Capaccione v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education Swann Plaintiffs' Motion for Stay
Public Court Documents
October 29, 1999
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Capaccione v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education Swann Plaintiffs' Motion for Stay, 1999. 48387b90-c69a-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/693bacb8-fa38-4c23-83fa-9248022b44ca/capaccione-v-charlotte-mecklenburg-board-of-education-swann-plaintiffs-motion-for-stay. Accessed August 27, 2025.
Copied!
FILED,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT C
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH-CAROLLNA - o
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
U 5. DISTRICT COURT
__________________________ W. 01 ST. OF H.C.
WILLIAM CAPACCHIONE, as Guardian for
CRISTINA CAPACCHIONE, a Minor,
Plaintiff,
and
MICHAEL P. GRANT, et al.,
Plaintiff-Intervenors,
v.
) Civil Action No. 3:97-CV-482-P
)
)
)
)
)
)
THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD )
OF EDUCATION, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________________ )
JAMES E. SWANN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. ) Civil Action No. 1974
)
THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD )
OF EDUCATION, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________________ )
SWANN PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR STAY
Now come the Swann Plaintiffs, through counsel, and pursuant to Rule 62(c) of the
F.R.C.P. and move the Court for a complete stay of its September 9, 1999 order in this matter for
the reasons set out in the attached memorandum.
Respectfully submitted this 29th day of October, 1999.
ELAINE R. JONES
Director-Counsel
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN
GLORIA J. BROWNE
NAACP Legal Defense &
JAMES E. F E R G U S Q tfX N.C.Bar#: 1434
ADAM STEIN, N.C.Bhr#: 4145
S. LUKE LARGESS, N.C. Bar# 17486
Ferguson, Stein, Wallas, Adkins, Gresham
Educational Fund, Inc.
99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor
& Sumter, P.A.
741 Kenilworth Avenue, Suite 300
New York, New York 10013 Charlotte, NC 28204
(212)219-1900 (704) 375-8461
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I have served the foregoing SW ANN PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR STAY on opposing counsel by placing a copy thereof enclosed in a postage prepaid
properly addressed wrapper in a post office or official depository under the exclusive care and
custody of the United States Postal Service, addressed to:
John O. Pollard, Esq.
Kevin V. Parsons, Esq.
McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, L.L.P.
101 South Tryon Street
3700 NationsBank Plaza
Charlotte, N. C. 28280-0001
William S. Helfand, Esq.
Magenheim, Bateman, Robinson,
Wrotenbery & Helfand, P.L.L.C.
3600 One Houston Center
1221 McKinney
Houston, TX 77010
Leslie J. Winner, Esq.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board o f Education
P. O. Box 30035
Charlotte, N. C. 28230-0035
James G. Middlebrooks, Esq.
Irving M. Brenner, Esq.
Smith, Helms, Mulliss & Moore, LLP
P. O. Box 31247
201 North Tryon Street
Charlotte, N. C. 28231
Allen R. Snyder, Esq.
Maree Sneed, Esq.
Kevin J. Lanigan, Esq.
David Newmann, Esq.
Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P.
555 Thirteenth Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20004-1109
John W. Borkowski, Esq.
Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P.
546 Carondelet Street, Suite 207
New Orleans, LA 70130-3588
David Newmann, Esq.
Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P.
1515 Market St., Suite 1630
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Thomas J. Ashcraft
212 South Tryon Street
Suite 1430
Charlotte, N. C. 28281
K. Lee Adams, Esq.
Kirwan, Parks, Chesin & Miller, P.C.
2600 The Grand
75 Fourteenth Street
Atlanta, GA 30309
This, the 29th day o f October, 1999.
S.
N.C. Bar Number 17486
Ferguson, Stein, Wallas, Adkins
Gresham, & Sumter, P.A.
Suite 300 Park Plaza Building
741 Kenilworth Avenue (28204)
Post Office Box 36486
Charlotte, N. C. 28236-6486
(704) 375-8461
HI rLED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CHARLOTTE. N.C.
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA p 5. ( -
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
u..c, f KICT COURTW. Uib |. Q f ft q
WILLIAM CAPACCHIONE, as Guardian for
CRISTINA CAPACCHIONE, a Minor,
Plaintiff,
and
MICHAEL P. GRANT, et al.,
Plaintiff-Intervenors,
v.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Civil Action No. 3:97-CV-482-P
)
)
)
)
)
THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD )
OF EDUCATION, et al.,
Defendants.
)
JAMES E. SWANN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
)
) Civil Action No. 1974
)
THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD )
OF EDUCATION, et al., )
)
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
SWANN PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR STAY AND IN RESPONSE TO BOARD’S
MOTION FOR STAY
Now come the Swann plaintiffs, through counsel, and file this memorandum in
support o f their own Motion to stay all aspects o f the Court’s September 9, 1999 order
pending the appeal in this case. This memorandum also responds to the Board’s separate
motion for a partial stay.
In its orders related to the Board’s motion for a partial stay, the Court appears to
have misapprehended that the Swann plaintiffs joined in that motion. They did not. It is
the Swann plaintiffs position that the Board’s motion for a stay is not sufficient enough
and that only a full stay will suffice to protect the interests o f all o f the parties - to .
balance the equities — while this matter is on appeal. A weighing o f the factors involved
in considering a stay shows that the Judgment must be stayed fully pending appellate
resolution.
A federal court balances four factors in considering a motion for a stay. The court
weighs:
1. The likelihood of success for the movant on appeal;
2. The risk o f irreparable injury to the movant if the stay is denied;
3. The risk of harm to other interested parties if the stay is allowed; and
4. Whether the public interest will be served by granting the stay.
See, Long v. Robinson, 432 F.2d. 977 (4th Cir. 1970)(citing, Virginia Petroleum Jobbers
Association v. Federal Power Commission, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 106, 259 F.2d 921 (1958),
and Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 U.S. 747, 773, 88 S.Ct. 1344, 20 L.Ed.2d 312
(1968). The jurisprudence regarding Rule 62(c) emphasizes that no single one of the four
factors is dispositive. The Court does not weigh this motion in the same way that it
determined the underlying issues in the case. Instead, the Court must balance all of the
equities in considering a motion for a stay. Most importantly, the Court need not
reconsider or second-guess its own opinion of the merits of the case in deciding to grant a
2
stay; and the movant need not persuade the Court that it is certain it will succeed on the
merits. Instead, the motion turns on whether there are substantial contested issues on
appeal and whether the balance o f harms favors a stay.
In Long, the court noted that the Fifth Circuit employed the same approach to stay
motions as that used in this circuit. Id., 432 F.2d at 977. Under that approach today, a
party need not show a certain probability of success on appeal but must only present a
substantial case on the merits when a serious legal question is involved; and show that the
balance o f equities weighs heavily in favor o f the granting the stay. Ruiz v. Estelle, 650
F.2d. 555, 565 (5th Cir. 1981); see also, Wildman v. Berwick Universal Pictures, 983 F.2d
21 (5th Cir. 1992); N at’l Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 808 F.2d. 1057, 1059
(5th Cir. 1987); US. v. Baylor Univ., 711 F.2d 38, 39 (5th Cir. 1983).
The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit describes the test in a similar manner:
[I]f the other elements are present (i.e. the balance o f hardships tips decisively
toward plaintiff), it will ordinarily be enough that the plaintiff has raised questions
going to the merits so serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful, as to make them
fair ground for litigation and thus more deliberative investigation.
WMATCv. Holiday Tours, 559 F.2d 841, 843 (D.C.Cir. 1973). See also, Cuomo v. U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm 'n, 772 F2d. 972, 975 (D.C. Cir. 1985)(need to show
probability o f success “inversely proportional to degree o f irreparable injury evidenced.”)
The First Circuit lessens the burdens even further in fashioning the issue this way:
where the denial of a stay will utterly destroy the status quo, irreparably harm appellants,
and granting a stay will cause relatively slight harm to the other parties, appellants need
not show, and the Court need not find, an absolute probability of success on the merits in
3
order to grant the stay. Providence Journal Co. v. Federal Bureau o f Investigation, 595
F.2d 889 (1st Cir. 1979).
The Plaintiff-Intervenors may cite cases about the importance o f preserving
constitutional rights, and will emphasize that this Court should protect their rights while
this case is on appeal. However, there are two separate injunctions at issue on appeal that
present opposing constitutional concerns. While the Court is imposing one injunction
regarding the rights of the six intervenors,1 it also has dissolved another - the Swann
desegregation decrees. The dissolution of that injunction dramatically impacts the
constitutional rights of African American students. Thus, there are competing
constitutional claims to weigh in the motion for the stay.
In the context o f a motion to stay a unitary status declaration, the only reported
decision to address the issue has described the point of balancing the equities to be “to
preserve the status quo until the court o f appeals can determine the validity o f the district
court’s dissolution of the injunction.” Jenkins v. Missouri, 965 F.Supp. 1295 (W.D.Mo.
1997). In Jenkins, the court denied the motion where the state had agreed to pay $341
million over three years to maintain programs in the district. It found the status quo
would not be changed before the case was decided on appeal.
In contrast, as described below, the time frame in which this Court’s current order
will take practical effect will dramatically alter the status quo and have an
overwhelmingly disproportionate impact on the African-American students in the district
while this case is on appeal.
1 Capacchione has no standing on the injunctive relief.
4
In balancing the equities, the Supreme Court has granted stays in school
desegregation cases where (a) a case presented an issue not previously resolved
by the Supreme Court, Corpus Christi Independent School District v. Cisneros, 404 U.S.
1211, 92 S.Ct. 9, 30 L.Ed. 15 (1971, Justice Black); (b) the disruption to the school
district from the court order was substantial, despite the fact that the non-movant’s
constitutional rights were impacted by the stay, Columbus Bd. o f Educ. v. Pinnick, 439
U.S. 1348, 58 L.Ed.2d 55, 99 S.Ct. 24 (1978)(Justice Rehnquist); and, (c) an “even
greater inconvenience might result if the plan were to go into effect forthwith and later be
modified or set aside” on appeal. Metropolitan County Bd. o f Educ. v. Kelley, 4353 U.S.
1306, 1307, 69 L.Ed.2d 1012, 102 S.Ct. 3 (1981)(Justice Stevens). Applying these
principles to this case the balance o f the equities supports the issuance o f a stay.
In support of their motion, the Swann plaintiffs address each o f the factors the
court must weigh, beginning with a discussion the balance of harms to the parties, then of
the effect of a stay on the public interest, and, finally, a discussion o f the substantial legal
issues raised on appeal and the likelihood of the Swann plaintiffs succeeding on appeal.
If the Court balances the absence of any practical harm to the six intervenors by a stay
against the enormous disruption to the education of tens of thousands of African
American and other students absent a stay; if it takes into account the public interest in
avoiding a disruptive scramble to massively reassign students in the system and cause an
immediate and geometric increase in racially identifiable schools; and if it recognizes the
substantial legal issues are presented on appeal, it will find the need for a stay is
compelling.
1. Risk of Irreparable Injury to Black Students if a Stay is Denied.
5
The Board’s filing on the stay notes, but does not begin to develop, the widely
disproportionate impact on black students of the present rush by the Board to meet the
Court’s order. Combining the Superintendent’s affidavit with some o f the evidence from
trial on the population o f satellite areas, it appears that the overwhelming majority of
students to be reassigned as a consequence of the Court order are black, perhaps as many
as 80%. On top o f that disproportionate removal of blacks from their presently assigned
schools, the Board does not presently have seats for all o f these students in proximity
based schools. That is the case whether the magnet programs remain in present locations
or not. The location o f magnets affect the scale of the problem, but it cannot eliminate it.
The seats that will be available are found in schools in need o f substantial repairs
and renovations, a problem that has been masked or compensated for by the infusion of
magnet program funds at those schools. The non-magnet schools in the center city
however, are lacking in supplies and materials when compared to other schools in the
district. The reaction in the community since the Court entered it order, from persons of
all political points of view, is that the center city schools are not presently equitable.
According to the school district’s motion for a stay, and consistent with all the evidence
from trial, most o f these students are to be assigned to schools that will be
overwhelmingly black and poor. Evidence at the trial showed how much such
demographics at a school impacts the level of basic instructional supplies that are
provided at each school through the private efforts of parents at that school.
The County Commission has rejected the Board’s proposal to build temporary
schools while the Board repairs these schools, raising serious questions about where these
students will go to school while renovations occur. Presently, no principals or teachers
6
have been assigned to these anticipated schools. The logistical challenges imposed by the
Court’s order are enormous. The direct educational result is the concentration o f the
poorest and most challenged students, most of whom are black, in certain schools that
lack resources. Such cannot be the ultimate result of a court order closing a school
desegregation case in which the school system was found to have engaged and ordered to
end in unlawful discrimination.
Most importantly, the Court’s Order does not allow the school district sufficient
time to make an orderly transition to a post-unitary status student assignment plan that
could avoid or minimize resegregation of the schools. The Eighth Circuit, in pondering
the impact o f a unitary status declaration upon the St. Louis schools, directed the parties
involved in that case to recognize “the mandate o f the Supreme Court, particularly in
Dowell that resegregation should not result from a declaration o f unitary status. Liddell v.
Bd. o f Educ. o f City o f St. Louis, 126 F.3d 1049 (1997)(emphasis added). Yet this school
system is moving swiftly to a position where resegregation is the necessary and only
possible result of this Court’s order. A stay to avoid that result while the Order is on
appeal would avoid a major change in the status quo that impacts most severely on
African American students.
In contrast to the cataclysmic disruption in the educational lives of African
American students, especially those from poorer families, the majority o f white students
in the system will remain settled in the schools where they presently are assigned and in
settings generally far superior to those found in the center-city. The only significant
exceptions are those white students attending magnet schools, whose fate remains
7
uncertain, and whose interest in a stay for purposes o f stability is consonant with that of
the black students.
2. Risk of Harm to the Grant-lntervenors if a Stay is Granted.
There is little risk o f actual harm to the six intervenors from a stay. Indeed, the
Court has found that these persons were not harmed in any actual or compensable way by
the present student assignment plan. Thus, it is res judicata that they will not be harmed
in any substantial way by a stay. If the court is concerned about harming the roughly
dozen children o f the Intervenors, then the court may fashion its stay in such a way to
allow whatever assignment would suit the Intervenors. This would negate any harm to
them while the case is on appeal.
3. Public Interest in a Stay.
The Board points out the substantial public interest in developing a student
assignment plan in an organized fashion that allows for public input. As this court has
emphasized, local control of the schools is a vital national tradition. But it is the Court’s
order that is causing the Board to scramble to devise a wholly new student assignment
plan by January 2000, rather than afford a time for a transition to a new student
assignment plan. The decisions need to be made quickly to accomplish the logistical
tasks such a massive change requires for the next school year. That pressure is
unnecessary and inappropriate under school desegregation case law. In Freeman v. Pitts,
the Supreme Court held, “[a] transition phase in which control is relinquished in a
8
gradual way is an appropriate means” to move to unitary status. 503 U.S. 467, 490, 112
S.Ct. 1430, 1445.
The Swann plaintiffs would restate, for the Court’s consideration o f what serves
the public interest, the fact that a large portion of the community is very concerned about
the resegregation of the schools. Some 43% of the students in the district are African
American, and they are not alone in their concern about the Order forcing the
resegregation of the schools. That concern is a significant public interest that a stay will
support. The issue o f resegregation should be addressed and resolved on appeal before it
is forced upon the schools by the Court.
The public also has a strong interest in the stability of pupil assignment and
avoiding wholesale change and then having to make wholesale changes again if the
court’s order is overturned on appeal. A stay would support that interest.
4. Likelihood That The Decision Will Be Overturned On Appeal.
The balance o f the harms and the public interest in a orderly process for
determining student assignment and limiting resegregation are reason enough for the
Court to grant a stay. When those factors are considered in light of the substantial legal
issues presented on appeal, and the likelihood of success on the merits on appeal on some
or all o f those issues, the need for a stay becomes compelling. The Swann plaintiff see at
least three separate appeal issues that present substantial contested issues where the Court
could be reversed.
9
a. The Injunction
The Board points out correctly that the recent Fourth Circuit decision in Tuttle v.
Arlington County Schools, 189 F.3rd 431 (4th Cir. 1999), makes almost certain that this
Court’s injunction will be overturned on appeal. There are several reasons.
First, the injunction is unauthorized.
The injunction prohibiting the use of race in operating the schools in the future
reaches far beyond the two issues before the Court at trial - whether the district had
attained unitary status, and whether the magnet schools were operated constitutionally
while the district was under a desegregation order. The injunction addresses the issue of
how the district might assign students after a unitary status declaration. That question
simply was not a case or controversy at the trial. The issue o f post-unitary operations
was never briefed nor argued by the parties. The Board has never adopted, let alone
presented to the Court, a plan on student assignment after unitary status was declared.
Thus, there is a substantial chance that the Court of Appeals will overturn the injunction
and find that the Court reached beyond its constitutional authority in entering an advisory
opinion about a matter not before it. See, Tuttle, 189 F.3rd at 437 (discussing absence o f
distinct challenge to court's authority to issue stay).
Second, the injunction is unprecedented in the jurisprudence on unitary status
declarations. The injunction inverts the principles of Freeman - that court jurisdiction
ends on such a declaration except to allow for a gradual transition. 503 U.S. at 490. The
Court, in effect, has imposed permanent court jurisdiction through the injunction, while
ignoring the need for a gradual transition to a new method o f assigning schools. Tuttle
10
held that an injunction less onerous than this was “too intrusive.” 189 F.3d at 431. In
the Board’s response to the Order - that it must move to neighborhood school
assignments — the Court effectively has set educational policy for the school system in a
far broader manner than the Fourth Circuit forbade in Tuttle.
Third, Tuttle undercuts the legal theory that serves as the Court’s basis for the
injunction — that diversity can never be a compelling interest in a post unitary school
system. Tuttle makes clear that this Court’s opinion o f diversity in the public schools is
not the established law o f this Circuit or of the Supreme Court. 189 F.3rd at 438. The
Supreme Court has never overturned Bakke, a higher education case, and has never
repudiated its language from Swann:
School authorities are traditional charged with broad power to formulate and
implement education policy and might well conclude, for example, that in order to
prepare students to live in a pluralistic society each school should have a
prescribed ratio o f Negro to white students reflecting the proportion of the district
as a whole. To do this as an education policy is within the broad discretionary
powers o f school authorities.
402 U.S. 1, 16.
Further, this Court’s opinion about the use of race in education fails to recognize
the holding from Shaw v. Hunt and Miller v. Johnson that race may be taken into account
in the drawing o f voting districts, so long as it is not the predominant factor in drawing
those districts. Shaw, 517 U.S. 899, 905 (1996); Miller, 515 U.S. 900, 916 (1995). Shaw
and Miller, if applied in the public school context, suggest that a school system that seeks
to promote diversity for its educational value, should be able to continue to take race into
account in operating the schools, even after a unitary status declaration, so long as race is
not the predominant factor in school decision-making.
11
In short, the injunction presents substantial questions of law and appears very
likely to be overturned on appeal.
b. Unitary Status
The Court need not look far to see that the Swann plaintiffs present substantial
issues on appeal of the unitary status declaration. The district court in Hillsborough
County, FI., in what Intervenors’ expert witness William Clark called the closest case
demographically to CMS, denied that district unitary status. Manning v. Hillsborough
County Bd. ofEduc., 24 F.Supp.2d 1277 (M.D. Fla. 1998). That a court could reach the
opposite conclusion of this Court in assessing a school system with very similar
demographics to those at issue here, indicates that the Swann plaintiffs position on
appeal is substantial, even if the Court does not believe that these plaintiffs can prevail on
that issue.
Even without Manning, the Court’s finding of unitary status raises substantial
factual and legal questions. One question is whether the Board complied with the
existing orders of the Court. In 1974 and again inl979, the district court held that the
school district had not implemented its orders in four significant ways. The district
acknowledged at trial its own failure to comply with those orders since 1979. The
manner in which this court’s Order dealt with that aspect of the unitary status analysis
presents a substantial issue on appeal.
There are several other hotly contested issues on appeal which can affect the
ultimate outcome, including: 1) the Court’s refusal to consider evidence of any other
12
plans which offered practicable ways to achieve greater desegregation; 2) the Court’s
refusal to consider or comment on the 1998-99 data showing that some 40 o f the districts
schools had racially identifiable faculty; 3) the court’s conclusion that the law of case
compelled a finding of unitary status concerning facilities and resources; and 4) the
Court’s conclusion that the district has no responsibility for the continuing black-white
gap in student achievement. These all present substantial issues on appeal.
c. The Magnet Program
Finally, the appeal presents a substantial legal issue regarding the Court’s opinion
that the magnet school program was operated unconstitutionally. The Board properly
raises the question, under Fourth Circuit precedent, that because the magnet program was
operated while under a desegregation order, that the Court should have analyzed the
program to determine if it was “reasonably related” to meeting the court order. Vaughn
v. Board o f Education o f Prince Georges County, 758 F.2d 983, 993 (4th Cir. 1985).
Instead, the Court applied strict scrutiny to the operation of the program.
The legal question of what standard o f review to apply in the operation o f the
magnet program presents a substantial legal issue on appeal. The Swann plaintiffs add
that under either standard o f review, the Court failed to consider fully the negative impact
o f the magnet program on African American students. In 1992, when the magnet
program was expanded from the handful of magnet schools operated since 1974, 20% of
the district’s black students were in segregated schools. By 1997, 30% of African
American students were in segregated schools or programs. Yet the court found their
effect salutary. The Court notes that the magnet schools had a segregative effect on non
magnets, but does not detail the evidence showing, for example, that 450 white students
13
left Ranson Middle School in a single school year to attend magnet schools. The Court’s
failure to analyze critically the magnet programs’ negative impact on African American
students presents an additional substantial issue on appeal.
The Balance of the Equities Calls for a Stay
One thing is certain. A failure to stay this Order pending appeal will dramatically
alter the status quo. When the substantial risk of harms to African Americans from a
denial o f a stay is weighed against the absence of significant harm to the six intervenors if
a stay is granted, the equities tilt heavily toward granting the motion. When those
equities are balanced with the public interest in an orderly process o f assigning students
that does not compel resegregation, the need for a stay is even more compelling. And
when those equities are weighed with the fact that these plaintiffs present substantial
legal issues on appeal, and likely will obtain success on some or all o f the issues, the need
for a stay is paramount.
