Student Doe V. The School District Of Lower Merion Federal Civil Action Filed May 14, 2009

~S

CIVIL COVER SHEET

44 (Rev. 12107)

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the infonnation contained herein neitherreplace nor supplement the filing and service ofpleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules ofcourt. This fonn, approved by the Judicial Conference ofthe United States in September 1974, is reqUired for the use ofthe Clerk ofCourt for the purpose ofmitiating tile civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.) I.

(a)

PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS

Student Does 1 through 9 and Parent/Guardian Does 1 through 10 Plaintiff Montgomery (EXCEPT IN u.s. PLAINTIFF CASES)

(b) County of Residence of First Listed



The School District of Lower Merion, 301 E. Montgomery Ave, 0 Ardmore, Pennsylvania 19003 County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Montgomery (IN u.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE LAND INVOLVED.

(c)

Attorneys (IfKnown)

AttorneY'S (Finn Name, Address, and Telephone Number)

David G. C. Arnold, Esquire, Suite 109, Royal Plaza, 915 Mont ome Avenue, Narberth, Penns Ivania 19072 "'64 II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X" in One Box Only) LJI

o2

U.S. Government Plaintiff

l!!I 3 Federal Question

U.S. Government Defendant

LJ 4 Diversity

S'6Z­ III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Place an "X" in One Box for Plaintiff (For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant) PTF DEF PTF DEF LJ I LJ I Incorporated or Principal Place LJ 4 LJ 4 Citizen ofThis State ofBusiness In This State

(U.S. Government Not a Party)

Citizen of Anofuer SIllIe

LJ 2

LJ 2

Incorporated and Principal Place of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a Forei Coon

LJ 3

LJ 3

Foreign Nation

(Indicate Citizenship ofParties in Item III)

LJ 5 LJ6

LJ6

IV NATURE OF SUIT (Place an "X"in One Box Onlyl LJ \10 Insurance LJ 120 Marine o 130 Miller Act LJ 140 Negotiable Instrument LJ 150 Recovery ofOverpayment & EnforcementofJudgment LJ 151 Medicare Act o 152 Recovery ofDefaulted Student Loans (Exc!' Veterans) LJ 153 Recovery ofOverpayment of Veteran's Benefits LJ 160 Stocl<:holders' Suits LJ 190 Other Contract LJ 195 Contract Product Liability LJ 196 Franchise

PERSONALINJURV LJ 310 Airplane 0 3 I 5 Airplane Product Liability LJ 320 Assanl!, Libel & Slander LJ 330 Federal Employers' Liability LJ 340 Marine LJ 345 Matine Product Liability LJ 350 Motor Vehicle LJ 355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability LJ 360 Other Personal Injury

mn

~~'!:~'~&lW\11."l'R"Otmll1iY,,:r;'~C?

):l'RiSO~,

LJ 441 Voting LJ 442 Employment LJ 443 Housing! Accommodations 0 444 Welfare 0 445 Amer. wlDisabilitiesEmployment LJ 446 Amer. wlDisabilities Other 440 Other Civil Rights

LJ 210 Land Condemnation LJ 220 Foreclosure o 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment o 240 Tarts to Land LJ 245 Tort Product Liability LJ 290 All Other Real Property

PERSONAL INJURV 362 PersonallnjlllY­ Med. Malpractice LJ 365 PersonallnjlllY Product Liability LJ 368 Asbestos Personal Injwy Product Liability PERSONALPROPERTV 0 370 Other Fraud LJ 371 Trufu in Lending 0 380 Other Personal Property Damage LJ 385 Property Damage Product Liability

0

0

CJ

p LJ LJ

CJ

S~ti

510 Motions to Vacate Sentence Habeas Corpus: 530 General 535 Deafu Penalty 540 Mandamus & Other 550 Civil Rights 555 Prison Condition

'" V. ORIGIN Original Proceeding

lSI!

o

(Place an "X~ in One Box Only) 2 Removed from 0 State Court

3

Remanded from Appellate Court

o

4

o

610 Agriculture LJ 620 Other Food & Drug LJ 625 Drug Related Seizure of Property 21 USC 881 LJ 630 Liquor Laws LJ 640 R.R. & Truck LJ 650 Airline Regs. LJ 660 Occupational SafetylHealfu LJ 690 Other LJ 710 Fair Labor Standerds Act LJ 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations LJ 730 LaborlMgmt.Reporting & Disclosure Act LJ 740 Railway Labor Act o 790 Other Labor Litigation o 791 Empl. Ret. Inc. Security Act

LJ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158

o 423 Wifudrawal

28 USC 157 ~BEIr

"

LJ 820 Copyrights LJ 830 Patent LJ 840Trademark

LJ 0 LJ LJ LJ 0 LJ

0 LJ LJ LJ LJ LJ LJ LJ

861 IDA (J395ff) 862 Black Long (923) 863 DIWCIDIWW (405(g» 864 ssm Title XVI 865 RSI (405(g» 'L~SOrrs;'i;'".

LJ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or Defendant) o 87llRS-Third Party 26 USC 7609

U LJ LJ

0 LJ LJ LJ

, .Gl.&\nQ~'!(ii!~

LJ

LJ 462 Naturalization Application LJ 463 Habeas Corpus Alien Detainee LJ 465 Oilier Immigration Actions

a

Reinstated or Reopened

0 5

Transferred from anoth!"r district

s eel

0 6

Multidistnct Litigation

400 SIllIe Reapportionment 410 Antitrust 430 Banks and Banking 450 Commerce 460 Depor1ation 470 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations 480 Consumer Credit 490 Cable/Sat TV 8 I0 Selective Service 850 Securities!Commodities! Exchange 875 Customer Challenge 12 USC3410 890 Other Smtutory Actions 891 Agricultural Acts 892 Economic Stabilization Act 893 Environmental Matters 894 Energy Allocation Act 895 Freedom oflnformation Act 900Appeal ofFee Determination Under Equal Access to Justice 950 Constitutionality of State Smtutes

0 7

Appeal to District Judge from MagIstrate J ud ment

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:

This is a Civil Kights Action seeking injUnctive relief to stop megal busing VII. REQUESTED IN

o

VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACfION UNDER FRC.P. 23

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

DEMANDS

Injunctive Relief

COMPLAINT:

ANY

(See instructions):

JUDGE

JURY DEMAND:

0 Yes

giNo

DOCKET NUMBER

DATE

05/14/2009 FOR OFFICE USE ONLV RECEIPT #

--------

AMOUNT

------------

MAG. JUDGE

---------------

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA - DESIGNATION FORM to be used by counsel to iodlcate tbe category of the case for the purpose of assignment to appropriate calendar. Address of Plaintiff:

See footnote 1

AddressofDefendant:301

on page 1 of Complaint

East Montgomery Avenue,

PlaceofAecident,lncidentorTransaction:Montgompry

Ardmore,

Pennsylvania 19003

;1i'

coun t ppn~l van; (Use Reverse ide For Add' . 'Pace)

a

Does this civil action involve a nongovernmental corporate party with any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning 10% or more ofits stock?

