ACTION TEAM VOLUNTEER FORM The Little Rock School District is looking for volunteers to serve as action team members. Name ---- Lutui---- R-mail Address Phone (day) Yig-(p ------- (evening) t>(p3-.4z?7P_______ (FAX) 5'di- ? ?! -6 ICO Please indicate your first, second, third, etc., choice: (These are based on strategies that will require teams to plan action steps.) ___Financial resources Employee hiring/training 4.' J^Community partnerships Xzuz^u Parent Engagement ---- Instructional strategies/data use ___ Learning environment Please return tn: Ilaiiniiig & Develnpnieiit Little Rock SchunI District 810 W. Markiiani St. Little Rock, AR 72201 To: From: Subject: Little Rock School June 9, 1993 Distric^5^C Mr. Horace Smith, Desegregation Monitoring Office Janet Bernard, Associate Superintendent for School Operations and Climate Long-Range Strategic Plan During our meeting held on May 28, 1993 we discussed a long-range strategic plan to be implemented at each of the Incentive Schools. As Arma Hart mentioned in the meeting, diligently to finalize their plans. principals are trying We would like to have a common format for all the long-range strategic plans. It would be most helpful if you could provide us with a sample format to ensure that we have included all the components necessary for these plans. Your assistance, as always, is greatly appreciated. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)374-3361Strategic Planning Workbook THE CAMBRIDGE GROUPStrategic Planning Workbook THE CAMBRIDGE GROUP hTHE CAMBRIDGE GROUP INTERNATIONAL & DOMESTIC AFFILIATES William J. Cook, Jr., Ph.D. President, Chairman of the Board Judy Wallace Cook Secretary- Treasurer Vonda C. McLain Vice-President, General Manager Constance Anderson Director of Programs Jill Aubume Cook Director of Publications Hobbie Register Office Manager SENIOR ASSOCIATES Stephen V. Barone Howard}. Feddema, Ed.D. Lawrence W. Huggins ASSOCIATES William D. Breck, Ed.D. Donald D. Burger Suzanne Connelly Mark Fredisdorf, Ed.D. Lisa D. Grant Lindsey Gunn, Ph.D. Veronica Huggins Maureen Innes David R. Jennings, Ph.D. Keith W. Lutz, Ed.D. Stephanie Pace Marshall, Ph.D. Charles G. Mason, Ph.D. Claudia J. Martinez James A. McMurray John Messell Carlene Naylor Glenn M. Pclecky, Ed.D. Kay Psencik, Ed.D. Glenn F. Smartschan, Ed.D. Christopher L. Sny, Ph.D. LaVoneia C. Steele, Ed.D. William M. Stuart Odell Stuckey, Ed.D. George J. Szy'manski, Ph.D. Pat Tillotson, Ed.D, Marcia Venus, Ph.D. Ronald Z. Zook, Ed.D. South East Regional Resource Center, Alaska Association for the Advancement of International Education Association of California School Administrators Canadian Strategic Planning Centre for Education, British Columbia Canadian Strategic Planning Centre for Education, Ontario Canadian Strategic Planning Centre for Education, Saskatchewan Bucks County Intermediate Unit #22, Delaware Illinois Association of School Administrators Central Indiana Education Service Center Iowa Area Education Agencies Kentucky School Boards Association Michigan Institute for Educational Management Minnesota Association of School Administrators Southern Education Consortium, Mississippi Rensselaer-Columbia-Greene Counties Board Of Cooperative Educational Services, New York Buckeye Association of School Administrators, Ohio Bucks County Intermediate Unit #22, Pennsylvania South Carolina School Boards Association Texas Association of School Administrators Wisconsin Association of School Boards Copyright 1993 Colonial-Cambridge Management Group, Inc. All rights reserved. Except as noted below, no part of this publication may be reproduced, transmitted, transcribed, stored in a retrieval system, or translated into any language in any form by any means without the written permission of Colonial-Cambridge Management Group, Inc. Licenses Contents of the section Reproducible Materials are licensed for reproduction only by internal facilitators who are certified by The Cambridge Group. This license allows that these masters may be reproduced to make transparencies and hard copy for the purpose of facilitating strategic planning sessions and/or making informational presentations when the certified facilitator providing such services is a full-time employee of the organization for which the strategic plan is being developed. The reproduction of these materials for sale or loan to others is expressly prohibited. Prohibited also is the use of these materials by independent consultants, facilitators, or other individuals for the purpose of providing strategic planning facilitation, consultation, or other seivices for remuneration to any organization of which they are not a full-time employee. CORPORATE OFFICE 5795 Carmichael Parkway Montgomeiy, Alabama 36117 (205) 279-7150 Facsimile (205) 279-7151 Orders* To order additional copies of the Strategic Planning Workbooks. please contact Hobbie Register at The Cambridge Group by phone 205/279-7150 or fax 205/279-7151. The following information should accompany your order: Name Shipping Address Purchase Order Number Organization City/State/Zip Number of Workbooks Date Materials are Needed Certification Program Attended Available to Gradi ates of the Strategic Planning Certification Program I Contents I Definitions 1 Beiiefs 3 Mission 5 Strategic Poiicies (Parameters) 7 Strengths 9 Weaknesses 11 Criticai Anaiysis of Organization 13 Competition 15 Externai Anaiysis 17 Objectives IS Strategies 21 Action Pians 23 Reproducibie Materiais 25 C 1993 Colonial-Cambridge Managemetit Group. Inc.Strategic Planning Workbook DEFINITIONS ^BELIEFS A statement of the organizations fundamental convictions, its values, its character. EMISSION A broad statement of the unique purpose for which the organization exists and the specific function it performs. * STRATEGIC POLICIES (parameters) Management pronouncements that establish the parameters within which the organization will accomplish its mission. STRENGTHS Characteristics which contribute to the ability of the organization to achieve its mission. WEAKNESSES Characteristics that limit the ability of the organization to achieve its mission. ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN The arrangement of functions and relationships among people within an enterprise. COMPETITION Any entity that successfully attempts to fill the same need as the planning organization. EXTERNAL ANALYSIS An examination of those forces over which an organization has little or no control. External change usually impacts an organization by virtue of its existence in a larger, sometimes more complex situation. ^OBJECTIVES An expression of the desired, measurable end results for the organization. For a school district, objectives are restricted to student success, performance, and/or achievement. ^STRATEGIES The broadly stated means of deploying resources to achieve the organizations objectives. ACTION PLANS The explicit portion of a given strategy that outlines the tasks required to implement the program, the person responsible for each task, the due date for the completion of each task, and an analysis of the benefit and costs for the specific action plan. O 1993 Colonial-C'amhriilge Management Clrottp. Inc. 1 2BELIEFS ) DEFINITION A statement of the organizations fundamental convictions, its values, its character. H 7?r'sr$ {25 IMPORTANCE IN PLANNING The belief statement provides the bedrock values which move the organization to commit itself to a specific mission and objectives. It establishes moral and ethical Lhfc* priorities which serve to guide all the organizations activities. The beliefs should not J be mere observations or statements of fact, but sincere, uncompromising convictions. They should be universal in application, but specific in meaning. i4 JX Tpr^cc^ A EXAMPLES We believe that: r Excellence is achievable and always worth the investment. Each individual has unlimited potential. s> Education is the discovery of truth and the creation of new realities. All people have equal intrinsic worth. All people can learn anything. The family is the primary influence in the development of the individual^ Higher expectations yield higher results. USE THIS SPACE TO DESCRIBE THE BELIEFS OF YOUR ORGANIZATION. O /99J Colonial-Cambruige Management Group. Inc. 3 (Beliefs Continued) 4 Strategic Planning Workbook MISSION DEFINITION A broad statement of the unique purpose for which the organization exists and the specific function it performs. IMPORTANCE IN PLANNING The mission is literally the keystone upon which the entire plan is built. Typically written in one sentence, it provides the primary focus of the organization. The mission statement must emphasize the uniqueness, the distinctiveness, the singularity of the organization. Essentially, it represents the commitment of the organizations resources to one purpose. EXAMPLES The mission of the School District is to guarantee all students 100% success through a network of independent competing instructional services that actualize the unique potential of each person. The mission of the School District is to produce graduates with unlimited capacity to compete in a superior manner in any challenge they undertake by guaranteeing each individual customized, all-inclusive learning experiences, integrating the unique agricultural, medical, and historical resources of our diverse community. USE THIS SPACE TO DESCRIBE THE MISSION OF YOUR ORGANIZATION. 1993 Coloniat-Camhridge Management Group. Inc. 5 6 (Mission Continued) Strategic Planning Workbook STRATEGIC POLICIES (parameters) DEFINITION Management pronouncements that establish the parameters within which the organization will accomplish its mission. IMPORTANCE IN PLANNING The purpose of the parameters is to place self-imposed limitations on the organization
that is, to close doors. As such, they sharpen the mission and eliminate the need for continuously making the same decision. Parameters must be stated in exact terms and, typically, will be written in the negative. EXAMPLES Nothing will take precedence over the Pre K-12 instructional program. We will practice participative management at all levels of the organization. We will not tolerate prejudicial discrimination of any kind. * We will not tolerate ineffective employees. All decisions will be made based strictly on what is best for the individual student. USE THIS SPACE TO DESCRIBE THE PARAMETERS OF YOUR ORGANIZATION. 1993 Colonial-Cambridge Mauagetnent Group, Inc. 7 (Strategic Policies Continued) 8 Strategic Planning Workbook STRENGTHS DEFINITION Characteristics which contribute to the ability of the organization to achieve its mission. IMPORTANCE IN PLANNING Strengths are those present attributes that will be most effective in achieving the mission. Organizations that achieve excellence do so by capitalizing on their strengths
that is, doing what they do best. EXAMPLES Movement toward participative management Opportunity for professional growth Ability to cope with change * Innovative programs Leadership development efforts Commitment to scholarship Board of Education committed to quality Counseling program Financial resources USE THIS SPACE TO DESCRIBE THE STRENGTHS OF YOUR ORGANIZATION. 1993 Cotonial-CambruJge .Management Group, Inc. 9 10 (Strengths Continued)Strategic Planning Workbook WEAKNESSES DEFINITION Characteristics that limit the ability of the organization to achieve its mission. IMPORTANCE IN PLANNING The weaknesses are those inadequacies that must be overcome if the organization is to accomplish its mission. EXAMPLES * Staff resistance to innovation and change Poorly defined decision-making process School to school inequalities Inadequate salaries and competitive salary schedules Testing data available but not usable * Inefficient central office organization Over crowded curriculum (unclear objectives) Inequity of expectations Inefficiency of neighborhood school concept Trying to be everything to everybody * Combination classes and schools Elementary grading system Perception of massive data handling without effective outcomes USE THIS SPACE TO DESCRIBE THE WEAKNESSES OF YOUR ORGANIZATION. J993 C(>lonial-Camhridf>e.Management Group. Inc. 11 12 (Weaknesses Continued)Strategic Planning Workbook CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATION DEFINITION The arrangement of accountabilities, authority, and information among people within an enterprise. IMPORTANCE IN PLANNING The organizational design is itself strategic, because it represents commitment of resources toward mission and objectives. A critique of the present organizational design quite often reveals its inappropriateness for the changing strategic direction of the enterprise. EXAMPLE Critique of the Organization Design: Span of Influence Gaps Redundancies (Duplications) Decision-making Implications Formal vs. Informal USE THIS SPACE TO DESCRIBE AND CRITIQUE THE ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN OF YOUR ORGANIZATION. (dO NOT ATTEMPT TO DRAW AN ORGANIZATIONAL CHART) 1993 Colonial-Cambrid^e Manafienienl Group. Inc. 13 (Critical Analysis of Organization Continued) I 14Strategic Planning Workbook COMPETITION DEFINITION Any entity that successfully attempts to fill the same need as the planning organization. IMPORTANCE IN PLANNING A careful analysis of competition is quite often the most productive way of analyzing the planning organization. Dominant characteristics are both contrasted and compared in order to determine the competitions points of vulnerability. EXAMPLE Privale/Parochial Schools Their Advantages 1. Small classes 2. Snob appeal 3. Discipline control 4. Select students 5. Free from state mandates Our Advantages: 1. Public funding 2. Student diversity 3. Multi-cultural 4. Facilities and equipment 5. Teacher qualification Vulnerability: The question of cost versus quality USE THIS SPACE TO LIST YOUR COMPETITION - ADVANTAGES, DISADVANTAGES, AND VULNERABILITY. C 1995 Colonial-Cambruige Managemetii Group, Inc. 15 (Competition Continued) < 16Strategic Planning Workbook EXTERNAL ANALYSIS DEFINITION An examination of those forces over which an organization has little or no control. External change usually impacts an organization by virtue of its existence in a larger, sometimes more complex situation. IMPORTANCE IN PLANNING External, or environmental changes may present significant opportunities if they are appropriately anticipated and structured into programs to capitalize on them
or, they may present a threat, making it necessary to alter products or modify methods of doing business. By identifying political, technological, and socioeconomic changes, isolating the significant factors, and determining their probable impact, either offensive or defensive programs can be structured to exploit the potential offered or to soften the total impact. EXAMPLE List each social, political, economic, demographic, technological or educational trend. Develop predictions and probable impacts. CATEGORY: ECONOMIC FACTOR PREDICTION IMPACT I. Public School Revenue I. A. General fund revenue mandated by formula from state 1. A. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. B. Board choice to hold budget/bond election B. 1. 2. Limits programs Limits staff Limits supplies/materials Affects class size Possible school closures/ including busing Reduced building maintenance Revenues not guaranteed Polarizes community USE THIS SPACE TO LIST OTHER EXTERNAL FACTORS, PREDICTIONS, AND IMPACTS. 1993 Coionial-Cambridge Management Group, Inc. 17J ll 1/ (External Analysis Continued) i 18 IStrategic Planning Workbook OBJECTIVES DEFINITION An expression of the desired, measurable end results for the organization. For a school district, objectives are restricted to student success, performance, and/or achievement. IMPORTANCE IN PLANNING The objectives are practical, specific manifestations of the mission. They express, in measurable terms (time, money, quality, quantity) the results the organization will achieve as it fulfills its mission. Specifically stated, they must have broad, organization-wide implications. And they are aspirations, not projections. EXAMPLES * To have 100% of our students graduate or successfully complete their individual achievement programs. No later than 1995, 100% of our high school graduates will be in a post-secondary educational program or in an endeavor of their choice within six months of the successful completion of their educational program. USE THIS SPACE TO DESCRIBE THE OBJECTIVES OP YOUR ORGANIZATION. O 1993 Colonial-Cambridfie Management Group. Inc. 19 (Objectives Continued) 20Strategic Planning Workbook STRATEGIES DEFINITION The broadly stated means of deploying resources to achieve the organizations objectives. IMPORTANCE IN PLANNING In the broadest sense strategy comprehends purpose, function, policies, beliefs, objectives, strategies, and concrete action plans
