Little Rock Schools: Washington Magnet Elementary

Booker T. Washington Famous Educator Bom a slave, Washington was educated at Hampton Institute in Hampton, Virginia. In 1881, he founded Tuskegee Institute in Alabama. Tuskegee gave blacks a vocational education
it taught trades and scientific methods of farming. Washington was honored by Harvard University and Dartmouth College as an outstanding leader in education. CERTIFIED STAFF 1 Principal 1 Assistant Principal 2 Curriculum Specialists 2 Counselors 1 Resource Teacher 1 Full-time Nurse 2 Media Specialists 1 Young Astronaut Specialist 2 Music Specialists 1 Math Specialist 1 Science Specialist 2 Reading PAL Specialists 2 Math PAL Specialists 2 Art Specialists 1 Computer Lab Specialist 2 Physical Education Specialists 1 Speech Therapist 1 Learning Lab Teacher and Regular Classroom Teachers Booker T. Washington Magnet School "Exploration, Invention, and Discovery - The Fun Way to Learn" SPECIAL ACTIVITIES Choir Young Astronaut Program Citizens of the Month Gifted and Talented Program School Spirit Day Art Exhibits/Contests Book Fair Math Fair CARE Red Ribbon Week Young Astronaut Day Computer Exposure (K-6) Young Inventors Competition Read-a-thon Math-a-thon P.T.A. V.I.P.S. Cheerleaders "Just Say No" Club Holiday Parties Odyssey of the Mind Math Olympiad Writing Across The Curriculum H5 W. 27th Street Little Rock, AR 72206 324-2470 Karen J. Buchanan, Principal PHILOSOPHY The philosophy of Washington Basic Skills/ Math-Science Magnet School is to provide educational experiences that meet the needs of all children. To accomplish this end, teaching styles will be matched to learning styles to create an atmosphere where student growth will be assured. A comprehensive educational program will promote intellectual growth, social interaction, development of self worth, acceptance of responsibility for learning, and appreciation for cultural diversity. - to develop values, aspirations, and attitudes that promote the individuals personal involvement with the environment and society: and - to understand the interrelationship of mathematics and science with other subject areas. GOALS CURRICULUM OVERVIEW The goals of Washington Basic Skllls/Math- Science Magnet School are: - to develop the highest possible competence in academic skills and concepts
- to nurture the student's mental processes: - to foster self-discipline: Washington Magnet School's overall objective is to ensure that each student obtains a minimum of 85% mastery of the basic skills curriculum. The curriculum includes language arts, mathematics, reading, social studies, science, fine arts, and physical education, with additional emphasis on a hands-on approach to math and science education. - to develop task commitment and self-moti - vatlon
- to help students understand how science works, how it can be useful in daily living, and how science and technology affect society
- to help students acquire confidence in using mathematics meaningfully
Instructional activities are presented through child-centered classrooms, large group instruction, effective classroom management, standard basal textbooks, curriculum units and resource materials. A computer lab, math lab, science lab, "Young Astronauts Program," field trips, guest speakers, and specific math/ science projects enhance mathematics and science core curricula. - to give attention to and value science and mathematics as endeavors of human beings from all racial, ethnic, and cultural groups: Sixth grade students are assessed for prealgebra aptitude and grade level math skills. Placement in pre-algebra is based on high assessment in both categories, parental consent, and student motivation. STUDENT APPEARANCE AND DRESS CODE Experience indicates that there is a real connection between proper dress and grooming and the successful operation of the educational system. A reasonable dress code policy will be formulated by parents, teachers, and the school administration. This policy wUl assist the student In setting a standard for his/her personal appearance which directly affects attitude and behavior and indirectly affects the learning process. The policy vzill be disseminated to parents early in the summer so that "back to school" clothing can be selected. PARENT'S CONTRACT Every parent will be required to sign a contract at the beginning of each school year. A sample contract is found below. My child (complete name) is presently enrolled in the ----------- grade at Washington Magnet School. As a parent I agree to provide positive support for the philosophy, program and goals of the Washington Magnet School and will: - attend regularly-scheduled and specially- called teacher/parent conferences
- cooperate with the school when disciplinary actions are necessary
- support school rules and policies: - ensure the student's compliance with the dress code policy
- provide a proper study environment and require completion of homework as assigned: - ensure prompt and regular school attendance
and - be an active member of the parent/teacher organization. I agree with the fundamental principles as stated above and will assist the staff with my support. I am aware that my child's continued enrollment in Washington Magnet School is contingent upon my honoring this contract. Date Parent/Guardian's Name Student's Signature Parent/Guardian's Signature Address (home) phone # (work)OFFICE OF METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 EAST MARKHAM SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY MAGNET SCHOOL ENROLLMENT September 28, 1990 TEACHER GRADE TOTAL WHITE BLACK OTHER % BLACK Miller P-K 20 9 11 0 55% Cenire P-K 21 9 12 0 57% Robinson K 20 8 12 0 60% Sellers K 18 7 11 0 61% Thomas K 18 10 8 0 44% Boyce K 18 8 9 1 50% Steinkamp K 17 6 9 2 53% Moran 1 21 6 15 0 71% Perez 1 23 6 16 1 70% Keith 1 19 6 13 0 68% Ford 1 21 5 15 1 71% Brown 1 17 4 13 0 76% Comer 1 22 7 15 0 68% Boyd 1 20 5 15 0 75% Thompson 1 21 6 15 0 71% Jackson 2 23 7 16 0 70% Chandler 2 23 11 12 0 52% Jenning 2 23 10 13 0 57% Williams 2 22 7 14 1 64% Shackleford 2 22 9 12 1 55%WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY ENROLLMENT- page 2 TEACHER GRADE TOTAL WHITE BLACK OTHER % BLACK Scrubbs 3 23 11 12 0 52% Schoessel 3 23 12 11 0 48% Rhea 3 23 11 12 0 52% Wood 3 22 11 11 0 50% Clark 3 24 12 12 0 50% Kelly 4 24 8 16 0 67% Johnson 4 23 9 14 0 61% Morris 4 24 10 13 1 54% Callaway 4 23 9 14 0 61% Morgan 5 23 7 16 0 70% Moore 5 24 12 12 0 50% Taber 5 24 12 12 0 50% Guin 5 24 13 11 0 46% Raper 6 25 12 13 0 52% McCleein 6 28 14 12 2 43% Hunsoker 6 28 16 11 1 39% Resource 9 2 7 0 78% TOTAL: 803 327 465 11,.V'' -s 'ff ^1 I .V ao 11 7*^ - / Wn*^ 91 >^.Ai>.<^ '3- ^"Ui Q - :iS .U K\\y\.cvf\ - ki I. -P. XvtctR " -At51A- ' *^y\(ru/'v\ I - 15 - S - 5-1 0- .13--^ ' n O- -is -53.- IW a 0 . -IS'-'^' -o IS G " ^1 j9x-.u - as r SiA." Ui ?AuuaW^ - 0 - - o- ^@-< > % As^\<^ I' _ Q?Sl -/s^- o - J^- 11- S 3 -Rvj5Jix,-0-.iq, - 3- - t) 'iQ . pf\(rv^^<A^ ("13 (^zMoj^aXvv^-C H 4 - 9 VkkAsJ) 1 IS _-. rTi IA * nA O - /b-o- w- Ai- a^ Lfi j*R.Q</^isb^- O - .(5 ^>p ^^5 I < Y\\^ C5U3LVv>. IK .\4 - 3^'^ ^1 I I n 4 OFFICE OF METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 EAST MARKHAM SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY MAGNET SCHOOL ENROLLMENT September 28, 1990 TEACHER GRADE TOTAL WHITE BLACK OTHER % BLACK Miller P-K 20 9 11 0 55% Cenire P-K 21 9 12 0 57% Robinson K 20 8 12 0 60% Sellers K 18 7 11 0 61% Thomas K 18 10 8 0 44% Boyce K 18 8 9 1 50% Steinkamp K 17 6 9 2 53% Moran 1 21 6 15 0 71% Perez 1 23 6 16 1 70% Keith 1 19 6 13 0 68% Ford 1 21 5 15 1 71% Brown 1 17 4 13 0 76% Comer 1 22 7 15 0 68% Boyd 1 20 5 15 0 75% Thompson 1 21 6 15 0 71% Jackson 2 23 7 16 0 70% Chandler 2 23 11 12 0 52% Jenning 2 23 10 13 0 57% Williams 2 22 7 14 1 64% Shackleford 2 22 9 12 1 55%WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY ENROLLMENT- page 2 TEACHER GRADE TOTAL WHITE BLACK OTHER % BLACK Scrubbs 3 23 11 12 0 52% Schoessel 3 23 12 11 0 48% Rhea 3 23 11 12 0 52% Wood 3 22 11 11 0 50% Clark 3 24 12 12 0 50% Kelly 4 24 8 16 0 67% Johnson 4 23 9 14 0 61% Morris 4 24 10 13 1 54% Callaway 4 23 9 14 0 61% Morgan 5 23 7 16 0 70% Moore 5 24 12 12 0 50% Taber 5 24 12 12 0 50% Guin 5 24 13 11 0 46% Raper 6 25 12 13 0 52% McCleein 6 28 14 12 2 43% Hunsoker 6 28 16 11 1 39% Resource 9 2 7 0 78% TOTAL:: 803 327 465 11 58%M-to-M TRANSFERS TO WASHINGTON Washington became an interdistrict magnet school beginning with the 1990-91 school year. Below is Washingtons five year enrollment, based on October 1 enrollment figures. BLACK WHITE OTHER TOTAL % BLACK 1988-89 0 0 0 0 0 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 510 438 480 483 313 356 332 11 519 762 841 822 98 57 57 59 8 1 5 7 As reported by NLRSD and PCSSD, below is the number of students sent to Washington by NLRSD and PCSSD on M-to-M transfers. NLRSO PCSSD TOTAL 1990-91 73 61 134 1991-92 65 74 139 1992-93 64 65 129 As reported by LRSD, below is the number of students Washington received from NLRSD and PCSSD on M-to-M transfers. NLRSO PCSSD TOTAL 1990-91 57 43 100 1991-92 65 74 139 1992-93 55 58 113 Prepared by Office of Desegregation Monitoring June 8, 1993.IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ___ EASTER'-!' FILED U.S. ri EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION COURT ARKANSAS FEB 1^1591 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 CAR By: / PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS STIPULATION AND CONSENT ORDER CONCERNING ADJUSTMENTS TO SETTLEMENT PLANS The undersigned parties agree and stipulate as follows: 1. This stipulation is necessary to resolve student assignment questions in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) so that LRSD can proceed to notify its patrons in a timely manner about student assignment options and procedures. 2. The parties have been proceeding during the 1990-91 school year under the terms of desegregation plans different from the plans approved by the Court of Appeals on December 12, 1990. The Court of Appeals recognized that a transition to the settlement plans would be necessary: "It may be necessary. in order to make smooth transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances. The parties should be able to agree as to whether any such adjustments are necessary, and, if so, what they should bbee.. Absent such agreement, tthhee DDiissttrriicctt CCoouurrtt is authorized to take such action as may be just." a LRSD V. PCSSD. Slip Op. p. 58 (December 12, 1990). 1 3. The Court of Appeals also noted 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. fl Id. at 56. 4. The changes to the settlement plans set forth in this document are drawn from the Tri-District Plan, were implemented during the 1990-91 school year, and are necessary adjustments to the settlement plans to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances. 5. Washington School was a racially identifiable black school during the 1989-90 school year. Washington opened for the 1990-91 school year as a racially balanced (57% black) magnet school. Washington should continue to operate as a magnet school. 6. The settlement plans would establish Dunbar Junior High School as a computer science/music magnet. Dunbar is presently operating as an international studies/gifted and talented magnet school. The racial balance at Dunbar has improved from 79% black during the 1989-90 school year to 64% black for the 1990-91 school year. Dunbar should continue to operate as an international studies/gifted and talented magnet school. 7. An Early Childhood magnet component was added to Rockefeller Elementary School for the 1990-91 school year. The racial balance at Rockefeller has improved from 86% black during the 1989-90 school year to 72% black for the 1990-91 school year. The Early Childhood magnet program at Rockefeller should be continued under the settlement plans. 28. McClellan High School has become a community school under the terms of the Tri-District Plan. The designation of McClellan as a community school has increased community involvement in the school, including the establishment of a Community Advisory Board. McClellan should retain its status as a community school. 9. The settlement plans should be adjusted to continue the programs described above for the 1991-92 school year. The parties anticipate that these adjustments will be a part of the final modified settlement agreement to be submitted to the Court in March. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street BY: Ji in Walker Little Rock AR 72201 BT: ChrisjttoopDhheerr HHeellllar 1 * WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 BY: BY: Sam Jom Ste' 'Jones MITCHELL 1014 Wes Little Rock, & RQACHELI .JThird P.A. BY:G
72201 / Richard Roachell IS SO ORDERED this day of February, 1991. Susan Webber Wright'' y United States District Judge 3 MEETING ON NOVEMBER 19, 1991 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS RECEIVED JJN 6 !S92 TO: FROM: December 19, 1991 Board of Directors Office of Desegregation Mcniioi'ing Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of School THROUGH: 2 Tony Wood, Deputy Superintendent Ivey, Manager of Support Services SUBJECT: NEW PARTNERSHIP: Booker T. Washington Math/Science Magnet School and The Olive Garden Restaurant I recommend that the partnership between Booker T. Washington Math/Science Magnet School and The Olive Garden Restaurant be approved as follows: Booker T. Washington Math/Science Magnet and The Olive Garden Restuarant have united as Partners in Education for the 1991- 92 school year. The students at Washington Math/Science Magnet School will provide art displays for all the major holidays. They will also send homemade birthday cards to the employees of The Olive Garden. The Olive Garden will sponsor field trips to demonstrate to the students how pasta is made. They will also provide resource speakers for various subject areas and events. In addition, The Olive Garden will participate in the cafeteria behavior incentive program in cooperation with the LRSD Food Service Department and in accordance with federal. state. and District guidelines governing school lunch programs. The school has been very pleased with the positive improvements in students' behavior while in the cafeteria and the students are eager to demonstrate appropriate table manners and noise level because they are eager to receive the Olive Garden's incentives. ! 7 D ' (V Bernd DA?E speciaisy^ RE : Budget Reductions I am writing in Citice of Deseg: ja'icn twcn: uhi.h , /egard to the proposed budget reduction which would elminiate 21 ' media clerk positions. Our media center clerks do much more than certified school librarians with ordering books and equipment". This year at Washi "assist the School, our staff completed I and maintaining at Washington Magnet teachers for materials to over 10,148 request from found in our curriculum guides. meet and extend the objectives The clerks at Booker T oouner i. xi,y uuii magnet Bcnool oversee students with research topics including young astronauts studies, the P.E. Free Flow and assist science fair projects, Washington Magnet School Department's black history biography reference questions. . _ unit, and daily X X x Their daily assistance enables objectiJerfounrjn'"*^! 2-.^:instruction covering curriculum. hands-on me to in the Language Arts and Social Studies The Washington Magnet Media Center program I know you also find this our students because you decided effective. is quite program benefical to positions in the initial cuts. not to elminate these - -------- It is also you know by making these cuts you same". It is ironic that as the Pulaski County School Di ' ' reassuring that same. "can't promise that wfl ar-l -istrict is reinstating their library their .iZtakeL clerks, Perhaps we should learn f The LRSD must also be held accountable for potential changes scores. of the daily services of the Media Specialists are able to teach tested on both the MPT and Stanford 8 tests. Last year our r gra e scores in Study Skills Table of Contents 86%, in future test library clerks, accountable for Because and Stanford 8 tests, students had the following on the MPT: - skills 88% . Dictionary 93%, Contents 92 This year the graphs 92%. scores were: Dictionary 86 graphs , Table of Our 6th grade students also showed skills section. Last year the scores were: proficiency on the study resource materials 96%
