{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1185","title":"Little Rock School District Studies and Reports","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1994-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Education--Curricula","Educational statistics","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District Studies and Reports"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1185"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n~~W\u0026amp;JQJ wooru~u LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDIES AND REPORTS January 1994 REPORTS AND STUDIES RESPONSE SHEET RANK EACH ITEM RESPONSE USING THE FOLLOWING SCALE: Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Excellent 5 Superior DESEGREGATION PLAN PROGRAM GOALS STUDY OR REPORT MISSION STATEMENT IMPLEMENTATION AND OBJECTIVES QUALITY OF FUNDING TOTAL AND GOALS SUPPORT SUPPORT ATTAINMENT RECOMMENDATIONS SOURCE RESPONSE --- Arkansas Minimum Performance Test Curriculum Audit - Recommendations Educational Equity Monitoring Recommendations --- School Climate/Human Relations Survey Stanford Achievement Test, - - Eighth Edition COMMENTS MAY BE RECORDED ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS PAGE. Date: To: From: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 February 2, 1994 Superintendent's Cabinet Sterling lngraritsociate to the Deputy Superintendent Reports and Recommendations Enclosed are brief summary reports and recommendations for the following: Arkansas Minimum Performance Test Curriculum Audit of 1990 Educational Equity Monitoring School Climate/Human Relations Survey Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition Additional supporting information is on file in the Planning, Research and Evaluation office. These reports will be discussed at the cabinet meeting on Friday, February 4, 1994, at 8:00 a.m. bjg REPORTS AND STUDIES RESPONSE SHEET RANK EACH ITEM RESPONSE USING THE FOLLOWING SCALE: 1 = Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 = Excellent 5 Superior DESEGREGATION PLAN PROGRAM GOALS STUDY OR REPORT MISSION STATEMENT IMPLEMENTATION AND OBJECTIVES QUALITY OF FUNDING TOTAL AND GOALS SUPPORT SUPPORT ATTAINMENT RECOMMENDATIONS SOURCE RESPONSE Arkansas Minimum - Performance Test I - Curriculum Audit Recommendations -- Educational Equity Monitoring Recommendations - School Climate/Human Relations Survey - Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition COMMENTS MAY BE RECORDED ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS PAGE. SECTION NUMBER One Two Three Four Five TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME TWO STUDIES AND REPORTS Arkansas Minimum Performance Test Curriculum Audit Recommendations Educational Equity Monitoring Recommendations School Climate/Human Relations Survey Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition STUDIES AND REPORTS SECTION ONE ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST Spring 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION Review of Arkansas Minimum Performance Test Data Findings and Recommendations Since its inception in 1988, the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test (MPT) has been administered each spring to all third, sixth, and eighth grade students. The MPT was initiated by an act of the Arkansas Legislature through the \"Education Assessment Act of 1979,\" and later expanded by the \"Competency Based Education Act of 1983. 11 Until 1993, the State of Arkansas required eighth grade students to pass the MPT before they could be promoted to the ninth grade. Eighth grade students were given three opportunities to pass the test. Beginning in 1993, failure of the MPT could no longer serve as the sole basis for retaining a student in the eighth grade. In 1994, the MPT will not be administered in Grade 3, and only one administration will occur for Grades 6 and 8, respectively. This report reviews the test data and other materials the Little Rock School District (LRSD) has on file relative to the MPT, provides a general outline of the information available, and discusses findings and recommendations concerning the test data and related materials vis-a-vis the needs of the district. The following reports are provided by the State of Arkansas via Data Recognition Corporation and are on file in the Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department for the years 1988-93 and/or appropriate school buildings. MPT Data Review Page 2 1. Individual student Report. Individual student reports are available for each student tested. In Grade 3, these reports provide information about student performance in reading and mathematics. In Grades 6 and 8, these reports provide information about student performance in reading, mathematics, language arts, science, and social studies. The primary purpose of this report is to determine whether or not the student has mastered a subject area and to identify those specific objectives which the student did or did not master. Therefore, the report lists for each objective tested, the number of questions correctly answered and a notation indicating mastery or non-mastery of the objectives. These reports are on file in the appropriate school buildings. 2. Classroom Roster Report. The Classroom Roster Report is available for each class tested. Each roster lists mastery results by objective for each student. Students are listed in alphabetical order. The purpose of the roster is to aid educators in identifying problem objective areas for groups of students. At the eighth grade level, the roster is an alphabetical list of all eighth grade students who were tested. 3. Grade a Pass/Not Pass Roster. The Pass/Not Pass Roster lists all eighth-grade students within each school. It provides each student's scale score and pass/not pass status for each subject area and the total test. (Note: A Grade 8 Not Pass Roster is also available. It is similar to the Pass/Not Pass Roster except that it lists only students who did not pass.) 4. School Summary Report. For Grade 3, the School Summary Report lists the number and percent of all students who mastered each objective. For Grades 6 and 8, the School Summary Report lists the number and percent of students by each socioeconomic status (SES} group within the school who mastered each objective. For Grades 3, 6, 8 the School Summary Report lists the number and percent of students by sex, race, and race by sex within the school who passed the [subject area) test. The Grades 6 and 8 School Summary Report also lists the number and percent of students by each socioeconomic status (SES} group who passed the test. No report is available which lists the number and percent of Grade 8 students by sex, race, and race by sex within the school who passed the total test. 5. District Summary Report. The District Summary Reports are similar to the School Summary Reports except the results have been aggregated to the district level. No report is available which lists the number and percent of Grade 8 students by sex, race, and race by sex within the school who passed the total test. MPT Data Review Page 3 The above descriptions of the reports are taken from the Arkansas Minimum Performance Testing Program Test Results Interpretation Manual 1993 (Interpretation Manual) published by the Arkansas Department of Education. Additional reports prepared by the Planning, Research, and Evaluation staff include the following: 1. Five Year Summary Reports (1989-1993). These reports provide the number of students tested, the number who passed, and the percent passed by race by gender for each school. At Grade 3, the reports are available for reading and mathematics. At Grades 6 and 8, for reading, mathematics, language arts, science, and social studies. 2. Five Year summary Reports (1989-1993) by Categories of Schools. This report is the same as described in Number 1 above, except it is available for the following grades and categories of schools: Incentive Schools (Grades 3 and 6)\nMagnet Schools (Grades 3, 6, and 8), and Area Schools (Grades 3 and 6). 3. Grade 8 Summary Reports after the Third Administration. These reports are available for individual years 1989 through 1993, respectively. No five year summaries are available. These summaries provide race and gender information for students who failed the test, but not for those who passed. 4. District summary of Objectives Not Mastered, 1989-1993 for Grades 3, 6, and a. This report provides a summary of the objectives not mastered over a five year period. It does not provide an analysis by race and gender of objectives not mastered. In addition to the above referred to reports, the Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department has on file MPT manuals, copies of various Arkansas statutes which concern the testing program mandated by the State, and other miscellaneous MPT related materials. In the \"Foreword\" of the Interpretation Manual, the purposes of the \"Competency Based Education Act of 1983 11 are MPT Data Review Page 4 delineated\none of the purposes is to \"give students, parents, and teachers a general idea of how well students are doing in basic skill areas.\" The following findings and suggested recommendations are the result of a review of the available MPT test data and related materials described previously in this report. FINDING ONE A review of the passing percentages for the 1992-93 MPT administration shows that at all three grade levels, in all subject areas tested, at least 85% of the white students who were tested displayed mastery. Eighty-five percent of the tested black students showed mastery in only sixth grade reading. The average disparity between the passing percentages of black students and white students is as follows: Grade 3: -14% Grade 6: -17% Grade 8: -21% Since one of the primary goals of the LRSD is to close the disparity between the academic achievement of black students and white students, this finding should be of particular interest to those who are involved in instruction or instructional planning. RECOMMENDATIONS for FINDING ONE 1. Provide remediation for those students in need of said. Do not require students who have mastered specific objectives to mark time while providing additional instruction to those in need. MPT Data Review Page 5 2. Structure a close working relationship among instructional supervisors, the Staff Development Department, classroom teachers and the PRE Department so that test data can be adequately reviewed and interpreted, effective strategies to alleviate the disparity can be pinpointed, and demonstrations of \"what works\" can be shared with teachers. FINDING TWO Thirty-nine percent of the MPT objectives on tests of the three grade levels have never been mastered by at least 85% of the students at the respective grade level in at least one year from 1989 through 1993. -~~~f~ERCENT OF NON-MASTERED KPT OBJECTIVES t_ ~o 1 ~~f{ ,\nJ'' COMBINED TOTALS for 1989-1993 ,~~~?~:/-\".' tpp l~: 1 GRADES 3, 6, and 8 JI\"' Number of Non-mastered Percent of Objectives/Number of Non-mastered =O=b. i..~ ~c~t=i~v~~s~---------O=b. i.~. ~c~t~i~v~~s '1j\nJ1 READING 15/70 21% MATHEMATICS ~ -J?it:LANGUAGB ARTS V~~/' SCIENCE ~p SOCIAL STUDIES ,)' 16/64 GRADES 6 and 8 16/30 ( 33/36) 30/45 RECOMMENDATIONS for FINDING TWO 22% 53% 92% 67% 1. The PRE report entitled District summary of Objectives Not Mastered, 1989-1993 for Grades 3, 6, and 8 should1be distributed to instructional supervisors and MPT Data Review Page 6 principals to guide decisions which will have an impact on instruction. 2. Each principal should also analyze the percentages of students in his/her particular school and identify areas of strengths and weaknesses. 3. Instructional supervisors should work closely with teachers and other appropriate personnel to develop instructional strategies for identified objectives. 4. Consideration should be given to systematically assessing students at the beginning of the school year to determine if they have mastered specific objectives. 5. Provide instruction to students who have not mastered objectives. 6. Provide appropriate instruction to those students who have mastered objectives, including enriching activities. FINDING THREE Finding Three concerns available data. No data are available by race and gender or by race by gender for those students who passed the total Grade 8 MPT in any given year. This report is not provided by the state, but is available from Data Recognition for a fee. RECOMMENDATION for FINDING THREE since there is a great deal of emphasis on the achievement of black students as compared to that of white students, it is recommended that this report be made available to the district, at state expense, if possible. MPT Data Review Page 7 However, if the state chooses not to order the report, then the district should consider bearing the expense. FINDING FOUR When a five year period of MPT results is analyzed, the \"Classroom Rosters\" for Grades 3 and 6 and the \"Roster of Grade 8 Students\" could possibly indicate problem areas for particular groups. RECOMMENDATION for FINDING FOUR 1. Principals, instructional supervisors, and other appropriate central office administrators should review the available data and develop effective strategies to address areas of concern. According to the Interpretation Manual, perhaps \"modification of the instructional program may be warranted in a skill area in which a substantial number of students did not master the objective or the set of objectives matched to the Goal Area.\" It is important that MPT test results be disseminated to the school board of directors, to parents, students, school district personnel, and the general public in a ~mel manner. STUDIES AND REPORTS SECTION TWO CURRICULUM AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS December 1990 v0rr\nii?~' ., * 1-,w\n,r ?If ,r CURRICULUM AUDIT/REVIEW ,'lf'1b1\" ~,\\ A review of selected curriculum programs was conducted during the first semester of the ) 1993-94 school year. The Deputy Superintendent and appropriate curriculum directors,/ supervisors, and coordinators facilitated the review. The following plan of action was developed and implemented so that appropriate program changes, deletions, and/ or new programs could be recommended to the Superintendent. Plan of Action 1. Scheduled and held meetings with appropriate staff to develop a plan of?ctifoor n~  established goal\n,fo\nt, fi~  2. Established goal for project\nand f, .?.?~ ~ 3. Identified items needed for the project: .1,..Ji/' ~ i)), /-r~,, ,  \"No More Excuses: A Plan to Increase Learning for All Students in the LRSD\"  Recommendations from the Curriculum Audit (December 21, 1990) conducted by the National Academy of School Executives (NASE). A status report related to the Audit recommendations is attached.  Revised curriculum and curriculum-related policies  Supervisors' assessment of implementation of the revised policies and curriculum\ninservices held\nschool/office visitation  Curriculum debriefing session\nfeedback end-of-year with selected supervisors  Achievement test results  Annual staff development report  Feedback - implementation of Abacus  Customer Satisfaction Survey results  Results - on-site visits of Deputy Superintendent with building principals\nimplementation and utilization of revised curriculum Curriculum Audit/Review - Page 2  Areas impacted/budget reduction  Monitoring reports  Academic Support (Compensatory Education, Chapter 1)  Student placement (G/T, AP, Special Education, Regular, race, gender)  Promotion/retention policy 4. Developed Review and Assessment Process: Procedures were established to review and analyze data in order to make recommendations for Fast Track Evaluations. These evaluations would assist staff in determining programs that needed to be modified or deleted, as well as the development of new programs. / ,, . .v1 D ' ~ iJJr 7fP ~ a. Organize and label fmdings, reports, etc. ot:?:: r\"' b. Review and analyze findings, reports, objectives of programs and achievement tests. c. Relate the data back to the findings in order to determine:  Did we meet our objectives?  How effective were we in meeting our objectives?  What evidence is available to support our conclusions?  Identify factors that facilitated attainment of goal(s).  Identify obstacles that prevented goal(s) attainment.  Make recommendations for 1994-95.  Report recommendations, expected benefits, and outcomes to the Superintendent. Attachment A RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTED FROM NASE Recommendation No. 1 The Little Rock School District Board of Directors created and adopted the following policies:  A policy which establishes the purpose for the curriculum and programs of the district\n A policy which sets minimum goals and objectives for all student learning outcomes\n A policy which requires congruence and harmony among the curriculum goals and objectives, teacher delivery techniques and strategies, and district-wide testing programs and assessment\n A policy which requires textbooks ( content and activities) to be aligned with the adopted curriculum outcomes established by the LRSD Board of Directors\n A policy which outlines a clear procedure for the development of curriculum and that includes Board adoption\n A policy which requires equity and coordination across schools in curriculum outcomes, offerings, and activities, including policy guidelines for determining school-based modifications\n A policy which requires test results information to be disaggregated to help improve individual and group instruction and achievement\n A policy which requires at least one goal in each school's annual improvement plan to be directly related to assessment data and student achievement\n A policy which requires the Board to use the achievement data in their goal-setting process\nand  A policy which establishes a sequential linkage among data gathering, planning, goal development, curriculum development, and budgeting. Recommendation No. 2  Reorganize the administrative structure for effective instructional . management . . ~ ~ ~ Recommendation No. 3 -~ ~ r:iil  Separate and consolidate key curriculum and instruction operations from School Operations The curriculum functions separated from School Operations are: curriculum design, program implementation, staff development training, and school curriculum delivery. The Board approved the reorganization of the central office administration to provide concentrated effort in curriculum development and appropriate supervision of schools. To that end, the Associate Superintendent devoted her time primarily to curriculum design and development and staff development. The job roles of the curriculum supervisors were redefined to include more programmatic responsibility for the delivery of the curriculum (1991). \"No More Excuses\" was approved by the Boa{ci\"' of Directors in 1991. \"No More Excuses\" became the vehicle for implementing Board policies that were recommended by NASE . . - ~~ ,,. f}..,~r J ,I~ h M,, t~ ~ ~TV r1 Recommendation No. 4 ~- An acknowledgement was made by the Board that the proper way for the schools to address disparities in academic achievement is first to have a written curriculum that is comprehensive, relevant, challenging, and properly scoped and sequenced in grades K-12 and then to teach the curriculum effectively to all students, setting forth clear expectations and using strategies that have been proven successful for student learning. Recommendation No. 5 Authorization by the Board to design and develop a curriculum specifically for LRSD students which incorporates the characteristics in Recommendation No. 4. q _A f!Jt ~ fJ#'f Jfe Attachment B NASE RECOMMEND A TIO NS NOT IMPLEMENTED # / 1. The development of a policy which establishes a sequential linkage among data gathering, planning, goal development, curriculum development, and budgeting. 2. A policy which establishes criteria for decisions on school facility remodeling, replacement, and closure. / Further curriculum revision has been delayed, as the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) is in the process of writing curriculum frameworks based on adopted Arkansas Learner Outcomes. Each accredited school shall use these curriculum frameworks to plan instruction leading to the Learner Outcomes. The LRSD consulted with the ADE in order to revise our curriculum in harmony with state Learner Outcomes and the national goals. The revision process will now proceed in accordance with the curriculum development of the ADE. The ADE, with advice from public schools and institutions of higher education, will devise an assessment system that will measure progress toward meeting Learner Outcomes. We are in the process of revising our language arts and foreign language curriculum, using the newly-adopted curriculum frameworks. The Board adoption of the Program Planning and Budgeting process addresses the issues raised in these recommendations. STUDIES AND REPORTS SECTION THREE EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS 1992-93 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING - 1992-93 RECOMMENDATIONS The task of monitoring is only the initial phase toward attaining the desegregation goals. A review of previous monitoring reports reveals several recurring areas of concern. The following recommendations are provided to help the district improve the recurring areas of concern. 1. Conduct inservice for all staff on the requirements of the court approved desegregation plan. Periodic follow-up 2. sessions should be conducted. All new staff members should lfl vr\nreceive inservice relative to plan requirements. ~? Special attention should be given to: op?f' *' * central office administration /f * Building principals * Counselors * Extracurricular activities sponsors Specific training activities should include: * Equitable placement of students by race and gender in school programs - roles and responsibilities of school personnel * Discipline management and alternatives to suspension procedures Link expectations for implementing the LRSD Desegregation-7 I Plan and for achieving desired Plan outcomes to the performance evaluation process. I J EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1992-93, RECOMMENDATIONS Page 2 All district personnel must receive clear directions relative to their responsibilities for implementing the desegregation plan and for achieving the desired plan outcomes. 3. Implement and maintain consistent expectations for the maintenance of school records across the district. 4. Implement at each building specific methods for communicating to students information relative to honors and awards requirements, extracurricular requirements and discipline expectations. 5. Develop and implement a plan for equitable staffing in schools that do not meet the staffing goal for black staff members. The plan should include inservice to assist personnel in developing strategies for improvement. 6. Develop and implement a plan for utilizing all groups of parents in the school program. Principals who have effective methods of achieving parental involvement with continued worthwhile committee productivity, should be encouraged to share these strategies with other principals. 7. Review facilities where special education and gifted and talented education classes are located to ensure that the locations are comparable to other programs. Special attention should be given to: * Condition of portable buildings * covered walkways to portable buildings EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1992-93, RECOMMENDATIONS Page 3 * Restroom facilities for students housed in portable buildings * Size of instructional space * Science facilities at Mabelvale, Southwest and Central * Air conditioning and roof at Parkview STUDIES AND REPORTS SECTION FOUR SCHOOL CLIMATE/ HUMAN RELATIONS SURVEY SUMMARY REPORT 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT SCHOOL CLIMATE/HUMAN RELATIONS SURVEY SUMMARY REPORT The annual survey of attitudes toward school climate/human relations was conducted during the second semester of the 1993 school year. Students and teachers at each organizational level were surveyed concerning their perceptions of school climate/human relations in the Little Rock School District schools. The first ten ranked items (areas of greatest priority) for each responding group indicated that three of the items ranked were identical for students and teachers with a slight difference in relative standing. The items were: * Students treat other students with respect. * Students treat teachers with respect. * Students in our school are excited about learning. Students at all three organizational levels also identified these items among the ten items of greatest priority. * Teachers treat students with respect. * Slow learners receive as much praise as more advanced learners. * The school rules are fair. Teachers at all three organizational levels identified these items among the ten items of greatest priority. * Parents voluntarily visit the school. * Parents promote the school's instructional program. SCHOOL CLIMATE/HUMAN RELATIONS SURVEY SUMMARY REPORT - Page 2 * Students in our school are satisfied with their progress. The items can be grouped to focus on the following issues: * Lack of demonstrated respect between students and teachers. * Lack of fairness and consistency relative to school rules and discipline. * Lack of satisfaction by students and teachers relative to student progress . . * Lack of student interest in learning. * Lack of positive recognition and high expectations for slow learners by teachers. * Lack of parent participation in the schools. RECOMMENDATIONS: To improve the areas of greatest priority for students and teachers the following suggestions are offered. * Continue staff development for certified and support staff in the areas of: Educational Equity Multicultural curriculum Delivery Discipline and Classroom Management * Provide parent-teacher training in non-violence and socialization skills. * Provide conflict resolution training for students, certified staff, support staff, and parents, where appropriate. * Infuse social skills in the regular elementary curriculum. * Initiate more positive teacher and principal contact with parents (home visits and phone contacts). * Promote interactive learning, with the teacher serving as facilitator. STUDIES AND REPORTS SECTION FIVE STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST Eighth Edition Spring 1993 ~ ~~ .d ~i 1/~\n~ 1 , ,1 ?! ~\u0026amp;?t1/ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION Spring 1993 The Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition was administered to approximately 18,781 students in grades one through eleven. Scores were reported for total reading, total mathematics, language/English, science, and social science. The following is a compilation of administrative summary test results analyzed by schools and organizational levels. ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS When achievement results were reported as individual school summary totals, students scored at or above the 50th percentile in the following grades and areas reporting: Badgett in grade 3 language\nBale in grade 4 mathematics, and in grade 6 social science\nBaseline in grade 2 mathematics, and in grade 6 mathematics, language, science and social science\nBooker in grade 2 mathematics and language, in grade 4 mathematics, language, science and social science\nin grades 5 and 6 in all domains\nBrady in grade 6 mathematics\nCarver in all subject areas 1 through 6\nChicot in grade 4 mathematics, language and social science, and in grade 6 language, science, and social science\nCloverdale in grade 1 mathematics, in grade 2 all reporting subject areas, in grade 3 all subject areas except reading, in grade 4 all areas except language, in grade 5 mathematics and social science, and in grade 6 all reporting areas\nDodd in grade 5 mathematics, in grade 6 all reporting areas\nStanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition Spring 1993 Page 2 Fair Park in grades 2 and 3 mathematics, in grade 5 mathematics, in grade 6 all reporting subject areas except reading\nForest Park in all subject areas grades 1 through 6\nFranklin in grades 1 and 2 mathematics and grade 1 science\nFulbright in grades 3 through 6 in all reporting subject areas, in grades 1 and 2 reading and language, and in grade 2 mathematics\nGarland in grade 6 mathematics and social science\nGeyer Springs in grade 3 mathematics and science, in grade 4 mathematics and language, in grade 6 all reporting subject areas\nGibbs in grades 2 through 6 in all reporting areas\nIsh in grades 2 through 6 mathematics, in grades 2 and 5 science, in grades 4 and 5 social science\nJefferson in grades 2 through 6 in all subject areas, in grade 1 mathematics\nMabelvale Elementary in grade 1 science, in grade 4 mathematics, in grade 6 science and social science\nMcDermott in grades 1 through 6 all reporting areas except grade 5 reading\nMeadowcliff in grades 2, 3, 5 and 6 mathematics, and grade 5 language\nMitchell in grades 4 and 6 mathematics\nOtter Creek in grades 2 through 6 in all reporting subject areas\nPulaski Heights Elementary in grade 1 mathematics, language, and science, in grade 2 mathematics and science, in grades 3 and 4 all subject areas, in grade 5 mathematics and social science, in grade 6 language, science and social science\nRightsell in grade 1 reading and language, in grade 2 all subject areas, in grade 4 mathematics, and in grade 6 mathematics\nStanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition Spring 1993 Page 3 Rockefeller in grade 2 mathematics, in grade 3 mathematics and social science, in grades 5 and 6 science\nRomine in grade 1 all reporting areas except reading, in grade 4 all areas except reading, in grade 5 mathematics and language, and in grade 6 all reporting subject areas\nStephens in grade 1 mathematics and language, and in grade 6 mathematics\nTerry in grade 1 all reporting areas, in grade 2 mathematics and language, in grade 3 all areas except reading, in grade 4 all reporting subject areas, in grade 5 mathematics, in grade 6 all reporting subject areas\nWatson in grades 4 and 6 mathematics,  in grade 5 science and social science, in grade 6 mathematics and social science\nWestern Hills in grade 1 reading, in grades 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 mathematics, in grades 2, 3, and 4 language, in grade 5 science and social science\nWilliams Magnet in all grades reporting 1 through 6\nWilson in grade 1 all reporting areas, in grade 4 language and social science\nWoodruff in grades 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 mathematics, in grade 3 language, in grades 3 and 4 science and grades 3, 4, 5, and 6 social science. When scores were examined by race, white students scored at or above the 50th percentile in all subject areas at the following schools: Badgett, grade 3 Bale, grade 3 Baseline, grade 2 Booker, Grades 1 through 6 Brady, Grades 1, 2 and 3 Carver, all grade levels Chicot, grade 4 Cloverdale, grades 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 Dodd, grade 6 Fair Park, grades 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 Forest Park, all grade levels Franklin, grade 5 Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition Spring 1993 Page 4 Fulbright, all grade levels Geyer Springs, grade 3 and 6 Gibbs, all grade levels Jefferson, all grade levels Mabelvale, grades 1, 3, and 4 McDermott, all grade levels Meadowcliff, grades 4, 5, and 6 Otter Creek, all grade levels Pulaski Heights, all grade levels Rockefeller, grades 1, 3, 4, and 6 Romine, grades 1, 2, 4, and 5 Stephens, grade 4 Terry, all grade levels Washington, all grade levels Watson, grades 4 and 5 Western Hills, all grade levels Williams, all grade levels Wilson, grades 1, 2, 3, and 5 Woodruff, grades 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 Black students scored at or above the 50th percentile in all subject areas at: Carver, grades 1 and 2 Cloverdale, grades 2 and 6 Dodd, grade 6 Rightsell, grade 2 Romine, grade 6 Williams, grades 1, 2, 4, and 6 Wilson, grade 1 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS The individual school summary totals showed that students scored at or above the 50th percentile in the following grade levels and subject areas reported. Dunbar in all areas reported except grade 7 reading and grade 9 mathematics\nForest Heights in grade 8 language\nMann in all areas reported except grades 8 and 9 in mathematics\nPulaski Heights in all areas reporting with the exception of grade 9 in reading and mathematics. When scores were examined at the junior high level, white students scored at or above the 50th percentile in all Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition Spring 1993 Page 5 areas reported. The schools that indicated white students not scoring at the 50th percentile were: Cloverdale in grades 7, 8, and 9 reading and mathematics, grade 7 language, grade 9 science\nMabelvale in grade 9 mathematics\nSouthwest in grades 7 and 9 mathematics Black students scored below the 50th percentile in all reporting areas. The exception was: -- Mann grade 9 language SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS The individual school summary totals showed that students scored at or above the 50th percentile at the following grade levels and subject areas reported. Central in all areas except grade 10 and 11 mathematics\nParkview in all areas except grade 11 mathematics\nWhen scores were analyzed by race at the senior high schools: White students scored at or above the 50th percentile in all subject areas and at all grade levels except at Central grades 10 and 11 mathematics\nat Fair grade 11 mathematics, and at McClellan grades 10 and 11 mathematics. Black students scored below the 50th percentile in all areas except language, grade 10 at Parkview. The administrative summary reports that presented quartile groupings revealed that 3,550 students were grouped in quartile one in total reading grades one through six and 1,975 of those students were at the primary level. For total mathematics, 2,032 students were grouped in quartile one with 1,400 of those students representing grades one through three. At the secondary level, for total reading, 2,417 students were in quartile one, and for total mathematics 2,848 were grouped in quartile one. Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition Spring 1993 Page 6 A comparative analysis of 1991-92 and 1992-93 districtwide basic and complete battery data indicated that percentile ranks for white students at the elementary level were above the 50th percentile. Percentile ranks for black students were below the 50th percentile for both years. Total percentile scores were above the 50th percentile for grade 6 basic and complete battery, and in grade 4 for 1993. At the secondary level, the 1993 basic and complete battery percentile scores were fairly consistent with those of 1992. Percentile scores for white students remained above the 50th percentile. Scores for black students at this level were below the 50th percentile. The attached graphs (Exhibits A-U) were derived from the administrative summary data and will provide a visual display of the data. RECOMMENDATIONS: After reviewing administrative summary data, it is recommended that consideration be given to: * Placing greater emphasis on effective reading and mathematics instruction at the primary level and reading and mathematics instruction and assistance at the secondary level. * Establishing a systematic procedure for the teaching of listening skills at the primary level and grades 7 and 8. * Teaching organizational techniques and study skills. * Integrating the teaching of language (mechanics, usage, writing skills) in all subject areas and organizational levels. * Integrating scientific experiments and manipulatives as a part of daily science lessons to peak student interest . * Using a variety of enriching materials and resources to expand science and social science instruction. * Providing extra class activities in all subject areas to enable students to assume responsibilities through selfdirected learning. * Stimulating student interest with homework that is meaningfully directed through assignments that enhance school achievement. Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition Spring 1993 Page 7 Providing in-depth workshops and inservices related to mathematics and science during the summer to provide teachers with effective strategies for enriching the curriculums. Implementing a districtwide well-organized year-long inservice program with continuous supervisory assistance to beginning teachers in curriculum planning, classroom management and discipline management. Planning staff development and inservice programs to meet the developing needs of teachers and staff. Encouraging principals and teachers to share workable ideas and techniques at the building level and districtwide. Standardized test results being used for diagnostic purposes, not for determining student grades or segregating students in different classes. Constructing teacher-made tests to focus on student growth in higher order thinking through comprehension, analysis, application, and problem solving. Understanding that student achievement should not be solely assessed on Stanford test results.  Specific to test data 1993 LITTLE ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 L:.A.1\\1LHl A. READING PERCENTILE RANK READING PERCENTILE RANK ~., 60 a: 140 C: ~\" l 20 GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR. 4 GR. 5 GR. 6 BLACK 0 34 29 29 33 27 39 WHITE Q 67 63 67 68 64 75 OTHER Q 61 64 61 60 51 74 160 Cl a: 140 .C,: 0 j 20 BLACK 0 WHITE~ OTHER 0 GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR. 4 GR. 5 GR. 6 35 29 27 33 26 37 63 62 63 67 63 74 66 63 57 60 58 67 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 READING PERCENTILE RANK READING PERCENTILE RANK ~., 60 a:: 140 C Cl 0 if 20 BLACK 0 WHITE Q OTHER Q GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 29 30 33 67 71 65 58 73 72 ~., 60 a::  '\n: 40 .C. 0 if20 BLACK 0 WHITE CJ OTHER [J GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 31 29 30 70 67 68 72 73 63 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1993 1992 READING PERCENTILE RANK READING PERCENTILE RANK ~., 60 tC .. '\n40 .C. ~ ~ 20 BLACK 0 WHITE CJ OTHER D GRADE 10 GRADE 11 35 32 75 68 74 66 ~.. 60 tC i4o C.. u ~ 20 BLACK D WHITE E) OTHER [J GRADE 10 GRADE 11 35 34 72 69 64 66 1993 LITTLE ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 MATHEMATICS PERCENTILE RANK MATHEMATICS PERCENTILE RANK -\"\" 80 .C. a: 60 J\n40 ~ l\"l. 20 BLACK 0 WHITE [2l OTHER CJ GA. 1 GR. 2 GA. 3 GA.4 GR. 5 GA. 6 35 49 42 52 46 49 70 79 73 76 74 74 65 84 84 79 71 81 100 .,. 80 .C. a: 60 1 C Cl 40 ~ Cl ll. 20 0 GA. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR.4 GA. 5 GA. 6 BLACK 0 40 46 46 49 43 48 WHITE (d 70 77 76 73 71 74 OTHER Cl 74 87 80 76 83 75 1993 LITTLE ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 MATHEMATICS PERCENTILE RANK MATHEMATICS PERCENTILE RANK .,, 80 .C,: a.,: 60 ~ 40 .~, \"- 20 BLACK 0 WHITE 12) OTHER CJ GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 35 32 25 63 65 54 63 72 89 .,, 80 .C,: a.,: 60 ~ 40 0 .~, \"- 20 BLACK 0 WHITE Q OHIER Q GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 36 30 23 64 59 57 75 87 68 LITTLE , ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1993 1992 MATHEMATICS PERCENTILE RANK MATHEMATICS PERCENTILE RANK ~., 60 a: 140 .C, u BLACK 0 WHITE CJ OTHER Q GRADE 10 GRADE 11 31 28 61 58 73 65 10~----------r---------, 60 -- .,, ~ 50 a: ., 40 - ~ 30 - u i 20 10 - GRADE 10 GRADE 11 BLACK 0 26 32 WHITE [) 56 . 59 OTHER 0 58 62 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 EXH\\B\\T G LANGUAGE PERCENTILE RANK LANGUAGE PERCENTILE RANK ~ 60 a\": ~\" 40 C \"0 ~ 20 - ,,,,- GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR. 4 GR. 5 GR. 6 BLACK D 3? 38 35 41 39 44 WHITE Ld 68 70 68 73 68 71 OTHER CJ 61 67 63 68 60 67 80-.----,----.--.------.------,----, 70 ~ 60 a\": 50 140 C ~ 30 i20 10 - 0 --L..J_-4\"-_L..J.._jl-Lf'L-..-L..l--1-J\u0026lt;f--i--'-'---'-'--'4-'-'-J.....LJ.-'+'-.....LJ_--'--'--f__.__..__, GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR. 4 GR. 5 GR. 6 BLACK D 32 39 38 35 38 41 WHITE E) 63  70 70 65 67 68 OTHER CJ 68 64 68 64 66 64 1993 LITTLE ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 LANGUAGE PERCENTILE RANK LANGUAGE PERCENTILE RANK .,, 80 .C. a: 60  ~ 40 ~  11. 20 - BLACK D WHITE l2J OTHER 0 GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 34 38 40 68 71 70 63 78 88 .,, 80 .C, a: 60 ~ ~ 40 .0. ll. 20 BLACK D WHITE (J OTHER 0 GRADE 7 33 64 70 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 38 42 69 73 81 69 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1993 1992 EXH\\B\\T \\ LANGUAGE PERCENTILE RANK LANGUAGE PERCENTILE RANK so~-----~-----~ ~., 60 - - rr 140 C 0 ~ ~ 20 - BLACK 0 WHITE Q OTHER[] GRADE 10 GRADE 11 37 32 71 66 73 66 70--,---------.---------, 60 .,, ~ 50 rr ~40 - ~ 30 u i 20 10 BLACK 0 WHITE E'.) OTHER Cl GRADE 10 GRADE 11 34 35 68 66 59 61 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 LA.l\\ltH l J SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK .,, 80 .C. a: 60 ~ ~ 40 ~ a\".. 20 BLACK 0 WHITE 12) OTHER 0 GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR.4 GR. 5 GR. 6 31 35 32 40 35 44 66 70 70 74 73 75 55 61 66 74 59 78 .. a: .. ~40 .C. 0 BLACK 0 WHITE E:) OTHER 0 GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR. 4 GR. 5 GR. 6 27 32 30 34 33 43 59 65 67 68 70 74 49 67 63 66 74 75 1993 LITTLE ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK SCiENCE PERCENTILE RANK .,,, 80 .C, a: 60 Cl ~ 40 u !. 20 BLACK D WHITE [21 OTHER [J GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 31 34 38 74 72 66 70 74 79 .,,, 80 C., a: 60 Cl ~ 40 .~. 0.. 20 BLACK 0 WHITE [J OTHER Q GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 31 34 38 65 68 72 75 77 69 LITTLE ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1993 1992 LA.I IIL.H I L. SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK ~,. 60 - re 140 C., ~ ~ 20 BLACK 0 WHITE Q OTHER 0 GRADE 10 GRADE 11 31 31 74 67 75 59 60 .,, ~ 50 re ~ 40 - ~ 30 u ~ 20 10 GRADE 10 GRADE 11 BLACK 0 32 32 WHITE E) 67 68 OTHER 0 64 58 1993 LITTLE ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 LAI \\IUl 1 1111 SOCIAL SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK SOCIAL SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK 100 .,. 80 C Cl a: 60 .! \n: C ., 40 .~, 0.. 20 0 GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR.4 GR. 5 GR. 6 BLACK 0 33 46 42 48 WHITE 12] * * 68 78 72 77 OTHER CJ 68 73 60 77 80.----.-----.---.---,-----,-----, .,. 60 - .C. a: BLACK D WHITE EJ OTHER 0 GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR. 4 GR. 5 GR. 6 35 38 37 48 * * 67 68 65 76 61 69 70 72 * At grades 1 and 2 Science and Social Science objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT. 1993 LITTLE ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 EXHIBIT N SOCIAL SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK SOCIAL SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK 100 100 80 80 -\" -\" .C, .C. a: 60 a: 60 .! .! C ., 40 0 C 0\" 40 ., ~ 0.. 0.. 20 20 0 0 GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 BLACK D 39 34 36 BLACK D 35 34 36 WHITE 0 70 74 68 WHITE Q 72 72 73 OTHER Q 64 85 87 OTHER [ill 80 83 71 LITTLE ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1993 1992 L-1..a aaUl l V SOCIAL SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK SOCIAL SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK 80~-----~------~ 70 -\" 60 - c ~ 50 140 C .~, 30 a. 20 - 10 I BLACK 1 WHITE CJ OTHER 0 GRADE 10 34 67 69 GRADE 11 34 68 67 -\" 60 .C. IC .. 0 .~. a. 20 BLACK 0 WHITE E'J OTHER 0 GRADE 10 GRADE 11 30 36 66 69 57 72 1993 LITTLE ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 BASIC BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK BASIC BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK -\" 60 .C, a: .C. u \u0026amp;'. 20 - BLACK 0 WHITE CJ OTHER Q GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR. 4 GR. 5 GR. 6 35 34 34 41 35 46 70 70 69 73 68 75 62 72 71 71 61 75 .,, 60 .C, a: .C. u if 20 - BLACK 0 WHITE El OTHER CJ GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR. 4 GR. 5 GR. 6 36 34 36 38 34 43 67 69 70 68 65 73 74 73 69 67 71 72 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 BASIC BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK BASIC BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK 100 100 80 80 -\"' -\"' .C, .C, a: 60 a: 60 ..! ~ C  40 u C 40 . u .~, 0.. ., a. 20 20 0 0 GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 BLACK D 32 33 35 BLACK 0 35 32 34 WHITE l2J 67 72 66 WHITE Q 69 66 70 OTHER CJ 65 75 88 OTHER (J 75 84 71 LITTLE ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1993 1992 L.1\\.1111:51 I 1-1 BASIC BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK BASIC BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK 100 80 -\"' .C, a: 60 - ..!! \nC .. 40 u  0.. 20 0 GRADE 10 BLACK D 36 WHITE [2l 73 OTHER CJ 79 GRADE 11 33 68 71 00~------~-----~ 70 - -\"' 60 C\n. . 50 '\n: 40 C ~ 30 - ., a.. 20 10 - 0 __,____.__\"\"--1\"--'-=~'---'---L----L--\"+-=..=~___, GRADE 10 34 68 64 GRADE 11 36 70 69 1993 LITTLE ROCI( SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 COMPLETE BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK COMPLETE BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK 100 .,. 80 .C, a: 1 C u\" 40 0\".. 20 0 GR. 1 GR.2 GR. 3 GR.4 GR. 5 GR. 6 BLACK 0 28 33 32 40 34 45 WHITE 12) 67 72 69 75 70 76 OTHER [J 58 73 70 72 61 77 .,, 60- c a\": '\n\"\n40 C u\" BLACK 0 WHITE tJ OTHER CJ GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR. 4 GR. 5 GR. 6 31 33 34 36 32 43 64 70 70 68 67 75 67 74 68 67 72 73 1993 LITTLE ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 COMPLETE BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK COMPLETE BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK 100 .,,_ 80 .C,: a: 60 .! \n, C: ., 40 u ~., a.. 20 - 0 GRADE 7 GRADE 8 BLACK 0 31 32 WHITE l2J 69 74 OTHER [J 66 78 GRADE 9 35 68 89 .,,_ .C,: 80 a: 60 .! ~ 40 .. a.. 20 BLACK 0 WHITE Q OTHER 0 GRADE 7 GRADE B GRADE 9 33 30 34 71 68 73 78 86 73 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1993 1992 tXHIBIT U COMPLETE BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK COMPLETE BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK .,, .C, 80 a: 60 .! C ~ 40 0\".. 20 BLACK D WHITE EJ OTHER D GRADE 10 GRADE 11 34 32 74 70 80 69 .,, 60 .C, a: C C) ~ ~ 20 BLACK D WHITE El OTHER 0 GRADE 10 GRADE 11 32 34 70 72 65 70\nThis 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 Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_532","title":"Little Rock Schools: Brady Elementary","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, Brady Elementary School, 34.75244, -92.36317"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Brady Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock Schools: Brady Elementary"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/532"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nenlightening experiment c- X nie Mackey demonstrates hnuu Kqo John- various colored gels on flashiinhfe ^\u0026lt;1 through ors Wednesriau 1^^  \"^snl'ghts reflect off other cni nrsrl^ Oamocrat-GazMa^teve Kessee schooirmh aSsS^FSis'^ will be presented tonight to eachReady to graduate Adrian Bernard (center) calls on Brady Elementary School in Little Rock. Chappell's mother. Chappell Mosbv (right) for an opinion on how he looks as Ronyha (left) Mosby, was helping the children, including Rick they prepare for graduation Thursday from the sixth grade at Gottschalk (second from left) and Kenneth Aaron.\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_566","title":"Little Rock Schools: King Interdistrict Magnet Elementary","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","King Interdistrict Magnet Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization","School attendance"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock Schools: King Interdistrict Magnet Elementary"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/566"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nFEB- 4-94 FRI 14:45 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 01 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS . No. LR-C-82S66 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No, 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court is the Little Rock School District's (LRSD) motion for clarification of King Interdistrict School assignments or, in the alternative, to enforce the agreement of the parties [doc.#1952]. The LRSD states that the parties had drafted an Agreement whereby those LRSD white students who lived outside the King Interdistrict School attendance zone but who had received notice of assignment to that school before August 19, 1993 would be allowed to attend King. However, the attorney for the Joshua Intervenors (Joshua), Mr, John Walker, subsequently withdrew his consent to the Agreement, stating among other things- that several issues would prevent him from signing the Agreement the parties had contemplated.* The LRSD seeks an order enforcing the agreement of the in emphasis and aticndance Mr. Walker states that a larger number of pupils are being assigned to King from outside the Kina attendance zone than the numner he was given, and that Joshua oannoi be a party \"to assignment practices which allow decline in emphasis and .attendance at the ineenltvc schools nor can wo support practises which distort the double funding requirement and desegresatiun requirement of the plan. See Exhibit 4, LRSD's motion for olarification or, in the alternative, to enforce agreement of parties. siJEB-.4-94 FRI 14:45 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 02 parties based upon its detrimental reliance Otherwise, the LRSD Seeks clarification of the following issues: ^''nejner LRsp white students may be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School without violating the court- approved desegregation plans or the spirit and intent the parties in developing those plans\nWhether LRSD white students of 2 . response to question number 1 above is a_ - irmative, whether those LRSD white studeni-.a who are whether those lrsd white students attend King Interdistrict School will permanently assigned or assigned only for the school year\nallov/ed to or in the be 1993-94 3, lrsd white students, other than those currently on the list to attend King Interdistrict School, W 111 ho no VIVI 4-,r^ ____j _ .. ___  Whether students, will be permitted to attend King during the 1994-95 year and beyond\nschool 4. If the answers to the foregoing questions are in the affirmative, whether the LRSD criteria to determine under LRSD white students Interdistrict School\nwill be permitted to develop what circumstances, if any, will be permitted to attend King to 5 . Whether provisions can be made to M-to-M transfer overcome the loss of , . moneys to be sustained by LRSD through permitting LRSD white students to occupy seats which could filled by Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) white students (either this year or in future years)\nand otherwise this 6. Whether provisions can be made for the potential T be incurred by the LRSD in transporting eligible LRSD white students from scattered areas of the city to King. expenses Joshua has filed a response to the LRSD's motion in which it supports the motion for clarification but opposes the alternative request to enforce the agreement of the parties. The Court denies LRSD's motion to enforce the Agreement or for clarification, but addresses herein the King Interdistrict School assignments and issues the following orders. LRSD white students may be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School without violating the desegregation plans or theFEB- 4-94 FRI 14:46 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 spirit and intent of the parties in developing those plans. Regardless of the provisions contained in the August 19, 1993 Agreement, a chief objective of the desegregation plans is that the interdistrict schools be racially balanced. the ideal goal being a student enrollment ration of 50 percent black to white. In this regard, the plans envision that white students attending an LRSD interdistrict school will be recruited primaril from the PCSSD or beyond Pulaski County\nthe plans do not state that only white students from the PCSSD will be allowed to attend King of the interdistrict schools. or any other The LRSD can hardly claim surprise at the Court' conclusion in this regard. At the June 1993 hearing, this Court, while acknowledging that the desegregation plan. envision that white 9, students for the interdistrict schools would be recruited primarily from the PCSSD, stated II [l]et's... work hard to recruit the white students from the county and the black students from the district for [King], and some white students as well from the Little Rock School District for King and make it a successful school, a high quality school that we all want,\" Transcript, at 197. At the August 12, 1993 budget hearing, the Court stated \"I know it's important to get the county students [to King], but also, there might be some Little Rock white students who would like to attend and who could attend under our guidelines that exist.\" Transcript, at 17-13. The Court went on to observe that a lot of questions would be cleared up if there were a firm policy on admitting LRSD white students to King, to which Interim Superintendent Estelle Matthis replied. If I think you're -3-FES- 4-94 FRI 14:46 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 04 exactly right, your Honor, II Id. at 18. However, despite the persistent urging of this Court and its Monitor, the LRSD did not develop such a policy. This lack of follow-through evidences pervasive pattern of failure to plan and perform that has been Characteristic 6f the LRSD throughout the history of this case. According to figures (attached) which the districts have supplied to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, the LRSD has record of placing white intradistrict transfer tudents (and black intradistrict transfers as well) at its interdistrict schools For a a example, Romine Interdistrict School had a total October 1 enrollment for the 1S92-93 school year of 361 students\n62, of the school's 84 white tudents were intradistrict transfers. similarly, Washington has a total October 1 enrollment for the current 1993-94 school year of 721. Of the school's 270 white students. 175 are intradistrict transfers, Likewise, the PCSSD has also accepted intradistrict transfers of both black and white students into its Baker Interdistrict School. Not only has the LRSD always accommodated intradistrict transfers, but the LRSD has promised that LRSD white students may be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School. According to the LRSD's 1993-94 calendar of events (issued in pamphlet form), interdistrict schools are II open to their attendance zones and M-to-M transfers from PCSSD and intra district transfers from other LRSD schools. The Court also notes that the King recruitment plan. dated H March 20, 1993, states that it was If designed to enroll black children from the immediate area and white children from Pulaski County as -4- FES- 4-94 FRI 14:47 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 05 well as Little Rock.\" (Emphasi added.) Thi recruitinent plan designates the major target audiences for recruitment activities. Those audiences include not only PCSSD and the west Little Rock areas of Chenal Valley and Taylor Loop, but also the neighborhood surrounding King, additional zoned areas within the district, and magnet school non-placements. This plan also specifically targets children of employees at the Arkansas Children's Hospital and the state Capitol complex, which is consistent with language in the desegregation plan that touts the location of King as recruiting a plus for this school which is to \", ..serve as a natural magnet for individuals who work within governmental and business centers of Little LRSD Desegregation Plan, at 148. Neither the Rock. desegregation plans, the LRSD King recruitment plan, recruitment and public relations materials, nor hearing testimony have suggested that recruitment for King would be limited only to w'hite students from PCSSD. This Court has repeatedly stressed that it is critical to successful desegregation for the LRSD to keep its promises to the children and their parents. Indeed, the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan acknowledges that \"dependability, credibility, and integrity are basic to the success of desegregation. ir and that the districts will \"[kjeep the promises they make,\" (Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, at 66.) When a district accepts children at a particular school, parents should be able to count on the district making good that acceptance right up to the time the child takes a seat at the school. If the LRSD had effectively done its management job by engaging in -5-ample advance forethought and decision-making, strong follow-through, and unambiguous messages to parents. the district could have prevented the consternation and confusion regarding King assignments that the parties now entreat the Court to sort out. The Court hereby directs the LRSD to develop immediately specific guidelines regarding assignments to the King Interdistrict School that, by extension, apply to its other interdistrict schools. Among other things. these guidelines are to reflect past practices and promises and include intradistrict transf er eligibility criteria for both black and white children\nthey must be uff iciently comprehensive to be applicable to all of the district's interdistrict schools\nthey must be clear and unambiguous enough for district workers and parents to understand\nand, while a specific numeric quota or cap is neither required nor desirable, the guidelines must describe that portion or range of intradistrict transfers that an individual interdistrict school can reasonably accommodate. Because the 1994-95 pre-school recruitment and registration period is at hand, the guidelines must be complete and filed with this Court no later than 30 days from the date of this Order. Also within 30 days. the PCSSD is directed to provide the Court with the guidelines which that district uses in placing students in its own interdistrict schools. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of February 1994 . ICT JUDGE -6-INTER- and INTRADISTRICT TRANSFERS to Ilie ELEMENTARY INTERDISTRICT SCHOOLS Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring February 1994 ReceMng Sc boob Sending District LRSD M RSD PCSSD 19e90 199(W1 1991-92 1992-99 199994 190990 199091 199192 199293 199394 190990 199091 1991-92 co LO co CXI B B W B W B W B w B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W Lr\u0026gt; Baker 59 0 65 0 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 8 0 1992-93 B 6 W 0 199394 B 5 Vi 2 Crystal Hll WA N/A N/A N/A N/A WA 305 0 339 0 WA WA N/A N/A WA N/A 0 0 0 0 WA N/A N/A WA WA WA 0 0 0 0 King Aomlne Washington N/A 165 261 WA 60 11 N/A 155 210 WA 34 203 N/A 151 204 WA 35 196 N/A ,33 180 WA 62 193 86 84 ,53 41 65 ,75 N/A WA WA WA N/A WA WA WA 0 0 WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA 0 152 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 10 0 2 WA WA 0 73 0 65 0 64 0 37 N/A N/A 0 6, 0 74 0 65 0 65 * InformaBon nol available N/A - Not Applicabia Note: Aietiough Washington Magnei is not among Ihe six elementar/ interdistricl schools named in th desegregation pfan, it nonetheless functions as an inlerdistrict school under the terms of the settlement agreements and court orders. The chart above is based on the number of students each district sent (not received) to interdistrict schools and is extracted from the most recent information available: c co co co CD I l co LU LRSD: NLflSD: PCSSD: Memos dated November 18,1993 and December 6, 1993 from Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. November 26, 1991 memo and June 4,1993 M-to-M transfer listing from Mabie Bynum, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation: district reoorts dated October 1, 1992 and October 1, 1993. Memos dated December 11,1990. December 3,1991, January 12.1993, and December 14,1993 from Eddie Collins, Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Services.RECEIVED \u0026lt;30 ri iLED U.S. DlSraCT COURT cASTERM DISTRICT ARKANSAS FEB 7 199A Office of Desegregation Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FEB 0 4 1594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JAMES Cy\n) ^Vv, McCORMACK, CLERK -.-'JII OEP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is the Little Rock School District's (LRSD) motion for clarification of King Interdistrict School assignments or. in the alternative, to enforce the agreement of the parties [doc.#1952]. The LRSD states that the parties had drafted an Agreement whereby those LRSD white students who lived outside the King Interdistrict School attendance zone but who had received notice of assignment to that school before August 19, 1993 would be allowed to attend King. However, the attorney for the Joshua Intervenors (Joshua), Mr. John Walker, subsequently withdrew his consent to the Agreement, stating among other things that several issues would prevent him from signing the Agreement as the parties had contemplated.' The LRSD seeks an order enforcing the agreement of I the parties based upon its detrimental reliance. Otherwise, the LRSD Mr Walker slates that a larger nuinHcr ol pupils are being assigned to King from outside the King attendance zone than the number he was yiven, and that Joshua cannot be a party \"to tissignmcnt practices which allow decline in al I he inceiuivt mphasis and attendance schools nor can we support practices which distort the double funding requirement and desegregation requirement 01 the plan. See Exhibit 4. LRSDs motion for clarification or, in the alternative, to enforce agreement of parlies. 0  J seeks clarification of the following issues: 1. Whether LRSD white students may be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School without violating the court- approved desegregation plans or the spirit and intent of the parties in developing those plans\n2. If the response to question number 1 above is in the affirmative, allowed to whether those LRSD white students who attend King Interdistrict permanently assigned school year\nor assigned School will are be Whether LRSD white only for the 1993-94 students, other than those currently on the list to attend King Interdistrict School, will be permitted to attend King during the 1994-95 school year and beyond\n3 . 4 . If the answers to the foregoing questions are in the affirmative, whether the LRSD will be permitted to develop criteria to determine under what circumstances, if any, LRSD white students will be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School\n5. Whether provisions can be made to overcome the loss of M-to-M transfer moneys to be sustained by LRSD through permitting LRSD white students to occupy seats which could otherwise be filled by Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) white students (either this year or in future years)\nand 6. Whether provisions can be made for the potential expenses to be incurred by the LRSD in transporting eligible LRSD white students from scattered areas of the city to King. Joshua has filed a response to the LRSD's motion in which it supports the motion for clarification but opposes the alternative request to enforce the agreement of the parties. The Court denies LRSD's motion to enforce the Agreement or for clarification, but addresses herein the King Interdistrict School assignments and issues the following orders. LRSD white students may be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School without violating the desegregation plans or the -2-spirit and intent of the parties in developing those plans. Regardless of the provisions contained in the August 19, 1993 Agreement, a chief objective of the desegregation plans is that the interdistrict schools be racially balanced, the ideal goal being a student enrollment ration of 50 percent black to white. In this regard, the plans envision that white students attending an LRSD interdistrict school will be recruited primarily from the PCSSD or beyond Pulaski County\nthe plans do not state that only white students from the PCSSD will be allowed to attend King or any other of the interdistrict schools. The LRSD can hardly claim surprise at the Court's conclusion in this regard. At the June 1993 hearing. this Court, while acknowledging that the desegregation plans envision that white 9, students for the interdistrict schools would be recruited primarily from the PCSSD, stated tl [l]et's... work hard to recruit the white students from the county and the black students from the district for [King], and some white students as well from the Little Rock School District for King and make it a successful school, a high quality school that we all want. It Transcript, at 197. At the August 12, 1993 budget hearing, the Court stated \"I know it's important to get the county students [to King], but also, there might be some Little Rock white students who would like to attend and who could attend under our guidelines that exist.\" Transcript, at 17-18. The Court went on to observe that a lot of questions would be cleared up if there were a firm policy on admitting LRSD white students to King, to which Interim Superintendent Estelle Matthis replied, I think you're -3-exactly right, your Honor. II Id. at 18 . However, despite the persistent urging of this Court and its Monitor, the LRSD did not develop such a policy. This lack of follow-through evidences a pervasive pattern of failure to plan and perforin that has been characteristic of the LRSD throughout the history of this case. According to figures (attached) which the districts have supplied to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, the LRSD has a record of placing white intradistrict transfer students (and black intradistrict transfers as well) at its interdistrict schools. For example, Romine Interdistrict School had a total October 1 enrollment for the 1992-93 school year of 361 students\n62 of the school's 84 white students were intradistrict transfers. Similarly, Washington has a total October 1 enrollment for the current 1993-94 school year of 721. Of the school's 270 white students. 175 are intradistrict transfers. Likewise, the PCSSD has also accepted intradistrict transfers of both black and white students into its Baker Interdistrict School. Not only has the LRSD always accommodated intradistrict transfers, but the LRSD has promised that LRSD white students may be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School. According to the LRSD's 1993-94 calendar of events (issued in pamphlet form), interdistrict schools are \"open to their attendance zones and M-to-M transfers from PCSSD and intra-district transfers from other LRSD schools. If The Court also notes that the King recruitment plan, dated March 20, 1993, states that it was \"designed to enroll black children from the immediate area and white children from Pulaski County as -4-v/ell as Little Rock. It (Emphasis added.) This recruitment plan designates the major target audiences for recruitment activities. Those audiences include not only PCSSD and the west Little Rock areas of Chenal Valley and Taylor Loop, but also the neighborhood surrounding King, additional zoned areas within the district. and magnet school non-placements. This plan also specifically targets children of employees at the Arkansas Children's Hospital and the state capitol complex. which is consistent with language in the desegregation plan that touts the location of King as a recruiting plus for this school which is to tl ...serve as a natural magnet for individuals who work within governmental and business centers of Little Rock. II LRSD Desegregation Plan, at 148 . Neither the desegregation plans, the LRSD King recruitment plan, recruitment and public relations materials, nor hearing testimony have suggested that recruitment for King would be limited only to white students from PCSSD. This Court has repeatedly stressed that it is critical to successful desegregation for the LRSD to keep its promises to the children and their parents. Indeed, the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan acknowledges that \"dependability, credibility, and integrity are basic to the success of desegregation. and that the districts will II [kjeep the promises they make.\" (Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, at 66.) When a district accepts children at a particular school. parents should be able to count on the district making good that acceptance right up to the time the child takes a seat at the school. If the LRSD had effectively done its management job by engaging in -5-ample advance forethought and decision-making, strong follow-through, and unambiguous messages to parents. the district could have prevented the consternation and confusion regarding King assignments that the parties now entreat the Court to sort out. The Court hereby directs the LRSD to develop immediately specific guidelines regarding assignments to the King Interdistrict School that, by extension, apply to its other interdistrict schools. Among other things, these guidelines are to reflect past practices and promises and include intradistrict transfer eligibility criteria for both black and white children\nthey must be suf f iciently comprehensive to be applicable to all of the district's interdistrict schools\nthey must be clear and unambiguous enough for district workers and parents to understand\nand. while a specific numeric quota or cap is neither required nor desirable. the guidelines must describe that portion or range of intradistrict transfers that an individual interdistrict school can reasonably accommodate. Because the 1994-95 pre-school recruitment and registration period is at hand, the guidelines must be complete and filed with this Court no later than 30 days from the date of this Order. Also within 30 days, the PCSSD is directed to provide the Court with the guidelines which that district uses in placing students in its own interdistrict schools. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of February 1994. ____________ CT JUDGE docket SHEET W -6- COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 53 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP 'BY A/r INTER- and INTRADISTRICT TRANSFERS to the ELEMENTARY INTERDISTRICT SCHOOLS Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring February 1994 Receiving Schools Sending District LRSD NLRSD PCSSD 19e90 199041 1991-92 1992-93 199344 196940 199041 199142 199243 199344 198940 199041 199142 199243 199344 Baker Crystal Hill King Romine Washington B W B W B B B VI B W B VI B VI B W B VI B W B VI B VI B VI B VI N/A N/A N/A N/A 59 0 65 0 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 8 0 6 0 5 2 N/A N/A 305 0 339 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 86 41 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 152 165 261 60 11 * Information not available 155 210 34 151 35 133 62 84 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 10 0 2 203 204 196 180 193 158 175 N/A N/A 0 73 0 65 0 64 0 37 N/A N/A 0 61 0 74 0 65 0 65 N/A- Not Applicable Note: Although Washington Magnet is not among the six elementary interdistrict schools named in the desegregation plan, it nonetheless functions as an interdistrict school under the terms of the settlement agreements and court orders. The chart above is based on the number of students each district sent (not received) to interdistrict schools and is extracted from the most recent information available: LRSD: Memos dated November 18, 1993 and December 6, 1993 from Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. NLRSD: November 26, 1991 memo and June 4,1993 M-to-M transfer listing from Mable Bynum, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation\ndistrict reports dated October 1, 1992 and October 1,1993. PCSSD: Memos dated December 11,1990, December 3, 1991, January 12,1993, and December 14,1993 from Eddie Collins, Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Services. IFEB- 4-94 FRI 14:45 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P.Ol IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS . No. LR-C-82866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court is the Little Rock School District's (LRSD) motion for clarification of King Interdistrict School assignments or, in the alternative. to enforce the agreement of the parties [doc.#1952]. The LRSD states that the parties had drafted an Agreement whereby those LRSD white students who lived outside the King Interdistrict School attendance zone but who had received notice of assignment to that school before August 19, 1993 would be allowed to attend King. However, the attorney for the Joshua Intervenors (Joshua), Mr. John Walker, subsequently withdrew his consent to the Agreement, stating among other things that several issues would prevent him from signing the Agreement as the parties had contemplated.* The LRSD seeks an order enforcing the agreement of the the number he was of ihc plan. Mr. Walker states that a larger number of pupils are being assigned to King from ouLside the King attendance zone than '....... \"\u0026gt;''0''. an!* thnl Joshua cannot be a party \"to aignmcnt practices which allow decline in emphasis and aitcndance at Ihc incentive school* nor cun wc support practices which distort the double funding requirement and desegregaLion riiiircmcnt ihz- nisrt ' Sec Exhibit 4, LRSDs motion for clarification or, in the alternative, to enforce agreement of parties.F.EB- 4-94 FRI 14:45 SUSAN M WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 02 parties based upon its detrimental reliance. Otherwise, the LRSD seeks clarification of the following issues: 1. wnetner LRSD white students may be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School without violating f approved desegregation plans or the spirit and intent\"of the parties in developing those plans\nWhether the court- _ If the response to question number 1 above is in the affirmative, whether those LRSD white students who are allowed to attend King Interdistrict School will be permanently assigned or assigned only for the school year\nwhether those Lrsd white students who School will 1993-94 2 . 3, Whether LRSD white students, other than those currently on the list to attend King interdistrict School, will be permitted to attend King during the 1994-95 school year and beyond\n4. If the answers to the foregoing questions are in the affirmative, whether the LRSD will be permitted to develop criteria to determine under what circumstances, if any, LRSD white students will be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School\nto 5. Whether provisions can be made to overcome the loss of M-to-M transfer moneys to be sustained by LRSD through permitting LRSD white students to occupy seats which could otherwise be filled by Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) white students (either this year or future years)\nand in 5. Whether provisions can be made for the potential expenses to be incurred by the LRSD in eligible LRSD white students from scattered city to King. transporting areas of the Joshua has filed response to the LRSD's motion in which it supports the motion for clarification but opposes the alternative request to enforce the agreement of the parties. The Court denies LRSD's motion to enforce the Agreement or for clarification, but a addresses herein the King Interdistrict School assignments and issues the following orders. LRSD white students may be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School without violating the desegregation plans or theFEB- 4-94 FRI 14:46 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 spirit and intent of the parties in developing those plans. Regardless of the provisions contained in the August 19, 1993 Agreement, a chief objective of the desegregation plans is that the interdistrict schools be racially balanced. the ideal goal being a student enrollment ration of 50 percent black to white. In this regard, the plans envision that white students attending an LRSD interdistrict school will be recruited primaril from the PCSSD or beyond Pulaski County\nthe plans do not state that only white students from the PCSSD will be allowed to attend King of the interdistrict schools. or any other The LRSD can hardly claim surprise at the Court's conclusion in this regard. At the June 1993 hearing, this Court, while acknowledging that the desegregation plans envision that white 9 , students for the interdistrict schools would be recruited primarily from the PCSSD, stated II [l]et's... work hard to recruit the white students from the county and the black students from the district for [King], and some white students as well from the Little Rock School District for King and make it a successful school, a high quality school that we all want.