DOE Report: Recommendations Regarding Arrangements for Operating Public Schools During Interim Desegregation Period

    RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE FINANCIAL, ADMINISTRATIVE, AND 
GOVERNMENTAL, AND CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR OPERATING 
THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN THE DESEGREGATION AREA DURING 

THE PERIOD OF INTERIM DESEGREGATION

A Report to the Honorable Stephen J. Roth,

U. S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, 

Southern Division, in Response to Court 

Order Dated June 14, 1972
I ■ .

i ' ' •

by
John W. Porter

Superintendent of Public Instruction 
Lansing, Michigan 
July 28, 1972



TO:

higan Department of Education 
Lansing, Michigan

The Honorable Stephen J. Roth DATE: July 23, 1972
United States District Court, Eastern

District of Michigan, Southern Division

cc: State Board of Education
Governor William Milliken 
Attorney General Frank Kelley 
Detroit Board of Education 
Detroit Federation of Teachers, Local 231 
American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO 
Defendant-Intervenor

Denise Magdowski, et al., Defendants-Intervenor

FROM: John W. Porter, State Superintendent
of Public Instruction

SUBJECT: Examination and Recommendations for Appropriate Interim
Arrangements for the (1) Financial, (2) Administrative and 
School Governance, and (3) Contractual Arrangements for the 
Operation of the Schools Within the Desegregation Area

In Part III of your order of June 14, 1972, in the case of Bradley, 

et al, V. Milliken, et al., you directed that:
The State Superintendent of Public Instruction, with the 

assistance of the other state defendants, shall examine and 
make recommendations, consistent with the principles established 
above /i.e., in Part II of the order/, for appropriate interim 
and final arrangements for the (1) financial, (2) administrative 
and school governance, and (3) contractual arrangements for the 
operation of the schools within the desegregation area, including 
steps for unifying, or otherwise making uniform the personnel 
policies, procedures, contracts, and property arrangements of 
the various school districts.

The Court further ordered that within 15 days of the entry of the order, i.e., 

by June 29, 1972, "the Superintendent shall advise the Court and the parties 

of his progress in preparing such recommendations by filing a written report 

with the Court and serving it on the parties."
On June 29, the State Superintendent forwarded to the Court that 

progress report, which was prepared with the realization that the Superintendent 

of Public Instruction took an oath to uphold the United States Constitution and



ii

. f. and statutes of the State of Michigan. That progress report The Constitution and statutes ox
. ., ..h- rourt order as previously stipulated,was prepared in compliance with the Court or P

xhe attached report, dated July 28. 1,72. represents the State Superin­

tendent's examination and recordations for interim arrangements within 

the time constraints and tentative plans of the 11-memher Court-appointed 

panel to recommend limited desegregation in certain of the 16 clusters at

only the elementary level.
, u  ii,o it <? Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals However, the order issued by the U.S. Sixth c

a mniv after the present report was 
on July 20, 1972 —  only nine days ago an y
in its final drafting stages-would appear to have serious implications for

the recommendations advanced in this present report. Even if the June 14.
f , Dlstrict Court is sustained, the time involved in1972 order of the U.S. Disur

„1d appear to preclude implementation of interim the appeals process would appear co v ^
, ihocp nresent recommendations for• T7r.il 1972 Therefore, these present, lcarrangements m  Fall, Vi it. ’

interim arrangements should not necessarily be construed as applying 

^ v e l y  to the interim period as defined in the June 14. 1,72 order of 

the „ s. District Court, i.e., the 1,72-73 school year. They should be 

considered as applicable to whatever «  Period the courts, in their 

wisdom, might deem appropriate as a result of the appeals process.



Examination and Recommendations for 

Appropriate Interim Arrangements

for the

(1) Financial
(2) Administrative and School Governance,

and
(3) Contractual Arrangements for the 

Personnel and Operation of the Schools 
Within the Desegregation Area



•  •

Table of Contents

I. Introduction .....................................  1

II. Background.......................................  3
III. Observations and Basis for Financial, Governance,

and Personnel Arrangements .....................  8

(a) Financial Arrangements ..................  8

(b) Administrative and School Governance
Arrangements ............................  10

(c) Contractual Arrangements and Personnel . . 15

IV. Conclusions........................................20

V. Recommendations....................................23

VI. Schedule cf Events..................................26

Appendix A - Panel Recommendation for Revised Cluster 
Planning

Appendix B - Memorandum of Agreement

Appendix C - Possible Court-Ordered Master Contract 
Provisions



PART I

INTRODUCTION

Premise Upon Which the Report was Prepared

Consistent with the Court-appointed Panel's recommendation that only 

limited desegregation can occur in 1972-73, these interim recommendations 

are applicable only to those clusters in the desegregation area recommended 

by the Panel. In addition, these recommendations pertain only to the 

interim period and are distinct from recommended final arrangements. 

Recommendations for final arrangements are contained in a separate document.

It should be noted that few of the 64 questions raised in the 

Superintendent's progress report of June 29, 1972, are responded to by 

these interim re commend at ions*. However, all of the questions in the 

Superintendent's progress report are responded to in the recommended final 

arrangements.

It should further be noted that areas such as affirmative action, 

equalizing school quality, etc., are given little attention in this document 

but are responded to in the recommended final arrangements to commence 

during the interim period in preparation for the period of full implemen­

tation.

Finally, as was noted in the covering memorandum, the July 20, 1972 

order of the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals may lead to a definition 

of the interim period as other than the 1972-73 school year. Consequently, 

in reviewing the discussions and recommendations in this present report—  

which was in its final drafting stages at the time of the U.S. Sixth 

Circuit Court of Appeals action— it should be noted that the time lines 

articulated in developing these recommendations are now subject to

modification.



Organization of the Report

This interim report is divided into six parts. Tart I constitutes 

the Introduction. Part II focuses on Background information necessary to 

understand the implications of the second part of Federal Judge 

Stephen J. Roth's order of June 14, 1972 which stipulates 12 arrangements 

necessary to comply with the order.

Part III presents the Superintendent's observations and examination 

of possible (1) finance, (2) governance, and (3) personnel arrangements 

for interim desegregation in several clusters at the elementary level.

Part IV outlines the conclusions reached as a result of the observa­

tions and examinations conducted in the previous part.

Part V reaches some seven recommendations necessary to implement the 

interim arrangements. Part VI sets forth a proposed schedule of events 

for implementing the interim recommendations. Finally, three appendices 

provide additional information necessary to understand the recommendations 

for interim arrangements.

Some will say this document is a conservative approach to the order 

of June 14, 1972. It may be just that, but it- is an approach which is 

reasonable and retains during the interim the existing legal and edu­

cational structures of the state with no need for legislative modifications 

of existing statutes.
It is therefore my considered judgment that the recommendations for 

interim arrangements contained in this document, constitute an appropriate 

response to the order of June 14, and one which is in line with the 

recommendations for interim arrangements of the Court-appointed Panel.



3

PART II 

BACKGROUND

On June 14, 1972, Federal Judge Stephen J. Roth issued orders for 

the preparation of plans for the desegregation of the Detroit Public 

Schools.

Part I of that order appointed a panel charged to develop interim 

(1972-73) and final (1973-74) arrangements for: (1) pupil assignment, and

(2) pupil transportation, among the 53 affected districts.

