Metropolitan School District Reorganization Plan Submitted by the Michigan State Board of Education

    METROPOLITAN SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION PLAN

As Submitted To

Federal Court Judge Stephen J. Roth 
By the Michigan State Board of Education

February 1, 1972



PREFACE

The State Board of Education, in compliance with the November 5, 1971- 

Order of Judge Stephen Both, has studied various means by which the Detroit 

Public Schools can be desegregated bv means of a metropolitan plan.

The metropolitan plan contained in this proposal is one of several 

alternatives and focuses on the creation of a new educational authority, 

the abolition of 37 existing school districts and the creation of six 

new regional school districts for purposes of facilitating desegregation.

It is recognized that the power to reorganize school districts is 

vested in the Legislature. It is understood that the State Board of 

Education does not have the authoritv to consolidate, annex, or merge 

school districts.

In order to effectuate this proposal on a metropolitan basis, 

legislation or some legal means would be reciuired to abolish existing 

school districts, to create a new educational authority and to establish 

the new regional school districts contemplated by this plan.

The State Board of Education lacks legislative or legal authority to

effectuate this proposal.



METROPOLITAN DESEGREGATION PI AN 

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

The Metropolitan Desegregation Plan is defined as the process of 

including all of the 87 school districts and their student populations 

(exclusive of K-3 students) in the tri-county area of Wayne, Oakland and 

Macomb in an activity which will achieve desegregation through propor­

tional distribution of the racial population, the reduction of racial 

isolation and enhancement of the potential for improved educational 

quality. No consideration is given to the other options which were 

described to all consultants in the earlier meetings (state criteria, 

the Detroit Plan or the One-way Busing Plan). Accordingly, the advantages 

and disadvantages are based upon a critical evaluation of this plan alone.

Literature and research related to the advantages and disadvantages 

of this Plan are not discussed as each desegregation plan must be considered 

on its own strengths and weaknesses. Literature appears to point consistently 

to the concern of resegregation in areas once desegregated, therefore, 

introducing the need for considering a larger geographic area and a larger 

population so that a proportionate racial representation might be stablized 

for years to come.

The Advantages of The Plan Are As Follows: .

1. The Metropolitan Desegregation Plan: places the responsibility for

the desegregation of all the schools on all people in the area rather

than an isolated few.



2. Provides an opportunity for stabilization of the population in the 

Metro area thereby creating harmony within the various communities of

the area.

3. Provides the opportunity for a high degree of equity as the benefits 

and costs are shared by all in the area.

4. Provides for opportunity to move toward a black-white ratio which 

more nearly approaches the majority-minority ratios in this society.

5. Provides the opportunity to close schools with deficient physical
% - -

v#»

plants and better utilizes all school facilities.

6. Provides the equitable distribution of financial resources to all

children in the region.

7. Provides a standard instructional salary schedule thereby reducing 

the inequity between staffs because of higher remuneration in some 

districts.

8. Provides the opportunity for a higher degree of social integration.

9. Provides the opportunity for interaction of students from different 

social and economic backgrounds.

10. Provides the opportunity for more community participation in decision 

making in the school's activities.

11. Provides the opportunity for modifying the school curriculum through 

greater parental involvement.

12. Provides the opportunity to desegregate the teaching staffs in the

area.>
13. Provides the opportunity to integrate housing in the area.



The Disadvantages of The Plan Are As hollows:

1. The Metropolitan Desegregation Plan: Provides that existing school

district boundaries would be broken down thereby creating potential 

legal problems.

2. Provides that three high schools will be closed in the central Detroit 

area which have predominantly black student populations.

3. Creates the problem of crossing existing city and suburban school

district boundaries which hasn't been done to any great extent in 

this country. *

4. Necessitates the bussing of black students to hitherto predominantly 

white schools and white students to hitherto predominantly black 

schools.

5. Eliminates th. existing school boards in Detroit and the Initial 

Operational Zone and increases the political liability for acceptance.

6. Weakens the intensity of the black experience in the black schools.

7. Necessitates the expenditure of more funds to insure success beyond 

bussing in areas such as in-service training, community council 

development, curricular improvement, improved facilities and new 

facilities, etc.

8. Necessitates the'movement of some experienced black and white teachers 

from areas where they are presently located.

9. Necessitates the potential redevelopment of attendance boundaries to 

accommodate the changing racial-ethnic balance.

10. Necessitates the phasing out of present boards of education and the 

election of new region boards.

11. Necessitates the change from the newly implemented decentralization

• plan in Detroit where eight school regions were established.



