Horton v. Lawrence County Board of Education, The

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

PATRICIA A. HORTON, et al., }

}

Plaintiffs, }

}

v. } Case No.: 5:66-CV-00445-RDP

}

LAWRENCE COUNTY BOARD OF }

EDUCATION, et al., }

}

Defendants. }

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the court on Defendant Lawrence County Board of Education’s

Motion for Approval of School Closure and Modification of Attendance Zones. (Doc. # 36). The

motion is fully briefed (Docs. # 37, 49, 55) and ripe for decision. On April 14, 2022, the court held

a hearing on the motion. The court commends counsel for the parties as they were thorough and

able in their presentations. After careful consideration, the court concludes Defendant’s motion is

due to be granted.

I. Background

The District has been under the continuing supervision of this court since the court’s

finding, on September 22, 1966, that the District operated under a dual system of segregated

education. (Doc. # 1-3). The District has not obtained unitary (or partial unitary) status, see Green

v. County School Board of New Kent County, Virginia, 391 U.S. 430 (1968), and the Board notes

early in its brief that it is not currently seeking unitary status. (Doc. # 37 at 1). Rather, the Board

seeks court approval of its plan to close R.A. Hubbard High School and to modify the student

attendance zone boundaries. (Id.).

On June 12, 1970, the court ordered the implementation of a plan to convert the District to

a unitary system through the creation of school attendance zones. (Doc. # 1-14). The order also

required that “[a]ll school construction, school consolidation, and site selection … in the system

shall be done in a manner which will prevent the recurrence of the dual school structure once this

desegregation plan is implemented.” (Id. at 7).

Over the past fifty-six years of supervision, the court has been called upon to resolve

disputes surrounding requests for multiple school closures and consolidations in Lawrence County.

For example, in 1991, the Board sought to close Tennessee Valley Elementary School. (Doc. # 1-

55). The Board explained that continuing to operate Tennessee Valley was “economically

inefficient [and] academically inadequate” given the outdated facilities and low enrollment. (Id. at

2). Plaintiffs consented, and the court authorized the closure of Tennessee Valley. (Doc. # 1-56).

In 2001, the Board sought approval to consolidate R.A. Hubbard Elementary and Courtland

High School. (See Doc. # 1-57). Plaintiffs initially opposed the consolidation. (See id.). But, after

conducting limited discovery and a mediation, Plaintiffs and the Board reached an agreement --

which the court approved -- to consolidate the two schools beginning in 2004. (Doc. # 1-77).

In the wake of the economic downturn in 2008-09, the Board sought approval of a

comprehensive proposal to consolidate high school attendance zones, close certain schools, and

realign grade assignments at certain schools. (See May 8, 2009 Memorandum Opinion). Plaintiffs

and the Board proposed a Joint Report in which Mt. Hope School would continue to operate as a

K-8 school, but students in grades 9-12 would attend Hatton High School; Hazelwood High School

would close, and those students would attend R.A. Hubbard High School; and Speake School

would continue to operate as a K-8 school, but students in grades 9-12 would attend Lawrence

County High School. After considering (1) the plan’s effect on moving the District away from a

dual system and (2) whether Black students disproportionately bore the burden of desegregation,

the court approved the plan over intervenor objections. (Id. at 20-22). The court also noted that:

the [2009] consolidation efforts are a stepping stone toward consolidating all of the

high schools in the western part of the county into a new West Lawrence High

School. The parties have indicated (and at present the court agrees) that until such

a school is created, it will be extremely difficult (if not impossible) for the Board

to seek unitary status with respect to student assignment. The parties are strongly

encouraged to take whatever steps are necessary toward achieving that long term

goal. However, that issue is not the one facing the court today.

(Id. at 22).

The Board filed the current motion seeking approval for the closure of R.A. Hubbard High

School and the rezoning of those students to Hatton High School, East Lawrence Middle School,

and East Lawrence High School (“the receiving schools”). (Doc. # 37 at 9). Students who live in

the pre-2009 Hazelwood High School zone will attend Hatton High School. (Doc. # 39-1 at 19-

20). Students who live in the pre-2009 R.A. Hubbard zone will attend either East Lawrence Middle

School or East Lawrence High School. (Id.).

