State v. Davis Transcript of Record

    IN THE U NITED  STATES  COURT OF A P P E A L S

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

RONALD BRADLEY, et al. , '

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

WILLIAM C. MILLIKEN, et al. , No. 21036

Defendants - Appellee s,

and

DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS,

Defendant-Intervenor,

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTS' MOTION FOR 
SUMMARY REVERSAL OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR 
______  INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL

Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone 
2500 Detroit Bank & Trust Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226

Telephone: 963-6420 

ATTORNEYS FOR

THE DETROIT BOARD OF EDUCATION DEFENDANTS



M
IL

LE
R

, C
A

N
F

IE
LD

, 
PA

D
D

O
C

K
 A

N
D

 S
TO

N
E

. 
2

3
0

0
 D

E
TR

O
IT

 B
A

N
K

 ft
 T

R
U

S
T 

B
U

IL
D

IN
O

. 
D

E
TR

O
IT

, 
M

IC
H

IG
A

N
 4

8
2

2
0

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF A P P E A L S  

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

RONALD BRAD LEY, et al. ,

P la intif fs  - Appellants,

No. 21036

W IL L IA M  G. M IL L IK E N ,  et al. ,

Defendants -Appe l le es ,

and

DETROIT FE D E R ATIO N  OF TEACHERS,

Defendant-Intervenor.

_______________________________ /

ANSWER TO P L A IN T IF F - A P P E L L A N T S '  M OTION FOR 
SUMMARY RE VERSAL  OR IN THE A L T E R N A T IV E  FOR 
THE INJUNCTION PENDING A P P E A L

Now come Defendants THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE 

SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE C ITY  OF DETROIT , a school d istr ict of the f irs t  

class, P A T R IC K  McDONALD, JAMES A. H A T H A W A Y  and CORNELIUS 

G O LIG H TLY , members of the Board, and NORMAN DRACHLER, superin­

tendent of the Detroit Public Schools, (hereinafter called "Board of Education 

Defendants"), by their attorneys, M i l le r ,  Canfield, Paddock and Stone, and 

make answer to P la in ti f f -Appe l lants* 1 Motion for  Summary R eversa l  or in the 

Alternative for Injunction Pending Appeal by denying said motion in every  

particular and respectfully submitting this memorandum br ie f  in support thereof.

I. P L A IN T IF F S - A P P E L L A N T S  HAVE F A IL E D  TO OBSERVE 

THE RULES OF A P P E L L A T E  PROCEDURE AND HAVE F A IL E D  

TO ACCORD THE F E D E R A L  JUDICIAL SYSTEM P R O P E R  

RESPECT, A L L  TO THE D E TR E M E N T OF DEFENDANTS-

- 1  -



M
IL

LE
R

, 
C

A
N

F
IE

LD
, 

PA
D

D
O

C
K

 A
N

D
 S

TO
N

E
, 

2
8

0
0

 D
E

TR
O

IT
 B

A
N

K
 G

 T
R

U
S

T 
B

U
IL

D
IN

G
, 

D
E

TR
O

IT
, 

M
IC

H
IG

A
N

 4
8

2
2

S

A P P E L L E E S  AND THE DIGNITY OF THE COURTS.

Defendants-appellees, The Detro it  Board of Education, respectfully 

submit that plaintiff s - appellants, acting under what may only be Interpreted 

as a se lf-r ighteous conviction, have failed to follow severa l  basic procedural 

steps laid down In the F ed e ra l  Rules of Appellate Procedure, all to the harm 

of these defendants.

1. Having requested summary reversa l  of the D istr ict  Courts 

Interlocutory order of December 3, 1970, a procedure not provided for  by 

The F ed era l  Rules of Appellate Procedure  or the rules of this Circuit, they 

have gone beyond the scope of said Rules. Even assuming, arguendo, that 

Rule 2, F. R„ A. P. , would permit this type of re l ie f  In extraordinary c ircu m ­

stances, plaintiff s - appellants have not met the necessary tests in this case, 

as is more  particularly set forth below,

2. Under Rule 8, F. R. A. P. , plaintiff s - appellants are required to

apply f i rs t  to The D istr ict  Court judge fo r  the re l ie f  they seek ,from  this court.

In Arm strong  v. Board of Education of The City of Birmingham, A labam a,

323 F. 2d 333 (5th Cir. 1963), che Circuit Court held that:

"injunctions pending appeal have been issued in 
cases of extreme emergency, to avoid mootness, 
to p reserve  the status quo, to protect the ju r is ­
diction of the court; and in the leading cases on 
the subject, if not all, injunctive r e l ie f  pending 
appeal is granted only after the tr ia l  court has 
refused to grant interlocutory r e l ie f  ^ ̂ Not 
only is it unfair and inconsiderate for an appellate court 
to grant such re l ie f  pending appeal when the tr ia l  
court has had no opportunity to pass upon the 
question, such re l ie f  should never be granted as 
a substitute fo r  an appeal. " Armstrong, supra, 
at 345 (Emphasis supplied)

3. The order of The D istr ic t  Court, below, does not aggrieve 

named plaintiffs in that none of said plaintiffs were specif ica lly  included under 

the provis ions of the "A p r i l  7" plan (11/25 T r .  at 316, 361) and there has been

- 2 -



H
IL

LE
R

, 
C

A
N

F
IE

LD
, 

PA
D

D
O

C
K

 A
N

D
 S

TO
N

E
, 

2
8

0
0

 D
E

TR
O

IT
 B

A
N

K
 8

t T
R

U
S

T 
B

U
IL

D
IN

G
, 

D
E

TR
O

IT
. 

M
IC

H
IG

A
N

 4
8

2
2

6

no determination by the d istr ict  judge as to the class represented by plaintiffs. 

