Singleton v Jackson Municipal School District Appeal

    IN THE

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

N o . 2 9 2 2 6

DEREK JEROME SINGLETON, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

JACKSON MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICT,
ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 
Southern District of Mississippi

(August 12, 1970)

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, MORGAN and 
INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Here we review the District Court’s 
order imposing a plan for a unitary school system 
for the elementary grades in the Jackson Municipal 
Separate School System. This plan was adopted pur­
suant to our mandate in Singleton IV, Singleton v.



2 SINGLETON, ET AL. v. JACKSON SCH. DIST.

Jackson Municipal Separate School Dist., 5 Cir., 1970, 
____ F .2d_____  [No. 29226, May 5, 1970].’

That mandate required the District Court to recon­
sider the plan (adopted in January 1970) for the system 
at the elementary level. The District Court appointed 
a Bi-Racial Committee also pursuant to that mandate. 
And that Committee2 and HEW proposed new plans. 
The School Board offered no new plan, but did support 
the Bi-Racial Committee’s proposal. Plaintiffs did not 
propose a new plan, but did suggest substantial modi­
fications to the January 1970 plan put forward 
by HEW.3

Under the stringent time limitations imposed by
Alexander v. Holmes County School System, 1969,-------
U.S. ____ , _____ S.C't. _____, 24 L.Ed. 2d 19; Singleton
III, Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School

>!With the intervening order for the secondary level of July , 
1970, Singleton v. Jackson Municipal School District, 5 Cir.,
1970, _____  F.2d _____  [No. 29226, July , 1970, as Single-
ton V, the current one becomes Singleton VI]. 

eThe Bi-Racial Committee is composed of 12 persons, 6 white, 
who were suggested by the School Board, and 6 Negro, who 
were suggested by Plaintiffs. Its proposal was a result of 
extensive effort by people with little expertise in this field, 
practically no assistance for staff, and no funds. Its work 
did, however, represent a very commendable effort and a con­
tribution to this community problem.

This experience suggests that for the problems posed by 
our reversal and remand the District Court should enlist the 
cooperaton of both HEW and the School Board in supplying 
one or more liaison representatives to the Committee. With 
this professional staff-like assistance this will enable it to 
be directly involved in the essential exploratory activities 
leading to recommendations to the District Court. 

sHereafter all references to the “HEW Plan” will be to the June 
HEW unless otherwise specifically stated.



SINGLETON, ET AL. v. JACKSON SCH. DIST. 3

System, 5 Cir., 1970, 419 F.2d 1211, and Singleton IV, 
the District Court held an evidentiary hearing4 on June 
8, 1970, and on June 15, 1970 it ordered the plan pro­
posed by the Bi-Racial Committee5 to be imple-

•aOn the hearing the District Court did not allow the Plaintiffs 
to make any testimonial inquiry into the considerations taken 
into account in the preparation of the Bi-Racial Committee’s 
plan. It is not necessary for us to categorize this as “error” 
especially since under our mandated time schedules the hear­
ings themselves often must be compressed. But in the full 
factual development of justifications required on remand, we 
think the proposals and any modifications should be explored 
as fully as needed to determine strengths and weaknesses, 
etc.

sThe results under this plan are:
Under District Court 

Approved Plan
Schools Negro White Percentage

1. Baker 4 323 99%
2. Boyd 171 340 67%
3. Bradley 341 92*** 79%
4. Brown 658 0 100%
5. Casey 30 451 94%
6. Clausell 57 166 75%
7. Davis 303 52 85%
8. Dawson 420 109*** 79%
9. Duling 122 118 51%

10. French 142 318 69%
11. Galloway 385 162 70%
12. George 83 91 52%
13. Green 123 484 80%
14. Isable 1-4** 517 0 100%
15. Johnson 862 50 94%
16. Jones 1,234 10 99%
17. Key 50** 480 90%
18. Lake 50 615 92%
19. Lee 51** 371 88%
20. Lester 138** 228 62%
21. McLeod 51 665 93%
22. Me Willie 38 495 93%
23. Marshall 55** 573 91%
23a. Martin 206 17 92%
24. Morrison 472 78 86%



4 SINGLETON, ET AL. v. JACKSON SCH. DIST.

merited.6

We find the results to be unacceptable. Under this 
plan approximately 70% of the Negro elementary stu­
dents will be in all (or substantially all) Negro elemen­
tary schools. In fact the 70% figure is an understate­
ment for Bradley and Dawson are not included in the 
schools that are substantially all Negro. The integra­
tion in those schools is confined to only two grades. 
See note 5, supra, items 3 and 8. We have to be par­

25. Poindexer 134 167 55%
26. Power 39 366 90%
27. Raines 81 494 86%
28. Reynolds 982 0 100%
28a. Robertson 320 0 100%
29. Smith 1,022 0 100%
30. Spann 47 497 91%
31. Sykes 51* ** *** 452 90%
32. Walton 845 80 91%
33. Watkins 129 270 68%
34. Whitfield 159 230 59%
35. Wilkins 116 373 76%

TOTAL 10,488 9,217
*The percentage figures here and elsewhere reflect the
portion that the] children of the majority race bear t
total student enrollment. Percentages are listed here strictly 
as informational aids. We expressly disclaim any intimation 
that racial balance is the standard by which we determine 
the acceptability of various desegregation plans.