■ TABLE OF CONTENTS

' Page

I. INTRODUCTION , 1

II. THE DETROIT METROPOLITAN DESEGREGATION PLAN DESCRIBED 9

1. Desegregation Planning Fundamentals , 9

2. Metropolitan Desegregation Area 10

a. Detroit Metropolitan Educational Area 10

b. Initial Operational Zone 11

c. School Districts not within
the Initial Operational Zone ■ 12

3. Metropolitan Desegregation Governance 12

a. Detroit Metropolitan Educational Authority #12

b. Initial Operational Zone
Regional Educational Districts . 14

c. School Councils 15

4. Attendance Changes 16

a. Area Affected * 16

b. Grades Affected 16

C. S£ ecific Pupil Assignment • 16

III. ACTIVITIES NECESSARY FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN 18

1• General Informational Program 18

a. Community Involvement 18

b . The Orientation of Regional District Boards
and Local School Councils ■ 19

c. Administration. Teaching Staff and Other
Personnel Involvement 19

d . Student Involvement 19

2. Curriculum ■ 19



• •

• Page

3. Parent-Stndent-Staff Relationships „ 19

4. Administrative and Financial 20

a. Transportation 20

b . Buildings 20

5. Personnel . 20

6. Safety of Persons and Security of Buildings 21

IV. FINANCING OF THE PLAN 22

V. EXPENSES CONNECTED WITS 7115 PLAN • 23

VI. TIME-FRAME FOR PLAN ACTION 24

VII. FURTHER STATE BOARD ACTION REQUIRED 25

EXHIBITS

A. New York Times Article with Respect 
to Richmond, VA Plan.

B. Data Re: Detroit Metropolitan Educational Area

C. Data Re: Regional Educational Districts.

D. Data Re: Age and Condition of Detroit Schools

E. Data Re: School Plant Capacity in Wayne, Oakland
and Macomb Counties.



I
. INTRODUCTION

The Supreme. Court in 1954 and 1955 spoke to inequality of educational 

opportunity in the nation's public schools in Brown v. Board of Education

ancj ii^ '). In so doing, the Court reversed its 1896 decision in Plessv
(3)FergusonV and declared that it was unacceptable for students to be 

separated by state action on the basis of their race or color through 

the maintenance and support of separate public schools. The Court addressed 

itself to remedying d_e jure segregation when it said that segregated schools
y . -

were to be desegregated "with all 'deliberate speed." Simply stated, any .

school district which within its political subdivision boundaries had 

regulations. or policies that maintained separate Black and White o’r 

separate majority-minority schools was abusing the individual's rights 

afforded under the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution.

In the South constitutions and laws existed in many states that were 

discriminatory on their face and it was easier, therefore, than in the 

North to discern de jure segregation. The practice of de jure segregation 

was also more visible in the South where, in many cases, there were separate 

school systems within one school district and clearly established policies 

for the separation of.students on the basis of race or color. The right to 

an equal education was more clearly delineated by Brown when it spoke to 

the point that there can be no such practice as separate and equal which 

potentially established a dysfunctional society.

(1) 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

(2) 349 U.S. 294 (1955) .

(3) 163 U.S. 537 (1896).



«
The Civil Rights Act of 1964^further ordered schools that were 

segregated to begin the development of plans to desegregate. Prior 

to the Bf rhmood, Virginia decision of this week, the desegregation plans 

were to be developed entirely within each school district's boundaries.

The aim was to establish a reasonable majority-minority balance of pupils 

and teachers in each school in the affected district. What was reasonable 

varied from case to case and was assessed by the courts. Because school 

districts in the South are county-wide, they could achieve desegregation 

across municipal lines without disturbing the school districts' boundaries 

or administrative structure. There were, in reality, no suburbs which 

existed as separate school districts and, therefore, there were no .boundaries 

to be crossed, permitting the free movement of students within a single 

school district to achieve desegregation.

The application of the principle prohibiting segregation of public 

schools surfaced new problems in Northern cities as Black populations 

increased and white residents fled to surrounding white communities with 

separate white school systems. Questions to be answered were: (1) were these 

cities de jure as well as de facto segregated and (2) could long-range 

desegregation be achieved within the boundaries of the city?

In answering the first question the courts had to determine if the 

racial imbalance in the schools was caused by factors other than a state 

mandate requiring separate schools for Blacks and Whites. The earlier 

desegregation suits in the North had been defended on the ground that the 4

(4) 42 U.S.C. §2000C-6(a) and (b).

2



Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is a prohibition only 

against state' action and did not prohibit acts of discrimination by private 

individuals. The defen.se also stated that the residential segregation which 

caused racial imbalance in the schools was the action of private individuals 

and not that of the state or its agent, the school board, and therefore 

constitutional rights were not being infringed upon by the state. Bell_v.

