Opinion and Order with Cover Letter

    J^iatrs Oistnd Oltutri

Jletniif ‘1S22C

R O B E R T  E. D i M A S C I O

August 15, 1975

Louis R. Lucas
Ratner, Sugarmon & Lucas
Suite 525
Commerce Title Building 
Memphis, Tennessee 38103

Dear Mr. Lucas:

The court has requested that I forward an 
advance copy of the opinion in the above-entitled 
cause. It is one of the first copies reproduced. 
The original opinion will be filed at 9:00 A.M., 
Saturday, August 16, 1975.

Re: Bradley v. Millihen
Civil No. 35257

Sincerely

Secretary to Judge DeMascio

Enclosures
Memorandum Opinion and Order



C H A M B E R S  O F  

R O B E R T  E . D e M A S C I  

J U D G E1
o

Jlnitelt j^tnica ^District QJrmri
^ o r  i l]C P i s t r i c t  of

Jlctrmt *18226

August 15, 1975

Louis R. Lucas
Ratner, Sugarmon & Lucas
Suite 525
Commerce Title Building 
Memphis*, Tennessee 38103

Re: Bradley v. Milliken
Civil No. 35257____

Dear Mr. Lucas:

The court has requested that I forward an 
advance copy of the opinion in the above-entitled 
cause. It is one of the first copies reproduced. 
The original opinion will be filed at 9:00 A.M., 
Saturday, August 16, 1975.

Sincerely,

Enclosures
Memorandum Opinion and Order

*



«. *

TABLE OF CONTENTS*• •

I.

II. 

Ill.

iv.

v .

Introduction .............................

Prior Proceedings . . ..................

Findings of Fact

A. The Detroit School System ..........

B. Statistical & Demographic Data . . . .

C. Plaintiffs' Plan ....................

D. Detroit Board of Education Plan . . .

E. Educational Components ..............

F. School Financing ....................

Conclusions of Law

A. General Analysis of Both Plans . . . .

B. Plaintiffs' P l a n ................ - *

C. Detroit Board Plan ..................

D. Plaintiffs'Objections ±o Board's Plan.

E. General Conclusions - Both Plans . . .

Remedial Guidelines ....................

1. Student’Transportation ..............

2. Reading and Communications Skills . .

3. In-Service Training ................

4. Vocational Education ................

5. Testing .............................
I6. Students' Rights & Responsibilities . .

7. School Community Relations ..........

0. Counseling and Career Guidance . . . .

9. Co-Curricular Activities ..........

1

IQ

12

29

39

46

46

38

60

65

73

80

84

87

99

101
103

108

109

111

113

114



10. Bilingual/Multi-Ethnic Studies ........  115

11. Faculty Assignments ..................  116

12. Monitoring ............................ 118

VI. Conclusion and Appendices.................... 120



«. •

... TABLE OF CONTENTS

I . Introduction...............................  X

II . Prior Proceedings.........................  5

III . Findings of Fact .

A. The Detroit School S y s t e m .............  IQ
. , • iB. Statistical & Demographic Data . . . . .  12

C. Plaintiffs' P l a n ....................... 29

D. Detroit Board of Education Plan . . . .  39

E. Educational Components............ .. . 46

. F. School Financing .......................  46

IV . Conclusions of Law

A. General Analysis of Both Plans . . . . .  58

B. Plaintiffs'Plan........ '............. 60

C. Detroit Board P l a n ....................  65

D. Plaintiffs'Objections ±0 Board's Plan. . 73

E. General Conclusions - Both Plans . . . .  80

V. Remedial Guidelines..................   84

1. Student'Transportation ................  87

2. Reading and Communications Skills . . .  99

3. In-Service Training ..................  101

4. Vocational Education ..................  103

5. T e s t i n g ........................   108
>

6. Students' Rights & Responsibilities . . . 109

7. School Community Relations ............  Ill

8. Counseling and Career Guidance ........  113

9. Co-Curricular Activities ..........  . 114



\

10. Bilingual/Multi-Ethnic Studies ........  115

11. Faculty Assignments..................   116

12. Monitoring ............................ 118

VI. Conclusion and Appendices.................... 120

t

s

r.



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
ERSTERR DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 
, SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al.,

Plainti ffs,

v.

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, Governor 
of the State of Michigan and 
Ex-Officio Member of Michigan 
State Board of Education;

FRANK J. KELLEY, Attorney General 
of the State of Michigan;

ALLISON GREEN, State Treasurer;

•MICHIGAN STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, 
a constitutional body corporate, 
and its Members;

JOHN W. PORTER, Superintendent 
of Public Instruction;

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY 
OF DETROIT, a first-class 
school district and its 
Members; -

GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT OF 
DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS;

DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS 
LOCAL 231, AFT, AFL-CIO,

Defendants.
___________/

Civil No. 35257

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND 
REMEDIAL DECREE 

(Findings of Fact and 
Conclusions of Law)

DeMascio, Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Our task in this on-going litigation is to formulate 

a just, equitable cad feasible plan to desegregate the Detroit 

School System, taking account of the practicalities at hand.

We do so in response to a United States Supreme Court mandate 

that we formulate a "decree directed to eliminating the



segregation found to exist in Detroit City Schools." Writing

for the majority of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Burger

noted that the district court and court of appeals:

". • .proceeded on an assumption that the 
. Detroit Schools could not be truly desegre­
gated -- in their view of what constituted 
desegregation —  unless the racial composi­
tion of the student body of each school 
substantially reflected the racial composi- ' 
tion [of the metropolitan area]."
Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 at 740(1974).

The Chief Justice then pointed out that Swann v. Board 'of 

Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971) ". . .does not require any par­

ticular racial balance in each 'school, grade, or classroom'

. . . ." Thus, the Court did not deem it essential to

furnish guidelines for desegregating the Detroit School System. 

Cf. Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colo. 413 U.S. 189 

(1973). Rather, it left this court to determine what constitute
t

desegregation in this particular school district.

In our analysis, we have been mindful that rigid and 

inflexible desegregation plans too often neglect to treat 

school children as individuals, instead treating them as pig­

mented pawns to be shuffled about and counted solely to achieve 

an abstraction called "racial mix." We recognize that our con­

cern is with the very young and that a just, equitable and 

feasible desegregation plan should not destroy the educational 

mission of the schools they attend. We are aware of the adverse 

educational and psychological impact upon black children com­

pelled to attend segregated schools; to separate them from 

other children solely because of skin pigmentation is indeed 

invidious. But, although the resulting injury is great, the 

remedy devised should not inflict sacrifices or penalties upon 

other innocent children as punishment for the constitutional 

violations exposed.. We must boar in mind that since those



committing tne grotesque violations are no longer about, 

any such punishment or sacrifices would fall upon the very 

young; it is the children for whom the remedy is fashioned 

who must bear the additional burdens.

The necessity of preserving the educational system 

for whom this remedy is addressed has compelled us to scrutinize 

carefully plans that are rigidly structured to achieve a racial 

mix, that include pairing and clustering of schools, that 

fracture grade structures, and that include massive transporta­

tion. All of these techniques require children to spend more 

time going to school and divert educational dollars and energy 

from legitimate educational concerns.

If Detroit's school population were more equally 

divided between black and white, or if the desegregation area 

were sufficiently large to permit greater equalization, it 

would be possible to diminish the inevitable limitations on 

the task of eliminating racially identifiable schools in the 

district. But it is impossible to avoid having a substantial 

number of all black or nearly all black schools in a school 

district that is over 70% black. The truth of this statement 

is best demonstrated by the desegregation plan offered by the 

plaintiffs in this litigation; while plaintiffs contend that 

their plan affords the greatest degree of desegregation, their 

plan leaves £he majority of the schools in the district between 

75% and 90% black. An appropriate desegregation plan must 

carefully balance the costs of desegregation techniques against 

the possible results to be achieved. Where the benefits to be 

gained are negligible, those techniques should be adopted 

sparingly.

-1-



Finally, an effective and feasible remedy must pre­

vent resegregation at all costs. To ignore the possibility 

of resegregation would risk further injury to Detroit school 

children, both black and white. In a school district that

is only 26% white, a remedy that does not take account of
. \the possibility of resegregation will be short-lived and use­

less if that percentage of whitesfurther decreased, h 'realis­

tic desegregation plan should recognize that abuses such as 

optional attendance zones, gerrymandered attendance zones, 

discriminatory assignments, the bussing of black children 

away from closer white schools, and school construction that 

knowingly tends to have segregative effects are unlikely to 

recur in a school system that has a majority black board of 

education and a bi—racial administrative staff.
t

The guidelines adopted by this court consider the 

“practicalities of the situation", and at Lhe same time make 

"every effort to achieve the greatest degree of actual desegre­

gation." Davis v. School Comm'rs of Mobile County, 402 U.S. 33, 

37 (1971). The "practicalities" that an appropriate remedy 

should consider encompass the legitimate concerns of the school 

system and the community at large. One legitimate concern de­

serving of weight is the undesirability of forced reassignment 

of students achieving only negligible desegregative results. 

Another of bhe practicalities is the shifting demography 

occurring naturally in the school district together with 

the persistent increase in black student enrollment.

Still another of the practicalities to be taken into 

account is the racial population of the district, which is 

predominantly black by wide margins. Further practicalities 

that must' be considered by this court include the declining 

tax base of the City of Detroit, the depressed economy of the

-!



City, and the volatile atmosphere cheated by the highest rate 

of unemployment in the nation. Finally, the decree must con­

sider the overriding community concern for the quality of 

educational services available in the school district. An 

effective and flexible remedy must contain safeguards that 

will enhance rather than destroy the quality of the educational 

services provided to the City of Detroit.

II. PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

The Detroit School Desegregation case has been in 

litigation for nearly five years. The plaintiffs filed this 

action on August 18, 1970, naming as defendants the Detroit 

Board of Education, its Members and the Detroit Superintendent 

of Schools, together with the Governor, Attorney General,

State Board of Education, and the State Superintendent of 

Public Instruction for the State of Michigan. The complaint 

alleged inter a3ia that as a result of actions and inactions 

on the part of all the named defendants, the Detroit Public 

School System was racially segregated. The complaint further 

challenged the constitutionality of Act 48 of tlie Michigan 

Public Acts of 1970 insofar as that Act precluded implementa­

tion of the April 7, 1970, "plan" to desegregate the Detroit 

Public Schools. The plaintiffs further prayed for a preliminary 

injunction to restrain the enforcement of Act 48 together with 

an order requiring the Detroit Board of Education to implement 

tlie so-called April ", 1970, desegregation plan.

The district court ruled that plaintiffs were not 

entitled to preliminary injunctive relief and declined to rule 

on the constitutionality of Act 48. At tliat time, the district

-5-



court granted a motion dismissing the action as to the Governor
«. *\

and the Attorney General. (Rulings dated September 3, 1970.) 

Upon 'appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth 

Circuit sustained the district court's denial of plaintiffs' 

motion for a preliminary injunction but reversed the district 

court in part,holding that portions of Act 48 were unconstitu­

tional and at the same time ordering that the Governor and the 

Attorney General remain as parties to the litigation. Bradley 

v. MiHiben, 433 F.2d 897 (6th Cir. 1970). Although the . 

defendant Detroit Board of Education would have implemented the 

so-called April 7 desegregation plan upon order of the court or 

otherwise, the district court did not order implementation of 

such "plan"; instead, as an interim plan, it adopted a plan 

submitted by the Detroit Board known as the "Magnet Plan." 

(December 3, 1970, Ruling on School jPlans.)

Following a trial on the liability issue, the 

district court found that the Detroit School District was 

segregated on the basis of race. The court found that certain 

conduct on the part of the defendant Detroit Board of Education 

and the defendant State of Michigan, through its various state 

officials, fostered segregation in the Detroit Public School- 

System and violated the Fourteenth Amendment rights of Detroit 

school children. The district court also held that the state 

was vicariously liable for certain de_ jure acts of the defendant
a IDetroit Board of Education. The district court specifically 

found that the state failed until 1971 to provide funds for the 

transportation of pupils within the Detroit School System re­

gardless of their poverty or distance from the school to which 

they were assigned, although at the same time the state provided



financial assistance for student transportation to many
t •V

neighboring, mostly white suburban districts. The district 

court finally found that the state, through Act 48, acted 

to"impede, delay and minimize racial integration in Detroit 

schools." 338 F.Supp. at 589.

The district court thereafter ordered the parties 

to submit plans to desegregate the Detroit Public Schools. 

Pursuant to this order, the defendant Detroit Board of 

Education submitted two plans, referred to as Plan A and 

Plan C, that were limited to the corporate limits of the .

City of Detroit. At the same time, the plaintiffs filed a 

desegregation plan known as the "Foster Plan" and the State 

defendants filed a "Metropolitan School District Reorganiza­

tion Plan." Following the hearings conducted on the Detroit- 

only plan, the district court concluded that the Detroit Board 

of Education Plans A and C were legally insufficient because they 

would not significantly desegregate the school system. The 

court found that Plan A was an elaboration and extension of the 

Magnet Plan then in effect, and further found that Plan C as 

submitted by the Detroit Board Weis merely a token desegregation 

effort. The district court also rejected the plan submitted by 

plaintiffs, specifically finding that plaintiffs' plan would 

entail a re-casting of the entire Detroit School System and 

would leave the majority of its schools 75 to 95% black, thus 

making the Detroit School System more; identifiably black. The 

district court then concluded as a matter of law that "under 

the evidence in this case [it] is inescapable that relief of 

segregation in the public schools of the City of Detroit cannot 

be accomplished within the corporate geographical limits of the 

city." The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the

-7



district court's ruling on the ibsue of segregation and its 

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the Detroit-only 

plan. The court further affirmed in principle the propriety 

of a metropolitan remedy. Following a grant of certiorari 

to the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court, on July 25, 1974, 

affirmed the district court's finding on the liability issue 

of segregation and did not disturb the court's finding that 

the Detroit Public Schools could not be adequately desegregated 

within the corporate limits of the city, but reversed the 

court's approval of a metropolitan remedy, holding that a district 

court may not impose a multi-district remedy to correct a 

single school district's acts of de_ jure segregation.

On January 13, 1975, upon receipt of the Supreme 

Court mandate from the Court of Appeals, this court filed an 

order requiring the parties to file a current status report.

This order precipitated the filing of numerous motions to 

dismiss by the intervening suburban defendants. Following a 

pre-trial conference on February 18, 1975, the defendant Detroit 

Board and the plaintiffs were ordered to submit desegregation 

plans for Detroit only, on or before April 1, 1975. The State 

defendants were ordered to submit a critique of the Detroit Board 

plan by April 20, 1975. On April 16, 1975, the court granted 

the motions to dismiss filed by the intervening suburban 

defendants and simultaneously granted plaintiffs' motion to 

amend their complaint to include allegations of inter-district 

de jure violations.

The plan submitted by the Detroit Board contained 

many components that were vague or poorly documented. Costs 

for these components, including transportation, are excessive.

-8-



\

The defendant Detroit Board sought to add 3,416 new employees, 

many at salaries well in excess of its more experienced anc 

tenured teachers. Moreover, the plan failed to inform the 

court of the extent to which each of the components might 

presently exist in the school system. When these deficiencies 

became apparent, the court deemed it advisable to appoint 

three court experts and commissioned them as officers of the 

court to obtain much of the needed information. The court 

assigned its experts to obtain from the Detroit Board sufri— 

cient data to evaluate the components' included in the plan. 

Because the constitutional sufficiency of the defendant- Board s 

plan could be determined only by examining all of the alter­

natives, the court deemed it necessary to request its experts 

to explore additional possibilities! to aid the court s evalua­

tion of the transportation component. The hearings on both

plans commenced on April 29, 1975.

■ We now detail the findings of fact in order to

determine the amount of desegregation possible in this 

school district, giving due consideration to the practicali­

ties at hand. We are reminded that, according to Brown v.
t

Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 300 (1954), this court is 

to be guided by equitable principles. Thus, its guidelines 

must be flexible and responsive to public and private needs.

r. -9-



Ill. FINDINGS OF FACT .

A . The Detroit .School System

1. The Detroit School System, which is coter­

minous with the City of Detroit, is governed by a 

Central Board of Education. In an attempt to decentra­

lize this huge school system the Michigan legislature, 

pursuant to Act 48 of the Michigan Public Acts of 1970 

(Mich. Comp. Laws 388.171 et seq.) divided the school 

system into eight geographic "regions". Each region is 

governed by a regional board of education whose primary 

responsibilities and relationship with the central Board 

of Education are outlined in Defendant Board of Educa­

tion's Exhibit 4, "Guidelines for Decentralization".

Each region has a five-member board■elected by the 

citizens residing within its boundaries. The individual 

board member receiving the highest number of- votes is 

designated chairman of the regional board.

The central Board of Education consists of 

13 members. Five of its members are elected from the 

City of Detroit at large and the remaining positions 

are occupied by the eight regional chairmen. The day-to­

day administration of the entire school system is the 

responsibility of a General Superintendent of Schools, 

an Executive Deputy Superintendent, a Deputy Superintendent 

and an Assistant Superintendent, together with eight 

Regional Superintendents selected by the regional boards.

The "Guidelines for Decentralization" indicate that there 

is much autonomy left with the regional board. For example, 

the regional board retains the authority to change attendance

-10-



boundaries within its regiort; transfer teachers from

school to school within the region, vary the educational 

curriculum in schools within the region and hire the 

Regional Superintendents. Under the regional system 

the quality of education could vary not only among 

regions but also among schools within a region. Notwith­

standing this decentralized system, the central Board of 

Education remains responsible for governing the entire 

system and for overseeing the actions of the regional 

boards.

2. Both the central Board and the central 

administration staff under the supervision of the General 

Superintendent are bi-racial in character. Nine of the 

central Board's thirteen members, including the Board 

President, are black; the other four members are white.

At the beginning of this remedial hearing, the General 

Superintendent was white and the Executive Deputy Superin­

tendent was black; when these proceedings were completed, 

the white General Superintendent had retired and had been 

replaced by one who is black. The bi-racial aspects of 

the school administration extend throughout the entire 

staff, down to the level of the department heads.

■ The racial composition of the school admini­

stration has changed dramatically since the inception of
I

this lawsuit in 1970. At the conclusion of the trial on 

the liability aspects of this litigation in 1971, the 

central board was composed of ten white members and three 

black members, and the greater part of the General Super­

intendent's staff was white. As a result of the

-11-



decentralization brought about by the passage of Act 49, 

the black community has become more involved in and has 

experienced greater control over the Detroit School System.

3. Although the Supreme Court decision in this 

case was handed down in July of 1974, the Detroit Board

of Education did not take steps to formulate a desegrega­

tion plan until ordered to do so by this Court. In January 

of 1975, however, they created a desegregation office 

commissioned to formulate an acceptable plan. The Detroit 

Board's plan, submitted to this Coiirt on April 1, 197 5, 

was adopted by a 9-4 vote. The nine black members of the 

Board voted in favor of the desegregation plan while the 

four white members opposed the plan as presented. Although 

this vote was split along racialtlines, the Central Board 

of Education is nevertheless a cooperative Board and is 

willing to desegregate the Detroit school system. However, 

the plan as submitted does not enjoy unanimous acceptance 

among the members of the Detroit Board, the members of the 

administrative staff, or the members of the desegregation 

office. It is apparent that under the regional system it 

is possible that the degree of desegregation under the 

Board's plan could vary among different regions and it is 

likely that the plan as submitted by the central Board 

of Education enjoys varying degrees of acceptance in 

different regions.