Part III of the Court order charged Michigan's Superintendent of 

Public Instruction to recommend to the Court: (1) financial, (2) governance

and administration, and (3) contractual— including personnel arrangements 

appropriate for the implementation of interim and final desegregation.

Part II of the Court order discussed twelve stipulations which must 

characterize arrangements for the desegregation of Metropolitan Detroit.

In summary those stipulations are:

A. "Pupil reassignment to accomplish desegregation of the 

Detroit public schools . . ." of necessity, shall involve 

53 local school districts to be known henceforth as 

" . . .  the desegregation area." (See page 20 and Appendix 

B, item A)
B. " . . .  pupil reassignment shall be effected within the 

clusters . . .  so as to achieve the greatest degree of 

actual desegregation to the end that, upon implementation, 

no school, grade or classroom be substantially dispro­

portionate to the overall pupil racial composition."

(See Appendix B, item A)



4

C. "Appropriate and safe transportation arrangements shall be 

made available without cost to all pupils assigned to 

schools deemed by the panel to be other than 'walk-in 

schools." (See page 10 and Appendix B, item B)

D. " . . .  every effort . . . "  shall ". . .be made to minimize 

the numbers of pupils to be reassigned and requiring 

transportation, the time pupils spend in transit, and the 

number and cost of new transportation facilities . . . and 

maximization of use of existing transportation facilities

. . . ." (See page 10 and Appendix B, item B)

E. "Transportation and pupil assignment shall . . .  be a 

two-way process with both black and white pupils sharing 

the responsibility for transportation requirements at all 

grade levels . . . care shall be taken to randomize the 

location of particular grade levels." (See page 10 and 

Appendix B, item B)
F. "Faculty and staff shall be reassigned . . .  so as to 

prevent the creation or continuation of the identification 

of schools by reference to past racial composition, or the 

continuation of substantially disproportionate racial 

composition of the faculty and staffs, of the schools in 

the desegregation area. . . .  it is appropriate to require 

assignment of no less than 10% black faculty and staff at 

each school, and where there is more than one building 

administrator, every effort should be made to assign a 

bi-racial administrative team." (See pages 15ff, 21, 23 

and Appendices A and B)



5

G. "In the hiring, assignment, promotion, demotion, and

dismissal of faculty and staff, racially non-discriminatory 

criteria . . . "  shall "be developed and used . . . Affirm­

ative action shall be taken to increase minority employment 

in all levels of teaching and administration." (See pages 

14, 15, 17, and 18)

H. "The restructuring of school facility utilization necessi­

tated by pupil reassignments . . . "  shall " . . .  produce 

schools of substantially like quality . . .' (See pages

14, 22, 24)
I. "The State Board of Education and the State Superintendent 

of Education shall, with respect to all school construction 

and expansion, consider the factor of racial balance . . . 

in making decisions about new school sites, expansion of 

present facilities . . .  and shall, within the desegregation 

area, disapprove all proposals for new construction or 

expansion of existing facilities when housing patterns in

an area would result in a school largely segregated on 

racial . . . lines, all in accordance with the 1966 

directive issued by the State Board of Education to local

J.

school boards and the State Board's School Plant Planning 

Handbook." (See pages 14, 24)
"Pending further orders of the Court, existing school 

district and regional boundaries and school governance 

arrangements . . . "  shall "be maintained and continued, 

except to the extent necessary to effect pupil and faculty

(See pages lOff, 20, 21, and 23)desegregation . . I I



6

K. "At each school within the desegregated area provision shall 

be made to ensure that the curriculum activities, and 

conduct standards respect the diversity of students from 

differing ethnic backgrounds and the dignity and safety of 

each individual, students, faculty, staff and parents."

(See page 18)
L. "The defendants shall . . . take immediate action including 

. . . the establishment or expansion of in-service training 

of faculty and staff, create bi-racial committees, employ 

black counselors, and require bi-racial and non-discriminatory 

extra-curricular activities." (See pages 14, 15, 18, and 19)

Considering these stipulations and the Superintendent of Public 

Instruction's interpretation of their meaning, the following assumptions 

must be borne in mind to fully understand this document.
The Superintendent assumes the Court will prefer an interim plan which 

will provide the best opportunity for success, even though the arrangements 

will not fulfill certain of the stipulations identified in Part II of the 

June 14, 1972 order. To have proceeded otherwise would have necessitated 

major modifications in the existing system of governance of Michigan's 

public elementary and secondary schools.
A further assumption that permeates this document is that the Court's 

objective of producing "schools of substantially like quality, . . ." can

be met only in a very limited way during the interim period, i.e., by 
assuring that each school selected for interim desegregation provides 180 

days and 900 hours of instruction, curriculum offerings integrated in such 

a way as to respect the diversity of students, and generally comparable



7

class sizes. Equalization of other factors that generally are used to 

demonstrate "substantially like quality, . . e.g., expenditures per

pupil is considered largely unattainable during the interim period.

A final assumption that becomes necessary as a result of the July 20, 

1972 order of the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is that the interim 

period as defined in the June 14, 1972 order of the U.S. District Court is 

now subject to possible modification as a result of the appeals process. 

Therefore, it is assumed that the recommendations for interim arrangements 

are not addressed exclusively to the 1972-73 school year, but also may 

extend to later periods of time depending upon the outcome of the appeals

process.



8

PART III

OBSERVATIONS AND BASIS FOR FINANCIAL, GOVERNANCE, 
AND PERSONNEL ARRANGEMENTS

Part III has three subsections: (a) financial arrangements, (b)

administrative and governance arrangements, and (c) contractual and 

personnel arrangements.

During 1971-72, the 53 districts identified in Part II, A of the 

Court order levied local property taxes totaling $430,395,000 and received 

$236,000,000 in general state revenues not earmarked for specific programs. 

These monies, in conjunction with federal funds and state earmarked funds, 

financed an educational program for approximately 780,000 pupils (See 

Appendix A ) including the employment of some 33,200 instructional personnel.

• On a statewide basis, approximately 71 percent of all general fund 

expenditures are for salaries in the instructional programs. Thus, the 

exchange of teachers, in conjunction with the use of state and federal 

categorical funds, could result in a significant step in the direction of 

producing schools "of substantially like quality."
If certain cooperative agreements can be effectuated through the 

cluster organization identified in Part II, B of the Court order, interim 

desegregation will not require the disruption of the existing means of 
joint state-local financing of education in the affected school districts. 

If such arrangements are judged ineffective during the interim or 

inappropriate for final arrangements, a different configuration of school

organization may be necessary for final arrangements.

During the 1971-72 academic year, certain Michigan school districts 

now contained in the desegregation area experienced financial difficulties.

(a) Financial Arrangements



A few of these districts find themselves characterized by considerable budget 

deficits. Certain of these districts--Detroit among them--have engaged in 

policy discussions with the intent of cutting back 1971-72 program levels 

for purposes of reducing, or eliminating, budget deficits.

It is assumed that the Court's objective of producing schools of 

substantially like quality can be met to some extent by the desegregation 

of schools within, the cluster. During the 1971-72 school year, all districts 

in the desegregation area provided at least 180 days and 900 hours of instruc­

tion. Therefore, limited equalization can occur in terms of the number of days 

of student instruction and the number of hours of student instruction. Some 

equalization also will occur because of the exchange of faculty and staff, and 

the implementation of the standard of a minimum of 10 percent black faculty and 

staff in each affected elementary building during the interim period.

To effectuate the foregoing in each district selected for interim 

desegregation, the Court may have to take steps to provide for a continuation 

of the prior year's operating levels. Three alternatives appear possible:

(1) legislative action by direct appropriation, or a state loan; (2) transfer 

of funds (where possible) from the building and site fund to the general fund;

(3) Court action to provide for a continuation of 1971-72 operating levels 

even though the electorate in some districts has not continued 1971-72 millage 

levels. The state constitutional limitation in this regard will require prior 

judicial ruling. In those districts where voters have approved an increase in 

the 1971-72 property tax level, school districts should be authorized to levy 

and collect the additional tax. Any district requiring either (1) operating funds 

beyond the amount generated by the 1971-72 property tax levy, or (2) a higher tax 

levy than has been approved by the voters, in order to maintain 1971-72 program



10

levels, should be required to make application to the Municipal Finance 

Commission, Michigan Department of Treasury, for a determination of need 

to levy additional millage. After review by the Municipal Finance Commission 

and a recommendation to the Court, the Court would have to consider ordering 

the levy of the additional millage, unless the two other alternatives 

identified above prove successful. These observations are made because, 

in light of the Court's order, they describe the only reasonable method, at 

the present time, of providing a financial plan for interim desegregation 

arrangements without changing the program operations and financing of other 

school districts within the desegregation area or the over 550 existing 

Michigan school districts.

(b) Administrative and School Governance Arrangements

Local boards of education, from time to time, have entered into 

agreements to receive non-resident students and to exchange teachers without 

altering the district's jurisdiction over students and staff. Such past 

experiences allow the conclusion that local boards of education can retain 

all educational decision-making authority except as that authority is 

expressly aborgated by order of the Court in effecting an interim desegre­

gation plan.
During 1971-72, the 53 school districts comprising the desegregation 

area utilized approximately 666 school buses to provide school transpor­

tation for 104,703 of the 780,000 students in the desegregation area. That 

school transportation was provided without cost to the pupils. If 

cooperative arrangements among and between the affected school districts 

can continue the basic 1971-72 transportation configuration, consistent 

with Part II, C of the Court order, no major involuntary modification of

the existing transportation arrangements will be necessary.



11

e details necessary 

st feasible level

'he inter-dependence

It is the intent of these administrative and school governance arrange­

ments that interim desegregation be characterized by the greatest possible 

degree of voluntary participation in the Court order and the retention of 

existing administration and governance arrangements.

However, because of the governance and administrativi 

to effectuate desegregation, and in order to attain the mo; 

of program uniformity during interim desegregation, it appears that the 

schools affected in the clusters involved in interim desegregation should 

have a common calendar to ensure that interim desegregated students acquire 

180 days and 900 hours of instruction.

Administrative and school governance arrangements are obviously inter­

dependent with financial and personnel recommendations, 

compels the prior establishment of a common calendar for interim desegregated 

school districts. A common calendar ensures the following: (1) more easily

administered in-service training; (2) pupil presence in the existing school 

districts of record on the fourth Friday for purposes of counting State Aid 

membership; (3) easier administration in the assignment of specific portions 

of the pupil populations to be transported; and (4) more expeditious faculty 

and staff transfer for purposes of accomplishing interim staff desegregation.

It is not anticipated that 1971-72 desegregation area school trans­

portation arrangements will require major modification consistent with 

Part II, D and E.
It should be noted here that, for purposes of counting membership, 

transported pupils will continue to be counted as though they were in the 

sending district of record.

Interim desegregation recommendations, therefore, propose new decision­

making authority only to the extent necessary to comply with the Court's 

order for interim desegregation.



12

Any new governance and administrative arrangements prerequisite to 

interim desegregation should be contained in a memorandum of agreement.

(See Appendix B)
Despite the recommendation of voluntary and cooperative arrangements 

to effect interim desegregation, some regional perspective is needed. 

Therefore, intermediate boards of education, certain of whose constituent 

local school districts are a part of interim desegregation, should be 

asked to provide the Court, 75 days prior to the termination of the interim 

period, observations and recommendations with respect to interim desegre­

gation. The recommendations and observations should be of a nature such 

as to recommend confirmation or modification of both interim and final 

arrangements. In developing their observations and recommendations, inter­

mediate boards of education should seek the counsel of the State Board of

Education.
The Superintendent of Public Instruction anticipates the establish­

ment of advisory cluster councils consisting of 4 representatives appointed 

by the' outlying districts within the interim desegregated clusters and 3 

representatives of those attendance areas within Detroit. Cluster council 

members should be appointed by the local boards prior to the implementation

of the interim desegregation plan.
Local boards of education who comprise the affected cluster, when 

naming representatives to the cluster council, should seek, so far as is 

practical, to appoint a cluster council whose minority representation is 

at least equal to the percentage of minority pupil enrollment of the 
cluster. When sitting for purposes of naming representatives to the cluster 

council, the constituent local boards of education should, so far as is

practical, sit in joint session.



Cluster council members may be members of the local boards of education 

or such other representatives, resident within the cluster, as the local 

boards of education may deem appropriate.

Cluster councils should offer observations and recommendations with 

respect to desegregation to the appropriate local boards of education that 

comprise the cluster. Such observations and recommendations should be made 

to the local boards of education 90 days prior to the termination of the 

interim period.
Any necessary administrative staff of the cluster councils should be 

provided by the constituent local school districts.

The State Board of Education should develop and provide, for local 

boards of education, guidelines for the organization and operation of the 

cluster councils. Such guidelines should be made available to local boards 

of education at least two weeks prior to the implementation of interim 

arrangements.
The concept of memoranda of agreement compels the assumption that 

there will not be substantial "restructuring of school facilities utili­

zation" as discussed in Part II, H, except insofar as the Court may respond 

to Panel recommendations for restructuring. However, consistent with 

Part II, I, the State Superintendent will submit recommendations to the 

State Board of Education with respect to all school construction and 

expansion. Consistent with Part II, J, no alterations are anticipated with 

respect to "existing school district and regional boundaries . . . ."

The orderly effectuation of these arrangements may necessitate, from 

time to time, the joint meeting of the 3 intermediate boards of education. 

When a local board of education in the desegregation area judges a meeting 

appropriate, the local board of education should petition the State Board



14

of Education to convene a joint meeting of the intermediate boards of edu­

cation to be chaired by the Superintendent of Public Instruction or his 

designee. It is assumed that such petitions will occur only in those 

instances where local initiative is insufficient to generate an expeditious 

response from the intermediate boards of education.

Finally, these arrangements anticipate that, 75 days prior to the 

termination of the interim period, the affected local boards of education 

will provide the Court such observations and recommendations as the local 

boards may deem appropriate with respect to the interim and final arrange­

ments for desegregation.
Turning to the specific stipulations in Part II of the Court order, 

the Superintendent assumes that local school districts within the interim 

desegregation clusters should be responsible for the following:

1. Adopting " . . .  racially non-discriminatory criteria . . . 

in the hiring, assignment, promotion, demotion, and 

dismissal of faculty and staff . . . ."

2. Adopting an "affirmative action , . ." plan ", . . to 

increase minority employment . . . ."