This Board should not be rushed to drastically alter the plan for assigning its
students by January 2000 to satisfy an injunction that is unprecedented and untested by
the relevant appellate courts, only to have it overturned and the student assignment
process begun anew. As succinctly stated by Justice Stevens, a stay is necessary where
an “even greater inconvenience might result if the plan were to go into effect forthwith
and later be modified or set aside” on appeal. Metropolitan County Bd. o f Educ. v.
Kelley, supra.
The ultimate goal in this case since 1969 has been to bring some amount of
stability and fairness to the student assignment process. While the parties do differ on
what constitutes such a process, a rushed compliance with this novel but fragile and
14
assailable Order does not accomplish that end. The Court does not have to agree with the
Swann plaintiffs as to the likelihood of their success on appeal in order to conclude that a
stay is appropriate. There are serious and important and unsettled legal questions
involved in this appeal, and the equities support a stay. That is enough. This case
involves questions o f law which have not been addressed previously by the Fourth
Circuit, let alone the Supreme Court, thus leaving great uncertainty regarding the future
of the school system. Those uncertainties should be resolved on appeal before changes
so dramatic - and so hastily drawn - are put in place.
Respectfully submitted this 29th day of Oc
ELAINE R. JONES
Director-Counsel
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN
GLORIA J. BROWNE
NAACP Legal Defense &
JAJV l.C.Bar#: 1434
AD; , .45
S. LUKE LARGESS, N.C. Bar# 17486
Ferguson, Stein, Wallas, Adkins, Gresham
Educational Fund, Inc.
99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor
New York, New York 10013
(212)219-1900
& Sumter, P.A.
741 Kenilworth Avenue, Suite 300
Charlotte, NC 28204
(704)375-8461
15
t
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I have served the foregoing MEMORANDUM IN
SUPPORT OF SWANN PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR STAY AND IN RESPONSE
TO BOARD’S MOTION FOR STAY on opposing counsel by placing a copy thereof
enclosed in a postage prepaid properly addressed wrapper in a post office or official
depository under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Postal Service,
addressed to:
John O. Pollard, Esq.
Kevin V. Parsons, Esq.
McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, L.L.P.
101 South Tryon Street
3700 NationsBank Plaza
Charlotte, N. C. 28280-0001
William S. Helfand, Esq.
Magenheim, Bateman, Robinson,
Wrotenbery & Helfand, P.L.L.C.
3600 One Houston Center
1221 McKinney
Houston, TX 77010
Leslie J. Winner, Esq.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board o f Education
P. O. Box 30035
Charlotte, N. C. 28230-0035
James G. Middlebrooks, Esq.
Irving M. Brenner, Esq.
Smith, Helms, Mulliss & Moore, LLP
P. O. Box 31247
201 North Tryon Street
Charlotte, N. C. 28231
Allen R. Snyder, Esq.
Maree Sneed, Esq.
Kevin J. Lanigan, Esq.
David Newmann, Esq.
16
*
Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P.
555 Thirteenth Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20004-1109
John W. Borkowski, Esq.
Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P.
546 Carondelet Street, Suite 207
New Orleans, LA 70130-3588
David Newmann, Esq.
Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P.
1515 Market St., Suite 1630
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Thomas J. Ashcraft
212 South Tryon Street
Suite 1430
Charlotte, N. C. 28281
K. Lee Adams, Esq.
Kirwan, Parks, Chesin & Miller, P.C.
2600 The Grand
75 Fourteenth Street
Atlanta, GA 30309
This, the 29th day of October, 1999.
Ferguson, Stein, Wallas, Adkins
Gresham, & Sumter, P.A.
Suite 300 Park Plaza Building
741 Kenilworth Avenue (28204)
Post Office Box 36486
Charlotte, N. C. 28236-6486
(704) 375-8461
17
ATTACHMENTS TO
PLAIN TIFFS-APPELLANTS’ MOTION
FOR STAY
w
F ! l : - n
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION ' "1 '
M I
r* ? f
,1 5 - ; 4
WILLIAM CAPACCHIONE, as Guardian for
CRISTINA CAPACCHIONE, a Minor,
Plaintiff,
and
MICHAEL P. GRANT, et al.,
Plaintiff-Intervenors,
v.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Civil Action No. 3:97-CV-482-P
)
THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD )
OF EDUCATION, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________________ )
)
JAMES E. SWANN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. ) Civil Action No. 1974
)
THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD )
OF EDUCATION, et a l, )
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________________ )
SWANN PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR STAY
Now come the Swann Plaintiffs, through counsel, and pursuant to Rule 62(c) of the
F.R.C.P. and move the Court for a complete stay of its September 9, 1999 order in this matter for
the reasons set out in the attached memorandum.
Respectfully submitted this
ELAINE R. JONES
Director-Counsel
NORMAN J. CHACHKJN
GLORIA J. BROWNE
29th day of October, 1999.
JAMES E. FERGUSON,''ll, N.C.Bar#: 1434
ADAM STEIN, N.C.Bar#: 4145
S. LUKE LARGESS, N.C. Bar# 174S6
NAACP Legal Defense & Ferguson, Stein, Wallas, Adkins, Gresham
Educational Fund, Inc. & Sumter, P.A.
99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor 741 Kenilworth Avenue, Suite 300
New York, New York 10013 Charlotte, NC 28204
(212) 219-1900 (704) 375-8461
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I have served the foregoing SW ANN PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR STAY on opposing counsel by placing a copy thereof enclosed in a postage prepaid
properly addressed wrapper in a post office or official depository under the exclusive care and
custody of the United States Postal Service, addressed to:
John 0 . Pollard, Esq.
Kevin V. Parsons, Esq.
McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, L.L.P.
101 South Tryon Street
3700 NationsBank Plaza
Charlotte, N. C. 28280-0001
William S. Helfand, Esq.
Magenheim, Bateman, Robinson,
Wrotenbery & Helfand, P.L.L.C.
3600 One Houston Center
1221 McKinney
Houston, TX 77010
Leslie J. Winner, Esq.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education
P. O. Box 30035
Charlotte, N. C. 28230-0035
James G. Middlebrooks, Esq.
Irving M. Brenner, Esq.
Smith, Helms, Mulliss & Moore, LLP
P. O. Box 31247
201 North Tryon Street
Charlotte, N. C. 28231
Allen R. Snyder, Esq.
Maree Sneed, Esq.
Kevin J. Lanigan, Esq.
David Newmann, Esq.
Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P.
555 Thirteenth Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20004-1109
John W. Borkowski, Esq.
Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P.
546 Carondelet Street, Suite 207
New Orleans, LA 70130-3588
David Newmann, Esq.
Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P.
1515 Market St., Suite 1630
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Thomas J. Ashcraft
212 South Tryon Street
Suite 1430
Charlotte, N. C. 28281
K. Lee Adams, Esq.
Kirwan, Parks, Chesin & Miller, P.C.
2600 The Grand
75 Fourteenth Street
Atlanta, GA 30309
This, the 29th day of October, 1999.
S. _____
N.C. Bar Number 17486
Ferguson, Stein, Wallas, Adkins
Gresham, & Sumter, P.A.
Suite 300 Park Plaza Building
741 Kenilworth Avenue (28204)
Post Office Box 36486
Charlotte, N. C. 28236-6486
(704) 375-8461
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
William CAPACCHIONE, Individually )
and on Behalf of Cristina Capacchione, )
a Minor, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
and )
)
Michael P. Grant et al., )
)
Plaintiff-Intervenors, )
)
v. )
)
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS )
et al., )
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________ )
)
James E. SWANN et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD )
OF EDUCATION et al., )
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________________)
F I L E D
CHARLOTTE, n . c .
NO M 5 1999
U. S. DISTRICT COURT
W. DIST, OF N. C.
3:97-CV-482-P
3:65-CV-1974-P
O R D E R
THIS MATTER is before the Court on defendants Charlotte-Meckienburg Board of
Education, et al. ’s (the "Board") Motion to Stay and for Additional Relief, and plaintiffs James E.
Swann, et al. ’s (the "Swarm Plaintiffs) Motion for Stay.
I.
BACKGROUND
On September 9, 1999, this Court filed its Memorandum Opinion and Order (the "Order")
in this case, and Judgment in accordance with the Order. The Order declared that defendant
Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools ("CMS”) had achieved "unitary status" and, therefore, vacated and
dissolved all prior injunctive orders. Order, p. 114. This declaration freed CMS from the Court’s
supervision and granted it the opportunity to administer Mecklenburg County schools in a way it
deemed best for the children, teachers, and educational system as a whole. The Order also found
unconstitutional CMS’s practice of assigning magnet students via a strict race-based lottery. Order,
p. 111. Accordingly, the Court enjoined CMS from "assigning children to schools or allocating
educational opportunities and benefits through race-based lotteries, preferences, set-asides, or other
means that deny students an equal footing based on race." Order, p. 114.
On October 7, 1999, the Swann Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court’s Order. On
October 8, 1999, the Board filed its Notice of Appeal.
On October 14, 1999, the Board filed the instant Motion to Stay and for Additional Relief.
In its Motion, the Board seeks a limited stay, pursuant to Rule 62 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, "of the effective date of the injunction in this case until the beginning of the 2001-02
academic year." Board’s Motion, p. 2. The Board’s Motion also seeks clarification and requests this
Court to interpret its Order in a way that five categories of students may be "grandfathered" and not
affected by the injunction. Specifically, "[t]he Board asks that rising fifth, eighth, and twelfth grade
students be permitted to stay in their current schools; that the current ninth-graders who will be
assigned to one of the two new high schools in 2001-02 be allowed to stay in their current schools
until that assignment; and that current magnet students not be displaced, but instead be permitted to
2
continue in their magnet programs through the completion o f their current school level." Id. at 4.
Alternatively, the Board seeks relief under Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to
allow these categories of students to continue in their current school or program. Id. at 19-20.
On October 29, 1999, the Swann Plaintiffs filed their instant Motion for Stay of the Court’s
Order. Utilizing the same arguments as set forth in the Board’s Motion, the Swann Plaintiffs’
Motion differs in that it seeks a full stay pending appeal, as opposed to the Board’s requested limited
stay of one year. Swann Plaintiffs’ Motion, p. 2.
On October 29,1999, William Capacchione, as Guardian for Cristina Capacchione, a minor,
and Michael P. Grant, etal. (collectively the "Plaintiff-Intervenors") filed a Response to the Board’s
Motion for Stay and for Additional Relief. On November 4, 1999, the Board filed its Reply Brief
in support of its Motion. On November 5,1999, the Swann Plaintiffs filed a Corrected Reply to the
Plaintiff-Intervenors’ Response to the Board’s Motion for Stay. On November 8,1999, the Plaintiff-
Intervenors filed a Response to the Swann Plaintiffs’ Separate Motion for Stay.
II.
DISCUSSION
A. Motion For Stay
The Board and the Swann Plaintiffs move the Court, pursuant to Rule 62 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, to stay the injunction in this case pending appeal. The parties agree as to the
factors this Court must consider in making its determination. They are as follows:
1. Whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay;
2. Whether the applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on
appeal;
3
3. Whether the issuance of a stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in
the proceeding; and
4. Whether the public interest will be served by granting the stay.
Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776, 107 S. Ct. 2113, 95 L. Ed. 2d 724 (1987); Long v.
Robinson. 432 F.2d 977, 979 (4th Cir. 1970).
Upon balancing these factors and the facts of this case, and recognizing that stays in
desegregation cases are rarely granted, the Court will deny the Board’s and the Swann Plaintiffs’
requests for a stay. See Coppedge v. Frankiin Countv Bd. of Educ.. 293 F. Supp. 356, 362
(E.D.N.C. 1968) a f fd . 404 F.2d 1177 (4th Cir. 1968).
1. Irreparable Injury To Applicant
The Board and the Swann Plaintiffs contend that they, as well as the students of Mecklenburg
County, will suffer irreparable injury if a stay is denied. The Board and the Swann Plaintiffs allege
that to comply with the Order, the Board must develop an entirely new student assignment plan. The
Board and Swann Plaintiffs argue that this "monumental change" requires a great deal of time to
develop and implement. See Board’s Motion, p. 7. They, therefore, make the conclusory assertion
that denying their request for a stay will have a "potentially devastating impact." Id at 6.
As the Plaintiff-Intervenors point out, the Board’s and the Swann Plaintiffs’ panicked
allegations of irreparable harm "are riddled with . . . generalized contingencies, speculation,
possibilities and outright guessing." Plaintiff-Intervenors’ Response, p. 12. The Board’s own
evidence clearly indicates that it can implement a constitutional student assignment plan for the
2000-01 school year. Affidavit of Dr. Eric J. Smith, filed Oct. 14, 1999, p. 6, f 15.
The Court recognizes that compliance with the Order involves some degree of administrative
legwork. Administrative burdens, however, are insufficient to warrant a stay of this Court’s
4
injunction. See Long, supra, 432 F.2d at 978-80. Notably, in issuing its Order, the Court was
sensitive to the potential period of temporary instability that the injunction could cause certain
students o f Mecklenburg County. For that reason, the Court stated that its Order would not disrupt
pupil assignments already made for the 1999-2000 school year. Order, p. 111 n. 52.
The Board may make some comprehensive changes in CMS during the period o f transition
from being under desegregation orders to having the autonomy of a unitary system. The Board and
Swann Plaintiffs failed to establish that the potential harm from such changes would be irreparable.
The extent of the "harm" is ultimately in the hands of the Board and CMS. Furthermore, irreparable
harm is but one factor the Court must consider in determining whether to stay the injunction.
Weighing all of the factors in this case, and given that the Board acknowledges that it can implement
a constitutional assignment plan for the 2000-01 school year, the Court finds that a stay is not
warranted.
2. Likelihood Of Success On Appeal
The Board and the Swann Plaintiffs contend that the Order presents several appealable issues.
They contend that they are likely to prevail in their appeal of these issues. This Court will address
each issue In turn and illustrate the fallacies in the Board’s and the Swarm Plaintiffs’ arguments.
First, the Board and the Swann Plaintiffs argue that the Plaintiff-Intervenors were not entitled
to a finding of a constitutional violation because the magnet admission policy deemed
unconstitutional was adopted in pursuit of compliance with the then existing Swann desegregation
orders. The Board and the Swann Plaintiffs contend that the Swann desegregation orders required
the Board and CMS to use racial criteria in school admission policies. The Board and the Swann
P laintiffs reason that actions pursuant to the Swann orders to remedy past discrimination cannot give
rise to independent liability.
5
As set forth at length in the Order, however, this "immunity" has its limits in that one "cannot
enjoy immunity for ultra vires acts - that is, acts that are beyond the scope of the Court’s mandate
and that are not otherwise constitutionally authorized." Order, p. 98. The area of liability in this
case "is the use o f rigid racial quotas." Id at 99. "One of the most basic tenets underlying Swann
was that the use of mathematical ratios in desegregation plans could be used as a ‘starting point’ but
could not be used as an ‘inflexible requirement.’" Id (citations omitted).
What the Board and the Swann Plaintiffs apparently still fail to realize by appealing this issue
is that "CMS ran the risk of exposure to liability when, in instituting its magnet program without
seeking judicial approval, it implemented a new regime of rigid race-based assignment procedures."
Id. at 100. "This change in the student assignment process was a material departure from the Swann
orders." Id at 101. Therefore, the Board and CMS cannot cloak themselves under the veil of the
Swann orders in avoiding constitutional liability to the Plaintiff-Intervenors.
Second, the Board and the Swann Plaintiffs argue that the injunction is overbroad. In this
regard, they contend that the factual underpinning of this case was the magnet admission program.
They suggest that because the injunction covers other admission policies and instructional programs,
it is impermissible.
As the Board correctly points out, "[t]he Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has
repeatedly recognized that trial courts should limit the scope of their injunctions to the specific
violation found." Board’s Motion, p. 11. In this case, the violation found was the Board and CMS’s
practice o f allocating educational opportunities and benefits through a strict race-based lottery that
operated as an inflexible quota. In prohibiting this type of admissions practice, the Court took into
consideration that CMS had achieved unitary status. The declaration of unitary status necessarily
affected the scope of future prohibited activity because, in a non-remedial, unitary status setting, the
6
use o f race is a fortiori unconstitutional. Order, p. 1. Contrary to the arguments of the Board and
the Swann Plaintiffs, it is irrelevant that the Court’s injunction may encompass violations that occur
outside o f the magnet program. Indeed, it would be meaningless for this Court to prohibit a
constitutional violation in one setting, but allow it in another, simply because an educational
program is known by a different name.
Moreover, the Board is incorrect in its assertion that only the magnet school program was
before the Court. As the Board is well aware, this case was consolidated with the three decade old
case Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ.. 311 F. Supp. 265 (W.D.N.C. 1970). Swann
obligated this Court to consider the comprehensive educational policies of CMS and whether it had
achieved unitary status.
The injunction addresses the violation before the Court in this case and is rooted in the
Court’s duty to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. It goes no
further than necessary.
Third, the Swann Plaintiffs contend that the injunction is unauthorized in that it "addresses
the issue o f how the district might assign students after a unitary status declaration." Swann
Plaintiffs’ Motion, p. 10. The Swann Plaintiffs contend "[tjhat question simply was not a case or
controversy at the trial." Id.
The Swann Plaintiffs fundamentally misread the Order. The Court declared CMS unitary.
Order, p. 97. The Order expressly relinquished the Court of supervisory authority over the Board
and CMS. In this regard, the Court stated that it "will not demand clearance of any future student
assignment plans prior to implementation." Id. at 109. The Swann Plaintiffs’ misguided suggestion
that the Order is a detailed blueprint of how the Board should assign students in the future is without
merit. The Order, as discussed above, simply offers the foimdationai guideline that student
7
assignments occur within the confines of the Fourteenth Amendment, This basic constitutional
requirement does not render the injunction "unprecedented," as the Swann Plaintiffs indicate they
will argue on appeal. Swann Plaintiffs’ Motion, p. 10.
Finally, the Swann Plaintiffs declare that they will successfully appeal the Court’s declaration
that CMS achieved unitary status, and the standard of review the Court utilized in making its finding
that CMS’s raced-based practices constituted a constitutional violation. The Swann Plaintiffs’
arguments in this regard are a mere rehashing of their arguments in pre-trial briefs and at trial. They
are addressed at length in the Court’s Order and do not warrant discussion here.
Therefore, the Board and the Swann Plaintiffs have failed to make a strong showing of
likelihood o f success on appeal.
3. Substantial Injury To Interested Parties
The Court disagrees with the Board and the Swann Plaintiffs’ assertion that the issuance of
a stay will not substantially injure the Plaintiff-Intervenors and other interested parties. The Court
prohibited the Board and CMS from assigning and transferring students, or allocating educational
resources, based solely on race. The Court reasoned that the Board and CMS’s strict race-based
policies deprived students of their rights under the Equal Protection Clause. The Court agrees with
the Plaintiff-Intervenors that denial of equal protection rights is a deprivation of a right fundamental
to our constitutional system. A stay in this case would allow the Board and CMS to continue
infringing upon students’ equal protection rights. Therefore, a stay in this case would substantially
injure the Plaintiff-Intervenors and similarly situated third parties.
4. Public Interest
The Board and the Swann Plaintiffs’ argument that the public interest will be served by the
granting of a stay is likewise unpersuasive. The Court finds that it is not in the public interest to
8
further subject the more than 100,000 Mecklenburg County students to unconstitutional strict racial
balancing guidelines. This is especially true given that CMS has achieved unitary status. Therefore,
the Court will deny the Board and the Swann Plaintiffs’ requests for a stay.
B. Motion For Clarification
The Board requests that the Court clarify whether its injunction can be interpreted to allow
"grandfathering," that is, to allow five categories of students to continue in their current schools
through completion of their current school level.
A post-judgment motion for clarification requesting a court to interpret the scope of its
injunction is properly made under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as opposed
to Rule 60. Birdsong v. Wrotenberv. 901 F.2d 1270, 1272 (5th Cir. 1990). Any motion pursuant to
Rule 59(e) "shall be filed no later than 10 days after entry of the judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e);
see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) ("[T]he court.. . may not extend the time for taking any action under
Rule [] . . . 59(e).").
In Birdsong, the plaintiffs alleged that Texas’ Administrative Services Tax ("ASTA") was
preempted by section 514 of ERISA and sought the return of taxes paid under ASTA. The federal
District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The judgment enjoined the
defendants, various Texas State authorities, from seeking to collect from any of the plaintiffs the tax
authorized by ASTA in any administrative or judicial proceedings related to ASTA. The defendants
filed a post-judgment motion for clarification, explaining that a pending state court action
challenging ASTA involved one of the plaintiffs in the federal suit. The defendants asked the Court
to specifically set out whether the injunction was designed or intended to prohibit the continuation
of the state court proceedings.
9
The first issue before the Birdsong Court was whether the motion for clarification was made
pursuant to Rule 59(e) or Rule 60. The Court held that "defendants’ motion was not collateral but
went directly to the scope of the injunction. For this reason, the motion is not a Rule 60(a) motion,
and thus falls under the umbrella of Rule 59(e)." Id.
Here, as the defendants in Birdsong, the Board’s Motion for Clarification goes directly to the
scope of the injunction. The Board is asking the Court to interpret its injunction to grandfather the
five relevant categories of students. Therefore, under Birdsong and the express language of Federal
Rules o f Civil Procedure, the Board’s Motion is made pursuant to Rule 59(e).
The judgment was entered in this case on September 9, 1999. The Board’s Motion for
Clarification was filed on October 14, 1999, more than 10 days after the entry' of the judgment.
Therefore, the Board’s Motion is impermissibly late and the Court, due to the Board’s own
procedural error, is barred from considering the Motion for Clarification.
C. Motion For Relief From Order
In the alternative to the Motion for Clarification, the Board seeks the same relief for the five
categories of students pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6). Rule 60(b)(6) allows a court in its discretion to
achieve justice by relieving a party from a final judgment. The Court agrees with the Plaintiff-
Intervenors that it would not be in the interest of justice to grant the Board’s Rule 60(b)(6) Motion
because the Court is not informed of the specifics of the Board’s grandfathering plan. There are
simply too many unanswered questions for the Court to give its stamp of approval. In that regard,
the Board’s Rule 60(b)(6) Motion is unjustified.
