File") centrally located and easily accessible, containing the same basic information as is now contained in that child's file which is kept at the various schools of his attendance....

This meant that the "kid files" of necessity had to contain the race of each student. I later inquired of a San Diego assistant superintendent on July 26, 1982, in the Carlin case as to how the race of the students was obtained by school authorities if not volunteered by the student or family. I learned that in such cases that they were then ethnically classified by "eye-balling" the appearance of the student.

Included among the above guidelines were the following provisions monitoring the activities of the board:

Page 78: (a) The court intends to be fully informed throughout the planning procedure and the implementation. In order to do this, the court has and now does appoint special monitors, which monitors will be authorized and requested to:

(i) Observe on behalf of the court all planning, budgeting, administrative, and other activities undertaken in preparation and implementation of the new plan....

(iv) Receive, comment upon, and transmit to the court all progress reports, applications for change, and other communications from board to court concerning desegregation issues....

(vi) Prepare independent reports and proposals to the court....

b) The board is directed to include the special monitors in all activities significant to preparation and execution of the desegregation plan....

As the Supreme Court later noted in Footnote 7, in Crawford III, 458 U.S. at 533, "(t)he Superior Court (Judge Egly) ordered immediate implementation of the revised plan. The District was unsuccessful in its effort to gain a stay of the plan pending appeal."