DOE Report: Recommendations for Operating Public Schools During Final 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 FINAL 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

By
John W. Porter

Superintendent of Public Instruction 
Lansing, Michigan 
July'29, 1972



Michigan Department of Education 
Lansing, Michigan

TO: The Honorable Stephen J. Roth DATE: July 29, 1972
United States District Court, Eastern 

District of Michigan, Southern Division

cc: State Board of Education
Governor William Mil liken 
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 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

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

V. Mi 111 ken , 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 11 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, 1972, the State Superintendent forwarded to the Court 

that written report, prepared with the realization that the Superintendent



• •
ii

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

and the Constitution and statutes of the State of Michigan. Consistent 

with those oaths the Progress Report was prepared in compliance with .

the Court Order.

By July 28, 1972, the State Superintendent had completed his initial 

examination and recommendations for interim arrangements for the (1) 

financial, (2) administrative and school governance, and (3) contractual 

arrangements for the personnel and operations of the schools within the

desegregation area.

This report, dated July 29, 1972, is the last of the three Court- 

ordered reports to be submitted by the Superintendent of Public Instruction 

and deals exclusively with the examination and recommending of certain

actions for final arrangements.



C O N T E N T S

Part I - INTRODUCTION 1

Part II - BACKGROUND INFORMATION 3

Part III - FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS 9

Observations 10

Conclusions 19

Part IV - ADMINISTRATIVE AND GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS 22

Observations 25

Conclusions 32

Part V - CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS 35

Observations 37

Conclusions 45

Part VI - RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION 47

Part VII - SCHEDULE FOR RECOMMENDED EVENTS 53



PART I

INTRODUCTION

This report is divided into seven main parts. Part I constitutes the 

Introduction. Part II focuses upon the Background information necessary 

to understand the premises upon which examination took place resulting in 

conclusions and final recommendations.

Part III focuses upon the assumed necessary Financial Arrangements 

to finance the desegregation plan. Part IV identifies the assumed necessary 

Governance and Administrative Arrangements to effectuate the plan. Part V 

addresses itself to the assumed necessary 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. Part VI 

sets forth Recommendations to the Court consistent with the conclusions reached. 

Finally, Part VII sets forth a proposed Schedule of Events for implementing 

the recommendations.

As in the earlier documents, the Superintendent would call to the 

Court's attention the assistance rendered by Michigan's educational community 

during the past 45 hectic and critical days--a period when many of the in­

volved Michigan educational decision makers, ordinarily would be vacationing. 

Their cancellation of previous plans and commitments so as to advise the 

Superintendent, relative to the myriad of pitfalls in carrying out the Order 

of the Court,must be recognized for the invaluable contribution it represents.

Special recognition must also be extended to the outstanding staff of • 

the Michigan Department of Education. In particular, the members of the 

Executive Planning .Council of the Department have labored far beyond the



-  2 -

call of duty in counseling the Superintendent, in assisting in the 

development of policy perspective, and in assisting in preparation of the 

text of these documents. It must also be noted that from time to time 

consultations were held with the members of the State Board of Education, the 

Governor's Office, and the Office of the Attorney General.

Finally, it must be acknowledged that without the willingness of the 

Department secretaries assigned to assist in preparing multiple drafts, 

these documents could not have been ready in conformity to the stipulated 

deadlines.



• •
- 3 -

PART II

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The State Superintendent of Public Instruction has examined and made 

recommendations regarding certain actions that are believed necessary to 

effectuate an interim plan of desegregation in the metropolitan Detroit 

area. The interim plan involves only those clusters and school districts 

recommended by tne 11 member panel. Implementation of the panel's recom­

mendation would affect limited numbers of elementary students and teachers.

In responding to the Panel's recommendations, the interim plan for financial, 

governance and personnel arrangements relies heavily upon voluntary actions 

by the local boards of education through the execution of memoranda of 

agreement.

The principal question to be resolved in this final report is, in 

essence: What are the minimum new recommendations necessary to effectuate 

final desegregation considering the desirability of retaining certain 

characteristics of the interim recommendations and the difference between 

the stipulations in Part II of the order with respect to Interim desegre­

gation and final desegregation?

In order to answer the above question intelligently and objectively 

and thereby lead one to a basis for final recommendations, it is initially 

necessary to assume that many aspects of the interim arrangements may be 

appropriate for final arrangements.

Much of the discussion that follows is speculative. Plans for final 

desegregation must ultimately depend upon the experience gained during 

interim desegregation. Obviously this present discussion cannot benefit



-  4 -

from that experience. Therefore, certain of the recommendations for new 

governance characterise'cs may be inappropriate, or unnecessary, depending 

upon the outcome of the arrangements for interim desegregation. However, 

the necessity for some type of area-wide authority to effectuate the stipu­

lations of the Court Order, with respect to final desegregation, seems firmly 

establi shed.

This present discussion, taken as a whole, is intended to respond to 

all of the 63 questions raised in the Progress Report of June 29, 1972.

As one considers how best to effectuate final arrangements, it is 

important to emphasize those circumstances that are presumed, by virtue 

of the Court Order, to be the paramaters for developing recommendations.

In reviewing the 12 stipulations in Part II of the June 14, 1972 Order it 

can be noted that:

1. Stipulation II,A defines the "desegregation area" and specifies 

the school districts to be involved.

2. Stipulation II,B defines the "clusters" which form the basis 

for organization and division of the desegregation area and 

further requires acceptance of the "skip technique."

3. Stipulation II,F requires area-wide desegregation of a nature 

such "as to prevent the creation or continuation . . ."of schools 

in the desegregation area " . . .  of substantially disproportionate 

racial composition . . . "  In effect, this requires area-wide school 

building racial composition that is approximately 25! black and 75% 

white. The same stipulation requires staffing buildings so that

the racial composition of staff is relatively proportionate throughout 

the desegregation area, and finally,



-  5 -

4. Stipulation II,H requires "schools of substantially like quality."

It should be noted that this document was in final stages of preparation 

at the time of the Sixth Circuit Court Order of July 20, 1972. Therefore, 

this discussion cannot anticipate the full effect of the Sixth Circuit Court s 

adjudication on the desegregation of Detroit, as described in the U. S. 

District Court Order of June 14. Interim and final desegregation arrangements 

must depend on the outcome of the appeal process. It would, therefore, seem 

inappropriate to implement the recommendations contained in this document 

prior to a thorough analysis of the finance, governance, and personnel 

arrangements in the interim document. It would also seem inappropriate 

to follow the schedule of events contained in this document considering 

that the schedule of events was prepared prior to the July 20 actions of 

the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In considering the discussion that follows, it must be borne in mind 

that conclusions and recommendations for this report must conform to the 

four major characteristics of final desegregation noted above. On August 13, 

1972, (a date now subject to modification as a result of the appeals process) 

as specified in Part IV of the Order, the state defendants and others 

will have an opportunity to propose modifications for the interim plans 

and schedules will be set to hear concerns about final plans. The 

Superintendent of Public Instruction may wish, at that time, to propose 

certain modifications.

As one considers how best to effectuate final desegregation, the 

question arises as to how, if possible the existing 53 local school 

districts can continue their relative fiscal autonomy in ways that will_



-  6 -

produce "schools of substantially like quality?" Presuming that the Court 

has utilized as principal indicators of quality only input factors such 

as per pupil instructional expenditure, staff salaries, materials acquisition 

and utilization and facilities utilization (which is not consistent with 

the present State Board policy regarding quality education) careful con­

sideration supports the conclusion that the existing 53 local school 

districts would find it extremely difficult to continue fiscal autonomy, 

especially in view of the Court's mandate for the attainment of "schools 

of substantially like quality."

The suggested memorandum of agreement in the interim arrangements, 

which provides for the distribution of staff among and between the affected 

districts and clusters that comprise the interim desegregation area, as 

recommended by the Panel, produces a myriad of contractual problems.

Use of a memorandum of agreement in final arrangements, for purposes 

of distributing 33,000 professional personnel, at both the elementary and 

secondary levels, among 53 school districts and 16 clusters, in ways that 

make each building staff's racial composition relatively proportionate, 

necessitates consideration of an area-wide authority with respect to 

personnel and fiscal arrangements.

Despite the foregoing, and the required characteristics that must 

describe final desegregation arrangements, it is the intent in this discussion 

that new governance configurations should be brought into being only to the 

extent required to conform to the Orders of the Court.