Furthermore, the Motion is unnecessary. The Court’s Order released the Board from Court
interference in implementing policies and running Mecklenburg County schools. Indeed, the Order
attempted to avoid such entanglement by clearly stating "the Court will not demand clearance of any
10
future student assignment plans prior to implementation." Order, p. 109. The Board must come to
understand this language and resist its temptation, thirty years in the making, to request Court
authorization for various educational policies.
The Order is clear. It prohibits assigning children to schools or allocating educational
opportunities and benefits through strict race-based lotteries, preferences, set-asides, or other means
that deny students an equal footing based on race. Id at 114. Although its authorization is not
needed, the Court will state in the abstract that the Order does not prohibit voluntary school choice.
If the Board wants, as it suggests, to offer its students the voluntary option of either staying in their
school or program or accepting their new assignment, and can do so in a race neutral way, the Court
sees nothing in its Order that prohibits such a practice. See Board’s Reply, p. 7. The Plaintiff-
Intervenors agree. Plaintiff-Intervenors’ Response, p. 3. Any assignment, transfer, or decision
to leave a student in his or her current school, however, must conform with the Constitution and the
Order by avoiding strict race-based lotteries, preferences, set-asides, or other means that deny
students an equal footing based on race.
The Board is the body elected by the people of Mecklenburg County to run its schools. The
Court’s Order granted the Board the local control that school boards across the country desire to
freely operate and manage their schools. The Board, along with the people and parents of
Mecklenburg County, have an unprecedented opportunity to set the agenda of Mecklenburg County
schools that will benefit the County’s children for decades to come. This Court can only hope that
it does so.
11
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Board’s Motion for Stay and for
Additional Relief be, and hereby is, DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Swann Plaintiffs’ Motion for Stay be, and hereby
is, DENIED.
The Clerk is directed to certify copies of this Order to all parties.
This the / S M * ! of November, 1999.
^ “Ro b e r t d . p o t t e r
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
crl
United States District Court
for the
Western District of North Carolina
November 15, 1999
* * MAILING CERTIFICATE OF CLERK * *
Re: 3:97-CV-00482
True and correct copies of the attached were mailed by the clerk to the
following:
John 0. Pollard, Esq.
McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, L.L.P.
101 S. Tryon St.
3700 Bank of America Plaza
Charlotte, NC 28280-0001
Kevin V. Parsons, Esq.
McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, L.L.P.
101 S. Tryon St.
3700 Bank of America Plaza
Charlotte, NC 28280-0001
William S. Helfand, Esq.Magenheim, Bateman, Robinson, Wrotenbery & Helfand, P.L.L.C.
3600 One Houston Center
1221 McKinney
Houston, TX 77010
Lee Meyers, Esq.
Meyers &. Hulse
122 N. McDowell Street
P.0. Box 36385
Charlotte, NC 28236
Leslie J. Winner, Esq.Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education
P. 0. Box 30035
Charlotte, NC 28230-0035
James G. Middlebrooks, Esq.
Smith, Helms, Mulliss & Moore, LLP
P. 0. Box 31247
201 No. Tryon St.
Charlotte, NC 28231
Irving M. Brenner, Esq.
Smith, Helms, Mulliss & Moore, LLP
P. 0. Box 31247
201 No. Tryon St.
Charlotte, NC 28231
Irving M. Brenner, Esq~
Smith, Helms, Mulliss & Moore, LLP
P. 0. Box 31247
201 No. Tryon St.
Charlotte, NC 28231
Allen R. Snyder, Esq.
Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P.
555 Thirteenth St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20004-1109
Maree Sneed, Esq.
Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P.
555 Thirteenth St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20004-1109
Kevin J. Lanigan, Esq.
Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P.
555 Thirteenth St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20004-1109
Rose Marie L. Audette, Esq.
Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P.
555 Thirteenth St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20004-1109
John W. Borkowski, Esq.
Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P.
555 Thirteenth St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20004-1109
David B. Newman, Esq.
Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P.
555 Thirteenth St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20004-1109
James E. Ferguson, Esq.
Ferguson, Stein, Wallas, Gresham & Sumter, P.A P. 0. Box 36486
741 Kenilworth Ave., Suite 300
Charlotte, NC 28236-6486
Luke Largess, Esq.
Ferguson, Stein, Wallas, Gresham & Sumter, P.A P. 0. Box 36486
741 Kenilworth Ave., Suite 300
Charlotte, NC 28236-6486
Adam Stein, Esq.
Ferguson Stein Wallas Adkins
Gresham & Sumter
Suite 2 - Franklin Suites
312 West Franklin St.
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Elaine Jones, Esq.
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.99 Hudson St.
New York, NY 10013
Norman J. Chachkin, Esq.
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.
99 Hudson St.
New York, NY 10013
Gloria J. Browne, Esq.
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.
99 Hudson St.
New York, NY 10013
Thomas J. Ashcraft, Esq.
212 South Tryon St., Suite 1430
Charlotte, NC 28281
A. Lee Parks, Esq.
Kirwan, Parks, Chesin & Miller, P.C.
2600 The Grand
75 Fourteenth Street
Atlanta, GA 30309
K. Lee Adams, Esq.
Kirwan, Parks, Chesin
2600 The Grand
■ 75 Fourteenth Street
| Atlanta, GA 30309
1
CC :
judge ( )
iagistrate Judge ( )
J ' . S . Marshal ( )
Probation ( )
I'.S. Attorney ( )
l.tty. for Deft. ( )Defendant ( )jarden ( )
Jureau of Prisons ( )
Court Reporter ( )Courtroom Deputy ( )
Jrig-Security ( )
lankruptcy Clerk's Ofc . ( )Other ( )
I
1 Date:
P.C.
Frank
By: _
Deputy Clerk
Smith, Helms, Mulliss & Moore, LLP
P. 0. Box 31247
201 No. Tryon St.
Charlotte, NC 28231
Irving M. Brenner, Esq.
Smith, Helms, Mulliss & Moore, LLP
P. 0. Box 31247
201 No. Tryon St.
Charlotte, NC 28231
Allen R. Snyder, Esq.
Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P.
555 Thirteenth St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20004-1109
Kevin J. Lanigan, Esq.
Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P.
555 Thirteenth St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20004-1109
Maree Sneed, Esq.
Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P.
555 Thirteenth St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20004-1109
John W. Borkowski, Esq.
Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P.
555 Thirteenth St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20004-1109
David B. Newman, Esq.
Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P.
555 Thirteenth St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20004-1109
Rose Marie L. Audette, Esq.
Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P.
555 Thirteenth St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20004-1109
Leslie J. Winner, Esq.
Charlotte-Mecklenburq- Board of Education
P. 0. Box 30035
Charlotte, NC 28230-0035
Kevin V. Parsons, Esq.
McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, L.L.P.
101 S. Tryon St.
3700 Bank of America Plaza
Charlotte, NC 28280-0001
John 0. Pollard, Esq.
McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, L.L.P.
101 S. Tryon St.
3700 Bank of America Plaza
Charlotte, NC 28280-0001
Lee Meyers, Esq.
Meyers & Hulse
122 N. McDowell Street
P.0. Box 36385
Charlotte, NC 28236
Thomas J. Ashcraft, Esq.
212 South Tryon St., Suite 1430
Charlotte, NC 28281
A. Lee Parks, Esq.Kirwan, Parks, Chesin & Miller, P.C.
2600 The Grand
75 Fourteenth Street
Atlanta, GA 30309
K. Lee Adams, Esq.Kirwan, Parks, Chesin Sc Miller, P.C.
2600 The Grand
75 Fourteenth Street
Atlanta, GA 30309
f C =■Judge
Magistrate Judge
U.S. Marshal
(Probation J.S. Attorney
Atty. for Deft.
(Defendant harden
Bureau of Prisons
Court Reporter
ISourtroom Deputy Drig-Security
Bankruptcy Clerk's Ofc
ther __f
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
Date: / / / / c A y
Frank G. Johns, Clerk
,ABy: Deputy Clerk
A
LL
-S
TA
TE
®
L
EG
A
L
80
0-
22
2-
05
10
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools Demographic Overview
Student Assignment Methodology
Section 1: Boundary Descriptions
Section 2: School Feeder Chart
Section 3: Magnet Programs
Section 4: Choice Programs
Section 5: Exceptional Children Programs (EC)
Section 6: Pre-Kindergarten Programs
Section 7: Elementary School Maps
Section 8: Middle School Maps
Section 9: High School Maps
Section 10: Appendix
Proposed 2000-2001 Elementary School Boundaries
Elementary School Future Population within Boundaries
School Future
Population
(incl. growth)
Capacity* Utilization Free & Reduced
Lunch
ALBEMARLE ROAD ELEM. 727 726 1.00 0.54
ALLENBROOK ELEM. 409 572 0.72 0.68
ASHLEY PARK ELEM. 420 594 0.72 0.90
BAIN ELEM. 734 814 0.90 0.07
BARRINGER ELEM. 571 788 0.72 0.89
BERRYHILL ELEM. 259 440 0.59 0.62
BEVERLY WOODS ELEM* 208 342 0.84 0.08
BILLINGSVILLE ELEM. 279 374 0.75 0.96
BLYTHE ELEM. 1101 1100 1.00 0.19
BRIARWOOD ELEM. 686 946 0.73 0.76
BRUNS AVENUE ELEM. 530 726 0.73 0.94
CHANTILLY ELEM. 427 594 0.72 0.86
CLEAR CREEK ELEM. 510 660 0.77 0.17
CORNELIUS ELEM. 781 924 0.85 0.13
COTSWOLD ELEM* 271 346 0.78 0.33
CROWN POINT ELEM. 851 858 0.99 0.23
DAVID COX ELEM. 956 968 0.99 0.23
DAVIDSON ELEM.* 558 558 1.00 0.11
DEVONSHIRE ELEM. 683 946 0.72 0.80
11/04/99 * Capacity lakes into account partial magnet programs at schools with allenr|r boundaries.
V J
Hag® I
\
Elementary School Future PopuLdon within Boundaries
School Future
Population
(incl. growth)
Capacity* Utilization Free & Reduced
Lunch
DRUID HILLS ELEM. 411 580 0.71 0.92
EASTOVER ELEM. 319 462 0.69 0.30
ELIZABETH LN. ELEM. 969 968 1.00 0.04
GREENWAY PARK ELEM* 351 450 0.78 0.36
HAWK RIDGE ELEM. 1051 1056 1.00 0.02
HICKORY GROVE ELEM. 815 814 1.00 0.37
HIDDEN VALLEY ELEM. 842 1166 0.72 0.82
HORNETS NEST ELEM.* 414 472 0.88 0,58
HUNTERSVILLE ELEM, 959 968 0.99 0.11
HUNTINGTOWNE FARMS ELEM. 381 572 0.67 0.48
IDLEWILD ELEM. 588 814 0.72 0.64
IRWIN AVENUE ELEM.* 294 414 0.71 0.92
J. H. GUNN ELEM. 649 660 0.98 0.41
LAKE WYLIE ELEM. 818 814 1.00 0.14
LANSDOWNE ELEM. 494 594 0.83 0,18
LEBANON ROAD ELEM. 650 704 0.92 0.32
LINCOLN HEIGHTS ELEM. 352 528 0.67 0.91
LONG CREEK ELEM. 586 594 0.99 0.16
MALLARD CREEK ELEM. 821 836 0.98 0.06
Page11/ 04/99 ♦ Capacity lakes into account partial magnet programs at schools with attendance boundaries. 2
Elementary School Future Population within Boundaries
School Ftilure
Population
(incl. growth)
Capacity* Utilization Free & Reduced
Lunch
MATTHEWS ELEM. 963 990 0.97 0.12
MCALPINE ELEM. 663 770 0.86 0.03
MCKEE ROAD ELEM. 1265 1276 0.99 0.01
MERRY OAKS ELEM. 375 528 0.71 0.72
MONTCLAIRE ELEM. 448 616 0.73 0.63
NATHANIEL ALEXANDER ELEM. 1425 1430 1.00 0.51
NATIONS FORD ELEM. 488 682 0.72 0.77
OAKDALE ELEM.* 289 294 0.98 0.50
OAKHURST ELEM* 120 153 0.78 0,47
OAKLAWN ELEM. 410 572 0.72 0.92
OLDE PROVIDENCE ELEM. 7 8 0 792 0.98 0.07
OLDE PROVIDENCE ELEM. S ee Abcwe
PAW CREEK ELEM. 457 748 0.61 0.25
PAWTUCKETT ELEM. 402 506 0.79 0.52
PINEVILLE ELEM. 652 792 0.82 0.28
PINEWOOD ELEM. 441 616 0.72 0,61
RAMA ROAD ELEM. ■ 567 638 0.89 0.37
REEDY CREEK ELEM. 624 638 0.98 0.35
REID PARK/AMAY JAMES ELEM. 798 1272 0.63 0.92
11/04/99 Cnpncity lakes into account partial magnet programs at schools will) attendance boundaries. Page
Elementary School Future Population within Boundaries
School
Future
Population
(incl. growth)
Capacity* Utilization Free & Reduced
Lunch
SEDGEFIELD ELEM. 51 7 704 0.73 0.83
SEDGEFIELD ELEM. S e e A bove
SELWYN ELEM* 195 206 0.95 0.28
SHAMROCK GARDENS ELEM. 416 572 0.73 0.76
SHARON ELEM.* 307 338 0.91 0.09
SMITHFIELD ELEM. 735 792 0.93 0.17
STARMOUNT ELEM. 288 308 0.94 0.56
STATESVILLE ROAD ELEM. 439 616 0.71 0.67
STEELE CREEK ELEM. 867 880 0.99 0.39
STERLING ELEM.* 226 316 0.72 0.75
THOMASBORO ELEM. 547 756 0.72 0.87
TUCKASEEGEE ELEM.* 193 252 0.77 0.48
UNIVERSITY MEADOWS ELEM. 885 880 1.01 0.23
WESTERLY HILLS ELEM. 256 440 0.58 0.81
WINDSOR PARK ELEM. 617 638 0.97 0.57
WINTERFIELD ELEM. 325 440 0.74 0.60
new cralghead elem. 508 800 0.64 0,87
new greenville elem. 561 800 0.70 0.93
41860 51289
11/04/99 * Capacity lakes into account partial magnet programs at schools with attendance boundaries. Page 4
Proposed 2000-2001 Middle School Boundaries
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
Planning Services
iVliaale school FutureTopulation wOhm IFoundaries
Scliool Future
Population
(incl. growth)
Capacity* Utilization Free & Reduced
Lunch
ALBEMARLE ROAD MIDDLE 982 1056 0.93 0.45
ALEXANDER GRAHAM MIDDLE* 92 125 0.74 0.16
ALEXANDER MIDDLE 840 946 0.89 0.23
BRADLEY MIDDLE* 993 994 1.00 0.15
CARMEL MIDDLE* 948 950 1.00 0.08
COCHRANE MIDDLE 710 968 0.73 0.68
COULW OOD MIDDLE* 417 514 0.81 0.32
CRESTDALE MIDDLE 1112 1166 0.95 0.04
EASTWAY MIDDLE 570 858 0.66 0,67
J. T. WILLIAMS MIDDLE 764 1034 0.74 0.89
KENNEDY MIDDLE 784 858 0.91 0.38
MARIE G. DAVIS MIDDLE 809 1100 0.74 0.90
MARTIN MIDDLE 1336 1408 0 95 0.54
MCCLINTOCK MIDDLE 832 880 0.95 0.29
NORTHEAST MIDDLE 964 1100 0.88 0.18
NORTHRIDGE MIDDLE* 320 368 0.87 0.35
QUAIL HOLLOW MIDDLE 1054 1078 0.98 0.23
RANDOLPH MIDDLE* 686 747 0.92 0 4 7
RANSON MIDDLE 704 946 0.74 0.66
SMITH MIDDLE 648 770 0.04 0.52
SOUTH CHARLOTTE MIDDLE 974 990 0.98 0.03
SPAUGH MIDDLE 491 682 0.72 0.86
W ILSON MIDDLE* 314 416 0.75 0.56
17344 19954
i 1/04/99 * Capacity takes into account partial magnet programs at schools with . Jance boundaries. Page l
Proposed 2000-2001 High School Boundaries
new north
North Meek.
Vance High
West Charlotte
Independence
West Mecklenburg
Butler
East Mecklenburg
new southwest!
Olympic
Providence
South Mecklenburg
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
Planning Services
High School Future Population within Boundaries
School Future
Population
Capacity* Utilization Free & Reduced
Lunch
Butier High School 1337 1440 0.93 0.09
East Mecklenburg High School* 1358 1370 0.99 0.28
Garinger High School 1679 1700 0.99 0.51
Independence High School* 1564 1560 1.00 0,28
Myers Park High School* 1108 1200 0.92 0.27
North Meek. High School* 1662 1910 0.87 0.12
Olympic High School* 652 750 0.87 0.23
Providence High School 2246 2240 1.00 0.04
South Mecklenburg High School 2157 2160 1.00 0.04
Vance High School 1308 1580 0.83 0.37
West Charlotte High School* 1655 1680 0.99 0.62
West Mecklenburg High School* 1565 1820 0.86 0.51
new north high school 1443 1600 0.90 0.06
new southwest high school 1615 1620 1.00 0.37
21349 22630
11/04/99 * Capacity takes into account partial magnet programs at schools w tendance boundaries. Page
*
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education
Post Office Box 30035
Charlotte, North Carolina 28230-0035 Leslie J. Winner
General Counsel■A---------- J telephone (704) 343-6228 Fax (704) 343-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Luke Largess
FROM: Leslie Winner
General Counsel
DATE: November 12, 1999
RE: Request for Data
Attached is the data which you requested concerning the racial composition of schools
under the student assignment plan proposed by the Superintendent on November 9, 1999.
This list excludes magnet schools and the magnet portion of schools that are partial
magnets. As I stated in my November 11 letter to you, the assumption in arriving at these
numbers was that, with one exception, the students who are currently magnet program
students (in programs that are proposed to continue) would remain magnet students.
They are not, therefore, included in these numbers.
The list that is attached is the number of African American non-magnet students
projected to reside in each of the home school attendance areas. We have not provided
percentages because our database is not programmed to calculate that, and we have not
done so. However, you can calculate it using the “future population” total numbers in the
student assignment proposal notebook.
I want to reemphasize that while we are providing you with this data, it was not used by
the administration in developing the boundaries or feeder patterns in the plan, and it has
not been available to the Board before now.
Administrative Offices Education Center 701 East Second Street
November 11, 1999
VIA FACSIMILE AND REGULAR MAIL
Luke Largess, Esq.
Ferguson, Stein, W allas,
Gresham & Sumter
741 Kenilworth Avenue
Charlotte, NC 28204
Re: Request for Data
Dear Luke:
I have received your message requesting that The Charlotte-M ecklenburg
Board o f Education provide to you a list o f the racial composition o f the projected
student population o f each o f the home school attendance areas in the plan that the
Superintendent presented to the Board o f Education on November 9, 1999.
I am interpreting this to be a request made pursuant to the public records
law, NCGS §132-1 et seq. Because that information does exist in the electronic
database used to produce this plan, I agree that under the North Carolina public
records law, the Board is required to produce it for you. Elowever, I want to
emphasize that this is not data that was used in the development o f the plan nor
has it been considered by the Board or the administration in determining any
boundaries or feeder patterns.
I assume that the data that you want is the racial composition o f the
students who we have projected would be in these home school attendance areas.
For our capacity projections, we have assumed that most students attending
m agnet schools will continue to attend those m agnet schools and, with a minor
exception, have not included those current m agnet students in our capacity
projections for the home school areas. That is also the basis on which the
projected free and reduced lunch population that is included in the notebook was
determined. If this is not what you want, please let me know at once.
Administrative Offices Education Center 701 East Second Street
Luke Largess, Esq.
N ovem ber 11, 1999
Page 2
I f I do not hear from you, I will ask our Planning D epartm ent to generate
this docum ent from our electronic database. I anticipate it will be available for
you to com e pick up by the end o f the business day on Friday, N ovem ber 12.
LW :ch
Largess - Request for Data 111199
c: A rthur Griffin
Eric Smith
Eric Becoats
Sincerely,
Leslie W inner
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
Post Office Box 30035
Charlotte, North Carolina 28230-0035
Telephone (704) 379-7000
Eric J. Smith, Ed.D
Superintendent
MEMORANDUM
TO: Leslie W inner
FROM: Eric J.
6 - 0
DATE: November 11,1999
SUBJECT: Special Request
The Planning Services Department has completed your request. Attached you
will find a report that lists each school that has an assignment boundary under the
proposed new student assignment plan and the number of black students who live within
that boundary.
If you have any questions regarding this data please let me know. Thanks.
1 Count School
454 ALBEMARLE ROAD ELEM.
| 266 ALLENBROOK ELEM.
r 367 ASHLEY PARK ELEM.
25 BAIN ELEM.
567 BARRINGER ELEM.
49 BERRYHILL ELEM.
f BEVERLY WOODS ELEM*
250 BILLINGSViLLE ELEM.
1 134 BLYTHE ELEM.
7 554 BRIARWOOD ELEM.
522 BRUNS AVENUE ELEM.
l 255 CHANTILLY ELEM.
49 CLEAR CREEK ELEM.
75 CORNELIUS ELEM.
I 69 COTSWOLD ELEM’
197 CROWN POINT ELEM.
290 DAVID COX ELEM.
\ 45 DAVIDSON ELEM.*
496 DEVONSHIRE ELEM.
376 DRUID HILLS ELEM.
| 96 EASTOVER ELEM.
| 42 ELIZABETH LN. ELEM.
127 GREENWAY PARK ELEM*
| 29 HAWK RIDGE ELEM.