Yes O

(Attach two copies of the Disclosure Statement Form in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 7.1(a»

NoXOC

YesO

Does this case involve multidistrict litigation possibilities?

NoD

RELATED CASE, IF ANY: Case Number: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Judge _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date Terminated: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Civil cases are deemed related when yes is answered to any of the following questions: 1. Is this case related to property included in an earlier numbered suit pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court? Yes O NoXllC 2. Does this case involve the same issue of fact or grow out of the same transaction as a prior suit pending or within one year previously terminated Yes 0

action in this court?

NolClK:

3. Does this case involve the validity or infringement ofa patent already in suit or any earlier numbered case pending or within one year previously YesO

terminated action in this court?

No!X!X

4. Is this case a second or successive habeas corpus, social security appeal, or pro se civil rights case filed by the same individual?

Yes O

NoOi:lX

V'

CIVIL: (Place in ONE CATEGORY ONLY) A. Ftukral Question Cases: 1.

B. Diversity Jwisdiction Cases:

0 Indemnity Contract, Marine Contract, and All Other Contracts

2. 0 FELA

1.

0 Insurance Contract and Other Contracts

2.

0

Airplane Personal Injury

3.

0

Jones Act-Personal Injury

3. 0 Assault, Defamation

4.

0

Antitrust

4.

0

Marine Personal Injury

5.

0 Patent

5.

0

Motor Vehicle Personal Injury

6.

0 Labor-Management Relations

6.

0 Other Personal Injury (Please specify)

7.

0

7.XCit Civil Rights

Products Liability

8.

0

Habeas Corpus

8.

0 Products Liability

9.

0

Securities Act(s) Cases

9.

0 All other Diversity Cases

10.

0 Social Security Review Cases

11.

0

Asbestos

(please specify)

All other Federal Question Cases (please specify)

ARBITRATION CERTIFICATION

(Check appropriate CAtegory)

I,,--,,,Do<.:a,,,,-,,v-,i=--d=--,G,,,-,,-o--'C:::,...:..---!A~r.=.n:.:o~l.;:d=--__--" counsel of record do hereby certify:

o

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 53.2, Section 3(c)(2), that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the damages recoverable in this civil action case exceed the sum of $150,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs;

ft Relief other than monetary damages is soug DATE: May

'4,

2009

49819

Attorney I.D.#

Iy if there has been compliance with F.R.C.P. 38. I certify that, to my Imowledge, the within except as Doted above. DATE: MEiY CIV.

14 I

609 (6/08)

2009

APPENDIXG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Student Doe 1 by and through his . Parents/Guardians Does 1 and 2, et; al. V.

The School District of Lower

Civil Action No: - - - - - - ­

Merio~

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT FORM Please check one box:

Not applicable in that plaintiffs are individuals.

o

The nongovernmental corporate party, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-:--_-:­ , in the above listed civil action does not have any parent corporation and publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more of its stock.

o

The nongovernmental corporate party, _ _-:--_ _ _ _ _--.---:--:--_ , in the above listed civil action has the following parent corporation(s) and publicly held corporation(s) that owns 10% or more of its stock:

Date

Signature Counsel for:

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 Disclosure Statement (a) WHO MUST FILE; CONTENTS. A nongovernmental corporate party must file two copies of a disclosure statement that: (1) identifies any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning10% or more of its stock; or (2)

states that there is no such corporation.

(b) TIME To FILE; SUPPLEMENTAL FILING. A party must: (1) file the disclosure statement with its first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the court; and (2) promptly file a supplemental statement if any required information changes.

APPENDIXG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Student Doe 1 by and through his . Parents/Guardians Does 1 and 2, et; ala

V.

The School District of Lower

Civil Action No: - - - - - - -

.

Merio~

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT FORM Please check one box:

Not appl icable in that plaintiffs are individuals.

a

The nongovernmental corporate party, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-:­ , in the above listed civil action does not have any parent corporation and publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more of its stock.

a

The nongovernmental corporate party, _ _-:--_ _ _ _ _--:-:---::--:--_ , in the above listed civil action has the following parent corporation(s) and publicly held corporation(s) that owns 10% or more of its stock:

Date

Signature Counsel for:

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 Disclosure Statement (a)

WHO MUST FILE; CONTENTS. A nongovernmental corporate party must file two copies of a disclosure statement that: (1) identifies any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning10% or more of its stock; or (2)

states that there is no such corporation.

(b) TIME To FILE; SUPPLEMENTAL FILING. A party must: (1) file the disclosure statement with its first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the court; and (2) promptly file a supplemental statement if any required information changes.

APPEl\TJ)IX I IN 11lE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Il'OR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OI? PENNSYLVANIA

CASE J\-fANACKi\lENT TRACK DESIGNATION FORM

Student Doe 1 by and through his Parents/Guardians Does 1 and 2, et. al. v. The School District of Lower

Merion

ClvlL ACTION

NO.

In acconlance with the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan of this court> counsel for plaintiff shall complete a case Jvfanagement Track Designation Fonn in all civil cases at the time of filing the complaint and serve a copy on all defendants. (Sec § 1:03 ofthe plan set forth on the reverse side of this fonn.) In the event that a defendant does not agree with the plaintiff regarding said designation, that defendant shan. with its first appearance, submit to the clerk ofcourt and serve on the plaintiff and all other parties, a case management track designation form specifying the track to which that defendant believes the case should be assigned. SELECT ONE OF THE .FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT TRACKS: (a) Habeas Corpus - Cases brought under 28 U.S.C. §2241 through §2255.