There fo re ,  plaintiffs and the class they represent cannot now be said to be 

aggrieved by the non-implementation of "A p r i l  7. " (Further, it must be said 

that certain provisions of the "MacDonald" plan to be implemented in 

February, 1971, provide opportunities for  these plaintiffs to attend schools with 

white m a jor it ies ) .

4. P la intif fs-appellants took fourteen days to prepare a motion 

and b r ie f  going to this appeal which they now presumptuously characterize 

as an emergency appeal. Equity and laches would make it appropriate that 

defendants be allowed the full measure of time to respond and that the matters 

presented by appellants-appellees be heard if heard at all in the regular 

course of this Court's business.

5. Unless specif ica lly  exempted, (The United States government 

or its agencies) the plaint iff-appellant is required by Rule 7, F. R. A. P. to 

post a bond on appeal. A lso, in light of appellants prayer in the alternative 

for  an injunction pending appeal, which, if granted and later overturned could 

be extrem ely  expensive to the school board, already showing a 30 m il l ion  

dollar deficit for  the f isca l  year 1970-71. There fo re ,  plaintiff-appellants 

should be required to post bond on this appeal.

6. The affidavit attached to P la in t i f fs -Appe l lan ts ' b r ie f  which 

purports to report a press conference held by the Honorable Stephen J. Roth 

is, if not in violation of the Canons of Ethics, an extraordinary procedure

at best. Since counsel for Defendants-Appellees were  not invited to attend 

the gathering in Judge Roth's chambers December 3, 1970, it must be assumed

-3-



M
IL

LE
R

, 
C

A
N

F
IE

LD
. 

PA
D

O
O

C
K

 A
N

D
 S

TO
N

E
, 

2
8

0
0

 D
E

TR
O

IT
 B

A
N

K
 «

 T
R

U
S

T 
B

U
IL

D
IN

G
, 

D
E

TR
O

IT
, 

M
IC

H
IG

A
N

 4
8

2
2

0

#

that the staff attorney of the Center for  Caw and Education, Harvard 

University, insinuated h imself  into that meeting. To  then f i le  an affidavit 

giving his interpretation and reco l lection  of what transpired is a patent attempt 

to prejudice these proceedings and as such is an affront to the dignity of the 

Courts.

Defendants-appellees regard the above defects in the procedure 

fo llowed by plaintiffs-appellants as grounds for  d ism issa l of plaintiffs - 

appellants motion for summary re ve rsa l  or in the alternative fo r  injunction 

pending appeal. In light of these reasons and the argument which fo llows 

discussing the m er its  of summary reve rsa l  and injunction pending appeal, 

defendant-appellee1 s motion to d ism iss should be granted.



M
IL

LE
R

, 
C

A
N

F
IE

LD
, 

PA
D

D
O

C
K

 A
N

D
 S

TO
N

E
, 

2
5

0
0

 D
E

TR
O

IT
 B

A
N

K
 »

 T
R

U
S

T 
B

U
IL

D
IN

G
, D

E
TR

O
IT

, 
M

IC
H

IG
A

N
 4

8
2

2
6

II. P L A IN  T I F F - A P P E L L A N T 'S  MOTION FOR SUMMARY
R E V E R S A L  IS U T T E R L Y  WITHOUT M E R IT  AND NO
SUCH R E L IE F  IS A V A IL A B L E  IN THIS COURT.

A. THE F E D E R A L  RULES OF A P P E L L A T E  PROCEDURE 
AND THE RULES OF THE SIXTH C IRCUIT  COURT OF 
A P P E A L S  M AKE NO P R OVISION FOR SUMMARY 
R E V E R S A L . "  ’

Defendants - Appellees Detroit Board of Education has been unable 

to ascertain any authority in t^e Federa l  Rules of Appellate Procedure or the 

Rules of the Sixth Circuit for Appellant's Motion for Summary Reversa l .  Nor 

have we been able to find a published opinion in the only case authority cited by 

Appellant for their Motion, Christian v. Board of Education of Strong School 

District No. 83, No. 20038 (8th Cir. December 8, 1969). While we respect 

the zeal with which Appellant's attorneys have pursued their convictions, we 

can only condlude that such zeal has led them into actions without procedural 

foundation.

B. The Standard On Appeal F rom  An Interlocutory Order Is 
Whether There Was A  Clear Abuse of D iscretion By The 
District Judge And His Decision Must. Stand Unless It Is 
Based On C lear ly  Erroneous Findings of Fact.

As we have stated in our separate Motion To Dismiss P la intif f-  

Appellant's Appeal, Judge Roth's Order of December 3, 1970 is not properly  

before this Honorable Court. However, should this Honorable Court deny that 

Motion, in whole or in part, it must consider whether Appellants have carr ied  

their burden of showing that Judge Roth c lear ly  abused his discretion. It is 

settled beyond dispute that a District Court's denial or grant of a pre lim inary 

injunction is revers ib le  in an interlocutory appeal under 28 U. S. C. 1292(a) 

only upon a finding of a clear abuse of discretion. Brotherhood of Locomotive 

Engineers v. M. K. T. R. C o . , 363 U. S. 628, 635 (I960); United States v,

Corrick, 298 U. S. 435, 437 (1935). The abuse of d iscretion standard for rev iew  

is the settled law in this Circuit. Cowden Mfg. Co. v. Kora tron , 422 F. 2d 37 1

-5-



M
IL

LE
R

. 
C

A
N

F
IE

LD
. 

PA
D

D
O

C
K

 A
N

D
 S

TO
N

E
. 

2
5

0
0

 D
E

TR
O

IT
 B

A
N

K
 a

 T
R

U
S

T 
B

U
IL

D
IN

G
. 

