Assignments for LRSD Plan Modification Proposals McClellan Community School Horace Staffing-Incentive Schools Horace Focused Activities and APIG Horace Four Year Old Program Melissa Biracial Committee References Horace Student Assignments Melissa & Bob Parent Council-Incentive Schools Melissa Parent Involvement/Community Linkages Melissa Spanish-Incentive Schools Melissa & Horace Recruitment of Private School Parents Melissa Incentive School Parent Recruitment MelissaCOMMITMENT TO DESEGREGATION IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The Little Rock School District is committed to a comprehensive desegregation plan which focuses on the total learning environment. The method of assigning students is merely the first step toward creating school and classroom environments that foster academic achievement and improve race relations among students and staff members. The next step involves a commitment to quality desegregated education by the District, parents and the community. Of course, real commitment always requires a plan of action. To that end, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors is committed to the following: A. B. The belief that all children can learn. The elimination of achievement disparity between black and white students on norm-referenced and criterion-referenced tests. C. D. E. F. G. H. Improving educational quality and student academic performance in all schools and doubling the financial resources in schools identified in the court-approved desegregation plan as enhanced/incentive schools. Improving race relations among students and staff members. Ensuring that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations (i.e. school, class and staff assignments
participation in extracurricular activities
distribution of resources
etc.) Promoting positive public reaction to desegregation. The effective use of interdistrict and intradistrict recruitment strategies to meet the desegregation requirements in all schools and to avoid resegregation. The development and infusion of multicultural education in all areas of the curriculum. 1. Ongoing staff development activities to equip teachers, administrators, and other staff with the skills needed to achieve quality desegregated education. In summary, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors is committed to having quality desegregated education in all schools. Quality desegregated education will result in long-term stability and growth for the city of Little Rock and Pulaski County. It also will provide all Little Rock School District students with the academic and social skills needed for successful experiences in the future. The Little Rock School District Board of Directors hereby acknowledges its commitment to quality desegregated education and respectfully invites parents and community leaders to make the same commitment. Such a commitment has to occur in order to ensure stability in our schools and ultimately achieve unitary status. Page 1LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: School Operations Goal VII: Provide and ensure opportunities and encouragement to all students to participate in extracurricular and co-curricular activities. Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Responsibility Date 1. Inform all students and patrons of co-eurricular/ extracurricular activities available for students and of participation requirements. 1.1 12 1.3 1.4 2. Staff recruitment of students to participate. 2.1 22 3. Increase student participation, particularly minority student participation in co- curricular activities. 3.1 32 3.3 4. Use of media and press. Send printed information to parents. Make clear public address system announcements to students. Use community agencies such as churches to assist with recruitment. Individual staff contacts with students encourage involvement. Staff shall specifically recruit from among students who do not typically participate in particular activities. Profile student involvement in each club or activity. Disaggregate participation data. Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Evaluation w OQ fl) W SO Remove all barriers to equitable participation of students who wish to participate in extracurricular activities. 4.1 Develop school based recruitment plans. Provide a district transportation program for student transportation when necessary to assure equitable participation for students participating in district sanctioned extracurricular activities. Annually Ongoing 42 Provide a program for student access to equipment/ uniforms etc. needed for participation at minimal cost. Annually Ongoing Communications Dept Principals Staff PT A Board Educational Programs School based Dir of Extracurricular Activities Individual staff members Principal Staff Asst Supt Directors of Extracurricular Activities Manager of Support Services Asst Supts Assoc Supt Deseg Principals Log of announcements, media usage, other community student contacts Comparative review of data regarding numbers of applicants and participants by race Yearly analysis of participation data and comparative profiles Yearly analysis of participation data and comparative profilesRECRUITMENT OF PRIVATE SCHOOL STUDENTS Active recruitment of private school students to the Little Rock School District will be handled, in large part, by the PT As in individual schools. The Parent Recruiters will share and network recruitment strategies with each PT A. These strategies will focus on (1) the determination of those private school families who live within a specific schools attendance zone and (2) the recruitment of these students. Utilizing private school student directories and attendance zone maps, the PTAs can pinpoint those students living in their schools zone. Names of prospective kindergarten students can be obtained from directories of area pre-school and day-care facilities as well as informal sources in the community. The PTAs will be asked to contact these students families and provide opportunities to inform them about the attendance zone school. Suggested opportunities include open houses at the schools, coffees held in private homes, and invitations to school functions (carnivals, performances, spring picnic, etc.). The Parent Recruiters (and VIPS office) will provide direct assistance to those PTAs which have limited parental support and manpower. Also, the Parent Recruiters will meet bimonthly with the PT A Council and/or various PT A representatives to monitor recruitment activities. In an effort to contact those students who exited the Little Rock School District during implementation of the controlled choice assignment plan, the Parent Recruiters will obtain and forward to each school, computer printouts of students on the data base who are not presently enrolled in a district school. The PTAs will contact these students families and encourage them to reconsider their public school options. The Parent Recruiters will continue to foster a working relationship with area realtors in order to access those families with school-age children who are relocating to the Little Rock area. An explanation of LRSD programs in conjunction with building tours will provide new residents with information on which to base their decision to enter public or private school systems. The District will assess the effectiveness of recruitment strategies on an annual basis and share and discuss the assessment with the parties before seeking court approval of alternative strategies. Page 954. Develop and expand the parent volunteer programs a. Each school will establish a multiethnic cultural teacher/parent committee to design and implement school-based activities. b. Encourage all parents to become active members of a parent involvement program. c. Recruit prospective committee members from diversified communities including (among others) retired teachers and community leaders. B. Utilize parents in marketing educational programs and benefits that will result from desegregation. 1. Develop a resource list of parents who are willing to talk with potential patrons. 2. Establish parent recruitment teams in each school to encourage families to enroll in the public schools. 3. Seek positive media coverage featuring parents from all ethnic backgrounds a. Work through local parent/ teacher organizations to encourage positive media coverage. b. Designate a contact person at each local school to report to an established information center. c. Designate a contact person at each local school to report to an established information center. d. Produce video presentations of area schools for use by real estate offices, day care centers, local businesses, economic development agencies, and other community groups. C. Encourage community-wide multiethnic citizen/ parent/ teacher/ student committees for input into planning and decision-making. 1. Establish building, district and tri-district level committees which are racially, geo-graphically and socio-economically representative to provide input and feedback on the operations of the schools and the districts. D. Work with the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce Committee on Education on its advocacy for public school activities. 1. Expand the school/business partnerships. 2. Have a tri-district event to honor business partners in public schools. Page 132AREA: VIPS Goal: (continued) Objectives 1. (continued) 2. Utilize parents in the marketing educational programs and benefits that will result from desegregation of all three districts. LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Responsibility Date 1.7 1.8 2.1 22 2.3 Evaluation fl CW n> LZl Exchange information training and materials with other districts as requested. Provide training for school personnel on the use of volunteers in the school. Develop a resource list of parents v4io are willing to be contacted to taUc with potential parents. Establish parent recruitment teams in each school to encourage families to enroll in pubUc schools. Seek positive media coverage featuring parents from all multicultural back grounds: a. b. c. Work through local parent/teacher organizations to encourage positive media coverage. Designate a contact person at each local school to report to an established information center. Produce video presentations of area schools for use by real estate offices, utility companies and day care centers including Public Housing Authority. Fall 1991 Fall 1991 Fall 1991 Fall 1991 Fall 1991 Fall 1991 FaU 1991 FaU 1991 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing VIPS Coors, PAC Coors of 3 districts Coors of the three school districts PTA Councils SAO Parent Recruiters PTA Councils SAO Parent Recruiters Communications Department Local PTAs Bldg level principals Local PTA Board Communications Information requested on file Completed training Increased number of staff members requesting and using volunteers Available resource lists Parent recruiters on file Increased # of media coverage news items that reflect persons from multicultural backgrounds for local schools & districts Designated contact person Completed videosSTUDENT ASSIGNMENTS I. n. Magnet Schools The assignment process to magnet schools will not change under this Plan. Interdistrict Schools LRSD and PCSSD agree to establish interdistrict schools as described in the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. in. Elementary Area Schools 1. Students will be assigned to the elementary area schools by attendance zones. 2. The elementary area school attendance zones are drawn to establish a racial balance at each school of 55 percent black and 45 percent white with a variance of 5 percent. The recruitment of white students to elementary area schools may increase the percentage of white students at these schools but no school shall have a racial composition of greater than 60 percent white. 3. Students presently assigned to elementary area schools will be given the option to remain in these schools (grandfathered). 4. After grandfathered students have been identified and assigned, students in the attendance zone will be assigned to the elementary area schools. 5. If there is no space available at a students zoned school or if assignment of the student to the school would put the school out of compliance with racial balance requirements, the student will be assigned to the closest school with capacity which meets racial balance requirements. 6. The elementary school zones will provide a feeder pattern for elementary students going to junior high school and for junior high school students going to high school. As a result all LRSD students can determine which schools they will attend for the entire course of their education in LRSD. Attached to this Plan are maps of the elementary, junior high school and high school attendance zones. 7. Students in elementary area school zones will be given the option to select an incentive school. IV. Incentive Schools 1. Each incentive school will have an attendance zone that encompasses the neighborhood around the school (primary attendance zone). Page 1392. Students presently assigned to incentive schools will be given the option to remain in these schools (grandfathered). 3. After grandfathered students have been identified and assigned, students in the primary attendance zone will be assigned to the incentive schools. 4. All incentive school students will have the option to be assigned to an elementary area school to be selected by LRSD in accordance with desegregation considerations. 5. In order to assist in meeting the desegregation requirements, a certain number of seats for black and white students will be reserved for each pre-kindergarten and kindergarten class. The seats reserved for white children shall not remain permanently vacant if unfilled. Sufficient time should be allowed for timely, vigorous, and sustained recruitment efforts before filling these seats. V. Desegregation Transfers 1. Junior and senior high school students may transfer to another school as long as the reassignment allows both the sending and receiving school to comply with the desegregation requirement and a seat is available. The minimum black percentage is twenty-five percent (25 percent) below the district-wide percentage of blacks in grades 7-12. The minimum and maximum black percentages constitute the desegregation requirement (or acceptable range) for a desegregation transfer. The desegregation requirement in secondary schools is that all schools will remain within a range of 12-1/2 percent above to 25 percent below the district-wide percentage of black students at each organizational level (i.e., high school and junior high school). 2. Elementary Students may transfer to an incentive school only if such a transfer enhances desegregation at the incentive school. Desegregation transfers will be granted to elementary area schools that are difficult to desegregate. 3. A student may make two (2) desegregation transfers at each organizational level (primary, intermediate, junior or senior high school). The purpose of the second desegregation transfer is to allow a student to return to his or her previous school assignment. 4. Desegregation transfers will be granted during a limited period once each year. (Secondary Schools only). 5. LRSD will provide transportation for desegregation transfer students where it is cost effective to do so. Page 140 the student will be reassigned to the nearest school that has a seat available in the students feeder zone. If the student cannot be assigned to any of the schools in the students feeder zone, the student will be reassigned to a school in a contiguous feeder zone. The Student Assignment Office will be responsible for all reassignments. Reassigned students will be placed on the waiting list for the appropriate attendance zone school. 2. The minimum black percentage for each elementary area school is 40 percent black. Any assignment that causes a school to fall below the minimum black percentage will not be granted. In such cases, the student will be reassigned to the nearest school that meets the minimum black percentage requirement and has a seat available. If the student cannot be assigned to any of the schools in the students feeder zone, the student will be reassigned to a school in a contiguous feeder zone. IX. Student Assignment Office 1. The Student Assignment Office will: monitor new assignments
