Equal Opportunity inthe Fort Wayne Community Schools:A Continuing Struggle

3 1428 03526783 6

—A report of the Indiana Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights prepared for the information andconsideration of the Commission. This report will be considered by the Commission, and the Commission will make public its reactionIn the meantime, the findings and recommendations of this report should not be attributed to the Commission, but only to the IndianaAdvisory Committee.

CR 1.2:Sch6/24

LC214.23.F68U541977

Equal Opportunity inthe Fort Wayne Community Schools:A Continuing Struggle—A report prepared by the Indiana AdvisoryCommittee to the U.S. Commission on CivilRights

ATTRIBUTION:The findings and recommendations containedin this report are those of the Indiana Ad-visory Committee to the United States Commis-sion on Civil Rights and, as such, are not at-tributable to the Commission. This report hasbeen prepared by the State Advisory Commit-tee for submission to the Commission, and willbe considered by the Commission in formulat-ing its recommendations to the President andthe Congress.

RIGHT OF RESPONSE:Prior to the publication of a report, the StateAdvisory Committee affords to all individuals ororganizations that may be defamed, degraded,or incriminated by any material contained inthe report an opportunity to respond in writingto such material. All responses have been in-corporated, appended, or otherwise reflectedin the publication.

LETTER OF TRANSMITTALINDIANA ADVISORY COMMITTEE

TO THE U.S. COMMISSION ONCIVIL RIGHTS

May 2, 1977

MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSIONArthur S. Flemming, ChairpersonStephen Horn, Vice ChairpersonFrankie M. FreemanManuel Ruiz, Jr.Murray Saltzman

John A. Buggs, Staff Director

Sirs and Madam:

The Indiana Advisory Committee submits this report on issues of equal educational opportuni-ty in the Fort Wayne Community Schools (FWCS) as part of its responsibility to advise theCommission about civil rights problems within this State.

This report is a review of activity in the FWCS by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of theDepartment of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW); the Department of Justice; and the Indi-ana Civil Rights Commission (ICRC), from 1968 to the present. It also addresses recent FWCSadministration proposals for school reorganization and improved racial balance at the elementa-ry level, and the reactions of the community to that plan.

The Advisory Committee has found that, while racially identifiable junior and senior highschools have been eliminated in the FWCS, the proportion of minority students attending ra-cially identifiable elementary schools increased from 67 percent in 1970 to 78 percent in 1975.In 1969 and 1971 OCR found several possible Title VI violations, including student and teacherassignment practices. In July 1975 HEW was sued for not concluding investigations or beginningenforcement proceedings in 46 school districts, including Fort Wayne. In August 1975 OCRdropped all potential Title VI charges against the FWCS except teacher assignment, and no writ-ten record was kept of the basis for that action. Meanwhile the Department of Justice receivedseveral complaints from black parents alleging civil rights violations in the FWCS and is stillreviewing the case.

The FWCS civil rights issues are also the subject of a complaint filed in 1974 by the ICRC,which is attempting conciliation, without success to date. The Advisory Committee found thatthere has been little or no coordination between ICRC, OCR, and the Department of Justicein these investigations.

The Advisory Committee has also found that a recent reorganization plan proposed by theFWCS superintendent has met opposition from many white and minority organizations, parents,and teachers. Opposition has centered on plans to close several inner-city schools, build a newhigh school in an all-white area, place the burden of busing entirely upon minority students,and desegregate only a portion of the elementary schools.

Based on these findings, the Advisory Committee recommends that a number of specific ac-tions be taken by local, State, and Federal officials. The report contains recommendations to

ii

the FWCS, OCR, and the Department of Justice regarding the Fort Wayne case. The AdvisoryCommittee also recommends that the Commission monitor specific OCR investigations and seekState-Federal coordination of such investigations.

It is the Advisory Committee's hope that the Commission will support these recommendationswith specific actions, that the inadequacies of Federal and State civil rights enforcement in theFort Wayne case can be rectified and that the Fort Wayne example can be one starting pointfor improvements throughout the enforcement of equal educational opportunity in the Nation.

Respectfully,

Harriette Bailey ConnChairperson

in

PREFACESchool desegregation has been a controversial issue in the Fort Wayne community for at least

10 years. It is an issue that heated up considerably in the winter and spring of 1977 and thatpromises to spark controversy in the months ahead. This report is not the end of the story. Inthis report, released in its unpublished form early in May 1977, the basic conflicts that havelong been raised in Fort Wayne are reviewed and the current issues are discussed. Recommen-dations are also offered for dealing with some of the prevailing issues.

The first chapter of this report is based upon extensive documentary review and telephoneinterviewing by the Commission's Midwestern Regional Office. Sources of information includedlocal, State, and Federal agencies having relevant information on the Fort Wayne CommunitySchools (FWCS), as well as representatives of local and national organizations concerned withthese issues. The second chapter summarizes supporting information gathered onsite by Com-mission staff in April 1977 and additional documentary analysis and telephone interviewing. Allsources of information are cited in the text or footnotes.

Supporting documentation cited in this report and related documents not cited are retainedin the files of the Commission's Midwestern Regional Office, Chicago, 111. Copies of files ofFederal agencies are available to the public through requests made under the Freedom of Infor-mation Act, 5 U.S.C.A. 552, as prescribed by the Commission's rules and regulations for thefiling and granting of such requests, 45 C.F.R. 704, including procedures for requesting waiverof search and copying fees under certain conditions.

All inquiries for documents under the Freedom of Information Act should be sent to theDirector of the Commission's Midwestern Regional Office, 230 S. Dearborn St., Room 3280,Chicago, 111. 60604.

IV

MEMBERSHIPINDIANA ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THEUNITED STATES COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Harriette Bailey Conn, ChairpersonIndianapolis

Thomas W. BinfordIndianapolis

Donna BucoveIndianapolis

Steve Caldemeyer*Muncie

Dr. Luis Davila*Bloomington

Nicolas C. Kanellos*Gary

Jeanne F. MaysIndianapolis

Lotte MeyersonGary

Ricardo ParraSouth Bend

Charles ReddFort Wayne

* Not active during Fort Wayne study.

THE UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTSThe United States Commission on Civil Rights, created by the Civil Rights Act of 1957, is anindependent, bipartisan agency of the executive branch of the Federal Government. By theterms of the act, as amended, the Commission is charged with the following duties pertainingto denials of the equal protection of the laws based on race, color, sex, religion, or nationalorigin: investigation of individual discriminatory denials of the right to vote; study of legaldevelopments with respect to denials of equal protection of the law; appraisal of the laws andpolicies of the United States with respect to denials of equal protection of the law; maintenanceof a national clearinghouse for information respecting denials of equal protection of the law;and investigation of patterns or practices of fraud or discrimination in the conduct of Federalelections. The Commission is also required to submit reports to the President and the Congressat such times as the Commission, the Congress, or the President shall deem desirable.

THE STATE ADVISORY COMMITTEESAn Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights has been establishedin each of the SO States and the District of Columbia pursuant to section 10S(c) of the CivilRights Act of 1957 as amended. The Advisory Committees are made up of responsible personswho serve without compensation. Their functions under their mandate from the Commission areto: advise the Commission of all relevant information concerning their respective State on mat-ters within the jurisdiction of the Commission; advise the Commission on matters of mutual con-cern in the preparation of reports of the Commission to the President and the Congress; receivereports, suggestions, and recommendations from individuals, public and private organizations,and public officials upon matters pertinent to inquiries conducted by the State Advisory Com-mittee; initiate and forward advice and recommendations to the Commission upon matters inwhich the Commission shall request the assistance of the State Advisory Committee; and attend,as observers, any open hearing or conference which the Commission may hold within the State.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis report was written by Gregory D. Squires, research/writer. Field investigation was per-formed by Squires and Frank E. Steiner, equal opportunity specialist. Editorial and legalassistance were provided by Margaret V. Johnson, regional attorney. Other assistance in thepreparation of this report was provided by Delores Miller, administrative assistant, and Ada L.Williams, clerk-stenographer. The report was prepared under the supervision of Clark G.Roberts, Regional Director, Midwestern Regional Office.Final production of the report was the responsibility of Audree Holton and Vivian Washington,supervised by Bobby Wortman, Office of Management, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

vi

CONTENTSChapter One •. 1Overview 1The OCR Investigation *The Indiana Case *Reorganization and Reaction 5An Alternative to the Superintendent's Proposal 1Chapter Two 9The Coalition 9Teachers Join Protest 9Cooperation—A Difference of Opinion 10The Superintendent's Proposal— Reorganization or Resegregation? 10Latino Concerns 11What is to be Done? 11Chapter Three 13Findings and Recommendations 13Appendices 16A. Communications Between HEW and Fort Wayne Community Schools Regarding

Title VI Violation Due to Teacher Assignment 16B. Summary of Center for National Policy Review's Assessment of Fort Wayne Commu-

nity School Situation , 33C. Communications Regarding OCR's Handling of the Student Assignment Issue in the

Fort Wayne Community Schools 34D. Superintendent Grile's Jan. 24, 1977, Proposed Reorganization Plan 37E. Organizations Joining Coalition to Protest Grile's Reorganization Plan as of April 22,

1977 41F. Urban League Alternative to Segments of Superintendent Grilc's Reorganization Plan 42G. Staff Analysis of Data Pertaining to Faculty Desegregation—Fort Wayne

Community Schools 44

vii

Chapter One

The ineffectiveness of the plans OCRnegotiates is compounded by its lack of anadequate followup program***.

OCR should not consider any school districtto be in compliance unless it addresses alldeficiencies, including student assignment.

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 19751

The process of school desegregation has been along and hard struggle in the Fort Wayne Commu-nity School System. It is a struggle that is far fromover, one that promises to heat up considerably inthe next few weeks. While there have been signifi-cant accomplishments, much remains to be doneand there is much controversy over what specificgoals should be set and how they should beachieved. This report presents a brief overview ofthe school desegregation contfoversy, an assess-ment of pending proposals and the reactions ofvarious segments of the community to the currentsituation, and recommendations for resolving atleast some of the prevailing issues.

Overview

Student and Teacher AssignmentBetween the fall of 1970 and the fall of 1975

total enrollment in the Fort Wayne CommunitySchool System declined from 43,400 to 40,250while minority enrollment increased from 7,025(16 percent) to 7,911 (20 percent). As table 1 in-dicates, some progress was made towardsdesegregating the schools, particularly at the juniorand senior high levels. The percentage of minoritystudents enrolled in schools with minority enroll-ments of 50 percent or more declined from 66percent to 43 percent. This change is entirely ac-counted for by changes in junior and senior highschool enrollments where, according to the datasupplied by the school system, all schools hadminority enrollments between 9 percent and 35percent of total enrollments in the fall of 1975.This resulted in part from a reorganization of thejunior high schools. Among elementary students,

however, segregation increased. The percentage ofminority elementary students in schools with 50percent or more minority enrollment increasedfrom 67 percent to 78 percent between 1970 and1975.

Improvements were also made in the number ofschools with minority enrollment between 10 per-cent and 30 percent of total enrollment.2 Againmost of the progress was made at the junior andsenior high school level where 89 percent of theschools had minority enrollment within this bandin 1975 compared with 17 percent in 1970.Among elementary schools the change was from17 percent to 20 percent. At the same time, how-ever, the percentage of elementary schools withminority enrollment of 5 percent or less, or 50percent or more, increased from 66 percent to 72percent. While progress has been made indesegregating the school system as a whole, vir-tually all of it occurred at the upper levels. Con-siderable improvement remains to be made at theelementary school level.

As a result of an agreement entered into withthe Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the U.S. De-partment of Health, Education, and Welfare(HEW) in 1976, Fort Wayne has agreed to assignits faculty in such a way that the proportion ofminority teachers within each school approximatesthe proportion of minority teachers throughout thesystem. (See appendix A for a copy of the teacherassignment plan for the 1976 school year that wasapproved by OCR and a copy of final teaching as-signments for that year.)

The OCR InvestigationIn 1968 OCR began a series of investigations

into the student and teacher assignments of theFort Wayne Community Schools. In its 1969 and1971 onsite reviews, OCR found evidence ofpotential Title VI3 violations in the assignment ofboth students and teachers. Among the discrimina-tory factors cited were the use of optional highschool zones, gerrymandering of school bounda-ries, school site selection, lack of comparable

1

TABLE 1

DESEGREGATION IN FORT WAYNE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS: 1970-75

Total enrollmentElementaryJunior & senior high

Minority enrollmentElementaryJunior & senior high

Number of elementary schools

Number of junior & senior highs

Percent of schools with less than 5% ormore than 50% minority enrollment

Percent of schools with minority enrollmentbetween 10% and 30%

Percent of minority students in schoolswith 50% or more minority enrollment

Percent of minority students at all levelsin schools with 50% or more minorityenrollment

1970-71 1975-76

43,40024,90118,499

7,0254,4092,616

41

18

(16%)(18%)(14%)

40,25021,75018,500

7,9114,4043,507

46

18

(20%)(20%)(19%)

Elementary Secondary1970-71 1975-76 1970-71 1975-76

66%

17%

67%

72%

20%

78%

72%

17%

65%

0%

89%

0%

1970-71

66%

1975-76

43%

Source: Fort Wayne Community Schools, Enrollment Data: 1970-71 and 1975-76.

facilities, lack of comparability in teacher recruit-ment, and different grade plans for predominantlywhite and predominantly black schools. Review of1973-74 enrollment data found that 5 elementaryschools had minority enrollments above 90 per-cent, 4 others were more than 50 percent minori-ty, and 19 had less than 3 percent minority stu-dents. More than 73 percent of the district'sminority students were in schools with minorityenrollments of 50 percent or more. In 1971, 39 of66 black elementary school teachers were in nineschools with over 50 percent black enrollment.Seventeen elementary schools had no minorityteachers, and 7 of these had a minority enrollmentof less than 3 percent. A similar pattern was foundfor the 1973-74 academic year with respect toteacher assignments. According to HEW, byFebruary 1975 student racial imbalances in the ju-nior and senior high schools were substantiallyreduced. Improvements were reportedly also madein the grade plan used in predominantly blackschools.4

In 1975, in the case of Brown v. Weinberger*HEW was sued for: (1) failure to initiate investiga-tions of discrimination in school districts where ra-cial imbalances gave cause to believe that certaindistricts were violating Title VI; (2) failure to actexpeditiously in completing investigations of al-leged Title VI violations that the Department hadinitiated; (3) failure to commence enforcementproceedings in certain cases where violations werefound and voluntary compliance had not beenreached; and (4) failure to commence enforce-ment proceedings against schools determined byHEW to be ineligible for Emergency School AidAct (ESAA) funds because they were practicingsegregation and discrimination. Forty-six schooldistricts, including 15 in Region V, were included.The Fort Wayne Community Schools was one ofthe districts, found to be in violation of Title VIby HEW, in which voluntary compliance had notbeen achieved and where enforcement proceedingshad not been initiated. In July 1976, United StatesDistrict Court Judge John J. Sirica ordered HEW,within 60 days, either to commence enforcementproceedings against Fort Wayne or to make an ad-ministrative determination that the district was incompliance.

A conference was held in Cleveland betweenAugust 13 and 15, 1975, to discuss the then pend-

ing Brown case. Among those attending the con-ference were Martin Gerry (Acting Director,OCR), Kenneth Mines (Region V Director, OCR),and Orrie Barr (Region V Education BranchChief, OCR in Cleveland). At that conference adecision was made to drop the student assignmentissue and to pursue the teacher assignment issue.The decision to drop the student issue was madein part because Fort Wayne had reduced racial im-balances at the junior high school level,6 accordingto HEW documents. According to Kenneth Mines,it was determined at the Cleveland conference thatthe evidence was insufficient to support a Title VIviolation.7

Subsequent reviews of the Fort Wayne schoolsituation, and of the situation in other schools in-cluded in the Brown decision, call into questionOCR's handling of its investigation. FrankKrueger, attorney with the HEW Office of GeneralCounsel (OGC), who negotiated the teacher as-signment issue with Fort Wayne, said in March1977 he believed at that time, and still believes,that there is a student assignment case whichcould be made. According to Krueger, the juniorhigh school reorganization did not resolve theissue satisfactorily. When the Fort Wayne case wasreferred to Krueger, however, it was simply ateacher assignment case. Krueger said that accord-ing to his recollection of the situation, student as-signment patterns constituted a Title VI violation-and that he could probably convince OCR to in-itiate administrative proceedings if he had the timeto review the situation.8

William L. Taylor, director of the Center forNational Policy Review and attorney for the plain-tiffs in the Brown case, also believes there may stillbe a Title VI violation based on student assign-ment. (See appendix B for a summary of thecenter's assessment of the Fort Wayne situation.)Taylor also expressed concern about the fact thatthere is no written record indicating why the stu-dent issue in Fort Wayne and in several otherBrown-related school systems was dropped. Ac-cording to Taylor, there is nothing in the Brownfiles explaining why this issue was dropped.9 Inresponse to a memo from Frederick T. Cioffi(Chief, Operations Branch, Office of the Secreta-ry, HEW) to Orrie Barr, asking for documents thatwould explain why the student assignment issuewas dropped, Cioffi was informed that "no docu-

3

ments exist therein which explain why the studentassignment issue was dropped."10 Cioffi said in hisrequest,

My recollection is that the files may be silent,since most of these cases were presented ver-bally in Cleveland and/or San Francisco andthe decision to drop the issue was due to lackof sufficient evidence. Everything was verbalat these conferences.11

Taylor said he has been unable to obtain asatisfactory explanation from OCR as to why thestudent issue was dropped and suggested that thehandling of the Fort Wayne student issue is notunusual in OCR investigations. In a November 12,1976, letter from Cioffi (see appendix C), Taylorwas told: "In those cases where issues were notsustained by appropriate evidence the respectiveregional offices were verbally directed to disregardthe issue. In other words the file probably does notcontain any documents because the direction wasgiven orally." Taylor is considering requesting thenew administration to reopen the Fort Wayne in-vestigation.

After OCR's initial investigation, the Civil RightsDivision of the U.S. Department of Justice beganto examine the Fort Wayne situation. The impetusfor the Justice Department's investigation was aseries of letters received by the United States At-torney for the Northern District of Indiana fromparents of black students in the Fort Wayne Com-munity Schools alleging their children were deniedequal educational opportunity, and informaldiscussions between HEW and Justice Departmentofficials.12 According to Krueger, OCR agreed notto initiate administrative proceedings over the stu-dent issue if the Justice Department decided to goto court.13 After an "exhaustive investigation,"Alexander Ross (Chief, Education Section, CivilRights Division, U.S. Department of Justice) said,the Justice Department concluded in the summerof 1976 that there was insufficient evidence tosupport Justice Department action under Title IVof the Civil Rights Act of 1964. One issue thatremains alive involves the zone lines of a coupleof schools. However, while the case has not beenformally closed, Ross said, the investigation wasvirtually completed last summer.14 When Commis-sion staff informed Krueger of Ross' statements, hesaid he would check with the Department ofJustice himself to determine the status of the stu-

dent assignment investigation and might push toreopen the case at OCR.

Daniel Jennings, however, an attorney with theCivil Rights Division of the Department of Justice,is still reviewing the student assignment issue inFort Wayne. Earlier this year Jennings sent amemo to his supervisors (including Ross) and as ofMarch 22 he was preparing another memo con-taining recommendations regarding student assign-ment and possible Justice Department action inthe Fort Wayne Community Schools.15 He refused,however, to indicate the nature of the informationcontained in these memos. He mentioned thatsuch information was not decisive, since his super-visors would make all final decisions. Jenningsmaintained that both he and Ross were saying thesame things, but that the connotations of theirstatements might be different. Jennings said hewould inform the Commission's Midwestern Re-gional Office about any formal decisions whensuch decisions were made.

OCR did proceed with the teacher assignmentissue. On November 17, 1975, Kenneth Mines senta letter (see appendix A) to Superintendent Grile,notifying him that the Fort Wayne CommunitySchools were out of compliance with Title VI. Theschool district was given 90 days to comply volun-tarily, and Mines indicated HEW's willingness towork with the district to develop an acceptableplan. In February 1976, Mines sent Grile anotherletter indicating the case was being referred toOGC with a recommendation to initiate enforce-ment proceedings. Robert S. Walters, attorney forthe Fort Wayne Community Schools, respondedon March 22, 1976, with a proposed teacher reas-signment plan (see appendix A) to be imple-mented in the fall of 1976. Grile provided OGCattorney Frank Krueger additional information onthe teacher reassignment plan in a June 1976letter. On September 23, 1976 (65 days afterJudge Sirica had ordered HEW, within 60 days, toinitiate enforcement proceedings or determine thedistrict was in compliance), Lloyd R. Henderson(Director, Elementary and Secondary EducationDivision, OCR), notified Grile (see appendix A)that the plan had been approved. Approval waspredicated on Fort Wayne's agreement to improveteacher racial balance and to assign faculty "sothat at each school there will be a substantiallyequal admixture of teachers according to ex-

4

perience, teaching skills, and post-graduatedegrees." In his letter Henderson asked Grile toprovide a list of the final teacher assignments anda breakdown of teachers assigned to each schoolaccording to race, educational degrees, cer-tificates, and experience. Henderson asked thatsuch information be submitted by October 15,1976.

On September 30, 1976, Grile sent Henderson aletter containing a list of the number of blackteachers assigned to each elementary school. Addi-tional information on the number of years of ex-perience and the highest degree earned for theblack teachers who were transferred was also pro-vided (see appendix A). However, according toLeonard Hamilton (OCR, Cleveland), Fort Waynedid not provide the systemwide breakdown of theexperience and education of teachers in eachschool until mid-April 1977. As of April 27, OCRhad not had time to analyze that information.16

Preliminary analysis of that data by Commissionstaff indicates that an equal admixture of teachersaccording to experience and postgraduate degreeshas not been achieved. Also, faculty assignmentsappear to continue to contribute to the racialidentifiability of elementary schools (see appendixG).

The Indiana CaseIn 1974 the director of the Indiana Civil Rights

Commission filed a class action complaint withthat commission against the Fort Wayne Commu-nity Schools and the Indiana Department of PublicInstruction, alleging the denial of equal educa-tional and employment opportunity to blacks,Spanish surnamed, and women (State of Indiana v.Fort Wayne Community Schools, No. 05804). Thiscomplaint did not involve teacher or student as-signment. Instead, it cited the school system fordiscrimination in its hiring and promotion prac-tices and in the content of the educational pro-gram. Failure to provide special programs toSpanish-speaking students, discouraging womenfrom taking industrial arts and men from takinghome economics, unequal provision of athleticfacilities between men and women, perpetuating

* sexist stereotypes regarding occupations and op-portunities for women in the counseling programs,and the use of textbooks that perpetuate negativeracial and sexist stereotypes were some of the

specifics in the complaint. In July 1976, Joseph R.Smith, conciliation officer of the Indiana CivilRights Commission, sent Superintendent Lester L.Grile a proposed consent agreement. The superin-tendent responded on July 27 that he would likemore specific information before agreeing to meetin order to work out a mutually satisfactory solu-tion.

Later in the summer, however, the Fort WayneCommunity Schools sent a counterproposal to theIndiana Commission on Civil Rights and requestedthat conciliation proceedings be initiated. A totalof 15 issues are now being negotiated. After 4months, three of the issues have been discussed,but no resolution on any issue has been reached.Denise Walderich, Indiana commission staffmember who was involved in the investigation ofthe complaint and who is currently involved in theconciliation, would not predict when the concilia-tion will be completed.17

Reorganization and Reaction

The Superintendent's PlanOn January 24, 1977, Superintendent Lester L.

Grile submitted a school reorganization plan to theboard of trustees having the following stated ob-jectives:

1. To provide better educational programs.

2. To maximize utilization of facilities andstaff.

3. To upgrade educational facilities in orderto accommodate present and future needs.

4. To improve racial balance.

5. To develop a financial program which iseconomically feasible. (For a copy of AProposed Plan for the Fort Wayne CommunitySchools 1977-1983, see appendix D.)

Grile stated in his plan that: "This proposal mustbe considered as a total package since each partis dependent for effectiveness upon each otherpart***.The proposal establishes a direction forthe Fort Wayne Community Schools which has im-plications for the next twenty years." He recom-mended that the board approve the plan at itsApril meeting so that implementation could be in-itiated in September 1977, and be completed bySeptember 1980. He acknowledged his apprecia-

5

tion for the Peabody evaluation (see note 2) andstated, "Several major components of this plan re-late to the Peabody Study."

The plan calls for grade reorganization, the clos-ing of some schools and the construction of newfacilities, pupil reassignments, and other actions tomeet the objectives. Specifically, the plan calls forclosing six elementary schools, five of which are inthe central city and four of which have minorityenrollments of 75 percent or more. Thus 4 of the10 elementary schools with predominantly minori-ty enrollments would be closed. Two of the ele-mentary schools to be closed under this proposalwould be turned into enrichment centers wherefourth- and fifth-grade students would spend 1week each semester for human relations trainingand preparation for later school years. Elementaryschools would contain grades K-5, junior highschools would house grades 6-8, and senior highschools would serve grades 9-12. Students cur-rently attending schools that would be eliminatedin the plan would be transferred to schools im-mediately bordering the central city. Finally, a newhigh school would be built in the predominantlywhite, northeastern portion of the school district.

Grile's proposals have not met with unanimousapproval among board members, and muchsharper criticism has been directed against theplan by other members of the community. Boardmember Lorraine Davis stated, "I want toemphasize this is a proposed plan. As far as theadministration is concerned this may be a singleunit plan, but as far as the community is con-cerned, and perhaps as far as the board is con-cerned it's not necessarily a unit plan."18 FredMeriwether, one of two black board members said,"I'm not pleased with the plan as it presently ex-ists. The comment I hear over and over again isthat it seems as if the onus is being put on theminority community again."19 Board memberLeonard Goldstein claimed the commitment madeby the board on July 8, 1974, "to eliminate racialsegregation in the entire school system," is dilutedin the plan. However, Goldstein said he found theplan "acceptable, but falling far short of what Ithink is even a beginning of what we want."20

The major criticism of the plan from other com-munity members revolves around the desegrega-tion issue. It is reportedly argued, first, that theplan does not go far enough towards desegregating

the schools and, secondly, that the burden isplaced entirely on the black community. Somecritics maintain that the extent of desegregationpredicted in the plan is less than that in any of thefive plans recommended in the Peabody report.21

Former Mayor Ivan Lebamoff charged the planwas designed to barely meet legal pressures fordesegregation.22 Grile's response to this line of ar-gument was that the Peabody plans would notcompletely desegregate all the schools and that hisplan would result in 66 percent of all black stu-dents attending schools with a white majority andjust 33 percent attending majority black schools by1980. In addition, only 6 of the 38 elementaryschools would be predominantly black by thattime.23

Nowhere in the plan or in the newspaper articlesobtained by the Midwest Regional Office of theU.S. Commission on Civil Rights, however, doesGrile make any reference to the 10 percent to 30percent band cited in the Peabody report asproviding "optimum potential for meaningfulminority-majority interaction." One question thatremains unanswered is what percentage of theschools will be brought within this band. Grilestated his plan would reduce the percentage ofblack students attending majority black schools to33 percent. This would represent a reduction ofapproximately 10 percent, since 43 percent ofminority students were enrolled in predominantlyminority schools in 1975 (see table 1). As in-dicated above, this is not considered enough bysome board members and others in the communi-ty-

Harsher comments were directed at the planbecause it places the burden of desegregation onthe black community. The fact that all busingwould be one way, involving busing of black stu-dents out of the central city, and that a new highschool would be built in a predominantly whitearea while several schools in the central city wouldbe closed were particularly sore points. One blackmother said, "We have been going to the whiteschools for a long time. It's time for you to cometo some of our schools." She went on to arguethat it would be just as easy to remodel the olderschools as to tear them down.24 Concerns werealso expressed about declining property values inthe central city once the schools were gone andthe difficulty parents would have in getting to PTA

6

meetings and having a role in the school communi-ty in general.25 In responding to questions aboutthe possibility of two-way busing and building thehigh school in the central city, Grile said the ad-ministration does not think "two-way busing hasan educational value. We do not think it is worththe effort or the money." He argued that by con-structing the new high school where the popula-tion is growing most rapidly, fewer students willhave to be bused than if it were built in the centralcity.26

But these are not the only issues. Grile was alsocriticized by Frank W. Heyman, executive directorof the Allen County Economic Opportunity Coun-cil (ACEOC), for "the arrogance with which thisplan was put forward." In response to Grile's claimthat the plan should be treated as a total package,Heyman went on to say, "No plan is such a sacredcow that any piece of it can't be discussed by thecommunity."27 Lebamoff also accused Grile of fail-ing to take into consideration any input from thecommunity: "We've broken our backs, given theschool administration some real honest to good-ness thinking over which we agonized, yet we'vehad absolutely no response, or even any indicationthey wanted to listen." He went on to say,"They've rejected our suggestions out of hand;they've rejected the Urban League's suggestions;they've rejected the Fort Wayne Education As-sociation's suggestions."28 Rose Gerra, a represen-tative of the Educational Council for Latino Af-fairs, noted that the plan failed to include anyprovision aimed at furthering bilingual and bicul-tural education,29 an issue also covered in the Indi-ana Civil Rights Commission's complaint.

