Arkansas Blog

How perfect is this for the 50th anniversary of Central High? Could there be better proof that we have made no progress at all? At least it is out there for all too see.

Warms my heart to know I'm not alone in refusing to refer to that piece of bird cage liner the "Gazette!"

Rather hate calling it the "Democrat"...can we start a petition to rename it the "Arkansas Republican?"

Did anyone happen to ask her about her statement at attorney John Walkers 70th birthday party (reported on this Arkansas Times Blog), that she looked forward to doing more business with him, and whether that might be a conflict of interest?

So Mitchell considers the LRSD as a minority jobs program?

I consider the LRSD a children's education institution.

Maybe that is the reason I am unable to understand Mitchell's stand.

Would Mitchell have been ok with going slower but still impacting black bureaucrats?

ARK. BLOG: Re speed: Her point was that he acted without studying the jobs people performed and whether they were important resources for teachers. But she noted that the impact of the reassignments fell disproportionately on blacks -- a gross loss of salary of more than $900,000 versus about $28,000 in cuts for white employees. I think the statement was about equal treatment.

Dr. Mitchell said today that she would like the business community to help the LRSD. It would be wise for Dr. Mitchell, and others, to realize that Mr. Hussman speaks for the small part of the business community in Little Rock that still cares about the LRSD. After the MGT management report of the LRSD, paid for by the LR Chamber and 50 for the Future, the business community saw that the district was grossly mismanaged, all during Dr. Mitchell's tenure. Dr. Brooks was beginning to address the problems that would help the LRSD become a better allocator of education tax dollars.

Dr. Mitchell's union organizing talk today pitting "the people" against the "power brokers and business" confirms what most in the business community have known and the few who still cared, like Mr. Hussman, have now learned.

ARK. BLOG: Just asking. Was it Katherine Mitchell, a minority vote through most of her tenure who was responsible for this alleged mismanagement? Or was it the white majority and various superintendents such as the most recent, Ken James, who now heads the whole state education apparatus?

I've yet to see a thorough analysis of the reorganization that gives a reliable report of the final bottom line of job shuffles. Are there really more people in classrooms? Are there really fewer people in the district office? What was the cost of new administrators Brooks brought to town? Were some important supervisory jobs cut (teachers say subject area supervisors, of high value, were victims)? I know everyone talks about cuts of the hated bureaucrats, but I haven't talked to many who repeat this mantra who really know the details.

What do you mean AT? Minority as in black vs. white or union vs. district? Or have they merged? Having read the MGT report, I recommend it to anyone interested in how the LRSD education tax dollars are spent. No excuses for any preceeding superintendent, and there were many, but they were dealing with a 1989 deseg. contract in perpetual breach and an Office of Deseg. Monitoring that had a sense of permanence like the Federal Court building. Dr. Mitchell wants the LRSD unitary staus to be recinded apparently so that the mismangement can more easily be covered up.

ARK. BLOG: Huh????

I know very little about the LRSD deseg litigation, and it is clear to me that some who post here are very knowledgable, perhaps experts. But I do have a hypothetical question....

If --and it's a HUGE IF in a hypothetical question--if Dr. Mitchell surveyed the facts and circumstances and concluded that, balancing the legal fees and money spent on compliance on one hand against the specific support for some of the district's most at-risk children on the other . . . If she did this and reached a conclusion more *children* in the district would be better off under Court supervision, wouldn't it then be her duty -- in a "best interests of the children sense" -- to oppose unitary status until she became convinced it had no negative effect on programs, or evaluations of programs intended to benefit students whose futures hang in the balance?

Hypothetically speaking?

After all, Judge Wilson (white the last time I checked) did say:

"It is *impossible* [my emphasis] to overstate the imiportance of 2.7 to LRSD's African-American students. Unless something is done to improve their academic achievement, many of them, who do not possess proficient skills in reading and math, will face difficult and uncertain futures. Because 70% of its students are African Americans, LRSD should be devoting a substantial percentage of its educational resources to solving this crucially important problem that will burden the lives and career trajectories of so many of its students. It is my fervent hope that LRSD's administrators and its Board realize that LRSD must make the long-term commitment to solve this problem, *not* because a federal court syas that it must, but because it is the right thing to do."

****

Some may wish to rush in and explain to me why unitary status is better. Well, I don't doubt that it is, and I don't know enough to dispute what anyone says. Still, being always willing to achieve greater education, I am happy to read such explanations.

But they won't answer my question: if Dr. Mitchell reached a reasoned conclusion that, for the reasons Judge Wilson mentioned, *more* of the LRSD's CHILDREN would be better off if the district remained under supervision -- would it not be her *duty* to oppose unitary status, no matter who disagreed with her and no matter if it cost her a seat on the board?

Just asking.

(I will say the LRSD chronology and all the opinions refer to a 1998, not 89, settlement, but I could be missing something).

OH! I can answer my own question in part -- if the *facts* are that LRSD is in compliance with the 1998 agreement and 2002 order, then it definitely would not be Dr. Mitchell's duty to obscure or misrepresent the truth to a federal appeals court in order to preserve a benefit (no matter how great she deemed it) to children.

Is Dr. Mitchell alleging that Brooks made job cuts during the reorganization based on race? Have any of those inviduals who were fired filed discrimination lawsuits? Any of them won a judgment against Brooks and the LRSD? Did Mitchell indicate whether she would encourage the new superintendent to rehire those who lost jobs in the Brookds regime? What is Mitchell's reasoning for supporting continued federal court supervision of the LRSD?

