Student assignment

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION DELORES CLARK, et al.. Plaintiffs, Vs. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. LR-64-C-155 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., ) ) > Defendants. ) i DEFENDANTS f EXHIBIT } -A STIPULATION Plaintiffs and defendants hereby stipulate as follows: 1. Defendants shall implement and administer for the 1973-74 school year and thereafter the student and faculty assignment procedures set forth in their Report about December 22, 1972 and in their Motions filed in this case on or about May 9, 1973. However, although the parties to this litigation believe that the ratio of black to white students in the district has now stabilized, if at the end of the 1974-75 school year, the overall proportion of black students then attending the primary schools in the western area of the city equals or exceeds two-thirds of the total student enrollment at such facilities, then the defendants will at that time re-evaluate the student assignment procedures and the grade structure presently in use for the purpose of formulating a procedure which would achieve the most equitable and efficient method of desegregation under the circumstances then existing. 2. Assignments of pupils to kindergarten facilities will be made on the basis of geographic attendance zones designed to assign such students to the facility which is generally closest to their residence. A kindergarten student may however elect to exercise a majority to minority transfer pursuant to which he or she may transfer from a facility in which his or her race is in the majority to a facility in which his or her race Is a minority. A kindergarten student may also elect to attend a kindergarten facility located at a school where such student's brother dr sister Is assigned to an elementary grade and insuch event, the kindergarten child will be eligible for transportation to the same extent as his or her brother or sister. 3. If permissible under applicable state and federal law, and if funding can be obtained, the defendants will, on an experimental basis. establish in 1973-74 a kindergarten program at selected eastern school facilities to serve four year old children residing in the vicinity of such kindergarten facilities. 4. The Little Rock School District is an equal opportunity employer and its goal has been and continues to be, through normal attrition and consistent with the hiring of qualified individuals, to achieve a total administrative and teaching staff ratio of one-third black personnel. 5, The defendants are opposed to, and do not employ, the concept of "tracking" of students. For purposes of this Stipulation, the term "tracking" refers to the labeling of students according to ability and on that basis permanently assigning them to a course of study to be followed throughout their secondary education. The defendants do however endorse and utilize the concept of "achievement grouping" in the elementary schools, and to a limited extent, in the sepondary schools. Any achievement grouping in elementary schools will be carried out in the framework of presently existing heterogeneous student groupings . 6. The parties shall establish a bi-racial advisory committee composed of an equal number of black and white persons to aid the district' in resolving desegregation problems . The parties will determine the exact function, scope and composition of the committee at some date prior to the beginning of the 1973-74 school term. 7. For at least two years from June 28, 1973 or for as long as the defendants adhere to the commitments contained in this Stipulation, the plaintiffs and their counsel commit that they will initiate no further legal proceedings concerning matters covered Page 2I by the terms of this Stipulation or the issues raised by the Report and Motions mentioned in Paragraph 1, and the objections to them heretofore made by plaintiffs, and further agree to assist the defendants in the defense of any litigation, initiated by others, which would tend to impair or hamper the successful operation of the desegregation program described herein. Plaintiffs and their counsel further commit to cooperate with the Board of Directors and administrative staff of the school district in promoting the successful operation of the district's educational program for the maximum educational advantage of all students in the district. Executed this day of June, 1973 by counsel of record for the parties, it being expressly understood that this Stipulation will be void and of no effect until ratified by the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District. X- JOHN W. WALKER Attorney for Plaintiffs ROBERT V. LIGHT' Attorney for Defendants The foregoing Stipulation was ratified by a vote of the majority of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District in its regular meeting on June 28, 1973. ATTEST^ President t. I, Secretary Page 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION DELORES CLARK, ET AL. VS. NO. LR 64 C 155 THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FILED U-Si DI8TRJCT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS M 91982 CA^R.fi^S, CLERK PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS CEP. CLERK The Board of Education of the Little Rock School District has petitioned the Court for approval of a revised elementary school student assignment plan, the "Partial K-6 Plan".^ The plan is referred to as In 1973, after years of litigation, the plaintiffs ana the school district reached a mutually satisfactory agreement involving a number of issues, including a student assignment plan, and a moratorium was declared with respect to further litigation. Beginning in the school year 1973-74, the elementary schools were essentially desegregated. Because the eastern parts of the district are essentially black residential areas and western parts of the district are essentially white residential areas, it has been necessary to employ extensive bussing to achieve school desegregation. Over the years, there has been a steady trend of increasing black enrollment and decreasing white enrollment in the elementary schools. The trend is present, although less pronounced, in the upper grades. 1. DX 20. 2 2. The original desegregation case against the Little Kock School District was filed in 1956. The pending case, which was simply a continuation of the original litigation, was fxlea in 1964. 3 DEFENDANTS f EXHIBIT JThe following chart 3 illustrates the trend which has been established and maintained since 1971: Little Rock Public Schools, Grades 1-12 Change in Student Enrollment, Fall 1971 to Fall 1981 Year Number of Whites Number of Blacks Decline in Whites Percent becli In Whites 1971 13,413 9,814 1,256 b.b% 1972 11,926 9,909 1,487 11.1% 1973 10,999 10,096 927 7.8% 1974 10,303 10,246 696 6.3% 1975 9,760 10,730 543 5.3% 1976 9,320 10,991 440 4.5% 1977 8,708 11,089 612 6.6% 1978 7,979 11,142 729 8.4% 1979 7,454 11,517 525 6.6% 1980 6,806 11,780 648 8.7% 1981 6,291 11,813 515 7.5%' The trend is generally explained by a number of demographic factors, such as population shifts by whites to the suburbs. increase in black population in the district, differences in birth rates, and, to some extent, the element of "white 4 flight". As previously mentioned, the increasing disparity in the ratio between black and white students attending the district is most pronounced at the elementary school level. The following chart^ illustrates that trend. 3. DX 19, page 17. 4. DX 19, pages 12-28
testimony of Dr. Dewitt Davis. 5. Composite from Exhibits 2 through 13. 2Little Rock Public Schools, Grades 1-6 Change in Student Enrollment, Fall 1971 to Fall 1981 Year Number of Whites Number of Blacks Decline in Whites Percent Declir in Whites 1971 7,283 5,712 1972 6,497 5,933 786 10.8% 1973 5,700 5,822 797 12.3% 1974 5,012 5,805 688 12.1% 1975 4,560 5,864 452 9.1% 1976 4,374 5,928 186 4.1% 1977 4,066 6,022 308 7.1% 1978 3,871 6,218 195 4.8% 1979^ 3,459 6,637 412 10.7% 1980 3,152 6,661 307 8.9% 1981 2,501 6,953 651 20.8% During the 1977-78 school year, it became apparent that the student assignment plan implemented in earlier years was not accomplishing the desegregation goals established by the district. 7 The district took the initiative in correcting the problem. A "Reorganization Committee" was formed which studied various proposals and, as a product of that work, the district adopted a reorganization of the student assignment plan which was implemented in the 1978-79 school year. 6. The Court was given two sets of figures for student enrollment in the 1979-1980 school year. This chart is basea on the figures contained in Defendant's Exhibit 12. 7. Testimony of Dr. Leonard Thalmueller. 3Under the 1978-79 reorganization plan, the first three grades were designated primary grades and grades four through six were designated as intermediate grades. At that time blacks accounted for 63% of the students in grades one through six. One of the goals of reorganization was to maintain a black-white attendance ratio at each school which was within a ten percent variation from the district average at the elementary school level. 8 For example, as a result of the 1978-79 reorganization plan. Forest Park School had the lowest percentage of black students at 53% and Garland and Mitchell Schools had the highest percent at 70%. By 1980-81 the declining white enrollment, particularly ' in the primary grades, again resulted in significant deviations in the black-white ratio at a number of schools. For example. at Williams School, which is located in a predominently white residential area, only 8 white children enrolled in the first grade for the 1981-82 school year while 117 black children enrolled. There were seven schools, grades one through six, which had black enrollment of 80% or more. one in excess of 86%. Although the School District has been conscious of the trend of decreasing white enrollment and taken some measures to curtail the erosion. 9 nothing has significantly affected the trend. All of the persuasive evidence indicates the school district will have an enrollment which is essentially all black, particularly in the elementary grades, within the next few years. 8. Testimony of Dr. Thalraueller. 9. The administration has done an admirable 30b of offering quality education. Considerable effort has been directed toward providing curricula calculated to attract whites who have left the district's schools because of a oelief that the district was not offering quality education. These efforts include honors classes, ability grouping. emphasis on improvement in basic skills, etc. Addi- tionally, the administration has worked with the civic community and volunteer groups in efforts to encourage support for public schools and improvement in the quality of education provided. 4Faced with a significantly reduced white enrollment in the primary grades and a vocal protest by white parents against white racial insolation in some of the primary classes, the School Board adopted a "6535" classroom assignment plan in the fall of 1981. The plan was a hurriedly conceived stopgap measure to appease white parents of primary age children. The plan required that white children be assigned to home room classes with other whites until the percentage reached 35% in each class. The plan had the effect, of course, of creating some all black classes. The plan was disapproved by this Court following an evidentiary hearing in September, 1981. In the fall of 1981, the Little Rock School Board faced a host of problems which prompted reconsideration of the school attendance plan. For example, a significant disparity had developed in the black-white ratio of attendance at the various elementary schools and there was reason to believe the ratio would increase. Some of the black parents complained that their children were being bussed across the city to attend all black classes. Additionally, the last two milleage increase proposals had been defeated by the electorate and the district is faced with severe financial problems and an eroding financial base. The overall declining enrollment in the district and financial considerations dictated the closing of some school buildings. The Board took several steps in response to the problems. A "Patrons Reorganization Committee^ was appointed to receive and review various proposals for pupil assignment plans and determine the feasibility of implementing the proposals. The Committee was asked to conduct public hearings 10. The committee was a twenty member committee composed of 10 blacks and 10 whites, 10 who were males and 10 females. 5in various parts of the city in order to get as much in^jut from the public as possible. The Board arranged for a study of the district's desegregation efforts by the Technical Assistance Center of Stephen F. Austin State University. This "Desegregation Assistance Team" submitted a report of its findings and conclusions to the Board in December, 1981. 11 The Biracial Committee, which is an advisory committee formed as a result of the agreement in 1973, was asked to review the various plans and proposals for changes in the attendance plan. The administrative staff was assigned the task of compiling information and lending support assistance to committees. The Board also investigated the possibility of seeking an interdistrict remedy through legal proceedings against the adjacent County School District and has hired law firm to pursue that remedy. Some 15 proposed plans or concepts for elementary pupil assignment were submitted to the Board, Patrons Committee and Biracial Committee for consideration. The plans were reduced to three, and finally "Partial K-6 Plan" was adopted by the Board after a number of minor modifications. The Board apparently views Partial K-6 as a temporary plan which provides the best chance for maintaining an integrated school system pending a decision in the interdistrict remedy suit. Partial K-6 Plan produces a number of results the Board views as preferable over the present plan. 1. The plan eliminates the primary-intermediate grouping, (or 3-3) plan (or has the same effect by pairing schools). Apparently one of the recurring complaints about the present plan is that students are moved from school to school too frequently. 11. DX 19. a 6and their classmates change every three years. K-6 permits elementary age children to attend the same school or at least attend with the same schoolmates for six years, thereby fostering a sense of security, continuity and stability. 2. Partial K-6 permits the organization of nine neighborhood schools. 3. Approximately 1,000 fewer students will be bussed under Partial K-6. The number of bus routes will be reduced from 104 to 72 with an estimated immediate savings of $132,000. Furthermore, the number of school opening and closing times can be reduced. 4. Two elementary school buildings will be closed under partial K-6. 5. Partial K-6 employs the concept of a magnet school with a curricula attractive to some parents who are concerned about the quality of education. 6. The number of schools with a black ratio of 80% or more will be reduced from seven to four. Plaintiffs oppose the plan for several reasons. The "objections to petition" will be discussed in the order raised in plaintiffs' response to the Board's petition. 