Ish Elementary was open from 1965 to 1993.
1 S r. A a 1 2 3 4 5 b VAI't MRi WALKER. THE COURT I know, when I 6 V 7 8 6 Yes, ma'am. -7 that has not been addressed. As you permitted the district to.survey.the students. suggested that OJ 10 J / 11 F.i t ( .* !. 8.1 ' 81 91 OS SS es AS iJS IZ !? I & ? f 13 14 IB 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2B I,, as an incentive,.they might offer some of these benefits that are offered to incentive .school as get the kids to go to Ish. an ,incenti,ve to I have not in any wayiruled with
respectto that motion, however, and I had assumed that the>incentive school of one thing and that the interdistrict magnet is another with.' respect to this 1 can t the magnet program called? remembe r. but I some MS. BROWN. THE COURT. remember what it's called. High Intensity learning. High intensity learning. But, in any event, I What is I couldn't will be addressing that later, did not intend to address it today. preliminary questions about King. MR. WALKER. the COURT. although 1 do have Al 1 right, your Honor. And with respect to scholarships. I know Mr. Walker keeps reminding the Court that we have not ruled.on schoIarshi ps. The scholarship issue is a in terms of how to real ly hard one:fori me administer the schoI arships, and also, as I recall, the Plan does not commit the Litt la.Kock Oistrict to scholarships absolutely. to discuss it. MR. WALKER. but commi ts That's the district in good-faith where we differ, -That's why we )LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS 1990-91 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 3 SCHOOL: ISH ELEMENTARY 1988 READING 1989 1990 1991 1988 MATHEMATICS 1989 1990 1991 ALL STUDENTS No. Tested No. Passed Percent Passed BLACK MALES No. Passed Percent Passed BLACK FEMALES No. Passed Percent Passed 17 13 76 75 83 28 26 93 12 92 11 92 27 25 93 10 91 15 94 16 12 75 67 80 17 16 94 88 100 28 28 100 13 100 12 100 27 24 89 11 100 13 81 16 12 75 67 80 6 5 A 8 7 6 4 8 WHITE MALES No. Passed 0 2 3 0 3 3 0 0 Percent Passed 100 100 100 WHITE FEMALES No. Passed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Passed OTHER MALES No. Passed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Passed OTHER FEMALES No. Passed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Passed * Total of all students in the "Other -- race category. These scores were not reported by gender.SCHOOL: ISH ELEMENTARY 19..88 ! READING 19 8^ 1990 199 1 T 1989 No. Tested No. Passed 24 23 24 17 12 10 13 11 24 23 Perc.en^P^ss^______2^-___ 71 83 85 96 BL.ACK MALES i:o. Passed 11 6 4 7 11 Percij t Passed 100. SO. 100. I mn. BLACK FEMALES No. Passed 7 7 6 3 7 711ent Passed WHITE HALES Ho. Passed Percent Passed __
WHITE FEMALES No. Passed Percent passed OTHER MALES No. Ptissed _a8. 70 100 0. 88 2 2 0 0 2 100 3 100 0 Percent Passed____ OTHER FEMALES No. Passed 0 Percent Passed ______ Total cf 0.1a 50 2 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 3 100 0 0 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS 1990-91 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUIdMARY GRADE 6 MATHEMATICS 1989 24 19 79 1 AB. 8 80 2 50 2 100 0 0 1990 1991 1988 LANGUAGE ARTS 1989 1990 1991 I 1988 SCIENCE 1989 1990 1991 ----------SO^AL STUDIES 1988 1969 1990 1991 12 10 83 4 AJ. 6 100 0 0 0 0 13 11 85 7 100 3 60 0 0 0 0 24 13 54 4 36 5 63 1 100 2 67 0 0 24 17 12 10 13 11 24 13 24 15 12 10 13 12 24 10 24 12 12 10 13 10 71 1 88 6 60 2 50 2 100 0 0 83 4 67 6 100 0 0 0 0 85 7 100 3 60 0 0 0 0 .. 54 6 55 4 50 1 50 2 67 0 0 63 83 92 42 77 6 4 7 6 4 4 6 75 5 50 2 50 2 100 0 0 67 6 100 0 0 0 0 100 4 80 0 0 0 0 55 2 25 2 100 0 0 0 50 5 50 1 25 2 100 0 0 67 6 100 0 0 0 0 86 1 3 60 I 0 0 0 0 1 I I students in the "Othei-" race category. vcK not reportocI by gender.I 'I I 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL : GRADE: ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL 1 WHITE FEMALE Percentile Summary so 26 01 99 75 49 25 Number Tested Mean Nat'1 NCE WHITE MALE Percentile Summary 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25 Number Tested Mean Nat * 1 NCE ALL WHITE Percentile Summary 76 5 0 26 01 99 75 49 25 Number Tested Mean Nat'1 NCE 1991 MAT-6 Distribution #46481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 788 TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N % N N X N " Z N X N X N 1 0 0 0 1 67.7 1 OOX OX OX OX 1 o' 0 0 1 93.3 TOTAL READING N X 0 0 1 0 1 36.5 ox ox 1 OOX ox TOTAL READING N X 1 0 1 0 SOX bx SOX OX 2 52.1 1 OOX ox ox OX 1 0 0 0 1 65.6 TOTAL MATHEMATICS N X 0 1 0 0 1 55.3 ox 1 OOX ox ox TOTAL MATHEMATICS N X 1 1 0 0 SOX SOX OX OX 2 74.3 1 O^OX bx ox ox 1 0 0 0 1 73.7 TOTAL LANGUAGE N X 0 0 0 1 1 26.3 OX OX OX 1 OOX TOTAL LANGUAGE N* X 1 b 0 1 50X bx OX sox 2 46.0 100X_ OX OX OX BASIC BATTERY N 0 0 1 0 1 40.1 ox ox 1 OOX ox BASIC BATTERY N X 1 0 1 0 5 OX OX Qy. 2 56.9 0 1 0 0 1 50.0 OX 1 OOX ox ox 0 0 1 0 1 48.9 SCIENCE N X 0 0 0 1 1 27.2 OX OX OX 1 OOX SCIENCE N 0 1 0 1 ox sox ox sox 2 38.6 OX OX 1 OOX OX 1 0 0 0 1 74.7 SOCIAL STUDIES N X 0 0 0 1 1 31 . 5 ox ox ox 1 OOX SOCIAL STUDIES N X 0 0 1 1 ay. ox sox sox 2 40.2 1 OOX ox ox ox COMPLETE BATTERY N 0 0 0 1 1 35.8 OX OX OX 1 OOX COMPLETE BATTERY N 1 0 0 1 SOX ox ox sox 2 55.3 h- I- i I1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PACE 789 I SCHOOL: GRADE: ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL 1 BLACK FEMALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Sunnery .....76 50 - 26 ' 01 75 49 5 Number Tested N X N X N X N X N X N X N 1 10X 2 2 5 1 0 ___flean NatU.llCE_________43.0 BLACK MALE Percentile Summary 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 -5_ Number Tested Mean Nat'1 NCE ALL BLACK Percent lie Summary ___76 -.59. 50 26 01 75 49 25_____ Number Tested 20X 20X SOX 4 1 0 5 40X 1 OX ox sox 2 2 2 4 20X 20X 20X 4 OX 3 0 3 4 30X OX 30X 40X 1 0 2 6 1 1X OX 22X 67X 2 0 3 20X OX 3 OX SOX 3 0 3 3 33X OX 33X 33X TOTAL READING N X 1 0 45.7 1 0 43.9 1 0 43.8 9 27.7 1 0 36.2 9 39.4 TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N X N X N X N N X 1 2 4 1 0 6X 12X 24X 59X 2 5 3 7 12X 29X 18X 41X 1 3 2 12 67, \77 1 1 X 677 1 2 6 8 6X 12X 35X 47X 1 4 4 9 6X 22X 22X SOX 2 3 3 1 0 1 IX 17X 1 7X 367. 1 3 5 8 6X 1 QX 29X 47X 17 35.6 17 37.4 1 8 34.6 17 35.1 1 8 35.5 1 8 34.3 1 7 33.0 TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N X N X N X N N X N 4 6 1 5 15X 22X 56X_ .6_^ 6 3 12 22X 22X 1 IX 44X 3 5' 4 1 6 .11X isx 1 4X 57X 4 2 9 12 1 5X 7X 33X 44X 2 4 6 15 7X 15X eax 56X 4 3 6 15 1 4X 1 IX 21 X 54X 4 3 8 1 1 ISX 1 2X 31 X 4ex 27 MeaQ-Nat_Ll_lCE________3ft.^___ 27 4Q..4______ 28 37.9 27 38.2 27 .32.7 28 35.0 Z6 35.31 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1991 MAT-6 Distribution J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 790 I I SCHOOL
GRADE: ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL 1 ALL STUDENTS Percent i1 Sumnary TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N X N X N X N X N N 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25 3 4 7 .15 1 OX 1 4X 24X 52X _7 7 3 12 24X _ e4X 1 OX 41X___ 4 5 4 17 13X 17X 13X 57X 5 _ 17X 2 1 0 1 2 7X 34X 41X 2 5 6 1 6 7X 1 7X 21X 55X 4 3 7 1 6 13X 1 OX 23X 53X 5 3 8 1 2 187. 1 1 X 297. 43X Nuaber Tested 29 ___Mean NattL NCE_________23 , Z 29 ..42 ,.6 30 38.4 29 ____ 39.5_____ 29 33.1 30 35.3 28 36.6 p- r j--------- I I I I1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution #J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PACE 791 SCHOOL: GRADE: ISH'INCENTIVE SCHOOL 2 UNITE FEMALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL....... LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY Percentile Suaiary SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES N X N COMPLETE BATTERY % N X N X N X .of 1 76 5 o' 26 01 99 75 49 25 N X Number Tested Mean Nat^lNCE ALL WHITE I 2 I 0 0 1 56.4 Percentlie Summary' 76 50 26 01 99 7S 49 25 Number Tested Mean Nat'1 NCE BLACK FEMALE Percent Ue Nummary 76 50 01 99 75 49 25 Number Tested Mean Nat * 1 NCE OX 1 OOX OX OX N TOTAL READING N X 0 T 0 0 1 56.4 0 0 1 0 1 47.9 OX 1 OOX OX OX TOTAL READING N X t 0 3 2 17X OX SOX 33X 6 45.9 OX OX 1 OOX OX 0 i 0 0 1 62.3 TOTAL MATHEMATICS N X 0 0 1 0 1 47.9 OX 1 OOX OX OX 0 1 0 0 1 56.4 TOTAL LANGUAGE N X OX 1 OOX OX OX 0 0 1 0 1 49.5 BASIC BATTERY N X ox ox 1 OOX ox 0 0 1 0 1 46.8 SCIENCE N X ox ox 1 OOX ox 0 1 0 0 1 55.9 SOCIAL STUDIES N X OX 1 OOX OX OX COMPLETE BATTERY N X OX OX 1 OOX OX 0 1 0 0 1 62.3 TOTAL MATHEMATICS N X 1 2 1 2 17X 33X 17X 33X 6 47.7 OX 1 OOX OX OX 0 1 0 0 1 56.4 TOTAL LANGUAGE N X ox 1 OOX ox ox 0 0 1 0 1 49.5 BASIC BATTERY N X OX OX 1 OOX OX 0 0 1 0 1 46.8 SCIENCE N OX OX 1 OOX OX 0 1 0 0 1 55.9 SOCIAL STUDIES N X ox 1 OOX ox ox COMPLETE BATTERY N 2 0 0 4 33X ox OX 67X 1 i 2 2 17X i7X 33X 33X 0 2 2 2 OX 33X 33X 33X 2 1 1 2 33X 17X 1 7X 33X 1 1 2 2 1 7X 17X 33X 33X 6 39.1 6 44.7 6 _____42.2 6 47.7 6 43.5 . )I I It/ It*: {'I 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: GRADE: iSH INCENTIVE SCHOOL 2 ALL STUDENTS TOTAL reading 1 991 TOTAL MATHEMATICS MAT-6 Distribution #J6481 M6BYSC I 0/07/9 I PAGE 793 Percentile Su n n e r y 50 26 75 49 -O t^ -_ S .. Number Tested Mean Nat:i_MCE. N Z N Z ------------------ ---------------3___.16J!_ 6 3EZ 7 6 32Z 6 3EZ 32Z 4____1Z___ 1 9 -4a.a. 37X 32X 19 -52 . i TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES N N N Z N COMPLETE BATTERY N z 5 5 7 6X 377, 7 6 3 16Z... 37X 32X 16X . _1 6 8 4 5X 32X 42X 2tX 1 h 3 3 37X 32X 1 6X 1 6X 3 6 7 3 t 9 42.9 1 6X 32X 37X 1 6X 1 9 ... 49.0 1 9 46.8 1 9 53.2 1 9 48.9 I ( J N 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Di st ribut Ion J648I M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 792 SCHOOL: GRADE: ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL 2 BLACK MALE L i TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Suamery N X N X N X N X N X N X N X I IO 50 26 75 49 B____17X I" i' Q1 _r..25__. 5 3 2 42X 25 X 17X 2 5 4 1 17X 0 OX 42X 33X 8X 4 5 3 33X 42X 25X 2 5 4 1 17X 42X 33X 8X 1 4 5 2 8X 33X 42X 17X 5 5 1 1 42X 42X 8X 8X 2 4 5 1 1 I 7. 337 42X 8X P <0 I -S I7wr- I. rw, Nunber Tested Mean . NAt_Ll_NCE. 12 .49.6, - 12 _54.1. 12 -.._43.2 .. 12 50.5 1 2 ____48.8 12 56.4 12 51 . 1 ALL BLACK TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percent lie Sumaary 50 26 ..-01 75 49 25, Nunber Tested Mean .Nat/,l._NC_E__ N X N X N N X N X N X N 3 5 6 _4 18 48 r4 17X 28X 33X eex. 3 7 5 3 18 52.5 17X 39X 28X -L7X______ 2 4 5 7 1 8 41 . B 11X 22X 28X ....39X 3 6 6 17X 33X 33X 3____17X 18 48.6 1 6 7 4 6X 33X 39X 22 X 7 6 2 3 337. 337, 1 IX 17X 3 5 1 3 17X 28X 39X 17X 1 8 46.6 18 53.5 18 48.6 1 : I I1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution J&481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 794 SCHOOL: GRADE: ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL 3 BLACK FEMALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY 1^2 ^1 I Percentile Sunnary 76 so' 26 01 99 75 ZS Number Tested Mean Nat * 1 NCE BLACK MALE Percentile Sumaary 76 SO 26 01 99 75 49 as Number Tested Mean Nat * 1 NCE ALL BLACK N 0 a 5 3 1 0 39.a X N N X N X N X N X N Percentlle Sumaary 40 41 I I* so 26 0 1 99 75 49 as Number Tested Mean Nat * 1 NCE OX 2 OX SOX 30X 3 5 0 20X 36x SOX OX a 5 2 1 aox sox aox 1 ox 0 5 3 a ox sox 30X aox 0 3 3 4 OX 30X 30X 40X 0 4 2 4 OX 4 OX aox 4 OX 0 4 4 2 ox 40X 40X aox 1 0 52.1 1 0 57.8 1 0 47.0 1 0 41.5 1 0 41 . 4 1 0 45.1 TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY I !! N X N X N X N X N X N X N 1 _ 0 0 3 3 OX OX SOX SOX __a__ 0 1 3 33X OX 17X SOX 1 1 1 3 17X 17X 17X SOX 0 2 0 4 OX 33X OX 67X 0 a 3 1 OX 33X SOX 17X 1 1 2 2 1 7X 1 7X 33X 33X 0 2 1 3 OX 33X 17X SOX 6 32.8 6 47.7 6 45.2 6 38.9 6 42.5 6 46.4 6 39.5 TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N 0 a 8 6 1 6 36.8 X N X N X N X N X N N X OX i3X SOX 38X 4 3 6 3 25X 1 9X 38X 1 9X 3 '6 3 4 19X 38X 1 9X asx 0 7 3 6 OX 44X 1 9X 38X 0 5 6 5 OX 31 X 38X 31 X 1 5 4 6 6X 31X 25X 38X 0 6 5 5 OX 38X 31 X 31 X i. i 16 50.5 1 6 53.1 1 6 44.0 16 41 .9 1 6 43.3 1 6 43.0 I 1 J
I j W i1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution ttJ6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 795 I I SCHOOL: GRADE: ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL 3 ALL STUDENTS ft--- I t r I Percentile Suweary .7^.^ SO - 26 - 01 - -sa 75 49 25 Number Tested Mean NatM.JiCE. TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N 0 S 8 6 1 6 -36 X N X N X N X N X N N X _ QX 13X 50% 38X 4 3 6 3 25X 1 9X 3QX 19X 3 6 3 4 19X 38X 19X 25X 0 7 3 OX 44X 1 9X 38X 0 5 6 5 OX 31X 38X 31 X 1 5 4 6 6X 31 X esx 38X 0 6 5 5 OX 38X 31 X 31X 1 6 50 ._5 1 6 53.1 1 6 44.0 1 6 41 . 9 1 6 43.3 1 6 43.0 I I1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution #J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 796 SCHOOL: GRADE: ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL 4 WHITE FEMALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Sumaery N X N X N X N X N X N N X 50 26 01 75 49 25 _ _____OX 0 0 .1 OX OX 1 OOX ._._L_____OX, 0 0 OX OX 1-. 1 QOX._. 0 0 0 1 OX OX OX 1 OOX 0 . OX 0 0 1 OX OX 1 OOX 0 0 0 1 OX OX OX 1 OOX 0 0 1 0 OX OX 1 OOX OX 0 0 0 1 OX OX ox 1 OOX J -i r Numbe Tested 1 __ Mean MatM.NCE________2.1.8. 1 1 ALL WHITE TOTAL READING ___21.. 8 _ TOTAL MATHEMATICS 1 1 29.9 ____20.4 85.3 1 1 38.3 83.0 I Percentile Summary N X N X 76 t_99____ 50 26 75 49 0 0 0 OX OX OX _01 .T. 25____ 0 0 0 . . 1. - lOOX .OX_____ OX OX . .1 _ 100X _ -! . . Number Tested Mean Natll. MCE__ BLACK FEMALE Percentile Sunaary 50 26 75 49 ___0125_____ Number Tested Hean ,MatM. NCE 1 21 .8 TOTAL READING N X 1 21^8 TOTAL MATHEMATICS N X i___ TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N N X N N N 1. 4 5 _7X___ 27X 33X 5 ......33X._. 15 ^4.2.____ ____4____2.7X_____ 6 2 4 OX 13X _ . 3.__ 20X_ 15 ________55^4 0 0 0 1 1 29.9 OX OX OX 1 OOX 0 0 0 , -_1 OX OX OX lOOX 0 0 0 1 OX ox OX 1 OOX 0 0 1 0 OX OX 1 OOX OX 0 0 0 1 OX OX OX 1 OOX 1 1 20.4 25.3 1 1 38.3 23.0 TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N N N X N X . .3 .... 20X 5 5 2 33X 33X 13X 3 3 7 2 20X 20X 47X 13X 2 4 5 4 13X 27X 33X 27X 3 4 4 4 20X 27X 27X 27X 3 3 7 2 2 OX 20X 47X 1 3X 15 53..0 . 15 49.6____ 1 5 _____45.3 15 47.8 1 5 48.81 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution J6481 M6BYSC 1 0/07/91 PAGE 797 I I 0 jU SCHOOL: GRADE ISH iNCENTIVE SCHOOL 4 BLACK MALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Sumaary N ' X N N X N X N X N N 76 50 ze 01 99 75 49 25 0 3 3 4 OX 30X 30X 40X 4 4 2 0 40X 40X 20X OX 0 4 4 2 OX 4 OX 40X 20X 0 5 3 2 OX '5 OX 30X 20X 2 ' 2 3 3 20X 20X 30X 30X 3 2 2 3 3 OX 2 OX 20X 3 OX 2 2 4 2 20X BOX 40X 20X NuBber Tested Mean Nat'l NCE 1 0 41.7 10 62.7 1 0 44.3 1 0 48.2 1 0 47.1 1 0 51 . 2 1 0 48.4 ALL BLACK TOTAL READING TOTAL' MATHEMATICS TOTAL--------- LANGUAGE BASIC .... BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY i- Percent lie Suaaary 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25 Nuabe Tested Mean Nat * 1 NCE N 1 7 8 3 25 43.2 X N X N N X N N X N
