"Integration," said Jimmy Affeldt, 14, of Paisley High School, "has brought students together from all types of environments. Students from poorer environments have had fewer opportunities for learning."

Suzanne Berrier, 16, of Anderson High School couples this with overcrowded conditions in classrooms. "The slower students cannot have as much individual help, and the more intelligent students have to be slowed down and eventually become bored."

The students polled placed a large share of blame for declining test scores also on teen-agers themselves. Some students stop applying themselves because of boredom, they said, or because parents and teachers have not pressed them, motivated them to seek success in education. A “don't care" attitude is widespread among students, scores of teens polled said.

"Kids aren't as interested in school as they used to be," said Robin Enscore, 15, of Anderson High School.

DON'T TRY AS HARD

"Students don't try as hard as they used to," said Stephen Gregory, 15, of Kennedy High School. "Because they don't care," added his classmate, Brian Wham. "Students are not interested in the work, only in making a passing score," said Percell Davidson, another Kennedy student.

The apathy often results from poor caliber of teachers or teachers frustrated by difficult classroom conditions, the teens said. Sometimes it is due to parents who are too permissive or disgusted about the busing situation, the teens said. "Teachers just don't apply themselves to their jobs," said Kathi Estes of Kennedy High School. "If a student fails a test, the teacher just forgets it and goes on to something else."

"I believe desegregation has a lot to do with today's lack of interest and learning," said Tommy Larrimore of Hill High School.

"Too many parents don't take time to look at how their children are doing in class," said Robin Parnell, 15, of Hill.

There is, in any case, a growing attitude among the young of caring little for an education or for material things a good education is supposed to lead to, the teens said.

"Today there is less pressure to get ahead," said Sue Howell of Paisley. "Though they are still important, less importance is placed on material things or prestige. Therefore, it is not as important to do well in school so you can get a high-paying job. Also, schools are not as threatening anymore. Children do not view teachers as all-knowing, all-powerful tyrants. They know that life will not end if they do not get an 'A' on a test. Also, parents are taking a less strict attitude about grades."

There is, said Deane Dugger, 15, of Mount Tabor High School, a growing "disinterest of the students in the older generation's system of education . . Carol Holt of Hill, 16, said "The youths of today just don't care anymore." Cindy Walters of West Forsyth added, "The desire and reward for learning is gone."

PROBLEM AT HOME

Lynn Morgan, 16, also of Hill said, "Maybe the main problem is at home. Many kids have to take over almost the whole house because the parents are working. Problems at home take a lot out of kids."

Dave Yount of East Forsyth agreed about youth apathy. "The students just don't care anymore about school or the way they do on tests." Grant page, also of East, said, "The parents and teachers are at fault. A lot of teachers are in it for the money, and some of the parents are against the busing, so they refuse to make the kids study as hard."

Some of the students criticized the Metropolitan Achievement Test itself, terming it too difficult, unfair, outdated. They also said it covers areas in which students taking it here have had no instruction.

"I think the scores are lower," said Tim Fishel of West Forsyth, "because the tests are based on what the northern schools have completed. The southern schools do not teach the same as the schools in the North, Midwest and West."

Some of the students said southern schools generally are inferior to northern schools. Northern schools make students work harder, some said.

Sixty-two students of West Forsyth participated in the poll; 14, Parkland; 14, North Forsyth; 20, East Forsyth; 4, Central; 22, Paisley; 20 each at Mount Tabor, Carver and Atkins; 19 each at Kennedy and Anderson: 17, Hill: 16, Hanes and 7, Forsyth Country Day School. Reynolds Senior High School did not participate.

These are responses from other teens to the poll question, which was: "What do you think are the reasons that third, sixth and seventh grade students here have had declining scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test for the past three years, falling below national norms in learning, especially in reading and math?":

Harry Ibergs, 15, Hill, “Students are just getting lazy. They do just enough to get by and that's it."

Penny Powers, 16, Hill, "Tests are no real and honest judge of knowledge. It's not that we can't learn, it's what they make us learn."

Jimmy Linebery, Kennedy, "I think the declining scores are caused by fright of the test."

Teressa Ervin, Kennedy, "The tests are very long, dull, and meaningless."