\" Transcript, at 197. At the August 12, 1993 budget hearing, the Court stated II I know it's important to get the county students [to King], but also, there might be some Little Rock white students who would like to attend and who could attend under our guidelines that exist,\" Transcript, at 17-18, The Court went on to observe that a lot of questions would be cleared up if there were a firm policy on admitting LRSD white students to King, to which Interim Superintendent Estelle Matthis replied. I think you're -3-FES- 4-94 FRI 14:46 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 04 exactly right, your Honor.\" Id. at IS. However, despite the persistent urging of this Court and its Monitor, the LRSD did not develop such a policy. This lack of follow-through evidences pervasive pattern of failure to plan and perforin that has been characteristic of the LRSD throughout the history of this case. According to figures (attached) which the districts have supplied to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, the LRSD has a record of placing white intradistrict transfer students (and black intradistrict transfers as well) at its interdistrict schools For example, Romine Interdistrict School had a total October 1 enrollment for the 1992-93 school year of 361 students\nwhite students were intradistrict transfers. 62, of the school's 84 Similarly, Washington has a total October 1 enrollment for the current 1993-94 school year of 721. Of the school's 270 white students. 175 are intradistrict transfers. Likewise, the PCSSD has also accepted intradistrict transfers of both black and white students into its Baker a Interdistrict School. Not only has the LRSD always accommodated intradistrict transfers, but the LRSD has promised that LRSD white students may be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School. According to the LRSD's 1993-94 calendar of events (issued in pamphlet form), interdistrict schools are \" open to their attendance zones and M-to-M transfers from PCSSD and intra-district transfers from other LRSD schools. The Court also notes that the King recruitment plan. dated K March 20, 1993, states that it was IT designed to enroll black children from the immediate area and white children from Pulaski County as -4-FEB- 4-94 FRI 14:47 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 05 well as Little Rock. If (Emphasis added.) This recruitment plan designates the major target audiences for recruitment activities. Those audiences include not only PCSSD and the west Little Rock areas of Chenal Valley and Taylor Loop, but also the neighborhood surrounding King, additional zoned areas within the district. and magnet school non-placements. This plan also specifically targets children of employees at the Arkansas Children's Hospital and the state capitol complex. which is consistent with language in the desegregation plan that touts the location of King as a recruiting plus for this school which is to \" ..serve as a natural magnet for individuals who work within governmental and business centers of Little LRSD Desegregation Plan, at 148, Neither the Rock.\" desegregation plans, the LRSD King recruitment plan, recruitment and public relations materials, nor hearing testimony have suggested that recruitment for King would be limited only to white students from PCSSD. This Court has repeatedly stressed that it is critical to successful desegregation for the LRSD to keep its promises to the children and their parents. Indeed, the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan acknowledges that \"dependability, credibility, and integrity are basic to the success of desegregation,\" and that the districts will II [k]eep the promises they make,\" (Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, at 66.) When a district accepts children at a particular school. parents should be able to count on the district making good that acceptance right up to the time the child takes a seat at the school. If the LRSD had effectively done its management job by engaging in -5-ample advance forethought and decision-making, strong follow-through, and unambiguous messages to parents, the district could have prevented the consternation and confusion regarding King assignments that the parties now entreat the Court to sort out. The Court hereby directs the LRSD to develop immediately specific guidelines regarding assignments to the King Interdistrict School that, by extension, apply to its other interdistrict schools. Among other things, these guidelines are to reflect past practices and promises and include intradistrict transfer eligibility criteria for both black and white children\nthey must be sufficiently comprehensive to be applicable to all of the district's interdistrict schools\nthey must be clear and unambiguous enough for district workers and parents to understand\nwhile a specific numeric quota or cap is neither required nor desirable, the guidelines must and, describe that portion or range of intradistrict transfers that an individual interdistrict school can reasonably accommodate. Because the 1994-95 pre-school recruitment and registration period is at hand, the guidelines must be complete and filed with this Court no later than 30 days from the date of this Order. Also within 30 days. the PCSSD is directed to provide the Court with the guidelines which that district uses in placing students in its own interdistrict schools. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of February 1994 . -6- United '^states distric ICT JUDGEINTER- and INTRADISTRICT TRANSFERS to the ELEMENTARY INTERDISTRICT SCHOOLS Prepared by the Office of Desegregalion IWonitorififl February 1994 HeceMng Schcwfe Sending District LRSD M.RSO PCSSD 1969-90 199091 1991-92 1992^ 1993-94 19e90 1990^ 1991-92 1992^ 1933^ 190990 199091 1991-92 co LO CO LO z: x \u0026lt;r: CQ co CD I I CD Ll) * Baker Crystal Mil King Romine Washington 59 65 79 N/A N/A 165 281 N/A WA N/A N/A N/A 305 339 WA N/A N/A N/A 60 11 * InformaBon not available N/A N/A N/A WA N/A N/A 86 41 N/A N/A N/A 155 210 34 203 151 204 35 196 133 180 62 84 65 193 158 175 N/A N/A Vf N/A N/A 73 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A M/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 65 64 37 N/A N/A 61 74 N/A- NotAppticabJe 1992-93 N/A N/A 10 65 1993-94 152 65 Note: Although Washington Magnet is not among the six elemenlar/ inlerdistricl schools named in Iha desegregation plan, it nonetheless lunctions as an interdsstrict school under the terms of the settlement agreemenls and court orders. The chart above is based on the number of students each district sent (not received) to interdistrict schools and is extracted from the most recent information available: LRSD\nNLHSD: PCSSD: Memos dated November 18,1993 and December 6, 1993 from Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. dat^^Octo^ a/^^CW^b^^^ I^W Ransfer listing from Mabie Bynum, Assistant Superintendwit for Desegregation\ndistrict reports Mernos dated December 11,1990. December 3,1991, January 12,1993, and December 14,1993 from Eddie Collins, Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Services. B W B W B W 0 B W 0 0 B 0 0 B 0 0 W 0 0 B 0 0 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 B 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 B 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 B 0 W 0 B 4 0 W 0 B 8 0 0 W 0 4 B 6 0 0 0 W 0 0 B 5 0 0 0 0 W 2 0 2'3 d.A IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS No. 93-3592 NO. 93-3469 NO. 93-3594 FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APR 2 0 1994 Cfiica cf Dcsanr LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LORENE JOSHUA Appeals From The United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge BRIEF FOR APPELLEE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT IN NOS. 93-3469 AND 93-3594 Christopher Heller John Clayburn Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 37602911 Attorneys for Little Rock School DistrictTable of Contents Statement Of The Case 1 I. The Voting Rights Act Issue 1 II. The Desegregation Plan Modification Issue 3 Summary Of Argument 11 Argument 13 I. The District Court's Finding That The Charles Plaintiffs Failed To Establish A Violation Of The Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1973, Is Not Clearly Erroneous And Should Be Affirmed .............................................. 13 II. The District Court Properly Approved The Closing Of Ish School And The Assignment Of Ish Students To The New And Integrated King Interdistrict School 38 Conclusion 50 1'fr/f P/o. C^ il^\nf* ' '  i* IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS No. 93-3592 NO. 93-3469 NO. 93-3594 FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APR 2 0 1994 Chico of Desegr :vi- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LORENE JOSHUA Appeals From The United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge BRIEF FOR APPELLEE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT IN NOS. 93-3469 AND 93-3594 Christopher Heller John Clayburn Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 37602911 Attorneys for Little Rock School DistrictTable of Contents Statement Of The Case 1 I. The Voting Rights Act Issue 1 II. The Desegregation Plan Modification Issue 3 Summary Of Argument 11 Argument 13 I. The District Court's Finding That The Charles Plaintiffs Failed To Establish A Violation Of The Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1973, Is Not Clearly Erroneous And Should Be Affirmed .............................................. 13 II. The District Court Properly Approved The Closing Of Ish School And The Assignment Of Ish Students To The New And Integrated King Interdistrict School 38 Conclusion 50 1Ciiics oi Desegregation 2 2 1994 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSASrs WESTERN DIVISION a 2 0 1594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JI ./st iMv iLO t'I1 , l^ 'PLAINTIFF Ey\nV.\nrx LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF DESEGREGATION PLAN For its motion, plaintiff. Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. The LRSD and Interdistrict Desegregation Plans require the establishment within LRSD of three interdistrict schools Romine, King and Stephens. The plans require that two of those schools, King and Stephens, be located in the downtown Little Rock area. Romine and King schools have been established as interdistrict schools. 2. Since the parties agreed that LRSD would establish the King and Stephens Interdistrict Schools in the downtown Little Rock area. there have been significant changes in factual conditions which warrant modification of that agreement. First, Washington Elementary School, which the parties agreed would be an incentive school. presently operates as an interdistrict school in the downtown Little Rock area. Second, there has been a significant movement of population out of the area in which the parties planned RECEIVPT) tPR 2 2 Office ot Desegregation IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,. Moniwnnfl EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS' WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL T ourxT T /-.RKAnSAS gu APR 20 PH 5= 53 plaintiff U.S BY. CfJ\nA... DcFUT'i C-Liia DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MOTION TO DESIGNATE KING INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL A MAGNET SCHOOL For its motion, plaintiff Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. The parties filed a joint motion on February 13, 1992 seeking to designate Crystal Hill, King and Stephens Interdistrict Schools as magnet schools. The court \"acknowledge(d) that the 1 magnet designation has been powerful recruiting tool\". but a preferred to consider the issue on a case-by-case basis so as not to risk damage to \"the image of magnet schools as champions of distinctive, quality programs that are thoroughly and thoughtfully planned, implemented and maintained. Order, March 5, 1992. The H court approved the designation of the Crystal Hill Interdistrict School as a magnet school, but deferred ruling on the King and Stephens Interdistrict Schools. 2. During the summer before King begin operating as an interdistrict school, LRSD again asked the court to designate King a magnet school. Docket #1861 The court noted that \"the King facilities and programs hold great promise for achieving magnet caliber\", but expressed concern about delays in the development ofKing Interdistrict School and granted magnet status \"only provisionally\". Order, July 9, 1993, P- 2. The court also established the standard for reviewing future applications for magnet status for King: \"The court will approve full magnet status for the new school at such time that the parties can demonstrate that King is fully functioning interdistrict school a displaying the characteristics of a quality magnet as previously set forth in the case record.\" Order, July 9, 1993 pp. 2-3. 3. King is now a fully functioning interdistrict school which has all of the characteristics of a quality magnet school. Those characteristics are described in Exhibit A to this motion. which is a report on the program status at King prepared by King principal Sadie Mitchell. King should now be designated a magnet school. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the accompanying brief, LRSD prays for an order granting it permission to designate the King Interdistrict School a \"magnet school\". Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: Christopher Helle: Bar No. 81083CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Designate King Interdistrict School A Magnet School has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 20th day of April 1993. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall ' Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Christopher Helleir MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. INTERDISTRICT MAGNET* SCHOOL PROGRAM STATUS FEBRUARY 18, 1994 The Martin Luther King, Jr. Interdistrict Magnet* School provides a unic^e, interdisciplinary learning opportunity through \"High - 6th grade students. Intensity Learning\" for over 540 PreK An innovative and exciting theme for each nine weeks is selected. Utilizing the school-wide thematic approach to learning, curriculum and all learning activities are related directly to this the theme. Every student engages in active hands-on learning to meet their individual needs, interests, and abilities. Since the core content areas are taught through themes, tlic interdisciplinary approach encourages students to make the natural the connections in their learning. music, classes. art. physical education. These connections are enriched in Specialists implementing the curriculum. assist and the gifted and talented teachers in correlating and The specialists provide intense support for teachers as well as direct and indirect specialized instruction for students. use of these specialists will provide curriculum specialists and Creative other activities for intensified instructional for teachers through team teaching, teaching, peer teaching, etc. staff development demonstration will be inservice for teachers. Each specialist-directed experience Teachers are expected to replicate through demonstration teaching or specialized content area instruction. The educational program at King Interdistrict Magnet* is centered around the latest educational advances and technology, instructional features include: Added / Integrated Language Arts Program for first grade (Primary Level) - A comprehensive language arts program for first grade students, incorporating reading, writing, listening skills and the latest technology  Windows on Science - A K-8 videodisc-based science program that provides visuals and hands-on activities for a wide variety of science topics / Golden Book Encyclopedia - An electronic encyclopedia for the primary grades that includes pictures, sound, and animation Exhibit A to Motion to * Provisional Designate King School A Magnet School InterdistrictMartin Luther King, Jr. Interdistrict Magnet* School Program Status February 18, 1994 Page 2 Compton's Electronic Encyclopedia - An electronic version of the well-known encyclopedia, enhanced with animation, sound, and speeches J Videodisc - Interactive software used for instruction in the core areas of the curriculum 7 Automated Library - Access to the library's resources through an electronic catalog and circulation system Portfolio Assessment - Teachers will judge student performance as it is actually being demonstrated by the learner's (oral) presentation, conducting an experiment, the process used to solve problems, etc. Using portfolios, teachers will evaluate specific examples of learners' performances through the use of classroom interactions, projects, writing samples, etc. The portfolios will be used to provide feedback to parents and students and to identify and plan future instructional needs of the students. The instructional program will focus highly on the integration of the revised curriculum. Staff members will maximize instructional time through the following: use of Teaching content of subject areas together - design active linkage between fields of knowledge Maximum use of instructional management system - eliminate the re-teaching of skills previously mastered by students Accelerated progression through the instructional program at fast paced and intensified rates to accommodate individual student needs  School-wide thematic approach to learning - introducing an innovative and exciting theme during each nine weeks Expanded student learning through extension skills contained in revised curriculum All teaching and related activities for students directly tied to the curriculum and/or themes Broad range of curricular experiences that reflect both content focus and an interdisciplinary orientation aMartin Luther King, Jr. Interdistrict Magnet* School Program Status February 18, 1994 Page 3 Teachers as active curriculiun designers Teachers' decisions directly affecting students in the day-to- day operations of the classroom Highly structured school-wide discipline plan striving for excellence in education, King Interdistrict Magnet* encourages students and parents to become actively involved in the learning process. I \\kingstat.caThese additional programs and activities are organized and being implemented: Science Fairs Quiz Bowl/Invention Convention/Geography Bee/Math Olympiad Will permit students to demonstrate science skills while following guidelines, and learning the elements of display and presentation. Participation in local, state, and national programs encourage mastery of skills, a purpose for learning, and an atmosphere of friendly in- school and inter-school competition. a purpose Economics America Competition Wellness Week Career Week Red Ribbon Week Annual Talent Show Earth Day Art Physical Education Science Laboratory A national program to promote a beginning interest in economic principles._______________ Places emphasis on good health and safety and introduces community resources. Permits students to explore work options and required skills, this encourages students to establish goals.______________________ Provides experiences to promote student participation in a drug-free lifestyle.________ Allows children and staff members to share skills and abilities which otherwise might not be displayed during the school day.__________ Activities to inspire students' interest in the protection and conservation of earth resources. Art as a form of expression and creating will be utilized at all age levels. An art teacher will provide direction and age appropriate activities, as well as introducing multicultural art styles and art history. Planned activities will allow students to release energy, build muscular strength, and practice skills necessary for the proper physical growth of children. These activities will be planned to inspire a lifelong eagerness for physical health. , Under the direction of a science supervisor ---- -- **.*.*** M V XOUX f and in collaboration with classroom teachers, the science laboratory will enable students to see and participate in the wonders of science. Hands-on experiments and visual demonstrations will accomodate diverse student learning styles. The laboratory use will encourage and assist student participation in the annual styles. science fair.rLibrary Media Program The automated library, ind state of the art collection of materials, will allow the library media specialist and staff to instruct students in the skills necessary for information retrieval for the 21st century. The program will begin with literature appreciation in the four-year-old class. It will progress and add information skills as age appropriate. The media center will provide assistance to all staff members in their search for books and media to support learning. The media specialist will work directly with teachers to plan and provide point-of-need instruction for students. She/he will promote reading and Gifted/Talented Program sponsor activities to inspire students to be lifelong library users. All students in K-2 classes will be provided 30 minutes per week of focused observation and enrichment by the gifted specialist and the classroom teacher cooperatively. Identified students in grades 3-6 will be provided 120 minutes of direct instruction by the gifted specialist(s). Gifted specialist(s) will work with classroom teachers and curriculum specialists to maximize classroom learning experience for students. Instructional and learning experiences will be correlated to the instructional themes and appropriate process skills. 56 Station Computer Laboratory The large laboratory will allow for whole class instruction while allowing access to other students doing independent study and staff members during planning time. such relaxed, Four-Year-Old Classes Kindergarten Classes easy access to computers will allow staff and students to incorporate them into their lifestyle. Under the direction of early childhood teachers and in a structured learning environment, children will be provided activities and experiences in which they may choose to participate. Teachers will provide students will basic skills for learning and socialization while allowing for individual levels of growth and Special Education development._________________________ Identified students will be provided a curriculum which is functional and appropriate to their age and physical or mental challenge. This will be provided in a least restrictive environment. Nifty Nutrition/Body Works A healthy body runs on good food and the information -is presented in a lighthearted manner with samples of good foods provided by the cafeteria.CARE Program Parent Center Tutoring Program Mentoring Program Peer Tutoring Music Program Field Trips Newspaper Staff before- and after-school activities and recreation program provides in a secure atmosphere The Pent Center will provide a place for parents and volunteers to visit. parenting, community resources and continuing education win be Information provided. After-school programs will be offered periodically throughout the school supportin^^ewiSorSr^* Minimum Performance and Stanford ^~t. The Computer lab will be , 6th grade students to Test. Achievement during lunch breaks. available for use before school and The use of adult role models models has proven ^^ growth and development of students. Mentors provide support and counseling to students in need. Students helping students is a way of reinforcing learning learning. Both students will benefit from the activity. j^nowledge, and the other''increased^sSf-esSpm. Under the direction of a ' teacher, students will learn integrate different styles of the components a certified music to appreciate and music as well as . . necessary for the creating of . , Activities will concentrate student participation to e\nlove of music and discover children of all music. on active encourage a life time musical talents in socio-economic levels. J ^ield trips will be used to enhance learninc ^roaden cultural experiences, t-n ' hands-on experiences, to provide experiences for knowledge of the SSnX ^he development of coping skills for students. cu specialists will schedule field levels. Each grade level will i variety of local and out of A Martin Luther King cus after targeted 6th grade field trip to the Martin (Memphis, Tennessee). Curriculum . trips for grade experience a town field trips. museum will be established students return from a Luther King Center Will oversee the publication -_ _ , . - ------1 of school event\u0026lt;! jji conjunction with the school events partners.choir Will learn choral presentation and performing as a group. They will represent the school at community functions and perform for their peers and PTA. Art club Science Club Will give students the chance to work on projects which require more time or teacher direction than usual as well as providing student produced art work for special occasion. Science activities especially planned for groups of interested students. School Ambassadors Direct visitors and assist them with euiy needs while they are in the school. Just Say No Club Debate Team Cheerleaders An anti-drug program offering drug education and peer support, training in handling real life situations involving pressure to use drugs. Will allow students to learn the basics of debating and researching a topic. Will give those students not on the team a means of representing the school. They will be an example of proper school pride and behavior. Flag Team Monitors the daily display of our flag and patriotism of the staff and students. Good Times Club (Incentive Program) An incentive program with activities for consistently well behaved students. Gymnastics Team A physical activity which most students can enjoy. Professional guidance can ensure safety student Council and proper gymnastic skills._______________ Gives students a chance to experience the democratic process through the election of officers . It gives those elected the Basketball Team opportunity to learn leadership skills. Sixth graders will compete against other schools in basketball. This increases school pride as well as physical abilities.These programs were added since school started: G.R.A.N.D. The G.R.A.N.D. Program promotes high standards and has effectively applied new concepts and techniques that captures the students attention and instills in them a sense of value that controls the quality of the most crucial of all variables contributing to the realization of goals, i.e., self-esteem coupled with positive control of emotions. This basic concept is the I Monthly Parenting classes Martin's Mentors formula for the G.R.A.N.D. Program and the framework for the longer-term goal of convincing the student to stay in school, set worthy goals, and resist gang activity.________ The King Counselors have established a monthly parenting program. The sessions address various topics such as parenting techniques, discipline, building self-esteem, and test taking and study skills.____________________ Students from fifth and sixth grade classes provide enrichment and tutoring to the primary grades on their Ixinch breaks. on a volunteer basis. This program is Family Life The Family Life Program has a curriculum that is age appropriate and includes information and materials on the following topics: 1) Self-esteem 2) Communication skills 3) Decision making skills 4) Reproductive health care including AIDS education A special teacher, along with the school counselor and nurse, will be working with all the students in the program. Graces Class The 4th, Sth, and 6th grade girls are participating in the Graces program. This Pride program is designed to help the girls develop social skills to conduct themselves in a ladylike manner, and to take care of their bodies. All of these factors will result in promoting the girls' self-esteem._________________________ Club PRIDE is a drug prevention program for 2nd and 3rd grade students at King courages students to reach out to their friends, youn students and the community with an assertive younger Staff choir drug-free message. Club PRIDE builds positive peer power, leadership, teamwork, and effective communication skills. The foundation of Club PRIDE is knowledge of the personal and social effects of drugs._____________________________ Our faculty choir was formed to enhance school spirit and staff relations. The choir will perform at the Brotherhood Program in February and at the Faculty-Parent Talent show in March.Total Number of Students Little Rock Students Pulaski County Students_________ Students Not from Pulaski County Blacks Whites Total Certified Staff BA Degrees BA + working on Masters MA MA + Partners in Education: Arkansas Children's Hospital Women In Energy Twin City Bank Wendy's of Little Rock______ Total No  Volunteer Hours si nr-a B I . r I RECEn\u0026lt;5S0 APR 2 2 1994 C\" cn IN THE UNITED STATES DISTR: Office of Desegregation Monitoring EASTERN DISTRICT OF AR WESTERN DIVISION ANS^ ,cbiSRi'Riiy ?'j?T HKAKSAS 54 APR 20 PH 5:50 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT U^rCiSTKi BY_______ , PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 DEPUTY CbthK PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DESIGNATE KING INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL A MAGNET SCHOOL The parties have previously agreed (Joint Motion, February 13, 1992) and this court has found that the magnet designation has been a powerful recruiting tool. Order, March 5, 1992. In resonse to I b' a previous LRSD motion, the court found that \"the King facilities and programs hold great promise for achieving magnet caliber\", but concerns about delays in the development of King Interdistrict School and the integrity of the magnet designation caused the court to grant only provisional magnet status. King Interdistrict School is now nearing the end of its first year of operation as a fully functioning interdistrict school and has displayed the characteristics of a quality magnet program. Those characteristics are described by King's principal in Exhibit A to the accompanying motion. King is offering a high quality education program in a new facility and is deserving of the magnet designation. Designating King a magnet school will further the goals and expectations set forth in the LRSD and Interdistrict Desegregation Plans. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Bvrx Christopher Heller Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Brief In Support of Motion to Designate King Interdistrict School A Magnet School has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 20th day of April 1993. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 1 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Christopher Helle:hay 21994 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 2 9 Office of Desegregatoi tv.onucung LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT WESTERN DIVISION 8y\n, 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 FOR EXTENSION OF TIME The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the Court for an extension of time until May 12, 1994 in which to respond to Little Rock School District's motions filed on April 20, 1994 and received by undersigned counsel on April 25, 1994 regarding the following: 1) Motion for Modification of Desegregation Plan\n2) Motion to Designate King Interdistrict School a Magnet\nand 3) Motion for Approval of Four Year Old Program Sites. For their reasons, Joshua states: 1. Undersigned counsel has not had the opportunity to devote the necessary time towards the preparation of response to said motions due to other trials and discovery commitments that had already been previously scheduled. 2. Opposing counsel has been contacted and has authorized counsel to state that they have no objection to this request for extension. 3. Said motion is being made in good faith, and is not being made for the purpose of delay. Wherefore, Joshua respectfully prays the Court to grant theextension of time, up to and including May 12, 1994. Respectfully, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 31^-3153 72206 c-John W. Walker Wa 1  Rak MnC Kd f Bar NoC 64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the fo:^going has been mailed, postage prepaid to all counsel on this .,39 April, 1994. JpHn W. WalkerRECEJVSr\u0026gt; IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAR 1 5 J994 OHica of Cessgrsgaiion Mcniiof.'r? LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO\n1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS Notice of Filincr/Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD or \"District\"), for its Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines, pursuant to the order of this Court, states: 1. By order filed and entered on February 4, 1994, this Court required the LRSD to develop and file specific guidelines regarding assignments to interdistrict schools in the LRSD. The order provided that the guidelines must be complete and filed within thirty (30) days from the date of the order. As such, the deadline was Sunday, March 6, 1994. 2. On Wednesday, March 2, 1994, counsel for the LRSD requested and was granted ten (10) additional days within which to file the required guidelines. Accordingly, the LRSD had through and including Wednesday, March 16, 1994.LRSD Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines March 16, 1994 Page 2 3 . Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is the LRSD Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines as developed by the District's Office of Desegregation and submitted through the Superintendent of the LRSD. 4. Counsel for the LRSD has been authorized by the administration of the LRSD to submit Exhibit 1 as its student assignment guidelines for interdistrict schools located in the LRSD. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District submits its Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines. Respectfully Submitted, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT B- L. Malone Bar No. I. D. 85096CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing/Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines has been mailed by First Class Mail, postage pre-paid on March 16, the following, except as otherwise indicated: 1994, upon Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite Little Rock, AR 504 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown (Hand-delivered pursuant to the order of the Court) Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone Little Rock School District Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines It is the intent of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") that LRSD interdistrict schools exist primarily to bring non-black students from surrounding school districts together with black students from the LRSD. LRSD non-biack students may attend interdistrict schools in the LRSD as outlined in the Districts assignment guidelines. The guidelines below will apply to ail interdistrict schools in the LRSD. 1. 2. The assignment guidelines are consistent with both the LRSD Desegregation Plan and the Interdistrict Plan with reference to the following sections: a) b) There will be established interdistrict schools which shall seek to obtain a ratio of between 60 percent and 40 percent of either race with the ideal goal of these interdistrict schools to be 50 percent black/white. Proposed interdistrict schools shall be phased-in to these ratios over time. (Interdistrict Plan, p.3) This plan will permit the treatment of interdistrict transfers (including the NLRSD) where students are moving from a situation where their race is a greater proportion of the total student body of a school to a school where their race is a lesser proportion of the student body of a school as Interdistrict Majority-to-Minority transfers under the Courts Order. (Interdistrict Plan, p. 11, Potential Interdistrict M-to-M Enhancements) The selection process will be as follows: a) Black students from the schools attendance zone^ will be assigned up to 51% of capacity at each grade level. If demand exceeds capacity, a lottery will be conducted to determine assignments. Students who cannot be assigned because of capacity will be assigned to the closest school with capacity which meets racial balance requirements. Their names will, however, be placed on a waiting list for the school. If the students closest school with capacity is an incentive school, that student may choose to attend that incentive school where such an assignment would not inhibit the initial reservation of seats for pre-kindergarten and kindergarten students. (However, these students still maintain their option to be assigned to an elementary area school in accordance with desegregation considerations.) ^These guidelines assume that interdistrict schools will be located in predominately black attendance zones.Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines Page 2 b) c) d) Non-black students from the schools attendance zone will be assigned. Non-black students from Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and beyond Pulaski County will be assigned through the Majority-to-Minority transfer process or appropriate State statutes. Seats will be reserved up to 49% of capacity as described by the LRSD Plan, page 147. After the winter pre-registration (normally held in or around February of each year), the number of seats reserved for PCSSD may be reduced to not lower than 40% of capacity or to that percent over 40% which is occupied by PCSSD students on that date. The remaining seats between 40% and 49% may then be made available for LRSD non-black students. However, LRSD non-black students will only be permitted to transfer to an LRSD interdistrict school where it does not cause the racial balance of the sending school to fall outside of acceptable racial balance. Children of staff members will be assigned after attendance zone and PCSSD students are placed. Transfers are subject to desegregation guidelines and the Interdistrict Plan, p. 141, Transfer of Children of Employees. 3. 4. Those LRSD students currently attending an LRSD interdistrict school may remain until they matriculate out of the sixth grade. However, the siblings of those students may not be assigned to an interdistrict school unless such an assignment complies with these Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines. In no event wUl non-black students from the LRSD, PCSSD or elsewhere be aUowed to enroll in an LRSD interdistrict school where to do so would cause that schools enrollment to shift from being majority black (i.e. at least 50% +1) to majority white, thereby negatively affecting the interdistrict M-to-M funding status of that LRSD interdistrict school. IRECSSVED may 1 7 1994 Otfics oi Desegregation Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO\n EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS s. DISTRlCTcoJar WESTERN DIVISION E-ASTSPn OiSTRh'TARKANa a. T-i 4 S 3 tots M/.Y 1 \u0026lt; I-'Z LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. ,ME3 W. UO. LR-C-82-866 i: OEP CLEiiX PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS RESPONSE OF JOSHUA INTERVENORS TO LRSD PENDING MOTIONS BEFORE THE COURT The Joshua Intervenors do interpose the following regarding the pending motions before the Court: 1) Motion to Designate King Interdistrict School a Magnet\n2) Motion for Modification of Desegregation Plan\nand 3) Motion for Approval of Four Year Old Program Sites. Joshua has no objection to King Interdistrict School being designated a Magnet school. Because of Little Rock chool District's failure to respond to Joshua regarding the resolution of the Stephen School issue. we respectfully request the Court to defer action on LRSD's other pending motions until after a hearing or after such time the Eighth (Sth) Circuit rules on the pending appeal. Respectfully submitted. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206  ACERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to all counsel of record on this 16th day of May, 1994 . ( J- r John W. WalkerIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER FILED district COURT eastern district ARKANSAS JUN 2 8 1994 JAMES By.-. iCORMACK, CLERK OEf^CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court are two motions which the Court now addresses: (1) motion by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) for approval of four-year old program sites [doc.#2147], and (2) motion of the LRSD to designate King Interdistrict School a magnet school [doc.# 2162]. For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that each of these motions should be and hereby is granted. I. The LRSD seeks approval of eight sites for additional four- year-old programs for the 1994-95 school year. In support of its motion, the LRSD submitted on April 21, 1994 a revised list of the sites it has selected to complete its obligations for four-year-old programs during the 1994-95 school year in accordance with this Court's May 1, 1992 order. Objections to the proposed sites which had been raised by the Joshua Intervenors were dropped during a June 7, 1994 hearing on Stephens School. 2 2 2,5In selecting the sites, the LRSD states that it considered schools that are racially imbalanced and difficult to desegregate, and that it also focused on areas which have a very high concentration of low income families. The district also submits that it chose those locations it believes will best further the goals of disparity reduction and racial balance. Based on these considerations, the LRSD selected the following elementary school sites for the additional four-year-old programs: 4 .--Badgett: One additional class added by using space that is available within the building. 2. Bale: One additional class added by using space that is available within the building through the reassignment of classroom space (classroom space used for physical education on rainy days and for psychological testing). 3. Fair Park: One additional class added by installing a trailer, which would free up a classroom within the building. 4. Geyer Springs: One additional class added by offering only two kindergarten classes. The LRSD states that although it added a third kindergarten class after the start of the 1993-94 school year, the majority of students assigned to that class were from outside the school's attendance zones. Accordingly, states the LRSD, other assignments consistent with the desegregation plan should be available in the event non-attendance zone kindergarten students need to be accommodated during the 1994-95 school year. 1 5. Mabelvale: One additional class added by using a room available due to matriculating seventh grade students. 26. Watson: One additional class added by using space within the building obtained through sharing space with the Chapter I teacher (who is present three days a week) and the G/T teacher (who is present two and one-half days a week). 7. Woodruff: One additional class added by using space available within the building, 8. Washington: One additional class added by using space within the building. The-LRSD asks for a court order approving the locations, number of classes, and other terms as set forth above. Noting that these program additions will result in services to the total number of four-year-old children which the LRSD originally committed to serve under the terms of its desegregation plan, the Court grants the motion. II. By order dated July 9, 1993, the Court noted that the development of the King Interdistrict School \"has been rife with delays, including those of site selection, theme identification and development, attendance zone delineation, staff hiring, and student recruitment\nconstruction lags have been such that the building still may not be finished by the date students are to begin the 1993-94 fall term.\" The Court noted that \"[w]hile the King facilities and programs hold great promise for achieving magnet caliber, at this time the Court will only provisionally grant the motion to designate King Interdistrict School a magnet school. The LRSD may recruit students to the school on the basis of its 3provisional status only.\" The Court stated, however, that it would approve full magnet status for the new school at such time that the parties could demonstrate that King is a fully functioning interdistrict school displaying the characteristics of a quality magnet as previously set forth in the case record. In the motion now before the Court, the LRSD states that the King Interdistrict School has become fully functioning a interdistrict school which has all of the characteristics of a qualityHuagnet school. The LRSD asks that the King Interdistrict School be designated a magnet school. The Court notes that during its first year of operation in 1993-94, King failed to achieve an enrollment that is within the racial balance guidelines for interdistrict schools. Black children comprised 65% of King's students, a proportion that lies outside the 40 to 60 percent enrollment ratio target set forth in the desegregation plans. Preliminary LRSD registration figures for the 1994-95 school year dated May 11, 1994 indicate that King's black enrollment is still not within the 40 to 60 percent range. Indeed, none of the LRSD's three elementary interdistrict schools achieved a racially balanced student body during the 1993-94 school year, and the preliminary registration figures show that all three still remain outside racial balance guidelines. Furthermore, all three have an enrollment that is well below each building's capacity. During a hearing on June 7, 1994, the Court urged the LRSD to revise its Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines, a document filed March 16, 1994. As written, the guidelines severely restrict 4the district's ability to accept intradistrict transfers of white students into the LRSD interdistrict schools. Broadening the guidelines to promote intradistrict transfers can help the interdistrict schools achieve their full complement of students in racially balanced proportions. In addition, the Court admonishes the parties that they are obligated to continue to aggressively recruit students to the interdistrict schools in accordance with the desegregation plan provisions. -In respects other than enrollment, King appears to be functioning at a level of service and quality consistent with that which characterizes magnet schools. Therefore, the Court approves magnet status for King with the expectation that the LRSD will expeditiously revise its Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines to facilitate intradistrict transfers of white students. thus promoting racially balanced school enrollments. Such intradistrict transfers are to be consistent with the desegregation plans and the law of this case. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of June 1994. UNTTED STATES'\" DI UNTT' DISTRICT JUDGE rmS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET W COMPLIANCE WITH BULE 58 AND/OR 7S{a) FRCP ON BY k 5' RECEIVED JUN 2 9 1994 Office of Desegregation Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED COURT eastern district ARKANSAS JW 2 8 1994 iCORMACK, CLERK oefclerk LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER Before the Court are two motions which the Court now addresses: (1) motion by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) for approval of four-year old program sites [doc.#2147], and (2) motion of the LRSD to designate King Interdistrict School a magnet school [doc.# 2162]. For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that each of these motions should be and hereby is granted. I. The LRSD seeks approval of eight sites for additional four- year-old programs for the 1994-95 school year. In support of its JAMESJV.^C 14AZ motion, the LRSD submitted on April 21, 1994 a revised list of the sites it has selected to complete its obligations for four-year-old programs during the 1994-95 school year in accordance with this Court's May 1, 1992 order. Objections to the proposed sites which had been raised by the Joshua Intervenors were dropped during a June 7, 1994 hearing on Stephens School. 2 2 2 1In selecting the sites, the LRSD states that it considered schools that are racially imbalanced and difficult to desegregate. and that it also focused on areas which have very high concentration of low income families. The district also submits that it chose those locations it believes will best further the goals of disparity reduction and racial balance. Based on these considerations, the LRSD selected the following elementary school sites for the additional four-year-old programs: -1. Badgett: One additional class added by using space that a is available within the building. 2. Bale: One additional class added by using space that is available within the building through the reassignment of classroom space (classroom space used for physical education on rainy days and for psychological testing). 3. Fair Park: One additional class added by installing a trailer, which would free up a classroom within the building. 4. Geyer Springs: One additional class added by offering only two kindergarten classes. The LRSD states that although it added a third kindergarten class after the start of the 1993-94 school year, the majority of students assigned to that class were from outside the school's attendance zones. Accordingly, states the LRSD, other assignments consistent with the desegregation plan should be available in the event non-attendance zone kindergarten students need to be accommodated during the 1994-95 school year. 5. Mabelvale: One additional class added by using a room available due to matriculating seventh grade students. 26. Watson: One additional class added by using space within the building obtained through sharing space with the Chapter I teacher (who is present three days a week) and the G/T teacher (who is present two and one-half days a week). 7. Woodruff: One additional class added by using space available within the building, 8. Washington: One additional class added by using space within the building. The-LRSD asks for a court order approving the locations, number of classes, and other terms as set forth above. Noting that these program additions will result in services to the total number of four-year-old children which the LRSD originally committed to serve under the terms of its desegregation plan, the Court grants the motion. II. By order dated July 9, 1993, the Court noted that the development of the King Interdistrict School \"has been rife with delays, including those of site selection, theme identification and development, attendance zone delineation, staff hiring, and student recruitment\nconstruction lags have been such that the building still may not be finished by the date students are to begin the 1993-94 fall term.\" The Court noted that \"[w]hile the King facilities and programs hold great promise for achieving magnet caliber, at this time the Court will only provisionally grant the motion to designate King Interdistrict School a magnet school. The LRSD may recruit students to the school on the basis of its 3provisional status only.\" The Court stated, however, that it would approve full magnet status for the new school at such time that the parties could demonstrate that King is fully functioning a interdistrict school displaying the characteristics of a quality magnet as previously set forth in the case record. In the motion now before the Court, the LRSD states that the King Interdistrict School has become fully functioning a interdistrict school which has all of the characteristics of a quality-magnet school. The LRSD asks that the King Interdistrict School be designated a magnet school. The Court notes that during its first year of operation in 1993-94, King failed to achieve an enrollment that is within the racial balance guidelines for interdistrict schools. Black children comprised 65% of King's students, a proportion that lies outside the 40 to 60 percent enrollment ratio target set forth in the desegregation plans. Preliminary LRSD registration figures for the 1994-95 school year dated May 11, 1994 indicate that King's black enrollment is still not within the 40 to 60 percent range. Indeed, none of the LRSD's three elementary interdistrict schools achieved a racially balanced student body during the 1993-94 school year, and the preliminary registration figures show that all three still remain outside racial balance guidelines. Furthermore, all three have an enrollment that is well below each building's capacity. During a hearing on June 7, 1994, the Court urged the LRSD to revise its Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines, a document filed March 16, 1994. As written, the guidelines severely restrict 4I the district's ability to accept intradistrict transfers of white students into the LRSD interdistrict schools. Broadening the guidelines to promote intradistrict transfers can help the interdistrict schools achieve their full complement of students in racially balanced proportions. In addition, the Court admonishes the parties that they are obligated to continue to aggressively recruit students to the interdistrict schools in accordance with the desegregation plan provisions. -Inrespects other than enrollment, King appears to be functioning at a level of service and quality consistent with that which characterizes magnet schools. Therefore, the Court approves magnet status for King with the expectation that the LRSD will expeditiously revise its Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines to facilitate intradistrict transfers of white students. thus promoting racially balanced school enrollments. Such intradistrict transfers are to be consistent with the desegregation plans and the law of this case. IT IS SO ORDERED this cXP day of June 1994. UNITED STATES'\" I^STI 'RICT JUDGE ANGE WTH THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET M COMPLIANCE BULE 5 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP k 5\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_638","title":"Little Rock Schools: Meadowcliff Elementary","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994/2005"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Meadowcliff Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Teachers","Educational law and legislation","Student activities"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock Schools: Meadowcliff Elementary"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/638"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nJune 19, 1994C^- i- '' .! J i I 1 Ik '1 n 'i Ij '! 1 \\. I 'iz OJd-- 'j^' . y-'-' u r\\ \u0026lt;1' d-L. 'J /t I '-. ?. ..I yl X {^x 'Tii citjUi-eyd. () ^'- '^y^.C /' V \\J, 0 V FRIDAY, AUGUST 26, 2005  3B Bonus plan for teachers hits snag LR teacher association says Meadowcliff project may breach contract BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE A pilot project to award what could be thousands of dollars in bonuses to Meadowcliff Elementary School teachers developed a hitch Thursday night when leaders of the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association warned of a potential contract violation. At least 50 district teachers, including several from Meadowcliff at the meeting in support of the pilot project, looked on as the Little Rock School Board voted unanimously to delay a decision on ftmding die program until the boards Sept. 8 meeting. The program, entering its second year, offers teachers financial rewards based on the achievement gains made by their pupils on standardized tests. Grainger Ledbetter, executive director of the association, the sole contract bargaining agent for the districts 1,900 teachers, told the School Board that approval of the Achievement Challenge Program without negotiating its terms with the association would constitute a serious violation of the contract and a breach of the cooperative relationship both sides have worked so hard to maintain. Ledbetter said, We urge you to defer action on the Meadowcliff plan tonight and allow the parties to sort out their differences and secure an agreement all parties can live with. Last school year the Achievement Challenge Program resulted in an average 17 percent gain in student achievement and the payment of $134,800 in bonuses to teachers. Individual bonus amounts ranged from $1,800 to $8,600. The bonuses were based on the gains that children made on the Stanford Achievement Test, ninth edition, that they took last spring as compared with their scores on a pre-test they took the previous fall. The first year of the pilot program was coordinated by the Public Education Foundation of Little Rock, which had received financing from an anonymous donor. Teacher union leaders knew nothing of the pilot program until a news conference was held this summer to announce the achievement gains and bonuses. Lisa Black, executive director of the foundation, urged the board to continue the pilot project as it will take two to three years to measure its efifect We see this as a real opportunity for testing new ideas, working with the community and working with teachers to show them how much we value their work, Black said. Superintendent Roy Brooks had initially recommended that the board fund the pilot projects second year. He said the pilot had provided immediate and measurable gains in student learning that crossed grade levels and demographics. Brooks proposed that the district pay the bonuses from the savings generated this year by the recent move to trim 100 positions out of the districts adniinistrative staff. Ledbetter said long-standing language in the districts teacher contract obligates the board to negotiate with the association before adopting any board policy inconsistent with the existing contractual agreement. Another provision of the agreement describes a process by which the district or a school can apply for a waiver of the negotiated salary agreement or other provisions of the teacher contract, he said, and noted that the faculties at both Stephens and Rockefeller elementaries had recently used that contractual provision to try out an alternative teacher pay plan. The unions objection to the pilot program comes on the eve of a potential settlement of the 2005-06 teacher contract between the district and the association. Contract negotiating teams are due to meet at 4:30 p.m. today on what representatives on both sides said they expect to be a tentative contract agreement. Please understand how this appears to us, Ledbetter told the board. At the same time the administration wants us to accept a proposal [in the contract talks] that offers no increase whatsoever J for the 600-plus most senior, experienced teachers in the district, the MeadowcUff incentive plan pays significant cash bonuses to teachers in a single school. Ledbetter also questioned the use of the Stanford Achievement Test as the basis for the bonuses. He said that the primary measures of student achievement in Arkansas are the state Benchmark Exams, which also are the basis for each schools compliance with the federal No Child Left Behind Act. Meadowcliff Principal Karen Carter said the school will go ahead with plans to test pupils Monday. At least well have the good data on the students. Thats the important thing, Carter said. I hope we can work with both negotiating teams to come up with a solution. Its a really good pilot program and a good program for our students because we can tell where our students are starting and where they finish. Joyce Mason, a Reading Recovery program teacher at the school, agreed that the achievement data on individual students are critical. We would be really happy if we can get that information every year so that we can work with out children, Mason said. First-grade teacher Kathy Thomas said the data enabled teachers to begin to know for certain which instructional programs work I feel we have already gained a great deal of knowledge, and I would like to think we could continue with this, Thomas said. Brooks said after the board meeting that the'district and association representatives would meet about the matter and he felt confident they could resolve the issue. I know that they want what we want, which is to do what is best for these children. Well work this out, he said. Katherine Wright Knight, president of the teachers as- sociation, said she would meet with Meadowcliff teachers in the next few days to explain the process for attaining a waiver to the salary provisions of the contract.SUNDAY, MAY 23, 2004   EDITORIALS Nothing special Just everyday excellence  's. Nowcliff Elementary in Southwest Little Rock. Nothing special. The Say no to drugs sign is dirty and/or rusting. The timeworn parking lot, like timeworn parking lots everywhere, has cracks in it 'where the more tenacious strains of grasses reach for that big light bulb in the sky. The building is made in la Classique Instruction Elegance, a style familiar to almost every other elementary school you know\none story, a main office, open hallways, with a recess area out back. Even the surrounding neighborhood is blue collar and red brick. Its not upper class or lower class. The houses arent mansions, but they arent shabby, either. A passerby might look at the neighborhood the same -way hed look at the school\nNothing special We parked, walked into the school and met Karen Carterprincipal, guiding light, and tour leader at Meadowcliff. If you cant judge a book by its cover, better not judge an elementary school by its building, either. NOTHING SPECIAL, huh? Every comer we turned, we found something special The reason we decided to visit the school in the first place was that wed heard some rumors about unusual test scores coming out of Meadowcliff The school -was taken off alert status just this year. At a school where 96 percent of the kids are in the free- or reduced-lunch program, what explains the significant rise in Benchmark tests over the last few years? In 2000-01, you see, only 9 percent of the schools fourth-graders scored at or above the 50th percentile in math. In 2002-03, that figure jumped to 51 percent. Wha-? And thats only one example. We had to check this out Call it part curiosity and part suspicion. OTHING SPECIAL. Thats the first impression you get when you drive into the parking lot of Mead- NE ANSWER to this poser is reading. The focus at Meadowcliff seems to be reading, reading, and more reading. Which is a good thing, a good thing, and more of a good thing. Teachers everywhere will tell you\nIf you cant read, you cant study science or history or even much math, Reading is where it starts. Its the first among equals in education skills. Maybe life skills, too. Principal Carter and the schools literacy coach, Deeann Morgan, have bought into an approach to reading that (1) helps those who are behind, but (2) doesnt hold back those kids who are ahead, -which, we decided in the end, ought to be (3) copied by more schools. It aU starts at The Board. In the reading room-which is part library and part NFL draft war room teachers have tags for each childs name, and each is color-coded by grade. The kids start out reading on Level A, and when they master it, they move on to you guessed itLevel B. Then C. No skipping D or E All the way up to Z. The pattern of the colors on The Board shows where everybody is, whos reading ahead of the class, and, very important, whos behind. Those who are behind are spotted early, and get extra help. The books in the library/war room are separated according to level of difficulty, but a child gets to pick which book he wants to read at his level Theres no You need to read this toda-y in the program. The kids get to choose. Which is important Picking the subject is key to reading, or writing. Trust us. Some people call this Empowerment Others would call it Individual Interest We call it Common Sense. We aU do best at what we like most At Meadowcliff, the kids are tracked on The Board, and arent allowed to slip through any cracks. Principal Carter tells the story of a young man who hated school- :ven be-fore third gradeand just wouldnt do the work. She brought him into the library, sat him down, and asked him what it was he liked. Trucks, he said. She snapped up a truck book on Level A, he began to read, and it took. A school year later, hes reading ahead of his grade level Deeann Morgan puts her hands on her hips and looks up at the boari She assumes an expression not unlike some weve seen on Army commanders faces when they look over an Operations Order. Staring at The Board, she says, Its everybodys job to move these kids, Move the kids up to higher levels of reading, that is. And thats an order. Arkansas schools need more of this kind of coach. Correction: Arkansas students need this kind of coach. The kind who take their jobs as seriously as the other kind of coaches. And whose success is so much more important. HERES NO limit on Meadowcliffs readers. They may read as far ahead of their class as they can. How about trying Harry Potter next? Lemony Snicket? Its the kids with difficulty who get the special attention. When the educators in the war room started discussing Phonemic Segmentation Assessments, our eyes glazed over. We started looking at artwork on the walk. And listened to the kids on the other side of the room read aloud. In one of the hallways, some kids had clipped newspaper articles and written comments on them. (So young, and already editorial writers!) There were paintings. Handwriting examples.... We moseyed (yes, we mosey) on down to Mrs. Haydens third grade class. At the time, the class was in Centers, which means they were in little groups doing different things. One group was reading Kid Power. In this center, one child is chosen to be the Reader, another the Summa-rizer, another the Word Wizard (whose job it is to point out new or interesting words in the story), another the Question Asker, and so on. This exercise gets the kids to focus on the story, not just one word after another. (Theres more to read- itself among those that used to be in trouing than reading, you know. Theres think- ble. ing, too.) Meadowcliff has something to offer. Over in Mrs. Modicas class, first-grad- We hope those in the states education de- It doesnt breathe, it doesnt smell/ It doesnt feel so veiy well/ I am discouraged with my nose/ The only thing it does is blows Dorothy Aldis Did we say this was first grade.These kids are already reading well enough to analyze poems. We looked around for some Emily Dickinson, but didnt find any. Must save her for second grade.... All this was funded by a federal grant Which was all of $330,000. That sounds like chump change when you look at education budgets and flunk of the impact this money will have on a whole generation of kids at Meadowcliff. Oh yes, we buried the lede: Because of the No Child Left Behind Act remember, kids from under-performing schools get to move to other schools that are doing a better job. And a handful of kids in Little Rock19 in allhave moved to Meadowcliff. (The school is now full at 367 students.) And this is the same Meadowcliff u.ut three years ago, had only 9 percent of its fourth-graders proficient or above in the Benchmark test Some things are going ri^t in Arkansas schools. Not enough things. But the Meadowcliffs are out there, just begging to be recognized and funded andabove ail: opied. Its the way we ourselves like to operate: If you see a good idea, copy it Principal Carter said about a dozen schools participate in this new reading program. We wondered why there werent a couple of hundred more. On our way out, we spotted Mrs. Jones-Flanigans kindergarten class, all in a line, all suspiciously quiet, and most of them smiling at the visitors and doing their dawggonedest not to giggle. They stopped in front of the music class. Apparently, it was That Tune, and the kids kindergartenerswere going to get a music lesson. Nothing special Just another day at an Arkansas school that can count er Jason Valsquez was on the floor, read- partment, and in school boards across the ing a poem, and finding the rhyming state, are paying attention. words: Arkansas Democrat Arkansas ^(BazcUe Established 1878 Established 1819 Arkansas Democrat (gazette Arkansas Newspaper Watter E. Hussman, Jr., Publisher Griffin Smith Executive Editor Paul Greenberg Editorial Page Editor Paul R. Smith V.P./ General Manager Lynn Hamilton V.P./ Operations John Mobbs Advertising Director Larry Graham Circulation Director Estel Jeffery, Jr. Director of Promotions  FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2005  LR School Board OKs bonus plan If students achieve, Meadowcliff faculty eligible for incentive pay BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE A pilot program to pay bonuses to Meadowcliff Elementary School faculty and staff based on the achievement gains of their students won Little Rock School Board approval Thursday. The School Board voted 5-1 for the $179,000 incentive-pay program that was started at the school last year with funds from an anonymous donor. Meadowcliff pupils, who were given the Stanford Achievement Test, ninth edition, at the start of the school year and again in the spring, showed an average 17 percent gain on the test. Financial rewards were then distributed to teachers and other staff members based on the gains of the individual children with whom they worked in the classroom or in school programs. A proposal to carry out the Achievement Challenge Pilot Project a second year with district funding created a bit of a stir in recent weeks. Leaders of the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association, unaware of the program this past year, objected to a second year without first negotiating the parameters of the alternative-pay plan with the association, as is required by language in the teacher contract. The pilot project did become part of the 2005-06 teacher contract negotiations between the district and the association that were completed last week. Teachers and district leaders agreed that the plan could be carried out if Meadowcliff teachers followed the process laid out in the contract for trying an alternative-pay plan. That process requires that at least 75 percent of the teachers at a school vote in support of any kind of alternative-pay plan. Karen Carter, principal at Meadowcliff Elementary, said Thursday that 100 percent of the staff  including certified and non-certified employees  voted in support of the pilot project over the past few days. The School Board vote on funding for the project was the final hurdle. Meadowcliff students have already taken the Stanford Achievement Test, 10th edition. Teachers will use the results from that test to guide their instruction and the pupils will take the test again in May. Were ready to get the scores back so we can start planning what our students need and base our professional development on the areas we need growth in, Carter said after the meeting. Board member Katherine Mitchell cast the sole negative vote, saying that she wasnt against incentives but was against a process that didnt open the alternative-pay plan to employees at other schools. She questioned how long the district must try a pilot program before deciding whether it works. Board President Larry Berkley said the districts purpose in trying the pilot project is to learn from it. Measures of merit have not been universally accepted, he said. We are looking here at a norm-reference test as a sole measure of academic growth and that may not be the best way to do it. It may be some combination of [tests] and those kinds of things are what we are trying to learn. The measure of merit may need to be changed. But we cant learn if we dont try something new. Board member Tony Rose said paying bonuses to some teachers is not unprecedented in the school district and he noted that the district pays teachers for earning certification from the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards. Those teachers have demonstrated they have accomplished something, he said. And this is another way for teachers to demonstrate they have accom- | plished something in the class-  room. I I6J  SUNDAY. OCTOBER 16. 