Appendix — Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman
Supreme Court brief1979
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Suprame Court, U.
APPENDIX MAR $ 1979
FILED.
a el
Exhibit Volume
a ane ee LT Tee CLERK
\,
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM, 1978
DAYTON BOARD OF EDUCATION,
WILLIAM E. GOODWIN,
JOSEPHINE GROFF and
JAMES D. HART,
Petitioners,
Vv.
MARK BRINKMAN,
PATTY BRINKMAN, and
PHILLIP BRINKMAN,
By Their Mother and Next Friend,
Donna Brinkman, et al.,
Respondents.
On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals
For The Sixth Circuit
SSA NT ES BEE EE OE,
Petition For Certiorari Filed October 13, 1978
Certiorari Granted January 8, 1979
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
5A
5D
APPENDIX
EXHIBITS VOLUME
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
One Race Schools and Classrooms . 1-Ex.
Racial Overview 1951-52 ........ 2-Ex.
Racial Overview 1963-64 ........ 3-Ex.
Racial Overview 1971-72 ........ 4-Ex.
School Segregation Overview .... 5-Ex.
Racial Identification: Schools by
PRD MPa FE oe §-10-Ex.
Building Racial Identifiability .... 11-12-Ex.
Black Teacher Employment
PGND hieeenksticeeeeees 13-Ex.
Racial Pattern Faculty Assignment . 14-Ex.
Three Resolutions of December 8,
PURE i xekas sees eo eee 15-24-Ex.
Minutes of January 8, 1972 Board
BE, ki iki ke hee 24-47-Ex.
Report of the Committee of 75 .. 48-63-Ex.
Desegregation Study by Dr. Foster,
OG as ok hae CT 64-108-Ex.
H.E.W. Letter of Mar. 17, 1969 to
e.. CA ek ich csi 109-110-Ex.
H.E.W. Letter of Oct. 14, 1970 to
Es SR ids he oc ee 110-112-Ex.
Greer Letter of June 7, 1971 to Dr.
Carle and Recommendations of
State Board of Education ........ 113-149-Ex,
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
13A
13B
Page
Tate Letter to President of Dayton
Ee etree mre har 150-151-Ex.
French Letter of Oct. 19, 1965
Re NS oo in 2 ears yee at 152-Ex.
NAACP Letter of Nov. 15, 1954 to
DE So ons oc ska dea x ch we 153-155-Ex.
Roosevelt-Colonel White Optional
Pee, TN oie vin 0s cde 156-157-Ex.
Roosevelt-Colonel White Optional
Area Enrollment: 1959-1960 to
PEE re ke ccake betes s 158-Ex.
Colonel White-Kiser Optional Area
ee Oo. cdevinnssebaek os 159-Ex.
Fairview-Roth Optional Area ..... 160-Ex.
Freedom of Enrollment Guide-
ek | errs 161-162-Ex.
Goff Letter of Feb. 28, 1972 to
NE en eee re eae amares 162-163-Ex.
Listing of Students and Letters . . . .164-172-Ex.
1972-73 Freedom Enrollment
TO coi gcc pennk oes 173-Ex.
1972-73 Other Student Transfers . .174-175-Ex.
Integration; August 1963 ........ 176-181-Ex.
Policy Regarding Integration ...._-182-Ex.
1954 Facts and Figures Regarding _
Ere Seren et 183-184-Ex.
Staff Integration Report ........ 185-186-Ex.
Staff Integration August 1964 ... .187-189-Ex.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
7 Pls,
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
39
&
100A
100B
100C
100D
100E
130B
130C
130D
143B
143]
Ill.
Page
Percentage of Black Statf; 1967-68,
NCE TUL chs pavca tt cy teawe 190-192-Ex.
Clerical Placement by School .... —_—-193-Ex.
Greer Letter of Mar. 20, 1972 to
SS hud vn cae ie wea aan Ek ee 195-196-Ex.
Touche Ross & Co. Report ...... 197-206-Ex.
Estimated Enrollments — S.W. Dis-
SN iwiavss Cove bane acre cen oh ce 207-208-Ex.
Estimated Enrollment for West
Side Redistricting .............. 209-211-Ex.
Black Student Enrollment and Fac-
GE IE Si Sica keene duceinas 212-Ex.
Black Student Enrollment and
Faculty 1948-49 ................. 213-Ex.
Black Student Enrollment and
PCR, DOD oi cc bas cee cass 214-Ex.
Black Student Enrollment and
PONE MINED Sask vueerancs sans 215-Ex.
Black Student Enrollment and
PII OEE sv ks Kant ceach hac 216-Ex.
Black Student Enrollment and
PROM TREE 6 oc veins os Shh 6 sacs 217-Ex.
Black Student Enrollment and
Pr WE hates evepcneis cs 218-Ex.
Black Student Enrollment and
PIE hs oo Vea dvb 6 ha beens 219-Ex.
eee eree re 220-222-Ex
DMHA Leases and Letters ...... 223-233-Ex.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
Pls.
1501
157B
157C
157D
161A
161B
162
164
Def. B
Def. D °
Def. E
Det. N
Def. AB
Def. AI(b)
Def. AI(c)
Def. AJ
Def. AK
Def. AL
Def. AM
IV.
Page
Racial Composition Garfield, Wog- :
aman, Dunbar and Willard ...... 234-Ex.
Deposition of Robert French ...... 235-244-Ex.
Deposition of Dr. Wayne Carle . .245-256-Ex.
Deposition of Martin W. Essex . . . .257-258-Ex.
1933 Resolution Relating to Dunbar —-.259-Ex.
1942 Resolution Relating to Stu-
dent Assignment ............-55: 260-Ex.
Bowers Letters of Nov. 1972 to
pe, eee er eee ee eee eee. 261-262-Ex.
Deposition of Ralph Curk ....... 263-264-Ex.
School Enrollment 1960-76 ...... 265-Ex.
School Transportation Policy . .. .267-269-Ex
Transportation Program ........-. 27))-Ex.
NAACP Withdrawal of Objections
to Location of Dunbar .......... 271-Ex.
Freedom of Enrollment Policy . . . .272-274-Ex.
Staff and Pupil Racial Data ....... 275-276-Ex.
Summary of Staff and Pupil Racial
NE es oa ivy Foe Rey sees 277-Ex.
Racial Composition of Certified
PRUNE oo i eo ens de ceak wes 278-Ex.
Racial Composition of Administra-
i TE oye ae See ree eas 279-Ex.
Summary of Racial Composition of
SE acinus st Ceres’ 280-Ex.
Racial Composition of Principals
and Assistant Principals 1969-72 . .281-282-Ex.
Def. AN
Def. AO
Def. AP
Def. AQ
Def. AR
Def. CI(2)
Def. CM
Def. CN
Def. CO
Def. CP
Def. CQ
Page
Percentage of Black Staff ........ 283-286-Ex.
Counselor Assignment ........... 287-Ex.
Composition of Coaching Staff .. .288-Ex.
Schoolday Publication ........... 289-Ex.
Percentage of Black Pupil Enroll-
oe A a AN 290-Ex
Synopsis of Percentage of Minority
Pupil Enrollment ................ 291-Ex.
Student Racial Composition by Year —_ 292-Ex.
Efforts Towards Integration ..... . 293-300-Ex
Students Transported ............ 301-Ex
Board Minutes: Stivers Boundary
a RRA Ee eae eee en 302-303-Ex.
Board Minutes: 10/2/69 .......... 304-305-Ex
1940, 1950, 1960, 1970 Census
NE a en ae 306-309-Ex
Senior Classes: Colonel White-
Roosevelt Optional Zone ........ 310-Ex.
Racial Composition: Non-Teaching
WO eres tos Nat: 311-312-Ex
Transfer Request: 1952-53 ........ 313-314-Ex.
V.A. Students Attending Residence
eg ee (eo 315-Ex.
V.A. Students Attending Jackson .. _—‘317-Ex.
Affidavit: V.A. Students at Fairview 318-320-Fx.
Black Enrollment by School ...... 321-322-Ex.
Wayne Carle Statement of August,
MASE os Vee ea nd Geen aL 323-328-Ex.
Joint II
Page
Dayton Board Position Paper .. . .329-330-Ex.
Attorney Genera! Opinion No.
Care, Pay GO, Be nck i cies 331-340-Ex.
Dayton Elementary
Schools
Dayton High
Schools
(pocket on inside back cover)
(pocket on inside back cover)
1-Ex.
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 2A
ONE RACE SCHOOLS AND CLASSROOMS
fm ONG RACE SCHOOLS, 1972-75
SCHOOLS
Total Schools 68 100%
Schools with pupil racial composition 90% or more Black 22 «32.3
Schools with pupil racial composition 90% or more White 28 36.8
Schoois with pupil racial composition 90% or more Biack or White $7 69.1
- CLASSROOMS # % of Total
Total Classrooms 4,390 1008
Classrooms in schools with pupil racial compositions
90% or more 3lack 464 33.4
Classrooms in schools with pupil racial composition
90% or mere White : _ +647 46.6
tassrecas in schools with pupil racial composition
90% or more Slack or white 1,110 80.9
:
—
Source: D. P. S. Enrollment Data and Division of Research Compilations
2-Ex.
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 2B
Number Schools
Enrollment
Black Pupils
* Black Pupils
White Pupils
% White Pupils
Number 90+ Black Schools
No. of Black Students
% of Black Students
No. of White Students
% of White Students
19$1-S2 OVERVIEW
47
34,948
6,628
19.0
28,320
81.9
ONE RACE SCHOOLS
Total Schools
Total Students
nad
% of Total Students
Source: D. P. S. Enrollment Data
90* White Schools
38
27,116
77.6
—n
ee oe
3-Ex.
PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT 2C
Number Schools
1963-64 OVCRVIEW
based on Ohio Civil Rights Survey.
(School Data)~
° 64 (66)
Enrollment $7,361 (39,091)
Black Pupils 15,987 (18,377)
% Black Pupils 27.8 (31.1)
White Pupils 41,374 (40,714)
% White Pupils ‘6n.9 (68.9)
ONE RACZ SCHOOLS
Number 90+ Black Schools a 90+ White Schools
No. of Black Students 12,665
% of Black Students 79.2
No. of White Students 391
% of White Students 0.9
“«
. Total Schools $7
Total Students $0,961
8 of Total Students 88.8
_——_
Source: Ohio Civil Rights Survey
43
361
2.2
37,544
90.7
4-Ex,
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 2D
1971-1972 OVERVICW
(Including Pre «chool Enrollment, as of October 1971)
Number Schools 69
Enrollment $8,142 (Actual Enrollment - $3,936)
Black Pupils 23,544 ' ek by ’
¥ Black Pupils 42.7
White Pupils 31,598
% White Pupils $7.3
ONE RACE SCHOOLS
Number 90+ Black Schools 21 90% White Schools
No. of Black Students 17,871
§ of Black Students 73.9
No. of White Students - * 3a7
§ of White Students 0.9
Tetal Schools 49
Total Students * 41,088
8 of Total Students 74,5
(_o-
Source: D. P. S. Enrollment Data
28
7389
3.2
22,171
- 70.2
5-Ex.
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 2E
SCHOOL SEGREGATION OVERVICW
“ Black Schools
Of the 4 schools 90% or more black in 1951-S2, all continue *
90% or more black in 1972-73,
Of the 13 schools 901 or more black in 1965-64, all remain
90% or more black in 1972-73.
Of the 21 schools 903 or nore black in 1971-72, all remain
90% or more black in 1972-75.
White Schools
Of the 25 schools 90% or more white in 1972-73 all opened 901
or more white and, if open, were 908 or more white in
1971-1972, 1963-64, and 1951-S$2.
“
® In 1962 the Dunbar High School Building was converted to
the McFarlane Elementary School, a new Dunbar High School
opened, and the Willard and Garfield schools were closed
and theirpupils assigned to the McFarlane School. McFarlane
opened with an all black student body and faculty; Dunbar
opened with a virtually all black staff and pupil popula-
tion and in 1963-64 enrolled a pupil population 99.6% black.
Source: D. P. $. Enrollment Data, Ohio Civil Rights Survey,
D. P. S$. Research Division Compilations.
19-<o
69-89
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT
School Black Faculty (63-64) Bleck Faculty Pupil § Black**** Stack Faculty % Black Pupils
Roth* cose cece 11 53.5 50 92.3
McFarlane** coee eeee 43 99.6 48 99.9
Carlson* esee cose 9 95.9 21 99.0
Jackson Primary* ---- cece ll 96.2 19 98.8
Louise Troy* sees coee 22 99.8 20 100.0
Westwood cece once 20 94.7 42 99.4
Adams niece OS at eee! aS - wdaeeee 6 73.8
Jefferson Elem, ---- PG a 5, tiny ee a eee Or ee eal eawealee 3 60.1
Jefferson Prim.* ---- ee eee fe.) Cases eee 9 57.1
Longfellow ease ee ae st eee ee on eeewede 7 42.3
McNary* oa ee he A are Tee LA Oe ns a eee ee 17 99.4
Residence Pk. El. ---- ae. = . |) 4 -eemeeee!-. ° envaweseoe 23 98.8
Residence Pk.Pr.*---- ee TT? yy ee YY tT TT TT uv 99.3
Every school which is 90% or more black, in the 1972-73 school year appears on this list.
No school which is 60% or more white in the 1972-73 school year appears on this list.
Of the 25 schools with less than I0¥ black enrollment, all had less than 6 black faculty in the 1968-69 school year, °1d every
year theretofore. Only 7 had 3 - S$ black teachers, while 14 had 1 or no black teachers; in 1968-69 only 36 blac. teachers
were assigned to these white schools.
* School not open until wi wg my od on the list.
** In 1962 the original Dunbar High School Building was converted into the McFarlane Elementary School and a new Dunbar High
School opened; at the same time the Garfield and Willard Schools closed and their students absorbed in the McFarlane
Elementary School.
*** Central closed,
aaeeathe Kennedy special school also had 6 black faculty.
Source: D. P. S. Personnel Data, D. P. S. Enrollment Data, Ohio Civil Rights Survey, D. P. S. Research Division Compilations.
Bee Ofea at a
69-89
7-Ex.
Plaintifis’ Exhibit 3
aewy ~~.
' $3 or more 6 or more 6 or more
School Black Faculty (63-64) Black Faculty Pupil % Black**** Black Faculty $ Black Pupils
Roth" cece ;-- 220m 11 ‘53.5 50 92.3
NcFarlane** ---- tae 43 99.6 , 48 . 99,9
Carlson* eoee ecee 9 95.9 21 99.0
Jackson Primary* ---- coee 11 . 96.2 19 98.8
Louise Troy* soe ; woe 22 99.8 ~ - 100.0
Westwood eoee cece 20 94.7 42 99.4
Adams ence ween he i aetna eianee 6 73.8 |
Jefferson Elem. ---- OR LS aeees ys ol eae 8 60.1
Jefferson Prim,* ---- TOF A = ahi ht eee 9 ; 57.1
Longfellow conten ge oe) eee | ae ee 7 42.3
McNary* coun ss oo een SS ne ea ree weee 99.4
Residence Pk. El.---- OER Om eee | eae 23 98.8
Residence Pk.Pr.*---- on ey. eee er uv 99.3.
Every school which is 90% or more black, in the 1972-73 school year appears on this list.
No school which is 60% or more white in the 1972-73 school yeet appears on this list.
Of the 25 schools with less than I0T black enrollment, all had less than 6 black faculty in the 1968-69 school year, and every
year theretofore. Only 7 had 3 - 5 black teachers, while 14 had 1 or no black teachers; in 1968-69 only 36 black teachers
were assigned to these white schools.
* School not open until figures aseess on the list.
**® In 1962 the original Dunbar High School Building was converted into the McFarlane Elementary School and a new Dunbar High
School opened; at the same time the Garfield and Willard Schools closed and their students absorbed in the McFarlane
Elementary School.
*** Central closed.
***8The Kennedy special school also had 6 black faculty.
Source: D. P. S. Personnel Data, D. P. S. Enrollment Data, Ohio Civil Rights Survey, D. P. S. Research Division Compilations.
/ ‘ »,
9 -<9
69-39
8-Ex.
Plaintifils’ Exhibit 3
IWALTAL twbNd LP LUA LUN UF DLACK SLIWUULS BK) PALULID noSiGniitis
| 1950-51 . 1951-52 1953-54 1956-57
School Black Faculty Pupil Racial Comp. $51-52 3 or More Black (%51-52) 3 or More ($% 51-52)
Roth* oonn ee ones once ose0 xen ei he ser
NcFarlane* +o wou see cece “pee << vane “nee
Carlson ---- ---- ---- oor ooee ooee -oee cece
Jackson Primary = ---- : eoee ---- ---- eoe- cece eace “nee
Louise Troy “eee woe ---- woes cone ccee oswe ee
Nestwood ---- ---- ccc sense oodes pees bine oe
Uy
Adanis ata aes oaee eeece eece coce coe --—- --<--
Jofferon Elem. ---- oo-- o--- ---- ---- oo-- : oo-- once
Jefferson Prim.* ---- ---- ---- = — — ease onne
Longfellow ---- ---- ---- ---- — i — — coco
McHary* ---- ---- oe ooee oe —_ — evee
Residence Pk. El. ---- ---- a — — — wooo ooce
Residence Pk. Pr.* eace y eeee eoece “cece oe --—<—-= -——-— -—-—--
TS-0S
z7s-ts
es
RS
“9S
f
=
- 63=8S
RACIAL IDENTIFICATION OF BLACK SCHOOLS BY FACULTY ASSIGNMLi.1
1958-59 1963-64 1968-69
3 or more 6 or more . 6 or nore
School Black Faculty (63-64) Black Faculty Pupil ¢ Black Black Faculty $ Black Pupils
Dunbar Black (92.78%) 42 A 92.788 62 99.3
Garfield Black (Black) ** (Black) ** (Black) ** (Black) ** (Black) **
Wogaman Black Black 37 100 40 99.5
Willard Black (Black) ** (Black) ** (Black) ** (Black) ** (Black) **
Weaver 19 (98.8) 31 98.8 43 } 99.9
'
Edison 5 (80.0) 6 80.0 16 97.3
Jackson 9 (98.5) 23 98.5 33 99.1
Miami Chapel* All but (99.6) 27 99.6 29 99.9
3 black
Irving 10 (96.6) 17 96.6 26 99.0
Highview 5 (82.0) 16 82.0 21 97.0
Whittier 11 (95.6) 14 95.6 12 99.2?
Roosevelt 10 (94.5) 22 94.5 68 100
Central 4 ((40.2))*** ( rae ( yrae ( year ( )ane
Greene 5 (89.5) 11 89.5 21 96.8
fv
9-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3
10-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3
RACIAL IDENTIFICATION OF BLACK SCIHIOOLS BY FACULTY ASSIGNMENT
z$-ts
ys-fS
£5°9S
GS-8
stock & }250-51 1951-52 1953-54 1956-57
School ack Sacu’*yY__ Pupil Racial Comp. $51-52 - 3 or More Black (%51-52) 3 or More (% 51-52)
Dunbar All Black All Black Black Black Black(48) (Black) Black (Black) .
