Proposal for The Desegregation and Integration of Public Schools

    <1
•  t

•  •

January 25, 1972

Alexander B. Ritchie, Esq.
Fenton, Nederlander, Dodge & Barris, P. C.
2555 Guardian Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226

Dear Mr. Ritchie:

Enclosed is a desegregation proposal entitled The Desegregation 
and Integration of Public Schools which was developed for you in order that 
it might be presented to the Court this week in the Bradley v. Milliken 
proceedings.

Although a fairly large number of individuals contributed to the content- 
of the final draft of this manuscript, some had more influence on it than others. 
In addition to myself, who functioned as the principal author, the following list 
names those who were most influential either as consultants or committee 
members. They all viewed their participation as that of individual citizens 
giving of their own private time and energy in order to help address a major 
social problem of our time. Their respective institutional affiliations are 
given for the purpose of identification only and should not be taken to indicate 
any institutional endorsement of the proposal.

Chairman: Richard W. Morshead
The University of Michigan-Dearborn 

Freeman A. Flynn
The Detroit Public Schools 

Cloyzelle Jones
The University of Michigan-Dearborn 

Bernard Klein
The University of Michigan-Dearborn 

Donald J. Krebs
Member-Detroit Board of Education 

Robert B. Smock
The University of Michigan-Dearborn 

Stanley Webb
The Detroit Public Schools 

Robert Torrie
Administrative Assistant

It should be clearly understood, Mr. Ritchie, that in submitting this document 
to you, its authors are not necessarily endorsing any of the educational or



t
*

Ltr to:ABRitchie 
Fr: RWMorshead Page 2 January 25, 1972

political views, other than a commitment to metropolitan school desegregation, 
which might be held by your, clients, Denise Magdowski et. al. The names of 
the others who contributed to the proposal are in my files and I shall be pleased 
to give them to the Court if it is felt to be necessary.

Thank you for requesting my aid and helping us in this entire matter. If 
I can be of any further service, please feel free to call upon me.

m



THE DESIGNATION AND INTEGRATION  
OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

IN M ETRO POLITAN  DETROIT

4

A Proposal

for Employing Educational 

Boroughs
in Designationg Schools

January 25, 1972



•  •

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Introduction........................................................................................................  1

Metropolitan School Desegregation. ................................... .................  2

The Metropolitan School Desegregation Boroughs.........................  21

Metropolitan School Integration................................... .......................... .. 32

The Office of Metropolitan School Desegregation...........................  41

Conclusion.............................................................................................................  46

Appendices..................................... ............................................................... .. 48



t

INTRODUCTION

The problem before us is to desegregate The School D istrict of the 

City of Detroit in such a manner that all the young people attending its schools 

are afforded an equal educational opportunity. Recent studies and sociological 

findings, however, have rather clearly shown that, in order to truly provide 

all children with such an opportunity, school desegregation should proceed along 

certain avenues of approach rather than along others. It is the central thesis 

of this document that to desegregate the Detroit Public Schools, alone, would be 

to follow an approach which, in the last analysis, would fail to provide D etroit's  

public school children with a truly equal educational opportunity. If this objec­

tive of educational equality is to be achieved, in any real sense, other school 

districts besides Detroit m ust be made a part of this effort.

Race, Socioeconomic Status, and School Achievement

In the urban centers of the United States at the present tim e, minority  

group representatives - -  prim arily N egroes, A m erican Indians, and Chicanos - -  

are disproportionately over-represented in the low er socioeconomic lev e ls  of 

our society. The probability of a black urban youngster, then, having middle 

class status is considerably le s s  than that of a white youngster. M oreover, 

evidence clearly indicates that a youngster's educational achievement is v ery  

closely  tied to his socioeconomic status. In fa ct, once the impact of socio­

economic status on school achievement is removed, little if any difference in 

achievement can be accounted for by other known factors.

-1-



%

However, research has shown that when pupils from  economically

poor fam ilies are placed in schools with children from  middle c la ss  fam ilies

and the middle c lass children are in the m ajority, the lower c la ss  youngsters

show greater academic growth than they would otherwise. Such gains, though,

do not occur if the number of middle c la ss  pupils does not predominate. In fact,

the research points out, when m inority group children are the m ajority in a

school their achievement often is even le ss  than what it would be were they to

2constitute the entire school student population.

A s was reported by the central administrative staff of the Detroit 

Public Schools, there no longer are enough chidren from  middle c la ss  fam ilies  

inside the City of Detroit to bring about the sort of socioeconomic mix needed to 

promote the academic achievement among children from  poor fam ilies that m ust 

be promoted if one is serious about providing all children with an equal educa- 

tional opportunity. C learly, then, a much larger pool of children from  middle 

class hom es, than is available in Detroit, is needed. Children from  fam ilies  

living in D etroit's suburbs, who overwhelmingly are white and m ore often 

middle c la ss , need to be brought into the picture. Without their presence, the 

available evidence indicates that desegregation in D etroit's public schools w ill 

fail to give D etroit's children an equal educational opportunity.

1. U. S. Com m ission on Civil Rights, Summary Report, Racial 
Isolation in the Public Schools (U. S. G o v 't .; CCR Clearinghouse Publication 
No. 7, 1967, p. 4.

2. Coleman, James S. , et al. , Equality of Educational Opportunity
(U. S. Dept, of H. E. W . ,1966) p. 29.

3. Detroit Public Schools, "Introduction"(unpublished m anuscript, 
Division of General Administration, 1971), pp. 2 -3 .

-2 -



t

White F light  and R ac ia l  Iso lation .

"T h e  h is t o r y  o f  d e s e g r e g a t io n  in this c ity  and m a n y  other  urban

a r e a s  a c r o s s  the nation is that it p r o m p t ly  leads  to re se g re g a t io n .  ^

D etro it ,  as an entire  c ity ,  now is  in the p r o c e s s  o f  such re s e g r e g a t io n .

The not ion  o f  "w h ite  f l ight,  " the w h o le sa le  f l ight  o f  the c i t y ' s  white

5population  to housing  in the su bu rbs ,  is  w e l l  docu m en ted .  A s  it

con t in u es ,  D e tro i t  in c r e a s in g ly  w ill  b e c o m e  a one r a c e  c i ty  and its

s c h o o ls  w il l  b e c o m e  r a c ia l l y  iso la ted .  A ny  co u r t  o r d e r e d  d e s e g r e g a t io n  
4 >*

plan f o r  the D etro it  s c h o o ls  a lon e ,  then, sh o r t ly  w i l l  turn out to be  

equiva lent  to no d e s e g r e ta t io n  o r d e r  at all.

4. Ibid. , p. 5.
5. Roth, Stephen J. "R u ling  on Issue  o f  S e g r e g a t io n "  (United 

States D is t r i c t  C ourt ,  E a s te r n  D is t r i c t  of  M ich ig a n ,  Southern D iv is ion ;  
C iv i l  A c t io n ,  35257, 1971), pp. 4 -7 .



M E T R O P O L IT A N  SCHOOL D E SE G R E G A T IO N  

The Need fo r  C r ite r ia

When attem pting  to fash ion  any d e s e g r e g a t io n  p r o p o s a l ,  s o o n e r  

o r  la ter  it is n e c e s s a r y  to take into c o n s id e r a t io n  the fa c t  that there  a re

a n u m ber  of  d i f fe ren t  plans o r  m o d e ls  a lr e a d y  a va i lab le  and awaiting
/o

p o s s ib le  adoption. Som e o f  these a re  true p r o to ty p e s ,  having been

7
im p le m e n te d  in one part  o f  the cou n try  o r  another .  O th ers  rem ain  as 

rather  fu l ly  deta i led  th eore t ica l  des igns  in a v a r ie ty  of  jo u rn a ls ,  texts ,  

and p os i t ion  p a p ers .  And there are  st il l  o thers  that m o r e  c l o s e l y  

r e s e m b le  f o rm a t iv e  ideas or  initial h yp oth eses  than they do c o n c r e t e
y

re c o m m e n d a t io n s  f o r  s p e c i f i c  act ion .  None o f  them , it would a p p ea r  

h o w e v e r ,  is  without an a dvoca te  o f  s o m e  sort .  A nd none is  said to be 

without som e m e r i t  or  strength which s e e m in g ly  r e c o m m e n d s  it o v e r  

the o th e rs .  T h e r e fo r e ,  i f  an adequate job  is to be done in the p r e p a ra t io n  

o f  a d e s e g r e g a t io n  p r o p o s a l ,  it is c l e a r  that s o m e  m ea n s  m u st  be  found 

to s ift  through this a s s o r tm e n t  o f  com pet in g  r e c o m m e n d a t io n s  and s e le c t

any that might be  p r o p e r ly  suited to the task o f  d e s e g r e g a t in g  the s c h o o ls
\

in m e t r o p o l i t a n  D etro it .

To this end, a set  o f  tw elve  c r i t e r ia  was d e v e lo p e d  which , it w as 

fe lt ,  p ro v id e  the m in im u m  condit ions  n e c e s s a r y  fo r  judging the a d eq u a cy  

of any metropolitan d es e g re g a t io n  proposal that might be brought before  

the court .

6. U. S. C o m m is s io n  on Civil  R ights ,  op. cit .  , pp. 7 -9 .
7. D epartm ent of E ducation ,  State o f  M ich ig a n ,  " D e s e g r e g a t i o n  

Standards and P r o c e d u r e s  U sed  by Other S tates"  (Unpublished M a n u scr ip t ,  
O f f i c e  o f  the Superintendent o f  P u b l ic  Instruct ion ,  1971).

-4 -



J
«

T h ese  c r i t e r i a ,  it should be pointed  out, a re  a d d r e s s e d  not on ly  to the
t

task o f  d e s e g re g a t in g  s c h o o ls  but a ls o  to the re la ted  r e s p o n s ib i l i t y  o f  

inducing  both quality  education  and in tegra ted  education .  While  it is 

the p o s i t io n  o f  this p r e s e n t  p r o p o s a l  that, in m e tr o p o l i ta n  D etro it ,  

qua lity  education  or  in tegra ted  education  cannot o c c u r  without s c h o o l  

d e s e g r e g a t io n ,  it  is  a ls o  held  that s c h o o l  d e s e g r e g a t io n  a lone is not 

enough to b r in g  about e ither  an in tegra ted  s c h o o l  en v iron m en t  o r  a quality 

s c h o o l  e x p e r ie n c e .  S ch oo ls  that fail  to p ro v id e  f o r  a tru ly  in tegra ted  

range  o f  pupil in te ra c t io n s  o r  that o f f e r  anything l e s s  than the b est  in 

a v a i la b le  educationa l  p r a c t i c e s ,  when co n tra s te d  with s c h o o ls  that do 

p r o v id e  such  advantages ,  a r e  s c h o o ls  that do not o f f e r  b o y s  and g i r l s  an 

equal opportun ity  to lea rn  to l ive ,  w o r k  and p r o s p e r  in our m u l t i - r a c i a l  

s o c ie ty .  It is  the v iew  of  this p r o p o s a l ,  then, that the a c h ie v e m e n t  of 

s c h o o l  d e s e g r e g a t io n  by i t s e l f  is  no guarantee  that ch i ld r e n  o f  d i f fe ren t

races, different social c la sses , and different ethnic backgrounds will share 

equally in the many opportunities our schools are capable of offering them. 