2005   Arkansas Democrat (gazette How an Arkansas school found success BY DANIEL HENNINGER THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ITTLE ROCK  This state capital is famous to the nation for the mysteries of its politics and the compulsions of its politicians. By insisting 50 years ago on the continued segregation of Central High School, Gov. Orval Faubus ensured among other things that the handsome, still-functioning Central High would stand today as a national shrine maintained by the National Park Service. Yet another national shrine to political tumult that one may visit in Little Rock is the William J. Clinton Presidential Library and Museum. I came to visit the Meadowcliff Elementary School. Perhaps in time someone will put a plaque in front of it too. About 80 percent of Meadowcliffs students in the K-to-5 school are black, the rest Hispanic or white. It sits in a neighborhood of neat, very modest homes. About 92 percent of the students are definable as living at or below the poverty level, a phrase its principal, Karen Carter, abhors: I dont like that term because most of our parents work at one or two jobs. This refusal to bend to stereotypes likely explains what happened last year at Meadowcliff. Students scores on the Stanford achievement rose by an average 17 percent over the course of one year. They took the Stanford test in September and again in May. Against the national norm, the schools 246 full-year students rose to the 35th percentile from the 25th. For math in the second grade and higher, 177 students rose to the 32nd percentile from the 14th. This is phenomenal. What happened in nine months? Meadowcliff has two of the elements well established as necessary to a schools success-a strong, gifted principal and a motivated teaching staff. Both are difficult to find in urban school systems. Last year this Little Rock public school added a third elementindividual teacher bonuses, sometimes known as pay for performance. Paying teachers on merit is one of the most popular ideas in education. It is also arguably the most opposed idea in public education, anathema to the unions and their supporters. Meadowcliffs bonus program arrived through a back door. Karen Carter, the schools principal, felt that her teachers efforts were producing progress at Meadowcliff, especially with a new reading program shed instituted. But she needed a more precise test to measure individual student progress\nshe also wanted a way to reward her teachers for their effort. She went to the Public Education Foundation of Little Rock. The Foundation had no money for her, and the Little Rock systems budget was a nonstarter. So the foundation produced a private, anonymous donor, which made union approval unnecessary. Together this small group worked out the programs details. The Stanford test resiflts would be the basis for the bonuses. For each student in a teachers charge whose Stanford score rose up to 4 percent over the year, the teacher got $100\n5 percent to 9 percent$200\n10 percent to 14 percent$300\nand more than 15 percent$400. This straight-line pay-for-performance formula awarded teachers objectively in a way that squares with popular notions of fairness and skirts fears of subjective judgment. In most i t'- Arkansas Democrat-Gazene/STEVE KEESEE Meadowcliff Elementary School teachers DeeAnn Morgan (left), the literacy coach, Joyce Mason, the reading recovery teacher, Barbara Beavers, the math coach, and Thessa Arnold, the pre-kindergarten teacher, were among the staff of the school that were honored in June at a news conference because of the school's educational gains. merit-based lines of work, say baseball, its called getting paid for puttie^ numbers on the board. Still, it required a leap of faith. I will tell you the truth, said Karen Carter. We thought one student would improve more than 15 percent. The tests and financial incentives, however, turned out to be a powerfill combination. The August test gave the teachers a detailed analysis of individual student strengths and weaknesses. From this, they tailored instruction for each student. It paid off on every level. Twelve teachers received performance bonuses ranging from $1,800 to $8,600. The rest of the schools staff also shared in the bonus pool That included the cafeteria ladies, who started eating with the students rather than in a nearby lounge, and the custodian, whom the students saw taking books out of Carters Comer, the library outside the principals office. Total cost $134,800. The tests cost about $10,000. The Meadowcliff bonus program is now in its second year, amid more phenomena rarely witnessed in school reform. Last years bonuses were paid for by an anonymous donor\nthis year the school board voted to put the pay-for-performance bonuses on the districts budget. The Little Rock teachers union thereupon insisted that MeadowclifTs teachers vote for a contract waiver\n100 percent voted for the waiver. Another grade school, with private funding, will now try the Meadowcliff model. The Meadowcliff program has the support of both Little Rocks superintendent, Roy Brooks, and Arkansas (flrector of education, Ken James. Superintendent Brooks, who was recruited from the reform movement in Florida, has cut some 100 administrative positions from the central bureaucracy and rerouted the $3.8 million savings back to the schools. At his offices in the capitol buildup. Director James calls himself an advocate of pay for performance for a couple of reasons. Financial incentives of some sort are needed, he says, to stop math and science teachers from jumping ship to -...y s' .w -A  a Arkansas Democral-Gazette/STEVE KEESEE Meadowcliff Elementary School Principal Karen Carter (right) hugs Little Rock School District Associate Superintendent Sadie Mitchell on June 20 after the school's staff was honored for a 17 percent learning gain. The school's special education teacher Demetria Moragne is at left. industry. And school districts like Little Rocks have to innovate fast because jobs and population are migrating internally, mostly into northwestern Arkansas. The Springdale district alone, he says, near Fayetteville and Bentonville, hired 180 new teachers this year. Little Rock has to find a way to hold its best teachers. The teachers I saw at Meadowcliff Elementary seemed pretty happy to be there. School reform is one of the greatest of the great white whales of American politics. It's by now virtually a mythical beast, chased by specialists, commissions, think tanks, governors. Gov. Bill and Hillary Clinton were famous Arkan-sas school reformers. With No Child Left Behind, President Bush has flung the reform fishing net over the whole country. The biggest urban school systemsNew York, Chicago, LA.get most of the ink. But maybe the solutions are going to be found in places like Little Rock, where talented people can fly beneath the radar long enough to give good ideas a chance to prove themselves. Daniel Henninger is deputy editor o/The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. His column appears Fridays in the Journal and on Opinion- }ournal.com. Copyright  2005 Dow Jones \u0026amp; Company, Inc. OCTOBER 20,2005  ARKANSAS TIMES Our public schools  The Democrat-Gazette reprinted Sunday a column by one of the Wall Street Journals rightwing editorial writers. It trumpeted the first year of an experiment at Little Rocks Meadowcliff Elementary. A secret donor, whose money was laundered through the Little Rock Public Education Foundation, put up almost $135,000 to pay bonuses to teachers whose students Stanford test scores rose at least 4 percent over the last year. Theres been no serious analysis yet of the results, either for score manipulation or by comparison with the important state benchmark tests results. But the Little Rock School Board voted to spend public money to continue the experiment another year at Meadowcliff. And, the Wall Street Journal editorialist disclosed, Another grade school, with private funding, will now try the Meadowclilf project. Thanks for the scoop, WSJ. Thered been nothing in the local paper about this. No public action by the School Board. Its true. Superintendent Roy Brooks confirmed. The secret donor is financing a larger experiment this year at Wakefield Elementary. The pre-test has already been done. Brooks said it was up to the private Public Education Foundation to decide when the public would be informed. This is not district funds here, Brooks said. No, just our building, payroll and kids. Its an arguable ethics violation, too, to hide the source of money spent to influence public policy. Merit pay hasnt been rated a conclusive success anywhere I know of. High-stakes testing is an invitation to cheating (check the best-selling Freakonomics for a primer). Debates rage on merits of the norm-referenced Stanford test used at Meadowclifff and the criteria-based Benchmark Test on which government approval of schools happens to be based. Meadowcliff students did poorly on the latter. Opponents believe merit pay is a back-door way to limit automatic annual pay increases and cripple Max rantley max arktimes.com B teacher unions. Given the fat cats who form the merit pay claque, you can understand the suspicion. So whos the donor? Did he send his own kids to public schools? Is he a voucher buff, working on the uninformed assumption that Little Rock schools  which regularly lead the state in National Merit winners  are wholly failing and need to be eventually privatized? Teachers unions can support merit pay. When its not linked to up-or-down testing of a complex organism, a classroom with disparate learners. When offered to all teachers, without favoritism, on top of an honorable wage. When given for national board certification and extra work. At a minimum, merit pay should be transparent  advance notice of a public meeting to debate the idea before a public vote. Instead, school officials paid obeisance to a shadowy fat cat with a pet project, its wonders now touted uncritically in the right-wing local daily and a national counterpart. Perhaps a tardy debate will follow the Classroom Teachers Associations grievance this week that the district again violated its labor contract. The contract requires a vote by Wakefields teachers (likely pro forma) to approve the supplemental pay deal. It was a given that the Public Education Foundation would become a tool for the Hussmans, Stephenses and Waltons of the world to insinuate their education philosophy into Little Rock public schools. But who knew policy-making power was for sale so cheap? Or that wed get the news from the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. Its an insult to Little Rock taxpayers. ^WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26 2005 .  Recess now  Sc a workout for pupils at 2 schools BY HEATHER WECSLER ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GA 7FTTE Two elementary schools ttt Arkansas have new playgrounds intended for more than just play. - ' .J- 4)  B'S ^F^Sg.q|'8 -y^T.-SMSsqq-r . tu o q u  EhE \u0026lt;u tE - -q 41 O .2}'.0I) g q^=o.S^ E \u0026gt; S 4\u0026gt; ^.23 cz) ii O *2 t   ^..5 Ct (U o c V) flj (L) Instead of slides, swing sets and jungle gyms, the recreational equipment includes chin bars for pull-ups, poles for climbing, vaults for leaping over, a horizontal ladder for swmging across and a bench for stomach crunches. Meadowcliff Elementary in ! the Little Rock School Disrtrt Md Seventh Street Elementary m the North Little Rock School District installed the new fit- ness areas to help students and visitors exercise each of their muscle groups. This program allows our students, neighborhood and wider community to have access to state-of-the-art equipment to help get us get physicaUy fit, Karen Carter, principal of363-student Meadowcliff, said Tuesday at a ribbon-cutting ceremony for the See PLAYGROUNDS, Page4B w G o 0,  S'a a 8 1) y\u0026gt; OJ 4) 4) - b  - r. -G 4) OP *3 G  'S p fS -S 3^ g g -S g  8 1,2 q I ^^2 v)2t3^ ____________  3 re ^*73 '^^^4)12-2 2^ OGc\u0026gt;.,n4)4)^*3Ot}ne^Pre  -E 8 M B g\u0026gt;B S-q.^'O ragSTiq \" 2 2 S-q\na - O \u0026lt; t/\u0026gt; C J \u0026lt;u  cu .23 0) W5 (U -s g bb -G \u0026lt;u G \u0026gt;xhG 0 3 1) lU S .5  c flj tn o. (?3 re o U TJ 2 re \u0026gt; X y\u0026gt; CT* *5 4) G \u0026lt; O CZ3 G 1) bcH C T3 f  4_i 4-\u0026gt; I G O re re -r\nq \"-f-a o w s i:-q ' g  F- -S O  'c - 8) s si 8.\u0026amp;^.S.2y ,9 S-^ 8.\u0026lt; qa^ l\u0026gt; u (7) .1 73  3 S? *0 j4 O '* c3 a, c zi o Cu bO 5 JS o 0 S-c ^^-0.8 g g g Ejq.2Soq''S-a |2.g|2| g Sb fi 12 \u0026lt; 13 G a \u0026gt;s-y c3 b fv^ 8^yS-S 8 g a(S.S'S'2'o,oa.^ (S.^\u0026gt;!8-|g\n2c^ S .S -s i 8 E g 8. 1^ J hT-g ?c' S 3  8 q \u0026gt; S' m S g go S \"o a? _e \u0026lt;y  s s - o re \u0026gt; o S uz y G 2 S2 E g tT s T ei, B  s, \u0026gt;..2\nq c't - \u0026amp; 6. 5 o\u0026lt;:5 OCUotooxQg) u C G o 0 g f q  tt -G O b u, 3 re U O TJ -Q ipSl E .9\u0026lt;s S \u0026lt;1 3 y *5 r -3 s O o g g.2 ^.9.  4\n-0 \u0026gt; 5-   _e re c q  tD o V)  .2 5'^=3 E:2 o c 2 2 s g \u0026gt; .a 8  o o gL S 4) !- r-  Q m o -Si -c x\n,c * 73 w  ^-2 qz .M ra .z:\n^ S  3 8 E 23 2 -2 05 -t/)'T33XOtnoi-u^ ^J5S2g-5-cg b c/) re G V) re re .2r-Q \u0026lt;l\u0026gt; 4) O O S  G3 .G X -H O re y y _G - \u0026gt; o 13 c G-^ O'*- GxJ Q G G- ^T''^ -SC. re u O G ha re .b re'b.sx: 4) m S.S 8 g* \u0026gt; - 2-S-a q p-g a  8..S2 g.8r s-8 i 5 t*. 1) c S as s to re \u0026gt; JS re  c \u0026gt; 7 S.S'S o.^ S fs--- o I g 2 o U c 2 a u re . 3 tj .3'0 X 3 ilc S23_ 0.0 .\"J q \u0026gt;'''08 o q.? 3 ^Ig ^E q 5 8 3| ~ _r- .^-^V\u0026gt;G=are4) 4)335^ 5oSqwq23o,-o\u0026gt;:\n' 0 ja'n ra 233S3c V) V) CQ o 00 2 2 o u  g\u0026gt; O .3 - 2 iT.^ CZ) G o u CO 3 3 ~  3 .   \u0026gt; Q, . 8 2 g 8E  s-sS'Sg,\" 3 i- (U V3 .2  iu\"? 2 m : re o o O J 5 o w -73 V 2.2 3 G .3 tn tioT3 g: .hj 1 C (/) 1) re a-O XI D - re 0-2 g.a 2   J3  o y \u0026lt;J *** ^ *^ '^ c/T 13 X ' Q. *S 2 o S 1 *3 *G y 4Z flj  8. E ts 9- S O \u0026lt;Z) o ^2 *0 o o  o 1: C ' CL, CX-C CL^  \u0026lt;1J 3 4) c 2 = _ OX) o - 5 2 '2 u S s s p *G S 4) o cn-G \u0026gt; ly G re re -{ C.S S 2 \u0026lt;j c  g .3^-2gS3 -I 8^ t 8 u re G 3 t a c o S) U re .3 \u0026lt;23 LG g  s g c-g-g En^ - S - o.f^ 7 S'! g  ss  ^ -_c\u0026lt;uCQJ?.'bl2^4) C 8,^-2 i'S SB 4) t\"! 73 re O ctT U t/\u0026gt; 'C ^_c '3 O 4) O o 3 'o 2 y -oi \"O *-.  \"h\n31 u c n e 3 u % c\n3 CQ -s E ^\u0026gt;2 31 CG O d\nO *3^ re 13* (U cT.2^ S -n CL^ O h  ? -G CXm .R.X! o  - febu -g, g K g o o .a tZ) ir\u0026gt; 1\u0026gt; 8 \"5 c/\u0026gt; CX4-. tr CQ tu o\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_674","title":"Little Rock Schools: Otter Creek Elementary","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994/2005"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Otter Creek Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","School management and organization","School facilities","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock Schools: Otter Creek Elementary"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/674"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n 50137^14137 hJALKER. L3I,m firm 47' 03 MfiV 15 5' JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHIXGTON MARK BERXETTE ACSTIN PORTER. -fS KIM.RERLY R. DlCIuJOX JoH.N vv. Walker, p.a. AiTORXEY At Lw- 1723 Broacw.ay Lit. Rcck. .AKK-W'SaS \nTl'LE?.4(??4E (501) 374-S FAX {SOI) 3'74-4187 2206 758 Via Facsimile - 3242146 May 15, 1997 Dr. Don Roberts Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Roberts: I an advised by Ms. Springer that she made monitoring visit and attended a conference at Otter Creek Elementary school on yesterday wherein the parent/guardian of a seven vear old /almost eight, 6-23-89} first grade student was advised by the 4*k '*|4' U nk J 1 21 ... .... . 1 J .. . X .11 _ *. \"** that her child could not attend summer school, black male who is ADHD principal This student is a and first grade. and,has already repeated the kindergarten His reading skills are not at the level for entry into the second grade according to asssessments by the classroom teacher and other district officials who have tested hl.,., can you or any member of your administrative staff explain by the him. to me how this child who is in desperate need of remediation be passed over for sum.mer school? We believe that the plan contemplated providing ail class members with remediation throughout the year. Although we believe that the majority of the remediation,should take place during the school vear it should not be limited to a certain num.ber of school year, can when there may be some who are left out. students especially I am further advised that the District has all..L.._ seats for kindergarten through third grade summer school and Hotted 900 summer^school for grades four through six will be provided at -- Vie aid not contemplate payment bv any parent cost of $115,00. a for remediation services of their children. to above, according to the principal school. T' ' ' The student referred ---- J- f Would you please provide the does not qualify for summer c\nelection criteria for summer school, the number of slots that have been allotted to each school in the District, whether all schools have det the names, summer school race and gender of the students ermined who will be attending from their respective school and if so, please provide this information from each school, providing summer school for these students, whether these costs are totally state funded, if not, i,.hL the District and what is the budget item. the total costs for what portion will be paid by Also advise if any of costs for summer will come from the desegregation budoet. In501 ?44 WALKER LAL FIRM 4?? po: 04 'Wy' Page 2 May 15, 1997 Letter to Dr. Roberts other words, how is summer state funded? school being funded? Is it completely Please let me hear from you. I would especially like to discuss making sure that this young man at Otter Creek is provided summer school services. Sincerely, 'I w. Walker Walker J W: j s cc\nMs. Katherine Strong05/26/1999 15:20 05/26/1999 12:54 501-324-2023 5014557498 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS OTTER CREEK ELEMENTA PAGE 01/01 PAC 01 School Event Wotificgtion Form Little Rock School District (Upcoming Events) Your name\n, Janis Tucker (Principal) Phone:. 455-7440 Date of Event\nFriday (5/28/99) School\nOtter Creek \"tleinencery Time of Event:(begins}. 8130 a .(ends). 2:25 pm What is the event? Field Day T What is the purpose? Good behavior incentive for students Who is sponsoring the event (school, partner, agency)? Where will it be held?. School Are other district schools involved? .Yes .No X Explain why this event would be a good story opponunity for the newspaper or television stations. What makes this event special? What makes it visual? Include the names of well-known people or organizations. Give as many specific details as you can! The day will begin at 8:30 with eompctative outside sports for which Che winners will be given gold stars to add to their Stars For Tomorrow Ribbons. They will be having a picnic lunch from 11:30 until 12:30. The students will come inside at 12:30 to finish their day wlch a movie with rafreshnents of popcorn and coke until 2\n25 Ph._________________________________________________________________________ An added actraccion to the days festivities will be Mrs. Janis Tucker (principal) and Mrs. Debbie Flores (Media Specialist) dressed up as clowns and skaciBg through the building giving out treats to all the students. This activity was planned for the students as a reward for reaching 10,000 points in our Accelerated Reading program. Our students worked hard to reach 10.000 polncs to see thia event take place Remember to submit your items no later than Thursday of the ygeX prior tP YPUr event- Weekly media advisories are sent to the School Board on Friday afternoon and to the press on Monday morning. Information sent after the event has happened should be submitted on the Good News form. ENJohn W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNAJ.McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd@swbell.net Via Facsimile - 371-0100 January 17, 2001 Ms. Ann Marshall Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED JAN 1 8 2002 Re: Little Rock School District n.-. OFFICE OF desegregation monitoring Dear Ms. Marshall: Due to Mr. Walkers absence, he has asked that 1 bring to your attention Joshuas concerns regarding the Little Rock School Districts position about school construction, i.e., increasing school capacities, thus changing racial balances. For instance, the District has taken the position that court approval is not required with respect to the construction of new classrooms at Otter Creek Elementary School. On one hand the LRSD Board of Directors has closed a school which IS majority black due to decreasing enrollment and low capacity, yet on the other hand the District is increasing the capacity of a majority white school in the District. These actions appear to have initiated future plans for making the west Little Rock schools whiter and the schools east of University blacker. Enclosed you will find our correspondence to the District regarding this matter along with Mr. Clay Fendleys response. We also have requested that the District provide to us all future plans for school construction along with any studies regarding capacities and racial balances in its schools as a result of any new construction. We are, therefore, requesting that you and members of your staff investigate these concerns and provide the Court and the other parties with the results of your findings. Thank you for your attention to this request.Sipcerely, /oy C. Springer For John W. Walker JCS/ cc: Mr. Clay Fendley Dr. Kenneth James John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKEE SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 324-2281 January 8, 2002 OF COUNSEL ROBEET McHENRY. RA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd@swbell.net Mr. Junious Babbs Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services Little Rock School District 501 Sherman Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Babbs: This will serve as a follow-up for additional information regarding comments that surfaced at the parent meeting at Dodd Elementary on last evening. I understood a numbei of parents to say that there are currently new classrooms being constiLicted at Otter Creek Elementary. I did not understand that the millage funds would be used foi the construction of classrooms at any school. What type of analyses have been done by the District to determine whether such construction will not violate your racial balance obligations? Or analyses to determine the need for such construction? Does the District take the position that new construction of classrooms does not require court approval? Would you please provide copies of all information that you. Dr. James, Dr. Stewart, and/or Mr. Eaton have regarding the construction of classrooms at Otter Creek including the number of classrooms, anticipated future capacity, racial balance figures and any and all other documentation that has been created by any District official regarding the construction of classrooms at Otter Creek or construction or anticipated construction for additional classrooms at any other school in the District. Thank you for your cooperation Sincerely. J^y CC.I.-^ SSpprnirnger Behalf of Joshua Z' JCS/ Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR.. P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM Ill. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN, P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN HI. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR.. P.A J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE, SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703-4811 TELEPHONE 501-895-2011 FAX 501-695-2147 JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR.. P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO, P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A. GREGORY D. TAYLOR. P.A. TONY L. WILCOX, P.A. FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY. P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DANIEL L. HERRINGTON. P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON PHILIP B. MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S. RIGGINS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM SLOAN OF COUNSEL 8.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A. A.D. MCALLISTER 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2898 FAX 870-762-2918 JOHNC. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-3323 FAX 501-244-5341 fendleyfec.net January 11, 2002 Ms. Joy Springer John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 RE: LRSD V. PCSSD Dear Ms. Springer: Mr. Babbs asked the we respond to your letter of January 8, 2002, concerning Otter Creek Elementary. Four new classrooms are being constructed at Otter Creek using millage funds. This project was included in the list of millage projects which was approved by the Board on March 23, 2000 (see CX 739) and which was included in the Appendix to the District's Final Report, March 15,2001. The new classrooms are intended to accommodate growth in the student population resulting from continued development within the existing attendance zone. The proposal for the new construction came from the school's Campus Leadership Team. It should increase capacity by roughly 100 students and is not expected to affect the racial balance at the school, which is currently 55% African-American. Enclosed please find the following: Janis Tucker's December 14, 1998, memo to Doug Eaton regarding requested capital improvements\nA copy of Ms. Tucker's fax to Ms. Sadie Mitchell attaching Ms. Tucker's file concerning the requested capital improvements, and\nA copy of the District's file concerning the requested capital improvements at Otter Creek. A contractor has been selected and construction will begin in the very near future. It is the District's position that construction of the new classrooms does not require Court approval. Please do not hesitate to call if you need any additional information. Sincerely, John C. Pendley, Jr. cc: Dr. Ken James Mr. Junious Babbs I Otter Creek Elementary School CAPITAL PROJECTS: OTTER CREEK ELEMENTARY We are presently scheduled to get a new air conditioning unit that will prevent our ceilings from leaking. This is already scheduled for the Christmas vacation. We have gravel on our playground area at the present time. This is a continuous problem. We would like to have some sort of new surface for this area. New playground equipment New addition to the school (see attachment) 16000 Otter Creek Parkway  Phone (501) 455-7440  Fax (501) 455-7498  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 Elementary Schools Capital Projects Project Number 50-94-1 50-97-1 50-98-1 50-98-2 50-98-3 50-98-4 50-98-6 50-98-7 50-98-8 50-98-9 50-98-10 I Category Capital Projects: Otter Creek Elementary Project 50-98-11 50-99-1 50-99-2 50-99-3 I 50-99-4 50-99-5 50-99-6 2 5 1 3 3 1 1 1 T 1 1 5 1 3 5 1 1 1 Code REC REN ADA TEC TEC MMR MMR MMR MMR MMR MMR REN MMR REC REC MMR MMR MMR Project Description New play area fence Parking lot curbing ~ ADA adaptions_________________ Technology upgrade Electrical upgrade Exterior Waterproofing__________ HVAC Replacement Replace HVAC Controls________ Storm Drain System Replace Gutters Replace condensate piping______ Landscaping _____________ Carpet replacement 50%________ Additional Play ground equipment Outside water fountain__________ Rep/RpI Ceiling grid_____________ Replace heat pumps Replace r/r partitions Estimated Cost $2,500 $3,000 $30,000 $220,000 $5,000 $65,000 $100,000 $42,000 $25,000 $6,000 $18,000 $15,000 $18,000 $3,000 $24,000 $100,000 $14,000 Rec Y/N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y capital.xts I I 4 1 1 T I Design, Overhead, Profit I i I otter Creek ES Subtotal 3 i i I i i i i T i T $65,000 1  { _L I $755,500 2/8/99n Otter Creek Elementary School VISION FOR OTTER CREEK ELEMENTARY Otter Creek Elementary School was built in 1979. It was part of the Pulaski County Special School District until 1987 when .the school was annexed into the Little Rock School District. The school was named for the subdivision in which it was built and the small creek which marks the south boundary of the grounds. The school continues to provide excellent educational opportunities for ALL students. The teachers, parents and community are committed to ensuring that all students receive a quality education. The student population for Otter Creek is from the attendance zone area surrounding the school and an area off Baseline on the east side of 1-30. This area continues to grow. Not only is the Otter Creek subdivision expanding\nthe area around Otter Creek on Baseline and Stagecoach continue to add new subdivisions and apartment complexes. It is predicted that in the very near future, possibly as soon as the 2000-2001 school year, additional classes will need to be added to the existing building. At the present time, 'the school composition consists of four kindergarten classes, three first grade classes, three second grade classes, two third grade classes, two fourth grade classes, and two fifth grade classes. Additional classes will need to be added for the 2000-2001 school year to accommodate the present situation as well as new students moving into the area. The Campus Leadership team for Otter Creek Elementary would like to see a fence placed around the school grounds. The campus is open^ all sides and this fence would make a more secure environment for the students. On weekends the school is used by teenagers in the area who leave broken bottles, cans, cigarettes and other items that are unsafe for the students. There has also been problems of dogs running onto the school grounds during recess and chasing students. A fence would prevent many of these problems. 16000 Otter Creek Parkway  Phone (501) 455-7440  Fax. (501) 455-7498  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 // New Work Project Submission Site:D6P School:_6 ^-(^T Requested By: Ryus [ttcW Location: School: Priority: Project Description: J'J CbC -VIm. pk'y Project Justification: f'S P'tok)\\^ LA/iTb dtiej wkx 'Hu r6't\u0026lt;S 4RtM'h^ ^WT CU-\\4( 5CWf'vV^ Do Not Write Below This Liii! _aciHty^ services Recommendation: Gqnstru^gn: Contract:  In House: i! .'h. ?*S iUj,45u5*:  :'j5z'fE?. 3.  fw*itT 1\"**^ TEW  v.t' X x\u0026gt;rp New Work Project Submission Site:_f@_ School: Date:^/^/^ Requested By: \\ Location: Priority: Project Description: 6VV^n44A(:/ SIa? CcXU^^S Project Justjfieatjonr sF\u0026gt;f CeCU/f^h) VmS0\u0026gt;tS CCU4A.j\u0026gt;(A^ O'FF ' ' -Rak XV -(yiKn WnA aW MttlfS , Oto5 /IzAtTOU i P , J, (yezv4 WtzizY\u0026lt;\n^S ' '-\n'VaSk TH( S IS d(\nuizAe'i^ou s 9^ Kyt pOwAtX 06\u0026lt;r^ t  _ ---------------Qq Write Below This Lini facility Services Recommeadation: o. G.qsstru^.Qn: Contract:  Is House ^C^pitCatr 3X JS'e-pX^.i i,ru WiXf 'J. ^I^Mt tb^s^tr.r^ppy-A' c-?p.-.X' '-Zi v: wi ' '^e^-nni^^w? ' f Kii) J St I Otter Creek Eleivientary School 1 i I FAX I I DATE:  I - II -o TO: i Fa|#: SUBJECT: PHONE#: NU^IBER OF PAGES (including cover): I MEIM) O:- {( iil jr \u0026gt;MPaa^___ -C2^ ii !j ii 16000 Otter cj|eek Parkway  Phone (501) 455-7440  Pax (501) 455-7498  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 10 39tfd tflN3W3-13 X33a0 H3I in SBtZ.gstTsg t-S:!! 2002/TTZT0 ourkvcj r\\coui_io \"What capital improvements on this campus or your neighborhood school would help make it better for teaching and learning? ? otter Creek Technology *Security Building improvements Neighborhood school Additional classrooms Teacher aides *AdditJonal reading teachers *Study had More computer technology Increase campus lighting (exterior) Internet access In each class More classrooms *Better music program *More art programs *Security *Additional aides - for tutoring and constructive periods More classrooms Larger playground More pairing More computers *Art program Additional computer lab Computers Technology Update technology Update building A/c-fumace Playground and equipment Auditorium and stage Better quality lighting *These are pot considered capital improvements. I 20 39yd tflN3W333 \u0026gt;133^9 N3I in 86h2SSttT0S t2:TT 2002/TT/r0fi i! .i 1. 2, 3. I ij ii. CAMPUS LEADERSHIP TEAM AGENDA OCTOBER 22, 1999 Yfear Round School 0 ipital Improvements C^pus Leadership Team members for 1999-2000 school year OTTER CREEK CONTINUED: Technology *Security 1 *Aides 1 I vni !R nPTNlON MATTERS Otter Creek Elementary School SS/r i 5 VISION FOR OTTER CREEK ELEMENTARY i I OKct Creek Elementary School was built in 1979. It was part of the Pulaski Cotmty Special School District until 1987 when the school was annexed into the Little Rock School District. The school was named for the subdivision in whi^h it was built and the small creek which marks the south boundary of the - groimds. El Th school continues to provide excellent educational opportunities for ALL stucents. The teachers, parents and community are committed to ensnring fkof.'all atliaU students receive a quality education. ! The^mdent population for Otter Creek is from tire attendance zone area surfpunding the school and an area off Baseline on the east side of 1-30, This are^ continues to grow. Not only is the Otter Creek subdivision expanding\nthe area around Otter Creek on Baseline and Stagecoach continue to add new subdivisions and apartment complexes. It is predicted that in die very near fiitijre, possibly as soon as the 2000-2001 school year, additional classes will nee^ to be added to the existing building. At t le present time, the school composition consists of four kindergarten classes, three first gradeclasses, diree second grade classes, two third grade classics, two fourth grade classes, and two fifth grade classes. Additional clashes wffl need to be added for the 2000-2001 school year to accommodate the present situation as well as new students moving into the ii area. Thsj Campus Leadership team for Otter Creek Elementary would like placed around the school grounds. The this [fence would make a more secure enviroru to see a wei hot The - 1J f -  campus is open^on all sides and .ence would make a more secure environment for the students. On ends the school is used by teenagers in the area who leave broken On [es. cans, cigarettes and other items that are unsafe for the students has also been problems of dogs running onto the school grounds during Ann i^nOCinrr -4-^, A 15_____ . recq^s and chasing students. A fence would prevent many of these problems. 16000 Otter c|=ek Parkway  Phone (501) 455-7440 . Fax (501) 455-7498  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 WiN3W3-13 \u0026gt;l33ao d3l in SSFiSShTBS rs-'n s002/tt/t0 E0 aotfd d e 0p 1 S i i CAMPUS LEADERSHIP TEAM MEETING November 17,1999 |ri\u0026lt; 1. Prioritize the list for Capital Improvements for Otter Creek for the bond ^sue. 2. pign the form for the Campus Leadership Team for 1999-2000 school year. 3. Zeomee Herts 4. Year-Round Education 5. New business/concems il !i ii i! !l 'i i! 11 il !! :i J ji ii ii I! il i! I- !! i {\u0026gt;0 39yd yiNahQ-Q \u0026gt;i33ao d3i in SSrZ.SStTBS ys:!! 2002/11/10i 1 1 i I Ji J CAMPUS LEADERSHIP TEAM MEETING SEPTEMBER 10, 1999 Otter Creek Elementary 9:00 1. 11 Introductions I 2, I^eflect on the 1998-1999 school year 3, Discuss changes for the 1999-2000 school year il 4. ijjook at GUIDELINES FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING I! 5. Questions/Concems 1 { I ii 1) I! il li il II !l SB 39tfd tfiNawaia \u0026gt;133^3 h3i in 86t\u0026gt;ZSStT0S tS-TT SB0S/TX/T0I 1 i 1 D 1 N OTTER CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FOR THE NEW MILLENNIUM Our ission at Otter Creek Elementary School is to teach ALL students die essential academic skills at mastery level. The education of our students will empoHver them to be critical, independent thinkers prepared to master the technological advances in the 21st century. This will be accomplished by providing a diverse, equitable, and challenging curriculum. PncmirAging the development of positive social skills in a secure environment will enable themjto become responsible, productive citizens. Through campus leadership : is committed to the achievement of this mission. the st X it Otter|jCreek Elementary is located in the south part of Pulaski County. The schocfl was named for the subdivision in which it was built and the small creek which marks the south boundary of the grounds. The school serves the comi^unity by providing excellent educational opportunities for students in gra( con K-5. Parental involvement is encouraged at the school and the ipiinity provides a wide variety of volunteers on a regular basis. Come out t| Otter Creek and \"check us out\"! 0 1! h Ii ( d ! II I X !} i! }1 ii \u0026lt;\u0026gt;9 ii !i 1 90 39tfd tflN3W3-B \u0026gt;133^0 ^31 in 86t?Z.SStT0S Geipif)ej tSiIT 200S/TT/T010/28/1939 ii 13:42 J 5014550525 OTTER CREEK LWD CO PAGE 01 I 0. c 01 ToJ Fri Otter Creek Elementary School iber 18,1999 xjn: Otter Creek Ci i: Janis Creek Campus Leadership Team TuckerC^ H  Campus Leadership Team meeting on Friday, October 22 at the school. The meeting will begin at 9\n00. Pl. ret ie plan to attead. There are several important decisions we need to make ding the future of our school. I look forward to seeing you then. Th^ you. i T Yes, I will be able to attend the moeting. No, I will not be able to attend tihc meeting. f i I 1 eooo Otter cj -esk Parkway I  Rhone {501} 455-7440  Pax (501) 45S-7498  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 IJ ii i\nL0 39tfd tflN3W313 \u0026gt;i33aD y31i0 86hZSShT0g h5:TT 200S/TT/T0li 1 pTTER Creek Elementary School August 26,1999 ii To:! Campus Leadership Team for Otter Creek Frojn: Janis Tucker I h(^e everyone had a nice summer. We are excited and ready to begin the 19^-2000 school year. {i Ou^ first Campus Leadership Team meeting has been set for September 10 at ^00 at the school. I hope you will all be able to attend, ii , Inks for all you do to make our school a positive experience for all chi^iIren. il You are appreciated. !) ii j! Yes, I will be able to attend the Campus Leadership meeting on Sej^ember 10. 4..- No. I will not be able to attend the Campus Leadership meeting on Sepjtember 10. i! \u0026lt;1 il /? 1! !( Xi 16000 Otter Cr^k Parkway  Phone (501) 455-7440  8B 39Wd i\u0026gt; W1K3W313 \u0026gt;l33ao ^31 in Fax (501) 455-7498  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 SShZeShTBS 1?2:TT 2002/TI/TB H y i J -isasfis jisasx\u0026amp;fsss^^^ ssfaiwfiKfjs^- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT b Otter Creek Elementary School December 14, 1998 To: Doug Eaton From: Janis Tucker This is regarding additions, modifications, and renovations we would like to have at Otter Creek Elementary. The air conditioner leak has been worked on for several years. We have been told that in order to correct this problem permanently, the entire air conditioning unit needs to be replaced. This definitely needs to be done because when the weather is warm there is always a leak in one of the halls and we have to keep buckets under this to catch the water. We are requesting that the following improvements/renovations be made: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 8. New air conditioning unit New carpet for the entire building Stage in the cafeteria Water fountains on the outside of the building Fence around the school property Landscaping at the entrance to the school Larger play area and additional playground equipment Up-date computers and printers for each class New construction: With the increased housing being developed in the Otter Creek attendance zone, it is felt that there will be a need for additional classrooms. A new area needs to be built to add an additional classroom to each grade level. The school now has 3 kindergarten classrooms and 2 of each grades 1-6. The sixth grade will move to the middle school for the 1998-1999 school year. There will be two vacant classrooms. However, by the 2000-2001 school year it is felt the additional rooms will be needed. 16000 otter Creek Parkway Phone 455-7440 Little Rock, Arkansas 72209The people who served on the team to talk about improvements/new construction for Otter Creek Elementary are\nJanis Tucker - Principal Shana Young - Counselor Beverly Kinneman - Teacher Vickye Mitchell - Teacher Ettatricia Clark - Teacher Zeornee Herts - Central Office Denise Nunnley- Parent Greg Stutts - Parent Business/Community - Tommy Hodges Jana Carver Lenora Nunnley - Sixth grade studentFriday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark .HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY(I922-IP94) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR,, P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JAMBS A BUTTRY. P..A FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR.. P.A. JAMES C CLARK, JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A PAUL B. BENHAM III, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL IH.'P.A DONALD a. BACON. P.A WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A RICHARD D. TAYLOR P.A JOSEPH B. HURST. JR. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE, P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL ill, P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR. P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER JR. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703-4811 TELEPHONE 501-605-2011 FAX 501-695-2147 JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR P.A JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A R CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A GREGORY D. TAYLOR P.A. TONYL. WILCOX, P.A FRAN C. HICKMAN, P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY. P.A LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W, SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. Daniel l. herrington. p.a MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAYT. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON PHILIP B. MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S. RIGGINS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM SLOAN 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 OFCOUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR H.T. LARZELERE. P..A JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A, A.D. MCALLISTER TELEPHONE 870-782-2898 FAX 870-782-2918 January 11, 2002 JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-3323 FAX S01-244-5341 fondley@fec.net Ms. Joy Springer John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 RECEIVED RE: LRSD V. PCSSD JAN 1 6 2002\nOfRCEOF ) desegregation MONITORING Ig (il'A Dear Ms. Springer\nMr. Babbs asked the we respond to your letter of January 8, 2002, concerning Otter Creek Elementary. Four new classrooms are being constructed at Otter Creek using millage funds. This project was included in the list of millage projects which was approved by the Board on March 23, 2000 (see CX 739) and which was included in the Appendix to the District's Final Report, March 15, 2001. The new classrooms are intended to accommodate growth in the student population resulting from continued development within the existing attendance zone. The proposal for the new construction came from the school's Campus Leadership Team. It should increase capacity by roughly 100 students and is not expected to affect the racial balance at the school, which is currently 55% African-American. Enclosed please find the following\nJanis Tucker's December 14, 1998, memo to Doug Eaton regarding requested capital improvements\nA copy of Ms. Tucker's fax to Ms. Sadie Mitchell attaching Ms. Tucker's file concerning the requested capital improvements, and\nA copy of the District's file concerning the requested capital improvements at Otter Creek. A contractor has been selected and construction will begin in the very near future. It is the District's position that construction of the new classrooms does not require Court approval. Please do not hesitate to call if you need any additional information Sincerely, John C. Fendley, Jr. cc\nDr. Ken James Mr. Junious Babbs I Otter Creek Elementary School CAPITAL PROJECTS\nOTTER CREEK ELEMENTARY We are presently scheduled to get a new air conditioning unit that will prevent our ceilings from leaking. This is already scheduled for the Christmas vacation. We have gravel on our playground area at the present time. This is a continuous problem. We would like to have some sort of new surface for this area. New playground equipment New addition to the school (see attachment) 16000 Otter Creek Parkway  Phone (501) 455-7440  Fax (501) 455-7498  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 Project Category Number 50-94-1 50-97-1 50-98-1 50-98-2 50-98-3 50-98-4 50-98-6 50-98-7 50-98-8 50-98-9 50-98-10 ' 50-98-11 50-99-1 50-99-2 50-99-3 i 50-99-4 50-99-5 50-99-6 2 5 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 3 5 1 1 1 capital.xIs I I T i + I T I T T I T Elementary Schools Capital Projects Capital Projects: Otter Creek Elementary Project Code REC REN ADA TEC TEC MMR MMR MMR MMR MMR MMR REN MMR REC REC MMR MMR MMR Project Description I Estimated I 1 I I I I T New play area fence Parking lot curbing ADA adaptions Technology upgrade Electrical upgrade Exterior Waterproofing HVAC Replacement Replace HVAC Controls Storm Drain System______ Replace Gutters__________ Replace condensate piping Landscaping Carpet replacement 50% ______ Additional Play ground equipment Outside water fountain _______ Rep/RpI Ceiling grid Replace heat pumps_________ Replace r/r partitions 1 1 Design, Overhead, Profit I T I T I letter Creek ES Subtotal 3 I 4 J. 1 i j T i i I i Cost $2,500 $3,000 $30,000 $220,000 $5,000 $65,000 $100,000 $42,000 $25,000 $6,000 $18,000 $15,000 $18,000 $3,000 $24,000 $100,000 $14,000 $65,000 I T I $755,500 I Rec Y/N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y 2/8/9SOtter Creek Elementary School I? VISION FOR OTTER CREEK ELENIENT.ARY Otter Creek Elementary School was built in 1979. It was part of the Pulaski County Special S chool District until 1987 when .the school was annexed into the Little Rock School District. The school was named for the subdivision in which it was built and the small creek which marks the south boundary of the grounds. The school continues to provide excellent educational opportunities for ALL students. The teachers, parents and community are committed to ensuring that all students receive a quality education. The student population for Otter Creek is from the attendance zone area surrounding the school and an area off Baseline on the east side of. 1-30. This area continues to grow. Not only is the Otter Creek subdivision expanding\nthe area around Otter Creek on Baseline and Stagecoach continue to add new subdivisions.and apartment complexes. It is predicted that in the very near future, possibly as soon as the 2000-2001 school year, additional classes will need to be added to the existing building. At the present time, 'the school composition consists of four kindergarten classes, three first grade classes, three second grade classes, two third grade classes, two fourth grade classes, and two fifth grade classes. Additional classes will need to be added for the 2000-2001 school year to accommodate the present situation as well as new students moving into the area. The Campus Leadership team for Otter Creek Elementary would hke to see a fence placed around the school grounds. The campus is open^on all sides and this fence would make a more secure environment for the students. On weekends the school is used by teenagers in the area who leave broken bottles, cans, cigarettes and other items that are unsafe for the students. There has also been problems'of dogs running onto the school grounds during recess and' chasing students. A fence would prevent many of these problems. 16000 Otter Creek Parkway  Phone (501). 455-7440  Fax. (501) 455-7498  Littls Rock, Arkansas 72209New Work Project Submission School: Siie:_n^__School: 6 C/Tcc/E de0y^^aV/- pate:JI2_/^/_^ Requested ByiJbtyXJk^ Location Priority: Project Description: iV'ttC pmefivV Pr.oj ec-t Justificationir Crvi bUm LA/iYh fky cUvo CiAxzi 5CKap!vv^ _ . \u0026lt; 'vUyA\u0026gt;^w^ 'K'ls. r^LfS 3 L ^p^Vyl/LA V\\^ J Facility Services Re^ -Do Not Wnts Below This Lini ommeadatioa: Gonstruction: Contract IB TTq^ijp\u0026lt; .X Vsr-pd.^u' !i iS^naK  a^j? ^'*^\"***'-**'* .\n -C ^T- '\n^a^Me^Bieat*fflaiWB Wi: .\nsp New Work Project Submission Site: nb^ School:, Q-bfe-r Date:J21_/2S_/1^ Requested By: \\ ku^jWz:h:rLocation: Priority: Project Description: FC/VVc-^ GiLi'i/v^S . Project Ju-stificationr g'eair^tx) V^^sois CtXyvvj^oi^ biJlMAU. O'f'^ ' [KV 4^ak fbsm mvi Rig 1 /% w (, Xy cp^. IS vers' N(\nDu^Aewu^ (pm edw/UtA^Cv P^uwr/ \\j\u0026lt;^ gas\u0026amp; (L/gZvk (3(\nDiz^Aevou SIa 0 oct/r 0^ _ ----------------Qq Write Below 1 his Lin^ Cacijin^ Services Recommeadatio'n: C.qnstruclion: Contract: ' In Hou5e: -EipJitt u.v Ns.r^irsu- 15!^ .n ^v.SSras Ij li Otter Creek Elementary School i FAX ii DATE: i! iI TO: FROM: j FAX#: SUBJECT: PHONE#: NU^dBER OF PAGES (including cover): ij il MB'pJO:- u il ll dfa I i '~l' A A A i /I *  Jiil 8if H 16000 Ottsr C^eek Parkway  Phone (501) 455-7440  Fax (501) 455-7498 * Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 10 39tfd tflN3W3T3 \u0026gt;l33ao PPI in 86^435^103 VSriT 2002/11/10 \"What capital improvements on this campus or your neighborhood school would help make it better for teaching and learning? . otter Creek ischnology *Security Building improvements *Neighborhood school Additionai classrooms *Teacher. aides *Additional reading teachers *Study hall More computer technology Increase campus lighting (exterior) Internet access In each class More dassroorfls *Better music program *More art programs ^Security *Aciditionaf aides - for tutoring and constructive periods More classrooms Larger playground More parking More corriputsrs *Art program Additionai computer lab Computers Technology Update technology Update building A/c-fumace Playground and equipment Audltoriu^ and stage Better quality lighting *These are not considered capital improvements. I jj il 20 39Vd tflNjWaiH \u0026gt;133a0 33110 8SPlSSt'T0S pZ:!!: 2002/TT/Tai 11 H 9:1 'i\ni jl CAMPUS LEADERSHIP TEAM AGENDA OCTOBER 22, 1999 1. 2, 3, Yfear Round School Otoital Improvements Campus Leadership Team members for 1999-2000 school year ./ fll OTTER CREEK CONTINUED: Technology *Security J *Aides 1 ! Yfil IR DPTWTON MATTERS (r Otter Creek Elementary School r i i I VISION FOR OTTER CREEK ELEMENT.ARY 0tt4 Creek Elementary School was built in 1979. It was part of the Pulaski Special School District until 1987 when the school was Rn-navfid into the Little Rock School District. The school was named for the subdivision in whi^h it was built and the small creek which marks the south boundary of the grounds. Thei school continues to provide excellent educational opportunities for ALL stuc snts. The teachers, parents and community are comTUTtfod to ensuring than aU students receive a quality education. ThsLident population for Otter Creek is from the attendance zone area sun^bunding the school and an area off Baseline on the east side of 1-30, This area continues to grow. Not only is the Otter Creek subdivision expanding\nthe irea around Otter Creek on Baseline and Stagecoach continue to add new sub tivisions and apartment complexes. It is predicted that in the very near fun|e, possibly as soon as the 2000-2001 school year, additional classes will need to be added to the existing burl dur new At |ie present time, the school composiitgi.on consists of four kindergarten Cli cli cli :es, three first gradeclasses, three second grade classes, two third grade les, two fourth grade classes, and two fifth grade classes. Additional les will need to be added for the 2000-2001 school year to accommodate if situafaon as well as new students moving into the area. ThejCampus Leadership team for Otter Creek Elementary would like to see a feuc^e placed around the school grounds. The campus is open'on all sides and thisjfence would make a more secure environment for the students. On ee^nds the school is used by teenagers in the area who leave broken itljes, cans, cigarettes and other items that are unsafe for the .students. Th^e has alM been problems of dogs running onto the school grounds during rec^fs and chasmg students. A fence would prevent many of these problems^ to see a wei boi :1 il T6000 Otter C) iS 50 39tfd i ik Parkway  Phone (501) 455-7440  Fax (501) 455-7498 * Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 tflN3W313 \u0026gt;13330 H3I in 86hZ.cS7t0S 7S:TT 2006/TT/t0 Ii i\nij 15 I L CAMPUS LEADERSHIP TEAM MEETING November 17,1999 1, Prioritize the list for Capital Improvements for Otter Creek for the bond ^sue. 2. Sign the form for the Campus Leadership Team for 1999-2000 school ^ear. 3. Zeomee Herts 4. Jk ear-Round Education ew business/concerns 5. ! i Ii i! li I! il 0 I! II P0 3SWd aSPiSStTQS tS^rr 6302/TT/T0 I I tfiN3W3n3 xsaao ?43i mI 1 i ' 1. B.LTodiictions CAMPUS LEADERSHIP TEAM MEETING SEPTEMBER 10,1999 Otter Creek Elementary 9:00 \u0026gt; J 2, Reflect on the 1998-1999 school year 3. h iscuss changes for the 1999-2000 school year 4. ijjook at GUIDELINES FOR SCHQOT, IMPROVEMENT PLANNING ii 5. (^stions/Concems 0 li I) ii ii il ! il i ( I ii 1 !! ii II jl S0 39W !( Il II ij tfiN3W3\"l3 \u0026gt;13330 H~i in 86i72.SStT0S pSm 2003/TT/T0N 3 Ii I ii KB I D OTTER CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FOR THE NEW MILLENNIUM Our rtns njpal sion at Otter Creek Elementary School is to teach ATI, students the essenf al academic skills at masteiy level. The education of our .stnjmts will \"empower them to be critical, independent thinkers prepared to master the technhlogical advances in the 21st century. This' will be accomplished by providing a diverse, equitable, and challenging curriculum. Encouraging the development of positive social skills in a secure environment will enable themfn become responsible, productive citizens. Through campus leadership the stiff is committed to the achievement of this missinn . iM 5 Ofter|peek Elementaiy is located in the south part of Pulaski County. The schodi was named for the subdivision in which it was built and the small creek which marks the south boundary of the grounds. The school serves the compjiunity by providing excellent educational opportunities for students in ft grad\u0026amp; K-5. Parental involvement is encouraged at the school and the comi^unity provides a wide variety of volunteers on a regular basis. Come out t| Otter Creek and \"check us out\"! I): o ij ii ii i\nj I ii il -! .i if I 14 u 0 -1 ! i N 90 39Wd tfiNdwana \u0026gt;33^0 iH3i in SSt'Z.SStTBS wm 6002/11/1010/20/1959 K13:42 5014550525 OTTER CREK LAND CO PAE Bl J If Creek Elementary School \u0026gt; Oqober 18, 1999 To: Otter Creek C\nFrcm: Janis Th: i TuckerC^q  Leadership Team e will be a Campus Leadership Team meeting on Friday, October 22 at the BchooJ. The meetog will begin al 9:00, Pl. ret w plan to attend. There are several imporiani decisions we need to make ding the future of our school. I look forward to seeing you then. Tb^ you. I I I will be able to attend the moeting. No, I will not be able to attend the meeting Ni li I I 1 I 1 eooo Otter Cj'eek Parkway  Phona (Soil 455-744.0 . Fax (501) 4=5'7498  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 i i I! LZ yN3W3-l3 \u0026gt;133^0 33110 86PiSS7T0S 72:TT 500S/Tt/T0i \\W W Otter Creek Elementary School ? August 26, 1999 i! To: Campus Leadership Team for Otter Creek FroL\nJauis TuckerS^'T 0 II I hope everyone had a nice summer. We are excited and ready to begin the 19^-2000 school year. li Oudj first Campus Leadership Team meeting has been set for September 10 at ^00 at the school. I hope you will all be able to attend. Thinks for all you do to make our school a positive experience for all chijjdren. ii Yoh are appreciated. ! I( j! Yes, I will be able to attend the Campus Leadership meeting on September 10. 4 No, I will not be able to attend the Campus Leadership meeting Sej^ember 10, on '} 'j /V .ti /i-Cil Si J (/ 7 i I I .. I i I il Si  11 1 -k\u0026gt; 16000 Otter Ci-^k Parkway  Phone (501) 455-7440 - Fax (501) 455-7498  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 30 29tfd tflN3W373 \u0026gt;133a0 33X10 86hZ.SSfc\u0026gt;T0S 7Z:TT 2002/TT/T01 I ROCK SCHOOL 3 Otter Creek Elementary School December 14, 1998 To: Doug Eaton From: Janis Tucker This is regarding additions, modifications, and renovations we would like to have at Otter Creek Elementary. The air conditioner leak has been worked on for several years. We have been told that in order to correct this problem permanently, the entire air conditioning unit needs to be replaced. This definitely needs to be done because when the weather is warm there is always a leak in one of the halls and we have to keep buckets under this to catch the water. We are requesting that the following improvements/renovations be made: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. New air conditioning unit New carpet for the entire building Stage in the cafeteria Water fountains on the outside of the building Fence around the school property Landscaping at the entrance to the school Larger play area and additional playground equipment Up-date computers and printers for each class New construction: With the increased housing being developed in the Otter Creek attendance zone, it is felt that there will be a need for additional classrooms. A new area needs to be built to add an additional classroom to each grade level. The school now has 3 kindergarten classrooms and 2 of each grades 1-6. The sixth grade will move to the middle school for the 1998-1999 school year-.- There will be two vacant classrooms. However, by the 2000-2001 school year it is felt the additional rooms will be needed. 1 6000 Otter Creek Parkway Phone 455-7440 Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 The people who served on the team to talk about improvements/new construction for Otter Creek Elementary are: Janis Tucker - Principal Shana Young - Counselor Beverly Kinneman - Teacher Vickye Mitchell - Teacher Ettatricia Clark - Teacher Zeomee Herts - Central Office Denise Nurmley- Parent Greg Stutts - Parent Business/Community - Tommy Hodges Jana Carver Lenora Nunnley - Sixth grade studentARKANSAS TIMES* APRIL 21,1994\n77i# At^n^as REPORTER  J WHITES NEED NOT APPLY At one LR school, desegregacion proves too successful. BY JUDITH M. GALLMAN Danny Johnson wauled his son Io attend Pulaski llciglils Junior lligli School next year, but dieres no room for his son at the school localise he's while. That's what the school told Johnson on March21 whenhewenitopre-rcgisterliis 11- year-old son Jeremy for next yeiu. It seems die Pulaski I Icighls parenis and school officials have licen so successful al reciuiling whiles dial dicii eni olliiicnl now inns afoul of court-ordered racial guidelines. I lie result is a supreme irony in a majority black school district that has snuggled for years Io hold while parents. Denied admission Io Pulaski Heights, Johnson says he is planning Io buy a house in Conway and enroll his children Ihcte next year, continuing a trend dial has seen Conway explode widi whiles fleeing Little Rock. Ralph I loffman, the principal of Pulaski I Icighls Junior High School, says the school has swung from a lunior high that was roughly 65 IO 67 iXMCCnl black in 1988 Io a school dial's 54 10 5.5 percent black now. Based on pre-regisuadon figures for next year, however, the district projects the junior high will be 51.8 percent black, which, the disuict says, means too few black sludents will be enrolled. The projection prompted Dr. Russ Mayo, associate superintendent for desegregation, todraft a memo saying that,students who pre- registered on or after May 14 will be assigned by the Student Assignment Office. \"Basically, we will reserve vacant seats for black sludenl.s while nonblack stiideiiLs will leceive alternate assignments,'' Mayo wrote in the memo. ''Sludenl.s who cannot be assigned will lx: placed on wailing lisls. The memo also went to four elementary schools, Terry, Fulbright, Forest Park and Oller Creek, Mayo said, liecaasc all will likely slip lie.low the COUI I approved minimum black enrollmeiil iierccniage. Jefferson doesn'tmeet die minimum but a memo wasn't sent there. The school district decision is at variance, however, with the federal court's Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Ann Brown, federal monitor, says die minimum black enrollment should not fall Iielow 40 [leiccnt for elementary schools and 51 percent for junior high schools. Mayo agrees on 40 (lercent for elementaiy schools, but he insists the iiiinimutn for junior highs is 52.5 pcrccni. More importanlly. Brown believes die court intciideil to set racial guidelines, not quotas, Mayo sees them as a quota from which tlie district may not stray. Mayo said die fieeze is a temporary measure that may be lifted once the district has a clear undcrslandiiig of next year's enrollment. Though the policy apiars Io stale otherwise, Mayo said the district does not intend to exclude wliile studenls who are rightful residenls of a school'.s allendance zones, only those who live outside the attendance zone. But at the same lime, he says only that those in Ilie zone will be put on the waiting list. I Ie also says the district wants Io be sure all sludenis in a school rightfully deserve the assignments. \"rm told that it has not been watched a.s carefully by the Student Assignment Office in die past, Mayo said. Wecannol continue ignoring the plan or the court. Brown said die dish id should look at other oplionsbeforeexcliidiiig while parents, whose loss could harm the racial composition of the whole dish icl. One option is adding portable buildiiigs,aldiotighlhalsiiiipossiblcforsonie of the schools and Mayo counters such additions peipetuate dual education. Some school patrons, parents and teachers worry that die policy will drive whiles Io private schools or other cides. \"Tlieres no such thing as a school loo while in Litde Rock, one parent said. But the School District has now ruled odierwise. And the result may be at least two more transfers Io Conway.  PERCENTAGE OF BLACK STUDENTS ANTICIPATED Pulaski Heights Junior High School 51.8 percent Terry Elementary School 39.9 percent Fulbright Elementary School 43.1 percent Forest Park Elementary School 39.2 percent Jefferson Elementary School 40.4 percent Oller Creek Elemenlary School 44.7 percent If pre-registralion enrollment figures for the 194-95 school year for the above Little Rock schools hold (rue, these schools could end up whh too few black students, which is why additional white students arent being enrolled temporarily. The percentages indicate what percentage of the student body is expected to be black. Elementary schools cant have fewer than 40 percent, but the bottom limit for junior highs is in dispute. The district sets the limit at 52.5 percent\nthe Office of Desegregation monitoring uses 51 percent.Arkansas Democrat ^(j^azctte | T^U^Sa^^JMOVEMBERViggg________________ Suspicious man approached kids in Otter Creek area on 3 occasions ARK.ANs.As DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE g^d a Sept. 28 report of a time Residents of Little Rock's Otter when a man reportedly tried to Creek neighborhood have report- lure a child into a pickup  were ed three incidents to police of a made by Otter Creek residents man approaching children, including one report made by the princi- near the school. On Friday, Little Rock police pal of Otter Creek Elementarj provided the Arkansas Democrat- ' School. Gazette with the Oct. 6 and Oct. 7  Immediately after an Oct. 7 en- reports along with a copy of an counter at the school, when a man alert sent to all Little Rock ele- was reportedly seen trying to take mentary and middle schools. The photographs of a student. Princi- alert was compiled from informa- pal Janis Tucker notified the dis- tion from all three police reports, tricts security office. The incidents reported to police Oct. 6 and Oct. 7 were in- A school district security em- ployee patrolled the school for correctly reported in Saturdays several days aftenvard. edition as if they had both oc- Two other incidents  docu- curred at the school. mented by an Oct. 6 report of a man who exposed himself to a No further sightings have occurred of the man or the pickup child between Aug. 30 and Sept. 22 since the Oct. 7 report, police said.t- 4 * PRipAY, DECEMBER 16, 2005 * Board aims to ease crowded LR school\nOtter Creek attendance zone cropped BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Little Rock School Board on Thursday approved plans to shrink the Otter Creek Elementary School attendance zone and correspondingly expand Mabel- vaJe Elementary Schools zone to lirmt overcrowding at Otter Creek. IS necessary to avoid having to add a portable building to the four portable buildings already on the Otter Creek campus, Su- pcrintendent Roy Brooks has said. Otter Creek has 580 students, which is 43 students over capacity. Mabeivale Elementary has 365 students, with room for about 78 more. The application fee for the national teacher certification Board members approved the zone adjustments without any discussion during a meeting in which they asked the staff to program is $2,300 and if a 'te7rh2 Srt fuiMcial help to er is not successful in achieving ^tnct teachers who are m their certification after the first year second md third years of seek- the fee for retaking p^ 1 National assessment in subsequent sec- Teaching ond and third years is $350 per btMtods paj^ majority of teachers zon?Jhft of the Otter Creek nationaUy who seek national cer- Of Interstate 30 tification are not completely suc- ^d includes neighborhoods in cessful the first year^TypicaUv t Yorkton teachers have to reSke^o or J .streets wiU be as- more parts of the as.X=^.^r signed to Mabeivale beginning with the 2005-06 school y.C However, the 103 children living in the affected area and cur- more parts of the assessment. Katherine Wright Knight, ye^. president of the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association, estimated that there are at least Sachem who\" grandfathered into Otter retake sections of the toe S unger teachers were notified that thev b^SooT, '  tocessMy Younger children and chil- borhoods will be assigned' I Mabeivale, The attendance zone need to --- assessment to attain the credential, which is to program. Approximately 14 na- tionally certified teachers are change already working in the district\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_654","title":"Little Rock Schools: Stephens Elementary","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Stephens Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School buildings"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock Schools: Stephens Elementary"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/654"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nJ d Lari JAN 2 \u0026amp; 1994 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Office oi Dassgreganon p/icniioriug NO. 93-3592 PULASKI CTY. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE MOTION TO EXPAND PAGE LIMIT FOR APPELLANTS' BRIEF The Appellants Dale Charles, et al., and the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel. for their Motion to Expand the Page Limit for Appellants' Brief, state as follows: 1. Because the three above-referenced appeals have been consolidated, the 50-page limit may be inadequate to permit the Appellants to adequately brief the issues on appeal. 2. A maximum limit of 75 pages would be sufficient. WHEREFORE, Appellants pray that the page limit be increased to 75 pages. Respectfully submitted. r / / / r- David SchoenDAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 120 West Spring Fayetteville, AR (501) 444-6200 72702 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy postage prepaid to the counsel o of the foregoing has been mailed, f record listed below on this day of January, 1994. Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 / I Dav^id SchoenIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 1 8 1994 FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Office of Desegregation Monitoring No. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LORENE JOSHUA Appeals from The United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge BRIEF FOR APPELLEE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT IN NO. 93-3592 M. SAMUEL JONES, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 w. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas (501) 371-0808 72201 Attorneys for Pulaski County Special School DistrictTABLE OF CONTENTS Page PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 ISSUE PRESENTED ON APPEAL 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE 3 ARGUMENT 5 CONCLUSION 13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 14 1SUMMARY AND REOaEST FOR ORAL ARGOTCEMT The Pulaski County Special School District is an appellee in Case No. 93-3592 only. In that matter, the District Court concluded that the present Stephens school site did not qualify under the language of the settlement plans as a potential site for a new interdistrict Stephens school. The Pulaski County Special School District does not believe that oral argument is necessary on this separate issue since the matter largely, if not entirely, involves the District Court's interpretation of the meaning of specific portions of the settlement plans previously approved by this Court. However, should the Court determine to hear argument on this issue, the Pulaski County Special School District would participate in the argument and believes that 15 minutes would be sufficient time to present its case and respond to questions from the Court. Finally, the Pulaski County Special School District is authorized to state that the North Little Rock School District joins with it in presenting the position of appellees' on this issue. 11TABLE OF AUTHORITIES gage CASES: Appeal of Little Rock School District, 949 F.2d 253, (Sth Cir.1991) .......................... 5 Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, (Sth Cir.1990) ................... 6, 11 111PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The Pulaski County Special School District does not disagree with the preliminary statement set forth by the Little Rock School District in its brief on the Stephens school site except to say that the order denies the relief sought by the Little Rock School District. 11. 2. I. ISSUE PRESENTED ON APPEAL THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN REJECTING THE PRESENT STEPHENS SCHOOL SITE AS A POTENTIAL INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL LOCATION BY FAILING TO CONTINUE THE HEARING INITIALLY BEGUN ON THAT ISSUE BECAUSE ITS DECISION PRIMARILY REFLECTED ITS OWN REASONED INTERPRETATION OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS REACHED IN THIS CASE. Appeal of Little Rock School District, 949 F.2d 253, 257 (Sth Cir.1991) Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1383 (Sth Cir.1990) 2STATEMENT OF THE CASE Although three cases have been consolidated for appeal before this Court, the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") is appellee only in Case No. 93-3592. That appeal by the LRSD and Joshua seeks to reverse the District Court's order of September 27, 1993, ruling out the old Stephens school site as a potential location for construction of the new Stephens interdistrict school required by the settlement plans. The threshold issue confronted by the District Court was whether the old Stephens site even qualified as a potential candidate for construction of the new Stephens interdistrict school. The pertinent language of the plans interpreted by the District Court is set forth in her order of September 27, 1993, and, for the convenience of the Court, said order is reproduced in the addendum to this brief. The two provisions are that: It is proposed that the District relocate Stephens Elementary near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue. Desegregation Plan, at 139. (Emphasis added.) LRSD LRSD will build a new Stephens Interdistrict School ... located near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue ... The old Stephens school building will then be closed. Desegregation Plan, at 10. (Emphasis added.) Interdistrict (Ad. p. 2). The District Court, as part of her order, concluded from this language that: 1. The new school would be built at a new site and the old school closed. (Ad. p. 2). 33. 4. That the plans clearly envisioned that the new Stephens school would be near 1-630. (Ad. p. 2) . That constructing the new school at the old site would not further the goals of the desegregation plans. (Ad. p. 2). That the old site is further from 1-630 than any of the other proposed sites. (Ad. p. 3). 2. 5. 6. That to approve reconstruction at the old site would constitute a disputed modification of the Plan. (Ad. p. 3-4). That the purpose of the new interdistrict school is to promote interdistrict desegregation, not to stabilize neighborhoods. (Ad. p. 5). Before the Court's order was entered, several site selection committees were composed and recommendations made all as generally described by the LRSD at pages 4-8 of its brief. In her order declining to approve the old Stephens site, the District Court gave the parties until October 15, 1993, to reach consensus. Thereafter, on October 15, 1993, the PCSSD and NLRSD filed with the Clerk their respective preferences evaluating the sites considered by the various site selection committees. (Ad. p. 18-21). No further formal proceedings have been had regarding selection of a site for Stephens pending this appeal. 4ARGUMENT I. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN REJECTING THE PRESENT STEPHENS SCHOOL SITE AS A POTENTIAL INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL LOCATION BY FAILING TO CONTINUE THE HEARING INITIALLY BEGUN ON THAT ISSUE BECAUSE ITS DECISION PRIMARILY REFLECTED ITS OWN REASONED INTERPRETATION OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS REACHED IN THIS CASE. In 1991, in the context of articulating the deference to be accorded to and the standard of review to be applied to decisions of the District Court regarding changes in the desegregation plan, the parties were instructed by this Court that\nWe recognize the language of this opinion is somewhat general. It leaves a considerable degree of latitude to the District Court ... The District Court should proceed with that discretion and flexibility that characterizes courts of equity. Its decisions, whatever they are, are of course subject to review on appeal, but the review will be on an abuse of discretion basis, and we will give a healthy measure of deference to the reasoned choices made by the District Court. Appeal of Little Pock School District, 949 F.2d 253, 257 (Sth Cir.1991). This admonition was merely an extension of this Court's earlier directive issued as part of its approval of the settlement plans in 1990. At the end of that decision, this Court reiterated that\nThe District Court is instructed to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement, and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require. 5Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (Sth Cir.1990). The District Court Correctly Interpreted the Plans. When measured against this legal backdrop, the order of the District Court refusing to approve the old Stephens site as an appropriate site for the new intradistrict school is readily sustained. In the first instance, at least, the District Court was required to interpret the meaning of the settlement documents. The Court interpreted the settlement agreements to preclude the use of the old Stephens site for the new interdistrict school. That reading, particularly when evaluated under the abuse of discretion standard, must be sustained. It probably startles this Court to see that both Joshua and LRSD ascribe provisional status to the new Stephens location specified by the Plans. LRSD contends that: \"The relocation of Stephens school is merely 'proposed,' not required.\" (LRSD brief at 11) Joshua echoes this \"proposition\" at page 58 of its brief. \"Although the Plan does use the word \"relocate,\" relocation is merely 'proposed.' Thus, relocation is not absolutely mandated by the Plan.\" PCSSD has been under the impression, after the last several appeals in this case, that what was \"proposed\" in the Plans became what was \"required\" after the \"proposal\" was approved by this Court. That the Plans somehow retain provisional status is 6not an hallucination shared by the PCSSD and would probably likewise surprise the District Court as well. PCSSD submits that what is really being said in the Interdistrict Plan is that Stephens will be relocated, which is precisely what prompted the District Court to italicize the word relocate in her September order, now the subject of this appeal. Nor can it be argued with any reasonable degree of veracity that relocate means to move the facility 10 or 20 feet closer to the freeway on the same campus. Such a strained interpretation of the Plan is not worthy of further argument. That the old Washington school was relocated on the same campus is of no moment to the instant appeal. The Washington reconstruction was done by agreement of all the parties in a phase of the case that preceded the 1989 settlement agreement (See LRSD brief at 12) and was accomplished before the concept of the 1-630 corridor\" became a guidepost for future school construction. Both the reconstruction of Washington and the construction of Carver magnet were both \"done deals\" before the 1989 plans were negotiated and written. They did not then, nor do they now have, anything to do with the 1-630 corridor concept.' What is perhaps more constructive to note is that the new King interdistrict school is built on Interstate 630, can be seen Accordingly, Joshua's argument presented at page 59 of its brief pointing out that Washington is approximately 8 blocks from Interstate 630 is irrelevant. Of course, what Joshua ignores. and what is more salient, is the fact that Washington is but three blocks from Interstate 30 and is visible from that freeway. 7from Interstate 630, and is a school to which PCSSD has always agreed it can successfully recruit its white students. (Ad. p. 7, par. 3). The District Court's interpretation that the Plans \"clearly envision that the Stephens interdistrict school be near 1-630,\" and that \"the current site of the Stephens school is farther from 1-630 than any of the other proposed sites that lie between 1-30 and University Avenue,\" is a reasonable interpretation of the corridor concept and should not be disturbed under the abuse of discretion standard. The LRSD strains mightily to patch together a sustainable issue on appeal by contending that it does not contend it has to construct the new school at the present site, but only that it ma construct a new school at the present site. First, it is clear that for various reasons, including her interpretation of the Plans, that the District Court is not going to approve the old site even should this Court be inclined, for reasons unknown to PCSSD, to add it to the list of \"eligible\" candidates. Thus the relief, if it were granted, would be hollow. Even LRSD recognizes that the school must be located where it can be desegregated, and where PCSSD white students will attend. (Ad. p. 7, par. 5). Second, even though the Plan states that the new Stephens would draw its Black student body largely from the students attending the old Stephens school (LRSD brief at 11), this does not translate into a requirement, and none is contained within 8the Plan, that the school must be located within the present Stephens attendance zone. As a parallel, the Plans provided that PCSSD would build the new Crystal Hill interdistrict school, which it did, and would draw its white student body from the Pine Forest and Oak Grove Elementary attendance zones. However, Crystal Hill was not located in any zone, but upon vacant land actually in the City of North Little Rock. The same scenario has been approved by the Court for the population of the new Clinton interdistrict school. which will draw most of its white student body from a combination of parts of the Sylvan Hills and Oakbrook zones, and which is being built at a site mutually agreed to by all of the parties. (App. 124) Further, there is nothing in the Plan which would prohibit the busing of Stephens students to a new Stephens school. assuming that is even required. The prospect is doubtful because LRSD requires its students to walk to school if they live within two miles of the school. As pointed out by Joshua, Stephens is \"only\" nine blocks from Interstate 630 (Joshua brief at 59). If the new school were located on the freeway, but otherwise in reasonable proximity to old Stephens, the attendance zone for which is 13 blocks long (App. 112), LRSD would not be obligated to bus those children anyway. At page 12 of its brief LRSD represents that \"the parties\" did not intend to exclude the present Stephens site as a new school site. This is not correct. PCSSD's persistent objection 9to utilizing the old site, because of its doubts concerning its ability to recruit there, belies the inclusiveness of this representation. (Ad. p. 6, par. 6, 10, 11, 12, 14-15). It is further eroded by the consistent objections of the North Little Rock School District, articulated for the same reasons. (Ad. 16-17).) The Alleged PCSSD Veto This contention is once again an example of how little the appellants have to work with on this issue. All the District Court said about the PCSSD was that it \"must be satisfied with the site chosen\" (LRSD brief, p. 13), not that it had any direct veto. It is probably true that none of the Plans require that \"PCSSD must be satisfied with the site chosen for the new Stephens interdistrict school\" (LRSD brief, p. 13), but the mere articulation of this argument suggests a revival of the kind of arrogance which some ascribe to the LRSD. (See generally App. 172-180). In endorsing the concept that consensus was desired, this Court wisely observed when it initially approved the settlement plans, that:. This may be especially true in the present context  a protracted, highly divisive, even bitter litigation, any lasting solution to which necessarily depends on the good faith and cooperation of all the parties. especially the defendants. As a practical matter, a remedy that everyone agrees to is a lot more likely to succeed than one to which the defendants must be dragged kicking and screaming. 10Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1383 (Sth Cir.1990). There Was Wo Reason to Continue the June Hearing. Having determined that the old Stephens site was not a permitted site for the new Stephens interdistrict school, and having no other consensual sites before it, it would have been an exercise in futility for the District Court to continue a hearing devoted to whether the old site was an appropriate site. The literal terms of the order stated that the Court would conduct a hearing \"regarding a site for the Stephens interdistrict school\" (App. 100) [Emphasis added.] if the parties are unable to reach a consensus. The Court did not say it would conduct a further hearing regarding the old Stephens site\nindeed, its September 27, 1993, order specifically excluded the old Stephens site. Accordingly, there was then no present reason for a hearing and LRSD and Joshua were therefore deprived of nothing. On October 15, 1993, PCSSD and NLRSD submitted their preferred sites in rank order and those are pending before the District Court. (Ad. p. 18-21). The Court will undoubtedly conduct a hearing on alternative sites either during the pendency of this appeal, or, if the District Court believes it has been temporarily divested of jurisdiction on this issue, after return Ik of this Court's mandate. 11The Deference Argument is Misplaced. LRSD's and Joshua's reliance on cases such as Milliken, Swann and Liddell, and others cited at pages 14 and 15 of LRSD's brief, avail them nothing in the special circumstance of interdistrict schools. After all, it is clear from the Plans, and well known to this Court, that interdistrict schools are joint undertakings between the school districts and, except for the day-to-day operations of the schools, all other significant matters are to be jointly determined by the host and sending districts. (App. 124) Therefore, LRSD's and Joshua's reliance on these cases is pertinent only to the extent that the parties are in agreement on issues such as an appropriate school site. Only then would the teachings and instructions of these cases be apropos, and only if disagreements developed between the agreeing districts and the District Court, a prospect which has not yet emerged on this issue and is unlikely to occur. Stated another way, the holdings of these cases apply with equal force to the reasoned determinations and positions of the PCSSD as the sending district. Accordingly, PCSSD's consistent and well based opposition to the old Stephens site was appropriately given deference by the District Court and reinforces both her order and its underpinnings. 12CONCLUSION The order should be affirmed and this issue returned to the District Court so that a decision regarding an appropriate new site for Stephens near the 1-630 corridor can be made. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By__ _ M. S Atto Special\nuel\\ Jones, 111 (76060) neys/ for Pulasky County chool Di ct 13 On CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE April . 1994, a copy of the foregoing was served on: Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell \u0026amp; Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 G:ac31083.030 14 M. S. luel Jones, II ADDENDUMFILED U.S, OtSTRCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS SEP 2 7 b'95 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CAaRrLl Rr.. BbRrI^T\nT^S,. CcLiERh EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION By. 6/ OcP.Ct LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS 2BCB By Order dated July 1, 1993, this Court granted the parties' request for an extension of ninety days in which to attempt to reach a consensus on a site for the new Stephens Interdistrict School [doc.#1878]. The Court further ordered the parties to submit an alternative site proposal for the new Stephens Interdistrict School by September 15, 1993, if they were unable to reach a consensus. Unfortunately, the parties have not been able to reach a consensus. The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), pursuant to a recommendation of the Stephens Site Selection Committee and subsequent approval by the LRSD Board of Directors, recommends that the new Stephens Interdistrict School be built in the immediate vicinity of the old Stephens school. The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") and the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") both object to the LRSD's recommendation.* Neither the Joshua Intervenors nor the Knight * The LRSD contends that the recommendation of the Stephens Site Selection Committee, as approved by the Board of Directon of the LRSD, constitutes s consensus of the represcntAbvei of the parties. Considering the pleadings filed by the PCSSD and the NLRSD regarding the new Stephens Interdistrict School, the Court does not consider the Coomittee's recommendation u constituting a consensus. Intervenors have responded, and the parties have failed to submit an alternative proposal on site for the new Stephens a Interdistrict School. Having carefully considered the matter, the Court hereby rejects the old Stephens school site as the location for the new Stephens Interdistrict School. Both the LRSD and Interdistrict desegregation plans, to which all parties agreed, anticipate that a new Stephens Interdistrict School will be built at a new site and that the old school will be closed: It is proposed that the District relocate Stephens Elementary near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue. (Emphasis added.) LRSD Desegregation Plan, at 139. LRSD will build a new Stephens Interdistrict School ... located near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue ... The old Stephens school building will then be closed. Desegregation Plan, at 10. (Emphasis added.) Interdistrict Constructing the new Stephens Interdistrict School at the site of the old Stephens School will not further the goals of the desegregation plans. The Court recognizes that the plans say Stephens will be built \"near the 1-630 corridor,\" and that there is no set definition of what that phrase means. Although PCSSD has stated previously in Court and in filings that \"near the 1-630 corridor\" means within \"eye-shot\" of the interstate highway, there is no plan provision or other record that defines the geographic boundary that specifically. In any event, the plans clearly envision that the Stephens Interdistrict School be near 1-630. The current site of -2-the Stephens school is farther from 1-630 than any of the other proposed sites that lie between 1-30 and University Avenue. In addition, the Court stresses that the success of the desegregation plans depends greatly upon voluntary interdistrict desegregation. The primary purpose of the interdistrict schools is to promote voluntary movement between the school districts to achiave desegregation and fulfill the plan commitments. Interdistrict schools must be given every chance for success by assuring that each school is as appealing as possible by virtue of such important variables as academic programs, location, accessibility, staff, facility and grounds, and safety. Because the PCSSD will bear the burden of recruiting white PCSSD students to Stephens (indeed, almost half the entire student body), PCSSD must be satisfied with the site chosen for the new Stephens Interdistrict School. Likewise, the NLRSD, while not presently to send students to the new Interdistrict school by virtue of the current racial makeup of the NLRSD's student population, is a party to the case and. as such, is committed to the plan's success, is responsible for helping to uphold the provisions of the agreements, and may eventually be able to send students to the new interdistrict school. NLRSD's objections therefore may not be dismissed. Because the plans clearly envision that the Stephens Interdistrict School be rebuilt near 1-630, and in light of the objections filed by the PCSSD and the NLRSD, locating the Stephens Interdistrict School at the site of the old Stephens school would 3-constitute a disputed modification of the plan. The Court finds that locating the stephens Interdistrict School at the current Stephens school site would not satisfy the standard for reviewing disputed modifications as set forth by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Appeal of Little Rock School District, supra, 949 F.2d 253. There, the Court stated: To modify [a) consent decree[], the court need only identify a defect or deficiency in its original decree which impedes achieving its goal, either because experience has proven it less effective [or] disadvantageous, or because circumstances and conditions either effective have changed which warrant fine-tuning the decree, modification will be upheld if it furthers the original purpose of the decree in a more efficient way, without upsetting the basic agreement of the parties. A Id. at 258, quoting vith approval Heath v. De Courcy, 888 F.2d 1105, 1110 (6th Cir. 1989). Here, the Court does not find a defect or deficiency in the plan which impedes the goals set forth therein, either because experience has proven it less effective or disadvantageous, or because circumstances and conditions have changed which warrant 11 fine-tuning\" the plan. The Court praises the work of the site selection committee for their efforts. and commends the Stephens community for their in the site selection process, for their interest in preserving and improving their neighborhood, and for supporting 2 Had there been a eonsenstu, the Court arguably could apply a leas itringent standard of review than that requited for disputed modiCcations. However, because the parties have been unable to reach a consensus, the Court need not address that iuue. -4-their neighborhood school. The Coxirt acknowledges the importance of community input, and has stressed that importance on many occasions, but points out that the purpose of the new interdistrict school is to promote interdistrict desegregation, not to help stabilize a neighborhood. While neighborhood preservation is certainly desirable and may be a worthy goal that can be fostered by a new school, it is not the primary goal that interdistrict schools are designed to achieve. In its July 1, 1993 Order, the Court directed the parties to submit alternative site proposals for the new Stephens Interdistrict School by September 15, 1993 if they were unable to reach a consensus, and set a hearing date of 30, 1993. Because the parties have not submitted an alternative proposal as ordered. the hearing scheduled for September 30, 1993, is cancelled. The parties are hereby given until and including October 15, 1993, in which to reach a consensus on an alternative site for the Stephens Interdistrict School. The LRSD may not leave the old Stephens school building permanently vacant, but either must find a use for the building that benefits the community or ultimately demolish the facility if no community service can be found for it. The Court requires the LRSD to report to the ODM its plans for the building's use. IT IS so ORDERED this _7^ay of September 1993. ___________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -5- ~'S DOCUME\u0026gt;r ,vr ?s?SO ON DOCKET SHEET IN jLE 58 AND/OR 73(a) FRCPFILED S.3-\"-CCCC\" i-x/a'SAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN 2 3 1993 JAFL R. 3REi'j  S LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ^?laintieW\" V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS 1. MOTION TO RESCHEDULE CONSTRUCTION OF STEPHENS INTERDISTRTCT SCHOOL motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: In their original settlement agreement. the parties agreed that two new interdistrict schools would be constructed in LRSD and that the second school would be constructed two years after the first school \"or as soon as reasonably practicable\". J.D.R. 01731-34. The first interdistrict school. then called SK Stephens Elementary School, was to have been \"ready by the 1990-91 school year or as soon as reasonably practicable\". J.D.R. 1731-32. The second interdistrict school, then called King Elementary School, was supposed to have been constructed \"by the 1992-93 school year or as soon as reasonably practicable\". J.D.R. 1733-34. The Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, which required that the second interdistrict school be constructed two years following the first interdistrict school tt or as soon as reasonably practicable\" was approved by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. LRSD V. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (Sth Cir. 1990). Ad. 6 8 6 0 2. The Interdistrict Desegregation Plan district approved by the court on May 1, 1992 requires that both Stephens Interdistrict School and King Interdistrict School be constructed by \"a date approved by the Court\". Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, pp. 10, 11. In their May 1, 1991 submission to the district court. the parties proposed that King Interdistrict School be constructed in time for the 1993-94 school year and that Stephens Interdistrict School be constructed in time for the 1994-95 school year. Mr. Bowles has testified on behalf of PCSSD that he believes that sufficient PCSSD white students can be recruited to King Interdistrict School in order to make that school desegregation success, but that he is unsure about how many years it will take before that happens. The court has directed PCSSD to 3. a prepare a recruitment plan for King Interdistrict 4. School. The recruitment of PCSSD students to Romine Interdistrict School has not yet been successful. The court has heard testimony that only eight PCSSD students attended Romine Interdistrict School during the 1992-93 school year. 5. The plan to desegregate the interdistrict schools located in LRSD depends upon the recruitment of PCSSD white students. In the absence of a reasonable likelihood that sufficient PCSSD students can be recruited to Stephens Interdistrict School in accordance with the desegregation plans agreed upon by the parties. the parties would either have to devise new plan for the a integration of the proposed Stephens Interdistrict School or face Ad. 7the prospect of constructing the school which could identifiable. remain racially 6. PCSSD has expressed concern about whether it can successfully recruit PCSSD students to Stephens Interdistrict School and has raised the issue of whether the construction of Stephens Interdistrict School should be rescheduled. Brief of PCSSD for Hearing Scheduled j\nune 8 , 1993 . Although PCSSD did not specifically address the problem of simultaneous recruitment for both Stephens and King, the recruitment issue should be resolved and a recruitment plan should be established before LRSD is required to invest millions of dollars in the construction of Stephens Interdistrict School. 7. The desegregation plans require that King and Stephens be constructed in generally the same area of the city of Little Rock. Until King is established as successful, desegregated interdistrict school, it will be difficult to recruit PCSSD students to Stephens. Moreover, any successful recruitment of a PCSSD students to Stephens could delay the desegregation of King. It makes better sense to firmly establish the first LRSD interdistrict school before placing in competition with it. a second interdistrict school 8. The prospects for successfully establishing two new interdistrict schools in LRSD will be better if the original idea of establishing the second school two years following the first 1) or as soon as reasonably practicable\" is reinstated. The practicability of building the second interdistrict school should Ad. 8depend upon the degree to which the other interdistrict schools in LRSD are desegregated. Stephens Interdist'rict School should be constructed when King Interdistrict School achieves the racial balance contemplated by the desegregation plan or when there exists some other evidence that sufficient PCSSD both Stephens and King can be recruited. students to desegregate WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that the \"date approved by the Court\" for the construction of Stephens Interdistrict School in accordance with the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan be established as August, 1995 or as soon as reasonably practicable and that the parties be required to revisit the issue of practicability as soon as the results of the recruitment of PCSSD students to King Interdistrict School for the 1993-94 school year become known. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By Christopher Heller \u0026lt; Bar No. 81083 Ad. 9____ /  EDWARD L WRICHT 9O3-I9T7' ROBERT S LiNOSE* 93 I99\u0026gt; RQNAuO a may SAAC A SCOTT WRIGHT. LINDSEY -rlyer e m.y ATTORNEYS AT lIW I tRN DISTRICT ARKANS.4fi\n\" -------- \"l.TER E MAY .AMES M A JOHN G L GORDON S -e .R RR* L maTwewS CaviO m pOwCLl ROGER A GLASGOW C DOUGLAS BUFORD wR PATRICK J GOSS ALSTON ..ENNiNGS -R .,0HN R TISOAUE kathltn GRAVES M SAMUEL .ONES III .OhN WILLIAM SRIVEV KI uEC J MULDROW WENDELL L GRIFFEN N M NORTON JR EDGAR J TYLER CHARLES C PRICE CHARLES T COLEMAN JAMES J GLOVER EDWIN L LOWTHER jR BEVERLY BASSETT SCHAFFER CHARLES L SCHLUMeERGER SAMMYE L TAYLOR Re: 2200 WORTHEN SANK SUILDING 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE i little rock. ARKANSAS 72201-3699 JUN a 7 1993 - \u0026lt;Er :gov t joncs MOBBISON \"HOMAS C COUR'WAV 9ETT:ha z BROwnstE'N WALTER McSPACOEN ROGER 0 ROWE (501) 371-1 Z\\a M nancy SELlhOUSE oa^RL R. BRENTS, CLERl^~?=v^\" r30 376 94. aS/-- OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS GEORGE E LUSK jR June 7, 1993 LRSD V. PCSSD Exhibit List for June 8, 1993 Hearing The Honorable Susan Webber Wright U.S. District Court Judge U.S. District Courthouse Little Rock, Arkansas 77201 Dear Judge Wright: WAV lOV SIMMONS MCNffV DE?. JtfARK u PRYOR CLEA I?*'  J\" VI.C.-l\u0026gt;k,AI\u0026gt;RY S MUBR tlckcr lARRY S HUBST Ov A RR'Ce JR TRlClA SIEVERS LEWALLEN JAMES M MOODY JB KATHBYN t. PRYOR J MARK DAVIS KEVIN W KENNEDY KAREN J GARNETT M TODO WOOD R GREGORY ACLIN FRED M PERKINS III WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL O BARNES STEPHEN R LANCASTER The only PCSSD exhibits of which I am aware consist of two letters written during the last year which evidenced the PCSSD's concerns regarding locating the new Stephens Elementary School at the old Stephens Elementary School site. One of the letters was written by Mr. Bowles to the Little Rock School District. The second was a letter to Chris Heller from me which also expressed this concern. We will bring multiple copies of these two letters to the hearing tomorrow. Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS Jones III tB*i dasoN I MSJ:drl cc: All Counsel Office of Desegregation Monitoring J:drll073.030 Ad. 10 PCSSl March 9, 1993 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 1500 Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock. Arkansas 72216 (501) 490-2000 Dr. Mac Bernd Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Bernd: As you know, the Site Selection Committee formed to evaluate sites for construction of the new Stephens Elementary Interdistrict School has voted to recommend the old Stephen's site. When this was discussed as one of the options, PCSSD went on record at that hearing as having serious reservations concerning that site, particularly regarding student access and PCSSD's ability to recruit the necessary number of white students for a new school at that location. Unfortunately, nothing has occurred since that hearing which modifies our concerns. We trust our concerns will be expressed to your Board when they review the Site Selection Committee's recommendation. I recommend you seek Federal Court approval for Stephens and King elementary schools to be listed as interdistrict magnets. In my opinion, this would be excellent for recruitment purposes. Thank you very much. Sincerely Billy u. Bowles Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation ch c Mr. Bobby Lester Mr. Sam Jones Mrs. Ann Brown Ms. Marie Parker Ad. 11EDWARD L WRIGHT '1903 19771 ROBERT 9 LINDSEY . 19 AONAL SAAC - WRIGHT. LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS ATTORNEYS AT UAW AMCS M JOHN G Lite jOV GOFOON S AATK.es JR. ERA* u MAThCwS OAViO M AOWCUU AOGEA A GLASGOW C DOUGLASSUFOAO JA  ATAlCA J GOSS ALSTON .eSNiNGS .\nA jOMN TISOALt aatmlvn CAavcs M SAMUEL .ONES III JOHN wiLL:am SAIVET \u0026gt;li LEE J MULOAOW WENDELL L GAtFFEN N M NOA7ON jA EDGAA J TVLEA CHAALES C AAlOE CKAALES T COLEMAN .AMES J GLOVEA EDWIN L LOWTHEA jA BEVEALY BASSETT SCHAFFER Charles l Schlumberger 2200 WORTMEN BANK BUIUOING 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 722013699 (501) 371-0808 FAX iSOn 378 9442 OF COUNSCL ALSTON GCOWQt t UUSK jif March 25, 1993 SAMMVf u avlOA aaltEA  MAy ANNA MiRAt Gibson Gregory t .,cnes M XEITW MOAA'SON NOMAS C COUATWA* BETTINA E BROWNSTEN WALTER MeSAAOOEN 0 AOWE nancy bellhouse may NATE COULTER JOHN O OAVlS JUDY Simmons henry ombeRly wood tucker MARK L RRYOA F COX jR HARRY S hurst JR TROY A RRtCE RATRiciA SIEVERS LEWALLEN JAMES M MOODY JR KATHRYN A J MARK DAVIS tamwcra Rankin harrclson KEVIN W KENNEDY KAREN J GARNETT M TODO wood  GREGORY ACLIN FRED M REAKINS UI WILLIAM STUAAT JACKSON Re: LRSD V. PCSSD r Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge fc Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 L Dear Chris: It is my understanding that your District Site Selection Committee will recommend to the LRSD Board of Directors that the old Stephens Elementary School site be construction of the new Stephens Interdistrict Elementary School. I wanted to reiterate that the PCSSD continues to have grave concerns regarding thia site, primarily associated with the PCSSD's belief that recruitment of white that school would be most difficult. tonight approved for PCSSD students to Further, the District does not believe that this site literally comports with the 1-630 corridor concept, x:_____L___ to understand how a school site this remote from Interstate could be regarded as within that corridor. We are hard-pressed 630 While I understand that any action your board takes this evening will be subject to review by the parties to the school desegregation case and cannot become final until submitted the court, we thought it appropriate to remind LRSD of the District's concerns in this matter. to Ad. 12WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS istopher 5, 1993 . Mr. Marc Page 2 Heller Thank you very much. Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS --M. Sa: el Jones III MSJ:drl 54981 (iC. Ad. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT plaintiffs VS NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT POSITION REGARDING STEPHENS INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL 1. The PCSSD reaffirms the position it has previously taken regarding the siting of this school, which positions have been made in writing and stated on the record in recent hearings. 2. The PCSSD continues o believe that, as a matter of 3\nlaw, the Stephens School must be relocated to comport with the provisions of the desegregation plans approved by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. PCSSD believes that to justify retention of the present Stephens site reguires showing of substantially changed circumstances as reguired by a Rufo V. Inmates of The Suffolk County Jail 90-954, slip of. (U.S. January 15, 1992) (please see legal discussion of Rufo in PCSSD brief filed February 6, 1992). To date, PCSSD contends that no such showing has been made and it is unaware of any facts which would support such a showing. 3. The PCSSD continues to believe that retention of the present site will not promote voluntary recruiting to the school Ad. 14and that, as a result, prospects for assembling a desegregated student body are diminished and that revenues generated by M to M transfers will not be maximized. 4. The PCSSD is prepared to address these issues further should a hearing be required on this issue. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By. M^S*nuel VTones, (76060) attorneys Ifor Pula^i County /Special S/hool Dirict luel rict Ad. 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. FFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 S. -v?o PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT POSITION REGARDING STEPHENS INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL 1. The North Little Rock School District endorses the position previously taken by the Pulaski County Special School District opposing the location of the Stephens Interdistrict School at the current location of the Stephens School in Little Rock. i 2. The NLRSD concurs with the PCSSD that, as a matter of law. the current Stephens School site does not comply with the provisions of the desegregation plans in that it lies outside the 1-630 corridor described in the plana. 3. Likewise, the NLRSD agrees that the current Stephens location will not be conducive to the voluntary recruitment of students from the PCSSD. 4. The position of the NLRSD is, and has been, that the recruitment of PCSSD students to the Stephens Interdistrict School xs a condition precedent to the consideration of any other site selection factor. Unfortunately, this does not appear to have occurred. Ad. 16 SEP i 7 13935. As the attached letter of September 7, 1993 reflects, there were several alternative sites which would have been acceptable to the North Little Rock School District but on information and belief none of these locations was chosen. Respectfully Submitted, JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 TOBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (50JU 375-1122 47 S?-. September 16, 1993 By\nSt^hen W. J^es #78083 Ad. 17! EOWARO L WR'GHT 903 1977) ROBERT S LiNOSE* I9I3-I99I) RONALD A MAY SAAC A SCOTT JAMES M MOODY .OKN G uiLE GORDON S RATHER jR ERRV L MATHEWS CAV'D M POWELL ROGER A GLASGOW C DOUGLAS aurORO jR PATRICK J GOSS ALSTON jENNINGS jR ..OHN R TISOALE KATHLYN graves M SAMUEL JONES \u0026gt;11 wOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY III LEE J MULDROW WENDELL L GRIFFEN N M NORTON jR EDGAR J TYLER CHARLES C PRICE Charles t coleman JAMES J GLOVER EDWIN L LOWTHER JR BEVERLY BASSETT SCHAFFER CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER SAMMYE L. TAYLOR WRIGHT. LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2200 WORTHEN BANK BUILDING 200 WEST CAPITOL avenue LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 PAX (501) 378-9442 or COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS GEORGE  LUSK. jR October 15, 1993 t WALTER E MAY ANNA MIRAI Gibson GREGORY T jONES H KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E BROWNSTE'N - WALTER McSPAOOEN ROGER O ROWE nancy BELLHOUSE MAY jOhn 0 DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER MARK L, PRYOR f COX jR HARRY S hurst JR TROY A PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS LEWALLEN JAMES M MOODY JR KATHRYN A PRYOR J MARK DAVIS KEVIN W KENNEDY KAREN J. GARNETT M TODO WOOD R GREGORY ACLIN FRED M PERKINS (I WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 BARNES STEPHEN R LANCASTER FRED ANDREW WOOD JUDY M ROBINSON Re: Stephens Interdistrict School Site The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas P.O. Box 3316 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Dear Judge Wright: The PCSSD prefers the following locations for the construction of Stephens Interdistrict Elementary School in the order shown below: 1. The Freeway Medical Towers site expanded to the east to Fairpark Boulevard. 2. The University Park site bounded by Rodney Parham to the west and the freeway to the north. 3. The Monarch Mill site. 4. The site behind Ricks Armory on the fringe of the UAMS campus. 5. The old Lee site which the PCSSD does not believe actually qualifies. Ad. 18 y^OSEY S JENNINGS Honorable Susan Webber Wright October 15, 1993 Page 2 we understand that the LRSD is seeking an additional 30 day Iio am/4 __1. . . gytpncinn ___ .--- an aaaizionai 30 dav tSr^eSeH!   \" objecnon to Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS \u0026lt; Samui Jones, III cc: Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Stephen Jones Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Richard Roachell Ms. Ann Brown MSJ:jdt j:lul30.Q30 Ad. 19 JACK. I VOX \u0026amp; Jones. ? ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3400 TCSY TOWER 42S WEST CAPITOL AVE.NUE LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3472 a- ?0 1)375-1 122 TELECOPIER (501) 375-1027 OMea  11 Muse J.'c e Souff NasnviM* J\u0026lt;*2C3 61*. 2! e'ecocie' o'\n3-i66* 5. 2S9-46M October 15, 1993 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge Eastern District of Arkansas P.O. Box 3316 Little Rock, AR 72203 RE: NLRSD V. PCSSD - Alternative Stephens School Location Dear Judge Wright: In response to your Order of September 27, 1993, the North Little Rock School District would propose the following alternative sites for the location of the Stephens Interdistrict Elementary School in the order presented: 1. The Arkansas Health Department site located north of Ricks Armory and east of the University of Arkansas Medical Center. 2. The site located south of 1-630 and north of 10th Street in the general area of the Freeway Medical - Tower. 3. The Hughes Street site located south of 1-630, north of 12th Street, east of Rodney Parham and west of Hughes Street. 4. The site of the former Monarch Mill. As a preliminary matter, however, we would suggest that it would be appropriate to reconsider whether a new interdistrict school should be built in light of the recent loss of students in the school districts. It may well be that circumstances have changed to such an extent that a new interdistrict school would be ill-advised at this time. As a result. it may be that the construction of such a school should be deleted from the Plan, or, alternatively, delayed for some period of time. Additionally, we would also suggest that it might be appropriate to build a new Stephens School on its current site to replace the present Stephens and Garland schools but to not designate that school as a interdistrict school. that the Desegregation Plan does require We would note the upgrading of facilities at incentive school sites\nthus, such a construction effort would be consistent with that aspect of the Plan. While this would require a Plan modification, it is a possibility that the parties might consider. Ad. 20  Jack. Lyon \u0026amp; Jones. ?,a. Honorable Susan Webber Wright October 15, 1993 Page 2 We have been advised by counsel for the Little HQVC ijeen aavisec Dy counsel for Little Rock School seek an extension of time in which the oarties could further explore reaching ----- School issue.  an extension. _ consensus regarding the Stephens The North Little Rock School District supports such SWJ/tr cc: Mr. James Smith All Counsel of Record Ms. Ann Brown Very truly yours, 60 Stephen W. Jones Ad. 21Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, p..a. ATTORNEYS AT LAW. 3400 TOBY TOWER 425 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3472 (501) 375-1 122 TELECOPIER (501) 375-1027 Nashville Office \u0026lt;11 Music Circle South Nashville. Tennessee 37203 (615) 259-4664 Telecopier (615) 259-4668 April 19, 1994 received APR 2 0 1994 Mr. Michael Gans, Clerk United States Court and Custom House 1114 Market Street St. Louis, MO 63101 Office of Desegregation Monitoring RE\nLittle Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, No. 93-3592 Dear Michael: This letter is to advise the Court that it was the intention of the North Little Rock School District to join in the Brief for Appellee, Pulaski County Special School District. The PCSSD, in the Summary and Request for Oral Argument, does reflect that the NLRSD joins with it in presenting the position of Appellees. However, I wanted to ensure that the Court understood that the NLRSD joined PCSSD with respect to its entire Brief and not solely with respect to its position on oral argument. Your attention to this matter is very much appreciated. Very truly yours. Stephen W. Jones SWJ:le cc: Christopher Heller John Walker M. Samuel Jones III Richard Roachell Ann Brown Elizabeth Boyter\u0026gt; '/ -9 sr? V - NO. JAN s. .-994 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT 93-3592 OifiC3 of Dasegrsgaiicn fvlonitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CTY. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK \u0026gt;i ' /acij SCHOOL DIST. NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE SECOND MOTION FOR APPELLANTS FOR EXTENSION OP TIME TO FILE THEIR BRIEFS The Appellants Dale Charles, et al., and the Joshua Intervenors, for their Motion for an Extension of Time to File Their Briefs, stated that: 1. The Appellants' Briefs in the above referenced consolidated appeals are due on January 27, 1994 . 2. Due to the press of business in counsels' office. an additional extension of time of two weeks is necessary in which to file the briefs for the Appellants. WHEREFORE, Appellants Dale Charles and the Joshua Intervenors request an extension of time to and through February 10, Respectfully submitted. 1994.I \\ I c^- David Schoen DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 120 West Spring Fayetteville, AR (501) 444-6200 72702 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this _Y_ day of January, 1994. Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, 3400 Capitol Towers P.A. Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 / ( / \\. David Schoenr 2 2 1994 i\nCuica o: \u0026gt;^1 n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSASrlvi: WESTERN DIVISION ' 2 G 1594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 'A?. 5 ' 'PLfflNTIFF Ev: V. :Ri\u0026lt; LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF DESEGREGATION PLAN For its motion, plaintiff. Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. The LRSD and Interdistrict Desegregation Plans require the establishment within LRSD of three interdistrict schools Romine, King and Stephens. The plans require that two of those schools. King and Stephens, be located in the downtown Little Rock area. Romine and King schools have been established as interdistrict schools. 2. Since the parties agreed that LRSD would establish the King and Stephens Interdistrict Schools in the downtown Little Rock area. there have been significant changes in factual conditions which warrant modification of that agreement. First, Washington Elementary School, which the parties agreed would be an incentive school. presently operates as an interdistrict school in the downtown Little Rock area. Second, there has been a significant movement of population out of the area in which the parties plannedto locate interdistrict schools. The schools in that area are experiencing low enrollment. There are many empty seats, including seats at the King and Washington Interdistrict Schools. 3. The modification of the desegregation plans which is most suitably tailored to the changed circumstances is to recognize Washington in place of Stephens as the second required interdistrict school in the downtown Little Rock area. This modification is in compliance with the standards for modification of consent decrees set out in Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. ___, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992) and Appeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253, 258 (8th Cir. 1991). WHEREFORE, for the reasons set out above and in the accompanying brief, LRSD prays for modification of the LRSD and Interdistrict Desegregation Plans to recognize Washington as the second required interdistrict school in the downtown Little Rock area and to delete the requirement that LRSD construct a new Stephens Interdistrict School. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 B' Christopher He Bar No. 81083 er 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion For Modification of Desegregation Plan has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 20th day of April, 1994. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Christopher Hellec**^ 3 1. 2. 3. 4. LitUe Rock School Dislricl Stephens School Relocation Timeline Task File motion with Court to relocate students from Stephens School File revisions to current filings relating to Stephens which are before the courts________________________________________________________ Business Case presented to the LRSD Board of Directors \u0026amp; approved Contact the principals of surrounding schools who may be affected 5. Develop a list of key people in the community who should be contacted 6. Notify finance person to include this as a budget reduction strategy 7. Inventory building____________________________________________ 8. Hold public meeting with Stephens community 9. Plan and schedule second public meeting with the Stephens community 10. Develop notice of relocation and date of community information meeting for a) community groups and churches\nb) media c) door-to-door delivery in the neighborhood_________________________ 11. Develop letter to parents and students with announcement of relocation and choices asking for a response by a deadline. Deadline must be after community meeting on June 21._________________________________ 12. Make contact with key people in the community who should be contacted immediately and solicit support for getting people to community information meetings. Include PTA president and ministers.____________________ 13. Design follow-up plan for students who do not choose a school. (D/scuss with Sterling Ingram)____________________________________ 14. Conduct informational meeting with the principal, faculty, and staff________ 15. Compile mailing labels of all students scheduled to attend Stephen School for 1994-95.__________________________________________________ 16. Court approval granted________________________________________ 17. Mail notice of relocation and date of community information meeting to: a) community groups and churches\nb) Media___________________________________________________ 18. Mail letter to parents and students with announcement and choices asking for a response by a deadline. Deadline must be after community meeting of June 21. Include invite to community information meeting at Stephens School to answer questions about choices and the relocation. ____________ 19. Deliver fliers, door-to-door, announcing relocation and information meeting 20. Implement follow-up plan for students who do not respond to request for their choice of school_______________________________ 21. Mail assignment notices _______________________________ 22. Mail letter to parents and students (who have not responded to the first letter) with announcement and choices asking for a response with a deadline._______________________________________ 23. Remove materials and equipment from school 24. Reroute transportation of students 25. Secure building ___________________________________ 26. Reassign staff 27. Mail assignment notices to those responding late * Date 5/18/94 5/18/94 5/26/94 5/27/94 5/27/94 5/27/94 5/30/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/7/94 6/13/94* 6/13/94* 6/16/94* 7/6/94 7/15/94* 7/15/94* 7/31/94 7/31/94 7/31/94 7/31/94 8/1/94 Deadline is absolute. Timely notice is required because of promises made in court. Person Williams Williams Williams Ingram Modeste Williams Neal Modeste Wagner Wagner Wiedower Modeste Wiedower Modeste, Mayo Lee Williams Wagner Lee Wagner Ingram Lee Lee Neal Montgomery Eaton Hurley Lee r1 iiaa a \nIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS No. 93-3592 NO. 93-3469 NO. 93-3594 FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APR 2 0 1994 Offico of Ocsegri UCil iVr 'J LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LORENE JOSHUA Appeals From The United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge BRIEF FOR APPELLEE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT IN NOS. 93-3469 AND 93-3594 Christopher Heller John Clayburn Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 37602911 Attorneys for Little Rock School DistrictTable of Contents Statement Of The Case 1 I. The Voting Rights Act Issue 1 II. The Desegregation Plan Modification Issue 3 Summary Of Argument 11 Argument 13 I. The District Court's Finding That The Charles Plaintiffs Failed To Establish A Violation Of The Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1973, Is Not Clearly Erroneous And Should Be Affirmed ............................................... 13 II. The District Court Properly Approved The Closing Of Ish School And The Assignment Of Ish Students To The New And Integrated King Interdistrict School 38 Conclusion 50 1STATEMEKT OF THE CASE I. THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT ISSUE. A. Previous LRSD Election Zones. The district court approved seven single-member zones for the election of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") Board of Directors on December 18, 1986. Appellant's App. p. 50. Before that time, LRSD board members were elected in at-large elections. Arkansas law requires, however, that school districts with student populations in excess of 24,000 elect board members from single- member zones. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-607 (Michie 1991). Pursuant to previous orders of this Court and the district court. LRSD annexed territory of the Pulaski County Special School District which increased LRSD's student population above 24,000 and was required by state law to establish single-member zones. The LRSD zone plan approved by the district court had the following populations and racial compositions according to the 1980 census: Zone 1 - 25,399 total population\n81.50% black\nZone 2 - 25,295 total population\n68.90% black\nZone 3 - 25,210 total population\n7.83% black\nZone 4 - 24,844 total population\n2.96% black\nZone 5 - 25,016 total population\n18.30 black\nZone 6 - 25,107 total population\n17.30% black\nZone 7 - 25,043 total population\n14.10% black. 1The district court found that the zone plan \"comports with the one- man one-vote principle required by the Constitution . . . [and is] in compliance with the mandate of Amended  2 of the Voting Rights Act (codified as 42 U.S.C.  1973) and does not abridge or deny the right of minorities to vote.\" Appellant's App., p. 50-51. The district court's December 18, 1986, order approving the LRSD zone plan was not appealed. The Charles Plaintiffs, as members of the class represented by the Joshua Intervenors, were parties to the case when the zones were established. LRSD App., p. 1. In fact, Mr. Charles was substituted as a named plaintiff when he became president of the Little Rock Chapter of the NAACP. LRSD B. The PCBE Plan. App., p. 4 . The Pulaski County Board of Education (\"PCBE\") plan for LRSD election zones was prepared by Metroplan, a non-profit corporation whose members are local governmental entities in the central Arkansas area. LRSD App., p. 41. Metroplan was asked to determine whether the previous LRSD election zones were out of compliance with the \"one-man. one-vote\" principle according to 1990 census data and, if so, to prepare alternative proposals for rezoning LRSD in compliance with federal law. LRSD App., p. 42. Jim McKenzie, the Executive Director of Metroplan, was primarily responsible for preparing the proposals. LRSD App., pp. 76-77. Before preparation of alternative proposals for submission to PCBE, Mr. McKenzie contacted Jim Lynch, who became the Charles Plaintiffs' expert in this case, concerning criteria which should 2be considered in preparing election zones. Lynch provided McKenzie a written list of five criteria: (1) adhere to the one-man, one- vote doctrine\n(2) avoid diluting minority political expression\n(3) districts ought to be compact and contiguous\n(4) district boundaries should be recognizable\nand, (5) use existing political boundaries. LRSD App., pp. 9, 76-77. McKenzie followed Lynch's criteria in developing four alternative proposals for rezoning the Little Rock School District. LRSD App., pp. 77-80. McKenzie was aware of the December 18, 1986, order stating that the previous LRSD election zones were in compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. LRSD App., p. 40. II. THE DESEGREGATION PLAN MODIFICATION ISSUE The parties to this case are in the process of implementing desegregation plans agreed upon in 1989 and approved by this Court in 1990.* The Interdistrict and LRSD Desegregation Plans call for eight racially isolated incentive schools but do not require that each incentive school must remain open in perpetuity. Instead, a purpose of those plans is to move LRSD black students from racially isolated incentive schools to racially balanced interdistrict schools: There are four desegregation plans, district and an Interdistrict Plan. one for each school The plans were modified in For a history of the development of the desegregation plans and the 1989 settlement agreement, see Little Rock School District 1991. V. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) and Appeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1991). 3\"As new interdistrict schools are established those seats attributable to LRSD will be available for those students who otherwise would or could have been assigned to incentive school . . an It LRSD App., p. 331. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. The planned effort to move students from racially isolated incentive schools to racially balanced interdistrict schools is illustrated by the parties' agreement about Stephens school. Stephens is one of the eight incentive schools established under the 1989 plans. LRSD App., pp. 331, 334 . Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 4\nLRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 148. The plans require the parties to quickly convert Stephens from an incentive school to an interdistrict school and to close \"[t]he old Stephens school building.\" LRSD App., pp. 332, 334. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 10\nLRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 148. Washington Elementary School provides another example of the transition from racially isolated incentive schools to racially balanced interdistrict schools. The 1989 desegregation plans list 4 . Washington among the eight incentive schools. (8 J.D.R. 1722\n10 J.D.R. 2288), but the parties later agreed that Washington would become an Interdistrict Magnet School.^ 2 The district court rejected the settlement plans on June 27, 1989 and, during the pendency of the appeals of that order, approved a substitute plan known as the Tri-District Plan (Docket The Tri-District Plan was implemented for the 1990-91 #1328). school year, and Washington operated under that plan as a racially balanced interdistrict magnet school. Following this Court's approval of the 1989 settlement plans, the parties agreed that Washington should continue to operate interdistrict magnet school rather that resume operation as racially isolated incentive school. - - as racially balanced Docket #1434. a a 4The plans and agreements of the parties to date will reduce the number of incentive schools from eight to six by moving incentive school students to racially balanced interdistrict schools. The assignment of Ish attendance zone students to King Interdistrict School is the first movement of students from a segregated to an integrated school which has been opposed by any party. LRSD committed to build a new King Interdistrict School \"in downtown Little Rock ... in the general area along 1-630 between 1-30 and University LRSD App., P- LRSD Avenue.\" 334. Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 148. That area is populated primarily by students who are enrolled or are entitled to be enrolled in an incentive school. The specific site within that area was approved by the district court on March 17, 1992 (LRSD App. , p. 227. Docket #1576) and no appeal was taken from that order. Each LRSD school. including each incentive school. has an attendance zone. LRSD App., pp. 310-313. The zone established for each new elementary school required by the desegregation plans must be superimposed upon the existing zone plan and will necessarily counsel for the Joshua Intervenors told the district court: \"I'm suggesting that integration by itself is just unacceptable to black people at this time. It has to be something that is much more substantive than merely being in the same environment with white students.\" LRSD App., p. 292. 5usurp some or all of the attendance zone of one or more of the existing elementary schools. LRSD hired Dr. Leonard Thalmueller to design an attendance zone for King Interdistrict School. LRSD App. , p. 301. Dr. Thalmueller is a former employee of LRSD who has been involved in the preparation of LRSD attendance zones for seventeen years (LRSD App., p. 301) and who prepared the attendance zones for the 1989 LRSD Desegregation Plan. (LRSD App., p. 283). In drawing the King attendance zone, Thalmueller engaged in an effort \"to minimize the impact of the attendance zone on other students in the district. try to keep the domino effect down to the smallest possible factor . . [and] to reduce busing to whatever extent we could\". LRSD App., p. 303. Thalmueller also tried to draw the King zones so that students whose assignments were changed as a result of the establishment of that zone would not have to endure a second change of assignment when zones were later established for the Stephens Interdistrict School. LRSD App., p. 303. Thalmueller prepared three plans. reviewed them with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and presented them to LRSD. LRSD App., pp. 303-304. In the plan adopted by the LRSD Board of Education, Dr. Thalmueller placed the entire Ish zone, consisting of six zone blocks, in the King attendance zone. LRSD App., pp. 335-336. The only schools whose attendance zones were changed by the Thalmueller plan are Ish, Jefferson, Rightsell and Washington. LRSD App., pp. 335, 336. 6One hundred eighty-three students were enrolled at Ish for the 1992-93 school year. Ninety of those students were from outside the Ish attendance zone. LRSD App., p. 3 08. There were 229 students in the Ish attendance zone. June 8, 1993 LRSD App., p. 307. Only 93 of those students attended Ish school. LRSD App., p. 307. The others attended schools throughout LRSD. Dr. Thalmueller and LRSD Associate Superintendent Marie Parker prepared a report on the impact of the King attendance zone (LRSD App., p. 321) which was presented to the LRSD board, shared with all counsel on March 12, 1993 (LRSD App., p. 325) and presented to the District Court on June 8, 1993. The report describes the following impact upon Ish: \"Ish will remain open unless fewer than one hundred students choose Ish, in which case all Ish students will be assigned to King, and Little Rock School District will work with the Ish community to determine an appropriate use for the Ish building.\" LRSD App., p. 321. Four community meetings, including one at Ish school. were held in March, April and May 1993 \"to gather information from prospective parents and patrons to be used in consideration of attendance zones and theme selection for Martin Luther King, Jr. school\". LRSD App., p. 337. Surveys were mailed to all families affected by the location of the proposed attendance zone. LRSD App., p. 320. The King attendance zone was approved by the LRSD Board of Directors on April 22, 1993. On May 5, 1993 LRSD moved for approval of the King attendance zone. LRSD App., p. 231. Docket #1820. Joshua opposed LRSD's motion. LRSD App., p. 235. Docket #1825. The North Little Rock 7School District, the Pulaski County Special School District and the Knight Intervenors did not oppose the King attendance zone. LRSD App., p. 305. The district court conducted hearings on June 8 and 9, 1993 and approved the King attendance zone as drawn by Dr. Thalmueller, but not LRSD's plan for determining whether Ish should be closed. LRSD App., pp. 285-291. The court preferred Thalmueller's plan to the ideas presented by Dr. James Jennings, another former LRSD employee, because Thalmueller's plan would impact fewer attendance zones and because his plan \"left room for doubt\" concerning the 4 future location of the Stephens site. The district court announced that it would order that Ish remain open i-f one hundred or more students chose to attend Ish from among the students within the Ish attendance zone whether or not presently enrolled at Ish (229 students (LRSD App., p. 307)) and all students attending Ish whether or not residing within the Ish attendance zone (90 students (LRSD App., p. 308)) LRSD App., pp. 286-287. 4\u0026lt; Dr. Jennings was subpoenaed only a few days before the hearing and had not previously reviewed Thalmueller's plan. During his previous employment with LRSD, Jennings had prepared a plan to create attendance zones for King and Stephens together. p. 279. LRSD App., Jennings' testimony consisted of his recollection of the plan he had previously prepared on the assumption that King and Stephens zones would be established at the same time. and his reaction to Thalmueller' s plan which he had seen for the first time the day before. LRSD App., pp. Jennings' proposals would impact the attendance zones of thirteen schools. 281-283. 280. LRSD App. , p. Jennings worked with Thalmueller to prepare the attendance zones contained in the 1989 desegregation plan (LRSD App., p. 283) and considers Thalmueller competent to prepare attendance zone plans (LRSD App., 284). 8The court's bench ruling was followed closely by a written order (Docket #1848) which established the following process by which LRSD could attempt to \"meet its burden of recruiting students to populate the King Interdistrict School\" from among those attending Ish or residing in the Ish attendance zone and \"proving that fewer than 100\" of those students wished to attend Ish: \"Within ten days from June 9, 1993 the LRSD must submit to the Court its proposed survey of these students along with its plan for executing the survey and implementing the survey results. This plan must include a time schedule with deadline dates for implementing each step of the survey process, including the date by which the district will determine whether Ish is to remain open or to close.\" June 11, 1993 Order, Docket #1848. The court told Joshua twice from the bench (LRSD App., pp. 293-300) and again in its written order that Joshua would \"have 5 days to file their response and objections to LRSD's survey and plan\". June 11, 1993 Order, p.3 LRSD filed on June 21, 1993 its proposed survey of potential Ish students and its plan for implementing the survey results^. LRSD proposed \"to send the form letter, the King and Ish fact sheets. and the School Selection Form to the parents of all students described in the court's June 11, 1993 Order in accordance with the attached time line for implementing King/Ish Survey Process.\" LRSD App., p. 240. No one objected to the process ^LRSD's filing showed exactly how the survey process would be It included a time line, a form letter to parents of potential Ish students, fact sheets on both King and Ish Schools which would be sent to potential Ish students and a school implemented. selection form. to potential students LRSD App., p. 240. 9proposed by LRSD. The district court approved the process on June 30, 1993. Docket No. 1873. LRSD engaged in an extensive effort to inform potential Ish students about King and Ish Schools and to maximize the response to its King/Ish survey!^. Two hundred sixty survey forms were mailed, 173 were returned and 82 students requested Ish School. LRSD App., p. 271-272. Based upon the results of the survey, LRSD moved on July 19, 1993 to close Ish School. LRSD App., p. 268. Docket No. 1908. Joshua opposed LRSD's status report about the survey process (LRSD App., p. 265) and LRSD's Motion to close Ish School (Docket No. 1918). On August 2, 1993, the district court granted LRSD's Motion to close Ish School. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT I. THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT THE CHARLES PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO ESTABLISH A VIOLATION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C.  1973, IS NOT CLEARLY ERRONEOUS AND SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. The Charles Plaintiffs contend that the plan for LRSD election zones adopted by the PCBE violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1973. In order to establish a violation of Section 2, the Charles Plaintiff were required to establish the *LRSD conducted a series of community meetings, including two at Ish School. Fliers announcing the community meetings were delivered door to door and distributed to local churches. Ish patrons conducted a door to door campaign encouraging parents to return the survey forms. The LRSD student assignment office telephoned parents who were sent survey forms and encouraged them to complete and return the forms. LRSD App., pp. 271-272. 10following four elements: (1) that blacks are sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district\n(2) that blacks are politically cohesive\n(3) that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it usually to defeat blacks' preferred candidate\nand, (4) that based on the \"totality of the circumstances,\" blacks have less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice as a result of the PCBE plan for LRSD election zones. 42 U.S.C.  1973(b)\nThornburg v. Ginqles. 478 U.S. 25, 50- 51 (1986) . The district court found that the Charles Plaintiffs failed to establish each of the above elements. The PCBE plan contains two majority black zones. Therefore, the Charles Plaintiffs were reguired to prove that three majority black zones can be created. In addition, the majority black zones must have at least a 65% black majority to enable blacks to elect their preferred candidate. Smith V. Clinton. 687 F.Supp. 1361 (E.D.Ark. 1988). Each of the three majority black zones in the plan advocated by the Charles Plaintiffs has majority black population of less than 65%. As a result, the district court found that the Charles Plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate that three majority black LRSD zones with a 65% black majority population can be created. The Charles Plaintiffs attempted to establish black political cohesiveness through statistical proof of the correlation a coefficient comparing the percentage of black voting age population and the percentage of votes for the black candidate. However, the 11correlation coefficient does not establish the percentage of black support for black candidates. The Charles Plaintiffs did not undertake the additional statistical analysis necessary to establish black political cohesiveness, and therefore, the district court held that they had failed to establish this element. The Charles Plaintiffs' attempt to establish white bloc voting was infected with the same statistical flaw. In addition. persistent proportional representation of blacks on the LRSD Board of Directors makes it \"virtually impossible\" for the Charles Plaintiff to establish white bloc voting. Nash V. Blunt, 797 F.Supp. 1488, 1498 (W.D.Mo. 1992). Evidence of elections between White and black candidates demonstrates that white voters do not usually vote as a block to defeat the blacks' preferred candidate. Accordingly, the district could found that LRSD did not suffer from legally significant white bloc voting. Finally, the district court held that, based on a totality of the circumstances, the Charles Plaintiffs failed to establish that blacks have less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice under the PCBE plan than they had under the previous zone plan which had been approved by the district court in 1986. The Charles Plaintiffs' expert testified that the opportunity of blacks is the same under the PCBE plan and under the previous court approved plan. The findings of the district court are not clearly erroneous and should be affirmed. 12A. ARGUMENT I. THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT THE CHARLES PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO ESTABLISH ACT, 42 U.S.C. SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. Introduction. A VIOLATION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS  1973, IS NOT CLEARLY ERRONEOUS AND No plan for single-member election zones is immune from challenge under the Voting Rights Act. If a plan concentrates minorities into super-majority zones. the plan may be said to dilute minority voting strength through \"packing.\" If a plan does not create the maximum number of minority black zones, it may be said to dilute minority voting strength through dispersion of minority voters. Compare Jeffers v. Clinton. 730 F.Supp. 196 (E.D.Ark. 1989), and Jeffers v. Tucker. 839 F.Supp. 612 (E.D.Ark. 1993) . PCBE adopted a Metroplan proposal for LRSD election zones which has two majority black zones. The Charles Plaintiffs advocate racial gerrymandering of LRSD election zones to create a third majority black zone. In discussing the racial gerrymandering of election zones, the Supreme Court has stated: Racial classifications of any sort pose the risk of lasting harm to our society. They reinforce the belief, too many for too much of history, that individuals should be judged by the color of their skin. history The Charles Plaintiffs argued before the district court that the PCBE plan violated the Voting Rights Act due to \"packing.\" _ . . ----------- -----' In this appeal, the Charles Plaintiffs raise for the first time an argument based on the dispersion of black voters. PCBE adopted Metroplan proposal No. 4. 13Racial classifications with respect to voting carry particular dangers. Racial gerrymandering even for remedial purposes, may balkanize us into competing racial factions\nit threatens to carry us further from the goal of a political system in which race no longer mattersa goal that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments embody. and to which the Nation continues to aspire. It is for these reasons that race-based districting by our state legislatures demands close judicial scrutiny. Shaw V. Reno. 509 U.S. 113 S.Ct. ___, 125 L.Ed.2d 511, 535 (1993). B. Discussion. 1. Liability Under Section 2 Generally. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was If designed by Congress to banish the blight of racial discrimination in voting, which has infected the electoral process in parts of our country for nearly a century.\" South Carolina v. Katzenbach. 383 U.S. 301, 308 (1966). As amended in 1982, Section 2 of the Act provides that no state may impose a standard, practice or procedure \"which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color . fl 42 U.S.C.  1973(a) (Supp. 1993). Section 2 further states: A violation of subsection (a) of this section is established if. the circumstances, based on the totality of it is shown that political processes leading to nomination the or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) of this section in that its members have less opportunity to participate in political process and to elect the representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of the protected class have been elected to office political subdivision is in one the State or circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to 14have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion population. in the 42 U.S.C.  1973(b) (Supp. 1993) (emphasis in original). In order to prevail on a Section 2 claim, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving both less opportunity to participate in the political process and less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. Chisom V. Roemer, 501 U.S. Ill S.Ct. 2354, 115 L.Ed.2d 348, 364 (1991). The Supreme Court has stated that a minority group challenging single-member election zones under Section 2 must establish three \"necessary preconditions\": First, that [the minority group] is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a If it is not, as would be the single-member district. case in a substantially integrated district, the multimember form of the district cannot be responsible for minority voters' inability to elect its candidates. [citations omitted]. Second, the minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive. minority group is not politically cohesive, it cannot be said that the selection of a multi-member If the electoral structure thwarts distinctive minority group interests, [citations omitted]. Third, the minority must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as bloc to enable circumstances, such it as in the absence of special a minority candidate running unopposed . . . usually to defeat the preferred [citations omitted]. In establishing this last circumstance, the minority group demonstrates that submergence in a white multi-member candidate. minority's district impedes its ability to elect representatives of its chosen representation. a Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 50-51\nGrowe v. Emison. ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. , 122 L.Ed.2d 388, 404. Satisfaction of these three \"preconditions\" is necessary. but not sufficient, to establish liability under Section 2. Growe. 507 U.S. at ___, 122 L.Ed.2d at 15404\nChisom. 501 U.S. ___, 115 L.Ed.2d 348, 364\nsee League of United Latin American Citizens v. Clements. 999 F.2d 831, 848 (Sth Cir. 1993). Therefore, in order to establish a violation of Section 2, a minority group must demonstrate that (1) the group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district\n(2) it. is politically cohesive\n(3) the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate\nand. (4) based on the \"totality of the circumstances,\" the group has less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice as a result of the challenged electoral device. 42 U.S.C.  1973(b)\nGinqles. 478 U.S. at 50-51. 2. Sufficiently Large and Geographically Compact. The plan for LRSD election zones adopted by PCBE contains two majority-minority zones. LRSD App., p. 8 . Thus, in the context of the present case, the first Gingles precondition requires that the Charles Plaintiffs establish that the black population of LRSD is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a \"majority II in three LRSD election zones. Gingles. 478 U.S. at 50. More than mere numerical superiority must be considered in determining whether the Charles Plaintiffs constitute a sufficient \"majority II in single-member zone to elect representatives of their choice. As the court explained in Smith v. Clinton. 687 a F.Supp. 1361 (E.D.Ark. 1988): A guideline of 65% frequently used. of total population is and is derived by 16supplementing simple majority with an additional 5% to offset the fact that minority population tends to be younger than that of whites, 5% for the well-documented pattern of low voter registration, and 5% for low voter turnout among minorities. Smith. 687 F.Supp at 1363. See also Fletcher v. Golder. 959 F,2d 106, 110 (Sth Cir. 1992). Therefore, the Charles Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the black population in LRSD is sufficiently large and geographically compact to permit creation of three zones with at least 65% minority population. Otherwise, the PCBE plan for a LRSD election zones \"cannot be responsible for minority voters inability to elect its candidates.\" Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 50. Each of the purported \"majority\" black zones proposed by the Charles Plaintiffs falls below the 65% guideline. Under the Charles Plaintiffs' plan, 81% of the blacks who live within the boundaries of the LRSD would be packed into zones 1, 2 and 6 resulting in percentage black populations in those zones of 64.7%, 64.0% and 61.7%, respectively. The remaining black population is dispersed among the remaining four zones. Appellant's App., p. 55. 9 Therefore, the plan for LRSD election zones advocated by the Charles Plaintiffs demonstrates that the black population in LRSD is not sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute Charles Plaintiffs' Zone 1 has percentage population variance of negative 4.5%, and therefore, will in all probability be the first zone to fall out of compliance with the requirement. LRSD App., p. 74. \"one-man. one-vote\" Metroplan proposal No. 4 adopted by PCBE took into account present demographics trends by placing more persons in zones with declining population and by placing fewer persons in zones with increasing population. This was done within the limits prescribed by the law and with a lesser degree of population variance than provided in the Charles plaintiffs' plan. LRSD App., pp. 78-80. 17a sufficient \"majority\" in three LRSD election zones. Appellant's App., p. 155. Furthermore, McKenzie testified that the Charles' Plaintiffs plan did not present compact zones. LRSD App. , P- 61. Accordingly, the district court found, \"The plan proposed by the Charles plaintiffs does not conform to the standard proposed by their expert, Mr. Lynch, that the zones be compact and contiguous.\" Memorandum Opinion and Order, p. 7. The district court's finding that the black population of LRSD is not sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in three LRSD election zones is not clearly erroneous. 3. Political Cohesiveness. In an effort to establish black political cohesiveness. Lynch computed the correlation coefficient (the \"r\" statistic) and the r- square value for all 65 voting precincts in LRSD. Lynch compared the percentage of black voting age population within the precinct and the percentage of votes for the black candidate for ten elections involving a black candidate and a white candidate. A summary of Lynch's calculations was presented as Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. Appellant's App., p. 157. Relying only on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32, Lynch concluded that blacks were politically cohesive. Appellant's App., P. 160. Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 does not support Lynch's conclusion. The correlation coefficients calculated by Lynch and summarized in Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 provide no proof that 18blacks are politically cohesive.* The correlation coefficient is a measure of consistency. LRSD App., p. 134. See Citizens for a Better Gretna v, City of Gretna. 834 F.2d 496, 499 n.7 (Sth Cir. 1987)\nsee. generally. Richard Engstrom Micheal McDonald, \"Quantitiye Evidence in Vote Dilution Litigation: Political \u0026amp; Participation and Polarized Voting,\" 17 Urban Lawyer 369 (1985). A perfect positive correlation (i.e., a correlation coefficient of one) between the percentage of black voting age population and the percentage of votes for the black candidate results where, for example, the same percentage of blacks and the same percentage of white voters support the black candidate in each precinct.\" If 25% of the black voters and 20% of the white voters in each precinct support the black candidate. perfect positive correlation exists. The correlation coefficient provides no a evidence of the actual percentage of black voters who supported the black candidate. Thus, Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 indicates only that approximately the same percentage of blacks supported the black candidate in each precinct. Lynch conceded that the correlation coefficients shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 provide no information about the is nevertheless important to note that the only LRSD zone election analyzed by Lynch produced no significant correlation between black voting age population and support for the black candidate. Appellant's App., p. 157. \"Lynch's feeble understanding of the correlation coefficient was demonstrated when on cross-examination Lynch was unable to describe circumstances which would produce a perfect positive correlation. Lynch testified that he merely entered the data into a computer equipped with software to calculate the correlation coefficient. LRSD App., p. 165. 19percentage of black support for the black candidate. LRSD App., p. 158. Lynch admitted that nothing in his analysis excluded the possibility that only 25% of the black voters supported the black candidate in the elections shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. LRSD App., p. 161. Lynch acknowledged that, if only 25% of the blacks supported a black candidate, blacks could not be considered politically cohesive. LRSD App., p. 159. In order for the correlation coefficient or r-square value to demonstrate political cohesiveness. they must be used in conjunction with homogeneous precinct analysis or regression analysis. S^, e^, Whitfield v. Democratic Party of the State of Arkansas. 686 F.Supp. 1365, 1383 (E.D.Ark. 1988)\nCitizens for a Better Gretna. 834 F.2d 496, 499 (5th Cir. 1987). Homogeneous precinct analysis is the examination of a precinct which is overwhelmingly populated by a discrete group to determine what percentage of voters in that group support a particular candidate. See Campos v. City of Baytown. 840 F.Supp. 124 0, 1246 n.lO (5th Cir. 1988). For example, if a precinct is 100% black and the black candidate gets 90% of the votes in that precinct, then 90% of the black voters preferred the black candidate. If there is also a high correlation coefficient among all the precincts (meaning that approximately the same percentage of blacks supported the black candidate in each precinct), it may be appropriate to conclude that approximately 90% of black voters in each precinct supported the black candidate. See Engstrom \u0026amp; McDonald, p. 371-72. 20Regression analysis involves the calculation of the regression coefficient, commonly reported as It is the regression \"b\". coefficient \"that illuminates the degree to which voting patterns are racially differentiated. Engstrom \u0026amp; McDonald, P- 375. Whereas the correlation coefficient measures how consistently the electoral support for the black candidate changes with the percentage of black voting age population. the regression coefficient estimates how closely the change in percentage of votes for the black candidate tracks the change in percentage black voting age population. For example, where voting is completely racially polarized, the percentage of votes for the black candidate would track perfectly the increase in black voting age population. 12 See Engstrom \u0026amp; McDonald, p. 375. Therefore, homogeneous precinct analysis or regression analysis are necessary to establish racially polarized voting. Lynch testified that he did not conduct homogeneous precinct analysis. LRSD App., p. 164. With regard to regression analysis. Lynch testified, \"I'm not familiar with that term. 11 LRSD App., p. 163 . As a result. Lynch's conclusion that LRSD elections are racially polarized is without foundation. The correlation coefficients shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 demonstrate '^The regression coefficient is to be distinguished from the square value calculated by Lynch. The r-square value is merely the square of the correlation coefficient. The regression coefficient (\"b\") represents the slope of the regression line, regression line is the line which minimizes the deviations among samples. The correlation coefficient is a measure of the samples' deviation from the regression line. With a perfect correlation, either positive or negative, the samples fall perfectly along the regression line. See Engstrom \u0026amp; McDonald, p. 374-76. samples. r- The The See Engstrom \u0026amp; McDonald, p. 374-76. 21only that approximately the same percentage of blacks supported the black candidate in each precinct. Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 provides no indication of the actual percentage of black voters who supported the black candidate. Because the Charles Plaintiffs failed to establish that blacks are politically cohesive, their Section 2 claim must fail.'* 4 . White Bloc Vote. a. Persistent Proportional Representation. Justice Brennan, joined by Justice White, noted in Ginoles that \"persistent proportional representation is inconsistent with [the] allegation that the ability of black voters ... to elect representatives of their choice is not equal to that enjoyed by the white majority.\" Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 77. With regard to this statement by Justice Brennan, Justice O'Conner, joined by Chief Justice Burger, Justice Powell and Justice Renquist, wrote. \"I *The conclusion that blacks are politically cohesive can be drawn based on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 only if it is assumed that black voters preferred the black candidate. However, the Supreme Court has stated that minority support for the minority candidate \"never can be assumed, but must be proved in each case in order to establish that a redistricting plan dilutes minority voting strength in violation of  2.