School , City of Cary^  was an early decision by the federal courts that 

upheld this position.

This question was not interpreted following Bell until 1969 when, in 

Keyes v. Denver , 5 (6) 7 it was found that because the board had moved to relieve 

racial"imbalance and had later reversed its position, it had backtracked and 

was' guilty of de jure segregation. This rationale was followed by the Sixth 

Circuit Court of Appeals in Bradley v. Milliken^  when the Court ruled that in 

the substitution of Public Act 48 of 1970 for Public Act 244 of 1969,

Section 12 of Public Act 48 reversed an earlier state action taken by the 

Detroit School Board in adopting the April 7 plan and was therefore unconsti­

tutional. The Pontiac school decision more clearly approached this question 

when it found that even though Pontiac was initially racially segregated in 

a de facto manner the board's actions collectively had not alleviated the 

situation but had perpetuated racial segregation in the schools.

(5) 324 F.2d 209 (7th Cir. 1963).

(6) 313 F. Supp. 61 (USDC D. Col. 1970).

(7) 433 F .2d 897 (6th Cir. 1970).

3



«
With regard to whether predominately black school systems can 

desegregate without including surrounding white districts, the Court 

in Bradley v. School Board, Citv of Richmond,^ (the "Indianapolis 

Case") determined that a desegregation plan involving only the schools 

within the City of Indianapolis was not workable because of the white flight 

to the suburbs and ordered the suburbs as parties defendant so that a 

desegregation plan could involve the entire metropolitan area. Judge 

Merhige, Jr., in the Richmond, Virginia case would seem to advance the

same philosophy.

This leads then to the Court decision ordering the plan herein 

presented. The Court found in Bradley v. Milliken that the Detroit 

Board of Education and the State of Michigan were guilty of acts of de 

■jure segregation. The Court established de 1 ure segregation in the 

following words:

"As wq assay the principles essential to a finding of u_e .1 PT.s 
segregation, as outlined in rulings of the United States Supreme 
Court, they are:

1. The state, through its officers and agencies, and 
usually, the school administration, must have taken some action 
or actions with a purpose of segregation.

2. This action or these actions must have created or 
aggravated segregation in the schools in question.

3. A current condition of segregation exists.

We find these tests to have been met in this case. We recognize 
that causation in the case before us is both several and comparative. 
The principle causes undeniably have been population and housing 
patterns, but State and local governmental action, including school 
board actions have played a substantial role in promoting segregation. 8 9

(

(8) 51 F.R.D. 139 (USDC E.D. Va. 1970).

(9) Bradley v. Milliken, page 21-22 of the Opinion.

4



The acts of de jure segregation as found by the District Court were as 

follows:

"1. Optional attendance zones in neighborhoods undergoing 
racial transition which permitted whites to escape segregated schools;

2. Transportation of blacks to other black schools rather than 
white schools which had available space and were nearer;

3. Attendance zones were altered and grade structure in some 
schools was changed to continue segregation;

A. The guidelines to reduce racial imbalance contained in the joint 
resolution of the State Board of Education and Civil Rights Commission 
were ignored in that the Board of Education did not taice advantage of 
opportunities to integrate; *

5. Building of small primary schools contained blacks and 
compounded segregation;

, 6. No transportation funds were available from the State which
controlled and maintained segregation; .

7. The bonding restrictions and state aid formula created and 
perpetuated systematic educational inequalities;

8. The State postponed the Detroit segregation plan and provided 
for freedom of choice which had the purpose and effect of maintaining 
segregation; and

9. School construction and furnishings advanced or perpetuated 
• segregation."(10)

The court ordered as set forth below submission of a desegregation 

plan by the Detroit Board of Education and by the State defendants to 

include the entire Detroit metropolitan area rather than merely the Detroit 

School District: .

(10) Roger.D. Anderson, "The Constitution and DcFacto School Segregation" 
(1971).

5



»  •
"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Detroit Board of Education 

submit a plan for the desegregation of its schools within 60 days.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State defendants submit a 
metropolitan plan of desegregation within 120 days." [Emphasis added].

The Detroit Board of Education submitted to the United States District

Court its plan on December 4, 1971. The resolution of the Board was:

"Therefore, this Board has concluded that the only meaningful 
solution to the problems of racial isolation in Detroit Public 
Schools is the development of a metropolitan plan of 
desegregation.

The Detroit Board would seem to have deferred to the State Board of

Education the responsibility of meeting the charge of Judge Roth's decision

on September 27, 1971 and his subsequent order of November 5, 1971.

Any Detroit metropolitan plan must be viewed in the context of the

region's demographic features. The City of Detroit proper has a total

population of 1.5 million and a student population of 283,000. The total

population has declined by 169,000 residents over the last decade while

the school districts' student population has increased by A,200 pupils.

