opinion: KILEY, Circuit Judge.
  This is the second appeal in this proceeding by the United States Attorney General for desegregation of School District 151 in Cook County, Illinois. In the first appeal we affirmed, 404 F.2d 1125, the preliminary injunction order substantially implementing desegregation Plan C proposed by the District 151 Superintendent of Schools. 286 F.Supp. 786. Upon remandment for hearing upon the government’s application for a permanent injunction, the district court conducted a hearing from January 13 to February 17, 1969, adopted the government’s desegregation Plan I and ordered defendant Board to implement that Plan. 301 F.Supp. 201. The Board appealed. We affirm, with one modification of the order.
  We refer to the three decisions, above cited, for the detailed geographical and political description of the 4% mile square school district and the demographic development of the racial patterns which prior to 1964 had made Coolidge School in the city of Phoenix entirely Negro, and Eisenhower, Madison and Roosevelt Schools outside of Phoenix non-Negro. United States v. School District 151 of Cook County, Illinois, 286 F.Supp. 786; 301 F.Supp. 201; and 404 F.2d 1125. The common holding of these three opinions was that the policies, practices and decisions of the School Board members have been based upon unconstitutional racial discrimination depriving Negro pupils of equal protection of the law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment with respect to the drawing of attendance zones, pupil and teacher assignment, busing of pupils and selection of sites for additional schools.
  At the conclusion of the hearings on remand, the district court, having found unlawful discrimination in the above-mentioned respects, permanently enjoined the Board from continuing its discriminatory practices, policies and decisions. It further ordered the Board to convert the Coolidge-Kennedy school complex into a combined upper grade center for all sixth, seventh and eighth grade pupils in the District and to bus White pupils in these grades to Coolidge-Kennedy; and to bus Kennedy-Coolidge kindergarten to fifth grade pupils (K-5) to various other schools in the District.
  A comparison of the arguments in the first appeal and in this appeal shows clearly that for the most part defendants have arrayed against the permanent injunction substantially the very arguments that were leveled against the preliminary injunction and which were rejected by this court. We are not disposed to rehash in this opinion the decisions made in our first opinion. We further find unworthy of discussion in this opinion the Board’s contentions that the district court had erroneous views of the applicable law which infected the proceedings with error, or that the court’s questions put to witnesses showed bias, or that the court denied the Board a fair opportunity to present its case or denied it due process by introducing the original findings into the record instead of considering the application for permanent injunction de novo. Nor shall we discuss the fact findings which defendants challenge generally on the basis of testimony of Board witnesses which the district court was not compelled to accept as true, in view of the objective facts as to which there can be no controversy.
  We turn then to the findings of fact of the district court which have been specifically challenged by the Board on this appeal. These are findings of fact Nos. 16-20 dealing with busing, Nos. 21-23 relating to the selection of new sites and the construction of new schools, Nos. 24-34 dealing with the drawing of attendance zones, and Nos. 35-38 with respect to the restructuring of the School District. These findings underlie ultimate finding of fact No. 39 and form the basis for conclusions Nos. 11 and 13. Each specific finding of fact states the relevant objective facts, and each group of findings ends with the inference that the purpose and effect of the pertinent policies and decisions of the Board either wholly or partially were based on the purposeful segregation of pupils in the District on the basis of race.
  In view of the extensive record already made in this case, we need only highlight the facts found to show that there is no merit to the claim that the findings are clearly erroneous. Concerning findings 16-20, the record shows White children living closer to Coolidge and Kennedy than to Roosevelt School were bused to Roosevelt, where only White pupils attended, and the busing was not justified by considerations of safety; no White pupils were bused to Coolidge and Kennedy and no Negro pupils were bused to the four schools outside of Phoenix. There was testimony that the busing program could be explained only in the aspect of the total racial segregation “which it produced.”
  In support of findings 21-23 the record shows that a referendum was conducted in the District in April, 1964 for the purpose of obtaining the District’s authority for the construction of a new school. Residents were told the school would relieve crowding at Coolidge and Roosevelt, with resulting integration. The vote was against the proposal. The proposal for a new school was again submitted to a referendum in December, 1964, but this proposal required that the Kennedy School be located adjacent to Coolidge, and that the Taft School be built in the “White” area below Phoenix. This proposal, which continued the residential-based school segregation, was approved. One Board member testified that he took into consideration in the proposal subject of the referendum “the effect of an integrated school I felt would have an effect on the passage of the bond issue.”
  The record relevant to findings 24-34 shows that formal attendance zones were first drawn in 1964 and were again formalized in 1966 after Kennedy and Taft were built. Before these formal zones were drawn, White children outside of Phoenix attended Coolidge and its predecessor school in Phoenix, but several Phoenix Negro families were not permitted to enroll their children at Roosevelt. From 1956 to 1967 increasing numbers of White children living closer to Coolidge than to Roosevelt were assigned to and walked to Roosevelt.
