Hoots v. Pennsylvania (118 F. Supp. 2d 577, 2000)

OPINION

COHILL, Senior District Judge.

This case comes before us on motions filed by defendants Woodland Hills School District (“WHSD” or “the District”) and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, seeking a declaration of unitary status and the end of judicial supervision of the District’s schools. Plaintiffs, representing a class of children and parents in the District, oppose these motions. For the reasons set forth below, we will grant defendants’ motions in part and deny them in part, and thus commensurately curtail our oversight of the District’s schools.

Background

The underlying facts of this case have been well documented numerous times throughout the past twenty-nine years. To provide a context for our consideration of the question of unitary status, however, we will briefly summarize the relevant developments in this litigation.

During the 1960s, the Pennsylvania Legislature enacted legislation to consolidate smaller school districts in the Commonwealth’s public school system. The Commonwealth ultimately approved the creation of the General Braddock Area School District, which combined the school districts of the Boroughs of Braddock, North Braddock, and Rankin in eastern Allegheny County. These were all financially troubled districts, and they also contained the largest concentration of minority students in this portion of the county. The Commonwealth also approved the creation or preservation of several neighboring school districts which were overwhelmingly white and economically affluent, including the school districts of Turtle Creek, Swissvale Area, Churchill Area, and Edge-wood. This case was originally filed in 1971, when plaintiffs, representing a class of parents and children in the General Braddock Area School District, challenged the newly created district as racially discriminatory.

The late Judge Gerald Weber conducted a trial on plaintiffs’ claims, and determined that the creation of the General Braddock Area School District was an act of de jure discrimination, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Hoots v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Hoots II), 359 F.Supp. 807, 823 (W.D.Pa.); aff'd, 495 F.2d 1095 (3d Cir.1974); cert. denied, 419 U.S. 884, 95 S.Ct. 150, 42 L.Ed.2d 124 (1974).

This finding of liability against the then defendants Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, state Board of Education, and Allegheny County Board of School Directors, marked the beginning of the next phase of the case. Judge Weber directed the defendants to prepare a comprehensive school desegregation plan to remedy the Constitutional violations. There followed a series of proposed remedies, each of which the Court determined to be inadequate. In the spring of 1981, the plaintiff class presented a merger plan, proposing a consolidation of the General Braddock Area School District with several neighboring districts serving predominantly white populations. Following a hearing on this proposal, the Court adopted the plaintiffs’ plan and ordered the immediate merger of the General Braddock Area School District with the districts of Edgewood, Churchill, Swissvale, and Turtle Creek. Hoots VIII, 545 F.Supp. 1 (W.D.Pa.1981). The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed both the merger and the underlying finding of de jure discrimination. Hoots IX, 672 F.2d 1107 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 824, 103 S.Ct. 55, 74 L.Ed.2d 60 (1982).

What was then known as the “New District” and later became the Woodland Hills School District, began operation with the 1981 — 82 school year. The second decade of this litigation saw the gradual development and implementation of remedial student assignment and transportation plans, designed to desegregate all of the District’s schools. Judge Weber ordered an interim arrangement to desegregate the secondary schools during that first year, and directed the School Board to submit a 'plan for full desegregation of all the New District’s schools. Ultimately, the School Board proved unable to do so.

Following hearings on plans submitted by both parties, the Court adopted a comprehensive student assignment plan covering grades 1—12 for the 1982—83 school year. Hoots XIII, 539 F.Supp. 335 (W.D.Pa 1982), aff'd, Hoots XIV, 703 F.2d 772 (3d Cir.1983). At the elementary level, the assignment of students was based upon “paired” or “clustered” schools, configured as K—3 and 4—6; this arrangement successfully integrated the student populations, maintained two elementary facilities in the minority community, and required that both black and white students share the burden of transportation.

In 1987, the parties successfully negotiated a district-wide reorganization involving building utilization, grade structure, and student assignments. This configuration remains in effect at the present time, although changes from a junior high to a middle school structure are contemplated.

The pairing of schools continues, and the burden of transportation remains shared by all students. Students in the former General Braddock Area School District travel to schools in the predominately white communities for grades K through 3; then all students at those schools attend grades 4-6 in facilities located in the minority community. Students throughout the District are transported to the junior and senior high schools.

By 1987, then, the attendance plan placed all children in desegregated facilities and imposed the burden of transportation on both black and white students. However, the discriminatory effects of the constitutional violation remained evident in such areas as student activities, guidance and discipline, educational programs, including special education, and staff assignments. Thus the defendants, with much prodding by the Court, began the process of implementing programs to remedy the vestiges of discrimination. Many of these racial disparities and remedies were first articulated in a Consent Decree, which was negotiated by the parties and presented to the Court on July 12,1988.

Judge Weber passed away in August, 1989, before any agreement could be reached on a remedial plan. This case was then assigned to the undersigned. The Court appointed a Hearing Officer, Mark T. Fatla, Esquire, to conduct a hearing on the parties’ conflicting implementation plans. After six weeks of hearings, he issued a Report and Recommendation Regarding Desegregation Remedies on August 20, 1990 (“1990 R & R”). The Court then heard argument and adopted the Report and Recommendation, with three exceptions, including activities, in an unpublished Opinion and Order dated January 16,1991 (“1991 Opinion & Order”).

Recognizing that the vestiges of discrimination were embedded deep in all aspects of school life, we ordered that remedies for the constitutional violation proceed along several fronts at once. To assure that all students in the District received an equal education, we ordered a comprehensive redesign of curriculum and testing, so that the curriculum would be appropriate for heterogeneous, multicultural, detracked classrooms and that the effectiveness of this redesigned curriculum would be carefully monitored through proper assessments. We recognized, however, that merely providing an equal educational opportunity from 1991 forward would not address the existing gap between the races in academic performance. (1991 Opinion at 4.) Children who were already behind as a result of a segregated school system needed additional, help, and, to that end, we ordered the District to implement appropriate compensatory and remedial programs beginning at the elementary level.

We also acknowledged the difficulties inherent in expecting teachers who were familiar only with tracked, homogeneous classrooms, to teach in the District’s multicultural, detracked setting. Therefore, as part of the remedy we ordered the District to provide appropriate in-service training and workshops for its teachers and other staff.

