People Who Care vs. Rockford Board of Education Second Interim Order April 23, 1991
SD-IL-0001-0002

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WESTERN DIVISION

PEOPLE WHO CARE, et al.,

)

Plaintiffs,

)

CIVIL ACTION No. 89 C 20168

v.

)

JUDGE ROSZKOWSKI

)

ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION

)

SCHOOL DISTRICT #205,

)

APRIL 23, 1991

)

Defendant.

)

SECOND INTERIM ORDER TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. PROCEDURAL CIRCUMSTANCES

B. SYSTEMWIDE PROVISIONS

1. Within-School Integration

2. Human Relations

3. Discipline

4. Parent Choice Plan Study

5. Recruitment; Parent Centers

6. Equity of Educational Services

7. Consideration Of Integration Impact Of Board Actions

8. Detachment

¯

9. Enrollment and Resource Data

10. School Based Management

11. Staff Assignment

C. ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
1. Elementary Facilities 2. Grade Alignments 3. Alternative Programs and Within-School Integration 4. Transportation and Voluntary Movement

Page
1
9
9 12 13 14 15 16 24 24 25 26 28
30
31 34 35 37

5. Washington Magnet School

38

6. Second Magnet School

40

6A. Third Magnet School

41

7. Core Program Equity

42

8. Supplemental Programs for Disadvantaged Minority Students

43

9. Voluntary Transfers

49

10. Equity of Facilities, Equipment and Materials

55

10.1. Facilities

56

102. Equipment, Materials and Supplies

60

11. Funding.

64

D. SECONDARY SCHOOLS

65

1. Secondary Schools; West School

65

2. High School Periods

66

3. Vocational Education

66

4. Roosevelt . . . . ;

67

5. ROTC

67

6. Secondary Schools Curriculum Redesign

67

E. EMPLOYMENT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

69

1. State Law Duty

70

2. Authority of the District

70

3. Goals

71

4. Affirmative Action Methods

72

5. Executive and Managerial Staff

75

6. Integration of Staff Assignments

75

7. Layoff Criteria

75

8. Progress Reporting

75

9. Annual Review

76

F. FUNDING

76

1. Deferral of Asbestos Response Expenditures

76

2. Use of Tort Immunity Funds

77

3. Grant Applications

78

4. Funding Sources and Obligations

79

5. Staff Compensation

80

G. ADMINISTRATION OF THE ORDER

81

1. Initial Implementation

81

a. Initial Action Plan

81

b. First-year Implementation Principles

82

2. Progress Reports

85

3. Consultation Between the Parties; Implementa-

tion Disputes; Modification

86

4. Independent Expert Consultants

89

5. Disposition of Facilities

90

6. Evaluation

90

7. Process of Approval or Decision for Selected Provisions

91

8. Dispute Resolution

96

9. Rules and Complaint Process Regarding Racial Incidents

96

10. Duration of this Order; Liability Proceedings

98

[pb·km\Rrock\TableExpj\mq

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WESTERN DIVISION

PEOPLE WHO CARE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.

)
) ) CIVIL ACTION No. 89 C 20168 ) ) JUDGE ROSZKOWSKI

ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION )

SCHOOL DISTRICT #205,

)

)

Defendant.

)

APRIL 23, 1991

SECOND INTERIM ORDER
The Court adopts this Order, upon the recommendations of the parties and the Court's Expert, to make interim provision for certain school arrangements which are at issue in this litigation. This Order (the "Second Interim Order" or "Second Order*) shall remain in effect until further order of this Court

A. PROCEDURAL CIRCUMSTANCES
1. Plaintiffs filed this case in May 1989, challenging a school closing and reorganization plan adopted by defendant (the "District") in February 1989. The Complaint presented allegations of disproportionate burden and segregation claims under the Equal Proteaion clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Count I), and a claim under the Illinois Armstrong Act (Count II). In June 1989 the District filed its Answer, denying the principal allegations of the Complaint.
2. Plaintiffs gave notice in May 1989 that they would amend their Complaint to allege a long-term, systemwide pattern of racial discrimination and segregation on the part

of the District, and would seek a declaratory and injunctive order requiring implementation of a systemwide desegregation plan. A Second Amended Complaint containing this systemwide claim (Count III) was filed in November 1989, and in January 1990 the District filed its Answer denying the principal allegations of that claim.
t. 3. Plaintiffs moved in May 1989 for a preliminary injunction with respect to Counts I and II, and that motion was settled in July 1989 by the Court entering, with the concurrence of the parties, an Interim Order (referred to herein as the "First Interim Order" or "First Order"). Parts III.B through m.D of that Order required the District to take certain steps with respect to secondary and elementary schools during school year 1989-90 and thereafter. Part III.E required the District to engage in a prospective Planning Process guided by certain principles and procedures.
4. There are numerous unresolved issues concerning the District's compliance with Part III.C of the First Interim Order. Some of the most significant issues include:
a. Plaintiffs contend the District has not properly carried out the $1.25 million supplemental programming obligation of Paragraph C.8. The Defendant has denied and presently continues to deny these allegations. Some issues concerning Paragraph C.8 compliance were resolved by the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order of June 18, 1990.
b. Plaintiffs contend that the District has not established equity of school facilities and equipment within the District, because, as Plaintiffs contend, the District's compliance with Paragraph CIO is neither complete nor timely. The Defendant has denied and presently continues to deny these allegations.

c

Plaintiffs contend the District has not utilized all legally permissible

measures to integrate the Alternative Programs located in Southwest Quadrant elementary schools, as required by Section C3.1 The Defendant has denied and presently continues

to deny these allegations.

d. Plaintiffs contend the District is in violation of Sections C.5 and C.6

because the District did not establish Washington as a full-site magnet school by September

1990, did not relocate Washington's Alternative Programs, and did not establish a second

Southwest Quadrant magnet school. The Defendant has denied and presently continues to

deny these allegations.

There are numerous additional compliance issues related to the First Interim Order, such as those identified in plaintiffs' Comments and correspondence on the various Progress Reports. The District contends that its actions in all of those additional respects are proper.

5. In December 1989 Plaintiffs requested, based on asserted compliance deficiencies, that the Court appoint a master to oversee Defendant's compliance with the First Interim Order. Defendant denied such assertions and opposed the request. In January 1990 the Court declined, at that time, to exercise its discretionary authority to

appoint an expert to monitor Defendant's compliance.

6. On April 9, 1990, pursuant to Pan M.E of the First Interim Order,

Superintendent Sullivan presented to the Board of Education his Recommendations For

Educational Programming And Integration ("Recommendations"). The parties concur that

'For purposes of this Order, the term "Southwest Quadrant" is defined as that area of the School District located south of Auburn Street and west of the Rock River.

certain items proposed therein are in the bests interests of the school system, and respond to certain planning principles set forth in Part III.E. The parties also concur that if the effectuation of those items is rendered more certain and more prompt, and if the manner of implementation is delineated in more detail, the same will diminish the scope of future dispute between the parties.
7. Plaintiffs have advised the Defendant and the Court that plaintiffs believe, despite the Superintendent's Recommendations, that the District has not adequately addressed all of the issues and principles encompassed in Part ÜLE of the First Interim Order, and that plaintiffs believe some of those deficiencies are subject to judicial corrective action. Defendant denies that it has not adequately addressed such issues or that the same are subject to any corrective action.
8. In October 1990 Plaintiffs filed a Petition For Determination Of Default With Respect To The July 1989 Order And Petition To Hold Defendant In Contempt For Its Violation Of The July 1989 Order. In general, that pleading addressed in greater scope and detail the matters summarized in Paragraphs 4-7 above. In December 1990 Defendant ñled a response to the Petition, denying all allegations of compliance deficiencies. Defendant also filed several other motions, challenging the sufficiency of the allegations in the Default/Contempt Petition, and raising issues which Defendant asserts are prerequisites to a decision on that Petition.
9. On January 14,1991, the Court entered its Order Of Reference (the "Master Order"), appointing Dr. Eugene Eubanks as a Special Master under Rule S3 (a) to investigate and evaluate Defendant's compliance with the July 1989 Order, (b) to develop a recommended remedial plan to effectuate the 1989 Order and remedy any deficiencies

in Defendant's compliance therewith, and (c) to oversee implementation by Defendant of the Court's remedial Orders and to present reports and recommendations regarding the fulfillment of such Orders.
10. Also on January 14, 1991, the Court entered an Order (the "Expert Order") directing the parties to submit their respective proposals concerning the form of a Second Interín Order, and appointing Dr. Eubanks as the Court's Expert to recommend to the Court which of the two proposals should be entered as a Second Interim Order. The Expert was also authorized to make his own recommendations to the extent that he found either of the offers not appropriate in light of the surrounding circumstances of this case. After making extensive inquiries, the Expert on March IS, 1991, submitted his Report and Recommendations (a) recommending that "the Order which should be entered as a Second Interim Order is the offer proposed by Plaintiffs," and (b) recommending certain modifications in that Order. The provisions of Parts B-G of this Second Interim Order incorporate and correspond to the Expert's March IS Report and Recommendations. Certain additional revisions to the Order have also been made by agreement of the parties subsequent to receipt of the Expert's Report.
11. In consideration of all of the foregoing, and of the remainder of the record in this litigation, the Coun approves and enters this Order. Appropriate provisions of the First Interim Order are physically incorporated herein (primarily in Part C), so that the Second Order represents a unified statement of the District's prospective obligations, and it is not necessary to refer to the First Order for that purpose.
12. It is the intention of the parties and the Court that all pending requests for the Court to take preliminary corrective action concerning compliance with the First Interim

Order, including such requests presented in the Default/Contempt Petition, are rendered moot by the provisions of this Second Interim Order. On the other hand, neither party relinquishes its position on those compliance issues, yet unresolved, and it is the intention of the parties and the Court that this Order does not diminish the significance, if any, which defendant's asserted prior compliance deficiencies may have for purposes of plaintiffs' future enforcement of this Order or of ultimate liability and remedy determinations, nor does this Order preclude Defendant's assertion that no compliance issues should be addressed or are within the purview of this Court's jurisdiction.
13. Except as specified herein, the Court finds that the parties have not compromised any of their positions as set forth in the pleadings and contained within the record of this cause. As such, the plaintiffs maintain and will continue to maintain their position that the defendant has maintained a dual system of segregated schools and has intentionally acted in a manner that discriminates against and places disproportionate burdens on minority students; and the defendant maintains and will continue to maintain that such allegations are without merit The entry of this Order does not affect the underlying merits litigation, which will continue.
14. The Court further finds that the entry of this Order shall not be construed by the Court, nor shall the same be characterized by any of the panies, as admissions of liability, wrong-doing, or withdrawal of any of the stated positions, allegations, and defenses asserted herein, or those to be asserted at a later date. This Court reserves judgment of liability and remedy with regard to the defendants.
15. Every provision of this Order, in addition to being the Order of this Court, also represents an agreement between the parties, and further represents the exercise by

the Defendant District of its authority to act on behalf of and for the benefit of the school system and the students, and its authority to settle litigation against the school system. Further, the District has specifically considered, in light of recent court decisions, all provisions of this Order which require race-conscious affirmative action measures, and finds that these provisions are supported by a sufficient basis in evidence and law, that the District has a compelling interest in the adoption and implementation of such measures, and that the measures are narrowly tailored to achieve the necessary remedy.
16. The Court has reviewed the provisions of this Order in light of the claims in this case and the scope of remedies which this Court would be authorized by law to enter if there were a finding of liability on those claims, and the Court concludes that all of the provisions of this Order are within the scope of such remedies and therefore are consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States. If any provisions were nevertheless found by a court to be outside the scope of Constitutional or statutory remedies, it is the express intention of the parties and the Court that such provisions are sevèrable from all other provisions. Finally, the Court has considered the judicial resources that are likely to be necessary to monitor and enforce this Order, including in light of the judicial resources that might be conserved by resolving in this fashion the issues addressed herein, and the Court concludes that this Order represents an appropriate commitment of the Court's resources.
17. The Court has carefully considered the impact of this Order upon the rightful interests of third parties, and is satisfied at this time that the entry of this Order does not undermine any such rights. The Court also determines that it is important to enter this Order at the present time, so that implementation may begin immediately of the many

provisions herein which are intended to benefit students in the present school year and of

the many provisions requiring advance preparations for further measures in school year

1991-92. The Court notes that the Rockford Education Association and two other unions

who are collective bargaining representatives of certain of Defendant's employees have filed

a Petition To Intervene with respect to certain provisions of this Order, and the

detenninesjhauhe issues presented in that Petition can be properly and timely addressed

¾ > - .- j

^'~,l"

by proceedings subsequent to the^entry of this Order. If any other third party chooses to

present a question concerning the impact of this Order upon such third party, the Court will

address the matter in an appropriate manner at that time.

18. In the event that objections or challenges are raised by any third party (e.g.,

through intervention or separate collateral litigation) to the lawfulness or appropriateness

of (a) this Order, any provision hereof or any proceedings pursuant hereto, or (b) any

aspect of the implementation of this Order, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant shall jointly

defend the lawfulness and appropriateness of the matter challenged. If any such collateral

lawsuit arises in state court, the parties shall seek to remove such action to the U.S. District

Court.

19. This Order is legally enforceable, and shall remain in effect until further order

of this Court. This Court retains jurisdiction to enforce all of the terms and conditions of

this Order. The parties to this Order may apply to this Court at any time for such further

orders and directions as may be necessary or appropriate for the construaion or carrying

out of this Order, and for the enforcement of compliance with the provisions contained

herein. Prior written notice of all such applications shall be given to opposing counsel, and

8

this Court may thereafter enter such further relief after proper hearing on the merits of said applications.
20. While Defendant has asserted and continues herein to assert that Plaintiffs are not entitled to any award of attorneys' fees , Plaintiffs have requested, and are given, leave to file an additional Interim Fee Petition at a time selected by plaintiffs. The Court shall establish a schedule and procedure for determination of such petition.
21. A Monitor Order is entered contemporaneously herewith, providing for a court-appointed Monitor to fulfill oversight responsibilities specified both in this Order and in the Monitor Order.
While this Order is entered pursuant to the recommendation of the parties, the terms of this Order represent equitable relief granted in the form of an injunction; therefore the Defendant Board of Education, its members, employees, agents, servants, attorneys and those acting through, under and for them, are enjoined, restrained, and are directed as follows:
B. SYSTEMWTOE PROVISIONS
1. Within-School Integration. a. All practicable measures will be utilized to prevent segregation within
each of the District's schools. The purpose of this § B.I is to achieve, given whatever overall minority and non-minority enrollment exists at a particular school, the greatest possible integration and constructive interaction of such students in all aspects of the school's operations and activities. The scope of this section includes not only the racial

composition of particular classrooms, but integrated participation of students to the greatest possible extent in terms of curriculum, instructional methods, extra-curricular activities, and so on.
b. At least 30 days prior to the first class day of each school year, the principal of each school shall submit a comprehensive plan setting forth steps calculated to maximize racial integration within his/her school with respect to all aspects of school operations and activities, in accordance with guidelines to be issued by the Superintendent. Each principal will submit, after determination of October 1 enrollments and on a schedule determined by the Superintendent, followup reports during the school year on the refinement and implementation of the within-school integration plan, including quantitative information on participation in various programs and extra-curricular activities. Each such report shall be reviewed by the Superintendent or the Deputy Superintendent for Educational Equity ¢"DSEE").2 Those schools in which the within-school integration plan has not maximized racial integration shall be notified by the Superintendent that further measures shall be taken. The Superintendent and DSEE shall work with each such school to insure implementation of its integration plan and the modification thereof as necessary to maximize racial integration within the school. (The foregoing process will be implemented for the current 1990-91 school year as soon as and to the extent practicable.)
c. The plan will include provisions for, and each school will have, a single PTO encompassing the full range of racial/ethnic groups and educational programs within the school.
appointment of a Deputy Superintendent for Educational Equity (or comparable executive) is required by § G.I hereof.
10

d. The Superintendent's guidelines will include a process for school-level personnel to identify on or about November 1 of each year, and to provide written educational justification for, any disparity exceeding plus or minus 15% in the racial composition of a classroom compared to the racial composition of the grade level or other pool of students from whom the class is drawn within the school. The guidelines will also provide for supervisory review and approval/rejection of the proferred educational justifications, and for prompt correction of unjustified disparities.
e. Subsection (d) of this section does not prohibit, as a standard pedagogical practice, ability grouping that is:
(1) Based on nondiscriminatory, objective standards of measurement that are educationally relevant to the purposes of the grouping and which have not been identified by research as discriminating on the basis of race;
(2) In the case of national origin minority group children other than those in groupings designed to enable them to achieve competence in the English language, based upon standards that do not essentially measure English language skills;
(3) Determined by the nondiscriminatory application of the standards described in Subsections (1) and (2);
(4) Maintained for only that portion of the school day classroom periods necessary to achieve the purposes of the grouping;
(5) Designed to meet the special needs of the students in each group, and in the case of students in less academically advanced groups, to bring
11

their academic achievement to or above the appropriate grade level; and (6) Validated by test scores or other reliable, objective evidence indicating the educational benefits of the grouping. f. In sufficient time for September 1992 implementation, the ability grouping standards set forth in the preceding subsection shall be reviewed, and revised or augmented as appropriate, to better serve the integration purposes of this S B.I, the educational equity purposes of § B.6, and the supplemental education purposes of § C.8, and to address any inappropriate tracking or ability grouping in accordance with current educational research and remedial experience. This process shall be coordinated by District staff, with participation by the § B.6 and § C.8 consultants, the Monitor, and the parties. The ability grouping standards thus established shall be subject to continuing review for the same purposes.
2. Human Relations. A systemwide program will be carried out on a continuing basis to address human relations attitudes and expectations throughout the school system. This will include staff development, as well as training/education programs directed to parents and other appropriate target groups. During each school year for the duration of this Order, activities will be implemented having the cost equivalent of one full day of systemwide in-service training for all staff. For 1990-91 these activities shall be implemented before June 1 and shall focus on cultural differences including culturally different learning styles and on equity in discipline, school rules and discipline procedures.
12

3. Disdpliqg. With respect to student discipline and counseling, the District has, on its own initiative, determined that the frequency of suspensions of minority students is disproportionate to the actual number of minority students enrolled, and that the number of suspensions is unrelated to a school's enrollment level. Accordingly, the District will adopt a uniform discipline code by no later than June 1991.
a. The design, implementation and monitoring of the discipline code will focus on insuring that discipline is implemented fairly and consistently across the entire student body. In developing and implementing the new code, the District will obtain the recommendations of a qualified desegregation assistance agency or an outside consultant, chosen in accordance with § G.4, with past experience in formulating uniform discipline practices to overcome or prevent racial disparities. The responsibilities of the agency or consultant will include a written report to the Superintendent assessing existing discipline practices and problems, and explaining the basis for recommended changes. The Superintendent will submit to the Board a comprehensive written report concerning the purposes and provisions of the proposed new uniform code.
b. The District will provide for in-service training concerning equitable discipline, as soon as practical for the 1990-91 school year and in a timely manner after the new code is adopted.
c. The District will establish a data system for the prompt assembly of data and the tracking of disciplinary actions, including comparisons of disciplinary aaions as between various racial/ethnic groups and as between various schools and grade levels. This system will be activated as soon as staff can develop it, during the 1990-91 school year, and will encompass data retroactive to the beginning of this school year. Reports on
13

discipline, including an analysis of the data and an evaluation of the equity of enforcement of discipline, shall be included in Progress Reports at four-month intervals once the data system is in place.
d. Beginning with and at a time practical during the 1990-91 school year, the District will design and pilot an in •school suspension program at selected schools. The piloting of the school suspension program should be held in abeyance at selected schools until the Monitor has met with principals and staffs of secondary schools and to provide for additional planning time for this program. This meeting involving the principals and the Monitor will occur within 30 days of the entry of this Order. Systemwide implementation of such a program shall be completed not later than September 1992.
4. Parent Choice Plan Study. The District will convene a task force of parents, citizens and staff to examine the desirability of a specifically developed Rockford Parent C o ice Plan, as described on Page 4 of the Superintendent's April 1990 Recommendations. The District will provide the task force with a consultant knowledgeable and experienced with these plans. The study shall determine by December 31, 1991 whether such a plan is desirable for Rockford. A specific plan, assuming desirability, will be presented to the School Board within four (4) months thereafter, for possible implementation in the next succeeding school year.
a. If the District adopts a Parent Choice Plan, the Plan will include secondary schools as well as elementary schools.
b. Any Parent Choice Plan which is adopted by the District shall contain firm enrollment controls to insure that the enrollment at each school is integrated.
14

c. If a Parent Choice Plan is adopted and successfully implemented, the magnet school and Alternative Program provisions hereof shall be retained, but the voluntary transfer provisions under § C.9 will be reviewed for possible necessary modification. The provisions of § C.9 shall be modified only upon a finding under § G.7,a that the Parent Choice Plan will be more prompt and more effective in achieving integration than the methods it is proposed to replace.
d. If the task force, the Superintendent or the Board determines that a Parent Choice Plan should not be implemented in Rockford, a detailed written report will be submitted to the Court explaining the reasons for that determination.
5. Recruitment: Parent Centers. The District will conduct active and timely information and recruitment programs calculated to ensure the success of all types of voluntary integrative transfer programs. Not later than January IS of each school year, the District will complete the process of announcing all such programs for the following year and of initiating active information and recruitment for such programs, and on that date the District will submit its overall information and recruitment plan to the Court. Applications for all such programs will be managed on a centralized basis. Acceptances and waiting lists will be on a random, public lottery basis for all magnet schools and programs and other voluntary transfer programs, in each instance within applicable racial/ethnic composition requirements. These selection procedures shall be conducted in a manner tlfat does not invade the privacy of individual students. The District will also implement by Spring 1991 one parent center as described in the Superintendent's April 1990 recommendations, at Garrison School. A study to determine need and to plan for additional parent centers should be initiated by the Defendant, Plaintiffs and Monitor.
15

6. Equity of Educational Services The District will examine all of its

educational services, such as course offerings, methods of enrollment, curriculum, testing,

and staff assignments, to identify any racial/ethnic patterns in the provision or utilization

of such services. With respect to each educational service, the Distria will take all steps

necessary to insure that it is provided in a manner that does not discriminate against or disadvantage students of any racial/ethnic minority group.3 The District will, in addition,

take all steps necessary to insure that the utilization of each such educational service by

the students or other relevant constituency does not reflect any remediable racial/ethnic

pattern (as defined below).

a. The purpose of this provision is to insure that whatever type and

quality of educational services the District offers to some students is equitably provided to,

and utilized by, racial/ethnic minority students. In other words, this provision requires that

the District's schools and programs shall not be racially identifiable, in terms of provision

or utilization, in relation to the type and quality of their educational services. This

provision does not require the Distria to offer any educational service of a type different

than it now offers, nor does this provision preclude the deployment of new educational

services.

"¯`·

( 1 ) A hypothetical example of a "provision" practice prohibited by this

Seaion would be offering college preparatory courses to white students

3For purposes of this Order, the term "racial/ethnic minority group" includes the same Black, Hispanic, Asian and Native American groups included in the Fall Housing Report enrollment statistics.
16

while offering lower-level general education courses to minority students. (2) A hypothetical "utilization" example requiring corrective action by the District would be if college preparatory courses were theoretically available to all students, but in fart the students utilizing such courses were disproportionately white. Even if such disproportionate use has not been intended or caused by the District, but instead appears to arise from the educational "preferences" or previous qualifications or experiences of the students, corrective action by the District over a period of time is required. ¢3) Other, more subtle examples of circumstances within the scope of this § B.6 include patterns of lower-status instructional processes and expectations provided to minority students, which over time result in disparate levels of utilization of subsequent educational services. Hypothetically, such instructional processes may include opportunities to participate in classroom interactions with teachers (in which some students interact more frequently with teachers; are asked higher-order questions; receive more praise, encouragement, and instruction in the mastery of tasks; and are allowed more wait time for responding). (4) Another hypothetical example might be that curriculum and instruction for one group might have an academic focus, be oriented toward mastery, and be designed to promote personal autonomy and empowerment, whereas curriculum and instruction for another group
17

might tend to emphasize personal dependency, social conformity, and low- atus knowledge and skills. b. A racial/ethnic pattern in the utilization of an educational service is remediable unless the District demonstrates to the Court that all practicable efforts have been exhausted to correct the disproportionate use. Without limitation, examples of such efforts include encouraging changes in the utilization pattern; modifying the service to elicit such changes; or providing over time to minority students the prior services and experiences that will enable them to utilize the service in question to the same extent as white students. (1) If the District makes such a demonstration of non-remediability, the District also bears the responsibility to provide compensation (in the form of additional educational services) to the minority students for the disproponionate use, by means concurred in under § G.7.a. (2) In rare instances racial/ethnic patterns in the utilization of educational services may not call for remediation, if the disparity in no way constitutes or reflects educational or social segregation, discrimination or disadvantage, or if the District can justify to the satisfaction of the Monitor or the Court under § G.7.a that the disparity is in the best interest of the students affected. c. The "educational services" encompassed by this provision include, without limitation, all aspects of the educational content and instructional delivery of the District's programs, including the content and level of curriculum; the content and level of books and other educational tools; course offerings and enrollments; types and quality of
18

instructional staff and their supervisors; patterns of classroom interaction of students with instructional staff; standards and procedures for placing students in all courses including special education; and participation in extracurricular activities.
(1) This provision does not prohibit differences arisingfromsupplemental programs for disadvantaged students, such as: (a) programs conducted with state or federal funding earmarked for low-income, at·rísk or other disadvantaged students, (b) programs implemented under S C.8 of this Order, or (c) special education. However, the programs identified in (a) and (b) shall be designed to eliminate over time the racial identifiability of such supplemental programs by eliminating the racial disproportion in the need for such programs.
(2) This provision does not encompass quantitative equity of core programs (S C.7), or equity of physical facilities, equipment and materials (§ CIO). However, the implementation of these provisions shall be coordinated.
(3) Achievement and placement tests used by the District shall be valid and reliable and shall not be those which have been identified by
I
reliable studies to discriminate against minority children. d. The District shall gather data and recommendations as set forth below in order to identify educational services needing modification to comply with this provision of the Order, and to recommend the most desirable corrective actions:
19

(1) The District will, in accordance with Section G.4, retain a principal consultant (reporting to the Superintendent) to make recommendations concerning the overall process, and the particular program modifications, needed for the fulfillment of this provision of the Order. The District will provide to the consultant all in-house resources and data requested by the consultant for this project.
¢2) The District and the consultant will submit to the Monitor and the Court within 90 days after entry of this Order4 a report on the methodology and schedule by which the consultant will conduct a comprehensive study of, and present recommendations concerning, all aspects of the District's educational services. These matters are subject to approval under § G.7.a.
(3) The consultant will develop and propose comprehensive criteria for the evaluation of educational services required by this provision. The parties and the Monitor will discuss the proposed evaluation criteria and agree upon a final set of criteria to be used, or such criteria shall be determined under § G.7.a.
(4) The observations and recommendations of the consultant concerning each area of educational services shall be presented to the Superintendent in a written report. Each such report, together with
4With respect to timelines expressed in terms of" days after entry of the Order", the Monitor has some flexibility under § G.I to adjust such timelines after conferring with the parties.
20

the response of the Superintendent thereto, shall be filed by the District with its ensuing Progress Report e. Based on the data and recommendations obtained through (d), the District shall prepare, implement and continue to update an evolutionary written plan for achieving and maintaining equity in educational services, as defined in this § B.6. For each area of educational services the plan shall include: (1) Effective measures and reasonable timelines for achieving the initial requirement that such services be provided in a non-discriminatory manner. (2) Identification of particular educational services which in their utilization reflect an unwarranted racial/ethnic pattern. (3) Delineation of effective corrective measures and reasonable timelines calculated to eliminate such conditions. (4) Provision for continuing evaluation, and modification as needed, of such corrective measures and timelines. (5) Provision for continued, frequent monitoring and reporting to inform the Court and the plaintiffs of the extent to which this Section has been fulfilled and of instances in which it remains unfulfilled. (6) At each step of the process identified above, submission of written reports to the Court. L f. In developing the 90-day report on overall methodology and schedule, the District and the consultant will consider as one alternative the District's initial proposal
21

that this process should commence with a pilot study of the curricular offerings of science and math at the high schools (grades 9 -12) as set forth in subparagraphs (1) through (9).
(1) First measure the distribution of students, staff and supervisors by racial/ethnic proportions who are enrolled or employed in high school math and science courses;
(2) Inventory the correlative age, quality and quantity of facilities, evaluation devices, equipment and supplies of all such courses, or use data from the study of such matters conducted under § CIO hereof.
(3) Attempt to explain, within the terms of this § B.6, disparities of the foregoing, if any, based on racial/ethnic impact;
(4) If appropriate, prepare a plan to remediate the suspected causes of such disparities, including, by way of example: (a) the redesign of systemwide (K-12) curriculum for such subject matter areas; (b) the method of counseling students for course offerings; (c) in-service training deemed necessary to obtain the behavioral adjustments of staff that will enable students to achieve the learning objectives for such curriculum; (d) redesigning the method of arranging staff, facilities, equipment, materials, evaluative devices and supplies; (e) developing and deploying reliable assessment devices to ensure the success of such changes.
22

