Petition — Estes v. Metropolitan Branches of Dallas NAACP
Supreme Court brief1980
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
, ‘a “es ¢ ig “\
AUG 14 1978 |
K, JR., CLERK
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1978
No. €8°253
NOLAN ESTES, ET AL,
Petitioners,
versus
METROPOLITAN BRANCHES OF THE
DALLAS N.A.A.C.P., ET AL,
Respondents.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
WARREN WHITHAM
210 Adolphus Tower
Dallas, Texas 75202
MARK MARTIN
1200 One Main Place
Dallas, Texas 75250
Counsel for Petitioners
SCOFIFLDS* QUALITY PRINTERS. P. O. BOX 53096. NO. LA 70153 - 504/822-1611
Pn eed
Pn
——
bi.
INDEX
Page
eee mes Saag pie tagehecdisceee ch 2
SAE PALES ERO eT Oe COT Eee ae 2
By, re Rakivawe’s « 2
Constitutional and Statutory Provisions In-
ED it oe Rae Rdie dnd s/djoes oe wit thos 60 aeccese 3
EE EEE 3
Reasons for Granting the Writ
1. The Court Below Has Decided A
Federal Question In A Way In Conflict
With This Court’s Decision In Swann
v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of
Ie Wn wie ew es cws cee seen’ 12
2. The Court Below Has Decided A
Federal Question In A Way InConflict
With This Court’s Decision In
Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267
NE BOSSE, Fin Bis din'S bin vec 46> oe v0 0's 15
3. The Importance Of The Issue And The
Need For Clarification .................... 16
SI rh ED da aie ht bide o a'c'e o's whe 00's 18
Pe ee TO EDs 5 cee wi OS ee dae ese Me Eee cee 19
Appendix “A” — Identity and Names of All
SEE Setescskes dupont cas ON Ee a er la
Appendix “B” — Opinions, Orders and Judg-
ment of the District Court
‘March 10, 1976, Opinion and Order ............. 4a
March 15, 1976, Supplemental Order .......... 45a
ii
INDEX (Continued)
Page
April 7, 1976, Supplemental Opinion and
CNS a ett, saad bab oy Sb eine g eee aes 46a
April 7, 1976, Pinel OEder iis ob as cc ce vcccdeces 53a
April 15, 1976, Supplemental Order .......... 121a
Aprii 20, 1976, Supplemental Order .......... 126a
August 18, 1976, Supplemental Order
Changing Attendance Zones of James
Madison High School and Lincoln High
NE Oe ic Wasa nck k be ORE iy ep Ae sabes 127a
Appendix “C” — Opinion of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ........ 130a
Appendix “D” — Letter from Clerk of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit advising the Court had denied Peti-
SROUE BE Te hb wrkces cobashassasteaweas 146a
Appendix “E” — Motion for Stay of Mandate
filed May 26, 1978, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ........ 148a
Appendix “F’’ — Summary Examples of Non-
Student Assignment Requirements In-
cluded in the District Court’s April 7, 1976,
RON REE ic CRASS oe eek weak Aelvatanestaele 152a
iii
CITATIONS (Continued)
Page
Cases:
Green v. County School Board of New Kent
County, 301°U.8. 490 (1068) |. 0k. i ccc ccckeeee 13
Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267 (Milliken IT)
CRF ED Sid bade easicasen staal eis hana 3,11,13,15,16
S.E.C. v. United Benefit Life Insurance Com-
POOF: BEF ais Le ano) 4 8 adh ok be Sodio ices 16
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of
Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971) ...... 3,5,12,13,15,16,18
Tasby v. Estes, 444 F.2d 124 (5th Cir., 1971) ....... 5
Tasby v. Estes, 517 F.2d 92 (Fth Cir., 1975), cert.
GURING, Giae ec OOO. oi hie en a 5
Tasby v. Estes, 412 F.Supp. 1192 (N.D.Tex.,
FFE ME ctu dre us chen car ne Ore ebiti as 2,15
Constitutional and Statutory Provisions:
we Ua. Beckton INGO) isi ieee elk 2
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
dasprshe-teaps ong, SAL OO EC EE Ee dU ee PER ‘3
ee eet
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM, 1978
No.
NOLAN ESTES, ET AL,
Petitioners,
versus
METROPOLITAN BRANCHES OF THE
DALLAS N.A.A.C.P., ET AL,
Respondents.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Petitioners, the members of the Board of Trustees of
the Dallas Independent School District and its
General Superintendent (Dallas Independent School
District or DISD), pray that writ of certiorari issue to
review the judgment and opinion of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit entered in this
proceeding on April 21, 1978. The names and iden-
tities of Petitioners and the many parties Respondent,
as well as Amicus Curiae, are set forth in Appendix
“>;
2
OPINIONS BELOW
The opinions, orders and judgment of the District
Court are set forth in Appendix ““B” (pages 4a-129a)
and are reported in part at 412 F.Supp. 1192. The opin-
ion of the Court of Appeals is set forth in Appendix “C”’
(pages 130a-146a) and is reported at 572 F.2d 1010.
Denial by the Court of Appeals of Petitions for Rehear-
ing is not reported and is set forth in Appendix “D”’
(pages 146a-147a). Petitioners’ Motion for Stay of Man-
date was filed May 26, 1978, in the Court of Appeals. As
of the date of printing of this petition on August 10,
1978, said Motion for Stay of Mandate had not been act-
ed on by the Court of Appeals.
JURISDICTION
The judgment of the Court of Appeals was entered on
April 21, 1978. A timely Petition for Rehearing was de-
nied on May 22, 1978. This petition for certiorari was
filed within 90 days from that date. The jurisdiction of
this Court is invoked under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
Section 1254(1).
QUESTION PRESENTED
Among the issues before the Courts below was the
constitutionality of the remedy formulated by the Dis-
trict Court to eliminate the vestiges of a state-imposed
dual school system in the large urban school system
described in this petition and by the Courts below. The
question presented is:
Whether as to such school systems, the elimination
of all one-race schools is the controlling factor to be
ee A A Ne ee _
considered in determining whether a remedy for-
mulated by the District Court is consistent with the
Equal Protection Clause and this Court's decisions in
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board uf Education,
402 U.S. 1, and Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267
(Milliken II).
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY
PROVISIONS INVOLVED
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
provides in pertinent parts as follows:
‘“.. nor shall any State * * * deny to any per-
son within its jurisdiction the equal protec-
tion of the laws.”
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Dallas Independent School District and the
federal courts have been on intimate terms in school
desegregation matters since 1955 immediately follow-
ing Brown II. The instant action is not the first but isa
second and separate Dallas school desegregation
case. At the time the instant action was filed there was
also pending in the United States District Court forthe
Northern District of Texas an existing class action
desegregation proceedings, in which continuing
jurisdiction is exercised by the District Court and in
4
which the various proceedings involving desegrega-
tion of the DISD have been determined.!
This second action was brought in the District Court
against DISD on October 6, 1970, by both Blacks and
persons alleging to be Chicanos asserting de jure
segregation of each class and seeking the estab-
lishment of a unitary school system for each class.
These original Plaintiffs (Respondent-Plaintiffs) in-
voked the jurisdiction of the District Court pursuant to
Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 alleging this action arises
under the Fourteenth Amendment and the amount in
controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs,
the sum of Ten Thousand ($10,000.00) Dollars and pur-
suant to Title 28 U.S.C. Sections 1343(3) and (4), alleg-
ing this to be a civil action seeking injunctive relief to
end denials of equal protection of the law and alleging
that this action was further filed pursuant to the
provisions of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, 1983, 1988, 2000c-8
and 2000d.
On June 3, 1971, in a decision entered as a result of an
appeal from an order denying the Respondent-
Plaintiffs’ first motion for preliminary injunction, the
Court of Appeals directed the District Court to make
full written findings of fact and conclusions of law on
_ 1 The various proceedings in that action in part may be found at
Bell v. Rippy, 133 F.Supp. 811 (N.D.Tex., 1955), Brown v. Rippy, 223
F.2d 796 (5th Cir., 1956), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 878; Bell v. Rippy, 146
F.Supp. 485 (N.D.Tex., 1956); Borders v. Rippy, 247 F.2d 268 (5th
Cir., 1957); Rippy v. Borders, 250 F.2d 690 (5th Cir., 1957); Boson v.
Rippy, 275 F.2d 850 (5th Cir., 1960); Borders v. Rippy, 184 F.Supp.
402 (N.D.Tex., 1960); Boson v. Rippy, 285 F.2d 43 (5th Cir., 1960):
Borders v. Rippy, 188 F.Supp. 231 (N.D.Tex., 1960); Borders v. Rip-
py. 195 F.Supp. 732 (N.D.Tex., 1961); Britton v. Folsom, 348 F.2d 158
(Sth Cir., 1965); and Britton v. Folsom, 350 F.2d 1022 (5th Cir., 1965).
5
the merits of this action in the light of principles enun-
ciated in Swann. Tasby v. Estes, 444 F.2d 124 (5th Cir.,
1971). The District Court did so in August, 1971. The
Respondent-Plaintiffs again appealed.
On July 23, 1975, the Court of Appeals, among other
things, vacated the student assignment plan for-
mulated by the District Court and remanded with
directions to formulate elementary and secondary stu-
dent assignment plans which comport with the direc-
tives of the Supreme Court and the July 23, 1975,
Opinion-Mandate of the Court of Appeals. Tasby v. Es-
tes, 517 F.2d 92 (5th Cir., 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 939.
On October 25, 1975, and over Petitioners’ objections,
the District Court allowed the Metropolitan Branches
of the Dallas N.A.A.C.P. (Respondent-NAACP) to in-
tervene.
On February 2, 1976, hearings on fashioning a stu-
dent assignment plan once again commenced in the
District Court. These hearings culminated in the Dis-
trict Court’s April 7, 1976, Final Order, as
supplemented, containing the remedy formulated by
the District Court and here in question.
On December 11, 1976, the voters in DISD voted in
favor of authorizing bonds in the amount of $80,000,-
000.00 for the purpose of the construction and equip-
ment of school buildings in DISD and the purchase of
necessary sites therefor. $30,000,000.00 of these bonds
have been sold to date and committed to this purpose.
(T. 5, 6, 7, II Appeal)
Both Courts below have correctly recognized the ur-
ban metropolitan nature of DISD and that DISD is not
a small rural school system but is the eighth largest
urban school district in the United States.
The District Court by order of July 16, 1971, directed
that the Mexican-American student be considered asa
separate ethnic group and as a “minority” for pur-
poses of a desegregation plan. Hence in DISD the
problem exists of formulating a tri-ethnic remedy and
the phrase “Anglo” is used in lieu of “white” under
such circumstances. This circumstance alone
magnifies the problem of formulating a remedy in a
minority Anglo system.
There is no actual total population census of DISD.
The boundaries of the City of Dallas and DISD are not
coterminous. The population of the City of Dallas is
800,000 to 900,000. The ethnic composition of the total
population of DISD. as distinguished from student
enrollment, approximates the ethnic composition of
the population of the City of Dallas which is estimated
to be 25% or 30% black. 10° to 15% Chicano and the
remainder Anglo. (V.I. 279. 405, 406) This is far dif-
ferent fromthe ethnic composition of the student pop-
ulation.
DISD contains approximately 351 square miles
within the 900 square miles of Dallas County. From
DISD’s furtherest northernmost point to its fur-
therest southernmost point there is a distance of
approximately 35 miles viewed from the northwest to
the southeastern part of the district. It is about 25
miles from what is called the southwest quadrant in
7
Oak Cliff just below Hulcy Junior High School to the
northernmost point near the Dallas County line. (V_I,
405)
The Court of Appeals has correctly recognized that
in 1971 the DISD student body was 69% Anglo and that
in 1975 it was 41.1% Anglo, 44.5% Black, 13.4%
Mexican-American and 1% “other.” This Court is ad-
vised that as of March 11, 1978, the Anglo student body
was 35.38%.
At the time of trial on February 2, 1976, DISD had lost
approximately 40,000 Anglo students during the
pendency of this second action. As the students
»ecome younger there is a decided drop in the num-
bers and percentage of Anglo students. (Deft. Exs. 13:
11, pp. 1, 2)
Petitioners estimate that in 1980 the percentage of
Anglo enrollment will be 26% of the total school pop-
ulation as opposed to 41%, that Black enrollment will
be 57% as opposed to 44.5%, and that Mexican-
American enrollment wil be 18% of the total student
enrollment as opposed to 13.4%. (V.I, 67, 68)
In addition to being faced with the problem of
fashioning a remedy for an ever increasing minority
Anglo school system, the District Court also had the
problem of preserving naturally integrated areas and
schools which had naturally integrated due to chang-
ing housing patterns. All of the plans before the Court
submitted by all parties and Amicus Curiae recog-
nized and accepted the concept that there was no
reason to disturb already desegregated neighborhood
schools and each plan proposed to leave certain areas
and schools alone as those areas and schools were
naturally integrated. (V.I, 104, 105; Hall’s Ex. 5, pp. 14-
19; V.IV, 15, 16, 19; Pl. Ex. 16, pp. 9, 41; V.ITT, 241-242, 259,
330, 355, 406, 410)
Further the District Court had to consider the loca-
tion within the DISD of these naturally integrated
areas and schools in relationship to the areas con-
taining the remaining predominantly Anglo students
and the areas containing predominantly Mexican-
American or-Black enrollment. The area containing
the only remaining predominantly Anglo students
lies generally in a strip along the north and certain
eastern portions of the system. The predominantly
Mexican-American or Black students reside to the
south and southeast in areas distant from the pre-
dominantly Anglo students. Separating the remain-
ing predominantly Anglo students and the pre-
dominantly Mexican-American or Black students are
areas containing large parts of the naturally integrat-
ed areas and schools. (Deft. Ex. 2,3; V.I, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81)
Respondent-Plaintiffs have recognized the
problems of the District Court in fashioning the
remedy in question. One of their student assignment
plans submitted to the District Court states the reason
for leaving one-race schools. In three separate places
that plan states: (Pl. Ex. 16, pp. 34, 36, 38; V. III, 377)
“Distance from the majority white areas,
capacity of schools, DISDenrollment patterns
and: generally good physical facilities were
factors resulting in South Oak Cliff retaining
its present student assignment patterns.”
(Emphasis ours)
The “South Oak Cliff” referred to is the area now re-
ferred to as East Oak Cliff in the District Court's Final
Order. Thus by written proposal and testimony
Respondent-Plaintiffs admit that the long distance of
the East Oak Cliff Subdistrict from areas containing
Anglo students is so great that the continued existence
of Black one-race schools in East Oak Cliff is justi-
fied. (V.III, 378, 379); that the “enrollment patterns” in
DISD, i.e., an ever expanding scholastic population in
East Oak Cliff, the numbers of Black students and the
numbers of Anglo students in DISD and the absence of
Anglo student growth in DISD, further justify the con-
tinued existence of Black one-race schools in East Oak
Cliff. (V.III, 379-381, 407, 408)
Respondent-Plaintiffs in the District Court by
motions filed on April 2, 1976, and April 5, 1976, sought
an award of attorneys’ fees in this action under Section
718 of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 on the
theory that they were the “prevailing party.” On April
30, 1976, Respondent-Plaintiffs filed a brief in support
of their motion for attorneys’ fees which contained the
following statement: (5/11/76 S.R. 1, p. 4)
“Finally, the plan adopted by the Court in its
order of March 10, 1976, together with
Supplemental Opinion and Orders dated April
7, 1976, and April 15, 1976 adopt and/or incor-
porate almost every precept proposed by
plaintiffs for student assignment and non-
student assignment features of the remedy.”
(Emphasis ours)
10
The District Court agreed and awarded attorneys’
fees to Respondent-Plaintiffs.
Througbout Respondent-NAACP has insisted that
the existence of some one-race schools invalidates the
student assignment portion of the remedy. However,
Respondent-NAACP publicly admits it does not have
a solution. In a newspaper interview this public ad-
mission was made by the attorney of record for the
Respondent-N AACP:
“And even the NAACP admits that itis having
some trouble finding a way to break up the all-
black nature of the subdistrict. ‘If I knew the
answer, I'd give it to you,’ says NAACP at-
torney E. Brice Cunningham. ‘I admit that we
have not yet come up with an alternative to
some all-black. schools. But we will still
challenge it in court.’ *’ Dallas Morning News,
August 15, 1976, at 1, col. 2.
Respondent-NAACP demands racial balance in
each school and year-by-year adjustments in such
quota assignments. The NAACP plan states:
“(a) Every school should have a racial
balance comparable to the racial balance in
the District, which will not deviate more than
Ten Percent (10%) up or down.” (Emphasis
ours) (NAACP Ex. 2, p. 7)
7 ® * +
“2. The first magnitude of desegregation and
the attaining of an Unitary School System
11
should be to achieve a racial balance of black
and white students in each school and then
follow through with the integration of other
minorities into the system.” (Emphasis ours)
(NAACP Ex. 2, p. 7)
* * * *
“5. Any set plan should have written into it
automatic mechanisms for change based upon
conditions which may arise in the communi-
ty.” (NAACPEx. 2, p. 7)
* * * *
“13. Monitoring procedures are to be so
specified that assignment adjustments will be
acted upon when trends of racial changes are
noted. These procedures are to be made
specific with respect to degrees of change and
timing of remedial actions to be taken.”
(NAACP Ex. 2, p. 8)
The Judge of the District Court has presided in this
second case from its beginning. From its March 10,
1976, Opinion and Order it is obvious that the District
Court has recognized and considered all the many
complex factors involved in fashioning a desegrega-
tion remedy for DISD. Over the strenuous objections
of DISD, the District Court anticipated the subsequent
June 27, 1977, decision of the Supreme Court in
Milliken II and ordered comprehensive non-student
assignment provisions in the remedy. As used, non-
student assignment provisions involve judicial
remedies in desegregation proceedings going beyond
student assignment plans and pertaining to (a) the
12
operation and management of the business and affairs
of DISD, and (b) the education, curriculum and
program aspects of DISD.2 Summary examples of the
non-student assignment requirements included in the
District Court’s remedy are set out in Appendix “D”.
The Court of Appeals appears to recognize the
careful study and consideration that the District Court
had given the case and the many complex factors in-
volved in fashioning the remedy. Nevertheless, the
Court of Appeals considered the number of one-race
schools as controlling and remanded the case to the
District Court for the formulation of a new student
assignment plan and for findings to justify the
maintenance of any one-race schools that may be a
part of that plan.
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT
1. The Court Below Has Decided A Federal
Question In A Way In Conflict With This
Court’s Decision In Swann v. Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S.
1.