The white student population has been steadily decreasing while the black

population has inreased rapidly. The percentage of blacks to total student

population in 1961 was 45.8% compared to 53.6% for white. In 1970 the

black student population had increased to 63.8% while the white student

population has decreased to 34.8%. The rapid resegregation of Detroit

schools can be better seen by observing that between 1968-70 Detroit
• ( 12)experienced the largest percentage increase (4.7%)v in black students 

of any major Northern school district.

(11) Resolution, Central Board of Education, Detroit, December 3, 1971.

(12) Bradley v. Mil liken, page 7 of the Opinion.

6



/

The growth of the black population in Detroit has increased racial 

isolation. Tn 1950 the citv population constituted 61% of the total 

population of the metropolitan area where in 1970 it constituted only 36%.

The suburban population of the Detroit metropolitan area has increased 

nearly two million people si sice L940. Outside of the cltv of Detroit 

in the three countv metropolitan area there are onlv 24,000 black students 

compared to 184,194 in the city. There are 87 school districts in the 

tri-countv area. Of these districts, 73 have 95% or more white student 

population while Detroit has 63.8% black students and the white population 

is steadily decreasing. The steady expansion of the existing white suburban 

population, the realization that the black population in Detroit is young 

and child bearing, as compared to a predominantly older white population 

in the city,(13) and the existence of housing patterns which lock blacks 

into the Citv should give the Board a clear picture of the impending virtual 

total segregation of Detroit schools.

In the development of a Detroit Metropolitan Desegregation Plan many 

basic criteria had to be developed and adhered to. Chief Justice Warren 

said in the Brown decision that the education of children is the most 

important function of government. It must be the concern of anv plan that 

students not become the pawns for a social experiment and that the educational 

opportunity of all children be improved. Anv plan and anv administration 

established to carry it out must consider the child and his education first.

In this regard, the following factors were given consideration:

(13) Judge Roth's decision stated that "Detroit today is principally a con­
glomerate of poor black and white plus the aged." Bradley v. Milliken, 
page 7 of the Opinion.

7



1. Minimizing the movement o£ students thereby reducing the 

necessity of transportation.

2. Maintaining high school constellations.

3. Maintaining the neighborhood schools for the younger children.

A. Improving the school facilities.

5. Reducing the overcrowded conditions in many city schools.

6. Improving the educational program of students through additional 

financing.

7. Improving the opportunity for integrated education in the 

metropolitan area.

8. Assuring the safety and security of children particularly in
c

high crime areas.

The following sections set forth a plan for the desegregation of the 

Detroit Metropolitan area.

8



II

THE DETROTT METROPOLITAN DESEGREGATION PLAN DESCRIBED

1. DesegrogatHon Planning Fundamentals

The desegregation plan described below, entitled the Detroit Metropolitan

Desegregation Plan ("Plan"), is designed to affect the entire tri-county 

(Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb) area, designated as the "Detroit Metropolitan 

Educational Area" ("DMEA"). (Exhibit B contains demographic and educational 

characteristics of the DMEA, its school districts and schools). In delineating 

the DMEA and defining an agency to "educationally govern such Area to be known 

as the "Detroit Metropolitan Educational Authority" ("Authority1), there is a 

firm realization that complex considerations must be carefully weighed with 

respect to many relevant factors connected with the Plan, including (i) maximizing 

educational quality for all the DMEA1s children, (ii) establishing an appropriate 

racial balance within each of the Area's schools affected by the Plan to permit 

both black children and white children to have a racial identity within such 

schools, (iii) minimizing disruption of each child's and parent s daily 

schedule, (iv) maximizing the stability of school enrollment within schools 

and communities affected by the Plan, (v) strengthening parental participation 

in each child's educational program to, among other things, allay fears that 

child will be neglected at a distant school, and (vi) minimizing the financial 

tax base disparities and expenditures existent among various school districts 

within the DMEA. A sound and responsive administrative structure must be 

established from the Authority through each local Area school to successfully 

implement the Plan.

9



There is more to desegregation than the mere movement of students.

Many fundamertal aspects of primary and secondary school education have a 

bearing upon successful implementation of the Plan. For example, in 

accommodating pupil movement a great deal of attention must be given to:

(1) curriculum; (2) class size; (3) teacher and staff assignment and 

preparation; (A) security; (5) discipline; (6) student and parental 

sensitivity and conditioning; and (7) parental participation, to name only a 

few important considerations(as more fully described in Part III herein).

.

