Opinion
Civ. A. No. 10444.
May 30, 1970.
Weldon H. Berry, Houston, Tex., and Conrad K. Harper, New York City, for plaintiffs.
John M. Rosenberg, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-intervenor.
Brown, Kronzer, Abraham, Watkins Steely, W. James Kronzer, Houston, Tex., for defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER:
This is another chapter in the effort presently to create a unitary school system, and further to disestablish the dual school system maintained by the defendant Houston Independent School District prior to 1954. This action was filed in December, 1956. Any number of hearings have been held, and orders have been entered, over the intervening years. Beginning with a one grade per year desegregation plan; followed by an acceleration of this to a two grade per year plan; followed by the integration of athletics and other extracurricular activities; and culminating with the freedom of choice plan presently in operation and initiated pursuant to order of this Court of September 5, 1967, Houston has, in my judgment, come a long way along the road. Substantial integration has been achieved in many areas; and, of almost equal importance, has been achieved without incident or racial confrontation.
Pursuant to United States v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 372 F.2d 836 (5th Cir. 1966).
Approximately 25% of the Negro students now attend formerly all white schools. Every faculty is integrated, though not as thoroughly as is now required by law.
To bring what has been done, and what remains to be done, into proper perspective, these facts should be borne in mind. The Houston Independent School District is the largest in the South, and is the sixth largest in the nation. It covers 311 square miles. It has a student population of 238,460, of which almost exactly two-thirds (66.9%) are white and one-third (33.1%) black. It employs 9,624 teachers, of which approximately two-thirds (68%) are white, one-third (32%) black. It operates 230 schools on 225 campuses, of which 170 are elementary schools, 36 are junior high and 24 are high schools.
Five schools are joint junior-senior high schools: Furr, Lincoln, Scarborough, Washington, B.T., and Williams.
Pursuant to a motion by the plaintiffs for further relief, a hearing was held June 14-23, 1969. At that time I found, and so advised the parties, that the incidence of integration, both of faculty and student body, under the present plan did not meet the requirements of the recent cases. [Green v. County School Board of New Kent Co., 391 U.S. 430, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 20 L.Ed.2d 716 (1968); Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19, 90 S.Ct. 29, 24 L.Ed.2d 19 (1969); Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, "Singleton III", 419 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir. 1969). The School Board was directed to devise a new plan and to submit same for consideration by January 1, 1970.
This was prior to Singleton, supra, but anticipated that holding to some extent.
The Board of Trustees of the Houston Independent School District is composed of seven members, all elected. An election was held for members of this Board in December, 1969. Four members of the Board were replaced by the same number of new members. The new Board took office January 10, 1970. Almost immediately the firm of attorneys who had represented the Board during the 14 years of litigation in this matter withdrew from the case, and new counsel — theretofore completely unrelated to this litigation in any fashion — was employed and entered an appearance. The new counsel requested, and was granted, a matter of a few weeks to familiarize himself with the litigation. At the request of new counsel, the defendant Board has hastily prepared detailed student locator maps showing the residence, race and grade standing of each of the almost one-quarter million students in the School District. Thus, now, for the first time, one may forecast accurately the effect of any new plan of integration which may be invoked.
This statement is not entirely accurate as to race. Questionnaires submitted to all the students in some instances were returned with this question unanswered. These are shown as "race unknown" in the statistics discussed hereafter. In only a few instances are these "unknown" figures of any great significance.
The opinion of the Supreme Court in Green, supra, and of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Singleton, supra, have been cited in cases too numerous to mention as furnishing the criteria which a school district is required to meet to establish the desired "unitary" system. The conversion involves the merger of faculty and staff, students, transportation, services, athletics and other extracurricular school activities (Singleton, supra, and Ellis v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange County, Florida, 423 F.2d 203 (1970). There is no controversy here except as to the means to be used for increased student integration. While the integration of faculty and staff today does not meet the two-thirds white — one-third Negro ratio required by Singleton, the defendant Board recognizes its obligation in this respect and does not contest the issue.
In all other respects (transportation, services, facilities, athletics and other extracurricular school activities), the defendant Board is presently in compliance with the Green and Singleton requirements.
The plaintiff does not concede that the defendant Board is in full compliance in these respects, but neither plaintiff nor Intervenor has raised the question, or offered evidence to the contrary. From my own continuing familiarity with the problem, I am sure that such is the case.
The only question which remains is that of student integration. The question is not easily resolved. Few meaningful guidelines have been established by the appellate courts. In the great majority of cases, without saying what is required, the appellate courts have simply said to the District Courts, "This is not enough." (See the opinion of Judge Coleman, dissenting in part, in Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, 425 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir. en banc, January 21, 1970).
In approaching the problem I consider it to be the duty of this Court to adopt a plan which will serve realistically (a) to bring about now a high degree of overall student integration, (b) to assure that every student, if not receiving his education in an integrated atmosphere today, soon will do so, and (c) to do this in a manner which is consistent with good education, good administration, and with sound economic practices.
Presently there are seven plans before the Court for consideration. They will be denominated hereafter as follows:
1. The plaintiff's plan;
2. The Intervenor (U.S.) or the Stolee plan;
3. The Ted-Tac plan;
4. The freedom of choice plan;
5. The neighborhood zoning plan;
6. The equi-distant attendance plan; and
7. The geographic capacity plan.
Numbers 4 and 5 were filed herein December 31, 1969, by the outgoing (1969) School Board. Numbers 6 and 7 have been recently filed by the new (or 1970) School Board. The plans will be briefly summarized hereafter.
1. THE PLAINTIFF'S PLAN.
This is a computerized scheme composed by a Computer Center in Boston, Massachusetts, whose services were availed of by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Legal Defense Fund. It is based upon the premise that the law requires that every school in the District shall have the same ratio of white to Negro students as prevails throughout the District. For practical purposes plaintiff's counsel concedes that some margin must be allowed, and suggests that this margin should be no more than 10% above or below. Thus every school would have a ratio of white to Negro students ranging from 57% white — 43% Negro to 77% white — 23% Negro.
I am advised that this Center has been the source of many similar plans advocated by the plaintiffs in other school desegregation suits in major cities throughout the country.
Further recognizing the realities of the situation, however, the computerized plan does not go this far, by reason of the admittedly prohibitive costs involved. The plan as submitted would result in no school having a student body in excess of 50% Negro. In light of the geographical size of the District and the residential patterns which prevail, to accomplish this result would require the daily busing of an estimated 44,000 students, approximately 34,000 white and 10,000 Negro. The plan is designed to restrict the maximum haul to a distance of 10 miles from the home of any student, and as not to overtax the capacity of any given school.
The plaintiff's witness estimates the annual and recurring cost of the busing at the figure of $1,100,000. Witnesses for the defendant Board have estimated that an initial capital outlay for new equipment would come to $2,800,000, with a recurring annual expense of $1,300,000.
If the premise on which this plan is based is accepted, then plaintiff's plan affords a reasonably efficient way to achieve this result.
