Vaughns v. Board of Education of Prince George's County

Decision Date31 August 1972
Docket NumberCiv. No. 72-325.
Citation355 F. Supp. 1038
PartiesSylvester J. VAUGHNS, Jr., et al. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Maryland

Richard V. Falcon, David S. Bogen, Kenneth L. Johnson, Gerald A. Smith, Baltimore, Md., and Alan J. Goldstein, Oxon Hill, Md., for plaintiffs.

Paul M. Nussbaum and Stanley H. Goldstein, Mt. Rainier, Md., for defendants.

FRANK A. KAUFMAN, District Judge.

On July 25, 1972, 355 F.Supp. 1034, this Court filed an opinion in this case ordering desegregation within the tenth largest public school system in the United States and an end to lack of compliance with the constitutional standards enunciated by the Supreme Court in the Brown and Swann cases.1 Pursuant thereto the Board of Education of Prince George's County (the Board) filed a report on August 22, 1972, and lengthy hearings were held commencing Friday, August 25, 1972, and terminating earlier today. The report and the record in this case demonstrates that since August 1, 1972 the school staff, in accordance with the Board's resolution of that date, has complied in good faith with this Court's July 25, 1972 Order and indeed has burned midnight oil in connection therewith. The August 22, 1972 report includes a proposed staff plan for desegregating, effective September 5, 1972, the senior high schools but excluding, for the school year 1972-73 only, the twelfth grade, i. e., the senior class. Plaintiffs have no objection to that one-year exclusion and urge this Court to order the plan to become effective September 5, 1972 with regard to the tenth and eleventh grades for the school year 1972-73. Defendants, on the other hand, urge this Court not to order the implementation of any desegregation plan for any grade until the opening of the school year 1973-74 in September, 1973. On a secondary basis, defendants would have this Court order elementary school desegregation effective January 29, 1973, the date on which the second semester of the upcoming school year will commence, and delay implementation with regard to junior high and senior high schools until the fall of 1973. Defendants also contend that even if the junior high implementation is moved up to January 29, 1973, the senior high change should not become effective until the autumn of 1973. Defendants concede that under this Court's July 25, 1972 Order all grades should be desegregated no later than the opening of the school year, 1973-74.

On the other hand, plaintiffs ask this Court, as indicated above, to implement the proposed staff plan effective September 5, 1972 as to the tenth and eleventh grades, and also contend that this Court should require a new desegregation plan to go into effect on January 29, 1973 with regard to the elementary and junior high schools and in September, 1973 with regard to the twelfth grade. As is apparent, the only agreement between the parties as to dates of implementation of the required desegregation changes is that plaintiffs, like defendants, desire that any change with regard to the twelfth grade be delayed until the fall of 1973. However, there is also agreement among the parties that the proposed staff plan for the senior high school is educationally sound.

That staff senior high plan was prepared during this month independently of the work being simultaneously done by The Lambda Corporation (Lambda). Testimony in this case would indicate, however, that the proposed tenth and eleventh grade plan could in all probability be coordinated with the Lambda proposals, when they are forthcoming, without any substantial additional expense, complication or delay. However, all of the testimony reveals that the staff plan cannot be implemented without delaying the opening of the tenth and eleventh, and also the twelfth, grades2 for a period of at least two weeks. Indeed, except for one senior high school principal, called to testify by plaintiffs, all of the witnesses indicated the delay would be approximately one month in length.3

The superintendent of the schools and other witnesses testified that implementation of any desegregation plan without opportunity for planning and exchange of information among teachers, counselors, students and parents, would cause chaos and would lead to increased racial tensions. However, there was also testimony from the above-mentioned senior high school principal and from a Board member that such tensions are already at a high level and that they would be reduced if the desegregation plan for the tenth and eleventh grades went into effect this fall. On balance, this Court is convinced that, at this late date, it is not possible to implement the staff plan for the tenth and eleventh grades without delaying the opening of seventeen of the eighteen senior high schools for a period of approximately one month and without bringing about great confusion in the operation of the school system and adding to the tensions which already exist.

The connection between those existing tensions and the failure earlier by the Board to comply with the Brown-Swann mandates may not be overlooked. Further, the Board was most specifically advised by officials of the federal Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) in the summer of 1971 that the Board was not in compliance with those mandates. Indeed, since August, 1971, the Prince George's County school system has not been eligible to receive certain new federal funds because of such noncompliance. Additionally, there was delay in mid-July, 1972 with regard to lack of cooperation by the Board with Lambda. Against that background, it is most regrettable that there should be any further delay. But what must govern the determination in this case are the facts which exist today and not the facts which might have existed had the School Board acted to bring itself into compliance with the Brown-Swann standards without this Court's Order, or had the School Board otherwise moved to correct the constitutional violations which have existed.