2. Metropolitan Desegregation Area

a. Detroit Metropolitan Educational Area

The DMEA includes the tri-county region of Wayne, Oakland, and 

Macomb counties. A smaller region was rejected because an attempt 

was made to guaranty long range enrollment stability within the DMEA's 

schools and within neighborhoods affected by the Plan. A tri-county 

area drastically limits developed locations to which white 

residents could move to avoid the Plan. The experience in Detroit Public 

Schools in recent years is that many white families move to surrounding white 

neighborhoods, as schools begin to change from white to black. This pattern 

of flight has, to the detriment of many neighborhoods and schools, created 

tremendous instability in the City and in Detroit Public Schools. While 

pupil movement will take place in only a portion of the DMEA, as discussed 

below, the remaining area is subject to future attendance changes and is part 

of one budgetary system. .

10



A larger area was rejected on the grounds that: (1) such an area would 

be too unwieldy; (2) population centers in close proximity to Detroit, 

including some within the DMEA, should be permitted and encouraged to develop 

independent regional educational areas; and (3) the principal case would 

not seem to call for the reorganization of a larger area.

The Plan should be supported by a tri-county tax base (if the local 

property tax survives its present attack or another local tax is adopted) 

in order to develop a broad residential, commercial and industrial tax base 

for the DMEA, to eliminate financing disparities among DMEA schools and to 

have all DMEA residents and communities affected by the Plan.

b . Initial Operational Zone

Although the DMEA encompasses the tri-county area, the percentage of 

black children is 20% making the proportional distribution of black and white 

children throughout the DMEA difficult to establish an equitable level of 

black identity in each desegregated school. Moreover, many outlying areas of 

the three counties are not accessible enough at present to comfortably accom­

modate the movement of children daily to and from Detroit's inner and 

middle city' neighborhoods. Accordingly, an immediate desegregation area 

to be known as the "Initial Operational Zone" ("IOZ") is established within 

the DMEA. It comprises those school districts in close proximity to 

Detroit, having student enrollments which, when added to Detroit s, 

approximate a 65% - 35% white/black racial balance. School districts 

within the IOZ shall be abolished and replaced by Regional Educational 

Districts and individual School Councils, as described hereafter;(See Exhibit C 

attached hereto for a description of school districts in the IOZ). Existing

11



school districts are either included in their entirety, or not at all, to

minimize any administrative difficulty which might accompany including only

some of the schools in any one district.

c. School Districts not within 
the Initial Operational Zone

Existing school districts within the DMEA, but not within the IOZ, 

shall continue to function as school districts, subject to guidelines imposed 

upon them by the Authority, pursuant to Governance Guidelines to be prepared 

by the State Board of Education, as described below. In addition, in furtherance 

of the Plan and the desegregation of the DMEA, the Authority may include any 

one or all such districts in the IOZ at any future date. Such districts 

shall be subject to the Authority's power to collect and distribute school 

funds and control capital improvements in the DMEA as more fully described in

Part IV herein.

3. Metropolitan Desegregation Governance

a• Detroit Metropolitan Educational Authority

A full time three member Detroit Metropolitan Educational Authority is 

created by the Court to govern the DMEA. It shall be comprised of a Chairman, 

and two associate members and shall have the power to hire the appropriate 

staff. The members shall be appointed to staggered terms to assure admini­

strative activities. The Authority shall be appointed by the State Board of 

Education. The Authority shall succeed to all contracts and assume all debts 

of school districts abolished under the Plan and shall have all powers and 

staff necessary to supervise within the IOZ:

12



♦

(1) Curriculum and instructional program development.

(2) General administration of schools, including activities 
relating to student affairs, safetv measures, scholarships,

■ student records, adult education, summer school programs, 
pupil attendance schedules, school feeder patterns and 
special educational programs.

(3) Personnel matters, including hiring, firing, promotion and 
transfer of teachers.

(4) School communitv relations.

(5) Federal, state and other special projects.

(6) Budget Operations, including the development of the
■ financial allocation formula, budgeting for property 

management and construction, bonding and purchasing.

(7) Miscellaneous administrative support, including transportation,
. food services, data processing and planning.

However, the powers described above applying to the IOZ and the 

duties connected therewith shall be shared by the Authority with the IOZ 

Regional Educational Districts and local school councils. The precise 

definition of the power and duties of each level of governance of the IOZ 

shall be set forth in Governance Guidelines to be prepared by the State 

Board of Education, consistent with the Plan.

School Districts within the DMEA but outside the IOZ shall retain their 

present board of education structure and policy making powers but shall be 

subject to the Authority's policies regarding: a) the establishment of a 

standard tax base for the DMEA, b) the establishment of a standard allocation 

formula, and c) the establishment of a human relations program; as more fully 

delineated in the Governance Guidelines. They shall not be subject'to any 

attendance control until such districts are included by order of the Authority 

in the IOZ. •

The Authority shall have the power to control directly specialized schools, 

as more fully delineated in the Governance Guidelines.

