Photograph of an old Fairfax County School Board minute book.

Desegregation: School Board Minutes

The official acts of the Fairfax County School Board during desegregation.

The following records of the Fairfax County School Board have been transcribed directly from the original minute books, which can be viewed under the School Board section of the FCPS website. The image quality of the scanned documents varies on records from the 1950s and 1960s, leading to incomplete and occasionally inaccurate search results. Research into the minutes related to desegregation is on-going. As new records are found, they will be transcribed and added to this page.  

1954

The first action relative to the desegregation of public schools in Fairfax County pre-dates the Brown v. Board of Education ruling. This action specifically relates to the public school operated on Fort Belvoir by the Fairfax County School Board. The resulting decision by the School Board severs the tie between Fairfax County Public Schools and the elementary school on the installation that had existed for more than three decades.

February 2, 1954

Mr. Robinson moved that the Fairfax County School Board discontinue educating children whose parents live on the Fort Belvoir military reservation at the close of this school session in June 1954, since Virginia State regulations prohibit non-segregated operation of schools and since Fairfax County schools are so extremely overcrowded. Mr. Lory seconded the motion and it carried.

February 11, 1954

Mr. Davis offered resolution as follows to permit that high school children of parents residing on the Fort Belvoir Military Reservation be accepted in our high schools in the County should they wish to attend in compliance with the regulations of the State governing their attendance:

WHEREAS, The Fairfax County School Board has been, and is, operating a white elementary school located on the Fort Belvoir Military Reservation in accordance with existing laws of the State of Virginia requiring segregated public schools, and has been accepting colored children whose parents live on the Post as students in the Drew-Smith School for colored children off the Post, and has been accepting white children of high school grades whose parents live on the Post in its Mount Vernon High School off the Post, and has been transporting the colored high school grade children whose parents live on the Post to the Manassas Regional High School at Manassas, Virginia; and 

WHEREAS, This Board has received information to the effect that order has been issued through the Office of the Secretary of Defense that all segregation on the Children’s schools on the Fort Belvoir Military Reservation is to be discontinued not later than September 1955. 

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That this, the County School Board of Fairfax County, Virginia, discontinue the operation of a school on the Fort Belvoir Military Reservation as of June 30, 1954, and decline, after that date, to accept in the public schools of Fairfax County off the reservation any children of elementary grades whose parents reside on said military reservation; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That this Board expresses its willingness to accept into the public high schools of Fairfax County and high school pupils whose parents may reside on the Fort Belvoir Military Reservation who may desire to attend such schools, with the distinct understanding that such schools operated by Fairfax County are segregated schools operated under the laws of Virginia. 

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That certified copies of this resolution be transmitted to the Commanding Officer of the Fort Belvoir Military Reservation, to the U.S. Office of Education, and to the Virginia State Department of Education.

Mr. Davis moved that the resolution as offered be adopted, which motion was seconded by Mr. Robinson and carried, recorded vote of those present being unanimously in favor.

April 6, 1954

Mr. Woodson read letter from F. F. Jenkins, Division of Research and Planning, State Board of Education, calling the Board’s attention to possible conflict between School Board resolution excluding Fort Belvoir elementary children from County schools and Virginia School code. In order to avoid possible criticism that the Board is not complying with State school regulations, the following actions were taken: Mr. Davis moved that the Fairfax County School Board reconsider the resolution which it adopted at its special meeting on February 11, 1954, with reference to the education of children whose parents reside on the Fort Belvoir Military Reservation. Mr. Robinson seconded the motion and it carried. Mr. Davis moved that this Board rescind its resolution adopted in special session on February 11, 1954, with reference to the education of children whose parents may reside on the Fort Belvoir Military Reservation, after June 30, 1954. Mr. Robinson seconded the motion and it carried. Mr. Davis offered resolution as follows: 

WHEREAS, The Fairfax County School Board has been, and is, operating a white elementary school located on the Fort Belvoir Military Reservation in accordance with existing laws of the State of Virginia requiring segregated public schools, and has been accepting colored children whose parents live on the Post as students in the Drew-Smith School for colored children off the Post, and has been accepting white children of high school grades who parents live on the Post in its Mount Vernon High School off the Post, and has been transporting the colored high school children whose parents live on the Post to the Manassas Regional High School at Manassas, Virginia; and

WHEREAS, This Board has received information to the effect that order has been issued through the Office of the Secretary of Defense that all segregation in the Children’s schools on the Fort Belvoir Military Reservation is to be discontinued not later than September 1955.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That this, the County School Board of Fairfax County, Virginia, discontinue the operation of a school on the Fort Belvoir Military Reservation as of June 30, 1954. 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That this Board express its willingness to accept into the public high schools of Fairfax County any high school pupils whose parents may reside on the Fort Belvoir Military Reservation who may desire to attend such schools, with the distinct understanding that such schools operated by Fairfax County are segregated schools operated under the laws of Virginia. 

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That certified copies of this resolution be transmitted to the Commanding Officer of the Fort Belvoir Military Reservation, to the U.S. Office of Education, and to the Virginia State Department of Education.

Mr. Davis moved that resolution as offered be adopted, which motion was seconded by Mr. Robinson and carried.

May 17, 1954

Brown v. Board of Education Ruling

August 3, 1954

In response to the Women’s Political Group’s urging that the Fairfax County School Board give serious consideration to the appointment of a bi-racial committee to study the problem of school integration in the county, the Board requested that they be advised that it has given this matter its sincere and serious consideration but is not ready to take any action on this matter at this time and that the interest of this Political group is appreciated.

September 7, 1954

For the Board’s information, Mr. Woodson read copy of communication from the Unitarian Laymen’s League of the Unitarian Church of Arlington to the State Board of Education transmitting resolution that “the Board of Education will develop a positive program for the earliest possible compliance with the spirit and intent of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the U.S. respecting integration of the races in the public schools of Virginia.” 

November 2, 1954

The Woman’s Club of Franklin Park urges the School Board to consider the appointment of a local committee to study the effect of desegregation on the County’s school children. Mr. Robinson moved that this group be advised that the Board is not at this time ready to consider such request, but will appreciate assistance when ready to do so. During the intervening discussion, Mr. Shands read a statement on this same subject, urging a “smooth changeover from segregated to non-segregated schools,” signed by 80 individuals in the County, and passed it around for Board members to read. Mr. Davis urged that the School Board make a definitive statement on the issue to indicate to the State what its wishes with regard to Supreme Court decision are. Mr. Robinson did not feel this Board should express any such sentiment until decision of the State Board of Education and State Government regarding it. Further discussion was postponed until later in the meeting. The Board recessed for lunch at 1:20 p.m. The Board reconvened at 2:30 p.m. Mr. Darr seconded Mr. Robinson’s motion in regard to letter from the Woman’s Club of Franklin Park, made before recess for lunch, and carried.

November 4, 1954

It was reported that the Governor’s committee on segregation and integration was holding a public hearing in Richmond on Monday, November 15. Mr. Robinson moved that the Chairman appoint three persons to attend, the Chairman being one. Mrs. Crowther seconded the motion and it carried. Messrs. Davis, Robinson and Shands were appointed to serve as such committee, and agreed to serve. Some informal discussion ensued on this subject, during which several Board members expressed opinions on how racial integration in schools could best be accomplished in Fairfax County, should the State of Virginia issue directives for such action. No official action was taken by Board on this subject at this time.

December 7, 1954

Audrey Fugitt’s letter relative to integration was read to the Board, which requested that proper acknowledgement be made.
 

1955-1959

From 1955 to 1959, many elected officials in Virginia actively sought ways to block the racial integration of the public schools in the state. This period of state-level “massive resistance” was eventually struck down in the courts, but local opposition to school desegregation in Virginia persisted in many counties into the 1970s. In 1959, the Fairfax County School Board and Superintendent Woodson began working on a grade-per-year desegregation plan.

March 1, 1955

The Board therefore entertained next committee, which was representatives of the Defenders of State Sovereignty and Individual Liberties organization, Massing Gasch, Fairfax County President. This group protested appearance of Negro manager of an athletic team of the Western High School at a game at the Fairfax High School, purportedly with full knowledge of the Fairfax High School coach, and requested that the Board take proper action to preclude the scheduling of any scholastic events with integrated schools, and that any games presently scheduled with such schools be cancelled. They were fearful that in return engagements with such teams in Washington schools there could result student injuries among the mixed spectators in the excitement usually prompted by such contests. The Board assured the group it was cognizant of the ramifications of integrated sports, and under Virginia Law, could not permit that our schools participate in same.

At this time Mrs. Frank of the White Oaks Civic Association of Fairfax County, presented petition, as follows, signed by 46 members of the Association: “We, the undersigned members of the White Oaks Civic Association of Fairfax County, wish to make known to the Fairfax County School Board, our support of their position, that athletic events between our Virginia schools and integrated schools in no way violates the letter or the spirit of our Virginia State law. We feel that sports events are an ideal medium for the growth of understanding between people of different countries, people of different colors, people of different faiths and people of different stations in life.” 

May 24, 1955

Mr. Woodson read letter dated May 17, 1955, from the DEFENDERS OF STATE SOVEREIGNTY AND INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES protesting integrated meeting of the County Federation of Parent-Teacher Associations held at the Annandale High School on April 30 and circulation of questionnaires on integration by Fairfax High School students, and requesting that the Board insure that there will be no further use of school facilities in violation of laws prohibiting “mixing of the races in our public schools.” 

Mr. Woodson read letter from Samuel J. Coffey, Principal of the Fairfax High School, explaining circumstances surrounding the release of S.P.T.A. questionnaire regarding segregation and in which he states, “I can assure you that this school is not attempting to involve itself in this difficult problem, that we are not trying to exert influence where we should not, and that the service that we render to the S.P.T.A. is done with the intent of encouraging and helping an organization that we feel has been very worthwhile.” 

Mr. Woodson then read letter from John Alexander, Board attorney, setting forth opinion on the subject of integrated meetings, as follows: 

“As you know, integration of races in the public school system of this State is prohibited by Section 140 of the Constitution and Section 22-221, Code of Virginia. 

“Section 18-327, Code of Virginia, makes it the duty of those responsible for operating, maintaining, keeping, conducting, sponsoring or permitting any public meeting held --- for public assemblies, which is attended by both white and colored persons, to separate the white race and the colored race and to sit apart and designate at such public hearing --- or place of public assemblage, certain seats therein to be occupied by white persons and certain seats or space therein to be occupied by colored persons and further provides that the failure or neglect to comply with the provisions of this provision shall constitute a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof, the violator shall be fined not less than $100.00 and not more than $500.00 for each offense. Section 18-328 provides certain penalties for those in attendance who refuse to comply with the designation of seats, etc. 

“At this time, it is my opinion, that the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States has not been so implemented as to render inapplicable any constitutional provision or code provision in regard to segregation of races in this Commonwealth. 

“I am, therefore, of the opinion that any public meeting or any meeting in a public building, which is attended by both white and colored persons wherein separate sections of seats are not designated for white and colored persons are in violation of the laws of this Commonwealth.” 

The Board directed that memorandum be addressed to principals, with copies to Board members, incorporating Mr. Alexander's opinion for their guidance in approving school use applications and that school use applications include statement to the effect that those applying understand they are to abide by the laws of the State of Virginia governing segregation.

June 7, 1955

John Alexander, Board attorney, entered to make report to the Board on several matters which were referred to him for opinion or settlement, as follows: …5) Relative to integration in Fairfax County Schools, Mr. Alexander said he could see no other course of action for the Fairfax County School Board but to continue to operate as presently until there is some direction from the State Board of Education. Mr. Robinson thought perhaps it might be well to have a meeting with representatives of the colored population in the County for their reaction to any integration proposal. [No was action taken].

Superintendent’s Memo #31542 from Dowell J. Howard transmitting Supreme Court ruling on segregation. The Board directed that acknowledgement be made with the assurance that the Fairfax County School Board shall take no official action in the matter of public school integration but shall await guidance from the State Board of Education in planning for the operation of public schools in Fairfax County in the future.

July 5, 1955

State Superintendent Dowell Howard’s memo, as follows, transmitting policy statement regarding operation of schools in Virginia, was read to the Board:

“The problems created by the decision of the United States Supreme Court cannot be solved suddenly. The Court recognized that those responsible may well take into account the public interest in the elimination of existing obstacles in a systematic and effective manner. The Court further recognized problems related to administration, physical conditions of school plants, the transportation of pupils, personnel, revision of school districts and attendance areas. Attention was directed to the possible necessity for the revision of State and local laws. 

“Although the United States Supreme Court placed on the school authorities the responsibility for assessing and solving the problems in accordance with the view expressed by the Court, the State Board of Education and the local political sub-divisions cannot initiate a plan to accomplish an orderly and logical adjustment within the law until the General Assembly has enacted appropriate legislation. The State Board is of the opinion that hasty action could well result in serious damage to the public school system.