process all data entry work for elementary schools
process interdistrict M-to-M transfers and magnet assignments
reassign students because of overcrowdedness or desegregation requirements
consider appeals
conduct recruitment efforts
process desegregation transfers
assign all early childhood and incentive school students
and process all special transfers (Act 609, Act 624, etc.). 2. New students to the District who enroll after May 17,1989 will not have to come to the Student Assignment Office to obtain an assignment. Each school will be authorized to enroll students who live within the attendance zone of that school. 3. The Student Assignment Handbook includes the timeline and procedures used by the schools and the Student Assignment Office to assign students. The Student Assignment Handbook will be revised each year, as necessary, to reflect any changes in the procedures for assigning students. Changes will be made as needed to indicate new deadlines and to improve the implementation of the court-approved student assignment plan. The Student Assignment Handbook is not included in this plan since it is a procedural document that is subject to change each year. The handbook will be developed by the Student Assignment Office and distributed to the schools and the parties each year. Page 142Capacity The capacities of the elementary area schools are determined in accordance with Arkansas accreditation standards which have the following limits: Grade Maximum Number of Students Per Class (Average) Maximum Number of Students in Any Class Kindergarten 20 20 First-Third 23 25 Fourth-Sixth 25 28 The total capacity of the 23 elementary area schools is 9,678. The incentive schools will have a maximum pupil/teacher ratio of 20 to 1. There may be more than 20 students per classroom, however, there will be an aide in each class and possibly a second teacher in those classes. The capacity of the incentive schools is 2558. The overall racial composition of the elementary area schools and the space available for recruitment at those schools depend upon the number of students who enroll in Incentive and Interdistrict Schools. The initial racial composition of the Incentive Schools is expected to be predominately black. It is expected that at least 600 black LRSD students will attend Interdistrict Schools. Stephens and King It is proposed that the District relocate Stephens Elementary near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue. The new Stephens will house pre-kindergarten through sixth grades and will have a capacity of 696 students, including the four-year-old program. It serves as an Interdistrict School. The new Stephens wiU be easily accessible to downtown office workers, state department employees and University Medical Center personnel. The Little Rock School District also proposes to build a new King Elementary School in downtown Little Rock. The facility would be located in the general area along 1-630 between 1-30 and University Avenue. In addition to being an Interdistrict school, an attraction for this school will be its early childhood program and childcare facilities. This location is expected to serve as a natural magnet for individuals who work within governmental and business centers of Little Rock. Page 148INCENTIVE SCHOOL PROGRAM Introduction The Little Rock School District will have seven (7)* schools providing the incentive school program. Rockefeller may become an interdistrict school, but would continue to provide the incentive school program. The purpose of the incentive school program is to promote and ensure academic excellence in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. It is believed that the incentive school program will not only compensate the victims of segregation, but the program will also serve as a tool for promoting meaningful and long-lasting desegregation in these schools and in the entire school district. The following schools will provide the incentive school program: Franklin Garland Ish Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens *The question of an additional incentive school for the 1992-93 school year is still under discussion. The parties do not seek to modify the plan at this time to add an additional incentive school. In order to be successful, the incentive program must address the academic, social and emotional needs of all student participants. The incentive program must also serve as a recruitment tool for meeting the desegregation requirements in these schools. With proper resources and expectations, the incentive school program will serve as a model of excellence for the county, state and nation. The success of the incentive school program is directly related to the success of the long-term desegregation plan in the Little Rock School District. In addition to the ongoing comprehensive programs in the incentive schools, the parties will explore the possible use of a trust fund to provide future college scholarship incentives. The parties will determine the costs of implementing a scholarship program for the students who attend incentive schools and will determine the feasibility of using trust funds to provide such an incentive. If feasible, the parties will have the responsibility for establishing the guidelines and criteria to be used in allocating any resources to the students. The trust fund would be used to provide an academic achievement incentive to students and would also assist parents and students in setting realistic goals for attending college. Page 149Section Five: Incentive School Parent Recruitment Aggressive marketing and recruitment are essential to the overall success of the incentive school program. Careful marketing of the incentive school program is the first step toward an effective recruitment program. The marketing phase of the parent recruitment program will focus on providing general information to the community. The black community will be targeted during the initial phase of marketing activities. Recruitment will be an ongoing process at the incentive schools. The purpose of the recruitment program is to encourage voluntary assignments that will enable the incentive schools to comply with the desegregation requirements. 1. To provide information to the community about the incentive school program. A. Mail final report on incentive school program to special interest and community groups (i.e. PTA Council, Junior League, Greek organizations. Ministerial Alliance: Tri-District Council, ACORN, etc.). B. Conduct information sessions at churches located near incentive schools and churches throughout the community with large memberships. II. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. Conduct information sessions with special audiences. Establish Saturday information booths at such places as University Mall, Park Plaza Mall, Wal-Mart Stores, Safeway Stores, Kroger Stores, etc. Stores in the black community will also be targeted for information booths.* Secure special media coverage from local newspapers and radio stations. Develop highlights sheet for distribution to aU elementary parents (and new elementary parents). Use telephone hotline.* Place highlights sheet in local businesses.* Special media coverage from State Press and black radio stations. Note: *Will be done in conjunction with promotion of student assignment plan. To implement a recruitment program that will enable the incentive schools to comply with the desegregation requirements. A. Brochures - Produce a brochure for each incentive school. Brochures should include: photo of school, special resources, programs, theme information, partners- in-education information, grants received, honors, list of staff members with brief credentials. Page 215B. PSAs - Produce generic public service announcements for all incentive schools. C. Billboards - Use billboards, bus benches, etc., to advertise generic information about incentive schools. Seek donated space. Billboards throughout Pulaski County should be used. D. Media Blitz - Conduct an ongoing media (radio, TV and newspaper) blitz to heighten public awareness regarding incentive schools. Pursue funding donations from community. E. Videocassette Recordings - Produce short (10-15 minutes) videocassette recordings to be used in public presentations (i.e. PTA meetings, realtors, etc.) F. Flyers - Produce generic incentive school flyers to be distributed throughout Pulaski County. (Example: insert flyers in utility companies bills
mass mailings to targeted K-5 white parents in NLRSD and PCSSD. G. Open House - Provide special open house opportunities at incentive schools. H. Neighborhood Blitz Target geographic areas/neighborhoods to receive informational blitz regarding a specific incentive school. Stress group preference as an assignment option. Mail individual school brochures to each elementary student in targeted area. I. Tours - Conduct small group "For Your Information" tours to acquaint parents, grandparents, businessmen, realtors, etc., with the incentive schools. J. State Department of Education - Request a special designation from the Arkansas Department of Education (i.e. "Five Star Schools", "Model Schools") to be used in marketing incentive schools. K. Celebrities - seek incentive school endorsements from local celebrities. Arrange visits by celebrities, news events, special ceremonies, etc., to generate media coverage. L. Conduct meetings with NLRSD and PCSSD parents and PTA groups to encourage M-to-M transfers to incentive schools. M. Parent Recruiters - Hire two parent recruiters to conduct recruitment activities. N. Speakers Bureau - Establish a speakers bureau for each incentive school. The parents of white students enrolled in the incentive schools will be encouraged to serve on the bureau along with celebrities, teachers, etc. Page 216III. To monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the recruitment program for the incentive schools. The Little Rock School District Biracial Advisory Committee will also serve as the steering committee for the incentive school recruitment program. The Little Rock School District Office of Desegregation wUl be responsible for submitting bi-monthly reports on the implementation and effectiveness of various recruitment strategies. These reports will also be shared with the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. The Biracial Advisory Committee will review each bi-monthly report and recommend to the Board of Directors and/ or Office of Desegregation any changes needed in recruitment strategies/ activities. The Biracial Advisory Committee wall also appoint two ex-officio members with expertise in marketing/advertising to advise the Committee on recruitment strategies. The Biracial Advisory Committee will evaluate the recruitment program each quarter. The evaluation of the recruitment program will be addressed in the quarterly monitoring/evaluation report on the incentive school program. Page 217LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Incentive Schools Goal: To provide general information to the community about the incentive program. Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 0 p m n NJ 00 1. Inform special interest groups and seek their assistance in disseminating information to general public. 2. Conduct special information campaign in black community. 1.1 12 2.1 22 Mail final report on incentive school program to special interest and community groups. June 1991 June 1991 Associate Supt.- Desegregation a. b. c. Get Court approval to release information on incentive schools. Design cover for final report and print. Update mailing list of community groups. Conduct information sessions with special audiences. a. Send invitation and information to special interest groups. Conduct information sessions at churches. a. b. c. February February May 1991 March January March February May 1991 April Ongoing as needed LRSD Attorneys Assoc Supt-Deseg Parent Recruiters Assoc Supt-Deseg Assoc Supt-Deseg Identify churches and contact pastors. Schedule and publicize sessions. Send information package to other churches in the black community. Special media coverage from State Press and black radio stations. January January January January August Annually August Annually August Annually April Parent Recruiters Student Assignment OfficerLRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Incentive Schools Goal: (continued) Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 3. Distribute information to parents and community. 3.1 Develop highlights sheet for distribution to all elementary parents. January Annually February Annually Assoc Supt-Deseg Communications Department 32 Estabhsh Saturday information booths at University Mall, Park Plaza Mall and Wal-Mart Stores.* January Ongoing Assoc Supt-Deseg Parent Recruiters Communications Department 3.3 Pbce highlights sheet in local businesses. March April Parent Recruiters Communications Department 3.4 Special media coverage. March April Parent Recruiters Communications Department 3J Use telephone hotline. March April Parent Recruiters Communications Department 3.6 Distribute Program description to all elementary parents. T3 p OQ fS Is) so * Will be done in conjunction with promotion of new student assignment plan.LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Incentive Schools Goal: To implement a recruitment program that will allow the incentive schools to comply with the desegregation requirements. Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 1. To utilize a variety of marketing strategies to recruit white students to the incentive schools. 1.1 Produce a brochure for each incentive school. Brochure should include: a. Photo of school b. Photo of principal c. Special resources d. Programs e. Theme information f. Partners information g. Grants received h. Honors i. List of staff July Annually Nov. Annually Assoc Supt-Deseg & Schools Asst Supt-Incentive Schools Incentive School Principals Communications Department Parent Recruiters 12 Produce generic public service announcements for all incentive schools. June Ongoing Assoc Supt-Deseg & Schools Asst Supt-Incentive Schools Incentive School Principals Communications Department Parent Recruiters 1.3 Use billboards, bus benches, etc. to advertise generic information about incentive schools. August Ongoing Assoc Supt-Deseg Communications Department 13 00 CD KJ KJ O 1.4 Conduct an ongoing media blitz to heighten public awareness regarding incentive schools. March Ongoing Assoc Supt-Deseg Communications Department 1.5 Produce short (10-15 minutes) video cassette recordings to be used in public presentations. July Ongoing Assoc Supt-Deseg Communications DepartmentAREA: Incentive Schools Goal: (continued) Objectives 1. (continued) LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 1.6 Produce generic incentive school flyers to be distributed throughout Pulaski County. a. Insert flyers in utility companies bills. b. Mass mailings to targeted K-5 white parents in NLRSD and PCSSD. 1.7 Provide special open house opportunities at incentive schools. January January January August August August August November 1.8 Target geographic areas neighborhoods to receive informational blitz regarding a specific incentive school (using secondary zones). January Annually Ongoing 1.9 Conduct small group "For Your Information" tours to acquaint parents, grandparents, businessmen, realtors, etc. with the incentive schools. January Annually Ongoing "T3 00 n> 1.10 Request a special designation from the Arkansas Department of Education to be used in marketing incentive schools. March July Assoc Supt-Deseg Communications Department Assoc Supt-Deseg and Schools Asst Supt-Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Principals Assoc Supt-Deseg Parent Recniiters Incentive Schools Principals Parent Recruiters Incentive School Principals Assoc Supt-Deseg LRSD AttorneysAREA: Incentive School Goal