13



•  •
The Authority shall be established as soon as possible and assume as

its principal obligation the preparation of parents, teachers, students, staff 

and curriculum for the movement of children within the schools of the Detroit 

School District during the first full school vear and within the remainder of 

the IOZ wi.tnin the next succeeding full school year. Movements within Detroit 

as of the first full year shall be In accordance with an overall IOZ attendance 

plan to be fullv implemented as of the next succeeding full school year. Pupil 

attendance changes within the City of Detroit shall insure that pupils will be 

moved in the first full school year only to those schools in Detroit which they

will attend upon completion of the IOZ Plan in the next succeeding full school
* * ' * 

year. This policy will allow for complete preparation for the Metropolitan

aspects of the Plan as well as insure that no Detroit pupils shall be forced

to change schools two times in two years. It provides for stability in the

education of the Detroit children coupled with sufficient time to begin the

task of preparing suburban school districts for desegregation. A formula to

govern attendance changes within the City of Detroit in accordance with a

metropolitan desegregation plan shall he established bv the State Roard of

Education as soon as possible, after being requested to do so bv the Court.

It is imperative that sufficient time be devoted to the preparation of these

attendance changes.

b. Initial Operational Zone
Regional Educational Districts

Six regional districts which combine Detroit high school attendance 

areas with suburban school districts in close proximity and ranging from a 

student population of 79,472 to 109,403, as more fullv described in Exhibit C 

hereto, shall be formed within the IOZ. Such districts shall be governed by 

representatives elected from 9 election areas within each of such districts, 

Such election districts shall be established bv the Authority in Phase V and 

shall be compact, contiguous and as nearly equal in population as practicable. 

Elections shall be held therein in Phase VI for the purpose of convening

14



Regional Boards. Upon each Regional District Board being duly constituted 

and certified all local school districts in such region (with the exception 

of the Detroit School Board which must continue to function until all its 

schools are absorbed) shall be abolished and the Authority shall succeed to 

their contracts and assume their debts. The Detroit School Board shall be 

abolished at such time as all of the. six Regional Education Districts have been 

duly constituted. Each Regional District Board shall have the power to hire a 

superintendent and appropriate staff. The Authority shall be reimbursed by the 

State for all existing school operating deficits within the DMEA.

While school hoards shall be abolished as politics! entities, their staffs 

shall be retained and report directly to the Regional Educational District 

Superintendent and Board. The Authority and Regional Educational Districts 

shall have the power to consolidate local district staffs, after desegregation 

has been accomplished.

The division of power and responsibility between the Authority, the Regional 

Educational Districts and the School Councils (discussed in the next section) 

shall be defined by Governance Guidelines to be prepared bv the State School 

Board, as described above.

c. School Councils

The Plan for the DMEA must encourage and achieve the full cooperation of 

parents and pupils affected by the plan and present a framework which will 

make schools sensitive to their concerns and needs. Therefore, School Councils, 

comprised of parents, teachers, students, administrators and community residents, 

shall be formed n connection with each school in the IOZ. Such Councils will 

provide an opportunity to shape programs at the local school level that will be 

responsive to the needs of the particular students assigned to each school 

affected by the Plan. The specific powers, duties and constituency of School 

Councils shall be defined in the Governance Guidelines, described above, 

consistent with the content of the Plan.

15



» •
A. Attendance Changes

a. Area Affected

Atte.ndance changes will take place in the IOZ onlv • School districts 

in the DMFA but outside of the Zone will retain their present attendance 

patterns; provided, however, that any or all such districts mav be included 

into the IOZ by the Authority at any future date.

b . Grades Affected

All primary and secondary grades within the IOZ shall be affected 

except grades K through 3. During the first full school year, pupil reassign­

ment under thte Flan will take place within Detroit schools and reassignment will 

take place in the remaining schools in the IOZ in the next succeeding full school 

year. Certain schools within the IOZ with physical plants that are considered 

deficient shall be closed. These shall include Northern, Northeastern and South­

eastern high schools in Detroit. Closing of such schools will require a slight 

expansion of capacity in certain retained IOZ schools. New schools shall be 

constructed by the Authority at an early date to return all schools to normal 

capacity. Junior high schools which should be closed have not been determined 

as yet. An analysis of the age of Detroit Schools and the educational complete­

ness of school buildings is attached hereto as Exhibit D.

c. Specific Pupil Assignment

The State School Board shall as soon as possible after being requested 

to do so by the Court prepare a plan for specific pupil assignment with Detroit 

for the first full school year in accordance with a program to direct pupil 

assignment in the remainder of the IOZ for the next succeeding full school year 

as discussed in Section 3(a) herein. Such plan shall be the responsibility of 

the State Board, in as much as it must be prepared for the benefit of affected

16



» *

pupils during Phase III and the Authority will not have sufficient 

time to assume the responsibility.

There are three or more potential bases for student assignment, including

(1) rearrangement of school feeder patterns, (2) assignment on the basis of 

census tract location and (3) alphabetical selection within existing school 

districts and constellations. The racial balance to be achieved within IOZ 

schools affected by the Plan shall range from 45% white/55% black to 75% 

white/25% black and for the purpose of minimizing pupil movement and main­

taining community identity shall move toward reflecting generally the racial 

balance of the surrounding community. Data with respect to the capacity and 

enrollment of all schools in the DMEA is attached hereto as Exhibit E.

With respect to suburban communities, the selection of children from 

school districts at large on an alphabetical basis (to be fixed at random each 

school year) should have the advantage of preventing neighborhood shopping 

within suburban communities to avoid certain schools which feed across 

community lines.

(

17



» •
III

ACTIVITIES NECESSARY FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN 

There are many activities that require careful attention with respect to 

the development of any desegregation plan covering the DMEA. Without care- . 

ful attention to such factors as Human Pelations, Administration and Finance, 

a plan cannot be successfully prepared which will insure the movement of 

school children of different races and different socio-economic classes be­

tween different communities. Set forth below are some of the basic consi­

derations to which the various levels of governance under the Plan must 

address themselves.

As discussed above, the State Board of Education will prepare Governance 

Guidelines within 180 days of being requested to do so by the Court which 

will define specific powers and duties of each level of governance 

(Authority, Regional Educational Districts and School Councils) with respect 

to various fundamental functions, including the functions and specific 

tasks described below:

1. General Informational Program:

a. Community Involvement:

A program shall be prepared to present the Plan to the communities 

involved and to develop an awareness of and an acceptance by such 

communities. This would entail, for example, meetings and the prepar­

ation and distribution of informational literature about the nature of 

the Plan and its objectives and hopefully build understanding and 

cooperation between the parents of all children in the district.

18



b. The Orientation of Regional District 
Boards and T.ocal School Councils:

A program shall be prepared to make Regional District Boards 

and Jocal School Councils aware cf the Plan, it's objectives, and 

their responsibilities under it.

c. Administration, Teaching Staff 
and Other Porsonnol Involvement:

In-service programs designed to facilitate the integration of the 

incoming students into the school community shall be developed.

Such programs shall be attended on a required and continuing basis 

for the personnel at all schools within the IOZ.

d. Student Involvement:

A program shall be prepared to present the Plan to all the students 

in the area. An assessment of the ability of student government to 

participate in this program is necessary.

2. Curriculum:

A culturally democratic curriculum shall be prepared for the entire area 

and its subsequent implementation, including the acquisition of curricular 

materials to support the program. Such curriculum is to be considered the 

starting point beyond which any region or school may proceed.

3. Parent-Student-Staff Relationships:

The duti‘ s and responsibilities for the governance and maintenance of 

discipline, order, safety and security within the schools shall be defined.

19



•  •

4 . Adini ni sL ra t i vo and Financial:

a • Transport,") t i on . .

An analysis shall be made of the existing vehicles and facilities,

transportation costs under the Plan and collection points to be used, 

b . Build ings

(1) An assessment shall be made of the capacities of the existing 

structures with the goal of utilization along the soundest

educational lines, so that overcrowding will not be a continuing
• „ , ' • 

problem.

(2) An analysis shall be made of current construction with regard to 

the suitability of the structure for meeting the needs of those 

students who do not reside in the immediate area of the school.

(3) An assessment shall be made of the adequacy of existing facilities 

and their potential for remodeling and conversion, if necessary.

(4) A determination shall be made of which buildings are to be 

closed, if necessary.

(5) The development of plans shall be undertaken for the construction 

of new facilities in the near and distant future.

(6) An assessment shall be made of the adequacy of the following

items: Food service, Libraries, Audio-Visual Equipment, Athletic

facilities, and recreational and other meeting spaces.

5. Personnel:

a. Provisions shall be established for the assignment of teaching and

other personnel within the area so as to insure adequate minority

representation on the staffs of the schools within the affected area.

20



The assignments of such staff shall be undertaken in a manner 

designed to integrate the staff into the school community and to 

eliminate inequities in salaries and benefits within the area.

b. Recruiting plans shall he developed aimed at securing those who are 

best qualified and who reflect the diversity of population in the area.

c. Comprehensive programs shall be developed for the promotions of personnel 

on a uniform basis.

d. Procedures and standards shall be developed for the employment and 

discharge of personnel in the area. Such procedures shall be in 

accordance with the fair employment laws now in effect.

6. Safety of Persons and Security of Buildings:

A comprehensive program shall be developed to insure the safety of all 

students and personnel and the security of all school facilities within 

the DMEA. In this regard, there must be definitions of the duties and 

responsibilities of all personnel involved as well as the assignment of . 

specially trained personnel for this function.



IV

FINANCING OF THE PLAN

Operational and capital improvement funds are typically secured from 

four sources: local taxes, state funds, federal funds and private funds.

In the event the local property tax is retained as the financing scheme 

for public schools, the State Board of Education would be obligated to seek 

modifications in existing state aid statutes to equalize the educational 

programs in all of the schools of the IOZ.

If the current law suit is successful a nearly full state funding program 

could be utilized to finance this plan.

The Authority shall have a residual taxing power set at the highest 

millage rate of any school district affected by The Plan. The Authority 

shall control the initiation of referenda for the securing of additional 

local tax money. Upon proposal of any milieu increase and proper Authority 

resolution the petition will be presented to all eligible voters in the 

DMEA for their approval or rejection. There will be no provision for a 

separate vote in any of the six regions or the area outside of the IOZ.

It is worthy of note that adoption of a desegregation plan affecting 

the districts in the Detroit Metropolitan Educational Area will probably 

qualify the entire area for additional federal funds under the $1.5 billion 

Emergency School Assistance Act which has passed both Houses of Congress 

and is presently in conference.

22



V

EXPENSFS CONNECTED WITH THE PLAN

Although no estimate of the first year operational costs are provided, 

this Plan will require funds to carry out the following program, activities:

1. Payment of salaries of three Authority members and supportive 
personnel.

2. Development of specific pupil assignment program to be implemented in 
Phase IX for the area within the IOZ and outside of the present Detroit 
district. (Computer programming, computer utilization, consultant fees).

3. Development and initial implementation of inservice education program for 
staff in initial operational zone (teachers, administrators, other 
staff).

a. Staff.to develop in-service program

b. Costs to be incurred in building in-service program into 
continuing school‘program (substitute teachers, additional 
technical and other personnel required).

A. Development of general informational program for residents of the 
DMEA.

5. Establishment of central administrative staff to (1) assist Authority 
members in discharge of these responsibilities, (2) plan and organize 
Authority activities designed to facilitate activitation of the 
Authority and its constituent parts, and (3) provide specialized 
assistance to regional boards and school councils.

6. Development of a pupil assignment transportation program.

7. Absorbing existing operating deficits for DMEA schools.

8. Absorption of amount to bring per pupil expenditure of all districts 
up to the highest existing rate in the DMEA.

23



VI

TIME-FRAME FOR PLAN ACTION -

PERIOD • - ACTIVITY

Phase I . Submission of Detroit Metropolitan
Area Desegregation Plan by the State 
Board of Education to U.S.D.C.E. Mich.

Phase II Appointment of three member Authority 
for DMEA and development of its 
funding plan.

Phase III Preparation of specific pupil assign­
* ment for first stage pupil movement 

(in Detroit) by the State Board of'
• Education.

Phase IV Pupil transfers accomplished within 
Detroit in accordance with the Plan.

Phase V Establishment of Regional Election 
Districts by the Authority.

Phase VI Formulation of Governance Guidelines 
for the Plan by the State Board of 
Education.

Phase VTT Elections of Regional Boards.

Phase VIII Preparation of specific pupil assign­
ment for final stage pupil movement 
within the IOZ by the Authority.

Phase IX Pupil transfers accomplished within 
the IOZ

24



VII

FURTHER STATE BOARD ACTION 

REQUIRED AFTER PLAN SUBMISSION

Under The Plan the State Board of Education is required to undertake 

three future actions upon acceptance of The Plan by the Courts:

(1) Advice and Consent with respect to the appointment of the 
Authority and develop the Authority's funding plan.

(2) Prepare Governance Guidelines with respect to the division of 
power and responsibility between the Authority, Regional 
Educational Districts and.local School Councils.

(3) Formulate specific pupil assignments within Detroit for the 
V  first full school year in accordance with an overall desegregation

program for the IOZ.

' The above actions are not possible to undertake prior to submission 

of The Plan -to the Court on February 4, 1972, but can be accomplished 

within a reasonable period of time. Moreover, in the case of items (2) 

and (3) above, a vast amount of time, energy, and money would be wasted 

if the Court did not choose to adopt a metropolitan desegregation plan.

25



METROPOLITAN DESEGREGATION GOVERNANCE