Garfield All Black All Black Black Black Black (16) (Black) Black ' (Black)
wogaman All Black All Black Black Black Black (33) (Black) Black (Black)
Willard All Black All Black Black Black Black (22) (Bb lack) Black (Rlack)
Keaver ---- cece 1 67.6% B 3 (67.6) 13 (67.6)
'
Edison o-e° ---- woee ---- 3 (43.0). 4 (43.0)
Jackson ecee cece weee ---- 3 (35.9) ee 7 €35.9)
Miami Chapel* =--- o--- vee ---- 29 (Black) All Black All but 3 Black/All Rlack
Irving ress cose --- ---- ---- +++ 4 (46.6)
Highview coe- ---- o--- o--- — cece 5 ( 1.7)
Whittier cee- +--+. ---- ---- eo-- ween 13 (29.9)
Roosevelt e--- ---- woee ewes deco seen eoee
Central ---- -+-- ecee wece owen wede ene
Greene lated ---- cece aces esas —— eves
11-Ex.
12-Ex.
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 4
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 4
1950 to Date: RACIALLY IDENTIFIABLE CLASSROOMS OPENED (NEW SCHOOLS
OR ADDITIONS) WHICH! REMAIN PREDOMINANTLY BLACK OR
Black
PREDOMINANTLY WHITE IN PUPIL RACIAL COMPOSITICN®
; Year AT OPENING AT OPENING *
School Opened % White Pupils t White Faculty
7.1
Cundar 1962 less than 10 ‘ 7.3in 1963) Ss
Carlson 1958 5 0
1967 0.9 16
Edison 1971 1.2 62 -"
Techeon ‘Pri 1963 O11 33
ackson Prim ° Year AT OPENING AT O
MacFarlane 1954 0.0 0 School Opened 3) vENTNG
(1962) 0.9 0 Lithice Pupils Lwhite Faculty
MeNary 1964 0.0 3$
Miami Chapel 19S3 0.0 is Lincoln 1957 100 100
Residence Pk Prim 1966 (60 tn 1967) 38.5 Loos 19$4 100 100°
Troy 4987 0.0 7. 1967 98.8 96
i938 . ) et ? Horace Mann eee 100 100
Weaver 950 . 100 100
i9s4 less than 30 mostly Meadowdale El 1957 100 ies
1969 ° 23 1962 100 100
Wogamon 19S 0.0 0 1966 1c0 100
Belmont 1986 100 100 Patterson 1954 100 100
1960 100 100 1970 100 100
“Meadowdale H.S. 1960 100 | 100 Ruskin 1988 100 100
: 9 . . (100 in 1967
Patterson Co-op 1954 100 100 Shiloh 19S3 100 , = —_*
1967 $7.2 . 96.$ 1960 100 100
Stivers 1966 99 9S | ‘ 1969 94 . 96
Wilbur Wright 1953 mostly 100 Shoup Mill 1958 100 100
1964 96.7 94 | Valerie 1966 109 100
Orville Wright 1982 100 100 Webster 1968 100 100
19S5 e 100 100 ;
1966 100 100
mi. 2. @ 13 s The setts std
elle Haven 9 and classrooms which opened as rac
1987 109 1a back ssnodls wp ay he erorcessece over 9S% black ia’ the 197151972
bs ° and classrooms which
1964 : 100 1c0 page pts white schools contain 90% or sore SELEE pant! posal stioe
Brown 19S0 100 : 100 ; 1971-1972 School year with the exception of Patterson Boren (69 o
t> 1953 100 100 white), Stivers ($7.71 white), Valenie (86.54 white), Gettysburg
Cleveland 1956 100 100 (85.5% white), and Belle Haven (89.7% white). ; .
1967 100 100 a
Eastmont 1935 100 100
1958 100 109
re oS 3
airview
Source: 0.P.S. Pers :
1955 100 100 onnel Reports; Compilation of the D.P.S.
1966 190 100 a and 0.P.S. Office of Cqual Educational Gppectuniey: pF
Fort McKinley 1985S 100 100 @ 9.?.S. Building Schedule. ‘
Franklin 1961 100 100
1967 100 97
Gettysburg 1950 100 100
19S2 100.=(<” . 100
Grant 19$2 100 100
1955 100 100
Huffman 1967 98.5 $3 j
Kemp 1951 100 190 j
1954 100 100 |
1987 109 100
Lewton 19$1 100 100 )
, 19384 100 100
13-Ex.
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 5A
1963-64 New Black Teacher Employments/Placements
46
43 Full-time assignments
40 To schools with pupils racial composition 80% or more
black
1964-65 New Black Teacher Employments/Placements
73
68 Full-time assignments ‘
57 To schools with pupil racial composition 80% or more
black
1968-69 Assignments of New and Transfer Teachers
Schools with Schools with
Predominantly Predominantly
White Enrollment Negro Enrollment Total
Negro Teachers 40 95 135
White Teachers 223 64 287
Source: D.P.S. Personnel Reports; D.P.S. Superintendent's
Compilations
= ph
Year
1950-51
_ 1963-64
1963-69
Source:
14-Ex,
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 5D
RACIAL PATTERN IN THE ALLOCATION OF PUPILS AiO FACULTY
Faculty Faculty
Allocated Allocated
To Pupil To Pupil
Populations Popul
No. Black Teachers No. White Teachers 90% + Black: ans in
eoee All Black NO Biieck
eee ecco tlo wh i te Al 1 th re)
415 304 (74.52) 51 (12.7%)
1616 151 ( 7.3%) 1280 (79.2%)
746 633 (84.8%) 172 ( 9.3%)
1847 172 ( 9.3%) 1299 (70.3%)
0.P.S. Personnel Reports and Division of e
Ohio Civil Rights Survey. of Research Compilations,
15-Ex.
PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT 7
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL
DISTRICT OF DAYTON, OHIO
WEDNESDAY — DECEMBER 8, 1971 —
REGULAR MEETING
The following Resolution was introduced for adoption by
Mr. Lucas, seconded by Mrs. Sterzer:
RESOLUTION+ SEEKING JOINT ACTION TO END
SEGREGATION IN EDUCATION, HOUSING AND
EMPLOYMENT IN THE METROPOLITAN
DAYTON AREA
WHEREAS, the Committee of 75, in reporting to this Board,
has called renewed attention to the widespread racial and
economic isolation of pupils in the Dayton Public Schools
and in schools of the metropolitan Dayton area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of
Education of the City School District of Dayton:
1. That this Board hereby recognizes and admits that
racial and economic segregation exists in the Dayton
schools because of the actions and inactions of this and
predecessor boards in the establishment of attendance
districts, the location and expansion of school buildings,
pupils assignment practices, design of curriculum suit-
able to urban needs, the assignment of teachers and
other staff, and the conduct of student activity programs;
the past actions or inactions of the Ohio General As-
sembly, the State Board of Education, and other agen-
cies of Federal, state, and local government in con-
tributing to the development and continuation of segre-
gated housing, education, and employment in the Day-
16-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7
ton metropolitan area and other parts of Ohio; and
the actions in inactions of lending agencies, real estate
interests, employers, unions, private schools, colleges,
churches, and other organizations that have reinforced
segregation.
. That this Board recognizes that past actions or inac-
tions of the Board of Education and residential racial
segregation are interdependent phenomena.
. That this Board recognizes that the black minority popu-
lation of the Dayton metropolitan area, as illustrated
by the existence of schools of opposite racial composition
in districts with contiguous district lines, essentially is
contained within the central city of Dayton, as a result
of discriminatory practices. Such containment works
against a viable integrated school system within the
city, and the Board asserts that a truly effective solu-
tion is possible only through a metropolitan approach.
. That this Board of Education recognizes that racial and
economic integration of student bodies in each school
is imperative to providing equal educational opportuni-
ty, a broad curriculum capable of serving the individual
needs of pupils, and a democratic environment in which
future citizens can be prepared to live in America’s
multi-ethnic society.
. That this Board views the racial and ethnic mix of the
Dayton City School District and of the metropolitan
area as assets; that this population, if reflected in each
school, could itself contribute to people’s learning from
each other; and that, as a whole, the metropolitan area
represents a nearly ideal cross section of the nation that
could permit schools here to become a model of Ameri-
can democracy in action.
. That this Board hereby invites and urges agencies of the
federal, state, and local governments and organizations
17-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7
of religious, business, labor, education, communications,
civic service, and real estate to assist the Board in de-
segregation of Dayton schools and to pledge publicly
their accelerated efforts to bring about desegregation in
housing, education and employment throughout the Day-
ton metropolitan area.
7. That the Clerk of The Board be and hereby is directed
to forward a true copy of this resolution to the following:
Governor of the State of Ohio
President of the State Board of Education
Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives
President of the Ohio Senate
Montgomery County Members of the Ohio General
Assembly and United States Congress
Montgomery County Commissioners
Dayton City Commissioners
Montgomery County Council of Governments
City Plan Board
Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission
Miami Valley Regional Transit Authority
Metropolitan Housing Authority
Apartment Owners Association
Area Progress Council
Assembly of Area Councils
Chairmen of Democratic and Republican Organiza-
tions
Community Affairs Committee
Congress of Representatives East Dayton Organiza-
tions
Dayton Advisory Council on Education
Dayton Area Board of Realtors
Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce
Dayton Area Junior Chamber of Commerce
Dayton Building Trades Council
Dayton Classroom Teachers Association
18-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7
Dayton-Miami Valley AFL-CIO
Dayton Model Cities Planning Council, Inc.
Dayton Public Service Union
Dayton Urban League
Deans of Area Colleges of Education
Elementary Principals Association
Metropolitan Churches United
Miami Valley Consortium of Colleges and Universities
Montgomery County Community Action Agency
Montgomery County Council of PTAs
National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People
Ohio Association of Public School Employees
Presidents Club
Secondary Principals Association
Southern Christian Leadership Conference
After introduction of the motion to adopt the Resolution,
Mrs. Groff asked that the following statement be made a part
of the Minutes:
“I feel that this resolution is beyond the jurisdiction of this
Board because first of all it doesn’t require a vote because
it is in violation of this Board’s present policy. Even though
you sent out and stated that the policy we have on record
referred to the election back in November 10, 1970, I would
like to refute that because I have here a newspaper clipping
quoting Dr. Carrell. It was when we were about to sub-
mit the policy on middle schools. On the question of middle
schools, and I'd like to quote, “It has been alledged that
there are 9 middle schools already chosen but not revealed
by the Board. That they will be implemented over a week-
end.” Answer: “On both counts the answer is “no”. First, I
have not heard of any such proposal for 9 middle schools. I
have no idea whether there will be 9 or 3 or 18. There is
no proposal before the Board at this moment for any one of
those figures. The Board adopted a policy some time ago
19-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7
which said there would be 4 month’s notice given te the
public prior to the adoption of any significant policy decision.
I feel that we still feel bound by that.” Now, this is a new
policy decision. This is the first time it has been before the
Board. I feel this resolution is out of order. It’s invalid because
you are violating the Board’s policy.”
Upon completion of further discussion, it was moved by Mr.
Ridenour, seconded by Mr. Hart, that action on the Resolu-
tion be tabled until the next regular meeting. Roll Call on the
motion to table:
YEAS: Groff, Hart, Ridenour — 3
NAYS: Carrell, Seaman, Sterzer, and Lucas — 4
The motion to table was declared defeated.
Roll Call on original motion to adopt the Resolution:
YEAS: Carrell, Hart, Seaman, Sterzer, and Lucas — 5
NAYS: Groff, Ridenour — 2
The Resolution was declared adopted.
The following Resolution was introduced for adoption by
Mr. Lucas, seconded by Mrs. Sterzer:
RESOLUTION ASKING FOR STATE ASSISTANCE
TO DESEGREGATE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
WHEREAS, The Committee of 75 has recommended school
integration on a metropolitan basis, and
WHEREAS, the State of Ohio has responsibility and authority
for the operation of public schools, and the State Board
of Education has the duty to administer the laws relating
generally to the operation of the schools, and
WHEREAS, the Ohio Attorney General has ruled that the
State Board of Education has the authority to restrict fund-
20-Ex. 21-Ex.
Ye
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7 ie. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7
ing in any school district in which said Board finds as a responsibility of the State Board of Education and the State
matter of fact that racial segregation exists, oe Legislature and not this Board of Education to make these
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of ts kinds of laws.”
Education of the City School pina of Dayton: It was moved by Mr. Rinenour, seconded by Mr. Hart, that
1. That this Board hereby petitions the State of Ohio and action on the Resolution be tabled. Roll Call on the motion
the State Board of Education (a) to obtain from Ohio to table:
Civil Rights Commission, U. S. Office of Education and
such other sources as it may deem useful, data on racial
isolation of faculty, staffs and pupils within and among
the several school districts as presently constituted in The motion to table was declared defeated.
the metropolitan Dayton area; (b) to develop guide-
lines and criteria as may be necessary to assure an
YEAS: Groff, Hart, and Ridenour — 3
NAYS: Carrell, Seaman, Sterzer, and Lucas — 4
Roll Call on original motion to adopt the Resolution:
educationally and socially viable mix of pupils, within YEAS: Carrell, Hart, Seaman, Sterzer, and Lucas — 5
the socio-economic characteristics of the metropolitan NAYS: Groff and Ridenour — 2
area as a whole; (c) to require said districts to cooperate The Resoluti
in preparing and implementing a plan for assignment : esolution was declared adopted.
of faculty, staffs and pupils in accordance with said
otidinns sah cies, nl (4) ome iets ae
funding from state and district sources to continue the
operation of the schools and the implementation of said [PROPOSAL TO SUBMIT RESOUTION ASKING FOR
plans throughout the period of transition and thereafter. STATE ASSISTANCE TO DESEGREGATE PUBLIC
2. That said plans be developed by September 1, 1972 SCHOOLS TO THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION]
and fully implemented not later than September 1, It was moved by Mrs. Sterzer, seconded by Mr. Seaman, that
1973. the Resolution asking for State Assistance to Desegregate Pub-
3. That the Clerk of the Board forward a true copy of this lic Schools be carried by a committee representative of the
resolution to the Governor of the State of Ohio, the school district to the next State Board of Education meeting
Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President and presented at their public hearing. Roll Cail:
of the Ohio Senate and the President of the State Board YEAS: Carrell, Hart, Seaman, Sterzer, and Lucas — 5
of Education. NAYS: Groff and Ridenour — 2
After introduction of the motion to adopt the Resolution,
Mrs. Groff asked that the following statement be made a part
of the Minutes:
“Yes, I object to this resolution because it is also invalid ,
and in violation of this Board’s policy too. Also this is the
The motion was declared approved.
22-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7
The following Resolution was introduced for adoption by
Mr. Lucas, seconded by Mrs. Sterzer:
RESOLUTION ORDERING THE RACIAL AND
ECONOMIC INTEGRATION OF PUPILS IN
THE DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
WHEREAS, the Board of Education of the Dayton City
School District recognizes a moral and legal duty to provide
quality non-segregated education for all students in the
district, and,
WHEREAS, integrated education is vital to the achievement
of quality education for all pupils, black and white, rich
and poor, and,
WHEREAS, the Fourteenth amendment to the United States
Constitution and the mandate of the United States Supreme
Court in Brown v. Board of Education decision and sub-
sequent court decisions place an affirmative duty to dis-
establish the segregated attendance patterns which result
in whole or in part from its actions and inactions in order
to equalize educational opportunity, and,
WHEREAS, segregated educational opportunity and unequal
educational opportunities for minority and poor students
now exist in the Dayton Public Schools, and
WHEREAS, this inequality exists as a result of the acts and
omissions of this Board and preceding Boards in their de-
cisions concerning the site selection of school buildings,
size of school buildings, changes and adoption of school
attendance boundaries, pupil assignment practices, faculty
and staff hiring and assignment practices and,
WHEREAS, this Board has requested and received reports of
findings and recommendations from the State Department
of Education and the Committee of 75,
23-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of
Education of the City School District of Dayton that it is
the policy of this Board that each school shall enroll pupils
in a manner which substantially reflects the racial and eco-
nomic characteristics of the district as a whole. The Board
recognizes that implementation of this policy requires de-
parture from past practices and requires special planning
to assure a smooth transition. The Board therefore directs:
1. That the superintendent in consultation with professional
staff and the representatives of employee organizations,
design and implement a mandatory program of in-service
education involving all staff members to prepare staff
for changes in enrollments and to develop an individu-
alized, multi-ethnic curriculum in each school.
2. That Dayton Advisory Council on Education be re-
quested to organize a Community Involvement Advisory
Committee and a Lay Citizens Financial Review Com-
mittee to advise the superintendent during the course
of planning and implementing integration programs, as
recommended by the Committee of 75.
3. That the superintendent be and hereby is directed to
develop and implement plans for the racial and eco-
nomic integration of pupils using the following guide-
lines and criteria:
a. Attendance districts as presently constituted are re-
scinded effective September 1, 1972.
b. No building shall have a racial composition and
family income characteristics substantially dispropor-
tionate to the district as a whole.
c. After determination of building capacities and racial
and economic characteristics of attendance areas,
pupils will be assigned to a school in which such
assignment would contribute to a mix as in b. above.
24-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8
d. Freedom of Enrollment policy with the exception
of transfers for course enrollment shall be eliminated
by September 1, 1972.
e. Desegregation is to be completed by September,
1972.
f. Nothing herein shall be construed to limit the es-
tablishment of magnet, demonstration, specialized or
other education complexes, provided that the sites
for instruction meet the criteria in c. above.
g. Transportation shall be held to a minimum, but is
specifically included as one means of implementing
this policy.
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 8
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL
DISTRICT OF DAYTON, OHIO
MONDAY — JANUARY 3, 1972 —
REGULAR MEETING
[RESOLUTION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO
ADVERTISE FOR BIDS FOR PURCHASE
OF SCHOOL BUSSES]
It was moved by Mr. Lucas, seconded by Mr. Lawson, that
the following Resolution be adopted:
RESOLUTION ON SCHOOL BUS PURCHASING
WHEREAS, it has been determined that it is necessary to
purchase one hundred and thirty, sixty-six passenger con-
ventional or seventy-three passenger transit type buses, and,
25-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8
WHEREAS, it is recommended that school buses be purchased
and operated by the Board of Education, and,
WHEREAS, plans and specifications have been prepared by
the Business Department,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Clerk-
Treasurer be and hereby is authorized to advertise for bids
to be opened and read publicly in accordance with the
provisions of Section 3313.46, Revised Code and that they
be tabulated and reported to the Board at its earliest meet-
ing after the bid opening.
YEAS: Lawson, Lucas, and Sterzer — 3
NAYS: Goodwin, Groff, Ridenour, and Hart — 4
The Resolution was declared defeated.
-_-eo eo Oo
[RESOLUTION REGARDING PREPARATION
OF BUDGET]
It was moved by Mr. Goodwin, seconded by Mr. Ridenour
that in the preparation of the 1972 budget the Superintendent
be directed by the Board to maintain line items in the same
categories in order to give Board members direct comparison
across the line, to maintain cost comparison from one year
to another and with monthly reports to be made to the Board.
YEAS: Goodwin, Groff, Lawson. Rid
piece ena n, enour, and Hart — 5
ABSTENTION: Sterzer — 1]
The motion was declared approved.
26-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8
[RESOLUTION FOR AUDIT]
It was moved by Mr. Goodwin, seconded by Mrs. Groff,
that the Clerk-Treasurer be authorized to seek bids immediate-
ately for a complete audit of 1970 and 1971 income and ex-
penditures of the Board of Education in each category rela-
tive to all items listed in the Appropriation Budget and amend-
ed budgets with the audit to be made according to the use
of State and Federal guidelines.
Mr. Lucas stated that boards of education do not have
statutory authority to employ independent auditors to audit
their records.
The chair then requested that the motion be tabled and
a ruling sought as to whether or not the action indicated
in the motion could be legally carried out.
It was moved by Mr. Lucas, seconded by Mr. Lawson, that
the matter be tabled in accordance with the request of Presi-
dent Hart.