This document does not deal with the possible continuing role of local, 

intermediate, and Detroit Regional boards of education following final de-



-  7 -

segregation. It is believed that such discussion must await evaluation of 

the results of the interim arrangements. It is believed that the governance 

experiences of the interim should form the basis for the development and 

articulation of the future role of the local, intermediate, and Detroit 

Regional boards of education. •

Finally, it seems, on the basis of review of the problems, issues and 

questions in the Progress Report, and the recommendations of the Interim 

Report, that seven basic questions must be addressed in the final report. 

Those questions are:

1. How shall revenue be raised to finance operations and capital 

outlay in the 16 clusters and 53 school districts of the de­

segregation area recognizing that these fiscal plans must 

include funding for increased transportation and professional

development?

2. How shall funds be allocated to the 16 clusters and 53 school 

districts to "produce schools of substantially like quality," 

facilities, extra-curricular activities and staffs, as mandated 

by the Court Order?

3. How snail the 53 local boards of education be organized to 

efficiently and effectively administer cluster schools to best 

achieve the stipulations contained in Part II of the June 14, 1972 

Court Order?

4. How shall the three intermediate school districts be organized to 

eff ic ient ly  and effectively administer those responsibilities which 

seem inherently necessary to be performed at their levels?



-  8 -

5. How shall decentralization of policy making and administration, 

as now required in Detroit by legislative statute, be woven into 

cluster arrangements to provide a degree of citizen involvement in 

the operation of the schools within the clusters?

6. How shall employees of the school districts be hired, assigned, 

promoted, demoted, dismissed, organized for collective bargaining, 

and racially integrated so that faculty and staff shall be sub­

stantially integrated and no less than 10% black at each school

in the desegregated region as specified by the Court Order?

7. A final question must now be responded to in light of the July 20 

actions of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. What effect

does the appeals process have on the final desegregation of the 

Detroit Public Schools, especially as regards Part II of the 

U. S. District Court Order of June 14, 1972?



-  9 -

PART III

FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Introduction

As noted in the June 29, 1972, Report of Progress by the Superintendent 

of Public Instruction, the development of a comprehensive finance plan re­

quires consideration of the revenue dimension, the allocation dimension, and 

the problem of existing operating deficits. This part of the final report 

examines those issues and describes what seem to be appropriate courses of 

action. In addition, this part of the report examines existing and future 

debt service and the need to develop a continuing capital outlay program.

During the 1972-73 Fiscal Year it is believed that the 53 school districts 

in the desegregation area will receive an estimated $731,000,000 in state and 

local discretionary funds to operate elementary and secondary services for 

approximately 780,000 students. These funds will include approximately 

$259,000,000 in non-categorical state revenue and $472,000,000 in local 

property taxes. In addition, certain federal funds and state categorical 

funds will be received by districts in the desegregation area.

Consistent with the stipulations of Part II of the June 14, 1972,

Court Order, it would seem reasonable to move toward more fully equalized 

current expenditures within the desegregation area where the per student 

expenditures for 1970-71 ranged from $648.20 to $1,427.32. To effectuate 

such an arrangement, some type of coordinating fiscal body for all 53 

districts and 16 clusters seems necessary.

The Issue

A long-range finance plan has to be developed which envisions an



-  10 -

area-wide authority with the following financial responsibilities:

1. Serve as the central depository for all operating, debt service,

and building and site funds. '

2. Establish a uniform, or near-uni form, property tax rate for the 

entire desegregation area.

3. Negotiate all employee contracts.

4. Allocate operating funds to establish schools of "substantially

1ike quality."

5. Finance a continuing area-wide inservice training program.

6. Finance an area-wide transportation system.

7. Finance area-wide, high-cost, special programs such as occupational 

skills centers and special education.

. 8. Finance area-wide food services such as hot lunches.

Observations

In considering implementation of the above, some type of financial 

arrangement seems necessary at the area-wide level which compels thirteen 

observations as follows: ■

First, an examination of the issues Indicates that the state's share of 

operating funds should be determined on the basis of the State School Aid 

Act in effect in the fiscal year under consideration. At the present time, 

state aid is based on a joint state/local system. It would seem state aid 

could be computed for each of the 16 clusters (students will be attending 

schools in some instances according to clusters). Thus, each cluster could 

be considered a school district for state aid purooses, using the same system 

as now exists for all other school districts in the state. It may be necessary



• •
- n -

to suggest certain changes in school district organization to effectuate 

financial arrangements. These changes are discussed in Section IV, 

Administrative and Governance. '

Second, further examination would indicate that the local share of 

operating revenues could be raised by an area-wide uniform, or near-uniform, 

property tax, established by the area-wide authority, for the basic education 

program, vocational education, and special education. The rate may not be 

uniform because of the need for some existing districts to levy millage to 

retire an existing operating deficit.

Only three methods presently exist for raising sufficient revenue 

in the desegregation area to finance the schools in such a way as to 

produce schools of substantially like quality. First, it might be 

prudent for the legislature to raise and appropriate the necessary funds. 

Secondly, it might be that the citizens of the desegregation area would 

support a pooling of the existing mi 11 ages, and be willing to levy 

through any one of several means additional funds as required. Thirdly, 

if one or_a combination of the above is not feasible, the Court would 

need to initiate the means whereby the necessary funds were made available, 

which could abrogate the present Michigan constitutional limitations on 

taxation without a vote of the people. ■

The area-wide authority should be authorized to levy property taxes 

for operation in the same manner used by other school districts throughout 

the state. That is, taxes would be levied in a manner which is consistent 

with current state statute and the 15 mill limitation on general ad 

valorem taxes established by Article IX, Section 6 of the Constitution of



-  12 -

the State of Michigan, in 1971-72, each of the 53 districts in the 

desegregation area exceeded, through extra-voted millage, the 15 mill 

limitation established in Article IX, Section 6 of the Constitution of the 

State of Michigan. It will therefore probably be necessary to empower the 

area-wide authority to request, through a vote of the people of the de­

segregation area, extra-voted millage in order to raise revenue for school 

operations. In the event that such referendum is unsuccessful, the Court 

would have to take appropriate steps to enable the area-wide authority 

to obtain necessary revenues for school operating purposes.

Third, once arrangements for raising funds have been completed, alloca­

tion of operating revenues must be considered. In order for the area-wide 

authority to determine an area-wide tax rate, it will be necessary for the 

area-wide authority to establish a comprehensive budget system. This system 

would require the preparation of budget requests at the local level based 

on budget policy promulgated by the area-wide authority which would provide 

the program flexibility to meet the different educational needs of all pupils. 

It would be necessary for the area-wide authority to review budget requests 

from the local districts in terms of the requirement that educational programs 

be of "substantially like quality" throughout the desegregation area.

The body raising the revenue should have the responsibility for allocating 

funds because of the need to establish schools of "substantially like quality." 

All revenue (both state and local) generated for the basic educational program, 

vocational education and special education could be deposited with the area­

wide authority for reallocation to the local districts in order to achieve 

schools of "substantially like quality." Such allocation would be for both



-  13 -

the instructional and non-instructional components of the educational 

program(s). The area-wide authority would probably have to be granted final 

authority for budget review and allocation. Reallocation should be based 

upon criteria established by the area-wide authority to define and meet 

educational needs. •

Based on programs at the local level, the area-wide authority would have 

to determine the funds required to conduct the total program in the desegre­

gation area. This would allow the area-wide authority to take into con­

sideration needs such as transportation and school food service programs.

This budget system envisions decisions concerning curriculum and the details 

of the delivery system being made at the local board level. This is deemed 

appropriate in order to maintain the decision-making authority on curriculum 

with che school body closest to all the children affected by the decision.

Fourth, durjng Fiscal Year 1971-72, certain of the districts in the 

desegregation area had operating deficits. It would seem that if any 

districts have operating deficits as of the June 30 preceding the effective 

date of final desegregation, the Court might need to order those districts 

to establish a property tax levy, on their own property tax base, to be 

collected each year until the deficit is retired.

Fifth, it shouid be noted that some districts in the desegregation 

area may have operating surpluses; therefore, it would seem that any districts 

with an operating surplus as of the June 30 preceding the effective date of 

final desegregation would probably need to transfer such surplus to the area­

wide operating fund and that such districts be credited with these funds 

in determining their contribution towards the area-wide operating millage



-  14 -

for the fiscal year In which final desegregation is implemented. This 

observation is based on the belief that districts which have managed 

operating surpluses through economies and/or local voter support should 

not be deprived of the benefits of their operating surplus. It is unlikely 

that operating surplus would reduce more than a single years operating 

mill age for the affected district.

