minneapolis desegregation report 1977

8/12/2019 Minneapolis Desegregation Report 1977

1/26

SCHOOLDESEGREGATION INMINNEAPOLISMINNESOTAA STAFF REPORT OFTHE UNITED STATES COMMISSIONON CIVIL RIGHTS

May 1977


2/26

U.S.COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is a temporary,independent, bipartisan agency established by Congress in1957 and directed to:

Investigate complaints alleging that citizens arebeing deprived of their right to vote by reason oftheir race, color, religion, sex, or nationalorigin,or by reason of fraudulent practices; Study and collect information concerning legaldevelopments constituting a denial of equalprotection of the laws under the Constitutionbecause of race, color, religion, sex, or national

origin,or in the administration of justice; Appraise Federal laws and policies with respect toequal protection of the laws because of race,color, religion, sex, or national origin, or inthe administration of justice; Serve as a national clearinghouse for informationin respect to denials of equal protection of thelaws because of race, color, religion, sex, ornational origin; Submit reports, findings, and recommendations tothe President and the Congress.

MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSIONArthur S. Flemming, ChairmanStephen Horn, Vice ChairmanFrankie M. FreemanManuelRuiz,Jr.Murray SaltzmanJohn A. Buggs, Staff Director


3/26

SCHOOL DESEGREGATIONIN MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA

A Staff Report of theU.S.Commission on Civil RightsMay 1977


4/26

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe Midwestern Regional Office is indebted to CarmeloMelendez who coordinated the Minneapolis case study. Thereport was written by Duane Lindstrom and Margaret V.Johnson, who also provided legal assistance. Interviewingassistance was provided by Valeska S. Hinton, with editorialassistance provided by staff members of the MidwesternRegional office. Other assistance in the preparation ofthis report was provided by Delores Miller, Ada L. Williams,

and Sharon A. Rivers.The report was prepared under the overall supervisionof Clark G. Roberts, Director of the Midwestern RegionalOffice.Appreciation is also extended to Jim Arisman, JessalynBullock, Rodney Cash, Frank Knorr, and Larry Riedman of theCommission staff for assisting in the final production ofthe report. Preparation for publication was theresponsibility of Deborah A. Harrison, under the supervisionof Bobby Wortman, in the Publications Support center. Officeof Management.At the appointment of the Staff Director of theCommission, all activities that contributed to this reportwere under the general supervision and coordination ofWilliam T. White, Jr., Assistant Staff Director, Office ofNational Civil Rights Issues.

1 1 1


5/26

PREFACEThe United States commission on Civil Rights releasedon August 24, 1976, its report to the Nation: Fulfillingthe Letter and Spirit of the Law: Desegregation of theNation s Public Schools.The report s findings and recommendations were basedupon information gathered during a 10-month schooldesegregation project. This included four formal hearings(Boston, Massachusetts; Denver, Colorado; Louisville,Kentucky; and Tampa, Florida); four open meetings held byState Advisory Committees (Berkeley, California; CorpusChristi, Texas; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Stamford,Connecticut); a survey of nearly 1,300 local schooldistricts; and 29 case studies of communities which haddifficulties with desegregation, had moderate success with

desegregation, or had substantial success withdesegregation.Subsequent to the report s release, considerableinterest was generated concerning the specifics of the casestudy findings, which, owing to space limitations in thenational report, were limited to a few brief paragraphs. Inan effort to comply with public requests for more detailedinformation, Commission staff have prepared monographs foreach of the case studies. These monographs, were writtenfrom the extensive field notes already collected andsupplemented, if needed, with further interviews in each

community. They reflect, in detail, the original case studypurpose of finding which local policies, practices, andprograms in each community surveyed contributed to peacefuldesegregation and which ones did not.It is hoped that the following monograph will serve tofurther an understanding of the school desegregation processin this Nation.