D
E

TR
O

IT
, 

M
IC

H
IG

A
N

 4
6

2
2

0

(6th Cir. 1970); Nashvil le 1-40 Steering Committee v. Ell ington, 387 F. 2d 179,

182 (6th C ir .  1967); cert, denied, 380 U. S. 921; A merican Federation of 

Musicians v. Stein, 213 F . 2d 679, 683 (bth C ir .  1954), cert, denied, 348 U. S. 

873.

As to the findings of fact upon which Judge Roth based his Ruling 

On School Plans Submitted and Order, the standard for rev iew  is whether such 

findings are c lear ly  erroneous. Rule 52(a), F . R . C . P .  provides in part that 

"Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless c lear ly  erroneous, and due 

regard  shall be given to the opportunity of the tr ia l  court to judge of the 

cred ib i l i ty  of the witnesses. " In applying the c lear ly  erroneous standard, "It 

is not enough that we [the Court of Appeals ] might give the facts another 

construction, reso lve  the ambiguities differently, and reach a conclusion 

different from  that of the District Judge. Such a conclusion on our part does 

not make the findings c lear ly  erroneous. " Strickler v. P f is te r  Associated 

Growers, Inc.,  319 F. 2d 788, 390 (6th Cir. 1963). Thus, an appellate court 

may not decide factual issues de novo and must give deference to the decisions 

of the t r ie r  of fact. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. , 395 U.S. 

100, 123 (1968).

If Appellants must show a clear abuse of d iscretion and c lear ly  

erroneous findings of fact in order to preva i l  in an appeal on the merits ,  they 

certain ly must ca rry  a greater burden to establish a right to summary reversa  

Although we have been unable to ascertain  any established standard for such 

extraordinary re l ie f ,  it would seem to be warranted only when a District Court 

has so blatantly abused its d iscretion that an obvious and undeniable d isregard 

for established law is apparent on the face of its Ruling and Order. See, e .g .  

United States v. Texas Education Agency, 431 F . 2d 1313 (5th Cir. 1970).

No such abuse has been claimed by Appellant, nor does it exist.



M
IL

LE
R

, 
C

A
N

F
IE

LD
, 

PA
D

D
O

C
K

 A
N

D
 S

TO
N

E
, 

25
00

 D
E

TR
O

IT
 B

A
N

K
 &

 T
R

U
S

T 
B

U
IL

D
IN

G
. 

D
E

TR
O

IT
, 

M
IC

H
IG

A
N

 4
S

22
0

C. Appellants' Motion States No Grounds To Justify
Summary R e v e r s a l .

Appellant's Motion For  Summary R eversa l  Or In the A lternative 

For  An Injunction Pending Appeal is based on only one ground: that Judge 

Roth's Order to implement the Magnet School Plan (Plan A )  requires 

implementation of the magnet school concept in September, 1971 rather than 

implementation of the A p r i l  7 Plan in February, 1971 and that such delay is 

inconsistent with the immediacy requirement of Alexander v. Holmes County 

Board of Education, 396 U. S. 19 (1969) and Carter v. West Felic iana Parish 

School Board, 396 U. S. 226 (1969). That contention is erroneous for two 

reasons.

It is wrong in the f i r s t  place because implementation of Plan A wil l  

not be delayed at all. While it is true that the Order of December 3, 1970 

spoke only of September, 1971 implementation of the magnet school concept, 

that Order was prepared by the attorneys for Appellants, who insisted upon the 

September, 1971 date, and signed by Judge Roth over the objection of the 

attorneys for Defendant Board of Education. As submitted to Judge Roth 

(See Exhibit A )  Plan A was entitled a "Proposa l to Achieve Quality Education 

and Increase Integrated Exper iences"  and included three parts: (1) the magnet

high school plan, which would be implemented by September, 1971; (2) new 

middle school program, which would integrate 4, 000 students in grades 5 

through 8 in eight schools having a controlled rac ia l  makeup of 50% black and 

50% white and would be implemented as soon as possible; and (3) an initial 

program in February, 1971 of 150% open enrollment in all 21 senior high 

schools, which would permit transfers into each high school by any student 

whose race is in a minority in that school. T^at Order neglected to mention 

the middle school and open enrollment parts of Plan A, but Judge Roth's



M
IL

LE
R

. 
C

A
N

F
IE

LD
, 

PA
D

D
O

C
K

 A
N

D
 S

TO
N

E
, 

2
3

0
0

 D
E

TR
O

IT
 B

A
N

K
 f

t T
R

U
S

T 
B

U
IL

D
IN

G
, 

D
E

TR
O

IT
. 

M
IC

H
IG

A
N

 4
8

2
2

3

Ruling on Plan 's Submitted c lear ly  contemplated their inclusion in the 

implementation Plan A:

"We shall not here rec ite  in detail the feature of 
the three plans which, however, are before us as 
part of the record .  "  (Ruling on Plans Submitted, 
p. 4)

"Both the McDonald and A p r i l  Plans have other 
features which we do not here detail, but which we 
take into account in our appraisals. " (Ruling on 
Plans Submitted, p. 5)

Furtherm ore, as w il l  be demonstrated more fully by Exhibit and 

A ff idav it  to Defendant's B r ie f  on the merits  of this appeal which w il l  be f i led  

should this Court set this matter for full hearing, the Detroit  Board of 

Education has interpreted the Ruling and Order of December 3, 1970 as 

mandating all aspects of Plan A  as submitted and are currently proceeding on 

that understanding. Thus, P la intif f -Appellant 's  argument that the order ing of 

Plan A  by Judge Roth w il l  result in no change in attendance patterns before 

September, 1971 is simply wrong as a matter of fact.

The Appellant's Motion for  Summary R eversa l  is il l-founded for 

yet another reason. They re ly  on Alexander as establishing an " im m ed iacy "  

requirement for implementing plans, but they fa i l  to point out the context in 

which Alexander arose. A lexander , as we l l  as all the other cases cited by 

Appellants, were the culmination of 15 years of litigation under the "a l l  

deliberate speed" rule of Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294 (1955).