Among the issues before the Courts below was the
constitutionality of the remedy formulated by the Dis-
trict Court to eliminate the vestiges of a state-imposed
dual school system in a large urban school system and
2 Nothing contained in this petition is to be construed as a waiver
by DISD of its right on remand to object to the introduction of all
evidence and to all parts of any plan or proposal as might pertain
to non-student assignment matters and to object to the inclusion of
non-student assignment provisions in any remedial order and
DISD specifically reserves its right to so object.
ee eS ae
13
in particular such a school system that is now a
minority Anglo system with an ever decreasing
percentage of Anglo students that requires a tri-ethnic
remedy and that has been the object of ongoing litiga-
tion to formulate a remedy since Brown II. It is ob-
vious from the directions given the District Court on
remand that the Court of Appeals considers the num-
ber of one-race schools to be the controlling criteria
for determining the appropriateness of a remedy for
such school systems. This is not what this Court said
concerning one-race schools in Swann. This is not
what this Court in effect construed Swann to mean in
Milliken II.
This one-race school criteria seized on by the Court
of Appeals is an example of how Green v. New Kent
County® thinking can bring lower courts to an
erroneous interpretation of Swann in cases involving
these large urban school systems. In the instant case
we are dealing with a system of some 800,000 to 900,000
persons, operating some 183 school buildings with
approximately 140,000 students of whom 41.1% were
Anglo, 44.5% were Black and 13.4% were Mexican-
American. In Green the school system operated only
two schools inarural county of some 4,500 population.
One was,a white combined elementary and high
School and one was a Negro combined elementary and
high school. The school system served approxi-
mately 1,300 pupils, 740 of whom were Negro and 550
of whom were white. Facts and conditions are not the
same. It is one thing to think in terms of no one-race
schools in New Kent County, Virginia, with only tw»
schools in that entire rural system, but to focus on
such an overly simplistic approach in considering a
s oa v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430
14
remedy for this large urban system has brought the
Court below to an erroneous construction of Swann
and to a decision in conflict with Swann when read in
its entirety.
A national educational crisis exists in such large ur-
ban school systems because some federal courts
refuse to come to grips with the fact that Swann must
be interpreted in light of the urban condition as it ex-
ists in such school systems. The District Court was
one federal court that did recognize that Swann must
be interpreted in light of the urban condition in such
school systems. The District Court's March 10, 1976.
Opinion and Order well states the anguish and agony
that district courts must go through in formulating
remedies in such school systems. In the District
Court’s language in part:
“In this complex and ever-changing area of
the law, it is difficult if not impossible to dis-
cover hard and fast rules for the Court to
follow.”
* * * *
“school districts are like fingerprints —
each one is unique. Although the goal of a uni-
tary, non-racial system is a constant, the
method or plan for achieving that goal must be
tailored to fit the particular school district in-
volved. A plan that is successful in a district
having a small student population or occupy-
ing a small area geographically, a rural dis-
trict, a county-wide district, or a majority
Anglo school district, will not necessarily be
os a
15
successful in a large urban district such as the
DISD.” (Emphasis ours) 412 F.Supp. at 1195
Granted that the judicial goal must be the develop-
ment of a decree that promises realistically to work
and promises realistically to work now, it
nevertheless defies all logic and common sense not to
allow a district court to choose a plan that takes into
account the urban condition in such school systems.
Otherwise the judicial goal of a plan that promises
realistically to work now in such school systems is
reduced to a shambles.
The Court of Appeals has reached a decision in con-
flict with Swann and this Court is urged here to
resolve the conflict in view of the difficulty that the
nation’s lower courts are having in finding a satisfac-
tory solution to school desegregation matters in large
urban school systems.
2. The Court Below Has Decided A Federal
Question In A Way In Conflict With This
Court’s Decision in Milliken v. Bradley,
433 U.S. 267 (Milliken II).
The decision below does not refer to this Court's
decision in Milliken II. Thus the decision below in
effect interprets Swann to mean that the non-student
assignment provisions included by the District Court
in the remedial order in question, including remedial
educational programs, are not to be considered as
desegregation tools or techniques under Swann. The
Court below has made a too limited reading of Swann
in the light of this Court's decision in Milliken II. Con-
16
trary to Milliken II, the Court below has decided that
certain remedial educational programs may not be
considered as desegregation tools or techniques under
Swann.
3: The Importance Of The Issue And The
Need For Clarification.
A national educational crisis exists in urban areas
and will continue unabated unless and until this Court
addresses the matter of desegregation remedies in
large urban school systems as described here. The
issues here involved are especially important to such ~
school systems and to their millions of school patrons
throughout the nation. Cf. S.E.C. v. United Benefit Life
Insurance Company, 387 U.S. 202, 207, where cer-
tiorari was granted because of the importance of the
issue and the need for clarification.
If integrated school systems in large urban
metropolitan centers are the true goal of groups such
as the Respondent-Plaintiffs and Respondent-
NAACP, then that goal becomes an impossibility
when public education is required to exist under con-
ditions that do not appeal to many school patrons. The
constant and unrelenting uncertainty and pressure of
never ending school desegregation litigation is a con-
dition that does not appeal to many school patrons.
When conditions exist that do not appeal to school
patrons, they seek more satisfactory conditions
elsewhere; some in the suburbs, some in private or
church-related schools. The search for more satis-
factory conditions elsewhere is not always relatedtoa
racial bias but to a family’s sense of frustration with
a gh ni at oat
a 6 eran ne hee 6 a
OED Siew a, Pin ante Bin tit Nae ON AEN Se ec ne aE 2 Da hl ee
iE amelie. mis raiea asi - neem
17
conditions that decrease the total educational oppor-
tunity for one’s child. One condition that decreases the
total educational opportunity for one’s child is con-
stant desegregation litigation over the remedy and the
resulting prospect of ever expanding busing ina large
metropolitan area. Uncertainty destroys parents’
patience and confidence. It is not just Anglos who
become dissatisfied with these adverse conditions in
urban school districts. Black families and Mexican-
American families value education also; and they will
leave as they can, just as Anglos leave as they can.
This case presents the Court the opportunity to ad-
dress these matters and to make clear to the lower
courts that Swann is to be interpreted in light of the
facts of the urban condition as exist in school systems
such as Dallas. If, in the words of Respondent-
NAACP’s counsel, the Respondent-NAACP has “...
not yet come up with an alternative to some all-black
schools,” then the Court of Appeals should not read
Swann to require the District Court to be wiser than
the Respondent-NAACP.
Unless the District Court’s realistic approach to
such a school system is affirmed by this Court, then
desegregation litigation involving such school sys-
tems will go on and on over the years and will end only
at that point when these school systems become vir-
tually all-black or virtually all-black and Mexican-
American. Unitary these school systems may then be,
but virtually all-black or all-black and Mexican-
American they will be also.
18
Lower court interpretations of Swann, as in the
Court below, create such dilemmas and uncertainties
with respect to schoo] systems such as Dallas that
nothing is resolved. Such lower Court readings of
Swann create such unfortunate social and economic
circumstances in metropolitan cities that the results
have become a national educational tragedy. All that
now occurs under Swann with respect to school sys-
tems such as Dallas is constant district court hear-
ings, appeals and remands. The District Court had a
solution for a national problem. The Court of Appeals
rejected this solution. Further word from this Court is
needed. .
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Petition for a Writ of
Certiorari should be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
Warren Whitham
210 Adolphus Tower
Dallas, Texas 75202
Mark Martin
1200 One Main Place
Dallas, Texas 75250
Attorneys for Petitioners
Dated: August 11, 1978
ee ee een eee Oe nemaoe,
2 oe tg ae eta SEC.
19
PROOF OF SERVICE
We, Warren Whitham and Mark Martin, Attorneys
for Petitioners herein, and members of the Bar of the
Supreme Court of the United States, hereby certify
that on the 11th day of August, 1978, we served three
copies of the foregoing Petition for Writ of Certiorari
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fiftn Cir-
cuit upon the following Counsel for Respondents:
Mr. Edward B. Cloutman, III Mr. Thomas E. Ashton, IIi
8204 Elmbrook Drive, Suite 200 Dallas Legal Services
P. O. Box 47972 Foundation, Inc.
Dallas, Texas 75247
Ms. Vilma S. Martinez Dallas, Texas 75202
Mexican-American Legal Defense Mr. E. Brice Cunningham
and Educational Fund 2606 Forest Avenue, Suite 202
28 Geary Street Dallas, Texas 75215
San Francisco, California 94108 wr Robert H. Mow. Jr.
Mr. Nathaniel R. Jones Mr. Robert L. Blumenthal
1790 Broadway, 10th Floor 3000 One Main Place
New York, New York 10019 Dallas, Texas 75250
Mr. Lee Holt, City Attorney Mr. James A. Donohoe
New City Hall 1700 Republic National Bank
Dallas, Texas 75201 Building
Mr. John Bryant Dallas, Texas 75201
8035 East R. L. Thornton Mr. Martin Frost
Dallas, Texas 75228 777 South R. L. Thornton
Mr. James G. Vetter, Jr. Freeway, Suite 120
555 Griffin Square Building Dallas, Texas 75203
Suite 920
Dallas, Texas 75202
and to the following Respondent pro se:
Mr. James T. Maxwell
4440 Sigma Road, Suite 112
Dallas, Texas 75240
912 Commerce Street, Room 202
20
and to the following Counsel for Amicus Curiae:
Mr. H. Ron White
1907 Elm Street, Suite 2100
Dallas, Texas 75201
by mailing same to such Counsel and Respondent pro
se at their respective addresses and depositing the
same in a United States mail box in an envelope prop-
erly addressed to such addresses with first class
postage prepaid.
We further certify that all parties required to be
served have been served.
Warren Whitham
Mark Martin
Attorneys for Petitioners
la
APPENDIX “A”
IDENTITY AND NAMES OF ALL PARTIES
Petitioners are the members of the Board of Trustees
of the Dallas Independent School District and its
General Superintendent. At the time of filing this Peti-
tion Bill C. Hunter, Sarah Haskins, Robert Medrano,
Kathlyn Gilliam, Bradford N. Lapsley, Jill Foster,
Harryette Ehrhardt, Robert L. Price and. Gerald M.
Stanglin are the Trustees of the Dallas Independent
School District and Nolan Estes is its General
Superintendent. Petitioners were Defendants in the
District Court and Appellees and Cross-Appellants in
the Court of Appeals.
The Respondent-Plaintiffs were the original Plain-
tiffs in the District Court and Appellants and Cross-
Appellees in the Court of Appeals. The Respondent-
Plaintiffs are Eddie Mitchell Tasby and Philip Wayne
Tasby, by their parent and next friend, Sam Tasby;
Evelyn Denise Lafayette and Darline Lafayette, by
their parent and next friend, Ludie Ann Cobbin: John
L. Morgan, Leon M. Morgan, Emanuel Morgan and
Jacqueline Morgan, by their parent and next friend,
Mary Jane Morgan; Jacqueline Denise Yarborough,
Katherine Yvette Yarborough and Willie Jackson, by
their parent and next friend, Bettye Jackson; Nelba
Ann Crouch, Allen LaMeche and Danny O’Keefe, by
Thelma Lee Crouch; Nettie Marie Cates, by her parent
and next friend, Bobbie Lean Cobbin; Tony Jefferson,
Beulah Jefferson, Arthur Jefferson, Yolanda Jefferson
and Jacqueline Jefferson, by their parent and next
friend, Ruth Jefferson; Ora Clara Woods and James
2a
Edward Woods, by their parent and next friend, Helen
Woods; Angela Medrano and Yolanda Medrano, by
their parent and next friend, Richard Medrano; and the
alleged class or classes they seek to represent in this
action.
The Respondent-Intervenors are various parties
who at various times have been permitted to intervene
in these proceedings. The Respondent-Intervenors
are:
1. Donald E. Curry, Gerald A. Van Winkle, Joe M.
Gresham, Edmund S. Rouget and Robert A. Overton,
Individually and as next friends for their children.
2. James T. Maxwell.
3. Donald Abercrombie, his wife, Helen Abercrom-
bie, and their children, Donna and Donald; C. S.
Ludwick, his wife, Ann Ludwick, and their children,
Connie, Mark and Scott; Jerry Hamilton, his wife,
Martha Hamilton, and their children, Pamela, Jeri and
Patricia; Wayne Dickenson, his wife, Betty Dickenson,
and their children, Delisa and Drew; Anthony
Bascone, his wife, Rebecca Bascone, and their chil-
dren, Kathy, Karen and Amy; R. D. Morgan, his wife,
Janice Morgan, and their child, Carol; and R. H.
Mason, his wife, Joyce Mason, and their children,
Susan, Mark and William; also known collectively as
“Oak Cliff Citizens.”
4. Herman Bond, et ux, Individually and as next
friend for his son, Steven Bond, as representative of
the class of Oak Cliff residents in the Kimball-Carter-
PO a as
3a
South Oak Cliff School District areas and areas adja-
cent thereto in the City of Dallas.
5. The City of Dallas.
6. The Metropolitan Branches of the Dallas
N.A.A.C.P., the John F. Kennedy Branch, the Oak Cliff
Branch and the South Dallas Branch (Respondent-
NAACP).
7. Dr. E. Thomas Strom, Charlotte Strom, Charles
Pankey, Norma Pankey, Donald K. Boldt, Dan and
Mary Ann Boyd, Dr. R. E. Buchanan, Dolly M. Buen-
ting, Fannie Demery, A. Douglas and Jill Foster,
Thomas E. and Denise Gray, Calvin R. Heath, Bobbie
Hickson, Lloyd G. Jones, Ruth L. Keefer, Peggy L.
Kirkland, Margaret Leo, Lou O’Reilly, Pat and
Marilyn Patterson, Dottie Pennebaker, W. R. and Ann
Swaney, Virginie Trousdale, Gordon C. Yates, Rev.
Montie W. Stewart, D. B. Barksdale, Mrs. Buford T.
Bird, Clyde and Nellie Blevins, Wilma E. Borchardt,
Gene and Arlene Boyd, Nancy Ruth Cawthon, Bob
Chaffin, Louise Clayton, Jack O. Davis, Mr. and Mrs.
Pedro Guillen, Denise Jenkins, Mr. and Mrs. Paul
Jones, Mr. A. A. Kerby, Mr. and Mrs. G. R. Langford,
David Langton, Mr. and Mrs. Marlin E. Langton, Mrs.
L. D. McManus, Buddy and Barbara Pettway, Olen and
Wanda Weaver and Mr. and Mrs. H. A. Wells, a group of
individuals residing in and having children attend-
ing schools inthe Dallas Independent School District.
8. RalphF. Brinegar, Wallace H. Savage, Evelyn T.
Green, Craig Patton, Dr. John A. Ehrhardt, Richard L.
Rodriguez and Alicia V. Rodriguez, Mr. and Mrs.
da
Salomon Aguilar, Marjorie M. Oliver, Mr. and Mrs.
Ruben L. Hubbard, Robert L. Burns, Dr. Percey E.
Luecke, Jr., Dale L. Ireland and Barbara J. Ireland, and
Evelyn C. Dunsavage, Individuals residing in the
Dallas Independent School District.
9. The Dallas Alliance and the Education Task
Force of the Dallas Alliance, Amicus Curiae.
APPENDIX “B”
OPINION AND ORDER
Filed: Mar. 10, 1976
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
EDDIE MITCHELL TASBY and PHILIP WAYNE
TASBY, by their parent and next friend, SAM TASBY,
ET AL
versus CA 3-4211-C
DR. NOLAN ESTES, GENERAL
SUPERINTENDENT, DALLAS INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL
The task presented to this Court is to adopt and im-
plement a desegregation plan for the Dallas Indepen-
dent School District (DISD) which will finally con-
clude the tortured history of this litigation and which
owe
hs eee ie
5a
will establish a unitary, nonracial system of public
education in the DISD, as required by Brown v. Board
of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). This cause is here on
remand from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ deci-
sion of July 23, 1975,! which affirmed in part and re-
versed in part this Court’s 1971 desegregation order.
The Fifth Circuit has instructed this Court to for-
mulate a student assignment plan which will remedy
the dual nature of the DISD found to exist in 1971.
I. The Parties
The cast of legal characters in this desegregation
drama has changed since 1971, with the addition of
new intervenors and the departure of intervenors
previously in the case. The present actors still include
the plaintiffs, representing a class of black and
Mexican-American students in the DISD; the defen-
dant DISD; the Curry intervenors, representing a
group of North Dallas students; the intervenor James
T. Maxwell, representing himself; and the City of
Dallas.2 Additionally, the Metropolitan Branches of
the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP) were granted leave to in-
tervene on August 25, 1975; the Strom intervenors,
representing a class of persons living in naturally in-
tegrated areas of Western Oak Cliff and Pleasant
Grove, were granted leave to intervene on August 25,
1975; and the Brinegar intervenors, representing a
class of persons living in the naturally integrated area
1 Tasby v. Estes, 517 F.2d 92 (5th Cir. 1975).
2 The City of Dallas remained a party to this phase of the pro-
ceedings but did not play an active role during this phase.
6a
of East Dallas, were given leave to intervene on
September 17, 1975.
On September 16 the Court challenged the business
leaders of Dallas to become involved and further
pointed out that everyone in the district had a job todo
— that it was not a job for the Court alone. The busi-
ness leaders have responded to the challenge and have
shown their sincere interest. Many churches, their
leaders, and many organizations have expressed
significant interest and offered to assist the Court.
Additionally, a group of citizens formed a committee
composed of six blacks, seven Mexican-Americans,
one American Indian and seven Anglos. This group
became an affiliate of the Dallas Alliance and became
known as the Educational Task Force of the Dallas
Alliance. The Dallas Alliance is a community service
organization designed to act on and aid in the solution
of urgent issues of the community. It consists of a for-
ty member Board of Trustees, and seventy-seven cor-
respondent organizations in the Dallas area.
This Task Force met for a period of four months and
spent approximately 1500 hours together in devising
concepts and principles for a desegregation plan fora
DISD. They sent various members of their group to
cities around the country to discover all possible tools
for desegregation, and met with or talked with thirty
leading figures in the desegregation field. Finally, on
February 17, 1976, the Alliance group filed their plan
for the DISD with the Court. The Court granted them
the status of Amicus Curiae for the purpose of present-
ing their ideas and plan to the Court, and heard
evidence from Dr. Paul Geisel regarding the plan.
wa codes
7a
The Court has before it several student assignment
plans, offered to remedy the dual nature of the DISD.
The School Board, being charged with the respon-
sibility of devising an acceptable plan,3 filed its plan
on the 10th of September, 1975. The NAACP devised a
student assignment plan which was also filed on
September 10. The Court was not wholly satisfied with
either of these plans, as it indicated in a hearing on
September 16. Therefore, the Court employed an ex-
pert in the field of education and desegregation, Dr.