The Board bears a heavy burden to show the need for any delay4 beyond September 5, 1972 in implementing the staff plan as to the tenth and eleventh grades.5 But defendants have successfully shouldered that burden despite the delays which occurred prior to August of this year. The staff plan can only become effective in September, 1972 if seventeen of the eighteen senior high schools remain closed for a period which this Court believes will be approximately one month. The extreme undesirability of such a late opening needs little elaboration, though it bears specific mention that opening one month late would shorten the 1972-73 school year, and make it very difficult, if not impossible, for that year to include the necessary number of school days required by Maryland law and at the same time conclude within the June expiration date set forth in teachers' contracts.

A vice-president of Lambda, in charge of preparing the Lambda plan, testified that his work will not be completed, at the earliest, before November, 1972. However, he also testified that the proposed staff plan for the tenth and eleventh grades could, if made effective September 5, 1972, later be coordinated with the Lambda plan without any undue expense or complication. Thus, the fact that the Lambda plan is not yet ready does not for that reason justify delay in implementation of the staff's senior high plan.

During the hearing, more evidence was taken with regard to transportation costs than any other single item. That evidence convinces this Court that if the proposed tenth and eleventh grade plans were made effective on September 5, 1972, and all other desegregation was delayed until September, 1973, there might well be an additional cost exceeding three-quarters of a million dollars. That cost could probably be reduced to less than half of that amount if all desegregation other than of the twelfth grade were accomplished effective January 29, 1973. The tremendous additional cost would occur because Prince George's County at present busses about 75,000 school children, using 496 buses6 which are scheduled to arrive at the schools in time for staggered opening hours from 7:30 a. m. to 9:30 a. m. Almost all of those 496 buses make as many as five consecutive trips each day, carrying as many as five separate groups of children to their respective schools. Under the proposed staff plan, as presently developed, some of the 496 buses will no longer be able to make consecutive runs. Therefore, those buses and their drivers would accordingly be idle during an increased amount of time.

At present, there are 1500 bus trips per day. Under the proposed senior high plan, the 496 buses would make an additional 140 trips per day, would bus about 200 students who are not now being bussed,7 and add 7.28 miles per day to the bus miles per high school student now being transported.8 In order to accomplish those additional trips and because of the additional periods of idleness, the drivers of those buses would have to be employed for longer hours. The cost of paying them for those hours plus the cost of driving certain additional miles will cause the above-mentioned ballooning of transportation costs, though all agree that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Amos v. Board of School Directors of City of Milwaukee
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • 19 d1 Janeiro d1 1976
    ...in public schools. See e. g., Vaughns v. Board of Education of Prince George's County, 355 F.Supp. 1034 (D.Md.1972), supplemented, 355 F.Supp. 1038 (D.Md.1972), remanded on other grounds, 468 F.2d 894 (4th Cir. 1972), on remand, 355 F.Supp. 1044 (D.Md.1972); Potts v. Flax, 313 F.2d 284 (5th......
  • Vaughns v. Board of Educ. of Prince George's County
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 20 d2 Setembro d2 1983
    ...schools does not mean that every school in every community must always reflect the racial composition of the school system as a whole. 355 F.Supp. at 1049. The 10-50% guidelines in the December 1972 Vaughns decree were approximations, starting points in the process of shaping a remedy and e......
  • Vaughns v. Board of Educ. of Prince George's County
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 13 d5 Julho d5 1990
    ...their vestiges from the County school system. In Vaughns v. Bd. of Educ. of Prince George's County, 355 F.Supp. 1034 (D.Md.1972); 355 F.Supp. 1038 (D.Md. 1972), remanded for further proceedings, 468 F.2d 894 (4th Cir.1972); 355 F.Supp. 1051 (D.Md.1972), aff'd, No. 73-1024 (4th Cir. Jan. 23,......
  • Vaughns v. Board of Education of Prince George's County
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 29 d5 Dezembro d5 1972
    ...School Board has disregarded the mandates of the highest Court of our land. It was for that reason that this Court ordered on August 31, 1972, 355 F.Supp. 1038, and again on November 14, 1972 after the Fourth Circuit filed its opinion in this case on October 12, 1972, 468 F.2d 894, the pres......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT