Opinion ID: 11931
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Elimination of existing remedial courses

Text: We have thus far addressed the spring and summer program as a component of the reformed admissions policy. We turn now to the argument made by the plaintiffs that the district court erred in relying upon the summer remedial program to replace the existing remedial courses in the absence of a finding that the summer program could achieve the same results as the universities’ existing remedial courses in enabling students to succeed in and graduate from college. We note in this connection that the plan proposed by the Board provides that “[d]evelopmental studies are only offered academic placement analysis,” Ayers II, 879 F. Supp. at 1481, is too sweeping insofar as it may include students who, with reasonable remediation, are capable of doing college level work but who self-select out of the spring or summer program because of the unique burdens imposed by the program or flaws in its design or operation. 38 Cf. Green v. County Sch. Bd., 391 U.S. 430, 439 (1968) (“Moreover, whatever plan is adopted will require evaluation in practice, and the court should retain jurisdiction until it is clear that state-imposed segregation has been completely removed.”). 34 during the summer session.” In ordering implementation of this plan, the district court tacitly approved the elimination of most, perhaps even all, of the remedial courses that had been offered by all the universities at issue here, most notably by the HBIs. This is a troubling decision, implicating the reformed policies for regular admission as well as the spring screening and summer remedial program. On the one hand, there was evidence to indicate that an intensive, structured program of remedial instruction during the summer months prior to a student’s immersion in the college experience may actually be more effective at preparing students for college than a more diffused program of remedial instruction throughout the academic year. On the other hand, the district court appeared to base its decision not to consolidate Mississippi Valley State University with Delta State University, at least in part, on the significant percentage of students enrolled in remedial, or developmental, education at Mississippi Valley and on Mississippi Valley’s role as “a significant nurturer of underprepared blacks,” id. at 1492, a role that the district court apparently did not want to see eliminated.39 Further, it is not clear to what extent the operative predictive data assumes the existence of remedial programs insofar as it is based on historical achievement. It is clear that the predictive data relied upon by the State in 39 We find it significant that the presidents of Mississippi’s HBIs testified that the existing remedial programs at the HBIs are essential to meet the needs of the students they serve and at least one questioned whether the summer remedial program would adequately replace them. 35 support of its argument that its proposed admissions standards were “quite moderate” indicate that students who are admitted with the minimum qualifications required under the new standards are not predicted to achieve a C average during their first year at at least three of the HWIs. This suggests, as defendants note in their brief and indicated at oral argument before this court, that many students who are admitted under the reformed standards will need “substantial educational assistance,” possibly including remedial courses.40 Remedial courses may be an important part of the admissions policy at any school in which a significant number of students are not predicted to achieve a C average during their first year. Plaintiffs did not challenge the State’s existing remediation policies as traceable to the de jure era. There was therefore no requirement, under Fordice, for reformation of those policies as such. However, the Board’s proposed admissions standards (Bd. R-202) treated the adoption of the summer program and the elimination of the existing remedial courses as components of its admissions standards, and the district court, in ordering the implementation of the Board’s proposal, effectively did the same. The principle that apparently underlies the Board’s admissions policy (and, therefore, the 40 There may be a distinction between students who qualify for regular admission but who are also in need of remedial education and students who do not so qualify. The total immersion aspect of the summer program may be important for the latter group but unnecessarily burdensome for the former group. In suggesting these considerations, we intimate no view as to their ultimate merit. 36 district court’s decision) is that, in the case of any applicant, what can and cannot be accomplished with reasonable remediation is a key element of the admissions decision. Clearly, this principle is educationally sound. But the court’s action in eliminating the existing remedial courses can legitimately be challenged by plaintiffs as an inappropriate feature of the court’s admissions remedy. We have recognized that there are some tensions in the district court’s findings in this regard. In the light of these tensions and the absence of specific consideration of the justification for, or reasonableness of, eliminating these unchallenged courses, we are sufficiently concerned about the district court’s exercise of its discretion in this regard to direct the court on remand to reconsider its decision to eliminate these courses. On remand, the district court should determine if remedial courses are needed to help ensure that students admitted under the new admissions criteria have a realistic chance of achieving academic success.41