I am unable, however, to accept this premise. The overall educational process — the assurance that a high school graduate will have received a full and well-rounded education — involves a great deal more than the body count at the schools which he attended. The one million plus dollars admittedly required annually to implement the plaintiff's proposal can be better spent in providing more and better teachers, newer and more efficient schools and other facilities than in increasing ever so slightly the Negro-to-white ratio in a few specific schools. There are better ways of accomplishing comparable and acceptable results.
The mass busing procedure raises more problems than it solves. In a hypothetical situation, which would arise many times under the plaintiff's proposal, a black child who lives two blocks from School A, a predominantly black school, is to be bussed, together with 50% of his schoolmates, to School B, a predominantly white school, ten miles away; and 50% of the students at School B are to be bussed the same ten miles in the opposite direction. The plaintiff's plan is silent as to how the black children who are to be required to go, no doubt against the will of many of them, should be chosen. Are the school authorities to set up some draft system, with deferments based on hardships or other valid considerations? Are the names of those to fill the quota to be drawn in public from a goldfish bowl? Is provision to be made for a review procedure, with ultimate appeals to the courts?
This suggestion is not as absurd as it sounds. This Court has been called upon in perhaps a dozen instances within the last few months to examine school procedures with respect to the right of a child to attend school with his hair too long; her skirts too short; charged, but not convicted, of possession of marihuana; the distribution of underground newspapers, etc. We well might be called upon to review a procedure, alleged to be discriminatory, which requires some black students to be bussed ten miles to school, while their black neighbors are permitted to attend schools within two blocks of their homes.
The hypothetical child who is thus transported against his wishes will be deprived of many educational opportunities. He will be unable to participate in athletics, in dramatics, or in the band for he will be unable to remain after school to practice and participate in these activities. His bus would leave without him. This result would discourage the integration of athletics and other activities commanded by Singleton and adopted many years ago by the Houston School District, for only those resident within a close proximity to the school might participate.
Our hypothetical student well might say to the Superintendent of Instruction, "You are excluding me from School A, two blocks from my home, because I am black, and for no other reason. How can you do this when the Supreme Court of the United States in its latest pronouncement on the subject imposes on you the duty 'to operate as [a] unitary school systems within which no person is to be effectively excluded from any school because of race or color'?" (Emphasis added.) I would be interested to know how this question would be answered.
Alexander v. Holmes Co., supra, 396 U.S. at p. 20, 90 S.Ct. at p. 30.
No Supreme Court decision, and no other controlling authority with which I am familiar, requires that a predetermined ratio be established, and children bussed from distant areas to meet these quotas. I am unalterably opposed to such procedure and would impose this upon the School District only if specifically required to do so by order of a higher court.
2. THE INTERVENOR'S (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) PLAN.
The proposal of the United States is based on the testimony of Dr. Michael J. Stolee, Director of the Florida School Desegregation Consulting Center. While it is not complete in several respects, nevertheless the proposal shows a thoughtful consideration of the problems of the Houston District. The plan includes a combination of the principles of zoning, pairing, and busing. The zones, of course, are gerrymandered to increase the integration factor.
The plan admittedly shows only an approach to the problem, not a solution. Of the 170 elementary schools, data on only 78 was considered.
As I interpret the plan and projected figures, the results may be summarized as follows:
(a) With respect to the senior high schools, zoning is used exclusively. A child would be required to travel a maximum of five miles to reach school. The proposal would eliminate all-black high schools. One all-white high school would remain. Most of the high schools would have a white population varying from approximately 30 to 60%.
(b) With respect to the junior high schools, zoning again is used with a single exception, where pairing is employed. Again the plan would eliminate the all-Negro junior high. Three all-white junior highs would remain. In general, the white population of the others would be approximately 50 to 70%.
(c) With respect to the elementary schools, of course, the problem is more complex because of the large number of students concerned and of the fact that by reason of their tender years any extended travel is undesirable. Under the Stolee plan, 27 elementary schools are zoned and 51 are paired. The plan contemplates that the children would walk to the school nearest their homes from which point they would be bussed to the school with which it is paired. This, however, would leave approximately 15 all-black elementary schools. The plan recommends that busing be utilized to eliminate this condition. The number of students to be bussed under this proposal, the distances which they would be transported, and the expense thereof do not appear in the evidence.
This plan is too incomplete to be accepted in its present form. Other more attractive proposals are available.
3. THE TED-TAC PLAN
The Texas Educational Desegregation Technical Assistance Center is an agency funded by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare at the University of Texas to offer assistance to various interested parties with problems in its field. At the hearing in July, 1969, the School Board was directed to seek the assistance and advice of this agency ("Ted-Tac") in framing its (the Board's) new proposal which was to be filed January 1, 1970. The Board states that there was no consultation; rather that the Ted-Tac staff visited the various schools in the District and received a mass of information from the Board's files; and thereafter drafted its own plan without regard to the Board's desires, and after consultation only with the officials of HEW. Hence, the defendant Board does not espouse or endorse the plan. In the later stages of this proceeding, the Government has supported it. In general, it is much like the Stolee proposal.
The purpose was to make all schools majority white, although without an effort to achieve the precise white-black ratio which was the aim of the plaintiff's plan.
This plan, again, is based primarily on zoning and pairing. There would remain, however, 13 essentially all-black elementary schools. The solution recommended for the elimination of this result is the pairing of these with 13 unidentified predominantly white schools. The available white bodies in the vicinity of these 13 schools, however, are already put to use elsewhere to integrate other predominantly black schools. Hence, each of these 13 schools would of necessity be paired with a predominantly white school a great distance away. Thus, the recommended solution again is a cross-town busing plan, though much less extensive than that proposed by plaintiff. It is suggested that use be made of the extensive freeway systems of this city to provide rapid transportation for the great distances involved. There is no evidence before me as to the number of students to be bussed or the cost thereof.
At the time the proposal was submitted in July, 1969, the plan was incomplete and the results to be contemplated could not be determined with any degree of certainty with respect to many of the schools. Since preparation of the pupil locator maps, however, counsel for the Government has made additional calculations which in large measure fill these gaps.
As I understand these results, they will be essentially as follows.
With respect to the high schools, there will be no all-Negro schools, and no all-white schools.
There will be no high schools with less than 50 white students, and two with less than 50 Negro students.
There will be no high schools with less than 100 white students, and two with less than 100 Negro students.
With respect to the junior high schools, it appears that there will be no all-Negro junior highs; four all-white junior highs.
There will be no junior highs with less than 50 white students, and 6 with less than 50 Negro students.
There will be no junior highs with less than 100 white students, and 7 with less than 100 Negro students.
With respect to the elementary schools, the results will be these. Two all-Negro elementary schools will remain, 24 all-white elementaries.
There will be 6 elementary schools with less than 50 white students, and 47 with less than 50 Negro students.
There will be 9 elementary schools with less than 100 white students, and 49 with less than 100 Negro students.
As stated above, there will remain the cross-town busing with respect to 13 predominantly Negro elementary schools paired with 13 predominantly white elementary schools.
