Appendix — Columbus Board of Education v. Penick

ne Court, U. Se |

FILED

FER zi 1979

APPENDIX

MICHAEL RODAK, JR., CLERK

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

October Term, 1978

No. 78-610

COLUMBUS BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al.,

Petitioners,

VS.

GARY L. PENICK, et al.,

Respondents.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED OCTOBER 11, 1978

CERTIORARI GRANTED JANUARY 8, 1979

VOLUME II

(Pages 407 - 802)

407

GORDON FOSTER,

called as a witness on behalf of the

Intervening Plaintiffs, being first

duly sworn, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR, LUCAS

[3360] Q. State your full name and your occupation,

please.

A. Gordon Foster, I am Professor of Education at the

University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida.

°o ° ° ° o

[3362] Q. All right. Have you worked in Ohio before,

not associated with desegregation?

A. Yes, I taught schools in the public schools and was

an administrator in the public schools and taught and

worked at Miami University in Oxford and taught a sum-

mer session at Ohio State in the 60's.

[3363] Q. Where else did you teach school?

A. I taught in Loveland, Ohio, which is a — it was an

exempted village. | am not sure what its status is now. It

may be a city at this point — for three years, and was a

principal there — for four years was an elementary princi-

pal, sort of combination elementary-junior high princi-

pal. Then f taught in Middletown in about 1960 for a year,

and then I started to finish my graduate work and I was

at Miami University in Ohio for a year working at that

time with the Bureau of Educational Field Services under

Dr. Ralph Purdy.

Q. What did you do with the Bureau of Educational

Field Services?

A. We did mostly field studies, field surveys for school

systems, most of them in Ohio — a couple I believe were

in West Virginia or Kentucky — during that period, having

to do with school consolidation or school curriculum

studies or school building construction, site selection, this

sort of thing.

408

Q. Did you do studies similar to some of the OSU

studies you have seen as exhibits in this case?

A. Very much so. From the year I was there at that

time and then later when I was at the Miami University

for three years on the faculty while I was writing my dis-

sertation, I again worked with the Bureau. Several of the

people that worked with the Ohio State Bureau also worked

on [3364] our studies, and Dr. Merle Heiman, who was

State Superintendent and then retired was also on our

staff from time to time.

Q. When you say Miami, you mean Miami of Ohio

in that instance; is that correct? :

A. That's correct.

Q. Were you Director of a joint project for school

districts in Ohio and other states?

A, One of the years I was at Miami following my

residence at Ohio State, I was Director of an organization

called Southwestern Ohio Educational Research Council.

There were similar organizations in different areas of the

state. This was an organization partly under federal fund-

ing and partly under school system funding of almost all

the school systems of any size, such as Cincinnati, Middle-

town, Hamilton, in the southwestern area and of universi-

ties in that area to join together for planning purposes and

all the educational study that anybody wanted accom-

plished in that area of the state.

I was on a half-time assignment as Director of that.

As such, I was assigned into a research position. I can’t

remember the exact title with the Cincinnati City Schools,

Q. And how was this funded. Was this a federally

funded project or was this funded by the schools?

A. It was a combination. They had some federal fund-

ing [3364A] for a period of several years, and different

systems would contribute on a pupil-population ratio, ac-

cording to their numbers.

[3365] Q. Would you give us your educational point

of history thereafter?

409

A. When I received my doctorate, I went to the Uni-

versity of Miami in Florida in 1966, and I've been there

ever since. I started out as Assistant Professor, and I’m

now full Professor.

In addition to being on the faculty and school ad-

ministration, in 1966, when I went there, I assumed a

position of Associate Director of the Florida School De-

segregation Consulting Center, which at that time covered

about the southern half of the State in terms of giving

technical assistance to school districts in Florida in de-

segregation matters. This was funded under Title IV of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Three years later, I became Director of that Center

and still am. It’s now called — well, it’s still called the

Florida School Desegregation Consulting Center, but cur-

rently, there’s something like 28 of those centers in the

country. They're called General Assistance Centers for

Desegregation Concerns. It now covers the entire State

of Florida. :

For a period of three or four years, I was also Chair-

man of the Administration area at the University. I was

Director of a Federal project to train school administra-

tors, largely principals, for multi-cultural schools. This was

funded under the Educational Profession Development Act

by the [3366] U.S. Office of Education. We processed,

over a period of about three years while I was Director,

about 75 students, either through doctoral programs or

masters programs to train them for working with desegre-

gated schools,

This past year, | am also serving as Director of a new

program which is similar to the desegregation center. It’s

called a Bilingual Center, which is again funded by the

U.S. Office. There are nine such centers across the country

as a result of the Nickel versus Low Decision in San

Francisco. We cover about fourteen states in the District

of Columbia, that’s Region 3 and Region 4 of the U.S.

Office of Education, to assist schools who have compliance

410

problems and questions under the Low Decision, and we

provide them technical assistance as they deal with the

Office of Civil Rights on compliance problems and provide

help to them in training their faculties and this sort of

thing to gear up for bilingual programs.

co o oe oO oa

[3385] Q. I realize you've been in Columbus many

times on other matters. I believe you were also here to

testify in the Dayton case and spent time in the city then.

Do you have any record or notes which would indicate to

you how much time you spent specifically in preparation

on this case?

A. I can give you the exact days I was here. It was

something like 20 days so far, I believe, this spring.

Q. And I take it you spent additional time at your

home and at your office working on this matter?

A. That is correct.

o a oO 2 -

[3386] Q. Were you asked to come up with any

particular result, or were you simply asked to examine the

data and from that examination give your opinion as to

what you were able to discover?

[3387] A. Well, I think it’s impossible to come up

with a result before you look at any data if you’re doing

an analysis. I was simply asked to do an analysis of the

data that were available.

Q. What types of data do you generally try to look

at to analyze the history and development of the school

system?

Ar Well, it depends on how many aspects of the

segregation process youre examining, but its primary

things are student enrollment and the racial percentages

of student enrollment as far back in time as you can get

them. The whole building program is very important in

terms of four or five aspects, construction of new buildings

and addition to buildings, closing of buildings, use of cen-

411

«

tral facilities, the use of portable facilities, and the whole

business of how a system determines capacity of school

buildings and what their records are regarding capacity at

the various stages of the system’s development. It’s very

helpful sometimes to know, for example, the number of

rooms in a building, classrooms, special rooms, this sort of

thing. Some systems now have all this on computer print-

outs which makes it fairly handy.

If you're getting into segregation associated with per-

sonnel, then you need to know the information for faculty

and staff and administration appointments by race as far

as they are available. You have to know a considerable

[3388] amount about the program, if it’s possible, that is

to say, the curriculum, and special program such as special

education, vocational education.

One thing I didn’t mention in construction was the

business of current construction and future construction.

If there’s a building program going on at the time youre

making your analysis, you need, of course, to know where

the pupils are, where the schools are, where the teachers

are. Special things such as student transfers can be very

important.

In the City of Philadelphia, for example, which is

about 270,000 pupils, after receiving a computer printout

of where all the pupils were, we found out that about

50,000 of them did not reside in the assignment areas where

they were located, but they were all out of residence, and

in some systems, a lot of this is nocontiguous assignment,

not so much by sections or geopraphical areas, but just by

individual pupils.

So where you have such things as city-wide high

schools, city-wide junior high schools for one reason or

another, you have children attending schools from differ-

ent areas of the city for curriculum reasons, you need to

know this sort of thing.

412

Q. All right. In determining capacity, is there an

actual physical capacity of a buildingrthat can be deter-

mined [3389] that is unrelated to program?

A. Yes, in a sense. This depends to some extent on

the system or the State Department of Education in a

particular case, but ordinarily a certain number of pupils

will fit into a certatin size classroom, especially at the

elementary level. When you get into the secondary

schools, the program has a lot more to determine the

capacity then.

[3390] A. (Continuing) But even there space is a

primary factor that you deal with.

Q. Do school systems operate sometimes with two sets

of capacity figures, one of them a building-rated capacity

and another one a program capacity? By that I mean, for

example, if a school system has a pupil-teacher ratio of 35

to 1 and decides to lower it to 10 to 1, does that affect

capacity in one sense of the term?

A. Well, it does, but I never ran into that problem

when we were doing consolidation studies back in the ‘60s.

I never heard of changing around all the time for program

operations. When we would go into study a system out of

Miami of Ohio like Lima, Ohio, for example, we just under-

stood that every school had a certain number of class-

rooms and it had a certain rating of capacity. There was

never a set, as I remember, another set of figures given to

you involving program capacity.

Ever since I have been involved in desegregation,

though, all of a sudden we have program capacity. I am

not knocking it. I think it is a valid consideration because

you do have capacity — obviously capacity considerations

have to deal with program.

But what you say is correct, especially more recently.

Systems do have a sort of a program or an operational

capacity, as it were, and quite often that can [3391] be

different from the fixed stated capacity of the building as

a structure.

413

Q. Does this sometimes vary from bond issue to bond

issue?

A. It could, yes, sir, or depending on policies that the

Board makes regarding, as you say, the number of pupils

in a classroom, this sort of thing.

Q. If an elementary school building is depopulated

for any of a variety of reasons, whether it be Urban Re-

newal or just declining enrollment or what have you, do

school systems often convert classrooms into other pur-

pose rooms, for example, teacher lounges, elementary

libraries, nurses’ station, multipurpose room, things of this

sort?

MR. PORTER: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

A. Yes, quite frequently. This is very popular right

now because, as you know, many systems in the country

are undergoing population decline in school enrollment.

One of the ways they are meeting this is to do exactly as

you described, utilize the buildings for various ways. If

they have got the money, they set up special classrooms

and teaching stations, reading centers, all sorts of special

programs. If they don’t have the money, why, they do other

things.

But this is — it is very politically unpopular to [3392]

close a school once it is opened, so in order to avoid that,

sometimes with a declining population will try to provide

quality education arrangements by strengthing their cur-

riculum program in using classrooms out of the ordinary

sense.

MR PORTER: If the Court please, I am going to

object to the witness’ testimony. I am going to ask that

it be stricken and ask he confine his testimony to the City

of Columbus. .

THE COURT: Overruled.

[3393] Q. Dr. Foster, these type of changes in utiliza-

tion of classrooms, is it fair to say that they sometimes

414

require physical structural changes and other times simply

different uses?

A. Certainly this would be true. For example, some

schools like in the past ten year — well, earlier — have

attempted to use open space philosophy. They will simply

take two classrooms, and where you have a non-load-bear-

ing wall between them, knock out the wall and make one

classroom in terms of an open space program. It gives a

lot more flexibility. You can do all sorts of conversions like

that, depending on your architecture.

Q. Dr. Foster, can you give us some of the common

techniques used by the school systems in-order to segre-

gate?

MR PORTER: Object to the question.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Well, in many cases they are similar to the ones

that I used to desegregate, only they go in the opposite

direction. The most common ones are the use of boundary

lines, usually associated with changing status of schools.

For example, if a school opens, a new school opens and

preempts the territory of two or three other schools that

were there to start with, then you have to change bound-

aries, and these can be done in such a way to either

desegregate or segregate, exact impact what is already

there in terms of [3394] segregation.

The use of optional zones or what is also called dual

overlapping zones is a frequent technique and has been

for segregative effect.

The entire business of the way buildings are used,

where sites are selected, how big the building is when it

is constructed, what the boundaries, as I just said, are

when you use the building for the first time. The way

buildings are closed can sometimes have a very segregative

effect because sometimes if a building is closed that is in

an area where you have access to both white or black

residential populations and capacity is right, you can

415

assign the children in such a way as to either further

segregate them or desegregate them. Not always, but

sometimes this happens.

The decision to make building additions, increase

capacity, is sometimes used to impound or impact segre-

gation that already exists. The use of transfers. Transfer

policy has been manipulated in such a way as to segregate

or maintain segregation. On occasion I have seen systems

that develop a very good desegregation plan and then

gut the thing by having sort of open transfers, and the

children wind up going anywhere they want to.

The way teachers are assigned, the way faculty, ad-

ministrative staff are promoted and assigned, the way non-

certificated personnel or classified personnel are assigned

[3395] can all have a segregatory effect, particularly in

terms of community perception of whether a school is

desegregated or segregated.

Q. What about the use of rental space by school

systems; is that another way in which segregation can be

made work or maintained?

A. It can be, yes. If you have a school that is over-

populated and you need to shift the pupils somewhere,

sometimes you can put them in a school of an opposite —

predominantly of an opposite race if space is available

rather than renting.

The use of transportation from non-contiguous areas

has often had a segregative effect. | am not sure whether

I have covered them all or not.

[3396] Q. Let me ask you a few questions about dual

overlapping zones. I believe you said an optional attend-

ance area is a dual overlapping zone as well as fitting the

other description; is that correct?

A. Well, it is at least a first cousin, yes. A dual over-

lapping zone is simply — one example would be where you

have the same zone and the white pupils are assigned to

one high school, let’s say, or the black pupils are assigned

416

to one high school and the white pupils are assigned to

two or three high schools out of the same attendance area.

Q. Is one type of dual overlapping zone where the

schools have service areas which are completely congruent

with each other; that would be one example?

A. Yes.

Q. And then there are others, as the example you

just mentioned of a high school, for example, where you

might have three white high schools and one black high

school serving the attendance area of all three or portions

of them; is that correct?

A. That’s correct.

Q. That’s another form. And does the same principle

apply to portions of attendance areas?

A. It could, yes, sir.

Q. What about neutral zones; is that a form of over-

lapping zones, dual zones?

[3397] A. As I understand, a neutral zone compared

let’s say to an optional zone, an optional zone is carved

out of one zone and the children are allowed to either

stay in that zone or go to another attendance area, where-

as, a neutral zone is sort of a no man’s land which isn't

caused out of either zone and children can go to either

school.

Q. All right. Dr. Foster, in examining school districts,

do you find each and every technique used in every school

system where you have observed segregation?

MR. PORTER: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. No, you don’t. At least I can't remember ever

finding one that used all of them.

Q. And can you segregate effectively with the use

of one or two or three of these —

MR. PORTER: Objection.

Q. —of these techniques?

THE COURT: Overruled.

417

A. It depends on the situation, of course, but I have

seen that to be possible, yes, sir.

Q. Just because you do not find all uf the particular

techniques ‘present in a particular school system, would

that indicate to you that the school system had not prac-

ticed segregation?

MR. PORTER: Objection.

[3398] THE COURT: Overruled.

A. No, sir. :

Q. Dr. Foster, have you examined the new construc-

tion in the Columbus School District?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. And what period did you look at?

A. Well, I first looked back as far as racial data was

available on pupils which was from 1964 through current

year 1975-76, and then I extended this back for four more

years irom 1960 to 63, and then I took another block of

ten years back to 1950.

I have actually looked at all of the construction data

that are available to Plaintiffs which basically cover the

whole history of the school system that there are records

of, but the data I analyzed to any great extent was from

1950 —in terms of new construction was from 1950 to

1975-76.

Q. Let me go back just a little bit and ask you if you

have examined a large number of Plaintiffs’ exhibits and

various portions thereof?

A. I think you could say so, yes, sir.

Q. And have you examined some of the exhibits of

the Original Plaintiffs as well?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. Have most of these documents been School Board

documents?

[3399] A. That's my understanding. In many cases,

such as enrollment and racial percentages of pupils, some

of the faculty data, some of the building data, I first

418

examined what I would call spread sheets which were

made out by whoever was working on these things. Then

later on I would go and examine the original documents

from which these spread sheets were made.

Q. All right. You would look at the summaries — let

me ask you, does the spread sheet show the trend in a

particular school?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Would it be faculty, enrollment, total population

or race?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And then you went back to the raw data yourself

to check in particular instances, and did you find errors

on occasion?

A. Yes, of course.

Q. Did you rework some of the summary sheets on

that basis?

A. Well, to the extent that I possibly could in terms

of time, I used what I would consider to be original data

sources.

Q. So you actually put aside in some instances the

summary sheets and relied on your own analysis of the

raw [3400] data; is that correct?

MR. PORTER: Objection.

A. Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Overruled.

* o o * e

[3402] Q. Now, what did you use as a measure of

racial identifiability in your estimate of the racial per-

centage in the Columbus School District for the period

1950 through 1959? Die

A. Well, if I can jump ahead of that a step from 1964

until 1975 when data were available on racial enrollment,

I used plus or minus 15 percent from the mean as the

range of schools which were non-identifiable racially. That

is to say for the current school year, the percentage

419

systemwide is something like 32 or 3214 percent non-white.