hence, strategic planning. But the word strategy in this instance is used in a narrower sense and refers to the means used to achieve the objectives in the organization and its major parts. The objectives are the what
the strategies are the how. EXAMPLES We will put in place a network of independent, competing instructional services maximizing flexibility, freedom of choice, 100% success rate, contracts between teachers/students, collaboration with community and corporations. We will organize the district strategically, including instruction and support services to concentrate all efforts and resources toward student success. We will develop the character of each student, with emphasis on appreciation of the common core of human values and a respect for our common traditions of excellence. We will energize and integrate all aspects of our diverse community into full support and implementation of the mission and objectives. We will form a lasting partnership with each graduate and maintain knowledge of his/her progress. We will develop and implement a whole-life learning network. USE THIS SPACE TO LIST STRATEGIES FOR YOUR ORGANIZATION. 1993 Coionial-Cambridge iManagement Group. Inc. 21 22 (Strategies Continued)Strategic Planning Workbook ACTION PLANS DEFINITION The explicit portion of a given strategy that outlines the tasks required to implement that program, the person responsible for each task, the due date for the completion of each task, and an analysis of the benefits and costs for the specific action plan. IMPORTANCE IN PLANNING Action plans insure that the strategies are implemented. They allow specific assignments of tasks to individuals within the organization
they provide a means for measuring both individual and organizational performance
and they provide an effective system of accountability. EXAMPLE See the Action Plan form. USE THIS SPACE TO DESCRIBE THE ACTION PLANS OF YOUR ORGANIZATION. 1993 Colonial-Cambruige Management Group. Inc. 23 24 (Action Plans Continued) riStrategic Planning Workbook Reproducible Materials This section contains material designed to be reproduced by you for use with your district. Included are masters for Action Plan and Cost Benefit Analysis forms. They are copyrighted materials for which a limited license is granted to the purchaser of this workbook. LICENSE GRANTED Contents of the section Reproducible Materials are licensed for reproduction only by internal facilitators who are certified by The Cambridge Group. This license allows that these masters may be reproduced to make transparencies and hard copy for the purpose of facilitating strategic planning sessions and/or making informational presentations when the certified facilitator providing such services is a full-time employee of the organization for which the strategic plan is being developed. The reproduction of these materials for sale or loan to others i,s expressly prohibited. Prohibited also i.s the use of these materials by independent consultants, facilitators, or other individuals for the purpose of providing strategic planning facilitation, consultation, or other services for remuneration to any organization of which they are not a full-time employee. 1993 Cdonfal-Cambridge Management Group. Inc. 25 Action Plan Specific Results: Strategy No. Plan No. Date
# Action Step (Number each one) Assigned To: Starling Date: Due Date: Completed Date: t 26 i993 Colonial-Camhridge Management Group. Inc Responsible: (Shaded areas for management phase)Cost-Benefit Analysis Costs Benefits Tangible: Intangible: Opportunity Costs: O 1993 Colonial Cambridge Management Croup. Inc. Tangible: Intangible: Strategy No. Plan No. Date: Return on Investment: 27 THE CAMBRIDGE GROUP A DIVISION OF COLONIAL-C AM BR 1 DC E MANAGEMENT GROUP. INC. 5796 CARMICHAEL PARKWAY MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36117 (205) 279-7150 FAX (205) 279-7151 1993 COLONIAL-CAMBRIDGE MANAGEMENT GROUP. INC. NO PART OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM OR BY ANY MEANS WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER. Page 2 Feel free to invite other memho-rg of your group. Please call Linda Young at 324-2112 to make your reservations so that we can provide adequate seating. Looking forward to working with you. Thanks again. Sincerely, Henry P. illians Superintendent of Schools die LriTLE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT January 25, 1995 JAN 3 0 1995 Bill Mooney Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 0f?.'C2 q
Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Mooney: I am delighted that you have agreed to serve on the strategic planning team for the Little Rock School District. I am certain that this process will help determine the future direction of the district. Dr. Howard Feddema will serve as the facilitator for the strategic planning process. He is associated with the Cambridge Management Group located in Montgomery, Alabama. Listed below is the schedule for the planning sessions, to be held at the Excelsior Hotel. Tuesday, Feb. 14 5:30 - 7:30 p.m. Planning Session (Light supper provided) An Wednesday, Feb. 15 Thursday, Feb. 16 Friday, Feb. 17 informational session 7:30 3:00 a.m. Breakfast 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. Planning Session 7:30 3:00 a.m. Breakfast 3:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. Planning Session 7:30 3:00 a.m. Breakfast 3:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Planning Session for members of the planning team. community organizations, and others will be held on Monday, Feb. 6 from 5:30 7:30 p.m. Building, 310 West Markham. in the Board Room of the Administration Please plan on attending this meeting. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, .Arkansas 72201 (501) 324.2000 9 Statement of Intention to Establish Green Factor Research Committees Presented to the LRSD Board of Directors - February 9. 1995 As part of the process for moving the Little Rock School District toward unitary status, the Superintendent intends to implement the following measures: A. Establish, committees to research specific areas, Green Factors, that have potential for achieving unitary status Committees will be established to research the following areas
1. Student Assignment 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Faculty Ratios Staff Ratios Transportation Extracurricular Activities Facilities Student Achievement FEB 9 1995 tries Qi L u 4 The work of the committees will be coordinated by Dr. Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent, and the Student Assignment Office. B. Define the composition of the committees and the structure of their work Each committee will be composed of ten to fifteen people who understand the importance of unitary status in the Little Rock School District. The committees will include persons with appropriate skills in observing, interpreting, and communicating conditions and factors of influence in the topic areas. Committee members will include teachers, administrators, and community members. Each committee will be co-chaired by a LRSD administrator and an individual selected by the Superintendent. Each committee will produce a report that addresses the opportunity for the LRSD to seek unitary status in its respective area. The reports will identify if such action is feasible and provide information to support its findings. C. Identify the funding source for the committees The Green Factor Research Committees will be financed with funds from the LRSD legal fees account. Approximately 512,000 - $15,000 is anticipated for this activity. Project Timeframe: The Superintendent intends to submit a resolution to the Board for action at the next Board meeting on the establishment of Green Factor Research Committees. Each Research Committee will be expected to deliver its report with a six-week period. Assuming project start up by March 1, the Green Factor reports should be available by mid-April./7/>S JOHN w. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 FEB 1 5 1995 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. 05fii t i k-,,. February 13, 1995 Dr. Henry Williams Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Williams: I hope that your visit to New Orleans last week after the agenda session was both professionally and personally rewarding. We missed you at the school board meeting where we represented a series of children who had not only been put out of school, but had been arrested as well. Your perspective regarding that issue would have been useful for posterity if nothing else. I am writing to advise you that the Joshua Intervenors will not participate in the District's latest long range planning process which is scheduled to begin, ironically, on Valentine's. Day. The irony is that the District does not consider Black children, especially boys, as sweethearts
rather, they are viewed almost universally as hoodlums who lie and have no interest in school other than to be disruptive. We can not participate for a number of reasons some of which I now proceed to set out. The first one is set forth in paragraph two above. undertaking is faulty. The second is that the premise of the It presumes that the existing desegregation plan is unworkable and needs to be changed. I can not agree with this premise because the existing plan is the Board's plan which was arrived at over a lengthy period of time and involved much of the community. It was an ambitious undertaking designed to remediate, desegregate and retain children in school, especially Black children. The Board and successive administrations have manipulated public opinion to the view that the plan is unworkable and that our children are criminals in waiting. Because of that prophesy, administrators and Board members yield to the public mentality calling for public repression and more severe punishment measures for actions that often should be the basis for counseling. Your Board seems to forget that the children have constitutional rights that await vindication and that teachers, principals and even police officers are in the schools to vindicate constitutional rights. You all have subverted the process by reversing the question ofwho the intended beneficiaries point. are. This brings me to my third The desegregation plan calls for reduction of suspensions and expulsions. Rather than reduce suspensions and expulsions, the Board and administration have chosen to increase them. Moreover, it now totally disregards the concept imbedded in the desegregation plan that school staff are in loco parentis status rather than police status. As stand-in parents, it is inconceivable that the District would allow police officers to make school disciplinary judgments and then allow the criminal judicial system to incarcerate juveniles without bail for four days and nights. Yet that is what happened to Mabelvale Junior High School students who were simply involved in a fight, approach allows a principal to abdicate her responsibility for making disciplinary decisions by deferring to police authorities the District placed in the environment. These parents were not on notice that they were sending their children to school to be subjected to nonschool ultimate determinations involving simple The social and economic adversities which conveyance of this discretion to resource officers visit upon Black children is immense and pervasive. Police authorities should be removed from the schools or take their orders from school authorities after As stand-in parents This fights. due consideration of due process considerations and the desegregation plan itself. I remind you that we have repeatedly called to the Board's attention the numerous indiscretions and discriminatory acts of Ms. Gayle Bradford at Cloverdale and Mabelvale Junior High Schools. You, your predecessor and the Board have not taken our monitoring reports and other correspondence seriously. We have advised you that Ms. Bradford's situation appears designed to frustrate the desegregation plan and to deny equal education to Black children. You should also be reminded that a large number of the Black staff members have protested her treatment of them and of students. Contrast, if you will, your reaction to those staff members with your reaction to the white staff members at Mablevale Elementary School to a Black principal. I can provide many more examples for you and have done so in the past, reinforces my fourth point. This The School District takes whatever action necessary to goodwill of white patrons and attendance of their children. The same is true of your white staff. We can not P^^'ticipate in a procedure or process where racial views predominate in a manner contrary to achievement and vindication of constitutional rights. Fifth, we participated in a similar process in 1993. modeled on the Syracuse City School District "Strategic Plan 1991-1996". See memo to Estelle Matthis from Rin Mnnnov Ha' It was ---- ---- See memo to Estelle Matthis from Bill Mooney dated 7"
- That process was under your aegis although you did not officially come to the District until October of 1993. August 23, 1993. have never received a report of the consequences of our work in I 1993. I request a report at this time on that matter. If ourrevisit the same issue in 1995. work was productive in 1993, why is it necessary for us to In passing, I note that Leon Modeste was involved in the Syracuse plan and I believe that your present consultant, whose name I believe is Howard Feddema, was also. The District seems to continually try to recreate the wheel which brings me to my sixth point. The desegregation plan adopted by the Board has never been implemented in good faith. Look at the various ODM reports, the Joshua reports and the Courts various findings. I would like to be made privy to any session involving the public which has been convened for the purpose of implementing the existing plan since you have been here. nothing. It goes without saying that Dr. Bernd did I must therefore conclude that the Board and administration no longer, if they ever did, intend to implement the court approved plan. This bring me to my final point. Joshua can not participate in a process designated to denigrate the court approved plan where the announced goal is to "get the District out of Federal Court", especially where the District's treatment of Black children cries out more than ever before for the protection of the Court. As an African American, you more than any of your predecessors, should be aware that our long, tedious, tortured "stride toward freedom" has been secured through legal actions taken through and by the Court. It looks as if that is the only arena where we can at least get a fair hearing in these times and hope to have the interests of our children protected. For these and other reasons, count us out. of the "Strategic Plannning: Creating the Future" process. Instead, we ask that you devote as much time in implementing the plan and in treating all children as contemplated by it as you and the Board would devote to its dismantlement. Si
