Parental Handbook
for Local Control of Education
Previous Next


Groundswell Intervenors. On July 1, 1998, their reliance upon Dowell and Freeman proved well founded when the Court of Appeal, in ending court jurisdiction, cited the emphasis in both those decisions of returning local control. Board of Education v. Superior Court, 61 Cal.App. 411,416,419.

The actions of the Defendant San Diego Board in joining the effort of Carlin Plaintiffs to indefinitely prolong court jurisdiction were not aberrant. For parents in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system saw their school board, defendant in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971), join with the Swann plaintiffs in opposing their effort to restore local control. They finally regained local control of the public education of their children on September 21, 2001. The Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decreed it in Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, with the guideline to local control quoted in foregoing Challenge Six, pp. 82-83, citing both Dowell and Freeman.

Earlier, the Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) publicized a caseload list, compiled March 1997 by the United States Department of Justice, of school desegregation cases in hundreds of school districts remaining under court jurisdiction. In a publication, Civil Rights News, CEO disclosed a letter written by it on October 5, 1998 to federal judges whose jurisdictions included school districts under desegregation orders. The letter noted in view of recent Supreme Court decisions that a review of the status of some cases had reportedly been undertaken by some judges to ascertain whether a continued judicial role (in some cases over 20 years) exceeded their Article III authority. It suggested the judges should ask the parties in these cases “to show cause why these school districts should not be declared unitary, the cases dismissed, full authority for making educational decisions returned to the local school boards, and the federal judicial role to end.”

Such an order to show cause directed to the plaintiffs and defendant school boards is urgently needed by parents continuously lacking a democratic voice in such school districts. But experience shows they must provide the impetus for gaining such a review. Groundswell parents did so by obtaining counsel, necessarily pro bono, and presenting their vital interests, initially as amici curiae, per Appendix. Such a course is likely available to other similarly dedicated parents, at least as to an amici Next


Carlin v. Board of Education, San Diego Unified School District,
San Diego Superior Court No. 303800 (1967-1998)
San Diego, California


Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education,
402 U.S. 1, 32 (1971)
Charlotte, North Carolina


Board of Ed. of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1990)
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma


Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 112 S.Ct. 1430 (1992)
DeKalb County School System (DCSS),
DeKalb County, Georgia


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


Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education,
Docket No. 99-2389, U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Cir.,
269 F.3d 305, 311, 324 (9/21/2001)
Charlotte, North Carolina


Handbook: Conclusion, pages 85 - 88 —

Previous Next

Parental Handbook
For Parents Dedicated to Local Control
of Public Education of Children
According to the Constitution
by Elmer Enstrom, Jr.
Challenges of the 30-year Carlin affirmative action lawsuit:
an exemplar of citizens reasserting Constitutional rights.
© 1998-2006, 2013 Enstrom Foundation Bookmark and Share