Well, the range of that plus or minus 15 percent would

be schools that were non-identifiable racially according

to my — that’s the way I figured it.

Now, for about -- for most of those years, all except

the first year or two, that was broken down by levels so

that I used one set of figures for the senior high, one for

the junior high and one for the elementary.

Q. Did you use the same plus or minus 15 percent?

[3403] A. Fifteen percent, yes, sir. Then between the

period 1957 to 1963, I used plus or minus ten percent

deviation from the estimated mean, and from 1950 to

about 1957, I used plus or minus five percent to determine

racial range. The reason for this is fairly obvious. If a

system as it approaches let’s say a fifteen percent nonwhite

figure, if you had a range of plus or minus fifteen percent,

it would be meaningless after you got too far down to

continue them.

Q. All right. Did you make an estimate of the racial

enrollment in the system for 1950?

A. Yes.

Q. What was that?

A. Well, based on the rate of annual increase from

1964 to 1975, I figured that in 1950 a conservative figure

for the system would be not lower than fifteen percent

non-white.

Q. All right. Are these five, ten and fifteen percent

figures which you applied — I am sorry — 1957, what per-

centage did you estimate using the same technique?

A. Between ‘50 and ’57 I used five percent, and be-

tween ‘57 and 64, ten percent.

Q. All right. And what percentage black for the sys-

tem did you use for °57?

A. Twenty percent.

Q. In ’64 where you had the data, it was 25 percent;

is [3404] that correct?

420

A. The data I calculated — and I didn’t have time to

de the total system — was 26 and 6/10 percent for the

secondary schools at that juncture, that is, 1964, and I

used that to estimate the fact that the system as a whole

was about 25 percent.

Q. All right. Now, the measure of racial identifia-

bility, is it a measure of the disproportion from the system

average?

A. That is correct. I might add that in any instance,

as I said before, where there was any question about build-

ings being close on this, why, we did not count them as

racially identifiable.

Q. All right. Is there any literature on the subject

as to whether or not this is a reasonable technique to use

in terms of the percentage deviation?

* A. It is not exactly literature, but there is a lot of

operational practice. There are several states, and several

cases where a plus or minus 15 percent from the mean

has been used to define racial nonidentifiability, the range

clustering around the mean. The State of Pennsylvania has

a regulation that the Human Relations Commission used

which is slightly different, but similar, which says that it

should be determined by a plus or minus 30 percent of

the minority population in a school, so that if a school is

30 percent minority, you would have a plus or minus

range of 30 times 30 [3405-6] or nine percent from the

mean. The advantage of the Pennsylvania system is that

it takes care of the very problem we have here, and that

is as the minority population approaches zero and you

have low percentages, it gives you a more logical base

from which to operate.

[3407] Q. Did you use the same type of breakdown

where you had an initial small plat in the Grand Rapids

case?

A. I did that, yes, because very early on Grand

Rapids had a very small population of the minority people,

421

so it became necessary to change the 50-percent deviation,

and this was accepted, I think, by the Sixth Circuit in

their review of the case.

Q. All right, I show you, Dr. Foster, Original Plain-

tiffs’ Exhibit 22-B, Columbus School Profiles, prepared by

Dr. Howard O. Merriman, and direct your attention to

pages 6 and 7, and ask you what deviation Dr. Merriman

used?

A. Page what?

Q. I think it begins on the bottom of page 6.

A. Plus or minus 10 percent from the average.

Q. All right. Would you read that paragraph begin-

ning, “Proportion of White Pupils — Elementary Level”?

A. All right. On page 6, the paragraph is headed: ’

Proportion of White Pupils — Elementary Level, and it

reads:

The system-wide enrollment of white pupils at the

elementary level is 73 percent, representing no change

from the 1968-1969 school year. Table 5 indicates distri-

bution of elementary schools by concentration of white

pupils, showing a change in overall data of one more

school in the middle category, parentheses (average plus

and minus 10 percent), [3408] parentheses close. How-

ever, examination on a school-by-school basis indicates

shifts in student population not reflected in the table.

Two schools, Chicago and First, shifted from the

lower category into the middle group. Deshler and Wein-

land Park showed a decrease in white population with a

shift into the lower category. Koebel shifted into the mid-

dle category from the high category, parenthesis (more

than 83 percent), parentheses closed. The new building

opened, Walden, has a high white concentration. The first

four schools border the inner city. |

Q. All right. And he was using plus or minus 10 per-

cent in 1970. I believe in 1970, you used plus or minus

15 percent; is that correct?

422

A. That’s correct.

Q. If you used plus or minus 10 percent, there would

likely be more schools fall in the disproportionate range;

is that true?

A. Yes.

° a oO * x)

[3422] Q. Dr. Foster, if you will refer to your notes,

from the period 1950 to 1975, how many new schools were

built?

A. My figures read 103. .

Q. And of that 103, how many opened racially

identifiable? ies

A. Eighty-seven out o

Q. And I believe three of the 87 schools have been

closed; is that correct?

A. That is correct. F

Q. And how many of those schools, of the original

87 minus the three, have remained racially identifiable

in 1975? .

A. Seventy-one, but I think again it is only fair to

point out in my testimony that some of those were built

in 1975. : |

Q. I understand. Do you recall approximately how

many schools the data was unclear and you solved the

doubt in favor of naming the school as a nonracially

identifiable school?

arg of them, of course, were in the 1950 to 60

period. Out of that group, there were at least seven or

eight that seemed reasonably clear were probably opened

racially identifiable, but we just didn’t want to take any

risks.

Q. Dr. Foster, we have placed up all three overlays,

[3423] 336, 337 and 338, reflecting the openings from 1950

to 1957 on top of PX252, the 1970 Census map. (From your

examination of the data with respect to new school con-

struction, do you have an opinion as to the affect of such

423

construction in terms of either creating or not creating

segregation in the Columbus School System?

MR. PORTER: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

A. Well, my opinion is that such construction, either

because it is located on certain sites, which sometimes |

understand is inevitable—I mean, you have to — finding

school sites is not an easy situation, but the fact that

schools are opened as black schools, so to speak, or white

schgols has a strong tendency to maintain a segregated

system or to work towards impaction of the segregation

that already exists in a system.

If all these schools that open up in the center city

do open up primarily as black schools and all the schools

that open up in the extremes of the suburbs open up as

either all White schools or close to it, then, of course, you

have the obvious inference that the system is not doing

anything to correct a segregated situation when they do

have an opportunity when schools open to do this. There

are various techniques you can perform which will deal

with opening schools. You can’t always do it by site, I

[3424] understand that, but if you are really interested in

a desegregated system, then there are times when you can

either redraw zone lines or draw them in such a way — or

you can perhaps pair schools or group schools as you open

them with other existing schools to promote desegregation

rather than to maintain or increase segregation.

Q. Dr. Foster, can you form an opinion based on the

opening of a single site, or is it necessary for you to ob-

serve a pattern or get an overview of what is happening

in the system?

A. Well, you have to do it within the context, ob-

viously, of the total system. Of course, you more directly

do it within the context of a region or area of that system.

For example, when you are opening up a school such as

Independence or Liberty, while you open it in the con-

424

take into account more

ou also

text of the total system, y that general area of the

strongly the schools that are in

Ji Q. All right. I take it on any individual - -

can end up ina considerable argument about - : . “sn

or demerits of a particular site selection; 1s tha

statement?

rtainly.

ee b erving the pattern of new school con

. From obs scl

ions in Columbus, do you have an aageaeen ies

whether or not that pattern could result from a

[3425] MR. PORTER: Objection.

COURT: Overruled. .

. oe no, I think it is obvious from looking at the

map and knowing the population concentrations to ne

ane that — and I believe I have read in testimony

adv or in depositions an "

psi system is to construct the schools where savage

dren are, so to speak. If you do that, why, it is going

have certain consequences, obviously.

Q. And would those consequences

Columbus, Ohio, be racial?

MR. PORTER: Objection.

A. Certainly.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Dr. Foster, did you examine

respect to building additions in the

System?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And what was =

that you used for that examinatione

A. I did that following my examinati

struction. As a result of tha

general pattern in examining the

primarily Plaintiffs) Exh

the new buildings and the a

since the beginning of

d so forth, that the intent of the .

in this case,

certain data with

Columbus School

the information available to you

on of new con-

hat analysis, I followed the same

new additions. I used

ibit 22, which is a record of all

dditions and the remodeling

time except of the last —I cant

425

remember [3426] exactly how far that goes. The last two

or three years, I guess.

We had PX23, which ran through 1969 which had to

do just with openings, but we also had a document, Plain-

tiffs’ Exhibit 68 called a Building Program Progress Report

for Columbus Public Schools dated January 5, 1976, which

describes the current building program that is going on,

and it lists all the schools that are involved in this pro-

gram, at least that were at one point —I suppose as of

January 5, 1976 — and classifies them by school level and

then describes the status of the building project as of that

date, and it defines whether they are new schools, whether

they are additions or whether they are remodeled schools.

Q. All right. Did you obtain certain other information

from the testimony of Dr. Merriman with respect to status

of a number of the current projects?

A. Yes. This document was basically brought up to

date, I believe, by his testimony, and I used that informa-

tion. At the time that was made available to me, I already

completed an additions analysis, and I revised it in light

of that testimony.

Q. All right. In the period 1950 to 1959, did you

utilize the same racial estimate that you had with respect

to new school construction?

A. Yes, I did.

[3427] Q. And again when the information that you

had as to the racial enrollment of the school was a close

question, what step did you take in terms of calling that

school either racially identifiable or nonracially identi-

fiable?

A. In those cases, to the best of my knowledge, I did

not classify those schools as racially identifiable.

Q. All right. Based on an estimated enrollment of

approximately 15 percent black in the system in 1950, you

used a plus or minus five percent; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

426

Q. And from 1957 forward, you used plus or minus

ten percent?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And beginning in 1964, you used plus or minus

fifteen percent; is that correct?

A. That is correct. .

Q. How many additions to schools were there in the

period 1950 to 1959? :

A. Sixty-four I counted. =

Q ie how many of those additions were made to

schools which were racially identifiable schools?

A. Thirty-six out of sixty-four.

Q. And of those 36 schools, how ori of those

; remai ially identifiable in 1975!

ls remained racially identi

mien Twenty-six of them. Two of them had closed, and

they [3427A] had closed as racially identifiable schools in

way as they opened.

se T3428) O. All right. Did you examine the data from

1960 to 1963? ?

A. Yes, I did. ;

O. And in that period, 60-63, how many school addi

ions were there? ek ne

pa There were 28 according to Plaintiffs Exhibit 22.

O And once again I take it you are not os

in these numbers remodelings g new bathrooms anc

‘yes of this sort; is this correct! |

eae No. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 22 just simply lists re

sedhspell and the dates of additions. It does not rs e

the additions. I had no data prior to the current yuilding

program in which additions were described as - a

classrooms, multipurpose pate ba ne - ne

/ a Pay

There were simply — Plaintiffs Exhibit: Ml

schools in three columns. The first one is new regres

or erections. The second one is additions, and the om

one is remodeling. I made the assumption that the addi-

427

tions column had to do with construction that was not

remodeling.

Q. Dr. Foster, let me — perhaps this is a little out of

order — ask you if you rebuild a school, in this case either

a new school or a substantial addition to a school, on the

same site and that school is already a racially-identifiable

school, what effect, if any, does that have with respect

—and again assuming no substantial [3429] boundary

changes made, what effect, if any, does that have in terms |

of maintaining segregation?

A. Well, it simply locks in a segregated situation and

makes it much less likely that it will ever be changed.

Q. All right. And the new constructions which you

testified with respect to, were a number of those buildings

built or rebuilt on an existing site or approximately the

same site?

A. I couldn't testify to that directly. I assume they

were because some of the schools I visited in the last

couple of months, that is to say, I didn’t walk in, but I

have been around them and they were on the same sites,

[3430] Q. So you actually made a visual inspection

of all the — most of the schools in the Columbus School

System, did you not?

A. Well, not most of them. There are an awful lot of

them. I can say maybe about half of them.

Q. And did you go particularly in areas where you

were concerned about questions that arose from the exam-

ination today?

A. For the most part, yes.

Q. Of the 28 schools, additions to schools in 1960-63,

how many of those were additions to racially-identifiable

schools?

A. There are 21, by my count.

Q. And how many of those schools are racially iden-

tifiable in 1975?

A. 16 out of the 2].

428

Q. Turning to the period 1964-1975, I believe at that

point you were using the plus or minus 15 percent; 1s

that correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And in this period, you had the HEW reports and

other enrollment-by-race data and the summary form

from the School System; is that correct?

A. Well, the figures I used were not directly from

those reports, but from Plaintiffs Exhibit — I don't re-

member. [3431] 1975-76 was PX 11, and I think they

decreased in number from that in some of the earlier

vears, like PX 1 to 11, perhaps, as I remember it. .

. Q. All right. In the period ’64 to 75, how many addi-

tions to schools were there?

A. 84 by my count.

Q. And how many of those additions were to racially-

identifiable schools?

A. 71 out of the 84.

Q. And those schools, again allowing for the fact

that things in "75 haven't had time to make a change, of

those schools, how many schools are there which remain

racially identifiable in 1975?

A. 62 out of the 71, and one of the schools was

closed, and the year before it was closed it was racially

identifiable as when it was opened or when it had the

addition.

Q. There were substantial changes made in 1975,

werent there?

A. Yes, I think the exact number was 26.

Q. The totals for the period 1950-1975 in additions

to schools comes to what, Dr. Foster?

A. 176 additions.

Q. And in how many of those additions were the

schools racially identifiable?

[3432] A. 128 out of the 176.

*

429

Q. And again, with the understanding that 26 of those

were made in 1975, how many of those remain racially

identifiable in 1975?

A. 104.

Q. In using the information you obtained from Dr,

Merriman’s testimony, did you — let me give you a hypo-

thetical situation.

Let's assume that the witness indicated that they

converted two rooms of an existing school to other uses

but also added two new classrooms. Did you consider

that addition to the school for the purposes of your

analysis?

A. I'm not sure what your hypothetical describes,

but there was one case, I believe it was Bretnell Elemen-

tary, that had a situation — they added two rooms and

lost two rooms, and I didn’t count that. The only schools

I counted in correcting my information on the basis of

Dr. Merriman’s testimony were ones that added classroom ;

space.

Q. Dr. Foster, did you examine the data of the Colum-

bus School System with respect to principals?

A. Yes, I did. Well, some of it, not all of it, but

selected years.

Q. All right. And what years did you look at?

A. 1968-69, 1972-73, and that’s just one school year

in each case, and the year 1975-76.

[3433] Q. Turning first to 1968-69, what source

material did you use?

A. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 448-A and Plaintiffs’ Exhibit

449-A were — I also used the original on that, and I don’t

have the — the source. I believe that was Form 101, HEW

Form 101 for racial reporting, but I don’t have the PX

number on it, if there is, in fact, one.

Q. All right. Did you find certain corrections that

vou had to make to PX 448-A and 449-A?

A. Well, of the three years I examined, one of the

years I did make some corrections, and I went completely

430

through the HEW 101 form to do that. The other two

years — that was 1972 to '73.

In *68-69, I spot-checked, cross-checked the HEW

Form, and in "75-76, I cross-checked the Equal Employ-

ment Opportunity Commission Form which was used for

that year as a basic data source.

Q. All right. For the period 1968 to ‘69, what did the

data show with respect to the assignment of black prin-

cipals?

A. In 1968-69 school year as to the assignment of

black principals, let me simply summarize my findings and

then, if you want something more, you can ask.

Of 94 racially-identifiable white schools, and this is

figured again on the basis of plus or minus 15 percent

[3434] from the norm at the different levels where that was

available, high school and junior high or elementary, of

94 racially-identifiable white schools reporting the use of

principals, 94 of them had white principals. In other words,

no blacks were assigned to these 94 white schools as

principals.

In the same year, there were 24 schools not racially

identifiable reporting principals, and all of these 24 schools

not racially identifiable had white principals. No blacks

were assigned as administrators to those schools.

In the same year, there were 43 racially-identifiable

black schools reporting principals in use, and 30 of those

had white principals, 13 had black principals.

In sum, there were 13 black principals in the system

that year, according to my figures, and they were all

assigned to racially-identifiable black schools.

Q. Do you have the assistant principals for that same

vear?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. How many black assistant principals were there

at the 95 racially-identifiable white schools — I'm sorry —

94 racially-identifiable white schools?

