Appendix — Samayoa v. Chicago Board of Education
Supreme Court brief1987
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
: jTLKRY
:
| MAY 1 Joe?
IN THE - | JOSEPH F. SPANIOL, UR,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNTTEDaemaeetet |
OCTOBER TERM, 1986
MARCO SAMAYOA, et al.,
Petitioners,
vs.
CHICAGO BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al.,
Respondents.
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
APPENDIX TO RESPONDENTS! BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
ROBERT C. HOWARD
55 E. Monroe Street
Suite 4005
Chicago, IL 60603
(312) 372-6475
Counsel for Respondents
Of Counsel:
HUGH R. MCCOMBS, JR. ROBERT M. WEISSBOURD
DENISE L. JARRARD CLAIRE T. HARTFIELD
ISHAM, LINCOLN & HARTUNIAN, FUTTERMAN
BEALE & HOWARD, CHTD.
Three First National 55 E. Monroe St.
Plaza Suite 4005
Suite 5200 Chicago, IL 60603
Chicago, IL 60602
ey ene
acme se . Pi Stee gt ene ames
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
APPENDIX TO
RESPONDENTS' BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
Table of Contents
Proposai of the Board of
Education to Obtain
Disney Magnet School Site ...... la
Decision and Order of
Department of Health, Education
and Welfare Administrative Law
Juage (February 15, 1977) .....- 5a
Findings of United States
Office For Civil Rights
| RO re |’
Findings of United States
Office For Civil Rights
[ea Os BOE 4-6 @ a Se tlt el le 43a
Complaint: United States '
v. Board of Education of
po ee ee ee ec
Cees, Es ct ltl kl tll tl hl Cl hl tlk 150a
ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee
Memorandum Opinion of the
District Court (August 31, 1981)... 208a
First Amended Complaint ....... 236a
iia
Memorandum Opinion of the
District Court (October 13, 1981)
Second Amended Complaint. ....
Third Amended Complaint .....
Memorandum Opinion of the
District Court (November
30, 1903) . 1.4 3 bee eee ee
Order of the District
Court (January 30, 1982). ....
Fourth Amended Complaint. ....
Minute Order of the District
Court (November 18, 1983) ....
Plaintiffs' Motion For Leave
To Intervene In United States
Vv. Board of Education of the
City of Gaigage . 2. 2s 8 0 es
Plaintiffs' Memorandum In -
Support of Motion For Leave
To Intervene In United States
v. Board of Education of the
Vv.
City of Chicago .........
Memorandum Opinion of the
District Court (December
ee 1983) ° 7 . . . . . > . - s o
Order Re Plaintiffs' Motion
To Intervene In United States
v. Board of Education of the
City of Chicago .........
263a
278a
313a
360a
369a
374a
437a
439a
447a
482a
485a
iiia
Student Desegregation Plan
For Chicago Public Schools:
Educational Components
(Selected Pages). ....+ +++ ++ + 4878
Student Desegregation Plan
For Chicago Public Schools:
Student Assignment Principles
(Selected Pages). . .- +--+ ++ +++ - 500a
Board Report 73-267-15 of
the Board of Education of
the City of Chicago .......-.. 507a
Letter From Pressman &
Hartunian to Martha Jantho
(June 8, 1981) e . _ = e e e o J 7 « 7. 519a
Report of the Board of
Education of the City of
Chicago Committee on Student
Desegregation (April 21, 1982)
(Selected Pages). ...+ +++ + + + 525a
Student Assignment Plan,
Seie@ecee Chart. . . «2+ © «© © © © © © «9288
Selected Charts from Annual
Desegregation Reviews,
tC e. < 6 6 « « © «© « «+ «© «© « |63§SAR
la
BOARD OF EDUCATION
CITY OF CHICAGO
228 North LaSalle Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Telephone DEarborn 2-7800
REVISED PROPOSAL
PRESENTED BY
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
CITY OF CHICAGO
TO OBTAIN THE SITE AND FACILITIES OF
THE UNITED STATES
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES HOSPITAL
September 13, 1967
Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Division of Surplus Propersy [sic] - Region V
433 West Van Buren Street, Room 712
Selected Pages
x ke & &
4. oposed ° acilities Requested
After a number of months of study and
evaluation, a group of outside consultants
working with members of the staff developed a
report entitled "Increasing Desegregation of
Faculties, Students and Vocational Education
Programs." This report was approved in
principle by the Board of Education of the
2a
City of Chicago and forwarded to the U.S.
Office of Education. In so doing the Board of
Education committed itself to a new and
dynamic program of action to realistically
cope with problems of racial segregation and
quality education.
zx*rkeee
If ever a site was needed by an
institution, the site of the United States
Public Health Services Hospital is needed by
the Chicago Public Schools; moreover, it is
urgently needed now.
If the City of Chicago is to become a
truly integrated city, if the public schools
are to become increasingly integrated and to
remain integrated, it is imperative that ways
of implementing crucial elements in our report
to the U.S. Office of Education - "Increasing
Desegregation of Faculties, Students and
Vocational Education Programs" - be found now.
3a
One of the important elements in the
report designed to help stabilize the city,
and to increase integration and improve
quality of education, was the establishment of
magnet schools. Recommendations were made in
the report with respect to criteria for
desirable locations for magnet’ schools.
Within the framework of those recommendations,
the site under discussion is as nearly perfect
for one of the magnet schools as we could ever
hope to find. * * * * This site together
with one at the extreme southwest corner of
the city bordering on a suburban area, and
another one in the western section of the
city, could be the beginning of a group of at
least seven magnet schools. Each school would
have a quality program which would draw
students from a large region or, perhaps, the
total city. Once enrolled, children would
continue at the magnet school even though
4a
their home address changes. Thus the possible
adverse effects of mobility will be prevented.
The professional consultants who assisted
in the preparation of the desegregation report
to the U.S. Office of Education described the
magnet school in these terms:
"Magnet schools in all areas would be
made especially attractive, physically
and academically. They would be
staffed on an integrated basis with
excellent white and Negro teachers and
administrators. The student body not
only would be mixed racially but also
would include youngsters with
intellectual potential who had not yet
produced in an academic setting. The
magnet schools would be administered
flexibly with the principal being free
to experiment. Perhaps magnet schools
would be established in cooperation
with non-public school systems which
can and must play a significant role
if integration is to be achieved. The
educational offerings of the magnet
school in a shared time arrangement
might attract white families sending
children to parochial schools and
induce them to remain in the city.
Other possible linkages of various
types between magnet schools and
church related predominantly white
schools would be explored aggressively
and quickly by the Board."
zx kk
a
5a
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
In the Matter of
CHICAGO PUBLIC
SCHOOL DISTRICT #299
(Hereinafter called
"School District")
DOCKET NO. S=-120
PROCEEDING UNDER
TITLE VI OF THE
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
OF 1964
and
ILLINOIS OFFICE
OF EDUCATION
(Hereinafter called
"State Agency")
and INITIAL DECISION
CITY OF CHICAGO,
ILLINOIS
(Hereinafter called
"“City®) cai
ee a ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee eee ee ee ee ee”
D H ORY
This proceeding arises under Section
602 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. § 2000d=-1 (Title VI).
6a
On March 23, 1972, the Chicago Public
School District #299 (hereinafter called
"School District") submitted to the
Department of Health, Education and Welfare
(hereinafter called "Department") an
"Assurance of Compliance with the Department
of Health, Education and Welfare Regulation
under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964." Such assurances are mandated under
45 C.F.R. § 80.4 as a condition precedent to
approval and extension of any Federal
financial assistance. § 80.4 (c) states in
pertinent part:
Every application for Federal
financial assistance to carry out
a program to which this part
applies ..-+ Ohell ssc. be
accompanied by an assurance that
the program will be conducted or
the facility operated in
compliance with all requirements
imposed by or pursuant to this
part." [sic]
Pursuant to 45 cC.F.R. § 80.7, the
“responsible Department official" initiated
7a
a compliance review of the Respondent School
District in 1974 to determine whether it was
complying with Title VI requirements.
(Affidavits of Kenneth Mines and Alanson J.
Sumner) The School District was notified by
letter from Martin Gerry, Director of the
Office for Civil Rights (hereinafter called
"OCR"), dated October 6, 1975, that it was
in violation of Title VI as to the issues of
faculty and professional staff assignment
and special bilingual instructional staff
assignment and special bilingual instruc-
tional services.
Gu Aprii 98, r976, a Retice eof
Opportunity for Hearing (Docket No. S=-120)
was filed by the Department wherein Respon-
dents School District and Illinois Office of
Education (hereinafter called "State
Agency") were notified that they would be
given an opportunity to be heard concerning
8a
the allegations of noncompliance with Title
VI. Issue was joined thereafter and the
Respondents requested a hearing before a
duly appointed Administrative Law Judge.
On July 30, 1976, the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (hereinafter
called "HUD") filed a Notice of Opportunity
to Request a Hearing (Docket No. 77-1)
wherein Respondents School District and City
of Chicago (hereinafter called "City") were
notified that they would be given an
opportunity to be heard concerning
allegations of noncompliance with Title VI.
On August 18, 1976, the Department submitted
a Motion to Join and Consolidate Administra-
tive Proceedings.1} The proceedings S-120
1 The Department of Housing and Urban
Development assigned all responsibilities
under 24 C.F.R. Part 1 relating to all
actions for "securing voluntary compliance
or related or investigations, compliance
reviews, complaints, determinations of
(continued...)
ad
9a
and 77-1 were consolidated by Order of the
undersigned on September 9, 1976, pursuant
to 45 C.F.R. §§ 80.9(e) and 81.55 and 24
C.F.R. § 1.9 (e) and 2.55.
Upon completion of all pre-trial
matters, a hearing date was set for October
13, 1976. In open court on October 13,
1976, the Respondent School District
submitted written Notice of Waiver of
hearing. Respondents State Agency and City
orally supported the Notice. The Department
acknowledged the Respondents' right to waive
their participation in a hearing and moved
the Administrative Law Judge to proceed with
a limited unilateral hearing to receive oral
testimony from its witnesses. The Court
1(...continued)
apparent failure to comply and resolutions
of matters by informal means" concerning
elementary and secondary schools to the
Department on May 25, 1966. 35 Fed. Reg.
3233 (1967).
10a
requested written briefs on the matter. On
October 27, 1976, the Respondents' Motion
(or Notice) for waiver of hearing was
granted and the Department's Motion to
proceed with a limited unilateral hearing
was denied. The Court recognized that the
right to a hearing belongs to the Respon-
dent(s) and may be waived by the Respon-
dent(s). 45 C.F.R. §§ 80.8 (Cc), 80.9 (a)
and 81.72 (b). The Department's right to
present its case to the fullest was also
recognized. The parties were then given a
reasonable period of time to submit "any and
all affidavits and depositions to clarify
and supplement the record." (Order dated
October 27, 1976, at 2).
The record for decision was closed on
January 31, 1977.
lla
LSSUES
1. Is the School District in violation
of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (42
U.S.C. § 2000d et. seg.) as a result of its
policies and practices relating to lingual
instruction of students whose first language
is other than English? This will depend
upon whether the School District provides
adequate lingual instruction to ae sig-
nificant portion of the national origin
minority students whose first language is
other than English and who require special
lingual instruction in order to meaningfully
participate in the educational process.
zxkeekee
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Respondent Board of Education
of the City of Chicago is a body politic and
corporate organized and existing under state
12a
law, vested with the responsibility of
operating the public school system of the
City of Chicago.
2 The assignment of teachers and
professional staff in the Chicago public
school system is completely within the
discretionary control and responsibility of
the Chicago Board of Education and the
General Superintendent of Schools acting for
the School District under state law.
3. The Illinois Office of Education is
an agency of the Government of the State of
Illinois which is vested with responsibility
for supervising the policy of and maintain-
ing the systems of public elementary and
secondary education which are operated by
school districts in the state. In addition,
it is the agency which receives, adminis-
ters, and disburses funds granted to the
state by agencies of the United States
13a
Government for educational purposes under
various federal statutory grant programs
administered by the Department and other
federal agencies.
4. The City of Chicago is a body
corporate organized and existing under the
laws of the state of Illinois and is the
agency of local government eligible to
receive, administer, obligate and disburse
funds granted by the Department of Housing
and Urban Development and other federal
agencies under various federal statutory
grant programs.
5. In 1974, the Office for Civil
Rights initiated a compliance review of the
Respondent School District to determine
whether it was complying with Title VI of
the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
6. On October 6, 1975, the School
District was notified by letter by the
14a
Director of the Office of Civil Rights that
it was in violation of Title VI as to the
issues of faculty and professional staff
assignment and provision of special
bilingual instructional services.
7. A Notice of Opportunity for Hearing
was filed on April 9, 1976 wherein
Respondents School District and State Agency
were notified that they would be given an
opportunity to be heard concerning the
allegations of noncompliance with Title VI.
8. A Notice of Opportunity to Request
a Hearing was filed on July 30, 1976 wherein
the School District and City of Chicago were
notified that they would be given an
opportunity to be heard concerning the
allegations of noncompliance with Title VI.
9. On October 13, 1976, the School
District submitted a Motion for Waiver of
Hearing which was subsequently granted on
15a
October 27, 1976 and the case has therefore
been decided upon the record of evidence as
constituted on January 31, 1977.
x*ekeeRek
33. The Department has provided
adequate guidelines in those areas in which
the School District has been deficient, made
available technical assistance, and rejected
on reasonable grounds the School District's
February 13, 1976 plan.
34. The School District is a recipient
of Federal funds from the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare and Department
of Housing and Urban Development.
35. Federal financial assistance from
the Department applied for and/or received
by the School District under the following
authorizations are either administered in a
discriminatory manner or support programs
16a
which are infected by a discriminatory
environment:
{Listing 18 Funding
Programs (a) -(r)]
36. Federal financial assistance from
the Department of Housing and Urban
Development under the following
authorizations are either administered in a
discriminatory manner or support programs
which are infected by a discriminatory
environment:
(a) Title I of the Demonstration
Center and Metropolitan
Development Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C.
3301, et. seg.).
(b) Title I of the Housing &
Community Development Act of 1974
(42 U.S.C. 5301, et. seq.).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
i. The Administrative Law Judge by
virtue of his designation has full authority
to preside over all proceedings in this
as) Ra
17a
matter and to issue an Initial Decision
herein.
2. The School District has failed to
take the affirmative steps necessary to open
its instructional program to its non- or
limited-English speaking national origin
minority school children in violation of Lau
v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 560 (1974) and Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
3. The School District has violated
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by
failing to adequately identify and assess
its national origin minority students.
4. The School District's assessment
and identification efforts have restricted
non- or limited-English speaking national
origin minority children from enjoying the
benefits of the School District's educa-
tional programs in violation of Title VI.
18a
5. The School District is not
addressing the needs of approximately 31,000
children enrolled in the School District in
violation of Title VI.
6. To separate minority school
children from others of similar age and
qualifications solely because of their race
generates a feeling of inferiority as to
their status in the community that may
affect their hearts and minds in a way
unlikely ever to be undone. Brown v. Board
of Education, Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1854).
7. Two elements must be shown for a
finding of actionable de jure segregation:
(1) that action or failure to act by
responsible school authorities in regard to
problems or practices related to segregation
was taken with segregative intent and (2)
that the action, or failure to act, has
resulted in creating, continuing or
19a
7 Sa a
fi
}
oft
<
increasing the segregation which exists in
the school system. Washington v. Davis, 96
S.Ct. 2040 (1976), Milliken v. Bradley, 418
U.S. 717 (1974), Keyes _v. School District
No. 1, Denver, 413 U.S. 189 (1973), and
Ww Vv. = b °
Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971).
8. Intent or purpose to discriminate
may be either express or inferred. Village
Gerp.,;, 97 S.Ct. S855 (1977), Austin
Independent School District v. United
States, 97 S.Ct. 517 (1976), and Washington
v. Davis, 96 S.Ct. 2040 (1976).
