Appendix — Arkansas State Board of Education v. Little Rock School District

Supreme Court brief1988

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

JOSEPH F. SPANIOL, UR,

renin.

Supreme Court. Us.

FILED

87-2085 JUN 20 1988

No. 87-

3n the CLERK

Supreme Court of the United States

Octnber Term, 1987

Arkansas State Board f Education, Jeff Starling, Earle Love,

Robert L. Newton, L.D. Harris, Harry P. McDonald, Alice L.

Preston, Elaine Scott, Walter Turnbow, and Nancy Wood,

| Petitioners,

Little Rock School District; Lorene Joshua, as next friend of

minors Leslie Joshua, Stacy Joshua and Wayne Joshua; Rev.

Robert Willingham; Sara Matthew as next friend of Khayyam

Davis and Alexa Armstrong, Mrs. Alvin Hudson as next friend

of Tatia Hudson; Mrs. Hilton Taylor as next friend of Parsha

Taylor, Hilton Taylor, Jr., and Brian Taylor; Rev. John M.

Miles, as next friend of Janice Miles and Derrick Miles; Rev.

Robert Willingham on behalf of and as President of the Little

Rock Branch of the NAACP; Lorene Joshua on behalf of and as

President of the North Little Rock Branch of the NAACP,

Respondents

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX TO

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

H. WILLIAM ALLEN*

H. WILLIAM ALLEN, P.C.

1200 Worthen Bank Building

Little Rock, AR 72201

(501) 374-7100

HONORABLE J. STEVEN CLARK

Attorney Genera! of the

State of Arkansas

Heritage West Building

Little Rock, AR 72201

(501) 371-2007

Counsel for Petitioners

*Counsel of Record

;

eee

]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

March 4, 1987 District Court Opinion Below .............. 1

November 7, 1985 Eighth Circuit Opinion Below ..... ..53

= eee, eee ee) eee eee 6 Ae eee ee ee. eee, ee ke

LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL

DISTRICT, Plaintiff,

PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.

1; North Little Rock School District; Arkansas State Board of

Education; Wayne Hartsfield; Walter Turnbow; Harry A.

Haines; Jim Dupree; Dr. Harry P. McDonald; Robert L.

Newton; Alice L. Preston; Jeff Starling; Earle Love; Bob

Lyon; John Ward; Judy Wear; Leon Barnes; Marianna Gosser;

Steve Morley; Mac Faulkner: Bob Moore; Don Hindman;

Shirley Lowery; Sheryl! Dunn; David Sain; Bob Stender;

Grainger Williams; Richard A. Giddings; George A. McCrary;

Buddy Raines; and Dale Ward, Defendants,

Katherine Knight, Individually and as President of The

Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association (LRCTA); LRCA;

Ed Bullington, Individually and as President of The Pulaski

Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT); Pact; John

Harrison, Individually and as President of The North Little

Rock Classroom Teachers Association (NLRCTA); NLRCTA;

and Milton Jackson, Individually and as a Non-Certified

Educational Support Employee of the Little Rock School

District, Lorene Joshua, as next friend of minors Leslie

Joshua, Stacy Joshua and Wayne Joshua; Rev. Robert

Willingham; Sara Matthews, as next friend of Khayyam

Davis, Alexa Armstrong and Karlos Armstrong; Mrs. Alvin

Hudson, as next friend of Tatia Hudson; Mrs. Hilton Taylor,

as next friend of Parsha Taylor, Hilton Taylor, Jr. and Brian

Taylor; Rev. John M. Miles, as next friend of Janice Miles and

Derrick Miles; Rev. Robert Willingham on behalf of and as

President of the Little Rock Branch of the NAACP; Lorene

Joshua on behalf of and as President of the North Little Rock

Branch of NAACP, Intervenors.

2°

No. LR-C-82-866.

United States District Court,

E.D. Arkansas, W.D.

Feb. 27, 1987.

Order March 4, 1987.

INTERIM ORDER ENFORCING MANDATE

OF COURT OF APPEALS

HENRY WOODS, District Judge.

In conformity with the opinion of the Court of Appeals

dated November 7, 1985, 778 F.2d 404 (8th Cir.), and the

ensuing mandate, a hearing was held on January 29-30,

1987, to consider the recommendation of the Magnet

Review Committee concerning the locations, themes, dates,

operation, transportation, seat allocations, targeted ratios,

and administration of the magnet schools in this county.

January 29th and 30th were devoted to testimony adduced

by the Magnet Review Committee on behalf of its plan.

The hearing was adjourned to continue the week of

February 17, 1987 a presentation of the magnet school plans

of the other parties and a critique of the plan of the Magnet

Review Committee. At the close of the testimony on

January 30, I suggested that the parties again confer and

attempt to reach an agreement on the magnet school

portion of the Eighth Circuit mandate. (R. 568-69)

On February 17, 1987, the hearing was resumed to

take up not only the magnet school issues but also the

student assignment plans submitted by the Pulaski County

Special School District (hereafter PCSD), (sic) the North Little

Rock School District (hereafter NLRSD), and the Little Rock

School District (hereafter LRSD). The three districts

= eo eo ee Ct

and the State Department of Education then advised the

court that they had agreed by stipulation to a magnet school

plan for the County which had been submitted to the

Magnet Review Committee and approved by the latter. (R.

577). In open court the Joshua intervenors advised that they

had no objections to the stipulation and were in general

agreement with its terms. Since the Knight intervenors had

not been party to the negotiations leading to the stipulation,

they declined to approve the plan but interposed no

objection thereto. I have examined the stipulation in detail.

In my opinion it is an excellent compromise of the many

complex issues involved in magnet schools. The stipulated

settlement is in all respects approved. A copy of the

stipulation is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is

incorporated by reference in this order.

All of the parties except the Joshua and Knight

intervenors have also stated in open court that the

provisions of the Magnet Review Committee Report dated

January 22, 1987 (MRC) not superseded by Exhibit A were

stipulated as binding on the three districts and the State

Board of Education. (R. 582-21). The Magnet Review

Committee Report is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The

stipulation and agreement as aforesaid are approved in all

respects.

On behalf of all the parties, the attorney for the Little

Rock District dictated into the record some minor

supplemental understandings in connection with Exhibit A.

(R. 577) These understandings have been reduced to letter

form and have been marked as Exhibit C to this order and

are incorporated herein by reference. These

understandings are approved as supplemental to Exhibit A.

One issue remains with reference to the magnet

schools presently in existence. That is the question of

whether the students presently at the three magnet schools

should remain and finish at the schools which they have

been attending. Based on the evidence presented, I am

convinced that the past success of these schools is the best

argument for continuing the present student body as much

as possible. Involved parents, black and white, of children

attending these schools have contributed greatly to their

success and have invested a huge amount of time and

energy in making these schools outstanding. It would be a

mistake in my opinion to dump these students and start

anew. There will of course be attrition and new seats

available through graduation, but the students presently

enrolled in Booker, Mann and Williams shall have a right to

continue in these schools.

The responsibilities of the Magnet Review Committee,

as agreed by the three districts and the State Board of

Education, appear at pages 1 and 2 of Exhibit B hereto. The

Committee shall be financed as agreed by the parties with a

budget of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000)

with Seventh-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000) or half to be

paid by the State and Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars

($25,000) by each of the three districts.

The MRC will necessarily work closely with the three

districts and the State in order to have the six magnet

schools ready for the 1987-88 school year. The MRC should

report to the court on May 1, 1987, on July 1, 1987 and again

on September 1, 1987 to inform the court of progress made

in implementing the magnet schools. While the reports need

not be lengthy, so as to be burdensome to the MRC,

certainly the MRC reports should keep the court abreast of

the status of critical aspects of implementation of the

magnets including: renovations, teacher recruitment, staff

training and development, community input and

involvement, and student recruitment.

The Joshua intervenors and the Knight intervenors

have both asked for representation on the Magnet Review

Committee by a voting membership. I am unable to comply

with this request. The Court of Appeals set forth in clear

and unequivocal terms the makeup of the Magnet Review

rm)

eel Bill

a i os

| a |

ee: ee ee, | ee

— — a 6 | oe

Committee. At the request of all the parties, I did give the

Joshua intervenors a non-voting member of the Committee.

This was a modification agreed upon by all the parties that

did not affect the basic structure of the Magnet Review

Committtee. The request of the Joshua intervenors and the

Knight intervenors for a voting representation on the

Magnet Review Committee is hereby denied.

The financing of the magnet schoo! plan has been

stipulated; it is approved as covered in the stipulation

(Exhibit A) and in the opinion of the Court of Appeals. In

addition to the financing relating to magnet schools and to

majority-to-minority transferes, there is only one other

reference to state financing in the Court of Appeals

decision, Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County

Special School District, 778 F.2d 404, 435 (8th Cir. 1985):

If the four all-or nearly all-black elementary schools as

conditionally allowed by this Court in Clark v. Board of

Education of Little Rock, 705 F.2d 265 (8th Cir. 1983),

are retained in LRSD, compensatory and remedial

programs of the type that we required for the

nonintegrated schools in St. Louis shall be put into

effect for the four schools. See Liddell v. State of

Missouri, 731 F2d [1924] at 1312-18 [8th Cir. 1984]. The

additional cost of these programs shall be paid for by

the State of Arkansas.

Since there are no all-black schools in the LRSD student

assignment plan, the conditions are not present which would

trigger state financing of compensatory education, as is obvious

from the above language. The Little Rock District has

requested other funding from the State. None of the funding is

required by the Court of Appeals ruling. The State's share of

the magnet school funding will be considerable. It will strain

the already meager resources of the State at a time when the

State has committed itself to new standards for all Arkansas

public schools. Although the blacks in Little Rock have suffered

from the ravages of segregation, so have the blacks in every

section and every county of the State. Significantly the new

state standards provide for compensatory education for all

students where performance is sub-standard. (State Exhibit

MX 285).

The parties have agreed upon a system for handling

majority-to-minority transfers. The stipulation setting forth

this agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit D, is approved and

is incorporated herein by reference. The three districts and the

Joshua intervenors have also agreed upon a Pulaski County

Education Cooperative for staff development, distribution of

audio visual resources, “teacher center” activities, purchasing

and other cooperative efforts of mutual benefit. The stipulation

establishing the cooperative venture, attached hereto as

Exhibit E, is approved.

After carefully considering the student assignment plan

submitted by the PCSD (sic), I have decided that it must be

rejected for the reasons set forth in the record at pages 615-17.

The district was given two weeks to submit an alternative plan.

At the time the County's student assignment plan is con-

sidered, the court will deal with the other criticisms set forth by

the Court of Appeals.

The broad outline of the student assignment plan

submitted by the LRSD is hereby approved. Detailed

assignments have been awaiting the resolution of the magnet

school issues. The Little Rock District is hereby authorized to

proceed with its student assignment plan as submitted to the

court in March, 1986.

The North Little Rock School District was found to

have purposefully committed a number of segregative acts,

including the following which had an interdistrict effect: (a)

failed to assign blacks to its central administration or to high

school principalships and coaching positions; (b) concentrated

whites in schools north of and blacks in schools south of

Interstate 40; (c) assigned students to special education

classifications on a discriminatory basis and (d) failed to

apportion the burdens of transportation equally on black and

_—

white students. Little Rock School District v. Bulask: County

584 F.Supp. 328, 353 (E.D. Ark. 1984). These findings were

affirmed by the Court of Apeals. Little Rock School Dutret '

Pulaski County Special School District, T78 F 2d 404, 422 (5th

Cir. 1985).

In March, 1986, the NLRSD submitted an implementation

plan designed to remedy the interdistrict effects of ‘ts

constitutional violations. (March plan). Subsequently, in

October of 1986, the NLRSD submitted a supplement to its

implementation plan (supplement plan) which addressed

remediation of intradistrict impact of its prior segregative acts

The NLRSD student assignment plan, the “Storm Plan,

has been in effect for a number of years. When properly

implemented, the Storm Plan provides for a constitutiona)

student assignment system and for equitable busing burdens

between blacks and whites. According to its March plan, al)

NLRSD schools are currently desegregated and deficiencies

found by this court have been corrected. This evidence was

uncontradicted at the June, 1986 hearing.

The NLRSD plan includes a detailed staff recruitment

component which, if implemented, should result in substantia!

gains in the area of recruitment and promotion of blacks to

positions where they are currently underrepresented. Supple

mentally the NLRSD has agreed to develop numerical! goals

and timetables for increasing the number of blacks to these

positions. (Supplement plan 2.1).

Remediation of the unconstitutional over-representation of

blacks in “special education” classes consumes most of the

NLRSD’s March implementation plan. As with the rest of its

plan, if put into effect as proposed, the imbalance caused by the

categorization of inordinate numbers of black students as

“retarded” would be eliminated. NLRSD has suggested several

important monitoring procedures to insure compliance.

(Supplement plan, 3.1).

The NLRSD supplement plan also addresses remedies

for intradistrict segregative acts. In the area of

compensatory education for black children who continue to

suffer the trickle-down effects of past segregation, the

NLRSD plan proposes an early childhood program. The

program includes a testing process so that educationally

disadvantaged children, both black and white, can be

identified and targeted for help at an early age. For the

early grades, that help will be provided through teacher

aides who will provide one-tc-one tutoring, through

supplementary reading instruction, and through

implementation of the State Minimum Performance Tests.

Reading remediation will also be provided at the junior high

school level, as will computer assisted instruction in basic

skills with individualized programs.

The NLRSD supplement plan includes a number of

programs aimed at the problem of students who leave

school prematurely or “drop out.” The excessively high

dropout rate of blacks in the NLRSD is one of the most

pressing problems for the blacks in that district. Proposed

programs such as the WIN (We Intervene Now) and SAC

(Student Assignment Class—which serves students who

are suspended from their regular classes) are sound and

should prove beneficial.

The violation relating to the disproportionate numbers

of black students who are suspended or expelled for

disciplinary reasons has largely been eliminated. For

example, in the 1985-86 school year, 48% of the suspended

students were black. While this percentage is somewhat

higher than the actual percentage of black students enrolled

(40%), the deviation is not so great as to indicate a

continuing problem at this time. Expulsions are now

infrequent (only 20 over the last three years) and are now

made only by the board of education, after a hearing.

The NLRSD has made strides in improving the

participation of black students in its Gifted and Talented

$8.5. vee os i eee ee. Sa ey Be ox Bee ee

program. The NLRSD supplement plan includes a number

of safeguards to insure identification of black children who

are gifted/talented but culturally disadvantaged. In

addition to the screening tests which recognize cultural

differences (i.e. System of Multicultural Pluralistic

Assessment), the NLRSD now uses an identification

process which involves nominations and recommendations

based on multiple criteria from a number of people. The

ultimate placement of a child in the program is a group

decision. (Supplement plan 8.1-8.4).

In sum, the NLRSD has made great progress in each

area where it was found to have been deficient. The

NLRSD’s March 1986 plan, as supplemented in October

1986, reflects a solid and workable approach, if

implemented, to end segregation in that school district. The

NLRSD plan is hereby approved in all respects.

ORDER -_

[5] The Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)

was found purposefully to have committed a number of

segregative acts with an interdistrict effect: (a) failed to

comply with a 1968 desegregation court order (Zinnamon v.

Board of Education of the Pulaski County Arkansas Special

School District, No. LR-CR-C-154); (b) constructed schools in

locations which ensured that they would become racially

identifiable; (c) failed to allocate the burden of busing

equitably between black and white students; (d) failed to

hire and promote black teachers and staff; (e) refused to

allow deannexation to or consolidation with the North Little

Rock School District (NLRSD) and the Little Rock School

District (LRSD); (f) failed to assign students to schools in

such a way as to maximize desegregation; (g) assigned

students to special education classifications and gifted

programs on a discriminatory basis; (h) assigned black

principals to schools with high black enrollments; (i) created

and maintained a racial imbalance in almost half its schools;

(j) closed and downgraded schools in black neighborhoods

and failed to build new schools there. Little Rock School

District v. Pulaski Co. Special School District, 584 F.Supp.

328, 353 (E.D. Ark. 1984). These findings were affirmed by

the Court of Appeals. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski

County Special School District, 778 F.2d 404, 418 (8th Cir.

1985).

Many of the violations have already been

cured—either by court order or by affirmative actions of

the PCSSD. The deannexation/consolidation violation has

been cured by the redrawing of boundary lines which

separate the districts. The failure to comply with Zinnamon

includes the failure to appoint black members to the PCSSD

board. By order of this court dated December 1, 1986, the

PCSSD will now elect board members from zones.