Sixth, it should be noted that, as of June 20, 1972, 51 school districts 

in the desegregation area had existing bonded indebtedness for capital 

development. Since these obligations must be paid, and since children from 

the entire desegregation area will benefit from the facilities constructed 

from the bond proceeds, it would seem that the Court might consider authoriz­

ing the area-wide authority to establish an area-wide uniform debt service 

levy, sufficient to meet annual obligations which are in existence as of 

the June 30 preceding the effective date of final desegregation.

Seventh, it would seem that any district in the desegregation area 

with obligations to the School Bond Loan Fund as of the June 30 preceding the 

effective date of final desegregation might be ordered by the Court to levy 

a millage against its property tax base at a rate of seven mills, less the 

area-wide debt service mi 11 age, until the obligation to the School Bond Loan 

Fund is paid. This observation is based on the belief that districts that 

have delayed imposing a tax on local taxpayers for payment of past principal 

and interest on bonds, by borrowing from the School Bond Loan Fund, should 

not have this deferred obligation picked up by the taxpayers of the total 

desegregation area. Such a procedure would be inequitable to neighboring 

districts that may have levied a higher millage in the past for principal 

and interest rather than borrow from the School Bond Loan Fund.



- 15 -

Foortpe-'. of the 53 school districts in the desegregation area have 

fcorrcvs. •’ 'niGoiei'- under the provisions of the School Bond Loan Act. Under

lu.v, school districts with a minimum levy for debt service, usually 

seven mills, plus 10 percent of the excess needed for debt retirement, are 

eligible to borrow annually from the School Bond Loan Fund to meet principal 

and interest on bonds. The law further requires that the School Bond Loan 

Lund ultimately be reimbursed by the borrowing districts. As of June 30, 1972 

the said fourteen districts had borrowed $20,748,999 from the School Bond 

Loan Fund.

As an eighth observation, any district with a surplus in its building 

and site fund as of the June' 30 preceding the effective date of final desegre­

gation might be ordered by the Court to transfer such funds to the area-wide 

authorlty to be held in reserve for that school district, in a building and 

site account, to_ fulfill contracts on existing building programs; or when there 

are no existing contractual obligations, the funds would serve as a credit to 

the area-wide debt retirement levy for that district. Some districts in the 

desegregation area may have currently existing surpluses in the building 

and site fund as a result of a building and site levy and/or the depositing 

of proceeds from the sale of bonds and with no specific building program 

underway.

Ninth, it would seem, consistent with stipulation "I11 of Part II of 

the Court Order, that the State Board of Education, through the Superintendent 

of Public Instruction, should review and approve, modify or disapprove, any 

plans for those districts in the desegregation area which wish to undertake 

capital development programs between the effective date of interim aesegre-



-  16 -

gation and the effective date of final desegregation. Such an action would 

ensure that construction incompatible with the total desegregation plan does 

not occur. '

Tenth, consistentwith the Constitution of the State of Michigan and 

existing State statute, the Court might wish to consider authorizing the 

area-wide authorit.y to levy a uniform, or near-uniform, building and site 

mi 11 age,_a_uniform, or near-uniform, debt service millage, and to issue 

capital outlay bonds. It is recognized that there is need to provide needed 

future capital facilities throughout the desegregation area. In order to 

provide substantially like quality and to reduce potential costly duplication 

of planning efforts and of facilities, examination of this issue would indicate 

that such an action is necessary. The following planning and construction 

activities could be divided between the local boards and the area-wide 

authority as determined by the area-wide authority:

1. Educational requirements including planning and survey for programs.

2. Planning and survey.

3. Site selection.

4. Sketch plans.

5. Site purchase.

6. Architectural and engineering. ■

7. Construction.

As an eleventh point, it is suggested that the Court seek, at the federal 

level, an appropriate response as to whether federal funds will be available.

Approximately $36,000,000 in federal funds flowed through the State 

Department of Education into school districts in the desegregation area



-  17 -

during 1971-72. Consultations with federal officials indicated these 

funds can be continued during the period of interim desegregation, but 

under final arrangements clarification will be necessary in order that no 

federal funds are discontinued in the desegregation area.

Twelfth, it would seem reasonable for other government agencies to 

assume operating and debt service responsibi1ities for public libraries 

and recreation programs in those school districts now administering such 

programs. This is a matter which could be explored by the Court.

Finally, as a thirteenth observation, and in the event that interim 

arrangements are not continued, it will facilitate the administration of 

this plan if the community college departments of the Dearborn and Highland 

Park School boards are reconstituted, with independent community college 

boards or as a part of an existing independent community college.

There are currently 29 community college districts in the State. Only 

four of these community colleges are operated by local boards of education. 

Two of the four are located in the desegregation area. These are Highland 

Park Community College and Henry Ford Community College. The Dearborn and 

Highland Park school boards are the governing boards for these institutions 

which, by legislative statute, are referred to as community college depart­

ment of the local district. If the area-wide authority were to assume 

financial responsibilities of local boards of education, it might be 

appropriate to establish independent boards for the said two community 

colleges.

In the June 29 Progress Report, the Superintendent identified 19 

questions related to the school finance aspects of the Court Order. Those 

questions were as follows:



-  18 -

1. How shall state revenues be generated?

2. How shall local revenues be generated (property tax or other)?

3. How shall equity be applied in raising revenues?

4. What shall be the geographic base for raising local revenues?

5. How will federal funds be affected by the order?

6. How shall state funds be allocated?

7. How shall local funds be allocated?

8. How shall federal funds be allocated?

9. How shall the obligations of those school districts with existing 

deficits be met?

10. How shall building and site funds and debt services be handled?

11. How shall future capital expenditures be paid?

12. How shall programs funded partially from local revenues, such as 

special education and vocational area centers, be funded when 

existing programs, in some cases, include students from both 

within and outside the desegregation area?

13. What will be the impact of desegregation on federal categorical 

aid programs? For example, will present federal statutes and 

regulations permit compensatory education funds (Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act, Title I) to "follow" a child from one 

district to another?

14. In any interim plan for 1972-73, how will financial need to 

continue 1971-72 program levels be determined?

15. What will be the effect of two different tax laws in the State,

i.e., one for the desegregation area and another for the remainder 

of the State?



-  19 -

16. During the interim period, is it possible to utilize the State 

School Aid Act to equalize revenue per pupil without changing 

the tax laws?

17. What effect will changes in the methods of financing school 

districts in the desegregation area have on tax anticipation notes 

and bond issues requiring the approval of the Municipal Finance

Commissi on?

18. How shall the many "housekeeping" activities such as purchase and 

maintenance of buses and provision of school lunch programs be

funded?

19. Who shall establish the uniform area-wide property tax rate?

The foregoing examination and discussion speaks to each of the 19

questions either directly or indirectly. In other words, if what has been 

discussed were to be put into effect through state legislative enactment, 

Constitutional amendment by the voters, or Court Order, each of the questions 

raised would be answered so that educational services would not be interrupted 

for the school year in which final desegregation is implemented.

Conclusions

In summary, it can be stated that this part of the report has responded 

to each of the 19 questions previously raised, and has examined in some detail 

13 critical issues, thereby enabling the Superintendent to reach conclusions 

as follows:

1. In accordance with observations 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10, it appears 

that an area-wide authority needs to be created which would have 

the following financial responsibilities: (a) receive state school

aid and serve as the central depository for all operating, debt



20

service, and building and site funds; (b) develop budget guide­

lines, review local board budget requests and allocate operating 

funds to local boards; (c) determine a uniform or near-uniform 

operating property tax rate for the entire desegregation area;

(d) establish a uniform or near-uniform debt service levy for 

purposes of meeting existing bonded indebtedness throughout the 

area as of the June 30 preceding the effective date of final 

desegregation and to meet future debt service needs of the area;

(e) levy a uniform or near-uniform building and site mi 11 age and to 

maintain a building and site fund, unless another method is found

to establish a millage levy; and (f) after the June 30 preceding the 

effective date of final desegregation have authority to issue capital 

outlay bonds.

II. Observation 4 leads one to conclude that any of the 53 districts in 

the desegregation area which has an operating deficit as of the 

June 30 preceding the effective date of final desegregation should 

be required to establish a property tax levy on its property tax 

base until the deficit is retired.

III. Based on observation 7, it can be concluded that any of the 53 school 

districts in the desegregation area which has obligations to the School 

Bond Loan Fund as of the June 30 preceding the effective date of final 

desegregation should be required to levy against its property tax 

base a levy of seven mills less the area-wide debt service levy until 

the obligation is paid.