Ted-Tac does not limit its recommendation to the desegregation factor. It recommends the closing of certain schools and a change in designation of others because of their curriculum. It is suggested, "There is no way for the students in these small high schools to receive a comprehensive course offering due to the limited enrollment." I consider the choice of curriculum to be within the discretionary province of the School Board and no part of the present controversy.
4. FREEDOM OF CHOICE PLAN.
This is a proposal of the 1969 School Board and simply urges that the present plan of freedom of choice be maintained. The Court indicated in July, 1969, that this course might not be followed. This was so because, in view of the size of the District, the residential patterns, and the obvious desire of parents that their children attend the school nearest their home, it did not appear that the degree of integration required by law would be attained within the foreseeable future.
The present composition of the schools under freedom of choice is as follows: Of the 24 high schools, 3 are all-Negro, but with an additional 4 having less than 5 white students. There are no all-white high schools. Seven of the high schools have less than 50 white students, and 6 have less than 50 Negro students. Seven high schools have less than 100 white students, and 12 have less than 100 Negro students.
With respect to the 36 junior high schools, 4 are all-Negro and an additional 4 have less than 5 white students. There is one all-white junior high. There are 11 junior highs with less than 50 white students and 13 with less than 50 Negro students. There are 11 with less than 100 white students, and 14 with less than 100 Negro students.
Of the 170 elementary schools, 26 are all-Negro, with an additional 11 having less than 5 white students. There are 40 all-white elementaries. There are 43 elementary schools with less than 50 white students, and 92 with less than 50 Negro students. There are 48 elementary schools with less than 100 white students, and 100 with less than 100 Negro students
Looking at the same figures from a different approach, the percentage of Negro students attending schools with 50 or more white students is as follows: In the high schools, 10.1%; in the junior high schools, 18.8%; and in the elementary schools, 26.6%.
The percentage of Negro students attending school with at least 100 white students is as follows: In the high schools, 10%; in the junior high schools, 18.8%; and in the elementary schools, 21.4%.
As indicated in the earlier paragraphs hereof, by reason of the large number of all-Negro or essentially all-Negro schools and of the low overall instance of integration, I am of the view that these results are insufficient.
5. NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING PLAN.
This is another alternative proposed by the 1969 School Board and filed December 31, 1969. It would zone the elementary, junior high, and high schools in the District, and is designed to achieve a higher degree of integration. Insofar as I can determine, there is no systematic scheme or plan followed in the designation of these zones. Natural barriers, hazardous crossings, and school capacities are considered.
The results under this zoning plan are as follows. With respect to the 24 high schools, there would be no all-black high schools, two all-white. There would be one high school with less than 50 white students, and 6 with less than 50 blacks. There would be two high schools with less than 100 white students, 9 with less than 100 blacks.
With respect to the 36 junior high schools, 5 would be all-white, none all-black. Two of the junior highs would have less than 50 white students, 10 less than 50 Negro students. Two would have less than 100 white students, and 14 less than 100 Negro students.
With respect to the 170 elementary schools, 52 would be all white, 4 all Negro. Twenty-eight would have less than 50 white students, 95 would have less than 50 Negro students. Thirty-four would have less than 100 white students, 100 would have less than 100 Negro students.
6. THE EQUI-DISTANT ZONING PLAN.
This is a proposal advanced by the new or 1970 School Board. Admittedly, it is patterned very closely after the plan approved by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for the Orange County, Florida, School District in Ellis v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange County, Florida, February 17, 1970, 423 F.2d 203. In that opinion the Court noted that the size of the District magnified the Board's problem. Many characteristics of the Orange County District are similar to those of Houston.
Orange County Houston
910 square miles 311 square miles[*] 98 schools 230 schools 82,868 students (82% white) 238,460 students (67% white) 3,563 teachers (82% white) 9,624 teachers (68% white)
[*] Including 150 square miles within the City of Houston, the remainder being suburban or semi-rural.
This plan contemplates that the District will be zoned (separately, of course, for high school, junior high and elementary schools) drawing the zone lines exactly equi-distant between the adjacent schools. Each student is required to attend the school nearest his home at the time of enrollment — and to remain in that school for the ensuing semester, regardless of a later change of residence. Where the capacity of a school would be exceeded by this method of determining the composition of its student body, the geographic area to be served by such school would be decreased (and that of the neighboring school increased) by narrowing its boundaries, with a line or lines parallel to those originally proposed; and in every case effecting the change where one is necessary in a manner which will increase the integration factor. The only exception to the requirement that a student attend the school closest to his home would permit the vountary transfer of a student whose race is in the majority to another school in which his race is in the minority, with these options:
From the original drawing of the lines with mathematical or geometrical precision equi-distantly between the schools, there have been surprisingly few instances in which the zones thus designated must be reduced by reason of school capacity. Of the 230 schools, only 53 would require modification (35 elementary, 11 junior high, and 7 senior high).
(a) If such student chooses the nearest school in which his race is in the minority, he is afforded automatic admission despite the capacity of the school (i.e., he is permitted to "bump" a student of the opposite race) and he is afforded free transportation from his home;
(b) If such student prefers any other school in the District in which his race is in the minority, he may attend on a "space available" basis, and if he furnishes his own transportation.
Under this plan there will be no all-Negro high schools and one all-white high school.
An overall consideration of the figures from the various statistical studies submitted by the parties shows certain obvious errors with respect to the figures relative to this equi-distant zoning plan, and the geographical-capacity zoning plan to be discussed hereafter. The figures shown for freedom of choice are taken from present enrollments, and are accurate. This reflects, for example, 12,601 Negro high school students; 18,491 Negro junior high schools students; and 47,881 Negro elementary students, for a total of 78,973 Negro students. Comparable figures for the equi-distant zoning plan show 8,702 Negro high school students; 17,211 Negro junior high school students; and 46,030 Negro elementary students, for a total of 71,943. Comparable figures for the geographical capacity zoning plan show 9,755 Negro senior high school students; 16,575 Negro junior high school students; and 47,895 Negro elementary students, for a total of 74,225 Negro students. It should be borne in mind that the figures for the equi-student zoning plan and for the geographical capacity zoning plan are both projections. The discrepancy is explained by these two considerations. First, the "race unknown" students are not included in either of the latter two plan figures; and second, these figures result in part from human error. They are made from an actual count of the dots, indicating the residence of each of the almost 240,000 students, each dot being somewhat smaller than the head of a pin. No two counts result in quite the same answer. For practical and comparative purposes, however, I think these inaccuracies may be disregarded.
There will be no high schools with less than 50 white students, and 6 with less than 50 Negro students.
There will be no high schools with less than 100 white students, and 8 with less than 100 Negro students.
This is probably accurate, in that the Worthing School shows an expected attendance of 94 whites, 1,228 Negro and 774 "race unknown".
There will be no all-Negro junior highs and 2 all-white junior highs.
There will be no junior high schools with less than 50 white students, and 8 with less than 50 Negro students.
There will be one junior high school with less than 100 white students, and 12 with less than 100 Negro students.
Of the 170 elementary schools, 4 will be all-Negro and 51 all-white.
There will be 19 elementary schools with less than 50 white students, and 87 with less than 50 Negro students.