(continued) Objectives 1. (continued) LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 1.11 Seek incentive school endorsements from local celebritites. Arrange visits by celebrities, news events, special ceremonies, etc., to generate media coverage. September Ongoing Assoc Supt-Deseg Parent Recruiters 1.12 Conduct meetings with NLRSD and PCSSD parents and PTA groups to encourage M-M transfers to incentive schools. January Ongoing Assoc Supt-Deseg Parent Recruiters 1.13 Hire two parent recruiters. July Ongoing Assoc Supt-Deseg *13 P 00 fS to KJ toAREA: Incentive Schools LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE Goal: To monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the recruitment program for the incentive schools. Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 1. Provide a special inservice for the LRSD Bi-racial Advisory Committee on the Incentive School Program and the Long-term Desegregation Plan. 1.1 12 2. To utilize the services of individuals with eiqjertise in marketing/advertising. 2.1 3. To develop procedures for monitoring implementation of the recruitment program. 3.1 32 3.3 4. Notify committee of special meeting. Conduct special inservice meeting. (1) Review plan and focus on parent recruitment program. Appoint ex-officio members to Bi-racial Advisory Committee. Develop draft of monitoring procedures. Prepare final draft. Review monitoring procedures with superintendents cabinet, Bi-racial Advisory Committee, and incentive school principals. August August August August September September September September Assoc Supt-Deseg Assoc Supt-Deseg Assoc Supt-Deseg Bi-racial Advisory Committee Assoc Supt-Deseg Bi-racial Advisory Committee Chairperson Dir of Eval and Testing Assoc Supt-Deseg Bi-racial Advisory Committee Chairperson Dir of Eval and Testing Assoc Supt-Deseg Dir of Eval and Testing O p (TO fS to IQ CU 5. Recommend any changes needed in recruitment strategies/ activities. To evaluate the recruitment program. 4.1 5.1 Review bi-monthly reports on recruitment program. Prepare quarterly report and submit to Board of Directors June November Ongoing Ongoing Bi-racial Advisory Committee Bi-racial Advisory CommitteeFRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY. F.A. ROBERT V. LIGHT. P.A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR., P.A. JOE 0. BELL, P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR., P.A. JAMES C. CLARK, JR., P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III, P.A. LARRY W . BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III, P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II, P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD O. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III, P.A. THOMAS N . ROSE. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S . MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 601*379-201 1 FAX NO. 601*379*2147 March 29, 1995 received MUR J 0 1995 KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. CLYDE 'TAB* TURNER. P.A. CALVIN J. HALL. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. JERRY L. MALONE, P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY, P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH, JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN, P.A. JAMES C. BAKER, JR., P.A. H. CHARLES 68CHWEND. JR., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT, P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH, P.A. GUY ALTON WADE, P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID 0. WILSON JEFFREY H . MOORE ANDREW T. TURNER JOHN RAY WHITE DAVID M. GRAF CARLA G. 8PAINH0UR JOHN C.FENDLEY,JR. ALLISON GRAVES BAZZEL JONANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY D. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN BETTY J. DEMORY Oftice ot Oesegrega. yn' -9 COUNBEt WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE, JR., P.A. B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR., P.A. vHiTCR-e Direct no. (601) 370*1609 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., #510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL and STREETT 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Re: LRSD Proposed Desegregation Plan Modifications Dear Counsel and Ms. Brown: I inadvertently included a proposed plan modification concerning the LRSD Four-Year Old Program among the materials I sent you last week. respect to the Four-Year Old Program. LRSD does not propose a plan modification with document concerning that proposed modification. Please disregard the You hru Christopner Heller CJH/kAssignments for LRSD Plan Modification Proposals McClellan Community School Horace Staffing-Incentive Schools Horace Focused Activities and APIG Horace Four Year Old Program Melissa Biracial Committee References Horace Student Assignments Melissa & Bob Parent Council-Incentive Schools Melissa Parent Involvement/Community Linkages Melissa Spanish-Incentive Schools Melissa & Horace Recruitment of Private School Parents Melissa Incentive School Parent Recruitment MelissaREVIEW OF THE JULY SUBMISSION LRSD VOLUME I 1517-1518 - Commitment to Desegregation in the LRSD - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1519-1520 - Leadership - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1521-1526 - Early Childhood - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1527-1529 - Early Childhood - (HIPPY) Timelines - from the May Submission including the changes made in May 1530-1533 - Early Childhood Four-Year-Old Incentive School Program - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan (NOTE: on page 1533 the language regarding all schools in the district implement the four- year-old program is not changed in the July Submission - see example "A") 1534-1535 - Early Childhood Four-Year-Old Incentive School Program - Timelines - from the May Submission including the changes made in May Note: In the July Submission, the next page (SP-00324) apparently is out of order. It is the second page of the City-wide Early Childhood Program timeline. It is number 1541. 1536-1539 - City-Wide Early Childhood Education Program - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1540 - City-Wide Early Childhood Education Program - Timelines - from the 1989 Plan - Note: This timeline is on pink paper???? Note: This is the location the above noted sheet is suppose to go. Note: This timeline is on white paper. 1542-1543 - Special Programs - Nanative - from the 1989 Plan 1544-1545 - Summer Learning Program - Nanative - from the 1989 Plan 1546 - Summer Learning Program - Timeline - from the May Submission including changes made in May 1546-1550 - Asset Program - Nanative - from the 1989 Plan 1551-1553 - JTPA-Asset Program - Timelines - from the 1989 Plan 1554-1556 - School Operations - Nanative - from the 1989 Plan 1557-1578 - School Operations - Timelines - from the May Submission including changes made in May 1579-1584 - Program for Accelerated Learning - Nanative - from the 1989 Plan1585-1592 - Program for Accelerated Learning - Timelines - from the May Submission including all the May changes (mostly deletions with reasoning of "Completed") Note: page 1592 is noted at the top of the page "Delete All" - this page is not legible 1593-1594 - Gifted Education - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1595-1598 - Gifted Education - Timelines - from the May Submission including changes made in May 1599-1600 - Multi-Ethnic Curriculum - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1601-1615 - Multicultural Curriculum - Timelines - from the May Submission including changes made in May (multi-ethnic changed to multicultural in timelines but not in narrative) - several pages lined through and noted "completed" 1616 - This page is moved - in the July Submission this page is following page 1622 - Content Area Programs - Narrative - from the May Submission noting to delete **** 1617-1622 - Content Area Programs - Timelines - new changes made, different from the May Submission (LRSD took the 1989 plan and made deletions, additions, and changes for the July Submission) **** Note: immediately following page 1622 is another set of pages 1616-1622 (Content Area Programs) - this time the pages are orange - from the May Submission including the "Delete" at the top of the page Note: immediately following the second set of pages 1616-1622 (the orange one) is yet another set of pages 1616-1622 - this time the pages are white - from the May Submission including the wording "Delete" at the top of each page. 1623-1626 - Focused Activities - Nanative - from the 1989 Plan 1627-1630 - Focused Activities - Timelines - from the 1989 Plan with manual date extensions to 1992 (Note: the May Submission asked to delete these pages and inserted one page to replace the three) 1631-1639 - Parkview - Nanative - from the 1989 Plan (Note: McClellan Community School is omitted from the July Submission) 1640-1641 - Recruitment of Private School Students - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1642 - Federal Programs - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1643 - Federal Programs - Timelines - from the May Submission 1644-1646 - Vocational Education - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1647-1654 - Vocational Education - Timelines - from the May Submission including all changes made in May (Note: on page 1651 a manual note is made to "restore" a part of that page1655-1656 - Library Media Services - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1657-1659 - Library Media Services - Timelines - from the May Submission including changes made in May 1660-1664 - Special Education - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1665-1676 - Special Education - Timelines - from the May Submission including changes made in May - Note
page 1665 was omitted from the May Submission - pages 1666-1677 has many changes. In the July Submission, page 1665 is copied from the 1989 Plan and pages 1666-1677 is copies from the May Submission, (p. 1677 is not in numerical order in the May Submission - the July Submission has the exact same order) 1678 - Staff Development - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan - Note
this page in the July Submission comes after page 1688 1679-1688 - Staff Development - Timelines - from the May Submission 1689-1691 - Support Services - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1692-1696 - Parent Involvement/Community Linkages - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1697-1703 - Parent Involvement/Community Linkages - Timelines - from the May Submission including the changes made in MayREVIEW OF THE JULY SUBMISSION LRSD VOLUME II 2198-2212 - Student Assignment - Narrative - from 1989 Plan 2213-2214 - Student Assignment Desegregation Plan Timeline - from May Submission which is deleted 2215-2226 - Student Assignment Handbook - Narrative - from 1989 Plan 2227-2232 - Facilities - Narrative - from 1989 Plan 2232-2249 - Incentive School Program - Narrative - from 1989 Plan 2250-2252 - Incentive School Program - Latin Timelines - from May Submission which are deleted (Note: the narrative regarding the Latin program is not deleted but the timelines crossed through) 2253-2256 - These are blank Pages in the 1989 Plan - omitted in July Submission 2257-2263 - Incentive School Program - Quality Academic Program Timelines - from May Submission which most are deleted (on page 2259 of JS date changes are extended manually by three years regarding incentive school curriculum - Note: the dates that are manually extended are being deleted by show of lines drawn through it - see example "A" attached) 2264 - Incentive School Staff Development Timeline - from May Submission showing the changes made in that submission 2266-2277 - Incentive School Program School Administration - Narrative - from 1989 Plan 2278-2280 - Incentive School Support Programs and Procedures Timelines - from 1989 Plan 2281-2282 - Incentive School Procedures for Administration and Staffing Timelines - from 1989 Plan 2283-2285 - Incentive School Program of Counseling/Social Work Timelines - from 1989 Plan 2286-2287 - Incentive School Monitoring Timelines - from 1989 Plan 2288-2289 - Incentive School Policies and Procedures Timelines - from 1989 Plan 2290-2297 - Incentive School Staffing - Narrative - from 1989 Plan 2298-2300 - Incentive School Staffing Timelines - from 1989 Plan 2301-2302 - Incentive School Staffing Timelines - from 1989 Plan - every place regarding developing curriculum the date has been manually extended by three years - see example "B" attached 2303-2306 - Incentive School Staffing Timelines (Staff Development) - from 1989 Plan - the wording "Annually" has been manually added to almost every timeline and dates regarding implementing the Teacher Demonstration Program has been manually extended by three years -see example "C" attached 2307-2309 - Incentive School Parent Involvement - Nanative - from 1989 Plan 2310-2321 - Incentive School Parent Involvement - Timelines - from 1989 Plan 2322-2326 - Incentive School Parent Recruitment - Narrative - from 1989 Plan 2327-2334 - Incentive School Parent Recruitment - Timelines - from 1989 Plan 2235-2338 - Monitoring and Evaluation - Narrative - from 1989 Plan 2339-2341 - Computerized Transportation System - Narrative and Tentative Timeline - from 1989 Plan 2342-2343 - Data Processing - Narrative - from 1989 Plan Added after the last section is copies of orders: * Stipulation and Consent Order Regarding Little Rock School District Aerospace Technology Magnet School * Stipulation regarding construction * Stipulation and Consent Order Concerning Adjustments to Settlement Plans * Stipulation and Consent Order Concerning Adjustments to Settlement Plans SUMMARY OF REVIEW OF LRSD JULY SUBMISSION VOLUME II: 1. LRSD has used the 1989 Plan as the narrative. 