To address the clear racial disparities in discipline, we ordered the District to reorganize the guidance department and to hire a number of new guidance counselors.

Our 1991 Opinion and Order included a variety of other miscellaneous remedial relief, including the hiring of certain specified personnel, although we declined to order the District to provide after-school transportation for activities. We also ordered that the cost of all court-ordered remedial programs be funded 90% by the defendant Commonwealth, as the party charged with the constitutional violation, and 10% by the District. (1991 Opinion & Order at ¶ 17; 1990 R & R at 96.)

The Court of Appeals reversed this Court’s ruling on activities, and affirmed on all other issues. Hoots XVI, Nos. 91-3316, 91-3317, 91-3319, 91-3436, 1992 WL 289174 (3d Cir. filed Sept. 21, 1992). The 1990 R & R and the 1991 Opinion and Order remain the basis of the court-ordered remedies in place today.

Implementing the appropriate remedies and measuring their effectiveness remained a point of friction between the parties. In 1995, we again appointed Mr. Fatla to act as a Special Master in this matter. In that position he has conducted a series of hearings, including a lengthy hearing in 1997 on discipline and guidance, issued several Reports and Recommendations, and held regularly scheduled status conferences to attempt to resolve ongoing remedy and budget issues. Mr. Fatla has served the Court and the parties well in this capacity.

The defendants each filed motions for a declaration that the District has achieved unitary status in October of 1999. In addition, the District filed a unitary status transition plan. A hearing on these motions commenced on April 3, 2000, and we heard closing arguments on May 16. Defendants presented the testimony of District Superintendent Dr. Stanley Herman, Dr. Christine Rossell, Dr. Stefan Biancan-iello, Dr. Jacquelyn Webb, Leah McCord, Norman Catalano, Dr. Vijai Singh, Dr. James Henderson, Dr. Charles Achilles, Dr. David Armor, Dr. Joel Reed, Dr. Ros-lynne Wilson, Chester C. Kent, Dr. Elmer Haymon, Jr., and Judge John McLean, Jr., who served as the most recent court-appointed Monitor in this action. The plaintiffs presented the testimony of Kay Brown, Dr. Olatokunbo Fashola, Dr. Jan de Leeuw, Dr. Lea Hubbard, Dr. Robert Cooper, and Dr. William Gordon. Rebuttal testimony was given by WHSD School Board President Dr. Randy Lott, and by Dr. Herman and Dr. Rossell.

The Court also asked to visit several of the District’s schools. On April 19, 2000, accompanied by Superintendent Herman and by counsel for all parties, the Court had a first-hand opportunity to visit some of the school facilities and to observe classrooms and instructional techniques. At the Court’s request plaintiffs selected the schools for the visit, and arrangements were made to tour Wilkins and Dickson elementary schools, West Junior High School, and Woodland Hills Senior High School.

Having considered all of the testimony and all of the evidence, we turn now to the question of whether the defendants have achieved unitary status by complying, in good faith, with this Court’s remedial orders.

Legal Standards

Federal judicial supervision of a local school district is intended to be a temporary measure. Board of Educ. v. Dowell, 498 U.S., 237, 247-48, 111 S.Ct. 630, 112 L.Ed.2d 715 (1991); Coalition to Save Our Children v. State Bd. of Educ., 90 F.3d 752, 761 (3d Cir.1996.) The court’s aim must be to remedy the constitutional violation, and then “to restore state and local authorities to the control of a school system that is operating in compliance with the Constitution.” Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 489, 112 S.Ct. 1430, 118 L.Ed.2d 108 (1992) (citing Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 280-81, 97 S.Ct. 2749, 53 L.Ed.2d 745 (1977)). “The duty and responsibility of a school district once segregated by law is to take all steps necessary to eliminate the vestiges of the unconstitutional de jure system.” Freeman, 503 U.S. at 485, 112 S.Ct. 1430. When a school district has done so, we say that the district is now “unitary,” because it no longer operates a dual, or segregated, system of education.

However, although achieving “unitary status” and thus relief from judicial supervision is the school district’s goal, the term itself does not have a fixed meaning, “and does not confine the discretion and authority of the District Court in a way that departs from traditional equitable principles.” Freeman, 503 U.S. at 487, 112 S.Ct. 1430 (citing Dowell, 498 U.S. at 245-46, 111 S.Ct. 630). Each school desegregation case must be evaluated on a careful assessment of its particular facts. Freeman, 503 U.S. at 474, 112 S.Ct. 1430. Equity permits a federal court “to relinquish supervision and control of school districts in incremental stages, before full compliance has been achieved in every area of school operations.” Id. at 490-491, 112 S.Ct. 1430. “A transition phase in which control is relinquished in a gradual way is an appropriate means to this end.” Id. at 490, 112 S.Ct. 1430. In addition, where vestiges of a dual system remain in some, but not all, areas under judicial supervision, the “district court will retain jurisdiction over the school system, but need not maintain constant supervision or control over factors as to which compliance has been achieved.” Id. at 507, 112 S.Ct. 1430 (Souter, J. concurring).

WHSD insists that because the original constitutional violation in this case was the Commonwealth’s decision to draw the school district boundary lines which created the General Braddoek Area School District, that “[sjince 1981, WHSD has operated as a unified system.” Defendants’ Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at ¶¶ 22, 23. We agree; unitary status, however, requires more than a racially integrated school district; the constitutional obligation has not been met until the school district affirmatively has eliminated the vestiges of segregation. Coalition, 90 F.3d at 759 (citing Green v. County School Bd., 391 U.S. 430, 435, 437-38, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 20 L.Ed.2d 716 (1968)).

In deciding a motion for unitary status, the court must determine “whether the [constitutional violator] ha[s] complied in good faith with the desegregation decree since it was entered, and whether the vestiges of past discrimination ha[ve] been eliminated to the extent practicable.” Coalition, 90 F.3d at 760 (1996) (quoting Freeman, 503 U.S. at 492, 112 S.Ct. 1430).

The Supreme Court has identified certain components of school operations that a court deciding a question of unitary status must evaluate: student building assignment, faculty and staff assignment within the school district, transportation, facilities, and extracurricular activities. Green v. County School Bd., 391 U.S. 430, 435, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 20 L.Ed.2d 716 (1968); Dowell, 498 U.S. at 250, 111 S.Ct. 630. “[CJompliance with these ‘Green Factors’ is a condition precedent to unitary status.” Coalition, 90 F.3d at 776.

