Thomas v. St Martin Parish

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LAFAYETTE DIVISION

THERESA D. THOMAS, et al., *

Plaintiffs *

*

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, *

Plaintiff-Intervenor * CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:65-cv-11314

*

vs. *

*

ST. MARTIN PARISH SCHOOL * JUDGE ELIZABETH ERNY FOOTE

BOARD, et al., *

Defendants *

*

KERR □□ RRR RRR RRRRRRRK ERKKRKRRKRKRKEKEEKRE

CONSENT ORDER REGARDING ATTENDANCE ZONES

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Class Representatives Taylor Alexander, Tracie Borel, Genevieve Dartez, and

Alainey Smith (“Plaintiffs”), the Plaintiff-Intervenor United States of America (“United States”)

(collectively, “Plaintiff Parties”) and the Defendant St. Martin Parish School Board (the “Board”

or “District”) (collectively, “the Parties”) have entered into this Consent Order Regarding

Attendance Zones, which addresses issues regarding the District’s fulfillment of its affirmative

desegregation obligations in the area of student assignment. The Parties agree, and the Court finds,

that entry of this Consent Order, without further litigation concerning student assignment, is in the

public interest. The Parties agree, and the Court finds, that this Consent Order—in combination

with the Court’s order on the reopening of Catahoula Elementary School (“Catahoula”)! and the

Consent Order regarding the St. Martinville Zone Magnet and District-Wide Transfer Program?—

if fully and appropriately implemented, will facilitate both the District’s fulfillment of its

affirmative desegregation obligations and the termination of judicial supervision in the area of

student assignment related to attendance zones.

Relying on the Parties’ representations and the expert reports and testimony, the Court

finds that this Consent Order is a good faith effort towards desegregation in student assignment

related to attendance zones. However, the mere fulfillment of the terms of the Consent Order shall

not bind the Court to make a finding of unitary status: “whatever plan is adopted will require

evaluation in practice, and the court should retain jurisdiction until it is clear that state-imposed

segregation has been completely removed.”? Upon motion by a party at the appropriate time, the

Court will make a factual and legal determination as to whether the vestiges of segregation have

2 Record Document 694.

3 Green v. Sch. Bd. of New Kent Cty., 391 U.S. 430, 439 (1968).

been eliminated to the extent practicable or whether further relief is necessary. This reservation by

the Court is necessary because the impact of some of the Consent Order’s provisions will not be

known until they are implemented and reviewed subsequent to operation, such as the change of

attendance zone boundaries, the ongoing Catahoula issue, and the increased encouragement and

facilitation of majority-to-minority (“M-to-M”) transfers.

This Court has reviewed the terms of this Consent Order and concludes that it is consistent

with the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and other applicable federal law,

and that its entry and successful implementation will further the orderly desegregation of the

District.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows:

OVERVIEW AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

This Consent Order reflects the District’s obligations under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act

of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000c et seq. and relevant Federal law, to eliminate the vestiges of the prior

de jure segregation to the extent practicable and to provide educational programs and services

without discriminating on the basis of race and in a manner that does not perpetuate or further the

racial segregation of students.

The Parties agree to the terms of this Consent Order to resolve the Plaintiff Parties’

outstanding concerns regarding student assignment related to attendance zones and District-wide

student transfers, except for the outstanding issue of the operation of Catahoula Elementary School

and its attendance zones. The Parties anticipate that full and good-faith compliance with this

Consent Order, in combination with the Court’s separate order(s) regarding Catahoula,’ will help

support a finding that the District has complied with both the letter and spirit of the orders

4 Record Documents 707, 740 and 832 (Minutes of May 2, 2024 Oral Ruling).

governing student assignment, and that the vestiges of past discrimination in the area of student

assignment related to attendance zones and student transfers have been eliminated to the extent

practicable.°

This Consent Order shall at all times be binding upon the St. Martin Parish School Board,

including all successors of the current Board however constituted.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In August 17, 1965, Plaintiffs sued the District, alleging that the District operated a racially

segregated school district in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution.® On May 28, 1969, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, following

the Supreme Court’s decision in Green, 391 U.S. 430 (1968), invalidated the District’s “freedom

of choice” desegregation plan.’

