P. 1
Doe v LMSD - Factual Findings Memo Complete

Doe v LMSD - Factual Findings Memo Complete

|Views: 227|Likes:
Published by LMVUE

More info:

Published by: LMVUE on May 13, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/24/2013

pdf

text

original

During the public comments period, the Board received numerous criticisms of the plan,

31

including accusations by the North Ardmore community that race impermissibly played a role in

the redistricting process. (Pls.’ Ex. 63.) The Board rejected Proposed Plan 1 primarily because it

resulted in excessive travel times for students. Accordingly, the Administration and Dr. Haber

14

attempted to create new ways to configure students who lived closer to Harriton, in order to

expand Harriton’s projected enrollment. In addition, the District took note of the community’s

desire for grandfathering, meaning that students already at a given high school could stay at that

high school, in order to minimize educational disruptions in adjusting to a new high school.

The Administration then considered the Scenario 7 series. The summary of the Scenario

15

7 series that Dr. Haber prepared, includes general diversity data (race/ethnicity, socio–economic,

and disability). (Pls.’ Ex. 13.) Prior to the public presentation of Proposed Plan 2, Dr. McGinley

sent the Board a Memorandum attaching Scenario 7C, a plan that would be modified to become

Proposed Plan 2. (Pls.’ Ex. 67.) In this Memorandum, Dr. McGinley stated that “we have

developed a proposal that is more consistent with the non–negotiables and the community values

of the Sokoloff/Petersen report.” (Pls.’ Ex. 67, at 0366.) Unlike Plaintiffs, the Court does not

interpret this statement as indicating that the Community Values were used as Guidelines for

redistricting, or that Dr. McGinley in fact referred to the Community Value respecting diversity;

rather, he made a general statement indicating that the Administration was considering a plan

consistent with the Community Values, and testified at trial that in particular, he meant that the

plan minimized travel times, which had been identified as the major impediment posed by

During the summer, the District tested out bus travel times under Proposed Plan 1.

14

After the 2008 to 2009 school year began, the District again tested the bus travel times, this time

finding that during the school year, bus travel times had increased significantly from the summer.

No Scenario 6 was presented to the Administration.

15

32

Proposed Plan 1. In short, Dr. McGinley’s statement is too ambiguous for the Court to adopt

Plaintiffs’ construction.

The Administration selected Scenario 7C–5 to be Proposed Plan 2, and presented it to the

Board Members prior to its public presentation, along with the plan’s general diversity data. (Pls.’

Ex. 71, at 0557.)

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->