In Re Craton Liddell v. Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Missouri Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Missouri v. The State of Missouri, in Re: Craton Liddell v. Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Missouri Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Missouri v. The State of Missouri, Craton Liddell v. The Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Missouri the Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Missouri v. The State of Missouri Arthur Mallory, Commissioner of Education of the State of Missouri, in His Official Capacity the State of Missouri Board of Education John Ashcroft, Governor of the State of Missouri William Webster, Attorney General of the State of Missouri Wendell Bailey, Treasurer of the State of Missouri Stephen C. Bradford, Commissioner of Administration of the State of Missouri the State of Missouri Board of Education and Its Members, Erwin A. Williamson (President), Jimmy Robertson (Vice-President), Grover A. Gamm, Delmar A. Cobble, Dale M. Thompson, Donald W. Shelton and Robert Welling, Special School District of St. Louis County

823 F.2d 1252, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 8953
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJuly 7, 1987
Docket87-1001
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 823 F.2d 1252 (In Re Craton Liddell v. Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Missouri Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Missouri v. The State of Missouri, in Re: Craton Liddell v. Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Missouri Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Missouri v. The State of Missouri, Craton Liddell v. The Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Missouri the Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Missouri v. The State of Missouri Arthur Mallory, Commissioner of Education of the State of Missouri, in His Official Capacity the State of Missouri Board of Education John Ashcroft, Governor of the State of Missouri William Webster, Attorney General of the State of Missouri Wendell Bailey, Treasurer of the State of Missouri Stephen C. Bradford, Commissioner of Administration of the State of Missouri the State of Missouri Board of Education and Its Members, Erwin A. Williamson (President), Jimmy Robertson (Vice-President), Grover A. Gamm, Delmar A. Cobble, Dale M. Thompson, Donald W. Shelton and Robert Welling, Special School District of St. Louis County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Craton Liddell v. Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Missouri Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Missouri v. The State of Missouri, in Re: Craton Liddell v. Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Missouri Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Missouri v. The State of Missouri, Craton Liddell v. The Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Missouri the Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Missouri v. The State of Missouri Arthur Mallory, Commissioner of Education of the State of Missouri, in His Official Capacity the State of Missouri Board of Education John Ashcroft, Governor of the State of Missouri William Webster, Attorney General of the State of Missouri Wendell Bailey, Treasurer of the State of Missouri Stephen C. Bradford, Commissioner of Administration of the State of Missouri the State of Missouri Board of Education and Its Members, Erwin A. Williamson (President), Jimmy Robertson (Vice-President), Grover A. Gamm, Delmar A. Cobble, Dale M. Thompson, Donald W. Shelton and Robert Welling, Special School District of St. Louis County, 823 F.2d 1252, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 8953 (8th Cir. 1987).

Opinion

823 F.2d 1252

40 Ed. Law Rep. 711

In re Craton LIDDELL, et al. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the
CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, et al.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, Appellee,
v.
The STATE OF MISSOURI, Appellant.
In Re: Craton LIDDELL, et al. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the
CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, et al.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, Appellant,
v.
The STATE OF MISSOURI, Appellee.
Craton LIDDELL, et al. v. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY
OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, et al.
The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, Appellant,
v.
The STATE OF MISSOURI; Arthur Mallory, Commissioner of
Education of the State of Missouri, in his official
capacity; The State of Missouri Board of Education; John
Ashcroft, Governor of the State of Missouri; William
Webster, Attorney General of the State of Missouri; Wendell
Bailey, Treasurer of the State of Missouri; Stephen C.
Bradford, Commissioner of Administration of the State of
Missouri; The State of Missouri Board of Education and its
members, Erwin A. Williamson (President), Jimmy Robertson
(Vice-President), Grover A. Gamm, Delmar A. Cobble, Dale M.
Thompson, Donald W. Shelton and Robert Welling, Appellees,
Special School District of St. Louis County, Appellee.

Nos. 86-2565, 87-1001 and 87-1705.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

July 7, 1987.

Before HEANEY, McMILLIAN and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on appeals by the Board of Education of the City of St. Louis and by the State of Missouri. We issue this interim order to give the City Board, the State of Missouri and other interested parties time to implement the provisions of this order by the opening of the 1987-88 school year, and in time to permit the parties to take those steps which will further implementation of the plan to integrate the St. Louis City schools at the beginning of the 1988-89 school year.