Josiah C. Hall of Miami, Florida. Dr. Hall presented a
student assignment plan to the Court which was filed
December 29, 1975. The plaintiffs meanwhile were
working on a student assignment plan, and ended up
filing two plans on January 12, 1976. Likewise, the
Education Task Force of the Dallas Alliance met for
several months considering concepts for a desegrega-
tion plan for the DISD, and filed their results with the
Court on February 17, 1976. In addition, the Court re-
ceived and has considered other plans and
suggestions from various citizens and groups.‘
II. Applicable Law
In this complex and ever-changing area of the law, it
is difficult if not impossible to discover hard and fast
rules for this Court to follow. Certainly, the “transi-
tion to a unitary, non-racial system of public educa-
tion was and is the ultimate end to be brought about.”
3 Brown v. Board of Education (II), 349 U.S. 294 (1955).
4 A group of students at Skyline High School drew a student
»ssignment plan for the DISD and submitted it to the Court. Others
svere submitted by the Alliance for Integrated Education and a
number of other groups and concerned parents.
Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430, 436 (1967);
Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396
U.S. 19 (1969); Brown v. Board of Education II, 349 U.S.
294 (1955). Similarly, this Court recognizes that ‘‘[t]he
objective today remains to eliminate from the public
schools all vestiges of state-imposed segregation.”
Swann v. Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 15 (1970).
Nevertheless, school districts are like fingerprints
— each one is unique. Although the goal of a unitary,
nonracial system is a constant, the method or plan for
achieving that goal must be tailored to fit the par-
ticular school district involved. A plan that is
successful in a district having a small student popula-
tion or occupying a small area geographically, arural
district, a county-wide district, or a majority Anglo
school district, will not necessarily be successful in a
large urban district such as the DISD. As the Supreme
Court observed in Brown II, supra at 299:
Full implementation of these constitutional
principles may require solution of varied
local school problems. Schooi authorities
have the primary responsibility for
elucidating, assessing, and solving these
problems; courts will have to consider
whether the action of the school authorities
constitute good faith implementation of the
governing constitutional principles. Because
of their proximity to local conditions and the
possible need for further hearings, the courts
which originally heard these cases can best
perform this judicial appraisal.
Throughout the proceedings on remand, this Court
has held foremost in its mind the unique
characteristics of the DISD, in order to insure that a
feasible, workable plan is adopted which will
realistically establish a unitary system in the DISD.
The Fifth Circuit remanded this case with instruc-
tions to formulate a new “student assignment plan.”
The DISD has maintained throughout these proceed-
ings that the Court can consider nothing except a bare-
bones student assignment plan. Although this Court
recognizes that the mandate from the Fifth Circuit re-
ferred consistrntly to formulating a “student assign-
ment plan,” it does not interpret that language as
limiting this Court to a plan which merely provides
for moving bodies between buildings. As the Fifth Cir-
cuit held in Calhoun v. Cook, 522 F.2d 717 (1975).
rehearing denied, 525 F.2d 1203 (1975):
The aim of the Fourteenth Amendment
guarantee of equal protection on which this
litigation is based is to assure that state sup-
ported educational opportunity is afforded
without regard to race; it is not to achieve
racial integration in public schools.
A student assignment plan cannot operate in a
vacuum; it must include whatever additional tools are
necessary to carry out the mandate that equal
educational opportunity be provided, and to insure
that a truly unitary system is established.
In adopting a student assignment plan, this Court is
required to arrive at a delicate balance — the dual
10a
nature of the system must be eliminated; however, a
quota system cannot be imposed. The Supreme Court
ruled in Swann, supra at 26, that
[t]he district judge or school authorities
should make every possible effort to achieve
the greatest possible degree of actual
desegregation and will thus necessarily be
concerned with the elimination of one-race
schools.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court held that
{t]he constitutional command to desegregate
schools does not mean that every school in
every community must always reflect the
racial composition of the school system as a
whole.
Ibid, at 24.
In arriving at this balance, the practicalities of the
situation are to be taken into account. Davis v. School
Commissioners of Mobile County, 402 U.S. 33, at 37
(1970). These practicalities include travel time and
distance, and the age of the children.
An objection to transportation of students
may have validity when the time or distance of
travel is so great as to either risk the health of
the children or significantly impinge on the
educational process. . . It hardly needs stating
that the limits on time or travel will vary with
many factors, but’probably with none more
than the age of the students.
lla
Swann, supra at 30.
The Fifth Circuit instructed this Court to use the
techniques discussed in Swann to dismantle the
vestiges of the dual nature of the DISD. The Supreme
Court said in Swann that “[d]jesegregation plans can-
not be limited to the walk-in school,” if this will not
produce a unitary system. Swann, supra at 30. All
available techniques are to be considered in the for-
mulation of student assignment plans, including the
restructuring of attendance zones and the pairing of
both contiguous and noncontiguous attendance zones.
Swann, supra; Davis, supra.5
The Supreme Court’s decision in Swann also
emphasized the equitable nature of the remedies
phase of a desegregation case. It quoted the following
language from Brown II:
In fashioning and effectuating the decrees, the
courts will be guided by equitable principles.
Traditionally, equity has been characterized
by a practical flexibility in shaping its
remedies and by a facility for adjusting and
reconciling public and private needs.
Swann, supra at 12. Later it stated:
In seeking to define even in broad and general
terms how far this remedial power extends it
is important to remember that judicial powers
5 The pairing of noncontiguous attendance zones and the use of
transportation is of course limited by the practicalities mentioned
above.
12a
may be exercised only on the basis of a con-
stitutional violation ... As with any equity
case, the nature of the violation determines the
scope of the remedy.
This Court has kept in mind throughout these pro-
ceedings that its findings in 1971 were that the
“vestiges” of a dual school system remained in the
DISD, and not that the DISD was a dual svstem at that
time. The plan adopted now must therefore remedy
these vestiges without exceeding this Court’s
equitable powers to balance public and private needs.
Finally, guidance as to the role of this Court has
been given by the Supreme Court in Green, supra at
439:
The obligation of the district court, as it
always has been, is to assess the effectiveness
of a proposed plan in achieving desegrega-
tion. There is no universal answer to complex
problems of desegregation; there is obviously
no one plan that will do the job in every case.
The matter must be assessed in light of the cir-
cumstances present and the options available
in each instance. It is incumbent upon the
school board to establish that its proposed
plan promises meaningful and immediate
progress toward disestablishing state-
imposed segregation. It is incumbent upon the
district court to weigh that claim in light of
facts at hand and in light of any alternatives
which may be shown as feasible and more
promising in their effectiveness.
13a
Moreover, whatever plan is adopted will re-
quire evaluation in practice, and the court
should retain jurisdiction until it is clear that
the state-imposed segregation has been com-
pletely removed.
With this task in mind, the Court heard testimony
regarding the feasibility and effectiveness of these
plans presented by the parties during hearings which
lasted continuously from February 2 to March 5. All
the plans utilize, to varying degrees, the concepts of
pairing and clustering schools, and of transporting
students for the purpose of establishing an integrated
or unitary school system, as approved by the Supreme
Court in Swann, supra. Each ofthe plans incorporates
other tools, as well as transportation, to help insure
that an integrated school system is achieved. The
Court finds some meritorious suggestions in each of
the plans, including the concept of magnet schools
suggested by the DISD, the plaintiffs and others; the
majority to minority transfer program advocated by
all parties; and the concept of a monitor or auditor pro-
posed by the plaintiffs, the NAACP and the Dallas
Alliance Task Force. The Court is convinced that the
plan of the Educational Task Force of the Dallas
Alliance will effectively establish a unitary system of
education in the DISD and that it “promises
realistically to work now.” Green, supra at 439.
III. Present Characteristics of the DISD
The most significant feature of the DISD now as op-
posed to 1971 is that the DISD is no longer a
predominantly Anglo student school system. In the
14a
years which have intervened since this Court’s 1971
order, the percentage of Anglos in the DISD has de-
clined from 69% to 41.1%, and projections show no
reversal of this trend to a predominantly minority dis- '
trict. According to the most recently compiled
figures,® the racial composition of the DISD student
body is 41.1% Anglo, 44.5% black, 13.4% Mexican-
American, and 1.0% “other.” In the 1970-71 academic
year, the DISD enrolled 163,353 students in grades 1-
12, whereas in December, 1975, the DISD enrolled only
131,757 students. Over the past five years the DISD has
lost, for one reason or another, 40.9% of its Anglo stu-
dent population.’
Nevertheless, the DISD continues to be the eighth
largest school district in the nation, covering an area
of approximately 351 square miles. Its 180 separate
campuses house 141,122 students (including
kindergarten), and its total expenditure for the 1975-76
academic year is $164,788,000.
Although the DISD in 1975-76 cannot be considered
to be wholly free of the vestiges of a dual system,
significant strides in desegregation have been made
since the Court's 1971 order as a result of natural
changes in residential patterns in the past three years.
In the 1970-71 school year, 91.7% of all black students
in the DISD attended predominantly minority schools,
whereas in the 1975-76 school year, the percentage has
dropped to 67.6%. Testimony during the hearings
6 Dec. 1, 1975, DISD Hinds County figures. See Appendix A for
racial composition of each grade level.
7 An HEW Report shows that in October 1969 there were 97,103
Anglo students in grades 1-12, and in October 1975 there were 57,-
426 Anglo students in grades 1-12.
15a
showed that large areas of Dallas which formerly
reflected segregated housing patterns are now in-
tegrated, namely Western Oak Cliff, Pleasant Grove,
East Dallas, the area of North Dallas included in the
attendance zone for Thomas Jefferson High School.8
Testimony also established that the DISD has un-
dertaken in good faith and on its own to equalize the
educational opportunity for all children during recent
years. The plaintiffs introduced a 209-page Report ofa
Study of Instruction in the Dallas Independent School
District 1974-1975 which was conducted by Dr. Francis
S. Chase and eight staff associates. This report was in-
itiated by the School Board, but Dr. Chase testified that
he and his staff, who had no connection with the DISD,
were not impeded in any way in conducting this study
or presenting their findings. Their findings included
the following passage:
The staff of the Study of Instruction has iden-
tified a number of characteristics in which the
Dallas Independent School District is either
preeminent or close to the top among public
school systems. Some of these characteristics
which hold high potential for the improve-
ment of education are:
1. The commitment to, and the heavy in-
vestment of resources in, curriculum, design,
development, and implementation.
2. A broadly conceived and well-staffed
program of research and evaluation to define
8 Ses Appendix B, an exhibit introduced by the Strom in-
tervenors which shows the changes in racial composition of
formerly predominantly Anglo secondary schools.
16a
needs, inform decisions, assess the effec-
tiveness of programs and services, and in-
dicate deficiencies in program implementa-
tion or operation.
3. The creation of an extensive network of °
communications through which community
organizations and large numbers of teachers,
students, parents, and other citizens may
learn about and participate in educational
decisions and programs.
4. Frank acknowledgment of barriers to
equal educational opportunity, followed by
constructive measures such as the Affir-
mative Action Program, the extension of
Multi-Ethnic Education, the implementation
of Plan A for better treatment of learning: dis-
abilities, and support for inner-city school
renewal projects.
5. The number and variety of innovations
initiated and the continuing search for ways of
responding to the demands for improved
education.
6. The extensive program of personnel
development through released time, other
special programs, and four area teacher
centers which work in cooperation with seven
colleges and universities.
7. The planning, development, and opera-
tion of career education programs and
emphases — with continuing efforts to extend
and improve career education at all levels.®
9 Study of Instruction, pp. 35-36.
17a
In spite of the DISD’s efforts, Dr. Chase’ study con-
cluded that there is still a gap between intent to
provide equal educational opportunity and the
achievement of this goal. But the study also concluded
that the DISD is accepting the continuing challenge to
speed progress and close this gap.
The Dallas Independent School District, in re-
cent years, has acknowledged frankly the ex-
istence of persisting inequalities and inade-
quacies in its provisions for education. In-
stead of regarding these conditions as in-
evitable, the District has moved progressively
to treat them as challenges with which it must
cope swiftly and effectively. All school
systems, and especially those in our larger
cities, are faced with the urgent necessity of
alleviating the learning disabilities which
have their roots in poverty, prejudice, and
other forms of discrimination. No other school
district offers a better prospect for significant
progress in this direction.!°
The study thoroughly evaluated the DISD's
programs, pinpointing areas which needed improve-
ment and making recommendations to that end.'! Dr.
Chase testified that this study was unique in the
amount of response it elicited from the School Board
and the Administration; he testified that there is not
one item cited that the Board and Administration have
not responded to in some way. His testimony was that
there can never be a perfect school system, but that at
10 Ibid, p. 200.
11 Ibid, pp. 205-209.
18a
least the DISD is conscientiously on the road to
providing equal educational opportunity for all.
The plan which this Court is ordering to be im-
plemented promises to continue this trend of
desegregation and will, when fully implemented,
remove all vestiges of the former dual system in the
DISD. The Court is convinced that this plan will, at the
same time, “assure that state supported educational
opportunity is afforded without regard to race.”
Calhoun, supra at 396. Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S.
717, 740-741 (1974); Alexander v. Holmes County Board
of Education, 396 U.S. 19, 20 (1969); Brown v. Board of
Education, 349 U.S. 294, 301 (1955).
IV. An Analysis of the Plans Before the Court
A. DISD’s Plan
The DISD’s plan was devised by the staff of the DISD
under the direction and supervision of Dr. Nolan Es-
tes. The district is divided into three categories for the
purpose of student assignment — the integrated parts
of the school district,’ the remaining predominantly
Anglo parts of the district,!3 and certain minority
parts of the district. The DISD’s plan proposes to re-
tain the present student assignment patterns for the
naturally integrated areas,'4 as desegregation has
12 These areas are integrated due to residential housing
patterns.
13 These areas lie generally across the far northern and eastern
portions of the DISD.
14 “Integrated” was defined by the DISD as not more than 75%
Anglos or more than 75% combined blacks and Mexican-
Americans.
19a
already occurred in these areas.'5 Pairing and cluster-
ing techniques, both contiguous and noncontiguous,
were used to desegregate grades 4-12'6 of the
predominantly Anglo areas of the district. The grade
configurations were proposed to be:
K- 3 Elementary Schools
4- 5 Intermediate Schools
6- 7 Middle Schools
8- 9 Junior High Schools
10-12 Senior High Schools.'’
The remaining predominantly minority areas of the
districts would continue to be served by predominant-
ly one-race minority schools.'§
In addition, the DISD proposed to set up 17 magnet
schools to serve the entire district. Ten of these
magnets would be for the elementary level, and would
offer “fundamental” programming’? or “individually
15 There are 55 schools meeting this criteria.
16 Grades K-3 would continue to attend schools closest their
homes.
17 There are 72 schools in this category.
18 There are 48 schools in this category serving 42 attendance
zones.
19 “Fundamental” programming was described as concen-
trating on reading, writing, and arithmetic, and being a highly
structured environment.
20a
guided” programming.®° Seven of the magnets would
operate on the secondary level (grades 8-12 in six of
the seven cases), and would offer a variety of
programs oriented toward careers, the creative and
performing arts,2! transportation and technology,””
and world cultures. These programs are all in ex-
istence now in the DISD and are proving extremely
successful.23
Finally, the DISD’s proposal included the retention
of the majority to minority transfer program present-
ly in existence in the DISD. ,
The analysis showed that 13,947 students would be
transported for desegregation purposes,” and that the:
total cost to implement®> would be $6,811,240, causing
a 9¢ tax increase.6
Li ” ing a
20 “Individually guided” programming was described as us
diagnostic prescriptive approach in a highly flexible setting.
There would be approximately one teacher for every 15 students,
and the students would be able to move along at their own pace.
21 This magnet would be located near Fair Park and would have
those cultural facilities available.
22 This magnet would be located at Love Field, the airport recent-
ly closed.
23 Skyline Career Development Center, serving grades 10-12, is
recognized as one of the outstanding magnet schools in the nation.
24 In the Western Oak Cliff area, the DISD’s proposal would
transport 1500 black students to predominantly minority schools.
25 This includes the cost of buses, bus monitors, building
modifications, portable classrooms, and magnets.
26 Ch. 20.04d of the Texas Education Code, based on Art. 7 § 3 of
the Texas Constitution, limits the assessment of school taxes for
any school district in Texas to $1.50 per $100 property value. The
tax rate for the DISD presently is $1.40 per $100 property value.
Thus any plan which increases the taxation rate more than 10¢
would cause an increase in class size past the present 27 students,
or else cause a reduction in enrichment programs. '
21a
B. Plaintiffs’ Plans
Plaintiffs’ proposed plans were devised by the plain-
tiffs’ attorneys, using guidelines laid down by Dr.
Charles Willie of Harvard.
1. PlanA
Under Plan A, the DISD would be divided into seven
elementary subdistricts. An attempt was made to have
each school reflect the racial composition of that sub-
district. The naturally integrated elementary schools
retained their present student assignment patterns.27
All other schools were paired or clustered for grades
1-12.28 The grade configurations proposed were grades
K, 1-3, 4-6, 7-9, and 10-12.29
Plaintiffs proposed the use of magnet schools con-
structed in the inner city to draw Anglos into those
areas. They suggested the retention of the majority to
minority program. They suggested that the DISD ex-
pand and improve its in-service training program for
faculty and staff. Finally, they proposed a system of
accountability to insure that the DISD complies with
this Court’s order and with the goal of quality educa-
tion for each student enrolled in public school.
An analysis of Plaintiffs’ Plan A showed that ap-
proximately 69,000 students would be transported, and
27 There were 13 elementary schools in this category.
28 Kindergarten children would attend the schools closest their
homes.
29 This was done wherever possible. Other grade configurations
do appear, such as K, 1-4, 5-6, 7-9, 10-12.
22a
that the projected total cost to implement*®® would be .
$22,030,590, causing a 29.4¢ tax increase.
2. PlanB
Under Plan B, the DISD would be divided into eight
elementary level subdistricts. The residentially in-
tegrated areas were not included in the new student
assignment patterns.*! One of the subdistricts would
remain predominantly minority and would retain its
present assignment patterns,®? but would become a
‘model cluster’’ with enhanced facilities and
programs. The other areas were paired and clustered
to achieve desegregation.
In addition, Plan B calls for magnet schools in all
schools which had a predominantly minority enroll-
ment prior to this year to enhance the attractiveness of
these schools.*3 Plan B proposes the expansion of the
DISD’s present bi-lingual program.*4 Other features
such as the majority to minority transfer program, in-
service training, and a monitor or system of accoun-
tability mentioned above would also be included in
Plan B.
30 DISD's projection based on the elements of Plan A, including
cost of buses, bus monitors, building modification, and portable
classrooms.
31 There are 39 elementary schools in this category.
32 This is the South Oak Cliff area, and included twelve elemen-
tary schools, two junior high schools, and one high school.