431

A. Youre right. There were 95 racially-identifiable

white schools. The 94 figure was simply — one of tlm did

not have a principal assignment.

[3435] At the racially-identifiable white schools, no

black assistant principals were assigned in that year.

Q. At the integrated, desegregated or non-racially-

identifiable schools, according to your definition, we have

25 of those schools in 1968-69. We have 24 white principals

and zero black; is that correct, and one that there was no

designation?

A. That is correct, yes, sir.

Q. All right. How many assistant principals were

there who were black at these non-racially-identifiable

black schools?

A. There was one black assistant.

Q. And how many white?

A. 14 white assistants.

Q. Now, turning to the racially-identifiable black

schools in 1968-69, how many of those 43 schools, how

many of those had white assistant principals?

A. 12 of them.

Q. And how many of them had black?

A. 5 of them had black assistant principals.

Q. I take it at least from the data available to you

not all of these schools had assistant principals; is that

correct?

A. That is correct. Most of the —I guess all of the

secondary schools had assistants, and ordinarily, maybe

[3436] half a dozen of the elementary schools. I assume

if they were fairly large elementary schools, they may have

had assistant principals. City systems usually have a cutoff

point for a population. Whenever it reaches 800 or 600 or

whatever, you're allowed, assistant principals.

Q. All right. Would you look at the same data for

the 1972-73 school vear and tell me how many racially-

432

identifiable white schools there were and how many of

them had black principals?

A. There were a total of 86 racially-identifiable white

schools. 77 of them reported having principals. 76 had

white principals, and one of them had a black principal.

Q. What was the breakdown at the racially-identifi-

able black schools?

A. There were 47 racially-identifiable black schools

‘— I beg your pardon. I have the wrong set of figures. I was

reading you 1975-76. Can I go back to the white schools?

Q. Yes, 1972-73.

A. All right. In 1972-73, there were 89 racially-

identifiable white schools. 84 of them had white principals,

and none of them had black principals. Five of them did

not have a principal.

Q. Five of them did not have principals showing in

the [3437] data?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right. Let’s just stick to that point with the

racially-identifiable white schools. What about assistant

principals in those schools? .

A. Those schools reported a total of 28 white assistant

principals and no black assistant principals. That didn't

mean that all of them —there were 28 schools that had

assistant principals, but the total number of assistant

principals in those schools was 28 whites and no blacks.

That is to say, one school might have had two or three

assistant principals.

Q. Okay. And at the schools which were non-racially

identifiable, I believe there were 30 of those?

A. That's correct.

Q. And how many black principals were there in 1972-

73?

A. There were 2 black principals in those 30 schools.

Q. And 27 whites?

A. That’s correct.

433

Q. And there was one, I believe, that was not appli-

cable? You didn’t have any data?

A. No, there was one that did not report a principal,

and there was also a school that we did not have data for

in those figures.

Q. What about assistant principals at the [3438] non-

racially-identifiable schools?

A. The 30 schools reported a total of 12 white as-

sistant principais and 5 black assistant principals.

Q. The racially-identifiable black schools had what

proportion of black and white principals?

A. There were 47 identifiable black schools. 21 of

them had white principals, 22 had black principals and

4 of them reported no principal.

Q. And the assistant principals?

A. A total of 13 white and 11 blacks.

Q. All right. Now, do you have the data for 1975?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you summarized that 1975 data?

A. All right. In 1975-76, the current school year,

there are 87 racially-identifiable white schools and 9 of

them reported no principal. There were 76 white principals

and 1 black principal in the schools.

The same racially-identifiable schools reported 23

white assistant principals and 3 black assistant principals.

The schools that were racially identifiable as black

schools, the current year, were 47. 20 of these reported

white principals, 25 reported black principals, 2 did not

have principals.

In terms of assistant principals for these racially-

identifiable black schools, a total of 12 white [3438A]

assistant principals were reported and 8 black assistant

principals.

[3439] A. (Continued) For the current year for

schools that were not racially identifiable, we had a total

of 32 of them. Four reported no principal. Twenty-four

434

reported white principals, and four reported black prin-

cipals. In this group of 32 nonidentifiable schools racially,

total assistant principals, 15 white were reported and four

black.

Q. Can you summarize the results of your analysis

and breakdown?

A. Well, my opinion is that it seems to me that the

figures speak for themselves in that the apointment of

principals is essentially done along racial lines. The first

black principal we found serving in these three years that

I analyzed in any capacity was in 1968-69. That is in any

nonwhite school, either a nonidentifiable school racially

or a black school — let me start over again.

The first black principal that was assigned to a white

school or a nonidentifiable school was in 1968-69 when

we had one black assistant principal assigned to South

High School. Then in 1972-73 we had two black principals

assigned to racially nonidentifiable schools as principals,

and we had five blacks assigned assistant principals to

racially nonidentifiable schools, but in 1972-73, still no

black principals or assistant principals in identifiable white

schools.

[3440] Now, in 1975-76, the current year, we find one

black principal in a racially identifiable white school. If

my memory serves me correctly, that’s in the Oakmont

School. Furthermore, there are three black assistant prin-

cipals assigned to racially identifiable white schools.

I think the pattern is fairly clear that over this period

of time that was analyzed, black principals are by and

large assigned to black schools, and whites are assigned

to white schools, but also to administrate the racially non-

identifiable schools and, to a large extent, administrate

nearly half of the black schools.

Q. Dr. Foster, do you have any objections to white

principals being assigned to black schools?

A. No.

435

Q. Does the pattern you are speaking to deal with the

failure to assign black principals to racially identifiable

and white schools?

A. Well, in terms of analyzing a system for segrega-

tion or for discrimination or however you want to classify

it, if you have a pattern where principals are assigned

along racial lines, then to that extent you have a segre-

gated system. One of the ways you can determine whether

schools are segregated or not is if they do assign personnel

along racial lines.

I think clearly the eviaence indicates that as far

[3441] principals are concerned, Columbus has done this

and continues to do it. They are beginning to make very

small inroads, and I understand you just don’t go out and

fire white principals and put in black principals or what-

ever, but there is nothing that would indicate over the

past several years that — if they wanted to desegregate the

schools as far as administrators are concerned, they could

exchange some of the white principals and black principals

in their assignments. Schools do this quite frequently. I

think this is a typical —if I may further analyze it—a

typical procedure for schools that are beginning to de-

segregate in a very small way, that is, they begin to move

maybe one black principal in the total system into a white

school, sort of break the color line, and then when every-

body feels safe about that, they make another advance-

ment.

Q. Dr. Foster, you mentioned in the very beginning

of your testimony, I believe, that the assignment of

faculty, teaching faculty, and I assume you included ad-

ministrators, to schools is one of the things you look at to

determine whether schools are segregated?

A. Yes, sir.

[3442] Q. I believe you also used the term whether

a school was racially identifiable rather than segregated?

A. I believe I did, yes, sir.

436

Q. Does a pattern of assignment of teaching staff to

schools over the years in such a way as to assign black

teachers to black schools and white teachers to white

schools, does that tend to identify schools as schools in-

tended for blacks and whites?

A. Certainly.

Q. All right. Does that sort of identification of schools,

is this something that carries forward, has a short or a

long-term effect?

A. Well, I think it is like every segregative pattern,

it doesn't wipe away overnight.

Q. In the Columbus School System. I believe you

have been made aware that there was action taken by the

Ohio Civil Rights Commission which resulted in the re-

assignment of teaching faculty as opposed to principals,

which we have already discussed. In the context of the

history of such racial assignment of teaching faculty,

would the reassignment of teachers without the conco-

mitant reassignment of principals and pupils eliminate the

effect of the original racial assignments?

MR. PORTER: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

[3443] A. Not in my opinion, no, sir.

Q. In your experience, Dr. Foster, you have worked

with school systems that have gone through the process of

desegregation in what are sometimes called first genera-

tion and second generation problems?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. That’s one of the responsibilities of the Center

you are associated with; is that correct?

A. To work with what we called second generation

problems following desegregation of faculties and pupils,

yes, sir.

Q. And have you personally observed as well as

studied in the literature any continuing effect of racial

assignments of faculty?

437

A. Very much so, and even particularly adminis-

trators and central office personnel.

Q. Dr. Foster, did you make some examination of the

use of rental facilities in the Columbus School System?

A. Yes, I did.

MR. LUCAS: If the Court will indulge me just a

moment.

Q. (By Mr. Lucas) What data did you use to examine

these rentals?

A. I used some spread sheets which were given to

me of data collected or put together from the response to

[3444] Plaintiffs’ third interrogatory, No. 60, I believe.

Q. Did you also refer to PX 358?

A. Well, I think that’s the Plaintiffs’ Exhibit number

for those responses is my understanding.

Q. What school rentals did you ‘examine and for

what periods?

A. Primarily rentals from the years that racial enroll-

ment data were available. This would have been from

1964 to 1975.

Q. And what schools did that involve?

A. This would include rentals for Cassidy pupils in

1972-73, Chicago pupils in ’64-’65, Hamilton, 1970, High-

land Elementary School, 1964-65 and 1970, Kent Ele-

mentary School, 1970, Mifflin Junior-Senior, 1974-1975,

South Mifflin Elementary from 1972 and 1973, and the

Sullivant Elementary School for 1970.

2 So 2 oO oO

[3447] Q. Dr. Foster, have you made an analysis of

certain rentals utilized by the Columbus School System?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. Can you begin your explanation of the analysis

with the 1975-76 information provided to you?

A. All right. My data came from PX 358 which was

the response to Plaintiffs’ Third Interrogatory and it lists

the rentals. I started with 1975-76, the current year and

438

worked backwards. The only rental there is of record this

vear is a Mifflin Junior High School — Junior-Senior High

School which was also a holdover from 1974-75. That is

to sav there was a rental from Mifflin Junior-Senior in

‘74-75 and also the current year.

[3448] Q. What do you understand the rental to be

to use this term?

A. My understanding in these connections was that

the rentals were used for purposes for taking care of over-

capacity in the sending school situation.

a ao o oO *

[3449] In 1974, when this rental began, our records

indicate that Mifflin had a capacity of 1,000 and an enroll-

ment of 1559, and it was 57.7 percent nonwhite.

[3450] A. (Continued) Then in 1975 Mifflin Junior-

Senior had a capacity of 1,200 by our records and an

enrollment of 1,515. In the year 1974 and 1975 there was

some space available in junior high schools in the system.

The Buckeye Junior High School, which is approximately

10 miles to the south of Mifflin in the extreme south end

of the district, had available about 89 spaces according

to its capacity, and it was virtually all white.

Crestview, which is much closer to Mifflin, about four

or five miles directly to the west of Mifflin in the sort of

north central part of the Columbus District, had a capacity

in 1974 of 86 under-utilized, and Wedgewood which is

down in the western portion of the district, extreme west-

ern portion of the district about I would guess 11 or 12

miles from Mifflin, it had a population under utilization

of 145. These three schools were ranged from 0.3 percent

non-white in the case of Buckeye to 9.4 non-white in the

case of Crestview. Totaling them together would have

seating capacity not utilized of approximately 328 pupils.

In 1975 again Buckeye which is to the extreme south

of the district had 219 seats available and was 2.4 percent

non-white. Westmoor which is again in the western por-

439

tion of the district had a capacity of 84 which was unused, _

and it is 10.3 percent non-white. Yorktown which is in the

extreme east part of the Columbus District is 7.8 percent

non-white [3451] in 1975-76 and had seating available

of 197. These three schools which were identified as white

schools had a total capacity of 500 seats, according to our

figures.

Q. If we can go back, in 1974 there was a capacity

available of 320 and an excess at the Mifflin Junior High

of 539; is that correct?

A. That’s correct, yes, sir.

Q. And in 1975 there was space available for 500

and an excess in enrollment at Mifflin of 315?

A. That is correct.

Q. Now, Dr. Foster, is it clear from the data whether

or not the rental space is included in the capacity figure

for Mifflin?

A. Lassumed that it was not, no, sir, and that, further-

more, the enrollment listed for Mifflin included those chil-

dren who were assigned to the rental space.

Q. Dr. Foster, you are aware, are you not, of the

recommendation of the report of the Feasibility Study

Commission of the financial needs of the Columbus Public

Schools of January 1976, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 65 which indi-

cates that there should be closing of two of the three

junior-senior high schools?

A. I have read parts of that document, yes, sir.

or oO Q ed oO

[3452] Q. Dr. Foster, were you aware that such a

recommendation had been made?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right. Go ahead. I think the question before

vou now is: Were there any other —

A. Yes, I understand.

Q. Okay.

440

A. There was a rental for the Innis-Cleveland area,

which is — I assume was awaiting the opening of the new

school at Innis and that this space was rented prior to

the opening. According to PX358, these pupils were also

housed at the Tuskeegee Housing Alumni Foundation.

[3453] Q. All right. For the period 1973-74, were

there other rental spaces available other than the South

Mifflin rental that you referred to?

A. Well, in 1973-74, South Mifflin Elementary had a

rental and also Cassady Elementary. The Cassady Ele-

mentary had started the year previously in 1972-73 and

continued for two years, and '73-74, the South Mifflin —

well, South Mifflin also was in 72-73, so both of them

rented space for those two years.

Q. What were the enrollments and spaces available

at that period of time?

MR. PORTER: If the Court please, for the purpose

of the record, I would object to the question, and the basis

‘of my objection is that they have not laid the proper

foundation for the question. I think that if he’s going to

give this type of testimony that we should know from

whence he’s getting the information so that it will simplify

subsequent cross-examination, if any.

THE COURT: I think that’s right. Would you ask

him where he got the information and supply us that?

[3454] Q. Is it the same as the answer that you gave

at the beginning of the testimony as to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit

358, Dr. Foster?

A. Right, plus the enrollment data, I’ve already testi-

fied where I got my basic enrollment data through the

years, and the capacity data was from a number — a variety

of sources, including the Ohio — well, that’s fairly compli-

cated, but I’ve made out a capacity spread sheet for the

entire period of the system, and that has about 12 different

sources, I believe, which I have fully documented.

441

Q. All right. For Mr. Porter's convenience at note-

taking, could you locate that and give us those sources

now?

A. Yes. Do you want me simply to read the docu-

ments?

Q. Yes.

A. All right. That I derived my capacity figures from?

Q. Right.

A. PX 58, the title is “A School Building Survey of

Columbus, Ohio.” It’s the Ohio State Report in May, 1959,

and the pages were 68 to 75.

PX 59 is a study of the public school building needs

of Columbus, again by the Bureau of Research at Ohio

State for 1950. The pages here were pages 41 to 47 and 107

and 108.

PX 60, another Ohio State study for May, 1953, pages

51 to 58.

[3455] PX 61, which is the Ohio State 1955-56 study.

I don’t seem to have the pages noted for that.

PX 62, the 1958-59 Ohio State study, July, 1959.

pages 48 to 54.

PX 64, the 1963-64 Ohio State study, published in

June 1964, pages 54 to 60. el

PX 63, the 1967-68 study at Ohio State, published

March 1, 1969, pages 66 to 74.

[3456] A. (Continued) PX 66, capacities at junior-

senior and senior high schools in the permanent secondary

school buildings, November 1971.

PX 65 which is reported a Feasibility Study Com-

mittee on the financial needs of the Columbus Public

Schools, January 27, 1976, pages 49 to 53. This included

the elementary study conducted by the Division of Admin-

istration in October 1975 and secendary estimated October

"75 by the Division of Administration, page 58.

PX 43, the reference manual on the May 4, 197]

School Board issue and operating levy, ten general facts

about the Columbus Public Schools, pages 10-6 to 1015.

442

Q. And from that you compiled a spread sheet for

the various years of the enrollment figures for the various

schools; is that correct?

A. That’s correct.

Q. And whenever you refer to enrollment, it comes

from that source? -

A. That is correct.

MR. PORTER: Thank you very much.

MR. LUCAS: We would be happy to make that sheet

available to counsel.

MR. PORTER: Yes, I would like to see it.

Q. (By Mr. Lucas) Where did we leave off, Dr.

Foster? Cassady, I believe.

[3457] A. South Mifflin and Cassady. All right, South

Mifflin Elementary which was annexed in 1971 —

Q. Excuse me. You placed the 1975-76 overlay that

is PX — .

A. PX 278.

Q. All right. Would you outline the boundaries of

the attendance area first, please?

