Knight v. Board of Education of City of New York

48 F.R.D. 115, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13896
District Court, E.D. New York·Decided April 30, 1969·No. No. 69-C-326·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

REVISED FINDINGS OF FACT AND LAW: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

WEINSTEIN, District Judge.

The Court, having read the complaint, order to show cause, and supporting affidavits, having heard the testimony of [116]*116students, parents, teachers and Dr. Kenneth Clark, an expert on education, having heard the defendants, Morton H. Selub, Principal, Franklin K. Lane High School; Edwin Dannen, District Supervisor, East New York High School District; and Elizabeth C. O’Daly, District Superintendent, District 19, having heard David A. Brown, Coordinator of All Special Educational Projects, District 19, Brooklyn, who is directly in charge of the Annex to the Franklin K. Lane High School, having read the report of the Court-appointed panel of educational experts, Dr. Richard Trent, Dr. Mabel Smythe, and Dr. Irving Anker, on the operation of the Franklin K. Lane Annex, and having heard argument, makes the following findings and issues the following preliminary injunction.

FINDINGS OF FACT FOR PURPOSES OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ONLY

1. Plaintiffs were denied notice and an opportunity to be heard before being transferred from the register of Franklin K. Lane High School to the rolls of the Attendance Bureau of the Board of Education of the City of New York; a number of plaintiffs were substantially prejudiced by this denial; and their opportunity to continue full-time high school education was seriously interrupted.

2. This transfer from the rolls of Franklin K. Lane High School was, in a number of instances, a de facto discharge from the high schools operated by the defendant, the Board of Education of the City of New York, since full day-time education in high schools of the City of New York has not been made available to a substantial number of members of the plaintiff class.

3. Assignment to the Annex of Franklin K. Lane High School as presently constituted is not a satisfactory substitute for full day-time education in a high school of the City of New York.

4. A substantial number of members of the plaintiff class who desire to be afforded the opportunity for full daytime education in high schools in the City of New York require remedial education to overcome the educational losses suffered during the period when they were denied access to high school.

5. The individual defendants, Morton H. Selub, Principal, Franklin K. Lane High School; Edwin Dannen, District Supervisor, East New York High School District; and Elizabeth C. O’Daly, District Superintendent, District 19, were responding to the orders of superiors and to pressures beyond their control in making the decisions which led to the denial of notice and an opportunity to be heard to members of the plaintiff class. Their decisions were approved by the highest authorities in the City of New York and the Board of Education, including representatives of the Mayor and the Board of Education; at the time students were separated from the register of Franklin K. Lane High School and transferred to the register of the Bureau of Attendance, the individual defendants had been promised by higher authorities in the Board of Education and the City of New York that all members of the plaintiff class who might wish to be transferred to a full day-time high school would be so transferred; and this promise was not kept.

6. The decision to separate members of the plaintiff class from the rolls of the Franklin K. Lane High School was made at a time when there were serious threats of bodily injury to students and faculty at Franklin K. Lane High School, when the teachers were threatening a work-stoppage because of the physical dangers they faced and their inability to carry on proper educational programs, and when it was impossible to maintain discipline and control at the school because of overlapping schedules, extreme overcrowding and widespread truancy.

7. Part of the disorganization at Franklin K. Lane High School resulted [117]*117from disruptions which occurred in the Fall term of 1968 during the teachers’ strike, student demonstrations and an influenza epidemic.

8. There is no record of any violence by members of the plaintiff class; their records did show unexcused absences of more than thirty days and failures in all courses, or all but one course, in the fall of 1968, but these records have been shown to be incorrect in some instances.

9. The basic difficulty at Franklin K. Lane High School, and the reason the promises to the individual defendants to make available space in other high schools were not met, was that there were insufficient educational facilities made available to the individual defendants and others responsible for the operation of individual high schools in the Borough of Brooklyn and throughout the City of New York.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR PURPOSES OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ONLY

1. Members of the plaintiff class were denied their constitutional right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

2. Responsibility for the violation of the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights rests upon the Board of Education of the City of New York and officials of the City and State who are not named defendants; they failed to provide educational resources adequate to meet the statutory and constitutional responsibilities of those charged with the operation of Franklin K. Lane High School.

3. No denial of equal protection of the laws has been shown.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

It is ordered, adjudged and decreed:

1. All members of the plaintiff class who desire to receive full day-time education in a high school of the City of New York shall be forthwith admitted to Franklin K. Lane High School or another appropriate High School in the City of New York.

2. The Annex of Franklin K. Lane High School shall be considered an appropriate full day-time high school provided :

(a) No member of the plaintiff class assigned to Franklin K. Lane High School Annex shall be required to spend more than 30 academic days or ten successive academic days, whichever condition is first met, at the Annex; a school day is an academic day when the student attends without being late.

(b) The operation of the Franklin K. Lane High School Annex shall be modified to provide more adequate instruction ; students shall be permitted to take home textbooks, and shall receive homework assignments, regular tests and marks.

3. So far as is practicable, each member of the plaintiff class who requests admission to a high school shall be placed in the program and grade he would have been in had he not been removed from the rolls of Franklin K. Lane High School; where necessary, periods of remedial work shall be assigned during the school day in addition to the regular program; after-school tutorial classes shall be arranged; and intensive guidance and psychological services shall be offered.

4. All members of the plaintiff class who were on the rolls of the Bureau of Attendance more than 15 school days after January 27, 1969 shall be afforded the right , to attend a summer make-up high school program provided by the Board of Education.

5. A copy of the preliminary injunction shall be mailed to each member of the plaintiff class by the Board of Education within 24 hours.

6.

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

Knight v. Board of Education of City of New York, 48 F.R.D. 115, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13896 (E.D.N.Y. 1969).

48 F.R.D. 115 (Knight v. Board of Education of City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

RV v. New York City Department of Education
321 F. Supp. 2d 538 (E.D. New York, 2004)
Halderman v. Pennhurst State School & Hospital
612 F.2d 84 (Third Circuit, 1979)
Society for Good Will to Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey
466 F. Supp. 722 (E.D. New York, 1979)
Bradley v. Milliken
426 F. Supp. 929 (E.D. Michigan, 1977)
Hart v. Community Sch. Bd. of Brooklyn, NY Sch. D. 21
383 F. Supp. 699 (E.D. New York, 1974)
Taylor v. New York City Transit Authority
309 F. Supp. 785 (E.D. New York, 1970)