One indication of the reaction to Grile's plan inthe black community is a petition, signed by 1,500parents, opposing the plan. The petition criticizesthe plan for its reliance on one-way busing, for theproposal to build a new high school on the northside of the district, and for "dodging the issue" ofdesegregation of grades K-5.30 Several other or-ganizations, including the Fort Wayne UrbanLeague, the Fort Wayne NAACP, the Fort WayneEducation Association, and the Allen CountyEconomic Opportunity Council have all madepublic statements against the plan. One possibletactic that has been discussed is to draw up an al-ternative plan to present to the board.31

An Alternative to theSuperintendent's Proposal

A coalition of organizations—including theACEOC, the Fort Wayne Urban League, the FortWayne NAACP, and several other organizationsand individuals—has been organized and is con-sidering the possibility of presenting an alternativeplan to the board. (See appendix E for a list ofcoalition organization members.) At least onecoalition member, the Fort Wayne Urban League,has presented detailed alternatives to segments ofGrile's proposal. (See appendix F for the UrbanLeague's response.) Reverend Clyde Adams, oneof the petition drive leaders, has exhorted variousgroups to organize: "Any impact this community isgoing to make—we've got to make it now andwe've got to make it together***. No public ser-vant is immune from public pressure***. Onceyou get an organization that's really organized,you're going to get heard."32

Charles Redd, a member of the Indiana Adviso-ry Committee, told Commission staff he would likethe board to at least postpone its vote in order togive the coalition time to present its plan. Two re-lated problems, according to Redd, are locatingthe technical assistance required to draw up a planand the financial resources to support the work.Even if this meant a 1-year delay in implementa-tion of a desegregation plan, Redd believes thegreater payoff would make the wait worthwhile.

Notes to Chapter One

1. U.S., Commission on Civil Rights, To Ensure Equal Educa-tional Opportunity (1975), pp. 360 and 386.

2. In January 1975 the board of trustees and the superintendentof the Fort Wayne Community Schools authorized the Officeof Educational Services of George Peabody College forTeachers to make a comprehensive study of the school cor-poration. In its report, Fort Wayne Community Schools (1975),the Peabody consultants suggested the 10 percent to 30 percentband as an ideal because it "offers the optimum potential formeaningful minority-majority interaction without precipitouswhite flight." (p. 246) However, in the five desegregation plansrecommended to the school system in the Peabody report, nonewould bring all the elementary schools within this band becauseto do so "would require large-scale busing, across distances upto eight miles, and forego most prospects for preservingneighborhood schools for any of the lower grades." (p. 256) Infact none of the plans would bring more than 70 percent of theelementary schools within this band. (p. 277)

The Peabody report noted that as of the 1974-75 school yearall junior and senior high schools were within the 10-30 per-cent band. (p. 277) It should also be noted that as of the fallof 1975 two of the schools fell outside this band, one with a

7

minority enrollment of 35 percent and one with a minority en-rollment of 9 percent. The board has not, however, formallyendorsed the recommendations in the Peabody report.

3. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000d(1970).

4. U.S., Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Officefor Civil Rights, Summary of Fort Wayne School DesegregationCase, February 1975.

5. Brown v. Weinberger, C.A. No. 75-1068 (D.D.C. Filed July20, 1976).

6. U.S., Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Officefor Civil Rights, Summary of Fort Wayne School DesegregationCase, February 1977.

7. Kenneth Mines, Director, OCR, Region V, telephone inter-view, Mar. 10, 1977.

8. Frank Krueger, Office of General Counsel, HEW, telephoneinterview, Mar. 8, 1977-.

9. William L. Taylor, Director, Center for National PolicyReview, telephone interview, Mar. 10, 1977.

10. U.S., Department of Health, Education and Welfare,memorandum from Linda A. Cornelius, Specialist-in-Charge,Elementary and Secondary Education Branch, Cleveland, toFrederick T. Cioffi, Nov. 8, 1976. See appendix C for copiesof communications regarding OCR's handling of the student as-signment issue in Fort Wayne.

11. U.S., Department of Health, Education and Welfare,memorandum from Frederick T. Cioffi to Orrie Barr, Nov. 1,1976.

12. Alexander Ross, Chief, Education Section, Civil RightsDivision, U.S. Department of Justice, telephone interview, Apr.28, 1977. Daniel L. Jennings, letter to Clark G. Roberts, Apr.22,1977.

13. Frank Krueger, Office of General Counsel, HEW, telephoneinterview, Mar. 8, 1977.

14. Alexander Ross, telephone interview, Mar. 10, 1977.

15. Daniel Jennings, attorney, Civil Rights Division, U.S. De-partment of Justice, telephone interview, Mar. 22, 1977.

16. Leonard Hamilton, OCR, Cleveland, telephone interview,Apr. 27, 1977.

17. Denise Walderich, Indiana Civil Rights Commission,telephone interview, Mar. 8, 1977.

18. The JOurnal-Gazette, Jan. 25, 1977.

19. The Journal Gazette, Feb. 4, 1977.

20. Ibid.

2\.The Journal Gazette, Feb. 8, 1977.

22. The Journal Gazette, Feb. 17, 1977.

23. The Journal Gazette, Feb. 8, 1977.

24. The News-Sentinel, F e b . 1 1 , 1 9 7 7 .

2 5 . The Journal Gazette, Feb. 16, 1977.

26. The News-Sentinel, Feb. 8, 1977.

27. The Journal Gazette, Feb. 15, 1977.

28. The Journal Gazette, Feb. 17, 1977.

29. The Journal Gazette, Feb. 22, 1977. Rose Gerra, telephoneinterview, Mar. 11, 1977.

30. The Journal Gazette, Feb. 15, 1977.

31. Ibid.

32. Ibid.

8

Chapter Two

If any major reorganization plan is to be imple-mented by the fall of 1977, the school board willhave to come to a decision within the next fewweeks, as Grile indicated in his proposal. Yet thereare several controversial issues being debated inthe community and, it appears, any decision theboard may come to is unlikely to resolve them all.Below is a summary of the major prevailing con-troversies.

The CoalitionCommission staff met with five members of the

coalition that has been organized to protest andseek major revisions in Superintendent Grile'sreorganization plan.1 The basic objections citedearlier in the report were reaffirmed. These objec-tions are, first, that the plan does not go farenough in desegregating the schools and, second,that the plan calls for one-way busing, thus placinga disproportionate share of the burden on theminority community. The coalition also reiteratedits objection to the closing of six elementaryschools, five of which are in the central city, andthe building of a new high school in the predomi-nantly white, northeastern section of the schooldistrict. The coalition prepared a formal statement,which was presented to the school board and ad-ministration in mid-April.

Superintendent Grile responded that hisproposal would significantly reduce racial im-balances while minimizing any disruption thatcould result. He stated there was a limit to theamount of busing the community would accept.The superintendent also expressed concern thatyounger students attend schools near their homes.In his opinion, the critical age where reducing ra-cial imbalances begins having maximum payoff isat the sixth or seventh grade. Therefore, Grilemaintained, the focus of desegregation efforts inFort Wayne is at the junior and senior high schoollevels.

Superintendent Grile acknowledged that most ofthe students to be transported are minority

because most students attending schools to beclosed under the plan are minority. The northeastpart of the district is selected as the site for thenew school primarily, according to Grile, becausethe population is growing and is expected to keepgrowing in that area while the population of thecentral city is expected to decline. If the new highschool were to be built in the predominantly blackinner city, it would either be a predominantlyblack high school or, if the racial balance of highschool students were to be maintained throughtwo-way busing, many more students would haveto be bused. Grile maintained that his reorganiza-tion proposal meets the basic considerations thatmust be taken into account: It is economicallyfeasible, it is educationally sound, and it serves thewelfare of the general community.2

School board president Helen Lee echoedGrile's concern that there was a limit to theamount of desegregation the community would ac-cept. If the board went too far in reducing racialimbalances, Lee said, more parents would sendtheir children to private schools and eventually thepublic schools would be attended by predomi-nantly poor and minority students, a situation shedid not want to create. Those groups who claimGrile's proposal does not go far enough towardsreducing racial imbalances represent one segmentof the community, but in any plan to be imple-mented by the board the concerns of the totalcommunity must be taken into consideration, ac-cording to Lee.3

Teachers Join ProtestIn February 1977 leaders of the Fort Wayne

Education Association (FWEA) issued a publicstatement opposing the superintendent's reor-ganization plan and containing a series of alterna-tive proposals. (The FWEA is the exclusive bar-gaining agent for public school teachers. Its mem-bership includes 1,400 of the 1,700 teachers.) Asubsequent survey of FWEA members revealedstrong support of the position taken by the FWEA

9

leadership.4 Below are some of the key points ofcontention and, in parentheses, the percentage ofrespondents who supported the FWEA's rejectionof these positions:

1. closing inner-city elementary schools withoutproviding replacement within the inner city (75percent);2. placing the major burden of implementationon the minority community (71 percent);3. treating and adopting the proposal in itstotality (85 percent).

Among the alternative proposals recommended byFWEA leadership and supported by the teacherswere the following:

1. including at least 75 percent of the elementa-ry schools in the plan (74 percent);2. committing time, money, and staff for cur-riculum improvement and including multiethnicand multicultural approaches in the curriculum(87 percent).According to Marvin Ross, executive director of

the FWEA, the executive board has recommendedthat the organization join the coalition and he an-ticipated that it would formally do so within a fewweeks.5 (As indicated in appendix E, the FWEAhas joined the coalition.)

Cooperation—A Difference ofOpinion

According to Robert S. Walters, attorney for theFort Wayne Community Schools (FWCS), the ad-ministration has made every effort to solicit com-munity input and to be responsive to concerns ex-pressed by various segments of the community.6

Board president Lee concurred and stated, "Grilehas been to many meetings, lunches, etc. and hastaken all the information he received into con-sideration." But, according to representatives ofthe coalition, the administration has been totallyunresponsive.

Marvin Ross said the administration has gonethrough the motions of receiving input, but itsdecisions have not reflected that input. He claimedthe input of the black community regarding thereorganization plan was not reflected in that plan.Board member Helen Brown also claimed the ad-ministration has not been cooperative. While theadministration may listen to community input, shemaintained, the proposal Grile wants to implementdoes not reflect the input received from the com-

munity. In fact she asserted that not even theschool board's input was reflected in the plan.7

The Superintendent'sProposal—Reorganization orResegregation?

The stated policy of the Fort Wayne CommunitySchools has long been one of support for improvedracial balance and school desegregation. In 1969the school board adopted a resolution that read, inpart: "That the Board of School Trustees willsearch for ways and do what it can to helpeliminate racial segregation in the entire schoolsystem, including the elementary grades." The July8, 1974, minutes of the board of school trusteesincluded the following statement:

This Board passed a motion on November 10,1969, declaring that it would do what it couldto eliminate racial segregation. The problemhas not been whether the Board was fordesegregation, but how it should implement itsconcern.

Similar pronouncements have been made in thesubsequent years.8

But questions have been raised as to whether ornot actions on the part of the administrationreflect the stated policy. As indicated earlier, onereason OCR dropped the student assignment issuewas that the school district had voluntarilydesegregated its junior high schools. In 1971, whileOCR was conducting its investigation of potentialTitle VI violations, the FWCS converted WeisserPark and Memorial Park Schools from junior highto elementary schools. As a result, racial im-balances at the junior high school level werereduced. Board president Lee referred to Superin-tendent Grile as a "genius" who was able todesegregate half the students in 1 year without anymajor disruption. Racial imbalances in the elemen-tary schools, however, were increased. WeisserPark changed from a 61 percent minority juniorhigh school in 1970-71 to a 76 percent minorityelementary school in 1971-72. Memorial Parkchanged from an 80 percent minority junior highschool to an 82 percent minority elementaryschool. During those 2 years the percentage ofminority elementary students enrolled in schoolswith minority enrollment of 50 percent or largerincreased from 67 percent to 73 percent.9

10

Alleged contradictions between the administra-tion's policy statements and its actions have beennoted in reference to the current reorganizationproposal. Superintendent Grile claimed that underhis plan only 1,800 (25 percent) of 7,200 minorityelementary students would be enrolled in schoolswith minority enrollment of 50 percent or more in1980. This would represent a reduction from 78percent in 1975 enrolled in such schools. (Seetable 1.) According to board member LeonardGoldstein, however, the commitment to eliminateracial segregation has been diluted and abused inGrile's proposal.10 Representatives of the coalitionmaintained that building a new high school in thenortheast section of the district will have asegregative effect. Boyd Bosma, desegregationconsultant for the National Education Association(NEA), stated that the plan, "is abhorent in termsof responsibility to the minority community" andthat it would contribute towards resegregation ofschools in the district.11

Latino ConcernsMembers of the Educational Council for Latino

Affairs expressed to Commission staff primaryconcern for what they perceived as denial of equaleducational opportunities for Spanish-speaking stu-dents and employment discrimination againstLatinos.12 The council has formally requested theadministration to implement bilingual-biculturalprograms and to hire a Latino administrator todeal with Latino problems. The council claims thatSpanish-speaking students are frequently placed inspecial education classes, that they have a higherdropout rate than other groups, and that coun-selors discourage Spanish-speaking students frompursuing college and encourage them to enroll invocational education programs. The council alsostated that the administration does not pursueFederal or State funds available for bilingual-bicul-tural programs. In the area of employment, thecouncil charged the FWCS with discriminationagainst Latino applicants for teaching positionsand asserted that the failure to hire a Latino ad-ministrator is not due to lack of funds, as it saidis the reason given by Grile. (As of 1975, 11, or0.7 percent, of the 1,507 elementary and seconda-ry teachers were Latinos and no Latino adminis-trators were employed.)13

The superintendent responded that there is anextensive program operating within the districtthat answers most of the special needs of theSpanish-speaking students. Applications for addi-tional Federal funds have been denied because ofthe low number of Spanish-speaking students inthe district, according to Grile. As of 1975 Latinosaccounted for 622 (1.5 percent) of the 40,250 stu-dents in the district.14 While acknowledging thatSpanish-speaking students frequently haveproblems not faced by most students, Grile main-tained the major source of the problems is that theLatinos are relative newcomers to Fort Wayne,and they do not have sufficient role modelsestablished in the community to follow. In addi-tion, he said there is a power struggle within theLatino community and the schools are being usedas a battleground by the various segments of thatcommunity. Grile admitted that the dropout ratefor Latino students may be somewhat higher thanthat of other groups, but he denied that they aretracked into special education or vocational edu-cation programs and away from academic pro-grams. He stated that a lack of resources is onereason why a Latino administrator to handleLatino problems has not been hired and that thiswas not a high enough priority problem to justifyreplacing existing positions with the special Latinoadministrator.

