Kalima Jenkins, by Her Friend, Kamau Agyei Carolyn Dawson, by Her Next Friend Richard Dawson Tufanza A. Byrd, by Her Next Friend, Teresa Byrd Derek A. Dydell Terrance Cason, by His Next Friend, Antoria Cason Jonathan Wiggins, by His Next Friend, Rosemary Jacobs Love Kirk Allan Ward, by His Next Friend, Mary Ward Robert M. Hall, by His Next Friend, Denise Hall Dwayne A. Turrentine, by His Next Friend, Sheila Turrentine Gregory A. Pugh, by His Next Friend, David Winters, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated American Federation of Teachers, Local 691, Intervenor v. State of Missouri Mel Carnahan, Governor of the State of Missouri Bob Holden, Treasurer of the State of Missouri Missouri State Board of Education Peter Herschend, Member of the Missouri State Board of Education Raymond McCallister Jr., Reverend, Member of the Missouri State Board of Education Susan D. Finke, President, Member of the Missouri State Board of Education Thomas R. Davis, Member of the Missouri State Board of Education
Docket: 93-3975
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; May 3, 1994; Federal Appellate Court
The State of Missouri appeals a district court order approving the continuation of Milliken II quality education programs for the 1993-94 and 1994-95 school years. This appeal follows a previous rejection of similar arguments regarding the 1992-93 school year. The State asserts that the district court did not adequately consider the argument for declaring the programs unitary under Freeman v. Pitts and claims that funding for a full-day kindergarten program is now redundant due to a new state law, Missouri Senate Bill 380. The Eighth Circuit affirms the district court's order, noting that the Kansas City Missouri School District (KCMSD) provided limited testimony confirming the effectiveness of the quality education programs, while the State did not present any live witnesses but relied on previously submitted declarations. The district court held a one-day hearing, where KCMSD's evidence indicated ongoing potential for improvement in the programs.
On July 30, 1993, the district court approved the continuation of the Milliken II quality education programs for the 1993-94 and 1994-95 school years, explicitly rejecting the State's arguments based on Freeman v. Pitts. The court found the State's claims of achieving unitary status unconvincing, noting that while the programs showed partial success, they did not fully meet their goals. The State appealed, reiterating arguments previously made in Jenkins IX, which had affirmed a prior order regarding the Milliken II programs for 1992-93. In Jenkins IX, it was determined that the evidence presented showed only initial progress in eliminating remnants of past discrimination, failing to demonstrate a good faith commitment to the court's decree. The record had seen minimal updates since Jenkins IX, validating the earlier conclusion that the State did not prove a history of commitment to fulfilling the court's mandates.
The State continued to argue that its obligations should end after seven years of implementing and funding the programs, a position that was previously addressed by dissenting judges in Jenkins IX. The dissent warned against the implication that the State could withdraw support once the programs were established, emphasizing that true unitary status would only be achieved when equal educational opportunities effectively eliminated past discrimination. The court reaffirmed its stance, rejecting the State's claim that its responsibilities were fulfilled, as echoed by the dissenting judges who opposed the rehearing en banc in Jenkins IX.
The State argues that if educational programs are not terminated, a gradual phase-out would financially burden the Kansas City Missouri School District (KCMSD), potentially compromising the quality of education. The dissent in Jenkins IX emphasizes the necessity of providing equal educational opportunities permanently. The State's primary obligation regarding the Milliken II programs is financial, seeking to end its funding responsibilities while KCMSD must manage these programs. The district court has mandated that the parties propose financing plans for the magnet schools and the overall district that maintain current quality levels, anticipating a potential withdrawal of court-ordered funding over various timelines.
Recent filings have been made by the parties in response to the district court's April 16, 1993 order, and hearings are expected. Key considerations for the court in deciding on any partial withdrawal include whether the school system has complied with the decree, the necessity of continued judicial oversight for compliance, and the demonstration of good faith commitment by the school district to the decree and relevant laws. The inquiry framed by the Supreme Court in Dowell focuses on the district's good faith compliance with desegregation efforts and the elimination of past discrimination. The State contends that it has shown such good faith and argues that its objections to aspects of the desegregation program do not indicate unwillingness to provide equal educational opportunities, asserting that the court should determine these factual issues based on the Supreme Court's guidelines.
The State has not provided a factual basis for the district court to address the issues at hand, which must first be developed by the court. The district court is expected to conduct detailed fact-findings regarding the Freeman and Dowell matters. Given the history of the litigation, the court's order will likely be subject to appeal, and it is anticipated that a comprehensive record will assist in the appellate review.
The State argues that Missouri Senate Bill 380 alters its desegregation liability by counting full-time kindergarten students as one student rather than half, resulting in potential overfunding for the Kansas City Missouri School District (KCMSD) under the Milliken II framework. However, funding from Senate Bill 380 is general state aid that can be allocated for any school purpose, not exclusively for kindergarten.
The district court acknowledged the uncertainties surrounding the impact of Senate Bill 380, particularly regarding the counting of students based on daily attendance rather than enrollment. The phased implementation of the new funding formula and the potential variability in appropriations due to state finance litigation further complicate the matter.
Consequently, the district court's decision to deny the State's request to offset full-day kindergarten funds against the payments from Senate Bill 380 is upheld, as the State has not proven that the court's findings were erroneous or that it abused its discretion. The district court's order is affirmed, ensuring that the future financial implications for KCMSD remain undetermined at this stage.
The district court conducted a hearing to approve the Milliken II quality education programs for the 1992-93 academic year. Following the pending motion by KCMSD, the Freeman v. Pitts decision prompted the State to request a declaration of unitary status for these programs based on the standards established in Freeman and Board of Education v. Dowell. On June 17, 1992, the district court ordered the continuation of the Milliken II programs, a decision affirmed by the appellate court. The court referenced the district court's consideration of the Freeman issue during its April 16, 1993, adoption of a long-range magnet renewal plan and a subsequent order on July 30, 1993, regarding the Milliken II programs. While the appellate court reviewed the July 30 order related to salary issues, the portion concerning Milliken II programs had not been appealed. After the district court rejected the State's motion for reconsideration on October 20, 1993, the State appealed the Milliken II matters. During the Jenkins IX argument, the July 30 order was not referenced. The State contended it was justified in seeking either an immediate or gradual transfer of control over the Milliken II programs back to KCMSD, asserting entitlement to a declaration of unitary status and requesting removal of district court oversight after demonstrating compliance with desegregation decrees.
The State contended in Jenkins IX that it has fully complied with the district court's desegregation decree related to the Milliken II programs and seeks a declaration of unitary status concerning its obligations. Citing its satisfactory compliance and efforts to provide quality education and remedial programs through funding, the State asserts it meets the criteria for 'unitariness.' The State requested either a declaration of the Milliken II operations as unitary or a reversal and remand for specific factual findings. Initially, on February 7, 1992, the State filed a general objection to the 1992-93 school year budget. Following the Freeman decision, it expressed support for the elimination of Year VIII programs, advocating for a return to local control over school district operations with the immediate cessation of extraordinary funding. Alternatively, it proposed a phased approach to gradually transfer responsibilities for program implementation and funding to the KCMSD. The State emphasized that the KCMSD should determine the future of these programs. The court is urged to initiate the process of returning control to local authorities by ending its oversight of the annual budget programs, thereby reinstating local control and fiscal responsibility.