a., This year our scores were: and charts, glossary 89 %
88%
and charts, tables and graphs 88%. glossary 92%
tables and graphs 88%. resource materials With more clerical responsibilties placed on the Media Specialists, less teaching will take place and students will be less prepared for the higher level thinking on the tests and in their daily work. skills foundI understand that cuts must be made. I feel, however, that these cuts should be made in areas not directly affecting the students. Media Center clerks work on a daily basis with children encouraging them to read, research, and use their minds. One should also be aware of the message these cuts will be sending to our students which is reading and reference skills are not important. These are learning skills our students will use their entire life. Please think about the impact on our students before you make this drastic cut. cc: LRSD Board Members Ann Brown, Office of Metropolitan Supervisorbook er T. 115 West Washington Math/Science Magnet
7th Little hook, Street Ark ansae 7
Judge busan Webber Wright United States District Court 'i<ca Post U++ i Box J J 16 Little Rock, September 21, Arkansas 1793 SEP 2 1 1S93 Olfico oi 1 Dear Judge Webber Wright: the We are first , deeply concerned by the Magnet school. third , and fifth grade overlo 1evels , Wa s a surp1 us of Based on state m i mum c1 a two students, our students, and our fifth grade has third g t~ a. c has a As an interdistrict magnet cents gton igned hla-n r first surplus gr: of to ence has seven surplus of two students. school , it we were to recruit throughout the school wss our understanding that when our cl asses are at ma mum received two new students: capac ity'
' year . In one How can this continue 1 ast grade. feel the in the third grade and one hr iday we in the fifth Both grades were already over the state class size limit. administration desegregation 3urely, pl an without may be it was never the considering foil owing intent of the the the intent 1etter of ot We the the court to permit plan. discourage new students at Washington Math/Science Magnet cl ass size to penalize Magnet school . incentive school students assigned to Washington school or to Math/Sc ience It has been Magnet school our understanding that the Washington school program, wh i ch IS compr i sed of to Math/Science our school children, would not reach the maximum class size limits. incentive is so 1arge, we have a 1arge Since (22-44 students per grade level). number of high risk students spec ial program) programs < i.e . , science It 1 abs , 1 s > our math understanding that our ch i1dren and to were mandated by the court to help 1 aps , meet the young needs astronaut of these not be overcrowded. increase academic achievement. Lab situations should school Recently, district we noticed in the newspaper that each Pulaski was asked to better educate its teachers about County demands and requirements of the courtordered desegregation plan. are concerned that we will be out of the We p 1 an compl iance with the desegregation if our class sizes are at the maximum or above the state 1imits. We fear that we are not meeting the needs of populat ion. It is our incentive school must ' have twenty our understanding that classes for these students or 1 ess cannot be in the best per c 1 as s or el se a ful1-t ime interests of aide. these at-risk students to It havetwenty-eignt by- I aw , r twentynine students in cl ass , even i + It IS all owed + rom The two possibi 1 ity grape ot 1evel3 torming sp 1 It cI asses has been comb med students. with a maximum class size will ment i oned . comprised burely, or tn 13 not best meet the studen needs Of our We have heard that some area enough then students. ten student-
consolidated and i 3 It true that Coul dn ' t the Math/Science Magnet This elementary schools some area school some o-r these do cl asses not have surplus teacher(s) school? by large class size. IS a timely- concern. be smal1 er nave 1 ess be reassigned to Wasn1ngtcn Each day students-' October . possible. i st dead line. . Thank you. Decisions must be made be-tore the F'l ease respond to tnis 1ives are concern state 1 as impacted imposed soon as Sincerely, Mary Lcrtp Kahler, Curriculum 3 iahler , Specialist Hl isa Ford, First brade Level Chairperson Eric Coleman, Third Grade Level Chairperson Tommy Wal ker, Fi-fth brade Level Chairperson 3 usan Schoessel, Fourth Gra Grade Teacher Nettie Epps, Primary Science Specialist ntermediate Science Specialist R. e Barnes, Primary Math Specialist ' II xiiior y I Paula Smith, , ^ntermediate Math Specialist Nava Gazitt, Young Astronaut Specialist Ginny ^lotti, Media SpecialistEstelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent Ann Brown, 0+tice o+ Desegregation Joshua Interveners c/o -John Wal ker Frank Martin , Larry Robinson, Karen Buchanan , Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association Assistant Superintendent Principalbooker 7 Wasmngton Matn/bcience Hagnet 115 West 27th Street Little Rock, Arkansas School (if
Dr. Henry Williams Superintendent of Schools SEP 9 8 Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Fock, Arkansas Office -Of DessgrogaiivT 3 Dear Dr. Williams, :0'z We are pleased to have the discuss our building concerns. opportunity to meet with you and month involved is our district scheduled As you know, Therefore, in the presentation of faculty meeting. the first Monday of e h we suggest a meeting the meeting on Uctober 4, Many of us are time of 4:00 p.m. 199S . However, 1st is the state deadline for reporting student attendance. meeting before that date can better facilitate willing to meet at an earlier date. October If ci solution , we are most Please consider our 1etter of interest and We want hept ember z.'l , insight inviting those individuals who received copies 1993 . of into these Each of these people has particular i ssues you to understand that this group of teachers a building level concern. We appreciate your concern for the needs of forward to our meeting. reoresents our students and I ook hincerel y ,y k.aarbler, Curriculum Specialist Alisa Ford, Cd First brade Level Chairperson Eric uoleman, Third brade Level Chairperson Tommy Walker, Fifth Grade Level Chairperson busan bchotssel, Fourth Grade Teacher ' Nettie f / s, Primary Science Soecialist 11 Path r 1 ti e Ul,C dsr , int mediate bcience SpeclaI 15 Rose Barnes, Primary Math Specialist Paula Smith, Intermediate Math Specialist Nava bacitt. g istronaut Specialist S i n n V Media bpecialist Estelle Mathis, Deputy Superintendent Judge Susan Webber Wright, Eight District Court Ann Brown, dt+ice a-f Desegregation Joshua Intervenors c/o -John Walker Prank Martin, Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association Larry Robinson, Karen Buchanan , Assistant Superintendent Principal ILLLLHSi \ ><< 5< LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL J DISTRICT RECEIVES? NOV 0 2 1993 Office of Desegregation Monuig Booker T. Washington Magnet School 115 West 27 Street Phone 324-2470 Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 October 28, 1993 Dear Little Rock School District Patron: A worthwhile and rewarding program at Booker T. Washington Magnet School, 115 West 27th Street, needs your assistance. The program, STOP (Students That Officially Patrol) Club, is an endeavor that seet^s to teach elementary school students about respect, leaderslrip, scholarship, cooperation and manners. The goal of the program, which has been implemented in the Little Rock School District, is in its fifth year, to help motivate, educate, and improve the self-esteem of students in grades 1-6. We would like for you to serve as an interviewer of prospective STOP Club members. This marks the second year that interviews will be held for students who have expressed a desire to become a member of the STOP Club. The interviews have been scheduled to be held from 11:15 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., on Wednesday, November 24,1993, at Washington Magnet School. We ask that you please arrive at 11:00 a.m. for a brief orientation session. Enclosed you will find information concerning the program, its goals, and past activities. If you can assist in the interviewing process, please contact Mrs. Janet Miles Tippings, the school's secretary, at 324-2470, by noon on November 19, 1993. (Friday) We thank you in advance for leading your valuable time and expertise to this program. We look forward to seeing and hearing from you... P.S. Please Join In With Us To Help Save The Children Fro^ Destruction... Respectfully, Portia Lan^right,,.CCoouunnsseelor Cleveland R Ellis,Director of STOP/Aux. Teacher Staijton oSutLrcaxuusoso ^v /Alosos ' f rPLrXiniiccxippaal /Kar^h J. Buchanan, Principal Enclosure. OVERVIEW The STOP Club (Students That Officially Patrol) is a program that teaches students in the elementary schools about RESPECT and LEADERSHIP! Eighty-five percent of the student body can interview for membership in the club...grades 1-6. v A student will retain Club membership as long as he/she maintains the standards of the club. The goals and objectives of the STOP club are
1. To enhance students awareness about Respect and Leadership
2. To increase the self-esteem of the students
3. To motivate the students to strive to pursue a quality education
4. To emphasize the importance of a respectful society
5. To increase parental input in the educational development of their children
6. To introduce students to positive rolemodels such as: (judges^wyers.doctors,entrepreneurs, contractors, housewives, carpenters, painters, business managers, technicians, chefs, etc.) 7. To guide students in the establishment of a sound value system
8. To generage a desire to attain excellence in student conduct and achievement
9. To take pride in themselves and demonstrate self-discipline. All club participants will receive a "Student That Officially Patrol" T-shirt. The club members may wear the shirt during the 30 day trial period provided he/she adheres to club rules and regulations. After the 30 day orientation, the students who "pass the test" will become officially club members. 10. To help students solve problems among themselves. This includes the ability to report problems to the Principal independently. They are instructed on procedures for maturely handling problems without teacher or playground supervisor's directions. i'M Little Rock School District CSIVEDs November 24, 1993 NOV 2 9 1993 Cfrics or D Air:. . '3 Mrs. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building LittleRock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown: Thank you for your letter of November 9, 1993. Obviously, I did not use October 1, 1993 enrollment figures in reporting to the Board. Instead, I attempted to give an updated report which I thought included enrollees since October 1. Please be assured that the mformation supplied to your office regarding October 1 enrollment by this District is correct. We will be updating the Board as it relates to enrollment trends at Washington Magnet School. Again, thank you for your assistance. Sincerely yours, Larry S. Robertson cc: Estelle Matthis 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)374-3361Office 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 November 19, 1993 Mr. Lany S. Robertson Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Larry: At the districts Board of Education meeting last night, 1 heard you and Estelle Matthis answer the boards questions about the number of students attending Washington Magnet and the schools racial balance. The board also asked about the number of Washington M-to-M students and how the schools total 1993-94 enrollment compared to that of the previous year. You told the board that Washingtons enrollment was 765 and its racial distribution was within the desegregation plans racial balance mandate of between 60% and 40%. ODM annually compiles enrollment data based on the October 1 figures reported to the State by the three Pulaski County school districts. The attached chart reflects Washingtons October 1 enrollment data for the last five school years, information which the LRSD furnished ODM. Note that Washingtons 1993-94 enrollment is 721, 101 fewer pupils than the previous year, and that the schools racial balance is 63% black, a proportion that places the school in violation of the desegregation plan. Our records also indicate that 106 M-to-M students presently attend Washington, 69 of them fi-om PCSSD and 37 from NLRSD. We phoned Washington this morning to see if there had been some recent influx of children into the school that would account for the 765 total you reported to the board last night. We were told that the school presently has 722 students enrolled, 63% of whom are black. Because ODM is an arm of the Federal Court, I necessarily place a great deal of emphasis on the accuracy of all information given us by the school districts. If ODMs October 1 enrollment information on Washington is incorrect, please immediately furnish me with the accurate figures. If, however, you agree that our records are correct, I trust you will immediately supply Mrs. Matthis and your Board of Directors with accurate data on Washington so they can make decisions based on sound information. Sincerely yours. in S. Brown Enc. CC: Estelle MatthisFIVE YEAR ENROLLMENT COMPARISON Using October 1 Enrollment Washington Elementary School Washington Elem Black White Other Total % Black 1989-90 510 519 98 1990-91 438 313 11 762 57 1991-92 480 356 841 57 1992-93 483 332 822 59 1993-94 451 260 10 721 63 8 1 5 7 Prepared by ODM based on information supplied by LRSDTEL: Dec 08,93 9:26 No .001 P.03 2) The number of intradistrict tran-sfers to Wash.ington. 