IV. In accordance with observation 11, it is concluded that the Court 

needs to obtain, through federal channels,a clarification of federal



#

fund eligibility, consistent with the information contained in 

this report, to the end that no federal funds are denied the area 

as a consequence of the Court Order. •

V. Based on observation 9, it would seem that the State Board of

Education through the Superintendent of Public Instruction should be 

authorized to approve all capital outlay plans requested by districts 

in the desegregation area between the effective date of interim de­

segregation and the effective date of final desegregation.

VI. Based on observations 5 and 8, it is concluded that any district in 

the desegregation area which has surplus funds, as of the June 30 

preceding the effective date of final desegregation, in the general 

fund, debt service fund, and building and site fund be required to 

transfer such surpluses to the area-wide authority and that the 

area-wide authority be required to give credit for such funds toward 

that district's contribution for the appropriate annual area-wide 

mi 11 age levy or use such funds to meet contractual obligations incurred 

by the local district on, or before, the June 30 preceding the effec­

tive date of final desegregation.

VII. Based on observations 12 and 13, there is reason to conclude that 

municipal governments may need to assume responsibility for public 

libraries and recreation programs in those school districts now 

administering such programs. The two community college departments 

under the jurisdiction of local school boards may need to be 

reconstituted with independent .community college boards or made 

part of existing community colleges, if, in either instance, interim 

arrangements are not extended.

-  21 -



-  22 -

PART IV

GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS

Introduction

Proposed interim desegregation arrangements have sharply limited 

applicability to students, staff and geographic area, and are characterized 

by dependence on local district voluntary compliance with the letter and 

spirit of the Court Order. Interim arrangements abrogate existing adminis­

trative and governance arrangements only to the extent required to carry 

out the Court Order for interim desegregation. Additionally, the interim 

arrangements explicitly acknowledge inability to effectuate a number of the 

Court's stipulations with respect to desegregation as discussed in Part II 

of the Court Order.

The task of providing recommendations for administrative and governance 

arrangements for final desegregation is extremely complex and difficult as 

noted in the Schedule of Events in Part VII of this report. A number of 

dramatic differences between interim and final desegregation must be 

noted.

First, interim desegregation, as proposed by the Panel, affected only 

certain of the school districts, pupils, staff and facilities of the 

desegregation area. Final recommendations would affect all 780,000 students, 

33,000 instructional personnel, and the total area and facilities of the 53 

districts that comprise the desegregation area. More importantly, schools 

of substantially like quality must be provided and maintained in the entire ' 

desegregation area beginning in the period of final desegregation.



As stated previously, producing schools of substantially like quality 

will require drastic alteration of the existing means of financing the 

public schools in the desegregation area.

Relatively uniform financing will, in all likelihood, require a system 

of governance that allows for the collection and distribution of public 

monies in ways that effectuate the Court's intent in regard to Part II of 

the June 14, 1972 Order which noted:

A. "Pupil reassignment to accomplish desegregation of the Detroit 
public schools . . ."of necessity, shal1 involve 53 local 
school districts to be known henceforth as ". . . the dese­
gregation area. (See pp. 24ff., 33ff., and 47 of this document)

B• " . . .  pupil reassignment shal1 be effected within the clusters
• • • so as to achieve the greatest degree of actual desegrega­
tion to the end that, upon implementation, no school, grade 
or classroom be substantially disproportionate to the overall 
pupil racial composition." (See pp.'24ff., 33ff., and 47)

C. "Appropriate and safe transportation arrangements shal1 be made 
available without cost to all pupils assigned to schools deemed 
by the panel to be other than 'walk-in1 schools." (See pp. 24ff., 
33ff., and 47)

D- • every effort . . ." shal1 ". . .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 cf use of 
existing transportation facilities . . . "  (See pp. 2 4ff., 33ff 
and 47) ‘ ’

E. "Transportation and pupil assignment shal1 . . .  be a two-way 
process with both black and white pupils sharing the respon­
sibility for transportation requirements at all grade levels
. . . care shall be taken to randomize the location of particu­
lar grade levels." (See pp. 24ff., 33ff., and 47)

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 
andstaffs, 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



-  24 -

than one building administrator, every effort should be made to 
assign a bi-racial administrative team." (See pp. 24ff., 33ff., and 
47)

G. "In the hiring, assignment, promotion, demotion, and dismissal 
of faculty and staff, racially non-discriminatory criteria . . 
shall "be developed and used . . . Affirmative action shal1 be 
taken to increase minority employment in all levels of teaching 
and administration." (See pp. 42ff., 46 and 51ff.)

H. "The restructuring of school facility utilization necessitated 
by pupil reassignments . . ." shal1 ". . . produce schools of 
substantially like quality . . ." (See pp. 9ff., 19ff., and 47)

I. "The State Board of Education and the State Superintendent of 
Education shal1 , 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 facili­
ties 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 school boards and the State Board's School Plant Plan­
ning Handbook." (See pp. 15ff., 21 and 48)

J. "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 desegregation . . ." (See pp. 3,
28ff., 33ff., and 49)

K. "At each school within the desegregation area provision shal1
be made to insure 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 pp.24ff., 33ff., and 
47)

L. "The defendants shal 1 . . . take immediate action including . . . 
the establishment or expansion of inservice training of faculty 
and staff, create bi-racial committees, employ black counselors, 
and require bi-racial and non-discriminatory extra-curricular 
activities." (See pp. 42ff., 46 and 51ff.)

The Issue

A long-range governance and administrative plan may need to be developed

which envisions an area-wide authority which can assume the following



• •
- 25 -

governance responsibilities:

1. Responsible for determining the funds needed for the operation

of all schools included in the desegregation plan. ■

2. Effect, when necessary, reassignment of territory and clusters 

to maintain the appropriate pupil racial balances.

3. Finance inservice training and otherwise implement Items K

and L of the stipulations identified above as detailed in Part II 

of the Court Order.

4. Implement Items B, F, G, H, and J of the stipulations identified 

above as detailed in Part II of the Court Order.

5. Provide regional supervision of local boards so as to insure 

continued conformity to the stipulations of the Court Order.

Observations

In considering the issue of how a long-range governance and adminis­

trative plan might be effectuated, some type of administrative mechanism 

may be necessary at the area-wide level which necessitates five observations 

as follows:

flEglLi-JjLggems essential that an area-wide authority be created by

> or the Court, elected on an area-wide basis, and the authority 

could assume the responsibilities outlined above.

It should be noted that all present public educational decision-making 

bodies are creatures of the State Constitution or Legislature. Therefore, 

the Court might first consider the State Legislature as the most appropriate • 

body to create the area-wide authority.



-  26 -

The contemplated area-wide authority might combine certain character­

istics presently ascribed to a local board of education and an intermediate 

board of education, together with certain other characteristics that are 

not now descriptive of either local or intermediate boards of education. Even 

so, since the principal characteristics of the area-wide authority would 

resemble local and intermediate boards and since local and intermediate boards 

are authorized by State statute and function in conformity to State statute, 

it seems appropriate that the area-wide authority might be similarly con­

stituted. It therefore seems appropriate that at an early date, the Michigan 

State Legislature, or the Court, might prepare a description of the composition, 

duties and other characteristics of an area-wide authority for purposes of 

effectuating and maintaining final desegregation arrangements.

. If created, the area-wide authority should be empowered to hire necessary 

staff to carry out responsibilities as described in this discussion.

If created, the area-wide authority should be a policy-making body con­

sistent with the role of existing local boards of education. If created, 

the area-wide authority should employ a superintendent, and such other 

administrative staff as may be necessary, to administer and implement the 

policies of the area-wide authority.

It has been suggested that an area-wide authority might be constituted 

of the aggregate membership of the three affected intermediate boards of 

education. This alternative must be tentatively rejected for the following 

reasons. Intermediate boards of education do not have taxing authority of 

such nature as would allow them to effectuate the financing of the final 

desegregation arrangements. The affected intermediate boards of education



-  27 -

are not now elected directly by the voters of the desegregation area and 

therefore lack one of the desirable characertistics of a decision-making 

body with taxing authority. Finally, the affected intermediate boards 

of education represent school districts that are not included in the

desegregation area.