“It has not yet been possible for the Commission on Public Education to propose and the General Assembly to enact appropriate legislation which will enable the State Board of Education and the local school authorities to adjust to a new and different basis for the operation of public schools.

“Meanwhile, local school authorities are faced with the necessity of completing the formulation of plans for the coming school session.

“In view of these facts and circumstances, the Governor and the State Board of Education hereby declare and adopt as the policy of this Commonwealth that the State Board of Education will continue to administer its functions, in cooperation with the local school authorities, to the end that the public schools of Virginia open and operate through the coming school session as heretofore.” 

August 2, 1955

Mr. Harley M. Williams read statement, on behalf of the Organization Committee of the Virginia Citizens for Better Schools, in opposition to a referendum on proposed school bond issue until the integration question is settled in Virginia. Arguments for and against early referendum and bond issue were presented, among them the thought that people would be voting with a full knowledge of the confusion on the race issue and that if the county waited for State policy to crystalize it might mean a delay of at least a year in hold bond referendum. 

August 11, 1955

Since there were so many people present the meeting adjourned to the Board of Supervisors’ room for further discussion of proposed building program and bond issue… Expressions were invited, and given, from members of public present, as follows: Warren Quenstedt, spokesman for Fairfax County School Bond Coordinating Council, complimented the school administration on the job done to date, both in bringing up standards of education and in preparation of facts for bond issue, and urged that the Board assume its proper leadership if effecting passage of this bond issue. Various others spoke, for the most part in the same line of thought, only difference of opinion seemingly being whether to have referendum at same time of general election or hold special election. The integration angle was injected also, this prompting the feeling that any program should be planned on a year-to-year basis. It was explained the School Board, in any case, would spend only what appeared necessary and feasible in the light of circumstances currently existing. Mr. Harley M. Williams presented resolution adopted by the Virginia Citizens’ Committee for Better Schools urging school building program on a year-to-year basis “until such time as the official position of the State of Virginia can be fully appreciated” and that referendum on school bond issue be held on the day of the General Election. The Defenders of State Sovereignty and Individual Liberties’ statement was presented by Mr. Manning Gasch. Views expressed by Mr. Gasch were as follows: a. Question of legality of bonds. b. Possibility of repeal of compulsory attendance law and effect of possible integration on school enrollment. c. Any construction program should wait until after the 1955-56 school year. d. Extent of construction program should be partially decided by State Agencies. e. If held this year, referendum should be on same day as General Election in November. Mrs. Dorothy Gray, President of County Federation of Parent-Teacher Associations, said she had no official statement of that body to present but stated that PTA presidents had indicated their support of the bond issue.

September 6, 1955

Mr. Davis distributed to Board members copies of tentative suggestions for the formation of committees of the Board on specific topics, with the thought that respective Board members would fill in committee memberships with whomever they consider would be helpful. Board members, and staff members, appointed to the respective committees, were as follows: Desegregation – Robinson, Walker.

September 20, 1955

Mr. Harley Williams, and other members of The Virginia Citizens’ Committee for Better Schools, and Mrs. Cuba Curtice, were present to protest Chairman’s appointment of a Board member to head up “Committee on Desegregation,” objecting most strenuously to the implication that the Board was working towards integration in the Fairfax County schools. Mr. Davis assured the group that it was not his intent that any action be taken by any of the committees appointed but that they merely function to keep the Board advised of developments in the various problems the Board has to deal with, and further that appointment of desegregation committee was with no intention of desegregating schools. 

Mr. Williams distributed copies of Article 2 of his organization’s Constitution, which includes 14 sections of Educational Principles. Mr. Paul Sweeney, Chairman of the group’s Liaison Committee, read resolution adopted at committee meeting, as follows:

“WHEREAS, The members of the Virginia Citizens’ Committee for Better Schools believe that the citizens and the laws of Virginia determine the type of public education of the children; the right of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of the children; and they further believe that any attempt by means of a court decision to take from the State powers that are legally and constitutionally vested in it as a part of its sovereignty and reserved powers is an unwarranted usurpation of power.

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that this body does not recognize that the Fairfax County School Board has authority to appoint any Desegregation Committee, inasmuch as the power of the State of Virginia to segregate the races in the public schools has long been a part of its sovereign and reserved powers, and no court, including the Supreme Court, has power to invade and nullify these sovereign powers, and that this body demands the Fairfax County School Board, as an agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia, rescind its action in appointing, contrary to our Constitution and laws, the Desegregation Committee.” 

Mrs. Cuba Curtice read a petition, signed by 75 persons, as follows:

“On September 7, 1955, the Washington Post and Times Herald, page 44, carried a headline ‘Integration Study Group for Fairfax.’ The news account of a meeting of the Fairfax County School Board held on September 6, 1955 by Marie D. Smith. This account stated that the board authorized the appointment of a bi-racial citizens committee to study integration of the county schools. That Fred W. Robinson of Herndon was named chairman of the group and Robert Walker, director of information and surveys, was made a member of the committee. Other members are to be appointed by Chairman Robinson. This news account also reported that this committee was one of 13 authorized to advise the board on sundry matters.

“The undersigned citizens of Fairfax County desire to know before these committees start functioning whether their creation was authorized by a formal vote of the board, and if so, upon whose motion and whose second the motion was put and the vote thereon.

“If there was no motion and no resolution adopted, we desire to know whether the chairman, Mr. Davis, announced the appointment of the committees. 

“Efforts to obtain this information, which we feel we are entitled to, have failed; and the recording secretary has stated that the requested information will not be available for several weeks.

“The undersigned feel that we are entitled to an immediate answer to these questions, and by way of anticipation to a revelation to the true facts surrounding this meeting have this to say: 

  1. "That the members of the School Board have taken an oath to support the Constitution of Virginia which prohibits the teaching of white and colored children in the same schools.
  2. “That until the Constitution of Virginia has been amended by the people of Virginia, in the manner provided by law, it is ultra-vires for the School Board of Fairfax County, its Chairman, or any committee of its selection, to take any action in contravention of said Constitution of Virginia.
  3. “We further state in our opinion the Chairman of the School Board has no power, ex officio, to create and appoint committees and that any such action taken by him is null, void and of no effect.
  4. “In an honest effort to make unnecessary expensive litigation to determine whether the appointment of the committee on integration above mentioned, was a valid one, the undersigned citizens respectfully request that this matter be referred to counsel learned in the law for a prompt opinion, and that in the meantime no action of any kind be taken by the committee, pending the opinion of counsel.
  5. “Another question which the undersigned would like to have answered is whether, assuming that the School Board has the power to appoint such a committee as has been created, whether the Board can delegate to such an unofficial committee, the right to advise the Board as to its legal and constitutional duties and responsibilities.

“The undersigned feel that the management and control of the public schools of Virginia are to be determined at the state level by the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the state government and are not matters falling within the jurisdiction of local school boards.”

“If individual members of local school boards are not in sympathy with the provisions of the Constitution they have sworn to support, their remedy is to seek a constitutional amendment on their individual responsibility.

The crux of the matter seemed to be changing the name of the “Desegregation” committee. Mr. Davis therefore requested suggestions. The group agreed on the name “Committee on Segregation” and Mr. Davis therefore renamed “Desegregation Committee” the “Committee on Segregation.”

November 17, 1955

Mr. Robinson reported that he is ready to form and activate his Committee on Segregation and is willing to recognize suggestions from other Board members for representation on this committee which will work to submit recommendations to the Board to prepare it in event its recommendations in turn are requested by the State Legislature. Several names of both white and Colored were submitted by Board members.

November 22, 1955

Chairman Davis read letter from Fairfax County Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, signed by Claudius A. Brown, President, and William A. West, Secretary, protesting Board action in compliance with Virginia Statutes on segregation policies for public meetings in school buildings. No action was taken pending further study and discussion.

December 6, 1955

Mr. E. B. Henderson was present to request that the Board reconsider its policy calling for segregated seating at public meetings in follow-up of November 19 letter from the President and Secretary of the Fairfax County branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and advised that he had addressed letter to Mr. John Alexander, Board attorney, requesting his assistance in getting interpretation of the Public Assembly laws to permit mingling of Colored and white at such gatherings. Mr. Robinson moved that John Alexander, Board attorney, be requested to get an interpretation on the law governing Public Assembly, in consultation with the Attorney General, for the guidance of the Board. Mr. Darr seconded the motion and it carried. Dr. Henderson complimented the Board on the facilities it is providing for the education of Colored children in Fairfax County.

Mr. Darr questioned the Board as to whether the Fairfax High School should be permitted to be used for meeting to discuss the Gray Commission plan. It was the sense of the Board that the building should be made available to the group for this discussion.

December 15, 1955

Mr. John Alexander, Board attorney, advises that interpretation of Public Assembly laws from the Attorney General, referred to him for action, can be obtained only through the Commonwealth Attorney or the chairman of the State Board of Education. Mr. Robinson moved that the Commonwealth Attorney of Fairfax County be requested to get interpretation of the Public Assembly laws as they pertain to use of public school buildings for organizational meetings from the Attorney General for the guidance of the School Board. Mrs. Crowther seconded the motion and it carried.

January 3, 1956

Mr. Woodson questioned the Board as to the advisability of his accepting invitation to address questions to television panel on the Gray Commission Plan, of which Dowell Howard, Superintendent of Public Instruction, is to be a member. The Board felt if there would be no affront to Superintendent Howard in Mr. Woodson’s refusal to participate, it would be best for him to decline to serve.

Copy of Board attorney Alexander’s reply to National Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s inquiry with regard to Public Assembly laws, in which he states he does not have the authority to get legal opinion of the Attorney General on the question, was brought to the attention of the Board. This is essentially the same reply he made to the Board’s directive for such ruling.

The Superintendent read resolution of the Mecklenburg County Board of Supervisors endorsing the Gray Commission plan.

February 2, 1956

[New Fairfax County School Board members are sworn in. The appointments of the members of the former School Board, with the exception of Robert F. Davis, had been terminated by the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors on February 1, 1956]. Mr. Davis explained that the former Board had discussed but taken no action regarding the integration versus segregation issue, and that he would understand that this Board would maintain the same policy unless it indicated otherwise.

March 6, 1956

Dorothy C. Gray’s (President of Fairfax County Federation of P-TA’s) letter relative to use of Annandale High School for musical program with no restrictions on seating of white and Colored was presented. In previous, similar cases our Attorney had advised that the Board has no choice but to require separate seating for different races attending same event in our schools. No reply has been received from Attorney General, through Commonwealth’s Attorney, as requested by Board previously on cases of this type. Mr. Hudgins stated he already had approved use of the Annandale High School for this activity after he talked by phone with Mrs. Gray at which time he had the understanding that she will comply with requirements of State law. Chairman Davis asked that the request to the Attorney General be followed up.

April 3, 1956

Mr. Davis read letter from the Commonwealth’s Attorney in reply to inquiry of the School Board relative to Public Assembly Laws in which it is stated that “It is my opinion that any meeting held in the public schools open to the general public comes within the purview of the Public Assembly Laws. Further, it is my opinion that the private membership meetings of organizations in the public schools would not come within the purview of such laws regarding segregated seating.” The Board directed that further clarification be requested as to what constitutes “private membership” and whether meetings of such organizations as PTA, NAACP, Civic organizations, churches, scouts, would be classified as “private membership meetings.”

April 11, 1956

The Superintendent read reply from Commonwealth’s Attorney Fitzgerald further clarifying Public Assembly Laws, and particularly the phrase “private membership meetings” which he defines as “a meeting of the membership of an organization where the general public is not invited;” and further, “I believe that church meetings are open to the general public if they are church services and not business meetings.” He states it is simply a matter of determining whether or not organizations are holding meetings of their membership or a meeting open to the general public.

July 10, 1956

Mr. Gleason made short report on his attendance at the State-wide workshop for School Board members at the University of Virginia recently, particularly mentioning the excellent presentation of Mr. Rutter of Arlington County relative to their compilation of Board policies with the thought that more work could be done in this respect by Fairfax County. It was acknowledged that the “Administrative Guide” of Fairfax County was a good example of the kind of written information needed and Board members were urged to review its contents for suggestions as to its correction or amplification… Mr. Gleason also reported that a great deal of time was spent on discussions relative to the Gray plan, and absolute segregation, with no voice raised in favor of integration.

August 27, 1956

The Virginia General Assembly passes bills to prevent desegregation; directing that any public school in Virginia that enrolls a child of another race be closed and removed from the public school system.

