Opinion
Civil Action No. 2:70cv3098-T.
October 19, 2004
Anthony T. Lee represented by Anita L. Kelly, Department of Education, Office of General Counsel, Montgomery, AL, Damon Todd Hewitt, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, New York, NY, Dennis D. Parker, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, New York, NY, Fred (Jr.) David Gray, Gray Langford Sapp McGowan Gray Nathanson, Tuskegee, AL, Fred (Sr.) D. Gray, Gray Langford Sapp McGowan Gray Nathanson, Tuskegee, AL, John Mark Englehart, Beasley Allen Crown Methvin Portis Miles PC, Montgomery, AL, Kenneth Lamar Thomas, Thomas Means Gillis Seay PC, Montgomery, AL, Solomon S. Seay, Jr., Solomon S. Seay, Jr., P.C., Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiff.
United States of America represented by Charles Redding Pitt, Farris, Riley Pitt, LLP, Birmingham, AL, Deval L. Patrick, United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Section, Washington, DC, Javier Manual Guzman, U S Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Educational Opportunities Section, Washington, DC, John P. Buchko, John R. Moore, Kenneth Mines, U S Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Educational Opportunities Section, Washington, DC, Kenneth E. Vines, U.S. Attorney's Office, Montgomery, AL, LeVern M. Younger, Margaret Hu, U S Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Educational Opportunities Section, Washington, DC, Stephen Michael Doyle, United States Attorney's Office — ALM, Middle District of Alabama, Montgomery, AL, for Intervenor Plaintiff.
National Education Association, Inc. represented by National Education Association, Inc., Washington, DC, Anita L. Kelly, Department of Education, Office of General Counsel, Montgomery, AL, John Mark Englehart, Beasley Allen Crown Methvin Portis Miles PC, Montgomery, AL, Kenneth Lamar Thomas, Thomas Means Gillis Seay PC, Montgomery, AL, LeVern M. Younger, U S Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Educational Opportunities Section, Washington, DC, Solomon S. Seay, Jr., Montgomery, AL, Pro Se.
Autauga County Board of Education represented by Clifford W. Cleveland, Cleveland Colley, P.C., Prattville, AL, Edward E. Price, Law Office of Edward E. Price, Deatsville, AL, Erika Perrone Tatum, James Robert Seale, Hill Hill Carter Franco Cole Black, Montgomery, AL, John Robert Faulk, McDowell, Faulk McDowell, Prattville, AL, Martha Ann Miller, U.S. Attorney's Office, Montgomery, AL, Michael J. Cohan, Hill Hill Carter Franco Cole Black, Montgomery, AL, for Defendant.
Alabama State Board of Education represented by Gregory M. Biggs, Department of Education, Office of General Counsel, Montgomery, AL, for Defendant.
Fob James, the Governor as President ex officio of the State Board of Education, Wayne Teague, the Superintendent of the State Board of Education represented by Gregory M. Biggs, Bradley Byrne, individual members of the State Board of Education, G.J. "Dutchquo Higginbotham, individual member of the State Board of Education, Stephanie Bell, individual member of the State Board of Education, Ethel H., individual member of the State Board of Education, Willie J. Paul, individual member of the State Board of Education, David F. Byers, Jr., individual member of the State Board of Education, Sandra Ray, individual member of the State Board of Education, Mary Jane Caylor, individual member of the State Board of Education, for Defendant.
United States of America represented by Charles Redding Pitt, Farris, Riley Pitt, LLP, Birmingham, AL, Deval L. Patrick, United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Section, Washington, DC, John R. Moore, Kenneth Mines, United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Educational Oppurtunities Section, Washington, DC, Kenneth E. Vines, U.S. Attorney's Office, Montgomery, AL, LeVern M. Younger, U S Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Educational Opportunities Section, Washington, DC, Stephen Michael Doyle, United States Attorney's Office — ALM, Middle District of Alabama, Montgomery, AL, for Amicus.