erely, .n W. Walker JWW:js cc: Ms. Ann Brown C0RR2O Contact Person: Sterling Ingram 324-2124 Date: August 23, 1993 To: Estelle Matthis From: Bill Mooney Subj: Syracuse Strategic Plan and Action Plan Examples Based on our discussions in last Fridays Cabinet meeting, I have made a copy of the Syracuse Strategic Plan and copies of some Action Plan examples. This represents everything I have obtained from Syracuse. I tried to remove any of my working notes from the source document, but please forgive me if I missed some of them. If I can be of any other help, just give me a call. ) zI k JOHN W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Litile Rock, Arkansas t2206 Telethone (501) FAX (501) 374-4187 r JOHN W. walker R.ALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. I, February 13, 1995 Dr. Henry Williams Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Harkhaa--- - Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr, Williams! I hope that your visit to New Orleans last week after the agenda session was both professionally and personally rewardi^. We missed you at the school board meeting where we represented a series of children who had not only been put out of school, but had been arrested as well. Your perspective regarding that issue would have been useful for posterity if nothing else. I ironically, on valentine's. I am writing to advise you that the Joshua Intervenors will not participate in the District's latest long range plannii^ process which is scheduled to begin, ironically, on Valer)tine a Day. The irony is that the District does not consider Black children, especially boys, as sweethearts
rather, they are viewed almost universally as hoodlums who lie and have no interest in school other than to be disruptive. I I I 1 We can not participate for a number of reasons some of which The first one is set forth in I now proceed to set out. --- The second is that the premise of the paragraph two above. undertaking is faulty. --r----- j t ..--r. desegregation plan is unworkable chang^. I can not agree with this premise because the existing plan is ^e It presumes that the existing and needs to be changed. Board's plan which was arrived at over a lengthy period of tine lived much of the community. It was an ambitious and involved undertaking designed to remediate, desegregate and retain children in school, especially Black children. successive administrations have manipulated public opinion to the view that the plan is unworkable and that our chil^^ are criminals in waiting. Because of that prophesy, administrators and Board members yield to the public mentality calling for public repression and more severe punishment measures for actions that often should be the basis for counseling. Your Board seems to forget that the children have constitutional rights that avait vindication and that teachers, principals and even police officers are in the schools to vindicate constitutional rights. You all have subverted the process by reversing the question of criminals in waiting. JO'd 00I0I2I 01 The Board and fd uHof woaj Z3J3I 2661/21/20who the Intended beneficiaries are. point. This brings ne to sty third i The desegregation plan calls for reduction of suspensions and expulsions. Rather than reduce suspensions and expulsions. the Board and administration have chosen to increase them. Moreover, it now totally disregards the concept imbedded in the desegregation plan that school staff are in loco parentis status rather than police status. As stand-in parents, it is inconceivable that the District would allow police officers to make school disciplinary judgments and then allow the criminal judicial system to incarcerate juveniles without bail for four days and nights. Yet that is what happened to Mabelvale Junior High School students who were simply involved in a fight. This approach allows a principal to abdicate her responsibility for making disciplinary decisions by deferring to police authorities the District placed in the environment. These parents were not on notice that they were sending their children to school to be subjected to nonschool ultimate determinations involving simple The social and economic adversities which conveyance of f ights. tills discretion to resource officers visit upon Black children is immense and pervasive. Police authorities should be removed from the schools or take their orders from school authorities after due consideration of due process considerations and the I remind you that we have repeatedly desegregation plan itself. called to the Board's attention the numerous indiscretions and discriminatory acts of Ms. Gayle Bradford at Cloverdale and Mabelvale Junior High Schools. You, your predecessor and the Board have not taken our monitoring reports and other correspondence seriously. We have advised you that Ms. Bradford's situation appears designed to frustrate the desegregation plan and to deny equal education to Black children. You should also be reminded that a large number of the Black staff members have protested her treatment of them and of students. Contrast, if you will, your reaction to those staff members with your reaction to the white staff members at Mablevale Elementary School to a Black principal. T many more examples for you and have done so in the past. I can provide This reinforces my fourth point. The School District takes whatever action necessary to retain the goodwill of white patrons and attendance of their children. The same is true of your white staff. We can not participate in a procedure or process where racial views predominate in a manner contrary to achievement and vindication of constitutional rights. Fifth, we participated in a similar process in 1993. It was modeled on the Syracuse City School District "Strategic Plan 1991-1996'. See leuo to Estelle Matthis from Bill Mooney dated August 23, 1993. That process was under your aegis although you did not officially come to the District until October of 1993. I have never received a report of the consequences of our work in 1993. I request a report at this time on that matter. If our C0 d 00IO1ZE Oi H'd aajiitin'n iiHor uoad 21-: a I S64,/I/Z0I productive in 1993, why is it necessary for us to sao passina, L< work was revisit the same issue in 1995. In passing, 1 note that Leon Modeste was Involved in the Syracuse plan and T believe that your present consultant, whose name I believe is Howard Feddema, iw as also. The District seems to continually try to recreate the wheel which brings se to ny sixth point. The desegregation plan adopted by the Board has never been Implemented in good faith. Look at the various ODM reports, the Joshua reports and the Courts various findings. I would like to be made privy to any session involving the public which has been convened for the purpose of implementing the existing plan since you have been here. nothing. It goes without saying that Dr. Bernd did I Bust therefore conclude that the Board and administration no longer, if they ever did, intend to implement the court approved plan. This bring me to my final point. Joshua can not participate in a process designated to denigrate the court approved plan where the announced goal is to "get the District out of Federal Court", especially where the District's treatment of Black children cries out more than ever before for the protection of the Court. As an African Anerican, you more than any of your predecessors, should be aware that our long, tedious, tortured "stride toward freedom" has been secured through legal actions taken through and by the Court. It looks as if that is the only arena where we can at least get a fair hearing in these times and hope to have the interests of our children protected. For these and other, reasons, count us out of the "Strategic Plannnlng: Creating the Future" process. Instead, we ask that you devote as much time in implementing the plan and in treating all children as contemplated by it as you and the Board would devote to Its dlssantlenent. Sincerely, in W. Walker JWW
js co: Ms. Ann Brown Id ' ' M ut i,-ac. FES 1 'I9<
s Offics of Dessgregit
a IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W, KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION TO ENJOIN THE LRSD FROM EXPENDING SUBSTANTIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNDS WITHOUT COURT APPROVAL AND FOR OTHER RELIEF The Joshua intervenors respectfully move the Court to enjoin the Little Rock School District from expending unbudgeted, large sums of school district fends without prior court approval. They also ask the Court to require the Little Rock School District to specify what action they have taken during the 1994-95 school year for compliarxie or in order to promote compliance with their own desegregation initiatives. For cause, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully show the Court that 1. The school district administration and school board have embarked upon a course of action to dismantle the court approved desegregation, integration and remediation plans herein. They have done this through, i.e., bad faith disputation of the plan, disregard lor remediation, proliferation of oiscipiinaiy consequences upon Black children, public relations actions designed to misrepresent facts within the schools, proposing to closing more schools in minority and low income areas, increasing rather than decreasing transportation burdens upon minority children, and expending or proposing to expend large sums of district furxjs to supplement salaries of fevered district personnel under trie guise of 'green Factor* resaarcri committees. For trie latter point, please see exhibit A, a statement approved by the LRSO Board of Directors on February 9,1995. For the other points, Joshua respectfully requests leave to take discovery on them prior to a hearing. 2. The school district plarts to engage in a long rang strategic planning conference beginning on February 14, 1995. The District engaged in such a process in August and September, 1993. The purpose of the confererx^e is to find ways to dismantle the court approved desegregation plan. Such plan, if undertaken for trie stated purpose, is not in good feith
therefore, the process should not be allowed. If it is allowed, however, we respectfully submit that the Court should not have any official role in the proceeding through ODM or otherwise because such approach is contrary to the interests of Black children in the District WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to allow them to take discovery, set this matter down for early hearing and thereafter enter an Order (a) finding that the districts actions represent bad faith implementation (rf implementation at all) of trie Court approved Desegregation Plan
and (b) enjoining the district from proceeding with substantial furtding initiatives including school closings wBhout prior Court approval. Respectfully submitted,t- 0 d 1H i 0 i JOHN W. WALKER. PJL 1723 Broadway Little Rock. AR T23X (501) 374-37S8 loKn W. Walker, Bar No. 64046 By: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Walker, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading was fonwarded to all counsel of record, by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this__ day of February, 1995. Johi Walker STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE NAMES ADDRESS PHONE/FAX Anderson, Dr. Victor 6700 "H" Street Little Rock, AR 72205 671-6200 (work) 671-6207 (fax) Beason, David 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 324-2060 (work) 324-2032 (fax) Briggs, Mona 401 N. Pine Street Little Rock, AR 72205 671-6250 (work) 671-6294 (fax) Coleman, Eleanor 1500 West 4th Street Little Rock, AR 72201 372-3519 (home) 375-4620 (fax) Crary, Don 209 West Capitol, 2nd Floor Little Rock, AR 72201 374-1011 (work) 688-8342 (fax) Dedner, Kevin 3314 Holt Road Little Rock, AR 72204 228-0472 (home) student at Central Frazier, Lee Two SL Vincent Circle Little Rock, AR 72205 660-3000 (work) 660-2329 (fax) Harris, Tyronne 901 Martin L. King Dr. Little Rock, AR 72202 324-2135 (work) Johnson, Brad 12017 Cherrystone Circle Little Rock, AR 72209 455-2068 (home) student at Fair Kennedy, Barbara 6423 Stagecoach Road Little Rock, AR 72204 455-7430 (work) 455-7427 (fax) Kohler, Dr. Patty 100 S. Arch Little Rock, AR 72201 324-2180 (work) 324-2032 (fax) Martin, Mahlon 308 East 8th Street Little Rock, AR 72202 376-6854 (work) 374-4797 (fax) Mason, Jesse 2801 S. University Little Rock, AR 72204 569-3584 (work) 569-3588 (fax) Matthis, Estelle 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 324-2010 (work) 324-2146 (fax) Mayo, Dr. Russ 501 Sherman Little Rock, AR 72201 324-2271 (work) 324-2281 (fax) Miller, Virgil P.O. Box 1681 Little Rock, AR 72203 378-1251 (work) 378-1146 (fax)Strategic Planning Committee Page 2 Milton, Ken 2410 Battery Street Little Rock, AR 72206 324-2415 (work) 324-2150 (fax) Mooney, Bill 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 376-6200 (work) 371-0100 (fax) Moore, Delia P.O. Box 3257 Little Rock, AR 72203 376-4567 (work) 376-7607 (fax) Riggs, John 9125 Interstate 30 Little Rock, AR 72209 570-3528 (work) 570-3525 (fax) Robertson, Zeke P.O. Box 1611 Little Rock, AR 72203 373-3383 (work) 373-3090 (fax) Smith, Carole 5709 Kavanaugh Little Rock, AR 72207 663-4334 (work) Steward, John 924 S. Midland Little Rock, AR 72205 378-2154 (work) Stewart, Hezekiah 3701 Confederate Blvd. Little Rock, AR 72206 378-0176 (work) 378-0432 (fax) Strickland, Carroll 4107 Bruno Little Rock, AR 72209 565-5012 (work) Vibhakar, Diane 3917 S. Lookout Little Rock, AR 72205 661-8030 (home) Walker, John 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 374-3758 (work) 374-4187 (fax) Warren, Judge Joyce W. 1916 South Pine Street Little Rock, AR 72204 340-6725 (work) 340-6788 (fax) Wells, Kathy 2121 S. Gaines Street Little Rock, AR 72206 374-7269 (home) Williams, Dr. Henry 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 324-2100 (work) 324-2146 (fax) lisupI REMINDER RECEIVED FEB 1 3 W5 OJfice of Desefife<j2fiy( i- LRSD Strategic Planning Process Begins Tuesday, February 14,1995 5:30 p.m. (Light Dinner Provided) Excelsior Hotel Caraway Boom Valet Parking Provided (Identify yourself as participant in LRSD meeting) Dress Casual! Call 324-2112 if you have any questions. See you there!!!RECF' -WK FEB 1 4 1995 Office of Desegregation Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION UTTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT. ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-O82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT. ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION TO ENJOIN THE LRSD FROM EXPENDING SUBSTANTIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNDS WITHOUT COURT APPROVAL AND FOR OTHER RELIEF The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the Court to enjoin the Little Rock School District from expending unbudgeted, large sums of school district fends without prior court approval. They also ask the Court to require the Little Rock School District to specify what action they have taken during the 1994-95 school year for compliance or in order to promote compliance with thar own desegregation initiatives. For cause, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully show the Court that 1. The school district administration and school board have embarked upon a course of action to dismantle the court approved desegregation, integration and remediation plans herein. They have done this through, i.e., bad faith disputation of the plan, disregard for remediation, proliferation of oiscipiinaiy consequences upon Black children, public relations actions designed to misrepresent facts within theschools, proposing to closing nrare schools in minority and low irxxxne areas, increasing rather than decreasing transportation burdens upon minority children, and expending or proposing to expend large sums of district funds to supplement salaries of favored district personnel under the guise of 'green Factor' research committees. For the latter point, please see exhibit A, a statement approved by the LRSD Board of Directors on February 9, 1995. For the other points, Joshua respectfuUy requests leave to take discovery on them prior to a hearing. 2. The school district plarts to engage in a long rang strategic planning confererxje beginning on February 14, 1995. The District engaged in such a process in August and September, 1993. The purpose of the conference is to find ways to dismantle the court approved desegregation plan. Such plan, if undertaken for the stated purpose, is not in good faith
