Stell v. BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUC. FOR CITY OF SAVANNAH

860 F. Supp. 1563, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11721, 1994 WL 448677
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Georgia
DecidedAugust 12, 1994
DocketCiv. A. 1316
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 860 F. Supp. 1563 (Stell v. BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUC. FOR CITY OF SAVANNAH) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Stell v. BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUC. FOR CITY OF SAVANNAH, 860 F. Supp. 1563, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11721, 1994 WL 448677 (S.D. Ga. 1994).

Opinion

ORDER

EDENFIELD, Chief Judge.

Following the failure of numerous school desegregation plans in the 1970s to effectively desegregate the schools in the SavannahChatham County School District, in 1985, this Court ordered the Defendant School Board to submit a revised desegregation plan “so as to bring an end, once and for all, to the dual system of education that continue[d] in [the] school system.” Order of June 14, 1985. After the submission of several plans, a failed bond issue, and extensive negotiation among the parties, the Court issued an Order on June 3, 1988, approving the School Board’s plan and ordering its immediate implementation.

At this time, the 1988 Plan has spanned six years. Twenty-three years have elapsed since the initiation of federal court supervision, and thirty-two years since the suit’s inception. Asserting that it has implemented the 1988 Plan in its entirety and has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to desegregation with good faith, the Defendant School Board now moves the Court to declare the system unitary under the law and to thereby withdraw judicial supervision of the District. After permitting the parties full discovery, the Court held an evidentiary hearing regarding the Defendant’s motion on May 10-11, 1994.

After careful consideration of the record, the testimony adduced at the hearing, and the applicable law regarding attainment of unitary status, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

FINDINGS OF FACT 1

I. Background

A. Early History

The genesis of this case reaches back to 1962, when several black parents filed a complaint to compel the Defendant School Board to desegregate the system’s schools pursuant to Brown v. Board of Educ. of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954) (“Brown I”). Subsequently, the United States intervened in the litigation.

The schools remained segregated for several years after the case was filed. During the mid-to-late 1960s, “freedom of choice” plans were implemented, and a small number of black children attended historically white schools under these plans.

In 1968, the Supreme Court held in Green v. County School Bd. of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 20 L.Ed.2d 716 (1968), that freedom of choice plans, where ineffective, failed to satisfy school systems’ constitutional duties to desegregate, and therefore other methods of desegregation, such as zoning, must be pursued. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the School Board proposed a plan premised on geographic attendance zones. The United States Department of Health Education and Welfare (“HEW”) objected to the School Board’s plan and submitted an alternative plan. On July 18,1970, District Judge Alexander A. Lawrence approved portions of HEWs plan, comprising zone changes, several elementary school pairings, and a majority-to-minority transfer program. The plan was implemented for the 1970-1971 school year and resulted in significant desegregation at several elementary schools. However, many schools remained largely segregated.

In 1971, the Supreme Court held in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971), that assignment and transportation or “busing” of students to schools in non-eontiguous zones was a permissible, and, in some in *1565 stances, necessary desegregation remedy. Taking the initiative following Swann, the School Board filed a motion to revise the 1970 plan, proposing a number of measures for desegregating the district’s high schools and middle schools. These measures included non-contiguous attendance zones and busing of black students to predominantly white schools. The Board requested that the submission of a complete desegregation plan for the elementary schools be delayed until November 1972.

The District Court, with minor exceptions, approved the School Board’s plan. However, on August 23, 1971, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed that part of the order which permitted desegregation of the elementary schools to be deferred until the following school year. Accordingly, on August 31, 1971, the District Court ordered the implementation of a plan encompassing schools at all grade levels and providing for the pairing and clustering of all-black and all-white schools, mandatory assignment, and extensive busing (hereinafter the “1971 pairing plan”).

Without delay, the School Board implemented the 1971 pairing plan. As observed by this Court in a previous Order, the School Board “went well beyond the minimum constitutional requirements” in executing the plan, and achieved “immediate and striking” results. 2 Every school in the district, save one, was racially balanced.

These positive results, however, did not endure. Following the institution of the 1971 plan, the school system quickly lost a predominantly white and middle class population of approximately 10,000 children to private and other area schools. During the first year, approximately forty-two percent of all white students assigned to a black receiving school failed to enroll in the school to which they had been mandatorily assigned. This “white flight” continued over the years as the school district, which had been a majority white district prior to the 1971 plan, became predominantly black.

Concluding that the mandatory plan had failed to eliminate the vestiges of the prior dual system, this Court directed the School Board in 1985 to advance another plan. Order of June 14, 1985. In response, the School Board submitted a comprehensive long range plan to desegregate the school system by closing certain schools, building new facilities and converting some existing facilities, developing magnet schools and programs, redrawing attendance zones, and restructuring grade configurations. The Court approved the plan, and a consent decree was entered on January 5, 1987.

The implementation of the long range plan, however, was contingent upon approval by the voters of Chatham County of a bond issue necessary to finance the extensive new construction and renovations, as well as other expenditures under the plan. Unfortunately, the voters soundly rejected the bond referendum by a margin of greater than two-to-one. Following this discouraging defeat, the Court directed the School Board to devise a new plan that would not depend upon a bond issue.

B. The 1988 Plan

In March 1988, the School Board submitted a revised plan. The stated goal of the School Board’s 1988 Plan was to achieve the “maximum practicable degree of actual desegregation in the public schools of Savannah and Chatham County.” Stell, 724 F.Supp. at 1401.

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

Related

NAACP, Jacksonville Branch v. Duval County School
273 F.3d 960 (Eleventh Circuit, 2001)
Hampton v. Jefferson County Board of Education
102 F. Supp. 2d 358 (W.D. Kentucky, 2000)
United States v. State of Georgia
171 F.3d 1333 (Eleventh Circuit, 1999)
Reed v. Rhodes
934 F. Supp. 1533 (N.D. Ohio, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
860 F. Supp. 1563, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11721, 1994 WL 448677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stell-v-board-of-public-educ-for-city-of-savannah-gasd-1994.