known as the Wakefield Initiative, which was enacted on that date, of which Section 1 (codified as Education Code S 1009.6 and recodified as Education Code S 35351) provides: "No public school student shall, because of his race, creed, or color, be assigned to or be required to attend a particular school."

3. Upon the passage of aforesaid Proposition 21, I was not aware of any proposals, law or court rulings which would mandate contrary to Proposition 21 the assignment of my children, because of their race, to some school away from their nearest neighborhood public school wherever we might choose to live. If I had known of any such proposal, law or court ruling, which I have always considered to be "forced busing," purporting to apply to the SDUSD, I would have exercised every right available to me as an elector and taxpayer of the SDUSD in opposition thereto.

4. In 1973, I and my aforesaid family moved from the Clairemont area to our present address at ..... San Diego, California. During the times above mentioned, two of my children continuously attended their nearest neighborhood public schools in the SDUSD until their graduation from high school, and the other, ..... an intervenor, has continuously attended, and is now attending, her nearest neighborhood public school.

5. I thereafter first learned that my children might be subjected to forced busing when I heard in the spring of 1977 of activity in their schools arising from this case, known as the Carlin case.

6. I also learned of the case of Crawford v. Board of Education of the City of Los Angeles (17 C.3d 280), known as the Crawford case. I thereafter made inquiries concerning the Crawford case and based upon my inquiries, I do not believe my interests and those of my children and other public school parents and children similarly situated were represented in the course of proceedings leading to the decision in the Crawford