V


6/26

CONTENTS

PageI. Background 1DemographyThe School District

II. Impetus for Desegregation 3Early Desegregation HistoryIII.The Desegregation Plan 5

School BoundariesEffect on School StructureCurriculumPreparation and Implementation of the PlanLocal LeadershipOppositionDesegregation and AttitudesStudent AchievementEducational Programs, Faculty, and the PlanStudent Transportation and DesegregationDesegregation CostsA Long Range View

IV. Findings 16

Appendix 19Student EnrollmentFaculty Composition

V I I


7/26

I. BACKGROUNDThe desegregation of the Minneapolis, Minnesota,schools (Special School District No. 1) was initiated in1972,although the process leading to desegregation actuallybegan in 1967 when the board of education adopted its firsthuman relations guidelines and announced a voluntary urbantransfer program.* In 1970 the State of Minnesota issueddesegregation guidelines which set a 30 percent ceiling onminority student enrollments.2 In April 1971, 17

Minneapolis schools were found out of compliance with Stateguidelines, and the State ordered the district to develop adesegregation plan. (Transcript, p.18In August 1971 a lawsuit was filed in Federal districtcourt charging the school district with the de juresegregation of students and faculty. The court1s order ofMay 4, 1972, found unlawful segregation and requiredimplementation of a plan prepared by the board of educationwhich included provision for semiannual reports to the courton the district s progress.4The 1972 plan has now been virtually completed but thecourt continues to retain jurisdiction and to requireperiodic adjustments in the plan to bring the shiftingstudent population of each school into compliance with thecourt-ordered ceilings on minority enrollment.

DemographyThe city of Minneapolis has a population of 432,400 (as

estimated by the 1970census). Of this number, 19,000persons (or 4.4 percent) are black. The census countedalmost6 700persons of Hispanic origin (or about 1.5percent of the local population) living in Minneapolis 5 andnoted that a total of nearly 10,000 Native Americans residein the Minneapolis-St. Paul SMSA, making this one of thehighest urban concentrations of its kind in America. 6 A 1976profile of the larger Minneapolis-St, Paul region stressedthe area s basically homogeneous Northern European ethnic1


8/26

heritageand therelatively small numberof minoritycitizensandcommented:The populationof these middle class cities seemswell endowed withtheattitudesandattributesthat bring material successin theAmericansystem. The 1969median family incomeof $11,680was well abovethe$9f590 medianforSMSAs over200,000 population. Only4.6percentofTwinCities families fall belowthe 1969poverty levelas opposedto 8.5percentin allmetropolitanareas....Without minimizingtheextentofpovertyintheTwin Cities,thefact remains thatresidentsarewelloffeconomically. Thesharpculturalandsocial gradients that foster tensionand conflictinmany citiesareabsent...[ thus]producingametropolisinwhich socialandcultural conflicthasrarely attainedtheproportionsit has inother places. 7

The School DistrictThe Minneapolis public schools makeupSpecial SchoolDistrictNo. 1,which shares boundary limits withthecity.The 1975-76enrollmentfor thecity schools amountedtonearly 55,000,down fromthesystem's peakin 1968whenalmost 70,000 students wereinattendance. TheMinneapolisschoolsareroughly21percent minorityinenrollment;for

1975-76,black students madeupabout7,500 13.6percent)ofthetotalandNative Americans amountedtoabout 2,8 00students 5percent). 8Other minorities were presentinonlylimited numbers.The Minneapolis schoolsareservedby afacultyofabout6,600educators. Ofthis number,90percentarewhite,andabout8percentareblack. Native Americans holdjust over1percentof thefaculty positionsinMinneapolisaccordingto 1975figures suppliedby theschools. 9

2


9/26

II. IMPETUS FOR DESEGREGATION

A number of organizations and institutions played arole in the desegregation effort which began in 1972.According to Dr. Robert Williams, associate superintendentfor intergroup education for the Minneapolis schools, theaction of the Minnesota State Board of Education and theState commission of education in setting a minorityenrollment ceiling and then citing Minneapolis forviolations of the ceiling led the district to move towarddesegregation. Dr. Williams also cited the importance ofthe Federal court action: We feel that these interventionsand the district court order in 1972 certainly helped tofacilitate the school district's implementation of itsdesegregation program. (Transcript, p. 191) The courtaction had been initiated by local community organizationsincluding the Committee for Integrated Education and theNAACP. (Transcript, pp. 32, 56)