OPINION
In 1963, the plaintiffs, a class of black students and their parents, filed this lawsuit seeking relief from race discrimination in the operation of a de jure segregated school system. The defendants are the Autauga County Board of Education, its members, the Autauga County School Superintendent, the Alabama State Board of Education, its members, the State Superintendent of Education, and the Governor of Alabama. The Autauga County Board of Education and its members and superintendent have moved for a declaration of unitary status on one of the few remaining issues in this longstanding school desegregation case: student assignment. Based on the evidence presented, the court concludes that the school district's motion should be granted and that federal oversight of this issue should be terminated as to the Autauga County Board of Education and its members and superintendent.
I. BACKGROUND A. Earlier Litigation
This case was originally part of a statewide action that began in 1963 as a challenge to the State of Alabama's operation of a racially segregated school system. On July 16, 1963, the United States was added as a plaintiff and amicus curiae to represent the public interest in the administration of justice. Lee v. Macon County Bd. of Educ., 267 F.Supp. 458, 460 (M.D. Ala. 1967), aff'd sub nom., Wallace v. United States, 389 U.S. 215, 88 S.Ct. 415 (1967). The procedural history of the early litigation of this case is set forth at length in Lee v. Autauga County Bd. of Educ., 2004 WL 1699068, * 1-2 (M.D. Ala. 2004).
Relevant to the matter presented today, the court approved a consent order on June 18, 1997, which has guided the progression of this case ever since. In that consent order, the court detailed those areas of operation in which the school district was unitary and those in which further remedial action was required. The court decreed that the Autauga County School System had achieved unitary status in the areas of transportation, physical facilities, discipline, and equity in salary supplements. Injunctions or portions thereof pertaining to these areas were dissolved, and these functions were appropriately returned to the control of the Autauga County Board of Education. The consent order also provided a roadmap for the school district's attainment of unitary status in those areas in which it was not then unitary: faculty and staff (assignment, recruitment, hiring, and promotion), curriculum, extracurricular activities, student assignment, special programs, special education, drop-out intervention, advanced programs, majority-to-minority transfers, and student achievement. Many of the areas addressed in the consent order are considered " Green factors, "that is, those areas of a school district's operation traditionally considered indicia of a segregated (or not) system.Green v. Sch. Bd. of New Kent County, Va., 391 U.S. 430, 88 S.Ct. 1689 (1968). The consent order also addressed several issues that fall under the broader ambit of "quality of education "issues first recognized by the Supreme Court in Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 492-93, 112 S.Ct. 1430, 1446-47 (1992).
B. School District Profile
Pursuant to a 1970 desegregation order, the Autauga County school district has operated four attendance zones: Autaugaville in the southwest quadrant of the county, Billingsley in the northwest quadrant, Marbury in the northeast quadrant, and Prattville in the southeast quadrant. The Autaugaville, Billingsley, and Marbury quadrants are rural areas, while the Prattville zone contains the City of Prattville, a growing suburb of the City of Montgomery, Alabama. Among the four attendance zones, Autaugaville is and has been the only predominantly African-American zone. The other zones are predominantly white.
At the time of the 1997 consent order, the school district comprised ten schools: six in the Prattville zone, two in the Autaugaville zone, and one each in the Billingsley and Marbury zones. The system enrolled approximately 8,050 students, 26% of whom were African-American. However, 99% of the students enrolled in the two Autaugaville schools were African-American.
Currently, the school system operates eleven schools (and a small disciplinary center): seven schools in the Prattville zone, a K-12 school in the Autaugaville zone, a K-12 school in the Billingsley zone, and an elementary school and high school in the Marbury zone. The system enrolls approximately 8,800 students, 23% of whom are African-American. Ninety-eight percent of the student population enrolled at the Autaugaville School is African-American.
In 1999, the school board petitioned for approval to transfer all Autaugaville students in grades nine through twelve to the Prattville and Billingsley high schools and to maintain only a K-8 school in Autaugaville. Concluding that the change would further desegregate the school system, the United States did not object to the school board's plan. Private plaintiffs opposed the plan, having concluded that the plan would place a substantially heavier burden of desegregation on African-American students. On June 29, 1999, this court ruled for the private plaintiffs and denied the board's petition to transfer students in the high school grades out of the Autaugaville zone. Lee v. Autauga County Bd. of Educ., 59 F.Supp.2d 1199, 1209-10 (M.D. Ala. 1999).