YEAS: Goodwin, Groff, Lawson, Lucas, Ridenour, Stetzer,
and Hart — 7
NAYS: None
The motion to table was declared approved.
[CONSIDERATION OF THREE RESOLUTIONS
DRAFTED DECEMBER 8, 1971]
Mrs. Groff asked the Chair whether the motion to recon-
sider the three resolutions on integration could be brought
up at this time. President Hart called up the motion on the
vote to reconsider at the request of Mrs. Groff and then
read the following statement:
“On December 8, 1971, there was presented to this board
three resolutions by Mr. Lucas, to-wit:
27-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8
i. oe Lane Joint Action to End Segregation in
ucation, Housin i i
"shah g and Employment in the Metropolitan
2. Resolution Asking F i
ml oiaenir lan g For State Assistance to Desegregate
3. Resolution Ordering The Racial
tion and Economic I i
of Pupils in The Dayton Public Schools, eee
The motion was seconded and passed.
Thereafter Mr. Hart moved, s
» seconded by Mrs. Groff, that
= wi resolutions offered by Mr. Lucas, (titles being ia )
“ Bie — . the “ei meeting, that the questions be re-
an t i
‘eo 4 tol ered upon the minutes of the December
Mr. Lucas ruled that i i
ae the motion to reconsider was out of
Bice a rig publicly, withdrew this ruling. The chair
r. Lucas’ ruling was in itself
aa \ elf out of order for
er a point of order is raised
all actions in violation of th aig
e by-laws are null and void aut
o-
cages Our by-laws provides for reconsideration and for
use 0 Robert’s Rules of Order which also provides f
motions to reconsider and enter. e
Th .
Bevin aren 8, 1971 meeting then by unanimous vote was
ed to a definite date and never reconvened.
. bo iene dp oe an assemblage of various board
and a purported vote take h
consideration heretofore entered Dd be te
on the minutes of the De-
eerie: : 1971 meeting. This was NOT convened as : mg
ny sige. as the notice did not indicate that the call was for
pe sagt bene and did not list reconsideration or any
under our rules of order must be don
e. Sec-
ondly, it was not signed by members calling the ue,
28-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8
Thirdly, the notice merely recited action taken at a previous
| 971.
blage of December 16, 1 |
a be not examine the proceedings of the peunsginee be
1971, meeting. The December 16, 1971 meeting was a se
tin called at the instance and under the signature 0 “a
‘odd pa Under the statutes and eg oo vig oe04
; member 2
lations it must be served on each 0 :
ne pe prior to the date of the called meeting, Prag a0
ber, Mr. Hart, did not receive the notice within ot q i.
ime A copy of that notice and the envelope within = -
ae sent shows that the special delivery eecorig' Foi
ty al service did not receive this notice “a ancl
wil 1971, which made it physically pe msgine alk . “8
the notice at least two days prior to the meeting 0
16, 1971. |
a attorney general has held and courts have —.
the proceedings of a school board are invalid where a
a notice is not given and the member not receiving
q
notice is absent.
The chair therefore rules that:
i ing the motion to reconsider
_ The ruling of Mr. Lucas ruling é
and omaranal at the December 8, 1971 meeting to be
out of order was itself out of order.
2. The proceedings of the December 16, 1971 pasgete ai
. invalid and this includes all votes taken at " perme
including the vote to reconsider and a vote s
a regular meeting for December 30, 1971.
3. That you cannot set a legal meeting at an illegal meeting.
4. Since the last legal meeting was recessed at ag
. 3 1972 the only meeting that could be called aite
cess was a special meeting.
5. That the December 30, 1971 meeting was ~—_ —
, it was convened as a regular meeting at a special mee
29-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8
ing which itself was invalid and no call of a special meet-
ing was made in accordance with the statutes governing
special meetings.
. That proceedings and votes taken at the December 30,
1971 meeting are invalid because of the illegality of the
December 30, 1971 meeting.
7. That the Clerk of this board should confer with the pres-
ident of this board to determine which actions this board
would deem it necessary to confirm or ratify.
8.
That the motion to reconsider, having never been acted
upon, is now before this board under the category of
new business and the question to reconsider may now
be called up.”
I call up the motion on the vote to reconsider the three
resolutions which has been pending before this Board since
the December 8, 1971 Regular Board Meeting.”
Mr. Lucas asked that the record show that the action of the
Chair at the January 3, 1972 meeting is invalid because the
Board that dealt with this matter as a parliamentary procedure
had adjourned sine die and this Board has no jurisdiction
whatsoever.
It was moved by Mrs. Groff, seconded by Mr. Ridenour, that
the motion to reconsider the three resolutions of December
8, 1971 on integration be brought before the Board for vote.
YEAS: Goodwin, Groff, Ridenour, and Hart — 4
NAYS: Lucas — 1
PASS: Lawson and Sterzer — 2
The motion to reconsider the three resolutions was
declared approved.
30-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8
[RECONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION SEEKING
JOINT ACTION TO END SEGREGATION IN EDUCA-
TION, HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT IN THE
METROPOLITAN DAYTON AREA]
The Clerk read the Resolution at the request of the Chair:
WHEREAS, the Committee of 75, in reporting to this Board,
has called renewed attention to the widespread racial and
economic isolation of pupils in the Dayton Public Schools
and in schools of the metropolitan Dayton area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of
Education of the City School District of Dayton:
1. That this Board hereby recognizes and admits that
racial and economic segregation exists in the Dayton
schools because of the actions and inactions of this and
predecessor boards in the establishment of attendance
districts, the location and expansion of school buildings,
pupil assignment practices, design of curriculum suit-
able to urban needs, the assignment of teachers and other
staff, and the conduct of student activity programs; the
past actions or inactions of the Ohio General Assembly,
the State Board of Education, and other agencies of
Federal, state, and local government in contributing to
the development and continuation of segregated housing,
education, and employment in the Dayton metropolitan
area and other parts of Ohio; and the actions and in-
actions of lending agencies, real estate interests, em-
ployers, unions, private schools, colleges, churches, and
other organizations that have reinforced segregation.
2. That this Board recognizes that past actions or inactions
of the Board of Education and residential racial segrega-
tion are interdependent phenomena.
3. That this Board recognizes that the black minority popu-
lation of the Dayton metropolitan area, as illustrated by
31-Ex.
Plaintifis’ Exhibit 8
the existence of schools of opposite racial composition
in districts with contiguous district lines, essentially is
contained within the central city of Dayton, as a aod
of discriminatory practices. Such containment works
against a viable integrated school system within the ci
and the Board asserts that a truly effective oe
possible only through a metropolitan approach.
. That this Board of Education recognizes that racial and
economic integration of student bodies in each school
is imperative to providing equal educational opportuni-
ty, a broad curriculum capable of serving the individual
needs of pupils, and a democratic environment in which
future citizens can be i
i prepared to live in America’ i-
ethnic society. Silt te
. That this Board views the racial and ethnic mix of the
Dayton City School District and of the metropolitan
area as assets; that this population, if reflected in each
school, could itself contribute to people’s learning fro
each other; and that, as a whole, the sisteiiedling ok
represents a nearly ideal cross section of the nation that
could permit schools here to be
come a mod -
can democracy in action. vicinity
. That this Board hereby invites and urges agencies of the
federal, state, and local governments and organizatio
of religious, business, labor, education, pain a
civic service, and real estate to assist the Board in de.
segregation of Dayton schools and to pledge publicl
their accelerated efforts to bring about eunidiiies
housing, education and
; employment throu -
ton metropolitan area. sitesi
. The the Clerk of the Board be and hereby is directed to
forward a true copy of this resolution to the following:
Area Board of Education Presidents
Governor of the State of Ohio
32-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8
President of the State Board of Education
Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives
President of the Ohio Senate
Montgomery County Members of the Ohio General
Assembly and United States Congress
Montgomery County Commissioners
Dayton City Commissioners
Montgomery County Council of Governments
City Plan Board
Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission
Miami Valley Regional Transit Authority
Metropolitan Housing Authority
Apartment Owners Association
Area Progress Council
Assembly of Area Councils
Chairmen of Democratic and Kepublican Organiza-
tions
Community Affairs Committee
Congress of Representative East Dayton Organiza-
tions
Dayton Advisory Council on Education
Dayton Area Board of Realtors
Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce
Dayton Area Junior Chamber of Commerce
Dayton Building Trades Council
Dayton Classroom Teachers Association
Dayton-Miami Valley AFL-CIO
Dayton Model Cities Planning Council, Inc.
Dayton Public Service Union
Dayton Urban League
Deans of Area Colleges of Education
Elementary Principals Association
Metropolitan Churches United
Miami Valley Consortium of Colleges and Universi-
ties
Montgomery County Community Action Agency
33-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8
Montgomery County Council of PTAs
National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People
Ohio Association of Public School Employees
Presidents Club
Secondary Principals Association
Southern Christian Leadership Conference
Jewish Community Council
Prior to voting on the Resolution the Chair announced that
a “Yes” vote would support the Resolution and a “Nay” vote
would be one to defeat the Resolution.
YEAS: Lawson, Lucas, and Sterzer — 3
NAYS: Goodwin, Groff, Ridenour, and Hart — 4
The Resolution was declared defeated.
Mr. Lucas left the meeting at this point.
[RECONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ASKING
STATE ASSISTANCE TO DESEGREGATE
PUBLIC SCHOOLS]
The Clerk read the Resolution at the request of the Chair:
RESOLUTION ASKING FOR STATE ASSISTANCE
TO DESEGREGATE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
WHEREAS, The Committee of 75 has recommended school
integration on a metropolitan basis, and
WHEREAS, the State of Ohio has responsibility and authori-
ty for the operation of public schools, and the State Board
of Education has the duty to administer the laws relating
generally to the operation of the schools, and
WHEREAS, the Ohio Attorney General has ruled that the
State Board of Education has the authority to restrict fund-
ing in any school district in which said Board finds as a
matter of fact that racial segregation exists,
34-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of
Education oi the City School District of Dayton:
1. That this Board hereby petitions the State of Ohio and
the State Board of Education (a) to obtain from Ohio
Civil Rights Commission, U. S. Office of Education and
such other sources as it may deem useful, data on racial
isolation of faculty, staffs and pupils within and among
the several school districts as presently constituted in the
metropolitan Dayton area; (b) to develop guidelines and
criteria as may be necessary to assure an educationally
and socially viable mix of pupils, within the socio-eco-
nomic characteristics of the metropolitan area as a whole;
(c) to require said districts to cooperate in preparing
and implementing a plan for assignment of faculty, staffs
and pupils in accordance with said guidelines and cri-
teria, and (d) to assure adequate funding from state
and district sources to continue the operation of the
schools and the implementation of said plans throughout
the period of transition and thereafter.
2. That said plans be developed by September 1, 1972 and
fully implemented no later than September 1, 1973.
3. That the Clerk of the Board forward a true copy of this
resolution to the Governor of the State of Ohio, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President
of the Ohio Senate and the President of the State Board
of Education.
Prior to voting on the Resolution the Chair announced that a
“Yes” vote would support the Resolution and a “No” vote
would be one to defeat the Resolution.
YEAS: Lawson and Sterzer
NAYS: Goodwin, Groff, Ridenour, and Hart
The Resolution was declared defeated.
35-Ex.
Plaintifis’ Exhibit 8
[RECONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ORDERING
THE RACIAL AND ECONOMIC INTEGRATION OF
PUPILS IN THE DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS]
The Clerk read the Resolution at the request of the Chair:
RESOLUTION ORDERING THE RACIAL AND
ECONOMIC INTEGRATION OF PUPILS IN THE
DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
WHEREAS, the Board of Education of the Dayton City School
District recognizes a moral and legal duty to provide quali-
ty tia aes education for all students in the district,
and,
WHEREAS, integrated education is vital to the achievement
of quality education for all pupils, black and white, rich
and poor, and,
WHEREAS, the Fourteenth amendment to the United States
Constitution and the mandate of the United States Supreme
Court in Brown v. Board of Education decision and subse-
quent court decisions place an affirmative duty to dis-
establish the segregated attendance patterns which result
in whole or in part from its actions and inactions in order
to equalize educational opportunity, and,
WHEREAS, segregated educational opportunity and unequal
educational opportunities for minority and poor students
now exist in the Dayton Public Schools, and
WHEREAS, this inequality exis.s as a result of the acts and
omissions of this Board and preceding Boards in their de-
cisions concerning the site selection of school building
size of school buildings, changes and adoption of school
attendance boundaries, pupil assignment practices, faculty
and staff hiring and assignment practices and,
WHEREAS, this Board has requested and received reports
of findings and recommendations from the State Department
of Education and the Committee of 75,
36-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of
Education of the City School District of Dayton that it is
the policy of this Board that each school shall enroll pupils
in a manner which substantially reflects the racial and eco-
nomic characteristics of the district as a whole. The Board
recognizes that implementation of this policy requires de-
parture from past practices and requires special planning
to assure a smooth transition. The Board therefore directs:
1.
That the superintendent in consultation with professional
staff and the representatives of employee organizations,
design and implement a mandatory program of in-service
education involving all staff members to prepare staff
for changes in enrollments and to develop an indi-
vidualized, multi-ethnic curriculum in each school.
That Dayton Advisory Council on Education be request-
ed to organize a Community Involvement Advisory Com-
mittee and a Lay Citizens Financial Review Committee
to advice the superintendent during the course of plan-
ning and implementing integration programs, as recom-
mended by the Committee of 75.
That the superintendent be and hereby is directed to
develop and implement plans for the racial and economic
integration of pupils using the following guidelines and
criteria:
a. Attendance districts as presently constituted are re-
scinded effective September 1, 1972.
b. No building shall have a racial composition and fam-
ily income characteristics substantially disproportion-
ate to the district as a whole.
c. After determination of building capacities and racial
and economic characteristics of attendance areas,
pupils will be assigned to a school in which such as-
signment would contribute to a mix asin b. above.
37-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8
d. Freedom of Enrollment policy with the exception of
transfers for course enrollment shall be eliminated
by September 1, 1972.
e. Desegregation is to be completed by September,
1972.
f. Nothing herein shall be construed to limit the estab-
lishment of magnet, demonstration, specialized or
other education complexes, provided that the sites
for instruction meet the criteria in c. above.
g. Transportation shall be held to a minimum, but is
specifically included as one means of implementing
this policy.
4. That to the maximum feasible extent consistent with this
policy statement, recommendations of the Committee of
75, are hereby adopted and may be used in planning
and implementing school integration.
5. That the superintendent report on progress and prob-
lems concerning implementation of this policy at least
every sixty days and that a program for continuous
evaluation throughout the phases of implementation be
developed by July 31, 1972.
6. That the superintendent prepare applications for sup-
plementary financial assistance from state, federal and
other sources that may become available to improve
the quality of education and achieve the goals of the
Committee of 75 report.
Prior to voting on the Resolution the Chair announced that
a “Yes” vote would support the Resolution and a “No” vote
would be one to defeat the Resolution.
YEAS: Lawson and Sterzer — 2
NAYS: Goodwin, Groff, Ridenour, and Hart — 4
The Resolution was declared defeated.
SS ee ee ee ee
38-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8
[STATEMENT AND RULING OF THE CHAIR]
At this time President Hart made the following statement
and ruling:
“Gentlemen, since this board has voted to reconsider these
questions and has defeated them, the Chair now rules that
under the form to reconsider and enter upon the minutes,
that this is all that must ie done to stop execution upon mo-
tions or actions of this Board because that to permit otherwise
would deprive the board of its right to reconsider.
Since it is possible that there may have been a premature
execution of these questions, the chair further rules:
1. That the superintendent under his signature communi-
cate with all persons and agencies named in said motions ad-
vising them of the premature execution thereof, requesting
a withdrawal of said premature communications and counter-
manding the communications that were premature where the
premature communication cannot be withdrawn; and that
communications upon said motions that were made prior to
this date are premature and invalid.”
Mr. Lucas returned to the meeting at this point.
[STATEMENT OF MRS. GROFF]
The Chair recognized Mrs. Groff who made the following
statement:
Mr. President, Members of the Board, and Citizens:
Quoting from THE CREATIVE SOCIETY by Ronald
Reagan, “We have the privilege of living on the only island of
freedom that is left in the whole world.” There is no other
place in the world to go. We stand together and defend free-
dom here or it is gone. We must work together and take a
39-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8
stand. If we fail, I think we face telling our children and
our grandchildren what it was we found more precious, or more
important than freedom.
“Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one
generation away from extinction. It comes only once to a
people. Those who have had it and lost it have never known
it again.”
The Dayton Schools are the people’s business, and every man,
woman and child becomes a shareholder with the first penny
of tax paid. The most meaningful words of the Constitution
are the first three, “We the people.”
Therefore, the time has come for the Board to recognize
that the schools belong to the people and that the people
have a right to know all the facts about their schools.
The time has come for the Board to decide whether we can
afford everything we think of simply because we think of it.
The time has come to run a check to see if all the services
we have taken away from the people or the innovations we
have provided are just goodies dreamed up for their supposed
betterment. The time has come to balance outgo to income,
instead of always doing it the other way around.
What we need is a system of an objective evaluation be-
fore changes are implemented. The people should have the
opportunity to give their opinion on supposed changes and
the Board act on the decisions of the people.
Supporting and implementing the basic principles that have
made America great is not turning back the clock but it is
taking the dream that has made this country progress, updating
it, and making it practical for the 20th century. A High Quality
Education which will insure that every child in the Dayton
School System can reach his full potential so that he can be-
come a responsible contributing member of society is the
goal of this Board of Education.
40-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8
With these thoughts in mind I would like to present the
following three resolutions.”
The following Resolution was introduced by Mrs. Groff,
seconded by Mr. Ridenour:
RESOLUTION ORDERING DEVELOPMENT OF PLANS
THAT ARE WITHIN THE FINANCIAL ABILITY OF THE
CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF DAYTON FOR IMPROVE-
MENT OF QUALITY OF EDUCATION.
WHEREAS, the present enrollment patterns of the Dayton
Public Schools are not related to the policies or decisions
of the Board of Education;
WHEREAS, the racial and economic imbalance that exists in
the Dayton Public Schools is not a result of any act of
discrimination on the part of the Dayton Board of Educa-
tion;
WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States does not
require a Board of Education to balance racial concentra-
tions in schools where such racial concentrations are not the
result of any act of the Board of Education;
WHEREAS, the Dayton City Schools have been found to be
in compliance with HEW rules and regulations as evi-
denced by the statement of Mr. James Mancini, a compli-
ance review attorney in the Civil Rights Division of HEW;
WHEREAS, no massive movement of pupils back and forth
across the City or County could be accomplished without
an expenditure of thousands and thousands of dollars;
WHEREAS, the reasons given by the administrators of the
Dayton School System for the 10.5 mill additional levy
did not include an expenditure for bussing and for other
transportation of pupils for the purpose of eliminating eco-
41-Ex,
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8
— and/or racial segregation of pupils, nor do the ad-
ional State appropriations require this;
WHEREAS, this Board of Education has consistently sup-
ported the concept of neighborhood schools: :
WHEREAS, the Freedom of E
| q Fre nrollment policy of the D
City School District has been considered a joni) tos.
"kee ior gre * Education has adopted various plans
es toward improvement of th i
education offered to the children of sotband oe
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
» TI A RESOLVED, by the B
Education of the City School District of + Sd ara
Superintendent and his staff
submit to thi 1
end of the 1971-72 school term » nes ——? Board by the
that is within the financial ability of the City School Dis
It was moved b
. y Mr. Lucas, s
action on the Resolution hy — by Mrs. Sterzer, that
Roll Call on the Motion to Table:
rept Lawson, Lucas, and Sterzer — 3
AYS: Goodwin, Groff, Ridenour, and Hart — 4
The motion to table action on the Resolution was
declared defeated.