( )

(b) Social Security - Cases requesting review ofa decision ofthe Secretary ofHealth

and Human Services denying plaintiff Social Security Benefits

( )

(c) Arbitration - Cases required to be designated for arbitration under Local Civil Rule 53.2.

()

(d) Asbestos - Cases involving claims for personal injury or property damage from exposure to asbestos.

( )

(e) Special Management - Cases that do not fall into tracks (a) through (d) that are commonly referred to as complex and that need special or intense management by the court. (See reverse side ofthis fonn for a detailed explanation ofspecial management cases.)

(x )

. (f) Standard Afanagement - Cases that do not fall into anyone ofthe other tracks.

May 14, 2009 Date

.t ;t llI/:.a,intiffs

--~~~~~----~

~ttorney-at-Iaw

(484) 562-0008 'felcphone

(eiy. 6(0) 10fll.2



Attorney for

[email protected] I?AXNumbcr

E-Mail Add.rt'Ss

( )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Student Doe 1 by and through his

Parents/Guardians Does 1 and 2

and Civil Action No. Student Doe 2 by and through her Parent/Guardian Doe 3

09 . 2095

and Student Does 3 and 4 by and through their Parent/Guardian Doe 4 and Student Doe 5 by and through his Parent/Guardian Doe 5 and Student Doe 6 by and through his Parents/Guardians Does 6 and 7 and Student Doe 7 by and through his Parent/Guardian Doe 8 and Student Does 8 and 9 by and through their Parents/Guardians Does 9 and 101 Plaintiffs

v.

I Students Doe and Parents/Guardians Doe's true names and addresses do not appear in this pleading pursuant to Rule 5.2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 5.1.3 of the Rules of Civil Procedure of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Said infonnation will be made available to this Honorable Court upon request.

The School District of Lower Merion

301 East Montgomery Avenue

Ardmore, Pennsylvania 19003

Defendant COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned counsel, now file the present Civil Rights Action in order to contest the final redistricting plan adopted by the School District of Lower Merion on January 12, 2009, and to request that this Honorable Court enjoin said government action. In support of their claims, plaintiffs aver the following: Parties

1. Plaintiffs, Parent/Guardian Does 1 and 2, are the parents and/or guardians of Student Doe 1. 2. Plaintiff, Parent/Guardian Doe 3, is the parent and/or guardian of Student Doe

2. 3. Plaintiff, Parent/Guardian Doe 4, is the parent and/or guardian of Student Does 3 and 4. 4. Plaintiff, Parent/Guardian Doe 5, is the parent and/or guardian of Student Doe

5. 5. Plaintiffs, Parent/Guardian Does 6 and 7, are the parents and/or guardians of Student Doe 6. 6. Plaintiff, Parent/Guardian Doe 8, is the parent and/or guardian of Student Doe 7. 7. Plaintiffs,

~arent/Guardian

Does 9 and 10, are the parents and/or guardians of

Student Does 8 and 9.

2

8. All of the above noted plaintiffs live in a neighborhood bounded by Athens Avenue, Wynnewood Road, County Line Road, and Cricket Avenue in South Ardmore, Pennsylvania. 9. All ofthe parties identified as "Student Doe" attend either an elementary school or middle school in the School District of Lower Merion. 10. All of the parties identified as "Student Doe" are minority students, and the South Ardmore neighborhood in which they live is the only neighborhood in Lower Merion which has a significant African American population. 11. Defendant, School District of Lower Merion, hereinafter referred to as "Lower Merion," is located in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, and its administrative offices are located at 301 East Montgomery Avenue in Ardmore, Pennsylvania. 12. Lower Merion is the entity charged with the legal responsibility to provide, among other things, both regular and special education services to school age children residing in Lower Merion Township and Narberth Borough. 13. Lower Merion is run by the duly elected Lower Merion School Board which

consists of nine (9) School Board Members. 14. These School Board Members are chosen in at large elections in Lower Merion Township and Narberth Borough. 15. None of the sitting School Board Members reside in the neighborhood where Students Doe reside. Jurisdiction 16. This Honorable Court has jurisdiction over the claims set forth herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331.

3

Facts Common to All Counts 17. Lower Merion operates six (6) elementary schools (i.e. Belmont Hills Elementary School, Cynwyd Elementary School, Gladwyne Elementary School, Merion Elementary School, Penn Valley Elementary School, and Penn Wynne Elementary School), two (2) middle schools (i.e. Bala Cynwyd Middle School and Welsh Valley Middle School), and two (2) high schools (i.e. Lower Merion High School and Harriton High School). 18. Despite the fact that numerous children in Lower Merion attend a "neighborhood school" for either elementary school or middle school, Students Doe do not attend a "neighborhood school" for either elementary or middle school because there is no such school in their neighborhood. Students Doe's only "neighborhood school" is Lower Merion High School which is located less than one (l) mile from their homes. 19. Lower Merion is not at the present time, nor has it ever been, subject to a busing decree entered by any Federal and/or State Court. 20. Lower Merion has received in the past, and continues to receive, ongoing Federal Funding. 21. As the final stage of its Capital Improvement Program that began in 1997, Lower Merion decided to rebuild both Lower Merion High School and Harriton High School. 22. Lower Merion formed the Community Advisory Committee in January 2004 in order to assist it in determining whether its two (2) high schools would be built to house approximately the same number of students, or whether the two (2) high schools would be built to house their current student populations. According to Lower Merion's

4

statistics, Lower Merion High School presently houses one thousand five hundred and sixty (1,560) students while Harriton High School presently houses eight hundred and seventy five (875) students. 23. In its report dated May 24, 2004, the Community Advisory Committee advised Lower Merion that it recommended that Lower Merion High School and Harriton High School be built to house approximately the same number of students. 24. Lower Merion subsequently adopted the Community Advisory Committee's recommendation in 2004. 25. Lower Merion's actions in 2004 set the stage for the present busing dispute. When Lower Merion decided to change the size of its existing high schools, it became necessary to redistrict students away from Lower Merion High School, and to then direct them to Harriton High School. It is the manner in which Students Doe were selected to attend, and then mandated to attend Harriton High School, which is at the very heart of this litigation. 26. Throughout the redistricting process, "race" issues have been of paramount concern. 27. Lower Merion started the redistricting process in March of2008. 28. According to its records, Lower Merion adopted a multi-step process in order to devise, to deliberate on, and then to adopt a redistricting plan. 29. Lower Merion apparently conducted initial internal, non-public meetings in April 2008 about redistricting. Documents obtained pursuant to a Pennsylvania Right to Know Request indicate that "race" played a part in redistricting. Specifically, in a document titled Redistricting Recommendations dated April 18, 2008, "The distribution