1989-90 Sending School Number Male Black Female Male Nonblack Female. Badgect Bale Baseline Brady Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Foresc Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Jefferson Kj ng MabeIvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wake-field Watson Western Hills Wilson Woodruff 3 4 4 9 9 10 2 9 7 14 16 12 5 14 27 2 10 7 10 7 4 14 23 4 3 8 13 10 3 7 2 2 1 3 6 5 5 3 4 7 6 6 1 9 13 2 4 3 4 1 3 8 10 1 3 1 2 4 5 1 3 2 7 10 6 4 5 14 1 1 1 1 2 TOT2\L 272 1990-91 Sending School Number 6 8 4 1 3 2 6 4 3 6 1 6 13 4 3 1 5 5 2 4 1 2 1 1 130 131 S 6 Male Black Female Male Nonblack Female Badgett Bale Baseline Brady Chicot Cloverdale Dodd 4 31 5 25 16 20 4 3 1 2 5 2 4 3 1 3 5 3 1 5 2 11 8 8 1 2 1 8 3 3TEL: Dec 08.93 9:27 No.001 P.04 Fair park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Jefferson King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield wat.gon Western Hills Wilson Woodruff 14 11 11 35 12 12 21 15 14 29 3 6 7 8 12 22 5 5 22 13 11 7 25 3 2 4 5 7 4 2 7 6 1 2 2 z 2 3 7 6 1 1 3 4 2 1 4 2 1 3 5 9 8 3 6 9 5 2 1 11 1 7 TOTAL 413 98 NOTE: 5 2 8 6 1 4 2 3 3 1 5 13 4 4 1 1 4 3 3 1 7 11 1 6 12 3 112 2 2 2 3 1] 3 4 2 10 119 1 5 1 1 8 84 Information concerning intradistrict transfers is based on We do not have address filci the students' current address. reflecting the students' address at the time of as.gignment.RECB5Vn FEB 7 1QQA Office of Desegregalicn LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Booker T. Washington Magnet School 115 West 27 Street Phone 324-2470 Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 January 29, 1994 Dear community member, I want to take this opportunity to invite you to a very special event. I would like you to join me on Tuesday, February 15, 1994, -for a celebration of excellence. We at Booker T. Washington Basic Skills and Math Science Magnet School are extremely proud of our school and our educational programs. You are an influential member of the greater Little Rock community
someone who is interested and concerned about the needs of our children. Our Washington family believes that we offer wonderful educational opportunities and resources for our students. We would 1 ike you to come to our (> Check Us Out program. Our students, support staff, faculty, and parents welcome you to visit our school between 9:00 a.m. and the beginning of each hour we will provide an 2:00 p.m. At introduction and overview of our programs. Then, we will tour the building visiting classrooms and labs to see how our programs are implemented, for questions and answers, every hour. Finally, we will gather together This format will be repeated Please come II check us out I I welcome you to extend this invitation to other people concerned with local educational opportunities. If you are unable to visit on February 15, don't hesitate to come at some other time or call (324-2470) to schedule a visit. February 15th. I look forward to seeing you on Sincerely,Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Date: February 2, 1994 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 To: Interdistrict School Principals From: ODM Monitoring Team Subject: Request for documentation On October 26, 1993 we requested that copies of certain documents be available at our scheduled monitoring visit. To date, the following list of items have not been provided. In order to complete our report we ask you send these documents to us no later than Tuesday, February 8, 1994 by 5:00 p.m. Failure to provide copies of these documents by that time will result in a notation in the final report that your school failed to provide monitors with requested documentation. This report will be filed with the federal district court. Crystal Hill 1993-94 PTA total membership by race and gender Total number of conferences each teacher held with parents (by race and gender) during the first semester for the 1993-94 school year. Romine 1993-94 PTA total membership by race and gender Washington Documentation of 1993-94 school committees that includes parent or community representatives by committee name, a brief description of the committees mission, a membership roster (including race, gender^nd position) agenda, and minutes 1993-94 PTA total membership by race and gender 1993-94 school/community partnership agreements 1993-94 volunteer program documentation including the number of volunteers by race and gender and the total number of hours served by month 1993-94 classroom enrollment Discipline Report (first nine weeks) and the definition for SIPSJOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 RECEIVED M4R 1 ' 1994 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. Office of Dosegregation Ktoretcnng March 8, 1994 Mr. Jerry Malone Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Bank Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 Re
LRSD V PCSSD Dear Mr. Malone and Mr. Heller: I learned from a meeting this afternoon that the District filed a motion approximately two months ago requesting approval from the court to designate Washington Magnet as an interdistrict school to interdistrict school. satisfy its obligations under the plan for a new My office has no record of receiving a copy of this motion. Would you please provide a copy by return fax. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. Sincerely, John W. Walker * JWW:j s cc: Honorable Susan Weber Wright Ms. Ann Brown All Counsel of RecordFRIDAY, ELDREDGE fc CLARK HERSCHEL H. ERIOAY, P.A. ROBERT V. LICHT, P.A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR.. P.A. JOE 0. SELL, 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 8. BENHAM ill, 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 HI. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH 8. 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 HI. P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE, P.A. MICHAEL 5. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL HI. P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL SUILOINO 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 5O1-379-2O11 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 March 9, 1994 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. GAVLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER, JR., P.A. H. CHARLES GSCHWENO, JR.. P A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE 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. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENOLEY. JR. ALLISON GRAVES 8AZZEL R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY 0. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN COUNSEL WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE, JR.. P.A. B .3. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR.. P.A. WRITER'S DIRECT NO. Mr. John Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD Dear John: Several weeks ago, RECEIVED MAR 1 1 1994 Office of Desegregation fkniioring (501) 370-1506 I circulated to counsel a proposal to recognize Washington as a second interdistrict schol within LRSD. You responded that you opposed the proposal. Although we intend to pursue the issue, no motion has yet been filed. has changed, please let me know, advised of any developments. If your position Otherwise, we will keep you Yours very truly. Christopher Heller CJH/k cc: All Counsel Ms. Mr. Ann Brown Jerry Malone .v/ p/oa Ci'iiGS 01 2 2 1994 it Desegregates'' r- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS72? WESTERN DIVISION ' 2 G 1594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JAMES W. By:_____ ft' 'PLKINTIFF SRK 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 planned 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 May 5, 1994 To Whom It May Concern: If youre considering Stan Strauss for a position in your organization, youre looking at a strong candidate. While Stans resume will acquaint you with his solid background and experience, it will not tell you about the many professional and personal qualities that make Stan such a successful educational leader. Ive worked with Stan for many years (both in my position as a Little Rock School District supervisor and in Court-appointed roles in desegregation oversight) and want you to know why I have consistently been impressed with his abilities and performance. Stan is a man of ideas and action who insists on results. Although hes energetic and rolls up his sleeves to put in as many hours as it takes to get the job done, Stan doesnt mistake effort for outcome. Hes satisfied with nothing less than solid performance-in himself, his staff, and his students. Hes not just a hard worker, hes a smart worker, making excellent, creative use of resources, always looking for "how we can," never "why we cant." Hes a team-builder with vision and courage and a team-sustainer with grit and tenacity, understanding that the best leaders work through and with others to build shared success. Stan has many fine qualities, but I most cherish that aspect of him which I believe is critical to effective education: never-wavering devotion to children. Stan loves kids and it shows. He combines nurturing warmth with strong guidance and encouragement in proportions that are just right for youngsters. No wonder standardized test scores have improved noticeably at both of the schools hes led! Stan wants results and he knows how to get them. If youre looking for a status quo, get-by kind of a man, you wont be interested in Stan. But if you want a champion for children and their success, if you need a leader who knows how to make a difference, then dont let Stan Strauss get away. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown receded RLE ly I APR 2 2 W54 U.G, Dli :ICT CgU, Oiiics Ct Desegregation Monitorinfl EASTcRU D
G7r,iGTA-'? IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAftq 2 G WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JAMES W. McCC' Ey
___________ ClER r\ I>ISINTIFF 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 BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF DESEGREGATION PLAN Introduction This brief traces some of the history of the development of the present LRSD and Interdistrict desegregation plans in support of the argument that the parties intended, and now have in place. three interdistrict schools within the Little Rock School District. Some of the documents which were submitted by the parties to Special Master Aubrey McCutcheon do not appear on the docket. For the convenience of the Court and the parties. documents are referred to throughout this brief by their location in the Joint Designated Record which was used for the 1989 and 1990 appeals and subsequently by the district court. Those documents not contained in the Joint Designated Record are referenced by date and docket number.statement of the Case A. Desegregation Plans Aubrey McCutcheon filed his "Interim Report and Recommendations of the Special Master" on Febxruary 16, 1988. J.D.R. 714. Special Master McCutcheon approved and recommended for immediate adoption certain "Proposed Stipulations For Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan" which had been agreed upon by the parties to this case. The Stipulations contained an interim plan as well as a planning process which was to result in a final plan to be submitted to the Special Master by September 30, 1988. The Little Rock School District submitted its proposed desegregation plan on October 3, 1988. 5 J.D.R. 1040. The October 4 3, 1988 Proposed LRSD Desegregation Plan contained the following language about Washington school
"The new Washington will function as an interdistrict magnet school. A tri-district survey will be conducted in October 1988 to determine a theme. The Washington students who were temporarily reassigned for the 1988-89 school years will be assigned to the new Washington school. Washington's location is expected to be a major asset to its ability to attract white students. In particular, it is easily accessible to downtown office workers from both North Little Rock, Pulaski County and Southwest Little Rock. Also, Washington's proximity to 1-30 is expected to attract students who live outside of 2Pulaski County. The Little Rock School District is interested in opening the magnet and M-M programs to students who live outside of Pulaski County." 5 J.D.R. 1045-46. The October 1988 plan also recommended Stephens as an interdistrict magnet: "The recommendations in this section are based on current demographics and geography which identify a need for new construction. It is proposed that the District relocate Stephens Elementary due west of and adjoining the Capitol Hill Complex. The new Stephens will house pre-kindergarten through sixth grades. The new Stephens will be similar to the new Washington in that it will have a capacity of six hundred students and serve as an interdistrict magnet. The magnet theme will be based on the results of the tri-district survey. In addition to being located on the 1-630 corridor, the new Stephens will be easily accessible to downtown office workers, state department employees and University Medical Center personnel." 