I 4X 28X 32X 36X 8 32X 10 4 OX 4 3 16X 12X 3 9 9 4 yzx 36X 36X 16X 3 8 1 0 4 1 2X 32X 40X 1 6X 4 e 8 1 1SX 24X 32X 28X 6 6 6 7 24X 24X 24X 28X 5 5 1 1 4 20X 20X 44X 16X ^'1 25 58.3 25 49.5 25 49.1 25 46.0 25 49 . 1 25 48.6 3 7-]1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Oi st ri but ion #J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 798 I i.... SCHOOL: GRADE: ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL 4 ALL STUDENTS TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Sunnery ____76_.r_99., 50 26 ____01 75 49 25. Number Tested Mean Nat?X_NCE________ N X N X N X N X N X N N X .._1 7 8 10 26 -4X 27X 31 X 38X .8 . _.31X_, 1 0 4 4 38X 1 5X 15X 3 9 9 5 12X 35X 35X 19X 3,_12X 8 1 0 5 31X 38X 1 9X A h 8 8 I5X 23X 31X 31 X 6 6 7 7 23X e3X Z17. 5 5 1 1 5 1 9% 1 9X 42X 1 9X 26 56.9 ____ Zb 48.8 Zb 48.0 26 45.2. 26 48.7 26 47.6
I I 1 1 I I 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: GRADE: ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL 5 WHITE MALE TOTAL READING 1 991 TOTAL MATHEMATICS MAT-6 Distribution TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE 1tJ6481 MSBTSC 10/07/91 PAGE 799 Percentile Sunaery 76 99 50 26 01 75 49 : 25_ Nuaber Tested N X N X N X N X N X SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X -0 0 1 ,0 N 1 Mean Net* I .NCE________47.4 ALL WHITE Percentile Sunnary 76 50 26 99 75 49 Nuaber Tested _____n Nat^l NCE_ BLACK FEMALE Percentile Sunnary Th..- 93.___ 50 26 75 49 .-QI - 25_____ Number Tested Mean NaiM KCE. OX ox 1 OOX . OX -J 0 0 _100X _ ox ox _0_ OX . 0. 1 0 0 . OX 1 OOX OX OX 0 1 0 0 ox 1 OOX OX OX 1 0 0 0 1 oox OX ox ox 1 0 0 0 1 OOX OX 07. 07 0 1 0 0 X OX 1 OOX OX OX 1 _^7,vQ____ 1 58.1______ 1 S6.4_________ 1 78.2 1 82.7 1 64.2 TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES N X N X N N X N X N X COMPLETE BATTERY 0 0 1 a. N 1 .47.4 OX ox 1 OOX OX. TOTAL READING N X ~ Q_____OX 1 2 1 4 1 -100X_ 0 0 1 67.0 25 X BOX .25X__ OX OX .OX 0 i 0 . 0 1 52. 1 TOTAL MATHEMATICS N X -1____25X 1 1 25X 25X 1 .__25X 4 ____48. OX 1 OOX OX OX 0 1 0 0 1 56.4 TOTAL LANGUAGE N X ox 1 OOX ox ox_ _ BASIC BATTERY N X 1 0 0 0 1 78.2 1 oox ox ox ox 1 0 0 0 1 82.7 SCIENCE N X 1 OOX OX ox ox 0 1 0 0 1 64.2 SOCIAL STUDIES N X OX 1 OOX ox OX COMPLETE BATTERY N X 1 0 1 . 2 25X ox 25X BOX 0 1 1 2 ox___ 25X asx BOX 0 0 4 0 ox ox 1 oox ox 0 0 1 3 OX ox 25X 75X 0 1 2 OX 25X 25X BOX 4 4 42,2 . 4 ____ 45,7____ 4 33.3 4 40.6 L I'i r IN I .,1t LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT6 Distribution *J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PACE 800 I i
i------ t J I I I r SCHOOL: GRADE: ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL 5 BLACK MALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Summary 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25 Number Tested Mean Nat * 1 NCE ALL BLACK Percent 1le Summary Th 33 SO - 75 26 01 49 25 Number Tested Mean Nat'I NCE N Z N Z N N Z N N Z N J 1 '! I r I r 1 4 1 1 14Z 57 Z 1 4Z 14Z 4 2 0 1 57Z 29Z OZ 1 4Z 2 2 1 2 E9Z 29Z 14Z 29Z 3 2 1 1 43Z 29Z' 1 4Z 1 4Z 1 4 2 0 1 4Z 57Z 29Z OZ 2 1 3 1 29Z 1 4Z 43Z 1 4Z 2 3 1 1 29Z 43Z 1 4Z 14Z 7 53.2 TOTAL READING N Z 7 65. t 7 49.7 7 56.9 7 53.5 7 52.5 7 55.7 TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N Z N Z N Z N Z N N Z 1 5 3 2 3% 45Z 27Z 18Z 5 45Z 3 27X 1 2 9Z 1 8Z 3 2 Z 4 37% 18Z 18Z 36Z 3 3 2 3 7Z 27Z 18Z 27Z 1 4 6 0 9Z 36Z 55Z OZ 2 1 4 4 1 8Z 9Z 36Z 36Z 2 4 2 3 18Z 36Z 18Z 27 Z 1 1 48.7 1 1 59.0 1 1 45.4 11 51 . 6 1 1 50.7 11 45.5 1 1 50.2 t I1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 801 4- 4 i SCHOOL: GRADE: ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL 5 ALL STUDENTS TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Summary 76 -_-99___ 50 26 01 75 A3 25 Number Tested Mean Natil.NCE. N X N X N X N X N X N X N 7. .1 J------ I t- J.------- | k ! 1, 5 4 2 1 2 J8.6 ____8X,. 42X 33X 17X .6 1 2 SOX 25X 8X J7X 3 3 2 4 25X 25X 17X 33X 3 4 2 3 25X 33X 1 7X 25X 2 4 6 0 17X 33X SOX OX 3 1 4 4 25X 8X 33X 33X 2 5 2 3 1 7X 42X 17X 25 X 12 _____52.6 1 2 46,0 12 ____52.0 1 2 53.0 12 46.6 1 2 51 .4 i- ' i i i 3I 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution *J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 802 I SCHOOL: GRADE: ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL 6 f, i: I hr r i.^ i r^' BLACK FEMALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Summary 50 26 pl 75 49 25 Number Tested N N X N X N X N N X N _ 2- 0 1 2 40X OX 20X 40X __e___4ox____ 1 0 2 20X OX 40X 2 1 2 0 _ 40X____ BOX 40X OX 2 1 0 2 40X 2CX OX 40X 2 0 1 2 40X OX BOX 40X 2 0 1 2 40X OX BOX 40X 2 1 0 2 40X BOX OX 4 OX 5 Mean Nat ' L,NCE...............44.2. 5 _______58.2..._ 5 58.7 5 52.6______ 5 44.8 5 47.2 5 50.8 BLACK MALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Summary 50 26 75 49 01 - .25 Number Tested Mean Nat'l. NCE ALL BLACK Percentile Summary N X N X N X N X N X N N X 76 50 26 99 75 49 Ol.r e5_. Number Tested Mean NatlI^NCE 0 4 1 OX 57X 14X 1_____t 4X 2 4 29X 57X 2 .._ -29X 0 OX 1 B 4 .0 14X e9X 317. OX 0 5 2 0 OX 71 X 89X OX 3 3 1 0 43X 43X 14X OX 1 4 2 0 1 4X 57X 29X OX 1 4 a 0 1 4X 57X 29X OX 7 49.2 7 53,5 7 49.9 7 50.7 1 3h . 8 1 33.1 7 53.1 TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N X N X N X N X N X N X 2 4 2 4 .. 17X____ 33X 17X 33X . 3 _ .25X 3 4 25X 33X 2 -_.17X ._3__25X 3 6 _ 0 25X SOX OX 2 6 2 2 17X SOX 1 7X 1 5 3 2 2 42X 25X 1 7X 17X 3 4 3 2 25X 33X 25X 1 7X 3 5 2 2 25X 42X 117 117. 12 J7^1._ IB ________55.5. 12 ____53.5____ 12 51 .5 12 51.8 12 53.5 1 2 52. 1 .t i I ' I1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1991 MAT-6 Distribution J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 803 ! I r I 'i [ I I ) I SCHOOL: GRADE: ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL 6 ALL STUDENTS TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Sumaary 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25 Nuaber Tested Mean Nat*1 NCE I--------- 1- I I. N X N % N X N X N X N N X 2 4' 2 4 17X 33 X 17X 33X 3 3 4 2 asx asx 33X 17X 3 3 6 0 25X 25X SOX 2 17X SOX 17X 17X 5 3 a a 42X 25X 17X 1 7X 3 4 3 2 asx 33X asx 1 7X 3 5 Z 2 25X 42X 17X 17X 12 47.1 12 55.5 12 53.5 12 S1 .5 12 51.8 12 53.5 1 2 52.1TO : Mr. Stan Strauss Principal, Ish Incentive School FROM: Ms. Sandra Thomas Members Present: President, Ish Incentive School PTA ~~ and PTA Members Present on 3/9/93 DATE : March 12, 1993 RE: Concerns of Parents/Patrons At concerns the last PTA meeting, held March 9, 1993, Issues and were raised by members present, not only their concerns, but also concerns expressed by many parents not present. The by following is a list of these present. concerns . 1 . Second Grade Students Formerly Taught by Mr. Ellis Many parents "passed out" and there or lack thereof. feel that the second 9-weeks grades were is no Indication of advancement We want a special meeting with you, the new teacher. the appropriate district administrator, parents of these students to discuss the present classroom situation and the grading procedure. and the 2 . Extended Day There Is concern for what occurs It is our primarily for understanding that this during Extended Day. the extension program 3 . either as of classroom a tutorial or for accelerated learning. provides academics, At the December PTA meeting you stated that Extended Day would was being Implemented to foster "higher level thinking". writing. However, arithmetic) we want learned children need extension of what we want to take place. the first. basis And (reading. if our classroom learning, that is We want to be assured that the classroom coordinates each child's Extended Day activities. acknowledge and desire leisure children but not in lieu of academics. activities teacher for We our Music Instruction The number of children who are participating in choral music has diminished significantly.The children are expressing that the music presented is not interesting or relevant to their experiences. Why are these children expected to sing along with recorded music played on a low quality system? Why is there not a musician on staff available for these students? We want a meeting with you. the music teacher, and the appropriate district administrator to discuss this situation. 4 . Building Maintenance Restroom facilities for boys and girls were observed during the meeting time, earlier on the meeting date. and numerous other times 3 . found to be unsatisfactory during this school and paper towels, flushed clean floors toilets : soap dispensers environment) . toilets ( {especially around obviously over (bar soap is not lacking warm after school the base a long period of year and water, hours), 0 f the time), and satisfactory in this The bathrooms were also odorous. want these deficiencies corrected) During the PTA meeting roaches were We observed abundantly around the base of the water fountain in the cafeteria. during spring break. We want this building exterminated Water fountains were found to not be running continuously, or to have very low pressure. We recommend all fountain sites. that cups and dispensers working, be Installed at Classrooms are not being cleaned after school ends (trash emptied, bathrooms cleaned, floors mopped and waxed on a routine basis). perform these tasks. haven to situation. only as well. We We have personnel hired to our We chi 1dren want them want this building regardless of to experience in a warm supportive environment, Campus Facilities There area 1 s for no playground equipment or to be their a home learning not but a clean one Pre-K students. What designated play forthcoming to alleviate this situation provi sions are as spring will be here shortly and these children will spend more time out of doors? Non-students are utilizing grounds during school hours or otherwise loitering on the and non-parent.s utilizingcampus . We want this stopped IMMED I ATE LY. We want the grounds properly maintained during this season . These are some very specific concerns that we have about the overall operation and administration of this institution. As this is an Incentive School, we feel compelled to bring this next item to your attention, as it has been brought to our attention. During Mrs . Redwood's Black History program. Mr . Ford, a grasp singing new teacher in this school, was observed choosing not to the hands of the children standing around him during the of "We Shall Overcome" and "Reach Out and Somebody's Hand when all other members of the audience Touch did so . We were told that he ultimately "slipped out" of the assembly. THIS IS A PROBLEM. Mr. Strauss, we do not want you to feel that the PTA is not proactive. We want you to know that we want this school to be the best that is can be and we are willing to help. However, it has been expressed that if a parent comes to or a problem his/her child may soon come home you with a concern with a Behavior Document. THIS IS A PROBLEM. In keeping with our time day to inform you that the PTA proactive stance, we want to take this has scheduled a campus clean up for April 3, 1993 from 9a,ra. to support in this clean up effort and 4p.m. your We solicit attention to concerns detailed above. March 24, 1993. We anticipate a written response your the by cc : Ms. Janet Bernard Ms. Arma Hart Ms. Gill South Little Rock Community Development Corp.received June 6,1993 JUN 7 '993 Honorable Susan Webber Judge of the United States District Court Federal Building 600 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72202 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dear Judge Webber
As stated, in the December 12,1990 order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, submitted September 4,1991, and filed November 14,1991, that there should be no retreat from the elements of the 1989 plan, better known as the Desegregation Plan. The elements related to the incentive schools are as follows: " (J) Double funding for students attending the incentive (virtually all-black) schools
.., (5) the agreed effort to eliminate achievement disparity between the races
(g) the agreed elements of early childhood education
at least in the incentive schools
and (?) appropriate involvement of parents." Because the district administration has not effectively monitored and/or implemented the strategies and timelines to assure that the objectives of the plan were attained, the objectives have not been met and thus our children have not been granted the opportunities afforded them under the plan. Further, because the Little Rock School District administratoKof Ish Incentive School have failed to live up to the quality and spirit of the orders, of the District Courts, which are established to assure access to an equitable, quality education in an environment conducive to the elimination of achievement disparity between the races, we appeal to this Court to deny approval of the proposal assignment zones for the new King school which includes the present assignment zones of the Ish Incentive School. The ineptness, insensitivity and lack of commitment of the assigned Building Administrator is reflected in:S. Facen to Judge Webber - page 2 1. The presence of an ineffectively administered school facility: (the building not maintained in a clean and sanitary manner. 2. The grounds never being fully cut, trimmed or cleaned, even though parents have brought this to the attention of the principal
and parents have volunteered to assist in cleaning the grounds
on one occasion parents cleaned the grounds with no assistance from any staff member. 3. The repair of the building roof at a large cost during this current school year, only to have the roof continue leaking. 4. The building remaining unsecured for about five weeks even though this was brought to the attention of the principal. 5. School being infested with roaches, both around drinking fountains and in the classrooms for a period to exceed at least three months after being brought to the principals attention by teachers and parents. 6. Unsightly appearance around cafeteria door for the entire period of this school year even though it has been brought to the attention of the principal. 7. The drainage ditch on the south side of the building, cleaned recently for the first time since 1991, even though it was brought to the principals attention
with emphasis on the adjoining fence line which is weed covered and together create hazards to our children from mosquito and other insect bites. 8. Grounds never cleaned of glass and other hazardous items, until April 3,1993 when parents performed the tasks, but designated as play area for four year olds. These deficiencies could reflect the need for more custodial staff