B. Statistical and Demographic Data

4. The most recent official racial-ethnic dis­

tribution count, taken on September 2.1, 1974, discloses



that there are 257,396 students enrolled in the Detroit
1. •\

Public Schools. Of this number 71.5% are black and 26.4% 

are white, while 2.1% comprise other ethnic groups. In 

the Detroit School System's regular K-12 program 247,113 

students are enrolled, of which 71.4% are black and 28.6% 

is comprised of white and other ethnic groups. In the 

elementary schools, grades K-6, 141,806 students are 

enrolled, of which 72.3% are black and 27.7% is comprised 

of white and other ethnic groups. In the junior high 

schools, grades 7-8, 39,600 students are enrolled, of 

which 73.0% are black and 27.0% is comprised of white 

and other ethnic groups. In the senior high school?, 

grades 9-12, 65,707 students are enrolled, of which 68.6% 

are black and 31.4% is comprised of white and other ethnic 

groups. (See Defendant Board of Education's Exhibit 6, page 

4.) The racial composition of each region as of September, 27, 

1974, is reflected in the table next attached.

I

-13-



«. •V

ETHNIC COMPOSITION 
BY REGION

Total Racial-Ethnic Distribution

Region
U vJCi L-I i

Member- American
Indian

Asian
American

Black
American

Spanish
Surnamed

White and , 
Others

ship Num­
ber

Per­
cent

Num­
ber

Per­
cent.

Num- 'Per- 
ber cent

Num­
ber

Per­
cent

Num- Ber­
ber cent

1 24907 70 0.3 68 0.3 22486 90.3 234 0.9 2049 8.2

2 36972 121 0.3 93 0.3 22278 60.3 3450 9.3 11030 29.8

3 33723 22 0.1 50 0.1 23876 70.8 220 0.7 9555 28.3

4 36820 40 0.1 181 0.5 20414 55.4 145 0.4 16040 43.6

5 31354 7 0.0 16 0.1 30325 96.7 17 0.1 989 3.1

6 30796 37 0.1 48 0.2 19442 63.1 130 0.4 11139 36.2

7 24605 16 0.1 140 0.6 11114 45.2 88 0.3 13247 53.8

8 29725 4 0.0 26 0.1 28300 95.2 66 0.2 1329 4.5

City-Wide
Schools 8494 15 0.1 34 0.4 5883 69.3 107 1.3 2455 28.9

Total
District 257396 332 0.1 656 0.3 184118 71.5 

—
4457 1.7 67833 26.4

-14-



5. This Court previously found that the popu-

iation of the City of Detroit peaked in 1950 and since 

that year has been declining steadily at the rate of 

approximately 169,500 per decade. In 1950 Detroit's 

population constituted 61% of the total population of 

the standard metropolitan area; in 1970 it comprised but 

36% of that figure. The black population in the City of 

Detroit has increased markedly from 1.4% of the city 

population in 1900 to 43.9% in 1970. 338 F. Supp. 582

at 585-86. The Detroit Board of Education's demographic
1

expert testified, and we agree, that a current study of 

Detroit population trends indicates that as of 1975 the 

population of the City of Detroit is majority black.

6. On September 27, d971 this Court found that 

the decline in the white students in the Detroit Public 

School system during the period 1961-1970 was greater than 

the percentage decline of the overall white population in 

the city. At the same time the percentage of black enroll­

ment in the Detroit school system increased at a greater 

rate than the overall general black population in the 

city during the same period. In the 1960-1961 school year 

there were 285,512 students in the Detroit school system,

of which 130,765 (45.8%) were black. In the 1966-1967 
»

school year there were 297,035 students in the system, 

of which 168,299 (56.7%) were black. In the 1970-1971

school year 289,743 students were enrolled, of which

184,194 (63.6%) were black. During the period between

1968 and 1970 the Detroit school system experienced a «

-15-



V

larger increase in percentage of black students than any 

other major northern school district. The percentage 

increase in Detroit during that period was 4.7% as con­

trasted with a high of 3.2% in Boston and a low of 1.1% 

in Denver among other major northern school districts.

(338 F. Supp. 582 at 586.) This court predicted in 1971 

that, if present trends continued, the percentage of black 

students in the Detroit Public Schools would be 72% in 

the 1975-1976 school year, 80.7% in the 1980-1981 school 

year, and, further, the system would be virtually 100% 

black by 1992. (338 F. Supp. at 585.) The record compiled

during this remedial proceeding demonstrates that the

predictions made by the District Court in 1971 were
1/

totally accurate, if not somewhat conservative. During 

the past five years the black student enrollment has 

increased at an average of 2% per year, with a corres­

ponding 2% decrease in the white student population during 

the same five-year period. At the elementary level the 

school system is presently 72.5% black and the trend 

toward a 2% annual increase has been positively identi­

fied.

1/
The District Court in 1971 predicted that in the 1975­

1976 school year the black student enrollment would total 
72 percent. The evidence taken during this remedial pro­
ceeding indicates that that figure was low. Black enroll­
ment in the elementary schoools exceeded 72% on September 
27, 1974, and black enrollment system-wide on that date 
was 71.5%.

-16



7. Thoore arc presently 32 6 schools in the

Detroit Public School System: 226 elementary schools,

56 junior high schools. 22 high schools and 22 specialized 

and primary schools, '.’he system operates on a feeder plan 

in which elementary students are assigned to specific 

junior high and senior high schools. These schools are 

distributed throughout the city and form a perimeter 

adjacent to outlying suburban areas. The geographic 

distribution of schools throughout the system reflects 

the Detroit School Sys;em's devotion to the neighborhood 

school concept.

The increasing blade student enrollment 

in the Detroit Public School System, which extends to 

schools located at the city's boundaries, is demonstrated 

by the following tables reflecting significant increases 

in black student enrollment since 1969: *

*

-17-



School

CARSTENS

GUYTON

HAMILTON

HOSMER

IVES

LINGEMANN 

JACKSON J.H. 

ROBINSON M.S.

School

COOPER 

A. L. HOLMES 

CLEVELAND J.H. 

GREUSEL J.H.

RACIAL DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFT 1969-1974 
OF SELECTED SCHOOLS - DETROIT EASTSIDE

TABLE I \ '

PERCENTAGE BLACK ENROLLMENT

YEAR

1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974

37.4 48.0 62.3 73.2 82.6 88.3

17.2 30.6 49.5 64.1 73.9 77.9

63.6 70.8 71.8 74.2 79.8 83.4

8.2 18.1 28.2 44.8 57.8 70.0

6.2 13.0 19.1 37.9 54.0 64.2

53.1 60.2 62.6 65.8 68.9 72.3

39.8 43.3 54.2 71.9 85.1 92.0

_ — — __ 69.1 84.8 88.7 92 .6

TABLE II

RACIAL DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFT 1969-1974 
OF SELECTED SCHOOLS - NORTHEAST DETROIT

PERCENTAGE BLACK ENROLIMENT

YEAR

1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974

59.0 72.1 79.6 85.7 86.9 90.3

86.6 93.2 95.3 96.3 97.8 98.5

68.8 71.6 74.9 74.3 75.9 79.4

69.5 73.6 75.9 70.5 82.2 81.4

-IB-



TABLE III

RACIAL DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFT 1969-1974
ALONG WOODWARD AVENUE* •

PERCENTAGE BLACK ENROLLMENT

■ Year

1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
School

HAMPTON 68.8 75.1 60.7 70.6 75.3 81.5

Woodward Avenue is a major thoroughfare in Detroit, which 
divides the city along east-west lines.

TABLE IV %

RACIAL DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFT, 1969-1974 
Or' SELECTED SCHOOLS ON DETROIT'S NORTH SIDE 

(BORDERING EIGHT MILE ROAD)

PERCENTAGE BLACK ENROLLMENT 

Year

School
1969 1970 1971 1 972 1973 1974

BOW 13.6 17.8 ‘ 27.9 44.7 57.4 68.6

GREENFIELD PK. 32.3 38.2 41.1 46.2 50.7 54.0

MARSHALL 57.3 65.0 69.3 75.1 81.7 84.6

MASON 48.6 52.7 61.6 69.7 77.2 83.5

WINSIIIP 50.1 70.4 89.8 93.3 96.2 97.7

CLEVELAND J.H. 68.8 71.6 74.9 74.3 75.9 79.4

A

-.1 9-



FARWELL J.H. 6 3,3 67.8 68.4 v 68.0 73.9
* * * * it

GRANT J.H. 21.7 26.2t, 27.8 29.7 38.1

HAMPTON J.H. 68.8
*

75.1 95.5 97.1 98.1

PERSHING H.S. 57.7 63.8 73.1 81.0 83.4

* Elementary School Figures.

TABLE V

RACIAL DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFT, 1969-1974 
OF SELECTED SCHOOLS IN NORTHWEST-WEST AREA 

OF DETROIT

PERCENTAGE BLACK ENROLLMENT

- Year

1969 1970 1971 1972 1973

School
BURNS 31.4 59.8 80.0 90.0 94.5

CADILLAC 17.6 39.1 73.5 75.3 90.9

CRARY 4.5 20.6 40.9 61.9 83.0

DOSSIN . 6.0 5.0 16.8 34.2 64.0

FORD 34.2 35.4 51.8 70.0 84.3

HERMAN 55.6 58.5 66.4 73.9 79.3

McFARLANE 77.6 82.0 89.9 93.9 95.7

NEWTON 14.5 21.8 27.8 45.1 66.9

PARKER 62.7 79.4 88.1 95.1 97.0

PARKMAN 7.8 12.8 29.9 47.8 68.4

COOLEY H.S. 58 .'9 76.3 94.0 97.4 99.3

82.4

41.4 

98.8 

85.6

1974

97.1

94.4

89.1

80.8 

89.6

85.8

96.5

76.9

97.6 

78.3

99.6



TABLE VI \-

RACI/vL DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFT, 1969-1974 
OF SELECTED SCHOOLS IN DETROIT'S SOUTHWEST AREA

PERCENTAGE BLACK ENROLLMENT

Year

1969 1970 1971 1972 197 3 1974
School

CRAFT 88.4 86.8 84.3 92.1 91.7 91.3

ELLIS 66.9 71.6 74.0 72.5 77.0 83.8

OWEN 69.5 70.8 68.7 67.4 71.5 79.5

r.
-21-



Shifting demographic patterns in Detroit are reflected not
«. •\

only in the schools which are 70% or more black, but also in 

those schools which, though not yet majority black, will be so 

within a short period:

TABLE VII

RACIAL DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFTS, 1969-1974 
IN SELECTED SCHOOLS ON DETROIT'§ NORTHWEST AND

WEST SIDES

Year

School
1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974

EMERSON 3.6 3.6 3.0 8.5 27.7 40.9

MeKENNY 5.1 5.7 10.3 22.2 38.4 4.6.4

COOLIDGE 1.3 2.1 5.1 13.8 30.1 45.6

TABLE: viii

RACIAL 
IN SELECTEE

DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFTS, 1969-1974 
i SCHOOLS IN NORTHEAST DETROIT

Year

School
1969 1970 ' 1971 1972 1973 1974

GRANT 21.7 26.2 27.8 29.7 38.1 41.4

LYNCH 10.4 6.7 12.8 18.0 30.9 47.8

Based on present trends, it is accurate to expect that the 

black enrollment of several schools on Detroit's northwest and 

east sides will be in excess of 70% black by the 1975-1976

school year:



TABL1C IX «. •

RACIAL DEMOGRiAPHIC SHIFTS, 1969- 1.974
■

percentag:E BIACK ENROLLMENT

Ye;ar

School
196 9 1970 1971 1972 197 3 1974

BOW 13.6 17.8 27.9 44.7 57.4 68.6

COFFEY — 29.0 33.2 43.6 51.8 68.8

EDISON 0.3 2.7 9.3 25.3 49.5 65.3

HOSMER 8.2 18.1 28.2 44.8 59.8 70.0

The Ford High School whose attendance zone abuts Detroit's 

border is located on Detroit's extreme northwest side. As indicated 

by.the following table, Ford, presently 55% black, will in all likel 

hood be 50% black by the 1975-1975 school year.if demographic trends 

continue:

TABLE X . .

RACIAL DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFT 1959-1974 IN 
FORD HIGH SCHOOL

PERCENTAGE BLACK ENROLLMENT 

Year

1959 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974

13.4 20.0 30.5 40.3 48.2 54.6

-2 3



• ;

Based on current trends, thc\-following schools, which have 

student population between 25% and 35% black, can expect to have sub­

stantial increases in black enrollment:

_ TABLE XI

RACIAL DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFTS, 1969-1974 

PERCENTAGE BIACK ENROLLMENT

School
1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974

GOODALE 0.1 0.7 1.5 4.0 14.9 25.2
MACOMB 1.6 2.8 4.9 8.1 21.0 30.6
EMERSON J.H.

*
3.6

*
3.6

*
3.0 8.4 19.9 30.6

MURPHY J.H. 6.5 9.8 12.7 6.3 20.1 30.3
TAFT J.H. 0.3 0.7 2.4 12.8

t
21.0 34.5

* Elementary school figures

-2 4-



8. These tables clearly demonstrate the City 

of Detroit's changing demography and conclusively reflect 

significant increases in black student enrollment since 

1969. The tables point out that schools that were as low 

as 4.5% black in 1969 had increased to as much as 89.1% 

black by 1974. The demographic patterns in Detroit reflect 

a large number of schools that are 70% or more black and 

it is apparent that many schools that are not yet majority 

black will become majority black within a short period of 

time. For example, Table VII aboVc contains a sampling 

of schools located on the northwest side of Detroit-that 

will experience a majority black school population within 

the coming school year. Similarly, schools located in the 

northeast section of Detroit that are presently 40-50% 

black will be majority black within the coming school year. 

If present demographic trends continue, schools that now 

have student enrollment ranging between 20 and 40% black 

can expect to have substantial increases in black enroll­

ment. Although the vetroit school system as a whole is 

experiencing a 2% annual increase in black enrollment, the 

following table demonstrates that individual schools in 

many areas undergoing racial demographic shifts have 

experienced increases in black, enrollment that are as high 

as 16.9%'. These shifting demographic patterns are rapidly 

changing Detroit's residential patterns; mixed residential 

areas may now be found in all parts of the citv, inducing 

areas bordering the suburbs.

V -
-2 5-



«. • 
\

AVERAGE YEARLY PERCENTAGE

RACIAL CHANGE IN SELECTED SCHOOLS

BETWEEN 1969-1974

PERCENTAGE BIACK ENROLLMENT

Average Yearly Percentage,
School 1969 1974 Change

Emerson 3.6 30.6 5.4
Marshall 57.3 84.6 5.5
Coolidge 1.3 45.6 8.9
Kennedy 64.6 93.1 5.7
Herman 55.6 85.8 6.0
Cooper 59.0 90.3 6.3
Van Zile 46.9 79.7 , 6.6
Parker 62.7 97.6 7.0
Mason 48.6 83.5 7.0
Lynch 10.4 47.8 ' 7.5
McKenny 5.1 46.4 . 8.3
Cerveny 51.5 97.5 9.2
Winship 50.1 97.7 9.5
Carstens 37.4 88.3 10.2
Bow 13.6 68.6 11.0
Ford 34.2 89.6 11.1
Ives 6.2 64.2 11.6
Hosrner 8.2 70.0 12.4
Newton 14.5 76.9 12.5
Edison 0.3 65.3 13.0
Burns 31.4 97.1 13.1
Guyton 17.2 77.9 12.1
Parkman 7.8 78.3 14.1
Dossin 6.0 80.8 * 15.0
Cadillac 17.6 94.4 15.4
Crary 4.5 89.1 16.9

y .

-26-



9. The Board began to undertake steps to

desegregate cs early as 1.97 0 and was precluded from 

doing so only by the passage of Act 48 of the Michigan 

Public Acts of 1970 (Mich. Comp. Laws §388.171) by the 

Michigan Legislature. The Board has followed the policy 

of 1 ransporting students to relieve overcrowding in such 

a manner as to increase desegregation. In the 1974-1975 

school year the Detroit Board was able to increase the 

percentage of black students in many schools that had 

a low percentage of black enrollment. The table next 

annexed demonstrates the dramatic increases in black 

student enrollment at various schools accomplished by 

such transportation.

»



PERCENTAGE BLACK ENROLLMENT 
IN SCHOOLS RECEIVING STUDENTS 

TO RELIEVE OVERCROWDING

School

Northwest Area
■ * *

Ann Arb^r Trail
Burgess
Carver

*Dow
Harding
Healy ^
Houghtea
Leslig
Lodge
Mann
Weatherby
Yost

Northeast Area 
*Burbank *Hanstein

Marquette*
.McGregor
Pulaski
Robinson _ • *T n x
Wilkins

1974

Without Transportation

2
4
0
32
18
0
4
0
0
14
3
0

0
0
6
0
2
9
0
6

With Transportation

39
21
18
43
22
18
12
32
27
25
16
42

16
23 
12 
34 
14
9

24 
16

* Schools which abut the Detroit city limits.

r.
-28-



C. P la in t i f f s 1 P lain

10. The Plaintiffs' desegregation plan, submitted 

on April 1, 1975, pursuant to an order of this court and 

revised on April 30, 1975, was designed by Dr. Gordon 

Foster, Director of the University of Miami Title IV De­

segregation Center. The plan as devised by Dr. Foster 

deals solely with pupil reassignment. The rationale and the 

ultimate goal of the plan are that, as far as possible, 

every school within the district must reflect the racial 

ratio of the school district as a whole within the limits 

of 15 percentage points in either direction. Dr. Foster 

admitted that the 15% figure was arrived at arbitrarily.

Under Dr. Foster's definition, any school whose racial 

composition varies more than 15% in either direction from 

the Detroit system-wide ratio is racially identifiable. 

Accordingly, an elementary school with 57.3%-87.3% black 

enrollment, a junior high school with 58.0%-88.0% black 

enrollment, and a senior high school with 51.9%-81.9% 

black enrollment are desegregated schools. Carrying 

Dr. Foster's plan a step further, an elementary school 

that is 56% black is a racially identifiable white 

school and an elementary school that is 85% black is 

a desegregated non-racially identifiable school.

(Plaintiffs' plan, p. 7A.)

11. In developing Plaintiffs' plan, Dr. Foster 

testified he explored the extent to which desegregation could 

be affected by each of the following commonly accepted



in facility utilization. Under the Plaintiffs' plan, 

present high school juniors, although included in the 

pupil assignment process, are given the option of re­

maining at their present school and graduating there,

assuming that to do so would not cause or maintain
. 1 

segregation. (Plaintiffs' plan page 5A.)

12. Under the Plaintiffs' plan, not only are . 

many students reassigned to elementary schools outside 

of their neighborhood for half of their elementary years, 

but, as a result of the pairings and changes in feeder 

patterns into junior and senior high schools, many . 

students will attend a school out of their home neighbor­

hood for between eight and eleven years. See, e.g ., 

Plaintiffs' plan for Webster, Birney, Peck, Amos, Beard, 

Larned, Higginbotham, Glaser and McGregor schools.

Under Plaintiffs' plan only the racial ratio that could 

be achieved by a particular pairing was considered in the 

selection of schools for the pairings. Consequently, the 

Plaintiffs' plan creates many problems relating to building

capacity. For example, proposed enrollment exceeds school
2/

capacity at 18 junior high schools. In addition, some 

elementary school pairings under the plan would result in 

over-enrollment. While Plaintiffs' plan attempts to minimize

y  - ~ ~  ‘

In addition, under Plaintiffs' plan, the Columbus Junior 
High School would be over capacity were it not for the 
utilization of temporary spaces.