5 J.D.R. 1047-48 (emphasis supplied). The third interdistrict magnet school proposed in the October 1988 plan was King: "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 bounded by 1-630, Chester Street, Seventh Street and Center Street. In addition to being an interdistrict 3magnet, the big attraction for this school will be its early childhood program and child care facilities. This location is expected to serve as a natural magnet for individuals who work within governmental and business centers of Little Rock." 5 J.D.R. 1048. Working with the parties and the Special Master, LRSD prepared a long term desegregation plan. The plan was submitted in two parts on January 31, 1989. Volume I does not address student assignment issues. Volxime II, which was modified slightly and resubmitted on March 23, 1989, describes "student assignments" and "facilities". An interdistrict desegregation plan was submitted to the Special Master on February 15, 1989. The March 1989 LRSD plan lists Washington among the incentive schools (10 J.D.R. 2288) and provides the following description of Washington school (10 J.D.R. 2231-33): "Washington school is closed for the 1988-89 school year. A new Washington school is being built at the samp site with a projected capacity of 1,050 students. The students who were originally assigned to Washington for the 1988-89 school year have been reassigned to Ish, Mitchell, Rockefeller and Rightsell. These students (166) will have a preference to return to the new Washington in the 1989-90 school year." The March 1989 LRSD plan contains the following language about Stephens and King schools: 4"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 prekindergarten through sixth grades and will have a capacity of 600 students. It serves as an Interdistrict school. The new Stephens will be easily accessible to downtown office workers, state department employees and University Medical Center persoimel. 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. 10 J.D.R. 3232. According to the March 1989 plan, the non-magnet enrollment in LRSD for the 1988-89 school year was 8,327 black students and 3,835 non-black students for a total of 12,162 students. The projected enrollment for the 1989-90 school year was 8,500 black students and 3,850 non-black students for a total of 12,350 students. 10 J.D.R. 2229. The March 1989 plan listed 22 elementary schools with a total capacity of 9,501 seats and a projected enrollment of 8,187 students. 10 J.D.R. 2227-28. The eight incentive schools. 5including 1050 seats at Washington, would have a total capacity of 3800 seats. 10 J.D.R. 2228. Romine was to be established as an interdistrict school for the 1989-90 school year with a capacity of 490 seats, up to 49% of which would be allocated to PCSSD and at least 51% of which would be allocated to LRSD. 10 J.D.R. 2229. The February 1989 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan lists Washington as an incentive school (8 J.D.R. 1722), proposes the conversion of Romine into an interdistrict school (8 J.D.R. 1731- 32), and reguires LRSD to construct two new interdistrict schools. King and Stephens. Stephens is described as follows in the February 1989 Interdistrict Plan
"LRSD will build new Stephens Elementary School operating at grades pre-K through 6 to be located near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue. This school will be ready by the 1990-91 school year or as soon as reasonably practicable. These parties propose that this elementary center be constructed, owned, and operated by the LRSD and draw its black student body largely from the students then attending the old Stephens school and its white student population, to the extent feasible, from both dependents of state government employees and PCSSD students. This school will have an a early childhood program. The old Stephens school building will then be closed." 8 J.D.R. 1732. The February 1989 Interdistrict Plan contains the following language about King school: 6 )MkoADna|*n.Bri"LRSD will construct a new King Elementary School as a downtown Interdistrict School by the 1992-93 school year or as soon as reasonably practicable. These parties propose that this facility be located in the general area bounded by Interdistrict 630 between 1-30 and University Avenue. These parties believe that this location would serve as a natural attractor for individuals who work within the governmental and business centers of Little Rock." 8 J.D.R. 1734. The 1989 LRSD and Interdistrict Plans were among the plans the Special Master recommended for rejection on May 10, 1989 (Docket #1182). The district court accepted the Special Master's recommendation and rejected the 1989 desegregation plans on June 27, 1989 (Docket #1200). All three school districts and the Joshua Intervenors appealed from the June 27, 1989 order. Following the June 27, 1989 order of the district court. metropolitan supervisor Eugene Reville relocated to Little Rock and commenced the task of preparing new desegregation recommendations for the three districts. On January 2, 1990 Mr. Reville filed his proposal, the "Tri-District Plan", with the district court. Docket #1291. Under the Tri-District Plan, Washington became an interdistrict magnet school for basic skills/math/science which was described as follows: "This school will open in 1990-91 for students who learn well in a highly-structured setting
who are motivated by 7academic, physical, and social competition
and who are Interested in math and science." 16 J.D.R. 4329. The Tri-District Plan contains the following language regarding assignments to Washington: "Assignment to Washington will be open to students from the Pulaski County Special School District or the North Little Rock School District based on majority-to- minority provisions and on the provisions of Act 609 of 1989 (the "School Choice" law). Preference will be given to black students in the Little Rock School District who live in the attendance zone for Washington School and to white students in the Pulaski County Special School District. Next preference will be given to students who attend schools that are less than fifty-six percent black." 16 J.D.R. 4250. The Tri-District Plan does not require the construction of a new Stephens or King Interdistrict School. On March 5, 1990 (Docket #1328) the district court entered an order approving the Tri-District Plan as submitted on January 2, 1990 with only minor exceptions. Washington Elementary School was closed and rebuilt on the same site during the 1988-89 school year. The new Washington school opened for the 1989-90 school year as racially a identifiable elementary school with 519 students, ninety-eight percent of whom were black. During the pendency of the appeals of the district court's order rejecting the settlement plans and 8 ladQ'\bMg-n.Briapproving the Tri-District Plan, the Tri-District Plan was implemented for the 1990-91 school year. Washington operated during the 1990-91 school year as a racially balanced interdistrict magnet school. Fifty-seven percent of Washington's 762 students were black. One hundred thirty-two white students from outside LRSD attended Washington Interdistrict Magnet School during the 1990-91 school year. The desegregation plans presented to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in the joint appeal of the three school districts and the Joshua Intervenors required only three interdistrict schools within the Little Rock School District - King, Romine and Stephens. On December 12, 1990, the Court of Appeals approved those desegregation plans but recognized that a transition from the Tri- District Plan to the settlement plans would be necessary: "It may be necessary. in order to make smooth a transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances. The parties should be able to agree as to whether any such adjustments are necessary, and, if so, what they should be. Absent such agreement, the district court is authorized to take such action as may be just." LRSD V. PCSSD. 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (Sth Cir. 1990). Since certain existing schools, including Washington, were assigned different purposes under the Tri-District Plan than under the settlement plans, it became necessary for the parties to immediately resolve k>thy\Dwt.pl.Bri 9those differences. The parties reached the following agreement concerning Washington School: "Washington School was a racially identifiable black school during the 1989-90 school year. Washington opened for the 1990-91 school year as a racially balanced (57% black) magnet school. Washington should continue to operate as a magnet school." This agreement is recorded in a stipulation and consent order signed by all the parties and entered by the district court on February 13, 1991 (Docket #1434). On May 1, 1991, the parties jointly proposed certain revisions to their 1989 desegregation plans. Washington was removed from the list of incentive schools in the May 1, 1991 LRSD plan. 22 J.D.R. 5723, 5726, 5729. Although Washington is not listed as an interdistrict school in the May 1, 1991 interdistrict plan (see 22 J.D.R. 5864-70), the May 1991 LRSD plan describes the goals of the Washington Elementary School Basic Skills/Math - Science Magnet and explains how students will be assigned there: "All students will be assigned to Washington Schools (sic) by the Student Assignment Office. The NLRSD and PCSSD will actively recruit students who are eligible for M-to-M transfers. The target racial balance at Washington will be 60 percent black and 40 percent white." 22 J.D.R. 5698. 10This coxirt's final ruling on the May 1, 1991 desegregation plans was filed on May 1, 1992, approving "the revised plans as attached to" the May 1, 1992 order. Those are the plans under which the districts presently operate. The LRSD plan contains the following language concerning assignments to Washington Elementary School Basic Skills/Math - Science Magnet
"All students will be assigned to Washington Schools (sic) by the Student Assignment Office. The NLRSD and PCSSD will actively recruit students who are eligible for M-to-M transfers. The target racial balance at Washington will be consistent with the Interdistrict Plan, seeking to obtain a ratio of between 60 percent and 40 percent of either race with the ideal goal to be 50 percent black/white." LRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 144. The difference between the racial composition proposed by the parties in the May 1, 1991 plan (60% black and 40% white) and the racial balance contained in the plan as approved by the district court dated April 29, 1992 (between 60% and 40% of either race with the ideal goal to be 50% black/white) is significant. The racial balance prescribed for Washington by this Court is the racial balance for interdistrict schools found in the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan and described in this Court's May 1, 1992 Order: "Provisions of the interdistrict plan target the ideal racial balance for the various types of LRSD schools: Interdistrict schools at 50 percent black/white with a variance of 60 to 40 percent of either race ... H kBllqr\DMeg*^Bri 11May 1, 1992 Order (Docket #1587), pp. 27-28. This Court would not have assigned to Washington the racial balance requirements of interdistrict schools if Washington were not, in fact, operating as an interdistrict school. The decision that Washington should be governed by the racial balance requirements for interdistrict schools set forth in the Interdistrict Plan reflects this Court's recognition of Washington as an interdistrist school. The 1989 desegregation plans approved by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals require the operation of three Interdistrict schools within LRSD - Romine, King and Stephens. 10 J.D.R. 2229- 32
J.D.R. 1721, 1731-34. LRSD presently operates three interdistrict schools - Romine, King and Washington. The LRSD and Interdistrict Desegregation Plans should be amended to reflect the fact that LRSD presently operates the number of interdistrict schools contemplated by the plans agreed upon by the parties in 1989 and approved by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1990. In its order with respect to the modifications proposed by the parties in the May 1991 plans, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals said: "It may be helpful for us to state those elements of the 1989 plan that we consider crucial, and with respect no retreat should be approved. They are as follows: (3) operation of the agreed number of interdistrict schools according to the agreed timetable ... II Appeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253, 256 (8th Cir. 1991). In accordance with the 1989 plans approved by the Court of 12 8Appeals in December 1990 and the order quoted above, LRSD presently operates three interdistrict schools. B. Demographics According to the LRSD and Interdistrict Desegregation Plans as those plans were approved by the Court of Appeals in 1990, LRSD was to establish three interdistrict schools, two of which would be located in central Little Rock in the general area along 1-630 between University Avenue and 1-30. One school was to be established "near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue." 10 J.D.R. 3232. The other was supposed to be "located in the general area along 1-630 between 1-30 and University Avenue." 10 J.D.R. 3232. Since those plans were written, both King and Washington schools have been established as interdistrict schools within the area described in the plans. Also since those plans were written, 1990 census information has revealed a dramatic shift of population away from the area in which the interdistrict schools were to be located. This decline in population in the area targeted for the location of interdistrict schools is illustrated by undisputed evidence which was presented to the district court concerning the issue of revised election zones for the LRSD board. When the initial LRSD board member election zones were approved by Judge Woods on December 18, 1986 (Docket # 719), zones one and two had total populations of 25,399 and 25,295 respectively. Zones one and two cover most of central and east Little Rock, which is the 13 ladQADMegPl.Briprimary area in which LRSD interdistrict schools were to be located. According to the 1990 census information, the population of zone one is 20,901, which is 4,498 people lower than the previous census. The 1990 population of zone two was 20,415, which is 4,880 people lower than the previous census. The 1990 census shows an eighteen percent decline of the number of people in zone one and a nineteen percent decline of the number of people in zone two. The movement of population away from east and central Little Rock is further shown in the testimony of Jim McKenzie about the election zone issue. Mr. McKenzie is the executive director of Metroplan, governmental planning and research organization composed of local government entities in the Central Arkansas area. Mr. McKenzie testified that his organization tracks demographic changes in Little Rock and that there was a material demographic change from the 1980 census to the 1990 census. April 13, 1993, Tr. 62-63. Although the population in eastern Little Rock a declined each year since 1980 (Tr. 67) , most of the movement out of that area occurred between 1985 and 1990. Tr. 62-63. Mr. McKenzie testified that the "center city" will continue to lose population. Tr. 100-01. Mr. McKenzie prepared four proposals to adjust the LRSD election zones so that they would contain relatively equal populations. He testified that his proposal number four "looks more to the future in terms of growth and shifts in population than the other proposals." See Memorandum Opinion and Order, June 21, k*d9\OM<-n.Bri 141993 (Docket /1853), p. 5. According to Mr. McKenzie's description of proposal number four, "the areas of the City of Little Rock that are projected for growth have a negative variance from the mean while the areas that are projected to lose population have a positive variance". Id. In proposal number four, which was presented to the court in PCBE Exhibit 1, the only two zones which show a positive variance from the mean, indicating a projected loss of population, are zones one and two. See Tr. 101-02. The movement of population away from the area targeted for the establishment of interdistrict schools within LRSD is also shown in information provided to the parties by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. A document titled "Incentive School Attendance Zones and Schools Attended" shows a total population of the incentive school attendance zones (Franklin, Garland, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller and Stephens) of 1,946 for the 1993-94 school year. The incentive school attendance zones generally correspond with the area targeted for the location of interdistrict schools. In fact, the interdistrict schools were expected to draw their black student population from among "those students who otherwise would or could have been assigned to an Incentive School". J.D.R. 1722. The present number of students in the incentive school zones (1,946) is dramatically lower than the capacity established for the incentive schools in the 1989 desegregation plans of 3800 students. 