however, our observations are that these inefficiencies are tolerated. The neighborhood is willing to assist when needed, but not used. 9. The disrespect and insensitivity shown the neighborhood and parents whose desire it is to be accepted as equal partners in the education of our children. 10. Failure to provide funds to teachers so that curriculum can be effectively implemented. 11. Failure to provide leadership which encourages and/or enhances effective and quality cooperation between and among parents and teachers. 12. Failure to make a commitment to an effective curriculum and/or environment that supports and encourages the celebration of ethnic and cultural diversity. 13. Failure to assure that staffing provides the children cultural identity of persons in leadership.S. Facen to Judge Webber - page 3 Examples
Except Environmental Education Specialist, who occassionally acts as the assistant principal, every person in the building who interacts with every student is white. The Media Specialist The Media Clerk The Computer Lab Tech The Art teacher The Music teacher The Principal The Nurse The Physical Education teacher Others who do at one time or another interact with every student are: Counselor Speech teacher In one class room both the teacher and the instructional aide are white male. Every menial employee task is Black. The result is these children always see white people as the people in charge when there is cooperation between the classroom teacher and the specialist. And all the unskilled tasks are performed by Black people. Although there are many negatives in this building the community is committed to appropriate involvement to maximize the opportunities made accessible to our children. When the school is allowed to remain at its present location
and the inclusion of the Ish zones are disallowed in the proposed zones for King, we will be the recipients of: 1. time for the full implementation of the advantages granted our children under Court order
2. a process by which the busing experience is minimized
S. Facen to Judge Webber - page 4 3. The elimination of a hardship on parents - transportation out of the neighborhood, an objective originally expressed in the Little Rock School Districts suit
4. Accessibility to a gifted and talented program
5. adequately and sensibly ^^jlaftdod funds for meeting recurring and special needs of the children 6. maximum advantages of smaller class sizes 7. a quality before and after school care program 8. a full-time counselor 9. School nurse 10. Certified auxiliary teachers. 11. Instructional aides 12. Supervision aides 13. Special interest clubs 14. an environmental curriculum These things will assure our children of all the advantages and opportunities for eliminating the achievement disparities between the races. It would be a miscarriage of justice for this Court to change the course set forth in the guidelines of the order of the Eighth Circuit Court regarding the Incentive schools, particularly Ish. The time and energies expended in putting forth the plan certainly justifies assuring that the spirit and the letter of the order is attained toS. Facen to Judge Webber - page 5 assure that opportunities are granted our children. Further, we appeal to this Court to acknowledge and give credence to the expressed needs and concerns of the community, which will give support to previous expressions of the Federal District and Appeals Court. All for the sake of the children. Sincerely yours, Sarah Facen I cc: Mac Bernd, Little Rock District Superintendent President - Little Rock School District Board of Directors Ann Brown, Desegration Monitor, Little Rock School District ,undersigned residents of the Southend of Little Rock and supporters of Little Rock Public Schools desire the continuance of public school The education within Ish Incentive School at its' current location. With consideration This request is supported by the attached narrative, to our expressed concerns (see attached), we are confident that this (see attached), we school can be among the best in the district. NOME ftDDRESS PHONE # .Li^i VAa.... i' i r i /.I \ ! in.! hi - lA. h. ..Ai--------- <r L'l-___ L /'! y.:' A'A 3 y - OlyL>0 31jm-. '1V3. ^3 rr y : y,' " I ' ( I i .A.'7' 5 / L i 2- 1 < ] U17.' ., 1 V
.>< ' I Xd. } , t-v r ,33 /S^iXLy < ,1 i>7i, 7 1 J- 7 '3.c'33 -r-r f '7 ro S.1 ()ja'j yL- _____________ '^.ce/iahi 7)3(1^ ^4
"XTT- J. -'' A LjkXLr er 7 ' 7' rUL 7' :jaci-3. f :isr/ 'J- a Lil yo. ^R.y^72$' I 'r / ,^jLr 1 '2> <1 C>73 (3>-.-<!1-^1.^_______ 377/7yy? S ']^-<^773 373i-ZTl^ 31The undersigned residents of the Southend of Little Rock and supporters of Little Rock Public Schools desire the continuance of public school education within Ish Incentive School at its current location. This request is supported by the attached narrative, With consideration to our expressed concerns (see attached), wwee aarree confident that this school can lae among the best in the district. NAME ADDRESS PHONE ' .7' ''7cz,, . <O
- Z7. h 3(73j7 1 "i t i,. I ' .2. ''? I /hi'J Lt ( ?LkcC-i riL 7/7'73 -Pchha h 5-77 ri 31 7 77Z72_1__ , / Ll7_ .1 ~Ji 'll' /.tl lih- 'j -h, I h' > A
/ 7 )<3L7h.'A.'' CH / ) 1 I. t ) 4,f4 !/ , -L_ J t. 6 7'2 2 < ,f . 3') 7 <'/hi'h-D/- I Jf ! // ' f y /'IJ 3y(/^ 7c y J)>: ^.13.^.. ! 1 /hkhk,, IL /C^Th-______ "AftcLsi .^76 - 7'^4-)i5c7 7 r. X)^-DO^7-^ 7 / 2-^- I j_ / <f ,y'-) ./ < 2 ! h)hl. J t V ! J-n' .''y ----- '\i V . I Ch- J. A il I ^.'jl Cl IL.J J_1__ L. S (. 7 I - ' S ^12 7S't' . > The undersiqned residents of the Southend of Little Rock and supporters o^ Little Ruck Public Schools de^sire the continuance of public school educa tiun w.} thin Ish Incenti e School at its' current location. This request is supported by the attached narrati With consideration to our expressed concerns (see a t tac hed ) , we are confident that this school can be among the best in the district. NHML hDDRESS PHONE H _ ......... V:- _.3Q00 Mb- Lrp,3S. 4- 4^5. actd3 'Sj j~I [v 3 f b r J 41^1
BlSq , The undersigned residents oT the Southend of Little Rock and supporters ot Little Rock Public Schools desire the continuance ot public school education within Ish Incentive School at its' current location. This request is supported by the attached narrative. With consideration to our expressed concerns ((sseeee aa tt ttaacchheedd)) ,, we are confident that this school can be among the best in the district. NAME ADDRESS PHONE # I V>--^ < ALii. 7/n 2^0^ 1 UALiOu jLLx_J_2^q| Z. 57^-35/r The undersiqned residents of the Southend o-f Little Rock and supporters o-f Little Rock Public Schools desire the continuance of public school education within Ish Incentive School at its' current location. Ti ^|)ues __ __ p oufr expressed c ithoo\/'can is SU bk arnon H/tt NAME -K - 'lU-tt f' >^1
^- t by t^^ attd'c^hed narrat. ( see\attac}i6d ) , ( wi^ are' (see\attad best'' in'''-the" ADDRESS Jilt. 7 Ai4i tlV'Bonai^^rt^tiion I e on A^fen ty t ha ____________ PHONE ') 0:7 [J". 1 T' 7C 7>it7 '7~! T- y ^7 3,-,. -,,_______ TZ':ix5<^ /. '/ f ! i-CTTr-y^ 2b-^ 7if/ y/rcT^ yr. lei l-cdyiACCf cTy^f 'C ^-7________ _71iy7U77ij^^____ i' I 57 S7^ ~/^ oKeeb /Memorial <. (tburcfj 3101 South Izard Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 375-8687 Rev. Dr. W.H. Graves, Presiding Bishop Rev. J.W. Johnson, Presiding Elder Rev. W.S. Jones, Pastor Parsonage Phone. (501 ) 372-0604 Evanda Evans, Steward Board Chairrnan W.C. Washington, Tnistee Board Chairman Ruth Evans, Missionary President Stephanie. Coleman, Secretary May 3, 1993 Mr. John Moore, President Board of Directors Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Mr. Moore: The membership of the Reed Memorial CME Church is pleased to lift our voice in support of maintaining Ish Elementary as an operating school. Ish Elementary has served the families of South Little Rock since 1965. integral part of the community. It has, over the years, become an Ish, in conjunction with other institutions in the neighborhood, has developed many solid, contributing citizens. The mood of the country and, indeed, of this community, is support for strengthening and rebuilding the family. In south Little Rock, Ish School is considered a part of the neighborhood family and provides a focal point for many self-esteem building activities. community. The four year old program is a real plus for the The K-6 program coupled with the after-school incentive effort is a program that is valued and respected. The trend of more community and parental involvement, of which the Reed Memorial Family will be a part, will only serve to increase the academic achievement of the students. We ask that you accept this letter as the official position of the Reed Memorial Church family. We ask that the Ish Elementary School remain open as an operating school that can continue to serve the citizens of South Little Rock. Sincerely, Rev. WilJJram S. Jones, Pastor * . v FILED -E ASTERNO DISISTTRRICICTT C AORUKRATNSA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN J 11993 carl h. brents, clerk 3y.-_Ay . Jk(7 .AAr^/v OEP. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER The Court held a hearing on June 8 and 9, 1993, on plaintiff's motion for approval of the attendance zones for the King Interdistrict School Interdistrict School. and the site selection for the Stephens Most of the testimony addressed the King attendance zones
additional testimony on the matter of the Stephens site will be taken at a later date. The Court issues the following Order concerning the attendance zones for King. The Little Rock School District hired Dr. Leonard Thalmueller, a former LRSD employee, to draw up several proposed attendance zones plans for the new King Interdistrict School. The plan approved by the LRSD Board of Directors assumed that the Ish Incentive School would be closed unless 100 or more students in the Ish attendance zone wished to attend that school for the 1993-94 academic year. The Court finds that the zoning changes approved by the LRSD are acceptable. They were drawn in such a way as to minimize changes in the attendance zones for other schools. The Court approves the plan, however, only on the condition that Ish remain open unless the LRSD establishes. according to the Court's criteria, that fewer than 100 students wish to attend Ish during the 1993-94 academic year. The incentive schools are an integral part of the desegregation plan and the LRSD failed to present sufficient evidence to justify the closing of Ish at this time. The Court further f inds that it would not be appropriate to close Ish according to the criteria set forth by the LRSD at the hearing. The Court orders that Ish will remain open during the 1993-94 school year if 100 or more students want to attend Ish. The 100 students who will decide the immediate future of Ish will come from the following groups: 1. Students now attending Ish who reside within the Ish attendance zones
2. Students not attending Ish but who live within the Ish attendance zones
and 3. Students now attending Ish but who live outside the Ish attendance zones. The Court is adding this third group of students, which is significant in number. because it believes it is only fair to recognize that these students have a stake in the closing of Ish. Student assignments are confusing and are in a state of disarray for a number of reasons, including grandfathering leftover from the earlier controlled choice student assignment plan. The LRSD has the burden of recruiting students to populate the King Interdistrict School from the above three groups of students. The LRSD also has the burden of proving that fewer than 100 -2-students in the above-mentioned groups wish to attend Ish. Within 10 days from June 9, 1993, the LRSD must submit to the Court its proposed survey of these students along with its plan for executing the survey and implementing the survey results. This plan must include a time schedule with deadline dates for implementing each step of the survey process, including the date by which the district will determine whether Ish is to remain open or to close. Because the district's student assignment plan for King includes closing Ish and reassigning those students to King, the LRSD must develop an amended student assignment plan for assigning students to King in the event Ish remains open. The district must submit this amended plan to the Court by July 16, 1993. The Joshua Intervenors will have 5 days to file their response and objections to the LRSD's survey and plan, and 5 days to file their response and objections to the amended student assignment plan. The Court notes that at the hearing the LRSD committed to a total of four four-year-old classes at King if Ish is closed. The Court believes this is a wise decision that will aid the LRSD's King recruitment efforts. The Court is not approving any expansion of the capacity of Jefferson Elementary School by approving attendance zone changes in this Order. DATED this //~ day of June, 1993. JUDGE -3- THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET 3H^ IN compliance WITH RULE 56 AND/QR 79<a).FRCP ON., BY rIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs, No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS By Order dated June 11, 1993 [doc.#1848], the Court approved the Little Rock School District's ("LRSD") attendance zones for the King Interdistrict School on condition that the Ish Incentive School remain open unless the LRSD establishes that fewer than 100 students wish to attend Ish during the 1993-94 academic year. In this regard, the Court directed that within 10 days from June 9, 1993, the LRSD submit to the Court its proposed survey of potential Ish students* along with its plan for executing the survey and implementing the survey results. The LRSD complied with the Court's directive and, by Order dated June 30, 1993 [doc.#1873], the Court approved the LRSD's King/Ish survey process, the revised form letter with attachments, and the revised school selection form. Now before the Court is the motion of the LRSD to close the Ish Incentive School [doc.#1908] on grounds that the survey process has 1 The Court determined that the 100 students who will decide the immediate future of Ish will come from the following groups: (1) students now attending Ish who reside within the Ish attendance zones
(2) students not attending Ish but who live within the Ish attendance zones