-31-



«. -

techniques: redrawing zone lines between contiguous

zones of differing racial composition, pairing schools 

within these zones, pairing non-contiguous zones, 

changing feeder patterns in affected schools, examin­

ing various building utilization techniques, use of 

temporary space, and changing grade structures in parti­

cular buildings. Dr. Foster examined these alternatives 

in an effort to achieve his desired racial mix. There­

after, he subdivided the system into five clusters 

with similar racial compositions, each containing a group 

of high school constellations. (Plaintiffs plan page 3A, 

4A.) Dr. Foster proceeded to alter the grade structures 

at particular schools within each cluster, and schools
Iwithin the clusters were then paired. The pairing of 

schools was accomplished by selection of all the "racicilly 

identifiable" white schools and the "racially identifiable" 

black schools in order of size and percentage of children 

by race. Thereafter, children in the newly created pairings 

were exchanged to achieve ratios conforming to Dr. Foster's 

definition of a desegregated school. The plan also created 

new feeder patterns for junior and senior high schools 

that ultimately achieve a racial mix falling within the 

same parameters.

Plaintiffs' pupil reassignment plan does not 

include kindergarten and pre-kindergarten children; pro­

vision has been made for them to attend the school nearest 

their home, which in many instances necessitates changes

-30-



problems of capacity by creating "swing grades" with

the variable assignments of the 6th, 7th and 9th grades, this

technique results in undue disruption of grade structures.

At the senior high school level, the Plaintiffs' plan has 

avoided problems of capacity by assuming a dropout correction 

factor of .7069 for blacks and .9426 for whites and others. 

(Plaintiffs' plan, p. 6A.) As a result, there would be 

13,865 fewer blacks and 1,145 fewer whites in the three 

senior high grades than in the three junior high grades. 

However, no evidence was presented that justifies reliance 

upon such a dropout factor; consequently, capacity problems 

may be created by Plaintiffs' plan at the senior high school 

level as well. Reliance upon a 30% dropout rate for black 

students at the senior high school level would disrupt the 

entire school system if theprojected number of dropouts 

did not materialize. Moreover, even if such a .statistic 

were supported by credible evidence, Plaintiffs have not 

allowed for the possibility that the dropout rate would 

decline in a desegregated system. .

13. We find that a largo number of schools are 

paired solely to achieve a desired racial ratio in each 

of the paired schools. (Tr. Vol. 18, p. 45.) The 

arbitrary pairings devised in Plaintiffs' plan necessitate 

the transportation of thousands of black school children 

many miles to schools that still remain 80% or more black.

-32-

V



Plan
Paqe SCHOOL 1974 PROPOSED

8 Ellis 83.8 83.0

15 Higginbotham 100.0 82.7 '

27 Keith Primary 99.6 82.6

30 Bellevue 96.7 82.1

28 Krolik 100.0 81.8

12 Alger 100.0 81.6

11 ‘ McFarlane 96.5 81.4

13 Cadillac 94.4 81.0

1 Woodward • 99.9 81.0

4 Chaney 98.3 80.7

1 Roosevelt • 99.9 80.7

9 Monnier 97.0 ' 80.4

4 Goldberg 98.9 80.4

14 Dossin 80.8 80.8

2 Turner 99.4 80.1

4 Owen 79.5 80.0

It is apparent that, for example , Plaintiffs' selection

of the Lingemann School vvas made solely because white

students were needed for transfer to the Bunche School

to accomplish Plaintiffs ' desired balance. Presently,

the Lingemann School is 72.3% black and thus is a deseg

school by Plaintiffs' definition . After application of

Plaintiffs' plan Lingemann School becomes 83.'1% black.

-34



\

Lingemann v;as included in Plaintiffs' plan irrespective 

df the fact that it is located in a naturally integrated 

neighborhood that has attained a measure of racial sta­

bility. The Plaintiffs' plan groups the Craft, Ellis, 

Glazier and McKinstry Schools and transports 753 students; 

as a result, the Ellis School is reduced from 03.8% to 

83.0% black. In the Carrie, Morley and Peck School 

grouping, the Carrie School is presently 58% black and 

thus not racially identifiable according to Plaintiffs' 

definition. After transporting children, Carrie is 

reduced to 54.1% black; black students are bussed out of 

Carrie solely to be added to the black population at 

Morley.

In addition, after transporting thousands of 

students, there are a number of schools that are under 

or barely exceed the acceptable minimum percentage devised 

by Dr. Foster. The following table demonstrates the racial 

mix achieved at selected schools:

V

Plan
Page SCHOOL % black

5 Amos 50.7

10 Carver 52.0

21 Richard 52.4

16 * Cooke 52.5

13 Houghton 53.4

6 Higgins 54.1

7 Cary 54.1 .

22 Trix 54.9

. ■ ■-.* .
-35-



t  •
V

P1 a n
Page SCPOCi. Black >
•31 Burbank 55.1

.31 McGregor 55.4

6 ' Bennett 55.8

1 Webster 56.1 >ol

17 Larned 56.1 -

19 Burt 57.1

13 Yost 57.4

23 Grayling 57.4 ;

6 I arms > 57 . 6 -

20 Law 58.1 .

10 McColl 58.5 7A.

10 Maybee 55.5 ip-

23 Greenfield Union 58.6 p

9 Everett 58.6 .her
23 White 56.3 :

27 Clark 59.0

3 Burton 59.4

19 . J'olcomb 59.4

22 Fleming 59.5 :k-u;
13 Edison 59.9

3 Beard 60.0 . ,ent

Groupings of schools with comparable racial ratios remain
>

even after the application of Plaintiffs' plan. Schools

containing enrollment over 80t black are grouped in a

contiguous area and follow a consistent pattern. Similarly,

-3 6-

.»* ■ '•'* ■■



«. ■

schools with enrollment under (>0% black are grouped in 

contiguous areas and follow an easily discernible pattern.

(See Defendant Board of Education's Exhibit 10.)

. 14. The Plaintiffs1 reassignment plan requires

the transportation of 77,303 children, of which 48,312 are 

elementary school children and 28,991 are junior high school 

children. Deducting 5,954 children presently being trans­

ported, Plaintiffs have arrived at a total of 71,349

students requiring transportation under their plan as 
3/ *

proposed. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs use a factor of four 

daily round .rips per ius with 6G pupils per bus and esti­

mate that 271 additional busses would be required to• 

effectuate their reassignment plan. (Plaintiffs' plan p. 7A.)

There is no credible evidence to support Plaintiffs' assump-
{

tion that every bus could be utilized to make four round 

trip runs. The Plaintiffs' estirn Le of 271 busses is further 

dependent upon the unrealistic assumption of utilizing one 

pick-up point for 66 school children without consideration 

of the distances students would have to walk to arrive at 

the pick-up point. Mo: .over, their estimate does not con­

sider the ethnic composition of any area surrounding a pick-up 

point.

Plaintiffs' present estimate of 77,303 students

_  -

Vie have 'arrived at varying estimates that range between 
77,000 and 01,000 students requiring transportation under 
Plaintiffs' plan.

-37-



is not far below their 1972 estimate of 82,000 children
■

requiring transportation. The most credible estimate of 

the number of buses required foi Plaintiffs' 1972 plan 

was 900. Expert testimony given in 1972 estimated that 

a school district could transport an average of 100 students 

for each bus in service. (Witness Kuty, Tr. page 122-124, 

book 2; March 15, 1972.) Based upon this testimony, which 

was not challenged by Pla . Lffs, Plaintiffs' plan would 

require the procurement of approximately 840 buses, 

including sufficient spares.

Accordingly, we find that the Plaintiffs' ‘ plan 

involves the transportation of thousands of students, the 

great majority of whom would be transported from one 

predominantly black school to another predominantly black 

school, involves bus runs within the city of Detroit of 

up to thirty-eight minutes without taking in account time 

for loading and unloading, and would result in many children 

spending between nine and eleven years as far as five to 

twelve mi] as from th ,.r neighborhood.

15. The Plaintiffs' plan, based upon a defini­

tion of racial identifiability as beyond a range of 15% 

from the system-wide racial mix ,is rigidly structured.

The plan does not consider the past or present demography
I

of the Detroit school district, more particularly ignoring 

population shifts that have been occuring over the past 

decade. Moreover, the plan does not consider the possi­

bility of resegregation in the City of Detroit. Although 

Dr. Foster testified that his pi an purports to avoid the

-38-



V

possibility of resegregation, this testimony is premised 

upon the assumption that after application of the plan 

there would be "no pockets where people can go." (Tr. Vol. 

19, page 1G6.) There is no credible evidence in this 

record to justify the assumption that adoption of Plaintiffs' 

plan would lessen the chance of resegregation within or 

without the city; Dr. Foster's testimony fails to take 

into account the developed suburban areas that circumscribe 

the city. Accordingly we find that the Plaintiffs' plan 

does not include provisions for promoting racial stability 

and avoiding resegregation. We re-affirm the prior-finding 

of this Court that:

"It would be a natural, forseeable and 
probable consequence of the implementation 
of the Plaintiffs' plan that the trend of 
the Detroit schools towards a higher 
percentage of black students and a lower 
percentage of white students will be 
sharply accelerated." (Tr. March 14,
1972, page 504-586.)

D. Detroit Board of Education Plan

16. The Detroit Board of Education submitted a 

plan that provided for transportation of approximately 

51,000 students. Interwoven into the Board's plan is the 

provision for magnet schools at both the middle school and 

senior high school levels to aid in attaining maximum 

desegregation. The goals of the Board's plan include 

establishing maximum effective desegregation, removing 

racially identifiable white schools and promoting inter­

racial understanding and respect in a diversified school 

district. The Detroit Board plan takes into consideration

-39-



t. •
the demography of the Detroit School District, and recog 

nizes that the Detro.it School System is now 71.5% black 

system-wide (72.3% black at the elementary school level).

The Board plan acknowledges that since 1969, the school 

district population has declined from 293,859 to 257,396, 

whi cli represents a loss of 36,463 students or a 12% decline. 

During this five-year period, the black school population 

has increased by 3500 students, and over 40,000 white 

students have left the system. Accordingly, only 67,833 

white students are presently enrolled.in the Detroit School 

System, as compared with 189,563 black students. _

Under the Board plan, the Detroit School

System continues to operate on a feeder pattern. The pan- 

ings have been devised to provide that every child will 

spend at least a portion of his education either in a 

neighborhood elementary school or a neighborhood junior and 

senior high school. Although regional lines are crossed in 

a few instances, the plan generally respects regional 

boundary lines, which were brought about, by the State's 

attempt to decentralize the school system.

17. Like the Plaintiffs' plan, the Board plan 

explores each of the commonly accepted techniques for 

desegregation. Like the Plaintiffs' plan, the Board plan 

revamps grade structures at the elementary level by pro­

viding that some will accommodate K through 3 and others 

K plus 4 through 6, and thereafter pairs various schools,

-40-



providin'; transportation between the schools so paired. 

Through this process of pairing and clustering schools, 

the Board plan attempts to eliminate racially identi­

fiable white elementary schools in Regions 2, 3, 4, 6 

and 7. The reassignment plan desegregates the junior 

and senior high schools by changing the feeder patterns 

that feed into the junior and senior high schools, but 

at the same time the plan attempts to respect the concept 

of high school constellations made up of neighborhood 

elenientar*, schools a d neighborhood junior high schools 

feeding into an area high school. Under the feeder*plan 

realignment the senior high schools will be desegregated 

by September, 1976. Eight senior high schools will remain 

unaffected bv the ple,n. >!>'

The Board plan attempts to achieve a 402-60% 

black racial mix in the remaining white identifiable school 

Although the Board purports not to strive for fixed racial 

quotas, we find that it does in fact do so. In develop­

ing its plan the Board sought to determine the racial 

ratio that provided maximum desegregation while preserving 

racial stability. The Board concluded that a racial 

mixture between 40% and 60% black provided a healthy 

and stable racial mix. The Board's statistical data 

demonstrates that where elementary schools in a high 

school constellation range from 76% to 95% black, resulting 

fecc patterns cause the high school, to become 95% to 

100% lilac];: white students simply leave the system.by the

time they reach high school. Birrn .1 irly, the statistical

v -

- 4 1 -



v •

data establish that a racial mixture that does not exceed
k't

60%' black provides a degree of stability. Some of the 

pairings selected by the Board plan, particularly in 

Region 2, fall below the goal set by the Board only 

because of the high percentage of Spanish-speaking 

students in these schools, which ranges as high as 2 0% 

in some instances. To accommodate this factor the Board 

permitted the percentage of black students to fall below 

therr target for racial mix.

_ 18. The Detroit Board's phpil reassignment plan

does not affect the schools in Regions 1, 5 and 8. Each 

of these three regions will remain over 90% black. The 

basic premise of the defendant Board's plan is to eliminate 

all of the schools with black enrollment below 25% and 

bring thorn to the level of 40-60% black. These schools 

are located largely on the outer fringes of the city.

The plan leaves untouched 95 schools, most of which are
y

between 95-100% black and are located within the inner city. 

Under the defendant Board's plan many schools will operate 

over capacity, while some schools in the inner city will 

have substantitxl capacity available. The Board decided 

to leave 95 schools untouched principally because the Board

y  " ~~
In addition to the 95 schools untouched by the pupil re­

assignment portion of the Board's plan, 16 schools that are 
already desegregated according to the plaintiffs' definition 
are untouched, 0 elementary schools are not paired but are 
included in desegregated feeder patterns, and 6 schools are 
taken out of service.

-42-



found it impractical to desegregate the student bodies 

of these schools "without undue hardship of long distance 

travel." The Board’s plan acknowledges that there are 

too many black students in the system to provide ail of 

item with a desegregated experience while at the same time 

maintaining stability.

19. The pupil transportation portion of the 

Detroit Board plan anticipates the daily transportation 

of approximately 51,000 children between paired schools.

The evidence suggests the need for a fleet of busses ranging 

between 335 and 425 66-passenger vehicles. The Defendant 

Board has suggested that each bus would make two or three 

runs per day. (Defendant Board's Exhibit 28.) However, 

as indicated above with respect to the Plaintiffs' plan, 

credible evidence lias not been presented by either party 

to aid the court in making an accurate determination of 

the number of busses needed to transport this vast number of 

children. The Detroit Board lacks the experience needed 

to manage a transportation fleet and does not have available 

the appropriate data needed to devise an efficient trans­

portation system. This court found it necessary to instruct 

the Detroit Board to produce a sufficient data base to per­

mit a computer print-out of a grid showing the exact racial
I

composition of students of both races in any particular- 

area. Such dat., are necessary to develop an efficient 

transportation scheme. Moreover, when such data are avail­

able, there will be no justification for transporting 

children into an area without consideration of the'ethnic



composition of that area.

Transportation under the Defendant Board's 

plan involves much shorter distance than the Plaintiffs' 

plan. School pairings were made to allow transportation 

routes along major thoroughfares.

20. In addition to reassigning pupils between 

paired schools the Detroit Board's plan includes a pro­

vision to continue certain magnet schools. Pursuant to 

an order of this Court on December 3, 1970, each of the .

eight regions created a magnet school, relying upon 

voluntary attendance. Although these magnet schools did 

not reach the racial mix sought by either the Plaintiffs 

or the Defendant Board, they did serve to provide a 

desegregated education in each of the regions in which
t k

they were created.

The Board plan also provides for the creation 

of four vocational high schools, specializing in medical science, 

transportation, construction and the commercial arts. These 

four vocational schools will operate under an enrollment 

controlled to simulate the system-wide racial composi­

tion. In addition, the Board's plan creates two technical 

high schools with enrollment open to students throughout 

the entire school system, and creates city-wide high schools 

with specialized curricula. The enrollment of these schools
I fwill be controlled to conform to the system-wide racial ratio. 

The vocational, technical and city-wide schools are designed 

as magnet schools to attract students from throughout the

-4 4-



school sys-com as a means of further desegregating the 

school system.

. The Board plan further suggests that four

co-curriculum programs be implemented on a city-wide basis 

in order to provide additional childr n with a desegregated 

school experience. These programs would i; lude music 

education, art, physical education and athletics. (Board 

plan page 30.)

Finally, the Board plan suggests the creation 

of cultural junior hi h school consortiums designed to 

provide students from substantially black majority schools 

with an opportunity to spend part of their academic week 

with white students from other schools in various cultural 

centers in the greater Detroit :-::ea. The Board proposes *,■ 

that these classes be held at the Art Institute, the Detroit 

Public Library, the Merrill Palmer Institute, Wayne State , 

University, Shaw College and Lewis Business School.

>

-4 5-



\

E„ Educational Components
*«

21. In addition to the vocational and career 

education and the junior high consortium the plan submitted 

by the Detroit Board includes the following educational 

components:

a. In-Service Training

b. Guidance and Counselling

c. School-Community Relations

d. Parental Involvement

e. Student Rights and Responsibilities

- .f. Testing .

g. Accountability

h. Curriculum Design

i. Bi- lingual Education v-

j. Multi-Ethnic Curriculum

■ k. Co-curricular Activities

The plan as submitted by the Detroit Board 

does not distinguish between those components that are 

necessary to the successful implementation of a desegrega­

tion plan and those that are not. Moveover, the Defendant 

Board's plan does not inform the Court of the extent to which 

any of these components may currently be in effect in the 

Detroit public school system; nor did the Board, either 

through its plan or through expert witnesses, provide the 

Court with information adequate to permit the Court to 

evaluate the budgetary requests made for each of the 

components. Accordingly, the Court found it necessary to 

obtain a report from Dr. Louis Monacel outlining the

-46-



«. -

extent to which any or ail of these components currently 

exist in the Detroit School System. (See "Comparison of 

Existing Personnel, Programs, and Activities with the 

Personnel, Programs and Activities Required in the Detroit 

Public Schools Desegregation Plan.) The court also found 

it necessary to seek an evaluation of each of these com­

ponents from Dr. Michael Stolee, one of the Plaintiffs' 

expert witnesses. Finally, the court found it necessary 

to obtain additional information from its court-appointed 

experts to permit a proper evaluation of each of the com­

ponents proposed in the Board plan. .

22. We find that the majority of the educational 

components included in the Detroit Board plan are essential 

for a school district undergoing desegregation While it 

is true that the delivery of quality desegregated educational 

services is the obligation of the school board, neverthe­

less this court deems it essential to mandate educational 

components where they are needed to remedy effects of 

past segregation, to assure a successful desegregative 

effort, and to minimize the possib.i lity of resegregation.

In a segregated setting many techniques deny equal protection 

to black students, such as discriminatory testing, discrimina­

tory counseling, and discriminatory application of student 

discipline.' In a system undergoing desegregation, 

teachers will require orientation and training 

for desegregation. Parents need to be more closely 

involved with the school system and properly structured 

programs must be devised for improving the relationship

-47-



* •

between the school and the community. lie agree with the
■ V'

State Defendants that the following components deserve 

special emphasis: (1) In-Service Training; (2) Guidance

and Counselling; (3) Student Rights and Responsibilities 

(See this Court's order, June 13, 1975); (4) School-

Community Relations-Liaison; (5) Parental Involvement;

(6) Curriculum Design; (7) Multi-Ethnic Curriculum; and,

(8) Co-curricular Activities. Additionally, we find that a 

testing program, vocational education and comprehensive 

reading programs are essential. Ue find that a comprehensive 

reading instruction program together with appropriate* remedial 

reading classes are essential to a successful desegregative 

effort. Intensified reading instruction is basic to an 

educational system's obligation to every child in the school 

community (Tr. Vol. 19 pgs. 40-41; Vol. 22, pg. 47). Finally, 

the Court finds that an effective Court-oriented monitoring 

■program is necessary for effective implementation of a deseg­

regation plan to assure that delivery of educational services 

will not be made in a discriminatory manner.