\"  -- ___, 125 L.Ed.2d at 532. Shaw V. Reno. 509 U.S. at 'There is one other notable limitation on the value of the correlation coefficients shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. A strong correlation between percentage of black voting age population and percentage of votes for the black candidate does not preclude the possibility of an equally strong correlation between percentage of black voting age population and any of the other factors which Lynch testified often determine the outcome of elections. For example, the correlation coefficient between the percentage of black voting age population and the percentage of votes for the democratic candidate may be as strong or stronger, in as the correlation coefficients shown on any given election, Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. LRSD App., pp. 170-171. 22agree with Justice Brennan that consistent and sustained success by candidates preferred by minority voters is presumptively inconsistent with the existence of a  2 violation.\" Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 102 (O'Conner, J., concurring). After considering the above guoted language in Ginqles. the court in Nash v. Blunt. 797 F.Supp. 1488, 1498 (W.D.Mo. 1992), concluded, \"If defendants can prove prior persistent proportional representation, it would be virtually impossible for the plaintiffs to prove white voters usually vote together to defeat minority-preferred candidates.\" Recognizing that Ginqles provides that \"proof that some minority candidates have been elected does not foreclose a  2 claim. Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 75, the court in Nash reasoned that persistent proportional representation would constitute a defense* to a Section 2 claim only where. in addition to a history of proportional representation, there exists a substantial likelihood that proportional representation would continue in the future. Na^, 797 F.Supp. at 1498. For example, the plaintiffs in Na^ challenged the Missouri legislative redistricting plan as it H applied to Jackson County, Missouri. The court noted that \"during the past decade, the proportion of black legislators for Jackson County has been in almost exactly equal proportion to the The court in Nash describes representation as an \"affirmative defense.\" persistent proportional This is a misnomer. A true affirmative defense relieves a defendant of liability even though the plaintiff has established each element of his claim. The classic example is the statute of limitations. However, persistent proportional representation, in effect, makes it \"virtually impossible\" to prove a necessary element of a Section 2 claim, legally significant white bloc voting. Na^, 797 F.Supp. at 1498. 23proportion of black citizens living in Jackson County.\" Na^, 797 F.Supp. at 1500. The court found that the proportion of majority black districts created under the challenged plan was roughly equal to the proportion of black population and concluded: Thus, we conclude that there has been at least a ten-year history of proportional representation, as well as a near certain likelihood that there will be proportional representation for the next decade. Therefore, we find the defendants have successfully proved the elements of this affirmative defense. Na^, 797 F.Supp. at 1500. The facts of the present case are remarkably similar to the facts before the court in Nash. Blacks constitute 29.1% of the voting age population of LRSD. LRSD App., p. 6. There are seven members of the LRSD Board of Directors. Thus, proportional representation would be two of the seven board members or 28.6% of the board. Since 1983, the racial composition of the LRSD Board of Directors has been as follows: 1983 to March 1987 - two blacks. five whites\nMarch 1987 to June 1988 - three blacks, four whites\nand, June 1988 to present - two blacks, five whites. Therefore, since 1983, the proportion of black members of the LRSD Board of Directors has been equal to or greater than the proportion of black members of the electorate. Moreover, under the plan for LRSD election zones adopted by the PCBE, blacks are virtually certain to be proportionally represented in the future. The PCBE plan contains two black majority zones. PCBE Zones 1 and 2 have percentages of black population of 79.82% and 59.39%, respectively. LRSD App., p. 8. Although PCBE Zone 2 falls below the 65% guideline discussed in 24Smith V. Clinton, supra, Lynch testified that blacks would be able to elect representatives of their choice with a black majority of 60%, 104. Lynch specifically referred to North LRSD App. , p. Little Rock election zones with percentage black populations of 59.4% and 58.8% in which black candidates have been successful. LRSD App., P 11. Therefore, blacks will continue to be proportionally represented on the LRSD Board of Directors under the PCBE plan. The consistent and sustained past, along with the certain future, of proportional representation on the LRSD Board of Directors makes it \"virtually impossible\" for the Charles Plaintiffs to establish legally significant white bloc voting. Nash, 797 F.Supp. 1500. b. Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33. The Charles Plaintiffs substantially relied on the testimony of Lynch in an attempt to establish white bloc voting. Lynch calculated the correlation coefficient and the rsquare value comparing the percentage of white voting age population to the percentage of votes for the white candidate for same ten elections analyzed on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. A summary of Lynch's calculations was presented as Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33. Appellant's App. , P. 158. Based only on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33, Lynch concluded that the white majority voted sufficiently as a bloc to enable it to usually defeat the candidate 25preferred by blacks. 16 LRSD App., p. 149. Again, the record does not support this conclusion. As with Lynch's reliance on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 to establish black political cohesiveness, the correlation coefficients and r-square values shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33 demonstrate only that approximately the same percentage of whites preferred the white candidate in each precinct. Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33 provides no information concerning the actual percentage of white voters who preferred the white candidate. Lynch failed to conduct the concomitant homogeneous precinct analysis or regression analysis necessary to make Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33 meaningful. c. Legally Significant White Bloc Voting. Black electoral success in LRSD and the City of Little Rock supports the district courts's finding that LRSD does not suffer from legally significant white bloc voting. To establish legally significant white bloc voting under Gingles, the minority group \"must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a block to enable itin the absence of special circumstances such as a minority candidate running unopposed usually to defeat the minorities preferred candidate.\" Gingles. 405 U.S. at 51 (emphasis supplied). Stated another way, \"a white bloc vote that normally will defeat the combined strength of 'in his deposition taken the day before his trial testimony. Lynch stated that he had undertaken no study, and therefore could offer no opinion, on the issue of whether white bloc voting worked to usually defeat the candidate preferred by blacks. Lynch changed his testimony at trial.  LRSD App., pp. 148-151. 26minority support plus white 'crossover' votes rises to the level of legally significant white bloc voting.\" Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 56 (emphasis supplied). It is the \"usual predictability of the majority success [that] distinguishes structural dilution from the mere loss of an occasional election.\" Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 51 (emphasis supplied). See Whitcomb v. Chavis. 403 U.S. 124, 153. The Charles' Plaintiffs failed to establish the \"usual predictability\" of white candidate success necessary to establish white bloc voting. As discussed above, blacks have enjoyed proportional representation on the LRSD Board of Directors since 1983. Likewise, blacks have been proportionally represented on the City of Little Rock Board of Directors since 1979. Appellant's App., p. 161-62. See Leadership Roundtable v. City of Little Rock. 499 F.Supp. 579, 590 (E.D. Ark. 1980). In sum, white voters do not sufficiently vote as a bloc to \"usually to defeat the minorities preferred candidate.\" Ginqles. 405 U.S. at 51 (emphasis supplied). In 1966, Dr. T.E. Patterson was elected at-large against white opposition to become the first black member of the LRSD Board of Directors. In 1983, Bill Hamilton, a black. defeated a white opponent by winning 70% of the vote in an at-large election. LRSD App., p. 12. In 1986, Thomas Broughton, a black and current PCBE member, garnered 74% of the at-large vote in LRSD to defeat a white opponent. LRSD App., p. 20. In a 1989 Zone 2 election, Hamilton 27received 84% of the vote to defeat a white opponent. 17 LRSD App., p. 36. Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibits 32 and 33 also reveal significant black electoral success in LRSD. Those exhibits examined ten races in the City of Little Rock which pitted a black against a white opponent. The black candidate won six of the ten races, including the only two LRSD elections shown on those exhibits. LRSD App., p. 152. Moreover, the two LRSD elections had the lowest correlation coefficients of the ten elections shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. Appellant's App., p. 157. In fact. Lynch testified that the correlation coefficient for the 1989 election of Hamilton was not statistically significant. LRSD App., p. 142. This was the only election analyzed by Lynch under the previous singlemember election zones. Evidence of exogenous elections in the City of Little Rock further demonstrates the considerable success of black candidates. Blacks won four of the eight races analyzed on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibits 32 and 33 which did not involve LRSD. Appellant's App., pp. 110-11, 157, 161. Similarly, the black candidate prevailed over white opposition in nine of the twenty-three contests for the City of Little Rock Board of Directors shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 35. Appellant's App., p. 161-162. As noted above, blacks In the only other LRSD election involving a black and a white since the implementation of election zones, Charles Young, a white, defeated Lawrence Hampton, a black. The race was to represent Zone 6 which at the time was 72.7% white. Even so. Young defeated Even so. Hampton by only 32 votes. This race was excluded from Charles Plaintiff's Exhibits 32 and 33. LRSD App., p. 35. 28have been proportionally represented on the City of Little Rock Board of Directors since 1979. More importantly, the success of black candidates in LRSD and the City of Little Rock cannot be attributed solely to \"special circumstances. See Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 47. The Charles Plaintiffs state, \"All of the black electoral successes in the LRSD and Little Rock City Board elections were won under 'special circumstances' II Brief of Appellant's, p, 34. However, as the Charles Plaintiffs define \"special circumstances,\" it is equally true that all of the black electoral failures in LRSD and City of Little Rock elections were the result of \"special circumstances.\" For example, the Charles Plaintiffs describe the black majorities in LRSD Zones 1 and 2 as \"special circumstances.\" It follows then that the failure of a black candidates in a white majority zone would also be attributable to \"special circumstances. **It is worth noting that another \"special circumstance\" referred to by the Charles Plaintiffs was support by the \"white power structure. tl Lynch testified that black candidates Charles Bussey, H.D. Stewart and Jesse Mason were supported by the \"white in power structure\" races for City Board positions. Lynch testified that the only white candidate who was strongly supported by the \"white power structure\"  Board race. was Gary Barket in the 1992 City Barket lost the race and, in fact, received only 300 more votes (7299 to 6999) than Gloria Wilson, a black, whom Lynch described as eintithetical to the \"white power structure.\" Thus, the \"white power structure\" described by Lynch has been able to elect its candidate only when that candidate is black. And, if the Court testimony regarding the correlation coefficients shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32, Bussey, Stewart and Mason were also the preferred candidates of African accepts Lynch's Americans. LRSD App. pp. 186-191. 29Lynch acknowledged that many factors other than race determine the outcome of elections. LRSD App., p. 129. These other factors \"would suggest that another candidate, equally preferred by the minority group, might be able to attract greater white support in future elections. It Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 100 (O'Connor, J. , concurring). The Charles Plaintiffs should be required to prove that its asserted reasons for any alleged failure by blacks to elect representatives of their choice cannot be characterized as a \"mere euphemism for political defeat at the polls,\" Whitcomb. 403 U.S. at 153\nsee Clements. 999 F.2d at 859. Indeed, one of these other factors explains the 1983 loss by Dr. Mitchell, black current member of the LRSD Board of a Directors, to a white opponent, Frank Mackey, in her first attempt to gain election to the board. Mitchell testified that name recognition had a \"great deal\" to do with her 1983 loss to Mackey. LRSD App., p. 210-211. Mackey's father, after whom Mackey was named, had been twice elected to Pulaski County Sheriff and twice elected County Judge for Pulaski County. LRSD App., p. 211. All of LRSD is within Pulaski County. However, in the same election in which Dr. Mitchell lost to Mackey, Hamilton, a black. was elected to the LRSD Board of Directors with 70% of the vote over a white opponent. LRSD Appendix, p. 12. Both Hamilton and Dr. Mitchell competed districtwide for at-large positions on the LRSD Board. Hence, many of the same voters, black and white alike, voted for Hamilton, but not for Dr. Mitchell. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that 30whites \"usually\" vote as a bloc to defeat the preferred candidate of blacks. 19 Similarly, Lynch testified that the election of Dr. Hamp Roy to the City of Little Rock Board of Directors over black opposition was due to large amount of money spent by Dr. Roy to win election. In Lynch's own words, \"Dr. Roy just spent an unbelievable amount of money to get that job.\" Lynch agreed that Dr. Roy's election was a \"special situation.\" LRSD Supp., p. 188. Thus, black electoral defeat in LRSD and the City of Little Rock has resulted from the same \"special circumstances\" which the Charles Plaintiffs argue account for black electoral success. The district court's finding that LRSD does not suffer from legally significant white bloc voting should be affirmed. 5. ir * Opportunity to Participate and to Elect. a. Less Opportunity\nThe Benchmark. As the final element of their Section 2 claim, the Charles Plaintiffs were required to establish that, based on the \"totality of the circumstances,\" blacks have less opportunity than other '^Hamilton testified that it takes only about 300 votes to win an election within the current LRSD election zones. Hamilton's zones. testimony is borne out by LRSD Exhibits 4 and 5 which show the results for the 1987 and 1989 LRSD elections. In the 1987 Zone 6 election, Charles Young defeated Lawrence Hampton 250 votes to 218 votes. ~  In the 1987 Zone 7 election, Oma Jacovelli defeated Doug Harden 293 votes to 257 votes. - - In the 1989 Zone 1 election, Katherine Mitchell defeated Kenyon K. Lowe, votes. Zone 2 election, Frederick Lee 230 votes to 49 votes. In the 1989 Sr. 322 votes to 59 Bill Hamilton defeated There are at five zones in the PCBE plan with black population t mlnimum black population in a LRSD zone under the PCBE plan is 1,112. LRSD App., p. 8. Thus, a black candidate has at least the \" greater that 4,600. fl LRSD App. , p. 8 . opportunity\" to be elected in every LRSD zone, even without receiving a single white vote. 31members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. 42 U.S.C. 1973\nChisom. 501 U.S. 115 L.Ed.2d at 364. The Charles Plaintiffs argue that the district court erroneously used the 1986 plan approved by the district court as the benchmark for determining whether blacks have \"less opportunity.\" The Charles Plaintiffs state, \"The comparison of a minority's 'opportunity' under a historic scheme and the challenged scheme compares the minority's opportunity to itself, not to 'other members of the electorate. / II Brief of Appellants, p.lS.^ This statement would be true but for the fact that the \"historic scheme\" in this case was specifically found by the district court to comply with the Voting Rights Act. Appellant's Appendix, p. 50-51. In finding that the previous plan complied with the Voting Rights Act, the district court implicitly found that blacks had the same opportunity as other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. As a result. it makes no difference whether one is comparing the PCBE plan to the \"opportunity\" of other members of the electorate or to the \"opportunity\" of blacks under the previous plan when adopted in 1986 because they are the same. Therefore, ^rhe Charles Plaintiff's also argue that the PCBE plan should not be granted deference because it is retrogressive. Although retrogressiveness may constitute a violation of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, it does not constitute a violation of Section 2. Nash. 797 F.Supp. 1498. Thus, the plan adopted by the PCBE should be granted deference unless it is found to be in violation of Section 2. 500, 513 (1993). Voinovich v. Quilter. U.S. ___, 122 L.Ed.2d 32the opportunity\" of blacks under the previous plan when approved by the district court in 1986 is an appropriate benchmark to judge the PCBE plan. See Turner v. State of Arkansas. 784 F.Supp 553, 573 (E.D.Ark 1991), aff'd U.S. 112 S.Ct. 2296, 119 L.Ed.2d 220 (1992) b. Less Opportunity to Participate in the Political Process. Using the previous plan as a benchmark, the Charles Plaintiffs were required to establish. based on the \"totality of the circumstances,\" that the PCBE plan for LRSD election zones results in blacks having less opportunity to participate in the political process than under the previous plan when approved by the district court. 42 U.S.C.  1973(b) (Supp. 1993)\nChisom. 115 L.Ed.2d at 364\nTurner. 784 F. Supp. at 573. In an effort to meet this burden. the Charles Plaintiffs presented socioeconomic data concerning the residual effects of past discrimination. As the court stated in Whitfield. \"Because there are no legal barriers remaining to the opportunity for blacks to participate in the ^'Turner, is distinguished from Jeffers. 730 F.Supp. at 196, because Turner involves a Section 2 challenge to a zone plan which revised a court approved plan to conform to the 1990 census. Poulin v. White. 535 F.Supp. 450 (E.D.Ark. 1982). See In revising the zone plan based on the 1990 census, the Arkansas legislature \"gave preference to plans that departed as little as possible from the remedy implemented in Doulin as a starting point . . . . II It and \"obviously used the Doulin plan Thus, the court in Turner concluded Turner. 784 F.Supp. at 556, 558. \"'Less opportunity' by any fair interpretation means 'less opportunity' than such black voters had immediately before the imposition or application of the challenged standard practice or procedure\nnot 'less opportunity' than they would have, had the legislature seized the opportunity to help them by maximizing their political influence.\"  II 473 . Turner. 284 F.Supp. at 33political process, plaintiffs have naturally emphasized the 'socioeconomic' factors.\" Whitfield. 686 F.Supp. at 1384.^ The socioeconomic data indicates that blacks are poorer, less educated. have fewer vehicles and have a higher percentage of households headed by single females than the general population. Even so, consideration of the socioeconomic factors provides no insight into the issue of whether the PCBE plan for LRSD election zones \"results\" in blacks having less opportunity to participate in the political process than under the 1986 plan. Regardless of where the zone lines are drawn, blacks have the same socioeconomic status. It is not the line drawing by the PCBE which \"results\" in the blacks having less opportunity to participate in the political process, but rather. it is their diminished socioeconomic status. Section 2 does not purport to provide a remedy on the latter basis. See Jeffers. 730 F.Supp. at 237, 238 (Eisele, J., dissenting and concurring). Therefore, the Charles plaintiffs have not proved that they have less opportunity to participate in the political process under the districting plan adopted by PCBE, and consequently, their Voting Rights Act claim must fail. See Chisom, 115 L.Ed.2d at 364. ^^See Turner. 784 F.Supp. at 577, quoting Jeffers. 730 F.Supp. at 204 (\"There are no presently existing legal barriers to voting by black citizens in Arkansas, and therefore they have just as much opportunity to participate in the political process as anyone Leadership Roundtable v. City of Little Rock. 499 F.Supp. else. 579, 1980) (\"Since 1965, there has been no legal impediment in Arkansas to voting by blacks.\"). 11 584 (E.D.Ark. 34c. Less Opportunity to Elect Representatives of Their Choice. In proceedings before the district court, the Charles Plaintiffs alleged vote dilution due to \"packing\" of blacks into zones with unnecessarily large black majorities. A comparison of the PCBE plan for LRSD election zones and the previous plan, however, reveals that both when it was adopted in 1986 using 1980 census data and when analyzed by Metroplan using 1990 census data. 24 the previous plan exhibited more \"packing\" than the PCBE plan. Conseguently, if the Charles Plaintiffs concern is \"packing,\" they are better off under the plan adopted by the PCBE than they have ever been since LRSD Board members have been elected from single-member zones. Lynch testified that the opportunity of blacks to elect representatives of their choice is the same under the PCBE plan as it was under the 1986 plan. LRSD App., p. 148. Moreover, the Charles Plaintiffs' claim of packing is barred by the doctrine of law of the case. As noted above, the plan adopted by the County Board has less \"packing\" than the 1986 plan when approved by the district court, which was expressly found to comport with the Voting Rights Act. The law of the case doctrine provides that when a court decides an issue of law that decision continues to govern the same issues at subsequent stages of the The plan adopted by Judge Woods in December of 1986 had two majority black zones with 81.50% and 68.90% black population, compared with 79.82% and 59.39% in the PCBE plan. Under the prior districting scheme, the uwu luajuxluy districts had 84.35% and 74.97% black population according to the 1990 census. Under the plan adopted by the County Board, the two majority black districts have 79.82% and 59.39% black population. the two majority black 35same case. Morris v. American National Can Corporation. 988 F.2d 50, 52 (8th Cir. 1993) . The doctrine was created to prevent relitigation of settled issues in a case and to protect the settled expectations of the parties, ensuring uniformity of decisions and promoting judicial efficiency. Id. Furthermore, \"[t]he law of the case doctrine applies to issues implicitly decided in earlier stages of the same case.\" Little Earth of United Tribes v. Dept. of Housing. 807 F.2d 1433, 1438 (8th Cir. 1986) . The district court explicitly stated in its December 18, 1986 order that the previous LRSD election zones complied with the Voting Rights Act, and therefore. implicitly found that the percentage of black population in the zones did not dilute black voting strength through \"packing. II Consequently, it is the law of this case that the percentages of black population in the majority black zones in the plan adopted by the PCBE, which are lower than in the previous plan, cannot be said to violate the Voting Rights Act. d. The Senate Factors. In determining whether. based on the totality of the circumstances, a challenged electoral device results in a minority group having less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. the legislative history of Section 2 identifies a number of factors which \"may II be relevant. Senate Report, p. 28-29, reprinted in ^^The Senate Report recognizes that the factors contained in the report may not be relevant in all Section 2 cases. 478 U.S. at 45. Gingles. Consideration of the Senate Factors in determining 361982 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 206-07\nGinqles. 478 U.S. at 44-45 (1986). Although the district court made findings with respect each of these factors, the Charles Plaintiffs address only select factors in their Brief. LRSD assumes that the Charles Plaintiffs accept the district court's findings with regard to those factors not addressed. LRSD will respond to the Charles Plaintiffs' argument that LRSD used discriminatory electoral devices and that the policy underlying the PCBE plan is tenuous on the factors they discuss. There are presently no electoral devices being used in LRSD elections which enhance the opportunity to discriminate against blacks. In 1987 the State of Arkansas adopted a majority vote requirement which applies to LRSD elections. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-14-121 (Michie 1991), Since 1986 members of the LRSD Board of Directors have been elected from single-member zones, two of which have a majority black population. As a result, the majority vote requirement enhances the opportunity of black candidates to win election in these zones by preventing a candidate supported by the white minority from being elected by a plurality. With regard to the policy underlying the PCBE plan, PCBE instructed Metroplan to prepare alternative plans for LRSD election whether a violation of Section 2 exists has been criticized because the factors more logically support proof of II intent,\" Whitfield V. Democratic Party of Arkansas. 686 F.Supp. 1365, 1382 (E.D.Ark. 1988), aff'd 902 F.2d 15 (8th Cir. 1990), and as a result, often takes attention away from the real issue. Whitfield. 686 F.Supp. at 1386-87 (\"It should be apparent by now that most of the positive findings with the respect to the Senate Report factors have no tendency to prove, or disprove, that proposition. The truth is that focusing on some of those factors serves more as a distraction than a useful tool for evaluating the cause and effect operation of the challenged runoff laws.\"). 37zones which preserve existing zones to the extent possible consistent with federal law. LRSD App., p. 41. The overriding policy underlying the PCBE's instructions was stability. LRSD App., p. 46. Ms. Pat Gee testified extensively regarding the importance of stability of the LRSD Board of Directors. LRSD App., pp. 215-218. Stability has been recognized as a legitimate policy in redistricting. See Jeffers. ,730 F.Supp. at 214. This is especially true where. as in the present case, the plan being revised was court approved and was specifically found to comply with the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. Thus, the policy underlying the PCBE plan for LRSD elections cannot be described as tenuous. II. THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY APPROVED THE CLOSING OF ISH SCHOOL AND THE ASSIGNMENT OF ISH STUDENTS TO THE NEW AND INTEGRATED KING INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL. This Court's review of district court decisions concerning disputed modifications to a settlement agreement is subject to an abuse-of-discretion standard. Appeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253, 258 (8th Cir. 1991). This Court should also H give a healthy measure to deference to the reasoned choices made by the District Court\". Id. at 257. The last time proposed modifications to the desegregation plans were before this Court, this Court described \"the standard to be used by the District Court for reviewing proposed modifications to the plan (if any are submitted in the future) to which all the parties have not\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_681","title":"Little Rock Schools: Stephens Elementary","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Stephens Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Educational planning","Educational statistics","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock Schools: Stephens Elementary"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/681"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL EXHIBIT LIST DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The following Exhibits, copies of which have been delivered to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, are submitted in support of LRSD's \"Motion to Close Stephens Incentive School\" which will be heard on June 7, 1994: 1, Letter from Ann S. Brown to Dr. Henry P. Williams dated February 18, 1994 with attachments\n2. Stephens School Relocation Timeline\n3 . Fast Track Evaluation Program: School\nStephens Elementary 4. Facilities Study Recommendation Concerning Stephens and Garland schools\n5. Computer printout showing cost per occupant to operate various LRSD schools and other facilities\n6. Excerpt from facilities study showing estimates for renovation and repair of Stephens school\n7. February 24, 1993 letter to Dr. Mac Bernd from Mayor Jim Daily\n8, March 9, 1993 letter to Dr. Mac Bernd from Foster Strong, President, The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation\n9. March 25, 1993 Memorandum to LRSD Board of Directors regarding Stephens site selection. 10. July 28, 1993 Memorandum from John Riggs to Stephens School Site Selection Committee. 11. August 11, 1993 Memorandum from John Riggs to Stephens School Site Selection Committee. 12. Petition of Stephens community residents. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By^ Christopher Hell CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Exhibit List has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 2nd day of June, 1994: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Christopher Hei Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 February 18, 1994 Dr. Henry P. Williams Little Rock School District 801 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: Enclosed are a number of charts containing information which the Court asked ODM to provide the district. This information should be helpful as you consider a number of issues, particularly those relevant to the future of Stephens and a new LRSD interdistrict school. As the Court requested, the charts show the number of empty seats in the incentive schools, the number of empty seats at King, and the number of children who are enrolled in these schools. To show where LRSD children might most likely be targeted for recruitment to PCSSDs new Clinton Interdistrict School, we have prepared racial balance data on schools in various areas of town and also a chart on the Washington Attendance Zones illustrating the dispersement of children who live in that schools zones but attend elsewhere. We have also used the LRSDs data base and 1993-94 budget to generate additional information which is categorized according to the titles and subtitles of each docmnent. For example, one chart contains information on per-pupil expenditures by elementary school. Earlier this month. Bob Morgan and I met with Russ Mayo and Chris Heller to review the charts in draft form and to stress that our calculations were all based on data given us by the LRSD. We also gave Russ a computer disc containing the student data base from which we developed our charts. We have attempted to make each chart self-explanatory through headings, footnotes, or a brief introduction. However, some of the data may not be as self-evident as we intended it to be. So, please dont hesitate to contact me if we need to be clearer about any aspect of the information. Sincerely yours. t Cid-- \"Ann S. Brown cc: Judge Susan Webber Wright Bobby Lester James Smith Russ Mayo All Counsel EXHIBIT 1School Acceptable Balance Otter Creek Jefferson Terry Forest Park Fulbright Pulaski Hts. McDermott Out of Balance Woodruff Mablevale Dodd Western Hills Brady Meadowcliff Chicot Badgett Geyer Springs Wilson Wakefield Bale Fair Park Baseline Watson Cloverdale Incentive Franklin Garland Mitchell Stephens Rightsell Rockefeller Interdistrict Washington King Romine Magnet LRSD Enrollment Showing Available Seats and Excess Capacity Principal Capacity Black White Total 93-94 Black Available Percent of 93-94 93-94 93-94 Percent Seats Capacity Booker Williams Carver Gibbs Carolyn Teeter Francis Cawthon La Dell Looper Virginia Ashley Mac Huffman Lillie Carter Mike Oliver Pat Higgenbotham Julie Davenport Patricia Howse Scott Morgan Mary Menking Jerry Worm Otis Presler Mary Golston Eleanor Cox Gwen Ziegler Willie Morris Levanna Wilson Barbara Means Mary Jane Cheatham Teresa Courtney Frederick Fields Franklin Davis Robert Brown Samuel Branch Lonnie Dean Sharon Davis Anne Mangan Karen Buchanan Sadie Mitchell Lionel Ward Dr. Cheryl Simmons Dr. Ed Jackson Mary Guinn Donna Davis Incentive school capacities reflected in the 1992 Desegregation Plan Totals for Elementary Schools Below Capacity Seats \u0026amp; Percent of Capacity 351 492 515 399 540 374 517 3188 324 515 328 328 467 465 558 257 328 394 492 401 351 390 492 492 6582 544 346 346 298 346 425 141 213 243 200 233 190 262 200 291 318 258 287 208 247 341 504 561 458 520 398 509 1482 1809 3291 41.35% 42.26% 43.32% 43.67% 44.81% 47.74% 51 47% 45.03% 10 -12 -46 -59 20 -24 8 -103 97% 102% 109% 115% 96% 106% 98% 103% 147 311 189 215 .263 306 356 132 208 263 337 225 200 265 353 304 89 177 103 117 134 128 153 57 80 91 110 78 63 78 89 82 236 488 292 332 397 434 509 189 288 354 447 303 263 343 442 386 4074 1629 5703 62.29% 63.73% 64.73% 64.76% 66.25% 70.51% 69.94% 69.84% 72.22% 74.29% 75.39% 74.26% 76.05% 77.26% 79.86% 78.76% 71.44% 88 27 36 -4 70 31 49 68 40 40 45 98 88 47 50 106 879 73% 95% 89% 101% 85% 93% 91% 74% 88% 90% 91% 76% 75% 88% 90% 78% 87% 300 181 215 141 184 240 45 24 15 4 5 100 345 205 230 145 189 340 2305 * 1261 193 1454 86.96% 88.29% 93.48% 97.24% 97.35% 70.59% 86.73% 199 141 116 153 157 85 851 63% 59% 66% 49% 55% 80% 63% 939 692 487 2118 656 517 613 353 2139 16332 2456 451 357 247 1055 321 257 325 170 1073 270 196 87 721 553 334 553 1608 62.55% 64.56% 73.95% 65.61% 218 139 153 510 77% 80% 69% 76% 274 215 270 129 595 472 595 299 888 1961 53.95% 54.45% 54.62% 56.86% 54.72% 61 45 18 54 178 91% 91% 97% 85% 92% 8945 5072 14017 86% 63.82% Printed February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon information supplied by the Little Rock School District UnauditedENROLLMENT IN DOWNTOWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Prepared by ODM February 1994 For the purpose of this document, ODM has identified a downtown elementary school as any elementary school located within these boundaries: east of University, west of Adams Field, north of Fourche Creek, and south of Markham. These boundaries create a rectangular area encompassing the six incentive schools (Franklin, Garland, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, and Stephens), three magnet schools (Booker, Carver, and Gibbs), two interdistrict schools (King and Washington), one area school (Woodruff), and the kindergarten classes at Central High School. By using the defined boundaries, some schools outside the downtown area have a few contiguous attendance zones that fall within the downtown area: Bale Elementary has four zones east of University, Fair Park has four zones and a partial zone south of Markham, and Pulaski Heights has one zone south of Markham. Woodruff, which is identified as a downtown school, has one zone north of Markham. However, for the purpose of this document, all zones within the defined boundaries are identified in the downtown area. A list of the zones defined for the purpose of this document as downtown attendance zones is provided. The information used to complete the last nine columns of this document is from the Little Rock School District (LRSD) student enrollment data base as of December 8, 1993. The second column is the October 1, 1993 enrollment reported to Arkansas Department of Education. The capacity figures in the third column are reported from LRSD as the current capacities. The fourth and fifth columns are results of calculations based on enrollment and capacity.LRSD DOWNTOWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS School Enrollment Oct 1 Capacity % Filled Available Seats Live downtown but attend outside downtown Total Black White Franklin Incentive 345 544 63 199 270 260 10 Garland Incentive 205 346 59 141 118 117 1 Mitchell Incentive 230 346 66 116 131 127 4 Rightsell Incentive 189 346 55 157 90 87 3 Rockefeller Incentive 340 425 80 85 74 72 2 Stephens Incentive 145 298 49 153 86 86 0 Sub Total Incentive Schools 1,454 2,305 63 851 769 749 20 Booker Magnet 595 656 91 61 N/A N/A N/A Carver Magnet 595 613 97 18 N/A N/A N/A Gibbs Magnet 299 353 85 54 N/A N/A N/A Sub Total Magnet Schools 1,489 1,622 92 133 0 0 0 King Interdistrict 553 692 80 139 90 89 1 Washington Interdistrict Magnet 721 939 77 218 262 253 9 Sub Total Interdistrict Schools 1,274 1,631 78 357 352 342 10 Woodruff (Area) 236 324 73 88 17 15 2 Central Kindergarten 50 50 100 0 N/A N/A N/A Satellite Zones N/A N/A N/A N/A 747 722 25 Contiguous Zones N/A N/A N/A N/A 313 253 60 Grand Total 4,503 5,932 76 1,429 2,198 2,081 117 Live downtown and attend downtown Total Black White 281 190 192 165 238 136 1,202 130 130 102 362 331 406 737 156 46 N/A N/A s 2,503 263 172 177 163 192 135 1,102 116 124 88 328 317 383 700 113 46 N/A N/A 2,289 18 18 15 2 46 1 100 14 6 14 34 14 23 37 43 0 N/A N/A 214 Live outside downtown but attend downtown Total Black White 55 28 27 14 29 22 142 9 271 461 465 198 1,124 217 314 531 75 4 N/A 2,005 6 8 21 17 62 6 140 202 206 83 491 17 65 82 33 4 N/A 750 8 5 80 3 131 259 259 115 633 200 249 449 42 0 N/A 1,255 Note: Incentive school capacities are based on a 20 to 1 ratio in kindergarten through sixth grade, 18 to 1 in programs for four-year-olds, 18 to 1 in programs for three-year- olds, 17 to 1 in programs for trwo-year-olds, and 10 to 1 in the programs for infants.There are seven satellite zones in the downtown area wherein students are assigned and transported to schools outside the downtown area: Brady, Forest Park Jefferson, McDermott, Meadowcliff, Otter Creek, and Terry. However, all students in those satellite zones do not attend the targeted schools. For example, Terry has 138 students identified within the downtown satellite zone (all black) of which 25 attend Terry. The remaining 113 students are assigned to 29 different schools. There are no satellite zones for the downtown area that would result in students being assigned and transported to a school downtown. Targeted School Brady McDermott Forest Park Jefferson Meadow cliff Terry Otter Creek Students in satellite zone Students attending targeted school Students outside targeted school Number of schools students attending outside the targed school 66 33 33 16 180 66 114 23 162 60 102 29 273 71 202 29 191 72 119 32 138 25 113 29 124 39 85 22Incentive School Attendance Zones and Schools Attended Incentive Zone School Attending School Franklin___________________ Garland___________________ Mitchell___________________ Rightsell__________________ Rockefeller_______________ Booker___________________ Carver____________________ Gibbs_____________________ Williams Badgett___________________ Bale Baseline Brady Chicot Cloverdale Elem Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Fullbright Geyer Springs Jefferson M.L. King Mablevale Elem McDermott Meadowcliff Otter Creek_______________ Pulaski Heights Elem Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson__________________ Western Hills Wilson Woodruff Central Kindergarten Fair Kindergarten Parkview Kindergarten Total of Incentive School Zone Blocks i I ! T T T I T ! I - i I cc c s u, o t IO O  I S! q\u0026gt; i W ! ib 194\n101 51 41 41 101 41 _IL 12! 21 261 31 151 51 01 141 181 161 81 201 7! 2! 351 30! ___r 18! 71 10 12' 1 3i ___0. 11 111 10! 1! 1 21 7i 136i 6i 211 II 0| 2i 3! 01 __4^ 3! 4 3 0 4 6 7 1 1 5 1 109 6' 71 2 6 9' 2\\ 31 4 8 539! 14 5 0 81 181 41 1| 21 191 141 11 7 11 141 41 -51 11 01 9 _3L 5j 31 lOi 51 4! 6 12i 5! 15\n14! 7' 7\\ 01 3! 3! 2! 41 01 9? 1\\ 11 0 II 312 318 Ol 11 8! 1291 71 8! 6 31 1| 01 31 21 31 ~6r~ 1! 31 1i 5, 61 131 4! 2'. 31 111 3! 9 0 01 61 6i 291 IT 2. 11 . 41 31 01 01 O I It ' 41 41 31 4 118 8 3 7 1 4 4 2 4 6 3 6 0 1 0 6 1 2 2 4 IO c v -c Q. o W 3 9! 11 Ol 1 0 o o c u tn -0 -o 320 01 2! 31 0! 1 0 9 31 11 3! 1 0 6 3 20 0 1' 3 4 6 2 1 257 2! II i\n8! 51 2! 01 151 O' Ih 1. 01 1 0 821 121 2 3 0 51 _L1 51 3! 01 01 200 a c J? S) 25 213 161 132 144 138 33 21 60 22 9 44 14 43 31 8 19 32 52 26 25 69 35 11 76 83 16 39 10 114 53 15 66 2 33 29 35 25 4 4 1946 Printed February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based on information supplied by the Little Rock School District UnauditedSchools Sending Students to Incentive Schools Incentive School Sending Zone School Franklin_____________________ Garland_____________________ Mitchell______________________ Rightsell_____________________ Rockefeller__________________ Stephens____________________ Badgett______________________ Bale_________________________ Baseline Brady Chicot_______________________ Cloverdale Elem____________ Dodd________________________ Fair Park____________________ Forest Park_________________ Fullbright____________________ Geyer Springs______________ Jefferson____________________ M.L King___________________ Mablevale Elem____________ McDermott__________________ Meadowcliff_________________ Otter Creek_________________ Pulaski Heights Elem_______ Romine_____________________ Terry Wakefield___________________ Washington_________________ Watson_____________________ Western Hills_______________ Wilson Woodruff___________________ North Little Rock____________ Pulaski County Legal Transfer______________ No zone I I I I i I I I I I Total of Students Attending Incentive Schools .c c 194 1 5 01 41 3 0 14 5 6 3 1 1 9 2 - 31 Ti 01 71 201 61 4 31 91 21 9i 3l 21 3i 0! Oi 11 II I 1 336' O c \u0026lt;D c (0 O \"O) c: 4a  Qi  .O) S \u0026lt;b u o K 101 1361 11 11 4l 91 01 61 01 4' 1\n1! 31 1 0\n0 01 1' 01 0\n81 61 2\nO' 01 3, O' 4 01 1 2' 0! 0 01 O' 0 51 109 8 3' 1 0 1' 0 3 4l 11 6j 1291 4 0 0 4I II 21 71 4. 204\n01 11 2i 31 21 11 61 71 Ti 31 31 20 1i 21 1 0i 11\n3\n0! 4\n2^ Oi 01 Oi 0! I 221! 01 o' o' 3 2 o' 1 ' 0 4' 3! tT 01 81 2! 11 Qi 31 01 0: 31 11 0 1' 0! 01 4- 2 11 1 187' 1181 ZT 81 TT 91 T 61 31 21 81 121 ___ 391 __ 21 ___ 7! 6 61 31 8' 41 311 5i 1! 41 10 1 131 1. O' 380' c (1) c Q. .jU W 10 19 3 0 0 82 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 1 01 6 1  0 0 1 4 0 5i 0 0 4 1 1 0 01 145 o o _ c X a o Q C co 42 c c O QI o l~ W N 227 170 131 145 133 96 9 41 14 15 19 11 13 15 14 22 15 51 19 3 38 39 35 11 12 25 6 63 12 7 14 16 8 17 8 2 1473 Pnnted February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based on information supplied by the Little Rock School District UnauditedWashington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 12 12 17 17 17 17 Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central McClellan McClellan McClellan 18 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Bale Bale Bale Bale Brady Brady Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett I Badgett Name Class K K K K IK K K K K K K 03 04 05 P4 01 05 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 03 03 03 04 04 04 04 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 Student ID Zone Block 939926 940177 958755 959096 959252 959506 959807 959812 950081 960545 960805 929207 950598 918916 959373 952488 916865 936007 937049 927595 928747 930971 933965 934913 935342 936452 929232 931103 937535 919341 922211 925877 961005 908367 910318 913061 916045 918958 918964 918967 919347 920475 932327 895059 896341 896527 897157 905235 910119 910347 910385 913270I 913968 925876 926004 937531 482 482 481 481 484 481 240 483 124 301 484 481 123 481 220 474 478 240 483 220 240 220 123 240 220 220 240 126 483 220 126 126 123 220 240 220 240 482 123 483 220 220 240 220 124 123 482 240 220 124 126 220 474 126 483 483 Page 1Washington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett McDermott McDermott McDermott McDermott Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Fair Park Fair Park Fair Park Fair Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Franklin Franklin Franklin Franklin Name Class Student ID Zone Block 06 K K K K K K P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 01 02 06 06 01 01 02 02 02 03 03 04 04 05 05 05 05 06 K K 01 03 K P4 01 01 01 02 02 03 03 03 03 06 06 06 K K K 01 01 03 03 961311 939897 939944 939946 952423 959551 961273 956706 956789 956798 957014 957442 958430 959481 959478 909989 959477 936945 951189 930498 936457 936467 930382 930884 917043 924017 911525 915454 918878 932095 932096 951930 959515 934286 929357 960765 958854 938480 950814 960294 929108 960292 929935 935767 935783 960649 918997 935784 950740 951261 956384 959345 934018 935131 925116 930446 220 240 220 220 220 125 220 481 240 125 126 483 220 483 483 481 483 240 124 126 124 124 124 478 126 124 124 478 240 481 481 126 478 240 240 126 483 126 124 483 125 483 240 220 126 123 126 126 123 124 220 125 483 482 482 481 Page 2Washington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School 25 I 25 I 25 I 25 25 26 26 26 26 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 29 29 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 31 31 Name Class Student ID Zone Block Franklin Franklin Franklin Franklin Franklin Garland Garland Garland Garland Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Western Hills Western Hills Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson I Jefferson Cloverdale Elem Cloverdale Elem 03 05 06 K P4 02 K K P4 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 03 03 04 05 05 06 06 K K 04 06 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 03 03 03 03 03 04 04 04 04 06 06 06 K 01 01 951919 930447 896347 938615 957032 952489 952490 960770 957595 935182 951670 951917 961153 961239 961470 928428 929776 933656 934065 934387 935564 935766 961152 930745 951869 923996 913547 951872 896357 951672 959482 961295 923304 896342 950885 961465 930524 930525 930865 932094 936961 924292 929835 930397 937012 937277 930572 932018 937851 957844 910115 911236 957846 956673 934242 951957 481 481 124 482 482 474 474 127 220 124 478 123 482 478 240 481 126 484 482 123 240 220 482 126 478 483 123 483 126 478 124 220 220 220 124 483 125 125 125 481 125 124 482 126 220 481 123 220 482 123 127 126 123 220 126 125 Page 3Washington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School Name Class Student ID Zone Block 31 31 31 31 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 Cloverdale Elem Cloverdale Elem Cloverdale Elem Cloverdale Elem Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller' Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller 02 04 05 K 01 01 02 03 04 04 05 05 06 06 06 K 01 01 02 02 02 03 03 04 04 05 06 K 01 02 03 03 03 04 05 05 05 06 K 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 i03 04 04 04 05 935085 916339 918115 951336 931558 933883 937378 916712 916958 960998 910860 914224 912606 914018 960997 960360 951496 951497 926800 931798 935969 928641 936600 918895 936601 917160 896351 940141 961203 930135 922914 929087 932037 917590 910227 919152 920191 912910 959352 934077 934479 934849 935715 926278 928123 928183 928187 928301 928360 928510 930459 930461 918346 921616 922162 913922 125 483 484 125 126 127 126 482 127 484 484 127 126 124 484 127 124 124 127 483 124 124 481 124 481 127 124 482 240 220 240 482 481 220 220 126 484 125 240 482 482 220 483 220 220 478 220 301 483 301 220 220 124 220 220 220 Page 4Washington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School Name Class Student ID Zone Block 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 39 39 39 40 41 41 41 41 41 44 44 44 44 44 44 Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rightsell Rightsell Romine Stephens ' Stephens Stephens Stephens Stephens Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 K K P2 P3 P4 P4 P4 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 03 04 06 K K 01 02 02 03 03 04 04 06 06 06 06 06 K K 01 03 05 05 01 04 04 04 06 02 03 04 04 05 06 916520 917227 896368 905240 910579 910629 930206 939636 939895 939176 952196 956808 956973 958660 950305 953072 928204 929152 935764 935765 937347 937348 931438 932294 935781 961082 961083 959811 928486 933344 923617 959509 917620 957969 893243 894270 896417 910527 959005 959100 960511 934154 927548 910809 930496 935180 917504 923334 925326 895902 932736 930750 915829 924742 924360 896432 220 301 220 220 483 220 240 220 478 482 220 220 220 220 478 474 483 474 482 482 482 482 478 482 482 484 484 484 125 124 482 481 124 474 220 220 220 482 478 482 124 474 474 220 126 124 124 483 124 240 474 126 220 220 474 240 Page 5Washington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School Name Class Student ID Zone Block 44 44 44 44 44 45 46 46 46 46 46 46 47 47 47 47 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 50 50 50 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 52 52 52 52 52 52 Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Woodruff Mablevale Elem Mablevale Elem Mablevale Elem Mablevale Elem Mablevale Elem Mablevale Elem Terry Terry Terry Terry Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Watson Watson Watson Watson Watson Watson 06 06 K K K 01 01 01 01 01 04 05 01 02 03 04 01 02 02 02 03 03 04 K 01 06 06 02 02 02 03 03 03 03 04 04 04 05 05 05 06 K K 01 02 03 04 06 06 907223 912946 957974 959908 960923 951862 934208 935650 950854 952103 930414 911752 950976 928038 959669 959670 951921 928039 936097 936420 925592 931927 919839 961394 951013 955199 955201 933364 952129 961258 925000 926057 928808 932135 908112 923295 931269 907724 910429 913208 910438 957988 961259 938481 930250 922739 927950 894474 914000 126 220 125 123 220 484 220 124 125 124 478 124 240 481 478 478 220 474 481 481 220 220 220 220 483 481 481 483 125 126 125 125 483 125 125 124 482 240 124 478 478 125 126 220 220 125 127 127 240 Total Students: 329 Printed February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon information supplied by the Little Rock School District Unaudited Page 6Dept. Name \"Western\" Little Rock Schools* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 47 24 20 38 48 30 18 40 Terry Forest Park McDermott Pulaski Heights Fullbright Jefferson Brady Romine * Excluding Williams T otals / Averages LRSD Per Pupil Expenditure by Elementary School 1993-1994 Budget Budget 93-94 $1,145,178.91 $988,864.02 $1,248,156.17 $978,390.22 $1,324,665.59 $1,299,887.52 $1,046,436.40 $1,267,911.36 $9,299,490.19 \"Southwestern\" Little Rock Schools 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 46 33 51 50 29 52 37 31 22 32 28 44 Mablevale Meadowcliff Wakefield Otter Creek Western Hills Watson Geyer Spnngs Cloverdale Baseline Dodd Chicot Wilson $1,127,741.07 $1,008,936.95 $1,062,990.19 $844,592.87 $846,932.77 $1,131,673.02 $748,975.30 $1,011,782.28 $974,301.85 $834,015.87 $1,550,045.51 $1,144,796.51 PTE 45 37 42 40 47 45 43 45 46 33 41 30 34 43 34 42 41 35 64 40 Enrollment Black Enrollment Black % Per Pupil Budget Spent on Black Children T otals! Averages $12,286,784.19 \"Fringe\" Little Rock Schools 1 2 3 23 17 19 Fair Park Bale Badgett $867,162.06 $1,117,713.33 $708,951.85 32 43 28 T otals / Averages $2,693,827.24 \"Inner Citv\" Little Rock Schools* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 45 35 42 25 36 34 39 26 41 49 Woodruff M L. King Washington Franklin Rockefeller Mitchell Rightsell Garland Stephens Ish $644,242.24 $1,588,019.16 $2,278,100.33 $1,567,895.14 $1,764,565.19 $1,311,925.10 $1,238,154.99 $1,408,766.58 $1,273,272.88 $70,411.25 27 77 90 62 72 50 44 50 46 \"Inner City Schools as a Group Incentive Schools Only Woodruff. King \u0026amp; Washington $13,074,941.61 $8,564,579.88 $4,510,361.73 *Excluding Carver,Gibbs and Booker Magnets Total Black Enrollment Black Enrollment in Non-lncentive Schools Black Enrollment in Incentive Schools 561 458 509 398 520 504 397 334 243 200 262 190 233 213 263 247 43 44 51 48 45 42 66 74 $2,041.32 $2,159.09 $2,452.17 $2,458.27 $2,547.43 $2,579.14 $2,635.86 $3,796.14 $496,040.06 $431,818.35 $642,469.38 $467,070.71 $593,552.08 $549,357.23 $693,231.17 $937,647.02 3681 1851 50% $2,526.35 $4,676,271.76 488 434 447 341 332 442 288 386 343 292 509 354 311 306 337 141 215 353 208 304 265 189 356 263 64 71 75 41 65 80 ,72 79 77 65 70 74 $2,310.94 $2,324.74 $2,378.05 $2,476.81 $2,551.00 $2,560.35 $2,600.61 $2,621.20 $2,840.53 $2,856.22 $3,045.28 $3,233.89 $718,703.84 $711,370.29 $801,404.24 $349,230.48 $548,465.50 $903,802.21 $540,926.61 $796,844.08 $752,740.50 $539,825.34 $1,084,118.27 $850,512.66 4656 3248 70% $2,638.91 $8,597,944.01 263 303 189 755 236 553 721 345 340 230 189 205 145 2964 1454 1510 200 225 132 557 147 357 451 300 240 215 184 181 141 2216 1261 955 7372 6611 1261 76 74 70 74% 62 65 63 87 71 93 97 88 97 75% 87% 63% 100% 84% 16% $3,297.19 $3,688.82 $3,751.07 . $3,567.98 $2,729.84 $2,871.64 $3,159.64 $4,544.62 $5,189.90 $5,704.02 $6,551.08 $6,872.03 $8,781.19 $4,411.25 $5,890.36 $2,986.99 $3,256.57 $2,739.83 $5,965.67 $659,438.83 $829,985.15 $495,140.97 $1,987,366.59 $401,286.48 $1,025,176.93 $1,424,997.57 $1,363,387.08 $1,245,575.43 $1,226,364.77 $1,205,399.57 $1,243,837.81 $1,238,148.11 $10,374,173.74 $7,522,712.76 $2,851,460.98 $25,635,756.09 $18,113,043.33 $7,522,712.76 Pnnted February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitonng based upon inforrnation supplied by the Little Rock School Distnct Based upon Octi, 1993 enrollment data and LRSD 1993-94 Budget Unauditedstudent Counts of Sending and Receiving Schools - LRSD Elementary Grades - Summary Sending Zone School  Attending School Badgett ______ Bale __________ _ _____ Booker _ _____ Carvw___________ Chicot 1 Cloverdale Elem D odd  _____________ Fair ___________ _ Fran^ FdIxyM____________ _ ____ __ \u0026lt;^er Spongy____ JeflerMn _ __ ML King _ ______ McOermqn ___ Meadowdifl _________ __________ __________ Pulastd Heights Bem Righlsei____________ RockefeKer___________ Ronine_____________ Stephere____________ ____________ W^ehetd WasNngIqn _ We^n HiMs _____ Woodufi Central Kindergarten Fair kmdagarten Hal Kindergarten_____ McClelan Kindergarten Partvrew Kindergarten 106 _ 1 b i Ip 1 11 1 q 2 0 0 0 0' 0 1 b q q q q 0 0 1 0 8 Zq 1 b q 1 Ji 2 ZI q 1 i J 2 158 _q 14 7  _ 4 0 ' 9 _5  5 14 3 _6 3 12 4 5 '0 _7 .1 2 6 0 14 14 Z_ 1 _5 21i _ b 11 12 7 '2 i S 1 _q 0 ' 196 Z's \"1 3 8 J2 6 2 2 5  o' _q 11 ' _2 3 'is _q _i 0 3 0 0 _2 _ q 0 _8 Z 111 2 __6 q 0 0 I _ q 3 n izi J _i _i -12 6 _l _4 _2 _7 11 _ 1 b J3  b 3 1 2 0 1 13 2 is 2 ^b J pi 2 5 ' b Grand Total Sendng Schod I 1 li 20  112 _ 4 ^io 269 28 J 3 i _q' _3 1 1 li' _4 0 5 _ii 2 __8 __3 __7 1 0 J2 __1 0 4 'i2 J2 35 Z_1 4 9 i 0 _i^ _q 9 ' 17 1^ _9 190 _1 11 _1 Z i _b 1 to 5 1 7 20 _1 4 0 6 1 -3 6 \"j Jq 2 14 ie 12 '0 3 0 b ' 0 1 2 _2 2 li ' J 11 1 146 2 1 1 3 3 1 i 1 .... 4 8 0 2 3 23 0 3 0 _4 b J12 9 it 0 0 1 I I c ? c i q 0 1 b 0 0 0 0 1 b 2 0 0 2 0 1 q 1 b 'i 1 q 0 0 1 b 1 2 135 369 336 361 533 375 276 0 _3\" q '13 6 _8 1 i o' 141 9 9 3 1 2 11 lb 2 q 25 6 __2 0 13 0 6 1 li 2 q 8 _41 2 6  i 0 3 0 0 343 1 5 11 5 1^ 0 _2 J2' 265  2 22 b 0 Z 9 11 3 11 __3 3 2 9 1 8 _o __q _2 4 8 0 '2 ii 1 19 1 q b 0 0 2 26 3 lb 15 4 5 0 _0 1] 10 194 16  10\" _0 2 '20 7  2 35 _3q 5 1 18 4 4 7 lb  12 3 lo _J1 12 ii io i 1 b 0 2 0 9 0 ' 19 \" 44 Zzi 4 _q' _2 5 7 5 336 0 2 _P __0 2 0 26 _3 2 1 10 0 12 21 3 19 q 23 Zl 2 13 JZ 5 b 2 '2 0 4 I 0 4 3 _0 4 2 3 4 6 _ I 7 i 136 1 4 J4 5 0 8 10 6 (rt o I is 1 0 0 2q Z 6 b 4 5 '9 0 _q 0 3 0 q 122 5 I 3 0 0 JO 6 38 2 0 3 8 30 1 9 1 ti o\u0026gt; c 2 1 314 441 539 637 _4 I 1 1 2 14 1 2 J 14 3 4 5 1 J b 0 0 q 2 '0 J2 1 2 4 6 _ 1 J 2 17 J4 4 1 6 q 2 0 b ' 0 0 0 10 1 7 JI 6 2 17 3 39 2 i J 2? 3 2 11 3 3 ' 2 Jo i 1 0 2 0 1 _1 _5 _6 10 2 '0 __7 __5 __3 1 _P _ 1 io 11 253 1 o I 0 2 6 i 5 28 26 i 0 q 0 0 0 3 'q q 0 7 264 0 Zq 7 18 6 7 2 -1 0 2 2 Zl 1 2 2 i ' i 2 b J  1 0 2 2 J 3 _q 0 ~2 J b 0 _i 9 23 q ^4 3 0 0 I b 2 b 312 271 5941 407 397 ! s 1 o \u0026amp; I _6 -I 5 \"13 ' ' lb' 1 ' 0 ' 7 _!? _1 7^' Z21 8 1 2 Ji 4 _b 295 q 3 ~~ b 10 8 _ 6 8 6 I12 q ZO b li .JI 5 9 0 1 1 b 0 0 11 _ 0 _i2 6 _P 2 _] 7 ' _4 Jl _ 5 '6 is Ji _7 2 5 5 247 _3 2 6 2 7 0 __1 5 '_7 7 2 2 _6 _ 3 8 0 0 527 450 .1.. J 3 6 '4 ' 7 8 6 9 3 Jl 3 11 J5 5 _ 1 4 9 6 12 J 5 _i5 II 109 _ 7 7 6 7 0 3 3 ' 2 2 JZl _q 2 9 7 II b b 0 1 318 J 3 3 0 2 2 16 sb _9 6 Z1 6 Jl 2 6 3 i 15 Z 1 J0 20 260 1 1 6 3 q 4 4 V1 16 0 6 '2 i 3 3 b  2 1 551 g m w  ra 3 0 2 0 3 3 4 1 2* g q '3 2 2 11 6 I 4 S g IX 0 4 2 8 4 3 5 2 7 17 ii I \u0026amp; 55 q ' 1 0 q 9 '0 g- q 0 12 2 _ 6 4 ' 5 q 0 19 10 5 b 6 1 i ~ b 205 2 _ 6 3 \" q 3 6 1 ' 3 1 ' i lo 2 1 6 31 ?3 4 2  3 II 0 3 __1 129 7 _ 0 q 6 6 3 q  7 0 4 Z2 7 1 2 2 4 3 '3 3 4 118 II b 6 2 b 24 3 ' 2 3 '2 '0 b 2 4 i i 9 ' b 2 _o 3 _3  3 2 \"i  i 8 5 3 2 9 q 2 15 5 b ii 7 I 0 1 b I 2 5 4 '16 12 '26 2 '4 \" i 2 8 9 3 3 \" 0 3 2 2 i 13 3 i i 1 g 2 \"7 9 15 12 6 ^2 I 4 1 4 2 _2 \" 0 17 7 15 0 8 177 0 2 1 41 0 7 0 q 8 I 19 i 0 I 0 0 327 6 29 i 3 'b 2 i i 4 3 b 0 q 0 1 i 3 4 6 2 b 0 1 0 4 1 19 3b II ' I 0 3 b q \"4 12 2 3 0 4 116 1 I4 0 0 b 4 2 _ 4 q 0 q _4 i \"b b 323 7 o R) s _52 4 Ii 32 2 23 ' 6 '2 4 9 ' 6 4 13 '4 20 ib 6 4 12 I 3 14 3 31  i 5 4 ' 16 '6 c   1 g I S S 5 q '2 8 PO b 1? 132 5 0 1 4 q 3 \" 2 2 3 31 b 2 J 8 q  1 5 _ 0 _q q \"it 'q 295 0 6 _1 2 3 I 2 1 i 3 2 J 1 b 5 b b 2 2 J q 0 J 0 Zi 8 q 7 1 2 i _q 12 q Z^'* ^1 _'3 Z 1 1 15  4 3 14 ' 2 \"q ' It 3 1 0 _i __4 0 __3 1 4  25 0 17 2 30 2 1 3 0 0 2 4 _2 i 0 ' 0 \" i 3 q P q 4 \" 4 2 b 2 _ 1 'i J2 0 12 0 10 R c e co a _l ex I b c z o s s OJ s I 1 s 320 257 411 S 1 c 5 3 i 5 3 q q q 0 J 20 t 5 2 q 2 '~o ' 1 1 4 2 i 0 0 1 4 b 2 5 ii i 6 b b 3 '0 1_ 2 0 1 1 b 3 0 190 _7 24 \"2 0 i b _q 1 JO 10 216 1 i b  3 _q 1 t 4 1 q 1 b 0 1 b 93 0 q 0 0 0 200 582 457 690 491 290 467 153 1 2 I 2 q 0 J 0 2 t _q q q q q q q 7 b q J J 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 P 0 0 J 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 00 11 111 q _1 _1 0 _ q q 0 0 b 30 q 0 i b Z_q 0 _i b 7 0 1 b 0 35 ZJo 0 59 _2 6 6 ' b Z P 0 b 0 _3 q _3 101 \" 0 0 3 _0 _b _ 1 7_ 0 \"0 _45 b 151 'i __b _ q _'q 0 10 2 J3 _4 _1 ~2 q 02 ' 0 1^ 117 Ip  3 0 Zb i q 0 0 q q 4 1 2 2 2 0 2 q 3 b q 12 2 1 2 q 0 0 1 0 b b Zq 1 \" 1 2 b 2 i  i 0 b b q 0 184 304 319 Ml 386 595 107 284 261 336 520 204 ^3 500 548 4^ 420 '221 ~345 392 187 335 'M3 448 7M 421 324 473 366 231 50 19 120 2Q 357 785 451 14032 Pnnled February 1994 Prepved by tw Office o\u0026lt; Oesege^aton Montoring based i\u0026lt;ion nfonnakon s^iphed by l\u0026gt;e LiMe Rock School Dtsticl UnaudtedLRSD Black/White Student Count by Zone Block \u0026amp; Attending Schools Zone Block Schools E Attending Schools Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Elem Bodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fullbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson M.L King Mablevale Elem McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski HtS- Elem Race BL WH BL wh\" BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH ' BL Whi BL WH BL WH  BL WH BL WH BL WH ' BL wh' BL WH BL wh BL_ wh BL WH BL Whi BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH ' BL 9 ot i 67 39 1 0 4 2 0 b 1 2 q 0 1 2 P 0 2 2 2 2 p 2 2 2 q 0 p 0 1 b 0 0 p 2 0 0 p 0 p 0 0 b p 0 1 n m 1 i 111 '47 0 8 6 13 __2 5 2 3 1 0 0 9 0 _4 __ __4 __1 12 '2 3 __q _5 1 i 6 6 1 3 3 2 P 0 4 3 4 0 6 0 2 2 9 C LU o  ta 0 b _P 0 153 43 11 4 1 ' 6 2 1 __3 5 14 5 1 5 __q 2 __q 5 __q q __q 0 0 __6 __5 __2 0 0 0 2 i 12 3 0 b 0 1 _P __q __3 0 __q e \u0026lt;a p 0 3 0 2 1 2 9 66 74 2 1 2 0 1 b 1 b 2 3 3 '9 2 4 1 0 4 0 2 0 2 '5 2 12 0 i 0 0 5 6 0 0 3 0 1 b 0 o u O 1 0 1 0 J? 6 4 8 3 1 _1 __3 173 96 M  ii _ P 3 P 0 P ' 0 o O 1 b _0 b 8 1 1 W 3 i _ 3 e 24 3 147 43 _ 1 ' b _0 b 1 p ' 2 1 ' i g n K n  6 5 c e o 3 1 2 1 ' 0 _1 b 5 6 3 1 0 0 3 '2 26 is 2 b 5 * 3 3 0 4 3 1 J 2 0 1 0 b 0 1 9 1 5 0 1 0 4 3 19 1 P 0 2 2 0 0 6 0 1 2 ' 0 8 '3 1 b 5 0 1 1 1 0 80 66 2 b 0 i 1  b 3 b 0 ' 3 _i i 1 0 0 1 1 b 2 2 0 i 1 b 2 2 4 4 0 0 3 0 b 4 9 3 5 3 5 1 0 1 '0 q  0 66 45 P 9 3 6 2 1 __l 0 2 b 1 \"ib 4 6 q 2 p  0 _ 4 i 6 0 2 \"o 0 0 3 1 b _5 0 0 b 3 2 4 b 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 9 __3 60 205 1 i _4 18 0 0 q 0 4 3 1 8 4 7 3 0 6 10 3 0 1 2 T 0 7 2 0 22 4 _ 3 0 7 3 13 ~2 _ 4 0 5 0 q 0 q 0 13 'i 18 0 190 4 15 'i 6  4 6 0 4 3 20 0 6  1 2 b 33 2 30 b _ 3 2 1 0 18 p 0 6 3 q 0 11 6 26 15 13 2 3 1 _ P 0 2 0 4 1 _4 3 3 2 126 210 _ 9 0 D C n c ra O 0 b _4 0 _p 0 0 b 4 0 0 3 0 P 0 4 0 6 0 _6 1 7 b 1 0 123 '13 1 1 3 6 3 5 1 i q 0 14 12 3 0 2 0 _1 0 6 1 b 4 0 14 0 4  i p 0 8 0 18 0 6 0 _4 0 1 0 D) C c   O 0 b --P 0 17 '3 4 2 P 0 3 i 3 2 9 0 0 b p 0 0 0 3 0 p 0 _P 0 ip3 49 _3 2 0 1 q 0 p 2 0 b 8 4 1 b 1 b 2 o It a\u0026gt; o\u0026gt; c E iu 5 3 b q '0 p o 1^ \"5 3  3 36 2 _ 1 1 P 0 3 0 5 14 16 _ 0 1 1 8 1 0 __b 5 6 75 239 9 i 1 b 0 1 1 0 _ 6 0 2 ' 0 15 2 q 0 _i b 0 b 14 0 5  0 6 b 10 0 2 b 0 0 1 b 4 i 3 b 1 b 0 b 7 b _16 Q 6 0 245 8 7 0 0 b 3 0 _5 2 IP 0 6 \u0026lt;Q 2 0 b _p 2 6 1 2 4 1 b 5 b J7 11 2p 6 _q i 0 b _ 0 b q 0 p 0 p 0 2 i _P 0 0 b 0 b 139 125 2 b 2 ' 0  o 2 0 1 6 0 3 1' 1 0 I' 1 Q p 5 6 1 6 4 p 1 _p 0 4 3 12 0 8 1 4 3 8 12 6 2 6 1 P 2 2 4 2 2 p 0 109 186 0 0 3 0 q 0  1 x (Q  2 0 b _14 5 _0 0 Ip \"2 6 0 _5 4 1 i o u 2 3 0 6 0 4 b 6 1 S o e s 1 b 3 0 Page 1 E LU (/\u0026gt; w 3 0 6 o c P 1 2 5 4 0 6 i 16 '4 5 0 6 b 9 9 i 1 0 \u0026amp; b 6 0 _8 1 3 0 5 0 3 0 1p 0 5 0 5 b 1 i 1 b 4 0 9 ' 0 6 0 1? 1 5 b 5 0 134 113 2 i 2 0 5 5 b 15 0 14 0 104 5 tt \"o 6 _ 1 2 8 0 2 0 2 0 11 5 43 7 5 4 6 0 3 b 5 i 1 b 2 b 6 ' 0 3 0 0 1 13 2 33 2i 0 b 16 '0 18 2 71 189 1 i 0 0 1 2 3 0 2 2 q 0 P 0 3 b 0 2 1 5 q 4 1 4 0 b 0 b 2 IZ 5 5 P 5 p 0 4 2 p \" 0  P 0 3 0 1 i 8 0 3 0 4 2 6 ' b 1 b 3 b 1 b 4 i 0 b 2 b 1 b 6 0 3^ 1 1 0 p 0 46 13 0 4 b 2 b 3 b 11 b 8 b 3 b 8 0) 1 or 4 ' 0 4 ' ' 0 2 _q. 6 2 4 0 3 0 4 ' 2 3 0 6 b 0 0 1 Q 4 0 0 0 4 b 6 0 3 4 1 0 2 b 2 b 4 0 3 0 2 1 0 3 e c E o or 0 0 5 ' 0 _2 b 6 i 14 '3 10 i o 0 0 1 i 2 b 0 0 19 '5 2 1 1 i 3 0 14 i P 0 0 0 2 b 4 2 0 1 1 2 9 0 p 0 2 0 q 0 3 1 b 0 2 0 2 9 2 0 2 0 1 b 1 b 8 0 5 0 3 0 2 0 9 0 0 0 2 0 15 0 5 b 0 b 11 b 1 0 2 3 4 b 6 10 5 11 5 21 2 0 4 0 9 c u ra g 2 ' b 5 2 8 1 o c 1 b 1 i 6 2 6 3 17 1'4 3 0 0 b 6 9 q 2 4 2 9 3 4 1 2 0 i 4 2 1 i V) (0 g 5 3 1 16 0 30 2 2 0 42 b 22 1 J 0, 0 0 1 2 6 0 1 2 1 PL 6 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 4 13 2 0 b 0 0 4  0 6 0 12 0 4 0 15 b 9 b 8 0 3 1 J2 'i 4 0 20 0 9 i c o 13 n g 0 b _2 0 8 2q 8 2 p 0 12 b 28 4 15 5 1 4 0 b 1 b 3 0 4 b 0 b 3 0 q 2 0 2 2 i i E  g 0 0 6 0 1 2 4 2 2 0 3 0 2 1 q 2 1 b 1 6 3 -Pj 0 g 0 b 8 4 0 0 4 ib 4 6 9 4 1 0 0 12 3 1 0 1 0 12 1 1 4 2 q 2 0 0 2 6 0 4 0 12 ~b 9 2 3 0 14 26 5 0 0 2 0 3 0 8 0 4- 1 1 1 3 2i ?! 0 1 b 2 0 4 ' 1 0 0 2 2 q 2 2 0 1 b q 0 0 0 3 _9 C e 5 o   c 3 o O jn 8 u jj W 1 2 5 9 1 1 0 b 2 9 1 2 1 b 0 b 7 4 q 'i 2 2 0 0 3 g p ' 0 p 0 2  0 0 2 0 p 1 1 0 0 n O) 0) 1 0 1 0 q '1 1 1 q 0 q 0 p 1 0  o z p 0 0 0 p 0 42 46 0 0 51 64 p 0 0 n w  O. _ 0 0 0 3 0 0 64 ioo _q 3 65 126 0 0 b^ 01 g Z P 0 0 0 0 0 _1 3 1 0 2 b 2 0 2 o 0 e e o \u0026lt; 135 49 '1^ 63 318 213 253 133 330 265 J48 139 295 0 0 b 0 j 0 0 0 3 b 0 0 p 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 b 0 0 Oi 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 b 0 b 0 0 0 0 1 b 0 i 0 1 3 2 b 0 0 2 0 1 b J 0 J 1 0 0 6 p 0 q 0 q 0 0 0 0 0 q 7 0 b p 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 4. 9t 14-1 0 0 1 Q 6 0 0 0i _Pi -4 18 16! 27 o' 0 0 b 0 1 0 4 q 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 151 0 '1 p 0 _0 b 0  0 0 o' 2 0 0 3 6 0 b 0 0 1 1 ii 2 0 0 i 1 i 0 0 0 0 0 85 179 ibs 195 '66 164 261 291 '45 233 2ii 178 26 214 89 1?1 129 211 289 334 214 300 178 259 249 2^ 125 J 68 23 1^ 199 189Attending Schools Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Central Kindergarten Hall Kindergarten Fair Kindergarten McClellan Kindergarten Parkview Kindergarten Grand Total Zone Schools [Race WH BL WH BL WH ' BL WH BL WH BL WH~ BL WH BL wh' BL- WH BL wh' BL wh' BL WH BL WH  BL bl WH WH BL WH BL t) e o 1 0 _ p 0 3  5 0 b 1  b p 0 _0 b 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 _b 0 0 1 b 1 p 0 0 0 1 b 0 9 4 0  0 5 * 9 4  jo 0 0 3 2 1 b 3 8 0 0 JO 0 9 3 6 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 _ P 0 0 135 369  c S 0 p\" 0 2 ' 1 A 0 o' 0 0 b 3 5 0 4 ^5 5 2 ' 0 6 b p  0 p 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 E 2  p ' 0 _P 1 9 \"4 _J 0 7 8 2 0 9 16 P 0 1 b 11 ib 1 i 1 4 0 0 2 _0 0 p ' 0 1 o o \"o -P 0 8 4 1 b _g 0 3 ' 1 9 3 4 8 26 7 _6 0 4 b 5 4 0 1 0 1 b p 0 p 0 1 336 361 533 LRSD Black/White Student Count by Zone Block \u0026amp; Attending Schools Zone Block Schools E e ui 1 o O b 2 1 _ J '2 0 1 0 \"o 2 0 14 ' 0 JO 8 JO '2 0 0 _ 3 b 0 0 P 0 0 _ p 0 _1 b p ~ 0 0 375 o  0 2 0 2 1 6 15 0 0 _ 1 2 0 0 2 2 _0 0 JO 2 i 9 P P P p 0 P g J 2 276 K (S 10 p ~ 0 1 1 6 0 1 Zp p 3 2 0 3 17 0 0 8 0 6 35 1 i p 6 1 1 2 0 0 P 0 0 343 e  1 5 c e oi -c 3 2 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 1 i 4 0 5 3 p 0 2 Q 2 9 1 b 16 1 1 p 0 p 0 p 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 7 6 JO 0 12 0 1 'b 3 b 0 0 JI b 12 b 11 b 10 0 p p 0 2 4 _P 0 7  _5 16 '5 3 0 9 io _P 0 9 14 0 0 2 0 _7  6 15 2 4 1 0 1 i 2 0 P 0 4 o c 5 (0 O 0 1 0 vt O) c 'C (d c o c 2 441 539 637 J 'o 2 0 10 0 1J \"o 1 0 _7 b J ' 0 JJ 0 3  0 _ J 0 5 ' 0 1 P \" 0 1 _o 0 0 \"b 9 o 0 4 0 2 1 b 1 0 2 0 11 6 3 i 0 1 ~ 0 6 b P 0 2 ' 0 0 p 0 0 0 p 0 0 2 3 0 32 1 2 6 0 1 _1 b 3 0 25 4 3 \"o _ 2 0 p io 2 b 1 Q 2 '0 1 b 0 0 2 0 2 0 6 b E o UJ e 5 9  (0 2 b _o 0 A 0 1 0 0 0 p 0 312 271 1 2 2 1 2 0 P 0 _1 0 0 1 b 2 p 2 p 1 b 1 p 2 p 0 0 0 1 b 2 1 21 2 0 0 2 2 1 2 P 0 0 p 0 p 1 594 1 0 0 2 0 0 o \u0026lt;5 u 2 0 8 0 p' 6 3 _5 6  0 -3 9 p ' 0 3 16 0 0 5 \" 0 9 _9 5 0 4 5 0 _ p 1 0 0 g 0 0 1 s 2 1 2  2 1 6 407 397 527 Page 2 S d I 0 E e ui 1 4 3 0 1 b 4 i 5 2 4 2 1 i 1 i 4 2 3 6 2 1 1 0 J 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 '3 6 3 0 p 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 9 'o 5 2 11 p 0 P 0 0 0 5 i 3 0 0 2 n  Q. 159 0 \"0 2 ' 4 2 1 0 \"b 3 2 4 0 1 4 12 4 0 0 6 0 P 2 1 0 J 0 0 J 0 2 0 1 1 450 318 551  O)  1 126 1  e 1 c 0 1 E a 0 2  1 5 2 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 26 3 -J. OI 101 '17 1 b _o 0 6 b 3 b 18 2 J 0 3 0 22 J 0 39 2 p 0 J 2 n' 0 1 b 11 o: 1 0 6 o: 0 gi t, o! 0 ft aI 0 0 8 4 3 11 1 1 0 P ~0 g p. 0 327 oL-l-: 3i 0 0 0 jO 0 6 0 2 0 ol 6 + 0. 1 1 b 16 '~3 30 0 11 \"b 1 ' 6 0 p 0 2 ~ 1 g ' 0 4 Vi   a q\u0026gt; W b p _o _g 1 0 b 62 0 12 b 2 0 3 b p 0 _5 0 3 0  3 0 0 6 2 1 1 3 1 85 261 1 b 4 id 0 b 0 0 11 \u0026lt;  b _g 0 1  3 1 0 0 0 0 0 237 66 3 4 J 2 1 .. 11- 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' - 0 2 j_ p 0 p 0 1 1 _b 4 Q 2 b 0 i 0 1 p 4 0 320 257 411 200 582 c  (A n $ b 3   0  26 5 1 ' b _5 0 4 0 16  ~ 0 263' 5 6 0 2 0 4 __i 11 b 1 0 __8 P 0  P 0 3 ' 0 0 457 5 0 1 b 5 0 6 0 P ' 0 0 0 7 4 5 3 235 60 1 \" b _6 b w i E i 5 0 0 0 0 1 i c E 8 I c 3 o o 690 1 1 p p p 0 1 p 2 J 0 491 2 '6 0 0 _6 1 1 0 _ 1 i _1 0 87 103 _5 __2 M i 2 0 __p P 0 J P 0 p S 5 0 _ 1\" b 3 1 ' 1 ~ is 0 b 7  lb 2' ' b 3 27 2 ~0 _13 '7 16 3 1JJ '72 0 1 __1 _ p 3 P 0 0 5 4 0 0 6 1 '0 4 ' 0 1 b _g 0 0 1 0 0 _ 0 b n S 290 1 1 b p 0 57 36 0 p 0 0 0 _0 0 0 P, p 2 1 6 0 0 0 0 p 0 1 b 4 b p 0 p ~o 0 b p 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Z i 0 b 3 4 0 b 0 1 0 6 p  0 p 35 0 0 0 ' 6 26 33 _ 1 i ) n  9 0 4 9 0 4 0 ' 1 0 g 8 z 0 J 0 p 0 0 0 0 b 0 2 0 467 153 0 8  o fl \u0026lt;/) o cn H c c c o' 0 0 0 26 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 61 0 0 0  1 44 73 0 0 p 3 0 _0 1 0  0 P ' 0 0 1 0 1 b 2 b p 0 1 i 1 b 0 1 0 p 0 0 0 0 b 0 \u0026amp; s 203 _i6g  7 254 '126 243 '92 141 4 238 315 OJO ' 108 _JJ8 212 63 _2O7 117 258 215 267 99 _JJ5 85 50 ___1 ____12 _16 3 _18 2 20 357 7851 45 14032 Printed February 1994 _ led UM Rock based tyon Morrallon s\u0026lt;43^^ by Vw Ufa Rod   I 1 \"lurwuiiled [ ~ I t r t School DIstid I \"11TEL: Jun 02.94 10:35 No.002 P.03 LilUe Rock Scliool Di*tricl Stephens ^r^^Relocation Timely Task Date 1. 2. 3- 4_ Fs. Fiia motion with Court to relocate File revisions to current filings gb Hants from Stephenx Schoc^ miatinq to Stephens which_are------- ~ ~ LRSD Board of Directors \u0026amp; approved 5/18/94 before the courts 5/18/94 5/26/94 Business Case presejtedjothgj^Sg^ggEB^^ Contact the wh-^j-hould be contacted Incl .',?i!*!^?^.^'budget reduction strategy TTotify finance person to include this as a pu ---------------- '5/27/94 Person Williams Williams ~ ~~Willlam5 Ingram 5/27/94 Modeste Williams Neal \"Wagner Wagner 5/27/94 5/30/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 building ..\u0026gt;h the Stephens community , community informolion meeting tor. 7. Inventory puiiaing --------- 8 Plan and schedule public meeting 9. 1) parents \u0026amp; students\ncommunity groups and churches, media (press release) a: b) c) 10. (neai dnor-to-door delivery ........................................ asking\" ^velop letter to Parents and community meeting. 'LlTXo^commJntt^ information meeting at S'r.phcav A'chno/ to answer for a Include invite to community---------- q uest\ngns^tch^^^-----------------------------sf^bTE^i^ti55d |..\u0026gt;-i. .He PTA president and ministers.-------------- ----------- Students who do not choose a school ------- with the principal, faculty, and staff , of all students living in the Stephen School meetings.__________ 12. De^gn follow-up plan for 13 Conduct Informational meeting attendance zone and those schedule d ,.naanco zone a) those who attend Stephens School but live outside of the attendance zone mrse Who Xd stephens School but live in the attendance zone\nand^ c) tltose Who do not attend Schon/ but live m the attendance zone b) 15.Obtairt' Gciy fir 'ii\n?.' iT send notice of relocation and d^e of community information meeting to: community groups and churches. a) b) press release students with announcement and choices asking for 17 Mail letter to parents and --------- -aunn a response by a deadline. Deadline must be after community meeting. Include invite to community information meeting at 57ep/7en.r \u0026amp;/ioo/ to answer questions about choices and the relocation. 1H noiivpr fliers door-to-door, announcing relocation and information meeting, l^implement follow-up plan for students who do not respond to request for their Choice of school______________________________________________ 20. Send assignment notices_____________________________ 21 Mail letter to parents and students (who have not responded to the first letter) with announcement and choices asking for a response with a deadline.-- 22. Remove materials and equipment from school 23. Reroute transportation of students__________________ 24. Secure building______________________________________________ 25. Reassign staff____________________ 26, Send assignment notices__________ * Remaining timeline is based on Court approval. EXHIBIT 2 6I\u0026amp;IQA 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/8/94. 6/15/94 6/20/94 7/6/94 7/29/94 7/29/94 7/31/94 7/31/94 7/31/94 7/31/94 8/1/94 Wiedower Modeste Wiedower Williams Lee Williams Wagner Lee Wagner Ingram Lee Lee Eaton Montgomery ~ Eaton Hurley LeeFAST TRACK EVALUATION PROGRAM\nSTEPHENS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL I PROGRAM DESCRIPTION\nThis specific program is the construction of the Inter-District Elementary School. new Stephens It is an aspect of the tridistrict desegregation plan and the section pertaining to inter- -------- The program is to outline all steps necessary to locate and construct the second of two (2) schools in the Little Rock School District. district schools. new inter-district II GOALS\nThe goal of this program is the successful and timely construction of a new Little Rock School District inter-district elementary school. III - EVALUATION CRITERIA\nSchool The evaluation criteria is the successful completion of the school at the date agreed upon established by the Little Rock District. IV - EVALUATION RESULTS\non time, and The most accurate and successful evaluation result of this program would be the opening and operation of the school, on time, and within the desegregation racial composition as established in the Desegregation Plan. V - OBSTACLES TO GOAL OBTAINMENT\nThere appears to be numerous obstacles to obtaining the goal of completing this new inter-district school: 1. School location 2. School necessity 3. the Time to design and construct - (The obstacles laid out under this program description deal purely with the physical requirements of locating and constructing the school and not with such administrative matters as theme, program, nor recruitment.) VI RECOMMENDATIONS\nThis recommendation does not constitute a change to the inter- concept of the Desegregation Plan, but rather requests the addition of a criteria to be considered in the construction new Stephens Elementary School, of the 1. Background\nSection III of the Tri-Dlstrict District Desegregation Plan entitled II Inter- Student Choices and EXHIBIT 3Options It district outlines the concept of construction of interschools. Within that concept is the construction of the Stephens Elementary School to be located within the Little Rock School District boundaries, and is to be one of two schools constructed by the District to support this concept. The plan further states that the existing Stephens School would then be closed. The plan does not go into the background nor the rationale nor specifically mentioned any other considerations for the location and construction of the Stephens School other than to support the desegregation effort. Historically, there are two principal considerations that lead a School District to construct a new school: 1) or The student population is such that the present number size of schools in various locations is not capable of supporting the student population\ntherefore, a new school should be constructed\nand, 2) Periodic evaluations dealing with the age and condition of the existing facilities will warrant the construction of new schools to replace facilities that are too costly to repair or expand, or have outlived their usefulness to meet the current educational needs. I am addressing in this recommendation the criteria dealing with plant replacement. By separate study, as submitted to the Board in November of 1993, it has been shown that preliminary figures do not indicate sufficient student population in certain portions of the inner city to warrant adding additional seats through new construction. This is extremely important and is a critical factor in analyzing the total area to be impacted by the construction of a new school. It would lead consolidations, student population. one because to of believe that the overall possible decrease in 2) might require new schools to be constructed convenient to students, and subsequent closure of older, smaller facilities. Objective\nmore the The objective of this recommendation is to add to the criteria for the construction of the Stephens School, a consideration that reaches beyond desegregation and attempts to encompass the District's financial state with regard to the operation of schools, its need to possibly look at rezoning attendance zones in the inner city to support new construction and the need to look at its need to the age and condition of inner city schools with a view toward replacement where renovation and expansion is ^o^~prhibitive and will not meet the educational goals of the District. 23) 4) In evaluating this objective, we will need to review a general criteria of existing facilities in light of educational programs and present needs, and compare this to anticipated costs to meet current needs and future demands. It is expected that the constiruction and operation of newer, more modern, up-to-date facilities with possible consolidation and staff and the closure of older, more antiquated schools will lead to a more efficiently run financial operation and a program that better meets the students' needs. ImpactAnalysis\nThe overall program is that of integration. Larger, more modern, up-to-date schools with more innovative programs have a record of better modern attraction of a varied student body than do older, smaller schools who have had to have been haphazardly renovated to meet educational needs. This is generally true throughout the country. It is expected that a new, modern, up-to-date school in the inner city would better attract Pulaski County Students than our present existing facilities. It is expected that a new This impact is predicated on the fact that the end result would be the closure of at least two or more smaller schools with all students attending the new Stephens The risk of considering this concept of school closure of outdated schools to support new plants are two-fold: 1) If we are successful, we could conceivably be too successful, in which case the new school may not be of sufficient size to meet our needs. Careful analysis of census projections must be made and careful rezoning must be considered during the planning stage of this school. 