10 J.D.R. 2228. The parties projected in the 1989 LRSD 8 Desegregation Plan that if 3600 LRSD black students attended 15incentive and interdistrict schools, the racial composition of the area schools would be 56% black. 10 J.D.R. 2231. According to the 1989 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, the incentive schools alone should be "sufficient to accommodate that number of black students who, by attending these schools, make it possible to achieve a student population in the remaining Little Rock schools (elementary academies) [now area schools] of 55% black and 45% white with a variance of 5%." 8 J.D.R. 1721. That means that in 1989 the parties expected that more than 3600 black students would attend the incentive schools from the incentive school zones, but today only 1,946 students reside in the incentive school zones. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring prepared and distributed to the parties in February 1994 a study of "Enrollment In Downtown Elementary Schools". That study defines downtown elementary schools as those located "east of University, west of Adams Field, north of Fourche Creek, and south of Markham." This is generally the area targeted for the location of LRSD interdistrict schools. This study shows that the incentive schools have a capacity of 2,305 students but that the October 1, 1993 enrollment was only 1,454 students. There are 1,429 available seats in downtown elementary schools. Those schools operate at only seventy-six percent of capacity. The February 1994 ODM study also shows that the two existing downtown interdistrict schools. King and Washington, are operating at 80% and 77% of capacity, respectively. There are 139 available seats at King and 218 available seats at Washington. King 16Interdistrict School has attracted 200 white students from outside the downtown area and Washington Interdistrict Magnet School has attracted 249 white students from outside the downtown area. Finally, both the Pulaski County Special School District, which was to be the primary source of white students for the interdistrict schools (8 J.D.R. 1721), and the Little Rock School District have experienced an unexpected overall decline in student population. The number of students attending PCSSD declined from 21,633 for the 1992-93 school year to 20,426 for the 1993-94 school year according to the October 1 enrollment count, a loss of 1,207 students. The number of students attending LRSD declined from 26,212 for the 1992-93 school year to 25,594 for the 1993-94 school year, a loss of 618 students. Both districts expect to lose more students for the 1994-95 school year. C. Plan Modification Process The PCSSD plan contains a desegregation plan amendment process (pp. 104-05) which this Court has found should be implied in the LRSD and NLRSD plans (Memorandum and Order, June 21, 1991, p. 17, Docket #1479). This Court has described the plan modification process as follows: "Proposed amendments may arise in multiple ways. including by agreement or consultation with the other parties. Any proposal is first submitted to the PCSSD Office of Desegregation (Office) for initial review and analysis. The Office will make a recommendation to the kMfay\DBHgn.Bti 17superintendent who will in turn make the final recommendation to the Board. If the Board approves, the matter will be submitted to the Court, and formally submitted to the other parties to the litigation. If the Court approves, the plan shall be amended. Note that bv the Plans own terms, agreement of all parties is not required for amendment." X^. (emphasis in original). LRSD has followed the desegregation plan amendment process with respect to its proposal to recognize Washington as an interdistrict school in place of Stephens. The proposal was first reviewed by the LRSD Desegregation Office as well as other administrators and the superintendent. Following that review. LRSD informally submitted the proposal to the other parties on November 12, 1993. LRSD proposed: "That we seek to amend the desegregation plan to acknowledge the fact that both Washington and King have been established as interdistrict schools and that the establishment of two such schools within LRSD satisfies the Eighth Circuit's requirement that LRSD operate 'the agreed number of interdistrict schools'. PCSSD would be expected to 'engage in early, rigorous and sustained recruitment efforts' to recruit students to Washington, but would be relieved of the expectation that the white student population of Washington would come primarily from PCSSD. White LRSD students presently attending Washington would be allowed to remain and LRSD would kM^\Dna(-n.Bri 18continue to recruit white students for Washington in the future.* Letter to Counsel, November 12, 1993. LRSD further proposed: "That we delay the construction of a school at the present Stephens site so that LRSD may complete its demographic study to determine how best to meet the requirements of its student population and the desegregation plans. If LRSD determines to build a new school at the Stephens School Site, the new school will be an incentive school and the parties will support LRSD's motion to construct an incentive school at Stephens or in the Stephens area." Id. LRSD was notified by counsel for PCSSD, NLRSD and the Knight Inteirvenors that those parties would agree to the Stephens/Washington proposal. LRSD was notified by counsel for the Joshua Intervenors that Joshua would likely agree to some delay in the construction of a school at the present Stephens site, but would not agree that Washington should supplant Stephens as an interdistrict school within LRSD. On November 17, 1993, LRSD counsel provided a written report to the superintendent and the board concerning the status of the Stephens/Washington issue and the response of the parties to LRSD proposal. The LRSD board voted on November 18, 1993, in accordance with the superintendent's recommendation, to submit the matter to the Court with formal notification to the other parties. laUQrMlMet'Pl'Bri 19D. Financial Constraints LRSD operates under financial constraints which are well known to the Court and the parties. LRSD filed on April 15, 1994 its "LRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report", which shows a projected budget deficit for the 1994-95 school year of more than seven million dollars. LRSD is working to balance its budget, but continues to operate with severe financial limitations. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring provided the parties in February 1994 a document titled "LRSD Per Pupil Expenditure By Elementary School 1993-1994 Budget". This report shows the impact of low enrollment on per pupil expenditures in the area targeted for the location of interdistrict schools. The average per pupil expenditure in "western" Little Rock elmentary schools is $2,526.35. The average per pupil expenditure in "southwestern" Little Rock schools is $2,638.91. The average per pupil expenditure for incentive schools is $5,890.36. No school in LRSD, however, has a higher per pupil expenditure than Stephens school. The amount budgeted for each student at Stephens for the 1993-94 school year is $8,781.19. This is nearly $3,000.00 per pupil more than the average amount ($5,890.36) budgeted per pupil at the incentive schools. This illustrates the financial impact of declining population and enrollment in the Stephens area. Argument A. The Law of Modification of Consent Decrees Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in relevant part: blby\Dnat-n.Bri 20"On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: ... (5) the judgment has been satisfied. released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application
or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment." The United States Supreme Court has addressed the application of Rule 60(b) to institutional reform litigation such as a school desegregation case. In Rufo V. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail. 502 U.S. 116 L.Ed. 2d 867 (1992), the Supreme Court held that Rule 60(b) is applicable to cases in which a consent decree has been entered. Id. at 116 L.Ed.2d 883. In a school desegregation case. the Supreme Court rejected the rigid standard for modification of a consent decree set forth in United States V. Swift & Co.. 286 U.S. 106, 119 (1932) ("nothing less than a clear showing of grievous wrong evoked by new and unforeseen conditions should lead us to change what was decreed after years of litigation with the consent of all concerned") in favor of a more flexible standard. Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell. 498 U.S. , 112 L.Ed. 2d 715 (1991). As the Court said in Rufo, Rule 60(b), "in providing that, on such terms as are just, a party may be relieved from a final judgment or decree where it is no longer equitable kathy\Dne|-Pl.Bri 21that the judgment have prospective application, permits a less stringent, more flexible standard." Buis, 116 L.Ed. 2d at 884. "The upsurge in institutional reform litigation since Brown v. Board of Education has made the ability of a district court to modify a decree in response to changed circumstances all the more important". Rufo, 116 L.Ed. 2d at 884. The Rufo Court observed that "[t]he experience of the District and Circuit Courts in implementing and modifying such decrees has demonstrated that a flexible approach is often essential to achieving the goals of reform litigation". Id. The Rufo Court also approved the observation of several Courts of Appeal "that the public interest is a particularly significant reason for applying a flexible modification standard in institutional reform litigation because such decrees "reach beyond the parties involved directly in the suit and impact on the public's right to the sound and efficient operation of its institutions". Id. at 885, quoting Heath v. DeCourcv. 888 F. 2d 1105, 1109 (6th Cir. 1989). A party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree. Id. at 886. The party seeking modification may meet its initial burden by showing either a significant change in factual conditions or in law. If the moving party meets this burden, the court must consider whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance. 22The Supreme Court in Rufo provided several examples of situations where modification of a consent decree may be warranted: 1. "When changed factual conditions make compliance with the decree substantially more onerous." Id. at 886. 2. "When a decree proves to be unworkable because of unforeseen obstacles", citing particularly relevant case, Philadelphia a Welfare Rights Organization v. Shapp. 602 F.2d at 1120-1121 (modification allowed where State could not find sufficient clients to meet decree targets). Id. at 886. 3. "When enforcement of the decree without modification would be detrimental to the public interest." Id. at 886-87. Once a moving party has met its burden of establishing either a change in fact or in law warranting modification of a consent decree, the district court should apply the following test to determine whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance: (1) "A modification must not create or perpetuate a constitutional violation ... tl hBilQr\DMe(*Pl.Bri 23(2) "A proposed modification should not strive to rewrite a consent decree so that it conforms to the constitutional floor ... (3) "A court should not allow a change greater than that necessary 'to resolve the problems created by the change in circximstances' . Id. at 890-91. within these boundaries, the Court should defer to LRSD: Within these constraints, the public interest and "
and n "[c]onsiderations based on the allocation of powers within our federal system" Dowell, 498 US, at ___, 112 L Ed 2d 715, 111 S Ct 630, require that the district court defer to local government administrators, who have the "primary responsibility for elucidating, assessing, and solving" the problems of institutional reform, to resolve the intricacies of implementing a decree modification. Brown v. Board of Education, 349 US, at 299, 99 L Ed 2d 1083, 75 S Ct 2749. Id. at 891. Finally, although "[f]inancial constraints may not be used to justify the creation or perpetuation of constitutional violations", "they are legitimate concern of government a defendants in institutional reform litigation and therefore are appropriately considered in tailoring consent decree a modification." Id. at 891-92. 24The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has described in this case 'the standard to be used by the District Court for reviewing proposed modifications to the plan ... to which all the parties have not agreed". Appeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253, 258 (Sth Cir. 1991). The Eighth Circuit, in a decision which came after Dowell but before gufo, adopted the following standard set forth in Heath v. DeCourcv. 88 F.2d 1105 (6th Cir. 1989)