In summary, these characteristics make it clear that in order to use 

the aggregate membership of the three intermediate boards of education as 

an area-wide authority, substantial changes would be required in the present 

method of electing intermediate boards and in the powers that now describe 

intermediate boards and some alteration would be necessary with respect to 

the constituent school districts that are now served by the intermediate 

boards. Further study of the issue of area-wide governance may not find the 

obstacles discussed above compelling. Therefore, the Court may wish to 

reconsider use of intermediate boards of education as an area-wide authority 

at the time the Court responds to the observations and recommendations with 

respect to governance that will be received from the local and intermediate 

boards of education and the area-wide authority.

A second observation is that cluster boards, as governing bodies, do 

not seem necessary at this time. However, should cluster boards come into 

being, as a function of the Court's response to the reports it will receive 

from the local and intermediate boards of education and the area-wide 

authority, the cluster boards should be representative of their constituents. 

The following discussion of cluster boards becomes appropriate only in the 

event that the Court orders their creation.

If the cluster boards are brought into being, they should have prescribed 

authority and responsibility for the students, teachers and staff assigned



-  28 -

to the schoois within the clusters, in conformity with specifications 

establishing the clusters.

It should be emphasized that this discussion of cluster boards of 

education and cluster districts is dependent on analyses of the interim 

arrangements. The creation of cluster districts becomes appropriate only 

in the event that analyses of the interim experience recommend such creation. 

When, and if, cluster districts and cluster boards are created, they 

should have the characteristics outlined below.

It might be that 16 school districts in the desegregation area could 

be created coterminous with the clusters described in the Court Order and 

modified by the Panel. The 16 cluster districts could then perform all 

educational functions now characteristic of Michigan school districts, 

except as abrogated by the Court or assigned to the area-wide authority 

or to local school districts.

One of the principal responsibilities of the cluster boards would be 

to reflect those policies and procedures adopted by the area-wide authority 

for purposes of effectuating and maintaining final desegregation. Each 

cluster district might have a board of education consisting of members 

chosen by the prevailing Michigan procedures for the election of members 

of local boards of education. The particular characteristics of the 

cluster boards can be developed if the Court orders creation of the 

cluster boards.

A third observation is that on, or before, the March 15 preceding 

the effective date of final desegregation, the local and intermediate boards 

of education in the desegregation area should file with the area-wide 

authority, for subsequent transmittal to the Court, analyses of the interim 

arrangements with respect to finance, governance and personnel; and that,



-  29 -

subsequently, on, or before, the April 15 preceding the effective date of 

final desegregation, the area-wide authority should file with the Court 

analyses of the local and intermediate reports, together with such other 

observations an_d re commendations, with respect to interim arrangements, 

as the area-wide authority may deem appropriate; particularly with respect 

to the role, function and responsibilities of the several legally constituted 

educational bodies in the desegregation area. .

The observation that the cluster boards may become necessary raises the 

question of the future role of the 53 local boards of education, the eight 

regional boards of the Detroit School District and the three intermediate 

boards existing in the desegregation area. However, until such time as 

observations and conclusions are forthcoming from the interim arrangements, 

it does not seem prudent to call for the alteration of local boards of 

education, intermediate boards, or the regional boards of the Detroit •

School District.

The press of time has not allowed full examination of the potential 

future role of the local, intermediate, and Detroit Regional Boards of 

Education. Such examination is substantially dependent upon the outcome 

of the interim arrangements.

The report from the area-wide authority to be filed on the April 15 pre­

ceding final desegregation, should reflect the interim experiences with 

cooperative agreements and should take into account the observations of the local 

and intermediate boards of education. Finally, it should be noted that one of



-30 -

the issues that requires special attention by the local and intermediate 

boards of education and the area-wide authority is the appropriate level at 

which personnel contractual negotiations should occur. The Court's response 

to the April 15 reports should include the designation of the local, cluster, 

or area-wide governance level, as the most appropriate for negotiation 

purposes.

A fourth observation is that there need to be bi-racial advisory 

committees in each building consistent with K and L of Part II of the Order. 

The advisory committees for elementary buildings, composed of grades K-6,

K-5, K-4 or such other combination of grades as may describe an elementary 

school whose uppermost grade is no higher than 6, could consist of 10 to 

15 parents selected by the parents of the pupils who attend the building. 

There may already be established procedures for choosing faculty and staff 

participants. Election procedures could be the responsibility of the local 

board and should be of such a nature as to insure that bi-racial advisory 

committees would have a racial composition in substantial proportion to 

the racial composition of the pupils attending the building.

Secondary schools, composed of grades 6-12, 7-12 or such other com­

bination whose lower grade is no less than 6, would also have bi-racial 

advisory committees composed of from 15 to 20 members. The teachers should 

be chosen by the instructional staff of the building. The pupils should be 

chosen by the pupils in the building, and the parents should be chosen by 

idle parents of the children who attend the building. Election procedures 

could be established by the local board of education and be of such nature 

as to insure that the teacher representatives, pupil representatives, and 

parent representatives be substantially proportionate to the racial com-



• •
- 31 -

position of the school.

It could be tne responsibility of the building bi-racial advisory 

committees to make such observations and recommendations as they may deem 

appropriate to the administrator(s) of the building, the local board or 

the area-wide authority.

A fifth observation is that there seems to be a need to create, in the 

desegregation area as a whole, a complaints council composed of 15 to 25 

members, certain of whom might be appointed by the area-wide authority, 

others appointed by the several local boards, and some elected by the 

parents of the pupils of the desegregation area. The complaints council 

could hear complaints related to the conditions in the schools in the 

desegregation area. After hearing complaints, the complaints council could 

make appropriate observations and recommendations to the relevant governance 

body(ies) within the desegregation area. The complaints council could be 

responsible to the area-wide authority. Complaints council procedures could 

be the responsibility of the area-wide authority. .

In the June 29, Progress Report, the Superintendent raised nine questions 

related to the area of governance and administration as follows:

1. Is there a need for a "regional coordinating board1 and an overall 

"area superintendent" to perform the functions as listed above?

2. If so, what should be the means and time-table for their estab­

lishment and what should be their assigned powers, duties, 

membership and tenure?

3. Is there a need for an area superintendent and overall board

for each of the clusters?

4. If so, wnat should be the means and time-table for their estab-



-  32 -

lishment, and what should be their assigned powers, duties, 

membership and tenure?

5. What should be the future role, on an interim and a long-term 

basis, tor the existing boards and administrative staffs of the 

53 constituent school districts in the desegregation area?

6. What should be the role of the 3 intermediate school districts

in the desegregation area?

7. What will happen to the concept of Detroit decentralization?

8. What becomes the duties of local school superintendents in the

53 districts?

9. How are special education and vocational arrangements among 

districts affected?

The foregoing discussion has pointed the way to resolution of each of 

these nine questions during final desegregation without the need to 

abolish any existing structures.

Conclusions * 1

In summary, it can be noted that this part of the report has dealt 

with each of the nine questions, and has examined, in some detail the five 

critical issues related to governance and administration, thereby enabling 

the Superintendent to reach the conclusions that follow.

1. Observation 1 leads to the conclusion that it is necessary for

the Court to bring into being an area-wide authority. The authority 

should be elected on an area-wide basis consistent with election 

procedures prepared by the Legislature or the Court. The authority 

should have five governance responsibilities as follows:



-  33 -

a. Responsible for determining the funds needed for the 

operation of all schools included in the desegregation 

plan.

b. Effect, when necessary, reassignment of territory and 

clusters to maintain the appropriate pupil racial balances.

c. Finance inservice training and otherwise implement Items K

and L of the stipulations identified above as detailed in Part II

of the Court Order.

d. Implement Items B, F, G, H, and J of the stipulations identified 

above as detailed in Part II of the Court Order.

e. Provide regional supervision of local boards so as to insure 

continued conformity to the stipulations of the Court Order.

2. In accordance with observation 2, there does not seem to be need for 

the Court to consider effectuating the concept of cluster boards of 

education at this time. However, should the Court, at some future 

time, create cluster boards of education, they should be representa­

tive of the constituents being served by the cluster. Should the 

Court create cluster districts, they should be coterminous with

the clusters described in the Court Order and modified by the Panel. 

It should be emphasized that the appropriateness of the concept of 

cluster boards of education and cluster school districts must 

finally depend on the Court's response to the reports on these, 

and related matters, received from the local and intermediate 

boards of education and the area-wide authority.