33 This would include renovations and curriculum revision.
34 Testimony from several experts indicated that the DISD's bi-
lingual program is the best in the nation. Dr. Estes testified that
the DISD is presently attempting to expand this program to all
schools as rapidly as possible, but that the demand for bi-lingual
instructors is presently greater than the supply.
23a
An analysis of Plan B showed that approximately
47,000 students would be transported under this plan.
The estimated cost of implementation® is $14,963,680,
which would necessitate a 20¢ tax increase per $100
property value.
C. NAACP Plan
The NAACP’s proposal was drawn by Dr. Charles
Hunter of Bishop College. It contained a number of
concepts and proposals to be utilized by the DISD in
implementing the plan, as well as a rough outline of
schools to be paired and clustered to achieve
desegregation. The naturally integrated areas were
left with their present assignment patterns, and the
rest of the schools were paired and clustered so that
every school would have a racial balance comparable
to the racial balance in the district (with a 10%
variance up or down).*6 Innovative programs would
be fostered in the inner city schools, as well as in
magnet schools, which would operate on a district-
wide basis. Among other suggestions, the NAACP
plan proposed monitoring procedures which would be
available to make adjustments in student
assignments when changes in racial patterns are
noted.
35 Using the same criteria mentioned above.
36 The NAACP proposed to achieve racia) balance between
blacks and Anglos first and then follow with »“her minorities.
24a
An analysis of the NAACP’s plan indicated that ap-
proximately 40,000 students would be transported.
The estimated partial cost? is $7,163,310,
necessitating a 15-1/2¢ tax increase for the buses and
bus monitors alone.
D. Dr. Hall’s Plan
The student assignment plan submitted to the Court
by Dr. Hall is similar to those of the DISD and Plain-
tiffs’ Plan B, in that it divides the district into the
categories of residentially integrated areas,°* paired
and clustered areas, and predominantly minority
areas. The naturally integrated areas would retain
their present assignment patterns.*® Schools in
predominantly Anglo areas are paired clustered with
schools in predominantly minority areas to the
greatest degree possible.4° The grade configuration
for this category of schools is K-1 (nearest schools), 2- —
5, 6-7, 8-9, and 10-12. If the time and distance proved to
37 It was not possible to give an estimated total cost because ex-
penditures for building modification, moving portables and
equipment could not be determined under their plan.
38 Dr. Hall's guideline for determining an integrated school is no
more than approximately 75% nor less than approximately 30% of
combined minority groups.
39 There are approximately 55 schools in this category.
40 The factors of time and distance were taken into account by all
parties — the DISD and Dr. Hall limited time of transportation to
30 minutes each way. The Plaintiffs strove for this, but acknowl-
edged that in their plans greater time was involved. The NAACP's
plan limited time of transportation to 40 minutes.
25a
be too great, then the schools would retain their pre-
sent assignment patterns.‘!
In addition, Dr. Hall proposed the establishment of
Early Childhood Centers in Title I42 areas. These
centers would be for ages 5 and 6, and hopefully age 4,
and would provide enriched programs, using State
and Federal Compensatory Education funds, with a
pupil-teacher ratio of approximately 20-1. Additional
personnel would also be provided as well. Dr. Hall
also recommended using these centers as Community
centers.
Dr. Hall recommended the continuation of the DISD
Metropolitan Learning Centers for secondary school
students who do not respond to the traditional school
setting. He suggested maintaining the present magnet
school of Skyline Center for Career Education, and ex-
panding the magnet concept wherever possible.
An analysis of Dr. Hall’s plan indicates that ap-
proximately 20,000 students would be transported for
desegregation purposes. The estimated cost of his
plan‘? would be $7,163,310, and would necessitate a tax
increase of 9.6¢.
41 The statistics regarding time and distance on these schools
were carefully documented. There are 34 predominantly minority
schools in this category. Five of the schools were elementary
schools who would move on to integrated junior high and high
schools. The schools in this category were considered by Dr. Hall
to be superior schools (with the exception of renovation at threé
schools) in terms of facilities and the environment in which the
schools are located. Nineteen of the schools in this category were
at one time predominantly Anglo schools.
42 This refers to funds provided for certain areas under the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
43 This cost estimate was again provided by the DISD using the
same criteria mentioned above.
»
26a
E. The Dallas Alliance Plan
The student assignment plan proposed to the Court
by the Dallas Alliance Task Force on Education
utilizes many of the concepts or tools used in the other
plans, and also introduces new concepts. Like the
plaintiffs’ plans, the Alliance plan divides the DISD
into smaller subdistricts. These attendance areas or
subdistricts would in general reflect the Northwest,
Northeast, Southeast, South Oak Cliff, and Southwest
geographical sections of the district. Every sub-
district except South Oak Cliff would have ap-
proximately the same student population and would
have minority ratios which would approximate that of
the whole DISD, plus or minus 5%. Grade levels would
be standardized on a K-3, 4-8, 9-12 basis. For grades K-
3, new attendance zones would be drawn to achieve as
much natural desegregation as possible, and students
would be assigned to the nearest school which would
promote integration, not to exceed four miles from
home. Attendance zones in K-3 would not necessarily
consider the five attendance zones.
On the K-3 level, special teaching strategies and en-
riched program options would emerge for students in
all areas. The Alliance plan proposes that efforts to
maximize parent involvement following the Early
Childhood Education model from California be intro-
duced in September 1976 and completed by September
1979. This K-3 approach would be primarily
diagnostic-prescriptive. It would result in an adult-
student ratio in instruction of approximately 1-10.
(Adult is a teacher aide, a parent, an older student
tutor, etc.)
27a
For grades 4-8, students would only be assigned to
schools within the attendance subdistrict in which
they live. Areas that are naturally integrated would
retain their present student assignment patterns (ex-
cept that 8th grade would be added to the lower
grades). Students in areas that are not naturally in-
tegrated would attend schools in the center of each
subdistrict in which they live, ina manner so that each
school’s minority ratio reflects the minority ratio of
the 4-8 student population of the area, plus or minus
10%. Magnet schools for 4-8 would also be established.
with a priority on magnets in the South Oak Cliff area.
The magnets would be open to all 4-8 students in the
DISD on a voluntary basis. The magnets would also
reflect the minority ratios of the 4-8 student popula-
tion in all areas (with the exception of South Oak
Cliff), with allowance for a 10% plus or minus varia-
tion from the percentage of all minority students in the
DISD.
For grades 9-12, the Dallas Alliance proposes
Magnet High Schools and Magnet Comprehensive
High Schools.44 These would be open to all 9-12
students on a voluntary basis, but with minority ratios
of the 9-12 student population of the DISD, with
allowance for a 10% plus or minus variation from the
percentage of all minority students in the DISD.
Partnerships and working relationships between in-
stitutions of higher learning, the business and the
cultural communities would be encouraged with each
magnet high school. During the 1976-77 school year, at
least four additional magnets would be opened in the
44 A Magnet Comprehensive High School includes regular high
school curriculum as well as special career and other programs.
central area of the city,*° and at least three additional
magnets would be established by 1979-80. Each
magnet would accommodate a minimum of 1,000
students, and would open as rapidly as it fills. Seven
magnets would be therefore considered a minimum,
not a maximum number to be implemented. Until all
students attend magnet high schools, grades 9-12
would attend the nearest area high school in the sub-
district in which the students live.
Aside from student assignment concepts embodied
in the K-3, 4-8, and magnet 9-12 arrangement, the
Alliance plan addresses itself to other facets of a uni-
tary school system. With regard to personnel, it
proposes the development of recruiting and employ-
ment policies to insure that competent personnel are
employed at all levels and that the percentages of
white, black and brown administrators, principals,
teachers approximate DISD-wide the respective
percentages of those races represented in the City of
Dallas in 1976, as a minimum, within three years. The
DISD would rely on expanded scope of positions,
reassignment, and attrition to meet that goal. It
proposes that the top salaried line administration
positions (currently established at 185 in number)
45 These were suggested as
1) a new magnet comprehensive Lincoln High School,
costing approximately $14,500,000
2) a magnet for Business Education and Management at
Crozier Tech, established in cooperation with the busi-
nesses in the Central Business District (the downtown
Dallas area)
3) amagnet for the creative arts of Madison High School,
due to its proximity to the Fair Park Music Hall and
other cultural facilities
4) a magnet for aviation training at Love Field, the air-
port partially closed due to the opening of the Dallas-
Fort Worth Regional Airport, etc.
29a
reflect the percentages of the ethnic makeup of the
DISD student population (approximately 44% Anglo,
44% black, and 12% Mexican-American) by 1979. This
transition would occur on a schedule of one-third by
9/1/77, one-third by 9/1/78, and one-third by 9/1/79.
The Alliance plan also proposes training for
teachers to improve their proficiency and their ability
to perform in a multicultural setting, assessment on a
regular basis of the competence of personnel, and a
system of internal and external accountability
measures to insure that a unitary system was in fact
achieved.
Although the exact numbers of students transported
and the exact cost could not be determined,* it has
been established by the DISD that approximately 20,-
000 students would be transported at a cost of $5,830,-
000, necessitating a tax increase of 7.8¢. The funds for
the capital expenditure of $16,500,000 for magnet
schools the first year would be accommodated by ihe
present bond issuance, without any additional tax in-
crease. The annual operating cost of this plan has been
estimated at $5,000,000. This plan therefore is
economically feasible without the increase in class
size or decrease in established programs.
V. The Plan to be Implemented
The Court has carefully considered the various con-
cepts suggested in the plans briefly summarized
above, and finds that the following tools will be most
46 The administration and staff of the DISD need to work out the
details of this plan.
30a
effective in addressing and solving the problem of
vestiges which remains in this large urban district of
ours.
A. The Subdistrict Concept
Several experts, including the plaintiffs’ Dr.
Charles Willie, testified that with a city as large as
Dallas, a series of subdistricts (each with elementary,
middle, and high schools) is more effective than one
large district. This will give parents and students a
sense of community and control over their schools,
which the Supreme Court has recognized as so impor-
tant to the successful functioning of our schools.
No single tradition in public education is more
deeply rooted than local control over the
operation of schools; local autonomy has long
been thought essential both to the
maintenance of community concern and sup-
port for public schools and to quality of the
educational process. See Wright v. Council of
the City of Emporia, 407 U.S. 451, at 469. Thus,
in San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez,
4110U.S. 1,50(1973), we observed that !ocal con-
trol over the educational process affords
citizens an opportunity to participate in
decision-making, permits the structuring of
school programs to fit local needs, and en-
courages “experimentation, innovation, inda
healthy competition for educational ex-
cellence.”
Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, at 742 (1973).
Moreover, it helps minimize the transportation dis-
3la
tance and time, since this is limited to each sub-
district.*’
Each subdivision will approximate the racial
makeup of the DISD as a whole, with the exception of
South Oak Cliff.48 Due to the geographic layout of the
DISD, and the factors of time and distance, this South
Oak Cliff area was left predominantly black in every
plan proposed to the Court, with the exception of
Plaintiffs’ Plan A, which proposed to establish an ex-
act racial balance in every school and which would
‘ have necessitated the transportation of 49,000
students. The Court is of the opinion that, given the
practicalities of time and distance, and the fact that the
DISD is minority Anglo, this subdistrict must
necessarily remain predominantly minority or black.
However, this does not mean that the goal of equal
educational opportunity for all cannot be achieved. In
terms of facilities, Dr. Hall testified that with the ex-
ception of Budd and Harllee Elemer tary Schools and
the site at Roosevelt High School, the facilities in this
area can be categorized as superior. Additionally, Dr.
Hall testified that the environment in which each
center is located, i.e., the property immediately adja-
cent to the schools, as well as the residential area
47 Magnet schools would be on a city-wide basis, however.
48 Estimates show that the racial makeup would be as follows:
Anglo Black Mexican-American
1. Northwest 44% 39% 16%
Il. Northeast 41% 42% 17%
III. Southeast 46% 46% 8%
IV. South Oak Cliff 98% 2%
V. Southwest 42% 27% © 31%
32a
served by them, can be classified as superior. Dr. Hall
testified that educational opportunities in terms of
facilities or programs would not be improved by com-
plete redistribution of all pupils, and in some
situations, they would be lessened.
With the renovation of some of the facilities in this
area, this subdistrict could be a model for the district
and the nation, and attract Anglos to it on the basis of
its superior programs and facilities.
B. The K-3 Diagnostic-Prescriptive Concept
The Court adopts the Dallas Alliance’ concepts
regarding grades K-3 for a number of reasons. As the
Supreme Court observed in Swann, the most impor-
tant factor to consider in implementing a transporta-
tion plan is the age of the children in relation to the
time and distance travelled. Dr. Estes testified that the
DISD’s plan left the K-3 grades in the schools nearest
their homes due to the fact that the children had not
matured sufficiently to cope with the problems of safe-
ty and fatigue associated with significant transporta-
tion. The Court finds that this conclusion is sound, in
terms of age, health, and safety of children in grades
K-3.
Furthermore, there appears to be no deprivation of
the right of the minorities to equal educational oppor-
tunities on the K-3 level. As Dr. Chase testified, the
disparity, if any, is in favor of the lower socio-
economic areas on the K-3 level, due to the special
programs and «fforts of the DISD in those areas.
33a
Finally, the diagnostic-prescriptive concept so
successfully used in California will insure that
children everywhere in the district will be afforded
equal educational opportunity and that any remain-
ing vestige of a dual system (if it in fact exists on the
K-3 level) will be eliminated.
C. The 4-8 Central Area Concept
The concept of locating grades 4-8 close to the center
of each Area or Subdistrict is based on pragmatic con-
siderations. Transportation distance and time will be
minimized for all students in these grades, no matter
where they live in each subdistrict. By bringing all
students in each subdistrict together in these grades,
the plan assures that no group is deprived of equal
educational opportunity. By locating special magnet
programs in the South Oak Cliff area in grades 4-8,
this area will attract students of all races from the dis-
trict as a whole, and will insure that this area is not de-
prived of educational opportunities.
D. The 9-12 Magnet Concept
The magnet concept, widely used in other school dis-
tricts, attracts students because of special career,
vocational, or other programs that the magnet school
offers. It is undisputed that the Skyline Career
Development Center, which offers a myriad of career-
oriented programs, is a model for the nation and that it
demonstrates the success magnet schools can have in
drawing students of all races and in offering quality
education for all.‘
49 The student body at Skyline presently reflects an ethnic pop-
ulation of approximately 60% Anglos, 33% blacks and 6%
Mexican-Americans.
34a
Moreover, this Court must adopt a plan which
promises to be effective in eliminating the vestiges of
a dual system. The Court is convinced that the magnet
school concept on the 9-12 grade level will be more
effective than the assignment of students to achieve a
certain percentage of each race in each high school.
The Court tried this method of student assignment in
1971, and it has not proven wholly successful in
achieving the goal of eliminating the vestiges of a
dual system in these grades. The evidence shows that
of approximately 1,000 Anglos ordered to be
transported to formerly all-black high schools under
this Court’s 1971 student assignment plan, fewer than
50 Anglo students attend those schools today.
Whatever the cause might be for the non-attendance of
Anglos in those schools today,®° this Court finds that it
can in no way be attributed to official actions on the
part of school authorities.
50 Asaresultofthe offer of evidence of the Curry intervenors, the
battle of the sociological experts developed. The Curry inter-
venors took the position that a “forced busing” order would cause
resegregation anda further reduction of the Anglo student popula-
tion of the DISD. Plaintiffs responded that desegregation orders,
even those including “forced busing,” are not the prime factor ina
decrease in Anglo school population. Whatever may be the
strength or weakness of the opinions of these experts and the bases
on which such opinions were reached, the fact remains that in the
DISD between the 1971 desegregation order and today the Anglo
student population has decreased by approximately 40,000. It is a
well-settled principle of law that “the vitality of these constitu-
tional principles cannot be allowed to yield simply because of dis-
agreement with them.” Brown II, at 300. Nevertheless, this Court
cannot control the prejudice or anti-busing sentiment which
might exist in the minds of some private individuals. The mandate
of the Supreme Court is to adopt the plan which promises
realistically to be most effective, and after our experience with the
9-12 level, this Court is of the opinion a magnet school approach
will accomplish this goal. See Mapp v. Board of Education, 525
F.2d 169 (1975).
35a
While some blacks are still transported today to
previously all-Anglo schools, these students could
continue to do so under the majority to minority
program, or could attend any magnet high school in
the district. It should also be noted that changes in
demographic patterns have resulted in the drastic
reduction of predominantly Anglo high schools in the
DISD.
The most realistic, feasible, and effective method for
eliminating the remaining vestiges of a dual system
on the 9-12 level, and for providing equal educational
opportunity without regard to race, is the institution
of magnet schools throughout the DISD. In this way,
students of all races will join in working in areas of
their special interest. Although these magnet schools
cannot be created with the wave of a wand, they can be
established at an accelerated pace with the help, finan-
cial and otherwise, of the business community of
Dallas. The Court requests and sincerely believes that
the business community will provide its resources
and talents to help the DISD in this way. The Adopt-a-
School program, presently operated by the DISD and
such majorcorporations as Xerox and Bell Telephone,
provides an example of what can be achieved through
the cooperation of DISD administrators and educators
on the one hand, and the business, educational, and
cultural communities on the other hand. With the crea-
tion of this network of magnet schools, there can be no
doubt that all vestiges of a dual system are eliminated.
36a
E. The Concept of Naturally Integrated Areas
As mentioned above, there is a substantial number
of schools in the DISD in which the racial makeup of
the student population reflects naturally integrated
housing patterns. Two groups of intervenors repre-
sent parents and students living in several of these
residentially integrated areas — namely the Strom in-
tervenors, representing Western Oak Cliff and Plea-
sant Grove, and the Brinegar intervenors, represen-
ting East Dallas. These intervenors maintain that
where integration in schools has been achieved
through natural housing patterns, the present student
assignments should be retained, since no vestiges of a
dual system remain in these areas. The Court is in
agreement with this concept. There is no denial of the
right of educational opportunity in these areas, and, as
all parties recognized, there would be no benefit,
educational or otherwise, in disturbing this trend
toward residential integration.5!
F. The Concept of Accountability
As The Supreme Court recognized in Green, supra
at 439, ‘“‘whatever plan is adopted will require evalua-
tion in practice... .”
A system of accountability performs three general
functions:
51 The Brinegar intervenors pointed up the fact that since the
Dallas Alliance plan does not yet detail student assignments, it is
difficult to determine its impact on the integrated areas. The Court
recognizes this problem, and will provide a one-week period after
the student assignment portions of the plan are filed with the Court
as hereinafter directed, for recommended modifications. if any,
regarding the naturally integrated areas.
37a
1) it informs the Superintendent and the
School Board how the administration is
responding to the goals and objectives of
the plan;
2) it provides the Court with an objective
evaluation of the DISD’s compliance with
the ordered plan;
3) it informs the citizenry and serves as a
tool for constructive input.