December 18, 1956

[The School Board was preparing to adopt a resolution awarding $3,000,000 in School Bonds] – This prompted lengthy discussion on whether the Board had been lacking proper guidance and sufficient background work by its legal counsel in preparation for and acceptance of the sold bid on its recent $3,000,000 bond issue. Mr. Gleason introduced the discussion by quoting from a newspaper release that the City of Norfolk was taking sufficient time to deliberate on offering of 3.89 interest rate on its $2.5 million bond issue. Several factors were more favorable to Norfolk in this comparison… (6) The influencing factors in bidding to determine why such high interest rate was attached to bid submitted on our bonds, as opposed to lower interest rates offered other Virginia municipalities recently. (Making the segregation issue and the tight money market outside factors which should influence all of Virginia). 

January 18, 1957

The first item on the agenda, consideration of the employment of a financial advisor for the next sale of bonds, prompted the following presentation by Mr. Lory. Mr. Lory, in reporting on his conversation with Mr. Mitchell, member of the Board’s bond counsel firm in New York, presented the following facts for the Board’s information… 4. The 4.75 rate of interest paid on the recent $3,000,000 bond sale was not out of line considering the money market and our financial rating, and was comparable to interest rates generally paid in other areas at that time. Smaller bond issues ordinarily carry lower interest rates and evoke more financial interest. 4.31% is the average interest rate in localities having our credit rating in non-segregated areas. Interest rates of 2.75 and 2.99 on earlier bond sales were in an abnormal period; we’re now getting into a normal period of financing with interest rates going up.

April 23, 1957

Recent actions of the School Board administration with respect to carrying out the instructions of the State Pupil Placement Board, which resulted in the drop-out from school of two DeFebio children whose mother defiantly refused to execute the Pupil Placement forms, were explained to the Board. This matter had received wide newspaper publicity. Several Board members expressed the wish that any such future incidents first be reported to School Board members, before any publicity is given them. Mr. Hudgins commented that Board advice should be sought before any definite action is taken in such matters. Discussion followed about procedure for handling placement applications for pupils whose parents are unable to procure the necessary birth certificate within the prescribed 15-day period. The Board was informed that schools were accepting the signed placement applications but that they were not being forwarded to Richmond until all supporting certificates, where required, were in order. In the few instances where more than 15 days were needed to procure birth certificates, extenuating circumstances existed, but in all such cases to date there was evidence of good faith on part of parents.

June 4, 1957

Mr. Wood, member of Board’s Counsel, was present with two matters. First, to request whether the Board wished his representation in the matter of petition filed against it, the Superintendent of Schools, the principals of the Mount Vernon High School and Hollin Hall Elementary School, and members of the State Board of Education, by attorneys representing the DeFebio family whose two children left the respective schools named through refusal to sign Pupil Placement forms. He explained that the Attorney General is handling the matter and his office has indicated that nothing could be acted upon before September, all pleadings and briefs in the matter to be submitted according to schedule to be set on June 10, after which date Mr. Wood would report to the Board. Mr. Davis expressed the feeling that the thinking of this School Board be presented before the proper authorities at the proper time, as will be indicated by Mr. Wood. Mr. Hudgins suggested that the School Board be eliminated as a party to this action since it has no responsibility for the assignment of pupils under the Pupil Placement Law and therefore has not taken any action in this matter, even though statement in the petition makes note of the existent compulsory attendance law of the State, binding on the School Board. Mr. Wood was certain action in this regard would not have to be entered prior to the June 10 hearing.

June 18, 1957

John C. Wood, of Board Counsel, was present with several matters that had been referred for his attention.

1. The DeFebio matter. Copies of his letters of June 11 and June 13, 1957, concerning this, had been sent all Board members. His June 13 letter enclosed copy of ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, to be filed jointly with the attorney general’s office, and stating in effect that the State Board of Education, the County School Board of Fairfax County, Virginia, the Division Superintendent, and the two school principals had nothing whatever to do with the enrollment or dropping of the plaintiffs, which will squarely present the question to the Supreme Court of Appeals on the constitutionality of the Pupil Placement Law. Filing of answer is required by June 20. There were some questions raised on several points of the answer, and Mr. Gleason voiced his lack of understanding of the legal elements involved. Mr. Heriot moved that Mr. Wood be instructed to join with the Attorney General, on behalf of the School Board, in filing ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, as follows, in the DeFebio case, and to act jointly with the Attorney General in further pursuit of the matter:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

THEODORE THOMAS DEFEBIO, an infant under the age of twenty-one years, who sues by THEO T. DEFEBIO, his mother and next friend, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF FAIRFAX COUNTY, et al., Defendants. UPON MANDAMUS

ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

For answer to the petition for writ of mandamus filed herein, the defendants jointly answer and say:

1. The defendants have no knowledge concerning the allegations of Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the petition. Defendants neither admit nor deny said allegations and call for strict proof of same.

2. For answer to Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the petition, defendants state that infant plaintiffs, Theodore Thomas DeFebio and Dominick Nicholas DeFebio, were permitted by the County School Board of Fairfax County to attend, on a temporary basis subject to official enrollment by the Pupil Placement Board, the Eighth and Fourth grades at Mount Vernon High School and Hollin Hall Elementary School, respectively, both of which institutions are public schools located in Fairfax County, Virginia, and that infant plaintiffs commenced to attend classes in such schools, on a temporary basis, on or about January 22, 1957.

3. The allegations of Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the petition are admitted.

4. For answer to Paragraph 14 of the petition, defendants state that because of the failure of Theo T. DeFebio to execute Application for Placement of Pupil forms prescribed by the Pupil Placement Board, the permission to attend the public schools of Fairfax County on a temporary basis originally granted to Theodore Thomas DeFebio and Dominick Nicholas DeFebio was terminated on or about April 18, 1957, and April 11, 1957, respectively, in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Pupil Placement Board. Thereafter, in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Pupil Placement Board, the infant plaintiffs were not permitted by the County School Board of Fairfax County to attend said public schools during the remainder of the school term ending June 14, 1957, because of the continued failure of Theo T. DeFebio to execute Application for Placement of Pupil forms prescribed by the Pupil Placement Board.

5. The allegations of Paragraphs 15 and 16 of the petition are denied.

6. For answer to Paragraph 17 of the petition, defendants admit that the public schools, which infant plaintiffs were permitted to attend on a temporary basis, have been and are now attended only by white students, that Negro students are not now enrolled at such schools, and that plaintiffs are members of the Caucasian race. Defendants deny that Negro students are prohibited by defendants from attending said public schools.

7. The allegations of Paragraph 18 of the petition are denied.

8. Defendants deny each and every allegation of the petition not herein expressly admitted.

Now having fully answered, defendants pray to be hence dismissed with their costs in this behalf expended.

Mr. Solomon seconded the motion and it carried; Mr. Gleason refrained from voting. Mr. Wood anticipates that the merits of the Pupil Placement Act will be resolved in the DeFebio case.

July 16, 1957

Mr. Davis moved that the Administration not take any action to commit the School Board on the subject of integration without prior clearance with the School Board and it should be very clear that this School Board has taken no position in the matter. Mr. Solomon seconded the motion and it carried. Any action presumably in conformity with state ruling in the matter have to be abided with so long as there is a law on the statute books making compliance compulsory by the School Board.

August 6, 1957

The meeting reconvened at 10:20 P.M. and the Board went into executive session to consider the Pupil Placement Act situation. Mr. Pope reported that he had been advised, through telephone call to Mr. Bland, Executive Secretary of the Pupil Placement Board, that such children for whom their parents have refused to execute pupil placement forms cannot be admitted to school in September. The Chairman and Mr. Davis expressed some dissatisfaction with this method of handling the matter, feeling it would have been better not to contact the Placement Board at this time, but concluded that since such procedure had been followed there was no decision for the School Board to make, the Superintendent and his staff having already committed themselves. Other Board members felt the staff had no alternative but to seek the guidance and follow the advice of the Pupil Placement Board authorities since the Law is still in effect and the letter of it has to be complied with by the Superintendent and his staff.

January 7, 1958

Mr. Hudgins read a letter from Attorney Wood to Mr. Woodson transmitting the information that, with reference to the DeFebio vs. County School Board, et al case, “the Court holds that insofar as these plaintiffs are concerned, the pupil assignment law is valid and constitutional. The course of action taken by our County Board and its staff was correct in every detail with reference to this case. The children may not be admitted to school unless the mother signs the pupil assignment application.” Mr. Hudgins suggested that the matter be brought up again February 2, 1958, to discuss what procedure, if any, is to be followed with respect to this matter.

January 29, 1958

Mr. Hudgins made opening remarks similar to those at the January 15 public hearing on school reorganization [relative to the “6-2-4” or “6-3-3” plan which would create the county’s first intermediate schools], which is the purpose of this meeting… The meeting was opened to discussion… Mr. Naylor, resident of the area, has heard no definite information on cost factor. Stressed awaiting any implementation of a change in our school system until after the issue of segregation is settled. He pointed out that in his experience as an engineer he has noted that the Groveton High School, as must others, was planned with expansion in mind and such expansion would certainly cost less for housing the same number of students as the construction of new schools to take up the overload.

June 17, 1958

Mr. Hudgins called to the Board’s attention recent ruling of the State Court of Appeals holding that the Pupil Placement Law as it applied in the DeFebio case was not unconstitutional, making it mandatory for execution of such forms for the placement of these children in Fairfax County Schools.

October 11, 1958

The first portion of this meeting was held in executive session… Also discussed was communication to Board members and Superintendent from the Defenders of State Sovereignty and Individual Liberties criticizing one of our high school principal’s public statements on a controversial issue very much in the press currently. Mr. Gleason entered during this discussion. Board members felt that since the principal’s comments were the personal opinions of an individual and not voiced as the School Board’s representative, no action is indicated other than whatever chastisement the Superintendent may wish to administer for the poor judgement used in making such public utterances. Mr. Hudgins moved that the critical letter be acknowledged with the comment that it was presented to the Board. Mr. Davis seconded the motion and it carried.

March 17, 1959

Letters as follows were acknowledged: 2. From Warren Lee Dahlstrom concerning desegregation. Also from Buffalo Hills Citizens Association on the same topic.

May 5, 1959

The Board acknowledged letter from the Mount Vernon Unitarian Church, making recommendations for desegregation procedure, without comment.

June 16, 1959

From opening until 10:30 P.M. the Board remained in executive session for the discussion of site acquisitions and several student problems, including the placement of two Negro students applying for admission to two of our white schools. One of these applicants, Warren Brant Carter, age 6 in September, was recommended to be enrolled in the Louise Archer School, this being the school closest to his residence, for action on the application by the Pupil Placement Board. No action was taken on the application of Raymond Irvin Wheeler, requesting attendance at the Flint Hill School.

July 7, 1959

It was agreed the Board would meet at 9:00 A.M., Saturday, July 11, for consideration of the placement of 25 Negro children requesting admission to white schools, one such application already having been processed.

July 11, 1959

The Board then gave lengthy and serious consideration to what course of action it might follow with respect to the applications for Negro children to enter white schools. Mr. Wood advised that the Pupil Placement Board is still functioning as a placement agency of students in schools, local school boards having no jurisdiction to make assignments of students until March 1, 1960, when this authority is scheduled to revert to such local authority. Local school boards have only to make recommendations for placement. Several suggestions were offered, but rejected. The Board therefore instructed that the applications discussed be sent to the Pupil Placement Board without recommendation, on advice of School Board Attorney that this would be in order.

July 18, 1959

At 11:30 the Board went into a short closed session for some further considerations, during which action was taken to transmit two pupil placement applications requesting transfer of two Lyles children from the Drew-Smith School to the Hollin Hall School to the Pupil Placement Board, without recommendation.

August 1, 1959

At 11:00 A.M. the Board went into executive session, during which the Board discussed problems facing it with respect to the 26 applications for Negro children to enroll in white schools.

August 8, 1959

This meeting was held in executive session… During the executive session the Board came to a tentative agreement on statement of intent with respect to desegregation of Fairfax County schools, should this become necessary. After adjournment, and during the four-member information session, common agreement was reached on a revised outline of procedure with respect to whatever desegregation may be required, because of court order or if a local option plan is adopted in Fairfax County, modifying to some extent the original statement accepted during the executive session, to be implemented at such time as state law permits or court orders. This tentative formulation of policy was considered necessary for guidance of counsel in the face of threatened litigation. 

August 15, 1959

After being called to order in the School Board meeting room, this meeting was continued in the Board of Supervisors’ meeting room to take advantage of the air conditioning. First discussion, pursuing ramifications of the publicity resulting from the School Board’s reluctance to disclose the details of its method of procedure with respect to whatever desegregation problems may occur, when implementation is possible and/or necessary, and wisdom of disclosing such details now, was held in executive session. It was agreed that the Vice Chairman contact the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors for the joint session requested by that Board with respect to this issue which has caused some concern to some of the members of that Board. Mr. Moss, of the Board of Supervisors had, in fact, desired to make a statement on this matter to the School Board in its executive session, but since his appearance was without official action of the Board of Supervisors, such consideration in closed session was not considered proper. At the conclusion of this session the Board had taken no action to change any of its decisions. 