and (3) students now attending Ish but who live outside the Ish attendance zones. indicated that only 82 students in the group listed by this Court in its June 11, 1993, Order wished to attend Ish. The Joshua Intervenors ("Joshua") have responded in opposition to the motion. Having carefully considered the parties' pleadings, the Court finds that the LRSD's motion is well-founded and that the goals of the settlement plan will not be adversely impacted by the granting of the motion. The motion to close the Ish Incentive School therefore is granted. Joshua objects to the survey and the manner in which it was conducted on grounds that (1) the survey did not consider preschool children who may have desired to attend pre-school programs at Ish, and (2) it is reasonable to assume that an equal percentage of the students who did not respond to the survey would have opted for Ish to that percentage which actually did so, i.e. 55.4%, and on that basis. the actual number of preferences which may be presumed is 145.^ Joshua further states, in a somewhat conclusory manner, that "[t]he process was designed to fail." Joshua's objections to the survey and the manner in which it was conducted are denied as untimely. In the June 11, 1993 order. the Court specifically stated that "[t]he Joshua Intervenors will have 5 days to file their response and objections to the LRSD's survey and plan, and 5 days to file their response and objections to the amended student assignment plan." In the June 30, 1993, Order, the Court approved the LRSD's King/Ish survey process, in 2 objections. Joshua has not submitted a brief in support of its response setting forth any autliority that would support its -2-part because no objections had been filed. Joshua has not attempted to explain its neglect of the Court's deadlines, and it is far too late at this time to consider objections to the survey and its process. Joshua also objects to the closing of incentive schools which are located in predominately African-American neighborhoods. While such concerns certainly are valid, the Court would point out that the King Interdistrict school, which will be desegregated, is a new school in an African-American neighborhood and, indeed, is in close proximity to Ish. There thus is no net loss of schools in predominately African-American neighborhoods with respect to the Y the settlement plan which precludes the closing of incentive^ schools when there is an insufficient student population to j closing of Ish. The Court would also note that there is nothing in support the school. The Court does reiterate. however. that it will closely watch all proposed school closings and school capacity alterations to determine whether there is a developing pattern of closing schools in areas largely inhabited by African-American citizens while increasing the capacity of schools in areas largely inhabited by white citizens. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the LRSD's motion to close the Ish Incentive School be, and it is hereby, granted. Dated this day of 1993. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -3-IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WES'lLIP.W Division LITTLP: POCK SCnOOr, IJISTlCrCT, FT AL. PLAINTIFFS V. i,P-C-82 - 0 6 6 PULA-SK I COUNTY .SPPXIIAL SClIOCjl, DISTRICT, FT AI,. DEFENDANTS I.OREHE JOSHUA, ET A[.. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET Ai,. INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS' OPPOSITION TO STATUS REPORT The Joshua Intervenors respectfully oppose the Status Report of the Little Rock School District filed herein on or about July 16, 1993. For cause we respectfully show the Court that: The survey was not extended to all potential students of Ish School. Although the Court may have approved the survey form and process, there was no effort made, on information and belief, to reach pre-school children which may or may not have included kindergarten children. The concept of one hundred necessarily has to take into account this group of students. Joshua strenuously opposes the Court's intent to close an incentive school in view of the Order of the Eighth Circuit herein. The incentive school benefits which were promised to the present enrollment has not been delivered and stand not to be MRS . 1. 2 . 3 . no. delivered. This includes the scholarchip benefits which the Court has not ruled upon despite the commitments by the school district to the Eighth Circuit and the community. 4 . The process was designed to fail. It is reasonable to assume that an equal percentage ofthe students who did not return the forms would have opted for Ish to that percentage which actually did i.e., 55.4%. On that so, basis, the actual number of preferences which may be presumed is 145 . Joshua continue to object to the closing of schools which are located in predominantly African American neighborhoods. WHEREFORE, Joshua recjuest a hearing, after an opportunity for discovery, to present its position and to present the position of parents as representative ill the attached letter from Mrs. Sarah Facen. Respectfully submitted, JOSHUA INTERENORS By: John' W. Walker, Bar #6404 6 joAn w. walker, p.a. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3750 72206 6 .CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Walker, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document lias been served upon all counsel of record by U.S. Mail on this 23rd day of July, 1993. ( John W. WalkerIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION/' (, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. S NO. LR-C-82-866' PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL received JUL 19 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS STATUS REPORT ON THE ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL BY LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Comes the Little Rock School District and for its Status Report states: 1. In an Order dated June 11, 1993, the Court directed the Little Rock School District to prepare a survey to send to various students to determine if 100 or more students wished to attend Ish Incentive School. If fewer than 100 students in the listed groups did not wish to attend Ish then the Court authorized the Little School District to close Ish. 2. In an Order dated June 30, 1993, the Court approved the Little Rock School District's King/Ish survey process, the revised form letter with attachments. and the revised school selection r,i / t I form. 3. The Affidavit of Marie Parker, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference, sets forth the process which the -1- cvaUndjfLittle Rock School District has followed in implementing the survey process. 4. The survey process has indicated that only 82 students in the group listed by the Court in its June 11, 1993, Order wished to attend Ish Incentive School 5. In accordance with the above the Board of the Little Rock School District voted on July 15, 1993, to close Ish Incentive School. 6. Pursuant to' the Little Rock School District's timeline which was approved by the Court, the District will mail student assignment notices on July 23, 1993. 7. The Little Rock School District had prepared an amended student assignment plan for use in the event Ish remained open. However, in view of the survey results and the closure of Ish it is not necessary to file the amended student assignment plan. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas (501) 376-2011 72201 BY: FREDERICK S. URS^Y 67055 -2- cvaUrtdjf CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Frederick S. Ursery, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon the following by depositing a co of same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, on this day of July, 1993. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 7220.1 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 'REDERICK S. URSERY -3- cviUndar AFFIDAVIT Comes the affiant, Marie Parker, and after being duly sworn. states: I am the Associate Superintendent for Organizational and Learning Equity for the Little Rock School District. The following is a list of the actions which have taken place in regard to implementing the Ish assignment survey: June 11, 1993 Court approved an attendance zone for King on the condition that Ish remain open unless the LRSD established. according to the Court's criteria, that fewer than 100 students wish to attend Ish during the 1993-94 academic year. June 21, 1993 Filed a timeline ^or implementing the King/Ish survey process. a proposed form letter to parents with attached fact sheets on the King Interdistrict School and the Ish Incentive School, and a school selection form. June 1993 Compiled a list of: 1) students now attending Ish who reside within the Ish attendance zone
2) students not attending Ish but who live within the Ish attendance zone
3) students now attending Ish but who live outside the Ish attendance zone. June 1993 Press release to announce community meetings. June 1993 Fliers announcing community meetings delivered door. . to persons. door by recruiters and community June 1993 Fliers announcing community meetings provided to local churches. June 1993 Patrons of Ish community telephoned parents of Ish students regarding meeting. June 29, 1993 Conducted community meeting at Ish to provide information about schools. access to Ish and King June 30, 1993 July 1993 Court approved the King/Ish survey process, the revised form letter with attachments, and the revised school selection form. Press release to announce July 8 community meeting.July 1993 Fliers distributed door to door throughout Ish neighborhood to announce July 8 community meeting. July 7, 1993 Mailed letter to parents of students with Ish Fact Sheet, King Fact Sheet, stamped and addressed return envelope. Survey Form, July 8, 1993 Conducted second community meeting at Ish to provide additional information regarding access to King and Ish schools and to allow parents to register at that time, chose to do so. if they July 1993 Patrons conducted door to door campaign encouraging parents to return survey form. July 1993 Developed amended student assignment plan (in the event Ish remained open). July 9-14, 1993 Conducted Assignment telephone Office survey encouraging complete and return survey form. via Student parents to July 14, 1993 Survey foirms compiled and results submitted to the LRSD attorneys and the Interim Superintendent for further action. July 15, 1993 The LRSD Board voted to close Ish. The following are the results from the survey process: 260 Survey Forms Mailed 148 Received 82 Requested Ish 66 Requested King Respectfully submitted, MARIE PARKER WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL this day of..-July, 1993. NOTAR' My Commission Expires: Cyd. /Q
JUL-19-93 MON 9:21 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 02 drk IN THE UNITED STATES PXstrict
court :>F,'7ik^SA's . I'erAtr' 1. EASTERN DISTRICT. pF, WESTERN DIVISION' 93 JUL 15 Pfl |: Li'f LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CARL n. BRENTS, cr I NO. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIFFS PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL I. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS STATUS REPORT ON THE ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL BY LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Comes the Little Rock School District and for its Status Report states: 1, In an Order dated June 11, 1993, the Court directed the Little Rock School District to prepare a survey to send to various students to determine if 100 or more students wished to attend Ish Incentive School. If fewer than 100 students in the listed groups DiiA, i I did not wish to attend Ish then the Court authorized the Little School District to close Ish, 2. In an Order dated June 30, 1993, the Court approved the Little Rock School District's King/Ish survey process. the revised form letter with attachments, form. and the revised school selection 3. The Affidavit of Marie Parker, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference, sets forth the process which the -1- e*iUnd.MJUL-19-93 NON 9:21 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 Little Rock School District has followed in implementing the survey process. 4. The survey process has indicated that only 82 students in the group listed by the Court in its June 11, 1993, Order wished to attend ish Incentive School 5. In accordance with the above the Board of the Little Rock School District voted on July 15, School. 1993, to close Ish Incentive 6. Pursuant to the Little Rock School District's timeline which was approved by the Court, the District will mail student assignment notices on July 23, 1993. 7. The Little Rock School District had prepared an amended student assignment plan for use in the event Ish remained open. However, in view of the survey results and the closure of Ish it is not necessary to file the amended student assignment plan. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE i CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, TVrkansas (501) 376-2011 72201 BY: FREDERICK S. URS 67055 -2- /JUL-19-93 HON 9:22 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 04 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Frederick S. Ursery, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon the following by depositing of same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, day of July, 1993. on this Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 7220.1 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR -7-2-2-01 Mr. Richard Roachell #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 'REDERICK S. URSERY a c -3- 0v*\lMd.>r JUL-19-93 MON 9:22 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 05 affidavit Comes the affiant, Marie Parker, and after being duly sworn, states
I am the Associate Superintendent for Organizational Learning Equity for the Little Rock School District. and The following is a list of the actions which have taken in regard to implementing the Ish assignment survey: place June 11, 1993 Court approved an attendance zone for King on the condition that Ish remain open unless the LRSD established, according to the Court's criteria, that fewer than 100 students wish to attend Ish during the 1993*94 academic year. June 21, 1993 Filed a timeline -for implementing the King/Ish survey process, a proposed form letter to parents with attached fact sheets on the King Interdistrict School and the Ish Incentive School, and a school selection form. June 1993 Compiled a list of
1) students now attending Ish who reside within the Ish attendance zone
2) Students not attending Ish but who live within the Ish attendance zone
3) students now attending Ish but who live outside the Ish attendance zone. June 1993 Press release to announce community meetings. June 1993 Fliers announcing community meetings delivered door. - to door by recruiters persons. and community June 1993 Fliers announcing community meetings provided to local churches. June 1993 Patrons of Ish community telephoned parents of Ish students regarding meeting. June 29, 1993 Conducted community meeting at Ish to provide information about access to Ish and King schools. access June 30, 1993 Court approved the King/ish survey process, the revised form letter with attachments, and the revised school selection form. July 1993 Press release to announce July 8 community meeting.93 HON 9:23 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 06 July 1993 Fliers distributed door to door throughout ish neighborhood to announce July 8 community meeting. July 7, 1993 Mailed letter to parents of students with Ish Fact Sheet, King Fact Sheet, Survey Form, stamped and addressed return envelope. July 8, 1993 Conducted second community meeting at Ish to provide additional information regarding access to King and Ish schools and to allow parents to register at that time, chose to do so. if they July 1993 July 1993 Patrons conducted door to door campaign encouraging parents to return survey form. Developed amended student assignment plan (in the event Ish remained open). i I July 9-14, 1993 July 14, 1993 July 15, 1993 260 14 8 82 66 Conducted telephone survey Assignment Office encouraging complete and return survey form. via Student parents to Survey forms compiled and results submitted to the LRSD aattttoorrnneeyyss aanndd tthhee Interim Superintendent for further action. The LRSD Board voted to close Ish. The following are the results from the Survey Forms Mailed Received Requested Ish Requested King survey process
Respectfully submitted, MARIE PARKER WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL this day of^July, 1993. NOT. My Commission Expires: Cy JUL-20-93 TUE 8:24 I SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 02 U.S. D II. L? RIC I I. li
. I I ,
- ' . i : s I . * IN THE UNITED STATES DIS'IRicT' COCRT EASTERN D-I-S-T--RI COTFcAKKANSA^!.| q. r.q WESTERN DlVISlbhf"^ CARL ERENTS ' Ft-' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BY__. V. NO. LR-C82866 cilPrcLi
? PLAINTIFFS PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TO CLOSE ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL Comes the Little Rock School District and for its Motion to Close Ish Incentive School states: 1. In an Order dated June 11, 1993, the Court directed the Little Rock School District to prepare a survey to send to various students to determine if 100 or more students wished to attend ish Incentive School. If fewer than 100 students in the listed groups did not wish to attend Ish then the Court authorized the Little School District to close Ish. 2. In an Order dated June 30, 1993, the Court approved the Little Rock School District's King/Ish survey process, the revised form letter with attachments, and the revised school selection 4 form. 3 . The Amended Affidavit of Marie Parker, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference, sets forth the process which the Little Rock School District has followed in implementing the survey process. -1- evi'Ind.Ar JUL-20-93 TUE 8:25 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 4. The survey process has indicated that only 82 students in the group listed by the Court in its June 11, 1993, Order wished to attend ish Incentive School. 5. In accordance with the above the Board of the Little Rock School District voted on July 15, 1993, to close Ish Incentive School. 6. Pursuant to the Little Rock School District's timeline which was approved by the Court, the District will mail student assignment notices on July 23, 1993. 7. The Little Rock School District had prepared an amended student assignment plan for use in the event ish remained open. However, in view of the survey results and the closure of Ish it is not necessary to file the amended student assignment plan. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that the Ish Incentive School be closed and for all other just and proper relief to which it is entitled. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas (501) 376-2011 72201 pv'hd.if BY: -2- FREDERICK :K S . URSER^, \ #67055JUL-20-93 TUE 8:25 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 04 I, Frederick s. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE , , Ursery, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing status Report on the ish Incentive School by Little Rock School District has been served upon the following by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, _L3. day of July, 1993. on this Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 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 #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 FREOrfRICK S. URSERY -3- ev'ld.er JUL-20-93 TUE '8:26 SUSAN U WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 05 AMENDED AFFIDAVIT Comes the affiant, Marie Parker, and after being duly sworn, states: I am the Associate Superintendent for Organizational Learning Equity for the Little Rock School District. and The following is a list of the actions which have taken place in regard to implementing the ish assignment survey: June 11, 1993 Court approved an attendance zone for King on the condition that Ish remain open unless the LRSD established, according to the Court's criteria, that fewer than lOO students wish to attend Ish during the 1993-94 academic year. June 21, 1993 Filed a timeline for implementing the King/Ish survey process, a proposed form letter to parents with attached fact sheets on the King Interdistrict School and the ish Incentive School, and a school selection form. June 1993 Compiled a list of: 1) students now attending Ish who reside within the Ish attendance zone
2) students not attending Ish but who live within the Ish attendance zone
3) students now attending Ish but who live outside the Ish attendance zone. June 1993 Press release to announce community meetings. June 1993 Fliers announcing community meetings delivered door to door by recruiters persons. and community June 1993 Fliers announcing community meetings provided to local churches. June 1993 Patrons of Ish community telephoned parents of Ish students regarding meeting. June 29, 1993 Conducted community meeting at Ish to provide information about access to Ish and King schools. to June 30, 1993 Court approved the King/Ish survey process, the revised form letter with attachments, and the revised school selection form. July 1993 Press release to meeting. announce July 8 communityJUL-20-93 TUE 8:26 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 06 July 1993 Fliers distributed door to door throughout ish neighborhood to - * meeting. announce July 8 community July 7, 1993 Mailed letter to parents of students with JI IsTx Fact Sheet, King Fact Sheet, Survey Form, stamped and addressed return envelope. July 8, 1993 Conducted second community meeting at ish to provide additional information regarding access to King and Ish schools and to allow information parents to register at that time, chose to do so. if they July 1993 Patrons conducted door to door campaign encouraging parents to return survey form. July 1993 Developed amended student assignment plan (in the event Ish remained open). July 9-14, 1993 Conducted telephone survey via student Assignment Office encouraging parents complete and return survey form. via to July 14, 1993 Survey forms compiled and results submitted to the LRSD attorneys and the Interim Superintendent for further action. attorneys July 15, 1993 The LRSD Board voted to close Ish. The following are the results from the survey process: 260 Survey Forms Mailed 173 Received 82 Requested Ish 66 Requested King 25 Requested to remain at their current school Respectfully submitted, Ik marie parker WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL this /^day o Uly, 1993. Mi^^oWiissior. Expires: NOTARY7PUB CJUL-20-9'3 TUE '8:27 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P, 07 U.S Cl IN^'ltHE^-UUlTED STATES DISTRICT COURT eastern CT 33 ' WESTERN PIVISION OF AJRKANSAS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL lyiSTRICT. B I -- V. '3 PLAINTIFFS NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEFENDANTS - KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ^lEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TO CLOSE ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL~ In its order of June 11, 1993, the court stated that "Ish will remain open during the 1993-94 school year if lOO or more students want to attend Ish." The court further noted that LRSD "has the burden of proving that fewer than 100 students ... wish to attend Ish." The court required that LRSD submit within ten days from June 9, 1993 "its proposed survey ... along with the plan for executing the survey and implementing the survey results". The court also required that LRSD's plan include a time schedule with deadline dates for implementing each step of the survey process, including the date by which the district will determine whether Ish is to remain open or to close." Order June 13, 1993, p, 3. LRSD's plan for determining whether 100 to attend Ish school for the 1993-94 school or more students wish year was approved by the court in an order dated June 30, 1993 . The amended affidavit CM3L IT 1 " 1 of Marie Parker shows that LRSD followed its court approved plan for determining the number of students who wish to attend Ish. -1-JUL-20-93 TUE 8:27 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P, 08 I Only S2 students selected Ish school. Therefore, in accordance with the court's order of June 11, 1993 and the survey process which was approved June 30, 1993, Ish Incentive School should be closed and those students who would otherwise have been assigned to Ish should be assigned to King Interdistrict School. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas (501) 376-2011 72201 BY: -2- FREDERICK S. URSERY/ #670551, JUL-20-93 TUE 8:28 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 09 -CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ^^sery, hereby certify a copy of the SchoS bv Report on the Ish Incentive School District has been served upon the depositing a copy of same in the United States mail postage prepaid, on this . day of July, 1993. Frederick S. Ursery, that Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr, Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 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 #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Su 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR Suite 510 72201 FREDERICK S, URSERY -3-06/28.-93 09:20 0301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODJI @002-002 a Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE JUNE 28, 1993 For more information
Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 LRSP SCHEDULES COMMUNITY MEETING AT ISH SCHOOT A special meeting will be held for Ish School and interested community members Tuesday. Tune 29 atJsh School. 3001 Pulaski street. parents, patrons at 7 p.m Parents of clhldren currently attending Ish School and those who are assigned to the Ish attendance zone but do not attend Ish wiU discuss and be given information on school assignment options for the 1993-94 school year. Students assigned to the Ish attendance zone for the 1993-94 school year have the option of attending Ish School or Martin Luther King, Jr. Interdistrict School opening in the 1993-94 school year. For more information call 324-2272. ### 810 West Markham Street Little07/07/93 12:39 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @002/002 ?l
ii Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE July 7, 1993 For more informatioii
Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 LRSD SCHEDULES COMMUi r MEETING AT ISH SCHOOL A special meeting will be held for Ish School parents, patrons and interested community members Thursday July 8 at 6 p.m. at Ish SchooL3001 Pulaski Street. Parents of children currently attending Ish School and those who are assigned to the Ish attendance zone but do not attend Ish will discuss and be given information on school assignment options for the 1993-94 school year. Parents may also register tbpir children at the community meeting. Students assigned to the Ish attendance zone for the 1993-94 school year have the option of attending Ish School or Martin Luther King, Jr. Interdistrict School opening in the 1993-94 school year. ### BIQ We.t Markhan, Street . l.ltt.P Rnrk 722Q1 f5Q1^324.7nnn07/12^93 14:22 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 001/001 Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE July 10, 1993 For more information
Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 Which School will your child attend: Ish. King or some other. school. The Little Rock School District is asking all parents to complete and return the surveys that were mailed out on July 7, which discussed school assignment for Ish attendance zone students for the 93-94 school year. The surveys included: 1) students who now attend ish and live in the Ish attendance zone 2) students not attending Ish but who live within the Ish attendance zone 3) students now attending Ish and live outside the Ish atendance zone. The deadline for returning the surveys is July 14, 1993 . If you have any questions, please contact Marie Parker at 324-2272. ###'RECEIVED J LSTHi.to TCCURT if
!!:ANAS JUL 2 8 1993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL 211993 Office of Desegreja'ucn MoMiSfina GAF f jTS, CLlRK CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the Little Rock School District for Court approval to close the Ish Incentive School filed on July 19, 1993. Any party wishing to file a response to the E ! motion must do so no later than Wednesday, July 28, 1993. r<4 DATED this day of July, 1993. united SiTtAATtEeSs 'dist'rRiIgCT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET N OMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP yN BY_^ 1 .b 1 i -3 i'"