¢5) While the foregoing pilot study will focus on high school courses, the methodology, assessment, justifications and corrective action shall be systemwide, as deemed necessary and practical.
(6) Prior to commencement of the pilot study, the Superintendent and the principal consultant shall determine whether, it is appropriate to select a recognized expert consultant specializing in this subject matter area to advise the District concerning the magnitude, scope and methodology of such study. Thereafter, based on any input from such expert, the District shall reasonably adjust the magnitude, scope and methodology of the study.
¢7) All aspects of the study shall be shared with plaintiffs' counsel. (8) The pilot study shall commence within 120 days after entry of this
Order. (9) After completion of the pilot study, the District, with the assistance of
its principal consultant, shall expand the similar (or revised) study to all other educational services encompassed within this § B.6. g. In developing the 90-day report on overall methodology and schedule, the District and the consultant will also consider, as proposed by plaintiffs and as an alternative or a complement to the preceding Subsection (f), different approaches to analyzing and attaining equity in the provision and utilization of educational services. For example, it may be that rather than focusing on a longitudinal examination and rectification of one academic subject matter after another, a more holistic approach would be preferable, focusing on systemwide desegregation of curriculum and instruction in ail subject matters
23

at once. The District shall choose the methodology, or combination of methodologies, which will be most effective in achieving the purposes of § B.6, and explain its choice to the Monitor and the Court in the 90-day report. The matter shall be considered in accordance with § § G 3 and G.7.a.
7. Consideration Of Intep·a¾jff¶i Impact Of Board Actions. Before any action is taken by the Board concerning the alignment of a school or the educational program to be offered therein, the Board and Superintendent will expressly give consideration to whether the proposed action may have an adverse impact upon integration or may discriminate against or disadvantage racial/ethnic minority students in the District, and in taking such actions the District will endeavor to preserve and promote natural residential integration of schools.
a. For purposes of this paragraph, the alignment of a school includes its opening or closing, attendance area, feeder pattern, grade structure, enrollment policy and similar matters.
8. rvt^rhnw»¶iy The Court realizes that, both prior to the institution of this litigation, and, again, most recently, under the Court's Interim Order of July 7, 1989, attempts have been made by School Distria residents and by others to alter School District boundaries by detachment, annexation, division, dissolution or any combination of such methods or other methods contemplated under Articles 7, 11A, 11B, 11C or 12 of the Illinois School Code (Ill.Rev.Stat., Ch. 122, 1990). The parties have represented to the Court their belief that some of such attempts at boundary change have been racially
24

motivated and were intended, in whole or in part, to insulate certain students from attending integrated schools.
Therefore, this Court finds that any further attempts to alter School District . \\V boundaries shall be barred for the duration of this Order because such change(s) would
V .\`J
negatively impact the integration efforts of the District and unnecessarily drain the resources of the District which would otherwise be available for the desegregative purposes contemplated by this Order.
Any challenges to this provision of this Order by third party intervenors, or any attempt to invoke the procedures referred to above, shall require application to and approval by the Court before the filing of any petition, documents or other pleadings with the Regional Board(s) of School Trustees or other statutory bodies having jurisdiction over such requested change in boundary. Such application for permission to file the appropriate documents requesting a boundary change shall set out with specificity the basil for requesting said boundary change and shall also be served upon all parties of record in this proceeding. The Court shall set a hearing on said intervenor's application after proper petition and notice.
9. Enrollment and Resource Data. The District will develop, effective at least as of the 1991-92 school year, computerized data systems capable of reporting and analyzing the student assignment, educational and financial activities of the District in sufficient detail to depict the District's degree of compliance with the provisions of this Order and the significant factors affecting the District's level of compliance. The capacity of such data systems shall include, for example and without limitation:
a. Breaking down any data concerning students into racial/ethnic groups.
25

b. Analysis of the student assignment and program participation activities

at any school in terms of children who are resident and non-resident in the attendance area

of that school, and in terms of the sending and receiving schools of all students.

c. With respect to any school which has an alternative or other program

within the school, depiction of data separately for the program and non-program students

as well as in the aggregate.

d. Transportation modeling and analysis.

e. Identification of each non-quota teacher or other supplemental

resource allocated to a school, with the programatic reason and funding source for the

allocation.

f.

Depiction of the budget for each school, including the sources and

amounts of funds allocated to the school (showing formula and non-formula allocations),

and including a breakdown of the positions and other resource categories for which each

such type of funds is anticipated to be expended.

VÀUI *®· School Based Management The School District is presently undertaking a process of decentralized decisionmaking denominated School Based Management. In keeping with that initiative, the Court has been advised by the parties that such a decisionmaking process could positively affect the educational, social and emotional needs of students including those of the Plaintiffs' class. Therefore, the following supportive actions are to be taken:
a. For the 1991-92 school year, schools may voluntarily elect and be selected to pilot certain school based management activities. The selection of the schools shall be equitable among all District schools, and shall include schools in the Southwest

26

Quadrant and schools with alternative and integration programs. In subsequent years, other schools may participate on an equitable basis established by the Superintendent
b. Each participating school shall receive: (1) A building-based budget with an additional supplement of at least
$2,000. These monies are to be spent as determined by the principal in consultation with parents and staff. Expenditures are to be for planning or educational activities, services and materials designed to directly improve student learning. (2) additional monies for school-focused staff development and capital equipment acquisition. (3) school district supported training and consultative assistance in problem-solving, consensus building and relationship development. c. Each participating school, before the beginning of the 1991-92 school year, shall: (1) identify a specific design for their school's vision of excellence. This design shall include mission statement, program focus and priorities and shall be undertaken by the principal in consultation with parents and staff. (2) identify three- and five-year targets for improving student achievement in reading, attendance and graduation rates. (3) decide other matters related to school operation as may be determined necessary.
27

d. Supplementary directives designed to more fully implement this program may be provided by the Superintendent and/or proposed by the Plaintiffs, and shall be considered through the consultation process set forth in § G 3 hereof.
e. Decisions made at any level under this School Based Management process shall not alter, be inconsistent with, or adversely affect the terms of this Order without approval of the parties or by subsequent Order of Court.
a. The District shall be responsible for the assignment of professional staff required to deliver an effective educational program consistent with the goals and intent of this Order, including:
(1) maintaining the status quo of certain teaching assignments in programs required by the Order, the Court finding that competent staff should be stabilized in such programs, to the maximum extent possible;
(2) initiating desegregation and supplemental educational programs; and (3) providing adequate time for further comprehensive actions to develop
and implement strategies and programs designed to alleviate the effects of racial concentration and economic and/or educational disadvantage. b. Given these objectives, the Court finds that the District will be required to make staff assignments in those schools housing the educational improvement programs under § C8, the alternative programs described in § C.3 and the magnet schools described in S S C.5, C.6 and C6A, on a basis which may be inconsistent with otherwise applicable District policy, past practices, or the established requirements of the Professional Agreement between the Board of Education and the Rockford Education Association.
28

Teaching staff for such programs shall be selected without emphasis on seniority and shall not be subject to displacement solely on the basis of seniority; rather, seniority shall be considered as one of the elements in determining qualification for selection or retention along with education, experience, attendance, prior evaluations and the staff member's ability to work successfully with parents, staff members and students. The evaluation of all such elements in relation to the position and personnel in question, and the decision in each instance as to selection or retention, shall be in the discretion and judgment of the Administration of the District. Such action by the District is necessary, for example:
(1) In the case of § 8 supplemental education programs, to enable the District to carry out specialized staff training which is essential to the success of the programs, and to provide the related continuity of staff assignment which is essential both to the success and the efficient execution of such programs.
(2) In the case of magnet schools and alternative programs, to insure that they have the characteristics (including staff quality, program quality, teacher integration and stability) capable of attracting sufficient student applications to achieve the required minority/white enrollment compositions, as further described in § C.5.k.
(3) to achieve the remedial objectives of the Employment Affirmative Action Plan as set forth in Part E, infra.
c. Consequently, the Court finds that it may be necessary for the District to alter its policies, practices and/or the requirements of Article XII ("General Employment Practices") of the Professional Agreement between the District and the Rockford Education
29

Association, July 1, 1989 through June 30, 1991, and as such may be later modified or amended.
In particular, with respect to the alternative programs, the magnet schools, and those schools engaged in the delivery of programs selected under § C.8, the Court hereby orders the District to take all steps necessary (including without limitation as related to posting and filling of vacancies, filling summer positions, voluntary and involuntary staff assignments, staff reductions and selection of staff) for the purpose of opening positions for, selecting, training and retaining those staff who in the judgment of the Administration of the District are best trained for, and most capable of, providing the programs required herein. The Court recognizes that such action by the District may require the District to abrogate, temporarily, its previously established practice, under District policy or labor agreements; provided, however, that nothing expressed herein shall be deemed to relieve the District of any legal requirements to negotiate the impact of its actions with the Rockford Education Association. The District shall, however, be permitted to implement the requirements of this Order while engaging in the impact negotiations which may be required by law or the terms of any contractual responsibility of the District Any remedies of the District or its employees or the Rockford Education Association shall be subject to enforcement wholly and solely by this Court, consistent with this Order.
C ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
The following §§ C.I through C.ll correspond to Part III, Paragraphs C.I through C.I 1 of the July 1989 First Interim Order. For each Section, the 1989 provisions are set forth in italics for identification purposes. The 1989 provisions are incorporated into this Order,
30

and are fully operative provisions of this Order, except as deletions or modifications of the 1989 language are explicitly shown herein.

1. Elementary Facilities. For the duration of this Order, the following elementary

schools shall remain operational, subject to the other provisions of this ¾ C. 1:

Barbour

King

Church

Lathrop

Dennis

Mclntosh

Ellis

Stiles

Haskell

Washington

a. The District will construct by September 1992 a new building to serve

th^_rhjirrh Pigmentary School attendance area. The building will be planned for

approximately 500 students, with a construction cost estimated as of April 1989 to be S3.6

million. Rather than demolish the existing Church building and rebuild on the same site,

a nearby location will be established by agreement of the parties or under § G.7.a, so that

Church need not be closed during the construction process. During the construction

process, the District will continue to maintain the existing Church building in a clean and

serviceable condition. When the new building is ready, the District will either retain the

old building for District use, or sell or lease it giving priority to economically feasible

community-service use; provided, however, that such alternate use is at least equally

beneficial to the District, considering all factors, including receipt of tax revenues for a

proprietary use of said facility.

31

b. The Garrison school building, beginning with the 1991-92 school year, will be designated as the North area early childhood center, with a full complement of services for pre·kindergarten and kindergarten age children, including but not limited to a program for at-risk pre-school age children. Garrison-will also remain the center for staff development and become the Parent Center serving the North area. When the Roosevelt School has been rehabilitated, the District may move these programs to Roosevelt and close and retain Garrison.
c. The District has considered the present and the potential utilization of elementary facilities of the District, and believes that it is possible that the elementary facilities of the Southwest Quadrant will eventually be underutilized because of:
(1) the voluntary transfer policy of the district for integration purposes; (2) the location of alternative programs at various sites as integrative
devices; (3) the creation of magnet schools in facilities previously not used by the
district and the movement of neighborhood students thereto; (4) the building of a new Church School facility; (5) demographic projections of student mobility in the District. If at some future time such underutilization has occurred and will continue, the Board of Education may undertake (subject to the provisions set forth hereinafter) to close, if necessary for considerations of fiscal necessity, underutilized elementary facilities in the District. However, such decision shall be conditioned upon the following:
32

¢l) that the District, in light of underutilization of such an elementary facility and in light of the objectives of this Order, has appropriately considered such matters as: (a) the relocation of alternative programs to further integrate such a school; (b) other methods of integrating such a school, such as a Parent Choice Plan; (c) other uses of the excess space which are consistent with this Order, such as supplemental education programs under § C.8 or facilities equalization under § GlO.l.f; and (d) the effect of closing such an elementary facility upon the present and future racial concentration of other contiguous schools scheduled to remain open.
(2) that the District has adopted and presented to the Court a comprehensive study of the foregoing factors, has considered alternatives to school closing, and has demonstrated the appropriateness of its school closing decision in light of the provisions of this Order and based on generally accepted school accounting procedures and other educational criteria.
In the event the Distria determines to effect such a closing, the plaintiffs may challenge such a decision to close a school by proper petition.
d. The District will, by September 1992, huild ten additional classrooms onto Riverdahl School, and reopen that school. The operation of Rock River School will
33

be continued in order to provide additional space to accommodate program and activity

components of § C.8. programs. An early childhood educationprogram will be established

in thc__new Riverdahl School.

e. The District will retain the Kennedy School building, which is closed,

for possible future use.

f.

During the implementation of this Order, the parties, the Monitor

and the Court will continue to monitor the enrollment of elementary schools to identify

actual or clearly foreseeable instances of persistent over-capacity enrollment in relation to

the space needs of each site for all purposes including implementation of this Order. The

District will evaluate alternative methods of alleviating such over-capacity enrollment,

including the Magnet schools and alternative programs to be established under this Order

and a systemwide choice enrollment plan. All alternatives will be evaluated in terms of

how they contribute to, or potentially impede, the execution of this Order and the

achievement of the objectives of this Order. The Defendant, Plaintiffs and Monitor should

further examine whether there is a need for a new and/or additional school. Ultimately,

if the appropriate solution cannot be determined by agreement of the parties and the

Monitor, the matter may be submitted to the Court for determination under § G.7.a in

accordance with the criteria articulated in this subsection.

