{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"gsu_aflcio_17748","title":"Southern Regional Council, program for the 1970s, 1973","collection_id":"gsu_aflcio","collection_title":"AFL-CIO Southeast Division Civil Rights Department Records","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["AFL-CIO. Civil Rights Department","Southern Regional Council"],"dc_date":["1973"],"dcterms_description":["Consists of the Southern Regional Council (SRC) objectives for the 1970s, as adopted at the 1973 SRC annual meeting. The program calls on the SCR to expand its capacity to facilitate communication between advocacy groups and to provide expert research on issues, while continuing to support initiatives for economic development, education, healthcare, and housing in the U.S. south.","The records, 1964-1979, of the Southern Office of the AFL-CIO Civil Rights Department consist primarily of correspondence and related reports, surveys, statements, and newspaper clippings. Much of the correspondence is between Director E.T. (Al) Kehrer and various AFL-CIO departments, notably his superiors Don Slaiman (1965-1974) and William Pollard (1974-1979). There is also substantial correspondence between Kehrer and the AFL-CIO state and city labor councils in the South; apprenticeship and training programs; a wide range of groups and persons concerned with community action and social reform issues, principally in the field of civil rights; and political figures."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Southern Regional Council, program for the 1970s, 1973","Southern Labor Archives","https://archivesspace.library.gsu.edu/repositories/2/resources/589","1606","Subject Files, 1964-1978","AFL-CIO Civil Rights Department Southern Office Records (L1983-26)"],"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights","Human rights","Civil rights workers","African American civil rights workers","Educational equalization","Health care reform","Economic development","Housing development","Discrimination in employment","Discrimination in education","Discrimination in housing","AFL-CIO. Civil Rights Department","Southern Regional Council"],"dcterms_title":["Southern Regional Council, program for the 1970s, 1973"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Georgia State University. Special Collections"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digitalcollections.library.gsu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/AFLCIO/id/17748"],"dcterms_temporal":["1970/1979"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Cite as: L1983-26_05_1606_206, AFL-CIO Civil Rights Department Southern Office Records, Southern Labor Archives, Special Collections and Archives, Georgia State University, Atlanta."],"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["files (document groupings)"],"dcterms_extent":["101 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"umc_awr_49744","title":"State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 7, Lansing, MI, 73-13","collection_id":"umc_awr","collection_title":"Advancing Workers’ Rights in the American South","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Michigan, Ingham County, Lansing, 42.73253, -84.55553"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1973-01/1975-12"],"dcterms_description":["Folder of materials from the \"Case Files, 1947-1984\" series from the AFL, CIO, and AFL-CIO Civil Rights Department, Discrimination Case Files."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Labor laws and legislation","Labor union locals","Discrimination"],"dcterms_title":["State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 7, Lansing, MI, 73-13"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Maryland, College Park. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hdl.handle.net/1903.1/49744"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["records (documents)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"umc_awr_49770","title":"State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 1220, Detroit, MI,73-7","collection_id":"umc_awr","collection_title":"Advancing Workers’ Rights in the American South","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Michigan, Wayne County, Detroit, 42.33143, -83.04575"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1973-01/1975-12"],"dcterms_description":["Folder of materials from the \"Case Files, 1947-1984\" series from the AFL, CIO, and AFL-CIO Civil Rights Department, Discrimination Case Files."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Discrimination","Labor laws and legislation","Labor union locals"],"dcterms_title":["State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 1220, Detroit, MI,73-7"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Maryland, College Park. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hdl.handle.net/1903.1/49770"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["records (documents)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"umc_awr_49754","title":"State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 140, Detroit, MI, 73-1283","collection_id":"umc_awr","collection_title":"Advancing Workers’ Rights in the American South","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Michigan, Wayne County, Detroit, 42.33143, -83.04575"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1973-01/1975-12"],"dcterms_description":["Folder of materials from the \"Case Files, 1947-1984\" series from the AFL, CIO, and AFL-CIO Civil Rights Department, Discrimination Case Files."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Labor laws and legislation","Labor union locals","Discrimination"],"dcterms_title":["State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 140, Detroit, MI, 73-1283"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Maryland, College Park. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hdl.handle.net/1903.1/49754"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["records (documents)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"umc_awr_49757","title":"State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 290, Inkster, MI, 73-3","collection_id":"umc_awr","collection_title":"Advancing Workers’ Rights in the American South","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Michigan, Wayne County, Inkster, 42.2942, -83.30993"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1973-01/1975-12"],"dcterms_description":["Folder of materials from the \"Case Files, 1947-1984\" series from the AFL, CIO, and AFL-CIO Civil Rights Department, Discrimination Case Files."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Discrimination","Labor union locals","Labor laws and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 290, Inkster, MI, 73-3"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Maryland, College Park. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hdl.handle.net/1903.1/49757"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["records (documents)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"umc_awr_49766","title":"State, County and Municipal Employees, Locals 825 and 1603, Flint, MI, 73-21","collection_id":"umc_awr","collection_title":"Advancing Workers’ Rights in the American South","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Michigan, Genesee County, Flint, 43.01253, -83.68746"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1973-01/1976-07"],"dcterms_description":["Folder of materials from the \"Case Files, 1947-1984\" series from the AFL, CIO, and AFL-CIO Civil Rights Department, Discrimination Case Files."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Labor laws and legislation","Labor union locals","Discrimination"],"dcterms_title":["State, County and Municipal Employees, Locals 825 and 1603, Flint, MI, 73-21"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Maryland, College Park. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hdl.handle.net/1903.1/49766"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["records (documents)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"csu_afro_1898","title":"Sterling, Dorothy Hendricks: 1973","collection_id":"csu_afro","collection_title":"Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","dcterms_contributor":["Cole, Joseph E."],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Ohio, Cuyahoga County, Cleveland, 41.4995, -81.69541"],"dcterms_creator":["Tomsic, Tony"],"dc_date":["1973"],"dcterms_description":["Counselor \u0026 Youth Specialist, YWCA, Cleveland.","Community -- African Americans -- YWCA -- Counselors"],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Cleveland Press, April, 6, 1977","Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","Cleveland State University. Michael Schwartz Library. Special Collections.","Cleveland Press"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans","Political activists","Civil rights","Cleveland (Ohio)"],"dcterms_title":["Sterling, Dorothy Hendricks: 1973"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Michael Schwartz Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://clevelandmemory.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/afro/id/1898"],"dcterms_temporal":["1960/1990"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["http://www.clevelandmemory.org/copyright/"],"dcterms_medium":["black-and-white photographs"],"dcterms_extent":["7 x 9 in."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Sterling, Dorothy Hendricks"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"wau_protests_17","title":"Stop the Hike! Organize to Fight! [page 1 of 2]","collection_id":"wau_protests","collection_title":"Vietnam War Era Ephemera Collection","dcterms_contributor":["University of Washington Libraries. Special Collections Division."],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Washington, King County, Seattle, 47.60621, -122.33207"],"dcterms_creator":["Revolutionary Student Brigade"],"dc_date":["1973"],"dcterms_description":["Calls for: \"No tuition hike! No cuts in classes or services! No new taxes or tax increases on working people!\" Quote from document: \"Already students are saying NO to the plans for an increase to 25% of the cost of education (95% for out-of-state), automatically going up every two years and lifting the waiver for Vietnam Era vets. And we say NO to any alternative plans for an increase across the board whether it's $3.00 or $30.00!\""],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Vietnam War Era Ephemera Collection","Revolutionary Student Brigade"],"dcterms_subject":["Socialism--Washington (State)--Seattle","University of Washington--Tuition","Revolutionary Student Brigade"],"dcterms_title":["Stop the Hike! Organize to Fight! [page 1 of 2]"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Washington. Libraries. Special Collections Division"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://digitalcollections.lib.washington.edu/digital/collection/protests/id/17"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Cite as: University of Washington Libraries, Special Collections, [Order Number or Negative Number]"],"dlg_local_right":["For information on permissions for use and reproductions please visit UW Libraries Special Collections Use Permissions page:   http://www.lib.washington.edu/specialcollections/services/permission-for-use"],"dcterms_medium":["fliers (printed matter)"],"dcterms_extent":["28 x 21.5 cm","Scanned from original text at 400 dpi in color, saved in JPEG format and resized to 600 ppi horizontal. Saved at compression rate 3. 2003."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"wau_protests_18","title":"Stop the Hike! Organize to Fight! [page 2 of 2]","collection_id":"wau_protests","collection_title":"Vietnam War Era Ephemera Collection","dcterms_contributor":["University of Washington Libraries. Special Collections Division."],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Washington, King County, Seattle, 47.60621, -122.33207"],"dcterms_creator":["Revolutionary Student Brigade"],"dc_date":["1973"],"dcterms_description":["Announces: Campaign planning meeting on Monday, January 10, 1973, at 1:30 P.M. in the HUB. Calls for: \"No tuition hike! No cuts in classes or services! No new taxes or tax increases on working people!\""],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Vietnam War Era Ephemera Collection","Revolutionary Student Brigade"],"dcterms_subject":["Socialism--Washington (State)--Seattle","University of Washington--Tuition","Revolutionary Student Brigade"],"dcterms_title":["Stop the Hike! Organize to Fight! [page 2 of 2]"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Washington. Libraries. Special Collections Division"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://digitalcollections.lib.washington.edu/digital/collection/protests/id/18"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Cite as: University of Washington Libraries/id/ Special Collections, [Order Number or Negative Number]"],"dlg_local_right":["For information on permissions for use and reproductions please visit UW Libraries Special Collections Use Permissions page:   http://www.lib.washington.edu/specialcollections/services/permission-for-use"],"dcterms_medium":["fliers (printed matter)"],"dcterms_extent":["28 x 21.5 cm","Scanned from original text at 400 dpi in color, saved in JPEG format and resized to 600 ppi horizontal. Saved at compression rate 3. 2003."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"csu_afro_1889","title":"Storey, Robert D.: 1973","collection_id":"csu_afro","collection_title":"Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","dcterms_contributor":["Cole, Joseph E."],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Ohio, Cuyahoga County, Cleveland, 41.4995, -81.69541"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1973"],"dcterms_description":["Lawyer. Member, Burke, Habert \u0026 Berick, law firm, 1967-). Member, Cleveland City Planning Commission. Director, Capital National Bank. Chair, Board of Trustees, Cleveland State University, 1978-.","Law -- Business -- Community -- Education -- African Americans -- Lawyers -- Burke, Haber \u0026 Berick -- Capital National Bank -- Cleveland Planning Commission -- Cleveland State University"],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Plain Dealer, Dec. 3, 1978","Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","Cleveland State University. Michael Schwartz Library. Special Collections.","Cleveland Press"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans","Political activists","Civil rights","Cleveland (Ohio)"],"dcterms_title":["Storey, Robert D.: 1973"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Michael Schwartz Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://clevelandmemory.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/afro/id/1889"],"dcterms_temporal":["1960/1990"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["http://www.clevelandmemory.org/copyright/"],"dcterms_medium":["black-and-white photographs"],"dcterms_extent":["4 x 5 in."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Storey, Robert D., 1936-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_705","title":"Student assignment","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":["1973/2005"],"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","School management and organization","School administrators","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Student assignment"],"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/705"],"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\nC/-44 Little Rock School District Job Description JOB TITLE\nDEPARTMENT: LOCATION: Director of Student Assignment Student Assignment 501 Sherman Street SALARY: GRADE: SUPERVISOR: $34,139-$54,859 ADMN12 Associate Superintendent PREPARED BY: C. Russell Mayo_______________ APPROVED BY: Henry P. Williams, Superintendent DATE: January 6, 1995 DATE: January 6, 1995 SUMMARY Directs and coordinates the day-to-day operation of the Student Assignment Office by performing the following duties personally or through subordinate supervisors. ESSENTIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Directs student assignment program and reviews exceptional assignment cases\nConfers with staff and principals to explain assignment requirements based on the Little Rock School District desegregation plan\nDirects preparation of printed materials explaining assignment requirements and policies for dissemination to schools and patrons\nCounsels patrons having problems understanding assignment procedures and supervises assignment coordinators\nSupervises the student recruitment program\nKeeps the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation informed and updated on progress made in performing responsibilities relating to student assignment and on any relevant information discovered in the performance of these duties\nAssists with developmental planning in the areas of long-range student assignment policies, magnet school development, program placement, and equal educational opportunity planning, and proposal development by providing demographic information and other pertinent information\nAssists with monitoring and evaluating the districts desegregation plan\nAssists in identifying problems or practices that impede the implementation of quality desegregation in the student assignment process\nStays informed of current issues before the Board of Directors by attending Board Meetings\nProvides for the development, implementation, and evaluation of staff training for Student Assignment Office personnel\nAttends LRSD Board of Director meetings and other meetings as requested\nCoordinates the student assignment appeals committee\nand. Performs other duties as assigned\nSUPERVISORY RESPONSIBILITIES Manages three subordinate supervisors who supervise a total of six employees in the Parent Recruitment, Student Assignment, and Student Assignment Information area. Is responsible for the overall direction, coordination, and evaluation of these units. Also directly supervises one non-supervisory employee. Carries out supervisory responsibilities in accordance with the organizations policies and applicable laws. Responsibilities include interviewing, hiring, and training employees\nplanning, assigning, and directing work\nappraising performance\nrewarding and disciplining employees\naddressing complaints and resolving problems. 1M/95U.S. DiSTS\nt court EASTEP,?! DISTRICT A-.'t\u0026lt;.t\u0026gt;K'R4S IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT t  3 1995 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McC0R?*5ACK. CL??:/ By\n----------------------------- op- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District (LRSD) hereby gives notice of the filing of the attached \"Little Rock School District Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines\". This document is being filed in order to apprise the court. the monitor and the parties of the desegregation efforts being made by LRSD. 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 Byr Jistopher Helled Bar No. 81083CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 3rd day of February 1995: 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 Heller^ 2Little 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-black students may attend interdistrict schools in the LRSD as outlined in the District's assignment guidelines. The guidelines below will apply to all interdistrict schools in the LRSD. 1. The assignment guidelines are consistent with both the LRSD Desegregation Plan and the Interdistrict Plan with reference to the following sections: a) 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) 2. b) 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 Court's Order. (Interdistrict Plan, p. 11, Potential Interdistrict M-to-M Enhancements) The process described below will be followed during the LRSD winter pre-registration each year. Following pre-registration each year. additional students may be enrolled at an interdistrict school if there is a seat available for the student and if his or her enrollment does not cause the school's proportion of white students to reach or exceed 50% and does not cause the school's proportion of black students to exceed 60%. as follows: The pre-registration process will be conducted a) Black students from the school's attendance zone will be assigned up to 51% of capacity at each grade level. If demand exceeds capacity, those students who cannot be assigned will be placed on a waiting list. Placement on the kindergarten waiting list will be determined by a lottery. Students who cannot be assigned because of These guidelines assume that interdistrict schools will be located in predominately black attendance zones.3. 4. capacity will be assigned to the closest school with capacity which meets racial balance requirements. If the student's 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. Priority for incentive school seats, however, would remain with those students who live in the incentive school attendance zone. b) c) d) Non-black students from the school's attendance zone will be assigned. Non-black students from the Pulaski County Special School District assigned through (PCSSD) and beyond Pulaski County will be the process or appropriate state statutes. Majority-to-Minority transfer The proportion of non-black students will not reach or exceed 50% of the school's total enrollment. Once the Majority-to-Minority transfer students have been assigned, students will be assigned to the school. will not be allowed, however, non-black LRSD An assignment if it would cause the proportion of non-black students to reach or exceed 50% of the total enrollment or would cause the racial balance of the sending school to fall outside of the acceptable racial balance range. Children of staff members will be attendance zone and PCSSD students are placed. assigned after Transfers are subject to desegregation guidelines and the LRSD Desegreijation Plan, p. Employees. 141. Transfer of Children of Those LRSD non-black 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. LRSD black students who move out of the interdistrict school zone will be reassigned. at the time their address change is processed, to the new attendance zone school. In no event will non-black students from the LRSD, PCSSD or elsewhere be allowed to enroll in a LRSD interdistrict school where to do so would cause that school's enrollment to shift from being majority black to majority white. thereby negatively affecting the interdistrict M-to-M funding status of that LRSD interdistrict school. lottfayVIaiARlialriet.CuidelioM 2Office 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 May 30, 1995 Mrs. Verma Simmons 2715 Montreal Little Rock, AR 72204 Dear Mrs. Simmons: I am responding to your letter on behalf of Judge Susan Webber Wright. Although she is sensitive to the concerns community members have about desegregation and other educational issues, as a matter of policy. Judge Wright does not correspond directly with citizens. Instead she relies on us in her Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) to discuss school matters with individuals and organizations. In the letter you sent to Dr. Williams, you described concerns about the enrollment procedures followed by the Little Rock School District and asked the district to reconsider your daughters assignment to Central High School. While I am sensitive to your concern, individual student assignment issues are generally beyond the purview of our office. ODM serves as an arm of the United States Federal District Court and assists the Court in monitoring the three Pulaski County school districts compliance with their desegregation plans and court orders. While the districts refusal to reconsider your daughters assignment may seem unfair, it appears that the Student Assignment Office followed established procedures. It is unfortunate that an official change of address was not recorded prior to the magnet school assignments being made. I hope you are able to work with the district to find a mutually satisfactory resolution to this issue. If in the future you have questions or concerns which may be appropriate for us to address, please dont hesitate to call on us. Sincerely, Melissa Guldin Associate MonitorJOHN w. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 3744187 J*' AUG 5 1 1955 a JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. via Facsimile - 371-0100 CJfice of Dessgregaiion Mcnixnng August 29, 1995 Ms. Ann Brown Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: This is a followup to our just completed telephone conversation regarding Little Rock School District pupil assignment practices. Our discussion centered around the experiences of Samantha Smith and her mother, Ms. Joanne Mitchell. Let me recap the conversation for the record. Arkansas. Ms. Mitchell lives at 101 Ellis Drive, Apt. N, Little Rock, ---- She is in the Central High School attendance zone. During the spring, 1995, she applied for Samantha to attend Parlcview Magnet. She was advised by the Student Assignment Office that Samantha was number (3) three on the waiting list for Visual Arts. Later, when she called the Student Assignment Office, she was advised that Samantha was number (5) five. Surprised that she could move up the list rather than down the waiting list, Ms. Mitchell inquired about viewing the list. Student Assignment told her that list was confidential and did not share it with her. In visiting with Dr. Russ Mayo about the matter, he indicated that there was nothing he could do because she was already on the waiting list. At that point she went to Dr. Williams for assistance. This occurred in April, 1995. Upon being presented the facts, Dr. Williams made the following statement: \"why don't you apply for another program?\" Mitchell indicated that the only one for which there was not a This occurred in April, 1995. Ms. waiting list was the one for Band and that her child was not interested in Band. Dr. Williams indicated that she should have Samantha apply anyway in order \"to get her feet in the door.\" Ms. Mitchell indicated that was deceptive at which point Dr. Williams indicated \"that's how you play the game.\" Mitchell indicated that she wanted to teach her child the concept of honesty. Dr. Williams indicated \"teach her the game of life in When Ms. order to get what she wants.\"Page 2 Letter to Ms. Ann Brown August 29, 1995 Ms. Mitchell did not provide a false reason, as suggested by Dr. Williams, for getting into Parkview and to date she has not received a Parkview assignment. I spoke with Dr. Williams this morning and provided him a brief synopsis of Samantha Smith's case. I asked him to check into it and to let me hear from him by the end of the day. now 11:00 a.m. and I expect to hear from him at the end of the It is day. This letter is being written for two reasons: 1) to demonstrate the arbitrariness and unfairness of the Student Assignment/Lottery system which is in use in the LRSD\nand 2) draw attention to the teaching example which emanates from the to Superintendent and extends to parents and pupils of this I intend to ask Ms. Mitchell to take a polygraph examination to verify the foregoing facts. District. She also informs me that Samantha's grandfather, Grady Smith, from Little Rock, Arkansas, was present during the meeting with Dr. Williams and heard his comments. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, John W. Walker JWW:js cc: Ms. Joanne MitchellJ u y .Ai  FILED ii-S DISTRICT COURT eastern district ar wnsas SEP 2 9 1995 Cffics of D65egregai!cn Moniioiifig IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION SEP 2 6 1995 JAMES W.McL9HMACK.Cl.fiK \\ A Ml' , M.U oiew LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF j 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 The Joshua intervenors filed three motions which have now been resolved by agreement among the parties. The motions were for a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and to cite the Little Rock School District (LRSD\") for contempt of court in connection with student assignments at Pulaski Heights Junior High School. [Doc. # 2477.] At a hearing on August 28, 1995, the attorneys for the Joshua and Knight intervenors informed the Court that the intervenors and the LRSD had settled the matter. Therefore, the motions are denied as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED this r day of September 1995. JUDGE 5 PHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPI ON ' ICE WITH RULE 5 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ^^E^T^R^I BY 0 1A- /./ty ,\u0026gt;i hbrc/iry- ''' R liiX ( LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE 501 SHERMAN ST. LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72202 JAN 1 199\u0026lt;j Oifice d OeseyiegaiioT! Monm MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Melissa Guldin, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Nancy Acre, Director of Student Assignment DATE: January 11, 1996 SUBJECT: Student Assignment Handbook 1996-97 Enclosed is a draft copy of our Student Assignment Handbook for 1996-97. Please review and return with your comments by January 19. Thank you. NA:pt EnclosureLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE 501 SHERMAN ST. LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72202 RECE f-' FEB d 1990 ^-/r 9 Office of Deseflfegation Mo,wormy TO: FROM: Principals ^7^ Nancy Acre, Director of Student Assignment DATE: February 1, 1996 SUBJECT\nStudent Assignment Handbook  lt'brar Enclosed you will find a copy of the 1996-97 Student Assignment Handbook. It details the process for registering students for the 1996-97 school year. A packet of registration materials has been distributed to your secretary/registrar. Although very few of the procedures have changed since 1995 Pre-Registration, we would like to call your attention to several items. 1. The acceptable racial ranges have been re-calculated (page 2). 2. Transportation will not be provided for any four-year-olds except those attending Crystal Hill Interdistrict Magnet School or Clinton Interdistrict Magnet School. 3. Retention lists must be submitted at the end of the third nine weeks and at the close of the school year. High school lists should include any kindergarten students who will be retained (page 2). 4. Do not allow anyone to complete pre-registration forms before February 6 (page 5). 5. Do not distribute OERFs to NLRSD or PCSSD students (page 10). 