The Court is adopting the Alliance plan’s concepts
of accountability. Regarding the internal monitor, it
will be acceptable for the DISD’s Research and
Development Department*® to report to the Court. This
report shall be on December 15 and April 15 of the year,
until a showing that a unitary system has been
achieved. This report should include:
1. The number and percentage of pupils by
ethnicity attending each educational
center, including magnet schools.
2. The number and percentage of pupils by
ethnicity being transported for desegrega-
tion purposes.
3. The number and percentage of pupils by
ethnicity obtaining majority to minority
transfers (including the exception for
Mexican-American students).
4. The number and percentage of teachers by
ethnicity assigned full time in each
educational center.
52 If the DISD wishes to develop some other monitor or unit to
report to the Court, it is free to do so. .
38a
5. The number and percentage of new
teachers, administrators, and teacher
aides by ethnicity engaged by the DISD.
6. The current status of capital outlay pro-
jects.
7. The status of Early Childhood Education
program.
8. The results of the annual standardized
achievement tests program by school,
grade, and ethnicity (April 15 report only).
9. Efforts made by the system to successfully
-implement the order of this Court in the
following areas:
a. Parent involvement efforts
b. Staff development activities
c. Communications and community
relations programs
d. Student leadership training programs
(April 15 report only).
Subject to the approval of the selection by the Court,
the DISD shall also secure the service of an indepen-
dent professional firm to evaluate compliance with
this order and the efforts to achieve a unitary system
by the DISD. Such report should be filed with the Court
annually on April 15, until a showing is made that a
unitary system has been achieved. The criteria for
monitoring suggested by the Alliance plan should be
used as guidelines for this external monitor.
The Tri-Ethnic Committee established by the
Court's 1971 order has served as community monitor
for the Court, the School Board, Superintendent, and
39a
the public regarding compliance with that order. The
Tri-Ethnic Committee will continue its efforts in this
regard with the same powers, duties, and respon-
sibilities provided in the Court’s 1971 order except that
it is relieved of any duty to select independent evalua-
tion services from outside the DISD.
Finally, the Court is aware of the fact that
demographic changes may necessitate revisions in
student assignments in the future. Therefore the Court
will retain Dr. Josiah Hall as an advisor to the Court
and may call on him to recommend revisions or to
review recommendations of the DISD regarding
future student assignment.
G. Personnel Concepts
It is well-settled that school administration and per-
sonnel play an important role in the achievement of a
unitary school system. Administrators and personnel
must be responsive to the needs of all racial groups,
and must not discriminate against any group on the
basis of race. In order to achieve and maintain a truly
unitary DISD, the Court is adopting the personnel con-
cepts of the Alliance plan. The Court is aware that
training programs for teachers, principals and ad-
ministrators already exist in the DISD. Naturally,
these programs should be continued.
H. Majority to Minority Transfer Concept
None of the parties dispute the usefulness of this
tool in providing educational opportunity without
regard to race. This program will remain in effect for
40a
all grade levels under the guidelines presently utiliz-
ed by the DISD,53 with the exception that minority to
majority transfers will be allowed in instances where
Mexican-Americans comprise less than 5% of the
originally assigned school. This exception will be al-
lowed in order that the bi-lingual education program
will be available to all Mexican-American students
who need it.
VI. Conclusion
The DISD has acted in good faith since this Court's
order in 1971 and has made reasonable efforts to fulfill
the obligations imposed by that order. The DISD has
further taken good faith steps to eradicate inequality
in educational opportunity which has previously ex-
isted in the DISD. Had the DISD not shown a
willingness to improve the quality of education forall
its students, and especially those in the minority ar“«as
which previously had been neglected, this Court
might feel impelled to adopt a different remedy.
However, the vestiges of a dual system remaining in
the DISD can be realistically and effectively
eradicated by the implementation of the plan adopted
herein. This will not mean that the DISD will be
perfect, for school districts are run by mere mortals,
and judicial decrees can make them no more. It will
mean that the DISD has fulfilled its obligation, under
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amend-
ment to the Constitution, that state-supported
educational opportunity be afforded without regard to
race.
53 The use of the four-day school week for majority to minority
transfer students shall be discontinued.
4la
Accordingly, it is ORDERED by the Court that the
modified plan of the Educational Task Force of the
Dallas Alliance filed with the Court on March 3, 1976,
is hereby adopted as the Court’s plan for removal of all
vestiges of a dual system remaining in the Dallas In-
dependent School District, and the school district is
directed to prepare and file with the Court a student
assignment plan carrying into effect the concept of
said Task Force plan no later than March 24, 1976.
/s/ W.M. TAYLOR, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE
MARCH 10, 1976
Appendix A
Ethnic Composition of the DISD
. . °
Pa, Bes BT Wek ee es oe .
j= BE Bo Pe Re Re Be re FL .
american
1595
1955
1822
1648
1608
1672
1504
1532
1438
1286
1259
936
634
18889
Mexican-
Be ae Re Rs BO Pe
Jr. High
Atwell
Browne
Cary
Comstock
Florence
Franklin
Gaston
Greiner
Hill
Hood
Hulcy
Long
Marsh .
Rusk
Rylie
Spence
Stockard
Walker
Ethnic Percentages for Integrated
43a
Appendix B
Dallas Jr. High Schools
Anglo
82.0%
34.6%
97.6%
45.0%
89.0%
63.0%
90.5%
24.1%
96.8%
73.3%
98.3%
75.2%
96.9%
76.7%
85.6%
50.7%
98.1%
83.2%
96.9%
66.0%
92.4%
16.2%
85.4%
63.2%
97.9%
84.6%
45.9%
25.3%
96.5%
91.5%
24.4%
20.6%
84.6%
60.8%
81.2%
78.2%
Mexican-
American
1.1%
2.9%
1.7%
7.6%
7.9%
17.4%
8.0%
16.0%
2.9%
7.1%
0.5%
2.1%
2.9%
6.0%
13.5%
35.3%
1.6%
3.5%
3.1%
4.3%
6.9%
3.9%
8.9%
19.0%
1.2%
2.4%
29.4%
51.4%
3.2%
6.6%
39.8%,
53.3%
14.6%
32.1%
1.1%
0.9%
School
Bryan Adams
Adamson
Carter
Hillcrest
Jefferson
Kimball
No. Dallas
Samuell
Seagoville
Skyline
Spruce
Sunset
White
Wilson
44a
Dallas High Schools
Year
1970
1975
1970
1975
1970
1975
1970
1975
1970
1975
1970
1975
1970
1975
1970
1975
1970
1975
1970
1975
1970
1975
1970
1975
1970
1975
1970
1975
Anglo
99.2%
86.0%
73.3%
29.3%
96.6%
30.9%
98.6%
82.5%
92.0%
70.0%
96.6%
62.5%
30.0%
17.5%
97.8%
82.5%
79.7%
79.9%
94.0%
60.1%
96.5%
65.1%
88.8%
57.4%
98.3%
82.6%
88.8%
62.6%
Black
0.0%
7.6%
7.4%
48.9%
0.0%
65.2%
0.5%
15.0%
2.6%
19.3%
0.1%
28.6%
42.7%
30.8%
0.1%
12.0%
15.9%
15.4%
2.3%
33.6%
0.3%
26.9%
0.0%
8.5%
0.6%
14.8%
4.3%
19.9%
Ethnic Percentages for Integrated
Mexican-
American
0.6%
4.5%
16.8%
19.6%
3.1%
3.8%
0.7%
1.2%
5.2%
12.7%
2.9%
8.0%
28.6%
51.2%
2.1%
5.3%
4.3%
4.5%
3.0%
5.9%
3.2%
7.5%
9.4%
33.0%
0.9%
1.9%
6.5%
15.9%
45a
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS 75242
W. M. TAYLOR, JR.
Chief Judge
March 15, 1976
TO COUNSEL:
Re: Tasby vs. Estes
CA 3-4211-C
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I enclose herewith Supplemental Order this day
entered in the above case. You are advised that the last
line of this Order referring to the desegregation plan
for the DISD contemplates that the student assign-
ment and non-student assignment aspects will be em-
bodied in the Court’s Final Order.
Yours very truly,
/s/ W. M. TAYLOR, JR.
W. M. Taylor, Jr.
Enc.
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER
(Number and Title Omitted)
Filed: Mar. 15, 1976
During the process of fleshing out the Court’s order
of March 10, 1975, some questions have arisen regard-
46a
ing the Court's adoption of the Dallas Alliance's plan.
So that there is no misunderstanding in this regard,
the Court intended by the order of March 10 to adopt the
concepts suggested by the plan of the Educational
Task Force of the Dallas Alliance. The staff of the
school district shall take these concepts and adapt
them to fit the characteristics of the Dallas Indepen-
dent School District. The Court recognizes that during
this process, a certain amount of flexibility is
necessary. The Court expects the school district to put
into effect the concepts of the Dallas Alliance plan.
The specifics of the desegregation plan for the DISD
will be embodied in the Court's Final Order which will
be entered in approximately two weeks.
/s/ W. M. TAYLOR, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE
SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION AND ORDER
(Number and Title Omitted)
Filed: Apr. 7, 1976
The Court has before it two motions to alter or
amend its March 10, 1976, opinion and order, sub-
mitted by the Defendant DISD and by the Plaintiffs.
The Court also has before it comments of the Brinegar
and Strom intervenors regarding the student assign-
47a
ment plan submitted by the DISD on March 24, 1976.
The Court will not address the comments of these in-
tervenors in this supplemental opinion, as they are
dealt with in the Final Order entered this date in this
case. The Court does feel it necessary, however, to re-
spond to the motions of the initial parties to this
proceeding.
A. The DISD’s Motion
The DISD asks the Court te do two things: 1) approve
all aspects of the approach, guidelines, standards, and
interpretations made by the Defendants as to the stu-
dent assignment plan prepared and filed by the DISD
on March 24, 1976, and 2) accept the student assign-
ment plan as being in compliance with the Court’s
opinion and order of March 10, 1976.
As tothe first request, the Court is unable to approve
the DISD’s student assignment plan in toto. The Court
has received and thoroughly considered suggestions
made by various intervenors and by the Amicus
Curiae Educational Task Force of the Dallas Alliance
subsequent to the submission of the DISD’s student
assignment plan on March 24. The Court is of the opin-
ion that many of these suggestions have merit and
should be reflected in the student assignment plan.
The Court has thus modified the document submitted
by the DISD to incorporate many of these suggestions.
It has further incorporated modifications to the stu-
dent assignment plan which the Court deems
necessary in order that the spirit of the Dallas
Alliance’s plan will be implemented to the fullest ex-
tent possible. These changes appear in the Final Order
entered this day.
48a
Through its second request the DISD asks essential-
ly that the Court omit from the desegregation plan for
the DISD any reference to non-student assignment
matters, including course offerings, personnel,
facilities and provisions for accountability. The Court
will not hesitate to say that it taxes the Court’s
patience to have this objection raised again, after it
was overruled time after time during the hearings, and
after the Court specifically adopted the concepts em-
bodied in the Dallas Alliance’s plan regarding these
matters on March 10. If the Court’s response to this ob-
jection has not yet registered in the minds of the
Defendants, it is this: a student assignment plan can
not operate in a vacuum, anda unitary school system -
can not be achieved solely by mixing bodies. This
Court is bound by the Constitution and by the body of
caselaw in this field to see that the DISD provides
equal educational opportunity for all its students, and
the Court must necessarily be concerned about areas
other than student assignment when it carries out this
duty.
It is to be recalled that the Court’s 1971 Order con-
tained directives other than a bare-bones student
assignment plan. In 1971, this Court had occasion to
comment on the fact that the Fifth Circuit Court had
found it necessary to enter specific non-student
assignment orders to meet the many schemes and de-
vices that school boards practiced in order to evade
their constitutional obligation to provide equal
educational opportunity. Among these, of course,
were orders providing for desegregation of faculty
and staff, site-selection, transportation provided to
students, and course offerings. To indicate the extent
49a
to which Courts have found it necessary to go to insure
equal education, the Court would point out that in
Boston the Court found it necessary to appoint a
receiver to take over the operation of a school.
So that there can be no mistake about this matter the
Court will state once again: it has no interest in ‘“‘run-
ning the school district” or in playing the role of dic-
tator to the School Board or Dr. Estes and his staff.
However, the Court will not stand aside where the
DISD has been found to operate a dual school system
which discriminates between Anglo and minority
schools, as was found in 1971 and as was re-
emphasized in the disparity shown in Dr. Chase’s
report and other evidence introduced during the recent
hearings. The DISD must provide equal educational
opportunity for all its students, in non-student assign-
ment matters as well as in the area of student assign-
ment.
The DISD’s motion to alter or amend the Court’s
Opinion and Order of March 10 is therefore in all
respects denied.
B. The Plaintiffs’ Motion.
In its motion, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to amend
or Clarify its March 10 opinion in three areas: 1) its
finding regarding the Chase Report of a Study of In-
struction in the DISD 1974-75, 2) its finding regarding
K-3 children and their ability tc be transported for
desegregation purposes, and 3) its finding regarding
the good faith of the DISD after 1971.
50a
With regard to the first item, the Court is quite aware
that one of the central findings of the Chase Report
was that a disparity remains between the
predominantly Anglo centers and the predominantly
minority centers in the areas of (a) facilities, (b) staff-
ing patterns, and (c) educational offerings. The Court
adopted these findings of Dr. Chase on page 9 of its
Opinion when it said “. . . there is still a gap between
intent to provide equal educational opportunity and
the achievement of this goal.”
The Court is of the opinion that the DISD can and
must correct these disparities — that is what
“providing equal educational opportunity” is all
about. The Court believes that the plan entered this
date offers the greatest promise for actually insuring
that no child in the DISD is discriminated against in
the type of education he receives.
With regard to the second item, the Court will make
clear that there were a number of factors that influenc-
ed the Court to adopt the K-3 Early Childhood Educa-
tion concept using the diagnostic-prescriptive ap-
proach to early education. The primary reason for
adopting this approach is that the Court is convinced
that parental involvement and individualized instruc-
tion is invaluable at this age. The question of a child's
maturity and ability to cope with being transported
will of course vary with each child, and educators’
opinions vary as to what is a “reasonable” age to begin
transportation of children. Indeed, several educators,
including Dr. Hall, testified that children could be
transported as early as the first or second grade
without any detrimental effect. The Court is of the
5la
opinion however, that due to the educational benefits
inherent in the early Childhood Education program,
children in grades K-3 will be best served by having
the parental and community involvement which is
made possible by remaining in neighborhood schools.
Plaintiffs’ third request deals with the finding by the
Court that the DISD acted in good faith after 1971. By
that finding the Court showed its awareness of some of
the efforts of the DISD to provide better educational
opportunities for students in predominantly minority
schools. As Dr. Chase pointed out, some of the best
schools in this school system are in predominantly
minority areas. This is not to say, however, that the
DISD has accomplished everything that it could have
accomplished had it vigorously implemented the
“Confluence of Cultures” program. Nor: this to say
that disparity does not now exist between some
schools. And, in the light of recent actions of the
School Board which appear to seek the dilution of the
expressed intention of the Court regarding equal
educational opportunity, one wonders whether the es-
tablishment of a unitary school system and the provi-
sion of equal educational opportunity is in fact being
pursued in good faith.
The conduct of the School Board members and the
DISD administration in the months and years to come
will answer that question. This Court sincerely hopes
that every member of this community will have no
hesitation in saying that the DISD has implemented
this Order to the fullest extent and has done so in ut-
most good faith.
52a
The final Order this day entered answers some of
Plaintiffs’ suggestions regarding the plan to be im-
plemented, and this Supplemental Opinion and Order
is intended as aclarification, where deemed necessary
of the Court’s March 10 Opinion and Order.
C. Conclusion.
The Court believes that unique opportunity is
available to the DISD to desegregate without undue
disruption and at the same time to provide a mode] of
quality education for all. It is time for all parties to
cast a statesman-like eye on the future of Dallas in
light of the reality of the requirement to desegregate.
The success of a desegregation plan, like the future of
a city, is inmany respects a self-fulfilling prophecy. It
is time for all parties to look past the political ex-
pediency of the present to the hope of the future for
Dallas and to prophesy idealistically. The Court
strongly believes that the citizens of Dallas will join
hands in the joint pursuit of our common ideal — the
provision of an unsurpassed educational opportunity
for all the children of Dallas.
It is so ORDERED, this, the 7th day of April, 1976.
/s/ W. M. TAYLOR, JR.
United States District
Judge
53a
FINAL ORDER
(Number and Title Omitted)
Filed: Apr. 7, 1976
On March 10, 1976, after hearing evidence and
arguments of counsel, the Court entered an Opinion
and Order adopting the concepts embodied in the
desegregation plan of the Educational Task Force of
the Dallas Alliance. In order to carry out these con-
cepts, the School Board of the Dallas Independent
School District (DISD) is ORDERED and DIRECTED
to implement the following items:
I. Major Sub-Districts
The DISD shall utilize six sub-districts for
student assignment purposes with each hav-
ing approximately the racial makeup plus or
minus 5 percent of the DISD as a whole, with
the exception of East Oak Cliff (referred to
previously as South Oak Cliff) and Seagoville.
The boundaries for the six areas are as
follows:
1. Northwest Sub-District — The boundary
is the Dallas-Fort Worth Toll Road commen-
cing at the western boundary of the DISD and
extending east to Hampton Road; Hampton
Road north to Singleton; Singleton east to
Vilbig; Vilbig north to Morris; Morris east to
Sylvan; Sylvan north to the Trinity River; the
54a
Trinity River north to the Texas & Pacific
Railroad; east on the Texas & Pacific Railroad
and Pacific Street to Pearl Expressway; south
on Pearl Expressway to Commerce Street; east
on Commerce Street to the Santa Fe Railroad;
south on the Santa Fe Railroad to Central Ex-
pressway; northwest on Central Expressway
to Live Oak; northeast on Live Oak to Haskell;
southeast on Haskell to Swiss; northeast on
Swiss to Beacon; northwest on Beacon to
Lindell; west on Lindell to Hubert; north on
Hubert to Lewis; west on Lewis to Greenville;
north on Greenville to Miller; west on Miller to
McMillan; north on McMillan to the alley
between Morningside and McCommas; west on
the alley between Morningside and McCom-
mas to Central Expressway; north on Central
Expressway to Lovers Lane; east on Lovers
Lane to Skillman; sovth on Skillman to the
Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad; east on the
Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad to Abrams
Road; south on Abrams Road to Mockingbird
Lane; northeast on Mockingbird Lane to
Whiterock Creek.