1 1 Office of Desegragation Monitor 201 E Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Bldg Little Rock, AR 72204 vjt Case: 4:82-cv-00866WH IB. M2 rn H M IN THE UNITED STATES' DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT. OR ARKANSAS' WESTERN DlVi'slOi * SY, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS 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 RESPONSE TO ORDER On July 23, 1993 at 5:00 p.m. undersigned counsel received a copy of the court's order of this date. United States District Court all day. Undersigned counsel was in Although the court's order was entered on July 23, 1993, it was not filed until July 27, 1993, Moreover, counsel did not receive a copy of Little Rock School District's (LRSD) motion until approximately 5:15 p.m, on this date. Under the circumstances, therefore, with particular emphasis upon the time left for reply, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully oppose the motion for approval to close the Ish Incentive School and respectfully request that the court accept as the response in opposition the pleading filed by Joshua on July 23, of that document is attached hereto. 1993. A copy Respectfully submitted, JOSHUA INTERVENORS j^hn W, Walker #64046 John W. Walker P.A. 1723 BroadwayUS Dis I Cl Little Rock FAX NO. 5013246096 P. 03 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICR I, John w. Walker, hereby certify that a true and of the foregoing document correct copy record by U.S has been served upon all counsel of Mail on this 23rd day of July, 1993. Jgnn W. Walker Iz' HU. WUUU IN the united STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. plaintiffs NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICT, ET AL. SCHOOL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. dependants KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, INTERVENORS ET AL, INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenor of the Little Rock School s -OPPOSITION TO STATUS REPORT respectfully oppose the Status Report Ai16, 1993. ^S-Chool. For cause we District filed herein on or about July respectfully show the Court that: The survey was not extended to all potential students of Although the Court may have approved the a, survey form process. there was no effort made. i^Vto reach pre-school children which on information and belief, kindergarten children. may or may not have included The concept of one hundred to take into account this necessarily has 2. group of students. line Joshua strenuously opposes the Court's intent to ncentive school in view of the Order of the Ighth Circuitt herein. 3. Aerexn. The incentive school benefits present enrollment has delivered. has not whicn re promised to the been delivered and stand not to be This includes the schol ruled upon despite the a^hip benefits which the Court to the Eighth Circuit and the > commitments by the school district community. / 5. 4. It is reasonable to 5 The process was designed to fail. assume that an equal percentage of us DisI Cl Lillie Rock FAX NO. 5013246096 P. 05 the students who did not return the forms to that would have opted for Ish percentage which actually did SOy basis, the actual number 145. i.e., 55.4%. On that Ul 6. of preferences which may be presumed is Joshua continues which are located in WHEREFORE, Joshua to object to the closing of schools predominantly African American neighborhoods. request a hearing, after an discovery, to present its opportunity for position and to present the parents as representative in the attached latter from Facen. position of Mrs. Sarah By: Respectfully submitted, JOSHUA INTERENORS Joh JOffi Walker, Bar #64046 --- W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 JUL-M IHU 1UU4 Uh. LUny<lBU!) w Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 122^^ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE John W. Walker, hereby certify that of the foregoing document has been served a true and correct copy upon all counsel of record by U.S, Mail on this 28th day of July, 1993. n W. Walker I 1John w. Walker, I.a. AnoRNEY At Law 1723 Broadway ijTrLE Bock. Arkansas Tei.E'PIIONE (501) 371-3758 I'AX (501) 371-1187 received JUL 3 0 1993 JOHN W. WALKER RALLil WASHINUWN MARK Bt'RNLTIK AUSTIN PORTER. -II
. July 29, 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, /vR 72201 Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Richard Roachell, Esq. Roachell & Streett 401 West Capitol Ave. Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD
No. LR-C-82- 866 Dear Sirs or Madam: Enclosed please find a copy of Joshua's Response to Order which has been filed in the above matter. Sincerely, A- John W. Walker JWW:Ip Enclosure cc: All Counsel of Recordo' \995 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT racteRN district of ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS LR-C-02-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS On July 28, RESPONSE TO ORDER 199 3 al
5:00 p.lu. undersigned coun el received a copy of the court's order of this date. United States District Court. a.I 1 day. Undersigned counsel was in Although the court's order was entered on July 23, 1993, jt was not filed until July 27, 1993. Moreover, counsel did not receive a copy of Little Rock School District' s (LRSD) motion unt.il approximately 5:15 p.m. on this date. Under the circumstances, therefore. with particular emphasis upon the time left for reply. the Joshua Intervenors respectfully oppose ttie motion for. approval to close the Ish Incentive School 50 and respectfully request that the court accept as the response in opposition the pleading filed by Joshua on July 23, 1993 . A copy of that document is attached hereto. Respectfully submitted. JOSHUA INTERVENORS j^hn W. Walker #64046 John VJ. Walker P.A. 1723 BroadwayI , 111 title Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 (JI': KJ' I. P' I (JATE jOEJSER'/ACE Joli 11 W. VJo.lkci', Ik
I oljy '-er 72206 tify a true uud correct copy of I Ik- lorofjoinq dt?cuiiieiit liac I 'Cell seivod upon all counsel of record by d . Ma 1.1 OU tli.i u 2111 h day of July, 1993. I'' 3 6,. ) t i b I. Jolin W. Walker'RECEIVED t c. . OiST "J 3 FD asr^ '^xsz&n rn
CT COURT fS:'CT ARKANSAS JUL 2 8 1993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUL 2 7 1993 WESTERN DIVISION OtiicQ of Desegregation Monitoring OAF?:.. Ti, ii-r 3 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 W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the By: 'jT3, CLlRK L'^P. CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Little Rock School District for Court approval to close the Ish Incentive School filed on July 19, 1993. Any party wishing to file a response to the motion must do so no later than Wednesday, July 28, 1993. nJ DATED this day of July, 1993. united SiTtAATtEeSs 'disTRrIicCT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN >N OMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP by 1 1 J T 50 Olfes c' ,^N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS 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 On July 28, RESPONSE TO ORDER 1993 at 5:00 p.m. undersigned coun el received a copy of the court's order of this date. United States District Court all day. Undersigned counsel was in Although the court's order was entered on July 23, 1993, it was not filed until July 27, 1993. Moreover, counsel did not receive copy of Little Rock School District's (LRSD) motion until approximately 5:15 p.m. on this a date. Under the circumstances, therefore, with particular emphasis upon the time left for reply. the Joshua Intervenor respectfully oppose the motion for approval to close the Ish Incentive School and respectfully reque t that the court accept as the response in opposItion the pleading filed by Josliua on July 23, 1993 . A copy of that document is attached hereto. Respectfully submitted. JOSHUA INTERVENORS Walker #64046 jjbhn W. John W. Walker P.A. 1723 BroadwayI , Joliii of the Lilt tie Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 cisicjM.r.ior service Vb'.i .1 ker, 72206 iKii f
by <
ej-tify l.liiiL a true and correct copy f.'fjr erjo i.nq docuiiieiit liar: leell SC) V('il upon all counsel of recoi. 11 l.r/ IJ Ma 1J oil th j
2!il li dcij' of Ju I y, 1993 . < L I I .folin V\l. WalkerAUG- 2-93 HON 15:4! SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 02 ua.oiSTmcT count EAsrenN district Arkansas IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION AUG 0 2 1993 CARLfi,BR By J13 ENTS, CLERK P. CL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS VS. No. 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 ORDER By Order dated June 11, 1993 [doc,#1848], the Court approved the Little Rock School District's ("LRSD) attendance zones for the King Interdistriot School on condition that the Ish Incentive School remain open unless the LRSD establishes that fewer than 100 students wish to attend Ish during the 1993-94 academic year. In this regard, the Court directed that within 10 days from June 9, 1993 , the LRSD submit to the Court its proposed survey of potential Ish students^ along with its plan for executing the survey and implementing the survey results. The LRSD complied with the Court's directive and, by Order dated June 30, 1993 [doc.#1873], the Court approved the LRSD's King/lsh survey process, the revised form letter with attachments, and the revised school selection form. None of the parties objected. Now before the Court is the motion of the LRSD to close the Ish Incentive School [doc.#1908] on grounds that the survey process has 1 The Court determined that the 100 students who will decide the immediate Future of Ish will come from the following groups
(1) students now attending Ish who reside within the Ish attendance zones
(2) students not attending Ish but who live within the Ish attendance zones
and (3) students now attending Ish but who live outside die Ish attendance zones.AUG- 2-93 HON 15:42 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 03 indicated that only 82 students in the group listed by this Court in its June 11, 1993, Order wished to attend Ish. The Joshua Intervenors ("Joshua") have responded in opposition to the motion. Having carefully considered the parties^ pleadings, the Court finds that the goals of the settlement plan will not be adversely impacted by the granting of the LRSD's motion to close the Ish Incentive School, and that the motion should be and hereby is granted. Joshua objects to the survey and the manner in which it was conducted on grounds that (1) the survey did not consider preschool children who may have desired to attend pre-school programs at Ish, and (2) it is reasonable to assume that an equal percentage of the students who did not respond to the survey would have opted for Ish to that percentage which actually did so, i.e. 55.4%, and on that basis. the actual number of preferences which may be presumed is 145.^ Joshua further states, in a somewhat conclusory manner, that "[t]he process was designed to fail." Joshua's objections to the survey and the manner in which it was conducted are denied as untimely. In the June 11, 1993 order, the Court specifically stated that "[t]he Joshua Intervenors will have 5 days to file their response and objections to the LRSD's survey and plan, and 5 days to file their response and objections to the amended student assignment plan. II In the June 30, 1993, Order, the Court approved the LRSD's King/Ish survey process, in 1 conclusion. Joshua has not submitted a brief in support of its response setting forth any authority that would support such a -2-AUG- 2-93 MON 15:42 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 04 part because no objections had been filed. Joshua has not attempted to explain its neglect of the Court's deadlines, and it is now far too late to ask this Court to consider objections to the survey and its process. Joshua also objects to the closing of incentive schools which are located in predominately black neighborhoods. While such concerns are certainly valid, the Court notes that the King Interdistrict school, which will be desegregated, is a new school in a black neighborhood and, indeed, is in close proximity to Ish. There thus is no net loss of schools in predominately black neighborhoods with respect to the closing of Ish. The Court would also note that the granting of the LRSD's motion to close Ish due to an insufficient number of students does not conflict with the terms of the settlement plan. The plan states the following with respect to incentive schools: There shall be a limited number of incentive schools, for a period of at least six years, sufficient to accommodate that number of black students who, by attending those schools, make it possible to achieve a student population in the remaining Little Rock schools (elementary area schools) of 55 percent black and 45 percent white with a variance of 5 percent. to these elementary area The recruitment of white students percentage schools may increase the of white students in these schools to maximum percentage of 60 percent. The incentive schools shall be: Franklin, Garland, Ish, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, and Stephens, The incentive schools will be desegregated in phases through a combination of white recruitment into the incentive schools, and by reserving a designated number of seats in each incoming kindergarten class for the enrollment of white students. As new Interdistrict Schools are established those seats attributable to LRSD will be available for those students who otherwise would or could have been assigned to an incentive school
any -3- aAUG- 2-93 HON 15:43 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 05 recruitment and/or any assignment shall be in accordance with each district's student assignment plan. Funding for the incentive schools shall be set at two times the level for the elementary area schools to ensure that the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/activities. shall utilize the services To meet that goal, the parties of a consultant who has demonstrable experience in developing and successfully implementing such educational setting. programs in maj ority-black Interdistrict Plan, April 29, 1992, pg. 4. According to the desegregation plan, the double funding allotted the incentive schools is intended to help alleviate the racial-isolation of the children attending these predominately one- race schools. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has stressed the importance of this incentive school feature