F. School Financing

23. The Detroit School District receives 

operating funds through levying a property tax, a portion of 

which is voted by the electors of the school district and a 

portion of which is allocated by the Uayne County Tax Allo­

cation Board from the .5 mills constitutionally authorized

to be levied without a vote of the electorate. The school 
_  -

See State Critique of Detroit Board's Desegregation Plan, 
page 39. ‘

-4 8



1 •
\

district cannot levy additional .millago without a favorable 

vote of the electorate. The Detroit School District presently 

levies 22.51 mills for operating purposes and 2.25 mills to 

finance a prior $68 million deficit (pursuant to Public Acts 

1 and 2 of lu73) , for a total of 24.76 mills. This tax effort 

produces approximately 33% of the school district's total

budget. State aid comprises 47% of the total budget.' The
j

State aid formula is based upon the number of students in the 

school district and upon the State Equalized Valuation (SEV) 

of property in the district. Additional state aid is pro­

vided by special grants in the form of entitlement and 

competitive funds. Federal funds orovide the remaining 15% 

of the budget. (Tr. Vol. 7, pgs. 87-85; Vol. 25, pgs. 

106-107.)

24. The State School Aid Act contains a formula 

designed to equalize revenues among school districts to the 

extent that disparities are the result of differences in SEV 

per pupil among districts. Over the preceding five-year 

period Detroit's State Equalized Valuation (SEV) has remained 

relatively static while the SEV in the remainder of the State 

generally increased. This trend can be explained by the 

movement of industry, commercial institutions and people to 

the suburbs and the huge amounts of land used for expressways 

in Detroit which remove the property from the city's taxI
rolls.

because the nor capita State Equalized valua­

tion in Detroit is 50% lower than the average for the 20 

largest cities in Michigan, tire school district must levy 

additional inillage to obtain a yield eciual to that of the

-40-



other cities. (Tr. Vol VII, p. 108, Defendant Board's 

Exhibit 31.) Because of legislation directed specifically 

to the Detroit School District, it .is required to operate on 

a balanced budget and must file monthly reports with the 

State Auditor General. See Mich. Comp. Laws Sections 338. 

1233-1240.

25. The total of all Municipal taxes paid by 

Detroit citizens translates into a municipal millage 

equivalent of 34.83 mills. This is the highest tax burden 

in the State and is 55” higher than the State average.

Only 16 cities in the State of Michigan levy an income 

tax; among them, Detroit's rate is the highest. However, 

Detroit's per capita income tax yield is substantially 

lower than the other 15 cities. Moreover, county taxest

paid by Detroit citizens are 14.4% higher than the State 

average, and Detroit municipal taxes are 14.6% higher than 

the State average.

Detroit taxpayers also have the highest 

municipal overburden in the State. (Defendant Board's 

Exhibits 30, 33 & 41.) The State offers assistance to school 

districts whose municipal overburden (i.e. the total property 

tax rate in the district excluding the amount levied for 

school operating purposes) exceeds 125% of the State 

average (Bprsloy Act, Mich. Comp. Laws Section 333.1125).

The Act is designed to aid school districts throughout the 

State that are unable :o raise sufficient tax revenues 

because its taxpayers refuse to approve higher millage 

requests in the face of numerous other taxes imposed on 

the district by*other local taxing authorities.

V

-5 0-



(Tr. Vol. 7, pp. 103-104.) Presently, the municipal 

overburden section of the Act is not fully funded by the 

Michigan Legislature, but rather is only funded by 

approximately 20%. If the section were fully funded, the 

Detroit school district would receive an additional 

$61,682,000; if it were funded by 50% during the 1974-75 

school year, the school system would have received an 

additional $18,787,000. (Tr. Vol. 7, pp. 116-120.) Thus, 

the State does not supply the Detroit school district with 

as much money as the Act provides.%

26. The power equalising section of the State 

School Aid Act guarantees that, subject to certain conditions 

each school district will have available $975 per student.

If local tax revenue is insufficient to generate this 

amount, state aid will fund the balance. Complete funding 

of the balance, however, is contingent upon a local school 

district millage levy of 25 mills for operating purposes; 

where a school district levies a lesser amount, state aid 

is reduced proportionately. While 2.25 mills of Detroit's 

levy goes to debt retirement rather than operating purposes, 

the entire 24.76 mills is counted in the formula for state 

aid. However, state aid does not provide operating 

revenue to replace the 2.25 mills used for debt retirement. 

Thus, the, 24.76 levy produces operating revenue of only 

$916 per student in local taxes and state aid. (Tr. Vol.

7, pp. 93-107.)

The Wayne County Tax Allocation Board gives 

the school district .64 mills, which is passed on directly

-51-



Since the majority of schoolto the Library Commission, 

districts in Wayne County receive 3.65 mills from the 

Tax Allocation Board and Detroit receives only 8.01 mills 

exclusive of the library allocation, this additional .64 

mills should be counted in the State Aid calculation; 

however, it is not. If it were, the district, would have 

a total levy of 25.40 mills and thus would be entitled to 

the maximum state aid guarantee under the power equalizing 

section of the Act.

The Detroit School District's millage levy 

of 24.76 mills is slightly below the State average of 26.15 

mills. However , when this millage levy is added to all 

other taxes assessed against a Detroit taxpayer, the tax 

burden is greatly in excess of thfe State average. (Tr. Vol.

7, pg. 104; Vol. 24, pg. 147.) This burden has caused 

Detroit taxpayers to reject requests for additional millage. 

Seven of the ten millage elections over the past eight 

years have failed. Of the three successful votes, one 

approved replacing a 15 income tax that the School 

Board was authorized to levy pursuant to Public Acts 1 and 2 

of 1973 with a "r mill property tax; another merely renewed 

an already existing 7.5 mills for an additional ten years. 

(Defendant Board's Exhibit 40; Tr. Vol. 24, pp. 143-144, 

150-151; 'Vol. 7, p. 140.) It can bo reasonably expected 

that the already heavy burden upon Detroit taxpayers will 

cause them to reject further requests for millage increases 

in the near future. ■

27. The cost of education is a function of the



the size of the system, and the Detroi School System, with 

an enrollment, of 257,000 students, is the largest school 

district in the State of Michigan. Moreover, the fact that 

Detroit's ranking for per pupil expenditure is above the 

State average is insignificant because per pupil educational 

costs are greater in urban areas. Additionally, the 

drop-out rate in the Detroit School District has been 

increasing over the past ten years; the reduction in 

enrollment results in less State aid under the pupil 

membership formula of the State Aid Act. at the same time 

that the cost of delivering educational services is‘ 

increasing.

28. Prior to a 1971 legislative enactment, the 

Detroit School District did not receive any State reimburse­

ment for in-city transportation expenditures, even though 

reimbursement was provided to rural and suburban school 

districts. (Tr. Vol. 24, pp. 103-105.) The Detroit 

School District first received an allocation for transporta­

tion in the 1973-74 school year, which was based on costs 

expended during 1972-73. However, unlike other districts, 

which were reimbursed for 75% of their transportation 

expenditures, Detroit was reimbursed for only 92% of the 

75% permitted under the Act. Moreover, reimbursement for
I

the Detroit School District was based upon the Wayne County 

average transportation costs of $47.00 per pupil, while the 

Detroit School District actually expended $185.00 per pupil. 

Consequently, Detroit was reimbursed for only $288,770.39 

of the $1,857,367 expended for transportation in 1972-73,



J

,nd $469,981.15 of the $2,696,133 expended for transportation 

,n 1973-74. That Detroit’s transportation costs are so 

iigh may be explained by several factors. First, transporta- 

J0n costs are necessarily greater in urban areas than in 

rural or suburban areas. Second, because Detroit received 

no in-city transportation reimbursement whatsoever prior to 

1971, Detroit does not have its own bus system and is forced 

to rely on more costly chartered buses to transport elemen­

tary and junior high school students. Third, Detroit is 

required to subsidize bus tickets 'for indigent high school 

students, which, in the long run, is also more costly than 

operating a transportation system. (Tr. Vol. 24, pp. 107-123 

Vol. 25, pp. 19-20.)

Faculty Assignments '
29. The teacher population in the Detroit School

District is 49.5% black. After having established 

convincingly that fixed racial ratios for pupil reassignments 

destroy stability, the Detroit Board desegregation plan 

-suggests a scheme for teacher reassignments that achieves 

a 50-50 black-white racial mix in every school in the 

district. This approach is overly simplistic. It fails 

to take account of the qualifications of a teacher to 

teach the subject and grade level, the necessity ofI
balancing schools with respect to teacher experience, and

the necessity of considering the sex of the teacher, all 

of which are necessary ingredients for quality desegregated 

education. To seek a fixed racial mix, without more, is •

• '

ted

king

ds"

orly

d

s

ote

al

a
5
Is
ad

Dry

10

-54-



•!A

it 15 apparent from the quoted'^regulation that a school 

district wh;.cn has been found guilty of segregation of staff 

and which is not yet subject to a Court desegregation order 

may apply for a waiver of disqualification by making assign­

ments "...so that the proportion of minority group full-time 

classroom teachers at each school is between 7 5 nercentum 

and 125 percentum of the proportion of such minority group 

leathers which exist on the faculty as a whole." Tlius, a 

school district with approximately 505 minority which has 

been found guilty of segregation of staff may qualify by 

demonstrating teacher ssignnents that conform to 37.05 

to 62.0% black. However, the Detroit School System has 

never been round guilty of de jure staff segregation.

The plan submitted by the Plaintiffs does not 

contain any proposal dealing with faculty reassignment; ? 

Plaintiffs concluded their critique of -the faculty 

reassignment provision in the Detroit Board's plan by 

•stating that they had no desire to resolve collective 

bargaining disputes unless and until they interfered with 

constitutional rights > r pupils. notwithstanding this 

stated position, the only evidence produced in this 

record concerning teacher reassignments was presented by 

the Plaintiffs, who made reference to Defendant Board 

Exhibit 6. This exhibit includes summaries of the racial 

identification of educational^ personnel by race. Educational 

personnel consists of more than just teaching staff; it also 

includes principals, department heads, counselors, library 

personnel, audio-visual personnel, school-community agents, 

etc. Thus, whatever correlations Plaintiffs draw from this

- 5 r, -



data is incompetent evidence of
V

facility segregation.

ihere is certainly insufficient evidence in 

this record to justify a finding that the ordinary adrainistra 

tive and collective bargaining processes of the parties 

will not satisfy the necessity of having a proper racial 

mix among the teaching staff of the school district.

Moreover, when this Court's desegregation order is 

implemented the necessity of additional teacher transfers 

on a desegregated basis will become apparent. There is

sufficient time for this Court to -obtain proper and 

adequate evidence to determine what orders will be 

essential to achieve a plan for complete desegregation of 

pupils, faculty and staff.

-1)7-



J

xv* COKcrusIONS Or LAW

A . General Analysis of Both Plans. Tho plaintiffs' 

and defendant Board's desegregation plans envploy the same 

general techniques for desegregating the Detroit School System. 

Both plans'pair and cluster schools, fracture grade structures 

and change feeder patterns of the affected schools. The pair­

ings involve the exchange of one-half of the student population 

. from one school with one-half of the student population of the
Vother. Moreover, both plans provide for massive bussing.

/vlthough employ ng similar methods for desegregation, the parties

differ as to what constitutes desegregation, each asserting that

his plan is more "feasible", "workable", "effective" and

"realistic." These, of course, are proper criteria for testing

an acceptable plan. Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430

(1968). ' •

Plaintiffs' approach to desegregation was devised

by Dr. Gordon Foster, Director of the University of Miami Title

IV Desegregation Center. Dr. Foster began by devising an

arithmetical ratio for defining a racially identifiable

school. Under his definition, any school that varies more

than 15% in either direction from the system-wide racial

ratio is racially identifiable. Plaintiffs' plan thus accepts

as desegregated any elementary school that ranges between 57.3%- 
»

87.3% black, any junior high school that ranges between 58%- 

88% black, and any high school that ranges between 51.9% to

w  ----------------------
Defendant Board's plan, ccording to the court's count, would 

transport between 51,000-55,000 students, affecting 159 schools. 
The plaintiffs' plan, according to our count, would bus between 
77,000-81,000 students and affect virtually every school in the 

 ̂ system. ■ _"* ■ ■

-58



V

01.9% black. The plan divides the system into five clusters. 

Racially identifiable black and white schools within each 

cluster are paired, and one-half of the student body of each 

is transported between the schools. To accommodate school 

reassignments, grade structures are altered at all schools. 

Additionally, all feeder patterns are changed to accomplish 

desegregation of the junior and senior high schools. The 

plaintiffs' plan does not include any component other than 

student reassignment.

Unlike the plaintiffs' plan, which proposes to 

bring every school in the district within 15 percentage points 

of the system-wide racial mix, the goal of the Detroit Board's 

plan is to eliminate only the racially identifiable white 

school^,which are located largely in the outlying sections of 

the city. Approximately one-half of the district's 218 ele­

mentary schools will not be touched by the plan. The Board 

has determined that a school that has 75% or more of one race 

is racially identifiable. The Board's plan seeks to attain a 

40% to 60% black enrollment in each school involved in the 

plan, although the presence of Spanish-speaking students, 

especially in Region Two, brings black enrollment below these 

percentages in some schools. .

The Board's plan affects approximately 55% of 

the total student enrollment, or approximately 141,545 students 

(State critique, p. 7) and requires transportation for 51,000 

students through relatively short distances. The plan gradually 

changes the racial ratios of the students in the junior and

-59-



V

senior high S'hoo]'-. by altering feeder patterns. The Board's 

plan-generally respects regional boundary lines and does not 

affect three of the district's eight regions.

As an integral part of the pupil reassignment 

portion of its plan, the Board seeks to continue the operation 

of one Magnet School in each region. The plan also creates 

a junior high school consortium and co-curricular programs to 

achieve desegregation at this level. Moreover, the plan pro­

vides for the establishment of four city-wide vocational high 

schools and two additional technical high schools that will 

have enrollments .control .ed to conform to the system-wide 

racial ratio. Additionally, the Board's plan contains several 

educational components, which involve every school in the system.

B. The Plaintiffs' Plan. Our first objection to 

plaintiffs' plan is that it is too rigidly structured. It 

controls the entire educational life of a child. Not only does 

the plan reassign elementary children miles from their neighbor­

hood schools, but because of new feeder patterns into junior and 

senior high schools, man,r students will attend schools many miles 

from their home for eight to eleven years of their school 

life. Generally, courts have approached desegregation prob­

lems with flexibility, recognizing, as tin-/ must, that they 

are dealing with constitutional and equitable rights of

children. Plaintiffs' plan will not permit such flexibility.
«

It does, not take account of demographic trends or population 

proportions, black or white. As an inevitable consequence, 

most schools are 75-85% black. Once implemented, it would 

identify the entire school district as black.

-60-



The plan's sole purpose is to achieve a racial 

mix within 15% of the system-wide rati.o in every school in the 

district. We reject plaintiffs' contentions that this is the 

only method that will desegregate the Detroit School System,

that their plan eliminates racially identifiable schools,
\

and that their plan can be implemented immediately. While 

plaintiffs' plan increases the percentage of blacks in 

formerly racially identifiable white schools, this could be 

accomplished as well by a more flexible plan. Neither does 

plaintiffs' plan eliminate all racially identifiable schools; 

it is clear to us that a school that is 85% black, although 

within plaintiffs' parameters, is a racially identifiable 

black school. Further, as will be demonstrated, there are 

serious obstacles to immediate implementation of plaintiffs' 

plan.

The basic fallacy underlying plaintiffs' con­

tention; and the principal source of the plan's rigidity, 

lies in their definition of a desegregated school. While 

plaintiffs argue that any school within 15% of the system­

wide racial mix is desegregated, the black-white population 

in the school system is so disparate that these parameters 

range from 56.4% to 86.4% black. Clearly, it is unreasonable 

to conclude that, without examining anything more than the 

system-wide racial composition, a school that is 55% black is 

a racially identifiable white school. Equally clear, it is 

absurd to label a school that is 05% black as "desegregated" 

merely because it falls within 15% of the system-wide racial 

mix. To do so renders the concept of racial identifiability

-61-



meaningless. While the Supreme Court has approved the use

of mathematical ratios in formulating school desegregation 

plans, it has approved them only "as a starting point in the 

process of shaping a remedy." Swann v. Board of Education,

402 U.S. 1, 25 (1971). Moreover, the Court noted that "[t]he 

constitutional command to desegregate schools does not mean 

that every school in every community must always reflect the 

racial composition of the school system as a whole." Swann v. 

Board of Education, supra, at 24.

Further evidence of the rigidity of plaintiffs' 

plan is found in the fact that, even after transportation, 

many schools are left 80% or more black. These schools are 

' not scattered at random throughout the system but are clustered 

in the predominantly black center of the city. See defendant 

Board's Exhibit 10. Another element of rigidity is the arbitrary 

selection of pairings in the plaintiffs' plan. Pairings within 

each cluster were made solely on the basis of the racial compo­

sition of the paired schools. In making the pairings, the 

plaintiffs did not consider the demography of the school 

district. Consequently, students are often bussed past a 

near by 85-100% black school and are transported to another 

85-100% black school further from their homes. To do so serves 

no useful purpose and merely increases travel distances. After 

all this effort, plaintiffs' plan still leaves the majority of 

schools racially identifiably black.

Finally, many pairings result in pupil assign­

ments in excess of stated school capacity. For example, the 

prox^oscd enrollment of 10 junior high schools exceeds capacity.

- 62-



V

At the senior high level, the plaintiffs' plan avoids over­

capacity only by assuming a correction factor for dropouts 

that projects 13,865 fewer blacks in grades 10 through 12.

There is no justification in this record for assuming such 

a dropout rate for blades. Records are not available to 

reflect the race of dropouts, and moreover during the 197 3­

1974 school year only 9,925 ninth through twelfth grade 

students dropped out of the system. Plaintiffs’ plan further 

attempts to remedy i lie problem of over-capacity through the 

use of the sixth, seventh, and ninth grades as "swing grades." 

Students in a "swing grade" could be reassigned to any 

school having capacity. However, there is insufficient 

justification in the record to conclude that use of "swing 

grades" will solve the problem of over-capacity. In any 

event, "swing grades" create a greater burden upon the . 

children involved and increase the amount of transportation 

necessary to effect plaintiffs’ plan

Our second objection to the plaintiffs' plan 

is that while it involves extensive bussing, it produces 

only negligible desegregative results. Plaintiffs' plan 

itself is a positive pronouncement that the disparate black- 

white ratio in this district precludes appreciable desegregation. 

After transporting 77,900 to 81,000 students, plaintiffs' plan 

accomplishes only an insignificant reduction in the black popula­

tion of the vast majority of Detroit schools. If the white popula­

tion were predominant, plaintiffs' plan could achieve desegre­

gation. Under the practicalities at hand, however, plaintiffs' 

plan is unsatisfactory because it does not distinguish between

v  --63-



1 '
V

bussing black students to majority black schools and majority 

white schools. As a consequence, it casts a heavy and 

unnecessary burden upon the black students, notwithstanding 

the fact that the remedy to be fashioned is to bestow upon 

them benefits that were denied in the past. Black students 

arc being asked to travel great distances to attend another 

conspicuously majority black school. The purpose of plaintiffs' 

plan is unexplainable to the children who are bussed many miles 

to a school with a racial composition not much different from 

the composition of their neighborhood school. Plaintiffs' 

plan could not find the acceptance in the black community 

necessary to the success of a desegregation plan. Moreover, 

the cost of the number of busses needed to effect plaintiffs' 

plan would financially cripple the Detroit School System, 

which has been operating on a survival budget for the past 

few years. Although the plaintiffs suggest that only 271 

busses would be needed to implement their plan, we have con­

cluded that 840 busses is a more appropriate estimate.

