Reed v. Rhodes

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WHITE, Chief Judge.

On July 1, 1997, the Ohio State Board of Education and its Superintendent of Instruction (“State Defendants”) and the Cleveland City School District (“District”) filed a Motion to Declare that the State Defendants and the Cleveland City School District Have Achieved Unitary Status (“Motion for Unitary Status”). As part of their Motion for Unitary Status, the State Defendants and District (“Defendants”) moved this Court to issue an order declaring that the Defendants have achieved unitary status and are released from all further remedial obligations, except those specifically designated in the Consent Decree which continue until July 1, 2000.

1

The Plaintiff Class comprised of African-American students enrolled in the Cleveland Public Schools and their parents or legal guardians and the Cleveland Public Schools’ Board of Education (“Board”), opposed the motion. This Court held a hearing on the motion which lasted five weeks, beginning November 3, 1997 and concluding December 4, 1997. Evidence produced at the hearing

*709

included testimony from several expert witnesses, the Superintendent of the District, various other administrators, teachers, employees and former employees of the District, an employee of the Ohio Department of Education, members of the Cleveland Board of Education, Plaintiff Class members, and parents/guardians of Cleveland City School District students. The Court has reviewed all of the testimony, the exhibits from the hearing, and the post-hearing briefs filed by the parties.

2

For the reasons set forth below, this Court will grant the State Defendants and District’s Motion for Unitary Status.

BACKGROUND

This case was originally filed with the Court on December 12, 1973, over 24 years ago. On August 31, 1976, the Court held that “defendant boards of education through their constituent members and their appointed superintendents violated Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection under the laws by intentionally fostering and maintaining a segregated school system.”

Reed v. Rhodes,

422 F.Supp. 708 (N.D.Ohio 1976)(Battisti, J).

3

On February 6, 1978, the District Court reaffirmed its earlier conclusion that the State and District were liable for maintaining a

de jure

segregated school system.

Reed v. Rhodes,

455 F.Supp. 546 (N.D.Ohio 1978)(Battisti, J),

aff'd

607 F.2d 714 (6th Cir.1979),

cert. denied,

445 U.S. 935 , 100 S.Ct. 1329 , 63 L.Ed.2d 770 (1980). The Court cited over 200 specific constitutional violations, categorized according to the general techniques employed to effect racial segregation, including: boundary changes; conversion of board-owned facilities; optional attendance zones; assignment or reassignment of students; construction of new school facilities; additions to existing schools; busing; school closings; portable classroom facilities; changing grade structures; manipulation of school capacity; special transfers; and faculty assignment. The Court noted that “these numerous constitutional violations had systemwide impact entitling plaintiffs to a systemwide remedy.”

Id.

at 550.

The Court’s Remedial Order, also issued on February 6,1978, adopted a plan to remedy this systemwide unconstitutional segregation. The Remedial Order addressed,

inter alia,

student assignments, educational programs, transportation, safety and security, management and financial considerations, and the role of the State.

Reed v. Rhodes,

455 F.Supp. 569 (N.D.Ohio 1978)(Battisti, J). These original obligations were eventually expanded into fifteen remedial components. The fifteen remedial components are (1) Student Assignments; (2) Testing and Tracking; (3) Reading Skills Program; (4) Counseling, Career Guidance and Student Training; (5) Magnet and Vocational Schools and Programs; (6) Cooperation with Universities, Businesses and Cultural Institutions; (7) Extracurricular Activities; (8) Staff Development; (9) Student Rights; (10) School Community Relations; (11) Transportation; (12) Safety and Security; (13) Management Capability and Financial Integrity; (14) Staff Desegregation; and (15) Obligations of the State Defendants. Dr. Christine Rossell, a

*710

national expert who has studied desegregation for twenty-five years, testified that with regard to desegregation orders, the remedial obligations imposed upon the Cleveland City School District are more detailed and expansive than those of any other school district she has previously studied. This case imposes approximately two to three times the number of remedial obligations as compared to those imposed on any other school district subject to a desegregation order. (Vol.IV, 748, 788).

4

From 1978 until the early 1990’s, the Parties litigated the specific details and implementation of the Remedial Order and subsequent orders aimed at remedying these past intentional segregative practices. Finally, in March of 1994, the Parties entered into a Settlement Agreement with the intended purpose of bringing this ease to an orderly and just resolution and supporting reformation of the educational processes in the Cleveland Public Schools. After conducting a Fairness Hearing, the Court issued an Order converting the Settlement Agreement into an enforceable Consent Decree.

Reed v. Rhodes,

869 F.Supp. 1274 (N.D.Ohio 1994)(Battisti, J.).

As noted in the Consent Decree in 1994, the District confronted severe financial problems. The financial condition of the District continued to deteriorate in 1995 as the District remained unsuccessful in its attempts to pass a levy, the proceeds of which were to help fund the Consent Decree. Prompted by this desperate financial condition, accompanying managerial problems, and the impact of these conditions on the District’s ability to achieve uninterrupted implementation of the remedial desegregation orders and the Consent Decree, the Court directed the State Superintendent “to assume immediate supervision and operational, fiscal and personnel management of the District.” (Order, 3/3/95, at 6)(Krupansky, J.).

On May 8, 1996, the Court granted the State’s motion for a declaration of partial unitary status for the Student Assignment component of the Remedial Order and vacated portions of the Consent Decree requiring the use of racial parameters in assigning students.

5

The motion at issue before this Court was filed pursuant to Section 15 of the Consent Decree which provides:

The Parties shall request, after appropriate evidentiary proceedings, that the Court enter its Order releasing the Defendants from all further obligations, except those which are defined herein for the period from July 1, 1997 to July 1, 2000 if it finds that:

a. The Defendants have implemented all provisions of this Agreement and complied with all extant remedial orders to the extent practicable; and,

b. All

vestiges of

past discrimination and segregation have been eliminated to the extent practicable; and,

c. The Defendants have otherwise demonstrated good faith commitment to their constitutional obligations.

(Order, 5/25/94, § 15).

APPLICABLE STANDARD

As specified in this Court’s Order of October 3, 1997, the Motion for Unitary Status will be examined pursuant to Section 15 of the May 25, 1994 Consent Decree as proposed by the Parties and adopted by the Court. The Court has previously stated that Defendants bear the burden of demonstrating coihplianee with the Consent Decree and all extant remedial orders to the extent practicable.

6

The Parties were informed of the

*711

necessity to specifically reference obligations contained in the extant remedial orders and the Consent Decree. (Order, 10/3/97, at 3). Defendants relied upon the

Compliance, Management, and Reporting Plan

(the “Plan”) for this purpose. Collaboratively, the Parties and the Office on School Monitoring and Community Relations (“OSMCR”) developed this management plan in 1995 which contains the outstanding remedial obligations and the steps Defendants would take to comply with the orders.

7

The Court instructed the Parties that it was “interested in determining Defendants

present

level of compliance with the extant remedial orders and the Consent Decree.”

(Order,

10/3/97, at 3). The Court noted that “the date of the Consent Decree should serve as the ultimate baseline,” since OSMCR assessed Defendants’ remedial compliance at that time and the Parties incorporated that assessment into Section 9 of the Consent Decree. The Court instructed Defendants, however, to use their own judgment in determining an appropriate date from which to enable the Court to adequately assess Defendants’ present level of compliance.

Id.

at 4. Defendants chose the 1995-1996 school year as the date from which to establish compliance.

In addition to complying with the Consent Decree and the extant remedial obligations, Section 15 of the Consent Decree also requires that all vestiges of past discrimination and segregation be eliminated to the extent practicable. As noted in

Freeman v. Pitts,

503 U.S. 467, 496 , 112 S.Ct. 1430, 1448 , 118 L.Ed.2d 108 (1992), “[t]he vestiges of segregation that are the concern of the law in a school case may be subtle and intangible but nonetheless they must be so real that they have a causal link to the

de jure

violation being remedied.”

With regard to the burden of proof as to vestiges, it has been established that:

[a] controlling distinction in the burden of proof analysis is first, whether a defendant has been adjudged to be a constitutional violator, and second, whether an educational vestige was originally identified when liability was found.

Jenkins v. Missouri,

959 F.Supp. 1151, 1157 (W.D.Mo.1997),

aff'd,

122 F.3d 588 (8th Cir.1997). Moreover, the Eighth Circuit has stated:

[generally, once there has been a finding that a defendant established an unlawful dual school system in the past, there is a presumption that current disparities are the result of the defendant’s unconstitutional conduct.. .Only when a school district has attained unitary status does the burden of proving disparities were caused by intentional segregation shift back to the plaintiffs.

Jenkins v. Missouri,

122 F.3d 588 , 593 (8th Cir.1997).

Finally, beyond demonstrating compliance and the elimination of vestiges, Section 15 requires Defendants to have otherwise demonstrated a good faith commitment to their constitutional obligations. With regard to this good faith commitment, the school district’s record of compliance with remedial obligations is of utmost importance. As previously noted by the Supreme Court, “[a] school system is better positioned to demonstrate its good-faith commitment to a constitutional course of action when its policies form a consistent pattern of lawful conduct directed to eliminating earlier violations.”

Freeman,

503 U.S. at 491 , 112 S.Ct. at 1446 (1992). Furthermore, the Court also noted that “[a] district court need not accept at face value the profession of a school board which has intentionally discriminated that it will cease to do so in the future. But in deciding whether to modify or dissolve a desegregation decree, a school board’s compliance with previous court orders is obviously relevant.”

Board of Ed. of Oklahoma v. Dowell,

498 U.S. 237, 249 , 111 S.Ct. 630, 637 , 112 L.Ed.2d 715 (1991). Thus, Defendants’ record of complying with its remedial obligations and eliminating all vestiges of past discrimination to the extent practicable

*712

greatly impacts upon the Court’s determination of whether Defendants have demonstrated a good faith commitment to their constitutional obligations.

8

Relying upon the factors set forth in Section 15 of the Consent Decree, this Court’s task is to assess whether the system that once operated as a dual system is now operating as a unitary system in all respects. The Court is mindful of the fact that the ultimate goal of a desegregation case such as this is to restore the victims of the discriminatory conduct to the position they would-have occupied in the absence of that conduct and to restore State and local authorities to the control of a school system that is operating in compliance with the Constitution.

Freeman,

503 U.S. at 489 , 112 S.Ct. at 1445

(citing Milliken v. Bradley,

433 U.S. 267, 280-281 , 97 S.Ct. 2749, 2757-2758 , 53 L.Ed.2d 745 (1977)). Applying the standards delineated above, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

COOPERATION WITH UNIVERSITIES, BUSINESSES AND CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS

FINDINGS OF FACT:

1. Cooperative educational ventures include, but are not limited to, partnerships between a school and a university, business or cultural institution. Other cooperative educational ventures include local entities which sponsor or participate in activities at schools, such as the Cleveland Initiative for Education, the ICARE program, and The Cleveland Commission on Higher Education. These partnerships often sponsor such events as career days, proficiency activities, and field trips. Such partnerships have also provided additional assistance to the District in implementing Court orders. (Vol.I, 116, 118-121).

2. The State Defendants and District work with The Cleveland Initiative for Education to coordinate cooperative educational ventures with District schools and the local business community. (Vol.I, 119-120).

3. ICARE, a cultural program funded by local foundations, provides an on-site coordinator at the District and coordinates school partnerships with cultural institutions. (Vol.I, 121).

4. The Cleveland Commission on Higher Education, a commission comprised of local colleges and universities, coordinates school partnerships with local colleges and universities. (Vol.I, 121).

5. Defendants encourage schools to establish and maintain cooperative educational ventures and Defendants monitor the activities in which universities, businesses and cultural institutions participate with local schools. (Vol.I, 128).

6. Dr. Christine Rossell is an expert in the area of educational policy research methods, policy analysis, school desegregation plans and magnet schools. Dr. Rossell has conducted school desegregation research for 25 years and has studied over 600 school districts subject to desegregation orders. Dr. Rossell noted that although other districts have implemented such programs, Cleveland is the only District she has ever encountered that is actually subject to specific remedial obligations in the area of cooperation with universities, businesses and cultural institutions. (Vol.IV, 725, 742).

7. Dr, Rossell observed District schools and reviewed data regarding the Defendants’ cooperative educational ventures. (Vol.IV, 724-25)

8. Defendants’ cooperative educational ventures and partnership activities are delineated in Defendants’ Exhibits 25 through 30.

9. Since the 1995-1996 school year, all schools have participated in cooperative educational ventures with universities, businesses or cultural institutions. (Vol.I, 129).

*713

10. Sixty percent of District schools have partnerships with cultural institutions. (Vol. IV, 731).

11. Ninety-five percent of all schools within the District have partnerships with universities, businesses or cultural institutions. (Defs.’ Ex. 348, Figure 1).

12. Ninety six percent of the students enrolled in schools within the District (65,311 students) benefit from partnership activities. (Vol.IV, 733).

13. No racial pattern exists with regard to schools with partnerships or without partnerships. (Vol.IV, 731-32)(Defs Ex. 348, Figure 2).

14. Dr. Rossell concluded that the community supports these activities. (Vol.IV, 734).

15. Defendants have provided documentation to OSMCU and Plaintiffs regarding the Defendants’ efforts to develop, implement, monitor and maintain cooperative educational ventures. (Vol.I, 130)(Defs.’ Ex. 22-23).

16. Dr. Rossell ultimately concluded that she “has not seen a more impressive [University, Business and Cultural] partnership program, more involvement in collaborative relationships with universities, business, and cultural institutions, or more documentation of that involvement. Such a program shows the Defendants’ good faith compliance with the Remedial Orders and the 1994 Consent Decree.” (Defs.’ Ex. 348, at 7).

17. Prior to August 1995, Bert Holt was employed by the District. However, Ms. Holt has not been employed by the District since 1995 and testified that she has no personal knowledge of or responsibility for the Defendants’ cooperative educational ventures or their present efforts to comply with the outstanding remedial orders. (Vol.XIV, 2867-69).

18. Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Robert Green was offered as an expert in all areas of remedial compliance. Dr. Green has served as an expert in this case since 1974 and submitted an expert report for this hearing which was admitted into evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit H. This expert report, however, contains no data or any specific references to research or scholarly materials to substantiate his assertions. Dr. Green also failed to submit any form of a rebuttal report. (VoLXVII, 3300-07).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

1. The remedial obligations which remain in the area of Cooperation with Universities, Businesses and Cultural Institutions consist of the following:

a) Develop and implement a plan of cooperative education drawing on the resources of area universities, businesses, and cultural institutions... (Order, 10/16/78);

b) The School District shall be responsible to initiate and maintain working relationships with universities, businesses and cultural institutions, as well as with other private sector and non-profit entities, consistent with the Remedial Order. (Order, 4/24/81);

c) The District’s plans, actions, cooperative agreements and results shall be documented. (Order 4/24/81).

2. The Court concluded on May 8, 1996 that the Defendants implemented “an effective program of cooperation with universities, and businesses and cultural institutions.”

Reed v. Rhodes,

934 F.Supp. 1533, 1552 (N.D.Ohio 1996) (Krupansky, J.)(

3. Plaintiffs stipulated that it “would be easiest to reach agreement on or stipulate to compliance as defined in Section 15 of the Consent Decree with respect to [several components including,] Cooperation with Universities and Businesses.”

(Joint Report on Negotiations Relative to the Status of Remedial Compliance,

4. Plaintiffs also stipulated that “Defendants have performed some of their remedial and Consent Decree obligations by establishing cooperative relationships with universities and businesses as they contend.”

(.Plaintiffs’ Analysis of Defendants’ Remedial Compliance,

7/28/97).

5. Defendants have developed, implemented and continue to maintain cooperative educational ventures with local universities,

*714

businesses and cultural institutions, as well as with private sector and non-profit entities.

6. Defendants have documented these actions and have provided such information to Plaintiffs and OSMCR on a regular basis.

7. The Defendants have continued to comply in good faith with the extant remedial obligations and provisions of the Consent Decree related to Cooperation with Universities, Businesses and Cultural Institutions.

8. Plaintiffs have not asserted that Defendants have failed to comply with any of the aforementioned remedial obligations related to Cooperation with Universities, Businesses and Cultural Institutions. Rather, Plaintiffs only express concerns as related to the following aspects: (1) the number of students involved is unknown; (2) the perceptions of the parties involved are unclear; (3) not all schools have partnerships; and (4) the partnerships have not increased academic performance or eliminated segregation.