2) The second risk is one of not considering plant within the normal course of action of School. new construction. The continued operation of schools that are becoming outdated and outmoded most definitely causes a rise in operational costs. It is imperative that we consider normal plant replacement of an entire school as well as we consider plant replacemejit of individual items such as heating ventilation units, intercoms, windows, etc., in order to insure that we are operating in a most efficient manner. Resource Analysis\n----------------------With the decrease in student numbers in the inner city and the consolidation into larger, more efficiently run schools, they'll most certainly lessen the duplication of instructional efforts as is presently found in teaching in multiple locations. Cutting back on administrative staff is obvious, and maximizing class size will allow -- \"----- Cutting back on us to decrease teacher populations. It is expected that operating costs for newer, more modern energy efficient schools will be less than that presently 35) 6) incurred for operating multiple sites of schools as old as 1906. Although a detailed analysis has not been done, the average elementary school cost per occupant for the Little Rock School District is $173.75. There are twelve schools above the average\nof these, twelve schools, six are Incentive schools (Franklin, Rightsell, Rockefeller and Stephens). Ish, Mitchell, The District has an average energy cost per elementary occupant of $113, There are fifteen schools that exceed this average\nof those, six are incentive schools (Franklin, Garland, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller and Stephens). average Little Rock School District maintenance cost is The $21,601 per elementary school, eooupent. Eight schools exceeded that average\nof those, three were incentive schools (Franklin, Rightsell and Rockefeller), maintenance figure is skewed by the large amount of dollars spent in the past couple of years through bond projects to increase the general maintenance of the schools. The District has no historical data with regard to the operational costs of newer schools\nhowever, theoretical, operational costs can be calculated The once a specified school size Is determined based on the norm. Force Field Analysis\nSupport of a new elementary school appear to be generally positive within the community\nhowever, this support is over-shadowed by the facters of location and schools possibly identified for closing. is difficult at this time to predict the strength for the new Stephens School without a careful study and much community interface regarding possible closures, identify schools at this time for possible closure, without coupling that identification to the final selected premature. site for the Identification Stephens School, would It To be Data exists showing recommendations based on perceived maintenance costs and age of facilities. C______11^ speaking, the incentive schools date back to 1906 with the last ones being constructed in the late 1950' schools constructed in the 1950's years old. General Implementation Plan\nimplemented as follows: picked primarily to Generally s. Even are forty-some odd My recommendation would be If the Stephens School site is support the needs of the Desegregation Plan, that will mandate what schools immediately adjacent to that site are considered for plant replacement. on consideration If the Stephens site is picked based of implementation would be: plant 1) replacement. then the Of after having considered 4census block projections and cost analysis of ^chool operations a community effort would begin to gather support for the closing of certain schools. It Is perceived that both goals can be reached, i.e., the one stated in the desegregation plan that the Stephens School would be closed upon construction of the new Stephens School and an analysis of existing plants which could meet both criteria. I make my recommendation so as to offer a consideration for building a new inter-city elementary school based purely on the need to decrease the schools' operational expenditures and to enhance education through modern, and to close outdated up-to-date facilities, new, facilities that are too crowded or too old to meet our current needs. DCE/rlh/ftep 5-10- RECOMMENDATIONS The cost of epb'an'cen.s:hasVeeSes^X^^^^^ - -a.lor or n.u.cc Of specialized rooms that have been prodded and that . necessaiy to bouse the K alternative proposals have been assigned to these schools. buUdi^sseach of abou/eS s?ud clpa'cT^'S \"o bnng Its capacity to 600 students. rcqulniM founeen^k^ms'^-??'?^ Garland Schools ,V?nX' capacity of about 600 students. in one new bulldlniVihYSipb^^ :ire'tf,l to Franklin Elementary School a-Kasa a^aeoiiuin tiementaiy to Accommodate King Elementary School Ss\" ^S^ddiOoSaUlassmlms.\"Se.S mSns^f 780 sX?'yf based on the new Carver Magnet _size of rooms under space. Adding the necessaiy circulation mUeSsquare feet of m about 16.000 square fcetifXss aS At S5O S-r /\"T 'uld resuk Career Magnet School, the addlTor^X7id^oS SsS OOo?eSS\"' \"\"8 fo upgrading Franklin School, first through the minnru be added the costs for 622.350 and. secondly. the^tobKeS f fSrthe^lm\n?'\"\" *\" aiObPt S Frankhn School. These costs can be detSned rno^^ Jee necessary to upgrade parted on the project. The amount of $100 000 ha Jheeirately when architectural studies The total cost is estimated to be $922,350 ' tentatively allocated for the p students is based on the are project. Major enhancement of King Elementanr capacity of 136 students. unLngedX the erJianc^^^ cost $1,187,815. With a The new Carver Magnet School W1 have a co^fmPer student and the like, of about $4,000 per student. construction, equipment, grounds, fees,. Replace Stephens and Garland Schools With a New School The new Carver School has measures of crpaciZs\"P?\" and using the same classrooms by using the staffe as a muci analysis, of about 568 students Addin? twn would result a oapaXX\nXXstl^^^^^^ for spe^al^^d'^K capacity of approximately 600 students. ^Ing the cost of the Carver School The combined budgets for enhancerr^n^ school would cost about $2 500 000 bearmg walls and wood frame. Garland School is constructed with brick It Is suggested that ^^^c^edordyPaSt^e^e^^^^ rt f Garland and Stephens e.xpand the site.  abandoned houses that could be secured to EXHIBIT 4-59- Name of School: Stenhens El. (30.954 SF) Update of Estimates of Cost for Renovation of Little Rock Public School Buildings Comments: This school is to be replaced. No further expenditures are recommended at this time.EXHIBIT 5 EXECUTIVE SUWWRY 17/11/92 thru 16/31/93 SYSTEM SITE ID SITE WANE TOTAL COST TO DATE ENERGY COST TO DATE HAINT. COST TO DATE CUSTODIAL COST TO DATE GROSS NUnBER OF OCCUPANTS GROSS I OF SQUARE FEET COST GROSS COST PER OCCUPANT PER SB. FOOT A A A 8 A A A A A A C . A A A A A C A A A C c A A A A A A A A A A A C C A A A A A A A C A A A A A A A A A 154 ADMINISTRATION 861 ADMINISTRATION ANNEl 114 ALTERNATIVE LEARNING TI4 BACKHOE 119 BADGETT 117 BALE 122 BA5ELIIE 116 BOOKER 118 BRADY 858 CAFETERIA DEPT NI4 CARP. SUPPLIES 121 CARVER 881 CENTRAL HIGH 128 CHICOT 831 CLOVERDALE ELEM 115 CLOVERDALE JR HIS CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES 132 DODD 817 DUNBAR 853 EAST SIDE 1982 ELECT. SUPPLIES HU ELECTRONICS SUPPLIES 818 FAIR 123 FAIR PARK S83 FAIR STADIUM 189 FOREST HEIGHTS 824 FOREST PARK 825 FRANKLIN 848 FULBRIGHT 826 GARLAND 837 GEYER SPRINGS 127 GIBBS 111 GILLIAM H86 GROUNDS SUPPLIES H81 H/AC SUPPLIES 812 HALL HIGH 813 HENDERSON 149 ISH 831 JEFFERSON 135 KING 174 KLRE/UALR 162 LEE HI9 LOCKSMITH SUPPLIES 846 HABELVALE ELEN 116 HABELVALE JR 813 HANN 812 HCCLELLAN SI4 HcCLELLAN STADIUM 128 HCDERHOTT 133 HEADOWCLIFF 884 HETRO 834 MITCHELL 68,232.48 23,265.53 45,894.86 192.64 44,579.81 51,624.89 58,161.38 139,843.77 47,137.49 36,575.74 9,662.58 81,743.26 264,448.68 83,662.49 49,191.58 118,345.22 1,878.42 51,461.97 123,298.77 39,167.46 5,815.18 2,316.85 155,882.88 62,524.87 16,315.77 119,645.86 68,965.83 88,258.89 75,738.88 39,122.83 39,974.39 41,796.14 6,159.23 7,468.73 2,835.43 188,429.78 191,217.13 37,478.52 68,674.65 8.88 8.88 38,293.69 2,685.42 62,836.12 71,933.53 222,797.22 ,221,649.65 21,877.83 74,788.62 54,912.12 146,531.77 6G,539.66 51,784.48 13,971.92 33,783.38 1.81 27,248.82 33,437.83 49,929.82 67,681.11 34,689.61 29,686.13 8.88 68,185.41 212,583.58 57,893.11 28,481.81 89,645.79 8.88 33,898.55 183,868.42 31,949.71 8.88 8.88 129,977.19 41,887.79 6,474.94 86,764.87 48,327.83 53,178.83 55,188.82 29,134.18 33,318.38 29,618.86 3,148.87 8.88 8.88 158,165.98 125,813.52 17,254.94 49,116.88 8.88 8.88 25,876.75 8.88 44,763.87 54,588.61 152,139.24 173,851.48 2,187.23 53,327.86 31,864.45 138,614.43 58,957.17 16,517.19 9,238.68 11,386.28 192.64 16,891.85 17,711.27 7,987.69 71,188.11 12,411.71 6,841.46 9,662.51 28,464.16 51,758.16 25,563.78 28,732.49 28,315.67 1,878.42 17,218.23 19,673.22 7,217.75 5,815.18 2,316.85 25,641.61 28,589.42 9,848.83 32,621.88 28,491.82 26,935.46 28,111.21 9,838.64 6,516.93 12,814.47 3,811.16 7,468.73 2,835.43 21,785.83 64,188.55 28,883.96 19,432.88 8.88 8.88 13,188.66 2,685.42 16,848.63 17,346.22 78,538.68 47,613.88 17,889.88 28,843.58 23,788.46 15.836.38 17,459.88 11.89 62.93 4.48 I. II 439.94 475.79 242.79 274.65 26.17 48.15 l.ll 173.71 178.86 215.61 58.11 383.76 l.ll 161.19 549.13 l.ll l.ll 8.81 184.88 287.66 1.18 258.39 146.98 135.88 518.85 157.21 147.88 171.61 8.88 8.88 8.88 478.85 212.96 211.62 124.89 1.88 1.18 36.28 l.ll 424.42 78.71 127.38 984.45 1.18 537.26 147.21 88.96 122.61 I I 446 I 212 321 339 615 398 8 I 589 1,999 535 366 775 I 314 715 I 8 8 915 243 8 787 441 411 538 256 282 333 8 8 8 994 914 187 463 8 8 I 8 518 667 858 985 8 519 448 1,818 264 26,791 26,273 37,361 I 23,414 33,626 51,455 74,531 36,259 38,456 I 61,695 266,823 59,687 33,263 81,894 I 46,712^ 99,397 89,133 I I 131,628 28,867 I 71,137 31,914 68,588 66,892 38,632 41,788 37,237 23,727 I I 152,348 113,212 31,812 43,546 I I 47,951 I 55,568 59,981 113,131 118,425 8 48,121 36,931 129,546 39,283 l.ll l.ll 111.11 l.ll 221.69*- 161.63 171.56 226.19 - 116.1B l.ll l.ll 137.19 132.29 156.38 134.41 152.71 l.ll 165.99 174.86 l.ll\n:3 172.1^ 257.31  l.ll 152.13 138.24 195.26 - 142.98 152.82 141.75 125.51 8.81 8.88 8.88 181.52 288.11 288.38 - 142.18 1.18 1.88 8.11 1.18 124.17 117.85 262.11 225.13 1.18 146.78 .124.81 146.53 259.62 - 2.55 1.89 1.21 l.ll 1.91 1.54 1.15 1.87 1.31 1.95 l.ll 1.31 1.99 1.41 1.48 1.45 l.ll 1.18 1.24 1.44 1.18 8.88 1.18 2.17 1.18 1.71 1.91 1.17 1.13 1.81 8.96 1.12 8.26 8.88 1.18 1.18 1.84 1.18 1.58 1.18 8.18 1.81 8.11 1.12 1.21 1.97 1.87 1.18 1.56 1.49 1.13 1.75SYSTEM SITE ID SITE NAME TOTAL COST TO DATE EXECUTIVE SUHHARY 87/81/92 thru 86/38/93 ENER6Y COST TO DATE HAINT. COST TO DATE CUSTODIAL COST TO DATE GROSS GROSS I COST GROSS COST NUHKR OF OF SOUARE OCCtffANTS FEET PER PER SO. OCCUPAMT FOOT C A A C C A A A C A A A . A A A A A A C A C A A A 8 B 8 B A B 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 B 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 - 8 8 8 HB7 ROTOR POOL SUPPLIES 135 OAKHURST 858 OTTER CREEK R28 P.H.SUPPLIES R85 PAIMT SUPPLIES 136 PARKIN/IRC 885 PARKVIEW 888 PLANT SERVICES n83 PLUHB. SUPPLIES 838 PULASKI H6TS ELEM 818 PtRJISKI HSTS JR 885 PtffiCHASINE SBl OUIELEY STADIUM 839 RI6HTSELL 836 ROCKEFELLER 848 ROMINE 119 SAFETY AND SECURITY SB2 scon FIELD H77 SMALL ENGINE REPAIR 811 SOUTHNEST H8B STADIUM SUPPLIES 841 STEPHEMS 864 STUDENT ASSIGNMENT 847 TERRY TB2 TRACTOR 82 TBl TRACTOR 1 TB3 TRACTOR 3 TBS TRACTOR 5 883 TRANSPORTATION V48 VEHICL 48 V81 VEHICLE 1 VIB VEHICLE IB Vll VEHICLE 11 V12 VEHICLE 12 V13 VEHICLE 13 V14 VEHICLE 14 V15 VEHICLE 15 V16 VEHICLE 16 V17 VEHICLE 17 V18 VEHICLE 18 V19 VEHICLE 19 VB2 VEHICLE 2 V2B VEHICLE 28 V21 VEHICLE 21 V22 VEHICLE 22 V23 VEHICLE 23 V24 VEHICLE 24 V25 VEHICLE 25 V26 VEHICLE 26 V27 VEHICLE 27 V28 VEHICLE 28 V29 VEHICLE 29 VB3 VEHICLE 3 2,453.37 7,698.62 62,433.67 127.49 1,772.9B 14,588.65 187,132.64 88,797.85 1,173.48 68,349.37 138,129.83 27,736.84 36,288.33 83,727.71 121,393.38 96,964.85 7,858.78 21,599.81 2,248.62 133,867.83 145.94 54,253.21 11,218.42 62,922.68 5,115.36 2,689.87 2,881.87 2,386.77 68,865.68 39B.73 1,593.95 1,719.44 426.41 447.58 993.55 1,483.97 817.16 511.89 1,828.39 876.28 933.28 473.47 3,449.82 138.24 1,878.78 142.88  2,897.82  692.59 988.82 1,582.28 269.98 492.23 1,839.99 B.BB 4,873.28 47,889.31 8.88 B.BB 18,988.66 159,766.18 29,264.35 B.BB 43,795.84 67,856.48 19,911.82 4,838.21 35,284.16 88,841.13 49,738.47 5,213.89 3,255.74 B.BB 88,843.86 B.BB 37,188.82 8,977.61 43,266.35 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 44,348.32 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.08 2,453.37 3,579.99 15,296.87 127.49 1,772.98 3,591.99 26,815.39 59,269.33 1,173.48 16,279.47 61,792.91 7,773.81 32,258.12 48,257.49 32,369.49 47,191.84 1,844.81 18,343.27 2,248.62 45,586.87 145.94 16,958.29 9 212.41 19,587.53 5,115.36 2,689.87 2,BB1.B7 2,386.77 15,437.76 398.73 1,593.95 1,719.44 426.41 447.58 993.55 1,483.97 817.16 511.89 1,828.39 876.28 933.2B 473.47 3,449.82 138.24 1,878.78 142.88 2,897.82 692.59 988.82 1,582.28 269.98 492.23 1.839.99 8.11 37.43 127.49 8.88 8.88 8.88 551.87 263.37 8.18 274.86 488.52 58.41 8.88 186.86 182.76 42.54 8.88 8.88 8,88 318.78 8.88 186.18 28.48 148.72 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 287.52 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 B 252 353 8 B B 888 B B 379 774 B B 249 361 361 8 B B 67B B 2B9 B 541 8 B B B 8 8 B B B 8 B B B 8 8 B B B B B B 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 I 33,788 36,551 8 8 8 166,477 28,914 I 58,252 73,216 28,914 I 37,638 64,561 42,314 6,881 B.BB 3B.S2 176.87- B.BB B.BB B.BB 218.73 B.BB B.BB 159.23  168.13 b.b| B.BI 336.2i- 1.88 8.23 1.71 1.88 8.88 8.88 1.12 4.25 8.88 1.84 1.78 r.33 8.88 2.23 336.27*^ 1.88 B 8' 82,968 I 268.61 1.88 8.88 8.81 199.88 8.18 2.29 I.IB 8.88 8.88 1.61 8.88 34,384 6,418 45,312 8 8 8 8 259.58*^ 1.58 19,558 8 8 8 B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B 8 B B B B 8 B.BB 116.31 B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB -B.BB B.BB 8.88 1.75 1.39 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 3.87 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 e.BI 1.18 l.ll 8.88 1.18 8.88 8.81 8.18 8.88 8.88 8.88 1.81 1.81 8.88 8.81 8.88 i ISYSTEM SITE ID SITE NAME TOTAL COST TO DATE EXECUTIVE SUNNARY 87/11/92 thru 86/38/93 ENERGY COST TO DATE HAINT. COST TO DATE CUSTODIAL COST SRDSS GROSS  COST GROSS COST NUHBER OF OF SQUARE TO DATE OCCUPANTS FEET PER PER sa. XCUPAHT FOOT B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B C A ti A h fl A V36 VEHICLE 36 V31 VEHICLE 31 V32 VEHICLE 32 V33 VEHICLE 33 V34 VEHICLE 34 V35 VEHICLE 35 V36 VEHICLE 36 V37 VEHICLE 37 V38 VEHICLE 38 V39 VEHICLE 39 V84 VEHICLE 4 V95 VEHICLE 5 V66 VEHICLE 6 V67 VEHICLE 7 V88 VEHICLE 8 V69 VEHICLE 9 651 WAKEFIELD HU HAREHOUSE SUPPLIES 642 HASHINGTON 852 WATSON 629 HESTERN HILLS 643 WILLIAMS 644 HILSON 845 HOODRUFF 1,763.74 844.38 776.64 349.72 195.21 345.78 248.63 689.12 2,822.59 1,611.39 527.86 165.29 1,866.28 2,249.25 414.41 1,653.45 45,516.23 3,743.72 86,597.63 73,398.25 48,527.55 54,161.86 57,679.73 43,825.84 6.68 6.86 6.88 8.88 8.88 6.88 6.88 8.86 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.68 6.68 8.68 32,592.84 8.68 65,115.52 48,583.42 35,425.18 46,131.21 42,543.48 38,836.61 1,763.74 844.38 776.64 349.72 195.21 345.78 248.63 689.12 2,822.59 1,611.39 527.86 165.29 1,866.28 2,249.25 414.41 1,653.45 12,837.66 3,743.72 21,849.77 24,456.28 12,938.92 13,896.79 15,868.48 12,182.87 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 6.88 8.68 6.68 6.68 6.88 8.68 8.68 8.68 6.68 6.68 6.68 08.53 6.88 432.34 358.55 163.53 133.86 67.85 6.36 6 8 8 6 6 6 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 6 588 8 822 451 335 499 355 234 e 37,395 8_ 89,688 53,646 41,991 47,266 37,875 38,688 8.88 8.66 8.68 8.66 8.88 8.88 6.68 6.88 8.68 6.68 6.68 8.66 8.68 6.66 8.68 6.86 91.82 6.66 165.35 162.75 1*4.86 166.5j 162.48 183.87*^ 6.88 6.68 6.88 6.68 6.68 8.68 8.68 8.68 8.68 6.88 8.68 6.68 6.68 6.68 6.68 6.68 1.22 6.68 6.96 1.36 1.16 1.15 1.56 1.13 5,251,694.87 3,621,656.78 1,616,918.98 13,118.39 27,888 3,699,811 188.8555 1.4198 sssssu (-71- Beriod: 1949-1960 Table 26 ALTERNATE ESTIMATES FDR RENCVATICN AND REPAIR, STEPHENS INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL, LITHE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS Note: All unit costs, except as noted, are correlated to total square feet of finished building based on estimated ratio of amount of each item in average single story structure of 1949-60 period. All cost figures and quantities are approximate and unit costs are based on early 1981 data. All cost A. BASIC IffiCOMXENDATIONS Category and Task Estinated Lhit Cost Estimated Quantity Estimated Cost Range - $ I. II. Sanitary Replace plunbing fixtures (kitchen not included\nserving only) Exterior Replace non-functioning window operators .32-.40 50/lkiit III. Interior Replace asphalt tile remni ning Replace suspended ceilings-1950 Install insulation-1950 bldg Refinish doors, paint walls, i Install new toilet enclosures bldg etc. 1.12 .57 .30 .65-.75/SF 275-300 ea. IV. Electro-Mechanical Replace lighting-1950 \u0026amp; '58 bldgs Replace boiler/air handling units Mise, V. 80% 20-25 40% 12-13,000 SF 18 Stalls 1.49-1.50/SF 12-13,000 SF 1.30-1.55/SF 31,000 Subtotal Building Special Conditions, A/E Fees, Contingency - 30% Ibtal Building Cost per Sq. Ft. 8,000-10,000 1,000-1,250 14,000-15,000 7,500-8,000 3,600-3,900 7,800-10,000 5,000-5,500 16,800-19,500 40,000-48,000 103,700-121,150 31,100-36,350 134,800-157,500 4.35-5.08 Site Work Develop plan for utili2a,tion and landscaping Paving-play areas -basketball area -walks 2.20-2.50/SY EXHIBIT 6 5-6 Acres 2000 SF 12,000 SF 15-1800 SF 1,500-3,000 500 - 600 3,000-3,500 400 - 500-72- Table 26 ALTERNAIE ESTIMATES, STEHIENS INTERMEDIATE SCHDOL (cont'd) V. Category and Task Estimated Ifait Cost Estimated Quantity Estimated Cost Range - $ Site Work (cont'd) Grass Area-seeding -sprinkling Planting trees/shrubs Equipment Lifting Fencing 5500/A 1500/A 7-8,000 3000-3500 1100-1200 10,50-11/LF 2 Acres 3 Acres Basic 1 Set 2 Boles 800 LF @ 6' Subtotal, Site Work Mise and Contingency - 10% Ibtal Site Work 10,000-11,000 4,500-5,000 7,000-8,000 3,000-3,500 2,200-2,500 8,400-8,800 40,500-46,400 4,000-4,600 44,500-51,000 B. LPCRADING \"Pie extent of work under (A) is essentially that required to bring the facility ip to reasonable \"as is\" standards. ~ ' ----- n S, reasonable \"as is\" standards. In the building the quality of lighting would be the cmly ipgrading resulting but the extent of site inprove- rants reconmended, while basic to a full utilization of an inteimediate level school with comnunity participation, would from the present lack of development. prove an autcmatic upgrading Looking forward to extending the proper role of this school VO extenoing me proper role of this school another 20 years, considerable ipgrading and major replacements would be in view. , present building upgrading to systenwide standards probably would involve converting to fully air conditioned environment which in turn would inply optimal insulation policies. Thus in addition to ceiling ' insulation as in (A), the balance of the buildings' roofs and all window areas should be considered. Ihns in addition to ceiling In any event, it is likely the standard steel sash of the 1950 structure would be replaced with lower maintenance aluminum insulated glazing perhaps and possibly reduced glass area. Consideration of providing a larger sized recreational unit than the limited sized (1800 SF) cafeteria, but for educational and grams, should be part of the ipgrading estimate. coranunity pro- storm drainage or diverting its location could vide grass playfield on the northwest corner of the overall site. pro--73- Table 26 ALTERNATE ESTIMATES, STEPHENS INTERMEDIATE SOEOL (cont'd) B. imiADING (cont'd) Category and Task Estimated Ifait Cost Estimated Quantity Estimated Cost Range - $ I. Sanitary Replace drinking fountains Food service (preparation) II. Exterior Replace all windows, 1950 unit Paint all trim 350-400 ea, Lunp Sum .75-.80/SF III. Interior Carpet all classrooms Refinish interior New toilet partitions IV. Electro-Mechani cal Replace present HV system, except for work under A. 1300-1500/Room As in (A) 3.50-4.30/SF 6 75% 18 25,000 SF Building Subtotal: Mise, Spec Conditions, A/E Fees, Contingency - Add 30% Building TOTAL: Cost per Sq Ft incl A., BASIC REC'S V. New Construction hiulti-purpose gym/stage A/E Fees, Contingency, Equipment 30-35/SF 20% 4-5000 SF Subtotal: VI. Site Work As in (A) Develop play field w/ baseball backstop, etc. - allow for 12\" fill Additional lighting Additional equipment Additional planting 7000/Acre 7-8/Cy 1100-1200 ea. Net 3 A 20,000 CF 4 Subtotal, Add'l work Mise, Fees, Contingency, + 15% Total Site Work 2,100-2,400 10,000-35,000 18,000-19,000 1,000-1,200 23,400-27,000 7,800-10,000 5,000-5,500 87,500-107,500 154,800-217,600 46,400-65,280 201,200-282,900 10.80-14.21 120,000-175,000 24,000-35,000 144,000-210,000 40,500-46,400 20,000-22,000 30,000-36,000 4,400-4,800 3,000-3,500 3,500-4,000 32,400-36,000 + 102,900-118,400 15,100-17,600 $118,000-136,000-1^- Ihble 26 ALTERNATE ESTIMATES, STEPHENS INTERMEDIATE SCHDQL (cont'd) SUMMARY OF COSTS Action Required Oode Range of Est Cost in 1981 Dollars A. BASIC RECCWENnATICNS R 134,800-157,500 B. UPGRADING, excluding air conditioning and energy conservation measures R 201,200-282,900 SCBTOTAL-R 336,000-440,400 Equipment E Site Development S 118,000-136,000 Construction C 144,000-210,000 C. TOTAL RENOVATION TOTAL, excluding air conditioning $598,000-786,406 The configuration of Stephens School and its siting are among the poorest of the entire system, Ihere is little or no flexibility to the plan or structure to adapt to substantial alteration such as grouping of classroOTs or expansion. The rooms, however, are good sized squares which can be equipped in numerous ways for varying assignnent. Once rehabilitated this school should serve at its present capacity for another 20-25 years at which point it will be over 50 years and, because of the above constraints, may well prove to be expendable as _ part of the total system. It is very doubtful that such a building would lend itself to the major renovation concept followed at Mitchell, for exanple. Thus it is suggested that in the 2000-2010 period the ^rd will face either demolition or another igjgrading effort to maintain the status quo. aCity of Little Rock Jim Diiley C Mayor City Hill. Room 203 SOO W. Mark him Litll* Rock, AR 72201-142T (SOt) 371-4516 FAX (301)371-4496 I February 24, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd Superintendent Little Rock School District. 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 cws\n.nioN_ Re: Stephens Intmdistrict School Site Selection Dear Dr. Bernd: ADMKSEC. I have been informed by City staff from the Department of Neighborhoods and Planning, that the current Stephens Elementary School located at 3700 W. 18th St. has been selected as the site for the new Stephens Interdisttict School that will open in 1994-95. . .... . , ..................................... We applaud the efforts of the LMD Board and the diligence of the Site Selection Committee in the selection of this site that will provide an innovative and exeiting alternative to not only the Stephens School neighborhood students, but also to other students located in Pulaski County who wish to attend. The City of Little Rock has made a long-term commitment to revitalize and stabilize our older and traditional neighborhoods and by the selection of this new school in the Stephens School area, makes our continued commitment even more important I have taken the liberty to outline some of these programs and housing initiatives that has and will have a tremendous impact on the St^hens School neighborhoods quality of life in the current, as well as, its future realm.  Community Development Block Grant/Public Works Projects and Expenditures in the Stephens School Area The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program defines iu Stephens School CDBG area as bordered on the north by 1-630, on the south by Roosevelt Road, on the east by the Union Pacific railroad traclu and the west by Elm Street. In that area the program has completed reconstruction of 16,939 linear feet of streeu (more than three miles) and 21,700 linear feet of drainage facilities (more than 4 miles) at a total cost of approximately $3,875,805. In addition, the program will reconstruct Maple Street from 25th to Asher Avenue and 26th Street from Pine to Maple within the next year at an estimated cost of $152,000. In the immediate vicinity of Stephens School itself, the improvements include underground drainage along Oak Street and reconstruction of Oak Street from 16th to 19th. The program also reconstructed Valentine from 14th to 18th and placed underground a drainage system that paralleled Valentine. EXHIBIT 7A map depicting these improvements in the first 16 years of the CDBG program is atuched. Housing Revitalization Efforts The City of Little Rock is actively involved in numerous programs to promote the revitalization of neighborhoods similar to the Stephens School area along with its housing stocL We have actively been involved in fostering neighbortiood partnerships and giving long-range planning to these neighborhoods. We have seve:^ programs, jeach design^ to meet the special ne^ in the Stephens School community - these programs include: Save-A-Home The City acquires a house and repairs it to code standards using C.D.B.G. funds, then sells it to a low or moderate income family at cost or below cost. The buyer must be able to secure bank financing to purchase one of these homes. Affordable Housing The City is allowed to build new homes on vacant lots in existing - neighborhoods. These homes are designed and constructed in a manner to keep the sale price low enough to obtain financing by low and moderate income families. (We are currently building (3) homes in the Central High Area.) ReaAal Rehab Funds Funds are made available to provide financial assistance for the rehabilitation of rental property to meet local code standards located within the neighborhood revitalization program area. Homebuyers Group The City assists 40-60 citizens by providing counseling on home purchasing and credit managing skills. Each person will participate in a 12 month consumer education program designed to train them on how to effectively use credit to improve their quality of life through the purchase of a home and/or other retail items that require a good credit history. Homebuyer Assistance Program The City provides financial assistance, paying one-half of the minimal downpayment cost, including insurance and taxes\nto assist low and moderate income families in purchasing a home anywhere within the city limits of Little Rock for a house not to exceed $55,000. Community Development Corporations CDC The City along with the banking and business community have developed a public/private partnership to provide assistance to developers and community- based organizations for building/renovating low to moderate income housing and improving commercial services in older neighborhoods similar to the Stephens School area. 2We have garnered the services of the Local Initiative Support Corporation (LlSC) which is a nationally recognized nonprofit organization with a proven track record in community development. With the 1.5 million loan pwl in place, they will provide support in three principal ways: Building neighborhood CDC's capacity through administrative support grants\nprovide project funding\nand working with others to estoblish reliable systems for volume production of housing and other CDC development projccu. The Greater Little Rock CDC has selected the Stephens School neighborhood for their initial project focus that will encompass (12) blocks of housing and vacant lots near the current Stephens School location. The major thrust of their program will be to provide affordable housing opportunities through both rehabilitation and new construction. Leverage Loon Program The City has developed a joint loan program with First Commercial Bank to provide help to low and nnoderate income homeowners to fix up their older Little Rock homes and meet City code standards. Through this joint venture arrangement an applicant, if approved, will receive a below-market interest rate loon. This is a city-wide program. .......Neighbariiood Alert Center -3924 W. 12th aad Cedar - The Neighborhood Alert System/Center is a neighborhood-based center designed for available resources and various City services to be more accessible to the residents of Little Rock. The system/ocatcr serves as a collaborative and concentrated effort between residents, religious groups, businesses, schools, neighborhood and civic organizations, youth groups, and City Hall to improve the conditions and quality of life for its citizens. Even though this Alert Center is located on the northern boundary of the Stq)hens School neighborhood, it serves as the nucleus for existing and pro^xed programs in this area. This center currently has integrated (3) city departments along with their delivery efforts to create positive image of change in this neighborhood. service Department of Neighborhoods and Planning - Offers code enforcement officers, and premise inspectors that are responsible for enforcement of environmental codes, deteriorating homes, abandoned cars and weed lots. Fighting Back InKbtive - Offers Neighborhood Alert Center Facilitators to help coordinate neighborhood-based efforts to alcohol and other drug abuse abatement and alternatives. Little Rock Police Department - Offers community policing to develop a working relationship with neighbors for overall safety and crime reduction. (Currently has 3 foot patrol officers.) Volunteers - The most important element toward the effectiveness and success of the Alert Centers is the neighborhood volunteers. There is a role for all citizens to be a part of the solution in unifying to take back our neighborhoods. 3Intensified/Sy sterna tic Inspection Program This is a program that is just getting started. It requires the code enforcement officer to regularly inspect all properties in this neighborhood for obvious code violations such as improper garbage disposal, abandoned autos, high grass, weeds, litter, and vacant we^ lots. The code officer assigned to this area is responsible for taking the necessary enforcement action to ensure conection of the violations. This program currently includes vacant and abandoned structures. Hopefully, in the future we will have the resources to expand the program to include occupied structures^ Drug House Elimination Program On February 27, 1993 this program will kick-off. It is a comprehensive effort to unite all avail^le resources, including the citizens in this naghborhood, to eliminate drug houses and drug activity in the area. This program includes participation by the Code Enforcement staff, Little Rock Police Department, Fighting Back personnel and citizens. Paiirt Your Heart Out '93 The Stefdiens School neighborhood was selected for this years program. On May 1, forty homes within a 2-3 block radius of Stephens Elementary School will be painted by volunteer citizens from throughout the City. Preceding this event on AprU 17, a neighborhood clean-up effort is being planned. This effort involves all citizens in this neighborhood having City resources available, i.e. dumpsters, knuckle boom trucks, chipper/shredder to assist them in removing discarded furniture and appliances, rutile, trash, etc. from their premises. Again, we applaud your efforts in retaining die school on the current site and we are in full support of the Stephens Interdisthet School Site Selection Committee's recommendation to the LRSD Board. Respectively Submitted, Sun Dailey Mayor JD/TP:sc Attachment DIRECTOR PAC. COOR. cc: Charles Nickerson, Interim City Manager Billy J. Bowles, Assist. Superintendent for Desegregation Doug Eaton, Little Rock School District Lou Caudell Jim Lawson Wendy Salaam Tim Polk MAJNTCNWCE _ CUSTODIAL CONSTRUCTION^ AOMIN. SEC. 4Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation P. O. Box 192864 Little Rock, Arkansas 72219 Voice Mail (501) 664^3334 March 09, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dr. Bernd, Let the record show that The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation requests that Stephens Elementary School be redesigned and rebuilt on the same ground that it now occupies. Enclosed is a copy of the revitalization plan for the Stephens School area that was adopted by The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation (GLRCDC) last year. (See pages 7, 8, 17 and 18). Maybe it was presumptuous, but we considered it a given that Stephens School would remain as an integral part of this community. The GLRCDC is presently compiling and quantifying remodeling and new construction costs for homes in the neighborhood just north of the school. The presence of Stephens School will be one of our main marketing tools used to encourage families to repopulate this community. Thank you and the Site Selection Committee for allowing us to participate in the selection process and for the sensitivity with which you conducted yourselves at the public meetings. We also appreciate your positive consideration of our request. We are convinced that in years to come history will record that the Little Rock School District did the right thing by rebuilding Stephens School at its present site. Sincerely, --4 Foster Strong, President The GLRCDC cc: Site Selection Committee EXHIBIT 8I THE GREATER LITTLE ROCK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. I I COOPERATIVE COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION PLAN 1 CHARLES A. JOHNSON, JR. November, 1992 Copyright PendingTHE GREATER LITTLE ROCK COMMUINITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. IGLRCDC) COOPERATIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I 1 Introduction......................................................... Building Community Capacity........................ The GLRCDC............................................ Management Structure................................... Staffing ................................................................. Financial Resources ............................................ Geographical Area Served............................... Housing ................................................................. Initial Target Area .............................................. Community Obstacles to Overcome............ Actions to Overcome Obstacles ................... Coalition Building ............................................. Network Members ........................................... Network Objectives ........................................ Actions to Accomplish Network Objectives Summary ............................................................. APPENDIX Census Tract Map .............................. Midtown Service Area Map ............. Service Area Housing Analysis Map The GLRCDC Board Profile ............... 1 2 4 5 6 6 7 7 8 9 10 10 11 11 13 18 A B C DI I I I INTRODUCTION The primary purpose of this community development plan is to provide a comprehensive procedure for the development of a network of public and private organizations to address the social, economic and housing needs in census tract 13 of Little Rock, Arkansas (see Census Tract Map, p. A, Appendix). The plan outlines a general framework for building a coalition of organizations with specific services, experiences and skills that are needed for the revitalization of the target area. The plan outlines the objectives of the revitalization effort and assigns areas of responsibility for each community network member. A description of the activities and services provided by the network is also provided. I I IBUILDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY ! 1 Few individual organizations have sufficient capabilities to undertake the revitalization of inner city communities. A cooperative effort among community organizations with social, housing and economic development resources is needed to reverse the deterioration of our inner city communities. The composition of the cooperative network Is determined by the nature of the task, the skills required, and the willingness of organizations to collaborate to achieve together what each cannot do alone. The underlying philosophy of this network is that of connecting specific organizations with social, housing and economic resources to assist the community in revitalizing inner city neighborhoods. I I The first step in establishing a Community Cooperative Network is the identification and recruitment of a kriowledfleable and respected individual or organization to inform and organize organizations and individuals about the networking concept. The network coordinator must build trust and interest among prospective network members. The coordinator acts as an advocate and a broker. The coordinator advocates cooperative efforts arxJ brokers the services of network members to the community. A general framework for developing community cooperative networking requires the following tasks:  Gt the prospective network members to talk Establish regular communication among the organizations and those with whom they need to cooperate such as community residents and other service providers. This is done by providing timely information in a way that promotes dialogue and collaboration among organizations. Dialogue also helps each prospective network member to gain mutual respect and overcome the inherent protection of perceived territorial rights. \"Organizations arrive at a point of cooperation after a process of relationship-building and in anticipation of mutual gains (Schermerhorn 1979, p. 25). 2* Identify common and individual goals of prospective network members I I I Unless most of the prospective network members perceive benefits to be gained from the network arrangement, they may not participate. Identifying common and individual goals will enable the network coordinator to express the benefits both common and individual to the prospective members. I * Identify resources that each prospective network member is wHiing and able to allocate to the network. I Project planning and implementation strategies can to be developed with the knowledge of the availability of resources. The network coordinator can plan a variety of specialized services that no one organization could possibly afford except through network participation. [ For community groups. Community Cooperative Networks offer an opportunity to become equal partners In revitalizing Greater Little Rock's Inner city communities. I To effectively address the social and housing needs of the target area, the residents must become involved In planning, management and operation of the development activities that impact their lives. I. Community Development Corporations (CDCs) are being developed in American cities and rural areas to empower low income people to address the development needs of their neighborhoods. The formation of a CDC is a significant component to empower the residents of the service area toward development of a community cooperative network. The following CDC objectives and resources will be employed to organize the residents and organizations needed to revitalize the target area. 3THE GREATER LITTLE ROCK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. INC. (GLRCDC) I I i I The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation was incorporated under the laws of the State of Arkansas as a non-profit organization in November, 1991. In May 1992, the GLRCDC obtained tax exempt status as a 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. The primary goal of the GLRCDC is to reverse the trend of deteriorating residential and non-residential facilities within the greater Little Rock area. To fulfill its primary goals, the GLRCDC will seek to accomplish the following: To purchase deteriorating residential/nonresidential structures and/or vacant lots for development. I i To sell renovated structures to low-income Individuals arxJ small disadvantaged entrepreneurs. I To develop and rehabilitate residential and non-residential facilities in the area. To recruit small disadvantaged businesses to the commercial service areas. To contract with and/or sponsor the services'of architects, attorneys, accountants, engineers and other professionals in the development of the service area. To contract and/or sponsor managerial and technical assistance to small disadvantaged businesses in the service area. To inform, train and facilitate housing education workshops and other training activities in the service area. To plan, promote and facilitate crime prevention programs for area residents. 4I I I INTRODUCTION i The primary purpose of this community development plan is to provide a comprehensive procedure for the development of a network of public and private organizations to address the social, economic and housing needs in census tract 13 of Little Rock, Arkansas (see Census Tract Map, p. A, Appendix). The plan outlines a general framework for building a coalition of organizations with specific services, experiences and skills that are needed for the revitalization of the target area. I I The plan outlines the objectives of the revitalization effort and assigns areas of responsibility for each communitynetwork member. A description of the activities and services provided by the network is also provided. I 1 I* Identify common and individual goals of prospective network members I Unless most of the prospective network members perceive benefits to be gained from the network arrangement, they may not participate. Identifying common and individual goals will enable the network coordinator to express the benefits both common and individual to the prospective members. * Identify resources that each prospective network member is wMing and able to aNocate to the network. I I I i Project planning and implementation strategies can to be developed with the knowledge of the availability of resources. The network coordinator can plan a variety of specialized services that no one organization could possibly afford excepi through network participation. f I i For community groups. Community Cooperative Networks offer an opportunity to become equal partners in revitalizing Greater Little Rocks inner city communities. 1 To effectively address the social and housing needs of the target area, the residents must become involved in planning, management and operation of the development activities that impact their lives. I. Community Development Corporations (CDCs) are being developed in American cities and rural areas to empower low income people to address the development needs of their neighborhoods. The formation of a CDC is a significant component to empower the residents of the service area toward development of a community cooperative network. The following CDC objectives and resources be employed to organize the residents and organizations needed to revitalize the target area. will 3THE GREATER LITTLE ROCK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. (GLRCDC) I I J The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation was incorporated under the laws of the State of Arkansas as a non-profit organization in November, 1991. In May 1992, the GLRCDC obtained tax exempt status as a 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization from the U.S. Internal Reverrue Service. The primary goal of the GLRCDC Is to reverse the trend of deteriorating residential and non-residential facilities within the greater Little Rock area. To fulfill its primary goals, the GLRCDC will seek to accomplish the following: To purchase deteriorating residenfial/nonresidential structures and/or vacant lots for development. I To sell renovated structures to low-income individuals and smaM disadvantaged entrepreneurs. I To develop and rehabilitate residential and non-residentlal facilities in the area. 1 To recruit small disadvantaged businesses to the commercial service areas. To contract with and/or sponsor the services of architects, attorneys, accountants, engineers and other professionals in the development of the service area. To contract and/or sponsor managerial and technical assistance to small disadvantaged businesses in the service area. To inform, train and facilitate housing education workshops and other training activities in the service area. To plan, promote and facilitate crime prevention programs for area residents. 4BUILDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY ! i Few individual organizations have sufficient capabilities to undertake the revitalization of inner city communities. A cooperative effort among community organizations with social, housing and economic development resources is needed to reverse the deterioration of our inner city communities. The composition of the cooperative network is determined by the nature of the task, the skills required, and the willingness of organizations to collaborate to achieve together what each cannot do alone. The underlying philosophy of this network is that of connecting specific organizations with social, housing and economic resources to assist the community In revitalizing Inner city neighborhoods. The first step in establishing a Community Cooperative Network is the identification and recruitment of a knowledgeable and respected individual or organization to inform and organize organizations and irtdividuals about the networking concept, The network coordinator must build trust and interest among prospective network members. The coordinator acts as an advocate and a broker. The coordinator advocates cooperative efforts and brokers the services of network members to the community. A general framework for developing community cooperative networking requires the following tasks: * Get the prospective network members to talk Establish regular communication among the organizations and those with whom they need to cooperate such as community residents and other service providers. This is done by providing timely information in a way that promotes dialogue and collaboration among organizations. Dialogue also helps each prospective network member to gain mutual respect and overcome the inherent protection of perceived territorial rights. \"Organizations arrive at a point of cooperation after a process of relationship-building and in anticipation of mutual gains\" (Schermerhorn 1979, p. 25). 2To plan, promote and conduct youth activities for area youths. To plan, promote and conduct senior citizen activities for area senior citizens. Management Structure To implement the goals of the GLRCDC, a board of directors which reflects the composition of residents within the service area is in place. The board members also bring a wealth of diverse experiences and skills needed to reach the goals of the organization. The GLRCDC is governed by a board of directors, comprised of nine (9) area residents. Each director serves a term of three (3) years. The manner of selection and qualifications of directors is defined arxl controlled by the Bylaws of the Corporation. The directors are nine longtime residents of greater Little Rock who provide knowledge and experience in the areas of consumer credit counseling, real estate, social services and community activities (see Board Profiles, p. D.) They are: I i Foster Strong, President 3514 West 14th Street Little Rock, AR 72204 Pam Abrams, Secretary 5109 W. 11th Little Rock, AR 72204 Felix Thompson, Vice President 5902 Timberview Road Little Rock, AR 72204 Charles A. Johnson, Jr., Treasurer 3907 American Manor Drive Little Rock, AR 72209 Elissa Gross P. 0. Box 500 North Little Rock, AR 72115 Merle Smith 2810 Arch Little Rock, AR 72206 Frank Baugh 4110 W. 21st Little Rock, AR 72204 Robert Aycock 2405 West 13th, Apt. B Little Rock, AR 72202 James Lawson 41 5 Willow North Little Rock, AR 72114 5Under the leadership of this board, the GLRCDC will implement the goals listed in its Articles of Incorporation. Staffing I The GLRCDC is presently without a paid staff. During 1992, the work activities of the GLRCDC has been conducted by the President, Treasurer, other board members and consultants (architects, engineers, market and financial specialists). I During 1993, the GLRCDC expects to receive grant funding that will enable it to employ an Executive Director, Community Developer, and an Administrative Assistant. Technical services will be contracted to architects, engineers and other specialists when needed. Financial Resources I i- During the second quarter of 1992, the GLRCDC received a Community Incentive Grant from the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation in the amount of $7,500. The grant provides board training and organizational development funds for the GLRCDC. A grant application to the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation to provide not less than $50,000 for economic development will be prepared during the fourth quarter of 1992. The grant award will enable the CDC to support staff and professional costs in 1993. In August 1992, the organization received a City of Little Rock HOME Program Grant Application and is in the process of completing the grant application. The GLRCDC expects to be designated a CHDO (Community Housing Development Organization) by the city and state governments and qualify to access the 15% set-a-side of city and state HOME Program funds. The GLRCDC will seek to obtain not less than $75,000 from Little Rock's allocation of the HOME Program Grant Funds during the fourth quarter of 1 992. The city grant funds will provide the initial target area with housing development funds. In the first or second quarter of 1993, a State HOME Program Application will be submitted to the Arkansas Finance and Development Authority (AFDA) to obtain up to $500,000 of HOME Grant Funds. The 6I state HOME Grant Funds are projected to provide new construction and rehabilitation financing of housing in civil jurisdictions and unincorporated areas outside the city limits of Little Rock and North Little Rock in Pulaski County. GEOGRAPHICAL AREA OF SERVICE   The Midtown neighborhood is located in north central Little Rock and is bounded by 1-630 to the north, Elm Street to the west, Roosevelt Road to the south and Missouri Pacific Railroad tracks to the east. Like other older residential neighborhoods, the Midtown area Is experiencing a general decline and a deterioration of existing Infrastructure and private property. This trend toward a general decline is moving westward from the core city and is the most significant overall issue in the entire area. It is influencing both the physical appearance of the neighborhood and the housing stock. The problem of marginal residential has a strong Impact on the entire area, encouraging encroachment from nonresidential uses (see Service Area Map, p. B, Appendix). - The primary goal of the neighborhood and Its residents should be to preserve and strengthen the residential character of the Midtown neighborhood. A stronger effort must be made by both the city and the residents to help make this goal a reality and reverse the existing decline. ( i ! i The quality of life, including social aspects, is also negatively impacted by the physical deterioration of the neighborhood. The basic neighborhood structure could be greatly improved by the addition of amenities such as sidewalks, community spaces and recreational facilities. Preserving the existing housing stock and constructing new quality housing is critical to the existence of the Midtown area. Three sub-areas within the Midtown region are experiencing unique housing problems will require location specific strategies to achieve the network's housing goals. Housing One of the more serious problems affecting the Midtown area is the rapid deterioration of the existing housing stock. The substandard conditions are having an effect on the physical appearance of the area, and in some instances, the livability of certain neighborhoods within the 7Midtown area. This problem is rapidly increasing and must be abated. Reversing the trend of deteriorating housing is critical to the future of the neighborhood. Programs, such as Code Enforcement and Housing Rehabilitation, are needed to begin the process of improving the neighborhood's housing. Strong housing strategies and programs are needed to ensure a high percentage of home ownership. Home ownership is vital to maintaining stable residential neighborhoods, as a shift to a great number of rental units will continue to add to the deterioration of the housing. Owner occupied units will help strengthen the single family residences as the neighborhood's primary land use. I i f I I. I 1 There are three pockets of substandard housing\ntwo are small subareas but one is of significant size (see Area Analysis Map, p. C, Appendix). These areas should-be identified as priorities for any home Improvement programs that ard initiated in the neighborhood. Some type of visible upgrading in these areas should have a positive effect on surrounding areas and, in turn, the entire neighborhood. The residents of the Midtown area must be made aware that it is possible to upgrade a neighborhood through improved housing conditions. The core of the area offers a good starting point. INITIAL TARGET AREA The GLRCDC plans to initiate revitalization activities in a four square block area beginning on the north boundary of Stephens Elementary School. This enclave is experiencing security problems and physical deterioration. Some of the problems are\ngang violence, a disfunctional street system, substandard housing, poor drainage, and vacant lots. Immediate attention given to this area should be an incentive to residents of surrounding neighborhoods to believe that Midtown is of value and should be saved. 8COMMUNITY OBSTACLES TO OVERCOME I I Recognizing the need for \"bottom up planning\" (community involvement) and implementation of community development activities, the Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation conducted a community needs assessments workshop in August, 1992. The results were used to formulate a development plan for the initial target area. The needs assessment categorized the problems of the area as follows: Critical Problems: Important Problems: Significant Problems: Crime, (especially illegal drugs). Senior Citizens fear of criminals, lack of effective Police Protection, Community Apathy\nI Code Enforcement for Housing and Vacant Lots, Absentee Landlords, Infrastructure Improvements (Streets,curbs,sidewalks, drainage systems)\n) Lack of safe and convenient recreational facilities, possible lack of adequate fire protection\nOrganization Obstacles The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation is without a proven track record, therefore it must obtain resourceful and dynamic leadership that can embark on a mission of addressing basic community needs in the service area. The GLRCDC must prove that things can be done and build pride and commitment among area residents. The initial objective of the Greater Little Rock CDC is to successfully undertake the physical revitalization of the Stephen's School neighborhood and reclaim the streets from crime and economic rot. The GLRCDC has identified the following barriers to organization goal attainment: Limited Financial Resources Lack of Professional Staff 9Limited Board Training Lack of Housing Development Experience ACTIONS TO OVERCOME OBSTACLES I Organization Actions A successful Community Development Corporation must build a cooperative partnership among the for-profit sector (financial institutions are of special importance), the public sector (local as well as state government), and the non-profit sector (foundations and other 501 (3)(c) corporations). The GLRCDC will play a catalytic role to build and strengthen its working relationship among these cooperative partners. I Network Actions The identification and recruitment of a respected and trusted network coordinator is crucial to the successful formation of the Community Cooperative Network. The individual or organization must be willing and capable of dispelling mistrust, and apathy among the prospective network members and the area residents. Although Little Rock does not elect its city board of directors by wards. City Board Member John Lewellen has been very active and concerned about inner city issues. He has the political status to bridge the gaps that separate organizations and individuals in their common quest. The GLRCDC will seek to secure the services of Mr. Lewellen as network coordinator. Coalition Building Despite a vast array of government and private programs designed to find solutions and deliver services to low income residents, no single entity has been able to revitalize low income neighborhoods. To overcome the barriers to revitalization of low income neighborhoods, a cooperative effort between the private and public sectors is needed to implement effective projects. 10Community Cooperative Network Members 1 The key participants in the revitalization process are the residents of the targeted areas. A practical approach to empowering low income residents is to give them the opportunity to determine what their communities need, and enable them to share in the task required to successfully implement the project. I i I The development plan for the targeted area requires a cooperative effort among the following entities\nCommunity Residents Area Churches City of Little Rock (Police Deptartment, Fire Department, Housing Authority, Code Enforcement, and Neighborhoods and Planning) Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Worthen National Bank Community Organization for Poverity Elimination (COPE) Senior Citizens Activities Today (SCAT) New Futures for Little Rock Youth Watershed Cornerstone Project Association of Retarded Citizens (ARC) GYST House Urban League of Arkansas Arkansas Power \u0026amp; Light Company Arkla Gas Company Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Community Cooperative Network Objectives The implementation process for the target area has been developed by defining the project's objectives, including those related to the project's financial costs to the GLRCDC. The objectives were identified as follows: Objective 1 Objective 2 Implement crime prevention activities\nProvide safe recreational activities and social services for youth\n11Objective 3 Objective 4 Objective 5 Provide social services and activities for senior citizens\nIncrease code enforcement\nDevelop safe, decent and affordable housing. Next, the objectives were distributed among the network members and a narrative describing how each would be obtained. I In addition to the list of objectives and network members' areas of responsibility, the implementation process has been developed according to the implementation time frames of the objectives and events planned to overcome barriers to development. I A Goal Achievement Matrix (GAM) (Syyed T. Mahmood and Amit K. Ghosh, 1979, part IV, p. 3) has been developed to provide the network members with objectives, task responsibilities, and time frames for the start and completion of each objective. I OBJECTIVE FRAME NETWORK PARTICIPANTS TIME #1 Community Residents City Churches Little Rock Police Department GYST House The Other Way 1993-1994 #4 #5 Community Residents New Futures Watershed Cornerstone (Summer) 1993-1994 COPE, SCAT Central Arkansas Agency on Aging Little Rock Neighborhoods \u0026amp; Planning GLRCDC 12 1993-1994 1993-1994 1993-1995 #2 ^2Urban League (Home Owner Training) Little Rock Neighborhoods \u0026amp; Planning HUD COPE (Weatherization Program) Local Banks Arkansas Power \u0026amp; Light (Entergy) ARKLA Gas Company Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Actions To Accomplish Network Objectives ( . |. ... I The cooperative network will conduct a marketing campaign to gain attention and arouse interest in the revitalization of the service area. Brochures and letters explaining social service availability, housing opportunities and information about the purpose and services of the network will be mailed to residents of the service area. The network will attract and motivate area residents to care about and work to address the neighborhood's problems and inform them about the market advantages of the Midtown area (proximity to the interstate, shopping malls, ' downtown and affordable homes). Objective I: Crime Prevention The Stephens School area has recently experienced gang related activities. The primary gang in the area is the \"Oak Street Posse\". A cooperative effort between the Little Rock Police, the GLRCDC and neighborhood activists will help to rid the area of drug activity. Other non-profit organizations are necessary to address the drug education and rehabilitation needs of area residents. Initial program activities for this area will be to request that the city provide street lights on high crime streets, increase police presence and assist neighborhood residents in forming crime watch and reporting groups. To decrease crime and gang activity, the network will implement a crime prevention program. The Little Rock Police Department is the designated network crime coordinator. A youth task force will be formed 13 to develop youth programs for the area. The goal of the task force is to work through the city's young people to check the tide of crime and gang activities and to channel this energy to useful purposes. I The networks' Drug Intervention Program will implement drug education training activities targeted to adults and youth in the service area. EducationaJ activities will focus on providing literature and referrals i for drug counseling and treatment. The network will maintain a list of rehabilitation or treatment organizations which provide counseling and rehabilitative programs. The list will contain the following information: 1 Name, address, and phone number of the organization. Types of services provided. Hours of operation, including emergency hours. The contact person's name and phone rximbers. I Fee structure, including insurance coverage. I The drug intervention youth activities will include providing drug free social activities, and community work activities. Weekend social functions will be provided that are properly supervised by adults and security personnel for youths up to 18 years of age. Community work activities such as the Self-Help Paint Program, vacant lot cleaning, and yard maintenance activities will provide minimum wage earning opportunities for service area youth. Adult drug education and training activities will focus on training them to recognize symptoms of drug use and provide intervention training to combat the use and sale of drugs in their neighborhoods. In cooperation with the Little Rock Police Department, GYST House, the Arkansas Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Division and other drug and crime prevention programs in the community, training materials, training facilitators and training activities such as a Drug Awareness Week will be implemented. Priority drug intervention activities will be implemented in the Oak Street area and education and training activities will be conducted at Stephens school. 14Objective 11: Safe Youth Recreation and Social Activities During the summer months, there is little for the youth to do. The lack of excitement, zest, thrills, fun, and challenges have created a dull routine life that has fostered the increased involvement of youth in criminal and other socially undesirable activities. I The cooperative network will begin planning youth activities in the first quarter of 1993. New Futures will be asked to serve as youth activities coordinator. The network will implement educational, recreational and work activities for service area youth. I I I Educational activities will include career exploration and tutorial assistance for summer school youth. Recreational activities will include supervised and organized sports activities such as bowling, skating, swimming, softball and other sports-in which male and female youth can jointly participate. The disadvantaged youth in the service area win be provided work opportunities through the city's Job Partnership Training Program. Some work activities will take place in the service area with youth supporting the network's vacant lot enforcement activities. Emphasis will be placed on recruiting parents and other adults in the service area to participate as mentors, supervisors and other program support roles. Objective III: Senior Citizen Social Service Activities The explosive growth in the older population deserves our special attention. For older residents to maintain independent lifestyles, the network will have to develop a variety of housing alternatives and support systems that address the social needs and health limitations of this group. Many older residents live alone and may suffer from chronic and disabling diseases. The housing and support system needs of these mostly widowed, largely female, often frail elderly are of major concern for the network. Many of their homes are large enough to house a four or five member family, making shared housing a viable alternative that helps residents share expenses while providing them with companionship. Unused space can be converted to accessory apartments which permit the sharing of a house without requiring the merger of two nuclear families. 15For our older residents to retain their independent living status, however, a mix of transportation, social, nutrition, and health services to accompany housing programs is necessary. t Central Arkansas Agency on Aging will be asked to serve as senior citizens activity coordinator. The senior citizens network will plan and implement transportation services to aid older residents with access to supportive services and nutrition programs that provide them with at least one hot meal, frozen, or supplemental meal (with a satisfactory storage life) at least five days during the week. I i The network will provide health education, recreation, and referral services for health and recreational activities. The network will encourage and assist older residents to use the services available to them. ( Objective IV: Code Enforcement Fair Hoosing and Code Enforcement Many of the vacant lots, abandoned and boarded houses are owned by absentee landlords. Priority code enforcement will be directed toward the cleaning of vacant lots and the abandoned and boarded houses in the service area. I The GLRCDC is the designated code enforcement network coordinator and will identify vacant lots that need trash removal and grass cutting. A list of these properties will be compiled, their code deficiencies specified and the list will be presented to the Code Enforcement Department of the city. The city will provide the owners with a formal notice of the code violations and a deadline to make the needed corrections. If the corrections are not made within the specified time, the city or its designated agent will make the corrections and invoice the owner for the services. The network coordinator will also identify abandoned or boarded property in the service area. The network coordinator will request that the city inspect the properties for code violations and provide owners with a formal notification of the code deficiencies. If the owner is low income, elderly, handicapped or disabled, the program counselor will seek assistance from the city to bring the property within code. Other code violators who are unable or unwilling to make needed repairs will be asked to donate the property to the program for removal or repairs. 16Objective V: Safe, Decent, Affordable Housing A Homeowner Training Program is projected to begin during the second quarter of 1993. The Urban League of Arkansas is the designated network homeowner training coordinator for the activity. The training is projected to provide not less than 1 5 participants during the first year. I k ( f I The program will provide participants with credit counseling similar to the loan origination by a rnortgage company. The counseling will analyze a participant's sources of income and liabilities to establish whether the client's financial status is adequate to support the desired loan. A credit report on each participant will be obtained at a cost of five dollars per person. If the participant has credit problems, the program workers will assist the participant toward establishing good credit, writing letters of explanations and/or structuring payment plans. If the income of the participant is inadequate, the program workers will assist the participant in locating a more affordable house. The program will also provide pre-qualification services for people who have not selected a house, but want to know how much they can afford and if they will have problems at the bank. The program will assist participants with completing finance application documents, provide each participant with a bank referral letter and educate clients on the merits of using checking accounts. Housing Development The network will initially concentrate its rehabilitation and housing development efforts in the area bordering Stephens School. The GLRCDC is the designated network housing development coordinator. The area is experiencing a high percentage of deteriorating housing units. The structural conditions are deteriorating faster than other parts of the service area. The network will identify a four square block area adjoining the north boundary of Stephens School within the area, and seek to obtain the cooperation of block home owners. The network will seek to h\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_656","title":"Little Rock Schools: Wakefield Elementary","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994/2002"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School buildings","Wakefield Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Student activities"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock Schools: Wakefield Elementary"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/656"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nNews clippings and computer printed images of school destroyed by fire in 2002\nArkansas Democrat (gazette  WEDNESDAY. FEBRUARY 1. 1995 LRSD students to experience blacks influence on U.S. history BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Children at Little Rocks means, a great day when everyone gets together to celebrate, showing the contributions of Wakefield Elementary School international studies specialist, will celebrate the beginning of said the celebration will focus on Black History Month today when music made popular by black ,. - ------- black .Americans to society. The Vickie Gonterman. the schools tapes will be shown each Friday 1... Qjg school via closed circuit Dr. Gwendolyn Twillie dramatizes some old African and American black folk tales. Twillie, chairman of the theatre arts department at the UniAmericans: such as jazz, ragtime, blues, spirituals and modern-day rap. In addition to the musical. Gibbs pupils in each grade are versity of Arkansas at Little studying units that relate to Rock, is just one of many people who will make black history come alive for students in the Little Rock School District this month. Dorothy Davis, a Wakefield faculty member, is planning an ethnic foods feast for Wakefield Africa or black history in the United States. Third-graders are television. This Fridays presentation is a videotape of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. giving his famous I Have A Dream speech. Julie Western, international specialist at the school, said gifted education students are planning a drama production to mark the month. -------------- In other schools around the studying Kenya this month while district similar events are being fipn. .........11 c-------------------------planned jerry Rayford, a district fifth-graders will focus on the civ- il rights movement in the United States. patron, will visit Terry Elemen- pupils later this month. The Philander Smith College drama department will perform a skit at tary School to describe a recent Art students in each grade will trip she took to Ghana, read books about black history and illustrate them in various art forms. At the end of the month. Other students in the district will attend Fridays performance of Harriet Tubman\nTales of the fhz. .-.1, 1 I? u no .-----------\nschool will celebrate Underground the school on Feb. 23. A group of Mardi Gras, New Orleans-style.   ' performers from Central Gonterman pointed out that New High School, known as Positive Orleans is home to large black Image, will sing negro spirituals and Creole populations. Stud- Other students vdll attend the At Gibbs Magnet Elementary les Junior High Magnet School, a performance of Buffalo Sol- School. which features an inter- collection of African dolls will be diers on Monday at Robinson Auditorium. The Buffalo Soldiers was the name given a black unit At Dunbar International Stud----------- collection of African dolls will be national studies theme, first- and displayed to mark the month second-graders are rehearsing The dolls were collected by par- for their Feb. 23 and 24 perfor- ent Mary Swift, mances of a musical entitled Kikukuu, a Swahili term that Railroad, at Robinson Auditorium, said Lee Ann Matson, who works in the Little Rock districts Volunteers in Public Schools program. Ajjv 11 r. 1 of the U.S. Army that was sent to Additionally Dunbar students guard the western frontier in will select or produce videotapes 1866.Arkansas Democrat (gazette  WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1995 LRSD students to experience blacks influence on U.S. history BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Children at Little Rocks means, a great day when everyone gets together to celebrate, showing the contributions of Wakefield Elementary School international studies specialist will celebrate the beginning of said the celebration will focus on Black History Month today when music made popular by black Dr. Gwendolyn Twillie drama-  ,. - ------- black .Americans to society. The Vickie Gonterman, the schools tapes will be shown each Friday in the school via closed circuit tizes some old African and American black folk tales. Twillie. chairman of the theatre arts department at the Uni- Americans: such as jazz, ragtime, blues, spirituals and modern-day rap. In addition to the musical. television. This Fridays presentation is a videotape of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. giving his famous 1 Have A Dream speech. Julie Western, international specialist at the school, said gifted education students are planning a drama production to mark - --- Gibbs pupils in each grade are versity of Arkansas at Little studying units that relate to Rock, is just one of many people Africa or black history in the who will make black history United States. Third-graders are hT studying Kenya this month while distocLsimifaT^wnuare bemg tie Rock School District this fifth-graders will focus on the civ- -----' '  .. . ** rights movement in the United Dorothy Davis, a Wakefield States. come alive for students in the Lit- faculty member, is planning an ethnic foods feast for Wakefield pupils later this month. The Philander Smith College drama dethe month. In other schools around the planned. Jerry Rayford, a district patron, will visit Terry Elementary School to describe a recent Art students in each grade will trip she took to Ghana read books about black history and illustrate them in various art Other students in the district will attend Fridays performance ------ of Harriet Tubman\nTales of the the entire school will celebrate Underground Railroad at forms. At the end of the month. partment will perform a skit at ccieuraie .  group of Mardi Gras, New Orleans-style, performers from Central Gonterman pointed out that New High School, known as Positive Orleans is home to large black Image, will sing negro spirituals and Creole populations. 