1. The "plaintiffs object to additional black -School closings". This objection revolves around the part of Partial K-b which proposes that Booker Junior High School be changed to an elementary school. Although it is asserted that Booker will be "closed", such is not the case. 7Because of declining enrollments in junior high school, the Board concluded that one junior high facility was not needed. Booker had the fewest number of students ana reassignment of its students to other schools caused the least disruption. Thus, Booker was selected for conversion to an elementary school. Under the final plan, the schools which will be closed are Jefferson and King. Jefferson is in a white neighborhood and King is in a black neighborhood. The Board commissioned an evaluation of school physical plants and a report was submitted to the Board (the Leggett report) which indicated that the cost of refurbishing and repairing King Elementary would be $1,500,000. On the basis of that estimate. King was selected for closing. Plaintiffs' argument that converting Booker to an elementary school causes a "burden" on blacks is puzzling. as is the claim that such a move is calculated "to further relieve white stufendts (sic) of educational presence in the Black community." First, if there is a burden on black junior high students, there is a corresponding burden on white elementary students who will be transported to Booker. Second, the black neighborhood will certainly have the "presence" of those white elementary age students who attend Booker. Third, while black junior high students may be transported from the Booker neighborhood to other areas. black elementary age children will be relieved of that burden. It would seem that bussing older children is preferable to transporting elementary age children. With respect to the general allegations that school closings have, over the years, had the effect of relieving the "proportionate burden" upon white children and enhancing it for black children, such is simply not supported by the evidence. First, all site selection for construction has 8been the subject of court approval. (Testimony of Lacey). Second, plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence that a school has been "closed or downgraded" because of improper consideration. Third, if there has been a "disproportionate burden" caused by transportation of students, it has fallen on white students, not black, and such will continue as the case under Partial K-6. (Testimony of Thalmueller and Lacey). The only bases for this objection are conclusory allegations which are not supported by persuasive evidence. 2. "Plaintiffs object to the efforts to develop four 'segregated' or 'racially' identifiable" schools. Under Partial K-6, four elementary schools will have a black enrollment of 90% or more. These schools are located in black residential areas. The black enrollment in the eighteen remaining elementary schools will range from 60% to 77%. Currently, the average black elementary enrollment in the district is 76%. Plaintiffs contend that creating four schools which have a black enrollment in excess of 90% is simply an effort to establish segregated schools and, that if allowed, "there will be no prohibition upon the defendants in establishing them for white school children". Plaintiffs further argue that by simply "adjusting" the attendance zones of the present plan a racial balance can be maintained in each school. The Board's decision to depart from the present plan was prompted by a number of factors. First, the present plan is not working. Although attendance zones can be drawn based upon school age census in the zone, predictions as to the number of students who actually enroll in school from that zone cannot be made with any degree of accuracy. Predictions as to enrollment by grade from a zone are even more troublesome. A good example of the problem is the 9situation last school year at Williams Elementary where 8 white children and 117 black children enrolled in the first grade. The problem of maintaining a racial balance at each school is compounded by the declining white enrollment at the elementary age level. In 1981-82, only 2,501 white elementary age students enrolled. This was a decline of 651 from the previous year. Obviously, if the trend continues. and there is no reason to believe otherwise, in a matter of two or three years there will be no "critical mass" of white students in any elementary school for the purpose of meaningful integration. Under the present plan, seven schools have a black enrollment of 80% or more. The Board's conclusion that "meaningful integration" did not exist at those schools is apparently supported by a majority of authorities on the subject of desegregation. Those authorities think that in order to have meaningful integration, 20% of the students must be of the second race. 12 Given the difficulties in predicting enrollment and the sharp decline each year in white enrollment, there is no reason to believe that a simple "adjustment" in attendance zones will reduce the number of schools with a black enrollment in excess of 80%. 3. Plaintiffs argue that Partial K-6 is "reimposition" of the concept of separate but equal. This argument would have some persuasiveness if there was any realistic hope of stabilizing the ratio of blacks and whites enrolled in elementary schools. Such stabilization plus a reasonable degree of predictability as to enrollment 12. DX 19, pages 7, 8. Testimony of Orfield, page 28. 10grades from an attendance zone may permit the maintenance of a "balanced ratio" at each school. Unfortunately, such is not the case. Partial K-6 is simply recognition of the fact that a substantial number of black students are now being bussed across the district to attend classes which are essentially all black. Although maintaining a "balanced ratio" at each school IS a worthy goal of any desegregation plan, it is not the sole criterion. Most importantly, the four elementary schools in question are not part of a separate school system for blacks. Attendance is determined by neighborhood, not by race. Furthermore, under a modification to the plan, black students are given the opportunity of transferring from those four schools to other schools in the district. 4. Plaintiffs make a number of general objections to the plan which will be discussed collectively. Plaintiffs contend the plan violates a part of the moratorium agreement which required that the primary grades would be located in the black community when the black enrollment reached 65%. No such agreement has been established by the evidence. Furthermore, if there was such an agreement, it has not been enforced because black enrollment in the primary grades has been in excess of 65% for several years. In any event, any informal agreement between the parties reached in 1973 cannot reasonably be applied so as to dictate the terms of an attendance plan in 1982.- - During the evidentiary hearing plaintiffs contended that the facilities at the four essentially all black schools would be "overcrowded". Defendants' witnesses denied the 11allegation and contend that guidelines in the plan are calculated to insure quality education at the four schools. The Court is unwilling at this point to predict failure or the Board's stated goals of insuring quality education at the four schools. If any disparity develops in the facilities or the quality of education offered at the four schools, the plaintiffs can always file a motion seeking correction of the disparity. Plaintiffs contend the Partial K-6 plan is actually the same as the "65-35" plan offered by the Board and rejected by this Court in September, 1981. The argument is made that Partial K-6 effectively segregates by placing blacks in separate school buildings instead of separate classes, which was the effect of the 65-35 plan. There is little parallel between the two plans. The 65-35 plan was an ill-conceived reaction to vocal white parents who were alarmed about racial insolation in the primary grades. The partial K-6 plan is the product of a reorganization project which utilized the Patrons Committee, Biracial Committee and administrative staff in an effort to seek community involvement in a student attendance plan. Moreover, the factors influencing the adoption of the plan are legitimate considerations for any student assignment plan. The only weight which can be given the 65-35 plan in any evaluation of Partial K-6 is on the issue of the Board's motive. The Court concludes that the Board is not motivated by a desire to resegregate the schools in adopting.Partial K-6. Finally, plaintiffs contend that the district has not achieved unitary status in that "vestiges of discrimination" have not been totally eliminated. Particularly, plaintiffs claim that discrimination persists in the "faculty, staff, programs, activities, discipline and site selection policies and practices of the district". Since this same argument 12has come up at the last three hearings, the Court will address it although resolution is not essential'to the issue at hand. The claim is asserted that administrative and faculty positions are filled in a discriminatory manner. The issue regarding the recent employment of_a white superintenoent over plaintiffs' objections was decided following our evidentiary hearing in February, 1982, and need not be reviewed again. The question of faculty and administrative staffing has been monitored for years by Dr. J.J. Lacey, a black who is Special Assistant to the Superintendent for Desegregation in the district. Dr. Lacey knows and understands the require- ments of the Clark decrees and, without reviewing the details, the Court accepts Dr. Lacey's testimony that the district has been, and is, in compliance with those guidelines. Plaintiffs suggested, during the evidentiary hearings, that the black-white faculty and staff ratio should coincide with the ratio of black to white students. The Court concurs with Dr. Lacey's view that the available labor market more appropriately determines the racial composition of the faculty and staff than does the ratio of students. Plaintiffs claim all the "heads of departments" are white. This is not a fact but, in any event, the supervisor of all the academic department heads is Dr. Benjamin Williams, a black. The argument is made that currently there are no black principals of any of the three high schools, white principals and one position is vacant. There are two A black woman was recommended by Dr. Masem^^ she was not hired by the Board. for the vacant position, but Plaintiffs also argue that 13. Dr. Paul Masem was Superintendent of the District for a little over three years and the Board voted to replace him. Dr. Masem's departure was not an amicable one anu he harbors some bitterness toward the District. Dr. :e 13Dr. Ruth Patterson was denied a position because of racial reasons and that racial considerations influenced personnel decisions involving William Thrasher and Paul Margrow. These arguments are supported solely by conclusions ana opinions of the witnesses. In any event, the opinions ana conclusions from such witnesses as Dr. Patterson, who can hardly be characterized as a disinterested witness, are not persuasive evidence that the district pursues discriminatory personnel practices. 14 Plaintiffs point to the fact that whites predominate in the honors courses, advanced academic courses and language courses as a "vestige" of discrimination. While it is true that whites predominate in those courses, there is absolutely no evidence that such enrollment is the product of any dis- criminatory policy or practice pursued by the Board. To the contrary, advanced academic courses and language courses are "open" to anybody who elects to take the courses. There IS no evidence that the honors program is administered in anything other than an objective fashion. According to Dr. Benjamin Williams, the administration has been conscious of the disproportionate numbers of whites in these programs as well as the fact that blacks are represented in dispropor- tionate numbers in the basic courses. If there was any explanation grounded in racially discriminatory practices, surely those reasons would have been produced. Reference was made to disciplinary action and.the claim that blacks are disciplined in disproportionate numbers to 14. Dr. Patterson has a lawsuit pending against the district asserting her claims that she has been subjected to discriminatory treatment. 15. Testimony of Dr. Williams. 14whites. Dr. Lacey monitors the discipline situation and says that he makes "every effort" to see that discriminatory practices play no part in disciplinary procedures. Plaintiffs produced no evidence that any practice or policy regarding discipline was discriminatory or applied in a discriminatory manner. The suggestion has been made that one vestige of discrimination is the fact that whites are represented in disproportionate numbers on the cheerleader squads. A reference is also made to discrimination in "extracurricular activities". There is no evidence before the Court as to how cheerleaders are selected, the composition of the cheerleader squads or even a description of the policy or practice adopted by the district which is supposed to discriminate against black students. The Court has no idea what other extracurricular activities" are involved in the allegation. Site selection for school closing and construction is alleged as a vestige of discrimination. That allegation has been discussed in preceding sections. Plaintiffs point to the fact that the Board has only one black member. 16 Plaintiffs claim the "at large" election procedure discriminates against blacks and that under Arkansas law the Board has the power to change the procedure so that members will be elected by wards. The Board's failure to do so is asserted as further evidence of official discrimina- tion. Although plaintiffs' attorney assured the Court at trial that an Arkansas statute exists which confers, that power upon the Board, he has been unable to furnish the citation to the statute and the Court cannot find any sucn procedure in the Arkansas Code. In any event, the Board 16. T.E. Patterson, a black, had been a Board member for at least 10 years. In 1981, B.G. Williams, a black, ran against Patterson and defeated him. 15can hardly be criticized for failing to employ a proceaure which is nonexistent. Plaintiffs are critical of the Board for failing to take affirmative measures to halt the trend of increasing black enrollment in the district and stop the decreasing white enrollment. Specifically, plaintiffs' attorney re- peatedly asked witnesses if the Board had taken any steps to "de-annex" black residential areas from the district. Changes in district boundaries require, under Arkansas law, concurrence of the electorate in the affected districts. Art. St^. 80-404, seg. Unilateral action taken by the Little Rock School Board is ineffective. The surrounding Pulaski County District has publicly announced that it has no interest in merging with the Little Rock District. Aside from the legal impediments, it would seem that "de-annexing" black residential areas in order to deliberately get blacks out of the district is unprecedented and, undoubtedly constitutional. unIn summary, the Court finds no evidence of vestiges of discrimination in the district policies or practices. The Court adopts the opinion of Dr. Orfield and the Austin Study Group that the district has done an admirable job in the task of desegregation. Doubtless, there will always be allegations of racial discrimination when any school decision is reviewed in an adversary setting, particularly when there is an integrated enrollment of almost 18,000 pupils and 1,250 teachers and administrators operating under court order. Nevertheless, the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system and isolateo complaints of discrimination without persuasive specific evidence to the contrary do not detract from that recora. 16Conclusions of Law The only serious question in this case is whether that portion of Partial K-6 which produces four elementary scnools with black enrollment in excess of 90% is unconstitutional. Although racial balance in each school is one method which may be used for dismantling dual school systems, there can be no serious claim that "racial balance" in the public schools is constitutionally mandated. Milliken'v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 740-741 (1974)