Ascertaining whether the school district has complied with the Green factors, however, does not end the court’s inquiry into whether the vestiges of past discrimination have been sufficiently eliminated so that unitary status has been achieved. The court must also determine whether the school district has complied with any court-ordered ancillary remedial programs. Coalition, 90 F.3d at 760.

Once a constitutional violation has been established, the defendant “bears the burden of showing that any current imbalance is not traceable, in a proximate way, to the prior violation.” Freeman, 503 U.S. at 494, 112 S.Ct. 1430. “[T]here is a presumption that current disparities are the result of the defendant’s unconstitutional conduct.” Jenkins v. Missouri, 122 F.3d 588, 593 (8th Cir.1997). To counter that presumption, the defendants may offer proof that any current racial disparity in areas encompassed by either the Green factors or the court-ordered ancillary relief, is caused by variables outside the school district’s control and thus is not a vestige of the prior constitutional violation. “It is beyond the authority and beyond the practical ability of the federal courts to try to counteract” such forces. Freeman, 503 U.S. at 495-96, 112 S.Ct. 1430; Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 102, 115 S.Ct. 2038, 132 L.Ed.2d 63 (1995). “As the de jure violation becomes more remote in time ... it becomes less likely that a current racial imbalance in a school district is a vestige of the prior de jure system.” Freeman, 503 U.S. at 491-92, 112 S.Ct. 1430. To state the obvious, “court-ordered school desegregation alone cannot eliminate racial discrimination.” Coalition, 90 F.3d at 756.

Once a court determines that a school district has attained unitary status, the burden of proving that any future disparities are caused by intentional segregation shifts back to the plaintiffs. Jenkins v. Missouri, 122 F.3d at 593.

Applying this general legal framework to the specific facts of this case, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Green Factors

A court considering the question of unitary status must determine that the school district has complied with each of the Green factors.

Student Assignment

Findings of Fact:

Whether the students in the District’s schools are assigned to schools which have been desegregated so as not to be identifiably white or African-American is not seriously in dispute at this point in this litigation. Indeed, as early as 1990-91, we found that “each of the District’s nine school buildings reflects very closely the proportion of minority students in the community.” (1990 R & R at 6.)

As of January 27, 2000, the enrollment of African-American students in WHSD’s nine schools was as follows: Edgewood Primary School, 387 or 54.7% of 707 students; Shaffer Primary School, 253 or 57.8% of 438 students; Wilkins Primary School, 311 or 50.1% of 621 students; Dickson Intermediate School, 236 or 48.9% of 483 students; Benjamin Fairless Intermediate School, 227 or 46.8% of 485 students; Rankin Intermediate School, 208 or 56.1% of 371 students; West Junior High School, 414 or 45.1% of 918 students; East Junior High School, 274 or 45.1% of 607 students; and Woodland Hills High School, 411 or 32.0% of 1286 students. (WHSD Ex. 13-21.)

Plaintiffs agree that the District has achieved desegregated building assignments. (Pls.’ F & C at ¶ 42.) Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Gordon, acknowledged that the District had maintained desegregated building enrollments in compliance with various Orders of Court for at least the past sixteen years. (Tr. 5/8/00, at 146.)

Plaintiffs contend, however, that student assignment to individual classrooms is not always desegregated, and that certain courses have a racial imbalance in their student populations. To the extent that this premise relies on the “plus or minus 30% standard” contained in the Consent Decree, we must emphasize that we have never adopted that standard in any of the orders binding all of the parties in this case. Furthermore, the testimony of defendant’s expert, Dr. Rossell, established that the percentage of students in the District’s classrooms which are racially balanced within plus or minus 20 percentage points is extremely high. Conclusions of Law:

We determined that the facilities in the Woodland Hills School District were successfully desegregated in 1990, and the issue has not been contested since that date. We are satisfied that students throughout the District attend classes which are racially balanced to a very high degree. Accordingly, we find that the District has achieved unitary status as to this Green factor.

Faculty and Staff Assignment

Findings of Fact:

The 1990 R & R concluded that serious racial disparities remained at all levels of the District’s staff, despite the existence of a voluntary affirmative action plan. (1990 R & R at 29.) As the Hearing Officer noted, the staff of the component districts at the time of the merger included very few African-American professionals. (Id. at 27.)

Defendants’ expert Dr. Christine Rossell analyzed data regarding WHSD faculty and staff. She testified that the racial balance of the faculty and professional staff of each of the nine schools in WHSD is within plus or minus 10 percentage points of the school system’s percentage of African-American teachers. (Commw. Ex. 1005, 1014; Tr. 4/11/00 at 33, 56.) In other words, although the percentage of African-American faculty and staff varies from one school to another, across the District those percentages are within an acceptable range.

Dr. Rossell also testified regarding the support staff in the District’s schools. The support staff of WHSD’s middle schools and the high school are racially balanced at plus or minus 10 percentage points. (Commw. Ex. 1005, 1016; Tr. 4/11/00 at 59-60.) Likewise, support staff in every elementary school in WHSD is within plus or minus 15 percentage points of each school level’s support staff percentage black, and support staff at half of the elementary schools are racially balanced at plus or minus 10 percentage points. (Commw. Ex. 1005 & 1016; Tr. 4/11/00 at 35, 60.)

Dr. Webb testified that the District’s schools are not racially identifiable with respect to the distribution of staff. ( Tr. 4/13/00 at 20.) Moreover, with 31% school building administrators African-American, WHSD has a respectable percentage of African-Americans in prominent leadership positions. (Commw. Ex. 1005; Tr. 4/11/00 at 61-62.)

Afriean-Anericans also currently hold leadership positions of significant authority and responsibility in the District’s central administration, including Dr. Jacquelyn D. Webb, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum; Dr. Roslynne Wilson, Assistant Superintendent for Management; Dr. Joel Reed, Curriculum Coordinator for Science and Math; and Dr. Elmer Haymon, Director of Guidance. (WHSD Ex. 22.) However, these positions are paid for through court-ordered funds, and the District has indicated, through its transition plan, that it will eliminate these positions when the Court’s supervision ends. (Herman Tr. 4/3/00 at 135-36.)