According to the plan submitted and approved, one of the

zones will be majority black and another will be 40% black,

58% white and 2% other. This remedy supercedes that

portion of Zinnamon dealing with black school board

members. The ceding of the Granite Mountain area from

LRSD to PCSSD includes the transfer of public housing

areas to PCSSD. Moreover, there are apparently other

public housing developments in the PCSSD. PCSSD

Exhibits 18 and 20 in June, 1986, hearing. PCSSD has

created a new position in the superintendent’s office, the

Coordinator of Housing and Integration. This staff person

will, among other duties, relate to realtors, developers and

planning agencies. PCSSD Exhibit R-2, p. 4. The PCSSD

student assignment plan will soon be submitted and at that

time the issues of desegregation in student assignments

andequitable allocation of busing burdens will be addressed.

School site selection involves two separate violations.

First, the construction of new schools where they are likely

to be racially identifiable and second, the closing or

downgrading of schools closest to centers of black

population. Since this lawsuit was filed, the PCSSD board

has adopted a policy making desegregation and equal access

to school primary goals in decisions to build, renovate, or

discontinue use of a school. PCSSD Implementation Plan,

March 1986 (hereafter PCSSD Plan) Appendix B. The

Coordinator of Housing and Integration obviously should

have input into sites for proposed new construction. While

no schools have been constructed during the pendency of

this case, two new elementary schools are now proposed.

The sites chosen conform to the board’s new policy and are

approved. In that same vein, progress has been made

recently in improving the physical plants in schools such as

Harris and Scott which were racially identifiably black.

The PCSSD has made continuous progress in hiring

and promoting black faculty. An affirmative action plan was

adopted by the PCSSD board in 1984, which has apparently

been successful. As of November, 1985, 22.6% of the PCSSD

teachers were black as compared with a 23.6% black

student population. PCSSD Plan Appendix I. Further, the

district has a goal to have black teachers make up 20-30% of

the faculty in each school in the district. PCSSD Plan,

Appendix I.

Similarly, the affirmative action plan for

administrative staff appears to have been successful,

although there remains underrepresentation in two specific

categories: coordinators and directors. In spite of these

specific areas which should be carefully monitored, the

percentage of black administrators (24.7%) is good and

indicates a positive step toward curing this deficiency.

The overrepresentation of blacks in special education

classes can perhaps best be remedied through the use of

culturally unbiased screening and subsequent monitoring.

The PCSSD plan includes both of these elements. The result

of the plan has been a marked drop in the percentage of

blacks classified as requiring special education. PCSSD

Plan, Appendix G. While the percentage of blacks

designated for special education is 4.2% higher than the

percentage of white children so designated, that deviation

is within an acceptable range.

The PCSSD plan includes a commitment to assure

black student participation in extracurricular activities.

Notably, in the 1985-86 school year, black students

comprised 28% of the membership in extracurricular

activities. PCSSD plan, Appendix G. An affirmative

recruitment plan will be implemented to remedy under-

representation in activities where it occurs. PCSSD Plan,

Appendix H.

The foregoing proposals of the PCSSD desegregation

plan represent not only a turn in the right direction, but also

significant progress toward achieving a unitary school

district. While much remains to be done, much has been

accomplished. Accordingly, this portion of the PCSSD

desegregation plan is hereby approved.

i) hea

il oo eo el oe eel el eee eel oon eee oe ee

ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee

EXHIBIT A

STIPULATION FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING MAGNET SCHOOLS

The undersigned parties have agreed to make the

following described recommendation to the Magnet Review

Committee for its consideration in formulating its

recommendation regarding magnet schools.

LOCATIONS AND THEMES

The parties have agreed to recommend the following

magnet school locations and programs:

Target

School & Program Grade Enrollment

Carver — Basic Skills K-6 475

Math-Science

Williams — Basic Skills K-6 530

Booker — Arts K-6 720

Gibbs— Foreign Language/ K-6 348

International Studies

Mann-— Math-Sciences/Arts 7-9 975

Parkview — Arts-Performing Arts 10-12 1150

Total 4198

The curriculum at magnet schools will emphasize the

magnet theme and all magnet students must fully

participate in magnet courses. As well as the magnet theme,

all magnet schools will have strong academically-oriented

curricula.

New magnets or expansion of magnets already existing

may be provided for in subsequent school years beginning

1988-89 under the provisions of the Order of September 3,

1986. Any party may present applications for a magnet

school or program not later than the beginning of each

school year preceeding the proposed year of implemen-

tation. The Committee’s decision and recommendation shall

be submitted to the parties no later than November 15. The

MRC shall make its recommendation to the Court not later

than December 15.

IMPLEMENTATION

The parties propose that the District Court order the

implementation of the six (6) aforementioned magnet

schools for the 1987-1988 school year. The host district shall

provide to the MRC and to the parties its implementation

timetable at the time a magnet proposal is submitted to the

Court.

FINANCING

The parties agree to the financing formulas proposed

by the Magnet Review Committee at the hearing held on

January 29 and 30, 1987. These formulas require the State

to pay one-half ("/2) of the actual costs of the construction or

renovation of magnet schools as well as the customary state

aid and one-half ('/2) the cost of educating the magnet

seat, and said seat is not occupied by any other student, will

be required to pay to the host district as its full liability for

said unfilled seat the per child cost of the host district’s debt

service payment, both principal and interest, for the

construction or renovation of the schools in the magnet

program. The host district will provide separate accounting

and budgeting information regarding the magnet program

to the Magnet Review Committee for review.

INTERDISTRICT

TRANSPORTATION PLAN

The State Board of Education remains committed to

underwriting the entire actual cost of transporting magnet

and M-to-M transfer students, which includes the cost of

]

mel ll el ee ee ee ee co ee el oe ee oe ee

a |

SEES OEE lee ee ee ee ee ee et eet

transporting these students for extra-curricular activities.

The districts agree that transportation of magnet/M-to-M

students should be performed utilizing measures which are

most cost efficient. The interdistrict transportation plan

shall not be used as a means to seek compensation for

additional transportation vehicles unless such vehicles are

directly necessary because of the interdistrict

transportation plan. New full-sized school buses purchased

in order to transport magnet/M-to-M students will be added

to the total transportation fleet costs and applied on a pro

rata basis to the transportation of magnet/M-to-M students.

The cost of any other vehicles purchased to transport

isolated magnet/M-to-M students will be prorated according

to their actual use in transporting magnet/M-to-M students.

Each district agrees to separately account for the costs of

transporting magnet/M-to-M students and to make those

records fully available to representatives of the State

Department of Education at any reasonable time.

The parties agree that the Interdistrict Transportation

Plan for both magnet schools and M-to-M transfers will be

administered by an Interdistrict Transportation Authority

(ITA). The ITA shall be composed of the Transportation

Director or other designee of each district and a

representative of the State. The parties agree that any

conflict may be determined by a U.S. Magistrate acting as a

Special Master for the District Court.

SEAT ALLOCATION

All magnet schools shall have a student population

which is fifty percent (50%) black and fifty percent (50%)

non-black. The parties agree that for the 1987-88 school year

the magnet school seats shall be allocated according to the

following formula: Twenty-five per centum (25%) of the

capacity of a magnet school shall be reserved for the shadow

area in the host district. The remaining seventy-five per

centum (75%) of the seats shall be allocated to each of the

three districts in proportion to that district’s percentage of

county-wide students at each school level (elementary,

junior high, or senior high). At the elementary level each

district shall allocate its seats in proportion to the racial

ratio present in such district at the elementary level. At the

secondary level, each district shall allocate all its seats on

the basis of 50% black, 50% non-black. However, the total

number of seats assigned to the North Little Rock School

District shall not exceed 475 seats with no more than 100

seats being allocated to the North Little Rock School

District from Parkview.

It is understood that seat allocations will not be made

by district to a particular school, but only by elementary,

junior high and senior high level. Therefore, a particular

district will be permitted to use its allocated seats in

accordance with the desires of its students subject to space

limitations in particular magnet schools and the

maintenance of a 50-50 racial balance. If there is

oversubscription among the districts by race, grade or

school each district may make a recommendation to the

MRC for its approval regarding actual distribution of seats.

The three districts agree that each district will establish an

open enrollment policy for magnet schools and will be

permitted to determine how children will be selected for the

magnet seats allocated to each district pursuant to that

policy. This provision shall not prohibit the establishment of

geographic preference areas where appropriate.

In the event there are unused seats by any district then

persons on waitig lists to attend from the other districts

shall be permitted to attend before any seat is left vacant.

No student attending a magnet school will be considered as

an M-to-M transfer student for incentive payment purposes.

TARGETED RATIOS

The parties have previously submitted to the Court a

proposed stipulation for M-to-M transfers which in part

ee aS ESS ee ee ee ie i ee

recognizes that if M-to-M transfers occur, ratios targeted by

any of the districts for particular schools might be affected

depending upon the locations from which M-to-M transfers

occur. The parties in that stipulation agreed that the first

priority should be a successful M-to-M transfer program

and that if it did affect targeted ratios, such departures

would not be regarded or urged as constitutional violations

or departures from desegregation plans. The parties

further recognize that a successful operation of the magnet

school program could potentially have the same or similar

effects upon targeted ratios. The parties therefore

recommend that any magnet transfers not be counted as a

departure from a desegregation plan or urged as a

constitutional violation.

LITTLE ROCK MAGNET GRANT

The parties agree and recommend that, should the

Little Rock District now or in the future prove successful in

obtaining grants for the operation of magnet schools, any

such monies shall be applied off the top to the obligations of

all parties. The parties further agree and recommend to the

Court that they cooperate in the development of an

application for any future magnet grants.

ADMINISTRATION

The daily administration and operation of the magnet

schools shall be the responsibility of the host district. The

host district shall designate a person who shall have

principal responsibility for overseeing the development and

implementation of its magnet program.

STUDENT RECRUITMENT

The parties agree that the Magnet Review Committee

shall establish a Magnet/M-to-M Educational Team (MET).

The major responsibilities of the MET shall include

community education and information dissemination of

educational opportunities in the magnet programs and

recruitment for both magnets and M to M transfers. It shall

report to the MRC. The MET shall be composed of the

person from each school district and the State responsible

for desegregation planning, and two additional persons

selected by each of the following parties:

Joshua Intervenors

Little Rock School District

North Little Rock School District

Pulaski County Special School District

State of Arkansas

These additional representatives of the MET shall not

be employees or officials of any of the districts or the State.

February 16, 1987

PCSSD Administrative Offices

The Magnet Review Committee (MRC) endorses the

foregoing stipulations.

Pulaski County Special School District

/s/ Gene Jones

North Little Rock School District

/s/ James R. Smith

Little Rock School District

/s/ Jesse L. Rancifer

le ee ee ee Oe —Eeeeeee

Arkansas Department of Education

/s/ Marcia A. Harding

Arkansas Department of Education

/s/ Morris F. Holmes

EXHIBIT B

MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE

REPORT TO THE COURT

January 22, 1987

The Honorable Henry Woods

U.S. Federal District Court

Eastern District of Arkansas

P.O. Box 3683

Little Rock, Arkansas 72203

Dear Judge Woods:

The Magnet Review Committee submits for your

consideration the attached report including nine separate

recommendations concerning magnet schools in Pulaski

County.

The committee is prepared to present the report orally

with supporting information as you may direct.

Sincerely,

/s/ Gene Jones

Gene Jones, Chairman

Pulaski County Special School

District

/s} Morris F. Holmes

Morris Holmes

Arkansas Department of Education

/s/ Marcia A. Harding

Marcia Harding

Arkansas Department of Education

(See Attached Minority Report)

/s/ Jesse Rancifer

Jesse Rancifer

Little Rock School District

/s/ James R. Smith

James Smith

North Little Rock School District

I. INTRODUCTION

The Magnet Review Committee (MRC) has been

charged by the District Court with “planning an

interdistrict magnet school program.” The MRC's duties

and responsibilities set forth in the Court's order include:

® considering plans and proposals for magnet schools

submitted by the parties and hearing evidence in relation

thereto;

@developing interim proposals for consideration by

the parties;

® evaluating segregative and desegregative effects of

magnet school proposals;

®@ making findings and recommendations to the court

concerning the number, location, staffing, racial ratios, and

themes of magnet schools;

@ making recommendations as may be necessary to the

efficient operation and administration of magnet schools;

@ monitoring, evaluating and recommending changes

in the actual operation of the magnet schools implemented;

and

@ making an annual report to the court pertaining to

the approved interdistrict magnet school programs.

The court directed that this report with the MRC's

recommendations be submitted on or before January 22,

1987. This document addresses that charge. The report is

organized into the following major areas: I. Introduction; II.

Activities of the Magnet Review Committee; and III.

Recommendations.

II. ACTIVITIES OF THE MAGNET REVIEW COMMIT

EE (MRC)

Parties appointed representatives to the MRC as

directed by the Court. Currently those serving on the MRC

are:

Mr. Gene Jones (White), Chairman, Pulaski County

Special School District

Dr. Reginald Avery, Ex-Officio (Black), Vice-Chairman,

Joshua Intervenors

Ms. Marcia Harding (White), Arkansas Department of

Education

Dr. Morris Holmes (Black), Arkansas Department of

Education

Dr. Jesse Rancifer (Black), Little Rock School District

Mr. James Smith (White), North Little Rock Schoo!

District

The MRC first met on September 24, 1986 and agreed

to meet weekly at sites to be determined at each meeting.

The Committee also agreed to and held additional meetings

as they became necessary. At the September 24 meeting,

the MRC organized itself into a working group and began

developing the rules and procedures that would govern its

mission.

Under the rules and procedures developed by the

Committee, the following activities were conducted:

@The MRC considered all plans and proposals that

were submitted for magnet schools by the parties

represented on the Committee.

@ The MRC heard evidence and considered the views

presented by the parties represented on the Committee.

@The MRC evaluated both the segregative and

desegregative effects of all proposals for magnet schools.

@The MRC reviewed demographic data on each

district.

@ The MRC secured consultative assistance from Dr.

Bennat Mullen, Director of the Technical Assistance of the

Southwest.

@The MRC visited the Williams Magnet School, the

Mann Science Magnet School, and the Booker Arts Magnet

School, all located in the Little Rock School District. At each

school, a discussion of the school’s philosophy, goals and

objectives was conducted with the principal and various

staff.

@The MRC reviewed considerable research and

information on magnet schools and added to this knowledge

by visiting magnet schools in Cincinnati, Ohio, and St.

Louis, Missouri. Both visits provided valuable insight on the

operation of magnet schools.

= SP SS Se SP SP Se eS Se ee

ba:

The Arkansas Department of Education has exercised

a positive leadership role in all activities of the Magnet

Review Committee. ADE Director Tommy Venters and his

staff developed thoughtful proposals which had a major

impact on the Committee’s recommendation. Additionally,

The Department allowed Dr. Angelo Coppola to work full

time for the Committee doing valuable research and data

gathering.

III. RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Magnet Review Committee Organization

1. General Organization

Membership and general responsibilities have been

outlined for the MRC in the District Court order. The MRC

believes this order sufficient to address the membership

issue and recommends that each party retain discretion in

appointing its representatives on the MRC. The MRC has

proven itself capable of handling the additional

organizational aspects of the Committee’s work and will

continue to do so in the future.

2. Staffing and Funding

Efficient and effective operation of the Magnet Review

Committee is critical to the success of desegregating the

public schools of Pulaski County, Arkansas. In order to

function effectively, the MRC recommends it have a staff

consisting of at least two staff members — one professional

and one support. In addition to a staff, the Magnet Review

Committee requires an operating budget consisting of funds

for an office, equipment, travel, staff and consultative

services. Consultative services will be critical to data

gathering, program monitoring, evaluation and preparation

of annual reports to the Court. A budget within a range of

$100,000 to $150,000 will be needed, with 50 percent of the

cost being borne by the State and the remaining 50 percent

being shared by the three school districts.

B. Costs and Funding

1. Accounting and Budgeting:

The Magnet Review Committee recommends that

separate accounting and budgeting procedures for

approved magnet programs be maintained by the district(s)

hosting each of the programs and that magnet program

budgets receive prior review by the Magnet Review

Committee.

2. Construction/Renovations:

In accordance with the Eighth Circuit order the State

shall pay 50 percent of construction and renovation of

approved magnet schools. The remaining 50 percent shal!

be paid by the participating districts (See Attachment A,

pg. 26).

The recommendations on actual allocation and

payments are as follows. The State shall pay its 50 percent

allocation in quarterly payments upon actual expenditures

for renovation and remodeling of approved magnet schools.

The host school shall be responsible for the bond issue and

payment of the remaining 50 percent since the ownership

and management shall stay with that host school. The two

remaining districts shall pay their prorated share by the

inclusion of debt service payment, both principal and

interest, in figuring the cost per child for those children

participating from their respective districts.

In the event that allocated seats are not filled by any

district, the district to which that seat was allocated shall

pay the host school the per child cost of their debt service

payment, both principal and interest.

el el oe ee el oe ee oe

za Te ee eee OT eee Oe eee ee, OS ee Oe

Since the State would have met its obligation up front

there will be no debt service payment of principal and

interest figured into the State’s 50 percent cost per child for

operation of magnet schools.

It is recommended that the State be a full partner in all

phases of construction and renovation, from selection of the

architect to final approval.

3. Operating Costs:

The Magnet Review Committee recommends funding

the operating costs for the approved interdistrict magnet

programs as outlined in Attachment B, pgs. 27-32. The

figures used for examples were determined using 1986-87

school year data. This data will change with the change in

local wealth, increase or decrease in WADM, and increase

or decrease in State funding.

In compliance with the Eighth Circuit order, the State

will pay to each district the table rate that each respective

district qualifies for that school year. In addition to the

table rate (Customary State Aid) per District, the state will

pay 50 percent of the cost per student for operation of the

magnet schools less the transportation cost and debt

service cost. As a result, those students attending magnet

schools will not be counted in any District’s WADM for aid.

C. Interdistrict Magnet Programs Staffing

The men and women selected to staff each of the

magnet programs are responsible and accountable for

assuring parents and the community that quality exists in

both the process and product of schooling. The staff's

performance should evidence their beliefs that all children

can learn, that the school makes a difference, and that a

desegregated school environment has positive effects on

the schooling and lives of students.

1. Staff Composition

The staff should be composed of appropriately certified

and otherwise highly qualified educators. The MRC

recommends that the staff represent a 50-50 ratio of Black to

White administrators and teachers. If such a ratio is not

possible to attain at the time the magnet programs open, a

goal should be set to achieve the ratio within a reasonable

time frame.

To help ensure interdistrict and community ownership

and support, effort should be taken to attract

administrators and teachers from the three school districts.

2. Staff Selection

The actual selection, hiring and evaluation of the

magnet program staff is the responsibility of the district

operating the magnet program. However, the MRC will

assist with the development of criteria for staff selection, as

well as monitor and evaluate magnet school program effects

on student learning and desegregation.

D. Community Participation

The Magnet Review Committee advocates that the

community should participate in planning and developing

interdistrict magnet programs developed after the initial

year of desegregation. We therefore recommend that a

community-school partnership model be adopted by the

districts in accomplishing the continuing work of the

magnet schools. Such a model would include the following

components:

1. Awareness Campaign

Awareness activities are necessary to:

a. Establish within the community and schools a sense

of the need for a partnership;

b. stimulate interest in the community-school

partnership; and

c. motivate involvement in such a partnership.

2. Public Education Campaign

The community must be provided with a base of

information about educational equity and excellence in a

desegregated environment and about the issues in this case.

Such information should include, but not be limited to, the

following:

a. History of desegregation efforts in this community

b. Impacts/effects of court rulings and desegregation

plans

c. Explanation of how the community-school

partnership works in planning and implementing

desegregation

d. Orientation to issues related to educational equity

3. Needs Assessment

It is important to identify needs and decide upon

priorities among them. Such a process should be utilized to

ensure that citizens and educators have the opportunity to

participate in quality education planning.

4. System for Processing Input

A system must exist for acting upon community input

to planning. This is necessary to any sincere effort to

establish and maintain community involvement and support

for educational equity and excellence in a desegregated

environment. The following process is an example of a

system which encompasses this aim.

eSE S| SESE CUTS eee ee lee ie ie lle lle ll

Any individual or group is encouraged to submit

ideas to the district aimed at affecting educational

equity including, but not necessarily limited to, ideas

for magnet schools and specialty programs.

The district sorts and channels the ideas(s) [sic] to

appropriate group(s) for consideration.

The designated group(s) does the following:

Analyzes the ideas

Makes a recommendation (develop, postpone,

reject)

Corresponds with the author regarding the deci-

sion

.If the idea is supported, broader community

comment is solicited to determine the public’s

reaction to the proposed idea. The method

previously described to involve the community can

be applied here.

. If support is apparent, individuals are identified to

more fully develop the concept into a proposal, which

is then shared with the school board.

The district plans and holds public hearings on the

proposal following a period of publicity to stimulate

public interest.

.The School Board considers the community

reactions and recommendations in decisionmaking

on the proposal.

. If approved by the Board, the program is readied by

the district staff, publicized as appropriate, and

implemented.

el cee cee ee eee ee ee ee ee cee ee eee ee ee pe

eet eee eet ee et ie Cle it Clee lee Ell j..J

i. As part of the evaluation of each program’s

effectiveness relative to educational equity and

excellence in a desegregated environment, parent/

community satisfaction should be assessed and

considered before modifications are made.

With minimal modifications, a system of this type will

work equally as well at the building level (for school-based

management) as at the district-wide level.

Additionally, when a proposal is made for the

establishment or modification of an approved magnet school

program, steps would be included to provide for the

proposal to be brought before the Magnet Review

Committee for consideration and endorsement.

E. Transportation

In fulfilling its responsibility to provide, either directly

or indirectly, the magnet program students with

transportation, the MRC recommends that the State keep

in mind two primary considerations, these being:

1. delivery of magnet school students to their

designated schools in a safe, orderly and expedient manner;

and

2. cost efficiency.

F. Student Enrollment Guidelines

1. Racial Ratios

The Magnet Review Committee recommends that a

50-50 Black to White ratio be used for magnet program

enrollment.

2. Seat Allocation

The Committee further recommends reserving the

first 25 percent of the seats in each magnet school for

students in the host district who live in the shadow of the

school.

The remaining 75 percent of the seats in magnet

schools should be allocated to the three districts on the

proportional formula based on the percentage of each race

residing in the affected district. The formula will be revised

to maintain the mandated 50-50 ratio.

3. Existing Magnet Programs

The Committee recommends that students presently

attending existing magnet schools should be allowed to

continue in those schools as appropriate, but that seats in

incoming grades and seats vacated by attrition be allocated

to North Little Rock School District and Pulaski County

Special School District on the interdistrict formula

described above.

G. Interdistrict Magnet School Programs

The MRC recommends that six schools in the Little

Rock School District become approved magnets. This

proposal incorporates the continuation of the three magnet

schools currently in existence and suggests the addition of

Carver, Dunbar, and Gibbs. A total of 3,722 students can be

educated in the interdistrict magnet programs

recommended.

In this section of the report, the MRC’s rationale for

the inclusion of each proposed school is discussed.

1) Williams Magnet School (K-6)

The Little Rock School District has recommended the

continuation of Williams as a “basic skills” magnet school

for elementary students. As presently operated, Williams

has continued to attract students since 1982. The waiting

list of children whose parents would like to have them

attend Williams now stands at 396, indicating much interest

in the school and its program. We recommend the

continuation of the Williams Magnet School. We also

recommend that those characteristics which appear to have

made the program a success be carefully studied prior to

making any changes. The Magnet Review Committee, in

conducting its monitoring and evaluation activities, will

monitor practices such as ability grouping relative to

possible segregative and desegregative effects.

2) Booker Arts Magnet (K-6)

Booker is also recommended for continuation as an

elementary arts magnet. Because it appears to be a highly

successful program, the MRC recommends its continuation.

The $916,000 estimated by Little Rock for construction and

renovation of Booker appears to be too high. We believe

that the projects proposed for these funds could be done for

less money. This issue is addressed in more detail in the

section of the report which deals with construction and

renovation costs.

3) Mann Junior High Arts and Sciences Magnet (7-9)

The Mann program has entered its fourth year with a

science magnet program which is a “school within a school,”

serving approximately 300 students in grades 7-9. Making

the entire school a junior high science magnet next year has

been considered. However, its waiting list consists of only

eight students, hardly enough, even when combined with

students from Pulaski County and North Little Rock to fill

the school with over 1,100 junior high students all eager to

study the sciences.

The MRC recommends instead that Mann Junior High

School become an “arts and sciences” magnet. To combine

these themes within one magnet school would accomplish

several objectives. First, it would bring together junior

high students with strong interests and/or aptitude in two

major areas but who may not yet be either willing or ready

to narrow their choices entirely to one field or the other.

For elementary students interested in the arts, it would

provide a natural extension for children now attending

Booker, but it would also help to expand, rather than

narrow, students’ participation in other fields of knowledge.

_ It would accommodate the present math/science program

(300 students) as well as the number of students who

presumably would have gone to East Side under another

proposal. It would be far less expensive than renovating

East Side. It has an auditorium with a seating capacity of

1,100 and a gymnasium which could be useful for various

arts activities as well as science presentations and exhibits.

It is closely located to Booker and the Arts Center, thus

providing opportunities to both schools to utilize

consultants, artists in residence, craftsmen, and

performers. We support the continuation of Mann as a

magnet school. However, we believe that students

interested in both the arts and sciences could be

accommodated there.

4) Carver Math and Science Magnet (K-6)

* The Little Rock District contends that Carver should

become a magnet school because it will be impossible to

desegregate the school otherwise. It proposes to tear down

the present structure and relocate it on other land

somewhere in the neighborhood that has not yet been

purchased. Carver is said to be improperly located on its

present school site, and the playground particularly

difficult to maintain because of neighborhood vandalism.

Little Rock has proposed that Carver become a “basic

skills” school similar to Williams, though without the dress

code and without ability grouping. The District views the

[

—

“basic skills” theme as one particularly likely to generate

parent support. The MRC agreees that the basic skills

theme is likely to generate support, but we also believe that

a basic skills program which emphasizes mathematics and

science would enhance this school. In recommending Carver

as a magnet, the MRC advises caution in changing

characteristics which appear to have made the other basic

skills program a success.

We envision a science program at Carver which would

not only enable youngsters to study the sciences through

hands-on laboratory experiences but would also enable

them to take part in such national competitions as /nvent

America, a program which encourages creativity and

problem solving in the development of new inventions and

the uses of technology. Carver could also host science fairs

and exhibits for other students in the area, as well as

throughout the State, and could serve as a model for other

districts in Arkansas.

5) Dunbar International Education Complex (K-9)

In order to provide more magnet choices for parents

and students at an affordable cost, the MRC recommends

that Dunbar and Gibbs (which are located adjacent to each

other) become a magnet school complex with an

international studies and global cultures theme.

Gibbs would provide the elementary (K-6) program and

Dunbar would provide the junior high (7-9) program. We

believe this magnet program holds excellent promise for

offering an educational program that truly prepares

youngsters for life and work in the twenty-first century.

Such preparation means, in large measure, preparing a

populace who can understand, interact with, and appreciate

people representing many different cultures. A school

experience that provides opportunities for growth,

development, and understanding in these areas will be

crucial for our continued success in the world. We must

educate young people who can function effectively as the

citizens our country must have in the “global village” in

which we live.

Included in the K-9 curriculum at the Dunbar

International Education Complex would be foreign

languages, technology, multi-cultural studies, international

rziations, geography, government, and law. Students would

be involved in cross-age grouping and multi-disciplinary

studies and would have opportunities to learn within their

own miniature “global village,” consisting of the two

campuses. They would learn about the operation of

government through functioning in a “micro-society” which

would require their full participation. Student exchange

programs would be encouraged. Teachers would also be

exchanged among schools to provide specialized educational

opportunities for students of different ages. Satellite

instruction would bring programs to the schools from

throughout the country. School “walls” would be minimized

as students participated in “community” activities intended

to strengthen and enhance the culture of the school and

community and their understanding and appreciation of

individual differences among themselves. These schools

would establish linkages with the UALR Visitor Center, the

business community, UCA, and the city’s international

community. The Complex could host “Academic Olympics”

for other schools throughout the State. It would serve as an

educational model for other schools in the State, showing

how schools could be structured in such a way as to prepare

youngsters for effective and intelligent participation in

local, national, and world communities.

Benefits.to be derived from the Dunbar International

Education Complex are as follows:

(a) A continuous program in grades K-9 would be

provided with themes that would foster multi-cultural

understanding, exploration of international studies and

global cultures, and the study of languages.

(b) A program such as the one described for the

Complex would serve as a model for providing students

with an “internationally competitive” education.

Quarter, Dunbar Alumni Association, UALR Internationa!

Visitor Center, Arts Center, etc.) would enrich the

international studies program.

(d) Programs in these schools appear to have a good

possibility of meeting the three objectives of magnet

schools as stated by the Court, i.e., to provide quality

education, serve as a tool for achieving integration, and

attract white students back to the Little Rock Schoo!

District.

(e) The Complex could host contests, exhibits, and

cultural events for other students throughout the State and

could serve as a model program for other districts.

Attachment C, page 33, visually displays the MRC's

proposal for interdistrict magnet school programs.

H. Governance

The Magnet Review Committee recommends that the

day-to-day operations of magnet schools be the

responsibility of the host school district.

I. Extended Day Care

The Magnet Review Committee recommends that self.

supporting extended day care services be available for

students at each of the interdistrict magnet schools.

A substantial number of parents living in the

metropolitan area drive long distances to work each day.

The Committee believes that the availability of extended

day care services will

desegregative effects of the magnet schools.

substantially enhance the

The cost associated with the extended day care

services shall not be included in the operating costs of the

magnet schools.

ATTACHMENT A

FACILITIES REPORT

CONSTRUCTION/RENOVATION

LRSD State Building Services Revised

Building Estimate Report Estimate

Carver $ 2,420,000 Deduct $350,000 for land

purchase

$ 2,070,000 12% too much contingency

($248,400) $1,821,600.00

Booker $ $16,000 8% too much contingency

($73,280) $ 842,720.00

Mann $ 2,511,400 9% too much contingency

($226,026) $2,285,374.00

Williams None

Dunbar $ 1,220,000 20% too much contingency

($244,000) $ 976,000.00

Gibbs $ 605,800 5% too much contingency

($30,290) $ 575,510.00

TOTAL $6,501,204.00

STATE’S PORTION $3,250,602.00

—_— eo FSF FS OFS PES oe

ATTACHMENT B

MFPA CALCULATIONS

UNDER ACT 34

(SCHOOL FINANCE ACT)

RESOURCES:

Real property assessment times 19 mills (.019).

Personal property assessment (year before base year)

times current revenue divided by base year revenue

times 45 mills (.045).

3. Utility assessment (year before base year) times

current revenue divided by base year revenue times 45

mills (.045).

4, Seventy-five (75) percent of miscellaneous revenue.

5. Masters’ degree credit.

Calculations:

6. 1+ 2+ 3 + 4 — 5 = Resources

7 Resources divided by WADM = Resource Rate

8. State Base Equalization Rate minus Resource Rate =

Table Rate

9. Table Rate times WADM = MFPA (Minimum

Foundation Program Aid)

MAGNET SCHOOLS

BASE DATA

Magnet School Students Total 3,722

Little Rock (25% shadow) 931}

plus 43% of 2791 1200} 2,131

Pulaski County — 40% of 2791 1,116

North Little Rock — 17% of 2791 475

TOTAL EXPENSE*

BUDGET 86-87 ADM _ EXP/ADM + 12%**

Little Rock $49,510,543 19116 $2,590.01 $2,900.81

No. Little Rock $24,633,000 9419 $2,615.25

Pulaski County $69,057,078 30015 $2,300.75

State Base Equalization Rate = $1,687.02

Table Rates (State Aid per Student):

Little Rock $ 635.86

North Little Rock $ 986.04

Pulaski County $1,136.17

* Does not include transportation costs

**12% has been added to the Little Rock expense per ADM for estimated increased operation

costs for magnet schools within the Little Rock School District.

LITTLE ROCK 3

Magnet School Expense Per Student $2,900.81

Expense for Regular Student $2,590.01

Number of Magnet School Students 2131

State Aid per Student (Table Rate) $ 635.86

[

The State will pay one half of the expense of the Magnet

Schools plus the State Aid.

$2,900.81 divided by 2 = $1,450.41 State’s share

$1,450.41 — $635.85 = $814.55 Cost per student for a Little

Rock student.

$814.55 x 2,131 = $1,735,806 Little Rock’s costs for magnet

students.