9. The School District's consciously
consummated actions or omissions in regard
to the assignment of teachers and profes-
sional staff which has resulted in racially 4
identifiable faculties, raises a normal
20a
inference of intent to separate the facul-
ties on the basis of race.
10. The School District purposely
assigned teachers and professional staff to
certain schools on the basis of race.
11. The cumulative effect of the
actions or omissions of the Chicago Public
School officials has been to place black
administrators, black teachers and black
students in a limited number of schools and
increasingly to isolate another number of
schools with almost exclusively white
administrators, white teachers and white
students.
12. The responsibility for assignment
patterns of teachers and professional staff
which made for racially identifiable schools
is that of the Respondent School District
not of the teachers or personnel being
assigned.
4
3
j
3
3
|
j
q
21a
13. Under both the Constitutional and
the Title VI standard minority school
children have been deprived of their right
to be educated in a system operated free of
racial discrimination in that assignment
policies and practices of Chicago Public
School officials have made for the racial
identifiability of schools as intended for
students of a particular race.
14. No correlation between the level
of teacher experience at a particular school
and the quality of educational services
delivered to the students of that particular
school has been presented. Accordingly,
there is no violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the Constitution or Title VI of
the 1964 Civil Rights Act in regard to the
quality of educational services delivered to
minority students.
22a
15. No evidence has been presented to
establish that teachers in minority schools
have lesser levels of teaching experience
which affects their proficiency.
Accordingly, no violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution or Title VI of
the 1964 Civil Rights Act exists as to the
quality of educational services delivered to
minority students.
16. The Department has been unable to
secure voluntary compliance of Respondent
School District. The Department rejected on
reasonable grounds the School District's
February 13, 1976 plan, has provided
adequate guidelines in those areas in which
the School District has been deficient, and
has made available technical assistance.
17. The School District is not in com-
pliance with Title VI of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act in regard to its teacher and
7
.
2
«
23a
professional staff assignments and delivery
of equal educational opportunities to non-
or limited-English speaking national origin
minority school children.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Federal financial assistance admin-
istered by the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare under the following
authorizations shall be -terminated and
refused to be granted or continued to the
Respondent School District:
zx kee
[listing 18 funding
programs (a) - (r)]
2. Federal financial assistance admin-
istered by HUD under the following
authorizations shall be terminated and
refused to be granted or continued to
Respondent School District:
24a
(a) Title I of the Demonstration
Center and Metropolitan
Development Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C.
3301, et. seq.).
(b) Title I of the Housing &
Community Development Act of 1974
(42 U.S.C. 5301, et. seqg.).
3. Additional Federal financial
assistance for which Respondent School
District would be eligible to apply for and
receive, either directly from HEW or through
the Illinois Office of Education, but for
its noncompliance with Title VI and the
Fourteenth Amendment, are to be refused to
be granted.
4. This termination and refusal to
grant or continue Federal financial
assistance shall remain in force until
Respondent School District corrects its
noncompliance with Title VI and the
Fourteenth Amendment, and satisfies the
Director, Office for Civil Rights, HEW that
it is in compliance.
ee
25a
5. This Initial Decision and Order
shall become final unless, within 20 days
after mailing of the Initial Decision and
Order, any party submits exceptions to the
Reviewing Authority (Civil Rights) of HEW in
accordance with 45 C.F.R. 81.103.
DATE: February 15, 1977
EVERETT J. HAMMARSTROM
Administrative Law
Judge
26a
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Office of the Assistant Attorney General
Washington, D.C. 20530
4/21/80
Dr. Angeline Caruso
Acting General Superintendent
of Schools
Chicago Board of Education
228 North LaSalle Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Dear Dr. Caruso:
On October 28, 1979, the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) referred
the Chicago school case to the Department of
Justice for appropriate legal action. HEW
has advised us that, despite several months
of negotiation following that agency's
notice to Dr. Hannon on April 9, 1979, that
the Chicago School District was ineligible
to receive funding under the Emergency
School Aid Act due to ongoing violations of
Pt} ery
iia i
27a
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
the parties have failed to reach agreement
on a plan to remedy school segregation in
Chicago.
We write to inform you and the Board
of Education that both our analysis of the
evidence developed by HEW and our
independent review of the history of
segregation in the Chicago public schools
have convinced us that the present
segregation of students by race found
throughout the district has been caused, in
substantial part, by actions and omissions
of the Board of Education. Further, we have
concluded that these actions and omissions
were undertaken with unlawful intent to
segregate children on the basis of race.
Specific evidence in support of this
conclusion has been presented in the
Appendix to HEW's April 9, 1979, letter
28a
referred to above. We believe that the
following segregative techniques have
contributed substantially to student
segregation in Chicago:
(a) The drawing and alteration
of school attendance area boundaries
in such a way as to institute,
maintain or increase racial
segregation of students;
(b) The adjustment of grade
structures among schools so as to
create or maintain racial segregation;
(c) The maintenance of racially
segregated branches of schools;
(da) The placement of permanent
and temporary facilities to relieve
student overcrowding and the failure
to use alternative, educationally
sound measures to relieve student
overcrowding so that, by action and
29a
omission, racial segregation of
students was created or maintained;
(e) The maintenance of a
racially disproportionate number of
severely overcrowded and thereby
educationally inferior schools in such
a way as to identify, in conjunction
with the practices described in the
next two subparagraphs, those schools
as intended for black students and
less crowded schools as intended for
white students;
(f) The assignment of teachers
and staff to schools in such a way as
to match the race of the faculties
with the race of the _ students
attending the schools;
(g) The employment of a
permissive transfer policy which
allowed white students to _avoid
30a
attending their schools of assignment
when their race was in the minority in
favor of attendance at other schools
where their race constituted the
majority of student enrollment; and
(h) The association of
segregated schools with segregated
public housing projects.
Through these and other devices, the Board
of Education has contributed, over a
substantial period of time and in a
substantial portion of the schools, to the
racial isolation manifest today in the
Chicago Public School Systen.
Based on the facts and applicable law,
we have concluded that the Chicago Board of
Education has violated Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and the assurances the
Board made that it would comply with that
Title as a condition of the receipt of
3la
federal funds. We have also concluded that
the Board's proposals to date to remedy
voluntarily this violation have been
inadequate and that, unless voluntary
compliance can be assured in the manner set
out below, it will be necessary for the
United States to file suit in the United
States District Court for the Northern
District of TIllinois seeking judicial
enforcement of the Board's assurances and an
order that the Board develop a desegregation
plan that would eliminate the present
effects of those violations.
These same conclusions also apply to
Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This
statute authorizes the Attorney General to
bring a school desegregation suit when, as
is the case here, he has received a
complaint signed by parents to the effect
that their minor children, as members of a
32a
class similarly situated, are being deprived
by a school board of the equal protection of
the laws. Although distinct from the
Attorney General's authority to sue to
enforce the assurances made pursuant to
Title VI of the same Act, a Title IV claim
would be made in the same suit. The remedy
to cure the Title VI violation would suffice
for Title IV as well.
We believe the district must commit
itself to a plan which will eradicate
segregation to the maximum extent feasible
in order to remedy the de jure segregation
which is prevalent in your public schools.
We have reviewed the remedy proposals
presented by the Board during its
negotiations with HEW and we agree with
HEW's assessment that these proposals fall
short of legal standards established by the
United States Supreme Court. During last
33a
year's term, the Court, in ruling that
‘eohuatee and Dayton, Ohio, must fully
desegregate their schools, reiterated its
prior holding that violations leading to
racial segregation in a substantial portion
of a school system raise a rebuttable
presumption that any existing systemwide
segregation resulted from illegal acts, thus
justifying a systemwide remedy. The Board,
in responding to HEW's allegations, has not
rebutted this presumption. This continues
to be our position after a careful review of
the report submitted on March 27, 1980, by
the Board in response to HEW's Appendix.
While the response sheds new light on
several areas of factual dispute, it fails
to dispel our overall conclusion, which is
based on both HEW's study and our own, that
the Board has intentionally segregated
students throughout a substantial portion of
“ie 34a
the school system. Thus, we believe that a
systemwide remedy is required. The Board's
past proposals have been unsatisfactory
because they are limited in scope, i.e.,
they do not provide for the maximum feasible
desegregation under the circumstances.
Other legal inadequacies in the proposals
were detailed in the September 26, 1979,
letter to Dr. Hannon from David Tatel, then
Director of the Office for Civil Rights,
HEW.
We recognize that the development of
an adequate desegregation plan for Chicago
will be difficult, yet we believe there are
a number of constructive and meaningful
steps which can be taken. In various
factual contexts the federal courts have
developed imaginative and flexible relief
for desegregating school districts. We
would be pleased to assist your Board in
35a
seeking the most effective and least
disruptive legal remedy for Chicago. For
example, in response to a request from the
Board of Education, HEW has also provided a
feasibility study which demonstrates one way
in which various desegregation techniques
can be used to develop a specific plan. We
believe a plan modeled after this study
would satisfy the Board's legal obligation
to remedy the constitutional and statutory
violations committed, but we think there are
a number of similar ways in which this goal
could be accomplished. We are willing to
discuss and advise with the Board on the
development of such ways.
In enacting the provisions which
forbid discrimination by recipients of
federal funds and which authorize the
Attorney General to bring’ school
desegregation suits, Congress emphasized
36a
that voluntary resolution of differences is
preferable to formal enforcement by the
federal government. Thus, under Title VI,
the funding agency must determine that
voluntary compliance by the recipient cannot
be attained before taking action. That
determination has been made by HEW with
respect to your Board of Education.
Likewise, Title IV requires the Attorney
General to certify that a school board has
had a reasonable time to adjust the
conditions which amount to a deprivation of
the equal protection of the laws.
Although we think that a “reasonable
time has elapsed, we believe it is
consistent with Congress' intent that we
determine whether the Chicago Board of
Education is now willing to commit itself to
the adoption and implementation of an
effective desegregation plan without
37a
contesting its liability to do so in court.
We are encouraged by the statement in Dr.
Hannon's November 26, 1979, letter to me
that the Board has asked that additional
negotiations on this matter take place.
Public reports of the Board's
financial difficulties and the interim
economy measures which have been proposed to
Gate have raised a new concern: that, in
meeting urgent economic problems, the Board
not do anything that will further segregate
students in the Chicago public schools, will
have a discriminatorily disparate impact on
black or other minority students, will make
permanent desegregative steps more difficuit
or more expensive, or will pass up
reasonable alternative changes that will be
integrative. We are particularly concerned
that the cumulative impact of announced
school closings will fall disproportionately
38a
on black students and that the modest gains
under your Access to Excellence program will
be precipitously discarded. Further, we are
not satisfied that other closings (and the
resulting student re-assignments) could not
produce equal if not greater savings.
Thus, we invite the Board to enter
into negotiations aimed at reaching an
agreement containing the following elements:
(1) An assurance that ali school
Closings, reductions or changes in
programs, new construction or other
actions resulting in significant
changes in student assignment will not
be undertaken without a written
analysis of their impact on present
student segregation or their
opportunity to contribute to an
effective overall desegregation plan
in the future. The impact analysis
Ad
ye
39a
should include a statement setting
forth facts which demonstrate that:
(a) The proposed change will not
contribute to segregation of
students;
(b) The proposed change will not
have a disproportionately harmful
impact on black and other
minority students attending
Chicago's public schools;
(c) The proposed change will not
make future desegregative changes
more difficult or expensive; and
(dq) There are no reasonable
alternatives to the proposed
change which would better serve
to correct past segregative
assignments.
We also seek an assurance that the
Board will not implement any changes
40a
which the above analysis indicates
will have a segregative impact; and
(2) A commitment to the adoption
and implementation of a comprehensive
desegregation program which is
consistent with the principles I have
outlined above.
The Board's obligation not to
discriminate is a continuing one arising out
of both the Fourteenth Amendment and Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Since
we are of the view that the Board's previous
assurances of nondiscrimination made to the
Department of Health, Education and Welfare
have not been sufficient to end a variety of
racially discriminatory practices, it is our
position that the above agreement must take
the form of a consent decree so as to be
enforceable in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
ee a ee ee
4la
We understand that a new Board of
Education will be formed soon. We look
forward to working with the new Board in a
search for a solution to this most difficult
problem that will be consistent with both
our law enforcement responsibilities and the
vitality of the Chicago school system. We
are available for any further information or
Clarification of our position that you may
need. Thomas P. Sullivan, the United States
Attorney for the Northern District of
Illinois, concurs with the Attorney
General's views on this matter and has
stated his desire to be fully involved in
the negotiations in this matter. We suggest
that we meet with you or your
representatives within a week or two, either
in Washington or Chicago, to begin
discussions. Our goal is to arrive at a
settlement by early summer if we are to
42a
avoid going to court to resolve this matter.
Sincerely,
Drew S. Days III
Assistant Attorney Genera*
Civil Rights Division
43a
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202
JUNE 12, 1980
Dr. Angeline Caruso
Interim General Superintendent of Schools
Chicago Board of Education
228 North LaSalle Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Dear Dr. Caruso:
I have completed a review of the
information submitted by the Chicago Public
School District in response to the
determination of ineligibility for
Emergency School Aid Act (ESAA) funds set
forth in my letter of February 28, 1980.
This review included an analysis of the two
documents presented at the show cause
meeting on March 27, 1980, entitled
Response the Chicago Public School
District to the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare's Determination of
44a
° 80 Ss
e nse) and Supplement to the Response
Su m - In addition, it included an
examination of the civil rights compliance
data required of all ESAA applicants and
the additional information requested by the
Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to ensure
that the district implemented the remedial
plans developed during the last year's
waiver of ineligibility negotiations.
Portions of this data and other information
were submitted on March 27, April 7, and
May 5, 6, 19 and 27, 1980.
I regret to inform you that, based on
this review, I cannot revoke the two
principal bases for the determination of
ineligibility in my earlier letter. These
two bases of ineligibility are as follows:
1) The plan submitted with the
district's basic grant
application -- Access to
45a"
Excellence -- is not the type of
plan for which basic grant funds
may be awarded. It does not meet
the requirements of section
606(a) of the Act, as interpreted
by section 185.11 of the
implementing regulations.
2) The district is ‘ineligible for
both a basic and a magnet grant
under the ESAA because it
continues to operate racially
segregated and overcrowded
schools in violation of section
606(c)(1)(D) of the ESAA, as
interpreted by section 185.43(d)
of the regulations, and Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
As was explained in my earlier letter, both
of these bases of ineligibility derive from
46a
the facts and conclusions set out in the
Appendix to the former Department of
Health, Education and Welfare's letter of
April 9, 1979, concerning the assignment of
students to racially segregated and
overcrowded schools.
I also am sorry to report that,
although you have now provided to the
Department all of the information required
to establish the district's eligibility for
ESAA funding, the information submitted in
response to OCR's requests shows that the
school district has not fully complied with
the remedial plans developed in the areas
of teacher assignment, classroom
segregation and bilingual education. As a
result, the various forms of racial and
ethnic discrimination covered by those
plans have not ceased to exist and continue
to serve as bases of ineligibility for this
year's ESAA funds.
47a
Before addressing these additional
matters, I want to explain why the legal
and factual arguments in the Response and
Supplement are not adequate grounds for
revoking or modifying the two principal
bases for my determination.
Assignment of Students to Racially
Se qregated a and Overcrow ded Sc ho ools
In the Response, the school districy
denies that it has unlawfully discriminated
on the basis.of race in assigning students
to schools. The district contends that the
Appendix to the letter of April 9, 1979,
applies an erroneous legal standard for
proving the segregative "purpose" or
"intent" of Chicago school officials, makes
a number of faulty assumptions, and
contains assertions that are factually
inaccurate and incomplete. The district
Claims, therefore, that it is net in
48a
violation of Federal civil rights laws and
that the plan submitted with its basic
grant application -- Access to Excellence
-- qualifies for ESAA funding as a “non-
required" plan for the reduction of
minority group isolation. Response, p. l-
3.