Further, the plaintiffs ignore the fact that the Detroit School 

System does not presently possess the expertise to manage, 

route, maintain, and store such a large fleet of busses.

Although the Detroit School District has in the past bussed 

as many as 14,400 students to relieve overcrowding, to
I

accommodate dangerous crossings, or to transport students ex­

cessive distances, such bussing has been accomplished haphazard­

ly through the use of chartered city transportation. Moreover, 

the record disclosed that the Detroit School Board has not yet 

formulated bus routes to accommodate a transportation plan.

-64



It is no answer thaL testimony was presented to t..e effect 

that'certain school system personnel could devise the routes 

in a relatively short period of time; it is equally apparent 

from the record that their expertise to do so is questionable.

The establishment of such a vast transportation 

network would bring chaos and financial destruction to the 

school system, with the main result of bussing black children 

to majority black schools. In the final analysis, plaintiffs' 

plan results largely in isolating minority students in con­

centrated minority schools, changing dnly the location of the 

school that each student attends. Moreover, the price for 

this insignificant change is the severe burden of massive 

transportation. The Constitution does not require that such 

an extraordinary and costly remedy l>e applied where it produces 

only negligible desegregative results. If such an extraordinary 

remedy as bussing is to be employed, it should be used to bus 

black children to white schools, not to schools that are pre­

dominantly black. The use of such a remedy in these circum­

stances contains all of the seeds for resegregation, which this 

court has stated must be avoided at all costs.

C. The Dei ndant Board of Education Plan. The 

Detroit Board of Education, unlike the boards in other school 

desegregation cases, is willing to assume its constitutional 

duty to desegregate the Detroit School System. The President 

of the Board and the members of the bi-racial administrative 

staff have convinced the court they will willingly implement

\

-65-



Persuasive evidenceany desegregation order the court may issue, 

of assured co-operation from the Board and General Superintendent 

lies in the fact that they have promptly complied with each 

and every order of this court. Pursuant to an order of the 

court, the Board timely submitted a comprehensive desegregative 

plan; they did not choose to rely upon a "free choice" plan or 

other methods that provide part-time desegregation. In addi­

tion to many educational components and other desegregative 

devices, the plan includes massive bussing for permanent re- ■

assignment of students. Moreover, the'attorney for the Board 

has persistently assured the court that the Board would willingly 

implement any plan the court may order. The Board has vehemently 

argued that since the primary responsibility for bringing forth 

a constitutional desegregation plan rests in the hands of a 

local school board [Swann v. Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 15 

(1971); Davis v. School District of City of Pontiac, Inc.,

443 F.2d 573, 577 (6th Cir. 1971)], other plans should not be 

considered for implementation by the court. We were persuaded, 

however, that a desegregation plan must be considered in light 

of all available alternatives. Green v. County School Board,

391 U.S. 430, 439 (1968).

Notwithstanding the Board's co-operative disposi­

tion, we perceive from the evident: .ry hearing and from informa­

tion furnisheet to the court both by the Community Relations 

Service and our own court-appointed experts that the plan 

adopted by the Board is a compromise taking into account many 

divergent views. In January 1975, before this court's order 

to submit a desegregation plan, the Board created the "Office

V  ~
The defendant Board took its first .step to desegregate the school 

system - is early as 1970 when it: attempted to implement the April 7, 
1970 plan. Tli i . attempt was frustrated only by acts of the 
Mi cln gan 1 ,e<j i s 1., tu i:<:.

v



of Desegregation" to prepare a desegregation plan. This 

Office was staffed by many people with divergent views.

The vote to approve the final plan was 9 to 4 , split along 

racial lines. Competing factions within the Board together 

w’ith their following have held widely differing views on 

desegregation. Throughout the remedial hearing, there was 

excessive speculation concerning what the court would 

mandate as constitutionally required for desegregation.

As a consequence, the plan as submitted was 

not well documented. The plan did not inform the court of 

the extent to which any of the programs suggested existed 

in the school district at the present time. Nor did the 

plan present alternatives to the pairings and clusters 

suggested. Therefore, the court deemed it necessary to 

commission its experts to obtain information necessary to 

evaluate the suggested educational components. The court 

further commissioned its experts to present additional 

alternatives to the transportation component contained in the 

plan in order to evaluate the constitutionality of the plan 

as submitted by the Board.

Having considered the alternatives in light of 

all the "practicalities" at hand, we conclude that the Board's 

goal of desegregating by eliminating racially identifiable 

white schools meets constitutional standards for desegregating 

the Detroit School System. Moreover, we approve the Board's 

view that the plan must include educational components allow­

ing for further desegregation and assuring a successful 

desegregative effort. However, the plan taken as a whole is

-67-



J

not free from objection. While disavowing any attempt to 

adhere to fixed racial ratios for each school, the Board's 

plan does just that. The Board sought to determine the racial 

mix that provides the greatest degree of meaningful inter­

action between the races while at the same t ime providing 

reliable assurances of stability. Having established that 

schools in the 40-60% range have not been changed by demographic 

shifts, the Board sought to impose this ratio (which is in 

reality 50%-50% plus or minus 10%) on all of the schools in­

volved in its plan. *

Rigid adherence to racial percentages is not 

only undesirable but constitutionally infirm. Racial percentages 

may be used as a starting point in formulating a remedy, but it 

is essential that all of the critical circumstances apparent 

in a particular school district be afforded proper weight.

Swann v. Board of Education, supra. It would be simplistic 

to.assume that the mere adherence to racial quotas is suffi­

cient to counter the pervasive effects of years of segregation. 

Because of inflexible adherence to these percentages, some of 

the Board's school pairings are made without regard to the 

facts at hand. For example, some of the Board's school pair­

ings include schools that are located in bi-racial residential 

areas and have become desegregated naturally. To bus white or 

black childreh from these schools is to undergo transportation 

solely bo accommodate a racial count. Such transportation 

serves no desegregative purpose and should be avoided by the 

Detroit Board. Where a school already satisfies the definition

-68



\

of a desegregated, school, it should not be included in a 

transportation plan.

Thus, while we accept the Board's rationale 

of providing desegregation by eliminating the racially 

identifiable white schools, we must reject the Board's plan 

itself because, like the plaintiffs' plan, it is too rigidly 

structured, seeking to obtain fixed quota:, through massive 

bussing, and fails to take account of the "practicalities." 

Additionally, the Board's plan is objectionable in that it 

fails to consider techniques for changing the racial composi­

tions of schools that do not involve transportation. ‘Borderline 

schools are paired in the Board's plan even where re-zoning 

across regional lines might suffice to produce desegregation 

without transportation. Re-zoning is preferable to bussing 

because it reduces transportation, permits walk-in schools 

and serves bi-raeial neighborhoods. Rather than pair schools 

■and transport students, the Board should first exhaust the 

possibility of restructuring attendance zones. One-way bussing 

might also reduce the amount of transportation needed to de­

segregate where capacity permits.

The Board's plan is further objectionable in that 

it needlessly changes the grade structures of schools involved 

in the plan. It seems to us that traditional grade structures
isuch as K-5, 6-3 and 9-12, which are preferable because 

irregular grade structures hamper school curriculum offerings, 

can be achieved.

Moreover, we are not convinced that the choice of 

schools involved in the pairings was not influenced by political 

considerations unrelated to the effect of the individual, pairing

-69-



1 •

on desegregation. In order to detail our concern, we must 

take account of the structure of the Detroit School System.

The decentralized system was conceived to afford an opportuni­

ty for the community to exercise greater control over its 

school system; however, decentralization as practiced in 

Detroit has not truly accomplished this goal.

Pursuant to Act 48 of the Michigan Public Acts 

of 1970 (Mich. Comp. Laws 388.171 et seq.), the Detroit School 

System is divided into eight regions, each of which is permitted 

a vast amount of autonomy. Each region has its own board 

of education selected by the people within the region. The 

board member r... -Giving the most votes not only is elected 

chairman of the regional board, but also is a member of the 

Central Board of Edcuation. Thus, eight of the thirteen seats 

on the Central Board are occupied by regional chairmen. It is 

obvious that through political maneuvering, the eight 

regional chairmen can combine to promote regional insterests 

at the expense of the over-all interests of the school system. 

Thus, desegregation could be hampered through the political 

maneuvering of the regional board members combining to promote 

merely regional interests. Since the regional members consti­

tute a majority of the board, there is no way to ensure that 

the interests'of the entire school system can be advanced.

. We are unable to x^e^ceive from the Act a legis­

lative intent to create the structure that in fact develox^ed 

in the Detroit Schools. Rather than decentralizing to disperse 

bureaucratic authority, the Detroit Schools have develox^ed 

another completely burcaucratized political institution: the

-70-



regional boards of education. As originally conceived, the 

legislature envisioned "community centered schools", not 

separate independent bureaucracies substituting for a larger 

one. Moreover, the present structure of the system frustrates 

the achievement of educational goals common to all schools 

throughout the system. The system is no longer a top-to- 

bottom command educational organization. What has impressed 

this court as a competent, dedicated staff at the top lacks 

the means of assuring that its orders and programs will be 

executed at the bottom. Any programs designed to advance the 

interests of the entire system can be frustrated by any one 

of the eight separate regions. An edict from the top can be 

diluted so that by the time it readies the lower level it 

leaves little or no impact.

Moreover, the testimony has indicated that the 

lines of demarcation between the central and regional boards 

have become obscured. The eight regional chairman acting in 

conjunction can effectively strip the Central Board of all of 

its power. Thus, the Central Board appears to have been 

relegated to the role of advise and consent, and it is apparent 

from the "Guidelines for Decentralization" (Defendant Board's 

Exhibit 4) that the Central Board must consent more 

frequently than it advises. Thus, Detroit voters have been 

bequeathed no more than a vote for a regional board in 

exchange for the Central Board. Nothing further towa'rd achiev­

ing community control has developed in five years of decentral­

ization. The political institution that has developed has 

cast a heavier financial burden upon the people of Detroit 

without resulting in a greater voice for the community in the

-71-



operation of the school system. Moreover, the structure has 

not been able to develop or hold public interest in the 

schools. Thus, the system now proposes to pay for the community 

relations and participation that the legislature thought would 

be engendered by the Act itself. The legislature may wish to 

take a fresh look at the structure that has developed in order 

to bring it more in line with the stated goals of 

decentralization.

It is conceivable that the regions themselves 

might have made demands concerning the very pairings contained 

in the plan; by soliciting the support of other regions, each 

region could effectively veto the inclusion of any given 

school in the plan. Evidence of such political accomodation 

might exist in some of the pairings chosen for the Board's 

plan. Some schools that fall within the Board’s racial 

parameters are nevertheless paired to reduce their percentage 

of black students. For example, Hanneman School is reduced 

from 58% to 48% black, Cary is reduced from 58% to 44% 

black, McMillan is reduced from 52% to 41% black, and Edison 

is reduced from 65% to 51% black. Transportation for the 

purpose of reducing the percentage of black students in already 

desegregated schools is clearly unnecessary and is inconsistent 

with the Board's avowed purpose of eliminating racially 

identifiable white schools. While the court cannot conclude 

that the inclusion of such schools in the Board's plan 

necessarily resulted from accomodation of regional interests 

for political motives, neither can the court rule out such a 

possibility. •

-72-



.the Board's plan also includes a number of 

educational components intended to facilitate desegregation.

Some are unrelated to desegregation and have been inserted 

with the hope that they could be implemented by court order. 

Moreover, the magnitude and the importance of some components 

are overly exaggerated. In its entirety, the Board plan 

requires an expenditure of more than $60 million. However, 

many of the proposed components have merit. Our remedy includes- 

many of the Board's suggested components and adds others that 

we feel are constitutionally mandated.

D * s' Objections to the Board's Plan. The

plaintiffs' principal complaint is that after application of 

the Detroit Board s plan, the racial composition of student
N

enrollment in Regions I, V and VIII, which comprise the inner 

core of the city, remains virtually unchanged at 90% to 95% 

black. Plaintiffs complain that the racial composition of 

student enrollment in S7 elementary schools, 18 junior high 

schools, and 8 high schools in those three regions remains 

unchanged. Considering the practicalities at hand, we do 

not find that this objection presents any constitutional 

impediment to the Board's plan. If the number of all-black 

or predominantly blade schools that remain untouched appears 

to be large, it must be remembered that the school district 

itself is large; it is the fifth largest in the country and

-73-



.tains a total of 32G schools spread over a 136 square mile 

a in which whites are outnumbered by blacks.

Plaintiffs refuse to acknowledge that the racial

position of these three regions precludes their inclusion

a desegregation plan. In Region V, for example, there are

351 students of whom (excluding the Spanish surnamed) only

(3.1%) are white. In Region VIII, there are 29,725 students

whom (excluding Spanish surnamed) only 1,329 (4.5%) are

te. In Region I, there are 24,907 students of whom (exclud-

Spanish surnamed) -only 2,049 (8.2%) are white. Clearly,

would be futile to attempt desegregation within the

ndaries of these regions; thus, a desegregation plan including

:se three regions would have to cross regional boundaries.

include these regions in the Board's plan would bring

>ut the same result that pertains after application of the

intiffs' own plan. The plaintiffs' plan itself is sufficient

of that any attempt to include these regions produces only

ligible results. Application of plaintiffs' plan "would

,e the Detroit School System more identifiably Black, and

ive many of its schools 75 to 90 per cent Black." (bindings
8/

Fact - March 28, 1972, 484 F.2d 215, 243-44 (1973.)

That inclusion of these three regions in a desegre- 

ion plan would produce only negligible desogregative results

he district court's ruling on the Octroifc-onl 
n is set out in full by the Court of Appeals, 
is not otherwise officially reported.

y deseqregation 
id. , at 2 4 2-245• T



«. •

They argue that the Board's decision to allow certain untouched 

schools to operate under capacity while certain other schools 

included in the plan are over-utilized is based upon the 

fear that middle class white families will flee the school 

district, the consideration of which is constitutionally 

impermissible. It is true that "white flight", like the degree 

of community resistance to ci desegregation order, is not one 

of the practicalities" to be considered in formulating a 

just, feasible and workable plan. The law must be obeyed 

notwithstanding these considerations.* The Supreme Court has 

stated on several occasions that white flight is not justifica­

tion for limiting the degree of desegregation; nor will it 

justify a school board's refusal to desegregate. Wright v. 

Council of. City of Emporia, 107 U.S,. 451 (1972); United States 

v * Scotland Neck Bd, of Educ., 407 U.S. 484 (1972). Our own 

and other circuits have similarly ruled. Higgins v. Board of 

Education of City of Grand Rapids, 508 F.2d 779 (6th Cir. 1974); 

United States v. Board of Sch. Com'rs, Indianapolis, Ind., 503

F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1974). To hold otherwise would be tantamount 

to depriving school children of their constitutional rights in 

favor of those who prefer segregation. Moreover, consideration 

of white flight would be senseless in view of available 

statistical data contained in the United States Census 

Bureau Statistics demonstrating that the exodus from the City 

or Detroit occurred in the decade preceding the filing of this

-7 6--



V

A/7
litigation and has subsided since that date. In any event, 

the evidence presented does not support the conclusion that the 

Detroit Board was responsive to the fear of white flight in 

the formulation of their desegregation plan.

On the other hand, it is unreasonable to expect 

the Central Board to administer a large school system in a 

vacuum. It is one thing to consider white flight to avoid 

or limit desegregation; it is quite another thing to consider 

the practical problems with which a board of education is 

fjaced in attempting to achieve an acceptable racial balance 

without aggravating conditions that produce a self-defeating 

exodus of the middle class white and black. Higgins v. Board 

of Education of City of Grand Rapids, supr.i . Detroit's 

citizens are faced with a tax burden greater than any other 

city in the State of Michigan. Their community over-burden, 

caused by the U-. n ee of taxing authority exercised by the 

City of Detroit, is not fully funded by the State. The Board 

operates in a city that has left little room for taxation 

to operate the school system. The community at large has • 

already indicated its lack of support for propositions designed 

to increase the Board's millage by rejecting such proposals 

at the polls eight times. Not only is it constitutionally
I

permissible to take these "practicalities at hand" into account

H 7  - -
In addition, it would be absurd for the court to consider 

white flight in view of the fact that there is an abundance of 
literature which acknowledges that white flight is perceived 
more as a function of class than race or resistance to desegrega­
tive orders. See Nancy St. John, School Desegregation, Outcomes 
for Children, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

-77-



in forming a desegregation plan, but it would be irresponsi­

ble for this court ‘not to consider such practicalities where 

the very survival of an already bankrupt school system is 

at stake. To act irresponsibly would deny all school 

children the right to quality education.

The Board was justified in considering the 

"phenomenon f resegregation" in devising its plan for 

desegregation. Well-intentioned middle class blacks and 

whites will prefer private schools and suburban schools to 

the prospect of remaining in a school district becoming 

incapable of delivering basic educational ourvices. A white 

and middle class black exodus will assuredly result if,as 

a result of desegregation orders, the school district became 

chaotic and hostile to intellectual achievement. It was 

these “practicalities" that were considered by the Board in 

attempting to achieve a degree of racial stability, and we 

find that it is constitutionally permissible to take such 

practicalities into account. As we have previously said, 

the plaintiffs' plan itself sufficiently demonstrates the 

justification for allowing one-race schools to operate in 

Detroit. The alternative is to make each and every school 

in the district identifiably black.

Finally, plaintiffs have presented much evidence 

establishing that black children in segregated schools suffer 

adverse educational and psychological damage. This is a 

principle that has already been acknowledged by the courts, 

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954); 349 U.S. 294 

(1955), and indeed this principle itself justifies the

-70-



t

imposition of a desegregation order„ However, the parties 

differ on the definition of segregation. We have demonstrated 

the fallacy underlying Plaintiffs' definition. As a result 

of the application of their plan, all of the schools through­

out the district become racially identifiable black. Thus, 

psychological damage is more likely to occur as a result of 

Plaintiffs' plan than as a result of the plan the court adopts. 

There are indicia for assuring a perception that schools are 

desegregated other than the presence of white students: Equal

facilities, integrated faculties, and meaningful guarantees 

that every student is welcome in any school notwithstanding race. 

Oftentimes, as Plaintiffs' plan demonstrates, the use of 

fixed quotas will not give assurances' of desegregation, but 

instead may tend to exteno segregation throughout the entire 

system. In a district where the racial population is as 

disparate as in this district, the existence of predominantly 

black schools is not demeaning to blacks. A plan that does 

no more than attempt to achieve the system-wide ratio in each 

and every school may result in transporting children merely 

to scatter a few white students here and there among majority 

black students. To seek this result assumes that there is 

some divine grace in being white. The notion that the mere
I

dispersing of whites here and there is educationally 

beneficial to black students is demeaning. An appropriate 

desegregation plan recognizes all the practicalities with which 

a particular school district is faced. The validity of a 

desegregation plan must be based upon constitutional and equit­

able rights of individual students and upon the educational

-79-



goals that desegregation seeks to attain.

' E. General Conclusions Pertaining to Both Plans.

Many definitions of desegregation have been advanced by courts, 

educators, and social scientists. Some have said that not 

more than 90% may be of any one race. Others hold that 

not more than 50% may be of any one minority group. Still 

others insist on fixed racial quotas that reflect ethnic 

proportions prevailing in a given area such as a state, county 

or local community. Some argue for precise ratios while 

others find that a specified tolerance, expressed as an * 

arbitrary percentage that does not relate to racial compsi- 

tions but rather is devised to accommodate an approach to 

planned desegregation, is necessary. If school desegregation 

does not occur naturally in bi-racial neighborhoods, it must 

be planned. Limitations may be imposed by the desegregated 

area. For example, the black proportion of the population 

can be so great that racial balance will inevitably result 

in majority black schools. In such an area, only two alterna­

tives are available: The desegregation area must be enlarged

or flexibility must be permitted in defining a desegregated 

setting.