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 22-25
and Pasadena Cit' of Education v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424, 434. Bd. Furthermore, a small number of one-race, or virtually one-race. schools within a district is not in and of itself the mark of a system that still practices segregation by law. at 26. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Education, supra This is particularly true where, as here, the one race schools are the product of demographics over which the Board has no control. Pasadena Cit- Bd. of Education, supra at 436. As a tool for accomplishing desegregation of elementary grades, the present plan has, perhaps, outlived its usefulness. The dual system has long since been eliminated and the Board should be permitted to consider factors other than "racial balance" in structuring an elementary attendance plan. Neighborhood schools, a magnet school, financial consi- derations. and the desirable aspects of a K through 6 grouping are legitimate factors which may be considered when weighing the educational benefits of one attendance plan against another. Given the declining value of the present plan for desegregation purposes, the Board is certainly entitled to adopt an attendance plan which meets constitutional standards and permits the district to achieve other educational goals. 17Under the circumstances of this case. Partial K-6 Plan IS a constitutionally sound plan which may be implemented by the Little Rock School District. Dated this day of July, 1982. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 TO: FROM: SUBOECT: Little Rock School District October 24, 1990 Donna Creer, Executive Director, Magnet Review Committee Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Student Affairs, NLRSD Billy Bowles, Administrator for Research, Planning, and Quality Assurance, PCSSD Mable Bynum, Assistant Superintendent, Desegregation, NLRSD Eddie Collins, Assistant Superintendent, Pupil Personnel, PCSSD Office of Metropolitan Supervisor James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development New Location of Student Assignment Office TheLRSD Student Assignment Office is now located on the southeast corner of Capitol (5th) and Sherman Streets. Our new office telephone number is 324-2272. Hailing Address: LRSO Student Assignment Office 501 Sherman Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)374-3361 228/28/92 . 16:59 501 324 2032 L R School Dist 121002 'Sy. Little Rock School District August 28, 1992 Mrs. Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham Street Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: Mrs. Kumpuris spoke with Mrs. Gulden this afternoon on my behalf concerning a situation and a proposed resolution. This letter is to ask your ratification of our solution. A white student by the name of Jasmine Elizabeth Cassel lives in the Little Rock School District at 3701 Boyd Street, which is in the Southwest Junior High School attendance zone. This address is a racially mixed neighborhood and the student lives on a street where a number of black students attend Fuller Jr. High in the Pulaski County Special School District on an M to M transfer. By mistake, Jasmine was enrolled in Fuller Jr. High and was accepted into the TAG program. The residency error was discovered and the parents were informed that the child, because she is white, could not be released from LRSD to a PCSSD school. student was extremely disappointed and upset, friend is black and attends Fuller Jr. High. Needless to say, the Jasmine's best Our office has conferred with Mr. Bobby Lester of the PCSSD, and we feel that we could resolve this matter on a win-win basis by assigning a willing Fuller Jr. High white student to the LRSD in exchange for Jasmine enrolling at Fuller, the racial balance of either district. This would not affect Mrs. Gulden and Ms. Powell conferred and gave our office verbal approval to assign Jasmine to Fuller. sensitivity to the plight of this young lady. I appreciate their cc: Mr. Bobby Lester Ms. Marie Parker Ms. Melissa Gulden sincerely. Mac Bernd Superintendent of Schools APPROVED: Ann BrownOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: February 17,1993 To: Marie Parker Frown Subject: Student Assignment Handbook for 1993-1994 Thank you for sending a copy of the LRSDs "Student Assignment Handbook for 1993-94," which ODM received February 9,1993 promptly after requesting it. Ill appreciate routinely receiving a copy of such materials as they are published. I have certain questions and observations about some of the Handbooks information. Since this guidebook impacts the districts current registration and assignment process, lets get together as soon as possible to discuss the following: 1. What is the basis upon which the district has determined the maximum percentage of black students which may be enrolled in an elementary area school? The following statement appears on page 1 of the Handbook: The minimum black percentage for each elementary attendance zone school will be 40 percent. The maximum black percentage for each elementary attendance zone school will be 12 1/2 percent above the district-wide black percentage at the organizational level. However, according to the LRSD Desegregation Plan (page 139): The elementary area school attendance zones are drawn to establish a racial balance at each school of 55 percent black and 45 percent white with a variance of 5 percent. The recruitment of white students to elementary area schools may increase the percentage of white students at these schools but no school shall have a racial composition of greater than 60 percent white.And the Interdistrict Plan (page 4) states: 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 these 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. The recruitment of white students to these elementary area schools may increase the percentage of white students in these schools to a maximum percentage of 60 percent. Basing calculations of "acceptable ranges" on the plans language, I concur that the minimum black percentage for each elementary area schools is 40 percent, but I cant agree with the Handbooks stated maximum percentages for elementary area schools. 2. What data were used as the basis for calculating the "acceptable ranges" for attendance zone schools listed on Handbook pages 1,13, and 20? Even using the percentage ranges identified on page 1 of the Handbook, Im unable to calculate the same "acceptable ranges" that appear throughout the Handbook. Using figures from the LRSDs "Summary of October 1 Enrollment 1992-93" (copy attached,) ODMs calculations yield the following "acceptable ranges": Elementary 40.00% - 72.00% Junior High 50.25% - 75.38% Senior High 45.00% - 67.50% 3. If the Summarys October 1, 1992 enrollment figures are used as the basis for calculating the "elementary acceptable range," then three of the four sections in the chart on page 15 of the Handbook (the "Student Assignment Chart" for "Elementary Acceptable Racial Range") are incorrect. Using the October 1 percentages from the LRSD Summary as the calculation basis, three of the four sections that appear on the page 15 chart differ by one student. For example, "Class Size of 20 Students (Kindergarten)" would change from a minimum of 5 white students to 6 white students and from a maximum of 15 black students to 14 black students. There would also be a difference of one student on both the minimum and maximum numbers in classes of 25 students and classes of 28 students. 4. What is the basis for the Handbooks statement about the racial population of Washington? Page 17 of the Handbook asserts that "the racial population at Washington should reflect 55% black, 45% white." Yet the LRSD Desegregation Plan (page 144) states that "the target racial balance at Washington will be consistent with the Interdistrict Plan, seeking to obtain a ratio of between 60 percent and 40 percent of either race with the ideal goal to be 50 percent black/white."5. Why is Baker Interdistrict School omitted from the Handbook and why is Crystal Hill listed as an interdistrict school rather than a magnet? Page 18 of the Student Assignment Handbook lists Romine and King as interdistrict schools, omitting PCSSDs Baker Interdistrict Elementary School. In this same section, Crystal Hill is incorrectly listed as an interdistrict school. Last year, the Court designated the school a magnet as requested by the PCSSD without objection from the parties, including the LRSD. 6. What has been done to correct information in the Handbook that includes NLRSD as a full-fledged participant in the elementary M-to-M program? Pages 19-20 of the Handbook include NLRSD students as participants in M-to-M transfers. According to recent information from NLRSD (see attached,) the district will no longer send new elementary students to LRSD under the M-to-M program. cc: Mac BerndI SUMMARY OF OCTOBER 1 ENROLLMENT 19 9 2-9 3 ir'. V H ITE Tl T'U TCTLL K 715 1188 19 30 4. 719 1305 21 204 5 IQl 1323 30 2060 4 5 6 UN TOTAL ELEM 7 Q 9 UN TOTAL JR HIGH 10 11 UN TOTAL SR HIGH SP, lAL CHOOLS FOUR YR. OLD DI 'RIOT TOTAL 67 3 6 5 4 6 6 5 640 46 4319 611 591 23 1948 719 704 7 00 8 2131 43 141 9082 118 5 1214 1295 1367 117 8994 1431 1430 1241 36 413 8 1326 1098 93 9 15 3373 28 188 16,726 '^SUMMARY OF STUDENTS LISTED IN SPANISH ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER - : M 34 23 28 0 190 21 1 80 34 4 8 41 0 0 11 404 OTHER 135 227 re 18 9 2 1891 1988 2034 163 14,003 "> T T q T 074 1853 60 6166 2079 1850 1680 5632 2 6 , 71 340 CATEGORY: IK IMO /AMER. IND. OTHER,. (S?:/ / ,7/
T 81 t 64 6 2 6 4 6 5 67 6 4 6 El 69 67 60 67 6 4 5 9 56 6 5 60 39 55 64 20ft NET3I LETTILE SJ ! J 21 '-Q) -i Li ADMINISTRATP/E OFFICES 2700 POPKVR STREET January 27, 1993 Mrs. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 JAN 2 3 1953 OHics 0! Cesegresaucn Me: iC'iny Dear Mrs, Brown: Please be advised that the majority-to-minority transfer option will not be available for additional elementary students in the North Little Rock School District during the second semester of the 1992-93 school year. Currently the elementary school population in North Little Rock Schools is majority black with a 50.6 percent ratio. Elementary students currently enrolled under the m.ajority-to-minority option will not be affected by this change. The North Little Rock School District will continue to participate in majority-to-minority transfers at the secondary level in the following schools: North Little Rock High School (East and West), Lakewood Middle School and Ridgeroad Middle School. Rose City Middle School now has a majority black enrollment, thus can no longer accept or permit majority-to- minority transfers. Enrollment at all schools in the North Little Rock School District will be closely and continually monitored. If any changes occur that affect racial balances at any organizational level, the District will notify the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, the Magnet Review Committee and all parties of any adjustments for majority-to-minority participation. If there are questions, please feel free to call Mable Bynum, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation, North Little Rock School District, 771-8000. Sincerely yours, James R. Smith Superintendent of Schools JRS:aw CC: Magnet Review Committee All Parties AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER P. 0. BOX 687, NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR 72115/0637 501/771-8000 RECEIVED FEB 1 9 1993 OlticQ of Desegregation Monitoring FORMULA FOR CALCULATING ACCEPTABLE RACIAL RANGE 1993-94 Basis of calculations: October 1, 1992 enrollment Elementary
Enrollment Less Magnet Enrl. Total 14,003 2,057 Area School Enrl. 11,946 Black 8994 1140 7854 %Black 64 55,42 65.75 65.75 X .125 8.22 73.97 74.00% Maximum Black % 40.00% Minimum Black % (Set by Plan) Junior High: Enrollment Less Magnet Enrl. Area School Enrl. 6166 849 5317 4138 505 3633 67 59.48 68.33 68.33 X .125 8.54 76.87 76.75% Maximum Black % 68.33 X .25 = 17.08 51.25% Minimum Black % Senior High: Enrollment Less Magnet Enrl. Area School Enrl. 5632 871 4761 3378 501 2877 60 57.52 60.43 60.43 X .125 7.55 67.98 68.00% Maximum Black % 60.43 X .25 15.11 45.32 45.50% Minimum Black %1 Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE I-' March 10, 1993 For more information: Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TO DELAY ELEMENTARY AREA SCHOOL STUDENT ASSIG: gjjgjgi In order to complete the student assignment process for the 1993-94 school year and to assign the attendance zone for the new Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary school opening the same year, the Little Rock School District will slightly delay the previously scheduled March 10 notification date for elementary student assignments. Carver, Gibbs, Booker, and Wiltiams Elementary Magnet School assignments will be made as scheduled. AU junior and senior high assignments will also be made as scheduled. For further information caU the LRSD Student Assignment Office at 324-2272. 810 West Markham street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)324-2000f * RECESVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT' EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS MAR 1 1 '95 WESTERN DIVISION53H 9 PH 5' foliice of Desegregation Monitorinj LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS u 1 I.-