therefore, the process should not be allowed. If it is allowed, however, we respectfully submit that the Court should not have any official role in the proceeding through ODM or otherwise because such approach is contrary to the interests of Black children in the District WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to allow them to take discovery, set this matter down for early hearing and thereafter enter an Order (a) finding that the districts actions represent bad faith implementation fif implementation at all) of the Court approved Desegregation Plan
arxl (b) enjoining the district from proceeding with substantial funding initiatives including school closings without prior Court approval. Respectfully submitted,tOd IHiOi JOHN W. WALKER. PJL 1723 Broadway URIo Rook, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 By. Ib/n W. Walker, Bar No. 64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Walker, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading was forwarded to all counsel of record, by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this__ day of February, 1995. Joh] Walker LRSD SUPPORT SERVICES Fax:1-501 >4-2032 Jan 6 95 16:14 P.Ol January 6, 1995 To
Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Fax t 371-0100 From: Linda Young Little Rock School District 324-2112 This is to confirm the meeting on Wednesday, January 11th at 1:30 in your office with Dr. Williams, Leon Modeste and I regarding p.m. the Strategic Planning Process. Attached is a framework of the Strategic Planning Process for your review. Looking forward to our meeting on Wednesday. Thank You, Linda Youngfl jS 1 Confirm commitment and readiness Conduct basic awareness session(s) Explore system capacity and design Prepare for planning Communicate about planning Collect vital signs data Build strategic planning team .. Conduct first planning session vS * .. <* -i z Develop action plans 10. Action plans Conduct second planning session Achieve consensus action plans Affinn consensus strategic plan Prepare implementation sch^ule (with supporting resource plan) Obtain board approval * 1. Beliefs 2. Mission 3. Parameters 4. Internal Analysis 5. External Analysis 6. Competition 7. Critical Issues 8. Objectives 9. Strategies : Develop capacity for implementation Communicate approved strategic plan Develop mutual expectations and system design Systemize site involvement I**' iejff i. 5.*' S*K- *1^ -. Communicate draft plan ''I 7 Validate pians and process continually <. Build action teams Regular reviews Periodic updates A ' -J 1 Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT - RECEIVF'^ January 25, 1995 JAN 3 0 1995 Bill Mooney Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Office of Desegrega. . Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Mooney: I am delighted that you have agreed to serve on the strategic planning team for the Little Rock School District. I am certain that this process will help determine the future direction of the district. Dr. Howard Feddema will serve as the facilitator for the strategic planning process. He is associated with the Cambridge Management Group located in Montgomery, Alabama. Listed below is the schedule for the planning sessions, to be held at the Excelsior Hotel. Tuesday, Feb. 14 5:30 - 7:30 p.m. Planning Session (Light supper provided) An Wednesday, Feb. 15 Thursday, Feb. 16 Friday, Feb. 17 informational session 7:30 8:00 a.m. Breakfast 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. Planning Session 7:30 8:00 a.m. Breakfast 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. Planning Session 7:30 8:00 a.m. Breakfast 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Planning Session for members of the planning team. community organizations, and others will be held on Monday, Feb. 6 from 5:30 7:30 p.m. in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham. Please plan on attending this meeting. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Aritansas 72201 (501)824-2000 Page 2 Feel free to invite other members of your group. Please call Linda Young at 324-2112 to make your reservations so that we can provide adequate seating. Looking forward to working with you. Thanks again. Sincerely, Henry P. ] Superintel Schools 'Jr ' I ' f I I s Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT M 5 1995 March 30, 1995 Ann Brown ODM 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown, The Little Rock School District has begun a Strategic Planning Process. We believe that this is a valuable process for defining the educational future that we want for our children. The Strategic Planning Committee has completed the first planning session. An informational session to share the work of the committee will be held on Wednesday, April 5, 6:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Administration Building at 810 West Markham. The committee will provide an update on the strategic planning process and share draft materials of the work that has been completed to date with the community. Broad base community participation is needed for the Action Planning phase of the process. Please call Linda Young at 324-2112 if you need further information or assistance. Thanks so much for your continued support of the Little Rock School District. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, .Arkansas 72201 (501) 324-2000 LRSD SUPPORT SERVICES Fax:1-501-324-2032 fipr 4 95 9:59 P. 02/02 .. - as 73-40] (501)834-3000 SHULTS, BAY & KTJBKVS attornkys at law ISOO WOKTHEN BANK BCIUJINO aOO WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITT1.E ROCK, ARKANSAS 73201-3037 ROBERT SHULTS THOMAS RAY H. BAKER KLRRUS STEVEN SHULTS DEBORAH K. THUBY TELEPHONE (801) 375-8301 FACSIMILE (501) 375-68! May 22, 1995 Def' 4 '^1 r Mh I 2 2 1995 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Oiisce ci Dear Ms. Brown
Although I am the co-chairperson of the Little Rock School District's long-range Although lam the co cna desegregation plan, 1 am writmg in my planning action team dealing individual capacity at this time as h- - ~implement member of this community at la g . effort to achieve unitary parent with children in the district and as a a driving the litigation. and have invested my whole future in Little I have resided here for 15 years and have mvesteu my wnoie iuloiu xxx been committed to Little Rock public schools since I retamedAc^Li^ recruitment and 1 have tirst nanu through when trying to decide Rock. I have------ . . , Rock. I have actively assisted in kindergarten knowledge regarding the process which parents go where their children will attend. latest report caused great damage to the The recent publicity surrounding your Little Rock School District and to its prospects for implementation of the aspects of the plan which seem subscribe to the view that ma V .. , snecial needs which must lower socioeconomic students (regardless of r ) district, sits'
build community support and involvement. equal access to a full measure of the Plan will not be possible unless weSirtrLTS, RAY & KUBRCS Ms. Ann Brown May 22, 1995 Page 2 Great damage has been done to this district by the publicity surrounding your latest report. We are struggling to maintain white enrollment. One of the biggest obstacles in this struggle is the general negative perception which results from damaging articles and media publicity. The result of this damage is that children opt out of the public system and their parents cease to support it. I believe our biggest problem district-wide is the perception that the district is failing. This perception erodes community support for the district. There is no community support for a millage increase, and further cuts in the district's programs will result in more damage, more opting out, and more animosity toward the district, making a millage increase even more difficult. I have worked for years against a dual system, one public and one private. We have been fighting this battle for many years (see enclosed article). I fear that the tide has turned against us. I would like to personally invite you to come to one of our planning meetings and let us know how we can be of assistance in implementing the plan. The only qualification for membership on our committee that you be a person of good will who is willing to work. If you feel that the office of desegregation monitoring is not in a position to participate in this process, I would still ask that you attend one of our meetings and let us know how we can be of assistance. Our next meeting is May 31, 1995, at 6:30 p.m. at Hall High School. Please contact me and let me know whether you or someone from your office would be willing to attend and make a presentation to us regarding your office, the role of your office, and the way that we could be a positive influence in the desegregation process. Sincerely yours, H. Baker Kurrus HBK:rdb rt As I sat on the Main Street Mall basking in the noon sunshine, watching the pedestrians trip on the uneven tiles, and a reading the paper, I was initially amused by the letter from the jovial anarchist. Win Farrell, who was rejoicing in the Little Rock electorate's defeat of the 8 mill tax increase. Upon the second reading, I really couldn't tell whether Mr. Farrell's letter was an honest of his views or a clever piece of journalism designed to point out the myopia of the majority. In either case. my amusement faded as I realized that the views ex- pressed by that writer were shared by the many people who pulled the same lever on election day. Although most of the "nays" would probably not admit to II long[ing] for thiG day when the public school system in America is wiped out, " I'm afraid that the negativists share all isolationistic views. too many of the jovial anarchist's There is no crucial flaw in Farrell's notion that each is responsible for educating his own. If such a commitment did in fact exist, the problems of the Little be greatly diminished. Rock school system would It is, however. naive and unrealistic to believe that each member of the community has the time, resources, and ability to provide a well-rounded education to the young members of his immediate family. Such a belief could.be no more realistically held by a wealthy man than by a man of lesser means. It is also unrealistic and naive in a more fundamental sense to think that 6a well-rounded education can be had in a cloistered environment which is not representative of the community as it exists. If the purpose of education is to prepare one for a productive life in the real world, then that end can be best served by conducting the training process in a microcosm which introduces the student not only to math and English, but also to actual problems in a controlled, but representative, atmosphere. In recognition of some of these realities of education, public schools were born. "Public schools" have suffered in the past because they were not truly public, and the public has suffered by learning lessons in the streets which should have been learned in the classrooms. It now appears, though, that the lessons were not learned very well and that we are regurgitating the very bitter pill which presently holds the only hope of curing the pernicious disease. I'm not ready to give up on the idea of community improvement through education, any many of Little Rock's citizens are not giving up, but the help and participation of all segments of the community is essential. One need only glance at the precinct-by- precinct results of the last election to see that the people with the most to give are tired of giving. Those less advantaged are doubtless tired, too. I believe that sooner than later we must all realize that this community and its members will succeed or fail together, and that the good education that all desire cannot be had in a roomful of people who pleasantly deny that their neighbors exist, or in a roomful of people who are not receivingfamilial support, direction and encouragement. I am aware of the fact that many of the lessons now being learned in the public schools are horribly unacceptable, but that only means that there is much hard work to be done in the community. It is time that we put our heads together and set about the task.H. BAKER KUERUS 1600 WORTHEN BANK BUILDING UTTLE ROOK ARKANSAS 72201 / RECFIVO Jill 10 1995 Office of Desegregation Mcniioring /n^dJlud^ I fi i wnii^ l^ Siart' K i /i^ Pa, C\ROBERT SHULTS THOMAS RAY H. BAKER KURRUS STEVEN SHULTS DEBORAH K. TRUBY SHTJLTS, RAY & KURRUS ,ATTORNEYS AT LAW IQOO BOATMEN S BANK BUILDING 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3637 TELEPHONE (501) 375a3Ol FACSIMILE (501) 376-Q861 July 7, 1995 TO: ACTION TEAM 2 MEMBERS Dear Friends, Our next meeting will be held on July 13 at 6:30 p.m. at Hall High School. Please plan on attending the meeting. I enclose to each of you a summary sheet which shows the results of our brainstorming session during our last meeting. Jerry Osterman deserves our thanks for leading the session and for preparing the first draft of the notes. Also enclosed are copies of the litigation summary which Van Light has prepared and copies of an article she provided which covers current issues in desegregation litigation. The article pre-dates the U.S. Supreme Court decision tn the Kansas City case. Last, but not least, I enclose a copy of an outline which I have prepared. This outline is my view of the desegregation plan status, with a particular emphasis on implementing a beneficial strategy for improved relations among the patrons of the district. At our upcoming meeting I would like to discuss the specific action plans which will address the concerns expressed at our last meeting. I believe we should emphasize inclusion of all parties and cooperation among these parties and all monitoring bodies. Sincerely yours, H. Baker Kurrus HBK:rdb Enclosures 7/7/95 TEAM 2 - LRSD STRATEGIC PLANNING LRSD Strategic Planning Team 2 is charged with developing action plans to implement the following strategy