**This plan provides for the reassignment of blacks attending 
Isable 5 and 6, “more or less” equally among the formerly 
white Lester, Key, Marshall, Sykes and Lee Schools. There­
fore the desegregation reflected in those formerly white schools 
is limited to grades 5 and 6 only.

***Whites assigned to these schools were assigned to Watkins 
under previous court order; and since Watkins serves grades 
5-6 only, these grades are integrated in grades 5-6 only.

6The District did modify the Bi-Racial Committee’s plan slightly 
by pairing Clausell and Wilkins Schools and closing Barr 
School and assigned those students to Poindexter.



SINGLETON, ET AL. v. JACKSON SCH. DIST. 5

ticularly sensitive to this because the zones for some 
substantially segregated secondary schools cover the 
same areas as are covered by the all Negro elementary 
school zones. And some students will likely have an 
education in predominately Negro schools throughout 
their school life. This is especially true for those stu­
dents attending Blackburn Junior High and Lanier 
High School. See charts in Singleton V. Singleton IV; 
Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile
County, 5 Cir., 1970, ____  F.2d ____  [No. 29332, June
8, 1970]; Mannings vs. Hillsborough County, 5 Cir., 1970,
-------  F.2d -------  [No. 28643, May 11, 1970]; Bradley v.
Pinellas County, 5 Cir., 1970,____ F .2d_____  [No. 28639,
July , 1970],

The HEW plan7 was a substantial improvement over

7The results under the HEW Plan are:*
Under HEW Plan

1.
Schools
Baker

Grades
1-6

Negro
153

White
307

Percentage
67%

2. Boyd 5-6 360 269 57%
3. Bradley 1-6 174 203 54%
4. Brown 3-6 530 244 68%
5. Casey 1-4 10 362 97%
6. Clausell 5-6 57 166 75%
7. Davis 1-6 303 52 85%
8. Dawson 1-6 420 174 75%
9. Duling 5-6 244 171 59%

10. French 1-2 404 154 72%
11. Galloway 1-6 385 162 70%
12. George 1-6 83 103 57%
13. Green 1-4 95 518 84%
14. Isable 5-6 607 467 57%
15. Johnson 3-6 790 310 72%
16. Jones 4-6 676 434 61%
17. Key 1-4 0 368 100%
18. Lake 1-3 329 307 52%
19. Lee 1-6 128 296 70%



6 SINGLETON, ET AL. v. JACKSON SCH. DIST.

the plan approved by the District Court. It reduced 
the number of all Negro schools from 9 to 4 and the 
number of Negroes in which they constituted 95% or 
more of the student body to 2,731. Plaintiffs’ modifica­
tions8 of the HEW plan were an even greater improve-

20. Lester 1-4 68 156 70%
21. McLeod 1-6 51 665 93%
22. Me Willie 1-4 42 517 92%
23. Marshall 1-4 0 432 100%
24. Morrison 1-4 549 0 100%
25. Poindexter 1-6 118 82 59%
26. Power 1-2 267 122 68%
27. Raines 1-6 261 360 58%
28. Reynolds 1-4 1,056 0 100%
29. Smith 1-4 488 0 100%
30. Spann 1-6 47 497 91%
31. Sykes 1-6 179 400 69%
32. Walton 1-4 638 0 100%
33. Watkins 5-6 317 259 55%
34. Whitfield 1-3 369 127 74%
35. Wilkins 1-4 116 373 76%

10,314 9,028
Special Ed. 218 153

TOTAL 10,532 9,181

*Under this plan Barr, Robertson, and Martin would be closed.
**For use of percentages see note 5* supra.

8 HEW Plan With Modifications
as Proposed by Plaintiffs*

NAME OF SCHOOL NEGRO WHITE % **
I - All-Negro 

as of
May 8, 1970

1. Brown 530 244 68%
2. Isable 607 467 57%
3. Morrison 349 200 64%
4. Reynolds 576 300 66%
5. Robertson CLOSED
6. Smith 388 100 80%
7. Walton 438 200 69%



SINGLETON, ET AL. v. JACKSON SCH. DIST. 7

H -■ All-white

1 .

as of
May 8, 1970
Casey 110 262 70%

2. Key 200 218 52%
3. Lake 329 307 52%
4. Lee 128 296 70%
5. Marshall 200 282 59%
6. Sykes 179 400 69%
Ill

1 .