. While there are many differences between the plans
i

proposed by the Plaintiffs and the Defendant Board, both plans 

share the common defect of relying on fixed racial percentages. 

Both plans attempt to conform all of the schools included 

therein within a given tolerance range of a

-80- ■



predetermined racial percentage. We have indicated that the 

Constitution does not require such an inflexible approach 

to desegregation. Doth plans fail to take account of the 

practicalities at hand., such as demographic trends, financial 

limitations, existing grade structures and naturally integrated 

neighborhoods. Both plans rely exclusively on transportation 

to reassign pupils without exploring alternate techniques.

In the final analysis, it is because both plans are inatten­

tive to such practicalities that both plans must be rejected. 

Because both plans ignore the "practicalities," both plans 

require massive transportation that is, at least to some

degree, unnecessary to achieve desegregation.

Plaintiffs contend that there is only one 

constitution equally applicable to all school districts, 

ilius, they argue that since we would not hesitate to apply 

their parameters to a 72.5% white school district, we should 

equally apply them to a 72.5% black school district. We 

think such an argument m  the context of this school district 

is superficial. The argument ignores the fact that the 

practicalities of the situation", which the constitution 

requires that we take into account, would be different if 

the school district were 72.5% white. There would not be, 

for example, irresponsible bussing of black children to 

black identifiable schools. Thus, we are required to bear 

in mind that plaintiffs represent a class of blacks, and 

that the bussing of black students to identifiably black 

schools creates a burden on the blacks, the very class whom 

the remedy is supposed to benefit, far in excess of the

-81-



V

benefit resulting therefrom. Moreover, because plaintiffs 

represent a class of blacks and not a class of whites, 

desegregation requires only that plaintiffs themselves 

be represented in significant proportions throughout the 

school district through the elimination of identifiably

white schools. That a unitary school system in Detroit
"  !would not require the elimination of black identifiable 

schools as well as obvious from the plaintiffs' argument:

If the system were 72.5% white, dispersing the blacks through­

out the entire system would not eliminate white identifiable 

schools.

Moreover, that elimination of white identifiable 

schools is sufficient for desegregation in Detroit is apparent 

from consideration of the evil desegregation is designed to 

correct. As plaintiffs have argued throughout this litigation, 

the evil of segregation lies in the devastating psychological 

impact upon black children of the knowledge that they are being 

excluded from white schools. "To separate them from others 

of similar age and qualifications solely because of their 

race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status 

in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in 

a way unlikely ever to be undone." Drown v. Board of Education 

347 U.S. 483, 494 (1954). However, when blacks are represented 

in all schools throughout the system, i.e., when white 

identifiable schools are eliminated, this psychological 

effect no longer exists. There no longer is a denial of 

their right to equal protection when there are no schools 

from which they are excluded.

-02-



We have concluded that the rationale behind the

Board's proposed plan promises meaningful disestablishment of 

the state-imposed segregation. We perceive it to be our 

obligation to assess the effectiveness of the Board's plan 

in the light of the circumstances present and options 

available. Accordingly, the remedy we propose will set 

forth constitutional guidelines. Green v. Countv School 

Board of ITew Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 (1369).

From the above, it is apparent that a fresh 

start is required to dismantle the remaining vestiges of a 

dual school system. We are prepared now to furnish the Board 

with guidelines solely devoted to this purpose and to assure 

quality education for all children in the system.

-83-



V. RF.r F.ni'u, c v i p e l t u e s

ThQt remedial guidelines that we detail herein 

define constitutional requirements for dismantling the 

dual school system found to exist in Detroit. In fashion­

ing these guidelines, we have carefully considered the 

"practicalities of the situation" existing in this district. 

The guidelines are characterized by the flexibility needed 

to accommodate conflicting community concerns. We have 

not, however, allowed flexibility to substitute for 

effectiveness and it is our belief that these guidelines 

will'achieve quality desegregated education for all children 

Recognizing that the interest of the community 

as a whole is a legitimate concern of the district court

in formulating a desegregation remedy, the Supreme Court

has furnished the basic guideline: .

"Having once found a violation,.the 
district judge or school authorities 
should make every effort to achieve the 
greatest possible degree of actual deseg 
regation, taking into account the practi 
calities of the situation." Davis v. board 
of School Commissi oners of Mobile County ,
4 0 2 IITg . 32, 37 (1971).

Because a desegregation plan is comparable to other equitable 

remedies, these guidelines are not premised upon a supposed 

inflexible constitutional standard that each school must have

a predetermined racial composition. Swann v 

Education, 402 U.S. 1, 16 (1971); Mi 11iken v 

418 U.S. 717 (1974). Accordingly, there may

Board of 

Bradley, 

be variances

in the racial mix 

a region. The gui 

are artificial and

be tween regions and between schools within 

delines recognize that inflexible parameters 

arbitrary and that their application

-84-



to the Detroit schools would disrupt and bankrupt the

entire system. Thus, rather than focus on each school

in the system, the guidelines balance the practicalities

which affect the system as a whole. Reflecting such

practicalities, the guidelines recognize the impossibility

of eliminating all racially identifiable black schools.

Further, consistent with general equitable

principles, the guidelines balance the burden imposed

against the desegregative results achieved. They recognize
/

that transporting children is an extraordinary remedy to be 

employed only when appreciable results may be accomplished 

thereby, and then only when other alternatives have been 

exhausted. Therefore, our guidelines do not require trans­

porting black children to predominantly black schools.

Nor do they require transporting black or white children 

from naturally desegregated attendance areas. The guidelines 

acknowledge that the goal of desegregating this school 

system requires the elimination of racially identifiable 

white schools. Therefore, the guidelines require that a 

representative number of black students be assigned to 

every school in the district. However, taking account of 

the wide variance in racial composition existing throughout 

this school district, these guidelines do not attempt to
I

eliminate racially identifiable white schools by imposing 
«

fixed ratios. .’e suggest a 50-r>0 racial mix only as a 

starting point; we permit variations that take into 

account the desegregative results likely to be achieved.

-85-



». •\

Further, the guidelines recognize that a 

unitary school systen need not: rigidly reflect the

system-wide racial ratio in every school in the system. 

The guidelines consider criteria for measuring a unitary

system other than ratios, such as faculty assignments,
i

staff assignments, extracurricular activities, equality 

of facilities, and assignment patterns. Moreover,jthe 

central theme of the guidelines is that equal educational 

opportunities must be available for all children. An 

equitable, workable and feasible plan must do more 

than just reassign students. Thus, the guidelines - 

provide for educational components designed both to 

equalize the delivery of educational services at all 

schools and to restore quality education, which has 

deteriorated due to past acts of discrimination. Still 

other guidelines outline components designed to assure 

successful implementation of the court order by meeting 

head-on the special problems accompanying desegregation.

From these guidelines a plan should evolve 

that creates a unitary school system in which every 

school in the community will be open to all students, 

regardless of color. At the same time, the guidelines 

do not neglect those considerations that would make it 

difficult for the system to maintain the financial 

support of the community. Inherent in these guidelines 

is the recognition that a desegregation case requires 

a search for a solut;on that is equitable and fair to 

all. Only in this way can stability be assured and a

-86-



sound educational system be preserved for the entire 

Community *

1. Guidelines for Revision of the Board Plan - 
Student Transportation

The guidelines that follow will aid the 

Board in producing a plan that eliminates the remaining 

racially identifiably white schools in the district by 

reassigning black students, who are in the majority, 

throughout the schools of the city. It has been 

emphasized, however, that these guidelines do not 

sanction adherence to fixed racial ratios; they permit 

variances derived from the constitutionally required 

consideration of the "practicalities of the situation.

Davis v. School Commissioners of Mobile County, 402 

U.S. 33, 37 (1971). The guidelines recognize that

variation in racial ratios is a function of many factors 

and does not necessarily diminish the degree of desegre­

gation .
From these guidelines, a plan should evolve 

that effectively desegregates, urines into equitable balance
loy

the objectives sought and the results to be achieved, and 

exhausts all alternatives before settling on the best 

method to achieve its results. Such guidelines follow:

ijy
la -Swann v. Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971) the

District Courts .are reminded that a desegregation case r£ 
no different than an ordinary case in equity. ihe court 
stated: "...the task is to correct, by a balance of the
individual and collective interests, that condition that 
offends the constitution."

-87-



(a) Where possible, desegregation should
be accomplished by re-zoning attendance

11/
areas in lieu of transporting children.

Before using transportation, the,Board must 

establish that all re-zoning methods have 

■ been exhausted. The re-zoning should be 

attempted only after all the requirements 

of the Court's order are considered. The 

Board is reminded that when re-zoning efforts 

are attempted, regional lines need not be 

respected; when the choice is between pre­

serving regional lines and bussing, regional 

lines must give way. Re-zoning will reduce 

the amount of transportation required to 

desegregate and will permit the use of 

walk-in schools in integrated neighborhoods,

(b) The revised transportation plan should 

avoid bussing black children to predominantly 

black schools. A school that is 55% or more 

black is a predominantly black school.

Neither black nor white children should be 

bussed to schools that are already desegre­

gated according to these guidelines; trans­

portation under such circumstances produces

Li/Although the plaintiffs attempted to desegregate by rezoning
attendance areas, it is this court's belief that their failure
to do so was a result of their definition of a desegregated 
school. There is no evidence in the record that, given this 
court's more flexible approach to desegregation, rezoning 
attendance areas will not be a useful desegregative tool.

-80



an inequitable burden upon the children 
affected. 'Where only a small change in 
enrollment s needed to briny a school 

within the 10% to 55% range, the use of 

satellite zones should be explored. We 

trust the Board is assembling the data 

base suggested by the Court to create 

computer print-outs showing the racial 

composition of neighborhoods by grids.

When this data are compiled the Board will 
be able to avoid transportation under the 

conditions descri. -d above.

The Detroit School System now transports 14,400 

students by chartered bus to relieve overcrowding or to over­

come dangerous crossings and long distances. Attempts should 

be made to accommodate these children at neighborhood schools 

by re-zoning where the neighborhood school is an equal facility. 

However, if such transportation is necessary to desegregate 

the receiving school, it should continue. In the event that 

it is essential to bus these students they should be trans­
ported to aid desegregation only in accordance with these

guidelines.
(c) Elementary schools should not be paired
when one or both of the schools already satisfies

‘ 12/

the Court's definition of a desegregated school.

For example, in the Southwest Constellation, the Carrie School 
is paired although it is already 58% black. In the Chadsey 
Constellation, the Hanneman School is 58% black. Moreover, ie 
Board plan precludes students within walking distance of a 
school from going to that school. For example, the ''.art Elemen­
tary attendance zone is in the Rcdford area, yet Burt students 
have been assigned to Cooley rather than Rcdford. Similar y, 
students- in the Schultz attendance zone should go to Mumford, 
yet they are assigned to Bedford.

-09-



Where desegregation cannot be accomplished 

by re-zoning or the use of satellite 

schools, the Board may pair appropriate 

schools. In making the pairings, the 

Board should, wherever possible, pair an 

identifiably white school with the nearest 

school exceeding 55% black enrollment.

In this way, the distances involved in 

transportation will be kept to a minimum.

(d) The Board should seek to maintain 

uniform grade structures, consisting of 

K-5, 6-8 and 9-12. Since an excessive 

variety of grade structures makes it 

difficult to provide school offerings 

consistent with quality education, con­

sistent grade structures are preferable.

Irregular grade structures would make it 

difficult to incorporate the components con­

tained in the Court's order and would make 

the plan more difficult to monitor.

(e) Desegregation and Integration Guide 
Translated Into Percentages and Racial Patios.
This guideline is derived from assessing the

I
practicalities confronting the Detroit School 

System, such as a rapidlv increasing black student
' iy

population and meager financial resources.

it ~~ " r " ~Another factor that the Board may wish to consider m  making 
its pairings i.s the "Weighted Poverty Index" of each school 
which varies in Detroit from 0.13 to well over 40. The soc.io 
economic mix, as measured by the poverty index, is a significant 
factor and should be considered along with the racial, mix. hs 
far as possible, the Board should strive to have no school 
with a poverty index greater than 15.

-00-



Schools with a res.i lent population in the 

service area of between 30% and 55% black 

shall be considered desegregated. If a school 

is within this range, no change in pupil 

assignment is necessary. Further pupils 

need not be reassigned merely because a 

school's racial composition exceeds 55% 

black; the "practicalities" may dictate t

leaving the school alone. However, in no 

event should a school' remain more than 7 0% 

white. ' *

(f) Elementary Schools. Consistent with 

the foregoing, elementary schools should be
f

desegregated by re-zoning if possible. An 

elementary school with a resident population 

in the service area of between 30-50% black 

has achieved a permissible degree of desegre­

gation. In those schools where a small change 

in enrollment will bring the school within 

these parameters, attempts should be made 

to do so by using a satellite zone. In 

selecting satellite zones, an appropriate 

group of children to select would be a group 

residing in an elementary service area that 

includes a middle school to which the children 

can walk. Transporting a child for his elementary 

school career would be more equitable if the 

child could later walk to a middle school.

-91-



Although it may be impossible to divide the 

burden involved in a desegregation plan 

equally, the Board must avoid gross inequities. 

Particularly, there should not be great variations 

. in the transportation burden falling on adjacent 

areas because such variations will influence 

residential patterns. The Board should further 

avoid bussing children out of an integrated 

service area.

Since K-5 grade structures will result 

in excessive school capacity, the Board can 

take antiquated school buildings out of 

service. These closings and subsequent pupil 

reassignments are intended to equalize facilities 

and to further desegregation both by adjusting 

racial composition and by facilitating a 

non-discriminatorv construction program. The 

Board may also consider closing some schools 

temporarily if.further desegregation would 

result.

Elementary schools that cannot be 

desegregated by re-zoning or by satellite 

zones shall be paired. If possible, the grade 

structure at each paired school shall remain 

K-5 provided the paired schools have approxi­

mately equal enrollments. Pairings need not 

be made one on one; for example, a C1 0 0-pupil

V-
-92-



school can be paired with a 300 and 600- 

pupil school. If maintaining the grade 

structure K-5 is not possible, the changing 

of grade structures will be permitted.

Enrollments in schools can be re-structured 

by adjusting the service area zone lines.

The paired schools will be desegregated 

by exchanging pupils between the pairs.

One-half of the pupils in each grade from 

each school will be bussed to the school 

or schools in the p̂ .Li'. The classes will 

be rotated annually or semi-annually so that 

each child will attend his neighborhood school 

at least .every other year. Teachers also may 

be rotated so they can continue to teach the 

same group of students. When the pairings 

are completed, students should enter integrated 

classrooms.

(g) Middle Schools. Middle schools will 

serve Grades 6-3. To provide for the maximum 

degree of desegregation, there will be two types 

of middle schools: "zoned middle schools"

and "open enrollment middle schools." The 

open enrollment schools will function similarly to 

current magnet middle schools, but will have 

a controlled racial mix generally 55-701 black.

The racial composition may exceed these parameters

-93-



1 •
\

where practicalities require, but in no 

event should a school exceed 50i white.
L

The zoned middle schools need not have ahic
zones tnat correspond to elementary service mge
boundaries. In developing the zones, the

1
aintain

Board shall provide walk-in schools wherever awing —
possible. Although a zoned middle sc jiool 3

that is 30-55% black shall be considered • ability '

desegregated, the Board's target should be iesegre-

50% black enrollment'at this level. In aally

developing zones for middle schools, the Board 

may consider satellite zones but such zones

the

should be avoided where it can be shown that e an
t

they would create housing instability resulting ivate
from differing treatment of adjacent neighbor- /
hoods. that

Generally, no child should be bussed for aessible
more than five of his first eight years. Any re- .
child that is bussed for desegregation at the aducation
elementary level for five years should not 

be bussed for desegregation to a middle school.
tive

If the Board finds compliance with this guide­

line impossible, the Board shall report the
awing

exceptions by numbers, race and location. ted,
(h) Summary. be believe these guidelines a
provide sufficient latitude to accommodate ng from
the practicalities needed to be considered % black

ted.

-94-



DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS 
1975-1930

% Black 
Enrollment

35

30

Year 1961 1965 1970 1974 1975 1980

*proj ected

•v. -

-96-



«. •

. (b) In providing further desegregation,

a 50-50 enrollment may be used as a starting 

point for reassigning students, but no school 

shall be less than 301 black.

(c) Pairings shall involve only schools

with enrollments under 301 or over 5 5%̂  black.

To minimize travel distances, pairings shall

be made between each white school and the near-
/ '

est predominantly black school.

(d) As far as possible, the schools will 

maintain a uniform grade structure of K-5,

6 - 8 and 9-12.

(e) Elementary schools will enroll children 

in Grades K-5. Classrooms or half classrooms 

will be exchanged between the paired schools

on a rotating basis, permitting each child to 

attend his home school at least every other year. 

Not all elementary school children will attend 

paired schools; some will reside in integrated 

neighborhoods, and as many elementary schools 

as possible will be desegregated by redesigning 

attendance zones. Where possible, satellite 

zones rather than two-way bussing will be used. 

Where bussing is needed, bus trips will be as 

short as possible. The change in grade structure 

from K— 6 to K—5 will generate excess school 

facilities, enabling a number of antiquated 

schools to be taken out of service.

-97-



(f) Middle schools, 6 - 8 , will be of two

types: "open enrollment" and "zoned schools."

In keeping with these guidelines, open enroll­

ment schools will have racially controlled 

enrollments. Where the practicalities permit, 

middle schools will be 55-70% black, and no 

middle school will enroll less than 50% black,

(g) The plan will involve the creation
i-iy

of vocational centers. Two high schools

may be converted into vocational centers;

students currently enrolled in these schools

will be reassigned to other nearby schools,

thus aiding desegregation. Although the
6

vocational centers will be open to all students 

city-wide their racial compositions will be 

controlled. Initially, no high school or 

vocational center shall enroll less than 40% 

minority. Thereafter, enrollments will be 

controlled to conform to these guidelines. . 

Curriculum studies will be necessary to adjust 

the present city-wide schools such as the 

Aero Mechanics High School.

See
14/

section on Vocational Education, infra.

-98-



2 . Reading and Communication Skills
. The development of proficient reading skills is

the most e sential educational service a school system can 

deliver. VJhere a school lacks a successful reading program, 

a child cannot be assured academic success or a beneficial 

school exp. fence. Students who have not achieved^adequate 

reading and communication skills cannot succeed in the main­

stream of society. They are limited in their vocational 

selection; their handicap necessarily precludes them from 

entering the professional world. y?hile in school, they 

cannot be fairly tested.

There is no educational component more directly

associated with the process of desegregation than reading.

Statistical data establish that minority youngsters lag

significantly behind their white counterparts in reading

skills, which in turn affects the ability of minority students
to follow written instructions, succeed on aptitude tests,

pass entrance examinations for colleges and universities

and compete in the world of arts, sciences, occupations

and skills. Moreover, when such conditions persist, there

is a direct effect upon the school environment. Students .

become disciplinary problems when in reaDity their problem

is directly associated with an inability to conceptualise

due to a .lack of proper reading and coinmunication skills.

As a consequence, teachers and staff assume that such minority %

students are uncducable, thus further deteriorating the school 

environment for these students. To eradicate the effects of

v-99



past discrimination, a remedial reading program should be 

instituted immediately to correct the deficiencies of those 

mid-way in their educational experience.