Little Rock’s expense for a regular student is $2,590.01.

$2,590.01 less $1,687.02 (State Base Equalization Rate) =

$902.99 Expenditure per regular student.

$902.99 (available funds for each student) less $814.55 = $88.44

Excess funds per magnet student over and above Little

Rock’s cost.

$88.44 x 2131 = $188,466 Total incentive savings for Magnet

participation

NORTH LITTLE ROCK

Magnet School Expense Per Student $2,900.81

Expense for Regular Student (North

Little Rock) $2,615.25

State Aid Per Student (Table Rate) $ 986.04

Number of Magnet School Students 475

The State will pay one half of the expense of the Magnet

Schools plus the State Aid.

$2,900.81 divided by 2 = $1,450.41 State’s share.

$1,450.41 - $986.04 = $464.37 Cost per student for a

North Little Rock student.

$464.37 x 475 = $220,576 North Little Rock’s cost for magnet

school students.

North Little Rock’s expense for a regular student is $2,615.25.

$2,615.25 less $1,687.02 (State Base Equalization Rate) =

$928.23 Expenditure per Regular student.

$928.23 (available funds for each student) less $464.37 =

$463.86 Excess funds per magnet student over and above

North Little Rock’s cost.

$463.86 x 475 = $220,334 Total incentive savings for magnet

participation.

PULASKI COUNTY

Magnet School Expense per Student $2,900.81

Expense for Regular Student (Pulaski County) $2,300.75

State Aid per Student (Table Rate) $1,136.17

Number of Magnet School Students 1116

The State will pay one haif of the expense of the Magnet

Schools plus the State Aid.

$2,900.81 divided by 2 = $1,450.41 State share.

$1,450.41 — $1,136.17 = $314.24 Cost per student for a Pulaski

County Student.

$314.24 x 1116 = $350,692 Pulaski County's cost for magnet

school students.

Pulaski County’s expense for a regular student is $2,300.75.

$2,300.75 less $1,687.02 (State Base Equalization Rate) =

$613.73 Expenditure per regular student.

$613.73 (available funds for each student) less $314.24 =

$299.49 Excess funds per magnet student over and above

Pulaski County’s cost.

$299.49 x 1116 = $334,231 Total incentive savings for magnet

participation.

SUMMARY OF MAGNET SCHOOL COSTS

Total number of students — 3,722

Total Cost of Magnet Students— $2,900.81 x 3,722

$10,796,815

State will pay a total of $8,489,760*

Districts will pay a total of $2,307,055

*Note that Customary State Aid is included in this figure. Cost to the State in

excess of Customary State Aid $2,210,672.

ATTACHMENT C

PROPOSAL FOR MAGNET SCHOOL PROGRAMS

ESTIMATED

STUDENT RECOMMENDED BUILDING

SCHOOL CAPACITY - THEMES RENOVATION COSTS

Williams 432 Basic Skills None

Booker 478 Fine Arts $ 842,720

Mann 1,194 Arts & Sciences $2,285,374

Carver 478 Math & Science;

Basic Skills $1,821,600

unbar 792 International Studies;

Global Cultures $ 976,000

ibbs 348 International Studies;

Global Cultues $ 575,510

TOTALSTUDENTS 3,722 TOTAL COST $6,501,204

STATE’S PORTION $3,250,602

EXHIBIT C

KAPLAN, BREWER & MILLER, P.A.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

February 23, 1987

Honorable Henry Woods pe

U.S. District Court Judge

P.O. Box 3683

Little Rock, Arkansas 72203

HAND DELIVERED

Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County

School District, et al.

Dear Judge Woods:

Last week when the parties presented their magnet school

stipulation, I added four specific items which I dictated into

the record. The purpose of this letter is formally to make

oe co BO ee BO ee BO ee BO cee Bc ce ce ee

eoee |

ee ee ee eee

these items a part of the stipulation, and to include them

within the agreement of the parties. Those items are:

Little Rock School District commits to the

appointment at each of the magnet schools of a

contact person who will be responsible for

adjustment problems for all transfer students.

Little Rock School District commits to a tight

implementation schedule. Pursuant to that end,

Little Rock School District will, within four weeks of

the date of the execution of the magnet school

stipulation present a budget for submission to all of

the other parties and will submit a timeline for full

implementation and opening of the magnet schools.

The parties agree to the concept of grade level

continuity within the magnet school program.

Each of the parties agrees to appoint their members

of the MET by the end of the week beginning

February 23rd. PCSSD may require a few more days

but will promptly appoint its members. The parties

agree that the recruitment effort is critical to the

success of the magnet program and that each is

committed to pursuing agressively the recruitment

effort.

The parties wish to have these items included in the magnet

school stipulation.

Sincerely,

/s/ Philip E. Kaplan

Philip E. Kaplan

PEK/alh

EXHIBIT D

STIPULATION FOR PROPOSED ORDER ON

VOLUNTARY MAJORITY TO MINORITY TRANSFERS

Plaintiff Little Rock School District (“LRSD”), and

defendants Pulaski County Special School District

(“PCSSD”), North Little Rock School District (“NLRSD”),

and Arkansas State Board of Education (“State Board”),

being in agreement on the voluntary majority-to-minority

transfers, submit the following stipulations for the

proposed order:

1. Beginning in the 1987-88 school year and

continuing thereafter, LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD will

permit and encourage voluntary majority-to-minority

interdistrict transfers. The three districts will cooperate in

the development of programs to acquaint parents,

guardians and students with interdistrict opportunities.

The implementation of majority-to-minority transfer

provisions is contingent upon the implementation of all

other provisions of the remedy ordered by the Court.

2. Eligibility:

a. Black students who are members of the racial

majority at a school in any participating district

which district is 50 percent or more black in its

enrollment shall be eligible to transfer voluntarily to

a school and district in any other participating

district in which school and district they would be in

the racial minority.

b. White studeits who are members of the racial

majority at a school in a participating district which

district is more than 50% white in its enrollment

shall be eligibie to transfer voluntarily to a school

and district in any other participating district in

which they would be in the racial minority.

ce oe OE ee ee ee ce ee ee ee

, oe | _——

Lil

EE a a a

c. Prior to the transfer of any student, the home

district shall issue a statement that the transferring

student is in good standing. If the student is not in

good standing, the student may be permitted to

transfer on a provisional basis.

3. Students wishing to transfer shall file applications

with their home districts. Applications must be filed before

May 1 of the preceding school year and a student may not

transfer more than once in any school yar. The home district

will process all applications and forward copies to the host

districts. The home district will furnish its complete file on

each student with his/her application.

4. Transfer assignments will be made subject to

availability of space in schools and grade levels, and the

host districts’ ability to comply with state standards.

5. The host district shall honor the placement for the

students as certified by the home district, which shall be

communicated to the parent or guardian prior to transfer.

If, during the first semester, testing, performance, remedial

efforts, and consultation indicate that an adjustment of

placement should be made, it shall be made after the first

semester in consultation with the student’s parent or

guardian.

6. The commitment to accept a student shall be for

the duration of the student’s voluntary participation. Once a

student exercises his or her right to participate, the student

will continue in the initially selected school for at least one

full school year or until the student graduates or

affirmatively withdraws from participation as herein set

out. Students will not have to transfer each year or exercise

a transfer choice to remain in the host district. Students

shall be encouraged to continue to participate at their initial

school of choice. It is expected that the student will follow

the pattern of assigned schools for the resident students in

the school in which the transfer student first enrolls.

7. Students who have elected to transfer shall remain

students of the host district until they choose to return to

the district where they reside.

8. Host districts shall not have the authority to

remand transfer students to the home district. Host

districts shall have the authority to discipline, suspend or

expel a transfer student using the same due process

procedures applicable to resident students.

9. Once admitted, transfer students will be expected

to meet the same general standards, academic and other, as

applied to students of the host district.

10. Information about each district's academic and

disciplinary policies and procedures will be made available

to prospective transfer students on request. This should

include information on pupil-teacher ratios, promotion and

retention, counseling assistance, grading, student code of

conduct, disciplinary action, and suspension and expulsion.

11. The host district shall respond to the educational

needs of students without regard to their status as a

transfer or resident student. Transfer students shall be

eligible and encouraged to participate in all school programs

funded and sponsored by the host district (academic,

athletic, extra-curricular and other) and shall not suffer any

disability or ineligibility because they are voluntary

interdistrict transfer students. Participation in after-school

activities will be facilitated by the provision where needed

of extra-curricular buses or other forms of transportation

which will be available to all such transfer students, the cost

of which shall be borne by the State as provided in

paragraph 12.

12. The State Board shall pay the full cost of

transporting students opting for interdistrict transfers.

However, the State Board shall have the option of (1) paying

the school districts for transporting the students or (2)

—_-

contracting for the services or (3) transporting the students

with a state operated system.

13. The State Board shall pay the home and host

districts in accordance with the following procedures:

Each year school districts shall calculate and certify

to the State Board of Education their cost per

student in regular schools (grades K-12) including all

add-ons for special education, TAG, vocational

education and other purposes. The cost per student

shall include all costs for instruction and support

services minus student transportation, food service,

and restricted federal program costs. (To the extent

that the host district does not receive pro-rata

increases in restricted federal program costs by

hosting transfer students who are eligible to

participate in federal programs, the cost per student

shall be increased on a pro-rata basis for such

transfer students.) The State shall pay the costs for

full-time equivalent students who have been

transferred to the host district. Payments made for

the current year shall be based on costs for the

previous year. The host district shall report each

transfer student on forms as required by the State

Department of Education.

Each host district shall estimate the full-time

equivalent of transfer students and transmit such

estimate, along with the names of the students, to

the State in September of each year when payment

begins. A correction will be made in January of each

year. Payments shall be made by the State monthly

through forward funding to each district based upon

the September estimate as corrected. The students

transferred to the host district shall not be counted

in the number used to calculate regular state aid for

the district.

ce. Each home district shall receive from the State for

each student who voluntarily transfers from his/her

home district to a host district one-half of the State

aid (table rate) it would have received had the

student remained in his/her home district.

Information about these students shall be reported

on forms as required by the State Department of

Education and shall be reported at the same time as

the reports are made by the host district. The

students transferred from the home district shall not

be counted in the number used to calculate regular

state aid for the home district. All transfers of

handicapped students shall be contingent on the

availability of appropriate programs and resources,

as identified in the IEP, at the host school.

d. The provisions contained herein do not apply to

magnet schools and programs.

14. All parties to this stipulation recognize that the

present racial balance of the North Little Rock School

District approximates that of the entire county and they are

desirous of not upsetting that balance through the

operation of the Majority to Minority Transfer Program.

The parties further recognize that any court approved

student assignment plan by any party could be

compromised if the Majority to Minority Transfer Program

caused siginficant changes in student assignment plans. To

avoid this result, all parties agree that any party may

choose to include or not include said Majority to Minority

transfer students for purposes of student assignment under

any court order.

Further, all parties recognize that substantial

participation in the Majority to Minority program could

have the result of creating technical departures from

targeted student ratios at one or more schools. All parties

agree that any such departure resulting from the lawful

operation of the Majority to Minority program shall not

give rise to a claim or contention that such departure from

targeted ratios constitute violations of any law or

regulation and, specifically, shall never be urged or

suggested as grounds for liability in this or similar

litigation.

Additionally, any such resulting departures from

targeted ratios shall not require the districts affected to

reconstitute or recompose the student body of any affected

school.

Agreed this 26th day of August, 1986.

Pulaski County Special Little Rock School District

School District

By /s/ __M. Samuel Jones By /s/ __P.A. Hollingsworth

North Little Rock Arkansas State Board of

School District Education

By /s/ __Philip K. Lyon By /s/ __C.R. McNair

EXHIBIT E

STIPULATION OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIS

TRICT, THE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL

DISTRICT, AND THE NORTH LITTLE ROCK

SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE CREATION OF A

PULASKI COUNTY EDUCATIONAL COOPERATIVE

1. The State currently funds fifteen (15) regional

educational cooperatives to provide service to school districts

within identified geographic areas. Staff development,

distribution of audio visual resources, “teacher center”

activities, and purchasing are among the services currently

being provided.

2. The three (3) school districts in this litigation were

instructed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to explore

cooperative programs. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski

County Special School District, 778 F.2d 404, 436 [8th Cir.

1985].

3. The parties agree that an educational cooperative

should be formed and modeled after the fifteen (15) other

regional cooperatives; and ded by the State in the same

manner as the existing eratives. The name of the

cooperative should ‘be Pulaski County Educationa! Cooperative.

4. The parties to the stipulation agree the creation of

interdistrict magnet schools, M to M transfers, and interdistrict

transportation systems increase the need for cooperation and

provides new avenues for further cooperative ventures. The

opportunity to participate in cooperative ventures would

strengthen each district's ability to provide an equitable and

effective educational program for its students.

5. An interdistrict venture of this type would facilitate

each district's desegregation efforts and would aid the

avoidence of unanticipated effects of one district’s plan on the

plans of the other districts.

6. The parties agree that, within the structure of the

educational cooperative, they will explore the possibility of

cooperative efforts of mutual benefit. These will include, but

will not be limited to, discussing the possible cooperative efforts

listed by the Court of Appeals in its opinion, LRSD v. PCSSD,

778 F.2d 404, 430-31 (8th Cir. 1985).

7. The governing body of the cooperative will be

comprised of the Superintendents of the member school

districts.

Respectfully submitted,

KAPLAN, BREWER & MILLER, P.A.

415 Main Street

Little Rock, AR 72201

(501) 372-0400

HOLLINGSWORTH & HELLER, P.A.

415 Main Street

Little Rock, AR 72201

(501) 374-3420

JOHN M. BILHEIMER

324 West 14th Street

Little Rock, AR 72202

(501) 374-4944

PULLIAM LAW OFFICES, P.A.

Suite 350, Gazette Building

112 West Third Street

Little Rock, AR 72201

(501) 371-3888

By: /s/ Janet L. Pulliam

JANET L. PULLIAM

Attorneys for Little Rock School District

NEAL, GERBER & EISENBERG

208 S. LaSalle Street

Chicago, IL 60604

WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS

2200 Worthen Bank Building

Little Rock, AR 72201

By: /s/_M. Samuel Jones

M. SAMUEL JONES

Attorneys for Pulaski County Special School District

JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A.

3400 Capitol Tower

Capitol at Broadway

Little Rock, AR 72201

(501) 375-1122

By: /s/_Stephen W. Jones

STEPHEN W. JONES

Attorneys for North Little Rock School District

TED SHAW, ESQUIRE

Legal Defense Fund

99 Hudson Street

New York, NY 10013

JOHN W. WALKER, P.A.

1723 Broadway

Little Rock, AR 72206

By: /s/ _Theodore M. Shaw

Attorneys for Joshua Intervenors

H |

LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL

DISTRICT, Appellee,

Vv.

PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL

DISTRICT NO. 1; Mac Faulkner;

Charies Stratton; Don Hindman; Mack

McAllister; Shery! Dunn; David Sain;

and Mildred Tatum, Appellants.

Lorene Joshua, as next friend of minors Leslie Joshua, Stacy

Joshua and Mayne Joshua; Rev. Robert Willingham, as next

friend of minor Tonya Willlingham; Sara Matthews as next

friend of Khayyan Davis, Alexa Armstrong and Karlos

Armstrong; Mrs. Alvin Hudson as next friend of Tatia Hudson;

Mrs. Hilton Taylor as next friend of Parsha Taylor, Hilton

Taylor, Jr., and Brian Taylor; Rev. John M. Miles, as next

friend of Janice Miles and Derrick Miles; Rev. Robert

Willingham on behalf of and as President of the Little Rock

Branch of the NAACIP; Lorene Joshua on behalf of and as

President of the North Little Rock Branch of the NAACIP;

Katherine Knight, individually and as Preside". of the Little

Rock Classroom Teachers Association (LRCTA); LRCTA; Ed

Bullington, individually and as President of the Pulaski

Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT); PACT; John

Harrison, individually and as President of the North Little Rock

Classroom Teachers Association (NLRCTA); NLRCTA; and

Milton Jackson, Individually and as a Noncertified Educational

Support Employee of the Little Rock School District,

Appellees.

LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL

DISTRICT, Appellee,

Vv.

NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT; Murry

Witcher; Ginny Jones; Vicki Stephens; Leon Barnes; Marianne

Gossner; and Steve Morley, Appellants.