(1) To provide needed capacity east of the River, the District shall reacquire and rehabilitate Marsh School, and open the school for 199192.

```" 2. Grade Alignments. Vie District shall avoid to the greatest possible extent any split grade pairs within the Southwest Quadrant; provided that Dennis and Stiles may be paired.

34

All other Southwest elementary schooL· shall be K·6 schooL· unless the District shows compelling need for a different arrangement at a particular school, based upon space availability and not upon financial efficiency.

3

Alternative Programs and Within-School Integration. To preserve existing

desegregation, the District shall locate elementary alternative programs in the Southwest

Quadrant schooL· with high residential minority concentrations, as identified below. At least

the following alternative educational programs shall be located in schooL· in the Southwest

Quadrant:

a. Elementary Gifted program.

b. CASS program.

c. GIT program.

d. Arts Alternative program.

e. Montessori program.

The DL·trict may match programs and schooL· in a manner designed to serve both desegregation

and space utilization objectives, unless otherwise specified in this Order. In addition, the

following steps shall also be taken:

a. Each of the alternative programs operated by the District (including

GIT, CASS, Arts Alternative, CAPA, Gifted. Academics Plus, Montessori) will have from
•>..
3O%_to 50% minority enrollment. In^programs having less than 30% minority enrollment,

all available spaces will be filled with minority students until the 30% threshold is achieved.

In programs having more than 50% minority enrollment, the opposite procedure will be

followed. For alternative programs not within the required composition range, class sizes

which are below 85% of the relevant maximum class sizes established by collective

35

bargaining agreement will be increased to that level to enable enrollment of additional students. When a new or expanded alternative program is established, the foregoing procedure will be followed if applicable. In alternative programs that are within the 3050% minority enrollment range, future enrollment will be on a matched basis to insure that the program composition continues to fall in the required range.
b. For the elementary gifted program, for school year 1990-91 in lieu of the foregoing provision, the District will enroll all eligible minority applicants, will reserve for such applicants 15% of all entry level positions, and will permit all minority children in the^third grade of the pilot gifted program to enroll in the fourth grade of the regular gifted program. To increase minority enrollment in the program for subsequent years, while retaining its educational character, the District will exercise its discretion under the applicable laws and regulations to devise recruitment and admission procedures and criteria which enable the District to achieve 30% minority enrollment in the program as a whole.
c. Within 30 days after entry of this Order, the District will submit to the Monitor and the Court a Plan for fulfillment of subparagraphs (a) and (b) with respect to school year 1991-92. Approval of the plan under § G.7.a is required..
d. With respect to the elementary Montesson program, in achieving the required 30% minority enrollment care will be taken by the District not to enroll children at a level which is inappropriate giv¢n the sequential nature of the Montesson curriculum.
e. Minimum academic achievement criteria will not be used for enrollment in any Alternative Program other than the Gifted Program.
f. The District will conduct an active program of recruitment to insure that there are sufficient applicants for each program for each year to enable the applicable integration requirements to be met and maintained.
36

4. Transportation ¾pH Volnn^ry Movement. If it L· necesscuy for movement of

students to occur to match students and space, the parties shall first make every effort to elicit

such movement on a voluntary basis consL·tent with the terms of this Order. All Southwest

Quadrant elementary students who volunteer, or ultimately must be assigned, to attend a school

other than their neighborhood school (including the students in the DennL·/Stiles pair), shall

receive transportation if they live more than six blocks from the school they attend; provided the

D'istrict has available transportation facilities, and if not, said six block distance shall be

expanded.

a.

For the purpose of uniform implementation, "six blocks" is hereby

defined as one-half mile.

b. As soon as possible during the 1990-91 school year, the District will

develop or acquire the capacity for computerized transportation planning and modeling.

The District will conduct studies and implement changes designed to provide the same level

of transportation to students but at reduced cost or with shorter transportation times. (This

provision does not preclude the District from increasing or decreasing the amount of

transportation provided to students.)

c. The District will commission a qualified transportation consultant to

conduct an equity study of me District's present transportation arrangements. This study

will examine whether similar transportation services are provided to students similarly

situated across the District. The consultant will submit within 90 days after entry of this

Order a written report of data, findings and recommendations to the Superintendent.

Without limiting the generality of the study, any disparities in transportation services which

37

adversely affect minority students will be specified and recommendations presented for corrective action. The District will promptly implement the corrective actions recommended, or other actions having at least the same corrective effect.
5. Wa*hJ3Ft'Tfl MPPTI¢J School. The District shall establish Washington as a fullïe magnet school, without academic entrance restrictions.
fa.J Provide supplemental funding in the amount of $350 per student, including one extra teacher per 100 students. This amount shall be adjusted annually for cost increases subsequent to 1989-90.
! b. J Manage the admissions process in a manner that avoids skimming highachieving minority students out of other Southwest Quadrant schools. The target enrollment shall be 50% minority, 50% white, with a priority among minority students for those residing in the Southwest Quadrant.
fc\ Tìxe District willpromptly commence a planningprocess to determine what
particular arrangements will best serve the desegregative purpose of a Washington Magnet School Matters addressed will include the educational focus of the school, methods of recruitment, and the timeline on which the Magnet School should be implemented.
id.) All enrollment at Washington school shall be on a voluntary basis, with transportation provided for those students who reside more than six blocks from the school
e. The District has not completed, by September 1990, implementation of subparagraphs (a) - (d). Accordingly, more specific provisions are set forth below to insure that full compliance is achieved during the 1990-91 school year, and that Washington becomes by September 1991 an integrated and successful full-site magnet school.
38

f. The Arts Alternative program will be returned to Ellis School for the
1991*92 and subsequent school years.
g. The portion of the Gifted program presently located at Washington will
be retained at Washington School.
h. Development and implementation of the full-site magnet school for
Washington shall be carried forward through the following steps, which shall be executed
on a schedule approved under § G.7.b:
Determine theme and program outline.
Determine program refinements and staffing needs.
Finish development of parent information and recruitment plans.
Initiate systemwide recruitment for Fall 1991 enrollment.
Assess recruitment results. Conduct supplemental recruitment as needed.

j, i The District will engage a magnetjchooU:onsultant to assure the successful implementation

¯ of Washington and the other magnet schools provided for in this Order.

i.

During school year 1990-91, the students presently enrolled in the

Washington magnet program will continue to receive supplemental funding in the amount

of at least S35O per student and will receive an educational program comparable to or

leading toward the educational program which will be offered in 1991 in the magnet school.

White students in schools having less than 28% minority enrollment

will be offered, commencing immediately, the opportunity to enroll in the magnet program

at Washington for the balance of school year 1990-91.

39

k. In order to assure that the magnet school at Washington has the characteristics (including staff quality, program quality, teacher integration and stability) capable of attracting sufficient student applications to achieve a 50-50 minority/white enrollment composition, all teaching staff at Washington shall be selected in the manner provided in § B.ll. This provision shall be effective immediately with respect to new appointments. After the educational and staffing aspects of the magnet school have been fully defined, the teaching positions at Washington which have not already been filled in the manner described in the first sentence shall be vacated and filled in that manner (effective September 1991).
6. Second Magnet Srtyv)) 77ie District shall establish a second magnet school in the Southwest Quadrant during the I99l·92 school year, such program to be established and funded under the same guidelines found in Section C.5, above.
jfa.j The second magnet school in the Southwest Quadrant shall be established at Wilson to open in September 1992. The educational focus will be science and technology. The school will also have an extended school year of 200 school days and will require parent participation.
b. Enrollment in the Wilson Science and Technology Academy will be by citywide lottery with a required racial composition of 50% minority/whiteT^pnrollment in the magnet school shall be not less than 600 students. Additional characteristics of the school, calculated to make it effective in both educational and integration terms, shall be established by the Superintendent.
c. During the 1991-92 school year, the program, staffing, recruitment and other implementation of Wilson Magnet School shall be carried out on a schedule
40

•..,-.«v..' y date

%g$M&¿i4^

-..-';*>.;...• v*;¿;V;·¯'^>r·; r, II, and

HI of fh>'^¾µ^(ifiÿ i.rn.i uf·;rP:\fii.i " ^ r : · ' ¦ ; r .` —>;v;¿' ` •*-`¯,;-;v>^ -·¯- ¿;.¯¯·? ,-·v ^ -;<f no less than $150,000. L*<9sk&¿¿.¿„,¿;j*. ¿ a ¾ ¢ : . ; / . ^ · ;4¡^v *;v .>; ,.:<<¾ç:^ >;¾¢nptly and

assigned the responsibility for d e v c ^ : ; ^ ^ ¾ ,

d. With respect to Wilson, for the reasons exµïw^·^ «¿ ^ Cí.k* teaching

staff shall be selected in the manner provided in S B.ll.

``^`

/ ^ ^ ) ^ a^s0 a^dressed in § D.4 hereof, the programs presently located at

Wilson will be relocated to Roosevelt prior to the beginning of the 1992-93 school year.

The District will make necessary physical repairs and improvements to the Roosevelt

building in such amount as is determined under § G.7.b to be necessary to render the

Roosevelt building serviceable.

6A. Thin* M¾gnct School. After the Washington and Wilson Magnet Schools are fully implemented and successfully and stably integrated (to be determined as provided in subparagraph (a)), the District will establish a third magnet school under the terms and conditions set forth in subparagraphs (b) through (d).
a. The third magnet school shall be established, and commence recruitment, only after the Court receives and approves the written certification of a student assignment expert selected in accordance with § G.4 (or an equivalent recommendation of the Monitor), providing detailed assurances that the Washington and Wilson Magnet Schools have been successfully established; that integrated enrollments of 50% white/minority have been, established at each school; that such integrated enrollments are

41

stable; and that the maintenance of such integrated enrollments at those magnet schools will not be adversely affected by the establishment of the third magnet school.
b. A third magnet school shall be developed by the District during the 1992-93 school year and opened in September 1993, subject to the provisions of subparagraph (a). The educational focus of this school is yet to be determined. Enrollment in the third magnet school will be by citywide lottery, with a required racial balance of 50% minority/white. To insure that the required composition is achieved, enrollment shall be on a matched basis (i.e., one white student may be admitted for each minority student who is admitted).
c. The location of the third magnet school shall be at the new Church •"" School
d. Teaching staff at the third magnet school, for the reasons expressed in § C.5.k, shall be selected in the manner provided in § B.ll.
7. Core Program Rqirìty For the duration of this Order the District will provide sufficient classroom space in the Southwest Quadrant elementary schools to achieve the following:
a. To establuh regular elementary school class sizes no larger than the average elementary school class size found in schools outside the Southwest Quadrant, before adjustments for additional staffing which may be required for magnet and supplemental programs.
b. To offer art and music curriculum to the same extent available in elementary schooL· outside the Southwest Quadrant.
'I ^
42

c. To conduct Chapter I programs on the basis in terms of classroom usage as available during the 1988-89 school year, provided student enrollment in such programs in future years is consistent with such enrollment for the 1988-89 school year, and suhject to ¾ C.8.m.
d. To provide the alternative educational programs described in Part III, § C.3, above, with class sizes established at approximately 85 percent of the relevant maximum class sizes established in the collective bargaining agreement between the Board of Education and the Rockford Educational Association, assuming available space for such class size.
e. To offer non self-contained special education services to the same extent available in elementary schooL· outside the Southwest Quadrant.
f. Subparagraph (d) above does not preclude the District from establishing a standard for Alternative Program class sizes different than 85% of the systemwide maximum class size, provided the District demonstrates that such modification will not have (and after implementation, has not had) any adverse impact on the integration achieved by the Alternative Programs.
Supplemental Programs for Disadvantaged Minority Students. The District shq(l provide supplemental educational programs in the Southwest Quadrant to alleviate the effects of racial concentration and economic and educational disadvantage.
a. From unrestricted District funds and in addition to any other funds which the District is required to target upon low-income or educationally disadvantaged students, such as Federal Chapter I and Federal and State funds for early childhood education, the District shall fund the supplemental educational programs provided herein. Such funds shall be budgeted and expended by the District according to this Order.
43

b. Until otherwise agreed by the parties or ordered by the Court, the
following schools are identified as Community Academies which will receive the
supplemental programs under § C.8.
Barbour Beyer Church Dennis Ellis Haskell King Kishwaukee Lathrop Mclntosh Riverdahl Rock River Stiles Summerdale The school at which the bilingual program is located.
c. The programs shall be directed to the "target" students in these
Community Academies (the student enrollment of each school excluding alternative
programs other than GIT and CASS). The quantity and intensity of the programs from
school to school shall be strongly weighted to provide substantially higher levels of
programming in schools with greater concentrations of minority enrollment, r>f |nw-ir)çnrne_
students_and of low academic achievement (all of which shall be determined excluding
alternative program students). The programs shall be implemented within each Community
Academy for the benefit of the target students and not the alternative program students,
except where the District demonstrates it is not possible to do so.
d. In 1990-91 and subsequent school years, the basic level of supplemental
funding provided under, this paragraph shall be an annual amount equal to $2.0 million 1990-91 dollars adjusted for subsequent cost increases; provided, that up to 5250,000
44

annually of this amount may be directed toward funding of secondary programs and

activities as provided in S D.6. hereof. This funding shall come from "regular District

funds" (i.e., funds administered by the Board the use of which is not earmarked by state or

federal law for special programs or populations such as low-income, special education,

bilingual, at-risk or Dreschqol students). Adequacy of this level of funding should be

examined periodically by the parties and the Monitor.

e. To avoid future dispute, "supplemental educational programs" is hereby

further denned, superseding the Court's decision of June 18, 1990, to mean programs or

resources which:

(1) are not being provided for the implementation of any other provision

of this Order; and

(2) are direct school-level instructional or staff development expenses as

opposed to transportation or Central Office planning and

administration.

f.

In addition, to preserve the supplemental and remedial character of

these § 8 funds, the District:

(1) will be prohibited from instituting § C.8 programs outside the target

group of schools without a concomitant increase in § C.8 funding

within the target schools, provided that exceptions to this subparagraph

(1) may be considered under § G.7.a, subject to the limitation that no

such exception may diminish the supplemental nature and extent of §

C.8 funding for the target schools;

45

(2) will provide these § C.8 funds in addition to an equitably distributed base of regular District funds; and,
(3) while it may respond to the needs of particular schools from time to time, will insure that the aggregate of such decisions shall be equitably distributed systemwide, and in the aggregate all elementary "regular District funds" other than expenditures required under this Order shall be allocated in approximately equal per capita amounts to elementary students across the District.
g. For school years 1991-92 through 1993-94, the amount specified above will be devoted in the Community Academies to the programs below, which have been identified from educational research as being among the most innovative and effective programs that can be found nationally for increasing the achievement of disadvantaged minority students:
(1) Individual or small group tutoring programs, such as the Reading Recovery program.
(2) Combining tutoring with class size reduaion to approximately 15 students for just language arts/reading instruction.
(3) Early childhood, education for ages 3-4. (4) Full-day kindergarten. (5) Continuous progress programs in reading and mathematics. (6) Curriculum programs aimed at complex thinking skills, such as the
HOTS (Higher Order Thinking Skills) program.
46

(7) Cooperative learning across curriculum topics and including teambased individualization in a cooperative learning environment. This relates particularly to upper elementary grades.
(8) Peer or volunteer tutoring. (9) Computer-assisted instruction. (10) Intensive staff development concerning all of the foregoing programs.

(11) The Comer program of staff development for teachers.

(12) Other programs which are recommended by the consultant discussed

below or by the Monitor, and which have been shown by credible academic research to be comparably effective in increasing the

achievement of disadvantaged minority students.

j.

The Superintendent shall develop, with the assistance of a consultant

experienced in designing and implementing the programs listed above, and within 60 days

of the entry of this Order, an overall plan for implementing these programs in the Community Academy schools, and submit such plan for approval under § G.7.a. This

overall plan shall provide for development of individual school plans based on a school-

by-school needs assessment Throughout the development and implementation of this and

subsequent § C 8 plans and programs the Distria will actively work with that consultant,

with the staff and parents in each school and with the plaintiffs. The District will also establish (with consultant assistance) a rigorous evaluation program and a process for

continuous monitoring and updating of the implementation of these programs.

k. The programs listed above will be implemented in the Community

Academies as rapidly as is consistent with good professional prartice, and in any event by

47

the beginning of school year 1991-92, with any necessary staff development to occur before that time (during the summer of 1991 if necessary). This Order recognizes that not all of the $2 million allocation of funds for school year 1990-91 has been spent in the current school year. The amount of such unspent funds (estimated to be at least $750,000) will be promptly determined by counsel for the parties and such funds will be carried over and spent in the following year, in addition to the amount otherwise allocable for that year. Any unspent § C 8 funds shall also be carried over in subsequent years, and the parties will cooperate in requesting from the Court any Orders that are necessary to enable such carryovers of unspent funds.
1. The particular uses of § C 8 supplemental funds initiated in school year 1989-90 which are continuing in school year 1990-91 but are not included in the new list of § C 8 programs (class size reduction, elimination of combination classes, teacher aides and assistant principals) will be discontinued in favor of the programs listed in subparagraph (g) above.
m. At the same time that the District is designing its implementation plan for this § C8, the District will revise the manner in which it now uses federal ECIA Chapter 1 funds. For the 1991-92 school year and thereafter, the District will devote that portion of its Chapter 1 funds which is allocated to the Community Academy schools to the same programs being carried out under this § C 8 ; provided, that in making these revisions there shall be no reduction in the availability of or proportional amount of Chapter 1 funds allocated to the Community Academy schools.
48

9. Voluntary Transfers. The Board shall encourage all voluntary transfers of

elementary students that enhance integration by providing educational and transportation

incentives for all such transfers.

a. Voluntary transfers shall be permitted, and transportation provided:

(1) For any minority student, from any school containing more than the

systemwide minority proportion to any school containing less than the

systemwide minority proportion; and

(2) For any non-minority student from any school containing less than the

systemwide minority proportion to any school containing more than the

systemwide minority proportion.

b. As part of the above referenced voluntary transfer program, the Board

shall establish priority receiving schools to accommodate the voluntary transfer of minority

students out of the Southwest Quadrant to schools with relatively low minority enrollments.

Availability of space and transportation time shall also be considered, but the District shall take

reasonable steps to make space available in such schooL· without involuntarily dL·placing

resident students.

c

The District shall establish a system to monitor all student transfer requests

and to prohibit any voluntary or special permit transfer that does not enhance the opportunity

for school integration, except in cases of hardship.

d. Consistent with S 9.b, the District will establish as priority receiving

schools for the recruitment and placement of voluntary transfers all schools with less than

15% minority enrollment, with the following temporary exceptions:

49

(1) Cherry Valley/White Swan and Froberg/New Milford, which presently have inadequate space.
(2) Bloom and Welsh, because all available spaces for minority students will be used to integrate the Academics Plus programs, rather than for regular voluntary transfers.
These exceptions shall be reviewed annually in accordance with § 9.j below. e. In addition, consistent with subparagraph 9.b, the District will take
the following steps to create additional space for integrative transfers in schools in the eastern portion of the District:
(1) For the 1990-91 school year, complete the internal construction project at Brookview to create two or three additional rooms, at a cost of $65,000.
(2) Re-acquire and re-open Marsh School. f. To serve as educational incentives for integrative voluntary transfers, establish full-day kindergarten programs as set forth below. All such programs shall have enrollment through a city-wide lottery process, and shall have compositions of approximately 50% minority/50% majority children. The estimated cost per full-day kindergarten class is approximately $35,000 (1) For the 1990-91 school year, one room at Brookview and two rooms
at Ellis. (2) For the 1991-92 school year, in addition, two rooms each at schools
which are selected by the District, and approved under § G.7.a, under
50

the criterion that the sites selected shall be those where the programs will most effectively contribute to integration of school enrollments. g. An additional GIT program serving Grades 4-6 shall be established at a site selected under the process set forth in the preceding subsection. These classes are to be integrated in accordance with the provisions applicable to alternative programs, with enrollment to occur through a city-wide lottery process. The estimated cost of this program is $90,000. h. An integrated school is defined as one in which the minority proportion is within 15% of the systemwide minority proportion, and schools which are not integrated by that standard are to receive highest priority as receiving schools for voluntary transfers. i r \ Neverthless, the minimum-minority definition of an integrated school does not operate as a cap on minority enrollment or as a determination that the school has reached an A\```¯ 0 adequate level of minority enrollment. Rather, the definition identifies the minimum level at which a school may be considered integrated, and beyond that level the District will continue its efforts to attract additional minority enrollment into the school, tending toward the systemwide minority average and consistent with stability of integration. i. Any minority student who applies for a voluntary transfer which is in accordance with subparagraph (a) of this section shall be accommodated, according to the student's priority of school ichoices, and if such schools are not available for transfer the student shall be counseled concerning other transfer opportunities. The District will include in its Progress Reports an accounting of transfer applications and placements, including an analysis of how many minority transfer applicants received their first/second/third choices; the number of minority applications and acceptances/rejections at each receiving school;
51

and an explanation of any instances in which a minority student requested a transfer and

did not receive one of his/her first three choices.

j.

As soon as the official school racial composition data is available in

the Fall of each year, the District will initiate a review and planning process for transfers

for the next subsequent school year. This shall lead to a comprehensive report, presented

in a Progress Report between November and January. (In the current school year, this

report shall be presented 30 days after entry of this Order.) This report shall:

(1) compare voluntary transfer methods and results for that school year

with those for the preceding year or years;

(2) analyze how many transfer applicants received their first/second/third

choices, the application and acceptance/rejection data for each

receiving school, and whether there were any minority students who

requested transfers and did not obtain one of their first three choices;

(3) analyze the student movement at each school in terms of resident/non-

resident children; the sending attendance areas of the non-resident

children; transfers-out of resident children from that attendance area

to other schools, and similar matters. All of these analyses shall be

broken down by the race of the students. (In school year 1990-91 these

analyses need only be performed to the extent feasible.)

(4) analyze transfers into and out of the school system, by sending/receiving school and by race, including transfer activity between the District and private schools located in the Rockford area. (The District shall report to the Court any instance in which a private

52

school fails to cooperate with the District in providing enrollment information.) (In school year 1990-91 these analyses need only be performed to the extent feasible.) (5) present for each school having less than 25% minority enrollment a detailed, school-specific plan for runner integration, including specific steps and timelines for further integration of the school. The plan for each school shall require approval under § G.7.b. k. In the Fall of 1991, in lieu of the preceding subparagraph, the District will prepare a special report to the Court concerning the effectiveness of the efforts since July 1989 to achieve integration by voluntary transfers. This report shall be submitted to the Court not later than December 1, 1991. This report shall: (1) provide the analyses and plans required annually by the preceding subparagraph. (2) present projections for the total enrollment and racial composition of all elementary schools for school years 1992-93 through 1994-95, taking into account the effect of the magnet schools and all other enrollment integration measures contemplated by this Order; and (3) be accompanied by a current systemwide demographic analysis and projection prepared by the District's demographic consultant. 1. By October 1, 1993, all elementary schools in the District shall have minority enrollment within 15 percentage points of the systemwide minority proportion, achieved by methods which comport with equitable allocation of burdens and are nondiscriminatory. In addition to voluntary student assignment techniques (such as voluntary
53

transfers, magnet schools and alternative programs), the District may also make boundary adjustments between adjoining schools where such adjustments will achieve the required range of minority enrollment in one or more schools. In sufficient time for September 1994 implementation, the District shall make such boundary adjustments with respect to schools which have not achieved the required range of minority enrollment. However, this section shall hot require mandatory assignment of students between non-adjoining schools.
m. Any proposed relocation of the bilingual program shall be reported to the Court with an analysis of how the relocation affects the execution of the provisions of this Order, and any such relocation shall require approval under § G.7.a.
n. To further implement § 9.c, the District will develop a system for reporting to the Superintendent each student transfer that does not comply with the racial/ethnic criteria established in this Order, with an individualized written hardship justification provided by the principal and the Central Office for each such transfer. A statistical accounting of such transfers shall be included in Progress Reports, including sending/receiving school, race, and a categorization of reasons. The individualized justifications shall be held in a confidential file, available for inspection by plaintiffs' counsel and/or by the Monitor.

o. Pursuant to § § C 9 and B. 1 of this Order, the District will provide such educational and social support services to minority voluntary transfer students as are necessary to insure their educational and social integration into the transfer receiving schools. However, to preserve the supplemental character of the Community Academy funding under § C.8, resources provided under this subsection shall be directed only to ¦ transfer students, and not to receiving schools as a whole, unless otherwise approved under j § G.7.b.

¯^

54

10. Equity of Facilities. EquipmenH ^nfl Materials. The District shall insure that j the Southwest Quadrant schools are of the same physical quality, including educational
equipment, materials and supplies, as other elementary schooL· in the District a. The age of school buildings is excluded fro** thjs provision, but the degree
of repair, maintenance and cleanliness is included. All educational equipment, materials and supplies are aL·o included.
b. Vie District shall by December 31, 1989: (1) perform a more detailed. evaluation of the physical condition and
educational equipment of the Southwest Quadrant elementary schools, and (2) present to the Court a plan for achieving by t¡ie opening of the 1990-91
school year equity of facilities and educational equipment. > c. The District shall take all steps necessary to achieve by the opening of the 1990-91 school year equity of facilities and educational equipment.
d. This Court finds that the District has now available Fire Prevention and Life Safety funds from pre-1982 levies and other sale of bonds, which would be appropriate to spend, if necessary, and if in the judgment of the Board of Education, the funds are required to satisfy the foregoing provisions.
The foregoing provisions of § CIO shall remain in effect until further order of Court. The deadline dates established in those 1989 Order provisions are not modified by this 1991 Order. In order for the District to fulfill its responsibility to insure that elementary schools in the Southwest Quadrant are of the same physical quality, including equipment, materials
55

and supplies, as other elementary schools in the District and to improve the level of compliance achieved under the previous Interim Order, the following additional steps shall be taken:
10.1. Facilities. The District shall take all steps necessary to insure that physical facilities are equitable across the District. This does not assume that all District schools will be brought to perfect condition, but rather that physical facilities from school to school shall not reflect any disparities which are adverse to minority students or to schools located in minority neighborhoods.
a. The District shall retain, in accordance with § G.4, an independent consultant who has expertise in evaluation of educational physical facilities.
b. The consultant will develop and propose comprehensive criteria for evaluating the physical facilities of the District's elementary schools. Reference points for such criteria include:
(1) Illinois, North Central Association and other applicable requirements for school buildings.
(2) Facilities standards promulgated by the Council of Educational Facilities Planners.
(3) Criteria established by the Educational Facilities Laboratory (Dallas), and other private sector organizations.
(4) The District's Fall 1989 Building Inspection Checklist and January 1990 list of maintenance categories. (In referencing the January 1990 list, the categories must be expanded so that each one is comprehensive instead of including only very limited current projects.)
56

(5) The criteria shall not be limited to maintenance but shall include
educational function and general building quality and climate
considerations, such as:
(a) Instructional sq. ft. per student (b) Laboratories and other educational special purpose rooms (c) .Library facilities (d, Auditoriums and other group activity spaces (e) Space for ancillary staff (e.g., counselors) (f) Restrooms (g) Lunchroom facilities (h) Physical education facilities (inside and out) (i) Furniture (j) Carpeting (k) Quantity and quality of chalkboards/tackboards (1) Lighting: footcandles at desktops (m) HVAC (n) Sound control (o) Light control (shades or blinds) (p) Intercommuncation capability (q) Spaces for faculty use (r) Office facilities (s) Esthetics
(t) External campus and landscaping
(6) In developing the criteria, while the age of a building per se will not
be considered, other physical characteristics of buildings will be
considered even if related to age.
c. The parties and the Monitor will consult concerning the evaluation
criteria proposed by the consultant and a final set of criteria to be used will be established
under § G.7.b.
d. The consultant will review all available written data on conditions of
District elementary physical facilities, including without limitation:
(1) 1988 Report of data studied by Buildings Subcommittee of Citizens
Committee
57

(2) April 1989 District Building Renovation Survey

(3) Fall 1989 Building Inspection Checklists

(4) January 1990 and <;uo;»equent District reports of work completed or

planned

e. Within 90 days after entry of this Order, the consulting expert shall

perform an on-s¡te physical audit of all elementary facilities, in relation to the identified

criteria. The consultant will then prepare written reports as follows:

(1) A detailed condition report on each building.

(2) For each building, a list of instances in which the building is deficient

or contains undesirable conditions with respect to the identified criteria,

prioritizing those items that are emergencies, otherwise remediable (see

January 1990 Report page 3 for possible priority sub-categories), or not

remediable.

(3) A detailed comparison of Southwest and predominantly minority

schools vs. the remaining schools, in terms of conformance with the

identified criteria and relative priority of non-conforming items.

("Predominantly minority" refers to any school with minority enrollment

more than 15% above the systemwide average.)

f.

Within 120 days, the consulting expert (with District staff) will prepare

a plan for making improvements (if any) necessary for Southwest elementary schools and

predominantly minority elementary schools, to achieve equity with the remaining elementary

schools. This should include review of the January 1990 Report and more recent District

58

activities to determine the extent to which necessary work has already been scheduled with appropriate priorities. The District will implement the Plan as follows:
(1) Emergency items will be performed promptly in all schools. (2) Next, all improvements will be made in Southwest and predominantly