What is to be Done?The consensus on the part of the community

groups interviewed by Commission staff was thatHEW or some other outside source would have tobring pressure on the FWCS to deal with theproblems raised by each group. According toBosma, "the only effective check is OCR in-vestigation and enforcement." The EducationalCouncil for Latino Affairs claimed the administra-tion will not deal with its grievances unless"threatened by HEW." Board member HelenBrown said the school administration will neverbring about desegregation unless HEW or someonefrom the outside brings pressure on the FWCS.She recommended that the Commission ask HEWto investigate the situation in Fort Wayne.

OCR may have settled its formal charges, theJustice Department may have decided not to pur-sue its investigation, the Indiana Civil Rights Com-mission may never complete its negotiations with

11

the schools, and the school board may not reachagreement on a reorganization proposal this year;but the issues of school desegregation and thequality and equality of educational opportunitiesavailable to minorities and women are very muchalive in Fort Wayne.

Notes to Chapter Two1. Interview in Fort Wayne, Ind., Apr. 6, 1977. The five coali-tion members interviewed were: Gayle Greer, ExecutiveDirector, Fort Wayne Urban League; Karen Duemling, Leagueof Women Voters; Gay Schmidt, Fort Wayne Urban League;Dixie Arter, Inter-Religion Action Council; and Joyce Dunlap,YWCA Urban Affairs Committee. (Subsequent references torepresentatives of the coalition are based on this interview.)

2. Lester Grile, Superintendent of FWCS, telephone interview,Apr. 11, 1977. (Subsequent references to Lester Grile arebased on this interview.)

3. Helen Lee, President of School Board, FWCS, telephone in-terview, Apr. 13, 1977. (Subsequent references to Helen Leeare based on this interview.)

4. "Results of Referendum Vote: Desegregation Statement ofthe Fort Wayne Education Association," Feb. 9, 1977, FortWayne Education Association, news release, Apr. 1, 1977.

5. Marvin Ross, Executive Director, FWEA, interview in FortWayne, Ind., Apr. 6, 1977. (Subsequent references to MarvinRoss are based on this interview.)

6. Robert Walters, attorney for FWCS, telephone interview,Apr. 8, 1977.

7. Helen Brown, Board Member of FWCS, interview in FortWayne, Ind., Apr. 6, 1977. (Subsequent references to HelenBrown are based on this interview.)

8. Special Report, from Superintendent Lester Grile to theBoard of School Trustees, Fort Wayne Community Schools,Oct. 25, 1976.

9. Fort Wayne Community Schools Enrollment Data, 1970-71and 1971-72. '

10. The Journal Gazette, Feb. 1 1, 1977.

11. Boyd Bosma, desegregation consultant, NEA, telephone in-terview, Apr. 7, 1977.

12. Interview in Fort Wayne, Ind., Apr. 6, 1977. The five coun-cil members interviewed were: John Rivera, United Mexican-Americans Organization, Inc.; Nora Alicia Trevino, Mayor's Of-fice; Rosa Gerra, CETA; Marcilino Espinosa, Department forSpanish Speaking People, Diocese of Fort Wayne; and PaulMendez, former Title I Liaison.

13. Elementary-Secondary Staff Information (EEO-5), Oct. 1,1975.

14. Fort Wayne Community Schools Enrollment Data,1975-1976.

12

Chapter Three

Findings and RecommendationsThe basic findings of this report are:(1) While some progress has been made inreducing the racial imbalances in student andteacher assignments in the Fort Wayne Commu-nity Schools, much remains to be done.(2) Federal officials, particularly OCR, have notfully utilized authority granted to them underlaw to assure that equal opportunity is providedin the Fort Wayne Community Schools.(3) Events in the next few weeks will be criticalin determining, in the words of the superinten-dent, "a direction for the Fort Wayne Commu-nity Schools which has implications for the nexttwenty years."The major specific findings are as follows:

Racial Imbalance in StudentAssignments

1. Racially identifiable junior and senior highschools have been eliminated. As of 1975 allschools at this level had minority enrollmentsbetween 9 percent and 35 percent of total en-rollments.2. As of the fall of 1975, 72 percent of the ele-mentary schools were identifiable by race (72percent had minority enrollments of less than 5percent or more than 50 percent) compared to66 percent in 1970. And in 1975, 78 percent ofminority elementary students were enrolled inschools with minority enrollments greater than50 percent. This is an increase from 67 percentof minority students enrolled in such schools in1970.

Involvement of Federal Officials3. In its 1969 and 1971 onsite reviews, OCRfound potential Title VI violations in the studentand teacher assignments and other areas in theFort Wayne Community Schools, but decided in1975 to drop the student assignment issue. FortWayne is one of several cases where potentialTitle VI violations were dropped reportedly due

to insufficient evidence, but where all decisionswere made verbally and no written record justi-fying such decisions was kept.4. Informed individuals at OCR and the Centerfor National Policy Review, a private researchand litigation organization, who reviewed thepertinent data, believe there is sufficientevidence to support a charge of Title VI viola-tions on the basis of student assignment, andthey are considering asking that the case bereopened.5. In July 1976, U.S. District Court Judge JohnJ. Sirica ordered HEW to initiate enforcementproceedings or to make an administrative deter-mination of compliance in Fort Wayne and inseveral other school districts.6. OCR pursued the teacher assignment issue inFort Wayne and in September 1976 approved aplan submitted by the school district. However,OCR did not receive the followup informationregarding the experience and education ofteachers in the school system that it hadrequested in its letter approving the teacherreassignment plan until mid-April 1977. Prelimi-nary analysis by Commission staff appears to in-dicate that the teacher desegregation plan hasbeen only partially implemented.7. The Civil Rights Division of the Departmentof Justice received several complaints of dis-crimination in the Fort Wayne schools fromparents of minority students and is currentlyreviewing the student assignment issue. As ofMarch 1977, no determination had been madeas to whether or not the Department will act inthe Fort Wayne Community Schools case.8. At least two Federal agencies and one Stateagency having civil rights enforcement authorityhave conducted investigations of the FortWayne Community Schools. There has been lit-tle or no State-Federal coordination of these ef-forts. As a result, interrelated, systemwideproblems of recruitment, hiring, teacher and stu-dent assignment, programs, services, and cur-

13

ricular materials are being addressed by enforce-ment agencies in a fragmentary fashion.

Current School Desegregation Issuesin Fort Wayne

9. The Indiana Civil Rights Commission is at-tempting to negotiate a settlement with FortWayne to resolve 15 charges of discriminationin employmen. and in the educational programthat the commission brought against the schooldistrict in May 1974.10. The superintendent has proposed a reor-ganization plan, which includes proposals forreducing racial imbalances. The plan is unac-ceptable to many individuals (including someboard members) and organizations in the com-munity, primarily because it does not go farenough in desegregating the schools and itplaces the burden of desegregation on theminority community.11. A coalition of local white and minority or-ganizations that has publicly opposed the su-perintendent's proposal is seeking major revi-sions in the plan.A variety of issues, involving several individuals,

community organizations, and public agencies,have been raised in this investigation. Given thetimeliness of this report our recommendations in-clude, first, a series of immediate actions that canbe taken during the next few weeks, and second,procedural proposals regarding the Federal civilrights enforcement effort in the area of education,based on the experience in the Fort Wayne case.

Recommendations for ImmediateActions:

1. The Indiana Advisory Committee to the U.S.Commission on Civil Rights recommends to thesuperintendent and board members that the FortWayne Community Schools develop a new reor-ganization plan. In doing so the school adminis-tration should work with the Fort Wayne com-munity, including parents of black and Hispanicstudents, teachers, and representatives of majorwomen's and minority organizations.Such a plan should be educationally sound; itshould allow for systemwide desegregation; itshould address the issues raised in the IndianaCivil Rights Commission complaint; and itshould be responsive to the major disagreementssurrounding the current reorganization proposal.

2. The Advisory Committee recommends thatthe U.S. Commission on Civil Rights formallyrequest that OCR reopen and that the Depart-ment of Justice more actively pursue their in-vestigations of the student assignment issue inthe Fort Wayne schools. OCR should also moni-tor more closely the district's implementation offaculty desegregation.These agencies should be asked to update theirfiles, to reexamine all relevant information, andto reconsider all previous decisions on this issue.The Commission should recommend that theseagencies give equal consideration to communityinput, particularly that from representatives ofthe various protected groups, and to data pro-vided by the Fort Wayne Community Schools. Ifviolations of Federal law are found to exist,these agencies should review any proposed reor-ganization plan for the Fort Wayne schools. Ifthe proposed plan does not remedy the Federalviolations, enforcement proceedings should beinitiated.

Recommendations for ProceduralChanges in the Civil RightsEnforcement Effort

3. The Advisory Committee recommends thatthe Commission's Office of Federal Civil RightsEvaluation conduct periodic reviews and publishreports of specific OCR and Department ofJustice investigations, focusing on those caseswhere potential Title VI violations are found oraction under Title IV appears warranted basedon onsite reviews. The first such review shouldbegin within 60 to 90 days and should coverOCR procedures utilized in settling the cases in-volved in the 1976 case of Brown v. Weinbergerand procedures utilized by the Department ofJustice in its current investigation of the FortWayne schools.Among the issues that should be examined are:the criteria employed in determining whether ornot evidence supports the finding of a violation;whether and how official agency records of deci-sions are maintained; how these agencies at-tempt to bring about voluntary compliance; andhow they monitor settlements reached with non-complying districts.4. The Advisory Committee recommends thatthe Commission request:

14

a. The Departments of Health, Education, andWelfare and Justice to develop revised in-vestigatory and enforcement procedures in thearea of equal educational opportunity thatwould enable:

1. referral of specific cases from Federal toState civil rights enforcement agencies, andvice versa, where appropriate;2. State-Federal coordination of such effortswhere appropriate;3. Joint State-Federal investigatory, enforce-ment, and followup efforts in such caseswhere appropriate; and4. Any additional changes and reorganiza-tion necessary to achieve more efficient andtimely Federal enforcement actions in thesematters.

b. Where such changes are not possible undercurrent Federal law, that the appropriate com-mittees of the Congress consider any statutoryrevisions necessary to achieve more efficientand timely equal educational opportunity en-forcement through State-Federal cooperationas proposed above.

15

Appendix A

Communications Between HEW and Fort Wayne Community SchoolsRegarding Title VI Violation Due to Teacher Assignment:

• HEW Letter Notifying School District of its Noncompliance• Fort Wayne Teacher Assignment Plan• HEW Approval of Plan and Request for Followup Information• Followup Information Provided by Fort Wayne

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

November 17, 1975

Mr. Lester L. GrileSuperintendent of SchoolsFort Wayne Community Schools1230 S. ClintonFort Wayne, Indiana 46802

Dear Mr. Grile:

The Office for Civil Rights has the responsibility to enforce Title VIof the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and its implementing Regulation (45 CFRPart 80), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color,or national origin in any program or activity receiving Federal financialassistance. Pursuant to such enforcement responsibility; this Officeconducted a review of the Fort Wayne Community Schools in April 1969,and visited the District in January and April of 1971 and in February1975. In addition, the Office has reviewed the data supplied by theFort Wayne Community Schools on the Elementary and Secondary SchoolCivil Rights Survey Fores (OS/CR 101-102) and Elementary-Secondary StaffInformation Forms (F.DO-5). Based upon our analysis of this information,I have determinad that the Fort Wayne Community Schools are not incompliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by virtue ofracially motivated policies and practices v/ith respect to faculty assign-ment.

No black teacher was hired by the Fort Wayne Community Schools until 1952,when one was employed. During the 10 year period, 1952-61, a total of 16were hired. Of these 16 teachers, 15 taught in elementary schools withover 50% minority student populations. The first black teacher in a highschool was hired and assigned in 1954. However, the second was not hiredand assigned until 1964. The first black teacher in a junior high washired in 1963. Betveen 1962 and 1968, the Fort Wayne Community Schoolshired 74 black teachers, which was 4.4% of the total number of teachershired during this period.

In the 1967-63 school year the Fort Wayne Community Schools employed 69minority teachers out of a total of 1,670 teachers (4.1%). At that

16

OFFICE '• S'JP'i A M E DATE OFFICE SURNAME DATE OFFICE SURNAME DATE

Page 2 - Mr. Lester L. Grile

time 38, or 55*1% of the 69 minority teachers taught in A elementaryschools (Hanna, Harmar, McCulloch and Smart) each of which had over50% black student enrollment. At the same time, ninety or 5.6% ofthe system's white faculty were assigned to these schools. (TheseA schools had 7*67% of the system's faculty.) During this time theminority student enrollment in Fort Wayne was 11.5% of the total schoolpopulation. In 1967 there were A3 schools in the system with lessthan 10% minority student populations. Only 2A minority teacherswere assigned to schools with less than 10% minority student popula-tions. No minority teachers were assigned to 31 of these schools.The Pall 1968 (HEW Directory of Selected Public Elementary and Secon-dary Schools) statistics show AA, or 66.7% of 66 black teachers taughtin the 7 schools (of the total 56 schools) which had over 50% blackstudent enrollment.

During the period between 1968 and 197A the number of minority teachersin predominantly tninority schools decreased. However, the Fall 197Aforms OS/CR 101-102 show that nine of the Fort Wayne Community Schools'61 schools have over 50% black student population and 35, or 32.7% ofthe 107 minority teachers, are assigned to these nine schools. At thesame time 25 schools with less than 10% minority student populationshave only 8 minority teachers assigned to them, 19 of these schools hadno minority teachers assigned to them, and a total of 23 schools hadno minority teachers.

The Fort Wayne Community Schools employ 6 minority principals. Fiveof these six are elementary school principals and they are all assignedto schools with over 81% minority student enrollments.

The District'8 foregoing practice of assigning minority group facultyto schools attended predominantly by minority group students has caused orIncreased the racial identiflability of 3A of Fort Wayne's schools asintended primarily for children of one race.

Based on the above information, the Office for Civil Rights has determinedthat the Fort Wayne School System is assigning faculty in a discriminatorymanner in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 196A and theDepartment Regulation, A5 CFR 80. Accordingly, it is therefore necessarythat the District prepare a specific plan for faculty desegregation andsubmit this plan to the Office for Civil Rights within A5 day9 after re-ceipt of this letter.

In order to establish compliance with Title VI by submitting a facultydesegregation plan, such plan must provide for the reassignment offaculty so that the ratio of minority group teachers in each school issubstantially the Bame as the ratio throughout the District. This remedy

17

Page 3 - Mr. Lester L. Grile

was set forth by the Federal Court in the case of Singleton v. JacksonMunicipal Separate School District, A19 F. 2d 1211 (5th Cir. 1967):cert. denied, 369 U.S. 1032 (1970), and it is the standard used by thisDepartment in evaluating plans for remedying faculty assignment violationsunder Title VI.

In the event that efforts at voluntary compliance prove unsuccessfulwithin 90 days, I will have no alternative but to refer your District'sfile to the Department's Office of General Counsel with a recommendationto initiate administrative enforcement proceedings.

This letter is not intended, and it should not be so construed, to coverany other issues regarding compliance with Title VI which may exist andwhich are not specifically discussed herein.

Our staff is ready to extend assistance to your school system in itseffort to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If youhave any questions contact Mr. 0.0. Barr of my staff. He can be reachedat Room 222, 55 Erieview Plaza, Plaza Nine Building, Cleveland, Ohio,44114. The telephone number is 216/522-4970.

Sincerely,

(Sgd) Kenneth A. Mines

Director, Office forCivil Rights, Region V

cci The Honorable Harold NegleySupt. of Public InstructionState Department of Public Instruction

LMHamiltonrpae

bcc:

Dr. Lloyd Henderson

Mary Jane Calais

Al Hamlin, OGC

0.0. Barr, Specialist-in-Charge

18

MFNTOR KRAUS

J A BB'JGGEMAN

WILLIAM F MCNAGNY

JAMES M BARRETT III

J MICHAEL O HARA

MILES C GERBERDING

PAUL S STEIGMEVER

JOHN M CLIFTON. JR.

DOUGLAS E MILLER

ROBERT S WALTERS

JOHN F LYONS

N THOMAS HORTON II

JAMES M PRICKETT

WAYNE L. WITMER

WILLIAM L. SWEET. JR

THOMAS M. FINK

GARY J RICKNER

JOHN O. WALDA

BARRETT, BARRETT & MCNAGNY

LAWYERS

THIRD FLOOR LINCOLN BANK TOWERJAMES M BARRETT 1929

F O R T W A Y N E . I N D I A N A PHIL M. MCNAGNY 1969OTTO E. GRANT. JR. 1969

46802

TELEPHONE 423-9551

, AREA COOE 219

March 2 2 , 1976JAMES M BARRETT. JR.

OF COUNSEL

Mr. Frank KruegerOffice of the Attorney GeneralCivil Rights DivisionRoom 32 65HEW - North Building330 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20201

Re: Fort Wayne Community Schools

Dear Mr. Krueger:Pursuant to its resolve to bring the racial balance of

its faculty into the range of HEW guidelines by the fallsemester of 197 6, the Fort Wayne Community Schools will infact be implementing a plan to reassign both black and whiteteachers in its elementary schools in such a manner as willbring each of the schools within the District within a plusor minus five percent of the average percentage of blackteachers within the elementary school system as a whole.Currently, approximately eight percent of the faculty isblack in the elementary system as a whole.

We have taken the total 1975-7 6 Staff (which, inclusiveof special education personnel, totals 688), we have takenthe total 197 5-76 black teachers per school, and we havecompared the resulting percentage of black teachers to eachschool's faculty as a whole with the acceptable HEW range.Based upon this analysis, we have made a determination ofthe number of black faculty members in each school and thenumber of white faculty members in each school that will haveto be transferred or exchanged in order to bring the ratiosand percentages into HEW conformity.

Although there are some tentative figures available atthe present time for the approximate number of total facultyin each school beginning in September, 1976, there will be

19

Mr. Frank KruegerPage TwoMarch 22, 197 6

adjustments made in this number as and when actual enrollmentsare known and teacher-pupil ratios finalized for the fall.Accordingly^ we will use the 1975-76 Staff figures for purposesof this letter and of the proposed reassignments contemplatedhereby.

Below you will find listed each elementary school withinthe District, together with the total staff in each school,the 1975-76 number of black teachers per school, and the1976-77 recommendations for black teachers per school aftercompletion of the reassignment program. The total Stafffigures will be high by the number of special educationteachers, which I estimate at 60 within the elementary system,but the ratios for classroom teachers would be maintained,nonetheless.

School

AbbettAdamsAnthony WayneArlingtonBloomingdaleBrentwoodBuncheCroningerForest ParkFranke ParkGlenwood ParkHaleyHannaHarmerHarrisHarrison HillHillcrestHoaglandHollandIndian VillageIrwinLincolnLindleyMcCulloch

Total Staff(1975-76)

18121117171514242416202510122430819211615141110

Black Teachers perSchool (1975-76)

110110500003330102000116

Black Teac:per School(1976-77)(recommend^

111111211112221202111112

20

MaplewoodMemorial ParkNebraskaNorthcrestPleasant CenterPriceRiversideSt. Joseph CentralShambaughSlocumSouth CalhounSouth WayneSouthern HeightsStudy-WardWashingtonWashington CenterWaynedaleWeisser ParkYoung

202312178209

21241314231310161222183119

Mr. Frank KruegerPage ThreeMarch 22, 197 6

0 15 31 10 10 0i • i0 00 10 21 10 10 10 12 22 22 20 10 1

12 4_3 _2

Total 688 58 58

Three (3) elementary schools would have no full-time blackteachers on the staff, but through the placement of specialteachers in art, music, and physical education, these schoolswould have the services of black teachers on a part-time basisuntil further placement activities result in the placement ofblack faculty in those schools.

The entire reassignment process has already been commenced,in that principals have been alerted and preparations begun forthe administrative implementation of the actual faculty transfers.Specifically, it would appear that approximately 21 black teacherswill have to be reassigned in order to effectuate the proper racialbalance among faculty. It is anticipated that vacancies would becreated in the receiving schools, through leaves of absence, re-tirement, pregnancy, or the like, so that faculty assignments outfrom the receiving schools would not be necessary. Such assignmentsout, however, would be made in the event that vacancies are nototherwise created in the receiving schools. In summary, the blackteachers in schools from which reassignments must be made wouldinclude three at Bunche, one at Haley, one at Hanna, one atHarmer, four at McCulloch, two at Memorial Park, eight at WeisserPark, and one at Young. These twenty-one black teachers would be

21

Mr. Frank KruegerPage FourMarch 22, 1976

reassigned to the following schools and in the followingnumbers:

Number of Black TeachersSchool to Assign

Anthony Wayne 1Brentwood 1Croninger 1Forest Park 1Franke Park 1Glenwood Park 1Harris 1Harrison Hill 1HillcrestHolland 1Indian Village 1Irwin 1Maplewood 1Northcrest 1Pleasant CenterRiversideSt. Joseph Central 1Shambaugh 2South Calhoun 1South Wayne 1Southern Heights 1Washington Center 1Waynedale 1

I trust that the foregoing information,gives you what youneed at this juncture to demonstrate that Fort Wayne CommunitySchools is moving toward implementation of this plan. Thesereassignments will be in place and will be implemented by thecommencement of school in the fall of 1976.

I expect to forward to your attention, shortly, the ancillaryadmiftistrative policies that will set down guidelines on thematter of actual transfer mechanisms and considerations.

I am enclosing, per your request, with copies to Messrs.Barr and Mines, copies of the current EEO5's, which mayhelp you in your review. If you have any specific questionson numbers or on assumptions, please feel free to call.

Very truly yours,

BARRETT, BARRETT & McNAGNY

Robert S. WaltersRSW:mlcc: Mr. Lester L. Grile

Mr. 0. 0. Barr *̂-*""""~Mr. Kenneth A. Mines

22

MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFAREOFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

:Lloyd HendersonDirectorElementary and SecondaryDivision

Civil Rights Division

ROM :Frank K. Krueger, Jr.Attorney, Office of the GeneralCounsel

Civil Rights Division

UBJECT :Fort Wayne Community Schools

Attached hereto is a letter which I have received fromthe Superintendent of schools in Fort Wayne coveringthe ancilliary administrative matters which we discussedwith Fort Wayne's attorney, Robert S. Walters, by tele-phone on June 21, 1976.

Although I believe the letter covers all of the remainingitems necessary to bring Fort Wayne's faculty assignmentpractices into compliance with Title VI, I suggest thatthe letter and the attached Master Contract between theschool board and the teachears union be forwarded to theRegional Office in Cleveland for their analysis andrecommendation.

23

0

FORT WAYNE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS1230 SOUTH CLINTON STREET • FORT WAYNE, INDIANA 4680?

PHONE 219/422-3575

FORT WAYNE BICENrtNMlU

June 22, 1976

Mr. Frank KruegerOffice of the Attorney GeneralCivil Rights DivisionRoom 3265HEW - North Building330 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20201

Re: Fort Wayne Community Schools

Dear Mr. Krueger:

Please be advised that in implementing the provisions ofthe faculty re-assignment plan, described to you by writtencommunication dated March 22, 1976 from our attorney,Robert S. Walters, the Fort Wayne Community Schools hasfollowed the policies, rules, and guidelines described inthe Master Contract between the Board of School Trusteesof the Fort Wayne Community Schools and the Fort WayneEducation Association, Inc. (1975-1976), and, most partic-ularly, the provisions of Article IX thereof (a copy ofwhich is attached for your reference). As further clari-fication, however, and to assure you that both the voluntaryand involuntary transfers made necessary by our re-assign-ment plan have not resulted in a lessening in the qualifyof instruction in any affected school, nor in the dismissal,demotion, or loss of seniority on the part of any of theaffected teachers, I am pleased to advise you that none ofthe teachers who have been transferred thus far, and noneof the teachers who will be transferred pursuant to the planhereafter, have been or will be re-assigned to a teachingposition for which that individual teacher is not qualified;nor have any such re-assignments been accompanied by anyprofessional demotion or loss of salary.

Consistent with the provisions of Article IX Master Contract,an admixture of experienced and inexperienced teachers ineach school has been maintained, as has the unit and build-ing balances of teachers with post-graduate degrees and

24

June 22, 1976

Mr. Krueger - 2

various kinds of teaching skills. As you are no doubt aware,the Fort Wayne Community Schools has a large percentage ofteachers with advanced degrees, inasmuch as the State ofIndiana requires a Master's Degree after the teacher hastaught for five years. All of these things considered, there-fore, it is our opinion,-and it is our goal, that equaleducational opportunities have been and will continue to bemaintained within each of our schools on the basis both offacilities and of the skill, experience, educational attain-ment, and general qualifications of its teachers. There hasnever been, nor will there be, any tendency within the FortWayne Community Schools system to concentrate less-qualifiedteachers in any one or more particular schools, let alone inminority group schools.

With regard to future recruitment, hiring, and placement ofteachers within the System, you should be advised, of course,that the Fort Wayne Community Schools has consistently main-tained nondiscriminatory policies. Your office has requestedfurther assurances, however, and we do so willingly, knowingthat these assurances do not represent any deviation from therecruitment, hiring, and assignment practices which we havefollowed in the past. In essence, then, our recruitment,hiring, and assignment practices are and will continue to benondiscriminatory with regard to race, religion, ethnicity,or sex and will be based upon the skill, ability, scholasticperformance, personality, and attitude of each and everyinterviewee, applicant, or employee, in over-all relation tothe teaching needs of each particular school or unit withinour System. We are committed to a policy of not limiting theemployment opportunities of any particular group of applicants,although we are striving to make known to various minoritygroups the range of employment opportunities available withinour System, as and when they arise.

In effecting the faculty re-assignments, the Fort WayneCommunity Schools wishes to make it abundantly clear that .these re-assignments have been made in compliance with yourOffice's demands, without in any way constituting an acknow-ledgment on our part that our recruitment, hiring, and assign-ment practices in the past have been anything but lawful. Weare committed to redressing the racial identifiability of ourfaculties, however, pursuant to your request; although, as wehave discussed with you on a number of occasions, we will con-tinue to make our recruitment, hiring, and faculty assignmentdecisions based upon completely nondiscriminatory criteria,

25

June 22, 1976

Mr. Krueger - 3

even though this may result in future deviations from thetarget faculty balance percentages which you have outlinedto us.