6. Register only those students who live in your school's attendance zone. If you have any questions concerning these procedures, please contact either Julie Wiedower or Audrey Lee at *44. cc: Assistant Superintendents Melissa Guldin, Office of Desegregation MonitoringStiinmary of the Court Proceedings of May 13, 14, 15 Judge Wright stated that she had chosen to review the settlement agreement after six years although the settlement agreement does not require such a review. She stated that the portions of the settlement agreement that trouble her are INCENTIVE SCHOOLS AND STUDENT ASSIGNMENTS. Dr. Herbert Wahlberg, an educational psychologist, testified that the extra funding and enhancements of incentive schools have failed to raise achievement scores of black children. He stated that he did not believe that incentive schools were effective in raising achievement levels anywhere\nhe stated that he did not know whether the failure was caused by poor implementation or whether the theory simply does not work. Wahlberg testified that the schools fail in three aspects: They fail to attract white children, achievement scores of black children are not raised. and the \"exotic\" curriculum is inefficiently implemented so that it harms learning. The judge asked Dr. Wahlberg if he had an opinion as to whether black children benefit from going to school with white children. He answered that the percentage of white children in the room has no bearing on what black children learn. He stated that some studies show a mild gain to black children and some show a mild harm so that his conclusion is that there is no effect. In the witness' opinion the socio-economic status of the parents has a consistent relationship with ability.Wahlberg states that there is an achievement gap between minorities and whites which is measurable on the first day of school. He states that children between birth and eighteen years only spend ten per cent of their time in schools and it is unreasonable to expect a school to bear the burden of closing the achievement. He says that it is impossible and that no school district has ever done it. Dr. Wahlberg enumerated 9 factors which affect the quality of learning: 1) Abilityprior achievement. A good reader in the 3rd grade is usually a good reader in the 6th grade. 2) Motivationcapacity to persevere through a difficult situation. A good view of oneself. 3) Ageall thi^s being equal, older students know more. 4) Amount of instructionMore homework, longer school years result in more learning. 5) Quality of instructionMastery learning and cooperative learning have more effect on achievement than desegregation. English, math, civics, history, geography, foreign languages, art and music should be concentrated upon. 6) Classroom environmentChildren should be appropriately challenged. A pleasing climate with good morale results in more productivity. 7) Home environment90% of waking hours spent there. If a child is read to, stimulated, and taken to extracurricular activities, he learns more.8) Peer groupappropriate friends and appropriate activities, particularly in early adolescence when youngsters are geared more toward friends than home, will help a child be a better student. He or she should be steered toward academic competitions, chess. ballet, etc. 9) Televisionthe more television a child watches, generally the poorer they do in school. Wahlberg was asked what he would do to help disadvantaged students. He stated that he would concentrate on learning. He stated that there is a crisis of achievement in the United States. He would assign more homework and extend the school year. He would also change methods of teaching and incorporate mastery learning and cooperative learning. Wahlberg stated that parent education programs have had good success rates. He stated that the above ideas would help the achievement of minority students more than desegregation. Wahlberg testified that the reason socio-economic factors are so important is that if a child's parents value education, have money, and are well-educated, it is more likely that the parents have a wider vocabulary, have taken the child on outings, and that the child was read to and may know his alphabet before beginning school. He stated that child is generally more motivated, will try harder, and may be healthier and miss less school. Wahlberg stated that the benefits continue as the parents go to school more often. coach their children, know other parents so can better keep up with what their child should be doing, and they reinforce what their 34 children learn. Wahlberg pointed out that Asian Americans generally do better in school than white children but not because white children have been discriminated against in favor of Asians, but because of the culture of the Orient. He stated that in that culture parents and teachers are revered, academic achievement reflects on the family. and the school year is longer with a more demanding curriculum. Dr. Wahlberg testified that up to 50% of a child's capacity for achievement is formed by four years of age. By age 8, 80% of a child's achievement in the twelfth grade is predictable. Children of low socio-economic status adjust more poorly to moving from school to school than do middle class students. In very large cities there is lots of movement between schools. particularly where there is mandatory desegregation. According to Dr. Wahlberg, the difference in racial achievement levels in all states is fairly consistent. The main reason for achievement disparity is socio-economic. The witness was asked whether establishing themes at schools helps achievement. Wahlberg stated that a heavy vocational theme hurts academic learning but a foreign language theme helps. An experiment that Wahlberg helped conduct had the following requirements for students in one group: 1) Parents signed pledge to send children to school clean and neat everyday\n2) Homework every night (teacher pledge)\n3) Principal signed a pledge\n4) Merchants contributed money for books. The children in the above group had better test scores than the children in the control group. Wahlberg said that hjgh schools have three tracks: general.vocational, and academic. Dr. David Armor, a sociologist, testified next. He stated that he has concluded from his studies that mandatory integration was not having positive effect either sociologically or a academically. He stated that mandatory busing produces so much white flight that it is ineffective as a remedy. Armor testified that much of the achievement gap between black and white children is because of the long history of segregation. but he believes that desegregation will not eliminate the achievement gap which is influenced so much by home environment. He supports Title I programs to help achievement and magnet schools to voluntarily desegregate a school district. He stated that a magnet should not be based on non-academic programs. Armor stated that he knows of no desegregation plan that he is aware of that overcame the achievement gap. He stated that the majority of the gap lies outside the school purview because the capacity to learn is formed in the early years. Armor stated that studies show that between 87%-100% of the achievement gap in 6th grade is due to home environment. When a lawyer questioned Armor as to whether the lowered expectations of teachers toward children from low socio-economic backgrounds could cause the difference in achievement, the witness answered negatively. Armor stated that the gap is there from the first, so it couldn't be caused by the teacher. Dr. Armor also pointed out that in Wilmington, Delaware, where the school district is fully and successfully desegregated, the achievement gap has stayed the same.Ie Araor testified that he does not believe that most people have a negative attitude toward mandatory busing because of racism. He stated that he thinks parents just don't believe race is a legitimate basis for assigning children to schools. Armor stated that the only school districts that have stabilized with mandatory busing plans began with a very large (80/20) white to minority ration, and were all metropolitan areas which included the central city and huge parts of the suburbs. Armor testified that most districts that began 60/40 or 50/50 are becoming resegregated because of white flight. The judge stated that racial balance requirements are \"choking\" the school districts. Armor testified that our consent decree^ requires much stricter racial balance than most districts. Armor testified that once school district becomes 70% a minority, the considerations for desegregation change. He stated that at that point a district should just try to have as many integrated schools as possible, and live with the fact that the rest are predominantly black. Armor testified that for even a voluntary plan. with neighborhood schools and desegregation options, to stabilize a district racially, there need to be some 50/50 schools or schools that are 60/40% white, or the district will become all minority. His recommendation for Little Rock is to have no more mandatory student assignments. He stated that in the voluntary plans that he has designed, all students are assigned first to neighborhood schools. He said that he tries to draw zones that make sense but may naturally integrate some schools. Thenvoluntary options are adopted such as M to H transfers, and magnet schools strategically placed in minority neighborhoods. An attorney asked Dr. Armor if it was feasible to build schools in one-race neighborhoods. He answered affirmatively if there is a growing population or other need. He stated that a district should build instead of bus\nhe wouldn't deprive a minority of a new school just because it is going to be all black. He stated if the new school was going to be all white, it could probably be integrated with M to M transfers. If the new school is in the inner city, it should have magnet programs. Dr. Armor testified that a study in Boston showed that black children have high levels of self-esteem whether they are in an integrated environment or not. Armor said that he also sees no correlation between more resources and higher achievement.Summary of Court Proceedings on May 30 Gary Orfield The judge stated that the focus of the hearings is to give evidence to the parties so that they can reach modifications. She wants the opinions of the witnesses to generate some new thinking. The judge stated that she was gravely concerned about continuing the incentive schools as they are now. Gary Orfield is a professor of education and social policy at Harvard. He is a political scientist who has studied school desegregation since the late 196O's. He started and heads the Harvard Project on Desegregation which was begun in 1992. That project studies Milliken remedies. Milliken I held that mandatory desegregation remedies must be limited to districts that could be proved to have committed discriminatory practices. Milliken II gave district courts the power to fashion remedies with the contemplation that you could solve the harms of segregation with remediation components. Orfield testified that most districts hurriedly put remedies together by educators with no significant evaluation components\ntherefore, the districts are unable to see if the remedies are effective. Orfield stated that he reviewed the planning process documents and the monitoring reports. He also visited four of the incentive schools. Professor Orfield stated that the incentive school plan has lots of severe problems conceptually. He stated that those problems are magnified by poor implementation. He testified that there were a lot of good ideas in the plan but the ideas were conceived in a rush without thinking how they would play out in actually running the school. He testified that it would be very burdensome to manage the plan\nthat the plan directs so much energy in ways that have nothing to do with achievement progress. Moreover, he stated that the complication of the plan contributes to the administrative implementation problems. Orfield commented that the plans call for very complicated after school and weekend programs along with constantly filling out forms. Orfield stated that there was no reason to expect anyone to cany out the plan. There is no clear sense of purpose because the plan requires too many responsibilities of the staff with the result that the incentive plan does not produce a strong educational product. Orfield stated that the goals for he plan are extraordinarily demanding. Professor Orfield concluded that incentive school remedies are very hard to implement, that school districts rarely succeed in doing so. He stated, however, that there are programs which, if chosen carefully and monitored carefully, are effective in helping disadvantaged students achieve. Professor Orfield testified that incentive schools should have superior staff, administrative support, and significant additional funding. He stated that if you have underachieving students, a low status community, teachers who are unhappy teaching there, and students with no future, it is unlikely to be a successful school. Professor Orfield testified that he has seen very little that has taken place in the last five years which would result in remediation. He stated that there have only been modest educational gains. Orfield stated that the plan contemplated that the process was supposed to be secondary to the outcomes. He testified that if the district only complies with a lot of the details of the plan but does not show good results, then the plan is a failure. When asked to characterize the other experts, Walberg and Armor, Professor Orfield stated that Armor has not done very much independent research and that now he works for parties in civil rights lawsuits. Orfield stated that Armor argues that only parts of a district should be desegregated because only those parts were guilty of discrimination. Orfield stated that Armor ran on an anti-desegregation platform when he ran for the school board in Los Angeles. Orfield said that Armor believes that schools dont affect the achievement of student and therefore schools do not have to provide an equal education. Orfield stated that most scholars in the field disagree with Armor. Orfield stated that schools DO make a difference and that is why everyone sends their children to the best colleges that they can afford. Professor Orfield testified that Walbergs opinions are based on meta-analysis (combining hundreds of studies and then constructing giant statistical models) instead of relying on original research. Orfield stated that this method is highly criticized in education research, but also widely used. Orfield testified that the majority of school desegregation studies are for only one year and are done in the first year of desegregation\ntherefore, Orfield concludes that the majority of the statistics plugged into the giant model are defective. Orfield stated that there is a vast pool of scholars that do desegregation research and neither Walberg nor Armor are in the pool. According to Orfield, Armor has testified that desegregation actually harms black children but he has abandoned that viewpoint. He named many other researchers who have come up with a lot of information on conditions for effective desegregation. Orfield stated that the researchers are nearly all in disagreement with Walberg and Armor. Professor Orfield said that compensation education is a very difficult task and that only a small number of programs have clearly proven results. He stated that it is very important to target those programs with good track records and specially trained persons must be used. Some of those programs are Reading Recovery\nM 444 Success for All, and Algebra Project. Some of the Title One programs are successful and some are not with no net effect from Title One.Schools with disadvantaged students and Title One programs do worse on achievement tests than less impacted schools with no Title One. Children with lower socioeconomic status are more likely to score worse on achievement tests and the converse is also true. If you want to remedy the gap due to socioeconomic status, effective schools have a clear mission, and strong leadership. Good results require extraordinary educational leadership. Standardized tests evaluate content that is not taught exclusively within a school system. Orfield testified that some lower socioeconomic children who dont perform well on standardized tests, do better when put with children with higher socioeconomic status who do perform well on standardized tests. Children need the right level of challenge and motivation. If kids are segregated, disadvantaged kids generally get worse programs and such schools reinforce social status difference. With the low level of competition, they are not challenged and they will not do as well. Professor Orfield stated that if a school has an identity as a minority school or a weak schoolit is hard to attract students. But if you could change identity AND offer a scholarship that would be a great incentive for attracting students. Orfield stated that if you put all gifted programs in poor areas, that whites would come. He stated that if all the white kids come, the school will get better programs. He also stated that all black schools can be very attractive. Professor Orfield said that a number of needed changes are immediately apparent in the incentive schoolsstructural changes that would release a lot of money. He stated that the number of schools should be examined as well as the programs that they offer. He stated that as it is the staff has too much to comply with. He stated that after school programing does not make sense-that the teachers do not want it. He said that the after school program is too expensive and that since there is no required participation, many student who need it may not get it. He stated that there should be targeted tutoring so that children who need help are identified. Orfield stated that the student educational plan takes too much of the teachers time, that there should be a better assessment to identify warning signals for students who need tutoring. Teachers should have to make a long term (five year suggested) commitment and there should be special incentives for principals. He said that perhaps one incentive school should be closed and one should be made a magnet school. Professor Orfield said that there are so many compliance requirements that the staff is unable to focus on the education of children. He stated that based on the plan and interviews with teachers and principals, there is too much pressure on teachers and principals. Professor Orfield said that there is a great deal of evidence that there is no harm to the education of white children by putting them in class with blacks . He stated that black children significantly profit when they got to school with whites. He stated that there is a significant but not large increase in achievement scores when blacks and whites go to school together. The larger gains are what happen in black childrens lives. There is significant evidence to suggest that black children are more likely to go to college if they are in a majority white high school. Most gains are from interaction of isolated children with more successful children. He stated that there is significant research to suggest that if we do certain things in class (like mutual academic projects) that these gains are enhanced with the result of higher achievement and more mutual respect. He stated that desegregation has more benefits than any other intervention. He stated that children that go to desegregated schools are more likely to live in integrated neighborhoods as adults. Separate schools lead to separate lives and separate destinies. Orfield stated that although school has a major influence, it is not more important than the influence of family. Orfield stated that some mandatory desegregation plans work well and some do not. They are usually better when they are in very large metropolitan areas. He said that the maximum education benefit from mandatory plans is when a disadvantaged, racially isolated child is bused to a majority white, middle class school from 1-6 grade. It should be substantially integrated with staff and students and with no tracking on the basis of race. It should also involve parents. He stated that the districts that have gone to neighborhood schools have extremely low achievement in the 100% poor schools, parental involvement did not increase, and white flight did not stop. Orfield stated that the United States is changing from 10% minority to the point that it will be 50/50 in the year 2025. Orfield stated that best kind of goals reflect the metropolitan community and, therefore, he is no advocate of strict racial balance. The higher the racial balance gets in a community, desegregation is more complicated and a schools racial balance must be within a reasonable range. Professor Orfield stated that Little Rock needs a magnet school with a 50/50 ratio in a developing area to get people away from going to private schools.Ir r k I 11/14/96 12:48 501 324 2023 LRSD COIIMLNICATI -^ \u0026gt; ODM Little Rock School District November 14,1996 @002/003 Kress Release More Information\nZeomee Hens. .124-2020 LRSD OrientiitioD Designed to Make 6th to 7tb Grade Transition Smooth for Parents and Students Parents of .students who are currently in the sixth grade will have an opportunity to explore rhe options for their child's educational future on Sunday, November 17. 1996. from 2\n3{) - 4 00 p.m. at Henderson Junior High School. 401 John Barrow Road. The annual Junior High Transition Meeting, spon.sored by the l.inle Rock School District (LRSD) Student Assignment Office, is designed to give parents a closer look at the eight LRSD jurdor high schools and the programs offered at each school. Each school will be given one classroom at Henderson which will be decorated to be.sT showcase their school. Principals, teachers and parents of current students will be available to an.swer questions and give prospective parents helpful information to make the transition to iunicr high sthoui a smooth one. The meeting will be followed by open house tours at the schools at 10:00 a.m, and 1 :S0 o.in. as follows: Monday. xNovember 18 Monday. November 18 .Cloverdale Junior High ITunbar International Studies/Gifted \u0026amp; 1? '' .'.La Vi'ednesday, November 20 Wednesdai'. November 20 Taler.tsd Education Magne! Junior High .Forest Heights Junior High Henderson Heaidi Science Magnet Junior 1 810 West Markham Street li iiO li i'lDors! Little Rock. Arkansas 72201  \u0026lt;501)524-2000 T f  t} 4\n\u0026amp; D s e J H a I J if. I t- k' t i: Ei   11/14/96 12:49 501 324 2023 LRSD COMMUNICATI ODM 121003/003 I I fky I Press Release  Transition Meeting (11/14/96) Page 2 Thursday, November 21 Thursday, November 21 Monday, November 25 Monday, November 25 Mabelvale Junior High Horace Mann Arts \u0026amp; Science Magnet Junior High Pulaski Heights Junior High .Southwest Junior High School registration uill be held January 21-31,1997. tirTr V- V. '11 I ?1 f '  3 :i 'w? -'A \"A* .y I 5\n-97 NON SUSAN U WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P.Ol DISTRICT JLT9GE SUSaN ''AEBBER WRIGHT 600 W. C/NPiT'.A.. i.i niE RIX'K, AR 72201 JUL 101997 JLIDGE WRiQHT. u s. JUDGE SINCE JANT.LARY 1997 i HAVE BEEN V^ ORKING WITH THE LITD_E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ON THE .STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OF CHILDREN LIVING IN THE WEST LITTLE ROCK AREA AFTER A GREAT AMOUNT' OF EFFORT \\RV LITITE HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED I HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF KNOftT.EDGE ABOUT THE PROBLEM PARENTS LIVING IN MY AREA ARE SO UPSFT WITH. THE STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE TOLD ME THAT OTHER AREAS OF TO'WN HAVE RECRLTTINCt MEETINGS. WELL, I TRIED THAT AND IHE ASSIGNMENT OFFICE WAS KIND .E.NOUGH TO PROVIDE ME WITH SW FLYERS AND ABOLT A DOZEN POSTERS. I WENT IX'XIR. TO DOOR TALKING TO P.ARENTS IN SANDPIPER WEST A.ND CHERRYCREEK SLEDIVTSIONS AND I P'lJT UP THE DISTERS ATTENDANCE FOR THE MEETING WAS IN MY OPEMON DlSM.-\\L. .,2 PARENTS FROM SANDPIPER \u0026amp; 3 FROM CHERRYCRETK. ALL OF THE OTHER PERSONS W.TERE FROM THE SCFEJOL DISTRICT. (THE ?. FROM ?.vNDPIPER CAME AS M\\' SLRFORT) AFIT- \"i '. \u0026lt;1 ' '  rO ICO OR so HOUSEHOLDS IN MY NE.1.GHBORHOOD I HEARD THE SAME I- R AND OVER.-T WON'T PLY MA' CHILDREN IN WILSON . IVE NEVER S rUDENT ASSIGNKLENT OFFICE, .ID PVT MA' CHILD IN SCHOOL IF raEY Il NEIO.rIBORHOOD BUT I'M NOT GOING TO PUT THEM IN WESSON....MA' . I -\u0026gt;K JI )LD WERE ASSIGN.E.D TO WILSON A.ND THEY PUT THEIR KIDS IN A  Ki, ATE' .MTHOOL ^O I'M GOING TO DO TOAT TOO' .. OF ALL THE PERSONS THAT 1 7 ^(L.KED TO ONL Y 1 PARENT HAD THEIR CHILDREN IN' PUELiC SCHCXTLS AND IT WAS A magnet there .  -NOT ENOUGH SPACE TO PUT .ALL THE CHILDREN IN OLTi AREA IN MAGNET SC HOOL S'SO THE ONES TB.AT DON T MAKE IT TO THEIR CHOICE OPT OUT TO PxRIVATE SCHOOl \u0026lt; -M MOST M.l. CF IHE PARENTS COMMENHED .ABOUT HOW ANGRY THEY WERE THAT F HAVE 2 SCHCK.LS LESS THAN 1 xMILES FROM OUR HOMES AND WERE NOT assigned TO THE.M .AND CANNOT EVEN APPLY TO CO THERE I .AM CVRREN FLY WORKENG WTIH THE LITll.E RCX.K SCHOOL OlS'rRlCT TO COMMLINTCATE WITH THESE P.ARENTS THAT PUHi IC SCHOOLS APE GCOD SAFE PLACES FOR OUR CHILDREN. I SINCERELY HOPE YOU'LL TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT OUR .LRE.'- AND PROVIDE. Ol R CfflLDRF '\u0026lt; '.VITI-i .A CHOICE THAT WE CAN GET THESE PARENTS TO AGREE OX N.TLDING .A NEW SCHOOL IN OLR AREA. YObR CONSEJER.a IiON OF .MY CONCERNS IS GREATLY APPRECIATED AND I lCOR FORW ARD TO GREAT THINGS HAlPENING IN 'CHE LITILE ROCK SCHCXX. DISTRICT .iRFLV 7/\n'CZ/Uy/- M.AR\\'ANNF CAMfBF.Ll, 77c(z MON 6:24 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 03 1 * anti respond to my person via telephone or writte.u communication, I work.within the Pulaski County School District as a substitute teacner, while waiting to be placed as a secondary Engiish tsacnsr (certification by the Ark. Dept, of Education), but 1 air, also a concerne,d parent. I want to rrake sure that my son and the other black males receive justice in this matter. have a fear that they are being used as a scapegoats, simply because there is not anyone to connect to the liquor bottle alleyedly found by Ms. Clark. 1 I would appreciate my son's name being placed with the black asst, principal, instead of Mr. Allison, whom 1 feel will not properly treat my son fairly because he is a black male. I believe the Asst. Principal I am referring to is a Nr. Twilley (I apologize if I did not spell his name correctly). One final, remark, I do not appreciate the fact that Ms. C.lark fl yei.led at these students and told them to shut up when they asked for permission to speak to tell their side of the. story. We have havQ constitutJ.onal_ rights^ regardless of our age. I hops someone will remind Ms. Clar.k of this fact. It sp-.ct.fu 1 1 y submit I d ^ary rin? Anderson cc cc .Attorney John Walker Judge Susan Webber Wright Retained V.\"' t ! i V JUl M? MON 8:23 To\nFront} Ref J SUSAN W WRIGHT Kupt\nBobby ester, Mary , Artdereon, Dab Artc!e?son, This /iiatC\nr Is relevant FAX NO, 5013246576 pcssn 8fcb Grade Student, SHJH P. 02 'J. .-V to a teiephcne call I received from Prlncxpal^Sue Clark at,the Sylvan Hills Jr. High Schoo at* Thursday, Ui\u0026amp;ids the boy' s, bathroom and observed four Stated bathroom. Ms. Clark also stated tnat, she Saw Dah .With u ...d., gave him to buy a cold soda drink at school). Jr. High School at \"'-A, ''Ass- She stated Ms. Clark also a soda can in his hand (money T. At 7jj3 a...ii. . .1 dropped my. mornxng from home . i, drop my children off at .school every\" rnornxng, and .they dq not leave the school oremises for any reason. _ 1 Wa.tCxhed my son pack his backpack with his books\n^ne orixi items ,in his backpack were books, This same fact holds'trri^ for my daughter, son and my daughter off at SHJH this pencils and paper, Tammy, as well. that, she \"did not\" witness the four s..udenvS drinking.,any kind of wine, but she what was in the strawberry soda of the contents (an assumption) fr assumed\" this Is can from sniffing the remainder I was also advised by, my Ms Cl^irk (wljich she did not mention to a green liquor bottle in .the wastebasket oathroom. Eric, Lewis, au anun, not have this grse.h .bottle,and that he t.ie. soda he bought front the machine at  * ' ' '   I Below Is the son my person) found __ inside the boy's aiSd a strident at SHJH, Version of my son's^ school. can attest that was drinking and I want an investigation conducted by the Superintendent's office. I ..ou judgment of Mr. Allison,' nor do I trust the judgment into\na boy's bathroom drawing a T^hdipg an .igoiated bottle inside the bathroom and on a. cohvenxent 90ap$goat.\ni feel that this the fact thfttfmy son^istblack, arid I do not trust the of a a conclusion placing is due to inside the.\nbathroom.'  * ....... treatmenh of.the blackstudents , rd SO are the four other students I-have often been told that there the crenc oi.tne^biack scudents are different from the treatment of the wnite students,.and I am concerned this complaint. 1 and disturbed regarding Aafon Walker, and other black rendered at this school, and how they are followed Constantly when they go in the bathroom as a 5roup, as opposed to white students who gather in this same bathroom ahd are not followed or questioned. What is going on withan. this overall enVirotmerit or questioned. Mr. Lester, again, please (investigate this matter to its fullest }7-3-^7 Cr JUL 11 19g/ ANN BROWN OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 E. MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 nro DESEGfiEGAKONMOWTOWS DEAR ANN, THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH YOU CONCERNING THE OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO PARENTS IN THE WEST LITTLE ROCK AREA. ALTHOUGH WHITE PARENTS MAY HAVE MORE OPTIONS THAN BLACK PARENTS ON WERE TO SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO SCHOOL, I BELIEVE IT IS TOO COMPLICATED AND MANY PARENTS LIVING IN WEST LITTLE ROCK SIMPLY DONT WANT TO PUT UP WITH THE HASSLE THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH TO GET THEIR CHILDREN ASSIGNED TO A MAGNET SCHOOL OR AN ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL. I PLAN ON WORKING WITH THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL SYSTEM TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO PARENTS IN THE WEST LITTLE ROCK AREA ABOUT THE OPTIONS THEY HAVE AS YOU RECOMMENDED. I ONLY HOPE YOU WILL COMMUNICATE TO JUDGE WRIGHT THAT MORE COMMUNICATION WITH PARENTS IN THIS AREA IS GREATLY NEEDED. AND FURTHERMORE, IF YOU SEE ANY WAY I CAN BE OF ASSISTANCE TO YOU I WOULD BE GLAD TO HELP. THE LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE GOOD SAFE PLACES FOR OUR CHILDREN BUT WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO REACH THE UNBELIEVERS. BEST REGARDS, MARYANNE CAMPBELLOffice cf 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 July 23, 1997 Ms. Maryanne Campbell 2623 Creekside Drive Little Rock, AR 72211 Dear Maryanne: Thank you for your recent letter. Im glad we had the opportunity to talk over the phone, and I commend you for your .zeal in wanting to recruit parents to the public schools. Like you, I believe the public schools are a good place for cliildren. I appreciate your ofter to be of help. I think one of the best ways for you to do that is to work with officials in the Little Rock School District to help make parents aware of the various options for their childrens education. When you give the districts recruiters the benefit of your perceptions and ideas, they can better serve the information needs of the community. Your interest in the educational of children is very important, and I hope you will continue to actively support our citys schools. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 RECEJVSE 11998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING via Facsimile 376-2147 / March 31, 1998 Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Revised Plan LRSD Student Assignments Dear Chris: A question has arisen with respect to student assignment for which I would like your input. The question is whether white students who wish to attend Incentive or double funded schools who live outside the attendance areas of those schools be allowed to do so? This appears to be an inquiry regarding whether a minority (white in this context) pupil may transfer into another school his/her race is also a distinct minority. I have interpreted 2.3, page 3 of the revised plan to allow the Incentive schools to be desegregated. This seems to be confirmed by 3.1's preamble, i.e. \"this revised plan does not require any sudden or drastic changes to the present student assignment plan. II (p.7) If your interpretation is consistent with mine, please confirm in a responsive writing as soon as possible\nif it is not, will provide your separate determination. The matter is urgent in view of the fact that white parents may feel that they may not be able to attend Rockefeller and other schools because of the 40-60% numbers that we established essentially for the area schools. If our views diverge, I suggest we address the matter at once. STHcerely Cldh W. Walker JWW:js cc: Judge Susan Webber Wright Mrs. Ann Brown501374418? uhlker lau firm 935 P02 PPR 01 98 18:09 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HCRSCREL R. XRIOAT \u0026lt;|ltS-lSS4J WILUAM R. VWTTONi P\u0026lt;A. JAMES W.MOORE  TRON M. CtStWAN. JA-. JO\u0026lt; 0. BClU. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A. JAMES A. SUTTnV. P.A. PREOERICK 9. UH9ERV. P A. OSCAR C. SAVIS. JW.. P A. JAMI9 C OLARl. J\" . P * THOMAS P LEBOtTT. P.A. JOHN BEWEV WATSON. P A. PAUL B. BENHAM 1(1. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WVCKlIPP NISBET, JI., P.A. JAMtB EoWaRO HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMCa M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M lAXTQN, J. IHEPHSRS RUBBELL. hi. p a. OOHALO M. SACQN. p.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BARTER. P.A- BBRWV E. COPLIN. P A. RICHAROO TAVtOR, p.A. JOSEPH B. nuhBT. JR.. B.A. ELISABETH NOBBEM BBURRAV, P.A. CHRISTOPHES HELLES, P.A. LAURA HENBlET smith. p.A. ROBERT B- BNAFCR, P.A. WILLIAM M. aRI^PlM III. P.A. MICHAEL B. MOORE. P.A. OIANE 1. MACKtb P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III, P.A. XEWIM A. CSaES. P.A. WILLIAM A. WAOOELL. JR., P.A. A I'ARTNEIOHIP at: INDlVlQUAlS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS attqsnevs at law 2000 FIRST'COMMERCIAL aUlLDINO AOO WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE SOCK, ARKANSAS 71tOI-3l3 TELEPHONE SOI-STS 201 1 FAX NO. B01-3TS-1147 April 1, 1998 lOOTTJ. LANCAOTEB. F * M, QAVLE COWLEV. P A. ROBEWT a BEACH. JR.. P.A. J LEE IffOWN. P.A, \u0026gt; JAMES C. BAWeW. HBBHV A. (.IBMT. P.A SCOTT H TUCKEW, P.A. JOHM CI.BVTQN RAMOOLPR. F.A 4UV ALTON WADE, P.A. PWrCEC QARDNCR.p.a. TOMIA P. JQMB6. P.A. OAVIO B. WILSON. P.A. JEBPNCV R, MO0RE, P.A. ANOWEW T. TURNER, P.A. OAVtd U(. WRAP, PlA. CARLA OUNAWII SPAINmOUR. P A JOHN e. SENdLE*. JR.. P.A. ALLIBdN CNaVCS WARNES. P.A. W. ohBIUTSPHCR Lawbon CREBONV D. TATLQR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN AETTV J. OCUOWy lARIARA J. WANO JAMES W. SMITH CLIRPORO W. PLUWKETT OaMiSL L. MERRINOTON ALLISON J. CORNWELL TOGO A. CRECR CllCN M. OWENS HELENE N. RaVOCR JA3Oli S. HEUGREN BUBAN N. CMILGCRS 4euwcti william J. (MlTH I.B, CLARK WILLIAM L. TIRRT WILLIAM L PaTTOn. Jh H.T, LAWIELEXE, P.A. f nitecT . |60n 370-032a Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 VIA fax: 374-4187 re: LRSD Revised Plan Student Assignments Dear Mr. Walker\nWe have reviewed the LRSD Revised Plan related to the question raised in your fax of March 31, 1998. We cannot agree with your It is overbroad to say that Section interpretation of Section 2.3. 2.3 'allow[s] th incentive echoola to be desegregated.\" Section 2.3 was intended to permit the gradual implementation of the student assignment provisions of the Revised Plan. Because the Revised Flan has yet to be approved, LRSD has assigned students for the 1998-99 school year based on the present student assignment plan. We believe this will be consistent with Section 2.3 should the Revised Plan be approved.5013744137 kWLKER LAU FIRM 935 P03 APR 31 9S 13:10 Mr. John w. Walker April 1/ 1998 Page 3 We agree that section 3,2,1 places certain limitations ' ' . However, voluntary student transfers to incentive schools. However, we believe it is premature to consider modification of section 3.2.1 until the district has adopted revised elementary student assignment zones. Even so, we will consider any proposed modification you would like to present at this time. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. sincerely, CC! ^ohn C. Fendley, Jr. John Dr, Leslie V. Carnine (via fax 324-2146) MiRECE Little Rock School District JUL 2 7 1998 OFFICE Or DESEGREGATION MONITORING Memo To: From: Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation and Monitoring Leslie V. Gamine, Superintendent of Schools Date: 07/24/98 Re: Revised Student Assignment Plan This notice is to provide information regarding the process and timeline anticipated within the restructuring and student assignment component of the Little Rock School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Sections). As we approach the start of the 98-99 school year, we are also in a position whereby initial plans must be implemented toward '99-2000 and proposed transition of our schools to reflect elementary - grades K-5, middle school grades 6-8, and high school grades 9-12. At present, we are thoroughly reviewing parameters that exist in our plan to provide baseline information toward the development of newly drawn assignment zones that will be proposed. The following timelines are anticipated: July  School attendance zone/baseline information is compiled and reviewed. August - September  Review of proposed attendance zones with the LRSD Board of Education.  The LRSD Student Assignment Work Team will be asked to reconvene. (Please note enclosure)  A representative from Office and Desegregation and Monitoring will be placed on this committee (Melissa Guldin).  The Student Assignment Work Team will meet weekly.October - November  The proposed plan will be presented and made available throughout the City of Little Rock  A series of informational announcements / programs will be provided (i.e. media / press releases, publications. Town Hall meetings, cable program presentations).  The Little Rock School District will survey students and parents to seek input toward the proposed restructuring and their 99-2000 intended school assignment. November  Necessary revisions and modifications in the plan will be made. RECEIVpd  The LRSD will vote to approve the new assignment plan. December - January JUL 2 7 1998  Make plans for '99-2000 registration (i.e. forms, building capacities) OFFICE OF desegregation MONITO W  Hold registration for kindergartners, new students, M-to-M applications. Magnet applications. Desegregation Transfer request. Employee Preference requests, and P4 students. Two of the primary individuals with the Little Rock School District that are assigned to this project include Mr. Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services and Ms. Julie Wiedower, Interim Director of Student Assignment. While recognizing this significant task, we are positive toward successfully incorporating accurate baseline data and necessary input for work team members that will prompt favorable transition. We are moving rapidly beginning to place things in motion and will communicate with you soon on our initial planning session. If you have questions regarding information that has been provided, I ask that you contact Mr. Babbs. Enclosure: Middle School Pamphlet Student Assignment Work Team (Introduction / Members) cc\nJunious C. Babbs, Jr. Julie Wiedower  Page 2STUDENT ASSIGNMENT WORK TEAM NEW SCHOOLS AND AREA SCHOOLS JUL 2 7 1998 OmCEOF desegregation MONFiDRlNG 1. INTRODUCTION The Student Assignment Work Team (the Team) was requested by Superintendent Don Roberts to consider whether the Little Rock School District (LRSD) should construct new schools, and whether the school district should consider changes to its present student assignment plan. The task of the Team did not include reconsideration of magnet concepts or interdistrict schools. The Superintendent suggested that the Team specifically examine the need for, and the benefits of, constructing a new Stephens Elementary School and a school in a growth area in the western part of the city. The Superintendent also suggested that the work group consider possible changes in student assignment plans which could lead to more integration and less student transportation. The Team began meeting in late March and generally met weekly through mid-July.Student Assignment Work Team New Schools and Area Schools Junious Babbs (newly appointed) Mary Ann Campbell (newly appointed) Michael Daugherty Pat Gee Melissa Guldin Bill Hamilton Baker Kurrus J.J. Lacey, Jr. Jim McKenzie Leonard Thalmueller Narcissus Tyler Julie Wiedower (newly appointed)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 April 14, 1999 Mr. Junious Babbs LRSD Student Registration Office 501 Sherman Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Dear Junious: Thank you for spending time with me on Monday discussing the concerns I had raised in my March 18\" letter about assigning four-year-olds at Rockefeller. Its wonderfully easy to talk matters over with you. Your openness and positive thinking is a real asset to the district and a joy to me personally. Im glad we both value the importance of preserving Rockefellers success. As we agreed. Im going to call on some creative thinkers to come up with possible options that might allow the children in Rockefellers early childhood program to remain at the school throughout the elementary years, while still accommodating the assignment zone children who have priority for attending the school. The first step toward that end is a brainstorming session next week with Anne Mangan, Pat Price, and Melissa Guldin. Then well schedule some time with you, Francis, Sadie, and Brady (or whomever you think should be involved) to talk over the ideas that have surfaced and get the benefit of the groups collective thinking. Ill keep you posted on all developments. Meanwhile, so we can work from a solid information base, well appreciate having Rockefellers latest enrollment figures for 1999-2000 by race and grade level, including the number of four-year-olds in the zone, the number of four-year-olds enrolled this year who arent slated to return, and any other figures that will help us get an accurate enrollment picture for next year. Thanks so very much for your help. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown cc: Anne Mangan Pat Price Melissa Guldinmi 810 West Markham Little R.ock, .AR. 72201 T. 4\n.- T, -,.   A C t 1 _ 4 ^ . . ^Lxi.i.v.utiac xvcie^c July 19, 2004 For more information\nJulie Davis, 447-1027 LRSD Seeks Community Input iQ Student Assignment Flan The Little Rock School District seeks input from the community in the formulation of its revised Student Assignment Plan. For this purpose, the district has organized three community forums where ideas and opinions may be exchanged. The public is encouraged to attend these forums. Tuesday, July 20\n6:00 to 7:30 p.m. Little Rock Neighborhood Resource Center, 3805 West 12* Street Thursday, July 29\n6:00 to 7:30 p.m. Dee Brown Library, 6325 Baseline Road Tuesday, August 10\n6:00 to 7:30 p.m. LRSD Administration Building Board Room, 810 W. Markham Street The primary focus of the meetings will be the snident assignment policies for the districts specialty magnet schools (Central, Fair, Hall and McClellan high schools\nCloverdale, Dunbar, Henderson and Mabelvale middle schools\nand King, Rockefeller, Romine and Washington elementary schools). The LRSD Board of Education encourages the community ro participate, obtain information and provide input at the meetings. ###RECEnn=r LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 OCT 6 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONlTORi?a OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Junious C. Babbs, Associate Superintendent Phone: (501)324-2272 E-Mail: jcbabbsff:stuasn.lrsd.kl2.ar.us October 5, 1999 Mrs. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation and Monitoring 201 E. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown: In an attempt to follow-up on earlier communication regarding possible areas that may warrant attention in the 99-2000 LRSD Student Assignment process, a meeting is being scheduled with appropriate staff persons to review projected enrollment / capacity compositions and possible strategies that may be enacted. You and / or representatives from your shop are invited to attend. We look to be in touch regarding the scheduled time. Sincerely, .^nious Babbs Date: October 19, 1999 To: Melissa and Gene From. Am Re: LRSD Meeting Attached is a communication from Junious Babbs, who has invited us to attend a meeting in the Student Registration Conference Room next Tuesday, October 26, 1999 at 9:00 a.m.. This meeting is probably to mollify me, because I have suggested that it would be appropriate to review the present student assignment zones to determine whether some minor adjustments (tweaking) might be appropriate. As you know. Ive been particularly concerned about the Rockefeller zoning, because it has created some big kindergarten enrollment numbers that could develop into overcrowding at the successive grade levels. Other schools might have similar problems, although Im not aware of them. At any rate, please plan on attending this meeting with me next Tuesday. Thanks. Enc.10/14/1999 11:20 501-324-2231 LRSD SRO PAGE 02/02 little rock school district 501 SHERMAN STRFFT LITTLE ROCK. AR 72202 OFFICE OF ADMLMSTRATIVE SER-VICES Junious C. Babbs, Associate Superintendent Phone: (501)324-2272   L-Mail: icbabbsf^stuasn lrcrf L-n October 5,1999 Mrs. Ann Brown OflSce of Desegregation and Monitoring 201 E. Markham LittleRock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown: In an attempt to follow-up on earlier communication attention in the 99-2000 LRSD Student Assignment appropriate staff persons to review projected enrollment / strategies that may be enacted. regarding possible areas that may warrant process, a meeting is being scheduled with capacity compositions and possible You and / or representatives from your shop are invited to attend. We look to be in touch regarding the scheduled time. Sincerely, inious Babbs 10/14/1999 11:20 501-324-2281 LRSD SRO PAGE 02/02 Qi little rock school district 501 SHERMAN STRFFt little ROCK, AR 72202 OFnCE or ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Junious C. Babbs, Associate Superintendent Phone: (501)324-2272 '  E-Mail\nicbabbs@stuasn lrrt kn October 5,1999 Mrs. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation and Momtorine 201 E. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown: In an attempt to follow-up on earlier communication regarding oossible areas that o,,,, - strategies that may be enacted. capacity compositions and possible You and / or representatives from your shop are invited to attend. We look to be in touch regarding the scheduled time. Sincerely, L Juinniioouuss BBiabbs Message Page 1 of 1 Ann Marshall From: Sent: Rousseau, Nancy [Nancy.Rousseau@lrsd.org] Friday, October 17, 2003 12:57 PM Subject: FW: Memo from Mr. Babbs Parents - If you are interested in attending this meeting, please let me know, and you can be the LRCH delegates. Obviously, LRCH cannot have 50 parents at this meeting! I cannot attend b/c I already have two places to be during this time. I know that a great many of you are concerned about the proposed assignment plan. Feel free to get involved if you are interested. Nancy -----Original Message----- From: Eggleston, Deana Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 11:23 AM To: Rousseau, Nancy\nNorman, Cassandra\nSmith, Vernon\nBuck, Larry\nMunns, Angela\nBacon, John\nBurton, Marvin\nBlaylock, Ann\nMangan, Anne\nZeigler, Gwendolyn\nScull, Lillie\nHarris, Tyrone Cc: Holmes, Morris\nMitchell, Sadie\nStewart, Don\nGlasgow, Dennis Subject: Memo from Mr. Babbs This following message is from Mr. Babbs: This notice is to provide an update regarding proposed 2004-05 student assignment plan activity and mav where things exist for the moment. It is being pulled as an action item for the October 23^ meeting of the Board of Directors. Given recent conversation through Dr. Holmes, and respective board members, thinking is to seek expanded school/program conversation and input opportunity. This__ include members of your Campus Leadership Team (CLT), Parent Teacher Association (PTA), and/or school representatives that you 'd like to bring on board. A called meeting for principals and/or your representative is scheduled for Tuesday, October 21, 2003, 3:30p.m. in the Student Registration Office, 501 Sherman Street. In this session Dr. Holmes is  scheduled to provide an overview of this charge. We will look to review background, pertinent data, our present state, anticipated timeline and availability to obtain additional thinking toward recommendation / adoption of a new student assignment plan. Look to see you Tuesday afternoon. cc: Dr. Holmes Deana Eggleston Student Registration (501)447-2955 deana.eggleston@lrsd.org Got I OOO*G of Smiling Facco for your EmoHol Gat tKam r*owl J 10/17/2003Message Page 1 of 1 Ann Marshall From: Sent: Rousseau, Nancy [Nancy.Rousseau@lrsd.org] Friday, October 17, 2003 3:47 PM Subject: FW: Memo from Mr. Babbs Parents - Sorry! I goofed! The message I sent to you about the meeting was incorrect. Tuesday's meeting is for administrators only. The LRSD will be setting up a meeting soon for parents to get information and give feedback. The October 23'^'* vote has been delayed until the November agenda meeting. I will let you all know of the meeting date when I get the information. Nancy This following message is from Mr. Babbs: This notice is to provide an update regarding proposed 2004-05 student assignment plan activity and where things exist for the moment. It is being pulled as an action item for the October 23^ meeting of the Board of Directors. Given recent conversation through Dr. Holmes, and respective board members, thinking is to seek expanded school/program conversation and input opportunity. This may include members of your Campus Leadership Team (CLT), Parent Teacher Association (PTA), and/or school representatives that you 'd like to bring on board. A called meeting for principals and/or your representative is scheduled for Tuesday, October 21, 2003, 3:30p.m. in the Student Registration Office, 501 Sherman Street. In this session Dr. Holmes is scheduled to provide an overview of this charge. We will look to review background, pertinent data, our present state, anticipated timeline and availability to obtain additional thinking toward recommendation / adoption of a new student assignment plan. Look to see you Tuesday afternoon. cc: Dr. Holmes Deana Eggleston Student Registration (501) 447-2955 deana.eggleston@lrsd.org Got I noO's of Smiling Foccs for your Emails! Get thorn nowl j 10/17/2003uo. o L K S D SRO RASE 02/02 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Student RegistAtion Office 2004-05 School Choice Option Survey I am presently affiliated with: O Wo- TjlB -Use a No.2 pencil only -Fill in bubble completely -Do not fold Or staple a. Original Magnet School b. LRSD Magnet/Specialty School c. Attendance Zone School d. No School I Strongly Disaarge No Opinion Disagree Attendance Zone are important. options outside the Neigh jorhood J__________Agree Strongly Agree School 2. It IS important that schools reflect a diverse st ident population. 3. Diversity promotes equal opportunity and bro? i experience. dens the educational 4. School choice options are desirable even if trs i provided. nsportation is not CJ '-vJ 5. Diversity should take into account factors in addition to race. 6. It is possible to have too many choice options. 7. What options Successful schools must be diverse. attendance zone? should be considered If any, to diversify asJignmentoutsIde of the 8. Random Selection (Luck of the draw) .J O I r L C O O o r 9. 10. Socio-Economic (Free/Reduced Lunch) C o Academic Proficiency (Test Scores) o o o 11. Race (Cultural Group) 12. Sibling Preference (Brother or Sister Living in tie Same Household) C.J O o For District Use Only I P S ci Parent Forums School Choice Proposal The Little Rock School District (LRSD) is proposing changes in the student assignment plan for the 2004-05 school year. The LRSD Board of Education wishes to allow parents additional opportunities to provide input before the Board makes a decision on the recommendation. Two parent forums will be held: Elementary schools: Tues., Oct. 28 Secondary schools: Wed., Oct. 29 5:30 - 7:00 p.m. 5:30 - 7:00 p.m. Location: Board Room, LRSD Administration Building, 810 West Markham. If a parent cant attend the session designated for his/her childs school level, the parent is invited and encouraged to attend the other session. The primary reason for revision of the current school assignment plan is that recent court decisions (Unitary Status / U.S. Supreme Court - University of Michigan) have affected the manner in which we assign students. Need is identified to develop a student assignment procedure where race-based decisions are no longer the sole factor in determining assignments. The plan will affect our current students only when they move to the next school level-for example, when our current fifth grade students enroll for middle school or eighth grade students enroll for high school during the January 26 - February 6, 2004 registration period. The Board of Education and district administrators remind all parents of the districts commitment toward diversity within our schools. We will closely monitor the equitable allocation of resources, including funding and personnel, in order to ensure that students at all schools have experienced teachers, appropriate materials, updated technology, equipment, and current textbooks that promote equal educational opportunity and academic excellence for all students. i October 22, 2003 Dear Specialty Magnet School Patron: You may have heard that the Little Rock School District is developing an updated student assignment plan for implementation during the 2004-05 school year. This proposed plan will be presented to the Little Rock Board of Education for review/approval on November 6, 2003. I want to share with you information about the plan and meetings that will be held to allow for additional input. Attached is a list of Frequently Asked Questions, or FAQ, providing information about the proposed plan. The plan will affect our current students only when they move to the next school level-for example, when our current fifth grade students enroll for middle school or eighth grade students enroll for high school during the January 26 - February 6, 2004 registration period. The primary reason for revision of the current school assignment plan is that recent court decisions (Unitary Status / U.S. Supreme Court - University of Michigan) have affected the manner in which we assign students. Need is identified to develop a student assignment procedure where race-based decisions are no longer the sole factor in determining assignments. The Board of Education and district administrators remind all parents of the districts commitment toward diversity within our schools. We will closely monitor the equitable allocation of resources, including funding and personnel, in order to ensure that students at all schools have experienced teachers, appropriate materials, updated technology, equipment, and current textbooks that promote equal educational opportunity and academic excellence for all students. Please read the attached FAQ. You are invited to attend one of the scheduled meetings to provide input regarding the proposed student assignment plan:  Elementary schools- Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 5:30 - 7:00 p.m.  Secondary schools- Wednesday, October 29, 2003 5:30 - 7:00 p.m. Location\nLRSD Board Room - 810 West Markham Street If a parent cannot attend on the specified night for the school level, he or she is certainly welcome to attend the other session. I encourage you to provide your input on either of the scheduled evenings outlined above. Sincerely,b a 2004-05 Proposed School Assignment Plan Frequently Asked Questions Why is the district proposing a change in the student assignment plan? The primary reason for revision of the current assignment plan is that recent court decisions (unitary status / U.S. Supreme Court - University of Michigan) have affected the maimer in which we assign students. Need is identified to develop a student assignment procedure where race-based decisions are no longer the sole factor in determining assignments. What guided the proposal being presented to the School Board? A survey was done of more than 1000 stakeholders (parents, staff, community) representing every school in the Little Rock School District. More than 85% of those responding (535) agree that School Assignment Options outside the Neighborhood School Attendance Zone are important. Additionally, 90% felt that It is important that schools reflect a diverse student population. In addition, the district Strategic Plan Mission Statement (developed by members of our community) states that our schools should not only reflect, but embrace, diversity. Our School Board has been equally clear in its Covenant for the Future which was adopted in February of 2001. Will attendance zones be changed? No Will there be significant student movement as a result of proposed changes? No. Approximately 90% of LRSD students attend their attendance zone school, stipulation magnet, or participate in the M-to-M program. Will the Stipulation! Original Magnet (Parkview, Mann, Booker, Carver, Gibbs, Williams) assignment process change? No. These schook will continue to operate under the current assignment plan. Two meetings are scheduled for additional input from parents and other community residents. They are: Elementary schools - Tuesday, Oct. ZS** 5:30 - 7:00 p.m. 5:30 - 7:00 p.m. Secondary schools - Wednesday, Oct. 29**\"Location: LRSD Board Room Administration Building 810 West Markham Please invite your thinking and input. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 11,1993 LRSD hired former official to draw up alternate plan The short-handed Little Rock School District turned to an old ally recently. The district hired Dr. James Jennings, its associate superintendent of desegregation from 1987-92, as a consultant July 27 to write an alternative student assignment plan. He was paid $1,381.25 for his services, a district spokesman said Tuesday. The district has a desegregation office, plus a number of staff members who work in its student-assignment section. Jennings was a temporary addition to that department. His job was to develop a student assignment plan to use if U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright had refused to close Ish Elementary School. Wright Oversees the Pulaski County school desegregation case. Jennings student assignment plan was built on the premise f that the judge would require the district to operate Ish and the nearby Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary School in the same 1993-94 academic year. But Wright ended up accepting the districts proposal to close Ish and let the students attend King, so the district scrapped Jennings plan. The new King school is scheduled to open Aug. 23, the first day of classes. As a district employee, Jennings gained experience writing student assignment plans for the district. He is now teaching at Hendrix College in Conway.FRIDAY, MARCH 12, 1993  9B LR district delays assignment of 12,000 to elementary schools BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The 1993-94 school assignments for as many as 12,000 elementary pupils in the Little Rock School District have not been completed and were not mailed as scheduled Thursday. Marie Parker, associate superintendent for organizational and learning equity, said Thursday that the need to establish an attendance zone for the new King Interdistrict Elementary School has caused a slight delay in sending out assignments to the districts elementary schools. The only exceptions are the elementary magnet school assignments, which have been mailed. Junior high and senior high school assignments were mailed Thursday as scheduled. Parker said she did not know exactly when the elementary assignments will be mailed. A proposed attendance zone for the new King School at Ninth Street and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Drive has been developed, she said. That proposal has been submitted to the superintendent and the districts attorney, who will pass the proposal on to the other parties in the 10-year-old Pulaski County school desegregation lawsuit and to U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright for approval. Also, community meetings are being planned for next week to allow members of the public to review the proposed zone boundaries for the new school. Parker said it is necessary to establish the King zone so that children who live in the zone can be assigned to the new school when other school assignments are made. Otherwise, children might be assigned-to one school now, only to have their assignments changed once the new zone is approved. 1 King is supposed to serve children who live in the area of the school, as well as white children from the Pulaski County Special School District who volunteer to attend the school. . The school, which is to be completed by mid-July, will accommodate about 700 children and will have a special academic theme. A district commit-  tee has interviewed candidates for principal of the school. Nei- ther the principal nor the theme of the school has been selected. Arkansas Democrat ^(gazette  THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 1997  West LR neighbors to meet, size up idea of single school ARK.-\\NSAS DEMOCR.-\\T-GAZErTE West Little Rock parents who I want to learn more about their public schools will have the oppor- [ tunity to speak with Little Rock School District officials this i evening. ' School district parent re- ' cruiters from the Student Assignment Office will meet with parents today in the Books-A-Million party room at 12201 W. Markham St. from 6 to 7 p.m. Maryanne Campbell, a resident of the Sandpiper Creek subdivision, organized the meeting to rally her neighbors behind the idea - of sending their children to a sin- i gle school, in effect making it their neighborhood school. Most children in the Sandpiper Creek area off Bowman Road south of Kanis Road are in the attendance zones of Wilson or Dodd elementary schools. In fact, Camp: bell said, very few of them attend either one, with many opting out of the public school system altogeth-. er. I dont think its normal for kids to have to go to private, schools, but its an accepted norm here, Campbell said. Unless we imite, nothing will change. Becky Rather, one of the school districts two full-time parent recruiters, said that children from- this part of west Little Rock are scattered through Wilson, Dodd,' magnet and private schools. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2003  5B |Parents question diversity plan at forum zone boundary lines for the BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE A proposal to lessen the role that race plays in student assignments to some Little Rock magnet schools may be intended to promote diversity, but it has the potential to create more one-race schools, parents told district leaders Tuesday night. About a half-dozen parents attended the forum at the districts administration building on proposed changes to the assignment plan that could go into effect next school year. That plan, if adopted by the School Board on Oct. 23, would take into account a students standardized test scores and family income level, in addition to the students race, in creating a mix of students in the districts 12 special-academic-program or magnet schools that have attendance zones. Thats different than the current system in which race is the main consideration in attempting to achieve a particular mix of students at each of those schools. Delaney Fleming, a black parent, questioned how relying on family income and test scores could lead to diversity in student enrollment when black families are typically poorer than whites and black children on average have lower test scores than their white classmates. He said the two new criteria reinforce racial differences. What safeguards will be instituted to ensure that the plan wont resegregate the schools? Fleming asked. What steps will be taken so schools in the western part of the city wont become predominantly white while the schools in the test of the district will remain or become predominantly black? Junious Babbs, associate superintendent for administrative services, said a new plan is necessary because the district has been declared unitary or desegregated by the U.S. District Court in terms of its student assignments to schools. The district cannot continue to use race as a basis for assignments without that being considered discriminatory. TTie district has the option of assigning all students to schools based on the attendance zones in which they live, Babbs said. About 70 percent of districts 25,000 students already go to their attendance zone schools while 10 percent attend the attendance-zone magnet schools. However, district leaders decided to keep schoolchoice options after getting the results of a community survey that showed 90 percent of parents and school staff said diversity is important in schools and more than 80 percent favored school choice. Babbs agreed that the district, which is now 69 percent black, may end up with more one-race schools. But district leaders will monitor schools to prevent the inequitable distribution of resources among them, he said. Debbie Carreiro, a white parent at Dunbar Magnet Middle School, said giving top priority to students living in the attendance zone will likely leave few seats for others to transfer to Dunbar for its unique gifted education and intematioii^ studies programs. Her own family selected attendance-zone magnet schools years ago when her west Little Rock attendance-zone school was too full I hit all the negatives in the Little Rock School District and found a positive, she said. The proposed assignment plan wont change existing attendanceschools. Nor would It affect the way students are assigned to the six original magnet schools  Parkview High, Mann Middle, and Booker, Carver, Gibbs and Williams elementaries  which do not have attendance zones. Students now attending the attendance-zone magnet and specialty schools will be grandfathered, or be able to continue attending those schools.O c t o b 8 r 3 0. 2 0 0 3 1  CD  oo CD u !/\u0026gt; co X u 3 tf) o !Z) OD CZ3 s  g I/) o ap:: o C g b s !3 0-3 e CO s  G 03 03 z: \u0026lt;0 s g^ M I 13 .S' SO\n S P \u0026lt;U C *3 .2- OJ -S aj *3a-i.3 QJ fl) fl S\" - 00^ Q.-5 o \" 2 W O 3 (U -2 S  tUn boO Gc I, 9P^ 'J X e 3\u0026gt; C SJ2 e w J3 3 J g r A \u0026gt; 0 ) G,  2 G   Oe 5 C s C S p-S^cgS iJ-Ss p o.-a  ?  u tS .S bn I \u0026gt;. G \u0026lt;U C *3 O U n) fi U U X U ' uIS*3 Eg UI-O'S.^ 2I :s g 35 M s o s g 2UD PO3 ngj utj- SflrSis o \u0026lt;U U p Tun nof O V proposal stands, all lawsuits, he said. IldllOlCl children who apply to go to mag- net schools that have attendance tor, just not the only factor, as  Continued from Page 1B zones would be put into the ap- the result of a U.S. Supreme ifications, but isnt the fact that plication pool. But students who Court order last summer on Student race can still be a fac-you have this plan running more differ the most  in terms of admission decisions at the Uni-whites away from the school dis- race, academic achievement and versity of Michigan law school, trict? asked one black audience family income  from the stu- Babbs said. Although the case member. dents living around the schools centered on a specific law Russ Carter, a parent of two would be given preference in the school, the decision is viewed in district students, urged Junious selection process. In other legal circles as having implica- Babbs, an associate superin- words, their names might go in- tions for admissions procedures tendent for the school district, to the pool more times, giving in other education systems, and others to adjust the pro- ^ejn a greater chance of being The change in the Little Rock posed system so the magnet and ^dpjnly selected for the school, assignment plan is being prospecialty schools can retain their 'JS jfiiue Honeycutt, whose chil- posed for next school year even current racial ratio goals of 60 dren attend King Elementary, though Wilsons order on unipercent black and 40 percent said the proposal is an attempt tary status is being appealed to white. to prevent the district from fac- the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Ap-, Gina Parker, another parent, ing another 30 or more years in peals and state lawmakers are on  o. \u0026gt;\u0026gt; s\nJ VI y VaI ? j= o .g .2 o o. .w   cflTSflwi^O.S- ^-5543.2. G 13 o G D3 i:\n3  13 IK 3 13 3 2^ \"G _fl j_i Ui .y o .5  Q c-T GSg 3 2 \u0026lt;U 2 .G crt *3 aj ftO ' .eg5 2 \u0026gt;1 Cm \u0026lt;D ..Q tc aczj \u0026lt;9 - g G S G 5 n SP-E g \u0026gt; .G G-- G S - B S's -n I\" .17) o also asked for some assurances court. the brink of meeting in a special about the racial make-up of the Ann Marshall, the federal de- legislative session to consider i schools under a new plan. Mt E Da 3-2 3 s S* G O .G ,0 -G efl E G  S'S*\" 2 S 7 .3 K'S \".a u n '2 o o V.  SS rt O D3 W \u0026gt; .y  fS e O V) 73 .!U c xj .5 U   O O 3 2 tUJ {UJ JI3- Q_ 2 Ui fl tuf) ^3 o 3 G G  X D C iZ)/3GGa)gJ'(UC^X 'U'^_ .w cfl*- E spa P  H  2 \"73 S' S?-2 it li nJ uJ G m flj fl /i _ hG G S bfi O D3 d U u u \u0026lt;D r\u0026gt; G-XJ j3 no c/: .3 lA  O  oO u\u0026lt;ut /()/) 5 O nJ  X b i- 9(/-) u -o) *o oo ca G O 132 4G=  S J a 2  c E  (Z)y) 13 I Im yj G 13 G jj:\n- - - tZ) Q segregation monitor in Pulaski a range of education reforms, in- I dont want to see us back County who said she was at- eluding the way school districts where we were [with racial seg- tending the session as a district are funded. regation], Parker said. Is there parent, said the fed-e--r-a-l- -c--o-u--r-t-s Pressed by a parent at the some middle ground where we arent actively forcing the school Tuesday session about why the could have 60/40 split without districts to abandon race-based hurry to change the system when making race the sole factor? Is school assignments and that an there are so many uncertainties, there a way to design that? alteration now might be prema- Babbs said it was being done on LeRoy Mayfield, a black par- ture.--------------------------------- the basis of research and legal  ent who lives in southwest Lit- Babbs said at both forums advice. : tie Rock and has children at this week that the plan would af-ra Parkview and Central high feet the 10 percent of district stu- g I schools and Williams Magnet El- dents who typically opt for trans- signment process,\" he said. The , ementary School, complained fers to the 12 affected magnet legal decisions indicate to us that I that the proposal is too compli- schools. The district could go to we must change. We are step-csted. a strict attendance zone olan. nine out on that Snnreme Cmirf We would be ill-advised to retain our present student as- . a strict attendance zone plan, phig out on that Supreme Court This is totally confusing, he Babbs said, but results of an Au- ae^isjon. :S 5 \"y S u 5P o \u0026lt;u ! c ts .G  C.2 o o c t, c J2 _  2  o \" X o tn .. O \u0026gt; u 0 w 2 N o on u  .^\"0 \u0026lt;u 2 3 P -G G *' c5 E 5 \u0026lt;D (Z) I \"Gd= 2 0 X Ss o (/) E h  2 ^12 \u0026lt;/) S 1 _M_M. ['/5) *- 3 G \"G fl c OJ G O U  *0 U \"O u said. In laymans terms, how can gust survey sHbwed that over- 'iTh'^ School Board was ini- I get my son into, say, Dunbar? whelming percentages of par- tially scheduled to vote on the Babbs said that under the cur- ents and employees believe stu- changes Oct. 23 but delayed a rent system. Mayfields child is dent diversity and school choice vote until Nov, 6. ineligible to transfer to Dunbar are important. Board member Baker Kurrus because only whites can trans- Babbs has repeatedly cited told parents Tuesday that he is fer from another attendance court orders as the reason for up in the air about what the zone into Dunbar. Mayfields making the proposal. district should do child can still apply to the dis- One of those orders was UU..SS.. I think there is a chance tricts six original magnet schools District Judge Bill Wilsons Sept, we wont do anything this year, unaffected by the proposal sys- 13, 2002, decision declaring the Kurrus said. There is a risk in tem. Those are Parkview, Maim, Little Rock district unitary, or doing that, but there is a chance Carver, Gibbs, Williams and desegregated, in most areas of it wont change. The Sth Circuit Booker magnet schools. its operations. The district has could rule tomorrow that this Wilma Hill, who is raising her spent the past 40 years under district is not unitary. What grandchildren, said education court order trying to achieve a would be most productive quality has to be the main con- racial mix of students in schools, would be for you to communi-cern of the district but also ob- Once unitary, a district cannot cate with your board members served that the proposed as- make race-based school assign- not what you think about all of signment system offers some ments without risking accusa- this but how do you think it hope of diversity. tions of discrimination in new should be. M O HM jS rSa? G[fl suz U U a X U E 3 _ flj O u L 2 \" 5 U* O \"  73 -c c E \u0026gt;-B 5 S SS Ovio.SranjU.SpQ e SO O' O. C _ oS\"G y) arot abjf*l'^i p53 S P-G- C0 05 2-g.S S  1 S \u0026gt;,5 o.i cc-^.aocc^ \u0026lt;\u0026lt;ySN_gMQ.2Sr uu .1 ufc 3 a 5.: W C \u0026lt;u Q V) \"O G g *CH C CZTJ f-flj .3 O 3 N di nj -3 1^2 E O o M-s g 2 g u S*-5 3 G 2 (/\u0026gt; o o CM (D E (D o z LR board tom on factoring in students race Assignment plan eludes panel Race  Continued from Page IB The desire by some board members to eliminate race from the assignment process puts the district at odds with parents, Berkley initially motioned to approve the policies that would have created the framework for the new assignment plan. Strickland seconded the motion but later expressed reservations. Day asked Strickland to withdraw her second to the motion, causing the motion to die and no new motion was put forward. \"I was counting in my head, and I think the vote [on the revisions] would have been 3- 3, Day said later. That would not have done anybody any good. This is so important. Its a lightning rod of an issue. We \u0026gt; ............... ------ .need to be unanimous or close even in a diminished role  is The other schools are Hall, Junious Babbs, the associate su- to^t Sharply divided over unacceptable as it would give Chris Heller, the districts at- whether race should be a factor some preference to white stu- Cloverdale, Mabelvale the ch^ges in the assignment torney, warned the board that , r.. AA A 1. . flv ..X. _ J__x__. J__x____ ,1 .  fl, flx XJ A fl.ff.y.xM ... r.1 r. T^l 9 3X7 9 n CT 73 73-17* 17 .  .  .  x . The proposed plan calls for employees and community family income and test scores members who responded over- to be considered, along with whelmingly in favor of school student race, as factors in per- choice and diversity in a district mitting students to transfer out survey in August. of their neighborhood schools That was validated by par- to go to any of 12 magnet or ents attending a series of three special-program schools such public forums on the plan in teas Central High, Dunbar Mag- cent weeks. net Middle and Martin Luther In the public sessions, race BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE continued reliance on King Jr. Magnet Elementary was the factor on which there schools. was the most agreement, said Fair and McClellan high perintendent who is overseeing I in making student assignments dents over black students for Henderson middle schools\nplan. They wanted to go back .......auigiuuciit v.ci Miduik biuucnts lor ----, -----.-----\"z7\n---------------: i . ' ,  to certain magnet schools, a transfers to the special-program Romine. Washington and to using race alone, stymied Little Rock School schools. Rockefeller elementaries.---------------Several of the parents at the Board made no decision Thurs- Im all for promoting di- Those schools serve students forums said they feared the diday on proposed assignment versity [at the magnet schools] their surrounding neighbor- minished reliance plan revisions that would put but I dont think it is appropri- hoods  most of which are pre- would result in some of the the district into compliance with ate to use race as a classifica- dominantly black  but also ac- magnet schools becoming vir- federal case law. tion, Kurrus said. It punishes transfer students from else- tually black while other schools The boards failure to act some people because of their where in the city. Virtually all would become predominantly , marked the second time in two race\nit promotes some people white. weeks that it has delayed a de- because of their race, and I think have been white. Babbs said the assignment cision on changes to the as- hs time to put that behind us. signment plan. The delays are Im very concerned about using beginning to hamstring districts race as a diversifier, even for preparations for the 2004-05 reasons we think are good. I pre-registration period that be- think were making a mistake. gins the last week in January. Board members Sue Strick- , . Additionally, district leaders land and Mike Daugherty also and income  as  including the districts at- said they were unwilling to vote **hnhibtv tnr c.  torney  say that a failure to for the plan because of the con- change the existing system of tinued use of race as a factor, assigning students to schools while board members Larry based solely on student race Berkley, Tony Rose and Bryan makes the district vulnerable to Day favored it. Board member accusations of discrimination Katherine Mitchell, who has and new lawsuits. been critical of the plan, missed But board member Baker the meeting. of those students to this point whitCA on race its The proposed revisions proposal was prompted by the would enable all students to ap- districts release last year from ply for transfers to a special pro- federal supervision of most of gram school, but more weight its desegregation efforts and by would be given to students a U.S. Supreme Court decision whose race, achievement level that said race cannot be the sole measured by factor in school admission deeligibility for subsidized school cisions. meals  would provide the Its a unique approach.\" Day most diversity in a school. In said Thursday night about the other words, the names of those district proposal. \"Theyve tried students would go into the pool jq protect what we have, yet of applicants more often giving conform with the law. It's im- them a better chance of being pedant to me to protect what selected in the random lottery, have been working on for so Kurrus said the proposed plans See RACE, Page 5B long without ending up back in court. there is a legal risk of new lawsuits if the assignment system is not changed. I think given the state of the law and our goals this is probably the best we can do. Weve tried to follow the Supreme Courts guidance. Other (^stricts are in the same situation trying the same kinds of things. Asked about eliminating race from the assignment equation and relying just on farnily income and student test scores for diversity in schools, Heller said there is a significant overlap between students of low income and black students, \"but you would have less racial diversity if you took race out ... maybe 15 to 20 percent less racial diversity. Rose said Thursday night that he expects the board to discuss the issue again and attempt to make a decision by the boards next meeting, Nov. 20.April 2 3. 2 0 0 4 11 to study pupa assignment plan ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Mike Daugherty, a Little Rock School Board member, and Ju- nious Babbs, the Little Rock School Districts associate superintendent for administrative services, will co-chair an U-member committee charged with recommending a long-term student assignment plan for a dozen of the districts magnet and other special-program schools. School Board President Tony Rose announced the names of the committee leaders and members Thursday night. The committee will likely conduct one or more public forums before making a recommendation on a plan to the School Board, possibly as soon as mid-June, Rose said. Faced last fall with some legal issues that made a change in the old assignment plan necessary, School Board members struggled with the issue before settling in December on a one- year plan for 2004-05 only. The board agreed at the time to form a committee to make recommendations on an assignment plan for future years. The assignment-plan changes affect those special-program schools  other than the citys six original magnet schools  that were initially designed to attract a racially diverse student body even if students didnt live in a schools surrounding neighborhood. Some of the affected schools include Central and Hall highs as well as Dunbar Middle and Martin Luther King Jr., Elementary schools. As the plan has been changed for the coining year, diversity in student achievement and family income are considered along with student race. The temporary plan carries no guarantees that the enrollments at the affected schools wont become virtually all black while others become largely white. The committee members are Lisa Black, Tom Brock, Jody Carreiro, Tommy Hodges, Duane Jackson, Mallory JeweU, Freeman McKindra, Stephanie Purifoy, Jan Vasques, Alma Viscarra and Carol Young.August 2 5. 2 0 0 4 Group demands LR halt assignment plan School district panel stands by changes 75 00 to ft 73 P o y3 y y) fcj C 3'cR 2. yT y\u0026gt; n - 0 3-^ 3 CL O 5 Ts' as BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAMAZETTE A local activist group Tuesday called on Little Rock School District leaders to slow the train down on developing a new student assignment plan for 2005-06 so officials can get more public input on a new plan and find ways to improve some neighborhood schools. The Concerned Citizens United, which formed earlier this year to advocate for students who organizers say are underserved, made the demands at a news conference outside the districts Student Registration Office. District leaders worked over the summer with a 13-member citizens committee to formulate a new assignment plan for 12 specialty program schools, including Central High, Dunbar Middle and King Elementary, which are popular with students and parents. The committee is expected to put the finishing touches on its proposal over the next several days so it can be presented to the School Board in early September. Terence Bolden, chairman of e Concerned Citizens United, said Tuesday that more legwork needs to be done before any new plan is enacted. He urged the district to hold more public forums on assignment plan issues. Three forums were held in the summer, but community members who might have otherwise attended i were likely distracted by vacations and not necessarily focused on school-related issues, he said. Additionally, he said district leaders and the committee should include measures in the new plan to improve the quality of education at individual neighborhood schools, 'We believe the student assignment plan cannot be looked at alone, Bolden said. Teacher assignments to schools and the quality of education provided at neighborhood schools should be part of the approach to developing a long-term scheme for student assignments that the community at large can sup- See PLAN, Page 5B ys yj S' o' 5- y\u0026gt;  fO w \"t:  ... 2 CT 3 - \u0026gt; P ni 2 3 o- n2\u0026lt;^ftO'**a3F 2 5 as :: o 13 S-- ft S'- - 3 ft='\u0026lt;(ren ooeg-Q Stj *- Z^x5?3 to^^3S^ O ra i gra  J-g ig O S 1'5? HS: ft C c  3 \u0026amp; -r, O C 73 -t as r'e.S \u0026gt; \u0026lt;5 - a- ~  c \u0026lt; -. S 3 in O o c r* ys ft y as  2 S to 73 fB 3 n as n o = 2 5 g 5 CL 73 I ft ft era \u0026lt; y\u0026gt; m ft ft (JQ  as =! a.:  LOCjq \u0026amp;3 TJ ft c - 2 3- S Z 3^ ft\nrt O yi ft 5 O tT ft 5^ c 13**' BJ c n * 3 c 2 ni 03 ft yi ifS S c -  . 3 c  S 2 2 o o 2 ft 325\"-.8S3 \u0026gt;3-2.5^rt'3S2' 2 73 E 7) Q c ft O' 3 ft 75 TJ as as Q 3 = 3 3 ft 2 o = S' 2. -Sn^'S- 73 O as Q. ^3 3 T3 0} co a\u0026gt; I ai CD = s:  Sie'S Y P ft ft 73 o 2 a . s ft as 7Q : 3 73 5 ft c-c ft cu o O O 3 T* ft C. 2.73 TJ CL 0 ST to  y) 2-  03 C/i ft ft CT.'S \u0026lt; ft = 2.S S\ns g-i g\"? i\n= 5. - ^2. 3 . 8 ?g-g'E.2.ra3ra o n \"o'g = = 5 e=  2.Sirs -S S'\" \u0026lt;  !   n-?  c. 5 E-\" = . ra ~!,312 ra\":ot! ci-5- ra 05 3- -g-o s 2 =-3 o re Si : ft 3 CL 2 ni no 2. w 2 O 3 3 ft O J. 03 O as f? \u0026amp;} ,7' w 1/3 ft as ? 3 ft \u0026amp;3 3 ft o 2 cn yj H rt,  rt .  in CL as 3-3 u 3 K' 03 = 5' 3 S'  no 7 3.2: =r s g1^=SS 3 rt- 75 CC 3* Bi -------------  ft\u0026gt; a. 2. to   CT to to 7= rt. Lf  ft =  3  3  rt*   -3 3 CT* \" ri'ftrt. oSl-^ns: clOv3 3 3 cl2 rzT K 2 g S w alS y]  y\u0026gt; irt cC \u0026amp;} y3 3 n ft b3 y) 3 S g -CT o 2 3 ft CT O 3 O O 3 ft  rt- -1 I 73 to ft it \"O 71 rj 73 O __ 3* C n. 3 o x.  2 n DT- fn as o Z75'?2 05 O S3 ft 3\u0026gt; ft ft CD C CL O  as 0 2 = 3 .2 OS a cr as \" ft 1 Bs t/s as 3 as C- .^2 o o ? * S. 75 3  C . 73 O 75 O (re N 3 c =r i 3\n? = fl,^ y) 2. cn fc X BS 7) as as 3* to 3- 2 W5 cr fh O. o C CL. ftrtto 'F'  \"'\"2b -S-S 3 :g,a o 3 3 S-=S!?.' = 3.03 2 c 2. . 3. 5. CTO n = s'i = \"rag 5'2 5 O TJ ft XJ o / y3 - a. o 5:3 = GO f Zt. r- = 75 as 03 o Cl - ..c ~ - as 3- O 5. ft = C/t = \u0026gt;5 ETTft 3 3'\u0026lt; - n 3. r. '\u0026lt;^3f6gn\u0026gt;3to  S \" a- m g  W - ft O CD CL 2 c^c  to X- ft 3. ft ft w 3- 3t\n as c S-o^ B, Q 73 JU 3 rt ** r*.  i ? ft ft S\nra g'o 3 = o.ra QQ Cl d . ft to ft to   Q 3 73  S g S m 3 3* O CLj^ ft r I O  2  to CT S CL 52. O CL as x\nft 7) f\u0026amp; f^ ZT* 3* to 2- 2 BS 75  ^eng ra S  -^5 ra g 2 g 3-'.. .nSS^gns- ^g O J erg  3 2. to LS yj ... 5'0'g ra o M ^n?-gS.g3 ra3\"?ra. gNSa.wg$g.3Ci. :Lsra_oggS5a.5-3o^3,^gSre. = ^o = w = ra5S!iire35a. gg$3craaQra-'\u0026lt;_ = raTO'Orj_-, sSraJ'ra^ _3_ \"  2=-S-.re-nig^o0 2 3. N 75 to o 2 CTrt.  ^30^\n^ \u0026lt;5 ft Ti ft 7) -\"Cre 3 \u0026lt; ft 5. ft ft - ra -? S S S == 2 S^ra-2 o H re 5  nJS.-3 3: ft 2.cre to ? s. ft a. {/) ft 3 2 3 ft 2. O O 5  S\n 2 S - as Cl O ft as ft Q. O !=L 3\" 3 3 ft Cro 2 ra ys  0 X,  a K.1 \u0026gt;-t cr ft  3. N o 2. (T 2 5  ft 3 73 ft ft CL C n as 7) c o *2 3 to a\u0026gt; . uj  3 3 n. n n\u0026gt; rt. ft 73 3 Tftft*i^7)30 2.2 11, 5 ft C - 73 ZT ft ft 3 3 = ys y) zi BJ o .. 03 y\u0026gt; = 3 S 3 BS CL Q- \u0026lt; o ere \u0026lt;  -2. r m '75 5 O . \u0026lt; \"J ft 2.  3  S \"I 3- 5 5 w \" 3\" _ 7) 0 75 ft 0 ft ft 3. 3\" ft S-i :eS'3 5 ?E2?_Xin3ra -  re o  \" 3'  7- ? ,2 5 Q- 73 ft 73 3 -ere ft S \u0026lt; 3:' 2 2  == fS nJ \" w 2_ y, \u0026lt;2wto3^2a''' 2-~cl\u0026lt; c c 3 \u0026lt; I fp I fD r.* f5 rtf f5 3 O CL - 22 - '5 to  L CX.2 ft = S 'E- S S -U as ft  r ft as as n ZTs \u0026gt;1  i 3 ft 3  7  \" ra . T* ^T* f5 o \u0026lt; ra 3 Z = 5' 2.- o * n '*3 73 ft O o as Bi 3 X 2 O 3  O C ft CTO rt 8  tw rt 2 tj S-\" ? era 5 \"o' (/3  3  ere 3\" ?r i\n: \u0026amp; 2  g-s o  '' 3 as  -.3 3 rt. to ft 3 yi ft ~ --------re 3 3 ft yi O ? ? w O O S ns a. 3. as ft as 3 2 Q to fD a. 3 n ~ S 3\" ra p 3' o'grs = r ft 3-G.3-3 '  rt 2rt^a5ftrtf/3 rtto(-t73l-|rtCl,3^U^y)^^ft ~'rt^as. 73rttoJr373^2 rt 2 BS K b 7) O 2 T3  3 fB Cu as 7) 3 O Si f^ 73  \u0026gt; _, - to 3* O 75 2. M 7 to ft n to  3 O = =25 o o W ra a. c to o ft - as ft ft CL Si X' O ft O ft 3 Vi C\u0026gt; 3* O 3- Z ft ft 3 o  ft ft o *\u0026lt; O- to 2.3 * 3 ft CD . cl' 2 ao w 3-ra 8 5 o ra K  SiO - 3 85 Si 3. 2 're' - ra - - - 5 s ra as 3 73 Z o 5 c 3 ft ft CL 3 n Q ft o 7)\n S era  2^22 :Z' 3. S. ftrt rt. 3-^ 2 2  o hi zrt 73 M . r \u0026lt; 3* I 1 ft I O I ft ft 2. re 3* 75 to ft ** 73 ZC-' s   a.\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_764","title":"Student assignment","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":["1973/2005"],"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","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","Educational planning","School attendance"],"dcterms_title":["Student assignment"],"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/764"],"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 DELORES CLARK, et al.. Plaintiffs, Vs. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. LR-64-C-155 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., ) ) \u0026gt; Defendants. ) i DEFENDANTS f EXHIBIT } -A STIPULATION Plaintiffs and defendants hereby stipulate as follows: 1. Defendants shall implement and administer for the 1973-74 school year and thereafter the student and faculty assignment procedures set forth in their Report about December 22, 1972 and in their Motions filed in this case on or about May 9, 1973. However, although the parties to this litigation believe that the ratio of black to white students in the district has now stabilized, if at the end of the 1974-75 school year, the overall proportion of black students then attending the primary schools in the western area of the city equals or exceeds two-thirds of the total student enrollment at such facilities, then the defendants will at that time re-evaluate the student assignment procedures and the grade structure presently in use for the purpose of formulating a procedure which would achieve the most equitable and efficient method of desegregation under the circumstances then existing. 2. Assignments of pupils to kindergarten facilities will be made on the basis of geographic attendance zones designed to assign such students to the facility which is generally closest to their residence. A kindergarten student may however elect to exercise a majority to minority transfer pursuant to which he or she may transfer from a facility in which his or her race is in the majority to a facility in which his or her race Is a minority. A kindergarten student may also elect to attend a kindergarten facility located at a school where such student's brother dr sister Is assigned to an elementary grade and insuch event, the kindergarten child will be eligible for transportation to the same extent as his or her brother or sister. 3. If permissible under applicable state and federal law, and if funding can be obtained, the defendants will, on an experimental basis. establish in 1973-74 a kindergarten program at selected eastern school facilities to serve four year old children residing in the vicinity of such kindergarten facilities. 4. The Little Rock School District is an equal opportunity employer and its goal has been and continues to be, through normal attrition and consistent with the hiring of qualified individuals, to achieve a total administrative and teaching staff ratio of one-third black personnel. 5, The defendants are opposed to, and do not employ, the concept of \"tracking\" of students. For purposes of this Stipulation, the term \"tracking\" refers to the labeling of students according to ability and on that basis permanently assigning them to a course of study to be followed throughout their secondary education. The defendants do however endorse and utilize the concept of \"achievement grouping\" in the elementary schools, and to a limited extent, in the sepondary schools. Any achievement grouping in elementary schools will be carried out in the framework of presently existing heterogeneous student groupings . 6. The parties shall establish a bi-racial advisory committee composed of an equal number of black and white persons to aid the district' in resolving desegregation problems . The parties will determine the exact function, scope and composition of the committee at some date prior to the beginning of the 1973-74 school term. 7. For at least two years from June 28, 1973 or for as long as the defendants adhere to the commitments contained in this Stipulation, the plaintiffs and their counsel commit that they will initiate no further legal proceedings concerning matters covered Page 2I by the terms of this Stipulation or the issues raised by the Report and Motions mentioned in Paragraph 1, and the objections to them heretofore made by plaintiffs, and further agree to assist the defendants in the defense of any litigation, initiated by others, which would tend to impair or hamper the successful operation of the desegregation program described herein. Plaintiffs and their counsel further commit to cooperate with the Board of Directors and administrative staff of the school district in promoting the successful operation of the district's educational program for the maximum educational advantage of all students in the district. Executed this day of June, 1973 by counsel of record for the parties, it being expressly understood that this Stipulation will be void and of no effect until ratified by the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District. X- JOHN W. WALKER Attorney for Plaintiffs ROBERT V. LIGHT' Attorney for Defendants The foregoing Stipulation was ratified by a vote of the majority of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District in its regular meeting on June 28, 1973. ATTEST^ President t. I, Secretary Page 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION DELORES CLARK, ET AL. VS. NO. LR 64 C 155 THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FILED U-Si DI8TRJCT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS M 91982 CA^R.fi^S, CLERK PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS CEP. CLERK The Board of Education of the Little Rock School District has petitioned the Court for approval of a revised elementary school student assignment plan, the \"Partial K-6 Plan\".^ The plan is referred to as In 1973, after years of litigation, the plaintiffs ana the school district reached a mutually satisfactory agreement involving a number of issues, including a student assignment plan, and a moratorium was declared with respect to further litigation. Beginning in the school year 1973-74, the elementary schools were essentially desegregated. Because the eastern parts of the district are essentially black residential areas and western parts of the district are essentially white residential areas, it has been necessary to employ extensive bussing to achieve school desegregation. Over the years, there has been a steady trend of increasing black enrollment and decreasing white enrollment in the elementary schools. The trend is present, although less pronounced, in the upper grades. 1. DX 20. 2 2. The original desegregation case against the Little Kock School District was filed in 1956. The pending case, which was simply a continuation of the original litigation, was fxlea in 1964. 