  The zones were drawn by a committee of Board members, two members of which asked to be appointed to make sure that only changes that “had to be made” would be made. And the three committee members told the president of the Board they wanted to keep Coolidge Negro. A recommendation of the committee indicated that one of the reasons for drawing the zones was that neighborhood schools were desirable and that neighborhood schools should serve a “like socio-economic level.”
  Finally, as to findings 35-38 the record shows that Plan C’s upper grade recommendation, i. e., the education of seventh and eighth grade students at one location, was approved in principle by educators and Board members. There was testimony that Coolidge was the only school in the District large enough to accommodate all upper grade students, that it was better to have a center for these students instead of scattering them throughout the other schools, and that it was the most educationally sound proposal. And there was testimony — considered in the light of the foregoing testimony — which justified the inference that Plan C’s recommendation of Coolidge as the upper grade center was rejected because of hostility of the residents of the District to desegregation.
  We think there was ample support in these findings for the ultimate finding of fact that the pupils in School District 151 have been segregated on the basis of race, the result of which has been a dual system of schools identifiable because of racial composition. We reaffirm our conclusion on the first appeal of this case that the district court was not clearly in error in finding the Board has practiced unconstitutional invidious discrimination with respect to student busing, selection of school sites, drawing of attendance zones and adoption of an educational structure for the District. . .
  Here, as on the first appeal, much of defendants’ arguments against the findings, relying again on Bell and Deal, presuppose that the defense testimony required the district court to find that because the racial pattern of the area was an innocent development, the racial discrimination and segregation in the school system likewise was the result of innocent good faith performance of defendants in fulfilling their duties.
  There is no merit to the Board’s argument based upon financial difficulty of the District in implementing Plan I as ordered by the court. It is a matter of common knowledge that other school districts in Cook County, the Chicago Public School System, and the Illinois Legislature are suffering under the necessity of meeting expanding educational costs. We pointed out in our opinion in the first appeal that the claimed financial difficulty is no bar'to enforcement of valid desegregation orders. The increased busing cost problems urged upon us are unpersuasive in the District which is but 4y% miles square and additional cost expected under the order is $15,000.
  In remanding the cause in its first appeal, this court stated that the burden would be upon the Board to present a plan which promised “meaningful and immediate progress toward disestablishing the existing unconstitutional discrimination.” This was effectually a direction to disestablish the segregated school system and reform it into a unitary system. See Alexander, swpra.
  We see no sound basis for defendants’ claim that the district court committed error in imposing upon them the burden of proving justification of their policies and decisions. We decided in the first appeal that the district court had an ample basis for fact findings which would justify a reasonable forecast that the government would ultimately prevail in this suit. We need not go beyond the objective, uncontrovertible facts to find again an ample basis for the similar findings before us. The record required defendants to go forward — after the government rested its case in chief — to show that the objective facts were not the result of the unconstitutional discriminatory policies and decisions of the Board. Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. 346, 90 S.Ct. 532, 24 L.Ed.2d 567.
  After this court’s mandate issued in the first appeal, defendants offered substantially no plan of desegregation, and up to almost the end of the hearing after remand had not even inquired of the Superintendent of Schools with respect to a plan or to alternatives to those offered by the government. This situation in itself justified the district court’s adoption of a government plan. See Alexander, supra. At the hearing the government presented two plans for desegregating the district. Defendants were “unwilling” to adopt either plan. The government plans were supported by testimony of those who had drawn the plans and proposed them. The court found that government Plan I was educationally sound, but would involve additional busing in 1969-70: the K-5 students from Kennedy and Coolidge would be bused to schools outside of Phoenix, and sixth, seventh and eighth grade students from outside Phoenix would be transported to Coolidge.
  We approve the district court’s order, with one exception. The court ordered that all students in grades 6-8 be assigned to the Coolidge-Kennedy complex as upper grade center, with Eisenhower, Madison, Roosevelt and Taft serving grades K-5, and K-5 pupils residing in Phoenix assigned to Eisenhower, Madison, Roosevelt and Taft. We modify the order with respect to K-2 children. We are not disposed to compel transfer of Phoenix K-2 pupils unless parents of the children desire. There is nothing in the record which requires our approval of that part of the decree. In our opinion, the parents of these small children are best suited to determine whether it is more beneficial to the children to be close to home or bused to other schools. We think the busing of those children should be done only if their parents consent.
  We approve the district court’s reservation of jurisdiction over the cause in order that it may require, and take, such action as from time to time may be needed to the end that the court’s decree directed at undoing the effects of the unconstitutional segregation in School District 151 on the basis of race be fully complied with and without delay. See Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430, 438, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 20 L.Ed.2d 716 (1968), and Alexander, supra.