2. LRSD has presented timelines in varying ways: A, Used the May Submission timelines B. Used the 1989 Plan timelines C. Used the May Submission timelines with some date extensions by three years D. Used the May Submission timelines with some "annually" wording added E. Used the 1989 Plan timelines with some date extensions by three years ???? - With the statement attached to the front of the LRSD Plan, "The LRSD proposes that all deadlines referred to in the text of its plan be extended by up to three years to conform to the originally proposed schedule of compliance.", does that mean that the manually made three year extensions are also extended "up to three years". For example, on one page of the timelines, some dates are left as they were in the 1989 Plan and some have been manually extended to 1992, See example "D" attached.3. In some instances, the narrative and timeline do not correlate. The narrative will be from the 1989 Plan and the timelines from the May Submission. For Example: Student Assignments, Incentive Schools Latin Program, Incentive Schools Academic Programs (including staff development) 4. Not noted in the July Submission neither in the narrative nor the timeline is the change regarding instructional aides in incentive school classrooms. Change made in the May Submission, but in the July Submission no change noted from the 1989 Plan. See example "E" attached.United.States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Nos. 91-2640EA, 91-2648EA, 91-2655EA, 91-2683EA Little Rock School District, Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, North Little Rock School District, and Mrs. Lorene Joshua, Appellants. * * it it it it it On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Siibmitted: September 4, 1991 Filed: November 14, 1991 Before ARNOLD, Circuit Judge, HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. On December 12, 1990, we approved a comprehensive settlement of the Pulaski County, Arkansas, school-desegregation case. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371 (Sth Cir. 1990). We recognized, however, that the approved plans, which we shall call the 1989 plan or plans, would need some modification because of the passage of time. We remanded the case to the District Court with directions to adopt the plans with any necessary transitional changes. We also stated that the parties are "free, by agreement, to modify the settlement plans by incorporating in them one or more provisions of the Tri-District Plan, subject, of course, to the approval of the District Court." 921 F.2d at 1393 n.l5.On remand the three school districts involved. Little Rock School District (LRSD) , Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), and the Joshua Intervenors, representing the plaintiff class, met to discuss what modifications of the 1989 plan would be necessary or appropriate. After extensive negotiations, the parties agreed to a long list of modifications, and submitted them to the District Court for approval. The parties refer to their settlement as thus modified as the "May 1991 Plan," and we shall adopt the terminology. same The District Court rejected the proposed modifications. In its view, they went beyond any authority conferred by this Court's 1990 opinion. That opinion. as the District Court read it. authorized only two sorts of changes: the incorporation of provisions of the Tri-District Plan, and an adjustment of details necessary to make a smooth transition between the 1990-91 school year, which had been governed by an interim order of this Court dated July 2, 1990, see 907 F.2d 76, and the 1991-92 school year. The District Court considered all other changes out of bounds under this Court's mandate, whether or not these changes had been agreed . to by all parties concerned. The Court directed the parties to submit a new modified plan in compliance with its view of this Court's mandate. "Substantive modifications to the plans," it said. "shall be only for the purpose of incorporating useful features of the Tri-District Plan." Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. i, No. LR-C-82-866, slip op. 15 (E.D. Ark., opinion filed June 21, 1991) . The Court explained: "Nearly all the [proposed] . . . revisions . . . fall outside the narrow realm of modifications and adjustments deemed permissible by the Eighth Circuit. Thus, this Court cannot approve them. This is not to say that all the proposed changes are without merit, or that they all -2-would negatively affect desegregation in the three districts. It is simply a matter of compliance with the language of the Eighth Circuit's order." Id. at 14-15. The parties then moved for reconsideration. They emphasized that all the changes for which approval was being sought had been agreed to by all parties concerned. They took the position that the District Court should approve any modifications thus agreed to, provided that they met the standards set out in this Court's opinion for judicial review of the original, 1989, settlement. So long as the agreed changes did not render the plan plainly unconstitutional on its face, were not manifestly unworkable, and were not unfair to class members, see 921 F.2d at 1383, they should be approved, the parties said. The Court denied the motion for reconsideration and summarized its position as follows
The Court sees the Eighth Circuit's approval of the plans as akin to establishing benchmark
we now have [a] distinct reference point, sure guide for ending this dispute and getting the parties out of court. revisions Some to the settlement plans will be needed initially to update the plans and to effect smooth transition from the Tri- District Plan
thereafter, other modifications may be necessary conditions and in response to changing unforeseen developments. However, such changes should be minimal and occur at the margins, rather than at the core of the plans. a a a Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, No. LR-C-82866, slip op. 6-7 (E.D. Ark., opinion filed July 15, 1991). From these orders disapproving their proposed modifications, the parties have now appealed. All four parties involved, LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, and the Joshua Intervenors, take the position that the District Court has confined them within limits that are too -3-narrow, and that ail of their proposed changes, being constitutional, workable, and fair, should have been approved. They ask us to reverse the orders of the District Court and remand the case with directions to approve all of the parties' modifications. I. There is much in the District Court's opinions with which we agree. The 1989 settlement which we approved last year should indeed be a benchmark for the future path of this parties are not authorized to modify it at will. case. Further, The we agree, for the most part, that any changes approved should be concerned only with the details of the plan, affecting it only at the margin, so to speak. We wish to dispel, in particular, any notion that an asserted lack of funds on the part of any of the three school districts would justify reduction in their commitment to desegregation represented in the 1989 plan, even if such a reduction were agreed to by the Joshua Intervenors, eventuality which, in any event, seems to us most unlikely. an The desegregation obligations undertaken in the 1989 plan are solemn and binding commitments, not be disturbed. The essence and core of that plan should On the other hand, we think the District Court was too strict with itself. We did not intend, for example, to limit changes in detail to matters that are merely transitional, or to the selection of certain provisions from the Tri-District Plan. (We accept responsibility for any lack of clarity in our December 1990 opinion on this point.) If a question is truly one only of detail, not affecting the major sxibstantive commitments to desegregation, the District Court has the authority to consider it. Some such changes, for example, as the District Court noted, may have merit, either because they advance desegregation, or for other reasons. Even changes that go beyond the level of detail, moreover, could -4- abe approved, but only if the parties affirmatively establish good reasons (not including the lack of funds) for them. It may be helpful for us to state those elements of the 1989 plan that we consider crucial, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved. They are as follows: (1) double funding for students attending the incentive (virtually all-black) schools
(2) operation of the agreed number of magnet schools according to the agreed timetable
(3) operation of the agreed number interdistrict schools according to the agreed timetable
of (4) intradistrict desegregation of PCSSD according to the agreed timetable
(5) the agreed effort to eliminate achievement disparity between the races
(6) the agreed elements of early-childhood education, at least in the incentive schools
and (7) appropriate involvement of parents. For purposes of illustration, we will discuss a number of the proposed modifications, indicating which of them seem to us to concern mere details, and which of them, on the other hand, would require substantive justification. Items we consider to involve details include deciding whether Russian will be taught at Parkview
failing to include the 144-page appendix in the revised PCSSD May 1991 Plan
changing the plan's language with respect to a possible interdistrict school in Chenal Valley
changing the process to decide whether King Elementary School will be Montessori school
and eliminating Explorer memberships 1 a for 1 students at incentive schools. In contrast, changes we consider to be significant, requiring justification, include reducing the number of instructional aides in the incentive schools from one per classroom to two aides for every three classrooms
eliminating incentive-school themes
and eliminating a full-time nurse at each ^Students at the incentive schools, which are all on the elementary level, are too young to be Explorer Scouts. Addendum (J.A.) 102. Joint -5-school. Again, we emphasize that we do not mean to imply that these changes are not permissible. Rather, changes of this kind may be approved if the District Court finds they are justified. One other kind of change proposed by the parties deserves our attention: deleting requirements of the plan because the parties agree the requirements have been met. An example of this is LRSD's obligation under the 1989 plan to hire two parent recruiters to conduct recruitment activities for the incentive schools. In their "Stipulation Regarding Little Rock School District and Interdistrict Plan Modifications," filed with the District Court on July 25, 1991, the parties stated that they deleted the requirement to hire the recruiters because the recruiters were hired in 1989. J.A. 105. We agree with the District Court's statements on this topic: "Present performance does not excuse future obligation. What if the district stops doing what it promised? Without such commitments remaining readily identifiable in the plan, the Court cannot monitor [the] district's compliance with the plan." Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1. No. LR-C-82-866, slip op. 22 (E.D. Ark., opinion filed July 15, 1991) (emphasis in original). Perhaps LRSD will no longer need parent recruiters at some point in the future. Until that time, however, the district's obligation to hire and maintain the recruiters should remain in the plan. The appellants urge that we not remand the case to the District Court for further proceedings, order approval of their modifications as They ask us simply to a whole. or. in the alternative, to go through each of the modifications and indicate specifically which of them should be approved. and which disapproved. They suggest that a remand would not result in any additional factual proof. Justification for each of the proposed changes, they say, can be found in the stipulations they filed with the District Court. We can read those stipulations and apply them just as well as a trial court, the parties assert. -6-We believe the better course, though it will involve some delay before a final plan is in place, is to remand to the District Court with directions to review the proposed modifications under the standards set out in this opinion. On the most general level, the standard is, as the parties assert, the same one we originally- applied in approving the 1989 plan
