Dowell v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF OKLAHOMA CITY PUB. SCH., Civ. No. 9452.
| Citation | 307 F. Supp. 583 |
| Decision Date | 17 January 1970 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 9452. |
| Parties | Robert L. DOWELL, an infant, who sues by A. L. Dowell, his father and next friend, Plaintiffs, v. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the OKLAHOMA CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; and Superintendent of the Oklahoma City Public Schools, Defendants, and The McWilliams, Hendrickson and Baker Groups, Intervenors. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma |
John W. Walker and Philip E. Kaplan, Little Rock, Ark., and Archibald B. Hill, Jr., Oklahoma City, Okl., for plaintiffs. by A. L. Dowell.
J. Harry Johnson, Leslie L. Conner and James M. Little, Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendants by members of the Board of Education of the Oklahoma City Public Schools and by their counsel.
George F. Short, Norman E. Reynolds and George S. Guysi, Oklahoma City, Okl., for the McWilliams group (Belle Isle Neighborhood association).
William G. Smith, C. Harold Thweatt and Robert H. Warren, Oklahoma City, Okl., for the Hendrickson group (Linwood neighborhood association).
J. Howard Edmondson and Joe Cannon, Oklahoma City, Okl., for the Baker group (intervening plaintiffs allegedly representing some 10,000 persons, members of the Neighborhood School Association).
The Defendant, in its proposed Amendment filed with the Clerk of this Court on January 12, 1970, asked that this Court permit the following requested change in its Comprehensive Plan of Desegregation, which Comprehensive Plan was filed on November 6, 1969:
It is the Order of this Court that said Amendment be, and the same is hereby denied, and it is especially ordered that the attendance area for Northeast High School, John Marshall High School and Northwest Classen High School be and remain the same as for the school year 1969-70 until further order of the Court.
The Court finds that said proposed Amendment, if approved, would be a retreat from the steps thus far taken to desegregate the Oklahoma City Public School System.
The Court is requested to approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for Complete Desegregation of Junior and Senior High Schools of the Oklahoma City Public Schools after the 1969-70 school year, filed herein on November 6, 1969, which amendment would change the first paragraph on page 7 of the Plan to read as follows:
(s) J. Harry Johnson Attorney for Defendants.
OKLAHOMA CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
December 19, 1969
Pupil Membership by Grade and Race
%
HARDING NEGRO OTHER TOTAL NEGRO
7th 113 332 445 25.4
8th 141 321 462 30.5
9th 107 288 395 27.1
7-9 361 941 1302 27.8
NORTHEAST
10th 144 272 416 34.6
11th 134 222 356 37.7
12th 151 109 260 58.0
10-12 429 603 1032 41.6
Predictions For 1970-71 If Boundaries Are Returned to Those In
Effect During The 1968-69 School Year
HARDING
7th 187 194 381 49.1
8th 162 181 343 47.2
9th 148 168 316 46.8
7-9 497 543 1040 47.8
NORTHEAST
10th 150 149 299 50.2
11th 248 132 380 65.3
12th 168 112 280 60.0
10-12 566 393 959 59.0
OPINION AND ORDER
On December 15, 1969, after notice to all interested parties, this case came on regularly for hearing to consider the Comprehensive Plan for Complete Desegregation of the Junior and Senior High Schools of the Oklahoma City Public Schools filed herein on November 6, 1969. The plaintiffs appeared by A. L. Dowell and their counsel, John W. Walker and Philip E. Kaplan of Little Rock, Arkansas, and Archibald B. Hill, Jr., of Oklahoma City. The Defendants appeared by members of the Board of Education of the Oklahoma City Public Schools and by their counsel, J. Harry Johnson, Leslie L. Conner and James M. Little of Oklahoma City. The McWilliams group (Belle Isle Neighborhood association) was represented by George F. Short, Norman E. Reynolds and George S. Guysi of Oklahoma City. The Hendrickson group (Linwood neighborhood association) was represented by William G. Smith, C. Harold Thweatt and Robert C. Warren of Oklahoma City. Additionally, the Baker group (intervening plaintiffs allegedly representing some 10,000 persons, members of the Neighborhood School Association) was represented by J. Howard Edmondson and Joe Cannon of Oklahoma City.1 A full evidential hearing was then held wherein the defendants, the plaintiffs and the intervenors offered oral and documentary evidence.2
From the evidence, the Court finds:
FACTS
On November 5, 1969, the Board of Education of the Oklahoma City Public Schools (herein referred to as the Board), by unanimous vote, adopted a comprehensive plan for complete desegregation of the Oklahoma City Secondary schools; and on November 6, 1969, filed such plan with this Court.3
The Plan is a new concept in school utilization; it views all secondary schools as a unitary system.4 (A copy of such Plan, as supplemented, is appended and made a part of this Opinion and Order.5
A variety of approaches are combined: the neighborhood schools, the specialized centers, the educational park, and modular scheduling. In addition, the Plan calls for maximum use of physical facilities, faculties and staff personnel.