Our office will continue to monitor, annually, the propor-tionality and balance of the teaching staffs within all ofour schools, in relation to our stated policies herein ofconducting our recruitment, hiring, and assignment practiceson a completely nondiscriminatory basis. Should we perceiveany patterns of imbalance developing in any particular school,schools, or units within our system, we will promptly determinewhether any such imbalance has resulted from any applicationof prohibited standards or criteria anywhere within our System,or whether such patterns, if any, have developed by coincidence.In the event of the former conclusion, we will be prepared totake steps to correct any such imbalance as and when theyoccur and to render any repetition of the problem unlikely.

Please let us know if this statement of policy meets withyour approval, and, if so, we will consider this statementof policy as an addendum to and part of our faculty re-assignmentplans submitted to you on March 22, 1976.

We will await the favor of your response and are hopeful thatany questions which your Office has had in the past will nowbe laid to rest. It should be of interest to you that mostof the proposed re-assignments, as set forth in the March 22instrument, have been effectuated and all necessary re-assignmentsare anticipated to be in place well prior to the commencementof school in September of 1976.

Very truly yours,

FORT WAYNE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS

LLGrjb fester L. GrileCC: Mr. Walters Superintendent of Schools

Each Board MemberDr. YoungDr. AnthisDr. Cowan

26

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION. AND WELFAREOFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D C 2O20I

SEP 2 3

Mr. Lester GrileSuperintendentFort Wayne Comnunity Schools1230 South ClintonFort Wayne, Indiana 46802

Dear Superintendent Grile:

This letter is in response to your letter of June 22, 1976, addressed toFrank Krueger in our General Counsel's Office, and to the letter of March 22,1976, from Mr. Robert S. Walters, attorney for the Fort Wayne ComnunitySchools, also addressed to Frank Krueger.

With respect to the projected faculty assignnents outlined in the letterof March 22, 1976, for the 1976-77 school year, I am pleased to adviseyou that such assignments, if Implemented, are consistent with the require-ments of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of

Regarding the ancillary commitments contained in your June 22, 1976 letter,it is my understanding that the Fort Wayne Community Schools has agreedthat during the desegregation process: s'

(1) no teacher will be assigned to a position for whichhe or she is not qualified; and

(2) no reassignment of any certificated staff member willresult in demotion or loss of salary.

In addition, during the desegregation process, as well as after, the districthas agreed that:

(1) faculty will be assigned so that at each school there willbe a substantially equal admixture of teachers according toexperience, teaching skills, and post-graduate degrees;

(2) the district will maintain nondiscriminatory recruitment,hiring and assignment practices; and

27

Page 2 - Superintendent Grile

(3) the district, in the future, will monitor the racial ratioof teachers at each school in the system so that if anyunlawful racial imbalance occurs as a result of the district'sassigning teachers based on their race, color, or nationalorigin, the Fort Wayne Community Schools will take immediateaction to remedy this Title VI violation.

If my understanding of the ancillary commitments made by the schooldistrict is correct, then the reassignment of teachers, in conjunction withthese commitments, constitutes a desegregation plan which meets the require-ments of Title VI in the area of faculty assignmentt. I will assume thatmy understanding is correct unless I hear from you to the contrary within15' days from the date of this letter. Since the teacher assignments out-lined in Mr. Walters' letter of March 22, 1976, were projections only,please provide me by October 15, 1976, with a revised list of teacher assign-ments for 1976-77 as they became finalized at the opening of school. Thelist should include a breakdown of teachers assigned to each school accord-ing to race, educational degrees, certificates and experience.

If I can be of any additional assistance to you in this or any other matter,please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely yours,

(Signed) Lloyd R. Henderson

Lloyd R. Henderson, DirectorElementary and Secondary Education Division

Office for Civil Rights

cc: Director, Office for Civil Rights,Region V

Chief State School OfficerAttorney, Fort Wayne Community Schools

28

.FORT WAYNE COMMUN'TY

September 30, 1976

Mr. Lloyd R. Henderson, DirectorElementary and Secondary Education DivisionOffice for Civil RightsDepartment of Health, Education, and WelfareWashington, D.C. 20201

Dear Mr. Henderson:

In your letter of September 23, 1976, you requested areport on the finalized staffing for the 1976-1977 schoolyear.

We are enclosing a listing of our elementary schools andthe final teacher assignments as of September 28, 1976.In addition we are supplying a listing of the minorityteachers who were transferred, the name of the school inwhich the teacher taught last year, the name of the schoolto which the teacher transferred, the highest degree ofrecord held by the teacher, the total number of years of "teaching, and the number of years taught in the Fort WayneCommunity Schools.

We were pleased with the cooperation of all of our personnelin making these changes and in our opinion satisfactoryadjustments have been made.

Thank you for your help and cooperation in this matter.

Very truly yours,

LLG:jbEncs.CC: Personnel

Superintendent's File

"Xdster L.^^Superintendent of Schools

29

Wayne, Indiana 46802 September 28, 1976

STAFFING ASSIGNMENTS - ELEMENTARY - FOR 1976-77 SCHOOL YEAR

SchoolAbbettAdamsAnthony WayneArlingtonBloomingdaleBrentwoodBuncheCroningerForest ParkFranke ParkGlenwood ParkHaleyHannaHarmarHarrisHarrison HillHillcrestHoaglandHollandIndian VillageIrwinLincolnLindleyMcCullochMaplewoodMemorial ParkNebraskaNorthcrestPleasant CenterPriceRiversideSt. Joseph CentralShambaughS locumSouth CalhounSouth WayneSouthern HeightsStudyWardWashingtonWashington CenterWaynedaleWeisser ParkYoung

Total 1976-77 Staff(inc. Spec. Education)

18.51211191716142424.5161928.510.512.523.528.581821.5161512.5111021211216.59209

23241213.522141016122218.53018

750 F.T.E.

1976-77 BlackTeachers Per School

11111122211222110121111314110111211111221142

61

1/

2/

3/

1/ Black Art teacher and black P.E. teacher assigned HillcreF.2/ Black teacher on Leave of Absence (Maternity)3/ Black P.E. teacher assigned to Pleasant Center

30

FORT WAYNE COMMUNITY SCHOOLSF o r t Wayne, I n d i a n a

TRANSFER OF BLACK TEACHERSF O R 1 9 7 6 - 7 7 SCHOOL YEAR

NAME FROM: T O : DEGREE C S R T I F . YEARS WITHE X P . FWCS

DELETED WE i s s e r Park, Shambaugh, B.S. Elem Prov 25th/6th 5th K-8

Weisser Park, So.Calhoun, M.A. Elem Prov 45th/6th 5th/6th

Nebraska, So. Wayne, M.A. Elem Prof 93rd/4th 5th K-8

McCulloch, Glenwood Pk, B.S. Elem 1st 383rd 2nd 1-8

Mem. Park, Croninger, M.S. Elem 1st 225th/6th 2nd Sec.-Voc

Home Ec

Weisser park, Northcrest, B.S. Elem Prov 25th/6th 1st K-8

Eunche, Harris, B.S. Elem Prov 34 th 3rd K-8

Harmar, Wash. Center, B.S. Elem Prov 1%3rd/4th 6th K-8

Bunche, St.Joe Centr. B.S. Elem Prov4th 3rd K-6 2%

31

Weisser Park, Anth. Wayne, M.S. Elem Prov 85th/6th 3rd/4th K-6

McCulloch Irwin M.S. Elem Prof3rd 4th r-8 10 10

Eunche, Forest Park, M.S. Elem Prof 6 61st 3rd K-8

Henna, Harr. Hill, M.S. Elem Prof 13 101st Kgn, F.T. K-6

2

4

9

6

1

2

3

1

3

3

TRANSFER - BLACK TEACHERS - FOR 1976-77 SCHOOL YEAR

FROM: TO: DEGREE CERTIF. YEARS WITHEXP. FWCS

DELETED Weisser Park, Brentwood, B.S. Elem Prov 9 25th/6th 4th/5th K-8

Young, Waynedale, B.S. Elem Prov 1 11st 1st K-8

McCulloch, So. Heights, M.S. Elem Prof 12 124th 6th K-8

Weisser Park, Maplewood, B.S. Elem Prov 1 15th/6th Kgn, F.T. K-8

32

Appendix B

Summary of Center for National Policy Review's Assessment of FortWayne Community School Situation

FacsimileCenter for National Policy Review

William L. Taylor, DirectorSeptember 11, 1976

FORT WAYNE, INDIANA SUMMARY SHEETSTATUS: HEW is dealing only with the faculty assignment issue. Cioffi says that the junior andsenior highs have been desegregated. No letter of non-compliance sent tc Fort Wayne in thestudent assignment area.DEGREE OF SEGREGATION: Total district percentage of minority students: 17.09%. Out of41 elementary schools, 11 have 45% or more minority enrollment, 25 have 10% or less minorityenrollment, and 5 have a minority enrollment between 10.1% and 25.1%.SUMMARY OF NATURE OF EVIDENCE: There is evidence detailing the school board'ssegregative intent. This evidence includes discriminatory building practices which have con-tributed to the Hanna school being 93.9% minority. There is also the fact that the grade struc-ture is dual. The minority schools are on a 1-4 basis while the non-minority elementary schoolsare 1-6. There is contrary evidence in the file which states that many of the boundary changeswere not racially motivated. However, I think there is enough in the file to refute HEW's posi-tion that there is not enough evidence of segregative intent.

33

Appendix C

Communications Regarding OCR's Handling of the Student AssignmentIssue in the Fort Wayne Community Schools

MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT of HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFAREOFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

TO : Mr. Orrie BarrEducation Branch Chief/Region V

DATE, HOV 1 1976

F R O M : Frederick T. Cioffi'Chief, Operations Branch

SUBJECT: Review of Brown Files

During the last four months you have been periodically requested toassemble and ship several files to my office in Washington in orderthat they might be examined by representatives of the National Centerfor Policy Review pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.

As a result of their review of said files, a question has arisen. Itappears that in a number of reviews the issue of student assignmentwas pursued or appears to have been pursued, yet the letter of findingswhich was sent to the LEA was silent on the issue. In their review ofthe file the National Center representatives were unable to observedocuments which would explain why the student assignment issues weredropped.

Accordingly it is requested that you make a quick review of thefollowing files to determine whether documents exist therein which wouldanswer the question as to why the student assignment issue was dropped.

1. South Bend, Indiana (File returned IO/27/76)2. Fort Wayne, Indiana (if you have the file)

My recollection is that the files may be silent, since most of thesecases were presented verbally in Cleveland and/or San Francisco andthe decision to drop the issue was due to lack of sufficient evidence.Everything was verbal at these conferences.

However, please call me with the results of your review by November k91976.

34

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION,AND WELFARE

Frederick T. CioffiChief, Operations Branch

November 8, 1976

Specialist-in-ChargeElementary and Secondary Education Branch (Cleveland)

Review of Brown Files

As you requested in your memorandum of November 1, 1974, I have re-viewed the South Bend, Indiana, and Fort Wayne, Indiana files andhave determined that no documents exist therein which explain whythe student assignment issue was dropped. It is my understandingthat the decision to drop this issue was made at the ClevelandCase Conference in August, 1975.

Linda A* Cornelius

LCORNELIUSrdre

OFFICE SURNAME DATE OFFICE SURNAME DATE OFFICE SURNAME DATE

35

DEPARTMENT O F H E A L T H . EDUCATION. AND WELFARE

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20201

Mr. William L. Taylor, DirectorThe Center for National Folicy ReviewSchool of LawThe Catholic University of AmericaWashington, D. C. 20017

Dear Mr, Taylor:

As agreed in my deposition of October 12, 1976, I have asked appropriatemembers of the OCR staff to review the files on:

1. Fort Wayne, Indiana2. Sweetwater, California3. Pomona, Californiak. New Britain, Connecticut5. South Bend, Indiana

The files were reviewed with negative results. The only document whichwas submitted to me from those reviewing the files is the enclosed copyof a letter dated March 24, 1975 to a complainant in New Britain. Itmay be helpful to you.

In discussing the matter of why a number of reviews appear to havepursued the issue of student assignment while the letter of findingsto the School District were silent on the issue, it was brought to myattention and I do recall that most of these case files were presentedorally to a panel of OCR and OGC staffers in Cleveland and San Franciscoin August and September 1975- In those cises where issues "."are notsustained ^oy appropriate evidence the respective regional offices wereverbally directed to disregard the issue. In other words the fileprobably does not contain any documents because the direction was givenorally.

I hcpe this assists you in your findings.

Sincerely yours,

FREDERICK T. CIOFFI

Chief, Operations BranchElementary and Secondary Education Division

Office for Civil Eights

36

Appendix D

Superintendent Grile's January 24, 1977, Proposed Reorganization Plan

A PROPOSED PLANFOR THE

FORT WAYNECOMMUNITY SCHOOLS

1977-1983

Presented By

Lester L. Grile, SuperintendentTo the

Board of School Trustees

January 24, 1977

INTRODUCTIONThe plan which we now present for consideration requires

us to look into the future, making projections and plans basedupon what has happened in the past, where we are at the pres-ent time, and where we project that we should and can be.Specifically, we will want to talk about the years 1977 through1983, but the proposal establishes a direction for the FortWayne Community Schools which has implications for thenext twenty years.

The Fort Wayne community can be proud of its past ac-complishments in its educational programs. These educationalgains have not happened by chance, but have come aboutas a result of good planning and implementation supportedby the Board of School Trustees, parents, and the total com-munity.

The major criterion for testing the components of a plan isits educational value. A plan should contribute to presenthigh standards, and it should also reflect improvement. Aschool system exists basically to provide educational oppor-tunities for boys and girls as well as the adults it is privilegedto serve.

The Administration and the Board of School Trusteesrecognize that long-range planning is a requirement for publicbodies to which are delegated by law responsibility for opera-tion of the public schools. Major consideration must be givento the economic aspects of a plan so that the plan can be im-plemented after adoption.

The Fort Wayne Community Schools corporation hasreached a time when it needs to plan facility adjustments forpresent and emerging needs. The school system must alsoadjust to enrollment changes. Projections indicate that totalenrollment will continue to decrease slightly until it beginsto stabilize and possibly increase in the 1980's. Within the150 square miles of the school district, some areas will reflectthe general decline, but other areas will continue to grow.

Facility adjustments will need to result in greater utilizationand most economical use of facilities.

