Judge Tells L.A. Schools, NAACP to Settle Lawsuit

The NAACP’s long-festering desegregation lawsuit against the Los Angeles Unified School District took a giant step toward settlement Monday when a federal district judge granted a conditional dismissal and gave the two parties 60 days to resolve their differences.

U.S. District Judge A. Wallace Tashima’s action would end the largest desegregation lawsuit in the country after more than 20 years of costly and bitter legal battles that began in Los Angeles Superior Court in 1963 and led to nearly three combative years of court-ordered busing. The case moved to federal court in 1981.

School district counsel Peter James said the move toward dismissal “arises out of the recognition that . . . precious little can be accomplished” to desegregate a school system that, in 1988, is barely 17% white.

“It also is a recognition that we can get more results for the money through a settlement” than through a court trial, James said.

School Supt. Leonard Britton said the decision “is going to settle a lot of difficulty and spare the community a lot of litigation that is not productive. I have a very strong feeling . . . that we are going to reach a good agreement.”

Grover G. Hankins, general counsel for the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People, said he was pleased that the NAACP and the school district are coming close to settling the case, although he did “not necessarily agree” that desegregating a district that has an 83% minority enrollment is impossible.

“The whole complex milieu of Los Angeles . . . and the percentage of minorities are such that it would be difficult to fashion some kind of integration plan. (So) we’re looking at a number of other factors that would offer some substantial relief” from problems caused by racial isolation, Hankins said.

The NAACP attorney expressed optimism that it will be able to hammer out a “meaningful settlement” with the district over the next two months. He said the negotiations will focus on developing school programs that will “advance education for children at risk,” although he declined to define specifically which students might benefit. “That is something that needs to be defined” during the settlement talks, he said.

According to James, the programs would help poor students of any color who lack “the educational background you would find in some of the wealthier communities” of the district.

One Idea Cited

District and NAACP attorneys would identify only one specific idea that could be part of the settlement plan--the expansion of a $5.5-million pilot program that operated in 10 chronically low-achieving, inner-city elementary schools this past school year. Called the Ten Schools Program, it involved overhauling the administration and teaching staffs of 10 poor, predominantly black schools, implementing a new curriculum that emphasized reading and writing, creating smaller classes and lengthening the school year. The goal of the project is to raise math and reading scores to at least the national average within five years.

James said the district has some evidence that test scores at the 10 schools are rising and would like to expand the program into other schools.

As part of the negotiations that will take place over the next 60 days, the district and the NAACP will assemble a panel of education experts who will recommend other types of programs to assist underachieving minority students.

Tashima granted the 60-day stay to encourage the district and the plaintiff to settle their differences out of court in a timely manner. The dismissal would not become final until sometime after the end of the 60 days, following a hearing to allow other interested parties a chance to comment on dropping the case.

Hankins would not say whether disagreements might develop that could lead the NAACP to appeal the dismissal.

Los Angeles school district lawyer Michael M. Johnson said it will be up to Tashima to evaluate the overall fairness of the settlement terms.

Other Defendants Involved

The NAACP lawsuit would continue against the other defendants, the California Board of Education and state Supt. of Public Instruction Bill Honig. Hankins would not speculate on whether the NAACP might eventually agree to drop the state and Honig from the suit.

The NAACP alleged that the district has unlawfully discriminated against black students through its policies and actions since 1969. A state court ordered the district to reassign and bus students to achieve integration from 1978 to 1981. Mandatory busing was ended after voters approved Proposition 1 in 1979, which barred state courts from ordering busing as a remedy for segregation.

The anti-busing initiative would not prevent a federal court from ordering busing, however, if it found the district in violation of federal law--specifically, the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Since mandatory busing was ended, the district has provided a voluntary integration approach consisting of “magnet” schools and the Permits With Transportation (PWT) program. Currently, about 26,000 students attend magnet schools or centers, which offer enriched or specialized instruction and which must conform to ratios that permit up to 60% to 70% minority enrollment. About 15,000 pupils participate in the PWT program, which allows students to attend a school outside of their neighborhood if their enrollment in that school would contribute to integration.

Minority Rolls Grow

In the mid-1960s, district enrollment was more than 55% white. Today, however, 83% of the district’s nearly 590,000 students are minorities. Latinos--at 56.8%--are the largest ethnic minority group, followed by blacks at 17.7%, Asians and Pacific islanders at 8.2%, and American Indians at 0.3%. Whites make up 16.9% of the total enrollment.

Still pending against the district is a lawsuit filed by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and other public-interest law firms that alleges that the Los Angeles school system spends less on predominantly Latino schools than on Anglo schools.

According to a 1987 study of school enrollment figures from 1968 to 1984, the National School Desegregation Project at the University of Chicago found that schools in the Los Angeles and San Francisco metropolitan areas had the highest levels of segregation of black students on the West Coast.

But it also found that the worst segregation of all students was experienced by Latinos in schools in the greater Los Angeles area, including the Los Angeles district. In 1984, the average Latino student in Los Angeles attended a school that was only 17% Anglo, compared to 1970, when the typical Latino pupil attended a school that was at least 45% Anglo, the report said.

THE DESEGREGATION CASE

Aug. 1,1963--Original complaint filed by parents of Mary Ellen Crawford and several others, under the co-sponsorship of the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People. The suit, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, was brought against the Los Angeles City Board of Education as a class action on behalf of “all Negro and Mexican-American pupils.”

Oct. 28, 1967--Trial sessions begin.

May 2, 1969--Trial sessions end.

Feb. 11,1970--Superior Court Judge Alfred Gitelson rules that the board operates segregated schools, and he gives initial order to integrate.

May 18,1970--Board files notices of appeal.

March 10, 1975--Court of Appeal rules in favor of board.

July 1,1975--State Supreme Court agrees to hear ACLU appeal.

June 28, 1976--State Supreme Court upholds Judge Gitelson’s ruling but reverses a portion of the initial judgment that defined desegregation in terms of specific racial/ethnic percentages. The board is required by the latest ruling to take reasonable and feasible steps to alleviate harm caused by segregation, and to demonstrate meaningful progress in that task.

March 18, 1977--Proposed integration plan submitted to Superior Court.

March 23, 1977--Hearings on integration plan begins.

Feb. 7, 1978--Judge Paul Egly issues order approving implementation of district plan as first step toward desegregation.

May 19, 1980--Egly calls for expansion of mandatory reassignments for grades 1-9 in September, 1980, and 1-12 by 1983.

Dec. 19, 1980--Court of Appeal upholds Proposition 1, which was approved by California voters to stop mandatory integration.

March 16, 1981--Board votes to end mandatory busing program as soon as possible.

April 20, 1981--Board orders return of 7,300 students to neighborhood schools as three years of mandatory busing end.

Sept. 10,1981--Judge Robert B. Lopez approves implementation of board’s all-voluntary desegregation plan for the two-year period of September, 1981, to June, 1983.

Oct. 21, 1985--U.S. Supreme Court rejects an appeal from the Los Angeles Unified School District to squelch the NAACP suit, allowing the lawsuit to proceed in federal district court.

June 20, 1988--Acting on the Los Angeles school district’s motion, U.S. District Court grants conditional dismissal of the case and allows the district and the NAACP 60 days to work out a settlement. The state Board of Education and state Supt. of Public Instruction Bill Honig remain as defendants.