Manning v. School Bd. of Hillsborough County, Fla.
| Decision Date | 26 October 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 58-3554-CIV-T-17.,58-3554-CIV-T-17. |
| Parties | Andrew L. MANNING, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE SCHOOL BOARD OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA (formerly Board of Public Instruction of Hillsborough County, Florida), et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
Warren H. Dawson, Dawson & Griffin, P.A., Tampa, FL, Victor A. Bolden, Marianne Engelman Lado, Jacqueline A. Berrien, NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., New York, NY, for Shayron B. Reed, Sandra E. Reed, Nathaniel Cannon, Norman Thomas Cannon, Tyrone Cannon, Darnel Cannon, Gail Rene Myers, plaintiffs.
Thomas M. Gonzalez, Thompson, Sizemore & Gonzalez, P.A., Tampa, FL, Walter Crosby Few, Few & Ayala, P.A., Tampa, FL, for Board of Public Instruction of Hillsborough County, FL, J. Crockett Farnell, defendants.
This cause comes before the Court on the Court's Order recommitting this matter to the Magistrate Judge for a determination of whether the Hillsborough County school system has attained unitary status (Docket No. 709), the assigned Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 809), Plaintiffs' Objections to Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 812), Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Objections (Docket No. 813), and Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Objections to Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 815).1 This action was filed on December 12, 1958.
Plaintiffs represent a class consisting of all black children who attended the public schools of Hillsborough County, and the parents and guardians of those children. The complaint alleged that Defendants, the Hillsborough County School Board (formerly Board of Public Instruction of Hillsborough County), acting under the color of state law, had operated, and continued to operate the public school system in Hillsborough County on a racially segregated basis.
The Court initially dismissed the complaint for the Plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies; however, the dismissal was reversed and remanded by the court of appeals. See Mannings v. Board of Public Instruction, 277 F.2d 370, 375 (5th Cir.1960). Subsequently, the Court conducted a bench trial and on August 21, 1962, entered an order finding that Defendants were, in fact, maintaining an unlawfully segregated system of public schools. Consequently, the Court enjoined Defendants from operating a racially discriminatory school system and allowed Defendants until October 30, 1962, in which to file a comprehensive plan for the desegregation of the Hillsborough County schools.
Despite the several desegregation plans devised by Defendants, the school system remained segregated. See Mannings v. Board of Public Instruction of Hillsborough County, 306 F.Supp. 497 (M.D.Fla.1969). Significantly, in 1971, the United States Supreme Court issued several opinions which defined with particularity the responsibilities of school authorities and the scope of powers of federal courts in eliminating state-imposed segregation in the public school systems. See Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971); North Carolina State Bd. of Education v. Swann, 402 U.S. 43, 91 S.Ct. 1284, 28 L.Ed.2d 586 (1971); McDaniel v. Barresi, 402 U.S. 39, 91 S.Ct. 1287, 28 L.Ed.2d 582 (1971); and Davis v. Board of School Commissioners, 402 U.S. 33, 91 S.Ct. 1289, 28 L.Ed.2d 577 (1971). On May 11, 1971, the Court entered an Order explaining that Hillsborough County's school system remained segregated and required Defendants to prepare and submit a comprehensive desegregation plan for the Hillsborough County school system.
In the May 11, 1971, Order, the Court explained that, despite the fact that black students comprised only 19% of the total student population, 69% of these students were attending twenty-eight (28) schools which had majority black populations. However, during this same time period, 69% of the white students attended 65 schools which were all, or at least 95% white. The Court emphasized that it had been unable to find a single instance in which Defendants had taken positive steps to end segregation at a black school and, consequently, segregation returned fortuitously. (May 11, 1971, Order at 39).
In order to remedy the constitutional violation, the Court directed Defendants to submit a comprehensive desegregation plan which was to become effective at the beginning of the 1971-1972 school year, and the Court provided Defendants with the following guidelines:
(a) The Plan shall have as its primary objective the abolition of segregation in all schools in the county, and in particular it shall aim at desegregation of all schools in the county now having a school population at least 50% black.
(b) In preparing the plan the school board shall begin with the proposition that a white-black ratio of 86%/14% in the senior high schools, and 79%/21% in the elementary schools would be the most acceptable and desirable form of desegregation.
(May 11, 1971, Order at 43-44). The May 11, 1971, Order primarily addressed Defendants' responsibility to remedy the segregative policies and practices in connection with student assignments. However, the Court also reiterated the importance of site location for new schools with regards to desegregation.
On July 2, 1971, the Court approved for implementation the comprehensive plan submitted by Defendants. ("July 2, 1971 or 1971 Order"). The plan approved by the Court provided that none of the established black schools would continue in their then existing configurations. Pursuant to the plan, physical plants that were serviceable would be converted to sixth and seventh grade centers. Those facilities which were not capable of conversion, were closed.