minority elementary schools which are necessary to, achieve equity as between the Southwest/predominantly minority and the remaining schools. These shall be completed before the commencement of the 1991-92 school year. This date may be extended for selected improvements which financially and/or practically cannot be completed by that date, provided with respect to such items the District will file a written explanation and plaintiffs reserve the right to object to such a deferral. (3) Next, any additional improvements will be made which are necessary to enable each school building to be educationally effective. (4) The Plan may, to the extent the District chooses, provide for subsequent further improvements the District deems desirable, consistent with equity. g. The consulting expert (with District staff) will also prepare, and the District shall implement after approval under § G.7.b, a prospective facilities management process, and an annual physical inspection, updating and reporting process which: (1) Insures that school physical conditions do not reflect any pattern in terms of the race of the students or the neighborhood.
59

(2) Insures that additional improvements will be made which are necessary to keep each school building educationally effective.
(3) Provides comprehensive and detailed reports to the Court demonstrating that equity of physical facilities is being maintained among Rockford elementary schools.
h. The process reflected in (a)-(g) will be conducted for middle and high school facilities on a phased basis with the process for elementary schools, but in any event will be completed before the commencement of the 1992-93 school year. With respect to middle and high schools, the criterion shall be equity among all schools at each level, rather than equity on a Southwest/non-Southwest basis.
10.2 Equipment Materials and Supplies. The District shall take ail steps necessary to insure that all other physical resources within the elementary schools, not encompassed with § 10.1, are equitable across the District. This shall include equipment, supplies, textbooks and library books, educational materials and all similar resources. For convenience these are referred to herein as "EM&S".
a. "Equity" in this respect shall mean that (excluding supplemental programs for disadvantaged students) each Southwest elementary school, and each predominantly minority elementary school, has the same overall quantity and quality of educationally relevant EM&S as the remaining schools.
(1) The exclusion of supplemental programs for disadvantaged students means that for purposes of this subsection C.10.2, the reckoning of equity will exclude EM&S which are available to a school as a result of:
60

(a) state or federal funding earmarked for low-income, at-risk or other disadvantaged students, or
(b) programs implemented under § C.8 of this Order. (2) Quantity and quality shall be determined according to objective
standards applied systemwide, rather than by whether "need" discerned at the school level has been fulfilled. ¢3) "Educationally relevant" means EM&S which are usable, actually used and educationally appropriate both to the program in the school and to the District's uniform educational objectives applicable to all students. (4) This provision does not require that every school should have identical EM&S. It is assumed that local variations will exist based on the particular program in a school, teaching styles, etc. However, such variations shall not result in EM&S disparities from school to school which are adverse to minority students or to schools located in minority neighborhoods. (5) This provision shall not be applicable to the comparative curriculum content or achievement level of EM&S in various schools, which is instead encompassed in § B.6 of this Order. However, the implementation of these two sections of the Order should be coordinated.
61

b. The District shall retain, in accordance with § G.4, an independent consultant who has expertise in this type of evaluation of educational equipment, materials and supplies.
c. The consultant will develop and propose comprehensive criteria for evaluating the quantity, quality and educational relevance of EM&S in the District's elementary schools. Reference points for such criteria include:
(1) Illinois, North Central and other applicable requirements for school buildings.
(2) Standards promulgated by relevant professional organizations. (3) Criteria established by any appropriate private sector organizations. (4) Such criteria shall include standards for comparing schools to one
another. The criteria shall also include standards for comparing schools to a systemwide minimum level or other external norm. (5) The consultant will give consideration in formulating the criteria to depreciation based on a realistic useful life for the EM&S in the particular school, and to discounting EM&S which is not educationally relevant, or is only partially so. d. The parties and the Monitor will consult concerning the evaluation criteria proposed by the consultant and a final set of criteria to be used will be established under § G.7.b. e. The consultant will review all available written data on on EM&S in the District elementary schools, including without limitation:
62

(1) The January 1990 Report and other data on provision of supplemental EM&S during the 1989-90 school year.
(2) District allocation formulas f. Within 90 days after entry of this Order, the consulting expert shall perform an on-site physical audit of the EM&S in all elementary schools, in relation to the identified criteria. The consultant will then prepare written reports as follows: (1) A detailed report on the quantity, quality and educational relevance
of the EM&S in each school. (2) For each building, a list of instances in which the building is deficient
or contains undesirable conditions with respect to the identified criteria, prioritizing those items on an appropriate scale. (3) A detailed comparison of Southwest and predominantly minority schools vs. the remaining schools, in terms of conformance with the identified criteria and relative priority of non-conforming items. g. Within 120 days, the consulting expert (with District staff) will prepare a plan for making improvements (if any) necessary for Southwest and predominantly minority elementary schools to achieve EM&S equity with the remaining schools. (1) The plan will be implemented, and all such improvements will be completed, before the commencement of the 1991-92 school year. (2) The Plan may, to the extent the District chooses, provide for further improvements the District deems desirable, consistent with equity.
63

h. The consulting expert (with District staff) will also prepare, and the District shall implement after approval under § G.7.b, a prospective allocation process, and an annual physical inspection, updating and reporting process, which will:
(1) Insure that EM&S from school to school do not reflect any pattern in terms of the race of the students or the neighborhood.
(2) Insure that additional improvements will be made which are necessary to keep each school building educationally effective.
(3) Provide comprehensive and detailed reports to the Court demonstrating that equity of EM&S is being maintained among Rockford elementary schools.
i. The process reflected in (a)-(h) will be conducted for middle and high school facilities on a phased basis with the process for elementary schools, but in any event will be completed before the commencement of the 1992-93 school year. With respect to middle and high schools, the criterion shall be equity among all schools at each level, rather than equity on a Southwest/non-Southwest basis.
11. Funding. The parties recognize and agree that the responsibility for funding all activities required by this Consent Order rests solely with the Board of Education. To this end, the Board shall determine from what sources funds shall be made available to implement the terms and conditions of this Order. Likewise, the Board agrees that to the extent additional sources of revenue become available for the 1989-90 school year, said funds which are spent for educational programs shall be allocated equitably across the District so as to avoid the dilution of the supplemental programs required under Part III, Section C of this Order. T)\e foregoing shall not be interpreted to mean that the Board is prohibited from spending additional
64

funds solely on Southwest Quadrant Elementary School programs for those programs specified
a. The District's responsibility for funding the activities required by this Order, and the District's discretion to determine what sources of funds shall be used for that purpose, as set forth in the first two sentences of i 11. relate solely to the manner of funding of the requirements of the Order. The first two sentences do not confer any substantive discretion on the District concerning the manner or extent of fulfillment of any other provision of this Order, nor provide any basis on which any obligation of the District under the Order may be altered, diminished, or excused.
b. All elementary-level funding and resources, other than (a) expenditures required under this 1991 Order and (b) earmarked federal and state grants, shall be allocated in approximately equal per capita amounts to preserve the supplemental character of the programs specified in (a) and (b).
D. SECONDARY SCHOOLS
1. Secondary Schools: West School. Except as expressly provided in this Order the parties are not in agreement with respect to arrangements at the middle school and high school levels of the Rockford school system. Among other matters, Paragraph III.B.l of the 1989 Order (permitting the West building to be a middle school for one year) expired at the end of the 1989-90 school year, and the parties are not in agreement as to the use of the West School building for school years 1990-91 and thereafter. Plaintiffs continue to maintain that West should be reopened as a high school because it was a residentially integrated school which the District should not have closed, and that the District's present
65

alignment of secondaiy schools places unwarranted disproportionate burdens upon the minority students of the District. The District continues to maintain that its present alignment of secondary schools is proper. However, judicial consideration of these issues will be governed by the duration provision of this Order (S G.10).
2. High School Periods. The reduction of the high school day from seven periods to six, which began in the 1989-90 school year, has had adverse educational and integrative consequences. For example, it has diminished the effectiveness of integrative programs at Auburn High School, and created crowded conditions in the high schools. Accordingly, for 1990-91 and subsequent years students in Grades 9-11 will be required to take six course and permitted to take seven, and students in Grade 12 will be required to take five courses and permitted to take six or seven. If the enlarged number of courses is implemented through an optional extended school day, transportation will be provided to students electing the extended day, in the form of a school-to-school "activity bus".
3. Vocational Education. The Superintendent shall submit a report to the Court, within 120 days after entry of this Order, concerning the nature and extent of vocational education programs to be offered by the District. In that Report, and in any other consideration of vocational education by the District's Board and management staff, special consideration shall be given to the impact of vocational education programs on minority students, and the impact upon such students of any proposed modifications of vocational programs. In the Report, the impact upon minority students of the alternatives considered and the choices made will be expressly articulated.
66

4.

Roosevelt For the duration of this Order the Roosevelt School shall be used

to house the following District programs (presently located at Wilson) and such other programs

as are determined under § C.7.b:

/ a. Nursing program.

b. Adult Education program.

ç. Special education machine shop.

d. Drop-out Prevention program.

e. Evening programs previously scheduled for Jefferson and East High

Schools.

f.

Park district program.

g. Rock Valley College extension program,

h. RACC programs.

The District will make necessary physical repairs and improvements to the Roosevelt building in such amount as is determined under %C.7.b to be necessary to render the Roosevelt building serviceable.
5. ROTC For the duration of this Order the District ROTC program shall be housed at Auburn High School, unless there is a determination under § C.7.b that the program should be discontinued or relocated to an alternative location.
6. Secondary Schools Curriculum Redesign. Consistent with and in addition to its responsibilities set forth in Section B, and in order to parallel its responsibilities for Supplemental Educational Programs in § C.8 at the elementary grades, the District shall

67

undertake a plan to develop, implement and evaluate the effectiveness of secondary level
Í
programs which will be designed to:

(a) improve curricula to focus on multicultural aspects of learning;

(b)
`i
j (c)
`\
A
n\ ^ . V
\ .¯`-`·•/•)*' /

improve multicultural experiences for student relationships; provide for students: (1) alternative school experiences; and
(2) school-within-a-school opportunity; and/or,

I ¢d) provide tutorial support for students, based on need in reading, writing,

\

and mathematics skills, and for assistance with acquiring admission into

post secondary educational experiences.

While the planning for the above described programs shall commence by June 15,

1991, the District shall allocate annual expenditures of $250,000.00 each year for the 1991-

92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 school years. During the 1993-94 school year, the parties and the

Monitor shall evaluate the effectiveness of the programs, and determine whether said

funding and programs shall continue. In the event the determination is made that programs

shall be discontinued, the $250,000 plus any and all annual cost increases shall be

reallocated to schools and programs as set forth under C.8.

The sources and uses of funds and the development and execution of programs under

§ D.6 shall be in accordance with the provisions and policies set fonh in S C.6.8 (except

for the list of schools in § C.8.b and the list of specific programs in § C8.i). For example,

§ B.6 funds shall be drawn from the sources defined in § C.8; shall be supplemental as

defined therein: .shall be targeted upon minority snjd,fnK and low-inrom? *H`ica†¡onriHy

disadvantaged students i^^_majLne,r comparable tr> ç C.8; shall .be planned and

68

administered in the same manner provided in § C.8; and any ECIA Chapter 1 funds allocated to the secondary level shall (as in § C.8) be devoted to the § D.6 programs in addition to the regular District funds allocated to § D.6 programs.
E. EMPLOYMENT AFFIRMATTyE AÇTÍQiN
On November 29,1990, the District voluntarily adopted the Employment Affirmative Action Plan set forth below in Subsections 1-8. Prior to the District's adoption, the plan had been drafted by counsel for the parties.
In addition to the District's November 29 action, plaintiffs have contended (as set forth in the Second Amended Complaint) that an element of the long-term liability on the part of the District is its discrimination in the hiring, retention and working conditions of Black and Hispanic employees at all levels ojjhe school system. While that contention has not yet been judicially resolved, nevertheless the adoption by the District of the plan provides a strong basis for the Court's incorporation of the plan into this interim Order as a remedial measure (without prejudice to the ultimate position of the parties on the merits of these particular issues).
In adopting the plan, the District stated that it "will adopt percentage goals which reflect the available pool of minorities qualified for such jobs^in_the_R^çkfprd standard metropolitan statistical area. Those percentages will be available this Spring when the area's 1990 census data is released." In this Order, as in the District's November 29 document, the specific numerical goals for various workforce categories are left blank. The parties and the Monitor shall jointly address the delineation of appropriate availability measures, and the selection of specific employment goals, and within 90 days of the entry
69

of this Order a recommendation shall be presented to the Court under 5 G.7.a as to the specific numerical goals to be inserted in § EJ , and as to whether § E.3 should provide not only for a minority goal, but also for specific Black and Hispanic goals.
In the text of this Part E, there are certain other minor changes from the language adopted by the District on November 29, 1990. These slight variations [shown in brackets in the text of Part E] are an appropriate exercise of the Court's remedial authority, but the bracketed provisions are subject to modification under § G.7.a.
In addition, this Order omits paragraphs 8 and 9 of the District's November 29, 1990 document (which state that the goals are not quotas and that the District does not admit past discriminatory employment practices), and inserts § § E.8 (Progress Reporting) and E.9 (Annual Review). These are appropriate modifications consistent with the incorporation of the Employment Affirmative Action Plan into this Remedial Order.
1. State Law Duty. All Illinois school districts are obligated by Public Act 86227, effective January 1, 1990, to develop and implement, by 1991, an affirmative action plan for "recruitment and hiring of minority teachers, other certificated employees and noncertificated employees, including custodians, lunchroom staff and teacher aides." 111. Rev. Stat. ch. 122, § 10-20.7a.
2. Authority of the District In addition, the District has the authority, under Illinois law and under the Equal Protection clause of the of the United States Constitution, to adopt, and/or to concur in the entry of this Court Order containing, employment affirmative action measures for the certificated and non-certificated positions at all levels of the school system.
70

a. The District has determined that it has a sufficient basis for, and a compelling interest in, the adoption and implementation of a remedial affirmative action plan concerning the employment of Blacks and Hispanics by the District at all levels of its work force.
b. The District further determines that the measures set forth below make the greatest practicable use of race-neutral methods such as general recruitment, and raceconscious, non-restrictive methods such as targeted recruitment, and that taken together the measures set forth below constitute a narrowly-tailored remedial scheme, and constitute the least restrictive methodology that has a reasonable possibility of being effective in achieving the affirmative action purposes of this Part E of the Order.
3. Goals. The following goals are adopted for the utilization of Blacks and Hispanics in the District's work force:
a. Among its administrative employees, including both managerial and non-managerial employees as well as school principals, the District has approximately 9.3% minority employees (including % Black and % Hispanic). The District's goals in this category are for % minority employees.
b. In the category of professional employees, the District's teachers and similar professionals are approximately 7.4% minority (including % Black and % Hispanic). The District's goal in this respect shall be that as many as possible üf the teachers hired and retained by the District shall be Black or Hispanic, and that the overall teacher/professional workforce shall be at least % minority employees.
71

c

In the category of clerical support employees, the District presently

has approximately 2.8% minority employees (including % Black and % Hispanic).

The District's goals in this category are % minority employees.

d. In the category of service occupations (including aides, custodial, food

services and crossing guards), the District's employees are approximately 16.0% minority

(including % Black and % Hispanic). The District's goals in this category are

% minority employees.

4. Affirmative Action Methods. The District will take all reasonable steps to increase its levels of minority employment as rapidly as possible to the levels set forth above. Such steps will, at a minimum, include:
a. The District will undertake, on a concerted and continuing basis, a recruitment program for minority teachers and other certifîcated educational personnel. This should include, without limitation, the following steps:
(1) District staff should, if practical and within budgetory constraints, establish a personal presence on each appropriate campus at least within the State of Illinois, [or outside the state,] which has a teacher education program and is a potential source of minority employees for the District. This should include contact with placement and minority affairs personnel at those campuses; an effort to identify entry level minority teaching candidates at those institutions and to maintain contact with them throughout their educational career; and an effort to build continuing relationships with such candidates, [including

72

paid summer internship programs and invitations to them to conduct their student teaching in the Rockford public schools]. (2) The recruitment plan should also include continuing contacts with teacher education organizations and minority educator organizations, to maximize the assistance which such organizations can provide in identifying and recruiting minority teacher candidates for the District. (3) For these purposes, the District will establish a reasonable recruitment budget that allows District personnel to engage in recruitment of teachers [throughout the country, as well as to pay prospective teachers a reimbursement for their visit to the District, if they are contemplating working for the District. The District will also establish an expedited hiring procedure, by which the recruitment personnel will have the ability to present signed contracts to appropriate candidates. Finally, the District will provide incentives such as the payment of relocation costs and the provision of opportunities to earn supplemental compensation]. b. The District will take measures to encourage minorities already in the District's employ to become teachers or otherwise to move to higher job classifications within the school system. Steps to be taken in this respect will include, without limitation, assistance to non-teaching employees in obtaining additional education and/or certifications
73

necessary for employment as teachers; and the use of qualifying cutoff scores for any nonteaching positions where employment is on the basis of examinations.
c. The District will also seek to establish a partnership with an appropriate college or university to establish an on-site training program for teacher personnel, aimed particularly at recruiting teacher aides from the adult minority population within the school district, and providing training and mentoring to those persons as teacher candidates, and eventually graduating and certificating those persons as teacher candidates for the school system.
d. The District will adopt programs of incentives to induce minorities employed in similar job classifications in the private sector to make lateral entries into employment by the District. This program will include measures to assist such persons in obtaining any course work or other prerequisites, and obtaining any necessary certification, for employment by the District.
e. The District will promptly commence a program to develop teachers from among its own minority students. This will include educating such students about teaching careers, providing counseling and scholarship assistance to enable such persons to obtain college degrees and fulfill other academic and certification prerequisites, and providing incentives for such persons to become employees of the District upon fulfillment of all such prerequisites.
[f. Before adopting any requirement establishing a Master's degree as a prerequisite to employment by the District in certificated positions, the District will carefully examine whether such a requirement would hinder achievement of the remedial objectives of this Plan, and if so the District will make whatever provisions are necessary to forestall such adverse impact.]
74

5.

Executive and M a n a g * n a 1 S t a f f With respect to appointments of executive

and managerial staff (including principals) [throughout the duration of this Order], the

District [will employ] an appropriate executive or managerial search firm, will provide

substantial lead time in the recruitment and selection process, [and thereby will insure that

qualified Black and/or Hispanic applicants are included in the candidate pool for all such

appointments].

6. Integration of Staff Assignments. The District will take such steps as are necessary to insure that the work force at each of the District's schools is appropriately integrated, while considering the needs of each attendance center.

7. I ^yftff Criteria The District has repeatedly had the experience during the past years that minority persons employed in various job classifications, especially teachers, have been adversely affected by the use of seniority as a criterion for layoffs. Accordingly, until the District has achieved in the [various] job classifications the levels of minority employment set forth above, the District shall not lay off minority teachers on the basis of their having less employment seniority than other persons. To the extent required by law, the District will negotiate the impact of such layoff criteria with the appropriate bargaining units representing such employees.

8. Progress Reporting. At four-month intervals, in its Progress Reports, the District will provide detailed reports of its activities in the execution of this Part E, of significant developments or results concerning the employment of Blacks and Hispanics at

75

various levels of the District's workforce, and of the further steps contemplated by the District to fulfill the requirements of Part E, including the numerical goals set forth herein.

9.

Ani?gl RCYÍ¢V The provisions of this Plan will be reviewed on an annual

basis by the parties and the Court to determine whether the need for remedial measures

continues to exist and whether the measures provided herein continue to constitute a

narrowly-tailored remedy.

F. FUNDING
1. Deferral of Asbestos Response Expenditures. The Court determines that the measures called for by this Order will make substantial demands upon the funds available to the District for the repair and rehabilitation of buildings and for capital improvements. The District has set aside certain funds for asbestos response activities in its Lincoln and Eisenhower Middle School facilities as identified within the budget adopted by the District for the 1990-91 school year. The District is required to respond to the presence of asbestoscontaining building materials ("ACBM") within its school facilities by the federal Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act of 1986 ("AHERA") (15 U.S.C. Sec. 2641, et seq.~> and the Illinois Asbestos Abatement Act (IH.Rev.Stat.. ch. 122, par. 1401, et seq.).
Since the passage of these statutes, the scientific community has questioned whether the type of ACBM commonly found in school buildings is a threat to human health, and whether asbestos response activities actually pose a great threat to human health because they disturb previously undamaged ACBM, increasing the level of airborne asbestos within school buildings. (See, e.g., B. T. Mossman, J. Bignon, M. Corn, A. Seaton and J. B. L

76

Gee, Asbestos: Scientific Developments and Implications for Public Policy, vol. 247, Science, pp. 294-301, January 19, 1990.) The questions raised by the scientific community have prompted the introduction of bills in both the Senate (S. 2248 introduced March 7, 1990) and the House of Representatives (H.R. 4220 introduced March 7, 1990) to repeal the AHERA. These bills are presently.pending in committee.
Moreover, neither the AHERA nor the Illinois Asbestos Abatment Act require the District to take immediate action with regard to the presence of ACBM within the Lincoln and Eisenhower Middle School facilities.
Except in the case of an immediate threat to human health or the environment, there is no requirement that the recommended response action within the Lincoln and Eisenhower Middle School facilities be completed during the 1990-91 school year.
The Court, therefore, determines that the expenditures required by this Order have a higher relative priority for the 1990-91 school year than the funds set aside by the District for asbestos response activities in its Lincoln and Eisenhower Middle School facilities as identified within the budget adopted by the District for the 1990-91 school year. Accordingly, the Court directs the District to defer for one year the asbestos response activities at its Lincoln and Eisenhower Middle School facilities and to utilize the funds budgeted for such activities in the 1990-91 school year for implementation of this Order. The continued deferral of such funds will be reviewed by the Court in March, 1992.
2. Use of Tort Immunity Funds. The District is subject to the provisions of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act of the State of Illinois, as amended (The Tort Immunity Act"). The Tort Immunity Act empowers and directs a local public entity such as the District to pay any liability imposed upon it for a tortious act
77

under Federal or State common or statutory law or to pay any tort judgment or settlement for compensatory damages based on any injury caused by an alleged negligent or alleged wrongful act or omission of the local public entity. The Board of Education of the District may, if it considers the action advisable, issue general obligation bonds without referendum to pay such Liability, judgment or settlement. In addition thereto (or in the alternative), the District may pay for such recurring and continual incremental costs for such programs specified in this Order by additional levies in the District's Tort Immunity Fund. Pursuant to this Order, the District is mandated to fund the cost of the activities required herein, including, but not limited to, the capital expenses of altering, building, equipping, improving, reconstructing, renovating and repairing school buildings and facilities. This Court has considered the provisions of Article IX - Payment of Claims and Judgment - of the Tort immunity Act and ñnds that the funding by the District of the cost of said activities constitutes and is me payment by the District of a liability, tort judgment or settlement that authorizes the issuance of the District's non-referendum general obligation bonds referred to in Section 9-105 of the Tort Immunity Act or the levying of an annual rate of tax in the District's annual levy for Tort Immunity purposes, to pay for annual and recurring program costs (other than the institution of capital improvements) as required by this Order.
3. Grant Applications. The parties will collaborate in the pursuit by the District of grant applications relating to provisions of this Order. However, the receipt of such funds is not a prerequisite to the District's fulfillment of any provision of the Order. Determination of whether the receipt of grant funds will satisfy a particular funding obligation of the District under the Second Interim Order will be made under § G.7.a.
78

4. Fnndiiw Sfflif¢¾¾ ¾fld ffitìnri a. Consistent with S C. 11. the District has the responsibility for funding
the activities required by all Sections of this Order. The parties and the Court have already taken possible financial constraints into consideration, and those matters have been allowed for in formulating the particular requirements of this Order. Accordingly, the District has discretion to determine what sources of funds shall be used for that purpose, but this discretion relates solely to the manner of funding of the requirements of the Order. The District does not have discretion, based on perceived financial constraints, as to the manner or extent of fulfillment of any provision of this Order, nor may any obligation of the District under the Order be altered, diminished or excused on the basis of financial constraints. Without diminishing the force or effect of this subparagraph, the District shall if needed apply to the Court for assistance to fund all authorized costs of the Second Interim Order.
b. Within 60 days after entry of this Order, a detailed systemwide and school-level budget shall be prepared by the District showing the cost and funding for each provision of the Order for the remainder of fiscal year 1990-91 and for fiscal year 199192. The budget shall also demonstrate that all necessary funds have been or will be generated and made available for implementation of the Order. The budget must be approved under § G.7.a and an updated budget shall be submitted and approved at sixmonth intervals thereafter. The District shall also generate corresponding systemwide and school-level expenditure reports comparing actual expenditures with budget allocations for each provision of the Order.
c. Within 60 days after entry of this Order, the District shall determine the timeline and budget for capital expenditures under this Order, and for other
79

expenditures to be funded under § F.2 hereof, and shall submit a report and any appropriate motions to the Court concerning the fulfillment of those funding obligations. In doing so, the District shall review all previous capital expenditure estimates and update such estimates to reflect anticipated costs as of the time of construction.
5. Staff Qrmpcn¾tiftn The implementation of the supplemental programs under § C.8, and of magnet schools and alternative programs, may require that staff members in the schools housing such programs undergo in-service training or further professional preparation in order to meet the requirements for successful delivery of the identified programs. Such training and preparation may be required beyond the regular work day or work year (i.e. summer training programs). The Court finds that such training is necessary for the purpose of such programs.
The Board shall have the right to require the staff members assigned to § C.8 and other programs in the schools so affected to attend such training and preparation programs beyond the regular work day or work year. Staff members selected for participation in these training and preparation programs shall be paid at the contractual rate established in the Professional Agreement between the Board and the Rockford Education Association as follows:
a. For those staff members whose required training is scheduled by the District beyond the regular day, compensation shall be paid at the hourly rate found in "Appendix C: Extra Curricular" in said Professional Agreement. Presently this rate is S 10.50 per hour, subject to change based upon negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement(s).
80

b. For those staff members whose required training is scheduled by the District beyond the regular work year, compensation shall be paid at the per diem rate found in "Article 29 - In Service Training and Summer Workshops" in said Professional Agreement. Presently this rate does not exceed $25.00 per day, subject to change based upon negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreemen¿¢s).
To the extent required by law, the District will negotiate the impact of this provision with the appropriate bargaining units representing such employees.
G. ADMINISTRATION OF THE ORDER
1. Initial Implementation. To maximize the probabilities of successful implementation of this Order, following are provisions concerning initial implementation. These provisions do not supersede any timelines established in particular provision! Of the Order, but rather establish an overall framework. Further, this Section is intended as a complement to, and in no way diminishes, the role and authority of the Monitor as defined elsewhere in this Order or in the Court's Monitor Order entered contemporaneously herewith.
a. Initial Action Plan During the first 45 days after entry of this Order, the Superintendent will develop and adopt an action plan for the initial implementation of this Order.
(1) Within 10 days after entry of the Order, senior staff will receive intensive in-service training concerning the provisions of the Order. The Superintendent will assign, in his discretion, implementation responsibilities to appropriate senior staff.
81

(2) Within 20 days of entry of the Order, senior staff will present to the Superintendent draft action plans for the execution of their responsibilities, including both immediate steps and follow-up steps encompassing the implementation through the commencement of the 1991-92 school year.
(3) Within 30 days after entry of the Order, the Superintendent will prepare a draft systemwide first-year implementation plan.
(4) Within 45 days, the initial action plan will be completed, and all appropriate staff members shall be proceeding forthwith to execute their respective responsibilities.
(5) The action plan shall be promptly filed by the District as its first Progress Report to the Court.
(6) This schedule for development, adoption and submission of an initial implementation plan shall not, in itself, be the occasion for any delay in implementation. To the extent appropriate and feasible, District personnel will move forward with their implementation responsibilities beginning promptly after entry of the Order.
b. First-year Implementation Principles. Several provisions of the Order contemplate developmental activities during the current school year, and full-scale implementation at the commencement of the 1991-92 school year. These provisions, listed in subsection (1) below, are subject to the implementation principles set forth in subsections (2)-(5).
82

(1) The provisions encompassed by this subsection include:

B.I

Within-school integration

B.2

Human relations

B3

Discipline

B.5

Recruitment; Parent Centers

B.9

Enrollment and financial data systems

B.10

School-based management

C3

Alternative programs enrollment

C.4

Transportation computer analysis

G5

Washington Magnet School

C8

Supplemental educational programs

C.9

Voluntary transfers

CIO

Equity of facilities, equipment, etc.

D3

Vocational education

(2) All of these items will be fully developed and completely operational

not later than the commencement of the 1991-92 school year.