5

of minority students" is listed as an item "that must be addressed before a redistricting plan can be established." A true and correct copy of the aforementioned document is appended hereto as Exhibit "A." 30. At its April 28, 2008, School Board Meeting, the Lower Merion School Board adopted guidelines which it termed "non-negotiables." The School Board took the position that any redistricting plan presented and/or adopted would have to comply with these guidelines. 31. These adopted guidelines were: (a). The enrollment of the two (2) high schools and two (2) middle schools would be equalized; (b). Elementary students would be assigned so that the schools would be at or under the school capacity; (c). The plan would not increase the number ofbuses required; (d). At a minimum, the class of 2010 would have the choice to either follow the redistricting plan or stay at the high school oftheir previous year; and (e). Redistricting decisions would be based upon current and expected future needs, and not based upon past redistricting outcomes, or perceived past promises or agreements. 32. Lower Merion then allegedly sought to engage the community at large by conducting focus group meetings during May and June 2008. The purpose of these meetings was purportedly to identify "community values" that would assist in the formation of a final redistricting plan.

6

33. Focus group meetings were conducted under the direction of a private contractor named URS on May 29,2008, June 8, 2008, June 9, 2008, June 10,2008, and on June 19, 2008. In addition, feedback was also collected from the community via online surveys during this period. 34. During each of the aforementioned focus group meetings, the participants identified the lack ofdiversity as a concern in Lower Merion's schools. 35. URS subsequently reported its findings to the Lower Merion School Board in a report dated July 11, 2008. 36. According to URS' report, exploring and cultivating "whatever diversity­ ethnic, social, economic, religious and racial-there is in Lower Merion," was a value based principle that arose in the focus group meetings. 37. While the aforementioned focus group meetings were taking place in May and June of 2008, Lower Merion hired a consultant, Ross Haber Associates, Inc., in June of 2008 to assist it in identifying demographic trends that would be used in drafting a redistricting plan. 38. According to Ross Haber's contract with Lower Merion, Lower Merion was to provide Ross Haber with a six (6) year enrollment history. The contract goes on to state that "This data should include not only enrollment, but also information regarding ethnicity and socio-economic status." A true and correct copy of the June 25, 2008 contract between Ross Haber and Lower Merion is appended hereto as Exhibit "B." 39. Under the terms ofthe aforementioned contract, Ross Haber was to provide to Lower Merion, among other things, "[e]nrollment trends based upon ethnicity," as well as "[e]nrollment trends based upon socio-economic factors."

7

40. In addition to identifying demographic trends within the district, Lower Merion also retained Mr. Haber to assist it in drafting the redistricting plan. 41. Using the information acquired from the May-June 2008 focus group meetings, and the Lower Merion School District's non-negotiable guidelines, as well as the demographic information from Ross Haber, Lower Merion and Ross Haber went about drafting Lower Merion's Redistricting Plan in the Summer of2008. 42. Lower Merion's First Redistricting Plan was presented at the Lower Merion School Board Meeting on September 8, 2008. 43. Although the First Redistricting Plan did not change the existing school placements for Students Doe, it drastically changed the racial make-up of Lower Merion High School and Harriton High SchooL 44. The First Redistricting Plan achieved the changes at the high school level by altering school feeder patterns at the middle school level. According to the proposed plan, The Penn Valley Elementary School Community was redistricted from Welsh Valley Middle School to Bala Cynwyd Middle School, and then to Lower Merion High School. The Penn Wynne Elementary School Community was redistricted from Bala Cynwyd Middle School to Welsh Valley Middle School, and then onto Harriton High Schoo1.2 45. Lower Merion prominently displayed its "diverse" high school student populations during the course of its slide show presentation on its First Redistricting Plan. Lower Merion proudly displayed this data in order to affirm that it was honoring the community value of diversity. A true and correct copy of the relevant portion of the slide show is appended hereto as Exhibit "C."

The proposed map for the First Redistricting Plan can be accessed via the internet at http://www.lmsd.orgldocumentslredistricting/map-'proposed.pdf.

2

8

46. Public comment was then permitted on the First Redistricting Plan. 47. Thereafter, Lower Merion presented its Second Redistricting Plan at the Lower Merion School Board Meeting on October 20, 2008. 48. Although the Second Redistricting Plan also did not change the existing school placements for Students Doe, it again drastically changed the racial make-up of Lower Merion High School and Harriton High School. 49. The Second Redistricting Plan achieved changes at the high school level by changing attendance patterns at the middle school level. Under the Second Plan, all children attending Belmont Hills Elementary School and Gladwyne Elementary School would attend Welsh Valley Middle School, and then Harriton High School. Those children attending Penn Valley Elementary School that lived in the Penn Valley area, and that lived in the Haverford area, would also attend Welsh Valley Middle School, and then Harriton High SchooL Those children attending Penn Wynne Elementary School that lived in the Wynnewood area bounded by East Lancaster Avenue and Ballytore Avenue to Ballytore Circle would also attend Welsh Valley Middle School, and then Harriton High SchooL Those children attending Penn Wynne Elementary School that lived in the South Ardmore area bounded by Cricket Avenue, Wyoming Avenue, and Lancaster Avenue to County Line Road would also attend Welsh Valley Middle School, and then Harriton High SchooL Those children attending Merion Elementary School that lived in the area bounded by East Lancaster Road, East Wynnewood Avenue, the North side of Rockland Road, and Merion Road to East Montgomery Avenue would also attend Welsh Valley Middle School, and then Harriton High School. All children attending Cynwyd Elementary School would attend Bala Cynwyd Middle School, and then Lower Merion