In the face of little or no progress  toward the establishment of unitary school 

systems in 25 school distr icts in M iss iss ipp i and the continued existence of 

all black and all white schools in those de jure segregated school systems, the 

Supreme Court refused to permit any further delay. Detroit Public School 

System is not a dual system and, until such time as Plaintiffs prove that Detroit 

is a de jure segregated system, the " im m ed iacy "  rule of Alexander is

- 8 -



M
IL

LE
R

, 
C

A
N

F
IE

LD
, 

PA
D

D
O

C
K

 A
N

D
 S

TO
N

E
. 

2
50

0 
D

E
TR

O
IT

 B
A

N
K

 f
t T

R
U

S
T 

B
U

IL
D

IN
G

, D
E

TR
O

IT
, 

M
IC

H
IG

A
N

 4
82

2
S

•  •

inapplicable. Judge Roth recognized this point when he stated, "We cannot 

at this point proceed on the assumption that plaintiffs w il l  succeed in proving 

their claim, in the hearing on the merits ,  that the Detroit school is a 

segregated school system, de jure or de facto. (Ruling on Plans Submitted, 

p. 8). Thus, even if Appellant's characterization of Plan A  as delaying any 

change until September, 1971 were true, there would be no e r ro r  in Judge

Roth's Order of December 3, 1970.

Pla intif f-Appellant 's  also argue in their B r ie f  that Judge Roth's 

Order to implement Plan A  is erroneous because it would be less effective 

than the so-called A p r i l  7 Plan. Since they do not mention this argument in 

their Motion for Summary Reversa l ,  we presume that they do not re ly  on it in 

support of their Motion and, accordingly, we w il l  re se rv e  full discussion of 

this point for our br ie f  on the merits of this appeal. Even if Plaintiffs had 

re l ied  on this argument, it would not support a summary reversa l .  Judge Roth 

specif ica lly  stated:

"It is our judgment that the McDonald Plan [Plan A ]  
is superior to the other two plans before the Court 
in advancing the cause of integration. . . . "  (Ruling 
on Plans Submitted, p. 9)

This finding of fact is subject to the c lear ly  erroneous standard of re v iew  and 

is not an appropriate matter for summary reversa l .  As our br ie f  on the merits  

of the appeal w i l l  indicate it is supported by the substantial preponderance of 

the evidence before Judge Roth. Plaintiffs accuse Judge Roth (Appellants 

Brie f,  p. 38) of substituting his educational judgement for constitutional 

principals. On the contrary, it would appear that Appellants are substituting 

their own narrow prejudices about educational polic ies for the findings of 

Judge Roth and the unanimous decision of the Detroit Board of Education, and 

are attempting to disguise those ideas as constitutional principles.

- 9 -



H
IL

LE
R

. 
C

A
N

F
IE

LD
, 

PA
D

D
O

C
K

 A
N

D
 S

TO
N

E
. 

2
5

0
0

 D
E

TR
O

IT
 B

A
N

K
 ft

 T
R

U
S

T
 B

U
IL

D
IN

G
. 

D
E

TR
O

IT
. 

M
IC

H
IG

A
N

 4
B

22
S

#

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Defendant Board of Education respectfully requests this Honorable 

Court to deny Appellants' Motion for Summary Reversal and set this cause for 

a full hearing at a time to be established by this Honorable Court.

Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone

f

Carl H. von End

eg^ry L. Curtner

Louis R. Lee

-10-



CL E VE L AND  T HURBER 
EDWARD S.  REID,  JR.  
LAWRENCE S.  KING 
EMMETT E. EAGAN 
JO HN  H. N U N N E L E Y  
WILLIAM G. BUTLER 
C. G R A N T  B A R N E S  
J OH N  A . G I LR AY ,  JR .  
J AMES  E . T O B I N  
STRATTON S.  BR O WN  
R I CH A RD  B. G U S HE E  
GEORGE E. B U S H N E L L ,  JR.
p e t e r  P. t h u r b e r
LA WR ENCE  A.  K ING 
ROB ER T  E. HAMMEL L  
J O S E P H  E. MAYCOCK,  J R .  
A LL E N  S C H W AR T Z  
J O H N  W . G E L O E R  
G E ORGE E. PARKE R 331 
R I C H A R D A. J O N E S  
S TE V A N  UZELAC 
GI LB ER T  £.  GOVE

L a w  Oi-i H'KS ok

M i u k h  , C a .N T 1 !•;I .l)  . I ’ A I » J ) O C K  .VXD

W OL EG ANG  HOPPE  
R O B ER T  S.  KETCHUM 
G E O R G E  B . H E E E E R A N , J R  
S A M UE L  J. McK IM in 
MI CHAEL  J.  LYNCH 
WILLIAM R. R A LL S  
WILLIAM G . L A M B R E C H T  
J OEL  L. PI ELL 
ROBERT  E .  GILBERT 
BRUCE 0. B I RGBAUER 
OAVID J. O LM S TE A D 
GEORGE T . S T E V E N S O N  
J OHN A. T H U R B E R  
ORIN D. B RUS TA D 
CHARL E S  L. BURLEIGH,  JR.  
CARL H.  v o n  ENDE  
G OR D O N A . B E C K E R  
J A M E S  K. R O B I N S O N  
DAVID D. J O SWI CK  
WILLIAM O. H O CH KAM ME R  
J OHN A. MA RX E R  
B A R B A R A  V. EVANS

uooo D e t r o it  D a n k  £v T kvht  Urn.i)ix<> 

D e t h o i t , M i  t i n t ;  a x  -lauiio

T E L E P H O N E  (313) 9 6 3 - 6 4 2 0  

C A B L E  " S T E M  D E T R O I T

S t o x i ;