(3) This requirement includes execution, before September 1991, of any

necessary preparations, such as studies, plans, development of

administrative directives or systems, staff training, etc.

(4) This requirement also includes timely execution of any pre·September

implementation requirements, such as Spring 1991

recmitment/applications/enrollmentformagnet/alternative/voluntary

transfers.

83

(5) All related data systems required by this Order shall be in place as necessary to capture, analyze and report all implementation activities.

c. The foregoing principles in no way diminish the immediate force and

effect of this Order. Unless timelines are otherwise specified in the Order, all provisions

are operative and binding as of the date on which it is entered.

P §L·N V ^ ^

Within 30 days after entry of this Order, a senior minority

administrator will be appointed, having the title of Deputy Superintendent for Educational

Equity (or other title determined by the Superintendent) and reporting directly to the

Superintendent, with overall responsibility for implementation of this Order.

u

e. To insure that implementation activity proceeds appropriately during

the Summer of 1991, the principals of the Washington Magnet School and the elementary

Community Academies shall be employed on a full-time basis between the end of the 1990-

91 school year and the commencement of the 1991-92 school year. In future years, the

principals of these schools and the other full-site magnet schools shall be employed on a

12-month basis to facilitate implementation of this Order.

f. Several provisions hereof require initial implementation activities to

be undertaken or to be completed by the District within a specified number of days after

entry of this Order. Although simultaneous implementation of important matters may

create some burdens, it is necessary in this instance because delays in securing entry of this

Order have greatly shonened the lead time for effective implementation of remedial

programs for the 1991-92 school year. Nevertheless, promptly after entry of the Order the

Monitor and the parties shall confer and review the necessity and practicability of those

timelines. The Monitor is given the discretion to adjust any such timeline if, in his

84

judgment, the adjustment strikes a better balance between quality and timeliness of implementation.
g. It is the intention of the parties, the Monitor and the Court that in the initial period of planning and implementation under this Order (approximately the first six to nine months after entry of the Order), both the Monitor and cpunsel for Plaintiffs will be actively and continuously involved with District staff and counsel, week to week, in implementation planning and prioritizing from the outset for all aspects of the Order. The purpose of this intensive consultation is to maximize effective implementation of the Order and minimize potential disputes.
2. Progress Reports. The District shall submit written Progress Reports to the Court concerning the implementation of this Order. Such Reports shall be submitted 45 days after entry of the Order and thereafter on the fifteenth (15th) day of alternate months. Such Reports shall present, in detail:
a. an account of the District's past, present and proposed activities in the implementation of this Order;
b. quantitative information and other supporting documentation to the extent available (and in any event in a form and extent sufficient to enable a thorough understanding of the nature and results of the District's implementation activities);
c. an explanation of the reasons for the particular implementation methods chosen by the District, and in instances where there were choices among alternatives an indication of the nature of the alternatives and the reason why such alternatives were less desirable than the method chosen;
85

d. assessment of the results of various implementation activities, in relation to the purpose of the provision in question; and
e. assessment whether additional or alternative implementation strategies are needed to achieve the purpose of the particular provision.
3. Consultation Between the Parries* implementation Dispute*? ^ j ¾ n The provisions of this Section are intended as a complement to, and in no way diminish, the role and authority of the Monitor as provided in § G.I or other provisions hereof, or in the Court's Monitor Order entered contemporaneously herewith.
a. After the submission of Progress Reports, and at other reasonable times and places to be agreed upon by the parties, counsel for the District together with senior staff responsible for implementation of the Order shall be available to plaintiffs' counsel to answer followup questions about Progress Reports and about implementation activities and results thereof.
b. Excepting those materials which constitute attorney work-product and confidential materials, the District will provide to plaintiffs' counsel, upon request, any data or analysis thereof which has already been compiled by the District and is relevant to any aspect of this Order. In addition, the District will comply with reasonable requests from plaintiffs' counsel for further compilation or analysis of relevant data.
c. Many provisions of this Order require the District, acting through the Superintendent, to develop implementation plans, construa methodology, establish data systems, collect and analyze data, draw conclusions, make recommendations, and mon¡tor/assess/evaluate the results of implementation. In several instances, to provide additional resources, ideas and perspectives, the Order provides that the Superintendent will
86

use or work with a consultant or expert. (The manner of selection of those persons is

addressed in Section G.4, below.) In a few other instances, a committee may perform

preparatory work and make recommendations to the Superintendent. The following

provisions provide guidelines for the interaction of the parties in these implementation*

development situations:

. t!.¿:.;.7 ¾-*M

(1) It is the responsibility of the Superintendent to provide direction

(consistent with this Order) to each consultant, committee or

responsible senior staff person concerning the manner in which

implementation development will be carried out.

(2) The process of implementation development, including study designs,

collection of data, analysis and conclusions, shall be made reasonably

available to Plaintiffs' attorney as each step occurs.

(3) The mere fact that a consultant or committee makes a particular

recommendation does not obligate the Superintendent to adopt such

recommendation. The Superintendent may reject any and all analyses,

recommendations, etc or request additional information and

recommendations, so long as the Superintendent articulates in writing

why his action is calculated to better effectuate, and not to thwart, the
i
provisions of this Order.

(4) At any point while the performance of the foregoing steps is underway.

Plaintiffs' attorney may raise a question or objection as to whether the

District's implementation aaivity is consistent with the requirements

87

of the Order, sufficient to fulfill such requirements, and/or the best choice among alternative implementation methods. (5) The parties will promptly address such questions or objections; will attempt to clarify the issue and insure that all parties are working with accurate information; and will seek to agree upon, negotiate, conciliate or otherwise resolve the question or objection. ¢6) In the event that the parties cannot otherwise resolve a dispute about whether the District's implementation activities are appropriate or sufficient to fulfill its obligations under a particular provision of this Order, either party may submit the dispute to the Monitor and the Court, under § G.7 or § G.8, as appropriate. (7) In the event the foregoing steps make necessary a delay of a particular implementation timeline, the District will be afforded the minimum reasonable additional time that was made necessary by the consultation and dispute resolution process. (8) In return for the access to information and the opportunity to pose early questions and objections which is afforded by the foregoing process, Plaintiffs will not file in Court any objection to the District's implementation activity without first having presented the matter in writing to the District and sought clarification and resolution. d. The District is prohibited from unilaterally abandoning any provision of this Order, or unilaterally adopting a course of conduct at variance with this Order. If in any instance the District believes that it is impossible to comply with the Order, or that
88

a different but equally effective method of compliance should be permitted, the District shall fully present the matter to plaintiffs, and if necessary to the Monitor and the Court, and obtain either the concurrence of the plaintiffs or approval under § G.7 or § G.8 before adopting such a course of conduct.
e. The parties may from time to time jointly seek amendment of this Order by presenting a proposed amendment to the Court together with an explanation of how the amendment will better or further effectuate the purposes of the Order.
f. In the Fall of 1991, the parties and the Monitor will jointly make an overall review of this Order and its implementation, and consider whether any additional provisions or modifications would be desirable to better or further effectuate the purposes of this Order.
4. Independent Expert Consultants. To the extent this Order refer* to or otherwise requires the selection of consultants in order to comply with the provisions of this Order, the following procedures shall apply:
a. For each function for which consultant assistance is to be secured, the Superintendent, counsel for both parties and the Monitor will meet to discuss collectively the purpose of the provision in question, probable implementation approaches, the nature of the consultant assistance likely to be needed, the qualifications or expertise which should serve as criteria in consultant selection, and potential candidates for selection.
b. The Superintendent shall communicate, via counsel, with the Plaintiffs and the Monitor, disclosing his proposed choice of consultant, along with biographical and professional data.
89

c. In the event Plaintiffs or the Monitor object to the selection of such consultants), the parties and the Monitor shall confer to seek solution.
d. Failing accomodation, the determination whether the consultant has appropriate expertise and independence for performance of the particular consulting function in question shall be made under § G.7.a.
e. Any time deadlines provided herein for use of such consultants shall be reasonably adjusted based on the length of time any such dispute consumes.
f. The cost of the independent consultant(s) called for under § § B.6 and C.8 (but not any related work of counsel) may be charged against the funding amount required under § C.8.
5. DL·posùioi¶ of FflÇJlitiffr For (he duration of this Order, the DL·trict shall not dispose of, or otherwise render unavailable for potential use, any facility without a public determination, after at least thirty (30) days' notice to Plaintiffs, that the facility has no potential use in implementation of any of the provisions of this Order. Plaintiffs may petition for a determination that the facility is or may be needed for implementation of the Order.
6. fol7/"f*fTfîfl The District shall establL·h objective evaluation criteria for all desegregation, equity and affirmative ation activities and an evaluation function with respect to the same. Within 120 days after entry of this Order, the District shall submit to the Court a comprehensive Evaluation Plan providing for thorough, ongoing evaluation of activities under this Order that warrant such evaluation. The Plan may rely upon in-house or external evaluation personnel, or a combination, so long as the qualifications and professional independence of the evaluators are sufficiently provided for. The Evaluation
90

Plan shall require approval under § G.7.a, and shall remain in effect (with appropriate updates) for the duration of this Order.

7. Process of Approval or Decision for Selected Provisions.

a. Certain sections of this Order provide for approval or decision "under

Section G.7.a." With respect to those sections, which are enumerated below, the process

for decision or approval shall initially be as set forth in subsection ¢c) hereof. The process

for decision or approval shall also be subject to revision in the manner and under the

circumstances set forth in subsections (d) and ¢e) hereof. For convenience, following is a

list of such provisions:

§

Page

Item

B.4.

14

Choice Plan supplantation of § C.9 voluntary transfer provisions.

B.6.b.1. 18

Means of compensation for irremediable educational service inequities

B.6.b.2. 18

Approval of justified Educational Equity disparities.

B.6.d.2. 20 and d.3.

Approval of methodology, schedule and criteria for the overall § B.6 process.

C.l.a.

31

Selection of site for new Church school.

Cl.f.

34

Determination of existence and solution to overcapacity enrollment.

C3.c.

36

Alternative Programs integration plan.

C8.f.1. 45

Exceptions allowing C.8 programs to be instituted in other schools.

C8.j.

47

Approval of overall plan for implementing C.8 programs.

C9.f.2. 50

1991 and future sites for full-day Kindergartens.

C9.m.

54

Bilingual program location.

91

Pan E.

69

F.3.

78

F.4.b.

79

G.4.d

90

G.6

90

Employment Affirmative Action goals and methods. Determination whether grants satisfy Order $ obligations. Approval of implementation budget. Approval of consultants. Approval of Evaluation Plan.

b. Certain other sections of this Order provide for approval or decision "under § G.7.b". With respect to those sections (enumerated ¿elow), the parties shall, at the time each matter becomes ripe for decision, endeavor to negotiate an agreed disposition. If the parties are unable to do so within 14 days, then the matter shall be deemed to be a § G.7.a issue and shall be determined in accordance with § G.7.a and the decisional process to which it refers. The seaions covered by this subsection are:

C5.h

39

C6.c

40

C6.e

41

D.4

67

C9.j.5 53

C9.o

54

ClO.l.c 57

ClO.l.g 59

ClO.2.d 62

ClO.2.h 64

D.5

67

Washington Magnet planning schedule. Wilson Magnet planning schedule. Roosevelt rehabilitation budget and program identification
Individual-school integration plans. Exceptions to requirement that § C.9 educational support funds be expended only for transfer students. Evaluation criteria for facilities equity. Prospective facilities management process. Evaluation criteria for EMS equity. Prospective EMS allocation process. Discontinuation or relocation of ROTC.
92

c Decision or approval with respect to § G.I.a. matters shall initially occur under the Monitor Order entered by the Court contemporaneously with this Second Interim Order, and the Master Order shall be held in abeyance. The decision/approval process shall be as follows:
(1) The parties and the Monitor will, at the appropriate time, collectively explore in depth the provision in question, and endeavor to arrive an agreed disposition. If successful, the parties and the Monitor will present the agreed disposition to the Court and request its approval and its incorporation as a provision of this Order.
(2) If the parties and the Monitor cannot agree on the matter in question, the Monitor will present his written tentative recommendation to the parties as to how the matter should be resolved, and attempt to mediate an agreed disposition.
(3) If the matter is still unresolved, the parties will submit their respective positions to the Court in writing. Such submissions may include information or opinion from advisors or experts. Promptly after the submissions by the parties, the Monitor will submit his recommendation on the matter to the Court
(4) The Court will promptly consider and decide the matter in question, on the basis of the written submissions, oral argument, and any input from the Monitor under the terms and procedures of the Monitor Order. Formal evidentiary hearings will not be required.
93

d. Under the circumstances described in this subsection, the decision/approval process set forth in subseaion c. shall be revised in the manner set forth in subsection e.
(1) It shall not be the occasion for revision of the decision/approval process if in any instance the Court is called upon to render a preimplementation decision on a disputed issue concerning the execution or implementation of this Order. Such pre-implementation disputes may arise and be resolved under § § G 3 , G.7.c, or G.8.
(2) Consistent with Section 10 of the Monitor Order entered contemporaneously herewith, if at any time hereafter an unresolved dispute (other than a pre-implementation dispute) is presented to the Court concerning whether Defendant has failed to comply with the Second Interim Order in a particular respect, and the Court determines that a substantial instance of non-compliance has occurred, then the process of decision or approval set forth in § G.7.c shall be revised, without further objection from Defendant who has waived such objections in order to secure the entry of the Monitor Order and the agreement of the Plaintiffs to the initial use of the decision/approval process set forth in § G.7.c.
e. If at any time the condition for revision set fonh in the preceding subparagraph is fulfilled, then the arrangements among the Monitor, the panies and the Court shall be revised as follows:
94

(1) The Court's Order of Reference to a Special Master of January 14, 1991 (the "Master Order") shall be re-activated, and the Monitor Order shall also remain in effect.
(2) The person serving as Monitor and Master shall be authorized to operate under either or both of the Master and Mpnjtör Orders, and shall fulfill responsibilities and exercise authority conferred upon him by either or both of the Orders.
(3) The Master/Monitor shall also be authorized to directly make the decisions and exercise the rights of approval encompassed in the S G.7.a provisions (subject to the continuing supervision of the Court), and the provisions of § G.7.c limiting his authority to a recommendatory role shall no longer be binding.
(4) If and after the decision/approval process has been revised, the Master/Monitor may, in his discretion, address the § G.7.a provisions either through the consultative and recommendatory process of § G.7.c, or by making formalfindingsand conclusions under the Master Order which will be overturned by the Court only if clearly erroneous, or by directly making decisions and exercising rights of approval with respect to such matters (subject to the continuing supervision of the Court).
(5) If and after the decision/approval process has been revised, the Master Order shall be in effect and shall no longer be in abeyance, for all purposes in this litigation, subject to the continuing supervision of the
Court.
95

8. Dispute Resolution. In the event that the parties have a dispute about whether the District's implementation activities are sufficient to fulfill its obligations under a particular provision of this Order, and the manner of resolving the dispute is not otherwise specified, the panics shall engage in binding dispute resolution by the Monitor and the Court in the following manner:
a. The parties shall first endeavor, in the normal course of their efforts to collaborate concerning the implementation of the Order, to discuss, focus and resolve the issue.
b. Either party may invoke such dispute resolution by a written demand specifying the issue to be submitted.
c. If not otherwise resolved, the issue will be submitted to the Monitor not more than 14 days later by the submission of simultaneous written statements, with simultaneous responses five days thereafter. The Monitor shall proceed under the Monitor Order in addressing the dispute.
d. The Monitor will render a written recommendation concerning the issue in question within 14 days, unless such time is extended by the Monitor for good cause.
e. The recommendation of the Monitor shall be in writing and shall be submitted to the Court, in accordance with the provisions of the Monitor Order.
9. Rules and Complaint Process Regarding Racial Incidents. Within 120 days after entry of this Order, the District will establish policies and Rules concerning, and a process for receiving and acting upon complaints of, racial or ethnic discrimination, harassment or inequity. Such system shall, at minimum, have the following characteristics;
96

a. The District shall establish Rules for its employees and students, enforceable through discipline including discharge or expulsion, to the effect that racial discrimination or harassment by any employee or student directed against any student, parent or employee shall be grounds for discipline. Such Rules shall also provide that it is the responsibility of supervisory and management personnel to take corrective action against such discrimination or harassment when it is brought to their attention, and that the failure to do so is in itself grounds for employment discipline.
b. The District will also establish policies and Rules to the effect that no person shall be disadvantaged or treated unfairly by the District or any of its personnel or students on the basis of race, whether intentionally or otherwise, in any activity at any level of the District's operations.
c. Complaints of violation of such Rules may be made by students, parents, »staff or any other person. Complaints may also be made concerning any other racial incident or inequity related to the school system, which the District has any authority or capability to remedy.
d. Comprehensive written proceduresjor the receipt and disposition of complaints will be established^ by the District
e. The availability of the complaint process will be widely disseminated by the District.
f. Confidentiality shall be afforded to complainants upon request. g. The District will conduct a thorough and impartial investigation of each complaint, and will notify the complainant in writing of (1) the facts determined through
97

the investigation and (2) whether or not any corrective action was taken by the District and the reasons therefor.
h. All documents and information relating to the complaint system shall be available for examination by plaintiffs counsel.
i. The District, and all persons employed by or associated with the District, and all persons acting in concert with the District or its agents, and all other persons who receive notice of this injunction, are enjoined and restrained from harassing, retaliating against or seeking to injure in any way, any plaintiff or member of the Plaintiff organization People Who Care in the pursuit of this litigation, or in any other endeavor on account of this litigation. The protection of this injunction shall extend as well to any other person who assists the plaintiffs or their counsel in the preparation for or pursuit of this litigation.
10. Duration of this Order Liability PTOcee(jjngSa. This Order, the Monitor Order, and the Master Order shall remain in
effect until further Order of Court. The Court reserves the right to modify these Orders, and to enter
supplemental Orders, as may be necessary and appropriate. The Court retains plenary jurisdiction for all purposes in this case.
The entry of this Order does not affect plaintiffs' liability claims, or the continued litigation of those claims. However, the scheduling of the liability tríal for January 1992 is hereby cancelled. Further proceedings concerning liability shall be as provided below and as provided by future Order of the Court.
98

b. Plaintiffs and Defendant may continue to take discovery concerning the merits of this case, and concerning the District's implementation of the First and Second Interim Orders. Neither the entry nor implementation of this Order shall in any way limit such discovery; provided, that such discovery shall be suspended for 90 days. Thereafter, the District may present appropriate motions for protective ordeis concerning the timing of discovery if it believes that the burden of responding at the time requested would impede the ability of the District to implement this Order.
c. In the Fall of 1992, the parties and the Court will address the scope and timing of a systemwide liability proceeding; provided, that if Plaintiffs believe there are substantial deficiencies in the District's implementation of and compliance with this Order which' warrant earlier consideration of this matter. Plaintiffs may so petition the Court
d. None of the foregoing provisions shall preclude the scheduling, at any time by agreement or on motion, of any liability proceeding which is needed to effectuate a provision of this Order.
e. The scheduling or pendency of a liability proceeding shall not relieve the District of any of its obligations under this Order.

DATED: A?Rl¿
APPROVED:

. 1991.

Robert C. Howard Attorney for Plaintiffs

Anthony G. Sèarïano Attorney for Defendant

99

Ed Wells, Co-Chair' People Who Care

Dr. Maurice'Sullivan Superintendent
Dr. Terry Hodges President, Rocxford Board of Education, School District #2OS

[pb\crockfoid\l4ExpOrdAMC

100

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WESTERN DIVISION

PEOPLE WHO CARE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Civil Action No. 89 C 20168

v.
ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHOOL DISTRICT #205,

Judge Stanley J. Roszkowski Magistrate P. Michael Mahoney

Defendant.

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT RSD TO ADOPT FY 99 CRO FUND 12 AND COPS LEVIES, EXTENDING THE STATE LAW DEADLINE
FOR LEVY ADOPTION

April 15, 1999

Robert C. Howard Kathleen Mangold-Spoto Joan Matlack FUTTERMAN & HOWARD, CHTD. 122 S. Michigan Ave. Suite 1850 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 427-3600
Of Counsel:
Venita Hervey FUTTERMAN & HOWARD, CHTD. P.O. Box 157 Rockford, IL 61105 (815) 969-8100

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

1

I. SUMMARY OF FY 99 REVENUE PROCEEDINGS

3

A. The Revenue Hearing and Order to Levy

3

B. Board Actions in Response to the October 28 and November 6, 1998

Orders

6

C. Plaintiffs' Rule 70 and Clarification Motions

7

II. BRIEF HISTORY OF CRO FUNDING ORDERS, STIPULATIONS AND

SEVENTH CIRCUIT HOLDINGS

10

A. CRO Provisions

11

B. RSD's Repeated Opportunities to Present Revenue Plans for CRO

Operating and Capital Expenditures

12

C. FY 97 Funding Orders

13

D. FY 98 Funding Orders

15

E. FY 99 Budget Orders

17

F. The District's Education Fund (and Other Regular Operating Funds)

Continue to be Unavailable to Fund Any Portion of CRO Costs

18

III. APRIL 1999 UNSUCCESSFUL REFERENDUM

20

IV. ADOPTION OF A LEVY FOR FY 99 IS STILL PRACTICABLE UNDER

STATE LAW AND THE LOCAL TAX ADMINISTRATION PROCESS

22

A. State Law Levy Deadline

22

B. The Notice of Budget Amendment Requirement

24

C. Local Tax Administration Process

25

D. The State Court Tax Objection Litigation is No Impediment to the

Requested Order

26

V. CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO ADOPT FY 99 CRO FUND 12 AND

COPS LEVIES

27

A. How RSD Has Handled FY 99 CRO Costs

29

B. RSD's TAW Borrowing

29

C. Cash Flow Funding Consequences in FY 2000

31

D. Variations Depending Upon FY 2000 CRO Funding

34

E. Consequences if CRO Tort Levies Restored for FY 2000 and

Thereafter

35

F. Compliance with RSD's 1996 Financial Plan

36

G. Access to Capital Markets for Long-term Borrowing

37

H. State Takeover Consequences

37

I. Neither RSD Nor the Board of Education Has Any Financial Plan to

Address these Consequences

38

VI. THE ORDER(S) WHICH THE COURT SHOULD ADOPT

40

A. A Jenkins Order Extending the December 29, 1998 State Law Deadline

for Adoption of Such Levies

40

B. A Non-Jenkins Order Directing RSD to Adopt FY 99 CRO Levies, to

Effectuate the October 28 and November 6, 1998 Orders

40

C. A Non-Jenkins Order Directing RSD to Comply with State Law Budget

Amendment, and Related Notice and Public Hearing Provisions, in

Relation to the Levy to be Adopted

41

D. An Order Establishing a 48-Hour Deadline Within which RSD Must

Adopt the Levies Required by (B)

41

VII. THE REQUESTED ORDER IS PROPER FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS,

AMONG OTHERS

41

A. All Other Options for Adopting the Levies Completely Within State Law

have been Exhausted

42

B. The Jenkins Order Represents the Least Intrusive Set of Steps Available

to the Court to Accomplish an FY 99 CRO Levy

42

C. Rather than Increasing the Amount of Funding Permitted by State Law,

it Restores Available Funding of Which the Board Deprived Itself by its

Defiance of the October 28 and November 6, 1998 Orders Directing

Adoption of FY 99 CRO Levies

43

INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs hereby move for an order extending by four months the state law time limit
for adoption of FY 99 CRO Fund 12 and COPS tort immunity tax levies, and an order directing Defendant RSD to adopt those levies by a specific deadline date.
Of these two requests, only the first involves an exercise of "Jenkins" authority to subordinate a state law provision. Once the time limit is extended, the order to levy involves an action permitted by state law.
A wide range of information and issues is relevant to the Court's consideration of this Motion. It is organized in the following sections:
I. Summary of FY 99 revenue status proceedings through December 1998. II. Brief history of relevant CRO funding orders and stipulations, and Seventh
Circuit orders re same, including Seventh Circuit prospective approval of the use of Jenkins authority in this case if and when necessary.' III. The April 1999 Referendum. IV. Except for the state law time limit for levy adoption, it is still permissible under state law and practicable in terms of the local tax administration process for RSD to levy for FY 99. V. Consequences of failure to adopt FY 99 CRO levies.
'"PWC 1997" refers to the Seventh Circuit's April 1997 opinion, 111 F.3d 528. "PWC 1999" refers to the Seventh Circuit's opinion issued March 19, 1999.
For the convenience of the Court we have attempted to provide the District Court docket numbers ("D ") for court orders and pleadings cited herein.
1

VI. The order(s) which the Court should adopt, A. A Jenkins order extending the December 29, 1998 state law deadline for adoption of FY 99 CRO levies. B. A non-Jenkins order directing RSD to adopt FY 99 CRO levies, to effectuate the October 28 and November 6, 1998 Orders. (D3145, D3154.) C. A non-Jenkins order directing RSD to comply with state law budget amendment, and related notice and public hearing provisions, in relation to the levy addressed in (B). D. An order establishing a 48-hour deadline within which RSD must adopt the levies required by (B).
VII. The requested order is proper for the following reasons, among others: A. All other options for adopting the levies completely within state law have been exhausted. B. It represents the least intrusive set of steps available to the Court to accomplish an FY 99 CRO levy. The exercise of Jenkins authority is minimal ~ addressing only timelines for action, not the content of action to adopt the levies. C. Rather than increasing the amount of funding permitting by state law, it restores available funding of which the Board deprived itself by its defiance of the October 28 and November 6, 1998 Orders directing adoption of FY 99 CRO levies.

I. SUMMARY OF FY 99 REVENUE PROCEEDINGS A. The Revenue Hearing and Order to Levy.
1. The August 13, 1998 Order adopted the FY 99 CRO Fund 12 expenditure plan and directed RSD to present a revenue plan by September 1, 1998. (D3O92.)
2. On September 1, 1998 RSD filed a "Statement" that because of the pending state court tax objection litigation, the Board would not adopt tort immunity levies to fund the CRO. RSD proposed no other FY 99 CRO funding source and concluded by stating that "RSD has been unable to develop a practicable funding plan to pay for the remedies ordered by this Court." (D3110, Statement p.7; D3129, 9/17/98 Stipulation §3.4.2.)
3. On September 17, 1998 the parties submitted "Plaintiffs' and Defendant's Stipulations Related to FY 99 CRO Revenue Generation," stating, among other things:
a. The Tort Immunity Fund is the only source of funds reasonably or practically available to the District to pay all or any significant portion of the FY 99 CRO Fund 12 and COPS expenditures. (D3129, 9/17/98 Stipulation §3.1.)
b. Any attempt to fund any portion of the FY 99 unfunded CRO costs from the Education Fund or from any of the other regular operating funds would be unrealistic and impracticable. (IçL, §3.2.)
c. The Board has been unable to develop an alternative plan to simultaneously fund the FY 99 CRO expenditure plan and the regular operations of the school system. (Id.. §3.4.)

d. Judge Rapp's state circuit court Opinion ("that the use of the Ton Immunity Fund to satisfy the desegregation remedies [in the PWC case] is not allowable under Illinois law") is not a final judgment order, and Judge Rapp entered no injunction prohibiting RSD from levying under the Tort Immunity Act. (Id.. §4.4.)
e. The Rockford Board of Education will not voluntarily use the Tort Immunity levy to generate revenue for the FY 99 CRO expenditure plan or COPS debt service payment. (Id, §5.)
f. In the absence of some form of levy to raise revenues to pay for the FY 99 CRO expenditure plan as ordered by the Court, RSD would most likely be incapable of sustaining its operations through the second half of FY 99. In the best case scenario, RSD would become incapable of sustaining its operations some time during the Fall of 1999. (Id, §5.3.)
4. In the October 28, 1998 Order the Court made final determinations concerning FY 99 CRO expenditure amounts and necessary revenue amounts:
a. The FY 99 Fund 12 expenditure plan total is $21,856 million. (Id p.3.) b. Unfunded FY 99 COPS debt service payments total $3,238 million. (Id.
at 4.) c. Total unfunded CRO operating and COPS expenditures total $25,094
million. (Id. at 4.) d. The only reasonable and practicable potential sources for FY 99 funding
are the FY 98 carryover and the Tort Immunity Act. (Id at 8.)

e. FY 98 unspent funds of $2,280 million may be used as a revenue credit
against FY 99 Fund 12 revenue needs. (Id at 11.)
f. After funding $2,279,980 of the FY 99 expenditure plan with carryover
FY 98 funds, $19,576,224 of the FY 99 expenditure plan and $3,238,000
of the FY 99 COPS service payments remain unfunded. The court
affirmed its earlier holding that Illinois law allows funding of these
amounts by levy entered under § 9-107 of the Tort Immunity Act. The
court ordered the District to fund the remaining unfunded FY 99
expenditures and COPS service payments by entering a levy under the
Tort Immunity Act. (¡d at 11-12.)
g. Accordingly the Court directed the Rockford School District (and each
of the seven Board members in his or her official capacity)
"to take whatever actions are necessary to accomplish the following:
(1) Proper amendment of the FY 99 District budget, as provided in Section 17-1 of the Illinois School Code, if an FY 99 budget has been adopted that does not include sufficient levies pursuant to the Illinois Tort Immunity Act to fund the unfunded portions of the FY 99 CRO expenditure plan and COPS service payments; and
(2) Adoption of levies pursuant to the Illinois Tort Immunity Act in amounts sufficient to fund the unfunded portions of (1) the FY 99 CRO expenditure plan, and (2) the FY 99 COPS service payments;
on or before Wednesday, December 2, 1998." (D3145)

5. The November 6, 1998 Order amended the unfunded FY 99 COPS debt service amount to $2,957 million. (D3154) Therefore unfunded CRO Fund 12 and COPS expenditure obligations total $22,533 million.
6. Although RSD appealed other aspects of the October 28 and November 6, 1998 Orders, it did not appeal the aspect of the Order expressly directing the Board to adopt Tort Immunity levies by a deadline date of December 2 to fund FY 99 CRO revenue needs. Those aspects of the Order are final and no longer appealable.
B. Board Actions in Response to the October 28 and November 6, 1998 Orders. 7. Subsequent to the October 28, 1998 Order, Defendant prepared a revised
tentative Amended Budget for FY 99 which contained the modifications directed in the October 28 and November 6 Orders. That tentative Amended Budget was made available for public inspection beginning on October 30, 1998. In addition, public notice of its availability for public inspection was published on October 30, 1998 along with public notice of the December 1, 1998 hearing on the tentative Amended Budget. (See Plaintiffs' December 7, 1998 Rule 70 Motion at ¶I6.)
8. On November 24, 1998 the Board adopted all FY 99 School District real estate tax levies other than CRO levies. This included:
a. adoption of Tort Immunity levies for purposes other than CRO expenditures.
b. adoption of non-Tort levies for CRO purposes (e.g., lease levy generating approximately $900,000 for the COPS debt service payment.)

9. On December 1, 1998 the Board held its public hearing on the Amended Budget. and held a special meeting to consider the actions directed by the October 28, 1998 Order. At that meeting the Board:
a. voted down by 4-3 the proposed amendment of the budget to include the levies ordered by the Court;
b. failed to adopt the Fund 12 and COPS levies required by the Court's October 28 and November 6, 1998 Orders.
C. Plaintiffs' Rule 70 and Clarification Motions. 10. Plaintiffs Filed December 7, 1998 Their "Petition to Enforce the CRO and
Related Orders by the Entry of Order Under Rule 70 and Otherwise to Effectuate the FY 99 CRO Funding Orders." That Motion requested, in substance, that the Superintendent be appointed to adopt the tax levy and other necessary actions in lieu of action by the sevenmember Board of Education.
11. Plaintiffs also filed December 7, 1998 a "clarification motion" requesting a further order specifying the dollar amounts RSD is obligated to levy for FY 99. That Motion noted RSD was contending that the October 28, 1998 Order was ambiguous in ordering the Board to adopt levies "sufficient to fund the unfunded portions" of the Fund 12 expenditure plan and the COPS debt service payment, and therefore permitted the Board discretion in determining what portions of the CRO obligations were "unfunded". (Clarification Motion, pp. 8-9)
12. In response to Plaintiffs' clarification motion, RSD contended that:

a. no portion of the FY 99 expenditure plan remained unfunded, because CRO expenditure obligations were being covered with funds borrowed through the issuance of tax anticipation warrants ("TAWs") secured by the District's Education Fund real estate tax levy.