9

High School. Those children attending Penn Wynne Elementary School that did not live in the Wynnewood area identified above would attend Bala Cynwyd Middle School, and then Lower Merion High School. Those children attending Merion Elementary School that did not live in the area identified above would attend Bala Cynwyd Middle School, and then Lower Merion High School. Those children attending Penn Valley Elementary School that did not live in the Penn Valley and Haverford areas identified above, and those students living in the Lower Merion High School Walk Zone would attend Bala Cynwyd Middle School, and then have a choice to attend either Lower Merion High School or Harriton High School. Those children attending Belmont Hills Elementary School living in the Lower Merion High School Walk Zone would attend Welsh Valley Middle School, and then have a choice of attending either Lower Merion High School or Harriton High School. 3 50. Lower Merion once again prominently displayed its "more diverse" high school student populations during the course of its slide show presentation on its Second Redistricting Plan. A true and correct copy of the relevant portion of the slide show is appended hereto as Exhibit "D." 51. Public comment was then permitted on the Second Redistricting Plan. 52. Thereafter, Lower Merion presented its Third Redistricting Plan at the Lower Merion School Board Meeting on November 24, 2008. 53. Like the previous plans, the Third Redistricting Plan once again drastically changed the racial make-up of Lower Merion High School and Harriton High School.

3 The proposed map for the Second Redistricting Plan can be accessed via the internet at http://www.lmsd.org/documentsiredistricting/malLProposed2.pdf.

10

Unlike the previous plans, the school placements for Students Doe changed in that they no longer had a choice to attend Lower Merion High School or Harriton High School. 54. Despite contending vehemently during the early phases of the redistricting process that it could not present a workable 3-1-1 model (i.e. three designated elementary schools feeding a single middle school which would in tum feed one high school), Lower Merion changed its position entirely and presented in Redistricting Plan Three a 3-1-1 model. 55. The Third Redistricting Plan achieved changes at the high school level using the aforementioned 3-1-1 model.

Under the Third Redistricting Plan, all children

attending Belmont Hills Elementary School and Gladwyne Elementary School would attend Welsh Valley Middle School, and then Harriton High School. Those children attending Penn Valley Elementary School would all attend Welsh Valley Middle School. Those children attending Penn Valley Elementary School that lived in the abbreviated Lower Merion High School Walk Zone could choose to attend either Lower Merion High School or Harriton High School. All other children attending Penn Valley Elementary School would attend Harriton High School. All children attending Penn Wynne Elementary School, Cynwyd Elementary School, and Merion Elementary School, would attend Bala Cynwyd Middle School, and then Lower Merion High School. 4 56. Lower Merion once again prominently displayed its "more diverse" high school student populations during the course of its slide show presentation on its Third Redistricting Plan. A true and correct copy of the relevant portion of the slide show is appended hereto as Exhibit "E."

The proposed map for the Third Redistricting Plan is included in materials that can be accessed via the internet at http://www.lmsd.org/documents/redistricting/081124 presentation.pd£

4

11

57. Public comment was then pennitted on the Third Redistricting Plan. 58. In a letter dated December 12, 2008, the undersigned counsel on behalf of Concerned Ardmore Parents faxed a letter to the Superintendent of Lower Merion advising him that the Third Redistricting Plan was illegal in the light of the United States Supreme Court's holding in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No.1, 127 S.Ct. 2738 (2007), among other reasons. 59. Thereafter, Lower Merion presented its Third Redistricting Plan Revised at the Lower Merion School Board Meeting on December 15, 2008. 60. Like the previous plans, the Third Redistricting Plan Revised once again drastically changed the racial make-up of Lower Merion High School and Harriton High School. Like the Third Redistricting Plan, the Third Redistricting Plan Revised changed the school placements for Students Doe in that they no longer had a choice to attend Lower Merion High School or Harriton High School. Under the Third Redistricting Plan Revised, Students Doe had to attend Harriton High School. 61. The Third Redistricting Plan Revised once again achieved changes at the high

school level using the aforementioned 3-1-1 model. The difference between the Third Redistricting Plan and the Third Redistricting Plan Revised is that the revised plan restored choice of high school to the Belmont Hills Elementary students and Penn Valley Elementary students in the historic Lower Merion High School Walk Zone, restored choice to any student attending Merion Elementary School, Penn Wynne Elementary School, and Bala Cynwyd Elementary School, and it promised the creation of an

12

additional program at Harriton High School to lure prospective students assigned to Lower Merion High School to seek enrollment at Harriton High School. 5 62. Interestingly, for the first time since presentations started regarding redistricting plans, Lower Merion did not present any information regarding its "more diverse" high school student populations during the course of its presentation regarding its Third Redistricting Plan Revised. 63. Furthermore, in an October 31, 2008, Memorandum to the Lower Merion School Board, the Superintendent of Lower Merion acknowledged that use of a 3-1-1 model could create "a racially isolated group of African American Students at Harriton." This is in fact what is going to happen in September 2009. True and correct copies of the relevant pages of the aforementioned Memorandum obtained pursuant to a Pennsylvania Right to Know Request are appended hereto as Exhibit "F." 64. Public comment was then permitted on the Third Redistricting Plan Revised. 65. In a letter dated January 9, 2009, the undersigned counsel on behalf of Concerned Ardmore Parents faxed another letter to counsel for Lower Merion once again advising that the Third Redistricting Plan Revised was illegal in the light of the United States Supreme Court's holding in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 127 S.Ct. 2738 (2007), among other reasons, and that Lower Merion could avoid the present litigation if it sought to increase diversity at Harriton High School through legal means, rather than through mandatory, illegal busing. 66. On January 12, 2009, Lower Merion conducted a School Board Meeting during which the Lower Merion School Board deliberated on the Third Redistricting Plan The proposed map for the Third Redistricting Plan Revised can be accessed via the internet at http://www.lmsd.orgidocumentslredistricting/081216ylan3.pdf.

5

13

Revised, and then voted to accept said plan. Two (2) of the School Members voted against the plan. 67. Having put Lower Merion on ample notice of their legal objections during the course of the redistricting process, Students Doe find themselves with no other recourse at this time to combat the clearly unconstitutional, illegal, and improper redistricting plan adopted by Lower Merion than to take the present legal action.

Count I Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution 68. Students Doe incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 67 of this Complaint as if set forth herein at length. 69. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution bars state action that discriminates on the basis ofrace. 70. Redistricting Plan Three Revised violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in that it discriminates against Students Doe on the basis of race by mandating that said students attend Harriton High School because they are minorities. 71. Redistricting Plan Three Revised also violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in that it imposes an undue burden on minority students. 72. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, a private citizen may bring a private cause of action against any "person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws ...."

