Liddell v. Board of Educ. of City of St. Louis, Mo.

654 F. Supp. 334, 38 Educ. L. Rep. 141
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri
DecidedJanuary 30, 1987
Docket72-1100C(5)
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 654 F. Supp. 334 (Liddell v. Board 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. Board of Educ. of City of St. Louis, Mo., 654 F. Supp. 334, 38 Educ. L. Rep. 141 (E.D. Mo. 1987).

Opinion

654 F.Supp. 334 (1987)

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

No. 72-1100C(5).

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

January 30, 1987.

Joseph McDuffie and William P. Russell, St. Louis, Mo., for Michael C. Liddell, et al.

Wayne C. Harvey, St. Louis, Mo., Michael Middleton, Columbia, Mo., for Earline Caldwell, et al.

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

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

Kenneth C. Brostron, Stephen Cooper, St. Louis, Mo., for The Bd. of Educ. of the City of St. Louis, et al.

Anthony J. Sestric, St. Louis, Mo., for Ronald Leggett, Collector of Revenue.

Michael J. Fields, Robert Presson, Asst. Attys. Gen., Jefferson City, Mo., for State of Missouri, et al.

Joseph R. Neimann, Eric M. Schmitz, Timothy R. Kellett, St. Louis, Mo., for Special School Dist. of St. Louis County.

George J. Bude, St. Louis, Mo., for Hancock Place, Brentwood, Bayless and Clayton.

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

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

Henry D. Menghini, Robert J. Krehbiel, St. Louis, Mo., for Lindbergh and Affton.

Francis L. Ruppert, Terry Farris, St. Louis, Mo., for Mehlville.

Donald J. Stohr, R.J. Robertson, James W. Erwin, St. Louis, Mo., for Parkway.

Robert W. Copeland, St. Louis, Mo., for Webster Groves and Rockwood.

Bertram W. Tremayne, Jr., St. Louis, Mo., for Kirkwood and University City.

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

John Gianoulakis, St. Louis, Mo., for Ritenour and Pattonville.

Richard H. Ulrich, James F. Sanders, St. Louis, Mo., for Maplewood and Richmond Heights.

Frank Susman, St. Louis, Mo., for Ferguson-Florissant.

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

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

*335 Andrew J. Minardi, Joseph D. Ferry, St. Louis, Mo., for St. Louis County, et al.

Bruce S. Feldacker, St. Louis, Mo., for St. Louis Teachers Union, Local 420.

Charles Werner, St. Louis, Mo., for Missouri Nat. Educ. Ass'n.

Shulamith Simon, St. Louis, Mo., amicus curiae.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LIMBAUGH, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court regarding the Metropolitan Coordinating Committee's (MCC) recommended plan for Phase III of the 12(b) Vocational Education plan, L(1017)86. Several parties and committees have filed responses to the proposal. L(1027)86-Desegregation Monitoring and Advisory Committee; L(1030)86-City Board; L(1031)86-Caldwell plaintiffs; L(1035)86-United States; L(1048)86-Special School District, and L(1054)86-State of Missouri. In addition, the United States has filed a motion to expand the MCC membership, L(1040)86, and the Special School District has filed a motion for approval of Phase III, L(1080)86.

The MCC filed its Phase III proposal in response to this Court's order L(746)86 approving, with modifications, Phase II. The Court emphasized a need for an extensive analysis of the present vocational-education system with regard to the desegregation process. Program revisions and alternatives to the present vocational-education system are necessary and the Court decided that the MCC be given another opportunity to present a revised extension of the 12(b) plan. Phase III is the MCC's proposal for revising the 12(b) vocational-education plan beyond the 1986-87 school year.

Phase III proposes changes in five significant areas:

1. The MCC membership is to be expanded to eight (8) members; five members representing the St. Louis Public Schools, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (State) and the Special School District and three members (Court appointments) representing labor, education and business interests. The new MCC would relinquish responsibility for programming and site selection to the City Board and Special School District while retaining responsibility only for program monitoring and evaluations and recommendations.

2. Overall racial balance by the 1990-91 school year in each of the four schools is to be 55% white and 45% black with a 15% variance.

3. Implementation of a four-year program at O'Fallon known as TECH FOUR, a three-year early entry program for disadvantaged and handicapped students (all schools), a three-year supplemental program for ungraded handicapped students (county schools only), and a one-year tenth grade pre-vocational preparatory program (all schools).

4. All two-year programs will be available on both a full-day and half-day basis except for Cosmetology and Health Services Assistant.

5. In one or two-year programs where a waiting list of ten or more students of one race exists, an additional section will be opened at a site where the students will aid in reducing racial isolation. The MCC has also elected to postpone considering the closing of one or more schools.

The Phase III proposal is unacceptable to the Court. It fails to address the continuing problems of severe underenrollment and substantial program duplication. Instead of investigating alternatives to the on-going programs, the MCC again focuses upon a four-year program at O'Fallon. Racial goals are altered as a "means" of achieving desegregation instead of strategies developed to achieve the present goals. A large number of programs are still duplicated among the schools. Finally, the MCC seeks to expand its membership while greatly reducing its functions. The MCC wants to abdicate its responsibility for programming and site selection, retaining only an evaluation function. Essentially, it would be another "monitoring" committee assigned to the 12(b) plan.

*336 During the summer of 1986, this Court held a series of Executive Sessions designed to address current problems with the desegregation plans and changes that may be warranted in the near future. One of these sessions was devoted exclusively to the 12(b) vocational-education plan. Several MCC members, along with educators, other committee members and directors, attorneys representing parties, and other persons interested in the vocational-education field, attended this session. It was obvious from the opinions expressed and data presented, that the 12(b) plan (in its present form) was not meeting the needs of students. Alternatives and changes were discussed. Although the Court found the Executive Session to be quite enlightening, little of anything discussed or changes proposed at the session are reflected in the Phase III proposal.

The Court paid close attention to the opinions expressed and changes proposed at the Executive Session. It has also conferred with Amicus Simon regarding public attitude and societal needs regarding vocational-education. Two reports published by the Special School District have been scrutinized. One report is by the Long-Range Planning Commission, Board of Education, Special School District of St. Louis County (December, 1985) and the other report is by the Subcommittee on Vocational-Education for the Citizen's Commission, Special School District of St. Louis County (October, 1985). Both of these reports are extremely informative and insightful as to current and future problems within the vocational-education system in general and in the St. Louis metropolitan area.

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

Related

Board of Education v. Missouri
936 F.2d 993 (Eighth Circuit, 1991)
Craton Liddell v. The Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri the Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, State of 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, United States, (Two Cases) Craton Liddell v. The Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri the Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, State of 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, Craton Liddell v. The Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri Special School District of St. Louis County, 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, United States, Craton Liddell v. The Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri the Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri, and Special School District of St. Louis County, 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
822 F.2d 1446 (Eighth Circuit, 1987)
Liddell v. Board of Education
822 F.2d 1446 (Eighth Circuit, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
654 F. Supp. 334, 38 Educ. L. Rep. 141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liddell-v-board-of-educ-of-city-of-st-louis-mo-moed-1987.