3 DEFENDANTS f EXHIBIT JThe following chart 3 illustrates the trend which has been established and maintained since 1971: Little Rock Public Schools, Grades 1-12 Change in Student Enrollment, Fall 1971 to Fall 1981 Year Number of Whites Number of Blacks Decline in Whites Percent becli In Whites 1971 13,413 9,814 1,256 b.b% 1972 11,926 9,909 1,487 11.1% 1973 10,999 10,096 927 7.8% 1974 10,303 10,246 696 6.3% 1975 9,760 10,730 543 5.3% 1976 9,320 10,991 440 4.5% 1977 8,708 11,089 612 6.6% 1978 7,979 11,142 729 8.4% 1979 7,454 11,517 525 6.6% 1980 6,806 11,780 648 8.7% 1981 6,291 11,813 515 7.5%' The trend is generally explained by a number of demographic factors, such as population shifts by whites to the suburbs. increase in black population in the district, differences in birth rates, and, to some extent, the element of \"white 4 flight\". As previously mentioned, the increasing disparity in the ratio between black and white students attending the district is most pronounced at the elementary school level. The following chart^ illustrates that trend. 3. DX 19, page 17. 4. DX 19, pages 12-28\ntestimony of Dr. Dewitt Davis. 5. Composite from Exhibits 2 through 13. 2Little Rock Public Schools, Grades 1-6 Change in Student Enrollment, Fall 1971 to Fall 1981 Year Number of Whites Number of Blacks Decline in Whites Percent Declir in Whites 1971 7,283 5,712 1972 6,497 5,933 786 10.8% 1973 5,700 5,822 797 12.3% 1974 5,012 5,805 688 12.1% 1975 4,560 5,864 452 9.1% 1976 4,374 5,928 186 4.1% 1977 4,066 6,022 308 7.1% 1978 3,871 6,218 195 4.8% 1979^ 3,459 6,637 412 10.7% 1980 3,152 6,661 307 8.9% 1981 2,501 6,953 651 20.8% During the 1977-78 school year, it became apparent that the student assignment plan implemented in earlier years was not accomplishing the desegregation goals established by the district. 7 The district took the initiative in correcting the problem. A \"Reorganization Committee\" was formed which studied various proposals and, as a product of that work, the district adopted a reorganization of the student assignment plan which was implemented in the 1978-79 school year. 6. The Court was given two sets of figures for student enrollment in the 1979-1980 school year. This chart is basea on the figures contained in Defendant's Exhibit 12. 7. Testimony of Dr. Leonard Thalmueller. 3Under the 1978-79 reorganization plan, the first three grades were designated primary grades and grades four through six were designated as intermediate grades. At that time blacks accounted for 63% of the students in grades one through six. One of the goals of reorganization was to maintain a black-white attendance ratio at each school which was within a ten percent variation from the district average at the elementary school level. 8 For example, as a result of the 1978-79 reorganization plan. Forest Park School had the lowest percentage of black students at 53% and Garland and Mitchell Schools had the highest percent at 70%. By 1980-81 the declining white enrollment, particularly ' in the primary grades, again resulted in significant deviations in the black-white ratio at a number of schools. For example. at Williams School, which is located in a predominently white residential area, only 8 white children enrolled in the first grade for the 1981-82 school year while 117 black children enrolled. There were seven schools, grades one through six, which had black enrollment of 80% or more. one in excess of 86%. Although the School District has been conscious of the trend of decreasing white enrollment and taken some measures to curtail the erosion. 9 nothing has significantly affected the trend. All of the persuasive evidence indicates the school district will have an enrollment which is essentially all black, particularly in the elementary grades, within the next few years. 8. Testimony of Dr. Thalraueller. 9. The administration has done an admirable 30b of offering quality education. Considerable effort has been directed toward providing curricula calculated to attract whites who have left the district's schools because of a oelief that the district was not offering quality education. These efforts include honors classes, ability grouping. emphasis on improvement in basic skills, etc. Addi- tionally, the administration has worked with the civic community and volunteer groups in efforts to encourage support for public schools and improvement in the quality of education provided. 4Faced with a significantly reduced white enrollment in the primary grades and a vocal protest by white parents against white racial insolation in some of the primary classes, the School Board adopted a \"6535\" classroom assignment plan in the fall of 1981. The plan was a hurriedly conceived stopgap measure to appease white parents of primary age children. The plan required that white children be assigned to home room classes with other whites until the percentage reached 35% in each class. The plan had the effect, of course, of creating some all black classes. The plan was disapproved by this Court following an evidentiary hearing in September, 1981. In the fall of 1981, the Little Rock School Board faced a host of problems which prompted reconsideration of the school attendance plan. For example, a significant disparity had developed in the black-white ratio of attendance at the various elementary schools and there was reason to believe the ratio would increase. Some of the black parents complained that their children were being bussed across the city to attend all black classes. Additionally, the last two milleage increase proposals had been defeated by the electorate and the district is faced with severe financial problems and an eroding financial base. The overall declining enrollment in the district and financial considerations dictated the closing of some school buildings. The Board took several steps in response to the problems. A \"Patrons Reorganization Committee^ was appointed to receive and review various proposals for pupil assignment plans and determine the feasibility of implementing the proposals. The Committee was asked to conduct public hearings 10. The committee was a twenty member committee composed of 10 blacks and 10 whites, 10 who were males and 10 females. 5in various parts of the city in order to get as much in^jut from the public as possible. The Board arranged for a study of the district's desegregation efforts by the Technical Assistance Center of Stephen F. Austin State University. This \"Desegregation Assistance Team\" submitted a report of its findings and conclusions to the Board in December, 1981. 11 The Biracial Committee, which is an advisory committee formed as a result of the agreement in 1973, was asked to review the various plans and proposals for changes in the attendance plan. The administrative staff was assigned the task of compiling information and lending support assistance to committees. The Board also investigated the possibility of seeking an interdistrict remedy through legal proceedings against the adjacent County School District and has hired law firm to pursue that remedy. Some 15 proposed plans or concepts for elementary pupil assignment were submitted to the Board, Patrons Committee and Biracial Committee for consideration. The plans were reduced to three, and finally \"Partial K-6 Plan\" was adopted by the Board after a number of minor modifications. The Board apparently views Partial K-6 as a temporary plan which provides the best chance for maintaining an integrated school system pending a decision in the interdistrict remedy suit. Partial K-6 Plan produces a number of results the Board views as preferable over the present plan. 1. The plan eliminates the primary-intermediate grouping, (or 3-3) plan (or has the same effect by pairing schools). Apparently one of the recurring complaints about the present plan is that students are moved from school to school too frequently. 11. DX 19. a 6and their classmates change every three years. K-6 permits elementary age children to attend the same school or at least attend with the same schoolmates for six years, thereby fostering a sense of security, continuity and stability. 2. Partial K-6 permits the organization of nine neighborhood schools. 3. Approximately 1,000 fewer students will be bussed under Partial K-6. The number of bus routes will be reduced from 104 to 72 with an estimated immediate savings of $132,000. Furthermore, the number of school opening and closing times can be reduced. 4. Two elementary school buildings will be closed under partial K-6. 5. Partial K-6 employs the concept of a magnet school with a curricula attractive to some parents who are concerned about the quality of education. 6. The number of schools with a black ratio of 80% or more will be reduced from seven to four. Plaintiffs oppose the plan for several reasons. The \"objections to petition\" will be discussed in the order raised in plaintiffs' response to the Board's petition. 1. The \"plaintiffs object to additional black -School closings\". This objection revolves around the part of Partial K-b which proposes that Booker Junior High School be changed to an elementary school. Although it is asserted that Booker will be \"closed\", such is not the case. 7Because of declining enrollments in junior high school, the Board concluded that one junior high facility was not needed. Booker had the fewest number of students ana reassignment of its students to other schools caused the least disruption. Thus, Booker was selected for conversion to an elementary school. Under the final plan, the schools which will be closed are Jefferson and King. Jefferson is in a white neighborhood and King is in a black neighborhood. The Board commissioned an evaluation of school physical plants and a report was submitted to the Board (the Leggett report) which indicated that the cost of refurbishing and repairing King Elementary would be $1,500,000. On the basis of that estimate. King was selected for closing. Plaintiffs' argument that converting Booker to an elementary school causes a \"burden\" on blacks is puzzling. as is the claim that such a move is calculated \"to further relieve white stufendts (sic) of educational presence in the Black community.\" First, if there is a burden on black junior high students, there is a corresponding burden on white elementary students who will be transported to Booker. Second, the black neighborhood will certainly have the \"presence\" of those white elementary age students who attend Booker. Third, while black junior high students may be transported from the Booker neighborhood to other areas. black elementary age children will be relieved of that burden. It would seem that bussing older children is preferable to transporting elementary age children. With respect to the general allegations that school closings have, over the years, had the effect of relieving the \"proportionate burden\" upon white children and enhancing it for black children, such is simply not supported by the evidence. First, all site selection for construction has 8been the subject of court approval. (Testimony of Lacey). Second, plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence that a school has been \"closed or downgraded\" because of improper consideration. Third, if there has been a \"disproportionate burden\" caused by transportation of students, it has fallen on white students, not black, and such will continue as the case under Partial K-6. (Testimony of Thalmueller and Lacey). The only bases for this objection are conclusory allegations which are not supported by persuasive evidence. 2. \"Plaintiffs object to the efforts to develop four 'segregated' or 'racially' identifiable\" schools. Under Partial K-6, four elementary schools will have a black enrollment of 90% or more. These schools are located in black residential areas. The black enrollment in the eighteen remaining elementary schools will range from 60% to 77%. Currently, the average black elementary enrollment in the district is 76%. Plaintiffs contend that creating four schools which have a black enrollment in excess of 90% is simply an effort to establish segregated schools and, that if allowed, \"there will be no prohibition upon the defendants in establishing them for white school children\". Plaintiffs further argue that by simply \"adjusting\" the attendance zones of the present plan a racial balance can be maintained in each school. The Board's decision to depart from the present plan was prompted by a number of factors. First, the present plan is not working. Although attendance zones can be drawn based upon school age census in the zone, predictions as to the number of students who actually enroll in school from that zone cannot be made with any degree of accuracy. Predictions as to enrollment by grade from a zone are even more troublesome. A good example of the problem is the 9situation last school year at Williams Elementary where 8 white children and 117 black children enrolled in the first grade. The problem of maintaining a racial balance at each school is compounded by the declining white enrollment at the elementary age level. In 1981-82, only 2,501 white elementary age students enrolled. This was a decline of 651 from the previous year. Obviously, if the trend continues. and there is no reason to believe otherwise, in a matter of two or three years there will be no \"critical mass\" of white students in any elementary school for the purpose of meaningful integration. Under the present plan, seven schools have a black enrollment of 80% or more. The Board's conclusion that \"meaningful integration\" did not exist at those schools is apparently supported by a majority of authorities on the subject of desegregation. Those authorities think that in order to have meaningful integration, 20% of the students must be of the second race. 12 Given the difficulties in predicting enrollment and the sharp decline each year in white enrollment, there is no reason to believe that a simple \"adjustment\" in attendance zones will reduce the number of schools with a black enrollment in excess of 80%. 3. Plaintiffs argue that Partial K-6 is \"reimposition\" of the concept of separate but equal. This argument would have some persuasiveness if there was any realistic hope of stabilizing the ratio of blacks and whites enrolled in elementary schools. Such stabilization plus a reasonable degree of predictability as to enrollment 12. DX 19, pages 7, 8. Testimony of Orfield, page 28. 10grades from an attendance zone may permit the maintenance of a \"balanced ratio\" at each school. Unfortunately, such is not the case. Partial K-6 is simply recognition of the fact that a substantial number of black students are now being bussed across the district to attend classes which are essentially all black. Although maintaining a \"balanced ratio\" at each school IS a worthy goal of any desegregation plan, it is not the sole criterion. Most importantly, the four elementary schools in question are not part of a separate school system for blacks. Attendance is determined by neighborhood, not by race. Furthermore, under a modification to the plan, black students are given the opportunity of transferring from those four schools to other schools in the district. 4. Plaintiffs make a number of general objections to the plan which will be discussed collectively. Plaintiffs contend the plan violates a part of the moratorium agreement which required that the primary grades would be located in the black community when the black enrollment reached 65%. No such agreement has been established by the evidence. Furthermore, if there was such an agreement, it has not been enforced because black enrollment in the primary grades has been in excess of 65% for several years. In any event, any informal agreement between the parties reached in 1973 cannot reasonably be applied so as to dictate the terms of an attendance plan in 1982.- - During the evidentiary hearing plaintiffs contended that the facilities at the four essentially all black schools would be \"overcrowded\". Defendants' witnesses denied the 11allegation and contend that guidelines in the plan are calculated to insure quality education at the four schools. The Court is unwilling at this point to predict failure or the Board's stated goals of insuring quality education at the four schools. If any disparity develops in the facilities or the quality of education offered at the four schools, the plaintiffs can always file a motion seeking correction of the disparity. Plaintiffs contend the Partial K-6 plan is actually the same as the \"65-35\" plan offered by the Board and rejected by this Court in September, 1981. The argument is made that Partial K-6 effectively segregates by placing blacks in separate school buildings instead of separate classes, which was the effect of the 65-35 plan. There is little parallel between the two plans. The 65-35 plan was an ill-conceived reaction to vocal white parents who were alarmed about racial insolation in the primary grades. The partial K-6 plan is the product of a reorganization project which utilized the Patrons Committee, Biracial Committee and administrative staff in an effort to seek community involvement in a student attendance plan. Moreover, the factors influencing the adoption of the plan are legitimate considerations for any student assignment plan. The only weight which can be given the 65-35 plan in any evaluation of Partial K-6 is on the issue of the Board's motive. The Court concludes that the Board is not motivated by a desire to resegregate the schools in adopting.Partial K-6. Finally, plaintiffs contend that the district has not achieved unitary status in that \"vestiges of discrimination\" have not been totally eliminated. Particularly, plaintiffs claim that discrimination persists in the \"faculty, staff, programs, activities, discipline and site selection policies and practices of the district\". Since this same argument 12has come up at the last three hearings, the Court will address it although resolution is not essential'to the issue at hand. The claim is asserted that administrative and faculty positions are filled in a discriminatory manner. The issue regarding the recent employment of_a white superintenoent over plaintiffs' objections was decided following our evidentiary hearing in February, 1982, and need not be reviewed again. The question of faculty and administrative staffing has been monitored for years by Dr. J.J. Lacey, a black who is Special Assistant to the Superintendent for Desegregation in the district. Dr. Lacey knows and understands the require- ments of the Clark decrees and, without reviewing the details, the Court accepts Dr. Lacey's testimony that the district has been, and is, in compliance with those guidelines. Plaintiffs suggested, during the evidentiary hearings, that the black-white faculty and staff ratio should coincide with the ratio of black to white students. The Court concurs with Dr. Lacey's view that the available labor market more appropriately determines the racial composition of the faculty and staff than does the ratio of students. Plaintiffs claim all the \"heads of departments\" are white. This is not a fact but, in any event, the supervisor of all the academic department heads is Dr. Benjamin Williams, a black. The argument is made that currently there are no black principals of any of the three high schools, white principals and one position is vacant. There are two A black woman was recommended by Dr. Masem^^ she was not hired by the Board. for the vacant position, but Plaintiffs also argue that 13. Dr. Paul Masem was Superintendent of the District for a little over three years and the Board voted to replace him. Dr. Masem's departure was not an amicable one anu he harbors some bitterness toward the District. Dr. :e 13Dr. Ruth Patterson was denied a position because of racial reasons and that racial considerations influenced personnel decisions involving William Thrasher and Paul Margrow. These arguments are supported solely by conclusions ana opinions of the witnesses. In any event, the opinions ana conclusions from such witnesses as Dr. Patterson, who can hardly be characterized as a disinterested witness, are not persuasive evidence that the district pursues discriminatory personnel practices. 14 Plaintiffs point to the fact that whites predominate in the honors courses, advanced academic courses and language courses as a \"vestige\" of discrimination. While it is true that whites predominate in those courses, there is absolutely no evidence that such enrollment is the product of any dis- criminatory policy or practice pursued by the Board. To the contrary, advanced academic courses and language courses are \"open\" to anybody who elects to take the courses. There IS no evidence that the honors program is administered in anything other than an objective fashion. According to Dr. Benjamin Williams, the administration has been conscious of the disproportionate numbers of whites in these programs as well as the fact that blacks are represented in dispropor- tionate numbers in the basic courses. If there was any explanation grounded in racially discriminatory practices, surely those reasons would have been produced. Reference was made to disciplinary action and.the claim that blacks are disciplined in disproportionate numbers to 14. Dr. Patterson has a lawsuit pending against the district asserting her claims that she has been subjected to discriminatory treatment. 15. Testimony of Dr. Williams. 14whites. Dr. Lacey monitors the discipline situation and says that he makes \"every effort\" to see that discriminatory practices play no part in disciplinary procedures. Plaintiffs produced no evidence that any practice or policy regarding discipline was discriminatory or applied in a discriminatory manner. The suggestion has been made that one vestige of discrimination is the fact that whites are represented in disproportionate numbers on the cheerleader squads. A reference is also made to discrimination in \"extracurricular activities\". There is no evidence before the Court as to how cheerleaders are selected, the composition of the cheerleader squads or even a description of the policy or practice adopted by the district which is supposed to discriminate against black students. The Court has no idea what other extracurricular activities\" are involved in the allegation. Site selection for school closing and construction is alleged as a vestige of discrimination. That allegation has been discussed in preceding sections. Plaintiffs point to the fact that the Board has only one black member. 16 Plaintiffs claim the \"at large\" election procedure discriminates against blacks and that under Arkansas law the Board has the power to change the procedure so that members will be elected by wards. The Board's failure to do so is asserted as further evidence of official discrimina- tion. Although plaintiffs' attorney assured the Court at trial that an Arkansas statute exists which confers, that power upon the Board, he has been unable to furnish the citation to the statute and the Court cannot find any sucn procedure in the Arkansas Code. In any event, the Board 16. T.E. Patterson, a black, had been a Board member for at least 10 years. In 1981, B.G. Williams, a black, ran against Patterson and defeated him. 15can hardly be criticized for failing to employ a proceaure which is nonexistent. Plaintiffs are critical of the Board for failing to take affirmative measures to halt the trend of increasing black enrollment in the district and stop the decreasing white enrollment. Specifically, plaintiffs' attorney re- peatedly asked witnesses if the Board had taken any steps to \"de-annex\" black residential areas from the district. Changes in district boundaries require, under Arkansas law, concurrence of the electorate in the affected districts. Art. St^. 80-404, seg. Unilateral action taken by the Little Rock School Board is ineffective. The surrounding Pulaski County District has publicly announced that it has no interest in merging with the Little Rock District. Aside from the legal impediments, it would seem that \"de-annexing\" black residential areas in order to deliberately get blacks out of the district is unprecedented and, undoubtedly constitutional. unIn summary, the Court finds no evidence of vestiges of discrimination in the district policies or practices. The Court adopts the opinion of Dr. Orfield and the Austin Study Group that the district has done an admirable job in the task of desegregation. Doubtless, there will always be allegations of racial discrimination when any school decision is reviewed in an adversary setting, particularly when there is an integrated enrollment of almost 18,000 pupils and 1,250 teachers and administrators operating under court order. Nevertheless, the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system and isolateo complaints of discrimination without persuasive specific evidence to the contrary do not detract from that recora. 16Conclusions of Law The only serious question in this case is whether that portion of Partial K-6 which produces four elementary scnools with black enrollment in excess of 90% is unconstitutional. Although racial balance in each school is one method which may be used for dismantling dual school systems, there can be no serious claim that \"racial balance\" in the public schools is constitutionally mandated. Milliken'v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 740-741 (1974)\nSwann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 22-25\nand Pasadena Cit' of Education v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424, 434. Bd. Furthermore, a small number of one-race, or virtually one-race. schools within a district is not in and of itself the mark of a system that still practices segregation by law. at 26. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Education, supra This is particularly true where, as here, the one race schools are the product of demographics over which the Board has no control. Pasadena Cit- Bd. of Education, supra at 436. As a tool for accomplishing desegregation of elementary grades, the present plan has, perhaps, outlived its usefulness. The dual system has long since been eliminated and the Board should be permitted to consider factors other than \"racial balance\" in structuring an elementary attendance plan. Neighborhood schools, a magnet school, financial consi- derations. and the desirable aspects of a K through 6 grouping are legitimate factors which may be considered when weighing the educational benefits of one attendance plan against another. Given the declining value of the present plan for desegregation purposes, the Board is certainly entitled to adopt an attendance plan which meets constitutional standards and permits the district to achieve other educational goals. 17Under the circumstances of this case. Partial K-6 Plan IS a constitutionally sound plan which may be implemented by the Little Rock School District. Dated this day of July, 1982. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 TO: FROM: SUBOECT: Little Rock School District October 24, 1990 Donna Creer, Executive Director, Magnet Review Committee Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Student Affairs, NLRSD Billy Bowles, Administrator for Research, Planning, and Quality Assurance, PCSSD Mable Bynum, Assistant Superintendent, Desegregation, NLRSD Eddie Collins, Assistant Superintendent, Pupil Personnel, PCSSD Office of Metropolitan Supervisor James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development New Location of Student Assignment Office TheLRSD Student Assignment Office is now located on the southeast corner of Capitol (5th) and Sherman Streets. Our new office telephone number is 324-2272. Hailing Address: LRSO Student Assignment Office 501 Sherman Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 228/28/92 . 16:59 501 324 2032 L R School Dist 121002  'Sy. Little Rock School District August 28, 1992 Mrs. Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham Street Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: Mrs. Kumpuris spoke with Mrs. Gulden this afternoon on my behalf concerning a situation and a proposed resolution. This letter is to ask your ratification of our solution. A white student by the name of Jasmine Elizabeth Cassel lives in the Little Rock School District at 3701 Boyd Street, which is in the Southwest Junior High School attendance zone. This address is a racially mixed neighborhood and the student lives on a street where a number of black students attend Fuller Jr. High in the Pulaski County Special School District on an M to M transfer. By mistake, Jasmine was enrolled in Fuller Jr. High and was accepted into the TAG program. The residency error was discovered and the parents were informed that the child, because she is white, could not be released from LRSD to a PCSSD school. student was extremely disappointed and upset, friend is black and attends Fuller Jr. High. Needless to say, the Jasmine's best Our office has conferred with Mr. Bobby Lester of the PCSSD, and we feel that we could resolve this matter on a win-win basis by assigning a willing Fuller Jr. High white student to the LRSD in exchange for Jasmine enrolling at Fuller, the racial balance of either district. This would not affect Mrs. Gulden and Ms. Powell conferred and gave our office verbal approval to assign Jasmine to Fuller. sensitivity to the plight of this young lady. I appreciate their cc: Mr. Bobby Lester Ms. Marie Parker Ms. Melissa Gulden sincerely. Mac Bernd Superintendent of Schools APPROVED: Ann BrownOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: February 17,1993 To: Marie Parker Frown Subject: Student Assignment Handbook for 1993-1994 Thank you for sending a copy of the LRSDs \"Student Assignment Handbook for 1993-94,\" which ODM received February 9,1993 promptly after requesting it. Ill appreciate routinely receiving a copy of such materials as they are published. I have certain questions and observations about some of the Handbooks information. Since this guidebook impacts the districts current registration and assignment process, lets get together as soon as possible to discuss the following: 1. What is the basis upon which the district has determined the maximum percentage of black students which may be enrolled in an elementary area school? The following statement appears on page 1 of the Handbook: The minimum black percentage for each elementary attendance zone school will be 40 percent. The maximum black percentage for each elementary attendance zone school will be 12 1/2 percent above the district-wide black percentage at the organizational level. However, according to the LRSD Desegregation Plan (page 139): The elementary area school attendance zones are drawn to establish a racial balance at each school of 55 percent black and 45 percent white with a variance of 5 percent. The recruitment of white students to elementary area schools may increase the percentage of white students at these schools but no school shall have a racial composition of greater than 60 percent white.And the Interdistrict Plan (page 4) states: There shall be a limited number of incentive schools, for a period of at least six years, sufficient to accommodate that number of black students who, by attending these schools, make it possible to achieve a student population in the remaining Little Rock schools (elementary area schools) of 55 percent black and 45 percent white with a variance of 5 percent. The recruitment of white students to these elementary area schools may increase the percentage of white students in these schools to a maximum percentage of 60 percent. Basing calculations of \"acceptable ranges\" on the plans language, I concur that the minimum black percentage for each elementary area schools is 40 percent, but I cant agree with the Handbooks stated maximum percentages for elementary area schools. 