As part of the Board’s transition plan, the current R.A. Hubbard faculty will be assigned to

the receiving schools and serve as mentors to former R.A. Hubbard students. (Doc. # 37 at 9-10).

Also, to aid the transition, the Board plans to have the current R.A. Hubbard counselor: divide her

time between Hatton High School and East Lawrence High School; to provide professional

development to the receiving schools on welcoming new students and cultural responsiveness; to

ensure that former R.A. Hubbard students can immediately participate in any extracurricular or

athletic program; to ensure (for three years) that student leadership at the receiving schools have

representation from former R.A. Hubbard students; to provide similar bus route times as compared

to the rest of the District; and to run additional bus routes in the evening for former R.A. Hubbard

students participating in extracurricular activities. (Id. at 10).

II. Legal Standard

When a school system that has not achieved unitary status seeks to close a school and

modify attendance zones, the Eleventh Circuit has explained the school system’s responsibilities:

[I]t has an affirmative duty to eliminate the effects of its prior unconstitutional

conduct. To fulfill this duty, school officials are obligated not only to avoid any

official action that has the effect of perpetuating or reestablishing a dual school

system, but also to render decisions that further desegregation and help to eliminate

the effects of the previous dual school system. Thus, the duty to desegregate is

violated if a school board fails to consider or include the objective of desegregation

in decisions regarding the construction and abandonment of school facilities.

Harris by Harris v. Crenshaw Cty. Bd. of Educ., 968 F.2d 1090, 1094-95 (11th Cir. 1992) (citing

Green, 391 U.S. at 437-38; Adams v. Board of Public Education, 770 F.2d 1562, 1565 (11th Cir.

1985)).

Additionally, when the proposal involves the closure of a majority-minority school the

Board must “adduce evidence sufficient to support the conclusion that [its] actions were not in fact

motivated by racial reasons.” Id. at 1095 (quoting Arvizu v. Waco Independent School District,

495 F.2d 499, 505 (5th Cir.1974)).1 Further, “the burden of desegregation must be distributed

equitably; the burden may not be placed on one racial group.” Id. at 1097. As another district court

aptly summarized the standard:

[I]f the school board proposes a modification of their desegregation order which

involves the closing of a school and the reassignment of its students and faculty,

such a petition may be approved if it does not serve to perpetuate or re-establish the

dual school system, and if, in the case of a proposed closing of a school with a

predominantly minority student body, the board is able to adduce evidence

sufficient to support the conclusion that its actions were not in fact motivated by

racial reasons and if minority students are not made to bear a disproportionately

greater share of the burdens of relocation.

Lee v. Geneva Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 892 F. Supp. 1387, 1395 (M.D. Ala. 1995).

1 The Eleventh Circuit recognizes that Fifth Circuit decisions rendered prior to the close of business on

September 30, 1981 are binding precedent. Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).

Ill. Findings of Fact

The District currently operates twelve traditional schools: East Lawrence Elementary, East

Lawrence Middle, East Lawrence High, Hatton Elementary, Hatton High, Hazelwood Elementary,

Lawrence County High, Mount Hope Elementary, Moulton Elementary, Moulton Middle, R.A.

Hubbard High, and Speake. (Doc. # 39-1 at 2-3). The District also operates two other programs:

the Lawrence County Career Technical Center and the Judy Jester Learning Center. (/d. at 3).

The District’s traditional schools consist of four feeder patterns, which refer to the flow of

students from primary-education facilities to secondary-education facilities. (Doc. # 39-1 at 2).

First, East Lawrence Elementary and East Lawrence Middle feed to East Lawrence High. (/d.).