Until these schools them selves offer each child an equal opportunity for a 

quality education and provide an equal chance for all children to exchange 

and share those values of lasting worth which each brings from  his own 

heritage, some of our metropolitan schools shall remain separate and unequal.

It is firm ly  believed that any metropolitan desegregation design  

which ignores this conclusion is a design that is seriously defective.

Although such a design might be considered a legal success, it nevertheless 

m ust be judged a social and educational failure. The following criteria were 

developed in an effort to ward off such a failure.

-5 -



#

1. School  Dos eg r o t a t i o n -D e t r o i t ;  A ny  s c h o o l  d e s e g r e g a t io n  
plan fo r  m e tro p o l i ta n  D etro it  should e l im inate  s e g re g a t io n  
in the D etro i t  P ub lic  S ch o o ls .  In all r e s p e c t s  it m u st  be

. a d ocu m en t  w hich  c l e a r l y  supports  the b e l i e f  that the 
" s e p a r a t e  but equal"  d o c t r in e  is  i l lega l .

2. School  D e s e g r e g a t io n -S u b u r b s :  A ny  s ch oo l  d e s e g r e g a t io n
plan fo r  m e tro p o l i ta n  D etro i t  should red u ce  s e g re g a t io n  in 
as m a n y  as  p o s s ib l e  o f  D e t r o i t 's  suburban s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t s ,  
and should invo lve  tran sp ort in g  students into the suburbs  
as w e l l  as out of the suburbs .

3. School  Integration: A n y  s c h o o l  d e s e g r e g a t io n  plan f o r
m e tr o p o l i ta n  D etro it  should p ro v id e  as m a n y  cond it ions  
f o r  t ru ly  in tegrated  s ch oo l  e x p e r ie n c e  as p o s s ib l e .

4. Equal E ducationa l  O pportun ity : A ny  s c h o o l  d e s e g r e g a t io n
plan f o r  m e tro p o l i ta n  D e tro i t  m u st  p rov id e  all students 
with an equal educational opportunity  to a ch ie v e  the ir  
m a x im u m  potential.

5. C om m unity  Stability : A ny  s c h o o l  d e s e g r e g a t io n  plan f o r
m e tr o p o l i ta n  D etro it  m u st  help cu rta i l  the out m ig ra t io n  
o f  D e t r o i t ' s  white population seek ing  s e g r e g a te d  suburban 
s c h o o ls  f o r  the ir  ch i ldren .  It should c l e a r l y  im p ed e  the 
r e s e g r e g a t io n  of  s c h o o ls  throughout the m e tr o p o l i ta n  a rea .

6. E ducational  Soundness:  A n y  s c h o o l  d e s e g r e g a t io n  plan
f o r  m e tr o p o l i ta n  D etro it  should be co n s is te n t  with what 
r e s e a r c h  has shown, not on ly  about quality  education ,  
but a ls o  about the range o f  an edu cat ion a l ly  d e s i r a b le  
r a c i a l /  s o c i o e c o n o m ic  m ix  o f  pupils .

7. P lant Use and C o s ts :  A ny  s c h o o l  d e s e g r e g a t io n  plan fo r
m e tr o p o l i ta n  D etro i t  should c o n c e r n  i t s e l f  with c o s t  fa c t o r s  
and should plan f o r  the m a x im u m  use  o f  a va i lab le  plant.

8. L o g i s t i c s :  A ny  s ch oo l  d e s e g r e g a t io n  plan f o r  m e trop o l i ta n
D etro it  should p rov id e  f o r  a p h a s e - in  p e r io d  during which 
such  m a tte rs  as (a) staff  d ev e lop m en t ,  (b) a d m in is t ra t iv e  
reorganization, (c) community acceptance, and (d) public 
school politics a r e  a d d r e s s e d .

-6 -



•  #
9. L e g a l  Auditing: A n y  s c h o o l  d e s e g r e g a t io n  plan fo r

m e tr o p o l i ta n  D e tro i t  should  p ro v id e  a m e c h a n is m  fo r  
the C ourt  to audit c o m p l ia n c e .  Such m a c h in e r y  shall 
m o n i t o r  im p lem en ta t ion ,  ex ecu t ion  and evaluation  o f  
the plan.

10. E m p lo y m e n t  P r a c t i c e s :  A n y  s c h o o l  d e s e g r e g a t io n
plan f o r  m e tr o p o l i ta n  D etro it  should  p r o v id e  a p o l i c y  
f o r  s ta f f  ba lance  that w ill  be co n s is te n t  with ex is t ing  
gu id e l in es  g overn in g  h ir ing  p r a c t i c e s  binding D etro it  
t e a c h e r s ,  staff,  and a d m in is t r a to r s .

11. D e c e n tra l iz a t io n  and L o c a l  C on tro l :  A ny  s ch oo l
d e s e g r e g a t io n  plan fo r  m e tr o p o l i ta n  D e tr o i t  should 
m ainta in ,  i f  p o s s ib l e ,  d e c e n t r a l i z e d  D etro it  s c h o o l  
r e g io n s  and lo c a l  s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t s  in s o m e  f o r m .  It 
should  enhance ,  rather  than e r o d e ,  c o m m u n ity  
p a r t ic ip a t ion  in s ch oo l  a ffa i  rs .

12. Im plem entation ;  Any s c h o o l  d e s e g r e g a t io n  plan f o r  
m e tr o p o l i ta n  D etro it  shou ld  be capab le  o f  in it ial  
im p lem en ta t ion  in S e p te m b e r  1972.

A fter reviewing a number of available desegregation designs that 

might possibly be suited to the task of desegregating the schools in m etro ­

politan Detroit, it was decided that none of them, when m easured against

8the preceding criteria, had sufficient m erit to clearly  warrant acceptance. 

Therefore, a somewhat new design was conceived. Although numerous 

elements were freely selected from  other m odels, it is believed that the

9present proposal, viewed as a whole, is unique.

The Nature o f  S choo l  D e s e g r e g a t io n  B o ro u g h s

This plan is based upon the concept of the borough. Although in the 

United States, boroughs usually are thought of as being associated with municipal

8. See Appendix I.
9. The present document was greatly influenced by the work of 

Freem an A. Flynn in Johnson, Arthur D. et al. , "R eport of Summer T ask  Force  
on Desegregation-Integration Alternatives in the City of Detroit School D istrict" 
(Unpublished Manuscript, Detroit Public Schools, Division of General A dm inistra­
tion, 1971).

-7 -



tnaigovernments rather tnan with school system s, it is felt that the concept has 

much to offer education. Therefore it has been incorporated into this 

proposal as a m ajor part of the document and modified sufficiently to m eet 

the needs of schools and school system s.

There shall be created seven School Desegregation Boroughs 

within the tri-county Detroit metropolitan area.  ̂ Each such borough shall 

serve as a school desegregation area. These boroughs, however, will not 

com prehensively replace any present or future local school district. Instead, 

each one will function as an adm inistrative apparatus for desegregation and 

shall overlay a cluster of local districts or decentralized Detroit regions.

The boundaries of these boroughs, as shown on these pages, have been 

constructed in such a manner that no local school districts or decentralized  

A regions are split or divided among several boroughs. Each such district or 

region is retained as a single identifiable body within the larger borough unit. 

Although these boundaries m a y b e  altered from  tim e to tim e, according to

certain provisions set out elsewhere in this document, they always shall be
, , ; ! .

drawn in a manner that will not violate the geographic integrity of the local
• « ■ , i •

district or its decentralized sub-unit.
. ' t * . . .

Each School Desegregation Borough is , and shall continue to be, 

large enough to provide all desegregated schools and school units within the borough
. i ...................... i i .

10. In approaching the problem of designing each borough, 
consideration was given to the location of m ajor transportation arteries that 
could be used for transporting! children as quickly as possible from  One school 
district or region to another.

i * i i ■ I i .

V M l t I *

. i * . i i * 1 i

. I * I. ' I . i l l -8 -



it was n ecessary to increase the overall student population to a point where it 
*
made this possible. In other ca ses, where minority group students were not 

amply available, it became necessary to reduce the overall student population 

so that the minimum level of school desegregation could be maintained in as 

many schools as possible. The remaining two, outlying boroughs are 

considerably sm aller. Their size , too, reflects the size of the minority group 

student population in their respective geographic locations.

Another significant factor taken into consideration when fashioning 

the present boroughs was the desire*to include as m uch of the tri-county  

metropolitan area as practicable. A m etropolitan desegregation plan that 

would desegregate only a lim ited number of metropolitan school communities 

spaced over a narrow geographic area would be self-defeating. It would leave 

a large portion of the tri-county metropolitan area untouched by school d eseg­

regation thu§ providing a haven, well within commuting distance of the central 

city, for those whites who wished to escape from  sending their children to 

desegregated schools. Such a plan, then, would be but a tem porary solution 

to the problem  of racial isolation in our schools. No doubt, unless past practices 

in home purchasing on the part of m ajority group citizens are drastically altered, 

it would be but a m atter of a few years before the desegregated areas, once 

again, would be resegregated.

The Extent of Desegregation

Within each School Desegregation Borough all m inority group students 

from  the fifth grade (or its equivalent) through the twelfth grade (or its equivalent)

-10-



' with a student population that contains no fewer than 20% nor m ore than 33% 

minority group students. From  this it is obvious that not all schools in a 

desegregation borough necessarily  will be desegregated. This is occasioned  

by the fact that m inority group youngsters are not distributed evenly in 

sufficient numbers within metropolitan Detroit to perm it a significant and 

equalized desegregation of all schools. Were we to demand that each and every  

metropolitan school be desegregated, some schools might have far fewer than 

the 20% minority group student representation we are calling for here. Such 

low levels of representation, however, would seriously hinder minority group 

youngsters from  achieving an increased sense of identity both in their own eyes 

and in the eyes of others. To insist, on the other hand, that all metropolitan  

schools be desegregated equally, is just as untenable. Because of the uneven 

distribution of black school youth, such a proposal would require transporting 

m asses of children east and west across the full breadth of the metropolitan area 

at some of its widest points and along some of its m ost congested arteries. Any 

proposal calling for any large scale student movement of this sort, clearly is 

im practical.

The School Desegregation Boroughs vary in size where necessary. The 

five largest, at present, are those which include portions of the Detroit Public 

School System. The sm allest of these has slightly over 125 ,000 pupils while 

the largest has a little over 186 ,000 pupils. This variance is a further result 

of the uneven distribution of minority group students in the metropolitan area.

. In some cases, to provide a student minority group population of 33% or le ss ,

-9 -



Additionally, inshall be placed in a desegregated school or school unit, 

each such borough as many m ajority group students as possible from  the fifth 

grade (or its equivalent) through the twelfth grade (or its equivalent) likewise 

shall be placed in a desegregated school or school unit. It is the intent of this 

proposal that within this range of grade levels (or their equivalents) as many  

pupils as possible shall have a continuing school experience in a desegregated  

school setting. However, in order to maintain a visible and significant m inority  

group student population in every desegregaged school or school unit no junior 

or senior high school norm ally shall be desegregated with fewer than 20% of 

its student body being selected from  m inority group children.

An existing elem entary school, under these circum stances then, may  

well .consist of two units: a prim ary grades unit and a middle grades unit.