14

WHEREFORE, Students Doe respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant them the following relief: (1). Temporarily enjoin the imposition of Redistricting Plan Three Revised as it

relates to them, and restore their option to attend either Lower Merion High School or Harriton High School, until a full and proper hearing on this matter can be conducted; (2). Permanently enjoin the imposition of Redistricting Plan Three Revised as it relates to them following a full and proper hearing on this matter, and restore their option to attend either Lower Merion High School or Harriton High School; and (3). Award them attorneys' fees, costs, and expert fees in accordance with 42 U.S.C. Section 1988. Count II Violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 73. Students Doe incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 67 of this Complaint as if set forth herein at length. 74. 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 bars state action that discriminates on the basis of race. 75. Redistricting Plan Three Revised violates 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 in that it discriminates against Students Doe on the basis of race by mandating that said students attend Harriton High School because they are minorities. 76. Redistricting Plan Three Revised also violates 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 in that it imposes an undue burden on minority students. 77. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, a private citizen may bring a private cause of action against any "person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia,

15

subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws ...." WHEREFORE, Students Doe respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant them the following relief: (1). Temporarily enjoin the imposition of Redistricting Plan Three Revised as it

relates to them, and restore their option to attend either Lower Merion High School or Harriton High School, until a full and proper hearing on this matter can be conducted; (2). Permanently enjoin the imposition of Redistricting Plan Three Revised as it relates to them following a full and proper hearing on this matter, and restore their option to attend either Lower Merion High School or Harriton High School; and (3). Award them attorneys' fees, costs, and expert fees in accordance with 42

U.S.c. Section 1988.

Countm Violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 2000d et. seq. 78. Students Doe incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 67 of this Complaint as if set forth herein at length. 79. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S. C. Section 2000d et.~, "No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." 80. For purposes of Title VI, "program or activity" means all of the operations of "a local educational agency..., system of vocational education, or other school system .... " 42 U.S.C. Section 2000d-4a(2)(B).

16

81. The actions of Lower Merion are governed by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act in that it is operating a school system that receives Federal Funds. 82. Lower Merion's Redistricting Plan Three Revised violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act in that it discriminates against Students Doe on the basis of race by mandating that said students attend Harriton High School because they are minorities. 83. Redistricting Plan Three Revised also violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act in that it imposes an undue burden on minority students. 84. A civil action may be brought against Lower Merion pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 2000d-7. 85. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, a private citizen may bring a private cause of action against any "person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws .... " WHEREFORE, Students Doe respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant them the following relief: (1). Temporarily enjoin the imposition of Redistricting Plan Three Revised as it

relates to them, and restore their option to attend either Lower Merion High School or Harriton High School, until a full and proper hearing on this matter can be conducted; (2). Permanently enjoin the imposition of Redistricting Plan Three Revised as it relates to them following a full and proper hearing on this matter, and restore their option to attend either Lower Merion High School or Harriton High School; and

17

(3). Award them attorneys' fees, costs, and expert fees in accordance with 42 U.S.C. Section 1988.

Respectfully submitted,

David G. C. Arnold P. nnsylvania Attorney Identification No. 49819

Suite 109, Royal Plaza 915 Montgomery Avenue Narberth, Pennsylvania 19072 (484) 562-0008 Attorney for Plaintiffs

Dated: May 14, 2009

18

EXHIBIT A

April 18, 200&

Redistricting Recommendations Important facets to keep in mind

o Population distribution - where people live in relation to the schools o LMSD Transportation Policy - key parameters (l) \val-king distances - eiementary 3/4 mi~e and secondary 1 mile (2) we transport students that live on hazardous roads that have !,leen so certified by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation ' o Capacity ofschools -elementary, middle and high Herns that must pc addres~ed before a redistricting plan oan be:established o A grandfatliering scheme for high school students o The cent(ai offlce must.ieview and assi<~he speciaJ education c1assToe.ms to the schools a Ind.i:vi~ school capacities should be,~usted after special education classrooms have beef' ~sigtled o The distribution of minorily st-udents o Reviewa,nd modify the current attend.ance area~olicy cx'C,eptions te only jnolude, special education,and IB siudtmt'S , 0' Sheuld there be feeder patterns fur students movin~ through Ute schools. element~:ry to middle and middle to high ,Adrninistratien recommended "tlon-negoti~les~ for the redistricting pian - items the plan .MUST addtess:

c(' .Eq!-taf~:~nron~bet\\"etn;thtr:twe,high schools,~ the two roid91e schools As$ign'srudents and:cOtiSider the.etrect~fthe Iiigh'schOol grandfatherin"g scheme .' A;si~ minontf s,tudents in a9COrd~nce wiUt above dooision ' o Assign elemenflW,Y: students so that tlie schools are at 9flU):der'the school capacitY. o Plan-may notincrease number ofbuses.required Objectives - things ':F-~-W9uJd li~e to accomplish o Maintain a~ason.able bu.s travel time for students o MrucimJze students that can \valk to schoo.l o Determine the degree at which the MELe can continue to provide day care

progra~ at our eieme.ntary schools .

o Consider what impact of the Narberth School may have in tlie future

\

"

CD

April 18, 2qoS

Redistricting Recommendations Important facets to keep in mind [] Population ·distribution :.... where people live in relation to the schools [] LMSD Transportation Policy - key p8:1llD1eters (1) walking distances - elementary 3/4 mile and secondary 1 mile (2) we transport students that live on haza:roous roads that have been so certified by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation o Capacity ofschools - elementary, middle and high Items that must be addressed before a redistricting. plan

o A grandfathering scheme for high school d The central office mustreview and

I

\

"

~J:OOlltlS' to the

schools' o Individual school capacities should

have been assigned

o The distribution of miIlLOn1y'. o Review and modify.the

special educatloh and'm

o Should there be'f~er'

elementaty to .

i

schools and the two middle scho,ols high school grandfatliering ·&cheme aboy,e 'decision that.the schooI$ are at or under the school.capacity ofbuses required Objectives ­ [] Maintain a

bus lqivel time for students

o Maximize students that can walk to. school [] Detennine the de~ at \Vhich the 'MELC can continue to provide.day care

programs at our ~lementatY 'schools

o Consider what impact of the Narberth School may have in the future

EXIDBITB

•

.-.

t

Agreement for a Demographic Study This agreement is made as ofIune

~2008 between:

The Lower Merion School District, a Public School District with its administrative office located at 301-E Montgomery St, Ardmore, PA 19003, hereinafter referred to as the "District" and

Ross Haber Associates, Inc., a New York State Corporation with offices located at 5 Sea Gull Lane, Port Washington, NY 11050, hereinafter referred to as the "Coosultanl" At the request ofthe DiStrict, the Coosultant provided a proposal to conduct a demographic study. The District, at its Board ofEducation Meeting dated _~...J ZOO8 approved the Coosultant to

conduct said study.