The parties' agreement should be upheld if it is constitutional, workable, and fair to class members. On the other hand, the application of this test is affected by the new procedural context in which we now find the case. The 1989 settlement is a benchmark. Although changes can be made, the District Court and we must take into account the potential for confusion, even chaos, that constant change creates. The parties and the public deserve a period of stability. Changes in details, or at the margin, will not seriously interfere with this goal. Changes of greater significance, however, may well do so. and that fact must be taken fully into account when such changes are proposed and considered. We recognize that the language of this opinion is somewhat general. It leaves a considerable degree of latitude to the District Court. That Court must determine in the first instance, using the criteria we have suggested, what changes are mere details and what changes are outside that category. It must also determine. in its own best judgment. what changes should be approved, notwithstanding their going beyond the level of detail. because they would advance desegregation or for other sound reasons. The District Court should proceed with that discretion and flexibility that characterizes courts of equity. Its decisions, whatever they are, are of course subject to review on appeal, but the review will be on an abuse-of-discretion basis, and we will give a healthy measure of deference to the reasoned choices made by the District Court. -7-II. We turn to a few other matters requiring our attention. After the District Court rejected the May 1991 Plan, it ordered the parties to submit new modifications which complied with its interpretation of our December 1990 opinion. On July 22, 1991, the parties submitted their new proposed modifications. In view of our resolution of this appeal, the debate over the extent to which this so-called July submission conforms to the District Court's orders of June 21 and July 15, 1991, is now moot. Although the District Court disapproved the parties' proposed modifications, it entered a partial stay of its orders on August 22, 1991, pending the outcome of this appeal. The effect of the stay was to require the parties to abide by the 1989 plan, except with respect to those specific items mentioned in the order. We have no quarrel with this order. and it can. subject to any modification that may commend itself to the District Court, remain in effect pending the District Court's decision concerning the proposed modifications to the plan under the guidelines we have set foirth in this opinion. It troubles us. however. that the parties seem to be misinterpreting the pairtial stay. At oral argument, the attorney for PCSSD stated that the District Court's order of August 22, 1991, prevents the parties from taking other desegregative actions on subjects that are not covered in the 1989 plan. An example given at oral argument was a proposed program to encourage vendors to hire minority employees and deal with minority suppliers. We see nothing in the District Courts August 22 order prohibiting efforts by the school districts above and beyond those required by the 1989 plans. The District Court disapproved the May 1991 Plan, in part, because it viewed the plan as a reduction in the parties' commitment to desegregating public schools in Pulaski County. Nothing in its orders prevents the districts, without necessarily -8- coming to the Court for approval, from voluntarily increasing their desegregation efforts, as long as these efforts do not conflict with the districts' pre-existing obligations under the 1989 plan. as it may be modified from time to time. The District Court' s July 15 opinion makes this clear: "The plans are a floor. not a ceiling." Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1. No. LR-C-82-866, slip op. 10 (E.D. Ark., opinion filed July 15, 1991). We reiterate, however, that these increased efforts may not supplant the districts' obligations under any court-approved plan. Finally, we think it prudent to mention the standard to be used by the District Court for reviewing proposed modifications to the plan (if any are sxibmitted in the future) to which all the parties have not agreed. As appellants have correctly noted. disputed modifications are governed by a stricter standard than agreed-to modifications. In Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell, 111 S. Ct. 630, 636 (1991), the Supreme Court rejected, as too burdensome, the requirement that a party requesting a dissolution or modification of a school-desegregation plan show "grievous wrong evoked by new and unforeseen a conditions," under United States v. Swift & Co.. 286 U.S. 106, 119 (1932) . In rejecting the Swift standard, however, the Court did not indicate what showing would be necessary for a party to demonstrate the need for modification. We find the Sixth Circuit case of Heath v. De Courcy. 888 F.2d 1105 (6th Cir. 1989), instructive on this issue: To modify [a] consent decree[ ], the court need only identify a defect or deficiency in its original decree which impedes achieving its goal, either because experience has proven it less effective [or] disadvantageous. because circumstances and conditions , or have changed which warrant fine-tuning the decree. A modification will be upheld if it furthers the original purpose of the decree in a more efficient way, without upsetting the basic agreement between the parties. -9-Id. at 1110. Our review of the District Court's decisions concerning this kind of modification will also be subject to abuse-of-discretion standard. an * * The orders appealed from are vacated, and the cause remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We direct that our mandate issue forthwith. We ask the District Court, to the extent practicable, to give this matter priority on its docket, this appeal. Each party shall bear its own costs on It is so ordered. WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge, concurring. Although I concur in the court's judgment vacating the orders appealed from and remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings, I write separately to voice my concern that our holding may be too restrictive with respect to the changes that the parties should be allowed to implement. By way of example, it seems to me that the parties have already offered sufficient justification for their intention to reduce the number of instructional aides in the incentive schools, to eliminate certain incentive-school themes, and to eliminate a full-time nurse at each school. These are matters, among others, that I consider to be mere details, the implementation of which should be left to the discretion of the parties. The recurring theme expressed during oral argument was the knowledge and experience that the parties have gained during the past several years about those aspects of the desegregation plan that have been successful and those which have not. For example. -10- counsel for Pulaski County Special School District stated (and I paraphrase) "What we have learned over the past two years is that brand new schools and a strong basic curriculum is what parents want." Counsel for North Little Rock School District explained that North Little Rock had abandoned precision teaching because it was found not to be effective. Likewise, counsel for the Joshua Intervenors stated (and again I paraphrase) "We have seen that certain things don't work, theme schools." We know what won't work, for example. Of course these are arguments that can (and no doubt will) be made to the District Court on remand. I mention them here only to illustrate the deference that we, and the District Court, should pay to those who are charged with the responsibility of educating the children within the several school districts. Some might reply by saying that such deference represents a naive. too-trusting attitude. given the recalcitrancenay. outright obduracyof the parties in years past. Perhaps so. On the other hand, we should remember that this is not 1954 or 1957- -or even 1985, for that matterand the time has come to cease excoriating the leaders of the present for the sins of their forebears and to vouchsafe them some credit for the efforts they have made to comply with the several decrees that have been entered in this long-standing case. The court's opinion today takes this latter course, and I am pleased to join in it, differing only in the degree of detailed supervision that the District Court should be required to exercise over the parties' revised plan. If I thought that my somewhat more relaxed standard of supervision would lead to a cessation of the efforts that have heretofore been made to remedy the effects of legally-enforced segregation or a wholesale jettisoning of the plan that we approved in our opinion of last December, I would not espouse it. As it is. however, I would give the parties the opportunity of demonstrating -11-that the changes they have proposed do not affect, in the court's words, "the major substantive commitments to desegregation." I view the continuing presence of the Joshua Intervenors as a powerful force to insure that the several school districts adhere to their conunitments to desegregation. My views have not carried the day, of course, and so we will never know whether the greater latitude I would have allowed the parties would have resulted in a commitment fulfilled or a promise rung hollow. A true copy. Attest
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. -12-OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Date: January 29, 1992 To: James Jennings, Asso. Supt. for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services From: Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Subject: Correction of Inconsistencies and Timelines Listed below are inconsistencies we have noted between the narrative and timelines in the May Submission: Pages 47-49: ASSET Program Timelines have been deleted but the narrative on page 37 has been restored. Also, the narrative on pages 43-46 regarding JTPA/ASSET is inconsistent with testimony regarding existing tutoring programs. Page 97: Multicultural Curriculum Under Evaluation and Monitoring, the reference to adding multicultural curriculum to the LRSD monitoring checklist was deleted and not restored. Ms. Matthis testified that reference to the checklist had been moved to the section on Educational Equity Monitoring. Although curriculum is listed in the addition to the incentive school monitoring and evaluation section on pages 371-72, multicultural curriculum is not specifically identified. Pages 208-212, 312-325: Parent Involvement and Incentive School Section The Parents in Learning Program has been deleted on page 208 but remains in the timeline on page 212. (Testimony indicated that LRSD would restore the Parents in Learning Program to the narrative.) "Nationwide recruitment" was restored to the narrative on page 325 but is still deleted from the timeline on page 312.January 29, 1992 Page Two Hiring of staff on initial one-year contracts has been restored to pages 324 and 325 but is still deleted in the timeline on page 312. "Full time nurse" has been restored in the page 304 narrative but is still deleted from the timeline on page 316. Pages 344-345: Parent Involvement Section - Parent Internship Program The May Submission is not clear regarding the LRSDs proposed changes on page 344 and the corresponding timelines on page 345: Page 344, #2, calls for the district to "establish an Inoentive wide P-^arent hntemship P^rogram in all incentive schools with the purpose of employing parents as teacher aides." Yet the timeline has been changed to replace the original Parent Internship Program with a "Parent Training Program with the purpose of utilizing parents as facilitators of support groups." Page 344, #3, reads "recruit parents from the incentive neighborhoods for teacher aides and other positions for which they are qualified." The timeline has been changed to read "recruit parents from the Incentive neighborhoods for group facilitators for which they will be trained. Page 344, #4, reads "establish mentorships between teachers and parents in the incentive schools. It The timeline has been changed to "establish mentorships between counselor (sic} and parents in the incentive schools." Pages 344 and 346: Parent Involvement Section - Monthly Communication Packet The narrative on page 344 deletes the word "monthly" regarding a monthly communications packet
the timeline on page 346 still contains "monthly". Pages 358 and 363: Parent Recruitment Section - Highlight Sheets The narrative has been changed: "F. Develop highlight sheets for distribution to all elementary Distribute program descriptions to prospective elementary parents (and new elementary parents). (I Item "H" on that page states "place highlights sheet in local businesses." The timeline states that program descriptions will be distributed to "all parents" and that highlight sheets will be placed in local businesses. Pages 359 and 365: Parent Recruitment Section - Flyers and Open House The narrative states that flyers will be inserted in utility companies bills and through mass mailings to "all- targeted K-5 white parents in NLRSD and PCSSD, except the southeast quodraat. "All" and "except for the southeast quadrant" are not deleted in the timelines. ItJanuary 29, 1992 Page Three The narrative states, "Follow mass mailings with Provide special open house opportunities at incentive schools." However, mass mailings are not deleted in the timeline. Listed below are timelines in the May Submission that are either totally or partially illegible
42 86c 86d 92 93 98 99 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 426 449 450 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET RECE5VED TO: FROM: THROUGH: LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS March 22, 1993 Mr. Sterling Ingram Marie Parker 72201 APR I 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring SUBJECT
DESEGREGATION PLAN ISSUES The purpose of this memorandum is to direct you to address several priorities associated with the implementation of the Desegregation Plan as rapidly as possible so that we may be sure that we are making good faith effort to address the requirements of the Court with respect to these priorities. 1. 2. Please report in writing any specific programatic assessment processes required by the Desegregation Plan and the status of the implementation of these processes. As a part of this report please include any plans, systems documents, or timelines that outline the assessment processes mentioned herein. Please develop a plan and implementation schedule for any of the above assessments that have not been implemented. 3. Please develop a plan to meet the general requirement that we assess all aspects of the Desegregation plan. This assessment plan should specify each aspect of the Desegregation Plan in terms of two issues: (1) the purpose of the aspect of the plan being evaluated
and (2) the measure which will ascertain the fulfillment of said purpose. > 4. Please prepare a report or "audit" that indicates the status of implementation efforts with respect to each of programs outlined in the plan so that a document for the Federal Court can be developed as soon as possible. You may want to contact Diane Barksdale regarding this matter because she has done considerable work on this issue as a graduate school project. The information she has gathered may be quite useful to you as you prepare your report. In conclusion, please make an appointment with me to discuss the issues outlined in this memorandum. I believe all of them are important if we are to correctly implement our Desegregation Plan. ( cc: Cabinet Mr. Chris Heller 7 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 To
Lucille DeGostin I From: 'pAnn Brown Re: Corrections to the LRSD Desegregation Plan Date: May 28, 1992 Page 22, last line, 11th word should read "is" not "a". Correct reading: "Programs and individual components will be continued if JTPA funding is available." Page 147, third line, fourth word should read "four" not ""one". Correct reading: "There will be seven incentive schools which are listed below with the capacity of each based upon 18 in four-year-old classes, 20 in kindergarten, 23 in grades one through three, and 25 in grades four through six (figures are based on LRSD 1991- 92 School Profile data: . . If Page 228, first line of last paragraph, 13th word should read "two" not "tow". Correct reading: "In 1990-91, the District reduced its number of runs from three to two.' n Page 229, first date should read "February 15, 1989" not "February 15, 1898" Correct reading: "February 15, 1989 Contract signature."FILED ITS. DISTRICT COURT, EASTERM district ARKANSAS f 4 Vi FEB 0 2 1993 oS N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT t, EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 3/" WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSUVR., ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OEP. CLERK PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS ^A. -I OeseQ^^'S''" 1 ' CJK :J5C. -1 .* 1 MOTION The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court as follows: 1. To require the (defendant) plaintiff Little Rock School District to consult with Joshua and the others parties prior to making any desegregation plan alterations which require court approval