442 HICKORY GROVE ELEM.
778 HIDDEN VALLEY ELEM.
, 213 HORNETS NEST ELEM.*
81 HUNTERSVILLE ELEM.
125 HUNTINGTOWNE FARMS ELEM.
330 IDLEWILD ELEM.
313 IRWIN AVENUE ELEM.*
239 J. H. GUNN ELEM.
122 LAKE WYLIE ELEM.
93 LANSDOWNE ELEM.
152 LEBANON ROAD ELEM.
327 LINCOLN HEIGHTS ELEM.
105 LONG CREEK ELEM.
173 MALLARD CREEK ELEM.
64 MATTHEWS ELEM.
| 39 MCALPINE ELEM.
38 MCKEE ROAD ELEM.
205 MERRY OAKS ELEM.
! 149 MONTCLAIRE ELEM.
771 NATHANIEL ALEXANDER ELEM.
339 NATIONS FORD ELEM.
350 new craighead elem.
510 new greenville elem.
124 OAKDALE ELEM.*
I 30 OAKHURST ELEM*
380 OAKLAWN ELEM.
45 OLDE PROVIDENCE ELEM. (North of HG
13 OLDE PROVIDENCE ELEM. (South of HC
76 PAW CREEK ELEM.
155 PAWTUCKETT ELEM.
___________ ? L PINEVILLE ELEM.
166 PINEWOOD ELEM.
188 RAMA ROAD ELEM.
Number of Black Students within
each school boundary
(2000-2001 Proposed Assignment
Plan)
pount School
303 REEDY CREEK ELEM.
734 REID PARK/AMAY JAMES ELEM.
! 99 SEDGEFIELD ELEM. (East of Sout Bivd.)
262 SEDGEFIELD ELEM. (West of South Blvd
42 SELWYN ELEM*
258 SHAMROCK GARDENS ELEM.
23 SHARON ELEM.*
102 SMITHFIELD ELEM.
| 121 STARMOUNT ELEM.
286 STATESVILLE ROAD ELEM.
371 STEELE CREEK ELEM.
199 STERLING ELEM.*
466 THOMASBORO ELEM.
74 TUCKASEEGEE ELEM.*
321 UNIVERSITY MEADOWS ELEM.
202 WESTERLY HILLS ELEM.
250 WINDSOR PARK ELEM.
188 WINTERFIELD ELEM.
Number of Black Students within
each school boundary
(2000-2001 Proposed Assignment
Plan)
B lu n t School
81 “ 518 ALBEMARLE ROAD MIDDLE
6 ALEXANDER GRAHAM MIDDLE*
229 ALEXANDER MIDDLE
119 BRADLEY MIDDLE'
82 CARMEL MIDDLE*
522 COCHRANE MIDDLE
134 COULWOOD MIDDLE*
47 CRESTDALE MIDDLE
332 EASTWAY MIDDLE
700 J.T . WILLIAMS MIDDLE
354 KENNEDY MIDDLE
794 MARIE G. DAVIS MIDDLE
829 MARTIN MIDDLE
225 MCCLINTOCK MIDDLE
124 NORTHEAST MIDDLE
183 NORTHRIDGE MIDDLE*
188 QUAIL HOLLOW MIDDLE
264 RANDOLPH MIDDLE*
443 RANSON MIDDLE
228 SMITH MIDDLE
46 SOUTH CHARLOTTE MIDDLE
455 SPAUGH MIDDLE
163 WILSON MIDDLE*
Number of Black Students within
each school boundary
(2000-2001 Proposed Assignment
Plan)
TCount School
154 Butler High School
516 East Mecklenburg High School*
1,083 Garinger High School
668 Independence High School*
376 Myers Park High School*
132 new north high school
716 new southwest high school
403 North Meek. High School*
236 Olympic High School*
156 Providence High School
137 South Mecklenburg High School
863 Vance High School
1,346 West Charlotte High School*
1,030 West Mecklenburg High School*
Number of Black Students within
each school boundary
(2000-2001 Proposed Assignment
Plan)
A B C D E F G
1 P R O P O S E D PLA N - P E R C E N T A G E BLA CK AND P E R C E N T A G E FR L
?
3 2000-2001 STU D EN TS
4 ELE M E N TA R Y S C H O O LS B lack Total % of Blk % FRL
5 Irwin Avenue 313 294 106% 92%
6 Barringer 567 571 99% 89%
7 Bruns Ave. 522 530 98% 94%
8 Lincoln Heights 327 352 93% 91%
9 Oaklawn 380 410 93% 92%
10 Hidden Valley 778 842 92% 82%
11 Reid Park/Amay James 734 798 92% 92%
12 Druid Hills 376 411 91% 92%
13 New Greenville Elem. 510 561 91% 93%
14 Billingsville 250 279 90% 96%
15 Sterling 199 226 88% 75%
16 Ashley Park 367 426 86% 90%
17 Thomasboro 466 547 85% 87%
18 Briarwood 554 686 81% 76%
19 Westerly Hills 202 256 79% 81%
20 Devonshire 496 683 73% 80%
21 Sedgefield 361 517 70% 83%
22 Nations Ford 339 488 69% 77%
23 New Craighead Eiem. 350 508 69% 87%
24 Statesville Road 286 439 65% 67%
25 Allenbrook 266 409 65% 68%
26 Albemarle Road 454 727 62% 94%
27 Shamrock Gardens 258 416 62% 76%
28 Chantilly 255 427 60% 86%
29 Winterfield 188 325 58% 60%
30 Idlewild 330 588 56% 64%
31 Merry Oaks 205 375 55% 72%
32 Hickory Grove 442 815 54% 37%
33 Nathaniel Alexander 771 1425 54% 51%
34 Hornets Nest 213 414 51% 58%
35 Reedy Creek 303 624 49% 35%
36 Oakdale 124 289 43% 50%
37 Steele Creek 371 867 43% 39%
38 Starmount 121 288 42% 56%
39 Windsor Park 250 617 41% 57%
40 Pawtuckett 155 402 39% 52%
41 Tuckaseegee 74 193 38% 48%
42 Pinewood 166 441 38% 61%
43 J. H. Gunn 239 649 37% 41%
44 University Meadows 321 885 36% 23%
45 Greenway Park 127 351 36% 36%
46 Montclaire 149 448 33% 63%
47 Rama Road 188 567 33% 37%
48 Huntingtowne Farms 125 381 33% 48%
49 David Cox 290 956 30% 23%
50 Eastover 96 319 30% 30%
51 Cots wo Id 69 271 25% 33%
A B C D E F G
52 Oakhurst 30 120 25% 47%
53 Lebanon Road 152 650 23% 32%
54 Crown Point 197 851 23% 23%
55 Selwyn 42 195 22% 28%
56 Mallard Creek 173 821 21% 6%
57 Berryhill 49 259 19% I 62%
58 Lansdowne 93 494 19% 18% i
59 Long Creek 105 586 18% 16%
60 Paw Creek 76 457 17%' 25%
61 Pineville 99 652 15% I 28%i
62 Lake Wylie 122 818 15%' 14%
63 Smithfield 102 735 14% 17%;
64 Blythe 134 1101 12% 19%
65 Clear Creek 49 510 10% 17%
66 Cornelius 75 781 10% 13%
67 Huntersville 81 959 8%' 11%
68 Davidson 45 558 8% 11%
69 Sharon 23 307 7% 9%j
70 Olde Providence 58 780 7% 7%
71 Matthews 64 963 7% 12%
72 McAlpine 39 663 6% 3%
73 Beverly Woods 14 288 5% 8%
74 Elizabeth Lane 42 969 4% 4%
75 Bain 25 734 3% 7%
76 McKee Road 38 1265 3% 1%
77 Hawk Ridge 29 1051 3% 2%
78 2000-2001 STU D EN TS
79 M ID DLE SC H O O LS Black Total % of Blk % FRL
80 Marie G. Davis 794 809 98% 90%
81 Spaugh 455 491 93% 86%
82 J T Williams 700 764 92% 89%;
83 Cochrane 522 710 74% 68%;
84 Ranson 443 704 63% 66%
85 Martin 829 1336 62% 54%
86 Eastway 332 570 58% 67%
87 North ridge 183 320 57% 35%
88 Albemarle Road 518 982 53% 45%
89 Wilson 163 314 52% 56%
90 Kennedy 354 784 45% 38%
91 Randolph 264 686 38% 47%
92 Smith 228 648 35% 52%:
93 Coulwood 134 417 32% 32%
94 Alexander 229 840 27% 16%
95 McClintock 225 831 27% 29%
96 Quail Hollow 188 1054 18% 23%
97 Northeast 124 964 13% 18%
98 Bradley 119 993 12% 15%
99 Carmel 82 948 9% 8%
100 Alexander Graham 6 92 7% 23%
101 South Charlotte 46 974 5% 3%.
102 Crestdaie 47 1112 4% 4%
A B C D E F G
103
104 2000-2001 S TU D E N TS
105 HIGH S C H O O LS B lack Tota l % o f Blk % FRL
106 7
1655
■■ v.
81%107 West Charlotte 1346 62%
108 Vance 863 1308 66% 37%
109 West Mecklenburg 1030 1565 66% 51%
110 Garinger 1083 1679 65% 51%
111 New Southwest HS 716 1615 44% 37%
112 Independence 668 1564 43% 28%
113 East Mecklenburg 516 1358 38% 28%
114 Olympic 236 652 36% 23%
115 Myers Park 376 1108 34% 27%
116 North Mecklenburg 403 1662 24% 12%
117 David Butler 154 1337 12% 9%
118 New North HS 132 1443 9% 6%
119 Providence 156 2256 7% 4%
120 South Mecklenburg 137 2157 6% 4%
Summary of CMS Student Enrollment Data
Percent of African-American Attendance by School, 1978-79 through 1998-99
and
Number and Percentage of Schools Out of Compliance
S C H O O L 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99
A L L E L E M E N T A R Y SC H O O LS 38% 39% 40% 40% 41% 41% 42% 41% 40% 40% 39% 40% 39% 39% 40% 40% 40% 41% 41% 42% 43%
S h a d in g = S c h o o ls O u t o f C o m p lia n c e (+ 15% fro m D is tr ic t-w id e e le m e n ta ry A fr ic a n -A m e r ic a n ra tio fo r 1980-81 o n ; fo r 1978-80, o v e r 50% A fr ic a n -A m e r ic a n o r -15% fro m D is tr ic t-w id e A fr ic a n -A m e r ic a n
e le m e n ta ry s c h o o l ra tio )
A L B E M A R LE R O A D ELEM 32% 33% 46% 48% 48% 45% 45% 48% 50% 48% 49% 44% 44% 49% 50% 44% 45% 50% 53% 57% 48%
A L E X A N D E R , N A TH A N IE L 47% 47% 52%
A L LE N B R O O K 42% 43% 43% 42% 42% 42% 42% 43% 41% 44% 49% 48% 47% 50% 50% 52% 52% 56% 61% 64% 65%
A S H LE Y P A R K 45% 43% 42% 42% 42% 47% 55% 50% 50% 55% 5 9 % 6 5 % 6 7 % 7 4 % 46% 44% 47% 43% 44% 46% 53%
BAIN 23% 2 2 % 2 3 % 2 0 % 2 0 % 2 1 % 2 1 % 20% 16% 17% 16% 16% 16% 16% 17% 15% 18% 2 0 % 18% 21 % 6 %
B A R R IN G E R 42% 39% 37% 38% 38% 42% 44% 38% 36% 35% 34% 39% 42% 40% 54% 53% 48% 46% 44% 45% 43%
B E R R Y H ILL 45% 44% 43% 45% 44% 49% 44% 49% 51% 49% 48% 53% 50% 54% 56 % 54% 51% 48% 48% 46% 46%
B E V E R LY W O O D S 39% 37% 41% 39% 42% 42% 43% 40% 29% 28% 28% 28% 33% 35% 46% 35% 34% 34% 39% 40% 41%
B IL U N G S V IL L E 43% 40% 43% 47% 41% 45% 49% 39% 35% 41% 38% 33% 30% 33% 31% 34% 30% 31% 36% 42% 45%
BLYTHE 45%
B R IA R W O O D 41% 49% 5 6 % 46% 47% 48% 47% 50% 54% 5 8 % 52% 55% 56% 59% 6 4 % 73% 76% 79% 78% 80 % 8 4 %
BRUNS AVE. 37% 40% 38% 40% 43% 45% 38% 36% 45% 44% 47% 45% 50% 51% 46% 51% 47% 46% 47% 44% 41%
C A R M E L (6TH) 34% 37% 32%
C H A N T IL LY 35% 34% 44% 42% 40% 35% 36% 32% 46% 49% 50% 49% 56% 63% 6 2 % 48% 44% 46% 43% 40% 42%
C LEAR C R E E K 14% 14% 17% 15% 25% 23% 22% 2 5 % 25% 25% 25% 2 4 % 26% 26% 24% 28% 31% 30% 30% 31% 32%
C O L L IN S W O O D 37% 38% 39% 38% 33% 38% 39% 36% 48% 52% 57% 50% 52% 47% 49% 52% 54% 60% 54% 52% 50%
"CO RNELIUS 23% 23% 23 % 21 % 19% 19% 17% 16% 17% 16% 15% 14% 12% 13% 12% n % 10% 10% 9% 9% 9 %
C O T S W O L D 39% 40% 35% 39% 48% 51% 42% 45% 50% 47% 32% 33% 32% 32% 30% 31% 31% 31% 46 % 58% 49%
C O U L W O O D (6TH ) 46% 47% 47% 43% 38% 37% 35% 37% 35% 44% 47% 42% 49% — —
C R O W N P O IN T 23% 2 4 % 27% 30% 32% 35%
D A V ID C O X RO AD — 41% 41% 40% 41% 42% 43%
D A V ID S O N 37% 37% 38% 37% 37% 34% 33% 28% 27% 2 4 % 22% 2 1 % 20% 17% 18% 17% 12% 10% 11% 10% 9 %
D A V i DS O N (6TH ) — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 30% — — —
D E R ITA 37% 38% 44% 45% 47% 49% 53% 52% 52% 47% 51% 52% 53% 5 8 % 57% 6 0 % 60 % 60 % 67% 6 6 % 68 %
D E V O N S H IR E 45% 5 2 % 41% 41% 43% 50% 55% 54% 50% 52% 58% 65% 53% 5 8 % 6 2 % 73% 81 % 82 % 78% 71% 6 6 %
D ILW O R T H 40% 39% 38% 37% 38% 37% 45% 49% 48% 46% 43% 43% 43% 42% 43% 43% 44% 46% 48% 49% 53%
D O U B LE O AKS 47% 49% 40%
D R U ID H ILLS 37% 33% 40% 43% 44% 49% 48% 54% 49% 50% 50% 50% 51% 51% 51% 56% 6 0 % 59% 59% 6 0 % 63%
SC H O O L ✓ 8-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85 -87 87-88 89 <j9-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95 96-97 97-98 98-99