On August 8, 1969, the Court approved the District’s new desegregation plan as modified

(the “1969 Desegregation Decree”), which, inter alia, authorized M-to-M transfers and established

five neighborhood-based attendance zones — St. Martinville, Parks, Breaux Bridge, Cecilia, and

Catahoula. On December 20, 1974, the Court entered a decree finding that the Board had

complied with aspects of the 1969 Desegregation Decree, but retaining jurisdiction over the case

for at least another two years (the “1974 Decree”).” On April 20, 2010, this Court issued a Minute

Entry stating that “it appeared that the Court had been divested of jurisdiction on December 21,

1976” and “invited the parties to oppose this reading of the Docket.” °

5 See Freeman vy. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 485 (1992).

6 Thomas v. St. Martin Parish Sch. Bd, 245 F. Supp. 601, 601 (W.D. La. Sept. 2, 1965).

7 Hall y. St. Helena Parish Sch. Bd., 417 F.2d 801 (Sth Cir. 1969).

8 Record Document 25-3 at 20-24. See Record Document 25-3 at 9, 12; Record Document 25-4 at 45-46.

° See Record Document 25-10 at 2-4.

10 Record Document 58 at 3.

After briefing by the Parties, on July 12, 2012, the Court held that this case remained open

because the 1974 Desegregation Decree had not dissolved the 1969 Desegregation Decree or

terminated the case.!'! On June 24, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the

District Court’s July 12, 2012 decision.

Following negotiations, the Court entered a consent order regarding facilities, faculty

assignment, and staff assignment on December 28, 2015. After a hearing, where the Parties

presented evidence in the form of testimony and expert reports, the Court entered consent orders

governing student assignment on January 21, 2016, quality of education on February 3, 2016, and

transportation on February 4, 2016. This Court later consolidated the aforementioned consent

orders into a Superseding Consent Order! (collectively, the “2016 Order’) designating the 2016

Order as the only consent order in full force and effect at this time.

On January 18, 2021, the District filed a Motion for Unitary Status in the areas of student

assignment and quality of education, including discipline, course assignment, student retention

and graduation rates'4 and a Memorandum in Support thereof.'° The Plaintiff Parties filed

oppositions to the District’s Motion and sought further relief in each of the areas.

On June 21, 2021, this Court issued a Memorandum Ruling denying the District’s Motion

for Unitary Status and Dismissal with respect to student assignment, faculty assignment, student

discipline, and quality of education related to the Graduation Pathways Program. The Court

granted the District’s Motion concerning quality of education with respect to in-grade retention

and graduation rates. This Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Further Relief with respect to

2 Thomas v. Sch. Ba. St. Martin Parish, 756 F.3d 380, 387 (5th Cir. 2014).

'3 Record Document 211, 211-1 to 211-4.

4 Record Document 365.

' Record Document 365-1.

student assignment, faculty assignment, student discipline, and quality of education related to the

Graduation Pathways Program. Among other things, the Court ordered the Parties to “develop a

revised consent order [relative to student assignment] taking into account Plaintiffs’ proposed

remedies” identified in said Memorandum Ruling and in Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of Law.'°

On September 2, 2021, the District filed an appeal with the Fifth Circuit. On December 28,

2021, the District filed a Motion to Stay Further Proceedings Pending Appeal.'’ The Parties

continued to work on the proposed remedial! orders through early February. On February 8, 2022,

the District directed its counsel to suspend negotiations of all remedial actions and voted “not to

authorize counsel to enter into any consent orders.” The District then filed a Motion to Stay

Pending Appeal with the Fifth Circuit on February 9, 2022.'’ On March 3, 2022, the Fifth Circuit

denied the District’s request for immediate stay, finding no “need for immediate relief,” and carried

the stay motion with the case.”° This Court denied the District’s stay motion on March 21, 2022,

and a hearing on remedial relief was set for August 8, 2022.

The Court held a 5-day evidentiary hearing on remedial relief from August 8, 2022 - August

12, 2022, regarding the remaining areas of operation, including student assignment. However, on

August 11, 2022, the Fifth Circuit published its opinion, affirming in part (this Court’s decision

that the District was not unitary) and reversing in part (this Court’s decision to close Catahoula

16 See Record Document 419 at 70, 158.

Record Document 445.

'8 Record Documents 466 at 1 and 466-1 at 2.

1° Defs.’ Mot. for Stay, No. 21-30514 (Sth Cir. Feb. 9, 2022).