42-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8
Roll Call on the Resolution:
YEAS: Goodwin, Groff, Ridenour, and Hart — 4
NAYS: Lawson, Lucas, and Sterzer — 3
The Resolution was declared adopted.
The following Resolution was introduced by Mrs. Groff,
seconded by Mr. Goodwin:
RESOLUTION ORDERING DEVELOPMENT OF FEASI-
BILITY REPORTS AND PLANS FOR PROVIDING FREE
TRANSPORTATION OF STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN
THE FREEDOM OF ENROLLMENT PROGRAM IN THE
DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
WHEREAS, the present enrollment patterns of the Dayton
Public Schools are not related to the policies or decisions
of the Board of Education;
WHEREAS, the racial and economic imbalance that exists in
the Dayton Public Schools is not a result of any act of
discrimination on the part of the Dayton Board of Education;
WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States does not re-
quire a Board of Education to balance racial concentrations
in schools where such racial concentrations are not the re-
sult of any act of the Board of Education;
WHEREAS, the Dayton City Schools have been found to be
in compliance with HEW rules and regulations as evidenced
by the statement of Mrs. James Mancini, a compliance re-
view attorney in the Civil Rights Division of HEW;
WHEREAS, no massive movement of pupils back and forth
across the City or County could be accomplished without
an expenditure of thousands and thousands of dollars;
ere
43-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8
WHEREAS, the reasons given by the administrators of the
Dayton School System for the 10.5 mill additional le
did not include an expenditure for bussing and for igs
transportation of pupils for the purpose of eliminating eco-
nomic and/or racial segregation of pupils, nor do the ad
ditional State appropriations require this;
WHEREAS, this Board of Education has consistently sup-
ported the concept of neighborhood schools;
bap rere the Freedom of Enrollment policy of the Dayton
chool District has been considered a successful venture;
WHEREAS, this Board of Education is concerned about all
the children of the Dayton City School District and is
consistently searching for ways and means to improve th
quality of education offered to them and; oes
WHEREAS, this Board of Education has adopted various
plans and approaches toward im
provement of th i
of the education offered to the children of nates oT
oe BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of
“irs on el e City School District of Dayton that the
a mo "nrollment policy of the Dayton Public Schools
ee ' nel agp —_ re exception that the Superinten-
ss , and hereby are, di
and submit to this Board of acatiees rsh Pa par
second semester of the 1971-72 school year a feasibility
report and plan providing for the free transportation of th
students participating in such program. :
™ moved by Mr. Luca
was : s, seconded by Mr.
that the action on the Resolution be tabled. Pe ene
Roll Call on the Motion to Table:
YEAS: Lawson, Lucas, and Sterzer — 3
NAYS: Goodwin, Groff, Ridenour, and Hart — 4
The motion to table was declared defeated.
44-Ex.
Plaintifis’ Exhibit &
Roll Call on the Resolution:
YEAS: Goodwin, Groff, Ridenour, and Hart — 4
NAYS: Lawson, Lucas, and Sterzer — 3
The Resolution was declared adopted.
The following Resolution was introduced by Mrs. Groff,
seconded by Mr. Goodwin.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ee ee bes vob
DENT TRANSFERS BETWEEN DAYTON C lg tet
DISTRICTS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS W
DAYTON METROPOLITAN AREA.
WHEREAS, the present enrollment patterns of the Dayton
Public Schools are not related on the policies or decisions
of the Board of Education;
WHEREAS, the racial and economic — that ecg
i i t of any
in the Dayton Public Schools is not a resu dm
dnccianitia on the part of the Dayton Board of Education;
WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United —
require a Board of Education to balance racia —
tions in schools where such racial er eoeaiaertie a
the result of any act of the Board of Education;
WHEREAS, the Dayton City Schools have been found to be
in compliance with HEW rules and regulations as evi-
denced by the statement of Mr. James Mancini, a
pliance review attorney in the Civil Rights Division
HEW;
i ils back and forth
REAS, no massive movement of pupi :
boas the City or County could be accomplished without an
expenditure of thousands and thousands of dollars;
i dministrators‘ of the
EAS, the reasons given by the a ist
ber ees School System for the 10.5 mill additional levy did
45-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8
not include an expenditure for bussing and for other trans-
portation of pupils for the purpose of eliminating economic
and/or racial segregation of pupils, nor do the additional
State appropriations require this:
WHEREAS, this Board of Education has consistently sup-
ported the concept of neighborhood schools;
WHEREAS, the Freedom of Enrollment policy of the Dayton
City School District has been considered a successful venture;
WHEREAS, this Board of Education is concerned about all
the children of the Dayton City School District and is con-
sistently searching for ways and means to improve the
quality of education offered to them and;
WHEREAS, this Board of Education has adopted various
plans and approaches toward improvement of the quality
of the education offered to the children of Dayton;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
1. That with the concurrence of one or more of the school
districts within the Dayton Metropolitan area and fol-
lowing the Freedom of Enrollment guidelines as amended
of the Dayton City School District, the Superintendent
is authorized to arrange for the payment of tuition for
students requesting tuition-paid transfers to schools out-
side of the Dayton City School District providing, how-
ever, (a) that the transfers are arranged during the sum-
mer for the succeeding school year, (b) that the entire
sum for all such tuition payments paid by the Dayton
Board of Education shall not exceed the amount of tu-
ition received by the Board from other school districts
during the preceding calendar year and (c) that such
transfer shall improve the racial balance of the public
schools of the Dayton City School District. It is further
suggested that this policy be implemented for 1972-73
school year.
46-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8
2. That with the concurrence of one or more of the school
districts within the Dayton metropolitan area and fol-
lowing the Freedom of Enrollment guidelines as amend-
ed of the Dayton City School District the Superintendent,
upon mutual exchange of students or upon payment of
tuition, is authorized to accept any student from an out-
lying school district within this District provided that
the acceptance of such student at a school within this
district shall improve the racial balance of such school.
It was moved by Mr. Lucas, seconded by Mr. Lawson, that
action on the Resolution be tabled.
Roll Call on the Motion to Table:
YEAS: Lawson and Lucas — 2
NAYS: Goodwin, Groff, Ridenour, Sterzer, and Hart — 5
The motion to table was declared defeated.
Roll Call on the Resolution:
YEAS: Goodwin, Groff, Ridenour, and Hart — 4
NAYS: Lawson and Lucas — 2
ABSTENTION: Sterzer — 1
Mrs. Sterzer indicated that she abstained from voting be-
cause she felt Mrs. Groff’s resolution was not valid since it fell
outside the jurisdiction of the Board.
The Resolution was declared adopted.
47-Ex
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8
\INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK AND SUPERINTENDENT
OF SCHOOLS]
The following motion was introduced by Mrs. Groff, second-
ed by Mr. Ridenour:
Mr. President:
I move that the Clerk of the Board be and hereby is di-
rected to forward true copies of the three Resolutions to all
persons and agencies who received copies of the tentative
package of three Resolutions on Racial and Economic Ra-
tions, of the December 8, 1971 Board meeting. He shall
inform them by separate letter of the three new resolutions,
namely; on IMPROVEMENT OF QUALITY OF EDUCA-
TION, on DEVELOPMENT OF PLANS FOR PROVIDING
FREE TRANSPORTATION OF STUDENTS PARTICIPAT-
ING IN THE FREEDOM OF ENROLLMENT PROGRAM
IN THE DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS, and on AUTHORIZ-
ING ARRANGEMENT OF STUDENT TRANSFERS BE-
TWEEN THE DAYTON SCHOOL DISTRICT AND
SCHOOL DISTRICTS WITHIN THE DAYTON METRO-
POLITAN AREA. He shall inform them by separate letter of
the three resolutions as adopted, and forward a copy of the
letter to all members of the Board of Education.
I move also, that the Superintendent is directed to publish
in the next issue of SCHOOL DAY Mrs. Groff’s introductory
remarks and the three resolutions as adopted by the Dayton
Board of Education on January 3, 1972.
YEAS: Goodwin, Groff, Ridenour, and Lucas — 4
NAYS: Lawson, Lucas, and Sterzer — 3
The motion was declared approved.
48-Ex.
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 9
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF 75
Advisory Committee To The Board of Education
To Reduce Racial Isolation and Improve
Educational Opportunities
Dayton Board of Education ® 1971
THE COMMITTEE:
ITS ORIGIN AND ACTIVITIES
The Commitiee of 75 was organized to advise the Dayton
Board of Education how best to deal with racial and economic
isolation in the public schools and improve the quality of
education therein.
Origin
It originated in a resolution adopted by the Dayton Board
of Education on April 29, 1971.
49-Ex.
Plaintifis’ Exhibit 9
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the super-
intendent of schools be authorized and directed to
request the assistance of the State Department of
Education, Office of Equal Educational Opportuni-
ties, to provide technical assistance for the develop-
ment and submission to the Board of alternative
plans for reducing racial and economic isolation of
pupils and improving educational opportunities in
the Dayton Public Schools and for developing pro-
posals for outside funding to implement the same,
subject to the approval ef the Board.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the President of the
Board, in consultation with the Board, appoint a
broadly representative committee to evaluate and
advise the Board on plans that are developed pur-
suant to this resolution; and to communicate with
and seek the cooperation of civic, governmentel,
higher educational, religious, communications, labor,
business and other segments of the community in
the Dayton area regarding such plans.
Resolution to Seek Assistance To Reduce Racial
Isolation and Improve Educational Opportunities
WHEREAS, THE Dayton Board of Education recognizes
that unequal educational opportunities for minority
students now exist, and
WHEREAS, current resources available to the Board have
been fully used to extend learning opportunities and
are now stretched to their limit, and
WHEREAS, the Congress is considering the Emergency
School Assistance Program that may supplement
other funds for improving education and reducing
racial and economic isolation,
Meeting first on August 30, 1971, at Frigidaire’s Moraine
plant auditorium on Springboro Pike, the committee received
the following charge from Leo A. Lucas, Board President:
The Charge To
The Advisory Committee of the Board of Education
To Reduce Racial Isolation and Improve
Educational Opportunities
We, the members of the Dayton Board of Education,
are deeply grateful for the presence of each of you here
this evening. This is an historical event — one that is
even more historical than the decision of the Dayton
. Board of Education of the 1930’s to construct the original
° Dunbar High School.
50-Ex
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9
We recognize, and the statistical data substantiates, the
fact that unequal educational opportunities for the poor
and black students now exist in the Dayton School Dis-
trict. The Board of Education has gone on record by
setting quality integrated education as its goal. We have
admitted that the district is guilty of procedures which
have led to the racial isolation of school children.
It is this committee’s responsibility to establish the
evaluation elements to be applied to a developed plan
or plans and advise the Dayton Board of Education
accordingly. We do hope that you would set up guide-
lines and/or methods by which the community will
become meaningfully involved.
You are an arm of the Dayton Board of Education with
the task of supplying input to the Board. It remains
the responsibility of the Board of Education to make
official approval of your input. We feel very strongly
that the establishment of this committee is not an attempt
to abdicate its responsibility or delegate its authority,
but rather an attempt to utilize the enrichment of citizen
participation. It is hoped that the school councils, and
organized groups of school-oriented citizens of the school
district, will be an avenue you may use for additional
participation.
If there be a fear that you are here to architect a
master plan for “busing” — “t’ain’t true.” You are here
in an attempt to supply your input of the ingredients for
excellency to any plan that the administration and/or
consultants may recommend. It is our sincere hope that
when a plan is set for implementation, it should be that
one or the one that embraces the wishes of the citizens
of the Dayton School District and not one imposed by
federal, state or court mandate.
Again, we are happy to have your view joined with us
to place our input on what may be called The Dayton
51-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9
Peoples Plan for the elimination of racial and economic
isolation among the pupils of the Dayton School District.
Now acting by the authority invested in me as President
of the Dayton Board of Education, I hereby officially
appoint this committee and also name Dr. Irvin W. Bat-
dorf as Chairman, and request that the termination date
be set at December 1, 1971.
At this meeting an address was brought by Dr. William
Self, Superintendent of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school
system in North Carolina, setting forth the process of integra-
tion accomplished there under order of the courts. Mrs.
Virginia McNeal was elected vice-chairman of the Committee
and Dr. Irvin W. Batdorf appointed as chairman. To address
the problem of racial and economic isolation in each of the
areas considered as integral to the operation of the public
schools the committee was divided into nine subcommittees,
this report. As listed there the committees include not only
the original 75 members but also eleven students who were
added to the committee later at the invitation of President
Leo Lucas of the Board, in response to growing feeling that
more student input was needed.
As a basic document to spark deliberations, each subcom-
mittee member was given a copy of the publication, Recom-
mendations of the State Department of Education to the
Dayton Board of Education (2). This paper had been sent
to each member of the Dayton Board of Education on June
7, 1971, and a copy is filed at the Board offices where the
records of the committee of 75 are kept. Pages 13-16 of this
paper list ten alternate responses to racial imbalance in the
Dayton schools which the State Department did not consider
adequate. On pages 16-30, the State Department recom-
mended an eleventh proposal, on the basis of which the sub-
committees began their deliberations. This latter recommenda-
tion included the substance of a paper by Dr. Charles Glatt
52-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9
entitled “Parameters and the Future,” which was printed in
a report made to the Dayton Board of Education on December
15, 1970 bearing the title School Integration (14). This report
also was made available to each member of the committee
together with whatever materials each subcommittee found
pertinent to its work. Members also profited much from the
advice and wisdom of the schools central office staff through
consultants assigned to each subcommittee.
PRIORITIES FOR THE PRESENT
What We Felt
Nothing can replace the experiences we had working with
each other because the problem we had tackled forced us to
put ourselves on the line. There was literally no place to
hide. That’s the way it is when you take integration seriously.
And that’s why something must be said about what we felt,
painful and embarrassing as that is.
As we moved ahead, week after week and month after
month, short as our time was together, the level of our
encounters deepened until, at the end, without our knowing
what lay below the surface or expecting what finally did
happen, the depth of our relationship to each other suddenly
stood revealed. We knew who we were once and for all,
and each of us knew what he in particular had to do. I as
a white man had to explain to other white men what it’s like.
The blacks had done their part long since and now it was my
turn.
Through the words and the endless explanations came the
fear of our black brethren that they were being sold down
the river once again. For all of them — without exception —
this was an old, old story. As one of them said, “Before I came
to Ohio my oldest children were doing all right, but here in
Dayton the younger ones are being crippled by segregation.
I’m determined to change all that one way or another. We've
suffered too long.”
53-Ex.
Plaintifis’ Exhibit 9
When we could not believe we were hearing rightly another
black man pounded the nail one more time. “You know,” he
asked, “what the unemployment rate is for Dayton? — 6 per
cent for everyone else and 20 per cent for ghetto blacks. You
know how many more blacks you'll find at the Lebanon
Correctional Facility? — 4 out of 5. And education — segrega-
ted education — is largely to blame.”
So it was whitey’s turn to be angy, frustrated, utterly down!
“Suppose,” said one, “we demand integration now. Our report
won't have a chance! Better half a loaf than none at all.
I can predict just what will happen. They'll never give us
a hearing. Better to be Machiavelli than go tilting at windmills
with Don Quixote.”
So we were honest and shocked by turns until one white
man said, “I’m not sure what will happen politically but so
long as one black life is being snuffed out I'll go along with
pressing for integration now. Hereafter I’m not going to
simply listen to what everyone says, I’m ready to take a stand
and be a leader, to do what I feel compelled to do and to
say what I think ought to happen!”
So some of us switched roles and we all went off to lick
our wounds and make what reaccommodations we could with
ourselves — with “intellectual honesty” and “practicality” and
“confrontation” and “gut feeling.” But ever thereafter we all
knew — both black and white — that we could not explain to
our fellow Daytonians what integration and segregation are
all about apart from this embarrassing reference to the deep
valley we had walked together.
What We Must Do
Having been “through the mill” of confrontation with each
other we accept these priorities for ourselves, and recommend
their adoption by the Board and the citizenry of Dayton.
1. Segregated education, because it perpetuates and
condones economic and racial isolation, is both
illegal and inferior.
3.
5.
10.
54-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9
The school children of Dayton have suffered far wee
long under the crippling handicaps imposed by racia
and economic isolation. |
We must resolve now as a total community to end
inferior segregated education once for all. a
Time is running out. Unless we act now the yi
sions generated by segregation will destroy us. Un-
less we act now court orders may impose upon us
what all of us will regret. ee
‘Initiative in the struggle against segregated educa-
n garter to the yn Board of ——
We cannot wait for housing and job patterns to
change while we defy the law of the wane.
To lift the plague of segregated education in ge. we
immediate appeal must be addressed to the schoo
systems surrounding Dayton as well as to the appro-
priate state and national agencies involved.
Desegregation is not enough. To end racial ty
economic isolation we must not rest until we
achieved true integration, until the differing : aa
and racial groups among us are able to live side by
side in mutual respect.
The personal cost of achieving such true integration
will be high because to achieve such pace
must persist in dialogue until the acscansa a
divide us have been resolved. We can no longer
allow the fear of busing stifle such sna ne
i st of true integration will also
ies per cent of the current i
exclusive of federal and state grants, should be allo-
cated to this sector. | i
uality education requires con -
ee cae only develop support _
to undergird every group involved in the : anges
proposed but we must nurture these groups by con-
55-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9
tinuing attention to curricula, buildings, and in-
service training.
What Is Involved
To Impose Racial Isolation on Public Education is Illegal
The 14th amendment to the Constitution of the United
States guarantees “equal protection” under law to every citizen,
and the Supreme Court has interpreted this provision to mean
that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal”
(“Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka” in Race and Place
A Legal History of the Neighborhood School, by Meyer Wein-
berg pp. 4, 14, 31, 55, 76, 92, 96) (8). In this 1954 decision
the Supreme Court said of black children:
To separate them from others of similar age and qualifica-
tions solely because of their race generates a feeling of
inferiority as to their status in the community that may
affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be
undone.
Statement of The United States Commission on Civil Rights
concerning the “Statement by the President on Elementary
and Secondary School Desegregation”, May 15, 1970, page 9
(7) is the source of the above statement.
Quality Education
In the spirit of this declaration and in the light of Title
VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which put the executive and
legislative branches of government solidly behind the judiciary,
we as a committee go one step further. We helieve that to
impose racial and economic’ isolation on public education is
not only illegal but detrimental to the quality of that education,
for both white and black, for both advantaged and disad-
vantaged.
‘
Where such isolation breeds alienation, quality must suffer,
The twin concerns that created our committee are inseparable.
56-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9
Quality education cannot thrive where racial and economic
isolation of whatever sort divides the children and citizens
of one community from those of another. .
The reason for this is plain. The quality of any educational
system depends upon how well it prepares today’s children for
tomorrow’s world. Tomorrow's world will be integrated and
any child who has not been educationally prepared to deal
with this world will be severely handicapped. He will receive
a distorted view of a multi-racial society that will leave him
incapable of dealing with the world as it is. Therefore we
believe segregated education to be inherently inferior for ALL
children, whether white or black, advantaged or disadvantaged.
Urgency of Action
Since it is clear that segregated education is both illegal
and inferior, it is also clear that the Dayton Board of Education
must address itself to this problem since latest reports indicate
that 75 per cent of our school children attend schools that are
90 per cent racially isolated. The*Board has already indicated
its intention to do so through the resolution that created our
committee of 75, and through many statements and actions
leading up to that resolution of April 29, 1971. .