and 2. To require the defendants to include in their budget projections the scholarship commitments made either by the school district or by the Joshua Intervenors to the parties and to the Court, including the Court of Appeals, for the pupils who attend or have attended the incentive schools since the inception of the Court approved Desegregation Plan herein. The support for this motion is found in the Desegregation Plan itself as well as in the oral arguments in the Court of Appeals made by the school district. Those commitments have been reinforced by the testimony of Dr. Ruth Steele, Dr. James Jennings r Mrs. Estelle Mathis, and every other school official other than Dr. Mac Bernd who was not privy to the agreements or commitments made as set forth above. <t fy-, without the scholarship commitments being made integral part of the budget of the district, the district proposes to abort the settlement. I-'?'* ^5? a 5*? Joshua requests an Order regarding this matter so that either C i: r-party may appeal. This is so because the district, under the uperintendent, appears to disregard the basic leadership of a new s tenets of the agreement which caused the Court of Appeals to approve the settlement herein. Respectfully submitted. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 ORIGINAL SIGNED BY UNDERSIGNFr John W. Walker, Bar #64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Walker, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served upon record by hand-delivery on this ___ day of ------ all counsel of , 1993. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY UNDERSIGNED COUNSEL John W. Walker V s 'il-r Date: February 26, 1993 From: Ann To: Everybody MEMORANDUM Subject Provisions of Plans or Orders the LRSD Has Failed to Fulfill The Judge wants a very concise list of what plan and order provisions the LRSD has failed to fulfill so far. She wants to use this information in a statement she plans to read at the March 19 hearing. Please work up a list of whats not been done in "your" parts of the plan and orders. 111 need this list no later an next Friday, March 5. Sorry about the extra assignment, but with the right mindset, this could be fun. Thanks!A Provisions of Plans or Orders the LRSD Has Failed to Fnlfill Board Responsibilities The LRSD Board of Directors has committed to the following goals which it has failed to fulfill, according to the introductory section of the 1992 plan, page 1. The elimination of achievement disparity between black and white students on norm- referenced and criterion referenced tests. Promoting positive public reaction to desegregation. The effective use of interdistrict and intradistrict recruitment strategies to meet the desegregation requirements in all schools and to avoid resegregation. In addition, under the title "Leadership" on pages 2-3 of the 1992 plan, the board and superintendent have failed to assert leadership in the following areas. Clearly delineating the districts desegregation mission to the staff and the community. Utilizing the desegregation mission as a guide for the development of policies and setting expectations for the superintendent to implement the policies. Adopting a budget which will provide the resources necessary for an effective, desegregated school system. Making budgetary decisions consistent with district desegregation policies in terms of buildings, staff, materials, and equipment. The conduct of an annual self-evaluation of their commitment to a quality desegregated education. Incentive Schools Failure to reserve kindergarten and four-year-old program seats for white students and engage in documented, sustained, and vigorous recruitment to attract those students, (plan page 140, May 1992 order, page 28). Program specialists have not been hired at all incentive schools (May 1992 order, page 41). A staffing needs assessment has not been administered and analyzed (May 1992 order, page 41). Themes have not been incorporated into the core curriculum at each school (May 1992 order, page 42). Little significant progress has been made toward desegregation of the incentive schools, with the exception of Rockefeller (1992 plan, page 149). Lack of coordinated recruitment and failure to implement all plan recruitment activities (i.e., individual brochures, marketing blitz) (1992 plan, pages 215-217). The Parent Council has not begun to monitor or report on all activities related to the incentive school program (1992 plan, page 151). Equity Issues Failure to show significant progress in the reduction of the achievement disparity between black and white students (1992 plan, page 1, 1989 Settlement Agreement, page 26). Black students (particularly black males) continue to be disciplined at a rate disproportionate to their percentage of the student population (1992 plan, pages 28, 33-34). Failure to effectively address the overrepresentation of black students (particularly black males) in special education (1992 plan, page 111). Recruitment The district has not developed a Strategic Recruitment Plan pursuant to the ODM Incentive School Recommendations (page 4) and the LRSD Marketing Plan. The Recruitment Tracking System, first requested during the March 1991 Construction Hearing, has not been implemented. Additional Items from the May 1992 Order A plan has not been submitted describing the extended activities designed to address the needs of Washington Magnet School attendance zone students (May 1992 order, page 38).RECSW^O Oiiice ^PR 2 2 1994 of Desegregation IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CODRf
Monitoting EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSASt3Rndi WESTERN DIVISION 'COUi tar:
2 0 1594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JAMES VA McJv aMAG:pLA1NTIFF By.-____________________ CL? CLLRK V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF DESEGREGATION PLAN For its motion, plaintiff. Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. The LRSD and Interdistrict Desegregation Plans require the establishment within LRSD of three interdistrict schools Romine, King and Stephens. The plans require that two of those schools. King and Stephens, be located in the downtown Little Rock area. Romine and King schools have been established as interdistrict schools. 2. Since the parties agreed that LRSD would establish the King and Stephens Interdistrict Schools in the downtown Little Rock area. there have been significant changes in factual conditions which warrant modification of that agreement. First, Washington Elementary School, which the parties agreed would be an incentive school. presently operates as an interdistrict school in the downtown Little Rock area. Second, there has been a significant movement of population out of the area in which the parties plannedto locate Interdistrict schools. The schools in that area are experiencing low enrollment. There are many empty seats, including seats at the King and Washington Interdistrict Schools. 3. The modification of the desegregation plans which is most suitably tailored to the changed circumstances is to recognize Washington in place of Stephens as the second required interdistrict school in the downtown Little Rock area. This modification is in compliance with the standards for modification of consent decrees set out in Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. ___, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992) and Appeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253, 258 (8th Cir. 1991). WHEREFORE, for the reasons set out above and in the accompanying brief, LRSD prays for modification of the LRSD and Interdistrict Desegregation Plans to recognize Washington as the second required interdistrict school in the downtown Little Rock area and to delete the requirement that LRSD construct a new Stephens Interdistrict School. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 B' Christopher He Bar No. 81083 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion For Modification of Desegregation Plan has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 20th day of April, 1994. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Christopher Helle 3 RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR 7 1994 Office cf Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAM SITES The plaintiff. Little Rock School District ("LRSD"), for its Memorandum Brief in Support of its Motion for Approval of Four-Year Old Program Sites, states: The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP"), Rule 7(b)(1), provides that an application to the Court for an order shall be by motion which shall be made in writing, stating with particularity the grounds for the motion and setting forth the relief or order sought. In accordance with the requirement, the LRSD has submitted its motion for approval of the sites for four-year old programs for the 1994-95 school year. Under the terms of the desegregation plan approved by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, the LRSD committed itself to implement a four-year old program by the end of the 1993-94 school year in all schools in the District. Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. !nd>br1990). However, the LRSD later proposed modifications to the 1989 settlement plans for consideration by this Court. Hearings were held in late 1991 and early 1992 regarding the proposed modifications. By Order dated May 1, 1992, this Court ruled on both proposed modifications. Among the modifications which had been proposed by the LRSD was the request that this Court release it from the obligation of placing a four-year program in every school in the District. Rather, the LRSD submitted that four-year old programs were both compensatory and desegregatory in nature since they impact disparity of academic achievement by better preparing children for kindergarten and also serve to attract white children to the public schools. In light of those facts, the LRSD persuaded this Court that it was more appropriate to place four-year old programs in those schools or areas which have proven difficult to desegregate. Based on the evidence and testimony presented, as well as other matters, this Court granted the request and relieved the LRSD from the requirement of placing four-year programs in every elementary school. In considering the modifications proposed by the LRSD, the Court did not release the District from serving the same number of children who would have been served had every school in the District offered a four-year old program as had been originally planned. However, the Court did relieve the LRSD of the obligation to completely implement the four-year old programs by the 1993-94 school year. Rather, the Court permitted the District to follow a Ifsd-br 2time schedule in which implementation could be completed by the 1994-95 school year. In accordance with its obligations to select locations which will best further the goals of disparity reduction and racial balance, the LRSD embarked upon a review to determine the most appropriate sites and the number of classes for each site. The LRSD has now completed that review and attached its report as Exhibit 1 to the Motion filed herewith. For the reasons stated herein as well as those contained in the Motion, the LRSD submits that the Motion should be granted. This Memorandum Brief is respectfully submitted in support of the Motion. , FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Plaintiff LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Jerry L. Malone Bar ID No. 85096 Ind-br 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Brief in Support of Motion for Approval of Four-Year Old Program Sites has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this day of April, 1994: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 5IQ. 201 East Markham Street "" Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone Irad-br 4 RECBIV^D MAY 21994 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS , FfLEO districtARKANSAS 29 1994 Office of Desegregation MonnonnS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT WESTERN DIVISION "'MES w McCormack. ciERK By.-, p V. NO. LR-C-82-866 CURK PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the Court for an extension of time until May 12, 1994 in which to respond to Little Rock School District's motions filed on April 20, 1994 and received by undersigned counsel on April 25, 1994 regarding the following: 1) Motion for Modification of Desegregation Plan
2) Motion to Designate King Interdistrict School a Magnet
and 3) Motion for Approval of Four Year Old Program Sites. For their reasons, Joshua states: 1. Undersigned counsel has not had the opportunity to devote the necessary time towards the preparation of response to said motions due to other trials and discovery commitments that had already been previously scheduled. 2. Opposing counsel has been contacted and has authorized counsel to state that they have no objection to this request for extension. 3. Said motion is being made in good faith, and is not being made for the purpose of delay. Wherefore, Joshua respectfully prays the Court to grant thei extension of time, up to and including May 12, 1994. Respectfully, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 ^John W. Walker 7^ 1 Iror Ra r* Mn< ' Bar No< 64046 CZt CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to all counsel on this April, 1994. John W. Walker JpiBECE^^.^ MAY 9 1994 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Offcd <oi ^iiSSQrsgalion xf.si^^xifirig NO. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CTY. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME The Joshua Intervenors, for their Motion for an Extension of Time to File Their Reply Brief, states that: 1. The Appellants' Reply Brief in the above referenced consolidated appeals are due on May 10, 1994. 2. Due to the fact that the parties have been trying to reach a settlement on one of the appeals, an additional extension of time of twenty (20) days is necessary in which to file their reply brief. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors request an extension of time to and through May 30, 1994. Respectfully submitted.Jo: Ma Walker Bar No. 64046 Burnette'- Bar No. 88078 DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 Fayetteville, AR (501) 444-6200 72702 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this 5 day of May, 1994 . Steve Jones, Esq. JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. ROCHELL & STREETT 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 John i Walkert I- I'
ir' Id MAY-16-94 MON 10:10 SUSAN W WRIGHT r nun JUMN U.UBLKER P.O. FAX NO. 5013246576 To 3J46896 P.Ol P. 82 IN THE united STATES DISTRICT COURT eastern DISTRICT OF AK2CAWSAS WESTERN DIVISION little rock school district, kt al. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTV SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET, al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET aL, KATHERINE ff, KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS defendants INTERVENORS INTERVENORS RESPONSE OF JOSHUA INTERVENORS TO LRSD fgNDiNG MOTIONS BEFORE THE COUrt The Joshua Intervenors do interpose the following regarding the pending motions before the Court: 1) 2) Motion to Designate King Interdistrict. Motion for Modifioation ^School a Magnet, Of Desegregation Plan
