Case 2:09-cv-02095-MMB Document 118-1 Filed 05/27/10 Page 1 of 3

EXHIBIT A
 Case 2:09-cv-02095-MMB Document 118-1 Filed 05/27/10 Page 2 of 3

SCHEDULE OF FACTUAL FINDINGS DISPUTED BY DISTRICT

(1) The finding that the Board selected Dr. Haber as their redistricting consultant
“because he had proprietary Geographic Information Software (“GIS”) that allowed
him to use student information maintained by the district—namely the students’
identification numbers, names, addresses, race, ethnicity, special needs status, and
socioeconomic status, as measured by participation in free and reduced lunch
programs—to create proposals for redistricting.” (FF at p.19).
This finding implies that the Board selected Dr. Haber because his proprietary
software allowed him to use race to create redistricting proposals, when, in fact, the
Board Members testified only that they were aware that he had a computer system
that could “get the number of kids they needed to Harriton,” see Dkt. #102, Audio
File of 4/26/10 Morning Session, Doucette-Ashman Testimony, at 1:46:53-1:50:14,
and that they selected Dr. Haber because whereas the District previously had to use
push-pins on a map to represent students for purposes of redistricting, Dr. Haber had
a valuable program that allowed him to move attendance lines and then tell how
many students would be within those lines. See Dkt. #101, Audio File of 4/16/10
Afternoon Session, Pliskin Testimony, at 1:37:14-1:38:40.
(2) The finding that Dr. McGinley handwrote, on his copy of a chart dated August 26,
2008, a bracket next to the numbers of African-American and socioeconomic
students for scenario 4B with a notation reading “OK.” (FF at p. 22-23).
Dr. McGinley actually testified that he wrote “okay” to indicate that he thought the
overall student enrollment numbers for scenario 4B were okay. See Dkt. #91, Audio
File of 4/9/10 Morning Session, McGinley Testimony, at 8:19-9:03.
(3) The finding that emails indicate that Dr. Haber considered redistricting plans that
split Ardmore to not be “color-blind,” and that the Administration did not consider
plans he viewed as being “color-blind,” which support an inference that race was
considered. (FF at p. 26).
Dr. Haber testified that by “color-blind,” he simply meant that racial diversity
information or data would not have appeared in the scenario documents. See Dkt.
#93, Audio File of 4/12/10 Morning Session, Haber Testimony, at 1:08:44-1:10:06.
(4) The finding that Dr. McGinley testified that his statements in P-92 “merely indicated
that he was trying to figure out how to use magnet programs to attract African-
Americans” to Harriton. (FF at p. 35).
Dr. McGinley testified that while he discussed using magnets to draw students to
HHS, he did not ever talk about drawing a specific group of students such as the
African-American students in the Affected Area. See Dkt. #98, Audio File of
4/15/10 Morning Session, McGinley Testimony, at 51:40-53:31.
(5) The finding that Dr. Haber testified that he wrote the e-mail located at P-118 because
“race was a factor throughout consideration of redistricting plans.” (FF at p. 44).
On cross-examination, Dr. Haber testified that the only community value that was in
any way a part of his consideration for what he was doing was “cultivating and

2
 Case 2:09-cv-02095-MMB Document 118-1 Filed 05/27/10 Page 3 of 3

exploring diversity,” simply because he had the data that could allow him to reveal
that information. In that way, for him, race was a factor, and, as he testified, that is
the only way in which it was a factor. See Dkt. #93, Audio File of 4/12/10 Morning
Session, Haber Testimony, at 1:35:05-1:35:39.
(6) The finding that Dr. McGinley e-mailed estimated projected enrollment numbers
broken down by race and ethnicity, socio-economics, and disability to the Board on
January 12, 2009. (FF. at p. 45).
As the e-mail itself indicates (P-123), and as Dr. McGinley testified, the numbers he
e-mailed were not about the racial make-up of Harriton High School; rather, they
were the 5th-8th graders who were affected by the redistricting plan, meaning they
were losing the option to attend LMHS. See Dkt. #91, Audio File of 4/9/10 Morning
Session, Dr. McGinley Testimony, at 2:18:21-2:18:51.
(7) The finding that Dr. McGinley testified that he no longer believed that the estimated
figures in P-123 were accurate, given that there was no way of knowing for sure how
many students in the historic walk zone, or students districted to attend LMHS,
would elect to attend HHS. (FF at p. 46).
Dr. McGinley did not testify that he no longer believed these estimates to be
accurate; rather, he testified that he was incorrect in stating in prior testimony that
the Board could have added these figures to the 46 African-American students
believed to be attending HHS in 2008-2009 to determine the total number of
African-American students under Plan 3R, as there were a number of unknown
factors. See Dkt. #97, Audio File of 4/14/10 Afternoon Session, Dr. McGinley
Testimony, at 1:45:37-1:47:33.
(8) The finding that Board Member Susan Guthrie’s chart (P-32) indicates that she had
considered the effects that the Proposed Plans had on diversity, as well as on the
community of Ardmore. (FF at 48).
Ms. Guthrie testified that she created this document to distill all of the arguments that
had been made during public comment and elsewhere, both pro and con, in
connection with the various redistricting plans, so that she could think about them
systematically, but in the end she essentially discarded the chart and prepared her
remarks for the January 12, 2009 Board meeting without it, because she “knew in her
gut” what her reasons were for voting for Plan 3R. See Dkt. #103, Audio File of
4/26/10 Afternoon Session, Guthrie Testimony, at 1:23:05-1:25:53; 1:39:40-1:43:12.
(9) In addition, Michael Andre, Transportation Supervisor, is incorrectly referred to as
“Edward Andre” (FF at pp. 8-9), and Patrick Guinnane, Director of Operations, is
incorrectly designated as the Director of Human Resources. (FF at p. 8). In
addition, while the Court has stated that Parent Doe 10 is the only Parent Doe who
did not testify at trial (FF at p.5), three Parents Doe (Parent/Guardian Doe 1, 6, and
10) did not testify at trial.