. V. NO. LR-C82866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS SPECIAL STATUS REPORT In order to complete the student assignment process. the Little Rock School District must delay the previously scheduled March 10 notification of elementary student assignments. Magnet school, junior high school, and high school assignments will be made as scheduled. The Little Rock School District will file a pleading within the next five days concerning elementary school assignments. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By 5 Bar No. kaitayXSfscial Suba Report CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Special Status Report has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this Sth, day of March, 1993: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Helle: ka(hy\SpectAl Status Report 2 03 10.93 09:22 0501 324 2032 L R School [list <?hrls Holler @1112 1102 Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE March 10, 1993 For more information: Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TO DELAY ELEMENTARY AREA SCHOOL STUDENT ASSIGNMENTS In order to complete the student assignment process for the 1993-94 school year and to assign the attendance zone for the new Marcin Luther King Jr. Elemencary school opening the same year, the Little Rock School District will slightly delay the previously scheduled March 10 notification date for elementary student assignments. Carver, Gibbs, Booker, and Williams Elementary Magnet School assignments will be made as scheduled. All junior and senior high assignments will also be made as scheduled. For further information call the LRSD Student Assignment Office at 324-2272. ### 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)324-2000nMt bF-RECEiVEO July 27, 1993 Mrs. Ann Brown Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 UlflCc Jill 2 7 1993 Dear Mrs. Brown: In regard to the student assignments that are made for the Little Rock School District. I feel that the assignments are unfair in the overall assessment of the primary target markets in which you are focusing upon. Case in point being the issue of King Elementary, in which the Little Rock School District approached the downtown business areas as being the primary target market for white patrons, which was not disclosed honestly in a survey circulated at Arkansas Children's Hospital when voting on a theme for that particular school and at the time of registration of the children. Our paperwork was completed during early Spring 1993 and when following up on the paperwork as to its completion. We were informed that the slots had been filled, and contradicting what we had been told, a local newspaper ran several articles on the King Elementary School, indicating that slots were still available, but not specifying that the slots available are for white students only. Not only does this constitute false advertisement but a certain prejudice seems to be self-evident. We do not feel that our children should deprived of receiving the best education possible, which we feel is in the Little Rock School District, we are approaching school starting Just around the comer and have no where to go. This matter will not be taken lightly and if there is not any type of satisfactory response to this letter very shortly, then we will be forced to take legal action. Thank you for your time and cooperation in advance and will be expecting to hear from you in the near future. I know that we all have the same goal in mind, which is the children. Sincerely, ^.NJ320-2915 Nursing Manager Outpatient Services Arkansas Childrens Hospital Lauren Russell/320-4370 Marketing Assistant Arkansas Childrens Hospital AUG-23-93 MON 10:36 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 02 A. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION O fv' r<'.' 7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ' PLAINTIFFS V. 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 INTERTENORS MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF KING INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL STUDENT ASSIGNMENTS OR. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION .TO ENFORCE AGREEMENT OF PARTIES The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District ("LRSD"), for its motion for clarification of the King Interdistrict School's student assignments or, in the alternative, motion to enforce agreement of the parties, states: 1. The parties herein are operating under court-approved desegregation plans and settlement plans. In particular, the LRSD is operating under a Desegregation Plan dated April 29, 1992. It is also acting under an Interdistrict Desegregation Plan dated April 29, 1992. 2 . The plans make provisions regarding the various types of schools in the several schools districts. Namely, the plans refer to magnet schools, interdistrict schools, elementary area schools and incentive schools. The intent of the plans was for each type of school to serve specified purposes and perhaps, certain patrons.AUG-23-93 MON 10:37 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 3. The plans also contain provisions outlining the recruitment and assignment of students to the various types of schools. For instance, the LRSD Desegregation Plan provides that students will be assigned to area schools by attendance zones. LRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, P- 139. As for Interdistrict Schools, the plans provide that such schools shall be populated primarily by black students from LRSD and white students from PCSSD or beyond Pulaski County. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 4. 4. Incentive school assignments are to be made from attendance zones that encompass the neighborhoods around the school. LRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 139. By so assigning, those schools designated as incentive schools would be. at first, virtually all-black schools. Accordingly, the parties agreed that incentive schools would be desegregated in phases through a combination of white recruitment into the incentive schools and by designating a number of seats for white students. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, P- In 4 . addition, desegregation transfers may be made where such transfer enhances the desegregation at the incentive school. LRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 140. 5. The plans also envision that efforts will be made to recruit white students currently attending private schools either back to or into the area school which serves the attendance zone where those students live. LRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 95. 2AUG-23-93 MON 10:37 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 04 6. Under the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, the parties agreed that various interdistrict schools would be constructed and/or operated in the LRSD and the PCSSD. In fact, the LRSD I agreed to, and did, construct a new King Interdistrict School to serve students at the beginning of the 1993-94 school year. The parties attempted to locate the school such that it would be attractive to those whites from the PCSSD and outside Pulaski County who work within the governmental and business centers of Little Rock. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 11. 7. The development of interdistrict facilities and programs which would allow for black children in the LRSD and white children in the PCSSD to attend schools in a desegregated environment was one of the primary aims of the parties. However, the development of the interdistrict schools also served as a mechanism through which the parties could receive financial assistance by way of the majority to minority transfer program. It was understood that vigorous and sustained recruitment would be necessary to maximize such transfers. By doing so, funds would be available to continue the operation of the agreed upon interdistrict schools. 8. In recruiting students to attend King Interdistrict School, whites within the LRSD attended meetings and expressed a desire to enroll their children in the school. Based on reasonable information and belief, less than 60 white students within the LRSD have been placed on the list to attend King Interdistrict School. 3AUG-23-93 MON 10:38 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 05 9. Prior to the start of the 93-94 school year, while the fall registration process was being completed, the Interim superintendent, Mrs. Estelle Matthis, learned of these assignments. The in-coming Superintendent in the LRSD, Dr. Henry Williams, in consultation with the Interim Superintendent was preparing to resolve those questions surrounding these assignments so that parents could be notified prior to the start of school for the 93- 94 school year. 10. Dr. Williams and Mrs, Matthis concluded that there were solutions available to the LRSD such to allow full compliance with the desegregation plans. They also concluded that the necessary corrective action could be taken prior to the opening of schools so that parents could be advised where their children would be assigned for the 1993-94 school year. See Exhibits No. 1 and No. 2 attached hereto and incoirporated herein by reference. 11. Prior to final action being taken by the LRSD, the LRSD received word, through the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and its attorneys, that this Court had expressed concern (on Tuesday, August 17, 1993) regarding the possibility that the LRSD would notify some or all of those LRSD whites that they would not be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School for the 1993-94 Teachers in the LRSD returned to contract on Monday, August 16/ 1993 . The students are set to return on Monday, August 23, 1993, 1 4 1AUG-23-93 MON 10:38 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 06 school year. Being reluctant to permit LRSD whites to attend King interdistrict School because of the uncertainty whether such would be in compliance with the court-approved desegregation plans as well as the spirit and intent of the parties when the plans were developed, the incoming superintendent deemed it most advisable to seek clarification from this Court. 12. In light of the foregoing, the LRSD prepared to request the indulgence of the court and seek clarification regarding several concerns
(a) whether LRSD whites may be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School without violating the court-approved i desegregation plans or the spirit and intent of the parties in developing those plans?
(b) If the response to question number 1 is in the affirmative, whether those LRSD whites who are allowed to attend King Interdistrict School will be permanently assigned or assigned only for the 1993-94 school year?
(c) Whether LRSD whites, other than those currently on the list to attend King Interdistrict School, will be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School during the 1993-94 school year?
(d) whether LRSD whites, other than those currently on the list to attend King Interdistrict School, will be permitted to attend King Interdistrict school during the 1994-95 school year and beyond?
(e) If the answers to ths foregoing questions are in the affirmative, whether the LRSD will be permitted to develop criteria to determine under what circumstances, if any, LRSD whites will be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School?
(f) Whether provisions can be made to overcome the loss of M-to-M transfer 5 1AUG-23-93 MON 10:39 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 07 moneys to be sustained by LRSD through permitting LRSD white students to occupy seats which could otherwise be filled by PCSSD white students (either this year or in future years)?
and, (g) whether provisions can be made for the potential expenses to be incurred by the LRSD to provide transportation to the LRSD white students, from scattered areas of the city, to attend King Interdistrict School? 13. The LRSD would be pleased to accept white students from the LRSD into King Interdistrict School as long as such can be done in accordance with the court-approved desegregation plans or any court-approved modification thereto. Because of these numerous concerns raised by the incoming superintendent, it is respectfully submitted that a good-faith basis existed for clarification and direction from this Court. In light of the impending opening of schools, it was critical that this matter be resolved immediately. i. 14. Before the request could be made. the parties and representatives from ODM met on Thursday, August 19, 1993, as instructed by the Court. Present at that meeting were
a. b. c. d. e. f. g- h. i. j k. 1. m. Dr. Henry Williams, in-coming LRSD Superintendent Estelle Matthis, interim LRSD Superintendent Sterling Ingram, LRSD Chris Heller, LRSD Attorney Jerry L. Malone, LRSD Attorney John W, Walker, Joshua Intervenors Attorney Joy Springer, Joshua Intervenors Connie Hickman-Tanner, ODM Melissa Guldin, ODM Bill Mooney, Court-Appointed Budget Specialist Bobby Lester, PCSSD Superintendent Billy Bowles, PCSSD Ruth Herts, PCSSD 6 IAUG-23-93 MON 10:39 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 08 15. During the meeting, concern was expressed that the assignment of some LRSD white students to King Interdistrict School could constitute a violation of the desegregation plans. Notwith- standing, those present were advised that the Court wanted the parties to come to an agreement regarding those students (less than 60) such to allow them to be accommodated at King Interdistrict school for 1993-94 and beyond. The LRSD does not concede that the plan prohibits it from so assigning some LRSD whites to King Interdistrict School. Arguments can be made to the contrary. 16. After much discussion, the parties drafted an agreement (the "Agreement") whereby those LRSD white students, outside the King Interdistrict School Assignment Zone, who had received written notice of assignment, to that school before August 19, 1993, would be allowed to attend the school for 1993-94 and beyond. No other LRSD White students, not within the King assignment zone, would be 'I allowed to attend King Interdistrict School. A true and accurate copy of the Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit "3" and incorporated herein by reference. 17. As a result of that meeting and the Agreement, those present agreed that the LRSD could proceed under it, even though it would not be fully executed until Friday, August 20, 1993 . The LRSD did so proceed. Further, the LRSD faxed copies of the type- written agreement to all those who had been present as well as to: a. b. c. d. Dr. James Smith, NLRSD Superintendent Steve Jones, NLRSD Attorney Sam Jones, PCSSD Attorney Richard Roachell, Knight Intervenors Attorney 7AUG-23-93 MON 10:40 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 09 18 . At mid-morning on Friday, August 20, 1993, the LRSD received a telephone call from Attorney Walker indicating, among other things, that several other issues would prevent him from being able to sign the Agreement as the parties had contemplated. Recognizing that its dilemma was now even more critical than it had been, the LRSD resolved that judicial clarification was absolutely necessary. The LRSD later received a memo stating the Joshua Intervenors position. A true and accurate copy of that memo as faxed to the LRSD and others is attached hereto as Exhibit "4" and incorporated herein by reference. 19. Based on the foregoing, the LRSD does hereby request guidance and direction from this Court. Wherefore, the Plaintiff, Little Rock School District, prays that this Court enter an order clarifying the issues raised herein. as well as any other related concerns