9. Plaintiffs have failed to cite any remedial order that would govern such allegations.

(State Defendants and Cleveland City School District’s Motion to Narrow the Issues to be Decided at the Unitary Status Hearing,

Attach. A).

10. Plaintiffs’ allegations of non-compliance are without merit as no remedial order places any obligation on Defendants as to these matters.

11. Plaintiffs and Defendant Cleveland Board of Education conclude that “[t]he record has established and Plaintiffs acknowledge that Defendants have made some progress with respect to their remedial obligations concerning ... Cooperation with Universities, Businesses and Cultural Institutions.” Furthermore, Plaintiffs and Defendant Cleveland Board of Education recommended that this Court vacate Defendants’ remedial obligations related to Cooperation with Universities, Businesses and Cultural Institutions.

(Plaintiffs and Defendant Cleveland Board of Education’s Substitute Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,

1/20/98, at 63).

12. Dr. Green’s expert report is of suspect weight to this Court’s analysis due to the report’s lack of data and support.

MAGNET SCHOOLS AND PROGRAMS

FINDINGS OF FACT:

19. Defendants’ magnet school program currently serves over 15,000 students and includes 36 different programs. Program offerings include arts and science, law and public policy and thematic programs. (Vol.I, 146-47).

20. Defendants distribute magnet school program materials to all parents which include descriptions of the particular magnet school programs, locations and any admission criteria. This information is also included in a document entitled

Guide to Schools and Programs of Choice,

which is also provided to parents and Plaintiffs. (Vol.I, 163)(Defs’ Ex. 41, 52).

21. Defendants sponsor an annual Magnet School of Choice Night and other events to promote their magnet school programs and to inform the community of the magnet school offerings. (Vol.I, 154-55)(Defs’ Ex. 51).

22. Plaintiffs have participated in the development of the magnet programs, in decisions to discontinue certain magnet school programs, and in decisions regarding the addition, expansion, or relocation of magnet programs. (Vol.I, 148-49).

23. Defendants’ magnet school programs have received state and federal grants and national awards. Over the last nine years, Defendants have received over $12 million in federal grants for magnet school programs. (Vol.I, 178-79)(Defs' Ex. 68).

24. Magnet school programs are located throughout the District to ensure that all students have equal access. After examining the locations of the magnet school programs, Dr. Rossell concluded that students on the East side and West side of the City have equal access to the magnet schools. (Vol. I, 154; Vol. Ill, 672-73)(Defs’ Ex. 344, Fig. 8).

25. Focused Recruitment is a form of recruitment used by the District to attempt to secure students of a certain race necessary to maintain a certain racial percentage in a school to roughly reflect the overall racial

*715

composition of the district. (Vol.I, 151-52)(Defs’ Ex. 62-63).

26. Defendants have attempted to recruit students who reside outside of the Cleveland City School District to magnet school programs by advertising the magnet program offerings throughout Cuyahoga County. (Vol.I, 154).

27. Magnet schools are given the same resources and evaluated in the same manner as are non-magnet schools. Funding is allocated based upon enrollment. (Vol.I, 185-86).

28. Defendants have provided documentation of their magnet school programs to Plaintiffs and OSMCR both at compliance meetings and upon request. The documentation provided at compliance meetings is included as Defendants’ Exhibits 41, 44, 45 and 46. (Vol.I, 158-59).

29. Plaintiffs have not challenged the accuracy of any data provided by Defendants with respect to magnet schools and programs. (Vol.I, 175).

30. Plaintiffs advised Defendants that they had complied with the remedial obligations regarding magnet schools and programs. (Vol.I, 175-76).

31. Magnet schools participate in cooperative educational ventures with local universities, businesses and cultural institutions. (Vol.I, 157).

32. The study of magnet schools is one of Dr. Christine Rossell’s areas of expertise. Dr. Rossell has served as a court appointed expert in three desegregation cases and is not aware of any individual who has conducted more research on magnet schools than herself. (Vol.III, 628-30, 638).

33. In September of 1997, Dr. Rossell visited 21 magnet schools and interviewed the Superintendent, building principals, program administrators and teachers. (Vol.III, 641^2).

34. Dr. Rossell concluded that the Defendants have complied with the remedial obligations related to magnet and vocational schools. (Vol.III, 641).

35. Dr. Rossell concluded that the District has one of the best magnet school programs in the United States: the District’s magnet schools are professionally staffed and designed; the District has more dedicated magnet schools, which are the superi- or form of magnet schools, than any other school district in the United States; and the District has a higher percentage of students enrolled in magnet schools and programs than any other district that has been declared unitary. Only two other school districts in the United States have higher quality magnets and have more resources committed to them, and those districts use magnets as special enrichment centers. (Vol. Ill, 660, 662; Vol. IV, 690, 720-21).

36. Dr. Rossell examined the racial composition of the District’s magnet schools and programs and concluded that they have maintained a high level of racial balance even after the Court declared pupil assignments unitary in 1996. (Vol.III, 675-79).

37. Magnet schools and programs have attracted students to “opposite race neighborhoods.” An opposite race neighborhood is a neighborhood that is above or below the percentage of minority students in the District. (Vol.IV, 715-16).

38. No orders in this case identify elements necessary to have a successful magnet program, and, therefore, it is helpful to view criteria used by other districts that have been declared unitary to examine what was achieved and what other courts have considered reasonable. (Vol.3, 668).

39. Dr. Rossell concludes that magnet schools are highly effective desegregation tools as evidenced by the continued desegregation in the Cleveland City Schools after the Court’s declaration of unitary status as to pupil assignments; even in 1996, the Cleveland School District was more racially balanced than either Mobile or Dallas at the time they were declared unitary. (Vol.III, 650-51)(Defs.’ Ex. 344, Fig. 2).

40. The unitary decision regarding pupil assignments was a reasonable decision because compared to other school districts declared unitary, the Cleveland City School District was one of the more racially integrated districts among minority school districts. (Vol.III, 657-58).

*716

41. Even though no actual racial balance standard exists for magnet schools in Cleveland, the District has complied with the common standard used throughout the United States of +/- 20 percentage points of the percentage of black students enrolled in the District; for the 1996-97 school year, ninety-two percent of the District’s magnet programs were racially balanced at +/-20 percentage points. (Vol.III, 680-82)(Defs’ Ex. 344, App. 2).

42. In 1996, the District had a higher percentage of black students in magnet schools than the Savannah and Dallas school districts, which were declared unitary in 1993 and 1994, respectively. (Vol.III, 665)(Defs’ Ex. 344, Fig. 6).

43. Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Robert Green, offered no data to contradict Dr. Rossell’s conclusion regarding racial diversity in magnet schools. (Vol.XVII, 3320).

44. Dr. Rossell also examined the academic achievement of students who attend magnet schools and concluded that students who attend magnet schools have higher achievement than those in non-magnet schools. (Vol.IV, 695).

45. Students enrolled in magnet schools or programs achieve higher on the mathematics and reading components of the California Achievement Test (“CAT Test”) and pass the Ohio Proficiency Tests at a higher level than students enrolled in non-magnet schools or programs. (Vol.IV, 697-98).

46. Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Green, offered no data to contradict Dr. Rossell’s conclusion regarding higher academic achievement in magnet schools. (Vol.XVII, 3320).

47. Dr. Rossell also examined community and parent support for magnet schools. Over 3,000 students are on the waiting lists to enter the magnet schools and programs. A majority of parents of African-American and other students believe magnet schools are superior to

non-magnet

schools. Ninety-five percent of parents of African-American and other students would continue their child in magnet schools. Ninety percent of parents of African-American and other students believe magnet schools meet their expectations. (Vol 1,179-80; Vol. IV, 710-11).

48. Dr. Rossell concluded that Defendants have complied with the remedial obligations related to magnet schools and programs, and that the Defendants have exhibited a good faith commitment to their constitutional obligations related to magnet schools and programs. (Vol.IV, 721-22).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

13. The outstanding remedial obligations in the area of Magnet and Vocational Schools and Programs consist of the following:

a) Such [magnet] schools and programs shall be so located as to ensure that alternatives to regular assignments be roughly equal from cluster to cluster in terms of number of alternatives, their diversity and attractiveness; shall be open to students on an equal and fair basis; and shall have admission or placement criteria that are written, nondiscriminatory, program-related (unless operated on an open admissions basis, in which case the criteria shall so state), and available to the public... Admission or placement results shall be documented. (Order, 4/24/81);

b) Such [magnet] schools and programs, on a space-available basis, shall be offered to neighboring school districts. Efforts to interest neighboring districts and their results shall be documented. (Order, 4/24/81);

c) Such [magnet] schools and programs shall be open on a reasonable basis to students with special needs. Plans for such schools and programs shall so demonstrate. (Order, 4/24/81);

d) Such [magnet] schools and programs shall be provided resources (fiscal, equipment, space, materials, and staff) that are comparable to (i.e., do not appreciably exceed) the resources of regular schools at the same grade level for programs and services in the core curriculum (i.e., subject-matter areas normally required or offered in all District schools of a particular grade level). Plans for magnet and vocational schools and programs shall so demonstrate. (Order, 4/24/81);

*717

e) Such [magnet] schools and programs shall be planned, developed and operated with maximum feasible participation by parents, community representatives, and private-sector entities, since the voluntary-assignment and special-curriculum characteristics of such schools and programs make them especially suited to intensive, long-term, mutually beneficial relationships between schools and parents, schools and community, and schools and private-sector entities. No preference shall, however, be given to magnet and vocational schools and programs in the development and use of such resources. The initiation and fostering of such participation and involvement shall be the responsibility of the School District, and shall be documented. (Order, 4/24/81);

f) Such [magnet] schools and programs shall be subject to evaluation, review, modification and termination as are other schools and programs in the District. The results of such procedures shall be available to the Court. (Order, 4/24/81);

g) The District will consult Plaintiffs on the continued siting and projected funding of all existing, or enhanced, or new magnet schools, magnet programs, and community model schools. (Order, 5/25/94, § 11.5).

14. The Court found on May 8, 1996 that by introducing and implementing an effective magnet school program the Defendants have substantially complied to the extent practicable with this component.

Reed v. Rhodes,

934 F.Supp. at 1552 .

15. Magnet schools are located throughout the District and are offered on a fair and equal basis to all students. Magnet schools have written, nondiscriminatory admission and placement criteria, which is available to the public.

16. Defendants offer magnet school placements to neighboring school districts.

17. Defendants offer magnet schools and programs to students with special needs.

18. Magnet schools receive comparable resources to those of non-magnet schools and are subject to similar evaluation, review, modification and termination.

19. Magnet schools are developed and implemented with parent and community participation.

20. Defendants have consulted Plaintiffs on the continued siting, funding, and closings of magnet schools and programs.

21. The Defendants, in good faith, have continued to comply with the extant remedial obligations related to Magnet Schools to the extent practicable.

22. Plaintiffs stipulated that it “would be easiest to reach agreement on or stipulate to compliance as defined in Section 15 of the Consent Decree with respect to [several components including,] Magnet and Vocational Schools.”

(Joint Report on Negotiations Relative to the Status of Remedial Compliance,

7/24/97). Plaintiffs also stipulated that “Defendants have performed some of their remedial and Consent Decree obligations relative to Magnet and Vocational Schools/Programs as they contend.”

(Plaintiffs’ Analysis of Defendants’ Remedial Compliance,

7/28/97, at 2).

23. Plaintiffs have alleged noncomplianee with regard to the following: (1) students enrolled in magnet school programs are not diverse; (2) students in magnet schools do not perform better than students enrolled in non-magnet programs; and (3) the program has failed to generate community confidence and failed to generate offerings based on need.

24. Plaintiffs’ allegations of noneompliance are without merit as no such specific requirements exist. Nevertheless, the District’s magnet schools and programs are diverse, more academically successful than non-magnet schools, and regarded favorably by the community.

25. Plaintiffs and Defendant Cleveland Board of Education concluded that “[t]he record has established and Plaintiffs acknowledge that Defendants have made some progress with respect to their remedial obligations concerning ... Magnet Schools and Programs.” Furthermore, Plaintiffs and Defendant Cleveland Board of Education recommended that this Court vacate Defen

*718

dants’ remedial obligations related to Magnet Schools and Programs.

(Plaintiffs and Defendant Cleveland Board of Education’s Substitute Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,

1/20/98, at 61, 63).

EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

FINDINGS OF FACT:

49. Board Policy 6184 enumerates the Defendants’ policy and plan for extracurricular activities. Board Policy 6184a requires that all school-sponsored extracurricular activities be conducted in a nondiscriminatory manner and equally accessible to every student. (Vol.1,186-88)(Defs’ Ex. 74).

50. Extracurricular activities are offered at all grade levels. (Vol.I, 187).

51. Since the 1995-1996 school year, Defendants have monitored and documented any one-race activities, that is extracurricular activities whose participants are all of the same race. A monthly report is produced which includes all one-race activities. If a one-race activity exists, Defendants take corrective action, such as focused recruitment, to encourage students of other races to participate in activities. Coaches and sponsors of extracurricular activities receive training regarding corrective action. Defendants acknowledge that a predominantly one-race school may constitute a valid reason for a one-race activity. (Vol.I, 188-91).

52. Plaintiffs approved Defendants’ decision to reduce the number of extracurricular activities during the 1995-1996 school year to one sport per season per student, for financial reasons. (Vol.I, 204-05).

53. As a result of additional revenues the District received from a City parking tax, the number of extracurricular activities offered during the 1996-1997 school year was increased. (Vol.I, 205)(Defs.’ Ex. 73).

54. As a result of the operating levy that passed in November 1996, the number of extracurricular activities offered during the 1997-1998 school year was further increased. (Vol.I, 205)(Defs.’ Ex. 75).

55. Defendants provided documentation to Plaintiffs and OSMCR regarding compliance efforts with the extracurricular activity remedial obligations at compliance meetings and upon request.(Vol.I, 188, 191-92)(Defs.’ Ex. 71, 72, 74).

56. Plaintiffs have not challenged the accuracy of any data provided by Defendants with respect to extracurricular’ activities. (Vol.I, 202).

57. Plaintiffs have not advised Defendants of any matters which would indicate possible noncompliance in the area of extracurricular activities. (Vol.I, 202-204).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

26. The outstanding remedial obligations in the area of Extracurricular Activities consist of the following:

a) Defendants shall establish a nondiscriminatory plan and written policy for extracurricular activities. (Order 10/16/78);

b) Defendants shall establish clear guidelines delineating methods of focused recruitment, define and report “one race” activities, and provide guidance to principals in their enforcement or monitoring of the plan. (Order, 2/11/81);

c) Defendants shall report corrective actions and focused recruitment directed at one-race activities. (Order, 2/11/81);

d) Defendants shall develop an “internal assessment mechanism” to identify problems and implement and correct action with respect to the District’s extracurricular activities. (Order, 4/24/81);

e) Defendants shall adopt monitoring devices and training to make every attempt to assure that student participation in extracurricular activities “more or less reflects the racial composition of the school insofar as practical.” (Order, 2/11/81).

27. The Court found on May 8, 1996 that the Defendants had implemented “an effective program encouraging and implementing non-discriminatory extracurricular activities.”

Reed v. Rhodes,

934 F.Supp. at 1552 .

28. Plaintiffs and the Board have not asserted a failure to comply with any of the aforementioned obligations. Rather,

*719

Plaintiffs and the Board only allege that Defendants have sacrificed extracurricular activities purportedly because of financial constraints.

29. Plaintiffs have not cited any remedial order in support of such an obligation as no remedial obligation relating to extracurricular activities prohibits the Defendants from limiting extracurricular activities when sufficient funding does not exist. Defendants’ Exhibit 71 refers to such reductions and Plaintiffs failed to raise any such concerns to the Court prior to the hearing.

30. Defendants have continued to comply with the remedial obligations related to the Extracurricular Activities component.

31. Defendants have implemented a nondiscriminatory, written policy for extracurricular activities.

32. Defendants monitor and report one-race activities and have implemented corrective action, when necessary, to assure that student participation reflects the racial composition of the school, to the extent practical.

33. Plaintiffs stipulated that “it would be easiest to reach agreement on or stipulate to compliance as defined in Section 15 of the Consent Decree with respect to [several components including,] Extracurricular Activities.”

(Joint Report on Negotiations Relative to the Status of Remedial Compliance,

7/24/97).

34. Plaintiffs and Defendant Cleveland Board of Education concluded that “[t]he record has established and Plaintiffs acknowledge that Defendants have made some progress with respect to their remedial obligations concerning ... Extracurricular Activities.” Furthermore, Plaintiffs and Defendant Cleveland Board of Education recommended that this Court vacate Defendants’ remedial obligations related to Extracurricular Activities.

