WASHINGTON WATCH: STATE WANTS COURT SUPERVISION TO END

WASHINGTON -- When John Munich, assistant attorney general of Missouri, appeared before the Supreme Court to ask it to end federal court supervision of the Kansas City Metropolitan School District, he pressed two basic arguments. First, he attacked the original findings of Judge Russell Clark that reduced student achievement and white flight were the result of past school segregation. Second, he asked the justices to recognize that even if these conditions were legitimate criteria for determining harm caused by segregation, Judge Clark abused his supervision by ordering salary increases for cooks, janitors and clerical workers.

"We're not being asked to review the original order?" asked Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, interrupting Munich's opening remarks.

"Not the validity of the goals then," said Munich, "but the validity of the goals today." By making student achievement scores the gauge of whether the vestiges of segregation have been eliminated, the judge overstepped his bounds, Munich insisted.

"Are you saying that scores have no validity?" Justice David Souter countered."No question about that," responded Munich. "The Constitution requires equal education opportunity; it does not guarantee any specific educational outcome."

"You're honestly saying you can't look at whether they can read now?" enjoined Justice Stephen Breyer.

Munich told the justice to look at other factors to determine whether the state had fulfilled its obligations, like money and resources spent to improve the schools. "Individual students have different talents and skills," argued Munich. "They learn at different paces. . . Missouri has done all things practicable."

Justice Souter demurred. "Do we somehow blind ourselves to the forest for the trees? ... Why is it irrelevant to look at whether resources are having any effect?"

Again, Munich stressed that test scores are caused by a myriad of factors, and that past segregation has not been determined to be one of them.

Justice Antonin Scalia joined in:"If you have a non-discriminatory input for long enough that every student has been exposed..., it's not possible that any of the achievement is a vestige of segregation.""Your complaint is with the remedy, but not the original decision?" Souter asked Munich."The state does not think today that the court can decide if Missouri has fulfilled all its obligations without reevaluating the underlying goals," he said. "But that is not the only argument.""Isn't it enough to say that student achievement levels are not within the realm of what the court can authorize the state to achieve?" asked Scalia. "It seems to me that going beyond this is not necessary.""That would probably do the trick, Justice Scalia," offered Munich.

The opposition

Arguing against Missouri were Theodore M. Shaw of the NAACP and Paul Bender, assistant solicitor general for the Clinton administration. Their fundamental argument was that the Kansas City district isn't desegregated either fully or partially, and that the remedial plan envisioned by Judge Clark wasn't fully in place until 1993. Furthermore, returning any part of the plan to the district would undermine its overall effectiveness, and programs, facilities and salaries all work together. Finally, they argued that the state hadn't contested the rationale for raising salaries for school employees before, and it was too late to do so now.

Justice Scalia immediately attacked the arguments, pointing out that by the NAACP's definition there would never be an end to court supervision. "The state is obliged to prove that there is no vestige" before supervision ends, "or that if there is it can do nothing about it. ... I would hate to try to prove that."

Chief Justice William Rehnquist found questionable the argument that all parts of the plan had to remain under the direction of the district court or it would fall apart. "Isn't this something like walking towards the edge of a cliff? What happens when the supervision ends, and funding is reduced?"

As for the salary increases, a majority of the justices seemed to be in concert with Justice O'Connor. "I'm just amazed," she said. "I see this as an abuse of supervision. ... It seems like a convenient way for the district and the labor union to raise salaries without going through a collective bargaining agreement. That concerns me."To almost all challenges Shaw and Bender had a similar response. "The argument we are making is that the district court must have flexibility in fashioning a remedy," said Shaw.

The decision

The Supreme Court gave no indication of how soon a decision would come. But with over 500 school districts under court supervision in America, whichever way this case is decided it promises to have far-reaching significance in Missouri and well beyond.

Jon K. Rust is a Washington-based writer for the Southeast Missourian.