b. RSD accordingly denied that either amendment of its FY 99 budget or adoption of FY 99 CRO Tort Immunity tax levies were necessary to be in compliance with the October 28, 1998 Order. (Id at p.5.)
13. The December 16, 1998 Order denied Plaintiffs' clarification motion because: a. RSD's contentions (summarized above) have no support in the record. b. The October 28 and November 6 Orders unambiguously found, as findings of fact, that the "unfunded portions" of the FY 99 expenditure plan and FY 99 COPS debt service payment are $19,576 million and $2,957 million, respectively. c. Neither the October 28 Order nor the November 6 Order allowed any possibility for RSD to unilaterally determine what amounts of the FY 99 expenditure plan and COPS debt service payment remain "unfunded". RSD's contentions to the contrary "directly contradict ~ and are precluded by -– this Court's findings of fact in the October 28 and November 6 Orders and RSD's statements in the Stipulation" and in other documents. d. If RSD sought to redefine or recalculate those unfunded portions, or to propose another funding source as an alternative to the Tort Immunity
8

Act, RSD should have moved to alter or amend the October 28 and
November 6, 1998 Orders.
e. Those Orders are clear and unambiguous as written. Accordingly
Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of a Clarification Order is unnecessary, and
therefore denied. (D3210)
14. RSD has not filed, since the December 16, 1998 Order, any motion to alter or
amend the October 28 and November 6, 1998 Orders.
15. On December 17, 1998 the Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for a Rule 70
appointment, stating the following reasons:
It should come as no surprise that a school district that actively discriminated against minority students for over 25 years would disobey a direct federal court order, but the court is nonetheless surprised and disheartened that the Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205, has failed to implement this court's financing orders of October 28, 1998 and November 26, 1998.
When this court entered the Comprehensive Remedial Order in 1996, it provided a road map to the Board of Education for removing the vestiges of past discrimination and regaining local control of school affairs. "Complete success" in that endeavor, the court noted at the time, "is ultimately up to the community. If this community does not support the road map set down in this order, it risks losing its economic and social identity." Those risks now face both the school system and the entire city of Rockford.
Unitary status can only be obtained with the cooperation of the Board of Education, which has resisted this court's financing orders for each of the last three fiscal years. A court order displacing the Board's authority would neither dissipate that resistance nor avert resistance in the future. The motion for a Rule 70 appointment is denied.
(D3212)

II. BRIEF HISTORY OF CRO FUNDING ORDERS, STIPULATIONS AND SEVENTH CIRCUIT HOLDINGS 16. The following brief review of CRO funding orders and stipulations clearly
establishes several important propositions: a. RSD has a duty to fund the CRO fully and promptly. Withholding of sufficient funding for CRO implementation is denial to the Plaintiff Class of the relief to which it is entitled. b. Likewise, this Court is under an obligation or duty to see that the CRO is fully funded and that the funding method supports long-term desegregation. c. The District should be given, and consistently has been, an opportunity to present a revenue plan when there is a CRO operating or capital expenditure to be funded. d. Funding schemes are unacceptable that would fund the CRO partially, or that are not realistic and practicable. e. Because of persistent annual and accumulated deficits in its regular operating funds, RSD cannot fund any portion of CRO costs from its regular operating funds. f. The Tort Immunity Act levies are the only funding source available to RSD for CRO costs at this time. g. The state court tax objection litigation does not prevent RSD from adopting Tort Immunity levies for the CRO, until and unless the Illinois
10

Supreme Court holds that the Tort Immunity Act may not be used for

that purpose,

h. Per the Seventh Circuit, district court orders directing RSD to adopt Tort

levies for CRO funding purposes are proper. (Indeed, all aspects of this

Court's administration of CRO funding are proper.)

i. The district court should make all reasonable efforts to fund the CRO

within the provisions of state law, and for that purpose it is proper to

enter orders cutting off foot-dragging or resistance by the School Board,

j.

However, the Seventh Circuit has made clear that, if necessary to fund

the CRO, the district court may order RSD to levy taxes despite state law

limitations on RSD's authority.

A. CRO Provisions. 17. CRO 210-214 and the companion August 8, 1996 reconsideration Order (at p. 19)
made clear that the District is responsible for fully funding all CRO remedies. 18. The CRO contemplated that CRO remedies would be funded primarily from Tort
Immunity levies because "the RSD does not have surplus on-hand revenues to conduct meaningful remedial programs." (CRO 211.)
19. However, the CRO placed a cap on Tort levies for Fund 12 purposes beginning at $25 million and increasing to $29.5 million over four years. This cap was placed on the use of Tort levies, not on total CRO expenditures, because the CRO perceived a need to wean the District away from "dependence on outside sources of funding." (8/7/96 Order at 19.)

11

20. On appeal, PWC 1997 affirmed these provisions, except the Seventh Circuit reversed the cap on Tort use, particularly in view of the limitations placed on real estate tax levies by Illinois law (citing the tax cap statute, among others). ( I l l F.3d at 538.)
B. RSD's Repeated Opportunities to Present Revenue Plans for CRO Operating and Capital Expenditures. 21. The CRO (August 8, 1996 reconsideration Order at 19) provided that the District
must develop in the first instance the necessary funding mechanisms for the CRO, and that the funding mechanisms are then submitted to the Court for approval and, if necessary, for any appropriate orders.
22. Since entry of the CRO the district court has always afforded RSD the first opportunity to present a revenue plan when any operating or capital expenditure obligation has been established.
23. On August 15 and September 25, 1996, the Court allowed and then ordered RSD to file a CRO capital funding plan. After receiving that plan and holding a hearing, the Court's December 6, 1996 Order determined that certificates of participation (or COPS) were a practicable method of funding the CRO capital remedies.
24. RSD has been given the opportunity to present Fund 12 revenue plans in each fiscal year:
a. September 16, 1996, RSD "alternative budget" for FY 97. (Proposed using Tort levies to generate approximately $18 million of $23.5 million needed; balance to come from unspecified budget cuts or new revenue in the Education Fund.) (D2377)
12

b. September 25, 1997, RSD revenue plan for FY 98. (Stated Ton levies the only available CRO funding source, because funding the CRO from the Education Fund would require massive and disruptive budget cuts in regular education programs.) (D278l)
c. September 1, 1998, RSD Statement concerning CRO revenue-generation for FY 99. ("RSD has no practicable funding plan to pay for the remedies.") (D3110)
C. FY 97 Funding Orders. 25. The district court's FY 97 funding orders specifically held that the CRO must
be fully funded with reasonable and practicable revenue sources and that it was a violation of Plaintiffs' rights (denial of the remedy) for RSD to leave portions of the remedy unfunded.
a. September 18, 1996 Order. (Required Tort levy in the amount of 100% of the FY 97 expenditure plan. RSD's proposal to use the Education Fund for a portion of CRO costs "is unrealistic and impracticable,... given the District's continued deficit in the Education Fund.... The District has a responsibility to provide the harmed children in this School District with a remedy that is fully, and not partially, funded.") (D2387)
b. November 6, 1996 stay denial Order at pages 8-9: "The court wishes to emphasize that the District cannot choose which portions of the CRO it finds acceptable, fund these, and leave the rest to be funded when and if it becomes convenient. School desegregation orders require immediate implementation. The court is obligated to ensure that all steps needed for implementation are undertaken, including funding. Liddell v. Board of Education. 567 F. Supp. 1037, 1051-52 (E.D. Mo.
13

1983); Jenkins I. 807 F.2d 686 (8th Cir. 1986); Edmonds v. Compaenie Generale Transatlantiaue. 443 U.S. 256 (1979). Withholding of sufficient funding for CRO implementation is denial to the Plaintiff class of the relief of which it is entitled." (D2435) c. December 6, 1996 Order. (Directed RSD to issue COPS to fund school construction required by the CRO.) d. December 16, 1996 Order. (Directed RSD to adopt Fund 12 and COPS levies for FY 98 after the Board failed to do so.) 26. RSD appealed all FY 97 funding orders and some aspects of the Finance section of the CRO. The Seventh Circuit in PWC 1997 affirmed all financial aspects of the CRO and all FY 97 funding orders (except for the $25-million cap on use of Tort to fund the CRO). ( I l l F.3d at 540.) The Court held: a. Court orders directing the Board to levy tort for the CRO are proper because "the district court was justified in ordering the School District to use a method of financing the building program that would avoid displacing the state's taxing authority into the federal court system." b. RSD is obligated to pay for the CRO, so Seventh Circuit doesn't see what RSD has to gain by opposing an available source of funding. c. The District court should be reluctant to be put in the position of exercising Jenkins authority by the school district's "foot dragging". d. However, ultimately the district court has the power if necessary to order the CRO funded notwithstanding contrary provisions of state law. "... If it found itself stymied by state law the federal district court could as a
14

last resort command the state to come up with the money. Missouri v.
Jenkins. 495 U.S. 33, 57, 110 S.Ct. 1651, 1666, 109 L.Ed.2d 31 (1990);
In re Application of County Collector, supra. 96 F.3d at 904; United
States v. Board of Education. 11 F.3d 668, 673-74 (7th Cir. 1993)."
e. "The district court has the power, as we have just noted, though it is a
power to be exercised sparingly, to require the state to come up with the
money to fund a valid federal decree, whatever state law may provide."2
D. FY 98 Funding Orders.
27. In the December 8,1997 Order, relying on RSD's 9/25/97 revenue plan (D278l),
the Court found that "RSD has consistently suffered significant deficits in its general operating
2In re Application of County Collector, cited by PWC 1997. is the Seventh Circuit decision sending the tax protest litigation to state court. That decision also made clear that the district court in PWC has Jenkins authority to subordinate state law if necessary:
While we can appreciate the district court's diligent efforts to remedy the vestiges of discrimination in the Rockford school system, [we do not have jurisdiction over the tax objections arising from the Second Interim Order.] We note, however, that the district court has retained jurisdiction over the PWC case and has entered the Comprehensive Remedial Order, which contains its own remedial measures and funding provisions. The district court has expressed its intention to adhere to Supreme Court precedent by formulating an order which both seeks to remedy the unconstitutional conditions and also endeavors to avoid unnecessary interference with the affairs of state and local authorities. See Missouri v. Jenkins. 115 S.Ct. 2038 (1995). The Supreme Court has found that, in certain circumstances, federal courts may order school districts to levy taxes, despite state law limitations on their authority, where the taxes are necessary to remedy constitutional violations. See Missouri v. Jenkins. 495 U.S. 33, 57 (1990). Federal law is supreme, and where a particular remedy is required to vindicate constitutional rights, a state cannot prevent a local government from implementing that remedy. Id at 58. As of today, the district court has not ventured down this path, and we do not presume to guide it in this respect.
15

fund,... and clearly the RSD cannot reasonably fund the FY 98 CRO expenditure plan through its general operating fund." The Court made a parallel finding regarding the FY 98 COPS debt service levy. The Order reiterated that RSD had a duty to fully fund the remedies and that Tort levies were available for that purpose. The Order said the District should not have to be continuously spoon-fed by the Court, and that RSD should require decreasing court involvement rather than increasing involvement and continuous direction.
28. After the Board failed in two subsequent meetings to adopt the CRO Tort levies, the December 18, 1997 Order approved use of the Tort Fund on the merits (adopting Judge Reinhard's Opinion, 918 F.Supp. 235), and determined the Tort Fund can be used (notwithstanding the Rapp Opinion) until the Illinois Supreme Court rules otherwise. The Order also:
a. Determined that without the Tort levy the District would shut down some time between January and October 1998.
b. Found "that no Board Member has a credible plan to fund the CRO in the schools."
c. Directed the Board, and the individual members in their official capacities, to adopt the FY 98 CRO Fund 12 and COPS Tort levies. (D2862)
29. The Board complied with that December 18 Order, and did not appeal it. However, three Board members (Biondo, Delugas and Strommer) moved to intervene to challenge the Order and appealed the denial of that intervention.
30. The Court of Appeals rejected that attempted intervention in PWC 1999. stating:
16

"The Magistrate Judge ordered the Board to approve the levy and gave the members until a specific date to carry out their duty in this regard, that is to vote for the lew. All the members then voted for it.
... The Board did not appeal the order that it pay for compliance with the remedial decree out of the [tort] immunity fund." (Slip op. 3/19/99 at 8, 11.)
Thus, it was the Board's duty to vote for the levy in response to the Court Order, and the
propriety of the Order (and essentially identical subsequent orders) is beyond challenge because
the Board did not appeal the Order.
E. FY 99 Budget Orders.
31. The FY 99 Orders have been described in Part I above. Although the Board
appealed various aspects of the October 28, 1998 Order, it did not appeal the portion directing
the Board to adopt FY 99 CRO Fund 12 and COPS Tort Immunity levies. Accordingly that
portion of the Order is final and unchallenged.
32. The Court of Appeals was informed during the appellate process of that Order
— and the Board's failure to comply with it ~ and held that the district court's conduct of the
budget and funding matters in this case in the past three years is both procedurally and
substantively proper. (PWC 1999. slip op. at 4-8.)
33. The Court of Appeals made clear this Court has acted properly, and has broad
discretion, in addressing CRO funding:
"... [N]one of the Board's challenges to the Magistrate Judge's budget rulings has merit. The Board exaggerates the practical scope of judicial review of such rulings.... We can decide which provisions of the remedial decree are valid and which invalid, but when it comes to the design of specific programs for achieving the objectives of the valid provisions, and to the funding for
17

those programs, we have no practical alternative to deferrim broadly to the judgment of the district court... The required determinations are quintessential^ judgmental, and there is little that an appellate court can do to improve them, except in egregious cases, such as Missouri v. Jenkins, supra, which this one is not." (Slip op. at 5.)3
F. The District's Education Fund (and Other Regular Operating Funds) Continue to be Unavailable to Fund Any Portion of CRO Costs.
34. The following update information is from the February and April 1999
depositions of RSD's Superintendent Epps and Chief Financial Officer Hoffman, which are
being submitted to the Court along with this Motion.
3In between PWC 1997 and PWC 1999. the Court of Appeals addressed these issues one other time, in affirming dismissal of the claims against the State of Illinois. RBE v. ISBE. 150 F.3d 686, 688 (7th Cir. July 1998). The court stated:
"Having the decree run against another organ of state government will give [PWC] nothing more - at least so far as can be determined at this time. It is always possible that the decree will prove inadequate if it runs only against the local school board. Maybe the board, several of whose efforts to fund those portions of the decree that were not contested or have been upheld have foundered, will be unable to comply with the financial obligations imposed by the decree. Maybe it will turn defiant. Maybe the state will dissolve it. Who knows? But at present these dire possibilities are entirely speculative. Should they ever loom as real threats to PWC's ability to obtain the complete relief to which the law entitles it, it can seek supplementary relief in the desegregation suit."
Indeed, in FY 99 the Board progressed from "foot dragging" to "defiant" by refusing to comply with the October 28, 1998 Order and making necessary this exercise of Jenkins authority.
18

35. RSD has a history of chronic deficits in its Education Fund and other regular operating funds.4 This pattern is independent of the CRO, which has been fully funded and does not run a deficit. The District's current cumulative (multi-year) regular operating deficit is approximately $38 million.
36. In order to access capital markets for issuance of the COPS in December 1996, RSD was required to adopt a 3-5 year Financial Plan addressing first the elimination of its annual operating deficit, and subsequently the elimination of its accrued operating deficit. (12/6/96 Order.) (D248O)
37. RSD has adopted budget reductions and pursued additional revenues for FY 98 and FY 99, in an effort to successfully carry out the December 1996 Financial Plan. (See generally, the depositions of CFO Hoffman and Supt. Epps February and April 1999.)
a. RSD reduced its operating deficit in FY 97 and FY 98. b. RSD even achieved a balanced budget for FY 98, due to some non-
repetitive successes in deficit reduction efforts. c. RSD still faces substantial and unresolved deficit reduction needs for FY
2000 and thereafter in the range of $8 million to $12 million, which staff
"RSD's "regular operating funds" are as follows: Education Fund Grant Fund Food Service Tort Immunity (Fund 11) Operations and Maintenance Transportation IMRF/FICA
February 26, 1999 deposition of RSD's CFO Hoffman, pp. 28-29. 19

has recommended be addressed through three annual deficit reduction increments of $4 million each in FY 2000 through FY 2002. d. RSD staff presented potential reductions of $4.3 million to the Board of Education in February/March 1999. Of that amount the Board adopted only about $800,000 in reductions. 38. The Superintendent and CFO emphatically confirm the court orders and stipulations determining that the regular operating funds are not reasonably or practicably available to RSD as a funding source for all — or any portion — of CRO Fund 12 or COPS costs. 39. The Superintendent and CFO also emphatically confirm that, given the failure of the April 1999 referendum discussed below, Tort Immunity levies are the only available method for funding the CRO in FY 99, FY 2000, and subsequent years. (Epps 60-61, 63-64.)
III. APRIL 1999 UNSUCCESSFUL REFERENDUM 40. To the extent that submitting a tax-increase referendum to the electorate may be
considered a prerequisite to issuance of a Jenkins order, that prerequisite has just been fulfilled in the Rockford School District.
41. After defying the Court's October 28, 1998 Order directing CRO levies to be adopted for FY 99, the Rockford Board of Education followed a two-prong strategy regarding CRO funding:
a. Pursuit of its appeals of the FY 98 and FY 99 CRO budgets, in an effort to secure a significant reduction by the appellate court of the CRO
20

annual expenditure level. This prong of the strategy failed in the PWC 1999 opinion. b. Pursuing a referendum to cover the remaining CRO costs for a period of three years. 42. In January 1999, the Board of Education acted to put on the ballot for the April 13, 1999 election a referendum to increase the Education Fund tax rate by $O.64/$IOO EAV. Under Illinois law, had the referendum passed, RSD could have amended its FY 99 budget and adopted the 64-cent levy for FY 99, in time to be included in the extension and collection of 1998 real estate taxes collectable in 1999. 43. The referendum would have generated approximately $12 million, offsetting to that extent the Board's failure to generate the $22.5 million CRO revenue required by the October 28 and November 6, 1998 Orders. 44. While not formally earmarked for CRO use, the referendum was depicted by RSD and by individual Board members as being either to fund the CRO or to replace (in part) the revenue lost due to absence of a CRO Tort levy. 45. The referendum was supported by leadership groups in the Rockford business community (the Chamber of Commerce, the Council of 100, and the Rockford Area Association of Realtors) because, as stated by those groups: a. RSD has a critical need to replace the revenue lost by the Board's nonadoption of FY 99 CRO Tort levies. The cuts in educational programs that will be required in the absence of these revenues will severely damage both the school system and the city as a whole.
21

b. The absence of that revenue places the District in a fiscally unmanageable deficit posture which creates the probability of authority over the School District being lost to either the State of Illinois or the PWC federal court. (See, e.g., Chamber of Commerce and Council of 100 public statement, Attachment 1; Epps deposition 86-87.)
46. Board Members issued public statements supporting the referendum for similar reasons. (See, e.g., public statement of RSD Board finance chair Biondo, Rock River Times, 3/31/99, Attachment 2.)
47. The referendum was defeated by the electorate on April 13, 1999. 48. Accordingly, the dire financial and educational circumstances forecast by referendum proponents, were the referendum to fail, have indeed come to pass. Plaintiffs urge that this warrants entering the supplemental remedial funding order hereby requested.
IV. ADOPTION OF A LEVY FOR FY 99 IS STILL PRACTICABLE UNDER STATE LAW AND THE LOCAL TAX ADMINISTRATION PROCESS
A. State Law Levy Deadline. 49. As previously noted the Board has the authority to levy, without rate limit, taxes
under the Tort Immunity Act to fund the CRO. (See ¶¶ 3-4, above.) 50. Real estate taxes in Illinois are levied on a calendar year basis, with the levy for
one year being billed and collected in the next year in two installments (roughly, June and September).
22

51. A school district levy must be adopted and certified to the County Clerk prior to the last Tuesday in December. 105 ILCS 5/17-11. Under certain circumstances a district may amend a levy or adopt a new levy after that deadline date:
a. If a referendum is passed after the deadline date and before tax bills are issued. 105 ILCS 5/17-3.
b. When a district is required to levy a minimum rate for state aide purposes, and has done so, but subsequently EAV multiplier calculations caused the District's actual rate to be lower than required, the District may amend its levy back to the required minimum. 105 ILCS 5/17-11.1.
52. If the December deadline is extended by this Court to (for example) May 10, 1999, RSD would then have the authority under existing state law to adopt the CRO Tort levies which it failed to adopt in December 1998.
53. The Illinois tax cap statute also does not prevent the adoption in April 1999 of the CRO tax levies required by the October 28 and November 6, 1998 Orders. (Property Tax Extension Limitation Law, 35 ILCS 200/18-185.) If the December 1998 levy deadline is extended, then the FY 99 CRO levy requested by this Motion would be part of the District's calendar 1998 levies. The total of the "regular" 1998 levies adopted by the District in November 1998, plus the CRO Fund 12 and COPS levies of $22.5 million not adopted in December 1998, is within the maximum levy and extension amounts which the tax cap legislation authorized RSD to levy and extend for 1998.5
5The Court is also advised that the tax cap statute does not present an obstacle to adoption of CRO Tort levies later this year for FY 2000 CRO costs. 35 ILCS 200/18-185, in defining "limiting rate" makes clear that if a district reduces its total tax extension in a particular year,
23

B. The Notice of Budget Amendment Requirement. 54. As discussed in the October 28 Order (p.7, fact findings 25-29), RSD's budget
must be amended to include a CRO Tort levy before the levy may be entered. (D3145) The steps necessary for amendment require at least 30 days. (See 105 ILCS 5/17-1, and statement of Robert Ellch in the 9/17/98 revenue hearing transcript at pp. 30-31.)
55. RSD initially fulfilled these requirements in response to the October 28 Order by issuing a Notice of Budget Amendment and holding a public hearing on such amendment on December 1, 1998. Arguably this initial notice and public hearing satisfies the requirements of 105 ILCS 5/17-1 with respect to adoption of the identical budget amendment and levy at a later time during the same fiscal year.
56. An alternative method of fulfilling that requirement consistent with Illinois Supreme Court case law is for RSD to issue the notice, hold the hearing, and adopt the budget amendment subsequent to adopting the levy in question. Stanfield v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company. 121 N.E.2d 748, 751 (1954).
57. Accordingly, the Court should address this public notice and budget amendment process by a non-Jenkins order directing RSD to go through the notice, hearing and budget
its extension base for the next year is the highest of the three preceding annual extension amounts. In other words, if RSD's extension were reduced for calendar 1998, then in 1999 its extension base for tax cap purposes is the highest of the extensions in 1996 through 1998.
A contrary implication was presented to the Court in the September 17, 1998 revenue hearing. In reliance on that information, the Court included the following incorrect sentence in the October 28, 1998 Order at page 11: "Because of those [tax cap] limits, a 10% reduction in the FY 99 levy could only be partially recaptured in an FY 00 levy, if necessary."
The interpretation of the tax cap statute set forth in this footnote is concurred in by RSD counsel Mr. Lester and by Mr. Ellch.
24

amendment process subsequent to adopting the FY 99 CRO Tort levies requested by this Motion.
C. Local Tax Administration Process. 58. After RSD adopted its regular 1998 levies, additional steps in the local tax
administration process include: a. Determination of RSD's equalized assessed violation ("EAV") for 1998 by the County Assessor. b. Determination of RSD's 1998 tax rate, by dividing RSD's 1998 total levy amount by RSD's 1998 EAV. (In performing this step the County Clerk verifies that RSD has not exceeded in each of its funds the tax rates allowable under state law.) c. Extension of the 1998 tax rate against the EAV of each taxpayer within RSD's boundaries, resulting in a tax bill for the amount payable by that taxpayer. From the time taxing rates for all taxing bodies are finally determined and "extended", preparation of tax bills takes about two weeks. Tax bills are issued with a first and second installment of 50% each. d. The first installment is due 30 days after the tax bill is issued, but under state law the first installment may not be due prior to June 1, 1999. Accordingly there is no practical reason for tax bills to be issued prior to May 1, 1999.
25

59. The County Clerk of Winnebago County contemplates for 1998 taxes payable in 1999:
a. Making tax extensions some time during the second half of April. b. Issuing tax bills some time during the first half of May. 60. The County Clerk, while the referendum was pending, advised RSD that if the referendum passed he would provide time for RSD to amend its budget and adopt the FY 99 levy authorized by the referendum. 61. For all the foregoing reasons, there is ample time for the Court to enter an Order as requested by this Motion, enabling and directing RSD to adopt FY 99 CRO Tort levies, in sufficient time for those levies to be incorporated by the County Clerk into the extension of 1998 taxes and the issuance of 1998 tax bills payable in June and September 1999.
D. The State Court Tax Objection Litigation is No Impediment to the Requested Order 62. As noted above, this Court's December 18, 1997 Order determined that
(notwithstanding the Opinions by State Circuit Judge Rapp) RSD may continue to adopt tort levies to fund the CRO, until and unless the Illinois Supreme Court rules otherwise.
63. RSD had the opportunity to, but did not, appeal the December 18, 1997 Order. 64. As noted above in ¶3(d), RSD's September 17, 1998 revenue Stipulation for FY 99 confirms the availability of the Tort Immunity levy for FY 99 CRO funding, despite Judge Rapp's Opinions. 65. There has been no relevant change in the status of the state court tax objection litigation since the December 18, 1997 Order:
26

a. After the RSD Board refused to seek interlocutory appeal of Judge Rapp's Opinions, this Court directed Plaintiffs to intervene in the tax objection litigation to pursue such appeals.
b. The Illinois Appellate Court, Second District, initially denied the PWC Plaintiffs' petition for interlocutory appeal.
c. Subsequently on October 6, 1998 the Illinois Supreme Court denied the PWC Plaintiffs' petition for leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court, but entered a supervisory order directing the Appellate Court to allow the interlocutory appeal.
d. On November 6, 1998, the Appellate Court entered an order allowing interlocutory appeal of the Rapp opinions pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 308.
e. Briefing in the Illinois Appellate Court was completed on approximately February 5, 1999, but oral argument has not yet been scheduled and no decision has been rendered.
66. In summary, there has been no change in the status of the state court tax objection litigation since December 18, 1997 which would alter the proposition that RSD retains the authority under state law to adopt Tort Immunity Act levies to fund CRO costs.
V. CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO ADOPT FY 99 CRO FUND 12 AND COPS LEVIES The following facts concerning the financial and educational consequences of failure
to fund the CRO are drawn from the depositions of RSD Superintendent Epps and Chief
27

Financial Officer Hoffman, taken on February 26 and April 1, 1999. Those depositions are
being filed simultaneously with this Motion, accompanied by preliminary factual findings.
This section discusses CRO finances from the Court's perspective ~ that CRO costs for
a given fiscal year are fully funded through a tax levy adopted during that fiscal year. (If
needed, references to RSD's slightly different accounting system will be specified as such.)6
In this section, the Court must bear in mind the distinction between actions RSD will
be legally authorized to take at certain points in time, and the probability or practicability of
the financial markets allowing RSD to actually carry out those measures.
The Court must also bear in mind the distinction between the District's financial
condition as depicted in its financial statements, and the District's cash flow situation.
Obviously the two are related — deficits on the books lead to lack of cash — but in reckoning
the consequences of RSD's failure to fund the CRO for FY 99, there are distinct consequences
in terms of the financial statements and the cash flow situation.
6For this discussion, a brief review of terminology is necessary:
a. The schools operate on a fiscal year basis. FY 99 is July '98 through June '99. b. Tax levies are adopted on a calendar year basis. The levy adopted in 1998 is
collected in June and September 1999. (Hoffman 12) c. From the Court's perspective, CRO costs for a given fiscal year are funded by
the levy adopted during that year. Thus, the October 28, 1998 Order determined the FY 99 unfunded CRO expense and ordered a 1998 levy in that amount. d. The District's accounting perspective is the same with one exception: The District attributes tax revenue to the fiscal year in which it is collected. (Hoffman 12-13) Thus, the District attributes a 1998 levy half to FY 99 (the June 1999 payment), and half to FY 2000 (the September 1999 payment). (Hoffman 12-13) e. Illinois school districts frequently handle this delay in tax collections by borrowing against a levy once it is adopted. Such "tax anticipation warrants" or "TAWs" must be repaid immediately when the levied taxes are collected. (Hoffman 84-85, Epps 80)
28

A. How RSD Has Handled FY 99 CRO Costs. 67. As noted in ¶¶ 4-5, the FY 99 unfunded CRO Fund 12 and COPS expenditure
obligations total $22.5 million. (Hoffman 23-25) For purposes of this section only that aggregate total is relevant, and references to "FY 99 CRO levy" are to a levy for that amount.
68. RSD is making FY 99 CRO expenditures by borrowing the necessary monies from the Education Fund.
69. On RSD's books this is reflected as a deficit in the CRO funds. (Fund 12, operations, and Fund 35, COPS.) (Hoffman 25)
70. The CRO funds have an obligation to repay the amount that was borrowed from the Education Fund. (Epps 82.) (Hoffman 84-85, Epps 81-82)
B. RSD's TAW Borrowing. 71. RSD generated the cash to lend to the CRO funds by issuing TAWs in January
1999, secured by the 1998 Education Fund levy. Those TAWs (totalling $50 million) must be repaid from the June and September 1999 collections of that 1998 levy. (Hoffman 12-13, 84-85, Epps 80)
72. The CRO funds have no TAW borrowing capacity because they have no FY 99 revenue. (Hoffman 84) Even with a Tort levy, the tax objection litigation prevents borrowing on CRO Tort levies.
73. In simple terms, RSD has funded FY 99 CRO costs by short-term borrowing against FY 2000 Education Fund revenue. (Hoffman 72-73, 84)
74. RSD made no corresponding reductions in either FY 99 or FY 2000 Education Fund expenses ~ nor was it feasible to do so. Because RSD has been in a deficit reduction
29

mode for several years, virtually all reasonably available deficit reduction measures have already been adopted.
a. As RSD correctly stated in its FY 98 revenue plan filed September 25, 1997, "it is inconceivable that RSD could fund the [FY 98 CRO costs] out of its general operating funds without significantly reducing the delivery of educational services to all of its students, minority and majority."
b. This Court similarly determined at CRO 211 that funding the CRO remedies from RSD's existing education budget would be "a massive interference" in the core educational system and could possibly lead to violation of RSD contractual obligations.
c. Since the CRO is a set of supplemental remedies which is premised on the maintenance by RSD of an educationally and fiscally sound core education system, massive reductions in the core would destroy the effectiveness of the CRO. (Epps 40-41, 81.)
d. In any event, no significant reductions are possible for either FY 99 (which is virtually over), or for FY 2000 (for which the RIF date for reducing certified personnel has now passed).
75. Accordingly, RSD's expenditure obligations for FY 99 and FY 2000 include $22.5 million for which there is no possible source of genuine revenue.
a. Money borrowed short-term on TAWs is not genuine revenue because it must be promptly repaid in full. (Hoffman 84-85, Epps 80, 88-89.)
30

76. As a result of non-funding of the FY 99 CRO costs, the District's cumulative deficit will increase from approximately $32 million to $55 million.
77. For the foregoing reasons, the CRO for FY 99 has not been fully and promptly funded with realistic and practicable revenue sources, as required by prior court orders discussed in Part II, and therefore the Plaintiff Class is being denied the relief to which it is entitled.
C. Cash Flow Funding Consequences in FY 2000. 78. From a cash flow perspective, if the FY 99 CRO levies had been adopted: a. The CRO would have been fully funded FY 99. b. The $5O-million Education Fund TAWs would have been repaid by September 1999, and the District would then have had enough cash to operate until approximately January 2000. At that point it could have repeated the Education Fund TAW cycle in an economically sustainable manner (assuming ongoing CRO Tort levies). 79. However, the $22.5-million cash shortfall, caused by failure to fund FY 99 CRO
costs, will have the following immediate adverse consequences: a. The amount RSD must borrow FY 2000 for cash flow purposes will increase from $50 to approximately $75 million. (Hoffman 90-91, 99) b. RSD will run out of cash in approximately September 1999. To sustain itself from a cash perspective, RSD must issue TAWs in September ~ if the financial markets will accept them. (Hoffman 123, 132-134) This
31

means borrowing four to five months earlier than was necessary in FY 99. c. However, the maximum TAW amount RSD can issue September 1999 is only about $54 million of TAW borrowing. (Hoffman 91) (That amount is derived from a formula applied to the maximum Education Fund levy RSD is authorized to adopt for FY 2000.) Accordingly, even if RSD could successfully issue the September '99 TAWs, that will not get RSD through the FY 2000 fiscal year. The District will be about $21 million short and run out of money in approximately May 2000. (Hoffman 91) 80. To survive from a cash perspective in the Spring of FY 2000, the District would have to issue what are known as "second-year warrants." (Hoffman 83-84, 91-94) This means RSD would have to adopt its FY 2001 budget and tax levies before the end of FY 2000, and borrow in FY 2000 against FY 2001 levies collectable in the summer of 2001.7 (Hoffman 9294) 81. Because of these dubious financial arrangements, there will be increased interest rates on the entire TAW borrowing, in the amount of approximately one-half percentage point.
