"One Person, One Vote" vs. "5,999 Persons, Zero Votes"

As the Arkansas Legislature remains in session over one remaining issue - redrawing the congressional districts based on the 2010 census - one question has been noticeably absent from the debate and myriad of maps: What's best for the people?

We are bombarded about what's best for Democrats, Republicans, incumbent congressmen, potential congressional candidates, legislators, constitutional officers and special interests. But no one in leadership is talking seriously about simply taking the state's population, dividing by four, then redrawing the districts in the most efficient and proximate regional clusters to best serve the people.

The Little Rock School Board will soon face a similar re-zoning issue.

The Arkansas School Board Association (ASBA), in cooperation with the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), Governor's office, Attorney General's office, Secretary of State's office, and Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators (AAEA), in its memorandum of February 8, 2011, outlined steps which zoned districts "must do to meet the obligations of state and federal law:" 

1. Upon issuance of new 2010 Census figures, the district should either hire a demographer or use the services of the offices of the Arkansas Secretary of State, if available, for the purpose of establishing new zones, if necessary.
2. The zones must be drawn so as to be substantially equal in voting age population. (Note: The statute refers to total population, but the Voting Rights Act cases refer only to voting age population in reference to drawing zone lines.
3. The zone plan must be filed with the County Clerk so as to enable the Clerk to establish which voters belong in which zones.
4. At the next school election, or no later than the regular school election of 2012, following the redrawing of the zones, all school board positions must be up for election, including any at‐large positions.
5. Upon the board members being elected, the newly elected board members draw lots for length of terms so that, to the extent possible, no more than two (2) positions are up for election in any subsequent year.

In a March 24, 2011 email to the Little Rock School Board, Chris Heller, the Little Rock School District's attorney, wrote that, "Because of LRSD's compliance with the voting Rights Act, Arkansas law does not require that all board positions be filled by election in 2012."

Mr. Heller also wrote, "The best course of action for LRSD to take in response to the 2010 census and Ark Code Ann 6-13-631 would be to make only the changes necessary to comply with the 'one person, one vote' principle of the Constitution and not to make any changes which would jeopardize LRSD's compliance with the Voting Rights Act."

While I vehemently disagree with his opinion, it will take a lawyer to challenge his legal assertions. Though I once played one on TV, I am not a lawyer.

Meanwhile, when I brought Mr. Heller's opinion to the attention of the ASBA's Dan Farley, ADE's Tom Kimbrell and AAEA's Richard Abernathy, ASBA Attorney Paul Blume did a fast backstroke from his own "must do" list in regard to the Little Rock School District, agreeing "with Mr. Heller's interpretation of the LRSD's obligations, vel non, under the statute."

I recognize that as a non-governmental organization, the ASBA has no standing to compel. But it issued the memorandum as a result of meetings hosted by the ADE which involved the Governor's office, the Attorney General's office, the Secretary of State's office, and the AAEA. Reads mighty official to me. And if not, who is advising the public school districts of Arkansas on this important issue of public school governance?

Understand, despite Mr. Blume's recharacterization, his memorandum exempted no districts in the state. It was only after he/they were challenged by the big, bad, scary Little Rock School District (my words), that he/they backed away from their own "must do" steps.

Even though the Little Rock School District has been declared unitary, lawyers seem to still be leading the district, both directly and passively.

So far, there is no argument that the district must redraw its zones based on the 2010 census. The question becomes, Who will redraw the zones and how?

With nonpartisan elections in the Little Rock School District, race (both black and white), not party, will likely drive any gerrymandering attempts in the redrawing of zones.

In the district, whites are more concentrated in Zones 3 (86.3%) and Zone 4 (78%) than are blacks in Zones 1 (68.3%), 2 (66.1%), 6 (60.3%) and 7 (60.3%). Even though the total percentage of whites in the district is 47.4% compared to blacks' 44.1%, because of whites' lopsided zone concentrations, four of the district's seven zones are, and will likely remain, majority black. Hispanics, which make up 7% of the district's population, are most concentrated in Zones 6 (16.5%) and 7 (13.64%).

My response to all that is, "So what." No group - white or black - should gerrymander the district to serve its respective special interests. Zones should be drawn to most equitably, effectively and efficiently represent the people in the governance of their public schools.

Little Rock is constricted in that its school district does not match the Little Rock city limits, and therefore, doesn't mirror or grow with the City. Most of Chenal, for example, is in the fiscally distressed Pulaski County Special School District.