"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, or because circumstances and conditions have changed which warrant fine-tuning the decree. 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." Id. at 1110. The standard adopted by the Eighth Circuit in Appeal of Little Rock School District is in harmony with the later decision of the Supreme Court in Rufo. See Lorain NAACP v. Lorain Bd. of Educ. . 979 F.2d 1141, 1149 (6th Cir. 1992) (treating the Rufo and Heath standards as harmonious and holding that school descregation consent decrees "are subject to the same standards as annunciated in Rufo and Heath.") The Eighth Circuit advised the district court to "proceed with that discretion and flexibility that characterizes courts of equity" and noted that district court decisions with respect to 25 Aplan modifications will be reviewed on an abuse-of-discretion basis with "a healthy measure of deference to the reasoned choices made by the District Court." Appeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253, 257 (Sth Cir. 1991). The Eighth Circuit's deferential standard of review concerning contested proposed modifications of consent decrees is also described in McDonald v. Armentrout. F.2d 388 (8th Cir. 1990)
908 "The district court retains authority over the consent decree, including the power to modify the decree in light of changed circumstances, and is subject to only a limited check by the reviewing court. We will reverse a district court's modification of a consent decree only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion. Moreover, the Supreme Court has indicated that a district court's resolution of a motion to modify is due greater deference when the changed circumstances justifying modification are of fact rather than law." 908 F.2d at 390 (citations omitted). B. Changed Circumstances There have been two important changes in the factual circumstances of this case since the agreement of the parties in 1989, approved by the Court of Appeals in 1990, that three interdistrict schools would be established within LRSD. First, by operation of the Tri-District Plan, Washington was established and continues to serve as an interdistrict magnet school. With the 26 bi^ntwt FLBriopening of King for the 1993-94 school year, LRSD has established three interdistrict schools. Washington and King are located within the area targeted for location of Stephens and King interdistrict schools in the 1989 LRSD and Interdistrict Plans. Second, the 1990 census and the 1993-94 enrollment numbers show that the area targeted for location of interdistrict schools within LRSD is an area of rapidly declining population. that many elementary school seats are presently available within that area. and that LRSD and PCSSD are beginning to experience an overall decline in student population. These changes warrant modification of the LRSD and Interdistrict Plans to recognize Washington as an interdistrict school in place of Stephens. C. Washington Interdistrict Magnet School The parties have been consistent in their agreement that three interdistrict schools should be established within the Little Rock School District. According to the October 3, 1988 proposed LRSD Desegregation Plan, those three schools would be Stephens, King and Washington. 5 J.D.R. 1045-48. The parties' 1988 agreement to recommend construction of new Stephens and King Interdistrict Schools was "based on [then] current demographics and geography which identif[ied] a need for new construction." 5 J.D.R. 1047. Between the time the parties submitted the October 3, 1988 proposed LRSD Desegregation Plan and the time they agreed upon peirmanent desegregation plans in March of 1989, Romine was substituted for Washington as the third LRSD interdistrict school. There are two reasons for this. First, there was a perceived need laifaBr\Deae(>P).Bri 27for at least 3,600 incentive school seats which could not be realized without designating Washington as an incentive school. 10 J.D.R. 2228, 2231. Second, when the attendance zones for "elementary academies" were drawn in accordance with the 1989 Interdistrict Plan (8 J.D.R. 1721), the target population of "55% black and 45% white with a variance of 5%" could not be achieved in the Romine area. The parties therefore substituted Romine for Washington as an interdistrict school and designated Washington as an incentive school. The circumstances changed on March 5, 1990 when the district court entered an order approving the Tri-District Plan. Under that plan, with the parties subsequent acquiescence (Docket /1434), Washington was established at the beginning of the 1990-91 school year as an interdistrict school and continues to operate interdistrict school. as an Because LRSD now has in place the number of interdistrict schools the parties agreed upon in the 1989 Desegregation Settlement, the number of interdistrict schools approved by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on December 12, 1990 and the number of interdistrict schools considered " crucial" by the Eighth Circuit on November 14, 1991, "it is no longer equitable" to require the construction of a new Stephens Interdistrict School. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)
Rufo, 116 L.Ed.2d at 884. D. Demographics 28The significant outflow of population from the area targeted for LRSD interdistrict schools and the great number of elementary seats available in that area, and particularly at King and Washington Interdistrict Schools, constitute significant changes in circumstances which warrant revision of the LRSD and Interdistrict Desegregation Plans. This demographic change, combined with the change which resulted in the establishment of Washington as an interdistrict school, clearly meets the Rufo and Eighth Circuit standards for modification of a consent decree. Modification of a consent decree is "appropriate when a decree proves to be unworkable because of unforeseen obstacles." Rufo. 116 L.Ed.2d at 886. The decline in population of the area targeted for the location of LRSD incentive schools and its impact upon enrollment in schools in central and east Little Rock was not foreseen by the parties. In 1988, the parties believed that "current demographics" showed "a need for new construction". J.D.R. 1047-48. In 1994, the two newest elementary schools in the LRSD system are King and Washington Interdistrict Schools. Those schools have a total of 357 seats available in them. There are 1,429 available seats in downtown Little Rock, which is the general area in which the desegregation plans presently require the 5 Stephens school to be located. The 1990 census and recent LRSD and PCSSD enrollment data show that there is no longer a need for new construction which would justify the building of new a interdistrict school. 29In a case cited with approval in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals allowed modification of consent decree in a circumstances similar to those in this case even under the stricter pre-Rufo standard. Philadelphia Welfare Rights Organization v. Shape, 602 F.2d 1114 (3rd Cir. 1979). In Shapp. a consent decree required the State of Pennsylvania to perfonn a certain number of medical screenings per year for welfare recipients. Id. at 1118. Due to declining welfare roles, however, the total population eligible for screening "was significantly lower than had been expected at the time of the consent decree". Id. The court noted that "[a]ny injunction imposing mandatory affirmative duties for the future involves elements of prediction ... [which] will always be speculative to some degree" and that "[t]his is particularly the case when the defendants' ability to achieve compliance depends upon the receptivity of class members or other third parties not formally before the court." Id. at 1120. The declining population and enrollment in this case present changed circumstances equivalent to declining welfare rolls in Shapp. As in Shapp. the requested modification of the decree can be granted "while preserving its essential features". including those the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals described as "crucial". Id. at 1120. Applying much stricter pre-Rufo standard for modification of consent decrees, the Third Circuit affirmed a modification which "eliminated the numerical requirements" for screenings. Id. at 1119. 30"[T]he public interest is a particularly significant reason for applying a flexible modification standard in institutional reform litigation because such decrees "reach beyond the parties involved directly in the suit and impact on the public's right to sound an efficient operation of its institutions." Elifs, 116 L.Ed.2d at 885, quoting Heath v. DeCourcv. 888 F.2d 1105, 1109 (6th Cir. 1989). Modification of a consent decree may be warranted "when enforcement of the decree without modification would be detrimental to the public interest". Eufe, 116 L.Ed.2d at 886-87. In this case, the public interest in sound and efficient operation of the Little Rock School District weighs against a requirement to construct a new school in an area of declining population and relatively low enrollment in its existing schools. Finally, the rule adopted by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in this case for reviewing contested proposed modifications of the desegregation plans is not inconsistent with the Supreme Court's later decision in Rufo. Lorain NAACP v. Lorain Bd. of Edu^, 979 F.2d 1141, 1149 (6th Cir. 1992). In order to modify a consent decree, the Eighth Circuit said, the district 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, or because circumstances and conditions have changed which warrant fine-tuning the decree." Appeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253, 258 (8th Cir. 1991), quoting Heath v. DeCourcv. 88 F.2d 1105, 1110 (6th Cir. 1989) . In this case. the post-settlement establishment and ku^\DaaH-Pl.Bri 31retention of Washington school as an interdistrict school and the decline in population and enrollment in the area targeted for location of LRSD interdistrict schools constitute changed circumstances which warrant fine tuning the settlement plans to recognize Washington in place of Stephens as an interdistrict school. This proposed modification should be approved because "it furthers the original purpose of the decree in a more efficient way, without upsetting the basic agreement between the parties". Id. E. Financial Constraints The financial constraints under which LRSD continues to operate provide further support for the consent decree modification requested by LRSD: "Financial constraints may not be used to justify the creation or perpetuation of constitutional violations, but they a legitimate concern of government defendants institutional reform litigation and therefore are appropriately considered in tailoring a consent decree modification." are in Rufo V. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail. 502 U.S. 116 L.Ed.2d 867, 891-92 (1992). LRSD presently projects a budget deficit for next year in excess of $7,000,000.00. The cost of constructing a new interdistrict school and the high per pupil expenditure required to operate a school in an area of declining population and enrollment are a legitimate concern to LRSD which should be considered by the Court as a factor supporting the requested consent decree modification. Id. kMhy\DBaet-n.Bri 32CERTIFICATE 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 Hell 3gQPglM^iQn The modification of the LRSD and Interdistrict Plans proposed by LRSD does not diminish the basic elements of those plans. The parties agreed in 1989 to establish 600 seat Stephens a Interdistrict School "near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue". 10 J.D.R. 2232. There has been established instead a 939 seat Washington Interdistrict School near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue. The other two LRSD Interdistrict Schools required by the 1989 LRSD and Interdistrict Plans, Romine and King, are now in operation. The modification can be made without reducing those elements the plan considered crucial by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The significant changes and circumstances since the settlement plans were written are clearly sufficient to warrant the requested modification of the plans under the standards described by the Supreme Court in Rufo and by the Eighth Circuit in this case. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Bv
r________...______ Christopher Helle^^ Bar No. 81083 33I I I C [ It / 6^,-c.k^ 6^, / ai, l/\H'-ti i_ (/-CCy' / S' / i f 'RECEIVED yl/C4^^ rf Mji_ 3: (y-c.k^ NOV 1 6 1994 Office of Desegregai i 4 I ioi). z - ?y\A ^L. t.Cr / 'i 1 1^-. 'tLC' ' i~ C-IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS FOQ 1995 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By: .V OEP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On May 20, 1994, the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") filed a motion to close Stephens Incentive School [doc.#2191]. In its motion, the LRSD states that it has constructed the number of interdistrict schools required by the desegregation plans, and that, assuming the Court grants its April 20, 1994 motion to designate Washington as the required second new LRSD interdistrict school in place of a new Stephens interdistrict school [doc.#2160], the district will have operating within its boundaries the required number of interdistrict schools. The LRSD goes on to state that Stephens school is in an area of declining enrollment and population (and, in fact, has experienced declining enrollment)
that there are a large number of empty school seats in the Stephens general area (including empty seats at the King and Washington interdistrict schools)