Lorene Joshua, as next friend of minors Leslie Joshua, Stacy

Joshua and Mayne Joshua; Rev. Robert Willingham, as next

friend of minor Tonya Willlingham; Sara Matthews as next

friend of Khayyan Davis, Alexa Armstrong and Karlos

Armstrong; Mrs. Alvin Hudson as next friend of Tatia Hudson;

Mrs. Hilton Taylor as next friend of Parsha Taylor, Hilton

Taylor, Jr., and Brian Taylor; Rev. John M. Miles, as next

friend of Janice Miles and Derrick Miles; Rev. Robert

Willingham on behalf of and as President of the Little Rock

Branch of the NAACIP; Lorene Joshua on behalf of and as

President of the North Little Rock Branch of the NAACIP:

Katherine Knight, individually and as President of the Little

Rock Classroom Teachers Association (LRCTA); LRCTA; Ed

Bullington, individually and as President of the Pulaski

Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT); PACT: John

Harrison, individually and as President of the North Little Rock

Classroom Teachers Association (NLRCTA); NLRCTA; and

Milton Jackson, Individually and as a Noncertified Educational

Support Employee of the Little Rock School District,

Appellees.

LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL

DISTRICT, Appellee,

ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; Wayne

Hartsfield; Walter Turnbow; Harry A. Haines; Jim Dupree;

Dr. Harry P. McDonald; Robert L. Newton; Alice L. Preston;

Jeff Starling; Earle Love, Appellants.

Lorene Joshua, as next friend of minors Leslie Joshua, Stacy

Joshua and Mayne Joshua; Rev. Robert Willingham, as next

friend of minor Tonya Wililingham; Sara Matthews as next

friend of Khayyan Davis, Alexa Armstrong and Karlos

Armstrong; Mrs. Alvin Hudson as next friend of Tatia Hudson;

Mrs. Hilton Taylor as next friend of Parsha Tayler, Hilton

Taylor, Jr., and Brian Taylor; Rev. John M. Miles, as next

friend of Janice Miles and Derrick Miles; Rev. Robert

Willingham on behalf of and as President of the Little Rock

Branch of the NAACIP; Lorene Joshua on behalf of and as

President of the North Little Rock Branch of the NAACIP;

Katherine Knight, individually and as President of the Little

Rock Classroom Teachers Association (LRCTA); LRCTA; Ed

Bullington, individually and as President of the Pulaski

Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT); PACT; John

Harrison, individually and as President of the North Little Rock

Classroom Teachers Association (NLRCTA); NLRCTA; and

Milton Jackson, Individually and as a Noncertified Educational

Support Employee of the Little Rock School District,

Appellees.

Nos. 85—1078, 85—1079 and 85—1081.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eighth Circuit.

Submitted April 29, 1985.

Decided Nov. 7, 1985.

Before LAY, Chief Judge, and HEANEY, BRIGHT,

ROSS, McMILLIAN, ARNOLD, JOHN R. GIBSON, FAGG

and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges, En Banc.

HEANEY, Circuit Judge.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of

Arkansas, after trial, found that the defendants Pulaski County

Special School District (PCSSD), the North Little Rock School

District (NLRSD) and the Board of Education of the State of

Arkansas (State Board) contributed to the continuing

segregation of the Little Rock schools, and that an interdistrict

remedy was appropriate. The district court ordered

consolidation of the three school districts, establishment of a

uniform millage rate, elimination of discriminatory practices,

and creation of magnet schools to enhance educational

opportunities in the new district. It held that the State Board

had remedial, financial and oversight responsibilities that would

be detailed at a later date. The defendants appeal from the

district court’s order. In addition, the Joshua intervenors,

representing black parents and students, filed a brief in support

of the district court’s judgment, and the United States filed an

amicus curiae brief in general support of the appellants.

We hold that the district court’s findings on liability are not

clearly erroneous and that intra- and interdistrict relief is

appropriate. We find, however, that the violations can be

remedied by less intrusive measures than consolidation. These

measures, most of which were suggested by the defendant

school districts or the Joshua intervenors, include authorizing

the district court to make limited adjustments, after a hearing,

to the boundaries between Little Rock School District (LRSD)

and PCSSD, correcting the segregative practices within each of

the individual school districts, improving the quality of any

remaining non-integrated schools in LRSD, providing

compensatory and remedial programs for black children in all

three school districts, authorizing the district court to establish,

after a hearing, a limited number of magnet schools and

programs open to all students in Pulaski County, and requiring

the State Board to participate in funding the compensatory,

remedial and quality education programs, in establishing and

maintaining the magnet schools, and in monitoring plan

progress. We remand to the district court for action consistent

with this opinion.

I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY.

Pulaski County is the most heavily populated

metropolitan area in Arkansas,* encompassing three

independent school districts: LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD.

The LRSD covers fifty-three square miles and comprises

about sixty percent of the City of Little Rock. Although the

population of the City of Little Rock is approximately two-

thirds white, in the 1983-84 school year, seventy percent of

LRSD’s 19,052 students were black. Along with NLRSD,

LRSD is one of the oldest continuously operating school

districts in Arkansas. The NLRSD covers twenty-six

square miles and comprises nearly all of the City of North

Little Rock. Its 1983-84 student population was 9,051 (36%

black, 64% white). The PCSSD surrounds LRSD and

NLRSD. Created in 1927 through the consolidation of

thirty-eight rural independent school districts, it covers 155

square miles and contains the remainder of the county not

included in the other two school districts. In 1983-84, it had

27,839 students (22% black, 78% white). Each of the three

districts currently operates under a court-ordered

desegregation decree, and none of the districts has achieved

unitary status.

On November 30, 1982 LRSD filed this action against

PCSSD, NLRSD, the State of Arkansas, and the State

Board. 1 On April 13, 1983, the district court dismissed the

claim against the State of Arkanas but refused to take

similar action concerning the State Board, holding that the

Board is a proper party in light of its general supervisory

relationship with the individual school districts, and the

allegations that it has carried out its duties in a manner

which increased segregation in Little Rock. The district

court concluded that the dismissal of the State of Arkansas

had no practical effect on the disposition of the lawsuit.

Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special

School District, 560 F.Supp. 876, 878 (E.D. Ark. 1983). The

district court separated the liability and remedy phases of

LRSD also named as defendants the Pulaski County Board of

Education and the individuals serving on each of the defendant boards of

education. The Pulaski County Board of Education did not participate in

this litigation. The district court states, however, that the County Board

has a remedial responsibility that has yet to be defined.

On September 29, 1983, the district court denied Little Rock's motion

to add the Governor, State Treasurer and State Auditor as defendants.

the litigation and held liability hearings from J anuary 3-13,

1984.

On April 13, 1984, the district court issued its decision

on liability, finding that PCSSD and NLRSD had failed to

establish unitary, integrated school districts and had

committed unconstitutional and racially discriminatory acts

which resulted in “significant and substantial interdistrict

segregation.” Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County

Special School District, 584 F.Supp. 328, 351-53 (E.D. Ark.

1984). It concluded that these two school districts had taken

actions which had substantial interdistrict segregative

effects on education in each of the school districts in the

county, and that the districts had failed to redress these

segregative effects which they had perpetuated for over a

century. The district court also reiterated its holding that

the State Board was a “necessary party who must be made

subject to the Court’s remedial order.” 584 F.Supp. at

352-53. It concluded that the only long- or short-term

solution to these interdistrict violations is consolidation,

and it scheduled hearings to consider the precise means to

accomplish that end.

The first remedial hearings took place from April 30

through May 5, 1984. Before these hearings were held, a

group of black parents in Little Rock, the Joshua

intervenors, sought unsuccessfully to intervene in the

proceedings. 2 They appealed, and on May 23, 1984, this

Court ordered the district court to allow them to intervene

and directed it to hear evidence from them concerning

remedial alternatives to consolidation. Meanwhile, the

defendant school districts had also appealed from the

district court’s order finding interdistrict violations and

ordering consolidation of the three school districts. On May

23, 1984, we dismissed that appeal as premature but

The district court had denied an earlier motion by Joshua to

intervene on January 3, 1984.

: . a “ ‘ . « . .

suggested that the district court reopen the proceedings to

permit PCSSD and NLRSD to advance remedial

alternatives to consolidation. Little Rock School District v.

Joshua, 738 F.2d 445 (8th Cir. 1984) (order); Little Rock

School District v. Pulaski County Special School District,

738 F.2d 445 (8th Cir. 1984) (order).

The district court held further remedial hearings from

July 30 through August 2, 1984, and heard evidence on

alternative remedial plans submitted by PCSSD, NLRSD,

and the Joshua intervenors. 3 On November 19, 1984, it

issued its decision on the remedy, reaffirming its view that

consolidation of the three school districts was necessary to

remedy the constitutional violations. It also entered further

findings concerning the State Board’s liability and

reaffirmed the State Board’s remedial responsibilities. 597

F.Supp. at 1227-28. The district court subsequently denied

motions by the defendants for reconsideration.

This appeal followed. The issues on appeal are: (1)

whether the district court’s findings of interdistrict

violations are clearly erroneous; (2) whether the district

court’s remedy exceeds the scope of the constitutional

violations; and (3) whether the proceedings before the

district court deprived the State Board and PCSSD of due

process.

Il. THE DISTRICT COURT’S FINDINGS OF INTER-

DISTRICT VIOLATIONS ARE NOT CLEARLY ER-

RONEOUS.

A. Legal Background.

The district court also heard from the McKnight intervenors,

representing the teachers employed in the three districts. Little Rock

School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 597 F.Supp.

1220, 1227 (E.D. Ark. 1984); see also Little Rock School District v. Pulaski

County Special School District, 738 F.2d 82, 85 (8th Cir. 1984) (allowing

intervention by teacher representatives).

1. Legal Standards in Desegregation Cases.

Thirty years ago, the Supreme Court decided in Brown

v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed.

873 (1954), that “in the field of public education the doctrine

of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational!

facilities are inherently unequal.” /d. at 495, 74 S.Ct. at 692.

Since Brown, the Supreme Court has affirmed the

obligation of school authorities operating segregated

schools “to take whatever steps might be necessary to

convert to a unitary system in which racial discrimination

would be eliminated root and branch.” Raney v. Board of

Education, 391 U.S. 443, 446, 88 S.Ct. 1697, 1698, 20 L.Ed.2d

727 (1968); Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430,

437-38, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 1693-94, 20 L.Ed.2d 716 (1968).

Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that “feJach instance

of a failure or refusal to fulfill this affirmative duty

continues the violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Columbus Board of Education v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449, 459,

99 S.Ct. 2941, 2947, 61 L.Ed.2d 666 (1979); Dayton Board of

Education v. Brinkman, 433 U.S. 406, 413-14, 97 S.Ct. 2766,

2772, 53 L.Ed.2d 851 (1977) (Dayton J).

Before a court may impose an_interdistrict

desegregation remedy, it must find an _ interdistrict

constitutional violation. In Milliken I, the Supreme Court

explained this prerequisite:

Before the boundaries of separate and autonomous

school districts may be set aside by consolidating the

separate units for remedial purposes or by imposing a

cross-district remedy, it must be shown that there has

been a constitutional violation within one district that

produces a significant segregative effect in another

district. Specifically, it must be shown that racially

discriminatory acts of the state or local school districts,

or of a single school district have been a substantial

cause of interdistrict segregation.

Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 744-45, 94 S.Ct. 3112,

3127-28, 41 L.Ed.2d 1069 (1974) (Milliken I) (emphasis added).

As with any fourteenth amendment violation, a

discriminatory purpose must be shown. Washington v.

Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976);

Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development

Corporation, 429 U.S. 252, 97 S.Ct. 555, 50 L.Ed.2d 450

(1977); Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 189, $3 S.Ct.

2686, 37 L.Ed.2d 548 (1973). Although the discriminatory

impact of state action does not in itself prove a

constitutional violation, the “[a}dherence to a particular

policy or practice, ‘with full knowledge of the predictable

effects of such adherence upon racial imbalance in a school

system is one factor among many others which may be

considered by a court in determining whether an inference

of segregative intent should be drawn.’ Columbus Board

of Education v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449, 465, 99 S.Ct. 2941,

2950, 61 L.Ed.2d 666 (1979).

Although an evaluation of basic segregative effects is

important in determining the scope of a violation and hence

the permissible scope of the remedy, a reviewing court is

not called upon to quantify the precise segregative effects

of each individual act of discrimination. Dayton Board of

Education v. Brinkman, 443 U.S. 527, 540, 99 S.Ct. 2971,

2980, 61 L.Ed.2d 720 (1979) (Dayton I).

This Court has affirmed findings of interdistrict

violations and has approved interdistrict desegregation

remedies on several occasions. See, e.g., Morrilton School

District No. 32 v. United States, 606 F.2d. 222, 229 (8th Cir.

1979); United States v. State of Missouri, 515 F.2d 1365,

1371 (8th Cir. 1975); Haney v. County Board of Education of

Sevier County, 429 F.2d 364 (8th Cir. 1970). We have also

required a state (that had been found to have committed

intradistrict violations) to participate in an intradistrict

remedy even though that remedy required the state to

expend funds in school districts other than the violating

district. Liddell v. State of Missouri, 731 F.2d 1294 (8th

Cir.), cert. denied, ____ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 82, 83 L.Ed.2d 30

(1984).

2. Review of Factual Findings.

We will not reverse the district court's factual findings

with respect to liability unless we conclude that they are

clearly erroneous. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); Anderson v. City of

Bessemer City, ___ U.S. ____, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d

518 (1985); Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 287-90,

102 S.Ct. 1781, 1789-91, 72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982); Dayton II, 443

U.S. at 534 n. 8, 99 S.Ct. at 2977 n. 8; Columbus Board of

Education v. Penick, 443 U.S. at 468-71, 99 S.Ct. at 2952,

2983 (concurring opinions of Burger, C.J., and Stewart, J.):

United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364,

395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 541, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948). Nor will we

reverse such findings when they are based on inferences

from other facts unless the rigorous standards of the same__

rule are met. Anderson, 105 S.Ct. at 1511. The Supreme

Court has emphasized the importance of the clearly

erroneous rule in civil rights cases, see, e.g., Pullman-

Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. at 287-90, 102 S.Ct. at 1789-91,

and, more particularly, in school desegregation cases:

The elimination of the more conspicuous forms of

governmentally ordained racial segregation * * *

counsels undiminished deference to the factual |

adjudications of the federal trial judges in cases such as

these, uniquely situated as those judges are to appraise

the societal forces at work in the communities where

they sit. l

[

{

Columbus, 443 U.S. at 470, 99 S.Ct. at 2983 (Justice Stewart,

with whom Chief Justice Burger joins, concurring).

B. The State’s Role in the Segregation of the Three

Pulaski County School Districts.

The district court detailed the history of state-imposed

segregation in the public schools in the State of Arkansas

and the steps taken by the state 4 to perpetuate a dual

school system, particularly in LRSD. The court pointed out

that, despite the state’s role in mandating and maintaining

the dual system until the mid-1960's, the state had done

nothing to assist in dismantling the dual system. The court

further found that the state’s acts had an interdistrict

segregative effect with respect to the three school districts

in Pulaski County. These findings are not clearly erroneous.

The state's role in the segregation of the public schools

of Arkansas began in 1867 when the legislature enacted a

law requiring separate public schools for blacks. Act of Feb.

6, 1867, No. 35, § 5, 1866-1867 Ark. Acts 98, 100. In 1931, this

legislation was superseded by a law which required the

board of school directors in each district of the state to

“establish separate schools for white and colored persons.”

Ark. Stat. Ann. § 80-509%c) (Repl. 1980). This statute was

repealed on November 1, 1983.

Even though the United States Constitution required

that the black and white public schools be equal, Cumming

v. Richmond County Board of Education, 175 U.S. 528, 20

In finding that the State Board of Education was the proper agency

through which the state was responsible in creating and failing to

disestablish the dual school systems in Pulaski County, the district court

noted:

The State Board of Education has, by statute, general

supervision over all public schools in the State of Arkansas. Ark.

Stat. Ann. § 80-113. In addition to that general responsibility, the

State Board and the Department of Education have numerous

specific duties, including the approval of plans and expenditures

of public school funds for new school buildings (Ark. Stat. Ann.

§§ 80-113, 80-3506; T. 775); review, approval and disapprova! of

local school district budgets (Ark.Stat.Ann. §§ 80-113, 80-1305; T.

773); administration of all federal funds for education (Ark. Stat.