(Plaintiffs and Defendant Cleveland Board of Education’s Substitute Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,

1/20/98, at 61, 63).

STAFF DEVELOPMENT

FINDINGS OF FACT:

58.Dr. Richard Boyd, Deputy State Superintendent for the Cleveland Public Schools was not aware of any comprehensive staff development plan in April of 1995 when he began working as Deputy State Superintendent for the District but was aware of a number of staff development programs that were being administered. (Vbl.XIII, 2574).

59. Since 1995, the Defendants have developed and implemented a Staff Development plan and offered staff development activities to District personnel. Defendants’ staff development activities are ongoing and permanent. (Vol.VI, 1423)(Defs.’Ex.l83).

60. In June 1997, the Defendants implemented a new staff development plan, entitled

A Plan for Comprehensive Employee Development in the Cleveland Public School District,

(the “Staff Development Plan”) which has been developed in accordance with accepted processes and clearly addresses the Defendants’ remedial obligations. The Plan was admitted as Defendants’ Exhibit 183. (Vol.VI, 1419).

61. During the period from 1993 until 1997, Defendants offered 33,000 hours of staff development training to District personnel. Of the total hours offered, 609 hours were targeted toward Airi-Centric and Mul-ti-Cultural infusion. (Vol.XV, 2958)(Defs.’ Ex. 346, T.6).

62. During the 1995-1996 school year, Defendants spent approximately $3,900,000 on staff development activities. (Vol.XV, 2958).

63. During the 1996-1997 school year, Defendants spent approximately $5,000,000 on staff development. (Vol.XV, 2958).

64. The Staff Development Plan includes goals, performance objectives and the District’s mission statement and incorporates the Remedial Orders and Vision 21. (Vol.VI, 1426-27,1430,1433).

65. The District conducts needs assessments for the Staff Development program and provides staff training based on documented needs. The District also offers training on cultural diversity, preventing discriminatory practices, and Defendants’ desegregation-related obligations. (Vol.VI, 1435-1439,1444).

*720

66. Training is also provided to non-teaching staff to ensure that all individuals who work for the District contribute to the effective education of the students. (Vol.VI, 1439).

67. Staff development activities are offered on a non-discriminatory basis. (Vol.VI, 1440).

68. Defendants also provide additional staff development training for' those personnel at “bottom quartile schools.” (Vol.VI, 1440-41).

69. The Staff Development Plan encourages enhanced use of technology. (Vol.VI, 1438).

70. Dr. Livesteen Carter and James Penning are responsible for implementing the Staff Development Plan. ( Vol. VI, 1449).

71. Since 1995, the Defendants have identified Indicators of: Effectiveness for their staff development activities and the Plan incorporates these Indicators. (Vol.VI, 1456).

72. Defendants document all staff development activities through the use, of quarterly reports. (VoLVI, 1422-1423).

73. Dr. Achilles is an expert in the area of staff development and prepared an expert report which was admitted as Defendants’ Exhibit 341. (VoLXV, 2915).

74. Based on scholarship and literature regarding staff development, Dr. Achilles identified characteristics of an effective staff development plan. Dr.- Achilles compared the Staff Development Plan to these characteristics and concluded that the Plan includes these characteristics. (Vol.XV, '2956-57)(Defs.’ Ex. 346, T.3-4).

75. Plaintiffs’ experts, Drs. Green and Trent, did not conduct any similar analysis of the Staff Development Plan.

76. Dr. Achilles concluded that: the District has developed a professional development -plan which satisfies the criteria of a good plan; the Plan addresses the remedial requirements of

Reed v. Rhodes;

and, the Plan should be effective. (Vol.XV, 2959, 3007).

'77. Although previously employed by the District, Ms. Ruth Dent-Lyles has not been employed by the District since 1994 and is not familiar with Defendants’ current staff development compliance efforts. (Vol.XVIII, 3550).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

35. The remedial obligations which remain in the area

of

Staff Development consist of the following:

a) The required ‘staff development’ ... shall consist of identifiable elements, including but not limited to goals, performance objectives, instructional programming and/or services, assessment, staff training, parent involvement, and clear lines of responsibility and accountability. Such elements shall be verified in the plan for and in the operation of these programs. (Final Standard VIII.A; Order 4/24/81);

b) The School District shall provide appropriate training to staff ... consistent with identified needs. Such training shall be documented. (Final Standard VIII.B; Order, 4/24/81);

e) The District shall identify indicators of effective training for [staff] and use such indicators to measure the District’s program. (Final Standard VIII.C; Order, 4/24/81);

d) The required program as a whole shall have documented results. (Final Standard VTII.D; Order, 4/24/81);

e) Staff development and student training in human relations shall be an ongoing and permanent program within the District. (Final Standard VIII.E; Order, 4/24/81).

36. On May 8, 1996, the Court concluded that the Defendants had complied to the extent practicable with their remedial obligations related to Staff Development by introducing and implementing student training and staff development programs. Reed

v. Rhodes,

934 F.Supp. at 1552 .

37. The Defendants have continued to comply with the remedial obligations related to Staff Development.

38. The Defendants have created and implemented a new, comprehensive staff devel

*721

opment plan and currently have a permanent program in place.

39. The Staff Development Plan meets the criteria established for effective staff development plans and includes goals, performance objectives, assessment mechanisms, staff training, parent involvement and accountability. The training provided is based on needs.

40. Plaintiffs acknowledged “that there has been some compliance in the area of staff development relative to certificated staff.”

(Plaintiffs’ Analysis of Defendants’ Remedial Compliance,

7/28/97).

41. Plaintiffs allege noneompliance with respect to Staff Development based upon the inability of the Parties to measure the effectiveness of the new Staff Development Plan which was implemented at the beginning of the 1997-1998 school year.

(Plaintiffs’ Brief in

Opposition,

9

at 15).

42. Relying upon credible expert testimony, the Plan meets the standards for effective staff development plans.

STUDENT RIGHTS

FINDINGS OF FACT:

78. Since the 1995-1996 school year, the Defendants have annually developed and implemented a code of student conduct, which is entitled

Student Handbook: Rights and Responsibilities

(“Student Handbook”). (Vol.V, 893-94, 897).

79. District policies require non-diserimi-natory implementation of the Student Handbook. (Vol.V, 909).

80. Defendants print and distribute the Student Handbook in English and Spanish as Spanish-speaking students comprise eight percent of the student body. Students and parents who do not speak English or Spanish receive special tutoring at bilingual education sites to ensure that they receive instruction on the Student Handbook. (Vol. V, 898-99; 905-06).

81. Defendants annually assemble a Student Handbook Adoption Committee, which eonsists of parents, students, teachers, Cleveland Teachers’ Union representatives, District administrators, and community experts, to review the content of the Student Handbook to protect against arbitrary or discriminatory discipline practices. (Vol.V, 894-895).

82. The Student Handbook Adoption Committee provides recommendations which are forwarded to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction for his review, input and final approval. The recommendations are then forwarded to Plaintiffs and OSMCR for further review, input, and approval. After this review and approval process is completed, the Student Handbook is then filed with the Court. (Vol.V, 896).

83. Defendants annually distribute the Student Handbook to all students and provide training regarding the Student Handbook. (Vol.V, 898-99, 903-05).

84. Defendants distribute the Student Handbook to all District personnel, including teachers, classified personnel, building administrators and Central Office staff and provide training regarding the Student Handbook and implementation of its policies and procedures. (Vol.V, 898-902, 907-08, 924-26)(Def.’s Ex. 196).

85. Defendants distribute a summary-form of the Student Handbook to parents through the annual school calendar, which is mailed to each home at the beginning of the school year. All schools offer training to parents regarding the Student Handbook on an annual basis. (Vol.V, 902-03)(Defs.’ Ex. 213).

86. Defendants maintain detailed records regarding disciplinary actions, including suspensions and expulsions, by race and school. (Vol.V, 910, 913-17).

87. Defendants monitor such records for purposes of Safety and Security, and for purposes of ensuring equitable application of the Handbook, particularly with regard to possible disproportionate representation of African-American students in suspensions and expulsions and any corresponding corrective actions taken. ( Vol. V, 911-914; 916-17).

*722

88. Defendants have established and follow clear lines of responsibility and accountability for achieving the remedial obligations related to the Student Rights component. (Vol.V, 917).

89. Defendants provided documentation to Plaintiffs and OSMCR upon request or at compliance

meetings

regarding remedial obligation efforts concerning the student rights component. The documentation provided to Plaintiffs and OSMCR is included as Defendants’ Exhibits 196-200. (Vol. II, 298-94; Vol. V, 919, 924).

90. Dr. Charles Achilles is an expert in the area of student rights. (Vol.XV, 2915).

91. Dr. Achilles reviewed and analyzed the Student Handbook, suspension and expulsion rates, and data from the State Department of Education comparing Cleveland with other school districts to determine whether Defendants discipline students on a non-discriminatory basis. Dr. Achilles prepared an expert report of his analysis that was admitted as Defendants’ Exhibit 341. (VoLXV, 2917-19).

92. Dr. Achilles reviewed extensive literature regarding codes of student conduct and found that effective codes of student conduct share the following characteristics: (1) fair and equitable; (2) explicit and precise; (3) goal-oriented; (4) constructive; (5) readable; (6) reviewed periodically; (7) cooperatively planned; and (8) informative of due process. (VoLXV, 2922)(Defs.’ Ex. 341, at 11).

93. After analyzing the Student Handbook and comparing its contents with the recognized attributes of effective codes, Dr. Achilles concluded the following:

a. The Student Handbook is fair and equitable; it is non-discriminatory in content and makes no distinctions based upon race. (VoLXV, 2923);

b. The Student Handbook is explicit and precise; it is well-organized and contains a comprehensive list of misbehav-iors and accompanying corrective actions. (VoLXV, 2923);

c. The Student Handbook is goal oriented; it includes an explanation of desegregation, Vision 21 and the District’s policy of maintaining a school environment free of discrimination.

10

(VoLXV, 2923-24);

d. The Student Handbook is constructive; it delineates a hierarchy of corrective actions to address misbehaviors of varying severity. (Vol.XV, 2924);

e. The Student Handbook is readable, although it is very difficult to understand. It is very similar, however, to codes of conduct used by other school districts where the codes are designed to be very specific. (VoLXV, 2925);

f. Defendants take affirmative steps to help ensure that all students receive and understand the Student Handbook. (VoLXV, 2924-25);

g. The Student Handbook is reviewed periodically through a process involving the District, Plaintiffs, and OSMCR. (VoLXV, 2925);

h. The Student Handbook is cooperatively planned through the use of committees which include students, teachers, community representatives, and other educators in the planning process. (VoLXV, 2926);

i. The Student Handbook delineates a due process procedure throughout. (VoLXV, 2926).

94. The Student Handbook delineates four categories or classes of misbe-haviors: Class I, II, III and IV. (Vol. XV, 2934)(Defs.’ Ex. 226, 227).

95. Class I offenses are the least serious offenses. Class IV offenses are the most serious offenses. (Defs.’ Ex. 226, 227, 341).

96. Only the building principal may suspend a student. The principal’s discretion to suspend or not to suspend decreases as the severity of the misbehavior increases. (VoLXV, 2938) (Defs.’ Ex. 226, 341).

*723

97. Dr. Achilles analyzed suspensions and expulsions issued by the District to determine if disciplinary actions are issued in a non-discriminatory manner. Dr. Achilles specifically evaluated Plaintiffs’ allegation that African-American students are discriminated against in the application of student discipline in the District because as a numerical matter, the percentage of African-American students who are suspended is higher than the percentage of African-American students enrolled in the District. (Defs.

1

Ex. 341, at 1).

98. Dr. Achilles analyzed suspensions and expulsions by a number of variables including race of student and administrator, gender, class of misbehavior, and grade point average. Dr. Achilles also compared District suspension/expulsion rates and indices to other city, state and national data. Plaintiffs’ experts, Drs. Green and Trent, did not perform any analysis similar to that performed by Dr. Achilles. Dr. Green provided no data to support his conclusions. (Vol.XV, 2951)(Defs.’ Ex. 341, 346).

99. Based upon his analysis, Dr. Achilles concluded the following:

a. Seven percent of the students enrolled in the District received 73% of suspensions issued by the District. (Vol.XV, 2933);

b. No variable (race, gender) produces a 1.0 ratio. There is a greater dispro-portionality by gender than by race. (Vol. XV, 2932-34);

e.With respect to Class I offenses (least serious misbehavior, greatest principal discretion), the number of suspensions received by African-American students was proportionate to the number of African-American students enrolled in the District. During the last six years, African-American students accounted for 70% of the total student population and on average received 69.5% of the suspensions for Class I misbehaviors. (Vol.XV, 2935-37);

d. Every year, since 1993, “disproportion-ality” increases as the severity of the offenses increase and administrator discretion decreases. State law requires administrators to expel or suspend a student for certain serious offenses. (Vol.XV, 2937-39);

e. The District consistently has one of the lowest suspension rates among the large Ohio urban school districts. (VoLXV, 2947);

f. The national suspension index is higher than the District’s index. The average rate at which school districts across the nation suspend African-American students is 2.0, or twice their representation in the population. The District’s index is 1.04. (Vol.XV, 2948);

g. As a result of the remedial obligations related to Staff Desegregation, most schools within the District have biracial administrative teams. Assistant principals are usually responsible for student discipline within a particular building while it is generally the responsibility of the principals to make suspension determinations. (Vol.XV, 2949).

100. Dr. Achilles concluded that any difference in suspension or expulsion rates when compared to the number of African-American students enrolled in the District is not a result of racial discrimination or a vestige of the prior discriminatory school system. (Vol.XV, 2952).

101. Dr. Achilles ultimately concluded that Defendants have met their remedial obligations related to Student Rights through the development and use of an explicit nondiscriminatory code of student conduct that is administered fairly and exceeds the standards for such codes. (Vol.XV, 2927)(Defs.’ Ex. 341, at 2).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

43. The outstanding remedial obligations remaining in the area of Student Rights consist of the following:

a) [T]he Cleveland Board must adopt and disseminate a Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities, and Discipline, together with a list of policies and procedures

*724

for standardized systemwide implementation in a manner which will protect the rights of students against arbitrary or discriminatory exclusions, suspensions, or expulsions. (Order, 2/6/78);

b) The required Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities and Discipline (Remedial Order, pp. 81-83) shall be disseminated and explained to students on a periodic basis. The Code shall be prepared in as many languages as the District deems necessary for clear understanding by students whose native language is other than English. (Order, 4/24/81);

c) In addition, the Board shall incorporate into the Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities and Discipline criteria and procedures for assigning students to programs that serve' as alternatives to suspensions or ‘adjusted transfers.’ (Order, 8/25/82);

d) The required ‘policies and procedures for standardized system wide implementation’ of the required Code (Remedial Order, p. 82) shall be in writing and shall be verifiable at the school level where student discipline takes place. (Order 4/24/81);

e)

City Defendants shall maintain detañed records regarding daily enrollment, disciplinary actions, suspensions, expulsions and dropouts, by race and by school, and shall, beginning in September, 1978, submit these statistics to the Court on a quarterly basis. (Order, 2/6/78);

f) The required record-keeping (Remedial Order, pp. 82-83) shall be designed, in part, to identify problems and to initiate corrective action with regard to actual or possible discrimination in the area of Student Rights. The nature and extent of use of statistics and records on discipline actions and dropouts as indicators of needs for corrective action shall be documented. (Order, 4/24/81);

g) The District’s actions in protecting ‘the rights of students against arbitrary or discriminatory exclusions, suspensions, or expulsions’ (Remedial Order, p. 82) or discrimination in other forms of discipline used by the District

{e.g.,

corporal punishment) shall have documented results. (Order, 4/24/81);

h) The School District shall provide appropriate training of its staff at all levels in the proper .administration of the required policies and procedures. (Order, 4/24/81); .

i) The School District shall establish and follow clear lines of responsibility and accountability, from the headquarters level to the classroom level, for achieving the requirements of the Remedial Order regarding Student Rights. Such responsibilities and accountability shall be disseminated in writing to all staff at all levels. (Order, 4/24/81).

44. On May 8, 1996, the Court concluded that “the Plaintiffs’ factually unsupported conclusions to the contrary, escalating inner city minority student absenteeism, the dropout rate, suspension rate, expulsion rate, and low academic achievement are not attributable to the performance of the local school administration...”