The Court considers this component deserving 

of top priority in a school district undergoing desegregation 

Accordingly, the Court's order will direct that the develop­

ment of such a program in the desegregative process be the 

direct responsibility of the General Superintendent and a
iy

committee to be selected by him. We trust that such a 

committee will include some of the expertise available in the 

Michigan community. Detroit is fortunate in having a number 

of people expert in developing learning techniques for 

reading who are at the same time devoted to Detroit's 

educational system. This court hopes that the General 

Superintendent will personally pioneer this effort to 

achieve excellence unequaled by any other school system.

1 1 / .
We direct th' General Superintendent's attention to the 

Public report of the Education Task Force, as revised March 
5, 1975. The recommendations with respect to development 
of a reading program and suggestions contained therein 
are endorsed herein.

-100-



\

- In-Service Training '

A comprehensive in-service training program is 

essential to a system undergoing desegregation. A 

conversion to a unitary system cannot be successful absent

an in-service training program for all teachers and staff. All
I

. . . !participants in the desegregation process must be prepared

to deal with new experiences that inevitably arise. The 

order that follows pursuant to these guidelin. s requires 

in-service training in such fields as teacher expectations, 

human relations, minority culture, testing, the student code 

of conduct, and the administration of discipline in a 

desegregated system for all school personnel. The program
t

shall also include an explanation of the purpuse and nature 

of each component in the desegregation order. It is known 

that teachers’ attitudes toward students are affected by 

desegregation. These attitudes play a critical part in the 

atmosphere of a school and affect the pulse of the school 

system. White and black teachers often have unhealthy 

expectations of the ability and worth of students of the 

opposite race. Moreover, it is knovm that teachers' expecta­

tions vary with socio-economic variations among students.

These expectations must, through training, be re-oriented
i

to ensure that academic achievement of -black ,students in the 
*

desegregation is not impeded. A comprehensive in-service 

training program will ensure that all students are treated equally 

in the educational process. The goal of a sound in-service 

training program should be the awareness that there are neither

-101-



black' students or white s-udents, just students.

■ The Detroit Board of Education is advised that

Wayne State University and other universities have offered 

their cooperation in this desegregation effort. Accordingly, 

the Board shall request the Wayne State University College 

of Education to assist in developing a comprehensive program 

to provide in-service training. The court is of the view that 

the program outlined in the Board plan will fulfill the 

expectations of the court order. The Detroit Board is 

further directed to seek assistance and funding from the- 

Title IV Center at the University of Michigan, and upon 

issuance of the court order, further submit proposals for 

assistance to the United States Office Of Education for 

Emergency School Aid Act. (ESAA) funds. Moreover, the 

defendant Superintendent of Public Instruction is directed to 

seek financial and personnel assistance from other state 

institutions. The in-service training program as instituted 

should be on-going, include all schools in the system and 

be open to all personnel employed by the Detroit Board of 

Education. Such in-service training sessions shall be conducted 

during the school year and just prior to the opening of school. 

The Board should discontinue payment to teachers for
l

attendance at such sessions on Saturdays.



\

situations in the business world. finally, it will equip 

minority students with tae knowledge and ability essential 

to enter occupational trades often foreclosed to them.

Accordingly, the court's order will require that 

the defendants Detroit Board and State Board of Education 

create vocational centers devoted to in-depth occupational 

preparation in the construction trades, transportation and 

health services. In addition, the order will require that 

the defendants Detroit Board and the State Board of Educa­

tion create two new technical high schools in which business 

education will be the central part of the curriculum. * It 

shall be the responsibility of the School Board and the 

State Board of Education to fulfill their obligations
t

under the constitution and state law to ascertain that the -

four vocational centers created art of the highest quality.

Moreover, each of these vocational centers shall include a

Grade 13 providing advanced offerings both for those

students presently enrolled and for other students who have

left the system within the past three years.

As an immediate desegregative effort, the

Detroit Board of Education and the State Board of Education

are directed to create two such vocational centers as promptly

as circumstances permit. In order to eliminate the need for 
»

new construction, two existing facilities may be selected;
♦t.he court's experts suggested that Cooley and Kettering be 

utilized as vocational centers. Accordingly, the Detroit Board

-104-



4 . Vocations.1 Education - Technical High Schools

Ope 1 association with other students of varying 

races, cultures and religions forms the most basic ingredient 

in a student's learning experience. Children living, learning 

and playing together convert a building into a human insti­

tution with a pulse and personality. Students, parents 

and teachers come together to live, learn and work in an 

atmosphere imbued with human warmth. In this atmosphere, the 

attachments born of a classroom become the most durable. A 

segregated system deprives students of this interpersonal 

learning experience and injures them in a lasting way. The 

resulting isolation destroys the atmosphere and pulse of 

a school system and, eventually, the quality of the educa­

tional services rendered. Minority students in segregated 

settings often lose interest in education, eventually believ­

ing they have no stake in the system. This inevitable result 

is reflected both in the school system's dropout rate and 

in the number of students who graduate without being able to 

read or spell. Thus, a segregated school system fails to 

provide relevant and diversified programs to meet the needs 

of the students it serves.

Vocational education is given high priority in these 

guidelines because while it is able to compensate for past

■ discrimination, at the same time it serves as an effective %
tool for desegregation. It can both offer an immediate desegre 

gated setting and help re-establish quality education. Voca­

tional education is easily assimilated into the Magnet Program 

now in effect in' this system and offers attractions that exceed 

those currently available. It can serve to combat the drop­

out rate successfully and prepare students for specific work



shall immediately submit a olan confor­ming to the following
guidelines:

(a) The plan shall indicate where student 

presently assigned to Cooley and Kettering will 

be re-assigned and the effect of such 

reassignment upon desegretation. The plan 

should minimize the inconvenience to students 

who would otherwise enroll at these schools.

The Board may wish to consider the feasibility

■ of not enrolling students at either Cooley

- or Kettering in the September 1975 school term.

(b) The Board shall submit maps depicting 

the new high school zones that result from the 

elimination of the Cool y and Kettering 

attendance areas.

; (c) The. plan shal,_ contain detailed

curricula for Cooley- and Kettering High Schools

(d) The vocational centers at Cooley 

and Kettering shall be city-wide schools and 

shall have a racial mix that, considering the 

practicalities at hand, approaches a ratio of 

60% black and. 40% white.

(e) The Detroit Board and the State 

Board should immediately confer and submit a
»

, plan to the court not later than three weeks
%

from t ic issuance of the court's order. The 

plan should include a time and cost schedule 

for modifications necessary to convert Cooley 

and Kettering High Schools into vocational 

■ centers, and should also include proposals 

for two additional centers. The parties are

-105



directed to ensure that these vocational centers 

are equal in quality to the best vocational 

schools in the country.

As an immediate desegregative effort, the Detroit 

Board shall, as promptly as circumstances permit, undertake to
j

create two additional technical high schools, which arejto be 

modeled after the program at Cass Technical High School. The 

Board shall select sites for such technical high schools that 

afford the maximum degree of desegregation. In keeping with 

this desegregative effort, the Detroit Board of Education and 

the General Superintendent shall commission a study of the
16 /curricula to be established at the two technical high schoolsT

r

The study shoulc determine what duplications might exist 

between offerings at the technical high schools and the 

vocational centers or the academic high schools. After formu­

lation of the joint plan for creation of the vocational center, 

the State Board of Education shall submit such plan for review 

and evaluation to an appropriate evaluation panel such as a 

vocational education expert at an institution of higher 

learning. When the joint plan is submitted, it shall include 

the evaluation made by such expert and modifications suggested 

as a result of such evaluation.
TS/ : ;------------------------
• The Board's plan as submitted does not distinguish clearly 

between courses to be offered at the vocational centers and 
the technical high schools. The study should identify the 
offering of courses duplicating those at other high schools, 
duplication might detract from the magnet programs instituted 
at the two new technical high schools. The study should 
further determine the effect of duplication of courses at 
different locations upon desegregation and the quality of 
education.

-10G-



Testing

Of great importance to a system undergoing 

desegregation is the assurance that tests administered to 

students are free from racial, ethnic and cultural bias.

Black children are especially affected by biased testing 

procedures. As a result of such procesures, they may find 

themselves segregated in classrooms for slow learners, which 

will thereafter impede their educational growth. Moreover, 

the discriminatory use of test results can cause resegrega­

tion .

The Detroit Board and State Board of Education 

are constitutionally mandated to eliminate all vestiges of 

discrimination, including discrimination through improper 

testing. Thus, the Detroit Board and the State Board of 

Education must devise a program that will ensure tnat 

testing design, content and procedures are adaptable to a 

desegregated school system. The plan should include provisions 

dealing with staffing and osts involved. We have examined 

the Board's testing component carefully and have found it 

to be sufficiently comprehensive to serve as a model for 

such a testing program.

-108-



Upon recommendation of the court-appointed experts, 

the■order of tne court will direct, as a further desegregative 

effort, that the Detroit Board of Education undertake a study 

evaluating an alternate form of education following the 

Parkway Concept. The court's experts have suggested that 

Northern High School could be used for such a project. 

Accordingly, the defendant School Board is directed to sub­

mit plans for such a program, including an evaluation of its 

feasibility and the contribution that such a program might 

make to desegregation. The Board shall further seek and obtain 

a professional evaluation of such concept from outside the 

School Board's present administrative staff. if the evalua­

tion is favorable, the Board shall thereafter submit plans 

and costs schedules for implementation of such concept.

It has been brought to the attention of the court 

that the Detroit School Board is presently ineligible for 

full funding from the state to operate the proposed voca­

tional education programs because certain contractual provi­

sions between the Detroit School Board and the Detroit Federa­

tion of Teachers which require that a school day not exceed 

7-1/4 hours and impose a maximum of 25 teaching periods per 

week, conflict with regulations promulgated by the State 

Board of Education. The court, however, has stated that 

vocational 'education programs must be instituted pursuant 

to a desegregation mandate. Accordingly, the parties shall 

appear in court for a hearing and subsequent order that will 

set aside either the State Board of Education regulations 

or the contractual provisions. The date for the hearing 

shall be set upon motion to be filed by the Detroit Board 

of Education.

-107-



V

6 . Student Rights and Responsicillti.cs

By previous orders this court has demonstrated the 

high priority that it places on student rights and responsibili 

ties, which the court has refered to as a Uniform Code of

Conduct. We have also said that children living, learning and
. ' j' I
playing together convert a building into a human institution. ' _ 1
with a pulse and personality, and that when students, parents

and teachers come together to live, learn and work the school

develops an identifiable environment. It is this environment

that the Detroit Board is constitutionally bound to protect

in order to assure that every student can enjoy a right to a
(*)

happy, healthy, and rewarding school experience. Moreover,
(

we have adopted the plaint cfs' assertion that "[n]o violence. , 

whether against person or property, will be allowed to impede 

the implementation of the desegregation process. Both 

students and teachers must feel secure in their person and 

in their ability to perform their respective functions without 

fear of undue and unnecessary disruption."

It is the court’s intention that from the commence­

ment of the 1975-1976 school year the Board must not tolerate 

violence in any school in the system. Moreover, the court 

order will require that the Uniform Code of Conduct bei
administered uniformally without regard' to regional lines. All

regions will be obliged to follow proscribed forms and uniform 

procedures to be devised by the Central Board and approved by

See this court's order of July 3, 1975.

-109-



«. •

the court. The court will not, of course, attempt to substitute 

its judgment for the discretion of school administrative 

personnel in dealing with student violations of the Code. The 

court will ensure, however, that all Detroit students are 

afforded minimal right of due process consistent with Goss v. 

Lopez , 419 U.S. 565 (1975). While the court is concerned that 

violence and vandalism do not impede the desegregative process, 

the court is equally concerned that the rights of the students 

are fully protected. In a system undergoing desegregation, 

black and white students will be subjected to teachers of both 

races who may apply the Code in a discriminatory manner. Staff 

members must be made aware of the rights of due process set 

forth in the Code. Moreover, students must be advised not 

only of the conduct proscribed, but also of their right to 

due process when involved in disciplinary procedures. The Code 

therefore, must simultaneously protect the rights of students 

against arbitrary and discriminatory exclusions, suspensions 

or expulsions and assure that disruptions in the school or 

classroom will be dealt wita every instance. The court has 

recently received the Board’s second draft of the proposed Code. 

Since the court has not had an opportunity to study this draft, 

the Board will await further directions from the court.

- 1 1 0 ­
v -



The importance that the court places on this 

component is evident from the July 18, 1975 communication 

requiring the Detroit Board to submit a detailed plan for a 

community relations program, which the court has not yet 

had an opportunity to examine in detail. We agree with 

plaintiffs that an acceptable community relations plan 

should include provisions for school-community liaison and 

parental involvement. The school-community relations program 

should give real meaning to the decentralization anticipated 

by the Michigan Legislature and provide an effective vehicle 

for true community involvement in all the schools. To 

achieve maximum community participation, the program should 

depend upon parental support; participants should be 

selected voluntarily and serve without compensation., An 

effective community relations program must develop a 

partnership between the community and the schools and must 

co-operate with traditional groups such as parent-teacher 

organizations and local school advisory boards. There should 

be a cooperative flow of information from the school to the 

community and from the community to the school. Open and 

free discussion and participation in the desegregation
i

process should be encouraged. The school-community relations %
organization should receive complete encouragement, budgetary 

support, direct assistance and a free flow of information 

from school authorities.

* School-Community Relations (Parental Involvement:)

-Ill-



The school-community relations component shall 

be a subject of a separate order of this court. The portion 

of the Board's plan that includes a monitoring provision 

in the suggested community-relations component is rejected.

-112-



. Counseling and Career Guidance

School districts undergoing desegregation inevitably 

place psychological pressures upon the students affected. 

Counselors are essential to provide solutions to the many 

problems that result from such pressures. Moreover, the 

success of the vocational and technical schools created ĥerein 

depends upon the effort of counselors whose guidance is 

essential to students seeking a career. Counselors can 

accomplish much to shape and guide the academic experiences of 

students. They assist student self-development and further 

can acquaint students with the vocational training possibilities 

available in the system. It will be essential that the 

counselors be trained so that they may become fully acquainted 

with the vocational and technical offerings created herein. 

Accordingly, the order issued pursuant to these guidelines will 

require that the Detroit Board provide guidance and counseling

services including career counseling to the junior and senior
• . . 1 7 / high students in the Detroit System. The Board is hereby

directed to submit a career guidance and counseling plan.

It is not for the court to determine how this program ought 
to be staffed. We note, however, that we cire unaware of any 
school system that has deemed it beneficial to assign full-time 
counselors at the elementary school level. Some school systems 
have found that classroom teachers who are afforded appropriate 
in-service training make the best: counselors at the elementary 
level. '

-113-



V

Co-curricular Activities

Co-curricular activities are essential supportive 

programs in a system undergoing desegregation. Co-curricular 

activities further desegregation by providing student-to- 

student contact and interplay in a desegregated environment.

The co-curricular program should include a provision for a 

limited junior high school consortium; which also encourages the . 

sharing of educational experiences among students of both races.

In addition to aiding desegregation, the co-curricular program

can acquaint students with many fine institutions available

in the Detroit area, which have indicated their interest in

aiding the court providing quality education to Detroit

school children. The junior high school consortium will-enable

students to share experiences while acquiring knowledge of

such institutions as the Art Insti-tute, the Detroit Public

Library, the Merrill-Palmer Institute, Wayne State University

and Shaw College. The court has reviewed the provision

for co-curricular activities in the Board's plan and has

concluded that it contains imaginative programs. The court's

order will, therefore, require that the Detroit Board

develop for the court's approval, a specific plan for co-curricular

activities including an analysis of the costs involved. )

-114-



10. Bilinguaf/Muiti-Ethnic Studies

Multi-ethnic studies are essential elements of the 

curriculum of any outstanding school system; desegregation 

serves only to emphasize the need for inclusion of these 

studies. Moreover, by state law school districts are re-
i .

quired to provide adecmate programs for bilingual and bi-
.  .  ! ,cultural instruction. See Mich. Comp. Laws §§340.360, 390,

391. The court order will further provide for these programs.

Currently, these programs are funded by Titles III 

and VII of ESAA. The Board is directed to re-apply for such 

funds to continue its program and in such application shall 

include provisions for in-service training for teachers in­

volved in offaring such programs. ,The School Board is 

further directed to see): the cooperation of Wayne State 

University1s Ethnic Learning Resource Center to participate 

in and develop a resource program for comprehensive multi­

ethnic instruction.

The Board shall submit finalized programs for each

of these studies to the court including provisions for in-
18/

service training of the teachers involved.

18 /
While we endorse the inclusion of these programs in a de­

segregation plan, we draw no conclusions with respect to the 
budget submitted by the Board in its plan, which appears to 
us to be excessive. Even assuming 163 bilingual teachers are 
needed, there should be a corresponding reduction in the 
number of regular classroom teachers.

-115-



1 1 . Faculty Assignmcnts

The Detroit Board s plan contains a component 

dealing with reassignment of faculty, providing for a 50% 

ratio in every school. It has been noted that the teacher 

population in Detroit is now 49.5% black and hence totally 

ki~^acial. However, no evidence was presented at this 

remedial hearing dealing -with faculty segregation. Thus, 

it would be inappropriate for this court to order any reassign­

ment of faculty at this time.

However, notwithstanding the prior holding of this 

court, affirmed on appeal, that the Detroit Board had not 

committed de jure acts of segregation of faculty, certain 

reassignments will be necessary to implement the desegrega­

tion order. Reassignments of faculty will be necessitated by 

the reassignments of students. Such reassignments are inci­

dental to the desegregation plan and shall be made with the 

purpose of further integrating the faculty. The Detroit 

Board and the Detroit Federation of Teachers shall immediately 

begin negotiations concerning reassignments necessitated by 

other components of this plan. Of course, in conducting these 

negotiations, both parties will no doubt be mindful of the 

federal requirement for racial composition of faculty and 

staff in a school system, undergoing desegregation contained 

•in USCFR 185.44(d)(3), supra.

V -
-116-



. Thereafter, both p^lrties shall submit a report

listing every school, student enrollment by race, the projected 

student enrollment by race following application of the plan, 

the present number of teachers in each school by race and the 

projected number of teachers by race following application of 

the court's order. These reports shall be submitted to the 

court prior to an evidentiary hearing to be^set by the court.

-117-



12 . Monitoring

. The court's order will provide for a court-created

monitoring system to audit efforts made to implement the 

court's desegregation orders. The monitoring system created 

by the court shall provide for broad citizen participation.

The monitoring group shall reflect the city's racial and 

ethnic composition so that the court can receive input from 

a broad spectrum of the city's population.

. Because it is the court's constitutional obligation

to audit efforts to implement its orders the monitoring . 

commission shall report directly to the court. The parties 

may for the court's consideration nominate citizens as appointees 

to the monitoring commission. The cdurt is of the view, however, 

that the state, to whom the Fourteenth Amendment is addressed, 

has an equal obligation to oversee the efforts put forth and 

results achieved through implementation of the desegregation 

order. Accordingly, the court will order the State 

Superintendent of Public Instruction to seek the assistance 

of available state institutions to provide the supervisory 

and expert support staff needed to analyze and report the 

information thus obtained. The State Superintendent of Public 

Instruction shall suggest to the court a plan that includes 

the assistance of state-supported institutions such as the 

Title IV* Office of the University of Michigan.