2. What data were used as the basis for calculating the \"acceptable ranges\" for attendance zone schools listed on Handbook pages 1,13, and 20? Even using the percentage ranges identified on page 1 of the Handbook, Im unable to calculate the same \"acceptable ranges\" that appear throughout the Handbook. Using figures from the LRSDs \"Summary of October 1 Enrollment 1992-93\" (copy attached,) ODMs calculations yield the following \"acceptable ranges\": Elementary 40.00% - 72.00% Junior High 50.25% - 75.38% Senior High 45.00% - 67.50% 3. If the Summarys October 1, 1992 enrollment figures are used as the basis for calculating the \"elementary acceptable range,\" then three of the four sections in the chart on page 15 of the Handbook (the \"Student Assignment Chart\" for \"Elementary Acceptable Racial Range\") are incorrect. Using the October 1 percentages from the LRSD Summary as the calculation basis, three of the four sections that appear on the page 15 chart differ by one student. For example, \"Class Size of 20 Students (Kindergarten)\" would change from a minimum of 5 white students to 6 white students and from a maximum of 15 black students to 14 black students. There would also be a difference of one student on both the minimum and maximum numbers in classes of 25 students and classes of 28 students. 4. What is the basis for the Handbooks statement about the racial population of Washington? Page 17 of the Handbook asserts that \"the racial population at Washington should reflect 55% black, 45% white.\" Yet the LRSD Desegregation Plan (page 144) states that \"the target racial balance at Washington will be consistent with the Interdistrict Plan, seeking to obtain a ratio of between 60 percent and 40 percent of either race with the ideal goal to be 50 percent black/white.\"5. Why is Baker Interdistrict School omitted from the Handbook and why is Crystal Hill listed as an interdistrict school rather than a magnet? Page 18 of the Student Assignment Handbook lists Romine and King as interdistrict schools, omitting PCSSDs Baker Interdistrict Elementary School. In this same section, Crystal Hill is incorrectly listed as an interdistrict school. Last year, the Court designated the school a magnet as requested by the PCSSD without objection from the parties, including the LRSD. 6. What has been done to correct information in the Handbook that includes NLRSD as a full-fledged participant in the elementary M-to-M program? Pages 19-20 of the Handbook include NLRSD students as participants in M-to-M transfers. According to recent information from NLRSD (see attached,) the district will no longer send new elementary students to LRSD under the M-to-M program. cc: Mac BerndI SUMMARY OF OCTOBER 1 ENROLLMENT 19 9 2-9 3 ir'. V H ITE Tl T'U TCTLL K 715 1188 19 30 4. 719 1305 21 204 5 IQl 1323 30 2060 4 5 6 UN TOTAL ELEM 7 Q 9 UN TOTAL JR HIGH 10 11 UN TOTAL SR HIGH SP, lAL CHOOLS FOUR YR. OLD DI 'RIOT TOTAL 67 3 6 5 4 6 6 5 640 46 4319 611 591 23 1948 719 704 7 00 8 2131 43 141 9082 118 5 1214 1295 1367 117 8994 1431 1430 1241 36 413 8 1326 1098 93 9 15 3373 28 188 16,726 '^SUMMARY OF STUDENTS LISTED IN SPANISH ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER - : M 34 23 28 0 190 21 1 80 34 4 8 41 0 0 11 404 OTHER 135 227 re 18 9 2 1891 1988 2034 163 14,003 \"\u0026gt; T T q T 074 1853 60 6166 2079 1850 1680 5632 2 6 , 71 340 CATEGORY: IK IMO /AMER. IND. OTHER,. (S?:/ / ,7/ \nT 81 t 64 6 2 6 4 6 5 67 6 4 6 El 69 67 60 67 6 4 5 9 56 6 5 60 39 55 64 20ft NET3I LETTILE SJ ! J 21 '-Q) -i Li ADMINISTRATP/E OFFICES 2700 POPKVR STREET January 27, 1993 Mrs. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 JAN 2 3 1953 OHics 0! Cesegresaucn Me: iC'iny Dear Mrs, Brown: Please be advised that the majority-to-minority transfer option will not be available for additional elementary students in the North Little Rock School District during the second semester of the 1992-93 school year. Currently the elementary school population in North Little Rock Schools is majority black with a 50.6 percent ratio. Elementary students currently enrolled under the m.ajority-to-minority option will not be affected by this change. The North Little Rock School District will continue to participate in majority-to-minority transfers at the secondary level in the following schools: North Little Rock High School (East and West), Lakewood Middle School and Ridgeroad Middle School. Rose City Middle School now has a majority black enrollment, thus can no longer accept or permit majority-to- minority transfers. Enrollment at all schools in the North Little Rock School District will be closely and continually monitored. If any changes occur that affect racial balances at any organizational level, the District will notify the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, the Magnet Review Committee and all parties of any adjustments for majority-to-minority participation. If there are questions, please feel free to call Mable Bynum, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation, North Little Rock School District, 771-8000. Sincerely yours, James R. Smith Superintendent of Schools JRS:aw CC: Magnet Review Committee All Parties AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER P. 0. BOX 687, NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR 72115/0637 501/771-8000 RECEIVED FEB 1 9 1993 OlticQ of Desegregation Monitoring FORMULA FOR CALCULATING ACCEPTABLE RACIAL RANGE 1993-94 Basis of calculations: October 1, 1992 enrollment Elementary\nEnrollment Less Magnet Enrl. Total 14,003 2,057 Area School Enrl. 11,946 Black 8994 1140 7854 %Black 64 55,42 65.75 65.75 X .125 8.22 73.97 74.00% Maximum Black % 40.00% Minimum Black % (Set by Plan) Junior High: Enrollment Less Magnet Enrl. Area School Enrl. 6166 849 5317 4138 505 3633 67 59.48 68.33 68.33 X .125 8.54 76.87 76.75% Maximum Black % 68.33 X .25 = 17.08 51.25% Minimum Black % Senior High: Enrollment Less Magnet Enrl. Area School Enrl. 5632 871 4761 3378 501 2877 60 57.52 60.43 60.43 X .125 7.55 67.98 68.00% Maximum Black % 60.43 X .25 15.11 45.32 45.50% Minimum Black %1 Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE I-' March 10, 1993 For more information: Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TO DELAY ELEMENTARY AREA SCHOOL STUDENT ASSIG: gjjgjgi In order to complete the student assignment process for the 1993-94 school year and to assign the attendance zone for the new Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary school opening the same year, the Little Rock School District will slightly delay the previously scheduled March 10 notification date for elementary student assignments. Carver, Gibbs, Booker, and Wiltiams Elementary Magnet School assignments will be made as scheduled. AU junior and senior high assignments will also be made as scheduled. For further information caU the LRSD Student Assignment Office at 324-2272. 810 West Markham street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000f * RECESVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT' EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS MAR 1 1 '95 WESTERN DIVISION53H 9 PH 5' foliice of Desegregation Monitorinj LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS u 1 I.-\n. V. NO. LR-C82866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS SPECIAL STATUS REPORT In order to complete the student assignment process. the Little Rock School District must delay the previously scheduled March 10 notification of elementary student assignments. Magnet school, junior high school, and high school assignments will be made as scheduled. The Little Rock School District will file a pleading within the next five days concerning elementary school assignments. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By 5 Bar No. kaitayXSfscial Suba Report CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Special Status Report has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this Sth, day of March, 1993: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \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 #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Helle: ka(hy\\SpectAl Status Report 2  03 10.93 09:22 0501 324 2032 L R School [list \u0026lt;?hrls Holler @1112 1102 Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE March 10, 1993 For more information: Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TO DELAY ELEMENTARY AREA SCHOOL STUDENT ASSIGNMENTS In order to complete the student assignment process for the 1993-94 school year and to assign the attendance zone for the new Marcin Luther King Jr. Elemencary school opening the same year, the Little Rock School District will slightly delay the previously scheduled March 10 notification date for elementary student assignments. Carver, Gibbs, Booker, and Williams Elementary Magnet School assignments will be made as scheduled. All junior and senior high assignments will also be made as scheduled. For further information call the LRSD Student Assignment Office at 324-2272. ### 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000nMt bF-RECEiVEO July 27, 1993 Mrs. Ann Brown Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 UlflCc Jill 2 7 1993 Dear Mrs. Brown: In regard to the student assignments that are made for the Little Rock School District. I feel that the assignments are unfair in the overall assessment of the primary target markets in which you are focusing upon. Case in point being the issue of King Elementary, in which the Little Rock School District approached the downtown business areas as being the primary target market for white patrons, which was not disclosed honestly in a survey circulated at Arkansas Children's Hospital when voting on a theme for that particular school and at the time of registration of the children. Our paperwork was completed during early Spring 1993 and when following up on the paperwork as to its completion. We were informed that the slots had been filled, and contradicting what we had been told, a local newspaper ran several articles on the King Elementary School, indicating that slots were still available, but not specifying that the slots available are for white students only. Not only does this constitute false advertisement but a certain prejudice seems to be self-evident. We do not feel that our children should deprived of receiving the best education possible, which we feel is in the Little Rock School District, we are approaching school starting Just around the comer and have no where to go. This matter will not be taken lightly and if there is not any type of satisfactory response to this letter very shortly, then we will be forced to take legal action. Thank you for your time and cooperation in advance and will be expecting to hear from you in the near future. I know that we all have the same goal in mind, which is the children. Sincerely, ^.NJ320-2915 Nursing Manager Outpatient Services Arkansas Childrens Hospital Lauren Russell/320-4370 Marketing Assistant Arkansas Childrens Hospital AUG-23-93 MON 10:36 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 02 A. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION O fv' r\u0026lt;'.' 7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ' PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERTENORS MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF KING INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL STUDENT ASSIGNMENTS OR. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION .TO ENFORCE AGREEMENT OF PARTIES The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), for its motion for clarification of the King Interdistrict School's student assignments or, in the alternative, motion to enforce agreement of the parties, states: 1. The parties herein are operating under court-approved desegregation plans and settlement plans. In particular, the LRSD is operating under a Desegregation Plan dated April 29, 1992. It is also acting under an Interdistrict Desegregation Plan dated April 29, 1992. 2 . The plans make provisions regarding the various types of schools in the several schools districts. Namely, the plans refer to magnet schools, interdistrict schools, elementary area schools and incentive schools. The intent of the plans was for each type of school to serve specified purposes and perhaps, certain patrons.AUG-23-93 MON 10:37 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 3. The plans also contain provisions outlining the recruitment and assignment of students to the various types of schools. For instance, the LRSD Desegregation Plan provides that students will be assigned to area schools by attendance zones. LRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, P- 139. As for Interdistrict Schools, the plans provide that such schools shall be populated primarily by black students from LRSD and white students from PCSSD or beyond Pulaski County. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 4. 4. Incentive school assignments are to be made from attendance zones that encompass the neighborhoods around the school. LRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 139. By so assigning, those schools designated as incentive schools would be. at first, virtually all-black schools. Accordingly, the parties agreed that incentive schools would be desegregated in phases through a combination of white recruitment into the incentive schools and by designating a number of seats for white students. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, P- In 4 . addition, desegregation transfers may be made where such transfer enhances the desegregation at the incentive school. LRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 140. 5. The plans also envision that efforts will be made to recruit white students currently attending private schools either back to or into the area school which serves the attendance zone where those students live. LRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 95. 2AUG-23-93 MON 10:37 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 04 6. Under the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, the parties agreed that various interdistrict schools would be constructed and/or operated in the LRSD and the PCSSD. In fact, the LRSD I agreed to, and did, construct a new King Interdistrict School to serve students at the beginning of the 1993-94 school year. The parties attempted to locate the school such that it would be attractive to those whites from the PCSSD and outside Pulaski County who work within the governmental and business centers of Little Rock. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 11. 7. The development of interdistrict facilities and programs which would allow for black children in the LRSD and white children in the PCSSD to attend schools in a desegregated environment was one of the primary aims of the parties. However, the development of the interdistrict schools also served as a mechanism through which the parties could receive financial assistance by way of the majority to minority transfer program. It was understood that vigorous and sustained recruitment would be necessary to maximize such transfers. By doing so, funds would be available to continue the operation of the agreed upon interdistrict schools. 8. In recruiting students to attend King Interdistrict School, whites within the LRSD attended meetings and expressed a desire to enroll their children in the school. Based on reasonable information and belief, less than 60 white students within the LRSD have been placed on the list to attend King Interdistrict School. 3AUG-23-93 MON 10:38 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 05 9. Prior to the start of the 93-94 school year, while the fall registration process was being completed, the Interim superintendent, Mrs. Estelle Matthis, learned of these assignments. The in-coming Superintendent in the LRSD, Dr. Henry Williams, in consultation with the Interim Superintendent was preparing to resolve those questions surrounding these assignments so that parents could be notified prior to the start of school for the 93- 94 school year. 10. Dr. Williams and Mrs, Matthis concluded that there were solutions available to the LRSD such to allow full compliance with the desegregation plans. They also concluded that the necessary corrective action could be taken prior to the opening of schools so that parents could be advised where their children would be assigned for the 1993-94 school year. See Exhibits No. 1 and No. 2 attached hereto and incoirporated herein by reference. 11. Prior to final action being taken by the LRSD, the LRSD received word, through the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and its attorneys, that this Court had expressed concern (on Tuesday, August 17, 1993) regarding the possibility that the LRSD would notify some or all of those LRSD whites that they would not be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School for the 1993-94 Teachers in the LRSD returned to contract on Monday, August 16/ 1993 . The students are set to return on Monday, August 23, 1993, 1 4 1AUG-23-93 MON 10:38 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 06 school year. Being reluctant to permit LRSD whites to attend King interdistrict School because of the uncertainty whether such would be in compliance with the court-approved desegregation plans as well as the spirit and intent of the parties when the plans were developed, the incoming superintendent deemed it most advisable to seek clarification from this Court. 12. In light of the foregoing, the LRSD prepared to request the indulgence of the court and seek clarification regarding several concerns\n(a) whether LRSD whites may be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School without violating the court-approved i desegregation plans or the spirit and intent of the parties in developing those plans?\n(b) If the response to question number 1 is in the affirmative, whether those LRSD whites who are allowed to attend King Interdistrict School will be permanently assigned or assigned only for the 1993-94 school year?\n(c) Whether LRSD whites, other than those currently on the list to attend King Interdistrict School, will be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School during the 1993-94 school year?\n(d) whether LRSD whites, other than those currently on the list to attend King Interdistrict School, will be permitted to attend King Interdistrict school during the 1994-95 school year and beyond?\n(e) If the answers to ths foregoing questions are in the affirmative, whether the LRSD will be permitted to develop criteria to determine under what circumstances, if any, LRSD whites will be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School?\n(f) Whether provisions can be made to overcome the loss of M-to-M transfer 5 1AUG-23-93 MON 10:39 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 07 moneys to be sustained by LRSD through permitting LRSD white students to occupy seats which could otherwise be filled by PCSSD white students (either this year or in future years)?\nand, (g) whether provisions can be made for the potential expenses to be incurred by the LRSD to provide transportation to the LRSD white students, from scattered areas of the city, to attend King Interdistrict School? 13. The LRSD would be pleased to accept white students from the LRSD into King Interdistrict School as long as such can be done in accordance with the court-approved desegregation plans or any court-approved modification thereto. Because of these numerous concerns raised by the incoming superintendent, it is respectfully submitted that a good-faith basis existed for clarification and direction from this Court. In light of the impending opening of schools, it was critical that this matter be resolved immediately. i. 14. Before the request could be made. the parties and representatives from ODM met on Thursday, August 19, 1993, as instructed by the Court. Present at that meeting were\na. b. c. d. e. f. g- h. i. j  k. 1. m. Dr. Henry Williams, in-coming LRSD Superintendent Estelle Matthis, interim LRSD Superintendent Sterling Ingram, LRSD Chris Heller, LRSD Attorney Jerry L. Malone, LRSD Attorney John W, Walker, Joshua Intervenors Attorney Joy Springer, Joshua Intervenors Connie Hickman-Tanner, ODM Melissa Guldin, ODM Bill Mooney, Court-Appointed Budget Specialist Bobby Lester, PCSSD Superintendent Billy Bowles, PCSSD Ruth Herts, PCSSD 6 IAUG-23-93 MON 10:39 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 08 15. During the meeting, concern was expressed that the assignment of some LRSD white students to King Interdistrict School could constitute a violation of the desegregation plans. Notwith- standing, those present were advised that the Court wanted the parties to come to an agreement regarding those students (less than 60) such to allow them to be accommodated at King Interdistrict school for 1993-94 and beyond. The LRSD does not concede that the plan prohibits it from so assigning some LRSD whites to King Interdistrict School. Arguments can be made to the contrary. 16. After much discussion, the parties drafted an agreement (the \"Agreement\") whereby those LRSD white students, outside the King Interdistrict School Assignment Zone, who had received written notice of assignment, to that school before August 19, 1993, would be allowed to attend the school for 1993-94 and beyond. No other LRSD White students, not within the King assignment zone, would be 'I allowed to attend King Interdistrict School. A true and accurate copy of the Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit \"3\" and incorporated herein by reference. 17. As a result of that meeting and the Agreement, those present agreed that the LRSD could proceed under it, even though it would not be fully executed until Friday, August 20, 1993 . The LRSD did so proceed. Further, the LRSD faxed copies of the type- written agreement to all those who had been present as well as to: a. b. c. d. Dr. James Smith, NLRSD Superintendent Steve Jones, NLRSD Attorney Sam Jones, PCSSD Attorney Richard Roachell, Knight Intervenors Attorney 7AUG-23-93 MON 10:40 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 09 18 . At mid-morning on Friday, August 20, 1993, the LRSD received a telephone call from Attorney Walker indicating, among other things, that several other issues would prevent him from being able to sign the Agreement as the parties had contemplated. Recognizing that its dilemma was now even more critical than it had been, the LRSD resolved that judicial clarification was absolutely necessary. The LRSD later received a memo stating the Joshua Intervenors position. A true and accurate copy of that memo as faxed to the LRSD and others is attached hereto as Exhibit \"4\" and incorporated herein by reference. 19. Based on the foregoing, the LRSD does hereby request guidance and direction from this Court. Wherefore, the Plaintiff, Little Rock School District, prays that this Court enter an order clarifying the issues raised herein. as well as any other related concerns\nor, in the alternative, that I Hb an order be entered enforcing the agreement of the parties based on 1 the detrimental reliance of the LRSD and that the parties be awarded any and all legal and proper relief to which they may be entitled. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE AND CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone No. (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Little Rock School District Jerry L. Malone Bar I.D. No. 85096 a AUG-23-93 MON 10:40 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE the foregoing certify that a copy of Request for Clarification of King Interdistrict School Student Assignments has been served on the following by depositing a copy of the same in I the United States mail on this Th day of August, 1993 : Mr, John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \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  f Little Rock, AR 7201 Mr. Richard Roachell. First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone LRSD Attorney II i 9 JAUG-23-93 MON 10:41 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 11 I PARENTS! Wednesday, August n, 7 p.n]. ' Little Rock Administration, Board Room .810 West Markhamstreet t area also Provisional status J, ~3/ /U 3 uAUG-23-93 MON 10:41 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 12 PAREiNTSU LUTHER KING JR 1 bKDISTRICT MAGNET* ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Wednesday, August 1 J., 7 p.m. Little Rock Adniinistration/Board Room .810 West MarLHamStreet Elementary School is open school attendance zones and approved School DisS WhSPulasrCounty area alsX^S^opS??oSSiSa2 Provisional status { J Sa 2- \"3/ /! irAUG-23-93 HON 10:42 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 13 agreement The parties met on Thursday, August 19, 1993, pursuant to the instructions of the Court, to discus initial enrollment at Martin Luther King Interdistrict Magnet* Elementary School (\"MLK\") 1993-94 school year. for The parties are in substantial disagreement about certain matters which relate to the plan and the manner in which ) i .1 assignments would be made under the plan to MLK. Joshua Intervenors strongly oppose the placement, assignment or enrollment of LRSD white students, who live outside the Martin Luther King Interdistrict School assignment zone, to MLK. The PCSSD is also concerned about future year's effect of LRSD white students being assigned, enrolled or allowed to attend Martin Luther King Interdistrict Magnet* School. All parties are mindful of the admonitions of the Court regarding school district/parent cooperation and integrity as well as the other needs for both desegregation and certainty about school opening for this year at Martin Luther King Interdistrict Magnet* School, Based on these concerns and considerations. and the I encouragement of Court, the parties have agreed that for the 1993- 94 school term only, LRSD white students, who have received written assignment notices to MLK from the LRSD as of the date of this agreement, shall be allowed to attend or be enrolled or assigned to MLK. Once assigned to MLK, those children shall be afforded all the rights and privileges of other students who are being assigned Exhibit 3\"AUG-23-93 MON 10:42 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 14 Page 2 to the Martin Luther King Intardistrict Magnet* School (i.e,, including continued enrollment) . However, there shall be no ! 1 preference available to these students so assigned. No other LRSD white students may be assigned to MLK. The parties will seek Court approval of this Agreement. DATED THIS day of 1993 . John W. Walker, Joshua Intervenors Attorney Bobby Lester PCSSD Superintendent'  Dr. Henry Williams LRSD Superintendent J I James Smith NLRSD Superintendent Richard Roachell Knight Intervenors Attorney I 1 *ProvisionalAUG-23-93 MON 10:43 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 15 MSMORaiNDDM TO: Mr. Jerry Malone Mr, Billy Bowie Ms. Ann Brown FROM: John W, Walker RE: King Interdistrict Magnet Elementary School DATE\nAugust 20, 1993 This is to advise that Joshua has not signed the Stipulation upon which we agreed upon in principle yesterday at ths Little Rock School Board offices. This is because information that we have received causes us to conclude that a larger number of pupils are being assigned to King from outside the Xing attendance zone than Most of these youngsters are from other We cannot be parties to assignment the number we were given, incentive school areas. practices which allow decline in emphasis and attendancs at the incentive schools nor can wa support practices which distort the double funding requirement and desegregation requirement of the plan-''For these basic reasons, as Joshua counsel, I am withholding endorsement of the stipulation and putting LRSD on notice that we will not agree to the Court's suggestion that we let LRSD white pupils be assigned to King under the circumstances. i J li j J ! 1 3 // 1Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 {501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: September 3, 1993 From: Melissa Guldin To: Subject: Sterling Ingram, Director of Planning, Research and Evaluation School Assignments for Residents of the Battered Womens Shelter This memo is to confirm our phone conversation held this morning. As you will recall, we discussed enrollment figures and I inquired about the status of school assignments for the children living at the Battered Womens Shelter located at 12th and Battery Streets. The Shelter is in the King attendance zone, a fact confirmed by Sue Pederson on September 2, 1993, when she drove by the center. I do not quite understand what caused the district to question the right of these children to attend their assigned school, since the population at King is significantly below the capacity of the school. Despite the original misunderstanding, I am pleased that you have now agreed to abide by the districts assignment plan and assign all children residing in the King zone to that school. If you recall the August 19 meeting we attended to discuss King assignments, the fate of assignment zone students was never debated. The group even discussed the fact the students from within the zone, regardless of race, would always receive an assignment to King. This entire assignment issue has been a great concern for the staff at the Battered Womens Shelter. I plan to call the Shelter and report our conversation. Perhaps a district representative could also contact the Shelter and confirm the residents right to go to their assigned school. Im sure the staff there would really appreciate hearing from the district. Thank you for dealing with this issue promptly, and please thank Sue Pederson for working so diligently to help track down the correct zone assignment for the Shelter. cc: Ann Brown Estelle MatthisLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 January ii, 1994 TO THE PARENT OF: BROUN, ANDREU J- 1201 UELCH ST LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 Dear Parant, The Li+tle Rock School District Student Assignment Plan allows nonattendance zone tudents to transfer to their attendance zone school if a seat desegregation reiuirements- is available and the racial balance complies with does not attend his/her attendance zone school. Our records indicate that your child If you are interested in applying for a transfer to your child's attendance zone school for next school year, please mark the appropriate box on the enclosed form and return the form to your child's current school assignment or the LRSD Student Assignment Office, 501 Sherman Street. THE FORM MUST BE RETURNED BY: JANUARY 25, 1994. In order for your child to be considered for assignment to his/her attendance zone school, you must return the enclosed Transfer Re\u0026lt;iuest FormIn an effort to keep our waiting lists as up-to-date as possible^ we will delete names currently on waiting lists unless a Transfer Reiuest Form is returned- Should you have questions concerning the Attendance Zone Transfer Re\u0026lt;iuest, please call us at 324-2272- Little Rock School District Student Assignment OfficeATTENDANCE ZONE TRANSFER REQUEST Student's Name: ID Number: Zone B L oiz k : BROWN, ANDREW J. 934304 0210 Current School: ROCKEFELLER INCENTIVE SCHOOL Grade: 01 DIRECTIONS: CHECK ONLY ONE \u0026lt;1) BOX Hy child presently attends ROCKEFELLER INCENTIVE SCHOOL I would like for him/her to be transferred to his/her attendance zone school, school year, waiting List JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL for next I understand that my student will be placed on a if assignment is not possible. My child presently attends I would Like for him/her to remain at ROCKEFELLER INCENTIVE SCHOOL ROCKEFELLER INCENTIVE SCHOOL I do not want my child transferred to his/her attendance zone schoo L, JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL I understand that attendance zone transfer re\u0026lt;iuosts are subject to capacity and desegregation re-iuirements. Parent/guardian Signature Telephone Number PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO YOUR CHILD'S SCHOOL OR THE LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE \u0026lt;501 SHERMAN STREET, 72202\u0026gt; BY JANUARY 25, 1994. IMPORTANT: List any other sibling zational level (example: elementary. currently at this organi- j un i or hi gh, sen i or high). NAME BIRTHDATE SCHOOL i I I IOKice JAN 3 1 1994 cl Desegregation Monitoiing IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS JOINT NOTICE OF STIPULATION The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or \"District\"), and the Joshua Intervenors for their Joint Notice of Stipulation, state: 1. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a stipulation agreed upon by the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. 2. Joshua Intervenors, through their counsel, have joined in the filing of this stipulation. WHEREFORE, Little Rock School District and Joshua Intervenors submit this Joint Notice of Stipulation and request all other legal and proper relief to which they may be entitled.Joint Notice of Stipulation January 31, 1994 Page 2 Respectfully Submitted FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \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 By\nJerry L. Malone Bar No. I. D. 85096 TCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Stipulation has been mailed by First Class Mail, postage pre-paid on January 31, otherwise indicated: 1994, upon the following, except as Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \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 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone STIPULATION The LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors stipulate that some black students who live in Incentive School Attendance Zones were not allowed to attend Incentive Schools by the LRSD during the past school year and this year. The parents of some of those black students were advised that because the LRSD was holding seats for white students, the LRSD could not allow them to enroll in an Incentive School program that was above the racial balance goal established in the Court-approved desegregation plans. However, all of these seats were not filled by white students and have not yet been offered to these black children. The LRSD has been made aware of the problem and, as of August 1993, has taken, or will hereafter take, steps to correct it in the manner contemplated by the Settlement Agreement. Further the LRSD will otherwise continue to comply with its obligations as set out in that Agreement. The LRSD is mindful of the Court's requirement that it will require the LRSD to establish that its vigorous recruitment efforts have failed before those seats can be released in pre-kindergarten and kindergarten. Exhibit 1Stipulation Page 2 The parties, LRSD and Joshua, also stipulate the admission into evidence the following exhibits: 1. Addendum to Exhibit Number 208, Joshua's LRSD Elementary Schools (Incentive Schools) Monitoring Report, 1990-91\n2. Exhibit Number 209, Joshua's Preliminary Educational Equity, June 23, 1993, with Addendum pages 214 through 243\n3. Exhibit Number 210, Joshua's Preliminary Educational Equity Monitoring Report, May 28, 1992, with Addendum pages 000161 through 000189\n4. Exhibit Number 234, letter from Joy Springer to Bennie Smith dated April 17, 1992, with attached memo to Dr. Ruth Steele from LRSD Bi-Racial Advisory Committee. The LRSD does not, by agreeing to the admission of these documents into evidence, waive its right to challenge or otherwise contest the factual findings or assertions contained in the Joshua Monitoring Reports or other documents being admitted hereby\nthose rights are specifically and expressly reserved.Stipulation Page 3 Dated this Jie day of January, 1994. 11 W. Walker orney for Joshua Intervenors Jerry L. Malone Attorney for LRSD if t r Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Subject: Ann Brown, Monitor Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent February 2, 1994 Meeting February 1, 1994 lies of Des\nViviiitOi u'Q f^E3 7 toqi Thank both you and Bob for your help yesterday with data about our students in and out of our attendance zones. As you know. Bob and I are meeting next week so I may benefit from the file he has built. Our meeting was beneficial to me and gave me insight into ways of approaching solutions to student assignment. From our meeting, 1 understand that you will request Incentive School capacities from Doug Eaton based on a maximum of 20 students per class, rather than the current capacities. We agreed that these would be more realistic. We did not agree, however, on the method for calculating range for area elementary schools. 1 understand clearly why you are interpreting the range to be fixed at 40?^ to 60?6. As pointed out, our average percentage black is approximately 64?o. This makes it mathematically impossible for us to bring all elementary schools into compliance. We have been using 40?o for the bottom of the range and using the formula for secondary schools to figure the top. That way the top of the range moves with our percentage black. Chris Heller and I will tiy to work an agreeable solution. Also, 1 want to reiterate my response to your question about the assistant communication position. We have taken a while to fill this position because of the importance of any position when much is to be done. These are long term decisions, because they affect people's lives, as you know. We want to be careful to get the right people in the right places so they are both happy and productive. The apparent conflict between my testimony and reality is easily explained. When 1 testified that we were completing interviews on Friday, January 28, that was true. The following Monday, we realized that since the position was changed to full-time, it should be re advertised. It has been and will close early next week. This means that three to four weeks may pass before the person selected is actually on the job. This estimate includes the new hire's two weeks notice to their current employer. Again, thank you for your help. C\nDr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Chris Heller, LRSD AttorneyRECEP \u0026lt;33 u U.S OIST.\"ICT COURT cASTERM DISTRICT AR.LANSAS FEB 7 WA Office of Desegregaticn McnitcnniJ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION l-tB 0 4 1594 -'A.McSW. McCOfiMACX. CLERK DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court is the Little Rock School District's (LRSD) motion for clarification of King Interdistrict School assignments or. in the alternative, to enforce the agreement of the parties [doc.#1952]. The LRSD states that the parties had drafted an . J, D vs. Agreement whereby those LRSD white students who lived outside the King Interdistrict School attendance zone but who had received notice of assignment to that school before August 19, 1993 would be allowed to attend King. However, the attorney for the Joshua Intervenors (Joshua), Mr. John Walker, subsequently withdrew his consent to the Agreement, stating among other things that several issues would prevent him from signing the Agreement as the parties had contemplated.* The LRSD seeks an order enforcing the agreement of the parties based upon its detrimental reliance. Otherwise, the LRSD J ' Mr. Walker Stales I he inunher he as that a larger niimhcr ol pupils are being assigned tn King from otil.sitie the King attendance zone than ul the incentivi iven. iiikl ihal Joshua cannoi be a parly \"to assignment practices which allow decline in emphasis and attendance schools nor can we support practices which distort the double funding requirement and desegregation requirement ol the plan. See Exhibit 4, LRSD s motion for clarifieation or, in the alternative, to enforce agreement of parties. 'Kj 2 0 9seeks clarification of the following issues: 1. Whether LRSD white students may be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School without violating the court- approved desegregation plans or the spirit and intent of the parties in developing those plans\n2 . If the response to question number 1 above is in the affirmative, allowed to whether those LRSD white students who attend King permanently assigned school year\nInterdistrict Whether LRSD or white assigned School will are be only for the 1993-94 students, other than those currently on the list to attend King Interdistrict School, will be permitted to attend King during the 1994-95 school year and beyond\nIf the answers to the foregoing questions are in the affirmative, whether the LRSD will be permitted to develop criteria to determine under what circumstances, if any, LRSD white students be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School\nwill 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 or 6. Whether provisions be made for the potential expenses to be incurred by the LRSD in transporting eligible LRSD white students from scattered areas of the can city to King. Joshua has filed a response to the LRSD's motion in which it supports the motion for clarification but opposes the alternative request to enforce the agreement of the parties. The Court denies LRSD's motion to enforce the Agreement or for clarification, but addresses herein the King Interdistrict School assignments and issues the following orders. LRSD white students may be permitted to attend King 3 . 4. 5. Interdistrict School without violating the desegregation plans or the -2-spirit and intent of the parties in developing those plans. Regardless of the provisions contained in the August 19, 1993 Agreement, a chief objective of the desegregation plans is that the interdistrict schools be racially balanced, the ideal goal being a student enrollment ration of 50 percent black to white. regard, the plans envision that white students attending In this an LRSD interdistrict school will be recruited primarily from the PCSSD or beyond Pulaski County\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 9, 1993 hearing. this Court, while acknowledging that the desegregation plans envision that white students for the interdistrict schools would be recruited primarily from the PCSSD, stated tt [l]et's... work hard to recruit the white students from the county and the black students from the district for [King], and some white students as well from the Little Rock School District for King and make it a successful school, a high quality school that we all want.\" Transcript, at 197. At the August 12, 1993 budget hearing, the Court stated \"I know it's important to get the county students [to King], but also, there might be some Little Rock white students who would like to attend and who could attend under our guidelines that exist.\" Transcript, at 17-18. The Court went on to observe that a lot of questions would be cleared up if there were a firm policy on admitting LRSD white students to King, to which Interim Superintendent Estelle Matthis replied, I think you're -3-exactly right, your Honor. II Id. at 18. However, despite the persistent urging of this Court and its Monitor, the LRSD did not develop such a policy. This lack of follow-through evidences pervasive pattern of failure to plan and perform that has been characteristic of the LRSD throughout the history of this case. According to figures (attached) which the districts have a supplied to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, the LRSD has a record of placing white intradistrict transfer students (and black intradistrict transfers as well) at its interdistrict schools. For example, Romine Interdistrict School had a total October 1 enrollment for the 1992-93 school year of 361 students\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. II The Court also notes that the King recruitment plan, dated March 20, 1993, states that it was \"designed to enroll black children from the immediate area and white children from Pulaski County as -4-H well as Little Rock. (Emphasis added.) This recruitment plan designates the major target audiences for recruitment activities. Those audiences include not only PCSSD and the west Little Rock areas of Chenal Valley and Taylor Loop, but also the neighborhood surrounding King, additional zoned areas within the district. and magnet school non-placements. This plan also specifically targets children of employees at the Arkansas Children's Hospital and the state capitol complex. which is consistent with language in the desegregation plan that touts the location of King as a recruiting plus for this school which is to ..serve as a natural magnet for individuals who work within governmental and business centers of Little Rock. It LRSD Desegregation Plan, at 148. Neither the desegregation plans, the LRSD King recruitment plan, recruitment and public relations materials, nor hearing testimony have suggested that recruitment for King would be limited only to white students from PCSSD. This Court has repeatedly stressed that it is critical to successful desegregation for the LRSD to keep its promises to the children and their parents. Indeed, the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan acknowledges that \"dependability, credibility, and integrity are basic to the success of desegregation,\" and that the districts will It [k]eep the promises they make.\" (Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, at 66.) When a district accepts children at a particular school. parents should be able to count on the district making good that acceptance right up to the time the child takes a seat at the school. If the LRSD had effectively done its management job by engaging in -5-ample advance forethought and decision-making, strong follow-through, and unambiguous messages to parents. the district could have prevented the consternation and confusion regarding King assignments that the parties now entreat the Court to sort out. The Court hereby directs the LRSD to develop immediately specific guidelines regarding assignments to the King Interdistrict School that, by extension, apply to its other interdistrict schools. Among other things, these guidelines are to reflect past practices and promises and include intradistrict transfer eligibility criteria for both black and white children\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\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. UNlTfiD\" 'r2ct JUDGE -6- MS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE Wm-I RULE 53 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP  by \\,T INTER- and INTRADISTRICT TRANSFERS to the ELEMENTARY INTERDISTRICT SCHOOLS Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring February 1994 Receiving Schools Sending District l RSO NLRSO PCSSD 1909-90 199091 1991-92 1992-93 199094 190990 199091 1991-92 1992-93 199094 190990 199091 1991-92 1992-93 199094 Baker Crystal Hill King Romine Washington B W B B B B W B B B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W 59 0 65 0 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 8 0 6 0 5 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 305 0 339 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 86 41 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 152 165 261 60 11 * Information not available 155 210 34 151 35 133 62 84 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 10 0 2 203 204 196 180 193 158 175 N/A N/A 0 73 0 65 0 64 0 37 N/A N/A 0 61 0 74 0 65 0 65 N/A- Not Applicable Note: Although Washington Magnet is not among the six elementary interdistrict schools named in the desegregation plan, it nonetheless functions as an interdistrict school under the terms of the settlement agreements and court orders. The chart above is based on the number of students each district sent (not received) to interdistrict schools and is extracted from the most recent information available: LRSD: Memos dated November 18, 1993 and December 6, 1993 from Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. NLRSD: November 26,1991 memo and June 4,1993 M-to-M transfer listing from Mable Bynum, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation: district reports dated October 1, 1992 and October 1, 1993. PCSSD: Memos dated December 11,1990, December 3, 1991, January 12, 1993, and December 14, 1993 from Eddie Collins, Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Services.Student Assignment Handbook 1993-1994 Little Rock School District TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1 2 3 5 6 8 9 11 13 15 16 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 20 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 22 23 24 25 28 DESEGREGATION REQUIREMENTS/ACCEPTABLE RACIAL RANGE 1993-94 STUDENT ASSIGNMENT TIMELINE STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PROCEDURES f 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Pre-registration General Information Pre-registration 1993-94, Feb. 8-19 A, Elementary Schools B. Secondary Schools Optional Enrollment Requests Address Changes How to Assign/Elementary Attendance Zone Schools ELEMENTARY ACCEPTABLE RACIAL RANGE CHART WAITING LISTS INCENTIVE SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS MAGNET SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS Washington Basic Skills/Math Science Magnet Dunbar International Studies/Gifted and Talented Magnet Henderson Health Science Magnet Central High International Studies Magnet McClellan Business/Communications Magnet INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS King Interdistrict School Romine Computer Science \u0026amp; Basic Skills Interdistrict Crystal Hill Communications Interdistrict Magnet School EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION ASSIGNMENTS M-M TRANSFERS DESEGREGATION TRANSFERS ACT 609 TRANSFERS LEGAL TRANSFERS ACT 624 TRANSFERS KINDERGARTEN WAIVER HOME SCHOOLING STAFF PREFERENCE TRANSFERS SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS STUDENT ASSIGNMENT APPEALS COMMITTEE CARE PROGRAM (Before and after school care) HOMELESS CHILDREN TRANSPORTATION -REGULAR ROUTES -SPECIAL EDUCATION ROUTES -M-M ROUTES -EMERGENCY ROUTES FREE AND REDUCED LUNCH PROCEDURESDesegregation Requirements/Acceptable Racial Ranges The minimum black percentage for each elementary attendance zone school will be 40 percent. The maximum black percentage for each elementary attendance zone school will be 12 1/2 percent above the district-wide black percentage at the organizational level. The minimum black percentage for each secondary (junior and senior high) attendance zone school will be 25 percent below the district-wide black percentage at each organizational level. The maximum black percentage will be 12 1/2 percent above the district-wide black percentage at each organizational level. The minimum and maximum black percentages constitute the desegregation requirement (or acceptable range) for attendance zone schools. The Student Assignment Office and all building principals will be held accountable for complying with desegregation requirements. In addition to complying with desegregation re- quirements, building principals will be expected to assign students to classes in an equitable manner, to the greatest extent possible. The building principal should not allow resegregation to occur in classrooms. School desegregation requirements and equitable classroom assignments will be monitored by the LRSD Offices of Educational Frograms, of Organizational and Learning Equity, and of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. School based biracial advisory committees will also monitor compliance in these areas. The acceptable range is listed below: Elementary Junior High Senior High 40.00% - 74.00% 51.25% - 76.75% 45.50% - 68.00% 1Jan. 6 - Jan. 24 Jan. 25 - Feb. 3 Feb. 8 - Feb. 19 March 10 Mar. 15 - Mar 26 March 15-June 9 April 9 April 9 June 10-July23 July 26-30 Aug. 30 1993-1994 PRE-REGISTRATION TIMELINE survey Dunbar AZ 6th graders survey 4 year olds/remain at present school? Open Houses Mon., Jan 25 Tues., Jan 26 Mon. Tues. Wed. Feb. 1 Feb. 2 Feb. 3 Incentive and Interdistrict schools Elementary Magnet Schools Area and Magnet High Schools Area and Magnet Junior High Schools Area Elementary Schools Pre-Registration/ Kindergartners, New students, OERFs, Employee Preference Requests, 4 year old application period, AZ Transfer Requests Notification letters to all students Desegregation Transfer application period Pre-registration reopens at Area Schools Notification letters to Desegregation Transfers Notification letters to 4 year olds Summer Registration at Student Assignment Office No Registration Accepted First Day of Classes 2PRE-REGISTRATION GENERAL INFORMATION February 8 -19 Final assignment lists will be submitted by all schools after the beginning of the second semester. These lists will be used to confirm the number of students enrolled in each building for 1992-93. Corrected lists must be submitted to the SAO by Wednesday, February 10. Students enrolled after Feb. 8 for the remainder of the 1992-93 school year will not be guaranteed a seat at the school for the 1993-94 school year. Parents/guardians of K/new students must pre-register at their attendance zone school. Address verification, birth certificate, and Social Security numbers must be presented at pre-registration. Immunization records may be accepted at this time, or presented during the August registration. Kindergarten pre-registration information will be distributed throughout the community. Kindergarten and new-student pre-registration will be held during February 8 - February 19. Parents will be notified of their assignment by March 10,1993. Applications for the early childhood (4-year-old) program will be accepted in the schools with a four-year-old program or in the Student Assignment Office, from Feb. 8-19,1993. Parents will be notified by April 9,1993 . Transportation will not be provided bv the LRSD for fourvear old students. Sibling preference will be granted only to those students attending their attendance zone school. Sibling preference will be granted for students currently enrolled in non-attendance zone schools who wish to be assigned to their attendance zone school with a sibling. SIBLING PREFERENCE DOES NOT APPLY TO MAGNET OR NON-ATTENDANCE ZONE SCHOOLS. Optional Enrollment Request Forms (OERF) will be available for magnets, incentive schools, interdistrict schools and high school kindergartens. Carbonized forms will be used. Optional Enrollment Request Forms will be available during the period February 8 - February 19,1993. Parents will receive written notification of approval/denial by March 10,1993. All assignments are subject to desegregation requirements and capacity. The Student Assignment Office will be responsible for all magnet school, incentive school, interdistrict school, high school kindergarten, and M-M assignments. Parents may make up to four choices for optional assignments at elementary schools and three choices for optional assignments at secondary schools. Choices must be prioritized in numerical order. Parents are NOT requited to use all choices. Sixth grade students in the Dunbar attendance zone will be given the option to transfer to another school if they are not interested in the magnet program. The SAO will contact these students by mail prior to the pre-registration period to determine which students desire an alternate assignment. All alternate assignments are subject to desegregation requirements and capacity. Parents will be notified of their students assignment by March 10,1993. 3All students will be notified of their assignments by mail by March 10,1993. This will include rising students (6th to 7th grade, 9th to 10th grade) and grandfathered students (who will remain at their current school). The assignment notification letter will be used to explain the registration process in August and desegregation transfer process. Desegregation transfer applications for secondary students will be accepted in the Student Assignment Office from March 15-26,1993. Parents will be notified no later than April 9,1993. ATTENTION PRINCIPALS: Tentative retention lists must be submitted to the SAO at the end of the third quarter. Updated and final retention lists must be submitted immediately aftei the last day of school. The Student Assignment Office will be responsible for assignments during the period of June 10 - July 23. No assignments will be made from July 26 to July 30,1993. 44 YEAR OLD/KINDERGARTEN/NEW STUDENT PRE-REGISTRATION PROCEDURES FOR 1993-94 Children who will be five (5) years old on or before October 1, 1993 will be eligible to attend kindergarten in the LRSD next year. In order to receive a school assignment by March 10,1993, parents must pre-register their children. Pre-registration will be held districtwide beginning February 8,1993 and continuing through February 19,1993. Pre-registrations will not be accepted between February 22 and March 12,1993. Pre-registration will resume at the attendance zone schools on March 15. Beginning June 10, and continuing through July 23, parents must preregister in the Student Assignment Office. Children who will be four (4) years old on or before October 1,1993 will be eligible to apply for a seat in the Four Year Old Program in the LRSD next year. In order to be considered for placement in the Four Year Old program, parents must pre-register their child APPLICATION DOES NOT GUARANTEE PLACEMENT IN THE PROGRAM. Pre-registration will be held at all schools with Four Year Old Programs and in the Student Assignment Office beginning Feb. 8,1993 and continuing through Feb. 19,1993. Pre-registrations will not be accepted between Feb. 22 and March 12, 1993. Pre-registration will resume on March 15 at schools with 4 year old programs and in the SAO. Beginning June 10, and continuing through July 23, parents must pre-register their 4 year olds in the SAO. Under the Little Rock School Districts student assignment plan, all students will remain at their 1992-93 school assignment until graduation from the organizational level, unless otherwise specified. However, students may request a transfer to their attendance zone school. This request form should be completed at the SAO. Each school will be responsible for pre-registering students who live in their attendance zone. The following is a list of forms and supplies which will be necessary to complete the pre-registration process: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Pupil Information Forms (PIFs) Pupil Information Change Forms Address Verification Forms Optional Enrollment Request Forms 4 Year Old Application (Schools with 4 yr. old programs only) School Attendance Zone Map District Attendance Zone Map 8. Special Envelope (for mailing) 9. Street Index Schools should contact the Student Assignment Office for additional PIFS and Optional Enrollment Request Forms, 4 year old applications, or to replace zone maps. Pupil Information Change Forms may be ordered from the Supply Center. Each school will be responsible for duplicating the Address Verification Form. Pre-registration forms should NOT be distributed before the first dav of the ore- registration period or after the deadline. 5A, ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Schools will receive flyers to be sent home to parents notifying them of kindergarten/new student pre-registration. These flyers should be sent home as soon as possible after they are received. Parents/guardians of K/new students must pre-register at their attendance zone school. Parents/guardians of 4 year old students must pre-register at any school with a four year old program or at the SAO. Application does not guarantee placement in the program. School staff will verify the students address and check it against the attendance zone map. If the student does not live in your attendance zone, refer the parent/guardian to their attendance zone school for pre-registration. If the students address is in your attendance zone, give the parent/guardian instructions for completing the Pupil Information Form and the Address Verification Form. Advise the parent/guardian of the required documents. a. Required documents: 1. Certified copy of birth certificate or visa/passport. 2. Proof of address (lease agreement, current utility bill, or personal property tax bill) 3. Social Security number b. The following information MUST be supplied on the Pupil Information Form: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. First, Middle, and Last Name Race Sex Address Date of Birth Last school attended and grade Social Security number (See page 27) If the parent cannot provide all of the required documents, the pre-registration cannot be completed. Advise the parent to obtain necessary document(s) and return to complete preregistration process. 5 Check completed PIF against required documents. If the parent wishes to request an optional school enrollment, allow him/her to complete an Optional Enrollment Request Form. Staple the Optional Enrollment Request Form to the students PIF. Give the parent copy (yellow) of the Optional EnrollmentRequest Form to the parent. 67. 8. 9. 10. Only schools with 4-year-old programs will have applications for the program. Parents who wish to apply for the 4-year-old program should be given an application for selecting their school choices. These applications, should be stapled with the PIFs and address verification forms and sent to the SAO for entrance on the database and for assignment. Place in env- lope marked \"FOUR YEAR OLD APPLICATIONS.\" Enter student information on the database and record ID# on completed PIF. During the pre-registration period the computer system will be modfied to allow all schools to assign students registering for the 1993-94 school year to a special district. This modification will allow schools to enter all students who register on the database without assigning them to their school. At the end of the registration period a list can be generated from the computer identifying students to be assigned for the 1993-94 school year. Place the PEF in a TO BE ASSIGNED file and hold for the initial assignment process. For students requesting an optional enrollment, enter the PIF information on the database and then place the entire PIF and Address Verifiction Form and Optional Enrollment Request Form (stapled together) in the special envelope labeled: Student Assignment Office Data Entry Department SEND IN THE SCHOOL MAIL DAILY 7B. SECONDARY SCHOOLS 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Parents/guardians of new students must register at their attendance zone school. All students under 18 years of age must be accompanied by an adult School staff will verify the students address and check it against the attendance zone map. If the student does not live in your attendance zone, refer the parentZguardian to their attendance zone school for registration. If the students address is in your attendance zone, give the parent/guardian instructions for completing the Pupil Information Form and the Address Verification Form. Advise the parent/guardian of the required documents. a. Required documents: 1. Certified copy of birth certificate or visa/passport. 2. Proof of address (lease agreement, current utility bill, personal property tax bill). 3. Social Security number b. The following information MUST be supplied on the form: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. First, Middle, and Last name Race Sex Address Date of Birth Last School attended and grade 7. Social Security number (See page 27) If the parent cannot provide the required documents, the registration cannot be completed. Advise the parent to obtain necessary document(s) and return to complete the registration process. Check completed PIF against required documents. If the parent wishes to request an optional school enrollment, allow him/her to complete an Optional Enrollment Request Form (OERF). Staple the OERF to the student's PIF. Give the \"parent copy\" (yellow) of the Optional Enrollment Request Form to the parent. Enter student information on the database and record ID# on completed PIF. During the pre-registation period the computer system will be modified to allow all schools to assign students registering for the 1993-94 school year to a special district. This modification will allow schools to enter all students who register on the database without assigning them to their school. At the end of the registration period, a list can be generated from the computer identfying students to be assigned for the 1993-94 school year. For students requesting an optional enrollment, enter the PIF information on the database and then place the entire PIF, Address Verification Form and Optional Enrollment Request Form (stapled together) in the special envelope labelled: SAO, Data Entry Dept. SEND IN SCHOOL MAIL DAILY 8OPTIONAL ENROLLMENT REQUEST PROCEDURES Parents/guardians who wish to request an assignment to a school other than the attendance zone school may do so by completing an Optional Enrollment Request Form (OERF). All optional enrollments are subject to desegregation requirements and capacity. Optional Enrollment Requests will be accepted for the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. Incentive Schools (for non-attendance zone students) High School Kindergartens Magnet Schools Interdistrict Schools Parents/guardians of kindergarten/new students who wish to request an optional enrollment should complete the Optional Enrollment Request Form when they pre-register their child at the attendance zone school. Parents/guardians of current students who wish to request an optional enrollment for the next school year may complete an Optional Enrollment Request Form at the students current school during the pre-registration period each year. Students presently on the magnet school waiting list do not need to reapply unless rising to another organizational level. After the pre-registration period has closed, parents/guardians wishing to request an optional enrollment must do so at the Student Assignment Office. No optional enrollment requests will be accepted between February 22 and March 12. The school staff should give the parent/guardian instructions for completing the Optional Enrollment Request Form. Forms should be made available only to LRSD parents who request them. a. Parent should read the information provided on the Optional Enrollment Request Form before completing the form. b. Parents of elementary students may make up to four (4) choices. Choices must be prioritized in numerical order (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th). Choices may be made from one or all of the categories, not to exceed the maximum of four choices. Parents of secondary students may make up three (3) choices. Students whose optional enrollment requests cannot be granted will be placed on a prioritized waiting list. Parents will receive written notification of approval/denial of their Optional Enrollment Request. When the parent/guardian has completed the Optional Enrollment Request Form, the school staff should check the form for accuracy and forward to the SAO as follows: (NOTE: Make sure you give the Parent Copy (yellowl of the OERF to the parents'). a. b. c. For kindergarten/new students, staple the OERF form to the PIF. For current students, mail the OERF to the Student Assignment Office. (Current students do not need to complete a PIF.) Place all forms in the special envelope labelled: 9STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE DATA ENTRY DEPARTMENT SEND IN SCHOOL MAIL DAILY. REMINDER: EIBLING PREFERENCE DOES NOT APPLY TO MAGNET SCHOOLS. North Little Rock District students call: 771-8010 Pulaski County Special School District students call: 490-2000 10ADDRESS CHANGE PROCEDURES Parents/guardians are required to report address changes immediately to the schools main office. Students who process address changes have the option to remain at their current school or to transfer to the new attendance zone school (if space is available and the assignment complies with desegregation requirements). THE DISTRICT WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR TRANSPORTATION IF STUDENTS ELECT TO REMAIN AT THEIR CURRENT SCHOOLS. The address change procedures are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Before the address change can be processed, the parent/guardian must present one of the following documents as verification of their new address: a. Lease Agreement b. Sales Contract c. Personal Property Tax Bill d. Current Utility Statement (a drivers license or check book will not be accepted) Parent/guardian should complete a Pupil Information Change Form and an Address Verification Form (including those who wish to remain at the current school). The school staff person should give the parent/guardian instructions for completing the Pupil Information Change Form. When the parent has completed the necessary forms, the school staff person should: a. Check the Pupil Information Change Form against the required document, b. Complete the Official Use Only box on the Address Verification Form, c. Write in new zone blockin the box labelled \"ZONE/BLOCK\" on the Pupil Information Change Form. d. Check to make sure the parent has indicated whether to reassign student. If the parent/guardian wants the student to remain at the current school: a. Write the students LD. Number in the appropriate box. b. Enter new address and zone block (map grid) on database c. Retain a copy of the Pupil Information Change Form for your files. If the parent/guardian requests a transfer to their new attendance zone school: a. Check the district-wide attendance zone map for the new attendance zone school. b. Write the new zone block in the box labelled ZONE/BLOCK on the Pupil Information Change Form. c. Write your school number in the upper right comer of the Pupil Information Change Form. d. Return the Pupil Information Change Form and Address Verification Form to the parent/guardian and refer them to the new attendance area school for assignment 117. Schools receiving students as a result of an address change should: a. Follow the kindergarten/new student procedures for assigning students. . b. If the student cannot be assigned, the school should forward the Pupil Information Change Form and the Address Verification Form to the Student Assignment Office for reassignment. Write \"Reassignment: accross the top of the Pulil Infomation Change Form.The Student Assignment Office will be responsible for notifying the parent of the students reassignment and placing the student's name on the attendance zone school waiting list 12PROCEDURES FOR ASSIGNING STUDENTS ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE ZONE SCHOOLS** Kindergarten/new students will be assigned to their attendance zoned schools based on their current home addresses. Assignments will be made on the basis of the Little Rock School Districts desegregation requirements, assignment preferences and capacity. The ratio of each school and of each grade within the school will be considered in making assignments. The minimum and maximum black percentages constitute the desegregation requirement, or acceptable range. Seats will be reserved to ensure compliance with desegregation requirements. A SCHOOL CANNOT ASSIGN AND/OR ENROLL A NON-ATTENDANCE ZONE STUDENT WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION FROM THE STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE. The acceptable range for Elementary Schools is 40.00% - 74.00%. 1. 2. 3. 4. Before the assignment process begins, each school will receive the following information from the Student Assignment Office: (See chart page 20) a. The maximum capacity for each grade level-(count screen,'94) b. The current assignment count for each grade level.-(count screen,'94) c. The minimum number of black students allowed at each grade level.-(chart p.2O) d. The maximum number of black students allowed at each grade level.-(chart p.20) e. The current black percentage for each grade level and the school.-count screen f. Waiting list During the initial assignment process, March 1-3, 1993, all grades 1-6 students living in the schools attendance area will be assigned to the school as long as the assignment satisfies desegregation and capacity requirements. If demand exceeds supply, a lottery will be used to fill vacant seats. Every effort will be made to install portable buildings in order to accom- date overflow situations at a particular grade level. If a portable building cannot be installed, the student will be re-assigned to the nearest school that has a seat available in his/her feeder zone. ALL '94 KINDERGARTEN STUDENTS WILL BE ASSIGNED BY THE SAO. Sibling preference will be given to kindergarten/new students who have siblings currently enrolled in the attendance zone school. Sibling preference is subject to desegregation and capacity requirements. To complete the assignment process: March 1-3 a. Determine the number of seats available for black and white students at each grade level. See Student Assignment count screen - Option 7- Student Management Menu and Chart on Page 20 **ALL KINDERGARTEN, MAGNET, INCENTIVE AND INTERDISTRICT SCHOOLASSIGNMENTS WILL BE MADE BY STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE.b. Refer to the waiting list provided by the SAO. Students on the waiting list must be assigned before new attendance zone students are assigned to a school. c. Remove PIFs from the \"To Be Assigned: file and sort them by grade level. Then sort by race within each grade level. d. Identify students who are to receive sibling preference. Assignments can be made as long as capacity and desegregation requirements are met. If demand exceeds supply, a lottery will be used to fill vacant seats. PIFs for students who cannot be assigned must be forwarded to the Student Assignment Office for assignment e. For the remaining students, assignments can be made as long as capacity and desegregation requirements are met. If demand exceeds supply, a lottery will be used to fill vacant seats. PIFs for students who cannot be assigned must be forwarded to the Student Assignment Office for an alternate assignment and placement on the waiting list. 5. When all assignments have been completed, the school staff person should complete the PIFs as follows: a. For students who have been assigned: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Write your school number in the box labelled SCHOOL NO. Write the current date in the box labelled ENTRY DATE. Write the entry code (04) in the box labelled ENTRY CODE Enter assignment on computer (option 3 - Student Management Menu). Sign your name in the SUBMITTED BY: Place \"green copy\" in special envelope. b. For students who cannot be assigned: 1. Write your school number in the box labeled (zone school). 2. Write REASSIGN across the top of the PIF. 3. Send in the school mail by March 3,1993 6. 7. 8. 9. On March 15 you should order a print out showing 93-94 assignments. Attendance zone schools resume pre-registration March 15 - June 9,1993. Student Assignment Office is responsible for summer registration June 10 - July 23, 1993. No registration will be accepted July 26-30,1993. Place all forms in the special envelope labelled: STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE DATA ENTRY DEPARTMENT SEND IN THE SCHOOL MAIL BY March 3,1993 14STUDENT ASSIGNMENT CHART Elementary Acceptable Racial Range CLASS SIZE OF 20 STUDENTS (Kindergarten) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 I I I I I I I I MINIMUM WHITE STUDENTS MINIMUM BLACK STUDENTS MAXIMUM WHITE STUDENTS MAXIMUM BLACK STUDENTS CLASS SIZE OF 23 STUDENTS (Grades 1-3 average) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 I I I I I I I I MINIMUM WHITE STUDENTS MINIMUM BLACK STUDENTS MAXIMUM WHITE STUDENTS MAXIMUM BLACK STUDENTS CLASS SIZE OF 25 STUDENTS (Grades 1-3 maximum, Grades 4-3 average) 1 2345678 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2021 22232425 I I I I I I I MINIMUM WHITE STUDENTS MINIMUM BLACK STUDENTS MAXIMUM WHITE STUDENTS MAXIMUM BLACK STUDENTS CLASS SIZE OF 28 STUDENTS (Grades 4-6 maximum) 1 2345 67 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I I I I I I I I MINIMUM WHITE STUDENTS MINIMUM BLACK STUDENTS MAXIMUM WHITE STUDENTS MAXIMUM BLACK STUDENTS 151. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. WAITING LISTS Any student who cannot be assigned to his/her attendance zone school due to capacity or desegregation requirements will be placed on a waiting list for that school. An updated waiting list will be sent to all area schools before March 1, 1993. These waiting lists will be used for 1993-1994 pre-registration process. Students on the waiting lists will be assigned before new attendance zone students are assigned to a school. Schools should assign these students the week of March 1-3,1993. All students on a 1992-93 waiting list will be moved up on the list to the next grade for the 1993-94 school year. (NOTE) This does not apply to students rising to the next organizational level or students who have been retained. If a new attendance zone student cannot be assigned because of desegregation requirements or capacity, the students Pupil Information Form (PIF) will be forwarded to the Student Assignment Office for an assignment. ALL additions and deletions to waiting list will be made by the Student Assignment Office immediately after assignments are made by the attendance zone schools, (week of March 1- 3,1993) The Student Assignment Office will be responsible for assignments during the period of June 10 - July 23. Students on the waiting lists will be assigned before new attendance zone students are assigned to a school. If a new attendance zone student cannot be assigned because of desegregation requirements, the student will be reassigned to the nearest school in the feeder zone that meets desegregation requirements and has a seat available. In such cases, these students will be added to the waiting list for the attendance zone school. Every effort will be made to install portable buildings in order to accommodate overflow situations at a particular grade level. If a portable building cannot be installed, the student will be reassigned to the nearest school that has a seat available in his/her feeder zone. Updated waiting lists will be sent to all area schools during the week of July 26  July 30. Schools will be responsible for assigning students from the waiting lists. The Student Assignment Office will maintain waiting lists for all interdistrict magnet schools, incentive schools, and interdistrict schools The SAO will also maintain all waiting lists for reassigned students, high school kindergarten students, and pre-kindergarten students. 16Incentive School Assignments\nThe Student Assignment Office will make all assignments to incentive schools and will maintain the incentive school waiting lists. Incentive schools staff should follow the elementary school pre-registration procedures steps 1-7 (see page 6) and send aU PIFS to the SAO daily. Magnet School Assignments: Transfers to magnet schools will be granted prior to Octoberl of each school year and during semester break. All magnet school assignments will be subject to desegregation requirements and capacity. A request for an assignment to a magnet school cannot be granted if it adversely affects the desegregation requirement for either the sending or receiving school. The Student Assignment Office will be responsible for making all magnet school assignments and maintaining all magnet school waiting lists. A random selection process (a lottery) will be used to assign students to magnet schools at entry level positions (K, 7th, 10th grades). Students who are not currently on a waiting list must complete an Optional Enrollment Request Form (OERF) in order to be added to the magnet waiting list.. Students who are not selected for immediate placement in a magnet school will be placed on a waiting list for that school. Students on the previous years waiting lists will receive preference for magnet school vacancies in the current school year. A students rank on a waiting list will be determined by a random selection process. However, first choice magnet options will be ranked above second choice options, etc. Students who live in the shadow of a magnet will receive preference at entry level grades. Parents will be contacted by the SAO when their child's name has advanced to the top of the waiting list and a seat is available. Assignments to Washington Basic Skills/Math-Science Magnet School: Assignment to Washington will be open to students from the Pulaski County Special School District or the North Little Rock School District based on majority-to-minority provisions and on the provisions of Act 609 of 1989 (theSchool Choice law). LRSD non-attendance zone students should complete an OERF. The racial population at Washington should reflect 55% black, 45% white. Preference will be given to students in the Little Rock School District who live in the attendance zone for Washington School. Assignments to Dunbar International Studies/Gifted and Talented Magnet School: Seventh graders will be assigned from the Dunbar attendance zone and through the OERF process. nPulaski County Special School District and North Little Rock School District students may transfer to Dunbar through the majority-to-minority transfer program. Preference will be given to students in the LRSD who live in the attendance zone for Dunbar. (Sixth grade students who live in the Dunbar attendance zone will be given the option to transfer to another school if they have no interest in the magnet program. (The SAO will contact these sixth grade students by mail prior to the pre-registration period to determine which students desire an alternate assignment. All alternate assignments are subject to desegregation requirements and capacity. Parents will be notified of their child's assignment by March 10,1993. Any alternate assignments will be made by the Student Assignment Office.) Assignments to Henderson Health Science Magnet: Seventh graders will be assigned from the Henderson attendance zone and through the OERF process. Pulaski County Special School District and North Little Rock School District students may transfer to Henderson through the majority-to-minority transfer program. Assignments to Central High School International Studies Magnet: Students from the North Litde Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District will be able to participate in the international studies curriculum at Central High School through the majority-to-minority transfer program. Little Rock students will use the OERF form to request an assignment to the international studies program at Central. Assignments to McClellan Business/Communications Magnet: Students from the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District will be able to participate in the business/communications program at McClellan High School through the majority-to-minority transfer program. Little Rock students will use the OERF form to request an assignment to the business/communications program at McClellan Interdistrict School Assignments: Interdistrict schools are schools with specialty themed programs which supplement the regular elementary curriculum. These schools are intended to attra\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 "}],"pages":{"current_page":1838,"next_page":1839,"prev_page":1837,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":22044,"total_count":81191,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":319},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":53},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":43},{"value":"online exhibitions","hits":38},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":15},{"value":"study guides","hits":11},{"value":"annotated bibliographies","hits":9},{"value":"learning modules","hits":6},{"value":"worksheets","hits":6},{"value":"slide shows","hits":4},{"value":"quizzes","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":40200},{"value":"StillImage","hits":35114},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":4552},{"value":"Sound","hits":3248},{"value":"Collection","hits":41},{"value":"InteractiveResource","hits":25}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Peppler, Jim","hits":4965},{"value":"Phay, John E.","hits":4712},{"value":"University of Mississippi. Bureau of Educational Research","hits":4707},{"value":"Baldowski, Clifford H., 1917-1999","hits":2599},{"value":"Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","hits":2255},{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":2077},{"value":"WSB-TV (Television station : Atlanta, Ga.)","hits":1475},{"value":"Newman, I. DeQuincey (Isaiah DeQuincey), 1911-1985","hits":1003},{"value":"The State Media Company (Columbia, S.C.)","hits":926},{"value":"Atlanta Journal-Constitution","hits":844},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":778}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"African Americans--Civil rights","hits":9441},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":8347},{"value":"African Americans","hits":5895},{"value":"Mississippi--Race relations","hits":5750},{"value":"Race relations","hits":5607},{"value":"Education, Secondary","hits":5083},{"value":"Education, Elementary","hits":4729},{"value":"Segregation in education--Mississippi","hits":4727},{"value":"Education--Pictorial works","hits":4707},{"value":"Civil rights demonstrations","hits":4436},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":3530}],"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":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1809},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1709},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1282},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1071},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":858},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":814},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":719},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":674},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":626}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":2598},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1909},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1704},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1331},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1070},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":856},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":806},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":625},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":605},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":580},{"value":"Williams, Hosea, 1926-2000","hits":431}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1763},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1670},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":965},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":704},{"value":"Memphis Sanitation Workers Strike","hits":366},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":337},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":306},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":214},{"value":"Poor People's Campaign","hits":180},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":173},{"value":"University of Alabama Integration","hits":140}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":17820},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":5428},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":5151},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":4862},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4610},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":4177},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3943},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2910},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":2579},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2430},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":2387}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Georgia","hits":12843},{"value":"Alabama","hits":11307},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":10219},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":8503},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":4583},{"value":"Texas","hits":4399},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3770},{"value":"Florida","hits":2601},{"value":"Ohio","hits":2391},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1893},{"value":"New York","hits":1667}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":10514},{"value":"1963","hits":10193},{"value":"1965","hits":10119},{"value":"1956","hits":9832},{"value":"1955","hits":9611},{"value":"1964","hits":9268},{"value":"1968","hits":9243},{"value":"1962","hits":9152},{"value":"1967","hits":8771},{"value":"1957","hits":8460},{"value":"1958","hits":8242},{"value":"1961","hits":8241},{"value":"1959","hits":8046},{"value":"1960","hits":7940},{"value":"1954","hits":7239},{"value":"1969","hits":7235},{"value":"1950","hits":7117},{"value":"1953","hits":6968},{"value":"1970","hits":6743},{"value":"1971","hits":6337},{"value":"1977","hits":6280},{"value":"1952","hits":6161},{"value":"1972","hits":6144},{"value":"1951","hits":6045},{"value":"1975","hits":5806},{"value":"1976","hits":5771},{"value":"1974","hits":5729},{"value":"1973","hits":5591},{"value":"1979","hits":5329},{"value":"1978","hits":5318},{"value":"1980","hits":5279},{"value":"1995","hits":4829},{"value":"1981","hits":4724},{"value":"1994","hits":4654},{"value":"1948","hits":4596},{"value":"1949","hits":4571},{"value":"1996","hits":4486},{"value":"1982","hits":4330},{"value":"1947","hits":4316},{"value":"1985","hits":4226},{"value":"1998","hits":4225},{"value":"1997","hits":4202},{"value":"1983","hits":4174},{"value":"1984","hits":4065},{"value":"1946","hits":4046},{"value":"1999","hits":4018},{"value":"1945","hits":4017},{"value":"1990","hits":3937},{"value":"1986","hits":3919},{"value":"1943","hits":3899},{"value":"1944","hits":3895},{"value":"1942","hits":3867},{"value":"2000","hits":3808},{"value":"2001","hits":3790},{"value":"1940","hits":3764},{"value":"1941","hits":3757},{"value":"1987","hits":3657},{"value":"2002","hits":3538},{"value":"1991","hits":3507},{"value":"1936","hits":3506},{"value":"1939","hits":3500},{"value":"1938","hits":3465},{"value":"1937","hits":3449},{"value":"1992","hits":3444},{"value":"1993","hits":3422},{"value":"2003","hits":3403},{"value":"1930","hits":3377},{"value":"1989","hits":3355},{"value":"1935","hits":3306},{"value":"1933","hits":3270},{"value":"1934","hits":3270},{"value":"1988","hits":3269},{"value":"1932","hits":3254},{"value":"1931","hits":3239},{"value":"2005","hits":3057},{"value":"2004","hits":2909},{"value":"1929","hits":2789},{"value":"2006","hits":2774},{"value":"1928","hits":2271},{"value":"1921","hits":2123},{"value":"1925","hits":2039},{"value":"1927","hits":2025},{"value":"1924","hits":2011},{"value":"1926","hits":2009},{"value":"1920","hits":1975},{"value":"1923","hits":1954},{"value":"1922","hits":1928},{"value":"2016","hits":1925},{"value":"2007","hits":1629},{"value":"2008","hits":1578},{"value":"2011","hits":1575},{"value":"2019","hits":1537},{"value":"1919","hits":1532},{"value":"2009","hits":1532},{"value":"1918","hits":1530},{"value":"2015","hits":1527},{"value":"2013","hits":1518},{"value":"2010","hits":1515},{"value":"2014","hits":1481},{"value":"2012","hits":1467}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":500952,"missing":56},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"photographs","hits":10708},{"value":"correspondence","hits":9437},{"value":"black-and-white photographs","hits":7678},{"value":"negatives (photographs)","hits":7513},{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4462},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":3623},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":3607},{"value":"black-and-white negatives","hits":2740},{"value":"editorial cartoons","hits":2620},{"value":"newspapers","hits":1955},{"value":"manuscripts (documents)","hits":1692}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":41178},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":17554},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8828},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":6864},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2186},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":1778},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-CR/1.0/","hits":1115},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/","hits":197},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":60},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":51},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","hits":27}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Jim Peppler Southern Courier Photograph Collection","hits":4956},{"value":"John E. Phay Collection ","hits":4706},{"value":"John J. Herrera Papers","hits":3288},{"value":"Baldy Editorial Cartoons, 1946-1982, 1997: Clifford H. Baldowski Editorial Cartoons at the Richard B. Russell Library.","hits":2607},{"value":"Sovereignty Commission Online","hits":2335},{"value":"Strom Thurmond Collection, Mss 100","hits":2068},{"value":"Alabama Media Group Collection","hits":2067},{"value":"Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","hits":2033},{"value":"Rosa Parks Papers","hits":1948},{"value":"Isaiah DeQuincey Newman, (1911-1985), Papers, 1929-2003","hits":1904},{"value":"Lillian Eugenia Smith Papers (circa 1920-1980)","hits":1887}],"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":8885},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":8146},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":4102},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":4024},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3854},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3292},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3212},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2874},{"value":"Mississippi. Department of Archives and History","hits":2825},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":2633},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":2264}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":80736},{"value":"Collection","hits":455}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":80994},{"value":"true","hits":197}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}