These contentions do not provide a
sufficient basis upon which to withdraw or
modify the conclusions in the Appendix. In
the Response, for example, the district
misconstrues the legal standard applied in
the Appendix and misreads the Supreme
Court's recent decisions in Columbus Board
of Education v. Penick, 99 S.Ct. 2941
(1979), and Dayton Board: of Education v.
Brinkman, 99 S.Ct. 2971 (1979). Contrary
to the claim in the Response, the Appendix
does not rely exclusively -- in theory or
in fact -- on the "natural, probable and
foreseeable consequences" test for proving
49a
the segregative "purpose" or "intent" of
Chicago school officials.
The district's claims of improper use
of school enrollment and capacity data also
are unfounded. For example, the district
criticizes the analysis in the Appendix for
excluding mobile classroom units in
determining a school's capacity. The
Response states that this "predetermines
the result concerning overcrowding" at
schools with mobiles and "results in the
deceptively large disparity in the
Appendix's overcrowding statistics" for
white and black schools. Response, p. 21.
The Department's exclusion of mobiles in
determining capacity, however, is
consistent with the district's policies on
the use of mobile classrooms. Board Report
72653-A, "Guidelines for the Use of Mobile
Classrooms", December 9, 1964. See also
Progress Report on Mobile Classroom Units,
50a
May 8, 1963. Because these policies
provide that mobiles are to be used as a
temporary response to the problem of
overcrowding, it is not unreasonable to
consider a school with mobiles to be
overcrowded and to exclude mobiles in
determining a school's capacity. Moreover,
the disparity in the Appendix's
overcrowding statistics for white and black
schools is not “deceptively large", but
merely reflects the fact that
disproportionate numbers of black students
have been assigned to overcrowded schools,
including schools with mobile classrooms.
Another critisicm [sic] of the
Appendix's use of enrollment and capacity
information is that references to the
relative size of white and black schools
are irrelevant to the issues of
discrimination and overcrowding. Response,
p. 19. This criticism, however, disregards
51a
the district's own policy on the maximun,
optimum size for elementary schools, which
since 1962 has provided that an elementary
school should not enroll more than 1,200
students. Statement to the Board of
Education, October 10, 1962. More
significantly, it ignores the segregative
consequences of the district's actions
affecting school size. The Appendix
contains many examples where the district
violated its optimum size policy by
building additions and placing mobiles at
large, overcrowded black schools. These
examples further show that there often were
smaller white schools in the area at which
the district could have built an addition
or placed mobiles, without violating the
optimum size policy, to accommodate
students from the overcrowded _ black
schools. Instead of adopting these
reasonable, less segregative alternatives,
52a
however, the district repeatedly violated
its optimum size policy and maintained
racial segregation by ution actions to
enlarge overcrowded and frequently
oversized black schools.
In the Supplement, the district
expands on the arguments put forward in the
Response and addresses the specific
examples of segregative conduct discussed
in the Appendix. The incident-by-incident
rebuttal in the Supplement, however,
contains many serious deficiences. It
relies on inaccurate and incomplete factual
information, examines certain events in
isolation from other relevant events,
mischaracterizes the purpose and effects of
particular actions, fails to respond to
specific allegations in the Appendix, and
draws conclusions that are not supported by
the evidence. Thus, even though the
Supplement points out a few factual errors
53a
in the Appendix, it does not alter the
Appendix's basic conclusions.
Several of the major deficiencies in
the Supplement are illustrated in its
analysis of the actions taken by the
district at schools serving the Cabrini-
Green housing project and surrounding area
between the mid 1950's and early 1960's.
Citing data on the race of families
residing in the housing project from 1948
to 1965, the Supplement correctly states
that the Appendix erred in claiming that
Cabrini-Green was predominantly black from
its inception. Supplement, p. 18-19. The
Supplement uses this same data, however, to
Support the assertion that the Jenner
School, located adjacent to the housing
project, was integrated in 1954 and 1958
when sizeable additions were built at that
school. Supplement, p. 19-20. This
assertion is simply untrue.
54a
Several witnesses -- including former
employees of the district and persons
active in school affairs -- have informed
OCR that although Cabrini-Green did house
white families in the 1950's, Jenner's
enrollment was virtually all black as early
as 1949. These witnesses explain that
white children from the project attended
parochial schools in the area, not Jenner,
during this period. Thus, because the
Supplement cUraws erroneous conclusions from
housing data, it fails to disprove the
essential facts in the Appendix -- that
Jenner was a black school throughout the
1950's when Chicago school officials were
planning and constructing the two large
additions at that school.
The Supplement _s [sic] analyses of
other actions in this area are similarly
misleading and incomplete. The Supplement
states, for example, that the two boundary
55a
changes between the Ogden and Franklin
schools in 1961 and 1962 “had the effect of
substantially integrating Ogden."
Supplement, p. 21, 66. To support this
proposition, the Supplement compares 1963-
64 and 1964-65 racial data on the
enrollment at Ogden. Supplement, p. 66.
Obviously, however, this comparison is
inapposite because the two boundary changes
became effective in 1561-62 and 1962-63,
respectively. Board Report 69011-H, April
12, 1961; Board Report 70933-A, December
26, 1962. Moreover, since Ogden's
enrollment was only 4.1% black in 1963-64,
the boundary changes could not have had a
significant integrative effect at Ogden.
And the Supplement does not deny that the
boundary changes also had segregative
effects at predominantly black Franklin,
which lost most of its white students to
56a
Ogden as a result of the boundary
adjustments.
Another example from this area is the
opening of LaSalle School in 1961. The
Supplement claims that the new facility
simply replaced the old, LaSalle School on
the same site and that the school opened
with an integrated enrollment. Supplement,
p. 21. This explanation, however, ignores
alternative sites that were available to
the district, including several sites that
were actually proposed by local community
groups. Furthermore, LaSalle was not
"integrated" when it opened. In 1963-64,
LaSalle's enrollment was only 4.5% black.
Although the school aiso enrolled 26.9%
other minority students in that year, the
enrollment of these students did not make
LaSalle an "integrated" school. Rather, it
merely shows that the district did not
segregate white and other minority students
57a
to the same extent that it segregated white
and black students. This fact is born out
by other actions discussed in the Appendix.
E.g., Appendix, p. 60-62.
The Supplement's discussion of new
school construction along Ashland Avenue
between 1970 and 1974 again illustrates
several notable deficiencies. The
Supplement states that seven new schools
were opened during this period "to
accommodate the sudden and ,substantial
increases" in black student population
caused by "drastic demographic changes" in
the area. Supplement, p. 25-33. The
Supplement explains that, as a result of
these demographic changes, "[w]hen a new
school was planned its attendance area
would be integrated, but by the time the
school was opened the neighborhood had
become predominantly black." u ement,
p. 29. In addition, the Supplement claims
58a
that "[e]mphasis was necessarily placed on
accommodating students within their
attendance areas, since adjacent areas were
either already overcrowded or about to
become so." Supplement, p. 3l.
This analysis is inadequate because it
fails to respond to several specific
allegations in the Appendix. Even if the
Department accepted the contention, which
it does not, that the district's site
selection practices did not contribute to
the creation of segregated student bodies
at these seven schools, the district still
has not explained why these schools also
were assigned identifiably black faculties
and black administrators. The -district
also has not explained the highly
improbable coincidence that only these
schools and other black schools opened with
the names of famous black Americans.
Appendix, p. 20-21.
59a
The Supplement's failure to address
these issues is significant. It has been
recognized in several Supreme Court
decisions that a school can be identified
as a "white" or a "black" school by
referring to factors other than just the
racial composition of its enrollment.
E.g., Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413
U.S. 189, 202 (1973)? Swann v. C¢ otte-
Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1,
19 (1971)? Green v. County Schoci Board of
New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, 435 (1968).
Moreover, evidence relating to the
assignment of faculty and administrators is
highly probative of the segregative intent
of school officials. -g., Dayton Board of
Education v. Brinkman, supra, 99 S.Ct. at
2978-79; Keyes v. Scholl District No. l,
supra, 413 U.S. at 209-10; Swann v.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education,
supra, 402 U.S. at 18; Green v. unt
60a
School Board of New Kent County, supra,
391 U.S. at 435; Morgan v. Kerrigan, 509 F.
2d 580, 595 (lst Cir. 1974), cert. denied,,
421 U.S. 963 (1975).
Another deficiency in the Supplement's
explanation of the new construction along
Ashland Avenue is that it is based on two
questionable propositions. The first is
that the district simply was overwhelmed by
events and was unable to influence the
racial composition of schools in the area.
This proposition belies the district's
knowledge of demographic patterns and
projections for this area and its ability
to plan for such developments. The second
proposition is that there was no direction
in which the district could have moved to
build new schools. This proposition
completely disregards the traditionally
white areas to the west. In short, the
Supplement has not demonstrated the
6la
validity of the two basic propositions
underlying its explanation.
Like the contentions in the Supplement
already discussed, the district's
assertions on the placement of mobile
Classroom units also are based on
inaccurate, incomplete and often misleading
factual information. Specifically, the
district denies that a disproportionate
number of mobiles were ever placed at
identifiably black schools. The Supplement
states that "the Board assigned mobiles
wherever they were needed, regardless of
the racial composition of the school that
received them" and that "numerous mobiles
were assigned to integrated or
predominantly white schools, as well as to
predominantly black schools." Su ement,
p. 39.
To support these assertions, the
district compares the racial compositions
62a
of schools that received mobiles in 1963-
64, 1966-67 and 1972-73. Supplement, p.
39. This comparison, however, focuses on
the number of schools receiving mobiles and
ignores the fact that significantly more
mobiles were assigned to identifiably black
schools than were assigned to integrated or
predominantly white schools. For example,
an analysis of the placement of mobiles at
90-100% black and 90-100% white schools in
1966-67 shows that the black schools with
mobiles had an average of 6.7 mobiles per
school, while the white schools with
mobiles had an average of only 3.2 mobiles
per school. This analysis also shows that
64.4% of all mobiles assigned in 1966-67
were assigned to 90-100% black schools,
while only 22.6% of the mobiles were
assigned to 90-100% white schools. An
analysis of prior and subsequent years'
data also reveals similar assignment
63a
patterns. Thus, while the Supplement does
show that mobiles were placed at integrated
and predominantly white schools, it fails
to refute the allegation in the Appendix
that the district assigned a
disproportionate number of mobile
classrooms to identifiably black schools.
The district also defends its use of
temporary classrooms by stating that mobile
units were assigned to preserve and
stabilize integration at particular
schools. Supplement, p. 41-44. The
evidence cited to support this contention,
however, has little probative value. The
Supplement states, for example, that Board
Report 2, dated February 24, 1965, "shows
the placement of mobile units to reduce
Class size to 32.5 or less pupils at 51
racially integrated schools." Supplement,
p. 42. In fact, however, this report does
not show that mobiles actually were
64a
assigned to any of the 51 schools. It
merely shows that 20 of the 51 schools
listed in the report needed mobiles to meet
the prescribed class size. Moreover, eight
of the 20 schools needing mobiles had
enrollments that were in excess of 75%
white or 75% black, and the remaining 12
schools needed a total of only 23 mobiles.
The other evidence cited in the
Supplement to support this contention--
namely, the examples in which mobiles
allegedly were placed at particular schools
to promote integration -- are similarly
unpersuasive. The Supplement claims, for
example, that mobiles were assigned to the
Vanderpoel and Barnard schools in the early
1970's "to foster integration" and "to
accommodate an increasingly integrated
enrollment." Supplement, p. 42, 44.
However, the Supplement's discussion of
these actions is incomplete because it
65a
ignores numerous other segregative actions
that the district took at these and other
schools in the area.
For example, the district opened the
W.E. Green School in 1972 just to the
northeast of Barnard and east of
Vanderpoel. Green opened with a 71% black
faculty and a virtually all-black
enrollment. It also enrolled at least 260
black students who had attended Vanderpoel
and Barnard in 1971. By locating Green so
that it took in areas from the | east and
northeast portions of the Vanderpoel and
Barnard attendance zones, the district
guaranteed that Green's enrollment would be
all-black. Moreover, there were other
possible locations for Green to the west.
These alternative sites would have
integrated Green and would have avoided the
reassignment of at least 260 black students
66a
from two integrated schools to an all-black
school.
During an earlier period, the district
also took other segregative actions at the
schools in this area, including the
maintenance of Barnard and Bates as
separate white and black schools. These
schools shared a common attendance boundary
and were located less than one mile apart.
Bates was a K-6 school on a small site, and
it had sent its seventh and eighth grade
students to the all-black Shoop School for
many years. Shoop, however, had eight
mobiles as early as 1965, several years
before Barnard, also a K=-8 school, received
its first mobile classroom. If the
district had assigned Bates' seventh and
eight grade students to Barnard rather than
to Shoop, the district could have
integrated Barnard long before the early
67a
1970's. Instead, the district maintained
Barnard as an all-white school.
The Supplement concludes its analysis
of the allegations regarding mobile
Classrooms by attempting to refute the
specific examples discussed in the
Appendix. - Once again, however, the
Supplement's explanations are inadequate.
For example, the Supplement
acknowledges that 16 mobile units were
placed at the Altgeld School in 1964 and
1965 as its enrollment became severely
overcrowded and overwhelmingly black.
Supplement, p. 47. The Supplement attempts
to show, however, that the less segregative
alternatives proposed in the Appendix were
not reasonable means of relieving the
overcrowding at Altgeld. Specifically, the
Su e states that the Raster and
O'Toole schools were overcrowded, not
underutilized, and that Barton was not
— am i
68a
nearby but was located one and one-half
miles away. Supplement, p. 47. Moreover,
the Supplement claims that boundary changes
between the Barton and Cook schools in 1965
and 1968 utilized the excess capacity and
integrated the student body at Barton.
Supplement, p. 47.
This response is inadequate because it
dismisses without explanation the
Appendix's suggestion that some mobiles be
placed at Raster and O'Toole to accommodate
students from Altgeld. Appendix, p. 30. In
1965, these schools were virtually all-
white and had no mobiles, although they
were located on sites of sufficient size to
accommodate mobiles. Thus, the placement
of mobiles at these schools could have
relieved overcrowding at Altgeld and
integrated both Raster and O'Toole.
Furthermore, by simply categorizing Raster
and O'Toole as "“overcrowded", the
69a
Supplement totally disregards the
significant differences that existed in the
size and degree of overcrowding at Altgeld
and the two white schools. The Appendix's
suggestion also would have eliminated these
differences by distributing the burden of.
overcrowding more equitably among these
schools.
The Supplement's explanation also
fails because it does not adequately
explain why the district did not reassign
students to or place mobiles at Barton to
relieve the overcrowding at Altgeld. In
all probability, any problems arising from
the distance between Altgeld and Barton
could have been solved through attendance
area adjustments. Moreover, the Cook-
Barton boundary changes tend to confirn,
rather than refute, the allegations in the
Appendix.
70a
Given the speed with which demographic
changes were occurring in this area of the
city, the boundary change between Cook and
Barton in 1968 is too remote in time to
explain or justify the district's failure
to use Barton to relieve Altgeld's
overcrowding in 1965. The 1965 boundary
change, on the other hand, is highly
relevant. Contrary to the statements in
the Supplement, however, this boundary
change had significant segregative effects
at both Cook and Barton. As the following
table shows, the 1965 boundary change
transferred mostly white students from
racially changing Cook (96.9% white in
1963) to identifiably white Barton (100.0%
white in 1963):
Cook
Enrollment White Black
1965 750 - 66.0% 34.0%
1966 1010 24.4% 75.6%
7la
Barton
Enrollment White Black
399 95.2% 4.0%
500 88.0% 11.8%
Thus, the 1965 boundary change between Cook
and Barton actually promoted the
segregation of white and black students in
schools along Ashland Avenue. For this
reason, it does not justify the district's
decision to place 16 mobiles at
identifiably black Altgeld, rather than
reassign some Altgeld students to
identifiably white and underutilized
Barton.