There is also disagreement as to whether the zones should be drawn based on general population (as they have in the past) or on the voting age population, required by Voting Rights cases, as described in the ASBA memorandum.

Once decided if the district will be zoned by population or voting age adults, the board, through its demographer, should take the number, divide by seven, then draw the most efficient, logical and proximate zones to best serve the people, without regard to race. Then, let the voters fall where they may. Metroplan has created a map of the Little Rock School District zones and their respective 2010 census numbers, by both general and voting age population. 

Zoning by Voting Age Population 

To achieve average zone voting age populations of 19,457, Zones 1 (-1,861), 2 (-2,479) and 6 -1,660), which lost voting age population, will need to be expanded geographically in order to gain voting age adults.

Zones 3 (+1,710), 4 (+2,033), and 5 (+1,423) gained voting population and will need to be contracted geographically in order to lose voting age population.

Zone 7 (+833) also gained voting age population, but because it's within 5% of the zone average (973), it is considered in range. 

Zoning by General Population 

To achieve average zone populations of 25,484, Zones 1 (-3,989) and 2 (-3,065), which lost population, will need to be expanded geographically in order to gain population.

Zones 4 (+1,962) and 7 (+3,452) gained population and will need to be contracted geographically in order to lose population.

Because Zones 3, 5 and 6 are within 5% (1,274) of the zone average of 25,484, they are considered in range.Since not all of the zones which lost population are contiguous with those that gained or those that aren't balanced by needs of loss and gain, it seems that all zone boundaries will have to change. In a worst case gerrymandering scenario, one could imagine a "Fayetteville Finger" for Zone 2 sticking up to pull 2,000 voters from Zone 4, even though it currently shares only the tips of corners. 

If after rezoning by voting age population, the Little Rock School District follows its attorney's recommendation and does not hold new elections in 2012, as many as 5,999 voting age adults of the district will be represented by a board member for whom they did not have the opportunity to vote.

If after rezoning by general population, the Little Rock School District follows its attorney's recommendation and does not hold new elections in 2012, as many as 5,414 citizens of the district will be represented by a board member for whom voters did not have the opportunity to cast a ballot.

If the district and its legal team are truly committed to "one person, one vote," how will they justify their decision to not hold new elections to the over 5,000 with no vote? 

View Current Little Rock School District Board Zone Map

My Response to John Walker's Latest Email

On this blog, I choose not to post personal email directed solely to me unless it has been made public by the author to others. I do, however, post my responses in an attempt to bring sunshine and transparency to the governance of the Little Rock School District. Unlike his previous email, which he copied to the entire board, John Walker wrote a second time just to me. What follows is my response.

Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 5:01 PM

Representative Walker,

Please know, I do not wish to take time away from your service on behalf of your constituents, which I greatly respect.

I'll reiterate, on issues related to the Little Rock School District, I am my own man. I do not speak for the Chamber nor Jay Chesshir, and neither speak for me.

You and I, however, are in agreement on your initial characterization of Jay...as well as the unacceptable condition of our public schools. As for your three points:

1) My suggestion of a debate wasn't a challenge, but rather an offer to better motivate the public to become engaged in the governance of our schools. You're right, I have no standing, other than being a motivated citizen and father. But I couldn't offer without being willing to participate.

I also believe that, in the case of our schools, advocacy is best conducted in public, so people may be privy to opposing viewpoints.

There are many well intended means, not all of which are effective. I have to believe that over the past 30 years, not all of your initiatives in regard to the district have worked out as you would have wished. Some, perhaps, may have even been detrimental. I'm simply looking for effective ways to engage the people.

Rightly or wrongly, in different circles in our community you are alternately cast as the savior or the destroyer of the Little Rock School District. I think it would be healthy for people in all zones to hear your and others' (e.g. Ms. Koehler's, Mr. Chesshir's) perspective and ask questions. What our district needs is sunshine, not only for the board and administration, but also for those exerting influence.

As it is, no one is responsible for all the students, just those in respective zones. So it is up to the community's big-picture leaders to bridge that divide.

If Newt Gingrich and Al Sharpton can tour the country (together) on behalf of education reform, John Walker, Cathy Koehler and Jay Chesshir can tour Little Rock. Again, I don't speak for Jay, and I've not suggested this to him, but I think the idea is worthy of consideration.