- We now recommend that the Board should not wait for
this problem to be solved otherwise, as by a change in attitudes
toward public housing patterns or by a non-compliance finding
from H.E.W. Without waiting for other cities to take the
lead, we recommend that our Board strengthen the impetus
initiated by the appointment of our committee to solve this
problem by all means within its power now.
The urgency of such action is made clear both by the poor
record of Dayton in dealing with racial and economic isolation
and by the court actions already taken to force school integra-
tion in cities other than Dayton.
Poor record. Where segregated education is concerned the
City of Dayton has not been quick to act. In 1926 the State
57-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9
Supreme Court acted to require the Dayton Ohio School Board
to cease forcing Negro children to occupy one part of the
school building with their own entrances and exists (Race and
Place, page 38) (8). The situation was equally stringent in
1966 when-the Mayor's Ad Hoc Riot Study devoted two pages
of its Preliminary Report to a detailed description of the
deterioration then being suffered by Dayton’s west side schools
in buildings, services, equipment, teaching and morale ( pages
7-8). It is little wonder then that in 1967 the education task
force committee, working under the Dayton Committee on
Civil Rights in cooperation with the Ohio State Advisory
Committee to the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights took as
the focus of its concern “the education of the deprived ghet-
toized child” and particularly “his inability to learn the required
and necessary tasks through the traditional methods practiced
by our institutions” (page 2 of Dayton’s Call To Action.
Recommendations for the Solution of Human Problems in the
Community) (16). While there was some progress then and
the spirit of the community was aroused, our findings five years
later indicate that there is still much to be done. One measure
of this is a report issued just recently, (November 1971) by
the Dayton Public Opinion Center, entitled How Dayton Views
the Public Schools (4). The last paragraph on page 3 reads
as follows:
Racial conflicts in public schools have been the subject
of much newspaper and television coverage in the past
few years. Yet even with this type of adverse publicity,
more people in the Dayton School District felt that school
integration has improved relations between blacks and
whites than believed that it has hindered them. A total
of 48 per cent believed it was improved and 39 per cent
felt that it has worked against interracial relations.
In this attitude there is perhaps some ray of hope. On the
other hand the last part of this same paragraph continues:
People were about evenly divided about whether school
58-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9
integration has improved the quality of education re-
ceived by black students (45 per cent saying it has and
43 per cent saying it has not). Over one-half, however,
felt that integration has not improved white students’
education. Only 35 per cent responded that it has. (See
Table 7).
One can see from this last quotation that we in Dayton still
have a long way to go.
Integration in Other Cities
Beyond Dayton we may quote from a recent paper, referred
to before in this report, Statement of the United States Com-
mission on Civil Rights (7) concerning the “Statement by the
President on Elementary and Secondary School Desegregation,”
issued on May 15, 1970. On page 3 we read:
The school systems of New Rochelle, New York; South
Holland, Illinois; Pasadena and Los Angeles, California;
and Pontiac, Michigan, are among those which have been
found by the court to have practiced deliberate school
segregation in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
There is no doubt that there are many more instances of
school segregation resulting from conscious decisions of
school officials than the relative handful that have come
to the attention of the courts.
We may now add to this list the school situations in Detroit
and Indianapolis. In the former case
U. S. District Court Judge Stephan J. Roth declared that
what appears to be de facto segregation in the Detroit
School System is actually de jure and must be abolished.
(Time, October 11, 1971, page 23).
In the Pontiac case the U. S. Supreme Court recently refused
to “tamper with this city’s court-ordered school busing pro-
gram” (Journal-Herald, Wednesday, October 27, 1971).
59-Ex. a
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9
We in Dayton should note that court orders have hit cities
both larger than ours (Los Angeles and San F rancisco ) and
smaller (New Rochelle, Pontiac, Pasadena and South Holland )
We should also note from the report quoied that there may be
other cities in non-compliance not yet confronted by the courts
Of particular interest is a letter written by superintendent
of schools for the San Francisco Unified School District, Dr
Thomas A. Shaheen, on the eve of the desegregation of that
city’s elementary schools. Although not under court order
San Francisco niet the same problems that face all segregated
school systems in the process of complying with the law.
These will not be easy days. What happens to us, not
only in the next few weeks, but throughout the year is
tremendously important for San Francisco. I who have
a deep commitment, as you know, to the value of de-
segregation do have many concerns, many uncertainties
about what the year holds. I am sure that there are many
of you who have the same deep commitment to desegre-
gation as I do.
I am sure, also, that there are some of you who are still
searching in your own minds the extent to which you
have a commitment to desegregation.
Yes, I know that some of you do not believe that desegre-
gation is in the best interest of the schools of San Fran-
cisco, nor in the best interest of America. I feel that
you have reached this position after very careful study of
the issues, of the values, of this country, and your profes-
sional obligations to the children.
I respect your convictions. Whatever your personal feel-
ings, and mine, we have the obligation to show our
students and our community the importance and value of
compliance with the ‘law. We can be models at this
time of what it means to live in a democracy.
The stakes and the issues which lie before us i
are high.
It goes, I think, to the very heart of whether public i
education can continue in this country of ours. . . . ( 11)
60-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9
In the light of these facts, both at home and abroad, we
believe that the Dayton School Board should address itself
to the racial imbalance of segregated education not simply to
insure respect for law and order and provide quality education
but also to secure that justice and human understanding with-
out which law and order are meaningless. We ask how we
can urge iaw and order on our children and defy the supreme
law of the land as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Not
long ago the Kerner report was brought up to date by a
Federal Commission appointed by President Nixon. It de-
clared that the division of our nation into two armed camps,
which was noted two years ago, still exists, only with greater
impact now than then. In 1966 over 95 per cent of our nation’s
black people lived in the North and the majority of these in
the city. Now that percentage is greater than ever with whites
fleeing to the suburbs and the inner city left black and bank-
rupt. Under these conditions the “peaceful co-existence”
spoken of in the Kerner Report will be increasingly impossible
unless strong action is taken. Our time is short! The opposite
of integration is disintegration.
Responsibility Beyond Dayton
Since quality integrated education should be available to all,
equality of opportunity should be accessible to all children of
the Dayton Metropolitan area as also to all children of the
State of Ohio. The time is upon us when the old boundary
lines are disappearing and there will be no place to run from
the changes that must be made. Therefore, the Dayton Board
of Education should begin immediately to:
1. Initiate action with the Boards of Education of subur-
ban communities surrounding Dayton, looking toward
possible consolidation.
2. Initiate action with the State Board of Education
looking toward possible consolidation.
61-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9
3. Initiate action to insure that dollars expended per
student be equalized on a statewide basis. This would
require the development of state-established minimal
standards and some form of state evaluation.
4. Begin the necessary political action in the state legis-
lature for the above changes to take place through the
rule of law. |
5. Check with the United States Office of Education
concerning possible forms of assistance in pursuing
this endeavor.
6. Begin preparing the people of Dayton educationally
for the changes which are surely to come.
Attacking Isolation
Racial and economic isolation may be attacked broadly and
basically on two fronts: The reassignment of students and the
preparation of these students to work, share, learn, and liv
with each other in a productive way. ) .
Concerning the reassignment of students. Various methods
should be analyzed, evaluated and tabulated in order from
least traumatic to most. We recognize that under present
conditions of racial and economic isolation in Dayton some
form of busing would be necessary either to implement or
supplement whatever other methods are employed to effect
school desegregation.
In no case should we be content with piecemeal desegrega-
tion since this procedure tends to focus tensions, fears and
hostilities upon specific schools and this in turn creates rob-
lems that militate against true integration. At the ‘ak
careful attention must be given to the fears arising from dis-
tance, safety and busing “out” of the “neighborhood” area.
Preserving the human being. Whatever combination of
methods is used, the Board must not allow people to be de-
62-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9
humanized in the process, i.e., to be treated simply and solely
as bodies to be pushed around. Let it be noted that our
committee is concerned with true integration not simple de-
segregation. There is a vast difference between desegregation
and integration. Desegregation breaks apart old patterns of
isolation. and division but integration aims to bring people
together in mutual respect rather than mere mutual proximity.
We must emphasize, however, that integration is not in-
tended to erase all identifiable ethnic and racial characteristics
nor to homogenize them toward bland conformity. The result-
ing loss of spiritual and cultural heritage would be immense.
Integration does not require that we all copy one another;
only that we respect one another, learn from one another
and move together toward fruitful achievement contributing
to the common good. Individual rights must be protected and
expanded but no one can justly claim for himself what he will
deny to others.
Continuous curriculum change. Reassignment will be in-
effective unless curricula are periodically reshaped, the teach-
ing staff held to strict accountability for productive perfor-
mance and the facilities used continually reassessed in the light
of changing needs. Only so can quality education be made
available to all children on an equal basis.
The detailed reports of each subcommittee in the chapters
that follow should make this abundantly clear.
Concerning the preparation of people. All the people in-
volved in reassignment should be given some part in the
decision-making process by which it unfolds. People excluded
from the social processes that affect them are thereby de-
humanized and alienated, whether black or white, rich or
poor, teacher, students or community residents.
Support systems. All the people involved in reassignment
shuuld be undergirded by well thought out support systems
to make the readjustments called for, whether those affected
63-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9
be students, teachers, parents, custodians, paraprofessionals,
central office staff, clerical staff or community residents.
Funding. The magnitude of such preparation should be
acknowledged by the provision of adequate funds. Ideals
wither without the resources to implement them in a realistic
way. At the same time we must remember that while action
may be costly, inaction may ultimately be more costly.
Planned immediate action. We recognize that time for
change in Dayton has run out! We must act now. But the
action we take must be well planned to give the persons in-
volved a true opportunity to adjust themselves to the demands
placed upon them.
Evaluation. Whatever the process, it must be evaluated
periodically by a representative group reflecting the entire
community to make certain that no segments are given priority
at the expense of others.
Summary. The presence and magnitude of the problem
before us needs to be recognized by all the citizens of Dayton.
Quality integrated education can help stop the flight to the
suburbs, break the cycle of poor education, and the lack of
job skills which handicap the minorities. The cost of this type
of education will be small in relation to the total benefits
society will reap.
64-Ex.
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT No. 10
DESEGREGATION STUDY
DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
By Doctor Gordon Foster
January 3, 1972
For several years the Dayton School Board, the Dayton
Superintendent of Schools, professional school associations, var-
ious citizens advisory groups representing the Dayton com-
munity, and cooperating governmental agencies have been
formulating policies and initiating efforts to equalize oppor-
tunities for education in the Dayton schools and improve the
learning experience for all children who attend the Dayton
system. The elimination of racial imbalance in the schools,
the impartial employment and assignment of all staff persorinel,
a more relevant curriculum, broader community involvement,
and an end to racial isolation and discrimination were the major
goals to which these groups expressed commitment.
In August of 1967 the Board issued a “Statement of Intent”
establishing directions and policies to effectuate these major
goals. A “Freedom of Enrollment” policy was initiated in
September of 1969. The Dayton Advisory Council on Edu-
cation was established to advise the superintendent on plan-
ning and implementing desegregation efforts. In 1971 the
“Committee of 75” was organized as an advisory body to deal
with racial isolation in the schools. Outside assistance was
arranged through such agencies as the Ohio State Department
of Education, the Equal Educational Opportunities Office of
the U.S. Office of Education, and the Office of Civil Rights.
The Dayton Classroom Teachers Association and the Dayton
Principals Association lent support.
65-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10
All of these activities came to “a head” in a sense on
December 8, 1971 when the Dayton Board adopted a series
of resolutions committing itself to an integrated system in
the fall of 1972. Specifically, it directed the superintendent
to develop and implement plans for the racial and economic
integration of pupils — by September 1, 1972.
This study is a direct result of the resolutions by the Board
on December 8, 1971. Data for the study were furnished by
the superintendent and his staff for the most part. The con-
‘sultant team spent a total of 11 days on site and expedited
the completion of the study to the maximum extent possible
for two reasons: the study team has commitments beginning
in January, 1972, for desegregation studies in other major
cities; and the Dayton system will need to proced with its
planning for desegregation in the fall of 1972 as quickly as
it can.
It should be noted that adequate pupil locater maps were
not available by race or grade level so that recommended
changes in pupil assignments had to be estimated on the
basis of present elementary attendance areas. Since estimates
for September, 1972 assignments also have to be made on the
basis of 1971-72 figures, a margin of error must be allowed.
It should also be noted that in most desegregation studies the
local school administrative staff is by far the most knowledge-
able body in terms of finalizing pupil assignments and de-
veloping transportation arrangements. The job of the out-
side expert is primarily to demonstrate possibilities and fa-
cilitate ideas and policies for a framework within which the
local staff can complete the task.
In developing the Dayton plan an attempt was made to
follow these general guidelines:
“(1) Equitable treatment of both majority and minority
pupils
(2) A plan that would meet constitutional requirements
(Brown v. Topeka and Swann v. Charlotte-Meck-
lenburg)
66-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10
(3) Economic feasibility: transportation would be kept
to a minimum in getting the schools desegregated
(4) Safety factors would be observed
(5) The concept of schools as “community centers”
would be maintained where possible
(6) Available classroom space and building facilities
would be used to best advantage
In summary, the Dayton Board of Education and the Day-
ton Superintendent are to be commended for their leadership
and wisdom in deciding to meet constructively the problems
of racial and economic isolation in the Dayton schools. It is
hoped that this study will provide the impetus to achieve their
goals in September, 1972.
CURRENT STATUS OF DESEGREGATION IN DAYTON
The Dayton system has made considerable headway in cer-
tain aspects of school desegregation, not so much in others.
A summary review will be given here of the current status
of desegregation efforts with regard to the school faculties,
classified personnel, administrative personnel, pupil assign-
ment, and community and staff involvement.
SCHOOL FACULTIES
Desegregation of school faculties in Dayton has been ac-
complished under an agreement reached with the Office of
Civil Rights (HEW) in 1971. The pattern of assignment has
followed basically the court’s ruling in Montgomery v. Carr
which indicated that faculties should be assigned to each
school in substantially the same racial proportion currently
in effect at the elementary and secondary levels in the total
system. Thus, 31 per cent of the faculty at X high school
would be black if there were approximately 31 per cent blacks
employed by the total system as secondary faculty personnel.
According to available data, district assignment and recruit-
67-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10
ment practices were seeking to maintain this pattern and,
at the same time, attempting to improve faculty racial balance
in employing new staff.
CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
“Classified personnel,” also known as “noncertificated per-
sonnel,” for the purposes of this report refers to clerical
custodial, and food service job classifications in the Dayton
Public Schools. Information released by the Superintendent’s
Office states the degree of desegregation of classifi
nel as of mid-1971. greg classified person-
(1) While 33 per cent of the clerical personnel within
the school system are black, 665 of them are work-
ing in predominantly black schools.
(2) While 47 per cent of the custodial personnel within
the school system are black, 82 per cent of them
are employed in predominantly black schools.
(3) While 39 per cent of the food service personnel with-
in the total school system are black, 83 per cent
of them are located in predominantly black schools.
It would appear that blacks hold the lesser-ranked and lower-
aying jobs among classified personnel positions. The tenden-
cy to find blacks in classified posts stationed in predominantly
black schools is common to urban scho i (
ols; typically,
prefer to work close to home. aan
ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL
The black-white ratio for administrative
é é personnel as of
1970-71 is portrayed by the following table.
68-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10
Administrative Posts: Racial Balance, 1970-1971
Position White Black % Black
Central Office 73 29 rahe
Building Principals 51 18 re
Assistant Principals 25 17 eee
(Principals & Assts. ) (76) (35) (31.
Total Administrative 176 72 29.0
(a) Data taken from Dayton Public Schools “School Inte-
gration,” a report dated December, 1970, Table 2, p.
17. Under “Central Office” this table excludes person-
nel classified as “resource teacher,” “psychologist,” or
“child accountant” although including them would not
affect the proportion.
(») All administrators, including those excluded under the
“Central Office” category were included.
The 1971-72 comparable data were not available at the time
this report was being prepared. It is understood, however, that
the proportion of blacks in administrative posts has increased
somewhat in the past year.
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT, 1971-72
il assignment data are given in Table I for grades K-5,
in che 2 “a grades 6-8, and in Table 3 for grades 9-12. There
were 51 school buildings housing regular elementary (K-5)
programs; eight of these were really double buildings occu-
pying the same site so that there were only 47 elementary
attendance zones. A total of 26,380 pupils were assigned at
this level with a racial pattern of 44.4 per cent black.
There were five middle schools and 34 additional elementary
69 Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10
buildings housing grades 6-8. Pupils in these grades totalled
12,298, and 44.9 per cent of them were black.
There were 11 high schools. Patterson Co-op drew pupils
from the entire system so that there were only 10 high school
attendance zones. Grades 9-12 included 16,464 students, 38.3
per cent of whom were black.
A summary of student enrollment by race in 1971-72 is
given in Table 4A, and a summary of attendance areas in
Table 4B.
These data indicate the existence of severe racial isolation
in pupil assignment patterns. If the criterion of “90 per
cent or more pupils being of one race” is used to define a
racially identifiable or racially segregated school then 40
of the elementary schools were segregated insofar as pupils
in grades K-5 were concerned. Three middle schools and 7
high schools were also segregated under this criterion.
If the criterion of “more than 15 percent above or below
the average racial distribution” is used to define a segregated
school — a guideline that has been used in some cities and
states — only five Dayton schools would be nonsegregated:
Fairport, Hawthorne, McGuffey, Colonel White, and Patterson
Co-op.
The characteristics of economic isolation, or a concentration
of pupils in schools by similar family income levels, are equal-
ly clear although the data are not as readily available. Using
Title 1 (ESEA) eligibility as an indicator of income levels
(Table 4C), it is apparent that a high concentration of low-
income families is assigned to schools in the southern and
central parts of the district.
COMMUNITY AND STAFF INVOLVEMENT
On August 30, 1971, at its first meeting, the Committee of
75 heard the president of the Board comment that data showed
“unequal educational opportunities for the poor and black
students now exist in the Dayton School District . . ./ and/that
70-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10
the district is guilty of procedures which have led to the
racial isolation of school children.”
Community involvement to correct this situation was en-
couraged by the Committee of 75’s recognition of the fact
that desegregation — the physical mix of races in enrollment
patterns — was not enough; that integration — living and
working “side by side in mutual respect” was the necessary
goal for the Dayton school community.
Other examples of good communications existing between
the schools and the community are the passage of school mill-
age funds, the activities of the Dayton Advisory Council on
Education (DACE), the various programs with the Office of
Economic Opportunity and other community agencies, plus
the large amount of coverage given schools in the .news
media.
Communication has also occurred with employee groups
through involvement of faculty and staff on committees, in
interracial workshops, and in various efforts to complete facul-
ty and staff desegregation successfully. The program of Equal
Educational Opportunities in the Dayton Schools is to be
commended for its efforts in this regard in working with staff,
with students, and with the community.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESEGREGATION
OF PUPILS
The Board in its December 8 resolutions rescinded attend-
ance zones as presently constituted, effective September 1,
1971 and asked for pupil assignment to schools by race and
family income characteristics substafitially proportionate to
the total system pattern.
MIDDLE SCHOOLS
The first step in fulfilling this resolution would logically be
the completion of the middle school program already stated.
71-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10
Recommendation 1. — All pupils in grades 6-8 should be as-
signed to middle schools in September, 1972.
