Redman v. Terrebonne Parish School Board

293 F. Supp. 376, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7553
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana
DecidedDecember 6, 1967
DocketCiv. A. No. 15663
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 293 F. Supp. 376 (Redman v. Terrebonne Parish School Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Redman v. Terrebonne Parish School Board, 293 F. Supp. 376, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7553 (E.D. La. 1967).

Opinion

MITCHELL, District Judge.

The motion of plaintiffs for further relief came on for consideration at a pre-trial conference held November 15, 1967. After full discussion, it was stipulated by the parties that the motion be submitted without further argument. Now after due consideration thereof it is ordered, adjudged and decreed:

I.

SPEED OF DESEGREGATION

Commencing with the 1967-68 school year, in accordance with this decree, all grades, including kindergarten grades, shall be desegregated and pupils assigned to schools in these grades without regard to race or color.

II.

EXERCISE OF CHOICE

The following provisions shall apply to all grades:

(a) Who May Exercise Choice. A choice of schools may be exercised by a parent or other adult person serving as the student’s parent. A student may exercise his own choice if he (1) is exercising a choice for the ninth or a higher grade, or (2) has reached the age of fifteen at the time of the exercise of choice. Such a choice by a student is controlling unless a different choice is exercised for him by his parent or other adult person serving as his parent during the choice period or at such later time as the student exercised a choice. Each reference in this decree to a student’s exercising a choice means the exercise of the choice, as appropriate, by a parent or such other adult, or by the student himself.

(b) Annual Exercise of Choice. All students, both white and Negro, shall be required to exercise a free choice of schools annually.

(c) Choice Period. The period for exercising choice for the 1967-68 school year ended April 5, 1967 shall be deemed adequate for this period, and in subsequent years shall commence March 1 and end March 31 preceding the school year for which the choice is to be exercised. No student or prospective student who exercised his choice within the choice period shall be given any preference because of the time within the period when such choice was exercised.

(d) Mandatory Exercise of Choice. A failure to exercise a choice within the choice period shall not preclude any student from exercising a choice at any [377]*377time before he commences school for the year with respect to which the choice applies, but such choice may be subordinated to the choices of students who exercised choice before the expiration of the choice period. Any student who has not exercised his choice of school within a week after school opens shall be assigned to the school nearest his home where space is available under standards for determining available space which shall be applied uniformly throughout the system.

(e) Public Notice. On or within a week before the date the choice period opens, the defendants shall arrange for the conspicuous publication of a notice describing the provisions of this decree in the newspaper most generally circulated in the community. The text of the notice shall be substantially similar to the text of the explanatory letter sent home to parents. Publication as a legal notice will not be sufficient. Copies of this notice must also be given at that time to all radio and television stations located in the community. Copies of this decree shall be posted in each school in the school system and at the office of the Superintendent of Education.

(f) Mailing of Explanatory Letters and Choice Forms. On the first day of the choice period there shall be distributed by first-class mail an explanatory letter and a choice form to the parent (or other adult person acting as parent, if known to the defendants) of each student, together with a return envelope addressed to the Superintendent. Should the defendants satisfactorily demonstrate to the court that they are unable to comply with the requirement of distributing the explanatory letter and choice form by first-class mail, they shall propose an alternative method which will maximize individual notice, i. e., personal notice to parents by delivery to the pupil with adequate procedures to insure the delivery of the notice. The text for the explanatory letter and choice form shall essentially conform to the sample letter and choice form appended to this decree.

(g) Extra Copies of the Explanatory Letter and Choice Form. Extra copies of the explanatory letter and choice form shall be freely available to parents, students, prospective students, and the general public at each school in the system and at the office of the Superintendent of Education during the times of the year when such schools are usually open.

(h) Content of Choice Form. Each choice form shall set forth the name and location and the grades offered at each school and may require of the person exercising the choice the name, address, age of student, school and grade currently or most recently attended by the student, the school chosen, the signature of one parent or other adult person serving as parent, or where appropriate the signature of the student, and the identity of the person signing. No statement of reasons for a particular choice, or any other information, or any witness or other authentication, may be required or requested, without approval of the court.

(i) Return of Choice Form. At the option of the person completing the choice form, the choice may be returned by mail, in person, or by messenger to any school in the school system or to the office of the Superintendent.

(j) Choices not on Official Form. The exercise of choice may also be made by the submission in like manner of any other writing which contains information sufficient to identify the student and indicates that he has made a choice of school.

(k) Choice Forms Binding. When a choice form has once been submitted and the choice period has expired, the choice is binding for the entire school year and may not be changed except in eases of parents making different choices from their children under the conditions set forth in paragraph 11(a) of this decree and in exceptional cases where, absent, the consideration of race, a change is educationally called for or where compelling hardship is shown by the student. A change in family residence from one neighborhood to another shall be con[378]*378sidered an exceptional case for purposes of this paragraph.

(l) Preference in Assignment. In assigning students to schools, no preferences shall be given to any student for prior attendance at a school and, except with the approval of court in extraordinary circumstances, no choice shall be denied for any reason other than overcrowding. In case of overcrowding at any school, preference shall be given on the basis of the proximity of the school to the homes of the students choosing it, without regard to race or color. Standards for determining overcrowding shall be applied uniformly throughout the system.

(m) jSecond Choice where First Choice is Denied. Any student whose choice is denied must be promptly notified in writing and given his choice of any school in the school system serving his grade level where space is available. The student shall have seven days from the receipt of notice of a denial of first choice in which to exercise a second choice.

(n) Transportation. Where transportation is generally provided, buses must be routed to the maximum extent feasible in light of the geographic distribution of students, so as to serve each student choosing any school in the system.

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

Related

United States v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago
588 F. Supp. 132 (N.D. Illinois, 1984)
Berry v. Sch. Dist. of City of Benton Harbor
515 F. Supp. 344 (W.D. Michigan, 1981)
Milliken v. Bradley
433 U.S. 267 (Supreme Court, 1977)
Robert L. Adams, Jr., United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant v. Charles F. Mathews, Welton J. Charles, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant v. Ascension Parish School Board, Yvonne Marie Boyd, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant v. Pointe Coupee Parish School Board, Lawrence Hall, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant v. St. Helena Parish School Board, James Williams, Jr., United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant v. Iberville Parish School Board, Terry Lynn Dunn, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant v. Livingston Parish School Board, United States of America v. La Salle Parish School Board, Virgie Lee Valley, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant v. Rapides Parish School Board, United States of America v. Lincoln Parish School Board, United States of America v. Avoyelles Parish School Board, United States of America v. De Soto Parish School Board, United States of America v. Grant Parish School Board, Beryl N. Jones, United States of America, Plaintiff- Intervenor-Appellant v. Caddo Parish School Board, United States of America v. Bienville Parish School Board, Ura Bernard Lemon, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant v. Bossier Parish School Board, Yvornia Decarol Banks, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant v. Claiborne Parish School Board, Irma J. Smith, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant v. Concordia Parish School Board, Margaret M. Johnson, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant v. Jackson Parish School Board, United States of America v. Richland Parish School Board, United States of America v. East Carroll Parish School Board, United States of America v. Hinds County Board of Education, United States of America v. South Pike County Consolidated School District, United States of America v. North Pike County Consolidated School District, Dian Hudson, United States of America, Amicus Curiae-Appellant v. Leake County School Board, United States of America v. Amite County School District, Joan Anderson, United States of America, Plaintiff- Intervenor-Appellant v. Canton Municipal Separate School District, Joan Anderson, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant v. The Canton Municipal Separate School District, and the Madison County School District, United States of America v. Marion County School District, United States of America v. Lawrence County School District, Buford A. Lee v. United States of America v. Milton Evans, Third-Party United States of America v. Covington County School District, United States of America v. Columbia Municipal Separate School District, United States of America v. Philadelphia Municipal Separate School District, United States of America v. Noxubee County School District, United States of America v. Neshoba County School District, John Barnhardt, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant v. Meridian Municipal Separate School District, United States of America, United States of America v. Lauderdale County School District, United States of America v. Kemper County School Board, United States of America v. Wilkinson County School District, Jeremiah Blackwell, Jr., United States of America, Amicus Curiae-Appellant v. The Anquilla Line Consolidated School District, and the Sharkey- Issaquena Line Consolidated School Cistrict, United States of America v. Natchez Special Municipal Separate School District, Defendants- Donald Jerome Thomas v. West Baton Rouge Parish School Board, Beatrice Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, Roy Lee Harris v. The Yazoo County Board of Education, Charles Killingsworth v. The Enterprise Consolidated School District, the Quitman Consolidated School District, and the Clark County Board of Education, Anson Graves, a Minor, by His Father and Next Friend, Fletcher Graves,plaintiffs-Appellants v. Walton County Board of Education
403 F.2d 181 (Third Circuit, 1968)
Adams v. Mathews
403 F.2d 181 (Fifth Circuit, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
293 F. Supp. 376, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/redman-v-terrebonne-parish-school-board-laed-1967.