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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385019_1916%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Appendix
- **Published:** January 1, 1988
- **Citation:** 488 U.S. 869

## 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,

V.

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

1

LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL
DISTRICT, Plaintiff,

v.

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

|

Es
EF
td

3

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

4

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

|
i

rm)
eel Bill

a i os
| a |

r

'

ee: ee ee, | ee
— — a 6 | oe

,

5

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

6

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

_—
i

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).

8

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

9

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

10

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

c

1

11

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.

12

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 ee

13

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

14

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

L

]

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

a |

'
'
|
|
H

SEES OEE lee ee ee ee ee ee et eet

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

/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;

21

@ 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

22

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

ee

ba:

23

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

24

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

25

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;

c-

et

27

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

a.

b.

c.

28

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

29

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.

30
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

31

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

32

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

[
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
L
L
L
l
l
l
l

—

4

r

4

33

“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

34

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.

35

(b) A program such as the one described for the
Complex would serve as a model for providing students
with an “internationally competitive” education.

(c) The cultural resources of the area (e.g., Quapaw
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

36

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

|
|
l
l

l

—_— eo FSF FS OFS PES oe

37

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)

38

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

L
L

[
l
l
[

|

|
|

39

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.

40

$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.

41

$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

42
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

43

these items a part of the stipulation, and to include them
within the agreement of the parties. Those items are:

1.

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

44
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

7

, oe | _——

|

J

j

eC
Lil
EE a a a

45

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.

46

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)

—_-

47

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.

48

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

49

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.

50

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,

51

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

52

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 |

53

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.

04

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,

V.

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

59

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,

56

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-

57

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

de

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.

58

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

2.
The district court had denied an earlier motion by Joshua to
intervene on January 3, 1984.

: . a “ ‘ . « . .

59

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.

3.

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).

60
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).

61

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).

62
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:

|

|

|

a

|

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

l

[

{

l

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

63

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

4.
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

|
i

64

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.

c7

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

65

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.

5.
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.

66

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

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

67

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).

68

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
os

69

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

70

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
register and report to the state sovereignty commission.
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

71

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

72

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

q

ee ee ee ee ee eee ee ee ee ee

73

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

74

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 severa

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385019_1916%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.