2° Borel on behalf of AL v. Sch. Bd. Saint Martin Par., No. 21-30514, 2022 WL 3355807, at *1 (Sth Cir. Mar. 3,

2022).

Elementary).2! A scheduling order was issued on October 12, 2022, setting a non-jury trial for

February 27, 2023.

On December 14, 2022, the Fifth Circuit denied the District’s request for rehearing en banc

of its appeal of this Court’s June 2021 Opinion.

On January 6, 2023, the District submitted its proposed student assignment plan to the

Court. On February 15, 2023, the Plaintiff Parties submitted their proposed student assignment

plans to the Court. The Parties participated in a hearing to address the student assignment issue

from February 28, 2023 to March 6, 2023.

On May 26, 2023, this Court entered a remedial order pertaining to faculty assignment and

quality of education in the areas of discipline and graduation pathways.

On June 9, 2023, the Parties submitted a joint proposed consent order on the St. Martinville

Zone magnet program and transfers. The Court entered that consent order the same day.

On July 31, 2023, this Court ruled on the reopening of Catahoula and permitted the District

to reopen Catahoula in Fall 2024 as a prekindergarten, kindergarten, and first grade (“PK-1”)

school with its pre-2016 school zone lines.** Judgment was entered on November 16, 2023.

I. FACTS

The District’s current student assignment plan assigns students by geographically designed

attendance zones to a total of sixteen (16) schools, with all except Stephensville in feeder patterns

within four (4) attendance zones as follows:

SSeS | SRE TET

21 Borel on behalf of AL v. Sch. Ba. Saint Martin Par., 44 F.4th 307 (Sth Cir. 2022).

22 Record Document No. 707.

Breaux Bridge Primary Early Learning Center (PK-2) Cecilia Primary (PK-2)

SO

Stephensville Elementary School serves grades PK-8 with students in grades 9-12 attending

Morgan City High School in neighboring St. Mary Parish.

During the 1968-1969 school year, 56% of the students in the District were White, while

44% were Black.”? That year, all the students, faculty, and staff at Catahoula Elementary were

White.** Catahoula was a White school during de jure segregation before the entry of the 2016

Consent Order.*° Before the Court ordered Catahoula’s closure, it remained racially identifiable

White.”°

Currently, the District serves approximately 7,235 students in grades PK-12, of whom

approximately 48.1 % are White and 47% are Black. Pursuant to the District’s current Student

Transfer and Residency policies, all students must attend school in the attendance zone where they

reside unless they qualify for and are granted a valid transfer to another school. The Parties’ joint

Student Assignment Demographic Summary shows the racial makeup of the student enrollment at

each school based on the “actual enrollment” as of the November 15 Report of each school year

from the 2015-2016 school year through the 2022-2023 school year.*’ The actual enrollment

figures account for all students attending the school, including those students who live in the

residential attendance zone and those who have transferred into that school.”®

23 Record Document 25-3 at 9-11.

24 Record Document 25-3 at 9, 11-12.

25 Record Document 25-3 at 14-18; Record Document 150 at 5.

26 Feb. 2023 Bench Trial Joint Ex. 1 at 3, see Record Document 651.

he 2023 Bench Trial Joint Ex. 1, see Record Document 651.

Based on the 2022-2023 actual enrollment data, the racial makeup of the student

enrollments by school and grade level are:

Table 1: Actual Enrollment as of November 15, 2022

(Deviations from the +/-15% desegregation standard are highlighted in red)

Elementary (PK-5) Totals | 1,644 | 46.9% 1,660 [47.4%] □□ |

Breaux Bridge Elementa 36.8% 57.4% | +10.0%

___Breaux Bridge Primary _|_194__| 35.5% | 26 | 4.8% | 326 _| 59.7% | +12.3% _

[Codie Primary 390 589% 8 2 ee

Early Teaming Center(PK-1) | 122 | 324% | 13 | 35% | 241 ots) 267% |

St Matinville Primary | 4h [205% [is si | 302 Lena | 90.0% |

Teche Elementa 56.3% 35.3% | -12.1%

Stephensville Elementar 96.7% | 4 | 3.3% | 0 | 0.0%] -

Middle School (6-8) Totals 48.4% | 66 | 4.1% | 774 [47.5%] - □

Breaux Bridge Junior High 43.2% 53.7%

Cecilia Junior High 59.7% 33.8% | -13.7%

Parks Middle (5-8 47.3% 51.7%

St. Martinville Junior High 36.8% 59.6% | +12.1%

High School (9-12) Totals | 1,046 | 49.8% 45.9% | -

Breaux Bridge High 49.7% 47.6%

Martinville Senior High | 191 | 33.5% | 27) | 47% | 352" | 61.8% | 415.9% |

District-Wide Total 3,479 | 48.1% 3,399 | 47.0% | 7,235

Catahoula Elementary was closed during the 2022-2023 school year, and therefore, no