3. Based upon observation 3, there is need for a report on, or before, 

the March 15 preceding the effective date of final desegregation



- 34 -

from the local and intermediate boards of education to the area­

wide authority for subsequent transmittal to the Court; such report 

to provide analyses of the interim arrangements with respect to 

governance and personnel and, subsequently, on, or before, the 

April 15 preceding the effective date of final desegregation, the 

area-wide authority should file with the Court analyses of the 

local and intermediate reports, together with such other observa­

tions and recommendations, with respect to interim arrangements, 

as the area-wide authority may deem appropriate, particularly, with 

respect to the role, function, and responsibilities of the several 

legally constituted educational bodies in the desegregation area.

4. Observation 4 leads one to conclude that there is need for the 

Court to consider creation of bi-racial advisory bodies, as 

described in this report, in each elementary and secondary school 

in the desegregation area. The advisory bodies should include 

bi-racial representatives of parents, faculty and staff and, 

where appropriate, students.

5. In accordance with observation 5, it can be concluded that the 

Court might consider creation of an area-wide complaints council 

to hear complaints and make appropriate observations and recommen­

dations to the area-wide authorty in response to complaints. Such 

a complaints council should be composed of persons, some of whom 

might be appointed, and some of whom might be elected with the racial 

composition of the council proportionate to the pupil racial com­

position of the desegregation area. The complaints council should

be responsible to the area-wide authority.



- 35 - 

PART V

CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS AND PERSONNEL

Introduction

For the interim period, desegregation arrangements were predicated on 

the premise that only certain of the elementary schools in the 16 clusters 

would be affected. Consistent with this premise, the interim recommendations 

called for limited desegregation of faculty and staff, involving in the 

desegregation plans only the certificated personnel in the affected grades 

and schools in the clusters selected. Thus, interim arrangements for the 

exchange of faculty and staff v/ere to be handled by developing memoranda 

of agreement between, and among, the school districts involved.

This procedure, however, gives rise to a good deal of speculation as 

to how teachers, employed under several different collective bargaining 

contracts, wil! respond to an exchange program predicated upon a series 

of memoranda of agreement which propose to hold in abeyance, for at least 

one year, certain provisions of these master contracts. A basic question 

is, how effective can a faculty and staff exchange program be when the reas­

signed teacher or staff member continues to be an employee of one district 

while actually teaching and working in another district. Additional 

questions about the viability of interim arrangements will center around such 

issues as: (1) pay and other economic fringe benefits, (2) pension rights,

(3) tenure rights, (4) grievance rights, (5) due process for protection 

of job rights, and so on. Subsequent consideration and discussion of these 

issues led to the conclusion that the State Superintendent should advise 

the Court that certain provisions of negotiated contracts could not be



• •
- 36 -

resolved within the memoranda of agreement, and that the Court might need 

to order, for the interim period, that certain provisions of these contracts 

be modified in specific ways prior to effectuating memoranda of agreement 

between, and among, the districts involved.

Wnile such arrangements hold reasonable promise of success, when imple­

mented on a limited scale and for a limited period of time, it would appear 

tnat such arrangements should not be extended to the entire 33,000 faculty 

and staff members in the desegregation area who are now employed by 53 

separate local boards of education under 53 separate collective bargaining 

contracts or arrangements, unless the experience acquired during interim 

desegregation indicates extension of sucn arrangements. In that case, the 

interim contractual and personnel arrangements might be continued. The 

following discussion is provided in the event that the interim experience 

does not recommend extension of interim arrangements.

The Issues

A long-range contractual, and faculty and staff plan has to be 

developed which envisions: (1) unifying individual and master contracts

and the collective bargaining process, (2) resolving teacher tenure issues, 

and (3) making retirement systems and provisions compatible. These issues 

can best be resolved, it seems, if there is a single area-wide authority 

which can assume the following personnel and contractual responsibilities:

1. Serve as the employing board for purposes of Act 379, Public Acts

of 1965, the Public Employee Relations Act. .

2. Serve as the controlling board for purposes of Act 4, the Public 

Act of 1937, the Teacher Tenure Act.



-  37 -

3. Administer the appropriate provisions of the Public Schools ,

Employees Retirement System and the Retirement System of the 

City School District of Detroit. ■

4. Act as a body corporate for purposes of entering into contracts 

with governmental and non-governmental agencies.

5. Ensure that the stipulations outlined in G, K, and L of Part II 

of the Court's Order are met.

Observations

During the development of the Progress Report, which was submitted to 

the Court on June 29, 1972, some 35 questions were identified as illustrating 

the scope of the problems involved in implementing the Court's Order as 

it pertained to personnel and other contractual arrangements. These 35 

questions can bo categorized into five groupings and dealt with in terms 

of five observations.

The first observation ijs_ that al 1 of the problems related to individual 

and master contracts which may come into being under the interim exchange 

program can be resolved under final arrangements by ensuring that each 

faculty and staff person is an employee of the district in which he or she 

works.

Ten of the 35 questions in the Progress Report are related to the issue 

of individual and master contracts and are listed below:

1. Can the teacher employed under an individual contract be assigned

to another district without voiding the contract? •

2. What are the teachers rights under Act 379, Public Acts of 1965, 

the Public Employees Relations Act?



-  38 -

3. What modifications may be necessary in Act 379, Public Acts of 

1965? And how will they be effected?

4. Hay a teacher refuse reassignment on the basis of existing 

contract provisions?

5. What modifications may be necessary in individual contractual 

relationships involving non-instructional personnel?

6. Who is the employing district?

7. Are identical master contract provisions required for each of 

tne districts involved?

8. Should uniform master contract provisions be mandated? If so, 

by whom?

9. Will master contract provisions under interim arrangements differ 

from such provisions under final arrangements?

10. Could reassignment lead to a series of employee elections for 

new bargaining agents?

Consistent with discussion and conclusions advanced in Part III on 

Finance, and Part IV on Administration and Governance, the proposed area­

wide authority could be empowered with the authority to negotiate contracts. 

The area-wide authority then, would become the employing district and all 

provisions of Act 379, Public Acts of 1965, the Public Employees Relations 

Act would apply in the same fashion as they now apply. Thus, all of the 

issues identified in the ten questions above would be resolved. However, 

it would appear that an employee election for new employee bargaining 

agents would ensue, since the 53 present employee bargaining units would 

no long be appropriate.



• •
- 39 -

As a second observation, it appears that investing the area-wide 

authority with curtain powers of a local hoard of education would 1 argely 

resolve the teacher tenure issues. The designation of the area-wide 

authority as the employing board would make it the controlling board for 

i mposes of Act 4, the Public Acts of 1937, the Teacher Tenure Act, and

enable it- to make tenure decisions concerning the teachers in the

desegregation area.

The June 29, 1972 Progress Report identified the following five questions 

as needing resolution in this area:

1. If charges are brought against a teacher who has been granted 

continuing tenure prior to reassignment, who shall bring such 

charges, who shall make the decision to proceed with such 

charges, and who shall hear such charges?

2. Who evaluates the reassigned teacher who is still serving a 

probationary period, who certifies a "satisfactory" year of 

teaching, and who makes the decision to grant continuing tenure?

Under the Tenure Act, what are the rights of the tenured teacher 

who refuses reassignment? What are the controlling board's 

rights? Is such refusal reasonable and just cause for dismissal?

4. What are the rights of the tenured teacher who "becomes reassigned" 

in the event a new district, or districts, is created out of the 

existing districts in the desegregation area?

5. What are the rights of the probationary teacher in the event of 

such an action?

Questions 4 and 5 above might still require further resolution. The 

existing Tenure Act provides one possible resolution to question 4, in that



-  40

Article III, Section 2, of the Act states:

'If 3 teacher on continuing tenure is employed by another 
controlling board, lie shall not be subject to another pro­
bationary period of more than one year, beginning with the .
date of employment, and may at the option of the controlling 
board be placed immediately on continuing tenure."

Because of the unique circumstances surrounding tenure, and because

of tne desirability of treating reassigned faculty and staff in a fair and

equitable manner, it might be advisable to provide that all teachers in

the 53 districts, who are on continuing tenure at the time of assignment

to the area-wide authority, automatically be granted continuing tenure with

the area-wide authority.

In the same vein, any probationary period credited to a teacher 

immediately prior to final reassignment could be considered in subsequent 

tenure decisions made by the area-wide authority.

The third observation is that the creation of an area-wide authority 

and its designation as an employing board would largely resolve the issue 

of separate retirement systems, and thus answer the questions posed below, 

at least in the instance of "new hi res." ’

The problems of two separate retirement systems as they relate to 

desegregation of faculty and staff were illustrated, in the June 29, 1972, 

Progress Report, by the following two questions:

1. Does a reassigned teacher continue to be covered under the 

retirement provisions in effect in the "sending district," 

or wili the teacher come under the retirement provisions 

of the "receiving district?"

