North Little Rock Response to Monitoring Report

The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.
JAN 2 1 1994 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NORTH LITTLE ROCK RESPONSE TO MONITORING REPORT The North Little Rock School District wishes to comment on three aspects of the 1993-94 School Racial Balance Monitoring Report appeared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and dated January 12, 1994: 1) the calculation of racial balance
2) the Baring Cross Elementary School
and 3) the Alternative School. CALCULATION OF RACIAL BALANCE The Monitoring Report indicates at page 5 that, while the NLRSD Plan makes no reference to organizational level, the District nonetheless calculates racial balance for elementary and secondary school separately each year based on the racial composition at each level. Furthermore, in determining the range of acceptable racial balances at NLRSD elementary schools, the Report uses the total elementary population including kindergarten students. The NLRSD believes that its plan does indicate that racial balances are to be calculated by organizational level and, further, that its plan provides for the exclusion of kindergarten students in determining the elementary school population for racial balance purposes. While we understand that kindergarten students may have been included to maintain consistency among the reports of the three districts and including kindergarten students did not change the compliance status of any NLRSD school, we wanted to clarify this matter for future reference. Turning first to the inclusion of kindergarten students, we would direct the Court's attention to pages 7 and 8 of the NLRSD's Desegregation Plan approved by the Court April 29, 1992 (4/29/92 Plan). In the discussion of elementary school racial balance, the Plan repeatedly refers to the elementary population as being approximately 42% black and 58% black. The Plan also indicates that the NLRSD has 4,620 elementary students of whom 2,467 are nonblack and 1,793 are black. In discussing the racial composition of elementary students, the reader is directed to Addendum lA as the source of these numbers. Addendum lA is a table showing the racial composition of the school districts entitled "North Little Rock Elementary Schools Racial Count As Of October 1, 1985, Excluding Kindergarten Students." (Emphasis supplied). Likewise page 8 of the Plan reflects that kindergarten students are not transported for purposes of racial balance. We submit that, when the applicable provisions of the NLRSD Plan are read in their entirety, it is apparent that the Plan contemplates the exclusion of kindergarten students in determining the racial composition and racial balance of the NLRSD elementary schools. It is submitted the same conclusion must be reached with respect to the Plan's anticipation that racial balance would be determined by organizational level. A review of page 8 of the 4/29/92 Plan reflects an application of the 25% standard to the 2. elementary schools. This application is based on the data contained in Addendum lA which is limited to the elementary school population excluding kindergarten students. Thus, we submit it was clearly anticipated that the racial balance of the NLRSD's elementary schools was to be determined by comparison only to the elementary organizational level, excluding kindergarten students, and not to the total population of the school district as a whole. Further support for this conclusion is found in the original North Little Rock Plan which can be found at 2 Joint Designated Record at 81 et~- (2 JDR 81) The same kind of calculations were done for the junior high schools and senior high schools in the original plan, see 2 JDR 87-88, and these calculations were derived from Addendum 1D which reflects separate calculations for the racial composition of the junior and senior high schools. The application of the 25% standard to the junior and senior high schools in the NLRSD is found at 2 JDR 88 and that application is once again based on organizational level. Because the senior high schools had been reorganized into single grade schools and the junior high school assignment zones had been changed, Addendum 1D was deleted from the 4/29/92 Plan since it had been superseded by events. However, we would submit that it is appropriate to look at the original plan in determining whether it contemplated, and still contemplates, the application of racial balance standards based on student populations by organizational level. BARING CROSS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL The Monitoring Report indicates at page 5 that the Baring 3 Cross school is out of compliance with the racial balance guidelines. We respectfully disagree. It should be noted that the Court (Judge Woods presiding) found in 1987 that all elementary schools in the NLRSD were in compliance with the 25% racial balance guideline. LRSD v. PCSSD, 659 F.Supp. 363, 367 (E.D. Ark. 1987). This specific finding incorporated into the 4/29/92 Plan. of the Court was likewise A review of Addenda lA and 1D reflects that the Baring Cross Elementary School was 70% black at the elementary level and 77% black at the secondary level when the Court made this finding in 1987. The Court's finding would be seemingly inconsistent with the 25% standard were it not for the footnote referring to Baring Cross contained in both Addenda. These footnotes state, "Baring Cross was created as an alternative to placing severely handicapped children in state institutions. The only students assigned to this school were those who are profoundly and multiply handicapped." 