2) We don't implement the strategic plan, we don't administer triage to the over 10,000 students who are not proficient, but we sure fight when changes are proposed for a school election date and who determines board representation.

What we're doing/not doing is not working, and I simply don't see leadership in the district putting students first.

3) My effort was to empower the people to determine how they will be represented, not the incumbent school board members, whose positions are at stake. That issue is now moot. I lost. Badly.

As evidenced by our communications thus far, we will likely disagree on many means to ends we likely hold in common - immediate world-class education for all students.

Yes, I was here when the lawsuit began. At the time, my aunt was director of special education in the North Little Rock School District, and I was a senior executive with the Chamber, so I was very familiar with the intent of the litigation. I left in 1988 for New York City, then Los Angeles (1992), then returned to Little Rock in 2005 for a better life for our children.

My great disappointment upon returning was finding a district in worse shape than when I left, despite years of litigation. When I witnessed first hand the detachment most people had with their public schools, rather than simply complain, I set out to seek changes which would empower and enfranchise the people in the governance of their district.

I have no problem with folks disagreeing on the merits with any of my initiatives. I do, however, take great issue with those who mischaracterize my intent and motives.2) We don't implement the strategic plan, we don't administer triage to the over 10,000 students who are not proficient, but we sure fight when changes are proposed for a school election date and who determines board representation.

Even though it was not in our zone, we sought out Fair Park Pre-K because of its quality and cultural and economic diversity. My wife (a Detroit native) and I were thrilled that our four-year old twins got to attend an excellent school, not in our neighborhood, that reflected all aspects of our community. We regretted the same model did not continue in other grades.

While my children are my catalyst, I don't approach my advocacy with a myopic vision. My kids will be fine. I'll see to that. What motivates me are those with no advocates and the lives, families and futures that are being denied because of the lack of leadership at the board level.

The very survival of our community depends on the success of our public schools. So again, I think we share that common ground.

I was puzzled, however, by your characterization of the Chamber's involvement in the school board race. When the Chamber opposed the incumbent, you saw it as racial. But when you opposed him three years later, it was on substance.

Of course I'm aware of your role in litigation among the three districts. It just seems to me that your best intentions over the past three decades haven't worked as you intended, as witnessed by the current state of the district. And yet, when I suggest that the people instead of the incumbent school board should determine how they're represented, you believe that singular change would be the final nail in the district's coffin.

In my opinion, continuing to cast the struggles of the Little Rock School District as an either or between one race and another or the poor and the not poor is a false competition for mediocrity.

I liken it to blaming lack of parental involvement on students' not learning. Or not having high expectations for all students. The reality is the district is not working for anybody, including the 21% and declining of folks of my race.

Fifty-four years ago, nine courageous students risked their lives to enter Little Rock's public schools. Today, it is unconscionable for students to be risking their futures because they can't get out. The relevant achievement gap is between all of our students and the developed world.

As for now, my advocacy will focus on getting the board to implement the strategic plan that you and others invested so much in only to see it essentially shelved as the board inexplicably waits, and waits, and waits...

Sincerely,

Gary Newton

P.S. I'm not joking. Please consider that debate/forum idea. We've got to be creative and aggressive in breaking down these walls and prompting our leaders to lead or get out of the way.

Strategic Plan - One Year Later: From Eye-Popping to Heart-Breaking

In March 2010, after nearly a year of intensive work by a 14-member commission appointed by former Superintendent Dr. Linda Watson, a Strategic Plan for the Little Rock School District was released.

The Plan, subtitled "Target 2015: A Performance Work Plan for the Little Rock School District," identified actions that "must be taken" in six important areas:

1. Ambitious, eye-popping goals;
2. Research proven strategies for attaining our goals;
3. Adequate and effective funding for our schools;
4. Recruitment and retention of a high quality staff;
5. Data and Accountability; and
6. Effective, performance driven leadership.

One year later, even with a third-party consultant being paid tens of thousands of dollars to implement, the plan remains largely shelved.

Now, only four years remain to achieve the five-year goals outlined in the Plan.

Why? After hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on the Plan and an implementation which hasn't occurred, the district waits, while students, parents and citizens wonder.

2011 Benchmark exams are coming up. Last year, over 40% were deemed not proficient in math, literacy and/or science, equating to over 10,000 students district wide. Another year has passed, leaving behind students, families and futures.

Contact your board member(s) today, and insist on immediate implementation of the Plan.

Read the Plan