Liddell v. Board of Education

758 F. Supp. 499, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2029
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri
DecidedJanuary 18, 1991
DocketNo. 72-100 C (5)
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 758 F. Supp. 499 (Liddell v. Board of Education) 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 Education, 758 F. Supp. 499, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2029 (E.D. Mo. 1991).

Opinion

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]*501with 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. The Special School District appears to be headed in the right direction and is working cooperatively with the Metropolitan Coordinating Council (MCC) in making improvements with staffing and course selection.3 The City Board is headed in the opposite direction.

In all fairness to the City Board, the Court knew that it would initially be at a disadvantage. The City Board advised the Court that a two-year transitional period was necessary in which to get Southwest renovated4 and a new vocational education program implemented. The Court expected reasonable renovation costs for Southwest as well as minimal transitional costs for the two-year interim period. The Court also had hopes of reviewing a well-conceived, progressive vocational education implementation plan. None of these things have occurred.

Instead, the City Board has responded in a way that suggests time and money is of no consequence. It relocated programs to Vashon that virtually have no student enrollment.5 Furthermore, several of these programs (after a two year stint at Vashon with little or no enrollment) will not be relocated to Southwest. Nevertheless, the City Board has submitted a capital transitional budget for Vashon (1990-1992) of over 1.6 million dollars.6 The total cost for 1990-91 alone, for educating approximately 4507 city students in a City Board operated [502]*502facility is over 8.6 million dollars. The cost per pupil for educating these children exceeds $16,500.00 annually. This is several times greater than the average per pupil cost of educating a regular or magnet student.

The City Board’s Phase IV Vocational Education Plan is unacceptable to this Court. It calls for the resurrection of a four-year program to be housed in a $16,-000,000.00 renovated Southwest High School. The target enrollment is 800 students in grades 9 — 12. This plan is nothing more than a costly continuation of the abysmal situation in which city vocational education students have been suffering for the last decade.

There are no real changes in the curriculum. The Plan presents generic descriptions of programs and a listing of course titles. There is no evidence of a needs assessment study or staffing and student input. In fact, the City Board admits its Phase IV vocational education program is purposely devoid of a curriculum plan which details educational objectives, skills and job/career focuses. Instead, the City Board has opted for continuous curriculum development, i.e. annual program revisions.

Such a methodology is precisely at the heart of the inadequacies present in the current system district wide.

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

Related

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
758 F. Supp. 499, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2029, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liddell-v-board-of-education-moed-1991.