Order for South Pike County; Findings of Fact and Recommendations

    Tlnited States Court of Appeals 

FIFTH CIRCUIT 

EDWARD W. WADSWORTH OFFICE OF THE CLERK ROOM 408-400 ROYAL ST. 

CLERK NEW ORLEANS, LA. 70130 

October 15, 1970 

Clerk 

U. S. District Court 

P. O., Box 769 

Jackson, Miss. 

Nos. 28030 & 28042 - U., S. A. 

Hinds County, et al 
PSppp————

—— peep = PEE EERE 2 bended dnd dd eed end a heeded 

Dear Sir: 

Enclosed is a certified copy of an order entered by 

the Court in the South Pike County Consolidated 

School District case. 

Very truly yours, 

EDWARD W. WADSWORTH, Clerk 

    

Gilbert F. Ganucheau 

Chief Deputy Clerk 

/fcw 

Enc. 

cc and enc. to: 

Hon. Dan M. Russell, Jr. 

Mr. Jack Greenberg 

Hon. David L. Norman 

Mr. Melvyn Leventhal 

Mr. Robert S. Reeves  



  

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE F1PFTH CIRCUIT 

  

NOS. 28030 & 28042 

  

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff 

Vv. 

HINDS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL., 

Defendants 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff 

Vv. 

SOUTH PIKE COUNTY CONSOLIDATED 

SCHOOL. DISTRICT, ET AL., 

Defendants 

  

Appeal from the United Staies District Court for 

the Southern District of Mississippi 

  

(October 15, 1970) 

Before BELL, THORNBERRY, and MORGAN, Circuit Judges. 

BY THE COURT: - 

The findings of fact and recommendations of Honorable 

Dan M. Russell, Jr., United States District Judge, dated October 

2, 1970 (appended hereto), relative to the South Pike Consolidated 

School District are adopted and made the order of this court. 

 



  

IT IS SO ORDERED this l4th day of October, 1970. 

/ 

  United States (Circuit Judge 

/ /\ f / ! 

Hn md) irX/ 
J B Ji / FT / ay / / } { : 3 fq 

Vary A { & ALU ne Lib) 

United States Circuit Judge 
/ 

2 S54] 

  

  United States Circuit Judge 

 



  

IN TIE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR TIE III Ti CIRCUIT 

  

108. 28030 & 2 oot 

  

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Plaintiff-Appellont 

Ve 

HINDS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, ET AlL., 
Defendants-Appellees 

. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Plaintiff-Appsllant 

Ve : 

S0UTH PIKE COUNTY CONSOLIDATED 
SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., \ 

Defendants-Appellees 

(CIVIL ACTION WO. 3984) 

vs 
\, 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECGMIEIDATIONS 
  

This case involves the desegregation of the South Pike County Consolidated 

School District. Its disposition is dir ctly controlled by Alexander v. Holmes 
  

County Board of Education, 396 U.4, 190 (1969), and the Order of the Fifth   

Circuit Court of Appeals of November 7, 1959, In that order, the Court of 

Appeals directed implementation of the Office of Education plan for South Pike 

school District except as to pupil assigmuent. The Court concluded that the 

pupil assignment and attendance pattern then in effect would suffice until the 

further order of the Court. 

On July 13, 1970, pursuant to the procedures outlined in the November 7, 

1969 order, the United States Tiled a motion for supplemental. relief seeking 

implementation of the plan of student as ssignment prepared and submitted by 

the Office of Education of the Department of Heo 1th, Education end Welfare 

unless the defendants Smitten an alternative plen which would cffectively 

establish a unitory system. 

 



  

| 

| 
| 

: t 4 

A heoxring wos held on this motion on Auguat 3, 1970, The evidence 

presented at that hearing showed that the grade structures, student attendance 

patterns and teacher assignments for the schools in the South Pike district 

were as follows dwring the 1969-70 school year: 

  

School . “ Oredes Students . Teachers 
thite Negro thite Negro | 

Osylia 1-8 133 39 7 2 | 
Progress 1-8 110 22 7 2 | 
Fernwood 5ub 116 14 5 2 
Magnolia Leh 226 75 9 3 
Eva Gordon 1-12 150 1917 15. 67 
South Pike 7-12 429 436 27 5 

However, the evidence showed that the 150 vhite students listed as 

attending the Eva Gordon school were transported there for only a few classes 

and were actually based at the South Pike School, Ixcept for the approximately 

17 Negro students who attended the South Pike School. wider freedom of choice 

and continued to attend that school during the past school year, the other Negro 

students listed os attending South Fike School were transported there for ew 

a few classes and were sctuslly based at the Eva Gordon School, Such an arrange= 

nent of part tins course exchange programs cannot be sald to estoblish a unitary 

school system, United States v. Board of Education of Webster County, Georgia,   
  

  

(Fifth Cir., July 7, 1970, No. 2.9769), 

Furthermore, although the school pond plan vas allegedly based on neigh- 

borhood attendance zones, no zone lines had been established, and the evidence 

showed that Negro students were transported from all parts of the district to 

the Eva Gordon Bchool, while white students from the same areas were not. 

The defendants allege that the Magnolia, Fernwood, South Pike and Eva 

Gordon schools are no longer operated as separate schools but are now one 

school, denaminated the South Pike Educational Complexe They point out that 

the athletic program, band and chorus of the Eva Gordon and South Pike Schools 

has been combined, Nevertheless, it appears clear from the evidence presented 

that the schools in this complex have duplicate grade structurcse end course 

LX OR SER. BT + ovevrid 4% We il ¥: ‘ph - to he re 0 EA pr MN » FX va 7% fy Hn Tn . offerings and that assignments to school sites are made, for the most part, on 

 



  

: $  L 

the basis of freedom of choice, The result has been that the schools moking 

up the complex are racially ldentifiable, with the Fernwood, Magnolia, ond 

South Pike Schools being white schools and the Iva Gordon School belng Negro. 

