Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) feasibility study, part two

ATTACHMENT "A" Brief Biographical Information: Dr. David E. Bartz Dr. Percy Bates Dr. William M. Gordon Mr. William R. Gordon Mr. Charles L. Patin, Jr. RESIDENCE: The Meadows 520 Rutland Place Charleston, Illinois 61920 Phone: (217) 345-4490 Cell: (217) 259-5201 Fax: (217) 348-5461 VITA (For Desegregation Only) DAVID E. BARTZ OFFICE: 2320/2327 Buzzard Hall Eastern Illinois University Charleston, Illinois 61920 Phone: (217) 581-6668 Cell: (217) 259-5201 Fax: (217) 581-6673 E-mail: cfdebl@edu.edu E-mail: debartz@eiu.edu PERSONAL INFORMATION: Date of Birth: 2/5/46 Marital Status: Wife - Deborah Ann Children - Brett (9-26-79), Dallas (1-11-85), Cody (1-14-87) CURRENT EMPLOYMENT: Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois Professor of Educational Administration (Emeritus) (Since August, 1978) EDUCATION: Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan B.S. Degree - Business Education Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan M.A. Degree - General School Administration and Supervision MOTT Leadership Program, Flint, Michigan (Credit via Western Michigan University) Ed.D. in Educational Leadership EMPLOYMENT: Secondary Teacher and Community School Director Galien, Michigan (900 students K-12) Assistant Junior High Principal Dowagiac, Michigan (4,400 students K-12
1,000 in J.H.) Junior High Principal Caledonia, Michigan (2,100 students K-12
500 in J.H.) 6/15/06 1967 1969 1972 January, 1968- June, 1969 July, 1969- June, 1970 July, 1970- June, 1971 David E. Bartz EMPLOYMENT: (cont.) MOTT Leadership Program, Flint, Michigan (NOTE: This was not employment, but residence for Ed.D.) Leader of Personnel Skill Development Kalamazoo, Michigan (18,000 students K-12) Assistant Director of Research and Development Kalamazoo, Michigan (18,000 students K-12) Acting Director of Research and Development Kalamazoo, Michigan (17,000 students K-12) Assistant Superintendent for Instructional Services Kalamazoo, Michigan (17,000 students K-12) Professor Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois Desegregation Consulting Kalamazoo Public Schools, Kalamazoo, Michigan Pontiac Urban League, Pontiac, Michigan Decatur Public Schools, Decatur, Illinois Eau Claire Public Schools, Eau Claire, Michigan Caddo Parish, Shreveport, Louisiana Champaign Public Schools, Champaign, Illinois East Baton Rouge Parish, Baton Rouge, Louisiana Chicago Public Schools, Chicago, Illinois Ladue Public Schools, St. Louis, Missouri State of Missouri, Office of Attorney General (St. Louis Area) State of Missouri, Office of Attorney General (Kansas City Area) Page 2 July, 1971- August, 1972 August, 1972- June, 1973 June, 1973- June, 1976 July and August, 1976 September 1976- August, 1978 September, 1978 through present 1972 1975 1979 1979-1981 1980 1980, 1981 1980, 1981
and March, 2000 to March, 2004 1981 1981 I 1982, 1983 1981, 1982 1985 Woodlawn Hills School District, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1982 David E. Bartz Consulting, Desegregation (cont.) Sacramento Public Schools, Sacramento, California Superintendents' Council for the Tri-Districts (Benton Harbor, Coloma, and Eau Claire, Michigan) lnterdistrict Desegregation Plan Lubbock Public Schools, Lubbock, Texas Urbana Public Schools (Race Relations) Coloma Public Schools, Coloma, Michigan Newport News, Virginia, Public Schools Midland, Texas, Independent School District (Unitary Status) Dallas, Texas, Independent School District Pulaski County Arkansas (Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County Special School District) Expert Witness Desegregation Consulting, Desegregation Page 3 1986 1985, 1986 1991 1991, 1992, 1993 1978 through 2001 1994 1995 October, 2001 to April, 2003 November, 2005 to present Federal District Court, St. Louis, Missouri 1982 St. Louis Desegregation Case Federal District Court, Grand Rapids, Michigan 1982, 1996, 1998 Benton Harbor, Coloma, & Eau Claire Desegregation Case Federal District Court, Lubbock, Texas 1991 Federal District Court, Dallas, Texas 2003 Book The Effects of School Desegregation on Achievement and Motivation. Co-edited with Martin L. Maehr, JAi Press
Greenwich, Conn., March. 1984 David E. Bartz United States Federal Court for the Western District of Michigan - Judge Douglas W. Hillman and the Executive Director of the Court's Appointment Community Education Council (James F.A. Turner) Award for Significant Leadership Role with Respect to Support of the Court's Desegregation Plan in the Berry Case (Benton Harbor, Eau Claire, and Coloma, Michigan) Additional Activities 41 Articles Published 46 Presentations at the National Level 26 Presentations at the State Level 26 Presentations at the Regional (within state) Level Page 4 1984 Dr. PERCY BATES EDUCATION Ph.D. M.A. B.S. PRESENT POSITION 2244 Pinegrove Ct. Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Home (734) 665-8341 Office (734) 763-9910 Fax (734) 763-2137 Email: pbates@umich.edu Educational Psychology, University of Michigan, 1968 Major Concentration: Special Education Vocational Rehabilitation, Wayne State University, 1961 Major: Rehabilitation Counseling Minor: Special Education Biology, Central Michigan University, 1958 Minors: Sociology, Psychology Director PEO-Programs for Educational Opportunity (Desegregation/Equity Assistance Center), School of Education, University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1987 - Present Professor of Education University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Member, The Secretary of Education's Commission on Opportunity m Athletics, United States Department of Education, Washington, D.C., 2002-2003 Division Director, Curriculum, Teaching and Psychological Studies, School of Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1984-1987 Deputy Assistant Secretary and Director, Office of Special Education, United States Department of Education, Washington, D.C., 1980-1981 Assistant Dean, Service and Institutional Relations and Professor of Education, University of Michigan, 1973-1980 Associate Professor and Chairperson, Program in Special Education, University of Michigan, 1969-1973 Assistant Professor and Director, Mental Impainnent Teacher Training Program, University of Michigan, 1965-1969 Psychologist, Boys' Training School, Whitmore Lake, Michigan, 1963-1964 Psychologist and Director, Program in Educable Mentally Impaired, Ypsilanti Public Schools, 1961-1964 Teacher, Special Education, Detroit Public Schools, 1959-1961 - Page2 SELECTED RELATED ACTIVITIES & HONORS. Recipient, 2005 Harold R. Johnson Diversity Service Award Member, National Council for the Project on Equal Education Rights (PEER), 1991-present Chair, Higher Education Commission, National Alliance of Black School Educators, 1989-1993 Member, Executive Board, Father Patrick Jackson House, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1997- present Member, Academic Perfonnance Committee, University of Michigan, 1986-1989
1990-present Member, Board in Control of Intercollegiate Athletics, University of Michigan 1986-1989
1990-present LICENSURE AND CERTIFICATION: PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS American Association on Mental Retardation American Educational Research Association American Psychological Association Council for Exceptional Children Michigan Psychological Association K-12 Pennanent Teaching Certificate School Psychologist Licensed Psychologist - State of Michigan National Alliance of Black School Educators National Association for Multicultural Education National Association for School Desegregation RECENT SELECTED PRESENTATIONS "Resolving Societal Conflicts through Traditional Techniques-Are They Working?" Program for Conflict Management Alternative Seminar. Rockford (IL) School District, Issues relating to over-representation of minorities in Special Education through desegregation efforts. Kansas City, Kansas, Controlled Choice, Is It Effective In Desegregation? RECENT GRANTS AND AWARDS Title IV, Equity Assistance Center Awards, 2002-2005 Title II, Improving Teacher Quality (MI) State Activities Competitive Grant Program. 2003-2005 Dwight D. Eisenhower Higher Education Professional Development Grant, Family Math, Family Science, Playtime Is Science, 2000-2001 Kellogg Foundation - Closing the A<
.hievement Gap, 2001-2002 Percy Bates Page 3 SELECTED CONSULTANCIES Darlington County South Carolina School District. Developing a Magnet School to Reduce Racial Isolation, On-going Consultation, Expert Witness. East Baton Rouge School District, Court Appointed Education Monitor. Evaluated Magnet School Program and proposed changes for improvement with Dr. William Gordon. Highland Park Board of Education. Consultant to the Superintendent, School Psychologist. Assessment and managing at-risk students. Hunter College, New York, New York. Consultant to the Dean of Education. Evaluated program in Special Education and programs to prepare teachers for urban areas. Michigan Department of Social Services, Special Education with hard to place adoptive children, Flint, Michigan. University of Alabama, Consultant to the Dean of Education and Chairperson of Special Education in the development of a Ph.D. program. U.S. Department of Justice, Review Desegregation Cases, re: Unitary Status. EDITORIAL CONTRIBUTIONS Reviewer, Book - "Academically Gifted," McGraw Hill. Reviewer, Book - "Children in Dual Settings," Longman Press. Reviewer, Book - "Planning for Choice," New England Center for Equity Assistance. Reviewer, Book - "Toward Accountability of Teachers, Accountability in American Education. SELECTED PUBLICATIONS "Controlled Choice: A New and Effective Desegregation Method," in Charles v. Willie, U.S. Department of Education and Programs for Educational Opportunity, presented at the Magnet School/Desegregation Workshop, Miami, FL, January 1995. "Proceedings of the Magnet School/Title IV Desegregation Programs," U.S. Department of Education and Programs for Educational Opportunity, presented at the 1993 Conference in Washington, DC, December 1993. Bates, P. & Gardner, J. Emmett. Attitudes and Attributions on Use of Microcomputers in School by Students Who are Mentally Handicapped, March 1991. Bates, P. "Desegregation: Can We Get There From Here?" Phi Delta Kappan, September 1990. Page4 Bates, P., Brame, W., Darden, J. & Dawson, M. The State of Black Michigan 1989. Urban Affairs Programs, Michigan State University, 1989. Bates, P. "Black and White High School Dropout Rates in Michigan: The Inequality Persists," The State of Black Michigan: 1989, East Lansing, Urban Affairs Programs, Michigan State University, submitted March 1989. Bates, P. & Wilson, T. Effective Schools: Critical Issues in the Education of Black Children, Ann Arbor, National Alliance of Black School Educators [in press]. Bryant, B., & Bates, P. "The Future of Black Americans Depends Upon Intermediate and Long-Term Structural Programs." Submitted to The Journal of Negro Education, July, 1988. "The Challenge of Evaluation and Documentation" in Bert Sharp (ed.) Directions for Teacher Education, National Support Systems, University of Minnesota, 1982. Mainstreaming: Our Current Knowledge Base (ed.), National Support Systems Project, University of Minnesota, 1981. "The Role of Special Education in the 1980's: An Existential Question," Counterpart, Nov., 1980. "Exceptional Children in Intermediate and Secondary Science Programs" (with Edward Hoffman and Terry West), Science Education, February, 1978. "Anatomy of a Dean's Project," in Judy Grossenick and Maynard Reynolds (eds.), Negotiations of Teacher Education, Leadership Training Institute, University of Minnesota, 1977. "Implications of Mainstreaming for Teacher Education," in Percy Bates, Terry West, and Rudolf B. Schmerl (eds.), Mainstreaming: Problems, Potentials, and Perspectives, Leadership Training Institute, University of Minnesota, 1977. "Mainstreaming: An Overview," in Percy Bates, Terry West, and Rudolf B. Schmerl (eds.), Mainstreaming: Problems, Potentials, and Perspectives, Leadership Training Institute, University of Minnesota, 1977. Mainstreaming Problems, Potentials, and Perspectives (ed.), (with Terry West and Rudolf B. Schmerl), Leadership Training Institute, University of Minnesota, 1977. "Parents - A Valuable Resource for Training Teachers to Work with the Special Child," Mental Retardation, April, 1976. "A Systems Approach to a Taxonomy of Disadvantagement," (with Jesse Gordon and Don Harrison), Manpower Science Inc., 1973. "Critical Review: The Right to an Appropriate Education," in Lawrence A. Kane, Julius Cohen, David Penrod and Thomas Shaffer (eds.) The Mentally Retarded and the Law, Mac Millan, 1973. "James and John," Guide to Mental Retardation, Peach Enterprises, Warren, Michigan, 1973. "Through Different Eyes," Guide to Mental Retardation, Peach Enterprises, Warren, Michigan, 1973. WILLIAM M. GORDON * Has been actively involved in school desegregation planning since 1968. * Has drawn over 80 school desegregation plans and has served as an expert witness in over 250 trial and hearings. * Was one of the first desegregation planners to develop and use magnet schools as a desegregation strategy. * Has represented defendant school districts, state departments of education. * He has also worked with several courts and recently served as a Court Monitor for the federal district court located in Baton rouge, Louisiana. * Has represented plaintiff groups that include the United states Department of Justice, Office of Civil Rights, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Neighborhood Legal Services and Private plaintiff groups. * Has been involved in developing approximately 10 voluntary desegregation plans for school districts. * Serves as a desegregation consultant for a number of school districts. * Has been consulted with a number of school districts seeking unitary status. * Has assisted in writing several successful magnet school grants during the past two Magnet School Assistance Act cycles. * Has thirty years as a professional educator serving as a teacher, coach, administrator and college professor. * Has written on a wide variety of administration and desegregation topics and is generally recognized as an expert in all aspects of school desegregation. June 17, 2006 Resume William M. Gordon Ed.D, J.D. Dr. William M. Gordon is recognized as an expert in school desegregation, school organization, school administration and educational policy. He is currently a professor Emeritus of Educational Leadership. He formerly taught at Miami University, Oxford, Ohio and at Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio. During his over 34 years in public education, Dr. Gordon, has taught in urban, rural and suburban schools as well as at the university level. He began his teaching career in 1959 as a substitute teacher in the Chicago City schools. After several years of teaching he served for a short period of time as a principal of an elementary and later as a principal of a junior high school. He has also served as university professor for USAID at the University of Botswana, Botswana, Africa. Dr. Gordon has a B.A. degree in Finance and Banking and a M.Ed. in Remedial and Diagnostic Education from Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. His doctorate in educational administration and secondary education is from Indiana University. He also has a law degree from the University of South Carolina and is licensed to practice in South Carolina. Following the completion of his doctorate degree at Indiana University, Dr. Gordon joined the faculty of Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. Where he taught for 14 years. During his tenure at Miami University he progressed through the academic ranks becoming a tenured full professor in 1977. In 1968, while assuming his duties as an assistant professor at Miami University, he became a consultant in school desegregation for the Florida School Desegregation Consulting Center working with Drs. Gordon Foster and Michael Stolee. During his 30 year association with the Florida Title IV Center he worked with over 40 desegregating school districts located throughout the former Region V eight state service area of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. In addition to his work with the Florida Center he has served as an expert in school desegregation for local school districts, state departments of education, the U.S. Justice Department, the Legal Defense Fund of the NAACP, the NAACP, federal courts, and a variety of private plaintiff groups throughout the entire country. He also served for seven years as a court monitor in school desegregation for the U.S. District Court in Central Louisiana. In total he has been involved in over 80 separate school desegregation cases and has testified several hundred times. He has also worked successfully with a number of school districts in their efforts to obtain unitary status. Dr. Gordon has authored or co-authored four books, nine book chapters, 55 articles, and has also made a large number of presentations to educational groups and organizations. November 15,2005 Resume' William M. Gordon P.O. Box 550 Cell: Home: (828) (828) 606 3091 696 9753 Saluda, North CaroliQ~ 28773 Fax: (828) 698 6762 Education J.D. Ed.D. Post Grad M.Ed. E-Mail: twogoatroad@aol.com 1985 University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina. Admitted to practice in South Carolina 1968 Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana Major: Secondary Education, Curriculum and Administration Minor: Anthropology and Sociology 1966 Miami University, Oxford, Ohio Major: Administration 1964 Miami University, Oxford, Ohio Major: Reading Minor: Curriculum Post Grad .1962 DePaul University, Chicago, Illinois Major: Mathematics and certification B.S. (Bus.) 1957 Miami University, Oxford, Ohio Major: Finance and Banking Minor: Economics and Accounting Professional.Positions 1998-present 1990-98 1991-95 1988-90 1986-88 1985-86 Professor Emeritus, Educational Leadership, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio Professor of Educational Leadership, College of Education and Human Services, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio External Examiner - Njala University, Sierra Leone, West Africa (assignment covered from 3-5 weeks each of five summers) Professor of Educational Leadership and Executive Program Development Officer, College of Education, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio Private Law Practice, Greenville, South Carolina Professor of Education, Primary Educational Improvement Project, The University of Botswana, Botswana, Africa 1 1977-82 1968-77 1966-68 1965-66 1962-65 1957-62 ProfessDr of Education, Department of Administration, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio Assistant and Associate Professor, Department of Teacher Education, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio Supervisor of Student Teachers, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana Supervisor of Student Teachers, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio Principal and Teacher of Mathematics, High School and Junior High School, Fairborn, Ohio Principal, Teacher and Substitute Teacher, Chicago Public Schools and Skokie, Illinois Public Schools. Adjunct Professorships 1999 - Present 1998 - Summer 1996 - Summer 1984-85 1984 1979 1970 1970 Awards and Honors 1993 1992 Framingham State - Teaching in the International Education Program 13 international sites - Tampico Mexico, Rabat Morocco, Monterray Mexico, Kowitce, Poland, Santo Domingo, Trinidad, Bahrain (2), Warsaw Poland, Managua Nicarragua, Guatalajara Mexico (3), Beirut Lebanon, Maracaibo Venezuela College of New Jersey - Mallorca, Spain Trenton State University - Tele Vive, Israel Benedict College, Columbia, South Carolina, Spring Term each year (Research) Northwest Louisiana State University, Natchitoches, Louisiana, Summer Term (Administrative Theory) Seattle University, Seattle, Washington, Summer Term (Curric-ilum and Foundations) AACTE Project 35, Mammoth Cave, Kentucky, Summer Term (Developing Instructional Materials and Strategies for Job Corps Basic Instruction) Western College for Women, Oxford, Ohio, Fall Term (Reading and Language Arts) Outstanding Achievement Award, Pennsylvania Legal Services Faculty Excellence Award for Scholarship, College of Education and Human Services, Wright State University 2 1972 1970 1969 1964 "Award of Merit" American Association of College Teachers of Education "Outstanding Professor," Miami University Omicron Delta Kappa Phi Delta Kappa Publications Books The Reading Curriculum, Praeger Publishing Co., New York, 1982. Desegregating America's Schools, Longman, Inc., New York, 1980, Hughes and L. Hillman) (with L. Things Take Time, University of Miami Press, Coral Gables, Florida, 1974, Editor and Contributor) Modern Mathematics for the Seventh Grade, Old Orchard Schools, Skokie, Illinois, 1961, (Contributor) Monographs The Law of Home Schooling, No. 52 in the NOLPE Monograph Series, National Organization on Legal Problems in Education,. Topeka, Kansas, 1994, (with C.J. Russo and A.S. Miles) Chapters Editor and contributor - "Chapter 7:Educational Programs" American Overseas Schools, Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, Bloomington, Indiana (2000) "Philbert: Battling Bond Barriers" Becoming a Superintendent: Challenges of School District Leadership, Prentice-Hall, Upper Sattle River, New Jersey (1997) "Mistakes Beginning Superintendents Make" Becoming a Superintendent: Challenges of School District Leadership, Prentice-Hall, Upper Sattle River, New Jersey (1997) "Systemic School Desegregation" Case Citations 1992: Fourteenth Series National Organization on Legal Problems of Education, Topeka, Kansas 1992 "Employment in General" Case Citations 1992: Twelfth Series National Organization on Legal Problems of Education, Topeka, Kansas, 1992 3 "Magnet Schools," Advances in Motivation and Achievement, JAI Press, Inc., Greenwich, Connecticut, 1984 (with L. Hughes and L. Hillman) "Frontiers of Law, Chapter XIII, The Courts and Education, The National Society for the Study of Education, Clifford Hooker, (ed), Chicago, 1978 (with L. Hughes) "The Potential of Satellite Technology for Elementary Education," The Educational Uses of Broadcast Satellites, Educational Technology Publications, Washington, D.C. 1975 "Desegregation Data," Handbook VIII: Community Characteristics, State Education and Report Series, USDHEW, Office of Education, Washington, D.C., 1973 4 Articles "School Desegregation Cases: The'Good Faith' Requirement" West's Education Law Reporter, Vol. 159, January 31, 2002, pages 407-417. (Cite: 159 Educ.L.R. 407) "School Desegregation Cases: Why Moving Toward Unitary Status Makes Sense Now" Louisiana Board Member, Louisiana School Board's-Association, Vol.18, No.3, Summer 2001. "There's A Weapon in the School" AAIE Inter Ed Vol 28, No 96, Fall 2001, Pg 22 "Weapons in Schools" AAIE Inter Ed, Vol 28, No. 95, Spring/Summer 2001, Pg 18. "Terminating Employment in International Schools" AAIE Inter Ed, Vol 27, No. 94, Winter 2000, Page 17. ~Dismissing the Sexual Predator" AAIE Inter Ed. Vol 26, No. 91, Winter 1999, Page 10 "Sidebar: Throwing Out the Trash," AAIE Inter Ed, Vol 27, No.92, Summer/Spring 2000, page 15. "Sidebar: A Wake-up Notice," AAIE Inter Ed Vol. 26, No.90, Fall, 1999, pa~e 10. "Balancing Confidentiality and the Need to Report," AAIE Inter Ed Vol 26, No. 89, summer, 1999, page 13. "Controversy in the Curriculum" AAIE Inter Ed Vol. 26, No. 88, Spring 1999 "Where You Can Be Sued!" AAIE Inter Ed Vol 25, No. 87, Winter 1998/99, page 12. "The Violent Worker" AAIE Inter Ed Vol 25,No 86, Fall 1998, page 11. "Drug Testing of Students and Staff" AAIE Inter Ed, Vol. 25, No. 85, Summer 1998. page 14. "Sexual Harassment of Students by Staff" AAIE Inter Ed, Vol 25, No 84, Spring 1998, page 25. "Releasing Students From School During the School Day: What is the Policy?" Record for Educational Administration and Supervision, Vol. 17, No.1 & 2, 1997, pages 80-83. (with Reginald Green) "Student Records" AAIE Inter Ed, Vol 24, No.83, Winter 1997, Page 30. "Copy Right or Wrong" AAIE Inter Ed, Vol. 24, No 82 Fall 1997, Page 15. "Home Schooling: The In-house Alternative" School Business Affairs, Vol 62, No. 12. December, 1996, pages 16-20. "Religious Activities in Public Education: The Case Against," Journal For A 5 Just and Caring Education, Vol. 2, No. 2, April 1996, pages 157 -163. "The Search for Reasonableness: Legal Issues in Student Discipline" School Business Affairs, voi. 61, No. 7, July, 1995, pages 18-21. 6 "Compulsory Education Requirements and Student Work Permits" Wright Angles, Vol. 7, No. 4, November, 1994: pages 1-2. "The Implementation of Desegregation Plans Since Brown" Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 63, No.3 (1994), pgs 310-322. "The Development of Professional and Social Relationships as a Result of Cohort Group Instruction" Catalyst for Change, Vol 23, No.l, Fall 1993, pgs 14-17 (With William Nelson, June Kisch, Samuel Harris) "Releasing Students From School During the School Day: What is the Policy?" Wright Angles, Vol.5, No.2 October 22, 1993 (with William Nelson and Reginald Green) "Monitoring Desegregation," National Forum of Applied Educational Research Journal Vol 7, No. 1, 1993-94, pg 44-49 (with David E. Bartz) "Achieving Unitary Status Under the Combined Standards of Dowell and Pitts," West Education Law Reporter Vol 82, 1992, pg 283-289 [cite as: 80 Ed.Law Rptr 283) - (With David E. Bartz) Reprinted West's Educational Law Quarterly, Vol 2, No.4, October, 1993, pg 533-539. "HIV Infection: Legal Implications for Educators" Record in Educational Administration and Supervision, Vol. 13, No. l, Fall/winter 1992. (with Charles J. Russo, Albert Miles, Terrence Leas) "Why Be Concerned About School Policy?" Wright Angles Vol. 4, No.2, Nov. 30, 1992 "Agency Shop Fees and The Supreme Court: Union Control and Academic Freedom" West Education Law Reporter Vol. 73, 1992, pg 607-615 [cite as: 73 Ed.Law Rptr 607) - (with Charles J. Russo and Albert J. Miles) Reprinted West's Educational Law Quarterly, Vol 1, No.3, July, 1992, Pg 277-283. "A survey of Observation/Participation and Student Teaching Experiences" National Forum of Teacher Education Journal, Vol. 2, No.l, March 1992. "School Children With AIDS: A Legal Analysis" Religion and Public Education, Vol 18, No.3, Winter 1991, pg 259-267. (With Will MacCarther) "Home Schooling in North Carolina" School Law Bulletin, Vol. 22, No.3, Fall, 1991, pg 13-17. (With Charles Russo, and Patricia Lynes) "The Reasonable Accommodations Provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act." West's Educational Law Reporter, Vol. 69, 1991, pg 1-8. [Cite as: 69 Ed.Law Rptr 1) (With Dr. Albert Miles and Dr. Charles Russo) Reprinted West's Educational Law Quarterly, Vol 1, No. 1, January, 1992 pg 1-8. [Cite as: 1 Ed.Law Qtr 1). "Debates in Education - RESOLVE 'Education Would Improve if Public Funds Were Made Available to Assist Church-Related Private Elementary And Secondary Schools, Through Tax Deductions Payable to Parents, Voucher Systems, or Equivalent Means'" Presentation in opposition to the resolution. Curriculum Review, Vol 31, No. 2, October 1991, Pg 6-10. 7 "The Principal's Hidden Resource: Student Government," American Secondary Education, Vol. 18, No.3, 1990, pg 30-31. 8 "Serving the Needs of High School Students" Catalyst for Change Vol 20, No.l, Fall 1990 (With Thomas Kelberly) "Home Schooling and Compulsory Attendance Laws" National Forum for Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, Volume 7, Number 3, 1990-91, Pages 430-433. "Collaborative School/University Renewal Project" (with Frederick Gies), National Forum for Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, Volume 7, Number 3, 1990-91, pages 67-75 "Wanted: Black Teachers ... Apply at Any Local School Board," Journal-Ohio School Board's Association, (With Will Mccarther) Volume 34, No 2, (March 1990) pg 8-9. "New Direction in Affirmative Action," Record in Educational Administration and Supervision, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Fall/Winter 1990) pp. 29-30 "Due Process and School Suspension Revisited," Record in Educational Administration and Supervision, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Spring/Summer), 1989, pp. 21-24 "School Desegregation: A Look at the 70's and 80's," Journal for Law and Education, Vol. 18 (Spring, 1989), pp. 189-212 "Higher Education and the Law in the 1980's," Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. XXXI, No. 4 (July/August, 1980), pp. 61-62 (with L. Hughes and R. Simpson) "The View From the Top: What's Beleaguering Superintendents Th~se Days?" Catalyst for Change, Vol 10, No. 1 (Fall, 1980) pp. 22-27 (with L. Hughes) "Advice to a Young Administrator," The American School Board Journal, Vol.166, No. 12 (Dec. 1979), pp 15-16 (with L. Hughes) "How to Make a School Closing Make Sense," The American School Board Journal, Vol. 167, No. 2 (Feb. 1979) pp. 31-33 (with L. Hughes) "Communications Satellites and the Future of Elementary Education," World Future Society Bulletin, Vol. XII, No. 3 (May/June, 1978) pp. 11-16 "What Now Senior?", Journal of Sigma Phi Epsilon, Vol. 73, No. 3 1976), Pg. 4 (Feb., "School Desegregation - Is The Bussing for U.S.?", NOLPE School Law Journal (Spring, 1973), pp. 27-36 (with R. Simpson) "The School and the Social Revolution of the American Black," Review, Miami University (Spring, 1971), pp. 13-16 "Learning as a Classroom Activity," Ohio Department of Elementary School Principals Journal (August, 1970) pp. 25-26 "IMPALLA - A New Approach to Language Arts Instruction," The English Journal (May 1970), pp. 534-539 (With P. Whitesell and D. Joy) 9 "Educational Plans for the Inner City," Review, Miami University (Winter, 1969), pp 14-19 "The Teacher in the Inner City," Review, Miami University (Fall, 1968) pp. 22- 29 10 "Reading, Statistics, i/t/a?", Review, Miami University (Winter, 45-58 Papers 1966) pp. "Fulfilling Court Requirements in Order to Prepare a Successful Magnet School Application" Magnet Schools of America Conference New Orleans, Louisiana - September 10, 1977 "Achieving Unitary Status for a School District Under A Court Desegregation Order" Education Law Association Annual Conference, Seattle, Washington November 20-22, 1997 "Achieving Unitary Status for a School District Under A Court Desegregation Order", 43 rd Annual Conference of the Education Law Association, November 20- 22, 1997, Seattle, Washington. (With Charles Patin, partner with Keen, Miller Hawthorn, Baton Rouge, Louisiana) "Move from Monitored Desegregation to Unitary Status" Magnet Schools of America Conference, September 12-13, New Orleans, Louisiana (with Michael Garrard and Charles Patin partners with Keen, Miller, Hawthorne, Baton Rouge and William R. Gordon, Center for Program Design, Saluda, North Carolina) "Desegregation Plans: From Pupil Assignments to Magnets" National Associa_tion for Legal Problems in Education annual convention, November 17-19, 1994, San Diego, California. "Qualifying for the Magnet School Grants Program: Eligibility for Assistance" National Association of Magnet School Development, March 3-5, 1994, Washington, D.C. "Child Abuse by School Personnel" with Dean Ponds and Freddie A. Banks. American Association of School Administrators annual convention, February 11, 1994, San Francisco, California "Legal Implications of Sexual Harassment and Molestation of Students with B. Hamstead, Roger Hepworth, Michael Weinstock, and Claudia Speakman. National Association on Legal Problems in Education (NOLPE) annual convention, November 20, 1993, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. "Desegregation: Representing Plaintiffs and Defendants in Unitary Hearings" with David E. Bartz and Mike Moses. National Association on Legal Problems in Education (NOLPE) annual convention, November 20, 1992, Phoenix, Arizona "AIDS/HIV and the Schools" Indiana State University, Annual School Law Conference, April 10, 1992, Terre Haute, Indiana "Students and Teachers Who Test HIV Positive: Legal Issues and Implications" with Dr. Charles Russo and Dr. Albert Miles, National Association on Legal Problems in Education (NOLPE) annual convention, November 23, 1991, Orlando, Florida "Research in Educational Law: Doctoral Dissertation Criteria" National 11 Association on Legal Problems in Education (NOLPE) annual convention, November 22, 1991, Orlando, Florida "The Policy Implications of Home Schooling". With Dr. Charles Russo and Dr. Albert Miles. annual conference of the American Association of School Administrators (AASA), New Orleans, March 2, 1991. 12 ''Home Schooling" With Dr. Charles Russo and Dr. Albert Miles Presented at the 36th Annual Conference of the National Organization for Legal Problems in Education (NOLPE}, San Antonio, November 15-17, 1990. (ERIC Document #ED 332 291) ''Recruiting and Training Young Administrators.for the 1990's" Presented at the 44th Annual Conference of the National Council of Professors in Educational Administration (NCPEA}, Los Angeles, August 15, 1990 "Dilematic Consequences of a Collaborative School/University Renewal Project" Prepared with Dr. Frederick Gies. Presented at the annual AASA Conference, San Francisco, California, February 24, 1990. "Observation and Participation Will Solve the Problems of Teacher Preparation" Research study with Ors. Will Mccarther and James Uphoff. Presented at the annual AACTE Conference, Chicago, Illinois, February 22, 1990. "Pitfalls to Collaboration" 43rd Annual Conference of the National Council of Professors in Educational Administration (NCPEA}, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, August 14, 1989 "A Knowledge Base Model for Program Development" 43rd Annual Conference of the National Council of Professors in Educational Administration (NCPEA}, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, August 18, 1989 .(ERIC Document #EA021797} "The E.J. Brown Collaborative Model" Spring Session of the Ohio Conference of Teacher Education Organizations (OCTEO}, Columbus, Ohio, April 28, 1989 "The Mechanics of Desegregating a School System" National Convention of the American Association of School Administrators AASA), Anaheim, California, February, 1980 "Environmental Factors and the School as a Societal Institution," Annual Confer~nce of the American Education Research Association (AERA} San Francisco, California, March 1974 (panel} "The Possible Impact of Satellite Technology on Structure, Role, Function and Subject Matter at the Elementary Level of Education" Fourth Annual National Educational Technology Conference, San Francisco, California, March, 1974 Book Reviews Review of: School Law: Cases and Concepts (4th Edition) by Michael W.LaMorte. Published in West's Education Law Reporter, Vol.83, pg 27-29, August 12, 1993 [cite as 83 Ed.Law. Rptr 27] Review of: American Public School Law (3rd Edition} by Kern Alexander and M. David Alexander. Published in Record in Administration and Supervision, Vol. 12, No. 2, Spring/Summer, 1992 Review of: The Constitution and American Public Education by Anvil Morris. Published in Record in Administration and Supervision, Vol 11, No.1, Fall/Winter 1990 13 Review of: Principal's Handbook: Current Issues in School Law. Edited by William E. Camp, Julie K. Underwood, and Mary Jane Connelly. Published in Record in Educational Administration and Supervision, Vol 10, No.2, Summer/Spring 1990 14 Review of: Schooling and Disabilities, 88th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 2. Edited by D. Biklen, D. Ferguson, and A. Ford. Published in National forum of Applied Educational Research, Vol. 3, No.2, 1990-91 Review of: Public School Law: Teaching and Students' Rights by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe. Published in Record in Educational Administration and Supervision, Vol. 10, No. 1, Fall/Winter 1989 Review of: To Rise Above Principal by Joseph F. Martin. Published in The AASA Professor Vol. 12, No. 1, Summer, 1989 Review of: Locating and Correcting Reading Difficulties by E.E. Ekwall. Published in the National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, Vol. 6, No. 3 1989 Review of: Introduction to Educational Research by C.M. Charles. Published in National Forum of Applied Educational Research, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1988 Editing Authors Committee - West's Educational Law Reporter Legal Review Editor for Record in Educational Administration and Supervision Policy Board for National Forum of Applied Educational Research Journal Professional and Academic Association Memberships (Past and Present) Association for Advancement of International Education (AAIE) American Association of School Administrators (AASA) American Association of College Teachers in Education (AACTE) National Council of Professors in Educational Administration (NCPEA) National Organization for Legal Problems in.Education (NOLPE) name changed to Educational Law Association Association for Teacher Education (ATE) National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) National Society for the Study of Education (NSSE) American Bar Association (ABA) South Carolina Bar Association American Trial Lawyers Association (ATLA) South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association Related Professional Activities Court Monitor: U.S. District Court Middle District of Louisiana Management Consultant: U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C. Director: Miami University Competency Based Teacher Education Project, Director: Miami University Right-to-Read Project Director: Miami University/Dayton Teacher Corps Project Director: Miami University Developmental Education Project Ohio Manpower Commission 15 Partial listing of education cases where Dr. William M. Gordon has been directly involved in the litigation. Amy Adams v. Kaech (P1.a.intiff 1 ) Anderson and the United States v. Madison County School District (Plaintiff United States) Andrews v. Monroe City School Board (United States) Taylor v. Ouachita Parish Armstrong v. Birmingham Board of Education (United States) Berry v. Benton Harbor School Board (Defendant Eau Claire) -Boyd v. Pointe Coupee Parish Schools (United States) Brinkman v. Dayton Board of Education (Defendant Dayton Schools) Bronson v. Board of Education of the City School District of the City of Cincinnati (Plaintiff NAACP) Cowan and the United States v. Bolivar County Board of Education. (United States) Davis v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board (Defendant East Baton Rouge Schools) Davis v. East Baton Rouoe Parish School Board (Monitor for the Court) John Doe (Kinney) v. Madison Board of Education (Plaintiff) Duhon v. Tatje (United States) Harris v. St John the Baptist Parish School Board Evans v. Buchanan (Plaintiff Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights) Coalition to Save Our Children v. State Board of Education of the State of Delaware Ganaway v. Charleston County Board of Education (Plaintiff Legal Defense Fund NAACP) Graham and the United Scates v. Evangeline Parish (Plaintiff United States) Hilson v. Outz (Plaintiff Legal Defense Fund NAACP) H.O., A Minor v. The School District of the City of Philadelphia (Plaintiff) Hodges v. Montgomery County Board of Education (United States) Hoots v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Plaintiff Neighborhood Legal Services) Jones and the United States v. Caddo Parish School System (United States) 1 Party represented. 17 Kelly v. Metropolitan County Board of Education of Nashville (Plaintiff) Lee v. Chambers County Board of Education (United States) Lee and the United States v. Dotham County, Alabama (Legal Defense Fund) Lee and the United States v. Macon County Board of Education (Decatur) Lee and United States v. Randolph County (United States) Martin v. Ferndale Michigan School Board (United States) NAACP v. City of Thomasville Georgia School District (Plaintiffs) Penick v. Columbus Board of Education (Defendant State of Ohio) Reed v. Rhodes (Defendant State of Ohio) Stanley v. Darlington County School District (United States) Sheff v. O'Neil (Plaintiff Legal Defense Fund NAACP) Sinajini and The Navajo Nation v. Board of Education of the San Juan School District. (Plaintiffs Sinajini, The Navajo Nation and United States) S-1 v. Turlington (Plaintiff Florida Rural Legal Services) Sylvester Vaughns et al and the NACCP v. Board of Education of Prince George's County, Maryland (Defendant) Thomasville Branch of the NAACP et al v. City of Thomasville School District (Plaintiff) United States v. Ferndale, Michigan (United States) United States and Charles Ridley v. State of Georgia: Meriwether County Board of Education (United States) United States V. Avoyelles Parish School Board (United States) United States V. Bessemar Alabama Board of Education (United States) United States v. Berkeley County, South Carolina (United States) United States v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago (Defendant Chicago Board of Education) United States v. Board of Public Instruction of St. Lucy Florida (United States) United States v. Chambers County Board of Education (United States) United States and Coleman v. Midland Independent School District (United States) United States v. Colleton County School District (United States) 18 United States v. DeSota Parish Schools (United States) United States v. Florence County School District No.1 (United States) United States v. Kansas City Unified School District #500 (United States) United States v. Lincoln Parish School Board (United States) United States v. The State of Mississippi and McComb Municipal Separate School District United States v. Marion County School District (United States) United States v. Port Arthur Texas School Board (United States) United States v. Red River Parish Schools (United States) United States v. Texas Education Agency: Lubbock Independent School District (United States) Virgie Lee Valley, et. al. v. Rapides Parish School Board, et al. (Defendant) Welton J. Charles Jr. et al and the Uniter States v. Ascension Parish School Board et al (Defendant School District) Williams and the United States v. Iberville Parish School Board (United States) Contracted Studies Arkansas Department of Education, Feasibility study for Arkansas Department of Education to determine if the Pulaski County School District should continue to exist Jefferson Parish School District, Louisiana (Study undertaken for the district) Unitah School District (Study to determine feasibility of breaking off a new school district for the Ute Tribe) 19 June 17,2006 RESUME' William R. Gordon Post Office Box 595 19 South Lake Summit Road Saluda, North Carolina 28773 Education 1989-91 1983-85 1984 1977-83 Experience (704) 692 3753 Post Masters M.F.A B.F.A. Professional Education Courses Required for Certification in Art Education - Florida International University, Miami Dade College and St Thomas University College of Architecture, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina Charles E. Daniel Center, Clemson University, Genoa, Italy College of Fine Arts, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio 1985 - present Consultant in school desegregation 1998-04 1996- 98 1992-95 1992-97 1992-96 Facilities Monitor for the Federal District Court in Baton Rouge, Louisiana Boys and Girls Club of America - Head of the art Program for local children in Hendersonville, N.C. Adjunct Associate Professor in Art, Wright State Present University, Dayton, Ohio (Teaching: Drawing and Painting) Summer art program for elementary school children conducted through Isothermal Community College. (four one week terms open to school children in Poke County, North Carolina) Adjunct Associate Professor in Art, Isothermal Community College, Spindale, North Carolina (Teaching: Art History, Two Dimensional Media, Painting, Drawing and Composition, Life Drawing, Special Topics in Art 1994-95 Visiting Associate Professor of Art, Blue Ridge Community College, Hendersonville, North Caorlina 1992 Teaching Assistant in Elementary Art Education, Art Department, Furman University, Greenville, South Carolina 1988-92 Head Instructor and teacher for Art Education, North Miami Elementary School, Dade County, Florida - Teaching responsibility for approximately 920 students. 