Early Desegregation HistoryThe Committee for Integrated Education (CIE),abiracial group of citizens, was formed in the late 1960s toconvince the school board and school administrators that thedesegregation of schools was essential for Minneapolis.(Transcript, p. 29) Leaders of this community organizationlater pointed out that, although the school board and schooladministration had been somewhat reluctant to initiatedesegregation activities, they later stepped into aleadership role.Barbara Schwartz of the CIE noted:

I think Minneapolis was very fortunate to have thekind of school administration and school board wehad. While there was reluctance and I think slowgoing in the beginning, I think it's withoutquestion that the great burden of providingleadership for desegregation rested with them.(Transcript, pp. 69-70)3


10/26

Curtis C. Chivers, who served as president of the localNAACP chapter during the early desegregation efforts,recalled:I think what helped us greatly was the fact thatwe had a clean atmosphere of fairness inMinneapolis on the part of people who could havegiven us trouble, the business community and thistype of thing. We had lines of communicationbeing kept open; we had people on the school boardyou could talk with and converse with.(Transcript, p. 72)

According to John Warder, who served on the schoolboard from February 196 4to January 1969, the businesscommunity not only supported desegregation but also providedfunds and resources which allowed for greater flexibility indesegregation planning and implementation. The Minneapolisschools have traditionally been able to rely on the businesscommunity for financial assistance (and frequently formaterial contributions such as vehicles or building space).Business support of alternative programs for high schooldropouts,special extracurricular activities, and avocational education program provided valuable aid to thenewly desegregated local schools. (Transcript, p. 92) Somefunds from business sources supported new educationalprograms while other funds were used for projects aimed athuman relations aspects of the desegregation effort.(Transcript, p. 37)

4


11/26

III.THEDESEGREGATION PLAN

With supportive leadership, the Minneapolisdesegregation/integration plan emerged in March 1972. Itcalled for the coordination of the new building program withsuch activities as the institution of a number of neweducational alternatives in the school curriculum, schoolpairings,implementation of the middle school concept,busing, magnet programs to attract whites into communitieswith high minority populations, clustered schools, andpreparatory as well as ongoing programs for dealing with thesocial and psychological aspects of desegregation. 10

Most persons testifying at the Minnesota AdvisoryCommittee's open meeting on school desegregation viewed thecourt order as a necessary catalyst in the desegregationeffort. Some persons were of the opinion that it was thesingle most important element in achieving the degree ofdesegregation that was accomplished. Many witnesses at theopen meeting felt that desegregation, absent the courtorder, would have been a slower and less complete process.Even with the court order, the school board requested inseveral of its semiannual reports to the court somerelaxation of certain aspects of the plan.

The current acceptable percentage of minorities in anyone school site has been increased from 35 percent to 42percent by the court. Several schools are near this limit,while some exceed it, such as Willard Elementary School at43 percent minority, Hans Christian Anderson ElementarySchool (D) at almost 51 percent, Jordan Junior High at about45.5 percent, and North High School at 48.5 percent. 12Percentages such as these exceed the state's allowable 30percent maximum, but the State of Minnesota has deferredjurisdiction over the Minneapolis schools to the Federalcourt during pendency of the suit. When the courtrelinquishes jurisdiction over the case at some future date,it is possible that the State may begin to enforce its ownguidelines on racial composition.

5


12/26

School BoundariesThe Minneapolis plan called for the enlargement ofneighborhood school zones into expanded community schoolareas. Fifteen of the city's oldest schools were closed.Three expanded community schools were built to serve large

attendance areas of1r000to1r800students, divided intounits of 600 pupils each. Additions were built to fiveelementary schools and one elementary school was replacedwith a new building. High school boundary changes were madebetween contiguous school neighborhoods to improve theracial composition of school enrollments and to relievecrowding at some locations. One high school which had alarge minority student enrollment was redeveloped as amagnet school in order to attract students from throughoutthe city.Minneapolis still has one or two schools which are allwhite or very nearly so; several others have very highlevels of white enrollment. Finally, some schools have beeninvolved in the desegregation process only to the extentthat they are sending white students to other locations inthe city.