3) Motion for Approval of Four and Year Old Program Sites. O-oshua hao no objection to King Interdistrict designated a Magnet School. Sohool being Because ef little Seek School Districtfailure to respond to Joshua regarding the resolution respectfully request the Court pending motions, until after of the Stephens School issue, we to defer action on LRSDs other (8thJ Circuit rules a hearing or after euch time the Eighth on the pending appeal. Respectfully subnitted,. John w. Walker- p.a. 1723 Broadvay Little Rock, ar (501) 374-3758 7?206I MAY-16-94 MON 10:10 * > I SUSAN W WRIGHT I-Kun JOHN U.UBLKER P.b. FAX NO. 5013246576 TO 124^096 P. 02 P.O: l4I i f l! I r 5 J V ? V [f f ? I SSliriGATE Qg SBRVlgR TnHn 147 XtfeTl *' " V, Jolin w. Walker Total p.esRBGE^VED iw MA'f 1 7 1994 Offics oi Dessgr.?gaticn Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR'^ J me. UiUiLU 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSASS oiSTOCTC^sr WESTERN DIVISION A2Tc.Pf4 DS' T A?7KA\J MAY V r-'Z LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. KC tl PLAINTIFF: r Lt NO. LR-C-82-866 OEP c" PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS RESPONSE OF JOSHUA INTERVENORS TO LRSD PENDING MOTIONS BEFORE THE COURT The Joshua Intervenors do interpose the following regarding the pending motions before the Court: 1) Motion to Designate King Interdistrict School a Magnet
2) Motion for Modification of Desegregation Plan
and 3) Motion for Approval of Four Year Old Program Sites. Joshua has no objection to King Interdistrict School being designated a Magnet school. Because of Little Rock cliool District's failure to respond to Joshua regarding the resolution of the Stephens School issue. we respectfully request the Court to defer action on LRSD's other pending motions until after a hearing or after such time the Eighth (Sth) Circuit rules on the pending appeal. Respectfully submitted. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 / ( I'il irf',OF Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham. Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: November 1, 1994 To: All Counsel of Record From: n S. Brown Subject: LRSD Proposal for Plan Modification: Desegregation Facilitator As you are aware, judge Wright has asked me to coordinate the desegregation plan modification process for a specific proposal, which was prompted by a LRSD business case presented to the Court during recent hearings. That business case proposed to eliminate the Desegregation Facilitator, to distribute the Facilitators duties to other district administrators, and to create a new Director of Student Assignment position. In an October 24, 1994 Order, the Court directed me to "work with the LRSD to identify any deficiencies in the business case and to address them in ways that preserve the intent of the desegregation plan when it provided that a Desegregation Facilitator would serve the staff and students of LRSD schools." I have met at length with Dr. Russ Mayo to discuss the business case. As a result of our discussions and my observations. Dr. Mayo has completed a revised business case. The revision addresses deficiencies in the original proposal, which had to do with: incongruities within the business case, omitted plan mandates, the scope of the revised job description, possible neglect of plan-mandated responsibilities, and unclear accountability. In my opinion. Dr. Mayo has satisfactorily addressed those deficiencies through this revised proposal. Please review the revised business case, which is attached along with a letter from Dr. Mayo to me. If you have questions or concerns about the proposal, discuss them with Dr. Mayo and his attorney. Do your best to resolve any issues and determine whether the business case may need further revision. Let me know immediately the nature of any matters that remain unsettled or if you anticipate any additional changes in the proposal
I will serve as a resource to further facilitate the modification process if necessaiy. 1 wish to conclude this phase of the modification process as soon as possible, certainly no later than November 10, 1994. By that date or before, please indicate in writing to me either that you do not object to the plan modification as proposed in e revised business case, or that you object to the modification for reasons which you specify. 1 will forward your written comments to the Court along with copies of this memorandum and the enclosures. The Court will issue a ruling based on this information, any other filings you may wish to make, and the record of this case. Thank you for your cooperation. Please let me know if 1 may be of further assistance. Enc. Little Rock School District Octobers, 1994 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 OCT 6 1994 Dear Ann: Office of Desegregation Mon V Our discussion of my business case for a Director of Student Assignment was helpful. As you know, the proposal is to eliminate the Desegregation Facilitator position appearing in the desegregation plan. The money for that position will be used for a Director of Student Assignment. 1, and others as noted in the business case, will assume the responsibilities mandated by the plan for the Desegregation Facilitator. Since this is a plan modification, I am asking for your assistance with the modification process. The attached business case has been rewritten to include all desegregation plan mandates for the Desegregation Facifitator, to clarify job responsibilities and accountability, to define a realistic job scope, and to correct some previous incongruities among sections of the business case. The Little Rock School District Board of Directors was presented the original business case by Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent, on June 14, 1994. There were no objecfions. On or about July 18, Chris Heller, LRSD Attorney, sent copies of the business case to all parties and submitted it to the court with the budget document. No objections were heard from any of the parties at that time. At a later hearing. Judge Wright requested clarification of specifically who would address the mandates of the plan in addition to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. A chart responding to her request is included. Since this is a modification to the LRSD Desegregation Plan, the change should be reflected in the document for future reference. 1 suggest that the references to Desegregation Facilitator in the current plan be deleted. Again, thank you for your help with the business case. 1 look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, C. Russell Mayo Associate Superintendent for Desegregation C: Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Chris Heller, LRSD Attorney 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)374-3361 Little Rock School District Director of Student Assignment A Business Case I Addition Modification Deletion Octobers, 1994Little Rock School District Director of Student Assignment Business Case Executive Summary The position of Associate Superintendent for Desegregation was established to insure implementation of our desegregation plan as well as to monitor the districts desegregation process. Historically, this has been done through careful oversight of the Student Assignment Office (SAO), generation of numerous statistical reports, and staying abreast of the latest desegregation obligations. Also included with these responsibilities has been oversight of Volunteers In Public Schools (VIPS) and responsibility for recruitment of students as described in the desegregation plan. This past year, the responsibilities of Communications and Transportation were added to this position. Transportation has over 340 employees. Also added this school year are additional reports and documents generated monthly and quarterly to monitor the districts progress in fulfilling its obligations under its plan. The Student Assignment Office is not receiving as much day-to-day supervision as it should to address the sensitivity of student assignments, their impact on the desegregation plan, and the needs of parents. The responsibilities of student assignment require moment by moment attention. Decisions about when to release weiiting lists affect racial balance and recruitment of parents to the district. Careful and proper monitoring of racial balance and the student assignment process improves public confidence and maintains racial balance. Projecting demographic data and enrollments aids in planning for future marketing, recruitment, and school closings or constmction. Executing plans for closing schools requires attention to patrons who are affected and the assurance of acceptable options. The supervision of SAO personnel requires meetings, planning, and periodic training. Meeting with parents who do not understand the student assignment process requires diplomacy, patience, and time. Meeting with the appeals committee requires time and diplomacy. These are examples of student assignment responsibilities requiring day-to-day, on-site attention. Currently the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation fulfills the role of the student assignment supervisor in addition to broader responsibilities. Though housed at the SAO, his responsibilities require his presence and attention elsewhere too often. This makes the day-to-day attention required by the student assignment impossible. This is a proposal to change the position of Desegregation Facilitator to Director of Student Assignment. Realign responsibilities so the new director assumes the primary responsibility for student assignment, and the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation assumes primary responsibility for desegregation and the duties previously done by the Desegregation Facilitator. This neither increases the costs of personnel nor ignores the responsibilities of the Desegregation Facilitator. Further, it gives the attention necessary to student assignment and allows for greater focus on the desegregation effort. This position will report to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. See Figure 1.Director of Student Assignment Business Case 2 Now, more than before, senior management is totally involved in the desegregation effort. The responsibilities of the Superintendent, the Deputy Superintendent, Associate to the Deputy Superintendent, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation, Director of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, and staff development personnel are all focused on the desegregation effort. The implementation of a planning and budgeting process has raised the effort to a new consciousness. Now monitoring of desegregation is more extensive than ever. Continuous discussions and analysis in meetings of the Superintendents Council have moved obligations to the forefront. The Program Budget Document and the Management Tool represent additional safeguards not previously used by the district. Therefore, the original intent of the Desegregation Facilitator has grown beyond a single individual into a way of life for senior management in the district. Addressing the need in the area of student assignment now becomes an important part of the solution. The responsibilities of the former Desegregation Facilitator will become the primary responsibility of the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. He will be assisted by those persons listed in the chart below. Tasks 1. Work directly with building principals 2. Identification of problems or practices that impede the implementation of quality desegregated education in each building 3. Providing technical assistance to building principals and their staffs for desegregation concerns_____________ 4. Working very closely with the remaining associate superintendents^ as needed_____________________ 5. Allow the central office administration to have immediate feedback on the day-to-day activities in the schools^_______________________________________ 6. Focusing on all aspects of desegregation implementation including, but not limited to achievement disparity, extracurricular activities, class assignments, guidance and counseling, staffing and staff interaction, student interactions, and parent involvement. Person (s) Associate Supt. for Deseg. Assistant Supts. Assoc, to Deputy Supt. Assistant Supts. Assoc, to Deputy Supt. Dlr. of Human Resources Dir. of Labor Relations Dlr. of Student Assignment Assoc. Supt for Deseg. Dir. of Staff Development Associate Supt. for Deseg. Assistant Supts. Assoc, to Deputy Supt. Associate Supt. for Deseg. ' At present, only one Associate Superintendent exists. This reference is interpreted as other senior level administrators in the district. 2 This item is less of a task and more of a result. 10/6/94 DIRSAOZ.DOCDirector of Student Assignment Business Case 3 Cunently, the position of Desegregation Facilitator is vacant because of a retirement. By modifying the position now, no adjustments are necessary for the person in the position. The position will be advertised as described herein. The new person will know what is expected before filling the position. An extended period of training will be necessary once a person is employed. Time for announcing the position and interviewing will be necessary. This should take no more than one month to complete once final approval is given. The busiest time of the year for student assignment is January through September. The sooner we can make this change