1985-86 1984-85 Writings Studio Artist, producing primarily paintings and drawings, Chicago, Illinois. Graduate Assistant instructing at the Charles E. Daniel Center, Genoa, Italy and Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina. "Using a Compliance Analysis Prior to Seeking Unitary Status in a School Desegregation Case" by William m. Gordon and William R. Gordon July 21, 2000 (unpublished) Consulting Facilities study underway in the Unitah School District for the Ute Native Ameriucan Tribe. Jefferson Parish School District - Facilities study of the entire 82 school, school district in preparation for filing a motion for unitary status. Duhon v. Tatie (St. John the Baptist Parish) Virgie Lee Valley v. Rapides Parish School Board Davis and the United States v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board (Court Monitor - Facilities) Stanley v. Darlington, South Carolina Berry v. Benton Harbor School Board Wright State University summer workshops for teachers and administrators 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992 3 Charles L. Patin, Jr. Partner Legislative Litigation 225.389.3430 charlic.patin@keanmiller.com CHARLES PATIN Charles Patin is a partner in the Baton Rouge, Louisiana law firm of Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman, L.L.P. Charles joined Kean Miller in 1989. Prior to joining the firm, he served as Assistant Executive Counsel to the Governor of Louisiana from 1988 until 1989, and from 1980 through 1988 he served as Chief of the Civil Division of the Louisiana Department of Justice. Charles assists clients in the areas of school desegregation law, state constitutional and general regulatory matters, and general civil litigation. Charles presently represents two Louisiana public school districts in ongoing school desegregation lawsuits. In May 2004, Charles successfully negotiated an agreement on behalf of the Ascension Parish School District with the United States Department of Justice and local counsel for the N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense Fund that resulted in the filing of a Joint Motion for Entry Agreed Judgement and the entry of a judgement declaring the school district unitary in Welton J. Charles, et al. and United States of America v. Ascension Parish School Board, Civil Action No. 3257, U.S.D.C. M.D. La. In Clifford Eugene Davis, Jr., et al. and United Stated of America v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, Civil Action No. 1662, U.S.D.C. M.D. La., Charles served as the lead counsel for the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board and successfully negotiated an agreement resulting in the entry of a Consent Decree that subsequently set the stage for the school district begin declared unitary. He recently co-authored a commentary with Dr. William M. Gordon entitled "School Desegregation Cases: The 'Good Faith' Requirement" which appeared in West's Education Law Reported, Vol. 159 No. 2, January 31, 2002. Charles has presented in tl1e area of school desegregation law at the 2002 annual meeting of the Education Law Association, an international aducation law associated comprised of educators and attorneys. Representative Experience: Successful negotiation of a consent decrees in school desegregation cases which served to eliminate the pairing and clustering of schools. Successful filings of motions for partial unitary status in school desegregation litigation. Representation of clients before state regulatory agencies. Representation of clients in matters involving state constitutional issues. Charles Patin Education: Charlie earned his B.S. from Louisiana State University in 1971 and his J.D. from the LSU Law Center in 1974. Admissions: Admitted to bar, 1974, Louisiana
admitted to bar, 1979, United States Supreme Court. Admitted to practice before United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and all federal district courts in Louisiana. Memberships: Co-chair, Governor's Special Committee on the Composition and Administration of the Judiciary Section, 1989
Secretary, Special Committee on Judicial Electoral Processes, 1991
Sub-committee on Campaign Finance Practices, 1991
Chairman, Bench and Bar Section
American Bar Association
American Judicature Society (Board of Directors, 1992-1994)
Board of Examiners for Certified Court Reporters, 1993-1995
Louisiana Organization for Judicial Excellance (Board of Directors, 1992-1995). [Captain, Infantry, U.S. Army Reserves, 1971-1979.] Past Member, Civil Justice Advisory Committee, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana. Community Service: Past member, Board of Directors, Baton Rouge Chapter, Gulf Coast Conservation Association. Past member, Board of Director, Playmakers. Past member, Board of Directors, Blundon Home. Past member, Louisiana Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution. Graduate, Greater Baton Rouge Chamber of Commerce Leadership Class of 1999. ATTACHMENT "B" Specific Language of Legislation Creating this Feasibility Study SB457 Specific Language of Legislation Creating This Feasibility Study SECTION 26. SPECIAL LANGUAGE. NOT TO BE IN CORPORA TED INTO THE ARKANSAS CODE NOR PUBLISHED SEP ARA TEL Y AS SPECIAL, LOCAL AND TEMPORARY LAW. FEASIBILITY STUDY. The Department of Education shall authorize and fund a feasibility study costing up to two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000). The purpose of the study shall be to evaluate and determine whether the Pulaski County Special School District should continue in existence by specifically addressing and evaluating the following: 1) the elimination of the Pulaski County Special School District and redrawing school district boundaries in Pulaski County to form one school district north of the Arkansas River and one district south of the Arkansas River
2) the elimination of the Pulaski County Special School District and redrawing of school district bounda1ies in Pulaski County to form three districts including a Little Rock District south of the Arkansas River, a North Little Rock District north of the Arkansas River and a Jacksonville School District north of the Arkansas River
3) whether the elimination of the Pulaski County Special School District under either option would fut1her desegregation efforts of the districts and help all districts in gaining unitary status and in ending the desegregation case
and, 4) to study and propose a plan to pursue the end of desegregation litigation in Pulaski County. A contract shall be signed no later than October 31, 2005 and the feasibility study completed no later than June 30, 2006. The provisions of this section shall be in effect only from July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2007. 1051887_1 ATTACHMENT "C" North Little Rock School District Student Enrollment 2005-06 - North Little Rock School District Student Enrollment 2005-2006 High School White Black Other Total North Little Rock High (East) 587 (38.7%) 867 (57.2%) 63(4.1%) 1517 North Little Rock High (West) 647 (44.0%) 761 (51.8%) 61 (4.2%) 1469 Total High Schools 1234 (41.3%) 1628 (54.5%) 124 (4.2%) 2986 Middle Schools Lakewood Middle School 433 (60.2%) 256 (35.6%) 30 (4.2%) 719 Poplar Street Middle School 194 (31.4%) 394 (63.8%) 30 (4.8%) 618 Ridgeroad Middle School 103 (18.6%) 421 (76.0%) 30 (5.4%) 554 Rose City Middle School 34 (16.1 %) 175 (82.9%) 2(1.0%) 211 Total Middle Schools 764 (36.3%) 1246 (59.3%) 92 (4.4%) 2102 Elementari: Schools Amboy Elementary 112 (32.0%) 222 (63.4%) 16 (4.6%) 350 Belwood Elementary 26 (19.0%) 108 (78.8%) 3 (2.2%) 137 - Boone Park Elementary 17(4.4%) 349 (90.9%) 18 (4.7%) 384 Crestwood Elementary 288 (75.0%) 88 (22.9%) 8 (2.1%) 384 Glenview Elementary 25 (15.9%) 131 (83.4%) 1 (.7%) 157 Indian Hills Elementary 376 (70.4%) 139 (26.0%) 19 (3.6%) 534 Lakewood Elementary 259 (67.3%) 109 (28.3%) 17(4.4%) 385 Lynch Drive Elementary 41(12.1%) 294 (87.0%) 3 (.9%) 338 Meadow Park Elementary 28 (14.4%) 158 (81.0%) 9 (4.6%) 195 North Heights Elementary 67 (17.2%) 243 (62.5%) 79 (20.3%) 389 Park Hill Elementary 123 (37.0%) 168 (50.6%) 41 (12.4%) 332 Pike View Elementary 91 (24.2%) 254 (67.6%) 31 (8.2%) 376 Redwood Pre-School 22 (10.3%) 180 (84.5%) 11 (5.2%) 213 Seventh Street Elementary 2 (.6%) 312 (98.4%) 3 (1.0%) 317 Total Elementary Schools 1477 (32.9%) 2755 (61.3%) 259 (5.8%) 4491 TOT AL DISTRICT 3475 (36.3%) 5629 (58.8%) 475 (4.9%) 9579 I 051903-1 ATTACHMENT "D" Pulaski County Special School District Student Enrollment 2005-06 - Pulaski County Special School District Student Enrollment 2005-06 High Schools White Black Other Total Jacksonville High School 569 (50.4%) 522 (46.2%) 38 (3.4%) 1129 Mills High School 395 (40.6%) 554 (57.0%) 23 (2.4%) 972 North Pulaski High School 525 (58.5%) 337 (37.6%) 35 (3.9%) 897 Oak Grove High School 358 (57.1 %) 245 (39.1 %) 24 (3.8%) 627 Robinson High School 247 (59.7%) 155 (37.4%) 12 (2.9%) 414 Sylvan Hills High School 548 (53.8%) 429 (42.1 %) 41(4.1%) 1018 Total High Schools 2642 (52.2%) 2242 (44.3%) 173 (3.5%) 5057 Middle Schools Fuller Middle School 310 (40.9%) 406 (53.6%) 42 (5.5%) 758 Jacksonville Middle School 458 (51.3%) 402 (45.1%) 32 (3.6%) 892 Maumelle Middle School 240 (53.7%) 187 (41.8%) 20 (4.5%) 447 Northwood Middle School 398 (59.6%) 241 (36.1 %) 29 (4.3%) 668 Robinson Middle School 247 (59.7%) 155 (37.4%) 12 (2.9%) 414 Sylvan Hills Middle School 371 (52.0%) 302 (42.4%) 40 (5.6%) _m_ - Total Middle Schools 2024 (52.0%) 1693 (43.5%) 175 (4.5%) 3892 Elementary Schools Adkins Elementary 110 (45.5%) 127 (52.5%) 5 (2.0%) 242 Arnold Drive Elementary 182 (61.7%) 90 (30:5%) 23 (7.8%) 295 Baker Elementary (Interdistrict) 254 (67.9%) 76 (20.3%) 44 (11.8%) 374 Bates Elementary 236 (44.6%) 266 (50.3%) 27 (5.1 %) 529 Bayou Meto Elementary 389 (90.5%) 16 (3.7%) 25 (5.8%) 430 Cato Elementary 233 (66.8%) 100 (28.7%) 16 (4.5%) 349 Clinton Elementary (Interdistrict) 289 (43.0%) 346 (51.5%) 37 (5.5%) 672 College Station Elementary 92 (45.8%) 100 (49.8%) 9 (4.4%) 201 Crystal Hill Elementary 403 (50.8%) 370 (46.6%) 21 (2.6%) 794 Dupree Elementary 161 (54.0%) 122 (40.9%) 15 (5.1%) 298 Harris Elementary 33 (12.4%) 231 (86.8%) 2 (.8%) 266 Jacksonville Elementary 209 (36.3%) 321 (55.8%) 45 (7.9%) 575 Landmark Elementary 139 (44. l %) 159 (50.5%) 17 (5.4%) 315 Lawson Elementary 219 (72.5%) 71 (23.5%) 12 (4.0%) 302 Oak Grove Elementary 208 (64.2%) 89 (27.5%) 27 (8.3%) 324 Oakbrooke Elementary 289 (66.7%) 123 (28.4%) 21 (4.9%) 433 Pine Forest Elementary 345 (67.4%) 151 (29.5%) 16 (3.1 %) 512 Pinewood Elementary 221 (47.0%) 220 (46.8%) 29 (6.2%) 470 - Robinson Elementary 236 (63.6%) 106 (28.6%) 29 (7.8%) 371 Scott Elementary 91 (69.5%) 36 (27.5%) 4 (3.0%) 131 1051927-1 - Sherwood Elementary 256 (63.8%) 135 (33.7%) 10 (2.5%) 401 Sylvan Hills Elementary 238 (56.0%) 172 (40.5%) 15 (3.5%) 425 Taylor Elementary 167 (44.2%) 204 (54.0%) 7 (1.8%) 378 Tolleson Elementary 184 (63.2%) 84 (28.9%) 23 (7.9%) 291 Total Elementary Schools 5184 (55.3%) 3715 (39.6%) 479 (5.1 %) 9378 TOT AL DISTRICT 9850 (53.7%) 7650 (41.7%) 827 (4.6%) 18327 1051927-1 ATTACHMENT "E" North Little Rock School District Faculty Assignments 2005-06 North Little Rock School District Faculty Assignments 2005-2006 High Schools White Black Other Total North Little Rock High (East) 76 (90.5%) 8 (9.5%) 0 84 North Little Rock High (West) 85 (82.5%) 18 (17.5%) Q 103 Total High Schools 161 (86.1 %) 26 (13.9%) 0 187 Middle Schools Lakewood Middle School 39 (88.6%) 5 (11.4%) 0 44 Poplar Street Middle School 39 (81.3%) 7 (14.6%) 2(4.1%) 48 Ridgeroad Middle School 35 (87.5%) 5 (12.5%) 0 40 Rose City Middle School 17 (60.7%) 11 (39.3%) _o_ 28 Total Middle Schools 130 (81.3%) 28 (17.5%) 2 (1.2%) 160 Elementarv Schools Amboy Elementary 24 (92.3%) 1 (3.8%) 1 (3.8%) 26 Belwood Elementary 15 (88.2%) 2 (11.8%) 0 17 Boone Park Elementary 29 (82.9%) 5 (14.3%) l (2.8%) 35 Crestwood Elementary 32 (80.0%) 8 (20.0%) 0 40 Glenview Elementary 14 (82.4%) 3 (17.6%) 0 17 Indian Hills Elementary 33 (91.7%) 3 (8.3%) 0 36 Lakewood Elementary 24 (100%) O 0 24 Lynch Drive Elementary 25 (83.3%) 5 (16.7%) 0 30 Meadow Park Elementary 16(51.6%) 15 (48.4%) 0 31 North Heights Elementary 39 (62.9%) 19 (30.6%) 4 (6.5%) 62 Park Hill Elementary 28 (77.8%) 8 (22.2%) 0 36 Pike View Elementary 27 (96.4%) 1 (3.6%) 0 28 Redwood Pre-School 13 (100%) 0 0 13 Seventh Street Elementary 27 (96.4%) 1 (3.6%) _o_ 28 Total Elementary Schools 346 (81.8%) 71 (16.8%) 6 (1.4%) 423 TOTAL DISTRICT 637 (82.7%) 125 (16.2%) 8 (1. 