Summation

On March 31, 1992, parents in San Diego opposed to racial assignment of their children in Carlin v. Board of Education, a “desegregation” class action, welcomed the Supreme Court decision in Freeman v. Pitts, which stated (503 U.S. 467,490):

Returning schools to the control of local authorities at the earliest practicable date is essential to restore their true accountability in our governmental system.

To these parents, it required the end of court supervision since 1977 in the Carlin case, and a return to local control in San Diego “at the earliest practicable date.” This decision reiterated the high court ruling in 1991 that “desegregation decrees are not intended to operate in perpetuity.” In disallowing indefinite court supervision in Oklahoma City, that decision stated (Board of Ed. of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237,248):

Local control over the education of children allows citizens to participate in decisionmaking, and allows innovation so that school programs can fit local needs....

Those decisions were especially encouraging to “anti-busing” San Diego parents and children who, individually and as a group called “Groundswell,” had striven for such a result since 1977. They had obtained the author as their pro bono attorney, who presented their interests, first by amici curiae presentation and then by intervention, in Carlin v. Board of Education.

Prepared for a favorable result in the Freeman case, the Groundswell parents' lawyer quickly moved on April 6, 1992 to terminate the Carlin case. Mainly because their school board joined with the Carlin Plaintiff-Class to support indefinite court control of San Diego schools, it took until July 1, 1998 before the Groundswell Intervenors succeeded in gaining the termination of the Carlin action.

Lawyer Enstrom then wrote Busing — Not Integration — Opposed, illustrating the constitutional opposition by the Groundswell parents to the effort by the Carlin Class, under judicial aegis, to racially balance San Diego students. The author, also being a parent, added a sequel, Liberate Public Schools from Government by Lawsuit, to chronologically present this lengthy parental effort to return local control to San Diego schools.

There remain thousands of non-class parents unwillingly subjected to race-based assignments of their children in hundreds of Carlin-type “desegregation” class actions. They urgently need restoration to local control of their public schools and they also face challenges like the Groundswell parents faced. They should know how those challenges were met in San Diego, by a lawyer professionally responding to a merited need, and by gaining standing in the case to assert their constitutional rights.

Hopefully, the experience of these San Diego parents adapted from the author's books will enable parents still subjected to class actions to restore genuine local control of the public education of their children according to the Constitution.

No single tradition in public education is more deeply rooted than local control over the operation of schools; local autonomy has long been thought essential both to the maintenance of community concern and support of public schools and to quality of the educational process. Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 741-742 (1974).

 

Separation of Powers:
Constitutional points bearing on the separation of powers,
and thereby on judicial oversight of American public schools.
 

Carlin v. Board of Education, San Diego Unified School District,
San Diego Superior Court No. 303800 (1967-1998)
San Diego, California
Enstrom: pro bono counsel, 1979-1998
 

Milliken 

Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974)
Detroit, Michigan
 

Dowell 

Board of Ed. of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1990)
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Enstrom: filed amici curiae brief
 

Freeman v. Pitts, 112 S.Ct. 1430 (1992)
DeKalb County School System (DCSS),
DeKalb County, Georgia
Enstrom: filed amici curiae brief
 

Board of Education v. Superior Court, 61 Cal.App.4th 411 (Feb.1998)
[conclusion of Carlin v. Board of Education]
San Diego, California
Enstrom: pro bono counsel
 

— Handbook: Summation —