enrollment figures are included above for that school.

1. LEGAL STANDARDS

The ultimate goal of every desegregation case, including this one, is the elimination of the

vestiges of past segregation in all aspects of school operations to the extent practicable and,

ultimately, a declaration that the school district has achieved unitary status.?? Federal court

29 Freeman, 503 U.S. at 489.

supervision of a local school system is intended to remedy the constitutional violation and, after

unitary status has been achieved, to return control of the school system to the locally elected school

board. *°

The United States Supreme Court has described six areas of operation that must be free

from racial discrimination before full unitary status can be achieved: (1) student assignment; (2)

faculty assignment; (3) staff assignment; (4) extracurricular activities; (5) facilities; and (6)

transportation.*! Each of these “Green factors” may be considered individually, and a school

district may achieve partial unitary status as to these factors one at a time such that federal judicial

supervision is relinquished incrementally.*? In order to secure a declaration of unitary status as to

any one (or more) of the Green factors, the District must demonstrate, as to each specific factor,

that it has complied in good faith with the desegregation decree for a reasonable period of time

and that the vestiges of past discrimination have been eliminated to the extent practicable.*? For

each area of operation, if the facts reveal (a) no continued racial discrimination, (b) that the District

has made good faith efforts to comply with the desegregation decree, and (c) that the District has

made affirmative efforts to eliminate the vestiges of the prior discrimination, this Court may

declare that factor unitary but retain continuing jurisdiction over the remaining factors until such

time as unitary status is achieved in the remaining areas.**

I. AGREED REMEDIAL MEASURES REGARDING ATTENDANCE ZONES

A. The Desegregation Standard

The Supreme Court has stated that the “fundamental” inquiry and “critical beginning point”

3° Td. at 489.

31 Green, 391 US. at 435.

32 Freeman, 503 U.S. at 489-91. A court may also consider other ancillary factors. Id. at 492.

33 Bd. of Educ. v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 249-50 (1991); see also Flax v. Potts, 915 F.2d 155, 158 (5th Cir. 1990);

Monteith v. St. Landry Pub. Sch. Bd, 848 F.2d 625, 629 (5th Cir. 1988).

34 Freeman, 503 U.S. at 490-91.

10

in assessing a school district's compliance with a desegregation decree is determining whether its

schools remain racially identifiable.*> Courts rely on multiple factors, including student enrollment

and faculty and staff assignment, to determine whether a school is racially identifiable.*° Racial

identifiability often focuses on calculating the extent to which a school's student enrollment by

race deviates from the district-wide student enrollment by race for the comparable grade levels,

e.g., elementary, junior high, and high schools.*’ The Parties agree and the Court finds that a plus

or minus fifteen percent (+/-15%) variance from the Black enrollment is within accepted standards

for this purpose and provides a reasonable starting point in this case for moving toward a unitary

status determination.*®

For the 2022-2023 school year, the District-wide percentage of Black students was 47.0%.

The actual enrollment percentage of Black elementary students was 47.4%; therefore, elementary

schools that complied with the +/-15% desegregation standard would have had an actual Black

enrollment between 32.4%-62.4%; the actual enrollment percentage of Black middle school

students was 47.5%; therefore, middle schools that complied with the +/-15% desegregation

standard would have had an actual Black enrollment between 32.5%-62.5%; the actual enrollment

percentage of Black high school students was 45.9%; therefore, high schools that complied with

the +/-15% desegregation standard would have had an actual enrollment between 30.9%-60.9%

Black.

In subsequent school years, compliance with the +/-15% desegregation standard will be

based on the District-wide actual enrollment of Black elementary students for the preceding school

36 United States v. West Carroll Par. Sch. Dist., 477 F. Supp. 2d 759, 763 (W.D. La. 2007).

37 Swann y. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 25 (1971); see also Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd.

of Educ., 269 F.3d 305, 319 (4th Cir. 2001).

38 Belk, 269 F.3d at 319.

year as reported to the Court on November 15 of the respective year. Utilizing the +/-15% standard

to assess the District’s desegregation efforts, the 2022-2023 actual enrollment figures (which

include valid transfers) reveal that four schools are racially identifiable: Cecilia Primary (-16.2%),

the Early Learning Center (+16.7), St. Martinville Primary (+20.0%), and St. Martinville Senior

High (+16.2%). Again, Catahoula Elementary was closed during this school year.

While “[c]onstructing a unitary school system does not require a racial balance in all of the

schools,”*? “[t]he district judge or school authorities should make every effort to achieve the

greatest possible degree of actual desegregation.” The Parties agree and the Court finds that the

remedial measures set forth below are designed to eliminate the vestiges of the prior discrimination

and to address the Plaintiff Parties’ concerns regarding the District's operations in the area of

student assignment. The Parties agree and the Court finds, subject to the reservations stated above,

that the relief detailed below will address such concerns and, if fully and properly implemented

over a reasonable period of time, is designed to result in the achievement of unitary status and

dismissal of the case in the area of student assignment.

B. Attendance Zones and Modifications

The Parties agree and the Court finds that, in light of the presently known facts, circumstances,

and residential patterns at issue, the zone line modifications are practicable zone line adjustments

that further desegregation.

3° Ross v. Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist., 699 F.2d 218, 228-29 (5th Cir. 1983).

40 Swann, 402 U.S. at 26. See Dowell, 498 U.S. at 250 (requiring a court assessing whether a school district has

achieved unitary status to consider “whether the vestiges of de jure segregation had been eliminated as far as

practicable.”).

12

1. Cecilia Zone

The Cecilia PK-8 attendance zones shall remain the same as under the 2016 Consent

Order.*!

2. Breaux Bridge Zone

The Breaux Bridge PK-8 attendance zone shall be modified, the southwestern portion will

be shifted north to Prairie Highway and end at a point before Rookery Road, as identified in the

maps and metes and bounds description attached as Exhibits 1 and 2, which are incorporated into

this Consent Order as if fully set forth herein. These modifications affect no St. Martin Parish

students as this area is currently undeveloped and uninhabited.

3. Parks Zone and St. Martinville Zone

Beginning with the 2024-2025 school year, the District will alter the student assignment

plan for the Parks and St. Martinville PK-8 attendance zones, the central portion of the south Parks

attendance zone line will extend south to the Cypress Island Highway and the northwest portion

of the Parks attendance zone line will extend north toward the Cypress Island Highway, Theobald

Road, and Par Road 323. The St. Martinville zone will extend north to Prairie Highway,

incorporate portions of Rookery Road, and include portions of Main Highway, as identified in the

maps and metes and bounds description attached as Exhibits 1 and 2, which are incorporated into

this Consent Order as if fully set forth herein.

During the 2023-24 school year: the enrollment at Parks Primary was 41.5% Black, 5.9

points below the +/-15% desegregation standard; Parks Middle was 51.7% Black; 4.2 points above

the +/-15% desegregation standard; the Early Learning Center was 64.1% Black, 16.7 points above

the +/-15% desegregation standard; St. Martinville Primary was 67.4% Black, 20.0 points above

4 Td.

13

the +/-15% desegregation standard.** The Parties believe the proposed attendance zone

modifications will result in each of the Parks and St. Martinville schools, that serve grades PK-8,

coming within the +/-15% desegregation standard. The Parties acknowledge that Catahoula

Elementary may open as a Pre-K-1 school after the successful implementation of the magnet

academies, and that its opening will affect the racial makeup percentages at the Early Learning

Center.

4. High Schools

The high school attendance zones shall remain the same as under the 2016 Consent Order,*®

except that the high school attendance zone boundary between Breaux Bridge and St. Martinville

shall be modified, the western portion of the line will begin by following Prairie Highway, will

extend southeast to end at a point before Rookery Road, then northeast to a point near Ruth Drive,

then north to a point near Main Highway, then east to Bayou Teche, then southeast to a point near

James Road, then south to Main Highway, then west to the intersection of Main Highway and True

Friend Road, then southeast to the intersection of True Friend Road and Rousseau Poche Road,

then south along Rousseau Poche Road to a point near Theobold Road, then will follow the existing

high school attendance zone boundary line between Breaux Bridge and St. Martinville, as

identified in the maps and metes and bounds description attached as Exhibits 1 and 2, which are

incorporated into this Consent Order as if fully set forth herein.