Kim Ragen, Kennedy, "The majority of kids aren't really learning the types of things that are on the test."

Kathy Kolb, 15, Mount Tabor, "The test is outdated, and the teachers aren't teaching the material which is on the test."

Dwayne Hendrix, 15, Mount Tabor, "It's because of the lab schools. They're good but too lenient and don't require work which is necessary."

Lorette Horne, 17, Carver High School, "Lots of kids fail these tests because the questions on the test are made up of what people think the teachers have taught the students, but really they haven't."

Thomas Mickens, 16, Carver, "Some of the questions on the reading test, I've never heard myself."

Floyd Chandler, Carver, "Some of the math problems are not just for third, sixth and seventh graders."

Ralph Blakes, Central, "When the teachers were transferred in the middle of the school year, the children were all mixed up and upset. It was like starting all over again. So kids got behind in their school work."

Cindy Waddell, Central, "When teachers try to make the students mind at school so they can learn, the children don't want to behave."

Johnny Sturdivant, Central, "All the school busing causes the children to be tired by the time they get to school, and then they're too tired to learn. It's so late when they get home at night that they eat and then it's time to go to bed, so they can't study at home."

Mamie Blackburn, Atkins, "The teachers aren't as strict as they used to be." Boy, 18, Parkland, "They (students) go to so many different schools before reaching senior high that attention is based on schools rather than education." Kathy Hine, Parkland, "The teachers are not teaching what the kids need to know to take the test."

Glenn Elson, Parkland, "They don't teach math and reading as such."

Pam Todd, West, "The teachers don't teach reading and writing and arithmetic anymore. They teach how to play and get along with other people. These are the things you should be taught at home, not at school."

Ellen Silver, West, "Many children reach the sixth or seventh grade without even knowing how to multiply."

David Hinshaw, West, "I think that lower scores are caused by crossbusing and possibly the new math."

Wayne Mock, West, "My guess would be that the reason for this (low scores) would be cross-busing."

Dana Fishburne, "The school system has been so involved in trying to achieve racial balance that it forgot about the business of education."

Paula Davenport, East, "The busing has messed everybody up. They've brought the high and low standards together and nothing is working out."

Cindy Giljames, Paisley "Because of the IMS Math program. My sister had to take that (in the sixth grade) and when she finished that year she didn't even know how to divide right!"

Lisa Mabry, Paisley, "I think it is because we have no (extensive) public kindergartens. From then on, they are a year behind."

Phyllis Knight, 15, Paisley, "I believe that busing is a large part of the problem because it not only contributes to the insecurity of the individual leaving his neighborhood, but it adds to overcrowding in schools."

Tommy Markushewski, Paisley, "I feel the main reason for these (score) drops is the individual learning method, which allows the students to loaf and waste time, and teachers who don't really care."

Senator SAM ERVIN,

THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF OMAHA, INC.,
Omaha, Nebr., February 18, 1974.

Chairman, Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights,
Washington, D.C.

SENATOR ERVIN AND MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS: We wish to have this statement placed in the record of the public hearing focusing on legislative proposals to put an end to "forced" busing, specifically S 1737.

We strongly oppose any legislation which attempts to deny the use of transportation as one tool to achieve equality of access for all students to quality education.

In many communities, integration has been achieved only because these communities have been able to avail themselves of the option to bus. Although problems with parental acceptance may have existed in the early stages in these communities, assessment now indicates that the procedures are working well. Omaha is currently involved in a desegregation suit. The Community Committee, appointed by the Omaha Board of Education to devise a plan for desegregation, realizes and has stated that some amount of transportation will be necessary to implement that plan. To deny to our community the option of using carriers for the purposes of integration would have the effect of undercutting the whole effort to desegregate.

We live in a multi-racial society and a multi-racial world. To isolate people by race is highly undesirable and is an obvious detriment to achieving stated national goals of mutual understanding and peace with all peoples and cultures. Legislation which would prevent the courts from specifying transportation as a tool to desegregate; and which would prevent governmental agencies from taking a meaningful role in our societal attempt to integrate would be regressive legislation to say the least, and would undercut hard-won civil and constitutional rights.