The District’s record with respect to hiring for the positions of principal or assistant principal shows that 25% of those positions are presently filled by African-Americans. ( WHSD Ex. 22.) Four of the District’s nine schools have a total of five African-Americans in these positions, including Mary Frances Duncan, Principal of Shaffer Primary; Leah Saunders McCord, Principal of Fairless Intermediate; Dr. Deborah Vereen, Principal of East Junior High; Dr. Craig Jackson, Assistant Principal of East Junior High; and Clyde Jones, Assistant Principal of West Junior High. (WHSD Ex. 22.)

Dr. Rossell also compared the racial composition of WHSD’s faculty and staff to the composition of school districts that have been declared unitary since 1986. She concluded that WHSD is one of the school districts that has achieved nearly perfect racial balance at plus or minus 10 percentage points. (Commw. Ex. 1005, 1015; Tr. 4/11/00 at 58-59.)

Dr. Rossell’s conclusions speak to the distribution of minority staff across the school district. The statistics showing the District’s overall percentage of minority professional staff, however, are dismal. As of February 25, 2000, the percentage of African-American faculty and professional staff in WHSD was 7.7%. (WHSD Ex. 23.)

Superintendent Herman and Dr. Jacquelyn Webb, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, an African-American woman, testified about the efforts made in the District to recruit and hire African-American educators. (Tr. 4/3/00 at 156-59; Tr. 4/13/00 at 21-22.) WHSD undertakes a thorough process of advertising and recruiting to create a racially diverse pool of applicants for vacant faculty positions. (WHSD Ex. 25; Tr. 4/3/00 at 156-59.) Based on the testimony of Superintendent Herman and Dr. Webb, it is clear that WHSD’s recruitment and hiring practices are not racially discriminatory, and the District has attempted to hire more minority professionals than it has actually succeeded in hiring. (Tr. 4/3/00 at 156-59; Tr. 4/13/00 at 21-22.)

Dr. Herman explained that 44% of the teachers presently in the District are holdovers who were teaching in one of the merger school districts when Woodland Hills was created in 1981, and that very few of the teachers in the newly merged District were African-American. (WHSD Ex. 23.)

Conclusions of Law

Courts addressing unitary status with regard to faculty and staff assignments, “typically have considered faculties within plus or minus 15 percentage points of the district-wide minority composition to be racially balanced.” Recognizing the difficulty of achieving racial balance with small school faculties, “some courts have applied a standard of +20 percentage points.” Coalition, 90 F.3d at 767, n. 21; Flax v. Potts, 915 F.2d 155, 163 (5th Cir.1990); Reed v. Rhodes, 1 F.Supp.2d 705, 727 (N.D.Ohio 1998).

This Court has never set forth a target percentage of minority hires in faculty and staff positions. Certainly 7.7% is not a very impressive figure, and we would hope that the District would continue its efforts to hire minority professionals. We are persuaded by the testimony of Dr. Herman and Dr. Webb that the District has complied with our order to desegregate faculty and staff assignments throughout the District to the extent practicable, and conclude that WHSD has achieved unitary status with respect to faculty and staff.

Transportation

Findings of Fact:

Transportation has not been an issue in this case since the earliest years of the newly consolidated school district. The 1990 R & R found that “the burden of transportation is shared to some degree by all students, as white students travel to schools in or near the minority community for grades 4-6, students from the former General Braddock district travel to schools in the white communities for grades K-3, and students throughout the District are transported to the Junior and Senior High Schools.” (1990 R & R at 6.) We did not include transportation in the list of disparities still flowing from the de jure constitutional violation, nor have we ever found it, necessary to address the issue as part of our remedial authority.

The evidence adduced at the hearing on unitary status confirms that transportation affects all students in the District. The pairing or clustering of elementary schools within the District assured from the outset that all students have to travel some distance to attend schools located outside of their neighborhoods during those years. ( WHSD Ex. 5, 6; Tr. 4/3/00 at 77-81.) In addition, virtually all students are bused to the junior and senior high schools.

Plaintiffs agree that the student assignment within the District provides for an equitable sharing of the burden of transportation. (Pls.’ F & C at ¶ 43; Tr. 4/17/00, at 218).

Conclusions of Law:

A court may grant unitary status with regard- to this Green factor when transportation is provided on a non-discriminatory basis. (Coalition, 90 F.3d at 768.) There being absolutely no dispute that the burden of transportation in the District has long been equally shared by all students, we find that the defendants have achieved unitary status on this issue and that no further Court oversight is needed.

Facilities

Findings of Fact:

None of the District’s nine institutional buildings is racially identifiable in its student population, and regardless of whether a school is located in an historically white or historically black community, the schools reflect no disparity in the quality of physical plant. (Tr. 4/3/00 at 147; 4/13/00 at 20.)

The 1990 R & R concluded that:

the District has also succeeded in upgrading its school facilities, most notably two elementary schools located in the minority community — Benjamin Fairless Elementary and Rankin Elementary. These two facilities were inherited from the General Braddock Area School District in somewhat neglected condition. They have been dramatically upgraded and expanded, providing the District as a whole and the minority communities in particular with a source of pride and confidence for the education of their children.

1990 R & R at 7.

The Hearing Officer also determined that as of 1990, the consolidation of the original three high schools into a single Woodland Hills High School, which was accomplished somewhat later than the consolidation of the elementary schools, not only gave the District its own identity, but “equalized the level of facilities and course offerings provided to all high school students in the District.” (1990 R & R at 7.)

The Court’s own visit to several of the District’s schools, although certainly not an exhaustive inspection of the District’s facilities, confirmed the trial testimony that the buildings are in admirable condition and that equal facilities and materials are available to all of the children regardless of which school they attend.

In addition to its buildings, the District has made a significant investment in computer networks and associated hardware and software. This investment was not pursuant to court order and was made without financial assistance from the Commonwealth. The computer resources are integrated throughout the District’s instructional space. Superintendent Herman testified that WHSD’s investments and resources in technology exceed those of many other school districts. (WHSD Ex. 39; Tr. 4/4/00 at 29-40.)

Defendants’ expert Dr. Rossell analyzed per pupil expenditures for each of the District’s nine school buildings, and visited all the schools herself. (Commw. Ex. 1005; Tr. 4/11/00 at 75-76.)