Those who support Dr. Mitchell will continue their support, as evidenced by one of the parents who spoke after today's session. The fracture in the community will reflect the division we frequently see exhibited by the members of the board. Many blacks with whom I have communicated view this entire charade as an act of racism; they will not distance themselves from Dr. Mitchell to mollify the white minority members of the board or the lrsdparents. Hopefully, the district can get back on track prior to the commencement of the new school year.

Though I somewhat agree with TAP's points about Dr. Mitchell and unitary status, his post above that quotes Judge Wilson requires some context.

TAP's lengthy quotation comes from a 2004 order in which Judge Wilson found that LRSD had not fulfilled its obligations under the 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan with regard to annual assessments of programs designed to improve African-American achievement. Judge Wilson had previously found that the Revised Plan did not require elimination of he "achievement gap" but rather obligated LRSD to implement and assess programs designed to close the gap. In other words, unitary status was never premised upon elimination of the gap, hence Judge Wilson's urging with regard to "the right thing to do" in going beyond the strict requirements of the Revised Plan.

Also important to note in this context is the difference between constitutional requirements and contractual requirements. The LRSD desegregation long ago ceased to be strictly about constitutional requirements and became instead a contract action--the Eighth Circuit called it "a particularization of federal law" to the parties involved in the LRSD case. As Judge Wilson put it in his February 23 order declaring LRSD unitary, the Revised Plan

"required LRSD to substantially comply with hundreds of desegregation obligations in order to achieve unitary status and release from court supervision. Many of these obligations go well beyond what either
the United States Supreme Court or the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held is constitutionally required in order for a school district to be deemed unitary. Nevertheless, by voluntarily entering into the Revised Plan, LRSD became contractually bound to satisfy all of the specified desegregation obligations."

Judge Wilson ruled in the February 23 order that LRSD has fully complied with the Revised Plan, thus satisfying its contractual obligations under the Revised Plan (assessment was the lone remaining issue) and earning itself unitary status by doing so.

Based upon this history, I think this is the answer to TAP's question about Dr. Mitchell's opposition to unitary status: if Dr. Mitchell thinks that unitary status is premised upon elimination of the achievement gap, she proceeds upon a misunderstanding of what the court has found to constitute unitary status under the Revised Plan. All that is required is proper assessment of the 2.7 programs as proper assessment has been determined by Judge Wilson and the Eighth Circuit. Dr. Mitchell might disagree with the Court's findings and rulings, but she and LRSD have to abide by them (just like school patrons must abide by board decisions).

As to the benefits of unitary status, Judge Wilson summed them up as follows in his February 23 order: "LRSD's Board can now operate the district as it sees fit; answerable to no one except LRSD's students and patrons and the voters who elected them to office." Federal court supervision is a pretty burdensome process--for instance, the February 23 order is docket number 4103, meaning that well over four thousand documents have been filed in the case over the years, an average of over 160 a year since 1982. In addition to the litigation, federal court judges and officials have overseen numerous aspects of the district's operations for decades. While no one can say for sure, it certainly seems possible that freedom from those burdens might benefit LRSD.

To answer another of TAP's questions above about the settlements, here's the Eighth Circuit's description in its 2004 opinion:

"As we have noted, this appeal arises from an interdistrict desegregation case filed by LRSD in 1982. As part of that case, the parties agreed to a settlement plan in 1989. However, as time passed, portions of that plan proved unworkable, and the parties agreed to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. This plan
was approved by the District Court and this Court."

In other words, there have actually been two separate settlements in the case, with the 1998 settlement, i.e., the Revised Plan, being the operative settlement at this point.

Thanks Gaddis; you are ever-ready with a clear and reasoned explanation.

I think I hear you saying, in answer to my hypothetical question, that there is no way a reasonable person, including Dr. Mitchell, can argue with the fact that the contract has been complied with -- no matter how much benefit some students could reap if supervision continued.

I understand that. And I should clarify that I never meant to suggest that Dr. Mitchell would be *right* if she saw it was her duty to hold out, only that such a view might explain why she does so.

My hypo is answered, though.

On job cuts, I didn't understand Dr. Mitchell to be talking about purposeful race discrimination so much as about the concern for morale, the principle of rewarding loyalty and seniority, and the need to maintain community support that any big employer would have to ponder upon making a Reduction in Force. And if the brunt of those cuts falls on one particular well-defined group of loyal employees and supporters, it's worth taking a second look at them. In the end, you might decide that they have to be made. Or you might not.

That's what I understood her to be referring to.

"ARK. BLOG: Just asking. Was it Katherine Mitchell, a minority vote through most of her tenure who was responsible for this alleged mismanagement?"

Jeez, Max, you probably think it isn't the Democrats who are responsible for the Iraq debacle, either. Get with the program, man!

TAP - as an attorney you understand that words matter. I would urge Dr. Mitchell to choose her words judiciously and wisely. Many, white and black, believe she has overemphasized race when discussing Brooks' reorganization. I am sure she makes some valid arguments about the capricious and arbitrary decisions made in the reorg but those arguments are getting lost.

Mouthinfreely,

I agree that is one of the mistakes Dr. Mitchell has made.

Mouthinfreely,

I agree that is one of the mistakes Dr. Mitchell has made.

Actually, TAP, a reasonable person might be able to construct an argument of non-compliance with regard to the 2.7 programs. But I think we would strain the limits of reason in doing so. This issue has been litigated for years, with the court giving explicit instructions as to what LRSD had to do to meet its obligations under the Revised Plan. The court considered LRSD's efforts and found them sufficient. At this point, it's difficult to see how further litigation of these issues Plan would be useful.