United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ., Civ. A. No. 80 CIV. 6761 (LBS).

CourtUnited States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
Citation635 F. Supp. 1538
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 80 CIV. 6761 (LBS).
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, and Yonkers Branch, NAACP, et al., Plaintiffs-Intervenors, v. YONKERS BOARD OF EDUCATION, City of Yonkers and Yonkers Community Development Agency, Defendants.
Decision Date13 May 1986

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civ. Div., Joshua P. Bogin, Kenneth Barnes, Michael L. Barrett, Sarah Vanderwicken, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff U.S.

Michael H. Sussman, Brooklyn, N.Y., for plaintiffs-intervenors N.A.A.C.P.

Vedder, Price, Kaufman, Kammholz & Day, Michael W. Sculnick, Gerald S. Hartman, Nicholas J. D'Ambrosio, Jr., New York City, for defendants City of Yonkers and Yonkers Community Development Agency.

Butzel, Long, Gust, Klein & Van Zile, John B. Weaver, John H. Dudley, Mark T. Nelson, Detroit, Mich., Hall, Dickler, Lawler, Kent & Howley, Paul Whitby, New York City, for defendant Yonkers Bd. of Educ.

U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civ. Div., Raymond M. Larizza, Calvin E. Davis, Kirk Victor, John W. Herold, Office of Litigation, U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Renewal, Washington, D.C., for third-party defendant Dept. of Housing & Urban Development.

ORDER FOR DESEGREGATION OF THE YONKERS PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM

SAND, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

On November 20, 1985, this Court held that actions taken by the City of Yonkers and the Board of Education, with respect to housing and public schools, were in whole or in part intentionally segregative. United States v. Yonkers Board of Education 624 F.Supp. 1276 (S.D.N.Y.1985). On December 18, 1985 the Court established a schedule for the action's remedy phase. The Yonkers Board of Education and the City of Yonkers were directed to submit remedy proposals on or before February 17, 1986.

On February 17, 1986, the Yonkers Board of Education submitted to the Court and the parties its proposed remedial plan, entitled "Educational Improvement Plan for the Yonkers Public School System". The United States and Plaintiffs-Intervenors (hereinafter "the NAACP") filed their responses to the Board's remedial proposal by March 12, 1986. On April 2, 1986 the Board filed modifications to its original remedial proposal, entitled "Modifications to the Educational Improvement Plan submitted on February 17, 1986" to which the United States and the NAACP filed responses by April 7, 1986.

The Court conducted a hearing from April 8, 1986 through April 15, 1986 receiving testimony and documentary evidence to assist it in fashioning an appropriate remedy for the unlawful condition of segregation found to exist in the Yonkers Public Schools.

On April 22, 1986, this Court issued its opinion and Proposed Remedial Order. On May 7, 1986, the Board submitted its Response and Objections to the Court's Proposed Remedial Order. Following consultation with all the parties the Court hereby sets forth its order for the desegregation of the Yonkers Public School System.

A. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES

The implementation strategies which form the foundation for the Yonkers public schools Educational Improvement Plan shall include:

1. School Closings

The district shall close the following schools effective September, 1986:

School # 6 School # 10 School # 11 School # 32 School # 34 Fermi Middle School Hawthorne Middle School Yonkers High School

2. Elementary Schools

The district shall operate the following elementary schools effective September, 1986:

School # 5 School # 8 School # 9 School # 13 School # 14 School # 16 School # 17 School # 19 School # 21 School # 22 School # 23 School # 26 School # 28 School # 29 School # 30 Enrico Fermi

The attendance zones for these schools shall be those areas set forth in Appendix A. During the 1986-87 school year, the Board shall develop and begin to implement attendance area magnet programs designated for School 19 and Enrico Fermi, to open September 1987.

3. Dedicated Magnet Schools

The district shall operate dedicated magnet schools to reduce racial/ethnic isolation by attracting students to programs that emphasize areas of special interest. Students will be recruited to leave their regular attendance zone school to enroll in schools that have no specific attendance zone. The district shall operate the following district-wide dedicated magnet schools effective September, 1986:

School # 10 — Early Childhood Center (Pre-K)
PEARLS — Gifted and Talented (Pre K-6) Hudson River Museum Junior High School — Science, Social Studies and Creative Arts, Gifted and Talented (7-9)
Saunders Trades, Technical, Business and Computer High School (and Academic Magnet Component)

Until the new Hudson River Junior High School is completed the 7-9 Gifted and Talented magnet program currently housed in Emerson and Mark Twain will be moved to Hawthorne. In addition, the 4-6 Gifted and Talented component of the PEARLS program planned for September, 1986 will also be housed in Hawthorne. Upon opening of the Hudson River Junior High School Hawthorne shall house the PEARLS program Pre K-6. Until the new Hudson River Junior High School is completed, the Pre K-3 component of the PEARLS program will be housed in School # 32.

Admission criteria for dedicated magnet schools, as well as for other magnet and specialized programs, will be submitted to a court appointed Monitor by June 1, 1986 for the magnet schools and programs to be implemented in September 1986 and by January 15, 1987 for the magnet schools and programs to be implemented in September 1987. Any party may offer its comments on such criteria to the Monitor. This procedure will be followed whenever a new program is slated to commence in the ensuing school term. All magnet students will take the required subjects and course work necessary for promotion and graduation, and all high school magnet students will have the opportunity to meet college entrance requirements. By June 15, 1986 the Board shall provide the Monitor and the parties with a description of the academic magnet program to be offered at Saunders.

4. Attendance Area Magnet Schools

The district shall operate the following attendance area magnet schools effective September, 1986:

School # 18 — Scholastic Academy for Traditional Education (K-6)
School # 25 — Science, Social Studies, Physical Development, Creative Arts, Extended Day (K-6) School # 27 — Montessori, Humanities and Creative Arts, Extended Day (K-6) Martin Luther King — High Technology Computer Assisted Instruction, Extended Day (K-6)
Burroughs Junior High School — Career Development and Pre-Vocational (7-9)
Emerson Junior High School — Performing and Visual Arts, Multilingual Education (7-9)
Mark Twain Junior High School — Physical Development (7-9)
Gorton Senior High School — Pre-Professional Magnet Program (10-12)
Lincoln Senior High School — Performing Arts Magnet Program (10-12)
Roosevelt Senior High School — Communication Arts Magnet Program (10-12)

Effective September 1987, the following additional attendance area magnet schools will be opened:

School # Multilanguage Options — Global Perspective (K-6)
Enrico Fermi — Computer Assisted Instruction and Performing Arts (K-6)

The attendance zones for all of the attendance area magnet schools are set forth in Appendix A.

For the first year of this Order the attendance area elementary magnet school will be integrated by admission policy which will afford an opportunity for enrollment to all students in the district to the maximum extent consistent with the integrative goals of the Order. In implementing this policy the Board may impose such limitations as shall be appropriate to achieve its objectives.

At the secondary level attendance area students and interested magnet students from throughout the district will be selected by application controlling for racial and ethnic balance.

5. Voluntary Student Transfers — VST

The district shall direct a Voluntary Student Transfer program permitting minority students who attend predominantly minority schools to transfer to non-minority schools. Conversely, white students attending predominantly white schools may transfer to predominantly minority schools of their choice for the same reason. The purpose of such transfers is to enhance the racial/ethnic balance of the receiving school. Such transfers will not be permitted, however, if they would adversely impact on the racial composition of either the receiving or the sending school.

To encourage Voluntary Student Transfers, enrichment and supplemental programs will be established in those schools where sufficient seating capacity has been identified.

B. SCHOOL DISTRICT ORGANIZATION

The district shall establish a K-6, 7-9, 10-12 grade pattern organization as follows:

                                                                                                         CIS = Compensatory Infusion Services
                                   PROPOSED ORDER—SCHOOL                                                 CAI = Computer Assisted Instruction
                                   DISTRICT REORGANIZATION                                               VST = Voluntary Student Transfer
                 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                |   School   |    Current Organization   |       Proposed Organization          |              Program Description*               |
                |------------|---------------------------|--------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
                | #5         |  K-6 Neighborhood School  |  K-6 Neighborhood VST School         |  Writing to Read; Kindermath                       |
                | #6         |  K-6 Neighborhood School  |  CLOSED                              |  -                                                 |
                | #8         |  K-6 Neighborhood School  |  K-6 Neighborhood VST School         |  Project Zoo                                       |
                | #9         |  K-6 Neighborhood School  |  K-6 Neighborhood School
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Coalition to Save Our Children v. BD. OF EDUC., Civ. A. No. 1816-1822 MMS.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • February 1, 1991
    ...108 S.Ct. 2821, 100 L.Ed.2d 922 (1988) (affirming mandatory techniques imposed by the district court at United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ., 635 F.Supp. 1538 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)); United States v. Pittman by Pittman, 808 F.2d 385, 389 (5th Cir.1987); Liddell v. State of Missouri, 731 F.2d 129......
  • U.S. v. Yonkers Branch—Naacp
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • November 30, 2000
    ...we ordered a remedy, which came to be known as the "educational improvement plan," or "EIP I." See United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ., 635 F.Supp. 1538 (S.D.N.Y.1986) ("Yonkers II"), aff'd, 837 F.2d 1181 (2d Cir.1987). The centerpiece of EIP I was a voluntary magnet school program that w......
  • U.S. v. City of Yonkers
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • August 1, 1998
    ...A year later, the district court issued its remedial order for the Yonkers schools. See United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ., 635 F. Supp. 1538 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (Sand, J.) ("Yonkers II"). Its stated goal was to achieve the desegregation of the student population in every school in the syste......
  • U.S. v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ., s. 832-834
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • December 28, 1987
    ...remedy proposals from the parties and conducting an evidentiary hearing, the court issued its school remedy order, reported at 635 F.Supp. 1538 (1986). As an overall goal, the order provided that the Board "shall seek to achieve" desegregation throughout the Yonkers public school system by ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • EFFECTIVE SCHOOL-INTEGRATION MOBILIZATION: THE CASE FOR NON-LITIGATION ADVOCACY AND IMPACT.
    • United States
    • Fordham Urban Law Journal Vol. 48 No. 2, February 2021
    • February 1, 2021
    ...(82.) For example, former Deputy Chancellor Bernard Gifford. See id. (83.) See, e.g., United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ, 635 F. Supp. 1538, 1541 (S.D.N.Y. 1986), aff'd, 837 F.2d 1181 (2d Cir. 1987) (mandating a desegregation plan including the creation of magnet schools and implementatio......

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