Reed v. Rhodes, C73-1300.

Decision Date15 May 1979
Docket NumberNo. C73-1300.,C73-1300.
Citation472 F. Supp. 615
PartiesRobert Anthony REED et al., Plaintiffs, v. James A. RHODES et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

James L. Hardiman, Theresa Demchak, Cleveland, Ohio, Nathaniel R. Jones, New York City, Thomas I. Atkins, Roxbury, Mass., for plaintiffs.

Jeremiah Glassman, Michael Sussman, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae, United States of America.

Mark O'Neill, Weston, Hurd, Fallon, Paisley & Howley, George I. Meisel, James P. Murphy, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, John H. Bustamante, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendants.

ORDER

BATTISTI, Chief Judge.

The February 6, 1978 remedial order stated that "magnet schools and programs can be an important component in the desegregation process." The order highlighted the Court's concern that desegregation planning be effective in achieving satisfactory academic goals as well as in ending racial discrimination. The magnet school concept was adopted as one technique available to defendants which could be used to accomplish these two important goals.1

The magnet school concept was not sufficiently defined or elaborated in the February 6, 1978 order. The order set forth the obligation of defendants to develop a comprehensive plan for magnets to insure that if magnets were attempted, they would "mesh with other aspects of desegregation, in particular pupil assignment, school closings, transportation, and finances." The order, however, did not specify the content or structure of magnet programs except for a reference to the location of magnet facilities.

Magnet school programs can be an educationally sound way to minimize the impact of desegregation. If thoughtfully developed, a school district can improve and broaden its curricular offerings and thereby provide exciting alternatives to the traditional format and subject matter. A magnet school program created in the midst of desegregation planning must operate, first and foremost, to achieve the proper racial balance required of all schools in the system. The magnet school, however, is different from the non-magnet school because its student body is determined by the voluntary choice of the students and parents. The magnet schools, therefore, must incorporate either a style of teaching or an educational focus which provides a meaningful alternative to the traditional curriculum and method of teaching in the rest of the system. The method of selection of students and the location of the school must be devised to attract the appropriate racial composition to pass constitutional muster.

A comparison of magnet programs from throughout the country shows that magnet schools have accomplished a number of educational goals. For example, they have provided an opportunity to teach the basic curriculum with greater attention to particular learning problems and to individual aptitude, e. g. Montessori programs. Also, they have offered a special substantive focus around which the basic curriculum has been targeted, e. g., a business magnet, a health science magnet. In almost all cases, despite the school's particular special program or focus, the school has provided a sufficiently diverse educational background to prepare a student for a variety of career opportunities. The student's post-secondary school mobility would, thereby, be enhanced and not impaired by his participation in a magnet school program.

The Cleveland Board believes that an accurate definition of magnet schools is contained in the regulations promulgated by the Office of Education of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare relating to the Emergency School Aid Act. The definition is contained in Subpart k, section 185.01 which provides as follows:

"`Magnet school' means a school or education center that offers a special curriculum capable of attracting substantial numbers of students of different racial backgrounds.
"`Special curriculum' means a course of study embracing subject matter or a teaching methodology that is not generally offered to students of the same age or grade level, and in the same local education agency, as the students to whom the special curriculum is offered. This term does not include —
"(1) A course of study or a part of a course of study designed solely to provide basic educational services to handicapped students or to students of limited English speaking ability; or
"(2) A course of study or a part of a course of study in which any student is unable to participate because of his or her limited English-speaking ability; or
"(3) A course of study or a part of a course of study in which any student is unable to participate because of his or her limited financial resources; or
"(4) A course of study or a part of a course of study which fails to provide for a participating student's meeting the requirements for completion of elementary or secondary education in the same period as other students enrolled in the applicant's schools."

The Court hereby adopts the H.E.W. definition 45 C.F.R. §§ 185.101-102 with the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Reed v. Rhodes
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • June 10, 1999
  • Reed v. Rhodes, 1:73 CV 1300.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • May 8, 1996
    ......          APPENDIX C .          SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT .          SECTION 1 â I THE PARTIES .         The Parties to this Agreement are all of the parties in the Cleveland school desegregation case, Reed v. Rhodes, Case No. C73-1300 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. They are: The class of all African-American pupils in the Cleveland public schools and their parents, represented by the named representatives of the Plaintiff class and their counsel ("Plaintiffs"); the Board ......
  • Reed v. Rhodes
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • May 15, 1979
    ...472 F. Supp. 612. Robert Anthony REED et al., Plaintiffs,. v. James A. RHODES et al., Defendants. No. C73-1300. United States District Court, N. D. Ohio, E. D. May 15, 1979.        James L. Hardiman, Theresa Demchak, Cleveland, Ohio, Nathaniel R. Jones, New York City, Thomas I. Atkins, Roxbury, Mass., for plaintiffs.         Jeremiah Glassman, Michael Sussman, Dept. of Justice, Washington, ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT