Opinion ID: 11931
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reliance on spring screening and summer

Text: remedial program The district court recognized the likelihood that the Board’s standards would reduce the number of black students eligible for regular admission as compared to then-prevailing standards,34 and chose to adopt them only in conjunction with the additional opportunity to gain admission through the spring screening and summer remedial program. The district court was unable to conclude that the new standards, which provide an alternative route to admission that does not rely on ACT scores whatsoever,35 would actually reduce the total number of black students eligible for admission either as regular or remediated admittees. In light of the district court finding that lowering admissions standards “as was done at the HBIs after the 1987 trial” is educationally unsound, the court apparently determined that to the extent any reduction in the number of black students eligible for admission relative to post-1989 standards does take 34 On the other hand, the district court found that under the Board’s standards, the number of black students eligible for regular admission would increase relative to standards in existence at the time of trial in 1987. See Ayers II, 879 F. Supp. at 1479. 35 According to the Board, any high school graduate, regardless of academic performance, may participate in spring screening. There is no requirement that participants in spring screening take the ACT. Bd. R-202. 32 place, it may reflect the educational unsoundness of prior policies. As contemplated, the new standards should result in the identification and admission of those applicants who, with reasonable remediation, can do college level work. This is consistent with Fordice’s mandate of a reformed admissions policy that is practicable and educationally sound. The district court also recognized that the spring screening and summer remedial program was untested and its standards not fully established at the time of trial. See id. at 1478-79, 1481. We think that the program was sufficiently defined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering its implementation. If, however, as plaintiffs suggest may be the case,36 the spring and summer program is unable to any significant degree to achieve its intended objectives of identifying and admitting otherwise eligible applicants -- i.e., applicants who could, with reasonable remediation, successfully complete a regular academic program -- for whatever reason, then the program must be reevaluated.37 The district court’s proper 36 In its Motion to Expedite the Appeal, the United States presents recently discovered evidence concerning the first year’s implementation of the new standards and the spring and summer program, which may demonstrate that the new standards exclude a significant percentage of black students who would have been eligible for regular admission at the time of the 1994 trial, and that the spring and summer program offers limited ameliorative potential. Such evidence, however, is not part of the record before us and we do not consider it in any substantive way for purposes of this appeal. 37 The district court’s conclusion that the Board’s obligation to graduating high school students does not encompass “students ineligible for regular admission under its proposal, who do not choose to participate in a screening process for 33 retention of jurisdiction over this action indicates its intent to examine this important component of the admissions system once the relevant data becomes available.38 If the district court ultimately concludes that the spring screening and summer remedial program (as it may be modified) is unable to any significant degree to achieve its objectives, then the court should, if possible, identify and implement another practicable and educationally sound method for achieving those objectives.