Second, Hatton Elementary and Mount Hope Elementary feed to Hatton High. (/d.). Third,

Moulton Elementary, Speake, and Moulton Middle feed to Lawrence County High. (/d.). Fourth,

Hazelwood Elementary feeds to R.A. Hubbard High. (/d.).

The current demographics for each school are indicated in the following chart:

| Numericals |

Black _| Non-Black

| s72_ | 9% | 91% |

East Lawrence High | aie | 11% | 89% _|

East Lawrence Middle | 400 | 7% | 93%

Hatton Elementary | att 9%

| 426 | i% | 99%

| as7_ | 57% | 43%

| as | 5% | 85%

| 6a | om | am

Moulton Middle | | sop] saa | cm | am

| 20 | 1% | 99% |

| sas | 72% | 28% _|

Speake School

istrict Totals:| 479 | 4227, | 4706 10% | 90% |

(Doc. # 39-1 at 3). So, at present, the record indicates that the Lawrence County student population

is 90% non-Black and 10% Black. (/d.). Following the proposed closure of R.A. Hubbard and the

modification of attendance zones, the Board projects school assignment in the District’s middle

schools and high schools as follows:

Demographic Percentages

School Non-Black

East Lawrence Middle 90.5%

East Lawrence High 18.3% 81.7%

Hatton High 90.7%

Moulton Middle 94.9%

Lawrence Cnty. High 94.0%

R.A. Hubbard High School Closed

(Doc. # 37 at 19).

The enrollment numbers at R.A. Hubbard have fallen significantly since the 2009

consolidation. (Doc. # 39-1 at 4). In 2009, R.A. Hubbard’s enrollment was 323 students but its

enrollment for the 2021-2022 school years was 148 students. (/d. at 4 n.2). According to the 2010

and 2020 censuses, the populations of Town Creek, North Courtland, Courtland, and Hillsboro

(which, except for Hillsboro, encompass the current R.A. Hubbard attendance zone) have also

declined from 6,159 residents to 5,064 residents. Ud. at 5). The 2013 closure of the International

Paper Mill in Courtland played some part in the population decrease, but Plaintiffs also point to

other factors, including the closure of Hazelwood High School.

A separate consequence of the International Paper Mill closure was a decrease in local tax

revenue. (Doc. # 39-1 at 8). In 2012, the International Paper Mill paid $1,890,575.86 in ad valorem

taxes. In 2020, the Mill paid only $130,296.50, which is significant because a third of ad valorem

taxes go to funding education in the county. (Doc. # 55-2 at 10). Accordingly, in 2012, the Board

received $630,191.95 in ad valorem revenue as compared to just $43,432.17 in 2020. (Id.). The

District also saw a significant decline in sales tax revenue after the International Paper Mill closed

— a difference of $830,747.52 between the 2013 fiscal year and the 2016 fiscal year. (Id. at 10-

11).

While the Board currently possesses a strong budget, the Board has indicated that the

budget is inflated by revenue streams that it will soon lose. For instance, beginning in fiscal year

2022, the District will lose funding from the state’s Simplified Sellers Use Tax (“SSUT”). (Id. at

13). The state of Alabama distributes SSUT revenue to counties, which in turn may distribute the

SSUT revenue at their discretion. (Id.). In 2021, the Lawrence County Commission learned that it

is not required to distribute SSUT revenue to the Board. (Id.). As a result, the Board is anticipating

the loss of this stream of revenue, which amounted to $553,866 in fiscal year 2021. (Id.).

The District will also lose funding from federal COVID-19 relief legislation in the year

2024. (Id. at 14). In fiscal year 2021, the District’s expenditures from federal COVID-19 relief

legislation were $2,030,245.69. (Id. at 13-16). However, federal COVID-19 relief is set to expire

in September 2024. (Id. at 14).

R.A. Hubbard is the only high school in the District that operates with fewer than 200

students. (Doc. # 39-1 at 4). The only other three schools that operate below 200 students

(Hazelwood, Mount Hope, and Speake) are elementary schools. (Id.).

