Liddell v. Board of Educ. of City of St. Louis, State of Mo., s. 86-1511
| Decision Date | 09 June 1987 |
| Docket Number | 87-1275,87-1301 and 87-1355,86-1565,Nos. 86-1511,s. 86-1511 |
| Parties | 40 Ed. Law Rep. 685 Craton LIDDELL, et al. v. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF ST. LOUIS, STATE OF MISSOURI, et al. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF ST. LOUIS, STATE OF MISSOURI, Appellant, v. The STATE OF MISSOURI; Arthur Mallory, Commissioner of Education of the State of Missouri, in his official capacity; The State of Missouri Board of Education; John Ashcroft, Governor of the State of Missouri; William Webster, Attorney General of the State of Missouri; Wendell Bailey, Treasurer of the State of Missouri; Stephen C. Bradford, Commissioner of Administration of the State of Missouri; the State of Missouri Board of Education and its members. Erwin A. Williamson (President), Jimmy Robertson (Vice-President), Grover A. Gamm, Delmar A. Cobble, Dale M. Thompson, Donald W. Shelton and Robert Welling, Appellees, United States, Appellee. (Two Cases) Craton LIDDELL, et al. v. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF ST. LOUIS, STATE OF MISSOURI, et al. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF ST. LOUIS, STATE OF MISSOURI, Appellee, v. The STATE OF MISSOURI; Arthur Mallory, Commissioner of Education of the State of Missouri, in his official capacity; The State of Missouri Board of Education; John Ashcroft, Governor of the State of Missouri; William Webster, Attorney General of the State of Missouri; Wendell Bailey, Treasurer of the State of Missouri; Stephen C. Bradford, Commissioner of Administration of the State of Missouri; the State of Missouri Board of Education and its members. Erwin A. Williamson (President), Jimmy Robertson (Vice-President), Grover A. Gamm, Delmar A. Cobble, Dale M. Thompson, Donald W. Shelton and Robert Welling, Appellants. Craton LIDDELL, et al. v. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF ST. LOUIS, STATE OF MISSOURI, et al. SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, Appellant, v. The STATE OF MISSOURI; Arthur Mallory, Commissioner of Education of the State of Missouri, in his official capacity; The State of Missouri Board of Education |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Kenneth C. Brostron, St. Louis, Mo., for the Bd. of Educ. of the City of St. Louis.
Jordan Cherrick, St. Louis, Mo. (argued), for the Special School dist.
Robert Presson, Atty. Gen.'s office, Jefferson City, Mo., for the State of Mo.
Frank D. Allen, Jr., Washington, D.C., for appellee the U.S.
William Russell, St. Louis, Mo., for Liddell parties.
Before HEANEY, McMILLIAN and FAGG, Circuit Judges.
At issue in this appeal is the fate of a recent district court plan for the further integration of the vocational schools of the St. Louis metropolitan area. 1 The district court decided that South Tech and West Tech should be closed and that all vocational classes should be taught at North Tech in the county or O'Fallon in the city. It assigned programs to each school, revised racial goals, established the conditions of transfer, and entered orders relating to the financing of the new plan. It also denied the request of the City Board to re-establish a four-year vocational program at O'Fallon. The Special School District, the City Board, the State of Missouri appeal. The United States filed no separate appeal but submitted a brief in which it argues that the district court should be affirmed in part and reversed in part. It expresses no opinion as to certain issues. (No party contests the closing of West Tech.)
We affirm the district court's decision to deny the City Board permission to re-establish a four-year vocational school at O'Fallon. We direct that an evidentiary hearing be held before a final decision is made to close South Tech and to consolidate all vocational education at one or more county vocational technical schools and O'Fallon. We remand to the district court with directions to conduct such a hearing and thereafter to enter an appropriate order. We set forth herein the factors which we believe to be important to that decision.
We affirm the decisions of the district court to require the State of Missouri to pay all interdistrict transportation costs, to allocate the costs of relocation of equipment to the State, the Special School District, and the City Board, and to expand the powers of the Metropolitan Coordinating Committee. In this connection, the district court must be satisfied that each school district can finance its share of these costs without adversely affecting the desegregation programs which have heretofore been mandated by this Court. Those desegregation programs include the magnet schools, smaller classes, and remedial and compensatory programs in the all black schools. If the district court is not satisfied that this can be done, it must enter funding orders consistent with this Court's prior decisions.