Ann. §§ 80-123, 80-140); disbursement of State Transportation

Aid Funds to local school districts (Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 80-735,

80-736); assisting school districts in the operation of their

transportation system (T. 774); lending funds from the State

Revolving Loan Fund to local school districts (Ark. Stat. Ann. § %

80-942); approval or disapproval of bonds issued by local school

districts (Ark. Stat. Ann. § 80-1105; T. 775); advising school = &

districts regarding the issuance of bonds (T. 777); and regulation

of the operation of school buses (Ark. Stat. Ann. 8§ 80-1809,

80-1809. 2). =

The State Board of Education has broad statutory authority ha.

to supervise the public schools of the state generally, and to take

what action it may deem necessary to “promote the physical = .

welfare of school children and promote the organization and [

increase the efficiency of the public schools in the State.” Ark. a

Stat. Ann. § 80-113. '

The State Board of Education has the authority to [;

promulgate regulations concerning the earmarking and use of | .

funds used by local school districts (Ark. Stat. Ann. § 80-1305), L

the use of federal education funds by local school districts (Ark.

Stat. Ann. § 80-142) for the administration of State

Transportation Aid Funds by local school districts (Ark. Stat. |

Ann. § 80-735), and for the operation of school buses by local |

districts (Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 80-1809, 80-1810).

The State Board of Education may lend funds from the

State Revolving Loan Fund for the purchase of school buses and

other equipment, for making major repairs and constructing

additions to school buildings, for the purchase of sites for new

school buildings, for the construction of new school buildings,

and for the purchase of surplus buildings. Ark. Stat. Ann. § [

80-942.

597 F.Supp. at 1227-28 (emphasis included).

The State Board does not contest these findings. Rather, it argues: first,

that the district court’s decision imposes financial burdens on the Board

without finding that such expenditures are required to redress the effects

of the Board's constitutional violations; second, that the Board was denied

procedural due process by the district court; third, that the district

court’s findings failed to establish any causal relationship between

violations found and the conditions to be remedied; and fourth, the

district court’s remedial order exceeds the limits necessary to correct the

effects of the violations. In any event, we find no error in the district

court’s imposition of remedial responsibilities on the state through the »

State Board. See Evans v. Buchanan, 393 F.Supp. 428 (D.C. Del.) (three-

judge panel), aff'd, 423 U.S. 963, 96 S.Ct. 381, 46 L.Ed.2d 293 (1975).

ow o—=E

S.Ct. 197, 44 L.Ed. 262 (1899); see also Plessy v. Ferguson,

163 U.S. 537, 16 S.Ct. 1138, 41 L.Ed. 256 (1896), black public

schools in Arkansas were inferior to white schools. What

was true throughout the state was true for NLRSD and

PCSSD. Expenditures per pupil for black children in

elementary schools in these districts were substantially less

than they were for white children, the salaries of black

teachers in the black schools were substantially lower than

they were for the white teachers in the white schools, and

the illiteracy rate of black children was substantially higher

than that of white children. Of particular importance in this

case, the black elementary schools in these two districts

were inferior to the black elementary schools in LRSD. 584

F.Supp. at 330.

The disparities at the high school level were even more

pronounced than at the elementary level. Historically,

LRSD maintained a high school for black students that was

fully accredited by the North Central Association. Jd. As

late as the mid-1950’s, however, no similar facility was

maintained by PCSSD. Jd. PCSSD paid the tuition and

transportation costs for numerous black students who

traveled from PCSSD to attend school in LRSD. 584 F.Supp.

at 330. The district court credited several studies and the

testimony of several witnesses to the effect that LRSD was

identified as the school district in the state which provided

educational opportunities for black students. Jd. This

identification tended to draw black students to LRSD from

all over the state, and particularly from Pulaski County. 5

The state was fully aware of these disparities. Indeed, it had

commissioned studies documenting that the disparities

existed, and that the disparities were prominent among the

factors that drew black families to Little Rock from the

county and the rest of the state.

Other factors encouraging migration of blacks to LRSD were jobs

and public housing. 584 F.Supp. at 345. As pointed out elsewhere in this

opinion, no public housing has been constructed in PCSSD, and housing

and credit restrictions prevented blacks from buying or renting housing

in much of that district.

It cannot be seriously denied that the Little Rock

School District’s maintenance of the only North Central

accredited black high school in the County and indeed in

the entire area led to a concentration of blacks in this

district. For almost half a century it has not only

assumed the burden of giving a quality education to

blacks in the County and from far corners of the State

but has also been the object of racially motivated

attacks by certain political and cultura! groups.

584 F.Supp. at 330. 6

LRSD introduced into evidence a study which made the following

conclusion:

In sum, black students from Pulaski County crossed the

district boundary to attend senior high in Little Rock from the

1920s to the 1960s. They probably became numerous in the early

1930s when Paul Laurance Dunbar High School acted as a

magnet for county students who had little opportunity to attend

senior high in their own district. At some point, the two districts

worked out a tuition agreement under which Pulaski County

paid for the use of Little Rock facilities by individual students.

This led to a “county” designation on student record cards, the

incidence of which shows that a substantial number of county

students were enrolled at Dunbar in the 1940s and 1950s.

Students from the county continued to attend Little Rock into

the 1960s, but their numbers decreased as the county began to

provide more and better senior high schools.

Joint Designated Record (J.D.R.) at 915-21.

This movement of blacks into LRSD, which the district court found

to be “consistently understated” as shown in PX 36, 584 F.Supp. at 346, is

reflected in general population statistics. From 1950 to 1980, the black

population of the City of Little Rock more than doubled, from

approximately 23,000 to more than 51,000. During the same period, the

white population of the City of Little Rock, excluding annexed territory,

declined. If the annexed territory is included, the white population

increased from 79,000 to 105,000. See BUREAL OF THE CENSUS, 1950

CENSUS OF POPULATION, CHARACTERISTICS OF THE

POPULATION, vol. 11, part 4; BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, 1980

CENSUS OF POPULATION, CHARACTERISTICS OF THE

POPULATION, vol. 1. For related population statistics, see note 5 infra.

— dr Ol lle ee ll

ee ee cee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee

SS Fe _CCClwlerlOllUmMUesllee eee Eee Eee ll lee leet lll (ile

In 1953, when the Granite Mountain housing project for

blacks was being planned, the state, at the behest of the

affected school districts, enacted legislation authorizing the

transfer of the project site from PCSSD to LRSD. This

action insured that a major black housing project would be

built in LRSD, and that LRSD would continue to be

recognized as the school district in Pulaski County which

educated black children. This housing project is discussed

more fully infra.

Notwithstanding the state’s awareness of the

educational disparities between LRSD and the other school

districts in the state, it took no remedial action to require

adequate educational opportunities for blacks in school

districts other than LRSD. 7 In summarizing the pre-Brown

history of school segregation in Pulaski County, the district

court found that, historically, “[a]s far as the education of

blacks was concerned, school district boundaries in Pulaski

County were ignored.” 584 F.Supp. at 330.

Even after the Supreme Court’s decisions in Brown I

and Brown II, the State of-Arkansas took no steps to

dismantle the segregated school system in Arkansas or to

improve the quality of the black schools in the state

generally or in the defendant school districts in particular.

To the contrary, it took a series of actions which delayed the

elimination of the dual school system in the state for years.

These actions were primarily directed against LRSD and

heightened the identity of that district as the “black”

district of Pulaski County.

Indeed, the State Board successfully argued in a federal district

court case in 1949 that black students did not have the right to attend

high school within their school districts and that “the interests of Negro

education will be best promoted by the maintenance of a consolidated

Negro high school serving several districts[.J’ Pitts v. Board of Trustees

of DeWitt Special School District, 84 F.Supp. 975, 987 (E.D. Ark. 1949).

On May 20, 1954, three days after Brown J, the Board of

Education announced that “[i}t is our responsibility to

comply with federal constitutional requirements and we

intend to do so when the Supreme Court of the United

States outlines the method to be followed.” Cooper v.

Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 8, 78 S.Ct. 1401, 1404, 3 L.Ed.2d 5 (1958).

By the spring of 1955, the Little Rock Board of Education

had adopted a plan which would have desegregated the

schools by 1963. Jd. A large majority of the citizens of Little

Rock agreed that the plan was “the best for the interests of

all pupils in the District.” Jd. The plan was approved by the

federal district court, Aaron v. Cooper, 143 F.Supp. 855

(E.D. Ark. 1956), and this Court, Aaron v. Cooper, 243 F.2d

361 (8th Cir. 1957), and review was not sought in the

Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, the state intervened to prevent

desegregation of the Little Rock schools. In November,

1956, Arkansas’s voters adopted three initiatives sponsored

by the state’s political leadership. These included:

1. An amendment to the state constitution directing

the legislature to oppose Brown in every constitutional

manner until such time as the federal government

ceases from enforcing Brown, and providing that any

employee of the state, or any of its subdivisions, who

willfully refuses to carry out the mandates of this

amendment shall automatically forfeit his office and be

subject to prosecution under penal laws to be enacted

by the legislature. Ark. Const.Amend. 44. Although this

amendment remains on the books, it is recognized by

the state authorities as being unconstitutional.

2. A resolution of interposition calling on all states and

citizens to adopt a constitutional amendment

prohibiting federal involvement in public education, and

pledging resistance to school desegregation.

3. A pupil placement law, Ark. Stat. §§ 80-1519 to

-1524, authorizing local boards of education or

a Ce eae ee ee es

en ee ee ee ee eee ee ee ee ee ee ee

superintendents to transfer or reassign students or

teachers among any schools within their districts, or to

“adjoining districts whether in the same or different

counties, and for transfer of school funds or other

payments by one Board to another for or on account of

such attendance.” Dove v. Parham, 176 F.Supp. 242, 244

n. 4 (E.D. Ark. 1959).

See 584 F.Supp. at 330-32.

In January, 1957, the state legislature enacted, and the

Governor signed, legislation implementing the constitutional

amendment, including legislation authorizing local school

districts to spend school funds to defend integration litigation,

and to relieve (or at least to delay) school children from

compulsory attendance at racially mixed schools. Governor

Orval Faubus also signed legislation creating a state

sovereignty commission, with broad powers, to:

1. Perform any and all acts and things deemed

necessary and proper to protect the sovereignty of the

State of Arkansas, and her sister states from

encroachment thereon by the Federal Government or

any branch, department or agency thereof, and to resist

the usurpation of the rights and powers reserved to

this State or our sister states by the Federal

Government.

2. Give such advice and provide such legal

assistance as the Commission considers necessary or

expedient, when requested in writing to do so by

resolution adopted by the governing authority of any

school district, upon matters, whether involving civil or

criminal litigation or otherwise, relating to the

commingling of races in the public schools of the State.

3. Study and collect information concerning

economic, social and legal development constituting

deliberate, palpable and dangerous invasions of or

encroachments upon the rights and powers of the State

Rett et ile Sie ie lied ied Sli et eed ee ie Clik SCs

reserved to the State under [the Tenth Amendment to

the U.S. Constitution].

See 584 F.Supp. at 330-32.

The statute also required prointegration organizations to

See Aaron v. Cooper, 163 F.Supp. 13, 15 (E.D. Ark. 1958).

Notwithstanding these actions, the Little Rock Board

of Education took preliminary steps to admit nine black

students to Central High School in the fall of 1957. Governor

Faubus, however, barred the nine students from entering

Central High School by ordering the Arkansas National

Guard to stand at the schoolhouse door and to declare the

school “off limits” to black students. President Eisenhower

responded by dispatching federal troops to guarantee the

admittance of the nine biack students. They were admitted

after the troops arrived and the troops remained in Little

Rock for the rest of the school year. Subsequently, the

federal district court enjoined Governor Faubus from using

the Arkansas National Guard to obstruct or interfere with

court orders, Aaron v. Cooper, 156 F.Supp. 220, 226-27 (E.D.

Ark. 1957), and this Court affirmed, Faubus v. United

States, 254 F.2d 797, 806-08 (8th Cir. 1958).

In February, 1958 “because of extreme public hostility

** * engendered largely by the official attitudes and actions

of the Governor and the Legislature,” Cooper v. Aaron, 35

US. at 12, 78 S.Ct. at 1407, local officials petitioned the

district court to postpone until at least 1961 “the plan of

gradual racial integration in the Little Rock public schools”

which the Little Rock Board of Education had adopted in

1955 for implementation at the high school level for the

1957-58 school year. Aaron v. Cooper, 163 F.Supp. 13, 14

(E.D. Ark. 1958). The district court found that “between the

spring and fall of 1957 there was a marked change in public

attitude toward [the school desegretation] plan,” that

persons who had formerly been willing to accept it had

Rte eet eed eed eed ied ied lie ie Clie Slit ied Ske kee Sl ee

changed their minds and had come to the conclusion “that

the local School Board had nct done all it could do to prevent

integration.” 163 F.Supp. at 21. The court noted that the

state legislature’s 1957-58 “enactments had their effect at

Little Rock and throughout the State in stiffening

opposition to the plan[.J” Jd. Because of this state-fostered

“opposition * * * to the principle of integration which * * *

runs counter to the pattern of southern life which has

existed for over three hundred years,” id, and the

“corresponding damage to the educational program,” td. at

26, and the City of Little Rock itself, the court held that a

two-and-one-half-year moratorium on desegregation was

necessary.

This Court reversed, Aaron v. Cooper, 257 F.2d 33, 40

(8th Cir. 1958), and the Supreme Court affirmed our decision

on September 12, 1958, quoting with approval a pleading

filed by the school board;

The legislative, executive, and judicial departments of

the state government opposed the desegregation of

Little Rock schools by enacting laws, calling out troops,

making statements vilifying federal law and federal

courts, and failing to utilize state law enforcement

agencies and judicial processes to maintain public peace.

Aaron v. Cooper, 358 U.S. 1, 15, 78 S.Ct. at 1408 (1958).

While the above appeal was pending, opponents of

desegregation secured a state court injunction to prevent

the opening of the “partially integrated high schools” of

Little Rock. Once again, the federal district court set aside

the injunction and this Court affirmed. See Thomason v.

Cooper, 254 F.2d 808 (8th Cir. 1958).

In August, 1958, Governor Faubus called an

“emergency session” of the legislature, which enacted three

laws aimed at preventing the Little Rock Board of

Education from complying with Brown. Act 4 authorized

the Governor, by proclamation, to close any or all public

schools within any school district pending a referendum

“for” or “against” the “racial integration of all schools

within the school district;” Act 6 permitted students to

transfer to segregated public or private schools across

district lines if the schools they ordinarily attended were to

be desegregated; and Act 9 authorized the removal by recall

of any members of local school district boards. (This Act was

aimed at removing from the Little Rock Board of Education

those who favored desegregation.)

On September 13, 1958, Governor Faubus issued a

proclamation closing the four Little Rock high schools,

white and black. They remained closed throughout the

1958-59 school year, with the school board leasing the

schools to a private school corporation which intended to

operate them on a segregated basis. The federal courts

found that such operation would be unconstitutional and

enjoined the private corporation from operating the

schools, see Aaron v. McKinley, 173 F.Supp. 944, 952 (E.D.

Ark. 1959) affd sub nom. Faubus v. Aaron, 361 U.S. 197, 80 S.Ct.

291, 4 L.Ed.2d 237 (1959) (per curiam). Nevertheless, the Little

Rock schools remained closed for the entire school year, and

during this period, many white and some black students

from Little Rock attended segregated schools in PCSSD.

The Arkansas state legislature enacted a _ statute

authorizing the state to pay for the interdistrict transfer of

students from desegregated to segregated public and

private schools. Ark. Acts 1959 No. 236. See Ark. Acts,

Special Session 1958, No. 6. In 1960, an independent study

described the number of transfers among the three

Pulaski County school districts to preserve segregation as

“excessively high.” 584 F.Supp. at 339. Significant numbers

and interdistrict transfers continued until 1965. PX 10.

Shortly after the school closing act was declared

unconstitutional, the Little Rock Board of Education

announced that it would reopen the Little Rock high schools

for the 1959-60 school year because “we will not abandon

free public education in order to avoid desegregation.”

a- - e S=S S| S| e SS S| e e COF

ee ee ee ee ee eee ee ee ee ee

Norwood v. Tucker, 287 F.2d 798, 805 (8th Cir. 1961). The

Board also publicly announced, however, that it awaited

advice from “Governor Faubus and his attorneys * * * [on]

any method whereby we may maintain compulsory

segregation and still operate our public high schools.” Jd.