The total per pupil expenditures (which includes federal, state, and local monies) of each

traditional school in the District is summarized in the following chart:

fetntignScest | sin9

(Doc. # 39-1 at 11). More specifically, the per pupil expenditures of local funds specific to the

District’s four high schools is outlined in the following chart:

(Doc. # 39-1 at 12). So, it is clear that compared to the other three high schools in the county, the

Board has expended more than twice the amounts of local (discretionary) funds on R.A. Hubbard.

In fact, 4.1 out of the District’s 17.26 local units (that is, 23.8% of the District’s local funds) are

spent at R.A. Hubbard — a school that serves only 3.15% of the District’s students. (Doc. # 55-2

at 4).

On January 25, 2021, the District met with Plaintiffs’ representatives for discussions about

a plan for the closure of R.A. Hubbard. (Doc. # 39-1 at 16). The District shared its full proposal

for closing R.A. Hubbard in a letter dated March 23, 2021. (Id.). After several months of

correspondence between the District and Plaintiffs, as well as a September site visit at R.A.

Hubbard, the District introduced the proposal to close R.A. Hubbard at the November 1, 2021

Board meeting. (Id. at 17-19). In the proposal, the District addressed the declining enrollment

information, cost per pupil numbers, relevant case law that it would include in its brief for court

approval, specifics of the proposed rezoning, and what the resulting demographics of the District’s

schools would be, among other concerns of the community. (Id. at 19-21).

The District presented this information again at the December 6, 2021 Board meeting. (Id.

at 23). According to the feedback surveys from the community, one of the main concerns was

transportation. (Id. at 25). The current ride times for students attending R.A. Hubbard are

juxtaposed with the expected ride times for those students following the proposed closure of R.A.

Hubbard in the following chart:

Bus Number Student Ride Time (Minutes)

2021-2022 SY | 2022-2023 SY

15.09

15.09 | Afternoon | 43 | |

7.15 | Morning | 40 | 40

17.15

12.19

12.19

19.03 | Morning | 56 | 57

19.03

Average Student Ride Time 38.625 12.875

(Doc. # 39-1 at 31). Further, as represented at the hearing, the average ride time in the county is

forty minutes.

The District estimates the cost savings of closing R.A. Hubbard and following the proposed

plan is $569,000 annually. (Doc. # 55-2 at 4). In addition, if the District were forced to keep R.A.

Hubbard open, it would be required to spend an additional $437,500 annually to ensure that R.A.

Hubbard’s curriculum is comparable to the District’s other high schools. (/d. at 5). Therefore, the

estimated cost of keeping R.A. Hubbard open is over $1 million annually. (/d.).

IV. Analysis

The court has an important but necessarily circumscribed role when confronted with a

motion like this. It is not the court’s role to make policy decisions (i.e., to decide how to allocate

the District’s budget or whether closing a school is in the best interest of the community). To be

sure, those policy decisions are emphatically for the elected officials (i.e., the Board) to make, not

the court. To be sure, if the court sat as a super school board (and again, to be clear, it does not), it

may not have proposed the plan offered here. The court recognizes the concerns of the R.A.

Hubbard community, particularly those voiced at the hearing and in the court record, related to the

problems and uncertainties of their students moving locations next school year. However, the

10

court’s narrow role in this case is limited to deciding the following issues: (1) whether the Board’s

plan reverts the District to a dual system of segregation; (2) whether the Board’s decision to close

a majority-minority school was racially motivated; and (3) whether Black students bear a

disproportionate burden of those proposed desegregation efforts. Harris, 968 F.2d at 1097; Geneva

County., 892 F. Supp. at 1395. The court addresses each issue below and, after doing so, concludes

that the Board’s motion is due to be granted.

A. The Proposed Plan Does Not Revert the District to a Dual System of

Segregation.

“[A] critical beginning point is the degree of racial imbalance in the school district, that is

to say a comparison of the proportion of majority to minority students in individual schools with

the proportions of the races in the district as a whole.” Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 474 (1992).