Effect onSchool StructureTo accomplish its desegregation/integration plan,

Minneapolis redesigned its basic teaching and gradestructure. At the elementary level, three basic methodswere used to accomplish desegregation: first, expandedcommunity schools were created to serve wider attendancezones; second, schools were clustered or paired tofacilitate the development of primary schools (kindergartenthrough third grade) and intermediate centers (fourth gradethrough sixth);and third, pilot learning centers wereestablished where students would be involved for shortperiods in integrated and enriched learning experiences.At the secondary level, the district employed threebasic approaches to achieving a better racial andsocioeconomic composition in the schools. Senior highschools were changed from3-yearto4-yearschools in orderto allow for the enrichment of the educational program ofninth graders and to place ninth graders in a widergeographic area with opportunities for contact with a widerrange of students, both economically and racially. Junior

6


13/26

high schools were reduced to two-grade-level schools for thesame reasons.

CurriculumThe original desegregation/integration proposalincluded plans for new curricular development andspecialized programs. A comprehensive kindergarten through12th grade social studies program was to develop a studentawareness of local and national ethnic heritage. Beginningin 1971,Federal funding supported the production of aseries of film programs about the Minnesota Indian people.However, curricular revision has come slowly in Minneapolis;desegregation began in the fall of 1972, but it was only inJanuary 1975 that the school district produced itsguidelines covering the use of multiethnic, multicultural,

and nonsexist learning materials.Preparation and Implementation ofthe Plan

Desegregation in Minneapolis brought with it littlephysical disruption and few outward acts of violence.These things [desegregation activities] occurred, to thesurprise of many, without the violence and without thevandalism that is too often associated with schooldesegregation, said Dr. Robert Williams, associatesuperintendent for intergroup education. (Transcript, p.188) Although fights and vandalism have occurred inMinneapolis schools during the past years, desegregation hasnot been the alleged cause. In every school where I'veworked, both here in Minneapolis and in Kansas City, therehave been fights as well as vandalism, commented MarvinTrammal,the former west area superintendent of Minneapolisschools. Violence and vandalism occur in schools, period,Trammal concluded. (Transcript, pp. 287-88) We hadrelatively few incidents of violence, said ex-schoolsuperintendent Dr. Davis: While there were lamentableincidents,I do not think they were tied in any way to theeffort being made to desegregate the schools, (Transcript,p. 424)The school district had been preparing both its staffand the community for desegregation 5 years before the courtorder. Although there was little time between the finalcourt order and the beginning of implementation, the planadopted by the court had essentially been designed by the

7


14/26

district itself in the year preceding the court's order.More than 150 local meetings were held during formulation ofthe plan and after its final design in order to assist thecommunity in understanding its content. (Transcript, p. 90)Another contributing factor to the smooth

implementation of the plan was the faculty and staffdevelopment program that was undertaken. Much of thisprogram was aimed at human relations training which centeredon a citywide network of human relations facultyrepresentatives from each school. Communicationslaboratories were held in the 1971-72 school year andfaculty members were placed on special assignment to assistin securing faculty reactions to thedesegregation/integration plan. Inservice training programsincluded a series of workshops on human relations and oninstitutional racism. (Transcript, pp. 207, 261) Thisinservice training continues throughout the district.Local Leadership

There was a high level of support throughoutMinneapolis for the desegregation of the city schools. Dr.John B. Davis, Jr., who served as superintendent of schoolsduring early desegregation activities, now remembers anumber of key local leadership roles which included remarkably strong citizens1 groups standing in support ofthe effort to improve the schools. (Transcript, p. 398) Dr.Davis noted the importance of outspoken clergymen, andwhile some denominations chose not to commit themselvespublicly on the desegregation issue, the local religiousleadership was generally supportive. Some parochial schoolsrefused to take students leaving newly desegregated schoolsand took a strong stand on the moral issue of integration.