During the 1959-60 school year, students were assigned

to particular schools in accordance with the Arkansas pupil

placement laws of 1956 and 1959. Ark.Stat.Ann. §§ 80-1519

through 1524. In Parham v. Dove, 271 F.2d 132 (8th Cir.

1959), and Dove v. Parham, 282 F.2d 256 (8th Cir. 1960), we

held that the Arkansas pupil placement laws were not

facially unconstitutional although we recognized that the

laws could in practice be used to perpetuate segregated

schools. 271 F.2d at 136.

In Norwood v. Tucker, 287 F.2d 798 (8th Cir. 1961), we

held that the Little Rock Board of Education was using “the

standards and criteria * * * [of the Arkansas pupil

placement laws] for the purpose of impeding, thwarting and

frustrating integration.” Jd. at 808. We called the Board’s

attention to the continuing injunction in the first Aaron

case requiring them to “ ‘take affirmative steps’ * * * to

facilitate and accomplish operation of the school district on a

nondiscriminatory basis.” Jd. at 809.

Thereafter, the Little Rock Board of Education

attempted to use the Arkansas pupil placement law in a

nondiscriminatory fashion. However, in 1965, litigation was

once again commenced alleging that black children were

being denied admittance to predominantly white schools in

Little Rock and “assigned to ‘Negro’ schools near their

home.” Clark v. Board of Education of Little Rock School

District, 369 F.2d 661, 665 (8th Cir. 1966).

On April 22, 1965, the Board formally abandoned use of

the pupil assignment law and adopted a freedom-of-choice

plan. When the litigants in the Clark case, id., alleged that

this freedom-of-choice plan failed to meet constitutional

standards, the Little Rock School Board advanced “a

number of desegreation plans * * * in a good faith effort to

provide a solution to continuous litigation.” Little Rock

School District v. Pulaski County Special School District,

584 F.Supp. at 334. However, the Board “{ujntil January

1967 * * * was faced with a hostile governor and state

administration and an unfriendly legislature,” id. which

helped stir up a “hysterical political atmosphere,” id., that

led to the defeat of the several proposals for more effective

school desegregation.

Little Rock continued to rely on a freedom-of-choice

desegregation plan (as modified in Clark, 369 F.2d 661) until,

by 1968, it became clear that this plan was generally

ineffective and would not meet the constitutional standards

which the Supreme Court had recently spelled out in Green

v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430,

438, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 1694, 20 L.Ed.2d 716 (1968); Raney v.

Board of Education of Gould School District, 391 U.S. 443,

88 S.Ct. 1697, 20 L.Ed.2d 727 (1968); and Monroe v. Board of

Commissioners of City of Jackson, 391 U.S. 450, 88 S.Ct.

1700, 20 L.Ed.2d 733 (1968). We noted in Clark v. Board of

Education of Little Rock School District, 426 F.2d 1035,

1043 (8th Cir. 1970), that, despite considerable progress in

desegregating several Little Rock schools, “[ujnder

‘freedom of choice’ in 1968-69 approximately 75% of the

Negro students attended schools in which their race

constituted 90% or more of the student body.”

For the 1969-70 school year, the Little Rock Board of

Education adopted a plan for pupil assignment based on

geographic attendance zones. In Clark, id., we held that this

plan’s program for student desegregation did not meet the

constitutional requirement to eliminate racial

discrimination “root and branch.” Jd. at 1041. We ordered

the Little Rock Board of Education to file with the district

court an effective desegregation plan for implemention no

later than the 1970-71 school year.

——

[

eee ee ee ee el ee ee ee ee ee ee

Ultimately, it was not until the 1973-74 school year that

most Little Rock schools were desegregated. See School

Desegregation in Little Rock, U.S. Commission on Civil

Rights 7 (June, 1977). Thus, although the Little Rock Board

of Education had announced shortly after Brown / that it

would begin to desegregate its schools by 1957 and

complete the process by 1963, the active intervention of the

state was a central factor in delaying desegregation of the

Little Rock schools until 1973, and in contributing to the

increasing concentration of blacks in LRSD. ® The district

court found that throughout this period and to this day, the

state has never acknowledged its affirmative duty to assist

The district court's finding that specific discriminatory actions by

the defendants had a substantial and continuing effect on the racial

composition of LRSD is supported by general and school population

statistics. From 1950 to 1960, the white population of the City of Little

Rock declined significantly (if growth through annexation is excluded),

while the white population of North Little Rock and the remainder of

Pulaski County increased at an extraordinary rate. Including population

gains through boundary expansions of the Cities of Little Rock (13,219

persons added by annexation) and North Little Rock (6,414 persons added

by annexation), and corresponding population losses in the

unincorporated areas of Pulaski County, the white population of the City

of Little Rock increased by only 3,807 from 1950 to 1960 while the white

population of North Little Rock increased by 11,526 and the white

population of the remainder of Pulaski County increased by 13,266. These

demographic data were generally contrary to statewide trends in

Arkansas during the same period, and tend to support plaintiffs’ theory

that the state-created racial turmoil in LRSD in the 1950's fostered

substantial white flight from LRSD to PCSSD and NLRSD. This trend

continued throughout the 1960's and then accelerated during the 1970's.

By 1980, the white population of PCSSD had increased to 123,000 from

50,000 in 1950. During the same period, PCSSD’s black population

increased by less than 10,000. See BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, 1950,

1960, 1970 and 1980 CENSUS OF THE POPULATION,

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POPULATION — ARKANSAS.

From 1956 to 1973, the black student population in LRSD increased

from 3,481 to 10,274, an increase of over 87%. During the same time, the

white student population of LRSD decreased from 16,242 to 11,951, a

decrease of 25%. See Aaron v. Cooper. 143 F.Supp. 855, 860-61 (E.D. Ark.

1956), and PCSSD exhibit 9.

local school districts in their desegregation efforts and has

never promulgated any rules or guidelines which would

encourage the local school districts to eliminate

discrimination in their school systems. Nor has it taken

action to foster racially neutral school siting. Rather, it has

approved racially segregative school sitings in violation of

district court decrees as recently as 1980. /d. It has fostered

impressive programs to improve the quality of education

generally, but has made no effort to improve the

instruction of educationally deprived and discriminatorily

served black students. 597 F.Supp. at 1228. It provides

funds for transportation but does not provide specific funds

to aid transportation for desegregation. 597 F.Supp. at

1228. It has also failed to seek all federal funds avail-

able to aid desegregation efforts. Since the 1950's, it

has encouraged consolidation of school districts to promote

efficiency and quality of education, but has taken no action

to encourage consolidation to end the racial segregation

which it required for over a century. 597 F.Supp. at 1228. To

this day, the state takes the position that Arkansas law does

not permit it to assist local school boards in their

desegregation efforts. Brief of Appellant State Board at 6.

C. The Pulaski County Special School District's Role in

the Segregation of the Pulaski County School Dis-

tricts.

The district court set forth in some #etail the factors it

considered significant to its holding that PCSSD had

committed significiant interdistrict violations. It further

found that these violations are of a continuing nature and

justify imposing an interdistrict remedy which would

include PCSSD. These findings are not clearly erroneous.

PCSSD was created in 1927 pursuant to Act 152 of the

1927 Arkansas Acts, which gave the residents of Pulaski

County outside of the cities of Little Rock and North Little

Rock the right to organize a single school district. On July

een A eee I cece I ces I ee ee ee ee

21, 1927, a consolidated school district was approved by

referendum. Pursuant to this referendum, the Pulaski

County Board of Education ordered that “all of Pulaski

County outside the territory embraced in the cities of Little

Rock and North Little Rock be created and organized into a

special schoo! district to be named and known as Pulaski

County Special School District.” 584 F.Supp. at 340. “The

historic intention [was] that the boundaries of the cities of

Little Rock and North Little Rock remain coterminous with

the respective school districts[.!” 584 F.Supp. at 340.

PCSSD maintained inadequate elementary schools for

blacks and was without-an aeeredited high school for blacks

until 1955. 584 F.Supp. at 329-30. Accordingly, many black

elementary students from the county and any black student

from the county who wished to attend an accredited high

school had no reasonable alternative other than to attend

the black schools in Little Rock. 584 F.Supp. at 330 (“As far

as the education of blacks were concerned, school district

boundaries in Pulaski County were ignored.”) Pulaski

County paid for many interdistrict transfers. Some black

families moved from the county to Little Rock because of

the disparities in educational opportunities. J.D.R. at

915-19; 584 F.Supp. at 330-40.

In 1953, PCSSD cooperated with LRSD and the state in

a substantial interdistrict segregative act by permitting the

annexation of lands for the construction of a black

residential housing project, the Granite Mountain project,

thus insuring that the black students in the project would

attend school in LRSD rather than PCSSD, and enhancing

LRSD’s position as the school district with the

responsibility of educating black children. This housing

project is discussed in greater detail infra. When the state

closed LRSD for the 1958-59 school year to avoid the

desegregation of that school system, PCSSD accepted

students from the Little Rock schools into the segregated

schools of the county. These interdistrict transfers

continued until the mid-1960's.

—_— bed bate Pe ae S.-J Sw ed ed | | ee | | fo = eee uu

Until the late 1960’s, LRSD generally grew as the City

of Little Rock grew, and there is no contention that these

annexations, with the significant exception of the Granite

Mountain project, were intended to have a segregative

effect.9 In 1968, the Supreme Court announced that

freedom-of-choice plans were failing to dismantle dual

school systems and that “if it cannot be shown that such a

plan will further rather than delay conversion to a unitary,

nonracial, nondiscriminatory school system, it must be held

unacceptable.” Monroe, 391 U.S. at 459, 88 S.Ct. at 1705;

Raney, 391 U.S. at 446, 88 S.Ct. at 1698; Green, 391 U.S. at

439, 88 S.Ct. at 1694. It required that segregation be

eliminated root and branch. The black parents and children

of LRSD took immediate action to secure compliance with

these decisions. This Court complied with the Supreme

Court mandate and required LRSD to implement a

comprehensive plan to desegregate the schools of that

district. See Clark v. Board of Education of Little Rock

School District, 426 F.2d 1035 (8th Cir. 1970), cert. denied,

Cammack Village was annexed in 1948. The record does not reveal

the number of students involved in this annexation and no party to this

litigation attributes any discriminatory purpose to this annexation.

J.D.R. 2104-06. Euclid Place was annexed in 1949. The record indicates

that nineteen students were involved in this annexation. J.D.R. 2107. No

party to this litigation attributes any discriminatory purpose to this

annexation. Meadowcliff, Pleasant Valley and Brady were annexed in

1961. The record does not reveal the number of students involved and the

parties attribute no discriminatory purpose to this transfer. J.D.R.

2108-50. Each of the annexations cited above came at a time when each

Pulaski County school district was operating a dual school system.

Walton Heights was annexed in 1967. The number of students involved in

the annexation is not disclosed in the record, but the annexation

encompassed only .0058% of the value of the real property in PCSSD.

J.D.R. 2169-85. Candlewood was annexed in 1968. It was a white

residential area and apparently the annexation was not a significant one

as it involved only .0016 of the assessed valuation of the County. J.D.R.

2186-2202, 655, 823. In addition to the five annexations outlined above,

LRSD annexed a tract of uninhabited land in 1964 for use as a site for the

Metropolitan Vocational School to be open to students from LRSD and

PCSSD school districts. J.D.R. 2150-68, 651. T. at 1129.

402 U.S. 952, 91 S.Ct. 1608, 29 L.Ed.2d 122 (1971); Clark v.

Board of Education, 449 F.2d 493 (8th Cir. 1971), cert.

denied, 405 U.S. 936, 92 S.Ct. 954, 30 L.Ed.2d 812 (1972),

aff'd, 471 F.2d 656 (8th Cir. 1972) (mem). After the Supreme

Court decided the Green trilogy, the concurrent annexation

of lands by the City of Little Rock and LRSD ended and,

from that point on, the city continued to expand, but the

boundaries of LRSD remained relatively static. Little Rock,

584 F.Supp. at 340. The district court found that “Pulaski

County Special School District’s acts of freezing its

boundaries to discontinue the practice of allowing City and

Little Rock School District boundaries to remain

coterminous springs from an unconstitutional racial motive

that has significant interdistrict effects on the Little Rock

School District.” 584 F.Supp. at 341 (finding 26).1°

As a result, by 1984, the City of Little Rock

encompassed ninety-one square miles while LRSD covered

only fifty-three square miles. Attractive industrial and

residential areas in the county were made a part of the City

of Little Rock but remained within PCSSD rather than

becoming part of LRSD. These areas are residential

sections in which many white families either lived or

subsequently moved into and, as a result, their children now

attend schools in PCSSD. If the boundaries of the City of

10.

The district court found that PCSSD was interested in consolidation

until the early 1970's when LRSD adopted a comprehensive

desegregation plan. (The latest expression of such interest came on May

14, 1968, when the PCSSD Board agreed to accept LRSD's request for a

meeting of the two boards to consider consolidation. Records and

Proceedings of PCSSD Board, May 14, 1968; 584 F.Supp. at 341 finding

22.) On May 13, 1970, this Court en banc, in an opinion by Judge M.C.

Matthes, required LRSD to implement a comprehensive desegregation

plan consistent with the Green trilogy, decided on May 27, 1968. Green

391 U.S. at 439; 88 S.Ct. at 1694; Raney, 391 U.S. at 446; 88 S.Ct. at 1698;

Monroe, 391 U.S. at 459, 88 S.Ct. at 1705. The district court finding that

the PCSSD Board's change in attitude toward consolidation was, in part,

racially motivated is not clearly erroneous.

Little Rock and its school district had remained

coterminous, the black-white ratio in the Little Rock schools

would now be sixty-forty rather than seventy-thirty. 11

The district court found that the boundaries between

PCSSD and LRSD had been maintained to keep LRSD

predominantly black and PCSSD predominantly white. It

further found that these boundary manipulations have had

a substantial interdistrict segregative effect. 584 F.Supp. at

11.

Approximately 20,000 whites and 3,000 blacks live in the areas of the

City of Little Rock which are now included in PCSSD. Ten schools located

in this area serve approximately 3,000 white students and 300 black

students who live within the city limits. Nearly 1,500 additional white

students and 323 black students living in the city are bused to PCSSD

schools located beyond the city limits.

351. These findings are not clearly erroneous. 12 They were

based on the facts recited herein and on the expert

testimony of Dr. Robert Dentler who testified that the

boundary lines had an interdistrict effect. He went on to

state:

* * * The major consequence of the boundary lines

established as they were in 1928 at the peak of

consolidation efforts initiated by small rural districts of

the County and with the support of the State, have by

now come to a condition where they keep the Little

Rock School District very predominately black and limit

the opportunities therein of black students.

The boundaries also have generated consequences

with respect to differences in State aid, State aid for

instructional and related services generally and State

aid for transportation. While the differences which have

favored the County over the years have been remedied

very recently there are all of the years in which the

12.

The district court also found:

Because of the large numbers of formal and informal

transfers of students among the districts and the abetting of the

transfers by the districts, the cooperation among the districts

and their personnel in other areas, the recurrent consideration

of consolidation and the long-standing practices of annexations

to the two city districts, the Court finds that the three school

districts in Pulaski County were not historically separate and

autonomous.

584 F.Supp. at 341.

Although we find substantial evidence in the record to support the

district court's findings of extensive interdistrict cooperation in

attempting to confine blacks to central Little Rock, we find that the court

clearly erred in finding that the three Pulaski County school districts

were not separate and autonomous. Among the factors that clearly

indicate that the districts were historically separate school districts are

that each district has always levied its own taxes, elected its own board of

education, hired its own faculty and staff, and established its own salary

schedule, operating rules and regulations.

State aid formulas supported the County to the benefit

of non-black higher proportions by far of non-black

students and a disadvantage both to Little Rock School

District and North Little Rock.

The boundaries also echo with refusals to modify

them from within the Boards of Directors, at least since

1968. In other words, after years of conversation about

the merits of the boundaries, about mutual assistance

especially for purposes that have not to do with race,

suddenly these boundaries harden and the Pulaski

County Board refuses any further modification of them

on the one side, and the Little Rock Board of Directors

does not move or press on modifications so far as I can

find.

The boundaries also signify to me that under them,

under the circumstances of a suburban system what

was rural, what once existed as 38 rural counties, now

congealed into a modernizing suburban system is such

that under these boundary conditions school

construction follows real estate development, not

educational needs.