Subsequent to the August 3rd hearlng, the United States has proposed on 

alternative plan which would establish zone lines for the elementary schools 

in accordance with the map attached as Appendix A to these findings and recom- 

mendations. The projected student attendance pattern for the elementary schools 

under this zoning arrangement is es follows: 

  

School Grades Students 
White Negro 

Osyka 1.8 110 120 
Progress 1-8 30% 305 
Magnolia, 1-8 325 330 
Eva Gordon 1-8 93 552 
Fernwood 1-8 300. 115 

Bome students assigned to the Bonnotin School would attend classes at the South 

Pike School site, due to the limited capacity at the Magnolia site. 

On the high school level courses would continue to be offered at both 

South Pike and Eva Gordon sites but there could no longer be any duplication, 

of course offerings at the two sites, Such a plan would insure that the two 

sites are actus 111y operated as one school. 

Since the August 3, 1970 hearing in this case, it eppcars that the school 

officials have made attempts to achieve more integration in the South Pike 

schools by providing for more course transfers between the schools and by a 

somevhat stricter enforcement of neighborhood attendance patterns. Although 

it cannot be said that these efforts have as yet resulted in a unitary school 

system, this Court is of the opinion that the South Pike School officlals are 

to be commended {or diligence and good will in this matter. 

This Court finds that the plan of desegregation now in effect in the Louth 

Pike school district has not resulted in the establishment of e unitary school 

systcon and, therefore, rcecarmends that the student assignment plan recommended 

en 

by the United States as deseribed above be ordered into effect, 

“ 
ie 

 



    

: pa » 

It is further recommended that all other provisions of the November 7, 

1969 Order of the Court of Appeals be continued In full force and effect. 

Recommended and signed in duplicate, the Olerk of this Court being 

directed to file one signed duplicate in his office and forward the other 

signed duplicate to the Clerk of the United States Cowrt of Appeals for the 

Fifth Circuit, and mail a copy to each party of record, 

peel ,-P a i 
| DONE AND SIGNED this the Z— = of Eusesirenp 1970.   

Sf ) 
ER Zr Foe rel NV A UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGES ¢ 
    

APPROVED AS TO FORM: 

5228, A : » 

Attorney for the United States 

  

  

i/ po rot 

i Rr SPN A = FA ) 

  

Attorney for Defendants



   

      

    

   

          
   

    
         

           

    

/ 

pr ji? | 8, 
PPENDIR An trate y 

. ——————————— ———— 
" 

/ 
' ’, 

: { hn J ’ ' . ¢ -t : HEL at Tr TAN tn np pr nom ge me Bn = —— 1 — 4 gi : 'd 
a NAA 7s . po 

« SY! 8 PA TH ris TH, | dh, ee) 
PEA firey 2; - a Or (APEC ' 0 Pal any LTO u . ’ .i 

PF # * oe, ee w/e" : Ay JHunen, Pp > \ » 
“ ak all Sa ak .. * d 

n 7 . 2 Jd i 2X Kk i J . 5 nys : ' © Y . 
‘ . inl nh we + ty bi Be sow A a” 

x Xe, il : hI, I . NN; rr Halk an 
“rw od IN A BX ad? , - Py N ] : i A 

hell, LOREEN Te i wg 4 S >a : i 1 sq, | 1" ‘ as, 1° ott "Ye "OnE \ 5 ! oY ", y i A 
y X “oN... 4 N24 ¥ ; "e rhs GPRINGS i 

* I Se : a REFULES kg ¥ ' avin ; 
ll ' —~y Ee. . } 

y ; : | : + -} \ La : r. Veders Comp Groyrd 
: 0 is . v 

' » 4 wold 3 
’ [] ‘ 

» 
*p

 
R
Y
 

phy 
3 

.
 

  

r
e
 

= 

od
 

. 

      

  

     

  

       

R 
} / fu ‘- / 
L 

§ “a3 PE 

ki ) AA i 
i 

ARAN . 

r) 
— he - 4 . 

. i e 3 H “ Ye + 

Fd Fes 
y 

5 5 
“« But 

* 

y 

] a % has. day init Ema na iy 4 
7 3 

» 
ol 

: 

R ) ot . - SUMMIT ai 
. or SE bn it Jin. li ce 

ci No 28 2 POP IGG bil ‘eo k in ly            

oe 
re

 

      

     

    

  

  

    
      

  

      

     

  

          

             
              

  

pred PLAC — ANY : i} fod TIE iif HET ATG NL SATIS pe 3 y i, { > . 
- maa PS AL 8 on BEY ~N h- ‘}; 27 . A 1 ols k; TS } wb 3 A Fraited | EN TER ay NLL : t . 3 § : / <. H de? ¥ Ry OR ro Co INCL a pw: <<} . / a 

? 13 
£, ; 

in = : 

. 

  

  

     

    

   

     

    
  

   
  

   

  

     

\ AGN i 
Sed Noon $7 FEN 
hi \ 1 x a : Seourn A, K z 

rar BT ern Anal 2 «f 3 - —- 4 RK 

tr ERS RET EA 
- Boar Rds > } 7 Gr a 

hoa wa 
i os 

is Tord A ~