This will require establishing 10 present elementary build-
ings as middle schools. Based on data obtained from the
administrative staff, on data in the recent Ohio State Educa-
tional Facilities Evaluation, and on team site visits and dis-
cussion the following schools were recommended as new
middle schools:
Jane Addams Lincoln
Belmont Elementary Meadowdale
Brown Webster
Gettysburg Westwood
Grant Wogaman
These schools are located around the district in such a way
as to complement the five existing middle schools. Even though
the buildings cannot be prepared as proper middle school fa-
filities for several years, the change should be made immedi-
ately.
Dayton’s adoption of the “middle school” concept is educa-
tionally sound and, coordinated with the direction toward a
unitary school system, can achieve two goals. One, education
for pre-adolescents and early adolescents can be improved.
Two, the resultant rezoning of attendance areas around middle
schools can aid desegregation.
The middle school as a concept is in many ways comparable
to junior high schools. They are intended to provide an or-
derly transition in learning experiences from the homeroom,
one-teacher organization of the elementary school to the pla-
toon system of the high school with the student’s being ex-
pected to exert more self-direction. Many “middle schools”
originated because a junior high school had to take in the
sixth grade (or possibly the fifth and sixth) to relieve crowded
conditions in elementary schools. Sometimes this caused a re-
view of the curriculum.
cy
4 ; Table 1
Student Envotiment by School and Race
Pre-Kindoegarten and Grades K-5
Dayton Public Schools, 1971-72
Ge. ed Total Total % Bt
a = a w a e aan w — Meo
Jane Addams 33 § 4 8 214 67 10 2 2¢a 82 320 19.3
Alten 0 Q 0 68 4s wm 0 0 3 443 438 0.7
Belle Haven 0 0 ae 390s 473 r) 0 46 574 620 >
Belmont Elementary 0 0 0 72 o 297 0 r) o 8359 363 aa
Brown (1) 0 o 129 2 682 t) 0 - 73 03
Cartson C) 0 6! ' 333 ' o C) 3% 2 386 295
Clavetand 0 0 Oo 162 ae ce t) 1 877 678 G1
Drexel 0 a 4 230¢«C«&3S ’ ? 28046 4a 57
Eastmont 0 1) 0 63 o 313 t) 0 o 36 316 ae
Euison 89 0 103 1 436 ’ 16 0 643 2 645 997
Emerton ae e688 224 o % «85! $a? 61
Faisport C) 0 68 102 274 «=: 398 2 ? 3340=Ss 807 et 7
Faw view r) 0o@ 6 65 19 «= 382 0 4 2% 04S 476 53
Fi, tacKinley 0 0 0 60 6 24? 0 0 6s 2 302 7
Frankiin eS a 0 Ds) o 663 0 ae 0 632 632 oo
Gardentate 32 5 43 19 211 es ) 0 250=Ct«i«a00 393 72.2
Gewtysturg 0 0 6G 4? 290} 0 0 45 321 368 123
Gram 0 1) 0 89 3 368 0 0 3 «(447 450 07
Greene 42 ' 463 18 ? 0 559 20 679 96 5
Havahorne 23 13 15 ai 61 176 t) 0 oso 862 329 30.1
Hickorydate ) i) 10 4? 4 «6164 C') 8 “4 = 249 293 15990
Highview 40 t) 13 0 349 10 16 0 41? 10 487 97.9
Hulfman ° 40 vi) " 1 606 0 4 1 625 626 0.2
tr sing 78 ' 102 t) 576 3 20 0 776 4 780 995
Jackson Elementary. r) i) e: e 231 ’ 10 0 301 ’ 302 927
OL HqIX SUNUIEId
‘XA-GL
Table 1
Student Enrollment by School and Mace
Pre-Kindergarten and Grades K-65
Dayton Public Schools, 1971-72
Pre-Kdg. K Gr. 146 . Ed. Total Tot % GI.
ot a ——“w | = =a
Jackson Primary 138 0 136 0 397 ® 0 0 on ’ 67? 991
Jetlerson Elementary 0 0 0 0 762 76 23 0 785 18 660 913
Jelterson Primary 0 0 180 35 443 61 0 0 633 86 19 230
Kemp 0 0 6 79 % 860444 0 ‘ 4) 62? 663 72
tewton 0 r) 0 54 + 72 0 ? 1 33 34 03
Lincotn 0 0 ; 2 66 2 ® 6 637 632 o3
Loos 0 0 4 65 2 263 ' 4 322 386 ae ”?
Horace Mana ry 0 0 35 o 61s 0 0 o 18 189 00
nicGulfey 39 a 35 69 16) 0-38 0 ? 228 «46 640 jue
tAcNary 40 0 69 0 316 0 » 0 433 0 433 103.0
Mesdovrdate o 0 0 42 2 286 0 0 2 28 300 67
Miami Chapet 127 0 o 0 354 0 0 0 481 0 gt 100 0
Patterson Elementary 0 9 0 60 > ™) 0 0 1 430 43) 02
Residence Pack Elementary 0 0 0 0 286 ' 6 r) 294 ’ 295 007
Residence Park Primory o-* 0 102 0 346 ' 0 0 448 ' 449 90.8
fiuskin 0 Y] 0 ” o 4% 0 15 Oo 86865 $65 00
Shiloh ry o o 6 6 3 0 0 Ss 265 370 14
Shoup Milt 0 0 0 20 1 16 0 0 1 196 37 0.7
Louise Troy 0 0 143 0 44? 2 0 0 690 2 692 997
Valerie 0 0 ry 18 2% 8606 ) 3 2a? 218 14.2
Van Cleve ° " 23 6 8693 o |= 6t 0 r 3064? 760 149
Washington 16 16 16 66 69 0 451 ’ 9 92 842 634 1456
Weaver 129 0 114 0 ™m 3 21 0 998 3 1001 997
Weoster 0 0 0 60 + 273 0 4 . wa 338 03
Westwood 64 0 107 t) 636 s v ° 764 5 093
OL HqINXE SENUIFId
“SACL
6 Table t
Studont Enroliment by School and Race
° Pro-Kindesgasten and Grades K-65
Oayton Public Schools, 1971-72
Pre-K — & Gr. 1.6 Se. Ed. Total Total * Bt.
5 cms re a _ —
VWiegaman 43 0 a? 0 499 1 14 0 643 1 644 99a
Gorman 12 89 12 89 108 19
Kennedy 24 129 24 129 163 16.7
TOTAL BLACK 045 1897 8966 21 719
TOTAL WHITE 271 2296 11766 339 14661
TOTAL ENROLLMENT 1216 3893 20721 650 26380 26380 444
aegi
OL H#q14x2 SBHUIPId
‘XAFL
Pn
Table 2
Student Ensoliment by School and Race
Grades 6-8
Dayton Public Schools, 1971-72
Gr. 6-8 Sp. Ed. Total Total % BI.
8 Vi &©6CSw a v7] yn tp
Jane Addams 167 23 ? 1 174 24 193 379
Allen » 120 0 0 ' 190 198 0.5
Belle Haven 66 318 _ Pe. 660 318 374 15.0
Belmont Elementary Oo 183 0 0 o 183 183 co
Brown 9 #5 0 ft) 9 45 354 25
Carton 187 1’ fr) ) 187 ’ 188 99.5
Cleveland 3 5 fr) ) 3 «1365 368 08
Cornett Hgts 9.5. 667207 0 0 667-207 784 723
Orexel 14) (42 fr) 4. 4) 46 160 a7
_ Eastmont o 2 0 0 o 231 231 op
Emerson 10 = 210 o.6|O'9 10 8=—s.219 229 44
Fawview 3% 8 233 0 2 300.235 265 3
Ft. tacKisley > 2 0 0 2 #147 149 13
Gariiendate 114 43 fr) 0 114 43 15? 2.6
Gettysburg “42190 0 0 42-190 232 18.1
Grant 1 198 0 ) 1 198 199 0.5
Hickorydate os ww 0 4 2326 139 16.5
Highview 209 6 8 0 218 6 223 97.8
Huffman o 268 0 6 0 273 272 0.0
Jackson Elementary : 407 2 14 1 421 3 424 99.3
Lemon ; ww ioe 1° 186 187 06
Lincota 6 34 ) 5 6 279 324 1.5
Longfetiow M.S. 485 325 24 4 609 329 638 60.7
Loos 6 205 o 2 6 2 213 2.8
Horace Mana 2 93 0 C) 2 93 os 2.1
OL HqI4XS SBHUIEId
"XA-SL
eo 6 s . » 2
8 .
Table 2
Student Enrollment by School and Race
Grades 6-8
Dayton Public Schools, 1971-72
Gr. 68 Se. Ed. Total Total % BI.
8 a w w
Bac artane 23.5. 858 > $8 0 916 . 921 995
AlcGulfey 4?) 189 0 + 4? 163 210 22.4
Meadowdale 4 (at 0 0 41181. 222 185
Patterson Elementary 1 187 6 0 1 187 183 os
Residence Park Elementary 393 1 a 406 1 407 998
Ruskin 1 260 7 + 1 268 269 04
Shitoh 180 0 0 o 180 180 co
Shoup Milt 2 68 0 0 2 68 70 29
Valerie 4% «108 0 ! Te) 124 12
Webster 1 152 0 2 + 184 155 06
Westwood 638 ’ 10 0 548 ' 549 998
Whittier 61.5, 72) 4 23 0 744 4 748 995
Wogaman 335 1 8 t') 343 i] 44 99.7
Or. Viright M.S, 6? 827 8 2 65 6898 963 67
TOTAL BLACK 635) 174 6525
TOTAL WHITE 6698 n on
TOTAL ENROLLMENT 12047 251 12298 12298 449
OL HGGXT SBNUIE|d
"XA-OL
Table 3
Studeat Enrollment by School and Race
Grades 9-12
Dayton Public Schools, 1971-72
_ Roth
” Stivers
Colonel Vihite
Whibur Véright
Continuing Education
tome Teaching
TOTAL BLACK
TOTAL WHITE
TOTAL ENROLLMENT
Gr. 9-12
Ww
64 1923
1284 0
272-4084
45 «G5?
a2 1699
6461218
167? "
1080038
147004
152918
68 1230
6912"
2842
15754
Unyadted Tetal
re 7 WwW
$6 1983
1369 0
272 «484
47 6u4
96 1733
S46 8 1218
1690 '
1149 42
184 §=61093
793 934
74 )=«1276
35 20 35 20
20 26
6300
20 AIC}
65 16464
OL HqI4xZ SBHUICId
“XA-LL
78-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10
TABLE 44
STUOENT ENROLLMENT BY RACE: SUMMARY
DAYTON PUGLIC SCHOOLS, 1971-72
Black White Total %Blaeck
Pre-Kg and Grades K-5 11,719 14,661 26,380 44.4
Grades 6-8 5,525 6.773 12,298 44.9
Grades 9-12 6,300 10,164 16,464 38.3
TOTALS 23,544 31,598 §5,142 42.7 ©
TABLE 48
ATTENDANCE ARGAS: SUMMARY
DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 1971-72
+ Ne te eme meet e+.
PES AT Ie A VEER IT EARL IT TT
47 elementary attendance arcas: Map!
(primary and elementary units on same site are counted a one attendance area)
vn
5 middle school attendance areas: Overlay |
10 high school attendance areas: Map I!
(Patterson Co-op, not cn attendance arca)
79-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10
LL
ap a 90 s Gas ike Giz vL9 8% $007
ees eee coe £0 9 fat: cee 802 609 SS dwa>y
eee eee eee “£0 l 886 eee a4 4il > Asvquawas3 fADIANCY
ei ae Sy tt l iv9 Hen OSt IGy 8-> yours}
eee eee eee rag | St 962'1 eee ££2 £90'1 | uAmolg
eee coe eee oh L zSs coe 101 Sp | Aan yaw 1404
eee eee eee v'l BI 98Z'1 . 0G9 96S > Aseuaw3)3 jUOW Pg
- aah ra vt ce osc’z SGZ z91 £68} 21-6 'S'H juowjag
eee eee ees yl 6 199 eee 09 409 e-> BangsAyyay
ine she ae st 92 LZc't v6l 85z Giz] 216 ‘SH snout gy
cee coe eee 9'1 8 £1S cee zy ip 3° i ajepAsoysipy
hee a de 6 92 093"! ty! 96S v9Z'l 8°» Puryoaaiy
ace “— —5° Le 92 eve ty 89 SLL St yodsey
eee eee eee re bz 129 eee ee. 1z9 3° J9x3IQ
ae fp =a C"p LL 092't pze £22 cizt |} = 21-6 "SH 4B aN
oe Bai: ees os . LZ tvs ee iv 20S 3°) s51SQUA\
‘ida nl she L's Zp ore = S0z $29 8°» vaiiy
ibe ae "4 ss 04 627 — Sze vSG 89 "PHA 3yGI4AA D11AIO
hei ae or Ls vp OL4 os vol 999 s-> uiyuesg
sis ie uf UZ £8 8£2'1 ie Of sot} = 8 y2eq Douapisay
fee — cies vl £9 958 ase 83 882 8°9 “PI “SIGH yjoUs0D
84 a — Ll 08 GEO"L Gi: 09 6L6 8°» : ujooury
sags see aa “tb 02 66S abe Sz vis 8-> =. U0S}JeD
Ov pei Ov Set og evr ee 972 dip S Aen
oe as ae Let ost LIe't Sit os Evl't Z1°6 "SH WOW
Op. ge Ov Ovi £6 Z69 aie 02 z29 8 mo buiyseny
Ov ae Op O'vl 881 Zve'L a 02 cee" 8) POOMISANA
Ov ie Ov Ovl ZSt BZi'L 85, ose 822 SH dAo[D “eA
Ov a Ov Lvl £8 919 hae €s £9S 8-> uossayiedg
*e nes tide Lvl vOe Ovi'Z a Ove 919 | 21-6 "SH O14M [2U0}0D
Ov pom Ov Sul cet tt6 ra: 86 cis 8) urysny
Op abe Ov “st 16 6S ee ae 62S 8» sweppy suer
ds his pt 8'sl sZt Sol’l 822 - e6l ves Z1-G “SH 42851y
ies 3 SE 69t O1Z 9vZ'l es SOE tvG 8-9 “PI 4104j9;6u07
08 ree 08 Bit £0e ZOL‘t re vOl 86S‘1 | 4u0S434j0F
Op oti Or vst. pil Sv6 eles es Leg 8) yew) jn
wey he re 161 £62 ces't S22 0S2 z90°4 Z1°6 ‘SH 8494S
Op si Ov 702 901 92S late, ai 92S 8°) sj)Ppuspseg
08 ee 08 bz Lz 920°! she v0Z 218. s> vossaw3
Op He Op ZEz 66 L2p — ve Eve S*> ausOyIAeH
he ~ , bbz z0Z Ore tae ef £08 8-9 SIPPY AONUAL
Op 63 Ov 8°82 112 Spl = of Siz 8» aaiaubi
he ean 5 6'8z Ofp O5¢'t S6t £4 zzz"! Z1-6 "SH 2equng
Op Cat Op £°6Z 882 p86 ses oc vS6 &-> urwebony
ti im ri 0'0e vic 6L£°2 Ss 222 zest} = 24-6 ‘S'H HPAIs00Y
Ozt ny 021 ase eee Z00°t ae ce 696 hp | Aoi -jadeyd mueyyy
O71 aa era | is} 3 867 bGZ'h reel neigh PG2't 8 uosyocr
08 wee 08 9°GE Eve £98 re 78 182 8-> AdsjND2W
Op Rad Ov tte Eve 91S Cg SZ iss > auaald “y 93849
08 Set: og Op $92 Sg Rs ££ z19 Sy Guraay
Zt ens OZ! Sip LSP aes SZ 656 S> sOACT NM
es, Re: 4, GLP 68p 6Z0't bite le &66 8-9 “PIW aucpe sIcW
OZ! vt Oz! by GP 962 66S a 02 62S | uosip3
» t ' H 5 3 3 oa pe] ) Vv
io, © SHaNgG VON sHUNY | seuwnn wsO4 s3noO luew luow urds WOHDS 30 3BIVVN
— soiQ) wos Omg sper
19:53 Ou neh Seta Soipwey ane : — soe
POUL Ut O1COs>11.0g THM OUR Bws02u; MO} wor N On DIN
VSAPYD JO setqwnny pomewasy
ZL426t
Stary wuepuany ut Gurpisay usippyd jo siaquungy
ZZ-LLGL “STOOHDS 371919173 1 379LIL
ov 31ivL
Numbers of Chitthion Residing in Attemlance Areas
---——=-
—_
—_—
1971-72
Estimmatadt Number of Children
Who V¥ill Participate in Tithe
Podetor Rorven Nar From Low-income Activities trom the Eligible
School Prslitec Farolient F aimitics Schools Ariow
Grate Cnou Emrotl Drop aa
NAME OF SCHOOL Span ment ment Outs Total Nurmnber Percent Prbotic Non Public Total
A a. ASK FieKR ry SRE MAE RN, G " i r K
Grant K-8 651 217 — 868 4 0.5
Mea lovalale H.S. 9-12 1,680 220 15f . 2,058 10 0.5
Valeric K-8 A423 63 cen AUG 2 0.4
Shiloh K-8 632 409 1,121 3 0.3
MeadowdaleElementary| K-83 5/5 252 827 2 0.3
Belle Haven K-8 1,028 253 1,281 2 0.2
Eastmont K-8 659 180 839 0 0.0
Horace Mann K-8 323 207 530 0 0.0
Shoup Mill K-8 284 20 304 0 0.0
Patterson Co-op H.S. 9-12 1,710 47 1,757 235 13.4°
Gorman (Spec) 105 105 14 13.4° ;
Kennecly (Spec) 165 165 22 13.4°
Others in School (Spec) 126 11 137 18 13.4° :
TOTAL 54,240 8,858 2,550 65,648 8,788 13.4
"District-wide Schools June, 1971
OL Hq14x2 SHNUTCId
4-08
x
81-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10
[PHOTO OMITTED]
School organization of grades has, historically, been de-
termined not always by educational research but often by
state legislation or by physical facilities. The middle school
can be an administrative aid in solving some problem such
as racial isolation, but research indicates that it should be,
if properly handled, a way to improved education.
The Dayton middle schools should offer eventually such
things as differentiated staffing and team teaching, modular
scheduling, short exploratory courses, a wide range of elec-
tives and activities, increased emphasis upon student govern-
ment, and greater concern about and communication with
the community.
The middle school, beginning with grade 5 or 6 and ending
with grade 8 is for that “between-ager” or transitional period
covering early adolescence. Grades 6 to 8 cover this 11 to 13
year-old age span and constitute the most common middle
school grouping. It cannot follow either an elementary or
secondary model in content or process; it must focus upon the
problems of puberty and understand the needs of the learners
at this age. Research indicates that youngsters are reaching
physical and social maturity earlier.
The middle school should not be established merely as
an aid to desegregation. While it might permit children to
get out of segregated neighborhood schools at an earlier age,
high quality education will not result without careful pre-
planning of the instructional program. This “planning” can
be simultaneous with the preliminary work which is necessary
to develop an effective, integrated school system.
CLOSING SCHOOLS
The Dayton system does have some extra space available in
some of its schools, and the student population projection in-
dicates a declining number of students over the next five
years. Some of the older, less-suitable buildings could there-
fore be abandoned.
82-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10
Recommendation 2. — Hawthorne Elementary, Washington
Elementary, Ft. McKinley Elementary, and Roosevelt High
School should be closed as regular classroom facilities by Sep-
tember, 1972.
Hawthorne was originally constructed in 1887 with an
addition in 1909. It is in a poor location hemmed in by an
interstate highway and has an inadequate site of 0.8 acres.