A. For South Mifflin?

Q. Yes.

A. It is just below where the Mifflin Junior-Senior

High School is in the sort of north central portion of the

district. This had a rental facility in ’72 and 73. In 72

the South Mifflin Elementary was 347 over capacity and

was 79.9 percent non-white. In 1975 it was 312 over

capacity, and it was 83.4 percent non-white.

I made an analysis of some space that was available

in schools which were predominantly of the opposite race.

In 1972 Northwood, which is in the north central — I can’t

seem to locate it. Everything north is north anyway. It is

about three miles, I believe, from South Mifflin Element-

ary. For some reason I still can’t seem to locate it on the

map.

Northwood was 2.2 percent non-white and had a

capacity available of 88 seats.

443

Kenwood which is about five miles to the west of

[3458] South Mifflin over in the western part of the —

northwestern part of the district was 2.0 percent non-white

and had a seating capacity available of 102 seats. This was

in 1972.

Medary which is about three miles from South Mifflin

— all of these schools I am speaking of are in this general

area to the north and west of the Columbus District.

Medary is about three miles by the way the crow flies

from South Mifflin and was 1.7 percent non-white with 58

seats available.

Northridge, about three and a half miles from South

Mifflin, had 61 seats available with no non-whites. That's

a little more towards the center of the district but in the

north.

Oakland Park in the same region, about three miles

from South Mifflin, 1.2 percent non-white had 54 seats

available.

So in 1972 these five virtually all white elementary

schools had 363 seats or spaces which would have been

available.

[3459] Q. How many overcapacity was the South

Mifflin Elementary at that time?

A. In 1972, 347 overcapacity. In 1973 when South

Mifflin was 312 overcapacity, the same five schools had

553 seats available. Northwood had 119. Kenwood had

145. Medary had 112. Northridge had 90, and Oakland

Park had 87.

In 1973 these five schools ranged from 0.5 percent

non-white at Northridge to 1.7 percent non-white in

Medary.

Q. All right. Did you perform the same analysis with

respect to the Cassady Elementary?

A. Cassady which is not far from South Mifflin, a

little in the north of the district and on the extreme east,

again, Cassady was part of the Mifflin annexation in 1971

in this general area. Space was rented for Cassady over-

444

capacity in 1972 and 1973. In 1972 Cassady was over 352

spaces. Within a radius of five to six or seven miles there

were eight elementary schools, almost a!l of them virtually

all white — well, all of them virtually all white, none of

them over 3.6 percent non-white, which had a combined

capacity available of 563 spaces. This included — all these

schools are in the north or north central, northwestern

part of the Columbus zone. This included Beaumont which

was 3 percent non-white and had 35 seats. Maize Elemen-

tary which was 1 percent non-white had 72 seats. Marburn,

2.5 percent non-white had 36 seats. Homedale, 3.6 [3460]

percent non-white had 122 seats available. Michigan, 3.6

percent non-white, had 45 seats available. Valley Forge,

0.9 percent non-white, had 63 seats available. Kenwood

had 102 seats available, 2 percent non-white, and North-

wood, had 2.2 percent non-white and 88 seats available.

[3461] Q. Now, what was the excess enrollment at

capacity in 1971?

A. In Nineteen what?

Q. 71.

A. A hundred and thirty-four overcapacity.

Q. And it jumped to 362 in ’72?

A. That is correct.

Q. All right. What happened in 1973? Did it con-

tinue to increase?

A. It continued to increase to 416 overcapacity.

Q. And capacity for both years or all three years

has shown as what?

A. Four hundred and thirty-five seats.

Q. All right. And in ’73, the percentage of black at

capacity was what?

A. 48.6 percent non-white.

All right. In 1973, in a group of six schools, including

Medary, Beaumont, Maize, Valley Forge, Homedale and

Kenwood, ranging from three miles to approximately seven

and a half miles the way the crow flies from Cassady, there -

445

were 639 seats available. All of these schools — well, these

schools range from 1.3 percent non-white at Valley Forge

to 3.1 percent non-white at Homedale in 1973.

At Medary, there were 112 seats available; at Beau-

mont, 100; at Maize, 103; at Valley Forge, 87; at [3462]

Homedale, 92; and at Kenwood, 145.

Q. That gives you a total of 639, and what was the

total overcapacity at —

A. 416 in 1973 at Cassady.

Q. All right. And did this continue to increase in

1974?

A. In 1974, there were 526 overcapacity at Cassady.

Q. And what had happened to the racial enrollment?

A. It had climbed to 55.9 percent non-white. They

show no rentals, however, in 1974, and I assume by that

time the addition that increased their capacity from 435

to 630 was probably in use to take care of that increased

enrollment.

Q. All right. Does the 1975 data show that increase

in capacity at Cassady?

A. To 630, yes, sir.

Q. All right. And what happens to the racial enroll-

ment between '74 and 75?

A. It increases at Cassady from 55.9 percent non-

white to 89.3 percent non-white.

Q. In 1972-73, was there another school in the rental,

McGuffey School?

A. Yes. It’s listed in the PX 358 as the McGuffey

Junior Elementary.

[3463] Q. And this school was at the — what racial

composition in 1972-73?

A. 34.7 percent non-white.

Q. And I take it you made no analysis of alternatives

available of a desegregative nature at that point; is that

correct?

A. Because of the racial composition, I did not.

446

Q. All right. In ’71-72, in addition to the McGuffey

School, was there another junior high school involved?

A. Clinton Junior High School rented facilities in

1971-72.

Well, this will give it close enough, I believe, if we

go back.

PX 299, the junior high school for °75-76 will show

the Clinton Junior High School, which is to the — nearly

to the extreme north of the district and in the central part.

Q. What happened to the Clinton Junior High at

that period of time in terms of rental?

A. In 1971, at Clinton, which was 1.7 percent non-

white, it had an enrollment of 1,249 and a capacity, ac-

cording to my figures, of 1,000, which leaves it 249 seats

over capacity.

In that year, the system was admittedly a bit tight

for space, but in Mohawk Junior-Senior High School,

[3464] which is to the south of the system, just across

from what's now the Interstate and about, by my estimate

about seven and a half miles from Clinton to the north

at Mohawk.

At Mohawk, there were 194 seats available in the

junior-senior high school.

Q. What was the percentage of black at Mohawk?

A. The percentage black at Mohawk in 1971 was

67.6 percent.

Q. All right. Were there a number of elementary

schools in the period 1970-71 where there were rental

spaces?

A. In 1970-71, there were four elementary schools

that rented in addition to the McGuffey Junior-Elemen-

tary, which was still renting but which I did not make an

analysis of because it was 20.6 percent non-white.

Q. All right.

A. There was Hamilton Elementary, Highland Ele-

mentary, Sullivant Elementary and Kent.

447

I again placed the elementary overlay for °75-76,

which is Plaintiffs’) Exhibit 278, over the 1970 Census,

PX 252. I think these schools will be found on it.

First of all, Hamilton, which is in the center of the

district, a little to the north, in 1970, there was only 8

over capacity, according to my figures. There was 93.5

percent black — or non-white, rather.

[3465] The same year, Highland, which is to the west

of the district out Broad Street a way, was 68.9 percent

non-white and an overcapacity of 63 pupils.

In 1970, Kent Elementary, which is in the center

part of the city and a little to the south, it’s a mile or two

south of Broad Street, Kent was 90.1 percent non-white

and 126 pupils overcapacity.

And in the same year, Sullivant, which is a little

southwest of the central part of the city, of downtown,

Sullivant Elementary was 62.2 percent non-white and had

65 seats overcapacity.

If you add these four schools together, that gives

you a total in 1970 of 262 of spaces that were needed.

At the same time, in 1970, I found at least six white

elementary, racially identifiable white elementary schools

which did have a considerable amount of capacity avail-

abie. One of these was Kenwood, which is in the north-

west part of the district, which was zero percent non-

white, and it had 151 seats available.

Q. What was its enrollment, according to your

figures?

A. Its enrollment was 255, with a capacity of 406

according to my figures.

Q. And where did you get the enrollment data for

all of this?

A. From 1970— pardon me a second. In 1970, this

[3466] would have been from Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 6.

448

Northwood, which is in the central northern part of

the system, in 1970, it was 3.3 percent non-white and

had 44 seats available.

At Beaumont, which is in the northern-eastern part

of the system had 32 seats available and .2 percent non-

white.

Bellows, which is down in the southwestern part of

the Columbus District had 134 seats available, 5.5 per-

cent non-white.

At Parsons, which is in the south part of the Colum-

bus School District, it had 107 seats available and no

non-whites in attendance or in enrollment.

Stewart, which is to the central and southwestern

part of the system, had no non-whites, and had 38 seats

available.

Q. Let’s go back to Parsons. What was the enroll-

ment at Parsons?

A. Parsons had an enrollment of 357, according to

my figures, with 347 capacity.

[3467] A. (Continued) These schools ranged, if you

could match them up in the same general geographic area

with the schools that were over capacity and the schools

that were under capacity, I think you could have put them

together with a reasonable amount of travel distance be-

cause there were some of both in the south and some in

the western part of the district and some in the north and

north central part.

Q. All right. Were there rentals in ‘67 and ‘68?

A. There were two rentals listed in ’67 and ’68. There

was Ohio Elementary and Windsor Elementary.

I made an analysis of these and found that in 1967

when Ohio rented space, it was 121 over capacity, and in

1967 when Windsor rented space, it was 110 over capacity.

Windsor also rented space in 1966, and it was 221 over

capacity.

449

Q. Ali right. Looking at under-utilized schools, did

you find very much in the way of excess capacity at that

point?

A. In 1967 I did not find enough spaces available in

opposite race schools to warrant a decision that space was

available of that nature. There could have been perhaps

70-75 pupils moved, but not enough for the number

needed.

[3473] Q. Dr. Foster, did you examine all of the

optional attendance areas in Columbus that were available

in the data?

A. Some of them much more closely than others, but

my main intent was to examine the ones that had — that

in my opinion had racial implications, so my examination

of some of them which obviously weren't racial was very

cursory.

9. All right. Dr. Foster, in your examination of the

optional attendance areas, did you of necessity also have

to examine boundary changes that took place over a period

of time?

A. In connection with those optional zones, yes, sir.

Q. And was it also necessary to interrelate the open-

ing and I suppose on occasion the closing of schools dur-

ing that same examination? :

[3474] A. In some instances, yes, sir.

Q. All right. Did you also have to examine the changes

at other grade levels other than the area where the option

existed?

A. I think if I interpret your question correctly, there

were some options which I judged to be racially oriented

which were true at the elementary level, and the same

territory was true at the junior high school level and also

at the senior high school level.

Q. All right. Did you examine the Fair Elementary-

Fairmoor Elementary optional attendance area?

450

° ° * ° 2

A. I should first apologize to Mr. Lamson. In his

absence, we curled the census maps the wrong direction

making it a little more difficult.

The Fair Elementary-Fairmoor Elementary, using the

1960 Census, PX 251, as the base map and the 59-60

elementary overlay, PX 263 on top of that, just to the east

of the district at — and Fair is just to the east of [3475]

the center of the city and Fairmoor is across Bexley just

to the east of Bexley. Directly east of Fair Elementary,

I used these two documents, PX 263, PX 251. I used the

enrollment data, particularly PX 12, which gives the per-

centage non-white for the years, I believe, 64, 1965 and

1966, and various other data on enrollment and percentage,

racial percentages through the years of the option.

Q. All right. Were you able to determine from the

data available to you the year the option began?

A. Yes. The option began in 1959-60, and continued

through last year, 1974-75.

Q. All right. At its inception, were you able to deter-

mine the enrollment of the school itself, or were you able

to determine the underlying racial composition of the

attedance area?

A. Well, we did a combination of that. One is we

knew the racial enrollment in 1964, and we extrapolated

that a bit from that to get some idea of what the racial

percentage was in 59-60, and then we had the 59 overlay

on top of the 60 Census, and that also contributed to our

knowledge of the ethnic situation.

In 1960, according to the census map, the optional

zone area, which is bounded on the north by Broad Street

and on the east by Preston, down about two-thirds of the

way and then Parkview for the balance, on the south by

Fair, [3476] is for the most part — for all the part, as a

matter of fact, and on the west by Alum Creek.

This optional area on the 1960 Census is entirely

white, which is 0 to 9.9 percent non-white.

e

451

Q. Would you look at the black data and see if you

can get a more refined reading as to both the number of

people living in that area and their races?

A. The race indication was that this was indeed an

all white area. The block data for the 1960 Census gave

us the number of people, not the number of pupils, but the

number of total people in the zone. There were six blocks

which had people in the optional zone.

Block 1 had 11 people in four houses. Block 2 had

27 people in seven houses. Block 3 had 42 people in six-

teen houses. Block 14 had 53 people in nine houses. Block

15 had 22 people in six houses, and Block 16 had 4 people

in one house. This made a total of 159 persons in 43 houses,

and they were all white, according to the census data.

Q. All right. What was the underlying attendance

area of the schools to which the option was made available?

A. On the west, the pupils could go to Fair. On the

1960 Census, Fair to the extreme west has three or four

white blocks, 0 to 9.9 percent non-white — or black, rather,

It’s mostly made up, otherwise, of Franklin Park, the white

area [3477] to the northwest, and all the blocks are either

orange, blue or green, ranging from ten percent non — ten

percent black to 89.9 percent black. The option to the

east, Fairmoor, as of the 1960 Census, has no blocks other

than white blocks.

Q. By white, you mean 09.9?

A. That’s correct. This would be borne out by the

19 — by the PX 12, which gives the racial data for 1964

as Fairmoor at 0.1 percent non-white, so I would assume

that it would be safe to say that in 59, when the option

was started, Fairmoor was virtually all white.

Q. What was Fair in 1964, the school from which the

option was carved?

A. 92 percent non-white in 1964.

[3478] Q. And in the 1960 Census, the total popu-

lation, as you've already described, it’s orange, blue and

green, the major portion?

452

A. Yes. That would indicate that it was — other fac-

tors equal, that it was getting blacker by the year.

Q. Is there an unusual factor about this option relat-

ing to its non-contiguous nature?

A. Well, it is a bit unusual in that it jumps the City

of Bexley and the option is to schools on either side east

and west of the City of Bexley.

Q. In your opinion, Dr. Foster, does this option

established by the Columbus School System, at least from

the records made available to us in the 1959-60 school

term and continuing until 1975-76, did it have a racial

effect?

A. In my opinion, it did. The option on the face of

it would have been set up to permit the white pupils who

lived in the optional zone to attend Fairmoor rather than

Fair.

Q. Dr. Foster, is this an option which was unusual

in nature except other than the discontiguous character-

istics or is it a type of option which in your research you

have found before?

A. Well, it’s very similar to options that are set up

to maintain an escape alley for whites as a school area gets

blacker and where you have a white area or white zone

that is [3479] available to which they can be optioned.

Q. All right. Did you examine the Franklin Junior

High School, Eastmoor Junior High School optional at-

tendance area?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Would you put up the overlays for them?

A. All right.

Q. Have you placed up the junior high overlay for

1959-60?

A. Yes. I’m looking at the base map, again, Plaintiffs’

Exhibit 251, which is the 1960 Census, the junior high

59-60, which is Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 283.

This optional zone was — started at Fair-Fairmoor

in 59-60, and as depicted on the map towards the — just

453

the east of the center of the downtown area, Franklin

Junior High would be the westernmost school, and again

across Bexley to Eastmoor Junior High School, directly

east of Franklin except for the intervening City of Bexley.

This was carved, again, out of the easternmost part of

Franklin Junior High School.

Q. All right. Franklin Junior High School, in 1964,

had what racial composition?

A. According to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 12, Franklin was

86 percent non-white in 1964.

Q. And Eastmoor?

[3480] A. Eastmoor was 31 percent non-white.

Q. All right. Examining the 1960 Census map, what

does the underlying area for the Franklin Junior High

area show?

A. Franklin Junior High School, overlooking the ’60

Census map, the northwest portion, which would be

about, I would judge, a third of the total area, is colored

mostly red with a little orange, meaning from the orange

50 to 89.9 percent, the red, 90 to 100 percent black.

[3481] A. (Continuing) Everything south of Broad

Street which would be roughly two-thirds of the zone as

the elementary is colored some white, some blue, some

green, some orange, ranging from the white at 0 percent

to 9.90 up to 89.9 percent black.

The option which is Eastmoor Junior High has a

rather peculiar configuration going all the way to the

extreme east of the district approximately where York-

town would be at this point, Yorktown Junior High School,

and to the north of Whitehall and then back into the

northwestern part of the Eastmoor zone just to the north-

east of Center City. This is an all white area except for

that portion which comes out from the Center City and

is blue, orange, red and a couple blocks which are green.