3. Reevaluating ". , . school facility utilization . . ." in 

such a manner as will "produce schools of substantially like 

quality" over time.
4. Making "recommendations" to the Court for the ". . .

retention or modification . . ." of interim and final 

desegregation arrangements with respect to pupil and faculty 

desegregation.
5. Implementing policies and procedures to monitor "curriculum 

activities and conduct standards" that "respect the diversity



15

of students from differing ethnic backgrounds and the dignity 

and safety of each individual student, faculty, staff and 

parent." •
6. Implementing a program for "in-service training of faculty 

and staff" and taking affirmative action for purposes of the 

employment of black counselors and the creation of bi-racial 

and non-discriminatory extra-curricular activities.

The Superintendent of Public Instruction assumes that these responsi­

bilities can be carried out by means of memoranda of agreement together with 

reports by local school districts to the Court, on or before a date 75 days

prior to the termination of the interim period, as to the feasibility and 

practicability of meeting these responsibilities cooperatively.

(c) Contractual Arrangements and Personnel 

Present contractual and personnel arrangements now in force in the 

affected school districts should remain in effect, except as those contractual 

and personnel arrangements are expressly modified by order of the Court. The 

Superintendent of Public Instruction anticipates that the needed modifi­

cations would be covered by a memorandum of agreement (See Appendix B) 

between and among the affected districts in any designated cluster.

At the present time, there are over 33,000 staff and faculty employed 

by the 53 districts in the desegregation area. However, it is the Super­

intendent of Public Instruction's contention that mandatory desegregation 

of faculty and staff during the interim period should apply only to the 

faculty and staff working with the grades affected in the schools of the 

clusters chosen. Mandatory desegregation of all faculties and staffs of 

all schools in the 53 districts should not be implemented until the period



16

of full implementation. Therefore, during the interim period, the desegre­

gation of faculties and staff will affect only a limited number of 

elementary teachers, according to the Panel's recommendation for interim 

desegregation.

Under such conditions, and consistent with Part II, F, of the Court's 

order, a minimum number of black and white faculty and staff members will 

need to be reassigned to achieve, in the grades affected in each school of 

the clusters chosen, a faculty and staff balanced by qualifications for 

subject and grade level and having no less than 10 percent black members.

Since there are approximately 2,800 black elementary teachers in the 

Detroit system and approximately 10,200 white elementary teachers in the 

suburban districts, it may be possible to identify a substantial number of 

teachers who will volunteer for reassignment during the interim period. 

However, it appears that there also may be a necessity for effecting a 

certain degree of non-voluntary reassignment. In any event, it is believed 

that a one-year faculty and staff exchange at the elementary level in the 

schools affected can be implemented, through a memorandum of agreement and 

with limited modification of existing contract-provisions, without violating 

(1) existing tenure provisions, and (2) existing retirement provisions.

It should be noted that the attached memorandum of agreement 

(Appendix B) is offered only as a prototype; the actual substance of the 

agreements contained therein are the proper responsibilities of the affected 

districts, and local districts undoubtedly will, involve their own legal 

counsels in seruitinizing the final arrangements. In any event, it seems 

prudent, for the memoranda of agreement to be executed and provided to the 

Court at least 15 days prior to actual implementation of the desegregation

plan.



17

It seems necessary that, prior to executing the memorandum of agree­

ment, the local boards of education which are the legal local agents of 

the State meet with their local employee bargaining units, who have 

negotiated contracts in good faith, to effect the necessary contractual 

modifications.
In effecting these modifications, certain basic considerations (as 

identified in Appendix C) of the involved parties will have to be resolved. 

These considerations include (1) the issues of pay and other economic 

fringe benefits, (2) pension rights, (3) tenure rights, (4) grievance rights, 

(5) due process in the protection of job rights, and so forth, as stipulated 

in the several existing contracts.
It appears that the Court should order these modifications in existing 

individual and master contract arrangements for these modifications will 

need to be effected between the local boards and their respective employee 

bargaining units prior to two or more local boards entering into memoranda 

of agreement. These suggested modifications are listed in Appendix C, for 

the Court's consideration.

Consistent with Part. II., G of the Court's order, the boards of edu­

cation of each of the 53 districts in the desegregation area must develop, 

adopt and implement an affirmative action plan designed to increase 

minority employment in all levels of teaching and administration. The 

Superintendent of Public Instruction anticipates that each of the 53 

districts, during the interim period, will develop such a plan and submit 

it to a joint sitting of the three intermediate districts boards for 

review. The intermediate boards should be responsible for assuring (1) 

that there exists the necessary procedural uniformity among the several 

districts, (2) that each district's plan utilizes racially non-discriminatory



18

criteria, and (3) that each district's plan provides for a course of affirm­

ative action, including the specific criteria that will be used by the 

district to evaluate the success of its effort in this regard. Upon approval 

by the intermediate board, but no later than 30 days after submission, each 

of the 53 districts should ensure that its affirmative action plan has begun 

to be implemented. No later than 120 days after submission, each district 

should file a report with the joint intermediate boards evaluating, on the 

basis of the criteria outlined in its plan, the success of its efforts in 

increasing minority employment.

During the interim period, consistent with Part II,K, the curriculum, 

activities, and conduct standards of each affected school should remain 

under the jurisdiction of the affected school districts. Each district 

should be responsible for ensuring that all activities, and particularly 

extra-curricular activities, are bi-racial and non-discriminatory in nature. 

If a conflict arises between the implementation of curriculum, activities, 

and conduct standards vis-a-vis respect for the diversity of students from 

differing ethnic backgrounds or the dignity and safety of each individual 

involved in the educational process, the bi-racial school committee (see 

below) should recommend appropriate action to the school administration 

who should, if necessary, recommend appropriate modifications to the local 

board. The cluster council, if it deems it appropriate, may recommend to 

its parent local boards additions to the memorandum of agreement in order 
to effectuate appropriate changes.

As the Court has noted in Part II, K, the effective implementation 

of the desegregation plan will have to rely primarily on teachers to 

''respect, nurture, and deal with the diversity of students present in the 

desegregated school." The need for in-service training to ensure such



perspective is not limited to faculty and staff. Such training should 

include all employees of the affected schools —  teachers, aides, secretaries, 

bus drivers, custodians, cafeteria workers, and so on— and can best be 

effectuated through a memorandum of agreement between and among the school 

districts involved.

In keeping with Part II, L, each desegregated school during the interim 

period should create a bi-racial committee made up of parents, staff, and 

pupils where appropriate. The purpose of these committees is to provide 

ample opportunity for all persons affected to participate in the implemen­

tation of the interim arrangements. Their creation can best be accomplished 

by assigning such responsibility to each of the several schools and their 

districts by including proper assurances in a memorandum of agreement.

Since counselors among the 53 districts in the desegregation area 

are, by and large, limited to the secondary grades, it seems most appropriate 

to respond to the Court's directive to "employ black counselors" as a part 

of the recommendations for final arrangements. However, it is felt that 

there may be a need, during the interim period, for the establishment of 

bi-racial teams working with or "counseling" faculty, staff, and pupils in 

the affected schools to ensure the successful implementation of the interim 

arrangements. This describes a new "counseling function." Therefore, the 

suggested memorandum of agreement includes provision for the creation, 

assignment and training of such bi-racial teams.



# 20

PART IV 

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, based on the stipulations in the Court's order and the 

discussion and observations advanced in Part III, the following conclusions 

have been reached;

1. There will be limited desegregation within the 53 school 

districts during the interim period and such desegregation 

will affect only certain of the 16 clusters, only certain 

of the 53 districts, and only certain attendance areas of 

Detroit, as recommended by the Court-appointed Panel.

2. There will be a need for each of the present school districts 

within the afftcted clusters to obtain revenue adequate to 

maintain its 1971-72 program level as reflected in 180 days 

and 900 hours of instruction.

3. Thera will be no need to consolidate school districts.

Neither will there be a need to modify the existing nature 

of Detroit's regional areas nor the Wayne, Oakland, or 

Macomb intermediate districts. There will be a need, from 

time to time, for the three intermediate boards to sit in 

joint session. Local boards affected by interim arrangements 

will need to enter into cooperative agreements for purposes 
of implementing the desegregation plan during the interim 

period. The affected local boards will need to report to

the Court, no later than 75 days prior to the termination of 

the interim period, recommendations for modifying cooperative

arrangements.



21

4. There will be a need to create in each cluster an advisory 

council consisting of 7 members, 4 appointed by suburban 

districts and 3 appointed by Detroit, which council should 

reflect the pupil-racial composition of each cluster. Ihe 

State Board of Education should provide guidelines for the 

duties and all other aspects of the role of these cluster 

councils, to the extent that this document does not already 

provide for the creation and operation of the cluster 

councils.
5. There will be limited desegregation of faculty and staff 

during the interim period. Faculty and staff desegregation 

during the interim period will be confined to those instruc­

tional personnel serving the affected grades in the schools 

and districts in the selected clusters. Even so, all 

desegregation area faculty and staff must  participate in 

an in-service program prerequisite to the period of full 

implementation.
6. There will be a need to consummate written memoranda of 

agreement whereby the affected districts can exchange faculty 

and staff within the respective elementary schools in such

a way that at least 10 percent of the faculty and staff 

in each building are black. The memoranda of agreement 

should be entered into in such a way that tenure and retire 

ment provisions are not abrogated during the interim period, 

and contract provisions and other personnel arrangements are 

modified as little as possible.

•



22

7. There will be no need to undertake contractual modifications 

of facilities utilization except as may be recommended by 

the Panel, since it is assumed the elementary buildings in 

the several clusters will have facilities and equipment 

satisfactory to pass specific approved standards.

8. There will be a need for those school systems involved in 

interim desegregation arrangements to adopt a common school 

calendar in order that schools within the interim desegregated 

clusters can begin on the same day and in order that vacations, 

in-service training, and professional development days be 

compatible to ensure provision of 180 days and 900 hours of 

instruction for the interim desegregated pupils.



23

PART V

RECOMMENDATIONS

The June 14, 1972 order of the federal court states "the State 

Superintendent of Public Instruction, with the assistance of the other 

state defendants, shall examine, and make recommendations, consistent with 

the principles established above /i.e., in Part II of the order;/, . . . 

for the (1) financial, (2) administrative and school governance, and (3) 

contractual arrangements . . . including personnel policies /and/

procedures . . . .
1. in accordance with the above order and the examination of the issues 

contained in this document, it is recommended that no substantial 

alteration in the financial, administration and governance, and 

contractual arrangements of the existing 53 local districts that 

presently describe the school districts in the desegregation area 

take place during the interim period.
2. In accordance, with the above order and the examination of the issues 

contained in this document, it is recommended that on or before a 

date 15 days prior to the implementation of interim desegregation

the Court order those districts to be desegregated during the interim 

period to effectuate memoranda of agreement, similar to the draft 

memorandum of agreement contained in Appendix B, including consideration 

of the provisions contained in Appendix C, in order to effect those 

alterations necessary in existing financial, administration and gover­

nance, and contractual agreements. The Court should specify that the 

districts may modify the memorandum of agreement at such time and in 

such manner during the interim period as may be necessary to effectuate

interim desegregation as adopted by the Court.



24

3• In accordance with the above order and the examination of the issues

contained in this document, it is recommended that, for those districts 

chosen by the Court to be desegregated during the interim period, and 

which require additional monies to maintain the 1971-72 level of opera- 

tion, a system be established whereby their financial needs can ba 

reviewed by the Municipal Finance Commission, Michigan Department nf 

Treasury. To effectuate this recommendation would require the Court 

to consider ordering the levy of additional millage in the instance, 

that a legislative grant, loan, or fund transfer does not prove viable, 

or local voter support is not obtained.

4. In accordance with the above order and the examination of the issues 

contained in this document, it is recommended that there be no interim 

attempt to fully equalize school facilities or finances during the

interiffi desegregation period in order to achieve schools of substantially 

like quality, but that other services be equalized to the extent possible 

through cooperative arrangements and memoranda of agreement.

5. In accordance with the above order and the examination of the issues 

contained in this document, it is recommended that those school systems 

involved in interim desegregation adopt a common school calendar to

ensure compatible vacations, in-service training, professional development 

days and 180 days and 900 hours of student instruction for the interim 

desegregated pupils. .

6. In accordance with the above order and the examination of the issues 

contained in this document, it is recommended that there be established 

advisory cluster councils of education consisting of four representatives 

appointed by the outlying local boards of education of districts

within the interim desegregated clusters and three representatives



25

appointed by Detroit Board of Education for those interim desegregated 

attendance areas within Detroit.



26

PART VI

SCHEDULE OF EVENTS

In accordance with the Court order of June 14, 1972, the following 

schedule is recommended for purposes of effectuating interim desegregation:

7 days following issuance of The affected boards of education meet
an effective Court order to
effect interim desegregation to designate appropriate personnel to

implement plans.

State Board of Education guidelines for 

the organization and operation of cluster 

councils made available to local boards 

of education.

30 days prior to the imple- 
mentation of interim 
arrangements

30 days prior to the imple­
mentation of interim
arrangements

Interim desegregated deficit districts 

make application to Finance Commission.

20 days prior to the imple­
mentation of interim 
arrangements

Bi-racial team personnel designated for 

each elementary building.

20 days prior to the imple­
mentation of interim 
arrangements

The affected clusters begin intensive 

in-service training program.

20 days prior to the imple­
mentation of interim 
arrangements

The Municipal Finance Commission makes 

recommendations to the Court with respect 

to deficit district applications.

15 days prior to the imple­
mentation of interim 
arrangements

The Court effectuates the financial 

arrangements for the several deficit

districts.



15 days prior to the imple­
mentation of interim 
arrangements

The CourL receives from the affected local 

school districts reports of progress in 

effectuating all necessary arrangements to 

implement interim desegregation.

10 days prior to the imple­
mentation of interim 
arrangements

Local interim desegregated districts file 

memoranda of agreement with the Court.

90 days prior to the termination 
of interim arrangements

Cluster councils report to local boards 

observations and recommendations with 

respect to interim and final arrangements.

75 days prior to the termination 
of interim arrangements

Local boards and intermediate boards of 

education report to the Court observations 

and recommendations with respect to interim

and final arrangements.



