school law and the public schools: a practical guide for educational leaders, 5e © 2012 pearson...

School Law and the Public Schools:A Practical Guide for Educational Leaders,

5e

© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc.All rights reserved.

Chapter 12

School Desegregation

School Law and the Public Schools: A Practical Guide for Educational Leaders, 5eEssex

© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc.All rights reserved.12-2

De jure segregation De jure segregation is segregation that is

sanctioned by law as was the case in Brown I.

Because the equal protection clause essentially covers state action, it prohibits state endorsed discrimination.



Brown v. Board of Education Four separate cases from Kansas, South

Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware were consolidated and decided in Brown.

In each case, black students sought admission to segregated schools in their communities.



Three states, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware had statutes that called for segregated schools.

Kansas permitted but did not require segregated schools. The four states relied on the separate but equal decision in Plessy v. Ferguson to defend their position.



The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed and held for the students.

Students cannot be discriminated against in their attempts to attend school on the basis of race.

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law for students attending public schools.



Segregation sanctioned by a state deprives minority children equal educational opportunities.

Separate but equal schools based on race are inherently unequal and unconstitutional.



Brown v. Board of Education (Brown II) Brown II’s ruling was fashioned to ensure

proper implementation of Brown I. These cases were remanded to federal

district courts based on their proximity to local school districts.



This ruling mandated that school authorities be delegated the authority to implement its ruling in good faith and with all deliberate speed.



The ruling in Brown II was handed down as a means of expediting the ruling in Brown I.

Brown II remanded desegregation cases to federal district courts because of their close proximity to local school districts.



Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education Swann was a leading case in defining the

scope of the duty to eliminate de jure segregation and a dual school system.

The objective in Swann was to ensure that school authorities excluded no student of a racial minority from any school directly or indirectly based on race.



The use of mathematical ratios was only a beginning point in the process of shaping a remedy for eradicating segregated schools.

If an optional majority to minority transfer provision is implemented, transferring students must be granted free transportation.



Pairing and grouping on noncontiguous school zones is a permissible tool and should be considered in light of the objectives sought by the school district.



An objection to transportation of students may be valid when the time and distance of travel is so great as to either risk the health of children or significantly impinge on the educational process.



Busing and Desegregation Historically, the courts have viewed busing

as an effective means of achieving desegregated schools.

It has met opposition by parents and taxpayers who considered busing to be a threat to the neighborhood school concept, time-consuming for students, and an added expense on taxpayers.



Parents and taxpayers advocated that money be expended on improving neighborhood schools rather on busing.

Several states passed anti-busing legislation to prohibit the use of busing.



A number of district courts concluded that allowing students to attend schools near where they lived would not effective dismantle dual school systems.

Busing is considered one viable measure used by the courts to achieve desegregated schools.



De Facto Segregation De Facto segregation is present when a

substantial number of students enrolled in a school represent a racial and ethnic minority.

This situation developed through no action taken by the school district.



The courts did, however, mandate that corrective action be taken in instances where school officials gerrymandered (altered) school attendance zones to create zones with large concentrations of black students assigned to historically black schools within the district.



District courts may alter attendance zones and may devise zones based on grouping and pairing schools and may require busing to achieve desegregation.

District courts may disallow patterns of school construction and abandonment that create a dual system of education.



Plans devised that result in substantially segregated schools are illegal.

Conduct on the part of the school board that is designed to create and maintain segregated schools clearly violates the Fourteenth Amendment and the Brown holding.



Seeking Unitary Status School districts across the nation have

filed for unitary status. They have essentially made the claim that

they have operated in good faith and made a concerted effort to achieve desegregated schools.

Based on these efforts, they are requesting that they be relieved of court supervision.



A good faith incremental approach to achieving unitary status is acceptable by the courts and considered to be constitutional.

Achieving unitary status in some areas may lead to relinquished judicial control, even when some other areas have not achieved unitary status.



Through relinquishing control in areas deemed to be unitary, a school district may effectively focus on the areas in need of further attention.

school law and the public schools: a practical guide for educational leaders, 5e © 2012 pearson...

Documents

school law

public schools

educational leaders

practical guide

equal schools

pearson education

e essex

segregated schools