Historically, the Fort Wayne Community Schools has fi-nanced most of its major capital expenditures on a pay-as-you-go basis through the Cumulative Building Fund. That fundexpires in 1977 with the 1978 collection. This method of fund-ing capital improvements has been effective the last twodecades. The Cumulative Building Fund has played a majorrole in maintaining the highest credit rating possible for theschool district, a triple "A" (Aaa) rating by Moody's In-vestors Service, Inc. School planning in this district shouldcontinue to use the Cumulative Building Fund as the mosteconomical method of financing needed capital improvements.

In its planning, the Board of School Trustees has recognizedits commitment to consider ways in which racial balance canbe improved throughout the Fort Wayne Community Schools.This proposed plan includes recommendations for such im-provements.

Several major components of this plan relate to the PeabodyStudy. The Administration appreciates the evaluation of theFort Wayne Community Schools, including recommenda-tions for improvement of educational opportunities, providedby the study. The Administration and the Board of SchoolTrustees have attended and participated in eleven publicmeetings beginning with the presentation of the PeabodyReport. We have studied the input of the citizens who at-tended these meetings, and we have welcomed the commentsof administrators, teachers, and other employees.

Many persons within and without the community havehelped us to evaluate the available options. The Admin-istration has drawn upon the broad and varied experiences ofits personnel in the professional judgments reflected in thisplan. At this time as we make proposals, we recognize our re-sponsibility to be sure that all actions will be in the best inter-est of the boys and girls in this community.

A PLAN FOR FWCS —19771983This proposed plan for the period 1977 through 1983 rep-

resents the best professional judgment of the Fort WayneCommunity Schools Administration and is presented to theBoard of School Trustees for its consideration.

This proposal is a total plan, made up of closely relatedparts which are dependent on each other. The plan includesgrade reorganization and the closing of some schools, both ofwhich actions make major contributions to improvementof racial balance in the elementary grades. We also shalldemonstrate the need for new facilities which will necessitatethe continuation of the present Cumulative Building Fundtax levy. This proposal must be considered as a total packagesince each part is dependent for effectiveness upon each otherpart.

The proposed plan has four recommendations predicatedupon the following objectives:

1. To provide better educational programs.

2. To maximize utilization of facilities and staff.

3. To upgrade educational facilities in order to accommo-date present and future needs.

4. To improve racial balance.

5. To develop a financial program wh:ch is economicallyfeasible.

I. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE BASIC ELE-MENTARY UNIT CONSIST OF GRADES KINDER-GARTEN THROUGH 5.

This recommendation requires the assignment of the sixthgrade to the junior high schools. This action provides neededflexibility at the elementary level, improves utilization of ele-mentary buildings, and makes it possible to effect economiesby phasing out some obsolete and smaller schools.

38

Because we cannot identify at this time continuing needfor schools at the present sites of four buildings, we recom-mend the closing and disposing of these facilities. The fourschools are: Hillcrest, Hanna, Harmar, and Hoagland.

Major considerations in this recommendation to close theabove four schools are their locations in relationship to pupilpopulations and/or the physical condition of the facilities.

Pupils from Hillcrest School will be assigned to South Cal-houn, Southern Heights, and Maplewood schools.

Pupils from Harmar School will be assigned to Washing-ton, Memorial Park, Forest Park, Riverside, Slocum, andBrentwood schools.

Pupils from Hanna School will be assigned to BuncheWeisser Park, and Harrison Hill schools.

And boys and girls from Hoagland. will be assigned toSouth Wayne, Study, and Lindley schools.

We recommend that the present elementary programs atMcCulloch and Ward schools be discontinued and the facili-ties utilized for the Fort Wayne Community Schools' newFourth Grade and Fifth Grade Enrichment Centers, respec-tively. Pupils from McCulloch and Ward will be assigned toMemorial Park and Weisser Park schools, respectively.

In order to provide a more intensive experience in hu-man relations and to improve the preparation of fourth andfifth grade pupils for junior high school and later years,special programs will be developed at Enrichment Cen-ters for each of these grades. The fourth grade program andits special staff will be housed in a center to be located at theMcCulloch building, and the fifth grade program and staffwill be located at the Ward building.

During one week of each semester, classes of fourth andfifth grade pupils, generally from each junior high attend-ance area, will be transported from their home schools tothese centers. There are twelve junior high schools, so eachcenter will have twelve groups of approximately 225 pupilseach attending for one week the first and second semesterseach year. Additional preparation before each visit and fol-low-up activities after each visit will be a part of these specialprograms. Teachers will accompany their classes to the En-richment Centers and will participate in the programs there.Parents will be asked to take part at the centers as well as inthe pre- and post-activities. The new Department of Com-munity Services will play an important role in involving par-ents in this program.

The success of the Elementary Enrichment Centers will beclosely evaluated to determine if the programs should be ex-panded into more time for grades four and five and perhapsextended to other grade levels.

In the K-5 organization, we recognize the benefits of greaterutilization of the current optional transfer policy which per-mits boys and girls to transfer from schools which are 50 °/o ormore of their race to a school which is less than 25% of theirrace and where space is available. We recommend that the op-tional transfer policy be revised to include transportation pro-visions for those boys and girls in grades 1 through 5 whowish to transfer under this policy.

The Administration proposes during the school year of1977-1978 to make a survey to determine the amount of inter-est and possible participation in racially balanced specialschools or special centers. Any conclusions and/or recom-mendations in this area will be considered by December 31,1978.

Also, if there is sufficient interest and participation in vol-untary racial balance transfers, it would be possible to con-sider establishing an extended school day at the ElementaryEnrichment Centers (McCulloch and Ward) . The centerscould be open for students before and after school and wouldserve as collection and drop off points for transportation.

II. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE JUNIOR

H I G H SCHOOL O R G A N I Z A T I O N I N C L U D E

GRADES 6 THROUGH 8.

There is educational justification for moving the sixthgrade into the junior high program. Sixth grade pupils willprofit from the additional educational opportunities whichwill be open to them in the junior high school facility. Pro-gram modifications open for sixth graders in this new en-vironment will be a great educational advantage.

We do have some facility needs at the junior high schoollevel, but moving the sixth grade into the junior high schoolwill not require the major changes in most junior high physi-cal facilities which will be necessary if the ninth grade b leftin the junior high schools.

Moving sixth grade pupils into junior high schools willmove some 2,800 additional boys and girls into the radialplan of attendance which is used for the secondary schoolsof Fort Wayne. This will involve nearly 15% of our presentelementary enrollment in a racially balanced school environ-ment.

III. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT T H E SENIORH I G H SCHOOL O R G A N I Z A T I O N I N C L U D EGRADES 9 THROUGH 12.

Recent evidence favors inclusion of the ninth grade pro-gram in the senior high school for many reasons beneficialto the students. These reasons include increased maturity ofninth graders, additional opportunities for e'ective and special-ized courses, involvement of the ninth grade with high schoolgraduation requirements, use of ninth grade courses in ap-plications for college admission, and the importance of theninth grade to continuity of the extra curricular programs, in-cluding athletics, music, drama, speech and journalism insenior high schools. Educational opportunities for ninth gradepupils will be enhanced by assigning them to the senior highschool.

All ninth grade pupils cannot be moved now without ma-jor impact on educational programs, because we do not haveneeded capacity at the senior high level or all of the needed

39

special instructional facilities. Nor can we project sufficientenrollment decreases to say that grades 9-12 could be accom-modated in existing facilities. Because of locations, size, sitelimitations, enrollment needs, uneven distribution of pupilsin the school district, and excessive costs of additions, it is notadvisable to add to the existing high schools. Moving some3,200 ninth graders into the senior high schools will requirea commitment of this school corporation to build a new highschool to house approximately 1,500 pupils. This move alsowill require adaptations in the existing six high schools toprovide space and facilities. Projections of enrollments in-dicate adequate and defensible utilization of all projectedsenior high school facilities in the foreseeable future.

The additional high school spaces will be needed in thenorthern part of the school district because of present enroll-ments and projected growth. The Allen County Plan Com-mission has forecast population increases for all four town-

ships of the school district in the next 13 years. However, themajor increases are projected for Washington and St. Josephtownships in the north.

This additional high school facility in the north also willaccommodate anticipated reassignment of some students inorder to maintain racial balance at the secondary level.

IV. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE CUMULA-

TIVE BUILDING FUND RATE OF 70c BE CONTIN-

UED TO COVER COLLECTIONS IN THE YEARS

1979 THROUGH 1983.

With existing balances and anticipated collections through1983, the Fort Wayne Community Schools, through the con-tinuance of the present Cumulative Building Fund tax rate,will have sufficient capital funds for anticipated needs in-cluding, construction of the new high school.

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULEImplementation of these programs and facility changes can

begin in September of 1977, and all reorganization and re-lated facility changes can be completed by September, 1980.

In September of 1977, the ninth grade will continue inWayne High School. During the 1977-1978 school year,Wayne High School will be used as a model for the 9-12 or-ganization program for other senior high schools.

Also in September of 1977, the sixth grade at Miami JuniorHigh School's feeder schools will be assigned to Miami, cre-ating the first junior high of grades 6-7-8. We will use the1977-1978 school year to develop a model educational pro-gram for future junior high schools of grades 6-7-8.

The present program at McCulloch Elementary School willbe discontinued in the spring of 1977, and those pupils will beassigned to Memorial Park in September, 1977.

The Fort Wayne Community Schools' Fourth Grade Cen-ter at the McCulloch building will open in September, 1977.However, until all of the sixth grade pupils are moved intothe 6-7-8 junior high schools, this Enrichment Center may

serve sixth grade as well as fourth grade. The Fifth GradeCenter will open in September, 1978, when facilities at theWard building become available.

Harmar School will close in June of 1977, and in Septem-ber the students in the present Harmar attendance area willbe assigned to Washington, Memorial Park, Forest Park,Riverside, Slocum, and Brentwood schools.

In June of 1978, Hillcrest, Hanna and Hoagland schoolswill close. Hillcrest's attendance area will be divided amongMaplewood, Southern Heights, and South Calhoun schools.Hanna pupils will attend Bunche, Weisser Park, and Har-rison Hill schools; and Hoagland pupils will be assigned toSouth Wayne, Study, and Lindley schools.

In all school closings existing transportation policies will beapplied.

Continuing evaluation of improvements in racial balancesand possibilities for more adjustments will be made each yearand a report made to the Board of School Trustees at thelast meeting each October.

SUMMARYThis plan is recommended by the Administration to the

Board of School Trustees for adoption no later than April,1?77. Action at that time is important in order that imple-mentation may begin in September of 1977.

The plan merits adoption because:1. It provides excellent opportunities for better educational

programs through grade reorganization.2. It allows for optimum use of facilities during periods of

pupil population changes.3. It upgrades facilities in those areas where they are needed

most at this time and in the foreseeable future.4. It makes improvement at this time in racial balances which

are educationally sound and at the same time are econom-ically feasible, and involve the total community.

5. It emphasizes a creative approach to helping fourth andfifth grade pupils to learn to live in a multi-ethnic andmulti-racial environment.

6. It sets forth long-range goals which can be accomplishedon a pay-as-you-go program without mortgaging the futureof this school corporation.

These six features of the plan merit serious considerationand' acceptance by the Board of School Trustees and thecommunity.

We trust that members of the Board, parents, school per-sonnel and other interested citizens will study and considerthis plan as a totality and seek to grasp its forward-lookingaspects, its prudence and its reach for community unity.

40

Appendix E

Organizations Joining Coalition to Protest Griie's Reorganization Plan, asof April 22, 1977

Allen County Economic Opportunity Council, Inc.Fort Wayne Urban LeagueFort Wayne NAACPLeague of Women Voters of Fort WayneInter-Religious Action CouncilYWCA-Public AffairsAmerican Association of University WomenEast Central Neighborhood AssociationNeighborhood Services AssociationSocial Concerns Commission, East Wayne St. First United Methodist ChurchCommunity Coordinated Child Care of Allen CountyEast Wayne St. CenterSt. Mary's Catholic ChurchFort Wayne Education AssociationWomen's Bureau

41

Appendix F

Urban League Alternative to Segments of Superintendent Griie'sReorganization Plan

FACSIMILE

A RESPONSE AND ALTERNATIVE TO THEFWCS' ADMINISTRATION PLAN, FORT

WAYNE URBAN LEAGUE, INC.FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:The Proposed Plan for the Fort Wayne Communi-ty Schools 1977-1983 presented on Monday,January 24th, falls far short of the Board ofTrustees resolutions. In 1974 the School Board ofTrustees resolved to look for ways to eliminatesegregation in the elementary schools. Consideringa relatively successful secondary plan andthousands of dollars spent to develop ways todesegregate the elementary level, we are very dis-appointed in the results. Furthermore, we do notconsider the Administration's plan to be a plan ofdesegregation.Again, the inner-city community is bearing themajor brunt and the school system will be accom-plishing less. The schools closely bordering inner-city are experiencing some desegregation now. Ithas been clearly documented that totally excludingsuburban schools forces rapid re-segregation. ThePeabody Study reported that "a strategy aimed athaving elementary school children attend schoolsno more than one school removed from theirhomes must be judged unworkable. The enroll-ment data demonstrates that any permanentdesegregation action must go beyond the nineschool zones which encircle the inner-city zones."Six of the schools from the nine school zones arepart of the Administration's Plan. Regarding theschools slated for closing—Hanna, Harmar,Hoagland and Hillcrest—with the possible excep-tion of Harmar, the Administration's plan is onlyfostering re-segregation. In other words theproposed plan is providing band-aid approaches.This community should try to avoid repeating thislong and costly process in the near future. Wehave an excellent opportunity to demonstrate goodfaith now.The Enrichment Center suggested for McCullochand Ward seems very shortsighted. There is even

some question as to whether they are feasible asplanned. It is practically impossible to accomplishthe stated objectives, in only one week persemester. The Enrichment Centers would be anexcellent idea as a supportive program to adesegregation plan. Presently, it's an admission ofaccepting noncompliance, because it suggests thatwe are doing nothing in the elementary schoolstoday and have no plans for the remaining weeksin home-based schools. The Administration planacknowledges a need for human relations andpreparation of fourth and fifth grade pupils for ju-nior high school and later years. Yet it proposes aplan that will barely scratch the surface. It hasbeen illustrated that this age group has most likelydeveloped racial biases, and are influenced bystereotypes and myths. Therefore, it's doubtfulthat much can be accomplished in only two weeksper school year. The short, rather staged ex-perience could easily enhance feelings of dif-ference and raise more problems than it can al-leviate.The Urban League recognizes the possible needfor a new high school as a result of the grade reor-ganization. However, we oppose the suggested siteto be in the north quadrant of the city. A new highschool in St. Joseph or Washington Townshipagain puts the burden of long distance traveling oninner-city students. Furthermore, it completelyoverlooks the opportunity for Central City andInner-City redevelopment efforts. The growth andrevitalization of the Central City could be greatlyenhanced with a new high school in the nearvicinity. It appears the school administration em-braces the neighborhood concept for suburbancommunities and completely ignores the wishes ofinner and central city residents.The proposed grade reorganization, moving 6thgrade into middle school can only be considered afirst step minimum effort. We endorse the four (4)year high school.The Urban League would like to propose the fol-lowing alternatives. We believe it can be accom-