The district's actions in creating ané
altering attendance boundaries, feeder
patterns and optional zones is another area
in which the Supplement fails to rebut the
basic findings set forth in the Appendix.
72a
As was explained previously, the Supplement
s [sic] analysis of the two Ogden-Franklin
boundary changes was based on erroneous and
incomplete factual information. Similarly,
the Supplement totally mischaracterizes the
effects of the 1965 boundary change between
Cook and Barton. These and other
deficiences [sic] also can be found in the
justifications given for the other actions
affecting school boundaries discussed in
the Appendix.
For example, the Supplement does not
dispute the basic facts in the Appendix
regarding the adjustments in attendance
areas, grade structures and feeder patterns
<2 eight elementary schools prior to the
opening of two new schools -- Orr Middle
(later renamed Piccolo Middle) and Laura
Ward -- in 1973. Specifically, the
district changed the grade structures of
four schools with negligible black
73a
enrollments north of Chicago Avenue and
designated those schools as feeder schools
for Piccolo Middle. At the same time, in
anticipation of the opening of Laura Ward,
the district adjusted the attendance areas,
grade structures and feeder patterns of
four virtually all-black schools
immediately south of Chicago Avenue. The
effect of these changes was to create two
sets of racially identifiable schools with
contiguous attendance areas. Black
students attended schools south of Chicago
Avenue, while white students attended
schools north of Chicago Avenue. Appendix,
p. 60-62.
In addition, despite the numerous
changes made by the district, two black
schools south of Chicago Avenue remained
overcrowded, requiring ten and twelve
mobiles to accommodate their students.
None of the schools north of Chicago
74a
Avenue, on the other hand, required
mobiles. In fact, several of these schools
reported the availability of surplus
classrooms in 1973.
The Supplement attempts to justify the
district's actions by arguing that (1)
since Piccolo Middle served students in
grades 6-8 and Laura Ward served students
in grades K-8, "any complete restructuring
of attendance areas was not feasible, as
the two schools were not intended to enroll
students in comparable grade levels"
(Supplement, p. 97); (2) the actions
resulted "in the maximum amount of
integration that was possible in this
geocraphic area" (Supplement, p. 97); and
(3) the less segregative alternative
proposed in the Appendix was not feasible
because- it would have resulted in
overcrowding at Piccolo Middle in 1975.
(Supplement, p. 99). These arguments,
75a
however, do not refute the allegations in
the Appendix.
The Supplement's first argument fails
because it completely ignores the
substantial grade restructuring and
boundary adjustments that occurred at the
eight schools affected by the new school
openings, including the restructuring of
grades at several of the black schools
south of Chicago Avenue. The Supplement
provides no explanation why alternative
boundaries and grade structures would have
been any more extensive or burdensome then
[sic] those actually adopted in 1973.
The Supplement's second argument is
simply untrue. To show that the actions
taken resulted in "the maximum amount of
integration that was possible", the
Supplement points out that several of the
schools north of Chicago Avenue had
substantial Hispanic enrollments.
76a ee
Supplement, p. 97-98. However, for the
reasons stated earlier in connection with
the opening of LaSalle School, this fact
does not explain the almost complete
segregation of white and black students in
schools immediately north and south of
Chicago Avenue. Moreover, in making this
argument, the Supplement completely
disregards the less segregative alternative-
proposed in the Appendix. Appendix, p. 62.
The Supplement's third argument
attacks the alternative proposed in the
Appendix because it would have caused
Piccolo Middle to become overcrowded by
1975. The Supplement cites no evidence,
however, to support the suggestion that
prior to the opening of the two new schools
in 1973, Chicago school officials
anticipated the potential for overcrowding
at Piccolo Middle in 1975. More
significantly, this argument ignores the
77a
fact that several of the black schools
south of Chicago Avenue already were
overcrowded in 1973. Thus, it fails to
show that the alternative actions proposed
in the Appendix were not feasible means of
reducing the racial segregation and
overcrowding that existed in the schools
serving this area in 1973.
In responding to other allegations in
the Appendix regarding the creation and
alteration of optional zones and feeder
patterns, the Supplement asserts that the
actions taken by the district were
legitimate efforts to stabilize integration
at schools with declining white
enrollments. Supplement, p. 80-90. The
4
Supplement argues, in essence, that the
district was justified in allowing white
students to attend schools with substantial
but declining white enrollments, rather
than the predominantly black schools to
78a
which the students otherwise would have
been assigned, because the actions were
necessary to stem the decline in white
enrollment at such schools.* The theory
underlying this argument is that white
students are less likely to flee schools
with black students if the white students
are grouped in sufficiently large numbers
at the school.
There are two principal reasons why this
argument fails to justify the actions taken
by the district. First, the argument
ignores the segregative effects of the
actions at the schools to which the white
students _ otherwise would have been
assigned. In many instances, these schools
The Supplement attempts to justify other
segregative actions discussed in the
Appendix on the basis of this same
argument. Supplement, p-. 36, 50-51, 77.
For the reasons subsequently discussed,
however, the argument also fails to
justify those actions.
79a
became virtually all-black following the
district's action. Second, the evidence on
optional zones and feeder patterns cannot
be viewed in isolation from the other
evidence of intentionally segregative
actions discussed in the Appendix. This
evidence shows that the district took
mumerous other segregative actions at the
same schools or at other schools in the
Same areas of the city as those discussed
in the Appendix; that these other
segregative actions were roughly
contemporaneous with those actions; and
that the other actions also were taken to
satisfy white community desires. Thus,
when the district's actions in creating and
altering optional zones and feeder patterns
are viewed in conjunction with all of the
other evidence, it is quite Clear that the
actions form a pattern of segregative
activity.
80a
These same two factors also distinguish
Johnson v. Board of Education of the City
of Chicago, 604 F.2d 504 (7th Civ. L979) ,
which the district cites in support of its
position. In Johnson, the Court of Appeals
upheld the constitutionality of the
racially controlled admissions programs at
Gage Park and Morgan Park high schools as
lawful efforts to prevent de facto
segregation. The programs at Gage Park and
Morgan Park, however, specifically provided
that excluded black students may attend
white or other integrated schools, with bus
transportation provided by the district.
Thus, unlike its actions affecting optional
zones and feeder patterns, the district
took positive steps in implementing the
Gage Park and Morgan Park plans to ensure
that they did not increase racial
segregation at other schools. Moreover,
the issue before the Court in Johnson was a
8la
narrow one - - whether the admissions
programs in effect at two high schools were
unlawful. The conclusions in the Appendix,
on the other hand, are based on an
examination and analysis of school
officials’ actions dating back over the
past several decades and affecting sc>ools
throughout the system. The importance of
this distinction has been recognized by the
courts in numerous school desegregation
cases, particulary with respect to proving
segregative "intent":
Although it might not be possible to
infer the requisite discriminatory
intent from any one instance in the
record, it is clear that the
district court found a purposeful
pattern of racial discrimination
based on the aggregate of many
decisions of the Board and its
agents. United States v. Board of
Commissioners, Indianapolis, 474
P.2@ @1, 84 (7th Cir. 1973), Sart.
denied, 413 U.S. 920 (1974); accord,
Horgan_v.—Kerrigan, supra, 509 F.2d
at 582; Vv s ct o
, 443 F.2d $73,
575-76 (6th Cir. 1971).
82a
Thus, the Supplement again fails to refute
the allegations in the Appendix.
The Supplement also challenges the
Appendix's analyses of the various programs
proposed by the district to relieve
overcrowding through the reassignment and
transportation of students. The
explanations given in the Supplement,
however, suffer from many of the same
deficiencies previously discussed in
connection with the other examples from the
Appendix.
For example, the Supplement does not
dispute the fact that a lack of support
from the affected communities, including
the white community, caused the district
not to adopt the "Intra-Community Pilot
Program" for the South Shore area in 1967.
Supplement, p. 139. Under this program,
students from three overcrowded black
schools --Bryn Mawr, Mann and Caldwell--
83a
were to transfer to nine underutilized
white schools. This program was proposed
both to relieve overcrowding at the black
sending schools and to promote stable
integration at the white receiving schools.
Board Report 68-17-2, January 10, 1968;
Board Report 67-1271-6, December 27, 1967.
The Supplement defends the district's
rejection of this proposal by stating that
the district adopted "an alternative plan
which resulted in the opening of two new
schools -- the Black School and Black Annex
-- with racially stable enrollments."
Supplement, p. 139. The Supplement also
points out that these "mini-magnet" schools
have remained stably integrated since their
opening in 1968. Supplement, p. 85-86,
139.
The defense put forward in the
Supplement is inadequate for two reasons.
First, as originally proposed by the
84a
Superintendent, the "Intra-Community Pilot
Program" and the creation of magnet schools
were separate, complementary programs.
Contrary to the suggestion in the
Supplement, they were not alternative or
substitute proposals. creasin
Desegregation of Faculties, Students, and
Vocational Education Programs, Section B,
August” 23, 1967. Second, and more
significantly, the Supplement fails to
recognize important differences in the two
programs, particularly in their effects on
the related problems of overcrowding and
racial segregation.
Under the "Intra-Community Pilot
Program", a total of 462 students would
have transferred from the three overcrowded
black schools to the nine underutilized
white schools. ° epo 68-17-2,
January 10, 1968. This program would have
had a substantial impact on the overcrowded
85a
e
conditions at the black sending schools and
would have improved integration at all nine
white receiving schools. By contrast, the
establishment of Black and Black Annex
created two new integrated schools, but had
little effect on the overcrowding at black
schools or the segregation at white schools
in the South Shore area. Only about 200
black students were authorized to attend
Black and Black Annex because of the 50%
white-50% black admissions goal established
for those schools. In addition, these 200
black students were drawn from the 20
schools that were authorized to send
students to Black and Black Annex, not just
from schools with serious overcrowding
problems. Board Report 68-569, July 10,
1968. As a result, the three black schools
proposed as sending schools under the
"Intra-Community Pilot Program" remained
seriously overcrowded, requiring a total of
86a
16 mobile units to accommodate their
students in 1968-69. Moreover, as the
following table shows, most of the white
schools proposed as receiving schools
remained highly segregated in 1968-69:
Racial Composition of
° ivi -69
Black White
Anthony 1.1% 88.9%
Buckingham 4.0 86.9
Burnham 6.7 88.3
Coles 25.5 62.9
Goldsmith 81.8
Hoyne 17.3 78.7
Luella 9.8 85.1
Sullivan 2.6 29.6"
Warren 18.4 Jaso
In summary, the establishment of Black
and Black Annex was not an alternative or
substitute for the Superintendent's
proposed "Intra-Community Pilot Program."
While these schools did provide an
integrated education for some _ students,
7
Sullivan enrolled 67.8% other minority
students in 1968-69.
87a
they did not significantly reduce the
overcrowding at black schools or contribute
to the integration of white schools in the
South Shore area. Thus, the Supplement
does not refute the basic allegations in
the Appendix.
Similarly, the Supplement fails to
justify the various limitations and
restrictions imposed on the district's
busing program for the Austin area in
administrative district 4. Identical in
all fundamental respects to the South Shore
proposal, this program was proposed in 1967
to relieve overcrowding and to stabilize
integration by transporting students from
two overcrowded black schools -- May and
Spencer -- to eight underutilized white
schools. Board Report 67-1271-6, December
27, 1967; Board Report 68-17-2, January 10,
1968. Following pressure from community
groups, however, the district adopted
88a
several limitations that severely reduced
the program's potential for relieving
overcrowding and promoting desegregation.
These limitations included the imposition
of a 15% ceiling on the number of transfer
students that a receiving school was
required to accept, regardless of the
school's capacity; the prohibition of white
student transfers; the refusal to reassign
some special education students from Nash
and Young to other schools with sufficient
capacity in administrative district 4; and
the authorization of parents to refuse
their child's transfer under the progran.
Board Report 68-17-2, January 10, 1968;
Board Report 68-213, March 4, 1968.
The Supplement gives no justification
whatsoever for several of these
limitations, including the 15% ceiling on
the number of transfer students in a
89a
receiving school. Moreover, the
justifications given for the other
restrictions are simply inadequate. For
example, the Supplement states that the
Nash and Young schools, both virtually all-
white, _— not included in the program
because they had no excess capacity due to
the location of 22 special education
classrooms at those schools. Supplement,
pa 1336-137. The Supplement explains
further that the alternative of
transferring these classrooms to other
underutilized schools in administrative
district 4 vee unavailable because the
Department's own regulations issued under
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 recognize the detrimental effects of
transporting special education students
further than necessary and prohibit such
transfers. u ement, p. 118-119, 137.
See 45 CFR 84.34.
eee
—————__SLrrstti‘isS
90a
This explanation is inadequate because
it suggests that the transfer of these
special education classrooms to other
schools in administrative district 4 would
have imposed a greater burden or hardship
on these students. The Supplement presents
absolutely no evidence to support this
proposition. Moreover, as early as 1966,
several white schools in administrative
district 4 -- Burbank, Sayre and Smyser--
had more than enough capacity to provide
all the necessary special education
classrooms. In all probability, since
these three schools had no_- special
education classrooms of their own, and
since Nash and Young contained most of the
special education classes in administrative
district 4, some of the students who were
enrolled in Nash and Young in 1966 resided
in the Burbank, Sayre and Smyser attendance
areas. Clearly, for these students, the
9la
proposed transfer of special classrooms
would not have increased the burden of
their transportation.
_ The Su ement also attacks’ the
suggestion in the Appendix that the
Ateteter could have contributed
substantially to racial stability in the
Austin area by implementing at an earlier
date a program like the Austin busing
program. The Supplement contends that if
the district had implemented such a program
in 1965, it would not have resulted in
desegregation because most of the students
in May and Spencer were white at that time.
The Supplement also claims that
"overcrowding at May and Spencer did not
becofmie severe until 1967, at which time the
Austin plan was implemented." Su ement,
Se. 297.
This explanation again misrepresents the
basic facts. The Austin busing program was
Reems
92a
initiated on March 11, 1948, but was not
fully implemented until the 1969-70 school
year. Supplement, p. 136. Moreover, as the
following table shows, May and Spencer
already were predominantly black and
seriously overcrowded in 1966, long before
the program was fully implemented:
May
Enrollment Black White Mobiles
1965 853 30.4 ee
1966 1035 57.7 35.6 5
1967 1559 88.9 13.8 .6°
1968 1586 95.9 >
1969 2080 98.9 1.0 5
* The district opened an addition at May
in 1967.
Spencer
Enrollment Black White Mobiles
1965 1022 10.1 85.1 2
1966 1304 53.2 45.4 9
1967 1325 82.3 4239 12
1968 1624 90.8 4.6 12
1969 2078 97.1 1.0 14
Thus, the Supplement does not refute the
basic allegation in the Appendix -- that
the implementation of such a program at an
earlier date would have contributed to the
racial stability of the Austin area by
spreading the burdens of overcrowding and
desegregation more equitably among all the
schools in the area.
The Supplement also fails to rebut the
essential facts regarding the segregative
busing programs discussed in the Appendix.
For example, the Supplement defends the
busing of black students from Brenan to Poe
in 1973 and 1974 on the theory that "the
use of the vacant Poe building was the only
available solution to the problem of
94a
overcrowding at Brenan." Supplement, p.
141. The Supplement specifically rejects
the less segregative alternatives proposed
in the Appendix because "[njone of the
alternative schools .. . had sufficient
available capacity to accommodate the
seventh and eighth grade students from
Brenan." Supplement, p. 141. In addition,
the Supplement claims that the Clissold
Schools “was much farther from Brenan than
Poe was", and that the Nansen and White
schools were too unstable racially to
receive black students from Brennan.
Supplement, p. 141.
The Supplement's defense of the Brenan-
Poe busing program fails to demonstrate .
that Poe was "the only available solution"
to relieve the overcrowding at Brenan.
Even assuming that Nansen and White were
not reasonable alternatives, the Appendix
suggests four other white schools--
95a
Clissold, Sheldon, Sutherland and Cassell
-- that could have accommodated all of the
black students from Brenan. According to
the data provided in the Supplement, these
four schools had sufficient permanent
sapenkin te accommodate over 260 additional
students in both 1973 and 1974.
Furthermore, even though Poe had three
mobiles in 1973 and seven mobiles in 1974,
the Supplement ignores the possibility of
placing mobiles at the four white schools
to accommodate even more students from
Brenan. Three of the four white schools
had no mobiles in 1973, and only one of the
schools had as many as four mobiles in
1974. Thus, these four white schools could
have accommodated all of the students, 423
in 1973 and 506 in 1974, who were bused
from Brenan to Poe under this program.
Additionally, Clissold was not "much
farther from Brenan than Poe was."
96a
Supplement, p. 141. On the contrary,
Clissold and Poe were roughly equidistant
from Brenan. Moreover, any minor
differences in the distances or travel
times between these schools are irrelevant
since the district provided transportation
to the students transferring under the
progran.
The Supplement's justification for the
Raster-Dyett busing program aiso is
unpersuasive. The Supplement states that
the district began busing students from
Raster to Dyett in January 1975 in order to
alleviate overcrowding at Raster. The
Supplement explains further that the Dyett
School was selected to receive students
from Raster because it was the closest
school that had sufficient capacity and was
operating under the district's 45-15 Plan.
The Su ement also dismisses the six
underutilized white schools proposed as
97a
alternatives to Dyett in the Appendix,
"since they all operated a nine-month
regular school year program not conducive
to the 45-15 Plan." Supplement, p. 146.
In short, the Supplement bases its
defense on the 45-15 Plan, another program
to alleviate the district's overcrowding
problems. The plan was first implemented
as a pilot program in 1971. Board Report
71-528-6, June 3, 1971. Under this plan,
students attended school for a 45-day
period and then had a 15-day vacation
before starting another 45-day period.
This served to relieve overcrowding since
only three-quarters of a school's
enrollment were -in attendance on a given
day. Board Report 71-287-7, March 24,
1971.
The Supplement argues, in essence, that
the busing of students from Raster to Dyett
to relieve overcrowding was justified
98a
because the students needed to continue
under the 45-15 Plan. The Supplement gives
no explanation, however, why students from
overcrowded Raster needed to continue under
the 45-15 Plan, particularly since that
program also was designed to alleviate
overcrowding. It may be that the first
students transferring from Raster in
January 1975 needed to attend Dyett in
order to avoid disruption of their
education at mid-year. By the beginning of
the 1975-76 school year, however, the need
to avoid mid-year disruption no longer
existed. Thus, the Supplement fails to
provide an udewsiten justification for
continuing the Raster-Dyett busing program
for 1975-76 through 1978-79
The final section in the Supplement
responds to the Appendix's allegations
regarding the assignment of faculty and
administrators to schools on the basis of
99a
race. The Supplement makes no effort to
explain or rebut the specific facts and
conclusions set forth in the Appendix.
Instead, the Supplement merely states that
these allegations are irrelevant because
the district's application for a waiver of
ineligibility for FY 1979 ESAA funds was
adequate with respect to the reassignment
of faculty. Supplement, p. 147-148.
This answer is not responsive to the
allegations. As was explained in the
Appendix, even though the district has made
considerable progress toward faculty
desegregation, evidence of past racial
discrimination in the assignment of faculty
and administrators is relevant to the issue
of unlawful student segregation. Federal
courts consider school policies and
practices for assigning faculty and staff
to be an important indicator of an
unlawfully segregated -~school system and
100a
highly probative of the segregative intent
of school officials in the system as a
whole. Appendix, p. 96, 98, 101-102. Thus
the supplement 's response again fails to
explain or justify the actions discussed in
the Appendix.
As the preceding analysis demonstrates,
the Response and Supplement submitted at
the show cause meeting do not refute the
essential facts and conclusions set forth
in the Appendix. I am in complete
agreement, therefore, with the conclusion
reached by the Department of Justice based
on its review of the two documents. On
page 4 of his recent letter to you, dated
April 21, 1980, Assistant Attorney General
Days wrote:
While the response sheds new light on
several areas of factual dispute, it
fails to dispel our general
conclusion, which is based on both
HEW's study and our own, that the
Board has intentionally segregated
students throughout ae substantial
10l1a
portion of the school system. Thus,
we believe that a systemwide remedy
is required.
Thus, I have no alternative but to sustain
the two principal bases for the
determination of ineligibility in my letter
of February 28, 1980.
Because I have not revoked the first
basis of ineligibility cited in my earlier
letter, the district's basic grant
application for FY 1980 may not be
considered for funding. The district has
not shown that Access to Excellence is one
of the alternative types of plans for which
ESAA basic grant funds may be awarded, and
a determination of plan ineligibility under
section 606(a) of the Act is not subject to
the waiver of ineligibility provisions set
out in section 606(c). 20 U.S.C. 3196(a),
(c).
I also understand, however, ‘that
representatives of the district and the
ee
102a
Department of Justice have begun
negotiations on this matter under Title IV
and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964. If these negotiations are successful
in developing a legally sufficient school
desegregation plan, this plan may be
submitted in an application for a waiver of
ineligibility in accordance with the
procedures discussed in my earlier letter.
By obtaining a waiver of ineligibility on
this issue, as well as on the other hases
of ineligibility discussed in this letter
the district may become eligible for an
ESAA magnet grant, which does not require a
qualifying plan, or for other types of ESAA
assistance in the future. Thus, I urge you
to resolve this student assignment matter
voluntarily through the negotiations with
the Department of Justice.
103a
Other Bases of Ineligibility
1. Teacher Assignment
Section 185.45(b)(2) of the ESAA
regulations provides:
No education agency shall be eligible
for assistance under the Act if, after
June 23, 1972, it has had or maintained
in effect any other practice, policy, or
procedure which results in
discrimination on the basis of race,
color, or national origin in the
recruiting, hiring, promotion, payment,
demotion, dismissal, or assignment of
any of its employees (or other personnel
for which such agency has any
administrative responsibility),
including the assignment of full-time
classroom teachers to the schools of
such agency in such a manner as to
identify any of such schools as intended
for students of a particular race,
color, or national origin.
On October 12, 1977, OCR and the
district entered into an agreement to
remedy the violations of Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d
et _seq., found by Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) Everett Hammarstrom on February 15,
1977, in the areas of faculty assignment
104a
and bilingual education. The agreement is
entitled Plan for the Implementation of the
Provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 Relating to Integration of
Faculties, Assignment Patterns of
Principals, and Bilingual Education
Programs (Plan).
To remedy the ALJ's findings with
respect to the assignment of teachers, the
Plan prescribes two compliance or remedial
standards, one applicable for September
1977 and one applicable after the September
1977 standard has been reached. These
standards establish goals for the racial/
ethnic composition, the experience and the
training of teaching staffs at each school
in the system. Specifically, the
compliance standard for September 1977
provides (Plan, p. 11):
105a
The racial/ethnic composition in
each school will be
no more than 65 percent
nonminority and no less than 40
percent nonminority
or
no more than 60 percent
minority and no less than 35
percent minority
The percentage of experienced
teachers in each school will be
between plus or minus 12 percent
of the systemwide percentage of
experienced teachers for each
school type.
The range of educational training
of each faculty will be
substantially the same as exists
in the system as a whole.
106a |
The compliance standard applicable
once the standard for September 1977 has
been met is contained in the following
provision (Plan, p. 11):
In implementing this Plan, the Chicago
Public School District will make every
good faith effort to follow
professional staff assignment and
transfer practices which, when taken
together as a whole on a frequently
reviewed periodic basis, will assure
that the racial composition, the
experience and the educational
background of individual school
faculties and administrative staff
more nearly approach* the city-wide
proportions of minority, experienced,
and more extensively trained
professional staff provided however
that nothing in this Plan. shall
require the assignment or transfer of
any person to a position for which he
or she is not professionally
qualified. The Chicago Public School
District will not adopt or follow
assignment and transfer practices
which will foreseeably result in the
racial identifiability of schools
based on faculty or administrative
staff composition or in unequal
distribution of experienced and more
extensively trained staff.
*Plus or minus ten percentage points
of city-wide averages for race,
experience, and training for each type
of school facility.
107a
During FY 1978 and FY 1979, the
district was found ineligible for ESAA
funds under 45 CFR 185.43(b)(2) based on
the ALJ's findings of noncompliance with
Title VI and the district's failure to meet
the prescribed racial/ethnic goals for
September 1977 at a substantial number of
schools. In FY 1979, after negotiating
with OCR several modifications in the Plan,
the district submitted information with its
application for a waiver of ineligibility
showing that, as of June 13, 1979, the
racial/ethnic composition of wank school's
faculty fell within the compliance range
prescribed for September 1977. Thus, ofi
September 15, 1979, the district was
notified that its waiver application was
adequate with respect to the assignment of
teachers.
In connection with its applications
for FY 1980 ESAA funding, the district now
108a
has submitted to OCR information on the
racial/ethnic composition of each school's
faculty as of October 31, 1979, and April
28, 1980. In addition, the district has
provided information on the experience and
training levels of each school's teaching
staff as of April 28, 1980. This
information was specifically requested by
OCR in order to monitor the district's
continued compliance with the Plan and to
ensure that the recent reduction in and
reassignment of teaching staff caused by
the district's budgetary problems did not
adversely affect its faculty desegregation
efforts.
An analysis of this information shows
that since June 13, 1979, the district's
assignment of teachers to schools. has
caused a substantial number of schools to
fall out of compliance with the racial/
ethnic remedial standards prescribed in the
109a
Plan. The information also shows that
between October 1979 and April 1980, there
was a significant increase in the number of
schools that do not meet these compliance
standards, presumably as a result of the
faculty reassignments necessitated by the
district's financial difficulties. And
finally, the information shows that many
schools fall outside the compliance ranges
for experience and training in the Plan.
More specifically, according to the
"Racial/Ethnic Survey-Staff" conducted on
October 31, 1979, the faculties at 106
schools, including 79 regular schools and
27 special schools, did not meet the 35-60
percent minority standard prescribed in the
Plan for September 1977. Moreover, 35 of
the 79 regular schools and 17 of the 27
special schools required the reassignment
of two or more teachers in order to reach
the standard. In fact, several schools--
110a
including Taft and Bogan high schools and
four special schools -- were out of
compliance by ten or more teachers.
Based on this same data, an even
greater number of schools failed to meet
the Plan's "more nearly approach" standard
(i.e., plus or minus ten percentage points
of the system-wide average for each
facility type). Specifically, the
racial/ethnic composition of the faculties
at 183 schools =-- 141 regular schools and
42 special schools -- fell outside this
compliance range. This included 38 regular
schools and 30 special schools’ that
deviated by more than 15 percentage points
from the system-wide average for each
facility type.
An analysis of the staff racial/ethnic
survey conducted on April 28, 1980, shows
even more schools outside the racial/ethnic
compliance ranges prescribed in the Plan.
lila
According to this survey, 172. schools
failed to meet the 35-60 minority standard
prescribed in the Plan, including 142
regular schools and 15 special schools that
required the assignment of two or more
teachers in order to achieve compliance
with the standard. Moreover, there were
two additional schools -- Hope Middle
School and Bell Special Education School--
that were out of compliance by ten or more
teachers.
Once again, a larger number of schools
also fell outside the "more nearly
approach" standard in the Plan. Based on
the April 1980 survey, the racial/ethnic
composition of the faculties at 200 regular
schools and 41 special schools did not
comply with this standard, including 67
regular schools and 37 special schools that
deviated by more than 15 percentage points
112a
from the system-wide average for each
facility type.
The survey conducted on April 28,
1980, also shows that the district has not
complied with Plan's requirements regarding
the experience and Te levels of
individual schools' teaching staffs.
Specifically, the survey shows that the
“percentage of experienced teachers at 52
regular schools and 35 special schools
deviated by more than 12 percentage points
from the system-wide percentage of
experienced teachers for each facility
type. In addition, 151 regular schools and
31 special schools have faculties with
educational backgrounds that were not
"substantially the eana* as exists in the
system as a whole (i.e., deviated by more
than 12 percentage points from the systen-
wide percentage of teachers with B.A.
degrees).
113a
In short, the district has not
complied fully with the faculty
desegregation requirements in the Plan.
Although the district did demonstrate
compliance with the 35-60 percent minority
standard for September 1977 in its
application for a waiver of ineligibility
for FY 1979 ESAA funds, the information
subsequently provided shows that the
district has not continued to assign
teachers so that the racial/ethnic
composition of each school's faculty "more
nearly approaches" the system-wide average
for each facility type. In fact, many
schools are no longer in compliance with
the 35-60 percent minority standard.
Moreover, he information shows a
significant number of schools do not meet
the compliance ranges for experience and
training in the Plan.
ll4a
Because the district has not complied
with the Plan, it has not completely
eliminated the racial discrimination in the
assignment of faculty found by the ALJ.
Thus, the district is ineligible for ESAA
funding under section 606(c)(1)(B) of the
Act, as interpreted by section 185.43(b) (2)
of the regulations, based on its continued
failure to comply with Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964.
2. Classroom Segregation
Section 185.43(c) of the ESAA
regulations provides:
No educational agency shall be
eligible for assistance under the
Act if, after June 23, 1972, it
has had or maintained in effect
any procedure for the assignment
of children to or within classes
which results in any segregation
of minority group’ from
nonminority group children for
more than 25 percent of the
school day classroom periods, in
conjunction with desegregation or
the conduct of any activity
described in Section 706 of the
Act. This paragraph shall not be
construed to prohibit bona fide
115a
ability grouping as a standard
pedagogical practice. Such
grouping is that which is:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Based up oe a
nondiscriminatory, objective
standards of measurement
which are educationally
relevant to the purposes of
such grouping and which, in
the case of national origin
minority group children, do
not essentia'’*y measure
Enclish language skills;
Determined by the
nondiscriminatory
application of the standards
described in subparagraph
(1) of this paragraph, and
maintained for only such
portion of the school day
classroom periods as is
necessary to achieve the
purposes of such grouping;
Designed to meet the special
needs of the students in
each group determined by the
application of the standard
described in subparagraph
(1) of this paragraph and to
improve the academic
performance and achievement
of students determined to be
in the less academically
advanced groups, by means of
specially developed
curricula, specially trained
or certified instructional
personnel, and periodic
retesting to determine
: 116a
academic progress’ and
eligibility for promotion;
and
(4) Validated by test scores or
other reliable objective
evidence indicating the
educational benefits of such
grouping.
In addition, section 185.43(d)(5) of the
ESAA regulations provides:
No educational agency shall be
eligible for assistance under the Act
if, after June 23, 1972, it has had or
maintained in effect any practice,
policy or procedure which results or
has resulted in discrimination against
children on the bases of race, color
or national origin, including but no
{sic] limited to:
* ~ 7 *
(5) Assigning students’ to
ability groups, tracks,
special education classes,
Classes for the mentally
retarded, or other
C.8.-@ 2:44:60 €.i:a:2 or
extracurricular activities
on the basis of race, color
or national origin.
Racially or ethnically
identifiable groups, tracks,
or classes which cannot be
justified educationally
under the criteria set out
in paragraph (c) of this
section shall be presumed to
117a
be assigned on the basis of
race, color or national
origin.
During FY 1978 and FY 1979, the
district was found ineligible for ESAA
funding under sections 185.43(c) and (d) (5)
of the regulations because it assigned
students to racially/ethnically isolated
and identifiable classes that could not be
justified educationally under the criteria
set out in section 185.43(c)(1)-(4). These
determinations were based on analyses of
classes in schools and programs enrolling
between 20 and 80 percent minority
students. Moreover, the analyses excluded
classrooms used for bilingual, special
education, pre-school and kindergraten
[sic] programs.