Dr. Rossell established that there is little difference in expenditures between the elementary schools that are located in predominantly African-American communities, and the elementary schools that were historically predominantly white, and what little difference there is favors the historically African-American schools. (Commw. Ex. 1005 & 1022; Tr. 4/11/00 at 76-77.)

Plaintiffs do not contest a finding of unitary status with respect to facilities, and agree that “the District has achieved desegregated, physically-sound buildings.” (Commw. Ex. 1187; Pls.’ F & C at ¶ 42.)

Conclusions ofLatv:

There being no dispute that the facilities in the Woodland Hills School District are desegregated, and that there is no disparity in the allocation of funds and expenditures for supplies and equipment between the historically black schools and historically white schools, we find that the defendants have achieved unitary status in this area.

Extracurricular Activities

Findings of Fact:

By 1990-91, the District had already taken a number of steps to increase minority participation in student activities in compliance with the Consent Decree. The 1990 R & R noted that the District had hired a full-time Activities Director, and had created advisory committees of students and parents. Significantly, the District had also implemented a “no-cut” policy for activities, so that all students, regardless of ability, have an opportunity to participate. (1990 R & R at 23.) Academic prerequisites to activities such as yearbook and student newspaper staff were eliminated. (Id. at 26.) In addition, the District provided bus transportation for children at the end of after school activities; this was of particular benefit to minority children because the secondary schools are located in predominantly white neighborhoods. (Id. at 23.)

Nevertheless, we found significant racial disparities remaining in certain clubs and sports, as well as a “precipitous decrease in activities participation at the High School” level. (1990 R & R at 25-26.) While this was true for all high school students, minority student participation in activities declined by a far greater extent. (1990 R & R at 26.) We were also disturbed by the paucity of activities offered at the junior high schools. (1990 R & R at 26.)

The Court’s assessment of the District’s efforts to encourage minority participation in extracurricular activities was complicated by the fact that the District had failed to provide adequate data collection and reporting as agreed to in the Consent Decree. (1990 R & R at 24, citing Consent Decree at 40-41.)

In 1993 we ordered the District to hire an Activities Coordinator, who would coordinate activities within the secondary buildings, and would also monitor desegregation efforts and submit that data in monthly reports. (Pis.’ Ex. 2109.) Kay Brown was hired to fill that position. Ms. Brown, who remains in that role, testified as a witness for the plaintiffs. She suggested that the District has made it difficult for her to do her job. (Tr. Kay Brown 4/27/00.) It is clear from her testimony that she and some in the District have often had conflicting views as to her position, and that she does not believe she has been supported by the Woodland Hills administration.

For more than a decade the District has maintained an “open enrollment/no-cut” policy so that all students, regardless of ability, have an unfettered opportunity to participate in matters that interest them. (WHSD Ex. 30; Tr. 4/3/00 at 164.) All school-sponsored extracurricular activities are conducted in a nondiscriminatory manner with equal access to every student. The activities are listed in WHSD’s course selection guides. (WHSD Ex. 30; Tr. 4/3/00 at 164-65; Tr. 4/26/00 at 213-14.)

Today, the District offers a wide array of athletic and extracurricular activities. At the high school, there are 57 different activities; for ninth graders, there are 33 different activities; and for seventh and eighth graders, there are 21 different activities. (WHSD Ex. 26; Tr. 4/3/00 at 160.)

The District encourages all students to participate in extracurricular activities in a number of different ways. It actively recruits students through announcements, postings, and listings in course selection guides, among other efforts. (WHSD Ex. 30; Tr. 4/3/00 at 164-65.) WHSD has employed a full-time activities coordinator and established parent and student committees to promote activity participation. (WHSD Ex. 30; Tr. 4/4/00 at 164.) WHSD supplies uniforms for various activities, so that a student’s personal finances need not stand in the way of his or her participation. (WHSD Ex. 30.) Coaches and students from the high schools hold clinics and visit classrooms in the primary and intermediate grades to encourage activities participation. (WHSD Ex. 30; Tr. 4/3/00 at 165.)

WHSD also continues to provide extensive after-school transportation for students participating in activities. WHSD receives no reimbursement pursuant to any Court order in this case for activities transportation. (WHSD Ex. 27, 30; Tr. 4/3/00 at 162,164.)

The sole eligibility criteria for activities in WHSD is an academic standard. Students who lose eligibility for activities due to substandard academic performance may restore them eligibility by attending tutoring sessions. (WHSD Ex. 30; Tr. 4/3/00 at 165.)

At this point in time, plaintiffs apparently do not dispute that WHSD’s extracurricular activities are open to students regardless of race or ability. (See Pis.’ Opp’n to Mots, for Unitary Status, at 23-24.)

Dr. Rosseh analyzed data regarding student participation in extracurricular activities. (Commw. Ex. 1005; Tr. 4/11/00 at 78.) She concluded that the rate of participation by African-American students in extracurricular activities is proportionate to their enrollment rate at each school. (Commw. Exs. 1005, 1023-A & 1023-B; Tr. 4/11/00 at 78-79, 82-83.)

Dr. Rossell testified that of the numerous clubs and sports activities with more than one student involved, only five have no black students at all. Those activities are diving, ice hockey, Spanish Club, Teens for Teens, and Math Club. All other activities have substantial numbers of black students. In addition, there are no all-black activities. All activities have white students participating in them and ah but a handful have both races participating. (Commw. Ex. 1005; Tr. 4/11/00 at 81.)

Plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Gordon testified that at times activities’ sponsors do not report student participation data as they are required to do. (Tr. 5/4/00 at 204.) Ms. Brown, as well, testified that activity sponsors sometimes resist compliance with this part of the Court’s orders. (Tr. 4/27/00 at 193.) While we do not discount this testimony, we conclude that, overall, the District has done an effective job of encouraging minority students to participate in extracurricular activities, and of facilitating that participation.