1 Stud- Other students will attend the Elementary les Junior High Magnet School, a performance of \"Buffalo Sol- School, which features an inter- collection of African dolls will be diers on Monday at Robinson Auditorium, The Buffalo Soldiers was the name given a black unit and Creole populations. At Dunbar International Stud---------- collection of African dolls will be national studies theme, first- and displayed to mark the month second-graders are rehearsing The dolls were collected by par- for their Feb. 23 and 24 perfor- mances of a musical entitled ent Mary Swift. Railroad,\" Robinson Auditorium, said Lee Ann Matson, who works in the Little Rock districts Volunteers in Public Schools program. of the U.S. Army that was sent to Kikukiiii  a Swahili Additionally, Dunbar students guard the western frontier in MKUKuu, a Swahili term that will select or produce videotapes ----- 1866.Atkansas l\u0026gt;\nnMM\nrat iW\u0026lt;O'Zfllc )  TUESDAY, OCTOBERS, 1999 Arkansas Domocfnl-Ga.otle'STEVE KFESEE a supervision aide at Wakefield Monday lor the first day of a joint preschool program sponsored by the Little Rock School District and Pulaski Counly Head Start. Rodrick Hicks, Elementary, dressed as Leo the Lion, leads 4-year-olds  _ _i._ 1  1. I :iln Dz-./'L' erhnn wearing ariimal masks into the Little Rock school LR preschoolers benefit from new space Multiagency program expands early childhood educational offeiings  Head Start is a long-standing, fed- BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARfCANSAS DF.MOCR.\\T-OA7F.TTE tume of a lion mascot and snacked on animal cookies while assorted The elastic band on Brittany dignitaries looked on and video Austins chicken face mask had cameras rolled. erally funded preschool program for children from low-income families. About half the children in the Wakefield program qualified under Head Start's family income limits. The district and Head Start eu uui, __ J The parade and subsequent good day for the 4-year-old speeches marked the opening of -  -   ^1^. early childhood education classrooms at Wakefield, the result snapped but. otherwise, Monday was a on her first day of preschool at Lit-tie Rocks Wakefield Elementary. The ponytailed marched in a short parade with Brittany of a now multiagency collaboration that includes the Little Rock her 35 classmates, each of whom -S-c-h--o-o--l -D--i-s-t-r-i-c-t and the Pulaski was hidden behind an animal County Head Start program, which have served preschoolers for several years, but Wakefield is their first formal independently mask. She petted an infant lion cub, fearlessly touched the cos- Fourth  Continued horn Page 1D trict has provided preschool class-county iieau oiaii piugiuu., v,,...... - .- is operated by the University of joint venture. Tlre Littte^ Arkansas for Medical Sciences. See FOURTH, Page 3B After Monday's ceremonies, ------------ Brittany and her Wakefield class- increase in preschool prograins mates moved into two spacious partly as a result of new state tund-classrooms, each fVeshly decorated ig for elementary schools where and newly equipped with the kinds 75 percent of more ot students of things that stir a youngsters come from low-income families, imagination\nbrightly colored al- The money is earmarked tor P . . _____1 ____1.1  fhrniioh tir^t The district is able to finance an e.s for more than 700 children a imagination\nbrightly colored ai- me moiwy is eannaiKeu year at 21 of its 3.5 elementary phabet rugs, tricycles, sand tables prekindergarten through first  schools. Pulaski County Head Start play kitchens and a plastic tool grades. this year has 29 preschool centers bench. Staff from Satoi P^k serving almost 1,000 children. The classroom space was made Faulkner County pronded teo Hon  -  -    possible by the transfer this year of cubs and a tiger cub for the chil-all Little Rock sixth-grade classes dren to study Monday as part ol from elementary schools to middle their fii'st day of school activities, schools. Besides the space, tlie dis---------- trict is providing daily lunches and tu uApuuu . ............. .. v-v. a curriculum that gives children ex-grain from 800 to as many as 1,300 periences with dramatic play, children within a year. , blocks, art, language, hand eye-co-  Little Hock Superintendent Les  Carnine told parents, scliool district officials and university representatives gathered in the Wakefield library that the district wants to expand its early childhood pro... liaren wnnin a year. , This particular agreement with not only UAMS but with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock will help us maximize our efforts in the school district to serve 4-yciir-olds, Canline said. This is exciting to us. This is the first of what we think is a inaivclous agreeiiicnt among the agencies. Dr. Charles Ecild, a UAMS pediatrician at Arkansas Childrens Hospital and executive director of Pulaski County Head Start, in an inteivicw later in the day, praised ,Caniine's interest in expanding early childhood education. He said the Wakefield program should prove to be a model program that could work in all three of the Pulaski County school districts. North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts, like Little Rock, are partners in the collaboration. Pulaski County Head Start uses sjiace in some county and North Little Rock buildings but the agencies are not yet jointly planning preschool programs. ordination, science and matli. The classes are staffed with teachers and aides jointly provided by the district and Head Start. Both agencies helped to equip the rooms, as well. Head Start is paying for a family enrichment specialist for the early childhood program. In that position, Mysti Norman will coordinate the delivery of medical and social services, such as dental care, vision and health screenings, nutritional and developmental assessments and referrals to family service agencies. Plans are under way to establish a class for 4-year-olds at Meadowcliff Elementary within the next several weeks. Other potential sites for preschool programs are Western Hills, Terry, Otter Creek and Forest Park elenieiitaries, depending on the availability of space.  SATURDAY, JUNE 29, 2002  J Ferocious blaze guts grade school in LR Fire crew never had a chance to stop it BY DIANA RASCHKE AND CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Voegele Mechanic^ Contractors of North Little Rock began a $551,000 renovation of the school Little Rocks Wakefield Ele- this summer, including installa-mentary School was destroyed tion of central heating and air by fire on Friday, canceling a conditioning. summer community program for Ninety students in prekinder-about 90 children and throwing garten through fifth grades were into question where nearly 400 ^t the school earlier Friday parpupils will attend classes this ticipating in a five-day-a-week fall, summer program sponsored The southwest Little Rock by the University of Arkansas at school, at 75 Westminister Drive, Little Rocks Share America procaught fire around 6 p.m. and gram. The summer session, was still burning four hours lat- called Camp Medical Mania, er. No one was injured, and fire- provides day-long activities in fighters didnt know how the fire science, math and health for the started. children  many of whom live Firefighters said the build- in the Wakefield community ings age and structure made  as well as field trips to local fighting the blaze difficult. Sup- museums and parks. plies left behirid by construction Four weeks remain of the six-workers and doors propped week program. Next weeks ac-open to accommodate this sum- tivities have been canceled, mers renovations on the 43- Heather Gage, assistant to the year-old school probably helped director for the program, said fuel the fire, they said. late Friday night. Although pupils are on sum- School officials said a janitor Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/RUSSELL POWELL met vacation, the school was oc- was in the building Friday A Little Rock firefighter hoses down hot spots at Wakefield Elementary cupied Friday by contractors evening and reported the fire. School on Lancaster Road. The southwest Little Rock school was de- working on the schools heating The blaze consumed new strayed in the fire, which started about 6 p.m. Friday. and air-conditioning system. See SCHOOL, Page 9A School  Continued from Page 1A phones, new lights, a new ceiling, and 50 computers still packed in their boxes. We were going to get a really good start on the yeai\n\" kindergarten teacher Gloria Miller said. Miller watched her classroom burn along with her posters, cassette tapes, the charts she used to teach kindergartners how to make a sentence and the little blocks and bears she used to teach them math. The recliner, bean bags, rocking chair, all the stuff she bought with her own money to make her classroom feel like home to her students. The fire had a good start on us when firefighters arrived. Little Rock fire safety officer Bob Franklin said. \"The fire crew never really had the chance to stop it, he said. He said workers inside the building had propped the fire doors open, allowing the flames to spread, and that building sup- Gloria Miller watched her classroom bum along with her posters, cassette tapes, the , charts she used to teach kindergartners how to make a sentence and the little blocks and bears she used to teach them math. The recliner, bean bags, rocking chair, all the stuff she bought with her own money to make her classroom feel like home to her students. plies left in the halls probably acted as fuel. The fire seemed most concentrated in the northwest area of the building, Franklin said. At one point, he said, firefighters were pouring 5,500 gallons of water per minute on the fire, and you could tell that was-nt even putting a dent in it, Franklin said. The roofs metal truss construction puts it at risk of collapsing in extreme heat, Franklin said, so firefighters were unable to enter the building and stood several yards from its walls. This, Franklin said, is going to be an all-nighter. Neighbors and teachers watched the flames hollow out a cornerstone of their community. Wakefield Neighborhood Association President Don Darnell said with pride that he had been a member of the first graduating sixth-grade class at Wakefield. If I stop and think about it long enough, its tough, he said. Wakefield has been a community meeting center for years, he said. Its more than a place for students to go five days a week,\" he said. 17118 has been a real center for community activity. Of the 384 pupils who attend the school, ordy 10 ride the bus. Principal Les Taylor said. Most of the rest live close enough to walk. For the teachers and the kids and the parents, its really a tragedy, he said. To have a school so close, its really, really sad. If theres any fortunate thing about this, its that well have six to eight weeks to plan where were going to be, Taylor said. If it happened during the school year, wed have one or two days. Officials will meet Monday to start planning, Taylor said. Three of Eduardo Ramos children were to start at Wakefield this fall. Yolanda, who will be in fifth grade, asked to transfer from Cloverdale Elementary because Wakefield is less than a block away from her home at I Daven Court On Friday she covered her mouth with her hands to block the thick smoke and told her father she could see the flames better from the other side of the house. He said the fire might bring the neighborhood even closer to the school. Now its going to make people take care of the school and improve the school, Eduardo Ramos said. Were going to have a new school now. Superintendent Ken James, who will mark his first anniversary as Little Rock superintendent on Monday, was in California on Friday to attend a Milken Family Foundation National Educator Awards ceremony. James staff said Friday night that he had been notified of the fire. Efforts to reach officials from Voegele Mechanical Contractors in North Little Rock were unsuccessful late Friday. Wakefield is believed to be the districts first school in active use to be destroyed by fire. It is a relatively small school compared with the other 33 ele-mentaries in the states largest school district, which has more than 25,000 students. The school was built in 1959 by the Pulaski County Special School District. The Little Rock School District acquired it in 1986. It was one of 14 county schools transferred to the Little Rock district in a federal court order Intended to remedy racial segregation problems in the two districts. The 14 schools were within the city limits but outside the Little Rock School Districts boundaries. Wakefields eastern wing of about eight classrooms was added in 1970. That wing was found earlier this year to be structurally damaged and was slated to be replaced over the next several months with proceeds from a school district tax increase passed by voters in May 2000. That tax, which is being used to renovate schools throughout the district, was also being used to finance $551,000 in work under way on the schools ventilation and fire alarm systems. Security cameras and energy efficient lighting were installed at the school only last year. Initially, it appeared the eastern wing was not as damaged by the fire as the older part of the building, school district spokesman Suellen Vann said. But she said sections of the roof appear to have fallen even in that area of the school. This is the second major fire in the Little Rock School District in 10 years. In October 1994, about 60 percent of Chicot Elementary School was heavily damaged by a fire started in the schools media center. Investigators determined that the blaze was set by two girls, 11 and 8, pupils who set the fire after hours with matches. The school was rebuilt but half the student body was sent to the districts Oakhurst School and the other half to Ish School for several months. More recently, the stage area at the historic Central High School was damaged by a fire that was extinguished before it spread. Repairs were made without closing the school. Vann said Wakefield is insured. The value of the school was unavailable Friday night. Its not just a building. Its a place where teachers and chil-dren come together and some- j thing special happens inside the classroom, Vann said. I 5-1 /  SUNDAY, JUNE 30, 2002  3B J\" I t ' A [ij 1 U \u0026gt; Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/BENJAMIN KRAIN Little Rock firefighters on Saturday morning spray the smoldering remains of Wakefield Elementary School in southwest Little Rock. The school caught fire about 6 p.m. Friday and burned throughout the night. Wakefield fire deemed accidental LR district rnust decide where pupils will go before Aug. 19 opening BY AMY SCHLESING AND DIANA RASCHKE ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The fire that destroyed Wake-field Elementary School in southwest Little Rock was ignited by an errant welding spark during renovations at the school Friday afternoon. We have no reason to believe it was arson. This was a very expensive accidental fire, Little Rock Assistant Fire Marshal Randy Davenport said. There is no question of negligence. Welding produces tremendous heat and sparks. It happens. Welders with Voegele Mechanical Contractors of North Little Rock had been working on air-conditioning brackets in rooms U and 12 of the school Friday afternoon. Voegele was un-uJ W. MARKHAM'g^ uj CD 1 fire engines didnt leave the The school district closed Bad-school until 4 p.m. Saturday, gett this spring to save money. when the building was little more than a field of rubble. Were looWng at the capacity of the elementary schools in Wakefield Elementary 1 N Arkansas Oemocrat-Gazefle The building had begun to southwest Little Rock, Vann collapse Friday night. As Wake- said, but most of our schools field Principal Les Taylor looked near Wakefield are pretty full. on Saturday morning, a bull- About 10 Wakefield Elemen-dozer leveled the unstable build- tary students rode buses. Most ing and churned the smoldering students walked to school, Vann remains as firefighters doused said. them with water. Well just have to take a look Davenport said Engine 17 at all those other schools, she would continue to make hourly said. If we move them, well inchecks at the site for the next cur additional transportation few days and cool the ashes with costs. water. Superintendent Ken James Little Rock School District of- was in Los Angeles on Friday at-ficials will meet Monday to look tending a national education at options for Wakefields 400 seminar at which a Mabelvale students  whether to use Magnet Middle School teacher portable buildings and rebuild, received a Milken Family Foun- Fire engines were called at to distribute the students across dation National Educator Award. der contract to complete a 6:04 p.m., but within minutes, other schools or use a recently He plans to fly back to Little $551,000 renovation of the the schools airy hallways and closed school. Rock today. school. combustible books, desks and Suellen Vann, spokesman for Its truly one of our neigh- The workers put away their chairs had spread the fire the Little Rock School District, borhood schools, James said, equipment and left the school throughout the structure. said a decision will have to be Its always tough to lose a about 3:30 p.m., and when a jan- It was rolling good, Daven- made very quickly. School starts school in any kind of situation, itor arrived shortly before 6 p.m., port said. Our guys didnt stand Aug. 19. Its one of those tragedies that he found heavy smoke and a chance. One option is reopening Bad- well have to regroup and look flames in the two rooms, Dav- Firefighters got the blaze un- gett Elementary School at 6900 at our options and see whats enport said. der control about midnight. But Pecan Ave. on the citys east side. See SCHOOL FIRE, Page 8B July 2. 2002 Wakefield school likely to rise again ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Little Rocks Wakefield Elementary School  which was ravaged by fire last week  will likely be rebuilt, district Superintendent Ken James said Monday. In the meantime, he said, hes searching for a stand-in school site for the nearly 400 children displaced by the blaze. James will meet with School Board members at a special meeting at 5 p.m. Wednesday to review options for the children who are to start the new school year Aug. 19. James said it is his intent to find a site that will be the least disruptive to the pupils, many of whom walked to Wakefield from nearby homes. Possibilities include reopening and assigning the Wakefield children to Badgett Elementary, which was closed at the end of this past school year as a way to save the district money. Badgett, at 6900 Pecan Road, is 9/i miles down Interstates 30 and 440 from Wakefield, which is at 700 Westminister in southwest Little Rock. The use of Badgett, however, would likely preclude the prekindergarten and Head Start classes for 40 4-year-olds at Wakefield. The district doesnt bus 4-year-olds. Other options include dividing the Wakefield student body among other southwest Little Rock schools or housing Wakefield children in portable classrooms on the Wakefield site. However, James said he doubted that the site could accommodate the number of portable buildings that would be necessary. Wakefield was insured with a $100,000 deductible, James said. The fire was reported Friday evening by a school janitor. Investigators are focusing on the possibility that errant sparks from welding work done in the building earlier in the day on a new ventilation system went undetected and led to the fire.I  WEDNESDAY, JULY 3, 2002  School fire to send voters to church ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Pulaski County Election a light turnout is expected. Early voting is running Only 170 Little Rock residents smoothly at the Pulaski County Commission met Tuesday to ap- had voted early by Tuesday af- Courthouse, the only early vot- point a substitute polling site for ternoon. ing site for next weeks election, Wakefield Elementary School. The Peabody Hotel Group Election Coordinator Luke Dren- The school, which is the regular is asking voters for permission nan said. polling site for Precinct 756G, to use\"$19 million in revenue humed down Friday. Voters who went to the school to vote will now cast bal- bonds to renovate the hotel. A vote for the bonds wont in No problems. Were ready and roaring, he said. Early voters are using the crease taxes or leave Little Rock iVotronics electronic ballots, lots at Geyer Springs United liable to repay the bonds, but while people who wait until Methodist Church instead. Amendment 65 to the Arkansas next Tuesday to vote will use All other regular voting sites Constitution requires public paper ballots. in the city will be open for vot- votes on revenue bonds to fi- County-Circuit Clerk Carolyn ers next Tuesday in a special nance hotels, office buildings and Staleys office mailed out 574 bal- el^on on the bond issue for the recreational facilities. lots to absentee voters and had Hilton Inn on University Avenue. ~  . . The Peabody Hotel Group gotten 352 back Tuesday. Little Rocks 130,000 regis- will pay for the special election. t Absentee voters have until tered voters are eligible to par- which is expected to cost 7:30 p.m. next Tuesday to return ticipate in the July 9 election, but $42,000. their ballots. THURSDAY, JULY 4, 2002  Get Wakefield school rebuilt, board orders Meantime, most pupils to go to Badgett BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE When Little Rocks fire-ravaged Wakefield Elementary School is rebuilt, a new marquee sign purchased by the school and its Parent-Teacher Association will be there to herald the opening. The districts School Board on Wednesday removed any doubt about Wakefields future when it directed Superintendent Ken James to start the process of rebuilding the school at the existing site as soon as possible. In the meantime, the $5,000 sign purchased shortly before last Fridays fire will go into storage, and nearly all Wakefield pupils and staff members will be temporarily assigned to Badgett Elementary School, which was closed earlier this year to cut district expenses. The only exception to the Badgett assignment will be for pre-kindergartners and children in the federal Head Start program. They will go to Meadowcliff Elementary. The board selected Badgett as the alternate site for the more than 300 displaced pupils and the staff with the blessir^ of the Wakefield faculty and its PTA leader. I think its a great decision, Principal Les Taylor said after the board meeting, which was attended by nearly two dozen See WAKEFIELD, Page3B Wakefield  Continued from Page 1B Wakefield employees wearing navy-blue Wakefield T-shirts. I think it is very, very important to the staff in light of the tragedy that we all stay together. Investigators believe the fire, which was reported by the school custodian about 6 p.m. Friday, was started accidentally by errant welding sparks earlier in the day. Welders with Voegele Mechanical Contractors of North Little Rock had been installing air-conditioning brackets in Rooms 11 and 12 of the 43-year- old school that aftemooa Some $550,000 in renovations, includii^ a new heating and air- conditioning system, were under way at the school at 75 Westminister Road. James suggested several options for the displaced pupils but recommended the one that Wakefield is projected to enroll 370 pupils in kindergarten through fifth grades when school starts Aug. 19. would send pupils and teachers to Badgett. Badgett is 9.5 miles away at 6900 Pecan Road, near Little Rock National Airport, Adams Field. Wakefield is projected to enroll 370 pupils in londergarten through fifth grades when school starts Aug. 19. Badgett can accommodate them ail if the four existing portable buildings on that campus are used and two additional ones are acquired. Other options called for assigning kindergartners and first- graders to the eight-classroom wing that is still usable at the Wakefield campus and sending older children to Badgett. That would keep the youngest children close to home, James said, but could provide an obstacle to the quick rebuilding of the school Additionally, the eight-room wing addition that was built in 1970 was structurally deteriorating before the fire and was slated to be replaced. James also offered the possibility of sending Wakefields children and staff to several different district schools but said he didnt believe that was a suitable option. The board also considered using nearby buildings not owned by the Little Rock district, including Pulaski County Special School Districts old Daisy Bates School, which the city of Little Rock now owns. The cost of readying the buildings for students was too expensive, though. District officials hope that insurance settlements will provide enough money to not only reconstruct the school but also compensate the district for student transportation to Badgett and at least partially reimburse teachers for their teaching aids and other belongings that were destroyed. Most of Wakefields pupils walked to the school. Building a new school the size of Wakefield is expected to cost about $3.7 million. However, district officials already are talking about adding classrooms to accommodate enrollment growth. A final insurance settlement is not expected for several weeks. Wednesdays School Board meeting was the first opportunity for a reunion of the Wakefield staff since the fire. After the board meeting, teachers gathered around a hastily compiled school album of before- and after- the-fire photographs. Here is one of the mats the children nap on, kindergarten teacher Gloria Miller said as she pointed to a blue speck in the rubble shown in one picture. That looks like a pocket chart, she said of a pink spot in another photo. Erica Hughes said her fourth- grade daughter and fifth-grade son have cried over the loss of the school they have attended since starting school. They also were enrolled in the University of Arkansas at Little Rocks Share America six-week summer program, which was moved to the Southwest Community Assembly of God Church. They made the best decision they could considering what they had to work with, Hughes said about the Badgett choice. But it will be difficult for parents as far as transportation because of lot of people in that community walk their kids to school.School fire  Continued from Page 1B best for the students and the staff at Wakefield. Meanwhile, a summer day camp that was in its second of six weeks at the school has found a new home in the neighborhood. The school was one of six sites for a five-day-a-week summer day camp sponsored by the University of Arkansas at Little Rocks Share America program. Southwest Community Assembly of God at 7400 Lancaster Road has volunteered to house the program, which serves about 90 students, program director Cheryl Chapman said. The program, canceled this week, will resume July 8 and finish its final three weeks at the church just two blocks from Wakefield. The great news is that a community pulls together when theres a disaster like this, she said. Theyre a great church that does a lot of thmgs in the community. The Rev. Will Deerman, pastor of the church, said he had thought about offering the church to the Share America program when he first saw the flames Friday night. He met with Chapman on Saturday and made the offer. Ive known Cheryl for several years, Deerman said. I think its going to work out just fine. I just hope we have all the space they need. The Share America program serves children in kindergarten through fifth grades with the ed- ucational summer program The program lost books, food and i other supphes in the fire. Chap-  man said. The programs theme is Camp j Medical Mania. Chapman said i children who had just learned : about the Red Cross were\namazed to see the medical work-  ers show up at the school Friday and Saturday, where they fed and helped prevent heat exhaustion for the more than 100 firefighters. What a lesson, she said. They started saying, Look at all these people that are here to help out.  The loss of the school has left more than students and campers without a facility, however. The Pulaski Coimty Election Commission will have to find a new polling place for neighborhood residents before the July 9 special election. A bond issue for renovation of the Little Rock Hilton hotel is on the ballot. Charles King, the commissions chairman, suggested the^ Wakefield School site might be combined with another established polling place at the nearby Wakefield Baptist Chinrch. As city leaders worked to fill the void left by the demol-  ished school and community I center, neighbors gathered ' aroimd the rubble. I When officials removed the  yellow tape surrounding the rub- I ble Saturday afternoon, neigh- I bors crept up close with cam- eras. Joyce Kennedy attended sixth feet away, used to work in Wake- grade at Wakefield when it fields cafeteria. opened in 1959 and still lives nearby on Exeter Drive. She took pictures Saturday of heaps of tangled and warped metal, smoke stiU rising in places. Her mother, sitting in the ear a few Kennedy said she almost cried when she.h|ard V^efield kz4 --------------s had burned. Now, she said, the photos are all Ive got left of it. I could say I remembered it when. I 3'2 0, 2 0 0 2\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_555","title":"Loan agreement","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Finance","Education and state"],"dcterms_title":["Loan agreement"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/555"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nArkansas DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 6^2-4475^ GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Divisj^^ arr. i .o January 31, 1994 FEB 1 1994 OUwo oi Cc\nMr. Jerry Malone 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Chris Heller 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Jeriry and Chris: The Arkansas Department of Education would like to schedule a meeting with one or both of you and district representatives to discuss the Little Rock loan provision. Page 26 of the September 1989 Settlement Agreement specifically states, \"If at anytime between the date of this Agreement and December 31, 2000, the composite scores of LRSD black students (excluding special education students) on a standardized test agreed upon by the State and LRSD are 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD white students (excluding special education students), the escrowed funds will be paid to LRSD and any outstanding loans will be forgiven. H The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss the standardized test to be used to evaluate the progress of LRSD. Please call or write to schedule a meeting. Sincerely, Elizabeth Boyter cc: All Counsel of Record EB/say STATE 50 .Members: CARLE. .EAUi D '- F ELLt FaE R-OE  \\i ios- CFuirmn  ELAISE SCOTT. Little Rock \\ ice Chairman - RICHARD C. SMITH, JR..Tillar AILLIAM H. FISHER. Paragould -JAMES M. LLEWELLYN. JR.. Fen Smith JAMES A McLARTY Hl. Ne^^non : SRY. A'NadelrhiJ CHERRY WALKER. Lime Rock NANCY M. WOOD, Little Rock Ar. Laual Opponunii\u0026gt; Emploser 05/11/1999 07: 47 PHILLIPS o  r} 4  pb   5016324336 I r I A * a * a Miebitta a  PESEaFCH 4MD DESIGM PHONE No. : S17 349 7874 I ]  vaiTBxitr W T 4 Sta 4 XOKl xsMoaxaaQM TO) Qayla Pofctac, XK Dapt. of Iduo. FROMt Buaan Phillipa Page Jul.23 1995 02 1:34rn S.x. PHILLIPS, CONSOLTAifT 0 r f J c K 4 2 3 4 X * r i a  r 0 k * * 0  , ( 4 1  1 1 XI base 4 M I 4 F22 SATS I July 21, 1995 XKi Raaponsa to Saeonmandat ion tgon Joaana Lanka I have revlawod tho you forwarded to ao. memo Dr. and aappotftlim dooaoantatlon from LanMa Jtaa sworidad uaofui data Joanne Lonko auremarited the Iseusg Involved In ehooeiing r Little Rock settlement. Sefere coO^entlng raguirament and teat score altoraatiwe, i offer a faw regarding my interpretation ot ihB languaQe at the settlement. altoraatiws, The Little Rook Sattlafwant **Tfffrmnt and Bueeinetly * metric for tho mandato of the opoelfically on the 90% a few general cofpjnenta Thera ara savoral key phrasaa 3a the pdirtiea thlrv^ ehar-rwlth  k7 Z Sattlemant daa\u0026lt;l i.n order to implement Its tarms. The ..ollowlng are some thoughts about thM definitions. ^'.4\"* time\"  indioeteB thatt the event need happen and can be meaaurad at any hisM period during the school year. only once \"atandardixed taat\"  ia a nationally normed, **2 *** payohetnetrie quality. the JaRaMorar Is Rook already adalntetara thija for the aattlanent mandate. - - . If Little lhstru*|}t, it would ba a logical choice 3. \"composita saoraa\"  uae g thia teralnolegy suggesta an M A UMmx acoc* Off one that aaor4iffM^n \u0026lt;cadBio eubjeot.^ *.. ith raspec? to the 3a:::s^:co:e\n brs:\nr J52r..rbr}\nother parte of the be attactea by wording in .kill. i. .Hue.. I*' I\" alluded to, the beelo hatte^ Were 1 SaSm. equalising the totality of eduoefeioos score may be more appropriate. acre may be moat appropriate. I have been made about the broader complete battary iF r 05/11/1999 07:47 5016324336 duo\u0026amp;tion PESEAFCH AUD DESI6N Itttle Hock Sattlamant . . . p. 2 'paoial aduoation atuRtonta\"  this probably studanta in th* Littla aook eohoole whg haw^ toa*:l.n9, plaood Psaaumably, fcMtonca aduaatlon In apealaX dtw\u0026gt;at4*n atudanta astt aa^tlaaant, what about otHM an XSP refers t tha Sof Evaluation but b taatad. to all tino of not yot by Although ipaolal the language ^WcH *9 vocational atudonta, I diieabiiitlaa under floetlon 304? of tha aa absent***, ox atudAata with gualleyl^ ncnguslifylng .tud.nts with dlaabllltiaa (.f. , a nen-a^^alaX adai^tlan atudont with dyolaxla or vloualXy Inpalsod student t th* aro^ti \u0026gt;tn$|liah psoflolMney ba'tit 4 X oXavaxoom) 7 a will atuddnti onl.?2inL  l*iMe an non-black students or only those of auropeen anmtry? ba* about hispanie Americans? inrttoded/ aeilit eil gradss ba tasted? results for different grade* to be oc^bi^d? studanta^ - Which gradat \u0026lt;loi tbl* all anoMtzy? How ora 6. \"90% or greeter\"  the  intent for the mean score at bltu^ : aeeme to indlcata an mean tcora for whitoa. at laast nine tantha of tha .. Thimaay be gn unreal lotic the time irana and ebstadOee to be everoome. approximately five yeart to drereaee learning deficit of poverty which have develed over ^udtote' lifsti^o?.' City, which spent latlllans in th* public doeegregation has bean to aohievement test ohstadtiaE axpactatlen given Little Rock haa a and tha effacte has orders, aklllsna .ta Sven Xanaas achools scores. algnifleantly unde\nIncrease In defining a presumption of I diaeriaiaiatien the federal  .in the employment arena, government has 'uppert\u0026lt;\u0026lt; an 30 rule. percent applicants hired. **- - ^ . . . refer Thus, applicants are hired, at suet also taet ssBraa hi\u0026gt;4 ta the However, the 304 9 avallahla So hired to Moreover, if an eraploysr opportunity to deisonatrete' aecions. 2n oassB such se thiSx rule, if 7C of gualifiad whita leeet f giMlifiad minority applicants *oid ipreeuaption of diserin-.' this ^et\n. the aniployer still a :\u0026gt;rMMBptlon dlaerlr.lnaticn. haa an * acwpdllKj intacsat to Justify its in cases such as Peers ?,i l,ga9 between ainority and aajorilj^ at issue. In such oasea^ adjainiatratoro to insure thd* ____ xiaon earn a high school diploma.\nRewe*eV|l minority scores to be a sertiin raguirsment seams to SuggestSn 9*ti3 rather than an aqual opportunity to e* ghposiaq a Tvoe gf ,fSbrentiaXs in paaaing ratsa W graduation taata have been [ Mir* ixpoead dutlaa On taat hftd X chajica to Nib oeurta have not required of majority acorsa. It to Such a specifled outcome 1 agree Lenka that J non* of 1 asoauo* no lonoitudlnal ___Z tgree with Dr. MJor types of atandaedited tast a B ------longitudinal ooapavisdde impl* interpretation of aara raw eeore di: the Little Hoek aettleraant. Jld the languaqa lands itaalf to :aa. Ona might. !or axampla,05/11/1989 07:47 5016024386 WE Mo. FESEaFCH AMD DESIGN : Si? 343 374 F45E 04 Jjl. 3 35 WttXa Rock Settleaiant . . . p. 3 I I  -4 -I c m  o co co \u0026lt;o oompute the baaio battery raw s^ra aMsae for blacks and whit lovol and check for attainment of the Jfjs arlterlon at each \u0026gt; Of Whether .11 Kowevvr, eempXy s at a* unanewesfd the ideation at yhothas is already a etsiseeat\na6dadard and 9radaa U9O of at d\u0026amp;Qh grada grade lavi. must nor:::kir:::ma::::::*^^ ukeiihooc that .uL nook \u0026lt; fltandBgagopgaft \u0026gt; reaaenabla appro.eh ay M to ak^ sing la comparison each year. 9o\u0026lt;^ he on the iui, ccmpsrsbl . would regale ^has aU etgdent .oo^.^\n\"rZ\" n'r*\"* ^**^^**** aoaled aaores jure typiedtlu daaianed to  acais. Zine'T- Srae*'' \"1^* motrib?^onecould eosled soot* for alttii^le Rock black is grades but exoluding epeoial edeeef .11 white students. ^yple^Jli^y designed 9\u0026gt;ua, uaUlB a. soaled to students (aumming the mean sealed score ahea^ .-w . O'eell 4^nprisoo would meet the tl ttlement Ifaguage. aoeerer, outside of the a^ttament te. -uch calculations -would Uv. llt\u0026lt;. wlevance. ^ett.amant a s 3ieiiltfTr, spirit and vine tha sr poaeibility would be t^..t a efcitaeion for success (e.g., -ator ierformonce level) and detarmina Thia rina! L ^*4 sWdents i, at least 90% of that inia Goea not soMCera axar^* onforme to the apirlt of 9rad0 level\" os a t* \u0026gt;at suecass es the percent ei hitea. W\u0026lt;anta i at least . ----------- providing nts. As stated, the 9qni stand, t drd than to an adequate or \u0026gt;pprwn.\u0026lt;.t pretation that provides ed may result in tion of Stated, a * zeeeoai an standard which aay be y U the wording of the settlement I ideguata education ia oleaer to for minority s maximal performance education atandard. .e opportunity Thus, an ------ w I wuiii-'\u0026amp;y for Little Rook to eAxcstqtonal improvement for i,flpn to National PiggagaBfe^a enka'J psopaeal oe cenperid* the hid rreeponding netional data ceaeoM allow Little aook to deaenilkrata prd leal standard. J' blacks than ae nearly irapossibla to aeet. fcZ!l^'fca dlffarantial i' and realistic. in Littla Reck Thia method ra Oonforns t to densonatr oonforme to the iangue^e end inti th9a thoughts art in 4*aj  feel free to contact JM ij! X cna being held to s strict of'the xettlemant. ata that such a l^th ths dilsRsca you axs facing, lay further aasiatanoa. u O 'i .DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 . GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division July 28, 1995 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Gene Wilhoit, Director Arkansas Department of Education Henry Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District Gayle Potter, Lead Planner, Design Team Recommendations from the Variables Committee The Variables Committee began meeting on May 18, concluded with recommendations on July 27, 1995. ______________ committee include Robert Clowers, Gene Parker, and Sterling Ingram from the Little Rock School District, as well as Vicki Kerr, and Gayle Potter from the Arkansas Department of Education. The committee was joined at times by others: Russ Mayo of the Little Rock School District and Gene Jones of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring.- 1994, and Members of the The Variables Committee provides within this document a description of the problem around which it was convened, a definition of important intervening variables which affect student achievement, a brief discussion of the assessment or testing instrument, and attachments with expert opinion. Problem Statement: . perception of a student achievement gap that is racially based, as evidenced by results on large-scale assessments. Considerations for Problem: Large scale assessment data analysis has been limited to sender alone. Data should be reviewed in the context of thefollowing four critical variables which intervene to affect achievement: socio-economic status, family structure, parent- education level, and early childhood education.Definitions of Variables\nSocio-Economic Status: As determined by free and reduced lunch eligibility Collect SES data from free and reduced lunch information\nalso make use of the family link identifier -  Eamily Structure: Household where student lives most of the time (both parents, father only, mother only, father and stepmother, mother and stepfather, foster parents, legal guardian, other) Collectfamily structure data from the Pupil Information Form Parent Education Level: Highest level of education completed by mother/father/legal guardian (e.g., elementary school, junior high, high school graduate, some college, college graduate, trade school, other) Collect parent education level by adding to the Pupil Infoimation Form Early Childhood Education: Any of a variety of organized pre-kindergarten experiences, such as.Headstart, HIPPY, 4-year old programs, other pre-school Collect this data from the Pupil Information Form ASSESSMENT OR TESTING INSTRUMENT\nlanguage of the settlement requires the composite scores Lxttle Rock School District black students (excluding special education students) to be 90% or greater of the composite scores of Little Rock School District white (excluding special education students) on a c test agreed upon by the State and the Little Rock 2^ District. This may occur at any date between the settlement agreement and December 31, 2000. -2-Committee discussions around ''standardized testing\" included tests, performance assessments, portfolios' and norm-referenced tests. w fcj nk\u0026gt;_xx u. .a yk/X u *3 f ..V, '7---: Minimum Performance Test has been ^andoned, the new criterion-referenced tests based on the Curriculum Frameworks are under development, and no statewide ...  f ciiiu. xiu oLctuewiae testing instrument is currently available The Arkansas n-iTPct- M\u0026gt;-Tt--!TnrT ------ ___ . Direct Writing Assessment purposes. English Language Arts and Mathematics Portfolios are under development, but it will take several years of professional development with teachers reliable scores could be produced for settlement purposes. xs not comprehensive before The only standardized test currently in use in the State and District IS the state-adopted based on our research and the norm referenced test. However, expert opinions from , , , ------ wjj/a.xxku\\.^xxo X.XV/Ul psychometricians, we have formed the opinion that a testing instrument has a different purpose than the settlement purpose and uses metrics which to the requirements of the settlement agraamexiu.. no^-referenced testing instrument is intended to compare the achievement'of students within the District to the achievement of students within the standardization group. Therefore, it would T compare the achievement of black students in uittle Rock to the achievement of black students in the standardization group and to compare the achievement of white students in Little Rock to the achievement t e standardization group. But that comparison is not the standard outlined in the settlement. are not well suited agreement A Therefore, it would group. of white students in Nevertheless, if a norm-referenced test is used to determine the n black students white students in the Little  oc chool District for settlement purposes, scaled scores or raw scores would appear to be the better metrics according to expert opinion. (See attachments.) been informed that...... purposes to use. . However, we have , T . . \"outside of the settlement mandate, such would have little relevance.\" (See Phillips' attachment.) If a norm-referenced testing instrument is used, tL- ____ consensus is that the state-mandated grade levels for testing Should be the focus of the application of the 90% the committee rule. The two attachments are opinions from Joanne Lenke, y sccacnments are opinions from Joanne Lenke, Executive ice resident and psychometrician at Psychological Corporation an an independent response by Susan Phillips, psychometrician. R * *** J tAAX * XX Jk Jk Jk aU O f O J ^Xx^^kllC awyer and faculty member o Michigan State University, aira Qf working papers from the committee for have included a Also I your perusal. Please contact me if you would like to meet with the Variable Committee for discussion. *  a time convenient to both your schedules.  We shall be happy to do so at -3-HARCOURT BRACE Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement 555 Academic Court San Antonio, Texas 78204-2498 Tel 210-299-1061 Fax 210-270-0327 \\\\ A' Os  * \\ u\\ -9 t March 30, 1998 Mr. Frank Anthony Assistant Director of Accountability Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall, Room 305A Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 \\^vv Dear Mr. Anthony: This letter is to summarize a conversation I had last week with Ed Jackson regarding the types of test scores reported for SAT9 that would be appropriate for reporting summary data for Arkansas students. Basically, there are two types of scores that are appropriate for reporting group summary data on SAT9Normal Curve Equivalents and Scaled Scores. Both are equal-interval measures and both may properly be subjected to arithmetic operations which are commonly used to summarize score datameans, standard deviations, coefficients of correlation. Normal Curve Equivalents(NCEs) can range from values of 1 to 99, while SAT9 Scaled Scores may range from 350 to more than 800. The advantage that Scaled Scores would have over NCEs is that they offer finer distinctions among students whose percentile ranks are at the extreme end of the score range, i.e. either 1 or 99. If we were reporting data for a group that included larger than usual numbers of students with very low achievement levels. Scaled Scores could make finer distinctions and allow us to measure gains for students who score in the 1 percentile. Scaled Scores then, are not only appropriate, but may also be a preferred measure for reporting dis-aggregated scores  for African-American and White students! In my opinion, they also are consistent with the language of the  desegregation decree under which you are operating. If I can be of any further assistance in this matter, please call me at (800) 228-0752, extension 5394. Sincerely, Thomas E. Brooks Manager, Applied Research Cc: Yvette Dillingham Maria Drees Bob Hudson Vicki Gray07/10/85 11:38 SaiO 270 0327 PSYCH CORP. 0002 TO: Department of Education from\nJoanne Lenke, rE\nFollow-up on Our DATE: July 10,1.995 Discussion In Phoenix of scores for Aswe discussed. I Xw a ratio of less than 90%. eimilar In order to achieve an middle CI me score range. ^cu can Black and While will see on the accompanying tables. I've examined raw oflhe\"90%j yield a In order to achieve an MCE ratio of 90% nr better, between the performances of Black and White students are ^^^^^^'\"gXtKlOpe'rcentiterankunns. - most rational approach to the Al,hough I underslec- national peers when their performance 1 hope that the informaUon I've additional information. I've provided Is helpful. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you needre. PHILLIPS PHONE No. : 517 349 7074 Jul.23 1995 l:34Fn S-K. PHILLIPS, CONSDLTAiiT ofc 4 \u0026lt; a IrlAkaciB Kall Kiehifiaa state ph O A  ( 17 J ***, KI IviHltT HOKI OTXXCl 4 3 3 6 H a r 1 a  r \u0026lt; a B a 4 . 0 k  B 0 1 , (  J 7 J XI I a a  \u0026lt;\u0026lt;( a47t74 TOt kemoranduk Gayla Potter, AK Dept, of Eduo. PHOHi Suaan Phillipa DATS! July 21, 1995 RS I Paoponaa to Raoommandation ftom Joanna Lnko I have taviowod tho memo and Supporting dooumsafeation from Joanne Lonko that - has provided uaaful data -uuuincujLV settlement u Choosing a metric for the mandate of the raguirament and teat score alternatr^\"^^\"^ specifically on the 90%  7of Se  comments -i of the language of the settlement. you foewardod to no. Dr. . ----- Lonke summarized the issues involved Little Rock uaaful and Bucctnctly taat coiwnsnfcing regarding my interpretation 1 offer The Little-Rock Settlement Aqrraeaant Ihere i th. portion of th. -.1 me which must be defined in order L some thoughts about these definitions. that you shared with Ths following are 1. phrases in Little Rook Settlement to implement its terms. \"If at any time\" and can be measured ~ indicates that the event need happen only at any time period during the school year. once standardized test\" a -------------------instrument, it would be settlement mandate. If Little a logical choice 3. \"composite scores\"  intent that the performance Stanford, use of this terminology suggests cir -re. iS' suggests that cither \" ba used. the measurement be this areas. on Battery Boorea other parts of the the Basic Battery or Coc^lete Tho choice may be affected settlement. by wording in W.Us is alluded to, thrbaSrLt7' ineguity in basic Alternatively, if mom  ^ttery score may be most appropriate, equalizing the totalitv of statements have been made .about  .core h.tt.ry appropriate.f Little Rock Eattleiaant . .  P. 2 4. -pcxai education etudanto\" thio probably refers otudonf in the Tittle PooR sohools who have an ISp\" *t the time o- Praeumably, atudente referred for evaluation but not yet diBabilitlee a *il*blo for nonqualifying students with ( .g., a non-apaoial education student with dyoloxia or a \"npaeial oduoatlon thio probably toeting. plaood who hava QtudentB education would an ISP to all aeo referred for evaluation but be teeted. clearly exempted by about othor groupo ouch as available for vioually impaired otudont in the rogul with limitod Englioh profioionoy ar bo toatod? alaeoroonj 7 Hill studanta 5. \"white Btudanta\" only those of Europe Which grades an does this include all ancestry? non-blaok students or What about hispanio Americans? results for included\nmust all grades be tested? results for different grades to ba combined? How are InteL for tb^r language seems to Indicate an nine tenths of the the timA -F This may be an unrealistic expectation given the time frame and obstacles to be overcome. Little Rock h\" I years to overcome learning deficits and the  the settlement language approximately five mean score of blacks to be at least nine tenths -----r. This may be overcome. Of poverty which have developed City, which has spent millions dasagregation orders, achlavsmsnt test scores. over students' lifetimes. effects on has been unable the public Even Kansas schools under to significantly increase In defining a presumption of discrimination the federal in the employment government has supported an 80% rule. applicants^hlred but to the . percent of available PP hired. under thia rule, if 70% of qualified white at^ least 56% of qualified minority applicants to avoid a presumption of discrimination. does not teat arena, However, the 80% Thus, applicants are hired, j ' ust be hired to avoid a Moreover, if on employer fails this opportunltv tn ziL rnis me emproyer stiii has an dctiona? demonstrate compelling interest  to justify its also a teat, the employer still has In cases euch between minority nt issue. adrainiatrati as Pai^ra P., large differentials in passing rates and majority students on graduation tests have been In such cases, the courts have imposed duties caaea, P earn a high school diploma, minority scores to be minority students had a fair chance to However, these courts have not required requirement rather than a certain percentage of majority scores. Such a eeema to euggest an entitlement to a specified outcome an equal opportunity to aohlavo. Shopping R Type of Score 1 agree with Dr. Lenke that scores are well suited to the Jeoauee no longitudinal -- none of the major types of standardired test requirements of the Little Rock settlement. a B Upl. inJ:S:::at2:n are required, the language lends Itself erpretatlon of raw score differences. One might, for example. to. PHILLIPS PHOME Mo. 5 517 343 7374 Ju 1.23 1595 1:ooPM Little Rock fiattlemant . . p. 3 compute the bnoic battery raw moans tor oiacka and whitea at each orada level and check for attainment of the 90% oritarion at sack grade level However, thia laavea unanawered the question of whether all grades must Z^dei'^ac \" stringent standard and use of a Lnj^Lt^e norfulflirt?** increases the likelihood that Little Will noc zuXfxH xtiB XQ\u0026amp;ndditio* eaora maanB for blacks whites thio The 90% across unanswered la already grades X more roasonablo approach do BO 90% criterion at whcthor all grades use of Rook - .w, ou,l d. roqu,l ro that a\"ll y otudontmaka a clnglo eomparleon each' year. To Standardlred tost scaled scores be on the same, comparable scale. BcorsB are typically d.lgnad to deteraine^if tha'^mean ^^uB, using a scaled score metric, one could # uBvomxns xf Kha niBeui scaled - . \u0026gt; allow comparison of Thus, l____ mean scaled score for all Little Rock black across grades but excluding spacial education) for all white studants. the letter of the Such an Overall students (summing is 90% of the mean scaled score mandate. settlement language. comparison would meet the spirit and _,,_v 1 . , ---- outside oHf otwheev ers,ettlement such calculations would have little relevance. jjodlfvlRq the Standard Another possibility above grade lavsl\" would be to set a criterion for success (e.g., \"at or or a minimally acceptable performance level) and determine hether the percent of xor whites. but conforms to the spirit Bucceasful minority students is This does not at least 90% of that students. AAhs stated, standard than to an adequate or interpretation that conform exactly to the wording of the settlement of providing an adequate education the 90% for minority mandata is closer to a maximal performance appropriate education standard. Thus, an Buccaad mav i \"p rov-i-d--e--s  rreeaassoonnaabbllee opportunity for Little Rook to greater educational improvement for blacks than retention of an standard which may be perceived in as nearly impossible to meet. Coaparieon to Rational Differentialn tDor , cLorerneskoeo'sn fpHr onZpr os al -fo--r the bl ack/white differential in Little would allow Littl2^R^C^i reasonable and realistic: This method ittle Rock to demonstrate progress without being held to a strict However, it may be difficult to demonstrate that such a demonstrate reasonable and realistic^ Rook mBaBurrLnfn\"'^'f be difficult to demonstrate asure conforms to the language and intent of the settlement. JlS with th. dU.a you f.cing, l.l fro. to contact me if 1 can ba of any futth.t aaal.tance. 1 sL LrmjE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECEIVED DIRECTOR'S OFFICE July 31, 1998 AUG 3 1998 department of EDUCATION ^GENERAL DIVISION Raymond Simon Director Arkansas Department of Education d Q\u0026lt; '1 .yj. P Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Desegregation Settlement Loan Dear Mr. Simon: I am writing in response to your June 26,1998 letter requesting that LRSD deposit an additional $270,000.00 in an account established for the possible repayment of the loan authorized by the 1989 Settlement Agreement in the Pulaski County school desegregation case. The issue you have raised is one of several outstanding issues concerning the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement. I would like to work with you and your staff to resolve ail of the outstanding issues as quickly as possible. From my perspective, the most important unresolved issue is whether LRSD has met the conditions for loan forgiveness set forth in Section VI-B (6) of the Settlement Agreement. We are supposed to use a standardized test to grade upon by the State and LRSDl to determine whether the scores of LRSD black students are within ninety percent (90%) of the scores of LRSD white students. A team composed of ADE and LRSD representatives was formed several years ago for the purpose of deciding which standardized test would be used to determine loan forgiveness under the Settlement Agreement, ihat team agreed to use the Stanford 8 Test with scaled scores as the metric. That agreement is reflected in ADEs August, 1997 Project Management Tool which was filed with the district court: In March 1997, recommendations were drafted proposing the use of he SAT-8 as the ADEs Monitoring Instrument and the use of an aggregate average for racial groups to measure achievement disparity using scaled scores as the metric' I recently read in the newspaper that another group within ADE will recommend the use of Stanford 8 scaled scores to determine loan forgiveness. It seems that the question of whether or not LRSD is entitled to loan forgiveness is a threshold issue which should be resolved at the same time as, if not before, the issue raised in your letter. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 324-2000 Desegregation Settlement Loan Page 2 Please let me know ADEs current position about how and when we will determine whether the settlement loan should be forgiven in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. I will be happy to meet with you so we can work together to resolve these issues as expeditiously as possible. Yours very truly, 'Leslie V. Gamine Superintendent of SchoolsO. ^2 \u0026gt; '*^1 **i Aikansas DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 RAYMOND SIMON, Director April 21, 1999 Tim Gauger Attorney Generals Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Request from Legislative Audit on Little Rock Loan Agreement Dear Tim: Legislative Audit has requested a written update on the status of the Little Rock Loan Agreement established in 1990. The Little Rock School District is in default with regard to the payment schedule, as well as in default in the amount of the one payment made to date. The district has been contacted about this lack of compliance with the terms of the loan agreement and has yet to provide any meaningful response. This apparent disregard by the district for the terms of the loan agreement has prompted Legislative Audit to ask our agency to seek implementation of the default provision of the agreement: Any installment of principal or interest not paid when due shall bear interest at the maximum rate allowed by law until paid in full. LRSD, if it defaults by not timely paying any of the installments due hereunder, shall pay to the State its reasonable attorneys fees incurred in connection with the enforcement of the n obligation. As the Department of Educations legal representative in this matter, please assist the agency with addressing this issue. Mr. Simon, as well as the State Board of Education, seek a timely resolution of this matter. Sincerely. Theresa Wallent Staff Attorney co: Mr. Raymond Simon, Director Dr. Bobbie Davis, Assistant Director, Internal Administration Mr. John Kunkel, Finance STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chainnan - BETTY PICKETT, Conway  Vice Chairman - JoNELL CALDWELL. Bryant Members\nEDWIN B. ALDERSON, JR., El Dorado  CARL E. BAGGETT, Rogers  MARTHA DIXON, Arkadelphia  WILLIAM B. FISHER, Paragould  LUKE GORDY, Van Buren  ROBERT HACKLER, Mountain Home  JAMES McLARTY III, Newport  RICHARD C. SMITH, JR., McGehee  LEWIS THOMPSON, JR., Texarkana  ANITA YATES. Bentonville An Equal Opportunity EmployerARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MEMORANDUM April 16,1999 TO: Theresa Wallent FROM: Bobbie Davis REGARD: Request from Legislative Audit On Little Rock Loan Agreement Legislative Audit has requested a written update on the status of the Little Rock Loan Agreement established in 1990. The Department to date has been provided verification of one deposit of $30,081.44 from Little Rock toward this repayment. As you will note from the attachments, the first payment of $300,000 was due September 24,1997. Therefore, Little Rock is in default with regard to the payment schedule as well as in default in the amount of the one payment that was made. I have attached a copy of a letter from Mr. Simon dated June 26,1998, in which he requested correction on the name of the escrow account as well as default payments. To date the Department has received no response to Mr. Simons request. Legislative Audit is exploring why the Department has not implemented the default provision in Section 11, page 5, of the Loan Agreement. A copy of the Loan Agreement is included in the attachments. Could you please assist me by drafting a correspondence to Mr. Tim Gaugher at the Attorney Generals office informing him of this concern and requesting his guidance and leadership in addressing this issue. Legislative Audit will need documentation of ail actions for their files. Please send copies of all correspondence and documents to my office. I will forward to Legislative Audit. As you will recall the State Board is also concerned with this issue. I would propose that this item be updated at the next State Board meeting. I feel confident that Mr. Simon would like for that report to be that Little Rock is current on all payments. If I need to provide other information, please let me know. Thank you for your assistance in handling this issue. Cc: Raymond Simon, Director John Kunkel, ADE Finance o .o Aikansas .a DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 RAYMOND SIMON, Director June 26,1998 Dr. Les Camine, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Camine\nIt has been brought to my attention by the Division of Legislative Audit that the Little Rock School District has not deposited the proper amount into the LRSD/State Loan Repayment Account. According to the Loan Agreement dated September 24,1990, the principal amount of each Note will be repaid in twenty (20) equal installments. Installments shall be due on the 7th through the 26th anniversary of the date of the note. The Note dated September 24,1990, was for $6,000,000. Therefore, the amount due September 24, 1997 was $300,000. In March 1998, John Kunkel of my staff contacted Mr. Mark Milhollen, for verification of the deposit. We were provided a copy of a bank statement for the Little Rock School District Special Desegregation Account #00-0073-610715. At that time.the bank records reflected a balance of $30,081.44. The balance consisted of $30,000 plus earned interest. The auditors also noted that the account name should be the same as required in the loan agreement. The Department is now requesting that the Little Rock School District change the name of the account to reflect tire name required in the loan agreement and deposit an additional $270,000 to be in compliance with Copies of the documents verifying these actions will be forwarded to the loan agreement. Legislative Audit, I appreciate your cooperation in correcting this error. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Raymond Simon cc\nTim Gauger, Attorney General's Office Ronnie Ridgell, Division of Legislative Audit STATE BOARD OF EDI CATION' Chairman  BETTY PICKETT. C onxi\n Vice Chairman - JoSELL CALDWELL. Bnanl .Members: EDW IN B. ALDERSON. JR.. El Dorado  CARL E. BaGCETT. Rofrri  MARTHA DIXO.N. Arkadelphia  WILLIAM B. FISHER. Paragould LI KE CORDl. \\an Buren  ROBERT HACKLER. Mountain Home  JA.MES McLARTl 111. Newport  RICHARD C. S.MITH. JR.. .McGehee  LEWIS THOMPSON. JR.. Teiarkina  ANITA 1 ATES. BentonvilleC  CVi-6tdiXl\u0026gt; STATE O F ARKANSAS general assembly little rock, ARKANSAS 72201 September 18, 2000 TO: The Honorable Mike Huckabee Governor, State of Arkansas RECEIVED FROM\nRE: The Honorable Mark Pryor Attorney General, State of Arkansas Mr. Ray Simon, Director Arkansas Department of Education n Superintendent Little Rock School District Senator Jim Argue Senator Dave Bisbee Senator Jodie Mahony Suggested Resolution of Arkansas to Issues Pending Between the LRSD KOF OMQNJTQflJNG and the State SEP 2 4 20 A number of issues School District, each invX^^om^ofSllJ^ of Arkansas and the Little Rock each threaten to lead to protracted litigation We do tT A brief review of the pendittg issues might be helpM: Bonded Indebtedness Pe Little Rock School District current funding formula, i- s r .- . (FRSD), as the district at the 9S IS ma position to influence the th .0 school distnhts T bow to structure thepayment schedule farTO^l ?\" J ' of detenruthrrg U.C State dupugh dte ftudiug fomrula wrll rag?SXMSl?or \" amount of required state funding ir tkzi _________  dollars. This is money that would be owed to increased base funding. Unitary Statu.s approximately 270 school district that would receive The LRSD i the LRSD m a position to seek unitary status at t eld f tb^nn^^ designed to put achieves umtary status, the State wifibe in a position ^^RSD required it to pay LRSD for various deseerealin^ circumstances, which State should be relieved of its obligation to mat have changed and that the LRSD. The loss of all desegregatiol related st^e payments to the million dollars per year. Arfund $9 mfiU^ of tol  ^RSD about $15 desegregation efforts including magnet .rbnnf represents money for transportation aid. The other $6 milhtn i? ^J^^o-niinority transfers, and compensation and health^LsimLle The prospect of expensive and protracted htigatto7 ^^^h sides, but the effect on Ute LRSDs efforts to end federal coXn^S? and that the -- amount represents money for majority-to-minority transfers, and count supervision. Loan Forgiveness* The LRSD and ADE have discussed LRSD has met the and debated the question of whether the pursuant to the 1989 settlement and ADE to agree upon of ,.L ta by the ADE a test thaTw^usId to ^^^^D ----------- uxat agreed to use a certain ^rmme loan forgiveness. LRSD entitled to loan forgiveness. ADE disa^ees ^RSD is contends that ADE agreed to Monitoring and Compliance including helping the PuS settlement agreement tbATDcr,---------   J ''^ous ways and in monitorine the LRSDs progress. There is .heex.e..,,ehADEhasco^ a SStdarm th! S\" iTbe oeneiicial to the parties involved. met in a way that is most can have significant positive or and delay are acceptable means for seekg resolution Web Protracted litigation optimism that, when considered to^eth^l Z^ T ^gree of issues can be found.  ^'^^^^*y^^oeptable resolution to all of these explore the possibilitv of. l ^^^i^st . . Possibility of a mediation process that would consider all of amumaliy satisfactory resolution. WewouldsuX, - _ services of a neutral arbiter who the issues at once and seek to find that the parties discuss the possibility of employing the serviwould structure the process, allow all parties to make their best case on these issues, gather information, and then propose a resolution that would embrace certain compromises between the parties. Hopefully, the proposal would be acceptable to all parties, and would resolve these ag^avating issues once and for all. Issues and concerns from the intervenors in the federal litigation should also be heard. We understand that the process may not be binding on the participants, but that each would participate in good faith and do their best to resolve these issues. The LRSDs removal from federal court supervision should be cause for celebration. The State has legitimate concerns about its future, extraordinary obligations to the LRSD. Let s try to find a resolution that allows the LRSD to celebrate its progress, allows the state to address pressing needs elsewhere, and most importantly, focuses our limited resources on the needs of our school children rather than on continuing litigation. To rely on the courts to resolve these issues before trying some other method seems to be a abdication of our public duties, and in the end, wastes precious, limited school resources. The LRSD needs to chart a course that leads to success without court supervision, and given the State s track record in court, the State needs to be proactive in finding a reasonable solution that does not obligate and divert additional resources. For either party to succeed, we mus-fiunravel this Gordian knot. We would appreciate your prompt response to this suggestion, and would be pleased to facilitate in any way you might deem helpful.AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL AND THE STATE OF ARKANSAS DISTRICT This Agreement is by and between the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), and the State of Arkansas (the \"State\"), by and through the State Board of Education, the Arkansas Department of Education and Governor Mike Huck:ibee LRSD and the State shall the Parties. collectively be referred to as RECITALS WHEREAS, LRSD and the State are parties to the 1989 Settlement Agreement in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CIV-LR-82-866. (\"1989 Settlement Agreement\")\nWHEREAS, the 1989 Settlement Agreement imposes certain obligations on the State but contains no provision stating when those obligations end, WHEREAS, LRSD will seek to be declared unitary and released from federal court momtoring and supervision but is concerned that if it is declared unitary the State may seek to terminate its obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement\nWHEREAS, pursuant to Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, the State has advanced loans to the LRSD in the cumulative principal amount of $20,000,000.00 (twenty million dollars), and there is presently a dispute between the State and the LRSD as to whether those loans will be forgiven or must be repaid pursuant to Section VI.B.(6) of the 1989 Settlement Agreement\nWHEREAS, under the States current funding formula for public school districts, LRSDs per pupil revenue affects the total amount of funding which the State must distribute through the formula\nWHEREAS, how LRSD structures its bond debt affects LRSDs per pupil revenue. Page 1 of 8 IXQ . tv fAA WHEREAS, the State wants LRSD to structure its bond debt so as to minimize the financial impact on the State\nWHEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree to the following terms and conditions: AGREEMENTS 1. LRSD agrees to pursue complete unitary status and release from court supervision, in good faith and using its best efforts, until such complete relief has been obtained or until the termination of this Agreement, whichever comes first 9 LRSD agrees to accelerate the sale of its bonds so that the required annual debt service payments will be 11,8 million dollars beginning with the 2002 calendar year. The State Board of Education does hereby approve the LRSDs bond application as submitted on February 19, 2001 3. In order to facilitate and encourage LRSDs efforts to attain complete unitary status and release from court supervision, the State agrees that it will not seek to modify or terminate any of the States obligations to the LRSD under the 1989 Settlement Agreement (including any reduction of the payments to LRSD resulting from the Settlement Agreement or court decisions enforcing the Agreement) from the date of execution of this Agreement up to and including June 1, 2008. This covenant shall remain in full force and effect (unless this Agreement terminates pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement) regardless of whether the LRSD. the Pulaski County Special School District, and/or the North Little Rock School District obtain partial or complete unitary status and release from court supervision. 3.1 Provided, however, that this Agreement does not limit, and should not be construed or interpreted as limiting in any way, the States ability to seek modification or termination of any of its obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement (including Page 2 of 8ijfj UU4 court decisions interpreting the Agreement) that relate exclusively to the North Little Rock School District, the Pulaski County Special School District, or any other party to the action. Further, this Agreement does not prohibit the State and the LRSD from jointly petitioning the court for modification or termination of any aspect of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, nor does it prohibit the State from asserting any and all defenses it may otherwise assert in response to any motion or allegation of the LRSD to the effect that the State has violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement. 3.2 The State agrees to coojierate with and assist LRSD in opposing any challenge to the legality of this Agreement or any effort by a third-party to modify or terminate the Statess obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Such cooperation and assistance shall include, but not be limited to any or all of the following: (1) filing joint pleadings supporting the legality of this Agreement\n(2) filing joint pleadings responding to any request to modify or terminate the States obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement\n(3) filing a joint appeal of any order, decision or judgment which directly or indirectly undermines this Agreement\n(4) filing a joint brief opposing any appeal of an order, decision or judgment upholding this Agreement or refusing to modify or terminate the 1989 Settlement Agreement, and (5) filing joint pleadings to remove or transfer any challenge to the legality of this Agreement to United States District Court and to consolidate the challenge with the Pulaski School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CIV-LR-82-866. 4. County In recognition of the LRSDs efforts to obtain unitary status and complete release from federal court supervision, and to facilitate the success of the LRSDs efforts, the State and the LRSD agree Page 3 of 8U . ** ^2 r/iA ittl UUO as follows\n4.1 The State will forgive and release the LRSD from any obligation to repay the first $15,000,000.00 (fifteen million dollars) in loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VLB. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Any and all frmds in the joint escrow account establi.shed by the State and the LRSD pursuant to Section Vl.B of 4.2 4.3 the 1989 Settlement Agreement will be released to the LRSD as soon as practicable In addition, with respect to the remaining $5,000,000.00 (five million advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section Vl.B. of the the State will forgive and release the LRSD from dollars) in loans 1989 Settlement Agreement, any obligation to repay these Ioans If the LRSD obtains a final order granting it complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision on or before July I, 2004 Subject to the provisions of paragraph 4.3 of this Agreement, the LRSD is relieved of its obligation to make payments of pnncipal or interest on these loans into a joint escrow account established by the State and the LRSD Agreement. pursuant to Section Vl.B of the 1989 Settlement For purposes of paragraph 4.2, the phrase final order granting it complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision shall mean the entry of a final, appealable order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granting the LRSD complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision as of July I, 2004. In the event an order granting the LRSD complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision as of July I, 2004 is not entered by the District Court, or is entered by the District Court but is appealed and Page 4 of 8UO/XO/Ui inv 0.40 r/iA igl uuo subsequently reversed in whole or in part, the LRSD shall have the unconditional obligation to repay the loans referenced in paragraph 4.2 on a payment schedule of interest and principal as set forth in Sections VI.B(l) and (3) of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, and to immediately pay to the State the cumulative amount of any and all interest and principal payments that would have been due on the loans referenced in paragraph 4 2 4.4 The Parties shall promptly and jointly petition the Court for any modification of Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement that is necessary so as to fully effectuate and make binding the terms of paragraphs 4 through 4.3 of this Agreement, and shall take such further action as may be necessary to obtain such a modification, including but not limited to appealing any adverse decision or ruling of the District Court 4.5 In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, the Parties shall negotia te in good faith in an effort to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution of any disputes concerning the loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VLB of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. In the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resolution, the Parties may take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate with regard to said loans, including but not limited to seeking appropriate relief from the Court. In the event such relief is sought from the Court, neither the terms of this Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the parties related to its negotiation or execution, shall be construed or offered as evidence of any admission against interest: or waiver of any kind on the part of the State or the LRSD. Page 5 of 8UB/28/U1 THU 1(5:47 TAX 1^007 4.6 However, in the event this entire Agreement is not terminated pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, but the Court approval referenced in paragraph 4.4 of this Agreement is nonetheless not obtained, the provisions of paragraphs 4 through 4.6 of this Agreement shall be null and void but severable from the remainder of this Agreement, to the effect that all other promises and obligations of the Parties shall remain in full force and effect. In such an event, the Parties shall negotiate in good 5. 