..

I.

Services:

The Consultant will provide the following services to the District:

1. 2.

3.

4. S.

6. 7. 8. 9.

Enrollment Projectioos on a District Wide Basis Enrollment·projections for each ofthe individual public schools within the District. An analysis and projection for all students living with in the District and specifically within the attendance zones for each of the schools (this includes students who attend the District's schools as well as those who attend private and/or parochial schools-private and parocbial school analysis based upon availability ofdata) . Enrollment trends based upon ethnicity. Enrollment trends based t,1pOn socio..economic factors. Analysis ofthe current attendance zones for all schools. .Creation of new attendance zones for the two high schools to provide more equal balance in the enrollments of both schools. Analysis of the impact on feeder patteros from the elementmy to middle to high schools. Adjustment ofmiddle school and elementary school attendance zones based upon needed changes in feeder patterns.

Other factors to be analyzed are the functional and operational C!lPacities of each ofthe buildings based upon current District policies regarding class sizes and room utilization (e.g.--specialty rooms such as art, music, computer), and pre-Idndergarten and special needs OODSideratioos.

1

The study will also examine ways of baLancing enrollments between buildings.

IL

Deliverables:

The Consultant will provide the following deliverables: a.

Monthly progress reports updating the administration on the status ofthe project.

b.

Meetings between the Consultant and District Personnel (both Central Office, Building, and School Boaro) as needed based upon mutually convenient times.

c.

A preliminary draft of the fmal report presented to the District staff for review.

. d.

A final report providing the District with a narrative along with tables, charts., and maps supporting the findings ofthe study.

e.

Presentations at School Board meetings concerning redistricting.

IlL District Responsibilities: .The District will provide the Consultant with materials necessaty to perform the study. This will include, but may not be limited to: .

a.

At least a six.-yearenrollmenthistory of the District. This should be based upon the annual reports filed by the District with the Pennsylvania Department of Education and should be for the entire District and for each ofthe public schools. This data should include not only enrollment, but also information regarding ethnicity and soclo-economic status.

2

b.

IV.

A copy ofthe most recent enrollment study prepared for the District.

c.

Either floor plans for each ofthe District's schools and/or a summary of classrooms available in .each building.

d.

A map which delineates the current attendance zones for each ofthe District's schools.

e.

A download from the District's students database. This may be requested several times over the course of the study. The data fields and file format will be provided to the District.

Consultant Responsibilities:

The Consultant will research the following data:

a.

History of permits for the construction ofnew residential housing, exclusive ofage restricted housing.

b.

New housing deVelopments which have received approval from the Lower Merion Planning Board.

c.

Birth data attributable to the District.

The Consultant will also obtain a digital map which will be used for locating students, schools, and attendance zones.

V.

Compensation:

As compensation for the services as descnoed above the Consultant shall recei ve $20,000.

Payment shall be made as follows:

3

a.

June 30, 2008 (upon submission of the June progress report)

$4,000.

b.

July 31,2008 (upon submission ofthe July progress report)

$4,000.

c.

AugUst 3I, 2008 (upon submission ofthe August progress report) $4,000.

'd.

September 30, 2008 (upon submission ofSeptember progress report.) $4,000.

e.

Final payment following.fmal public presentation ofthe study.

·ruz Date

For Ross Haber Associates Date

Date

4

$4,000.

RIDER 'TO AGREEMENT BE1WEEN

LOWER MERION SCHOOL DISTRICT ("DISTRIGr') AND

ROSS HABER ASSOCIATES, INC. (''CONSULTANT')

1. Termination - This agreement may be tenninated by either party giving thirty (30) days written notice to the other party at the address stated above or at an address chosen subsequent to the execution of this agreement and duly communicated to the party giving notice. 2. Confidentiality - In the performance ofits duties, Consultant may have access to certain ofthe District's records, including, but not limited to, student records, personnel records and financial records (''District Records',); a. Consultant acknowledges that in performance ofits duties under the Contract and in particular when Consultant has access to District Records, Consultant is acting as an agent ofthe District; b. - Consultant agrees not to copy, duplicate, retain or disclose any District Records or any information contained therein to anyone in any format, other than to a District administrator for purposes related to the Consultant's duties for the District; and c. Consultant agrees that it will indemnitY, defend and hold the District harmless from any claim or loss, including, buy not necessarily limited to any claim for - damages or loss offunding, arising fium Consultant's copying, duplication, retention or disclosure or alleged copying, duplication, ret~ion or disclosure of any District Records or information contained in-any District Records. ­ 3. Other Conditions - As an inducement to the execution of this Agreement by the District and in cOnsideration ofthe agreements to be performed by the District, ConsUltants covenant that: a. Qualifications. Consultants are qualified to perfonn the services to be furnished Wider this Agreement and are permitted by law to perform such services. b. Solic~tation ofAgreement. Consultants have not employed any person to solicit -this Agreement and have not made and will not make any payment or any agreement for the payment ofany commission, percentage, brokemge, contingent fee, or otPer compensation in connection with the J>rocurement ofthis Agreement. c. Facilities and Personnel. Consultants have and will continue to have proper facilities and personnel to -perform the services and work agreed to be performed. _If the Consultants propose to employ any person or persons to perform any of the services which are the subject ofthis Agreement, the employment ofsuch person or persons for such putpose shall not place the District under any obligation to such employee, nor relieve Consultants offull responsibility for the faithful performance ofthe services to be furnished under this Agreement.