The modifications to the western portion of the attendance zone boundary between Breaux

Bridge and St. Martinville, beginning at the western edge of the Breaux Bridge and St. Martinville

* See Table 1.

43 See Exhibit 1 to 2016 Consent Order re Student Assignment Record Document 211-1 at 32.

Zones and ending at a point before Rookery Road, presently affect no St. Martin Parish students,

as this area is currently undeveloped and uninhabited.

Students who are enrolled in the high schools impacted by these changes and who are

enrolled in grades 11 and 12 during the 2023-24 school year may choose to remain at their 2023-

24 zoned school until the end of the 2025-26 school year or until they complete grade 12,

whichever occurs later. Parents/guardians must inform the District of their desire to exercise this

option as soon as practicable after entry of this Consent Order.

5. Catahoula

The Court has determined that the Schoo! Board may reopen Catahoula Elementary as a

PK-1 school with its pre-2016 attendance zone boundaries after a viable magnet program as

approved by the Court has been operated or provided for a full school year at the Early Learning

Center and St. Martinville Primary.**

6. Stephensville

Although the Stephensville Elementary enrollment figures fall outside the acceptable +/-

15% desegregation standard, the Parties agree and the Court finds that the Stephensville

Elementary attendance zone is geographically isolated such that no further practicable measure

can be utilized to engender desegregation. Therefore, the Stephensville Elementary zone shall not

be a consideration in the analysis for achieving unitary status in the area of student assignment.

However, the District shall not take any action that will hinder desegregation of the Stephensville

zone.

7. 2024-2025 School Year Enrollment Report

On September 16, 2024, the District will file with the Court and provide to the Plaintiff

#4 Record Document 707. 1s

Parties a student enrollment report for those schools affected by the zone changes proposed in this

Consent Order. The student enrollment report will show the effect(s) the attendance zone changes

have had on desegregation of the schools and shail provide a comparison to the Parties experts’

enrollment projections.

8. Residency Verification

Because the above projections are based, in part, on student residency information, the

Parties agree and the Court finds that the District shall strictly implement its residency verification

policy and transfer policy, which shall be revised to be consistent with this Consent Order.

Accordingly, within 60 days of entry of this Consent Order, the District shall provide the

Plaintiff Parties with a proposed revision of the residency verification and transfer policy. The

Plaintiff Parties shall have 30 days following receipt of the proposed revised policies to provide

the District with comments regarding the proposed revision(s). The Parties shall meet and confer

(either via telephone, videoconference, or in person) as necessary to reach agreement on these

policies. If the Parties are unable to reach agreement regarding the revision within 120 days of

entry of this Consent Order, any party may move the Court to resolve the dispute.

Until such time that the District is declared unitary concerning student assignment and the

student assignment Green factor is dismissed, the above procedure shall be used to address each

subsequent modification to the District’s residency verification and student transfer policies.

9. Notice and Marketing

As soon as practicable, but in no event longer than 14 calendar days, after entry of this

Consent Order, the District shall communicate information describing the attendance zone

modifications directly to all parents/guardians through at least two media (e.g., hard copy letters

by mail, J calls, email, newspaper, website, etc.). These efforts shall also include providing

. 16

information to parents/guardians of students in grades 11 and 12 impacted by the attendance zone

changes, including information about the form families must complete to remain at the school to

which they were assigned at the end of the 2023-2024 school year, how parents can access virtual

and hard copies of that form, how parents can submit that form electronically and via hard copy,

and that the form must be completed no later than two (2) weeks after the District communicates

information describing the attendance zone modifications through at least two forms of media. In

communicating with parents/guardians, the District will include efforts designed to reach

parents/guardians who face barriers to receiving information, including lack of digital access.

Within two (2) weeks of the entry of this Consent Order, the District will add a webpage to the St.

Martin Parish School District website featuring an interactive online map that families can use to

determine their attendance zone. This webpage will be accessible from the homepage of the St.