or, in the alternative, that I Hb an order be entered enforcing the agreement of the parties based on 1 the detrimental reliance of the LRSD and that the parties be awarded any and all legal and proper relief to which they may be entitled. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE AND CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone No. (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Little Rock School District Jerry L. Malone Bar I.D. No. 85096 a AUG-23-93 MON 10:40 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE the foregoing certify that a copy of Request for Clarification of King Interdistrict School Student Assignments has been served on the following by depositing a copy of the same in I the United States mail on this Th day of August, 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 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets f Little Rock, AR 7201 Mr. Richard Roachell. First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone LRSD Attorney II i 9 JAUG-23-93 MON 10:41 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 11 I PARENTS! Wednesday, August n, 7 p.n]. ' Little Rock Administration, Board Room .810 West Markhamstreet t area also Provisional status J, ~3/ /U 3 uAUG-23-93 MON 10:41 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 12 PAREiNTSU LUTHER KING JR 1 bKDISTRICT MAGNET* ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Wednesday, August 1 J., 7 p.m. Little Rock Adniinistration/Board Room .810 West MarLHamStreet Elementary School is open school attendance zones and approved School DisS WhSPulasrCounty area alsX^S^opS??oSSiSa2 Provisional status { J Sa 2- "3/ /! irAUG-23-93 HON 10:42 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 13 agreement The parties met on Thursday, August 19, 1993, pursuant to the instructions of the Court, to discus initial enrollment at Martin Luther King Interdistrict Magnet* Elementary School ("MLK") 1993-94 school year. for The parties are in substantial disagreement about certain matters which relate to the plan and the manner in which ) i .1 assignments would be made under the plan to MLK. Joshua Intervenors strongly oppose the placement, assignment or enrollment of LRSD white students, who live outside the Martin Luther King Interdistrict School assignment zone, to MLK. The PCSSD is also concerned about future year's effect of LRSD white students being assigned, enrolled or allowed to attend Martin Luther King Interdistrict Magnet* School. All parties are mindful of the admonitions of the Court regarding school district/parent cooperation and integrity as well as the other needs for both desegregation and certainty about school opening for this year at Martin Luther King Interdistrict Magnet* School, Based on these concerns and considerations. and the I encouragement of Court, the parties have agreed that for the 1993- 94 school term only, LRSD white students, who have received written assignment notices to MLK from the LRSD as of the date of this agreement, shall be allowed to attend or be enrolled or assigned to MLK. Once assigned to MLK, those children shall be afforded all the rights and privileges of other students who are being assigned Exhibit 3"AUG-23-93 MON 10:42 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 14 Page 2 to the Martin Luther King Intardistrict Magnet* School (i.e,, including continued enrollment) . However, there shall be no ! 1 preference available to these students so assigned. No other LRSD white students may be assigned to MLK. The parties will seek Court approval of this Agreement. DATED THIS day of 1993 . John W. Walker, Joshua Intervenors Attorney Bobby Lester PCSSD Superintendent' Dr. Henry Williams LRSD Superintendent J I James Smith NLRSD Superintendent Richard Roachell Knight Intervenors Attorney I 1 *ProvisionalAUG-23-93 MON 10:43 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 15 MSMORaiNDDM TO: Mr. Jerry Malone Mr, Billy Bowie Ms. Ann Brown FROM: John W, Walker RE: King Interdistrict Magnet Elementary School DATE
August 20, 1993 This is to advise that Joshua has not signed the Stipulation upon which we agreed upon in principle yesterday at ths Little Rock School Board offices. This is because information that we have received causes us to conclude that a larger number of pupils are being assigned to King from outside the Xing attendance zone than Most of these youngsters are from other We cannot be parties to assignment the number we were given, incentive school areas. practices which allow decline in emphasis and attendancs at the incentive schools nor can wa support practices which distort the double funding requirement and desegregation requirement of the plan-''For these basic reasons, as Joshua counsel, I am withholding endorsement of the stipulation and putting LRSD on notice that we will not agree to the Court's suggestion that we let LRSD white pupils be assigned to King under the circumstances. i J li j J ! 1 3 // 1Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 {501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: September 3, 1993 From: Melissa Guldin To: Subject: Sterling Ingram, Director of Planning, Research and Evaluation School Assignments for Residents of the Battered Womens Shelter This memo is to confirm our phone conversation held this morning. As you will recall, we discussed enrollment figures and I inquired about the status of school assignments for the children living at the Battered Womens Shelter located at 12th and Battery Streets. The Shelter is in the King attendance zone, a fact confirmed by Sue Pederson on September 2, 1993, when she drove by the center. I do not quite understand what caused the district to question the right of these children to attend their assigned school, since the population at King is significantly below the capacity of the school. Despite the original misunderstanding, I am pleased that you have now agreed to abide by the districts assignment plan and assign all children residing in the King zone to that school. If you recall the August 19 meeting we attended to discuss King assignments, the fate of assignment zone students was never debated. The group even discussed the fact the students from within the zone, regardless of race, would always receive an assignment to King. This entire assignment issue has been a great concern for the staff at the Battered Womens Shelter. I plan to call the Shelter and report our conversation. Perhaps a district representative could also contact the Shelter and confirm the residents right to go to their assigned school. Im sure the staff there would really appreciate hearing from the district. Thank you for dealing with this issue promptly, and please thank Sue Pederson for working so diligently to help track down the correct zone assignment for the Shelter. cc: Ann Brown Estelle MatthisLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 January ii, 1994 TO THE PARENT OF: BROUN, ANDREU J- 1201 UELCH ST LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 Dear Parant, The Li+tle Rock School District Student Assignment Plan allows nonattendance zone tudents to transfer to their attendance zone school if a seat desegregation reiuirements- is available and the racial balance complies with does not attend his/her attendance zone school. Our records indicate that your child If you are interested in applying for a transfer to your child's attendance zone school for next school year, please mark the appropriate box on the enclosed form and return the form to your child's current school assignment or the LRSD Student Assignment Office, 501 Sherman Street. THE FORM MUST BE RETURNED BY: JANUARY 25, 1994. In order for your child to be considered for assignment to his/her attendance zone school, you must return the enclosed Transfer Re<iuest FormIn an effort to keep our waiting lists as up-to-date as possible^ we will delete names currently on waiting lists unless a Transfer Reiuest Form is returned- Should you have questions concerning the Attendance Zone Transfer Re<iuest, please call us at 324-2272- Little Rock School District Student Assignment OfficeATTENDANCE ZONE TRANSFER REQUEST Student's Name: ID Number: Zone B L oiz k : BROWN, ANDREW J. 934304 0210 Current School: ROCKEFELLER INCENTIVE SCHOOL Grade: 01 DIRECTIONS: CHECK ONLY ONE <1) BOX Hy child presently attends ROCKEFELLER INCENTIVE SCHOOL I would like for him/her to be transferred to his/her attendance zone school, school year, waiting List JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL for next I understand that my student will be placed on a if assignment is not possible. My child presently attends I would Like for him/her to remain at ROCKEFELLER INCENTIVE SCHOOL ROCKEFELLER INCENTIVE SCHOOL I do not want my child transferred to his/her attendance zone schoo L, JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL I understand that attendance zone transfer re<iuosts are subject to capacity and desegregation re-iuirements. Parent/guardian Signature Telephone Number PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO YOUR CHILD'S SCHOOL OR THE LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE <501 SHERMAN STREET, 72202> BY JANUARY 25, 1994. IMPORTANT: List any other sibling zational level (example: elementary. currently at this organi- j un i or hi gh, sen i or high). NAME BIRTHDATE SCHOOL i I I IOKice JAN 3 1 1994 cl Desegregation Monitoiing IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF 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 JOINT NOTICE OF STIPULATION The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District ("LRSD" or "District"), and the Joshua Intervenors for their Joint Notice of Stipulation, state: 1. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a stipulation agreed upon by the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. 2. Joshua Intervenors, through their counsel, have joined in the filing of this stipulation. WHEREFORE, Little Rock School District and Joshua Intervenors submit this Joint Notice of Stipulation and request all other legal and proper relief to which they may be entitled.Joint Notice of Stipulation January 31, 1994 Page 2 Respectfully Submitted FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By
Jerry L. Malone Bar No. I. D. 85096 TCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Stipulation has been mailed by First Class Mail, postage pre-paid on January 31, otherwise indicated: 1994, upon the following, except as Mr. John W. 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 First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite Little Rock, AR 504 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone STIPULATION The LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors stipulate that some black students who live in Incentive School Attendance Zones were not allowed to attend Incentive Schools by the LRSD during the past school year and this year. The parents of some of those black students were advised that because the LRSD was holding seats for white students, the LRSD could not allow them to enroll in an Incentive School program that was above the racial balance goal established in the Court-approved desegregation plans. However, all of these seats were not filled by white students and have not yet been offered to these black children. The LRSD has been made aware of the problem and, as of August 1993, has taken, or will hereafter take, steps to correct it in the manner contemplated by the Settlement Agreement. Further the LRSD will otherwise continue to comply with its obligations as set out in that Agreement. The LRSD is mindful of the Court's requirement that it will require the LRSD to establish that its vigorous recruitment efforts have failed before those seats can be released in pre-kindergarten and kindergarten. Exhibit 1Stipulation Page 2 The parties, LRSD and Joshua, also stipulate the admission into evidence the following exhibits: 1. Addendum to Exhibit Number 208, Joshua's LRSD Elementary Schools (Incentive Schools) Monitoring Report, 1990-91
2. Exhibit Number 209, Joshua's Preliminary Educational Equity, June 23, 1993, with Addendum pages 214 through 243
3. Exhibit Number 210, Joshua's Preliminary Educational Equity Monitoring Report, May 28, 1992, with Addendum pages 000161 through 000189
4. Exhibit Number 234, letter from Joy Springer to Bennie Smith dated April 17, 1992, with attached memo to Dr. Ruth Steele from LRSD Bi-Racial Advisory Committee. The LRSD does not, by agreeing to the admission of these documents into evidence, waive its right to challenge or otherwise contest the factual findings or assertions contained in the Joshua Monitoring Reports or other documents being admitted hereby
those rights are specifically and expressly reserved.Stipulation Page 3 Dated this Jie day of January, 1994. 11 W. Walker orney for Joshua Intervenors Jerry L. Malone Attorney for LRSD if t r Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Subject: Ann Brown, Monitor Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent February 2, 1994 Meeting February 1, 1994 lies of Des
ViviiitOi u'Q f^E3 7 toqi Thank both you and Bob for your help yesterday with data about our students in and out of our attendance zones. As you know. Bob and I are meeting next week so I may benefit from the file he has built. Our meeting was beneficial to me and gave me insight into ways of approaching solutions to student assignment. From our meeting, 1 understand that you will request Incentive School capacities from Doug Eaton based on a maximum of 20 students per class, rather than the current capacities. We agreed that these would be more realistic. We did not agree, however, on the method for calculating range for area elementary schools. 1 understand clearly why you are interpreting the range to be fixed at 40?^ to 60?6. As pointed out, our average percentage black is approximately 64?o. This makes it mathematically impossible for us to bring all elementary schools into compliance. We have been using 40?o for the bottom of the range and using the formula for secondary schools to figure the top. That way the top of the range moves with our percentage black. Chris Heller and I will tiy to work an agreeable solution. Also, 1 want to reiterate my response to your question about the assistant communication position. We have taken a while to fill this position because of the importance of any position when much is to be done. These are long term decisions, because they affect people's lives, as you know. We want to be careful to get the right people in the right places so they are both happy and productive. The apparent conflict between my testimony and reality is easily explained. When 1 testified that we were completing interviews on Friday, January 28, that was true. The following Monday, we realized that since the position was changed to full-time, it should be re advertised. It has been and will close early next week. This means that three to four weeks may pass before the person selected is actually on the job. This estimate includes the new hire's two weeks notice to their current employer. Again, thank you for your help. C
Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Chris Heller, LRSD AttorneyRECEP <33 u U.S OIST."ICT COURT cASTERM DISTRICT AR.LANSAS FEB 7 WA Office of Desegregaticn McnitcnniJ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION l-tB 0 4 1594 -'A.McSW. McCOfiMACX. CLERK DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF 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 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court is the Little Rock School District's (LRSD) motion for clarification of King Interdistrict School assignments or. in the alternative, to enforce the agreement of the parties [doc.#1952]. The LRSD states that the parties had drafted an . J, D vs. Agreement whereby those LRSD white students who lived outside the King Interdistrict School attendance zone but who had received notice of assignment to that school before August 19, 1993 would be allowed to attend King. However, the attorney for the Joshua Intervenors (Joshua), Mr. John Walker, subsequently withdrew his consent to the Agreement, stating among other things that several issues would prevent him from signing the Agreement as the parties had contemplated.* The LRSD seeks an order enforcing the agreement of the parties based upon its detrimental reliance. Otherwise, the LRSD J ' Mr. Walker Stales I he inunher he as that a larger niimhcr ol pupils are being assigned tn King from otil.sitie the King attendance zone than ul the incentivi iven. iiikl ihal Joshua cannoi be a parly "to assignment practices which allow decline in emphasis and attendance schools nor can we support practices which distort the double funding requirement and desegregation requirement ol the plan. See Exhibit 4, LRSD s motion for clarifieation or, in the alternative, to enforce agreement of parties. 'Kj 2 0 9seeks clarification of the following issues: 1. Whether LRSD white students may be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School without violating the court- approved desegregation plans or the spirit and intent of the parties in developing those plans
2 . If the response to question number 1 above is in the affirmative, allowed to whether those LRSD white students who attend King permanently assigned school year
Interdistrict Whether LRSD or white assigned School will are be only for the 1993-94 students, other than those currently on the list to attend King Interdistrict School, will be permitted to attend King during the 1994-95 school year and beyond
If the answers to the foregoing questions are in the affirmative, whether the LRSD will be permitted to develop criteria to determine under what circumstances, if any, LRSD white students be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School
will Whether provisions can be made to overcome the loss of M-to-M transfer moneys to be sustained by LRSD through permitting LRSD white students to occupy seats which could otherwise be filled by Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) white students (either this year or in future years)
and or 6. Whether provisions be made for the potential expenses to be incurred by the LRSD in transporting eligible LRSD white students from scattered areas of the can city to King. Joshua has filed a response to the LRSD's motion in which it supports the motion for clarification but opposes the alternative request to enforce the agreement of the parties. The Court denies LRSD's motion to enforce the Agreement or for clarification, but addresses herein the King Interdistrict School assignments and issues the following orders. LRSD white students may be permitted to attend King 3 . 4. 5. Interdistrict School without violating the desegregation plans or the -2-spirit and intent of the parties in developing those plans. Regardless of the provisions contained in the August 19, 1993 Agreement, a chief objective of the desegregation plans is that the interdistrict schools be racially balanced, the ideal goal being a student enrollment ration of 50 percent black to white. regard, the plans envision that white students attending In this an LRSD interdistrict school will be recruited primarily from the PCSSD or beyond Pulaski County
the plans do not state that only white students from the PCSSD will be allowed to attend King or any other of the interdistrict schools. The LRSD can hardly claim surprise at the Court's conclusion in this regard. At the June 9, 1993 hearing. this Court, while acknowledging that the desegregation plans envision that white students for the interdistrict schools would be recruited primarily from the PCSSD, stated tt [l]et's... work hard to recruit the white students from the county and the black students from the district for [King], and some white students as well from the Little Rock School District for King and make it a successful school, a high quality school that we all want." Transcript, at 197. At the August 12, 1993 budget hearing, the Court stated "I know it's important to get the county students [to King], but also, there might be some Little Rock white students who would like to attend and who could attend under our guidelines that exist." Transcript, at 17-18. The Court went on to observe that a lot of questions would be cleared up if there were a firm policy on admitting LRSD white students to King, to which Interim Superintendent Estelle Matthis replied, I think you're -3-exactly right, your Honor. II Id. at 18. However, despite the persistent urging of this Court and its Monitor, the LRSD did not develop such a policy. This lack of follow-through evidences pervasive pattern of failure to plan and perform that has been characteristic of the LRSD throughout the history of this case. According to figures (attached) which the districts have a supplied to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, the LRSD has a record of placing white intradistrict transfer students (and black intradistrict transfers as well) at its interdistrict schools. For example, Romine Interdistrict School had a total October 1 enrollment for the 1992-93 school year of 361 students
62 of the school's 84 white students were intradistrict transfers. Similarly, Washington has a total October 1 enrollment for the current 1993-94 school year of 721. Of the school's 270 white students. 175 are intradistrict transfers. Likewise, the PCSSD has also accepted intradistrict transfers of both black and white students into its Baker Interdistrict School. Not only has the LRSD always accommodated intradistrict transfers, but the LRSD has promised that LRSD white students may be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School. According to the LRSD's 1993-94 calendar of events (issued in pamphlet form), interdistrict schools are "open to their attendance zones and M-to-M transfers from PCSSD and intra-district transfers from other LRSD schools. II The Court also notes that the King recruitment plan, dated March 20, 1993, states that it was "designed to enroll black children from the immediate area and white children from Pulaski County as -4-H well as Little Rock. (Emphasis added.) This recruitment plan designates the major target audiences for recruitment activities. Those audiences include not only PCSSD and the west Little Rock areas of Chenal Valley and Taylor Loop, but also the neighborhood surrounding King, additional zoned areas within the district. and magnet school non-placements. This plan also specifically targets children of employees at the Arkansas Children's Hospital and the state capitol complex. which is consistent with language in the desegregation plan that touts the location of King as a recruiting plus for this school which is to ..serve as a natural magnet for individuals who work within governmental and business centers of Little Rock. It LRSD Desegregation Plan, at 148. Neither the desegregation plans, the LRSD King recruitment plan, recruitment and public relations materials, nor hearing testimony have suggested that recruitment for King would be limited only to white students from PCSSD. This Court has repeatedly stressed that it is critical to successful desegregation for the LRSD to keep its promises to the children and their parents. Indeed, the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan acknowledges that "dependability, credibility, and integrity are basic to the success of desegregation," and that the districts will It [k]eep the promises they make." (Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, at 66.) When a district accepts children at a particular school. parents should be able to count on the district making good that acceptance right up to the time the child takes a seat at the school. If the LRSD had effectively done its management job by engaging in -5-ample advance forethought and decision-making, strong follow-through, and unambiguous messages to parents. the district could have prevented the consternation and confusion regarding King assignments that the parties now entreat the Court to sort out. The Court hereby directs the LRSD to develop immediately specific guidelines regarding assignments to the King Interdistrict School that, by extension, apply to its other interdistrict schools. Among other things, these guidelines are to reflect past practices and promises and include intradistrict transfer eligibility criteria for both black and white children
they must be sufficiently comprehensive to be applicable to all of the district's interdistrict schools
they must be clear and unambiguous enough for district workers and parents to understand
and. while a specific numeric quota or cap is neither required nor desirable. the guidelines must describe that portion or range of intradistrict transfers that an individual interdistrict school can reasonably accommodate. Because the 1994-95 pre-school recruitment and registration period is at hand, the guidelines must be complete and filed with this Court no later than 30 days from the date of this Order. Also within 30 days, the PCSSD is directed to provide the Court with the guidelines which that district uses in placing students in its own interdistrict schools. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of February 1994. UNlTfiD" 'r2ct JUDGE -6- MS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE Wm-I RULE 53 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP by \,T INTER- and INTRADISTRICT TRANSFERS to the ELEMENTARY INTERDISTRICT SCHOOLS Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring February 1994 Receiving Schools Sending District l RSO NLRSO PCSSD 1909-90 199091 1991-92 1992-93 199094 190990 199091 1991-92 1992-93 199094 190990 199091 1991-92 1992-93 199094 Baker Crystal Hill King Romine Washington B W B B B B W B B B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W 59 0 65 0 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 8 0 6 0 5 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 305 0 339 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 86 41 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 152 165 261 60 11 * Information not available 155 210 34 151 35 133 62 84 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 10 0 2 203 204 196 180 193 158 175 N/A N/A 0 73 0 65 0 64 0 37 N/A N/A 0 61 0 74 0 65 0 65 N/A- Not Applicable Note: Although Washington Magnet is not among the six elementary interdistrict schools named in the desegregation plan, it nonetheless functions as an interdistrict school under the terms of the settlement agreements and court orders. The chart above is based on the number of students each district sent (not received) to interdistrict schools and is extracted from the most recent information available: LRSD: Memos dated November 18, 1993 and December 6, 1993 from Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. NLRSD: November 26,1991 memo and June 4,1993 M-to-M transfer listing from Mable Bynum, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation: district reports dated October 1, 1992 and October 1, 1993. PCSSD: Memos dated December 11,1990, December 3, 1991, January 12, 1993, and December 14, 1993 from Eddie Collins, Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Services.Student Assignment Handbook 1993-1994 Little Rock School District TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1 2 3 5 6 8 9 11 13 15 16 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 20 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 22 23 24 25 28 DESEGREGATION REQUIREMENTS/ACCEPTABLE RACIAL RANGE 1993-94 STUDENT ASSIGNMENT TIMELINE STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PROCEDURES f 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Pre-registration General Information Pre-registration 1993-94, Feb. 8-19 A, Elementary Schools B. Secondary Schools Optional Enrollment Requests Address Changes How to Assign/Elementary Attendance Zone Schools ELEMENTARY ACCEPTABLE RACIAL RANGE CHART WAITING LISTS INCENTIVE SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS MAGNET SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS Washington Basic Skills/Math Science Magnet Dunbar International Studies/Gifted and Talented Magnet Henderson Health Science Magnet Central High International Studies Magnet McClellan Business/Communications Magnet INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS King Interdistrict School Romine Computer Science & Basic Skills Interdistrict Crystal Hill Communications Interdistrict Magnet School EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION ASSIGNMENTS M-M TRANSFERS DESEGREGATION TRANSFERS ACT 609 TRANSFERS LEGAL TRANSFERS ACT 624 TRANSFERS KINDERGARTEN WAIVER HOME SCHOOLING STAFF PREFERENCE TRANSFERS SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS STUDENT ASSIGNMENT APPEALS COMMITTEE CARE PROGRAM (Before and after school care) HOMELESS CHILDREN TRANSPORTATION -REGULAR ROUTES -SPECIAL EDUCATION ROUTES -M-M ROUTES -EMERGENCY ROUTES FREE AND REDUCED LUNCH PROCEDURESDesegregation Requirements/Acceptable Racial Ranges The minimum black percentage for each elementary attendance zone school will be 40 percent. The maximum black percentage for each elementary attendance zone school will be 12 1/2 percent above the district-wide black percentage at the organizational level. The minimum black percentage for each secondary (junior and senior high) attendance zone school will be 25 percent below the district-wide black percentage at each organizational level. The maximum black percentage will be 12 1/2 percent above the district-wide black percentage at each organizational level. The minimum and maximum black percentages constitute the desegregation requirement (or acceptable range) for attendance zone schools. The Student Assignment Office and all building principals will be held accountable for complying with desegregation requirements. In addition to complying with desegregation re- quirements, building principals will be expected to assign students to classes in an equitable manner, to the greatest extent possible. The building principal should not allow resegregation to occur in classrooms. School desegregation requirements and equitable classroom assignments will be monitored by the LRSD Offices of Educational Frograms, of Organizational and Learning Equity, and of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. School based biracial advisory committees will also monitor compliance in these areas. The acceptable range is listed below: Elementary Junior High Senior High 40.00% - 74.00% 51.25% - 76.75% 45.50% - 68.00% 1Jan. 6 - Jan. 24 Jan. 25 - Feb. 3 Feb. 8 - Feb. 19 March 10 Mar. 15 - Mar 26 March 15-June 9 April 9 April 9 June 10-July23 July 26-30 Aug. 30 1993-1994 PRE-REGISTRATION TIMELINE survey Dunbar AZ 6th graders survey 4 year olds/remain at present school? Open Houses Mon., Jan 25 Tues., Jan 26 Mon. Tues. Wed. Feb. 1 Feb. 2 Feb. 3 Incentive and Interdistrict schools Elementary Magnet Schools Area and Magnet High Schools Area and Magnet Junior High Schools Area Elementary Schools Pre-Registration/ Kindergartners, New students, OERFs, Employee Preference Requests, 4 year old application period, AZ Transfer Requests Notification letters to all students Desegregation Transfer application period Pre-registration reopens at Area Schools Notification letters to Desegregation Transfers Notification letters to 4 year olds Summer Registration at