The 1971 desegregation plan was designed to desegregate student enrollments in grades one (1) through twelve (12); neither kindergarten nor pre-school was included.2 All schools were assigned attendance boundaries which, when combined with the transportation of certain students, was expected to eliminate all majority black schools. The students attending the predominately black schools were assigned to various schools based on the location of their residence or the transportation of groups of these students from satellite zones.3 As a result, black students were transported to provide racially mixed populations for grades one (1) through five (5), and eight (8) through twelve (12), whereas, white students were transported to sixth and seventh grade centers.
After the Court entered the July 2, 1971, Order, Plaintiffs filed a motion which requested that any desegregation plan adopted by the Court "include faculty desegregation and policies and general reporting provisions and that the Court retain jurisdiction." (Docket No. 243). The Court subsequently required Defendants to submit reports and retained jurisdiction, but did not grant Plaintiffs' request regarding faculty and staff assignments. Nevertheless, in a previous Order issued on August 25, 1970, the Court had directed that principals, teachers, teacher-aides, and other staff, who work directly with children at a school, be assigned so that the staff's racial composition would not reflect any intention that the school be either black or white. Teachers and other staff members were to be assigned so that the race ratio would be substantially similar to the system-wide ratio. In its July 2, 1971, Order, the Court continued these requirements, but specifically declined to require any detailed procedure with regard to faculty assignments, noting that, faculty desegregation "was accomplished at every school location in the 1970 school year;" therefore, no procedural requirements were necessary.
Also, in the July 2, 1971, Order, the Court explained that the previously ordered relief of majority-to-minority transfers, other transfer rules, and Bi-Racial Committee approval of site locations, may not be required if Defendants' plan was effectuated and accomplished. However, the Court required the continuation of each of these requirements "to be available and used as necessary." (July 2, 1971, Order at 9). In addition, the Court ordered Defendants to regularly reexamine their transportation system, all facilities, and all extracurricular activities, in order to assure that they were maintained, operated, and conducted on a nonsegregated, nondiscriminatory basis. Id. at 10.
In the 1971-1972 school year, the School Board had desegregated all Hillsborough County Schools, with regards to student assignment; no majority black school existed in the county. (T1 at 13).4 Each year following implementation of the 1971 Plan, Defendants filed at least two (2) reports with the Court, copies of which were served upon opposing counsel. The first report provided enrollments by race and grade, as well as, faculty assignments, by race, at each school facility operated for grades one (1) through twelve (12) in the system. The second report enumerated proposed changes in student assignments, if any, which would become effective in the following school year. (DX 6 and 7). The reports of proposed student assignment modifications included, inter alia, boundary changes occasioned by overcrowding and student assignment modifications necessitated by the construction of new schools. The reports also included projections of anticipated enrollments, by race, at schools affected by the proposed changes. Joint Pre-Evidentiary Hearing Statement, (Docket No. 767), Statement of Admitted Facts at ¶ 13 ("Stipulation").
As of October 27, 1971, there were no majority black schools among the school district's 122 schools and only one (1) school, Lee Elementary, was more than 40%...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Yonkers Branch—Naacp
...the accuracy of this testimony. See, e.g., Capacchione v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schs., 57 F.Supp.2d at 275; Manning v. Sch. Bd., 24 F.Supp.2d 1277, 1323 (M.D.Fla.1998); Reed v. Rhodes, 1 F.Supp.2d 705, 739 (N.D.Ohio 1998); Tasby v. Woolery, 869 F.Supp. at 477. According to Dr. Braddock, par......
-
Manning v. School Board of Hillsborough County Florida
...the district court which subject them to continued supervision under a federal desegregation decree. See Manning v. Sch. Bd. of Hillsborough County, Fla., 24 F.Supp.2d 1277 (M.D.Fla.), mot. to alter or amend den., mot. for clarification granted in part, 28 F.Supp.2d 1353 (M.D.Fla.1998) . A......
-
Hoots v. Pennsylvania, CIV A 71-538.
...766 n. 17 (sub-standard academic achievement is "the product of many complex socio-economic factors"); Manning v. School Bd. of Hillsborough County, 24 F.Supp.2d 1277, 1334 (M.D.Fla.1998) ("differences in academic performance... are the result of socioeconomic factors unrelated to the schoo......
-
Quest for Unitary Status: The East Baton Rouge Parish School Desegregation Case
...244 F.3d at 930. [70] Id. at 934. [71] Manning, 244 F.3d at 930. [72] Manning, 244 F.3d at 936. [73] Id. at 936 (citing Manning, 24 F. Supp. 2d 1277, 1303 (M.D. Fla. [74] Manning, 24 F. Supp. 2d at 1302. [75] Manning, 244 F.3d at 938-39. [76] Manning, 24 F. Supp. 2d at 1312, 1335. [77] 391 ......