the sooner we can begin improving service to parents. The following are milestones for implementing this position modification. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5, 6. '.Sb- 7/ 8. 9. Milestone Meet with SAO staff. Director of Communications, the Coordinator of VIPS, and the Director of Transportation^ Present Business Case to the Superintendent for approval Present Business Case to the Board of Directors for approval Present Business Case to ODM to begin modification procedure Discuss this modification with all parties Submit plan modification to the Court for approved_________________ Court approval Advertise the position Interview 10. Report for work Date 8/30/94 6/14/94 6/14/94 10/03/94 10/14/94 10/21/94 11/04/94 11/07/94 11/22/94 12/05/94 Person Mayo Mayo Williams Attorney Attorney Attorneys Williams Hurley Mayo Appointee Timely consideration of this modification is respectfully requested. Russ Mayo Associate Superintendent for Desegregation September, 1994 3 Though discussed in staff meetings with this group, a specific date was not reflected in an earlier edition of this business case. /Another discussion was held updating this group on the progress of the business case. Therefore, the date appears to be out of sequence. 10/6(94 DIRSAOZ DOCDirector of Student Assignment Business Case 4 Background The position of Associate Superintendent for Desegregation was established to insure implementation of our desegregation plan as well as to monitor the districts desegregation process. Historically, this has been done through careful oversight of the Student Assignment Office (SAO), generation of numerous statistical reports, and staying abreast of the latest desegregation obligations. Also included with these responsibilities has been oversight of Volunteers In Public Schools (VIPS) and responsibility for recruitment of students as described in the desegregation plan. This past year, the responsibilities of Communications and Transportation were added to this position. Transportation has over 340 employees. Also added this school year are additional reports and documents generated monthly and quarterly to monitor the districts progress in fulfilling its obligations under its plan. Problem Definition The Student Assignment Office is not receiving as much day-to-day supervision as it should to address the sensitivity of student assignments, their impact on the desegregation plan, and the needs of parents. The responsibilities of student assignment require moment by moment attention. Decisions about when to release waiting lists affect racial balance and recruitment of parents to the district. Careful and proper monitoring of racial balance and the student assignment process improves public confidence and maintains racial balance. Projecting demographic data and enrollments aids in planrfing for future marketing, recruitment, and school closings or construction. Executing plans for closing schools requires attention to patrons who are affected and the assurance of acceptable options. The supervision of SAO personnel requires meetings, planning, and periodic training. Meeting with parents who do not understand the student assignment process requires diplomacy, patience, and time. Meeting with the appeals committee requires time and diplomacy. These are examples of student assignment responsibilities requiring day-to-day, on-site attention. Currently the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation fulfills the role of the student assignment supervisor in addition to broader responsibilities. Though housed at the SAO, his responsibilities require his presence and attention elsewhere too often. This makes the day-to-day attention required by the student assignment impossible. Analysis of Alternatives The following alternatives have been considered: 10/6/94 D1RSAOZ.DOCDirector of Student Assigrunent Business Case 5 1. Add a new position to cover the responsibilities of student assignment and to assist the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. This creates an additional position and personnel costs. 2. Allow things to remain as they are. SAO and parents will continue to receive less Associate Superintendent Organizational Chart than attention. adequate 3. I Associate SupTintendent j I Director of Transportation staff Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation Student Assignment Coordinator SAO tnformetton Coordinetor Director of Communications j (2) Recruiters | Ccmmunlly Ocvdopmcfrt Co^rdlnctor (VIPS) I staff i I ProqfI iMinar I (8) Studant Aaslafffat Asslstawtiii~] Figure 1 Change the position of Desegregation Facilitator to Director of Student Assignment. Realign responsibilities so the new director assumes the responsibility primary for Student and the assignment, Associate Superintendent Desegregation for assumes responsibility primary for desegregation and the duties previously done by the Desegregation Facilitator. This neither increases the costs of personnel nor ignores the responsibilities of the Desegregation Facilitator. Further, it gives the attention necessary to student assignment and allows for greater focus on the desegregation effort. This position will report to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. See Figure 1. Now, more than before, senior management is totally involved in the desegregation effort. The responsibilities of the Superintendent, the Deputy Superintendent, Associate to the Deputy Superintendent, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation, Director of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, and staff development personnel are all focused on the desegregation effort. The implementation of a planning and budgeting process has raised the effort to a new consciousness. Now monitoring of desegregation is more extensive than ever. Continuous discussions and analysis in meetings of the Superintendents Council have moved obligations to the forefront. The Program Budget Document and the Management Tool represent additional safeguards not previously used by the district. Therefore, the original intent of the Desegregation Facilitator has grown beyond a single individual into a way of life for senior management in the district. Addressing the need in the area of student assignment now becomes an important part of the solution. The following are examples of responsibilities to be assigned to the new position: 1(V64 DIRSAOZ.DOCDirector of Student Assignment Business Case 6 a) Supervises and coordinates the day-to-day operation of the Student Assignment Office
b) Keeps the Associate Superintendent informed and updated on progress made in performing responsibilities relating to student assignment and on any relevant information discovered in the performance of these duties
c) Assists with developmental planning in the areas of long-range student assignment policies, magnet school development, program placement, and equal educationeil opportunity planning, and proposal development by providing demographic information and other pertinent information
d) Assists with monitoring and evaluating the districts desegregation plan
e) Assists in identifying problems or practices that impede the implementation of quality desegregation in the student assignment process
f) Provides immediate feedback on the day-to-day operations relating to student assignment
g) Stays informed of current issues before the Board of Directors by attending Board Meetings
h) Provides for the development, implementation, and evaluation of staff training for Student Assignment Office personnel
i) Coordinates the appeals committee
and, j) Performs other duties as assigned. The LRSD Plan defines the position of Desegregation Facilitator. Those tasks are found in the Educational Equity Monitoring section of the plan. The primary responsibility for the tasks described in the LRSD Plan will rest with the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation with this proposal. In the plan, the Desegregation Facilitator is defined as follows: Office of Desegregation A desegregation facilitator will be hired to work directly with building principals. The desegregation facilitator will be solely responsible for identifying problems or practices that impede the implementation of quality desegregated education in each building. The facilitator will also be responsible for providing technical assistance to building principals and their Steiffs, for desegregation related concerns. The use of a desegregation facilitator will eillow the central office administration to have immediate feedback on the day to day activities in the schools. The desegregation facilitator will report directly to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. However, the desegregation facilitator will work very closely with the remaining associate superintendents as needed. The desegregation facilitator will focus on all aspects of desegregation implementation. This includes, but is not limited to, achievement disparity. W&M D1RSAOZ.DOCDirector of Student Assignment Business Case 7 extracurricular activities, class assignments, guidance and counseling, staffing and staff interaction, student interaction, and parent involvement. Timeline Develop Job Description Announce Position Hire Desegregation Facilitator March 1-15 April 1-15 May 30 The responsibilities of the former Desegregation Facilitator will become the primary responsibility of the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. He will be assisted by those persons listed in the chart below. Tasks 1. Work directly with building principals 2. Identification of problems or practices that impede the implementation of quality desegregated education in each building 3. Providing technical assistance to building principals and their staffs for desegregation concerns______ 4. Working very closely with the remaining associate superintendents^ as needed_________________ 5. Allow the central office administration to have immediate feedback on the day-to-day activities in the schools^___________________________________ 6. Focusing on all aspects of desegregation implementation including, but not limited to achievement disparity, extracurricular activities, class assignments, guidance eind counseling, staffing and staff interaction, student interactions, and parent involvement. Personas) Associate Supt. for Deseg. Assistant Supts. Assoc, to Deputy Supt. Assistant Supts. Assoc, to Deputy Supt. Dir. of Human Resources Dir. of Labor Relations Dir. of Student Assignment Assoc. Supt for Deseg. Dir. of Staff Development Associate Supt. for Deseg. Assistant Supts. Assoc, to Deputy Supt. Associate Supt. for Deseg. 4 At present, only one Associate Superintendent exists. This reference is interpreted as other senior level administrators in the district. 5 This item is less of a task and more of a result". 10/6/94 MRSAOZ DOCDirector of Student Assignment Business Case 8 Recommendation Alternative 3 is recommended. 3. Change the position of Desegregation Facilitator to Director of Student Assignment. Realign tasks to make this position responsible primarily for student assignment. The responsibilities of the former Desegregation Facilitator will become the responsibility of the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. This change neither increases the costs of personnel nor ignores the responsibilities of the Desegregation Facilitator. Further, it gives the attention necessary to student assignment. This position will continue to report to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. Objective Upon implementation of alternative 3, the Student Assignment Office will receive the day-to-day supervision necessary to address the sensitivity of student assignments, their impact on the desegregation plan, and the needs of parents. Achieving this objective will permit: 1. More efficient monitoring of progress of desegregation by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation
2. Greater focus and attention given to daily decisions relating to student assignment
3. Thorough long-range planning for student assignment policies, magnet school development, program placement, equal educational opportunity planning, and proposal development by providing demographic information and other pertinent information
4. Quicker response to parent inquires
and, 5. Identification of problems or practices in the student assignment process that impede the implementation of quality desegregation. Impact Analysis Negatives 1. Student Assignment Personnel will have to adjust to a third supervisor within three years. 2. Parties in the case may be concerned that monitoring of the districts desegregation obligations will be compromised. 10/6/94 DIRSAOZ.DOCDirector of Student Assignment Business Case 9 Positives 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. eliminate delays in decision-making and responses to parents in the area of student assignments. permit efficient monitoring of progress of desegregation by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation
bring more focus and attention to daily decisions relating to student assignment
provide more thorough long-range planning for student assignment policies, magnet school development, program placement, equal educational opportunity planning, and proposal development by providing demographic information and other pertinent information
allow quicker response to parent inquires
and, permit the identification of problems or practices in the student assignment process that impede the implementation of quality desegregation. Risks The risks of not implementing this solution are continued disorganization for the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation, complaints, limited compliance with our obligations, and continuation of a generally poor public image in the area of student assignments. Timing I Currently, the position of Desegregation Facilitator is vacant because of a retirement. By modifying the position now, no adjustments are necessary for the person in the position. The position will be advertised as described herein. The new person will know what is expected before filling the position. An extended period of training will be necessary once a person is employed. Time for announcing the position and interviewing will be necessary. This should take no more than one month to complete once final approval is given. The busiest time of the year for student assignment is January through September. The sooner we can make this change
the sooner we can begin improving service to parents. Resources Analysis Personnel This is a position modification requiring no increase or decrease in the number of existing positions. 10/(3/94 D1RSAOZ.DOCDirector of Student Assignment Business Case 10 Financial No increase will occur in the current level of funding for this position. Revenue Source Funding for this position will come from the current line item of the budget. Force Field Analysis Primary supporters of this modification are council members, SAO staff. Director of Communications, the Coordinator of VIPS, and the Director of Transportation. General Information Plan The following are milestones for implementing this position modification. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Milestone Meet with SAO staff. Director of Communications, the Coordinator of VIPS, and the Director of Transportation^ Present Business Case to the Superintendent for approval Present Business Case to the Board of Directors for approved Present Business Case to ODM to begin modification procedure Discuss this modification with all parties Submit plan modification to the Court for approval 7. Court approval -,3 8. 9. Advertise the position Interview 10. Report for work Date 8/30/94 6/14/94 6/14/94 10/03/94 10/14/94 10/21/94 11/04/S4 11/07/94 11/22/94 12/05/94 Person Mayo Mayo Williams Mayo Attorney Attorneys Williams Hurley Mayo Appointee -rt. > -* 5 J.+ '!f-.t5Cj.xe!5r4r
: t3S! 6 Though discussed in staff meetings with this group, a specific date was not reflected in an earlier edition of this business case. Another discussion was held updating this group on the progress of the business case. Therefore, the date appears to be out of sequence. 10/6/94 DIRSAOZ.DOCer 1 3il^W<ZM<^y^.4SKaSg?igSi^.w^ Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT November 3, 1994 received NOV 4 1994. Judge Susan Webber Wright U. S. Federal Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dear Judge Wright: Enclosed is a bound copy of the Pulaski County Desegregation Case foundation documents. Included are the Settlement Agreement, the Interdistrict Plan, the Court Order (May 1992) relating to plan modifications, and the LRSD Desegregation Plan. They (except the Cour
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.