Hoots v. Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 71-538.

272 F.Supp.2d 539

Dorothy HOOTS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Commonwealth of PENNSYLVANIA, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 71-538.

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.

June 24, 2003.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Mark T. Fatla, Pittsburgh, Pa, for Plaintiffs.

OPINION

COHILL, District Judge.

Before the Court is a motion filed by defendants Woodland Hills School District ("WHSD" or "the District") and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Doc. 1284), seeking a declaration of unitary status¹ and the end of judicial supervision of the District's schools. Plaintiffs, who represent a class of children and parents in the District, have filed a response in opposition. For the reasons set forth below, we will grant defendants' motion in its entirety, and end more than thirty years of judicial oversight of the Woodland Hills School District.

Background

The facts underlying this case have been well documented, most recently in our Opinion and Order of July 25, 2000. Hoots v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al., 118 F.Supp.2d 577 (W.D.Pa.2000). As we explained in that Opinion, the District had its genesis during the 1960s, when the Pennsylvania Legislature enacted legislation to consolidate smaller school districts in the Commonwealth's public school system. The Commonwealth ultimately approved the creation of the General Braddock Area School District, which combined the school districts of the Boroughs of Braddock, North Braddock, and Rankin in eastern Allegheny County. These were all financially troubled districts, and they also contained the largest concentration of minority students in this portion of the county. The Commonwealth also approved the creation or preservation of several neighboring school districts which were overwhelmingly white and economically affluent, including the school districts of Turtle Creek, Swissvale Area, Churchill Area, and Edgewood. This case was originally filed in 1971, when plaintiffs, representing a class of parents and children in the General Braddock Area School District, challenged the newly created district as racially discriminatory.

The Court determined that the creation of the General Braddock Area School District was an act of de jure discrimination, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Hoots v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Hoots II), 359 F.Supp. 807, 823 (W.D.Pa.); aff'd, 495 F.2d 1095 (3d Cir.1974); cert. denied, 419 U.S. 884, 95 S.Ct. 150, 42 L.Ed.2d 124 (1974). The Commonwealth was adjudged to be the constitutional violator. What became known as the Woodland Hills School District was the product of a court-ordered merger of the General Braddock School district with the districts of Edgewood, Churchill, Swissvale, and Turtle Creek. The District began operation with the 1981-82 school year.

The second decade of this litigation saw the gradual development and implementation, in the face of strong community opposition, of a number of remedial plans designed to fully desegregate the District's schools and programs. We appointed a Hearing Officer, Mark T. Fatla, Esquire, to conduct a hearing on the parties' conflicting implementation plans. His Report and Recommendation issued on August 20, 1990 (the "1990 R & R"). It was adopted, with certain exceptions, as the Opinion of this Court ("1991 Opinion & Order"), which set forth court-ordered remedies covering all aspects of school life in the Woodland Hills School District.

In October of 1999, the defendants each filed motions for a declaration that the District had complied in good faith with all Court-ordered remedies and achieved unitary status. The defendants requested that we dissolve the consent decree and cease judicial supervision over the school district's affairs. The District requested a gradual, rather than an abrupt, cessation of the court-ordered funds, programs, and personnel, and filed a proposed Transition Plan which would reduce the court-ordered remedial resources over a three-year period. A hearing on these motions for unitary status commenced on April 3, 2000, and closing arguments were heard on May 16 of that year.

By Opinion and Order dated July 25, 2000 (the "2000 Opinion and Order"), we found that the defendants had remedied the constitutional violation and thus achieved unitary status in the areas of student assignment, faculty and staff assignment, facilities, transportation, and activities. We also concluded that the vestiges of past discrimination in the areas of guidance and discipline had been remedied to the extent practicable, and that unitary status had been achieved in those areas as well. Accordingly, we held that judicial supervision over guidance and discipline was no longer necessary, with the condition that the Director of Guidance and guidance counselor positions at all grade levels be maintained, with appropriate clerical support, and then gradually reduced as set forth in the District's Transition Plan.