2. Northeast Sub-District — The western
boundary of the northeast sub-district is the
same as the eastern boundary of the north-
west sub-district. The southern boundary is
the Trinity River from the Dallas-Fort Worth
Toll Road southeast on the Trinity River to the
Central Expressway (U.S.75); north on Central
Expressway to Harding; northeast on Hard-
ing to Brigham; southeast on Brigham to spur
55a
railroad; east on spur railroad to Rosine;
northwest on Rosine to Pine; northeast on Pine
to Electra; northwest on Electra te Rutledge;
northeast on Rutledge to Scyene; east on
Scyene to Spring; northeast on Spring to
Cross; northwest on Cross to Fitzhugh; north-
east on Fitzhugh to Seattle; northwest on Seat-
tle to Birmingham; northeast on Birmingham
to Texas & Pacific Railroad; southeast on Tex-
as & Pacific Railroad to Foreman; southwest
on Foreman (extended) to Scyene; east on
Scyene to Buckner; north on Buckner to
Military Parkway; east on Military Parkway
to eastern boundary of DISD.
3. Southeast Sub-District — The northern
boundary of the southeast sub-district is the
same as the southern boundary of the north-
east sub-district. The western boundary begin-
ning at Central Expressway and the Trinity
River; southeast along the Trinity River to the
northern boundary of the Seagoville area;
eastward along the northern boundary of the
Seagoville area to the DISD boundary.
4. East Oak Cliff Sub-District — The
eastern boundary of the East Oak Cliff sub-
district begins at the District line and the
Trinity River and extends northwesterly
along the Trinity River to Interstate 35; In-
terstate 35 south to DISD boundary.
5. Southwest Sub-District — The eastern
boundary of the southwest sub-district is the
II.
56a
same as the western boundary of the East Oak
Cliff sub-district and the northern boundary is
the same as the southern boundary of the
northwest sub-district.
6. Seagoville Sub-District — The northern
boundary of the Seagoville area is Jordan and
Alexander Roads extended to the District
boundary.
Student Assignment Criteria Within Sub-
Districts
The following criteria shall be used to incor-
porate the concepts embodied in the Court's
Opinion and Order of March 10, 1976:
1. The DISD is divided into six sub-
districts, reflecting generally the Northwest,
Northeast, Southeast, East Oak Cliff,
Southwest, and Seagoville geographical sec-
tions of the District.
2. With the exception of East Oak Cliff and
Seagoville, the Anglo combined minority ratio
of the DISD is approximated in each sub-
district plus or minus five percent.
3. Grade level configurations are standar-
dized throughout the district to include grade
K-3 Early Childhood Education Centers, grade
4-6 Intermediate Schools, grade 7-8 Middle
Schools, and grade 9-12 High Schools. Certain
buildings house K-3 Early Childhood Educa-
tion Centers and 4-6 Intermediate Schools.
57a
4. Where possible, present student
assignments are retained in naturally in-
tegrated areas, but grade configurations are
standardized.
5. Students are assigned to school build-
ings appropriate to their age and number and
to program needs, with relocatable buildings
being used where necessary.
6. Students in kindergarten and grades 1-3
are assigned according to present elementary
assignment patterns except that K-3 students
in Booker T. Washington have been assigned
to Wm. B. Travis, and K-3 students in S'ephen
F. Austin have been assigned to David
Crockett. If there is no school within two miles,
Students are assigned to the next nearest ap-
propriate school.
7. Generally students in grades 4-8 are as-
signed to centers in areas of centrality. A less
central location is used where the location will
meet the ethnic makeup of the sub-district or
where facilities requirements prohibit a more
central location.
8. Transportation distance and time are
minimized to the extent possible.
9. Voluntary enrollment, District-wide, is
provided in Vanguard schools for grades 4-6,
in Academies for grades 7-8, and in magnet
schools for grades 9-12.
Ill.
58a
10. Attention is focused on Vanguard and
Academy programming available in the East
Oak Cliff sub-district on the 4-8 level.
11. For students in grades 9-12 who do not
desire to attend a comprehensive magnet high
school or participate in one of the transfer
programs, the traditional high school in their
regular attendance zone will constitute their
assigned school.
Appendix A, attached hereto, provides stu-
dent assignments for the 1976-1977 school
year, together with figures and percentages.
The K-3 Early Childhood Education Centers
The DISD shall provide a comprehensive
program of instruction in all areas based on
the developmental needs of young children
and the District’s Baseline Curriculum
Program. The K-3 approach shall be primarily
diagnostic-prescriptive. The approach in the
DISD Baseline Curriculum implementation
shal! include:
1. Individualization of instruction.
2. Principal and staff planning for im-
plementing the DISD Baseline Curriculum .
Program in each school, in conjunction with
parent advisory committees at each school
site.
3. Reduction of the adult-pupil ratio from
the existing district-wide ratio through tutor-
ing, the use of parents, other adult volunteers,
older students and the addition of paraprofes-
sionals. The adult-student ratio of 1-10 shall be
the goal to be achieved as rapidly as possible.
4. Continuation of a Staff Development
Program consistent with the State Board of
Education Plan and conducted to implement
the DiSD Baseline Curriculum, to meet early
childhood education needs and to further the
individualization of instruction. This training
shall involve parents in participating roles.
5. Effective partnerships with community
groups, business and other agencies which
serve young children.
6. Efforts to maximize the involvement of
parents in planning, reinforcing and com-
plementing their children’s learning.
7. Use of the local Early Childhood Educa-
tion Center as the administrative unit which
has primary responsibility for delivering
quality learning experiences.
In order to further develop, ~efine and extend
the District’s program for early childhood
education, the DISD will establish in 1976-1977
at least two exemplary development and
' demonstration Classes for children in the East
Oak Cliff sub-district. The DISD shall:continue
IV.
60a
to develop prototypic enrichment programs,
such as those at the Paul L. Dunbar and the
William B. Travis Centers, for K-3 students.
Booker T. Washington School, scheduled for
possible use as a Math-Science Magnet, shall
be closed as an elementary K-6 school and its
K-3 students reassigned to the Wm. B. Travis
School. Stephen F. Austin School, scheduled
for possible use as a Medical Professions
Magnet, shall be closed as an elementary K-6
school and its K-3 students reassigned to the
David Crockett School.
In order to give priority to all schools in East
Oak Cliff on the K-3 level, R. L. Thornton and T.
L. Marsalis Centers shall not be used in report-
ing or computing the comparability report
which is required by ESEA, Title I, of the Unit-
ed States Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, Office of Education, during 1976-77,
1977-78, and 1978-79.
The 4-8 Intermediate and Middle School
Centers
The DISD shall establish intermediate
school centers (4-6) and middle school centers
‘7-8). The instructional program in these 4-6
and 7-8 centers shall follow the DISD’'s
Baseline Curriculum. Each principal and his
staff shall develop, in conjunction with parent
advisory committees in his school, plans for
the implementation of this Baseline
Curriculum in his school.
6la
The DISD shall establish 4-6 Vanguard
schools and 7-8 Academies as needs are iden-
tified with first priority in the East Oak Cliff
area.
The 4-6 Vanguard schools shall include all
students presently enrolled. For those student
stations which remain, District-wide racial
ratios plus or minus 10% should apply with
first priority to the ethnic group(s) who are not
presently represented in the school by
District-wide ratio. These students may apply
from anywhere in the District.
Beginning with 1976-77 the DISD shall es-
tablish 4-6 Vanguard schools at Maynard
Jackson, Mark Twain, Sidney Lanier, and K.B.
Polk.
The 7-8 Academies shall reserve student
Stations for District-wide attendance as
follows: The number of Black, Mexican-
American and Anglo students in each
Academy shall equal the total student capaci-
ty of that school times the ratio of each group
of students in the 7-8 student population in the
Dallas Independent School District as of
December 1, 1975, plus or minus 10 percent.
Student stations shall be reserved for all
groups.
For an Academy which is an add-on to a
present school such as Oliver W. Holmes, the
program shall operate as a ‘“‘school within a
62a
school.” Students presently enrolled at
Holmes shall apply in the same manner as
students in other district schools. The “school
within a school” shall not as such have a par-
ticular attendance zone. All 7-8 Academies
shall have a District-wide attendance zone.
Beginning with 1976-77 the DISD shall es-
tablish 7-8 Academies at Pearl C. Anderson,
Sequoyah and Oliver Wendell Holmes.
In order to implement the Court’s Order
regarding 4-6 Vanguard schools and 7-8
Academies, these centers shall not be used in
reporting or computing the comparability
report which is required by ESEA, Title /, of
the United States Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, Office of Education,
during 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79.
9-12 Magnets and High Schools
The District shall establish at least four new
senior high magnets in 1976 and at least three
additional by 1979, as designated by DISD. The
DISD shall.continue its comprehensive
program at existing high school sites, as well
as career clusters at Skyline Career Develop-
ment Center, Pinkston, Adamson, and other
Career Development Centers. The new magnet
schools may be selected from the following as
examples:
1. A Math/Science Magnet at Booker T.
Washington
63a
2. A Child-Related Careers Magnet at City
Park Elementary
3. A Health Professions Magnet utilizing
Baylor Hospital facilities and Stephen F.
Austin facilities
4. ACreative Arts Magnet utilizing Fair Park
facilities and James Madison facilities
5. A Business and Management Academy
utilizing facilities in the Central Business
District and Crozier Technical High
School facilities
6. A Language-Linguistic and Humanities
Magnet in cooperation with the El Centro
campus of the Dallas County Community
College District
7. A Transportation Technology Institute
utilizing former automobile sales and ser-
vice facilities where available in the down-
town area
8. A Comprehensive Aerospace and
Transportation Magnet at Love Field.
Final decisions regarding these magnet
programs shall be made by DISD after
consultation with the Career Advisory Com-
mittee or other appropriate committee es-
tablished by the Dallas Chamber of Commerce.
The DISD has the right to make adjustments in
the future in programs and building locations,
subject to the requirements regarding new
construction in Paragraph XIII.
64a
The 9-12 Magnet High School programs
shall be available on a voluntary basis on a
full-time or part-time transfer basis for three
years beginning 1976-77. Beginning 1979-80
the DISD shall require full-time attendance in
comprehensive High Schools associated with
any Magnet program. This shall apply to all 9-
12 Magnet programs including those at
Skyline. Students may transfer freely from
district high schools on a term by term basis.
Any student who enters the 9-12 Magnet
programs during this three year period may, if
he/she desires, continue on a part-time basis
until graduation.
Much of the academic work associated witha
high school diploma may of necessity be of-
fered at a central location until an adequate
number of full-time students have enrolled
(estimated 400) to make an academic program
cost effective.
The number of Black, Mexican-American
and Anglo students in each Magnet com-
prehensive High School shall equal the total
student capacity of that school times the ratio
of each group of students in the 9-12 student
population in the Dallas Independent School
District as of December 1, 1975, plus or minus
ten percent. Student stations shall be reserved
for all groups.
The Skyline, Adamson, and Pinkston High
Schools shali continue to operate as com-
prehensive high schools with regular atten-
dance zones.
As a policy these Magnet High Schools of
superior quality should be opened as rapidly
as they fill, so as to accommodate all students
who wish to enter the Magnet High School sys-
tem. In other words, the seven called for above
by 1979-80 are a minimum.
When new campuses and facilities are
developed, as provided in Paragraph XIII,
provision shall be made for a comprehensive
High School program including all extra-
curricula activities. In addition In-
terscholastic League rules shall be provided
so as to enable pupils attending Magnet High
Schools to participate fully in Interscholastic
League activities.
Tenth and eleventh grade students enrolled
in any high school during 1975-76 within the
Dallas Independent School District may, in
1976-77 and 1977-78, choose to continue to at-
tend that high school until graduation. If
students were transported by the district in
1975-76, transportation will be continued for
these two years.
Students presently in grades 10-11 and their
parents must be informed in writing about
their program and school options prior to the
end of the 1975-76 school year. This informa-
tion shall provide as a minimum the following
options:
A. That a student may continue in the
school he or she is presently attending,
or
B. That a student may attend the Magnet
school of his or her choice, or
C. That a student may elect to transfer un-
der the Majority to Minority provisions,
or
D. That a student may attend school desig-
nated as his or her regular attendance
zone,
If, after the 1976-77 school year, an area high
school is designated as a magnet comprehen-
sive high school, students enrolled in that
school may choose to attend any school in the
DISD. An exception is that the student may not
select a high school which is already in-
tegrated such that ii upsets the racial balance
of that school as hereinabove provided in
Paragraph Il. The school the student selects
becomes his/her assigned high school.
In order to implement this Court's order
regarding 9-12 Magnet schools, these centers
shall not be used in reporting or computing the
comparability report which is required by
ESEA, Title I, of the United States Department
of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of
Education during 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79.
VI.
67a
Special Programs
A. Career Education
The DISD shall continue to implement its
career education plan, Grades 1-12, as rapidly
as possible.
B. Bilingual Education
1. The present Bilingual Program based on
the State Board of Education Plan shall be ex-
panded as rapidly as possible to all pupils in
grades K-6. State Senate Bill 121 shall serve as
reference-guideline for this program's ver-
tical (grade level) and horizontal (school site)
expansion.
2. English-as-a-Second Language (ESL)
programming shall be expanded as rapidly as
possible to serve all Spanish-monolingual
students, especially in grades 7-8 and 9-12.
C. Multicultural Social Studies Education
The DISD shall provide multicultural social
studies educational programs for students in
all grade levels.
D. Plan A Program
1. The Plan A Program now being provided
by the DISD shall be administered according
VI.
to the State Board of Education Plan and
Guidelines.
2. Students who require special instruc-
tional techniques and arrangements by reason
of handicapping conditions shall be served by
the DISD’s special educational program, con-
sistent with the State Board of Education Plan
and Guidelines.
Majority to Minority Transfer
The DISD shall fully advise all students of
this program and encourage participation in
it.
1. Prior to the beginning of each school
year the District will determine for that par-
ticular school year the estimated racial com-
position of:
(a) its total K-3 Early Childhood Educa-
tion Center scholastic population.
(b) its total 4-6 Intermediate School
‘ Center scholastic population,
(c) its total Middle School Center
scholastic population,
(d) its total Senior High School
scholastic population,
by percentages between Black, Mexican-
American, and Anglo scholastics.
2. The terms “attendance Early Ciiildhood
Education Center,” “attendance Intermediate
School,” “attendance Middle School,” and
“attendance Senior High School,” as used
herein shall mean the particular school to
which the student would normally be as-
signed by the District in the absence of the
operation of a special assignment program,
permission, an order or a regulation, in-
cluding, but not limited to, the majority to
minority transfer provisions.
3. Any student assigned to a particular
attendance K-3 Early Childhood Education
Center serving kindergarten through third
grade in which the percentage of members of
his race is greater than the District-wide
percentage of members of his race for Early
Childhood Education Centers shall be per-
mitted to transfer to any Early Childhood
Education Center school in the School District
containing his grade level in which the percen-
tage of members of his race is less than the
District-wide percentage of his race for Early
Childhood Education Centers.
4. Any student assigned to a particular
attendance Intermediate School serving
fourth, fifth, and sixth graces in which the
percentage of members of his race is greater
than the District-wide percentage of members
of his race for Intermediate Schools shall be
permitted to transfer to any Intermediate
School in the District containing his grade
70a
level in which the percentage of members of
his race is less than the District-wide percen-
tage of members of his race for Intermediate
Schools.
5. Any student assigned to a particular
attendance Middle School serving seventh and
eighth grades in which the percentage of mem-
bers of his race is greater than the District-
wide percentage of members of his race for
Middle Schools shall be permitted to transfer
to any Middle School in the District containing
his grade level in which the percentage of
members of his race is less than the District-
wide percentage of members of his race for
Middle Schools.
6. Any student assigned to a particular
attendance Senior High School in which the.
percentage of members of his race is greater
than the District-wide percentage of members
of his race for Senior High Schools shall be
permitted to transfer to any Senior High
School in the District containing his grade
level in which the percentage of members of
his race is less than the District-wide percen-
tage of members of his race for Senior High
Schools. N
7. Students requesting Majority to Minori-
ty Transfers must do so prior to one week
before the beginning of the school year, and
must agree to attend that school for the entire
academic school year.
VIII.
IX.
7la
8. All transfers provided for in this section
Shall be permitted on the basis of student-
Station availability, and Majority to Minority
Transfers will be given preference over other
transfers.
9. A student’s disciplinary record shall not
constitute the basis for denying a Majority to
Minority Transfer, nor for sending him/her
back to a previously assigned school once this
transfer has been made. Any discipline
program shall be handled at the school to
which a student has transferred.
Minority to Majority Transfers
Mexican-Americans who comprise less than
five percent of the school to which they are
originally assigned, may transfer to a school
that offers the Bilingual Education Program.
Transfers provided in this section shall be per-
mitted on the basis of student-station
availability.
Curriculum Transfers
Students who are physically handicapped,
mentally retarded, highly gifted, those who
seek career education courses, and other
special-course students, shall be permitted to
attend those schools offering appropriate
facilities and courses; provided that all such
transfers shall be on a nondiscriminatory
basis. Such transfers shall be permitted on a
72a
space available basis with final decisions to be
made by the DISD.
Transportation
1. All students in the Dallas Independent
School District who are reassigned to a new
attendance zone or who choose to attend a
magr »t school as their assigned school by vir-
tue of this Court Order, shall be eligible to
receive free transportation provided by the
Dallas Independent School District.
2. Where at least twenty students from a
given community, zone, or point of origin will
be traveling to a single destination, for any
reason permitted under this Order, the DISD
shall provide transportation in the form of a
DISD bus.
3. Where the number of students moving to
a given designated school is less than twenty,
transportation shall be provided in the form of
special bus tokens or bus cards distributed
directly to the student involved to be used on
the regular Dallas Transit System (DTS)
routes.
4. When the combined one-way distance
between home to DTS-route and DTS-route to
school exceeds 2 miles, special arrangements
for transportation shall be made by DISD.
XI.
73a
5. For those students who are transported
under any of the provisions of this Court or-
der, in the event of emergencies or illness, the
school shall either arrange transportation to
home or make other appropriate accor:-
modations as deemed necessary by the schcui.
6. The District shall receive from the Tex-
as Education Agency the maximuni total base
cost for maintenance, operations, salaries, and
depreciation for each seventy-two passenger
bus needed to transport students, as required
by this Court order.
Changes in Attendance Zones
The DISD may adjust attendance zones and
reassign students as it determines to be
necessary to conform to building space re-
quirements from year to year so as to most
effectively utilize facilities and/or promote
further desegregation. For the 1976-1977
school year, adjustments will occur between
the following attendance zones:
Lenore K. Hall and Leslie A. Stemmons
Harrell Budd and Roger Q. Mills
David Crockett and William Lipscomb
William Lipscomb and Robert E. Lee.
ef DE
The DISD shall have the responsibility for in-
forming all residents of these areas of these ad-
justments.
XII.