7Second-year warrants are regarded by both RSD staff and Illinois law as a financially irresponsible practice. Under the State Board of Education's financial supervision system, the issuance' of second-year warrants is a major criterion for placing a District on the financial watch list and for possible remedial action by the State.
32

82. Solely from the perspective of increased interest cost, this effort to fund operating expenses through increasing the District's TAW burden will cost about $2 million in FY 2000 alone (Epps 77-79):
a. That is the additional cost of borrowing more, borrowing it earlier, and paying a higher rate.
b. More important, this $2 million can only be paid from operating funds, not bond and interest levies. Accordingly it translates into a direct $2million cut in regular "core education" programs.
c. As noted above, this reduction in core education would directly undermine and impede the implementation and success of the supplemental CRO remedies. (Epps 40-41)
83. From the point of view of acceptance by the financial markets which must buy these TAWs, there is uncertainty whether RSD can issue the September 1999 TAWs and a high degree of risk that it will not be able to issue the May 2000 TAWs. (Epps 37, 64-65, 72; Hoffman 104, 133-134).
84. Of course the law of this case is that RSD will indeed shut down in September 1999. RSD so stipulated in the September 17, 1998 Stipulation, and the Court so found in the October 28, 1998 Order. (See ¶3 above.)
a. As pointed out in this Court's December 16, 1998 Order (¶I3 above), these stipulations and factual findings are final and binding because RSD did not move to alter or amend them.
D. Variations Depending Upon FY 2000 CRO Funding.
33

85. At this point there is a divergence in consequences depending on whether there is a CRO Tort levy adopted for FY 2000. In other words, is the absence of Tort funding for the CRO a one-time FY 99 event, or an ongoing condition?8
86. If there is no CRO Tort levy for FY 2000, the following consequences will ensue from a financial-statement perspective:
a. RSD would have approximately $25 million of unfunded CRO expenditure obligations (assuming in light of PWC 1999 that CRO costs remain about the same for FY 2000).
b. RSD's annual operating deficit for FY 2000 would be $30 million to $35 million ($25 million CRO plus $5-10 million regular operating funds deficit).
c. RSD's accumulated operating deficit would rise to about $85-90 million. 87. From a cash flow perspective, these financial circumstances are likely to be severe and terminal (Epps 64-72):
a. Supt. Epps testified in his deposition that if the District faced two successive years without CRO Tort levies, then from the perspective of RSD's independent auditors, RSD will cease to be "a going concern" in approximately May of 2000. (Epps 64-65)
8As noted earlier, Illinois law permits the restoration of CRO Tort levies for FY 2000. The tax cap statute has a three-year retrospective window, so that RSD's FY 2000 levy extensions can total as much as its levy for FY 98 (adopted in December 1997), plus a CPI increase of about 2%. 35 ILCS 200/18-185.
34

b. The Supt. testified that the auditors, in preparing the FY 99 audit for the year ended June 1999, look ahead 12 months in determining whether the District should receive an unqualified audit or whether there should be any "qualifications".
c. Because RSD would cease to be a "going concern" in about May 2000, the FY 99 audit would contain a qualification to that effect.
d. The absence of an unqualified audit statement, according to Supt. Epps, will make it quite improbable that the District will be able to issue TAWs even in September 1999, much less the second-year TAWs in May 2000.
88. In summary, the testimony of RSD's Superintendent and CFO essentially confirm RSD's September 1998 Stipulation. If there are no CRO Tort levies in either FY 99 or FY 2000, the District will most likely shut down in September 1999, and in any event not long thereafter. (Hoffman 134, Epps 72)
E. Consequences if CRO Tort Levies Restored for FY 2000 and Thereafter. 89. If the CRO is fully funded with a Tort levy for FY 2000 (assume $25 million),
the first installment of that levy will be collected before the end of the fiscal year in June 2000. 90. Accordingly, from a financial statement perspective, RSD's FY 2000 annual
operating deficit would consist only of the $5- to $lO-million regular operating funds deficit. The cumulative deficit would remain in the range of $60-65 million.
91. From a cash flow perspective, RSD would still be in extremely precarious condition. It would need about $75 million of cash financing for FY 2000, only $54 million
35

of which could be issued in September 1999. (Hoffman 90-91, 99) Second-year warrants in the amount of about $21 million would still have to be issued in about May of 2000.
92. While RSD has the legal authority to make these TAW issuances, there is no assurance at all that the market would accept these TAWs, and there is still a significant likelihood that RSD would shut down either in September 1999 or May 2000.
93. Even under the best of circumstances, stretching RSD's cash financing capability to its outer limits would leave the District in extremely precarious condition, relying on secondyear TAWs as its ongoing financial device. Furthermore, it would impose upon the Education Fund a cost of about $2 million a year in increased interest, as detailed above.
F. Compliance with RSD's 1996 Financial Plan. 94. To enable the issuance of COPS, the Court's December 1996 Order required
RSD to adopt a three- to five-year financial plan having two main objectives: a. Eliminate the annual deficit in the regular operating funds. b. Then, eliminate the accumulated multi-year deficit in the regular operating funds.
95. The District's December 1996 financial plan sought to achieve the first objective ~ balancing the annual budget ~ within a three- to five-year period, while adhering to the requirements of the CRO, state and federal legal requirements, and contractual obligations. (Epps 14)
96. If the CRO had continued to be fully funded, the District would have been generally accomplishing the objectives of its financial plan. (Epps 28) Prior to FY 99, the District was on schedule in eliminating the annual operating deficit. (Epps 24-25)
36

97. Leaving the CRO totally unfunded for even one year would completely destroy the District's progress in deficit-elimination and achieving fiscal health. The District would not recover from this impairment of its finances for many years into the future. (Epps 75-84)
G. Access to Capital Markets for Long-term Borrowing. 98. According to Supt. Epps, if the District completely abandons its 1996 financial
plan, and incurs even a one-time huge increase in its annual operating deficit and accumulated operating deficit, that would make it extremely unlikely that the capital markets would accept any effort by RSD to issue long-term debt. (Epps 82.)
99. RSD presently plans to issue long-term debt in the near future for life-safety repairs to buildings. The amount of that bond issuance has not yet been determined. (Epps 83.)
100. In the absence of the funding order hereby requested, it is unlikely that this bond issue could be made.
H. State Takeover Consequences. 101. According to Superintendent Epps, under present circumstances the District is
on the path to potential assumption of financial control by the State. (Epps 45) 102. Board finance chair Biondo has publicly acknowledged that non-passage of the
referendum will likely result in a state takeover of the District's finances. (See Attachment 2.) 103. The Rockford Area Chamber of Commerce and the Council of 100 have
similarly predicted that in the event of failure of the April 13 referendum, state oversight and takeover will be a certain consequence. (Attachment 1.)
37

I. Neither RSD Nor the Board of Education Has Any Financial Plan to Address these Consequences. 104. When given the opportunity to file an FY 99 CRO revenue plan on September
1, 1998, RSD stated that it "has been unable to develop a practicable plan to pay for the remedies ordered by this Court." (See ¶2 above.)
105. Since that time RSD has not presented to the Court any financial plan to address the circumstances created by its refusal to adopt FY 99 CRO Tort levies.
106. As noted in ¶4l above, the Board of Education did seek reductions of CRO remedy costs from the Court of Appeals and put a $l2-million referendum on the April 1999 ballot. If this were a "plan," it was never presented to the Court. In any event it has wholly failed.
107. According to Supt. Epps and CFO Hoffman, to their knowledge neither the Board of Education nor any individual Board Member has any plan for fully funding the CRO with genuine revenue, or for alleviating the financial crisis described in this Part V, created by the Board's refusal to adopt FY 99 CRO Tort levies. (Epps 35, Hoffman 36-37)
108. According to Supt. Epps and CFO Hoffman, the RSD staff has no financial plan for these purposes, other than the adoption of FY 99 CRO Tort levies pursuant to an order of the Court. Supt. Epps and CFO Hoffman testified that a court order enabling and requiring adoption of the FY 99 CRO Tort levies is necessary to preserve both the financial and educational health of the Rockford school system. (Epps 84.)
38

VL THE ORDER(S) WHICH THE COURT SHOULD ADOPT The orders which the Court should adopt, and the reasons why the requested orders are
proper, are discussed both here and in the companion "Plaintiffs' Brief in Support...", filed herewith. A. A Jenkins Order Extending the December 29, 1998 State Law Deadline for
Adoption of Such Levies. 109. RSD's duty to fully fund the CRO has been finally established by the CRO, the FY 97 and FY 98 funding Orders, and the Court of Appeals. The amount and revenue source for fulfilling that duty in FY 99 were finally established by the October 28 and November 6, 1998 Orders. When the Board refused to comply with the October 28 Order before the end of December 1998, a state law obstacle arose to adoption of those FY 99 (calendar 1998) levies. 110. The only state law obstacle is the last-Tuesday-in-December deadline for adoption and certification of real estate tax levies. (See ¶5l above.) The Court should enter an order deferring that deadline date to (for example) May 10, 1999. 111. This is an exercise of Jenkins authority necessary to remove a state law obstacle to full funding of the CRO for FY 99 and to prompt, effective and fiscally responsible compliance with the CRO.
B. A Non-Jenkins Order Directing RSD to Adopt FY 99 CRO Levies, to Effectuate the October 28 and November 6, 1998 Orders. 112. The Court should direct the Board, and each Board Member in his or her official
capacity, to adopt the FY 99 Tort levies delineated in the October 28 and November 6, 1998 Orders. (D3145, D3154)
39

113. This is a non-Jenkins order. It is the equivalent of the October 28 Order, the levy-direction aspect of which was not appealed and is final. It is also the equivalent of the December 18, 1997 direction to levy (D2862), which the Board did not appeal, and the FY 97 directions to levy (¶25, above) which the Board appealed and which the Seventh Circuit approved in PWC 1997.
C. A Non-Jenkins Order Directing RSD to Comply with State Law Budget Amendment, and Related Notice and Public Hearing Provisions, in Relation to the Levy to be Adopted. 114. The notice of budget amendment requirement has been fully discussed in Part
IV.B hereof (¶¶ 54-57). The Court should enter the orders suggested there, directing RSD to go through the notice, hearing and budget amendment process subsequent to adopting the FY 99 CRO Tort levies requested by this Motion.
D. An Order Establishing a 48-Hour Deadline Within which RSD Must Adopt the Levies Required by (B). 115. The Court should issue a deadline because, as a matter of comity with the local
tax administration process, it is desirable that both the Court's decision on this Motion and the effectuation of that decision be completed by approximately May 1, 1999.
116. Furthermore, no significant time for compliance is required because all of the issues concerning FY 99 funding, and the issuance by the Court of orders directing adoption of CRO Tort levies, have previously been fully developed and litigated by the parties.
VII. THE REQUESTED ORDER IS PROPER FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS, AMONG OTHERS
40

A. All Other Options for Adopting the Levies Completely Within State Law have been Exhausted. 117. RSD's ability to adopt FY 99 CRO Tort levies completely within state law was
eliminated by RSD's defiance of the October 28 Order and the consequent expiration of the December 29, 1998 levy adoption deadline.
118. To the extent that the April 13, 1999 referendum represented an alternative within state law for funding a portion of FY 99 CRO costs, that alternative was exhausted with the defeat of the referendum.
119. As demonstrated by the testimony of Superintendent Epps and RSD's stipulations, there is no other alternative source of funding for FY 99 CRO costs.
B. The Jenkins Order Represents the Least Intrusive Set of Steps Available to the Court to Accomplish an FY 99 CRO Levy. 120. The order is least intrusive because it only defers a state law time line for levy
adoption. 121. The requested order does not alter state law with respect to the District's legal
authority to adopt Tort levies for CRO costs, nor with respect to the amount of taxes which the District is authorized under state law to levy.
122. In addition, the entire set of requested orders does not even significantly, much less completely, circumvent local taxing authority, as would a direct judicial order adopting a tax. Here, the requested order only directs RSD (the taxing body) to adopt tax levies which are routine in all but the timing aspect. Furthermore, the order in no way impinges on the operations of any other state or local officials involved in the real estate taxation process.
41

C. Rather than Increasing the Amount of Funding Permitted by State Law, it Restores Available Funding of Which the Board Deprived Itself by its Defiance of the October 28 and November 6, 1998 Orders Directing Adoption of FY 99 CRO Levies.
123. As this Court held in its November 6, 1996 Order, a failure by RSD to fully and
promptly fund the remedy is a denial of the remedy to the Plaintiff Class. (D2435)
124. The RSD Board has generated such a remedy denial for FY 99 by defying the
October 28 and November 6,1998 Orders, and thereby depriving itself of the capacity to fulfill
its CRO funding obligation for this year.
125. This Court should reject the Board's effort at fiscal self-disablement, and the
consequent severe injuries thus visited upon the educational and financial viability of both the
CRO and the District's core education system.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter an order in the form described in Parts IV and VI of this Motion, for the reasons stated herein and in the companion Plaintiffs' Brief in Support. If the Court permits, Plaintiffs will tender a suggested draft order for the Court's consideration.
Respectfully submitted,

DATED: April 15, 1999

Robert C. Howard One of Plaintiffs' Attorneys

42

Robert C. Howard Kathleen Mangold-Spoto Joan Matlack FUTTERMAN & HOWARD, CHTD. 122 S. Michigan Ave. Suite 1850 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 427-3600
Of Counsel:
Venita Hervey FUTTERMAN & HOWARD, CHTD. P.O. Box 157 Rockford, IL 61105
(815) 969-8100

[pc\C:\WF\ROCK\PLD\MOTord.70]

43

Bøckšbcd Register Star
Friday. March 2 6 . 1 9 9 9

OK school referendum, but get details

Bluml>«rj No. 5137

(EdUor`* note Following ú a ttaáement of support by the Rockford Ana Chamber c{ Commerce and Council of10Í) far the April 13 school tax nf¶nndufnj

Another resolution
Xthe board to use tl sources ofrav-

local : control and devaluing the cjoaUty of our s>hs'ational systen‰ we must support thareArendunx

is neoasatrytoavoid irreparable damage to our public schools and RøckJbnh youth •— the cmnmnitva future.
Following the election, we urge citisens to work with and support the

1S9647 school yeas; to

As supporters ofthe school board in committing to opera-

•yHMYMOOÌã
<Httll·aiLUaW

•void plunging the school

nsfanodiun, we would tional *ftd f">"Ki»l plans that comKite to be eØBctr?· plete the nnnlfinwìtation of the CRO

to VM RocNtard
We have conflißtenUy supported the RoiUbni Public BdKola. As the kisert school system in the area, the Rockford schools are a critical regional resource. Through the years, we have urged successive school boards and Hfttninj«tm^ýyiff to adopt and föDow

Henry into Brooks while a financial plan
could be developed. Now, three years latee, the community finds itselfconfronted with a $22 million shortfall due to the current board's decision not to levy the tort fund. There appearstofasno workable

advocates. However,
C·Jfcf»n we find ourselves
severely handicapped by the absence of operational plans tied tofi"»r*<*'"lplans on the part of this school board and Ha predecoasur boards, b broad terms, we believe this referendum, as a stopgap measure, is

and move os forward to the educatú systsni our community needs to compete and develop in the 21st century. ‰ n are four absolutely essential objectives that should inspire us to move beyond the turmoil ofour segragated history. They ares
• Equal opportunity for all etu·

uRafìCUU DUJ}A) IUJU t nT¶M^» ñnnnríwl plan thaV supports the

rial matters to the p>Mw*i in an undder- requirements ofthe CRO and other

standable manner^andbs

hl desired educational outcomes. This

to the pubncforfr""*"**as well as deàáaa has placed the district in fur-

operational performances. These rec- therfinancialjeopardy, with no guar·

onuneodsiìons have largely been antsod repUosment cfthe funds. Ev«n

ignored.

#,. ,. .

s successful referendum for the $12

badly needed but we are troubled bscanas we hare no indicatian of the school boards priorities for budgetary cuts and expenditures.
OuradvK»tndtígansistopreBsfcr Qstsüs from the school board in the days ahead. E>vtn in the absence of a

• High levels ofstudent achievet t™t nr¢f>ere our dtiasris for sueg competition.
•Lowercosts with sound financial
return to local control, with

In a series of resolutions passed in mfltion the board now seeks is onjy a fiill rlfqiwfM^I rls**. tneightfromschool strong and competent leadership.

September 1996, th»'boards of the stopgap measure; further budget cuts board members as to their intent for . W¶th the recent ruling by the 7th

RoddbrdArea Chamber ofCommerce wui still be needed.

su¢cific budget cuts, e¾pendìfatres and Circuit Court of Appeals behind us,

and Council of 100 urged the school If the April 13 tax referendum fids, tuning wouìd be hcJnruL Because the lets units behind our schools and a

boardtomake a fid fekh eðbrt toward state oversight and takeover of our time fcr citizen atuuysis is short, vot- positive agenda for the future ofour

implementation ofthe Comprehensive schools will sbnost surety fbllov¢ bring- ers will have to make their ownjuckj- communn> Your vote for the referen-

Remedial Order (CRO). We afco called ing no relieffrom ourftmnyýilobliga- ments in the final hours.

dum on Aprfl 13 can be at least a amaD

for the board to communicate its plans tions. Under state law, following a We recognkaa successful referen- first step on the long walk to schools

for both implementation of the order failed referendum, no additional ref- dum wffl not bring closure to our pub- that serve all of us, as they should.

and effective operations ofthe scnóoÌE, erendum vote can be held for another bc education criaia. We regret that the Utnry Bn>ok* it board chairman of

describing to the public the tax impacts of its plena over five years.

IB months to relieve what is suretobe community has been put in this pangreat finanfj»i stress. Tb avoid losing J j » ‰ fact remems that a > * f wte

Rackford Ana Chamhtref Comment. Paul Cailighaii it board chairman o(tht Rock ford Ana Cowici¡ of 100.

n
g¯

Editorial

The Roekford School Board majority voted last December not to use tort taxes, and re-

store the people's right to vote through refer*

School

endum. The board's decision resulted in a reduction in revenue of about S22 million in court-ordered taxes, even though surplus tort

funds exceeded S4 million last year. The

referendum

referendum Is needed to temporarily replace S12 million for a period of three years to give the board time to reduce the spending while

vital for local continuing to fund the court-ordered remedies. Most of the deficit is in the Education

control

Fund. Over 91% of that fund's spending has been controlled by the three-year R£A contract that could not be reviewed until this

spring! The referendum money will be placed

in the Education Fund to lessen the amount of

By T·d Blondo

auctions that will still be required, with or

Vice President Roekford Board of Education, ìthout tort taxes, due to past and current

Chairman of F¡nanc· Committee

rficil spending.

On April 13. school district voters will go The Rtgisur Star's editorial board obvi- iRt fø¢£ %jvef 7ìmcS. · Mar. 31 -Apr. 6. i 999
to the polls with one last opportunity to main- i$]y doesn't trust any elected official who

tain local control of our public schools. A « s the people the right to vote on taxes. The

YES vote will give this community that op- *ers do not always conform to what the

ponunity! it will give the school board three •

Continued on page 3

years' time to reduce the district's deficit

spending. A NO vote will give the Roekford

Reglsltr Star and others what they, in fact,

want—judicial takeover of our schools, state

control of the district's finances, and the

eventual elimination of yet another demo-

cratic process in Roekford—an elected school

board.

The district's current S3l million debt is

the direct result of a school administration

that continues to present the board with one

deficit budget after another. I was a member

of Richard Rundquist's committee studying school finances in 1996, referred to In the fU¡httr Star`\ editorial, which Wl<t the.<üt¾_ * tríct they wç¿ebfgke. The district adminlstra^. tion didn't implement'one recommendation** that committee proposed!
School boards have requested a balanced budget from this administration for at least fo ur years. A balanced budget has never been pi iced before any board for a vote! Even with an annual $20 million-plus dollars in tort taxes, the school d istr¡ct has again been placed on the state's Financial Technical Assistance list for a second consecutive year. District administrators will finally be held accountable!
If the referendum fails, the court will order
the board to raise taxes within days of its failure, even if the court has to enjoin state
laws governing levy and budget deadlines, or tax caps to do It. The current tax reduction,

EditorialI'Sfchõólt·ëférendum vital for* :

local control
From page 1 editorial board feels is best for the community. Consequently, now that the present school board is planning to reduce spending and is moving forward with plans to revamp the administration, while negotiating contracts that reduce the deficit, the ReglsltrStar wants us replaced with aschool board appointed by the Roekford mayor and the Winnebago County Board chairman!
Where was the RšgìsttrSiar while the debt was piling up, and tort spending increased from S6 million to over $20 million per year? This ¡s¯ not about finances or court-ordered remedies. It is about control!
WhatqualificstheRockfordrnayororthecounry

board chairman to choose board members for the voters? What would happen If I were elected mayorofRockford,andPanjDelugaswereelected county board chairman? Would the Register Star then call for those positions to be appointed, possibly by thestate!egis!ature? Where would this circumvention of the democratic process end? MaybetheA¾ù/frJ/arshouldappointall elected positions in Winnebago County! Maybe Rockford should have an appointed editorial board!
Your elected school board has mam/ tough decisions to make in the next few years to restore confidence in the publ ic school system. The referendum is needed to allow us time to make those decisions, and to keep local control alive in Rockford. It's the voters' turn to make the tough decisions. Vote YES!

due to the board not levying tort taxes, will

disappear before the tax bills even get to the

mailbox. The already undervalued home prices

will decrease much more than the perceived

savings obtained by voting against the refer-

endum. Roekford will continue to lose local

ownership of businesses because of their in-

ability to attract skilled employees to the area.

Futurejobs will be lost if companies refuse to

locate in Roekford because of our schools,

and increased business bond rates.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WESTERN DIVISION

PEOPLE WHO CARE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHOOL DISTRICT #205,
Defendant.

)
) ) Civil Action No. 89 C 20168
) ) Judge Stanley J. Roszkowski
) ) Magistrate P. Michael Mahoney )
) )

PLAINTIFFS' BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT RSD TO ADOPT FY99 CRO FUND 12 AND COPS LEVIES, EXTENDING THE STATE LAW
DEADLINE FOR LEVY ADOPTION

I. INTRODUCTION By their Motion, Plaintiffs request that this Court direct the Rockford Board
of Education to adopt FY99 CRO Fund 12 and COPS tort immunity tax levies by a specific deadline date and extend by four months the state law time limit for adoption of those levies.
The requested order follows in the footsteps of this Court's cautious and deferential approach to the funding of the remedies. To date, this Court has carried out the Supreme Court admonition that, while in the last resort it may order a tax which "circumvent[s] altogether" local taxing authority, it must first assure itself that "no permissible alternative exists". Missouri v. Jenkins, 110 S.Ct. 1651, 1663 (1990). The Court has given RSD and its Board ample opportunity to fund the remedies and has shown great restraint in the face of the Board's refusals and delays.

The form of the relief now requested is no less cautious. The relief now requested gives RSD and its Board a renewed opportunity to levy the tort immunity taxes within the constraints of state law - except for deferring a limitation which does no more than regulate the timing of tort levies. The Court's authority to make this limited deferral of state law is beyond dispute:
[I]f [the court] found itself stymied by state law the federal district court could as a last resort command the state to come up with the money. ... The court has the power... though it is a power to be used sparingly, to require the state to come up with the money to fund a valid federal decree, whatever state law may provide. People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. I l l F.3d 528, 540 (7th Cir. 1997). As will be discussed, the Board's failure to date to take-up the only practicable and feasible course for funding the CRO—a tort tax levy— amounts to a failure (and refusal) on its part to fulfill its affirmative duty to desegregate the school district. Green v. Ctv. School Board of New Kent Ctv,. 391 U.S. 430, 437-38 (1968). This Court has shown all the deference that is due to the local authorities to come up with a realistic funding plan that promises to work. Id at 438. The TAW funding scheme is not such a plan, and it is in the context of this default by the Board that the appropriateness of the requested deferral of state law timing limitations must be evaluated. Jenkins, 110 S.Ct. at 1663, 1666.

II. The Requested Relief is Fully Within the Court's Remedial Authority under Griffin and Jenkins A. Legal Principles The order requested by Plaintiffs' Motion fits squarely within the
requirements for the exercise of judicial authority set forth by the Supreme Court in its cases from Swann to Griffin to Jenkins.
In that line of cases, the Supreme Court has made clear seven things: 1) that once a school district is adjudged responsible for carrying out
desegregation remedies, state policy which "operates to inhibit or obstruct the operation of a unitary school system or impede the disestablishing of a dual school system" must "give way" to the "vindication of federal constitutional guarantees." Swann. as cited in Jenkins. 110 S.Ct at 1666; 2) that a district court may, therefore, require local authorities "to exercise the power that is theirs to levy taxes to raise funds adequate" to implement desegregation remedies (Griffin v. Prince Edward Ctv. School Board. 84 S.Ct. 1226, 1234 (1964)); 3) that this power to ensure that the vindication of federal constitutional rights is not impeded by state or local policy includes the power to set aside state law which limits the authority of the school district to levy taxes, even including the setting aside of state law limitations on the amount of taxes to be levied (Jenkins. 110 S.Ct. at 1666);

4) that this power ultimately allows a district court to "circumvent[...] altogether" local taxing authority and "assume for itself the fundamental and delicate power of taxation" (Jenkins, 110 S.Ct. at 1663);
5) that in the first instance, the district court should allow "local officials [to]... have the opportunity to devise their own solutions to these problems" (Jenkins, 100 S.Ct. at 1663), but where these solutions fail, or where the local authorities are unwilling, the district court may exercise the full extent of its remedial authority (Jenkins. 110 S.Ct. at 1663, 1666);
6) that before it exercises the full extent of its remedial authority (ie, .e., before it assumes "the fundamental... power of taxation"), the district court should "assure itself that no permissible alternative" exists (Jenkins, 110 S.Ct. at 1663); and
7) that at any point along this progression, the court should choose the "least possible power adequate to the end proposed." Spallone v. United States, 110 S.Ct. 625, 635 (1990).
The Supreme Court's decision in Jenkins is a culmination of these concepts. In that case, the Court reversed the district court's imposition of a direct tax (the district court had set the tax rate itself). Jenkins, 110 S.Ct. at 1663. In reversing, the Court did not hold that the judiciary is without power to order such a tax. Id Rather, the Court held that a district court indeed may "assume for itself the fundamental and delicate power of taxation" (Id.), but only after it has "assure[d] itself that no permissible alternative would have accomplished the required task." (Id.). On the facts before it, the Court found that the district court's direct

imposition of a tax was reversible error because the court had available to it a less intrusive permissible alternative: Le^, to authorize or require the school district to levy property taxes at a rate adequate to fund the desegregation remedy and enjoin the operation of state law taxing limitations which would have prevented the school district from doing so. Id
In ruling that a district court may assume for itself the power of taxation, and less intrusively, may require the school district to levy taxes and simultaneously suspend operation of state law so that this may be accomplished, the Court reaffirmed the supremacy principles of Swann and Griffin. Quoting Swann. the Court emphasized that state-law limitations "must give way" if they "hinder" the process of constitutional remediation. Jenkins. 110 S.Ct. at 1666. Further, the principle of federal supremacy provides the authority for a district court to enter an "order directing a local government body to levy its own taxes" within state law provisions. Id at 1665, citing Griffin. 84 S.Ct. at 1234.
The Court in Jenkins emphasized that a court's exercise of its supremacy power must be accompanied by an exercise of due deference to the local authorities to solve the problem in the first instance. Jenkins. 110 S.Ct. at 1663, citing Brown II.
What deference is "due" was given contours by the Court. First, the Court noted two important functions of judicial deference in the context of desegregation. Initial deference to local authorities, the Court noted, "protects the function of those institutions" and "to the extent possible, also places the responsibility for solutions to the problems of segregation upon those who have themselves created the problems."

Id. at 1663. Secondly, however, the Court emphasized that due deference has its limits, for "[b]y no means should a district court grant local government carte blanche" in solving "the problems of financing desegregation". Id
In giving meaning to the notion of judicial deference to local authorities in the specific matter of financing desegregation remedies, the Jenkins Court freely drew upon general desegregation principles regarding school district responsibility and judicial deference as laid out in Brown II and Swann. Jenkins. 110 S.Ct. at 1663. The Court in Jenkins clearly considered the matter of remedial funding to be a sub-issue of overall remediation in which the same interplay of school district "duty" and judicial "deference" takes place. Given this re-confirmation of fundamental principles in the funding context, the Court's earlier pronouncements in Green regarding duty and deference are especially instructive in the matter of remedy financing.
In Green, the Court rejected the school district's "freedom-of-choice" plan as being insufficient to the task of desegregation. 391 U.S. at 441. The Court noted that the judiciary must give the school district first shot at devising an adequate plan. Id. The Court emphasized, however, as it later did in Jenkins, that the deference to be shown to local authorities in devising remedial solutions is not only a protective measure against unnecessary judicial interference, but also is intended to put the onus on the school district to fulfill its "affirmative duty to take whatever steps might be necessary to convert to a unitary system in which racial discrimination would be eliminated root and branch." Id. at 437-38.

A failure to devise a plan that "promises realistically to work" represents a
failure by the school district to carry out its affirmative desegregation duty. Id at
439. Likewise, the obligation of the district court is not to accede thoughtlessly to
the school district's plan, but rather, to evaluate whether the school district's proposal
"promises meaningful and immediate progress" toward the ultimate task of
desegregation. IdL Stated the Court in Green:
The obligation of the district courts, as it always has been, is to assess the effectiveness of a proposed plan in achieving desegregation. There is no universal answer to complex problems of desegregation; there is obviously no one plan that will do the job in every case. The matter must be assessed in light of the circumstances present and the options available in each instance. It is incumbent upon the school board to establish that its proposed plan promises meaningful and immediate progress toward disestablishing state-imposed segregation. It is incumbent upon the district court to weigh that claim in light of the facts at hand and in light of any alternatives which may be shown as feasible and more promising in their effectiveness.
Id. (emphasis added).
Green's principles regarding 1) a school district's obligation to formulate
workable plans that meaningfully support the long-term goal of desegregation and 2)
the limited nature of district court deference to a school district's proposed plans,
govern the current funding proceeding in this case. As noted, Jenkins supports the
application of fundamental remedial principles in the funding context. Further, a
break from these traditional principles at the funding stage makes no sense. The
funding stage is a moment of truth in the long remedial process; it is a point at
which the remedies are given life or left to die. Accordingly, a school district must,
at the funding stage, be under no less compulsion than in the remedy formulation
stage to come forward with a workable plan that supports the long-term goal of
desegregation.

This Court fully concurs in this assessment of the RSD's duty, for in its December 8 Order, quoting from the CRO, it stated "unequivocally that 'it is the responsibility of the [Rockford School] District to fully fund all CRO remedies.'" (Dec.8, 1998 Order at p.3).
In addition, as this Court has already acknowledged, this Court is under a duty to secure appropriate and practicable funding for the remedies. In its own words, it is "obligated to ensure that all steps needed for implementation are undertaken including funding. Lidell v. Board of Education. 567 F.Supp. 1037, 1051-52 (E.D. Mo. 1983); Jenkins I. 807 F.2d 686 (8th Cir. 1986)..." (Nov. 6, 1996 Order at pp. 8-9).
B. RSD Has Defaulted in its Duty to Formulate a Meaningful Funding Plan that Supports the Long-term Goal of Desegregation
In light of the above-outlined principles, this Court properly allowed the Rockford Board of Education in the August 13, 1998 Order, to try its hand at formulating a meaningful funding plan. However, this Court must not accede to a financing scheme which is insufficient to support the long-term goal of disestablishing the dual system. RSD and the Board have failed to establish, and simply cannot establish, that the TAW funding scheme represents "meaningful and immediate progress toward disestablishing... segregation", especially "in light of [the] alternative" funding route of a tort tax levy.
As explained in more factual detail in Plaintiffs' Motion, RSD on September 1, 1998 represented to the Court that it has no "practicable funding plan to pay for the remedies." (PI. Mo. ¶I.A.2) Further, on September 17, 1998, RSD stipulated

that the Tort Immunity Fund is the only source of funds reasonably or practically available to the District to pay all or any significant portion of the FY 99 CRO Fund 12 and COPS expenditures. (PI. Mo. ¶I.A.3(a)). RSD further stipulated that the Board was unable to develop an alternative plan to simultaneously fund the FY99 CRO expenditure plan and the regular operations of the school system. (Id at 3(c)). Finally, RSD stipulated that the state court decision regarding use of the Tort Immunity Fund is not a final, binding judgment which would prohibit is from levying from the tort fund. (Id at 3(d)).
One month later, this Court made final determinations concerning FY99 CRO expenditure amounts and necessary revenue amounts. Among those determinations was the finding that the only reasonable and practicable potential sources for FY99 funding are the FY98 carryover and the Tort Immunity Act. (PL Mo. ¶I.A.4). The Court, therefore, ordered the Board to adopt the tort levies for the funding of the remedies. IçL