E A S T O V E R 29% 28% 29% 26% 37% 44% 39% 38% 39% 44% 40% 40% 40% 46% 50%
E LIZA B E T H 33% 34% 37% 38% 39% 40% 41% 42% 39% 37% 36% 37% 37% 38% 40% 41% 40% 39% 39% 39%
E LIZA B E TH LANE 2% 3 % 4%
EN D E R LY P A R K 47% 47% 46% 49% 5 7 %
F IR S T W A R D 34% 31% 36% 35% 34% 37% 33% 31% 31% 36% 40% 50% 50% 46% 49%
G R E E N W A Y P A R K 40% 44% 44%
G U N N 28% 2 3 % 22% 20% 19% 17% 29% 2 6 % 26% 22% 29% 42% 43% 43% 43% 49% 51% 48%
H IC K O R Y G R O VE 25% 27% 32% 29% 30% 33% 36% 41% 26% 31% 32% 32% 37% 39% 40% 47%
H ID D E N V A LLE Y 8 9 % 89 % 9 1 % 9 3 % 9 2 % 9 4 % 9 4 % 96 % 9 5 % 9 6 % 9 6 % 9 6 % 9 7 % 9 7 % 9 6 % 9 7 % 9 6 %
H IG H LA N D 43% 44% 45% 45% 44% 44% 46% 48% 45% 49% 49% 6 4 % 6 9 % 74 % 75% 77 %
H O R N E T S N E S T 51% 48% 48% 46% 48% 50% 49%
H U N T E R S V ILLE 28% 34% 33% 29% 27% 28% 28% 2 5 % 2 3 % 25% 21% 17% 12% 13% 11% 12% 10% 10% 10% 30 %
H U N T IN G T O W N E FARM S 44% 48% 37% 36% 33% 30% 27% 45% 47% 47% 46% 46% 48% 51% 54% 6 2 %
ID LE W ILD 32% 32% 38% 38% 39% 38% 43% 42% 45% 50% 48% 47% 48% 49% 49% 45% 45% 48% 47% 51% 58 %
IR W IN A V E N U E 32% 37% 34% 39% 39% 39% 40% 41% 40% 40% 44% 40% 38% 43% 44% 40% 45% 50% 50%
JA M E S , A M A Y 41% 44% 48% 49% 44% 44% 41% 38% 37% 43% 38% 40% 36% 33% 45% 42% 39% 39% 40% 39% 37%
L A K E V IE W 45% 51% 51% 55% 52%
LA KE W Y L IE 39% 33% 35% 35% 34% 32% 33%
L A N S D O W N E 34% 35% 38% 39% 40% 48% 44% 44% 37% 33% 34% 34% 36% 38% 37% 38% 38% 33% 28% 30% 31%
LE B A N O N R O A D 20% 20% 21% 19% 19% 19% 20% 21% 35%
LIN C O LN H E IG H T S 34% 34% 44% 45% 45% 43% 48% 49% 49% 53% 50% 52% 57% 54% 57% 59% 48% 51% 55% 53% 54%
LONG CR E E K 43% 42% 40% 41% 39% 43% 41% 35% 36% 33% 32% 32% 33% 18% 20% 21% 21% 19% 23% 21% 38%
M ALLARD C R E E K 37% 30% 28% 21% 20% 21% 17% 15% 16% 20% 22% 28%
DAVIS, MARIE G. (6T H ) 46% 42% 41%
DAVIS, M ARIE G . E LEM . 36% 34% 37% 40% 40% 41% 42% 41% 46% 45% 42% 44% 48% 53% 56%
M A T T H E W S 23% 22% 23% 22% 22% 21% 20% 17% 21% 18% 26% 20% 13% 14% 12% 12% 14% 11% 5% 6 % 7%
M C A LP IN E 32% 32% 30% 31% 30% 27% 20% 23% 24% 4% 5% 4%
M CKE E 29% 18% 16% 15% 12% 12% 11% 1% 1% 2%
M E R R Y O A K S 34% 23% 25% 26% 44% 45% 51% 36% 35% 37% 41% 47% 50% 55% 58% 56% 63% 64%
M ID W O O D ELEM . 38% 41%
M O N T C LA IR E 41% 40% 41% 42% 45% 40% 47% 49% 48% 49% 48% 51% 44% 41% 44% 44% 50% 51% 52% 55%
M O R E H E A D 60%
M Y E R S P A R K TR A D IT IO N A L 33% 35% 39% 40% 42% 41% 41% 42% 38% 37% 38% 37% 37% 36% 38% 40% 40% 40% 39%
N A TIO N S FO R D 36% 42% 45% 48% 54% 55% 52% 53% 30% 36% 32%
N E W E LL 44% 48% 45% 46% 44% 46% 42% 43% 38% 41% 40% 40% 43%
35%
"4 3 %
37% 37% 34% 35% 39% 44% 45%
24% 25% 31% 33% 39% 41% 39%
N O R T H W E S T (6TH ) 41% 65% 42% 47% 46% 41% 49% 57% 52% 41%
N O R T H W E S T Y E A R RO UND 45% 59% 61%
O A K D A LE 39% 39% 40% 40% 38% 45% 43%; 40% 38% 39% 40% 40% 41% 43% 43% 39% 43% 47% 49% 52% 49%
O A K H U R S T 46% 50% 40% 41% 44% 50% 51% 44% 45% 47% 50% 51% 44% 43% 39% 39%
L. lY - k .
S C H O O L i d-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 «d-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99
O A K L A W N 49% 48% 50% 47% 48% 52% 55% 58% 64% 48% 53% 52% 55% 45% 50% 47% 50% 61% 64% 63%
O LD E P R O V ID E N C E 43% 38% 35% 34% 35% 34% 28% 23% 22% 22% 26% 34% 35% 34% 36% 37% 38% 36% 37% 34%
P A R K RO AD 39% 41% 46% 47% 44% 52% 49% 47% 45% 46% 45% 47% 45% 41% 38% 49% 47% 46% 49% 53% 55%
P A W C R E E K 41% 40% 41% 45% 43% 42% 42% 40% 39% 37% 37% 38% 36% 34% 38% 39% 41% 43% 46% 38%
P A W T U C K E T T 26% 29% 30% 30% 37% 35% 38% 39% 39% 41% 41% 49% 47% 51% : 52% 52% 57% 59%
P IE D M O N T (6T H ) 23% 34% 37% 33% 31% 35% 36% 23% 27% 35% 40% 38% 34% 36% 35% 38%
PIN E VILLE 41% 39% 39% 37% 35% 35% 34% 33% 28% 30% 27% 26% 28% 28% 27% 27% 30% 29% 19% 18% 20%
P IN E W O O D 46% 51% 49% 43% 40% 42% 43% 44% 44% 42% 42% 37% 33% 36% 23% 25% 37% 37% 42%
P IN E Y G R O V E 34% 31% 38% 36% 36% 35% 33% 32% 30% 28% 28% 28% 26% 24% 44% 44% 47% 53% 44%
PLA ZA RO AD 43% 44% 49% 49% 55% 48% 42% 41% 43% 50%
Q U A IL H O L L O W (6TH ) 50% 38% 50%
R A M A R O A D 26% 30% 29% 28% 35% 29% 34% 33% 32% 30% 28% 27% 31% 40% 32% 34% 35% 36% 41% 38%
R A N S O N (6TH ) 25%
RE E D Y C R E E K 46% 42% 35% 43% 46% 46% 46% 47% 52% 48% 48% 53% 52% 51% 43% 38% 38%
REID P A R K 47% 46% 44% 41% 41%
S E D G E F IE LD (6TH) 51% 45% 54% 43%
S E D G E F IE LD ELEM . 42% 41% 45% 43% 42% 44% 49% 45% 48% 47% 50% 56% 54% 52% 56% 52% 56% 56% 59%
S E LW Y N 36% 35% 41% 41% 42% 43% 34% 37% 34% 31% 30% 32% 40% 38% 44% 46% 46% 46% 45% 44%
S H A M R O C K G A R D E N S 42% 45% 48% 48% 45% 50% 52% 54% 60% 59% 50% 47% 47% 46% 51% 59% 60% 61% 62% 58% 61%
S H A R O N 46% 45% 47% 40% 28% 30% 29% 29% 26% 30% 30% 31% 37% 37% 37%
SM ITH (6TH ) 42% 38% 43% 36%
SM ITHFIELD 39% 41% 49% 50% 45%
SP AU G H (6TH) 57% 57% 48% 54% 58% 57% 62% 66% 61% 41% 42% 43%
S T A R M O U N T 33% 35% 38% 40% 45% 45% 45% 37% 37% 38% 36% 37% 42% 42% 45% 47% 48% 50%
S T A T E S V ILLE RO AD 45% 49.5% 43% 44% 45% 44% 44% 44% 46% 44% 45% 47% 47% 44% 46% 48% 53% 56% 60% 52%
S T E E LE C R E E K
S T E R LIN G
35% 36% 35% 32% 30%
38% 35% 34% 33% 35%
40%
34%
40% 39% 38% 37% 36% 35% 35% 37% 40% 38% 37% 38% 44%
32% 38% 36% 36% 33% 30% 29% 22% 26% 17% 17% 29% 50% 53%
T H O M A S B O R O 39% 38% 43% 41% 43% 45% 44% 45% 42% 41% 55% 52% 61% 64% 66% 69% 70% 74% 82% 82%
TR YO N H ILLS 44% 47% 41% 46% 47% 43% 45% 58% 55% 58% 54% 60% 55% 57% 58% 62% 74% 77% 79%
T U C K A S E E G E E 40% 33% 38% 33% 45% 45% 42% 41% 39% 39% 39% 40% 45% 46% 45% 46% 46% 48% 49% 49%
U N IV E R S IT Y M E A D O W S 40% 40% 42% 44% 46% 53%
U N IV E R S IT Y P A R K 39% 35% 38% 43% 43% 44% 43%
V ILLA H E IG H T S 46% 48% 52% 53% 55% 56% 59% 52% 49% 44% 45% 44% 42% 44%
W E S T E R L Y HILLS 39% 39% 42% 45% 46% 53% 55% 52% 54% 58% 48% 48% 55% 56% 63% 62% 66% 70% 74% 76%
W IL L IA M S (M ID D LE ) 46% 35% 35%
W IL S O N (6T H ) 53% 48% 49% 56% 48% 45% 46% 45% 46% 50% 53% 57% 68%
W IN D IN G S P R IN G 57% 59% 55% 53%
W IN D S O R PA RK 32% 37% 41% 41% 38% 38% 42% 38% 37% 47% 48% 47% 49% 53% 54% 57% 48% 46% 47% 52%
W IN T E R F IE L D 36% 38% 37% 48% 52% 42% 43% 42% 40% 43% 53% 53% 54% 45% 46% 48% 52% 44% 47% 54%
SCHOOL 178-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99
No. of Elem. Out of Compliance 3 8 8 7 7 6 6 if 9 13 b 12 14 20 26 22 25 27 25 28 25
% of Elem. Out of Compliance 4% 11% 11% 9% 9% 9% 9% 12% 13% 18% 11% 17% 19% 27% 34% 28% 32% 33% 30% 34% 29%
" 38% j 37%| 37% | 36% | 36%| 37%| 39%| 40%| 4Q%| 40% | 4Q%| 40% | 40%| 41%| 41 %| 41 %| 41%| 42%| 42%| 41 %| 42%ALL MIDDLE SCHOOLS
Shading = Schools Out of Compliance (more than 50% African-American or -15% from District-wide middle school African-American ratio)
ALBEMARLE ROAD JUNIOR 31% 30% 34% 36% 32% 27% 35% 39% 41% 41% 42% 41% 40% 46% 51% 52% 53% 50.1% 48% 49.9% 42%
ALEXANDER 27% 29% 28% 27% 28% 26% 24% 22% 23% 23% 19% 18% 20% 20% 19% 18% 18% 20%
43%
33%
75%
55%
16%
25%
38%
60%
BRADLEY
CARMEL 32% 30% 35% 34% 32% 34% 32% 26% 24% 23% 22% 21% 23% 32% 34% 32% 34% 37% 35%
COCHRANE 49.6% 52% 51% 53% 53% 54% 511 52% 57% 61% 59% 61% 63% 71% 73% 68% 69% 74% 77% 77%
COULWOOD 42% 42% 38% 41% 41% 43% 48% 46% 46% 47% 42% 37% 35% 35% 37% 44% 48% 45% 51% 54%
CRESTDALE
DAVIDSON IB 24% 23% 26% 25%
DAVIS, MARIE G. 47% 37% 36% 37% 38%
EASTWAY 35% 36% 38% 37% 38% 40% 39% 44% 46% 46% 46% 49% 52% 53% 56% 55% 58% 57% 65% 64%
GARINGER (9TH) 51% 51%
A. GRAHAM 32% 34% 33% 34% 39% 44% 43% 41% 41% 41% 41% 44% 48% 48% 48% 47% 44% 47% 48%
HARDING (9TH) 46% 53% 52% 56% 59% 62% 60% 61% 62% 42% 46% 41% 45%
HAWTHORNE 39% 41% 45% 42% 42% 42% 42% 42% 39% 40% 42% 40% 38% 36% 39% 48% 46% 42% 44% 49% 53%
INDEPENDENCE (9TH) 34% 29% 25% 28%
KENNEDY 47% 47% 46% 47% 47% 51% 50.3% 51% 52% 49.9% 53% 48% 51% 52% 53% 54% 55% 56% 51% 49% 45%
MARTIN 49% 54%
MCCUNTOCK 26% 23% 21% 20% 26% 24% 32% 33% 33% 32% 33% 35% 37% 41% 42% 42% 40% 43% 39%
MYERS PARK (9TH) 47% 44% 39% 40%
NORTH MECKLENBURG (9TH) 26%
NORTHEAST 30% 28% 28% 28% 27% 28% 25% 26% 26% 26% 27% 29% 31% 32% 35% 37% 41% 33% 35% 35%
NORTHWEST (JR./MID. YRS) 48% 49% 50.3% 54% 50.3% 46% 58% 43% 44% 51% 50.1% 48% 55% 62% 61% 47% 43% 43% 41% 44% 46%
NORTHWEST YEAR-ROUND 49% 66%
NORTHRIDGE 49.5% 48% 50.5%
OLYMPIC (9TH) 44% 52% 48% 52%
PIEDMONT 30% 34% 30% 29% 31% 31% 29% 33% 30% 29% 31% 35% 35% 38% 38% 37% 32% 35% 36% 35%
QUAIL HOLLOW 38% 34% 31% 30% 29% 28% 28% 28% 31% 28% 30% 34% 35% 32% 34% 36% 35% 36% 36% 34% 32%
RANDOLPH 31% 29% 29% 29% 29% 31% 29% 29% 30% 32% 34% 31% 22% 22% 21% 22% 19% 20% 46%
RANSON 42% 43% 44% 46% 46% 46% 47% 47% 48% 50.3% 49% 47% 45% 44% 52% 52% 54% 56% 61% 65%
SEDGEFiELD MIDDLE 41% 39% 37% 36% 33% 33% 34% 38% 44% 50.1% 48% 51% 51% 53% 56% 49% 52% 51% 47% 46%
SMITH 47% 52% 46% 41% 38% 40% 46% 48% 50.5% 52% 47% 44% 42% 41% 39% 41% 42% 43% 44% 39% 45%
SOUTH CHARLOTTE 19% 15% 15% 15% 13% 12% 12%
4
SCHOOL ..-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 .-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99
S O U T H M E C K LE N B U R G (9TH) 36% 38% 42% 43%
S P A U G H 51% 50.1% 49% 49% 52% 52% 57% 55% 53% 55% 60% 62% 70% 76% 43% 43% 42% 42% 43% 44% 43%
W E S T M E C K LE N B U R G (9TH) 45% 44% 44% 45% 45% 43% 51% 46% 48% 49% 56% 53% 56%
W IL L IA M S 46% 43% 40% 40% 43% 44% 44% 49.9% 53% 58% 54% 56% 57% 63% 46% 44% 45% 44% 41% 42%
W IL S O N 36% 34% 38% 36% 37% 45% 48% 49.5% 48% 49.5% 51% 49% 49% 45% 51% 54% 59% 62% 69% 71% 71%
No. of Middle Schools Out of Compliance 1 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 5 7 9 6 9 9 11 9 10 11 11 9 12
% of Middle Schools Out of Compliance 5% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 19% 14% 24% 35% 43% 29% 43% 43% 50% 39% 42% 46% 44% 35% 43%
ALL HIGH SCHOOLS 34% 34% 34% 35% 35% 34% 33% 33% 34% 35% 37% 37% 37% 37% 37% 37% 37% 36% 38% 39% 40%
Shading • Schools Out of Compliance (more than 50% African-American or -15% from District-wide high school African-American ratio)
BU TLE R 35% 34%
EAST M E C K LE N B U R G 23% 22% 19% 19% 19% 19% 18% 19% 20% 21% 24% 24% 24% 26% 28% 30% 31% 31% 32% 31% 32%
G A R IN G E R 30% 33% 33% 37% 41% 43% 44% 44% 47% 46% 45% 45% 46% 49% 56% 61% 63% 63% 63% 60% 61%
H A R D IN G 39% 40% 44% 49.8% 50.4% 51% 51% 48% 51% 54% 60% 62% 63% 60% 58% 52% 47% 45% 44% 44% 47%
IN D E P E N D E N C E 28% 28% 28% 27% 26% 23% 22% 19% 20% 22% 24% 25% 26% 28% 29% 31% 33% 33% 35% 37% 38%
M Y E R S P A R K H IG H 38% 41% 42% 44% 45% 42% 44% 41% 38% 39% 40% 41% 43% 42% 40% 36% 34% 33% 37% 36% 34%
N O R T H M E C K LE N B U R G 34% 33% 35% 35% 35% 34% 32% 32% 32% 31% 32% 33% 33% 31% 30% 30% 25% 22% 22% 27% 27%
N O R T H W E S T (H IG H YRS) 35% 34% 38%
O LYM PIC 43% 45% 44% 46% 48% 46% 43% 42% 45% 49.8% 50.4% 43% 44% 42% 45% 47% 49.6% 48% 49% 50.4% 50.1%
PRO V ID EN CE — — — .......... — .......... — — — — — 32% 27% 23% 19% 15% 1 1 % 9% 9% 18% 18%
S O U TH M E C K LE N B U R G 29% 28% 28% 28% 26% 28% 25% 24% 23% 23% 24% 29% 28% 31% 30% 32% 30% 33% 35% 29% 26%
VA NC E 46% 45%
W E S T C H A R LO T TE 46% 48% 47% 45% 43% 43% 41% 44% 47% 50.1% 49% 49% 47% 46% 46% 48% 51% 54% 56% 64% 68%
W E S T M E C K LE N B U R G HIGH 34% 33% 33% 32% 33% 31% 34% 36% 40% 40% 43% 43% 43% 38% 42% 42% 44% 45% 53% 52% 54%
N o . o f High Schools Out of Compliance 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 5 5 5
% of High Schools Out of Compliance 0% 0% 0% 10% 20% 10% 10% 0% 10% 20% 20% 9% 9% 9% 27% 27% 27% 27% 42% 36% 36%
TOTAL NO. OF SCHOOLS* 105 105 105 105 105 100 100 100 101 101 101 103 104 105 109 112 114 116 120 122 126
TOTAL SCHOOLS OUT OF COMPLIANCE 4 1 1 11 11 12 10 11 11 15 22 19 19 24 30 40 33 38 41 42 42 42
TOTAL % OUT OF COMPLIANCE 4% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 11% 11% 15% 22% 19% 18% 23% 29% 37% 29% 33% 35% 35% 34% 33%
Each school is counted only once, though grades may be show n as split between school levels.
Charlotta-Mecklenburg Board of EducaUon
Poet Offlca Box 30035
Charlotte, North Carolina 28230-0035
Telephone (704) 343-6228 Fax (704) 343-5739
Leslie J. winner
General Counsel
MEMORANDUM
TO; Luke Largess
FROM; Leslie Winner \ ^
General Counsel
DATE: November 22, 1999
RE; Public Information Request
Attached hereto is the remaining information you requested in your public records
request. As we discussed before, while these race based information was in the CMS
data base, this information was not available to or used by the Administration in making
its November 9,1999 recommendation to the Board of Education.
Chariatt e-Mecklenburg Schools
Post Office Box 30035
Chanotxa, Norm Carolina 20220-0033
Telephone {704) 379-7000
To: Leslie Winner
< /ypO
From: Eric J. Becoats
Re: Requested Student Assignment Data
Date: November 20,1999
Eric J. Smith, Ed.O-
Superintendert
Outlined below is the information you requested regarding the student
assignment proposal for 2000-2001.
■ O f the 77,724 non-magnet, non-EC students, 57,721 who are attending
a school today would have a “choice” to attend that same school under
the new student assignment proposal. This would be accomplished
through their home school assignment or through choice zones.
■ Under the new student assignment proposal, of the total number of non
magnet, non-EC students who have a home school that is different from
the school they are currently attending, at the elementary level 54% are
black, 35% are white and 11% are other; at the middle school level 55%
are black, 36% are white and 9% are other; at the high school level 44%
are black, 47% are white and 9% are other.
■ Under the new student assignment proposal, of the total number of non
magnet, non-EC students whose home school is the same as the school
they are currently attending, 35% are black, 55% are white and 10% axe
other.
I f you have any questions please contact me at extension 6338.
( T h e ( C h a r l o t t e ( D b s e r u e r
.‘.com
Srimol Reassignment
........... WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 1 0 ,1 9 9 9
METRO EDITION 50C
• **» 58111:1 SPECIAL SECTION: REASSIGNMENT
12-page guide to all the
proposed changes for Detailed maps,
; 2000 01schoolyear j specifies on every school
I N S I D E T O D A Y ’ S O B S E R V E R IN M E C K L E N B U R G C O U N T Y
How to tell
Charlotte-Mecklenburg
officials what you think
NEW DIRECTION: Eric Smith presents his proposal to board
T
Waiting for school plan
ends; tug-of-war begins
Sweeping changes could shuffle as many as 65,000 students
PATRICK SCI INHDEfVStaff
J am ie H o lt, 11, a s ix th -g rad er a t A lexan der G raham M id d le S chool, lis ten s w ith h e r m o th e r, Lyn , to th e p re se n ta tio n o f C h a rlo tte -M e c k le n -
burg S choo ls S u p erin ten d e n t Eric S m ith ’s reass ig n m en t p lan Tuesday night.
Highlights of the plan
■ Every student is
guaranteed a school close
to home. Satellite zones,
midpoint schools and
busing for integration are
gone.
■ Many magnets move
from center city to schools
with available space. Three
magnet programs
discontinued. One new
program added.
■ Feeder system
determines "home school’’
assignment from
elementary through high
school.
■ Students have options to
attend schools other than
their home school.
More coverage
■ Full coverage, online
forum: www.chariotte.com
■ Tommy Tomlinson on the
crossroads of change, 1C
■ Magnet programs will
see many changes, ID A
What do you think? E-mail your comments to local@charlotte.com or call 377-4444 and enter category code 2013.
By JENNIFER WING ROTHACKER
SlaffWriter
School board members pep
pered Superintendent Eric
Smith with questions Tuesday
night as he unveiled his massive
student reassignment proposal
for next fall.
The plan comes as Ihe Char-
lotte-Mecklenbuig disirici
moves to end 30 years of court-
ordered desegregation pr actices
by giving parents more power to
choose their child’s school
Tire sweeping plan sends stu
dents to schools
closer to home
unless they
choose to go to a
magnet school or
other school
where space is
available.
"Feeder pat
terns” would es
tablish where a
child goes to ele
mentary, middle
school.
Attendance boundaries of
many schools change under the
plan. More than two dozen mag
net programs would move to dif
ferent schools, three existing
programs would be eliminated
and one new program would be
added. The district would stop
busing students out of their
neighborhoods to racially diver
sify schools.
Smith said the plan is intended
to comply with the court order
and provide “what we feel is a
good, solid education ... regard
less of where children live or go
to school.”
With so much opportunity for
movement, Smith estimates as
many as 65,000 students - about
two-thirds of the entire student
population - could go to different
schools next year under his plan.
The sheer scope worried some
school board members.
“The disruption of over 60,000
students, to me, is not educa
tionally sound,” said at-large
board member Wilhelmenia
Please see SCHOOLS / page 10A
Smith
and high
http://www.chariotte.com
mailto:local@charlotte.com
THE CHARI/riTE OBSERVER10A WEDNESDAY. NOVEMBER 10.1999 «
C h a rlo tte -M e c k le n b u rg school b o ard C hairperso n A rthur G riffin ( le ft) and S u p e rin te n d e n t Eric S m ith c h a t b e fo re th e s ta rt o f th e bo ard m e e tin g Tuesday n igh t a t w hich S m ith unveiled
his school re a s s ig n m e n t plan .
Parents respond with elation, concern
Magnet
moves
leave
questions
Most center-city
programs will shift
By CELESTE SMITH
Staff Writer
Dilworth and Winding
Springs elementary schools
would start magnet programs.
Barringer and Bruns Avenue
are among more than two doz
en elementary schools where
magnet programs would end.
Three magnet programs would
be eliminated.
These are a few of the
changes in the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg magnet program
under the student-assignment
proposal Superintendent Eric
Smith announced Tuesday.
Most of the programs that
end at one school begin at an
other - though that still leaves
some uncertainty for some
magnet parents.
Rebecca Yarbrough, PTA
president at Barringer Aca
demic Center, said while she’s
glad the system plans to keep
the program together at Bever
ly Woods Elementary, she has
many questions. Would the
teachers agree to move to the
different location? And would
the program keep the same
principal?
“That’s certainly a concern,
because we love our staff,” she
said.
School system officials say
they had to move most mag
nets out of the center city to
make room in those schools for
up to 7,000 children now bused
to the suburbs.
The proposal is triggered by
a recent federal court order
banning race as a factor in stu
dent-assignment plans.
Many questions center on program
moves, chances for achieving equity
By MARY ELIZABETH DEANGEUS
StaffWriter
In northeast Mecklenburg
County, Debra Allen saw a lot to
like about Superintendent Eric
Smith’s proposed reassignment
plan, especially the part that has
kids in her neighborhood going to
schools close to home.
Cotswold Elementary parent
Lynn Pope liked portions of the
plan, including Smith’s idea to
house an International Baccalau
reate program at her school. But
she’s concerned about what will
happen to teachers, where the
boundaries are and how the school
would balance a traditional and
magnet program.
Jackie Cuthbertson doesn’t like
it at all. Smith’s plan eliminates the
accelerated leaming/lB program
at First Ward Elementary.
As with all reassignments,
Smith’s plan was met with mixed
reactions Tuesday night.
Some parents are elated that
their kids would stay put or go to
schools closer to home.
“For my neighborhood, I’m
thrilled, I think it’s a good thing,”
Allen said. “There are pockets of
the community that need re
sources, and we as a community
need to make sure they get them.”
She said the reassignment is a
good step. “I feel school board
members will make equity hap
pen,” Allen said.
Others are upset their children
face being moved from schools or
programs they’re happy with.
Some want to know how Smith
and his staff reached their recom
mendations.
“My daughter has been in this
program for three years, and sud
denly they’re yanking it away from
her,” Cuthbertson said. “I wonder
why some schools were left un
touched by these changes.”
Another school facing upheaval
is Diiworth Elementary, which
Smith proposes become a foreign-
language immersion magnet. That
would likely mean that students go
to other schools, or compete for
slots in the language program.
“All of us at Diiworth have really
been committed to well-rounded
schools, and having our children
in an environment with friends of
all backgrounds,” said one parent
who asked that her name not be
used.
“I’m concerned that we’re mov
ing away from desegregation.”
The reassignment is a response
to a federal court ruling that bars
the district from using race as a
factor in assigning kids to schools.
That’s a position celebrated by
neighborhood schools advocates,
who say practices such as busing
children to achieve racial balance
don’t work and aren’t needed.
Others fear neighborhood
schools will mean a return to a seg
regated system, with predomi
nantly poor, black children attend
ing inferior urban schools while
middle class children end up with
newer suburban classrooms, bet
ter teachers and more opportuni
ties.
“They’re taking away what little
we were able to gain. We’re going
further backwards," said north
Charlotte resident Linda Sims.
“This plan will undermine the
chances of black students. Our
black children can achieve. They
are smart kids. But what will they
do to ensure equity in the schools?
“That didn't happen in the past.”
Those are concerns Debbie
Crutchfield shares. She thinks her
daughters, who attend IB magnets
at Myers Park Traditional School
and Myers Park High School, will
likely be unaffected.
“I’m thrilled for me personally;
my kids are fine,” Crutchfield said.
“But I’m concerned about the over
all equity in the schools. When you
look at the overall picture - what
do you do?”
During the next few weeks, par
ents will have chances to let Smith
and the school board know what
they think about the proposal.
Some will try to persuade school
leaders to make changes.
For some like Pope, it will be a
time to learn a lot more about what
the plans entail.
“ There are still an awful lot of
questions,” she said.
Staff writer Steve Lyttle contributed
to this article. Reach Mary Elizabeth
DeAngelis at (704)358-5239 or
mdeangelis@charlotte.com.
Smith Fs moving ahead with
the proposal in the event that
U.S. District Judge Robert Pot
ter denies the school system’s
request to delay the new stu
dent-assignment plan for a
year. The school system also
asked Potter if it could exempt
some magnet students from
the new plan, in case the sys
tem doesn’t get the stay.
The proposal includes
changes to the popular visual
and performing arts magnet at
Northwest School of the Arts,
which now houses grades 6
through 12. The middle school
students would move to Haw
thorne Middle, leaving more
room at Northwest for grades 9
through 12.