Q. How long did this option continue?

A. This option continued as the elementary through

1974-75. It had some mocification.

454

Q. What were the nature of the modifications?

A. In 1961-62 the option was changed to include an

additional junior high school to the east which is Johnson

Park. Johnson Park is directly south of Eastmoor Junior

and comprises the area at that time to the extreme south-

west of the —I mean the southeast of the Columbus Dis-

trict. There are on the census 1960 map in the total area of

Johnson Park, there is one pink block or one orange block,

[3482] one red block, I believe, and one blue block.

QO. Does that comprise the other half of the areas

surrounding the Whitehall —

A. It is to the south and southwest of Whitehall, yes,

sir. If you looked at the ’61-62 junior high school map

which is PX 285, it would simply show an arrow coming out

from Franklin or from the optional zone also down to

Johnson Park which would indicate a three-way option

rather than two.

Q. All right. How long did that particular double

three-way option continue?

A. Well, in 1964 the option was for Johnson Park — I

beg your pardon. In 1961-62 it changed from Franklin

and Eastmoor to Franklin, Eastmoor and Johnson Park.

Then in 1962-63 the option changed from Franklin Junior

High School to Johnson Park, and it left out Eastmoor.

Then the following year in 1963-64 it changed back to

the option just between Franklin and Eastmoor, and it

continued that way until the end of the option in ’74-75.

Q. I believe you described the Franklin attendance

zone. What about the optional area itself; is its basic

character the same as the one for the elementary?

A. Yes, it is coterminous with the elementary zone.

Q. Did those boundaries, elementary and junior high,

remain the same in terms of the optional area through that

[3483] period, through 1975?

A. Through the life of the option, yes, sir.

VA —

455

Q. Dr. Foster, are optional attendance areas that have

racial effect always between schools, one of which is 100

percent or almost 100 percent white?

A. No, not necessarily. They can be between — well,

for an example, it could be between a school that’s 90

percent black and 50 percent white.

Q. In your experience, have you found that there is

movement by whites to schools with lower percentages of

black enrollment in the various communities you have

studied? 7

A. Very definitely, yes.

Q. Is it true even with the so-called magnet programs?

A. Yes. That was particularly true in the Detroit

case, magnet schools.

Q. What was the effect in your opinion, Dr. Foster,

of the junior high option and its variations with respect

to the Franklin Junior High School?

[3484] A. Well, I attempted to develop or to deter-

mine some rationale for the year’s change with Johnson

Park, but I couldn’t understand why that was. The total

effect of the junior high option would indicate to me the

same as the elementary option, and the is that it allowed

the white pupils in the optional zone to avoid going to

Franklin Junior High School and instead go either to

Fastmoor or to Johnson Park.

Q. What was Johnson Park’s racial composition in

1964 as compared to Eastmoor?

A. Johnson Park in ’64 was 0.37 percent non-white.

O. And it was added to the option in which year?

A. For 1961-62 and stayed in °62-63 and was out

again in 63-64.

Q. All right. Did you examine the optional attend-

ance area between East Senior High School and Eastmoor

Senior Higa?

A. Yes, I did.

456

Q. Would you put up the senior high overlay for

the 59-60 school year?

A. This overlay is Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 304 and describes

— well, on this is a picture of the option at the senior high

level which is between East and Eastmoor, East being

the school which is just off Broad Street towards the end

of town, and Eastmoor again across Bexley and the same

[3485] plant as the Eastmoor Junior High School.

Q. Now, East Senior High was what racial compo-

sition in 1964?

A. In 1964 according to Plaintiffs’ — 12, East

was 95 percent non-white.

Q. And Eastmoor, the school to which the option

was given?

A. In that same year it was 11 percent non-white.

Q. The underlying census data at East shows what

in terms of color?

A. The East Senior High, about half of it, a little

more than half is above, to the north of Broad Street,

and that is almost entirely red or some orange, a little

white to the extreme north and one or two blue blocks

and I believe one green block just north of Broad, which

would indicate that it was heavily black in that area. To

the south of Broad you have some white blocks, I would

judge perhaps a third of the number, and then you have

a little bit of everything, green, blue, orange and red,

to complete the picture.

Q. And in 1960 in Eastmoor, the underlying color

was what?

A. The 1960 Census, Eastmoor was — the portion to

the east of the zone, the Eastmoor High School encircled

completely the City of Whitehall, and all of that portion

[3486] which is in the extreme southeast of the Columbus

District, the extreme east and the northeast, as you go

out eastward on Broad Street and Main Street, all of that

was white except for two single blocks, one of which is

457

red and one orange. Then to the extreme northwest of

the Eastmoor High School zone, as in the junior high

school, coming out of the central part of the city, you

find some red blocks, some blue blocks, about four green

blocks.

Q. Roughly speaking, it formed a doughnut around

the Whitehall City; is that correct?

A. That is correct, the attendance zone for Eastmoor

Senior High School.

Q. All right, the senior high optional attendance area

on the base map, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 251, does that show

as white?

A. It shows as all white, yes, sir.

Q. And that is the same area that you previously

described in giving the blocks and the number of people

in each block from the 1960 Census; is that correct?

A. That is correct, yes, sir.

Q. In your opinion, Dr. Foster, what was the effect

of the East Senior High-Eastmoor Senior High optional

attendance area? :

A. In my opinion, it was a racial oriented optional

zone in that it allowed the white pupils who lived in the

[3486A] optional zone to attend the predominantly white

high school, Eastmoor, and to avoid being assigned to the

East High School which was predominantly black or non-

white.

[3487] Q. How long did this option continue, Dr.

Foster?

A. This option went on until last year. It ended this

year and continued through 1974-1975.

Q. Now, Dr. Foster, you have described this same

optional attendance geographic area appearing at elemen-

tary, junior and senior high school levels. Did you have

any data showing how many students there were taking

advantage of the option in each particular attendance

period?

458

A. No, I did not. All you can do is make inference

from the total population of the optional attendance zone.

Q. The School Board kept the option in the boundary

directories for each of those years; is that correct?

A. Yes, sir, I believe so.

Q. In examining that option, Dr. Foster, did you find

any capacity reason for such an option, particularly one

located in that part of the zone?

MR. PORTER: I would object until he lays the

groundwork for it.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. At the junior high level and the senior high level,

there would be, according to my figures, no capacity prob-

lem. For example, from 1962 until 1966, Franklin had

space probably to house these pupils. They ranged from

five under capacity in 1963 to 101 under capacity in 1965.

At the same time Eastmoor starting in 1963 had a con-

siderable overcapacity [3488] at the senior high school

level through the first four years of the option, at least,

both high schools, East and Eastmoor, had considerable

amount of capacity, and then it varied at both junior-

senior high school levels for the next ten years of the

option going back and forth one way and another on

capacity. At the elementary level in 1961 through about

the first ten years of the option, Fair was in an over-

capacity situation. At the same time, Fairmoor was also

in an overcapacity situation, but not to the extreme that

Fair was. My analysis of this would be that there weren't

probably enough pupils at any given level of the three

levels in that optional zone to tax the capacity unduly

of any of the schools involved.

[3489] Q. Was there another option involving the

Franklin Junior High School and Roosevelt Junior High

School?

A. Yes, sir.

459

Q. And when does the data indicate that that parti-

cular option began?

A. This option, according to my data, started in

1955-56.

Q. And where was the option carved from?

A. It was carved out of the southern end of Franklin,

which we can show, perhaps, with the junior high overlay

in PX 281.

[3490] Q. (By Mr. Lucas) Dr. Foster, have you

overlay up for the 1957-58 school term?

A. Junior high school, yes. It is PX 281 over Census

Map 1960, PX 251.

Q. All right. Is there an option between Franklin

Junior High and Roosevelt Junior High?

A. Yes.

[3491] Q. And I believe you testified already that it

began in 1955-56, the school term; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. What’s your source of that information?

A. At the center of the map, the blue hash marks,

Roosevelt to the South and Franklin is to the north, and

the optional zone is a one-block area wide, about 18 or

20 blocks long in between the two.

Q. Where did you get the information, Dr. Foster,

that the option began in 1955?

A. Out of the 54 and '55 directories. The ’55 direc-

tory is the first place you find the option. It’s not in the

1954.

Q. All right. Does it show up in any of the OSU

Studies?

A. It probably did. I don’t have a note to that effect,

but those options are in one-page maps, usually, in the

OSU Studies, and I would assume that it would show up

in there, also.

Q. And how long did this particular option continue

after the 1955-56 school vear?

460

A. This continued through 1960-61, with some modi-

fications, very small modifications.

Q. All right. Would you explain the option, please?

A. All right. It’s carved out of the southern part

[3492] of Franklin, which is to the north. The option is

bounded on the north by Main Street and on the east by

Alum Creek, on the south by Mound Street and on the

west by Monroe.

The base census map for 1960 shows the option to

be predominantly white in the blocks with one or two

green and blue blocks with the white ones, the green being

ten to 27.9 percent black and the blue 28 to 49.9 percent

black.

[3493] Q. What did the respective districts look like?

A. The Franklin district to the north on the 1960

Census north of Broad Street was almost all orange or red,

one or two blue blocks, one green block, a couple white

ones. To the south of Broad, which is about half of the

geographical portion of the zone, you have a combination

of white blocks, blue blocks, green blocks and orange

blocks.

The school to the south, Roosevelt Junior High School,

in the extreme northern portion of the zone, had a scatter-

ing of white blocks, orange blocks, blue blocks and green

blocks. Then starting south of Livingston, very few except

white blocks. There are two or three green ones and two

or three blue ones south of Livingston, indicating a pre-

dominantly white area total population-wise as of 1960.

Q. What were the enrollments as of 1964 between

Franklin and Roosevelt?

A. PX 12 in 1964, Franklin Junior was listed as 86

percent non-white, and Roosevelt was listed as 40 percent

non-white.

Q. Would it be fair to describe the areas described

by the option as in a changing area from your examination

of the map?

461

A. That is correct. It is along the portion of the

Franklin area that is changing.

Q. All right, and did it begin in 1955, whereas the

[3494] Census Map that you have is for 1960; is that

correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Can we place underneath the 1950 Census, please?

All right, we stil! have the 1957-58 overlay, Plaintiffs’

Exhibit 261 now overlaid: on Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 250, the

1950 Census. The Roosevelt zone as of the 1950 period is

mostly white in its underlying color; is that correct?

A. It is all white except for about 8 or 10 blocks to

the north and to the west — well, yes, that would be right

— which are blue, green, and three orange ones in the

extreme northwest.

Q. And these boundaries again as of °57-58, the

Franklin School location is above that area in an area that

is apparently changing as of the 1950 Census; is that

correct?

A. That's correct, because the color line is at Broad

Street primarily, and south of Broad you have a mixture

of primarily green and blue blocks with a predominant

number of white ones in the 1950 Census.

[3495] Q. All right. I show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 61,

the 1955-56 Study, Public School Building Needs, Colum-

bus, Ohio, referring you to page 18, figure 3, grades 7

through 9, and ask you if the option appears on that map?

A. The option does appear, yes, sir.

MR. PORTER: Could we have the reference again,

please, the exhibit number?

MK. LUCAS: Sure. 61, page 18, figure 3.

MR. PORTER: Thank you.

Q. All right. The students attending Franklin were

given an option to attend the Roosevelt School under this

option, as you understand it?

A. Or Franklin, yes, sir.

462

Q. How many blocks long was this option?

A. I believe I testified about 18 to 20 blocks long and

one block wide.

Q. Was this option modified in 1960?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have the 1960 overlay?

A. Yes. We place Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 284, the junior

high ‘60-61 overlay over the junior high ‘57-58, which is

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 281 —

Q. Excuse me. I believe you'd better move the other

base map. I'm sorry.

A. All right. Placing Plaintiffs’ Exhibit.284 over 281,

[3496] and both of them being over the 1960 Census, you

can see that there are two or three blocks at the extreme

western end of the option which do not continue in 1960-

61. Otherwise, the option continues as before.

The western boundary of the option was shortened,

| believe, by two blocks, which would move it over from

Monroe to 18th Street, as I read the map.

Q. All right. Was there further modification in 1961?

A. Yes, the modification in 1961 was that the option

was closed. The PX 285 overlay, PX 284, will illustrate

that the option in 61-62 was closed, and the optional zone

was a re—well, it was rezoned, the optional area was

rezoned back into Franklin.

Q. All right. And Franklin was the predominantly

black school?

A. That’s correct. Franklin stood at 86 non-white,

Roosevelt at 40 percent.

Q. All right. Dr. Foster, in general, from your experi-

ence with optiona! attendance zones, do they tend to be

changed or closed after they have served a particular

purpose?

A. Well, not always, but they tend to be, yes. Some

of them just drag on through unnecessarily, I think.

463

Q. Does this particular change in the Franklin zone

[3497] fit any pattern which you're familiar with?

MR. PORTER: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

A. Yes. As the area that’s under option gets blacker

in the two schools, if they are two that are involved, both

approach each other in racial composition, then there’s

less reason or little reason to maintain an option if, indeed,

it is a racial option, and I would so judge this option,

because it’s obviously nothing to do with capacity based

on the figures.

[3498] A. (Continued) And as there is less need —

if there are no whites left in here to go south to the

Roosevelt High School, then there is no longer need for

the option.

Q. You said there was no capacity reason. Did you

study the capacity between Franklin and Roosevelt to see

whether that might account for this kind of option?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What did you find?

A. I found that for the six years of the option, there

was undercapacity each year in Franklin ranging from 28

seats to 152 seats available in 1958.

Q. That’s the school the option was carved from; is

that correct?

A. Yes. In Roosevelt there was overcapacity the first

four years ranging from 23 seats to 76 seats in 1958; and

in 1959 and 1960 there was less or there was more capacity

available still at Franklin than there was at Roosevelt.

Both of them were under utilized.

Q. And if there had been a question of Franklin being

overcrowded and a desire to assign or permit some stu-

dents an option out of Franklin into another school in an

effort to relieve the overcrowding, would you have ex-

pected to find that Franklin was — its enrollment figures

and capacity figures, that it showed seriously overcrowded?

464

A. If it was an option for capacity reasons, yes, you

[3499] would expect Franklin to be overcrowded.

Q. Dr. Foster, did you examine the optional area

between Central Senior High and North Senior High?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. I believe this started in 1960-61; is that correct?

A. Yes, sir. We have on the board the senior high

60-61, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 305, overlaying the 1960 Census,

PX 251. .

Q. All right. Would you describe the — first of all,

do vou know what school the option was carved from?

“A. According to my records, it was carved out of the

northwestern portion of the Central zone, the Central zone

being a high school zone to the southwest of the city

directly west of center city and extending on out in a

northerly portion which surrounds Grandview Heights and

I believe includes most of what would be the elementary

attendance zone at Kingswood. That’s the Kingswood

area. So the option was carved out of we could say the

northwestern part of Central, and the option was between

Central and North which is immediately to the north

of the Central District.

Q. All right, and the optional attendance areas de-

scribed in PX 305, the senior high overlay for ’60-61, what

does the racial composition show as the underlying census

data? ;

[3500] A. If you look at the hash marks illustrating

the option, it is all white except for one block almost at the

extreme western end of the option, and that one block

5 wee All right. Would you describe the Central and

North Senior High attendance zones in light of their

ing demographic data?

eae Al ae “i 1960 Census underlay shows that

North is completely white except for a small portion in the

southeastern part and about three blocks otherwise which

465

are green in the southern part around Ohio State Uni-

versity. In the southeastern part there are about I would

say 10 to 15 blocks, a couple of which are green, three

of which are blue, and the rest are either orange or red.

The Central attendance zone at that time, according

to the 1960 Census, would be predominantly white also,

but a considerable number more of blocks scattered

around the periphery and also some in the center of red,

orange, greer: and blue. I would says about perhaps a third

of the blocks or a little more maybe would be non-white

blocks, would be colored blocks.

Q. What was the racial composition of Central, the

zone, the attendance area from which the option was

carved in 1964 according to the exhibits?

A. Central would have been 27 percent non-white,

while North was 7 percent non-white in 1964.

[3501] Q. All right, and do you have the latter en-

rollments at those schools?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. What happened to the enrollment of those two

schools?

A. Well, this option continued through 1974-75, last

year, with some modification.

[3502] A. (Continuing) And in 1974-75, the year the

option ended, Central was 33.6 percent non-white, and

North Senior High was 15.6 percent non-white.