II 'Develop the means to successfully implement or modify the desegregation plan in order to achieve unitary status as well as the objectives in the strategic plan. A brainstorming session, held June 22, 1995, collected ideas from all participants without criticism or judgment. These ideas are grouped into four categories, with clarifications by the authors in brackets. This report is being sent to all participants for their review, constructive criticism, and further suggestions. Please forward your comments to Baker Kurrus (Fax
375-6861) or to Gerry Osterman at 221-2057. The report will be reviewed at the next committee meeting. Most of the ideas can be grouped under the following headings
1. 2. 3. 4. Desegregation plan performance and review. Quality education for all students. Public involvement, understanding and support. Optimization of the special programs. The ideas stated by the team members are summarized as follows
Desegregation plan review 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Implement/modify the plan. Remove all vestiges of segregation. Develop simplified, understandable, focused plan. Develop realistic plan. Consider feasibility of plan components. Consider district revenue. Consider changed circumstances. Meet basic requirement to abolish racial identification (for student bodies, faculty, staff, transportation, extracurricular activities and facilities). Define words in the plan (develop glossary). Consider administrative listing of plan requirements. Tailor the remedy (plan) to the original problem. Involve teachers and administrators in planning.7ni^s [Involve the intervenors and the desegregation plan committees like the magnet review committee and the bi-racial committee early in the process, before suggesting plan revisions and before the decisions are made. We must consult before deciding - and listen. The present process is limited to promoting conflict in court sessions. This damages the district. Failure to improve this process will result in lower education for all Little Rock students] Quality education for all students 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Student centered plans and programs (Reading Recovery, Great Expectations). Emphasize reading, writing and arithmetic. De-emphasize race (emphasize persons). Provide special teaching for disadvantaged. Use best available teaching methods. Define what is wrong with schools for black students. Get honest about race, class and culture. (Analyze and provide for needs and differences like variations in early exposure to print). Define the public schools' responsibilities and limits. Public involvement, understanding and support 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Develop community acceptance (of desegregation and the plan). Increase parent involvement. Educate white "majority". Reduce flight of white and black families. Develop historical understanding (of public schools). Change attitudes toward education and race. Investigate Parents for Public Schools (national organization). Optimization of special programs (including neighborhood schools, incentive schools, magnet schools, interdistrict schools, special education, vocational education, alternative schools, summer schools and nursery schools) 1. 2. 3. Emphasize neighborhood schools. Improve effectiveness of Incentive Schools. Consider pairing schools. 24. 5. 6. Determine current demographic (and geographic) information and forecast. Consider magnet schools advantages and disadvantages. Look at neighborhood schools' effect on all students. Additional comments Desegregation must be a good faith effort (and competent). Little Rock School District is accountable for results. We have had a relatively short time to change attitudes. We need timeliness of progress (compliance). Improve security (community peace of mind). [The interests of all litigants, and their duty, is to convert to a unitary system in which racial discrimination would be eliminated root and branch and to provide the best practical education for all students. New communications and probably some reorganization and changed emphasis of the parties is required to achieve these interests.] Gerald Osterman Baker Kurrus cc: Committee members Leon Modeste Linda Young Russ Mayo Henry Williams Ann Brown John Walker Eleanor Coleman Grainger Ledbetter 3Status LRSD Desegregation Case as of June 22, 1995 Plan Implementation Process a. Completion Status Russ Mayo's office conducting audit. Audit results in 3 weeks. (2500 compliance tasks, 1718 remaining) b. Compliance is evaluated in terms of I. Showing Good Faith effort. (that is, demonstrating that there is a genuine commitment to operate a unitary system. The school would operate in compliance with the commands of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The school would not return to its former ways. II. Eliminating all vestages of past discrimination in the school system to the extent practical. Define vestage: a trace
a remnant of the former unconstitutional school system. Green factors Student Assignment Faculty and Staff Facilities Transportation Extra Curricular Activities Availability of equitable (as opposed to equal) education opportunities. Additional Specific harms identified by the District Court specific to the Little Rock case. c. Desegregation Plan Amendment Process (see handout) I. Plan Amendments Pending (at district court) Proposed change to adjust racial balance ratio requirement to match racial balance ratio of affected attendance zone. Proposed changes affecting budget. ii. Plan Amendments Under consideration at LRSD/Deseg Office NONEII. Litigation Affecting Desegregation Plan a. Litigation Currently in Process. i. Claim against State of Arkansas. LRSD Claims that State of Ark. violated Settlement Agreement by way it computes workers' compensation, computers, M to M Transfers. District Court: Sth Circuit: Ruled in favor of LRSD claim. State appealed, Decision pending. i i. Claim against PCSSD. LRSD claims that PCSSD violated Settlement Agreement by way it computes the amount of money to be dispersed to the Interdistrict Schools. District Court: Sth Circuit: Ruled in favor of PCSSD. LRSD appealed, Decision pending. b. Litigation Recently Concluded. i. Joshua Intervenors petitioned Court not to allow the closing of Ish Elementary by LRSD. District Court: Sth Circuit: Ruled in favor of LRSD Upheld District Courts ruling. i i. Joshua Intervenors petitioned Court to create 3 majorityblack school board zones instead of 2. District Court: Sth Circuit: Ruled against petition. Upheld District Court's ruling. HI. Prediction of Completion of Plan Compliance and Release from Court Supervision.2 Lc X 3 co 1) OO s JS -S 1) Q co (U c^ 3 .3 3 2P w E 00 x: 3 U 2 G c u o V5 73 73 3 3-0 <U U co U . G. -= I O E CQ o u D 12^ o 03 S oi IZ3 CZ2 O o o 3 O E 3 (D E 3 3 3 O 3 00 o o CT) o O tn tn u o o w 2- CU 3 . 00 3 1) Um co Q 3 hJ .s co (SO 3 3 J= u o o co "o 13 45 a a> > o _ Q o co 5 u 2 <U CQ fi o bJD fl fl OJD C C3 IS 0^ U) 0) cn IXl o 1) Q 0M CO C P co co 3 <u 73 3 5? .s O o co O 3 co 'S E 73 < co u 0.) U= u 3 (U H VJ 0^ s s o U 73 a> > o Om ex 3 fi m (M 3 CO CU 00 o c 3 .2 G C D G S o X' C cn O T3 > O O 13 gj 3 TS 73 a> > o k a ex 3 s o. 3 CO (U a: 3 c 3 O X) 3 1) s 73 O 33 3 3 <U *3 P . i CO -=i (S co 00 X g .. 2 -2 o o co 4= C tn 5 3 S o CO M 3 33 r x> 3 <- -s /? C O o a cy e- -z
CO C/3 CO C <U t) -3 Q Q:^ o cs a. g 3 CZ5 c co u O Q P - Q X t4_ .- o (U 3 j= CQ CZ) 3 .2 3 "co > w c s A s GO 0^ R tZ! Cj 5 "S o .u Co -ic u o 05 <uin 195 A. B. I. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Identify LRSD Plan Obligations. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Classify and Group Plan Obligations. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (g) (h) (1) Incentive schools Student assignments Interdistrict magnets LRSD magnets Area schools Personnel Transportation Budget Special programs Isolate Goals and Objectives (differentiate from Obligations). Determine and Assign Compliance/Performance Responsibility. Determine Monitoring Responsibility. Consult Joshua Intervenors regarding all of the above. Consult ODM regarding all of the above. Plan and Calendar Regular Meetings with Joshua and ODM regarding all of the above. Seek advice/assistance from Joshua and ODM regarding all of the above. Consult, analyze, discuss, compromise, and seek consensus on all Plan issues. Establish Timetable and Plan for Meeting Unperformed Feasible Obligations.7/7/95 c. Develop Joint (LRSD, ODM, Knight and Joshua) Plan for Release/Recognition of Accomplished Plan Requirements. D. Determine Plan Requirements Which Are No Longer Feasible or Educationally Sound. 1. Consult ODM, Joshua. 2. Use professional educators who recognize LRSD obligations and Joshua goals. 3. Reinvigorate Plan with better, more effective programs which meet the goals. E. Seek Joint (LRSD, Joshua, Knight) Plan Modifications in order to meet goals and objectives. 1. Advise/consult with all parties, including ODM. 2. Consult experts within District and outside to get best educational programs available to meet goals. 3. Address Joshua concerns directly in advance through A. B. C. advice/consult/compromise/consensus process II. ESTABLISH TRUST, CONFIDENCE, AND GOOD FAITH Declare Intention to Cooperate With Knight. Joshua. ODM - reestablish working relationships. Schedule and Follow-up on Cooperative Efforts Outlined in Section I. Cultivate Conununity/Business Support. 2in 195 D. Analyze and Report on Positive Desegregative Results in area schools, interdistrict magnet schools. E. Focus on Rockefeller, and replicate its success in other Incentive Schools. F. Analyze LRSD magnet schools from standpoint of academic performance and desegregation results. G. Publicize Accomplishments. H. Identify Problems and Address Them Cooperatively. III. ARTICULATE LONG-RANGE PLANS FOR LRSD A. Complete Strategic Planning Process. B. Reinvigorate Board of Directors. C. Propose Joint Planning Sessions for Schools (Joshua. ODM, Kmght and LRSD). D. Complete Demographic Study and Use Study in Planning for Growth and Change. E. Outline Budgetary Needs/Examine MiUage/Organize Commitments for Millage. F. Plan for Facilities - Expansion, Reconstruction, and New Construction. G. Exhibit to the Community, Positive, Cooperative Approaches to Problems. H. Concentrate on Recruiting. 3CURRENT ISSUES IN SCHOOL DESEGREGATION LITIGATION Stephen J. Immelt* This presentation addresses litigation issues that arise when school districts attempt to eliminate court supervision under desegregation decrees or when school district actions are challenged on the basis that they produce an impermissible racial impact in terms of the overall operation of the system. (It, therefore, does not address issues of racial discrimination arising solely in an employment context) The presentation begins with a brief overview of the legal issues that shape desegregation cases, with particular emphasis on recent Supreme Court decisions dealing with the termination of judicial supervision. It then discusses practical issues that are likely to arise in such litigation. Forty years ago the Supreme Court issued its monumental decision in Brown v. Board of Education. 347 U.S. 483 (1954). The impact of that decision on American education, and society at large, have been enonnous. A direct consequence of Brown was Stephen J. Immelt is a partner in the law firm Hogan & Hartson. The views and opinions expressed in this article are strictly his own and are not attributable to other lawyers in the firm or its clients. B-1 \\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01that it injected the Federal judiciary into the operation of public schools in a way that was unprecedented and far-reaching. Although the federal judges who presided over desegregation cases frequently expressed the hope that their involvement with the local schools would be limited and temporary, there was no clear sense of exactly what steps would be necessary to remedy the constitutional violations that were at the heart of Brown and its progeny or how long the process would take. The legal objective, as articulated by the Supreme Court, was disarmingly simple: the elimination of segregation, root and branch, from every facet of school operations. Green v. County School Board. 391 U.S. 430,435,438 (1968). Dismantling the dual school systems that were the product of de jure segregation in the South was a fairly straightforward task, at least legally. Much more complicated was the task nf eliminating the vestiges of those systems. The efforts to create a school system free of the influences of a prior dual system turned out to be a lengthy, frustrating. controversial, and elusive quest, embroiling federal courts in litigation that has often been measured by decades rather than years. This confused state of affairs was partly a function of the peculiar nature of desegregation cases themselves. Although such cases embody some of the most important conceptual principles underlying the Constitution, in practice they are extremely fact intensive. The geography and demographics of the particular community largely drive the legal analysis. To study desegregation cases is to read about routine B-2 \\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01 operational decisions relating to school locations, school attendance zone boundaries, bus routes and the like. These are cases where the facts matter. These are also cases where the personality and outlook of the assigned judge has had a tremendous impact on the course of the litigation. A review of leading desegregation cases would reveal a wide variety of legal conclusions and remedial schemes in cases that seem ostensibly quite similar. Another important factor was the degree of acrimony that typically infused these cases, at least in their early stages. The issues that these cases present resonate so emotionally that it can be difficult to measure progress or even to agree on what criteria should be used. In many of the cases, the relations between the parties to the litigation have been characterized by a lack of trust and hostility of an intensity that took decades to develop. Also, the institutionalization of some cases (through the appointment of monitors, experts and the like) created a sense of inertia, perhaps even permanence, about judicial oversight. Despite these trends, some districts succeeded in obtaining a declaration that they had achieved unitary status, with the result that active judicial supervision of those districts ceased. In recent years the effort to achieve unitary status has accelerated. Not surprisingly given the history of these cases, the litigation over whether to terminate judicial oversight of desegregation efforts has reflected the same lack of consensus and uniformity that characterized the underlying proceedings. Although most B-3 \\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01 cases described the legal inquiry in the termination phase as one focused on whether the school district had achieved unitary status, there was little agreement about exactly what was meant by that term or the analysis that should be undertaken to assess whether it had been achieved. There was also confusion about the legal effect of a unitary status determination. Did it mean that the case was over for good or just that active judicial supervision was being terminated? Did it mean that any orders issued in the course of the proceedings had no further force and effect? The answers to these questions had important practical consequences. In most cases the desegregation plans, which commonly dealt with student assignment, teacher assignment, building construction, transportation and related matters, were embodied in court orders. Did a declaration of unitary status and a dismissal of the case mean that those orders had no further application? Were districts then free to abandon or modify the very desegregation plans that had enabled them to achieve unitary status? For example, was a district that had been declared unitary free to return to a system of neighborhood schools even if the effect was to create racially identifiable schools? And if a district were to adopt such a course, what would be the legal standard that would be applied to evaluate its legality? Would the plaintiffs have to prove a fresh constitutional violation under Supreme Court decisions requiring proof of a discriminatory intent or would they be able to rely on the more relaxed standards that apply to districts under a court order? B-4 \\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01For years the Supreme Court was content to allow the issues surrounding unitary status determinations to remain with the lower courts, notwithstanding the widespread confusion and inconsistency. Finally, in 1991, the Court took up the question of whether. and under what circumstances, a school district could be released from all constraints of a federal court order arising from an earlier finding of a constitutional violation. The case of Board of Education of Oklahoma City v, Dowell. 