The prim ary grades unit might remain with its present neighborhood governed 

racial m ix. The middle grades unit, however, would reflect the sam e racial 

m ix as is here being called for in all desegregated junior or senior high 

schools. It is the intent here that in no case shall the representation of 

m inority group students be so sm all in the overall school population of a 

desegregated building that it becom es insignificant in the perception of either 

m ajority  or m inority group students and staff.

11. It is the intent of this proposal that, where children are  
to be transported from  one neighborhood school area to another in order to 
achieve desegregation, m ajority group as well as m inority group youngsters 
w ill be transported. So-called "on e-w ay bussing, "  involving the bussing of 
black students to suburban schools without white suburban students being bussed  
to Detroit schools, is a policy totally rejected by the present document.

-1 1 -



•  •
f

V

It generally is acknowledged that difficulties which som etim es accompany 

school desegregation are kept at a minimum when desegregation begins at early  

grade levels. From  this standpoint, then, the younger the child is when he 

is introduced to desegregation, the better. Ideally, it probably can be argued, 

all children ought to begin having desegregated classroom  experiences either 

in the kindergarten or tlie nursery school. Unfortunately, however, there are 

several factors that tend to weigh against instituting such an ideal at this time 

in metropolitan Detroit.
4

F irst, metropolitan Detroit, unlike some other urban areas elsewhere  

in the country, is enormous in size. Thus, even when it has been subdivided 

into boroughs, the distances some youngsters will need to be transported in 

order to be placed in a desegregated classroom  will require them to spend 

nearly an hour and a half round trip in transit each day. For young, prim ary  

age, children this is educationally unsound. That some young children in som e  

communities already do spend this much time in daily transit, does not alter  

this judgment. Such practices tend to fatigue the young child, especially if he 

m ust stay quietly seated throughout the trip, to the point that various negative 

effects are reflected directly in the classroom .

Second, educational literature has stressed for some time the need to 

make the early years of schooling a transition time during which the young 

child gradually becom es accustomed to the institutional life of the school. An 

informal classroom  in a nearby neighborhood setting, then seem s to best suit 

this need. The emotional trauma that the very young child frequently experiences



*

upon his first m ajor step out of the sheltered life of the hom e, can be better 

kept to a minimum if he attends such a school classroom  in his own fam iliar

neighborhood.

Third, since prim ary education tends to stress the learning of basic 

skills rather than detailed academic contest, these early grades are ideally  

suited for introducing intensive compensatory experience to those youngsters 

who are in the greatest need of them. Where many of these children m ay be 

either m inority group pupils living in the same neighborhoods or m ajority group 

children from  certain disadvantaged com m unities, it would be m ore practical, 

both educationally and econom ically, to provide such intensive training in an 

educational setting where these youngsters form  an homogeneous group. The 

neighborhood prim ary grades school, m ore often than not, is such a setting.

Last, it would be less than honest not to point out that a plan for m etro ­

politan school desegregation well might be m ore acceptable to a great many 

people, both black and white, if their younger school age children were excluded 

from  those parts of the desegregation proposal which called for attendance at 

a school other than the neighborhood school. In an effort, then, to gain as 

much support as possible from  those who, in the last analysis, are going to 

shoulder much of the responsibility for the success or the failure of m etro ­

politan desegregation, it was concluded that there was sufficient educational 

warrant to retain the neighborhood school as a school for the prim ary grades.

-13 -



• ' •  •
*

The N um ber of  Pupils  to be Involved

In designing the present boroughs every effort has been made to involve 

as many students as possible in the tri-county region while yet not extending 

the desegregation arena over such a large geographic landscape that it becom es 

im practical to manage. This is one of the m ajor reasons it is being recom ­

mended that the entire area be broken into boroughs. Each borough, it is 

felt, provides education adm inistrators with a population, student racial 

m ix, and geographic area that is m ore easily  managed and serviced than 

would be a single comprehensive tri-county unit.

N evertheless, with the present borough proposal, sufficient population 

has been included to involve alm ost ninety percent of the public school students 

in the tri-county metropolitan area. Over 99% of the black student population 

in the three counties has been included and 86% of the white tri-county student 

pool has been involved.

M oreover, it is the intent of the present proposal that all m inority group 

and m ajority group students in D etroit's public schools, except for those atten­

ding various special schools such as the Oakman and Washington Trade, should

12be a part of this desegregation effort. A s a consequence, the present plan 

thoroughly desegregates the Detroit school system  in all grades from  the 

fifth through the twelfth. In total, considering Detroit alone, over 176 ,000  

black students and about 96, 000 white students will be participating in the actions 

called for by this plan.

12. Appendix II lists those Detroit schools not included in the 
present proposal for desegregation.

-14 -



*

The actual number of students im m ediately affected by the desegregation  

component of this proposal will depend upon the approach selected to initiate 

such desegregation. While the proposal calls for the desegregation of grades 

five through twelve, it is possible to come at this objective in at least two 

somewhat different ways. The decision is left to the court.

F irst, the total desegregation segment of the plan could be initiated 

im m ediately in the Fall of 1972. That is , grades five through twelve could be

desegregated all at once. Under such circum stances, postulating an average
4 -*

black student population of 25% in all desegregated schools, over 550, 000 

students would be moved into desegregated schools. Of this number, 137 ,000  

would be black and around 412, 000 would be white. Over 66% of all black 

students in the area covered by the various boroughs and 62% of the white 

students in the same area would be affected.

Second, the desegregation of grades five through twelve could be phased 

in gradually such that only the middle grades (five through eight) would be deseg­

regated im m ediately in the Fall of 1972. The desegregation of the upper grades 

then, would be delayed up to a maximum of four years. Such an approach would 

provide two advantages over the first option. One, it would give school adm inis­

trators sufficient lead time with a working model of metropolitan desegregation to 

address them selves to unexpected difficulties and problem s before involving the 

whole of the student population to be desegregated. Two, it would provide high 

schools, where m ost of the social problem s associate with school desegregation  

appear, with student bodies that already had attended desegregated middle grades

-15 -



schools or school units. Hopefully, it could be argued, such youngsters would 

be m ore ready to successfully handle high school desegregation than those who 

would have had no such prior desegregated schooling.

By pursuing this option, over 275 ,000  children could be placed in deseg­

regated school settings by September, 1972. This would include about 68 ,000  

black students and 206 ,000  white students. Within the area covered by the 

several boroughs, over 33% of the black students and 31% of the white students 

would be im m ediately affected. In all, about 28% of all the public school pupils 

in the entire tri-county would be included. This option is recommended.

Borough Governance «

Every School Desegregation Borough shall be governed by a Borough 

Board of School Desegregation. Each local or regional board of education 

within a borough shall elect from  among its own m em bership one individual 

per 15, 000 students or m ajor fraction thereof (although in no case shall a present 

school district be denied a m em ber because of size), to serve on the Borough 

Board of School Desegregation for the borough within which the local district 

or region is located. The first such election shall take place at the public 

meeting of the local or regional school board no later than the last day of A p ril, 

1972. Membership on the borough board shall be for a term  equal to the length 

of time the elected m em ber has remaining in his term  of office for the local or 

regional district. However, each borough board shall be responsible for 

organizing itself in such a manner that no m ore than two-thirds of its m em bers  

are replaced during any one calendar year. Any vacancy which occurs for any

-16 -



reason, except the dissolution of a local or regional district, shall be filled  

again by election from  the local or regional board whose representative  

vacated the office. In such cases, the term  of office shall not, without r e -  

election, extend beyond the remaining portion of the unexpired term  of the 

vacated office.

Within one month after election, but no later than May 15, 1972, each 

borough board shall have adopted, in a public m eeting, a prelim inary set of 

by-law s to regulate its business and affairs. Final by-law s and regulations 

are to be adopted by such boards no later than the last day of the year 1972.

Although the m em bership of the several borough boards will vary in

size , depending upon the number of local or regional districts included in 
«

each borough, no borough board shall have a m em bership less than the number 

of local or regional districts contained within the borough. In cases where a 

local district, such as Detroit, has been divided into sub-units (decentralized  

regions) with each unit having its own board of education, representation on 

the borough board shall be from  among the m em bers of the regionalized boards 

of education. At present in Detroit, then, Central Board of Education m em bers  

who are not also Regional Board of Education m em bers are ineligible for 

election to any Borough Board of School Desegregation. Regional board m em bers  

who also serve on D etroit's Central Board of Education, however, are eligible  

for election to borough boards. <

Each Borough Board of School Desegregation shall call no less  than three 

public m eetings each calendar year. A ll official business of the borough board

-17 -



shall be transacted at a public meeting and all public meetings shall be held 

in various high school or junior high school auditoria throughout the borough.

A ll costs for the management and operation of any borough shall be 

prorated among the several local districts comprising that borough. However, 

while the decentralized regions in Detroit are excluded from  this responsibility  

directly, the first class school district (The School D istrict of the City of 

Detroit) shall make available, as a part of its contribution to this effort, 

appropriate office space and office furnishings in the Schools Center Building, 

5057 Woodward Avenue, for all boroughs containing one or m ore of the first  

class district's decentralized regions.

No m em ber of any borough board may be an employee c£ any school 

district included within the jurisdiction of that borough. Em ployees of the first  

class district are ineligible to serve on any borough board that contains any

v>

of Detroit's decentralized regions.

The Responsibilities of Borough Boards of School Desegregation

Effective upon beginning its term  of office, each Borough Board of School 

Desegregation, subject to the regulations and guidelines established by the Office 

of Metropolitan School Desegregation, shall have the power to:

1. Prepare and publicly adopt, after an open hearing, an annual oper­
ating budget for carrying out the desegregation and desegregation- 
related responsibilities of the borough.

2. Procure suitable office space and office furnishings for housing 
the administrative staff of the borough.

-18 -



3. Em ploy, by June 15, 1972, a Borough Superintendent elected  
according to criteria developed and published by the Office of 
Metropolitan School Desegregation.

4. Em ploy, in addition to the superintendent, all staff called for  
by the Office of Metropolitan School Desegregation in its 
published guidelines for school desegregation.

5. Design, im plem ent, supervise, coordinate, and audit all 
policies and m easures to be followed by the local districts  
and regions within its jurisdiction, subject to review and 
approval of the Office of Metropolitan School Desegregation, 
that are n ecessary to com ply with this desegregation  
proposal.

6. Cause to be established in each desegregated school or 
school unit, through dem ocratic m eans, permanent local 
school desegregation councils com posed of the local 
school's teachers, adm inistrators, parents, and students 
who proportionally represent the interests of these several 
groups in the desegregation activities of the local school or 
school unit.

7. Receive from  each local desegregation council within the 
borough an annual status and progress report concerning 
the desegregation activities of the local school.

8. Prepare, make public, and su b m it--b y  the last day of July 
each y e a r --to  the Office of Metropolitan School Desegregation, 
an annual and detailed evaluation of the effectiveness of the 
borough's desegregation and desegregation-related activities.

9. Contract for or otherwise provide the transportation n ecessary  
to desegregate the required schools or school units (as^well as 
their extra-cu rricu lar activities) within the borough.

13. It should be noted that no single desegregation m echanism  
or device for distributing pupils among the several local districts or regions 
within a borough is specifically favored by the present proposal. Any one of 
several m ay be employed. Among these are those that call for pairing various 
sc h o o ls , changing feeder patterns, and assigning students to schools on the basis 
of some type of a lottery. Boroughs are expected to select or design such an 
instrument them selves, secure approval for its use from  the Office of Metropolitan  
School Desegregation, and then implement it. New and different m echanism s are 
not to be disallowed sim ply because they are new and different.

14. See Appendix III for an estim ate of costs entailed in
implementing this entire desegregation plan.

-19 -



t 10. Contract for or otherwise provide any transportation needed 
to transport students and parents serving on local school 
desegregation councils, living outside the local region or 
district within which the local school is situated, to and from  
their homes and council meetings or official council activities.

F rom  the foregoing it should be clear that it is the intent of this proposal 

to extend the notion of community participation and decentralized responsibility  

to the task of ending metropolitan school segregation. It is an attempt to place 

as much responsibility as possible for school desegregation, providing that 

this responsibility is not shirked or otherwise abused, in the hands pf those

who feel the consequences of such desegregation. Thus, unless this trust is
'

violated, all specific desegregation and integration policies should originate 

in the individual borough through its Borough Board of School Desegregation. 

Likewise, the implementation, supervision, coordination, and evaluation of 

all a borough's desegregation and integration activities ought to be carried on 

under the direction of the borough board. This particular approach is taken
S»

here because, among other things, it is rooted in one of the central tenets of 

democratic social thought. It is based upon the conviction that in <x democratic 

society those who experience the consequences of any decision ougnt to nave 

an opportunity to share someplace in the decision-m aking procedure.

-20 -



THE M ETRO POLITAN  SCHOOL DESEGREGATION

BOROUGHS

V > I . I

-21 -



Iro
roi

V 4 N l l ' X E N
A.

j• J» lI /!l

A .4 f £' vr—
'■-* f - ~K ^  '/j«LUV1Uf 1

t  .■

’ “ §* i *r

; M v  ^
"  'rmi1 f 'v ^ r T 7/ 1 1 fci rvROr.iyiiy j

•* 1 1: „ R O M U L U J
T1

y  7 •!
‘ V • 1

l
I s

f ? i
, j 1

i i* x !,
j

1

| jj

V '*

L .j C j
J ( jL-—r $ i

I.MUA—
'! .7 '

HURON

f 7U * TIM JI

, ,1 "r?* .•|f«rC' l-,” vn|;'ij ,Oj J *  ................  * 1

i  1 1
\r»/l J L' (
B ^ o ? ,'ls T o l 'N  l,,yM|'U/ I  ,li}\\ \ ' j J
r >*-, G f *S w^kJJL M  „  J  *. 1  f*l

woo?:jAYr,;i

: ;4
1-.*

>1

’ \ \ ( -• M  *
>4‘ vY

■»•’ -, J  I V  1  . J l l  !  [•»

•woo?:j.v.'ii ottf-Vt/
i ,? t v'^, . •;. /  /  • 4» J }
r !v/ ! , ■ 1 i. . y ' s ' i i f ’ O ? \ :

- V ,  -•<*, ^  j ^  -•* . V  /  /  *, >  > -t  1 .

' *
4

r r

#

: . ^  r .*. . __ i l M t T f  F ' M V r  • •■ -n t f T V r ~ f ir / -  -r^v-i>;: /  )- A :  1 l y .  _____ _

. ■ .r
V i



* A'
* t

**. t  *
a s ...* .4  -

« V- •■% "> I

■ -  -J  ' '•- 'r P>*i
' f  ‘ • I
___ i -------U

kVV^/ .

rr
v *** f i

v' V I !i «
/ 1 .

~ ---------- w
/  ' ”  ' > l \ x

I • i| X  • -I x I i ;  \ v  i|• ; " > - '• ■  •■ \  , /

l  ■ ' ■ C •r T T  C  T  i ( :  * .T ^  '* s u  l r  •r ]i v  '

! ’ N,I j: 1 4^1 \  f /?• J/ 'vk • ( /;
-t :i I *7 f r- r /.'■j * . ji
:, -  •■-•-■|, n I I /< f fT  t h / 'J*._x_JI ________ il f !U ■■■* > l )■ * ( ’ ' ' ,. /  >A ‘

! -y i f i t f  1 / /  ^
P = A  I T v  ' L V „ ^ -  - J i  /  y j:=  ~ ~ = r= ~ ^f.

n  o ;

1 J '

V

\

~ y ~ ~<■

, **
V> A^

. . ji_ j i ___ ::?jl
7 i

v * - . - .  , ^ * _  j \  j _ k

X. x «r. -T r? r t*' -̂r ( \ . » a
J  " V ^ ^ JLw 4lj) X V •|',|"x̂t><*̂"l>%| 1 *X.

\©; -Js________ -1 J?N LJ.

•v M  A  C  O  X  V j  ,!;

=teri=J>^===i| Cassr^
? ;  l \  sj! ' i  d ! ?!i . r ? 

L :^ ' i l - j j .  '!L= J u _ :

- ■ » ’ A

' v ' ^ - ' T  '/ X ii
1 . ^ -  J ' -  a O /

• '• i -
S [i;

cj L * -**

\ •• • \ ' .  • 
j  * -  V

j d L

V . AXU *k'  ,
•A

s : ; -  a • '> . • (  j  •j T j
■a if -/■ if • >"x\ vV y

- J .  N'  '  J a
->AvS » 'X

• •MX

Iv/T'V •. Sis. - ;v>. !.„, JJ-V I
v  -  V . \  ||
$ • *•' ^ » f r>*T V -J 1 ,

’ 4 * " ' V ' , - J - A - i V  t
x (Cj  > i

i~"----- r—x . J  » . — * «A—<
*•■  ̂ '•w o.-------- N » .

• '  * J! A  '** ' \ . lY - ’  A r  o  . ^ 1X
«i f" > .-T- J : '~V ) *A *1 ■ : t  i  A  »  < ik v i «w > 'J * N  /Jv 1; ;l I-if 'P
JrU i1

V f l  '  ,*/•••"— /  '  i f  ^  ■ :<

• I .

\  - v -N v . ^ -  •■' j! ,  / (  ___ V - '  i X  4 ^  jj’.^  ^

;v _  j % _____ h  ; fC 4 ^ i 2 / ^ - i
.— , -  - ■ i '  f • ' '  i / l i '  * J  -. '■ fi________ s s ? ' ^

’ . w x ; « ; h S I, //ft - vr-- '  A . i . /
■« -■>• , '•>• .. . - y____ .;_______  ____ k j;____ J J L  ■■■'ii.h ipiiiii) .'i im i . » m  .‘j a rfT

T P

’. '/'TV”

J

P J ____ !
i \.i__1

. Jfd— ■; --- V/
. «*• * c
c / .

-••■—;—1ii ■ ---- J'Tr:\  ------  ” ,JT7'/7y Pi;— —-
w  A . ' R  R  F j * ,! ! ; i . J /  x\ . / h  ; i j r !

1 ; : i n  J ; v j; • r y _  s. ! - /
— |L j. J i - .

- .'.̂ CSf̂ HER

. . *. - r  -

- ♦ •  ̂ < • V;A
: u - v ./ j ;  

r f* ; r ^ r »
:i *v  -
# '% ! f ,
i* • *• ?

-V 'r fZ ^ i
- i -  p ,  A  ;

_ A , Av̂ PViLLE ± & & ,S 6
C

j

/
f= j*!! /  j  I

. * •

;; ;»

J ;, . , s  - 4 ' , , ? ) 3 f l  i
•_• ■ J:_ M  •:'• T  : ' " V b t  */*£ \

!' /  f r ' t t B £ K S X ( :k r i / ' J  \V
. . . i v - i . ______/ ( T  / ■ ; ;  A

“ ‘ •• Y nzjX̂ vlee*™' ,, . *YV * ***

I /  ;  ‘ ? • < ; • , .  / - '
** / y 1 • . .ft • >'*• / * It » V1/■ /  if v. *>-i/  : (l */ /,•/ r I; .....T : y

UP5C33

* —  ' j C »’ ; rv/v. • i /< »  /# L/ *
_____  '* * /  ‘ ^  !•//<■ .> t—  -j— / • I! /  X23 Pclnta S hcra i

: f j  j/| if- / / j - J
A  i  / ° ^ 5 »

' Av« «' . .w ' > V  ' * • * / /   ̂ \V J * \ i /  / /  ■’ ’ f  / -  *  ̂ *
- s -  ■ ^  > V  x , ,  '/ / • / > ' u * .  V  /

a *> ,v» • / \V i -f-' •' J  7 ^ • 4T t  r.v \%-----;< .v r ( x * ' —J ^
T  • »>• ♦ M A*. .  * T  ■ * •• \  ^ j A V 'X -. -  f-------- . i  /• / /





/

Table 1. Summary of selected data
for all Boroughs

Borough No. of Sub- 
Districts

Students
Blacks % Blacks

X
Whites % Whites Total

I 14 32,416 - 24.57 94,753 71.83 131,898
II 11 27,780 22.21 95,977 76.75 125,041
III 10 42,353 22.74 142,727 76.65 186,199
IV 15 46,068 26.36 126,956 72.66 174,714
V 12 48,349 30.44 109,607 69.02 158,804
VI 4 1,836 8.22 20,235 90.65 22,323
VII 8 7,611 9.38 71,857 88.57 81,132

TO1:al 206,413 644,855 880,111

25



Table 2. Summary of racial data for
Borough I

Local Student Populati on

Regions or Racial Distribution Total

Districts Indian Black Oriental Chicano White

Detroit
Region 2 61 27,142 57 2,847 13,678 43,785

Suburbs
Melvindale 9 30 176 5,358 5,573
Allen Park 15 5 16 74 6,412 6,522
Lincoln Park 29 6 21 325 11,836 12,217
Heintzen 7 10 34 4,100 4,151
Southgate 35 16 67 5,495 5,613
River Rouge 15 1,723 8 43 2,069 3,85 8
Ecorse 3 2,268 3 256 1,811 4,341
Wyandotte 14 1 13 41 8,334 8,403
Riverview 11 4 25 3,625 3,665
Trenton 7 3 11 20 6,877 6,918
Woodhaven 11 4 5 28 1,350 1,398
Taylor 39 303 39 249 19,374 20,004
Romulus 11 961 12 33 4,433 5,450

Total 267 32,416 245 4,218 94,753 131,898

Percent of 
total .20 24.57 .18 v 3.19 71.83 100.00

X

*

-26 -



Table 3. Summary of racial data for
Borough II

Local Student Population
Regions or Racial Distribution Total
Districts Indian Black Oriental Chicano White

Detroit
-

Region 3 17 21,938 50 239 15,063 37,307
Suburbs

Dearborn 27 2 43 184 21,378 21,634
Dear. Hts. 45 20 67 5,494 5,626
Inkster 1 3,962 1 8 652 4,624
Cherry Hill 2 15 11 38 5,061 5,127
Garden City 22 19 108 13,704 13,853
Wayne ■* 49 21 40 179 22,225 22,514
Westwood 8 1,842 15 22 3,233 5,120
Fairlane 1 1,187 1,188
N. Dear. Hts. 4 13 11 2,737 2,765
Crestwood 10 ! 20 5,243 5,273