It may be helpful for us to state those elements of the 1989 plan that we consider crucial, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved. They are as follows: (1) double funding for students attending the incentive (virtually all-black) schools ,.. Appeal of Little Pock School District^ 949 F.2d 253, 256 (Sth Cir. 1991). However, in accordance with the aforementioned survey process, the LRSD gave the parents of Ish Incentive School students the choice of removing their children from a racially-isolated setting by electing to send them to King, a new, desegregated Interdistrict School in the same general neighborhood. King offers many program enhancements, including four curriculum specialists, a 56 station computer lab. electronic-assisted instruction, and an automated a media center. Also, as previously noted by the Court, if Ish were to close and its students transfer to King, the LRSD committed to -4-AUG- 2-93 MON 15:43 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 06 increase the total number of four-year-old classes at King from two to four. Nevertheless, to the extent the granting of the LRSD's motion to close Ish is a disputed modification of the plan, the Court finds that such modification is in compliance with the standards for reviewing disputed modifications as set forth by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Appeal of Little Rock School District, suprsi 949 F.2d 253. There, the Court stated: To modify [a] consent decree[], the court need only identify a defect or deficiency in its original decree which impedes experience has achieving proven its goal. either it less effective because [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 of the parties. A Td. at 258, quoting with approval Heath v. De Courcy, 888 F.2d 1105, 1110 (6th Cir. 1989). Here, the Court finds that the insufficient number of Ish students (fewer than 100} IS changed circumstance which a constitutes a defect or deficiency in the plan and impedes the goals set forth therein. Furthermore, the Court finds that the circumstances and conditions thus have changed which warrant "fine- tuning" the plan. Th closing of Ish, when considered in light of the opening of the desegregated King Interdistrict school, furthers the purpose of the plan in a more efficient way without upsetting the basic agreement of the parties. Although the Court grants the LRSD's motion to close Ish, it does not excuse the LRSD from its obligation to recruit white -5-AUG- 2-93 MON 15:44 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 07 students to desegregate the remaining incentive schools. The Court reiterates that it will closely watch all proposed school closings and school capacity alterations to determine whether there is a developing pattern of closing schools in areas largely inhabited by black citizens while increasing the capacity of schools in areas largely inhabited by white citizens. The motion to close Ish does not evidence such a pattern. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the LRSD's motion to close the Ish Incentive School be, and it is hereby, granted. Dated this 2nd day of August 1993. UNITED STATES DIStfRIC' 'RI CT JUDGE -6-h <> U.S. OfSTAlCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS AUG 4 1993 On'ics oi Deses^^S"'-'*^^ vi:or..tor'!
'.g IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS AUG 0 2 1993 WESTERN DIVISION KC!RK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS VS. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL I INTERVENORS ORDER By Order dated June 11, 1993 [doc.#1848], the Court approved the Little Rock School District's ("LRSD") attendance zones for the King Interdistrict School on condition that the Ish Incentive School remain open unless the LRSD establishes that fewer than 100 students wish to attend Ish during the 1993-94 academic year. In this regard, the Court directed that within 10 days from June 9, 1993, the LRSD submit to the Court its proposed survey of potential Ish students^ along with its plan for executing the survey and implementing the survey results. The LRSD complied with the Court's directive and, by Order dated June 30, 1993 [doc.#1873], the Court approved the LRSD's King/Ish survey process. the revised form letter with attachments. and the revised school selection form. None of the parties objected. Now before the Court is the motion of the LRSD to close the Ish Incentive School [doc.#1908] on grounds that the survey process has fell students who wiU decide the immediate future of Ish will come from the toUowmg groups
(1) students now attending Ish who reside within the Ish attendance who live within the Ish attendance zones
(2) students not attending Ish but zones, and (3) students now attending Ish but who live outside the Ish attendance zones. I indicated that only 82 students in the group listed by this Court in its June 11, 1993, Order wished to attend Ish. The Joshua Intervenors ("Joshua) have responded in opposition to the motion. Having carefully considered the parties' pleadings, the Court finds that the goals of the settlement plan will not be adversely impacted by the granting of the LRSD's motion to close the Ish Incentive School, and that the motion should be and hereby is granted. Joshua objects to the survey and the manner in which it was conducted on grounds that (1) the survey did not consider preschool children who may have desired to attend pre-school programs at Ish, and (2) it is reasonable to assume that an equal percentage of the students who did not respond to the survey would have opted for Ish to that percentage which actually did so, i.e. 55.4%, and on that basis. the actual number of preferences which may be presumed is 145.^ Joshua further states, in a somewhat conclusory manner, that "[t]he process was designed to fail." Joshua's objections to the survey and the manner in which it was conducted are denied as untimely. In the June 11, 1993 order. the Court specifically stated that tl [t]he Joshua Intervenors will have 5 days to file their response and objections to the LRSD's survey and plan, and 5 days to file their response and objections to the amended student assignment plan." In the June 30, 1993, Order, the Court approved the LRSD's King/Ish survey process, in 2 conclusion. Joshua has not submitted a brief in support of its response setting forth any authority that would support such a -2-part because no objections had been filed. J oshua has not attempted to explain its neglect of the Court's deadlines, and it is now far too late to ask this Court to consider objections to the survey and its process. Joshua also objects to the closing of incentive schools which are located in predominately black neighborhoods. While such concerns are certainly valid, the Court notes that the King Interdistrict school, which will be desegregated, is a new school in a black neighborhood and, indeed. is in close proximity to Ish. There thus is no net loss of schools in predominately black neighborhoods with respect to the closing of Ish. The Court would also note that the granting of the LRSD's motion to close Ish due to an insufficient number of students does not conflict with the terms of the settlement plan. The plan states the following with respect to incentive schools: There shall be a limited number of incentive schools, a period of at least six years, that number of black students for sufficient to accommodate _ ------ who, by attending those schools, make it possible to achieve a student population the remaining Little Rock schools y an schools) of 55 percent black and 45 percent white with variance of 5 percent. (elementary area a to these elementary The recruitment of white students _ - area schools increase the percentage of white students in these schools to maximum percentage of 60 percent. T V, incentive schools shall be: r^.J.li,,, Ish, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, and Stephens may a Franklin, Garland, Kigniseii, Rockefeller, and Stephens. The incentive schools will be desegregated in phases through a combination of white recruitment into the incentive schools, and by reserving a designated number of seats in into the incentive , / iVxiiy d uesignauea numneir of seats in each incoming kindergarten class for the enrollment of white students. As new Interdistrict Schools --established those seats attributable t.. LL.1:, available for those students who otherwise would have been assigned to an incentive school
As are to LRSD will be incentive or could any -3-assignment shall be in accordance district's student assignment plan. Funding for the incentive schools shall be f incentive schools shall be set at two elementary area schools to ensure ---------racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated of a consultant who has aemonstrable <---- implementing that the children who are experiences/activities. services of educational setting- experience in developing and successfully such programs in a majority-black Interdistrict Plan, April 29, 1992, pg. 4. According to the desegregation plan. the double funding allotted the incentive schools is intended to help alleviate the racial-isolation of the children attending these predominately one- race schools. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has stressed the importance of this incentive school feature
helpful for us to state those elements of the K- , that we consider crucial, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved. They are as follows: (1) double fundinrr -fnr fa 4-4- the ------ They are (1) double funding for students attending incentive (virtually allblack) schools ... Appeal of Little Rock School District, 1991). 949 F.2d 253, 256 {8th Cir. However, in accordance with the aforementioned survey process, the LRSD gave the parents of Ish Incentive School students the choice of removing their children from a racially-isolated setting electing to send them to King, a new, desegregated Interdistrict School in the same general neighborhood. King offers many program enhancements, including four curriculum specialists, a 56 station computer lab. electronic-assisted instruction. and an automated media center. Also, as previously noted by the Court, if Ish were to close and its students transfer to King, the LRSD committed to -4- Iincrease the total number of four-year-old classes at King from two to four. Nevertheless, to the extent the granting of the LRSD's motion to close Ish is a disputed modification of the plan, the Court finds that such modification is in compliance with the standards for reviewing disputed modifications as set forth by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Appeal of Little Rock School District, supra, 949 F.2d 253. There, the Court stated: To modify [a] consent decree[] lo moairy [a] consent decree[], the court need only defect or deficiency in its original decree which impedes achieving its goal, either because e^erience 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 of the parties. has its either [or] A Id. at 258, quoting with approval Heath 1105, 1110 (6th Cir. 1989). V. De Courcy, 888 F.2d Here, the Court finds that the insufficient number of Ish students (fewer than 100) is changed circumstance which constitutes a defect or deficiency in the plan and impedes the goals set forth therein. Furthermore, the Court finds that the circumstances and conditions thus have changed which warrant "fine- tuning" the plan. The closing of Ish, when considered in light of the opening of the desegregated King Interdistrict School, furthers the purpose of the plan in a more efficient way without upsetting the basic agreement of the parties. Although the Court grants the LRSD's motion to close Ish, it does not excuse the LRSD from its obligation to recruit white -5- a i Istudents to desegregate the remaining incentive schools. The Court reiterates that it will closely watch all proposed school closings and school capacity alterations to determine whether there is a developing pattern of closing schools in areas largely inhabited by black citizens while increasing the capacity of schools in areas largely inhabited by white citizens, not evidence such a pattern. The motion to close Ish does IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the LRSD's motion to close the Ish Incentive School be, and it is hereby, granted. Dated this 2nd day of August 1993. unite
'ATES D :s2r^t judge THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79<a) FRCP ON BY^ -6-U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS AUG 4 >993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG 0 2 1993 OH'iCS oi OeseGifcG: icr. n^oC'VjritiQ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION By: ^ents, clerk OH. CieRK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS VS . No. 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 ORDER By Order dated June 11, 1993 [doc.#1848], the Court approved the Little Rock School District's ("LRSD") attendance zones for the King Interdistrict School on condition that the Ish Incentive School remain open unless the LRSD establishes that fewer than students wish to attend Ish during the 1993-94 academic year. 100 In this regard, the Court directed that within 10 days from June 9, 1993, the LRSD submit to the Court its proposed survey of potential Ish students^ along with its plan for executing the survey and implementing the survey results. The LRSD complied with the Court's directive and, by Order dated June 30, 1993 [doc.#1873], the Court approved the LRSD's King/Ish survey process, the revised form letter with attachments, and the revised school selection form. None of the parties objected. Now before the Court is the motion of the LRSD to close the Ish Incentive School [doc.#1908] on grounds that the survey process has The Court determined that the 100 students who will decide the immediate future of Ish will come from the following groups. (1) students now attending Ish who reside within the Ish attendance zones
(2) students not attending Ish but U/kzs lia.a. .L* T-U ___l_ . .. ' ' Who live within the Ish attendance zones