498 U.S. 237 (1991), arose from a long standing desegregation case in Oklahoma City. That case had a long and acrimonious history. The case had been filed in 1961, and there had been a finding in 1963 that the schools had been intentionally segregated. After voluntary efforts failed to address the problem, the district court entered an order in 1972 mandating a student assignment plan, known as the Finger Plan, that eliminated segregated schools by closing certain segregated elementary schools and converting them to fifth grade centers. Based on the successfill operation of the Finger Plan, the district court entered an order in 1977 declaring the district to be unitary, although the 1972 order was not vacated or modified. When the school district decided to abandon the Finger Plan in 1985, that action was challenged as violative of the 1972 order. The district court held an extensive evidentiary hearing and determined that, notwithstanding the resegregative effect of abandoning the Finger Plan, the school district continued to be unitary and that any segregation in student assignment was a product of demographic changes, not the action of the school district. The 1972 injunction was therefore dissolved. Furthermore, the district court held that the plaintiffs had failed to show that a fresh constitutional violation B-5 \\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01 had occurred because there was insufficient proof that the system had acted with discriminatory intent. The Tenth Circuit reversed. It held that an equitable decree, such as the 1972 order, should remain in place unless there have been changes in circumstances such that the dangers that the decree was intended to address have become attenuated to a shadow. 890 F.2d 1483,1490 (10th Cir. 1989). Because, under that analysis, the school system had a continuing duty to desegregate, the effects of eliminating the Finger Plan required special scrutiny. The Supreme Court reversed. The Supreme Courts opinion in Dowell emphasized that injunctive decrees in school cases were never intended to be permanent. Once a decree had achieved its purpose of bringing about the transition from a state-sponsored segregated system to a racially nondiscriminatory school system judicial, supervision should cease. To evaluate whether that goal had been achieved, the Dowell Court identified two critical inquiries: 1) had the school system complied in good faith with the court decree since it was entered
and 2) had the vestiges of past discriminatinn been eliminated to the extent practicable. With regard to the vestiges inquiry, the Court directed that consideration be given not only to student assignments, but to every facet of school operations faculty, staff, transportation, extra-curricular activities and facilities. 498 U.S. at 250 (quoting Green v. New Kent County School Board. 391 U.S. 430,435 (1968)). Once a school decree was dissolved, the school districts future conduct would remain subject to B-6 \\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01e Equal Protection Clause, but any such claim would need to establish a discriminatory intent if the moving party were to prevail. hl The Supreme Court soon returned to the issue of unitary status determinations in Freeman v. Pitts. 112 S.Ct. 1430 (1992), a case involving the school system for DeKalb Cormty, Georgia. Freeman reaffirmed the essential holdings of Dowell and embraced the principle that federal court supervision of a school system could be withdrawn incrementally
in other words, the Court could withdraw supervision over student assignment issues while continuing to monitor other aspects of the system such as faculty assignments. The Freeman Court provided some further elaboration of the analytical framework for withdrawing court supervision. A court should examine whether: 1) the vestiges of past discrimination in a particular area of school operations has been eliminated
2) the existence of full and satisfactory compliance with the existing decree with regard to those areas where supervision is to be withdrawn
3) the need for ongoing judicial control over the area sought to be removed to bring about compliance in other areas
and 4) the defendants good faith commitment to avoiding future violations of the type that gave rise to the original decree. 112 S.Ct. at 1446. In its current term, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear State of Missouri v. Jenkins. That case, which will likely focus on the vestiges analysis, should provide even further guidance concerning the standards for withdrawing judicial supervision over school systems. B-7 \\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01With that background in mind, let us turn to practical considerations. Assume that your client has been the subject of a desegregation order at some time in the past It is contemplating changes in some aspect of school operations, a change in attendance boundaries or the construction of a new school, that may be controversial because of a perceived racial impact You are asked to advise the district about the legal standards that would apply to these decisions. Alternatively, your client decides that it is tired of paying for high-priced Washington lawyers and that the time has come to terminate court supervision. You are asked whether that effort will be successful and what issues are likely to come up in the course of the case. Or your client is sued for actions based on their alleged racial impact What legal standard will apply to the determination of the school districts liability? If a party challenges the action of the school district, will they need to prove an intent to discriminate in addition to a racially disparate impact? The touchstone of this analysis will be whether the school district has achieved unitary status. If it has not, its actions will continue to be evaluated based on the impact of its actions in terms of race, regardless of the intent underlying the action. The application of this more rigorous standard may not preclude the school district from taking the desired action, but it will in all likelihood be necessary for the district to show that it has considered all reasonable alternatives and that there are compelling reasons for the chosen course. If, on the other hand, the District can show that it is no longer subject B-8 \\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01 to judicial supervision, a less rigorous standard would apply and the burden of proof would shift to the party challenging the action. The starting point for addressing any of these issues is to undertake a thorough review of all prior court orders. Are there any orders that have been entered in the case that arguably were intended to terminate judicial oversight? If there has not been active judicial oversight in recent years, there is a good chance that such an order may exist. Whether the order uses the magic words unitary status is not definitive. Indeed, in r Dowell the Supreme Court cautioned against giving terms such as unitary constitutional stature. We think it is a mistake to treat words such as dual and unitary as if they were actually found in the Constitution.... Courts have used the terms dual to denote a school system which has engaged in intentional segregation of students by race, and unitary to describe a school system which has been brought into compliance with the command of the Constitution. We are not sure how useful it is to define these terms more precisely, or to create subclasses within them. 498 U.S. at 245-46. The critical issue was whether the district court has made a finding that the constitutional violation has been eliminated and done so in terms clear enough to put the parties on notice about the intended effect of the order. Since all unitary status orders entered prior to January 1991 were developed without the benefit of the Dowell case, one advocacy issue will be to develop arguments that the earlier order effectively complied with the criteria established in Dowell for dissolving a desegregation decree, even though the earlier order may not have used the B-9 \\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01 exact language employed in the Dowell opinion. One of the attachments to this presentation is a copy of a unitary status order entered in 1977 that was subjected to a Dowell analysis (the 1977 Order). The issue in that case was whether the district in question had purged itself of any prior constitutional violations so that any new conduct had to be evaluated as a fresh constitutional violation. The plaintiffs argued that the 1977 Order did not use the precise criteria articulated by Dowell and that the School District itself had not considered the order to be definitive because it had continued to operate under the pre-existing desegregation plan. A particular deficiency noted by the plaintiffs was that the 1977 Order had not reviewed the Green factors nor had it made precise findings as to the elimination of vestiges with regard to each aspect of school operations. The School District prevailed on the issue by emphasizing the sweeping nature of the Courts declaration. Because the Court had expressly found that the constitutional violation had been eliminated, the plaintiffs were clearly on notice that the case was coming to an end. In this regard, the 1977 Order complied with the Dowell Courts observation that an order be sufficiently clear that the Plaintiffs could reasonably be expected to take an appeal if they were of the view that judicial supervision should continue. The lesson here is that, while improbable, your client may be unitary but not realize it. Read the .orders. B-10 \\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01Assuming that there is no magic order hidden in some file cabinet, the next, and probably most critical, step is to conduct a unitary status audit. Counsel needs to sit down with the client and review various aspects of school operations with a view toward the Dowell/Freeman factors. This review must be objective and analytical. It must consider the history of litigation in your district and the likely attitudes and expectations of the presiding judge. Obviously, the Court records should be reviewed, paying particular attention to any reports submitted to the Court by the parties or outside experts or mo]
ors. The more active the level of judicial supervision has been, the more searching the unitary status inquiry must be. The threshold consideration is whether there has been good faith compliance with all court orders. Obviously, part of this inquiry relates to the history of the litigation itself. A district that has consistently resisted efforts to desegregate, that has taken an aggressive and combative approach to the litigation, or that has been ordered to take action because voluntary initiatives were ineffective is likely to encounter resistance and skepticism on this issue. A history of resistance is not necessarily fatal, however, for the Courts have recognized that attitudes change and, even more importantly, that the composition of school boards change. The advocacy issue in dealing with the issue of good faith compliance is to demonstrate that there is genuine commitment to operating a unitary system. As the Dowell Court observed, good faith compliance requires a finding not only that the school B-11 \\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01 district was being operated in compliance with the commands of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, [but also] that it was unlikely that the school board would return to its former ways. 498 U.S. at 247. In this sense, the good faith compliance analysis does not consist strictly of a retrospective review of the school districts conduct in the litigation. There is also an important predictive element. In assessing the strength of your clients position on this issue, you must go beyond the professed attitudes and intentions of your client. The Courts have generally expressed skepticism about the credibility of self-serving pronouncements by school officials of their good faith intentions. Dowell v. Board of Education of Oklahoma City. 8 F.3d 1501,1513 (10th Cir. 1993). Actions are what matter. Voluntary actions that promote desegregation beyond the strict requirements of the decree may be particularly material to show a strong institutional commitment to operate a system free from unconstitutional conduct. Ii Part of the litigators role, therefore, must be to evaluate critically the evidence that may reflect your clients commitment to desegregate. You should review with your client any significant public controversies affecting schools during the last five years. Opening and closing schools, changing attendance boundaries. allocating resources among schools and the like are the types of issues that generate controversy and that pose a significant risk of creating adverse evidence concerning your clients intentions. Learn the details of these controversies. Transcripts or tapes of public hearings are a source of particular interest. You should also identify all programs that have a bearing on future plans or programs for the school district. The existence of B-12 \\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01 programs designed to promote desegregation on a voluntary basis such as minority to majority transfers and magnet schools may be given significant weight in assessing a school districts commitment to operate constitutionally and may go a considerable distance to overcome problems of recalcitrance in the past. Some districts have adopted policies that address what actions they intend to take following a declaration of unitary status as a sign of their good faith intentions. The next step in the legal analysis is whether the vestiges of past discrimination in the school system have been eliminated to the extent practicable. This inquiry is central to the whole purpose of school desegregation litigation, for the Supreme Court in GlSSn imposed on school authorities the affirmative duty to take whatever steps might be necessary to convert to a unitary system in which racial discrimination would be eliminated root and branch. 391 U.S. at 439. Conironted with this issue, the logical question that any litigator would ask is what is a vestige? That is a simple enough question but the answer is far from straightforward. In common understanding, a vestige is a trace, in this case a remnant of the former unconstitutional school system. But what does that mean when applied to a constantly changing institution such as a school system? Perhaps the best framework for analyzing the existence of vestiges are the factors identified in Green: student assignment, faculty and staff assignments, transportation. extra-curricular activities and facilities. B-13 \\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01Student Assignment Have the districts student assignment policies been designed to foster desegregation and have those policies been successful? Faculty and Staff Are faculty and staff assigned to schools on an equitable basis? Does the composition of faculty or staff identify the school with a particular race? If there were affirmative action provisions in the Decree, have those been successfully implemented? Transportation Are the burdens of any mandatory busing for desegregation shared equitably among various racial groups? Extracurricular Activities Does the District encourage participation in the entire spectrum of extracurricular activities by members of all races and ethnic groups? Facilities Are the educational facilities available at any predominantly minority schools comparable to those at predominantly majority schools so that all schools are capable of providing a modem educational programs? Consideration must also be given to any factors that may have a bearing on the availability of equal educational opportunities. These would include student achievement, attendance and drop-out rates, student discipline, and placement in special programs such as Special Education or Gifted and Talented programs. Finally, to the extent that the district court in your case has previously identified specific harms attributable to segregation, you must assess whether those issues have been addressed to the extent practicable. Although all of these factors are important, the issue that historically has received the most attention is that of student assignment One of the hallmarks of the B-14 \\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01 unconstitutional dual systems were schools that were identifiable on the basis of race. An obvious starting point, therefore, in considering whether vestiges remain is the degree of racial imbalance in the school district Freeman. 112 S.Ct. at 1437. But the fact that racial imbalances may exist does not end the inquiry. The Freeman Court emphasized that racial balance is not to be achieved for its own sake. 112 S.Ct. at 1447. The critical issue is whether the existing racial imbalance is attributable, causally, to the prior constitutional violation. Once the racial imbalance due to the de jure violation has been remedied, the school district is under no duty to remedy imbalance that is caused by demographic factors. Freeman. 112 S.Ct. at 1447. In Freeman, the Court held that jurisdiction over a school system could be withdrawn on an incremental basis. For example, student assignment issues might be returned to the schools while other issues. such as faculty assignments, continued to be supervised by the court. The Freeman Court recognized partial withdrawal as a possible outcome even though DeKalb County continued to operate a number of racially identifiable schools and the racial imbalance in some of those schools was becoming increasingly skewed. The Freeman case was remanded to give the school system an opportunity to show that broad population changes in the district, not school policies, were the cause of current racial imbalance in school populations. Another area of controversy relates to the issue of so-called educational vestiges. One of the undeniable legacies of dual school systems was the inferior educational opportunities afforded to minority children. Some of the disparities were quite obvious in B-15 \\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01 terms of differences in resources and programs but other effects were pernicious precisely because they were so subtle. Assessing the elimination of educational vestiges that may manifest themselves in attitudes toward the capabilities of minority children is challenging and bound to be controversial. See United States v. Yonkers. 833 F.Supp. 214 (S.D. N.Y. 1993). The Supreme Courts decision this term in Jenkins v. Missouri is expected to provide additional guidance concerning the analysis of educational vestiges. Accompanying this presentation are copies of selected pleadings from recent litigation that help illustrate the way in which the educational vestiges issues are being approached currently. From a litigators perspective, the vestiges phase of the analysis requires substantial reliance upon experts. A demographer should be consulted early in the process in order to understand the patterns of student assignment. The fact that particular schools are experiencing increasing racial imbalance may reflect demographic forces that are well beyond the influence of the school system. Several cautions are in order, however, in assessing demographic trends and the relation of those trends to the vestiges analysis. First, it is important to examine whether the school system has taken any steps that counter the trend or, even more important, that exacerbate it. Efforts to avoid imbalance through voluntary programs such as minority to majority transfers would be a positive fact. On the other hand, allowing white students to leave a school through selective application of a transfer policy would be a problem. Second, it is important to explore whether there is evidence that might support an argument that the school B-16 \\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01 districts policies have themselves shaped demographic trends. For example, in rapidly growing com muni ties there is often pressure from developers for school systems to commit to particular school sites in advance of the construction or the demonstrated need. The sites selected by developers may have the effect of creating racially imbalanced schools. If other sites existed that might serve the expanding school population while preserving better racial balance or if there was a failure even to consider alternative sites, the school district may have a harder time separating itself from demographic trends. The important point is that the attorney must understand the demographic facts early in the case. In many districts, this effort may be facilitated by the growing sophistication of the student information systems that have been developed and installed in many districts. Even before consulting an outside demographer, you should find out what information can be supplied from your own client Once you have gathered the demographic information you need to be in a position to analyze it. Spread sheet programs such as Excel or Lotus 1-2-3 are invaluable tools for analyzing student assignment information. With such programs you can organize school information based on a variety of factors such as student racial composition, faculty racial composition or geography. You can then plot the trends of this information over time. Another important step is to create maps of the district to address important issues such as the relationship between population growth and school expansion or the patterns of minority housing. Such exhibits can demonstrate graphically, and persuasively, the demographic trends that may explain current student assignment patterns. Again, the B-17 \\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01 crucial legal issue is whether any existing segregation in the schools is the product of residential segregation resulting from private choices of individuals and reflecting economic and social forces over which the schools have no control or, instead, whether current residential patterns continue to be shaped by school policy. This is an intensely factual inquiry. Expert assistance may also be necessary in order to assess the issue of educational vestiges. Are there disparities in achievement affecting minority children that may be attributed to the past violations? As with student assignment, the question is not just whether there are differences but whether the past constitutional violation is the proximate cause of the differences. Other important educational issues may include an analysis of differences on the basis of race in areas such as disciplinary actions, special education referrals, or participation in honors programs and extra-curricular activities. An education expert can help assess the reasons for and significance of such differences. That expert can also provide an opinion regarding whether further efforts to address educational issues are practicable. The issue of practicability is one that is likely to be heavily influenced by the perception of your clients past efforts to deal with issues of race. There will likely be overlap here with the good faith compliance analysis described above. In the area of student assignment, has the district pursued policies that promote desegregation? Are there magnet schools or volimtary transfer programs? Where have new schools been built B-18 \\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01 and what old schools were closed? Were there alternatives for locating those schools that would have had less impact in terms of racial balance. If so, what was the explanation for the decision that was made. Was there public controversy about these decisions? If so, is there evidence that might suggest that the school district surrendered to the racial attitudes of the community in making the decision? It is not a defense that a school district created segregated schools because that is what the public wanted. A similar analysis should be applied to the question of educational vestiges. Have issues been raised, for example, about minority achievement levels or discipline? If so. were these issues addressed in a serious way, even if the differences remained, or were the concerns dismissed as unfounded, without investigation. What resources have been brought to bear on student achievement? Has there been any recognition of the need for innovative approaches to address different learning styles. These issues require a vigorous review of the historical record and a searching analysis that does not accept your clients explanations at face value. One truism noted above is the crucial importance of the individual judge and that judges personal assessment of the importance and benefits of judicial supervision. What is a vestige to one judge may be a problem with no practicable solution to another. Nevertheless, the judicial latitude that may operate in these cases underscores the need for I I a thorough record. The course of the Dowell opinion on remand illustrates the point. In 1 1 the opinion that was ultimately reversed by the Supreme Court, the Tenth Circuit applied B-19 \\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01a stringent analysis that reflected some skepticism about the actions of the Oklahoma City school board. Yet when the district court reinstated its findings following remand from the Supreme Court, the Tenth Circuit afiirmed the decision, in large part based upon the factual record and its deference to the lower courts fact finding process. Dowell v. Board of Education of Oklahoma City. 8 F.3d 1501 (10th Cir. 1993). That same circuit struck down a unitariness finding in the Topeka school case that produced the original Supreme Court decision in Brown because of a failure of proof concerning the Districts good faith and the absence of a causal relationship between the racial identifiability of Topekas schools and its prior practice of segregation. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. 978 F.2d 585 (10th Cir. 1993). The facts matter. Suppose, then, that you succeed in efforts to have your district declared unitary and all judicial authority with regard to the district ceases. The districts future actions will, of course, remain subject to the Equal Protection Clause. Under that analysis, however, the fact that a school districts actions affect the racial composition of its schools does not, without more, establish liability. The more in question is proof of intent As the Tenth Circuits most recent opinion in Dowell states: Plaintiffs must prove not only that defendants actions created or maintained racial imbalances in the schools, but also that those actions were motivated by segregative intent 8 F.2d at 1518. That case certainly demonstrates that the effect of a school districts actions are not determinative since the result of Oklahoma Citys abandonment of the Finger Plan was to B-20 \\\BA - 80334/1005 - 000420t01 create a group of predominantly African-American schools that mirrored some aspects of the Citys school system before the case was brought in 1961. Although proof of segregative intent imposes a serious burden on any plaintiff, school systems would do well to approach with care and caution decisions that may produce significant differences in terms of their racial impact Determining whether a particular decision was motivated, in part, by segregative intent is an inquiry that depends on the analysis of circumstantial evidence. The same issues discussed above in connection with the vestiges analysis will come into play here. For example, there may be a close examinatinn of the stated basis for the decision, the availability of alternatives and the reasons why those alternatives were not chosen. Statements made by public officials in response to public sentiment may color those decisions. The outcome of these cases may depend in large part on the willingness of the school district to take advice firom counsel as part of the decision making process. (Copies of pleadings from a recent case in which a school system prevailed in a desegregation case through a summary judgment motion accompany this presentation.) Any system that considers itself immune to constitutional scrutiny should consider the recent experience of the Philadelphia, Hartford, and Rockford, Illinois school systems. Each of these systems is currently embroiled in desegregation litigation: a federal court recently found that the Rockford schools were being operated in violation of the Constitution with the result that sweeping relief may be granted
in Philadelphia the B-21 \\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01case is in a remedial phase. Although the Rockford case may run counter to the general trend toward releasing federal court supervision of schools, it demonstrates that race continues to be a central concern for American public education. School districts must understand their continuing duties under the Constitution. Counsel play a critical role in fostering decision making that will not subject their school clients to unnecessary litigation risks. Indeed, with a good appreciation of issues that have driven the school desegregation cases, school counsel are in a unique position to guide their clients toward conduct that will be not only defensible but likely to discourage the commencement of litigation at all. B-22 \\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01?rS5SSiS:x Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT July 12, 1995 Mr. Bill Mooney Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Mooney: I would like to extend to you an invitation to attend an exciting community briefing on Wednesday, July 19 at 5:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Little Rock School District at 810 West Markham. The focus of this briefing is to provide a special report to community leaders regarding the progress of the strategic planning process and the current status of the desegregation plan. Following the special report to the community, a question and answer session will be held. This briefing session will be broadcast live on Channel 4 Cable TV. Thank you for your continued support of the Little Rock School District. Looking forward to seeing you on July 19th. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)824-2000'd Uurl i7?:GT AVtl 6* . ' c^ei Fl L'Y .iU Kjv