There will be 28 elementary schools with less than 100 white students, and 98 with less than 100 Negro students.
To look at these anticipated results solely from the standpoint of the Negro student, there will be no high schools with a Negro student population exceeding 90%; and only 2 wherein 70% is exceeded. These two (Kashmere and Yates) show a combined Negro-white population of 2,831-409, respectively. Thus, 32% of the Negro high school students will attend schools with a Negro population exceeding 70%; and none exceeding 90%.
At the junior high school level, one School (Ryan) will have an anticipated Negro student population in excess of 90% — 1,781 Negro, 93 white, or 94.5% Negro. Thus, 11% of the total Negro junior high school students will attend school with a population exceeding 90% Negro.
Comparable comparisons for the 170 elementary schools have not been submitted by the parties.
7. GEOGRAPHIC-CAPACITY ZONING PLAN.
This is a second plan filed and urged by the 1970 School Board. It is closely patterned after the plan approved by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Bivins v. Bibb County Board of Education, February 5, 1970, 424 F.2d 97.
Under this plan a zone is drawn around each school in a non-discriminatory manner, with the size of the zone determined and measured by the capacity of the school. Once the zone is determined for a given school year, every student residing within that zone must attend such school, subject to the majority-to-minority transfer rule required by Singleton.
The plan contemplates that in the delineation of the zone lines consideration might, and should, be given to questions of natural boundaries, traffic hazards and pupil density.
The results under this zoning plan are as follows. With respect to the 24 high schools, there would be no all-Negro high schools, and one all-white. There would be no high school with less than 50 white students, and 2 with less than 50 Negro students. There would be no high school with less than 100 white students, and 8 with less than 100 Negro students.
With respect to the 36 junior high schools, none would be all-Negro, and 4 would be all-white. None of the junior high schools would have less than 50 white students, and 10 would have less than 50 Negro students. None of the junior high schools would have less than 100 white students, and 12 would have less than 100 Negro students.
With respect to the 170 elementary schools, 4 would be all-Negro, and 46 would be all-white. Thirteen elementary schools would have less than 50 white students, and 86 would have less than 50 Negro students. Twenty-nine would have less than 100 white students, and 99 would have less than 100 Negro students.
Again, looking at the figures only from the standpoint of the Negro student, no high school will have a Negro population exceeding 90%, and only two exceeding 70% (Kashmere, 83%; and Yates, 79%). Thus, 32% of the Negro high school students will attend schools with a Negro population exceeding 70%; and none exceeding 90%.
At the junior high school level there will be no junior high school with a Negro population exceeding 90%.
Of the seven alternatives discussed above, several may be rather summarily dismissed.
With respect to the plaintiff's plan, the inordinate expense which it would entail and the very legitimate complaints, both practical and legal, which might be interjected by the 44,000 students to be transported render it completely inappropriate.
With respect to the Intervenor or Stolee plan (No. 2), it is incomplete. Insofar as comparisons are possible, it appears to follow the same approach, and achieve the same results as the No. 3, or Ted-Tac, plan. If it came to a choice between these two, I would be inclined to leave the choice to the defendant School District.
The freedom of choice plan (No. 4) has been administered fairly and completely without discrimination by the defendant District for several years. Literally, any child who was unhappy with his original school assignment could enroll in any school of his choice simply by appearing at the schoolhouse door on the enrollment date. Such a scheme has much to commend it in theory; but it is condemned by recent authorities because it does not achieve a sufficiently high incidence of integration. For that reason, it cannot be further considered here.
The "neighborhood zoning plan" (No. 5) advocated by the 1969 School Board is not now urged or endorsed by any of the parties to the suit. While it increased the incidence of integration to some extent, it did not do so as effectively as the plans to be discussed hereafter.
There remain the Ted-Tac plan or, its counterpart, the Stolee plan, and the two plans submitted and equally endorsed by the Board. All three achieve a high degree of integration and, when coupled with the other requirements of Singleton discussed above, in my judgment will achieve a clearly unitary system.
Of the three, I am of the view that the equi-distant plan will best serve the needs of the student body, and will afford as uniformly a fair and nondiscriminatory school assignment plan as well may be devised. In accepting this plan, I am mindful of the admonition contained in the Ellis opinion, and reiterated in Andrews v. City of Monroe, 425 F.2d 1017 (5th Cir. 1970), and in Singleton IV [Singleton v. Jackson School District, 426 F.2d 1364 (5th Cir. 1970)] that the Ellis neighborhood assignment plan is not necessarily the final answer for all large Southern school districts. It is not to be followed blindly. In my judgment, however, it not only creates a completely unitary system, but offers advantages not otherwise available.
It is true that the Ted-Tac proposal gives a slightly higher incidence of integration than do the equi-distant and geographic capacity plans, which are, for all practical purposes, the same in this respect. A shorthand comparison of the integrational effect of these three, with the present freedom of choice plan, upon the Negro student, is reflected in the following table:
Freedom Equi- Geographic of Choice Ted-Tac Distant CapacityHigh Schools
All Negro 3 0 0 0
Less than 50 whites 7 0 0 0
Less than 100 whites 7 0 0 0
Junior HighSchools
All Negro 4 0 0 0
Less than 50 whites 11 0 0 0
Less than 100 whites 11 0 1 0
ElementarySchools
All Negro 26 2 4 4
Less than 50 whites 43 6 19 13
Less than 100 whites 100 9 28 29
[A 2694]
The Ted-Tac proposal with the zoning, pairing and cross-town busing is attended with many disadvantages which to my mind outweigh the slight increase in integration. The pairing of many schools of necessity will cause a disruption of the present grade structure and the initiation of a new curriculum. It will require the reassignment of many teachers and almost all students. Without the cross-town busing feature of the "non-adjacent pairing," 13 predominantly all-black elementary schools would remain. Cross-town busing is objectionable in any event. Certainly that is true when applied entirely to children of elementary school age.
The geographic zoning plan offers an attractive solution. It offers a complete integration at both the high school and junior high school levels, and a high incidence with respect to the elementary schools. It is not unnatural for the defendant District to take cognizance in its zoning plan of natural boundaries, traffic hazards, and other such considerations. As is pointed out in Ellis, supra, however, it is this very factor of discretion in the drawing of the lines which renders such a plan suspect. No matter how high the integration factor under a plan drawn without strict guidelines, the contention can always be advanced that such lines might have been drawn differently, and with a better result. In short, while I am convinced it is not the case in the present instance, whenever a School Board draws its zone lines today in a discretionary fashion, it is subject to being charged with doing so to continue its dual system.
This leaves the equi-distant zoning plan. It is completely fair and impartial. Every child attends the school closest to his home. It will reduce travel to a minimum. It is non-discriminatory in all but one respect, namely, where changes have been made to accommodate school capacities, they have been made in such fashion as to increase integration. Every Negro child at the high school and junior high school level will receive his education in an integrated atmosphere. The four all-Negro elementary schools will have student bodies as follows:
Race Black White Unknown
Douglas 737 0 12
Henderson, N.Q. 570 0 3
Pleasants 530 0 6
Pleasantville 977 0 0
[A 2695]
If it be assumed that the "unknowns" are all black, the total of 2,836 Negro students attending all-black schools is only 6% of the Negro elementary school total, or 3.9% of the overall Negro total. These four schools are located within sizable areas of high density Negro population. Their composition as all black, as is true of the all white student bodies, results from the city's residential patterns. These four all-Negro elementary schools cannot be substantially integrated at this time without a program of cross-town busing.