At 10:45 A.M. the meeting was opened to the public, and Mr. Frank D. Reeves, attorney representing the 26 Negro applicants introduced. The Chairman made the statement that the Board, after due deliberation, had reaffirmed its decision not to announce its proposed method of procedure with respect to any enforcement of desegregation, nor the reasons for its decision. Mr. Reeves then addressed the Board on behalf of his clients, preface with the statement that his presentation appeared futile in the light of the Chairman’s announcement. However, he summarized the situation as it appeared to him and his clients, pointing out that some disclosure by the Board of its intended action might forestall court action and permit orderly solution to the dilemma, through desegregation on a voluntary basis. Otherwise he would be left with no alternative, “if we are to pursue our rights,” but to go to court, suit to be filed within a few days. Mr. Reeves stated that a plan of integration, as of September 1959, with every student in the Fairfax County public school system being permitted to attend the school nearest his home in the school district in which he lives, would be the simplest and best plan to administer and would constitute actual compliance with the constitutional mandate. From this ideal, there are many modifications. And, further, that “we believe that any plan showing good faith represents recognition on the part of the School Board that there shall be desegregation and an orderly transition from segregation to desegregation which can be achieved as quickly as possible considering administrative problems.” 

The School Board’s prerogative to act contrary to regulations and actions of the Pupil Placement Board was explored. This apparently is one of the contradictory areas of court actions brought, decisions having been rendered that the Pupil Placement Act is unrecognized in placement processes, even while it is recognized that Virginia school divisions must look to that agency for pupil assignments, and that local school boards are essentially responsible for the admission of students to schools within their jurisdictions. Thus, the conflict of obedience of Virginia law, retention of the good will of the General Assembly, consideration of the dilemma of other areas of Virginia, compliance with Federal law, realistic contention with the problems forced by integration, and a feeling for the sentiment of the people of the county, is drawn into sharp focus and thereby clothes these considerations with more than strictly legal deliberations and conclusions. Mr. Reeves concluded his discussion with the Board at 11:20 A.M.

August 18, 1959

This meeting was in executive session. Mr. Woodson reviewed, for Mr. Solomon’s benefit, who was on vacation for a couple of weeks, events of Board concern during this period, relating conferences and Board proceedings with respect to the desegregation issue. The Board then proceeded with exchange of ideas on the subject.

August 25, 1959

This meeting was held in executive session, attorneys Simmonds, Towner (a law partner of Mr. Simmonds), Jack Wood (local School Board attorney), and McIlwaine (of the Attorney General’s office) being present to discuss answer to suit filed on behalf of 26 Negro children seeking admission to Fairfax County white schools. It was during this session that Mr. Simmonds was officially retained to represent the School Board in this matter, with the assistance of the other named attorneys.

September 1, 1959

Mr. Hudgins moved that the Board retain the services of Attorneys James Simmonds, of Arlington, and John Wood, of Fairfax, to represent it and the Superintendent in desegregation suits filed against these parties, including the one presently pending. Mr. Heriot seconded the motion and it carried.

September 19, 1959

Payment of invoices submitted by Wood and Testerman, for services rendered as follows, was authorized by motion of Mr. Hudgins, seconded by Mr. Heriot and carried: Re: Desegregation Memo - $675.00. Mr. Pope related to the Board the gist of his telephone conversation with Attorney Simmonds and the fact that Mr. Simmonds did not feel any conference or meeting with the School Board was necessary at this stage of developments in the desegregation suit filed.

1960-1966

In September 1960, Judge Albert V. Bryan of the Federal District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, struck down the Fairfax County School Board’s grade-per-year desegregation plan. Integration proceeded slowly during the early 1960s using a case-by-case pupil placement process, until further litigation in Federal Court forced the School Board to speed up the process. A new desegregation plan was adopted which led to the closure of Oak Grove Elementary School in 1964, the closure of Drew-Smith and Lillian Carey elementary schools in 1965, the closure of Luther Jackson High School and its conversion to an intermediate school in 1965, and the closure of Eleven Oaks and James Lee elementary schools in 1966.

January 19, 1960

Payment of $8,752.57, covering 38 tuition grant applications, was approved by motion of Mr. Parsons, seconded by Mr. Ruhlen and carried. Mr. Woodson supplied some background information on Act of Legislature, as a result of the Supreme Court decision on integration, which makes local school divisions in Virginia responsible for such tuition contributions to parents wishing to enroll their children in private schools. Procedure followed, and how eligibility of private schools is determined, was explained to the Board. Board responsibility in this matter had been questioned by the previous Board several times and has been mentioned in the minutes of several meetings.

April 5, 1960

The following communications were acknowledged: 1. From the Fairfax County Council on Human Relations, transmitting its statement on “Local Option and School Desegregation Progress.”

April 20, 1960

It was reported to the Board that 27 applications have been received for the transfer or enrollment of Negro children into white schools. At this time memo from the County Executive transmitting action of the Board of County Supervisors favoring local option method of pupil assignment was acknowledged. Also introduced was letter of opinion of Attorney Wood advising that “no rules have yet been adopted by the State Board under which the local board could act, thus leaving the situation at the present time still in the hands of the Pupil Placement Board which as of this writing is still in existence and is still functioning.” This opinion was concurred in by Attorney James Simmonds and Attorney General Harrison. In light of the foregoing, the Board directed, by motion of Mr. Lory, seconded by Mrs. Butler, and carried, that the mentioned 27 applications be processed in accordance with past procedure; i.e., pupil placement forms to be submitted to the Pupil Placement Board without recommendation of the School Board.

July 19, 1960

The Chairman made a statement that the Board has had under consideration applications for the admission of 30 Negro children to heretofore white schools. Conferences with its attorneys in the matter, with evaluation of information and recommendations from the staff, have resulted in formulation of proposed resolution in compliance with request of the court that answer be filed in reply to suit instituted.

Mr. Simmonds, attorney, was asked to present to the Board the drafted resolution, which he now read. In accordance with the provisions of this resolution, three of the 30 applicants would not be opposed by the School Board for admission to the first and second grades, if and when the School Board has authority to assign pupils, all admissions to be subject to action by the Court.

Mr. Ruhlen moved that resolution as follows be adopted, in compliance with Court order:

WHEREAS, the County School Board of Fairfax County has been ordered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to answer the Amended Complaint in the case of Blackwell, et al vs. County School Board of Fairfax County, et al, Civil Action #1967, and to indicate therein what action it would take upon the applications of the plaintiffs to particular schools:

NOW, THEREFORE, to the extent that this School Board is required, or may be empowered, and authorized to take any action upon applications for enrollment in or transfer to particular schools in the Fairfax County School System, the following procedure will be used, subject to compliance with applicable laws and any rules and regulations of the Virginia State Board of Education:

  1. The Superintendent and his staff shall obtain and furnish the Board with data relating to the applicant’s residence, name of parents or guardian, school district, the school and grade presently or last attended, the school and grade to which admission is sought, the reason for the requested assignment, the percentage of overcrowding of each school involved, the applicant’s grades or average, the results of his most recent achievement and mental maturity tests, and any other information which the said officials regard as pertinent to a consideration of the application by the Board.
  2. The Board will consider each such application, taking into account said data as to each individual applicant; how the educational needs of the applicant may best be served; the availability of school facilities and programs; the effect upon the orderly administration of such schools; the competent instruction of the pupils enrolled; and the health, safety and best interest and general welfare of such pupils. Race shall not be a factor except in the following circumstances: No child shall be admitted to a school in which a majority of the students are of a different race from the applicant other than in the first and second grades during the 1960-61 school year; in the first, second and third grades during the school year 1961-62; and one additional next higher grade for each subsequent school year until all elementary and secondary grades are removed from this exception.
  3. After such consideration, the Board shall vote to oppose or not to oppose each application for transfer or enrollment, and if any application is opposed, to give the reasons therefor. 
  4. At any time this Board may review and reevaluate all circumstances or facts then at hand and available to determine if a different and more expeditious procedure should be followed.

Mrs. Butler seconded the motion and it carried. Details of actions of the Board on the individual applications were not disclosed, this being considered confidential information in a student’s file, though such information is a part of the answer to be filed with the Court on July 20.

Copies of letters, as follows, had been mailed to all Board Members prior to this meeting… 

2. Letter of July 8, 1960, from the Fairfax County Council on Human Relations, requesting “assigning of pupils in Fairfax County on a geographical basis” and urging that “the request of the Negro plaintiffs to enroll their children in the school nearest them without further litigation” be allowed. 

3. Letter of June 29, 1960, signed by Elizabeth Scheidigger, submitting petitions signed by 60 people requesting that (1) the Fairfax County School Board assign all pupils to Fairfax County public schools on a geographic basis, regardless of race; and (2) that the Fairfax County School Board act sympathetically upon individual applications by pupils desiring to attend public schools outside the geographic areas in which they respectively reside.
 

August 2, 1960

Communications from the following organizations and individuals in connection with the recently announced desegregation plan adopted by the Board were acknowledged: 1. Letter from Bert Seidman, President of the Fairfax County Council on Human Relations, dated July 22, 1960. 2. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. E. T. Bryant dated July 27, 1960. 3. Letter from Barclay K. Read dated July 26, 1960.

October 4, 1960

This early portion of the meeting was held in executive session, Attorneys John Wood and James Simmonds reporting to the Board on recent court decision with respect to the applications of Negro students for admission to white schools. Copies of the Court’s decision had been given all Board Members. During this session the Board, through motion of Mr. Ruhlen, seconded by Mrs. Butler, and carried, decided not to appeal the decision handed down that the three applications returned for action be dealt with in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Findings and Conclusions of the Court. This announcement was made in open meeting, continued in the Board Room. The Board’s action implies its recommendation to the Pupil Placement Board that the three Negro applicants be approved for placement in the schools nearest their residences; i.e., James Madison (two placements) and William Cullen Bryant (one placement).

October 18, 1960

It was also reported that the Pupil Placement Board has placed three more Negro children in white schools, in accordance with court and School Board recommendation; i.e., James Madison High School, 2 – William Cullen Bryant Intermediate School, 1. …The Board then went into a short executive session for consideration of some problems incident to the recent desegregation of several schools. [No further explanation. No action was taken].

November 15, 1960

After considerable consideration of the human elements, social factors, community reaction, and state regulations affecting participation of Negro and white students in athletic and social activities in the several desegregated high and intermediate schools, the Board adopted policies governing as follows:

  1. Inter-scholastic athletics shall be conducted on a segregated basis.
  2. School-sponsored dances will admit only couples, and each couple shall have one pupil from the sponsoring school.

Item 1 was moved by Mr. Lory and seconded by Mr. Parsons.
Item 2 was moved by Mr. Parsons and seconded by Mr. Lory.

December 6, 1960

Letters as follows were acknowledged, and copies given all School Board Members:

  1. From William B. Dickinson, Jr. criticizing segregated athletics.
  2. From Carolyn Stuart criticizing segregated athletics.
  3. From Paula Hager criticizing the Board’s policy regarding social events in high schools.
  4. From Conway P. Coe, Jr. expressing opinions about the tuition grant plan.

January 3, 1961

Letter from the Jr. Council on Human Relations protesting the Board’s policy which bans integrated teams in interscholastic sports was acknowledged.

January 14, 1961

This meeting was the first scheduled for exploration of the school budget, for clarification and question. Study was undertaken, page by page… Legal fee stipulation was questioned. This provision anticipates some possible further litigation with respect to the desegregation issue.

February 21, 1961

The Board had been given copies of State Board of Education regulations regarding placement of pupils, Board of Supervisors draft of proposed local Ordinance regarding pupil assignment, explanation of procedures governing enrollment of pupils, draft of pupil placement application to be used, and procedures for implementing the assignment policies.

Mr. Ruhlen offered resolution as follows:

WHEREAS, the State Board of Education has promulgated rules and regulations governing placement of pupils by local school jurisdictions and has requested advice of the election of a local School Board to be bound by the provisions of the Article of the Code of Virginia governing local enrollment or placement of pupils, and advice that appropriate Ordinance has been adopted by the governing body of the County electing to be bound by the provisions of such Article; and

WHEREAS, the Board of County Supervisors of Fairfax County has requested recommendation of the School Board with respect to adoption of Ordinance permitting election of the Fairfax County School Board to be bound by the provisions of Article 1.2, Chapter 12, of Title 22 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and

WHEREAS, the Fairfax County School Board desires to assume the functions of pupil assignment within the public schools of Fairfax County.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Fairfax County School Board recommends and requests that the Board of County Supervisors of Fairfax County adopt Ordinance signifying an election to be bound by the provisions of said Article, to be implemented in accordance with rules and regulations promulgated by the State Board of Education and such other regulations, not inconsistent with the criteria set forth therein, as the Fairfax County School Board may determine are necessary to provide orderly administration of its schools and competent instruction of the pupils enrolled, in the interest of their health, safety, best interests, and general welfare.