4/29/92 Plan Addendum lA and 2 JDR 95, Addendum 1D. Thus, we submit it was never intended that the 25% racial balance guideline be applied to the Baring Cross Elementary School. There are good reasons for Baring Cross' exclusion. As the footnote indicates, Baring Cross serves only students with profound and multiple handicapping conditions. Parents of students at Baring Cross have the option of placing their children in a regular school if that is their preference. The NLRSD created the school, however, as institutions an alternative to for individuals placement with 4- in state residential severe developmental disabilities. The NLRSD cannot control the racial composition of this population and all students in this population are eligible to attend Baring Cross. It would be inappropriate for the District to assign students away from Baring Cross simply to maintain an artificial level of racial balance. In short, it was never contemplated in the Plan or by the Court that racial balance guidelines appropriate for the assignment of the general student population be applied to the Baring Cross Elementary School. As a result of the Court's earlier ruling and the recognition of the exceptional nature of Baring Cross, we submit that Baring Cross is not out of compliance with the racial balance guidelines, at least to the extent that such a lack of compliance would indicate a violation of the NLRSD's Desegregation Plan. ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL The NLRSD's Alternative School was not contemplated by the Desegregation Plan. Section 5 of the Plan does direct the creation of an alternative school to be contained at the North Little Rock Boys Club. However, the Alternative School located at the former Argenta Elementary School is a separate and distinct program. While it can be argued that, since the Plan is silent with respect to the Alternative School the 25% racial balance guidelines would be applicable, it is respectfully submitted, that it would be inappropriate to apply that standard in these circumstances. One of the ten specific segregative acts which the Court found the NLRSD to have committed was that "a disproportionate number of blacks drop out of school. " NLRSD 5- Desegregation Plan, 4/29/92 at page 5
LRSD v. PCSSD, 584 F.Supp. 328, 349, paragraph 102 (E.D. Ark. 1984), and Section 5 of the NLRSD Plan, "Compensatory Programs Aimed at Dropout Prevention", was directed at remediating this specific segregative act. While the Alternative School was not required by the NLRSD Plan, the creation of that school reflects an additional effort by the NLRSD beyond its plan requirements to address the problem of the disproportionate dropout rate among black students. Thus, the Alternative School is a solution to a problem, and one would expect the solution to a problem be as disproportionate in its application as the existence of the problem. In other words, to the extent that a disproportionate number of black students drop out of school, one would expect there to be a corresponding disproportionality in the assignment to the Alternative School since it is a program specifically directed at reducing school dropouts. Certainly, the NLRSD could artificially insure that the racial composition of the Alternative School mirrored the racial composition of the District by organizational level. To do so, however, would only result in depriving black students of an alternative educational dropping out of school. its own right. experience intended to keep them from This could be considered segregative in An immediate and compelling example of the harm inherent in such an approach can be found with respect to expelled students. As with dropouts, the Court found that the NLRSD had committed a 6 . segregative act in that blacks were disproportionately expelled from school. However, Section 7 of the Plan, "Discipline, Expulsions and Suspensions", which contains the programs required of the NLRSD to remediate this segregative act, does not include the Alternative School as one of those requirements. Nonetheless, the NLRSD in the 1993-94 school year has offered expelled students an alternative educational program as an option to out-of-school expulsion. This has included the Alternative School as well as the educational program administered by the Juvenile Courts. A disproportionate number of students expelled are black, but, instead of being expelled to the "street," the District is presently giving them the option of attending either the Juvenile Court School or the Alternative School. If strict racial balance guidelines were to be applied to the Alternative School, however, the result would be to exclude these students from participation in the Alternative School. We hardly think this is a desirable outcome, and, we respectfully suggest that the 25% racial balance guidelines were not intended to apply to the Alternative School and that to apply them to the Alternative School would, in fact, result in harm and not benefit to black students. January d I, 1994 By: Respectfully Submitted, JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)375-1122 , ~ - CI "-vt L'-t-.. \/ S ephen W. Jones,# ATTORNEY FOR NORTH SCHOOL DISTRICT 7- 8083 LITTLE ROCK 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. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -
j
:_,1- I, Stephen W. Jones, hereby certify that I have this _6 ,_ day of January, 1994, sent one copy of the foregoing, via hand delivery, to the following: Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 John W. Walker, Esq. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Richard w. Roachell, Esq. ROACHELL and STREET Attorneys at Law First Federal Plaza 410 w. Capitol Ave., Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 _,. (_) STEPBE~NW' . JONES 8
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.