“[A] school consolidation proposal that reinforces or creates schools with racial compositions that

depart significantly from the district-wide average may be said to perpetuate or re-establish the

prior dual system of education.” Geneva County, 892 F. Supp. at 1394 (noting that the benchmark

for this determination is a fifteen-to-twenty percent deviation from the district-wide statistic)

(citing Stell v. Board of Educ. of City of Savannah, 724 F. Supp. 1384, 1401 (S.D. Ga. 1988), aff’d,

888 F.2d 82 (11th Cir.1989)).

Here, the closure of R.A. Hubbard will not revert the District to a dual system of

segregation according to school assignment. Indeed, as referenced above, the Board projects the

school assignment at the District’s middle schools and high schools after the closure of R.A.

Hubbard to be:

Demographic Percentages

School Non-Black

East Lawrence Middle 90.5%

East Lawrence High 18.3% 81.7%

Hatton High 90.7%

Moulton Middle 94.9%

Lawrence Cnty. High 94.0%

R.A. Hubbard High School Closed

(Doc. # 37 at 19). When compared to the District’s school assignment for the 2021-2022 school

year, the proposal increases diversity in East Lawrence High by seven percent and in Hatton High

by eight percent (while decreasing diversity in Moulton Middle by one percent). (Compare Doc.

# 39-1 at 3 with Doc. # 37 at 19). More importantly, the proposed modifications do not place the

District near the fifteen-to-twenty percent benchmark that would suggest the reestablishment of

the prior dual system.”

In fact, the proposed realignment actually serves to further balance student assignment in

the District. As the Eleventh Circuit reasoned in Harris (which is analyzed in more detail below),

the closing school had a Black student population that was disproportionately high as compared to

other schools in the county, and the receiving school had a Black student population that was

disproportionately low. 968 F.2d at 1095. Thus, “combining the two schools ... accomplish[ed]

greater desegregation.” Jd. Here, R.A. Hubbard currently has a Black student population that is

disproportionately high as compared to the other high schools in the county, and Hatton High (one

of the receiving schools) currently has a disproportionately low Black student population. Thus,

the proposed consolidation plan accomplishes greater desegregation.

? Regarding the other Green factors, the Board provides that the proposed plan will not adversely affect

faculty assignment, staff assignment, extracurricular activities, or facilities. (Doc. # 37 at 20-21). And, the court

discusses Plaintiffs’ concerns about transportation below.

12

Thus, the court concludes that the proposed plan does not revert the District to a dual

system of segregation.

B. The Board Has Provided Sufficient Evidence for the Court to Conclude That

the Closure is Not Racially Motivated and the Proposed Plan Does Not Place

a Disproportionate Burden of Desegregation on Black Students.

The Board’s plan involves closing a school with a majority-minority student population.

Accordingly, the Board must provide evidence that (1) the closure of R.A. Hubbard was not

racially motivated and (2) the proposed plan does not place a disproportionate burden of

desegregation on Black students. Harris, 968 F.2d at 1097.

This matter is substantively similar to Harris. There, the Crenshaw County Board of

Education proposed the closure of a majority-minority school based on a number of factors,

including educational opportunities, per student expenditures, declining enrollment, the effect of

student-assignment after consolidation, and transportation. Harris, 968 F.2d at 1092-93. The court

held that after “[c]onsidering the[] enrollment figures, the economic strain on the county of

operating an under-enrolled school, and the increased educational opportunities of a larger school,

the [school b]oard’s decision to consolidate … is not only reasonable, but mandated.” Id. at 1095.

Here, the Board supports the proposed plan to close R.A. Hubbard and modify the

attendance zones pointing to the same factors. As the Board explains, the population in the current

R.A. Hubbard zone has decreased nearly twenty percent between the 2010 census and 2020 census.

(Doc. # 39-1 at 5). Consequently, from 2009 (the year that Hazelwood High School consolidated)

with R.A. Hubbard) to the 2021-2022 school year, enrollment at R.A. Hubbard has declined over

fifty percent. (Id. at 4 n.2).