Mr. Ruhlen moved adoption of resolution as offered, which motion was seconded by Mr. Parsons, and carried. Joan Butler and Berge Thomasian expressed assent to this action when they joined the meeting.

March 7, 1961

Board Members had all received copies of proposed regulations and methods of enacting local pupil placement procedures should Ordinance be adopted to permit Fairfax County such assignment powers. Accordingly, by motion of Mrs. Butler, seconded by Mr. Parsons, and carried, the Fairfax County School Board acted to adopt the suggested procedures for local assignment of pupils, to become effective when local Ordinance is adopted by the Board of County Supervisors. This will permit accomplishment of preliminary preparations. George Pope was designated Pupil Placement Officer for the Board and authorized to set up the necessary mechanics to implement such plan. Letters from the following, commending the School Board on its recent action rescinding its ban on integrated interscholastic sports, were acknowledged: 

  1. Edwin Lynch, President, Lynch Brothers, Inc.
  2. Dwain Lee, President, Junior Council on Human Relations.
  3. Dick Bearman and John Wellemeyer, on behalf of the Junior Council on Human Relations.
  4. Daniel D. Wheeler.

April 13, 1961

Informal discussion was held in the Board Room of the Administrative Building for consideration of pupil placement applications submitted. Under consideration were applications submitted for the placement or transfer of 86 Negro children in schools having a predominate white enrollment. Pupil Placement Officer George H. Pope (also Assistant Superintendent for Administration) acquainted the Board Members with the facts surrounding the applications submitted, making pertinent comments and explanations to guide the Board in its deliberation on the placement of these students, in compliance with authority vested in it by recent adoption of Ordinance permitting assignment of pupils locally by the Fairfax County School Board. The Board reviewed each application thoroughly, the reasons for the request, proximity to schools involved, scholastic standing of students, and whatever other information was considered pertinent in the consideration of any request for school reassignment; i.e., consideration in the best interests of the children involved. The meeting was called to order… Mr. Leonard moved that placement of 86 Negro students requesting attendance according to applications submitted be made in accordance with recommendations noted on list made a part of the agenda of this meeting. Mr. Ruhlen seconded the motion and it carried.

May 2, 1961

Invoice submitted by Wood and Testerman in the amount of $175 for legal opinion in the matter of Blackwell, et al, vs. Fairfax County School Board was approved for payment by motion of Mr. Leonard, seconded by Mr. Ruhlen, and carried. Also: Copies of the following correspondence had been mailed Board Members… 5. Mr. William B. Dickinson’s endorsement of the School Board’s actions with respect to desegregation of schools. Also: With respect to the three protests of individual school assignments, involving Negro placements, the Board, by motion of Mr. Thomasian, seconded by Mr. Lory, and carried, reaffirmed its previous actions and declined to entertain hearings on the matter.

June 6, 1961

Mr. Trotter’s objection to his children’s participation in integrated social or athletic activities in the schools was left to the Superintendent’s resolution, instructions to be given schools to eliminate the present practice of dancing during physical education classes.

July 1, 1961

Earl C. Funderburk becomes division superintendent of Fairfax County Public Schools.

February 20, 1962

Mr. Pope requested guidance in the method of processing pupil placement forms for those requesting exceptions to assignments made. The Board felt the procedure should be as painless as possible, and every cooperation given those requesting the necessary forms, sufficient supply being kept in the Administrative Office to fill all requests by either phone or mail. This instruction was given after motion offered by Mr. Ruhlen, and seconded by Mr. Parsons, that the forms be made available in every school office, failed.

April 17, 1962

Distributed to the Board were copies of “Recommended Assignments of Negro Pupils” making application to white schools, placements being made in accordance with existing Board policy which does not permit promotion from one desegregated school to another. It was explained that appeal to placements can be made within ten days from the date of notice of assignments, the Board then having thirty days within which to act on such appeals. The Board heard some protests to present placement procedures and directed that staff get legal direction as to whether the School Board could change its regulations to permit automatic graduation of students from one desegregated school to another. In the interim, the Board, by common agreement, approved the placements as presented.

May 1, 1962

Mr. Pope brought to the Board’s attention several appeals to Board placements of Negro children seeking admission to white schools, but denied in accordance with current regulations. The Board, by motion of Mrs. Butler, seconded by Mr. Lory, and carried, (Mr. Thomasian voting “no”) reaffirmed its decision and considered that further appeals to it on the same grounds would be a pointless procedure since it did not intend to change its geographic policy of assignment. Mr. Thomasian disagreed on the extent and manner of appeal to be permitted.

May 14, 1962

The meeting had been scheduled principally to hear appeals of Negro parents wishing their children to attend white schools instead of the placements made in Negro schools. Thus, Mr. Otto L. Tucker, attorney representing the group, offered to make presentation on their behalf, with his associate, Mr. Allison Brown, assisting in the explanation. 

Mr. Heriot explained that the Board would only hear the substantiating and further supporting facts to be presented this evening, but would defer decisions until after it has had opportunity to review and properly evaluate whatever additional information is submitted. 

Of the 21 children involved, objection to the majority of the placements was on the basis of “inconsistency” and “discrimination” by the Administration in making assignments. This contention was based on the premise that white children living in close proximity to a Negro school were not required to attend such school closest to their residences, but were permitted attendance at a white school farther away from home, while Negro students in the same situation – i.e., living closer to white schools – were required to attend Negro schools further distant from their homes. 

Stressed was point that several children live .1 of a mile closer to the Flint Hill School than the Louise Archer School to which they are assigned, while their white neighbors are bused by their doors to the Flint Hill School. 

Also, in the cases of children promoted from a desegregated school but placed in a Negro school, objection was lodged again on premise of inconsistency and discrimination since, for instance, white children leaving the Woodburn School are permitted to by-pass Luther Jackson and go to Whittier, while Negro children living within the area and leaving Woodburn School have been placed in Luther Jackson. 

Several cases at law were cited in which decisions were in favor of the Negro appellants in like instances. 
Gist of the presentation was that white children are permitted to attend schools either closest to their residences, or white schools further away than Negro schools in some instances, while Negro students are required to attend Negro schools, even when residing closer to a white school. 

Impending move of Cathy C. Lewis into the County from the City of Falls Church was brought to the Board’s attention, with request that some ruling be adopted in such instances, so there will be no delay in placement. Request is for enrollment in the Centreville School. 

Also mentioned as deserving of consideration were the cases of Ronald Martin and James Davis, placement applications not having been filed in either instance due to misunderstandings and insufficient guidance apparently, but both purportedly warranting like consideration with other formal applications. 

Attorney Brown asked the Board’s favorable decision in these cases, even though acknowledging that it could, in conformity with existing local Pupil Placement regulations adhere to its placements, since he considers that the State Local Pupil Placement procedures could be proved to be unconstitutional on the premise that the burden of proof, and necessity for formal appeal to placements, and for placements, appears to have been placed solely on Negroes, whereas such an onus had not been placed on white applicants. He therefore requested the Board’s indulgence to spare further appeals, and the resultant litigation that would be necessary to prove his contentions. 

Special attention was called to the placement of a teen-aged Negro student in a special class at the James Lee School, necessitating transportation inconvenience from his residence in Fairfax, inference being strongly made that he could be placed in an integrated special education class closer to home.

May 16, 1962

The next matter of concern which led into involved and lengthy consideration was decisions in the appeals for certain Negro children to attend white schools, made to the Board at its May 14 meeting. The requests fall into several categories:

  1. Those few living but a few hundred yards closer to a white school than the Colored one assigned to.
  2. Those children who had attended a white school last year on the basis of its proximity to their homes, but who now have been assigned to a Colored school for the same reason.
  3. Those requesting assignment to a white school, though living closer to a Negro school, because white children living just as close to a Negro school are permitted to attend a white school further away from their residences.
  4. Those anticipating move into the county and wishing enrollment in a white school.
  5. The two students who did not file an appeal within the prescribed time.
  6. The teenager in a special class at James Lee requesting placement in one closer to his Fairfax residence.

Since the Board’s assignments to date have been based on geographic placement, it felt its continued course of action should be on the same criteria of assignment. Thus, Mr. Leonard moved that the children in the first category be permitted to attend the Flint Hill rather than the Louise Archer School, on the premise of closer proximity to their residences, which motion was seconded by Mr. Thomasian. Mr. Ruhlen offered a substitute motion that children in the first three categories be permitted to attend schools as requested, which motion was seconded by Mr. Parsons, but failed to carry. Mr. Thomasian offered alternate motion to approve the first two categories of placements, which motion was seconded by Mr. Leonard, but failed to carry because it was questionable that the second category placement would be in accord with the Board’s policy of geographic assignment. Mr. Leonard’s original motion approving placement of the three children in the first category was therefore voted on, and carried.

Mr. Ruhlen had distributed a memorandum to all Board Members setting forth the several categories of appeals and recommending placements as requested on the premise that decision in any court action brought would most certainly be in the appellants’ favor and cited the two court cases referred to at the Board’s May 14 discussion on this subject to bear out his assumptions; i.e., Hill vs. School Board of Norfolk, and Dodson vs. School board of the City of Charlottesville. Mr. Ruhlen moved that placements as requested be made for children as follows:

  1. Those who formerly lived closer to a white school than to a Negro school, and last year attended the white school, but who now because of promotion live closer to the Negro Luther Jackson H.S. than to a white school, and who have requested transfer to a white school.
  2. Those who live nearer to a Negro school than to a white school, but who have requested assignment to a white school.

Mr. Parsons seconded the motion, and, in the discussion on it, it was brought out that this would, in fact, permit attendance of any student in any school of his choice merely on request and would most certainly complicate the bus transportation picture, and upset school enrollments. However, it was understood no policy had been set in making these decisions on these specific appeals. Three Board Members voted in favor of this motion, Members Lory and Leonard voting against it, but, because of its possible implications, it was agreed that reaction of the missing two members be elicited before putting this action into effect.

December 4, 1962

Attorneys Allison Brown and Otto Tucker were present on behalf of application for Mitzy Markelda Blackwell's (Negro student) attendance at the Pimmit Hills School, in accordance with existing Board regulations which require such procedure in the case of a request for attendance at a school other than the one to which assigned; in this case the James Lee School. However, since it developed, she is actually residing in the Lemon Road School area, the Board, by motion of Mrs. Gertwagen, seconded by Mr. Smoot, and carried, accepted amendment to the Pupil Placement Application accordingly. Mr. George Pope, the School Board's appointed Placement Officer, explained that applications of this nature are a matter for Board decision, by direction of the former Board. Mr. Brown felt there was unwarranted delay in this child's placement (two days' school lost) and that it could have been accomplished, or should be at this time, on the basis of the previous Board's action last Spring permitting four Negro children to attend white schools closest to their home in accedence to appeals to original placements. He maintained this constituted establishment of a policy by the Board, which should be applicable to this case, though school officials and the Board considered such action on appeals individual decisions on specific cases and not policy-making precedents. While sympathizing with the position of the petitioners, the Board did not feel itself sufficiently conversant with the statutes, regulations and policies, both state and local, governing pupil placements, to make a proper and valid decision at this time and needed to review existing policies or practices generally followed in such cases. It was also brought out that this Board must have sufficient time to study this case on its merits rather than feeling obliged to follow the example, or the practices, set by the previous Board, and to study the implications of any decision it may make. Thus, regretting the delay, the Board, by motion of Mrs. Gertwagen, seconded by Mrs. Lahr, and carried, postponed its action to December 11 at which time it would have available summaries of procedures and policies in Fairfax County as interpreted by Attorney Brown, and to be submitted by staff, legally prescribed time allowing decision by December 13th.

December 18, 1962

Mr. Clark moved that the Board confirm its action of December 11 assigning Mitzy Blackwell, Negro student, to the Lemon Road School. Mrs. Gertwagen seconded the motion and it carried. [The word “Negro” is struck through with a line in the Minutes].