2. Will recommendations for final arrangements have to include a 

mandate to merge or to provide for reciprocal services



- 41 -

between the two retirement systems?

All persons in the desegregation area could come under the provisions 

of the Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System. Veteran • 

employees could continue to be members of either the Public School Employees 

Retirement System or the Employees Retirement System of the City of Detroit, 

provided necessary arrangements are made to continue the existence of the 

latter. In no event, should any employee be denied any benefits accrued 

ufi to the time of final transfer. Recent statute changes would suggest that 

it is possible to move toward a program of similar contributions and benefits 

between the two retirement systems. The newly proposed area-wide authority 

would appear to be an appropriate body to be charged with developing further 

recommendations in this regard.

As a fourth observation, it appears that the creation of an area-wide 

authority resolves the issue of any future contractual arrangements. The 

area-wide authority, in effect, becomes a body corporate capable of entering 

into contracts. All existing contractual arrangements, which may exist 

at the time of merger, between any of the 53 local districts and other 

agencies would be assumed by the area-wide authority as appropriate 

obligations. Similar provisions are now in effect under Chapter 3 of the 

School Code of 1955, which provides for the consolidation of school districts.

The June 29, 1972, Progress Report further identified a series of 

questions related to existing or future contractual arrangements between

and among local districts and other governmental and non-governmental
. . ' • •

agencies. These questions were as follows:

1. Will the establishment of schools of "substantially like quality** 

require uniform textbook and instructional materials adoption



-  42 -

across the 53 districts? If so, what will be the status of 

existing contracts and purchases already processed to provide 

textbooks and instructional materials? Can the provision of 

such materials be effectuated before the opening of school 

in September? What will be the status of present contracts with 

private agencies for other services, e.g., transportation, busses, 

etc, ?

2. Will the reassignment of pupils under the desegregation plan 

dramatically alter the relative need for these type services 

among the different districts in the desegregation area? Will 

personnel and other type services now provided by, say, the 

Oakland Intermediate School District be extended to districts

. within Wayne or Macomb Counties or vice-versa?

3. What effect will pupil and faculty reassignment have on these 

contracts?

4. What effect will pupil reassignment have on the "contracts"

in effect under the Compensatory Education Chapter of the State 

School Aid Act? Will district eligibility under the Chapter 

need to be recalculated as a result of pupil reassignment? Will 

other chapters of the State Aid Act be affected?

5. Will the reassignment of large number of pupils result in a

violation" of existing federal guidelines under programs such 

as Title I, ESEA; Title VI, ESEA; Title VII, ESEA; and the 

Vocational Education Amendments?

As a fifth and final observation, it would seem that the area-wide 

authority should assume the responsibi 1 it.y for a host of activities related



t^e June 14, 1972 Order, including (1) inservice traininq of 

evaluating and monitoring uniform personnel _practi ces 

area, (3) adopting of and implementing affirma- 

tjve_jiction plan? and arrangements for plans for the hiring of black

\4) making curriculum and extra-curricular activities bi- 

racial and nc,ri-discriminatory in nature.

The final series of questions raised in the June 29, 1972, Progress 

/le.Port Centerec around the problems related to inservice training, the 

employment of black counselors, and the development and implementation of 

an affirmative action plan. Those questions were as follows:

1. Should school personnel inservice training programs be 

instituted in designated affected areas prior to reassignment

. of staff and pupiIs?

2. How can a cohesive and committed faculty and staff be rebuilt 

in thirty days?

3. To provide a supportive environment, should not all staff- 

professional and non-professional--be included in inservice 

trai ning?

4. Where are the resource persons located who are skilled in multi­

ethnic studies and human relations who can be utilized in 

developing and implementing inservice programs?

5. What will be the cost of implementing inservice programs and 

who shall be responsible for meeting this cost?

6. Is there an existing pool of trained black counselors to draw 

from?

7. If such a pool does exist, or is very small, what are alternative

-  43 -



• •
- 44 -

sources for black counselors?

8. Will exceptions to the administrative rules for endorsement of 

counselors be necessary?

9. Can sucn exceptions be made if there are certified, endorsed, 

and qualified white counselors available for employment?

10. Is a uniform "affirmative action plan," monitored by a regional 

authority needed across all districts in the desegregation

area?

11. Would a regional authority be responsible for developing and 

ensuring the adoption of uniform personnel practices and 

procedures in each district?

12. Would a regional authority be responsible only for issuing broad 

guidelines with the adoption of specific personnel practices

and procedures left to the local district?

13. Is there a conflict between (a) "racially non-discriminatory 

criteria," and (b) "affirmative action . . .  to increase 

minority employment?"

Most of these questions are engendered by the assumption that desegre­

gation efforts must be effected between and among 53 separate and relatively 

autonomous local school districts. Indeed, the recommendations for interim 

arrangements were based on this premise-~or rather the premise of lesser 

complexity, i.e.s interim arrangements would not involve all 53 districts, 

but only certain districts in the clusters selected for interim desegregation.

A basic assumption is that a single area-wide authority can deal with 

many of these issues in an effective and efficient manner.

The area-wide authority also would appear to be in the best position



-  45 -

to evaluate and monitor uniform personnel practices throughout the area 

consistent with the Court's Order, including the implementation of 

affirmative action plans and the hiring of black counselors.

It would appear that the area-wide authority should be responsible for 

evaluation and monitoring to ensure that throughout all schools in the 

sixteen clusters the following circumstances prevail: (1) that each school

maintain a bi-racial committee made up of parents, staff, and pupils, where 

appropriate, so as to provide ample opportunity for all persons affected to 

participate in the full and continuing implementation of the desegregation 

efforts; and (2) that the curriculum activities--including extra-curricular 

activities— and conduct standards of all the schools in the desegregation 

area 'respect tiie diversity of students who are coming from differing ethnic 

backgrounds, and also respect the dignity and safety of each individual 

involved in the educational process— student, parent, and educator. While 

the local boards should have an ongoing responsibility for implementing 

immediate and necessary actions in these areas, it would appear that the 

respon si bi iity of ensuring the maintenance of uniform standards and pro­

cedures across all schools in the desegregation area must fall ultimately 

on the area-wide authority.

Conclusions *

In summary, it can be noted that this part of the report has dealt 

with each of the 35 questions and has examined, in some detail, five 

critical issues related to contractual arrangements and personnel, thereby 

enabling the Superintendent to reach the following conclusions:



• •
- 46 -

I. Based upon observation 1, and in the event interim arrangements

are not extended, the problems related to faculty and staff in terms 

of employer-employee relationships, as now in effect, can be resolved 

by the creation of an area-wide authority which is provided the same 

rights, privileges and responsibilities of an existing local board 

of education with respect to negotiations.

II. Based upon observations 2 and 3, and in the event interim arrangements 

are not extended, teacher tenure and retirement can also be resolved 

by the creation of an area-wide authority with the status of a local 

board with respect to tenure and retirement.

III. In accordance with observation 4, and in the event the interim ar­

rangements are not extended, all contractual arrangements of the 

local districts could be assumed by the area-wide authority as 

appropriate obligations.

IV. Based upon observation 5, and in the event the interim arrangements 

are not extended, the area-wide authority should assume ultimate 

responsibility for (1) inservice training of faculty and staff,

(2) evaluating and monitoring uniform personnel practices consis­

tent with the Court's Order, (3) adopting affirmative action plans 

including the hiring of black counselors, and (4) ensuring that 

curriculum and extra-curricular activities are bi-racial and 

non-discriminatory in nature.



-  47 -

PART VI

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FINANCE, GOVERNANCE, AND PERSONNEL ARRANGEMENTS

Consistent with the background discussion in Part II of this report, 

it is recommended that the Court consider the outcome of interim desegrega­

tion arrangements before effectuating any of the following recommendations 

except as the recommendations are judged appropriate and essential, as 

written, regardless of the outcome of interim desegregation arrangements.

Ihe June 14. 1972 order of the federal court states "the State Super­

intendent of Public Instruction, with the assistance of the other state 

defendants, shall examine, and make final recommendations, consistent 

with the principles established (i.e., in Part II of the order), for (1) 

financial, (2) administration and school governance, and (3) contractual 

arrangements including personnel policies and practices."

