# Petition — Estes v. Metropolitan Branches of Dallas NAACP > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385006_0016%3A01 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition - **Published:** January 1, 1980 - **Citation:** 444 U.S. 437 ## 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 [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385006_0016%3A01. Public record. Not legal advice.