Hon. SAM ERVIN,

Mrs. D. G. TAYLOR, President. CONCERNED NEIGHBORS, INC.,

Corpus Christie, Tex., February 20, 1974.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Civil Rights,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: I understand from Mr. Michael Miller, an aid to Senator Lloyd Bentsen, that your committee is or will soon be hearing testimony pertaining to forced busing of school children to achieve racial balance in our public schools in your consideration of bills S-287, S-1737, S-619 and S-179.

Our organization has a membership of over 20,000 people and we feel that since we represent a sizeable portion of our community we have an obligation to attempt to explain our position concerning efforts to bring about a more harmonious learning situation in our schools. Our school system has been in a state of turmoil for several years and there is little chance our situation will change unless legislation is forthcoming.

A brief history of our particular problem, I believe is in order. On July 22, 1968, Jose Cisneros and 22 other Mexican-American and Negro members of the Steel-Workers Union filed suit against the Corpus Christi School District. The Steel-Workers suit was financed by the union at the recommendation of their International Civil Rights Division. The suit charged that the school district operated a segregated system. Trial of the case began on May 14, 1970, in U. S. District Court. On June 4, 1970, U. S. District Judge Woodrow Seals entered a partial final judgment that held that the school district was operating a dual school system which segregated children by ethnic groups. Judge Seals entered a final judgment in the case on July 2, 1971. In this judgment the judge set forth a desegregation plan for the district. The district was ordered to put the plan into effect by the start of the 1971-72 school year. The plan involved what most of the community deemed as massive busing.

It is interesting to note that Jose Cisneros in his testimony before Judge Woodrow Seals stated that the Mexican-Americans did tend to stick very close together as far as housing patterns were concerned. He readily admitted that it was natural for people of the same ethnic background to congregate in particular geographic areas. What he did not say was that federally financed housing also tended to concentrate minority groups in particular geographical areas of

the city. The school district contended all through the litigation that they had no control over where people lived and they considered it their job to give each student an opportunity to get the best education possible, not to attempt to change freedom of choice housing patterns.

On July 13, 1971, the school district appealed to the court for additional time in which to implement the desegregation plan. U. S. District Judge Owen Cox granted on July 16, 1971, extra time to implement the desegregation plan. The district was given until the start of the 1972-73 school year to implement the plan fully. Also on this date, the school district filed notice that it was appealing Judge Seals' final judgment. On July 19, 1971, Judge Cox entered a supplemental order stating that the stay order applied only to Mexican-American and Anglo children and that the delay was not intended to give the schools a year in which to do nothing.

The plaintiffs (Cisneros and others) filed notice on July 23, 1971, that they were appealing to the 5th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, asking that court to overrule Judge Cox and reinstate the original deadline for implementing the plan. On August 5, 1971, the court of appeals did strike down Judge Cox's stay order and once again the school district was under court order to implement the plan by the start of the 1971-72 school year. The school district asked the court of appeals on August 9, 1971, to reconsider its decision and grant additional time for putting the plan into effect. On August 10, 1971, the court of appeals refused to reconsider the school district's plea for additional time. So, on August 11, 1971, the school district appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court seeking a stay in the court-ordered desegregation plan.

On August 20, 1971, U. S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo L. Black granted a stay which would be in effect until the U. S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court ruled on the merits of the entire case. Three days later, Judge Cox issued a new order which prevented the reassignment of about 1,000 Negro students, an expansion of the stay which had been given to Mexican-American and Anglo students on July 19. In February, 1972, the U. S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals announced a delay in any decision until after the Supreme Court offered some guidance. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on April 27, 1972, enjoined the school district from constructing or renovating schools, funds for which had been voted in a bond election that year, until after the appeal was decided.