Student Assignment Office No Registration Accepted First Day of Classes 2PRE-REGISTRATION GENERAL INFORMATION February 8 -19 Final assignment lists will be submitted by all schools after the beginning of the second semester. These lists will be used to confirm the number of students enrolled in each building for 1992-93. Corrected lists must be submitted to the SAO by Wednesday, February 10. Students enrolled after Feb. 8 for the remainder of the 1992-93 school year will not be guaranteed a seat at the school for the 1993-94 school year. Parents/guardians of K/new students must pre-register at their attendance zone school. Address verification, birth certificate, and Social Security numbers must be presented at pre-registration. Immunization records may be accepted at this time, or presented during the August registration. Kindergarten pre-registration information will be distributed throughout the community. Kindergarten and new-student pre-registration will be held during February 8 - February 19. Parents will be notified of their assignment by March 10,1993. Applications for the early childhood (4-year-old) program will be accepted in the schools with a four-year-old program or in the Student Assignment Office, from Feb. 8-19,1993. Parents will be notified by April 9,1993 . Transportation will not be provided bv the LRSD for fourvear old students. Sibling preference will be granted only to those students attending their attendance zone school. Sibling preference will be granted for students currently enrolled in non-attendance zone schools who wish to be assigned to their attendance zone school with a sibling. SIBLING PREFERENCE DOES NOT APPLY TO MAGNET OR NON-ATTENDANCE ZONE SCHOOLS. Optional Enrollment Request Forms (OERF) will be available for magnets, incentive schools, interdistrict schools and high school kindergartens. Carbonized forms will be used. Optional Enrollment Request Forms will be available during the period February 8 - February 19,1993. Parents will receive written notification of approval/denial by March 10,1993. All assignments are subject to desegregation requirements and capacity. The Student Assignment Office will be responsible for all magnet school, incentive school, interdistrict school, high school kindergarten, and M-M assignments. Parents may make up to four choices for optional assignments at elementary schools and three choices for optional assignments at secondary schools. Choices must be prioritized in numerical order. Parents are NOT requited to use all choices. Sixth grade students in the Dunbar attendance zone will be given the option to transfer to another school if they are not interested in the magnet program. The SAO will contact these students by mail prior to the pre-registration period to determine which students desire an alternate assignment. All alternate assignments are subject to desegregation requirements and capacity. Parents will be notified of their students assignment by March 10,1993. 3All students will be notified of their assignments by mail by March 10,1993. This will include rising students (6th to 7th grade, 9th to 10th grade) and grandfathered students (who will remain at their current school). The assignment notification letter will be used to explain the registration process in August and desegregation transfer process. Desegregation transfer applications for secondary students will be accepted in the Student Assignment Office from March 15-26,1993. Parents will be notified no later than April 9,1993. ATTENTION PRINCIPALS: Tentative retention lists must be submitted to the SAO at the end of the third quarter. Updated and final retention lists must be submitted immediately aftei the last day of school. The Student Assignment Office will be responsible for assignments during the period of June 10 - July 23. No assignments will be made from July 26 to July 30,1993. 44 YEAR OLD/KINDERGARTEN/NEW STUDENT PRE-REGISTRATION PROCEDURES FOR 1993-94 Children who will be five (5) years old on or before October 1, 1993 will be eligible to attend kindergarten in the LRSD next year. In order to receive a school assignment by March 10,1993, parents must pre-register their children. Pre-registration will be held districtwide beginning February 8,1993 and continuing through February 19,1993. Pre-registrations will not be accepted between February 22 and March 12,1993. Pre-registration will resume at the attendance zone schools on March 15. Beginning June 10, and continuing through July 23, parents must preregister in the Student Assignment Office. Children who will be four (4) years old on or before October 1,1993 will be eligible to apply for a seat in the Four Year Old Program in the LRSD next year. In order to be considered for placement in the Four Year Old program, parents must pre-register their child APPLICATION DOES NOT GUARANTEE PLACEMENT IN THE PROGRAM. Pre-registration will be held at all schools with Four Year Old Programs and in the Student Assignment Office beginning Feb. 8,1993 and continuing through Feb. 19,1993. Pre-registrations will not be accepted between Feb. 22 and March 12, 1993. Pre-registration will resume on March 15 at schools with 4 year old programs and in the SAO. Beginning June 10, and continuing through July 23, parents must pre-register their 4 year olds in the SAO. Under the Little Rock School Districts student assignment plan, all students will remain at their 1992-93 school assignment until graduation from the organizational level, unless otherwise specified. However, students may request a transfer to their attendance zone school. This request form should be completed at the SAO. Each school will be responsible for pre-registering students who live in their attendance zone. The following is a list of forms and supplies which will be necessary to complete the pre-registration process: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Pupil Information Forms (PIFs) Pupil Information Change Forms Address Verification Forms Optional Enrollment Request Forms 4 Year Old Application (Schools with 4 yr. old programs only) School Attendance Zone Map District Attendance Zone Map 8. Special Envelope (for mailing) 9. Street Index Schools should contact the Student Assignment Office for additional PIFS and Optional Enrollment Request Forms, 4 year old applications, or to replace zone maps. Pupil Information Change Forms may be ordered from the Supply Center. Each school will be responsible for duplicating the Address Verification Form. Pre-registration forms should NOT be distributed before the first dav of the ore- registration period or after the deadline. 5A, ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Schools will receive flyers to be sent home to parents notifying them of kindergarten/new student pre-registration. These flyers should be sent home as soon as possible after they are received. Parents/guardians of K/new students must pre-register at their attendance zone school. Parents/guardians of 4 year old students must pre-register at any school with a four year old program or at the SAO. Application does not guarantee placement in the program. School staff will verify the students address and check it against the attendance zone map. If the student does not live in your attendance zone, refer the parent/guardian to their attendance zone school for pre-registration. If the students address is in your attendance zone, give the parent/guardian instructions for completing the Pupil Information Form and the Address Verification Form. Advise the parent/guardian of the required documents. a. Required documents: 1. Certified copy of birth certificate or visa/passport. 2. Proof of address (lease agreement, current utility bill, or personal property tax bill) 3. Social Security number b. The following information MUST be supplied on the Pupil Information Form: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. First, Middle, and Last Name Race Sex Address Date of Birth Last school attended and grade Social Security number (See page 27) If the parent cannot provide all of the required documents, the pre-registration cannot be completed. Advise the parent to obtain necessary document(s) and return to complete preregistration process. 5 Check completed PIF against required documents. If the parent wishes to request an optional school enrollment, allow him/her to complete an Optional Enrollment Request Form. Staple the Optional Enrollment Request Form to the students PIF. Give the parent copy (yellow) of the Optional EnrollmentRequest Form to the parent. 67. 8. 9. 10. Only schools with 4-year-old programs will have applications for the program. Parents who wish to apply for the 4-year-old program should be given an application for selecting their school choices. These applications, should be stapled with the PIFs and address verification forms and sent to the SAO for entrance on the database and for assignment. Place in env- lope marked "FOUR YEAR OLD APPLICATIONS." Enter student information on the database and record ID# on completed PIF. During the pre-registration period the computer system will be modfied to allow all schools to assign students registering for the 1993-94 school year to a special district. This modification will allow schools to enter all students who register on the database without assigning them to their school. At the end of the registration period a list can be generated from the computer identifying students to be assigned for the 1993-94 school year. Place the PEF in a TO BE ASSIGNED file and hold for the initial assignment process. For students requesting an optional enrollment, enter the PIF information on the database and then place the entire PIF and Address Verifiction Form and Optional Enrollment Request Form (stapled together) in the special envelope labeled: Student Assignment Office Data Entry Department SEND IN THE SCHOOL MAIL DAILY 7B. SECONDARY SCHOOLS 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Parents/guardians of new students must register at their attendance zone school. All students under 18 years of age must be accompanied by an adult School staff will verify the students address and check it against the attendance zone map. If the student does not live in your attendance zone, refer the parentZguardian to their attendance zone school for registration. If the students address is in your attendance zone, give the parent/guardian instructions for completing the Pupil Information Form and the Address Verification Form. Advise the parent/guardian of the required documents. a. Required documents: 1. Certified copy of birth certificate or visa/passport. 2. Proof of address (lease agreement, current utility bill, personal property tax bill). 3. Social Security number b. The following information MUST be supplied on the form: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. First, Middle, and Last name Race Sex Address Date of Birth Last School attended and grade 7. Social Security number (See page 27) If the parent cannot provide the required documents, the registration cannot be completed. Advise the parent to obtain necessary document(s) and return to complete the registration process. Check completed PIF against required documents. If the parent wishes to request an optional school enrollment, allow him/her to complete an Optional Enrollment Request Form (OERF). Staple the OERF to the student's PIF. Give the "parent copy" (yellow) of the Optional Enrollment Request Form to the parent. Enter student information on the database and record ID# on completed PIF. During the pre-registation period the computer system will be modified to allow all schools to assign students registering for the 1993-94 school year to a special district. This modification will allow schools to enter all students who register on the database without assigning them to their school. At the end of the registration period, a list can be generated from the computer identfying students to be assigned for the 1993-94 school year. For students requesting an optional enrollment, enter the PIF information on the database and then place the entire PIF, Address Verification Form and Optional Enrollment Request Form (stapled together) in the special envelope labelled: SAO, Data Entry Dept. SEND IN SCHOOL MAIL DAILY 8OPTIONAL ENROLLMENT REQUEST PROCEDURES Parents/guardians who wish to request an assignment to a school other than the attendance zone school may do so by completing an Optional Enrollment Request Form (OERF). All optional enrollments are subject to desegregation requirements and capacity. Optional Enrollment Requests will be accepted for the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. Incentive Schools (for non-attendance zone students) High School Kindergartens Magnet Schools Interdistrict Schools Parents/guardians of kindergarten/new students who wish to request an optional enrollment should complete the Optional Enrollment Request Form when they pre-register their child at the attendance zone school. Parents/guardians of current students who wish to request an optional enrollment for the next school year may complete an Optional Enrollment Request Form at the students current school during the pre-registration period each year. Students presently on the magnet school waiting list do not need to reapply unless rising to another organizational level. After the pre-registration period has closed, parents/guardians wishing to request an optional enrollment must do so at the Student Assignment Office. No optional enrollment requests will be accepted between February 22 and March 12. The school staff should give the parent/guardian instructions for completing the Optional Enrollment Request Form. Forms should be made available only to LRSD parents who request them. a. Parent should read the information provided on the Optional Enrollment Request Form before completing the form. b. Parents of elementary students may make up to four (4) choices. Choices must be prioritized in numerical order (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th). Choices may be made from one or all of the categories, not to exceed the maximum of four choices. Parents of secondary students may make up three (3) choices. Students whose optional enrollment requests cannot be granted will be placed on a prioritized waiting list. Parents will receive written notification of approval/denial of their Optional Enrollment Request. When the parent/guardian has completed the Optional Enrollment Request Form, the school staff should check the form for accuracy and forward to the SAO as follows: (NOTE: Make sure you give the Parent Copy (yellowl of the OERF to the parents'). a. b. c. For kindergarten/new students, staple the OERF form to the PIF. For current students, mail the OERF to the Student Assignment Office. (Current students do not need to complete a PIF.) Place all forms in the special envelope labelled: 9STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE DATA ENTRY DEPARTMENT SEND IN SCHOOL MAIL DAILY. REMINDER: EIBLING PREFERENCE DOES NOT APPLY TO MAGNET SCHOOLS. North Little Rock District students call: 771-8010 Pulaski County Special School District students call: 490-2000 10ADDRESS CHANGE PROCEDURES Parents/guardians are required to report address changes immediately to the schools main office. Students who process address changes have the option to remain at their current school or to transfer to the new