Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. School District

651 A.2d 186, 168 Pa. Commw. 542, 1994 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 641
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedNovember 28, 1994
Docket1056 C.D. 1973
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 651 A.2d 186 (Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. School District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. School District, 651 A.2d 186, 168 Pa. Commw. 542, 1994 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 641 (Pa. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

*543 SMITH, Judge.

Hearings were held on the educational plan filed on September 15, 1994 by the Court-appointed Educational Team which recommended ways to remedy the racial disparities in educational opportunity and academic achievement and to enhance voluntary desegregation in the Philadelphia public schools. The educational plan was developed by a seven-member group of educational experts pursuant to the Court’s opinion and order filed in Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. School Dist. of Philadelphia, 161 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 658, 638 A.2d 304 (1994). The Educational Team conducted research, compiled and analyzed School District data, engaged in public factfinding, and after several months of activity, designed a plan for review and consideration by the Court.

A.

The Court heard testimony from the Educational Team Chairperson who served as facilitator in the preparation of the educational plan and presented an overview of the Educational Team’s work, and testimony from various witnesses for the parties to support their respective responses to the educational plan. The Court was persuaded by the testimony of Dr. Susan Virginia Bredekamp, an expert in early childhood development called by ASPIRA. Dr. Bredekamp reiterated testimony offered throughout these proceedings that all children are capable of learning at high levels, given the opportunity to do so, and research has shown that smaller class size produces significant achievement gains for minority students.

Superintendent of Schools, Mr. David Hornbeck, presented persuasive and cogent arguments to support his proposal to reform the educational process within the School District of Philadelphia and explained how he intends to go about this process through a 10-point “Children Achieving” agenda. He stated that high academic standards must be the benchmark for reform and, as the Court agrees, Philadelphia may very well become a national model in improving the academic *544 achievement of students in a large urban area. The Superintendent believes that his 10-point agenda must be implemented in its entirety if Philadelphia public school students are to achieve at high levels. The agenda, however, has not been implemented in any other school district.

Dr. Margaret Doss Willis, Director of the Southwest Center for Educational Equity funded by the U.S. Department of Education, testified as the School District’s expert in the area of urban education and education equity as it relates to the achievement of minority and poor children. She testified that urban school districts tend to work in a vacuum rather than calling upon available outside assistance and that to reduce racial disparities in academic achievement, any reform effort should include challenging instruction for minority students, parental involvement in the schools, and smaller class size. Dr. Willis stated that she has collected no data which demonstrates that academic achievement of students improved as a result of school-based governance.

Various educational reports and studies 1 suggest that decentralization and the corresponding transfer of school governance to school-based management produce little or no discernible positive effects on student achievement. School-based management traditionally has organizational structure and school empowerment as its center; however, despite the absence of data conclusively showing improvement in academic achievement, studies document the increased autonomy of parents, teachers and principals which enhance school environment.

The Court has examined in part recent education legislation signed into law by the President signaling a strong message for reinvesting in public school education where the focus is on high academic achievement of all students. The Improving America’s Schools Act of October 20, 1994, Pub.L. No. 103- *545 382, promotes high quality educational opportunity for all children and authorizes, inter alia, additional federal funds to approved school districts which develop creative new magnet programs or substantially revised magnet programs for students at all academic levels. The magnet assistance program dispels the notion that magnet programs “skim off’ only the highest achieving students and supports the selection of students by processes other than academic testing. The Act specifically recognizes the dual purpose of magnet programs as an effective means for improving academic achievement and for the desegregation of students of all racial backgrounds. 2

B.

The Court has thoroughly reviewed testimony offered by the parties as well as the educational plan and written public responses to the plan. Those responses represented, among others, the views of parents, teachers, business leaders, community and civic workers, one member of City Council, the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers (PFT), and various other unions which support the PFT’s position. Further, the Court has also studied reports of decentralization and restructuring efforts in Chicago, New York, and Kentucky which have instituted educational measures containing features incorporated throughout the educational plan. Finally, the Court conducted site visits to elementary, middle and high schools within the regions in an effort to glean greater insight into the gravity of the issues before the Court.

*546 While educational experts have provided invaluable assistance throughout these proceedings, the views expressed by students, parents, teachers and principals and written public comment are just as valuable and compelling in fashioning an appropriate order in this case. Without a willingness on their part to assume responsibility and obligations to make educational reform a success, all else pales in significance. Likewise, no amount of reform strategies or additional financial resources can effectively alter the status quo unless those persons central to the reform effort are committed to making it work.

Moreover, the results of a thirty-year study by the U.S. Department of Education and other reports reinforce the response of many that the initial and immediate focus in school reform should be on school safety and student discipline, parental involvement, and teaching students strong basic educational skills if they are to succeed. 3 Thus incorporated into the following order is the Court’s decision to remain committed to educational reform strategies that have been proven successful in the past and shown to produce permanent and lasting effects on student achievement and progress. Proven educational strategies have been too long denied Black and Hispanic students in racially isolated schools. 4

*547

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Human Relations Commission v. School District of Philadelphia
784 A.2d 266 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2001)
HUMAN RELATIONS COM'N v. School Dist.
784 A.2d 266 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2001)
Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. School District of Philadelphia
667 A.2d 1173 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1995)
Commission v. School District of Philadelphia
658 A.2d 470 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
651 A.2d 186, 168 Pa. Commw. 542, 1994 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pennsylvania-human-relations-commission-v-school-district-pacommwct-1994.