Q. All right. You've said there was some modifications

in the option. Can you tell us what they were and when

they took place?

A. The modification was that in 1960-61, it started,

the option started with grade ten, and in 1961-62, it in-

cluded grades ten through twelve, and I believe that’s the

only modification that was involved,

Q. All right. Where was the optional area put back

after — when it was changed this school year?

A. If we overlayed the senior high ’75-76 map, we

would see that it was back into Central.

466

Q. During the period the option existed, do you have

an opinion as to what the effect of the option was?

MR. PORTER: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. In my opinion, the option was primarily racial,

allowing whites to go from the Kingswood area and Cen-

tral High School into North High School, which contin-

uously was a whiter school. I have an idea there also may

have been some overtones of the fact that Central, I

believe, is considered sort of an inner city school while

North would be more of a suburban school. I would expect

there would be some [3503] of that in it, also.

Q. Was there a capacity problem with this option?

A. No capacity problem that I could determine. Both

Central and North, from 1960, especially for the first ten

years of the option, were underutilized by a large number

of students, anywhere from 180 to over 400, as high as 580

at one point at North, underutilized, and only in the last

three years, North has become overpopulated while Cen-

tral is about even. So for the largest part of the life of the

option, there was no capacity problem either way.

Q. North, even when it became overpopulated, sub-

stantially so, compared to its earlier underutilization?

A. No, only somewhere between 15 seats in 1974 and

90 in 1972, which is very insignificant for a high school.

Q. All right. Did you examine an option, Dr. Foster,

which included East Senior High and Linden Senior High

— which appeared in 1962-63?

A. Yes, I did. 62-63. On the board, we have senior

high ’62-63, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 307 overlay, PX 251, a

1960 Census.

[3504] Q. All right. Did you determine from the map

and from the directories that the option began in 1962-63?

In this case, did you primarily rely on the map?

A. My notes don’t include the origin. It is included on

the map that this was the first year.

467

Q. All right. How long did this one continue?

A. This started in °62-63 and continued through

"75-76.

Q. Would you describe, first of all, the boundaries

of the option?

A. All right. The option is almost in dead center of

the map. It’s a rectangular area, nearly square. It’s bor-

dered on the north by Windsor Street, on the east by

Woodland, on the south by a railroad, I believe the N

and —I'm not sure, maybe a couple of railroads — any-

way, railroad tracks, and on the west by Joyce.

The option — I’m sorry. re

Q. The optional attendance area, the part that’s cross-

hatched in green, what does the underlying census data

show for that?

A. The 1960 Census shows a combination of white

blocks, and to the north red blocks and orange blocks, I

would judge about a third each.

Q. All right. And what does the 1960—I’m sorry.

First of all, before you do that, tell us what [3505]

the underlying attendance boundaries, what the demo-

graphic data is for East and for Jinden?

A. All right. For East to the south of the option —

and the option comes out of the northern part almost like

a chimney of the east zone. The east, north of Broad

Street, is almost completely red with a few orange blocks

and very few white ones.

Q. Would you describe the boundary, just with the

pointer, so the Court can see it?

A. All right (indicating). It’s about half above Broad

and half below Broad to the east of the center part of

town.

Q. And the chimney extends up to, what street is

that on the north?

A. The chimney extends up to Woodland, and I be-

lieve it encompasses what has been described in the case

OO

468

as the American Addition, which is to the north of that

chimney.

To the south of Broad High Street and East High

School zone, you will find a combination of white, orange,

red, blue and green, pretty much an equal mix, I would

say, to the north of the option, Linden-McKinley, which

is in the center part of the Columbus District and a little

to the north of downtown.

[3506] A. (Continuing) North of 17th you will find

all white blocks except for one or two green ones and one

blue one. Then south of 17th which at this point in the

1960 Census appears to be the racial line, you will find a

few white blocks, a few blue and green ones, and the

balance red and a couple of pink ones.

Q. Is the Linden-McKinley zone one that has changed

frequently as you go through the maps, attendance bound-

aries?

A. Yes, especially in the southern part as the black

population goes north and then northeast through the

years.

Q. In 1964, what was the enrollment at East?

A. In 1964, PX 12 would indicate that East was 95

percent non-white and Linden was 12 percent non-white.

Q. All right. Were there any changes in this parti-

cular option in 1975-76?

A. I don't have any, no, sir.

Q. All right. When it was ended, when the option

was ended, what had harnpened to the two zones in terms

of the racial enrollment?

A. Well, I would like to check, but my notes indicate

it is not ended. If I could have the ’75 overlay.

All right. PX 320, the senior high 75-76, would indi-

cate that the option in "75-76 is the same as in 62-63

except for one block further extension west which I would

assume would probably be the western portion of Joyce

Avenue, [3507] since sometimes the directories will indi-

469

cate that one side of the street goes one way and one the

other on the boundary line.

Q. All right. During the period that the option has

existed, I believe in ’64 East was 95 percent non-white,

Linden-McKinley 12 percent non-white. Did this option

in your opinion have any racial effect?

MR. PORTER: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

You may answer.

| A. In my opinion, it was definitely a racial option at

its beginning, since you have a disparity of 95 percent in

East non-white in 1964 and Linden-McKinley with 12

percent in 1964 non-white. Continuing through the years

you have a similar disparity except that about 1970 — well

a little before 1970. About 1966, a couple years later,

Linden began to change in racial composition. In 1968-69

it was 35.5 percent non-white, while East was 98.9 percent.

This year, 1975-76, East is 99 percent non-white and Lin-

den is 89.5 percent non-white. It would seem to me that

as of now there is obviously no racial connection with the

option and it is not — in examining the capacity data cer-

tainly for the first nine or ten years of the option, there

was no capacity problem involved.

Q. What were the capacity figures between East and

[3508] Linden?

A. Well, for the first — pardon?

Q. Between East and Linden?

A. Reading a few of them quickly in the first nine

years starting with 1962, East was under 264, under 37

under 65. In 1965 it was over 97, over 109, over 6. Then

in 1968 it was under 7 and in 1969 under 60. Linden High

School maintained a constant undercapacity in those years

—— from 584 undercapacity to about 10 under capacity

[3509] Q. All right. Did you examine the options

between West Mound and Highland?

A. Yes, I did.

470

Q. Did you examine this both in terms of the optional

attendance area and in terms of boundary changes?

A. Well, yes. Boundary changes are always part of

optional attendance zones because the boundaries do

change as the options change.

Q. Put up the 1950 base map if you would, please,

first

A. We have on the board PX 263 which is the elemen-

tary 59-60 overlay and PX 250 which is the 1950 Census.

Q. All right. Point out the area of the option, if you

will.

A. It is to the western portion of the district lying

between Highland and West Mound, Highland being to

the north and West Mound to the south. The option

comes out of the southeastern part of the Highland Ele-

mentary attendance zone.

Q. In 1950 that area shows white; is that correct?

A. The optional area shows all white in the 1950

Census.

Q. All right. Looking at the Highland and West

Mound area in 1950, the West Mound shows entirely

white, whereas part of the Highland zone has red, green

and orange in it; [3510] is that correct?

A. Just about, but there is one block in West Mound

which I believe is green just south of Stafford. Otherwise

they are all white. Highland is partly red, partly orange,

partly green and blue and white.

Q. All right. This particular concentration of black

population, does it have some common name in terms of

its geographic area?

A. I believe that’s called the hilltop area, if I am not

mistaken.

Q. Now, let’s put the 1960 Census up.

All right, is the optional area still white?

A. Looking now at the 60 Census underneath, the

optional area is still all white. The West Mound Elemen-

tary attendance area has added three or four blocks either

471

green or blue in the northwest corner, and the Highland

attendance area has added a considerable number of

green, blue and red and orange blocks which leaves it

only with its north — well, about a third of the eastern,

a third of the Highland zone to the east is still white, ac-

cording to the 1960 Census.

Q. When did this option start?

A. According to my notes, it started in 1955-1956.

Q. And what is the source of your information with

respect to the starting date?

[3510A] A. The °55 directory, plus the OSU 1955

study which is PX 61, Figure 2, page 17.

[3511] Q. All right. How long did it continue?

A. It continued through 1960-61.

Q. And this was carved originally out of Highland

in the southeastern end; is that correct?

A. That is correct (indicating).

Q. What happened in terms of enrollment? What

does the data show for 1964 at West Mound?

A. PX 12 indicates that in 1964 West Mound was 15

percent non-white, Highland was 75 percent non-white.

Q. The option is approximately what, three blocks

long?

A. I would judge so, and it’s square, virtually square,

but I think those are probably long — they appear to be

long blocks running north and south.

Q. What was the effect of this option, in your opin-

ion, Dr. Foster?

MR. PORTER: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. In my opinion, this was a racial option which al-

lowed the whites to leave Highland, which was largely

and shortly a non-white zone, and go to West Mound,

which was a white area.

Q. Okay. Was this area rezoned the following year

to the option, in other words, ended?

472

A. In 61-62, most of the option was zoned into

[3512] West Mound.

Q. All right. Can we put that overlay up?

A. Looking at elementary 61-62, which is Plaintiffs’

Exhibit 264 over Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 263, there is a jagged

line at the southern end of Highland and at the northern

end of West Mound indicating a new boundary line which

ended the option and took in, I would say, the northern

third of the area into — optional area into Highland and

the southern two-thirds into West Mound.

Q. All right. So the wider area which previously had

optioned into West Mound by this boundary change is

assigned to West Mound?

A. About two-thirds of it, yes, sir.

Q. Is this in any way, from your analysis, a capacity

change?

A. It could be in the sense that Highland’s was over-

capacity for those years, ’55 to 60, ranging from 10 over-

capacity in 59 to 105 over in 1957, whereas West Mound

was under capacity in five of those years, ranging from

under 4 seats in 1957 to 105 in 1960, but overcapacity in

1968 by 137, the point being, however, in terms of racial

connotation of this option is that if they really had a

capacity problem, and I think it probably did, it would

have been very simple to make the option to the west of

the option that did exist and have a desegregative effect

rather than [3513] allowing the whites to — if they really

needed seats, then they could have zoned an area further

west of the option providing numbers of pupils could be

moved, and they would undoubtedly have been black

pupils rather than white pupils as this case would be.

[3514] Q. Are you saying they could have created

an option or they simply could have redrawn the attend-

ance zones?

A. The attendance problem being east, the intelli-

gent thing would have been to actually rezone, it seems

473

to me, so you know that children were going to move

rather than give the choice.

Q. When they do rezone, where do they change the

boundary?

A. They changed the southern part of the optional

a which was white and left the northern part in High-

and.

Q. And I don’t recall if I asked you what the racial

enrollment at West Mound and Highland was in ’64?

A. I believe I testified to that. In 1964, West Mound

was 15 percent non-white and Highland was 75 percent

non-white.

Q. Was there another change in this particular area?

A. There was another change in Highland, another

option in the Highland attendance zone which started in

1955, and it was carved out of the northwest sort of pan-

handle section of Highland. I'll have to go back to the

55 map here.

Q. Does this option show up in 1955, Dr. Foster?

A. We're about to determine that.

. Okay. The first overlay we have is 57-58, which

is PX 261, and it’s not on that overlay because by then the

[3515] option has already been removed, but the data

indicate in PX 58, the 1939 OSU survey, which I believe

is on Figure 14, page 111 —

Q. Would you turn to that, please?

A. — shows the Highland zone going to the north.

Q. The original Highland zone, is that sh

1939 OSU survey? anaemia.

A. Yes.

2. — that’s PX 58, page 111, Figure 14?

. Yes, captioned “Distribution of Pupils, G

through 6, Inclusive.” =

Q. All right. Now, that’s not an option at th

‘ t

of time; is that correct? apa ei

A. It simply shows the Highland zone running east

and west much as it does now underneath the Columbus

474

State Hospital to the north, and then going on up on the

western side of the Columbus State Hospital to the north,

all that being one zone with no options.

Q. Allright. I'll show you Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 61, Figure

2, the grades 1 through 6 for 1955. Does that show what

I would call the chimney to the north has been converted

into an optional attendance area?

A. That is correct, Figure 2.

Q. Would you give us the boundaries of that option,

please, the streets?

[3516] A. The boundaries are the Pennsylvania Rail-

road, and the District boundaries to the north; to the east

would be the Columbus State Hospital; to the south was

Broad Street, and on the west was Eldon, which I believe

is about three or four blocks to the west.

Q. That option, according to the data available, you

started in 1955?

A. That’s correct, and continued through ‘56-37. In

other words, a two-year option.

Q. It does not appear on the 57-58 overlay up on the

map; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. From the 1939 survey you determined that it was

part of the Highland Zone and from the ‘55 OSU Report

you determined that the northern portion of the Highland

Zone was created an option for a two-year period; is that

correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. What does the underlying census data for 1950

show for the area that was made into an option?

A. The area which I just described as the optional

area is all black for the 1950 census.

Q. I am sorry.

A. I beg your pardon. All white, and that’s not to say

white people, but white blocks on the census map.

[3517] Q. Highland and West Broad at the same

time, can you describe them in terms of the census?

475

A. On the 1950 census map, West Broad is —

Q. Perhaps you might want to refer back to the 1939

boundaries.

A. —completely white and Highland is about two-

thirds white, one third red, orange, blue and green, and I

don’t think the boundary would affect that.

Q. Except for the optional attendance area portion

vf Highland; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. What did they do when they eliminated the op-

tion in 1957, Dr. Foster?

A. They moved the option to West Broad which is

shown ou the elementary ’57-58 overlay.

Q. When you say they moved the option, you mean

they cut off the northern portion of the Highland Attend-

ance Zone?

A. That’s correct, at Broad Street.

Q. Redrew the boundary line at Broad; is that correct?

A. For a portion of it, then it dips farther south and

again farther south before it goes back up to Broad and

goes west.

Q. What was the effect, first of all, of the optional

attendance area during the period 1955 through 1958?

A. In my opinion, this was a racial option which

allowed [3518] the whites in the optional zone to leave

Highland’s and go to West Broad.

Q. What was the effect of the change in the boundary

between Highland and West Broad in 1957, Dr. Foster?

A. This would have further compacted the blacks

population into Highland and placed the white portion of

the Highland Zone, at least this part of the Highland Zone,

into West Broad Street which would have had a segrega-

tive effect on both counts rather than a desegregative

effect.

Q. At one period of time actually with respect to

Highland, we had an option in the eastern part of the zone

476

which was eliminated in part by taking part of the option

and assigning it down to West Mound; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Originally Highland went up to the north in a

chimney here, then that was made an option and then it

was cut off and assigned to West Broad; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

MR. PORTER: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

BY MR. LUCAS:

Q. The net effect of all of those actions on Highland,

Dr. Foster, do you have an opinion as to that?

A. I believe I just said that it — both options and the

way the boundary lines were handled at the close of the

options [3519] tended to impact the blacks in the High-

land and make for whiter schools in both West Mound and

West Broad, having a segregative effect on both counts.

Q. According to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 12, what was the

racial enrollment in 1964 in Highland?

A. Seventy-five percent non-white in ‘64.

Q. West Broad?

A. Zero percent non-white.

Q. That's the area that had the white portion of

Highland assigned to it; is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is this an area where a simple redrawing of

attendance boundaries, this Hilltop area, in a different

manner from that which they were drawn, have effected

substantially desegregation? Have you looked at that?

A. Yes, because I think this is an «bvious example of

when, if a school district really went into —a desegregator

had any inclination to do so at any point in time from the

options and what went on then until this current year.

MR. PORTER: If the Court please, I will object to

it. It is not responsive to the question.

’

477

THE COURT: It was had any inclination to do so,

specific with what could have been done, so we will

allow that.

BY MR. LUCAS:

Q. Go ahead, Dr. Foster.

[3520] A. Any time until the present, and including

next fall, for example, the —if I might have the ‘75-76

option.

Q. Dr. Foster, just a moment. Go ahead.

A. We found elementary ‘75-76, which is Plaintiffs’

Exhibit 278. The underlying census data is incorrect be-

cause it is 1950, but I don’t think we need that to illustrate

what it is I am describing.

If you take the schools West Broad, Highland, West

Mound, which are the three we have been talking about

in terms of boundary changes and options, and you add

Burroughs, which is contiguous, these three schools are all

contiguous to Highland; West Broad being on the north-

west, Burroughs to the west and southwest and West

Mound to the south and southeast of Highland’s.