Martin Parish School District website.

The District shall provide documentation of this notice process to the Plaintiff Parties for

review and comment one week prior to the implementation of the notice process.

10. Capacity

The District shall ensure that adequate space and capacity are made available for all

students at each of the schools affected by the zone changes described infra.

Until such time that the District is declared unitary concerning student assignment and this

Green factor is dismissed, the District shall provide the Plaintiff Parties with notice of each

proposed change to the functional capacity of each District school for any reason (e.g., any

increases or decreases in the number of classrooms or the classroom capacities). The Plaintiff

Parties shall have fourteen (14) calendar days following receipt of the proposed changes to provide

the District with objections regarding the proposed change. To the extent that the Plaintiff Parties

17

raise objections, the Parties shall meet and confer (either via telephone, videoconference, or in

person) as necessary to reach agreement as to these changes. If the Parties are unable to reach

agreement regarding a proposed change, any party may move the Court to resolve the dispute.

11. Majority-to-Minority transfers

Students who are currently enrolled in any school as a M-to-M transfer for the 2023-2024

school year shall not be impacted by the zone changes. These students may remain in their current

M-to-M host school until the completion of the highest grade level at that school. To the extent the

District provides any student with free transportation to and/or from events held outside of regular

school hours (e.g., after-school extracurricular activities), the District will continue to extend the

same free transportation to students granted M-to-M transfers, as required by the Consent Order

Regarding St. Martinville Zone Magnet and District- Wide Transfer Programs. Record Document

694, Section II.G.

12. Transition Assistance for Majority-to-Minority Transfers and

Students Reassigned as A Result of Attendance Zone Changes

Within forty-five (45) days of the entry of this Consent Order, the District shall provide to

the Plaintiff Parties for review, comment, and approval all changes to the transfer transition

assistance procedure to be implemented during the 2024-2025 school year. The District will

continue to maintain the transfer transition assistance procedure.

TI. MONITORING, REPORTING, AND OVERSIGHT

The District shall file and submit to the Court, and to counsel of record for all Parties,

reports pursuant to this Consent Order until such time as the District is declared unitary. The

District shall submit these reports on the first business day after each November 15, March 15, and

June 30; However, the first M-to-M report after entry of this Consent Order shall be due on August

15, 2024. Each report shall include a key for all codes or abbreviations used therein.

18

A. November 15 and March 15 Reports

Each November 15 and March 15 report must include the following information:

1. A chart indicating the total number and percentage of students, by grade level and

race, enrolled in each school and district-wide in the District and a +/- calculation showing the

difference between each school’s percentage of Black students and the District-wide percentage

of Black students within that grade band.

2. For each class in each school: (a) the number of students by race and grade level;

(b) the name and race of the faculty member(s) assigned to the classroom; (c) whether any students

in the class are grouped or assigned by race, ability, achievement, language needs, or another basis;

(d) the subject of the class; and (e) whether the class is an elective or a non-elective course.

B. June 30 Report

All reports shall include the following information for the time period since the last report

was submitted:

1. A complete description of all specific efforts, if any, the District has taken to

encourage students to engage in M-to-M transfers, including copies of all written notices

disseminated or posted by the District; all specific efforts, if any, the District has taken to make

the M-to-M application and attendance zone information more accessible to students and families;

and, for the August 15, 2024 report, a complete description of all specific efforts, if any, the District

has taken to advise families of the attendance zone changes.

2. A list of students who applied for an M-to-M transfer since the last report was filed

(except that the August 15, 2024 report shall include the requested information since the start of

the second semester of the 2022-2023 school year) that identifies each applicant by race, home

school, receiving school, and if denied, the reason for denial, to be filed under seal.

19

3. The impact of M-to-M transfers on progress towards or regress from desegregation

goals.

IV. MODIFICATIONS

Until such time that the District is declared unitary concerning student assignment and this

Green factor is dismissed, the District must obtain the Court's approval of all modifications to the

attendance zones, grade structures (e.g., modifying an elementary school that used to serve grades

PK-4 so that it will serve grades PK-5 instead), and educational programs at each of the District

schools (e.g., the establishment or modification of a magnet program).

