# Appendix — Board of Education v. Newburg Area Council, Inc. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385004_0914%3A3 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1977 - **Citation:** 429 U.S. 1074 ## 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 a> 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. Ww 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 5 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 ee 7 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. 8 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 ee 9 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 10 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 11 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- 12 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 eS ee patel Nea insti babs elt 4 13 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- 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 ; (c) permitting students to transfer from a school in 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 19 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 20 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 21 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 22 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. 23 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 24 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. 25 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 26 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. 27 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 28 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 29 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. 3U 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 - 31 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 32 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 —— —- a -_—e 33 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 34 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- 35 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 36 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 37 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, 38 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. 39 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 b> = 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 ~ a. x " . = c ¢ : a3 3 3 : | ° ° Mh iy 3 g $ | L . ; AA : ms eo og & ic E a a ; : j ma © & by E SE ne om ~ e = : E . ¥ _ % © . | 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 42 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 43 EXHIBIT #3 JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM ELEMENTARY SUMMARY TOTAL TO 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 44 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 _—.. 45 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. 46 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.” 47 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. 48 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 ea 49 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 50 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 bo 51 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 52 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 53 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 o4 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. re 55 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 56 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 57 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 . 58 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 ——-~ a9 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. 60 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 61 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 62 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. 63 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). — 64 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 65 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- 1. 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. 66 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. 67 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- 68 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 69 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. F. 70 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 A. C. 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: 71 . 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 staf [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385004_0914%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.