Q. What are their racial enrollments today?

A. This year the racial enrollment are Highland 67.1

percent non-white; West Broad 2.0 percent non-white;

West Mound 13.9 percent, and Burroughs 11.2 percent.

Either by redrawing boundary lines or by some com-

bination of pairing or grouping, it would be relatively

simple to desegregate all four of those schools and make

them racially non-identifiable. If you add up the total

population of those four elementary schools, which are

right together, you have 20.6 percent non-white as of the

current year.

MR. PORTER: If the Court please, I move to strike

[3521] the answer. It has no relevancy to this proceeding.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. LUCAS:

Q. Go ahead, Dr. Foster.

478

A. Current year shows 3,060 capacity for the four

schools with 2,773 enrollment, which would allow capacity

for either boundary changes or pairing or grouping.

Q. Going back to the option, Highland and West

Broad, did you take a look to see if that was a capacity

problem in 1954 through 1957?

A. Yes.

Q. Your data substantiating these capacities again was

the various studies and exhibit numbers you related earlier?

A. That’s correct. The option was that of Highland

to West Broad, and in 1955 Highland was 63 over capacity,

but West Broad was 115 over capacity.

In 1956 Highland was 67 over, but West Broad was

113 over, so my conclusion was that it would not have been

for capacity reasons.

[3522] Q. Dr. Foster, did you examine what is called

in the records of the Board the downtown option?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What documents did you use to examine this

particular optional area?

A. The Ohio State 55 Study, which is PX 61, page 17,

Figure 2, also the Original Plaintiffs’ History Exhibit cov-

ered part of this option, which I believe was started in

1925.

Q. I believe that was the Board minutes you've

indicated?

A. As I remember it.

Q. Was that called a neutral zone at that time?

A. I believe so, yes.

[3523] Q. All right. Would you describe the option,

please?

A. The option is in the center of the downtown dis-

trict. It is bordered on the north and northwest by railroad

tracks. It is bordered on the east by Ft. Hayes which is

to the east of the white area square on the map. It is

bordered on the south by King and Broad, King to the

south of Ft. Hayes and then Broad further south.

479

THE COURT: Did you say King?

THE WITNESS: That's what my notes indicate, and

I believe the map will indicate that. It is sort of jumbled.

I beg your pardon. It is Spring. Then on farther south by

Broad. Then to the west part of it on High Street and

part of it on Front Street, Front being the farthest to the

south of the western portion.

The option started with seven alternatives starting on

the northwest with Hubbard. Next to it towards the west

would be Milo. The next one reading clockwise would be

Garfield and then Eastwood, and farther south would be

Douglas and then Fulton, and finally Mohawk would be

directly south of the option. So it would be a total of

seven options.

[3524] Q. Allright. Did you examine the census data

underneath the — on the 1950 map, base map?

A. Yes. The overlay is elementary ‘57-58, which is

PX 61 over the 50 Census data. A good portion of the

option to the west is white with two or three green or blue

blocks, to the south there are some blue or green blocks,

and I have one orange, then there's an eastern portion

just to the west of the option, just to the west of the Gar-

field zone which is also red. Part of the option on the

overlay covers the Fort Hayes area, which is all white, and

explains the white block from the northwest corner of the

option — northeast corner. I'm sorry.

Q. All right. Did you take a look at the 1940, ’50,

‘60 and °70 Census data and determine what kind of resi-

dents there were in this area?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. All right. Can you tell us what the 1940 Census

shows by age groups?

A. The 1940 Census for this area comprised Tract 30

and a portion of Tract 35, ages 5 to 14. Estimated Tract

30 had a total of 644, 315 of whom were blacks. I took a

third of Tract 35, which is an approximation. This would

give a total of 254 and 182 of whom were blacks.

480

Q. All right. What about the 1950 Census?

A. The 1950 Census would include — the data was

for [3525] all ages, that is, a total population. Tract 30

indicated 3,137 blacks, 1,395 whites, and one-third, again,

an estimation of one-third of Tract 35 would be 1,528

blacks, 1,038 whites.

In 1960, again all ages, Tract 30 indicated 3,778

blacks, 716 whites, and a third of Tract 35 indicated 1578

blacks and 433 whites.

In 1970, again all ages, indicated from Tract 30 728

blacks and 282 whites, and a third of Tract 35 was 415

blacks and 244 whites.

These figures indicate a declining population and also

an increasing percentage black of that population that was

remaining.

[3526] Q. All right. What happened to this particu-

lar optional attendance area? Before you do that, give us

the 1964 racial enrollments at the seven receiving schools.

A. Okay, the seven receiving schools in 1964, accord-

ing to the PX 12, the racial percentages were Hubbard,

7 percent non- -white; Mohawk, 11 percent non-white;

Douglas, 54 percent non-white; Fulton, 85 percent non-

white; Milo, 90 percent non-white; Garfield, 99 percent

non-white; and Eastwood, 100 percent non-white.

Q. All right, what happened to this option in 1958-

59? Was there any change?

No, sir.

And in ‘59-60?

No change in either '58 or 59.

All right, in 1960-61, was there a change?

Yes. Part of the option went into western Garfield.

Let’s put the 1960 Census up.

. All right. I have on the board elementary ‘60-61

whch is PX 284A overlaying elementary 57-58 which is

PX 261, both of them overlaying the 1960 Census.

Q. All right, what happened to the optional attend-

ance area in 1960-61?

“PO rOror

481

A. It is pretty difficult to see on the map, but the

western portic.. of Garfield picked up I believe two or

three blocks from the eastern part of the option, approxi-

mately [3527] four square blocks I have on my notes,

which would be the part directly under Fort Hayes which

was added to the Garfield zone and taken out of the option.

The other thing that happened was that Fulton was

dropped as a receiving school which left six of the original

seven schools.

Q. What happened demographically underneath on

the Garfield change? Does that change of boundary con-

form in any way to the underlying racial census data for

1960?

A. The 1960 Census data would indicate that the

portion that was moved into Garfield during "60-61 was

all red, I believe. I believe that’s correct.

Q. Does the new boundary of the option show that

it is white to the west of the Garfield boundary?

A. I think except for one block perhaps at the cor-

ner of the part that was removed which is red. The rest

of it would be largely white, yes, sir.

Q. The underlying red part has been put into Gar-

field. What was the enrollment of Garfield in ’64?

A. Racial percentage?

Q. Yes.

A. 99 percent non-white.

Q. All right, was there another change in 1961-62?

A. Yes, in ‘61-62 Mohawk was dropped as a receiving

school. That's the school directly south of the option.

[3527A] Then in 63 and °64 Mohawk was put back

in which is illustrated on the maps if we put them on the

board.

[3528] Q. All right. And that would be Plaintiffs’

Exhibit 264 and 266, representing 61 and 62, ’63, ’64

maps?

A. That's correct.

482

Q. In 1964-65, was there another change?

A. Two blocks on the west end of Clearbrook — we'll

put up PX 267, which is the ‘64-65 map.

64-65 elementary overlay is PX 267. This illustrates

approximately a two-block portion of the southern-eastern

most part of the option was moved into the western end

of the Clearbrook elementary zone.

It also illustrates that Mohawk was taken back out

of the option in that area, ’64-65, out of the receiving

schools.

Q. And there’s a dotted line in the Clearbrook zone.

Can you tell me what that means?

A. I believe that has to do with grade structure, in-

dicating that certain grades can go — I'm not exactly sure.

I believe that’s what it is.

Q. All right. Which area of the Clearbrook zone was

it that the boundaries expanded into?

A. Into the western portion.

Q. All right. Was that an expansion or contraction

of the option?

A. That was a contraction. I believe that dotted line

across Clearbrook indicates it’s part of another zone with

a [3529] 1 through 6 structure, and Clearbrook would

be, I believe, a primary structure, if I remember correctly.

Q. All right. In 66-67 —

A. There’s one other change here, and that is the

option extended eastward a block or two into Felton, and

that can be seen just to the east of the Ft. Hayes area.

The option previously was along the same line as the

Ft. Hayes boundary line, and it moves east a block or

two into the Felton attendance zone.

Q. All right. In 66-67, was the option extended again?

A. I don’t —the option was extended west a block

or two in Felton, the same as before 64-65, having dropped

483

out the year before. It changes back and forth a little

every year. It makes it sort of complicated.

Q. Okay. In 1967-68, were some schools dropped out?

A. ‘67-68, Milo dropped out and Eastwood was

dropped and Fulton was reinstated. And then in 70-71,

Milo came back into the option. Those are all various

Plaintiffs’ Exhibits, being elementary map overlays.

Q. What happened in 1975-76?

A. The total option was ended in 1975-76 and moved

into — what was left of it into Garfield, which is depicted

on Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 278.

[3530] Q. All right. During this period of years when

the downtown option existed, is it your understanding that

the option was carved out of some particular attendance

area or was it a neutral zone?

A. I think you referred to it earlier as a so-called

neutral zone which we defined in our testimony previously

as not being carved out of any zone, but simply being

between or among different zones.

Q. All right. What is the effect of such an option

between racially dispairing schools in an area with a

mixed population in general?

A. Well, the surrounding receiving schools change

considerably from time to time, but in 1964, they ranged

from 7 percent at Hubbard non-white and 11 non-white

at Mohawk to 100 percent non-white at Eastwood, and

the effect racially is simply to allowing everybody in this

option to choose where they wanted to go and, ordinarily,

what happens then, the whites would move to Hubbard

or to Mohawk, and as opposed to a non-racial policy of

simply assigning these pupils if you want to promote de-

segregation to certain schools, you would assign black

areas to Hubbard, for example, or white areas in the zone

to some of the racially-identifiable black schools.

[3531] Q. What was the effect of the change in the

boundary with respect to the Garfield zone?

484

A. Well, it simply compacted the black population in

Garfield and moved the black zone west two or three

blocks.

Q. The last year of the option, can you give me the

racial composition of the four schools remaining? Perhaps

we ought to put up the 1970 base map and the ‘74-75

overlay.

A. Did you say the '74-75 or °75-76?

Q. Let’s try "74-75 first.

A. We have on the board PX 277 which is the ele-

mentary 74-75 with the 1970 Census underneath that

which is Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 252, and it shows the last year

of the so-called downtown option which is in the center.

Q. Now, the western boundary of the Garfield School

is almost coterminous with the racial boundary, is that

correct, or a few blocks on the other side?

A. One or two blocks to the west are colored orange

or blue, I believe, in a white area. Otherwise, it is along

the racial line.

Q. Has the southern boundary of the Garfield School

changed without putting the other overlay on?

A. I believe it has gone further’south to Broad Street,

and all of Clearbrook is incorporated.

Q. All right. Looking at the Felton and Garfield at-

tendance zones, does that make an almost even dividing

line [3532] between the underlying base data color of

red and orange and white to the west?

A. Are you asking if there is about equal territory?

Q. No, no. I am asking does the boundary generally

proceed along that dividing line?

A. Yes, sir, except the boundary line to the west of

Felton is on the 74-75 overlays Fort Hayes which is white,

and there are no pupils presumably out of that area.

Q. And this option is eliminated in °75-76. Let's put

that overlay up.

485

Now, on this map the Fort Hayes is now shown as

having an attendance area; is that correct?

A. That's correct. It is bordered completely with an

attendance zone line, but it is not assigned any school.

Q. And the Garfield zone is expanded to the west

for the first time and picks up these additional blocks,

white blocks to the west, western area of the option; is

that correct?

A. That is correct.

©. What were the last schools te which the option

pertained in 1974-75?

A. The option was still to Hubbard to the northwest,

to Garfield to the east, to Douglas to the southeast and to

Beck to the south which by that time had included part

of [3533] the — well, it included T guess all of the Fulton

zone.

Q. In ‘64 Hubbard was what percentage non-white?

A. In 64 Hubbard was 7 percent non-white.

And in 1974-75?

Hubbard was 0.9 percent non-white in 74-75.

And Garfield in 64 was what?

Garfield in ‘64 was 99 percent black.

And in ’74?

It was 99.2 percent black or non-white.

And what was Douglas in °74?

Douglas had gone from 54 percent non-white in

'64 to 85 percent non-white in 1974.

Q. And Beck?

A. Beck was 17.2 percent non-white in "74.

Q. All right. Did you examine the Main and Living-

ston option?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. When did this option begin?

A. 1954-55.

Q. Can you identify the option area on the overlay

for 1957-58, PX 261?

POPOrOrO

486

A. All right. This is currently overlaying the ‘60 Cen-

sus. The option is toward the southwest area of the district

from downtown. The Main attendance zone is to the

north and east of the option, and Livingston is to the west

[3533A] and south of the option, the option having been

carved out of the southwestern — well, the southern part

of Main.

[3534] Q. All right. What is the underlying demo-

graphic data with respect to the optional attendance area?

A. On the 1960 Census, it would be just white blocks.

Q. All right. Let’s go back to the 1950 Census base

map and see what the process is.

What does the entire main zone look like for 1950?

A. The main zone for 1950 appears to be all white

except for a green block.

Q. All right. And the option begins 54-55. What's

your source of identification for that information?

A. This was in PX 58, the 1939 OSU Study, Figure

14, page 110.

Q. All right. Did you also look at any of the other —

the Original Plaintiffs Exhibits with respect to this partic-

ular option?

A. Yes. This was in their original exhibits. I believe

it was PX 6, I believe.

Q. Can we put the 1960 map back up?

I'm sorry. Before you do that, would you tell me

what the Livingston zone looked like in 1950?

A. In 1950, the Livingston attendance zone was largely

white. It had in the northwest corner one or two blocks

with either orange or red, I can't really tell, and so—

about four green or blue blocks scattered to the west.

Q. Okay. Aad that’s assuming that the the boundaries

were [3535] the same at that time as they were shown in

the ’57-58 overlay; is that correct?

A. Pardon?

Q. That’s assuming that the boundaries were the same

for those attendance zones at that time?

487

A. Yes.

Q. Let's put the 1960 Census base map up.

Now, in the 1960 Census for the first time the Handord

Village shows up as the black residential area; is that

correct?

[3536] A. I believe that’s the area to the east of the

Fairwood Zone.

Q. Yes.

A. Bordering Alum Creek on the east, which is in red

on the 60 census.

Q. The option started in 54-55. How long did it

continue?

A. Through 1961-62 with some slight modification.

Q. What was the dimension of the original option

attendance?

A. I believe about three blocks, east and west.

Q. What was the racial composition of Main in 1967?

A. Main in 1964, according to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 12

was 77 percent non-white.

Q. Livingston?

A. Livingston was 27 percent non-white.

Q. The Hanford Village area would have been which

one of those elementary areas, or adjacent to it?

A. Would have been part of the Fairwood.

Q. That's to the south or west?

A. That’s directly to the east of Main and also Living-

ston.

Q. Was the area black population movement toward

that direction?

MR. PORTER: Objection.

[3537] THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. From your examination of the 1950, ’60 and ’70

census maps, Dr. Foster, can you tell us whether the area

population movement in terms of minorities was in that

direction?

A. Yes, it was east towards Alum Creek.

488

Q. What modification was made in this option?

A. In 1960-61 the option was reduced to one block,

which at this time was in the Kent School which had

opened in 60-61 and the block was I believe north and

south block known as Bedford.

Q. Can we put up Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 284A, the 1960-

61 elementary.

Can you identify the Kent Elementary School on that

map?

A. The Kent Elementary School is directly south of

Main and to the northeast of Livingston. The optional

zone is designated between Main and Livingston coming

out of Kent, and it is simply the point at which the arrow

goes west to Livingston and north to Main.

Q. The Kent attendance boundaries were established

out of the schools of what previous attendance zones?

A. Mostly from Fairwood to the east and a little to

the north, and some from Livingston to the west, and then

from Ohio to the northwest. It is a rather small compacted

attendance zone.

[3538] Q. Before we get further into the Kent attend-

ance area and the Kent School, what was the effect in your

opinion of the establishment of the option between Main

and Livingston?

A. I believe that this was a racial option which allowed

the whites in the optional zone to exit from Main and go

to Livingston which was a much whiter school.

Q. The Kent Elementary opened in 1960-61 taking

part of the Fairwood, Main and a couple of blocks from

Livingston and Ohio attendance zones. Do you have a

1964 enrollment for Livingston?

A. ’64 Livingston was 29 percent non-white.

Q. Ohio?

A. Ohio was 80 percent non-white.

Q. Kent?

A. Seventy-five percent. It opened non-white.

489

Q. Fairwood?

A. No, I am sorry. It was 75 in 1964. Fairwood was

69 percent non-white in ’64.