6. faith in an effort to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution of concerning the loans advanced to the LRSD any disputes pursuant to Section VI.B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement and, in the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resolution, the Parties may take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate with regard to said Ioans, including but not limited to seeking appropriate relief from the Court. In the event such relief is sought from the Court, neither the Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the Parties related to its terms of this negotiation or execution, shall be constmed or offered as evidence of any admission against interest or waiver of any kind on the part of the State or the LRSD. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date of execution This Agreement will terminate and the State will have no further obligations under this Agreement if the LRSD has failed to apply to the District Court for complete unitary status and release from court supervision by June 30, 2004. 7. The Parties agree that this Agreement shall be filed in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CrV-LR-82-866, and that the United States District Court shall have jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement, to resolve disputes between the Parties arising out of this Page 6 of 8UUZ MX r AA l^UU Agreement and to hear any challenge to the legality of this Agreement. 8. This Agreement expresses the entire agreement of the parties and may not be modified or altered except by a writing executed by the authorized representatives of the LRSD and the State It IS specifically contemplated that this Agreement may be modified or amended, with the approval of the LRSD and the State, after further consultation and discussion with the Joshua Intervenors. 9. All covenants, conditions, agreements and undertakings contained herein shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective legal successors in interest and assigns of the parties. 10 This Agreement is entered into as of the /^ay of March. 2001, by the undersigned oflBcers of the Little Rock School District and the Arkansas Department of Education, each of whom IS authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Parties. Page 7 of 8MU/ ^/ MX ltl uuu LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BY: Dr. Les Cj tine, Superintendent ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION BY: Rayland Simon, Director H:\\hhgioo\\tg\u0026gt;ugcr\\Ark\u0026gt;nsfl AG - Dccg\\fliisc\\3_13_01 agnnftLwpd Page 8 of 8 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1803-1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913-1991) ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR. JOHN G. LILE GORDON S. RATHER. JR. TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD. JR. PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS. JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES III JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY III LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER. JR. CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES K. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADOEN ROGER D. ROWE JOHN 0. DAVIS WRIGHT. LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www.wlj.com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M.TODD WOOD Writer's Direct Dial No. 501-212-1273 mjonesQwij.com JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX. JR.** TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS JAMES M. MOODY. JR. KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. BALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON JENNIFER S. BROWN* C. TAD BOHANNON MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY** M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. MCKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE W. DUKE ROBERT W. GEORGE J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CHRISTINE J. DAUGHERTY, Ph.O. VIA FACSIMILE March 19, 2001 RiCBVED MAR 2 9 2001 * Licensed only in Fionda and Texas ** Licensed to practice before the Linked States Patent and Trademark Office a Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 RE: Proposed Agreement between the LRSD and the State of Arkansas Dear Chris: Thank you for sending over a draft of the agreement last week. As you know, I was in a two-week jury trial and the jury came back late Friday afternoon. I have reviewed the agreement and have had preliminary conversations with two school officials. We have not fully absorbed the intent and meaning of the proposed agreement and I have not had a chance to discuss it yet with you. Accordingly, the PCSSD must reserve the right, at this point in time, to object to Court approval of the agreement if it ultimately appears that such would be in the best interest of the PCSSD. 242298-vl Celebrating Years 19 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0WRIGHT. LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP March 19, 2001 Page 2 In the interim, I certainly look forward to discussing this with you in depth. Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP MSJ:ao M. Samuel Jones, III cc: Mr. John Walker Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Stephen W. Jones Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Celebrating 1 0 0 Years 19 0 0 2 0 0 0f EDWARD L. WRIGHT (jsoa-ieTTi ROBERT 5, LINuSEV 0*13.1891) ISAAC A SCOTT. JR. JOHN G. LtLE GONOON 8. RATHER. JR. TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID U. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS auFORO. JR. PATRICK J. SCSS ALSTON JENNINGS. JR. JOHH TISDALE KATNLYN CRAVES M SAMUEL JONES Hl JOHNWILL1AU st*ivev in L6E J. MULDROW N.M NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWt.N L. J.R CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER MCSPAODEN ROGER 0. ROWE ' JOHN 0. DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HSffKY VIA: FACSIMILE rvigntrax WRIGHT. LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SO! 3T CAPITOL AVENUc SUITE 2200 UTTLc ROCK. ARKANSAS TSlOUSSda {501)371-0808 FAX (SOI) 376-9*42 www.wlj.com Oi* COVKSIi. ALSTON JENNINGS ROnalO a uay JAMES R. VAN OOVER Writer's Direct Dial No. 501-212-1273 m)on8s@wq.com KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER ray f. COX. JR.- TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS JAUe\u0026gt; M. moody JR KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARY. OAVtS Claire shows Hancock KEVIN W KENNEDY JERRY J. SALlINGS william STUART JACKSON MICHAEL O 8AAMES STEPHEN R LANCASTER JU5Y ROBINSON WILBER KYLE R WILSON C. TAO BOHANNON MICHELE Simmons allgooo KRISTI U. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY* M. SEAN HATCH J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CKKISTIME J. DAUGHERTY, P(tO- MICHELLE M KAEMMERLING ERIK* ROSE MOMTOOM5P.Y SCOTT ANDREW IRBY MOLLY A. AOEE MtCNELlB MAROIS OiLLARD PATRICK D. WILSON  (jEnsetfBfnoicaaaftmneLMea 3MU *hf u-.UH}.ii July 11, 2002 The Honorable Wm, R. Wilson, Jr. U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue. Suite 360 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v, Pulaski County Special School District\net al USDC Docket No.\n4\n82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: I have the Court's Letter-Order of July 11, 2002 and I write in my capacity as counsel for the Pulaski County Special School District I have tried to follow the recent proceedings and I have a general sense that the issues witnesses and exhibits have been pared down considerably. My sole interest in the hearings next week revolves around Joshuas designation of Ray Simmon. Director of The State Department of Education, as a witness virhom they intend to call. If memory serves, he is listed as witness number 29 on Joshua's witness list and will be called to give testimony concerning the agreement between the State and LRSD. That agreement respects terms and ccnditions of the loan forgiveness to Little Rock and also includes a bilateral agreement between Little Rock and the State concerning a sunset provision by which payments such as those for magnet schools and M to M transfers wiii cease. Let me first say 1 cannot fit this particular testimony and this agreement into the parameters or what understand to be the issues that will in fact be addressed next week. At the\ndo not recall an order which specifically addressed Mr. Simmon and this agreement. same time, I It IS my underetanding that this agreement has never been submitted directly to the Court for approval or disapproval. However, when it first suiTaced, I did have occasion to write Judge 3S04Q9-V1njLBUtfdx * WRIGHT. tINDSEY 4 JENNINGS LLP July 11, 20Q2 Page 2 Wright advising that the PCSSD had not been a party to either the negotiator of or the execution of this agreement and that we opposed it. If this evidentiary item is not going to be addressed during the unitary hearing, I would respectfuiiy request to be excused from those hearings. EverTif Ns going to be ad^ wouio asK trie inauigence of the Court to simply require the par to nSfy ^^^^0 approxirnateiy wnen dunng the proceedings this issue might be addressed so that participation couio be limited to that witness and this issue. my any kind of position to assess and address this matter today with the SDtendW morning would not be required, that would be dpiVllUlU It? KlrOW. Thank you very much. Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP MSJ:wrmh .x'^^amuely^Jones, 111 cc: Honorable J, Thomas Ray All Counsel of .Record 1 350409-vli Chris Heije7 , j.,15,01 agrmnt.wpri 0002 Page AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL AND THE STATE OF ARKANSAS DISTRICT i This Agreement is by and between the Little Rock State of Arkansas (the \"State\"), by and through School District CTRSD\"), and the the Stare Board of Education, the Arkansas I I .! i i Department of Education and Governor Mike Huckabee. LRSD and the State shaU colbctively be referred to as the Parties, WHEREAS, LRSD and the State are recitals  parties to the 1989 Settlement Agreement in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CIV-LR-82-866, (1989 .Senior Agreement\"), WHEREAS, the 1989 Settlement Agreement anposes certain obligations on the State but contains no provision stating when those obligations end\nWHEREAS, LRSD wiU seek to be declared unitary and released from federal monitoring and supervision but is concerned that if it is declared unitary the State terminate its obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agr^ment\ncourt may seek to WHEREAS, pursuant to Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, the State has advanced baas to the LRSD in the cumulative principal amount of $20,000,000.00 (twenty million doflars), and there is presently a dispute between the State and the LRSD those loans will be forgiven Settlement Agreement\nas to whether or must be repaid pursuant to Section V1.B.(6) of the 1989 I I fS WHEREAS, under the States cuiient funding formula for public school districts, LRSDs per pupil revenue affects the total amount of fending which the State must distribute through the formula\nWHEREAS, how LRSD structures its bond debt affects LRSDs per pupil revenue\nWHEREAS, the State wants LRSD financial impact on the State, to structure its bond debt so as to minimize the 1003 Pagezj ft WHEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree to the foflowmg terms and conditions: agreements ! f I 1. LRSD agrees to good pursue complete unitary status and release from court supervision, in faith and using its best efforts, until such complete relief has of this Agreement, whichever comes first. been obtained or until the terminatton 2. LRSD agrees to accelerate the sale of its bonds so that the required annual defat payments wiU be 11.8 million dollars beginning wiA the 2002 calendar service Education docs hereby approve the LRSDs bond application as submitted year. The State Board of 3. In order to facilitate and on February 19, 2001. release from court supervision, the State the States obligations to the LRSD i encourage LRSDs efforts to attain complete unitary status and agrees that it will not seek to modify or terminate any of under the 1989 Settlement Agreement (including reduction of the payments to LRSD resulting from the Settlement any enforcing the Agreement) from the date of execution of this Agreement or court dccisrons I, 2008. This covenant shall Agreement up to and including June remain in full force and effect (unless this Agreement terminates p pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement) regardless of whether the LRSD, the Pulaski County Special School District, and/or the North Little Rock School District obtain partial or complete umtary status and release from court supervision. I 3.1 Provided, however, that this Agreement docs not limit, and should not be construed or interpreted as modification or termination of limiting in any way, the States ability to seek any of its obligations under the 1989 Settlement I t I Agreement (including court decisions interpreting the Agreement) that relate exclusively to the North Linle Rock School District, the Pulaski County Special School District, or any other party to the action. Further, this Agreement docs not prohibit the State and the LRSD from jointly petitioning the court for modification or termination of any aspect of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, nor does it 2 w I I f@004 I I I r 3.2 4. prohibit the State from asserting any and all defenses it may otherwise assen in response to any motion or allegation of the LRSD violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement. The State agrees to cooperate with and the legality- of this Agreement the Statess obligations under the 1989 to the efiect that the State has assist LRSD in opposing any challenge to or any effort by a third-party to modify or terminate Settlement Agreement. Such and assistance shall include, but not be limbed to, filing jomt pleadings pleadings responding to cooperation any or all of the following,' (1) supporting the legality of this Agreement\n(2) filing joint any request to modify or terminate the States obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement\n(3) fihng a joint appeal of any order, decision or judgment which directly or mdirectly undeimmes this Agreement\n(4) fihng a jomt bnef opposing any appeal of an order, decision or judgment upholding this Agreement or refhsmg to modify or termmate the 1989 Settlement Agreement\nand (3) filing joint pleadings this Agreement to United States District Court to remove or transfer any challenge to the legality of with the Pulaski County School CIV-LR-82-866. In recognition of the LRSDs efforts from federal court supervision, and to facilitate the the LRSD agree as follows: 4.1 Page 3 j B and to consolidate the challenge Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. I to obtain unitary status and complete release success of the LRSDs efforts, the State and The State will forgive and release the LRSD from any obligation to repay the first 515,000,000.00 (fifteen million doUars) in loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section Vl.B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Any and all funds m the yimt escrow account established by the State and the LRSD pursuant to Section Vl.B ( the 1989 Settlement Agreement will be practicable. released to the LRSD as SOOS as 3 I ILChfis Heller - 'jTl s H agrrnnt.w^_ oos t 4.2 In addition, with loans advanced to the LRSD respect to the remaining $5,000,000.00 (five million dollars) in I Agreement, the State will forgive and release pursuant to Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement repay these loans if the LRSD obtains the LRSD from any obligation to 4.3 status and release from federal a final order granting it complete unitary Court supervision on or before July 1, 2004 Subject to the provisions of paragraph 4.3 of this Agreement, the LRSD is relieved of its obligation to make payments of principal or interest on these loans into joint escrow account established by the State and the LRSD a pursuant to Section i I I I i ! i I I i 4.4 I I VI.B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. For purposes of paragraph 4.2, the phrase \"final order status and release from federal court graniing it complete unitary ^pealablc order of the United States District Conn for supervision\" shall mean the entry of a final, the Eastern District of Arkansas granting the LRSD complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision as of July 1, 2004. In the event an order granting the LRSD complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision as of July 1, 2004 is not entered by the District Court, or is entered by the District Court but i appealed and subsequently reversed in whole or m part, the LRSD shall have the unconditional obligation to rep^ the loans referenced in paragraph 4.2 on a payment schedule of interest and principal as set forth in Sections VI.B(I) and (3) of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, and to immediately pay to the State the cumulative amount of any and aU interest and principal payments that would have been due on the loans referenced in paragraph 4.2. The Parties shall promptly and jointly petition the Court fer Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement that any modification of IS necessary so as to fully effectuate and make binding the terms of paragraphs 4 through 4.3 of this Agreement, and shafl take such fertile: action as may be necessary to obtain such a 4 J I i i I li I 1Haller agnrint.wpd  006 Page 5 ii' modification, mchidmg but not limiied to appealing any adverse decision of the District Court I I or ruling 4.5 In the event this Agreement is tenninaled pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, the Parties shall negotiate in good faith in an effon to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution of any disputes concerning the Ioans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. In the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resohition, the Parties may take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate with regard to said loans, including but limited to seeking appropriate relief from the Court. not In die event such relief is g sought from the Court, neither the terms of this Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the parties related to its negotiation or execution, shall be construed I i or offered as evidence of any admission against interest the part of the State or the LRSD. or waiver of any kind on 4.6 However, in the event this entire Agreement is not tenmnated pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, but the Court approval referenced in paragraph 4.4 of this Agreement is nonetheless not obtained, the through 4.6 of this Agreement .'.hall be null provisions of paragraphr 4 and void but severable from the I remainder of this Agreement, to the effect that aU other promises and obligations of the Parties shall rcmam in frill force and effect. In such an event, the Parties shaU negotiate in good faith in an effort to amve at a mutually agreeable resolution of any disputes conccminB the loans flrivani-wj to the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B of the 1989.Settlemenl Agreement and, in the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resolution, the Parties take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate with regard to said loans, inchiding but not limited to sexkmg appropriate relief from the Court. In the event such relief is sought from the Court, neither the terms of this Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the S i ng,iia.ia.i,. II I i I I I I I I H^Her  32.1 5 q'i agrmni wf^ Parties related to its negotiation or execution, shall be construed evidence of any aHmKoinn State or the LRSD. or offered as against interest or waiver of any kind on the part of the 5. 6. The effective date of this Agreement shaU be the date of execution. This Agreement will terminate and the State will have no further obligations under this Agreement if the LRSD has failed to atrolv to th? f sppty to the District Court for complete unitary status and release from court supervision by June 30,2004 7 The Parties agree that this Agreement shall be filed in the Pulaski County School c^, u,S.D C, No CIV.LR.82.6, Uoiod So. Dteio, Co lull too jodsdicaon ,0 erforoo te ,o\u0026gt;ol,o dlspuus b=n die Ponios out of this Agreement and to hear ariqtng 8. This Agreement expresses the entire any challenge to the legality of this Agreement. altered except by a writing executed by the authorized It IS specifically contemplated that this Agreement agreement of the parties and may not be modified approval of the LRSD and the State, after further intervenors. 9. All covenants, conditions, benefit of and be binding upon the respective legal 10. or representatives of the LRSD and the State, may be modified or amended, with the consultation and discussion with the Joshua agreements and undertakings contained herein shall mure to the This Agreement is entered into as of the successors in interest and assigns of the parties. oflScers of the Little Rock School District and the whom is authorized to ----- day of March, 2001, by the undersigned Arkansas Department of Education, each of execute this Agreement on behalf of the Parties. 007 Page 81 I 3^1S_q-I agrrnnt.wpd  008 nrr^ ( I I i ^age?] LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BY\nI Dr. Les Canune, Superintendent ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION BY: 1 Rnymond Simon, Director t I H: aG - DW-P\u0026lt;wio.13.15.01 M=-twpd 1 )FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL 1^1001 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 Regions Center 400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE little rock, ARKANSAS 72201-34S3 telephone (SOD 376-2011 FAX NO. (5011 376-2147 CORPORATIONS THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE FOR\nAnn Marshall 371-0100 FIRM NAME: FROM: Chris Heller DIRECT NUMBER 501-370-1506 MESSAGE\nSee attached. TOTAL NO. OF PAGES (including this information sheet): 8 DATE: March 15, 2001 TIME: A.M./P.M. TELECOPY OPERATOR: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: LIOIO-90 _____________ CLIENT NUMBERMATTER NUMBER CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE\nThe information in this facsimile grivileged and confidential information i individual or entity named above. intended recipient. or copy of the tran.LttL^^- tZsnsjnltCsJ. is Isgally ---- intended only for the use of the If the reader of this message is not the transmittal in rs error strictly prohibited. If you receive this distribution original transmittal to Service. Thanh you. , please rmmedrately notify us by telephone, and ~o us at the above address via the United States Postal and return the THURSDAY, JULY 22, 1999 LR schools : 1  put^Slmillion in loan account State, district disagree over repayment terms . BY CYNTHIA HOWELL .. ARKANSAS DEMOCRATGAZETTE , \\ Little Rock School District offt\ncials have put nearly $1 million into what they have titled LRSD/State Loan Repayment Ac- ' count in response to state officials who said the district isnt complying with a 1989 agreement for repaying a million state loan. . But Assistant Attorney General Tim Gauger said Wednesday that the district controls the accounL which is not an escrow account jointly established by the state and district as required by the 1989 agreement. After a July 12 directive from   made a decision five years aan thof wo uro pnfitIpH tn ago that we are entitled to loan ____ , , , forgiveness.-, ..i  Cohtlnu^trom Pago ., In anticipation of the state ask- settlementfthe'aistncF'would not  ing a federal judge to enforce the have to'repay the state loan if be- settlement temis for tlie escrow fore December 2000 the composite account, school district attorneys scores' earned by black students have asked tlie Education Departon a standardized test reached at ment for. minutes and other docu- least 90 percent of the scores of ments dealing with test selection.^ white students. The test was to be I suppose it will go to court, agreed upon by the state and the Heller said. \"This may prove to be district fortunate for us because we didnt Chris Heller, an attorney for the seem to be making any progress school district, said Wednesday with the state to get them to make that the fact that the district has a decision on what the test for loan not deposited money into a jointly forgiveness is going to be  even    *' though it seems that it has been decided twice that it should be the held account arises from the states failure to agree on a test to measure student achievement, which would determine whether the Little Rock debt would be for- given.' Two state Department of Edu- Stanford 8 scale scores. Gauger said the state will simply ask in its court filings that the district comply with the settlement in teiTOs of the jointly held escrow cation committees recommended account. *  ' We are not going to allege that that scale scores from the Stanford they have not met the standard [for Achievement Test, eighth edition, tuvj. iw.v mve v.,v i.x be used to measure student loan forgiveness], Gauger said. achievement, Heller said. But he All we are asking is that they get the escrow current. In my mind, if said the proposals were never for- ------------- ----- mally adopted by Education De- you are holding the money, why partment administrators or the not put it into the joint escrow? state Board of Education. The district got its first mil- School district officials contend lion of the $20 million loan in Sep- i that the district meets the require- tember 19tW. It^was obligated by the state Board of Education^ Gauger said he plans to file a mo-\nments for loan forgiveness if the the original 1989 settlement agree- tion early next week for Chief U.S. Stanford scale scores are the mea- ment and by a more detaile^oan nistriet Tndpe Susan Webber ' sure. agreement in September 1990 to Uistnct Judge busan Webber , ..This issue should have and begin repaying that portion of the Wright to enforce the agreement against the district. He contends i could have been decided a long loan within seven years into a spe- time ago, and the decision should cial escrow account. The loan was    ............... - to be repaid in 20 equal install- that the district owes $996,000 . that we are entitled to loan for- plus investment earnings. giveness, Heller said. We In the 1989 financial settle- , shouldnt be sued over the ques-  tion of an escrow payment when niversary of the initial loan.' ments with a 3 percent interest rate going into effect on the Sth ailment, the state pledged a $20 million loan to the district to be paid over 10 years in increments of no more than $6 million every two years, TTie money was to help the the state could have and should According to a draft of the mo- tion Gauger intends to submit to the judge, the district was re-  X pr  X- - 1 X quired to make a principal pay- distnct offset desegregation-relat- of $300,000 into the escrow ed costs. account in September 1997 and an- According to the terms of that other $300,000 payment on the 1 See LOAN, Page 11A principal in September 1998, plus  ' an interest payment of $171,000 at Simon asked Gamine to change the account name from Little Rock School District Special Desegregation Account to reflect the account name required in the 1990 loan agreement and to add $270,000 to the account, the balance the dis- trict owed at the time. Milhollen said Wednesday that he believes the district has com- -------- that time. Little Rock drew another $4.5 -- --------- million from the loan in Januaiy plied with Simon s requests from a 1992 and was to begin repaying year ago. as well as the terms ot that with an initial $225,000 in Jan- the September 1990 loan agree- mcnt We followed their recommen- into the escrow account, plus in- uary this year. According to the terms of the . 1989 agreemenL all money paid dations in the letter they wrote to --------- us. Milhollen said.  We did what they asked us to do, which was to adjust the $30,000 to $300,000, and we titled the account like they vestment earnings, would be returned to the district once the student achievement goals are met. asked us to title it. Thats what they asked us to do. Otherwise, the escrowed money and subsequent payments on the debt would go to the state begin- Superintendent Les Gamine, Larry Berkley, School Board ning in 2001  president, said recently that he Superintendent Les Gamine, thinks the State Education Boards who acknowledged early last vote to force the district to make month that the district was in de- escrow payments was a matter ol fault of its payments, said this politics. . -.r -----------u nA knnn .People in the rest of the state don't want to think about forgiving a ^0 million loan to a school district in Little Rock, Berkley said. week that the money had been put into reserves but he hesitated to say more before the court case.  Earlier, Carnine said the test issue should be resolved so that the dis- \"I can understand that, but it may trict \" could use its financial re- not be the smartest thing. There is sources on students. the potential that the state uld Mark Milhollen, tlie district's get dragged back into the desegre, manager of financial services, con- gallon case, which could end up firmed Wednesday that $968,375 costing the state more money. I was put into the LRSD/State loan don't think that is a wise move. rpnavmentaccountJune30,thelast The state was dismissed as a repayment account June 30, the last to the $30,815.89 already in the ac- repdyiiivnidLLuuiivuujicAaxv,xxAxji, day of the 1998-99 fiscal year. Added party in the now 16-year-old deseg- io iiie $30,315.83 already in the ac- rogation lawsud after the ap-. counL the account totals $999,190.89. proval of the 1989 fmancial settle-, Milhollen cited a June 1998 let- ment. However, Wright retains ju- ter from Ray Simon, director of the risdiction over the state to enforce Education Department, in which compliance with the agreement. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2000  Arkansas Democrat azcttc Deadline set for compliance on desegregation case escrow BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Arkansas Board of Educa- state Departnient of Education oftion on Monday set a March 1 deadline for -the Little Rock about $1.8 million set aside in an School District to establish and account held jointly by the dis- fully fund a joint escrow account trict and the state. Latest docu- to hold the districts repayments ments on file with state Educa- on a $20 million state desegrega- tion Department staff show that a tion loan. The board directed Assistant ance of about $999,000. Attorney General Tim Gauger to, file a complaint with U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, who ongoing dispute between the monitors the districts desegrega- state officials and the district _ . , tion efforts, if the escrow account over the terms of a 1989 financial funds in 1998 in the escrow ac- is not in place by the date. settlement between the district According to calculations by , and the state.  The state a^eed at the time to loan the district the money witli ficials, the district should have district-held account has a baiThe state boards vote Monday is the latest development in an the understanding that the loan would be forgiven if the district could narrow the academic dis- . . parity between black and white ' tatives of the state and school dis- students on a standardized achievement test. The district has until Dec. 31 this year to meet the goal. In the meantime, the district was obligated by the settlement agreement to b6gin periodically setting aside count to repay the state in the event the goal is not met. The board directed Gauger last summer to pursue joint access to the Little Rock account as well as full funding. On a related matter, represen- trict have never identified the test that is to be used to measure the disparity in black and white i students achievement. Discussions on that issue are continuing. Charity Smith, an assistant director in the Education Department, said Monday.I Arkansas Demcxrrat ^(ijitazcHc | THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2000  LR schools set up plan to repay state . Move taken in time to keep from facing default lawsuit BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS BEHOCRArO.AZi\nTTE Little Rock School District officials put almost SSOO.OOO into a state loan repayment account and took other steps by a deadline Wednesday to avoid being sued for default by the state. Mark Milhollen, district manager of financial sendees, transferred $465,632 into a loan repayment account, bringing the account to $1.48 million, the amount - owed to date.\nAlso Wednesday, district and 'state officials exchanged drafts of la memorandum of understanding\nthat would obligate the Little Rock /district to convert its loan repay\ninent account into a joint escrow 'account that would be accessible two years. Ito both district and state officials,  not just district officials. terms, the drstrict will not have io Last month, the Arkansas j repay the state loan if by Dcc.-31 Board of Education directed As- ! the composite scores earned .by sistant Attorney General Timothy black students on a standardized Gauger to file a complaint in fed- test reach at least 90 percent of tlie eral court against the states scores of white students. .largest school system if district of- ---------------------------------------------- The test is to be selected by tlie ficials failed by Wednesday to es- j state and the district. That test, tablish the joint account and make however, has not been selected. overdue payments on a $20 million The proposed memorandum of un- loan made by the state to offset derstanding notes that a disagree- district desegregation costs be- ment exists between the parties on tween 1990 and 1999. . The proposed memorandum of understanding was not finalized by the end of the day Wednesday. But Ray Simon, director of the Arkansas Department of Education, said the districts attempts to meet .Estate demands satisfied him. He .said he wanted time to review the :draft of the memo with his staff but did not expect to file a court ..'complaint. Even though the [joint escrow] '.account is not set up. Little Rock . has done what they needed to do,  'Simon said. I'm satisfied they . -ihave complied to this point with \u0026gt;*\nthe boards deadline. They have ,\nmade the good-faith effort to get  .^something to us. Its just that our 'staff needs today [Wednesday] to .z look at it.  In the two-page draft memoran- idum, the district pledges to repay See LOAN, Page 7B Loan  Continued from Page 1B\nprincipal and interest on the loan. The district also seeks to manage die account and have the authority to periodically draw from the account to offset lulls in llie flow of local tax revenues to tlie district'. Any amounts withdrawn from the joint account would-be repaid with interest within six months of tlie witlidrawal, accorfr ing to the proposed language'of the memo. Milhollen said another payment of $353,220 will be made' to the repayment account March To, and $75,000 more will be paid May Other payments of various amounts are scheduled into I at least the next two decades. The $20 million loan from the state was a provision of a 1989. financial settlement between the state and the school system. The state distributed the loan proceeds over 10 years in increments of no more than $6 million every According to the settlement whether the requirements for loan forgiveness have been met. The draft memo Birther says tlie district and the state wish to continue discussions aimed at resolving jlie dispute. If the district meets the student achievement goal, the money in the joint escrow account will be returned to the district. Otherwise it will be returned to the state.  The district got its first $6 million of the $20 million loan in September 1990. The district was obligated by tlie original 1989 agreement and by a more detailed loan agreement in September 1990 to begin repaying that portion of the loan witliin seven years into a special escrow account. , The loan was to be repaid in'20 equal installments witli a 3 per- :ent interest rate. ii 'i\n'. The districts first payment'of $300,000 was due to the escrow account in September 1997. Over time the district set aside some repayment funds but not into a jointly held account and not (br the full amounts owed.' ' f Members of the state Board of Education began publicly , questioning the lack of a joint account and delinquent payments last summer. er(  FRIDAY, MARCH 17, 2000  LR schools,  I  ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Attorneys for the Little Rock School District and the Arkansas attorney generals office have signed a memorandum of understanding whereby the district idedges that its payments on a $20 million state loan will go to a joint- lyjowned bank account. According to the memorandum, the school district has the authority to make investment decisions for the account. The district is obligated to provide the state Department of Education a monthly statement showing account activity. ''The agreement further gives the Little Rock district  with permission from the Education De- state agree on loan repayment plan partment  the ability to draw from the account at those times of the year when the flow of tax revenue to the district ebbs. Any such amounts withdrawn by the district must be repaid with interest within six montts. The memorandum follows a dispute between the state and district over the terms of the loan. The district obtained the low- interest loan as a result of a 1989 desegregation agreement with the state. The original agreement says that the district will not have to repay the loan if, by Dec. 31 of this year, it can narrow the achievement disparity between black and white students as measured by standardized tests. But the terms of the loan also called for the district to begin making payments in 1997 to a joint escrow account The state Board of Education complained that the district was making insufficient payments to an account that only the district controlled. State board members said in February that they would ask a federal judge to enforce the terms of the 1989 agreement if the district did not comply by March 1. The district complied by the specified date, and the two-page memorandum was worked out.October 17. 2 0 0 0 LR district, state work on solutions Desegregation, funding for schools on the agenda BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-OAZETTE At the urging of three Arkansas legislators, attorneys for the state and the Little Rock School District are quietly working toward a settlement of school-funding and desegregation issues that might otherwise cost the state millions and prolong the districts federal desegregation lawsuit. i Sen. Jim Argue, D-Little Rock, j said Monday that attorneys for the governors office, the state Department of Education and the attorney generals office have met at least twice in recent weeks with representatives of the Little Rock district on the complex issues. Those issues include the Little Rock districts possible payback of a million state loan, state funding of Little Rock magnet schools and the impact of a recent Little Rock tax increase on Jim Argue school funding elsewhere in\" the state. Argue, who has served as an informal facilitator at the meetings, said he was cautiously optimistic that a resolution of the financial issues is forthcoming. I dont want to talk about what the compromises might look like because we are at a very delicate stage, Argue said. But I do think the parties are negotiating in good faith, he added. I do think they are keeping the interest of school kids at heart. Hopefully, we can bring a resolution to some really difficult issues and clear the path so that the Little Rock School Districts removal from federal court can be a moment of celebration. District officials are hoping that See ISSUES, Page 10A FH o o CiSm p sS-o ff- O'S O S 5o S3 5' a3_.ffp^|3 jap?is.gs-|-\u0026amp;s-| o 2\nt\u0026amp;3S go-oE--csS:L \u0026amp;\u0026amp; Og )5-2. oKE-S:-ic8n?B: s _  . 0-0 e!O-ff\nS  2-^325^^ TO ?+ O'rtA!-3'\u0026lt;VP s3 c1 -50.^ o  Di Di O trt ! .o O  00 fp !3 2 cn U u uu uQ I Vt s gas 3 Ss 2^g2 3-^ CT 3 O a  *. '?c p S ' 3a S^-EH- S-p \u0026gt; |\u0026amp;S3g-o ^'S^Q.!^ g P ' \"p-ga p S. Di (O 3 \u0026gt; 3^ Di 5. P3SP-5-B V'\u0026amp; \u0026amp;3 ffffBSgSgC..  fo Q-P\"\" S-~s-.^ O'? R ^oS-pSp-oSKoP-o\u0026amp; E.pff'Sgsg'Po^gso. g-H-ia. S \u0026amp; a g \u0026lt; l-Sf 11P S.0 o 3 g li ff- s-p\"|g'isa' Sgsf PohS'p^p^W^ ? 3-2 3fB,23wS'^ y 3 O XO o a 5 \u0026gt;1 ^0.3 -3  \u0026amp; \u0026gt;3 CA CD  p 3 CA O CA V) o (D Q SB'S =1\" a o CA  3 g O w ^gg.hrJS o X n5 *\u0026lt; p o 2  s * 3-\" a rt\u0026gt; 5 fp a o CA \u0026amp;3 g o\u0026lt;fi g\" o  Sh g-S !.'S 2 g 5 StA O Ca O O- r* e g 5 o O rt tv jr-gS- gs CA c g CP fP S?- P O 5 s rti o-\" S-~g !c 5-cacpcpO^q2.o, 5o.-cp3Qi=:cp- 4 P' S o 2.P 2. P-3 p? 55 'P3 S 3s o cr Di CA - n gg O' p K? rs jS- a Q ti. (D T i off'S .. \u0026amp;\u0026amp;g g CS.2-3  Is Bo CA  alg S-W \u0026amp;!? S-g-P I\" 5'S S-a SS \u0026amp;S  \u0026amp; 5- o s-bL K'o og-w BlS ct^.q 2 rt\u0026gt; ca  M 2 fD o \u0026amp;  f? 5^3 5KC^S.^oQ.- w3 2CD 2Di. S is BS.ffaffS'' B\u0026amp;p q I'P Qh C^1S.^,\u0026lt;P (?p \u0026amp;3'^ 3\"'  QpI| ?s 's^ t?ip \u0026amp;\u0026amp; ia oSog'CS'SS' S? a.3'BSQ? I- CA CA s S 3 !?a s s  a S-S o-\u0026amp;^S 2. rt f-i fP C3 El. . r- 3 \u0026amp;s sr \"O fP O 3 - 3.  rti O fP fcj 1-j o XJ o oa ^O--S2.* *0!- ^9\n3 S3.2 2-3,3 o 2 o o 3 2-J?ao CP w ii^hir o 1 o 3 CA 2 o IS oa-2^^'3o   g as 0-^0 g^giS-'ga^ffgSo g ^iS.O ffi o O 0-0 o o Bo Eco!?^ \"- dap o * gl fP \u0026amp;\u0026lt; p n\u0026gt; (p o \u0026lt;p w .S H 2.H-Q.ctni a S 2. pP3 \u0026amp;Boo 212^3^5:3o c\u0026amp;x ^gP\u0026amp;^e\u0026amp;O'g g 3-^'^ S. 2 -2 2 \"* ............gB c gg E'Q EP^r. EP 0.2'? Eg-?- 11  2 CA 3 C It CT S.g  QC r w rr O3 g ^ '. 2 a\u0026amp;ff 3 3 ogrg.'^ o S.s:g  E'a S a o. g  Sg'gSS.wSso H S.3g.?.S'?5 teK\n3. \u0026lt;P o c w CA CP X p CA 2 03 S 3 3 \u0026amp;g5 J? fp s CA o P r (P aP ggc- 3i p t*- S*- T\" 3* cB g S'  ? o 2  g  o' g S' '!\u0026gt; 3,pGQ2SH ^pa3r3'B . ff 9 E- H- Ct 3 P C O 3- - \" 3 \u0026amp;. B |e 8 g\u0026lt;|'g ff-g 3 hS g aSg'Jp .3 CP I2 o w 3 S2. lIl'? Ill CP S K- -3 g fP U3  S S S  1 CA 0-3 g Jj' - ?r 3 o o ' w !ZR 2i K ^S 3-'fl Cr.T3 ttO-O O O S O o  fft o o 3 O CA n 2 BJ 2. CA iOf. M CiAs .-1 3M ^- 2\u0026gt; tJ r* s\u0026amp;'R g5 T.0.0 0??- S 0.1 o.Sa a'\u0026amp;SS5gS|\u0026amp; \"S-SpS-a\" gaS: Ssgs.gal ca  3\" O 3   . P 3 s. 2 fp B.g-'g B rf 2- O'. 2 'OR.B tt'O'o'S^\" P ' \u0026amp;.P35A\u0026amp; (S3Po\"=c' Eg?g(g P 9 SSo P (S o *0 fp tn 3-a (TO (P B c/i O 3 o \u0026lt;P 3-\nS S- B-ff o ff\u0026amp;d'^2 5'03 i^ffS'o 3. |ScSXS?^|'gS|ffBgt5. ss a 3-3-2 ^pw,. SfToW-oS \"S .S C3_ O SpgS, CA Q 3 5.^g'?- ^3 2 2: fP T .Q o  kTct M \" CA P I (P -3 w'2 A.sirjslIjHi 'A P CA  3. ^^OCA S El' CA O  S-2 3  O fti o pr a?-I CP CP  O ! e-f' rt\u0026gt; |sB s\n t 9Cr\u0026lt;'fDT3Oa3s: 32o332oo\u0026lt; 3 a .o CA CA p (p CA p I. CA S' \u0026amp; 2OmB*l2OO2 ^P ,,, CP 3  3 3'W =-5:^K o Q.-r*^2 \u0026amp; ft.fDT3M3'OOvO . 3 r TO . M n s o a(P aK-sB t  unuAT, 2UU1^ r LR schools, state near deal on BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Attorneys for the state and Ijttle Rock School District are moving closer to settlii^ school-funding and desegregation issues that might otherwise cost the state millions and complicate district efforts to end federal court supervision. They are negotiating:  The Little Rock districts possible payback of a $20 million state loan.  Continued state funding of Little Rock magnet schools and other desegregation-related programs worth $15 million to $20 million a year to the district  nie impact of a recent tax increase in Little Rock on the states funding obligations to other Arkansas school districts. Little Rock officials would like to settle issues with the state and other parties before the district submits a March 15 desegregation compliance report to a federal judge who oversees the 18-year-old Pulaski County school-desegregation case. If there are no objections to the compliance report or if there is no ' proof that the district Is out of compliance with its desegregation plan, then the district could be declared desegregated at the end of this school year and released from federal court monitoring. The word I get is that the negotiations are in the final stages\nthat we may have a deal that everyone is going to agree to, Sen. Jim Argue, D-Little Rock, said Friday. Argue is one of three state senators who wrote to Gov. Mike Huckabee, Little Rock Superintendent Les Gamine, state Department of Education Director Ray Simon and Attorney General Mark Pryor in September 2000 urging that the state and Little Rock address several issues as a package and avoid relying on the courts to resolve them. desegregation funds Argue served as an informal facilitator at some of the earlier meetings with the leaders from the agencies and the parties in Little Rocks school desegregation lawsuit On Friday, Argue said he didnt know the specifics of an emerging agreement. I do get the sense that both sides have given some and won some, he said, adding that the talks are now in the hands of Chris Heller, an attorney for the Little Rock district, and Timothy Gauger, an assistant attorney general. Heller said Friday that he and Gauger talk almost daily and, while they do not have a final draft of an agreement to take to their respective clients, he said there exists at least the nucleus of an agreement The Little Rock lawyer also said the district faces deadlines for resolving the issues and We need to know within a week or two whether there is substantial agreement. Michael Teague, a spokesman for the attorney generals office, declined to comment at length about tlie negotiations but called Hellers comments an accurate assessment of the talks. Simon said Friday that he was . See SCHOOLS, Page 3B ' Schools  Continued from Page 1B frustrated by the slowness of the talks between the attorneys but optimistic about an ultimate agreement. He said he may have something to report to the state Board of Education at its Feb. 12 meeting. Simon said earlier this month that the attorneys had listened to the discussions of others involved in the issues and were now attempting to put into writing a possible agreement that all the interested parties could endorse. Asked specifically whether district and state representatives have agreed to a method for determining whether Little Rock must repay a million loan, Simon said, Were close. A proposal should be forthcoming. A 1989 agreement between the state and district said the district would not have to repay the loan if the composite scores earned by Little Rock black students on a nationally standardized test reached 90 percent or better of the average scores earned by white students by Dee. 31,2000. In the intervening years, the district and the state never formally agreed on the test to be used. Heller said Friday that the focus of the talks now is not so much on the $20 million as it is on developing a process for determining whether die loan should be forgiven. He said the process described in the 1989 agreement proved to be unworkable. He also said the district and Education Department administrators have desi^ated experts to make recommendations to negotiators about possible measures of student achievement. Those advisers are Steven Ross, a faculty member at the University of Memphis and an educational consultant to Little Rock School District\nand Douglas Reeves, a national consultant to the Education Department on several issues. One of the most pressing of the deadlines faced by the negotiators is related to the 5-mill tax increase Little Rock voters approved last year. The district must complete scheduling the sale of bonds that will be financed with the money generated by the tax increase. The longer the district delays selling the bonds and incurring new debt, the greater the districts wealth. That poses a problem for state officials because all school districts are legally guaranteed at least 80 percent of the money that Little Rock raises in state and local money per student, excluding that money that goes to pay debts. Depending on how Little Rock officials structure the debt they incur, the state would have to increase aid by $40 million to $140 million, according to preliminary projections last year. Until the debt structure and states obligation to other districts are known, legislators could be hindered in setting appropriations for state services for the next two fiscal years. Another critical issue in the school talks is whether the state will attempt to stop subsidizing Little Rocks desegregation efforts if the district is declared unitary, or a fully desegregated school system, later this year. The state pays close to $20 million a year for desegregation-related programs, including magnet schools, student transfer programs,: transportation, and teacher retirement and health insurance costs. We think it helps everybody if the Little Rock School Board is free to consider unitary status without having to worry about potentially disastrous financial consequences, Heller said. Hopefully we can reach an agreement that will work for everybody.8A  FRIDAY, MARCH 16, 2001  Deal can ease LR schools loan burden Lawyers for state, district work out possible solution BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRATCAZETTE Attorneys for the state and the Little Rock School District have reached a tentative agreement that would relieve the district of repaying mosL if not all, of a $20 million loan and preserve millions in state funds for magnet schools and other desegregation costs until at least 2008. In return, the Little Rock district will structure its finances, particularly money from a recent tax increase, so that the state will not be required to pump $125 million to other Arkan^ school districts. The proposed a^eement allows the school district to continue efforts to win release from federal court supervision without jeopardizing state funding for de- se^egation programs. Both the Arkansas Board of Education and the Little Rock School Board have scheduled meetings for Monday to decide whether to ratify the agreement that has been the topic of negotiations since last September. Im just pleased we were able to reach agreement, said Ray Simon, director of the Arkansas Department of Education. It brings closure to these issues and it allows us to focus on student achievement for all students. Simon said he will recommend that the state board approve the agreement when it meets at 2 pun. Monday via telephone conference call. We are wearing big smiles See LRSD, Page 8A STTTil E -ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Dese i  I _ BE ii I I ^^iS^ockSciiool^^iS^ M . - citing statistics ds evidence ........ .nl^iiareffnrt\u0026lt;i to comply with a 1998 ^fTlWWCTTHGHEHS z-OlsMensabllqated to maintain a E^affthat is approximately PEBCENI BUCK 3n ~sr MCX ~1S1 WMiE/onn 1205 UW HGOROUS COURSES^ ranomiiffliT MCIEKE AJflebra I Geometry Algebra II Biology ChorrifettY Physics 5 w Tzr I 1M TOTO. % MCKASt 3t% -----73% -----HIT rar 'LO^' BUCK % MCHJtSE W% 8% ------0% 51% ~~TW% ADVHKD PUCEMENT COURSE ENROIIMENT n SUSPENSIONS BUCK 5341 WMIE 900 052 ran. _yB 1997-98 2000-'01 % change TOIM L5 OK BUCK fll ~7S7 09% KT COLLEGE ENTRANCE EXAM TESFIAKERS ^gZ5g3BBaBWHMARKEXAM:lJIElU^ or above proficiency Hl _JiBL = +31% HJKX _291 +50% WMIE __as +1% h GRA0E5SnNF0RDKHIEVEMENTTEST:MAni Scores in percentiles 50 percent= national average Ml JL 31 iUCK 23 WMIE _S S5 'SOURCE: Little Rock School District 1997-'98 t9900 % change ran nt 31% BUCK MB =1 EXnUCURnCULAR ACTMIY PARrailMIION 1997-'98 1999-'00 BUCK 2g WMIE/Oim 393 --------902 DROPOUT RATE AT HIGH SCHOOLS 1997-96 1999-00 ran. 5Mm%i BUCK Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/KIRK MONTGOMERYI P for desegregation programs that in- kllwv elude magnet schools, student transfers, and special transporta-  Continued from Page 1A tion as well as money for extraor- afound here, Little Rock Super- dinary employee health insurance intendent Les Gamine said. We and retirement costs. The district, think the right things have been which has a $200 million budget, done and Im really excited for the gets approximately million a school district and for the kids year for those costs. here. This sets the tone for us to begin a whole new era. The negotiated agreement specifically says the state will not Sen. Jim Argue, D-Little Rock, try to modify or terminate any of its was equally pleased and said he obligation to Little Rock as enu- would encourage his fellow lawmakers to support the agreement. merated in a 1989 agreement until June 1, 2008. The newest agree- Its cause for celebration, he mentwhich would be an amendsaid. This agreement represents ment to the 1989 settlementdoes the resolution of some extremely not specify what happens at that important and chronically trouble- time. The state farther agreed to forgive and release the Little Rock some issues that we have focused oh for years. Argue was one of three lawmak- district from any obligation to re- ers who last fall encouraged state pay the first $15 million of a $20 and Little Rock district officials to million state desegregation loan pool together several outstanding given to the district over the course desegregation and financial issues of the 1990s. The state will forgive the re- and resolve them as a package. maining $5 million in loans if the Sen. Jodie Mahony, D-El Dorado, and Sen. Dave Bisbee, R-Rogers, district obtains a final order from were the other two. the federal courts granting it com- A lot of hard work has gone plete unitary status and release into this, Aiiue said. And I re- from federal court supervision by member that a lot of people July 1,2004. thought it was a pipe dream. It was $20 million loan was a con- an instance where we were looking tentious provision of the 1989 flnan- at four issues and we couldnt re- cial settlement between the state wed go right back to where we solve any of them as we dealt with mid the Pulaski County school dis- them individually. tricts. AccoMing to the 1989 agree- As for his legislative colleagues, ment, the district would not have to Im going to encourage them to repay the loan if the scores earned understand that all parties were at black students on standardized the table, that everybody is giving fest scores were raised to at least 90 and everybody is gaining, he said, percent of the scores earned by If they choose to spoil the deal, white students by Dec. 31,2000. ..^'d o- Ls, ..e However, the state and the Lit- were with four big problems and tie Rock district never agreed on no resolution. the standardized test or the type of Gov. Mike Huckabee was out of score that should be used to detertown Thursday but said through a mine whether the district met its spokesman that he wanted to re- obligation. .................. The Little Rock district is oblig- serve comment until after the boards acted on the agreement. The tentative agreement was ated by the new agreement to accelerate its efforts to sell construction bonds and raise its level of circulating among various state and local officials on the same day debt from about $6 million to about the Little Rock School District sub- $11.8 million by early 2002, saving District voters approved a 5-mill mitted to U.S. Chief District Judge the state up to $125 million. Susan Webber Wright, a 167-page report of statistics showing the dis- tax increase last year for renovat- tricts efforts to comply with its ing buildings and expanding tech- 1998 desegregation plan. nology systems. As soon as that dis- A motion accompanied the re- trict uses that money to finance port asking Wright to give all other construction debt, the money wont parties in the 18-year-old desegre- be counted as revenue available to gation lawsuit 20 days to make any educate students in the district. objections to the districts asser- Thats important to state offi- tions of compliance. The district cials because the amount of rev- also asked the judge to declare the enue per child in the Little Rock district unitary, or desegregated to district is the standard by which ..................................  state funding for all other school the extent practicable, on June 30. A declaration of unitaiy status districts is calculated. Every dis- would mean that the district would trict is guaranteed 80 percent of be released from continued feder- the funding available in Little court monitoring and involve- Rock. Unless the district uses its ment in its operations. The district new revenue to finance construe-  has been involved in federal tion, the state will have to pump in school desegregation lawsuits for more money for other school sys- more than 40 years. terns in 2001-02. The $125 million The current lawsuit began in cost could wipe out money that 1982, when the Little Rock district Huckabee and other lawmakers sued the state and the other two want to increase teacher salaries. Tulaoki CuuiiLy ouliuul uiauiuU, Those raises, if made law, are exseeking consolidation as an end to pected to cost $122 million annual- Pulaski County school districts, racial segregation in the Pulaski ly when fully implemented. County piAlic schools. The federal In the proposed agreement, the courts found that the defendants district and state pledge to work to- were at fault but stopped short of gether for unitary status for the Lit- consolidation. The districts and tie Rock district. The agreement the state ultimately agreed to a fi- states that it can be modified by nancial settlement of more than the district and state based on fur- $129 million to be paid out over the ther consultation and discussion course of the 1990s. However, the with attorneys for the Joshua interdistricts continue to receive money venors, who represent the black from the state for ongoing desegre- students in the district in the ongo- ing desegregation lawsuit John Walker, the attorney for gation expenses. The proposed agreement between the state and district was the intervenors, could not be not submitted to the judge with the reached for comment Thursday. compliance report, but the two are tied together. Some of the attorneys involved in crafting the agreement included Little Rock district attorneys Chris Heller for the Little Rock and School Board members have School District\nTimothy Gauger said they want to pursue unitary and Scott Smith for the Departstatus without a fear that the state ment of Education, and Olan would try to withdraw its funding Reeves for the governors office.o CM CM LR, state boards sign school funding pact Agreement maintaining desegregation programs called a marvelous step forward o JI V. I ! Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/JASON ANTHES LiWe Rock School District Superintendent Les Carnine signs an agreement that will continue state funding for the school system's desegregation programs. BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Arkansas Board of Education and the Little Rock School Board endorsed a landmark agreement Monday that will continue state funding for the citys desegregation programs and save millions in state funding to other districts. The state Education Board adopted the agreement with an 8-1 vote and little discussion in a telephone conference call. The Little Rock School Board followed suit three hours later with a 7-O vote. We're cautiously optimistic the settlement with the Little Rock School District will lead to a permanent conclusion of what has been a long, tedious court battle, Gov. Mike Huckabee said Monday through a spokesman. Little Rock School Board President Katherine Mitchell called the agreement historic and thanked all who were involved in its production. Baker Kumis, another Little Rock board member, said\nThis is bigger news than a presidential library, a new arena or anything like that. This is a marvelous step forward. The agreement paves the way for the Little Rock district to pursue release from federal court monitoring of its long-standing desegregation efforts without jeopardizing about $20 million a year in state support for the districts magnet schools and other desegregation-related expenses. The eight-page agreement crafted by attorneys for the district and the state at the urging of a handful of legislators, says the state will not attempt to cut desegregation funding to the Little Rock School Dis- trict at least until after June 1,2008. The agreement further relieves the district of repaying mosL if not all, of a $20 million state desegregation loan. In return, the agreement obligates the Little Rock district to vigorously pursue release from federal court monitoring of its desegregation efforts. The district also has pledged to structure its finances  specifically money raised by a recent 5-mill tax increase  so the districts revenue per student wont increase dramatically. That would force the state to infuse as much $125 million into other school districts to help them keep up with funding levels in Little Rock The amount of funding Little Rock has per student is the standard by which state funding for all See AGREEMENT, Page 8A Agreement  Continued from Page 1A other Arkansas school districts is calculated. Eveiy district is guaranteed at least 80 percent of the funding available to the Little Rock district. Hie district will accelerate the sale of construction bonds, increasing its debt from about $6 million to more than $11.8 million by early 2002. Money eamiarked for debt payments wont be counted as revenue for educating Little Rock students. After Mondays vote, attorneys for both agencies will submit a joint request to Chief U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright to modify an earlier. court-approved agreement between the state and the school district that included the $20 million loan. According to that 1989 agreement the Little Rock district was to repay the loan if standardized test scores of black students were not raised to at least 90 percent of the scores of white students by Dec. 31,2000. The loan proved to be a point of contention because the two agencies could never agree on the test The newest agreement calls for the state to forgive the first $15 million of the low-interest loan right away. The district will be relieved of the remaining $5 million payment if it is released from court supervision by July 1,2004. The district asked Wright for unitary status  or a declaration that it is desegregated to the extent practicable just last week. Timothy Gauger, an attorney who represented the state in the agreement negotiations, said Monday that should the federal courts reject the modified language on the $20 million loan, the loan provision of the new agreement can be severed from the rest of the agreement, which would still stand. Ray Simon, director of the Department of Education, acknowledged that some of the states districts would like to share in a $125 million infusion of state aid based on Little Rocks increased wealth. Producing that money would likely jeopardize efforts going on now in the state Legislature by Huckabee and Education Department leaders to pass a $3,000 teacher raise over the next two years. The real detriment would have been to the state, trying to provide that money [to match the Little Rock funding], said Simon. State Education Board member Betty Pickett of Conway cast the sole no vote on e agreement She said later that she felt the state was pushed into the agreement by a provision of the state funding system that guarantees districts will get at least 80 percent of what Little Rock gets. That guarantee is commonly referred to as the federal range ratio. If that is too high a standard for us to keep and we have to manipulate it, maybe we should look at it Maybe we should do something about that rather than halving to enter into an agreement that has so many ramifications. During the meeting Pickett questioned whether the agreement would have to be renegotiated if the Little Rock district should win another tax increase within the next seven years. Gauger said that probably would be necessary. Reaction to the agreement from an organization that represents all school districts was tempered Monday. Charles Knox, associate director of the Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators, said those educators who have followed the case never really expected Little Rock would have to repay the loam As for the potential increase of as much as $125 million into the state funding system based on increased Little Rock wealth, educators generally recognized that the state couldnt afford it, Knox said. The Little Rock board approved the agreement as former superintendent Don Roberts and incoming Superintendent T. Kenneth James watched. The agreement signed Monday, by Simon and Little Rock schools Superintendent Les Gamine is the latest development tn a lawsuit filed by the Little Rock district in 1982 against the state and the other two' Pulaski County school districts.\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"mus_sovcom_1-79-0","title":"Lois Chaffee","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Lois Chaffee, Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Lois Chaffee"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=126%7C1%7C79%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"mus_sovcom_6-55-0","title":"Loron L. Acker","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Loron L. Acker, Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Loron L. Acker"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=610%7C6%7C55%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":["Text"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"mus_sovcom_1-37-0","title":"Louise Beason, Laurel Miss.","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Louise Beason, Laurel Miss., Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Louise Beason, Laurel Miss."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=54%7C1%7C37%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":271,"next_page":272,"prev_page":270,"total_pages":3369,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":3240,"total_count":40428,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":307},{"value":"online exhibitions","hits":37},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":34},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":23},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":15},{"value":"worksheets","hits":5},{"value":"annotated bibliographies","hits":4},{"value":"study guides","hits":4},{"value":"learning modules","hits":3},{"value":"slide shows","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":40428},{"value":"Sound","hits":1050},{"value":"StillImage","hits":803},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":213},{"value":"Collection","hits":10},{"value":"InteractiveResource","hits":4}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":2076},{"value":"Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","hits":1425},{"value":"Newman, I. DeQuincey (Isaiah DeQuincey), 1911-1985","hits":1003},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":777},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":567},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":464},{"value":"South Carolina Council on Human Relations","hits":397},{"value":"AFL-CIO. Civil Rights Department","hits":326},{"value":"Hunter, Charles N., approximately 1851-1931","hits":323},{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":289},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":244}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Race relations","hits":4661},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":3223},{"value":"People--Ethnic Groups--Hispanics","hits":2928},{"value":"African Americans--Civil rights","hits":2321},{"value":"African Americans","hits":1792},{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":1747},{"value":"Civil rights--South Carolina","hits":1739},{"value":"Civil rights movements--Mississippi","hits":1550},{"value":"League of United Latin American Citizens","hits":1531},{"value":"LULAC","hits":1517},{"value":"Race","hits":1483}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966--Correspondence","hits":1888},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1501},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1413},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":713},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":639},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":623},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":608},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":582},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":582},{"value":"McCain, James T.","hits":418}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":2592},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1497},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1331},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":622},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":608},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":580},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":579},{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":360},{"value":"De Laine, Joseph A. (Joseph Armstrong), 1898-1974","hits":345},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":315},{"value":"Samet, Seymour, 1919-2014","hits":279}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1567},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":663},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":386},{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":299},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":188},{"value":"Birmingham Bombing (Sixteenth Street Baptist Church)","hits":125},{"value":"Memphis Sanitation Workers Strike","hits":104},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":83},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":68},{"value":"Brown versus Board of Education","hits":55},{"value":"Civil Rights Act of 1964","hits":43}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":10939},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4304},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":3804},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":3648},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2519},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2032},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":1863},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":1801},{"value":"United States, Texas, Harris County, Houston, 29.76328, -95.36327","hits":1564},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":1236},{"value":"United States, New York, New York County, New York, 40.7142691, -74.0059729","hits":1198}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"South Carolina","hits":6466},{"value":"Georgia","hits":5551},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":3826},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":3452},{"value":"Texas","hits":3432},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":2359},{"value":"Alabama","hits":2352},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1657},{"value":"New York","hits":1561},{"value":"Florida","hits":1185},{"value":"District of Columbia","hits":1167}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1962","hits":5885},{"value":"1964","hits":5684},{"value":"1963","hits":5401},{"value":"1965","hits":5249},{"value":"1966","hits":5016},{"value":"1961","hits":4941},{"value":"1968","hits":4914},{"value":"1967","hits":4901},{"value":"1969","hits":4708},{"value":"1960","hits":4681},{"value":"1957","hits":4182},{"value":"1958","hits":4010},{"value":"1977","hits":3976},{"value":"1959","hits":3971},{"value":"1971","hits":3904},{"value":"1970","hits":3870},{"value":"1976","hits":3790},{"value":"1955","hits":3718},{"value":"1974","hits":3664},{"value":"1972","hits":3650},{"value":"1975","hits":3649},{"value":"1956","hits":3611},{"value":"1973","hits":3461},{"value":"1994","hits":3357},{"value":"1995","hits":3332},{"value":"1950","hits":3315},{"value":"1978","hits":3266},{"value":"1954","hits":3261},{"value":"1979","hits":3249},{"value":"1996","hits":3225},{"value":"1980","hits":3158},{"value":"1948","hits":3126},{"value":"1953","hits":3050},{"value":"1997","hits":3036},{"value":"1949","hits":3022},{"value":"1998","hits":2990},{"value":"1999","hits":2983},{"value":"1952","hits":2967},{"value":"1947","hits":2958},{"value":"1951","hits":2907},{"value":"1981","hits":2856},{"value":"2000","hits":2833},{"value":"2001","hits":2792},{"value":"2002","hits":2693},{"value":"1982","hits":2691},{"value":"1946","hits":2690},{"value":"2003","hits":2675},{"value":"1983","hits":2652},{"value":"1945","hits":2610},{"value":"1985","hits":2584},{"value":"1943","hits":2578},{"value":"1944","hits":2577},{"value":"1984","hits":2573},{"value":"1942","hits":2499},{"value":"1941","hits":2473},{"value":"1940","hits":2447},{"value":"1986","hits":2438},{"value":"1939","hits":2375},{"value":"1930","hits":2352},{"value":"1938","hits":2341},{"value":"1937","hits":2323},{"value":"1936","hits":2303},{"value":"2004","hits":2296},{"value":"2005","hits":2270},{"value":"1931","hits":2252},{"value":"1990","hits":2186},{"value":"1987","hits":2183},{"value":"1991","hits":2181},{"value":"1935","hits":2174},{"value":"2006","hits":2165},{"value":"1934","hits":2161},{"value":"1933","hits":2160},{"value":"1932","hits":2150},{"value":"1992","hits":2139},{"value":"1993","hits":2123},{"value":"1989","hits":1879},{"value":"1929","hits":1874},{"value":"1988","hits":1753},{"value":"1928","hits":1509},{"value":"1921","hits":1393},{"value":"1925","hits":1275},{"value":"1927","hits":1272},{"value":"1926","hits":1266},{"value":"1924","hits":1263},{"value":"1923","hits":1208},{"value":"1922","hits":1188},{"value":"1920","hits":1187},{"value":"2007","hits":1029},{"value":"2011","hits":1029},{"value":"2008","hits":1017},{"value":"2010","hits":992},{"value":"2009","hits":980},{"value":"2012","hits":967},{"value":"2013","hits":965},{"value":"2014","hits":924},{"value":"2016","hits":876},{"value":"1919","hits":850},{"value":"1918","hits":849},{"value":"1900","hits":831},{"value":"2015","hits":826}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":301323,"missing":11},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"correspondence","hits":9610},{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4200},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":3564},{"value":"newspapers","hits":1925},{"value":"manuscripts (documents)","hits":1690},{"value":"records (documents)","hits":1429},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":1385},{"value":"reports","hits":1362},{"value":"clippings (information artifacts)","hits":1156},{"value":"articles","hits":903},{"value":"transcripts","hits":816}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":13560},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":9168},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8110},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":6150},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":1673},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":1494},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":40},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-NC/1.0/","hits":20},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":12},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-OW-EU/1.0/","hits":2},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"John J. Herrera Papers","hits":3271},{"value":"Strom Thurmond Collection, Mss 100","hits":2068},{"value":"Lillian Eugenia Smith Papers (circa 1920-1980)","hits":1887},{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":1843},{"value":"Isaiah DeQuincey Newman, (1911-1985), Papers, 1929-2003","hits":1717},{"value":"Augusta Baker papers, 1911-1998","hits":1696},{"value":"Memphis World","hits":1484},{"value":"James W. Silver Collection","hits":1430},{"value":"Sovereignty Commission Online","hits":1423},{"value":"Integration Correspondence","hits":1420},{"value":"Land of (Unequal) Opportunity: Documenting the Civil Rights Struggle in Arkansas","hits":1403}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"John Davis Williams Library. Department of Archives and Special Collections","hits":3821},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":3419},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3316},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3287},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3250},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":2174},{"value":"South Carolina Digital Library","hits":2167},{"value":"University of South Carolina. South Carolina Political Collections","hits":1793},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":1663},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":1641},{"value":"Mississippi. Department of Archives and History","hits":1435}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":40191},{"value":"Collection","hits":237}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":40278},{"value":"true","hits":150}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}