As to economic concerns, the Board notes that the total per pupil expenditure at R.A.

Hubbard during the 2020 fiscal year was $18,030 while the next highest per pupil expenditure at

another high school was $12,811. (Id. at 11). Further, the per pupil expenditures of local funds

during the 2020 fiscal year was $3,525 at R.A. Hubbard while the next highest per pupil

expenditure of local funds at another high school was only $1,461. (Id. at 12). As the Board

explains, the high per pupil expenditures at R.A. Hubbard in combination with the decrease in

local funding from the closure of the International Paper Mill, the imminent elimination of state

SSUT funds, and the impending expiration of federal COVID-19 relief funds represents a threat

to the opportunities for all children in the District. Thus, there is sufficient evidence that the

Board’s proposed plan is financially (not racially) motivated.

Nor does the proposed plan -- especially when viewed in the context of the whole

desegregation plan -- place a disproportionate burden of desegregation on Black students. While

some (but certainly not all) R.A. Hubbard students will experience longer ride times, those ride

times will not be disproportionate when compared to the transportation times of other students in

the county. See Harris, 968 F.2d at 1093 (comparing the increased ride times to the other bus

routes in the county to determine reasonableness). In 2009, the parties agreed -- and the court

approved -- the closure of a predominantly Black high school (Hazelwood High School) and two

predominantly white high schools (Speake High School and Mt. Hope High School). (See May 8,

2009 Memorandum Opinion). The Board explains that ride times increased for white students after

the 2009 joint agreement. (Doc. # 55-1 at 7). More importantly, in this instance, when the proposed

ride times for former R.A. Hubbard students are compared to other ride times across the county,

they are not disproportionate. For example, Bus 17.14 (Mt. Hope to Hatton High) is 52 minutes in

the morning and 43 minutes in the afternoon; Bus 19.01 (Mt. Hope to Hatton High) is 59 minutes

in the morning and 50 minutes in the afternoon; Bus 20.02 (Speake to Moulton Middle) is 50

minutes in the morning and 52 minutes in the afternoon; Bus 20.05 (Speake to Lawrence County

High) is 52 minutes in the morning and 43 minutes in the afternoon; and Bus 12.04 (Speake to

Lawrence County High) is 65 minutes in the morning and 65 minutes in the afternoon. (Id. 7-8).

The proposed ride times for former R.A. Hubbard students are not significantly higher than the

forty-minute average across the District.3

In addition, the Board’s proposed plan offers several services to offset any perceived

burdens on former R.A. Hubbard students. The Board will provide additional bus routes for former

R.A. Hubbard students to participate in extra-curricular activities, and it will recruit teachers to

tutor/support those students who are waiting for the additional buses after their activities. (Doc. #

39-1 at 32-33). The current R.A. Hubbard counselor will split time between the receiving high

schools to provide academic and social/emotional support. (Id. at 27). The Board will provide a

mentoring program, through which former R.A. Hubbard teachers will support former R.A.

Hubbard students at the receiving schools. (Id. at 28). The District will ensure that “high-dose”

tutors are available to the former R.A. Hubbard students. (Id.). The District will make certain that

former R.A. Hubbard students can continue their academic plans started at R.A. Hubbard. (Id.).

The District will provide professional development to the receiving schools on how to welcome

new students. (Id. at 29). And, the District will ensure, for the next three years, that former R.A.

Hubbard students have an opportunity to participate in leadership clubs and activities at the

receiving schools. (Id. at 30).

3 Plaintiffs also argue that former R.A. Hubbard students will be impacted by a higher student-to-teacher

ratio. The Board notes that the current ratio at R.A. Hubbard is 14.29 to 1 while the ratios at the receiving schools will

be 19.39 to 1 at East Lawrence Middle School, 17.75 to 1 at East Lawrence High School, and 18.54 to 1 at Hatton

High School. (Doc. # 55 at 8). Regardless of the supposed impact of an increase of 14.29 to 19.39 on former R.A.