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

contained in this document, it would appear necessary that the 

Michigan Legislature, or the Court, create an area-wide authority 

with certain finance and governance powers, which could be elected 

on an area-wide basis, consistent with election procedures prepared 

by the Michigan Legislature, or the Court.

2■ In accordance with the above order and the examination of issues 

contained in this document, it would appear necessary that, if the 

other means identified in Part III of this document are not availab1e 

to finance the desegregation plan, and in the event of mi 11 age defeat 

following an area-wide election, for purposes of securing necessary 

operating mi 11 age beyond the 15 mill limitation, the Court take such

i



-  48 -

steps as are necessary to obtain the necessary revenue to operate 

the schools in the desegregation area.

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

issues contained in this document, it would appear necessary that, 

as of the June 30 preceding the effective date of final desegregation, 

any district with an operating deficit, or financial obligations 

to the School Bond Loan Fund be required to establish a property 

tax Ievy on their property tax base, to be annually collected 

until these obligations are discharged, in that district.

4• In accordance with the above order and the examination of the

issues contained in this document, it would appear necessary that the 

Court obtain, through appropriate channels, a determination concern­

ing the effect of the Court's order on federal funds, flowing 

through the state, to the area-wide authority, to ensure that there 

is no loss in such funds, as a result of the Court's order.

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

contained in this document, it would appear necessary that the Court 

order the State Board of Education, through the Superintandent of 

Public Instruction,to review all capital outlay plans, between the 

effective date of interim desegregation and the effective date of 

final desegregation, in order to ensure that construction, incom­

patible with the total desegregation plan, does not occur, 

consistent with Part II, "I" of the Court order.

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

contained in this document, it would appear necessary that the Court 

order the transfer of all local school district surpluses, as of the



June 30 preceding final desegregation, to the general fund, debt service 

fund, and building and site fund of the area-wide authority, and that 

such districts be credited with these funds in determininq their 

contribution toward the annual area-wide operating mi 11 age.

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

contained in this document and in the event interim arrangements are 

not continued, it would appear necessary that the Court make provision 

for municipal governments to assume the responsibility for all public 

libraries and recreation programs, now the responsibility of local 

boards. It would also appear necessary for the Court to take steps 

to place the two community college departments now under the .jurisdic- 

tion of local school boards under the jurisdiction of an existinc^or 

newly created,comnunity college governing body, if interim arrange­

ments are not continued.

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

contained in this document, it would appear necessary that tne Court 

order a report on, or before, the March 15 preceding final desegregation, 

from the local and intermediate boards of education, to the area-wide 

authority, for subsequent transmittal to the Court; such report to pro­

vide analyses of the interim arrangements with repsect to governance 

and personnel and, subsequently, on, or before, the April 15 preceding 

final desegregation, the area-wide authority should file with the Court 

analyses of the local and intermediate reports, together with such other 

observations and recommendations, with respect to interim arrangements, 

as the area-wide authority may deem appropriate, particularly, with 

respect to the role, function, and responsibilities of the several 

legally constituted educational bodies in the desegregation area.



50

9- In accordance with the above order and the examination of the issues 

contained in this document, it would appear necessary that, the 

Court not create cluster boards,with governing authority,at this time. 

Shouid the Court respond to local board, iintermediate board, and area­

wide authority analyses of the interim arrangements by recommending 

creatior^o_f cluster districts and cluster boards of education, the State 

Legislature, or the Court, should ereate cluster school districts 

coterminous with the 16 districts described in the Court Order and, 

as modified by the Court-appointed Panel, and each cluster should 

be governed by a cluster board of education which would be 

representative of the constituentsbeing served by the clusters.

10• In accordance with the above order and the examination of the

issues contained in this document, it would appear necessary that 

trie Court order the local Doards of education, in the desegregation 

area, to create, consistent with the governance discussion, bi- 

racial advisory committees in each building, in each school district, 

in the desegregation area.

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

contained in this document, it would appear necessary that the Court 

create an area-wide complaints council to hear complaints and to make 

appropriate observations and recommendations to the area-wide 

authority in response to complaints of students, teaciiers, 

administrators, parents and citizens.

12. In accordance with the above order and the examination of the issues, 

contained in this document, and in the event interim arrangements



- 51 -

are not extended, it would appear necessary that the faculty and 

staffs employed in the desegregation area be employees of a single 

le9alb' created governing body in order to effectuate necessary 

aspects of Act 379 of the Public Acts of 1965, the Public

Employment Relation Act.

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

contained in this document, and in the event interim arrangements 

are not extended, it would appear necessary that the area-wide 

authority be given tne necessary legal status wherein provisions of 

Act 4 cr the Public Acts of 1937, Second Extra Session, the Teacher 

Tenure Act, can remain in force for all teachers employed by the 

area-wide authority and further that Act 136 of the Public Acts of 

1945, the Public Employees Retiremerit Act_can also continue in 

force with the appropriate teacher benefits.

^^• In accordance with the above order and the examination of the

issues contained in this document, and in the event interim arrange­

ments are not extended, it would appear necessary that all existing 

contractual arrangements of the 53 local boards of education be 

assumed by the area-wide authority until the termination of such 

contracts, or the mutual agreement of the parties that such contracts 

be discontinued prior to termination dates.

15: In accordance with the above order and the examination of the issues

containeq in this document, it would appear necessary that the area­

wide autnority be given the responsibility of ensuring the maintenance 

of uniform standards and procedures in (1) programs of inservice 

training, (2) personnel practices, (3) affirmative action plans



• •
- 52 -

for hiring minority personnel inc1uding black counselors, (4) 

programs wjjereirpprovisions of curricula and extra-curricular 

activities and codes of conduct are bi-racial and non-discrimina­

tory in nature, and (5) such other responsibility as may be 

necessary and appropriate to effectuate final desegregation,

consistent with tip stipulations of the Court Order of June 14, 

1972.



SCHEDULE OF EVENTS

The September 10 preceding 
final desegregation

The September 25 preceding 
final desegregation

The December 1 preceding 
final desegregation

The January 1 preceding 
final desegregation

The January 1 preceding 
final desegregation

The March 15 preceding 
final desegregation

Court orders State Board of Education, 
through the Superintendent, to approve 
or disapprove all capital outlay plans 
and bond issues of the 53 districts in 
the desegregation area. Approval or 
disapproval to occur between the effec­
tive date of interim desegregation and 
the effective date of final desegrega­
tion. pn the effective date of final 
desegregation, the area-wide authority 
assumes this responsibility.)

Court orders implementation of election 
procedures for an area-wide authority. 
Election to take place on the November 7 
preceding final desegregation. Authority 
to take office on the December 1 preceding 
final desegregation.

Local districts file with the Court 
plans for inservice training of faculty 
and staff.

All clusters begin year-long inservice 
training program for faculty and staff.

Area-wide authority given legal status 
to participate in local, state and 
federal benefits.

Court orders public libraries assigned 
to city governments.

Court orders two affected community 
college departments assigned to, or 
annexed by, existing community college 
districts.

Local and intermediate boards of education 
file with the area-wide authority, for 
subsequent transmittal to the Court, 
analysis of the interim arrangements with 
respect to finance, governance and personnel, 
such analysis to include recommendations 
regarding the appropriateness of extending 
such arrangements beyond the period of interi 
desegregation.



-  54 -

** #

The April 1 preceding 
final desegregation

The April 15 preceding 
final desegregation

i

The June 15 preceding 
final desegregation '

The June 30 preceding 
final desegregation

September 1 of the final 
desegregation year

September 1 of the final 
desegregation year

Area-wide authority establishes a 
uniform operating tax rate for 
operations, debt service and building 
and site, applicable to the desegre­
gation area for support of programs 
during final desegregation, to be 
collected in accordance with existing 
local tax collection schedules and 
for the use of the area-wide authority.

Area-wide authority files report with 
the Court on the role, function and 
responsibilities of the several legally 
established boards of education, such 
report_to include area-wide authority 
analysis* and transmittal,of the reports 
on interim arrangements received from 
the local and intermediate boards of 
education.

The Court issues orders with respect 
to the future governance and personnel 
arrangements for the desegregation area.

Local school district's surplus funds 
to be turned over to area-wide authority.

Area-wide authority issues guidelines to 
bring into being bi-racial advisory parent 
bodies taking into consideration the in­
terim observations filed by the local and 
intermediate boards of education.

Area-wide authority issues policy and 
procedures for bringing into being a 
complaints council taking into considera­
tion the interim observations filed by 
the local and intermediate boards of 
education.