APPENDIX A

PANEL RECOMMENDATION FOR 
REVISED CLUSTER PLAN



APPENDIX A

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

)
RONALD BRADLEY, ct al ., )

)
Plaintiffs )

)
v. )

)
WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al., )

)
Defendants )

)
and )

)
DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, )
LOCAL 231, AMERICAN FEDERATION )
OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO, )

)
Defendant- )
Intervenor )

)
and )

)
DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al., )

)
Defendants- )
Intervenor )

)
et al. )

____l

CIVIL ACTION NO: 
35257

RECOMMENDATIONS OF DESEGREGATION PANEL 

REGARDING CLUSTER REORGANIZATION

The Court in its ruling and order in this matter, inter alia, 

authorized the Panel to "recommend reorganization of clusters within the 

desegregation area in order to minimize administrative inconvenience, or ' 

time, and/or numbers of pupils requiring transportation".

The Panel in carrying out its assignment to develop a pupil assignment 

plan, has reviewed the clusters described in Exhibit P.M. 12 and has concluded that 

the 15 clusters should be increased to 16 and that certain school districts should



A-2

be realigned in the cluster arrangement. These changes are recommended in order 

to: (1) attain a racial composition as close as possible to the racial composition

of the desegregation area as a whole; (2) provide minimum travel time for all 

students; and (3) reduce clusters to the smallest size without splitting high 

school constellations or suburban districts.

Attached is a revised cluster map dated 10 July 1972 and a description 

of the student population of the revised clusters as recommended by the Panel.

An alphabetic identification system is used to distinguish the revised clusters

from plaintiff's plan. ‘ ■

In the opinion of the Panel, recommended revisions offer the following 

specific advantages: (1) the range of percentage of black students is reduced

(11 of the 16 clusters fall between 23-28% black, or within 10% of the median 

for the area as a whole), (2) the range in cluster size is reduced, and 

(3) for some clusters routing and distances are decidedly improved.

Those clusters most significantly improved are:

Cooley to Livonia rather than Farmington

Murray to Melvindale and Lincoln Park rather than Birmingham,
Royal Oak and Hazel Park

Northern to Femdale, Berkley and Royal Oak rather than Lincoln 
Park, Allen Park and Southgate.
The clustering is improved by separation of Kettering from Denby 
and Finney and by keeping the Cooley constellation intact.

Both Kettering and Finney have significant numbers of black students 
sufficient to function as bases for independent clusters. When com­
bined they have 25,000 black students, necessitating a cluster total 
in excess of 90,000. The revised plan permits division of these 
schools into two clusters. '
Cooley and Redford together have 16,000 black students, but when 
clustered with Livonia, which is the second largest school system 
in the desegregation area, a racial composition of 22.6 percent 
results.



A-3

Respectfully submitted by the Panel, as listed below in alphabetical 

order, this twelfth day of July, 1972.

William Emerson

Freeman Flynn

Gordon Foster

Merle Henrickson
. i

Melvin Leasure

Aubrey McCutcheon, Jr.

Richard Morshead

William Pierce

Mary Ellen Riordan

Rita Scott

Harold Wagner



A - 4

CLUSTER. ^V IS IO NS RECOMMENDED BY THE PANEL - JULY 10, 1972

RT r ■> s':,' r) r >'
( J  %  ;A .r .rv t rv ,v  v .v jS W  SiV ’(T -  West

ipBIoor.ificId Elbomfidd Hills
^  L  a / I

lr;r?:v.̂r- ‘

, r

T F .

(  Birmingham L

I

Royal  Oak 
A

'r O',.Ij _
W v 7 7 t t*r i t  P | ' 2 ^ q | '

Clawson
L GJ ^

F Madison

» i

J

3eiklcyv g j / l ^ T j ie ig h t ^ u - — Woods I
Southfield I g I  \  f  l:'W _ Cent2r Lin2 c

a ---— 1.. ■ 'Lro»-1‘, L C r" \ l̂ rS~—

Warren Roseville 

A

rfcSEssaKCT?fr
Lake Shore

a a,9 •
Lake view

Clarence
r  ,

H

. is * t Radford Union
erc.wte

Livonia

J North 
Dearborn

Heights k

Oak Park Fs,„ca!o M «  ^  & »  *  .
V  H 1 G \  F " C U E  I LcrtiOlt /  U /,0 B ,s

* w  Harper Woods■ B .7 *V? (/w  wO „
S i \  1

R o r J t o i i C o o ta y  \ j  ' r i

J j

1
Garden City k 

M

Wayns-VVestland

T L J T O i  rJ----------

Cherry Hill /■ ,,, , ,. \J Westwood
Inkster \
\ » A  Dearborn ^f/ielvindo

r--- ), L— p/

1
Romulus

L Taylor

L

■Allen . ,
park /L in c o ln / Ecorso
h R ' k ^  

— 'j
South

>-uver Rouge 
0 /

N 0

gato
N

Wyandotte 
o ( j

* u

‘ invciview-/
0 [f



P a n e l  R e c o m m e n d a t i o n  f o r  R e v i s e d  C l u s t e r i n g  P l a n

Black
Total Enrol lment  Enrol lment  Pe rcen t

cl « Lake Shore 9 ,621 48 . 5
Rosevi l le 14 , 734 213 1 . 4
East  Detroit 12 ,83 1 6 . 1
Southeastern If), 418 12 , 7 08 82. 4

52 , 604 12,-975 24. 7

b. South Lake 5, 306 0 .0
Cro ss e  Pointe 13 ,323 1 .0
Lakeview - 7 , 75 1 0 .0
King 9, 802 9, 496 96. 9

3 6 , 1 8 2 9, 497 26. 2

c. Center l ine 6, 865 3 .0
Fitzgerald 5, 374 0 :
Wa r re n  Woods 8 ,95 8 0 .0
Northeastern 10 , 286 9, 130 88. 8

3 1 , 4 8 3 9, 133 29. 0

d. F r a s e r 7, 304 1 .0
Harper  Woods 1 , 981 0 . 0
Denby 10 , 906 560 5. 1
Finney 15 , 093 8, 549 56. 6

35, 284 9 , 1 1 0 2 5 . 8

c. Van Dyke 7, 192 2 . 0
War ren 2 9 , 9 95 52 .2
Osborn 11 , 9 6 2 2, 730 22.  8
Kettering 17 , 966 16, 749 9 3 . 2

• 67, 115 19 , 5 33 29.  1

f. Hazel P a rk 7 ,9 8 5 0 .0
Hamtramck 3 ,0 4 4 905 29. 7
Lamphere 5, 878 0 .0
Madison Heights 4, 708 2 .0
Troy 5, 958 0 . 0
Pershing 14, 672 10 , 0 03 68. 2

42 , 242 10, 915 25. 8

(



P a n e l  R e c o m m e n d a t i o n  fox* R e v i s e d  C l u o t e i ' i n g  X l a n