k. Arkansas 7-' 17< pi. J 5 (501)3!44 !4000 dNi'Pna 'Miwab asanp IT 08/03/95 18:49 *J I ) /> - 501 324 2023 I.RSD COMMUNICATI --- ODM @001/001 tj S' a'' ! i> August 3. 1995 ^^iw-irirFiinn .sftiak a (1 is Little Rock School District News Release For more information: Linda Young, 324-2112 The Strategic Planning Action Team Representatives will hold C rwuiitng Aciion )eam Hepresentatives will hold a breakfast R<* School OMfer. Board Room. School Board members have been invited to attend. ### Note.- A special meeting situation exists when members attend the same event two or more school board 1 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)824-2000 4^ iSHULTS, RAY & KURRUS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1600 boatmens bank BUILDING 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE UTTLE BOCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3637 ROBERT SHULTS THOMAS RAY H. BAKER KURRUS STEVEN SHULTS DEBORAH K. TRUBY TBLEPHONB (501) 375-2301 FACSIMILE (501) 375-0861 July 21, 1995 RECEIV^n Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Jill 2 4 1995 Office of Dese
regiion idonitcriMg Mr. John W. Walker Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Dr. Henry Williams Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Ann, John and Hank: As you know, I am co-chairing the District's Long-Range Planning Committee which is attempting to come up with strategies to implement or modify the desegregation plan to achieve unitary status. At our last conunittee meeting, the members in attendance asked that I write to you and thank you for your work. The committee specifically asked that I congratulate you on the decision to meet and work cooperatively in an attempt to resolve the problems in our mutual best interests. From my own personal perspective, I believe it is increasingly important that we who are committed to public education pull together and demonstrate to our community that we can construct and operate a public school system which runs smoothly and delivers for everyone. I was very disappointed when I picked up today's paper and saw the articles which reported on the District's community update meeting held last evening. The principal purpose of the meeting was to report on the status of the various long- range planning teams. The general tone of the meetmg was upbeat and positive. The meeting was well attended. The Superintendent gave a nice talk in which heSHULTS, KAY & KUBKUS Ms. Ann Brown Mr. John W. Walker Dr. Henry Williams July 21, 1995 Page 2 spoke optimistically about the prospects for progress through cooperation. Instead of reporting on any of this, the Democrat-Gazette gave a rather mathematical report on the number of specific requirements contained in the desegregation plan. The tone of the article was pessimistic, even though the actual presentation on the desegregation plan focused on performance of feasible requirements, cooperation, advice and mutual consent to determine modifications, and other positive, upbeat developments in the case which benefit us all. I am ready, willing, and I hope able to assist you in any way I can. Please call on me if I can help in any way. Sincerely yours, H. Baker Kurrus HBK:rdbCG - MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: CC: August 7, 1995 Strategic Planning Team #9 - Establish Financial Stability Organization and Policy Review Sub-Committee John Gardner, Co-Chairman Meeting Reminder Leon Modeste, Special Assistant to the Superintendent Linda Young, New Futures Liaison
k9 >t3s7 U 'Z t i ir'Z AUG 9 1995 Office of Desegregation Mcniicring The next sub-committee meeting will be held from 5:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. on Monday, August 28, 1995, at the Little Rock School District, 810 West Markham, 1st Floor Lounge. \Ne plan to finish our sub-committees findings and report at the August 28 meeting. Soon thereafter, both Action Team 9 sub-committees will meet to prepare for our final team report. We look forward to seeing you at the meeting on August 28.MEMORANDUM DATE: August 10, 1995 TO: Strategic Planning Team #9 - Establish Financial Stability Revenue and Expenditure Review Sub-Committee FROM:'(^red L. Smith, Manager, Support Services RE: CC: Meeting Reminder Leon Modeste, Special Assistant to the Superintendent Linda Young, New Futures Liaison 4UG / ] 1995 Office of Oesecigqpp'vi -Jnn a ivioniiofinj The next Revenue and Expenditure Review Sub-Committee meeting will be held from 7:30 a.m. until 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, August 15, 1995, at the Department of Higher Education, 114 East Capitol Avenue, second floor conference room. We hope to finish our findings and report within the next three weeks, so I encourage all sub-committee members to attend future meetings if at all possible. We look forward to seeing you at the meeting on August 15.MEMORANDUM 0 a u DATE: August 16, 1995 TO: AUG 1 7 1995 Office of Dsssgregaticn Moniiorir 'id Strategic Planning Team #9 - Establish Financial Stability - Revenue and Expenditure Review Sub-Committee FROM: Fred L. Smith, Manager, Support Services RE: CC: Meeting Reminder Leon Modeste, Special Assistant to the Superintendent Linda Young, New Futures Liaison The next Revenue and Expenditure Review Sub-Committee meeting will be held from 7:30 a.m. until 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, August 22, 1995, at the Little Rock School District Board Room, 810 West Markham Street. We look forward to seeing you there.SHULTS, BAY & KUBRUS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1600 boatmens bank BUILDING 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 73SO1-3637 ROBERT SHULTS THOMAS RAY H. BAKER KURRUS STEVEN SHULTS DEBORAH K. TRUBY TELEPHONE (BOI) 375-2301 FACSIMILE (501) 375-6801 TO: August 25, 1995 RECEIV"^ sc S' AUG 9 1995 ACTION TEAM 2 MEMBERS Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dear Friends, 4 I Enclosed are three Action Plans which have been compiled from the results of our previous meetings. The Action Plans are basically the result of the process which has been pursued throughout our previous meetings. The Action Plans will be the subject of our next meeting. Please come prepared to discuss these plans and make any changes which are necessary. Planning is sometimes frustrating because we all want to actually solve problems which we perceive. Please keep in mind that whatever plans we propose will, if adopted, require volunteer efforts. We as concerned citizens should be prepared to assist. It is very important that we have good attendance at our next meeting so that these plans can be given a fair review. If we settle on the plans and complete a cost benefit analysis of them, we will have completed our task. I do not know whether we will accomplish these things at the next meeting or whether one additional meeting will be required. If another meeting is required, it will be scheduled for September 7. Sincerely yours. H. Baker Kurrus HBK:rdb Enclosures cc: Mr. Henry Williams Mr. Leon Modeste Ms. Linda Young Mr. Russ Mayo Ms. Ann Brown Mr. John Walker ! I I 1 i Action Plan SPECIFIC RESULTS: # 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Implement Plan ACTION STEP (Number each one) Identify LRSD obligations Establish Timetable and Plan for Meeting Unperformed Feasible Obligations Develop Joint (LRSD, ODM, Knight and Joshua) Plan for Release/Recognition of Accomplished Plan Requirements Determine Plan Requirements which are no longer feasible or educationally sound Seek joint (LRSD, Knight, Joshua, ODM) plan modifications in order to meet goals and objectives Responsible: Assigned To: Strategy No, Plan No . Date: 2 1 8/31/95 Starting Date: Due Date: Completed Date: I IAction Plan Strategy No., Plan No .__ 2 2 SPECIFIC RESULTS: Date: 8/31/95 Establish Trust, Confidence and Good Faith it ACTION STEP {Number each one) .Assigned To: Starting Date: Due Date: Completed Date: 1. Publicly declare intention to cooperate with Joshua. Knight, ODM and reestablish working relationship 2. Schedule and follow-up on cooperative efforts outlined in Plan 1 3. Cultivate community and business support 4. Analyze and report on positive desegregative results 5. Publicize accomplishments 6. Identify problems and address them cooperatively Responsible:Action Plan Strategy No. Plan No .__ 2 3 SPECIFIC RESULTS: Date: 8/31/95 yVticulate Long-Range Plans for LRSD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ACTION STEP {Number each one) Complete Strategic Planning Process Reinvigorate Board of Directors Propose Joint Planning Sessions for Schools (Joshua, Kmght, LRSD & ODM) Complete Demographic Study and Facilities Use Study for planning for growth and change Outline Budgetary Needs
Examine Millage
Organize commitments for millage Plan for facilities-expansion, reconstructions and new construction Assigned To: Starting Date: Due Date: Completed Date: 7. Demonstrate and exhibit to the community positive, cooperative approaches to problems Responsible:SHULTS, SAY & KURRUS ATTOBNBYS AT LAW leoo boatmens bank building SOO WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLB ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3637 ROBERT SHULTS THOMAS RAY H. baKer kurrus STEVEN SHULTS DEBORAH K. TRUBY TELEPHONE (BOI) 37B-23O1 FACSIMILE (501) 375-0861 September 1, 1995 TO: ACTION TEAM 2 MEMBERS Dear Friends, Our meeting originally scheduled for September 7 has been rescheduled for September 11 at 6:00 p.m. Please make note of the new time. We want to start this meeting at 6:00 p.m. in the hope of completing our final review of the revised Action Plans which we worked on at our meeting last evening. Enclosed are revised plans. These revisions will provide a more narrow focus to our planning. Several of the other plans were determined last night to be within the purview of other planning teams. Please plan on attending the meeting September 11 at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely yours, H. Baker Kurrus HBK:rdb Enclosures cc: Mr. Henry Williams Mr. Leon Modeste Ms. Linda Young Mr. Russ Mayo Ms. Ann Brown Mr. John Walker f i Action Plan - TO IMPLEMENT THE DESEGREGATION PLAN AS MODIFIED Strategy No, Plan No .__ SPECIFIC RESULTS: Date
9/11/95 2 1 Identification of LRSD desegregation plan obligations f # 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ACTION STEP (Number each one) Classify and group plan obligations Isolate goals and objectives Determine and assign compliance/performance responsibility Determine monitoring responsibility Consult with and seek advice from all parties involved (ODM, Joshua Intervenors, Knight Intervenors) Plan regular meetings with ODM, Joshua Intervenors, Knight Intervenors Come to consensus among these groups on the desegregation plan Responsible: Assigned To: starting Date: Due Date: Completed Date:Action Plan - TO IMPLEMENT THE DESEGREGATION PLAN AS MODIFIED Strategy No., Plan No . 2 2 SPECIFIC RESULTS: Date: 9/11/95 Establish a timetable and plan for complying with all obligations # ACTION STEP (Number each one) Assigned To: Starting Date: Due Date: Completed Date: 1. Assign specific Staff to develop a proposed timetable 2. Deliver timetable to ODM, Joshua, Knight 3. Request acknowledgment from ODM, Joshua and Knight Responsible:I i I i Action Plan - SPECIFIC RESULTS: # 1. 2. 3. TO IMPLEMENT THE DESEGREGATION PLAN AS MODIFIED Strategy No, Plan No . Date: 2 3 9/11/95 Determine plan requirements/obligations which are not feasible or educationally sound ACTION STEP {Number each one) Consult ODM, Joshua Intervenors, Knight Intervenors Use professional educators familiar with LRSD obligations and the goals addressed in the desegregation plan Reinvigorate the desegregation plan with better, more effective programs which meet the goal and obligations Responsible: Assigned To: Starting Date: Due Date: Completed Date:Action Plan - TO IMPLEMENT THE DESEGREGATION PLAN AS MODIFIED Strategy No., Plan No .__ 2 4 SPECIFIC RESULTS
Date:, 9/11/95 _____________Seek joint plan modifications and recognition of completed obligations through consultation with ODM. Joshua Intervenors. Knight Intervenors, all for the purpose of enabling the LRSD to achieve goals and objectives # ACTION STEP {Number each one) Bl Assigned To: Starting Date: Due Date: Completed Date: 1. 2. Advise and consult with all parties Consult with experts within the LRSD and outside resources to provide information about available educational programs to enhance goal achievement 3. Address the concerns of the Joshua Intervenors directly through consulting, advising, compromise, consensus Responsible:Action Plan - TO IMPLEMENT THE DESEGREGATION PLAN AS MODIFIED Strategy No, Plan No .__ 2 5 SPECIFIC RESULTS: Date: 9/1122S. Declare intention to cooperate with and establish working relationships with Joshua Intervenors. Knight Intervenors. ODM # 1. 2. 3. ACTION STEP (Number each one) Assigned To: Starting Date: Due Date: Completed Date: Establish trust, confidence and good faith among parties regarding Plan matters __________________________________ Identify Plan problems and invite parties to address them cooperatively Work together to create solutions that meet children's needs_________ Responsible
t-acz SHTTLTS, RAY & KUBKUS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1000 boatmen's BANK BUILDING 800 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLB ROCK, ARKANSAS 722O1-3Q3T ROBERT SHULTS THOMAS RAY H. BAKER KURRUS STEVEN SHULTS DEBORAH K. TRUBY TELBPHONB (801) 378-8301 FACSIMILE (801) 375-08Q1 September 15, 1995 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. John W. Walker Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 SEP 1 6 1995 Office of Dessgreiiaiw >4^^ Hi tf Dr. Henry Williams Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Ann, Hank and John: Enclosed are the final Action Plans which have been developed by the Little Rock School District planning team which I co-chaired. 1 have been alarmed, but not surprised, by the dramatic decreases in the number of white students in the District for the 1995-96 school year. As I told Ann in the first correspondence which I sent to her in May of this year, great damage was being done to the Little Rock School District and its prospects for implementation of a desegregation plan by the negative publicity which occurred The fact that the major players were publicly and vigorously in the spring. questioning the motives and integrity of the others damaged the District greatly. I was involved in recruitment during this period, and the Little Rock School District lost many students because of the perception of endless turmoil. This type of activity has caused tremendous cumulative damage to the District. To make matters worse, when the initial "olive branch" was extended and cooperative meetings were scheduled, the first meetings were non-productive and actually caused additional negative pu
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.