Like most other cities in the South, Houston has definite racial residential patterns. Unlike some other cities, however, these patterns within recent years have been subject to constant change. Sections of the city which a few years ago were inhabited almost entirely by whites are now almost 100% black. A number of the schools with which this Court has dealt in prior years as substantially all-white schools now under freedom of choice are predominantly black. Statistics show that approximately 20% of the students of the defendant District move their residence every year.
Compare the incidence of integration achieved here, overall and at every level, with that of the following recent Fifth Circuit cases: Ellis, supra; Bivins v. Bibb Count, supra; Singleton IV, 1970, 426 F.2d 1364; and Mannings v. Board of Education of Hillsborough County, Florida, 1970, 427 F.2d 874.
These children, however, are not condemned to a segregated public school education. At worst, this condition will only continue through elementary school. At best, it may be corrected immediately, at the desire of any child so affected, who may transfer, and ride free of charge, to the nearest school in which his race is in the minority. Thus every Negro child has the opportunity for an integrated education today — the vast majority simply by attending the school nearest his home. Those elementary students who do not have it, and do not desire it today, will have it forced upon them at the junior high and high school levels. They will receive such education from a completely integrated faculty and staff.
In the presentation of this plan, as well as in Ellis upon which it is patterned, no mention is made as to whether, in drawing the equi-distant lines between schools, account is taken of impassable obstacles. From my examination of Ellis and of the evidence offered here, I am of the view that in both instances the distances are taken "as the crow flies." In approving the equidistant plan, I do so with this reservation, based on the following facts. Buffalo Bayou winds its tortuous way through the city and the School District area until it reaches the Turning Basin, from which point eastward it becomes the Houston Ship Channel. Of course, it may be crossed only where bridges are available. In many instances these are many miles apart. A freeway system encircles and crosses the city. These freeways may be crossed only where underpasses are provided for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. If the school closest to a child's residence is one-half mile away, but on the opposite side of Buffalo Bayou; and it may be reached only by a travel of 6 or 7 miles, it seems foolish to require attendance at that school if there be another perhaps a mile from his residence in the opposite direction. A child is not required to swim or to fly to school. I am unable to determine the frequency with which this problem will present itself. It may be in some cases that the lines need be redrawn. More likely it can be surmounted by transfers on an individual basis.
To be distinguished from traffic hazards, railroad crossings, etc., the by-passing of which might be desirable, but is not essential.
Further, with respect to transfers, this additional observation is in order. By what has been said heretofore with reference to allowing transfers only under the majority-to-minority rule, it is not intended to deny the School Board the authority to effect transfers for entirely legitimate reasons. Physically handicapped children, mentally retarded children, highly gifted children, those who seek vocational courses, and other special-course students, should be permitted to attend those schools offering appropriate facilities and courses. It goes without saying that all such transfers will be on a non-discriminatory basis.
Under this equi-distant proposal, every advantage of the neighborhood school is retained. The plan is economically and administratively sound. Additionally, the commands of Brown I and of Alexander, supra, are fully met. In its assignment policy, the School District will be as color-blind as it is possible to be, still achieving a high degree of integration; and no child will be effectively excluded from any school because of race.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873.
Counsel for the defendant Board will prepare an order instituting the equidistant zoning plan for the assignment of students, referred to herein as Plan 6, essentially as described in Ellis, supra, and with such modifications as are directed above. This plan for the assignment of students will be effective the beginning of the September, 1970, school session.
The order further will provide that principals, teachers, teacher's aides, and other staff who work directly with children shall be assigned in every school in such manner that the ratio of white-to-Negro teachers and staff in that school shall vary no more than 5%, above or below, from the ratio of white-to-Negro teachers and staff throughout the District (presently 68% white — 32% Negro). I am advised that within recent months the faculties of the various schools have been so assigned as greatly to increase the integration factor. This will be continued and accelerated until such time as the ratios above set out are met; and at no event later than the beginning of the September, 1970, term.
The order will further include the provisions required in Singleton III, supra, with reference to the transportation system, school construction and site selection, location of temporary classrooms and other matters designed to promote integration.
The order will further provide for the appointment by the Court of a bi-racial committee of local citizens of ten members to be charged with the responsibility of investigating, and consulting and advising with the School Board periodically, with respect to all matters tending to promote the operation of a unitary system as ordered in Ellis, supra, and in Singleton IV, supra.
The order will further provide that this Court will retain jurisdiction for a reasonable time to insure that the system is operated in a constitutional manner.
Attached hereto as appendices are charts showing the number of schools with the indicated ratio of white-to-Negro students under various proposals; and the anticipated student population, by race, under the plans discussed.
Appendix SENIOR HIGH
% Negro Equidistant Capacity Tedtac Stolee0 — 10.0 11 9 5 8 10.1 — 20.0 2 2 3 2 20.1 — 30.0 1 4 2 0 30.1 — 40.0 2 0 2 3 40.1 — 50.0 2 2 4 3 50.1 — 60.0 1 3 3 3 60.1 — 70.0 3 1 1 4 70.1 — 80.0 0 1 0 0 80.1 — 90.0 2 1 0 0 90.1 — 100 0 0 0 0 -- -- -- -- 24 23 20 23
SENIOR HIGH % Negro Equidistant Capacity TEDTAC STOLEE fn3 fn3 fn3 fn3
Not included in plan because not projected to be completed at this time; will take excess white students from Bellaire and Sharpstown.
Proposes Booker T. Washington as Senior only.
From Gov. Ex. 104.
Stolee combined statistics for Junior and Senior High. Students allocated 50% each to Junior and Senior High.
Proposed as Junior High only.
Proposes Williams as Senior only.
Paired Grades 8 and 9 with Terrell.
Stolee combined statistics for Junior — Senior High. Students allocated 50% each to Junior and Senior High.
Proposed as junior High only.
JUNIOR HIGH
% Negro Equidistant Capacity Tedtac Stolee fn20.0 — 10.0 17 16 9 11 10.1 — 20.0 1 1 5 5 20.1 — 30.0 4 5 4 2 30.1 — 40.0 1 0 3 4 40.1 — 50.0 1 2 5 5 50.1 — 60.0 0 0 1 2 60.1 — 70.0 1 3 3 1 70.1 — 80.0 4 4 2 2 80.1 — 90.0 6 5 3 3 90.1 — 100 1 0 0 0 -- -- -- -- 36 36 35 35
JUNIOR HIGH % Negro Equidistant Capacity Tedtac Stolee fn2 fn3 fn2 fn2 fn2
Alternative No. 1, completed with statistics from defendants Geographic Capacity Plan for schools for which statistics were not previously given.
Paired Grade 7 with Henry.