“A lot of people want to get
in, but they can’t because of the
middle school kids,” said Joy
Garland, a Northwest 10th-
grader who likes the proposed
change. “I think it’s a good
idea. That will encourage more
high school students to take the
mailto:mdeangelis@charlotte.com
Waiting is over; tug-of-war on proposal begins
SCHOOLS fro m LA
Rembert.
Every board member had a long
list of questions for Smith about
the plan. Several questioned the
placement of magnet programs.
Others thought assigning stu
dents to schools close to home
would result in one-race, high-
poverty schools in some areas.
“I am concerned, too, about an
increase in the number of schools
with high poverty,” board mem
ber Louise Woods said. “Are there
some other models out there that
would in fact give some opportu
nity to at least prevent some of
that from happening?"
Board Chairperson Arthur Grif
fin said the board and community
would work together to come up
with a satisfactory plan.
“We have not made any deci
sions, and no decisions will be
made without a thorough debate,”
Griffin said.
Thursday, the school board will
host the first of four public hear
ings and 14 focus groups to dis
cuss the plan.
District staff will then revise it
and send it back for another
round of public hearings before it
goes to the school board for final
approval Dec. 16.
Parents can also communicate
directly with school officials and
board members by e-mail and
telephone (for details, see the
School Reassignment section of
today’s Observer).
The plan is in response to a law
suit the school district lost to sev
en parents who challenged the
district’s use of race in student as
signments.
After a trial last spring, U.S. Dis
trict Judge Robert Potter ordered
the schools to stop using race as a
factor in future student assign
ments.
The school board has appealed
Potter's ruling and asked him for
a year’s delay. In the meantime,
it’s complying with the order by
working on this new assignment
plan.
The major changes in Smith’s
proposal can be broken down into
PATRICK SCHNEIDER/Staff
Les lie W in n er, a tto rn e y fo r th e
school board , looks over th e d e
ta ils o f S u p erin ten d e n t Eric
S m ith ’s rea s s ig n m e n t p lan Tues
day night.
Closer to home
Smith’s plan guarantees every
student a seat in a school close to
home - called the "home school.”
District staff accomplished this
In most cases by assigning stu
dents to their closest elementary
school. They then took the ele
mentary schools and decided
which middle and high schools
those students would attend.
In most cases, all students who
start elementary school together
will attend middle and high school
together under the plan’s “feeder
system.” That pattern establishes
which schools students attend
throughout their school career.
“I think it all just makes sense,
the schools being closer to where
kids live,” said Emily Walters, a
senior at Myers Park High School
who attended Tuesday’s meeting.
She said the plan “makes a lot of
sense.”
The plan is organized by “high
school feeder areas,” collections
of elementary schools linked to a
h iffh e rh n n l
home school is Crown Point Ele
mentary are part of the Butler
High School attendance area, so
they will ultimately attend Butler -
if they don’t transfer to another
school or move from their home in
the meantime.
If the plan is approved Dec. 16,
the district plans to notify stu
dents about their home school in
January.
Choice
Every student belongs to a
“choice zone” in Smith’s plan. The
choice zone pairs the student’s
high school attendance area with
a neighboring high school atten
dance area. For example, the dis
trict has married the South Meck
lenburg High attendance area
with the Myers Park High atten
dance area to create a choice
zone.
Students may transfer to any el
ementary, middle or high school
within their choice zone if there is
room.
The district will expand capac
ity of a school up to 110 percent to
help create enough space and will
provide transportation to that
school.
Students may also transfer to a
school outside their choice zone if
there is room and if they’re willing
to provide transportation.
If Smith’s plan is approved, stu
dents will be asked to submit an
application for transfer in Febru
ary and will learn whether they re
ceived it by May.
Magnets
Another choice is the magnet
program, which changes in sev
eral ways in Smith’s proposal.
The overall number of magnet
seats stays about the same at
18,000, while the number of loca
tions drops from 45 schools to 44.
Many magnets would be relo
cated from the center city, where
home-school seats are needed, to
schools that have space available.
For example, Amay James Mon-
tessori would move to Park Road
Elementary. Barringer’s talent de
velopment programs would relo
cate to Beverly Woods Elementa-
ry.
T h e nl.'in e l im in a te s th r e e n ro -
“We have not made any
decisions, and no
decisions will be made
without a thorough
debate.”
ARTHUR GRIFFIN
SCHOOL BOARD CHAIRPERSON
now at Lincoln Heights Elementa
ry, the accelerated learning pro
gram at First Ward Elementary,
and the workplace magnets at Na
thaniel Alexander and Morehead
elementary schools, Martin Mid
dle and Vance High.
It adds anew Center for Leader
ship, Global Economics and Fi
nance at Olympic High School.
Several schools convert to mag
nets under Smith’s plan. For ex
ample, Dilworth Elementary
would become a full magnet hous
ing German, French and Japanese
language-immersion programs.
Full magnets have no home-
school assignments. All students
must apply.
Northwest School of the Arts
would become solely a high
school. Its middle school program
moves to Hawthorne Middle.
Ranson Middle loses the Inter
national Baccalaureate program
started there this school year.
Bruns Avenue Elementary would
lose both its German immersion
and environmental science mag
nets, and its year-round program
will be discontinued.
Under the plan, every student
has a list of magnet schools to
which the district will provide
transportation. Students may ap
ply outside of that listing, but they
must provide their own transpor
tation.
Parent Bev Inskeep left the
board meeting with mixed feel
ings. Her daughter’s magnet pro
gram at Davidson IB Middle
would remain intact under the
proposal, but her son, now at
Blythe Elementary, would move
to Huntersville Elementary.
“I love the principal at Blythe,”
Inskeep said. “She’s running an
efficient school.”
If the nlan is anmoved. students
ary and should learn of their as
signment by May.
Both the choice zone and mag
net program lotteries are random,
but priorities will be given to cer
tain students, such as those whose
home schools have less than
50 percent of the students per
forming below grade level.
While Smith’s plan maps out
where magnet programs would
be relocated, it does not answer
one crucial question magnet par
ents have: Will their child be able
to continue with their magnet pro
gram next year.
Current magnet assignments
are based on a race-conscious lot
tery, which Potter declared illegal.
The district fears allowing current
magnet students to stay where
they are would violate Potter’s rul
ing. The school board has asked
Potter for clarification on the mat
ter.
There are three other signifi
cant changes:
■ Derita Elementary would
serve as temporary space for stu
dents who will attend the new
Greenville Park elementary
school when it opens in 2001.
Morehead Elementary will be
used as both a math/science and
environmental studies magnet as
well as a temporary space for stu
dents who will attend the new
Craighead Road elementary
school when it opens in 2001.
■ Highland would not be used
as an elementary school next
year. Its future use is undeter
mined.
■ Students assigned to the new
southwest high school set to open
in 2001 would temporarily go to
Olympic High. Students assigned
to the new north high school to
open in 2001 temporarily go to ei
ther Vance or North Mecklenburg
highs.
■ Programs for exceptional chil
dren have been relocated
throughout the county. The Metro
School for severely disabled chil
dren won’t be relocated.
■ Alternative schools are re
maining in their current locations.
Staff writer Celeste Smith contribut
ed to this story. Reach Jennifer Wing
Rothacker at (704) 358-507/ or iroth-
arts program.”
Trey Mack, a Myers Park
High student, isn’t sure if the
changes will allow him to stay
in the school’s International
Baccalaureate program. The
school is keeping the magnet
program, hut the proposal
would change which students
have a priority in getting in.
Under proposed changes, Trey
would go to Harding High’s IB
program.
“I’ve been in Myers Park for
two years. I’m known there....
I’m on the student government.
If I went to Harding, I’d have to
start all over again. I would feel
better staying at Myers Park,”
he said.
The proposed shifts also in
clude moving one of the ele
mentary schools offering the
“traditional” program from
Druid Hills Elementary to
Winding Springs Elementary.
Three foreign language pro
grams would move to one
school. The programs at Reid
Park (French), Biuns Avenue
(German) and Sedgefield (Jap
anese) elementary schools
would move to Dilworth Ele
mentary. Collinswood Elemen
tary would keep the Spanish
program.
The proposal would also end
three magnet programs and
not relocate them elsewhere:
global studies at Lincoln
Heights Elementary, acceler
ated leaming/IB at First Ward
Elementary, and the workplace
magnet program at Nathaniel
Alexander and Morehead Ele
mentary schools, Martin Mid
dle and Vance High.
Member Molly Griffin wor
ries the plan may “add to the il
lusion that these (magnet) pro
grams are more valuable.”
Member Vilma Leake criti
cized the proposal for leaving
her region - the western part of
the center city - without many
magnets, and with older
schools. “The westside is still
the poor westside,” she said.
Board Vice Chairperson
John Lassiter suggested that
the school system poll the par
ents with students at magnets
moving to other locations to
find out if they’ll follow the pro
grams. “There’s a bit of a guess
going on” now, he said.
arlotte.com THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 11 ,1999
s c h o o l r e a s s i g n m e n t E x p e c t b i g c h a n g e s , b o a r d m e m b e r s s a y
Challenges to Smith’s plan
for schools begin pouring in
Relocation
of magnets
draws fire
By JENNIFER WING ROTHACKER
Staff Writer
School board members may dif
fer on what needs fixing in the
sweeping student reassignment
proposed by Superintendent Eric
Smith, but they
agree it definitely
needs fixing.
“The overall
opinion from what
I heard in the com
munity is that it
needs a lot of
work,” said board
member George
Dunlap. “If the
hope (of the plan)
is that nobody is happy, we’ve cer
tainly done that.”
While some board members ap
plauded the proposal's choice op
tions, nearly all expressed con
cerns about its magnet reloca
tions and recommended school
boundary lines.
Some challenged the plan’s
guarantee of choice. Others cast
doubts on the value of sending
students to schools close to home.
“I generally believe the ele
ments are correct and consistent
with the court order and reflect
the philosophy of the community
- that is that parents want the abil
ity to choose where they go to
school,” said board Vice Chair
person John I-assiter.
But Lassiter added: “I don’t
think in its current state it’s going
to get passed. I think there will be
a number of large-scale adjust
ments and a significant number of
smaller adjustments.”
Smith said he isn’t surprised by
the board’s reaction.
“I think there’s going to be a sig
nificant amount of change be
tween what we presented last
night and what the final adoptions
will be,” Smith said Wednesday.
“Willi something this massive in• I 1
Si'IkkiI Realignment.
AgukU
to your
option*
MORE COVERAGE
ON 14A : Calls to the schools'
hot line logged about 400 calls
by 5 p.m. Wednesday.
■ Ask Eric Smith.
■ How to reach school board
members, other helpful
information.
O N U N E : Complete coverage
and maps, plus community
forums are available at
www.chariotte.com.
SPECIAL SECTION COPIES:
You can still get copies of The
Observer's 12-page School
Reassignment guide (above),
which was published
Wednesday. Details, 14A
Parents’ debate just beginning
Changes are greeted
with defiance, cheers
By PETER ST. ONGE,
ANDREA K. WALKER
and DAVID PERLMUTT
StaffWriters
Some learned the news early
Wednesday, their eyes saucer
ing wide as they dropped their
children off at school.
Some learned the night be
fore, and they came to school to
share smiles or tears.
Others vowed to fight.
After months of hand-wring
ing and quarreling over where
Charlotte-Mecklenburg chil
dren will be attending school
next year, Tuesday’s school re
assignment proposal brought
only one sure answer: There will
be much hand-wringing and
quarreling to come.
On Wednesday, school hall
CHRISTOPHERA. RECORD/Staff
S tu d en ts
h e a d to th e ir
buses
W edn esday
a fte rn o o n a t
W ilson M id
dle Schoo l in
C h a rlo tte .
ways and parking lots buzzed
with talk of Superintendent Eric
Smith’s new plan. The proposal,
which could send as many as
65,000 children to different
schools next year, was met - as
any such sweeping blueprint
would be - with a mix of elation
and despair, resignation and
surprise.
“Everybody’s excited,” said
Mallard Creek Elementary par
ent Debt Gallo, who said the
plan would allow her third- and
fifth-graders to stay in school
with their neighbors at Mallard
Creek, Alexander Middle and
North Mecklenburg High.
“I think it’s crummy,” said
Charlotte’s Nancy Poplin, who
P le a se s e e CHANGE / p a g e 14A
scope, it would be unreasonable
to expect no adjustments.”
Smith and his staff have spent
the past two months creating a re
assignment plan that could send
as many as 65,000 students to new
schools next fall. The plan re
sponds to a ruling by U.S. District
Judge Robert Potter that bans the
use of race in student assignment.
The proposal, introduced to the
public Tuesday, radically changes
the way Charlotte-Mecklenburg
assigns its more than 100,000 stu
dents to schools. Rather than bus-
P le a se s e e SCHOOLS / p a g e 14A
http://www.chariotte.com
THE CHARLOTTE OBSERVER
14A THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 11,1999 FR O M PAGE ONE
How to reach the school board
Here's how to contact Charlotte-
Mecklenburg school board members.
Arthur Griffin (chairperson)
Phone: 542-0764
E-mail: agriffin@bellsouth.net
Fax: 343-3761
John Lassiter (vice chairperson)
Phone: 542-1426
E-mail: lassiter@bellsouth.net
Fax: 343-3760
George Dunlap
Phone; 597-5980
E-mail: gdunlap@bellsouth.net
Fax: 343-5075
Molly Griffin
Phone: 376-5524
E-mail: rnbgriffi@bellsouth.net
Fax: 343-5683
Lindalyn Kakadelis
Phone: 543-6313
E-mail: kakadeli@bellsouth.net
Fax:343-5077
Vilma Leake
Phone: 556-7877
E-mail: vleake@bellsouth.net
Fax: 343-5684
Jim Puckett
Phone: 596-1145
E-mail: jhpucket@bell-
south.net
Fax: 343-5682
Wiihelmenia Rembert
Phone: 543-5454
E-mail: wrembert@be!l-
south.net
Fax: 343-5160
Louise Woods
Phone: 536-0335
E-mail: lwoods@bellsouth.net
Fax: 343-5076
Photos by CHRISTOPHER A. RECORD/Stall
V o lu n te e r S te p h a n ie Johnson (righ t) answ ers ph one ca lls a t th e Edu catio n C e n te r W ed n esd ay fro m p aren ts c o n cern ed a b o u t th e s tu d e n t-re a s
s ig n m e n t prop osal fo r ne x t fa ll.
Parents greet
news with
dread, cheers
CHANGE/rom JA
has three children at west Char
lotte’s Barringer Academic Cen
ter, a magnet school. Under the
reassignment proposal, Barringer
would be reclaimed as a neigh
borhood elementary school, with
its magnet programs shipped to
Beverly Woods Elementary in
southeast Charlotte.
Sandra Hill’s son, Matthew,
cried Wednesday before school
when his mother told him what
would be happening to Barringer,
where he is in the third
grade.“This is very emotional for
all of us,” Hill said later. “We are
very disappointed.”
Among the most distressed
were parents at Derita Elementa
ry, a north Charlotte school that
would cease its current opera
tions under the proposal and be
used as a temporary facility for
students whose schools are being
built or renovated.
Robin Reid, parked outside
Derita early Wednesday, flinched
when she heard her son, IZarrien,
could be attending second grade
elsewhere next year. “He really
enjoyed it here,” Reid said. “It’s a
great school. I don’t know why it
would be closed. Why change it?”
Those sentiments were echoed
at Dilworth Elementary, where
parents cried in the hallways after
learning that the school could
stop operating as a neighborhood
and workplace transfer school
and become a new French, Ger
man and Japanese language-im
mersion magnet school.
“1 am just stunned,” said Lorie
Swift, who a year ago chose to buy
a house near the school so her kin-
dergartner could attend Dilworth.
“The parents have worked so hard
to make this a strong school, a
school where the students have
performed very well. Now essen
tially they are taking that away as
it exists.”
Most of the conversations at
Dilworth before school Wednes
day were about the plan. Parents
said they had no inkling the
mailto:agriffin@bellsouth.net
mailto:lassiter@bellsouth.net
mailto:gdunlap@bellsouth.net
mailto:rnbgriffi@bellsouth.net
mailto:kakadeli@bellsouth.net
mailto:vleake@bellsouth.net
mailto:lwoods@bellsouth.net
Concerns about proposal pour in
S an d ra Hill
w alks h e r 7 -
y ea r-o ld son
M a tth e w
across th e
s tre e t to g e t to
B arring er A ca
d em ic C en te r
W edn esd ay
m orning.
Questions for CMS?
The school district staff is
available by phone, fax and
e-mail to handle your questions
and comments about the proposed
student-assignment plan.
■ Call 343-6192 from 8 a .m .h
7 p.m. weekdays.
■ Staff will answer questions
by e-mail. Send comments to
feedback@cms.kl2.nc.us.
■ Fax questions or comments
to 343-3647.
Public hearings
Four public hearings are scheduled in
the next two weeks. To speak, call
343-5199 between 8 a.m. and
5 p.m. weekdays, or sign up at the
hearing. All hearings begin at 6 p.m.:
Today: West Charlotte High
School, 2219 Senior Drive.
Monday: Myers Park High
School, 2400 Colony Road,
Tuesday: Vance High School,
7600 IBM Road.
Nov. 22; Providence High
School, 1800 Pineville-
Matthews Road.
Focus groups
In the next week, school officials
will hold focus groups at ever/ higi
school with 20 to 30 parents of ele
mentary, middle and high school stu
dents. Eveiy school will be repre
sented; school staff have already Is
sued invitations.
On the Web
For coverage of the school reas
signment plan and maps of new
boundaries, go to www.char-
lotte.com/schools/99assign.
The school districts Web site,
www.cms.kl2.nc.us , offers a link to
the student-assignment plan. Click
ing on a school's name shows its pro
posed attendance boundaries.
Maps, plans
A 160-page book detailing the plan is
available at every school in tine dis
trict; tlie Education Center, 701 East
Second Street; and every public li
brary in the county. In addition, maps
of every school's proposed bound
aries are posted at all schools.
Newsletter
Superintendent Eric Smith is issuing
a newsletter Thursday about the new
assignment plan called “Straight
from Smith." It will be available at all
schools. Smith will update the news
letter as changes to the proposal are
made. In addition, Smith is releasing
another newsletter called “The Smith
Report" once a quarter to offer addi
tional wutate. m m mmm
SCHOOLS fro m LA
ing students out of their neigh
borhoods to racially integrate
schools, this plan guarantees ev
ery student a seat in a school close
to home.
It creates a feeder system that
establishes where a child goes to
elementary, middle and high
school. It gives students options to
transfer to magnet and nonmag
net schools throughout the dis
trict. And it moves more than two
dozen magnet programs out of
the center city and into schools
with available seats.
A series of public hearings on
the plan begins tonight at West
Charlotte High School. Staff will
revise the plan and put it through
another round of public comment.
Smith says he needs tire school
board to approve a plan by Dec. 16
so he can start preparing for next
fall.
School board Chairperson Ar
thur Griffin said while the dead
line is important to meet, he wants
to take whatever time is necessary
to make the plan acceptable.
“I think I’ve been extremely
consistent about the fact that I will
take every effort to m ake sure we
take the appropriate time to get it
right,” Griffin said.
Getting it right could take quite
a bit of time. School board mem
bers Wednesday expressed con
cerns large and small about the
proposal.
Vilma Leake challenges a basic
principle of the plan: Assigning
students to schools close to home.
“What I’ve seen is that we are
resegregating our system, not just
.1
on race but by poverty,” Leake
said.
Board member Louise Woods
also fears a separation of children
by race and economics if Smith’s
plan is implemented.
“I am concerned that we have
choice options that don’t neces
sarily offer diversity or guarantee
diversity,” Woods said.
She suggests placing magnet
programs in naturally diverse
schools so parents who want di
versity can select it.
Both Dunlap and Lassiter have
contested the way Smith proposes
relocating magnet programs, all
of which would be placed in
schools with available space.
“Magnet schools have an ability
to draw students to almost any ed
ucational facility,” Lassiter said.
“Put them in places where you
need to draw kids.”
Dunlap questions whether the
plan truly provides choice. Many
of the options to transfer require
that students provide their own
transportation. Dunlap said that
option is usually only an option
for more wealthy families.
‘W ho are the ones least likely to
have transportation? Inner-city
children,” Dunlap said. “Who are
the ones most likely to go to the
least desirable schools? Inner-city
children.
“This plan gives the less advan
taged less advantages, and gives
advantages to the most advan
taged,” he said.
Lassiter and Woods have con
cerns about the plan’s feeder sys
tem. The plan lets students who
start elementary school go to mid
dle and high school together. But
not all students in middle school
wind up at the same high school.
In many cases, they split into dif
ferent high schools.
“I think the attempt to give chil
dren feeders is a good one, but I’m
disappointed we haven’t done
that in many cases,” Woods said.
Board member Jim Puckett dis
agrees with how some of the
“choice zones” were drawn. Stu
dents can apply to any school
within their choice zone and the
district will provide transporta
tion if they get in.
Puckett feels the West Meck
lenburg High-new north high
zone and the North Mecklenburg
High-West Charlotte High zone
don’t make sense.
But in general, Puckett said, he
agrees with the plan’s foundation.
“I think that fundamentally and
philosophically it is in line with
what courts across the nation are
indicating is acceptable,” Puckett
said. “I think this is the only way
you can legally and practically
carve up the district.”
Reach Jennifer Wing Rnthacker at
(704) 358-5071 or jrothacker@char-
lotte.com.
“This is a self-sustaining totally
integrated school, and they are
about to uproot us,” said Terri
Payne, who has a first-grader at
Dilworth. “It’s just amazing. We
have all worked very hard to make
this school work, and poof, just
like that, they want to blow it up. ”
Other parents were pleased
with the reassignment proposal,
even if their school would be hurt
by the plan. At Derita, parent
Mark Donato said he was in favor
of any plan that encouraged chil
dren to attend schools close to
home. “That’s what they need to
do,” he said. “A kid shouldn ’t have
to go too far to go to school.”
Many parents, however, tem
pered whatever joy or dread they
felt Wednesday. The proposal,
they know, is sure to change often
as the school system fields com
plaints, hosts public hearings and
holds focus groups throughout
November.
Already, some noted, school
board members were picking at
Smith’s plan Tuesday night. Said
Derita’s Reid: “Now you’re going
to hear more and more propos
als.”