C. 2002 Motion for a Declaration of Unitary Status
On September 30, 2002, the Autauga County Board of Education filed a motion seeking a declaration of unitary status on the remaining issues in the 1997 consent order. In denying the board's motion on October 28, 2002, the court ordered the parties to exchange information to determine whether the district had achieved unitary status in any of the remaining Green factors. Following this exchange of information and subsequent mediation before a magistrate judge, the parties identified five areas (dropout intervention, special education, majority-to-minority transfers, special programs, and extracurricular activities) in which they agreed that the actions taken by the Autauga County School Board had satisfied the requirements of the 1997 consent decree. The plaintiff parties withdrew their opposition to a declaration of unitary status on these issues. Thereafter, the Autauga County School Board, its members, and superintendent filed a motion for declaration of partial unitary status and termination of the litigation on the issues of special programs, extracurricular activities, dropout intervention, special education, and majority-to-minority transfers. On July 14, 2004, after proper notice of the motion to all plaintiff class members, the court held a fairness hearing. On July 30, 2004, the court, based on the evidence received, granted the school board's motion for partial unitary status, dissolving federal judicial supervision over special programs, extracurricular activities, dropout intervention, special education, and majority-to-minority transfers, and returned control of those areas to the board. Lee v. Autauga County Bd. of Educ., 2004 WL 1699068, at *8 (M.D. Ala. 2004). The court declared that the Autauga County School System had achieved unitary status in all local issues except faculty and staff, parity in curriculum, and student assignment.Id.
Prior to the July 14 fairness hearing and as a result of the parties' mediation before a magistrate judge, the plaintiffs and the school board reached agreements on the faculty and staff and parity in curriculum issues. The board has agreed to undertake certain enhanced recruitment and monitoring efforts in response to faculty and staff issue concerns, and to provide a number of programmatic and computer upgrades at the Autaugaville School as a means of addressing the parity in curriculum issue. The court entered orders accepting these agreements in April 2004. If the board is successful in these endeavors within a predetermined time frame (which has not yet passed), the plaintiffs have agreed to withdraw any objection in these areas to a motion for unitary status that the board may later file.
The adoption of these agreements has left only the issue of student assignment unresolved at ths time. Following the July 14, 2004, fairness hearing, the parties met once more to discuss student-assignment concerns and, over the course of the next several weeks, reached an agreement to resolve the issue. This agreement obligates the school board to maintain the high school grades at the Autaugaville School unless certain events occur, such as a three-year drop in the average daily membership in those grades below 140 students, an exigency beyond the board's control, or the construction of a centrally located high school. In exchange, the plaintiffs agreed to withdraw their opposition to a motion for unitary status on this issue. The agreement further provided that the court shall retain jurisdiction for a period of eight years for the limited purpose of enforcing the contractual obligations set forth in the settlement agreement.
Following adoption of this agreement among the parties, the Autauga County School Board, its members, and its superintendent renewed their motion for a declaration of unitary status on student assignment, and the court required the school board to give all plaintiff class members appropriate notice of the motion as well as procedures for registering objections.
After the court approved the notice form, the Autauga County Board of Education arranged to have published, in the local newspaper over a three-week time period, notice of the proposed termination of judicial oversight over this issue and the date of the fairness hearing; the notice also provided procedures for class members and interested persons to file comments and objections with the court regarding the proposed declaration of unitary status on the relevant issue. Forms for objections and comments were made available in numerous public locations. In addition to the published notice, copies of the school board's motion for partial unitary status and the board's annual reports were made available at the school board office. Notice forms along with forms for objections and comments were sent home with every student enrolled in the Autauga County School System. One objection was filed. On October 13, 2004, the court held a fairness hearing on the motion for declaration of unitary status on the issue of student assignment.