In 1980, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri found that the vocational high schools in metropolitan St. Louis, operated by the Board of Education of the City of St. Louis (City Board) and the Board of Education of the Special School District of St. Louis County (Special School District), were segregated. See Liddell v. Board of Education, 491 F.Supp. 351 (E.D.Mo.1980). 2 It found the State of Missouri had established and maintained a dual vocational system for the purpose of keeping the Special School District's vocational high schools in St. Louis County predominantly white and the City's vocational school (O'Fallon) predominantly black. Id. at 358.
The district court ordered the State and the City Board "[t]o develop and submit to the Court by November 1, 1980, a plan for the consolidation or merger and full desegregation of the separate vocational educational programs operated by the Special School District of St. Louis County and the school district of the City of St. Louis, for implementation in the 1981-82 school year." Id. at 353. The State appealed to this Court. We affirmed. Liddell v. Board of Education (Liddell IV), 667 F.2d 643, 651 (8th Cir.1981).
On remand, the State and the Special School District resisted consolidation. 3 Thereafter, the United States, the State, the Special School District, the City Board, and other parties entered a consent decree which adopted a plan, commonly referred to as the "12(b) plan," for voluntarily desegregating the vocational schools. 4 The district court included that plan as part of its June 11, 1981, order. The order also provided that the State, as the primary constitutional violator, had a responsibility with respect to funding the plan. See order of June 11, 1981, H(181)81 at 2, 9-10. The State and a parents group appealed the order (and other associated orders). The State argued that it should not be expected to provide any funding for the plan, and the parents group urged this Court to require that the two school districts be merged or consolidated.
In Liddell V, we approved the 12(b) plan as adopted by the district court. 677 F.2d at 632-38. We noted that if the plan did not result in the integration of the vocational schools, the district court could either order a complete merger, modify the plan, or adopt another plan. Id. at 636. We affirmed the district court holding that funding orders could be imposed against the State. Id. at 638.
Under the 12(b) plan, the Special School District and the St. Louis School District remained separate entities responsible for the operation of their respective schools. See 12(b) Plan, H(133)81, supra at 1. Accordingly, the Special School District would continue to operate North County Technical High School (North Tech), South County Technical High School (South Tech), and, upon its opening in 1982, West County Technical High School (West Tech). The City Board would continue to operate O'Fallon Technical High School (O'Fallon).
The Metropolitan Coordinating Committee (MCC) was formed and given the authority to administer the 12(b) plan. The MCC consisted of five members, two appointed by the City Board, two appointed by the Special School District, and one appointed by the State. See id. at 1. The responsibilities of the MCC included and currently include: establishing the vocational school curricula; determining where each program could be offered; recruiting students; reviewing programs; developing its budget; developing and locating new vocational programs; and recommending alternative uses for facilities. See id. at 2; 654 F.Supp. at 335.
The 12(b) plan required that programs be allocated so as to achieve a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stanley v. Darlington County School Dist.
...below, held those states liable for more than fifty percent of the costs of desegregation. Little Rock, 778 F.2d 404; Liddell v. Missouri, 822 F.2d 1446 (8th Cir. 1987); Jenkins v. Missouri, 855 F.2d 1295, 1308 (8th Cir.1988); Milliken II, 433 U.S. at 289, 97 S.Ct. at 2761-62; Brinkman v. G......
-
Liddell v. Special School Dist., s. 98-1710
...district court had the authority to direct a complete merger with a unified governing and taxing structure. See Liddell v. Board of Educ., 822 F.2d 1446, 1460 (8th Cir.1987). When the voluntary plan failed to meet the court-established desegregation goals, the district court directed the pa......
-
Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski County Special School Dist. No. 1, L
...abrogate a collective bargaining agreement which perpetuates segregation or impedes a desegregation plan. Cf. Liddell v. Board of Education, 822 F.2d 1446, 1458 (8th Cir.1987) (court created entity has power to make certain teacher staffing decisions). The agreements between a school distri......
- United States v. Sangiovanni