Armstrong v. O'CONNELL

427 F. Supp. 1377
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DecidedMarch 17, 1977
DocketCiv. A. 65-C-173
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 427 F. Supp. 1377 (Armstrong v. O'CONNELL) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Wisconsin primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Armstrong v. O'CONNELL, 427 F. Supp. 1377 (E.D. Wis. 1977).

Opinion

ORDER

REYNOLDS, Chief Judge.

On March 11, 1977, a hearing was held in the above-captioned action for the purpose of obtaining the oral views of counsel of record and the Special Master with respect to the question of the adoption of a final and comprehensive plan for the desegregation of the public schools of the City of Milwaukee, and to consider defendants’ December 22, 1976, motion to reconsider desegregation guidelines and defendants’ January 3,1977, motion to approve the Milwau kee-Austin Plan, modify the guidelines referred to in the Court’s order of June 11, 1976, and dissolve the injunction regarding the construction of Vincent High School.

At the outset of the hearing, the Court denied the defendants’ motion to change desegregation guidelines and defendants’ motion to approve the “Milwaukee Board of School Directors’ Milwaukee-A us tin Plan for the Desegregation of Court Determined Identifiable Constitutional Violations with Present Segregative Effects” (“Milwaukee- Austin Plan”) for the reasons stated on the record in open court. The Court also advised the parties that it had independently assessed the record which has been compiled to date in this action and had concluded that the “Memorandum in Response to Court Order Requiring Defendants to Devise and Submit a Plan for Desegregating the Milwaukee Public School System by September 30, 1978” (“Blue Plan”) does not constitute a meaningful response to the Court’s orders. Accordingly, the Court rejected the Blue Plan. The Court further concluded that the Special Master’s remedial recommendations would successfully accomplish the desegregation of the Milwaukee Public School System through means that were most appropriate to the circumstances of this particular action.

The Court thereafter solicited the oral views of counsel with respect to the various aspects of the Special Master’s remedial recommendations. The Court has carefully considered those views and has determined that although it will adopt in large part the remedial recommendations of the Special Master, it is necessary that those recommendations be modified in certain respects.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

*1379 1. Denial of Certain Motions

The defendants’ motion of December 22, 1976, seeking reconsideration of desegregation guidelines and the portions of the defendants’ motion of January 3, 1977, requesting approval of the “Milwaukee-Aus tin Plan” and modification of the guidelines referred to in the Court’s order of June 11, 1976, are denied.

2. Rejection of Defendants' Remedial Plans

The Court has found that the remedial actions set forth in the “Milwaukee Board of School Directors’ Milwaukee-Aus tin Plan for the Desegregation of Court Determined Identifiable Constitutional Violations with Present Segregative Effects” and the “Memorandum in Response to Court Order Requiring Defendants to Devise and Submit a Plan for Desegregating the Milwaukee Public School System by September 30, 1978” will not effectively remedy the unlawful segregation which the Court has found to exist in the public schools of the City of Milwaukee. As the Court finds that these remedial plans are constitutionally inadequate, they are hereby rejected.

3. Student Desegregation

(a) Defendants shall immediately implement the policies and procedures relating to student assignment which are described in the appendix attached to this order, which appendix emanates from a document entitled “Comprehensive Plan for Increasing Educational Opportunities and Improving Racial Balance in the Milwaukee Public Schools.” These policies and procedures (hereinafter referred to as “student assignment system”) consist of a student assignment process and pupil transfer policy which are to be implemented in the context of a planning base which includes the identification of attendance areas for all students, the reorganization of grade level structures, the affiliation of schools into elementary school leagues and junior and senior high school associations, and the establishment of a feeder pattern system.

(b) Defendants shall administer the student assignment system with the goal of achieving results which are consistent with the requirements set forth in paragraphs 3(c) and 3(d) hereof.

(c) By September 30, 1978, and until this order shall expire as set forth in paragraph 7 below, at least two-thirds {%) of the schools in the Milwaukee Public School System should have student body populations that are between twenty-five and fifty percent (25-50%) black. Of the schools that remain, at least one-half (V2) should have student body populations that are between twenty and sixty-five percent (20-65%) black, and the balance should have student body populations that are between fifteen and seventy-five percent (15-75%) black.

(d) In order to insure significant progress towards the requirement contained in paragraph 3(c) by September 30, 1977, at least two-thirds (%) of the schools in the Milwaukee Public School System should have student body populations that are between twenty-five and fifty percent (25-50%) black. • •

(e) If a “school within a school” is established, both the school as a whole and the “school within a school” shall be required to conform to the requirements of paragraphs 3(c) and 3(d).

(f) In calculating the racial composition of schools for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of paragraphs 3(c) and 3(d), defendants shall exclude kindergarten and pre-kindergarten students, students in self-contained classrooms for the severely handicapped (also known as low incidence handicapped), and during the 1977-78 and 1978-79 school years only, students enrolled in their senior year of high school.

(g) For purposes of paragraphs 3(c) and 3(d), self-contained schools for the severely handicapped will be omitted from the numerical base of the total number of schools within the system, and such schools shall *1380 not be subject to the requirements set forth herein.

(h) For purposes of paragraph 3(d), schools which will be closed during either the 1977-78 or 1978-79 school years as a consequence of final action of the defendants taken prior to May 1, 1977, will be excluded from the numerical base of the total number of schools within the system, and such schools shall not be subject to the requirements set forth herein.

(i) For purposes of paragraph 3(c), schools which will be closed during the 1978-79 school year as a consequence of final action of the defendants taken prior to May 1, 1978, will be excluded from the numerical base of the total number of schools within the system, and such schools shall not be subject to the requirements set forth therein.

(j) Nothing in this order is intended to prevent defendants from designating Hispanic students, native Americans, and other minority students as separate minority populations and according them priority over other non-black students in assignment to schools with programs designed to meet their special needs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Armstrong v. Board of School Directors
616 F.2d 305 (Seventh Circuit, 1980)
Booker v. Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, Minneapolis
451 F. Supp. 659 (D. Minnesota, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
427 F. Supp. 1377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armstrong-v-oconnell-wied-1977.