There are no barriers to activities participation for African-American students in WHSD. Participation, however, is voluntary, and students may choose not to participate in extracurricular activities for various reasons, including responsibilities and pressures outside of school. (Tr. 4/3/00 at 168-69.) As Guidance Director Dr. Elmer Haymon testified, these outside responsibilities or pressures are borne disproportionately by African-American students. (Tr. 4/26/00 at 147-49.) We have reviewed the Monthly Activity Reports and selected student interview forms, and observed that students give a wide variety of predictable reasons for dropping out of a particular activity. (Pis.’ Ex.2001.) Although the occasional student complains about problems with transportation or sponsor insensitivity which may indicate racial bias, as recounted in Ms. Brown’s testimony, the vast majority of students interviewed explain that they no longer wish to participate because they have joined another activity, need more time for their homework, have an after school job, or have other responsibilities that conflict with extracurricular activities. (Pis.’ Ex.2001; Brown Tr. 4/27/00 at 82.)

Conclusions of Law:

“A school district’s extracurricular activities are unitary if they ‘are available to all students within the School District regardless of race.’ ” Coalition, 90 F.3d at 768-69 (quoting Singleton v. Jackson Mun. Separate School Dist., 541 F.Supp. 904, 908 (S.D.Miss.1981)). To achieve unitary status, school districts are not required to show that majority and minority students within the district participate equally. Coalition, 90 F.3d at 769 (citing Quarles v. Oxford Mun. Separate School Dist., 868 F.2d 750, 757 (5thCir.1989)). Where a school district shows that it has eliminated invidious racial distinctions, that may be a sufficient remedy. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 18, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971). The Constitution does not require racial balance of every extracurricular activity to match the racial balance of the school system. See Coalition, 90 F.3d at 768-69 (“we cannot ... expect a school district to compel or deny student participation in non-compulsory extracurricular activities merely to effect a racial balance”).

The District has shown that it has made its activities available to all students, and that it has done everything practicable to encourage minority students to participate in the wide range of sports and activities it offers to its secondary school students. Thus, we find that the District has achieved unitary status as to student activities, and we will relieve the defendants of further court-ordered supervision and funding in this area.

Ancillary Relief

Having found that the District has achieved unitary status on each of the Green factors, we must now determine whether WHSD has complied, to the extent practicable, with the ancillary remedies we have ordered. The 1990 R & R found racial disparities in the broad areas of curriculum and educational programs, and discipline and guidance, and we ordered staff development as well as specific remedial and compensatory programs targeted at these disparities. We also ordered that the District hire an Evaluator to monitor compliance with these court-ordered remedies, and that it fund independent outside studies where necessary. The relief ordered in our 1991 Opinion and Order was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit by unpublished opinion dated September 21,1992.

In 1996, the District submitted its Remedial Plan for the school year 1996-1997, and we referred objections to the plan to Special Master Mark Fatla. After five days of hearings, the parties were able to reach agreement on most of the disputed issues, including summer programs, staff development, remedial instruction, and a budget. That agreement was approved by the Court in an Order dated September 27, 1996.

The difficult issue of discipline and guidance, however, remained unresolved. A hearing was held by the Special Master, whose Report and Recommendation was adopted by the Court by Order dated June 15,1997.

We note that in more recent years, under the supervision of the Special Master, the parties have admirably been able to reach agreement on most of the court ordered remedial programs, as well as on the budget that supports their implementation.

• With this procedural background in place, we will consider the District’s compliance with the ancillary relief we have ordered. We realize, of course, that these are not always separate and discrete categories, and that each has a strong effect on the others.

Curriculum and Assessment

Findings of Fact:

We ordered the District to redesign its curriculum so as to provide an equal education to all students in heterogeneous, detracked classrooms, measured by appropriate assessments, and supported by a wide variety of remedial, compensatory programs.

(i)

At the time of the merger, each of the component districts structured its curriculum on a “tracking” plan, such that children were grouped in homogeneous classrooms of high, average, or low achievers. In such a system, the fast track students are consistently challenged to push the limits of their knowledge and ability, and thus progress faster and learn more than their counterparts. On the other hand, those perceived to be low achievers are given instruction focused on basic low level skills, with little exposure to problem solving or to higher order thinking skills. Tracking has a strong impact on minority students, who generally make up a high percentage of students in lower level courses, and it contributes to an achievement gap between black and white students. (1990 R & R at 31.)

By 1991, WHSD had eliminated tracking in the elementary grades by grouping children of various levels of perceived ability together in heterogeneously grouped classrooms. (1990 R & R at 32.) However, tracking still existed at the junior high and high school levels, and contributed, in part, to the significant racial disparities found in advanced level courses. (1990 R & R at 33.) Minority students tended to be concentrated in standard courses, while being virtually absent from advanced level courses throughout the curriculum. (1990 R & R at 36.)

We found this stratification to be “the most critical disparity in the system because it is a direct measure of the educational deprivation suffered by minority students as a direct result of the formerly segregated system.” (1990 R & R at 36.)

The significant racial disparity in advanced courses was particularly evident in science and mathematics. (1990 R & R at 33.) In particular, we found that a vestige of discrimination due to tracking remained in the secondary school math sequence, which offered pre-algebra as the entry point for upper level math courses. Pre-algebra was offered to students in grades 7 through 10. A student taking pre-alge-bra in the 7th or 8th grade, could then progress through the sequence of courses in algebra, geometry, and calculus. However, the child taking general math courses in 7th, 8th, and 9th grades, instead of pre-algebra, was unable to progress through the entire math curriculum. (1990 R & R at 35.)

The 1990 R & R concluded that “curriculum redesign is the framework upon which all other desegregation efforts rely.” (1990 R & R at 79). Therefore, we ordered the District to undertake a broad and comprehensive review of course structure, content, sequence, objectives, interdisciplinary relationships, multicultural focus, instructional materials, and testing materials. (1990 R & R at 79). Our Order included directing the District to hire an Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, two Curriculum Coordinators, and nine building level coordinators, and to use outside consultants as necessary. (1990 R & R at 81; 1991 Order at ¶ ID.)

(ii)

In compliance with the Court’s orders, several employees have been hired to facilitate the curriculum redesign effort, including the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction Dr. Jacquelyn Webb; two Curriculum Coordinators, one for Language Arts and Humanities, Dr. Stefan Biancaniello, and the other for Math and Science, Dr. Joel Reed, each of whom testified on the curriculum at the hearing on unitary status; and nine building-level Clinical Supervisors. (Tr. 4/4/00, at 73-75.)