In the court's view the .monitoring of its orders 

is an essential part of a desegregation effort. The court

-118



recognizes that an effective monitoring procedure will 

require careful evaluation of the input from citizens' 

groups appointed. These groups shall be requested to 

develop) meaningful criteria for evaluation and to suggest 

and recommend methods for developing a uniform basis of’ 

reporting. It shall be the obligation of the State 

Superintendent and the institutions selected by him to 

collect and analyze all such data submitted and to provide 

sufficient staff to supervise the work-of the monitoring 

committee. . ,

-119-



VI. CONCLUSION AND APPENDICES

In developing these guidelines, this court has 

not intended to usurp the School Board's administrative 

authority. Neither has this court intended to substitute 

its authority for the authority of elected state and local 

officials to decide which educational components are bene­

ficial to the school community. We are especially reluctant 

to do so in view of the fact that the school officials are 

willing to desegregate the school system. Their plan evi­

dences their desire to co-operate in the desegregative effort 

Pursuant to an order of this court, they submitted a compre­

hensive desegregation plan which did not attempt to rely 

solely upon their Magnet School Program for voluntary de­

segregation, but instead included the forced transportation 

of a large number of students. Thus, we have taken into 

account that the 11 good faith conduct on the part of any 

litigant in any court, especially a court of equity, and 

more particularly, in the sensitive area of desegregation, 

is a vital element for appropriate consideration."

Montgomery County Board of Education v. Carr, 400 F.2d 1, 2 

(5th Cir. 1968).

Moreover, even after a finding of segregation 

has been made, it is the affirmative duty of the local
i

school board to repair the effects of segregation by con­

structing a unitary system. But, at the same time, once the 

state has been found to have discriminated against a class 

of plaintiffs, it is the constitutional obligation of the 

court to assure that the denial of equal educational opportu­

nity through segregation is fairly ancl justly remedied. Thus

-120-



\
the Board must remember that once it begins to desegregate, 
"the courts have a' solemn obligation to determine whether 
the structure designed by the school board will house a 

unitary system. This obligation is unremitting. . .
Accordingly, any imprimatur of judicial approval must be 
entered with a caveat that until construction of a unitary 
system is completed, change orders, when appropriate, will 
be issued to ensure that the designed structure in fact 
accommodates a unitary system and not a bifurcated one."
Carr v. Montgomery County Board of Education, 429 F.2d 382, 

306 (5th Cir. 1970). It is in this context that the court 

issues these guidelines. It is for the court to declare 

constitutional standards applicable in a particular school 

district. The Board is free to do more than these announced 

standards require, so long as they demonstrate that their 

additional effort will have a salutory effect upon desegre­

gation; it is the role of the court to ensure that they not 

do less than what we have detailed here.
A successful desegregative effort will require 

co-operation and support from the entire community. Because 
Detroiters have always volunteered community support to 
advance worthwhile causes, and because Detroiters know 
that the vitality of their city depends upon the excellence 
and stability of their school system, this court has already 
received expressions of support from the community. Many 
of Michigan's institutions of higher education, business 
corporations, labor unions and other organizations, public 
and private, have pledged their support and assistance to

-121-



1 •

assure the successful development of quality education in 

the newly desegregated Detroit School System. (See 

appendices for sample letters.)

For example, Wayne State University, in co-opera­

tion with other institutions, can undertake prime responsi­

bility in developing and conducting the in-service training
19/

program, which has received a high priority from this court. 

Wayne County Community College has volunteered to consult 

with the Board and assist it in the development and evaluation 

of the Board's proposed multi-ethnic component. They will 

further help with an orientation program for academic and 

guidance counselors. Additionally, labor and industry have 

demonstrated an active interest in the quality of education 

in the Detroit Schools. Both sectors of the community have 

assured the court of their willingness to co-operate and 

assist in this effort. Labor and industry can be of in­

valuable assistance by bringing their expertise to the 

vocational and technical high schools created herein. They 

can generate jobs for young people and possibly provide 

equipment needed by the school district. They can also 

provide an opportunity for on-the-job training. It is hoped 

that the Board will succeed in matching colleges, universities, 

labor and industry with selected schools or

19/
We are informed at this writing that the Governor of the 

State of Michigan 'is aware of Detroit's need for this 
component. We have reason to believe that, consistent with 
his abiding interest in Michigan's educational system, he 
will approve necessary budgetary provisions to enable Wayne 
State University to participate.

-122-



programs to further enhance the attractions available in 

the school system. The Board, with the aid of the court's 

experts, should enter into specific agreements with these 

organizations in order to spell out precisely the roles 

they will play in assisting the Detroit schools. These 

institutions will not, of course, be solicited for finan­

cial contributions, nor do they intend to interfere with 

the administrative authority of the Detroit Board. These 

institutions want to be of assistance to Detroit school 

children; they have no lesire to participate in the adminis­

tration of the school system. Thus, our guidelines provide 

the seeds to generate community support.

The guidelines also continue the Magnet System 

to which the school community has devoted so much time 

and funds. "-’e have sought to strengthen those programs 

now in existence and have also provided for the creation of 

additional schools and added attractions, including the 

anticipated matching of schools with colleges, universities, 

business organizations and labor unions. As strengthened, 

these Magnet Programs will provide an opportunity for the 

occurrence of voluntary desegregation. Magnet Programs, 

as a desegregation tool, have been approved by the Federal 

Education Acts of 1974, P.L. 93-380, §214(f), 20 U.S.C.§1713(g) 

and as strengthened by she court's guidelines will be suffi­

ciently attractive to serve the dual purpose of providing 

quality education and voluntary desegregation. However, it



must be remembered that the primary goal of these Magnet 

Schools is to operate as desegregated schools within the 

practicalities we have deemed constitutionally permissible.

Although these Magnet Schools play an important 

role in the court's guidelines, this court recognizes
Ithat total desegregation cannot come about through Magnet
I

Programs alone. Since 1972, the Magnet Program alone has 

proven inadequate to desegregate the Detroit Schools. 

However, while some transportation may be essential, we 

believe that the guidelines proposed have substantially 

reduced the number of students transported from the number 

involved in either the plaintiffs' or the Board's plan.

The co-operative effort of the entire community 

will assure a school system capable of fulfilling community 

aspirations. Such community support will provide the 

Detroit schools with an opportunity to make a fresh start. 

Those once deprived of equal opportunity by past discrimina­

tion will be assured that their schools are unequaled else­

where; they will be assured that the injury from segrega­

tion, sometimes intangible, will be eradicated. With the 

support of the community, the court's order will create a 

unitary school system and assure that past discriminatory 

practices will neither inflict further injury nor occur
i

again. A school system must evolve that is concerned not 

with black children or white children, but just children.

-124-



APPENDIX A

W A Y N E  S T A T E
C O L L E G E  O F  E D U C A T I O N

UNIVERSITY
D E T R O I T .  M I C H I G A N  4 0 2 0 2

O F F I C E  O F  T H E  D E A N

July 2, 1975

The Honorable Robert E. DeMascio
United States District Judge *
Room 257, Federal Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226

Dear Sir:

I was pleased to participate E  our meeting of June 18 to discuss the 
services that the College of Education at Wayne State University could 
provide to the Detroit Public Schools. As I mentioned at that time, 
our College has placed much effort on the importance of in-service 
training to upgrade the skills of teachers throughout the metropolitan 
area.^ Cur recent proposal to the Legislature indicates that in-service 
training is a major focus of the College of Education. We feel that we 
could be of great assistance to the Detroit Public Schools and to the 
children of Detroit in this particular area. .

In addition we have had a strong Vocational Education program in our 
College for some time. Dr. Fred Cook lias been instrumental in working 
with the Michigan Department of Education in several of their funded 
projects. Recently he received two sizeable grants from the Department 
for the development of field tested vocational education materials to be 
used with teachers throughout the State. In the area of Vocational 
Education our expertise could be of great assistance to the Detroit 
Public Schools.

For the past three years Career Education has been a major component of 
our program in the College of Education. Dr. George Leonard, President­
Elect of the American Vocational Guidance Association, and Dr. Howard 
Splete have been instrumental in providing a variety of career education 
services to school districts in tlie metropolitan area. In addition, we 
have three projects currently funded by tlie Michigan Department of 
Education that involve the development of career education materials by 
members of our staff.



The Honorable Robert E. DeMascio - page 2 July 2, 1975

A foui'th area of service of interest to our College involves the 
monitoring and evaluation of the educational programs in the Public 
Schools. Drs. Don Marcottu and Maureen Sie lead a team of young, 
extremely capable researchers who have provided evaluation services on 
many state and federally funded projects. This group of evaluation 
experts can provide valuable services in the evaluation of educational 
outcomes in the Detroit Public Schools. .

We in the College would be pleased to be of assistance to the Detroit 
Public Schools in these areas.

Q-} n r o r o  1 \r ^

Edward Simpkins 
Dean

ES/jb
cc: President Gulden 

Provost Bohn
Executive Vice President Cushman



APPENDIX B

po* iNTtA-uKrvxjtsrry cokxxifondence

T H E  U N I V E R S I T Y  O F  M I C H I G A N

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

July 8, 1975

Dean Wilbur J. Cohen 
School of Education 
The University of Michigan 
1110 School of Education 
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104

F ««

dUll 1 6
m

" ' < & CnD‘̂ c , o

Dear Wilbur:

The University of Michigan will be pleased to do whatever 
it can, within the limits of its resources, to be helpful to Judge DeMascio 
in implementing the quality education components of such order as he 
may issue in the Detroit Board of Education case.

In mai CuimĜ '.iuii, Vice President Rhodes and I have asked
Associate Vice President Richard English to be the point of contact with 
our offices in working with you in this matter.

Sincerely,

R. W. Fleming

gmc
cc: Vice President Frank H . T . Rhodes 

Dr. Richard English



APPENDIX C
4

o/licc of (he President 4001 W. McNichols Road, Detroit, Michigan 48221 Telephone: (313) 927-1455

June 26, 1975

Dean Wilbur J. Cohen 
School of Education
University of Michigan '
Ann Arbor Mi. 48104

Dear Dean Cohen:

The University of Detroit will be very pleased to join 
other Michigan colleges and universities in a program to 
foster quality education in Detroit. It is our intention to 
cooperate with the court in every way possible to achieve 
that goal. ■

Thank you for inviting us to participate.

MC/lm

cc: Dr. Arlene iNowak



YN
f

>*

\

APPENDIX D

O F f T C E  O F  T H E  P R E S I D E N T

W A Y N E  S T A T E  U N I V E R S I T Y

D E T R O I T ,  M I C H I G A N  4  8 2 0 2

1
June 20, 1975

Dr. Wilbur J. Cohen 
Dean
College of Education 
University of Michigan 
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104

Dear Wilbur:

6UU 2 6  1975

t-

i'

RO BER T L  .DeMASCIO 
U nited  S ta te s  D istr ic t Ju d g e

Thank you for Inviting me to take part in the discussions on 
the University's role in assisting the City of Detroit in its 
efforts to come to terms with the Supreme Court s desegrega 
tion mandate. I found the meeting informative and I am 
pleased to pledge Wayne State's support.

We look forward to assisting you and the Court in any way 
that we can be useful. I think that there are at least three 
or four areas in which we can help. I am sure that Dean 
Simpkins will discuss :hese areas with you. Feel free to 
call upon me as often as there is a need to do so and I shall 
do my best to lend support to your efforts.

Sincerely ypurs,

CL<—

Ceorge E. Gullen, Jr. 
President



APPENDIX E

<JUN 2 6  19/5
Memll-iPahm'r

f President 71 Easl F erry  A v e n u e  • D e t r o i t ,  M i c h i g a n  4 8 202 • (313) 875-745'

Wilbur J. Cohen •
Dean, School of Education 
University of Michigan 
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104

Dear Dean Cohen:

Pursuant to the recent meeting in Judge DeMascio's chambers, this 
will affirm the commitment of the Merrill-Palmer Institute to cooperate in 
any way we can in assisting the Detroit Board of Education in its efforts to_ 
provide quality education. Indeed, within recent years our staff has worked 
closely with the school system in a number of ways.

Both Mrs. Kispert and I were very impressed with the efforts the 
Judge is making to broaden the base of support for the difficult challenges 
confronting the Detroit school system. We pledge our assistance within the 
staffing and economic constraints that confront us during these difficult times 
for small private institutions of higher education.

Of the twelve programmatic components you enumerated, the Merrill- 
Palmer Institute is uniquely suited to offer assistance as a training and demon­
stration resource in the interrelated areas of early childhood education and 
parental involvement in child development.

The Merrill-Palmer Institute has been in existence since 1920 as a 
privately-supported institution of higher education. Since the Institute's 
early beginnings, there has been a strong conviction that, of all the areas 

' worthy of study, none are more important than the fields of human development 
and family life. This commitment, in part, has enabled the Institute to make 
significant contributions to the study of human growth, particularly in the area 
of child development. The Institute is internationally recognized as a pioneer­
ing and leading academic center devoted to the multidisciplinary study of human 
behavior. Its journal, The Morrill-Palmer Quarterly, is widely read and ac­
claimed as one of the outstanding scholarly periodicals in the behavioral sciences.



Wilbur J. Cohen -  2  - June 23, 1975

There are a number of specific program components that would appear 
to be particularly germane to cooperative arrangements between Merrill-Palmer 
and the Detroit Public Schools. Permit me to cite just one for illustrative pur­
poses only. *

A cooperative school system-Merrill-Palmer program for example, might 
focus upon the training of teachers of young (preschool) children to work with par­
ents. While little research data dealing with parent-teacher relationships at the 
preschool level are available, research findings from studies of parent-teacher 
relationships in elementary and secondary school settings indicate that some teach­
ers tend not to be sensitive to parental concerns and expectations, and function quite 
independently of parents. At the preschool level'in particular it is important that 
the adult care-giver or teacher not deal with (he young child with minimal considera­
tion for the influential parent-child relationship. Recent developments suggest that 
in the near future there will be a significant amount of activity in the retraining of 
elementary school teachers for preschool or child-care positions due to this coun­
try's urgent child care needs and economic and political realities which will make 
the public schools D m  major delivery system for early childhood education. It is 
important that the attitudes of some public school teachers toward parents not be 
carried over into the young child setting where the relationship with parents appar­
ently lias an effect on the child's development. Some states (i.e., Michigan) recog­
nize that preschool teachers should function with concern for parents, and are begin­
ning to tentatively translate such areas into credentialing structures. Yet there is a 
dearth of information on the training of teachers to work with parents of young child­
ren, and a program development activity in this area could work with a cluster of 
Detroit school teachers who wish to work with young children. Objectives of this 
activity could be to (1) identify altitudinal factors related to parents and teachers, 
and (2) develop a training program that provides teachers with competencies to work 
effectively with parents.

This illustration reflects the type of activity wliich we feel would be useful 
to the Detroit schools in both the early childhood and parenting areas. The joint 
expertise of the Detroit school staff and Merrill-Palmer's child development 
specialises could generate a demonstration program that could serve as a proto­
type for school systems tnroughout the nation.

I trust llmt this letter adequately reflects in both general and specific terms 
our desire to provide wliatevcr assistance we can. -



Wilbur J. Cohen - 3 - June 23, 1975

May I extend to you, Dr. Finger, and Mr. Keppel our best wishes 
for success in your difficult and most important assignment.

With best personal wishes.

MDU:af

Michael D. Usdan 
President



\

APPENDIX F

/

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

cii r o n k. W h a rt on, jr. ■ i*risidi:nt June 23, 1975 KASa*l.-ANfl£G -,4 U p iIG A N  ■ -18821 

/ c " r '

JUN 2? id 70

1»

R0BERI&MASC.O
Dear Dean Cohen: U n ite d  S t A % j l ) l s t r i c t  JucgO« *„ i
Dr. Gloria Smith and Dean Keith Goldhammcr have reported to me about 
the meeting which you called on Wednesday, June 18, relative to the 
potential assistance of institutions of higher education in the pending 
desegregation order affecting the Detroit Public Schools. I want to 
affirm Dean Goldhammer's pledge that Michigan State University will 
continue to cooperate in efforts by the Detroit Public Schools to 
improve the quality of their educational program. Through our College 
of Education, in particular, we have engaged in a number of activities 
in cooperation with the Detroit Public Schools and the Detroit Education 
Task Force. Other plans are being discussed by administrators of the 
Detroit Public Schools and the College of Education. These plans can 
be extended and other units of the University can be involved, limited 
only by the availability of our resources and capabilities.

Dean Goldhammer will correspond with you within a few days relative to 
the specifics of the Detroit educational plan. He will also initiate 
discussions with deans of other colleges to alert them to the elements 
of the plan which may require their cooperation, along with that of the 
College of Education. We will await further information from you 
relative to expectations for our participation.

Sincerely,

President

Dr. Wilbur Cohen 
Dean, Schoql of Education 
University of Michigan 
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104

cc Dean Goldhammer 
Dr. Cantlon 
Dr. Gloria Smith 
Mr. Carr



f A

A P P E N D I X  G

M E T R O P O L I T A N A F L - C I O
T h o m a s  T u r n i h  Jo h n  K. G o u r l a y  

P R E S I D E N T  S t C H t T A f t Y - T R E A S U H L R

R i c h a r d  W .  C o r o t z  R a l p h  L i b e r a t o

V I C E  P R E S I D E N T  V I C E  P R E S I D E N T

‘2 3  10 C A S S  A V E N U E  
D E T R O I T .  M I C H I G A N  4 6 2 0 1

P H O N E :  9 6 3 - 4 2 3 3

August 14, 1975

Honorable Robert E. DeMascio 
United States District Judge 
257 Federal Building 
Detroit, MI 48226

Dear Judge DeMascio:

RECEIVED
AUG 1 4 1975

RO BERT E. DeMASCIO 
' U nited S ta te s  D istrict Ju d g e

* f
We wish to inform you that the Metropolitan Detroit AFL-CIO Council, as 'well as 
the National AFL-CIO have adopted a resolution in support of the quality and careei  
education components that you might include in your desegregation order. The 
willingness of the labor movement to support the quality education aspects of your 
order is precipitated not only by our interest in children of union members but for 
all children in the school system, black and white.

We anxiously look forward to the opportunity of participating in a program designed 
to better prepare the school children of Detroit for job opportunities at decent wag 
which in turn gives us the assurance that they will become better union members 
because of their increased knowledge and skills and better citizens generally.

Enclosed you will find a resolution adopted by the forty-two international unions 
affiliated with the Metropolitan Detroit AFL-CIO Council. We view this case as 
providing a significant opportunity for the court through its process of creative  
chinking to produce a result that will be non-devisive, prevent polarization of our 
community and at the same time insure the common objective of all well-meaning 
citizens that children, regardless of race, receive the kind of equal educational 
opportunity that is theirs by birthright and the constitution of the United States.

We are pleased to be able to join with you in that effort.

TT/mlh
ope in //42afl-cio

llli () I I I( I A l  V O  II o i  i n i  a m  i ii, ir « v V A l i i • A. I- i ( r i l l ,  h i

ksus
Ci



V

The following table demonstrates that various schools 

were included in Plaintiffs' plan despite the fact that 

only insignificant changes occurred in their racial

composition:

Plan
‘age SCHOOL 1974 PROPOS
1 McCulloch 99.7 89.8

14 11 ene 99.5 89.2

14 King 99.2 88.9

29 Duffield 99.2 88.4

8 Columbian 99.6 88.2

8 Columbian Primary 100.0 87.3

27 Bell 99.7 87.3

25 Marxhausen Primary 98.8 86.8

12 Ruthruff 99.2 86.5

5 Angel Primary 98.8 • 86.4

1 Joffe Primary 100.0 86.3

2 Sampson 99.7 86.1

2 7 Berry 99.8 85.8

13 Guest Primary 97.5 85.7

11 Noble 98.8 85.5

12 Herman 85.8 85.4

25 Campbell 100.0 85.3

30 Bunche 100.0 85.0

11 Sherrill 99.9 84.7

9 Parker 97.6 84.6

11 Courtis 99.6 84.6

24 Marsha11 84.6 84.4

11 Barton 100.0 84.2

32 ‘ Tend l or 95.3 83.6

30 I ,  i n<|emai m 7 2.3 8 3.4