Total 185 27,780 223 876 95,977 125,041

Percent of
total______ .13 22.21 .18 C

M• 76.75 100.00

27



*

Table 4. Summary of racial data for
Borough III

\
Local Student Population

Regions or 
Districts

Racial Distribution Total

Indian Black Oriental Chicano White

Detroit
Region 4 25 17,096 208 101 27,749 45,179
Region 5 4 24,638 28 35 670 25,375

Suburbs 'v -
S. Redford 1 8 12 7,852 7,873
Red. Union 5 2 9 25 9,636 9,677
Livonia 23 8 91 176 37,807 38,105
Clarenceville 7 7 12 3,892 3,918
Farmington s, 15 9 34 55 16,226 16,339
Southfield 5 5 67 48 16,221 16,346
Birmingham 8 5 65 28 17,414 17,520
Oak Park 590 14 3 5,260 5,867

Total_____ ________ 93 42,353 531 495 142,727 186,199

Percent of
total .04 22.74 ooCM• .26 76.65 100.00

\

28



4 %

4 Table 5. Summary of racial data for
Borough IV

Local Student Population

Regions or Racial Distribution
—

Total

D istricts Indian Black Oriental
,

Chicano White

Detroit
Region I 74 26,057 98 284 3,251 29,674
Region IV 23 12,081 65 99 14,006 26,274

Suburbs
Hamtramck 12 905 9 46 2,072 3,044
Hazel Park 13 15 35 7,922 7,985
Mad. Hts. 10 2 18 35 4,643 4,708
Royal Oak 6 3 46 41 19,171 19,267
Clawson 3 9 6 4,978 4,996
Warren 35 52 93 100 29,712 29,992
Center Line 11 3 21 45 6,785 6,865
Troy 2 6 6 5,939 5,953
Fitzgerald 3 14 27 5,330 5,374
Lamphere 5 31 24 5,815 5,875
High. Park 8 6,158 153 25 1,493 7,837
Femdale 5 799 37 44 7,491 8,376
Berkley 4 8 16 28

\
8,348 8,404

Total 214 46,068 630 845 126,956 174,714

Percent of
Total .12 x26.36

X N
.36 / • 00 72.66 100.00

29



Table 6. Summary of racial data for
Borough V

Local Student Population

Regions or Racial Distribution Total

D istricts Indian Black
•*»

Oriental Chicano White

Detroit •
Region 7 4 8,907 53 60 16,428 25,452
Region 8 17 39,171 57 96 5,010 44,351

Suburbs
Grosse Pte. 2 1 11 23 13,286 13,323
Harper Wds.. 3 3 1,975 1,981
South Lake 10 9 11 5,276 5,306
E. Detroit 13 6 26 97 12,689 12,831
Roseville ‘ 29 213 24 81 14,387 14,734
Lakeview 6 13 12 7,720 7,751
Lakeshore 1 48 19 14 9,539 9,621
Fraser 1 8 25 7,270 7,304
Warren Wds. 11 11 ' 15 8,921 8,958
Van Dyke 23 2 15 46 7,106 7,192

T o ta l_______________ 119 48,349 249 480 109,607 158,804

Percent of
t o t a l___ ^  <_______ .07 30.44 .15 .30 69.02 100.00

*
30



Table 7. Summary of racial data for
Borough VI

Local Student Population

Regions or 

D istricts

Racial Distribution Total

Indian Black Oriental  ̂ Chicano 1 White

Mt. Clemens 8 1,421 17 84 5,371 6,901
L'Anse Creuse 11 34 7 42 7,541 7,635
Clintondale 8 377 14 48 4,551 4,998
Chippewa Valley 4 5 8 2,772 2,789

Total 27 1,836 43 182 20,235 22,323

Percent of
tota l 8.22 90.65 100.00

Table 8. Summary of racial data for
Borough VII

Local Student Population

Regions or 

D istricts

Racial Distribution Total

Indian Black Oriental Chicano White

Pontiac 22 7,504 55 1,117 15,780 24,478
Avondale 2 16 23 3,865 3,906
Rochester 3 10 6 7 8,352 8,378
Lake Orion 5 8 8 32 5,325 5,378
Clarkston 4 25 3 27 6,406 6,465
Waterford 36 29 20 157 18,075 18,317
W. Bloom. 9 27 4,736 4,772
Bloom. H ills 1 35 37 20 9,345 9,438

Total 73 7,611 154 1,410 71,857 81,132

Percent of
total _____________ 9.38 88.57 100.00



M ETRO PO LITAN  SCHOOL INTEGRATION

A s was indicated at the outset, any acceptable metropolitan

desegregation proposal ought to address itself to m ore than sim ply

desegregating schools. It also should speak to the problem  of bringing

about integrated schools. The eventual achievement of any such objective,

however, rests on many variables. It therefore seem s reasonable £o 
«

assum e that there is a corresponding m yriad of variables which can 

m ilitate against such success. Listed on the following page, are six critical 

factors which, if mishandled, could create grave obstacles to the success of 

any integration efforts. Included with these is a further and corresponding  

list  of responses that well might be used to overcom e these obstacles. A  

general discussion of some of these responses, then, is undertaken on 

subsequent pages in order to lay out for the Court some of the types of

activities that borough boards ought to be expected to initiate in their
(

respective schools and school com munities.

-3 2 -



#

FACTORS WHICH CAN WORK AGAINST SUCCESSFUL INTEGRATION

P ossib le  Rem edies

Uneasy Teachers (1) Inservice training, (2) Strong adm inistrative
guidance, leadership, an d /or supervision, if 
needed, (3) Term ination, if all other efforts fail.

Uneasy Adm inistrators (1) Strong position statement from  the Borough
Board of School D esegregation, which in effect 
encourages adm inistrators to "s e e  to it that the 
law of the land is o b e y e d ," (2) Community control 
which can influence adm inistrators.

Uneasy Communities (1) Help from  the news media in term s of other
than the anxiety producing headlines, bylines, 
editorials, etc. now being presented, (2) Clergy, 
(3) C ircu lars, handbills, advertisem ent which asks 
for support of_ the plan, (4) Television 'spots' on 
which respected figures promote the cause of 
integration.

In sen s it iv e  P o l i c e
Personnel (1) Immediate sensitivity training sessions (on race

relations) on a community b a sis ; (2) Linkage of police  
departments in order to not only better understand 
the peculiarities of each com m unity's problem s but 
to maintain conform ity in the adm inistration of justice  
and the perform ance of police duties in the event of 
any disturbance; (3) Special police accountability for 
conduct which inflam es or serves counterproductive 
ends.

S p o ra d ic  Surfac ing  o f  
In f la m m a to ry  S to r ie s  o f  
" R a c i a l  C l a s h e s , "  S ch oo l
C o m m u n ity  P r o b l e m s , "  E stablish a central (twenty-four hour) rumor control 
etc# center, to be phased out as it becom es expendable.

P ersistent Student
Confrontations (1) Regular student-faculty-parent assem blies

airing grievances; (2) "R ap sessions among students-- 
with and without presence of accepted and trusted 
(by the students) faculty m em bers; (3) Parents 
could open their homes to the students- -  
neighborhood skating parties, cookouts, etc.



Staff Attitudes

The teacher, who sincerely wants to help make school integration 

work but feels uncertain about his ability to do so because of a lack of 

awareness of the background of the students, can acquire such knowledge 

through visiting the neighborhoods, hom es, recreational centers and other 

facilities and areas fam iliar to the student. This is an old approach seldom  

used today, but is highly effective.

The school administration and parent groups are vitally important 

in making their home, community, etc. , open and welcome to this type 

teacher. Positive attitudes can and should be reinforced by extensive use 

of systematic efforts instituted by an appropriate office within the 

administrative structure of each borough and staffed by committed personnel.

Teachers who will not work earnestly and diligently in the best 

interest of all of the children should be disciplined and, if necessary, 

dism issed.

While teachers have rights, children and parents do also . As an 

employee of the latter two, the teacher who retards the orderly and lawful 

process of educating children should be replaced.

Ethnic Heterogenity within the C lassroom  and the School

It would be wise for the sending and receiving teachers (and 

adm inistrators) to rem em ber that they cannot transform  White children 

into Black children any m ore than they can make Black children becom e

-34-



White. To this end, these adults will have to resist the temptation to 

in d is c r im in a t e ly  modify the incoming youngsters to fit the existing 

m o ld .

P ressu res attendant to forced conform ity to dominant group values

and modes of operation have long range and often devastating effects on

those youngsters in the early and later elem entary education category.

Such pressure m ay well serve as the fuel for racial fires if the children  
%

are in the high school phase of their education. In sim ple term s, the 

older students are m ore likely to act out their feelings of frustration, 

alienation, etc. , by physical m eans. Once this occurs, the respective  

parents becoming involved, resulting in (often irreparable) damage to 

integration efforts.

How to M inim ize Sure Trouble

The administration m ust assum e leadership in reaching agree­

ment with parents, teachers and those children capable of participating, 

exactly as to how the school is to be operated. This should include 

everything from  educational objectives to policy with regards to student 

conduct during the playing of the National Anthem, observance of national 

folk hereo holidays, etc.

Such policy will be m ore enforceable if it is developed in concert 

with the (a) parents, (b) school staff, and (c) student representatives 

whenever possible. These policies should be realistic to the environment

-35 -



f

<

in which they are to be implemented and should be consistently enforced.

Teachers should seek to gain greater insights into the backgrounds, 

values, attitudes, etc. , of their students through becoming exposed to a 

school community which may be predominantly or totally P olish , Irish , 

Black, Slav, etc. , or an ethnic mixture other than that from  which the 

teacher com es.

Curriculum  will have to be carefully examined in order to 

guarantee against offering token inclusion of m inorities. While White 

pupils are surrounded by symbols with which they can identify, B lacks, 

Indians, Mexicans and other m inorities usually only have special, 

on ce-a -y ea r acknowledgment of their contributions to, and presence in, 

A m erica. This practice is untenable if we are to have ethnic heterogeneity. 

M inorities want a little part of the "m elting pot. "  They want, and m ust 

have, full and equal representation in text m aterials, m usic and 

audio-visual aids used in the schools.

School districts within the various boroughs then, should begin to 

review such m aterial im m ediately. . . and as an added note, they also  

should begin stimulating publishers to develop needed m aterials by 

refusing to purchase those item s which do not give full, accurate and equal 

exposure to these long neglected m inorities. Curriculum, therefore,

-36 -



I

m ust flow in an even-handed fashion. A dm inistrators m ust not 

tolerate student indoctrination, whether or not it is intentional.

Integration of curriculum , hence, becom es one of the 

solutions to this potential problem . Teachers m ust be educated to 

learn that linguistic, emotional or attitudinal differences found among 

the "n ew " pupils does not denote superiority any m ore than it does 

inferiority. The teacher therefore should not attempt to sm other the 

"im p e rfe c t" non-Anglo-Saxon language of a Chicano, B lack, Appalachian, 

etc. Not only does this damage the self confidence/concept of the 

student, but it reinforces the subtle notion that anyone not proficient in 

the "K in g 's  English" is inferior. It would seem  that we would do well 

to recognize and accept these individual differences for what they are 

and not ascribe status to them.

In this regard then, the administration of each borough should
r*

have a team of curriculum  specialists charged with examining content, 

teacher practices, and text m aterials. Together with other agencies, 

it also should be responsible for the production of certain m aterials  

and other curriculum  elements that will help prom ote quality education 

for all A m ericans.