The court concludes that the Autauga County Board of Education complied with the directives of the court in providing adequate notice of the proposed partial dismissal to class members as well as to the community. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e).
II. DISCUSSION A. Legal Standard
The oft-stated goal of a school desegregation case is to convert promptly from a de jure segregated school system to a system without "white" schools or "black" schools, but just schools. Green v. County Sch. Bd. Of New Kent County, Va., 391 U.S. 430, 442, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 1696, 20 L.Ed.2d 716, 726 (1968). The success of this effort results in the ultimate goal of returning control of the school system to the local school board since "local autonomy of school districts is a vital national tradition. "Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 490, 112 S.Ct. 1430, 1445 (1992) (quoting Dayton Bd. of Educ. v. Brinkman, 433 U.S. 406, 410, 97 S.Ct. 2766, 2770 (1977)). Returning schools to the control of local authorities "at the earliest practicable date is essential to restore their true accountability in our governmental system."
Id.
The question of whether a school district operating under an order to dismantle a de jure segregated school system should be declared unitary must be answered by determining (1) whether the school district has fully and satisfactorily complied with the court's decrees for a reasonable period of time, (2) whether the vestiges of the prior de jure segregation have been eliminated to the extent practicable, and (3) whether the district has demonstrated a good-faith commitment to the whole of the court's decrees and to those provisions of the law and the Constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first place. Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 87-89, 115 S.Ct. 2038, 2048-49 (1995). The good-faith component has two parts. A school district must show not only past good-faith compliance, but also a good-faith commitment to the future operation of the school system through "specific policies, decisions, and courses of action that extend into the future."Dowell v. Bd. of Educ. of the Oklahoma City Public Schools, 8 F.3d 1501, 1513 (10th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). Moreover, "[a] federal court in a school desegregation case has the discretion to order an incremental or partial withdrawal of its supervision and control," while retaining jurisdiction over those factors in which the school system is not unitary. Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 489, 112 S.Ct. 1430, 1444-45 (1992).
In the area of student assignment, "the existence of some small number of one-race, or virtually one-race, schools within a district is not in and of itself the mark of a system that still practices segregation by law." Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 26, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 1281 (1971); see also NAACP, Jacksonville Branch v. Duval County School, 273 F.3d 960, 972-73 (11th Cir. 2001). However, the school system bears the burden of demonstrating that the "racial composition [of such schools] is not the result of present or past discriminatory action on their part."
Id.
The Autauga County Board of Education was also required to comply with the contractual obligations of the 1997 consent order, which articulated detailed and specific steps the board was to take to achieve unitary status. NAACP, Jacksonville Branch v. Duval County School, 273 F.3d 960 (11th Cir. 2001). In the 1997 consent order, the parties agreed that the board would analyze and review programs and practices in a number of areas which required further actions. The board was to formulate and adopt procedures and practices designed specifically to address ongoing concerns, including concerns with student assignment. The board was thus required to take specific actions to address concerns the parties contended were vestiges of the prior dual system to ensure that the district was being operated in a nondiscriminatory manner.
B. Terms of the 1997 Consent Order and Compliance Efforts
The student assignment component of the 1997 consent order required the Autauga County Board of Education to, among other things, make student assignments on a non-discriminatory basis, strictly enforce attendance zones, and "study and evaluate the feasibility of creating/establishing a magnet school" at the Autaugaville School. Since implementation of the consent order, the district has developed a comprehensive process for identifying a student's appropriate attendance zone, and has required students to attend schools to which they are properly assigned. In 1999-2000, the school board worked with representatives of the Southeast Equity Center and community members to study the feasibility of a magnet school in the Autaugaville zone. While there was some interest in a magnet school in general, the school board determined after careful study that, based on cost, location, and other factors, a magnet program was not feasible in the Autaugaville zone at that time. In an effort to improve student performance and the environment at the Autaugaville School, the school board has instituted a number of programmatic and educational enhancements at the facility, including tutoring programs, distance learning, and computer upgrades. The district also has offered and advertized a majority-to-minority transfer opportunity for any white students interested in attending school in the Autaugaville zone.