1 %) 770 I 051936-1 ATTACHMENT "F" Pulaski County Special School District Faculty Assignments 2005-06 - Pulaski County Special School District Faculty Assignments 2005-2006 High Schools White Black Other Total Jacksonville High School 43 (71.7%) 17 (28.3%) 0 60 Mills High School 58 (76.3%) 18 (23.7%) 0 76 North Pulaski High School 56 (83.6%) 11 (16.4%) 0 67 Oak Grove High School 46 (85.2%) 8 (14.8%) 0 54 Robinson High School 46 (85.2%) 8 (14.8%) 0 54 Sylvan Hills High School 84 (86.6%) 13 (13.4%) 0 97 Total High Schools 333 (81.6%) 75 (18.4%) 0 408 Middle Schools Fuller Middle School 36 (65.5%) 19 (34.5%) 0 55 Jacksonville Middle School (Girls) 39 (76.5%) 12 (23.5%) 0 51 Jacksonville Middle School (Boys) 35 (72.9%) 13 (27.1%) 0 48 Maumelle Middle School 15 (100%) 0 0 15 Northwood Middle School 41 (83.7%) 8 (16.3%) 0 49 Robinson Middle School 32 (84.2%) 6 (15.8%) 0 38 Sylvan Hills Middle School 51 (83.6%) 10 (16.4%) 0 fil. Total Middle Schools 249 (78.5%) 68 (21.5%) 0 317 Elementary Schools Adkins Elementary 17 (73.9%) 4 (17.4%) 2 (8.7%) 23 Arnold Drive Elementary 19 (86.4%) 3 (13.6%) 0 22 Baker Elementary 18 (78.3%) 5 (21.7%) 0 23 Bates Elementary 27 (67.5%) 13 (32.5%) 0 40 Bayou Meto Elementary 24 (85.7%) 4 (14.3%) 0 28 Cato Elementary 18 (85.7%) 3 (14.3%) 0 21 Clinton Elementary 34 (75.6%) 11 (24.4%) 0 45 College Station Elementary 20 (74. l %) 7 (25.9%) 0 27 Crystal Hill Elementary 43 (82.7%) 9 (17.3%) 0 52 Dupree Elementary 20 (87.0%) 2 (8.7%) 1 (4.3%) 23 Harris Elementary 11 (57.9%) 7 (36.8) 1 (5.3%) 19 J acksonvi lie Elementary 29 (82.9%) 5 (14.3%) l (2.8%) 35 Landmark Elementary 20 (87.0%) 3 (13.0%) 0 23 Lawson Elementary 17 (85.0%) 3 (15.0%) 0 20 Oakbrooke Elementary 19 (79.2%) 5 (20.8%) 0 24 Oak Grove Elementary 20 (71.4%) 8 (28.6%) 0 28 - Pine Forest Elementary 28 (84.8%) 5 (15.2%) 0 33 Pinewood Elementary 21 (84.0%) 4 (16.0%) 0 25 1051950-1 - Robinson Elementary 20 (87.0%) 3 (13.0%) 0 23 Scott Elementary 12 (92.3%) 1 (7.7%) 0 13 Sherwood Elementary 21 (80.8%) 5 (19.2%) 0 26 Sylvan Hills Elementary 22 (84.6%) 4 (15.4%) 0 26 Taylor Elementary 21 (80.8%) 5 (19.2%) 0 26 Tolleson Elementary 15 (78.9%) 4(21.1%) 0 19 Total Elementary Schools 516 (80.1%) 123 (19.1%) 5 (.8%) 644 TOTAL DISTRICTS 1098 (80.2%) 266 (19.4%) 5 (.4%) 1369 I 051950-1 ATTACHMENT "G" North Little Rock School District Administrators 2005-06 - North Little Rock School District Administrators 2005-2006 White Black Other Total Central Office Superintendent l (100%) 0 0 1 Assistant Superintendent 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Administrative Directors 4 (100%) 0 0 4 Chief Financial Officer 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Directors 5 (83.3%) 1 (16.7%) 0 6 Coordinators 8 (80.0%) 2 (20.0%) 0 10 Specialists 2 (100%) 0 _Q _l Total Centi-al Office 21 (84.0%) 4 (16.0%) 0 25 Building Level High School Principals East 1 (100%) 0 0 1 West 1 (100%) 0 0 l - Agenta Academy 0 1 (100%) 0 1 High School Assistant Principals East 2 (50.0%) 2 (50.0%) 0 4 West 1 (25.0%) 3 (75.0%) Q -1 Total High Schools 5 (45.5%) 6 (54.5%) 0 11 Middle School Principals Lakewood 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Poplar Street 0 1 ( 100%) 0 1 Ridgeroad l (100%) 0 0 1 Rose City 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Middle School Assistant Principals Lakewood 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Poplar Street 2 (100%) 0 0 2 Ridgeroad 0 2 (100%) 0 2 Rose City 0 I (100%) _Q .1 Total Middle Schools 6 (54.5%) 5 (45.5%) 0 11 - I 051955-1 - Elementary School Principals Amboy 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Belwood 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Boone Park 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Crestwood 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Glenview 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Indian Hills 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Lakewood 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Lynch Drive 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Meadow Park 0 l (100%) 0 1 North Heights 0 l (100%) 0 1 Park Hill l (100%) 0 0 1 Pike View 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Seventh Street 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Elementary School Assistant Principals Boone Park l (100%) 0 0 l Indian Hills 1 (100%) 0 0 Lynch Drive 0 1 (100%) 0 North Heights I (100%) 0 0 Seventh Street I (100%) 0 0 - Coordinator Redwood Pre School l (100%) 0 _Q _1 Total Elementary Schools 13 (68.4%) 6 (31.6%) 0 19 TOT AL ADMINISTRATION 45 (68.2%) 21 (31.8%) 0 66 I 051955-1 ATTACHMENT "H" Pulaski County Special School District Administrators 2005-06 - Pulaski County Special School District Administrators 2005-2006 Central Office White Black Other Total Superintendent 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Assistant Superintendent 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Directors 10 (83.3%) 2 (16.7%) 0 12 Coordinators 10 (62.5%) 6 (37.5%) 0 16 Facilitator 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Consultants 2 (100%) 0 0 2 School Psychologist 2 (66.7%) 1 (33.3%) _o_ _l Total Central Office 24 (66.7% 12 (33.3%) 0 36 High School Principals Jacksonville 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Mills 0 1 (100%) 0 1 North Pulaski 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Oak Grove 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Robinson 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Sylvan Hills 0 1 (100%) 0 1 - High School Assistant Principals Jacksonville 3 (100%) 0 0 3 Mills 2 (66.7%) 1 (33.3%) 0 3 No11h Pulaski 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Oak Grove 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Robinson 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Sylvan Hills 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) _o_ 2 Total High Schools 10 (55.6%) 8 (44.4%) 0 18 Middle School Principals Fuller 0 1 (100%) 0 Jacksonville (Girls) 1 (100%) 0 0 Jacksonville (Boys) 0 1 (100%) 0 Maumelle 1 (100%) 0 0 Northwood 0 1 (100%) 0 Robinson 1 (100%) 0 0 Sylvan Hills 0 1 (100%) 0 Middle School Assistant Principals Fuller 0 2 (100%) 0 2 J acksonvi Ile (Girls) 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Jacksonville (Boys) 0 I (100%) 0 1 Maumelle 0 I (100%) 0 1051965-1 - Northwood 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Sylvan Hills 0 2 (100%) _o_ 2 Total Middle Schools 5 (38.5%) 8 (61.5%) 0 13 Elementary School Principals Adkins 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Arnold Drive 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Baker 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Bates 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Bayou Meta 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Cato 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Clinton 0 1 (100%) 0 1 College Station l (100%) 0 0 1 Crystal Hill 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Dupree 0 l (100%) 0 1 Harris 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Jacksonville 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Landmark 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Lawson l (100%) 0 0 1 Oakbrooke 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Oak Grove 0 l (100%) 0 1 Pine Forest l (100%) 0 0 1 Pinewood 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Robinson l (100%) 0 0 1 Scott l (100%) 0 o 1 Sherwood l (100%) 0 0 1 Sylvan Hills l (100%) 0 0 1 Taylor l (100%) 0 0 1 Tolleson 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Elementary Assistant Principals Baker 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Bates 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Bayou Meta l (100%) 0 0 1 Clinton l (50.0%) l (50.0%) 0 1 Crystal Hill 0 l (100%) 0 1 Jacksonville 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Oakbrooke I (100%) 0 0 l Pine Forest 0 l (100%) 0 1 Pinewood 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Sherwood 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Sylvan Hills 0 l (100%) 0 1 Taylor 0 1 (100%) _o_ 1 Total Elementary Schools 17 (45.9%) 20 (54.1 %) 0 37 1051965-1 ATTACHMENT "I" Little Rock School District Student Enrollment 2005-06 Little Rock School District Student Enrollment 2005-06 High Schools Central High School Hall High School J .A. Fair High School McClellan High School (Magnet) Parkview High School (Stipulated) Accelerated Learning (9-12) Alternative Learning Center (H.S.) White 1033 (42.7%) 150 (10.8%) 127 (10.9%) 50 (5.8%) 496 (43.9%) 18 (14.0%) 5 (2.5%) Black Other 1273 (52.6%) 116 (4.7%) 1083 (78.0%) 155 (11.2%) 1006 (86.1%) 36 (3.0%) 779 (90.2%) 35 (4.0%) 559 (49.5%) 74 (6.6%) 109 (84.5%) 2 (1.5%) 193 (96.5%) 2 (1.0%) Total 2422 1388 1169 864 1129 129 200 Total High School 1879 (25.7%) 5002 (68.5%) 420 (5.8%) 7301 Middle Schools Cloverdale Middle School 27 (4.2%) Dunbar Middle School (Magnet) 218 (26.9%) Forest Heights Middle School 121 (17.9%) Henderson Middle School 65 (10.3%) Mabel vale Middle School 77 (12.6%) Mann Middle School (Stipulated) 365 (42.9%) Pulaski Heights Middle School 307 (41.8%) Southwest Middle School 19 (4.1 %) Alternative Learning Center _(Mdl.) 5 (5.7%) Total Middle School 1204 (21.9%) Elementary Schools Bale Elementary 23 (6.9%) Baseline Elementary 17 (5.7%) Booker Arts Elementary (Stipulated) 253 (41.7%) Brady Elementary 40 (10.2%) Carver Elementary (Stipulated) 211 (39.6%) Chicot Elementary 34 (6.0%) Cloverdale (Closed 10-24-05) 7 (6.2%) Dodd Elementary 8 (3.7%) Fair Park Elementary 38 (29.2%) Forest Park Elementary 309 (75.9%) Franklin Elementary (Incentive) 10 (2.3%) Fulbright Elementary 445 (70.3%) Gayer Springs Elementary 15 (4.5%) Gibbs Elementary (Stipulated) 117 (39.4%) Jefferson Elementary 294 (66.5%) Mabelvale Elementary 50 (14.8%) McDermott Elementary 115 (25.1 %) Meadowcliff Elementary 42 (11.6%) 491 (77.2%) 118 (18.6%) 531 (65.5%) 62 (7.6%) 531 (78.6%) 24 (3.5%) 503 (79.8%) 62 (9.9%) 519 (84.7%) 17 (2.7%) 429 (50.5%) 56 (6.6%) 411 (56.0%) 16 (2.2%) 419 (91.1 %) 22 (4.8%) 80 (92.0%) 2 (2.3%) 3914 (71.2%) 379 (6.9%) 273 (81.7%) 38 (11.4%) 219 (74.0%) 60 (20.3%) 324 (53.4%) 30 (4.9%) 332 (84.3%) 22 (5.5%) 290 (54.4%) 32 (6.0%) 418 (74.l %) 112 (19.9%) 85 (75.2%) 21 (18.6%) 162 (74.7%) 47 (21.6%) 86 (66.2%) 6 (4.6%) 81 (19.9%) 17 (4.2%) 427 (97.0%) 3 (.7%) 152 (24.0%) 36 (5.7%) 301(90.4%) 17(5.1%) 158 (53.2%) 22 (7.4%) 142 (32.1 %) 6 (1.4%) 257 (76.0%) 31 (9.2%) 296 (64.6%) 47 (10.3%) 289 (79.6%) 32 (8.8%) 636 811 676 630 613 850 734 460 _.fil_ 5497 334 296 607 394 533 564 113 217 130 407 440 633 333 297 442 338 458 363 M.L. King Elementary (Interdistrict) 187 (30.2%) Otter Creek Elementary 154 (26.6%) Pulaski Heights Elementary 167 (50.0%) Rightsell Elementary (Incentive) 4 (2.2%) Rockefeller Elementary (Incentive) 107 (22.4%) Romine Elementary (Interdistrict) 28 (7.7%) Stephens Elementary 11 (2.0%) Terry Elementary 185 (28.2%) Wakefield Elementary 20 (4.1 %) Washington (Interdistrict) 78 (12.1 %) Watson Elementary 7 (1.5%) Western Hills Elementary 48 (16.8%) Williams Elementary (Stipulated) 177 (38.5%) Wilson Elementary 15 (5.4%) Woodruff Elementary 17 (7 .1 % ) 409 (66.1 % ) 23 (3.7%) 374 (64.5%) 52 (8.9%) 152 (45.5%) 15 (4.5%) 178(96.7%) 2(1.1%) 358 (75.1 %) 12 (2.5%) 290 (79.5%) 47 (12.8%) 527 (96.3%) 9 (1.7%) 375 (57.2%) 96 (14.6%) 366 (74.5%) 105 (21.4%) 516 (80.1 %) 50 (7.8%) 419 (91.5%) 32 (7.0%) 220 (76.9%) 18 (6.3%) 233 (50.7%) 50 (10.8%) 242 (87.7%) 19 (6.9%) 219 (92.0%) 2 (.9%) 619 580 334 184 477 365 547 656 491 644 458 286 460 276 238 Total Elementary Total District 3233 (23.9%) 9170 (67.9%) 1111 (8.2%) 13514 6316 (24.0%) 18086 (68.7%) 1910 (7.3%) 26312 ATTACHMENT "J" Building Capacities for Each of the Three Districts - Pulaski County Special School District Building Capacities Capacity Enrollment % Capacity 2005-2006 Used High Schools Jacksonville High School 1360 1129 83% Mills High School 1130 972 86% North Pulaski High School 1050 897 85% Oak Grove High School 1130 627 55% Robinson High School 770 674 88% Sylvan Hills High School 1120 1018 91% Middle Schools Fuller Middle School 1360 758 56% Jacksonville Middle School 1970 892 45% Maumelle Middle School 1360 447 33% Northwood Middle School 1030 668 65% Robinson Middle School 650 414 64% Sylvan Hills Middle School 1080 713 66% Elementary Schools - Adkins Elementary 526 242 46% Arnold Drive Elementary 453 295 65% Baker Elementary 428 374 87% Bates Elementary 863 529 61% Bayou Meto Elementary 697 430 62% Cato Elementary 800 349 44% Clinton Elementary 840 672 80% College Station Elementary 439 201 46% Crystal Hill Elementary 870 794 91% Dupree Elementary 498 298 60% Hanis Elementary 906 266 29% Jacksonville Elementary 850 575 68% Landmark Elementary 711 315 44% Lawson Elementary 372 302 81% Oak Grove Elementary 626 324 52% Oakbrooke Elementary 553 433 78% Pine Forest Elementary 554 512 92% Pinewood Elementary 677 470 69% Robinson Elementary 544 371 68% Scott Elementary 294 131 45% Sherwood Elementary 561 401 71% Sylvan Hills Elementary 606 425 70% Taylor Elementary 566 378 67% Tolleson Elementary 291 561 52% 1051981-1 - North Little Rock School District Building Capacities Capacity Enrollment % Capacity 2005-2006 Used High Schools North Little Rock High (East) 1556 1517 97% North Little Rock High (West) 1700 1469 86% Middle Schools Lakewood Middle School 779 719 92% Poplar Street Middle Schoo 938 618 66% Ridgeroad Middle School 791 554 70% Rose City Middle School 466 211 45% Elementary Schools Amboy Elementary 462 350 76% Belwood Elementary 216 137 63% Boone Park Elementary 602 384 64% Crestwood Elementary 448 384 86% Glenview Elementary 254 158 62% Indian Hills Elementary 586 534 91% Lakewood Elementary 425 385 91% Lynch Drive Elementary 549 338 62% Meadow Park Elementary 257 195 76% North Heights Elementary 559 389 70% Park Hill Elementary 367 332 90% Pike View Elementary 507 376 74% Redwood Pre-School 228 213 93% Seventh Street Elementary 516 317 61% 1051981-1 Little Rock School District Building Capacities Capacity Enrollment % Capacitv 2005-2006 Used High Schools Central High School 2276 2422 106% Hall High School 1754 1389 79% J.A. Fair High School 1200 1169 97% McClellan High School 1440 864 60% Parkview High School 1200 1129 94% Middle Schools Cloverdale Middle School 885 636 72% Dunbar Middle School 888 811 91% Forest Heights Middle School 780 676 87% Henderson Middle School 960 630 66% Mann Middle School 900 850 94% Mabelvale Middle School 681 613 90% - Pulaski Heights Middle School 858 734 86% Southwest Middle School 912 460 5.0% Elementarv Schools Bale Elementary 488 334 68% Baseline Elementary 360 296 82% Booker Arts Elementary 645 607 94% Brady Elementary 528 394 75% Carver Elementary 556 533 96% Chicot Elementary 509 564 111% Cloverdale Elementary 489 113 23% Dodd Elementary 271 289 107% Fair Park Elementary 304 130 43% Forest Park Elementary 400 407 102% Franklin Elementary 532 440 83% Fulbright Elementary 565 633 112% Gayer Springs Elementary 358 333 93% Gibbs Elementary 321 297 93% Jefferson Elementary 471 442 94% Mabelvale Elementary 443 338 76% McDennott Elementary 453 458 101% Meadowcliff Elementary 358 363 101% M.L. King Elementary 715 619 87% - Otter Creek Elementary 537 580 108% 1051981-1 Pulaski Heights Elementary 350 334 95% Rightsell Elementary 296 184 62% Rockefeller Elementary 481 477 99% Romine Elementary 507 365 72% Stephens Elementary 646 547 85% Terry Elementary 575 656 114% Wakefiled Elementary 482 491 102% Washington Elementary 836 644 77% Watson Elementary 591 458 77% West em Hills Elementary 320 286 89% Williams Elementary 585 460 79% Wilson Elementary 340 276 81% Woodruff Elementary 314 238 76% 1051981-1 ATTACHMENT "K" Little Rock School District Faculty Assignments 2005-06 - Little Rock School District Faculty Assignments - 2005-2006 White Black Total High Schools Central High School 103 (66.0%) 53 (34.0%) 156 Hall High School 66 (62.9%) 39 (37.1 %) 105 J.A. Fair High School 57 (64.0%) 32 (36.0%) 89 McClellan High School (Magnet) 41 (51.3%) 39 (48.7%) 80 Parkview High School (Magnet) 59 (69.4%) 26 (30.6%) 85 Total High Schools 326 (63.3%) 189 (36.7%) 515 Middle Schools Cloverdale Middle School 23 (37.7%) 38 (62.3%) 61 Dunbar Middle School (Magnet) 35 (57.4%) 26 (42.6%) 61 Forest Heights Middle School 37 (57.8%) 27 (42.2%) 64 Henderson Middle School 32 (50.8%) 31 (49.2%) 63 Mann Middle School (Magnet) 33 (50.0%) 33 (50.0%) 66 Mabelvale Middle School 43 (74.1%) 15 (25.9%) 58 Pulaski Heights Middle School 46 (78.0%) 13 (22.0%) 59 Southwest Middle School 16 (30.8%) 36 (69.2%) 52 - Total Middle Schools 