and that the facility itself is in a state of decline, the renovation of which cannot be justified. The Court held a hearing on June 7, 1994, to address the issues raised in the LRSD's motion to close Stephens. During the hearing, 2 1 the LRSD provided the Court with a "Stipulation and Settlement Agreement Regarding Stephens and Garland Schools" ("stipulation") in which it proposes building a new Stephens school within the same general area in which the Stephens and Garland schools are now locatedJ In the stipulation, the LRSD states that the new Stephens will be a magnet school with a student body made up primarily of black students and white students from the LRSD and also some majority-to-minority transfer students from the Pulaski County Special School District ("PCSSD"). The LRSD further states that Garland Incentive School will be closed upon the opening of the new Stephens school, and that the Garland students will thereupon be assigned to Stephens. Although all parties to this lawsuit approved the stipulation. the Court announced to the parties its conclusion that the stipulation was deficient in several respects (which will be discussed infra), and that certain inforaation would be required before the Court could give its final approval for the construction of a new Stephens school. Among other things, the Court stated that it required detailed plans for student recruitment and a long- range facilities plan which tcikes into account the declining and shifting populations in Little Rock and which justifies construction of a 700-seat school which the parties have proposed for the Stephens site. The Court did, however, state that Stephens could be closed and its students reassigned. The stipulation, which was filed on June 8, was approved by aU parties to this lawsuit. 2In a status report regarding Stephens that was filed August 24, 1994, the LRSD stated that it had begun a long-range facility study and that it intended to begin demolition of Stephens in the immediate future. The district also stated that it would not begin construction of a new Stephens school building until the parties had addressed issues raised by the Court at the June 7 hearing, such as the size of the school and how it would be populated and desegregated. However, it has now been some five months since the LRSD's status report and the information requested by the Court in June 1994 has yet to be submitted.^ Because the target date for the opening of the new Stephens school draws ever closer, the Court now reiterates what was stated at the June 7 hearing and what is required of the LRSD before this Court will approve construction of a new Stephens school as set forth in the stipulation. As indicated at the Jiine 7 hearing, the LRSD's motions to designate Washington as the new interdistrict school required by the desegregation plan and to close the Stephens Incentive School [doc.#'s 2160 and 2191] should both be and hereby are granted. In approving the LRSD's motion to close Stephens, the Court reiterates that the LRSD is obligated to recruit white students to desegregate the remaining incentive schools. The Court will continue to closely watch all proposed school closings and school capacity 2 The original target date for completion of the facilities study, as noted in the July 29, 1994 LRSD management tool, was November 23, 1994. The target date remained the same in the August and September management tools, but changed to January 30, 1995 in the management tool dated October 31, 1994. The November 30,1994 management tool changed the target date again to August 15, 1995. 3alterations to determine the effect on desegregation and whether there is a pattern of closing schools in areas largely inhabited by black citizens while increasing the capacity of schools in areas largely inhabited by white citizens. With respect to the construction of a new Stephens school, the LRSD cites as justification for closing Stephens the fact that the school has experienced declining enrollment and is located in an area of decreasing population and student enrollment. In this regard, the LRSD states that there are many empty school seats in the Stephens general area, including over 350 vacant seats at the King and Washington interdistrict schools. Nevertheless, the LRSD proposes building a new 700-seat school on the current Stephens site, notwithstanding the fact that during the 1993-94 school year. a total of only 350 students attended Stephens and Garland combined (only 218 of which lived within the schools' attendance zones) and notwithstanding the fact that the LRSD itself indicates that such data counsels against constructing a new Stephens school in the area now under consideration. Indeed, the LRSD states in its brief accompanying its motion for modification of the desegregation plan that "[tlhe 1990 census and recent LRSD and PCSSD enrollment data show that there is no longer a need for new construction which would justify the building of a new interdistrict school, and that [t]he cost of constructing a new interdistrict school and the high per pupil expenditure required to operate a school in an area of 3 205 children attended Garland (136 from the attendance zone), and 145 attended Stephens (82 from the attendance zone). 4declining population and enrollment are a legitimate concern to LRSD which should be considered by the Court as a factor supporting the requested consent decree modification." (Brief in Support, at pg. 29 and 32.) Because of the apparent contradictions contained within the LRSD's proposals, the Court stated that the LRSD must justify the construction of a new school at the existing Stephens site as a prerequisite to the Court approving the stipulation. Specifically, the Court stated that it requires detailed information regarding the size of the new Stephens school to be constructed and the basis for the school's capacity
detailed information regarding the plan for recruiting white students
detailed information regarding student assignment zones
and detailed information regarding the impact of the new Stephens school on the racial balance of all the schools. In addition, the Court stated that it requires a new long-range facilities plan that will guide the district's use of its facilities for several years to come. At the hearing, the Court expressed concern over the controversy that had developed when the district prepared to close Baseline Elementary School as the 1993- 94 school year was ending. Many parents at the hearing told the Court they were unaware or surprised at the district's plans to close Baseline, and that they believed the district was not proceeding in good faith to involve the parents and community in making the decisions that directly affected them, their children. and their neighborhood. 5The desegregation plans repeatedly stress the importance of involving parents and other citizens in the schools, calling for the districts to "solicit and sustain community involvement" (Interdistrict Plan, pg. 66). The Court of Appeals has recognized the importance of this aspect of the desegregation plans, identifying appropriate parent involvement as an element of the plans which is "crucial. and with respect to which no retreat should be approved." Appeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253, 256 (Sth Cir. 1991). This Court has continued to emphasize the role which meaningful parent involvement plays in keeping the community happy with its schools. The Court has stressed that the public is better satisfied when the parties keep citizens adequately informed and involved, and when the districts do a good job of helping their constituents anticipate and prepare for the changes that affect their schools. The Court has noted the link between information. involvement, and stability: "Anticipating changes and having a process to go through when changes are taking place are very important to stability." (June 28, 1994 Hearing Transcript, pg. 55.) Furthermore, the desegregation plan and orders of this Court recognize that "desegregation will succeed only so far as the community supports and participates in it." (December 30, 1992 Order, pg. 17.) Any facilities study which the district conducts must yield a facilities plan which incorporates a coherent and well-reasoned decision-making process that will guide the district in changing the use (including closure) of any school or building. That process must specifically involve the community with the aim of 6preventing situations of trepidation similar to that which surrounded the potential closing of Baseline. The 1988 facilities study, which was produced for the LRSD by Stanton Leggett and Associates and was referred to at the hearing. was quite comprehensive, but it is no longer current. As the LRSD develops its facilities plan, the district may wish to include the same type of information which that study covered, incorporating current data. However, rather than details concerning the condition of physical plants and equipment, the Court is more interested in the district developing criteria for detezrmining how its buildings will be used, modified, expanded, or closed based on information that specifically takes into consideration the district's desegregation obligations, including community involvement. and the effect that building use has on students and achieving the desegregation goals. Components of the facilities plan, as well as minimum planning factors and considerations the LRSD must use, are set forth below. These items are broad general categories to be utilized with respect to determining whether and how the function of a school or other district building might be altered.* The detailed planning of the items should be executed by the LRSD, although the Coxirt notes that its Office of Desegregation Monitoring remains available to provide assistance. Although the LRSD is free to conduct a study that is as comprehensive and detailed as it wishes, the facilities plan should be based at a minimum on those factors Of course, closing schools is a modification of the desegregation plan and the requisite process must be followed. 4 7listed below: A. A facilities needs assessment based on trends in student population and staffing, on demographic and geographic considerations, and on student assignment zones. B. An analysis of facility resources, including capacities. location, campus size, and any special features or limitations. C. A proposed facilities use plan for all district buildings for the next five to ten years that takes into account the factors above and: 1. 2. district goals and objectives desegregation requirements obligations) (including interdistrict 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. decision criteria for facilities actions (criteria the district will use to guide decisions that affect its facilities) identification and analysis of options proposed facilities changes impact of programmatic changes, such as middle schools reassignment of students and the impact on enrollment and racial balance at receiving schools the burden of busing on students impact on financial stability 3. The facilities study should also include an examination of the buildings currently used for administrative space. The Court notes that the district presently expends a considerable sum in renting the Parkin building and a nearby parking lot while several former schools sit empty. At any time the LRSD comes before the Court proposing to change the use of a school or other building, the Court will make its decision on whether to approve the proposal in relation to the district's facilities plan for all of its buildings (based on the elements named above), the extent to which the district has followed the requisite plan modification process, and the manner in 8which the district has involved the community in its decisions. The Court again stresses that parental involvement is a key requirement of the desegregation plan. As stated in a recent order, the swiftest and surest way out of the federal court is to abide by the terms and spirit of the settlement agreement, and this includes community involvement in the planning and decision-making process with respect to school closings. Only with a cooperative relationship between the district and the community can success in implementing the settlement agreement be achieved. In sum, the Court grants the LRSD's motions to designate Washington as the second interdistrict school which the desegregation plan obligated the district to build and also to close Stephens Incentive School [doc.#'s 2160, 2191]. The Court withholds approval of the construction of a new Stephens school as proposed in the stipulation pending receipt of information and data that demonstrates such constniction is justified. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of February 1995. UNlffio STATES IHSTraCT JUDGE rWIS DOCUMENT ENTERED O-N-- -D--O---C--K--ET SHEET IN COMPtlANi ON___ RULE 58 BY 9 * Hearing held, transcript not yet received DATE OF HEARING Sept. 10, 1996 August 29, 1996 August 19, 1996 June 6, 1996 May 31, 1996 May 30, 1996 May 15, 1996 May 14, 1996 May 13, 1996 Mar. 26, 1996 Dec. 14, 1995 Dec. 15, 1995 Dec. 8, 1995 Oct. 28, 1995 Sept. 8, 1995 Sept. 1, 1995 August 31, 1995 August 30, 1995 LISTING OF COURT HEARINGS, DIRECTIVES, AND TRANSCRIPT SUMMARIES SUBJECT HARD COPY ON DISC DIRECTIVES PULLED SUMMARY COMPLETE BY (NAME OF- PERSON) TRO-paying teachers during strike PCSSD strike Joshuas fees LRSD 96-97 budget State funding formula- conf for setting deadlines Expert Witness Gary Orfield Expert Witness David Armor Expert Witnesses Herbert Walberg and David Armor Expert Witness Herbert Walberg LRSD Budget M-to-M Pooling M-to-M Pooling (continued) LRSD, ServiceMaster LRSD, ServiceMaster LRSD, PCSSD, ADE pooling LRSD release of court supervision NLRSD release of court supervision PCSSD release of court supervision Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesDATE OF HEARING August 28, 1995 August 25, 1995 August 11, 1995 lUgust 2, 1995 August 1, 1995 July 14, 1995 July 7, 1995 July 6, 1995 June 23, 1995 April 10, 1995 March 24, 1995 March 9, 1995 Sept. 21, 1994 Sept. 16, 1994 Sept. 15, 1994 Sept. 14, 1994 August 12, 1994 July 29, 1994 July 28, 1994 June 29, 1994 June 28, 1994 June 7, 1994 April 22, 1994 Feb 25, 1994 SUBJECT Continuation on contempt motion by Joshua Emergency contempt of court by Joshua LRSD 1995-96 budget LRSD 1995-96 budget NLRSD & PCSSD 1995-96 budget Telephone conference (M-to-M pooling) LRSD 1995-96 budget LRSD 1995-96 budget LRSD 1995-96 budget LRSD 1995-96 budget LRSD 1995-96 budget On-the-record conference (plan modifications) ADE reitLstatement ADE reinstatement ADE reinstatement ADE reinstatement LRSD 1994-95 budget LRSD 1994-95 budget PCSSD 1994-95 budget LRSD 1994-95 budget LRSD 1994-95 budget Closing Stephens LRSD 1994-95 budget LRSD 1994-95 planning & budgeting process HARD COPY Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye.s Yes Yes ON DISC No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes DIRECTIVES PULLED Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes SUMMARY COMPLETE BY (NAME OF PERSON) Bob & Polly Polly Margie Margie MelissaDATE OF HEARING SUBJECT HARD COPY ON DISC DIRECTIVES PULLED SUMMARY COMPLETE BY (NAME OF PERSON) Jan 27, 1994 Jan 26, 1994 Jan 25, 1994 Nov 18, 1993 Nov 17, 1993 Aug 17, 1993 Aug 12, 1993 July 8, 1993 July 7, 1993 June 24, 1993 June 9, 1993 June 8, 1993 April 19, 1993 April 14, 1993 April 13, 1993 March 19, 1993 Feb 1, 1993 Aug 3, 1992 July 2, 1992 July 1, 1992 June 30, 1992 May 29, 1992 (p.m.) 1992-93 Incentive Schs Monitoring Rpt (a.m.) 1992-93 Incentive Schs Monitoring Rpt 1992-93 Incentive SchixiLs Monitoring Report PCSSD Racial Balance Monitoring Report Stephens Schtx)! ADE reinstatement PCSSD 1993-93 budget LRSD 1993-94 budget and budget process LRSD 1993-94 budget PCSSD 1993-94 budget Stephens Interdistrict Schcxrl King Interdistrict School en King Interdistrict School LRSD budget cuts Rezoning (not deseg related) (continuation) Rezoning (not deseg related) LRSD budget cuts LRSD budget process LRSD budget PCSSD budget cuts Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Delay of interdistrict schools and modification of the magnet program at McClellan Yes Yes Ye.s Ye.s Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye.s Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Scatmed Yes Yes Scanned Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes . Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes Horace Horace Horace & Polly Melissa Margie Horace Melissa Connie/Bill Bob Bob Margie Melissa Horace Melissa N/A N/A Margie ConnieDATE OF HEARING March 9, 1992 Feb 7, 1992 Feb 6, 1992 Jan 28, 1992 Jan 27, 1992 Jan 23, 1992 Jan 22, 1992 Jan 21, 1992 Dec 19, 1991 Dec 18, 1991 Aug 7, 1991 March 20, 1991 Jan 25, 1991 SUBJECT King Jnterdistrict School site Continuation (completing modification hearings) Continuation Continuation Continuation Continuation Continuation Proposed modifications-1989 settlement plans PCSSD & LRSD budgets PCSSD & LRSD budgets Partial stay Construction Aerospace Magnet School HARD COPY Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ON DISC No No No No Yes No No Yes Yes Scanned Yes Scanned No DIRECTIVES PULLED SUMMARY COMPLETE BY (NAME OF PERSON)* Hearing held, transcript not yet received DATE OF HEARING Sept. 10, 1996 August 29, 1996 August 19, 1996 June 6, 1996 May 31, 1996 May 30, 1996 May 15, 1996 May 14, 1996 May 13, 1996 Mar. 26, 1996 Dec. 14, 1995 Dec. 15, 1995 Dec. 8, 1995 Oct. 28, 1995 Sept. 8, 1995 Sept. 1, 1995 August 31, 1995 August 30, 1995 LISTING OF COURT HEARINGS, DIRECTIVES, AND TRANSCRIPT SUMMARIES SUBJECT HARD COPY ON DISC DIRECTIVES PULLED SUMMARY COMPLETE BY (NAME OF PERSON) 7/31/94 TRO-paying teachers during strike PCSSD strike Joshuas fees LRSD 96-97 budget State funding formula- conf for setting deadlines Expert Witness Gary Orfield Expert Witness David Armor Expert Witnesses Herbert Walberg and David Armor Expert Witness Herbert Walberg LRSD Budget M-to-M Pooling M-to-M Pooling (continued) LRSD, ServiceMaster LRSD, ServiceMaster LRSD, PCSSD, ADE pooling LRSD release of court supervision NLRSD release of court supervision PCSSD release of court supervision Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesDATE OF HEARING August 28, 1995 August 25, 1995 August 11, 1995 ,ugust 2, 1995 August 1, 1995 July 14, 1995 July 7, 1995 July 6, 1995 June 23, 1995 April 10, 1995 March 24, 1995 March 9, 1995 Sept. 21, 1994 Sept. 16, 1994 Sept. 15, 1994 Sept. 14, 1994 August 12, 1994 July 29, 1994 July 28, 1994 June 29, 1994 June 28, 1994 June 7, 1994 April 22, 1994 Feb 25, 1994 SUBJECT Continuation on contempt motion by Joshua Emergency contempt of court by Joshua LRSD 1995-96 budget LRSD 1995-96 budget NLRSD & PCSSD 1995-96 budget Telephone conference (M-to-M pooling) LRSD 1995-96 budget LRSD 1995-96 budget LRSD 1995-96 budget LRSD 1995-96 budget LRSD 1995-96 budget On-the-record conference (plan modifications) ADE reinstatement ADE reinstatement ADE reinstatement ADE reinstatement LRSD 1994-95 budget LRSD 1994-95 budget PCSSD 1994-95 budget LRSD 1994-95 budget LRSD 1994-95 budget Closing Stephens LRSD 1994-95 budget LRSD 1994-95 planning & budgeting process HARD COPY Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ON DISC No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes DIRECTIVES PULLED Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes SUMMARY COMPLETE BY (NAME OF PERSON) Bob & Polly Polly Margie Margie MelissaDATE OF HEARING SUBJECT HARD COPY ON DISC DIRECTIVES PULLED SUMMARY COMPLETE BY (NAME OF PERSON) Jan 27, 1994 Jan 26, 1994 Jan 25, 1994 Nov 18, 1993 Nov 17, 1993 Aug 17, 1993 Aug 12, 1993 July 8, 1993 July 7, 1993 June 24, 1993 June 9, 1993 June 8, 1993 April 19, 1993 April 14, 1993 April 13, 1993 March 19, 1993 Feb 1, 1993 Aug 3, 1992 July 2, 1992 July 1, 1992 June 30, 1992 May 29, 1992 (p.m.) 1992-93 Incentive Schs Monitoring Rpt (a.m.) 1992-93 Incentive Schs Monitoring Rpt 1992-93 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report PCSSD Racial Balance Monitoring Report Stephens School ADE reinstatement PCSSD 1993-93 budget LRSD 1993-94 budget and budget process LRSD 1993-94 budget PCSSD 1993-94 budget Stephens Interdistrict School King Interdistrict School King Interdistrict School LRSD budget cuts Rezoning (not deseg related) (continuation) Rezoning (not deseg related) LRSD budget cuts LRSD budget process LRSD budget PCSSD budget cuts Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Delay of interdistrict schools and modification of the magnet program at McClellan Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Scanned Yes Yes Scanned Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes Horace Horace Horace & Polly Melissa Margie Horace Melissa Connie/Bill Bob Bob Margie Melissa Horace Melissa N/A N/A Margie ConnieDATE OF HEARING March 9, 1992 Feb 7, 1992 Feb 6, 1992 Jan 28, 1992 Jan 27, 1992 Jan 23, 1992 Jan 22, 1992 Jan 21, 1992 Dec 19, 1991 Dec 18, 1991 Aug 7, 1991 March 20, 1991 Jan 25, 1991 SUBJECT King Interdistrict School site Continuation (completing modification hearings) Continuation Continuation Continuation Continuation Continuation Proposed modifications-1989 settlement plans PCSSD & LRSD budgets PCSSD & LRSD budgets Partial stay Construction Aerospace Magnet School HARD COPY Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ON DISC No No No No Yes No No Yes Yes Scarmed Yes Scanned No DIRECTIVES PULLED SUMMARY COMPLETE BY (NAME OF PERSON)suop^npojj lapAus mox an3sa>{ ueaaQ jeaio aqjL o V. o )1J Cii Omh Rtto Booker T. Washington Math/Science Magnet School is <0 BECEIV50 MAY 8 1995 OHice of Desegregation Monitoring / You are cordially invited to drop in May 8-11 to observe our fifth grade students as they participate in an exciting interactive technology unit, The Great Ocean Rescue. Please visit during any of the following time blocks: 8:00 a.m. -10:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. -12:30 p.m. 1:15 p.m. - 2:30 p.m. Booker T. Washington Math/Science Magnet School 115 West 27th Street iUnit Rationale MAY 8 1995 The Great Ocean Rescue Office of Desegreg
,^. j, ,, , j v m . i v.. The following vision statement was developed by the Technology Planning Committee of the Little Rock School District: The Cittle TCock School District, in keeping with its mission and goals, will provide a quality, integrated educational program through the use of technology which promotes optimum achievement academically, socially, and emotionally. Cittle ^ock School District will provide an environment which promotes interactive learning, thus empowering students to meet the challenges of the advancing technology of the Zlst century. Cittle T^ock School District will provide opportunities through technology which empower students, staff, and community to achieve excellence, to think critically and creatively to solve problems in an ever-changing society and to access, utilize, and communicate information globally. This unit of study has been designed as a tool for fifth grade teachers to use as they begin to meet the challenge of the aforementioned vision statement. The Great Ocean Rescue laserdisc and software program, published by Tom Snyder Productions, has been used as a framework for this unit. The reference books supplied with the game will be used as functional print sources. The Island of the Blue Dolphins will serve as a literature link. Nystrom Study Prints and AIMS materials will be utilized. Our Great Ocean Rescue unit reaches across the curriculum and integrates traditional pencil and paper tasks with cooperative learning teams, computer usage, hands-on activities, and community resources. Students that receive special services (Reading or Math PAL, Resource Room instruction) will receive direct service delivery in the regular classroom so that they may be totally immersed in the unit activities. Fifth grade classrooms will visit the Intermediate Science Lab on a daily basis. Students will visit other specialists classrooms and will complete integrated lessons which support this units theme. The units design has been carefully scheduled so that four classrooms of students may participate and compete against one another as they play The Great Ocean Rescue laserdisc game. It is our intent that this unit be used in the future by classroom teachers without extra specialist support. Individual teachers will find scheduling much less restrictive and will enjoy having the use of a laserdisc player and computer in their classroom for a week long loan period.R MAY 3 The Great Ocean Rescue Office oi C, Unit Rationale The following vision statement was developed by the Technology Planning Committee of the Little Rock School District: 'The CiTtle ^ock School District, in keeping with its mission and goals, will provide a quality, integrated educational program through the use of technology which promotes optimum achievement academically, socially, and emotionally. fit tie JLock School District will provide an environment which promotes interactive learning, thus empowering students to meet the challenges of the advancing technology of the 2.1st century. Ci trie C^^ock School District will provide opportunities through technology which empower students, staff, and community to achieve excellence, to think critically and creatively to solve problems in an ever-changing society and to access, utilize, and communicate information globally. This unit of study has been designed as a tool for Hfth grade teachers to use as they begin to meet the challenge of the aforementioned vision statement. The Great Ocean Rescue laserdisc and software program, published by Tom Snyder Productions, has been used as a framework for this unit. The reference books supplied with the game will be used as functional print sources. The Island of the Blue Dolphins will serve as a literature link. Nystrom Study Prints and AIMS materials will be utilized. Our Great Ocean Rescue unit reaches across the curriculum and integrates traditional pencil and paper tasks with cooperative learning teams, computer usage, hands-on activities, and community resources. Students that receive special services (Reading or Math PAL, Resource Room instruction) will receive direct service delivery in the regular classroom so that they may be totally immersed in the unit activities. Fifth grade classrooms will visit the Intermediate Science Lab on a daily basis. Students will visit other specialists classrooms and will complete integrated lessons which support this units theme. The units design has been carefully scheduled so that four classrooms of students may participate and compete against one another as they play The Great Ocean Rescue laserdisc game. It is our intent that this unit be used in the future by classroom teachers without extra specialist support. Individual teachers will find scheduling much less restrictive and wUl enjoy having the use of a laserdisc player and computer in their classroom for a week long loan period.RECSW I i i HiY 8 ms Office of Dessgregaucn Monnonns I I t I ' 15 You are cordially invited to drop in May 8-11 to observe our fifth grade students as they participate in an exciting interactive technology unit, The Great Ocean Rescue. 1 i Please visit during any of the following time blocks: 8:00 a.m. -10:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. -12:30 p.m. 1:15 p.m. - 2:30 p.m. Booker T. Washington Math/Science Magnet School 115 West 27th StreetSeptember 30, 1995 ocr j 1995 Office of Desegregation Monitor Ann Brown 201 East Markham Suite 510 Heritage West Bldg Little Rock, AR 72201 Qi Vear Ann Brown
I have chosen to write this letter directly to you since I have spoken at length with you in the past about certain aspects of the Little Rock School District. My child was involved in an incident at Washington Magnet Elementary on August 28th of this year that I feel should be brought to your attention. The facts of what happened are as follows: (to the best I can ascertain) My first-grader and her friend Lyndsey (also a first grader) went to the restroom before school. Apparently they were in the same stall of the restroom and also sitting or laying on the floor (perhaps crawling under the stalls?)when two older children came into the restroom. These children reported to Ms. Buchanan that "something strange" was going on in the restroom. Meanwhile my child and her friend had left the bathroom and gone to class. Ms. Buchanan sent the older children from room to room with an aide until they pointed out the two children they had seen in the restroom. My child and her friend were then escorted to the principal's office where Ms. Buchanan and apparently the counselor Ms. Kuhns questioned them both together and separately to determine what had occurred. Although Ms. Buchanan has maintained that the line of questioning was of a general nature such as "Has anything happened to either of you?" and "Are you alright?". My child reported the questions as "Did you lay on top of your friend" and "Did you have her dress up?" I was contacted after the questioning was over and told that I needed to speak with my child about the "privacy issue". I later called the other child's parents and was told that they had no knowledge of the incident. When I questioned Ms. Buchanan about this she said that the parents did not speak English (although I did speak with the father on the phone) and that she had thought they were coming in with an interpreter the afternoon of the incident for a conference, so she was planning to talk to them then. However, she later realized that the parents who came in were another child's parents and by that time she had decided that "nothing had really occurred" so she decided not to call the other parents.My concerns about this incident are: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Since this type of behavior (sharing stalls & playing in the restroom) is typical of six-year olds the fact that they were questioned at all seems ridiculous. Sin
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.