S i d n e y  t . m i l l e r  ' 8 6 4  - 9 ' :  
GEORGE L CAN TIE l 0  ' 6 6 6  326
LEWIS H. PAODOCK (1866-  
PERRIS  D. STONE IBBZ- 9 ' r  
SIDNEY T MILLER. j R . i i 6 9 « -  3:-6 
t o u t s  H. TEAD l ie '  - ' 9 « 3

L A N S I N G  O F F I C E  
FRED M Tn R u N 

ROBERT M T m R u N 
901 CAPITOL SAVINGS & LOAN r . C v  

LANSING,  MICHIGAN ‘ 8 9 3 3
(SIT)  AB-4-7791

B I R M I N G H A M  O F F I C E  
318 WABEEK BUILDING 

BIRMINGHAM, MICHIGAN 4 8 0 "  
(313) MIDWEST 6 - 6 6 0 0  

(313) JORDAN 6 - 0 7 5 7

November 16, 1970

The Hon. Stephen J. Roth 
United States District Judge 
257 Federal Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226

Re: Bradley et al. v. Milliken et al.
Civil Action No. 35257

Dear Judge Roth:

Pursuant to the Order of this Court dated November 6, 1970, 
I would submit, on behalf of the Detroit Board of Education, the 
following report:

In addition to the April 7th Plan which is already before the 
Court, enclosed herewith, as Exhibits "A" and "B " please find two 
plans which the Board of Education at a special meeting held on 
November 16, 1970, directed be submitted to you. By further action 
of the Detroit Board of Education I was instructed to advise the Court 
that the Board assigned the following priorities to these plans:

Priority #1 to the plan entitled "Proposal to Achieve 
Quality Education and Increase Integrated 
Experiences" which was also referred to 
in the Board proceedings as the "Magnet 
School Plan. " (Exhibit "A ")

#

Priority #2 to the plan entitled "The Magnet Curriculum 
Plan." (Exhibit "B ")



The Hon. Stephen J. Roth - 2 - N o v e m b e r  16, 1970

Priority #3 to the so-called April 7th Plan, being the
Plan adopted by the Detroit Board of 
Education on April 7, 1970.

GEBjr ccg 
Enclosures
c w/enc: Louis R. Lucas, Esq.

Bruce A. Miller, Esq. 
Lucille Watts 
Eugene Krasicky, Esq. 
Theodore Sachs, Esq. 
All Board Members 
Dr. Norman Drachler 
Harold R. Brown

Respectfully submitted,

Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone

By



EXHIBIT  A

PROPOSAL TO ACHIEVE QUALITY EDUCATION 

AND INCREASE INTEGRATED EXPERIENCES

This proposal is aimed at increasing the quality of education 

in Detroit's public schools and, at the same time, achieving the 

goal of further integrating our society and school system. U. 

achieves this goal and, at the same time, keeps intact the integrity 

and pov/ers of regionally elected school boards.

This proposal is based upon three conditions which we submit 

are necessary if any plan is to succeed in Detroit: (1) the citizens

of Detroit must have the opportunity of participating with their 

elected representatives in the decision to adopt changes; (2) any 

pian aqopiea must oe educationally sound and improve the quality of 

education; and (3) parents and students must be assured that regard­

less of what school they attend there will exist a safe environment 

conducive to learning.

The attached proposal is based upon the concept of excellence 

in education acting as a magnet to voluntarily draw students of all 

races and socio-economic classes together for educational progress.

It is a sound idea and a proven concept in Detroit as evidenced by 

Cass Technical High School which provides specialized programs of a 

high quality. Because of this fact it draws or attracts students 

from all economic classes and different races from not only throughout

(i) EXHIBIT A



#
2

the City of Detroit but surrounding areas as well. It does this 

despite the fact that it is housed in a relatively old building 

and is located in the so-called "inner city." This concept 

succeeds even though students may have to travel long distances 

in every type of Detroit weather.

Over 4,300 students, with the approval of their parents, make

the decision each year to go to such a school rather than the high
> .

school near their home. They do this because they believe they 

will receive a better education in one of several specialties than 

they could in their area school. Also, Cass Tech is well integrated 

because it does draw from such a large variety of homes and locations.

Using this same concept, certain high schools in each region 

would, in addition to a general curriculum, excel and concentrate 

in certain academic specialties. These specialties would be available 

in various schools, as indicated in succeeding materials. They would 

be (1) Vocational Education, including Industrial Arts, Auto 

Mechanics, Electronics, Medical Technology, etc.; (2) Business 

Education and Commercial Skills, such as Data Processing, Retailing, 

Accounting, Secretarial, etc.; (3) Arts Curriculum, including Tele­

vision, Radio, Graphic, and Performing; and (4) Science and Humanities, 

including Chemistry, Biology, Mathematics, English, etc.

Teachers most proficient in these specialized subjects would be 

given priority for placement in a school specializing in that subject.

( i i ) EXHIBIT A



3

Supporting materials and eguipme.pt would, likewise, be concentrated 

in each of the high schools mentioned.

As a result, if a student wished to concentrate on a science 

curriculum, for example, he and his parents would know exactly which 

school in his regi-on offers the highest quality education in that 

subject. As at Cass Tech, each of these magnet schools would 

emphasize quality education in their designated subjects. In this 

way the standard of education would increase and, as at Cass, 

integration would simultaneously occur.

Cass Technical High School would continue at its present high 

quality level. Transportation, as at Cass, would occur on a 

voluntary basis. The exception to this general rule might occur 

in the event that a majority of parents of students wishing to 

attend a specialty school might prefer transportation be provided 

for students as a safety measure.

Within each of the eight regions in the City of Detroit there 

would be developed an experimental program which is educationally 

sound and hopefully superior to that offered in any other school in 

that region. It would offer specialized services of an experimental 

nature to students in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth grades. 