T. at 379-80; T. at 69; 584 F.Supp. at 340-41.

During the first two decades of tumultuous

desegregation in LRSD, PCSSD schools remained

segregated and free from the problems which accompanied

state-resisted desegregation in Little Rock. It was not until

1968 that suit was first brought to desegregate the PCSSD

schools. Zinnamon v. Board of Education of Pulaski County

Special School District, No. LR-68-C154 (W.D. Ark. 1971),

slip op. at 1. This suit remained dormant until 1970, while

the Department of Health, Education & Welfare negotiated

with the PCSSD Board of Education to work out an

integration plan. After extensive litigation which led to an

order enjoining PCSSD’s discriminatory school

construction plans, PCSSD consented to the entry of a

decree by Judge J. Smith Henley —then Chief Judge of the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of

ee ee ee

Arkansas — integrating its schools. Zinnamon v. Board of

Education of Pulaski County Special School District, No.

LR-68-C-154 (W.D. Ark. 1973). The district court found that

PCSSD had failed to comply with the Henley decree and

noted that, at trial, many PCSSD Board of Education

members were not even aware of the contents of the decree.

Some of the more significant violations found by the court

were:

1. After 1973, PCSSD continued to close schools in

black neighborhoods and to build new schools in distant

suburbs that were the developing areas of white population.

584 F.Supp. at 346. Many of the new schools are over ninety

percent white. Jd. For example, Northwood Junior High

School was opened in 1980 in a remote location far from a

black residential area and has a student enrollment which is

only eight percent black. North Pulaski was built in 1977,

remote from any black residential areas in the furthest

reaches of Pulaski County, and in 1983, had a black student

population of about six percent. Cato Elementary School

was built in 1975, again in a remote area and, in 1983, it had

a student population of which was less than ten percent

black. Robinson Middle School was built in 1981 and, in

1983, had a black student population of slightly over eleven

percent. The district court credited the testimony of Dr.

Robert Dentler, plaintiffs’ expert witness, that “the county

took pains not to site new schools where they would be

accessible to blacks, and others they dusted off old

dilapidated plants and arranged to have them as walk-in

schools for black students well out of reach of possible

transportation by white students.” There has been no new

construction in or near the central part of the county, or to

the east or southeast, where blacks live. The district court

concluded that there were substantial and continuing inter-

and intradistrict effects from PCSSD’s violation of

Zinnamon's specific order that PCSSD must cease and

desist now and in the future from building schools in sites

which are not equally accessible to blacks and whites. 584

F.Supp. at 346. All of these events are contrary to Swann’s

admonition against the location of new schools “in the areas

of white suburban expansion, farthest from Negro

population centers.” Swann, 402 U:S. 1, 20-21, 91 S.Ct. 126,

1278-79, 28 L.Ed.2d 554.

2. Student assignments continue to be made on a

racially discriminatory basis. Thus, in 1983, of fifty-one

schools in PCSSD, sixteen are racially identifiable as black

schools and thirteen are racially identifiable as white

schools. In some instances, neighboring schools are

operated as racially identifiable schools. Thus, Mabelvale

Junior High School is close to Cloverdale Junior High

School (both are within the City of Little Rock but are part

of PCSSD), but Mabelvale’s enrollment in 1983 was only 12.7

percent black while the Cloverdale’s enrollment was

slightly more than thirty-three percent black. 584 F.Supp.

at 354-55. PCSSD maintains racially identifiable black

schools by not busing in white students and by busing in

additional black students. 584 F.Supp. at 348. PCSSD buses

black students to Wakefield, Watson, and Cloverdale

schools even though these schools have some of the highest

enrollments of blacks in PCSSD and are located a short

busing distance from identifiably white schools. 584 F.Supp.

at 348, 354-55. Racially identifiable white schools are

maintained by not busing blacks to schools built in white

neighborhoods. 584 F.Supp. at 348.

3. Similarly, PCSSD failed to apportion the burden of

busing fairly among white and black students. Thus, a black

student enrolled in the PCSSD system is two and one-half

times more likely to be bused for desegregative purposes

than a white student, 584 F.Supp. at 348, and a

disproportionate number of black students in PCSSD are

bused long distances, often to schools which are already

racially identifiable as black. Jd.

4. PCSSD cooperated with the City of Little Rock in

the location and building of Fair and Otter Creek Schools in

white neighborhoods within the city limits but just outside

_—— i iw tat teat “oe

i) |

{

the boundaries of LRSD. 584 F.Supp. at 346. Both schools

are racially identifiable as white schools. Fair High School,

which has a thirteen percent black enrollment, is located

less than two miles from LRSD’s Parkview High School

which has a fifty-six percent black enrollment, and is a

reasonable busing distance from PCSSD’s Mills High School

which has an enrollment of over forty percent black. 584

F.Supp. at 356. Otter Creek has a black enrollment of only

fourteen percent, but is located near several PCSSD and

LRSD elementary schools with significantly higher black

enrollments.

5. PCSSD failed to meet the goals for the hiring and

promotion of black principals, teachers and administrators.

584 F.Supp. at 347-48. Accordingly, there are fewer

employment and promotion opportunities for blacks in

PCSSD and the absence of black role models in teaching and

administration. Jd. These factors have discouraged the

growth of a black community in PCSSD. 584 F.Supp. at 347.

6. The chances that a black student will be classified

as educably mentally retarded are significantly greater in

PCSSD than they are in LRSD. 584 F.Supp. at 350.

7. Unlike, LRSD, PCSSD has failed to develop

programs to encourage the participation of black students

in curricular and extracurricular activities. 584 F.Supp. at

348.

8. PCSSD has failed to comply with requirements

that a biracial committee be established and that two black

citizens, elected and selected by the black community, serve

in ex-officio capacity on its Board of Education. 584 F.Supp.

et at 347. This failure reduced the input of the PCSSD black

community on school site selection and housing project

decisions and exacerbated the historical trend of black in-

migration to LRSD and white out-migration to PCSSD.

D. North Little Rock’s Role in Segregating the Three

Districts.

The district court found that NLRSD had com-

mitted several significant interdistrict violations. Our

review of the record convinces us that the trial court's

findings with respect to the violations listed below are not

clearly erroneous, and that the current interdistrict impact

of these violations justifies an interdistrict remedy which

would involve NLRSD. We do, however, take the nature

and extent of NLRSD violations into consideration in

framing a remedy (which is largely intradistrict with

respect to that district).

In the pre-Brown period, NLRSD failed to maintain

equal or adequate schools for black students, particularly at

the high school level. This failure led to significant transfers

of black high school students from NLRSD to LRSD, and

contributed to the concentration of blacks in LRSD, 584

F.Supp. at at 330, a concentration which has continued to

this day.

When the LRSD schools were closed for the 1958-59

school year, NLRSD, along with PCSSD, opened its

segregated schools to many white and some black students

from LRSD. These transfers continued in significant

numbers until the mid-1960’s and played a substantial role

in delaying desegregation in LRSD. 584 F.Supp. at 339-40.

NLRSD has failed to comply fully with desegregation

orders of the district court, Davis v. Board of Education,

No. LR-68-C-151 (E.D. Ark. 1977), and this Court, Davis v.

Board of Education, 635 F.2d 730 (8th Cir. 1980), with

respect to the desegregation of faculty and staff. 584

F.Supp. at 348. Thus, blacks have a measurably smaller

chance of being hired as teachers or administrators in

NLRSD than in LRSD.

NLRSD maintains segregation within its school system

in part by grossly overclassifying its black pupils into

[

{

[

ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee a

special education and educable mentally retarded (EMR)

categories. It classifies over nineteen percent of its black

students as retarded or learning disabled, nearly three and

one-half times as many as are similarly classified in LRSD.

584 F.Supp. at 348. Moreover, its EMR placement rate for

blacks is 8.9 times higher than it is for whites, compared toa

national average placement rate of two and one-half times

as many black students as white students. Placing children

in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity 10 (K. Heller,

W. Holtzman, and S. Messick, eds. 1982).

NLRSD argues that the overrepresentation of blacks

in its EMR classes can be explained by economic and

social factors, as well as differences in IQ between black and

white students. The district court rejected this argument

after hearing all the expert testimony on the issue. It did

not err in so holding. These factors may explain why there

may be more black than white EMR students, but they do

not explain why the NLRSD experience should be so

different than that in the nation, in Arkansas or in LRSD,

nor do they explain why black students are not similarly

overrepresented in the specific learning disability

categories. The appellees’ experts attributed this difference

in EMR classification to race, and the district court was

justified in accepting this opinion and in holding that this

difference discouraged black students from attending that

district.

E. Interdistrict Housing Violations by the Defendants.

The district court made detailed and extensive find-

ings regarding the existence of segregated housing in

the Little Rock metropolitan area and regarding the causal

role of the State of Arkansas and PCSSD in creating and

perpetuating this condition. After reviewing these findings

for clear error. we find none, and conclude that the record

amply supports the district court’s determination.

The district court found that “[pjublic housing in

Pulaski County has historically been the subject of racial

segregation.” Little Rock School District v. Pulaski

County, 584 F.Supp. 328, 341 (E.D. Ark. 1984). As with

private housing patterns, this demographic fact is the

product of interrelated discriminatory conduct on the part

of the state and the county. The state delegated its

responsibility in public housing to city and county

governments by authorizing them to operate housing

authorities upon the adoption by each of an appropriate

enabling resolution. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 19-3004. The cities of

North Little Rock and Little Rock have adopted these

resolutions, but Pulaski County has not done so. Although

the resolutions empower the cities to develop and construct

public housing projects up to ten miles beyond city limits,

neither city housing authority has ever build a project in

PCSSD, and the record does not indicate that Pulaski

County has constructed such housing. Jd. at 341.

Typical of the pattern of development was the 1953

Granite Mountain public housing project. B. Finley Vinson,

chairman of the board of the holding company which owns

the largest bank in Arkansas and who was an executive

with the Little Rock Housing Authority from 1950 to 1954,

testified that, in the early 1950's, the state, the Little Rock

Housing Authority, LRSD, and PCSSD cooperated in the

development of a major all-black housing project which was

intended to channel black residential development toward

the far southeast boundaries of the City of Little Rock,

away from white residential areas. He stated that “ijt

should be made very clear that * * * this was a device to

maintain segregation of races. * * * There was no bones

made about it.” Although this land was part of PCSSD, the

decision was also made at the state and local level for LRSD

to annex this territory from PCSSD to ensure that this

black development was channeled into LRSD, which was

the only district capable of providing education for blacks.

Mr. Vinson testified that the LRSD “worked out the

annexation with the County School District.” In order to

[

effect this transfer of land from PCSSD to LRSD, the

Arkansas legislature in 1953 passed an act, Ark.Stat.Ann. §

80-436 (Repl. 1980), which allowed the land transfer without

resort to the standard procedures set forth in Ark. Stat. §

80-456. Mr. Vinson testified that over 500 segregated

housing units were constructed at Granite Mountain (with

clearance of forty or fifty preexisting units), and that, as

was expected, many more segregated housing units were

built in this area in the following years. This area is still an

essentially segregated black housing area served by several

schcois which have overwhelmingly high black enrollments

ranging from seventy-one percent to one hundred percent

black. 13 In sum, there is substantial evidence in the record to

support the district court's finding that PCSSD cooperated

with the state, the Little Rock Housing Authority and

LRSD in this intentional and successful attempt to

segregate blacks in a nearly all-black neighborhood and in

nearly all-black schools within LRSD. 584 F.Supp. at 342.

13. ~*~

There are five schools in the general area of the Granite Mountain

project and the related segregated black housing which has grown around

the project. Horace Mann Junior High in 1982 had an enrollment of 654

students, 501 of whom are black. Booker Intermediate had an enrollment

in 1982 of 411 students, 342 of whom are black. Rockefeller Intermediate

had an enrollment in 1982 of 402 students, 288 of whom are black. Carver

Flementary had a 1982 enrollment of 495 students, all of whom are black.

Washington Elementary had a 1982 enrollment of 307 students, 217 of

whom are black. There are no high schools in this general area, and the

students from this overwhelmingly black residential area apparently

attend Central High School. In sum, without considering high school

students, more than 2,000 students— approximately eighty percent of

whom are black — live in the Granite Mountain project and related areas.

These students generally attend junior high, intermediate and

elementary schools which have enrollments which are over eighty

percent black. The district court credited the testimony of Dr. Charles

Willie, Professor of Education and Urban Studies at the Harvard

Graduate School of Education, that this all-black housing project was a

significant “magnet factor” in attracting a disproportionate number of

blacks to LRSD. 584 F.Supp. at 345, 347.

The district court also found that the Little Rock

Housing Authority accentuated segregation in public

housing and, thus, in schools, by razing black neighborhoods

(which bordered on white areas) and relocating the

uprooted blacks in housing projects in eastern Little Rock.

White residents, whose neighborhoods were more

selectively cleared, were relocated to western Little Rock.

The district court found that these decisions were part of

“a deliberate policy of the Little Rock Housing Authority

and other governmental bodies to maintain a residential

racial segregation.” Jd.

The concurrent acts of governmental bodies, especially

the state and county school districts, are also reflected in

the racially segregated private housing market in

metropolitan Little Rock. The district court cited as

especially probative of state liability the example of a black

realtor who was disciplined by the state real estate

commission. The realtor, who sold a home to a black in a

white neighborhood, had violated a commission regulation

which forbade realtors from being “instrumental in

introducing into a neighborhood a character of property or

occupancy, members of any race or nationality, or any

individuals whose presence will clearly be detrimental to

property values in that neighborhood.” Although the

realtor received his license, the state commission warned

him about such “misconduct,” and he was fired from his job.

Id.

PCSSD.also contributed to the segregated nature of

the private housing market through its decisions in school

siting. As Chief Justice Burger has written, “People

gravitate toward school facilities, just as schools are located

in response to the needs of people. The location of schools

may thus influence the pattern of residential development

of a metropolitan area and have important impact on the

composition of inner city neighborhoods.” Swann, 402 U.S.

at 20, 91 S.Ct. at 1278. According to the district court's

factual findings, PCSSD violated the Zinnamon decree by

[

Peete |

| eee

building nearly a dozen new schools after 1973 in the

furthest outlying areas of developing white populations.

These schools now have enrollments that are generally over

ninety percent white. Jd. at 346. As we have noted, supra at

28, 91 S.Ct. at 1282, Dr. Robert Dentler testified about the

racially discriminatory nature of these school siting

decisions. The district court concluded that decisions on

school sites were made “without any consideration given to

the impact or effect such selection would have on

desegregation and is therefore a constitutional violation.”

Id. at 346.

The district court’s generalized factual findings (which

are based on the specific facts we have recounted here) are

direct and unequivocal:

36. These housing practices, both public and

private, together with the manner in which

predominantly black areas were willingly transferred to

the Little Rock School District from the Pulaski County

Special School District contributed greatly to the

disparity in the racial composition of these school

districts. * * *

S. =. .§

66. The magnet factors of relatives, jobs and

public housing units have encouraged high proportions

of blacks migrating to move to the Little Rock School

District.

Id. at 342, 345.

After careful review of the long record compiled below we

conclude that the district court’s factual findings are valid

and do not embody clear error according to the standard of

review we have set forth above.

We also conclude that the district court committed no

error of law in examining segregative housing patterns

rm pews —_™ 8 & ye yr ‘ gs ware 7s Pern + Ww yar ye sy eo y eo a

perpetuated by the state and PCSSD. As an aspect of school

desegregation cases, the housing issue was first addressed

by Justice Stewart, concurring in Milliken I:

Were it to be shown, for example, that state

officials had contributed to the separation of the races

by drawing or redrawing school district lines, by

transfer of school units between districts or by

purposeful, racially discriminatory use of state housing

or zoning laws, then a decree calling for transfer of

pupils across district lines or for restructuring of

district lines might well be appropriate.

418 U.S. at 755, 94 S.Ct. at 3132 (emphasis added).

At least two courts of appeals have acted on Justice l

Stewart’s suggested standard of liability and have held

state governments responsible for remedying school [

segregation which wes partially the result of state-

authorized local housing authorities. 14 In the Indianapolis

case, the district court recounted a long history of {

segregated housing, as a result of which less than one

percent of Indianapolis’s suburban population was black.

United States v. Board of School Commissioners, 332 [

F.Supp. 655 (S.D. Ind. 1971). The court attributed

residential segregation (and, hence, school segregation) in

part to housing violations committed by the Housing [

Authority of the City of Indianapolis (HACI). The court

found that, from 1957 through 1971, HACI built public

housing projects in areas within the Indianapolis Public [

School District (IPS) inhabited ninety-eight percent by

Negroes, bu

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.