The role of local political leadership was generallylimited. Minneapolis Mayor Charles Stenvig, who had takenlaw and order positions in the past and who was opposed tobusing for desegregation purposes, did not lead or counselopposition to court-ordered desegregation and the attendentpupil transportation which was required to implement it.The city council kept a low profile on the issue.The media evidenced a positive approach to thedesegregation process. The media readily reported factualinformation on the desegregation plan, and there was generaleditorial support of desegregation. There was a

8


15/26

conscientious effort to report the words and actions oflocal citizens who voiced opposition to the desegregationplan; many in Minneapolis now cite the local media as havingserved as a peaceful platform for those in the community whodisagreed with the desegregation plan.The desegregation plan was formulated to gain thesupport of both white and minority parents. Minneapolisexperienced some apprehension regarding desegregation, butmany parents appear to have been reassured by what were seenas vast educational improvements which were to be anintegral part of the desegregation plan. Key elements ofinterest to parents included replacing obsolete buildings,forming magnet schools with special programs, clustering ofchildren into schools serving narrower grade ranges,decentralizing the administrative structure, and providing achoice of educational programs.

OppositionAlthough elements of the community were cooperatingwith the desegregation process, the desegregation effort didnot go unopposed. Many residents and parents of Minneapolisschool children voiced their negative opinions regardingdesegregation. Many of these individuals appeared beforeState legislative hearings, hearings of the MinneapolisSchool Board, and local community meetings. In one

instance, the pairing of Hale and Field Elementary Schools,a lawsuit opposing the action was filed by residents. Thelack of violence in Minneapolis, according to Jean Cummings,a parent of four local school children, did not indicate alack of opposition. Instead, Ms. Cummings commented, thelack of violence resulted from a law abiding citizenry whoreally did not care to stand up and start throwing rocks ateach other. (Transcript, p. 963)When the opposition of some neighborhood residentsfailed to end desegregation activities, many reportedly

considered taking their children out of the schoolsaltogethereither by transferring them to private schoolsor moving to the suburbs. Although the school populationdropped in the years following implementation ofdesegregation, the phenomenon has not been directlyattributable to the desegregation effort. It insteadappears to be the result of a number of factors, includingan overall city population decline, the emergence of smallerfamily units, and a general trend of moves to the suburbs9


16/26

that began before desegregation was even envisioned.(Transcript, p. 95)Some students were removed from the Minneapolis schoolsbecause of desegregation (Transcript, p.525 , but a numberof these have now returned. (Transcript, p. 572) LowryJohnson, principal at Field School, which was one of thefirst schools involved in pairing, noted that at the time ofdesegregation a number of residents said that they wereplanning to move, or were going to run, but, he continued,I would be willing to say that [now] those that ran arerunning back in. (Transcript, p. 564) Gladys Anderson,principal of Nathan Hale School, buttressed this statement:One of the persons who was most against the pairing of Haleand Field now has his child enrolled in Hale. (Transcript,p.566)However, a recent newspaper series on why parents moveto the suburbs or transfer their children from Minneapolispublic schools to private schools offered evidence thatthere is more expressed dissatisfaction with schools thathave busing than with schools on the outer fringe of thecity which donot. 1 3 More than2,400students havetransferred from Minneapolis public schools to privateschools in the last 3 years. However, statistics doindicate that this transfer rate slows after the first 2years of desegregation in each school and that the initialproblems of a desegregated school, including discipline,

apparently improve. Reporter Max Nichols, writing in theMinneapolis Star, observed:Usually there have been difficulties the firstyear or two, but behavior has improved as studentsfrom different backgrounds have become more atease with each other and as school staff membershave learned to deal with the problems. 14

Desegregation andAttitudesThe early opposition to desegregation which was evidentamong some parents has not been apparent among the studentsdirectly affected by the action. Dr. Robert Williamsreported that tests of student attitudes have shown thatdesegregation has been very positive in the eyes of thechildren. If we're waiting for the children to besegregationists, we 111 be waiting a long time....Children