74a
Before the beginning of the 1977-78 school
year, the DISD shall review all K-3 attendance
zones, and adjust them in order to achieve as
inuch natural integration as possible, with
pupils assigned two miles or less from their
home. If there is no school within two miles of
their home, then assign student to nearest
school which would promote integration, if in
so doing, the student would have to gono more
than four miles from home. Dr. Josiah Hall, the
Court’s expert, shall be retained to advise the
Court on these changes.
Demographic changes which occur subse-
quent to this total review and readjustment of
K-3 attendance zones will not be attributed by
the Court to “state action” of the DISD. Private
actions which preduce changes in housing
patterns after 1977-78 shall not be the basis for
mandating the DISD to redraw the K-3 atten-
dance zones to reflect any particular racial
balance.
Discipline and Due Process
Good order and discipline are essential to
good education and to the implementation of
this plan. The DISD, in concert with teachers,
principals and parents shall develop a clear
and simply-stated policy on student dis-
cipline, including provision for due process
procedures. All parents and students shall be
fully advised by the DISD of these rules and
regulations governing student conduct in the
XIII.
75a
classroom, in the school, and on the campus.
These rules, regulations, and due process
procedures shall be applied uniformly and
fairly without discrimination.
Facilities
The DISD shall continue to improve school
facilities in accordance with the plan which
the Board of Education has developed in con-
sultation with the Task Force for Educational
Excellence.
In addition, the DISD shall take immediate
steps to construct a new magnet comprehen-
sive Lincoln High School in South Dallas.
The DISD shall make improvements in the
facilities at North Dallas.
The DISD shall begin immediate construc-
tion of a new K-3 facility and community
center in West Dallas for the Juarez-Douglass
area. Benito Juarez and Fred Douglass shall
remain open to serve grades K-2 and K-3
respectively until the new school is opened.
The DISD shall have as a priority the
development of a “central core’ of high
schools within a two mile distance from the in-
ner highway loop (Central Expressway on the
east, East Thornton Expressway on the south,
Stemmons Expressway on the west, Woodall
Rogers Freeway on the north).
76a
XIV. Personnel
A. Recruiting and Employment
1. The DISD shall develop recruiting and
employment policies to insure that competent
personnel are employed and that by 1979-1980
the percentages of Black and Mexican-
American personnel approximate the percen-
tages, as a minimum, of 31% Black and 8%
Mexican-American within each of the follow-
ing groups:
a. teachers
b. principals
c. other certificated professional per-
sonnel (excluding the 142 top
salaried administrators mentioned
below).
2. For the top salaried administrative
positions of coordinator and above (currently
established at 142 in number) and for any
future reorganization covering these 142 top
positions, the following ethnic percentages for
these positions ‘are to be achieved by
September 1, 1979: 44% Anglo, 44% Black, and
12% Mexican-American. The DISD shall
achieve one-third of this transition by
September 1, 1977, one-third by September 1,
1978, and the final one-third by September 1,
1979. A variance of 5% in the percentages for
this top-salaried group shall be permitted. At
all times after September 1, 1979, the
77a
Anglo/Black percentages are to remain equal.
However, both will decrease if the percentage
of the Mexican-American enrollment in the
DISD increases above 12%. (For example, if
the Mexican-American enrollment increases
to 14%, Anglo and Black would each decrease
to 43%.)
3. The DISD may rely on expanded scope of
positions, lateral reassignments, promotion
and attrition to meet the goals of the above two
paragraphs. If there is to be a reduction in the
number of principals, teachers, teachers aids,
or other staff employed by the DISD which will
result in a dismissal or demotion of any such
staff member, the staff member to be dismissed
or demoted must be selected on the basis of ob-
jective and reasonable non-discriminatory
standards from among all the staff of the
school district. Under no circumstances will
staff be terminated or promoted solely on the
basis of race.
B. Personnel Competence Assessment
The competence of personnel shall con-
tinually be assessed in accordance with
policies and procedures established by the
DISD.
C. Teacher and Principal Assignments
Assignments for teachers and principals
shall be made in accordance with Singleton v.
Jackson Municipal Separate School District,
XV.
78a
419 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir. 1970). However, if the
needs assessment of a given school clearly
demonstrates that special circumstances exist
and that deviations from the above re-
quirements are necessary in order to best staff
and administer the programs in predominate-
ly minority schools on such programs as
special, vocational and bilingual education, in
any school, the DISD shall have the discretion
to assign minority teachers to these schools at
variance with the respective percentages es-
tablished by Singleton.
D. Training
In depth training of teachers, principals and
administrators shall be provided as needed to
implement this plan. Attendance shall be re-
quired.
Accountability System and Auditor
A. Internal Accountability
The DISD shall file a report with the Court on
December 15 and April 15 annually through
the school year 1978-79 which includes the
following:
1. The number and percentage of pupils by
ethnicity attending each educational center,
including Vanguard schools, Academies and
Magnet high schools
79a
2. The number and percentage of pupils by
ethnicity being transported for desegregation
purposes to 4-6 and 7-8 centers and to
Vanguard schools, Academies and Magnet
high schools
3. Majority to Minority transfers:
a. The number and percentage of pupils
by ethnicity and by school par-
ticipating in this program
b. The transportation facilities
available and convenience of
transportation
c. Efforts made by the DISD to increase
participation in this program.
4. The number and percentage of Mexican-
American pupils participating in the minority
to majority transfer program.
5. The status of the following programs:
a. The Early Childhood Education
Program (K-3)
b. 4-8 Vanguard and Academy
Programs
c. 9-12 Magnet Programs
(1) Efforts of the DISD to encourage
student enrollment in magnet
programs
80a
(2) Course offerings in each of the
magnet programs in operation
(3) The progress of increasing the
number of magnet schools and
their location in terms of the
timetable set forth in this order.
d. The Bilingual Program
e. The Multicultural Social Studies
Program
6. The number and percentage of teachers
by ethnicity assigned full time in each
educational center, including Vanguard
schools, Academies and Magnet schools.
7. The progress toward affirmative action
in attaining the recruiting and employment
goal, including tne number and percentage of
new teachers and administrators by ethnicity
engaged by the DISD.
8. The current status of capital outlay pro-
jects, and the allocation of bond issue funds in
relation to the priorities and programs estab-
lished by this order.
9. The results of the annual standardized
achievement tests program by school, grade
(grades 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 12), and ethnicity.
10. Efforts made by the DISD to success-
fully implement the Order of this Court, in the
following areas:
Sia
a. Parent involvement efforts
Staff development programs
c. Communications and community
relations programs
d. Student leadership training
programs
e. Safety and security (including due
process procedures).
B. External Educational Audit
An external educational auditor shall be
appointed and instructed by the Court. It shall
be a non-political, professional entity, ade-
quately funded, and paid for by the DISD. It
shall file a report with the Court annually on
June 1 until the 1978-79 school year which in-
cludes the following:
1. An audit of each item of the internal ac-
countability report
2. An audit of DISD treatment of a selected
sampling of predominantly minority and
predominantly Anglo centers (K-3 and 9-12
non-magnet centers) in terms of:
a. Condition of facilities
b. Educational offerings: course
offerings and teacher allocation
c. Educational resource allocation in
terms of textbooks, libraries, sup-
XVI.
82a
plies, tutoring efforts and aids, and
extracurricular offerings funded by
the DISD
d. Efforts of the DISD to implement
schoolsite planning involving prin-
cipals, teachers, parents and com-
munity in ECE program
e. Efforts to encourage parent andcom-
munity participation in the
educational process on the 9-12 level.
f. Any other items about which the
Court may instruct it.
The results of this external educational audit
shall be publicized in the DISD newsletter and
the complete audit shall be made available to
the public and to all parents or guardians of
students in the DISD. Any party to this suit
who desires to make comments or be heard
regarding the content of the internal account-
ability reports or the external educational
audit may file such comments or motion
within thirty days after the filing of the exter-
nal educational auditor’s report on June 1.
Tri-Ethnic Committee
The Tri-Ethnic Committee provided for in
the Court’s 1971 Order shall continue to
receive input from the community regarding
the desegregation of the DISD. The Committee
shall make reports to this Court at such times
as the Committee deems necessary. These
XVII.
83a
reports will advise the Court as to the im-
plementation of this Order, and such other
matters as the Court may deem to be proper. A
copy of all reports shall be provided to the
DISD and the Plaintiffs.
Tri-Ethnic Committee members shall be ap-
pointed by the Court for staggered two-year
terms beginning July 1, 1976. Lots shall be
drawn to determine which members will serve
for a one-year term beginning July 1, 1976,and
which members will serve for a two-year term
beginning July 1, 1976.
Retention of Jurisdiction
To the end that a unitary school shall be
achieved in the DISD, the United States Dis-
trict Court for the Northern District of Texas
retains jurisdiction of this case.
It is so ORDERED, this the 7th day of April,
1976.
/s/ W. M. TAYLOR, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE
OSZ Sbb 0001 ¢ t S66 ebb 0 0 Bl[Tlostig “Je[A]L
OSz 8b9 0001 Cb 62 ¢'S6 619 0 0 @SOf ‘OLIVABN
008 SI eT Ze t VT 2 1°96 GLI ‘] ‘@ ‘1eA[OHeq
o0eT eee Le Ve Os 9° Zz £96 TIE § | 19QeD “] Wet Mm
008 481 V2 14 t -0- -0- 646 st | sieuztmM ‘OD Arse
008 122 186 . T’e9 ‘TAI ose S6 eT ¢ STABI] “G UWPIITIIM
00F bre 0'00T o'r € 0°66 IT -0- -0- Avu mM
008 9ET aid ST z & I 8°46 eet Jowevly inquy
002 ale S'6L *'S9 602 let tP S02 +9 uowsnoyY ues
008 80€ 6% ez ZL 9° z 126 662 Yo00H “Dd WoL
00F 84S b'€8 POL LOb O'eT GL 9°91 96 uluuvy soures
008 ELE 0'00T g I L'66 ZL -0- -0- wWeyieg erjeury
@ 008 9ST TL eT re 8S 6 6°26 Sbt | Aoleeq ‘g eB10eH
B OOLT 198 2'66 €'8 oe b'16 ogee g" t JOAIBD “M 03100
008 gts +66 ee LI 196 86h 9° € 1129 ‘dO
00% 6SE 6°62 162 $82 8° € 102 el | weyuog ‘g seurer
ose bor 186 6% € 2'S6 66 6'T Fe y1eg uowuryyiy
OOOT - 8bL 8°06 c'98 Lb9 eb ze 26 69 USITY ‘d eqQeH
008 C6 26 oT Fe 28 9T 8°06 LLI suIepy UBYIEN
% % ‘ON %y ON % ‘ON
‘deg
‘Spiq——sBI0L AVOUT V-W yoRlg o[suy [ooyos
€-oM
LSAUMHLYON
CTHLSIG-€NS LSAMHLYON
SEE NT LI A LINE ET ME NOL TF LOE ET ET NET SE EI IE MLL MLE A ETD: SIN I LT RTE PE TT EE OT S8 NTN LT NTR IEEE BREET OO
Sot tbr 64S vet 688'8T SbP L9L'29 Top 9966S IVLOL GNVUD
seco c'6I Lb 80 SFT SEE s'08 ape T e[[TAOZBEgG
LOv'LZ 186 8% €82 €°Se 20292 6T ats JID HBO 388g
Lee TIT L'8b ras) 866'LT gee Lee'9e Es ZIT'LS 1810,.L-qng
OLP'TZ 6 eb “Lk 999'T ase TSS‘L TLS eSe'et ysveyINOG
S662 €' bb 86 c9s'2 ose TTPO L'+S 6T0'9T {SBOYLION
ge si6'ee TIS a 4 86e'L 9°62 TEO'OT 68h 06S‘9T jSOMYPION
H eg9'92 O'’S Tee 691'9 6'0E bE2'S 0'9F ose'et {SeMYINOG
[870.1 % “UIN % V/N % yoelg % o[suy SOI1JSIP-qng
peurquiog
‘SMO[[OJ SB ST SomnS1y uoTyeindod [idnd Gz6et ‘Tt
Jequisceg 98Y} Surzipijn dnois o1uyje Aq gI-y Sepeid ‘svore xIs oy} 103 uoTye[ndod ttdnd ey y
V XIGNGddV
87a
NORTHWEST
Feeder Schools for 4-5-6 Centers
Pershing
Burnet
*
=
ae
>
so = =
GEsn -
=Eoo 2
eet os
LAO &
o= 3
ES: 5S
Sac 8
M200 OO
Walnut Hill
Caillet
- 3
= 3
Ze 2
df
gt 3
26 €
6
=
[+]
a.
6s
= o
ss ¢
~~ be re)
qa &
¢
n_-
zOorC
oo.
ae48
reee
~ c
< &
gszee LE -
n> n oo
o2?2?% Ww Mee
eeHSS SOD
Oe cero
*
=
= = 3
Ce 506
Stm> SSES
SaSS BBE
2 SEO sete
oO &@® hee
ETOO § Sx
Earhart/ Navarro*
Williams
Gooch
Williams
Maple Lawn
Earhart/ Navarro*
Field
Marcus
Allen, G.*
Marcus
Knight
Milam
Hotchkiss
Hotchkiss
Fannin
Polk
Assigned to more than one school
“urd 90:2 01 “We 00:2 WIOIy peprAocid aq [ITM SutwureiZ01g ‘sesodind uo
-g1So,Ut 10} peAresed oq [11M SUOTIBIS JUOPNIS OOE PUY [OOYOS preNFueA 9-h B 9q [11M [OOYSS AlOd AH +
‘9-C-p Sopes 10j SOTJBI OTUYIO OY} UT pepN[oUT 4OU oI¥ SJUEPMS E-H +
gg898888
BSFFF8 8s
9EL
209
stl
9'0F os Iz OLE Ile | b6S 6€€
SLs gos sie | O% oe zep CST
0°09 or 2 09 € OOF 02
8°29 st9 Let | et € z1e OO «68
Lee TIZ 369f 92 ra e9L 8s
92S TZ LI g’ss bre | bSb 6EE
es 16s 406 LOT | «8% o6t | Seb 062
16s sce sel | &&@ 98 60 IS1
0001 ) 0 OOOT 62 0 “0
0°09 raat - 88s Ole | OOP 6242
66S ses 92 | 19 oe Tor 83-6
b'0L 68h 9 | STZ sot | 96e 661
Les OL 6h L'9b ose | fob eee
Z0s ¢oe 49% | ot oot | e6b LE
66S Clb 9b | PST 601 TOb 806. BES
Lilt 96 60T | TSE wep | eS 26s
% % ‘ON % ‘ON % ‘ON
AyIOUIW VW yoelg ojsuy
9-S-F
LSAMHLYON
sot
ESE
ITH NUTeM
"] ‘) ‘sstqyoI0H
‘gq WeIW
‘O ‘W4sIuy
‘L ‘Pel
"T'S ‘SUIBTIIIM
‘a ‘qd ‘sieZ0y
MOTIOH UOWseld
os “SM “HIOd
‘f ‘f¢ ‘Buryqsieg
"H ‘snoivp]
ume] o[dey
‘MH ‘Mo[Tey3u07]
‘O'S ‘103804
‘'d ‘A ‘ITeRO
‘D ‘qd ‘euing
sf-M
[ooy9s
89a
NORTHWEST
Feeder Schools for 7-8 Grade Centers
NORTHWEST
Middle Schools
Minority
Black
Anglo
School
22.5
314
* Children enrolled in the program for the deaf are included.
Cary, Edward H.
Marsh, Thos. C.
Rusk, T. J.
Spence, Alex*
Walker, E. D.
Edward H. Cary Alex Spence
Foster Bonham
Burnet Fannin
Williams Travis (includes
Longfellow former B.T. Wash-
Polk ington zone)
Walnut Hill Milam
Field
Earhart/ Navarro*
E. D. Walker
Thomas C. Marsh Adams, N.
Dealey
DeGolyer Pershing
Cabell Withers (East of Midway)
Allen Carver/Tyler
Withers (West of Kramer
Midway) Hotchkiss
Gooch Rogers
Earhart/ Navarro* Preston Hollow
Ray
Carr
Thomas J. Rusk
Knight
Maple Lawn
Houston
Arlington Park
Marcus
Caillet
* Assigned to more than one school
NORTHWEST
Senior High Schools
9-12
Bldg.
Cap.
Total
Black
Anglo
School
Minority
%
3.8
%
No.
1.6
2.3
61
Jo
No.
2.2
20.1
38.1
68.2
38
465
620
1506
1.6
43
%
No.
4.9
96.1
96.2
68.4
17.2
1634
1583
280
08
1
2585
Hillcrest*
Thos. Jefferson
North Dallas
L. G. Pinkston**
W. T. White
High Scaool.
High School.
* The former Franklin school will house 450 ninth grade students from Hillcrest
** The former Edison schoo! will house 575 ninth grade students from L. G. Pinkston
Feeder Schools for Senior High Schools
Hillcrest
Dealey, G. B.
Hotchkiss, L. L.
Kramer, Arthur
Pershing, J. J.
Preston Hollow
Rogers, Dan
Thomas Jefferson
Burnet, David G.
Caillet, F. P.
Field, Tom
Foster, S. C.
Longfellow, H. W.
Polk, K. B.
Walnut Hill
Williams, Sudie
North Dallas
Arlington Park
Bonham, J. B.
Fannin, James W.
Houston, Sam
Knight, Obadiah
Maple Lawn
Milam, Ben
Ray, J. W.
Travis, W. B. (includes
former B. T.
Washington zone)
9ia
NORTHWEST
L. G. Pinkston
Allen, Gabe
Carr, C. F.
Carver, G. W.
Earhart, Amelia
Navarro, Jose
Tyler, P. L.
W. T. White
Adams. Nathan
Cabell, W. L.
DeGolyer, E. L.
Gooch, Tom C.
Marcus, Herbert
Withers, H. C.
‘POPN[OUI aie JeOp OY} 103 UIBIZOId OY} UI PeT[OIUS USIP[IGD +.
9-G-} SepviZ 10} SOTJVI STUYIS 94} UI PepN[oUr 4OU BIB SJUSPNIsS E-H .
rs
LOINLSIG-ANS LSVAHLYON
009 LSS cue | eve es | wee ot | 37e~ 29 6Ie
Oost S6TT TL 9'€ 0 cer 2z9¢ | 62S Ob | SSE
oset Estt 6 Ir zs bb uoe 40s ste «| «TSS = «66h | «SBS
008 SIP 6 IF OL tI ere 69 TsS = GTI LIZ
00+ $99 26h Tle $8 8 I Str ob 16h
008 ors 66h ose LSI | 6 LI ToS SLT T9b
008 8b ves wes SL 1) 0 9Lb 89 coz
g 008 6S6 Zor 9'¢ OF 90b 062 | SES SSE | bb
& 008 660 9'9F 9b 9€ Owe occ } PES Oe | ETE
002 abs oz9 | > a s3:) 6re 68 ose 46 L8%
008 ees Tse Ter =—sob8 ose o9f | 619 966 | E€6T
008 FES Lee e'T % PIE 8b e249 &€0I 18
008 OsTT Leh oe 82 Lop 8ze€ | €9S es | OZ
008 23) 8S eT c Cre 691 | ZS 90% | 092
| % % ‘ON % ‘ON % ‘ON
pad [e301 |Aias0ulW VW yoelg ojzuy »E-H
9-C-F
LSVGAUHLYON
TPS EO
oset ece Zot L's 62 ct ¢ 8°68 662
008 Sez TTT 8'6 raed eT € 688 002
oset 1S€ Let vel Lb e if £98 €0€
oset Ite VL zs rs) 6T 9 626 682
00+ 20 0001 i) 1) 0'00T 202 0 0
ooTt L6b 0°00T 0 1) 0001 L6b 0 0
008 1st 19 19 It 1) 0 6'E6 OLT
oss 6%e 0'00T 0 0 0°00T 6ez 0 0
oss 6st 0°001 ) 0 0001 6st 0 tf)
008 882 €8 £8 be 0 0 L16 $9%
006 bSb 0'00T 0 0 0'00T bSb 1) ft)
RS 006 ver 0001 0 0 0001 ver 0 0
008 est 1°96 SOP 29 9's ss ee 9
008 62s 0'00T 0 0 0'001 ezs 0 0
% % ON % ‘ON % ‘ON
‘deg [®I0.L AyI0UIW VW yoelg o[suy
‘Spig
€-o
LSVAZHLUON
syIeqoy
yen
pprVyUISYy
UlTeys1eq IIS
yweHoo1H
quioosdr'y
‘a “390yY ‘907
xeTy ‘19e3ues
‘gq ‘emoy
uinqny IW
poomesye®']
ss S ‘UOSHOCL
i9uu0D
salAeg
[ooy9s
1s0ty
yieg ueqif)
MITA BSED
Alrveu
Aotyveoum
etd
103xe}]
Tress®H
SsLivH
Itt)
IOIZB1y
Tetuo[oD
yieg AND
‘H uyor ‘uMoIg
[ooy9s
94a
NORTHEAST
Feeder Schools for 4-5-6 Centers
Bldg.
Cap.
1700
1400
1400
Bayles Reinhardt
Bayles Reinhardt
Hassell Gill
Colonial
Conner Rowe
Reilly Rowe
Brown Urban Park
Conner Frazier
Crockett Sanger
Sanger
Jackson, S. Casa View
Wheatley
Harris
Lakewood
Lakewood Silberstein
Kiest
City Park
Austin Truett
Truett
Lee, R. Hexter
Rice
Lipscomb
Mount Auburn
Roberts
NORTHEAST
Middle Schools
7-8
Black
Anglo
No.
School
1665
1205
1131
%
43.4
38.9
42.0
J
No.
4.7
4.9
24.8
78
59
No. %
%
942 56.6 645 38.7
Robert T. Hill 736 61.1 410 34.0
W. H. Gaston
J. L. Long
17.2
195
58.0
Feeder Schools for 7-8 Grade Centers
W. H. Gaston
Brown, J. H.
City Park
Colonial
Conner, S. S.
Hassell, T. C.
Kiest, E. J.
Reinhardt
Sanger, Alex
(East of St.
Francis)
Truett, G. W.
Austin, Stephen F.
Robert T. Hill
Casa View
Harris, F. C.
Hexter, Victor
Gill, C. A.
Rice, Charles
Reilly, M. T.
Wheatley, Phyllis
NORTHEAST
J. L. Long
Bayles
Crockett, David
Lakewood
Lee, Robert E.
Lipscomb, W. L.
Jackson, Stonewall
Mount Auburn
Sanger, Alex
(West of St.
Francis)
Roberts, O. M.
NORTHEAST
Senior High Schools
9-12
Minority
Anglo Black
School
3158
1506
41.0
James Madison
Skyline
Bryan Adams
Woodrow Wilson
98a
357
441
ve
NORTHEAST salir
°
Feeder Schools for Senior High Schools 3
S
9-12
>
Bryan Adams Skyline 5
S
Casa View Bayles =
Conner, S. S. Conner, S. S. ee
(North of Ferguson) (South of Ferguson) 3
Hexter, Victor Rowe, Edna pe
Gill, Charles A. Sanger, Alex Q 4 :
Kiest, E. J. (West of St. A ea
Reilly, M. T. Francis) = - Pn
Reinhardt Silberstein, Ascher n a Me
Sanger, Alex (East Urban Park eS eo
of St. Francis) a ° ad
Truett, G. W. or 3
> a)
=)
Oo
”
James Madison Woodrow Wilson
S
Brown, John H. Crockett, David s
City Park Lakewood
Colonial Lee, Robert E.
Frazier, J. C. Lipscomb, W. H.
Harris, F. C. Jackson, Stonewall
Hassell, T. C. Mount Auburn 8
Rice, Charles Roberts, O. M. 3
Wheatley, Phyllis
Austin, Stephen F.
8.0
15.0
100.0
12.6
00
14.4
14.6
6.8
6.8
14.2
7.6
24
11.8
42
6.8
100.0
441
5.0
100.0
18
521
6.2
2.8
18
10
%
No.
447
221
87.4
312
85.4
305
93.2
Buckner
Dunbar
Lagow
Macon
Rhoads
Runyon
Thompson
Titche
Anderson, Wm.
Moseley
n ‘s % ‘<
| : ; :
a g > = >
) e7 ‘ 3 Ee 3
Daa) ce ae
= © ; ao 2B s & 5S #6 —
So 8 § Se sg ES 5» $39 FES
< - g$4%39 = 8g a 5 88 £ g ae
3 ic S <a¢E e& Sa ea) mh £m 8 4a 8
S = co) a
oO 3
ee 5
n oO g é
n §
=
:
2 E
fx, 8
Pr Ee z
et 4242 4-295 14) =
s 436 ss ge 6 5 8 <
> S26 s 732 22883 8 $5
sae nee =x TA ma ma e
a
9-¢-p Sope1d 10J SOTJBI OTUYIO OY} UT POPN[OUT 4OU SI” SJUSPNIS E-H -
ay
008 68h €'@b g'tt Ls zoe ost | 22s zee | O uoseling
¢ 008 S9oF 0'9F 102 09 6st lb Ors tot | 2gT f£esi0q
008 489 8'sP 9% ) sob 40 tCéS.:«s|«CSLS)~SCOBTSSC|:«C«#WOE uojuelTg
008 0+8 s'S9 ram a OF ers pet | Sve eet | C8b ated
3 008 904 i 7 6L 9s gre bbe | GLS 906 0 erAy
8 ooot plat id 2 s'6 LL sze 99% | 24S 696 | 20F ‘Df ‘swepy
008 TtZ 4 2 e's 6% soe 0¢ | ozs 9te | SOT euloy Mey
008 Zbor c's lb 1€ ber cee | SIS 986 | 262 oyuloVr UBS
008 628 S'9e “a ee gse 2st | seo Lee | E82 puv[el]
% % ‘ON % ‘ON % ‘ON
pw reo, =| AysourW vw 4oeId o[suy EM 1004S
9-S-P
LSVGHLNOS
Bldg.
Cap.
Total
1389
1343
1366
%
39.6
41.4
40.8
Minority
2.6
4.9
11.9
SOUTHEAST
Middle Schools
7-8
Black
514
No.
60.4
School
Hood, J. B.
Florence, Fred
Comstock
103a
SOUTHEAST
’ Feeder Schools for 7-8 Grade Centers
Hood Comstock
Blanton Buckner/ Burleson
Hawthorne Blair
San Jacinto Dorsey
Ireland (North Moseley
of Lake June) Lagow
Silberstein Ireland (South
Urban Park of Lake June)
Rowe Adams, J. Q.
Frazier (West of Buckner)
Rhoads Macon (South of
Elam Road)
Florence
Adams, J. Q.
(East of Buckner)
Runyon
Anderson, Wm.
Thompson
Titche
Dunbar
Macon (North
of Elam Road)
SOUTHEAST
Senior High Schools
9-12
Bldg.
Cap.
Total
Minority
Anglo Black
School
Jo
100.0
11.0
0
6.7
10.6
0
140
246
4.3
17.7
1380 100.0
89.0 89
0
1850
1667
Lincoln
W. W. Samuell*
28.3
412
71.7
H. Grady Spruce
* Children enrolled in the program for the deaf are included.
105a
SOUTHEAST
Feeder Schools for Senior High Schools
Lincoln
Dunbar, Paul
Rhoads, J. J.
Thompson, H. W.
W. W. Samuell
Adams, J. Q. (North
of Lake June)
Blanton, A. W.
Hawthorne, Nathaniel
Ireland (North of
Lake June)
Runyon, John (North
of Lake June)
Titche, Edward
San Jacinto
H. Grady Spruce
Adams, J. Q.
(South of Lake June)
Anderson, Wm.
Blair, W. A.
Buckner/ Burleson
Dorsey, Julius
Ireland, John (South
of Lake June)
Macon, B. H.
Moseley, Nancy
Runyon (South
of Lake June)
Lagow, Richard
UOI}¥1994UI Oj poarasal 2q [[[M SUOT}RS 3
107a
g
LSAMHLNOS
ets
9TS
LET
6ST
[870]
‘urd 00:4 03 ‘ure 00:2 W013 peprt
uepnys OGg puke [oOYDS prenSue
‘9-S-h SapeiZ 10 sores o1uja a
Ves V2 S ots g6t | oor Fp 042
@°s¢ 7 I StS abt | ob ogtt | uce
249 L6 ee GL4S 961 | Sze att | ger
196 022 gg V6l ge BES OIT | oFe
V0e g'sz cg eb pI 669 of | soe
Z'0b 6Te cg e's 2 86S 6st | ope
T'g¢ T'8¢ 16 -0- 0 | ot o4 6Lz
0'Sz 0°02 ZIr |} os 8 ose oO 6Sz
e"9¢ €"9S €or | -0- -O- | ver og PEs
226 ee El 688 ece | gz Ie 00¢
z'0S Lb ell | ez 4° | sem ett | oge
r'6E Sse cg 6° z 919 get | ote
29 e"Sc Zs "9 Z 6LE- 6e ZLt
as en 2s Ost OF 98° oft | pee
9°b% L'92 88 64t. 6s | gcc gt | ate
9°68 9°6E 16 0 0 P09 3866 | oguz
L'99 SFI 98 61S get | gece tg eve
S'Lb V'Lb cet | FF I ceo Bet | «CBE
9°8b Ist ge S0e 6g) PIS gor | 6oE
coe 8°¢ II 2b lb |se9 eet | ste
92% 91% cb 0 0 PeL «Stl | soaeg
£28 4 L 8'8 ee | “et soce £92
% % ON | % ‘ON | %. ‘ON
Aysoury V-W 4Ourg osuy | e-4
9-C-b
9°b6
8°96
%
Ajytioury
8 te
16 9'°6£
‘ON %
oo ‘€-M
se
€9
‘ON
yoelg
LSAMHLNOS
LOIYLSIG-€NS LSAMHLNOS
Ss 8
oe G
% ‘ON
olzuy
AOid 9q [[tm Sutwmwei1Z01g ‘sasodind
A 9-% 8 8q [[Im [OOYDS UTeM], HIPW se
4} UI pepn[out jou e1¥ syuepnig €-M .
+ AUlTBOM] HIV
IOUIN], a[Tepy
ALO], ‘DL
H1Itq suaaasg
SUOWIUUA}S “Yy “7
JUOUIesOY
uBsvey “Hf
19[90q ‘f
Apoqveg e310Een
ee] Aerydurp
seuor uosuy
900H epry
330H 's
uosiepueH ‘g “Ww
IT?H “M7
Preuog ‘O “7
STARG ‘f
WEMOD ‘d “J
UBIYIOD ‘f'N
Jaezuediey “Mm ‘¢
HItd Bipeoiy
JOpUBXETY sIplig
rooyos
2-M
zerene
£-M
ss¥[Znog
jooyog
108a
€60T 6 tb 6°SE e6e OL
60TT Lor 8°8e 6h 6S
919 L'SL OL eb 2°89
LL6 Lip Zor 66 ote
6ES S‘és 6E 12 9°0S
% % ‘ON : %
[BIOL Ayourp VW yoelrg
8-2
STOOYDS e[ppiw
LSHUMHLNAOS
TLS 39
£'bS sog
8 ost
€°8¢ OLS
och BS
% ‘ON
o[zuy
IeUuIsIDHn "TM
PIBHOOS “A “T
AoInH ‘Vv ‘dG
eumMOoIg ‘M ‘\L
T93y “H Wer
looyag
‘urd 00:2 03 “ure 90:2 WO aq [ITM SuturueiZ01g ‘sesodind uone1Ze,ur
10} PeATasal aq [[1M SUOT}B3S JUSPN}s OC PUB [OOYIS preNnSue, g-p v 0q [ITM [OoyoS Jetuvey] Aeupis ,,
‘9-S-} SOpe1d 10} SOT}e1 OTUYIe BY} UT pepntoUT jou ere syUepNys > a
029 L248 IL bb T'9T oot sar 9 ele sel DUB]
Chr 20S elLb OSG oe 9 86> 86 8bz BHOUUTM
9th bb Sst a ove 9¢ rSS 46 TS% SSIOM UTPIBW
6hL Leb SL Le 6SE = aT 29S ~=s« BET bOF 1ejsqem [etueq
% % ‘ON % ‘ON % ‘ON
[B30 Ayriouryy |: VW yoelg ojsuy s8-M [ooyas
9-C-P
LSUMHLNOS
lila
110a
ee 883s
SOUTHWEST 0 aa
Feeder Schools for 7-8 Grade Centers 3 iii cee
8 Ass
Ss a8 aS
William H. Atwell D. A. Hulcy
Terry, T. G. Alexander, Birdie >
(North of Lee, Umphrey B ,hwas
Camp Wisdom) Terry, T. G. s *S&85
Turner, Adelle (South of =
Twain, Mark Camp Wisdom)
(South of Weiss, Martin -& 2Oe
Loop 12) n ’ "SES
~
ss
be
L. V. Stockard a 3 o & rd g i
T. W. Browne Arcadia Park 2 - é rr
Carpenter, John Cowart, L. P. a i.) in
Cochran, Nancy Donald, L. O. =) . Reae oi
Davis, Jeff Hall, L. K. o iS) ‘“ in =
Stemmons, L. L. Jones, Anson & 3
Twain. Mark Peabody, George ” g 3 g & z
(North of Lanier “
Loop 12) Douglass
Webster, Daniel Juarez , 3 95
. Saeex
>
. ce)
W. E. Greiner S 3 8 a z
Henderson, M. B.
Hogg, James u a
Hooe, Lida EE
Peeler, J. F. 8 om” .
Reagan, John 3 3 ve = 3
Rosemont z o a &
Stevens Park Bebe
Winnetka
112a
SOUTHWEST
Feeder Schools for Senior High Schools 9-12
David W. Carter
Alexander, Birdie
Lee, Umphrey
Terry, T. G.
Turner, Adelle
Twain, Mark
(South of
Loop 12)
Weiss, Martin
Justin F. Kimball
Carpenter, John
Davis, Jeff
Donald, L. O.
Cochran, Nancy
Hall, L. K.
Stemmons, L. L.
Twain, Mark
(North of
Loop 12)
Webster, Daniel
Sunset
Arcadia Park
Cowart, L. P.
Hooe,.Lida
Jones, Anson
Peabody, George
Rosemont
Stevens Park
Winnetka
Adamson
Bowie
Henderson
Hogg
Peeler
Reagan
Budd
Lanier
Juarez
‘Douglass
EAST OAK CLIFF SUB-DISTRICT
EAST OAK CLIFF
K-3
Bldg
Cap.
Total
Minority
Black
No.
Anglo
No.
School
%
99.5
99.7
100.0
98.6
%
No.
2.0
1.1
13
Eft
57
%
619
91.5
%
1.4
11
B. F. Darrell
T. D. Marshall
E. M. Pease
Erasmo Seguin
OooT 00¢ 0°66 : 0
0 0°66 861 OT Fe ulAIg ‘N ‘f
0002 6602 1°66 61 OF 226 1b0e 6 8T 42103g epnog
g 008 osg 0°00T 0 0 0'00T osg 0 0 euojg Arley
= 00s¢ OS6T 6°66 at £% 2°86 9e6T 5 T seul[OH “MO
% % ‘ON |. % ‘ON % ‘ON
ioe [BIOL AyIoury VN yoeIg o[suy jooy9g
8-2
STOOYDS e[PPIW
JHIO HBO 3Ssegq
Naaeeeaae erence erence enn cence a a a
‘wd 90:4 01 “UI? 00:2 WIOIJ Oq [[Im BZuTuMIUMIBIZOIg ‘sesodind uomjeige,utl 103
PeA1eSaI aq [[TM SUOT}EIS JUSPNIS OOE PUB [OOYIS pleNZuev A Q-ph B OQ [[TM [COYOS uosHoUr prevAeP os
‘9-G-p SOpeIZ 10] SOTJEI OTUY}e OY} UT PepNyToU! 4OU eIe SJUSPNIS E-M
3 9-4
008 b29 8°66 gT oT 2°86 E19 z I 0 Zunox AouzyiymM
008 £48 9°66 0 0 9°66 Shr | OF Zz €eP uojUIOUL “TY
9-F
008 99 0°86 *'9 a | 916 tog | 02 eI ) Tlessny ‘dO
9-4
008 049 0'00T L c £66 s99 | O ) i) IOATIO B1IBIO
OseT TStt 0'00T zt c 8°86 90% 0 0 OLL SIIIW ‘© 10304
008 SST 0°00T i) 0 OO0T o6F | O 0 299 JOTI ‘a “WM
008 Tes 0°00T a 1 9°66 8le | 0 0 She SITeSIVyy “IL
@ os Z9L L'66 ST L 646 poe | © t 06E uoqgsr’]
“ooset €e0t |} O'00T 2s € | 8b6 4 a 8) 0 88s uoysuyor ‘S “VY
= 9-b
000T seg 0°00T Zz t 8°66 reg | O 0 0 |..UosyHour pivuAEy
008 €9S 266 - t 86 6be | 8 re ote 291112 “MN
000T 189 £66 0 ) 2°66 zoe | & T Se ulAIg ‘N ‘f
" OSET 2d 266 LT 1) C16 oss | 8 cS 689 uswysng “MM
0ObT Test 0°00% ¢ e C66 oz9 | O 0 869 uvAig ‘N uyor
008 096 ¢'86 ee es | 268 Lob | ST ~ €0% ppng [[e11
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.