January 29, 1963

The special session of the Board was called to order by the Chairman at 9:15 P.M. Mr. Newman reviewed the background of the circumstances regarding the placement of pupils, effective September 1963, from the Fort Belvoir Military Reservation for which no facilities are available on the post; namely, the current seventh grade students. He mentioned the ruling by the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare in the spring of 1962, that all students residing on military bases not attending schools on the Post must attend the nearest satisfactory school based on geographic standards. The intent of this ruling was that a satisfactory school was an integrated school. If such provisions are not made, the Office of Education would have to provide school facilities on the Post. As a result of the ruling, the Department of Defense directed Post Commanders negotiate with the school district serving the particular Post, it being the desire of the Department of Defense that schooling be provided off Post if at all feasible. Accordingly, the Post Commander of Fort Belvoir requested that the Fairfax County School Board made provision for the assignment of all such students living on the Post to the nearest satisfactory school. As a result of this communication, several meetings have been held with him and officials of the U. S. Office of Education to fully discuss this matter.

In view of this situation, Mrs. Gertwagen moved  that beginning with the school year 1963-64 the area of Fort Belvoir be considered an integral part of the attendance area of the nearest intermediate school and that all children from Fort Belvoir eligible for intermediate school attendance be assigned on this basis, subject to normal adjustments of attendance areas for the best utilization of space.

Board Members expressed their different opinions on the subject, reflecting the viewpoints that though Fort Belvoir students have been in a desegregated school situation, and notwithstanding the position of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, this group should not be blanketed into a desegregated situation within the County schools while the Board's present method of assignment requires consideration of special appeal for such placement from other county residents. It was felt no special consideration or exception should be given this group over any other county residents, which would indicate discrimination against Negro residents of the County. Vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas - Mrs. Gertwagen, Mrs. Lahr and Mr. Clark. Nayes - Messrs. Smoot, Hoofnagle, Futch and Newman. Motion therefore was declared lost. The Chairman stated that while it is true that there are many points in favor of the motion offered since the children are currently attending desegregated schools, he personally felt that the Board was proceeding on a sane and orderly basis in its placement procedures. Mr. Clark regretted tint the Board's position in this matter had not been indicated earlier so that the U.S. Office of Education would have had more notice of the necessity to provide facilities on the Post for these students. Mrs. Gertwagen objected to the application of the words “sane and orderly" to the method of assignment now being used, maintaining the integration of children is on a completely accidental and arbitrary basis, depending on the application of the particular parent for the enrollment of his child into a white school. She noted that the Board has approved most of those in the past and the desegregation of the Fairfax County schools has been on a spot chance basis and she could not use the Chairman's words to describe the procedure.

February 14, 1963

The Chairman called for Board decision on the applications submitted for the enrollment of two Negro students in the Cedar Lane School, within which area they have recently moved from the District of Columbia. Information was given that this is a desegregated school, that the youngsters are apparently nearly average students, that several other Negro children in the same community attend this school. The Board, by motion of Mr. Smoot, seconded by Mrs. Gertwagen, and carried, directed that placement as requested be made, with further confirmation of this action at the Board’s next scheduled meeting.

March 5, 1963

Mrs. Gertwagen felt it was timely for the Board to take some action on pupil assignment procedures, particularly as they affect assignment of students who are presently in a desegregated school and are graduating to another school. Information on how many students may be involved, with recommended actions, and other pertinent facts, was requested for the Board's March 19 meeting.

March 19, 1963

The Board then adopted several policies governing pupil placement procedures, as follows, being advised that there are 18 Negro children to be promoted from nine desegregated elementary schools and 23 from six desegregated intermediate schools.

  1. Any Negro pupil already attending a desegregated school, and who is completing the sixth or eighth grade, will be assigned to the next higher school where his classmates will attend, provided such placement is consistent with criteria for assignments and regulations of State Board of Education affecting pupil assignments. (This was adopted by motion of Mrs. Gertwagen, seconded by Mr. Clark, and carried, Messrs. Smoot and Hoofnagle voting “no”).
  2. Any Negro pupil requesting transfer, without graduation from school presently attended, to a white or desegregated school nearer his or her place of residence, shall be permitted attendance at the school serving place of residence, provided all other criteria governing transfer applications, and all regulations of the State Board of Education governing pupil assignments have been met. (This was adopted by motion of Mrs. Gertwagen, seconded by Mr. Clark, and carried, Mr. Hoofnagle voting “no” and Mr. Smoot abstaining from voting).
  3. Any application for transfer of a Negro student to a white or desegregated school farther from pupil’s place of residence than the all-Negro school presently attended shall be referred to the School Board for action. (This was adopted by motion of Mrs. Gertwagen, seconded by Mrs. Lahr and carried, Messrs. Futch and Hoofnagle abstaining from voting).

With respect to those Negro students being promoted from a segregated school, the same procedures would be applicable as to white students; i.e., application for attendance at a school other than the one of assignment would have to be made and same criteria applied, generally the proof of extenuating circumstance justifying the transfer. The effect of the foregoing actions is essentially to permit administrative action on the majority of pupil placements, both white and Negro, with appeal and review by the Board still open should administration decision be protested, or should the administration seek guidance in making a decision. Since there was some uncertainty in the minds of some Board Members as to the intent and effect of the motions adopted this evening with respect to placements of Negro students, the Chair directed that the foregoing motions adopted to this point be drafted and brought back to the Board for review before implementation. Mrs. Gertwagen prompted action on her motion requesting the placement of pupil placement applications in every school, together with a copy of the pertinent law, tabled from the March 5 meeting. Mr. Clark moved that this motion be brought to the floor for a vote, which motion was seconded by Mrs. Lahr: The motion was lost by 4 - 3 vote.

May 7, 1963

The Chairman brought to the Board's attention the unresolved placement of four appellants at the April 29th meeting -- Queen Cox and Glenda Blakeney assigned to Drew-Smith; Roland Smith, Jr. and Herrick Smith, assigned to James Lee. All four live in close proximity to schools of assignment but ask placement in other desegregated schools. Mr. Hoofnagle moved that the applications for appeal be denied and that initial placements of these students be reaffirmed. Mr. Futch seconded the motion. Mrs. Gertwagen took exception to this proposed action, deeming it a capricious action by the Board, feeling that these placements, as requested by the appellants, are just as justifiable as some other appeals treated favorably by the Board. She further expressed difference with Attorney Keith's letter opinion to the Board that “therefore, in the present cases, (those uncle consideration) to deny the appeals would not, in my opinion, constitute discrimination under the Charlottesville case,” holding that the cases presented here did parallel those in the Charlottesville decision. Vote on the motion resulted in tie vote, Mr. Newman voting against the motion, with Mesdames Gertwagen and Lahr. In compliance with Statute, decision must be reached by May 20. It was therefore agreed that the matter would be resolved at special session to be called when Mr. Clark is available.

May 20, 1963

There were several items of consideration scheduled for this evening, but the session was called particularly to resolve the matter of appeals to pupil assignments, requiring Board action by May 20.

Mr. Clark moved that the appeals of Queen Cox, Glenda Blakeney, Roland Smith, Jr. and Derrick Smith, for attendance at other than the all-Negro schools, the first two having been assigned to Drew-Smith School and the latter two to James Lee School, be favorably considered and such reassignment as requested permitted. Mrs. Lahr seconded the motion. Mrs. Gertwagen offered an amended motion that the first two be permitted to apply for attendance and be assigned to the Stratford Landing School and the latter two to the Pine Spring School, which was lost for lack of a second. It was pointed out that none of these cases involved hardship or some unusual circumstance warranting consideration and all children lived in close proximity to the schools to which originally assigned. The Chairman again brought to the Board's attention, and for the information of Mr. Clark who was not present at the last discussion of this matter, letter from Board Attorney citing legal decision in the Charlottesville case and opining that "therefore, in the present cases (though under consideration here this evening) to deny the appeals would not, in my opinion, constitute discrimination under the Charlottesville case.” Mr. Clark's motion was defeated by vote of 4-3, Mr. Newman opposing it on the premise that proximity to a school must be a determining factor. Thus, original assignments of these four students 'were reaffirmed.

Mrs. Gertwagen objected to Mr. Newman's reasoning which she termed invalid and not to the point, since transportation is not the key factor in these cases that it is purported to be, there being other instances of assignments by this Board involving transportation for Negro children to integrated schools further from their places of residence than the schools to which assigned, inferring the Board's capriciousness in its actions. Mr. Clark expressed that the basic question to be answered is the request for certain students to attend desegregated schools to get out of segregated situations, and he felt that this reasonable request could be conceded. Mr. Futch felt that since there were no unusual circumstances cited in the cases mentioned, there was no basis for terming the Board's action as capricious. Mrs. Gertwagen wished inserted into the record her disappointment in the Chairman.

Mrs. Lahr moved that appeal for assignment of the Jackson child to the Herndon Elementary School rather than the Oak Grove School be granted, which motion was seconded by Mrs. Gertwagen, but lost by recorded vote as follows: Ayes: Mesdames Gertwagen and Lahr and Mr. Clark; Nays - Messrs. Futch, Hoofnagle, Smoot and Newman. Mr. Tucker made statement that this School Board was not acting in the interest of desegregation assignments except to the extent of processing cases of individual appeals made for specific children by parents through process of placement applications. The Chairman commented that the Board would, in the very near future, appoint a citizens committee to study the matter of desegregation procedures toward a definite plan to govern the operation of the school system in Fairfax County, and Mr. Tucker was asked to submit recommendations for representation on this committee. It was suggested that this be made an agenda item for the Board’s June meeting. Mr. Clark moved reconsideration of the actions taken, which motion was seconded by Mrs. Lahr, but was defeated by recorded vote as follows: Ayes - Mrs. Gertwagen, Mrs. Lahr, and Mr. Clark. Nays - Messrs. Futch, Hoofnagle, Smoot and Newman. [Additional pupil assignments were recorded].

May 21, 1963

In accordance with general practice, except that new City of Falls Church policy makes necessary this official approval, the Board, by motion of Mr. Clark, seconded by Mr. Hoofnagle, and carried, approved continued attendance of the following Negro students from the City of Falls Church in Fairfax County Schools (James Lee and Luther Jackson) for the 1963-64 school year, with payment of approved tuition rate for each: Clinton Turner, Gerald Byrd, Veronica Chase, Andrea Richards, Daniel Richards. This is fewer than the number in our schools this year and reflects effect of the City’s new policy of desegregation.

June 4, 1963

The Board then gave some consideration to proposed resolution submitted authorizing the establishment of a committee to study dual operation of Fairfax County schools, to the conclusion that accompanying information submitted would have to be studied further before any action by the Board; Mrs. Gertwagen’s motion, seconded by Mr. Futch, tabling this matter to the Board’s June 18 meeting being approved.

June 18, 1963

Appointment of a committee to study dual operation of schools was again considered, resolution authorizing formation of such citizens group having been tabled at the Board’s June 4 meeting. The Chairman read outline of the proposed functions and purposes of such a committee. Several points were raised such as the efficacy of such a committee of “non-experts,” the necessity for submission of background information by the staff before any decision can be made, and full consideration of alternative methods of accomplishing the Board’s intent. Generally, the appropriateness, worthwhileness and timeliness of the appointment of a citizens committee to study ramifications of the many aspects and facts involved in considerations of the operation of a dual school system were explored, to the conclusion that the Board does not feel sufficiently prepared this evening to arrive at any directives. Mr. Clark moved that consideration of the appointment of a committee to study a dual school system be tabled to the Board’s next meeting, the Superintendent and his staff, in the interim, to prepare and send to the Board background information to help acquaint the Board with the facts pertinent to such an issue. Mr. Smoot seconded the motion and it carried. Mrs. Lahr had some suggestions to offer for inclusion in the background information, which the Chairman directed be submitted for duplication and the information of other members, and requested that whatever study recommendations other Board Members wish to make be cleared through him. It was considered advisable that the Board hold an executive session between now and its July 16 meeting to consider all information submitted on this matter.

July 1, 1963

The other action taken at the Board’s June 24 meeting was rescinding the Board’s May 20 action denying appeals to placements brought on behalf of five Negro applicants. This action had been taken after attorney reversed his opinion that the Charlottesville case decision did not apply to the Fairfax cases, and now feels, after further information from administrative staff and members of the School Board, that he was in error in his early interpretation and now considers the ruling applicable here. This puts the School Board in an untenable position in defense of this suit. Mr. Clark moved that the Board publicly reaffirm its action of June 24, 1963, by which it rescinded its May 20 denial of placement appeals on behalf of five Negro students, on advice of its attorney that the School Board was in an indefensible position in the suit filed by the appellants in protest of original assignments, thereby permitting attendance of these five applicants to schools as follows, in lieu of previous assignments to Negro schools:

  • Glenda Blakeney – Stratford Landing Elementary
  • Queen Ester Cox – Stratford Landing Elementary
  • Roland Wilson Smith, Jr. – Pine Spring Elementary
  • Derrick Norman Smith – Pine Spring Elementary
  • Calvin Charles Jackson – Herndon Elementary

Mrs. Lahr seconded the motion and it carried by a vote of three in favor (Mrs. Gertwagen, Mr. Clark, and Mrs. Lahr) and two against (Messrs. Hoofnagle and Futch), the Chairman abstaining from voting.