V. OBJECTIONS

Specific written objections by the Plaintiff Parties to the March 15th, June 30th, and

November 15th reports, including objections related to the District's compliance with the +/-15%

desegregation standard, shall be submitted within forty-five (45) calendar days of receipt of each

report or such objections will be deemed waived and a presumption of compliance with the

reporting requirements of the preceding reporting period will be applied. The Parties will meet and

confer (either via telephone, videoconference, or in person) about each objection within fourteen

(14) business days of service of the objection. In good faith, the District will consider proposals

from the Plaintiff Parties to address their objections regarding the District's compliance with the

Consent Order. In the event that the Parties reach an impasse as to either (a) whether an objection

has merit or (b) how to remedy any concerns raised in an objection, any party may move the Court

to resolve the dispute so long as the motion is made within forty-five (45) calendar days of the

meet and confer.

20

VI. TERMINATION OF JUDICIAL SUPERVISION

The Parties agree that full compliance with this Consent Order will support a finding that

the District has complied with both the letter and the spirit of the orders governing this matter as

they pertain to student assignment and that the vestiges of segregation in the area of student

assignment have been eliminated to the extent practicable.“ The Parties agree, and the Court holds,

that “whatever plan is adopted will require evaluation in practice, and the court should retain

jurisdiction until it is clear that state-imposed segregation has been completely removed.”*°

The District must implement the Court approved magnet plan for a minimum of two school

years, that is, for two years after the Court signs a viable magnet plan order. Forty-five (45)

calendar days subsequent to the conclusion of that second school year, the District may move for

unitary status and dismissal on student assignment and/or the Plaintiffs Parties may move for

further relief or to enforce the Consent Order on student assignment. The applicable provisions of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court will apply to all such

motions. In the absence of a response in opposition to a motion for unitary status, a motion to

enforce the Consent Order, or a motion for further relief by the Plaintiff Parties, and subject to this

Court's ruling that the District is in compliance with this Consent Order, Title IV of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution, the Court may declare the District unitary with respect to student assignment and

dismiss this case as to student assignment.

VII EFFECT OF PRIOR ORDERS

All prior orders not inconsistent herewith remain in full force and effect.

See Freeman, 503 U.S. at 485.

“© Green, 391 U.S. at 439. 31

HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, this redafin of

J , 2024.

ELIZABETH ERNY FOOTE ~~

DISTRICT JUDGE

22

APPROVED REGARDING FORM AND CONTENT:

For Plaintiffs:

/s/ Kevin E. Jason

Deuel Ross

Victor Jones

Joseph Wong

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE

& EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.

700 14th Street N.W. Ste. 600

Washington, DC 20005

(202) 682-1300

Kevin E. Jason

Katrina Feldkamp

Michele St. Julien

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE

& EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.

99 Hudson Street, 16th FI.

New York, NY 10013

(212) 965-2200

(212) 226-7592 Fax

/s/ Gideon T. Carter, II]

Gideon T. Carter, UI

Bar Roll Number 14136

PO Box 80264

Baton Rouge LA 70898-0264

(225) 214-1546 office

(225) 341-8874 fax

E-Mail: gideontcarter3d@gmail.com

23

For Plaintiff-Intervenor, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

KRISTEN CLARKE

Assistant Attorney General

/s/ Christopher S. Awad

SHAHEENA A. SIMONS

FRANZ R. MARSHALL

CHRISTOPHER S. AWAD

MEGAN ABBOT

Educational Opportunities Section

U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civil Rights Division

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20530

BRANDON BONAPARTE BROWN

United States Attorney

For the Western District of Louisiana

/s/ Allison Reppond

ALLISON REPPOND (TX#24085733)

Assistant United States Attorney

300 Fannin Street, Suite 3201

Shreveport, Louisiana 71101

(318) 676-3614

For Defendant, ST. MARTIN PARISH SCHOOL BOARD

HAMMONDS, SILLS, ADKINSGUICE, NOAH & PERKINS, LLP

2431S. Acadian Thruway, Suite 600

Baton Rouge, LA 70808

Telephone (225) 923-3462

Facsimile (225) 923-0315

/s/ John R. Blanchard

Robert L. Hammonds

Louisiana Bar No. 6484

Pamela Wescovich Dill

Louisiana Bar No. 31703

John Richard Blanchard

Louisiana Bar No. 37036

Timothy J. Riveria

Louisiana Bar No. 39585

John Scott Thomas

Louisiana Bar No. 22635

24