Liddell v. BD. OF EDUC. OF CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MO.

758 F. Supp. 499
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri
DecidedJanuary 18, 1991
Docket72-100 C (5)
StatusPublished

This text of 758 F. Supp. 499 (Liddell v. BD. OF EDUC. OF CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MO.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Liddell v. BD. OF EDUC. OF CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MO., 758 F. Supp. 499 (E.D. Mo. 1991).

Opinion

758 F.Supp. 499 (1991)

Craton LIDDELL, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MO., et al., Defendants.

No. 72-100 C (5).

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, E.D.

January 18, 1991.

William P. Russell, Joseph McDuffie, St. Louis, Mo., for Liddell.

Michael A. Middleton, Columbia, Mo., William L. Taylor, Washington, D.C., Wayne C. Harvey, Caldwell Harvey Hughes McHugh & Singleton, St. Louis, Mo., for Caldwell/NAACP.

Kenneth C. Brostron, Lashly & Baer, St. Louis, Mo., for City Bd.

Michael J. Fields, Bart A. Matanic, Asst. Missouri Attys. Gen., Jefferson City, Mo., John J. Lynch, Asst. Missouri Atty. Gen., St. Louis, Mo., David R. Boyd, Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, Washington, D.C., for State of Mo.

Andrew J. Minardi, Joseph D. Ferry, St. Louis, Mo., for St. Louis County.

Shulamith Simon, Husch Eppenberger Donohue Cornfeld & Jenkins, St. Louis, Mo., court-appointed amicus curiae.

Craig M. Crenshaw, Jr., Jeremiah Glassman, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civil Rights Div., Washington, D.C., for U.S.

James J. Wilson, St. Louis City Counselor, St. Louis, Mo., for City of St. Louis.

Anthony J. Sestric, Sestric & Cipolla, St. Louis, Mo., for St. Louis Collector of Revenue.

Charles Werner, St. Louis, Mo., for Missouri NEA.

Charles R. Oldham, St. Louis, Mo., for St. Louis Teachers Local Union 420.

Henry D. Menghini, Robert J. Krehbiel, Evans & Dixon, St. Louis, Mo., for St. Louis County School Districts — Affton & Lindbergh.

Darold E. Crotzer, Jr., St. Louis, Mo., for Bayless, Jennings, Normandy & Wellston.

Bertram W. Tremayne, Jr., Tremayne Lay Carr Bauer & Nouss, St. Louis, Mo., for Kirkwood & University City.

Frank Susman, Susman Schermer Rimmel & Parker, St. Louis, Mo., for Ferguson-Florissant.

*500 George J. Bude, St. Louis, Mo., for Brentwood, Clayton & Hancock Place.

Robert P. Baine, Jr., St. Louis, Mo., for Hazelwood.

Robert G. McClintock, St. Louis, Mo., for Ladue.

Richard H. Ulrich, Summers Compton Wells & Hamburg, St. Louis, Mo., for Maplewood-Richmond Heights.

John Gianoulakis, Kohn Shands Elbert Gianoulkis & Giljum, St. Louis, Mo., for Mehlville, Pattonville & Ritenour.

Donald J. Stohr, James W. Erwin and R.J. Robertson, Thompson & Mitchell, St. Louis, Mo., for Parkway.

Edward J. Murphy, Jr., Garry K. Seltzer, St. Louis, Mo., for Riverview Gardens.

Douglas A. Copeland, Robert W. Copeland, Copeland Gertner & Thompson, St. Louis, Mo., for Webster Groves.

Thomas E. Tueth, Audrey G. Fleissig, Ian P. Cooper, Peper Martin Jensen Maichel & Hetlage, St. Louis, Mo., for St. Louis County Special & Rockwood.

Kenneth V. Byrne, Schlueter & Byrne, St. Louis, Mo., for Valley Park.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

LIMBAUGH, District Judge.

Vocational education traditionally has been a vital part of the United States public education program. Even private institutions have presented challenging vocational curriculum to interested students. The 12(b) vocational education plan, therefore, was an integral portion of the voluntary plan accepted and implemented by Judge Hungate in the early stages of this case.

By 1983, four schools all well located geographically, provided vocational courses in the greater St. Louis area. North County, South County, O'Fallon in the City and the new West County school each offered a host of attractive vocational pursuits.

Nonetheless, shortly after this Court assumed the duties of this case management on February 1, 1985, it was readily apparent that for a variety of reasons St. Louis was following the national trend showing a decline in popularity of vocational programs. A difference of opinion developed nationwide among the academicians. Some felt vocational interest was waning and the education dollar could be used more effectively elsewhere. Others suggested new approaches to upgrading vocational programs and promoting a revitalized interest.

This Court, therefore, in the mid-1980s being unequipped to make a sound educational decision, was obliged to make an economic one with respect to the 12(b) part of the voluntary plan.

The four schools alluded to were overstaffed and offered duplicate programs to only a modest number of interested vocational students all at a huge cost. To illustrate, at one point, O'Fallon was capable of housing almost 3,000 students, but only had an enrollment of 600 to 700 students and could have accommodated the 2,600 some odd total student enrollment in all four schools.

West County was ordered closed with the possibility of closing the South County vocational program as well.

After appeals and decisions concerning the implementation of a long-range magnet program, the Court determined O'Fallon could best be used in a magnet project rather than continued usage offering traditional vocational education programs.

Following that decision, the only entities interested in accepting a vocational program were and are the Special School District in St. Louis County, and the City of St. Louis Public School District.

As O'Fallon was being converted to a magnet school, the City Board, in order to implement a vocational program, would be required to revamp an existing school for vocational pursuits or acquire or build a facility. Fortunately for it, the Special District could still use North and South Tech schools or perhaps even reopen West County Tech should enrollment make it economically feasible.

After hearings and conferences with representatives of the parties and their attorneys, the Court had several options. One was to continue with a blend of operation *501 with control vested both in the City Board and the Special School District. Another was to allow either entity to handle the entire program or each to handle their own. A final potential was for the Court to disengage vocational education from the case because of the diminishing student enrollment as compared with the total school population.

The dismal history of the 12(b) Vocational Education Plan is a familiar story;[1] therefore there is no point in reciting it again in more precise detail than just outlined. Suffice it to say that as a desegregation remedy and alternative education option, vocational education under the 12(b) Plan has failed miserably. Enrollments are at rock bottom and racial numbers remain unchanged. There has been a total disruption of students' lives and education.

Last January this Court exercised one of its options and reluctantly created a dual vocational education system as a way to keep a secondary vocational education system operating under the purview of the City Board. Both the City Board and the Special School District would independently operate vocational education high schools.[2] All metropolitan St. Louis high school students would be free to choose which school they wanted to attend. Theoretically, "choice" would force the school districts to provide innovative and desirable courses, better staffing, and improved facilities in order to attract students. In essence, the two school districts would compete for students. The Court hoped that this strategy would foster positive changes in the present vocational education system.

A year has passed and instead of positive changes all indications are that the vocational education system continues to be in serious trouble.

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

Related

Lomartra v. Toth, No. Cv93 04 50 51 (Apr. 4, 1995)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 3938 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1995)
At T Communications v. Corsetti Const., No. Cv 92329864 (Sep. 19, 1996)
1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5370-PPP (Connecticut Superior Court, 1996)
Liddell v. Board of Education
758 F. Supp. 499 (E.D. Missouri, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
758 F. Supp. 499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liddell-v-bd-of-educ-of-city-of-st-louis-mo-moed-1991.