~ ;: ~ (Rev.

12/07)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

•

TheJS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the 'Clerk of'Court for the purpose of Initiating , the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF TIlE FORM.)

J. (a) PLAINTIFFS

Student Does 1 through 9 and Parent/Guardian Does 1 through 10

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Montgomery (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

DEFENDANTS

The School District of Lower Merion, 301 E. Montgomery Ave,

Ardmore, Pennsylvania 19003 D

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Montgomery

(IN us. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE TIlE LOCATION OF THE LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorney's (Finn Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (IfKuuwn)

David G. C. Arnold, Esquire, Suite 109, Royal Plaza, 915 . Kenneth Roos, Esquire, Wisler Pearlstine, LLP, 484 orrist,Q\Ai!k.,;"V'"\

Mont orne Avenue, Narberth, Penns Ivania 19072 (q6f}4 :)'6'&- Road Suite 100 Blue Bell. Penns Ivania 19422 bfO ... ti· .......

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (placean~X"inOrteBoxOnly) Ill. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Pl_an~X"inOneBoxforJ>laintiff

(For Diversity Cases Only) IIIld One Box thr Defendant)

o I U.S. Govemment !!II 3 Federal Question I'T' DEF I'T' DEF

Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 0 I 0 1 Incorporated (d Principal Place 0 4 0 4

oCl'ltlSiness In This State

o 2 U.S. Government Defendant

o 4 Diversity

(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item Ill)

Citizen of Anodler Stale

o 2 0 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 0 S CI 5

ofl'lusiness In Another State

o 3 0 3 Foreign Nation

CI 6 06

PERSONALnuuRy PERSONALUUURY

310 AUplane 0 362 PersonaIlnjwy.

315 Airplane l'ruduct Med. Malpraotice

Liability 0 365 Personal Injwy •

320 Assault, Libel &. Product Liability

Slander 0 368 Asbestos Personal

o 151 Medicare Act 330 F~ Employm' Injwy Product

o 152 .Recovery of Defaulted Liability Liability

Student Loans 340 Marine PERSONAL I'ROPERTY

(Ex<:1. Veterans) 34S Marine Product 0 370 Other Fraud

CI 153 Recovwy of Overpayment Liability 0 311 Truth in Lending

of Veteran "s Benefits 350 MOIor Vehicle 0 380 Other Personal

o 160 Stockholders' Suits 355 MOIor Vehicle Propeny Damage Act

o 19OOtherContruct Product Liability 0 385 PropertyDatnage 120 Labar/Mgmt Relations

o 195 Contract Product Liabilily 360 Other Personal Product Liabilily 730 LaborIMgnu.Reporting

Prancaise &. Disclosure Act

~!!!!!!.'~~!~liligii'~!!!~!~lg 740 Railway Labor Ad

i5 510 MotiOll$ to Vacate 790 Other Labor Litigation

S<;ntence 0 791 EmpI. Ret. Inc.

Habeas Corpus: Security Ad

530 General

53S Death Penalty

S40 Mandamus &. Other 5S0 Civil Rights

SSS Prison CUUdition

•

o 210 Foreclosure

o 230 Rent Lease &. Ejeclment

o 240 Torts 10 Land

o 245T ort Product Liability

o 290 All Other RealI'ropet1y

445 .Amer. wlDisabilities· Employment

446 Amer, wlDisabilities • Other

440 Other Civil Rigbls

400 State Reapportiorunent 410 Antitrust

430 Banks and Banking 450 Commerce

__ ~~~~fii!liiIl~2 460 Deportation

470 ~InOueneed and

Conupt Organizations 480 Consuntet' Credit

490 CablelSatTV

810 Selective Service

850 SecwitiesICornmoditiesl Exchange

875 Customer Challenge

1.2 USC 3410

890 Other Sll'IIutory Actions 891 Agricultural Acts

.~j~~~~.~~ 892 Econondc Stabilization Ad

893 Environmental Matters 894 Ene.g)' Allocation Ad 89:5 Freedom oflnfoonation

Ad

900AppeaJ ofFee Detemtination Under Equal Access

10 Justice

.950 Constitutionality of State Statutes

610 Agricultute

620 Other Food &. Drug 625 Drug Related Seizure

<JfPmperty 21 USC 881 630 Liquor Laws

640 RR It Trock

650 Airtine Regs.

660 Oocnparional

SafelyJHealdt

V. ORIGIN i5\ 1 Original Proceeding

(Place an "X' in One Box Only)

a 2 Removed from 0 3 Remanded from

State Court Appellate Court

Appeal to District a 4 Reinstated or 0 5 Transferr~ from a 6 Multidistrict a 7 Judg~ from

Reopened anoth.er district Litigation Magistrate

I M ~

VII,REQUESTEDIN COMPLAINT:

o CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS A CHON DEMAND s CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

UNDERF.R.C.P.23 Injnnctive Reljef JURY DEMAND: DYes Iii'fNo

VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY

JUDGE

DOCKET NUMBER

(See instructions):

DATE 05/14/2009

• FOR{)fFICEUSl~ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT

MAG. JUDGE

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

•

•

•

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR TIlE EASTERN DISTRICf OF PENNSYLVANIA - DESIGNATION FORM to be .sed lIy eo.asel to iDdicate tlte category oftlte case for die purpose of assiCDmeRt to appropriate caleDdar •

AddressofPJaiDtiff: See footnote 1 on page 1 of Complaint

AddressofDefeudant:301 East Montgomery Ayenue, Ardmore, Pennsylvania 19003

Place of Accideat, Incideat or Transaction: MOD t game ry Can D t h peD~a D ; a

(Use Reverse For Addi . ~

Does this civil action iDvolve a noogoVCrDlllClltal corporate party with any parent corporatiOD and any publicly held corporation oWDiDg 10% or 1IlOO: of its stock?

(Attach two copies of the Disclosure StatcmentForm iD accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 7.1(a» YcsD N~

Docs this case iDvolve multidistrict litigation possibilities? RELATED CA.SE,IF A.NY:

YesO NoD

Case Number: Judge Date TcrmiDated: _

Civil cases arc deemed related whea yes is answered to any of the foUowiDg questions:

I. Is this case related to property included in an earlier numbered suit pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court?

YesO NoQC

2. Docs this case iDvolve the .ame issue of fact or grow out of the same transaction as a prior .uit pending or within one year previously terminated

action in this court? yClD NoQC

3. Docs this case involve the validity or infringement of a patent already in lUit or any earlier numbered case pending or within one year previously

terminated action in this court? Y ClO No~X

4. Is this case a second or successive habeas COIJIus, IOCwlCCUrity appeal, or pro Ie civil rightscasc filed by the same individual?

YesO NoallX

CIVIL:(P1ace tl'inONECATEGORYONLY) A. Federal Question CasQ:

1. 0 Indemnity Contract, Marine Contract, and AU Other Contracts

2. 0 FELA

3. 0 Jones Act·Personallnjury

4. 0 Antitrust S. 0 Patent

6. 0 Labor·Managemeat Relations 7.)(IX Civil Rights

8. 0 Habeas Corpus

9. 0 Securities Acl(s) Cases

10. 0 Social Sccurity Review Cases

11. 0 All other Federal Question Cases (please specify)

B. DivenityJwtsdictioIt CasQ:

1. 0 Insurance Contract and Other Contracts

2; o Airplane Pcuonallnjury
3. o Assault, Defamation
4. o Marine Pcrsooal Injury
S. o Motor Vehicle Pcrsonallnjury
6. o Other Pcrsonallnjury (PJcasc specify)
7. o Products Liability
8. o Products Liability - Asbestos
9. o All other Diversity Cases
(please specify) ARBITRATION CERTIFICATION (Oteck appropriate Category) 1,,_.!:D~a!;.;V!..1:!=.· ~d!........::GO:!....!.. ~C:::..!.._..£A~r:...!n~oC::!l~d~ __ __', counsel ofrccord do hereby certify:

o Pursuant to Local Civil Rule S3.2, Section 3(c)(2), that to the best of my Imowledge and belief, the damages recoverable in this civil action case exceed the sum of $1 SO,OOO.OO exclusive of iDtercst and costs;

:1Hc Relief other than monetary damages is lOug .

DATE: May 14, 2009

49819

Attorney I.D.#

Iy if there has been compliance with F.R.C.P. 38 .

•

•

•

APPENDIXG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

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

ale

V.

Civil Action No:

-------

.

The School District of Lower Merio~

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT FORM

Please check one box: Not applicable 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.

•

•

•

APPENDIXG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Student Doe 1 by and through his . parents/Guardians Does 1 and 2, et; ale

v.

Civil Action No:

-------

.

The School District of Lower Merio~

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT FORM

Please check one box: Not applicable in that plainti ffs 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 owning 1 0% 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.

•

•

•

APPENDIX I

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TILE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSILV ANIA

CASE MANAGEMENT TRACK DESI.GNATION FORM.

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

v.

The School District of Lower Merion

CIVIL ACTION

NO.

In accordance with the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan of this court, counsel for plaintiff shall complete a case Management Track Designation Fonn in all civil cases at lhe time of filing the complaint and serve a copy on all defendants. (See § 1 :03 of the plan set forch on thereverse side of this form.) In Ihe event that a defendant does not agree with the plaintiffrega.rdi.ng said designation, 1hat defendant shan, with its first appearance, submit to the cled:: of com 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.

SELECf ONE OF THE FOLLO\\1NG CASE MANAGEMENT TRACKS:

(a) Habeas Corpus - Cases brought under 28 U.S.C. §2241 through §2255 .

( )

(b) Social Secwity - Cases requesting review of a decision of the Secretary of'Health and Human Services denying plaintiff Social Secwity Benefits

( )

(c) AIbitration - 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 notfaU into tracks (a) through (d) that are commonly referred to as complex and tbatneed special or intense management by the court. (See reverse side of this fonn for a detailed explanation of special

management cases.) (x )

. (1) Standard Management - Cases that do not rau into anyone oftbe other tracks. ( )

May 14r 2009

Date

(484) 562-0008 Telephone

FAX Number .

Dayidgcarnold@aol.com E-Mail Address

(av. 'GO) tOt02

•

•

•

'" \\\' 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

209·5

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 information 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, Parent/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 of the 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 (1) 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 of 2008.

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 of buses 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 of their 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 Iune 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 to, 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 of diversity 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 II, 2008.

36. According to URS' report, exploring and cultivating "whatever diversityethnic, 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 of the 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."

•

2 The proposed map for the First Redistricting Plan can be accessed via the internet at http://www.lmsd.org/documentslredistricting/map_proposed.pdf.

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.orgldocuments/redistricting/ma(! proposed2.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 turn 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.orgidocumentsiredistrictingl081124..J>resentation.pdf.

11

•

57. Public comment was then permitted 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. S

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. I. 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

•

S The proposed map for the Third Redistricting Plan Revised can be accessed via the internet at http://www.lmsd.org/documents/redistricting/081216_lllan3.pdf.

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 of race .

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.

CountllI

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, 2008

. \

Redistricting Recommendations

Important facets (0 keep in mind

a Population distribution - where people live in relation to the schools

n LMSD Transportation Policy - key parameters (1) walking distances - elementary 3/4 mite and secondary I mile (2) we transport students that live on hazardous roads that have been so certified by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation .

o Capacity of schools - elementary, middle and high

Items that must be addressed before a redistricting plan oilR be-established

o A grandf.a.tbering scheme for high school students

o The centr:al office must. review and assipihe special education class10Qms to. the

~~s .

a Indl¥i~ school capacities should be.~usted &iter special education classrooms have ~ a!;Signed

The distribution of minority students

Review a~ modify the current attend.ance area~licy ex~ptions to only jn.olude .

special education. and IB siuden.ts .

Should there be fe¢d~ pattems fer stud~hts moving. througb the schools. el(!men~ to middle and middle-so high

. .

Administration recommended (·non-ncgoti~es" for the redistricting plan - items the pJan.MUs:r address:

o·~ Eq",af~;~n~between;tmr:~.high schools·a¢ the two roic:ijle schools

.. ~gn·Students .nd:ooliSider tht.cffuct.ofthe IUgffschool gtandfatbetitl~ scheme - Q) ~p. minorii;Y students in accordance wi~ above decision

Assign eleu1et1~ students so that tlie schools are at pi" ·uo"der·the school capacity

o Plan may not.increa:se number ofbuses-.requir.ed

Objectives - tbi~ ~~:,w~lUld li~e to accomplish

• 9. :

o Maintain a reesonable bus travel time for students a Maximjze students that can walk to school

n Determine the degree at which the MELe can continue to provide day care

programs at OQr elementary schools •

o Consider what impact of the Narberth School may have in the future ~.~.'-

..... /

...

•

April 18, 2~8

Redistricting Recommendations

Important facets to keep in mind

o Population -distributien-e where people live in relation to the schools

o LMSD Transportation Policy - Icey parameters (1) walking distances - elementary 3/4 mile and secondary 1 mile (2) we jransport students that live on hazardous roads that have been so certified by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

o Capacity of schools - elementary, middle and high

•

o A grandfathering scheme for high school

i:l The central office must.review and schools'

o Individual school capac.ities should have been assigned.

o The distribUtion of mm' tOn~y.. D Review and modify.the special edttcatiOh and" IB

a S~d~~ 'p_.~_

eiemeDtaty to

schools and the two mi&iIe schools high school grau.d&thering ~hetne

,.~lanc::e.,,~tI1 abov,e'declsion .

tb;¢.thc scb.60b ~ at or"Ulldcl: tb~ school.capacity nWIllfer- ofbuses required

ObjectJves -

o Maintain a bus travel time for students

o Maximize students that can walk to. school

o Determine the degree ~t which the'MELC can continue to provide .day care programs at our ~lementaIY schools

o Consider what impact of the Narberth School m$.y have in the future

•

EXHIBITB

•

•

.. - (

•

•

•

Agreement for a Demographic Study This agreement is made as of June ~2008 between:

The Lowec Merion School District. a Public School District with its administrative office located at 301·B Montgomery St, Ardmore, PA 19003, hereinafter refemd to as the "District"

and

Ross Haber Associates, Inc .• a New York: State Coqx)lation with offices located at 5 Sea Gull Lane, Port Washington, NY 11050. hereinafter referred to as tbe ~nsultant."

At the rcquea of the Distdct, the Consultant provided a proposal to conduct a demographic study.

The District, at its Board of Education Meeting dated __ .;2008 approv~ the Coosultaot to conduct said study.

I.

Services:

The Consultant will provide the following services to the District:

I. EnroUnient Projections on a District Wide Basis

2. Enrollment·projections fOe each of the individual public schools within the District.

3. An analysis and projection for aU students living with in the District and specifically within the atteodanoe zones for each of the schools (this includes students who atteod the District's schools as well as Chose who attend private aDdIor parochial scbools-private and paroOOial school analysis based upon

availability of data) .

4. Enrollment trends based upon etbnicity.

s. Enrollment trends based \IPOfl socio-economic factors,

6. Analysis of the cuaeot atteodance zones for aU schools.

7. . Creation of new attendance zones for the two high schools to provide more equal

balance in the enrollments of both schools.

8. Analysis of the impact 00 feeder patterns from the elemeotary to middle to high schools.

9. Adjustment of middle school and elementary school attendance zones based upon needed changes in feeder patterns.

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

1

e

e.

•

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

IL Delivecables:

The Consultant will provide the following deliverables:

a. Monthly progress reports updating the administration on the status of the projecl

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

c. A prelim.iDacy dmft of the final report presented to the District staff for review.

. d.

A final report providing the District with a narrative along with tables • ~, and maps supporting the findings of the study.

e. . Presentations at School Board meetings concerning redistricting.

IlL District Responsibilities:

. The District win provide the Consultant with materials n~ to perform the study.

This will include. but may not be limited to: .

a. At least a six-year enrollment history of the District. This should be based upon the annual reports filed by the District with the Pennsylvania Department of Bducation and should be for the entire District and for each of the public schools.

This data should include not only enrollment, but also information regarding ethnicity and socio-economic status .

2

•

b. A copy of the most recent enrollment study prepared for the District.

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

d. A mitp which delineates the current attendance zones for each of the 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.

IV. Consultant Responsibilities:

•

The Consultant will research the following d~:

a. History of p«1hits for the construction of new residential housing, exclusive of age restricted housing.

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

c. Birth data attributable to the District.

The Consultimt will also obtain a digital map which will be used for l~ng students, schools, and attendance zones.

V. Compensation:

As compensation for the services as described above the Consultant shall receive $20,000.

• Payment shall be made as follows:

3

•

a.

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

$4,000.

b.

luly 31,2008 (upon submission of the luly progress report)

$4,000.

c. AugUst 31,2008 (upon submission of the August progress report) $4,000.

d. September 30, 2008 (upon submission of September progress report.)

$4,000.

e. Final pa~ent following .final public presentation of tile study. $4.000.

•

Date

For Ross Haber Associates Date

Date

•

4

•

•

•

RIDER TO AGREEMENT BElWEEN

LOWER MERION SCHOOL DISTRICf ("DISTRICf',) AND ROSS HABER ASSOC(A TES, INC. ("CONSULTANI",)

.t. Tennination - 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

ootire. .

2. Confidentiality - fn the performance of its duties, Consultant may have access to certain of the District's records, including, but not limited to, student records, personnel records and financial records ("District Records'');

a. Consultant acknowledges that in pedOrmance of its duties under the Contract and in particular when Consultant has access to District Records, Consultant is acting as an agent of the District;

b.· Consultant agrees not to copy, duplicate, retain or disclose any District Records or any ~onnation contained therein to anyone in any fonnat, othec 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 offundiog, arising from Consultant's copying. duplication, retention or disclosure or alleged copying. duplication, retc;ntion or disclosure of 8l1y District Records or infonnation contained in·any Disbiet Records. .

3. Othet Conditions - As an inducement to the execution of this Agreement by the District and in cOnsideration of the agreements to be pecfocmed by the District, ConsUltants coveoaot tbat

a. Qualifications. Consultants are qualified to perform the services to be furnished under this Agreement and are permitted by law to perfonn such services.

b. Solicitation of Agreement. Consultants have not employed any person to solicit ·this Agreement and have not made and will not malee any payment or any agreement for 1he payment of any commissiQn, percentage, brokerage, contingent fee, or other compensation in connection with the ~rocurement of this Agreement

c. Facilities and P.ersonneL Consultants have and will continue to have proper facilities and personnel to perform the services and wode agreed to be performed, .If the Consultants propose to employ any person or persons to perform any of the services which are the subject of this Agreement, the employment of such person or persons for such purpose shall not place the District under any obligation to such employee, nor relieve Consultants of full responsibility for the faithful performance of the services to be furnished under this Agreement.

{O/'¥TEAM ~Collins

Memo of Agreement

Page lof3

•

•

•

d. 0 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 of the District.

f. Records. Consultants shall maintain records of all 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 of the District Superintendent.

g. Independent Contractor - Consultants agree it is an independent contractor and agrees jo perform the work under this agreement as an independent oontractor. Medical, unemployment, life insurance, retirement, social security°and other benefits win not be accorded to Consultants. during the life of this agreement. The District agrees that manner and means of providing the services described are ~der Consultant's sole control.

4. Notices - All notices to Consultant shall be consideeed to be properly given if sent by eedified mail to the address specified below, or delivered personally to Consultant

Ross Haber Associates, Inc .

o S Sea Gull Lane

o Port Washington, NY 11050,

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

Dr. Michael Kelly

Acting Ass_istant Superintendent 310 E. Montgomery Avenue . Ardmore, PA 19003

with a copy to:

Kenneth A. Roos, Solicitor Wisler Pea.dstine, U,p

484 Nonistown Road

Blue Bell, PA 19422

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

{O~~M

Fort: Collins

Memo of Agreement

. Page2of3

•

•

•

<

.:

LOWER MERION SCHOOL DISTRICf

Br., __ ~ __ ~~~~~~ ATIEST:

Br. __

::sSuTm' me.

ATI'EST:

·Br.~ _

Date

fJ~:rEAM '~Cullins

Memo of Agreement

Page30f3

.. ",.,-

-e,_

•

EXHIBIT C

•

•

•

•

•

-.

9Z00 qQA\ aSW1

: ' .

oJ":.!'

." _- ;:. " ..... -.

"

•

•

•

" .. ,:,

LvOO qO&GSm

~". ' .

, '

•

EXHIBITD

•

•

, '

, ,

_- ........... -11; ........... ' •. ,_.

\ \

•

EXBIBITE

•

•

\ l

•

•

•

" .

•

•

•

. ,

.......

••• iJ.'·

· "

•

EXHIBITF

•

•

, .

..

•••• •

•

•

.. -

Memorandum

To: Members of the Board of School Directors

From: c~ristopher McGinlev, super1ntende~

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 Bematowicz was present for th~ meeting at Penn Wynne. The meetings were generally respectfut In tone although "there was some '~~otlon expressed about the So~th Ardniore ~mmunity's history. TWo of the meeti~ Included the assertion that the rorreritplan was raddy motivated;

The largest of the three meetiOgs was hetd on Wednesday evening at Penn Wynne. this meeting was requested In mid-September by the Co-Presidents of the HSA. t scheduled' this me.eting after.the second map or plan would be made public. ~ 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 "chlldren 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 anuofair burden on the children.

• lhe South Ardmore community has ~ history of losing school assets and the socio-economic conditions of the community need to be considered; the commun!ty (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 ~erion cOmmunity . The representatives had an outline for the meeting which we followed. Thafis also attached. The group also submitted a list of ~enty questions. By the time that we got to the questions we had covered most of the issues. The group represented the Merion elementary school community as a unit that should

.

e·'

My Perspective: Not Fully Decided

At the meeting last week many people suggested a three-one-one, K-12 solution. Some people have even given me models that sho.w a three-one-one. As I explained at the meeting three-one-one works if only we give up a walking area for Lower Merion High School or we plan on transporting from Oty Avenue. Here are two of the plans that are being discussed by parents.

The Travel Equity Proposal

Gl.,BH,Cf

to

BC to

HH'

PW,PV,ME

to

WV to

LM

This proposal daims to spread. the' burden of transportation more fairly a.cross the township when you look at travel from a K-12 perspective. It adds travel distance to several areas and It requires bus runs to Harriton from City Ave. It removes the walk

. lone for Welsh Valley. It creates a racially isolated group of African American Students

at Harriton.
e
Use the Current Middle Schools
Gl.,BH, PV to WV to HH
PW, ME, sx 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 clo~st to Harrtton.

All of Narberth goes to Harriton In both of these proposals. I have not had Ross run exact numbers on these scenarios.

New Proposals

My Perspective: Not at aU Decided

Parents who have discuSsed three-one-one with me often admit that they have only figured out part of the plan and that thejr plan works "except for_- I can relate to that since my 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. Usa Identified them in her email as "'walkability, distance/access, continuity of cohorts and community'" Our current plan focused on walkability 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 ma~e sure that we start the next plan or modify this one