July 16, 1963

Attorney Keith advised that suit entered by Negro appellants in the interest of integration is scheduled for hearing on September 12th. The Board has been receiving, and anticipates receiving more, information to assist its deliberations toward a dual school system. A matter of decision is formation of a lay committee to assist the Board in its studies. Mrs. Gertwagen moved that the School Board act as its own committee in this matter working with the school administration, and that we continue in the pattern of developing information as we have, and that such time in the future as this matter may develop further we may see the need for such a committee and we could reconsider it at a later date. Mr. Clark seconded the motion. Diverse opinions were expressed on the service any such committee could render the Board at this stage of its deliberations. Mr. Smoot moved that this motion be tabled to the Board’s next meeting, which motion was seconded by Mr. Futch and carried, Mrs. Lahr voting “no.”

August 22, 1963

Mrs. Gertwagen moved that her tabled motion calling for consideration of the Board’s functioning as a committee of the whole to consider dual school system matters now be brought to the floor for consideration. Mr. Futch seconded the motion and it carried. In considering the purpose of such motion, objections voiced by several members were to the executive session discussions that would be conducted were the Board constituted a committee of the whole, giving it this privilege. Thus, this objectionable feature was eliminated, and wording of the original motion changed by several suggestions, to adoption of substitute motion offered by Mr. Hoofnagle that the School Board study matters relating to the desirability of a more fully integrated school system, working with the school administration, and that it continue in the pattern of developing information as it has, and that at such time in the future as this matter may develop further and the Board may see the need for a citizens committee, that it could reconsider it at a later date. Mr. Smoot had seconded the notion and it carried by unanimous approving vote of all Board Members. It was understood that work sessions with attorney would be necessary for clarification of procedures involving present suits entered against the Board and set for pre-trial hearing on September 12. The Chairman is to arrange an early meeting for such discussion.

September 5, 1963

At 9:00 P.M. Sarah Lahr entered and the Board retired to the library for an executive session with Attorney Keith on the matter of integration suit filed against it and scheduled for pre-trial conference on September 12.

September 12, 1963

The Chairman expressed the Board’s appreciation to Attorney James Keith for his representation on its behalf at hearing on integration suit, conducted today.

March 5, 1964

The Chairman reported that Judge Oren Lewis had handed down decision on integration suit filed, which is being studied by Board attorney for his subsequent advice to the Board, and that in the interim the Board will continue its deliberations with respect to integration and a satisfactory solution and procedure. The Chairman extended the Board’s appreciation for Mr. Keith’s able representation of it in this court case. Substance of the decision is as follows:

“Upon the record thus made the Court concludes that Fairfax County is not maintaining a dual or segregated school system. The Court further concludes that all eligible students seeking admission to the Fairfax County public schools, initially and via transfer, are being so admitted on a racially non-discriminatory basis. Therefore, the prayer for further interlocutory and permanent injunctive relief will be denied.

“And, the relief sought as to the teaching and administrative staff is clearly beyond the scope of the pleading and will be denied.”

March 12, 1964

Attorney James Keith had submitted to Board Members redraft of the Board’s pupil placement policies, at Judge Oren Lewis’ direction in his decision in Civil Action of Glenda Blakeney, Infant, et al, vs. Fairfax County School Board that they be redrafted to apply to all students instead of to only Negro students, thereby conforming with the placement practice and eliminating its racial infirmity. Board Members had submitted suggestions for some changes in the revised statement of policy which Mr. Keith now indicated he would incorporate in another submission to the Board for its consideration.

March 26, 1964

Attorney James Keith now explained that revised pupil assignment policy has been submitted for the Board's consideration, drafted in compliance with direction of Judge Oren Lewis, in recent decision handed down by him, and to incorporate suggestions submitted by the Board. Accordingly, the Board, by motion of Mr. Futch, seconded by Mr. Clark, and carried, adopted a Pupil Assignment Policy Statement as follows:

PUPIL ASSIGNMENT POLICY STATEMENT
It shall be the policy of the County School Board of Fairfax County to assign all pupils to the school which the School Board designates to serve his or her place of residence, provided such placement is consistent with other criteria for assignments and with the regulations of the State Board of Education affecting pupil assignments, and further subject to the following specific qualifications in handling initial placements and transfers:

  1. Any pupil who is completing the sixth or eighth grade will be assigned to the next higher school where his classmates, living in the same intermediate or high school attendance areas, will attend, provided such placement is consistent with other criteria for assignments and with the regulations of the State Board of Education affecting pupil assignments.
  2. Any pupil requesting transfer, without graduation from school presently attended, to a school in another school attendance area nearer his or her place of residence, shall be permitted attendance at such school, provided all other criteria governing transfer applications, and all regulations of the State Board of Education governing pupil assignments have been met.
  3. Any application for transfer of a student to a school in another school attendance area farther from pupil's place of residence than the school presently attended shall be referred to the School Board for action.
  4. Any child applying for admission into the Fairfax County School System for the first time may apply for admission to the school which the School Board has designated to serve his or her place of residence, provided all other criteria governing applications and all regulations of the State Board of Education governing pupil assignment have been met.
  5. All procedures for initial assignment and for transfer shall be applied to all students alike without regard to race or color.

April 9, 1964

First, transfer assignments, as follows, were approved, by motion of Mr. Futch, seconded by Mr. Clark, and carried, to facilitate school bus routing and scheduling in specific locations: Gloria Coates from Luther Jackson to Cooper Intermediate.

Prefacing any Board actions on agenda matters of school attendance areas and pupil-placements, the Chairman informed this Board has been spending a lot of time diligently studying all available information and materials bearing on the matter of desegregation in this county, and that it is now ready with a policy statement. Mr. Goldsmith, termed the Board’s “writer in residence” was asked by the Chairman to read the Board’s proposed statement on pupil assignment, as follows:

The present Board, like its predecessors, has been considering additional steps toward the goal of establishing school attendance areas strictly on a geographic basis, which was stated by the Board in Federal District Court proceedings on Sept. 12, 1963.

In the course of this study and in compliance with the wish of the Court, the Board, at its meeting on March 26, 1964, revised its pupil assignment policy statement to assure that procedures for initial pupil assignment and pupil transfer will be applied to all students alike.

In addition, a start has been made in recent months toward a teacher-assignment policy under which teachers would be assigned to classrooms on the basis of their qualifications without regard to other considerations. As this policy is developed, rights and tenure of all teachers presently employed will be fully protected.

In recent weeks Board members working informally as a Committee-of-the-Whole have been conducting a broad review of all problems involved in establishing school attendance areas on a strictly geographic basis. In these discussions Board members have had the complete cooperation of the Superintendent and his staff. Board members, with administrative staff assistance, have studied a large amount of pertinent information, including detailed personnel data relating to teachers and pupils.

In accordance with established policy, no Board action has been taken during these informal committee sessions. Now, however, certain decisions must be made in connection with notification of pupil assignments for 1964-65 as required by law.

We have accordingly drawn from our discussions a consensus report outlining concrete steps to be considered now.

It should be understood that action on this interim report leaves the broader study still in progress. Studies aimed at full realization of the goal will continue to have the attention of the members of the Board.

For the present, however, and in time for the Board to meet its assignment obligations imposed by law, the following procedures are proposed, and if adopted by motion or resolution, shall become operative for the 1964-65 school session:

Oak Grove Elementary School – This five-classroom plant, sitting astride the Fairfax-Loudoun boundary line, has been used since its construction to house Negro elementary pupils. For the past three years its enrollment has been reduced to two class groups embracing all six elementary grades. Because of this, and its somewhat isolated location, the use of the Oak Grove plant as a separate school is not educationally or economically feasible. With the close of the current (1963-64) school session the Oak Grove Elementary School shall be closed as a school for Negro youth only, and the pupils from the school, of elementary age, will be assigned to the three neighboring elementary schools (Floris, Herndon, and Navy) for the succeeding term. This action will place 23 more Negro pupils at Floris School, 21 more at Herndon Elementary School, and 15 at Navy School. 

As the surrounding area becomes more populous, the School Board many in its wisdom again operate the school as a separate unit.

Luther Jackson Intermediate and High School - Since 1960 Luther Jackson School has been operated as the intermediate and secondary school for the Negro youth of the entire county, covering all grades through 12. The Board believes it to be impracticable that Luther Jackson Intermediate and High School shall continue indefinitely as an all-Negro school serving the entire county. The question then becomes one of how and when to move to a different pattern of operation for that school. To avoid abruptness in procedure or precipitate actions which will tend to disrupt the educational processes of the pupils presently at Luther Jackson, a “limited 'phasing out"' of the all-Negro character of the school and a controlled and positive transition to another type of use appears best from many standpoints. Accordingly, the "phasing out" of the all-Negro status will begin with the 1964-65 school session by the removal of the seventh (7th) grade from the grade structure of Luther Jackson School and the assignment of all Negro seventh grade pupils to other intermediate schools in whose attendance areas they reside. With this action, Luther Jackson will operate in 1964-65 for grades 8-12. The following session (1965-66) will see Luther Jackson with only grades 9-12, if indeed the Board then deems it wise to operate the school for these grades alone, since probably not more than 350 Negro pupils may be in attendance there.

The above action commits the Board to the termination in due time of this operation of the all-Negro Luther Jackson Intermediate and High School. In view of tremendous need for school facilities, the Board and administrative staff are in agreement based on present information that the Luther Jackson High School plant shall continue as one of our regular secondary schools enrolling pupils without regard to race. Any suggestion that the plants be removed from the Fairfax County Public School System is considered by the School Board to be unwise and unjustifiable.

Assignment of Teachers - It is recognized that the above actions will cause some relocation of staff personnel in the schools affected. The Superintendent is directed to proceed to reassign such staff personnel with regard only for personal qualifications for specific assignments, in accordance with the Board's recently enacted Personnel Policies Statements.

As has been true in the past when a school drops in enrollment thereby not warranting the number of teachers as before, the teaches are transferred to other schools and/or other assignments. This will apply to teachers at Luther Jackson or any Negro or white school. The professional rights and tenure of all personnel will be recognized and protected.

Mr. Clark moved adoption of Statement On Pupil Assignment, as proposed and read, including all its provisions with respect to individual schools mentioned and assignment of teachers as noted. Mr. Futch seconded the motion, which carried.

April 13, 1964

[The School Board responded to many pupil placement requests] …Thirty-five Negro students living within the geographic boundaries of the Churchill Road School have applied for attendance at this school. Though closer to their residences, this would create an untenable overcrowded situation. The staff submitted information that survey since the Board’s April 9 meeting has disclosed that some 35 students can be expected to be absorbed in a neighboring parochial school, which would permit some leeway. Mr. Clark moved that these applications be approved. Mr. Futch seconded the motion and it carried by a vote of 6-1, Mr. Hoofnagle voting against it. Anna Louise Terry, who lives within one block of the Luther Jackson High School, is making application for attendance at the James Madison High School. Mr. Hudgins moved denial of this request. Mr. Lyon seconded the motion and it carried by a vote of 5-2, Messrs. Perlik and Clark voting “no.”

July 9, 1964

Attorney Keith reported that he had submitted to Judge Lewis, at appearance yesterday with the Superintendent and several Board Members, the Board’s willingness to place 50 Negro applicants in desegregated schools nearest their homes as petitioned and denied last April. Confirmation of such direction is needed. As to the form of decree to be entered generally, he felt further interpretation of Circuit Court decision would be forthcoming from Judge Lewis. Mr. Clark moved that applications of 50 Negro children to attend schools per listing attached to agenda of this meeting, and as concurred in by the Board at its Monday evening session with attorney, be approved. Mr. Perlik seconded the motion and it carried, Mr. Futch voting “no.”

August 20, 1964

In its executive session the Board took actions as follows: All but six of the 30+ negro students from Fort Belvoir who had attended Luther Jackson High School last year have requested transfer to Mount Vernon High School, and the Board authorized that all the Negro students involved be transferred to the Mount Vernon High School.

November 12, 1964

The Chairman then opened the meeting to speakers who had requested to submit recommendations for the 1965-66 school budget. Persons addressing the Board were as follows: 3. Mrs. Betty Beller spoke for the League of Women Voters, reading from a lengthy statement lauding the pilot programs inaugurated by the School Board and making pleas for greater use of school facilities for wider activities and after-school use, particularly with respect to libraries, toward a community school concept; also complete integration on a faculty level, in coordination with a totally desegregated school system.

