerk of the Court to enter this

as a final and appealable judgment.

It is hereby ordered and adjudged that:

1. The report of the committee appointed by the Court

on May 4, 1976, is approved except we reserve all

questions concerning compliance with Singleton un-

til a later time.

. The desegregation plan and Judgment entered July

30, 1975, is amnded to conform with the recommenda-

tion of the committee that busing assignments for

black elementary school students be made under the

same formula employed in assigning black second-

ary students, thereby increasing black student par-

ticipation in the busing plan by approximately 900.

. The committee’s recommendation that hardship

transfers for LD - EMH children be handled under

the same procedure as other hardship transfer re-

quests is approved.

. Superintendent Grayson is instructed to appoint Mr.

Herb Severs as one of the five persons who consti-

tute the hardship transfer committee. Mr. Severs

will act as the plaintiffs’ representative on this com-

mittee and shall have the right to recommend to the

plaintiffs’ lawyers that an appeal be taken from any

decision made by the committee concerning a hard-

ship transfer request which he believes is adverse to

the plaintiffs’ interests. Mr. Severs shall serve on

the hardship committee without being remunerated

for his services.

. All individuals who appeal decisions from the hard-

ship transfer committee must exhaust their admin-

istrative appeals before seeking judicial review of

the matter.

. The five elementary schools which the Board of Edu-

cation determined should be closed shall remain open

and they will be utilized in the manner set forth in

the committee’s report, which the Court assumes is

the manner in which they were utilized during the

1975-76 school year.

. The voluntary transfer plan, as recommended by the

school board and the superintendent, and the con-

version to the maddle school concept, as recom-

mended, is approved and made a part of the deseg-

regation plan. It is specifically provided, however,

that no child shall have the option under the four

quarter system of failing to attend the fall quarter

for September, 1976.

Dated: August 2, 1972

(s) James F. Gordon

Senior United Staies District Judge

Copies to:

All counsel of record.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On May 3, 1976, an evidentiary hearing was held to de-

termine, inter alia, whether there had been compliance dur-

ing the 1975-76 school year with th: Court’s desegregation

order of July 30, 1975. Specifically, it was the Court’s

understanding that if the statistical evidence presented

during the hearing demonstrated the student population

ratio in the schools, or some of them, was not in conform-

ance with our guidelines, the Jefferson County Board of

Education, hereinafter school board, through its staff, would

make recommendations which would result in a student

population consistent with our desegregation order.

Upon hearing several of the school board’s witness»

it was evident the pupil population ratio in at least twenty-

eight elementary schools was not in compliance with our

guidelines,’ although the student population within the

secondary schools did conform to our desegregation order.

Significantly, the school board’s recommendations as to the

elementary school system for school year 1976-77 would not

1The number may be greater than twenty-eight schools be.

cause eighteen to twenty elementary schools were not examined

by the school board's staff.

have brought that system within the guidelines announced

by the Court on July 30, 1975.

In addition the school board through its staff had, in

fact, compounded an already difficult situation. In March,

1976, the school board and its staff convinced the Court that

a swift determination was needed as to whether first graders

would participate in the busing pattern for school year

1976-77. We concluded that first graders would be ex-

empted from the busing requirements for school year 1976-

77 prineipaily on the assurance of the school board’s staff

that such an exemption would only have a de minimus

effect on bringing the elementary schools into compliance

with our guidelines. Nothing was further from the truth.

When the Court questioned Mrs. Wilma Berlin, one of the

school board’s demographic experts, during the May 3rd

hearing concerning several of the schools which were strik-

ingly outside the guidelines, she answered that the exemp-

tion of first graders was the problem.

The school board also recommended that five elemen-

tary schools (Belknap, Roosevelt, Greathouse, Jones and

Foster) be closed. The Court determined that in every

instance the proposed closing of one of these five schools

wonld have either a minimal or adverse effect upon the

goal which we have been directed to achieve, which is the .

removal of all remaining vestiges of state imposed segrega-

tion from the Jefferson County School District.?

Because the elementary school system in Jefferson

County had never ben in compliance with this Court’s de-

segregation decision, we ordered that Deputy Superinten-

dent Milburn Maupin chair a five person committee, here-

inafter termed committee, and directed the committee to

re-examine the elementary school system in Jefferson

*The Court subsequently learned that the school board had

recommended closing these five schools notwithsanding it knew, or

should have known, that many other elementary schools were over-

crowded.

County and to develop for the Court a methodology of plan

through recluster

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.