Q. What did Kent look like in the 1960 census in

terms of the underlying colors?

A. It was a combination of white, one or two green

and blue blocks, and the rest orange, I believe.

Q. You have already described Kent as a very small,

relatively smal] attendance area. What was the effect on

the location and opening of Kent with those attendance

boundaries [3539] ia terms of the racial composition of

the schools in the area?

A. The effect was to further compact, in my opinion,

the black student population in this area to allow Living-

ston to stay white longer and also Deshler to stay white,

and the racial line was moving south from Main and also

from Ohio, and this was a small area which set up a school

that went black fairly rapidly.

Q. Going back to the Main-Livingston option itself,

in the first five years of the existence of that option was

there any capacity problem?

A. It started in 1954 and the record would indicate

there was really not that much difference in capacity needs

between the Main and Livingston School in the first — for

the 1950, Main was 48 percent over capacity and Living-

ston was —

Q. Excuse me. Forty-eight percent?

A. I beg your pardon. In 1954 Main was 48 people

over capacity and Livingston was 57 over capacity. In

1955 Main was under seven places and Livingston was

under three.

In 1956 Main was 35 over capacity; Livingston was

under by 13. In 1957 Main was 39 over capacity; Living-

ston was over by 11.

It wasn't until 1959 that Main took a big jump and

became something like 310 over capacity.

490

Q. Would you examine the Linmoor Junior High

School area, [3540] including the option?

A. Yes, sir, I did. The Linmoor-Everett option opened

in 1957-58, and on Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 251, the Junior High

for 57-58 currently on the 1960 census as shown in the

center of the map with a red border and a broken red and

blue border.

Q. Linmoor opened in ‘57-58. Was there phase-in in

the grades one year at a time in that situation?

A. Out of Linden-McKinley, which was 7 through 12,

they phased in, as I understand it, Grades 7, the first year,

and then Grades 8 and 9 were the following two years.

That was also taken partly out of Indianola, Linden-

McKinley being shown on the map actually in the Linmoor

Zone, although the senior high zone would extend com-

pletely around that.

It is in the Junior High Linmoor Zone. The part from

Indianola that was in the option was to the northwest part

of Linmoor and to the northeast part of Indianola, and the

part from Everett became a part of the option — I beg your

pardon. Can I start over?

Q. Yes.

A. In using the ‘57-58 overlay it is an attempt to show

what the Linmoor Junior High Zone was like prior to the

option. It came out of Linden and out of Indianola and out

of the eastern portion of Everett.

[3541] Q. All right. What's the general description of

the underlying census data?

A. The underlying census data from Linmoor in °57-

58, based on the ’60 Census, would indicate the northern

part of the area from Linden was all white and the south-

ern part was green, blue and orange.

The part coming out of Everett was mostly red and

orange with a few blocks of green, blue and white.

The part coming out of Indianola, which was actually

— I testified earlier that it was to the northeast of Indianola.

491

There was also a southeastern section out of Indianola.

This had white, red and blue in it in the southeastern sec-

tion, and the north appears to be mostly a non-residential

area just above the Ohio State Fairgrounds, mostly non-

residential as designated white on the ’60 Census.

[3542] Q. Dr. Foster, you put up the 1958-59 junior

high overlay. What exhibit number is that

A. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 282.

Q. Can you summarize what happened with the es-

tablishment of the Linmoor School?

A. Yes. This is a very complicated business. I will

just do that in a sentence.

In ‘57-58, which I was trying to describe before re-

cess, the Linmoor Junior High opened carved out of three

schools, Indianola, Everett and Linden-McKinley, and it

took portions of each of those three existing zones and

established just a seventh grade center the first year. That’s

what happened in °57-58. Then the optional zone was

established in ’58-59, the following year, which is depicted

on the current map overlaying the 57-58 we have up now,

the °58-59.

[3543] Q. The choice of boundaries for Linmoor,

what effect did that have in terms of race, if any?

A. Well, the portions that were picked out of Everett

was the black part of Everett out of the southeastern cor-

ner of Indianola, was the large —most of the black part

of Indianola, and the part that came out of Linden in-

cluded all of the black part that was in Linden, which was

the southern half, so it seemed to be, as the school was

established, sort of in the cards that it would contain the

black pupils out of that area for the most part.

Q. What alternatives were available, Dr. Foster?

A. Well, when it opened in ’58-59, if you had de-

sired to have a desegregative effect rather than a com-

pacting effect, you could do any number of things, but

the boundaries could have been changed in such a way

as in one place, I believe, the Ohio State Surveys recom-

492

mend when you have three or four schools together and

you have to change one school, for example, the western

part of Everett, which I believe is the Kingswood area

could have been moved up into Indianola. Some of the

northern part of Indianola could have been moved over

into the new school, Linmoor. The black portions to the

east of Everett and Indianola could have stayed in those

areas so that they were sure to have a black population,

and 1« would have — some move such as this would have

indicated that Linmoor was not to be [3544] a black school

but was to be a desegregated school.

Q. All right. When you say the black areas stay in

those schools so that it would stay black, you mean with

the black representation?

A. That is correct, and there did some. I mean, part

of Indianola stayed in but a big chunk of it also went into

Linmoor, and part of Everett stayed in Everett but a good

chunk to the east went into the new school.

Q. All right. Can you now discuss what happened

with the optional attendance zone?

A. All right. In ’58-59, the optional attendance zone

was set up, and this again is a little complicated, but it

was formed out of the portion of Everett that — eastern

portion of Everett that had come into Linmoor, and it was

really the southern part of that portion, almost the south-

ern half exactly of the part of Everett that had gone into

Linmoor, but there was also a grade split.

[3545] A. (Continued) The optional zone was for all

three grades, 7 through 9, but the northern part that was

left in Linmoor, the seventh and eighth grades were to go

to Linmoor out of the portion of the zone that was not

made optional and grade 9 to Everett. The optional zone

was bordered on the north by Starr and Third and Gibbard

— it had three jumps of one block at a time — on the east

by the railroad, on the south by the railroad, and on the

west by the railroad.

493

Q. The underlying area, according to the 1960 Cen-

sus was mostly what color?

A. Of the optional zone, it would be either all red

or orange except I believe — all red or orange except for

railroads.

Q. Red and orange do indicate the presence of some

white?

A. That is correct. Orange is 50 to 89 percent black,

and red would be 90 to 100 percent black.

Q. What is the effect of this option with respect to

students in the Everett School?

A. This option as it was established would allow the

whites in the optional zone who were left to attend Ever-

ett rather than be assigned to Linmoor.

Q. Of course, blacks could choose to stay in Everett

as well?

A. Either way, yes, sir.

[3546] Q. Was the option changed to take all of

Everett in?

A. In 1959-60, which is PX 283 now on the board, the

option was expanded north to add that part of Everett

which had been taken into Linmoor, and it also added a

little portion of the territory that had been taken into Lin-

moor from Indianola which would be to the extreme south

of that portion. It looks to be maybe a block wide and

two or three blocks long out of the part of Indianola that

had gone into Linmoor. In other words, the option now

included all of the Everett portion that went into Lin-

moor and a little bit of the extreme southeastern part of

Indianola.

Q. What is the underlying demographic nature of the

added area?

A. On the ’60 Census Map, the underlying map would

indicate largely red and orange with a couple of blue and

maybe one green blocks to the extreme west, and a part

494

coming out of Indianola would be white, red and blue,

from the looks of the Census Map.

Q. Are those the only blue and white blocks, the ones

you noted, in that particular part of the attendance area?

A. Of the optional zone?

Q. Yes.

A. There are a couple of white blocks in the extreme

part of the Everett portion, in the northern part of the

option.

[3547] Q. All right. What happened to the Arlington

Park area and east?

A. If you look at the junior high ’58-59 map, the

Arlington Park area is still part of the Linden-McKinley

zone to the east of the Linden-McKinley School.

[3548] A. (Continuing) Then in °59-60, this area is

sent non-contiguously to the Linmoor zone as depicted by

the green arrow going southeast from the Arlington Park

area.

Q. All right. Is the bottom leg of the Arlington Park

zone cut off, or is there still a corridor?

A. There is a corridor which includes that non-con-

tiguous assignment all the way south in the Arlington Park

area, to the south of the Arlington Park area.

Q. All right.

A. And this would be just north of the western por-

tion of Eastmoor Junior.

Q. They had been previously attending Linden-Mc-

Kinley; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And where is Linden-McKinley on that?

A. Linden-McKinley is in the Linmoor zone, in the

northeast section of the Linmoor zone.

Q. This is the building that’s not in its own attend-

ance area; is that correct?

A. As far as a junior high school is concerned at this

point, yes, sir.

495

Q. In 1960-61, was there an opening of a new junior

high school?

A. Yes. «

Q. Would you put up that overlay?

[3549] A. This is PX 284, which is the junior high

1960-61. To the north of Linmoor and Linden-McKinley

a new junior high opened known as Medina in 1960-61.

Medina was carved out about half from Clinton, which is

to the north of Linden-McKinley, extreme north central

part of the district, and about half of the southern section

of Linden-McKinley.

Q. Is the underlying attendance zone shown at least

by the demographic area of 1960, is that what color?

A. For the Medina School, it represents an all white

area.

Q. The area taken out of the school to the south,

is that a white area as well?

A. Out of the northern part of Linden?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes, that’s all white in the 1960 Census.

Q. What was the effect of opening Medina, setting

those attendance boundaries?

A. The effect was to further compact the area south

of the Medina attendance zone, beitig Linmoor and Linden,

in terms of their blackness and to maintain — or insure

the fact that the Medina School, at least for the time being,

would be either all white or nearly all white.

Q. What happens to Linden-McKinley?

A. Well, it changes about every year, but in 70 — in

60-61, the same year that Medina opened, in addition,

[3549A] they're giving up the northern part of its zone to

Medina. The Arlington Park portion that was zoned into

Linmoor in ‘59-60 was now zoned back in a contiguous

manner to Linden-McKinley. This was in ’60-61.

[3550] Q. And the Arlington Park area shows as

white, and it was connected by this little, narrow strip

496

down into this white area to the south; is that correct?

A. Well, that’s correct, only the boundary changed

in 60-61 to include everything in Linden-McKinley all

the way down to Champion.

Q. All right. Now, the map appears to come down

into a white corridor, although there do not appear to be

any streets on the base map in that area; is that correct?

A. Most of that is apparently non-residential, yes, sir.

Q. Okay.

A. That includes the railroad yards and some other

things.

Q. And the school is actually — the school building is

actually still located in the Linmoor zone, but is attend-

ance area is essentially a white attendance area with the

exception of the orange area located south of Seventeenth?

A. Seventeenth.

MR. PORTER: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. I notice that there seems to be a change in pattern

in the way zone lines are drawn in terms of north, south,

east or west. What is the effect of the Medina zone [3551]

in terms of drawing lines east and west of the corridor?

A. Well, as you open up new schools to the north of

the expanding black residential area and expanding black

school population, if you start drawing lines east and

west, as was done with Medina and was done later with

McGuffey, that prohibits you from going down into the

zones and picking up black pupils and, at the same time,

as you go north, establishes east-west racial boundary lines

along certain streets from time to time.

[3552] Q. Up to that time both the junior and senior

highs had generally run north and south; is that correct?

A. Especially the senior highs where they took in

large chunks of territory, North and Linden, for example.

Q. Was there any change of significance in 1961-62?

497

A. No, sir.

Q. McGuffey opened in 62, I believe: did it not?

A. Yes, sir, 62-63.

Q. Can we put that overlay up?

Where is McGuffey School?

A. McGuffey is immediately south of Medina, junior

high, following the east-west boundary line with Medina

and immediately north of Linmoor and Linden-McKinley.

Q. What happens with our movable Arlington Park

this time?

A. In ‘62-63 non-contiguously assigned, not as much

of it as was part of the movement, but a good portion of

it assigned to Medina.

Q. Medina in ’64 was what in terms of racial com-

position?

A. I would have to look that up.

Q. Would you, please?

A. Medina in 1964, according to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit

12, was 100 percent white.

Q. Arlington Park area has gone from Linmoor, zoned

into Linden-McKinley, now it is going up to Medina; is

that [3553] correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. McGuffey was taken out of what attendance zones?

A. McGuffey was taken out of the southern portion of

Medina and was taken out of Linden-McKinley.

Q. It is a little confusing because Linden-McKinley

is not in the attendance area?

A. That's correct, but the southern border of McGuf-

fey Junior coincides with the northern border of Linmoor,

but when it opened in ’62-63 it picked up the northern

part of — well, it picked up what was left there of Linden-

McKinley Junior High School.

Q. What was McGuffey in 1964?

A. McGuffey was 100 percent white in 1964.

Q. What happened to Linden-McKinley?

498

A. Linden-McKinley, in 1963-64, was its last year, so

when McGuffey was built, it, as a junior high school, was

no longer. As a matter of fact, in °63-64 the enrollment

indication was that it had only 114 pupils left at the junior

high level.

Q. What about Linmoor? What was it in ’64?

A. Linden-McKinley?

Q. No, Linmoor.

A. Linmoor in 1964 was 60 percent non-white.

Q. What was the effect of the opening and drawing

of [3554] boundaries, boundary lines of McGuffey?

A. It enabled McGuffey to maintain a largely white

population, at least in the beginning, and compacted fur-

ther the blacks into the Linden-McKinley Junior High

zone.

[3555] Q. Did the McGuffey zone lines generally run

east and west?

A. Pretty much the same as Medina.

Q. Now, what happened to the optional attendance

area during this period? Did it come to a close?

A. The option ended in 1964-65 which would have

meant it had one more year after this.

Q. All right. Can we put that overlay up?

A. All right. PX 288, junior high for ’64-65, indicates

that the option was closed in that year.

Q. Was the option split by the opening of a new

school?

A. Monroe Junior High School opened to the south

of Linden in, I believe, 64-65. It opened 99.7 percent

non-white.

Q. What was the effect of the boundary changes and

the opening of Monroe in that particular location, Dr.

Foster?

MR. PORTER: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

499

A. Oh, it picked up about half of the optional zone

between Everett and Linmoor. The other half was left in

Everett. I would say that this had a couple of effects. One

is there was a black area maintained in Everett which

allowed it to be a desegregated or non-racially identifiable

school, I believe, at that time: and opening up Monroe in

[3556] in this area further compacted, of course, the center

city black population, and it was inevitable that would be

an all black school.

Q. In fact, it opened 99.7 percent?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. It picked up parts of what zone, Dr. Foster?

A. Well, it picked up half of the optional zone.

Everett picked up the other half, and then Monroe picked

up a good portion of the Champion zone which was moved

further south to Broad Street to pick up the old Franklin

zone.

Q. What was Champion in ’64 when Monroe opened?

A. At what time?

Q. ‘64?

A. Well, I think it was, yes, 100 percent non-white.

[3557] Q. Reviewing all of these changes in connec-

tion with Linmoor, Linden-McKinley, McGuffey, Milo, I

believe it is — let me check my memory on the names, I’m

sorry — Medina, Monroe and the changing of the boundary

between Monroe and Champion, what is the net effect in

that total area of the city of the variety of options, bound-

ary changes and school openings and setting of boundaries

vou ve described?

MR. PORTER: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Well, the net effect is very racial in that it blocks

the blacks into an impacted zone coming out of the down-

town area of Champion, Monroe.

500

I think it had a desegregative effect in regard to Ever-

ett by maintaining part of the black area to the east of

Everett.

Linmoor, in my opinion, was opened as a school that

was desegregated black from the beginning, because it

opened with black portions for the most part of the schools

it made up — from which it was made up, and as you went

north, first Medina and then McGuffey were established as

sort of a holding zone as the black population moved to

the north and to the east, and I think you'll find, if you

look at present enrollment data, that those lines pretty

much have been maintained at this point.

[3558] Q. Dr. Foster, did you examine an optional

combination between Fair, Eastgage and Eastwood?

A. Yes, I believe I did.

On the board, we have elementary °57-58, which is

PX 261 overlaid on the 1960 Census, the 1939 Ohio State

Survey, PX 58, page 111, Figure 14, shows a 1938 map,

grades 1 through 6,—

Q. Turn to that, please.

A. —which indicates the Fair Elementary School,

which on the 57-58 map which is on the board is to the

east of the center of the city, west of Alum Creek, for the

most part, and south of Broad Street.

But in 50—or in 1938, according to the Ohio State

Map, PX 58 shows the Fair School going north of Broad

to Greenway, which would be

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