Admission to such a school would be on a voluntary basis and would 

necessitate application by interested parents. Admission would be 

restricted so that each school would have no more than 500 students

(iii) EXHIBIT A



# 4 #

and that class size would be greatly reduced. The student body and 

staff would be completely Integrated. Innovative teaching techniques, 

including team teaching, would be the general rule in such experi­

mental schools. This experimental school concept would result in 

the Integration of 4,000 students by itself.

The proposal which follows is designed to improve the standard 

of education in the City of Detroit. It is designed to be innovative 

and provide greater flexibility in educational teaching techniques.

If implemented correctly and with the support of the community and 

staff, it can achieve these goals and simultaneously achieve the 

goal of a true and permanent quality, integrated education program.

It is educationally sound, of a noncoercive nature, and does not 

destroy the nowprs nnH rtf Homor- m /-»1 1 «/ '■'ic'ctcd reel one”!

school boards.

(iv) EXHIBIT A



5

COMMENTARY ON

PAIRED REGIONS MAGNET SCHOOL CONCEPT

In the pairing of regions shown 1n Chart #1 the principle of 

providing specialized programs 1n specific high schools was followed 

so that educational opportunities for high school students are 

maximized along with the achievement of a greater racial mix.

These specialized programs would attract students from all 

high school areas within the paired regions and those students who 

Indicated the desire to enroll 1n those specialized programs would 

get preference over the neighborhood student who does not elect

those programs.

Specialization Categories

The four categories of specialized programs that would be 

available 1n the various schools as indicated 1n the chart would be:

1. Vocational (Industrial arts, auto-mechanics, medical 

technology, etc.)

2. Science and humanities (specialized science, math,

English and social studies, etc.)

3. Arts (graphic, communication, performing, etc.)

4. Business Education (data processing, retailing, 

secretarial, etc.)

#

(v) EXHIBIT A



4 #

and that class size would be greatly reduced. The student body and 

staff would be completely Integrated. Innovative teaching techniques, 

Including team teaching, would be the general rule in such experi­

mental schools. This experimental school concept would result in 

the integration of 4,000 students by itself.

The proposal which follows is designed to improve the standard 

of education in the City of Oetroit. It is designed to be innovative 

and provide greater flexibility in educational teaching techniques.

If implemented correctly and with the support of the community and 

staff, it can achieve these goals and simultaneously achieve the 

goal of a true and permanent quality, integrated education program.

It is educationally sound, of a noncoercive nature, and does not 

destrov the nowers and rnntrni r%f Homnr * 1 1 w ~ r e d o n e 1

school boards.

(iv) EXHIBIT  A



5
#

COMMENTARY ON

PAIRED REGIONS MAGNET SCHOOL CONCEPT

In the pairing of regions shown 1n Chart #1 the principle of 

providing specialized programs 1n specific high schools was followed 

so that educational opportunities for high school students are 

maximized along with the achievement of a greater racial mix.

These specialized programs would attract students from all 

high school areas within the paired regions and those students who 

Indicated the desire to enroll in those specialized programs would 

get preference over the neighborhood student who does not elect

those programs.

Specialization Categories

The four categories of specialized programs that would be 

available 1n the various schools as indicated in the chart would be:

1. Vocational (industrial arts, auto-mechanics, medical 

technology, etc.)

2. Science and humanities (specialized science, math,

English and social studies, etc.)

3. Arts (graDhic,  communication, performing, etc.)

4. Business Education (data processing, retailing, 

secretarial, etc.)

( V ) EXHIBIT A



%

All high schools would maintain those basic subjects which 

constitute the minimum requirements for a high school diploma in 

addition to the specialized program offerings in each school.

Basic or core subject requirements include, for example, 1 year of 

math, 1 year of science, 4 years of English, 3 years of social 

studies, 1 year of health education, etc. within a four-year high 

school organization. Adjustments would be made, of course, for 

high schools which had different grade level organization.

There would be a number of advantages to this kind of 

structuring of high school curricula.

The school facilities could be put to better use. Expensive 

facilities such as science labs, language labs, auto mechanics shops, 

and office practice equipment would.be concentrated in a limited 

number of buildings instead of having to be duplicated in almost 

every one.

Scarce professional staff people such as in higher math, 

vocational education, advanced science, etc., could be better 

utilized and their expertise made available to every student in the 

city who would so choose . . . not just to those enrolled in one 

school building.

*

The grouping of a number of teachers from one curriculun in 

the same building would increase the effectiveness of their teaching 

through the pooling of their resources and abilities.

( V i ) EXHIBIT A



7
#

The program would provide for improved In-service teacher 

training, teacher supervision, and educational Innovation.

These less popular courses would be taught to a full complement 

of students rather than to 8 or 10 pupils as 1s now sometimes the 

case. New courses not yet available could be added, such as math 

and science for apprentice training.

Teachers most proficient 1n those specialized subjects which 

are taught 1n a particular school would be given priority for 

placement 1n that school. Also, should a general shortage of 

teachers 1n a specialized subject develop, the placement of 

existing teachers would proceed with the specialized schools 

receiving highest priority for the services of such teachers.

Comprehensive schools are included in some of the paired 

regions in addition to the other four specialized schools.

Preference for enrollment in these comprehensive schools would 

be given to those students who would contribute to greater racial 

mix.

As of February, for initial phasing of this concept, all 

senior high schools shall be open to enrollments which will con­

tribute to the integration of the school up to a total of
«

125 per cent of their capacity as computed for eight period 

operation, and with the further provision that any high school 

already 1n excess of 125 per cent shall receive open enrollments 

up to 10 per cent over their current enrollment.

(Vii) EXHIBIT A



•  •

- 8 -

This phase could affect approximately 600P students. .