Several parents hope to take ad
vantage of the indecision. At Dil
worth, parents have scheduled a
meeting at the school gymnasium
at 6 p.m. Friday, and some also
plan to attend the first reassign
ment public hearing at 6 p.m. to
day at West Charlotte High
School.
In Quail Hollow Estates, several
families were to huddle Wednes
day night to figure out how to
keep their kids in Quail Hollow
Middle and South Mecklenburg
High, just a stone’s throw away
from their homes.
mailto:feedback@cms.kl2.nc.us
http://www.char-lotte.com/schools/99assign
http://www.char-lotte.com/schools/99assign
http://www.cms.kl2.nc.us
mailto:jrothacker@char-lotte.com
mailto:jrothacker@char-lotte.com
Television
Every school board meeting through
the end of the year will be televised
on cable Channel 21.
Observer special section
For copies of The Observer’s 12-page
School Reassignment guide, send $1
per copy to Observer School Reas
signment, P.O. Box 32188, Char
lotte, NC 28232. Or you can buy
copies at The Observer office at 600
S. Tryon St. Make checks to The
Charlotte Observer.
Contact The Observer
The Observer wants to hear your
questions, comments and concerns
about Superintendent Eric Smith’s
proposed student-assignment plan.
Call us at 377-4444 and enter cate
gory code 2013. Or you can fax your
comments to reporters Jennifer
Rothacker and Celeste Smith at
358-5036. Or send e-mail tojroth-
acker@chariotte.com orcelestes-
mith@charlotte.com.
CORRECTION
An article in Wednesday’s
Observer about Superinten
dent Eric Smith’s student-as
signment proposal incorrectly
characterized one of the
groups of students who would
get a priority in lotteries for
magnet and nonmagnet
school seats. Students whose
assigned “home schools”
have more than 50 percent of
students performing below
grade level will be given a
preference in the lotteries.
Questions keeping schools lines hot
Volunteers take mort
By MARY ELIZABETH DEANGELIS
StaffWriter
The calls started at 8 a.m
Wednesday and didn’t let up ail
day.
On one line, a woman whose
son is a Myers Park High School
junior and football player found
out that under Superintendent
Eric Smith’s proposed reassign
ment plan, he’d go to South Meck
lenburg next year. New school,
new team, new class ring, she la
mented.
On another, a mother wanted to
know if her children can stay in
, their magnet programs.
So it goes on the reassignment
hot line, where district staffers
and volunteers spent the day
phone-to-ear in a tiny, window-
less room, trying to find answers
they didn’t always have.
Three to four people at a time,
than 400 calls
working in shifts, staffed the hot
line, grabbing restroom breaks,
chocolate chip cookies and water
between relentless rings. By
5 p.m., the hot line logged about
400 calls. That’s not counting oth
ers who tried to get through but
couldn’t because of busy signals.
Or who called other departments
at the school system’s headquar
ters.
“Tone is important!!!” an or
ange sign on the wall reminded
those answering phongs, and sug
gested they keep their voices “Re
assuring, friendly and calm!”
Retired McKee Road Elementa
ry Principal Bill Pangle volun
teered for a phone stint, and be
tween 8 a.m. and 2 p.m. had
talked to at least 85 people.
He resolved some questions
quickly, by asking the person’s
address, typing it into his comput
er, and finding out the assigned el
ementary, middle and high
schools.
Others were tougher, like when
people asked what the school
board planned to do about
“grandfathering” children into
their programs, or whether sib
lings would be able to go into the
same schools.
“People are very nice - some are
just frustrated that this is happen
ing to them," Pangle said.
The hot line brought back mem
ories for retired school adminis
trator Chris Folk, who spent the
day helping answer faxes and e-
mail.
Thirty years ago, he oversaw a
similar operation after a federal
judge ordered the system to de
segregate its schools. This reas
signment stems from another fed
eral judge’s order that bans the
district from using race as a factor
in student assignments.
Back then, the district reas-
HOTUNE
The district plans to keep the
hot line running until the vol
ume of calls dies down. Hours
are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. weekdays.
The number is 343-6192.
signed about 28,000 students over
two years. This one could poten
tially change where up to 65,000
children go to school next year.
Then, school officials had
phones in one hand and flip charts
in another, This time, maps, ad
dresses and assignments are com
puterized.
“It’s really so much more so
phisticated," Folk marveled.
“Technology makes this so much
faster.”
Reach Mary Elizabeth DeAngelis at
(704)358-5239 ormdeangelis@char-
lotte.com.
All of which had people ques
tioning how any reassignment
plan could be passed by the school
board on Dec. 16, the day school
officials are targeting.
“Change is difficult,” said South
Charlotte Middle parent Melissa
Hagopian. “I think it’s going to
take a few years to iron things
out.”
Staff writers Celeste Smith and Foon
Rhee contributed to this article.
mailto:tojroth-acker@chariotte.com
mailto:tojroth-acker@chariotte.com
mailto:orcelestes-mith@charlotte.com
mailto:orcelestes-mith@charlotte.com
mailto:ormdeangelis@char-lotte.com
mailto:ormdeangelis@char-lotte.com
( C h e ( C h a r l o t t e ( D b s e r o e r
.vww.charlotte.com FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 1 2 ,1 9 9 9 METRO EDITION
S C H O O L R E A S S I G N M E N T
Crowd jams hearing on schools plan
Speakers challenge magnet moves, worry about equity
N ea rly 7 0 0 peop le a tte n d e d th e public hearin g , am o ng
th e m R e n e e H utch in so n , on e o f d o zen s w ho spoke.
By CELESTE SM ITH
StaffWHter
If the first student-assignment hearing
Thursday night is any indication, Charlotte-
Mecklenburg school officials have miles to go
before earning communitywide support for Su
perintendent Eric Smith’s plan.
Toting signs and clutching speeches, about
700 parents attended the first public hearing at
West Charlotte High School. Nearly 60 spoke
on Smith’s proposal, which could change
where more than half of the district’s children
attend school next year. The school board
wants to approve a plan next month.
Smith introduced the proposal Tuesday. Al
ready several hot spots of protest have surfaced
throughout the county. They include:
■ Piney Grove Elementary in east Charlotte.
Parents spoke out Thursday against a proposal
to house a Montessori magnet program there
because the change would move their children
out of the school. Magnets enroll children from
other areas of the county.
Jamie Burdette said the school’s veteran fac
ulty, academic success and large number of
neighborhood students who walk to school sig
nify a stable school that should be left un
touched.
“Why, as you strive to create successful, di
verse neighborhood schools, would you destroy
one that already exists?” Burdette asked board
members.
■ Dilworth Elementary near uptown, which
would house magnet programs in foreign-lan
guage immersion. Parents want the school to
stay the way it is, with children from the sur
rounding Dilworth and Wilmore communities.
The school also enrolls children whose parents
P le a se s e e PLAN / p a g e 12A
Parents should listen well, answer questions calmly
By JEFF DIAMANT
Staff Writer
Your parenting handbook probably
lacks a chapter on how to talk to chil
dren after a proposal for massive
school reassignment.
“My grandchildren don’t know why
this thing is coming down like this,
and 1 don’t know if I know how to ex
plain it to them,” said 53-year-old
Pearlie Campbell, the legal guardian
for four elementary school children
who would switch from Nathaniel Al
exander to Oaklawn under the new
proposal for Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Schools.
“Basically, all they know is they’re
going to be changing schools,” she
said, “They feel real bad.”
The plan could shift school assign
ments for as many as 65,000 of the dis
trict’s more than 100,000 students. The
key to addressing the subject with
children, according to Charlotte-area
psychologists who work with families,
is being a good, calm listener:
Listen to your children’s fears about
losing friends and familiar surround
ings. Be honest with them while re
membering that the reassignment
plan announced Tuesday isn’t final.
And don’t try to explain “Brown vs.
Board of Education” to a first-grader.
A parent’s behavior likely will be a
child’s main guide in reacting to the
changes, and without the proper direc
tion, a child who’s upset might take his or
her anger out on a new schoolmate, psy
chologists say.
“If parents present this as a horrible
thing, and say things like ‘You’re going to
have a horrible time adjusting,’ then the
child probably will,” said Charlotte psy
chologist Charles Brown. “Parents should
present it as a change that’s going to hap
pen, and say things like, ‘It’ll be different,
P le a s e s e e PARENTS / p a g e 12A
INSIDE
How to get copies of The Observ
er's School Reassignment guide.
Howto reach school board mem
bers, other information. 12A
12 A FBI DAY. NOVEMliKK 12.1999
Listen well, answer kids’ questions calmlyHowto reach
the school board
Here's how to contact Charlotte-
Mecktenburg school board mem
bers.
A rthur Griffin
(chairperson)
Phone: 542-
0764
E-mail: agrif-
fin@bell-
south.net
Fax: 343-3761
John L ass ite r
(vice c h a irp er
son) Oriftin
Phone: 542-1426
E-mail: lassiter@bellsouth.net
Fax: 343-3760
G eo rg e D unlap
Phone: 597-5980
E-mail: gduntap@bellsouth.net
Fax: 343-5075
M olly Griffin
Phone: 376-5524
E-mail: mbghffi@bellsouth.net
Fax: 343-5683
Lindalyn K ak a d e lis
Phone: 543-6313
E-mail: kakadeli@bellsouth.net
Fax: 343-5077
V ilm a L eake
Phone: 556-7877
E-mail: vleake@bellsouth.net
Fax: 343-5684
Jim P u cke tt
Phone: 596-1145
E-mail: jhpucket@bellsouth.net
Fax: 343-5682
W ilh e lm e n ia R em b e rt
Phone: 543-5454
E-mail: wrembert@bellsouth.net
Fax: 343-5160
Louise W oods
Phone: 536-0335
E-mail: lwoods@bellsouth.net
Fax: 343-5076
Questions for CMS?
The school district staff is avail
able by phone, fax and e-mail to
handle your questions and com
ments about the proposed stu
dent-assignment plan.
■ Call 343-6192 from 8 a.m.
to 7 p.m. weekdays.
■ Staff will answer questions
bye-mail. Send comments to
feedback@cms.kl2.nc.us.
■ Fax questions or comments
to 343-3647.
PARENTS fro m 1A
but i’m sure you have the abilities
to deal with it well.’ ”
Of course, many families are
thrilled with a new school assign
ment closer to home. But if par
ents want to challenge it, they
should keep the child out of that
fight, experts say.
“You don’t want to make the kid
the one who carries the ban
ner...,” Brown said. “That
wouldn’t be helping the child
learn to deal with authority in a
productive fashion. Your goal is to
help your child successfully make
the transition.”
That could mean telling chil
dren they’ll make new friends,
and that they can visit old ones on
weekends. But it also might mean
teaching children about the reali
ty that life can be unfair, said Ed
Palmer, who chairs the psycholo
gy department at Davidson Col
lege.
“It’s important to let them know
that sometimes, both they and we
have to do things” because of the
law, Palmer said. “We don’t like it,
but we have to make the best of
it."
Most therapists who were in
terviewed said parents should
consider talking with their chil
dren about at least some of the
history behind the reassignments
- if they feel the children will un
derstand.
Brown said: “You can tell a first-
grader that in the past, some peo
ple weren’t being treated fairly,
and the government needed to
step in to protect people to make
sure they were treated fairly. And
that now the government is say
ing those people are being treated
more fairly. And so some of the
rules are going to change.”
But, “If you sit down with a first-
grader and try to have a detailed
discussion about Brown vs. the
Board of Education, they’re not
really going to understand,” said
Patricia Hogan, a psychologist
whose specialties include prob
lem-solving and family therapy.
“You find out what their questions
are, and what they want to know.”
With older elementary school
students, parents might try using
words like “segregation,” “inte
gration” and “busing,” they said.
“It’s important to let them know
this wasn’t a random incident,
that there were reasons that peo
ple made these decisions,” said
Donna Dillon-Stout, a psycholo
gist in Charlotte.
Some psychologists recom
mend wailing to talk in detail
about a school change until after a
plan is adopted, which won’t hap
pen until Dec. 16 at the earliest. At
least some tweaks are expected as
the plan goes through four sched
uled public hearings.
“If a younger child brings it up
to you, talk with them,” Dillon-
Stout said. “If not, perhaps wait
until there’s more certainty.
Sometimes you can create anxi
ety in a child, and then no changes
come about.”
Linda de Castrique said she
took the uncertain approach with
her 12-year-old daughter Lindsay,
who’s nervous about a slated
change that would move her from
Myers Park High School to East
Mecklenburg.
“We watched the hearing live
on cable,” de Castrique said. “1
told her the plan we have is not
going to be the final plan, that
there could be changes.”
What if your child cries? Or
yells at you?
“The line you get out of middle-
schoolers is, ‘I’m not going to do
it. I’m not going to that school,’ ”
said Jim Selby, a psychology pro
fessor at UNC Charlotte. His ad
vice: “You just say, ‘Well, let’s talk
about it. We really don’t have to
decide today.’ ”
“It’s not going to happen until
next August,” he said.
Still, many children will remain
anxious. Peggy Phifer said her 12-
year-old son, who now attends
Cochrane Middle School, was up
set when he learned he’s been as
signed to Northeast Middle
School.
“He was saying, ‘Can’t you talk
to the principal? Can’t you do
something,’ ” Phifer said. “I said,
‘We’ll do whatever we can do to
make sure you’re in a school
you’re comfortable in.’ ”
For children who remain ner
vous, an early trip to the new
school can be calming, Dillon-
Stout said.
“Go and walk through the
school,” she said. “It becomes less
of a mystery to the child. That usu
ally helps to relieve a lot of anxi
ety.”
Reach JeffDiamant at (704) 358-
5059 or jdiamant@charlotte.com.
m o m
ScN©
H toortw m
X ‘ .gjr,-* '
it i c*
it* f ■ . ** ■iifS
D i l w o r t h ! % S a v e p w o r t h !
ks ‘41
mailto:agrif-fin@bell-south.net
mailto:agrif-fin@bell-south.net
mailto:agrif-fin@bell-south.net
mailto:lassiter@bellsouth.net
mailto:gduntap@bellsouth.net
mailto:mbghffi@bellsouth.net
mailto:kakadeli@bellsouth.net
mailto:vleake@bellsouth.net
mailto:jhpucket@bellsouth.net
mailto:wrembert@bellsouth.net
mailto:lwoods@bellsouth.net
mailto:feedback@cms.kl2.nc.us
mailto:jdiamant@charlotte.com
Public hearings
Public hearings are scheduled in
the next two weeks. To speak, call
3435199 between 8 a.rn. and
5 p.m. weekdays, or sign up at
the hearing. All hearings begin at
6 pm.:
M o n d a y , N ov. 15 : Myers Park
I iigh School, 2400 Colony Road.
Tuesday, Nov. 16: Vance High
School, 7600 IBM Road.
M o n d ay, N ov. 2 2 : Providence
High School, 1800 Pineville-
Matthews Road.
Focus groups
In the next week, school offi
cials will hold focus groups at ev
ery high school with 20 to 30 par
ents of elementary, middle and
high school students. Every school
will be represented; school staff
have already issued invitations.
On the Web
For coverage of the school re
assignment plan and maps of new
boundaries, go to www.char-
lolte.com.
Tlie school district's Web site,
www.cms.kl2.nc.us , offers a link
to the student-assignment plan.
Clicking on a school's name
shows its proposed attendance
boundaries.
Maps, plans
A 160-page book detailing the
plan is available at every school in
the district; the Education Center,
701E. Second St.; and every pub
lic library in the county. In addition,
maps of every school’s proposed
boundaries are posted at all
schools.
Newsletter
Superintendent Eric Smith has is
sued a newsletter about the new
assignment plan called "Straight
from Smith.” It is available at all
schools. Smith will update the
newsletter as changes to the pro
posal are made. In addition,
Smith is releasing a newsletter
called "The Smith Report” once a
quarter to offer additional up
dates.
http://www.char-lolte.com
http://www.char-lolte.com
http://www.cms.kl2.nc.us
Television
Every school board meeting
through the end of the year will be
televised on cable Channel 21.
Observer special section
For copies of The Observer's 12-
page School Reassignment guide,
send $1 per copy to Observer
School Reassignment,
P.O. Box 32188, Charlotte, NC
28232. Or you can buy copies at
The Observer office at 600 S.
Tryon St. Make checks to The
Charlotte Observer.
Contact The Observer
The Observer wants to hearyour
questions, comments and con
cerns about Superintendent Eric
Smith's proposal student-assign
ment plan. Call us at 377-4444
and enter category code 2013. Or
you can fax your comments to re
porters Jennifer Rothacker and
Celeste Smith at 358-5036.
Or you can send e-mail to
jrotliacker@charlotte.com or
celestesmith@charlotte.com.
Crowd jams first public hearing on schools proposal
PLflNfrom/A “Separate was not eaual sense,” Pfaff said. ^PLAN fro m 1A
work nearby through a special
transfer program.
“You wanted good schools in
the city. You had it,” said parent
Lemuel Turner. “And now you’ve
blown it away.”
■ Center-city areas, which
would lose most of their magnets.
Smith has proposed moving the
programs to free up classroom
space for center-city children.
Speakers also warned that the
plan would leave many city
schools with a high concentration
of poor students - “a situation ed
ucators and experts tell us is set
up for failure,” said Jennifer
Johnston, executive director of
the Swann Fellowship, which
promotes integrated schools.
Smith's plan is a response to a
recent federal court ruling that
orders the school system to stop
using race in student-assignment
plans.
The ruling means major
changes in the way the system as
signs its 101,000 students. As
many as 65,000 kids could attend
different schools this fall.
Instead of busing thousands of
children out of their neighbor
hoods to integrate schools,
Smith’s proposal instead guaran
tees nearby schools for every stu
dent.
The proposal creates a feeder
system that establishes where a
child goes to elementary, middle
and high school. It also gives stu
dents options to transfer to mag
net and nonmagnet schools
“Separate was not equal
in the ’60s ... separate
should not he tolerated in
the new millennium, ” said
Connie Carpenter of the
Community for Inclusive
Education.”
CONNIE CARPENTER
throughout the district.
Magnet programs would end at
more than two dozen Schools.
Most would move to other loca
tions. Smith said the shifts would
make room for as many as 7,000
center city students now bused to
the suburbs.
Other hearings and smaller ses
sions with parents over the next
two weeks could help determine
the range of dissatisfaction - or
agreem ent-w ith the proposal.
“Before the (legal) case, you
must have been on the right road,
because all these parents now are
saying 'I cave my school alone,’ ”
said West Charlotte High parent
Sherrill Coutourier.
A few parentspraised the pro
posal. Brian Pfaff, whose daugh
ter attends the Japanese immer
sion program at Sedgefield Ele
mentary, said Smith’s plan to
move three ofthefour element ary
school language programs under
one roof at Dilworth Elementary
would give the programs more
support.
“We think it’s a great idea. Con
verting the schools into one lan
guage academy just makes
sense,” Pfaff said.
Others criticized the proposal
for separating communities from
schools they’ve long attended.
Jan Homan of the Long Creek
community in northwest Meck
lenburg told board members that
an earlier reassignment divided
the community between Long
Creek and Hornets Nest elemen
tary schools. Now, the proposal
would move a portion of the com
munity again, this time to Paw
Creek Elementary.
Others warned against moving
too fast. “Dec. 16 is loo ambitious
a timeline to try and finalize a pu
pil-assignment plan that will un
avoidably disrupt many lives,”
said Carl Terrell, whose children
attend magnet schools.
And parents of children with
disabilities said the plan doesn’t
provide them with the same
choices as other children.
“Separate was not equal in the
’60s ... separate should not be tol
erated in the new millennium,”
said Connie Carpenter of the
Community for Inclusive Educa
tion.
Board Chairperson Arthur
Griffin said Smith and the board
will consider all the points raised
at the hearings. School planners
will come up with a revised pro
posal by Dec. 1, Three more public
hearings will then be scheduled
before the board votes on a final
plan.
Staff writer Jennifer Wing Rothacker
contributed to this article. Reach
Celeste Smith at 358-5087 or celes-
tesmith@charlotte.com.
o u i i . m k oc iip e m e r retu rn s to ner s e a t a fte r she speaking to a packed
house a t W est C h a rlo tte H igh School Thursday night.
mailto:jrotliacker@charlotte.com
mailto:celestesmith@charlotte.com
mailto:celes-tesmith@charlotte.com
mailto:celes-tesmith@charlotte.com
( T h e ( C h a r l o t t e ( D b s e m r
>m SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 1 4 ,1 9 9 9
S C H O O L R E A S S I G N M E N T : M O R E I N S I D E O N 1 2 A , I B
Study details the transformation
plan could make in student bodies
By JENNIFER WING ROTHACKER
snd TEDMELLNIK
StaffWrlters
A school-by-school analysis of a new stu
dent assignment plan for Charlotte-Meck-
lenburg students shows dramatic change
in a range of schools’ populations
Overall, more than half the students
would be new at about 50 schools.
In addition, the plan would create 17
schools that are at least 90 percent black or
white. There are two such schools now.
And today there is only one school where
at least 90 percent of students get free or re
duced-price lunches, an indicator of low-
and moderate-income households. Under
the reassignment, that number would grow
to nine.
That’s part of the picture that emerges
from a Charlotte Observer comparison of
proposed school-attendance areas re
leased last week and present school bound
aries. The new assignment plan is being
proposed by Superintendent Eric Smith af
ter a federal judge ordered the district to
stop using race in deciding where children
go to school.
School board member Jim Puckett cau
tions against judging schools solely on a
few facts.
“I think those numbers sometimes tend
to make parents prejudge the outcome of a
school,” Puckett said. “They measure that
as a potential failure.
“We are literally wiping the slate clean
and starting over, and nobody should make
any assumptions.”
It’s unknown for now how the statistics
would be altered by the choices families
would make about attending magnet
schools or requesting to go to other
schools, which would be allowed under
Smith’s plan. The Observer’s analysis of
the plan did not include magnet schools,
which would draw students from wider ar
eas.