Black
Total Enrol lment Enrol lment Percent

Ferndalo  
Berkley  
Highland P a rk  
Royal Oak 
Clawson  
Northern

0, 376
8, <104 
7, 837 

19 ,2^7  
4, 996 
C, 929

57, 809

799
8

6, 158 
3 
0

8, 877 
15 , 8 4 5

9 . 5  
. 1 

78. 6 
. 0  
.0

9 9 . 4
2 7 . 4

Birmingham  
Oak P a rk  
Southfield 
Central

17, 520
5, 867 

16 , 3 46  
12 , 7 46
52, 479

. 5
590

5
12 , 7 02  

13 , 3 02

.0
10. 1 

. 0  
99. 7
2 5 . 3

: t

Bloomfield Hil ls
Farmington
Clarencev i l le
West  Bloomfield
Ford
Mumford

9 ,4 3 8  
16 , 3 39  

3 , 9 1 8  
4, 772 

10 , 7 05  
12, 115
57 , 287

35
9
0
0

3, 314  
11 ,  540
14 , 8 9 8

1

. 4  

. 1 

. 0

.0
3 1 . 0
95. 3
26.  0

>

Livonia
Cooley
Redford

38, 105 
19 , 2 00  
15,  534
72, 839

8
15, 771

683
16 , 4 62

. 0
82. 1

4. 4
2 2 . 6

Garden City
South Redford
N. Dearborn Heights
Crestwood
C he r r y  Hill
Redford Union
Cody
Mackenzie

13 , 8 53  
7, 883 
2, 765 
5, 282 

5 , 12 7  
9 ,6 7 7  

16 , 0 56  
2 0 ,7 4 5

0
0

0

0
15
2

2 , 4 2 5  
2 0 , 1 9 2

.0

.0

.0
' .0  

.3  

.0  
15. 1 
9 7 .3

81,  388 2 2 , 6 1 7 27. 8



A-7

Panel  Hccoramendation for  Revised Cluster ing Plan

Black
Total Enrol lment Enrol lment Percent

Taylo r 20, 004 303 1. 5
Den rbo rn 2 1 , 6 3 4 2 .0
Dearborn Heights 5, 626 0 .0
Fai r lane 1, 188 0 .0
Romulus 5, 450 961 17 . 6
Northwestern 14, 308 1 4 , 2 6 5 99. 7

' 6 8 , 2 1 0 15, 531 22. 8

Inkster 4, 624 3 , 962 85. 7
Wayne 22, 514 21 . 1
Westwood 5, 120 1, 842 3 6 . 0
Chadsey 5 ,975 2, 053 3 4 , 4

38 , 233 7, 878 2 0 . 6

Ecorse 4, 341 2, 268 52 . 2
.Allen Pa rk 6, 522 5 . 1
Sou tli gate 5, 613 0 . 0
Y/e stern 11,  314 4, 964 43. 9

27, 790 7, 237 26.  0

Rive r  Rouge 3, 858 1 , 7 2 3 44.  7
Rive rv iew 3, 665 0 .0
V/yandotte 8, 403 0 . 0
Southwestern 1 1 , 0 2 8 4, 826 43.  9

- 26, 954 6, 559 2 4 . 3

Lincoln Pa rk 12, 217 6 .0
Melvindale 5, 574 0 .0
Mu r ray 8, 268 6-, 359 76 . 9

2 6 , 0 59 6 , 3 6 5 24. 4

/

July 10, 1972

o
 O

 O
 

W
 

|v
O

 O
 O

 -
*J

 
O

 
|

o
 O

 H
 

M
 

0
s 

^
 O

 H
 -

J 
CO

 
j -

O
 

O
 O

 O
 U

T



APPENDIX B

SUGGESTED MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT



APPENDIX B

SUGGESTED MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

This document is offered as a guide to affected local districts in 
executing, between and among themselves, the agreements necessary to implement 
interim desegregation. It is expected that the affected districts will consult 
with their legal counsels as to the specific substance and format, of the agree­
ment. Certain provisions covered under item D, Faculty and Staff Exchange, will 
need to be effected by the local boards and their respective employee bargaining 
units prior to executing memoranda of agreement between and among local districts 
(See Appendix C)

Whereas the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, 

Southern Division, did order on ___________________  the school districts of:

(list the districts comprising the cluster)

to carry out certain interim arrangements designed to implement a plan for 

desegregation of the Detroit Public Schools; and

Whereas the above-listed districts must comply with 

barring a stay or a reversal of that order by that Court

the Court's 

or a higher

order

Court; and

WTiereas these 

Court's order, and 

housing any grades

interim arrangements are stated in precise detail in the 

are to apply to all schools in the above-listed districts 

from kindergarten through six; and

Whereas these interim arrangements are to prevail for the period covered 

by ____ ______________ ______________________________>

Therefore the above-listed districts do consent to enter into the below- 

listed agreements between and among themselves for the period ...............
, for the purpose of complying with the order of the Court:



B-2

A • Pupil Reassignment

(these agreements will reflect the Panel's 
recommendations and the Court's order)

B. Pupil Transportation

(these agreements will reflect the Panel's 
recommendations and the Court's order)

C. Comparability of Services
The above-listed districts, in effecting the necessary interim arrangements, 

agree to design and implement these arrangements such that for each pupil 

in each affected school: (1) a minimum of 180 days of instruction is offered;

(2) a minimum of 900 hours of instruction is offered; (3) curriculum offerings 

are integrated in such a way as to produce instruction that respects the 

diversity of students from differing ethnic backgrounds; and (4) class sizes 

are substantially alike.
D. Exchange of Faculty and Staff (Certain of these provisions will require prior 

agreement between the local boards and their respective employee bargaining 
unit. See Appendix C)

The above-listed districts agree to enter into an exchange of certicated 

faculty and staff between and among the elementary schools in their respective 

districts according to the following provisions:

1. All faculty and staff reassigned as a result of the exchange program 

shall continue to be employees of the district by whom they were 

employed at the time this agreement goes into effect.

2. All faculty and staff assigned to the affected schools shall hold the 

appropriate certification.

3. No less than 10% black faculty and staff shall be assigned to each of

the affected schools.



B-3

4. To the extent possible, the faculty and staff reassigned in the exchange 

program shall be drawn from a list of volunteers, with the option to 

volunteer extended to both tenured and non-tenured teachers. Such 

volunteers shall be encouraged and shall receive the highest priority 

in transfer assignments. If the number of volunteers in any given 

district is insufficient to effect the exchange program, then that 

district shall select from the grades and certification areas affected 

additional faculty and staff to be reassigned according to one of the 

following procedures:

a) Selection shall be on the basis of-

(1) Seniority rights prevailing with the faculty and staff 

member having lowest seniority being selected first, or

(2) Employing a single and uniform randomized selection process 

in each district.

(It appears that the Court may need to specify a uniform 
method i.e., seniority or a uniform randomized selection, 
to be used throughout all clusters included in the interim 
desegregation.)

b) Any faculty or staff member who feels that he or she is being 

exchanged due to the misapplication of the above criteria, may 

appeal to a special arbiter (or tripartite body) designated by 

the Court to hear such appeals. A decision shall be rendered 

within five days of written appeal.

c) All faculty and staff reassigned in the exchange program, shall be

reassigned for a period of one year.



B-4

d) with the consent of the receiving board, any reassigned faculty 

or staff person who desires to change employment to the receiving 

board shall be able to do so.