  Affirmed as modified.
  . 42 U.S.C. § 2000c-6(a) and (b).
  . At oral argument this court, with agreement of the parties, held decision under advisement pending negotiations between the parties toward a constructive settlement of the issues. We expressed impatience at the intransigent positions of the adversaries and the continued arguments directed at justifying each party’s position at the expense of the other’s, with the important legal-racial and pupil-parent interests lost sight of. After several weeks during which the parties exchanged, criticized and finally rejected proposals, a Joint Report of failure of settlement was made to the court and is now of record before us.
  . The desegregation of teachers has been completed and the district court has retained jurisdiction to pass upon the location and construction of new schools in the District. We need not, therefore, deal further with these aspects of the district court’s injunctive orders.
  . Briefly, and so far as still relevant to the present appeal, our opinion sustaining the preliminary injunction established that Bell v. School City of Gary, 324 F.2d 209 (7th Cir. 1963), cert. den. 377 U.S. 924, 84 S.Ct. 1223, 12 L.Ed.2d 216 (1964), and its progeny, including Deal v. Cincinnati Board of Education, 369 F.2d 55 (6th Cir. 1966), cert. den. 389 U.S. 847, 88 S.Ct. 39, 19 L.Ed.2d 114 (1967), are not controlling here, where the segregation has been found to be de jure, since Bell “presupposes an ‘innocently arrived at’ de facto segregation with ‘no intention or purpose’ to segregate Negro pupils from White.” 404 F.2d at 1130. Further, as to the drawing of attendance zones, we found Taylor v. Board of Education, 294 F.2d 36 (2d Cir.), cert. den. 368 U.S. 940, 82 S.Ct. 382, 7 L.Ed.2d 339 (1961), indistinguishable in principle since “in both cases, the Board was found to have drawn lines to effectuate and perpetuate a purposeful, discriminatory condition, and race was made the basis for school districting with the purpose and result of segregating public schools.” 404 F.2d at 1132. Concerning the restructuring of the School District, we approved the finding of the district court that the Board rejected a proposed plan that would have eliminated the effects of past discrimination because of the Board’s and the community’s opposition to the desegregation that would have resulted from its implementation. We rejected, on the basis of Griffin v. County School Board, 377 U.S. 218, 231, 84 S.Ct. 1226, 12 L.Ed.2d 256 (1964), the Board’s contention that the government’s reliance upon the psychological motivations of the Board to establish the unconstitutionality of its conduct was improper.
  . Twelve witnesses testified at the hearing on the preliminary injunction, and twenty-four witnesses at the hearing on the permanent injunction. Three witnesses, McGovern, Wiersma and Graff, testified at both hearings.
  . The plan of student assignment directed in the order before us was based upon a study of the District conducted by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare at the suggestion of the government and upon request of the defendants, in accordance with Section 403 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000c-2. This is approved procedure. See Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 1218, 90 S.Ct. 14, 24 L.Ed.2d 41 (1969).
  . Any reliance by the Board upon the recent Swann et al. v. Board of Education, 397 U.S. 978, 90 S.Ct. 1099, 25 L.Ed.2d 389 (1970), is misplaced. Defendants argue that approximately 55% of the pupils in School District 151 are to be bused while in North Carolina’s Charlotte-Meeklenburg school district, subject of the Swann case, less than 50% were to be bused and that nevertheless the court of appeals there vacated the district court’s order. The court there decided the “board * * * should not be required to undertake such extensive additional busing to discharge its obligation to create a unitary school system.”
  The school system there served a population of over 600,000 covering an area of 550 square miles with 84,500 pupils attending 106 schools. The district court’s elementary school plan disallowed by the court of appeals would have required transporting 9,300 pupils in 90 additional buses with an average daily round trip of 15 miles through “central city and suburban traffic.” The district court there estimated the additional cost for the first year at $1,011,200. The court applied the test of reasonableness in its disapproval, applying the same test here the district court could well find Plan I requirements reasonable, with the exception as to K-2 children, noted later in this opinion.
  . This with some “amelioration” was a suggestion of the government according to the Joint Report filed with the court.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
  To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
  United States of America,
  Plaintiff, Appellant
  v
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendant, Appellee.
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendants, Cross-appellants
  v
  United States of America.
  Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
  of the Board
  Plaintiff, Appellants,
  v
  United States of America,
  Defendant, Appellee.
  This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
  Your task is to identify the state of the first listed state or local government agency that is an appellant.
choices: not Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachussets Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New New New New North North Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode South South Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Wisconsin Wyoming Virgin Puerto District Guam not Panama