- Overwhelmingly 
white or Negro 
as of May 8,
1970

Baker 153 307 67%
2. Bradley 174 203 54%
3. Clausell 57 166 75%
4. Dawson 420 174 75%
5. Johnson 790 310 72%
6. Jones 676 434 61%
7.
8.

Martin
McLeod 51

CLOSED
665 93%

9. Power 267 122 68%
10. Spann 47 497 91%
LI. Wilkins 116 373 76%
rv

1 .

2.

- Integrated 
as of
May 8, 1970 

Barr 
Boyd 360

CLOSED
269 57%

3. Davis 303 52 85%
4. Duling 244 171 59%
5. French 404 154 72%
6. Galloway 385 162 70%
7. George 83 103 57%
8. Green 295 318 52%
9. Lester 148 156 51%
10. Poindexter 118 82 59%
11. Raines 261 360 58%
12. Watkins 317 259 55%
13. Whitfield 369 127 74%
14. McWillie 242 317 58%

*Only the underscored schools are affected by Plaintiffs’ modi­
fications. And all grade structures and zone boundaries are 
identical to those of the HEW pl^n.

**For use of percentages see note 5* ** supra.



8 SINGLETON, ET AL. v. JACKSON SCH. DIST.

ment. There were to be no all Negro schools under 
that plan.

Both of these plans are based on a type of zoning 
that divides the District into large Areas, 10 in both 
plans, and then establishes a separate grade structure 
in the Area. For example, under the HEW plan, Area 
II, which is about 4 miles across, contains four schools 
in which grades 1-4 are presented and one large school 
in which grades 5-6 are presented. (See note 5, lines 
14, 17, 18, 20, 23, supra). There was much discussion 
in the briefs that under this type of “clustering” it 
will be necessary for the School District to provide 
intra-city transportation for the plans to be effective. 
But we do not reach this since the changes we mandate 
persuade us that there is a variety of ways to improve 
the result.

We repeat that the result below is not acceptable. 
When making this determination in many recent cases, 
we have often specified the full form that the desegre­
gation plan is to take. However we do not believe this 
is the wise course here since the record is inadequate. 
Consequently, a remand will be required. But mean­
time something must be done now. We cannot accept 
the proposition that over 70% of the Negro elementary 
students are to remain in substantially all Negro 
schools during the time the case undergoes more com­
plete exploration. Consequently, pending the remand 
hearing and order of the District Court, discussed next, 
the School District is to operate under the plan ap­
proved below by the order of June 15, 1970, but with 
the following modifications:



(i) Brown is to be paired with Power.
(ii) Boyd is to be paired with Walton.
(iii) George is to be paired with Martin.
(iv) Robertson is to be paired with Poindexter.

(v) Lester is to be paired with Isable.
(vi) Watkins, Morrison, and Smith are to be 

grouped.9
(vii) The School District shall have the option 

of pairing:
(a) Jones with Lake or
(b) Johnson with Lake.

By these pairings and clusterings the percentage of 
Negroes in substantially all Negro schools will be re­
duced from over 70% to about 20%.’° We must reem-

SINGLETON, ET AL. v. JACKSON SCH. DIST. 9

9 School N W
(i) (Power 39 366

(Brown 658 0
(ii) (Boyd 191 340

(Walton 845 80
(iii) (George 83 91

(Martin 206 17
(iv) (Robertson 320 0

(Poindexter 134 167
(v) (Lester 138 228

(Isable 517 0
(iv) (Watkins 129 270

(Morrison 472 78
(Smith 1022 0

vii(a) (Jones 1234 10
(Lake 50 615

vii(b) (Johnson 862 50
(Lake 50 615

'oThe final number in the paired schools will vary depending
the option under (vii) (a) or (b), supra:

Jones-Lake Johnson-Lake
N W N W

(i) - (vi) 4754 1637 4754 1637
vii (a) 1284 625 vii(b) 912 665

TOTAL 6038 2262 5666 2302



10 SINGLETON, ET AL. v. JACKSON SCH. DIST.

phasize that these mandated modifications are an in­
terim requirement and are not “frozen”. The District 
Court is to begin a hearing not later than September 
25, 1970. The hearing and order will canvass the whole 
elementary system with whatever changes are needed 
such as appropriate or required pairing, grouping, clus­
tering, grade restructuring, and all other factors called 
for by our decisions and those of the Supreme Court. 
It will, of course, prescribe the time the changes are 
to become effective which must be at a time not later 
than January 1971 representing a midyear date re­
gardless of formal terms or semesters. Likewise, all 
of the provisions of Part III, Singleton will apply as 
to appeals, record, briefs, etc.

Of course, the changes that will come as a result 
of the modifications we now specify and from the No­
vember order now called for will cause midyear dis­
ruptions, pupil reassignments and the like. But on bal­
ance, this is less costly than a continued loss of rights 
of a large number of students.

MODIFIED AND REMANDED.

1

Adm. Office, U.S. Courts—Scofields’ Quality Printers, Inc., N. O., La.



.