Hubbard students, the student-to-teacher ratio will be the same for every student (not just former R.A. Hubbard

students) at the schools at issue. Therefore, Black students will not bear a disproportionate burden of desegregation.

Thus, the court concludes that (1) the Board has provided sufficient evidence that the

closure of R.A. Hubbard is not racially motivated and (2) the proposed plan does not place a

disproportionate burden of desegregation on Black students.

C. Plaintiffs’ Arguments in Opposition Do Not Justify Denial of the Board’s

Motion.

Plaintiffs present three additional points within their argument that the Board has not met

its burden to demonstrate that the closure of R.A. Hubbard is not racially motivated. “First,

Defendants are currently experiencing the largest budget in its history and have a history of being

‘financially strong’ at least since 2018.” (Doc. # 49 at 16) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis in

original). “Second, the impending redistricting of Lawrence County in response to the 2020 census

will expand District 1 to include more white students.” (Id.) (emphasis in original). “Third,

Defendants target R.A. Hubbard for closure while continuing to operate other, similarly under-

enrolled majority white schools.” (Id.) (emphasis in original). However, each of these arguments

misses the mark.

With respect to the first argument, the Board does not dispute the current status of the

budget; however, the Board points out that the imminent loss of state SSUT funds and federal

COVID-19 relief funds justify the closure of R.A. Hubbard. The Board contends that now is the

right time to close R.A. Hubbard while it has the means -- financial and otherwise -- to assist a

smooth transition to the receiving schools. Further, the exact timing of the closure is a policy

decision left to the Board, rather than this court.

Regarding the second argument, district-voting lines are not synonymous with school-

attendance lines. So, any change in the county’s voting districts will not necessarily impact school

attendance zones. Plaintiffs concede this point. (Doc. # 63 at 1).

Finally, regarding the third argument, R.A. Hubbard is the only high school that is under-

enrolled. The other three under-enrolled schools -- Hazelwood Elementary, Mount Hope, and

Speake -- are elementary schools. Given the financial differences between the operation of an

elementary school and a high school, the court finds Plaintiffs’ third argument unpersuasive.

Plaintiffs also argue that the court should deny the motion to close R.A. Hubbard and

modify attendance zones because the Board has failed to comply with the court’s previous orders.

(Doc. # 49 at 11-14). In particular, Plaintiffs direct the court to what they contend are six failures:

(1) Defendants have not provided proof of verifying the residences of five percent of the student

body at each school (Id. at 11);4 (2) Defendants have not sufficiently repaired and improved R.A.

Hubbard’s facilities (Id. at 11-13); (3) Defendants have not provided a substantially identical

curriculum at R.A. Hubbard (Id. at 13); (4) Defendants have not provided similar extracurricular

activities (Id.); (5) Defendants have failed to hold bi-annual faculty recruitment committee

meetings (Id. at 13-14); and (6) the proposed plan disproportionately impacts a single community

in violation of the 2009 joint agreement (Id. at 14).

To be clear, the court does not condone any alleged violation of its previous orders (i.e.,

the 2009 Joint Agreement, the 2004 Mediated Agreement, and the 2007 Faculty Recruitment

Order). However, in the past decade, neither party sought judicial intervention to allow the court

to evaluate any purported violation and, as appropriate, granted relief.5 There is most likely fault

4 Plaintiffs also assert that two white students were granted administrative transfers out of the R.A. Hubbard

feeder pattern during the 2019-2020 school year. But, the consideration of those two students does not change the fact

that R.A. Hubbard is an under-enrolled school. Nor does the situation of those two students change the per pupil

expenditure for R.A. Hubbard because the students were not in high school. (See Doc. # 49-27 at 6).