265 (54.8%) 219 (45.2%) 484 Elementary Schools Bale Elementary 20 (71.4%) 8 (28.6%) 28 Baseline Elementary 10 (38.5%) 16 (61.5%) 26 Booker Arts Elementary (Magnet) 39 (70.9%) 16 (29.1%) 55 Brady Elementary 16 (55.2%) 13 (44.8%) 29 Carver Elementary (Magnet) 29 (69.0%) 13 (31.0%) 42 Chicot Elementary 33 (75.0%) 11 (25.0%) 44 Cloverdale Eleme~t"ry Dodd Elementary 20 (71.4%) 8 (28.6%) 28 Fair Park Elementary 4 (44.4%) 5 (55.6%) 9 Forest Park Elementary 23 (88.5%) 3 (11.5%) 26 Franklin Elementary (Incentive) 14 (36.8%) 24 (63.2%) 38 Fulbright Elementary 31 (79.5%) 8 (20.5%) 39 Geyer Springs Elementary 13 (52.0%) 12 (48.0%) 25 Gibbs Elementary (Magnet) 21 (72.4%) 8 (27.6%) 29 Jefferson Elementary 23 (74.2%) 8 (25.8%) 31 King Elementary (Magnet) 24 (53.3%) 21 (46.7%) 45 Mabelvale Elementary 20 (69.0%) 9 (31.0%) 29 McDem1ott Elementary 16 (55.2%) 13 (44.8%) 29 Meadowcliff Elementary 18 (66.7%) 9 (33.3%) 27 Mitchell Elementary (Incentive) 1051993-1 -- Otter Creek Elementary 27 (77.1%) 8 (22.9%) 35 Pulaski Heights Elementary 18 (81.8%) 4 (18.2%) 22 Rightsell Elementary (Incentive) 6 (33.3%) 12 (67.7%) 18 Rockefeller Elementary (Incentive) 30 (83.3%) 6 (16.7%) 36 Romine Elementary (Inter-district) 12 (41.4%) 17 (58.6%) 29 Stephens Elementary 23 (52.3%) 21 (47.7%) 44 Terry Elementary 31 (86.1%) 5 (13.9%) 36 W akefiled Elementary 22 (62.9%) 13 (37.1%) 35 Washington Elementary (Magnet) 24 (45.3%) 29 (54.7%) 53 Watson Elementary 23 (65.7%) 12 (34.3%) 35 W estem Hills Elementary 16 (76.2%) 5 (23.8%) 21 Williams Elementary (Magnet) 29 (80.6%) 7 (19.4%) 36 Wilson Elementary 16 (59.3%) 11 (40.7%) 27 Woodruff Elementary 11 (50.0%) 11 (50.0%) 22 Total Elementary Schools 662 (64.4%) 366 (35.6%) 1028 TOTALS 1253 (61.8%) 774 (38.2%) 2027 1051993-1 ATTACHMENT "L" Little Rock School District Administrators 2005-06 Little Rock School District Administrators 2005-2006 White Black Other Total Central Office Superintendent 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Deputy Superintendent 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Associate Superintendent 0 3 (100%) 0 3 Government Legislative Affairs 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Chief Financial Officer 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Directors 11 (61.1%) 7 (38.9%) 0 18 Coordinators 8(42.1%) 11 (57.9%) 0 19 Specialists 1 (7.7%) 12 (92.3%) _Q u Total Central Office 23 (40.4%) 34 (59.6%) 0 57 Building Level High School Principals Central 1 (100%) 0 0 1 - Fair 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Hall 1 (100%) 0 0 1 McClellan 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Parkview 1 (100%) 0 0 1 High School Assistant Principals Central 2 (33.3%) 4 (66.7%) 0 6 Fair 2 (66.7%) 1 (33.3%) 0 3 Hall 1 (25.0%) 3 (75.0%) 0 4 McClellan 3 (100%) 0 0 3 Parkview 1 (25.0%) 3 (75.0%) _Q 1 Total High Schools 14 (56.0%) 11 (44.0%) 0 25 Middle School Principals Cloverdale 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Dunbar 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Forest Heights 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Henderson 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Mabel vale l (100%) 0 0 1 Mann l (100%) 0 0 1 Pulaski Heights 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Southwest 0 l (100%) 0 1 1051998-1 - Middle School Assistant Principals Cloverdale 1 (33.3%) 2 (66.7%) 0 3 Dunbar 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Forest Heights 2 (66.7%) 1 (33.3%) 0 3 Henderson 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Mabel vale 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Mann 1 (33.3%) 2 (66.7%) 0 3 Pulaski Heights 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Southwest 0 2 (100%) _Q 2 Total Middle Schools 12 (44.4%) 15 (55.6%) 0 27 Elementary School Principals Bale 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Baseline 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Booker 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Brady 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Carver I (100%) 0 0 1 Chicot I (100%) 0 0 1 Cloverdale* 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Dodd 1 (100%) 0 0 1 - Fair Park Elementary Forest Park 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Franklin 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Fulbright 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Geyer Springs 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Gibbs 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Jefferson 1 (100%) 0 0 1 King 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Mabel vale 0 1 (100%) 0 1 McDermott 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Meadowcliff 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Mitchell Elementary Otter Creek 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Pulaski Heights 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Rightsell 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Rockefeller 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Romine 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Stephens 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Terry 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Wakefield I (100%) 0 0 1 Washington 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Watson 0 1 (100%) 0 1 - Western Hills 1 (100%) 0 0 1 105 I 998-1 - Williams 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Wilson 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Woodruff 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Elementary Assistant Principals Booker 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Carver 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Chicot 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Fulbright 1 (100%) 0 0 1 King 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Otter Creek 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Rockefeller 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Stevens 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Terry 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Wakefield 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Washington 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Williams 0 1 (100%) _Q l Total Elementary Schools 20 (45.5%) 24 (54.5%) 0 44 TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 69(45.1%) 84 (54.9%) 0 153 1051998-1 ATTACHMENT "M" "School Desegregation Cases: The 'Good Faith' Requirement" by Charles L. Patin, Jr. and William M. Gordon 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407 (January 31, 2002) v\kst1iw. L,,' 159WELR407 Page I 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407 (Cite as: 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407) C West's Education Law Reporter January 31, 2002 Commentary *407 SCHOOL DESEGREGATION CASES: THE "GOOD FAITH" REQUIREMENT LI::lli} Charles L. Patin, Jr., J.D. and William M. Gordon, Ed.D., J.D. [FNI] Copyright 2002 by West Group - No Claim to Original U.S. Government Works Stephen Furr, a member of the Rapides Parish School Board, aptly commented following a discussion about the "good faith" requirement in school desegregation cases that: The "good faith" requirement may be the single most difficult of all the requirements of a unitary system. It demands a change in attitude which must be evidenced in the words and actions of the members of the Board and all those connected with the school system. (emphasis supplied.) In the wake of the United States Supreme Court's 1992 decision in Freeman v. Pitts. [FN2] the underlying test as to whether a school district has operated in "good faith" and is entitled to the entry of a judgment terminating judicial supervision in a school desegregation case is whether the school district has demonstrated, to the public and to the parents and students of the once disfavored race, its good faith commitment to the whole of the court's decree and to those provisions of the law and the constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance." [FN3] (emphasis supplied.) Freeman's test, its origin and development, and a discussion of the kinds of actions school districts should undertake in its aftermath fonn the subject matter of this article. THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE GOOD FAITH REQUIREMENT IN FREEMAN v. PITTS The origin of the "good faith" requirement can be traced to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Brown II. [FN4] There the Court commanded *408 "good faith compliance at the earliest practicable date [,]" [FNS] with its landmark decision in Brown I. (FN6] Brown I declared state imposed segregation in the field of public elementary and secondary education unconstitutional as in violation of the guarantees in the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Brown II, decided during the following term of the Court, placed primary responsibility upon local school districts to undertake necessary action to convert to unitary systems "with all deliberate speed" [fn7] AND CHARGED federal district courts with the responsibility of assessing "whether the action of local school authorities constitutes good faith implementation of the governing constitutional principles(]" elucidated in Brown I. (FN8] It also directed governments at all levels to undertake af{irmative steps to dismantle laws requiring or permitting segregation in the area of public education. The Court observed that "[a]ll provisions of federal, state and local law requiring or permitting such discrimination must yield to [the principle that racial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional]." [FN9) Implicit in Brown II was an expectation that local school districts would come forward with plans to establish unitary systems and that states would adopt legislation to repeal statutes requiring separate educational opportunities and facilities for the races. From its inception, therefore, "good faith" envisioned that voluntary action would be taken by local school district 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. ~ffk (_/' 159 WELR407 Page2 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407 (Cite as: 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407) and state officials to comply with the rule of law in Brown I and the mandate in Brown II. In most, if not all, instances the initial response of school districts "to the mandate in Brown II was an all too familiar one. Interpreting 'all deliberate speed' as giving latitude to delay steps to desegregate," (FNl OJ school districts undertook virtually no action to convert to unitary systems in the decade following Brown II. But the time for "all deliberate speed" was drawing to an end. In Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, [lliill decided just over a decade after Brown II, the Court stated "the time fo~ mere 'deliberate speed' has run out[.]" (FN12) "The burden on a school board today is to come forward with a plan that promises realistically to work, and promises to realistically work now. (FNl3) (emphasis by the Court.) The Green Court observed It is incumbent upon the school board to establish that its proposed plan promises meaningful and immediate progress toward disestablishing state-imposed segregation. It is incumbent upon the district court to weigh that claim in light of the facts at hand and in light of any *409 alternatives which may be shown as feasible and more promising in their effectiveness. Where the court finds the board to be acting in good faith and the proposed plan to have real prospects for dismantling the stateimposed dual system "at the earliest practicable date," then the plan may be said to provide effective relief. Of course, the availability to the board of other more promising courses of action may indicate a lack of good faith[. (FN14) (emphasis supplied.) Green went on to identify areas or facets of the operations of school districts in which prior state sanctioned discrimination must be eliminated. These areas or facets in which vestiges of prior dual education systems for the races lingered were said to be comprised of student assignm~nts, administrative, faculty and staff assignments, extra-curricular activities, transportation, and facilities. Discrimination in these areas was to be eliminated "root and branch." (FNl5) Subsequent cases expanded these areas so as to include resource allocations, as addressed in Swann y. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (FN 16) and the right to a "quality education," (FN 17) as discussed in Freeman. These areas may be said in a practical way to constitute what we understand today as the "Green Factors." "The Green factors are a measure of the racial identifiability of schools in a system that is not in compliance with Brown[.]" (FNl 8) The expanding role of federal district courts, foreshadowed in Green, was to come to fruition in Swann. The Swann Court announced where "school authorities fail in their affirmative obligations under [Brown II and Green], judicial authority may be invoked." (FN l 91 This language formally ushered in the era of federally imposed school desegregation orders. The power of federal district courts to fashion school desegregation orders through their equity jurisdiction came with the concomitant obligation that school districts implement them in good faith. The good faith requirement of Brown II was thus expanded. "Good faith" could be demonstrated not only through self-initiated voluntary action but also through the implementation of the orders of courts sufficient to demonstrate a good faith commitment to the principles of equality in the Fourteenth Amendment. The next major developmental step was to come decades later in Board of Education of Oklahoma City v.Dowcll. (FN20] There the Court observed that the issue of whether a school district should be declared unitary, and judicial supervision terminated, must turn on whether a school district has implemented "in good faith ... the desegregation decree since it was entered, and whether the vestiges of past discrimination [have] been eliminated to the extent practicable." [FN2 l] (emphasis supplied.) The requirement that all vestiges of past discrimination be eliminated to the extent practicable formally recognized what to that point in time had been more or less implicit in the cases--that is *410 say a school district's good faith must be assessed in light of its policies and action as they relate to compliance with the remedial measures in orders of the court, any remaining Green Factors which were not addressed in those orders, and any other facets of the operation of a school district 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. "{ A r,_,a.f
VVt.
