Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER WHITE, Chief Judge. On July 1, 1997, the Ohio State Board of Education and its Superintendent of Instruction (“State Defendants”) and the Cleveland City School District (“District”) filed a Motion to Declare that the State Defendants and the Cleveland City School District Have Achieved Unitary Status (“Motion for Unitary Status”). As part of their Motion for Unitary Status, the State Defendants and District (“Defendants”) moved this Court to issue an order declaring that the Defendants have achieved unitary status and are released from all further remedial obligations, except those specifically designated in the Consent Decree which continue until July 1, 2000. The Plaintiff Class comprised of African-American students enrolled in the Cleveland Public Schools and their parents or legal guardians and the Cleveland Public Schools’ Board of Education (“Board”), opposed the motion. This Court held a hearing on the motion which lasted five weeks, beginning November 3, 1997 and concluding December 4, 1997. Evidence produced at the hearing included testimony from several expert witnesses, the Superintendent of the District, various other administrators, teachers, employees and former employees of the District, an employee of the Ohio Department of Education, members of the Cleveland Board of Education, Plaintiff Class members, and parents/guardians of Cleveland City School District students. The Court has reviewed all of the testimony, the exhibits from the hearing, and the post-hearing briefs filed by the parties. For the reasons set forth below, this Court will grant the State Defendants and District’s Motion for Unitary Status. BACKGROUND This case was originally filed with the Court on December 12, 1973, over 24 years ago. On August 31, 1976, the Court held that “defendant boards of education through their constituent members and their appointed superintendents violated Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection under the laws by intentionally fostering and maintaining a segregated school system.” Reed v. Rhodes, 422 F.Supp. 708 (N.D.Ohio 1976)(Battisti, J). On February 6, 1978, the District Court reaffirmed its earlier conclusion that the State and District were liable for maintaining a de jure segregated school system. Reed v. Rhodes, 455 F.Supp. 546 (N.D.Ohio 1978)(Battisti, J), aff'd 607 F.2d 714 (6th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 935, 100 S.Ct. 1329, 63 L.Ed.2d 770 (1980). The Court cited over 200 specific constitutional violations, categorized according to the general techniques employed to effect racial segregation, including: boundary changes; conversion of board-owned facilities; optional attendance zones; assignment or reassignment of students; construction of new school facilities; additions to existing schools; busing; school closings; portable classroom facilities; changing grade structures; manipulation of school capacity; special transfers; and faculty assignment. The Court noted that “these numerous constitutional violations had systemwide impact entitling plaintiffs to a systemwide remedy.” Id. at 550. The Court’s Remedial Order, also issued on February 6,1978, adopted a plan to remedy this systemwide unconstitutional segregation. The Remedial Order addressed, inter alia, student assignments, educational programs, transportation, safety and security, management and financial considerations, and the role of the State. Reed v. Rhodes, 455 F.Supp. 569 (N.D.Ohio 1978)(Battisti, J). These original obligations were eventually expanded into fifteen remedial components. The fifteen remedial components are (1) Student Assignments; (2) Testing and Tracking; (3) Reading Skills Program; (4) Counseling, Career Guidance and Student Training; (5) Magnet and Vocational Schools and Programs; (6) Cooperation with Universities, Businesses and Cultural Institutions; (7) Extracurricular Activities; (8) Staff Development; (9) Student Rights; (10) School Community Relations; (11) Transportation; (12) Safety and Security; (13) Management Capability and Financial Integrity; (14) Staff Desegregation; and (15) Obligations of the State Defendants. Dr. Christine Rossell, a national expert who has studied desegregation for twenty-five years, testified that with regard to desegregation orders, the remedial obligations imposed upon the Cleveland City School District are more detailed and expansive than those of any other school district she has previously studied. This case imposes approximately two to three times the number of remedial obligations as compared to those imposed on any other school district subject to a desegregation order. (Vol.IV, 748, 788). From 1978 until the early 1990’s, the Parties litigated the specific details and implementation of the Remedial Order and subsequent orders aimed at remedying these past intentional segregative practices. Finally, in March of 1994, the Parties entered into a Settlement Agreement with the intended purpose of bringing this ease to an orderly and just resolution and supporting reformation of the educational processes in the Cleveland Public Schools. After conducting a Fairness Hearing, the Court issued an Order converting the Settlement Agreement into an enforceable Consent Decree. Reed v. Rhodes, 869 F.Supp. 1274 (N.D.Ohio 1994)(Battisti, J.). As noted in the Consent Decree in 1994, the District confronted severe financial problems. The financial condition of the District continued to deteriorate in 1995 as the District remained unsuccessful in its attempts to pass a levy, the proceeds of which were to help fund the Consent Decree. Prompted by this desperate financial condition, accompanying managerial problems, and the impact of these conditions on the District’s ability to achieve uninterrupted implementation of the remedial desegregation orders and the Consent Decree, the Court directed the State Superintendent “to assume immediate supervision and operational, fiscal and personnel management of the District.” (Order, 3/3/95, at 6)(Krupansky, J.). On May 8, 1996, the Court granted the State’s motion for a declaration of partial unitary status for the Student Assignment component of the Remedial Order and vacated portions of the Consent Decree requiring the use of racial parameters in assigning students. The motion at issue before this Court was filed pursuant to Section 15 of the Consent Decree which provides: The Parties shall request, after appropriate evidentiary proceedings, that the Court enter its Order releasing the Defendants from all further obligations, except those which are defined herein for the period from July 1, 1997 to July 1, 2000 if it finds that: a. The Defendants have implemented all provisions of this Agreement and complied with all extant remedial orders to the extent practicable; and, b. All vestiges of past discrimination and segregation have been eliminated to the extent practicable; and, c. The Defendants have otherwise demonstrated good faith commitment to their constitutional obligations. (Order, 5/25/94, § 15). APPLICABLE STANDARD As specified in this Court’s Order of October 3, 1997, the Motion for Unitary Status will be examined pursuant to Section 15 of the May 25, 1994 Consent Decree as proposed by the Parties and adopted by the Court. The Court has previously stated that Defendants bear the burden of demonstrating coihplianee with the Consent Decree and all extant remedial orders to the extent practicable. The Parties were informed of the necessity to specifically