10


17/26

are handling desegregation verywell. (Transcript, pp. 215,218.)Principals, teachers, administrators, and students allreported that desegregation was taking place in socialcontacts among students both in the classroom and in

extracurricular activities. (Transcript, pp. 515, 631) MikeO'Donnell, a teacher at Wilder School, reported, Idefinitely feel that there is more social interactionbetween all students and all races in our schools.(Transcript, p. 631) Richard Green, principal at North HighSchool observed:For some reason, either through desegregation orwhatever, the 9th grade class which came to Northfor the first time last year sawyou saw morepupils sharing, sitting in classrooms andlunchrooms at integrated lunch tables; it was muchmore prevalent among the 9th graders than it wasamongst the 12th graders and the 11th graders.(Transcript, p. 515)

Many observers warned, however, that the Minneapolisschools, while reaching some level of success indesegregation, have failed to reach their goals ofintegration, and that a good deal of effort was stillnecessary in this direction. Gloria Randel, director of ajunior high school human relations program, observed that...integration has not been achieved in Minneapolis publicschools. Simply desegregation. (Transcript, p. 676)

Minneapolis has always referred to its plan as adesegregation/integration plan in order to emphasize thehuman relations and integration aspect of its approach. 15Some witnesses even cautioned against labeling whatMinneapolis has done as successful desegregation because ofthe number of nearly all-white schools still within thedistrict, such as Lowry with a 95 percent white studentbody. Northeast with a 96 percent white student population,and Edison, where whites constitute 98 percent of allstudents. Witnesses charged that the failure to recognizepredominantly white schools as segregated was a majorproblem confronting the desegregation effort. (Transcript,p. 297)

11


18/26

Student AchievementStudent achievement under the desegregation plan hasnot declined as some feared. Some teachers now point torising test scores since desegregation was initiated.According to Geraldine Johnson, a teacher at Field

Elementary School, math and reading scores of both majorityand minority students have risen since the school wasdesegregated. (Transcript, p.63 0 Other teachers alsonoted that the quality of educational programs in the schoolsystem has improved in the past 3 years. (Transcript, p.631) These teachers contend, however, that there is noindication that the rise in test scores is in any wayrelated to desegregation. (Transcript, pp. 213, 628-30)Many teachers, administrators, and parents maintainthat test scores should never be used as a measure ofsuccess or failure in the desegregation effort. CharlesQuaintance, a parent and an attorney for the197 2suitagainst the school board, stressed:

You don't integrate because the kids get highertest scores; you integrate because otherwisepeople are scarred. The children are scarred andknow that they aren't deemed as worthy or asworthwhile as the kids in the white schools.(Transcript, p. 443)Although academic quality and desegregation are

separate issues, many witnesses felt that, if the promise ofimproved educational quality had not been part of the plan,desegregation would not have been accepted as readily.Geraldine Sell,a parent with children in several differentMinneapolis schools, stated:It was significantly important to many people whowere against the pairing because they were willingto trade off the fact that they did not want theirchildren to go to school with black students inreturn for what they felt was a better programthan what they had beenin-... (Transcript, p.863)

John Warder, a former school board member, said:I doubt if the desegregation or integrationportion would have developed as smoothly as it didunless you did have...a better quality education,

12


19/26

something that they felt was better than what theywere getting.

Educational Programs,Faculty,and the PlanThe Minneapolis desegregation plan made a consciouseffort to combine educational improvements, a schoolbuilding and upgrading program, and the racial desegregationof schools. According to Dr. Robert Williams, 15 schoolswere closed and a $19 million building program was startedalong with desegregation. (Transcript, pp. 192, 445)Virtually all Minneapolis students are now able to chooseone of three different types of learning programs, a choicethat was not available to them prior to 1972. Dr. John B.Davis,superintendent of the Minneapolis schools during thedesegregation process, commented:

The creation of alternatives, participation andinvolvementall I think were generative andpositive concurrent developments which putdesegregation/integration into a broaderperspective. It was a c i t y ^ commitment toimproving education. It was a very important partof the process. (Transcript, p.401)As the desegregation plan was being implemented, theschool district also undertook a recruitment program for

hiring minority teachers. Dr. Joyce Jackson, who served asassistant director of personnel at that time, explained:The recruiting schedule was drastically changed interms of the types of the schools where we went.We expanded to many colleges [with] minoritystudents....There is tangible evidence that therewas an increase in the number of minority personsemployed by the school system....The proportion ofminority employees was increased significantly inthe Minneapolis schools. (Transcript, p. 473)

This improvement in the early 1970s has not continued,however. School enrollment has declined districtwide in thepast 4 years and the proportion of minority students in thedistrict has increased, but the percentage of minorityteachers has fallen considerably behind the percentage ofminority pupils. In 1975, 21 percent of the pupils wereminority, while only 10 percent of the teachers wereminority.I* (See appendix.)13


20/26

The assignment of faculty was one area in which thecourt required the district to do more than originallyplanned. (Transcript, p. 413) According to the court order,the 10 percent minority faculty had to be spread so thatthere was at least one minority faculty member in eachschool facility before there could be two minority facultymembers in any one facility. Later minimum and maximumpercentages were placed on minority faculty at each site.Declining enrollment has also directly affected facultystaffing patterns.

Student Transportation and DesegregationThe Minneapolis plan was formulated with the intentionof minimizing problems related to pupil transportation. Theschool district endeavored to limit travel for thosestudents affected to less than 30 minutes one way. In fact,through the use of pairing, most bus rides average less than20 minutes. The length of the average bus ride did notincrease measurably. More than half of the Minneapolisschool di st ricts pupils are bused to school, but only about11,000 students are transported for desegregation purposes.Although school officials claimed that thetransportation burden has not been placed entirely uponminorities (Transcript, p. 19 3) , many individuals expressedconcern over the question. (Transcript, p. 519) Dr. Richard

Green, principal of North High, queried:I think the question of equal burden is an issuein Minneapolis given the number of minorities andthe majority group. How far do you want to go inestablishing unequal burden on one group in orderto accomplish the physical desegregation of aschool? (Transcript, p. 520)

Concern regarding the dispersion of minority studentsin small numbers to schools throughout the city is oftenraised to counter charges that Minneapolis still has severalall-white schools.Desegregation Costs

In addition to the costs of busing more children, otherfinancial costs related to desegregation in Minneapolis weresubstantial, according to witnesses. This was partly due tothe construction of new facilities. Other costs went for14


21/26

the inservice teacher training, human relations programs,special liaison personnel to work with the community, etc.The first school pairing, for example, cost more than one-half million dollars, even though no construction wasinvolved. 17Local school funds and Federal funds covered thecost of the desegregation program.Minneapolis1desegregation efforts took place at arelatively optimal point in time when State cooperationfacilitated new construction, when the Federal Governmentfunded special desegregation projects, and when localbusinesses contributed financially to projects designed toassist children from the inner-city schools. (Transcript,p. 414)An expressed fear now is that with decliningenrollment, the district will be unable financially tosupport the extras necessary to ensure continued progresstoward integration. (Transcript, p. 37) As Ann Darby of theMinneapolis Urban League stated, I don't think we canafford to expect the kind of gains if we are going to haveour resources cut away because it takes dollars in order todo it. (Transcript, p. 51)

A Long-Range ViewCommenting on the overall outcome of the desegregationprocess,Barbara Schwartz of the Committee for IntegratedEducation noted:

I think it fs going to take a generation or two toreally see some results from all ofthis. I thinkwhat we are seeing finally is the emerging ofstaff and administration to deal openly withintegration. That coming out of hiding, I think,has been a slow process, and I'm not sure we arecompletely out of it yet. (Transcript, p. 36)

15


22/26

IV. FINDINGS The Minneapolis desegregation plan has, in a numberof instances, achieved its goal of physical redistributionof students so that no school has more than 42 percentminority enrollment. Some schools in the district, however,have failed to maintain that ceiling and continue to haveminority enrollments above the 42 percent figure. Theintegration portion of the plan has not yet been fullyimplemented and has not met the original expectations of the

plan. The Minneapolis school desegregation plan hasoverlooked the possibility that all-white or nearly all-white schools constitute a segregated situation. Someschools in the district have enrollments of 97 percent ormore white students. At the time the Minneapolis desegregation plan wasimplemented, and continuing to the present, there has beenvocal opposition expressed by some segments of thecommunity. Incidents of physical disruption and violencewere minimal, however, owing to the basic acceptance of lawand order by all elements of the community and a belief thatopposition to desegregation should be articulated throughpeaceful means rather than physical violence. The lack ofphysical violence should not be used as a measure of a lackof opposition to the desegregation plan. Various elements of the community--the school board,school administration, school superintendent, teachers,business leaders, religious leaders, some parents, and theme di a we re supportive of the school desegregation efforts,

and most of those elements participated to some extent inthe formulation and implementation of the Minneapolis plan.

16


23/26

NOTES

1. Minneapolis, Minn., Special School District No. 1,Statement on Desegregation/Integration (May1975)(hereafter cited as Statement on Desegregation ).2. Minnesota State Department of Education, EqualEducational Opportunity Policies, Guidelines, andRegulations for Minnesota Schools.3. Page numbers in parentheses cited here and hereafter intext refer to statements made to the Minnesota AdvisoryCommittee at its open meeting in Minneapolis, Minn., Apr.22-24, 1976, as recorded in the transcript of thatproceeding. The transcript is on filewiththe U.S.Commission on Civil Rights, Washington, D.C.,and with theCommission's Midwestern Regional Office, Chicago, 111.4. Booker v. Special School District No. 1, Minneapolis,Minn.,351 F. Supp. 799 (D. Minn., 1972).5. U.S. , Bureau of the Census,1970Census of Population.6. U. S., Bureau of the Census, Subject Report: AmericanIndians, 1970 of Population, PC (2)-iF.7. Ronald Abler, et al, The Twin Cities of St. Paul andMinneapolis.8. Minneapolis, Minn., Special School District No. 1,Pupil-Personnel Sight Count As of October 14, 1975(hereafter cited as 1975 SightCount ).9. 1975 figures reported to the U.S. Department ofHealth,Education, and Welfare by the Minneapolis, Minn., SpecialSchool District No. 1.10. Minneapolis, Minn., Special School District No. 1,Desegregation/Integration 1972-75, Mar. 14, 1972.11. Booker v. Special School District No. 1, Minneapolis,Minn.,order of May 7, 1975.12. October 1976 Enrollment: Sight Count of Pupils.13. Minneapolis Star, May 4, 1976, p. 1A.

17


24/26

14. Minneapolis Star May 6, 1976, p. 8A.15. Statement on Desegregation.16. 1975 Sight Count.17. Louise Jones, Urban Centers for Quality IntegratedEducation, Story of the Hale-Field Pairing Project WithSuggestions for Implementation by Other School Districts(October1975

18


25/26

APPENDIXMinneapolis, Minnesota, Special School District No. 1

Student Enrollment

19681970197219741975

Am.Ind.1,6291,9932,3522,6762,792

Black5,3185,9446,5427,0407,492

AsianAm.-

329352423571

Sp.Sur.-

461567583598

AllOthers62,92058,20752,07645,43943,160

Total69,86766,93461,88956,16154,613

Faculty Composition

19681970197219741975

Am.Ind.2548539887

Black322395514523510

AsianAm.1622303135

Sp.Sur.1216212925

AllOthers5,4915, 9566,1906,1386,005

Total5,8666,4376,8086,8196,662

Source: Information given the U.S. Commission on CivilRights by Dr. Robert Williams, associate superintendent forintergroup education, Minneapolis Public Schools, January1976.

19 U . S . G O V E R N M E N T P R I N T I N G O F F I C E : 1 9 7 7 7 2 6 - 4 1 4 3 3


26/26

U. S. CO MM ISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTSWASH INGTON. D. C. 20425OFFICIAL BUSINESSPENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, 300

POSTAGE & FEES PAIDU , S . C O M M I S S I O N O N C I V I L R I G H T S

minneapolis desegregation report 1977

Documents