A. Integration Requirements and Current Status

In Liddell v. State of Missouri, 731 F.2d 1294 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 816, 105 S.Ct. 82, 83 L.Ed.2d 30 (1984) (Liddell VII ), this Court, sitting en banc, set forth in detail the requirements for integrating the St. Louis City schools. We emphasize today that these requirements must be fulfilled even though this order may allow their fulfillment to be delayed in certain specific instances. The most important requirements and the ways to meet these requirements are set forth below.

(1) Pupil/teacher ratios in the nonintegrated elementary and middle schools were to be reduced to twenty to one by the beginning of the 1987-88 school year. Pupil/teacher ratios in the high schools and integrated elementary and middle schools were to be reduced to AAA standards. Liddell VII, 731 F.2d at 1314-18. Pupil/teacher ratios in the nonintegrated elementary and middle schools were about twenty-five to one in the 1986-87 school year. The City Board states that it cannot reduce these ratios to twenty to one in the 1987-88 school year, as required by Liddell VII, because of space and financial difficulties. Pupil/teacher ratios in the high schools and in the integrated elementary and middle schools have been reduced to AAA standards.

(2) Fifteen thousand (15,000) black students from the City were to be voluntarily transferred to suburban school districts. Id. at 1302. As of the 1986-87 school year, approximately 9,500 students had transferred. On the basis of past experience and applications received for enrollment for the coming school year, the number of black students transferring to county schools will probably continue to increase by about 2,000 per year and will probably exceed 11,500 in the 1987-88 school year.

(3) Fourteen thousand (14,000) students were to be enrolled in magnet schools--8,000 (city students) in the intradistrict magnets and 6,000 (city and county students) in the interdistrict magnets. Liddell v. Board of Education, 804 F.2d 500, 502 (8th Cir.1986) (Liddell X ). As of the 1986-87 school year, 6,500 students attended intradistrict magnet schools and 2,100 attended interdistrict magnet schools. This enrollment is not now expected to increase in the 1987-88 school year because the parties have been unable to agree upon the programs to be offered and in what facilities they would be offered.

(4) Remedial and compensatory programs, along with part-time integrative programs, were to be offered in nonintegrated schools. Liddell VII, 731 F.2d at 1314-18. Some of the required programs are now being offered and are adequately funded; others have yet to be offered; and still others are underfunded.

B. Steps to be Taken

On the basis of the briefs and records presented to this Court, it does not appear that the pupil/teacher ratios in the City's nonintegrated elementary and middle schools will be reduced to twenty to one by the 1987-88 school year. It also does not appear that 15,000 black students will have transferred to the county schools or that magnet enrollment requirements will be met by the 1987-88 school year. We re-emphasize that these requirements of Liddell VII remain in effect and are to be met at the earliest possible time. We are also of the opinion that the twenty to one pupil/teacher ratio can be reached without split or dual sessions, without displacement of quality education programs in the nonintegrated elementary and middle schools, and without having to transport substantial additional numbers of students. To this end, we direct:

(1) At the beginning of the 1987-88 school year, black students currently being transported to nonintegrated schools outside of their attendance zone are to be transferred to those integrated schools in which significantly fewer than 50% of the students are expected to be black. The transfers are intended to bring the percentage of black students in these integrated schools up to about 50% of the student population. The transfers will make some additional space available in the nonintegrated elementary and middle schools for further reduction in pupil/teacher ratios.

(2) Even though the goal of twenty to one may not be fully achieved in the 1987-88 school year, it is apparent that some reduction in class size in the nonintegrated elementary and middle schools can be made at the beginning of the 1987-88 school year by making more efficient use of classrooms in the elementary and middle school buildings.

(3) Immediate steps must be taken to insure that facilities meeting constitutional standards are available to meet the twenty to one pupil/teacher ratios in the nonintegrated elementary and middle schools by the beginning of the 1988-89 school year. In this connection, the court understands that in some classrooms, for example, the ratio may be nineteen to one and in others twenty-one to one.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
823 F.2d 1252, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 8953, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-craton-liddell-v-board-of-education-of-the-city-of-st-louis-ca8-1987.