(Hi)

In January of 1993, we ordered the District to contract for a curriculum audit, to ascertain inter alia, whether the redesign of the curriculum and testing had eliminated stratification and tracking. (Tr. 4/10/00, at 5.) We emphasized that the curriculum should “ensure equal academic access and opportunity for African-American students.” (Order dated Jan. 5, 1993, attach. A,f 12.)

Following the audit, the District developed a plan for curricula revision over a six-year period. (Tr. 4/4/00, at 81-2.) The results of the audit and development of the curriculum redesign plan coincided with the arrival of Dr. Stanley Herman as the Superintendent of the District. In most respects, the changes in the District’s curriculum under Dr. Herman’s leadership are impressive.

One of the audit’s findings was that the instructional program in one elementary school differed from what was being offered in another school. Dr. Herman testified that the District now has horizontal alignment, so that the curriculum, opportunities, and resources in one third grade classroom, for example, are also part of the third grade classrooms in the other elementary schools. (Tr. 4/4/00, at 94.) WHSD also has vertical alignment of the curriculum, so that what is taught in the second grade builds upon what was taught in the first grade. (Tr. 4/4/00, at 94.)

In Pennsylvania, the School Board is responsible for the school district’s curriculum; the WHSD Board of Education has a written policy on curriculum development. (WHSD Ex. 55.) By the end of the current school year, 1999 — 2000, every course guide will have been rewritten at least once since 1993, with the exception of pre-algebra, which has not been rewritten because it is slated to be eliminated from the District’s curriculum. (Tr. 4/4/00, at 89; 4/25/00, at 123-25.)

In revising its curriculum, WHSD observed the following standards: heterogeneously grouped classrooms; district-wide unified plans; cultural diversity and multicultural education; elimination of tracking and stratification; higher order thinking skills and problem solving; supplemental resources for various students, inclusion of objectives, resources, and teaching techniques; and consistency with state regulations. (Ex. WH 52; 4/25/00, at 127-28.)

The testimony established that WHSD offers an extraordinary variety of courses in the secondary schools for a district of its size, (Tr. 4/13/00, at 27), and that cultural diversity and multicultural education are an integral part of the WHSD curriculum. (Tr. 4/13/00, at 23.) Dr. Herman testified that curriculum in the District is now written on the assumption that all students are being taught in heterogeneous classrooms. (Tr. 4/4/0, at 93.) Ten new courses are being developed for the 2000-2001 school year. (Tr. 4/4/00, at 89.) Various curriculum initiatives are in place at the elementary and secondary schools, including the 25-book reading challenge, portfolio assessment, read alouds, Questioning the Author, and Connected Mathematics. (Tr. 4/17/00, at 18-20.)

An important element of the curriculum redesign is the District’s investment in computer technology, an initiative undertaken by WHSD without funding from the Commonwealth. Computer-assisted instruction has been integrated at all levels, and the resources are available to students of all races and achievement levels on an equal basis. (Ex. WH 39; Tr. 4/4/00, at 29-43.)

The District has also put in place a thorough process for selecting appropriate textbooks for a multicultural curriculum. Committees comprised of teachers, administrators and community members review and recommend textbooks for approval by the Board. (Ex. WH 55, Tr. 4/4/00, at 86-88.)

(iv)

Related to the curriculum redesign, WHSD underwent a strategic planning process from 1994 to 1996, and the WHSD Board of School Directors adopted the Strategic Plan in October 1996. Parents and members of the Plaintiff class participated in the planning process. A summary of the Strategic Plan was mailed to 6,000 homes in the school district before its adoption. (Exs. WH 8, WH 11; Tr. 4/3/00, at 82, 90.)

A product of the strategic planning process was WHSD’s Mission, Vision and Beliefs Statements, which were adopted by the Board on September 13, 1995. These statements are prominently displayed throughout the schools. (Ex. WH 12; Tr. 4/3/00, at 92-93.)

Several witnesses testified that WHSD’s personnel are committed to the Mission, Vision and Beliefs Statements. (Tr. 4/3/00, at 94; Tr. 4/17/00, at 28, 131; Tr. 4/25/00, at 120.)

(v)

The written and taught curricula are but two sides of the curriculum triangle. The third component, the assessed curriculum, is also necessary as a means of measuring how well what is being taught is actually being learned. (WHSD Ex. 51; Tr. 4/4/00, at 72-3.) Assessments must be carefully aligned with the curriculum. These three elements are so interrelated that, if one is changed, the other two are likely to be affected as well. (Tr. 4/4/00, at 196.)

The District has in place various measures to assess student performance, including standardized tests (Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, Stanford 9, New Standards Reference Exams, Pennsylvania System of School Assessment tests), Computer Curriculum Corporation (“CCC”) data, internal assessments developed by textbook publishers, peer assessment, portfolio assessment, walk-throughs, administrator’s binders and teacher tests. (Ex. WH 74; Tr. 4/4/00, at 190-95.)

WHSD’s central administration directs building principals to base their decisions on multiple sources of data, including standardized test scores, New Standards Reference exam scores, classroom observations, computerized assessments of student performance, and other sources. (Tr. 4/4/00, at 23.)

In accordance with the Court’s order to contract with outside consultants as necessary, to ensure that testing is designed to be consistent with the revised curriculum, the District contracted with the Learning Research and Development Center’s (“LRDC”) Institute for Learning in the fall of 1997. The Institute has advised WHSD on issues of assessment and staff development, and several members of the District have been trained as Institute fellows. (Tr. 4/4/00, at 140-.51; 4/10/00, 157-58; WHSD Ex. 64, 65.)

The District has acquired and distributed the New Standards Performance Standards, and has conducted staff development workshops on the implementation of this program. New Standards was developed and marketed by the Learning Research and Development Center (“LRDC”) at the University of Pittsburgh, and by the National Center for Education and the Economy (“NCEE”). (Tr. 4/4/00, at 106-9.) The District entered into the relationship with LRDC and adopted the New Standards assessments as one means of fulfilling the Court’s order to detrack the curriculum and move all students to higher order thinking skills. (Tr. 4/10/00, at 176.) Staff development on New Standards remains incomplete. (Tr. 4/10/00, at 178-180.)

(vi)

In connection with the curriculum redesign, the District complied with the court-ordered remedy and eliminated tracking in the Language Arts curriculum in the Junior High Schools as well as in the standard English offerings in the High School. (Tr. 4/4/00, at 98-100.)