In its application for a waiver of
ineligibility for FY 1979 ESAA funding, the
district made several commitments to ensure
that no student is assigned to a racially/
118a
ethnically identifiable or isolated
classroom except when the assignment can be
justified educationally under the criteria
in section 185.43 (c)(1)-(4) of the
regulations. These commitments satisfied
the requirements for obtaining a waiver of
ineligibility on this issue. 45 CFR
185.44(e), (£)(3). On the basis of these
commitments, the district was notified in a
letter dated September 15, 1979, that its
waiver application was adequate to remedy
the discrimination found in assigning
students to classes in the district's
regular education progran.
The school district now admits,
however, that it has not implemented the
remedial actions described in last year's
application for a waiver of ineligibility.
In a letter dated May 5, 1980, the district
stated:
Due to the Department's failure last
year to provide the District with a
ee es
119a
waiver of ineligibility on all issues,
thereby furnishing the District with
1979 ESAA funds, the District did not
implement the terms of the waiver
agreement reached last year on this
issue.
Because the district has not implemented
the agreed upon remedy, its discriminatory
classroom assignment practices have not
ceased to exist. Thus, the district
remains ineligible for FY 1980 ESAA funds
under sections 606(c)(1)(C) and (D) of the
Act, as interpreted by sections 185.43(c)
and (d)(5) of the regulations, based on its
assignment of students to racially/
ethnically identifiable and isolated
classrooms without adequate educational
justification.
3. Bilingual Education
Section 185.43(d)(2) of the ESAA
regulations provides:
No educational agency shall be
eligible for assistance under the
Act if, after June 23, 1972, it
has had or maintained in effect
any practice, policy, or
120a
procedure which results or has
resulted in discrimination
against children on the basis of
race, color, or national origin,
including but not limited to:
7 * * a *
(2) Denying equality of
educational opportunity or
otherwise discriminating
against national origin
minority children on the
basis of language or
cultural background.
During FY 1979, the district was found
ineligible for ESAA funding under section
185.43(d)(2) of the regulations because it
had failed to implement certain provisions
of the Plan relating to the delivery of
instructional services to non=- and limited
English speaking students. These included
provisions on staffing for bilingual
programs and developing a program of
linguistically appropriate special
education services.
Subsequently, in its application for a
waiver of ineligibility, the district made
121a
additional commitments in each of these
areas. The district stated that by
September 15, 1979, it would hire, assign,
and/or reassign adequate numbers of
bilingual and TESL teachers to meet minimum
staffing requirement [sic] in all Group I
and Group II bilingual programs. These
minimum staffing requirements were to be
determined on the basis of agreed upon
staffing formulas for Group I and Group II
programs. Additionally, under the Model
Vv ° inguistic
ucati ervices
(Model) submitted with its waiver
application, the district is obligated to
employ the number of bilingual endorsed and
special education certified teachers needed
to meet the special education needs of
handicapped non-and limited English
speaking students. The number of such
teachers to be employed was to be
122a
determined on the basis of the criteria
contained in the Model and the number of
students requiring such services as
determined by the district's annual needs
assessment. The Model provided further
that if the district could demonstrate that
it had exhausted all recruitment and hiring
possibilities without obtaining the
requisite number of bilingual special
education teachers, it could utilize
bilingual paraprofessionals as an interim
measure while it continued its efforts to
recruit and hire professional staff. Since
these commitments satisfied the
requirements for obtaining a waiver of
ineligibility on these issues, the district
was notified on September 15, 1979, that
its waiver application was adequate with
respect to these matters.
It is now evident that the district
has not fully implemented the _ staffing
123a
commitments contained in last year's
application for a waiver of ineligibility.
The information provided by the district
during and after the show cause meeting on
March 27, 1980, shows the following:
1.
Group I Staffing - In its "Status
Report of Bilingual Education
Programs" submitted at the show
cause meeting, the district
states that "[ajs of March 25,
1980, of 218 bilingual programs,
164 met the minimum staffing
requirements described in the
waiver. In the remaining 54
programs a total of 81 bilingual
teachers were needed."
Grou ta - Similarly,
the "Status Report of Bilingual
Education Programs" shows that as
of March 25, 1980, 8.5 bilingual
teachers and 7 TESL teachers were
124a
still needed to staff Group II
programs.
+ fe} iate
Special Education Services - In
its “Report on the District
Special Education Staffing Needs
for the 1979-80 School Year"
submitted to OCR on May 6, 1980,
the district also acknowledged
that it has not employed
sufficient numbers of teachers or
paraprofessionals to meet the
special education needs of
handicapped non- and limited
English speaking students. The
report states that 34.5 Spanish
endorsed special education
teachers in 15 handicapping
conditions are needed to serve
Hispanic students in broad
incidence programs. To date,
125a
however, the district has
employed only 20 teacher aides.
Thus, even though the district
has made significant progress
during the first year of its
formal bilingual special
education program, it is not
fully meeting the educational
needs of these students.
In conclusion, because the district
has not satisfied the staffing commitments
for Group I, Group II and bilingual special
education programs in last year's waiver
agreement, it is ineligible for ESAA
funding under section 606(c)(1)(D) of the
Act, as interpreted by section 185.43(d) (2)
of the regulations.
Reestablishing Eligibility for ESAA Funds
The district may remove the three
additional bases of ineligibility for ESAA
126a
funds in one of two ways. It may request
an opportunity to show cause why these
ineligibility determinations should be
revoked and its.applications considered for
funding; or it may correct the violations
and apply for a waiver of ineligibility. A
request for a show cause cause _ [sic]
conference should be directed to:
Dr. Shirley McCune
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary
Equal Educational Opportunity Programs
Department of Education
Room 2001, FOB #6
400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20202
The request must be received, not merely
sent, within 14 days of the date of this
letter.
If the district requests the show
cause opportunity, an informal conference
with representatives of the district will
he [sic] held within seven days of the
receipt of the request. The purpose of
this conference is to give the district an
127a
opportunity to demonstrate that the facts
supporting our determinations are
‘inaccurate and to provide additional
information which may alter those
determinations. The conference is not a
forum for working out the terms of an
application for a waiver of ineligibility.
If the district chooses to take action
to correct the violations cited, it may
apply for a waiver of ineligibility
pursuant to section 606(d) of the Act (20
U.S.C. 3196(d)) and section 185.44 of the
implementing regulations (45 CFR 185.44).
An application for a waiver of
ineligibility must include information and
assurances which show that any activity
resulting in ineligibility has "ceased to
exist" and will not reoccur after the
submission of the waiver application (20
U.S.C. 3196(d) (1); 45 CFR 185.44(b)).
128a
Specifically, an application for a
waiver of ineligibility for the three
additional bases of ineligibility cited in
this letter must contain the information
and materials required by the following
provisions of the ESAA regulations:
1. Teacher Assignment
45 CFR 185.44(da)(3): In the case
of ineligibility resulting from
discriminatory assignment of
teachers as prohibited by
185.43(b) (2), such applications
for waiver shall contain evidence
that such agency has assigned its
full-time classroom teachers to
its schools so that no school is
identified as intended for
students of a particular race,
color, or national origin. Such
non-discriminatory assignments
shall, in the case of a local
129a
educational agency implementing a
plan described in 185.11(a),
conform to the requirements of
such plan with respect to the
assignment of faculty....
2. Classroom Segregation
45 CFR 184.44(e): In the case of
ineligibility under Section
185.43(c), an application for
waiver shall contain:
(1) Evidence that minority group
children are not separated
from nonminority group
children by or within
Classes for more than 25
percent of the school day
classroom periods, except in
instances of bona fide
ability grouping which meet
the requirements of section
185.43(c), where such agency
130a
has demonstrated by clear
and convincing evidence that
such separation is
educationally necessary and
is the only available method
of achieving a specific
educational objective; and
(2) A statement of steps taken
by such agency to insure
that separation of minority
and nonminority group
Children as prohibited by
section 185.43(c) will not
reoccur in the future.
45 CFR 185.44(f£)(3): (i) In the
case of the assignment of
students to racially or
ethnically identifiable groups,
tracks, or classes which cannot
be justified educationally, as
described in Section
131a
185.43(da)(5), an educational
agency shall submit the following
information...
(B) If the assignment was to
other groupings, evidence
that the students so
assigned have been
nondiscriminatorily
reassigned to groupings that
are not racially or
ethnically identifiable, or
evidence that the students
so assigned have been
reassigned to groupings in
accordance with the criteria
in Section 185.43(c)(1)-
(3).
(ii) If the educational
agency reassigns any
student to new grouping
under paragraph
132a
(f£)(3) (i) of this
section, it shall also
submit evidence that it
has made provision for
such transitional
services as are
necessary to enable the
student to participate
meaningfully in the
educational program of
the new grouping.
Bilingual Education
45 CFR 185.44(f)(1): In the case
of a denial of equal educational
opportunity to national origin
minority group children as
described in section
185.43(d) (2), such agency shall
submit an educational plan of
sufficient comprehensiveness to
remedy or eliminate the effects
e————————
133a
of such denial and to meet the
special educational needs of all
national origin minority group
children for whose education such
agency is responsible. Such a
plan, if required and approved
under this subparagraph, shall be
implemented regardless of whether
funds for such purposes are made
available under the Act.
Waiver applications are reviewed by
the Office for Civil Rights, Department of
Education, and decisions as to whether a
waiver should be granted are made by the
Secretary to the Department. The waiver
application should be directed to:
Ms. Cynthia G. Brown
Acting Assistant Secretary
Office for Civil Rights
Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue,. S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20202
If the district intends to apply for a
waiver, the request must be received with
134a
the [{sic) 21 days of the date of this
letter or, if the district requests a show
cause conference, within 21 days of the
date of the letter notifying you of the
results of the conference. In the absence
of such a request, we will not feel
constrained to reserve funds for an
application that is approvable in other
respects.
This letter relates solely to your
district's eligibility for ESAA assistance.
The establishment of eligibility does not,
by itself, ensure that an application will
be funded. An application also must
satisfy other requirements applicable to
the ESAA program, and its application must
compete successfully with those of other
school districts.
cc
135a
Sincerely,
Thomas K. Minter
Assistant Secretary for
Elementary and Secondary
Education
Chief State School Officer
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
Regional Director, Region V, Office
for Civil Rights
Frank Cicero, Kirkland and Ellis
136a
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION
Vs. NO.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
CITY OF CHICAGO,
(Filed September
24, 1980)
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) co N
)
The United States, by its attorneys,
alleges:
i. This is an action brought by the
Attorney General on behalf of the United
States to enforce the provisions of Title IV
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
2000c-6; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seg.; the regulations
of the United States Department of Health,
Education and Welfare (now the Department of
Education and hereinafter "HEW" with reference
to all times before the change) which
137a
implement Title VI, 45 C.F.R. Parts 80 and 81;
the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, and the contractual assurances
made by defendant Board of Education of the
city > of Chicago (hereinafter "Board of
Education") in consideration of its continuing
receipt of federal financial assistance.
2. This Court has jurisdiction of this
action under 28 U.S.C. 1345, under 42 U.S.C.
2000c-6 and under 42 U.S.C. 2000d=-1.
3. The Attorney General of the United
States has received written complaints signed
by parents of children attending schools
operated by the Board of Education alleging
that their minor children are members of a
similarly-situated class which is being denied
the equal protection of the laws by the Board
of Education. The Attorney General believes
these complaints to be meritorious and has
certified that said parents are unable to
138a 2
initiate and maintain appropriate legal
proceedings to afford their children and the
similarly-situated class appropriate legal
redress. Further, the Attorney General has
certified that the institution of this action
will materially further the orderly
achievement of desegregation in the public
schools operated by the defendant. Finally,
the Attorney General has notified the Board of
Education of the complaint and of his
determination that the Board of Education is
operating in non-compliance with the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
and with Titles IV and VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, and he has certified that the
Board of Education and its agents have had a
reasonable time to adjust the conditions
alleged in the complaint. The certificate of
the Attorney General is attached hereto and
incorporated herein.
139a
—
4. The Board of Education is a public
body created by the State of [Illinois to
administer and supervise the public schools
within its statutorily-defined area and, under
the laws on the State of Illinois, may sue and
be sued. Si ReA«c, Ch. 222, $3442. Its
principal offices are at 228 North LaSalle
Street, Chicago, Illinois.
S. The Board of Education is receiving
and at all times material has received federal
financial assistance.
6. To qualify for federal financial
assistance, the Board of Education submitted
Assurances of Compliance with the provisions
of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
and the HEW regulations promulgated
theireqniar .
7. On April 9, 1979, HEW notified the
Board of Education that under 45 C.F.R.
185.43(d), it was ineligible to receive
140a
federal funds distributed under the Emergency
School Aid Act, 20 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.
(hereinafter "ESAA") because its racial
segregation of students violated Title VI.
8. On September 17, 1979, HEW informed
the Board of Education that HEW would initiate
the referral of this matter to the United
States Department of Justice in one month if,
by then, the Board of Education had not
rebutted or explained HEW's findings that the
Board of Education was in violation of Title
VI and had not developed a plan to remedy its
unlawful discrimination.
9. On October 17, 1979, HEW received a
letter from the Board of Education's General
Superintendent, Dr. Joseph P. Hannon, who,
writing on behalf of the Board of Education,
specifically denied that it had violated the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, the
14la
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, or
decisions of courts interpreting the same.
10. On October 18, 1979, the Director of
HEW's Office for Civil Rights notified the
Board of Education that HEW would refer the
case against it to the Department of Justice
unless the Board of Education submitted an
acceptable desegregation plan within ten (10)
days.
ll. The Secretary of HEW received no
acceptable plan from the Board of Education by
October 28, 1979, and determined that the
Board of Education would not comply
voluntarily with the provisions of Title VI
and the Assurances referred to in paragraph 6,
above.
12. On October 29, 1979, the Secretary
of HEW referred this matter to the Department
of Justice, requesting that the Department
take appropriate legal action to secure
142a
compliance by the Board of Education with
Title VI and said Assurances.
13. The Board of Education applied for
ESAA funding for the 1980-81 school term. HEW
again found the Board of Education ineligible
for funding because the Board of Education had
unlawfully segregated students on the basis of
race. Following a presentation of facts by
the Board of Education in defense of its
actions, these HEW determinations were
reaffirmed by the Department of Education on
June 12, 1980.
14. Current racial segregation of
students in the public schools operated by the
Board of Education has been caused, in
substantial part, by the actions and omissions
of the defendant.
15. Specific practices of the Board of
Education which have unlawfully segregated
students on the basis of race and ethnic
143a
origin (Hispanic) include, but are not limited
to, the following:
(a) The drawing and alteration of
school attendance area boundaries in such
a way as to create, maintain or increase
racial or ethnic segregation of students;
(b) The adjustment of grade
structures among schools so as to create
or maintain racial or ethnic segregation;
(c) The maintenance of racially and
ethnically segregated branches of
schools;
(dad) The placement of permanent and
temporary facilities to relieve student
overcrowding and the failure to use
alternative, educationally sound measures
to relieve student overcrowding so that,
by action and omission, racial and ethnic
segregation of students was created and
maintained;
144a
(e) The maintenance of a racially-
disproportionate number of severely
overcrowded and thereby educationally
inferior schools in such a way as to
identify, in conjunction with the
practices described in the next two
subparagraphs, those schools as intended
for black students and less crowded
schools as intended for white students;
(f) The assignment of teachers and
staff to schools in such a way as to
match the race of the faculties with the
race of the students attending the
schools;
(g) The employment of a permissive
transfer policy which allowed white
students to avoid attending their schools
of assignment when their race was in the
minority in favor of attendance at other
145a
schools where their race constituted the
majority of student enrollment; and
(h) The association of segregated
schools with segregated housing projects.
16. The practices listed in paragraph
15, above, occurred over a substantial period
of time and in a substantial portion of the
Chicago public schools, and constitute a
system-wide violation of the Constitution and
the laws of the United States.
