Kelley v. Metropolitan County Board of Education

572 F. Supp. 317
CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee
DecidedJune 1, 1983
DocketCiv. A. Nos. 2094, 2956
StatusPublished

This text of 572 F. Supp. 317 (Kelley v. Metropolitan County Board of Education) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kelley v. Metropolitan County Board of Education, 572 F. Supp. 317 (M.D. Tenn. 1983).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

WISEMAN, District Judge.

On April 14,1983, this Court held a hearing on the Board of Education's “Plan Submitted in Response to Opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit,” filed by the Board on April 8, 1983. Testimony explaining the plan, utilizing maps, statistics, and other exhibits, was offered by the Board, and opportunity for cross-examina[318]*318tion and/or objection was afforded to the Plaintiffs and the State Defendants. No objections were made by either the Plaintiffs or the State Defendants.

From the testimony and exhibits submitted, the Court finds that the plan presented by the Board as described in its pleading of April 8, 1983, and the amendment thereto filed on April 14, 1983, meets fully the criteria set out by the Court of Appeals in its opinion on July 27, 1982, 687 F.2d 814 and the mandate issued pursuant thereto. Specifically, the pupil assignment plan submitted by the Board begins with the existing ratio of blacks to whites in the population as a starting point to maximize integration as defined by the Court of Appeals. That is, every effort has been made to draw zones for schools which will approximate the 33% black school population presently existing in the school system, with a deviation of 15% on either side of this percentage. Where deviations from this ratio have occurred and will occur, they are the result of factors beyond the Board’s control, including but not limited to demographic considerations which would necessitate extraordinarily long transportation distances to the nearest concentration of black or white students to correct the imbalances. It is clear from the proof that the greatest possible effort has been made to maximize desegregation within the guidelines set forth by the Court of Appeals, and accordingly the plan is approved in its entirety.

The pleadings filed by the Board on April 8, 1983, and on April 14, 1983, along with the exhibits thereto and the maps, exhibits, and testimony describing the plan are incorporated into this decree by reference. In addition, the Agreement in Principle entered into by the Plaintiffs and the Board of Education and filed as Exhibit No. 2 in this cause, is incorporated into this decree by reference. The procedures contained therein for retention of jurisdiction by this Court supersede previous orders and restrictions which have governed this case. These procedures are ordered as follows:

“[Under the plan as approved, the Board of Education retains] the flexibility to make refinements where necessary in the plan to improve the integrity of zone lines, to improve feeder patterns, and to improve the utilization of buildings, so long as these improvements do not adversely impact the pupil assignment plan.”
“[Jurisdiction will be retained] pending implementation of the long range plan, at which time, or five years after the entry of this order, whichever occurs first, any party may move the Court to have the system declared unitary and the case dismissed.”
“[While jurisdiction is retained by this Court,] the Board shall report to the Court and counsel for all parties on or before January 1st of each year the following information:
1. An annual update of the Thirteen Year Analysis of Enrollment Patterns;
2. Numbers and use of portables during the current school year;
3. Any proposed new construction or expansion to house more students or regular programs; and
4. Any proposed zone changes with number of students involved by race, grade and school.”
“Should any party have any objections to the information contained in the report, those objections must be filed within 45 days from the date the report is filed.”

In addition to the pupil assignment plan, it should be noted that this Court has previously approved and ordered, and by this decree continues to approve and order the educational components contained in the previous plan (remediation, “Together We Can, Together We Will,” black history, the middle school concept, and magnet school programs), and specifically approves the creation of a magnet school for the academically talented at Hume Fogg High School, a magnet school serving grades 5-8 at Caldwell Elementary School, and the Martin Luther King, Jr. Magnet School for the Health Sciences to be established at Pearl when the new Pearl-Cohn High School is completed.

[319]*319Specific matters relating to faculty and personnel which are now governed by stipulation entered into between the parties on December 8, 1982, are not affected by this order.

An appropriate Order will enter.

ORDER

In conformity with the Memorandum entered this day approving a new desegregation plan for Metropolitan Nashville and Davidson County, the plan as presented by the Metropolitan Nashville Board of Education on April 14, 1983, is hereby approved and ordered to be implemented.

ADDENDUM I

PLAN SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

On July 27, 1982, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit mandated a new pupil assignment plan in conformity with the guidelines set forth in the opinion of the Court. This Court set an April 1, 1983, deadline for the Board’s submission of a new plan pursuant to the mandate.1 The Board immediately developed criteria to be utilized by the Board’s staff in the development of the plan.2 These criteria approved by the Board of Education on February 1, 1983, and February 7,1983, were as follows:

“1. The unitary school plan will encompass the entire county.
“2. The staff will be directed to develop a tier system or variation of tier system that is consistent with the Court Order, and utilizes sound educational principles.
“3. A child in grades one through twelve would not go to more than four schools during his experience, if his residence did not change.
“4. Feeder patterns of elementary to middle to high school be established which would allow as many students to remain together for as long as possible.
“5. A ‘starting point’ of the plan should be that each school has 33% black students with a 15% range on either side (18% to 48% black).
“6. Whenever possible, school zones that are integrated by 18% to 48% black without busing for racial balance should be established.
“7. The goal of the plan should be to distribute the burden of busing as equitably as possible.
“8. The planners are directed to consider all buildings, full utilization of presently used buildings based on projected enrollment, the option of reopening buildings not now in use, expansion of these buildings, and the possible addition of new buildings which will facilitate the conservation of time, distance and fuel and which will facilitate the other major criteria of the plan.
“9.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
572 F. Supp. 317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelley-v-metropolitan-county-board-of-education-tnmd-1983.