reference obligations contained in the extant remedial orders and the Consent Decree. (Order, 10/3/97, at 3). Defendants relied upon the Compliance, Management, and Reporting Plan (the “Plan”) for this purpose. Collaboratively, the Parties and the Office on School Monitoring and Community Relations (“OSMCR”) developed this management plan in 1995 which contains the outstanding remedial obligations and the steps Defendants would take to comply with the orders. The Court instructed the Parties that it was “interested in determining Defendants present level of compliance with the extant remedial orders and the Consent Decree.” (Order, 10/3/97, at 3). The Court noted that “the date of the Consent Decree should serve as the ultimate baseline,” since OSMCR assessed Defendants’ remedial compliance at that time and the Parties incorporated that assessment into Section 9 of the Consent Decree. The Court instructed Defendants, however, to use their own judgment in determining an appropriate date from which to enable the Court to adequately assess Defendants’ present level of compliance. Id. at 4. Defendants chose the 1995-1996 school year as the date from which to establish compliance. In addition to complying with the Consent Decree and the extant remedial obligations, Section 15 of the Consent Decree also requires that all vestiges of past discrimination and segregation be eliminated to the extent practicable. As noted in Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 496, 112 S.Ct. 1430, 1448, 118 L.Ed.2d 108 (1992), “[t]he vestiges of segregation that are the concern of the law in a school case may be subtle and intangible but nonetheless they must be so real that they have a causal link to the de jure violation being remedied.” With regard to the burden of proof as to vestiges, it has been established that: [a] controlling distinction in the burden of proof analysis is first, whether a defendant has been adjudged to be a constitutional violator, and second, whether an educational vestige was originally identified when liability was found. Jenkins v. Missouri, 959 F.Supp. 1151, 1157 (W.D.Mo.1997), aff'd, 122 F.3d 588 (8th Cir.1997). Moreover, the Eighth Circuit has stated: [generally, once there has been a finding that a defendant established an unlawful dual school system in the past, there is a presumption that current disparities are the result of the defendant’s unconstitutional conduct.. .Only when a school district has attained unitary status does the burden of proving disparities were caused by intentional segregation shift back to the plaintiffs. Jenkins v. Missouri, 122 F.3d 588, 593 (8th Cir.1997). Finally, beyond demonstrating compliance and the elimination of vestiges, Section 15 requires Defendants to have otherwise demonstrated a good faith commitment to their constitutional obligations. With regard to this good faith commitment, the school district’s record of compliance with remedial obligations is of utmost importance. As previously noted by the Supreme Court, “[a] school system is better positioned to demonstrate its good-faith commitment to a constitutional course of action when its policies form a consistent pattern of lawful conduct directed to eliminating earlier violations.” Freeman, 503 U.S. at 491, 112 S.Ct. at 1446 (1992). Furthermore, the Court also noted that “[a] district court need not accept at face value the profession of a school board which has intentionally discriminated that it will cease to do so in the future. But in deciding whether to modify or dissolve a desegregation decree, a school board’s compliance with previous court orders is obviously relevant.” Board of Ed. of Oklahoma v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 249, 111 S.Ct. 630, 637, 112 L.Ed.2d 715 (1991). Thus, Defendants’ record of complying with its remedial obligations and eliminating all vestiges of past discrimination to the extent practicable greatly impacts upon the Court’s determination of whether Defendants have demonstrated a good faith commitment to their constitutional obligations. Relying upon the factors set forth in Section 15 of the Consent Decree, this Court’s task is to assess whether the system that once operated as a dual system is now operating as a unitary system in all respects. The Court is mindful of the fact that the ultimate goal of a desegregation case such as this is to restore the victims of the discriminatory conduct to the position they would-have occupied in the absence of that conduct and to restore State and local authorities to the control of a school system that is operating in compliance with the Constitution. Freeman, 503 U.S. at 489, 112 S.Ct. at 1445 (citing Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 280-281, 97 S.Ct. 2749, 2757-2758, 53 L.Ed.2d 745 (1977)). Applying the standards delineated above, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. COOPERATION WITH UNIVERSITIES, BUSINESSES AND CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Cooperative educational ventures include, but are not limited to, partnerships between a school and a university, business or cultural institution. Other cooperative educational ventures include local entities which sponsor or participate in activities at schools, such as the Cleveland Initiative for Education, the ICARE program, and The Cleveland Commission on Higher Education. These partnerships often sponsor such events as career days, proficiency activities, and field trips. Such partnerships have also provided additional assistance to the District in implementing Court orders. (Vol.I, 116, 118-121). 2. The State Defendants and District work with The Cleveland Initiative for Education to coordinate cooperative educational ventures with District schools and the local business community. (Vol.I, 119-120). 3. ICARE, a cultural program funded by local foundations, provides an on-site coordinator at the District and coordinates school partnerships with cultural institutions. (Vol.I, 121). 4. The Cleveland Commission on Higher Education, a commission comprised of local colleges and universities, coordinates school partnerships with local colleges and universities. (Vol.I, 121). 5. Defendants encourage schools to establish and maintain cooperative educational ventures and Defendants monitor the activities in which universities, businesses and cultural institutions participate with local schools. (Vol.I, 128). 6. Dr. Christine Rossell is an expert in the area of educational policy research methods, policy analysis, school desegregation plans and magnet schools. Dr. Rossell has conducted school desegregation research for 25 years and has studied over 600 school districts subject to desegregation orders. Dr. Rossell noted that although other districts have implemented such programs, Cleveland is the only District she has ever encountered that is actually subject to specific remedial obligations in the area of cooperation with universities, businesses and cultural institutions. (Vol.IV, 725, 742). 7. Dr, Rossell observed District schools and reviewed data regarding the Defendants’ cooperative educational ventures. (Vol.IV, 724-25) 8. Defendants’ cooperative educational ventures and partnership activities are delineated in Defendants’ Exhibits 25 through 30. 9. Since the 1995-1996 school year, all schools have participated in cooperative educational ventures with universities, businesses or cultural institutions. (Vol.I, 129). 10. Sixty percent of District schools have partnerships with cultural institutions. (Vol. IV, 731). 11. Ninety-five percent of all schools within the District have partnerships with universities, businesses or cultural institutions. (Defs.’ Ex. 348, Figure 1). 12. Ninety six percent of the students enrolled in schools within the District (65,311 students) benefit from partnership activities. (Vol.IV, 733). 13. No racial pattern exists with regard to schools with partnerships or without partnerships. (Vol.IV, 731-32)(Defs Ex. 348, Figure 2). 14. Dr. Rossell concluded that the community supports these activities. (Vol.IV, 734). 15. Defendants have provided documentation to OSMCU and Plaintiffs regarding the Defendants’ efforts to develop, implement, monitor and maintain cooperative educational ventures. (Vol.I, 130)(Defs.’ Ex. 22-23). 16. Dr. Rossell ultimately concluded that she “has not seen a more impressive [University, Business and Cultural] partnership program, more involvement in collaborative relationships with universities, business, and cultural institutions, or more documentation of that involvement. Such a program shows the Defendants’ good faith compliance with the Remedial Orders and the 1994 Consent Decree.” (Defs.’ Ex. 348, at 7). 17. Prior to August 1995, Bert Holt was employed by the District. However, Ms. Holt has not been employed by the District since 1995 and testified that she has no personal knowledge of or responsibility for the Defendants’ cooperative educational ventures or their present efforts to comply with the outstanding remedial orders. (Vol.XIV, 2867-69). 18. Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Robert Green was offered as an expert in all areas of remedial compliance. Dr. Green has served as an expert in this case since 1974 and submitted an expert report for this hearing which was admitted into evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit H. This expert report, however, contains no data or any specific references to research or scholarly materials to substantiate his assertions. Dr. Green also failed to submit any form of a rebuttal report. (VoLXVII, 3300-07). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. The remedial obligations which remain in the area of Cooperation with Universities, Businesses and Cultural Institutions consist of the following: a) Develop and implement a plan of cooperative education drawing on the resources of area universities, businesses, and cultural institutions... (Order, 10/16/78); b) The School District shall be responsible to initiate and maintain working relationships with universities, businesses and cultural institutions, as well as with other private sector and non-profit entities, consistent with the Remedial Order. (Order, 4/24/81); c) The District’s plans, actions, cooperative agreements and results shall be documented. (Order 4/24/81). 2. The Court concluded on May 8, 1996 that the Defendants implemented “an effective program of cooperation with universities, and businesses and cultural institutions.” Reed v. Rhodes, 934 F.Supp. 1533, 1552 (N.D.Ohio 1996) (Krupansky, J.)( 3. Plaintiffs stipulated that it “would be easiest to reach agreement on or stipulate to compliance as defined in Section 15 of the Consent Decree with respect to [several components including,] Cooperation with Universities and Businesses.” (Joint Report on Negotiations Relative to the Status of Remedial Compliance, 4. Plaintiffs also stipulated that “Defendants have performed some of their remedial and Consent Decree obligations by establishing cooperative relationships with universities and businesses as they contend.” (.Plaintiffs’ Analysis of Defendants’ Remedial Compliance, 7/28/97). 5. Defendants have developed, implemented and continue to maintain cooperative educational ventures with local universities, businesses and cultural institutions, as well as with private sector and non-profit entities. 6. Defendants have documented these actions and have provided such information to Plaintiffs and OSMCR on a regular basis. 7. The Defendants have continued to comply in good faith with the extant remedial obligations and provisions of the Consent Decree related to Cooperation with Universities, Businesses and Cultural Institutions. 8. Plaintiffs have not asserted that Defendants have failed to comply with any of the aforementioned remedial obligations related to Cooperation with Universities, Businesses and Cultural Institutions. Rather, Plaintiffs only express concerns as related to the following aspects: (1) the number of students involved is unknown; (2) the perceptions of the parties involved are unclear; (3) not all schools have partnerships; and (4) the partnerships have not increased academic performance or eliminated segregation. 9. Plaintiffs have failed to cite any remedial order that would govern such allegations. (State Defendants and Cleveland City School District’s Motion to Narrow the Issues to be Decided at the Unitary Status Hearing, Attach. A). 10. Plaintiffs’ allegations of non-compliance are without merit as no remedial order places any obligation on Defendants as to these matters. 11. Plaintiffs and Defendant Cleveland Board of Education conclude that “[t]he record has established and Plaintiffs acknowledge that Defendants have made some progress with respect to their remedial obligations concerning ... Cooperation with Universities, Businesses and Cultural Institutions.” Furthermore, Plaintiffs and Defendant Cleveland Board of Education recommended that this Court vacate Defendants’ remedial obligations related to Cooperation with Universities, Businesses and Cultural Institutions. (Plaintiffs and Defendant Cleveland Board of Education’s Substitute Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 1/20/98, at 63). 12. Dr. Green’s expert report is of suspect weight to this Court’s analysis due to the report’s lack of data and support. MAGNET SCHOOLS AND PROGRAMS FINDINGS OF FACT: 19. Defendants’ magnet school program currently serves over 15,000 students and includes 36 different programs. Program offerings include arts and science, law and public policy and thematic programs. (Vol.I, 146-47). 20. Defendants distribute magnet school program materials to all parents which include descriptions of the particular magnet school programs, locations and any admission criteria. This information is also included in a document entitled Guide to Schools and Programs of Choice, which is also provided to parents and Plaintiffs. (Vol.I, 163)(Defs’ Ex. 41, 52). 21. Defendants sponsor an annual Magnet School of Choice Night and other events to promote their magnet school programs and to inform the community of the magnet school offerings. (Vol.I, 154-55)(Defs’ Ex. 51). 22. Plaintiffs have participated in the development of the magnet programs, in decisions to discontinue certain magnet school programs, and in decisions regarding the addition, expansion, or relocation of magnet programs. (Vol.I, 148-49). 23. Defendants’ magnet school programs have received state and federal grants and national awards. Over the last nine years, Defendants have received over $12 million in federal grants for magnet school programs. (Vol.I, 178-79)(Defs' Ex. 68). 24. Magnet school programs are located throughout the District to ensure that all students have equal access. After examining the locations of the magnet school programs, Dr. Rossell concluded that students on the East side and West side of the City have equal access to the magnet schools. (Vol. I, 154; Vol. Ill, 672-73)(Defs’ Ex. 344, Fig. 8). 25. Focused Recruitment is a form of recruitment used by the District to attempt to secure students of a certain race necessary to maintain a certain racial percentage in a school to roughly reflect the overall racial composition of the district. (Vol.I, 151-52)(Defs’ Ex. 62-63). 26. Defendants have attempted to recruit students who reside outside of the Cleveland City School District to magnet school programs by advertising the magnet program offerings throughout Cuyahoga County. (Vol.I, 154). 27. Magnet schools are given the same resources and evaluated in the same manner as are non-magnet schools. Funding is allocated based upon enrollment. (Vol.I, 185-86). 28. Defendants have provided documentation of their magnet school programs to Plaintiffs and OSMCR both at compliance meetings and upon request. The documentation provided at compliance meetings is included as Defendants’ Exhibits 41, 44, 45 and 46. (Vol.I, 158-59). 29. Plaintiffs have not challenged the accuracy of any data provided by Defendants with respect to magnet schools and programs. (Vol.I, 175). 30. Plaintiffs advised Defendants that they had complied with the remedial obligations regarding magnet schools and programs. (Vol.I, 175-76). 31. Magnet schools participate in cooperative educational ventures with local universities, businesses and cultural institutions. (Vol.I, 157). 32. The study of magnet schools is one of Dr. Christine Rossell’s areas of expertise. Dr. Rossell has served as a court appointed expert in three desegregation cases and is not aware of any individual who has conducted more research on magnet schools than herself. (Vol.III, 628-30, 638). 33. In September of 1997, Dr. Rossell visited 21 magnet schools and interviewed the Superintendent, building principals, program administrators and teachers. (Vol.III, 641^2). 34. Dr. Rossell concluded that the Defendants have complied with the remedial obligations related to magnet and vocational schools. (Vol.III, 641). 35. Dr. Rossell concluded that the District has one of the best magnet school programs in the United States: the District’s magnet schools are professionally staffed and designed; the District has more dedicated magnet schools, which are the superi- or form of magnet schools, than any other school district in the United States; and the District has a higher percentage of students enrolled in magnet schools and programs than any other district that has been declared unitary. Only two other school districts in the United States have higher quality magnets and have more resources committed to them, and those districts use magnets as special enrichment centers. (Vol. Ill, 660, 662; Vol. IV, 690, 720-21). 36. Dr. Rossell examined the racial composition of the District’s magnet schools and programs and concluded that they have maintained a high level of racial balance even after the Court declared pupil assignments unitary in 1996. (Vol.III, 675-79). 37. Magnet schools and programs have attracted students to “opposite race neighborhoods.” An opposite race neighborhood is a neighborhood that is above or below the percentage of minority students in the District. (Vol.IV, 715-16). 38. No orders in this case identify elements necessary to have a successful magnet program, and, therefore, it is helpful to view criteria used by other districts that have been declared unitary to examine what was achieved and what other courts have considered reasonable. (Vol.3, 668). 39. Dr. Rossell concludes that magnet schools are highly effective desegregation tools as evidenced by the continued desegregation in the Cleveland City Schools after the Court’s declaration of unitary status as to pupil assignments; even in 1996, the Cleveland School District was more racially balanced than either Mobile or Dallas at the time they were declared unitary. (Vol.III, 650-51)(Defs.’ Ex. 344, Fig. 2). 40. The unitary decision regarding pupil assignments was a reasonable decision because compared to other school districts declared unitary, the Cleveland City School District was one of the more racially integrated districts among minority school districts. (Vol.III, 657-58). 41. Even though no actual racial balance standard exists for magnet schools in Cleveland, the District has complied with the common standard used throughout the United States of +/- 20 percentage points of the percentage of black students enrolled in the District; for the 1996-97 school year, ninety-two percent of the District’s magnet programs were racially balanced at +/-20 percentage points. (Vol.III, 680-82)(Defs’ Ex. 344, App. 2). 42. In 1996, the District had a higher percentage of black students in magnet schools than the Savannah and Dallas school districts, which were declared unitary in 1993 and 1994, respectively. (Vol.III, 665)(Defs’ Ex. 344, Fig. 6). 43. Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Robert Green, offered no data to contradict Dr. Rossell’s conclusion regarding racial diversity in magnet schools. (Vol.XVII, 3320). 44. Dr. Rossell also examined the academic achievement of students who attend magnet schools and concluded that students who attend magnet schools have higher achievement than those in non-magnet schools. (Vol.IV, 695). 45. Students enrolled in magnet schools or programs achieve higher on the mathematics and reading components of the California Achievement Test (“CAT Test”) and pass the Ohio Proficiency Tests at a higher level than students enrolled in non-magnet schools or programs. (Vol.IV, 697-98). 46. Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Green, offered no data to contradict Dr. Rossell’s conclusion regarding higher academic achievement in magnet schools. (Vol.XVII, 3320). 47. Dr. Rossell also examined community and parent support for magnet schools. Over 3,000 students are on the waiting lists to enter the magnet schools and programs. A majority of parents of African-American and other students believe magnet schools are superior to non-magnet schools. Ninety-five percent of parents of African-American and other students would continue their child in magnet schools. Ninety percent of parents of African-American and other students believe magnet schools meet their expectations. (Vol 1,179-80; Vol. IV, 710-11). 48. Dr. Rossell concluded that Defendants have complied with the remedial obligations related to magnet schools and programs, and that the Defendants have exhibited a good faith commitment to their constitutional obligations related to magnet schools and programs. (Vol.IV, 721-22). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 13. The outstanding remedial obligations in the area of Magnet and Vocational Schools and Programs consist of the following: a) Such [magnet] schools and programs shall be so located as to ensure that alternatives to regular assignments be roughly equal from cluster to cluster in terms of number of alternatives, their diversity and attractiveness; shall be open to students on an equal and fair basis; and shall have admission or placement criteria that are written, nondiscriminatory, program-related (unless operated on an open admissions basis, in which case the criteria shall so state), and available to the public... Admission or placement results shall be documented. (Order, 4/24/81); b) Such [magnet] schools and programs, on a space-available basis, shall be offered to neighboring school districts. Efforts to interest neighboring districts and their results shall be documented. (Order, 4/24/81); c) Such [magnet] schools and programs shall be open on a reasonable basis to students with special needs. Plans for such schools and programs shall so demonstrate. (Order, 4/24/81); d) Such [magnet] schools and programs shall be provided resources (fiscal, equipment, space, materials, and staff) that are comparable to (i.e., do not appreciably exceed) the resources of regular schools at the same grade level for programs and services in the core curriculum (i.e., subject-matter areas normally required or offered in all District schools of a particular grade level). Plans for magnet and vocational schools and programs shall so demonstrate. (Order, 4/24/81); e) Such [magnet] schools and programs shall be planned, developed and operated with maximum feasible participation by parents, community representatives, and private-sector entities, since the voluntary-assignment and special-curriculum characteristics of such schools and programs make them especially suited to intensive, long-term, mutually beneficial relationships between schools and parents, schools and community, and schools and private-sector entities. No preference shall, however, be given to magnet and vocational schools and programs in the development and use of such resources. The initiation and fostering of such participation and involvement shall be the responsibility of the School District, and shall be documented. (Order, 4/24/81); f) Such [magnet] schools and programs shall be subject to evaluation, review, modification and termination as are other schools and programs in the District. The results of such procedures shall be available to the Court. (Order, 4/24/81); g) The District will consult Plaintiffs on the continued siting and projected funding of all existing, or enhanced, or new magnet schools, magnet programs, and community model schools. (Order, 5/25/94, § 11.5). 14. The Court found on May 8, 1996 that by introducing and implementing an effective magnet school program the Defendants have substantially complied to the extent practicable with this component. Reed v. Rhodes, 934 F.Supp. at 1552. 15. Magnet schools are located throughout the District and are offered on a fair and equal basis to all students. Magnet schools have written, nondiscriminatory admission and placement criteria, which is available to the public. 16. Defendants offer magnet school placements to neighboring school districts. 17. Defendants offer magnet schools and programs to students with special needs. 18. Magnet schools receive comparable resources to those of non-magnet schools and are subject to similar evaluation, review, modification and termination. 19. Magnet schools are developed and implemented with parent and community participation. 20. Defendants have consulted Plaintiffs on the continued siting, funding, and closings of magnet schools and programs. 21. The Defendants, in good faith, have continued to comply with the extant remedial obligations related to Magnet Schools to the extent practicable. 22. Plaintiffs stipulated that it “would be easiest to reach agreement on or stipulate to compliance as defined in Section 15 of the Consent Decree with respect to [several components including,] Magnet and Vocational Schools.” (Joint Report on Negotiations Relative to the Status of Remedial Compliance, 7/24/97). Plaintiffs also stipulated that “Defendants have performed some of their remedial and Consent Decree obligations relative to Magnet and Vocational Schools/Programs as they contend.” (Plaintiffs’ Analysis of Defendants’ Remedial Compliance, 7/28/97, at 2). 23. Plaintiffs have alleged noncomplianee with regard to the following: (1) students enrolled in magnet school programs are not diverse; (2) students in magnet schools do not perform better than students enrolled in non-magnet programs; and (3) the program has failed to generate community confidence and failed to generate offerings based on need. 24. Plaintiffs’ allegations of noneompliance are without merit as no such specific requirements exist. Nevertheless, the District’s magnet schools and programs are diverse, more academically successful than non-magnet schools, and regarded favorably by the community. 25. Plaintiffs and Defendant Cleveland Board of Education concluded that “[t]he record has established and Plaintiffs acknowledge that Defendants have made some progress with respect to their remedial obligations concerning ... Magnet Schools and Programs.” Furthermore, Plaintiffs and Defendant Cleveland Board of Education recommended that this Court vacate Defendants’ remedial obligations related to Magnet Schools and Programs. (Plaintiffs and Defendant Cleveland Board of Education’s Substitute Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 1/20/98, at 61, 63). EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES FINDINGS OF FACT: 49. Board Policy 6184 enumerates the Defendants’ policy and plan for extracurricular activities. Board Policy 6184a requires that all school-sponsored extracurricular activities be conducted in a nondiscriminatory manner and equally accessible to every student. (Vol.1,186-88)(Defs’ Ex. 74). 50. Extracurricular activities are offered at all grade levels. (Vol.I, 187). 51. Since the 1995-1996 school year, Defendants have monitored and documented any one-race activities, that is extracurricular activities whose participants are all of the same race. A monthly report is produced which includes all one-race activities. If a one-race activity exists, Defendants take corrective action, such as focused recruitment, to encourage students of other races to participate in activities. Coaches and sponsors of extracurricular activities receive training regarding corrective action. Defendants acknowledge that a predominantly one-race school may constitute a valid reason for a one-race activity. (Vol.I, 188-91). 52. Plaintiffs approved Defendants’ decision to reduce the number of extracurricular activities during the 1995-1996 school year to one sport per season per student, for financial reasons. (Vol.I, 204-05). 53. As a result of additional revenues the District received from a City parking tax, the number of extracurricular activities offered during the 1996-1997 school year was increased. (Vol.I, 205)(Defs.’ Ex. 73). 54. As a result of the operating levy that passed in November 1996, the number of extracurricular activities offered during the 1997-1998 school year was further increased. (Vol.I, 205)(Defs.’ Ex. 75). 55. Defendants provided documentation to Plaintiffs and OSMCR regarding compliance efforts with the extracurricular activity remedial obligations at compliance meetings and upon request.(Vol.I, 188, 191-92)(Defs.’ Ex. 71, 72, 74). 56. Plaintiffs have not challenged the accuracy of any data provided by Defendants with respect to extracurricular’ activities. (Vol.I, 202). 57. Plaintiffs have not advised Defendants of any matters which would indicate possible noncompliance in the area of extracurricular activities. (Vol.I, 202-204). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 26. The outstanding remedial obligations in the area of Extracurricular Activities consist of the following: a) Defendants shall establish a nondiscriminatory plan and written policy for extracurricular activities. (Order 10/16/78); b) Defendants shall establish clear guidelines delineating methods of focused recruitment, define and report “one race” activities, and provide guidance to principals in their enforcement or monitoring of the plan. (Order, 2/11/81); c) Defendants shall report corrective actions and focused recruitment directed at one-race activities. (Order, 2/11/81); d) Defendants shall develop an “internal assessment mechanism” to identify problems and implement and correct action with respect to the District’s extracurricular activities. (Order, 4/24/81); e) Defendants shall adopt monitoring devices and training to make every attempt to assure that student participation in extracurricular activities “more or less reflects the racial composition of the school insofar as practical.” (Order, 2/11/81). 27. The Court found on May 8, 1996 that the Defendants had implemented “an effective program encouraging and implementing non-discriminatory extracurricular activities.” Reed v. Rhodes, 934 F.Supp. at 1552. 28. Plaintiffs and the Board have not asserted a failure to comply with any of the aforementioned obligations. Rather, Plaintiffs and the Board only allege that Defendants have sacrificed extracurricular activities purportedly because of financial constraints. 29. Plaintiffs have not cited any remedial order in support of such an obligation as no remedial obligation relating to extracurricular activities prohibits the Defendants from limiting extracurricular activities when sufficient funding does not exist. Defendants’ Exhibit 71 refers to such reductions and Plaintiffs failed to raise any such concerns to the Court prior to the hearing. 30. Defendants have continued to comply with the remedial obligations related to the Extracurricular Activities component. 31. Defendants have implemented a nondiscriminatory, written policy for extracurricular activities. 32. Defendants monitor and report one-race activities and have implemented corrective action, when necessary, to assure that student participation reflects the racial composition of the school, to the extent practical. 33. Plaintiffs stipulated that “it would be easiest to reach agreement on or stipulate to compliance as defined in Section 15 of the Consent Decree with respect to [several components including,] Extracurricular Activities.” (Joint Report on Negotiations Relative to the Status of Remedial Compliance, 7/24/97). 34. Plaintiffs and Defendant Cleveland Board of Education concluded that “[t]he record has established and Plaintiffs acknowledge that Defendants have made some progress with respect to their remedial obligations concerning ... Extracurricular Activities.” Furthermore, Plaintiffs and Defendant Cleveland Board of Education recommended that this Court vacate Defendants’ remedial obligations related to Extracurricular Activities. (Plaintiffs and Defendant Cleveland Board of Education’s Substitute Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 1/20/98, at 61, 63). STAFF DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS OF FACT: 58.Dr. Richard Boyd, Deputy State Superintendent for the Cleveland Public Schools was not aware of any comprehensive staff development plan in April of 1995 when he began working as Deputy State Superintendent for the District but was aware of a number of staff development programs that were being administered. (Vbl.XIII, 2574). 59. Since 1995, the Defendants have developed and implemented a Staff Development plan and offered staff development activities to District personnel. Defendants’ staff development activities are ongoing and permanent. (Vol.VI, 1423)(Defs.’Ex.l83). 60. In June 1997, the Defendants implemented a new staff development plan, entitled A Plan for Comprehensive Employee Development in the Cleveland Public School District, (the “Staff Development Plan”) which has been developed in accordance with accepted processes and clearly addresses the Defendants’ remedial obligations. The Plan was admitted as Defendants’ Exhibit 183. (Vol.VI, 1419). 61. During the period from 1993 until 1997, Defendants offered 33,000 hours of staff development training to District personnel. Of the total hours offered, 609 hours were targeted toward Airi-Centric and Mul-ti-Cultural infusion. (Vol.XV, 2958)(Defs.’ Ex. 346, T.6). 62. During the 1995-1996 school year, Defendants spent approximately $3,900,000 on staff development activities. (Vol.XV, 2958). 63. During the 1996-1997 school year, Defendants spent approximately $5,000,000 on staff development. (Vol.XV, 2958). 64. The Staff Development Plan includes goals, performance objectives and the District’s mission statement and incorporates the Remedial Orders and Vision 21. (Vol.VI, 1426-27,1430,1433). 65. The District conducts needs assessments for the Staff Development program and provides staff training based on documented needs. The District also offers training on cultural diversity, preventing discriminatory practices, and Defendants’ desegregation-related obligations. (Vol.VI, 1435-1439,1444). 66. Training is also provided to non-teaching staff to ensure that all individuals who work for the District contribute to the effective education of the students. (Vol.VI, 1439). 67. Staff development activities are offered on a non-discriminatory basis. (Vol.VI, 1440). 68. Defendants also provide additional staff development training for' those personnel at “bottom quartile schools.” (Vol.VI, 1440-41). 69. The Staff Development Plan encourages enhanced use of technology. (Vol.VI, 1438). 70. Dr. Livesteen Carter and James Penning are responsible for implementing the Staff Development Plan. ( Vol. VI, 1449). 71. Since 1995, the Defendants have identified Indicators of: Effectiveness for their staff development activities and the Plan incorporates these Indicators. (Vol.VI, 1456). 72. Defendants document all staff development activities through the use, of quarterly reports. (VoLVI, 1422-1423). 73. Dr. Achilles is an expert in the area of staff development and prepared an expert report which was admitted as Defendants’ Exhibit 341. (VoLXV, 2915). 74. Based on scholarship and literature regarding staff development, Dr. Achilles identified characteristics of an effective staff development plan. Dr.- Achilles compared the Staff Development Plan to these characteristics and concluded that the Plan includes these characteristics. (Vol.XV, '2956-57)(Defs.’ Ex. 346, T.3-4). 75. Plaintiffs’ experts, Drs. Green and Trent, did not conduct any similar analysis of the Staff Development Plan. 76. Dr. Achilles concluded that: the District has developed a professional development -plan which satisfies the criteria of a good plan; the Plan addresses the remedial requirements of Reed v. Rhodes; and, the Plan should be effective. (Vol.XV, 2959, 3007). '77. Although previously employed by the District, Ms. Ruth Dent-Lyles has not been employed by the District since 1994 and is not familiar with Defendants’ current staff development compliance efforts. (Vol.XVIII, 3550). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 35. The remedial obligations which remain in the area of Staff Development consist of the following: a) The required ‘staff development’ ... shall consist of identifiable elements, including but not limited to goals, performance objectives, instructional programming and/or services, assessment, staff training, parent involvement, and clear lines of responsibility and accountability. Such elements shall be verified in the plan for and in the operation of these programs. (Final Standard VIII.A; Order 4/24/81); b) The School District shall provide appropriate training to staff ... consistent with identified needs. Such training shall be documented. (Final Standard VIII.B; Order, 4/24/81); e) The District shall identify indicators of effective training for [staff] and use such indicators to measure the District’s program. (Final Standard VIII.C; Order, 4/24/81); d) The required program as a whole shall have documented results. (Final Standard VTII.D; Order, 4/24/81); e) Staff development and student training in human relations shall be an ongoing and permanent program within the District. (Final Standard VIII.E; Order, 4/24/81). 36. On May 8, 1996, the Court concluded that the Defendants had complied to the extent practicable with their remedial obligations related to Staff Development by introducing and implementing student training and staff development programs. Reed v. Rhodes, 934 F.Supp. at 1552. 37. The Defendants have continued to comply with the remedial obligations related to Staff Development. 38. The Defendants have created and implemented a new, comprehensive staff development plan and currently have a permanent program in place. 39. The Staff Development Plan meets the criteria established for effective staff development plans and includes goals, performance objectives, assessment mechanisms, staff training, parent involvement and accountability. The training provided is based on needs. 40. Plaintiffs acknowledged “that there has been some compliance in the area of staff development relative to certificated staff.” (Plaintiffs’ Analysis of Defendants’ Remedial Compliance, 7/28/97). 41. Plaintiffs allege noneompliance with respect to Staff Development based upon the inability of the Parties to measure the effectiveness of the new Staff Development Plan which was implemented at the beginning of the 1997-1998 school year. (Plaintiffs’ Brief in Opposition, at 15). 42. Relying upon credible expert testimony, the Plan meets the standards for effective staff development plans. STUDENT RIGHTS FINDINGS OF FACT: 78. Since the 1995-1996 school year, the Defendants have annually developed and implemented a code of student conduct, which is entitled Student Handbook: Rights and Responsibilities (“Student Handbook”). (Vol.V, 893-94, 897). 79. District policies require non-diserimi-natory implementation of the Student Handbook. (Vol.V, 909). 80. Defendants print and distribute the Student Handbook in English and Spanish as Spanish-speaking students comprise eight percent of the student body. Students and parents who do not speak English or Spanish receive special tutoring at bilingual education sites to ensure that they receive instruction on the Student Handbook. (Vol. V, 898-99; 905-06). 81. Defendants annually assemble a Student Handbook Adoption Committee, which eonsists of parents, students, teachers, Cleveland Teachers’ Union representatives, District administrators, and community experts, to review the content of the Student Handbook to protect against arbitrary or discriminatory discipline practices. (Vol.V, 894-895). 82. The Student Handbook Adoption Committee provides recommendations which are forwarded to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction for his review, input and final approval. The recommendations are then forwarded to Plaintiffs and OSMCR for further review, input, and approval. After this review and approval process is completed, the Student Handbook is then filed with the Court. (Vol.V, 896). 83. Defendants annually distribute the Student Handbook to all students and provide training regarding the Student Handbook. (Vol.V, 898-99, 903-05). 84. Defendants distribute the Student Handbook to all District personnel, including teachers, classified personnel, building administrators and Central Office staff and provide training regarding the Student Handbook and implementation of its policies and procedures. (Vol.V, 898-902, 907-08, 924-26)(Def.’s Ex. 196). 85. Defendants distribute a summary-form of the Student Handbook to parents through the annual school calendar, which is mailed to each home at the beginning of the school year. All schools offer training to parents regarding the Student Handbook on an annual basis. (Vol.V, 902-03)(Defs.’ Ex. 213). 86. Defendants maintain detailed records regarding disciplinary actions, including suspensions and expulsions, by race and school. (Vol.V, 910, 913-17). 87. Defendants monitor such records for purposes of Safety and Security, and for purposes of ensuring equitable application of the Handbook, particularly with regard to possible disproportionate representation of African-American students in suspensions and expulsions and any corresponding corrective actions taken. ( Vol. V, 911-914; 916-17). 88. Defendants have established and follow clear lines of responsibility and accountability for achieving the remedial obligations related to the Student Rights component. (Vol.V, 917). 89. Defendants provided documentation to Plaintiffs and OSMCR upon request or at compliance meetings regarding remedial obligation efforts concerning the student rights component. The documentation provided to Plaintiffs and OSMCR is included as Defendants’ Exhibits 196-200. (Vol. II, 298-94; Vol. V, 919, 924). 90. Dr. Charles Achilles is an expert in the area of student rights. (Vol.XV, 2915). 91. Dr. Achilles reviewed and analyzed the Student Handbook, suspension and expulsion rates, and data from the State Department of Education comparing Cleveland with other school districts to determine whether Defendants discipline students on a non-discriminatory basis. Dr. Achilles prepared an expert report of his analysis that was admitted as Defendants’ Exhibit 341. (VoLXV, 2917-19). 92. Dr. Achilles reviewed extensive literature regarding codes of student conduct and found that effective codes of student conduct share the following characteristics: (1) fair and equitable; (2) explicit and precise; (3) goal-oriented; (4) constructive; (5) readable; (6) reviewed periodically; (7) cooperatively planned; and (8) informative of due process. (VoLXV, 2922)(Defs.’ Ex. 341, at 11). 93. After analyzing the Student Handbook and comparing its contents with the recognized attributes of effective codes, Dr. Achilles concluded the following: a. The Student Handbook is fair and equitable; it is non-discriminatory in content and makes no distinctions based upon race. (VoLXV, 2923); b. The Student Handbook is explicit and precise; it is well-organized and contains a comprehensive list of misbehav-iors and accompanying corrective actions. (VoLXV, 2923); c. The Student Handbook is goal oriented; it includes an explanation of desegregation, Vision 21 and the District’s policy of maintaining a school environment free of discrimination. (VoLXV, 2923-24); d. The Student Handbook is constructive; it delineates a hierarchy of corrective actions to address misbehaviors of varying severity. (Vol.XV, 2924); e. The Student Handbook is readable, although it is very difficult to understand. It is very similar, however, to codes of conduct used by other school districts where the codes are designed to be very specific. (VoLXV, 2925); f. Defendants take affirmative steps to help ensure that all students receive and understand the Student Handbook. (VoLXV, 2924-25); g. The Student Handbook is reviewed periodically through a process involving the District, Plaintiffs, and OSMCR. (VoLXV, 2925); h. The Student Handbook is cooperatively planned through the use of committees which include students, teachers, community representatives, and other educators in the planning process. (VoLXV, 2926); i. The Student Handbook delineates a due process procedure throughout. (VoLXV, 2926). 94. The Student Handbook delineates four categories or classes of misbe-haviors: Class I, II, III and IV. (Vol. XV, 2934)(Defs.’ Ex. 226, 227). 95. Class I offenses are the least serious offenses. Class IV offenses are the most serious offenses. (Defs.’ Ex. 226, 227, 341). 96. Only the building principal may suspend a student. The principal’s discretion to suspend or not to suspend decreases as the severity of the misbehavior increases. (VoLXV, 2938) (Defs.’ Ex. 226, 341). 97. Dr. Achilles analyzed suspensions and expulsions issued by the District to determine if disciplinary actions are issued in a non-discriminatory manner. Dr. Achilles specifically evaluated Plaintiffs’ allegation that African-American students are discriminated against in the application of student discipline in the District because as a numerical matter, the percentage of African-American students who are suspended is higher than the percentage of African-American students enrolled in the District. (Defs. Ex. 341, at 1). 98. Dr. Achilles analyzed suspensions and expulsions by a number of variables including race of student and administrator, gender, class of misbehavior, and grade point average. Dr. Achilles also compared District suspension/expulsion rates and indices to other city, state and national data. Plaintiffs’ experts, Drs. Green and Trent, did not perform any analysis similar to that performed by Dr. Achilles. Dr. Green provided no data to support his conclusions. (Vol.XV, 2951)(Defs.’ Ex. 341, 346). 99. Based upon his analysis, Dr. Achilles concluded the following: a. Seven percent of the students enrolled in the District received 73% of suspensions issued by the District. (Vol.XV, 2933); b. No variable (race, gender) produces a 1.0 ratio. There is a greater dispro-portionality by gender than by race. (Vol. XV, 2932-34); e.With respect to Class I offenses (least serious misbehavior, greatest principal discretion), the number of suspensions received by African-American students was proportionate to the number of African-American students enrolled in the District. During the last six years, African-American students accounted for 70% of the total student population and on average received 69.5% of the suspensions for Class I misbehaviors. (Vol.XV, 2935-37); d. Every year, since 1993, “disproportion-ality” increases as the severity of the offenses increase and administrator discretion decreases. State law requires administrators to expel or suspend a student for certain serious offenses. (Vol.XV, 2937-39); e. The District consistently has one of the lowest suspension rates among the large Ohio urban school districts. (VoLXV, 2947); f. The national suspension index is higher than the District’s index. The average rate at which school districts across the nation suspend African-American students is 2.0, or twice their representation in the population. The District’s index is 1.04. (Vol.XV, 2948); g. As a result of the remedial obligations related to Staff Desegregation, most schools within the District have biracial administrative teams. Assistant principals are usually responsible for student discipline within a particular building while it is generally the responsibility of the principals to make suspension determinations. (Vol.XV, 2949). 100. Dr. Achilles concluded that any difference in suspension or expulsion rates when compared to the number of African-American students enrolled in the District is not a result of racial discrimination or a vestige of the prior discriminatory school system. (Vol.XV, 2952). 101. Dr. Achilles ultimately concluded that Defendants have met their remedial obligations related to Student Rights through the development and use of an explicit nondiscriminatory code of student conduct that is administered fairly and exceeds the standards for such codes. (Vol.XV, 2927)(Defs.’ Ex. 341, at 2). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 43. The outstanding remedial obligations remaining in the area of Student Rights consist of the following: a) [T]he Cleveland Board must adopt and disseminate a Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities, and Discipline, together with a list of policies and procedures for standardized systemwide implementation in a manner which will protect the rights of students against arbitrary or discriminatory exclusions, suspensions, or expulsions. (Order, 2/6/78); b) The required Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities and Discipline (Remedial Order, pp. 81-83) shall be disseminated and explained to students on a periodic basis. The Code shall be prepared in as many languages as the District deems necessary for clear understanding by students whose native language is other than English. (Order, 4/24/81); c) In addition, the Board shall incorporate into the Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities and Discipline criteria and procedures for assigning students to programs that serve' as alternatives to suspensions or ‘adjusted transfers.’ (Order, 8/25/82); d) The required ‘policies and procedures for standardized system wide implementation’ of the required Code (Remedial Order, p. 82) shall be in writing and shall be verifiable at the school level where student discipline takes place. (Order 4/24/81); e) City Defendants shall maintain detañed records regarding daily enrollment, disciplinary actions, suspensions, expulsions and dropouts, by race and by school, and shall, beginning in September, 1978, submit these statistics to the Court on a quarterly basis. (Order, 2/6/78); f) The required record-keeping (Remedial Order, pp. 82-83) shall be designed, in part, to identify problems and to initiate corrective action with regard to actual or possible discrimination in the area of Student Rights. The nature and extent of use of statistics and records on discipline actions and dropouts as indicators of needs for corrective action shall be documented. (Order, 4/24/81); g) The District’s actions in protecting ‘the rights of students against arbitrary or discriminatory exclusions, suspensions, or expulsions’ (Remedial Order, p. 82) or discrimination in other forms of discipline used by the District {e.g., corporal punishment) shall have documented results. (Order, 4/24/81); h) The School District shall provide appropriate training of its staff at all levels in the proper .administration of the required policies and procedures. (Order, 4/24/81); . i) The School District shall establish and follow clear lines of responsibility and accountability, from the headquarters level to the classroom level, for achieving the requirements of the Remedial Order regarding Student Rights. Such responsibilities and accountability shall be disseminated in writing to all staff at all levels. (Order, 4/24/81). 44. On May 8, 1996, the Court concluded that “the Plaintiffs’ factually unsupported conclusions to the contrary, escalating inner city minority student absenteeism, the dropout rate, suspension rate, expulsion rate, and low academic achievement are not attributable to the performance of the local school administration...” Reed v. Rhodes, 934 F.Supp. at 1555. 45. The Defendants have continued to comply with the remedial obligations related to Student Rights. 46. Plaintiffs stipulated that “it would be easiest to reach agreement on or stipulate to compliance as defined in Section 15 of the Consent Decree with respect to [several components including, ] Student Rights.” {Joint Report on Negotiations Relative to the Status of Remedial Compliance, 7/24/97). 47. Plaintiffs acknowledged that “Defendants have performed some of their remedial and Consent Decree obligations relative to Student Rights as they contend.” {Plaintiffs’ Analysis of Defendants’ Remedial Com