Recommended B.T. Washington be converted to Senior High School.
Recommended Williams be converted to Senior High School.
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
% Negro Equidistant Capacity Tedtac fn10-10 92 94 51 10.1-20 10 6 7 20.1-30 5 4 6 30.1-40 4 6 37 40.1-50 2 4 44 50.1-60 8 4 9 60.1-70 1 6 2 70.1-80 13 9 3 80.1-90 8 12 4 90.1-100 27 25 7 -- -- -- 170 170 170
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
% Negro Equidistant Capacity Tedtac fn1 N W N W N W0 — 10 905 73480 1056 79208 529 44906 10.1- 20 1101 6423 508 2854 564 3251 20.1- 30 661 2131 615 1683 845 2745 30.1- 40 1043 1797 1523 2586 9035 15980 40.1- 50 1450 1800 1239 1408 17655 21405 50.1- 60 3549 2730 2317 1557 3756 3432 60.1- 70 542 250 2583 2403 934 601 70.1- 80 9255 2893 5844 1699 2130 620 80.1- 90 6930 902 10651 1542 3382 501 90.1-100 20522 802 21559 681 6665 237 ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ TOTAL 46,048 93,208 47,895 95,591 45,495 93,678
EQUI-DISTANT PLAN
(1) Black students attending schools not included in the "90.1 — 100%" black student range
Senior High: 8,702 of 8,702 or 100% Junior High: 15,430 of 17,211 or 89% Elementary: 25,526 of 46,048 or 55% Total: 49,658 of 71,961 or 68%
(2) Number of schools in the "90.1 — 100%" black student range Senior High: 0 Junior High: 1 Elementary: 27
GEOGRAPHIC CAPACITY PLAN
(1) Black students attending schools not in the "90.1 — 100%" black student range
Senior High: 10,087 of 10,087 or 100% Junior High: 16,675 of 16,675 or 100% Elementary: 26,336 of 47,895 or 54% Total: 53,098 of 74,657 or 71%
(2) Number of schools in the "90.1 — 100%" black student range
Senior High: 0 Junior High: 0 Elementary: 25
HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT GEOGRAPHIC CAPACITY PLAN
SENIOR HIGHSCHOOL NEGRO WHITE UNKNOWN TOTALAUSTIN 393 1517 28 1938 BELLAIRE 1 1551 1101 2653 BELLAIRE RELIEF 17 1493 359 1869 DAVIS 319 1079 21 1419 FURR 534 438 5 977 HOUSTON, SAM 397 2907 39 3343 JONES, J. 241 1490 70 1801 KASHMERE 1448 286 19 1753 LAMAR 62 1854 205 2121 LEE 84 2033 40 2157 LINCOLN 332 416 5 753 MADISON 58 1561 113 1732 MILEY 26 1653 51 1730 REAGAN 512 1406 14 1932 SCARBOROUGH 29 698 3 730 STERLING 385 1345 132 1862 WALTRIP 141 2427 11 2579 WASHINGTON, B.T. 410 288 2 700 WESTBURY 0 1416 179 1595 WHEATLEY 1154 946 24 2124 WILLIAMS 458 194 41 693 WORTHING 981 329 674 1984 YATES 1773 359 108 2240 ====== ====== ====== ====== TOTAL 9,755 27,686 3,244 40,685
HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT GEOGRAPHIC CAPACITY PLAN
JUNIOR HIGHSCHOOL NEGRO WHITE UNKNOWN TOTAL
ATTUCKS 1285 237 33 1555 BLACK 52 2178 18 2248 BURBANK 425 1120 48 1593 CULLEN 1159 554 106 1819 DEADY 105 2185 76 2366 DOWLING 120 1545 32 1697 EDISON 0 1302 3 1305 FLEMING 749 174 29 952 FONDREN 21 1680 172 1873 FONVILLE 283 934 77 1294 FURR 658 747 44 1449 HAMILTON 293 1275 165 1733 HARTMAN 27 1639 57 1723 HENRY 4 1156 17 1177 HOGG 152 1108 55 1315 JACKSON 121 1470 12 1603 JOHNSTON 0 2240 41 2281 KEY 1529 260 27 1816 LANIER 30 1201 21 1252 LINCOLN 417 154 4 575 LONG 1 1326 27 1354 MARSHALL 346 1336 25 1707 MCREYNOLDS 507 1386 43 1936 MILLER, W.E. 920 221 18 1159 PERSHING 0 1955 61 2016 ROGERS 49 1852 7 1908 RYAN 1588 189 31 1808 SCARBOROUGH 0 805 10 815 SHARPSTOWN 90 2191 91 2372 SMITH, E.O. 1664 257 31 1952 TERRELL 675 167 17 859 THOMAS 851 982 71 1904 WASHINGTON, B.T. 582 362 20 964 WASHINGTON, G. 252 787 19 1058 WILLIAMS 393 229 27 649 WOODSON 1227 223 75 1525 ====== ====== ===== ====== TOTAL 16,575 37,427 1,610 55,612
HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT GEOGRAPHIC CAPACITY PLAN
ELEMENTARYSCHOOL NEGRO WHITE UNKNOWN TOTAL
ALAMO 1 354 1 356 ALCOTT 504 645 83 1232 ALLEN 280 476 7 763 ALMEDA 28 527 11 566 ANDERSON 0 1273 86 1359 ATHERTON 1119 11 0 1130 BARRICK 1 1071 16 1088 BASTIAN 892 242 38 1172 BENBROOK 0 1040 5 1045 BERRY 471 492 16 979 BLACKSHEAR 1673 11 43 1727 BONHAM 1 1080 26 1107 BONNER 0 927 0 927 BOWIE 719 261 3 983 BRAEBURN 2 682 13 697 BRIARGROVE 0 994 12 1006 BRISCOE 1 661 7 669 BROCK 270 126 3 399 BROOKLINE 0 662 4 666 BROWNING 2 486 10 498 BRUCE 812 244 26 1082 BURBANK 0 1256 25 1281 BURNET 0 1270 16 1286 BURRUS 1069 113 0 1182 CAGE 0 285 3 288 CARNEGIE 780 1 6 787 CHATHAM 739 172 7 918 CLEVELAND 150 271 3 424 CLINTON PARK 365 1 3 369 CONCORD 566 143 6 715 CONDIT 0 712 6 718 COOLEY 91 524 13 628 COOP 12 1585 9 1606 CORNELIUS 