5. All provisions of master contracts and/or individual contracts in

effect for the interim period shall remain in effect, except for the 

following modifications:

a) In regard to economic factors, including salary, fringe benefits, 

and leave provisions, the provisions of the employing district's 

master contract and/or individual contracts shall apply.

b) In regard to working conditions, support services, materials and 

equipment, the provisions of the receiving district's master 

contract and/or individual contracts shall apply, and the reassigned 

faculty or staff member shall be subject to the receiving district's 

direct supervision.

c) A uniform school calendar and school day shall be adopted for the 

grades and schools affected by all districts involved in interim 

desegregation.

d) Reassigned faculty and staff shall be guaranteed the right to grieve 

to the extent that right exists in the applicable district. If the 

grievance concerns economic factors, it shall be lodged against the 

employing district following the procedures of that district. If

. the grievance concerns working conditions, it shall be lodged 

against the receiving district, following the procedures in the 

receiving district. If a question arises as to a proper course to 

be followed, i.e., whether the employing or receiving district is 
the appropriate place to lodge the grievance, a Court-appointed 

arbiter (or tripartite body) shall decide which course is to be

followed.



B-5

e) Substitute teachers shall be paid at the rate of the receiving 

district ani paid by the receiving district. In the case of 

reassigned teachers, each receiving district will keep a record

of absence and transmit it to the sending district for appropriate 

action.
f) In the event of inability to reach agreement on a master contract, 

the conditions of the previously existing contract shall remain

in effect until such time as a new contract is agreed upon and 

ratified by both parties.
6. All faculty and staff reassigned in the exchange program shall continue

to be members of the retirement system in effect in their employing 

district. #
7. All provisions of the Teacher Tenure Act shall remain in effect and 

apply to all faculty and staff reassigned in the exchange program.

The tenured teacher who is reassigned shall continue to hold tenure with 

his or her employing board, which board shall continue to be the control­

ling board as specified in the Teacher Tenure Act. The probationary 

teacher shall continue to be responsible to his or her employing board 

for purposes of the Teacher Tenure Act, and all provisions of that Act 

shall apply. However, the receiving board should agree to provide 

evaluative information to the employing district in a form and manner 

prescribed by the sending district even though the employing district 

may make its own evaluation and ultimately must be responsible for

the decision on tenure status.



B-6

E. In-Scrvicc Training

The above-listed districts agree to jointly and cooperatively provide

____ days of in-service training to all employees, including faculty and

staff, as well as non-professional employees, assigned to the school listed

above. Of these ___ days of in-service training, ____ days will be carried

out prior to _________________________ . This in-service training shall

include, but not be limited to, training in multi-ethnic studies and human 

relations.
The above-listed districts further agree to establish, assign, and provide 

appropriate training for bi-racial teams, which teams shall spend their 

time working with faculty, staff, and pupils to ensure the effective 

implementation of the interim arrangements.

F. Bi-Raclal Councils

The above-listed districts agree to establish at each school listed above 

bi-racial councils made up of parents, staff, and where appropriate pupils 

to provide ample opportunity for all persons affected to participate in the 

implementation of the interim arrangements.

G. Class Size
Class size in any given grade shall in no case be greater than the average 

class size for that grade in all schools in the cluster during the school 

year 1971-72.

H. Liability
The above-listed districts mutually agree, that where employees of one 

district are working in the schools of another district, the receiving 

(Sending) districts■shall indemnify, save, and hold harmless the sending



B-7*

(receiving) districts from any and all liability for damages arising out 

of any act of or injury to any employee so working.

In compliance with the Court's order, we do consent and agree to implement 

the above-listed activities for the 1972-73 school year. •

Signed

l



APPENDIX C

POSSIBLE COURT ORDERED CONTRACT PROVISIONS 
TO IMPLEMENT INTERIM 

ARRANGEMENTS FOR EXCHANGE 
OF FACULTY & STAFF



APPENDIX C

POSSIBLE COURT ORDERED CONTRACT PROVISIONS 
TO IMPLEMENT INTERIM ARRANGEMENTS 
FOR EXCHANGE, OF FACULTY & STAFF

In order to provide for the successful implementation of interim desegre­
gation arrangements, the Court may need to order that the below listed modifi­
cations in existing master and individual contracts be effected between any 
local school board and its local employee bargaining unit in each district 
included in interim desegregation plans. The Court may need to further order 
that all modifications in existing contracts be limited to those listed below, 
unless items in addition to those identified below are deemed essential by 
the Court to the implementation of interim desegregation arrangements. These 
modifications, if deemed necessary, should be effected prior to any local 
board entering into a memorandum of agreement with any other board for the 
purposes of implementing interim desegregation arrangements.

Contract provisions may need to be modified so that:

1. Volunteers for transfer, both tenured and non-tenured, receive the highest 

priority in transfer assignments. In the event that the number of 

volunteers is insufficient to meet the needs of the program, then 

seniority rights prevail with the faculty and staff member having lowest 

district-wide seniority within scope of certification and grade levels 

affected being selected first £r a single randomized selection process 

prevail. (It appears that the Court may need to specify a uniform method 

to be used throughout all clusters included in the interim desegregation.)

2. The president, the chief negotiator, and the grievance processing chairman 

of the bargaining unit be ineligible for transfer.



C-2

All provisions of master contracts and/or individual contracts in effect 

for the interim period shall remain in effect for transferred staff members, 

except for the following modifications:

a) In regard to basic economic factors, including salary, fringe benefits, 

and leave the provisions of the employing district's master contract 

and/or individual contracts apply.

b) In regard to working conditions, support services, materials and 

equipment, the provisions of the receiving district's master contract 

and/or individual contracts apply, and the reassigned faculty or staff 

member be subject to the receiving district's direct supervision.

c) Reassigned faculty and staff be guaranteed the right to grieve, to the 

full extent that that right exists in the applicable contract. If the 

grievance concerns economic factors, it be lodged against the employing 

district following the procedures of that district. If the grievance 

concerns working conditions, it be lodged against the receiving district 

following the procedures in the receiving district.

School calendar as designated for the grades and schools affected be uniform.

The length of the school day be equal for the grades and schools affected. 

Conditions of the master contract of each district concerning reporting and 

leaving time, lunch periods, and preparation or relief time prevail except 

for modifications required by transportation of pupils.

Disputes as to proper jurisdiction, concerning grievances and appeals of transfer 

between districts, be decided by a Court-appointed arbiter(s) and the rulings 

be implemented as so decided during the course of any appeals for further

court review.



7. Class size maximums be the average class size number for each grade in the 

cluster in school year 1971-72 and any discrepancies among the schools in 

the cluster be corrected by redistribution of faculty and staff and/or 

employment of additional faculty and staff.

8. Transferred staff members assigned to duties for which extra remuneration 

is paid in the receiving district be paid for those duties by that district 

and at the regular rate prevailing in that district under separate contractual 

or other arrangements. No staff member be discriminated against in such 

assignments solely on the basis that he or she has been transferred.

9. Insofar as possible, transferred staff members whose assignments in the 

employing district have been in other than regular classroom assignments be 

assigned to comparable assignments in the receiving district.

10. In the event of inability to reach agreement on a master contract, conditions 

of the last previous contract remain in effect until such time as a new 

contract is agreed upon and ratified by both parties.

11. Reassigned professional staff members have all rights in curriculum decisions

in the receiving district as defined in the master contract in that district, 

and shall retain their rights in curriculum decisions in their employing 

district as defined in the master contract of that district. •

12. The receiving district be responsible for securing and paying substitutes 

and for recording and reporting absences of transferred staff members to 

the employing district.

13. Where inconsistencies exist between a uniform code of student contuct, that 

may be subsequently adopted for the cluster by an addition to the memorandum

of agreement and the provisions of the master contract, the uniform code prevail