After hearing the school district's appeal "en banc", the court ruled on August 3, 1972, against the school district and agreed with the decision of Judge Seals that unconstitutional segregation existed in the district and ordered a new desegregation plan. Later that month, on August 23, Judge Cox ordered the district to produce a skeleton desegregation plan by September 15. The desegregation plan submitted by the district on the prescribed date called for reassigning 3665 students and the closing of one predominantly black school. The school district petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court on October 28, 1972, to review the case. On November 15, 1972, the plaintiffs called for a rejection of the school district's plan. Judge Cox, on May 8, 1973, rejected the district's plan, calling it "superficial" and ordered a new plan by June 11. Again, on the prescribed date, the school district entered a new plan which called for boundary changes immediately and more changes in the 1974-75 school year, including adding the ninth grade to high schools, creation of a sixth high school, closing of several schools and even further boundary changes. On June 25, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court turned down the district's appeal for review of the case. On August 15, 1973, the U.S. District Court, after considering the objections of the plaintiffs and the defendants' reply, ruled that the June 11 plan be put into effect.

Then on December 5, 1973, the U.S. District Court ordered the school district to cease action to implement the revised plan for student assignment dated June 11. Certain changes which had already been made would remain in effect while others would not. The court instated a volunteer transfer program whereby eligible students could transfer from a school where they were members of an ethnic majority to a school where their ethnic group constituted a minority of the enrollment. Free transportation would be provided for those who wished to transfer if they lived more than two miles from the school they elected to attend. Space must be made available at the receiving school for the transferees. The court urged all involved to do their utmost to make the plan work. Evidence of no attempt to do all possible to implement the plan would result in the court's ordering more drastic measures.

The push for voluntary transfers as a means of carrying out the U.S. District Court's order of December 5, 1973, got off to a slow start. The school district held

at least twelve well advertised meetings a week before the deadline for filing for transfer. These produced a total turnout of about 350 persons. These meetings were also advertised by spokesmen for the plaintiffs using the different media. Both the school district and the plaintiffs urged those eligible to take advantage of the volunteer transfer plan. By Sunday, January 27, 1974, there were a total of 382 students who had applied for transfer. Of these, 122 applied for permission to remain at the schools to which they already attended. In a school district comprised of approximately 45,000 students, this amounts to less than 1% of the total enrollment. Enrollment in our schools is made up of approximately 54% Mexican-American, 6% Negro and 40% Anglo American students. In the latest ruling by the courts, the Mexican Americans and Negro students were combined to make the total enrollment in our public schools 60% minority race students and 40% majority race students.

It is apparent from the fact that virtually no students have applied for transfers that the majority of the people in our community do not want the courts reassigning their children either voluntarily or involuntarily to schools other than their neighborhood schools.

Also, there has been approximately one-half million dollars spent collectively by the plaintiffs and the school district since the inception of this case for legal fees. This is money that could have been well spent in other areas where there is considerable need.

Based on the preceding facts, we ask that your committee recommend legislation to allow us to carry on our educational program the way the people of our community have demonstrated they desire and not as desired by a handful of people whose motives are questionable or as directed by unsympathetic courts. We believe that failure of the plaintiffs to generate interest in voluntary transfer from those whom they profess to represent exhibits the best case for the fact that almost all of the people in the community prefer that their children attend their neighborhood school.

Sincerely yours,

NEAL TURNER, President.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND BRIEFS

[In the Supreme Court of the United States, October Term, 1970] AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF FOR THE CLASSROOM TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION OF THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG SCHOOL SYSTEM, INCORPORATED

(No. 281, James E. Swann, et al., Petitioners, v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, et al.; No. 349, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, et al., Petitioners, v. James E. Swann, et al., on writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit)

INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE

The Classroom Teachers' Association of the Charlotte Mecklenburg School System, Incorporated, is a non-profit membership organization in corporate form, which includes in its membership a substantial part of the 3,553 classroom teachers in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School System and which devotes itself to the advancement of public education. The specific objectives of the organization and its members are to promote the interests of classroom teachers in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School System, and to secure to the students attending the schools of the System opportunities to achieve by quality education their highest potentialities.

The Classroom Teachers' Association of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School System and its members believe that the execution of the order of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina and the judgment of the United States Circuit Court for the Fourth Circuit affirming such order in part seriously impair the educational opportunities offered by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School System to the students in its schools, and for this reason the organization files this amicus curiae brief in support of the position of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, which harmonizes with this view.

The parties to the proceedings in Nos. 281 and 349 have consented in writing to the filing of this brief, and the writings evidencing such consent have been filed with the Clerk.