and (3) students now attending Ish but who live outside the Ish attendance zones. .'-aaindicated that only 82 students in the group listed by this Court in its June 11, 1993, Order wished to attend Ish. The Joshua Intervenors ("Joshua") have responded in opposition to the motion. Having carefully considered the parties' pleadings, the Court finds that the goals of the settlement plan will not be adversely impacted by the granting of the LRSD's motion to close the Ish Incentive School, and that the motion should be and hereby is granted. Joshua objects to the survey and the manner in which it was conducted on grounds that (1) the survey did not consider preschool children who may have desired to attend pre-school programs at Ish, and (2) it is reasonable to assume that an equal percentage of the students who did not respond to the survey would have opted for Ish to that percentage which actually did so, i.e. 55.4%, and on that basis. presumed is 145.^ the actual number of preferences which may be Joshua further states, in a somewhat conclusory manner, that "[t]he process was designed to fail." Joshua's objections to the survey and the manner in which it was conducted are denied as untimely. In the June 11, 1993 order. the Court specifically stated that "[t]he Joshua Intervenors will have 5 days to file their response and objections to the LRSD's survey and plan, and 5 days to file their response and objections to the amended student assignment plan." In the June 30, 1993, Order, the Court approved the LRSD's King/Ish survey process. in 2 conclusion. Joshua has not submitted a brief in support of its response setting forth any authority that would support such a -2-part because no objections had been filed. Joshua has not attempted to explain its neglect of the Court's deadlines, and it is now far too late to ask this Court to consider objections to the survey and its process. Joshua also objects to the closing of incentive schools which are located in predominately black neighborhoods. While such concerns are certainly valid, the Court notes that the King interdistrict school, which will be desegregated, is a new school in a black neighborhood and, indeed, is in close proximity to Ish. There thus is no net loss of schools in predominately black neighborhoods with respect to the closing of Ish. The Court would also note that the granting of the LRSD's motion to close Ish due to an insufficient number of students does not conflict with the terms of the settlement plan, states the following with respect to incentive schools: The plan There shall be a limited number of incentive schools, for a period of at least six years, sufficient to accommodate that number of black students who, by attending those schools, make it possible to achieve a student population in the remaining Little Rock schools (elementary area schools) of 55 percent black and 45 percent white with variance of 5 percent. The recruitment of white students to area schools may increase the percentage of white students in these schools to these elementary maximum percentage of 60 percent. The incentive schools shall be: Franklin, Garland, Ish, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, and Stephens. The incentive schools will be desegregated in phases through a combination of white recruitment into the incentive schools, and by reserving a designated number of seats in each incoming kindergarten class for the enrollment of white students. As new Interdistrict Schools are established those seats attributable to LRSD will be available for those students who otherwise would or could have been assigned to an incentive school
any a a -3-recruitment and/or any assignment shall be in accordance with each district's student assignment plan. Funding for the incentive schools shall be set at two times the level for the elementary area schools to ensure that the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/activities. To meet that goal, the parties shall utilize the services of a consultant who has demonstrable experience in developing and successfully implementing such programs in a majority-black educational setting. programs a Interdistrict Plan, April 29, 1992, pg. 4. According to the desegregation plan. the double funding allotted the incentive schools is intended to help alleviate the racial-isolation of the children attending these predominately one- race schools. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has stressed the importance of this incentive school feature: It may be helpful for us to state those elements of the 1989 plan that we consider crucial, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved. They are as follows: (1) double funding for students attending the incentive (virtually all-black) schools ... Appeal of Little Rock School District, 949 F.2d 253, 256 (8th Cir. 1991). However, in accordance with the aforementioned survey process, the LRSD gave the parents of Ish Incentive School students the choice of removing their children from a racially-isolated setting by electing to send them to King, a new, desegregated Interdistrict School in the same general neighborhood. King offers many program enhancements, including four curriculum specialists, a 56 station computer lab, electronic-assisted instruction. and an automated media center. Also, as previously noted by the Court, if Ish were to close and its students transfer to King, the LRSD committed to -4- increase the total number of four-year-old classes at King from two to four. Nevertheless, to the extent the granting of the LRSD's motion to close Ish is a disputed modification of the plan, the Court finds that such modification is in compliance with the standeirds for reviewing disputed modifications as set forth by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Appeal of Little Rock School District, supra, 949 F.2d 253. There, the Court stated: 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 ej^erience has proven it less effective [or] disadvantageous, or because circumstances and conditions either ] effective 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 of the parties. A Id. at 258, quoting with approval Heath v. De Courcy, 888 F.2d 1105, 1110 (6th Cir. 1989). Here, the Court finds that the insufficient number of Ish students (fewer than 100) is changed circumstance which a constitutes a defect or deficiency in the plan and impedes the goals set forth therein. Furthermore, the Court finds that the circumstances and conditions thus have changed which warrant "fine- tuning" the plan. The closing of Ish, when considered in light of the opening of the desegregated King Interdistrict School, furthers the purpose of the plan in a more efficient way without upsetting the basic agreement of the parties. Although the Court grants the LRSD's motion to close Ish, it does not excuse the LRSD from its obligation to recruit white -5-students to desegregate the remaining incentive schools. The Court reiterates that it will closely watch all proposed school closings and school capacity alterations to determine whether there is a developing pattern of closing schools in areas largely inhabited by black citizens while increasing the capacity of schools in areas largely inhabited by white citizens, not evidence such a pattern. The motion to close Ish does IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the LRSD's motion to close the Ish Incentive School be, and it is hereby, granted. Dated this 2nd day of August 1993. united states'DISTRIC' STRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON 1^1321 -6-IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER LbU uAS-R.\ ofsTRrZJ^APMNSAS I 0 1993 CARL S. dHENTS, CLERK 0P. PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is the Joshua Intervenor's (Joshua) motion [doc.#1929] for this Court to reconsider its order granting the Little Rock School District's motion to close the Ish Incentive School. The Court has carefully considered Joshua's motion and finds that it should be and hereby is denied. Joshua has not set forth any facts or legal conclusions that would justify I I I reconsideration of the Court's order. IT IS SO ORDERED this /O day of August 1993. UNiT^ ST^Ss d':^:'RICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLI^CE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(al FRCP ON by I I II I i IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. 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 caste^oisSSnsas AUG 1 0 1993 CARL .ihl DP. .fcRK PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is the Joshua Intervenor's (Joshua) motion I [doc.#1929] for this Court to reconsider its order granting the Little Rock School District's motion to close the Ish Incentive School. The Court has carefully considered Joshua's motion and finds that it should be and hereby is denied. Joshua has not set forth any facts or legal conclusions that would justify i^i^NTS, CLERK ( I I I I ( I I reconsideration of the Court's order. IT IS SO ORDERED this /O day of August 1993. I UNITED STATES DIST?'RICT JUDGE 3N THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET MM COMPLI^CE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79/al FRCP - ^-10-Q--, BY W ' 1 SE^H-gS TUE 14:27 SUSAN U WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 02 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS VS . No. 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 ORDER By Order entered August 10, 1993, this Court denied the Joshua Intervenor's ("Joshua") motion for reconsideration of its order granting the Little Rock School District's ("LRSD") motion to close the Ish Incentive School [doc.#1934]. Counsel for Joshua has let the time for filing a notice of appeal from the Court's order lapse. Now before the Court is Joshua's motion for an order granting them an extension of time until October 10, 1993, in which to file a notice of appeal. As grounds for its motion, counsel for Joshua states that he was confused by the following statement made by the Court in a hearing on August 12, 1993, regarding the resolution of Joshua's motion for reconsideration: I have not in any way ruled with respect to that motion ... Transcript, at 6 (August 12, 1993). The Court frankly does not understand how counsel could have been confused about the parameters of his own motion for reconsideration. As counsel knows, the motion is comprised of twoSEP-14-93 TUE 14:28 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 03 parts J First, Joshua asks the Court to modify its opinion by rescinding its order closing the Ish incentive School. Second, Joshua states that "[i]n the absence of modification, the Court is requested to issue an Order requiring that all incentive school benefits, including scholarship benefits, fallow the incentive school children wherever they may be assigned. Moreover, in the event that King opens as a racially identifiable school, Joshua further requests that it become an incentive school so that all children therein will have the benefit of incentive school programs including the promised scholarships [doc.#1929]. When the Court's statement is not taken out of context as counsel has done, it becomes clear that counsel's confusion is not justified: The children Court
[Y]ou are entitled mentioned to promised incentive school benefits, have a motion pending on that whether receive Ish their Now, you Mr. Walker: Yes, ma'am. The Court
that has not been addressed. As you know, when 1 permitted the district to survey the students, I suggested that as an incentive, they might offer some of these benefits that are offered to incentive school as an incentive to get the kids to go to Ish. 1 have not in any way ruled with respect to that motion. Transcript, at 5-6 (August 12, 1993). 1 The motion is captioned as follows
"Motion for Correction of Finding of Fact or Conclusion of Law aiut Motion for Ruling on Request that Incentive School Benefits Including Scholarship Benefits Follow the Incentive School Children." (Emphasis added.) -2-SEP-14-93 TUE 14:28 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 04 The Court clearly was not speaking to Joshua's motion asking that the Court reconsider its order to close Ish, but was speaking to Joshua's motion requesting that the Incentive school benefits follow the Incentive school children. Moreover, the order denying Joshua's motion for reconsideration was entered on August lo, 1993, two days prior^the hearing in which the above statements were made and well in advance of the deadline for filing a notice of appeal. Counsel does not contend that he failed to receive notice of the order. Nevertheless, because the LRSD does not object, the court will grant Joshua's motion for an extension of time. Joshua is hereby given until and including October 10, 1993, in which to file their notice of appeal. IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of September 1993. 'judge 2 Ths mailing certificate of the Clerk states tliat the order was mailed to Mr. Walker on August 10, 1993. -3- SEF14-93 TUE 14:27 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P.Ol IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT FAX LINE (501) 324-6576 DATE
9/14/93 TO
Ann FROM
Barry NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET 4 Message
Oitice SEP 1 5 o! Dese5'C8-''' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION SEP 1" 1993 LITTLE ROCK DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS VS No. LR -C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the court for an ORDER allowing them to have 30 days from August 12, 1993 in which to file a notice of appeal herein. For cause. Joshua shows the Court that on August 10, 1993, the Court entered an ORDER denying Joshua's motion for reconsideration of the Court's order of August 2, 1993 authorizing the Little Rock School District to close Ish Incentive School. When the parties appeared before her Honor on August 12, 1993, 30 days ago taking into account the weekend which just passed, the Court stated that: "I have not in any way ruled with respect to that motion " (p. 6, Transcript of Proceedings, a copy of which is attached hereto.) Joshua's motion for reconsideration was filed on August 2, 1993. The Court has not entered a judgement in this case. Therefore, an ORDER allowing Joshua thirty additional days in which to appeal the court's order would be both appropriate and of no prejudice to the Little Rock School District. Joshua's counsel has spoken with the Little Rock School District's counsel regarding this motion and counsel is authorized to state to the court that Mr, Jerry Malone has no objection to this reguest. Wherefore, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the court enter an ORDER granting them until October 10, 1993 in which to file their notice of appeal from that order. Respectfully submitted. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Walker, certify that a copy of the forego!^ has been served on September, 1993. all counsel of record on this RECEIVED fir" Hr OCT 1 3 1993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURtF"X1thi^w^, OJfice of Desegregation Monitoring EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. C^Rt R- TEAINTIFFS-V. NO. LR-C-82-866 BV-PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, As next Friend of Minors Leslie Joshua, Stacy Joshua
SARA MATTHEWS
As Next Friend of KHAYYAM DAVIS
ALEXA ARMSTRONG
CARLOS ARMSTRONG
ALVIN HUDSON
TATIA HUDSON
MRS. HILTON TAYLOR, As Next Friend of HILTON TAYLOR, JR., PARSHA TAYLOR and BRIAN TAYLOR
REV. JOHN M. MILES, As Next Friend of JANICE MILES and DERRICK MILES
NAACP
and ROBERT WILLINGHAM, Next Friend of TONYA WILLINGHAM INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is hereby given that the Joshua Intervenors appeal the Orders of the Court entered herein on August 10, 1993 and September 27, 1993, respectively, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Respectfully submitted, ! . B 5995 No. 64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 I. 111' Hr I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this day of October, 1993, Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Co
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.