17. Unless restrained by order of this
Court, the Board of Education will continue to
maintain and operate the Chicago public
schools in violation of the Constitution and
laws of the United States, resulting in
immediate, severe and irreparable harn. No
adequate remedy is available at law.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff, United States of
America, prays that this Court enjoin
defendant, its agents, employees and all
146a
persons in active concert or participation
with it from discriminating against pupils on
the basis of race and ethnic origin and from
failing to operate said school system
lawfully, by implementing such plan of
desegregation as this Court may order.
Plaintiff further prays. this Court to
grant such additional relief as the interests
of justice may require, together with the
costs and disbursements of this action.
BENJAMIN R. CIVILETTI
Attorney General
THOMAS P. SULLIVAN DREW S. DAYS III
United States Assistant Attorney
Attorney General
CANELLA E. JAMES P. TURNER
HENDRICHS Deputy Assistant
Assistant United Attorney General
States Attorney
219 S. Dearborn
Street
Room 1500 South
Chicago, Illinois
60604
(312) 353-5342
147a
ALEXANDER C. ROSS
MICHAEL H. SUSSMAN
Attorneys
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C.
20530
(202) 633-4755
148a
CERTIFICATE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
I, Benjamin R. Civiletti, Attorney
General of the United States, hereby certify
that I have received complaints in writing
signed by parents of minor children in
Chicago, Illinois, alleging in effect that
said children are being deprived by the Board
of Education of the City of Chicago of the
equal protection of the laws; that I believe
the complaints to be meritorious; that the
signers of the complaints are unable, in my
judgment, to initiate and maintain appropriate
legal proceedings for relief; that the Board
of Education was notified of the complaint;
that I am satisfied that said Board of
Education has had a reasonable time to adjust
the conditions alleged in the complaint; and
that in my judgment the institution of this
action, United States v. Board of Education of
the City of Chicago, will materially further
149a
the orderly achievement of desegregation in
public education.
This certificate is made pursuant to the
provisions of Section 407(a) of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000c-6, in
support of the complaint to which it is
attached.
Signed this 23rd day of September, 1980.
BENJAMIN R. CIVILETTI
Attorney General
150a
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
For the Northern District of Illinois
Eastern Division
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
No. 80 C
Plaintiff,
(Entered
vs. September 24,
1980)
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
CITY OF CHICAGO,
Defendant.
CONSENT DECREE
1. The United States has filed a
complaint alleging that the Board of
Education of the City of Chicago (the
"Board") has engaged in acts of
discrimination in the assignment of students
and otherwise, in violation of federal law.
The United States alleges further that such
acts have had a continuing system-wide
effect of segregating students on a racial
15la
and ethnic basis in the Chicago public
school systen.
y In addition, the United States
Department of Health, Education and Welfare
("HEW" ) in 1979 and in 1980 found the Board
ineligible for funding under the Emergency
School Aid Act on the basis of its
determinations that the Chicago public
school system is characterized by racially
segregated and overcrowded schools.
Following a presentation of facts by the
Board in defense of its actions, these HEW
determinations were reaffirmed by the
Department of Education on June 12, 1980.
3. The Board neither admits nor
denies the allegations of the complaint in
this action. It recognizes, however, that
the Chicago public school system is
characterized by substantial racial
isolation of students.
152a
4. The Board believes that racial
isolation is educationally disadvantageous
to all students and that educational
benefits will accrue to all students through
the greatest practicable reduction in the
racial isolation of students.
Ss. The Board believes that
litigation of this action would require a
substantial expenditure of public funds and
a substantial commitment of Board and staff
time and resources, at a time when financial
and personnel resources are already greatly
limited, and that such resources can more
appropriately be used to achieve the
educational goals of the school system. The
parties further believe that litigation of
this action would be protracted and that
settlement of the action is in the public
interest.
153a
6. In light of these considerations,
the parties, as indicated by the signatures
of their counsel below, have determined to
settle this action and resolve the United
States' request. for injunctive relief by
entry of this consent decree. The parties
submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and
acknowledge that subject matter jurisdiction
exists over this action under the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution;
under Titles IV and VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000c and 2000d; and
under 28 U.S.C. § 1345. The Board waives
the notice provisions of those acts. Both
parties waive the entry of findings of fact
and conclusions of law. Each party shall
bear its own costs.
: Both parties agree that this
Consent Decree is final and binding as to
the issues resolved herein. The Court shall
ss
154a
retain jurisdiction of this action for all
purposes, until a final order is entered
terminating this litigation.
8. In the event that objections or
challenges are raised (e.g., through
intervention or separate collateral
lawsuits) to the lawfulness or
appropriateness of (a) this decree, any
provision hereof, or proceedings pursuant
hereto, ef. (3) any aspect of the
desegregation plan provided for in Part I
hereof after approval of the plan by the
Department of Justice or by the Court, the
Board and the Department of Justice shall
defend the lawfulness and appropriateness of
the matter challenged. If any such
collateral lawsuit arises in state court,
the parties shall seek to remove such action
to the U.S. District Court.
155a
WHEREFORE, the parties having freely
given their consent, the terms of the Decree
being within the scope of the complaint, and
the terms of the Decree being fair,
reasonable and adequate, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that:
I. STUDENT DESEGREGATION
Sis Systemwide Remedy. The Chicago
Board of Education (the "Board") will
develop and implement a system-wide plan to
remedy the present effects of past
segregation of Black and Hispanic students.
2. S ves.
2.1 Desegregated Schools. The
plan witt “previege ter the
establishment of the greatest
practicable number of stably
desegregated schools, considering all
the circumstances in Chicago.
156a
2.2. Segregated. In order to
assure participation by all students
in a system-wide remedy and to
alleviate the effects of both past and
ongoing segregation, the plan shall
provide educational and " peleted
programs for any Black or Hispanic
schools remaining segregated.
253 Participation. To the
greatest extent practicable, the plan
will provide for desegregation of all
racial and ethnic groups, and in all
age and grade levels above
kindergarten.
2.4 Fair Allocation of Burdens.
The plan shall ensure that the burdens
of desegregation are not imposed
arbitrarily on any racial or ethnic
group.
157a
3. Board Discretion in Plan
Development. |
3.1 Board Discretion in
Selecting from Alternatives. The
Department of Justice recognizes that
there is a broad range of
constitutionally acceptable plans that
will fulfill the basic objectives
stated in Part 2. The Department of
Justice further recognizes the Board's
familiarity with and sensitivity to
the unique situation presented in
Chicago, and the authority of the
Board, in its discretion, to select
from within the constitutional range
the plan that best meets the needs of
the Chicago School District.
non ia ic alance or
Specific Ratios Not Required. The
parties recognize that courts have not
158a
required specific racial ratios in
schools as a necessary remedy in
desegregation cases, that racial and
ethnic balance throughout the Chicago
School District is neither practicable
nor required, and that no particular
definition of a desegregated school is
required.
4. Techniques. In establishing
desegregated schools, the Board may use the
following techniques, among others:
4.1 Voluntary Techniques.
4.1.1 Permissive transfers
that enhance desegregation, with
transportation at Board expense.
4.1.2 Magnet schools that
enhance desegregation.
4.1.3 Voluntary pairing and
clustering of schools.
159a
4.1.4 If magnet schools or
other voluntary techniques are
used, each shall contain
racial/ethnic goals and
management controls (e.g., an
alternative that would require
mandatory re-assignments) to
ensure that the goals are met.
4.2 ndato chniques Not
Vv ans on.
4.2.1 Redrawing attendance
areas. :
4.2.2 Adjusting feeder
patterns.
4.2.3 Reorganization of
grade structures, including
creation of middle schools.
re re Pairing and
clustering of schools.
160a
4.2.5 Selecting sites for
new schools and selecting schools
for closing to enhance
integration.
4.3 Mandatory Reassignment and
Transportation. Mandatory
reassignment and transportation, at
Board expense, will be included to
ensure success of the plan to the
extent that other techniques are
insufficient to meet the objective
states in § 2.1. The plan may limit
~the time or distance of mandatory
transportation to ensure that no
student shall be transported for a
time or distance that would create a
health risk or impinge on the
educational process. These
limitations may vary among different
age and grade levels.
Techniques. The Plan may rely upon
the techniques listed above and any
other remedial methods in any
combination that accomplishes the
objective stated in § 2.1.
5. Exceptions.
Identifiable Minority Schools. With
respect to any schools tha* remain
identifiable as Black or Hispanic
schools, the plan shall provide
specific justification in terms of
practicability (i.e., educational or
practical considerations), in the
context of the extent to which the
plan as a whole achieves’ the
objectives stated in Part 2.
5.2 t z e chools.
The Plan may create exceptions with
162a
respect to individual schools which it
shows are already stably integrated
(or will become stably integrated by
the time of implementation of the
plan).
5.2.1 initial Exception.
The plan may exclude such schools
from reassignment of students if
the extent of integration is
within a reasonable range of that
to be achieved in the schools
referred to in § 2.1.
5.2.2 Subsequent Exception.
The plan may provide for the
later exclusion from student
reassignment of any initially
included school that, through
demographic changes or other
163a
factors, promises to become
stably integrated.
5.2.3 Subsequent Inclusion.
The plan should include
sufficient flexibility to enable
| any of the techniques. outlined
above to be applied to any school
in which stability of integration
is threatened by unforeseen
circumstances.
6. Bilingual Education. The Board's
legal obligations to provide bilingual
education for non- and limited-English
speaking students shall be discharged in a
manner consistent with the overall
objectives of the plan. To the extent that
students who require bilingual education are
reassigned, they shall not be reassigned in
a manner that interferes with their
participation in bilingual programs.
Lceeietineetiiaeetteialaiiidta aan
————————— eee
164a
7 Compensato Programs in Schools
Remaining Segregated. To accomplish the
objective stated in § 2.2, the plan will
include specific programs for Black or
Hispanic schools remaining segregated, in
the following areas among others:
Fel Remedial and compensatory
educational programs.
7.2 Improved curricula and
instructional and evaluative
techniques (including the utilization
of tests that validly measure student
achievement) for academic, vocational
and alternative educational studies.
7.3 Pre-service and in-service
instruction for administrators,
principals, teachers and other school
personnel.
7.4 Selection, and evaluation of
165a
the performance of, principals and
supporting leadership staff.
7.58 Testing, counseling,
guidance and student welfare.
7.6 Physical facilities, safety
and security.
707 Supportive relationships
between such schools and groups and
institutions in the community and in
government.
8. Overcrowding. The Board is
encouraged but not required to eliminate
overcrowded schools. The plan should
provide, to the greatest extent practicable
considering all the circumstances, for the
elimination of racially disproportionate
overcrowding of classrooms and school sites.
9. iscipline. The plan shall
include provisions to ensure that discipline
is administered in a non-discriminatory
166a
manner. discipline is administered in a
non-discriminatory manner.
10. Resegregation. The plan shall
contain provisions to ensure against
resegregation of students after
implementation, in the following areas:
10.1 In-School. The plan shall
include provisions to ensure that
students attending desegregated
schools are not resegregated within
their schools without adequate
educational justification. This
provision shall apply to the
assignment of students to classrooms
as well as to programs of instruction.
10.2 Student Reassignment. The
plan shall include provisions to
ensure that students shall not be
reassigned in a manner that,
167a
considering the district as a whole,
causes the resegregation of schools.
10.3 Structural Adjustments.
The plan shall include provisions to
ensure that site selections,
construction, school closings,
readjustments of attendance areas and
fedder patterns, and new placement of
mobile classrooms shall be
accomplished so as not to cause the
resegregation of schools.
10.4 Educational Program
Adjustments. The plan shall include
provisions for utilization in
desegregated schools of such of the
specific programs referred to in Part
7 hereof as the Board concludes are
necessary to ensure against
resegregation of such schools.
168a
1l. Facilit Success __o the
Desegregation Process.
11.1 Community Involvement. The
plan will establish programs to
promote public involvement with and
support for the desegregation process.
11.2 School Personnel. The plan
will provide for pre-service and in-
service training programs for Board
personnel such as administrators,
teachers, auxiliary staff, bus drivers
and monitors.
11.3 Other Institutions. The
Board shall endeavor to involve in the
desegregation process state and local
government, peavaeen businesses,
colleges and universities, civic and
community organizations, labor unions,
professional organizations, religious
and cultural institutions, the
169a
parochial school system and other
private schools.
12. . Voluntary Interdistrict Pupil
Transfers. The plan will include
provisions, including without limitation the
payment of transportation costs, to
encourage and facilitate voluntary
interdistrict pupil transfers having
integrative effects between schools in the
Chicago School District and schools in other
districts in the Chicago Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Area ("SMSA")
i3. Reporting. The plan shall
establish a system of recordkeeping and
reporting through which the Board's
compliance with the provisions of this
agreement can be monitored.
14. Flexibility. The parties to this
agreement recognize that neither the
principles set forth above nor the
| |
170a
desegregation plan can provide for every
contingency and that exceptions will be
necessary. The burden is on the Board,
however, to justify such exceptions on the
basis of educational and practical
considerations.
15. inanci s t °
15.1 Each party is obligated to
make every good faith effort to find
and provide every available form of
financial resources adequate for the
implementation of the desegregation
plan.
15.2 Each party reserves the
right to seek to add additional
parties who may be legally obligated
to contribute to the cost of the
desegregation plan.
15.3 The parties recognize that
financial cost of implementation does
17la
not excuse the failure to develop a
desegregation plan consistent with the
principles set forth in §§ 2-14, and
is not a basis for postponement,
cancellation or curtailment of
implementation of the plan after it
has been finally adopted, but is one
legitimate consideration of
practicability in meeting the
objective stated in §2.1.
16. Time Table. The plan will be
developed in accordance with the schedule
set forth in Attachment A and will be
implemented beginning with the 1981-82
school year. 7
17. Public Participation. The Board
will receive and consider comments and
recommendations from all persons and groups
during the development of the desegregation
plan.
a
172a
18. Resolution of Disagreements. If
the parties to this decree are unable to
agree as to whether the desegregation plan
is consistent with the principles set forth
above in §§ 2 through 15, the disagreement
will be submitted to the court for
resolution.
II. ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS AND PARTIES
1. e en Coordination. The
Department of Justice agrees that it will,
pursuant to the Attorney General's authority
(including that under Executive Order 11764
to coordinate the enforcement of Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964), initiate and
carry forward discussions with other
agencies of the federal government to bring
about a coordinated affirmative
administration of federal grant programs in
the Chicago SMSA with the goal of
173a
contributing to the creation and maintenance
of stably integrated schools in the Chicago
SMSA. These federal programs include, for
example, housing, employment and
transportation in addition to education.
2. a esponsibility.
2.1 The Department of Justice
will thoroughly pursue and promptly
complete its investigation of whether
the State of Illinois should be made a
party defendant and be required to
assist and support, financially and
otherwise, the implementation of the
desegregation plan discussed in Part
I. The investigation will examine
whether the State and/or its agencies
have contributed, through action and
inaction, to the segregation of, or
other discrimination against, students
in the Chicago School District.
174a
2.2 Upon completion of the
investigation the Department will
submit the factual findings thereof to
the Court and, if warranted by the
results of the investigation, promptly
take such enforcement action as is
appropriate under the circumstances,
consistent with the Attorney General's
responsibilities under Title IV of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964.
3. Interdistrict Remedies.
3.1 The Department of Justice
will thoroughly pursue and promptly
complete its examination of the extent
to which interdistrict remedies for
segregative conditions in schools in
the Chicago school district may be
appropriate, including (without
limitation) by reason of the
possibilities that:
175a
» ae ae | The State of Illinois
together with school districts in the
Chicago SMSA, or some of them, may
ee me
have acted in,effect as a metropolitan
school district with respect to
vocational, special and other
educational programs; and
3.1.2 The State of Illinois
together with State housing agencies
and other agencies of state
government, including units of local
government in the Chicago SMSA, or
some of them, may have contributed to
the segregation of the races in the
Chicago SMSA by racially
discriminatory use of state or federal
housing laws or programs, or of state
or local land use control laws.
3.3 Upon completion of the
investigation, the Department will
ileal
176a
submit the factual findings thereof to
the Court and will take whatever
enforcement action is appropriate
under the circumstances, consistent
with the Attorney General's
responsibilities under Title IV of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964.