Washington was originally constructed in 1898 with additions
in 1926 and 1969. It is on an inadequate site of 2.3 acres.
Ft. McKinley is a newer building (1924) but is rated as in-
adequate for an instructional facility. its site is only 2.7
acres. Roosevelt High is generally considered to be the least
adequate Dayton high school facility with a poor site of 5.2
acres.
ELEMENTARY ASSIGNMENTS, 1972-73
Elementary attendance zones for 1971-72 are illustrated on
Map 1 and middle school zones on Overlay 1. If two ele-
mentary schools discontinued (leaving Ft. McKinley as op-
erational for the moment) and 10 elementary schools are
changed to middle schools, a total of 35 elementary attendance
zones would remain (Overlay 2). Estimated enrollment fig-
ures are given for these (Table 5) and for the 15 middle
school zones that would be hypothetically created (Table 6
and Overlay 3). Without considering prekindergarten chil-
dren as part of the basic K-5 pattern, it is possible to de-
segregate these elementary schools by leaving four of them
as they are and by joining the remaining schools in 11 clus-
ters (Table 7).
Recommendation 3. — The following assignment of K-5
pupils to elementary attendance zones be made September,
1972.
Fairport: same as 1971-72
McGuffey: same as 1971-72
Drexel:
Gardendale:
Cluster A:
Cluster B:
Cluster C:
Cluster D:
Cluster E:
Cluster F:
Cluster G:
Cluster H:
Cluster I:
Cluster J:
§3-Ex
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10
same as 1971-72 plus Jane Addams zone
same as 1971-72 plus 2/3 of
Gettysburg zone
Irving (Kg-1)
Emerson (Gr. 2-5)
Patterson (Gr. 2-5)
Eastmont (Kg-2)
Lewton (Kg-2)
MC-LT (Gr. 3-5)
Cleveland (Kg-2)
Highview (Gr. 3-5)
Mann (Kg-2)
Carlson (Kg-1)
Huffman (Gr. 2-5)
Ruskin (Gr. 2-5)
Van Cleve (Kg-1)
Edison (Gr. 2-5)
Jefferson (Kg-2)
Fairview (Gr. 3-5)
Valerie (Gr. 3-5)
Belle Haven (Kg-2)
Jackson (Gr. 3-5)
Ft. McKinley (out)
Allen (Kg-2)
Kemp (Kg-2)
Res. Pk. (Gr. 3-5)
Hickorydale (Kg-2)
Loos (Kg-2)
Weaver (Gr. 3-5)
Franklin (Kg-2)
Greene (Gr. 3-5)
he ‘ “ e . “ eo * °
TABLE 6 *
84-Ex. ESTIMATED ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL AND RACE
r REVISED ELEMAENTARY SCHIOOL ZONES
a Save PRE- KINDERGARTEN AND GRADES K-65
Cluster K; McNary (Kg-2) DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Shoup Mill (Gr. 3-5)
Shiloh (Gr. 3-5) Pre-Kdg. Kdg. Gr. 1.6 ;= a oe Tow % BI.
oe c) w nas ,.6hCOUe
The redistribution would leave all elementary schools with- Allen es o 88 h : , he oe rae z
in a range of 27.6 per cent black to 54.5 per cent black with = woven : Re by bie ie ee vi am
most of the schools hovering closely to the 44.9 overall average. pa ut “ee ‘i “a ae” a" 008 0.1
An effort was also made to cluster schools by economic levels. ei ae 42° (82 237402 a 223 «(498 821 393 2
' =
Table 7A illustrates the percentage of Title 1 (ESEA) fami- Eastmont ‘i o 122 2 662 er Z wa rm be &.
4 0 4 q
lies in each assigned cluster. " i : ai v es 7 - . oe a Me 3 %
merson "
It should be noted that a total of 34 elementary (K-5) at- Fan port 0 0 68102 240 88 a ; ew om A ee 4 4
tendance areas would be left with Ft. McKinley not used. pve ; : : po 7 = , 2 pa pe ee g.
The clustered zones are based on the revised zones and not ye cory a on - ws ats we 1“ (903 949 aa =
the current 1971-72 attendance areas. Cortendale Y es 0 8306S 24) 208 0 0 32) 360 672 4738
P Greene 4? ' 42 1 463 18 7 0 659 20 679 96.5
Recommendation 4. — The assignment of pupils to carry out snidiaieiae oS » « 4383 °o es 54320 383 Th
Recommendation 3 should be made in each of the clusters Highview 620 "70 sy = 2 08 a0 8=— 0 810 -
by the principals affected in cooperation with the central office Muftman o 4 o ww a a Me : Pa " ae
; aver 0
staff. Pupils moved should in all cases be the farthest located io a : = ; > eae Hen aaa pe wie
cAsOn
from their present school assignment where a choice has to paiee a - « 1205 (126 “4 418 168 1579 89 8
be made. Kemp ce < 4 12 64 669 i * 87 (708 aus 06
Lewton 0 0 64 2 371 0 ? 2 462 464 04
Loos 0 0 4 129 28 608 é a 33 741 774 43
MIDDLE SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS, 1972-73
16
Estimated enrollment for the 15 revised — but hypothetical
— middle school zones is shown in Table 6. These are all
contiguous zones made up merely as a paper operation to es-
tablish an intermediate base for final recommendations for the
middle schools. Estimated enrollment figures for the recom-
mended desegregation plan for middle schools are given in
Table 8 and zones are shown on Overlay 5. The school zones
listed are 1971-72 assignment areas. Thus, Jane Addams °
Middle School would be assigned pupils from the current
Jane Addams Elementary zone, the Drexel zone, and the
Shoup Mill zone.
Bd
16
TABLE 6 '
!
ESTIMATED ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL AND RACE
AEVISEO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ZONES
PRE-KINDERGARTEN AND GRADES K5 ,
DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
PreKde. Kalg. Gs. 16 Sp. Ed. Tous Tout % Bt:
w 8 w 4 w 8 w
Horace Mann ry 0 o a o 46 0 ry o 42 423 oo'
tcGulley 3 06=ClUiM % ©6609 161316 ry ? 2646 640 352
McNary 63 0 96 0 462 ' 12 0 623 ' 624 999
ic = AT 127 0 143 0 801 2 0 0 1071 2 1073 993
Patterson Elementary o »w 1 106 2 600 ' 4 4 ome 182 05 |
Residence Park a 0 182 0 1072 6 rT) ry 1316 6 1327 995 |
Ruskin e 2 o 1% 1 694 we 2 eae e86 02:
Shiloh 0 ra o 6 6 24 0 0 6 265 370 va}
Shoup Mist 0 ry o w 1 416 0 0 1 136 137 07
Vaterie 0 0 6 6 20422 ry 3 33486 618 63!
Van Cleve 0623 1% «413 et ry 0 26a? 760 49
Weaver 129 ry 4 o ™ 3 2 0 993 3 1001 997!
Gorman 12) 88 2) 101 ne
Kennedy 2 ©=«(129 24 (029 183 163
TOTAL BLACK 046 1697 8266 an 1719
TOTAL WHITE 2 226 49756 _ne 4664
TOTAL ENNOLLMENT 1216 3893 20721 650 26380 26380 aaa,
OL HqINXD SBHUIFId
‘XA-98
87-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10
TAGLE G
ESTIMATED ENROLL MALNT GY SCHOOL AND RACE
REVISED MINDOLE SCHOOL ZONES, GIADES 6-8
BASED ON REVISED ELGMENTARY ATTENOANCE ZONES
OAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Gr. 6-8 & So. Ed.
a5 Ww Total %B).
Jane Addams [.1.S
Orexel 188 170 358
188 170 3838 §2.5
Belmont M.5.
Monn 2 215 217
Cleveland 3 426 429
‘ 641 646 0.8
Grown, M.S.
Fairview 34 408 442
Loos "1 379 390
Shoup Mill 2 68 70
4? 835 902 $.2
Corneil Hots. M.S
Fairport 199 208 407
Jefferson 667 24 691
866 1098 78.9
Ge M.S,
Fo = i 2 147 149
Gardendale 145 185 330
Hickorydale 34 164 1938
181 496 677 26.7
Grant M.S.
stmont 1 363 364
Lewton 1 222 223
2 585 $87 0.3
Lincoin M.S.
Huftman Q 380 350
Ruskin 4 427 431
4 777 781 0.5
.
Sa SEE
18
88-Ex,
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10
TABLL 6 (Cont'd)
Longtcllow 1.8.
Greene
Van Cleve
MacFarlane (.1.S.
Edison
Weaver
tAeaclowdale (1.S.
Belle Haven
Shiloh
Valerie
Webster M.S.
Alten
McGulfey
Westwood {1.S.
Jackson
McNary
Res. Park
Whittier M.S.
Emerson
Irving
Patterson
Gr. 6-8 & Sa. Ed.
: ee
235 4
$6 238
291 242
349 74
394 2
743 76
56 318
0 180
88 200
182 788
47 416
18 482
65 898
2 267
2 183
49 430
421 3
229 1
i \ ad
1467 6
10 219
311 ?
ee
324 568
300 6
368 1
433 2
1181 9
b———_—— ° r—. =
§525 63,3
12.4
6.7
10.2
36.3
99.2
44.9
TABLE 7
ESTIMATED ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL ANDO RACE
GRADES (K.-S) & SP. ED.
RECOMMENDED ELEMENTARY ZONES, 1972-73
DAYTON PUSLIC SCHOOLS
Sp. Ed. Tata
8 W 8 w 8 W 8 W Tous + %8l
(Aaintain 1971-72 Attendance Zones)
Ke. Gr. 1-6
Fapon 6820s 002 274 398 2 ? 32240~=— 607 a4 9a! 397
McGuttey 35 59 161 RIT 0 ? 1260Ctis«N 667 ost 228
(Maintain Revised Attendance Zones)
Kg. Ge. 1-6
Ovexel 42 82 27 402 "W 9 2900s «493 ‘703 919 370
Gardendale 48 65 241 291 0 0 289 46 635 702 465
(Cluster A)
Ke -1 Gs. 25
Emerson ee ae 226 2 19 2775S 620 1399 444
Wving 217 380 0 0 0 o 217 380 697 1059 3463
Parterson 0 0 240 481 t] 0 240 461 721 679 33.3
Kg -1 in keving remain Ge. 2-6 in Patterson remain
Kg — 8 in Emerson and Patterson to leving Ge, 2 = 6 in Irving: 245 to Emerson; 236 to Patterson
Gr. 2 =6 in Emerson remain
(Cluster 8)
Ke -2 Gs. 3-5
Eastmont 24034 0 0 . 6 24 (344 558 30 40.1
Lewton P 225 247 0 i) 0 7 226 254 479 . 684 470
mc -LT o Q 499 650 o 0 4s9 650 — 1049 1747 476
OL HqINXE SHUMeId
"XA-68
20
TASLE 7 (Cont'd)
So. Ed. Tetal
8 w 8 ¥ 3 ¥ J $ Tout C29. 2e.
Kg -— 2 in Eastmont and Le-vton remain Gr. 3-6 in MC — LT remain
Kg -2 in MC = LT: 226 to Esstmont; 224 to Lewton Gr. 3 —5& in Eastmont and Lewton to MC - LT
(Ctuster C)
Kq-2 Gr. 35
Cleveland 242 632 0 0 0 0 242 $32 774 1412 33.3
Highview 0 N) LL 22 C) 379 075 1054 1191 35.0
Mann 3 2728 o ny] 0 0 18 228 ’ 346 646 Ka
Kg-2 tema in Cleveland and Mana Gr. 3-5 remain in Highview
Kg-2 trom Highviews: 245 19 Ciwveiand; 119 to Mana Gs. 3 = 6 trom Cleveland and Mann to Highview
(Ctuster O)
Kq- 1 Gr. 25
Cartson 5 453 0 0 0 0 208 453 661 927 nS
Huliman ) Qo 236 618 0 0 236 618 es¢ 1226 276
Ruskia 0 0 234 605 a 28 242 633 775 1370 34.2
Kg-1 remain ia Caron ? Ge. 2 = 5 remain in Hullman and Ruskia
Kg — 1 trom Hulfman and Auskin to Cartson Gr. 2 = trom Carlson: 236 to Ruskin; 233 te Huliman
(Cluster E} ‘
Kg-1 Ge. 2-5
Van Cleve 231 333 0 0 1s 0 246 336 662 713 42.3
Edison . 0 0 486 607 0 0 486 607 993 1130 48.9
Kg — 1 in Van Cleve remain Ge, 2 = 5 in Edison remain
Kg - 1 from Edison to Van Cleve Gr. 2 = 6 from Van Cleve: 346 to Edison
(Cluster F)
Kg-2 Gr. 3-5
Jeilervon 689 74 0 0 23 ? n2 721 1433 1447 49.7
OL Hqryx” Spurred
"XI-06
TABLE 7 (Cont'd)
0
0
Q
Ge. 3-6 In Jackson remain
Gr.3
Total
8 w Tora Cap.
YT ee £57 863
uo 0298 640 765
.3 =6 ia Vaterie and F aicview remain
3-5 trom Jeflerson: 446 to F ais view; 366 to Valerie
423 “46 "67 1263
.3 —& trom Ft. McKinley and Belle Haven to Jackson
Make other use of Ft. McKinley School.
286 305 591 671
327 412 739 638
46 0=— (682 , 1427 1669
Ge. 3 —6 in Residence Park remain
Gr. 3-5 from Allen and Kemp to Residence Park
Sp. Ed.
oe. 22... Fe
Fawview 0 t) 416 a4i 0 0
Valerie fi) Q x9 291 0 0
Kg — 2 ‘in Jefferson remain Ge
Kg -—2 trom Fairview ard Valerie to Jollerson - Ge
(Ctuser G) °
Kg-2 Gr. 3-6
Belle Haven 423 448 0 o 0
Jackson 0 t) 462 430 10
Ft. McKinley 0 0 0 0 t')
Kg —2 in Belle Haven remain
Kg-2 thom Ft. McKinley and Jackson to Belle Haven
(Ctuster H)
Kg-2 Gr. 36
Ailen 2736 305 0 0 0 0
Kemp 327 412 0 0 0 0
Res. Pk. 0 0 723 671 22 "1
Kg —2 in Atien and Kemp romain
Kg -—2 trom Residence Park: 284 to Alien; 283 to Kemp
(Ctuster 1) ’
Kg-2 Gr. 36
Hickorydale 1800-165 0 0 ) 0
Loos 206 405 0 0 0 0
Weaver 0 oO 476 491 22 12
‘sos «165 316 6
, 36 0405 mI Pes) ae
600 «Ss« 603 1003 9241
% BI.
43.5
545
46.4
442
52.2
476
43.0
49.9
OL HqINXE SBHMELg
‘XA-16
22 ‘
TABLE 7 (Cont'd)
Sp. Ed. Total
u w u w o WW 8 Ww Total Cap. % BI.
Kg -—2 in Hickorydale and Loos remain Ge. 3-5 in Weaver semain
Kg -—2 from Weaver: 290 to Luos; 120 to Hickorydate Gr.3 —§ from Hickorydale and Loos to Weaver
(Cluster Jt ;
Ke-2 Gr. 35
Franklin 227 451 0 0 ? 12 234 463 _ 697 1116 33.6
Greene 0 0 316 461 0 0 316 451 767 776 41.2
Kg —2 in Franklin somain Gr. 3-5 in Greene remain
Kg—2 trom Greene to Frankiin Gr. 3 —6 trom Franklin to Greene
(Cluster K)
Kg-2 Gr. 36
hicNory 271 254 0 0 12 0 283 254 637 669 §2.7
Shoup Milt 0 0 60 65 0 0 60 65 145 639 55.2
Shiloh 0 0 213 183 0 0 213 183 396 @so0 63.8
Kg -2 ia McNary remain Gr. 3 —§ in Shoup Mill and Shiloh remain
Kg =—2 (som Shoup Mill end Shiloh to McNary Gr. 3 —6 from McNary: 79 to Shoup Mill and 210 to Shiloh
OL HqI4xa SBHUICId
‘XA-G6
93-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10
TANLE 7A
PCRCENTAGE OF TITLE | (ESCA) FAMILIES
OY RECOMAIENOED ELEMCNTANY ZOME CLUSTERS
DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Percentage of children in low
income families
Cluster A: Emersna 21
spit a4 £
Patterson 14
Cluster 8: Eastmont 0
Lewton 1
MC-LT a3
Guster C: Cleveland 2
Highview 2
Mana )
Guster 0: Carison 12
z
;
Ruskin
Custer €: Van Cleve
Edison
Gunter F; Jefferson
Guster G: Gelle Haven
Custer H: Allen
Cluster |: Hickorydale
Cluster J: Franatin
Cluster K: MeMary
eoti abe nw~enw wa Boo-s 2B
44
me nt ee
Se Eee es
95-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10
Recommendation 5. — The following assignment of Grade
6-8 pupils to 15 middle school attendance zones be made
September 1, 1972:
Jane Addams Middle School: Jane Addams Elementary,
Drexel and Shoup Mill
Belmont Middle School: Belmont Elementary, Eastmont,
and Edison
Brown Middle School: Brown Elementary, Jefferson
(3/4), and Loos
Cornell Hgts. Middle School: Fairport, Fort McKinley,
and Jefferson (1/4)
Gettysburg Middle School: Gettysburg Elementary, Gar-
dendale, Hickorydale, and Res. Pk. (1/4)
Grant Middle School: Grant Elementary, Highview, and
Lewton
Lincoln Middle School: Lincoln Elementary, MC-LT,
and Ruskin
Longfellow Middle School: Greene, Hawthorne, Van
Cleve, and Allen
MacFarlane Middle School: Fairview, Bell Haven, and
Weaver
Meadowdale Middle School: Jackson, Meadowdale Ele-
mentary, Shiloh, and Valerie
Orville Wright Middle School: Carlson, Kemp, and Mc-
Nary
Webster Middle School: Huffman, Res. Park (3/4), and
Webster Elementary
Westwood Middle School: Franklin, Washington, West-
wood Elementary, and McGuffey
Whittier Middle School: Emerson, Irving, and Patterson
Wogaman Middle School: Cleveland, Wogaman, and
H. Mann
96-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10
The desegregation plan for middle schools effectively re-
moves racial identifiability of schools as they would then range
from 38.0 per cent black to 50.5 per cent black and would
approach racial balance closely. A good mix of economic
levels is also indicated as shown in the Table 8 assignments.
HIGH SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS, 1972-73
Current high school assignment zones are shown on Map
2. Using the recommended middle school zones as a base
(Table 8, Overlay 5), it would not be difficult to feed these
zones directly into the nine high schools (Table 9, Overlay
6 — phasing out Roosevelt and leaving Patterson Co-op as a
city-wide school). Since pupil locater maps are not available,
estimated enrollment figures for the 1972-73 recommended
high school attendance areas had to be extrapolated from es-
timated enrollments by race for the middle schools. Index
figures of 103.1 for blacks and 131.4 for whites were used.
Recommendation 6. — The following assignment of grade
9-12 pupils to high school attendance zones be made Septem-
ber, 1972: (Middle school zones are the recommended 1972-
73 zones and elementary zones are 1971-72. )
Belmont High: Belmont M.S. and Grant M.S. plus
Mann El.
Dunbar: Lincoln M.S. and Wogaman M.S. minus
Mann El.
Fairview: McFarlane M.S. plus Webster El]. and
Res. Park El. (1/4)
Kiser: Longfellow M.S.
Meadowdale: Cornell Hgts. M.S. and Meadowdale
M.S. plus Shoup Mill El.