Reed v. Rhodes,

934 F.Supp. at 1555 .

45. The Defendants have continued to comply with the remedial obligations related to Student Rights.

46. Plaintiffs stipulated that “it would be easiest to reach agreement on or stipulate to compliance as defined in Section 15 of the Consent Decree with respect to [several components including, ] Student Rights.”

{Joint Report on Negotiations Relative to the Status of Remedial Compliance,

7/24/97).

47. Plaintiffs acknowledged that “Defendants have performed some of their remedial and Consent Decree obligations relative to Student Rights as they contend.”

{Plaintiffs’ Analysis of Defendants’ Remedial Compliance,

7/28/97).

48. Plaintiffs’ allegation of non-compliance relates to the fact that African-American students are suspended “at nearly a 10% higher rate than their representation in the school population.” Plaintiffs further allege that such a disparity constitutes a “vestige” of unlawful discrimination.

{Plaintiffs’ Brief

*725

in Opposition,

at 9-10;

Board’s Brief,

at 7-8).

49. As related to Plaintiffs’ allegation of non-compliance, the remedial obligations demand that the Student Handbook be nondiscriminatory and protect against arbitrary or discriminatory exclusions, suspensions or expulsions. A numerical disparity, standing alone, does not indicate discrimination.

50. Based upon the expert testimony rendered, the disparity does not constitute a vestige. Plaintiffs’ assertion to the contrary is not supported by the record.

COUNSELING, CAREER GUIDANCE & STUDENT TRAINING IN HUMAN RELATIONS

FINDINGS OF FACT:

102. Defendants have established both a counseling and career guidance program and a student training program in human relations. (Vol.VII, 1680,1689).

103. The Defendants have created and implemented a nondiscriminatory counseling and career guidance program to serve all students equally in the Cleveland Public Schools. The goal of the program is to prepare students to graduate and enter the world of work or post-secondary education. (Vol.VII, 1680-81).

104. The nondiscriminatory implementation of the counseling and career guidance programs is evidenced in the District’s assessment instruments, the career passport program, college entrance testing, graduate surveys, placement mechanisms, group guidance activities and individual counseling. (Vol.VII, 1682-83).

105. The District conducts surveys to assess the percentage of students who attend a college or university after graduating from the Cleveland Public Schools. Forty-seven percent of the graduating class of 1996 are currently full-time students, of which seventy-eight percent are African-American, while ten percent of the graduating class are part-time students. (Vol.VII, 1684-85).

106. The counseling and career guidance program consists of group guidance activities, individual guidance activities, career enhancement activities, and assistance in student planning and scheduling. (Vol.VII, 1680).

107. The counseling and career guidance program is competency based and meets or exceeds all State minimum standards for such programs. (Vol.VII, 1680).

108. The District’s counseling and career guidance program is ongoing and permanent. (Vol.VII, 1681).

109. The District’s counseling and career guidance program includes performance objectives. (Vol.VII, 1681).

110. The District’s counseling and career guidance program incorporates parental involvement in a variety of ways, including a program that requires all parents of eighth grade students to meet with guidance counselors to plan the student’s future program of study. (Vol.VII, 1681-82).

111. All counselors receive mandatory training which is based on needs assessments conducted by the District. Such training is monitored and documented through the use of attendance records. (Vol.VII, 1686, 1688).

112. Defendants, in coordination with Plaintiffs and OSMCR, developed Indicators of Effectiveness for their counseling and career guidance programs, which were approved by the Court. (Vol.VII, 1689).

113. The Defendants have implemented a student training program designed to aid students in addressing and understanding cross-cultural differences. Identified elements of the program include an emphasis on reducing prejudice and developing social and problem-solving skills. (Vol.VII, 1689).

114. As part of the student training program, each school within the District has a student leadership team designed to aid in addressing human relations issues within each school. The student leadership teams are used on a continuous basis for mediation purposes and crisis intervention. (Vol.VII, 1689-90).

115. The student training program is ongoing and permanent, includes performance objectives, and is based on identified needs. (Vol.VII, 1690-91).

*726

116. The District, in coordination with Plaintiffs and OSMCR, developed Indicators of Effectiveness for the student training program. (Vol.VII, 1693).

117. Experts from Cleveland State University developed the needs assessment mechanism for the counseling, career guidance, and student training program. (Vol. VII, 1690-91).

118. The assessment mechanism surveys student attitudes about their schools, student discipline, the guidance and counseling program, and the career development program, and is designed to target the areas identified in the Indicators of Effectiveness. (Vol.VII, 1691).

119. The assessment results are used to formulate appropriate counseling and career guidance services. (Vol.VII, 1697).

120. Similar student assessment programs were conducted in 1995-96 and 1996-97. (VoLVII, 1692).

121. The Defendants have established clear lines of responsibility for implementing nondiscriminatory counseling, career guidance, and student training programs. (Vol. VII, 1692).

122. Defendants provided documentation regarding their compliance with the counseling, career guidance, and student training components at compliance meetings. (Vol. VII, 1694-1704)(Defs.’ Ex. 241, 242, 244).

123. The performance standards for counseling, career guidance, and student training were substantially attained in the 1995-96 and 1996-97 school years. (Vol.VII, 1700-1707)(Defs.’ Ex. 244, 245, 246).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

51. The outstanding remedial orders in the area of Counseling, Career Guidance, and Student Training in Human Relations consist of the following:

a)In order to reduce the pressures on students undergoing desegregation and to prevent resegregation resulting from curriculum or program choices of students, the defendants shall institute an effective, nondiscriminatory counseling and career guidance program. The program shall ensure that students are counseled on a racially nondiscriminatory basis as to opportunities in employment or higher education and as to vocational and other special educational programs. (Order, 2/6/78);

b) The School District shall provide appropriate training to counselors and career guidance staff, consistent with identified needs. Such training shall be documented. (Final Standard IV.B, Order, 4/24/81);

c) The District shall identify indicators of an effective, nondiscriminatory counseling and career guidance program, and use such indicators to measure the District’s program. The District’s self-selected indicators, program assessments, and corrective steps shall be documented. The District’s self-selected indicators shall be subject to Court review and approval... The required program as a whole shall have documented results. (Final Standard IV.C. and IV.D.; Order 4/24/81);

d) The required ... student training ... shall consist of identifiable elements, including but not limited to goals, performance objectives, instructional programming and/or services, assessment staff training, parent involvement, and clear lines of responsibility and accountability. Such elements shall be verified in the plan for and in the operation of these programs. (Final Standard VIII. A., Order 4/24/81);

e) The School District shall provide appropriate training to ... students, consistent with identified needs. Such training shall be documented. (Final Standard VIII.B., Order 4/24/81);

f) The District shall identify indicators of effective training for ... students and use such indicators to measure the District’s program. The District’s self-selected indicators, program assessments, and corrective steps shall be documented. The District’s self-selected indicators shall be subject to Court review and approval .. .The required program as a whole shall have documented re-

*727

suits. (Final Standard VIII. C. and VIII.D.; Order 4/24/81).

52. On May 8, 1996, the Court concluded that the Defendants had introduced and implemented “an effective and approved counseling and career guidance program.”

Reed v. Rhodes,

934 F.Supp. at 1552 .

53. Defendants have continued to comply with their remedial obligations related to the Counseling and Career Guidance component. Defendants have maintained effective, nondiscriminatory counseling and student training programs, which utilize Indicators of Effectiveness and provided training based upon identified needs. Defendants have submitted documentation to Plaintiffs, OSMCR and the Court identifying their counseling and student training programs.

54. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have failed to comply with their remedial obligations related to the Counseling and Career Guidance component because of the high rate of suspensions, expulsions, and drop-outs among African-American students and because a parity gap exists between the reading achievement of African-American and other students.

(Plaintiffs’ Brief in Opposition,

at 16-17). Plaintiffs’ allegations of noncompliance regarding this component are not supported by the record and are not based upon remedial obligations related to this particular component.

STAFF DESEGREGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT:

124. During the 1995-1996 school year, 99.15% of schools (116 of 117) had a faculty racial composition which was +/- 15 percentage points from the District average for elementary, middle and high schools. (Vol.I, 77-78)(Defs.’ Ex. 3, at 5).

125. During the 1996-1997 school year, 90.6% of schools (106 of 117) had a faculty racial composition which was +/- 15 percentage points from the District average for elementary, middle and high schools. (Vol.I, 79)(Defs.’ Ex. 12, at 8).

126. During the 1997-1998 school year, 95.8% of schools (113 of 118) had a faculty racial composition which was +/- 15 percentage points from the District average for elementary, middle and high schools. (Vol.I, 79)(Defs.’ Ex. 13).

127. During the 1995-1996 school year, 78.3% of schools (36 of 46) which had only one administrator and one clerical person were staffed by one minority person and one non-minority person. (Vol. I, 80 )(Defs.’ Ex. 11).

128. During the 1996-1997 school year, 74.4% of schools (32 of 43) which had only one administrator and one clerical person were staffed by one minority person and one non-minority person. • (Vol.I, 80-81)(Defs. Ex. 12, at 41).

129. During the 1997-1998 school year, 76.1% of schools (35 of 46) which had only one administrator and one clerical person were staffed by one minority person and one non-minority person. (Vol.I, 81)(Defs.’ Ex. 13).

130. During the 1995-1996 school year, 86.6% of schools (46 of 55) which had more than one administrator had a racial balance of administrators which was no less than 33% and no more than 67% minority. (Vol.I, 82)(Defs.’ Ex. 11).

131. During the 1996-1997 school year, 89.3% of schools (50 of 56) which had more than one administrator had a racial balance of administrators which was no less than 33% and no more than 67% minority. (Vol.I, 82)(Defs.’ Ex. 12).

132. During the 1997-1998 school year, over 75% of schools (45 of 58) which had more than one administrator had a racial balance of administrators which was no less than 33% and no more than 67% minority. (Vol.I, 82)(Defs.’ Ex. 13).

133. Since the 1995-1996 school year, 78.4% of schools with more than one clerk had a racial balance between 33% and 67% minority. (Vol.I, 81)(Defs.’ Ex. 11, 12, 13).

134. Since the 1995-1996 school year the racial composition of food service staff has been within 33% to 67% minority. (Vol.I, 83-84)(Defs.’. Ex. 11,12,13).

135. No unreasonable disparity exists with respect to experience and training levels of teaching staff at each building. “Unrea

*728

sonable disparity” means that schools are within three years of the District’s mean level of experience and within one year of the District’s mean level of training for full-time teachers at a particular level. (Vol.l, 85).

136. Since the 1995-1996 school year, 100% of schools had staff compositions within one year of the mean level of training for the District. Since the 1995-1996 school year, 80% of schools had staff compositions within three years of the mean level of experience for the District. (Vol.l, 86-87)(Defs.’ Ex. 11,12,13).

137. Since 1995-1996, Defendants have submitted written reports to Plaintiffs and OSMCR identifying reasons why a particular school did not meet a numerical parameter related to Staff Desegregation. Possible reasons for not meeting certain parameters include the closing of some schools pursuant to court orders, labor pool deficiencies, and staff attrition. (Vol.l, 87-88)(Defs.’ Ex. 11, 12, 13).

138. Since the 1995-1996 school year, Defendants have taken action, including monitoring vacancies, focused recruitment, and transferring staff to prevent staff resegregation. (Vol.l, 87-89).

139. Since the 1995-1996 school year, the Defendants have provided documentation to Plaintiffs and OSMCR regarding staff composition at compliance presentations and upon request. Such information is included in Defendants’ Exhibits 11, 12 and 13. (Vol.l, 90-110).

140. Since the 1995-1996 school year, Defendants have maintained bilingual and other special education programs at the District. Approximately 3,200 students participate in bilingual education programs. Approximately 11,000 students receive special education services or participate in special education programs. (Vol.l, 84-85).

141. The District’s Superintendent has attempted to maintain a racially diverse “Central Office Staff.” (Vol.XIII, 2543-47)(Defs.’ Ex. 338, 339).

142. Dr. Christine Rossell reviewed data regarding District staff composition and the remedial orders, visited 21 schools, and spoke with District employees. Dr. Rossell has conducted research on approximately 6 other school districts that have recently been declared unitary. (Vol.IV, 743^4).

143. Dr. Rossell concluded that 68% of the central administrative office staff is African-American and that 45% of the Superintendent’s Management Team is African American. The national labor pool is approximately 12% African American. (Vol.IV, 750)(Defs.’ Ex. 339).

144. Dr. Rossell concluded that for the 1996-97 school year, 91% of the District’s schools had a faculty racial composition which was within +/— 15 percentage points of the District average for elementary, middle, and high schools. The range for staff desegregation of schools in school districts recently declared unitary is between 40 to 100 percent. The District’s teacher racial balance is comparable to other districts that have been declared unitary. (Vol.IV, 745-46)(Defs.’ Ex. 348, Fig. 13).

145. Dr. Rossell also concluded that the Defendants had achieved a high level of equity with regard to teacher training and experience. (Vol.IV, 746-47)(Defs.’ Ex. 348).

146. Dr. Rossell believes that the Defendants have complied with their remedial obligations related to Staff Desegregation. (Vol. IV, 751).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

55. The outstanding remedial obligations in the area of Staff Desegregation consist of the following:

a) Prior to the opening of school each fall, no school may have a faculty racial composition during the life of [the Consent Decree] which varies by more than +/-15 percentage points from the district wide averages for elementary, middle and high schools. (Order, 5/25/94, § 5.1);

b) In those schools which have only one administrator and one clerical person, assignments shall be made so that the administrator and the clerical personal shall be one minority person and one non-minority person...

Where there are two administrative staff members in a school, the ratio of minori

*729

ty administrators to the total administrative staff of such school shall be as close to 50% as possible, but shall be no less than 33% and shall be no greater than 67%...

[T]he clerical staff shall be desegregated so that where there is only one clerk at a school, the clerk shall be a different race than the school principal...

Where there are two clerical staff members at a school, the ratio of minority clerical staff to the total clerical staff in each school shall be no less than 33% nor greater than 67%...

The Food Service staff charged with the management, supervision, and operation of the food services program shall be desegregated. (Order, 6/3/77);

c) The Court ... does hereby order the Cleveland Board of Education to report, on an annual basis ... the facts concerning the racial distribution and assignments of all custodians and assistant custodians... If, upon receipt of that report, Plaintiffs counsel determines the interest of Plaintiffs require a modification of the racial distribution of the custodial staff, the matter shall upon notice be brought to the attention of the Court. (Order, 11/4/81);

d) Reassignments of instructional and other staff shall be made in such a manner as to maintain the effective bilingual and other special education programs. (Order, 6/3/77);

e) In making assignments of instructional staff, the defendants shall insure that there exists no unreasonable disparity in respect to experience levels and training among instructional staff of the school. (Order, 6/3/77);

f) Although percentages specified here are not intended as rigid quotas, the defendants have the burden of demonstrating in every ease that practical necessity justifies deviation greater than that provided for herein. (Order, 6/3/77);

g) Too many factors are connected in this complex situation [staff desegregation] to allow even the slightest divergence to remain uncorrected. The Court has made it clear on various occasions that the parties are obligated to strictly abide by the words and spirit of the Court’s orders. If for some legally permissible reason they are unable to comply, then they are obligated to immediately demonstrate to the Court that their failure of performance is justified...

The deviation range provided for in the order was intended not to be the goal of the defendants’ staff desegregation efforts. Rather, the deviation percentages represented fail-back ranges within which sanctions for noncompliance would not be imposed. (Order, 8/30/78);

h)To desegregate its instructional, administrative, custodial, clerical, and food services staffs.... The School District shall collect data and take such actions from time to time as may be necessary to prevent resegregation of the staff. Such actions shall be documented. (Final Standard XIV; Order 4/24/81).

56. Section 5.1 of the Consent Decree supersedes the Court’s August 30, 1978 Order, which also delineated faculty racial composition requirements.

57. On May 8, 1996, the Court concluded that the administrative and certified supervisory and teaching personnel as well as non-certified personnel of the District had been desegregated to the extent practicable.

Reed v. Rhodes,

934 F.Supp. at 1551 . The Court further noted that “for at least two years [Vision 21 was implemented] by a totally integrated administrative and certified supervisory and teaching staff.”

Id.

at 1551-1552 .

58. The Defendants have continued to comply with the remedial obligations related to Staff Desegregation.

59. Defendants have desegregated the instructional staff and have complied with the faculty racial composition requirements imposed pursuant to § 5.1 of the Consent Decree.

60. Defendants have continued to insure that no unreasonable disparity exists with regard to experience and training among instructional staff and have maintained effec

*730

tive bilingual and special education programs.

61. Defendants have also desegregated the administrative, clerical and food service staffs.

62. Defendants have monitored staff composition, collected data, and have taken appropriate actions to prevent resegregation. Defendants have provided such documentation to Plaintiffs and OSMCR.

63. Plaintiffs and the Board do not allege any non-compliance as to the aforementioned requirements related to the Staff Desegregation component. They do allege, however, that the Central Office Staff, particularly the Superintendent’s Leadership Team, is racially isolated.

(Plaintiffs’ Brief in Opposition,

at 15-16;

Board’s Brief,

at 11). The remedial obligations regarding Staff Desegregation relate to the race and experience of personnel at the school building level; they do not impose any staff desegregation requirements relative to the racial composition of Central Office Staff. Plaintiffs also acknowledge that no such specific remedial obligation exists.

64. Plaintiffs and the Board’s allegations that the composition of the Central Office Staff displays Defendants’ lack of good faith is without merit. The record has established that Defendants have demonstrated a good faith effort to maintain a racially diverse Central Office Staff.

SCHOOL COMMUNITY RELATIONS

FINDINGS OF FACT:

147. The Defendants’ written policy regarding community relations is included in District Policy Series 1000. (Defs.’ Ex. 77).

148. The Student Handbook, distributed annually to all students, includes the District’s code of discipline and information regarding Defendants’ remedial obligations and compliance efforts related to the desegregation process. (Vol.II, 229, 243).

149. The Defendants provide parents with a variety of written materials to promote school-community relations including, the Student Handbook, the annual calendar, and information regarding School Community Council (“SCC”) training and various parent training programs. (Vol.II, 229-30).

150. As a specific example of Defendants’ efforts to keep the public apprized of desegregation obligations, Defendants sponsored a number of activities following the Court’s May 1996 Student Assignments decision, including a televised community forum, to inform the community of the Order and to explain its implications. (Vol.II, 244-45).

151. Ameritech provided additional telephone lines and training to the District to respond to parents’ calls resulting from the unitary decision of May 1996 and also provides additional telephone service at the start of the school year to facilitate a smoother opening to the school year. (Vol.II, 245).

152. Defendants established a telephone complaint center to enable parents to report any complaints or concerns to the District. The District attempts to respond to all calls within four business days. ( Vol. II, 233-34; Vol. XIV, 2890).

153. The cover of the 1997-98 School Calendar depicted an African-American male student in a manner which has been perceived to negatively stereotype African-American students. The error was the result of an internal review oversight after the cover was designed by an external graphic design agency that used clip-art images of students. (Vol.II, 235-38).

154. The District took appropriate corrective actions once the disfavorable depiction of the African-American student was identified, including sending a letter of apology to all parents and students and replacing any calendar covers that had not yet been distributed. (Vol.II, 237)(Pls.’ Ex. PP).

155. The cover of the 1997-1998 school calendar was ultimately reviewed by the District’s Director of External Affairs and Communications, who is an African-American male. (Vol.II, 238-39).

156. Systems are in place to assure that no occurrences similar to that of the Fall 1997 school calendar incident reoccur and that all school publications are appropriately screened concerning issues of racial and cultural diversity. (Vol.XIII, 2556).

*731

157. The District encourages parent participation through SCCs, Schools of Choice Nights, parent-teacher organizations, and other organized parent activities. (Vol.II, 231-32).

158. All district schools have a SCC. SCCs are responsive to the individual needs of the school and participate in reviewing building budgets, making administrative staffing determinations, and evaluating curricular and extra-curricular concerns. All schools must allocate resources to their SCC. (Vol.II, 240).

159. The District also has a District Community Council (“DCC”) and Cluster Community Councils (“CCCs”). A DCC deals with activities at the District level and CCCs focus on concerns of various grade levels. (Vol.II, 240-41).

160. SCCs, DCCs and CCCs operate pursuant to District Policy, which was approved by the Court in November 1986. (Defs.’ Ex. 77, Attach. E).

161. Lucille Short, Plaintiffs’ witness, is the School Community Council (“SCC”) chairperson at a District middle school. Ms. Short testified that her SCC was functioning and that the District provides extensive SCC training every year to SCC chairpersons. (Vol.XVIII, 3511, 3526).

162. Judith Simpson, Plaintiffs’ witness, testified that School Community Councils are viable and active in all schools. (Vol.XVIII, 3542-44).

163. Dr. Rossell examined the Defendants’ community relations efforts and concluded the following:

a. Some of the most effective measures used throughout the Nation to improve school-community relations are utilized by the Cleveland School District. (Vol. IV, 753).

b. Parents of African-American students prefer neighborhood schools even if it means that some schools will be predominately one race. (Vol.IV, 756).

c. Once the District adopted a plan using neighborhood schools plus magnets rather than mandatory reassignments, after the Court’s May 1996 Order, the District’s enrollment has stabilized with regard to race. (Vol.IV, 763).

d. The passage of the school levy in 1996 indicates that the community has confidence in the District’s abilities. (Vol. IV, 764).

e. Ultimately, in comparing the District’s accomplishments in the area of school community relations to other districts recently declared unitary, the Cleveland Public School District has achieved comparable success.

164. The Defendants coordinated extensive efforts to strengthen relations with the parents, the community, and the entire City of Cleveland while implementing a massive levy campaign in 1996. (Vol.II, 248^49).

165. As part of the District’s attempts to improve community relations and community involvement, Superintendent Dr. Richard Boyd, on behalf of the District, signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Mayor Michael White. (Vol.XIII, 2550-51)(Defs.’ Ex. 81).

166. Outstanding efforts among District personnel, especially those of Superintendent Dr. Richard Boyd, and the establishment of a levy accountability committee, helped to build confidence in the District and ultimately resulted in the passage of the November 1996 operating levy. This was the first operating levy to pass in the last 13 years. (Vol. II, 248-49).

167. Defendants provided documentation to Plaintiffs and OSMCR upon request or at compliance meetings regarding remedial obligation compliance efforts related to school-community relations. The documentation provided to Plaintiffs and OSMCR at compliance meetings is included as Defendants’ Exhibits 76 through 82. (Vol.II, 250-66).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

65. The outstanding remedial obligations in the area of School Community Relations consist of the following:

a) The School District’s school-community relations activities shall consist of identifiable elements, including but not limited to goals, performance objectives, programming and/or services, assess

*732

ment, staff training, parent training, and clear lines of responsibility and accountability. Such elements shall be verifiable in the plans for and in the operation of these activities. (Final Standard X.A.; Order, 4/24/81);

b) For reasons of efficiency and cost effectiveness, the School District’s school-community relations activities shall make maximum feasible use of available resources in the private sector, including the resources of non-profit entities. The District’s efforts and results in obtaining such resources shall be documented. (Final Standard X.C.; Order, 4/24/81);

c) The School District shall continually inform the public as to the constitutional imperative of school desegregation, the Remedial Orders, and their specific plans for implementing said Orders. (Order 7/13/79) Formal information efforts shall be documented. (Final Standard X.D.; Order, 4/24/81);

d) The School District shall have a mechanism or procedure for efficiently receiving and disposing of parent complaints. The mechanism or procedure may be formal or informal in nature, provided it is efficient, effective and timely. The mechanism or procedure shall be identifiable, and its results shall be documented. (Final Standard X.E.; Order, 4/24/81);

e) School Community Councils (SCCs) will serve a critical role in the desegregation remedy. They will consist of parents of school children and other concerned citizens who have completed a twelve-hour training program covering a wide scope of issues, including school desegregation, school organization, testing practices, and school management. SCCs will function as advisory groups to the school principals and thereby safeguard the lawful operation of the schools. (Order, 11/20/86);

f) The Proposed Policy for the Operation and Training of School Community Councils in the Cleveland School District, filed with the Second Joint Report, IS HEREBY ADOPTED and shall be implemented immediately. The policy adopted herein supersedes any policies concerning SCCs currently in place in the Cleveland school district. The district shall distribute the policy to parents periodically and shall make it available in both English and Spanish. Each school in the district will have an SCC. (Order 11/20/86);

g) The School District’s community relations activities related to desegregation shall be coordinated, for maximum effective results, with the District’s various other community relations and/or parent-relations activities, including but not limited to various advisory committees. Such coordination shall be verifiable in the plans for and operation of these activities. (Order, 4/24/81);

h) The School District is required to “have documented results for its school-community relations program as a whole.” (Order, 4/24/81).

66. On May 8, 1996, the Court concluded that Defendants had implemented “an effective program for enhancing community relations.”

Reed v. Rhodes,

934 F.Supp. at 1652 .

67. Defendants have continued to comply with the remedial obligations related to the School-Community Relations component.

68. The school community relations activities include both parent and staff training. The desegregation-related school community relations activities are coordinated with various departments and activities throughout the District.

69. Defendants have made maximum use of available private sector resources.

70. Defendants have informed the public on a continuous basis regarding school desegregation obligations and related compliance efforts through the use of written materials, community forums, and various forms of public media.

71. Defendants have established a telephone center to efficiently receive and address parent complaints.

72. School Community Councils (“SCCs”) operate pursuant to court-approved policy.

*733

73.Defendants have documented their school community relations activities and have consistently provided such documentation to Plaintiffs and OSMCR.

74. Plaintiffs stipulated that “Defendants have performed some of their remedial and Consent Decree Obligations as it relates to School Community Relations.”

(Plaintiffs’ Analysis of Defendants’ Remedial Compliance,

7/28/97).

75. Plaintiffs and the Board have alleged three concerns with respect to School-Community Relations component: (1) a lack of communication with parent and community groups; (2) “the efficacy of the proposed conversion from School Community Councils (SCCs) to School Governance Counsels (SGCs)” and (3) Defendants have failed to address negative or misleading perceptions regarding desegregation.

(Plaintiffs’ Brief in Opposition,

at 10-11;

Board’s Brief in Opposition,

at 8).

76. The allegation regarding the lack of communication is without merit as it is not supported by the record produced at the hearing. Defendants have made a good faith effort to effectively communicate with parent and community groups. Likewise, the assertion that the School Community Relations department has failed to address misconceived perceptions regarding desegregation is also without merit. Defendants have made noticeable improvements over the past years at improving public perceptions of the District and its desegregation-related efforts.

77. Plaintiffs’ concern regarding the conversion from SCCs to SGCs is not based upon any remedial obligation and does not evidence a lack of compliance on the part of Defendants.

78. The success of the November 1996 operating levy, the first operating levy passed by the electorate in 13 years, clearly indicates that the Cleveland community has a restored confidence in the system. Such restored confidence exists as strong evidence of Defendants’ achievements relative to the School Community Relations component. The funds derived from the passage of the levy will total approximately $67 million annually and will be used to support 13 enhancement programs and gradually reduce the District’s debt obligations,

SAFETY AND SECURITY

FINDINGS OF FACT:

168. Defendants’ safety and security programs support their desegregation responsibilities. (Vol.V, 1030, 1058-62)(Defs.’ Ex. 251, 256, 260, 261, 263, 264).

169. The Division of Safety and Security is responsible for all safety and security programs and services. (Vol.V, 1026-27)(Defs.’ Ex. 254).

170. The Division of Safety and Security currently employs approximately 180 persons, of which 146 are security officers. Investigative counselors, dispatchers, the Mobile Response Team, and other clerical, supervisory and managerial personnel comprise the remainder of the Division. (Vol.V, 1026)(Defs.’ Ex. 254).

171. Security officers are assigned to all secondary schools based on enrollment figures, incident reports, building configuration, and community evaluations. (Vol.V, 1037-38).

172. In responding to serious incidents, Defendants deploy investigative counselors to gather information regarding the incident and to contact the appropriate law enforcement agencies or support services as necessary. (Vol.V, 1024,1038).

173. Two supervisors are responsible for monitoring the security officers and the investigative counselors. (Vol.V, 1025-26).

174. The Field Service Manager coordinates all daytime functions of the Safety and Security Division. (Vol.V, 1039).

175. The primary responsibility of the Mobile Response Units is to provide security to all District properties after school hours' by patrolling school sites and properties and responding to alarms and other security concerns. (Vol.V, 1032-33).

176. The Gang Unit reviews incident reports and deals with gang-related incidents. (Vol.V, 1040).

177. Defendants’ Safety and Security Procedural Manual identifies the policies,

*734

procedures, and functions of the Safety and Security Program. (Vol.V, 1030-36)(Defs.’ Ex. 251).

178. The Defendants annually review and revise the Procedural Manual to update policies and procedures to insure that it is responsive to the needs of the District. (Vol. V, 1031; 1036).

179. Defendants follow clear lines of responsibility and accountability in striving to satisfy the remedial requirements related to the Safety and Security component. (Vol.V, 1041-47,1054-57)(Defs.’ Ex. 254).

180. School principals receive in-service training concerning matters of safety and security, particularly with regard to reporting serious incidents. To encourage the reporting of such incidents, the number of incident reports filed by a principal is not used in any way as a reflective evaluation tool in evaluating the principal’s overall performance. (Vol.V, 1053,1057).

181. Defendants have evaluated the local surrounding areas of elementary schools for dangerous or hazardous areas in an attempt to formulate safe walking routes for the students. (Vol.V, 1062-63).

182. Since June 1996, Defendants have reviewed the

Survey and Evaluation of Safety and Security in the Cleveland City School District

prepared by Thomas J. Bader

(“Bader Report”),

and have exhibited a sincere good faith effort to implement many

Bader Report

recommendations.

11

Defendants’ implementation efforts are documented in Defendants’ Exhibit 266. (Vol.V, 1064-94).

183. Since June 1996, training of security officers has significantly increased. (Vol. Ill, 441; Vol. V, 1061-62).

184. Defendants have employed all of the most frequently used safety measures. Currently, 28 of 29 measures employed by school districts nationwide to address increasing violence in schools and society are used by the District. (Vol.XV, 2921).

185. Defendants provided documentation to Plaintiffs and OSMCR regarding compliance efforts in the area of safety and security at compliance meetings and upon request. (Vol.II, 322-23)(Defs.’ Ex. 251-254).

186. Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Green, provided no data or analysis to support allegations of noncompliance with the safety and security component. (Vol.XVII, 3327-29).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

79. The outstanding remedial obligations in the area of Safety and Security consist of the following:

a) [T]he City defendants in consultation with the State defendants, shall present the Court with a detailed safety and security program covering all of the components as set out at recommendations of the Special Master at 157-63, October 27,1977. (Order, 2/6/78);

b) The School District shall establish and follow clear lines of responsibility and accountability for achieving the requirements of the Remedial Order. Such responsibilities and accountability shall be disseminated in writing to all affected staff at all levels. (Order, 4/24/81);

c) The School District’s safety and security program shall consist of an appropriate combination of policies, regulations, training programs for school staff, information programs, and safety staff. The program shall be of a size and type commensurate with identified needs. The needs shall be documented and be kept current. (Order, 4/24/81);

d) The District’s plans, actions and results in providing safety and security shall be documented. (Order, 4/24/81).

80. On May 8, 1996, the Court concluded that Defendants had implemented “an effective safety and security program.”

Reed v. Rhodes,

934 F.Supp. at 1552 .

81. The Defendants have continued to implement an effective safety and security program, which includes policies, regulations, training and information programs, and safe

*735

ty staff. Defendants also follow clear lines of responsibility in satisfying the remedial requirements related to the Safety and Security component.

82. Plaintiffs stipulated that “it would be easiest to reach agreement on or stipulate to compliance as defined in Section 15 of the Consent Decree with respect to [several components including,JSafety and Security.”

{Joint RepoH on Negotiations Relative to the Status of Remedial Compliance,

7/24/97).

83. Plaintiffs stipulated that “Defendants have performed some of them remedial and Consent Decree obligations relative to Safety and Security as they contend.”

{Plaintiffs’ Analysis of Defendants’ Remedial Compliance,

7/28/97).

84. Plaintiffs and the Board allege that Defendants have failed to comply with the Safety and Security component due to: (1) inadequate screening and training of employees; (2) the lack of specificity of the Procedural Manual as related to specific incidents; (3) the reluctance of principals to report serious incidents; (4) the insufficient size of the Gang Unit; and (5) an insufficient number of intervention programs.

{Plaintiffs’ Brief in Opposition,

at 5;

Board’s Brief in Opposition,

at 6).

85. The outstanding remedial orders do not impose any specific requirements on Defendants concerning the allegations of noncompliance asserted by Plaintiffs and the Board. However, testimony produced at the hearing indicates that any screening, training, and reporting deficiencies are being sufficiently addressed. The Procedural Manual is adequate and is not required to specify guidance as to the handling of any specific incident. As to the size and sufficiency of the Gang Unit and intervention programs, the Cleveland Public School District has demonstrated sincere good faith compliance efforts. Unfortunately, the social challenges facing the District are similar to those plaguing other urban school districts and are encountered across the nation. Plaintiffs and the Board’s allegations are without merit.

TESTING AND TRACKING

FINDINGS OF FACT:

187.The testing program of the Cleveland Public Schools is monitored by the District’s Department of Assessment and Information Systems. (Vol.VI, 1197).

188. The District uses both standardized norm-referenced tests and criterion-referenced tests. Standardized norm-referenced tests are designed to measure the performance of District students against national norms in various subject areas. Criterion-referenced tests are designed to measure performance related to the currículums specific to the District. (Vol.VI, 1202, 1206).

189. The Defendants have systems in place to ensure that all standardized and criterion referenced tests are developed in a nondiscriminatory manner. (Vol.VI, 1207).

190. The District has adopted policies and regulations to institutionalize nondiserimina-tory practices in testing and tracking. (Vol. VI, 1202,1217-18).

191. The District reviews standardized and criterion referenced tests on an eight to ten year cycle. When adopting new tests, the District follows a documented procedure to make certain that the test publishers followed appropriate bias review procedures insuring that the test instrument is free of gender and racial bias. (Vol.VI, 1203-05, 1208).

192. Once a new standardized norm-referenced test is adopted, the District performs equating studies in order to measure whether the new test measurements can be equated with the old test measurements. (Vol.VI, 1205).

193. The Defendants use a test selection committee consisting of District administrators, teachers, parents and community members to insure that standardized and criterion referenced tests are developed and selected in a nondiscriminatory manner. (Vol.VI, 1207-08).

194. Dr. Rossell noted that because the results of standardized tests are conformed to a bell curve measuring all students against national norms, such tests may operate adversely against students of lower socioeconomic status, regardless of their race. Such tests, however, are routinely used throughout

*736

the nation as educational measures. (Vol.IV, 734).

195. Dr. Rossell also concluded that nationally normed standardized tests measure all Cleveland Public School students of similar socioeconomic status equally and do not discriminate against students on the basis of race. (Vol.VII, 1595).

196. The Defendants have systems in place, including policies and regulations, to insure that all teacher-made tests are developed in a nondiscriminatory manner. The District also annually reviews teacher-made tests to insure the nondiscriminatory development, administration, scoring and use of teacher-made tests. (Vol.VI, 1209-10)(Defs.’ Ex. 122).

197. The Defendants have systems in place to insure that all tests are administered in a nondiscriminatory fashion. Standardized and criterion-referenced tests are administered in standardized settings throughout the District as prescribed by the test publisher and/or District policy. Teacher-made tests are administered in accordance with District policies and regulations. (Vol. VI, 1216-17).

198. The Department of Assessment and Accountability annually publishes and distributes a test schedule to each school building. Defendants provide instruction forms prior to the test administration. (Defs.’ Ex. 123).

199. Defendants monitor test administrations throughout the District and prepare monitoring reports on the nondiscriminatory administration of tests. (Vol.VI, 1218-19).

200. The District has established policies and regulations to insure that all tests, both standardized and criterion-referenced, are scored in a nondiscriminatory manner. (Vol. VI, 1220-21)(Defs.’ Ex. 143).

201. The Defendants have established policies and procedures to monitor test security and take corrective actions, where necessary. (Vol.VI, 1223-24).

202. The District has established policies and procedures to insure that test results are used in a nondiscriminatory fashion. (Vol. VI, 1225).

203. District policy governs Limited English Proficiency (“LAU-Bilingual”) student placement. (Vol.VI, 1226).

204. District policy delineates the criteria for student eligibility for the Gifted and Talented or Major Work programs. Special Education program placement is governed by both District policy and State law. (Vol.VI, 1227-28,1231).

205. District policy relating to the nondiscriminatory use of testing procedures, administration, and scoring aids in the determination of whether a student qualifies for Title 1 services. (Vol.VI, 1229-30).

206. Defendants do not use ability grouping or tracking to intentionally place students in segregated classrooms. (Vol.VI, 1232).

207. The District does not assign students by ability grouping where such assignments result in racially segregated assignments. (Vol.VI, 1232-33).

208. The Defendants have specific systems in place to protect against tracking and use the Single Race Class Report to monitor and implement corrective actions, where necessary. (Vol.VI, 1235-39)(Defs.’ Ex. 124).

209. With regard to possible or actual discrimination or resegregation produced by testing or student placements, Defendants have developed and implemented an internal assessment mechanism to identify problems and initiate corrective action. (Vol.VI, 1245-46).'

210. The Defendants annually rank all schools and identify the “bottom quartile schools” for special focus and selected services. (Vol.VI, 1247-58)(Defs.’ Ex. 122, 145, 146).

211. Defendants provided documentation to Plaintiffs and OSMCR upon request or at compliance meetings regarding their compliance with testing and tracking remedial obligations. Plaintiffs did not challenge the accuracy of the information provided. The documentation provided to Plaintiffs and OSMCR at compliance meetings is included as Defendants’ Exhibits 121, 122, 123 and 124. (Vol.II, 270, 273-76).

212. Plaintiffs have not presented any concerns regarding noncompliance in the

*737

area of testing and tracking to this Court prior to this hearing. (Vol.VI, 1316).

213. Dr. Rossell evaluated Defendants’ testing programs to determine whether any racial discrimination exists and ultimately concluded that no such racial discrimination against African-American students exists in the area of testing. (Vol.IV, 770).

214. Dr. Rossell determined that very little difference exists between the grades assigned to African-American and other students in the District. Specifically, 22% percent of grades earned by white students are As and Bs, 19% of grades earned by African-American students are

As

and Bs, and 24% of grades earned by Asian and Hispanic students are As and Bs. (Vol.IV, 769-70). Moreover, she noted that a higher percentage of African-American students(3.7) than white students (2.7) are identified as gifted and talented. (Defs.’Ex.348).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

86. The outstanding remedial orders in the area of testing and tracking consist of the following:

a) [Defendants are cautioned that they must insure that all tests, whether standardized, criterion referenced, or teacher made, are developed, administered and scored in a nondiscriminatory manner. (Order, 2/6/78);

b) The Court is particularly concerned that the results of such tests are used in a nondiscriminatory manner. (Order, 2/6/78);

c) Defendants were instructed to “avoid ability grouping or tracking students in segregated classrooms,” and “not [to] assign students in ability grouping where such assignments result in racially segregated classrooms,” (Order, 2/6/78) and to “[c]ease the assignment of students in ability groupings where such assignments result in racially segregated classrooms in racially integrated schools...” (Order, 10/16/78);

d) The School District shall establish and follow clear lines of responsibility and accountability, from the Headquarters level to the classroom, for achieving the requirements of the Remedial Order [in Testing and Tracking]. Such responsibilities and accountability shall be disseminated in writing to all affected staff at all levels. (Order, 4/24/81);

e) The School District shall provide appropriate training to staff at all levels, consistent with identified needs. Such training shall be documented. (Order, 4/24/81);

f) The School District shall have an internal assessment mechanism, procedure or system to identify problems and to initiate corrective action with regard to actual or possible discrimination or re-segregation produced by testing or student placements. Such assessment mechanism, procedure or system shall be identifiable, and it shall have documented results. (Order, 4/24/81).

87. On May 8, 1996, the Court concluded that Defendants had implemented “an effective, approved, and accurate testing and tracking program.”

Reed v. Rhodes,

934 F.Supp. at 1552 .

88. Defendants have continued to comply with the remedial obligations associated with the testing and tracking component. Defendants have designed and implemented policies and procedures to insure that all tests are developed, administered, and scored in a nondiscriminatory manner and that such test results are also used in a nondiscriminatory manner. Defendants also continue to implement an assessment mechanism to identify possible problems produced by testing or student placement and to initiate appropriate corrective action when necessary. Defendants provide appropriate training to staff based upon identified needs and have avoided ability grouping or tracking students as specified in the remedial obligations. Defendants have also established and follow clear lines of responsibility and accountability for achieving the requirements of the remedial orders.

89. Plaintiffs allege non-compliance with the Testing and Tracking component based upon the following assertions: (1) teachers are inadequately trained with regard to teacher-made tests; (2) the inability of the Cleveland Public School children to succeed on the standardized, state-mandated profi

*738

ciency examinations emphasizes the continued effect of discriminatory testing and the Defendant’s failure to document the effectiveness of their testing program; and (3) the use of nationally-normed tests has resulted in ability grouping and segregatory assignments.

(Plaintiffs’ Brief in Opposition,

at 12).

90. With regard to training for teacher-made tests, testimony and documentation produced at the hearing evidences Defendants’ compliance with this obligation.

91. Relying upon the expert testimony produced at the Hearing, Plaintiffs’ claims regarding success on proficiency exams and ability grouping or segregative assignments are also without merit. As to these issues identified by Plaintiffs, neither the remedial obligations, this Court, nor the Supreme Court require the Defendants to guarantee success on proficiency testing; success is strongly influenced by many factors beyond the control of the school districts.

See Missouri v. Jenkins,

515 U.S. 70 , 115 S.Ct. 2038 , 132 L.Ed.2d 63 (1995).

AFFIRMATIVE READING SKILLS PROGRAM

FINDINGS OF FACT:

215. The District has implemented an affirmative reading skills programs which incorporates nationally known research-based reading programs and includes the following elements: coordination, instruction, goals, instructional services, training of staff, parental involvement, functional development, proficiency testing and clear lines of responsibility. (VoLXII, 2469-70)

216. The District also provides additional services for students performing below District standards. (VoLXII, 2471).

217. Defendants evaluate and assess any disparities in reading test scores of African-American and other students in the District and rely upon parity studies to refine the Affirmative Reading Skills Program. (Vol. VI, 1333-40; Vol. XII, 2471)( Defs.’ Ex. 154).

218. Defendants annually report standardized reading test results of student performance, by race and school building. (Vol. VI, 1352-54)(Defs.’ Ex. 151,154).

219. Defendants define “adversely affected” students as students who (1) attended a school in 1978 in which 90 percent or more of the enrollment was African-American or other; and (2) scored below the 34th percentile on a reading comprehension subtest on the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills or the California Achievement Test. (Vol.VI, 1330-31).

220. Defendants identified adversely affected students annually, and provided reading program services. By definition, no “adversely affected” students are enrolled in the District today. (Vol.VI, 1332-33).

221. Defendants regularly provided documentation to Plaintiffs and OSMCR upon request or at compliance meetings regarding remedial order compliance related to the affirmative reading skills program. (Vol.II, 281-82, 286-87)(Defs.’Ex.151, 152, 153).

222. Research strongly indicates that socioeconomic status (“SES”) and family background influence a student’s achievement in school. (Defs.’ Ex. 345, p. 8).

223. Dr. Neil Bania is an expert in social statistics in the analysis of national, state and local social and economic data. Dr. Bania collected and reviewed census and demographic data and also analyzed poverty, population and employment statistics for the Cleveland City School District, the State of Ohio, and the United States. Dr. Bania prepared an expert report which was admitted into evidence as Defendants’ Exhibit 343. (Vol.III, 532-33, 536,

577){See

Appendix A).

224. Dr. Bania analyzed the following variables: (1) persons 25 and over lacking a high school diploma; (2) percent of families with children in poverty; (3) percent of households with income less than $25,000; (4) percent of households headed by a single parent; (5) percent of persons 16 and older who are unemployed; (6) percent of births to single mothers; (7) percent of low birth weight births; (8) percent of persons receiving AFDC benefits; (9) teen fertility rates per 1000; (10) infant mortality rates per 1000; and (11) arrest rates for adults. (Defs.’ Ex. 343).

*739

225. The data provided by Dr. Bania was the most current data available for the variables he analyzed. (Vol.III, 592).

226. Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Trent, agreed that the variables analyzed by Dr. Bania impact achievement. (Vol.XVI, 3069-70).

227. Of the above variables analyzed by Dr. Bania, black individuals had a higher incidence or frequency of the variables than white individuals. (Defs.’ Ex. 343).

228. With respect to every variable analyzed by Dr. Bania, individuals living in Cleveland, regardless of race, had a higher incidence or frequency of the variable than individuals residing in other parts of Ohio. (Defs.’ Ex. 343).

229. With respect to every variable analyzed by Dr. Bania, individuals living in Cleveland, regardless of race, had a higher incidence or frequency of the variable than individuals residing in other areas of the United States, when such data was available for analysis. (Defs.’ Ex. 343).

230. Plaintiffs offered no evidence to contradict the data and conclusions offered by Dr. Bania.

231. Dr. Herbert Walberg is an expert in educational psychology, focusing on educational policy, desegregation, and student achievement. Dr. Walberg studied the Cleveland Public School system to determine whether the District discriminates against African-American students with respect to achievement. Dr. Walberg prepared an expert report and a rebuttal report which were admitted into evidence as Defendants’ Exhibits 345 and 349, respectively. (Vol.VIII, 1723).

232. During the first 18 years of life, a student spends approximately thirteen percent (13%) of his waking hours in school, while approximately eighty-seven percent (87%) of a student’s waking hours are spent outside of school. (Vol.VIII, 1751)(Defs.’ Ex. 345, G).

233. Dr. Walberg testified that schools can attempt to impact on the time children spend outside of school by initiating parent programs, or through extending the school day, the school week, or the school year. (Vol.VIII, 1748).

234. Dr. Walberg has studied the relationship between socioeconomic status (“SES”) and family background as they influence achievement. The national measure of SES, with respect to children, includes the parents’ income, the parents’ level of education, and the prestige of the parents’ occupation^). Because such information often is not available when conducting school research, Chapter 17 status, qualification for free or reduced lunch which is based on the level of household income, is often used as a relative crude indicator of SES. (Vol.VIII, 1744-45).

235. Dr. Walberg also concentrated on factors related to socioeconomic status including the home environment, behaviors evidenced by parents in the home, and psychological factors such as motivation. Such factors relate to the amount of attention given to children in the home that stimulates the child’s intellectual development and motivation and gives the child a learning advantage in school, either before the child starts school or during the school year. Behaviors associated with such factors include reading to the child at a young age, having the child read to the parent, watching and discussing educational television programs with the child, taking the child to the library, and exposing the child to cultural activities to nurture a child’s cognitive development. (Vol.VIII, 1745-46).

236. In general, children reared in lower socioeconomic status tend to be less intellectually stimulated and, consequently, tend to be less prepared for school which ultimately impacts on the child’s achievement. (Vol. VIII, 1757).

237. Almost 80 percent of the students in the Cleveland Public Schools are eligible for free or reduced lunches, which is a very high indicator of poverty and represents the highest poverty rate among the eight largest cities in Ohio (Akron, Canton, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo and Youngstown) which were studied. (Vol.VIII, 1808).

*740

238. Dr. Walberg testified that, when assessing virtually all measures of socioeconomic status, including adults over 25 years of age lacking a high school diploma, families with children in poverty households with incomes less than $25,000, households headed by single parents, unemployed persons age 16 or older, single parent families, low birth weight, persons receiving AFDC, teen fertility rates, infant mortality rates, and adult arrest rates, substantial differences exist between African-American and white students, with African-American students being in a more adverse socioeconomic status than white students. (Vol.VIII, 1803-1804).

239. Factors associated with low socioeconomic states related to the child’s preschool years, such as low birth weight, childhood anemia, coming from a family with a single parent, and being an unwed mother may also have a profound effect on students once they enter school. (Vol.VIII, 1757-58).

240. Such statistical indicators of socioeconomic status substantially impact student learning. African-American students, living under more adverse SES factors than white students, would be expected to do less well because of such poverty related conditions. (Vol.VIII, 1805).

241. Dr. Walberg’s conclusions are based upon averages and means when referring to African-American and white students, not upon individual students; the findings relate to statistical trends rather than absolutes. (Vol.VIII, 1736).

242. Programs such as Federal Chapter I or Title I, designed to address the academic disadvantages of children' of lower socioeconomic status, have had limited effectiveness, and may actually be disadvantageous. (Vol. VIII, 1777-78).

243. Both Dr. Walberg and Dr. Armor testified that an “achievement gap” of varying degrees exists between African-American and white students at various ages in virtually every school system throughout the United States in reading, mathematics; and science. This gap is evidenced in each year that national scores were compared. (Vol. VIII, 1740-42; Vol. XI, 2271)(Defs.’ Ex. 345, F).

244. The achievement gap for reading in Ohio is 23 points; the average national gap for fourth grade students is between 20 and 30 points. (Vol.VIII, 1743).

245. Dr. Walberg examined • the eight largest urban cities in the State of Ohio (Akron, Canton, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo and Youngstown), and concluded that in Cleveland reading scores, the achievement gap is 1.2 at the fourth grade level, 1.3 at the sixth grade level, and that no gap exists at the ninth grade level. At the fourth grade level, the only city with a smaller achievement gap is Canton. At the sixth grade level, only Canton -and Dayton have smaller achievement gaps. (Vol.VIII, 1800-01)(Defs.’ Ex. 345, N).

246. High student mobility, more prevalent among low income students, also adversely affects academic achievement and the adverse effects are greater for poor children than for middle class children. (Vol.VIII, 1771-72).

247. The “Matthew Effect” refers to the phenomenon that often students in less favorable socioeconomic status fall further and further behind in school over time. However, in Cleveland, Dr. Walberg stated that the “Anti-Matthew Effect” occurs, a student’s performance does not decrease as that student proceeds within the District. (Vol.VIII, 1764).

248. The achievement gap does not increase as students remain in the District. (Vol.VIII, 1822).

249. Strong evidence that no racial discrimination exists with respect to reading or other achievement in the Cleveland Public Schools is found in the fact that the achievement level of African-American students in Cleveland at all grades is very close to that of white students and that the gap diminishes over time.# Socioeconomic factors explain the lower academic achievement. (Vol.VIII, 1805-06).

250. Dr. David Armor is an expert in the areas of school desegregation, educational achievement and statistical analyses of educational and social data. Over the past thirty years, Dr. Armor has conducted research on

*741

approximately 30 to 35 school districts and has served as an expert on desegregation-related matters for these districts. Much of his recent work has involved assisting school districts seeking unitary status, which has required him to analyze many court orders and a great deal of data concerning the elimh nation of vestiges to the extent practicable. Dr. Armor prepared an expert report and a rebuttal report which were admitted into evidence as Defendants’ Exhibits 342 and 347. (Vol.XI, 2248-50, 2256).

251. Dr. Armor evaluated academic achievement of students in the District to determine whether any vestiges of past discrimination remain.

252. Similar to Dr. Walberg’s findings, Dr. Armor notes that his research results are based on aggregate student performance and thus, results of any individual student may vary; the results are based upon group differences, not individual differences. (Vol.XI, 2264-65).

253. The achievement gap in Cleveland is 6 points. The national or average achievement gap between the scores of black and other students is 20 points. The national gap is about 3/4 to a full standard deviation.

12

(Vol.XI, 2266, 2271-72).

254. The achievement gap between African-American and White students in Cleveland is smaller than the gap in other cities and nationally. (Vol.XI, 2273).

255. In comparing the achievement gap in Cleveland between African-American and white students to achievement gaps in other districts which are either seeking or which have attained unitary status, Dr. Armor testified that the achievement gap in Cleveland is the smallest gap he has ever seen. (Vol. XI, 2266, 2274-75)(Defs.’ Ex. 342).

256. Neither the racial composition of a school nor the concentration of poverty in schools has a significant adverse effect on achievement after accounting for individual socioeconomic status. (Vol.XI, 2267, 2278-84).

257. Even without controlling for SES factors, there is no significant relationship between the concentration of students in poverty and achievement of 5th or 10th grade students on the reading and mathematics components of the California Achievement Test (“CAT”). (VolXI, 2267-68, 2285-87)(Defs.’ Ex. 342). .

258. Academic achievement is defined in accordance with scores from achievement tests administered by the District, including the Ohio proficiency tests and the California Achievement Test (“CAT”). (Vol.XI, 2261-62).

259. With regard to the percentage passing all four of the 9th grade proficiency areas at grades 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, a relatively small gap exists between black and other students. Over 90 percent of both black and white students passed the reading, writing and citizenship proficiency tests by the end of the 1995-1996 and 1996-Í997 school years. A gap does exist, however, with regard to the math component of the proficiency test that favors white students. (Vol.XI, 2266, 2275).

260. Based upon CAT results, African-American 5th grade students score close to the national norm in reading and at the national norm in mathematics; these students have an average CAT reading score of 44 points, which is 6 points below the national norm, and an average CAT mathematics score of 50 which equals the national norm. (Vol-XI, 2269)(Defs.’ Ex. 342).

261. "White students score only 6 points higher on the 5th grade reading and math tests, which is 1/4 of a national standard deviation. This compares to a national gap of better than 3/4 of a standard deviation on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (Vol.XI, 2271)(Defs.’ Ex. 342).

262. This small gap is partially the result of the relatively small poverty gap evidenced by the free lunch indicator, 78 percent of black students and 63 percent of white stu

*742

dents receive free lunch. (Vol.XI, 2272-73)(Defs.’ Ex. 342).

263. Dr. Armor examined SES factors as part of his research because of their infhri ence on achievement results. Dr. Armor reviewed two factors, receipt of free lunch and family structure (single parent or two parent family), as these were the only individual variables available for a series of years with respect to the Cleveland District. (Vol. XI, 2263-64).

264. Dr. Armor testified that given the SES differences that exist at the present time in Cleveland, as in other parts of the country, the achievement gap in Cleveland is very small and he does not believe it is practicable to reduce the gap to any significant degree below this current level. (Vol. XI, 2329).

265. Dr. Armor also testified that based upon research of other school districts that have been declared unitary, Cleveland is performing better in terms of black achievement and the achievement gap than other cities recently declared unitary. (Vol.XI, 2329).

266. The Parties stipulated that Dr. William Trent was an expert in educational sociology, statistical analysis, school desegregation, and the effects of race on student achievement. (Vol.XVI, 3019).

267. In 1993, Dr. Trent constructed a list of variables and designed an analysis which Dr. Hawkins, who did not testify at this Hearing, used to conduct a statistical analysis of the District to determine if any vestiges of past discrimination existed. This analysis was based upon interviews, which were conducted in 1993 and 1994, and data for the 1991-1992 school year. Dr.Trent compiled a report based upon the interviews and data but never completed this report (hereinafter, “Draft Report”). (VoLXVI, 3023, 3072-73).

268. Dr. Trent testified that he concluded in his Draft Report that, as of March of 1994, vestiges of discrimination existed with respect to reading and mathematics. (Vol.XVI, 3073).

269. Plaintiffs stipulated that the Court should strike all portions of Dr. Trent’s report related to anything other than mathematics or reading, including suspensions, expulsions, program placement, and faculty racial composition, because Dr. Trent had no data to support his conclusions in those areas. (Vol. XVI 3098-99, 3102-03).

270. Dr. Trent stated that he was contacted by Plaintiffs to prepare the expert report he submitted for this hearing (hereinafter, “Current Report”) approximately three days before it was due and'that the Current Report is essentially identical to his Draft Report of March 1994. The Current Report was admitted as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit G. (Vol. XVI, 3073-74, 3108).

271. Dr. Trent testified that he did not review any data from years subsequent to 1991-1992 in preparing his Current Report and testimony, nor had he interviewed any District employees since March of 1994. (VoLXVI, 3074).

272. Prior to submitting his Current Report, Dr. Trent testified that he had not reviewed the Consent Decree, the outstanding remedial orders or any documentation regarding Defendants’ efforts to comply with the remedial orders. (VoLXVI, 3074-75).

273. Dr. Trent acknowledged that his Current Report does not contain' a review of literature, research findings, or references.to scholarship (VoLXVI, 3028-29).

274. Dr. Trent testified that he had not considered any data of any type regarding the Cleveland Public Schools since 1993. (VoLXVI, 3075).

275. Dr. Trent testified concerning his statistical analysis of the effect of race on California Achievement Test scores in reading and mathematics' in 1992, adjusted for student background factors such as sex, age and free-lunch status, for prior performance in school, and school size and poverty level. (VoLXVI, 3029-30, 3038-39).

276. Dr. Trent testified that the effect of race on CAT scores, what he termed the “race efféct”, remained statistically significant after adjusting for these other factors. (Trent Vol. XVI, 3031:18-25).

277. Dr. Trent did not review or consider any results from the Ohio Proficiency Tests. (VoLXVI, 3080).

*743

278. Dr. Trent acknowledged that the race effect is not synonymous with racial discrimination, and that the race effect may be caused by factors other than racial discrimination. (Vol.XVI, 3095-96).

279. Dr. Trent testified that he could not specify what percent of the race effect is caused by racial discrimination as opposed to some other factor. (Vol.XVI, 3096).

280. Dr. Trent testified that he could not give the Court any comparison of actual performance between African-American and other students in the District. (Vol.XVI, 3083-84).

281. Dr. Trent controlled for only one socioeconomic variable: free lunch status. Dr. Trent acknowledged that other factors may impact achievement that he did not consider, such as family structure, home environment, nutrition level, amount of time spent reading, family income, unemployment rates and birth rates. (Vol.XVI, 3084-87).

282. Dr. Trent stated that he had not conducted a statistical analysis to compare the race effect in Cleveland with the race effect in other school districts he has studied or the race effect in the nation. (VoLXVI, 3090, 3093-94).

283. Dr. Trent testified that he was not aware of any school district in which no race effect exists. (Vol.XVI, 3095).

284. Dr. Trent testified that with regard to the achievement gap, he did not know how the District compared to other school districts nationally. (Vol.XVI, 3094-95).

285. Dr. Trent testified that the panel on which he served in Prince George’s County concluded that African-American students scored consistently lower than other race students on all four standardized tests. (Vol. XVI, 3107).

286. Based on the testimony of all experts, neither racial discrimination nor vestiges of prior discrimination explains the persistent achievement gap between African-American and white students. Rather, this difference is attributable to socioeconomic differences between African-American and white students in Cleveland, the. State of Ohio, and the United States.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

92. The Court specifically stated in its Remedial Order of February 6,1978 that:

[t]he Court is persuaded that lower performance scores in schools with a predominance of black students, though partially explainable by the factor of poverty, are mainly the result of differing racial treatment. Therefore, the Court finds that the reading deficiencies, demonstrated by defendants’ reports of test scores.. .are directly and substantially attributable to factors involving racial discrimination.

Reed v. Rhodes,

455 F.Supp. at 599.

93. The outstanding remedial obligations in the area of the Affirmative Reading Skills Program consist of the following:

a) In order to remedy the effects of past discrimination, the defendants shall institute an affirmative reading skills program which does not resegregate... (Order, 2/6/78);

b) The Affirmative Reading Skills Program shall:

Be coordinated, for maximum effective results, with the School District’s various reading programs and services. Such coordination shall be verifiable. (Order, 4/24/81);

c) The Affirmative Reading Skills Program shall:

Consist of identifiable elements, including but not limited to goals, performance objectives, instructional programming and/or services, assessment, staff training, parent involvement, and clear lines of responsibility and accountability. Such elements shall be verifiable in the plans for and in the operation of these programs. (Order, 4/24/81);

d) The required Affirmative Reading Skills Program shall:

Identify those students in Grades 1 through 12 who have in the past been adversely affected by segregated programming, and be available, at a mini

*744

mum, to all such students. (Order, 4/24/81);

e) The required Affirmative Reading Skills Program shall:

Be directed

in the .‘program’s primary effects

at those students identified as having been adversely affected in the past, even though the program may be provided to all students. (Order, 4/24/81);

f) The required Affirmative Reading Skills Program shall:

Be measured in terms of effectiveness, by its effect on

those students identified initially,

even though programs and services may be provided to all students. The District’s evaluative systems shall reflect this focus. (Order, 4/24/81);

g) The Remedial Order requires the Defendants to “conduct an additional study to determine the nature and extent of disparities in the reading skill test scores of minority and white pupils...” (Order 2/6/78);

h) The required study of disparities by race in reading proficiency shall be used by the District to guide, refine and to measure its affirmative reading skills program. The nature and extent of the study’s use for these purposes shall be documented. (Order, 4/24/81);

i) Final Standards require that the District’s Affirmative Reading Skills Program “[h]ave documented results.” The intended nature of such results was spelled out more explicitly by the Court: [TJhere would be no value in requiring the district to implement an Affirmative Reading Program if the Court and plaintiffs were not interested in affirmative results in the reading abilities of students affected by the defendants’ constitutional violations. (Order, 6/28/82).

94.On May 8, 1996, the Court concluded that Defendants had implemented “a creative educational curriculum, including innovative reading and other programs and initiatives designed to correct, to the extent reasonably practicable, the effects of segregated schools,” which has been “introduced into the Cleveland School District in the form of the community-wide acclaimed Vision 21, and implemented for at least two years by a totally integrated administrative and certified supervisory and teaching staff.”

Reed v. Rhodes,

934 F.Supp. at 1551-52 .

95. The Defendants have continued to comply with the Affirmative Reading Skills component.

96. Defendants have implemented an affirmative reading skills program which does not resegregate. The reading skills program is coordinated and includes identifiable goals, performance objectives, instructional programming and services, assessment, staff training, parent involvement and clear lines of responsibility and accountability.

97. The District’s Affirmative Reading Skills Plan, filed on April 20, 1982, defines adversely affected students as those students who: (1) attended a one-race school as of October 1978; (2) scored below the 34th percentile in comprehension on the Comprehensive Test of Basie Skill; and (3) demonstrated below average familiarity with standard English. Based upon this criteria, no “adversely affected students” currently remain in the District.

98. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have not complied with their remedial obligations related to the Affirmative Reading Skills component for four reasons: (1) Defendants have not achieved reading parity; (2) poor reading performance is a “vestige” of prior discrimination; (3) Defendants have not utilized parity results to structure the Reading Program; and (4) the Reading Program has not been established and defined.

(Plaintiffs’ Brief in Opposition,

at 13-14). Plaintiffs’ allegations are without merit.

99. Nationally, a consistent disparity in reading scores exists within all urban districts between the performance of African-American and other students. Such a parity gap, without more, is not evidence of discriminatory conduct or a vestige of prior discrimination.

100. A specified level of “academic achievement” is not a remedial obligation imposed upon the Defendants. However, as the Court originally found that reading defi

*745

ciencies in the District were the result of the dual system, Defendants must rebut the presumption that any current disparities are the result of Defendants’ unconstitutional conduct.

Jenkins,

122 F.3d at 593, 598.

101. Socioeconomic factors strongly impact upon academic performance, unfortunately the nation is plagued by this reality. The Cleveland Public School District is severely impacted by adverse socioeconomic conditions which hinder the learning of all children, regardless of their race. Defendants have successfully rebutted the presumption of causation through Dr. Armor’s expert testimony identifying socioeconomic factors as the primary cause of disparities in achievement between African-American and other students.

102. Although an achievement gap of varying degrees does exist in Cleveland at many grade levels, the achievement gap does not increase as a student remains in the District. It actually decreases at almost every grade level. This strongly suggests that any disparity in achievement is not the result of racial discrimination.

103. The testimony of Defendants’ experts ultimately establishes that any achievement gap is not the result of racial discrimination.

MANAGEMENT AND FINANCE

FINDINGS OF FACT:

287. Dr. James Van Keuren, the Chief Financial Officer for the Ohio Department of Education, is responsible for the State Defendants’ compliance with financial remedial obligations. (Vol.X, 2189-91).

288. Robert Hacking, the Budget Director for the District, is responsible for allocating District funds as well as compiling, monitoring, and implementing the District’s budget. (Vol.XII, 2392-93).

289. The total operating budget of the District on a yearly basis is approximately $500 to $525 million. (Vol.XII, 2398).

290. Since 1995, the Defendants have allocated the following amounts in carrying out their remedial obligations: approximately $100 million in Fiscal Year 1995; $85 million in Fiscal Year 1996; and $85 million in Fiscal Year 1997. (VoLXII, 2394).

291. The District’s operating debt for fiscal years 1993 to 1997 was as follows: 1993, $76 million; 1994, $117 million; 1995, $142 million; 1996, $152 million; and 1997, $155 million. (Vol. X, 2193-94; Vol. XII, 2398).

292. The District sought and obtained emergency loans in the amounts of $25.5 million in fiscal year 1995 and $42.1 million in fiscal year 1996. (Vol.X, 2194).

293. When seeking an emergency loan, the District has a statutory obligation to submit plans to the State Controlling Board for expenditure reductions. In general, the planned reductions must equal the amount of the loan requested. (Vol.X, 2194-95).

294. The financial condition of the District continued to deteriorate and expenditure reductions were required in the following amounts: $25 to $30 million in 1994, $42 million in 1995, and $30 to $35 million in 1996. (Vol.XII, 2399).

295. Prior to the passage of the levy in 1996, the last time an operating levy passed was in 1983. (Vol.XII, 2399).

296. The Consent Decree specifically identifies the need to place levies before the electorate. Revenue generated from the passage of such levies would be used to help fund provisions of the Consent Decree. (Vol. XII, 2405).

297. Dr. Richard Boyd, a Superintendent with a great deal of professional experience in working with public school districts, described the financial condition of the Cleveland Public Schools that existed in April 1995 “as being absolutely the worst in the United States.” (V0I.XIII, 2539-40).

298. Dr. Richard Boyd testified that “the most painful thing [he’s] ever done in [his] whole professional career was to make decisions to cut things that [he] knew were important and worthwhile and shouldn’t be cut ... It just didn’t make sense at all, ... but [the District] didn’t have the money to pay for them.” (Vol.XIII, 2552).

299. Reductions were made in all areas, including administrative staff, certified staff,

*746

classified staff, transportation, safety and security, special services, elementary reading and guidance, full day kindergarten, attendance officers and the closure of buildings. (Vol.XII, 2400).'

300. Defendants made good faith efforts to ensure that the reduction plans did not adversely impact their ability to comply with outstanding remedial obligations and made expenditure reductions first from General Fund programs (Fund 1). (Vol.XII, 2396-97).

301. As the District’s financial condition worsened, it became necessary to consider the funds used for remedial obligations (Funds 12 and 72). (Vol.XII, 2397).

302. Prior to submitting plans to reduce expenditures, Defendants worked with legislators and members of the State Controlling Board to make known the need to avoid interference with the outstanding remedial obligations of this case. (Vol.X, 2196-97).

303. Prior to making reductions, the District reviewed and discussed the expenditure reduction plans with Plaintiffs and OSMCR. Plaintiffs and OSMCR were notified of these proposed reductions or deferrals before they were made, and were given the opportunity to discuss alternative areas in which to make reductions. (VoLXII, 2401, 2409-12)(Defs.’ Ex. 287).

304. The Defendants also advised the Cleveland community of the proposed reductions, and provided an opportunity to discuss the reductions. (Vol. XII, 2403; Vol. XIII, 2541).

305. The Defendants’ remedial obligations have been protected from fiscal austerity measures' to the extent practicable. (Vol.XII, 2396).

306. The State Defendants have also taken measures to increase revenues and reduce costs for the District, particularly as related to Medicaid reimbursements, purchasing natural gas in bulk, reducing short term borrowing, restructuring of debt, and using compéti-tive bidding in securing emergency loans. Restructuring of the District’s debt will result in approximately $70 million being placed back in programs over a ten-year period. (Vol.X, 2200-02)..

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

104. The remedial obligations concerning Management and Finance are identified in various orders of the Court.

(Order,

4/24/81;

Order,

7/8/82;

Order,

8/14/87;

Order,

12/9/87;

Order,

5/25/94, § 7, § 8, § 12). The Parties have stipulated that the Defendants have complied with all remedial obligations related to Management and Finance, including those contained in the Consent Decree, except those obligations related to whether remedial obligations were protected from fiscal austerity measures and whether programs delineated in Appendix B of the Consent Decree were reduced pursuant to § 4.2 of the Consent Decree. (Vol.X, 2185).

105. The Parties have stipulated that the Defendants have complied with all remedial obligations related to facilities, including those contained in the Consent Decree and those contained under the component Obligations of State Defendants. (Vol.X, 2185, 2188).

106. Pursuant to the Parties’ stipulation that the Court should vacate Final Standard, XIIIA, which is contained in the Court’s Order dated April 24, 1981 and governs cluster organization, (Vol.X, 2186-87), the Court hereby vacates this Final Standard.

107. On February 1, 1996, the Court noted that the Cleveland City School District has “fiscal and administrative credibility, responsibility, and integrity, and a capability to support its educational mission and court-imposed desegregation responsibilities.”

Reed v. Rhodes,

934 F.Supp. 1459, 1465 (N.D.Ohio 1996) (Krupansky, J.).

108. Defendants’ remedial obligations have been protected from fiscal austerity measures to the extent practicable. Based upon the testimony rendered at the hearing, the desperate financial condition of the District, prior to the passage of the November 1996 levy, is undeniable. At the time the State assumed “supervision and operational, fiscal and'personnel management of the District,” pursuant to the Court’s Order of March 3, 1995, the District’s debt-to-revenue ratio was 25%, the highest in the state among comparable districts. Moreover, the Dis

*747

trict’s operating debt peaked in fiscal year 1997 at $155 million. Dr. Richard Boyd, the Superintendent of the District acknowledged that Defendants were forced to reduce and/or even eliminate some extremely important and beneficial programs based upon the District’s deplorable financial condition. In light of the above, the Court concludes that Defendants exhibited a substantial good faith effort to comply with this remedial obligation to the extent practicable.

109. Programs delineated in Appendix B of the Consent Decree were reduced pursuant to § 4.2 of the Consent Decree. Plaintiffs allege non-compliance with the Management and Finance component based, in part, upon Defendants claimed reliance upon § 4.2 of the Consent Decree as the reason for not fully implementing the programs delineated in Appendix B. Plaintiffs assert that despite the language of § 4.2 which provides that the Parties shall be consulted before any changes are made with regard to implementation of Vision 21 programs as described in Appendix B if the District “believes that for financial or other reasons it is unable to implement them,” Plaintiffs fully expected both the letter and the spirit of the remedial orders and the Consent Decree to be fulfilled. The Court concludes that the record clearly establishes that the District’s financial condition demanded that many reductions be made and that some forecasted programs be delayed. Defendants conduct of reducing or not implementing programs based upon financial constraints was contemplated by all of the Parties to the Consent Decree as § 4.2 clearly contemplated such events. Such a provision was only reasonable based upon the financial condition of the District at the time all Parties agreed to the terms of the Consent Decree. Certainly, the financial condition of the District was a reality that could not be ignored. All Parties and the Court fully expected .the letter, and the spirit of the remedial orders and the Consent Decree to be implemented. Unfortunately, until the passage of the November 1996 operating levy, the financial condition of the District continued to deteriorate and the District desperately lacked the funds necessary to implement various provisions of the Consent Decree.

110. Plaintiffs also allege non-compliance with regard to the Management and Finance component by asserting that Defendants have failed to develop a plan to bring “receivership” to an end and have not formalized the procedures to streamline Defendants’ reporting obligations.

(Plaintiffs’ Brief in Opposition,

at 18-19). With regard to Defendants’ reporting obligations, Plaintiffs never raised such a concern to the Court either before or during the hearing. Additionally, no remedial order requires Defendants to develop a plan to bring receivership to an end. Plaintiffs’ allegations of non-compliance are without merit.

OBLIGATIONS OF STATE DEFENDANTS

FINDINGS OF FACT:

307. The State Defendants assumed supervision and operational, fiscal and personnel management of the District on March 3, 1995. (Vol.IX, 1999)(Order, 3/3/95).

308. The State Defendants, in cooperation with the other Parties, initiated and developed the

Compliance Management and Reporting Plan

to guide and monitor Defendants’ efforts to effect their remedial obligations. Defendants have held regular compliance meetings with Plaintiffs and OSMCR to review outstanding compliance matters. (Vol.IX, 2006).

309. The State Defendants have developed a Positive Action Plan which incorporates the four components identified in the Special Master’s Recommendation of 1977:(1) compliance with State minimum standards; (2) realignment of reading funds; (3) development of educational intervention programs related to assuring that students achieve in accordance with grade level; and (4) development of the Strategic Plan for Facilities Improvement (Vol.IX, 2007-08).

310. The Positive Action Plan is incorporated in the

Compliance Management and Reporting Plan,

which was admitted into evidence as Defendants’ Exhibit 2. (Vol.IX, 2009)(Defs.’ Ex. 2, at 39).

311. With regard to compliance with State minimum standards, the Ohio Depart

*748

ment of Education completed an on-site inspection of the schools in the' Cleveland City School District in April and May 1996, to determine if the schools were in compliance with these standards, as set forth in the Ohio Administrative Code. The Ohio Department of Education concluded that the District complied with 99 percent of the State minimum standards. The District implemented appropriate corrective action by March 1997, the time at which the Department conducted a second inspection of schools. Based on that inspection, the Department concluded that the District was in full compliance with the minimum standards for Elementary and Secondary Schools. (Vol.IX, 2010-15)(Defs.’ Ex. 316, 320, 321, 322).

312. With regard to the realignment of reading funds, the State Defendants worked with the District to redirect funds from the general fund (Fund I) to compensatory education funds to be used for the District’s reading program. (Vol.IX,

2015-16)(Joint Stipulation,

filed 1/31/97).

313. Based upon the unrefuted expert testimony presented during the course of this hearing, especially as related to the Testing and Tracking and Affirmative Reading components, examining the impact of socioeconomic factors on learning, the requirement of

assuring that students in the Cleveland school system, are achieving in accordance with the grade level to which they have advanced

appears to be an unrealistic standard by which to assess any school district. Nevertheless, genuine good faith compliance efforts have been made in this regard.

314. Although Defendants cannot “guarantee” “that students achieve a specified level of achievement, the State Defendants have worked closely with the District to develop educational intervention programs including summer school and the realignment of competency-based education programs targeting improving performance on proficiency exams. (Vol.IX, 2016-19).

315. The- State Defendants, working with the District, developed a Strategic Plan for Facilities Improvement relying on both internal and external assessments. From these assessments the State and District have developed a five-year strategic facilities plan for all District buildings which includes a prioritization of the facilities-related needs of the District. (Vol.IX, 2021-25)(Defs.’ Ex. 332, 333, 334).

316. Pursuant to the authority granted to the State Superintendent under the March 3, 1995 Order, the State Defendants have taken significant actions in the following five strategic areas: (1) fiscal stability; (2) compliance; (3) operations and systems; (4) safety and security, and (5) facilities management.

(Motion for Unitary Status,

Tab A:

A Report of the State of the Cleveland City School District Since March S, 1995

)(Vol. IX, 2025-26; Vol. XIII, 2557).

317. The Defendants properly engage in the tripartite review process when implementing changes, particularly related to compliance with remedial orders or the Consent Decree. (Vol.IX, 2029-32).

318. Pursuant to the Proficiency Agreement between the Parties which specifically references the Class of 1994, Defendants have fulfilled their obligations:. (Vol.IX, 2035-37)(Defs.' Ex. 171, 173).

319. The State Defendants and District have undertaken major steps to ensure that schools open smoothly each year .and have developed a detailed plan to help ensure similar results in the future. (Vol. IX, 2024; Vol. XIII, 2557-58).

320. Dr. Boyd testified that he had communicated with the Board on a regular basis regarding District matters. (Vol.XIII, 2593).

321. Ms. Triplett, Board President at the time of the hearing, testified that Dr. Boyd and other State and District representatives regularly communicated with the Board, and that all inquiries made by the Board were answered. (Vol.XIX, 3720-21).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

111. Additional outstanding remedial obligations imposed upon the State Defendants include the following:

a. accountability for compliance with remedial orders;

b. financial responsibility;

c. institution of a positive action program “to inspect and insure that all schools

*749

in the Cleveland District meet and maintain State minimum standards;”

d. administrative planning;

e. student transportation system;

f. management systems review;

g. modification of remedial provisions; and .

h. description of educational outcomes.

(Order,

2/6/78;

Order,

5/16/79;

Order,

6/4/84;

Order,

12/9/87; Consent Decree, 5/25/94, §§ 7,12, 13).

112. On February 1, 1996, the Court acknowledged the State Defendant’s progress since the March 3, 1995 Order took effect. The Court noted the following:

Together, Drs. Sanders, Boyd and ... Goff, aggressively pursued the tedious, thankless and seemingly insurmountable emergency by interim and long-range implementation of their commitments to restore the fiscal and administrative capability of a bankrupt school system in disarray into a system with fiscal and administrative credibility, responsibility, and integrity, and a capability to support its educational mission and court-imposed desegregation responsibilities.

Reed v. Rhodes,

934 F.Supp. at 1465.

113. The State Defendants have continued to implement the remedial orders and oversee compliance. The Parties worked in a cooperative effort to develop the

Compliance Management and Reporting Plan

to guide and monitor Defendants’ compliance with the outstanding remedial orders. Furthermore, Defendants have met with Plaintiffs and OSMCR on a regular basis to review outstanding compliance matters.

114. With regard to the State Defendant’s financial responsibilities, Plaintiffs stipulated that the State Defendants have complied with the financial obligations imposed upon them. (Vol.X, 2185).

115. Defendants have developed and implemented a Positive Action Plan, as defined by the Special Master’s Recommendation of 1977 and the Court concludes based upon unrefuted expert testimony that Defendants have complied to the extent practicable with this remedial requirement.

116. State Defendants’ remedial obligations related to administrative planning were vacated by the Order of January 3, 1995.

117. On July 28, 1997, Plaintiffs stipulated that the Defendants complied with their remedial obligations related to the Transportation component, including those related to student transportation systems, which were specifically imposed upon the State Defendants.

(Order,

10/3/97).

118. Ongoing implementation of the management systems review process was vacated by the Court’s Order of May 25, 1994. (Order, 5/25/94, § 12.4).

119. Defendants have continued to engage in the tripartite review process and to report all tripartite changes to the Court.

120. The Parties have proposed modifications to the remedial orders.

121. The Proficiency Agreement of May 13, 1994 does not require any specified level of achievement on the Ninth Grade Proficiency Test and Defendants have satisfied the requirements of this Agreement.

122. Plaintiffs have only asserted that the State Defendants have failed to comply with their obligation to institute a Positive Action Plan.

(Plaintiffs’Analysis of Defendants’Remedial Compliance,

7/28/97;

Plaintiffs’Brief in Opposition,

8/18/97).

123. Defendants have failed to provide a description of educational outcomes as required pursuant to the Consent Decree. Such educational outcomes are long overdue and must be submitted to the Court by October 1, 1998. Ohio Revised Code § 3311.74 also makes reference to setting educational goals and this requirement must be satisfied.

CONSENT DECREE AND VISION 21

FINDINGS OF FACT:

322. The District appointed Richard Niel-son as the Senior Executive Manager of Desegregation Compliance responsible for implementing Defendants’ remedial compliance efforts. Mr. Nielson reports directly to the Deputy State Superintendent of the District. The individuals responsible for compliance

*750

with the particular components report to Mr. Nielson and provide him with information relative to such compliance efforts. (Vol. XIII, 2542-43).

323. The State Defendants assigned Dr. Steven Puckett, Assistant State Superintendent of Public Instruction, to monitor compliance with the remedial orders, the Consent Decree, and the Order of March 3, 1995. (Vol. I, 57; Vol. IX, 1998-99).

324. Dr. Livesteen Carter is the District’s Chief Academic Officer and is directly responsible for implementation of Vision 21. (Vol. VI, 1411)

325. Robert Hacking is the Director of the District’s Budget Division and is responsible for allocating funds to Vision 21. (Vol. XII, 2392-93).

326. The Consent Decree remains in effect until July 1, 2000. Pursuant to the language of the Consent Decree, Section 11 requires Defendants to demonstrate compliance with that particular Section by July 1, 1997. The Court addresses the various components of Section 11 throughout this opinion and will, therefore, not address the Section separately.

327. The Parties specifically discussed during Consent Decree negotiations the possibility that sufficient funding might not be available to implement all provisions of the Vision 21 programs set forth in Appendix B to the Consent Decree. (Vol.XII, 2405).

328. At the time the Consent Decree was approved, Plaintiffs’ class representatives drafted a response to the Vision 21 program and noted that “funding was not in place to implement Vision 21 and success could not be guaranteed immediately or over the coming years.” The response was admitted into evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit BBBB. (Vol.XVIII, 3610).

329. Plaintiffs’ class representatives testified that they were aware that implementation of Vision 21, as set forth in Appendix B of the Consent Decree, was conditioned upon the passage of a levy. (Vol.XVIII, 3664).

330. The Parties also specifically discussed and agreed that provisions of Appendix B could not be fully implemented without the passage of a local levy. (Vol.XII, 2405)(&!<?

Order,

5/25/94, § 4 .2).

331. Defendants’ Exhibit 335 and the

Parties Joint Report Regarding

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.