Mannings v. BOARD OF PUB. INSTR. OF HILLSBOROUGH CTY., FLA., Civ. T. No. 3554.

• Decision Date: 18 August 1969
• Docket Number: Civ. T. No. 3554.
• Citation: 306 F. Supp. 497
• Parties: Andrew L. MANNINGS, a minor, by his father and next friend, Willie M. Mannings, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

306 F. Supp. 497

Andrew L. MANNINGS, a minor, by his father and next friend, Willie M. Mannings, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA, et al., Defendants.

Civ. T. No. 3554.

United States District Court M. D. Florida, Tampa Division.

August 18, 1969.

Drew S. Day, New York, N. Y., and James B. Sanderlin, St. Petersburg, Fla., for plaintiff.

John M. Allison, Tampa, Fla., for defendant.

FINAL ORDER

LIEB, Chief Judge.

On December 12, 1968, plaintiffs filed herein a Motion for Further Relief, contending that the plan of operation then in use by the defendant Board was not functioning as required by decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The motion alleged that the operation of the defendant's schools had not resulted in a dismantling of the old dual system of white and Negro schools and that some other method of doing so should be provided by the defendant. After hearing on the motion, the Court, on March 5, 1969, ordered the defendant Board to formulate and adopt a comprehensive plan which would effectuate a transition to a racially non-discriminatory school system in Hillsborough County.

Pursuant to this Court's Order of March 5, 1969, the defendant Board submitted a revised plan on April 15, 1969, which plan was considered and rejected by this Court by Order of May 9, 1969, as an inadequate compliance with the Court's previous order. At the same time, the Court ordered the defendant Board to file an amended plan on or before May 23, 1969, and the defendant Board did submit a new plan on that date. Objections were filed by plaintiffs to this amended plan and, after hearings, a further amendment was proposed by defendant Board on July 3, 1969, which was rejected by the Court because much of the plan was based upon the privilege of "freedom of choice" of schools by students, which the Court felt would not help to abolish the dual system. On July 25, 1969, the Court ordered the defendant Board to file still another complete comprehensive plan which would include geographically defined attendance areas for each school.

On August 1, 1969, the instant comprehensive plan was filed by the defendant Board. Objections to portions of the plan were raised by plaintiffs, and evidence was submitted as to the merits of the plan.

I. PROVISIONS OF PLAN

1. The plan under consideration is a comprehensive plan designed to remove any remaining vestiges of the old dual system of schools in the District. It provides for the assignment of students in every school on the basis of geographical attendance areas, the boundary lines of which are drawn fairly with regard to race. It provides that for the year 1969-70 all faculties shall have teachers of both races, with a ratio of 50% white to 50% black in the schools where black students are in the majority and 90% white and 10% black in all schools where white students are in the majority; that for the school year 1970-71 and thereafter the ratio shall be approximately 82% white and 18% black throughout, which is the estimated ratio among students as to race. It is necessary to obtain this latter composition by two year stages because of a shortage of teachers. By this arrangement there will no longer be any "all black" schools in the District.

2 The defendant will freely grant the privilege to any student to transfer from a school where his race is in the majority to a school where his race is in the minority.

3. Likewise the plan provides that in Senior and Junior High Schools, any student who requires a course of study not offered in his attendance area may be permitted, upon application, to transfer to another school in the County which offers the needed course.

4. Furthermore, any student in any school who is physically handicapped may be permitted, upon application, to transfer to another school outside his attendance area where the facts justify it.

5. In the elementary schools, applications for transfer of students to another attendance area may be granted where it is shown to be necessary to keep the child or children in school and denial of the applications would leave them unattended after school hours.

6. In addition, the plan provides that transfers will be allowed if ordered by the Juvenile Court or State or Federal agencies for the welfare of the child.

7. In the plan it is provided that in the case of two elementary schools in Tampa located very close to each other, Macfarlane and Cuesta, which actually have the same school principal, a pairing arrangement will be in effect, with grades 1 to 3 at Macfarlane and 4 to 6 at Cuesta.

8. In the City of Plant City, the plan provides for the use of Marshall School for an area-wide seventh grade; Tomlin Junior High will serve all eighth and ninth grades in the area; and Plant City High School, all tenth, eleventh and twelfth grades in the area. A new senior high school is being built in the area which, when completed, will permit the changing of Plant City High, Pinecrest and Turkey Creek High Schools to junior high schools, and Tomlin will be closed. The Board will seek approval of attendance zones for these schools when the new building is completed.

9. All of the high schools, junior high schools and elementary schools will have attendance areas for each school based upon...