-37 -



r

G rouping  b y  A b i l i ty

Research has shown that the results of psychological testing, 

although of worth, often does not accurately m easure the functioning 

level of children from  deprived backgrounds. In light of this fact, 

schools would do well to adopt as flexible a stance as possible when

organizing the student body of each school.
***

There may be the tendency to discard test results of students 

new to the schools and use their grade point averages as a yardstick  

to project their capabilities. This, too, should be carefully watched 

and constantly evaluated.

Experience, amply, illustrated in the literature with desegregated  

schools indicates many pernicious procedures which tend to maintain 

segregation within the school and perpetuate a superior-inferior  

relationship between the races. Grouping, tracking, and other processes  

which tend to separate must be examined in the light of supposed claim s  

for educational advantage as compared to the denigrating effect of 

"b lack " or "w hite" classes achieved by whatever rationale within the 

school. A t the elem entary level there is probably little educational

-38 -



justification for such grouping and at the secondary level only an 

exceptional and possibly very specialized c lass should, by chance, 

be of one race or the other.

Uneasy Communities

■s*
Since desegregation sets the stage for integration, it 

becom es im perative that communities be m obilized to further such 

cause. A ll those components which make up a community can be
i

helpful vehicles if properly used. School boards, borough boards, 

the Office of Metropolitan School D esegregation, and their 

respective staffs m ust take a leadership role in m obilizing the 

community. Councils of churches, political organizations, and 

business groups should also be called upon to link together significant 

numbers of citizens in the common effort to make this plan work.

It m ay be through the church, especially , that business, 

civic and social leaders in each community involved can be reached 

and hopefully involved in efforts to not only help keep peace, once 

such efforts are under way, but also to work toward making the plan 

a success once the project is begun.

-39 -



P a re n t  In vo lvem ent  in the Sch oo l

The schools and staff will need to devise plans and strategies  

to not sim ply encourage, but actually involve the parents in the school; 

even to the extent of bussing the parents into the schools at designated 

tim es for paren t-sch ool-teacher-child  interaction. Such travel should 

be conducted, where possible, during the daylight hours to m inim ize  

the encouragement of those opposed to integration in using the veil of 

darkness as a shield to practice their ill craft.

It should be the responsibility of the schools' administration  

to'guarantee that parents from  different communities are made to 

feel a part of, and not a visitor to, the school to which the parents' 

child travels. The parents should be highly visible. . . . involved.

M e tro p o l i ta n  Integration

In order for true integration to occur, the efforts of many will 

be required. In order for it to last, citizens will have to work at it.

We have reached a point in our society in which we cannot go our 

single ways as a people, especially when those that pull away take 

with them the best that society has to offer.

-40 -



TH E O F F IC E  OF M E T R O P O L I T A N  SCHOOL D E S E G R E G A T IO N

The State B e a r d  of  E ducat ion  o f  the State of  M ich ig a n ,  through the S u p e r ­

intend en l o f  P u o n e  m struc .c ion , s -.accj.jl c - t u lc , ui j.y - uiit ctcid s edej, o-c o j c IOj. t 

the last  day of A p r i l ,  1972, an a r m  of  the D ep artm en t  of E du ca t ion ,  to be 

ca l le d  ’ ’The O f f i c e  of M e tro p o l i ta n  S ch o o l  D e s e g r e g a t io n ,  " w h ich  shall  have 

the o v e r a l l  and f ina l  r e s p o n s ib i l i t y  f o r  insuring  l o c a l ,  r e g io n a l ,  and b orou gh

c o m p l ia n c e  with the p r o v i s io n s  of this p r e se n t  d e s e g r e g a t io n  plan. Unti

such  future  t im e  as c i r c u m s t a n c e s  M a y  w a rra n t ,  this o f i i c e  snail  be su itably  

h ou sed  in the S ch oo ls  C enter  Build ing  o f  tne Schoo* D is t r i c t  oi the City  o f  

D etro it  at the ex p en se  o f  the D ep artm en t  oi E d u ca t ion .

The p r o fe s s i o n a l  staff  of this o f f i c e  snail  c o n s is t  o f  one ex ecu t iv e  

d i r e c t o r ,  one g e n e r a l  a d m in is t ra t iv e  a s s o c ia t e  f o r  ea ch  of the s e v e r a l  b o ro u g h s ,  

one deputy d i r e c t o r  o f  r e s e a r c h ,  four  r e s e a r e n  a s s is ta n ts ,  and one s p e c ia l i z e d  

a d m in is t r a t iv e  a s s o c ia t e  in ch a r g e  of budgets and g r a n t s - m - a i d .  in addition , 

th ere  shall  be a s e c r e t a r ia l  p oo l  o f  such  s iz e  that th ere  e x is ts  the equivalent

o f  one s e c r e t a r y  f o r  each  two m e m b e r s  of  tne p r o f e s s i o n a l  sta if .  A l l  m e m b e r s  

o f  the p r o fe s s i o n a l  staff  shall  ho ld  teach ing  c e r t i f i c a t e s ,  shall  have had s o m e  

pub lic  s c h o o l  teach ing  e x p e r i e n c e ,  and shall  m e e t  w h a tever  other standards  

that, in the v iew  o f  the Superintendent of P u b l ic  Instruct ion ,  n o r m a l ly  would  be 

a p p r o p r ia te  to in su re  c o m p e t e n c y  in the r e s p e c t iv e  p o s i t i o n s .  In addition  to 

m e e t in g  th ese  s tan dard s ,  the ex ecu t iv e  d i r e c t o r  shall  be an e x p e r ie n c e d  pub lic

-41 -



s c h o o l  a d m in is t r a to r  with s o m e  b ack grou nd  as a c e n tr a l  a d m in is t ra t iv e  

o f f i c e r  in an urban  s c h o o l  sy s te m .

In f i l l ing  these  p o s i t io n s ,  the Superintendent of P u b l ic  Instruct ion  snail 

m a k e  e v e r y  e f fo r t  to c r e a te  both a b a la n ced  p r o fe s s i o n a l - s t a n  ana a n o n ­

p r o fe s s i o n a l  staff .  In the c a s e  of  the p r o fe s s i o n a l  staff ,  this shall  m ea n  that, 

a fte r  insu r in g  c o m p e te n c y ,  the superintendent shall  attempt to ba lance  tne stem 

in t e r m s  of r a c e  as w e l l  as sex .  In the c a s e  of the n o n -p r o fe s s i o n a l  staih,

c e r ta in ly  th ere  should be at le a s t  a j r a c ia i  b a la n ce .

S a la r ies  and benef its  f o r  the staff,  both p r o fe s s i o n a l  and n o n -p r o i e s s io n a l ,  

shall  be set by the superintendent and shall  be  consonant  with the s a la r ie s  ana 

fr in ge  benefits  a w arded  s im i la r  staff in the D ep artm en t  01 E ducation .

No la te r  than the last  day of June e v e r y  y e a r ,  beginning in 1973, tne 

Court shall  r e c e iv e  f r o m  this o f f i c e  a c o m p r e h e n s iv e  annual evaluation  oi 

(1) b o rou g h  co m p l ia n c e  with this p r e se n t  p r o p o s a l ,  (2) the e f fe c t iv e n e s s  oi tne 

p r o p o s a l  i t s e l f  in m e e t in g  the a im s  outlined in the set oi c r i t e r ia  in trod u ced  

e a r l i e r ,  and (3) a set of r e c o m m e n d a t io n s  (if needed) re la t iv e  to all these  

m a t t e r s .  On an annual b a s is ,  a fter  the fifth y e a r  f r o m  tne y e a r  unis pxan is 

initiated (July, 1977) the Court  m a y  w ish  to r e v ie w  the need  fo r  the O f f i c e  of  

M e tro o o l i ta n  S ch oo l  D e s e g r e g a t io n  and shall  i s s u e  an o r d e r  a d d r e s s e d  to its

continued e x is te n ce .

- 4 2 -



► 
♦*

«

A. * 1 icii11oi*i lo ci m.du < xoo\ y the c o w e r s  and duties o f  the O f f ice

M e tro p o l i ta n  Schoo^ D ose* '■ '•*e la t io n  sna il  be as l o i l o w s :o

Ihe O it i c o o i  h l e t r o io i ; t a n  bcr .oo i  iue s e g re g a t io n  (nere^nafter 
e f e r r e a  to as " O l . . S w ’ ) sxiulx nave cite p o w e t o  cnange  oo i  o

oonnaa m es m  o t u o ; uO a>»<.ce ; tne d e s e g r e g a t io n  p r o ­
v is io n s  ox this i r o i o s a l  a re  iUxiy m e t .

’he OMSD shall  have the oowe: :o attach s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t s ,  not
p r e s e n t ly  memcxea m  ay* ooioug.*.i, to a borougn .

3. The OMSD shall  have the p o w e r  to c r e a t e ,  w h e re  n eed ed ,  new 
S ch o o l  D e s e g r e g a t io n  B o r o u g n s  m  tne t r i - c o u n t y  a,j.ea,

4. The  OMSD shall  have the p o w e r ,  a fter  r e v ie w ,  to a p p r o v e  or
r ei eel :ot; in part ,  any b o r o u g h 's  in terna l  d e s e g r e g a t io n
ana in teg ra t ion  p ians .

T h e  OMSD shall have the p o w e r ,  a fter  having a c c e p t e d  as being 
adequate any b o r o u g h 's  d e s e g r e g a t io n  plan, to d i r e c t — w h e re  
n e c e s s a r y -  -  tnat oorou g n  to im pxem ent its plan.

o,

7,

8.

9.

The OMSD shall  have the p o w e r ,  a fter  having r e j e c t e d  as i n ­
adequate any b o r o u g h 's  d e s e g r e g a t io n  p r o p o s a l ,  e ither  m d i r e c t  
that the b orou g h  r e v i s e  the plan or  to c r e a t e  an a c c e p t a o le  
olan i t s e l f  and o r d e r  its im p le m e n ta t io n  by the o o rou g n .

A s  an a r m  of  the State D ep artm en t  oi e d u c a t io n  and as a cream r-e  
of  the F e d e r a l  C ourt ,  the OMSD, a fter  having r e c e i v e d  the ex p l ic i t  
a p p ro v a l  of the C ourt ,  shall  have the p o w e r  to ca u se  any b orough ,  
l o c a l  s c h o o l  d is t r i c t ,  or  d e c e n t r a l i z e d  re g io n  w h ich  fa i ls  to c o m p ly  
with the p r o v is io n s  oi this p r e se n t  p roposax ,  to l o r e g o  r e c e iv in g  
any State or  F e d e r a l  iunds, oi any type or m  any i o r m ,  eiunex 
d i r e c t ly  or  in d ir e c t ly ,  until such  t im e  as c o m p l ia n c e  is exiected 
to the sa t is fa c t io n  of the OMSD.

The OMSD shall  have the r e s p o n s ib i l i t y  o f  coord in at in g  the i m p l e ­
m entat ion  of the p re se n t  p r o p o s a l  am ong  the s e v e r a l  b o ro u g h s .

The  OMSD shall  have the r e s p o n s ib i l i t y  of deve lop ing  p r o g r a m s  
fo r  use  by the s e v e r a l  b orou g h s  in p rep a r in g  s c h o o l  staff  f o r  
a ccep t in g  d e s e g r e g a te d  student b od ies  and fo r  p rov id in g  in tegrated  
s c h o o l  e x p e r i e n c e s .

- 4 3 -



10 . prepar in g  and c i f e c t mThe OM.SD shall  have the r e s p o n s ib i l i t y  oi L, 
tho ir.-.olerncntaiion of  a c u r r i c u lu m  com p on en t  fo r  the p r im a r y  grades  
(k ind ergarten  through g ra d e  four)  that w il l  he lp  p r e p a re  young ch i ld ren  
to better  l ive  in a d e s e g r e g a te d  and in tegrated  s o c ie ty .

11.

12 .

13,

14,

15

16,

The OMSD shall have the r e s p o n s ib i l i t y  of a ss is t in g  in the d e v e l o p ­
m ent and im p lem en ta t ion  of com m u n ity  re la t ions  p r o g r a m s  so that 
co m m u n ity  re s id e n ts  and parents  m a y  m ake  ad justm ents  to d e s e ­
g reg a ted  education  as q u icm y  as jvossm ie .

The OMSD shall  have the r e s p o n s ib i l i t y  o f  rev iew in g  the r a c ia l  
and ethnic c o m p o s i t i o n  oi a l l  s c n o o is  in the t r i - c o u n t y  m e a .

T he  OMSD shall  have the r e s p o n s ib i l i t y  oi des ign ing  and im p lem en t in g  
a plan fo r  fr inging  about, in a s y s te m a t ic ,  o r d e r ly ,  and just  way, 
r a c ia i i y  b a la n ced  teach ing ,and  a d m in is tra t iv e  staffs in all the sen oo l  
d is t r i c t s  of the entire  t r i - c o u n t y  m e tr o p o l i ta n  D etro it  a rea .  A  staff 
shall be c o n s id e r e d  b a la n ced  wnen its m i n o r i t y - m a jo r i t y  group  
c o m p o s i t io n  is n e a r ly  the sa m e  as the adult m i n o r i t y - m a j o r i t y  
group  m i x  of ttie lu l l  t r i - c o u n t y  re g io n .

The OMSD shall  d ev e lop  and d is tr ibute  to the 3 o r o u g h  B o a r d s  oi 
S ch oo l  D e s e g r e g a t io n ,  on or  b e fo r e  M ay  15, 1972, gu ide l ines  
and standards f o r  staifing tne a d m in is tra t ion  of  each  b orou gh .

The OMSD shall d ev e lop  and d is tr ibute  to the B orou g h  B o a r d s  oi 
S ch oo l  D e s e g r e g a t io n ,  on or  b e fo r e  M ay  22, 1972, an a p p ro p r ia te  
t im eta b le  f o r  c o m p l ia n c e  witn the v a r iou s  lea tu res  oi this p resen t  
p r o p o s a l .

The OMSD shall have  the ch ie f  r e s p o n s ib i l i t y  f o r  deve lop ing  and 
coord in at in g  the dev e lop m en t  of  p r o p o s a ls  to tne State and I  e d e r a l  
G ov ern m en ts  f o r  funding to aid in the d e s e g r e g a t io n  and in t e g r a ­
tion  e f fo r ts  outlined in this docum ent .

Any action  of th e ,O f f i ce  o f  M etrop o l i ta n  S ch oo l  D e s e g r e g a t io n  m a y  be 

appea led .  Such appeals  shall  be h eard  by the State B o a r d  of E ducat ion  at a 

public  m e e t in g .  A l l  appeals  shall  be m a d e  only by B orou g h  B o a r d s  o f  S ch oo l  

D e s e g r e g a t io n  and shall r e q u ir e  a supporting vote of  at lea s t  tw o - t h i r d s  of a

- 4 4 -



b o ro u g h  b o a r d 's  m e m b e r s h ip .  T h is  a ct ion ,  t o o ,  shall  o c c u r  only at an 

o f f i c ia l  public  m e e t in g .  The d e c i s i o n s  of  the State B o a r d  o f  E ducat ion ,  in 

th ese  c a s e s ,  shall  be f ina l  u n less  r e v e r s e d  by the C ourt .

-45 -



*

CONCLUSION

This  p r o p o s a l  f o r  the d e s e g r e g a t io n  of  s c h o o l s  in m e tr o p o l i ta n  

D etro it  should not b e  lo ok ed  upon as an exhaust ive  p r o g r a m ,  to ta l ly  

c o m p le te  in e v e r y  detail .  Instead , it m igh t  b e t te r  be  v iew ed  as a 

d e s ig n  intended to set  s o m e  r e a l i s t i c  f r a m e  around  the m any  f a c t o r s  

that m u st  be w e ld ed  togeth er  i f  m e tr o p o l i ta n  s c h o o l  d e s e g r e g a t io n  is  

going  to o c c u r  in the t r i - c o u n t y  a rea .

. A  p r o b l e m  o f  m a j o r  p r o p o r t io n s ,  not a d d r e s s e d  by  the plan, 

is, one o f  finding s o m e  ju st  and fa ir  w a y  o f  b r in g in g  about a b a la n ced  

staff  throughout each  b orough .  A lthough r e s p o n s ib i l i t y  f o r  e f fe c t ing  

this b a la n ce  is  l o d g e d  with the O f f i c e  o f  M e tro p o l i ta n  S ch oo l  D e s e g r e g a ­

tion , the m e a n s  f o r  a ch iev in g  it has not b een  s p e c i f i e d .  M any  leg a l  

quest ion s  co n c e rn in g  such  m a t te r s  as t e a ch e r  c o n tr a c ts  and the rights 

o f  c o l l e c t iv e  barga in ing  units ,  n eed  to b e  taken into c o n s id e ra t io n  b y  any 

who would contend that they  had adequate ly  fa c e d  this i s s u e .  It would 

a p p ea r  to be  co n s is te n t  with the o v e r a l l  out look  o f  the p r e s e n t  p r o p o s a l  

that no so lu t ion  to this p a r t i c u la r  ques t ion  tru ly  can be c o n s id e r e d  a 

so lu t ion  until those who would  b e  a f f e c t e d  b y  it sh are  in its con s tru ct ion .

One o f  the undertakings o f  the O f f i c e  o f  M e tro p o l i ta n  School  D e s e g r e g a t io n  

w e l l  m ight  be to o rg a n iz e  a task f o r c e ,  c o m p o s e d  o f  individuals  r e p r e s e n t in g  

the in v o lv ed  groups  and o rg a n iz a t io n s ,  to c r e a t e  and w ork  through 

a lternat ive  so lutions  to this d i f f i cu l t  p r o b le m .

-46 -



A n oth er  s ig n i f ica n t  p r o b l e m  not t rea ted  in this d ocu m en t  

in v o lv e s  the quest ion  o f  b e t te r  equa liz ing  the f in an cia l  r e s o u r c e s  

supporting  the educat ion  o f  ea ch  ch i ld .  T h is ,  too ,  is  a d i f f icu lt  

m a tte r  that m u st  be a d d r e s s e d  b e fo r e  any m e tr o p o l i ta n  d e s e g r e g a t io n  

plan a im e d  at equa liz ing  educationa l  opp ortu n it ies  can be f in a l ized .

In this c a s e ,  h o w e v e r ,  the en t ire  ques t ion  is  m a d e  m o r e  d i f f icu lt  to 

deal with b e c a u s e  it p r e s e n t ly  is  b e in g  e x a m in ed  in the State c o u r ts .  

H opefu l ly ,  the p r e s e n t  C ourt  w il l  m a k e  s o m e  p r o v i s io n  f o r  a d d r e s s in g  

i t s e l f  to this quest ion ,  as the q u es t ion ,  i t s e l f ,  r e la te s  to the d e s e g r e g a ­

t ion  a re n a ,  i f  subsequent events in the State c o u r ts  m a k e  it n e c e s s a r y .

It g o e s  without say ing ,  then, that the d e s e g r e g a t io n  o f  s c h o o ls  

in m e tr o p o l i ta n  D e tr o i t  is an e n o r m o u s  undertaking that in v o lv e s  f inding 

so lu t ions  to m a n y  c o m p le x  and d i f f i cu l t  p r o b le m s .  This  o b s e r v a t io n ,  

h o w e v e r ,  should not be  taken to m ea n  that it is  an i m p o s s ib l e  o r  u n n e c e s s a r y  

undertaking .  The p r e s e n t  p r o p o s a l  is  subm itted  to the C ourt  in an e f fo r t  

to show one w ay  in w hich  such  an undertaking cou ld  be  pu rsued .

-47 -



APPENDICES



A P P E N D IX  I

A l to g e th e r ,  s ix  d i f fe ren t  m e tr o p o l i ta n  d e s e g r e g a t io n  d es ig n s  
o f  one s o r t  o r  another  w e r e  s c r e e n e d  using  the c r i t e r ia  d e v e lo p e d  f o r  
this p r o p o s a l .  None of  them , h o w e v e r ,  w e r e  found to be  f r e e  enough 
f r o m  s e r io u s  s h o r t c o m in g s  to w a rran t  fur th er  c o n s id e r a t io n .  A  b r i e f  
d e s c r ip t io n  and c r i t iq u e  o f  ea ch  f o l l o w s :

T r i -C o u n t y  S ch oo l  D is t r i c t  P lan . This  p r o p o s a l  would have the C ourt  
d i s s o lv e  all p r e s e n t  l o c a l  and reg ion a l  s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t s  in the en t ire  
t r i - c o u n t y  (W ayne, Oakland, and M a c o m b  Counties)  a r e a  and substitute 
in the ir  p la c e  q s ing le  " s u p e r - d i s t r i c t .  " O v e r  36, 000 t e a c h e r s  and 
9 0 0 ,0 0 0  students would be  in c lu ded  within the b o u n d a r ie s  of this new 
unit. It would  s t r e t c h  out, at its w id es t  po in ts ,  f o r  m o r e  than f i fty  
m i l e s  f r o m  north  to south and f o r  about f o r t y  m i l e s  f r o m  east  to w est .

While  such  a plan exhib its  a c e r ta in  kind of  p o l i t i c a l  n ea tn ess  
w h ich  can be in te r p r e te d  as a v ir tu e ,  it a c tu a l ly  would be  an a d m i n i s t r a ­
t ive  n igh tm a re .  Not on ly  w ou ld  it p o s e  the p r o b l e m  of  d ism a n t l in g  o v e r  
eighty  w e l l  o r g a n iz e d  and p r e s e n t ly  function ing  a d m in is t r a t iv e  units ,  
it a ls o  would  th row  into im m e d ia te  j e o p a r d y  all c o l l e c t i v e  b arga in in g  
units and all  t e a ch e r  c o n tr a c ts .  A b ov e  and beyond  this, h o w e v e r ,  it 
a l s o  w ou ld  r e p r e s e n t  a d e c i s i v e  m o v e  aw ay  f r o m  the c o n c e p t  o f  
d e c e n t r a l iz a t io n  and co m m u n ity  p a rt ic ip a t ion .  It would  fu r th er  r e m o v e  
the s c h o o l  f r o m  the p o l i t i c a l  in f lu en ce  o f  the p e o p le .  M o r e o v e r ,  a 
s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t  of such  p r o p o r t io n s  w ould  inc lude  such  a la r g e  population  
p oo l  o f  m a j o r i t y  g rou p  pupils  that it would  o f fe r  little p r o m i s e  of  
in trod u c in g  m in o r i t y  group  pupils  in any s ig n i f i ca n t  n u m b e r s  to a l l  
s c h o o ls  that would  be in c lu ded  in the plan. A lthough the o v e r a l l  b la c k  
student populat ion  would  be around  21%, the uneven  d is tr ib u t ion  o f  such  
students,  tog e th er  with the e x t r e m e  d is ta n ces  in v o lv e d  in attem pting  to 
ev en ly  red is tr ib u te  them  in t e r m s  o f  s c h o o l  a ttendance ,  would shrink 
the ir  n u m b e r s  to w e l l  b e lo w  20% in a g r e a t  m a n y  t r i - c o u n t y  s c h o o ls .
Thus, a d i s t r i c t  o f  this s i z e  s im p ly  is  not n eed ed  at this t im e.

Wayne County P lan. A n o th e r  a p p r o a c h  w ou ld  be  to d e s e g r e g a t e  only  
the s c h o o ls  in Wayne County. Such an a p p ro a ch  cou ld  take s e v e r a l  f o r m s .  
L o c a l  s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t s  cou ld  be  re ta in ed  and d e s e g r e g a t io n  r e s p o n s ib i l i t i e s  
cou ld  be  h ou sed  in the o f f i c e s  of  the Wayne County In term ed ia te  Sch oo l  
D is t r i c t ;  l o c a l  d i s t r i c t s  cou ld  be d i s s o lv e d  and a co u n ty -w id e  " s u p e r - d i s t r i c t "

-49 -



r T it

cou ld  be c rea ted ;  and, last ,  l a r g e r  than lo c a l  d i s t r i c t s  co u ld  be  fash ion ed  
to e ither  augment o r  r e p la c e  lo c a l  d i s t r i c t s .  In any event ,  h o w e v e r ,  
any such s c h e m e  s im p ly  would c r e a t e  a haven in Oakland and M a c o m b  
Counties f o r  whites seek ing  r a c ia l l y  is o la te d  s c h o o ls  f o r  their  own 
ch i ldren .  A lthough, with this type o f  plan, ra c ia l  ra t ios  would fa l l  within 
a c ce p ta b le  l im it s ,  "w hite  f l ight"  would be e n co u ra g e d  ra th er  than 
d is c o u r a g e d .

In term ed iate  Schoo l  D is t r i c t  Plan. With this p lan , d e s e g r e g a t io n  units 
o f  s o m e  type would be c r e a t e d  a long county  l in es  m u c h  the sa m e  as in 
the p r e c e d in g  p r o p o s a l .  H e r e ,  h o w e v e r ,  a ll  three  counties  would be 
included . E ach  in te rm e d ia te  s ch oo l  d i s t r i c t ,  as it w e r e ,  cou ld  funct ion  
as a d e s e g r e g a t io n  a ren a .  The m a jo r  d i f f i cu l ty ,  h o w e v e r ,  l ie s  in the fact  
that there  a r e  not enough m in o r i t y  g rou p  y ou n g sters  in e i th er  Oakland o r  
M a co m b  Counties to r a i s e  the lev e l  o f  b la ck s  p r e s e n t  in the s c h o o ls  
throughout the a re a s  in v o lv ed  to any s ign if icant  le v e l .  A l s o ,  such a 
des ign  would not lend i t s e l f  to equaliz ing  s c h o o l  ra c ia l  m i x  by tran sp ort in g  
students a c r o s s  county  l ines .

E ducational  P a rk  Plan. H e re ,  educational  c o m p le x e s  invo lv ing  the 
co n s t ru c t io n  o f  new fa c i l i t i e s ,  perhaps  along the p e r ip h e r y  o f  the cen tra l  
c i ty ,  would be d ev e lo p e d .  S ev era l  var ia t ion s  a r e  p o s s ib le .  The parks  
cou ld  be  des ign ed  to house  on ly  ce r ta in  g r a d e s ,  such  as the m id d le  g r a d e s ,  
o r  they cou ld -b e  fa s h io n e d  to s e r v i c e  a l l  g ra d e s  in c e r ta in  s e c t o r s  o f  the 
m e tr o p o l i ta n  a re a .  A ny  o f  these v a r ia t ion s ,  it can be seen ,  e a s i l y  co u ld  
be  adapted to e ither  a county  o r  a t r i - c o u n t y  p o l i t i c a l  a r ra n g e m e n t .  A l l  o f  
them, h o w e v e r ,  in v o lv e  c o s t s  that a re  tota l ly  u n n e c e s s a r y .  Not on ly  w ou ld  
they entail  the c lo s in g  o f  m a n y  a lr e a d y  a va i lab le  and adequate s c h o o ls ,  they 
a ls o  would  r e q u ire  the co n s tru c t io n  o f  new s t r u c tu r e s .  If r e s o u r c e s  f o r  
such expend itures  w e r e  u n lim ited ,  then p e r h a p s ,  such  an a p p r o a c h  cou ld  
be c o n s id e r e d .  A t  this point in t im e ,  though, it s e e m s  to be c o m p le t e ly  
u n re a l is t i c .

M etrop o l i ta n  Magnet Schoo l  Plan . A  v a r ie ty  o f  des ign s  cou ld  be en terta ined  
under this m antle .  A l l ,  h o w e v e r ,  would have in c o m m o n  a c e r ta in  vo lu n ta ry  
e lem en t  w h e re b y  ch i ld ren ,  o r  their  p a re n ts ,  would be f r e e  to s e le c t  s o m e  
s c h o o l  o f  their  c h o i c e  f o r  e n ro l lm en t .  Enough, it is  b e l ie v e d ,  has b een  
sa id  in re la t ion  to D e t r o i t 's  m agnet  s c h o o l  e x p e r im e n t ,  b y  the pla int i f f  in 
r e s p o n s e  to the D etro i t  B o a r d 's  " P r o g r e s s  R e p o r t , "  to ca s t  s e r io u s  doubt 
about the a b i l i ty  o f  any such  s c h e m e  to r e a l ly  d e s e g r e g a t e  any la r g e  number 
of schools. It would be redundant to repeat the substance o f  that response 
here.

-5 0 -



r • * ? <*

* *

50 -50  Ratio Plan. This proposal, and others that m ay represent some 
variant of it, would desegregate only a very lim ited segment of the 
metropolitan area. Only enough school d istricts , outside Detroit, 
would be selected to desegregate with Detroit so that a 50 -5 0  m ix of 
m inority-m ajority  group pupils would obtain in the desegregated schools. 
However, any plan of this type would reduce the desegregation arena to 
such a size that, again, im m ediately accessib le  havens of isolated white 
school communities would be available for all who would want to take 
advantage of them. P roposals of this sort, that severely  lim it the overall 
size of the desegregation arena, only invite further racial and social class  
resegregation. They end up speaking for racial isolation while appearing 
to speak out against it.

• •

-51 -

F"



f M  y  ¥

«- ♦

APPENDIX II

Detroit Schools Not Included In This Proposal

Student Population

Schools Racial Distribution Total
<

Indian Black
r—

Oriental
\

Chicano , White

Aero Mechanics (#8)
Cass (//2)
Dancy School of Obs. (//8) 
Day School for Deaf (//2) 
Dexter (#3)
Dubois (//4)
Duffield (//8)
E llis  (#2)
Farrand (#1)
Jacoby (//6)
Leland (//8)
Logan (#2)
Lyster (#2)
Marxhausen (//7)
Metzner (//2)
Moore (#1)
Morley (//2)
Oakman (#3)
Trowbridge (#1) 
Washington Trade (#6) 
White (#6)
Youth Home (#6)

2
9

1
1

4

71
2,619

133
140
139
21

258
67

124
116
197
43

121
61

178
147

14
200
256
248

94
139

2
52

1

1

1

3
44

5

1
2

3
3
6

3

2
6
1
1
1

v 1

275
1,577

4
143

3
28
31
6
1

10
62
31
56

2
13

3
13

184
6

36
53
51

353
4,301

137
288
142
49

290
75

125
126 
262

77
184

64
195 
150

29
391
263
285
148
196

Total 17 5,386 57 82 2,588 8,130

=52-



APPEN DIX III

Summary-

Estim ated Annual Operating Costs 
Metropolitan School Desegregation Borough Plan

Amount
Alternative I (Grades 5 -12) $ Thousands

State Funding -  Office of M etro School D eseg. $ 539

Local Funding (Shared Cost)
Borough Adm inistrative Offices 
Program  Development -  Human Relations 
Transportation -  Minimum

2,423  
250 

7, 210 9, 883

TO TA L $ 10,422

Alternative II (Grades 5 -8 )

State Funding - Office of M etro School D eseg. $ 539

Local Funding (Shared Cost)
Borough Adm inistrative Offices 
Program  Development -  Human Relations 
Transportation -  Minimum

2,423
250

3 ,5 7 0 6, 243

TO TAL
'■ -

$ 6, 782

-53 -



»  I *

Estim ated Annual Operating Costs 
Metropolitan School Desegregation Borough Plan

ST A T E FUNDING
OFFICE OF M ETROPOLITAN SCHOOL DESEGREGATION

POSITION No. of
Em ployees

Executive D irector and Eight General Admin. A sst.
Research Director and Four A sst. D irectors
Budget Director and Eight Secretaries 9
Supplies and Equipment —I—

A m ou n t  
$ Thousands 

292 
130 
105 

12 
$ 539

LOCAL BOARDS OF EDUCATION (SHARED COST) FUNDING  
BOROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES

1) EACH Large Borough (5)
POSITION

Superintendent and Two Assistants 3
Adm inistrators - Plant, Personnel, B usiness,

Curriculum, Comm. Relations
School liaison and four curriculum specialists 5o
Secretaries and clerks ——

s TO TAL 21

Office Space
Supplies and Equipment

TOTAL Each Large Borough 2 1

2) EACH Sm all Borough (2)
Superintendent and Five Adm inistrators 6
Curriculum Specialists ^1 A
Clerks and Secretaries — _

TO TAL 14

Office Space
Supplies and Equipment -----

TOTAL Each Small Borough 14

Cost of Borough Administrative Offices

LARGE 5 at $377. 000
SM ALL 2 at $269. 000

TO TAL

92

102
86
62

342

24
11

377

139
74
31

244

18
__ 7
269

1,885
538

$2 ,423

r - 54 -



Estim ated Annual Operating Costs 
Metropolitan School Desegregation Borough Plan

(cont. )

TRANSPORTATION

Alternative I 
Minimum

D esegregate grades 5 through 12 
Movement of 2 0 6 ,0 0 0  students in buses 
purchased by local d istricts. A ssu m es  
two capacity loads twice each day at 
$70. 00 per pupil per year

M aximum Leased buses at $220 per student per year

Alternative II 
Minimum

D esegregate grades 5 through 8 
Movement of 102 ,000  students in buses 
purchased by local districts. A ssu m es  
two capacity loads twice each day at 
$70. 00 per pupil per year.

M axim um  - Leased buses at $220 per student per year

Amount 
$ Thousands

$ 7 , 210

$ 23 ,690

$ 3 , 570

$ 1 1 , 2 2 0

-5 5 -