December 10, 1964

[The PDF file of this meeting, available on the School Board website, is bundled with the November 19, 1964 file. The December 10 meeting begins on Page 31]. The following addressed the Board, submitting essentially statements as indicated: 11. Mr. Louise Boone spoke for the Fairfax County branch of the N.A.A.C.P., expressing its appreciation of the Board’s actions toward full desegregation of schools in Fairfax County, without the pressure of court action or activist demonstrations. 13. Mr. Earl S. Christman, Jr. expressed the appreciation of the Fairfax County Council on Human Relations for the Board’s action desegregating the Luther Jackson School.

January 7, 1965

The Superintendent said he had received this afternoon considerable materials with respect to the Civil Rights Act and would make copies available to Board Members.

January 14, 1965

Mr. Hudgins moved Board approval of statement with respect to the Luther Jackson School as follows:

Pursuant to first step in the phasing out of the all-Negro character of the Luther Jackson School, in September 1964, seventh-grade students normally assigned there were assigned to intermediate schools in whose attendance areas they resided. Teaching personnel displaced by this action were assigned to other schools in keeping with the adopted policy of teachers being assigned to classrooms on the basis of their professional and personal qualifications. Now, after much more study and consideration, the Board intends to take the Final step in phasing out this all-Negro school. It has been concluded that it is not feasible or practical to enlarge the Luther Jackson plant to the Board’s adopted standard capacity of 2,000 pupils for high schools, and it has been ascertained that it can best serve as an intermediate school, considering the following relevant points:

  1. The Luther Jackson plant is modern, adequate in size and will not require any additional construction or structural alteration for conversion to use as an intermediate school. It can be available for use in September 1965, to provide needed relief for Thoreau, Frost, and Whittier Intermediate Schools.
  2. A proposal to convert Luther Jackson into an intermediate school would eliminate the necessity of constructing the proposed Pine Ridge Intermediate School. The Pine Ridge site, with acquisition of additional acreage, can be used for a high school plant in the future.

Thus, the Luther Jackson plant will cease to operate as a high school as of June 1965, and will reopen in September 1965, as an intermediate school.

Mr. Perlik seconded this motion and it carried. Renaming of this school is to be given consideration, staff to submit recommendations.

January 28, 1965

The Chairman read statement of the Board’s actions to date, and its proposals, with respect to complete integration of schools, as follows:

Since 1959 the Fairfax County School Board has been proceeding in an orderly and gradual manner to desegregate completely the County’s educational program. The School Board has stated in court proceedings and in public announcements that it intends to establish school attendance areas strictly on a geographical basis with a goal of assigning pupils to the schools nearest their residences.

In more recent steps to this goal, the School Board has taken the following actions:

  1. On March 26, 1964, the Board announced a revision of its pupil assignment policy statement to assure that the procedure for initial school assignments and pupil transfers would apply to all pupils without regard to race.
  2. On April 9, 1964, the School Board announced its decision to close the Oak Grove Negro Elementary School beginning with the current year and to assign its pupils to schools in their respective areas of residence.
  3. Also on April 9, 1964, the Board directed a “limited phasing-out” of the all-Negro character of the Luther Jackson School by removing the seventh grade and directing that beginning with the current year all Negro seventh grade pupils be assigned to the intermediate school serving the attendance area of their residence.
  4. On January 14, 1965, the School Board directed that Luther Jackson School be terminated as an all-Negro intermediate and high school effective June 1965, and be reopened in September 1965, as a regular intermediate school.

In developing its program for desegregation, the School Board has worked informally as a Committee-of-the-Whole with the fullest cooperation of the Superintendent and his staff. Now, after the completion of staff studies initiated a year ago and intensive review and evaluation by the School Board, the School Board wishes to announce its proposed program for desegregating the County’s remaining five Negro elementary schools. In formulating this proposed program, the School Board has considered the special problems presented by each individual school. As a result, the proposed action is not identical for each of the schools. However, the proposals for each school and the proposals as a whole represent in the Board’s unanimous judgment the soundest approach to the problem from educational and other points of view.

Accordingly, the School Board announces the following proposals:

Lillian Carey Elementary School
At the end of the current school year, 1964-65, this school will be closed as an all-Negro school and its pupils will be assigned to schools in which attendance areas they reside. Schools which next year will receive pupils now attending Lillian Carey include Parklawn, Lincolnia, Bailey’s, and Glen Forest. Almost all transferred Lillian Carey pupils will be within the customary walking distance to the schools assigned.

Further, the School Board proposes that the Lillian Carey building be placed in use as a Special Education facility in lieu of Lincolnia School beginning with the school year 1965-66. This is a part OF a broader program to establish Special Education facilities in several parts of the County.

Drew-Smith Elementary School
This school will be terminated as a regular elementary school and the pupils assigned to other schools in the area, which include Hollin Hall, Gunston, Bucknell, Hollin Meadows, Hybla Valley, and Mount Vernon Woods.

Beginning with the school year 1965-66, the Drew-Smith building will be put to use for Special Education Classes and the Culturally Disadvantaged Program.

Other proposed uses are for a special health department Facility for profoundly retarded children and/or a substation for decentralized services.

Eleven Oaks Elementary School
This school will be continued as an all-Negro school for 1965-66, with fewer numbers of pupils (about 230). First grade pupils now assigned to this school will be assigned to the schools nearest their residences beginning with the school year 1965-66. Beginning with the school year 1966-67, pupils in the second through sixth grades will be assigned to the schools nearest their residence, and the Eleven Oaks Elementary School will be operated as a part of Green Acres Elementary School which is located a very short distance away. In addition, pupils in the Culturally Disadvantaged Program will be in this school for the year 1965-66. Schools which next year will receive pupils now attending Eleven Oaks include Clifton, Fairview, Centreville, Lorton, Burke, and Westmore.

James Lee Elementary School
The James Lee School raises somewhat different problems because of its geographical position in the extreme end of the County and because of its surrounding community complex. This school will continue to operate as an all-Negro school for 1965-66, but with fewer numbers of pupils. Pupils remaining in this school will be those within customary walking distance. Other pupils currently there will be assigned to schools on the basis of their residences.

At the end of the school year 1965-66, James Lee will be phased out as an all-Negro school and another use made of the building. Its pupils will be assigned to other schools. During the school year 196546, schools receiving pupils now attending James Lee include Fairhill, Stenwood, Woodburn, and Pine Spring.

Louise Archer Elementary School
The Louise Archer School braises somewhat different problems primarily because of its proximity to the Flint Hill School.

It is proposed to terminate this school as an all-Negro school in June 1965, and open it in September 1965, as a desegregated school. Pupils now assigned to Louise Archer School will be reassigned to this school or to other schools on the basis of places of residences.

Schools which next year will receive pupils now attending Louise Archer School include Great Falls, Herndon, Dunn Loring, Franklin-Sherman, and Spring Hill Elementary Schools. Some pupils now attending the Flint Hill and Vienna Elementary Schools will be assigned to the Louise Archer School under new boundary lines for this school.

The School Board recognizes that the reassignment of pupils and the utilization of the school plants are just two of the factors in a program of desegregation. The Board is continuing to review the implications of complete desegregation in an effort to supplement and strengthen its instructional program to the end that the desegregation of facilities may be accomplished in a manner which will best promote educational opportunities for all pupils.

In addition, the Board recognizes that desegregation of the remaining Negro schools will necessitate relocation of some staff personnel. In accordance with the Board’s adopted Personnel Policies, the Superintendent is directed to proceed with the reassignment of personnel without regard to race.

The Chairman advised that public reaction to these plans is invited at a meeting to be held February 16, 1965.

February 11, 1965

The Chairman announced that the meeting scheduled for February 16 to hear speakers addressing the Board on its proposed desegregation plans would be held in the Board Room of the Administration Building.

February 16, 1965

This session was scheduled to hear public reaction to proposed school boundary changes influencing areas served by Negro schools, toward complete desegregation of the Fairfax County school system. Of the twelve people addressing the Board, there was about equal division of expressions for and against the Board’s plans. Several people offered suggestions for some modifications of the proposals outlined, principally with respect to the Louise Archer School. Some speakers objected to the ratio of Negro pupils to white pupils which would, under the proposed boundaries, be larger at Louise Archer than at neighboring schools. One alternative mentioned was use of the Louise Archer building for special classes for retarded and culturally disadvantaged children. Objectors felt the students proposed to be housed at Louise Archer could be easily reassigned to other Vienna area schools. Mr. Boone’s (treasurer of the Fairfax NAACP) only objection was that the one-year delay in integration of the Eleven Oaks and James Lee Schools “is not necessary.” Representation from the Pine Ridge-Mantua areas suggested alternate use of the Luther Jackson High School for vocational or technical college, rather than intermediate school, objecting to its placement in an industrial area and the general character of the surrounding neighborhood. Some concern was expressed that Negro teachers and administrators be maintained at present salaries and status in the school system. The Chairman submitted two letters, one from Mrs. Ruth Dell, President of the Hollin Hills PTA, in support of the proposed plans; the other from Mr. and Mrs. Sale stating their support. Board Members offered to meet with whatever groups felt they needed further information and discussion on the proposals, and generally expressed their gratification at the restrained and mature approach to the proposals as exhibited by the presentations made this evening. The Chairman assured the Board would give full consideration and evaluation to all submissions made this evening to arrive at conclusions which will serve the best educational interests of all students concerned.

March 8, 1965

Proceeding with the area of Special Education, Mr. Clark moved that three special education teachers be added to the budget, as requested by the Superintendent, to deal with the special problems of desegregated schools. Mr. Futch seconded the motion and it carried.

April 8, 1965

The Superintendent reported on the progress of the several programs for which Fairfax County expects Federal aid, stating (a) that the program to Facilitate orderly desegregation has been approved it can get underway.

April 22, 1965

The Superintendent advised that funds are being released for the Program of In-Service Training of Teachers for Orderly Desegregation, but that no further information has been given with respect to the several other programs for which we are to receive federal assistance. The Superintendent introduced Mr. Whitmer, new staff member in charge of the program to facilitate desegregation of schools.

May 27, 1965

The In-Service Training Program to Facilitate the Orderly Desegregation of the Fairfax County Schools has been in progress since the day before its actual approval, April 8, and is going to be conducted in three phases - seminars, workshop, and during the school year. The Board expressed its gratification at the progress made in these programs through the diligent efforts of staff members closely pursuing all prescribed procedures.

June 17, 1965

George Tankard, Director of Research, reported that the in-service program on desegregation is moving along smoothly.

March 18, 1966

Budget Deliberations: To permit flexibility in elementary school staffing for closer attainment of prescribed pupil-teacher ratios and for further implementation of desegregation processes, Mr. Goldsmith moveThe Superintendent informed that information assuring compliance with regulations of the Civil Rights Act has again been requested of Fairfax County and that his staff is working on the necessary information. This led to adoption of motion that should the Federal Government make any requests for special testing of groups of Fairfax County students, the Board be advised before any action is taken.The Superintendent informed that information assuring compliance with regulations of the Civil Rights Act has again been requested of Fairfax County and that his staff is working on the necessary information. This led to adoption of motion that should the Federal Government make any requests for special testing of groups of Fairfax County students, the Board be advised before any action is taken.d that 20 teaching positions be added to the area of Elementary Teachers. Mr. Clark seconded the motion and it carried.

March 24, 1966

The Superintendent informed that information assuring compliance with regulations of the Civil Rights Act has again been requested of Fairfax County and that his staff is working on the necessary information. This led to adoption of motion that should the Federal Government make any requests for special testing of groups of Fairfax County students, the Board be advised before any action is taken.

Related Pages

Photograph of an antique Underwood typewriter.

Desegregation: In the News

Learn about the desegregation of FCPS from articles written by local and national journalists.
Photograph of an old ink pen and ink jar used by Fairfax County Public Schools students.

Desegregation: Writings

This records collection includes position statements and correspondence to and from officials and organizations by the Fairfax County School Board and FCPS Superintendent Woodson.
Black and white photograph of Superintendent Woodson with School Board members in 1959.

Desegregation: The Leaders

Learn about the School Board members and superintendents who led FCPS during desegregation.
Photograph of loose pages showing the minute records of the Providence District School Board.

Providence District: School Board Minutes

Meeting minutes, lists of teachers and their salaries, and school construction records of the Providence District School Board can be found in this collection.
Photograph of a page of the Combined School Board minute book.

Combined School Board Minute Book, Part 2 (1900-1922)

The school trustees of all the magisterial districts and towns met bi-annually as a combined County School Board to discuss high-level matters dealing with finances, public school law, and the school calendar, to name a few. The records of these meetings are found in this collection.
Photograph of the front exterior of Willston Elementary School taken in 1954.

School History: Willston Elementary School

Learn about the history of Willston Elementary School