l..ill.w. l,,/ 159 WELR4O7 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407 (Cite as: 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407) in which other vestiges of discrimination might still exist. (FN22] Page 3 Dowell clarified whatever ambiguity earlier cases might have interjected into the analysis federal district courts were to employ in approaching a school district's motion for unitary status. Mere compliance with the verbage of a federal school desegregation order limiting remedial actions to less than all of the Green Factors would not suffice. The requisite showing of good faith also must involve a judicial finding that a school district has eliminated past discrimination in all facets of its operations to the extent practicable. Dowell, therefore, demonstrated a continuing commitment by the Court to the principles it had earlier announced in Brown I, and the mandate and requirements in Brown II, Green and Swann. Even though language in many of the older federal school desegregation orders was limited to specific remedial actions, usually in the areas of student and faculty and staff assignments, Dowell reiterated a unitary school system is one in which all vestiges of prior discrimination have been eliminated to the extent _practicable. On the heels of Dowell came Freeman. It underscored what had been said a year earlier in Dowell: "a school district that was once dual must be examined in all of its facets, ... when the question is whether the district court's remedial control ought to be modified, lessened, or withdrawn." [FN231 But Freeman's pronouncements on good faith went much further than prior case law and were to fim1ly entrench good faith as an essential requirement of a unitary system. Freeman recognized good faith compliance as "one of the prerequisites to relinquishment of [judicial) control[.)" [FN24J A good faith commitment to the entirety of a school district's desegregation plan was viewed as necessary "in order to insure that the principal wrong of the de jure system, the injuries and stigma inflicted upon the race disfavored by the violation, [would be) no longer present." [FN25] This finding in tum requires a showing by a school district sufficie~t to "demonstrate[), to the public and to the parents and students of the once disfavored race, its good faith commitment to the whole of the court's decree and to those provisions of the law and the constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance." [FN26] Only a voluntary change of attitude, evidenced in the words and actions of the members of a school board and all those connected with a school system, is sufficient to make this showing. *411 It is not surprising, therefore, that the Court in Freeman observed that "(a) history of good-faith compliance" is necessary in order that a federal district court may "accept [a) school board's representation that it has accepted the principle ofracial equality and will not suffer intentional discrimination in the future." [FN27] Moreover, [c)ourts have recognized that the mere adoption of a racially neutral remedial plan is not tantamount to desegregation. Thus, where a court has reason to believe that a discriminatory animus still taints local decisionmaking, it may be appropriate for the court to retain jurisdiction for some period after neutral procedures have been implemented. [FN28] (citations omitted
emphasis supplied.) Accordingly, a good faith showing cannot be based upon a temporary ritualistic change in behavior on the eve of filing a motion for unitary status. A pattern of dedication to the whole of the court's orders and to the constitutional principles embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment must be shown for a "reasonable period of time." [FN29] The case law appears to suggest that a "reasonable period of time" consists of at least three years from the commencement of the implementation of a desegregation plan. [FN301 Freeman, therefore, may be viewed as a culminating step in the Court's development of the "good faith" requirement
a development which has spanned nearly four decades. Its essential aspects, traceable to Brown !I's call for voluntary action and judicial oversight, remain firmly intact. What Freeman adds is a requirement that a specific judicial finding be made that a school district has taken sufficient and consistent action for a reasonable period of time to convey and demonstrate a) a 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. -1 lAv~T1,....,4J~.a' .W. L/ 159 WELR407 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407 (Cite as: 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407) Page 4 change of attitude to those on whose behalf the lawsuit was brought, and b) an acceptance of Fourteenth Amendment principles sufficient to suggest to the a:urr that if judicial supervision is relinquished the school district will not likely return to its former discriminatory ways. It must be remembered that the jurisdiction of federal courts in school desegregation cases is derived through their equity jurisdiction. "Clean *412 hands," a cornerstone tenet of equity, must be shown by a school district seeking relief from a school desegregation order. A school district's clean hands can only be shown through compliance with the orders of the court and an acceptance of the principles embodied within the Fourteenth Amendment sufficient to demonstrate "to the public and to the parents and students of the once disfavored race, its good faith commitment to the whole of the court's decree and to those provisions of the law and the constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance." Only with a change in attitude evidencing a comm1tment to the principle of equality of educational opportunities for all children is such a demonstration possible. ACTION WHICH DEMONSTRATES GOOD FAITH "A school system is better positioned to demonstrate its good-faith commitment to a constitutional course of action when its policies form a consistent pattern of lawful conduct directed to eliminating earlier violations [.)" [FN31 J Accordingly, school boards should have all existing policies in the areas of student assignments, administrative, faculty W1ZJ and staff assignments, extra-curricular activities, transportation, facilities, resource allocations to determine whether they comport with the requirements of Green, Swann, Singleton (FN33] and Freeman. Where policies do not exist, they should be voluntarily adopted and submitted to the parties for ri,view and comment and to the court for approval. In addition to policies designed to address Green Factors per se, there will likely be a need to consider adoption of policies addressing student discipline, teacher recruitment, harassment of students becau~e of race or color, measures to increase minority participation in gifted and .alented programs and other advanced courses, parental and community involvement practices and procedures, and perh:!ps other areas as well. The need for these more particularized policies will depend upon the facts in a given case. Other action may be necessary as well. In this regard, Freeman and its progeny offer helpful examples. Freeman involved a motion for unitary status by the DeKalb County School District (hereinafter referred to as the "DCSD") which had operated under federal supervision since 1969. Partial unitary status was granted in the area of student assignments, and three other areas as well. (FN34] Because of the obvious significance of student assignments, the Court's reasoning in this area will be examined more closely. It offers exc~!!ent examples of actions school districts can take to demonstrate good faith. At the time of the filing of the motion for unitary status, approximately 73,000 students were enrolled in the DCSD in grades kindergarten through twelve. Over the ensuing years preceding the filing of the unitary status motion in 1986, the DCSD had experienced significant changes in the racial *413 composition of its student population. The school district's overall resident population had grown from about 70,000 residents to approximately 450,000 persons in about a thirty year span. The racial composition of the student population had grown from a little under six percent black in 1969 to 47 percent black in 1986. Remarkable demographic changes occurred as well. The northern portion of the school district had become predominately white, while the southern portion had become predominately black. Mindful of the "continuing" nature of the duty to desegregate, (FN35] the DCSD had made "about 170" boundary line changes to its student attendance zones since the filing of the school desegregation lawsuit. [FN36l Only three of the 170 student attendance zone changes were fcund to have had even a partial segregative effect. (FN3 7] The school district had initiated a mnj0rity-to-minority ("M-to-M) student transfer policy in 1972 to promote voluntary stu- 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. Vks'fuiw. t,.....,- 159 WELR407 Page 5 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407 (Cite as: 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407) dent transfers to increase levels of desegregation and minimize racial isolation. M-to-M transfers permit a student whose race is in the majority in his/her stude_nt attendance zone school to transfer to a school in another student attendance zone in which his/her race will be in the minority. In general, M-to-M transfers permit black students attending predominately black schools to transfer to predominately white schools until the racial composition of the receiving school reaches 50 percent white and 50 percent black or some other percentage depending upon school board policy or an order of the court. M-to-M transfers also are available to white students enrolled in predominately white schools who desire to transfer to_a predominately black school. Magnet programs were instituted in the early J 980's. A performing arts, two science, and foreign language magnet programs were offered. [FN38) These programs were located in schools in the middle of the school district to better draw both white and black students residing in the northern and southern portions of the school district. In addition, racially integrated "experience programs" were offered in areas such a writing for fifth and seventh graders, a driving range, summer school programs, and a dialectical speech program. Measures were employed by the DCSD to control the racial mix in each of these programs to insure that they would be operated on a desegregated basis. (FN39) Finally, it is significant to note that the Court observed that "only infrequent and limited judicial intervention into the affairs of [the DCSD) (]" had been required during the period of judicial supervision. (FN40) This served as further evidence of a pattern of substantial compliance over the years with the court's orders. (FN41) *414 These combined actions, and the lack of a need for constant judicial intervention, were deemed sufficient by the Court to show that the DCSD had "achieved the maximum practical desegregation from 1969 to I 986." [FN42) Lower federal court decisions in the wake of Freeman provide additional examples.- A few of them are discussed here. ~ ning v. School Board of Hillsborough County Florida (FN43) involved an appeal by a school district to a district court judgment denying a motion for unitary status. The school district had operated under a court imposed school desegregation order from the early l 970's until 1991 when a consent decree had been entered into by the parties and approved by the court. The consent decree modified the court's earlier order. It was to be implemented over a seven year period. One of the major aspects of the consent decree was the elimination of sixth grade center schools. These were replaced by middle schools under the terms of the decree. In 1994, the plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the consent decree. The motion was referred by the court to a magistrate who recommended denying the motion. In response to the recommendation, the court deferred ruling on the motion and remanded the matter to the magistrate to consider of whether the school district had achieved unitary status and was entitled to termination of judicial supervision. The motion was tried before the magistrate in 1996. In 1997, the magistrate recommended to the court that it find the school district unitary and terminate judicial supervision. Testimony was offered and considered by the magistrate on the issue of good faith in accordance with Freeman. Based upon the testimony, the magistrate judge concluded the school district had complied in good faith with the court's decree. Testimony was offered by the superintendent, the school board's chairman and several of its members. The testimony of the school district witnesses was found to show a commitment to Fourteenth Amendment principles. The superintendent testified "he felt 'a moral and legal obligation on the school system to continue a desegregated school system.'" (FN44) The chairman of the school board testified the school board was "going to guarantee that students will receive [an] equal education." (FN45) School board members "expressed no misgivings about ... the intent and ability of the School Board to continue a desegregated school system while receiving input from all members of the community." (FN46) 2006 Tlt0111son/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. ~ (_/" 159 WELR 407 Page 6 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407 (Cite as: 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407) In addition, a twenty-five year history of compliance with the court's orders was observed by the magistrate. Not once had the school district been found in violation of any court order. Furthermore, the magistrate found the school district had regularly conferred with the plaintiffs "to ensure that the school system was moving forwards, not backwards, toward compliance with the [c]ourt's orders." [FN47l Based upon this evidence, the magistrate concluded the action of the school district "demonstrates that [the school board has] accepted the principle of racial equality and will not revert back to a dual school system." (FN48J *415 However, the district court rejected the magistrate's recommendation. On appeal, the court of appeals' discussion of the good faith requirement focused on factors such as a) the school district's history of never violating a court order
b) the school district had never been sanctioned
and c) the school district had consulted extensively with the black community, including the plaintiffs, prior to implementing new student assignments under the I 99 I consent decree. (FN49] In addition, the court noted magnet programs had been adopted specifically to reduce racial isolation and to promote desegregation, that a multicultural curriculum for students in all grades had been proposed and that special in-servicing for teachers was provided to enable them to deal with diverse student populations. [FN50J The court went on to note "a court should not dwell on isolated discrepancies, but rather should 'consider whether the school board's policies form a consistent pattern of lawful conduct directed to eliminating earlier violations.' " (FNS I J The district court's ruling was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings before the district court judge. The school district's history of compliance, the use of magnet programming, and its regular discussions with the "AfricanAmerican" community were sufficient to demonstrate to those on whose behalf the case had b~en filed that the school d_istrict had made a commitment "to the whole of the court's decree and to those provisions of the law and the constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance." In Lockett v. Board of Education of Muscogee County School District, (FNS2l the court of appeals observed that A good faith commitment to a desegregation plan also demonstrates to parents, stvdents, and the public that students will no longer suffer injury or stigma. At the same time, it "enables the district court to accept the school board's representation that [the school board] has accepted the principal of racial equality and will not suffer intentional discrimination in the future." To determine if a school board has shown a good faith commitment to a desegregation plan, a district court should, among other things, consider whether the school board's policies "fom1 a consistent pattern of lawful conducted directed to eliminating earlier violations." (citations o:nitted.) The court went on to observed that the school board had a history of a) having never been enjoined or sanctioned
b) having never failed lo comply with a court order
c) taking actions to further desegregation above and beyond what was required in the court's plan
d) taking unsurpassed actions to maintain the highest levels of desegregation within its schools of any school *416 system in the nation
e) successfully implementing magnet programs which had desegregated schools
f) consulting with both white and black citizens prior to adoption of a neighborhood student assignment plan
and g) implementing a majority- to-minority student transfer plan to offset any negative racial impact of the neighborhood student assignment plan. (f-N53J This conduct was found sufficient to support a finding of good faith. Reed v. Rhodes (FNS41 involved a motion to modify a consent decree and terminate judicial supervision over student assignments in the Cleveland Public School System. After citing Freeman and noting the necessity that a school district must have demonstrated, to the public and to the parents and students of the once disfavored race, its good faith commitment to the whole of the court's [seminal remedial order] and to those provisions of the law and the constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance(, [FNSSJ 2006 Th9mson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. ~'kiw. L--'' 159 WELR 407 Page 7 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407 (Cite as: 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407) the court observed the school district had not only complied with the student assignment plan to the extent practicable but, also, that it had implemented far more demanding compliance requirements ... to override the demographics of the City of Cleveland. In addition to extensive student attendance, zone boundary changes and clustering, provision for minority-to-minority transfers, magnet schools, and community schools, the District also implemented one of the nation's most extensive and arduous programs of mandatory student reassignments and transportation. The District reassigned students annually during this period to ensure that schools that had fallen out of compliance due to population mobility within [the] District were returned to compliance within the "I 5io requirement. A comparison of the Cleveland School District's compliance with the student assignment component of the Remedial Order as incorporated into the Consent Decree with the history of compliance approved by the Supreme Court in Freeman compels the conclusion that the Cleveland District achieved "full and satisfactory" compliance with court-imposed requirements during the relevant periods. [FN5G) CONCLUSION What has remained consistent throughout the development of the good faith requirement is the need for voluntary action. A history of compliance with the orders of the court, punctuated by minimal judicial intervention into the affairs of a school district
the adoption and implementation of school board policies demonstrating a consistent pattern of lawful conduct
the use of M-to-M transfers and magnet programming to reduce racial isolation
regular communications between the parties and members of the African American community, all require voluntary action and serve to evidence good faith by demonstrating *417 to the public and to the parents and students of the once disfavored race, its good faith commitment to the whole of the court's decree and to those provisions of the law and the constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance. In short, the long journey to unitary status cannot be completed where a school district's compliance is constantly coerced by judicial edict or the intercession of others acting on behalf of the court to fashion policies compliant with the law. A history of foot-dragging and contentiousness, with the concomittant need for frequent judicial i'ntervention, cannot demonstrate acceptance of the principle of equality embedded in the Fourteenth Amendment or demonstrate to the court that once judicial supervision is terminated that it will be unlikely that a school district would return to its fonner ways. (FNaJ The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. Cite as 159 Ed.Law Rep. [407] (Jan. 31, 2002). [FN I]. Charles L. Patin, Jr. is a partner with the Baton Rouge law firm of Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan and Jarman, L.L.P. Mr. Patin successfully negotiated the consent judgment in "Valley, et al. v. Rapides Parish School Board," and serves as lead desegregation attorney for the Rapides Parish School Board. Dr. \Villiam M. Gordon is a school desegregation expert and consultant with over 30 years of experience. He has provided expert and consulting services for a number of school districts and state departments of education, as well as plaintiff groups and the United States Department of Justice. He has been certified as an expert in school desegregation by a number of federal district courts and has worked with school districts in their efforts to obtain unitary status. He now resides on Two-Goat Road in Saluda, North Carolina. [FN2]. 503 U.S. 467 112 S.Ct. 1430 118 L.Ed.2d 108 (72 Ed.Law Rep. (717)] (1992). [r-N3]. lei. <114 91 112 S.Ct. at--------. [FN4]. Brown v. Bomcl of Education ofTopeb /Brown [I) 349 U.S. 294, 75 S.Ct. 753 99 L.Ed. 1083 (1955). 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. "I'. AT _ _,,rfJ V~taw. 159 WELR407 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407 (Cite as: 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407) [FN5]. Id at 300. 75 S.Ct. at--------. [FN6]. Brown v. Board ofEducation of Topeka. (Brown I} 347 U.S. 483 74 S.Ct. 686. 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954). [FN7]. 349 U.S. at 299 and 301. 75 S.ct. at-------- ancl --------. [FN8]. Id. at 299. 75 S.Ct. at--------. [FN9]. Id. at 298, 75 S.Ct. at--------. [FNI0). Freeman 503 U.S. at 472. 112 S.Ct. at--------. [fiill.J. 391 U.S. 430. 88 S.Ct. 1689. 20 LEd. 2d 716 (1968). Page 8 [FN12]. Id. at 438. 88 S.Ct. at--------, citing Griffin v. Countv School Board, 377 U.S. 218 234, 84 S.Ct. 1226 --------. 12 L.Ed.2d 256 (I 964). [FNI 3]. Green 391 U.S. at 439. [FN14]. Id. [FNI 5]. Id. at 438. [FNl6]. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education 402 U.S. 1, 18, 91 S.Ct. 1267, -------- 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971). [FN17]. Freeman 503 U.S. at 482. [FN 18]. Id. 503 U.S. at 486. [FN19]. Swann, 402 U.S. I, 15, 91 S.ct. 1267. ----------. [FN20]. 498 U.S. 237, 111 S.Ct. 630 112 L.Ed.2d 715 [64 eD.lAW rEP. [628]] (1991). [.E]fljJ. 498 U.S. at 249-50 111 S.Ct. at--------. See Coalition to Save Our Children v. State Board of Education of State of Delaware 90 F.3d 752, 760 [I 11 Ed.Law Rep. [ 132]] (3rd Cir.1996) (observing "the phrase 'to the extent practicable' implies a reasonable limit on the duration of ... federal supervision"). [FN22]. See Manning v. School Board of Hillsborough Countv, Florida, 244 F.3d 927 at p. 11 [152 Ed.Law Rep. [51]] (11th Cir.(Fla.)} (citing Freeman and observing "For a district court to determine whether the vestiges of discrimination have been eliminated to the extent practicable, it must examine the six Green factors .... Using its discretion, a court may also consider other facets(] (emphasis supplied")). In Freeman the use of this discretion was utilized to cite discrimination in the assignment of experienced and advanced degree teachers as a lingering vestige of the former dual system. [FN23]. 503 U.S. at 486 112 S.Ct. at--------. [FN24]. Id. at 490 112 S.Ct. at--------. [FN25]. Id. at 485, 112 S.Ct. at--------. 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. v-ks1'8w. L/' 159 WELR407 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407 (Cite as: 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407) [FN26]. Id. at 491, 112 S.Ct. at--------. [FN27]. Id. at 498, 112 S.Ct. at--------. Page 9 [FN28]. Morgan v. Nucci, 831 F.2d 313. 321 (42 Ed.Law Rep. [514]] (1st Cir.1987), cited with favor in Freeman 503 U.S. at 498-99 112 S.Ct. at--------. (FN29]. Dowell 498 U.S. at 248-49 111 S.Ct. at-------- (observing a desegregation decree may be dissolved after compliance for a "reasonable period of time
" the Court further observed that the "passage of time enables the district court to observe the good faith of the school board in complying with the decree"). [FN30]. See Lee v. Etowah County Board of Education, 963 F.2d 1416, 1422 [75 Ed.Law Rep. [195l) (11th Cir.1992) (observing "the district court must retain jurisdiction for a period of time after the school system has implemented a desegregation plan. to guard against the possibility of recurring constitutional violations, and to ensure the achievement of the ultimate goal-- a unitary public school system in which the state does not discriminate between children on the basis of race. After a period of time sufficient to achieve these objectives has elapsed--this court has required a period of not less than three years- a district court may terminate a desegregation case by holding a hearing to determine if the school system has achieved unitary status" [emphasis supplied])
see also United States v. Texas Education A0 ency 647 F.2d 504 508-09 (5th Cir.1981) cert. denied. 454 U.S. 1143 71 L.Ed.2d 295. 102 S.Ct. 1002 (1982) (observing district courts must retain jurisdiction in school desegregation cases "for a period of not less than three years" to insure proper implementation of a desegregation plan). [FN3 l ]. Freeman 503 U.S. at 491 112 S.Ct. at--------. [FN32). In the area of faculty assignments, care should be taken to assure the non-discriminatory and proportional assignments of certified, advanced degreed and specialist certificated, and experienced teachers throughout a school system. [FN33). Si1wleton v. Jackson Mimicipal Separate School District, 419 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir.1969). [FN34). 503 U.S. at 471 112 S.Ct. at--------. [FN35). See Green 391 U.S. at 439. [FN36). Freeman 503 U.S. at 479. 112 S.Ct. at--------. [FN37). Id. [FN38). Id. [FN39). Id. at 479-80. [FN40J. Id. at 473. [FN4 l l. Frequent contentious litigation, whether initiated by plaintiffs contending a school district is not fulfilling its obligations under the court's orders or whether initiated by a school district seeking to avoid, or narrow the scope of, its obligations. is not conducive to a finding of a history of good faith compliance. [FN42). Id. at 4S0. 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 1Ai-4G' V~L-aW. (.../ 159 WELR 407 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407 (Cite as: 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407) [FN43). 244 F.3d 927 (152 Ed.Luw Rep. (51]] {I Ith Cir.{Fla.)l. [FN44). Id. at 9. ~.Id. [FN46). Id. [FN47]. Id. [FN48). Id. Page 10 [FN49). An example of how such communication may be facilitated in the context of a consent judgment is language found in the recent Consent Judgment approved by the court in Valley, et al. v. Rapides Parish School Board, Civil Action No. I 0946, USDC W. D. La. It requires formation of a "working group" composed of school district personnel and citizens of the parish selected by counsel for plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenor. [FN50). Manning, 244 F.3cl 927 at 6. [FN5l). Jd. at 14. (FN52). 111 F.3d 839 843 [117 Ed.Law Rep. [4871) {11th Cir.1997). [FN53). 111 F.3ct at 843-44. (FN54]. 934 F.Supp. I 533 [112 Ed.Law Rep. (7791) !N.D.Ohio 1996). affirmed, 179 F.3cl 453 (I 35 Ed.Law Rep. [929]] {6th Cir.1999). (FN55). Id. at 1548. [FN56). Id. at 1550-51. END OF DOCUMENT 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. ATTACHMENT "N" "Achieving Unitary Status Under the Combined Standards of Dowell and Pitts" by William M. Gordon and David E. Bartz 82 Ed. Law Rep. 283 (July 1, 1993) '\J '\vht<!.Sa(f.!w . 82 WELR283 82 Ed. Law Rep. 283 (Cite as: 82 Ed. Law Rep. 283) West's Education Law Reporter July, 1993 Commentary Page I *283 ACHIEVING UNITARY STATUS UNDER THE COMBINED STANDARDS OF DOWELL AND PITTS [FNa] William M. Gordon, Ed.D., J.D. and David E. Bartz, Ph.D. [FNaa] Copyright 1993 by West Publishing Company - No Claim to Original U.S. Government Works School desegregation litigation since the mid-1980's has focused on efforts by school systems to be rel_eased from court supervision and being declared unitary. Unitary statu~ in school desegregation occurs when the federal district court desolves all injunctions and releases the school district from further court supervision. In light of the recent Supreme Court's decisions in Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell (FNl] and Freeman v. Pitts, (FN2) unitary status has once again been addressed and it is important to understand the context of these two cases. Behind Dowell and Pitts is a mountain of school desegregation litigation that in many instances spans twenty-five years or more. From cases where the original named plaintiffs are no longer involved, to instances where the children of the children involved in the original litigation have graduated from the public schools, an element of staleness accompanies the court-ordered remedies. District court judges who have presided over the same litigation for several decade_s or judges who have inherited twenty-five year old cases are tired of the wrangljng and want to see the controversies ended. Within this climate, litigants in school desegregation should not have been surprised that the Supreme Court finally became reattached and that the standards under the law were changed. Elimination of segregation "root and branch," the standard for over twenty-five years, has for all practical purposes given way to a lesser standard, allowing the courts to overlook or let school systems excuse segregative situations that in the past would not have been acceptable. Therefore, before reviewing this current direction of the Supreme Court, it is worthwhile to review several lower court decisions of the late 1980s that appear to have been the precursors to the current direction of school desegregation and unitary status. In 1989 four significant cases focused on the defendant's motions to have all injunctions in effect dissolved, have all court supervision terminated and have the school systems declared unitary. Two of the cases involved *284 petitions from the two most important school desegregation cases decided by the United States Supreme Court, Brown v. Topeka, [.fl:UJ and Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado. (FN4] The action brought in Topeka was to determine whether the Topeka school system had achieved unitary status. The United States District Court heard arguments and determined that the school system was unitary and released the defendants. [1:}!i1 An appeal was taken. The Tenth Circuit, affirming in part and reversing in part. (FNG] remanded to the district court providing: "The board has an affirmative responsibility to see that pupil and faculty assignment policies and school construction and abandonment practices arc not used and do not serve to perpetuate or re-establish the dual school system." (FN7) The Tenth Circuit further clarified what it wanted in a unitary school system, stating "an essential requirement of unitariness, however, is whether school authorities have made every effort to achieve the greatest possible degree of actual desegregation, taking into account the practicalities of the situation." [FNS) Thus, in the Tenth Circuit, what was practicable became a consideration in achieving unitary status. 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. ~w. 82 WELR283 Page 2 82 Ed. Law Rep. 283 (Cite as: 82 Ed. Law Rep. 283) In Denver, Colorado the district court failed to find the system unitary but did modify its order, eliminating reporting requirements and allowing the district to make changes in the desegregation plan without prior court approval. LEb!2OJn appeal, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision. The court determined that the district court's finding that the system had not achieved unitary status was not clearly erroneous. (FN I OJ The Tenth Circuit then pointed out that, "although the Supreme Court has not defined precisely what facts or factors make a district unitary, a starting point is to evaluate the factors that make a ~em segregated. In the context of a unitariness decision, these factors include elimination of invidious discrimination in transportation of students, integration of faculty and staff, equality of financial support given to extracurricular activities at different schools and integration of those activities, nondiscriminatory construction and location of new schools, and assignment of students so that no school is considered a white or black school.. .. This court has defined 'unitary' as the elimination of invidious discrimination and the performance of every reasonable effort to eliminate the various effects of past discrimination." (FNI IJ With this holding by the Tenth Circuit the six standards originally established *285 in Green. (FN I 2J as indices of a segregated system, became the yardstick in the circuit for achieving unitary status. After the district court found the Fort Worth, Texas, school system unitary, (FN13J "in every respect, except the existence of a homogeneous student population," (FNJ 4J an appeal was taken. In its decision the Fifth Circuit addressed the issue of whether a system could become unitary incrementally. The court provided, "we agree with the First Circuit's conclusion in Morgan v. Nucci 831 F.2d 313 42 Ed.Law Rep. 514 (1987), that a school system can achieve unitary status incrementally and that when it does so, the court will abdicate its supervisory role as to the aspect of the desegregation plan proclaimed unitary." (FNI SJ The court also provided a restatement of the Fifth Circuit's rule that, "A district court in this circuit does not dismiss a school desegregation case until at least three years after it has declared the system unitary." (FN 16J _ The district court for the Western District of Texas declared the Waco, Texas, school district unitary, (FNI7] even though when applying the six Green factors it found a lack of complete compliance in each category. The school system had an ineffective majority to minority transfer program
had used only one-third of its bond money on facilities located in minority sections of the system
had underrepresentation of minorities in honors, gifted, and talented programs
had an achievement gap between minority and nonminority students
had a higher dropout rate, expulsion rate and suspension rate for minorities
had not met minority hiring goals
and had practices that discriminated against minorities who wanted to become cheerleaders. Even with a demonstrated lack of compliance, the system was released from the court's jurisdiction, having completed its three-year probationary period ?.fter the court's original finding of unitary status in 1986. The court in Arvizu had simply adhered to the Fifth Circuit guidelines of utilizing the six factors of Green as its standards and providing a three-year probationary period following the initial determination of unitariness. That there was a significant lack of compliance did not dissuade the court from closing the case and ceasing its involvement. The District Court for the Middle District of Florida dissolved the permanent injunction requiring the Duval County School Board to desegregate the school system. With the dissolution of the injunctions, the court declared the system unitary. (FN I 8J An appeal was taken to the Eleventh Circuit, where the lower court was reversed and the decision vacated and remanded. (FN I 9) The court held that the school system had failed to meet the six standards of *286 Green and had failed to eliminate the vestiges of past state-imposed segregation. The court provided: "A declaration of unitary status is also inappropriate when the evidence shows that the school authorities have not consistently acted in good faith to implement the objectives of the plan". (FN20] Quoting Green, the court continued, "Availability to the board of other more desegregative courses of action may indicate a lack of good faith placing a heavy burden upon the board to explain its preference for an apparently less effective 111ethod". (FN2 l) With this decision by the Eleventh Circuit, the Green factor of good faith behavior on the part of the school authorities, subsequently reaffirmed in Dowell, re111ained a primary component in a system's quest for unitary status. 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. "<AT. _.Y',) v~aw. 82 WELR283 Page 3 82 Ed. Law Rep. 283 (Cite as: 82 Ed. Law Rep. 283) Therefore, before the United States Supreme Court's decisions in Dowell and Pitts, the courts in the Fifth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits had begun defining more precisely the issues of unitariness. All three circuits had established the six factors of Green as their threshold standards. The Tenth Circuit in Brown and Keyes established that school systems that had taken into account the practicalities of the situation and had made every effort to achieve the greatest possible degree of actual desegregation could be declared unitary. The Fifth Circuit in Flax, concurring with decisions in the First and Tenth, held that a school system could become unitary incrementally. It also restated the Fifth Circuit ruling that a system must remain under the court's supervision for three years following the declaration of unitariness. In Arvizu, a case not reviewed by Fifth Circuit, the district court granted the motion for unitary status even though the Waco, Texas, school system fell far short of meeting the six factors of Green. The actions of the Arvizu court indicate a greater tolerance by the courts, at least in the Fifth Circuit, for systems that approached compliance rather than holding to the standards of Green, which provide for complete compliance. Finally, the Eleventh Circuit in Duval County reaffirmed that good faith attempts to comply were necessary and that systems that hedged and did not comply in good faith could not expect to be found unitary. During the period these lower courts were addressing the issues of unitariness, two cases, Dowell in the Tenth Circuii [FN22] and Pitts in the Eleventh Circuit, (FN23] progressed toward the Supreme Court. The Dowell case involved the reopening of desegregation litigation that had been dismissed and the school district declared unitary. In Pitts the issue involved the granting of partial unitary status and ceasing court supervision, in areas where the school system was in compliance with one or more of the several factors of Green. In 1985, following a newly imposed student assignment plan, the plaintiffs in Oklahoma City motioned the district court to reopen the case. The motion was made subsequent to the system being declared unitary and having all prior injunctions ordered dissolved. The plaintiffs, in their motion to reopen, contended the Student Reassignment Plan (SRP), implemented by *287 the board in 1984, was segregative. The SRP relied on neighborhood assignment of students in grades K-4, and it allowed eleven of the district's sixty-four elementary schools to be 90% black and twenty-two schools to be 90% white. The district court denied the motion and refused to reopen the litigation, holding that its finding of unitariness in 1977 was res judicata as to those who were then parties to the action. [FN24) The Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded, (FN25] holding that though the system was unitary, nothing in the order indicated that the original injunctions were terminated. Unitary merely ended the district court's active supervision, not the system's responsibilities. On remand the district court once again refused to reopen the litigation, holding the system had operated under its orders in good faith for more than a decade and that any changes in demographics were of private decision-making and were not state action. [FN26] The Tenth Circuit again reversed, holding, "an injunction takes on a life of its own and becomes an edict quite independent of the law it is meant to effectuate". (FN27] The Supreme Court did not rule on the board's assignment plan but on the issue of whether the litigation could be reopened for actions taken by the board following the declaration of unitary status. In affinning the district court's decision not to reopen the litigation, the Supreme Court also modified its standard of the elimination of segregation "root and branch," substituting the lesser standard of to the "extent practicable." The Court held: "Petitioners urge that we reinstate the decision of the District Court terminating the injunction, but we think that the preferred course is to remand the case to the court so that it may decide, in accordance with this opinion, whether the Board made a sufficient showing of constitutional compliance as of J 985, when the SRP (Student Reassignment Plan] was adopted, to allow the injunction to be dissolved. The District Court should address itself to whether the Board had complied in good faith with the desegregation decree since it was
This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.

<dcterms_creator>William Gordon Associates</dcterms_creator>