The Oklahoma City high schools will be divided into two clusters and within each cluster every school will serve two purposes: (1) It will be a home-base school for students who live within its geographical attendance area; (2) It will be a Center offering a full curricular program in a specialized field. Students will participate in certain prescribed activities in the school located in their attendance area and will move to other schools, within the Cluster, for course work in other fields.6
On the junior high school level, one predominantly black school will be closed and its population divided among six predominantly white schools.7 The predominantly black seventh grade of another school will be reassigned to a predominantly white school.8
Each school, in its role as home-base, will offer to its resident students some elective courses and activities such as physical education, athletics, and music. In its role as a specialized center, it will in addition offer a full range of courses in that particular curriculum to students from several attendance areas, including its own.9
The advantages of the home-base-specialized center plan will be felt in all areas of the educational process. By concentrating materials, equipment and staff involved in each academic discipline in a special location, the finest of each will be available to students on an equal opportunity basis; and such concentration will make possible the acquisition of a larger variety of such materials by eliminating the need for duplicating the same facilities in all the schools.10 Moreover, advantages will accrue as to curriculum. At present, there are many courses which cannot be offered at all schools because of a limited demand, a lack of facilities, or a shortage of teaching personnel.11 Through the concentration of all three of these elements, the present curriculum can be readily expanded.12 And this obvious benefit will be accented by modular scheduling calculated to personalize the program for each student.13
This division of the high schools into two clusters minimizes the problems of access and transportation.14 Students will spend varying amounts of time each week in each of the Centers, but not less than half the school day at any one Center. The exact amount will be determined based upon each student's needs and requirements.15
The plan's structure insures positive and constructive desegregation regardless of wide variation in individual scheduling. Active recruitment of voluntary majority to minority transfers throughout the system at all grade levels will continue and will also be the policy at the home-base schools.16 Moreover, even that student who spends most of his time in his home-base school will be regularly exposed to students from all ethnic groups in the specialized...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dowell v. BD. OF EDUC. OF OKLAHOMA CITY PUB. SCH., No. CIV-61-9452-B.
...responsibility to "create and maintain a unitary educational system," not to reverse residential segregation. Dowell v. Board of Educ., 307 F.Supp. 583, 594 (W.D.Okla. 1970).43 Any discriminatory school board policies adopted after the de jure residential segregation practices were nullifie......
-
Dowell by Dowell v. Board of Educ. of Oklahoma City Public Schools, Independent Dist. No. 89, Oklahoma City, Okl.
...court stated on several occasions that residential segregation in Oklahoma City was not attributable to defendant. Dowell, 307 F.Supp. 583, 594 (W.D.Okla.1970) ("[t]he Board did not originate patterns of residential racial segregation"); Dowell, 244 F.Supp. 971, 975 ("Negroes in Oklahoma Ci......
-
Dowell v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF OKLAHOMA CITY PUB. SCH., Civ. No. 9452.
...L. Dowell et al. v. School Board of Oklahoma City Public Schools, 244 F.Supp. 971 (1965); Robert L. Dowell v. Board of Education of the Oklahoma City Public Schools, 307 F.Supp. 583 (1970). It should also be noted, perhaps, that on August 21, 1970, this court entered an order, on its own mo......
-
Dowell v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF OKLAHOMA CITY PUB. SCH.
...Board of Oklahoma City Public Schools, D.C., 219 F.Supp. 427; Dowell v. School Board etc., D.C., 244 F.Supp. 971; Dowell v. Board of Education etc., D.C., 307 F.Supp. 583; Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools etc. v. Dowell, 10 Cir., 375 F.2d 158; Dowell v. Board of Education ......