But, Charlotte-Mecklenburg educators
expect to face many challenges as they
.... P/easeseeANAlVsiS/pag'el2A
$1.50
12A SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 14,1999 FR O M PAGE ONE THE CHARLOTTE OBSERVER
Comparison of attendance areas
These lists compare present Charlotte-Mecklenburg school-
attendance areas with those proposed by Superintendent Eric
Smith, C hange is the percentage of students who would be moved
to a new attendance area. Low Incom e is the estimated percentage
of students, in the proposal, who’d come from low- and moderate-
income families, based on applications for free and reduced-price
lunches, as reported by CMS. The second figure is the percentage
point change from the present attendance area. B lack shows the
percentage of black students in an attendance area.
‘Partial magnets under the proposed reassignment plan. Com
position of these schools could be changed by magnet choices be
cause, in part, they will draw students from a wider area.
“ Full magnets under the proposed reassignment plan. They do
not have an attendance area in the new plan. They would draw stu
dents from several attendance areas. Future choices parents make
would determine the makeup of these schools.
• “ Highland Elem. would be closed under the proposed plan.
Derita Elem. would house temporary school assignments.
ELEMENTARY
School Chang# ' Low Income Black
Albemarle Road 22% 54% + 3 53% + 10
Allenbrook 56% 68% -2 59% + 1
Ashley Park 100% 90% + 2 8 87%
Bain 9% 7% -2 4% 0
Barringer 100% 89% + 58 96%
Berryhill 34% 62% -18 14% -3 6
Beverly Woods* 22% 8% -34 3% -43
Billingsville 100% 96% + 52 94% -
Blythe 100% 19 -25 11% -37
Briarwood 45% 76% -1 79% 0
Bruns Avenue 100% 94% + 5 6 94%
Chantilly 100% 86% + 2 7 58%
Clear Creek 58% 17% -28 11% -30
Collinswood**
Cornelius 14% 13% + 2 8% -1
Cotswold* 30% 33% -2 5 19% -2 6
Craighead 100% 87% 72%
Crown Point 50% 23% -23 22% -18
David Cox 100% 23% + 1 35% -
Davidson* 0% 11% + 2 11% + 1
D e rita *** -
Devonshire 69% 80% + 1 75% + 7
D ilw orth** -
Druid Hills 100% 92% + 3 3 94% -6
Eastover 53% 30% -10 19% -24
Elizabeth** -
Elizabeth Lane 25% 4% + 1 5% 0
First W ard** -
Greenville (2001) 100% 93% 91%
Greenway Park* 5% 36% -13 33% -9
Hawk Ridge 100% 2% 2%
Hickory Grove 16% 37% + 3 51% 0
Hidden Valley 11% 82% -1 92% + 1
H igh land*** -
Hornets Nest* 27% 58% + 2 1 56% + 5
Huntersville 43% 11% -27 7% -27
Huntingtowne Farms 8% 48% + 11 30% + 3
Idlewild 15% 64% -4 50% -5
Study details the effect proposal
could have on schools’ makeup
ANALYSIS fr o m iA
bring change to the district’s ap
proximately 140 schools.
“What is most important to me
is whether or not our school dis
trict will have the ability to edu
cate large numbers of disadvan
taged students,” said school board
member George Dunlap, who is
worried about the concentration
of such students in a few schools.
Smith says he, too, is concerned
about the numbers his plan gener
ates, especially the poverty fig
ures. He said there could be more
schools in which more than 85
percent of the students receive
free or reduced lunch.
“High concentrations of pover
ty is a concern,” Smith said.
The district plans to target
schools with high percentages of
free or reduced student lunches
and provide them with extra re
sources, such as specialized cur
riculum, extended day programs
and smaller teacher-student ra
tios.
“It does not imply at all those
children cannot learn. It just sug
gests they need some additional
support,” Associate Superinten
dent Susan Purser said. “Chances
are the adults at home are just try
ing to get food on the table.’’But in
many ways, Smith says, his hands
are tied by the judge’s order. In re
sponse to a lawsuit filed by seven
parents contesting the district’s
use of race in student assignment,
U.S. District Judge Robert Potter
ruled in September that the
school district no longer has to in
tentionally integrate its schools.
He then ordered the district to
stop using race as a factor in fu
ture assignments, effectively end
ing 30 years of busing students
out of their neighborhoods to ra
cially diversify schools.
Smith last week unveiled a mas
sive reassignment proposal that
CHANGING SCHOOLS
U p to 6 5 ,0 0 0 s tu d e n t s c o u ld
c h a n g e s c h o o ls u n d e r t h e n e w
a s s ig n m e n t p la n . H e r e ’s a
b r e a k d o w n b y r a c e o f th e
p e r c e n ta g e o f s t u d e n t s w h o
w o u ld o r w o u l d n ’t b e a f f e c t e d
HI New school attendance area
QSame school attendance area
Black
White
46%
(II 54%j
Other
51%
4 9 % ]
Staff graphic
sis.
The analysis found that black
students - who now are most of
ten bused out of their neighbor
hood for integration - would be
most affected by the changes.
Some 67 percent of black students
would find themselves in different
school-attendance areas under
Smith’s plan.
That’s compared with 46 per
cent of white students.
For its comparison of the cur
rent and proposed school-atten
dance areas, The Observer used
data on where students lived dur
ing the 1998-1999 school year. Stu
dents were counted in the atten
dance area in which they lived. It
included schools that are sched
uled to open in 2001.
Because the Smith plan would
make school-attendance areas
more compact, schools would
more closely reflect the separa-
“I’m worried about diversity,”
said school board member Louise
Woods. “I believe there are many
people in the schools who want
that. It concerns me that proxim
ity assignments don’t in many
cases provide that opportunity.”
She proposes putting magnet
programs in schools that are ra
cially diverse because of their lo
cation under Smith’s plan, so that
parents could seek out those
schools.
Some schools would see their
numbers of low- and moderate-
income students leap under
Smith’s plan. Using data from this
school year, Billingsville Elemen
tary’s percentage of students on
free or reduced lunch would grow
from 44 percent to 96 percent.
Eighteen schools would have at
least 80 percent of their students
on free or reduced lunches, com
pared with nine now.
On the other end of the spec-
tium, the number of school dis
tricts with 10 percent or less of stu
dents in the free or reduced-price
lunch program also would in
crease, from eight to 16.
To qualify for a free or reduced
lunch, a family must meet certain
income criteria. For example, a
family of four that makes $30,895
a year or less would qualify. In the
Charlotte-Mecklenburg school
district last year, about 38 percent
of students were on free or re
duced lunches.It’s not clear
whether magnet schools could
tend to even out these differences,
or reinforce them.
In today’s schools, building di
verse magnet schools has some
times resulted in other schools be
coming less diverse.
For example, the present atten
dance area for predominantly
black West Charlotte High is com
posed of a small area around the
school, a group of east-side neigh
borhoods along University City
Boulevard and Old Concord
HOW TO REACH THE
SCHOOL BOARD
H e r e 's h o w to c o n t a c t C h a r
l o t t e - M e c k l e n b u r g s c h o o l
b o a r d m e m b e r s .
A rthur Griffin (chairperson)
Phone: 542-0764
E-mail: agriffin@bellsouth.net
Fax: 343-3761
John L as s ite r (vice
chairperson)
Phone: 542-1426
E-mail: lassiter@bellsouth.net
Fax: 343-3760
G eorge D unlap
Phone: 597-5980
E-mail:
gdunlap@bellsouth.net
Fax: 343-5075
M olly Griffin
Phone: 376-5524
E-mail:
mbgriffi@bellsouth.net
Fax: 343-5683
Lindalyn K akade lis
Phone: 543-6313
E-mail:
kakadeli@bellsouth.net
Fax: 343-5077
Vilm a L eake
Phone: 556-7877
E-mail: vleake@bellsouth.net
Fax: 343-5684
Jim P ucke tt
Phone: 596-1145
E-mail:
jhpucket@bellsouth.net
Fax: 343-5682
W ilh e lm en ia R em b ert
Phone: 543-5454
E-mail:
wrembert@bellsouth.net
Fax: 343-5160
Louise W oods
Phone: 536-0335
E-mail: lwoods@bellsouth.net
Fax: 343-5076
mailto:agriffin@bellsouth.net
mailto:lassiter@bellsouth.net
mailto:gdunlap@bellsouth.net
mailto:mbgriffi@bellsouth.net
mailto:kakadeli@bellsouth.net
mailto:vleake@bellsouth.net
mailto:jhpucket@bellsouth.net
mailto:wrembert@bellsouth.net
mailto:lwoods@bellsouth.net
Irwin Avenue Open* 100%
J H Gunn 30%
Lake Wylie 12%
Lansdowne 29%
Lebanon Road 21%
Lincoln Heights 100%
Long Creek 74%
M allard Creek 44%
Matthews 8%
McAlpine 0%
Mckee Road 0%
Merry Oaks 10%
Montclaire 42%
M orehead**
Myers Park**
Nathaniel Alexander 93%
Nations Ford . . 100%
O aM a* .
Oafchurct* v > 4%
, O a M m m -' ' "’• H ■. ,V, 100% v
O lde Providence 100%
Park R oad**
Paw Creek 10%
Pawtuckett 32%
Pineville 2 8 %
Pinewood 3 2 %
Piney Grove** -
Rama Road 27%
Reedy Creek 30%
Reid Park\A m ay James 100%
Sedgefield 49%
Selwyn* 76%
Shamrock Gardens 7%
Sharon* 35%
Smithfleld 41%
Starmount 28%
Statesville Road 51%
Steele Creek 35%
Sterling* 78%
Thomasboro 41%
Tuckaseegee* 7%
University Meadows 39%
University Park**
Villa Heights** .
Westerly Hills 0%
W inding Springs**
W indsor Park 56%
W interfield 18%
92% + 3 4 93%
41% -14 38% -10
14% -13 14% -21
18% -1 6 17% -12
32% -7 18% -19
91% + 3 6 94%
16% -26 18% -19
6% -1 5 17% 9
12% -3 6% -1
3% 0 5% + 1
1% 0 2% 0
72% -4 57% -1
63% -7 39% -14
51% + 14 56% -8
77% + 2 3 74%
50% *5 40% -9
47% • ' + 5 27% -6
92% + 3 1 95%
7% -13 9%
25% ’ -19 14% -23
52 % -16 38% -25
28% -3 *5% -13
61% -3 34% -9
37% -7 29% -9
35% + 9 48% + 9
92% + 5 7 90%
83% + 2 71% + 14
28% -8 12% -36
76% -6 55% + 2
9% -33 8% -35
17% -29 12% -25
56% 0 41% + 8
67% -7 70% + 15
39% -6 43% -5
75% + 6 85% + 3 5
87% + 2 77% + 3
48% -21 37% -13
23% -21 34% -18
81% -3 77% + 3
57% -4 45% -5
60% -4 58% + 7
ends cross-town busing. He rec
ommended all students be guar
anteed a school close to home,
called their “home school.” A
feeder system would establish
which elementary, middle and
high school a student attends. If
students want, they can try to
transfer to either a magnet or an
other school.
School officials estimate that
the plan could result in as many as
65,000 of Charlotte-Mecklen-
burg’s 101,000students attending
different schools next school
year.
The changes would affect more
than 60 percent of high school and
middle school students, and an es
timated 49 percent of elementary
students, according to the analy-
tion of races and of economic
groups in Charlotte’s neighbor
hoods.
For example, South Mecklen
burg High’s area would drop from
27 percent black to 6 percent
black. The school would lose a
predominantly black inner-city
feeder area west of uptown.
Overall, five schools would be
over 90 percent white. Twelve
would be over 90 percent black.
Several of today’s inner-city
magnet schools would become
predominantly black neighbor
hood schools. These include Bar
ringer, Billingsville, Bruns, Lin
coln Heights and Oaklawn ele-
mentaries; and middle schools
J.T. Williams, Marie G. Davis and
Spaugh.
Road, and south-side neighbor
hoods along Randolph Road
Of the white high school stu
dents who live in the two satellite
attendance areas, only 31 percent
actually attend West Charlotte.
The rest attend magnets.
West Charlotte’s proposed at
tendance area is a single district
roughly centered on the school.
Cross-town busing to integrate
West Charlotte would end. Stu
dents from around the county
could still be bused to West Char
lotte but only if they choose to
take part in the school’s open
magnet program.
Reach Jennifer Wing Rot h a c k e r a t
(7 0 4 ) 358-5071 or irothacher<5*diar-
Iotte.com.
To explore the attendance-area
changes that could take place un
der Chartotte-Mecklenburg’s pro
posed school reassignment plan,
The Observer started with com
puter map data describing where
approximately100,000 Chariotte-
Mecklenburg students live. This
data, for the 1998-99 school
year, included the race and grade
of students - but not names or
addresses.
This information was combined
with computer maps of school at
tendance areas for the 1998-99
school year under the reassign-
H O W W E D I D IT
ment plan to determine which stu
dents live in which attendance ar
eas under both plans.
The Observer’s study did not
account for schools that would be
magnets under the new plan.
They would draw students from
wide areas. Students were
counted only by the attendance
area in which they live and not
where they actually attend school.
The race groups used were
white, black and "other.” Some
schools have significant popula
tions of other races, so the num
ber of schools withmorethan90
percent white population is not
equal to the number of schools
with less than 10 percent black
population.
The Chariotte-Mecklenburg
school district provided estimates
of students eligible for the free
and reduced-price lunch program
under existing schools and the
proposed plan.
For more information, contact
Ted Mellnik, database editor of
The Observer, at (704) 358-5028
or e-mail tmellnik@char-
lotte.com.
Questions for CMS?
The school district staff is
available by phone, fax and e-
mail to handle your questions
and comments about the pro
posed student-assignment
plan.
■ Call 343-6192 from 8 a.m.
to 7 p.m. weekdays.
■ Staff will answer questions
bye-mail. Send comments
to
feedback@cms.kl2.nc.us.
■ Fax questions or comments
to 343-3647.
Public hearings
Public hearings are scheduled
in the next two weeks. To
speak, call 343-5199 between
8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays,
or sign up at the hearing. All
hearings begin at 6 p.m.:
M onday: Myers Park High
School, 2400 Colony Road.
Tuesday: Vance High School,
7600 IBM Road.
M o n d ay, Nov. 2 2 : Providence
High School, 1800 Pineville-
Matthews Road.
Focus groups
In the next week, school offi
cials will hold focus groups at
every high school with 20 to 30
parents of elementary, middle
and high school students. Ev
ery school will be represented,
and school staff have already
issued invitations..
On the Web
For coverage of the school
reassignment plan and maps
of new boundaries, go to
www.charlotte.com.
The school district’s Web
site, www.cms.kl2.nc.us, of
fers a link to the student-as
signment plan. Clicking on a
school's name shows its pro- ,
posed attendance boundaries.
Maps, plans
A 160-page book detailing the
plan is available at every school
in the district; the Education
Center, 701 East Second St.;
and every public library in the
county. In addition, maps of
every school’s proposed
boundaries are posted at all
schools.
mailto:tmellnik@char-lotte.com
mailto:tmellnik@char-lotte.com
mailto:feedback@cms.kl2.nc.us
http://www.charlotte.com
http://www.cms.kl2.nc.us
MIDDLE
r a n p B M T ’ - T ' c l w f e i S? F Low Income Black '■
Albemarle Road 65% 45% •5 49% 48
Alexander Graham * 39% 16% -3 0 13% -30
Alexander 89% 23% -6 24% 1
Bradley * 100% 15% -24 10% -32
Carmel * 65% 8% -2 4 9% -25
Cochrane 49% 68% -2 71% -2
Couiwood * 12% 32% -25 31% -19
Crestdale 100% 4% -6 5% -1
Davidson **
Eastway 64% 67% -16 49% -6
Hawthorne ** -
JT W illiams 100% 89% + 6 7 93%
Kennedy 20% 38% -1 45% -1
Marie G Davis 100% 90% + 6 0 94% 0
M artin 87% 54% + 11 63% -6
McClintock 50% 29% -9 26% -11
Northeast 24% 18% -21 11% -26
Northridge * 18% 35% -1 56% + 8
Quail Hollow 30% 23% -13 20% -13
Piedmont ** -
Randolph * 79% 47% -1 32% -12
Ranson 82% 66% + 3 65% + 18
Sedgefield * * -
Smith 42% 52% + 1 35% -8
South Charlotte 1% 3% -6 3% -10
Spaugh 100% 86% + 3 7 89% -
Wilson * 39% 56% -26 42% -24
HIGH
Lowincome Black
Butler 22% 9% -13 12% ' -23
East Mecklenburg * 96% 28% + 7 37% + 1
Garinger * 56% 51% + 2 62% + 9
H ard ing** - -
Independence * 57% 28% -4 43% 0
Myers Park * 53% 27% + 1 29% -11
New north 100% 6% 11%
New southwest 100% 37% 46%
North Mecklenburg * 63% 12% -6 29% -2
Olympic * 1% 23% -12 36% -1 0
Providence 47% 4% -9 7% -15
South Mecklenburg 47% 4% -16 6% -21
Vance 74% 37% + 1 6 68% + 1 8
West Charlotte * 79% 62% + 1 2 81% + 18
West Mecklenburg * 36% 51% + 8 64% + 11
H e r e a r e t h e s c h o o ls
d e s ig n a t e d in t h e
p r o p o s a l f o r e x c e p
t i o n a l c h i l d r e n in fa l l
2000:
Preschool
H earing im paired
Cotswold Elementary
Myers Park Elemen
tary
D eve lo pm en tally
de layed
Plaza Road Pre-kin
dergarten
Starmount Elemen
tary
Autistic
Idlewild Elementary
Lansdowne Elemen
tary
Lebanon Road Ele
mentary
Morehead Elemen
tary
Selwyn Elementary
B ehavioraliy /em o-
tio na lly d istu rb ed
Tryon Hills Pre-kin
dergarten
Cross C ateg o rica l
Double Oaks Pre
kindergarten
Elizabeth Lane Ele
mentary
Hornets Nest Ele
mentary
Plaza Road Pre-kin
dergarten
Starmount Elemen
tary
Lang uage
Tryon Hills Elementa-
ty
Elementary
schools
H earin g im p a ired
Cotswold
E X C E P T I O N A L C H I L D R E N
Eastover Long Creek McClintock
Myers Park Mallard Creek Northeast
T ra inab le m entally / Montclaire Piedmont
developm entally McKee Road Quail Hollow
hand icap ped Olde Providence Ranson
Devonshire Reedy Creek Sedgefield
Lincoln Heights Shamrock Gardens Smith
A utistic Tuckaseegee Spaugh
Idlewild University Park J.T. Williams
Lansdowne Villa Heights Wilson
Lebanon Road Winterfield Cross C ateg o rica l
McAlpine L ang uage J.M. Alexander
Morehead Rama Road Bradley
Oakdale Winding Springs Cochrane
Selwyn S t. M a rk ’s Couiwood
Westerly Hills Billingsville Marie G. Davis
B ehaviorally /em o- Collinswood Martin
tio n a liy disturbed Crown Point Kennedy
Albemarle Road David Cox McClintock
Allenbrook Matthews Northeast
Ashley Park Merry Oaks Quail Hollow
Biltingsville Learn ing disabled Ranson
Bruns Avenue Rama Road Smith
Chantilly Winding Springs. South Charlotte
Druid Hills O rthopedic Spaugh
Elizabeth Lane Oakhurst J.T. Williams
Huntersville
Middle schools
Wilson
J.H. Gunn Lang uage
Nations Ford H ea rin g im paired McClintock
Oaklawn Randolph Ranson
Pinewood Tra in ab le m en ta lly / S t. M a rk 's
Sedgefield d eve lo p m en ta lly Crestdale
Smithfield hand icap ped Alexander Graham
Statesville Road Smith Sedgefield
Steele Creek Randolph Learn ing d isab led /
Thomasboro A utistic o th er h e a lth im
Windsor Park Alexander Graham paired
C ross C ategorical Northridge Carmel
Albemarle Road B eh aviorally /em o - O rthopedic
Ashley Park tio n a liy d istu rb ed Randolph
Barringer
Beverly Woods
Albemarle Road
Carmel High schools
Briarwood Cochrane H earin g im p a ired
Greenway Pant Couiwood Myers Park
Hickory Grove ■ Marie G. Davis T ra inab le m en ta lly /
Hidden Valley Eastway d eve lo p m en ta lly
Lake Wylie Hawthorne hand icap ped
Lincoln Heights Martin East Mecklenburg
Providence
Newsletter
Superintendent Eric Smith is
issuing a newsletter Thursday
about the new assignment
plan called “Straight from
Smith.” It will be available at all
schools. Smith will update the
newsletter as changes to the
proposal are made. In addition,
Smith is releasing another
newsletter called “The Smith
Report" once a quarter to offer
additional updates.
Television
Every school board meeting
through the end of the year will
be televised on cable Chan
nel 21
Observer special section
For copies of The Observer's
12-page School Reassignment
guide, send $1 per copy to Ob
server School Reassignment,
P.O. Box 32188, Charlotte, NC
28232. Or you can buy copies
at The Observer office at 600
S. Tryon St. Make checks to
The Charlotte Observer.
Contact The Observer
The Observer wants to hear
your questions, comments and
concerns about Superinten
dent Eric Smith’s proposed
student-assignment plan. Call
us at 377-4444 and enter cat
egory code 2013. Or you can
fax your comments to reporters
Jennifer Rothackerand Celeste
Smith at 358-5036.
Or you can send e-mail to
jrothacker@chartotte.com or
celestesmith@charlotte.com.
West Charlotte
A utistic
Myers Park
Vance
West Mecklenburg
B eh aviorally /em o -
tio n a lly d isturbed
East Mecklenburg
Garinger
Harding
Independence
Myers Park
Northwest
Olympic
South Mecklenburg
Vance
West Charlotte
West Mecklenburg
C ross C atego rica l
Butler
East Mecklenburg
Garinger
Harding
Independence
Myers Park
North Mecklenburg
Northwest
Olympic
Providence
South Mecklenburg
Vance
West Charlotte
West Mecklenburg
Lang uage
Myers Park
S t. M a rk ’s
Butler
Harding
North Mecklenburg
Olympic
West Mecklenburg
Learn ing d isab led /
o th er h e a lth im
pa ired
Independence
O rthopedic
East Mecklenburg
mailto:jrothacker@chartotte.com
mailto:celestesmith@charlotte.com