42

plished well within the Administration time tableat no additional cost. Our suggested alternatives isnot considered as the total answer; yet we feel itmoves us closer to alleviating segregation at theelementary level.Suggested Alternatives—1st Step—ImplementationDate: September 1977

I. Retain grade K pupils close to the Inner-cityand Central City schools.II. Assign McCulloch students to GlenwoodPark, which is a distance of 2.6 miles, as per thePeabody Study. Or divide the McCulloch stu-dents and assign some to Brentwood. We feelthis makes more sense than the Administration'sproposal to assign McCulloch students (90.7%Black) to Memorial Park (73.3% Black) toachieve racial balance.III. Pair Hillcrest to Weisser Park (2.8 milesdistance) by the grade method. The pairing ofWeisser Park and Hillcrest seems more feasiblethan tearing Hillcrest down and assigning thestudents to South Calhoun and Maple wood, asthe Administration suggest. In essence, the Ad-ministration is moving majority (white) studentsinto schools with over 90% majority studentsnow.IV. Assign Hanna to Lindley at a distance of 2.9miles, and Harrison Hill, approximately the samedistance. We fail to understand the Administra-tion's rationale of assigning Hanna students(93.5% Black) to two of the three proposedschools (Bunche and Weisser Park) which haveover 80% Black students enrolled today.V. Assign Hoagland students to Bunche andYoung. Again, distance would not exceed 3miles. Assigning Hoagland students (89.8%)white) to South Wayne (98.1% white) as theAdministration suggests, achieve very little or noracial balance.VI. Pair Memorial Park and Forrest Park.VII. Assign Harmar students to Washington,Riverside, Slocum and Bloomingdale.VIII. Assign Ward students to Abbett, SouthCalhoun, and Harrison Hill, and still maintaindistance traveled. The Administration is propos-ing that Ward (69.9% Black) be assigned toWeisser Park (82,9% Black), which in essence isre-segregation.IX. The site for the new high school should beclose to the Central City.

X. The Enrichment Centers should be utilized asa support program to aid parents, students andteachers. A much more serious attempt shouldbe made to simulate a healthy learning multi-cultural environment for students. For example,developing semester programs that are innova-tive and educationally sound with emphasis onhuman relations. The Program should bedesigned for the entire school year and the ra-cial breakdown should stay within the 10-30%band. The Enrichment Center could be utilizedto study the effectiveness of a magnet schoolplan.

We do not claim to be experts in the field ofschool desegregation: however, we strongly feelthat alternatives must be presented to the Ad-ministration's proposal. The Urban League be-lieves we must move toward learning to un-derstand, respect and value diverse people's cul-tural heritage and be aware of their needs. Thereis nothing more educationally sound in America'sdemocracy than teaching all races to live and worktogether. The process must begin early if we areto achieve a goal" of equalizing life chances to ac-complish more just results.

43

Appendix G

Staff Analysis of Data Pertaining to Faculty Desegregation, Fort WayneCommunity Schools—1976-77 School YearU.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Midwestern Regional Office

BackgroundIn a Nov. 17, 1975, letter to FWCS Superinten-dent Lester L. Grile, Kenneth A. Mines, Region VDirector of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) ofthe U.S. Department of Health, Education, andWelfare, stated:

[that the school district's] practice of assig-ning minority group faculty to schools at-tended predominantly by minority group stu-dents has caused or increased the racialidentifiability of 34 of Fort Wayne's schools asintended primarily for children of one race.

Based on this determination, Mines told Grile thatthe FWCS faculty assignment practices constituteda violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of1964 and of HEW regulations, at 45 C.F.R. §80.OCR told the FWCS to submit a facultydesegregation plan that:

must provide for the reassignment of facultyso that the ratio of minority group teachers ineach school is substantially the same as theratio throughout the District. (See appendix Aof this report, p. 2 of Mines letter.)

Beyond that, according to a Sept. 23, 1976, letterfrom Lloyd R. Henderson, Director of OCR's Ele-mentary and Secondary Education Division, toSupt. Grile, the district also agreed that:

faculty will be assigned so that at each schoolthere will be a substantially equal admixtureof teachers according to experience, teachingskills, and post-graduate degrees***.

In the same letter, Henderson also asked the dis-trict to provide, by Oct. 15, 1976, the following:

a revised list of teacher assignments for1976-77 as they become finalized at theopening of school. The list should include abreakdown of teachers assigned to eachschool according to race, educational degrees,certificates and experience. (See appendix A,pp. 1,2 of Henderson letter.)

According to documents received by the Commis-sion's Midwestern Regional Office from the OCR

Cleveland office, Superintendent Grile sent onlypart of the requested data. The superintendent'sdata included the number of black teachers byschool and a list of the 18 black teachers trans-ferred for the 1976-77 school year, including theiryears of experience, degrees, and certificates. Thedata, however, pertained only to elementaryschools. Thus, according to OCR records providedCommission staff, the district sent OCR no dataregarding "educational degrees, certificates, andexperience" of the remaining black elementaryteachers (43 other than the 18 for which datawere provided), and no data whatsoever regardingwhite and other minority teachers in the system,including all teachers at the secondary level.Five and one-half months later, on Mar. 18, 1977,Orrie Barr, of the OCR Cleveland office, wroteSuperintendent Grile, asking that he send, by Apr.15, the rest of the data requested by Henderson inSeptember 1976, and projections for the 1977-78school year.According to documents received from OCR, thesuperintendent responded on Apr. 13 with a list ofall elementary schools showing numbers ofteachers in each school by race, degrees earned,years of experience, and certification. Again, nocomparable data were supplied regarding seconda-ry schools.

Analysis of DataBased on these data Commission staff have calcu-lated, for each elementary school, the percentageof minority teaching staff, percentage of teachershaving master's degrees, and the average numberof years teaching experience of teachers in eachschool, as compared with the minority percentageof each school's total student enrollment (see tableG-l of this appendix).In general the data indicate that the 12 elementaryschools having high minority enrollment (morethan the district-wide elementary minority enroll-ment percentage of 20.8 percent) also tend tohave higher proportions of minorities amongteaching staff, lower proportions of all teachers

44

having master's degrees, and less experiencedteaching staffs. (Data on certification of teacherswere not analyzed because information interpret-ing these data was not included in the district'slist.)Specifically, all but two of the high minority ele-mentary schools also have more than the district-wide proportion of minority teachers. By com-parison, 27 of the 33 low minority elementaryschools have less than the district-wide proportionof minority teachers. While 8 of the 12 highminority schools have a proportion of teacherswith master's degrees which is less than the dis-trict-wide average, the opposite is true of the lowminority schools. Twenty-two of the district's 33low minority schools have a proportion of teacherswith master's degrees which is more than the dis-trict-wide average. Similarly, 8 of the 12 highminority schools have faculties with less than thedistrict-wide average years of teaching experience,while 21 of the district's 33 low minority schoolshave faculties with more than the district-wideaverage years of teaching experience.When Commission staff submitted these data tothe Chi Square test of statistical significance, thefollowing relationships were found:

a) The relationship between the race of teachersand the racial composition of the schools towhich they were assigned was significant at the.001 level (x2=ll.O5). That is, minority teacherswere disproportionately assigned to schools hav-ing high minority enrollment.b) The relationship between teachers' academiccredentials and racial composition of their as-signed schools was significant at the .001 level(X2=14.55). That is, teachers having master'sdegrees were disproportionately assigned toschools having low minority enrollments.c) The relationship between teachers' length ofteaching experience and the racial compositionof their assigned schools was significant at the.001 level (x2=18.56). That is, teachers havingmore years of experience were disproportionate-ly assigned to schools having low minority en-rollments.

It should be noted that tests of statistical sig-nificance, such as the Chi Square, indicate neitherthe causes nor intent behind the relationshipsunder examination. "Statistical significance" refersto the likelihood that a given relationship between

two variables is a random occurrence. In each ofthe three relationships between variables examinedhere, therefore, the likelihood that any of thesepatterns occurred by chance is less than one outof 1,000.The Chi Square tests reported here were basedupon data for each of the district's 757 reportedelementary teachers, and are presented in table G-2 of this appendix.The unequal distribution of teacher characteristicsin the schools is directly related to the racial com-position of student bodies. In the case of assign-ment of minority teachers, the effect is to con-tribute to the identifiability of some schools asbeing intended for one racial group. In the case ofthe distribution of teachers' credentials and ex-perience among schools, the effect is to provide alower level of resources to schools currently hav-ing high minority enrollments.Based on this analysis, it is clear that among ele-mentary schools in the FWCS there is not yet "asubstantially equal admixture of teachers" accord-ing to their race, experience, and credentials.

45

Table G-1

COMPARISON OF MINORITY STUDENT ENROLLMENT WITH FACULTY ASSIGNMENTSBY: SCHOOL AND DEGREES, EXPERIENCE, AND MINORITY PROPORTION OF FACULTYFORT WAYNE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, 1976-77 SCHOOL YEARELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.

10.11.12.13.14.15.16.17.18.19.20.21.22.23.24.25.26.27.28.29.30.31.32.33.34.35.36.37.3839.40.41.42.43.44.45.

School

YoungBuncheHannaMcCullochHarmarWeisser ParkWardMemorial ParkIrwinAdamsStudySouthern HeightsAbbettHoagland

'Allen Co. Children's Hm.LindleySouth CalhounHollandWashingtonGlenwood ParkHillcrestBrentwoodSouth WaynePleasant CenterNorthcrestIndian VillageHaleySlocumNebraskaArlingtonBloomingdaleRiversideShambaughHarrisPriceForest ParkCroningerSt. Joseph CentralWaynedaleHarrison HillMaplewoodWashington CenterAnthony WayneFranke ParkLincolnALL ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

(A)Minoritypercentageof enroll-ment

97.195.995.393.091.184.980.878.363.051.241.122.118.618.217.213.613.512.111.2

8.58.38.06.25.54.64.34.23.93.43.33.13.02.72.62.62.52.32.12.01.81.71.21.01.00.8

20.8

(B)Minority per-centage ofteachers

11.113.318.233.315.416.112.522.2

6.713.310.0

7.75.65.6

50.09.17.15.3

16.710.5

06.34.6

05.96.36.98.38.34.85.9

11.18.34.25.08.08.34.25.36.94.84.69.16.37.78.5

(C)Percentagewith mas-ters degree

72.266.790.966.776.961.375.088.980.093.390.084.694.477.8

100.081.878.694.791.784.2

100.075.090.988.988.281.393.191.775.081.094.177.883.391.790.092.095.891.773.793.190.590.9

100.087.592.385.6

(D)Average no.of years ofexperience

7.66.99.38.9

16.56.46.38.9

14.118.911.918.614.311.521.0

9.018.115.314.114.114.916.615.811.412.911.113.513.410.3

7.817.611.411.712.812.514.214.615.519.715.219.113.418.317.412.813.3 years

* Only 2 faculty reported.Sources: Student data is from Fort Wayne Community Schools, Student Enrollment by Race—DPI-EIR-1, Sept. 17, 1976.Teacher data is from Fort Wayne Community Schools, Lester L Grile, Superintendent, letter to O.O. Barr, Chief, Ele-mentary and Secondary Education Branch, Office for Civil Rights, Region V, HEW, Apr. 13, 1977. Analysis of data wasperformed by staff of the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

46

Table G-2RELATIONSHIPS OF THE RACE, CREDENTIALS, AND EXPERIENCE OF TEACHERSTO THE MINORITY ENROLLMENT OF THEIR ASSIGNED SCHOOLSFORT WAYNE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS: 1976-77 SCHOOL YEARELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

A. Relationship Between Teachers' Race and Minority Enrollment ofTheir Assigned Schools

Minority Enrollmentof Assigned School*

Race of Teacher High Low

Minority 27 38White 159 533X2 = 11.05;p<.001 (N = 757)

B. Relationship Between Teachers' Credentials and Minority Enrollmentof Their Assigned Schools

Minority Enrollmentof Assigned School*

Credentials of Teacher High Low~

Masters Degree 142 507Bachelors Degree 42 66X2 = 14.55;p<.001 (N = 757)

C. Relationship Between Teachers' Years of Experience and Minority Enrollmentof Their Assigned Schools

Minority EnrollmentTeachers' Years of Assigned School*of Experience* High Low

More Than District Mean 46 245Less Than District Mean 138 328X2 = 18.56;p<.001 (N = 757)

* "High Minority" and "Low Minority" schools are those having, respectively, more or less thanthe district-wide percentage of minority enrollment in elementary schools, which is 20.8 per-ment in the 1976-77 school year.

* The mean number of years of teaching experence among elementary teachers in the FortWayne Community Schools is 13.3 years in the 1976-77 school year.

Sources: Student data are from Fort Wayne Community Schools, Student Enrollment by Race—DPI-EIR-1, Sept. 17, 1976.Teacher data are from Fort Wayne Community Schools, Lester L. Grile, Superintendent, letter to O.O. Barr, Chief, Ele-mentary and Secondary Education Branch, Office for Civil Rights, Region V, HEW, Apr. 13, 1977. Analysis of data wasperformed by staff of the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1977 728-022/472

47

U. S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTSWASHINGTON, D.C. 20425

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

POSTAGE & FEES PAiD

US COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

v . •