4. LEAA Grant Condition. The
Department of Justice agrees that the entry
of this consent decree is a sufficient basis
for the removal, from the grant awarded by
the Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration to the Board on September 10,
1980 (#80-JS-AX-0043), of the condition
relating to Title VI of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act and § 815 of the Criminal Justice
Improvement Act of 1979.
177a
III. OTHER ISSUES
1. Classroo ation. The Board
will promptly implement a plan to ensure
that no student is assigned to a
ASS a eS ee a Al te A
racially/ethnically isolated or identifiable
classroom except when the assignment is
justified educationally. The plan will be
consistent with the Board's application for
a waiver of ineligibility for funding under
the Emergency School Aid Act ("ESAA") for
Fiscal year 1979, which was found acceptable
by the Department of Health, Education and
Welfare ("HEW") and is presently acceptable
to the Department of Education.
2. Bilingual Programs. The Board
will promptly implement a plan to ensure
that non- and limited English speaking
students are provided with the instructional
services necessary to assure their effective
participation in the educational programs of
tae eee
178a
the Chicago School District. The plan will
be consistent with the Board's application
for a waiver of ineligibility for funding
under ESAA for fiscal year 1979, which was
found acceptable by HEW and is presently
acceptable to the Department of Education.
3. Facult si ; The Board
will promptly implement a plan to assure
that the assignment of full-time classroom
teachers to schools will be made in such a
manner that no school is identified as
intended for students of a particular race,
color or national origin. Except as
specifically provided herein, the plan shall
be consistent with the Board's application
for a waiver of ineligibility for funding
under ESAA for fiscal year 1979, which was
found acceptable by HEW and is presently
acceptable to the Department of Education.
179a
363 Not later than November l,
1981, with respect to the full-time
classroom teachers in each school
faculty, the racial/ethnic composition
and the proportion of experienced
teachers will be between plus and
minus fifteen percent of the
systemwide proportions of such
teachers with respect to such
characteristics, and the range of
educational training will be
substantially the same as exists in
the system as a whole.
3.2 The Board will make every
good faith effort to follow
professional staff assignment _ and
transfer practices which, when taken
together as- a whole on a frequently
reviewed periodic basis, will assure
that the racial composition, the
i
180a
experience and the educational
background of individual school
faculties and administrative staff
more nearly approach” the city-wide
proportions of minority, experienced,
and more extensively trained
professional staff; ‘provided, however,
that nothing, in this Plan shall
require the assignment or transfer of
any person to a position for which he
or she is not professionally
qualified. The Board will not adopt
or follow assignment and transfer
practices which will foreseeably
result in the racial identifiability
of schools based on faculty or
administrative staff composition or in
* Plus or minus ten percentage points of
city-wide averages for race, experience
and training for each type of school facility.
18la
unequal distribution of experienced
and more extensively trained staff.
3.3 The failure of a particular
school or schools to meet the
guidelines will not constitute
noncompliance with the above guidelines
if the district provides a detailed
satisfactory explanation justifying
such failure to meet the guidelines.
Date
ENTER:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE
182a
THE UNDERSIGNED CONSENT TO THE ENTRY OF
THIS DECREE:
DREW S. DAYS III ROBERT C. HOWARD
Assistant Attorney PRESSMAN &
General HARTUNIAN, CHTD.
Civil Rights Division 55 E. Monroe Street
U.S. DEPARTMENT (4005)
OF JUSTICE Chicago, IL 60603
WASHINGTON, D.C. 312/372-6475
20530
202/633-2151
THOMAS P. SULLIVAN
United States Attorney
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
312/353-5300
Attorneys for the Attorneys for the
United States of Board of Education of
America the City of Chicago
183a
ATTACHMENT A
TIME TABLE FOR PLAN DEVELOPMENT
The following timetable will be followed
by the Board pursuant to Part ay. HO
except as modified by agreement between the
Board and the Department of Justice or as
extended by leave of Court:
October 15, 1980 Appointment of
principal plan
development
consultant (s)
November 17, 1980 Progress report to
Justice Department
December 4, 1980 Identification of plan
components appropriate
for funding in the
basic and magnet
categories under the
Emergency School Aid
Act and submission of
appropriate funding
; proposals to the
Department of Education
December 15, 1980 Progress report to
Justice Department
January 15, 1981 Progress report to
Justice Department
184a
February 16, 1981 Progress report to
Justice Department
Prior to adoption of a
plan by the Board, the
Board will publish the
proposed plan and hold
public hearings
thereon.
March 11, 1981 Completion of final
plan and adoption of
plan by the Board. The
plan will be conveyed
to the Justice
Department and filed
with the Court.
= ane REI iB tet nil AE
a end TN a
185a
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILL.NOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
RICHARDS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
No. 80 C 4261
BYRNE, et al. (Filed August
11, 1981)
Defendants,
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs allege:
I
This is a proceeding for a declaration
that the defendants have carried on and are
continuing to carry on the operation of a
particular school known as Walt Disney
Magnet School as a racially discriminatory
school within the City of Chicago, State of
Illinois, in violation of Title 42, United
States Code, Section 2000c and 2000d, and
the covenants, conditions subsequent, and
186a
restrictions contained in the Quitclaim Deed
dated March 24, 1968, attached hereto as
Exhibit 1 and made a part hereof, by and
between the United States of America,
Grantor and the City of Chicago, a Municipal
Corporation of the State of Illinois and the
Board of Education of the City of Chicago,
quitclaiming a tract of land situated at
4141 North Clarendon Avenue, Chicago,
Illinois, in Trust for public education
purposes, and for a permanent injunction
enjoining defendants from carrying on the
racially discriminatory aspects of the
operation of such Walt Disney Magnet School
in the future and for other appropriate
relief.
Il
Jurisdiction of this court is invoked
pursuant to Title 28, United States Code,
Section 1343. This is an action in equity
187a
seeking relief under Title 42, United States
Code, Section 1983. The rights sought to be
protected are secured by the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution
and by Title 42, United States Code,
Sections 1981, 2000c and 2000d, providing
for equal rights, nondiscrimination in
public schools and for the protection of
civil rights.
Sas
This is a class action brought by the
adult palintiffs [sic] on behalf of
themselves and their children or wards and
on behalf of other adults and minors
similarly situated, pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Members of the class are taxpayers citizens
who reside in the County of Cook, State of
Illinois, within the boundaries of the Walt
Disney Magnet attendance District. All the
ee
188a
members of the class are similarly situated
and affected by the action of defendants in
operating and maintaining the Walt Disney
Magnet School in a racially discriminatory
manner. The class is so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable.
There are questions of both law and fact
common to the class, and the claims of the
named plaintiffs are typical of the class.
The named plaintiffs will adequately
represent all members of the class.
IV
The adult plaintiffs are taxpayers,
teachers or parents or guardians of minor
children who attend or are eligible to
attend Walt Disney Magnet School. The minor
plaintiffs attend or are eligible to attend
Walt Disney Magnet School.
189a
V
Defendant JANE BYRNE is the mayor of
Defendant the CITY OF CHICAGO, grantee of
the quitclaim deed attached hereto as
Exhibit 1 and made a part hereof.
Defendant, BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF
CHICAGO is duly authorized by the law of the
State of Illinois and is charged thereby
with the duty of establishing, maintaining,
and operating the Chicago School system and
the Walt Disney Magnet School. Defendants,
Rev. Kenneth Smith, Raul Villalobos, Sol
Brandzel, Luis Salces, Edwin Claudio, Leon
Davis, Martha Jantho, Rev. Wilfred Reid,
Michael W. Scott, John D. Foster, are
members of the Board of Education of the
City of Chicago.
VI
Defendant Dr. Angeline Caruso is the
acting Superintendent of Schools of the
190a
Chicago School District. She holds office
pursuant to the laws of the State of
Illinois, and performs her duties under the
authority and control of Defendant Board of
Education of the City of Chicago.
VII
Defendant, Dr. Robert Gallagher is
principal of Walt Disney Magnet School.
VIII
On information and belief, plaintiffs
allege that Walt Disney School presently has
approximately 1722 pupils in all grades, of
whom about 29.9% are of the black race,
44.9% are of the white race, 19% are of the
Hispanic race, and 6% are of other races.
On information and belief, plaintiffs allege
that Walt Disney Magnet School employs 111
teachers; 63% are of the white race, 26.2%
are of the black race, 10.8% are of other
minority ethnic [sic] or racial backgrounds.
————e—————e
191la
There are 5 teacher aides; 2 being white, 0
being black, and 3 being of other minority
ethnic [sic] or racial backgrounds.
IX
On March 24, 1968, defendants CITY OF
CHICAGO and the BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
CITY OF CHICAGO covenanted to utilize
continuously the property described in
Exhibit 1 hereto attached, for public
educational purposes in accordance with a
proposed program and plan as set forth in
the application of the city [sic] of Chicago
to the Department of Health, Education and
Welfare dated September 14, 1967, attached
hereto as Exhibit 2 and made a part hereof,
and its resolution adopted January 10, 1968,
attached hereto as Exhibit 3, and as further
effected by a later program and plan
entitled "Final Educational Specification"
dated March 1969, commonly known as the
192a
Leggett report, attached hereto and made a
part hereof as Exhibit 4.
x
By the terms of said quitclaim deed
dated March 24, 1968, (Exhibit 1), defendant
CITY OF CHICAGO or the BOARD OF EDUCATION OF
THE CITY OF CHICAGO, covenanted, inter alia,
as a condition subsequent to the grant of
said iand, to comply with Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352) and
all requirements imposed by or pursuant to
the Regulation of the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, 45 CFR Part 80
issued pursuant to that title and as in
effect on the date of the said quitclaim
deed, to the end that, no person in the
United States shall, on the ground of race,
color, or national origin, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of,
or be otherwise subjected to discrimination
193a
under the program and plan referred to in
paragraph IX of this complaint or under any
other program or activity of the City of
Chicago or the Board of Education of the
City of Chicago, its successors or assigns,
to shich [sic] said Title VI and said
Regulations apply by reason of the covenants
heretofore referred. Exhibit 4, Leggett
report.
XI
On or about March 1980 the Board of
Education of the City of Chicago laid-off
[sic] a total of 34 teachers, 46 bus aides
and 1 teacher aide from Walt Disney Magnet
School, more than any other elementary
school within the City of Chicago and
further cuts are programmed in the very near
future. By virtue of said cuts in personnel
the Board of Education of the City of
Chicago has deliberately made it impossible
194a
to comply with the conditions set forth in
the quitclaim deed, Exhibit 1 hereto, and
has breached and continues to breach said
conditions and the agreed program and plan
and the requirements of Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964.
XII
Racial consideration entered into the
Board's January 1980 decision to terminate
34 teachers from Walt Disney Magnet School
in that a disproportionate number of
minority teachers were terminated, thereby
creating discriminatory racial imbalance in
the school faculty, and in that said
terminations with full knowledge of the
Board of Education of the City of Chicago
and its Administration impede the purpose of
voluntary integration of Walt Disney Magnet
School.
195a
XIII
The pupil-teacher ratio is 22 to l,
higher than recommended by the plan and
program and inconsistent with the goal and
design of the school which utilizes open
classrooms. This is particularly true for
the Early Childhood Center, which deals with
3 to 6 year old children and lost more than
50% of its staff. This has resulted in lack
of discipline, loss of individualized
instruction, and increased noise level and
has greatly reduced meaningful teaching and
communication. The atmosphere and
environment created, frightening to young
children, is hardly conducive to voluntary
integration and understanding among children
and faculty of various races.
XIV
Because the January 1980 cuts eliminated
all attendants in the buses and left the
196a
driver alone to supervise each busload of
children while driving in rush hour traffic,
both white and minority parents have
withdrawn or are seriously considering
withdrawing their children from the school.
This has contributed to the so-called "white
flight" to the suburbs and the parochial
schools and thus undermines voluntary
integration.
XV
The Board of Education of the City of
Chicago has consciously failed to implement
the goals and purposes of the covenanted
program and its ultimate goal of increasing
desegregation of faculties and students
through quality education and willing
integration. For example, the Board has
disregarded the development of curricula of
unusual quality which would serve all parts
of the community, including nonpublic
197a
schools, and which would attract white
families who are sending children to
parochial schools and induce them to remain
in the city. The Board has also placed in
position of authority administrators and a
principal who do not support and work
against the principle of voluntary
integration.
XVI
The failure to implement the goals and
purposes covenanted with the Federal
government is reflected in the disharmonious
and inconsistent approaches taken by a staff
ignorant of or insensitive to the goals of
Walt Disney Magnet School, most particularly
in the approach to team teaching and in the
need for a creative individualized
curriculum. New teachers have been brought
into the school with no inservicing to help
198a
them understand and adjust to the unique
environment at Disney.
XVII
—- The defendants have adopted a policy
which permits racial and socio-economic
imbalance in the student population.
XVIII ie
Because of the deliberate policies of
the Board of Education of the City of
Chicago and its administrators, frustrating
the goals of voluntary integration of
teachers and students through voluntary
busing and quality education, the school
applications have declined from 2500 in 1979
to 1200 in 1980. During the period from
November 1978 to December 1979 (prior to any
Board cuts) more than 18 certified teachers
resigned or transferred from the school.
199a
XIX
The present school administrators have
undermined effective team teaching by
transferring teachers from one instructional
area within the school to another area, and
from one established team of teachers to
another, for no apparent educational reason.
Some of these teachers have filed their own
individual complaints with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, and one
teacher has already won her suit.
XX
The original program of parent and
community participation and input is not
being implemented. The Board of Education
of the City of Chicago and the Principal of
Walt Disney Magnet School consistently
reject recommendations made by committees of
the Walt Disney School Council that would
increase integration. In 1980 there existed
200a
a list of 150 parent volunteers for the
first floor. These parents were never
contacted by the school, and the Council's
request for a parent coordinator was denied.
Also, all Council requests to be included in
administrative planning and decision-making
were denied. The School Community
Coordinator position, which existed for 10
years and which as a CETA position after
1975, was allowed to lapse when the
principal failed to refill the vacancy with
a new CETA worker [sic].
XXI
An important concept in the original
specifications was the involvement of
Northwestern University in teacher selection
and training, and in curriculum development.
This once-strong relationship, in existence
for seven years, has been all but severed by
the present administration.
20la
XXIT
The Board of Education of the City of
Chicago deliberately and drastically cut the
Communication Arts Center staff by one-half.
The Center serves not only the Disney
student population but also the entire
public school systen. Further, the Board
has completely failed to implement the
original plan to have this facility service
the non-school community as well.
XXIII
The original process developed by the
Disney Council and Northwestern University
for selection of teachers has been
disregarded by the current principal. Asa
result, teachers have been admitted who do
not believe in open classroom teaching,
integrated team teaching, and individualized
instruction, and who lack the flexibility
aaa
202a
needed to work successfully in the
environment.
XXIV
Walt Disney Magnet School has an excess
of uncertified teachers. On information and
belief plaintiffs allege that as of February
1980 there were approximately 53 uncertified
teachers (33% of the teaching staff).
XXV
The key to success at Walt Disney Magnet
School is the fact that parents will choose
voluntarily to send their children to a
school of the highest quality, integrated by
design. Also important is the input from
parents and from the University community.
The Board of Education of the City of
Chicago, its Administration and the
Principal of Walt Disney Magnet School have
chosen intentionally not to implement the
program and plan covenanted as the basis to
203a
obtain voluntary desegregation. The result
is that neither white, nor minority
children, nor the society at large have the
benefit of a quality integrated education.
XXVI
The acts and omissions of defendants as
alleged in this complaint have denied, and
will continue to deny to plaintiffs their
right to equality in public education
without regard to race and to freedom from
discrimination in the operation of public
schools. By reason of said acts and
omissions, and particularly by reason of the
breach of the covenants entered by
defendants ard the breach of the public
trust, the rights
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.