0 773 1 774 CRAWFORD 350 29 5 384 CROCKETT 113 249 2 364 CUNNINGHAM 1 766 11 778 DE CHAUMES 0 983 7 990 DE ZAVALA 6 996 46 1048 DODSON 1018 83 21 1122 DOGAN 1285 70 4 1359 DOUGLASS 1057 2 18 1077 DOW 44 448 1 493 DUNBAR 678 57 11 746 DURHAM 2 651 15 668 DURKEE 0 1297 40 1337 EASTER 882 185 10 1077 EIGHTH AVENUE 393 213 10 616 ELIOT 52 1417 3 1472 ELROD 33 1290 6 1329 EMERSON 77 880 3 960 FAIRCHILD 836 170 22 1028 FANNIN 90 264 7 361 FIELD 0 560 6 566 FOERSTER 20 926 17 963 FONDREN 0 595 5 600 FOSTER 1143 53 114 1310 FRANKLIN 0 1670 3 1673 FROST 652 450 10 1112 GARDEN OAKS 131 626 18 775 GARDEN VILLAS 0 842 40 882 GOLFCREST 1 575 2 578 GORDON 0 425 3 428 GRADY 0 607 1 608 GREGG 0 490 0 490 GREGORY 749 195 11 955 GRIMES 822 158 6 986 GRISSOM 87 1325 11 1423 HARPER 297 182 6 485 HARRIS, J.R. 121 1386 15 1522 HARRIS, R.P. 0 320 22 342 HARTSFIELD 638 295 77 1010 HARVARD 5 776 12 793 HELMS 99 412 6 517 HENDERSON, J.P. 7 912 12 931 HENDERSON, N.Q. 646 0 4 650 HEROD 0 1151 1 1152 HIGHLAND HTS. 474 205 11 690 HOBBY 55 1113 30 1198 HOHL 24 712 8 744 HOLDEN 456 269 3 728 HORN 1 844 4 849 HOUSTON GARDENS 752 233 4 989 ISAAC'S 898 162 1 1061 JANOWSKI 1 764 8 773 JEFFERSON 0 808 10 818 JONES, A. 5 428 2 435 JONES, J.W. 557 50 13 620 KASHMERE GARDENS 887 22 15 924 KAY 173 173 4 350 KELSO 531 810 15 1356 KENNEDY 778 17 1 796 KOLTER 2 980 9 991 LAMAR 30 923 12 965 LANGSTON 874 21 14 909 LANTRIP 4 872 15 891 LAW 829 149 9 987 LEE 24 453 9 486 LEWIS 1 616 2 619 LOCKHART 682 85 15 782 LONGFELLOW 4 597 41 642 LOOSCAN 171 342 7 520 LOVE 102 238 7 347 LOVETT 0 376 13 389 MACARTHUR 661 161 63 885 MACGREGOR 666 50 31 747 MADING 829 559 16 1404 MCDADE 1188 117 16 1321 MEMORIAL 50 497 6 553 MILAM 47 300 0 347 MILLER, D. 91 98 6 195 MITCHELL 0 659 52 711 MONTGOMERY 14 1287 27 1328 MONTROSE 1 356 9 366 NEFF 0 1470 18 1488 NORTHLINE 0 913 12 925 OAK FOREST 0 1088 6 1094 OATES 59 591 5 655 OSBORNE 820 44 24 888 PARKER 0 1397 2 1399 PARK PLACE 0 688 2 690 PATTERSON 0 665 4 669 PECK 405 116 5 526 PETERSEN 240 663 11 914 PILGRIM 0 584 19 603 PINGY POINT 288 104 1 393 PLEASANTS 769 0 11 780 PLEASANTVILLE 880 0 0 880 POE 0 559 5 564 PORT HOUSTON 4 536 4 544 PUGH 4 1041 0 1045 RED 0 1142 5 1147 REYNOLDS 1225 0 1 1226 RHOADS 883 2 8 893 RICHMOND 0 914 0 914 RIVER OAKS 10 642 25 677 ROBERTS 0 542 7 549 ROGERS 0 565 17 582 ROOSEVELT 3 398 5 406 ROSS 251 9 5 265 RUCKER 0 1100 1 1101 RUSK 278 438 3 719 RYAN 415 278 1 694 SANDERSON 863 26 2 891 SCARBOROUGH 0 1091 21 1112 SCOTT 838 79 0 917 SCROGGINS 76 639 1 716 SHEARN 0 617 34 651 SHERMAN 120 1114 2 1236 SINCLAIR 0 933 18 951 SMITH, K. 79 1281 16 1376 SOUTHLAND 674 134 20 828 SOUTHMAYD 1 1023 241 1265 STEVENS 0 1068 3 1081 STEVENSON 35 539 1 575 SUNNYSIDE 1231 8 30 1269 SUTTON 1 1566 26 1593 TRAVIS 0 523 2 525 TURNER 1220 75 22 1317 TWAIN 0 690 22 712 WAINWRIGHT 35 812 6 853 WALNUT BEND 0 1510 19 1529 WESLEY 421 270 46 737 W. UNIVERSITY 0 1042 7 1049 WHARTON 183 518 19 720 WHIDBY 735 57 31 823 WHITE 0 923 2 925 WHITTIER 0 647 2 649 WILSON 64 353 42 459 WINDSOR VILLAGE 40 896 38 974
HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUI-DISTANT PLAN
SENIOR HIGHSCHOOL NEGRO WHITE KNOWN TOTAL
AUSTIN 109 1476 13 1598 BELLAIRE 0 1873 1270 3143 BELLAIRE RELIEF 7 1757 143 1907 DAVIS 544 1045 32 1621 FURR 397 555 3 955 HOUSTON, SAM 148 3016 35 3199 JONES, J. 585 1008 87 1680 KASHMERE 1603 254 18 1875 LAMAR 29 1825 244 2098 LEE 78 1599 63 1740 LINCOLN 342 420 10 772 MADISON 46 939 23 1008 MILEY 139 2328 50 2517 REAGAN 189 1493 16 1698 SAN JACINTO 379 214 11 604 SCARBOROUGH 30 693 3 726 STERLING 196 1424 52 1672 WALTRIP 79 1843 8 1930 WASHINGTON, B.T. 553 252 1 806 WESTBURY 19 2061 243 2323 WHEATLEY 314 920 14 1248 WILLIAMS 460 235 40 735 WORTHING 1228 94 774 2096 YATES 1228 155 46 1429 ===== ====== ===== ====== TOTAL 8,702 27,479 3,199 39,380
HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUI-DISTANT PLAN
JUNIOR HIGHSCHOOL NEGRO WHITE UNKNOWN TOTAL
ATTUCKS 1219 123 17 1359 BLACK 55 1753 9 1817 BURBANK 213 1474 40 1727 CULLEN 1491 445 100 2036 DEADLY 139 2182 81 2402 DOWLING 131 1709 25 1865 EDISON 129 1312 3 1444 FLEMING 782 268 19 1069 FONDREN 22 1538 245 1805 FONVILLE 141 1228 89 1458 FURR 739 380 31 1150 HAMILTON 249 1144 62 1455 HARTMAN 121 2081 142 2344 HENRY 4 1201 19 1224 HOGG 57 897 34 988 JACKSON 38 1312 3 1353 JOHNSTON 1 2410 95 2506 KEY 1832 261 47 2140 LANIER 9 1494 31 1534 LINCOLN 252 405 5 662 LONG 54 1500 44 1598 MARSHALL 379 1182 26 1587 MCREYNOLDS 432 1285 41 1758 MILLER 670 161 7 838 PERSHING 0 1693 45 1738 ROGERS 0 1394 9 1403 RYAN 1781 93 10 1884 SCARBOROUGH 15 1037 6 1058 SHARPSTOWN 98 1912 27 2037 SMITH, E.O. 1470 192 37 1699 TERRELL 804 168 11 983 THOMAS 692 944 51 1687 WASHINGTON, B.T. 891 149 9 1049 WASHINGTON, G. 311 743 21 1075 WILLIAMS 564 169 3 736 WOODSON 1426 105 96 1627 ====== ====== ===== ====== TOTAL 17,211 36,344 1,540 55,095
HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUI-DISTANT PLAN
ELEMENTARYSCHOOL NEGRO WHITE UNKNOWN TOTAL
ALAMO 87 339 4 430 ALCOTT 712 754 71 1537 ALLEN 83 416 2 501 ALMEDA 27 291 6 324 ANDERSON 25 1736 51 1812 ATHERTON 843 6 0 849 BARRICK 0 1088 23 1111 BASTIAN 899 249 3 1151 BENBROOK 0 798 1 799 BERRY 144 857 17 1018 BLACKSHEAR 1343 11 44 1398 BONHAM 0 991 36 1027 BONNER 0 937 0 937 BOWIE 809 191 1 1001 BRAEBURN 0 769 16 785 BRIARGROVE 0 803 11 814 BRISCOE 0 506 3 509 BROCK 271 152 3 426 BROOKLINE 0 958 2 960 BROWNING 0 458 10 468 BRUCE 446 4 33 483 BURBANK 0 806 16 822 BURNET 0 1238 14 1252 BURRUS 1027 106 0 1133 CAGE 1 280 2 283 CARNEGIE 806 1 4 811 CHATHAM 962 366 5 1333 CLEVELAND 49 325 22 396 CLINTON PARK 388 1 2 391 CONCORD 1 66 2 709 CONDIT 0 779 9 788 COOLEY 0 389 6 395 COOP 3 827 2 832 CORNELIUS 0 703 0 703 CRAWFORD 655 13 11 679 CROCKETT 68 330 1 399 CUNNINGHAM 0 503 3 506 DECHAUMES 0 981 5 986 DEZAVALA 1 904 4 909 DODSON 1336 28 23 1387 DOGAN 702 75 0 777 DOUGLASS 737 0 12 749 DOW 334 331 1 666 DUNBAR 293 52 7 352 DURHAM 2 640 16 658 DURKEE 0 1311 38 1349 EASTER 912 222 8 1142 EIGHTH AVENUE 502 167 9 678 ELIOT 892 640 4 1536 ELROD 38 1312 5 1355 EMERSON 188 880 4 1072 FAIRCHILD 1329 178 44 1551 FANNIN 11 141 15 167 FIELD 2 605 8 615 FOERSTER 9 790 11 810 FONDREN 0 227 1 228 FOSTER 1084 28 111 1223 FRANKLIN 7 1491 46 1544 FROST 558 465 12 1035 GARDEN OAKS 0 283 19 302 GARDEN VILLAS 0 693 20 713 GOLFCREST 0 553 0 553 GORDON 0 455 3 458 GRADY 0 525 1 526 GREGG 0 624 2 626 GREGORY 847 334 10 1191 GRIMES 762 144 6 912 GRISSOM 87 1210 10 1307 HARPER 296 245 5 546 HARRIS, J.R. 187 1093 15 1295 HARRIS, R.P. 5 384 23 412 HARTSFIELD 542 250 58 850 HARVARD 8 313 7 328 HELMS 172 305 3 480 HENDERSON, J.P. 7 590 9 606 HENDERSON, N.Q. 570 0 3 573 HEROD 0 1049 6 1055 HIGHLAND HTS. 365 141 4 510 HOBBY 95 916 22 1033 HOHL 13 843 9 865 HOLDEN 488 586 6 1080 HORN 0 846 3 849 HOUSTON GARDENS 591 146 2 739 ISAACS 790 240 3 1033 JANOWSKI 0 688 8 696 JEFFERSON 22 634 11 667 JONES, ANSON 251 403 2 656 JONES, J.W. 632 54 15 701 KASHMERE GARDENS 756 12 9 777 KAY 102 268 0 370 KELSO 404 729 16 1149 KENNEDY 908 113 10 1031 KOLTER 0 705 10 715 LAMAR 30 994 3 1027 LANGSTON 956 11 11 978 LANTRIP 16 900 15 931 LAW 559 198 7 764 LEE 49 367 2 418 LEWIS 0 692 10 702 LOCKHART 764 177 16 957 LONGFELLOW 2 545 35 582 LOOSCAN 27 643 0 670 LOVE 42 381 11 434 LOVETT 0 585 14 599 MACARTHUR 704 213 49 966 MACGREGOR 579 56 32 667 MADING 602 509 14 1125 MCDADE 1426 162 13 1601 MEMORIAL 6 198 3 207 MILAM 213 274 0 487 MILLER, D. 137 186 8 331 MITCHELL 0 644 47 691 MONTGOMERY 11 1584 32 1627 MONTROSE 1 195 5 201 NEFF 0 1479 20 1499 NORTHLINE 0 898 16 914 OAK FOREST 3 1404 9 1416 OATES 114 553 2 669 OSBORNE 649 243 19 911 PARKER 0 1197 5 1202 PARK PLACE 0 785 6 791 PATTERSON 0 665 3 668 PECK 216 360 2 578 PETERSEN 199 625 18 842 PILGRIM 0 723 16 739 PINEY POINT 125 443 11 579 PLEASANTS 530 0 6 536 PLEASANTVILLE 977 0 0 977 POE 0 570 5 575 PORT HOUSTON 66 580 1 647 PUGH 86 935 0 1021 RED 0 1346 10 1356 REYNOLDS 326 12 0 338 RHOADS 962 21 4 987 RICHMOND 0 848 3 851 RIVER OAKS 3 465 19 487 ROBERTS 0 467 9 476 ROGERS 8 712 9 729 ROOSEVELT 148 456 6 610 ROSS 735 64 7 806 RUCKER 0 1077 1 1078 RUSK 53 715 3 771 RYAN 586 388 4 978 SANDERSON 893 82 0 975 SCARBOROUGH 0 1122 14 1136 SCOTT 964 74 3 1041 SUROGGINS 32 790 3 825 SHEARN 0 666 40 706 SHERMAN 153 1022 1 1176 SINCLAIR 57 823 25 905 SMITH, K. 76 1127 15 1218 SOUTHLAND 711 197 30 938 SOUTHMAYD 8 1181 29 1218 STEVENS 3 1137 16 1156 STEVENSON 0 699 4 703 SUNNYSIDE 712 15 18 745 SUTTON 0 969 4 973 TRAVIS 2 645 11 658 TURNER 1049 25 15 1089 TWAIN 0 689 19 708 WAINWRIGHT 34 987 9 1030 WALNUT BEND 14 1614 7 1635 WESLEY 648 91 65 804 WEST UNIVERSITY 0 1214 10 1224 WHARTON 0 485 7 492 WHIDBY 628 8 37 673 WHITE 0 996 5 1001 WHITTIER 0 790 4 794 WILSON 8 447 40 495 WINDSOR VILLAGE 20 879 39 938