Bradley v. Milliken, Civ. A. No. 35257.
| Decision Date | 24 April 1984 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 35257. |
| Citation | 585 F. Supp. 348 |
| Parties | Ronald BRADLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. William G. MILLIKEN, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
George T. Roumell, Jr., Thomas M.J. Hathaway, Riley & Roumell, Detroit, Mich., Gerald Young, Paul J. Zimmer, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., State of Michigan, Lansing, Mich., for School Bd.
Theodore Sachs, Detroit, Mich., for Union.
William Waterman, Pontiac, Mich., for LULAC.
Thomas I. Atkins, Gen. Counsel, N.A.A. C.P., Brooklyn, N.Y., Duane Elston, Detroit, Mich., Paul R. Dimond, O'Brien, Moran & Stein, Ann Arbor, Mich., for N.A.A. C.P.
Before FEIKENS, Chief Judge, and CHURCHILL and COHN, District Judges.
On April 13, 1983 we ordered a hearing on the future of the Court's Monitoring Commission and the manner of assuring compliance with orders in this case relating to the educational components.
The order was prompted by our concern over the environment in which the Monitoring Commission appeared to be operating. We are of the opinion that implementation of the educational components of the remedial orders should be an integral part of the responsibilities of the Detroit Board of Education and viewed by it in the same manner as its other responsibilities. We are of the opinion that our oversight responsibilities under the remedial orders and the manner in which courts usually operate to enforce such orders might distort the political processes which govern elected boards of education in Michigan.
Before further addressing this concern, there are several matters that require attention. Following written responses from the parties to the order of April 13, 1983, we delayed the hearing so that we could receive and review the reports of the Detroit Board on its implementation of the educational components as required by our order of August 28, 1981 approving the stipulation of the parties regarding the continuation and eventual phasing out of the educational components. This order envisioned a process of reporting, analysis, recommendations and implementation.
On June 1, 1983 the Detroit Board filed its final report on the inservice training and the testing components, which it supplemented on August 22, 1983. The State Superintendent of Public Instruction filed an analysis of the Detroit Board's report on July 1, 1983. The State Superintendent, after receiving additional information from the Detroit Board, filed a final analysis on November 15, 1983. We conclude that the Detroit Board has completed its obligations as to these components and has no further responsibility with regard to them.
On July 1, 1983 the Detroit Board filed its report as to the reading, guidance and counseling, bilingual education, vocational education, uniform student code of conduct, and school-community relations components. The State Superintendent filed his analysis on August 1, 1983. The Detroit Board filed a supplemental report as to the student code of conduct on August 19, 1983. On September 19, 1983, because of the inadequacies of the Detroit Board's report, we informally directed a further report and further analysis. A supplemental report was filed by the Detroit Board on November 1, 1983, and the State Superintendent supplemented his initial analysis on November 15, 1983. During this period two events occurred which sharpened the concerns which had prompted our order of April 13, 1983.
Within three weeks following the Detroit Board's July 1, 1983 report, the Monitoring Commission issued a response to the report sharply critical of the Detroit Board's performance as to the student code of conduct. The Detroit Federation of Teachers thereafter moved to cite the Detroit Board for contempt for its failure to properly implement the student code of conduct, relying on the response of the Monitoring Commission as the basis for its motion and proof of noncompliance by the Detroit Board. The Detroit Board answered the motion by taking exception to the Monitoring Commission's review and the Monitoring Commission responded with equal vigor to the Detroit Board's answer. Our follow-up to these filings disclosed that the student code of conduct had been promulgated directly by a court order, that the Detroit Board has never formally adopted the student code of conduct, and that any changes in the text of the student code of conduct require our approval. Additionally our review of the laws of Michigan relating to the authority of the State Board of Education, the State Superintendent and the Detroit Board tells us that there is ample legal authority for placing complete responsibility for assuring discipline in the Detroit schools, which is the goal of the student code of conduct, in these statutorily constituted agencies without the need of court supervision.
We neither condone nor condemn the Detroit Board's performance in this important area of school administration. Clearly there are shortcomings. However, the problems of student discipline are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bradley v. Milliken
...the uniform code of student conduct and the monitoring commission. Bradley v. Milliken, 772 F.2d 266 (6th Cir.1985), vacating 585 F.Supp. 348 (E.D.Mich.1984). We held that the district court had failed to provide the parties with adequate notice and a hearing regarding the propriety of term......
-
Bradley v. Milliken
...stipulation and on August 28, 1981, it adopted the stipulation as an order of the court. On April 24, 1984, the district court, 585 F.Supp. 348 (D.C.Mich.1984), entered the order which is the subject of this appeal. It held that the court-ordered code of student conduct would be terminated ......
- Hart v. Cash, Civ. No. 84-2072.