5 To be clear, the parties last sought judicial intervention in 2012. (Docs. # 18, 19). In their 2012 brief,

Plaintiffs expressed concern with the Board’s plan to construct a new building at Hatton High School while the

facilities at R.A. Hubbard remained inadequate despite the Board’s obligations in the 2004 Mediated Agreement and

the 2009 Joint Agreement. (Doc. # 19 at 11). Additionally, Plaintiffs expressed concerns with the Board’s recruitment

and hiring of minority faculty and staff; the Board’s supervision of attendance zones; and the District’s transportation

for Black students. (Id. at 15-18).

to be borne by both parties: On one hand, if Plaintiffs had reason to believe that Defendant’s

continued to violate the court’s orders, then Plaintiffs should have filed a motion to seek court

enforcement. On the other hand, if the Board believed that it could not abide by the court’s orders

due to extenuating circumstances (e.g., the decline in population and tax revenue from the closure

of the International Paper Mill), then it should have filed a motion seeking a modification of its

court-imposed obligations.

Regardless, the Harris court has provided guidance on how this court should weigh the

alleged violations in relation to the current motion. In Harris, the plaintiffs argued that the school

board was at fault for the declining enrollment numbers because the school board allowed

numerous impermissible transfers of white students. 968 F.2d at 1096. The Harris court reasoned:

[E]ven assuming that requiring [the closing school] remain open is an appropriate

“punishment” for the [b]oard’s past violations, this “punishment” would be at the

expense of the children of [the c]ounty. Operating one school in the southern third

of [the c]ounty rather than two is clearly in the best interests of these children

because it makes the best use of limited educational funds, it enhances educational

opportunities, and it promotes desegregation.

Id. at 1097. Similarly, in this case, the Board proposes -- and the court does not find a sufficient

reason to disagree -- that the closure of R.A. Hubbard makes the best use of limited educational

funds, enhances educational opportunities, and actually promotes desegregation. Thus, even if it

could be shown that the Board violated previous orders and/or agreements, rejecting the proposed

plan and requiring R.A. Hubbard to remain open would not be the appropriate remedy.

Finally, Plaintiffs’ underlying justification for their position in this case bears a striking

resemblance to that of the intervenors in Lee v. Geneva County: the preservation of their

neighborhood school. This court is truly sympathetic to the concerns of the R.A. Hubbard

community. The local community loves its school and is understandably proud of it. Grandparents

and parents send grandchildren and children to “their school” each morning. However, again, the

court’s role is a limited one. This court agrees with the rationale expressed by the Geneva County

court:

While this is an important and understandable interest on the part of [Plaintiffs],

unless it is a matter that obstructs the establishment of a unitary school system, it is

not a matter that should be taken from the decision-making process of the Board

and placed in the hands of a federal court.

Geneva County, 892 F. Supp. at 1395; see Arvizu., 495 F.2d at 504 (“[I]n the instant case student

affinity for a school is not a practicality which … can vitiate the command for the most effective

desegregation decree.”). Under the narrow questions that this court must review (and in light of

the precedent binding on the court), the Board’s motion is due to be granted.

V. Conclusion

The closure of R.A. Hubbard is a contentious issue in the community. But again, policy

decisions (such as the allocation of scarce resources) reside with the Board. The court’s narrow

role is to determine whether the Board’s decision reverts the District to a dual system of

segregation, whether the Board’s decision to close a majority-minority school was racially

motivated, and whether Black students bear a disproportionate burden of desegregation efforts.

For the reasons discussed above, the court concludes that Defendant’s Motion for Approval of

School Closure and Modification of Attendance Zones (Doc. # 36) is due to be granted.

Additionally, the court reiterates that Lawrence County has been under the supervision of

this court for nearly fifty-six years. The time is well overdue for the District to move out from this

court’s supervision. If the District has reached unitary status, then it should seek recognition

through court order. However, if the District has not achieved unitary status despite fifty-six years

of court supervision, then Defendant and counsel for Plaintiffs shall meet and confer to propose a

plan through which Lawrence County will comply with the Supreme Court’s mandate in Green v.

County School Board of New Kent County, Virginia in an appropriate and timely manner.

A separate order in accordance with this memorandum opinion will be entered.

DONE and ORDERED this April 25, 2022.

R! DAVID 24 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20