attendance zone school (if space is available and the assignment complies with desegregation requirements). THE DISTRICT WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR TRANSPORTATION IF STUDENTS ELECT TO REMAIN AT THEIR CURRENT SCHOOLS. The address change procedures are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Before the address change can be processed, the parent/guardian must present one of the following documents as verification of their new address: a. Lease Agreement b. Sales Contract c. Personal Property Tax Bill d. Current Utility Statement (a drivers license or check book will not be accepted) Parent/guardian should complete a Pupil Information Change Form and an Address Verification Form (including those who wish to remain at the current school). The school staff person should give the parent/guardian instructions for completing the Pupil Information Change Form. When the parent has completed the necessary forms, the school staff person should: a. Check the Pupil Information Change Form against the required document, b. Complete the Official Use Only box on the Address Verification Form, c. Write in new zone blockin the box labelled "ZONE/BLOCK" on the Pupil Information Change Form. d. Check to make sure the parent has indicated whether to reassign student. If the parent/guardian wants the student to remain at the current school: a. Write the students LD. Number in the appropriate box. b. Enter new address and zone block (map grid) on database c. Retain a copy of the Pupil Information Change Form for your files. If the parent/guardian requests a transfer to their new attendance zone school: a. Check the district-wide attendance zone map for the new attendance zone school. b. Write the new zone block in the box labelled ZONE/BLOCK on the Pupil Information Change Form. c. Write your school number in the upper right comer of the Pupil Information Change Form. d. Return the Pupil Information Change Form and Address Verification Form to the parent/guardian and refer them to the new attendance area school for assignment 117. Schools receiving students as a result of an address change should: a. Follow the kindergarten/new student procedures for assigning students. . b. If the student cannot be assigned, the school should forward the Pupil Information Change Form and the Address Verification Form to the Student Assignment Office for reassignment. Write "Reassignment: accross the top of the Pulil Infomation Change Form.The Student Assignment Office will be responsible for notifying the parent of the students reassignment and placing the student's name on the attendance zone school waiting list 12PROCEDURES FOR ASSIGNING STUDENTS ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE ZONE SCHOOLS** Kindergarten/new students will be assigned to their attendance zoned schools based on their current home addresses. Assignments will be made on the basis of the Little Rock School Districts desegregation requirements, assignment preferences and capacity. The ratio of each school and of each grade within the school will be considered in making assignments. The minimum and maximum black percentages constitute the desegregation requirement, or acceptable range. Seats will be reserved to ensure compliance with desegregation requirements. A SCHOOL CANNOT ASSIGN AND/OR ENROLL A NON-ATTENDANCE ZONE STUDENT WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION FROM THE STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE. The acceptable range for Elementary Schools is 40.00% - 74.00%. 1. 2. 3. 4. Before the assignment process begins, each school will receive the following information from the Student Assignment Office: (See chart page 20) a. The maximum capacity for each grade level-(count screen,'94) b. The current assignment count for each grade level.-(count screen,'94) c. The minimum number of black students allowed at each grade level.-(chart p.2O) d. The maximum number of black students allowed at each grade level.-(chart p.20) e. The current black percentage for each grade level and the school.-count screen f. Waiting list During the initial assignment process, March 1-3, 1993, all grades 1-6 students living in the schools attendance area will be assigned to the school as long as the assignment satisfies desegregation and capacity requirements. If demand exceeds supply, a lottery will be used to fill vacant seats. Every effort will be made to install portable buildings in order to accom- date overflow situations at a particular grade level. If a portable building cannot be installed, the student will be re-assigned to the nearest school that has a seat available in his/her feeder zone. ALL '94 KINDERGARTEN STUDENTS WILL BE ASSIGNED BY THE SAO. Sibling preference will be given to kindergarten/new students who have siblings currently enrolled in the attendance zone school. Sibling preference is subject to desegregation and capacity requirements. To complete the assignment process: March 1-3 a. Determine the number of seats available for black and white students at each grade level. See Student Assignment count screen - Option 7- Student Management Menu and Chart on Page 20 **ALL KINDERGARTEN, MAGNET, INCENTIVE AND INTERDISTRICT SCHOOLASSIGNMENTS WILL BE MADE BY STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE.b. Refer to the waiting list provided by the SAO. Students on the waiting list must be assigned before new attendance zone students are assigned to a school. c. Remove PIFs from the "To Be Assigned: file and sort them by grade level. Then sort by race within each grade level. d. Identify students who are to receive sibling preference. Assignments can be made as long as capacity and desegregation requirements are met. If demand exceeds supply, a lottery will be used to fill vacant seats. PIFs for students who cannot be assigned must be forwarded to the Student Assignment Office for assignment e. For the remaining students, assignments can be made as long as capacity and desegregation requirements are met. If demand exceeds supply, a lottery will be used to fill vacant seats. PIFs for students who cannot be assigned must be forwarded to the Student Assignment Office for an alternate assignment and placement on the waiting list. 5. When all assignments have been completed, the school staff person should complete the PIFs as follows: a. For students who have been assigned: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Write your school number in the box labelled SCHOOL NO. Write the current date in the box labelled ENTRY DATE. Write the entry code (04) in the box labelled ENTRY CODE Enter assignment on computer (option 3 - Student Management Menu). Sign your name in the SUBMITTED BY: Place "green copy" in special envelope. b. For students who cannot be assigned: 1. Write your school number in the box labeled (zone school). 2. Write REASSIGN across the top of the PIF. 3. Send in the school mail by March 3,1993 6. 7. 8. 9. On March 15 you should order a print out showing 93-94 assignments. Attendance zone schools resume pre-registration March 15 - June 9,1993. Student Assignment Office is responsible for summer registration June 10 - July 23, 1993. No registration will be accepted July 26-30,1993. Place all forms in the special envelope labelled: STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE DATA ENTRY DEPARTMENT SEND IN THE SCHOOL MAIL BY March 3,1993 14STUDENT ASSIGNMENT CHART Elementary Acceptable Racial Range CLASS SIZE OF 20 STUDENTS (Kindergarten) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 I I I I I I I I MINIMUM WHITE STUDENTS MINIMUM BLACK STUDENTS MAXIMUM WHITE STUDENTS MAXIMUM BLACK STUDENTS CLASS SIZE OF 23 STUDENTS (Grades 1-3 average) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 I I I I I I I I MINIMUM WHITE STUDENTS MINIMUM BLACK STUDENTS MAXIMUM WHITE STUDENTS MAXIMUM BLACK STUDENTS CLASS SIZE OF 25 STUDENTS (Grades 1-3 maximum, Grades 4-3 average) 1 2345678 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2021 22232425 I I I I I I I MINIMUM WHITE STUDENTS MINIMUM BLACK STUDENTS MAXIMUM WHITE STUDENTS MAXIMUM BLACK STUDENTS CLASS SIZE OF 28 STUDENTS (Grades 4-6 maximum) 1 2345 67 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I I I I I I I I MINIMUM WHITE STUDENTS MINIMUM BLACK STUDENTS MAXIMUM WHITE STUDENTS MAXIMUM BLACK STUDENTS 151. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. WAITING LISTS Any student who cannot be assigned to his/her attendance zone school due to capacity or desegregation requirements will be placed on a waiting list for that school. An updated waiting list will be sent to all area schools before March 1, 1993. These waiting lists will be used for 1993-1994 pre-registration process. Students on the waiting lists will be assigned before new attendance zone students are assigned to a school. Schools should assign these students the week of March 1-3,1993. All students on a 1992-93 waiting list will be moved up on the list to the next grade for the 1993-94 school year. (NOTE) This does not apply to students rising to the next organizational level or students who have been retained. If a new attendance zone student cannot be assigned because of desegregation requirements or capacity, the students Pupil Information Form (PIF) will be forwarded to the Student Assignment Office for an assignment. ALL additions and deletions to waiting list will be made by the Student Assignment Office immediately after assignments are made by the attendance zone schools, (week of March 1- 3,1993) The Student Assignment Office will be responsible for assignments during the period of June 10 - July 23. Students on the waiting lists will be assigned before new attendance zone students are assigned to a school. If a new attendance zone student cannot be assigned because of desegregation requirements, the student will be reassigned to the nearest school in the feeder zone that meets desegregation requirements and has a seat available. In such cases, these students will be added to the waiting list for the attendance zone school. Every effort will be made to install portable buildings in order to accommodate overflow situations at a particular grade level. If a portable building cannot be installed, the student will be reassigned to the nearest school that has a seat available in his/her feeder zone. Updated waiting lists will be sent to all area schools during the week of July 26 July 30. Schools will be responsible for assigning students from the waiting lists. The Student Assignment Office will maintain waiting lists for all interdistrict magnet schools, incentive schools, and interdistrict schools The SAO will also maintain all waiting lists for reassigned students, high school kindergarten students, and pre-kindergarten students. 16Incentive School Assignments
The Student Assignment Office will make all assignments to incentive schools and will maintain the incentive school waiting lists. Incentive schools staff should follow the elementary school pre-registration procedures steps 1-7 (see page 6) and send aU PIFS to the SAO daily. Magnet School Assignments: Transfers to magnet schools will be granted prior to Octoberl of each school year and during semester break. All magnet school assignments will be subject to desegregation requirements and capacity. A request for an assignment to a magnet school cannot be granted if it adversely affects the desegregation requirement for either the sending or receiving school. The Student Assignment Office will be responsible for making all magnet school assignments and maintaining all magnet school waiting lists. A random selection process (a lottery) will be used to assign students to magnet schools at entry level positions (K, 7th, 10th grades). Students who are not currently on a waiting list must complete an Optional Enrollment Request Form (OERF) in order to be added to the magnet waiting list.. Students who are not selected for immediate placement in a magnet school will be placed on a waiting list for that school. Students on the previous years waiting lists will receive preference for magnet school vacancies in the current school year. A students rank on a waiting list will be determined by a random selection process. However, first choice magnet options will be ranked above second choice options, etc. Students who live in the shadow of a magnet will receive preference at entry level grades. Parents will be contacted by the SAO when their child's name has advanced to the top of the waiting list and a seat is available. Assignments to Washington Basic Skills/Math-Science Magnet School: Assignment to Washington will be open to students from the Pulaski County Special School District or the North Little Rock School District based on majority-to-minority provisions and on the provisions of Act 609 of 1989 (theSchool Choice law). LRSD non-attendance zone students should complete an OERF. The racial population at Washington should reflect 55% black, 45% white. Preference will be given to students in the Little Rock School District who live in the attendance zone for Washington School. Assignments to Dunbar International Studies/Gifted and Talented Magnet School: Seventh graders will be assigned from the Dunbar attendance zone and through the OERF process. nPulaski County Special School District and North Little Rock School District students may transfer to Dunbar through the majority-to-minority transfer program. Preference will be given to students in the LRSD who live in the attendance zone for Dunbar. (Sixth grade students who live in the Dunbar attendance zone will be given the option to transfer to another school if they have no interest in the magnet program. (The SAO will contact these sixth grade students by mail prior to the pre-registration period to determine which students desire an alternate assignment. All alternate assignments are subject to desegregation requirements and capacity. Parents will be notified of their child's assignment by March 10,1993. Any alternate assignments will be made by the Student Assignment Office.) Assignments to Henderson Health Science Magnet: Seventh graders will be assigned from the Henderson attendance zone and through the OERF process. Pulaski County Special School District and North Little Rock School District students may transfer to Henderson through the majority-to-minority transfer program. Assignments to Central High School International Studies Magnet: Students from the North Litde Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District will be able to participate in the international studies curriculum at Central High School through the majority-to-minority transfer program. Little Rock students will use the OERF form to request an assignment to the international studies program at Central. Assignments to McClellan Business/Communications Magnet: Students from the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District will be able to participate in the business/communications program at McClellan High School through the majority-to-minority transfer program. Little Rock students will use the OERF form to request an assignment to the business/communications program at McClellan Interdistrict School Assignments: Interdistrict schools are schools with specialty themed programs which supplement the regular elementary curriculum. These schools are intended to attra
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.