Roth: J. Addams M.S. and Gettysburg M.S.
Stivers: Webster M.S. and Whittier M.S. minus
Webster El. and Res, Pk. El. (1/4)
97-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10
Col. White: Brown M.S. plus McNary El. and Mc-
Guffey El.
Wright High: Or. Wright M.S. and Westwood M.S.
minus McNary El. and McGuffey El.
The redistribution of high school students would leave the
9 schools within a range of 44.3 per cent black to 32.3 per
cent black.
It should be remembered that the above figures for all 3
levels of school organization are rough estimates based upon
the best data immediately available. It is anticipated that
many revisions and refinements in such a plan for desegrega-
we of pupils would be made after careful review by the local
staff,
eee
98-Ex.
99-Ex,
, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10 J
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10
TACLE 3 TABLE 8 (Cont'd)
ESTIMATED CHROLLMENT AY SCHOOL ANO RACE .
RECOMMENDED ANDO E SCHOOL ZONES, GRADCS 42, 1972.73 -
CASLD ON CURNENT ELCMENTARY ATTENOANCE ZONES Gr.62&Sp. Ed. Total
DAYTON PUBLIC SCIIOOLS : > . = fies on an
_ omgletton t8.§ -_ - + + tet
Greene 735 “ 239 42
Haw then n= 46 73 119 oy
Gr.G-8& So.Ed. Total 4 Van Cleve 6 67m “4
3 Ww Ye Cap. "ot BTitle t Men ’ 390 191 .
Jane Addons hi.3. = = & a 6
4 Acidamns Elementary 174 24 198 16 MacFariene KS.
Creve! 14 146 160 3 F aewew 20 235 «268
Shoup Mut au a : Betle Haven sé 8374 :
190 238 478 850 44.4 Weever mm 2 38 43
480 «= «855——s«108 1292 46.4
Beimont At.S.
Belrrzm Elementary 0 183 163 1 Meadowdri+ 6.1.5.
Eastmont 0 73 231 ) Jackson 421 3 424 9
. Edison 303 Jt mt «9 Meartowdale Elementary a1 191 «222 0
303 4150718 42.2 4 Shieh . —@ 4 0
| Valerie 1S 109 0124 )
Brown NMS. , 477 4730: 950 980 $0.2
Grown Elementary 9 x45 Is 1
Jetterson (3/4) soo 18 418 18 Orvitle Wright 61.5.
Loos wai #2 & ' Cartson 187 1 168 12
$15 $70 08S. 1208 47.5 Kema er | 1
Metlary 184 2 186 “4
Cornett Hgts. A3.8. as ETT) 3312s 782 e71 49.3
Fairport 199 208 407 3.
Ft. McKinley 2 147 149 ’ : Webster At.S.
Jefferson (1/4) . aoe oe 18 Hultman 0 273 273 18
188 361 729 wo «80S Res, Park (3/4) Re] : = ?
Webster Elementary ’ 154155 5
Gertyburg M.S. 3S 048733 ? .
G:.ttysiaeg Elementary 42 190 232 1 66 41.6
Ga dendsle 114 43 187 zc Westwood 4.5.
vicheredele 23 116 139 2 Franklin 2 602 4‘
Res. Park (1/4) 102 S ee Washington 3% 86208 14
28% 449 630 $31 44.6 Westwoou Elementary 456 0 456 14
MeGulley 47 163.210 , 40
Grane M.S. ‘00 6s)
Geant Elementary 1 198 - .. 1 251 1632 45.4
Highviews 218 5 223 2 Whittier M.S.
; Lewton a i. : Emerson 10 «6219-229 21
220 380 $79 ©6983 38.0 ‘ Irving 311 = 4“
Patterson 1 187 Rt 14
Uner'n MS. —_— ”—_—_— _—
| . ee 3 ee) ae
MC-LT aed . a = Boren 0.9,
Ruskin x _ 6 Cleveland 2 3S (38 29
‘ watene a ga r)
| “se 0480S 607 1187 43.1 ;
TOTALS $825 6773 12208 44.9
100-Ex. | 101-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10 ; « Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10
TAGLE 9 TABLE 9 (Cont'd)
ESTIMATCO CNROLI TIENT BY SCHOOL ANO NACE e ‘
RECOMNENNED HIGH SCHOOL ZONES, GRAOCS 9-12, 1972-73
CASED Of CURRENT CLEMCNTARY ATTENOANCE ZONES
DAYTON PUBLIC SCIIOOLS . ‘ Gr. 9.12 & Sp. Ed.
: Sa Total Cao. BI,
7 Mendowdate ore
Gr. 9-12 & So. Ed. - Cornett Mis. ALS. RPA] 474 8$3
Ss. Ww. Totst Cap. “BI. (Fairport - Ft. MeKininy - e
Belmont ee Te st ee muses Jetterson 1/41
Beimont A1.S. 3132 «45 8s7 : Meatiowsiale 1.1.5. 493 622 1418
(Belmont - Eastmont - Usckson - Merdowdale -
Grant M.S. 227 472 699 ; 872 1096 1968
(Grant - Highview - (+) Shoup Mut 1 ae 69 2
Lewton} Can A pee a Pee 874 «1185 2089 2950 443
$39 ©1017 1556
(+) Mane €) an ae 124 Rovh
$41 1139 - 1680 2618 32.2 J. Adidas M.S. 106 313 509
. e (J. Acidarm - Orexei -
Ounbar Shove Mill)
Lineoin M.S. 483774 j 1227 ° Getiysburg M.S. 200s «489 749
(Lincoin - MC - LT - (Gardendale - Gettysburg -
Ruskin) Hickorydale - Res. Park
: M. 963 wa -—___ _—_ -_-_-_
—, : ae 3600=— 603 4860s 772 1288
Wogaman) Sati ak Ne ‘ . (=) Shoup Al Et = oe 2!
81301377 7190 48a 683 1167 1886 415
a jit om
eit = 1285 2066 2483 39.2 : —_,
¥ Webster M.S. 34 $62 876
Peirview ; : (Mufiman - Res Park
MacF arlene M.S. 495 7279 : 1224 V4 - Webster)
(Fairview - Ucile ; Whittier M.S. m $36 868
Haven - Weaver) (Emerson = Irving: ’
(+) Webster Et 1 202 203 Patterson)
(+) Res Park 1/4 104 _o 104 : — Ry =
6000 931 1831 450 398.2 (=) Webster Et 1 202 203
(+) Res. Park 1/4 104 ae 104
Kiner “1 896 1437 1830 37.6
Long!cilow M.S. . 318 664 1012° 1245 w4
(Allen - Greene - Col. \Thite
Hawthorne - \'an Cleve) Brown (4S. $31 749 1780 5
. (Brown + Jetlerson 3/4 -
Coos)
(+) tAcNary El 190 3 193
(*} MeGulley &) 48 214 262
769 966 1738 2268 4.3
102-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10 103-Ex.
‘ Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10
TRANSPORTATION OF PUPILS
, It is obvious that pupil transportation will be increased
‘ if genuine desegregation occurs. A rough estimate of in-
| creased transportation needs is included as an attachment
to the report along with an explanation of how the cost
of such transportation might be met. Under new Ohio leg-
islation for local district reimbursement for pupil transporta-
tion expenses it would appear that transportation costs for
TANLE 9 (Cont'd) | the desegregation plan can be met wholly or in large part
; out of state funds with no increase in local budget.
Ge, 2:12 So. Ea. | [PHOTO OMITTED]
ae ie tot Sw .S
aS ie its a3 0 ma | GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
— a DESEGREGATION
Se adiies ante iat an In Part I of this report, the current status of the desegre-
Washington » panna ae - gation effort in the Dayton City Schools was reviewed. That
(-) MeNary El | : : ° °
{-) MeGutfey €! «8214 262 ' analysis was based upon current information provided by the
‘4 Riad on! pad ey a | Superintendent.
a or oe rg a na | Part II gave specific recommendations for ending the racial
ee = e 55 imbalance in enrollments for the various schools at different
(6) Home Teaching ee — grade levels.
TOTAL HS. 6300 10164 16164 38.3 |
This section gives some general comments and recommen-
dations which may assist school and community leaders in
their affirmative action toward an irtegrated school system.
An annual review of faculty assignments by school and
teaching field should be made to determine to what extent
race should be a consideration in recruitment, employment, and
assignment activities. The need for racial balance should
be a reality to be considered not only in school policy but
in negotiating master contracts.
Inservice education for integration needs to be relevant,
required, rewarded, and continuous. A planning committee
should involve teachers, administrators, students, community
advisers, and representatives of area institutions of higher edu-
104-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10
cation. The greater use of teacher aides providing biracial
teams should be made where feasible.
While the ratio of blacks and whites is fairly reasonable for
administrative staff in Dayton, the following general recom-
mendations are made.
1. Until full integration is achieved district-wide, the
tendency to put black administrators in schools having
a high proportion of black pupils or which are located
in black communities should be avoided. Biracial
administrative teams should be assigned where there
is more than one building administrator.
2. Black administrators should be given an equal oppor-
tunity to work in line as well as staff positions in the
administrative structure.
When the desegregation plan becomes reality the transfer
policy for pupils should be rewritten to discontinue all op-
tional zones or free enrollment. Transfers only for health
or pertinent educational or administrative reasons should be al-
lowed. Policing of pupil addresses will need to be made.
In order to facilitate up-to-date pupil assignment operations
it is recommended that for the immediate situation pupil lo-
cater information and a set of good zone maps be developed.
After this it is recommended that a computer-based pupil data
system be effected. The Miami Desegregation Center is cur-
rently publishing a computerized operational plan for desegre-
gation of pupils which can be used very easily in a system
such as Dayton once the pupil data base is established.
The following general recommendations are given for com-
munity and school representatives.
1. School representatives should meet regularly with their
counterparts from all Dayton Standard Metropolitan
Service Area (SMSA) agencies and institutions to com-
municate about respective programs and to achieve
“maximum coordination of and impact from various
) *
105-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10
service efforts. Such problems as housing patterns,
metropolitan government, and cooperative educational
efforts should be explored.
2. The Dayton Advisory Council on Education (DACE)
should be continued with a provision for annual re-
view by DACE and the District as to the representa-
tiveness and activities of the Council. Established
to advise the Superintendent on such matters as de-
sgregation, its need will increase as desegregation be-
comes integration.
3. While mass media are valuable, they do not replace
small discussion groups in the total public informa-
tion program. These groups should be continued at
the local school level and involve principals, teachers,
and other employees who previously have become
cognizant of the goals of an integrated school system
through the inservice programs discussed above.
A continued and improved analysis should be made of socio-
economic patterns of students so that this factor can become
a more effective input to the student assignment process.
If not already part of the program, curriculum units con-
cerning human relations, minority group cultures, urban gov-
ernment and ecology, and family finance should be included
at each instructional level.
The entire grading, reporting, counseling, and testing pro-
grams should be reviewed in light of desegregated schools
compared to traditional schools. Grouping practices for in-
struction are particularly vulnerable.
Many parents and other citizens enjoy their schools as
community centers, too. They may see desegregation as a
threat to this activity. The Board should insure, by policy
statement, that any desegregation plan will protect the com-
munity use of school facilities in a secure fashion and, if
necessary, provide transportation so the community center
106-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10
concept will be implemented. Desegregation in extracurricular
activities is an essential component of any unitary plan.
The Board should in January, 1972, place bids for additional
buses for September delivery so that economies in group
bidding can be effected. Simultaneously, local transit com-
panies might be invited to submit a comparative cost estimate.
Security of buildings and children is a concern especially
where Cesegregation has been suddently imposed upon a school
system. At the secondary level it is strongly recommended
that student biracial advisory committees become a part of
the school’s operation. Urban secondary school principals can
make effective use of such committees in affirmative action
to prevent student unrest.
Districts which are segregated typically are operating sub-
standard programs in some schools, and desegregation usually
forces an upgrading of the instructional program. It is as-
sumed that Dayton is no different than other major cities and
that additional financial aid will be necessary. All federal
and state sources should be investigated including the new
Emergency School Assistance Program should it become law;
Title IV, P.L. 88-352 monies, and funding under the new Edu-
cational Renewal Centers concept (USOE).
The recommended plan attempts to desegregate schools in
such a manner that they will not be racially identifiable: not
black schools, nor white schools — just schools. If such a plan
is to work effectively the entire metropolitan Dayton area
should be involved and not just the city. It is recommended
that the Board continue its effort to involve the metro com-
munity. Particular attention should be given to the current
lawsuits in Indianapolis, Richmond (Virginia), and Detroit.
The prekindergarten pupils were not included in the de-
segregation plan. It is recommended that they be sent to their
nearest elementary school location and where capacity does
not permit their being housed, transportation be provided
to the next building with space available.
[PHOTO OMITTED]
nh aaa + a ea eC we
gs cM aN a
107-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10
APPI.NDIX I
Estimation of transportation costs, renmtiue se ts une fi q, ssummung 40%, of current enrollments being wansported:
Students .
§3,400 public students x 49% 21,360
Plus non-public students now being transyo: tod 1,000
Total Students 22,360
Trips
$0 high-school pupils per bus = 17,000 x 40% = 6,800 or 136 trips
70 elamentary pupils per bus — 36,400 x 40% = 1456007 208 “
60 non-public pupils per bus 1,000.0 17 *
Total Trips 361
Capital Qutiay — Vehicles
2.75 trips per bus = 131 buses + 13 spares © 144 total vehicics
Less vehicles already Board-owned 214,
Net Additional Buses Necded 130
Estimated State vid price $9,000 x 130 vehicies = $1,170,000
Estimated State reimoursernent © 27% * 315,900
Net Local Purchase Cost $ 854,100
Capital Outlay — Facilities
Land = § acres with proper acozss $ 100,000
New building with 8 vehicle hays 300,009
Asphait paving, fencing, lighting 35,000
Equiprrent 15,000
Estimated Building Cost $ 450,000
Estimated State Reimbursement for Operations
Board-owned vehicies — $14 per stusient + $22 per mile
22,360 % $14 = $313,04G + 60.000 miles x $22 + $176,000
Total $489,040
A Cartract vehicles — $16 per student + 529 per mile
22,360 x $16 = $357,760 + 8C,090 miles x $29 = $232,000
Total $589,760
y
108-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10
Estimated Operating Cost
Board-owned buses ~ 22.360 primis x £50 cach ~ $ 1,113,000
AContract buses 9 = 22,3G0 jnipils x S67 cach © 1,492,120
Estimated Operating Cost Less State Reimbursement
Board-owned A Contract
Estimated operating cost $1,118,000 $1,498,120
Estimated State cehiomanam 489,040 $89,760
Net Operating Cost $ 628,960 $ 908,360
Savings with Board-owned vehicies = $279,400
If savings were applied to capital investment of $1,304,100 (vehicies and building), payback would
be accomplished in 4.6. years.
FINANCING THE LOCAL COST
1972 Annual
Needs
Net local operating cost $ 751,584 $ 628,960
Local capital outlay 1,304,100 -0-
Total Needed $1,555,684 $ 628,960
Sources
Maintain 1970 level of local funding $ 433,000
From new State funds” 1,122,684
Total Available $1,555,684
“Principality from the new Municipal Overburden fund. The district will receive $20 per pupil, oF approximately
$1,060,000 a year, from that part of the newly enacted State program.
OUR GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1673-715-870/ 198-T2(B~10)
109-Ex.
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT LIA
[LETTERHEAD OF DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
EDUCATION AND WELFARE,
WASHINGTON D.C. 20201]
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Dear Dr. Carle:
Representatives of the Office for Civil Rights conducted a
Title VI Compliance Review of the Dayton Public Schools
during the period November 12-22, 1968. We have com-
pleted our analysis of the information gathered during the
review and have made the determination that your district is
not complying with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
An analysis of the data obtained during the review establishes
that your district pursues a policy of racially motivated as-
signment of teachers and other professional staff. Thus, all
Negro principals are assigned to predominantly Negro schools,
as are 11 of the 14 Negro assistant principals; 156 out of 181
Negro high school teachers are assigned to schools where
Negroes constitute 92 percent of the total enrollment. Over
85 percent of the Negro elementary teachers instruct in schools
having a preponderance of Negro pupils, and only 14 percent
of teachers of the white race are in schools where Negroes
are in the majority. The assignment of counsellors and coaches
follows a similar pattern.
The existence in your district of a substantial duality in terms
of race or color with respect to distribution of pupils in
the various schools, is a matter of concern to us. The fact
appears to be that of a total of 5,627 Negro high school pupils,
approximately 85 percent are concentrated in 3 high schools
in which the percentage of Negro attendance ranges from 92.3
percent to 100 percent. Similarly, 15,479 (approximately 85
percent) Negro elementary pupils attend 20 out of the 53
110-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 11A
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 11F
elementary schools in your district. It is noteworthy that in
17 of these 20 schools, Negroes constitutes 90-100 percent of
the total enrollment.
Our review also indicates that students at Roosevelt High
School are not afforded the same educational opportunity as
other students in your system.
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 11F
[LETTERHEAD OF DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
EDUCATION AND WELFARE, OFFICE OF
THE SECRETARY, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20201]
October 14, 1970
Dr. Wayne Carle
Superintendent of Schools
The Dayton Public Schools
348 West First Street
Dayton, Ohio 45402
Dear Dr. Carle:
I am responding to your night telegram of October 8, 1970
to Dr. Henderson which has been referred to me for reply.
In this telegram you request our interpretation of the under-
lined [italicized] portion of the following stipulation contained
in the DHEW Office for Civil Rights/Dayton Board of Educa-
tion Agreement on faculty desegregation.
“It is the intention of this Board that each school staff through-
out the district will have a racial composition that reflects the
total staff of the district as a whole.”
During the 1969-70 school year when the agrecment to de-
segregate the Dayton faculty and staff was negotiated and
accepted by the DHEW Office for Civil Rights and the Day-
ton Board of Education, the racial composition of the total
111-Ex.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 11F
Dayton professional staff was 70 percent white and 30 percent
black. Consequently, we would expect that by September
1971, the professional staff at each elementary and secondary
school subject to the jurisdiction of the Dayton Board of
Education would reflect a racial composition of approximately
70 percent white and 30 percent black. With less than a year
to go until the September 1971 deadline perhaps it would be
useful to restate the legal basis on which the Dayton Board
of Education is obligated to desegregate its teaching faculty.
In Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U. S.
19 (1969), the Supreme Court unanimously agreed that school
districts must end segregation “at once” and operate integrated
systems “now and hereafter.” See also Northcross v. Board of
Education of Memphis, 397 U. S. 232 (1970); Carter v. West
Feliciana Parish School Board, 396 U. S. 290 (1960). This
obligation to desegregate encompasses all facets of the opera-
tion of an elementary and secondary school system, including
the hiring and assignment of faculty. Green v. County School
Board of New Kent County, 391 U. S. 433 (1968).
The Supreme Court in United States v. Montgomery County
Board of Education, 395 U. S. 225 (1969), reasserted the duty
of a school district to desegregate totally its faculty and ap-
proved an Alabama district court order which required sub-
stantially the same ratio of Negro to white faculty in each
school as the ratio of Negro to white faculty in the entire
system. In Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School
District, 419 F.2d 1211, 1217-18 (5th Cir. 1969), reversed on
other grounds, 396 U. S. 290 (1970), the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit required school districts to
meet these same faculty ratio requirements.
President Nixon in his March 24, 1970, Statement on De-
segregation of America’s Elementary and Secondary Schools
affirmed that segregation of teachers must be eliminated and
asserted that “each school system in this Nation, North and
South, East and West, must move immediate
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.