Summary

During the past year a large Investment of citizen, Board, 

and staff time and money has been made to Implement the process 

of school decentralization as required by state law. This proposed 

magnet school plan has the added advantage of preserving the 

Integrity of the school decentralization process while advancing 

school desegregation. Under this plan, an estimated total of 

20,000 students could move into the magnet schools over a period 

of the next year and a half.*

♦This number takes Into account the following considerations:

1. Approximately 25% of the total number of students would 

remain 1n the building because of their choice of the 

magnet program listed for that buildinq.

2. Facilities now available in certain schools would have to 

be expanded.

3. Programming and scheduling of students would require 

lead time 1n order to build viable school organization.

4. Total physical capacities in certain schools would have 

to be increased.

5. T1mo would be required to create a community climate 

of acceptance for the concept.

(vili) EXHIBIT A



E
X

H
IB

IT
 A

J

C
H
A
R
T



RACIAL COMPOSITION
SCHOOLS BLACK VEITS TOTAL

REGION 4 AND 5

Rori or. 4. 
Cooley 2,192 667 2,876

Pore. 617 2,451 3,082

Redicrd• - 107 3,654 3,781

2,916 6,772 9,739

Perl or. 5- 
Central 2,140 • - 2,140

Muru'crd 3,0 0 1 50 3,059

5,1^1 50 5,199

Paired. Ratio 
8:7 (clack:white) 8,057 6,822 14,938

reg i o n s 7 a n d 8

Region 7 . 
Deri-7 73 2,861 2,949

Pinr.ey 973 1,669 2,658

1,046 4,530 5,607

Re.cior. 8. 
Kett ering

^ K i n £; *

3,373 91 3,472

1,8?6 3 1,879

Southeastern 2,630 79 2,710

7,879 173 8,061

Paired Ratio 
9:5 (black:white) 6,925 4,703 13,668

33,852 21,095 55,606GRAND TOTALS

ESTIMATED POTENTIAL, STUDENTS

RECOMMENDED ENROLLMENT IN  MAC-NET SCHOOL PRC
SPECIALIZED PROGRAMS BLi-.CK WHITE TOTAL

Arts 634 917- 1,551

Compr ehensive 2,406 432 2,838

-^Vocational 1 , 1 2 1 1,242 2,363

4,161 2,591 6,752

Business 1,971 2,262 4,233
Science & Humanities 1,925 1,969 • .3,894

•

3,896 4,231.i f  8,127  
f

V  <}P
8,057 6,822 14,879

Arts 910 544 1,454
*

Business 2,724 1,444 4,ia3-

3,634 1,988 5,622

Vocational 1,314 946 2,260

Science & Humanities 843 556 1,399

Science & Humanities 844 557 1,401

3,001 2,059 5,060

6,635 4,04? 10,682

31,602 20,439

•

52,041

E
X

H
IB

IT
 A



MAGNET SCHOOL CONCEPT

RACIAL COMPOSITION
BLACK WHITE TOTAL

p z g i c::.; i a n d 6

n - ■»
v  * —  w  • • «■ •

hurra;. /’.-.’right 1,974 84 2,072

Northc astern 1,339 94 1,4 37

NortAcrn 1,748 16 1,767
•

5,061 194 5,276

•THwrnon c . 
Csborr 431 2,623 3,071

"Per si.ins 2,069 1,16 0 3 ,2W

2,500 3,783 6 ,315

Paired ratio 
7:4 (bisck:white) 7,561 3,977 1 1 ,5 9 1

PEGICNS 2 AND 3

Pc- or. 2 . 
Chadscy 907 680 1,654

Northv estern 2,977 - 2,981

^  South*, estern 1,312 432 1,76 7

^^Westem- 827 1,029 2,241

6,023 2,141 8,643

Potion 3- 
Cody 141 3,348 3,516

Macke ,-r. zie 3,145 104 3,250

3,286 3,452 6,766

Paired latio 
5:5 (blsck:wbite) 9,309 5,593 15,409

PAIRED .REGIONS

RECOMMENDED 
SPECIALIZED PROGRAMS

ESTIMATED POTENTIAL STUDENTS TOR 
ENROLLMENT IN MAGNET SCHOOL PROGRAM 

BLACK WHITE TOTAL

Vocational 1,403 897 2,300

Science & Humanities 932 712 1,644

Business 2,186 1,239 3,425

4,521 2,848 7,369

Arts 781 505 1,286

Comprehensive 2,259 624 2,883

3,040 1,129 4,169

7,561 3,977 11,538

Vocational 1,645 1,655 3,300

Arts 615 435 1,050

Comprehensive 2,329 716 3,045

Science & Humanities 890 483 1,373

5,479 3,289 8,768

Business 2,980 1,820 4,800

Science & Humanities 890 484 1,374
>

3,870 2,304 6,174

9,349 . 5,593 1^,942

E
X

H
IB

IT
 A



% t~

4 -'  P m -

E X H I B I T  B

THE MAGNET CURRICULUM PLAN

To provide quality, integrated education for all Detroit high 
school students.

Each high school student would enroll in the high school normally indicated 
by his junior high school feeder pattern. These students would be considered 
to "belong" to that school, called hereafter their base school. These 
students would participate in the student activities, athletics, etc. at their 
base school and would graduate from that school. They would attend base 
courses at this school, defined as standard courses in a limited number of 
curricula. For a given student these might include English, social studies, 
and physical education, the credits from which would total half of the 
requirements for graduation. (This percentage might be open to adjustment. )

For the other necessary graduation credits, the students would move to a 
specialized school of his choice or to several specialized schools during 
his years in high school. These specialized schools would be, in most but 
not in all cases, housed in base high school buildings. Their curricula 
offerings would run the full gamut, including specialized courses in the same 
subject areas offered in the base schools as standard courses. These might 
be remedial, accelerated, or of special interest. For instance, every base 
high school would offer standard 10U>, llto, and 12U> grade English, but the 
school specializing in English might offer creative writing, journalism, 
drama, etc. Other specialized schools would be designated for foreign 
languages, science, matn, grapnic arts, perxormmg arts, Dusmess education, 
distributive education, and a variety of other specific vocational curricula.

The assignment of specializations to buildings would be made in some cases 
according to the availability of specialized facilities or the capacity of 
the building. The speciality of a building would not necessarily be designed 
to correspond to the number of students from the base school housed in that 
building who elected that specialized course. In other words, the fact that 
School X had more students who wanted to take specialized science than had 
School Y would not be the deciding factor for locating science in School X.

Students would spend either a part of each day or a part of each week in 
their specialized program. (They would not spend a solid semester or year 
away from their base school.)

Under this plan there would be provided school shuttle buses, free to students, 
which would follow regular routes between schools.

There would be a number of advantages to this kind of structuring of high 
school curricula.

The school facilities could be put to better use. Expensive facilities such 
as science labs, language labs, auto mechanics shops, and office practice 
equipment would be concentrated in a limited number of buildings instead of 
having to be duplicated in almost every one.

( i ) EXHIBIT B



♦ *■ ■ '■*

#  m

Scarce professional staff people such as in higher math, vocational education, 
advanced science, etc,, could be better utilized and their expertise made 
equally available to every student in the city who would so choose... not 
just to those enrolled in one school building.

The grouping of a number of teachers from one curriculum in the same building 
would increase the effectiveness of their teaching through the pooling of 
their resources and abilities.

The program would provide for improved in-service teacher training, teacher 
supervision, and educational innovation.

Students throughout the city would have instruction in all courses at all 
levels made available to them instead of, as now, having students in some 
schools unable to take the elective courses needed for their career choices.

%

Those less popular courses would be taught to a full complement of students 
rather than to 8 or 10 pupils as is now sometimes the case. New courses not 
yet available could be added, such as math and science specifically geared 
to apprentice training.

It might be reasonable to assume that students in a particular course would 
learn more under this plan because they would be in a class of their choice 
with other students who had also chosen that subject... they would not need 
to be marking time in a classroom because it was the only thing available 
that hour.

ihe base scnoo±s ana tneir 6tuaents wouia remain unaer tne jurisaiction oi 
their regional boards. (The specialized curricula might have to be under 
the joint jurisdiction of regional and central boards.) The details of 
scheduling and course content would surely have to be developed jointly by 
regional and central board members and staff.

The safety of the students would be more easily assured because he would be 
traveling from school door to school door by school bus. His assignment to 
a specialized course would mean he would not be an "outsider" dropped into 
an already existing group.

The study hall, which is frequently a source of school disruption, might be 
eliminated and that time made available for moving from one building to 
another.

Pupils would apply for their specialized courses and pupil assignments would 
be made so as to contribute to integration. Integration could surely be 
achieved through this plan and it would be by "natural" rather than "artifi­
cial" means. Students would not be moved to another school because of their 
race but because of their educational choices. All of Detroit1s high school 
students would share in the achievement of integration. Students in a 
classroom together would have a bond of interest in the subject being taught 
which might enhance the prospects for real integration as opposed to physical 
proximity.

The natural leadership of base schools would not be diminished nor would the 
more able students be skimmed off of any school's student body. The natural 
friendships that had developed through elementary and junior high schools 
could be maintained.

(ii) EXHIBIT B



*  *  * «

# m- >

Base schools would lose the unofficial identification some of them now 
carry as college prep schools, vocational schools, high or low achieving 
schools, etc. Status for a base school under this plan might be based 
instead on the caliber of student leadership, or the vitality of student 
activities.

This plan would involve added expense to pay for moving students among 
school buildings— although some of this experience would be offset by more 
efficient use of instructional staff and physical facilities. The Detroit 
School System would want to take immediate steps to secure parity with 
other Michigan School Districts for support of school transportation.

The job of scheduling classes would be colossal, but not impossible given 
the use of computers and the ability and willingness of staff.

It would require considerable adjustment and a measure of dedication on the 
part of instructional personnel. These members of the Detroit System are 
perfectly capable of meeting that challenge and would very likely lead the 
way in their willingness to pioneer an exciting concept in high school 
education.

The Magnet Curriculum Plan has educational merit that would make its imple­
mentation worth considering under any circumstances. It is certain that 
given some limited time for implementation it could within a year involve 
more students in integration on a more meaningful basis than other present 
alternatives.

r» v»1
• ---— W -  W ——* — W tr •  -  b b i  Uvi fc ^  C. f  X w w

students. The attached page lists the school buildings and magnet curricula 
to which students could be assigned .for their advanced and specialized course 
choices.

(iii) EXHIBIT B



•  0
■ |

POSSIBLE CURRICULUM ADJUSTMENTS FOR FEBRUARY, 1971

Kettering +400 From East side schools for 
Cosmetology and other vocational 
subjects.

Murray-Wright +200 from Western and some from 
Southwestern for Automotive, Foods, 
Cosmetology, and Health Services.

Northwestern +600 from Redford for Performing 
Arts.

Central +100 from Cody and Redford for 
Visual Communication. Tailoring—  
other possibilities include 
Commercial Foods.

Osborn +150 from Kettering for Performing 
Arts.

Cody +50 from Mackenzie for Electronics.

Ford +100 from Cooley and Mumford for 
Advanced Math.

King +100 from*
For Science and Health Services.

Mumford +250 - Foreign Language: Latin, 
French, Spanish, Russian.

+Business Education

Western +50 from Western, Southwestern, 
Murray
Spanish (Culture), History, Spanish 
Language.

•

11/ 1 6 /7 0

(iv) EXHIBIT B