{°rV,TE!-'.M

~CoUin!i

Memo of Agreement

Pagel

d.. Assignment. Consultants' rights, obligations, and duties under this Agreement shall not be assigned in whole or in part. e. Subcontracting. None of the work or services covered by this Agreement shall be subcontracted without the prior approval ofthe District. f. Records. Consultants shall maintain records ofall details with respect to the services to be performed under this Agreement. All records maintained by Consultants pursuant to this section are subject to review by the District at the request ofthe District Superintendent. g. Independent Contractor - Consultants agree it is an independent contractor and agrees ~ perform the work under this agreement as an independent contractor. Medical, unemployment, life insurance, retirement, social security· and other benefits will not be accorded to Consultants. during the life ofthis agreement. The District agrees that manner and means ofproviding the services described are ~der Consultant's sole control. 4. Notices - All notices to Consultant shall be considered to be properly given if sent by certified mail to the address specified below, or delivered personally to Consultant

Ross Haber Associates, Inc.

. 5 Sea Gull Lane

. Port Washington, NY 11050,

All notices or other papers given to the District shall be considered to be sufficiently given if sent by certified mail to:

Dr. Michael Kelly

Acting Assjstant Superintendent

310 E. Montgomery Avenue·

Ardmore, PA 19003

with a copy to:

Kenneth A. Roos, .Solicitor

Wisler Peartstine, LLP

484 Nonistown Road

BlueBell, PA 19422

or such other representative or address as the District may designate to Consultant in

writing.

{Q~T~M Fort Collins

Memo of Agreement

Pa~2of3

LOWER MERION SCHOOL DISTRICT

B~__-7~~~~r-~____

ATIEST:

B~

___________________

: SS HyzTF$'

me. Date

ATIEST:

By.,___________________

(O~:r~M

·~CDllins

Memo of Agreement

Page 3

EXHIBITC

9Z00

:·I·

7·"

q~A\

aSWl

EXHIBITD

,, , ,, I I

I

, , I I

I

I

•, ,• I

•i

,I

: , ,

!I I

I

I,

·,,• i

•

i• • I

• ,•• I

:• I

•• •

i.~ n

I

0: = . . .·

!: (1Cl I

!~

(C

Pd

o

~

.~"

i

,~ !,, I I

•I

, I

! I

I I J

I

•• I I

, I

t

,•, ,I

, ,,, , II

I I I I I ! I

,, J I

iI I

lI I,

I I J

I

•

1

EXHIBITE

EXHmITF

,

".

'. ­ Memorandum

To:

Members of the Board of SChool Directors

From:

C~ristopher McGinley, superintende~~

Subject:

Redistricting 1. Background on Recent Meetings 2. Important Issues Needing Decision or Discussion on Monday

Date: October 31,2008

Background Information on Recent Community Meetings I wish to begin by providing you with a brief review of the meetings that were conducted this week relating,to redistricting. There were three meetings held at the request of parents representing three general communities, Penn Wynne, Merion and Narberth. Mike Kelly attended the meetings with me and Shawn Bernatowicz was present forth~ ~eeting at Penn Wynne. The meetings were generally respectful in tone although 'there was some '~I!lotion expressed about the So~th Ardmore community's history. Two of the meetings included the assertion that the curreritplan was racially motivated: The largest of the three meetings was held on Wednesday evening at Penn Wynne. This meeting was requested in mid-September by the Co-Presidents of the HSA. Ischeduled' this meeting after. the second map or plan would be made public. ~re were about 60-75 people in attendance at the meeting including a number of parents from the Ballytore area and South Ardmore. I have attached a list of the questions that they had submitted in advance and the notes that I made in anticipation of answering those questions. In addition to answering the previously submitted questions, there was about an hour 'of comments and questions. The major points that were stressed In that session were: • The Hchildren of Ballytore" belong with their friends and should not be "carved out:' Members of that area also view the bus travel to Harriton and Welsh Valley as an unfair burden on the children. • The South Ardmore community has a history of losing school assets and the socio-economic conditions of the community need to be conSidered; the community (under any plan) should have an option of either high school. Comments were made alleging that South Ardmore was , being used to diversify Harriton. • The district should redistrict the elementary schools if necessary in order to accomplish a 3-1-1 feeder plan. The second meeting was held Thursday in my office with six representatives of the Merion community. The representatives had an outline for the meeting which we followed. Thatis also attached. The group also submitted a list of ty.'enty questions. By the time that we got the questions we had covered most of the issues. The group represented the Merion elementary school community as a unit that should

'0

The idea that there is a 3-1-1 Solution

MV Perspective: Not FuliV Decided

At the meeting last week many people suggested a three-one-one, K-12 solution. Some people have even given me models that sh~w a three-one-one. As Iexplained at the meeting three-one-one works if onlv we give up a walking area for lower Merion High School or we plan on transporting from City Avenue. Here are two of the plans that are being discussed bV parents.

The Travel Equitv Proposal GL,. BH, CY

to

BC

to

HH'

PW, PV,ME

to

WV

to

LM

This proposal claims to spread ,the'burden of transportation more fairlv a,cross the township when you look at travel from a K-12 perspective. It adds travel distanceto severar areas and it requires bus runs to Harriton from City Ave. It removes the walk . lone for Welsh Vallev. It creates a raciallv isolated group ofAfrican American Students at Harriton.

Use the Current Middle Schools Gl, BH, PV

to.

WV

to

HH

PW, ME, CY

to

BC

to

LM

This proposal removes all of the walk zone for lower Merion. Travel times are not bad. Most of Ardmore moves to Harriton but not the part that is closest to Harriton. All of Narberth goes to Harriton in both of these proposals. I have not had Ross run exact numbers on these scenarios.

New Proposals

MV Perspective: Not at all Decided

Parents who have discussed three-one-one with me often admit that they have onlv figured out part of the plan and that their plan works "except for..." Ican rela'te to that since mv plans work except for... In mv discussion with Diane and Usa this morning we discussed the need for me and perhaps the public to better understand the board's priorities in relation to the community values before working on future alternatives. Lisa identified them in her email as "walkability, distance/access, continuity of cohorts and community" Our current plan focused on waikabiJity first and was developed out from that point. The first plan assumed community as elementary school first and worked out from there. Different starting points lead to different plans. I want to make sure that we start the next plan or modify this one