However, independent outside evaluators, retained by the parties to review the District’s progress in detracking during the 1995-1996 school year, suggested that tracking remained in the Science and Math curriculum. ( Plfs.’ Ex.2089, Oakes-Wel-ner Report at xv, 18-29,105,126-128,164.) With respect to the curriculum generally, the Report concluded that African-American students remained under-represented in the most challenging classes and overrepresented in less challenging courses, at both the high school and junior high school levels. (Plfs.’ Ex.2089 at 105.) An independent post-audit, conducted in 1997, determined that a number of the District’s courses still needed to be revised. (Pis.’ Ex.2023.)

Dr. Herman defined detracking as having only one curriculum for any given course, and testified that no tracked classes are offered in the District. He used biology as an example, stating that there is only one biology curriculum. (Tr. 4/4/00, at 93.) The District has persuaded us that offering biology with or without a laboratory component is not tracking, but rather is necessary to accommodate the schedules of those students in the vocational education program. (Tr. 4/10/00 at 36.)

However, our remedy on curriculum revision has always emphasized that offering academic and basic courses, within the same subject area, is a form of ability grouping that provides the children enrolled in the more academic classes with a more rigorous education and prepares them for more advanced coursework. Students enrolled in the more basic courses do not have these same opportunities. Dr. Herman later admitted that the math curriculum in the secondary schools has not been fully detracked, but stated that it would be once PUMP Algebra and the cognitive tutor programs are in place. (Tr. 4/10/00, at 61.)

The math curriculum in grades K through 8 has been rewritten at least once under the Court-ordered remedy. (Tr. 4/4/00, at 114.) With the exception of pre-algebra, the secondary curriculum has also been rewritten since 1993. (Tr. 4/10/00, 62.) However, the sequencing of math courses in the current curriculum suggests to the Court that tracking continues in this limited area. At present, the seventh grade course selections in mathematics present a choice of mathematics 7, pre-algebra, or algebra. (Pis.’ Ex.2029; Tr. 4/10/00, at 66.) The entry point for upper level math courses remains the same as it was in 1990 — pre-algebra. Despite the fact that we have consistently ordered de-tracking in the math curriculum as part of the remedy, the District has not, in our opinion, detracked the courses in this important academic area.

A student enrolled in pre-algebra in the 7th or 8th grade is subsequently able to progress through the academic sequence of algebra, algebra II, geometry, and calculus, and then, if the student wishes, to proceed to trigonometry as well as other advanced math courses. Students who enroll in the basic mathematics 7 course, however, do not have that same opportunity. The Court finds it significant that, in the math curriculum as presently constructed, students may enroll in pre-alge-bra in 7th grade or as late as 11th grade.

Plaintiffs’ experts Dr. Olatokunbo Fash-ola, an associate research scientist at Johns Hopkins University; Dr. Jan de Leeuw, chair of the Department of Statistics at UCLA, Dr. Robert Cooper, a research scientist and professor at Johns Hopkins University, and Dr. Lea Hubbard, an educational researcher at the University of California at San Diego, each testified that tracking is still present in the District’s curriculum and operates to disadvantage African-American students. However, in reaching our conclusion that tracking remains to be remedied in mathematics, we are persuaded more by the defendants’ evidence than by the plaintiffs’ witnesses, and we do not adopt their opinions on this subject.

Curriculum revision in any school district is an ongoing process. It appears that the District has several forthcoming revisions to the WHSD math curriculum that, once implemented, may be expected to remedy this remaining area of concern. Dr. Herman testified that a program known as Connected Mathematics is gradually being incorporated into the math sequence in 6th, 7th, and, possibly, 8th grades. (Tr. 4/4/00, at 113-14; 4/10/00, at 61-63.) During the 2000-01 school year, the District will revise the K to 6 curriculum again, select a new K to 5 math series, and implement Connected Mathematics at grade 6. (WHSD Ex. 53; Tr. 4/4/00 at 115.)

The District expects that Connected Mathematics will be fully implemented in the 7th grade in 2001-02, and, at that point, pre-algebra will no longer be offered as a separate course. (Tr. 4/4/00, at 116.) Connected Mathematics may also be part of the 8th grade curriculum in the year 2002-03. (Tr. 4/4/00, at 116.) The District also anticipates that at that point all eighth grade students will take algebra. (Tr. 4/10/00, at 62.)

Dr. Herman testified that a computer assisted program known as the cognitive tutor algebra program, also known as PUMP Algebra, will be online for students beginning in September of 2000. (Tr. 4/4/00 at 110-11.) Again, all students will use this form of instruction.

Conclusions of Law:

After considering the record evidence and testimony on curriculum and testing, we conclude that the District has complied with our remedial orders in most respects. The District has hired appropriate staff, including an Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, Curriculum Coordinators, and building level coordinators (clinical supervisors); and has contracted with outside consultants as necessary to ensure that testing is planned and designed to match or be consistent with the curriculum to date. The high school administration makes all courses open to all students, and ensures that courses with multiple sections are balanced by race and gender to the extent practicable. The secondary school guidance counselors encourage African-American students to enroll in so-called higher-level courses.

The District has complied with our order to redesign the curriculum and to eliminate tracking in all areas except mathematics. The evidence is clear that the secondary school mathematics curriculum has not been detracked. Therefore, Woodland Hills has not yet completed the transition from homogeneous classrooms to multicultural, heterogeneous instruction.

The District is, however, well on its way to doing so. Testimony at the hearing on unitary status showed that the District expects to complete the remaining curricular revisions within a three-year time-frame, and that as a result every student will receive the same education in mathematics through algebra I.

Woodland Hills High School offers a rich selection of courses in math as well as in other disciplines, and we would expect high school students to choose between these courses depending upon an individual interest in various disciplines and their future academic and employment plans. These are personal decisions, to be made in consultation with parents, teachers, and counselors. When the math curriculum at the secondary school level has been fully detracked all students will be prepared to take advantage of the District’s upper level courses.

Accordingly, despite its impressive progress in most areas of the curriculum, we conclude that the District has not achieved unitary status as to its curriculum, assessment, and instruction because it has not detracked the mathematics curriculum. We will continue our supervision of the implementation of the District’s anticipated revisions to this curriculum, as well as of the corresponding development and implementation of appropriate assessments, and related staff