Carter, et al v. St Helena Parish, et al

Filing 526

RULING denying 505 MOTION to Refigure the Grade Structure of the School District and denying 519 NOTICE of Parental Choice and MOTION to Accommodate 4th Grade Students. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 08/01/2013. (CGP) Modified on 8/2/2013 to edit text (CGP).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAWRENCE HALL, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 52-1068-JJB
ST. HELENA PARISH SCHOOL
BOARD, ET AL.
RULING ON MOTIONS
This matter is before the court on motions (doc. 505 and 519) by the St. Helena
Parish School Board (the “School Board) to Refigure the Grade Structure of the School
District and to Accommodate Fourth Grade Students.

The motions are opposed by

defendants (the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (“BESE”) and
the Louisiana Department of Education). The court conducted a hearing on June 13,
2013, and the matter has been submitted on post-trial briefs.
Presently, the St. Helena school system consists of three schools: an
elementary, a middle school and a high school. The School Board runs the elementary
and the high schools; operation of the middle school has been vested with the Recovery
School District since May of 2010. The School Board proposes that it be allowed to
operate an elementary school that has kindergarten through sixth grades and a high
school that has seventh through twelfth grades.

Alternatively, the School Board

requests that relief be granted as to the fifth grade only.
In support of this proposal, the School Board argues that restructuring is
necessary to regain stability and consistency in the schools in St. Helena Parish. The
School Board contends that reconfiguration of its schools would provide broader
learning opportunities for the students and allow the district to provide a better
1

curriculum, enabling students to gain a stronger academic foundation.

The School

Board cites financial stability and recent academic improvements as additional
supporting factors.
The School Board argues that its proposal is consistent with state law, which: (1)
permits school districts to restructure their schools and grades; and, (2) mandates that
school districts provide students a choice of schools when their primary school is
overtaken by the Recovery School District (“RSD”). The School Board cites La. R.S.
17:10.5 (D) for this proposition. Under that statute, a child may attend the school under
the jurisdiction of the RSD or “may exercise an option which shall be made available by
the city, parish, or other local public school board or any other public entity from which
the school is being transferred to enroll in and attend another school operated by the
school board or entity.” La. R.S. 17:10.5 (D).
In short, the School Board contends that its proposal is mandated by La. R.S.
17:10.5 (D) and would result in more stabilized district with improved academics. As a
consequence, the School Board contends that more students would attend the public
schools in St. Helena Parish and that this would ultimately promote desegregation.
In opposition, the defendants argue that the changes would actually have a
segregative effect. Defendants argue that there is a fixed cost associated with running
a school; and, if there are not enough students, this will cause the school to run at a
deficit, or force it to cut variable costs such as teachers or educational resources. They
argue that last minute changes would hurt the RSD financially and impede its ability to
educate students. The RSD would have to fire some teachers after having to figure out
the problem of how many students are attending each school. The RSD has entered

2

into several contracts for this school year and has budgeted resources for the 292
students expected to attend under the present configuration of the parish schools.
Defendants also assert that there is not a large enough middle school population in the
district to support an alternative choice. The defendants point to the fact that the school
district still faces financial problems and it has poor facility conditions.

Finally, the

defendants contend that Louisiana law requires an alternative choice only when there is
another choice readily available or feasible within the school district.1
Having carefully considered this matter, the court finds that the motions should
be denied. While school districts are generally required to offer students an alternative
choice when the RSD takes over a school, this is simply not feasible in St. Helena
Parish at this time. There is not a large enough population to justify the duplication of
resources that would obviously be required under the proposals set forth by the School
Board. While there has been significant improvement in the district’s financial condition,
it is clear that problems remain on that score. While this court has broad authority in
desegregation matters, the School Board essentially presents policy arguments that
might conceivably improve desegregation simply because the school system would be
more attractive to parents in general. As this court has repeatedly said, the best people

Defendants argue that federal rules and regulations limit school transfers to “schools
identified for school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, or identified by the
SEA as persistently dangerous.” DEA, No Child Left Behind: Public School Choice
Non-Regulatory Guidance, http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/schoolchoiceguid.pdf at
18-30. Additionally, they contend that alternative schools may not be a viable option
“when an LEA has only a single school at that grade level” or when the distance
between schools is so remote that it makes transfer impractical. Id. A student may also
transfer to a virtual school or to a specialty school if one is available in the district or if
there is a cooperative agreement between the school districts. Id. Not surprisingly, the
School Board has responded with a motion to register students in a virtual academy.
This option is currently being briefed by the parties.
1

3

to determine school policy are the members of the School Board. The court is willing to
revisit this issue mid-term or during the next school year.
Accordingly, the motions (docs. 505 and 519) to reconfigure the schools are
hereby DENIED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on August 1, 2013.





JUDGE JAMES J. BRADY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

4