C. October 13, 2004, Fairness Hearing
Following receipt of the parties' settlement agreement regarding student assignment, the court required publication and notice of the proposal to declare the system unitary with respect to student assignment, scheduled a fairness hearing, and established procedures for filing comments and objections. One objection, which went mainly faculty and staff issues, was filed with the court.
The court conducted a fairness hearing on October 13, 2004, heard testimony, and received evidence offered by the Autauga County Board of Education in support of the motion for unitary status in the area of student assignment. The Superintendent of Education for the Autauga County School System testified concerning the school board's affirmative efforts to comply with those parts of the consent order at issue, and the board's resolution to remain in compliance with the directives of the consent order in the future.
D. Findings as to Student Assignment
On the basis of the record evidence, witness testimony, and averments of counsel, the court finds that the Autauga County Board of Education and its members and superintendent have met the standards entitling the school district to a declaration of unitary status on the outstanding issue of student assignment. The board has fully and satisfactorily complied with the orders of this court addressing student assignment, including those provisions related to enforcement of attendance zones, and those vestiges of the prior de jure segregated school system relating to that issue have been eliminated to the extent practicable. The court also finds that the board and its members and superintendent have demonstrated a good-faith commitment to the whole of the court's decrees and to those provisions of the law and the Constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in this school system in the first instance. The court finds that the board and its members and superintendent have demonstrated their good-faith commitment through their compliance with the court's orders over the years, through their good-faith implementation of their contractual obligations under the 1997 consent order, and through their adoption of specific policies and actions that extend into the future demonstrating their commitment to the operation of a school system in compliance with the Constitution.
With respect to the factor at issue today, the court finds that the district has made numerous steps to address the racial identifiability of the Autaugaville School both within and beyond the confines of the consent order and that the continued existence of this facility as majority black is not the result of present or past discrimination on their part. The plaintiff parties have succeeded in the task they began decades ago to seek the end of the seemingly immovable de jure system of school segregation in Autauga County. This lawsuit sought to bring the district into compliance with the constitutional requirement of equal protection under the law, and the court states today that, in the area of student assignment, they have succeeded. See NAACP, Jacksonville Branch v. Duval County School, 273 F.3d 960, 976 (11th Cir. 2001). By its actions today, the court recognizes and congratulates the sustained efforts of the parties. In so doing, the court notes, as the Eleventh Circuit stated in Duval County Schools, that "[t]he Board, and the people of [Autauga County] who, in the end, govern their school system, must be aware that the door through which they leave the courthouse is not locked behind them. They will undoubtedly find that this is so if they fail to maintain the unitary system [the court] conclude[s] exists today." Id. at 976-77.
III. CONCLUSION
With the judgment the court will enter today, control over the Autauga County School System in the area of student assignment is properly returned to the Autauga County Board of Education and its members and superintendent. The motion for declaration of unitary status and termination of this litigation filed by the board and its members and superintendent will be granted, all outstanding orders and injunctions will be dissolved, and this litigation dismissed as to the board and its members and superintendent with respect to the issue of student assignment. The court shall retain jurisdiction for a period of eight years for the limited purpose of enforcing the contractual obligations set forth in the revised settlement agreement regarding student assignment.
JUDGMENT
In accordance with the memorandum opinion entered this day, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court as follows:
(1) Defendants Autauga County Board of Education and its members and superintendent's motion for declaration of partial unitary status and termination of this litigation (doc. no. 230) is granted as to student assignment.
(2) The Autauga County School System is DECLARED to be unitary in the area of student assignment, including provisions relating to enforcement of attendance zones.
(3) All outstanding orders and injunctions with respect to the issue of student assignment are dissolved as to defendants Autauga County Board of Education, its members, and its superintendent, except to the extent that the court retains jurisdiction for eight years from the date of this judgment for the limited purpose of enforcing the contractual obligations set forth in the revised settlement agreement regarding student assignment (doc. no. 249)