We also addressed the compensatory programs which had been implemented as part of the remedy. We concluded that the remedial compensatory programs designated as the Higher Order Thinking Skills ("HOTS") Program, Scholastic Aptitude Test ("SAT") Prep, and KIDS should no be longer part of the remedy for the remaining constitutional violation. We ordered that the remedial compensatory programs designated as the in-school tutoring labs for mathematics and the community based tutorial programs, be continued at current levels for the 2001-2001, 2001-2002, and 2002-2003 school years. The remedial compensatory programs designated as Reading Recovery, Summer Enrichment Program, and the Summer Learning Experience were to operate for the 2000-2001 school year and through the following summer.

However, we denied defendants' motions for unitary status in a small number of discrete but related areas. We found that a vestige of discrimination remained in curriculum, assessment and instruction, because the District had not yet fully complied with our previous orders to redesign the curriculum to eliminate tracking in mathematics. This prevented a finding of unitary status. We ordered the District to complete detracking in the mathematics curriculum by eliminating lower level courses and providing a single, detracked math curriculum, so that all students would have an equal opportunity to master the skills necessary to move ahead to the variety of math courses available at the high school level.

We stated that certain proposed changes in the math curriculum, presented in detail at the hearing, would satisfy our Order to detrack the math curriculum. At the same time, however, we emphasized that "[w]e do not intend to micromanage the District's curriculum, which is properly the function of the schools and the school board." 118 F.Supp.2d at 613.

We also denied defendants' motions for unitary status as to assessments and staff development. As part of the continuing remedy in this case, we ordered the District to implement appropriate assessments and staff development to support the curriculum then in place as well as the redesigned math curriculum. We adopted the District's proposed Transition Plan for staff development as the remedy in this area.

Finally, as to the items contemplated in the District's Transition Plan and incorporated in the remaining remedy, we adopted the budget proposed in that Plan. We ordered that any additional funding necessary to implement the remedy continue to be funded ninety percent (90%) by the Commonwealth and ten percent (10%) by the District through the 2002-2003 school year.

To oversee the implementation of the remaining remedy, the Court reappointed Mark Fatla, Esquire to continue as Special Master. Mr. Fatla has conducted quarterly status conferences to review the District's compliance with our Order, and has kept the Court apprised of that compliance. His active involvement has immeasurably assisted us in overseeing this case.

Essentially, then, our Opinion and Order of 2000 found that unitary status had been achieved as to most issues, and provided a detailed framework through which the constitutional violations remaining in the Woodland Hills School District could be addressed. Based upon testimony at the hearing, we anticipated that this limited remedy would be fully implemented in approximately three years, and that the defendants would then again file motions for unitary status.

During the past three years, the District has provided plaintiffs, Special Master Fatla, and the Commonwealth with detailed quarterly Status Reports describing the efforts undertaken by the District to satisfy its remaining obligations. Those Reports have included budget information, attendance reports for the secondary math labs and after-school tutorials, and documents related to staff development, course selection guides, and curriculum guides. Our review of both those reports and the transcripts of the conferences shows that the plaintiffs raised no objections to the District's compliance during that time.

On November 6, 2002 defendants filed a joint motion for unitary status, seeking final dismissal of this action on grounds that the Commonwealth and the District had complied with the requirements set forth in our July 25, 2000 Opinion and Order. Plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition. After providing opportunity for discovery and depositions, we held a hearing on defendants' motion on May 12 and 13, 2003. Defendant WHSD presented the testimony of District Superintendent Dr. Ronald L. Grimm, Dr. Stefan Biancaniello, Dr. Joel Reed, Dr. Roslynne Wilson, and former District Superintendent Dr. Stanley Herman. Defendant Commonwealth entered portions of the expert report of Dr. James Henderson into evidence, but presented no witnesses. Plaintiffs called Mr. Norman Catalano to the stand.

Having considered all of the testimony and all of the evidence, as well as the submissions of the parties, we turn now to the question of whether the defendants have achieved...