Despite its earlier concessions, and despite this Court's findings and direct order to levy taxes, RSD has embarked instead on a funding scheme which relies in no way on the tort immunity fund. Rather, the District's so-called plan relies on the issuance of tax anticipation warrants (TAW's).1 This funding scheme is a house of
1 The entirety of RSD's funding plan included using TAW's, securing from the appellate court a reduction in CRO expenditures, and securing the balance of the funds through a referendum. RSD's failure to fulfill its funding duty is highlighted by the fact that at no time after the appellate court rejected RSD's CRO reduction scheme did RSD come forward with an alternative plan, and, likewise by the fact that after the failure of the referendum, RSD still has failed to come forward with an alternative. Indeed, RSD's default of its funding duty was complete from the inception of its plan because RSD failed from the beginning to have a backup plan in the event that the two features of its plan over which it had little or no control (ie, the appellate court and the citizen vote) didn't panout.

cards which threatens generally the financial soundness of the District as a whole, and specifically, threatens CRO funding by creating, and thereafter escalating, a $23 million deficit in Fund 12. The District's scheme fails to support the long-term goal of desegregation because it is a short-term "fix" with serious and substantial consequences and costs for the near future.
Importantly, the Court has already specifically rejected the TAW funding scheme, holding in its December 16, 1998 order that RSD'slate presentation of this "plan" in response to Plaintiffs' December 7 Clarification Motion was too little too late. (D3210). To challenge the factual findings in the October 28, 1998 Order, RSD was obligated to move to alter or amend that order, which it did not. (Id.).
Recent deposition testimony from top District personnel support this Court's prior rejection of the Board's TAW funding scheme. Those top personnel testified that the scheme is markedly unsound, and would precipitate the collapse of the District. See PI. Motion, Part V.
C. The Relief Requested is the Least Intrusive Means Necessary to Accomplish a Tort Tax Levy
As discussed immediately above, it is undisputed that a tort tax levy is the only feasible and practicable plan for the support of the long-term goal of desegregation, and that the Board's TAW scheme is an insufficient plan to support the long-term goal of desegregation. Accordingly, the question facing the Court is whether the relief requested by Plaintiffs' Motion is the least intrusive means necessary to accomplish the task of financing the CRO through a tort levy. As will be shown, not only is the relief requested facially the least intrusive means, but in
10

the fuller context of the Court's pattern of deference and the Board's pattern of default and defiance, the relief requested is most appropriate.
First, on its face alone, the relief sought by Plaintiffs is minimally intrusive. The first aspect of the relief is direction to the Board to adopt a tort levy. This is nothing more than what the Court ordered the Board to do last fall; it is judicial action which the Board did not challenge on appeal. Further, direction to adopt a tort levy is authorized by the Supreme Court's decision in Griffin, wherein the Court held that district courts may require local authorities "to exercise the power that is theirs to levy taxes to raise [adequate] funds." Griffin. 84 S.Ct. at 1234.
The second aspect of the requested relief—suspend operation of the state law timing limitation—is likewise facially minimally intrusive. It does not interfere with or enjoin state law regarding the source or amount of taxes RSD is authorized to levy,2 which would more deeply and substantively impact state policy. Because such substantive suspension of state law limits on the amount of taxes is permissible (Jenkins, 110 S.Ct. at 1663), the non-substantive intrusion on state law in the present case is both minimal by comparison and fully within this Court's remedial authority.
Further, the measures requested by Plaintiffs are not only facially minimal, they are in fact, extraordinarily minimal when viewed in the context of the Board's pattern of delays and defiance. Specifically, as discussed in more detail in Plaintiffs' Motion, the Board has engaged in a series of actions designed to undermine or reduce the CRO remedy. Those actions have included failure to formulate a
2 RSD is authorized under state law to adopt a levy for the CRO without a rate limitation. Specifically, while the tax cap generally places an amount limitation on such a levy, that cap poses no impediment to fully funding the CRO through a tort levy.
11

workable and meaningful funding plan, direct defiance of this Court's December order to levy a tort immunity fund tax, and continued defiance of that order over the course of four months, including after issuance by the appellate court of a stinging reprisal to the Board's delay and obstruct strategies.
In the face of the Board's tactics, this Court has shown a remarkable degree of restraint, not the least of which was denial of Plaintiffs' motion for a Rule 70 order which would have accomplished the tort levy after the Board's noncompliance with the Court's December directive.
In the context, then, of persistent Board defiance and remarkable Court deference, the measures sought by Plaintiffs' Motion are themselves remarkably restrained. The relief would remove the state law timing obstacle to a tort fund levy, thus placing the Board in the position it was in back in December. The relief merely requires of the District that it carry out the identical duty imposed on it by the December order. Given that the Court is authorized to go as far as adopting Rule 70 measures, or ultimately, to directly order the tax itself (Jenkins, 110 S.Ct. at 1663), the requested relief is indeed the least intrusive means necessary.

III. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, this Court should grant Plaintiffs' request for
a limited Jenkins deferral of state law, combined with a renewed Griffin direction to the Board to levy the tort tax.

DATED: April 14, 1999

One of Plaintiffs' Attorneys 12

Robert C. Howard Kathleen Mangold-Spoto Joan Matlack FUTTERMAN & HOWARD, CHTD. 122 S. Michigan Ave. Suite 1850 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 427-3600 Of Counsel: Venita Hervey FUTTERMAN & HOWARD, CHTD. P.O. Box 157 Rockford, IL 61105 (815) 969-8100
[pc\C:\WF\ROCK\PLD\BRFLEVY.KMS]
13

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WESTERN DIVISION

PEOPLE WHO CARE, an unincorporated association;
LARRY Sc CHASTY HOARDE, minors, by their parent and next friend,
Flossie Hoarde; JONATHAN HUGHES, a minor, by his
parents and next friends, Sidella and Nathan Hughes; SIDNEY & ANDRE MALONE, minors, by their parent and next friend, Rev. Louis E. Malone; SHAHEED SALEEM, a minor, by his parent and next friend, Christine Saleem; ANISSA TRIPPLETT, a minor, by her parent and next friend, Beulah Tripplett; ASIA EASON, a minor, by her parent and next friend, Granada Williams; JAMES AND KELLY CURTIN, minors, by their parents and next friends, Larry Curtin and
Sue Belvoir; LEONARDO MEDRANO, by his parent
and next friend, Jesus Medrano; each individual suing as a class representative of the class certified by the Court;

Plaintiffs,

VS.

)

)

ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION,

)

SCHOOL DISTRICT #205, Defendant; )

)

and

)

)

ROCKFORD EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, )

ROCKFORD BUILDING MAINTENANCE

)

ASSOCIATION, and EDUCATIONAL

)

OFFICE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATION,

)

)
Intervenor-Defendants. )

CIVIL ACTION NO. 89 C 20168 JUDGE ROSZKOWSKI MAGISTRATE MAHONEY
THIRD AMSNÐKD COMPLAINT

V

HV

••

••

•• •

•

SD- L-0001-0020

Introductory niaoationa
1. This action is brought to redress rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States, particularly the right to equal educational opportunity free from racial discrimination and segregation.
l·l Zb· Dafandant'a Historical Pttttrn of Svatamwid« Sao:raoation and Discrimination
Defendant, Rockford School District #205 (the "District") for many years has engaged in intentionally discriminatory conduct (both by action and failure to act) which has resulted in, maintained and failed to disestablish racial segregation in District schools and an inferior quality of educational opportunity for black and other minority children.
The District has for over 30 years intentionally segregated and discriminated against black and Hispanic students. This unlawful conduct has infected every aspect of the school system to a significant extent, including: student assignment, faculty and staff assignment; educational practices; educational programs ,facuities; educational materials and equipment; transportation; discipline; employment practices; bilingual education; special education; vocational education; extracurricular activities; and electoral practices.
This systemwide pattern of conduct is addressed in Count II, which requests a declaratory judgment as to Defendant's liability for its segregative and discriminatory conduct; an injunction prohibiting further conduct of this nature; and an order requiring

implementation of a systemwide desegregation plan in whatever form is necessary to remedy such conduct.
1.2 The 1989 Reorganization Plan Count I of the Complaint addresses a Reorganization Plan adopted by che Defendant Rockford School District #205 in January and February 1989 (the "Plan") . Adoption of the Plan is one of the most recent Constitutional violations in the District's historical pattern of segregation and discrimination, and in addition, the Plan forms part of the basis for the systemwide claim described above. The Reorganization Plan was purportedly adopted to reduce costs in anticipation of future operating deficits. However, the Plan imposed a severe pattern of segregative and disproportionately burdensome arrangements upon the minority children of the Rockford school system. The District did so in a manner and context that made clear it acted with constitutionally-prohibited discriminatory intent. Many of the elements of Defendant's Plan were not only acutely harmful to minority students, but also did not serve the objectives of cost reduction or effective school administration. The most acute injury to minority students arose from the combination of dismantling the District's existing desegregation plan, and then closing totally or partially almost all of the schools in the Southwest quadrant of the district where minority children predominate. The dismantling of the elementary school desegregation plan, an action taken in the name of "neighborhood

schools, " massively resegregated the District's elementary schools. Eight of the ten elementary schools in the Southwest quadrant were then closed, or partially closed through split grade structures. These actions would have been unlawful in themselves, but were magnified many times over by these related effects:
1.2.1 The total and partial closings required very extensive mandatory transportation of minority elementary children to reach the remaining schools within their own community. The concept of "neighborhood schools" was rendered a poignant illusion for minority students.
1.2.2 A series of excessively large, highly segregated and overcrowded elementary schools was established in the Southwest quadrant.
1.2.3 Alternative educational programs previously located in Southwest quadrant schools for desegregation purposes were relocated to predominantly white schools.
1.2.4 A restrictive voluntary transfer program was established which tended to preserve segregation rather than alleviate it.
1.2.5 Supplemental educational programs, including smaller class sizes offered by the Plan for "educationally and economically disadvantaged students," were not only unfunded but probably

incapable of implementation due to lack of space in the Southwest quadrant schools. At the high school level, the Plan selected for closing West High School, the most residentiall·y integrated high school in the district. The Plan then achieved "desegregation" of the remaining middle and high schools by carving the minority community in four pieces, sending a piece to each corner of the District, and requiring minority students to bear the greatest burden of mandatory transportation. Moreover, in closing the Rockford Area Career Center, the Plan re-allocated only 8% of its programs to the high school in the Southwest quadrant and 92% to high schools in the Northeast and Southeast quadrants. These invidious actions are documented in detail in Count I of the Complaint, using, the District's own data. 1.3 Prior Proceedings The preliminary relief requested by Plaintiffs in the May 1989 First Amended Complaint for school year 1989-90, as described in Count I following Paragraph 65, was to prohibit the Defendant from implementing the aspects of its Plan which were most unambiguously segregative and burdensome. This relief would have maintained existing school arrangements in many respects. Because these invidious aspects of the Plan did not serve the purpose of cost reduction at their inception, the preliminary relief would not have reduced the cost reductions contemplated by Defendant's Plan. 1.3.1 After two months of litigation, the parties entered into an interim settlement of Plaintiffs'

May 1989 Motion for Preliminary Injunction

concerning the Reorganization Plan.

The

settlement, embodied in an Interim Agreed Order

entered by the Court on July 7, 198 9, provided for certain modifications of the Reorganization Plan and for other steps to be taken by the

District. The Interim Order recognized that a

Second Amended Complaint would be filed, alleging

systemwide segregation and discrimination by the District. This Second Amended Complaint was filed on November 9, 1989.

1.3.2 On April 24, 1991, Plaintiffs and Defendant

agreed to, and the Court approved and entered, a

Second Interim Order. The Second Interim Order was a more comprehensive interim desegregation Order, addressing educational, resource and

student assignment aspects of the District.

However, like the July 1989 Order, the Second

Interim Order did not resolve the Plaintiffs' underlying liability claims, which remained pending for future trial and adjudication.

Moreover, the District made no admission of

liability in connection with either of these

interim remedial Orders.

1.3.3 Also in April 1991, Rockford Education

Association, Rockford Building Maintenance

Association and Educational Office Personnel Association intervened in the case and objected that provisions of the Second Interim Order impermissibly altered rights under their collective bargaining agreements. Ultimately, in April 1992, the court of appeals held that the contractual rights of Intervenors could not be modified unless the district court found the changes necessary to an appropriate remedy for a legal wrong and vacated the portions of the Second Interim Order in question. People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of E d u c . 961 F.2d 1335 (7th Cir. 1992). The case was remanded and set for a hearing. l.4 The Third Amended Complaint On May 5, 1993, the parties reached (and the Court approved) an Agreement Concerning the Liability Hearing Adjudication Process and Certain Remedial Matters. Pursuant to this Agreement, Plaintiffs were granted leave to file a Third Amended Complaint, subsequent to conclusion of the hearing, conforming the pleadings to the proo£ adduced against the Defendant: 1.4.1 Paragraphs 3 through 65 of the Third Amended Complaint (relating to various background facts and, in Count I, the 1989 Reorganization Plan) are identical to the corresponding paragraphs of

the Second Amended Complaint.

Thus, the

chronological references and verb tenses remain

as they were when that Complaint was filed.

1.4.2 Count II of the Second Amended Complaint, which

alleged that the District's conduct in connection

with the 1989 Reorganization Plan violated the

Armstrong Act, 111. Rev. Stat. Ch. 122, Sect. 10-

21.1, has been dropped.

1.4.3 Count II of the Third Amended Complaint, which

alleges a systemwide pattern of segregative and

discriminatory conduct, amends the allegations of

the Second Amended Complaint (Count III) to

conform to the proof adduced at the permanent

injunction hearing.

1.4.4 Count III of the Third Amended Complaint

realleges Plaintiffs' claims that Defendant

violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42

U.S.C. §1973.

1.4.5 Count IV of the Third Amended Complaint realleges

Plaintiffs' claim that Defendant violated Section

9-22 of the Illinois School Code, 111. Rev. Stat.

ch. 122, ¶9-22, concerning board member residency

requirements.

2. Plaintiffs 2.l Plaintiff People Who Care, an unincorporated association, is a coalition of Rockford citizens and 8

organizations seeking to correct the deficiencies in District's Reorganization Plan, and the District historical pattern of systemwide segregation ana discrimination. Its members include many parents whose children are being and will be adversely affected by the actions of Defendant which are the subject of this Complaint. People Who Care sues on behalf of these members and their children. 2.2 The individual Plaintiffs listed in this subparagraph are black and Hispanic public school students, who are being and will be adversely affected by the actions of Defendant which are the subject of this Complaint. They are citizens of the United States, residents of Rockford, and minors who sue through their parents as next friends. The "present school" shown below was their 1988-89 school, and the "1989-90 school" was their school of assignment under the Reorganization Plan:

2.2.1.

Children: Parent: Grade: Present School: 1989-90 School:
Child: Parent: Grade: Present School: 1989-90 School:
Child: Parent: Grade: Present School:
1989-90 School:
9

Larry & Chasty Hoarde Flossie Hoarde 3, 5, respectively Bloom Wilson
Jonathan Hughes Sidella & Nathan Hughes 7 Macintosh Wilson
Andre & Sidney Malone Reverend Louis E. Malone 8, 3, respectively Andre: Eisenhower Sidney: Walker Andre: Eisenhower

Child:
Parent:
Grade:
Present School:
1989-90 School: Child: Parent: Grade: Present School: 1989-90 School:

Sidney: Walker
Shaheed Saleem Christine Saleem 5 Ellis (Arts Program) Wilson Anissa Tripplett Beulah Tripplett 3 Vandercook Washington

Child: Parent: Grade: Present School: 1989-90 School:

Asia Eason Granada Williams Kindergarten Private Kindergarten Wilson

Child: Parent: Grade:
Present School:

Leonardo Medrano Jesus Medrano 5
Nashold

2.3 The individual Plaintiffs listed in this subparagraph

are white public school children whose opportunity to

attend integrated or desegregated schools is being and

will be adversely affected by the actions of Defendant

which are the subject of this Complaint. They are

citizens of the United States, residents of Rockford,

and minors who sue through their parents as next

friends.

2.3.1.

Children: Parent: Grade: Present School:
1989-90 School:

James & Kelly Curtin
Larry & Sue Curtin 3, 9, respectively James: Haight Kelly: West James: Washington

Kelly: Auburn

2.4 The individual student Plaintiffs listed in Section 2.2

sue, through their parents as next friends, on their own

10

behalf and on behalf of other Black and Hispanic children who are being and will be subjected to the segregative, discriminatory and disproportionately burdensome actions of the Defendant. The individual student Plaintiffs listed in paragraph 2.3 sue, through their parents as next friends, on their own behalf and on behalf of other white children whose opportunity to attend integrated or desegregated schools is being and will be adversely affected by the conduct of Defendant. Together these students comprise a class of students who are being and will be adversely affected by the segregative, discriminatory and disproportionately burdensome actions of the Defendant. The several thousand members of the class represented by these Plaintiffs are so numerous as to make it impracticable to bring them all before the Court. There are common questions of law and fact affecting the rights of these Plaintiffs and the rights of the members of the class; the claims of these Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class; and Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The parties opposing the class have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or
11

corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.
3. Defendant Defendant Rockford Board of Education, School District # 205,
is organized and operating within Winnebago County, Illinois, under the laws of the State of Illinois. It is charged with and responsible for the operation of the public schools within District # 205. The Defendant is referred to in this Complaint as the "District".
4. The subject matter jurisdiction of this Court is invoiced pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, l343(a)(3) and (a)(4). This suit, for equitable relief, is authorized by 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and 1988 to redress the deprivation under color of law -– including the official actions, policies, practices, customs and usages of Defendant - - o f rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This action also seeks declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
F>Ct
5. The Rockford public school system, referred to herein as the "District" or "system", has the basic characteristics set forth below. (Many of the factual allegations in this Complaint are drawn from a companion set of Exhibits,1 most of which are District
1[The Exhibits to the Complaint were admitted into evidence at trial and are not appended to the Third Amended Complaint.]
12

documents. The Table of Contents to the Exhibits cross-references Complaint paragraphs to the particular Exhibits on which those paragraphs are based.)

5.1 In the present school year (1988-89), the total enrollment is 26,923 students.

5.2 The racial ethnic composition of the students, which is reported by the District excluding Special Education

students, is as follows:

Number

White

Black Hispanic Asian Native Amer.

5,430 1, 004
706 55

Percent;
21.4% 4.0% 2.8% .2%

Number 18,212

Percent 71.7%

Total Minority TOTAL

7,195 25,407

28.3% 100.0%

Most of the statistical data in this Complaint is drawn

from District documents which report minority enrollment

as an aggregate total. The Complaint necessarily adopts

the same format.

5.3 In the current school year, the District operates 54

schools:

High schools

5

Middle schools

5

Elementary schools 3 9

Special facilities

5

13

5.4 The unrestricted operating budget of the District is $90.2 million in the present school year. This excludes federal/state grants, food services and transportation.
6. The demographics of the City of Rockford and of the District, based on the most recent available information, are as follows:
6.1 A map of the District, showing the major streets and the location of the various schools, is Attachment 1 to this Complaint.
6.2 For purposes of evaluating the effect of Defendant's conduct on the minority students of the District, it is appropriate to divide the District into four quadrants, which are reflected on Attachment 1. Set forth below are the boundaries of these quadrants, and the approximate racial composition of their total population based on 1980 census data: 6.2.1 Northwest quadrant: North of Auburn St., West of the River, and also including the Walker School area. More than 98¾ white 6.2.2 Southwest quadrant: South of Auburn St., West of the River, excluding the Walker School area. 45-50% minority 6.2.3 Southeast quadrant: South of State St., East of the River. More than 90% white
14

6.2.4 Northeast quadrant: North of State St., East cf the River. More than 98% white

6.3 To evaluate Defendant's conduct, an important starting

point is the racial composition of the public school

students residing in each of the four quadrants. This

data reflects where the students live, not where they

attend school. (This is based on 1987 District data.)

6.3.1 Northwest

13% minority*

6.3.2 Southwest

73% minority

6.3.3 Southeast

13% minority

6.3.4 Northeast

3% minority

*The minority students shown in the Northwest quadrant

appear to be students actually residing in the Southwest

quadrant, but within the West High _School attendance

area. Thus the correct minority percentage is probably

lower for the Northwest quadrant, and higher for the

Southwest quadrant.

6.4 In summary, most of the students residing in the

Southwest quadrant are minority, and there are

relatively few minority students residing elsewhere in

the District.

6.5 The residence and racial composition o£ the seven School

Board members, and of the eight senior administrators of

the District, is as follows:

15

Northwest
Southwest Southeast Northeast

Board.
2 1 1 3

Staff
i o 0 7

* of Min.
o 1 0 0

7. In 1970, a group of individuals brought a Fourteenth Amendment desegregation suit in this Court against the Defendant District. Quality Education for All Children v. School Board of School District 205 of Winnebaao County. No. 70 C 16 ("Ouefac") . In 1972, the Illinois State Board of Education cited the Defendant for noncompliance with the State Board's desegregation rules under the Illinois Armstrong Act. For several years, the administrative proceedings were, in effect, meshed with the judicial proceedings.
In a published decision, Quefac. 385 F. Supp. 803 (N.D. 111. (W.D. 1974)) then district Judge William Bauer in 1974, without making a final liability finding, made specific findings relating to the segregative conditions in the District. Those findings included (1) extensive minority isolation (Id,, at 805-806, 808) ; (2) a disproportionately low number of minority teachers (i¿. at 808) ; (3) crowded and inadequate minority physical facilities (Id.-); and (4) lack of materials and up-to-date texts at the minority schools (Id.). Over a period of several years the Court and the State Board of Education insisted that the Defendant implement a desegregation plan. Despite substantial resistance on its part, the District eventually implemented a desegregation plan which included one-way mandatory reassignment of minority students only.

16

In 1981, after implementation of that plan, the administrative and judicial proceedings were terminated without prejudice.

Desegregation Statua in the Current School Year

3. The status of student assignment desegregation and staff integration in the current school year, based on data reported by the District, is set forth in Par. 9-11. The Defendant's existing desegregation activities are seriously deficient in several respects, including in placing a greatly disproportionate burden of desegregation upon minority students.

9. Using a definition of a desegregated school as 15-50%

minority, and looking only at the total enrollment of each school,

the Rockford system in school year 1988-89 has the following

distribution of elementary schools:

Segregated white

11

(Under 15% minority)

Desegregated

22

(15-50% minority)

Segregated minority

6

(Over 50% minority)

Total

39

9.1 Of the ten middle and high schools in the system, eight

have enrollments between 15-50% minority and two have

enrollments of approximately 11.5% minority.

9.2 In large part, this level of desegregation has been

achieved through the mandatory reassignment and

17

transportation of approximately 2100 minority students

from the Southwest quadrant to the Northwest and

Northeast quadrants of the city:

Elementary

860

Middle schools 533

High schools

709

Total

2102

At least 98% of the students subjected to mandatory

reassignment and transportation for purposes of

desegregation are minority students.

9.3 In addition, a portion of the system's desegregation has

been achieved through voluntary transfers of students to

special programs, called "alternative" programs by the

District.

These include 214 minority students

transported to the Northwest and Northeast quadrants,

and 1220 white students transported to the Southwest

quadrant.

9.4 Thus, the burden of changing schools and being

transported for desegregation has been more than five

times as great on minority students as on white

students:

Minority White

Transported for desegregation

2316

1220

Systemwide enrollment by group

7195 18,212

Per cent transp. for desegregation 32%

6%

9.5 This disproportion is increased manifold by the fact

that almost all minority movement for desegregation is

18

mandatory, while virtually all white movement is voluntary in response to special program offerings.
10. The apparent desegregation achieved by voluntary transfers of white students to programs in minority schools (Par 9.3) in fact is less effective than suggested by total-school enrollment data. Those programs are substantially segregated within their schools. For example:
10.1 Half of the 1220 white students in that category (610) are in four gifted programs which have an aggregate enrollment of 87% white. The non-program enrollment in the same schools is 3 9V white.
10.2 The remaining 608 white transfer students are in six other alternative programs which have an aggregate enrollment of 75* white, compared to a non-program enrollment in the same schools o£ 37% white.
10.3 This within-school segregation arises largely from the use of restrictive academic admission standards for the alternative programs.
11. Only 7% of the staff of the District is minority, about onehalf of the level of minorities in Rockford's adult population.
11.1 This level of minority employment has increased by only 1% over the past sixteen years.
11.2 In 1972 the District promised the Court, in the OUEFAC litigation, that it would increase minority staff from 6% to 15% þ^ 1978. (362 F.Supp. 985 at 993-95.) The
19

Defendant has failed to do so, even 11 years after the promised date. 11.3 Because the District has no affirmative action plan for the retention of minority teachers during a reduction in force, minority teachers will be disproportionately laid off in the staff reductions resulting from the actions described in this Complaint.
12. Upon information and belief, the President of the Board of the Defendant District has recently stated, with respect to events prior to 1989, that "It looks now like there was probably some discrimination, but those were different times and school leaders were driven by different needs." It was not stated to which of the past events the President was referring.
Tha D·¢anc¾f n¢* ¶ '7*PMUfY 1989 R>o¾rq¾ni.z¾fci.on ?T¾n
13. On January 24, 1989, Defendant promulgated a proposed plan for changes in District operations (the "Reorganization Plan" or "Plan").
13 . l With certain revisions adopted on February 14 (discussed in Pars. 23-31 below), the proposed Plan was adopted by the District on February 28 and is now being implemented for the 1989-90 school year.
14. The primary rationale for the Plan is to reduce expenditures
to offset projected future-year operating deficits.
20

14.1 It appears that the District has overstated its futureyear deficits by projecting expenditure increases at the rate of the past four years, but projecting no increases in General State Aid.

14.2 The average annual increase in State funding for elementary and secondary education over the past six years has been 6.2%:

1988-89 1987-88 1986-87 1985-86 1984-85 1983-84

4.7% (4.0%) 7.9% 14.0% 8.5% 6.3%

An increase in State funding is advocated this year by

the Governor and most legislative leaders. At minimum,

some significant increase is likely to be received by

the District.

14.3 In addition, an increase in the state income tax for

education purposes has beeiv proposed by the Governor,

some leaders of the General Assembly and the State Board

of Education. If the State of Illinois takes such

action, it will generate very substantial new revenue

for the District, which upon information and belief may

be estimated on the order of $5 million to $10 million.

14.4 However, the Plan has no phase-in or reconsideration

provisions that would enable some of the burdens of the

Plan to be alleviated with new revenue.

21

15. This January version of the Plan estimated cost savings of approximately $6.47 million, enough to offset the District's deficit projection for 1989-90. Much of the cost savings was derived from steps such as closing swimming pools and administrative-clerical staff reductions, which are not the subject of this Complaint.

16. The Plan dismantles the District's desegregation activities.

16.1 One provision of the Plan is to "draw elementary school

boundaries to enable all elementary students to attend schools in the general area of their homes." (Plan Sec.

2.12)

This provision terminates the mandatory

reassignment system presently in effect. 16.2 The January version of the Plan (or related District

actions) relocated all or most of the desegregative

alternative programs from schools in the Southwest quadrant to schools in the Northeast and Southeast quadrants.

16.3 This dismantling of desegregation activities is unaccompanied by any discussion of¾ its re-segregation effect, its adverse impact on minority children, or the

legal duties of the District.

16.4 Although the purported occasion for the Reorganization Plan is the need to reduce expenditures, there is no

cost savings projected by the Plan from a return to

neighborhood elementary schools or the relocation of alternative programs.

22

17. The Plan contains a restrictive voluntary transfer program. (Plan Sec. 4.l) This program was subsequently detailed by zhe District in April 1989, and is described in Par. 34 below.
18. The Plan establishes attendance areas for middle and high schools that produce racial compositions almost exactly mirroring the systemwide proportion of 28%.
18.1 This is accomplished by drawing all of the boundary lines to meet in the middle of the Southwest minority community. A map of the new high school boundaries is Attachment 2 to this Complaint.
18.2 Fracturing the minority community in four parts, and assigning each part to a different school, once again imposes the burden of desegregation, and a disproportionate burden of transportation, on the District's minority students.
19. The January version of the Plan also proposed closing 9 schools.
19.1 These closings included West High School in the Northwest quadrant of the District. West is a naturally integrated school -– i.e., its regular residential attendance area produces a racial mix of students which closely approximates the systemwide racial proportions.
19.2 Six elementary schools were proposed for closing in various parts of the District (excluding the Northeast quadrant).
23

19.3 The 9 school closings were distributed as follows:

Northwest

3

Southwest

2

Southeast

4

Northeast

0

Total

9

20. The January version of the Plan also established split grade structures at four pairs of elementary schools.
20.1 Schools sharing a split grade structure have a common, double-size attendance area, with all students in certain grades (e.g., K-2) attending one school and all students in the remaining grades attending the other school.
20.2 One effect of establishing a split grade structure is comparable to the partial closing o£ each school: the mandatory reassignment of about half of its students to the other school. Because of the increased distance, in a neighborhood school context this requires half of the total students, who would otherwise be able to walk to school, to be transported.
20.3 Another effect of a split grade structure is the psychological and educational burden on the students of changing schools in the middle of their elementary schooling.
20.4 Two of the split grade structures were established in the Southwest quadrant (King-Washington and Stiles-

24

Dennis), requiring transportation for students who would otherwise have been able to walk to school. 20.5 The two other pairs were at the Southeast edge of the District, where there is no additional burden of transportation because the sparse population alreadyrequired the students to be transported to school.
21. The Plan closes the Rockford Area Career Center and distributes its vocational programs to the regular high schools. Only three of the 37 programs (8*) are allocated to Auburn, the remaining high school in the Southwest quadrant. 34 programs (92V) are allocated to the three high schools in the Northeast and Southeast quadrants, including all of the technologically-oriented programs.
22. The Plan proposes, for "elementary schools with a high incidence of educationally and economically disadvantaged students," to provide smaller class sizes and supplemental support services, and to "offset the inequities created by gifts from parent organizations." (Plan Sec. 1.1)
22.1 The Plan identifies no funding amount for this proposal. 22.2 The Plan does not specify schools or program definitions
in support of this proposal.
23. The January version of the Plan evoked very extensive public reaction, including criticism of various proposals.
25

24. In particular, the proposed closing of West High School aroused intense, and justified, protest from the Northwest community in which that school is located. The racial composition of the people and groups objecting to the West closing was predominantly white. Within three weeks the District rescinded the closing of the building.
25. On February 14, Defendant adopted a revised Reorganization Plan:
2 5.1 This version of the Plan was also adopted by a 6-1 vote, with the minority member of the Board in opposition.
26. The revisions, in order to keep the West building open, operated through a domino effect to place massive additional burdens upon the minority students in the Southwest quadrant.
26.1 The West building is to become a middle school rather than a high school. To keep the West building open, Defendant removed the middle school students from Wilson, in the Southwest quadrant.
26.2 Wilson is converted to a grades 3-6 elementary school. 26.3 Three additional elementary schools, surrounding Wilson
in the Southwest quadrant, are closed (Church, Stiles and Ellis). 26.4 Two additional split grade structures (K-2) are established at Mcintosh and Dennis, feeding into Wilson. 26.5 The enormous size of the resulting Wilson-MclntoshDennis attendance area is shown on the elementary
26

boundary map adopted on February 14 (Attachment 3 to this Complaint). 26.6 Wilson is projected by Defendant to have 1227 students, more than twice as large as any previous elementary school in the system, and 4 times the size of the average elementary school in the District. 26.7 Wilson, and its feeder K-2 schools, are all projected by Defendant to have 80% minority enrollment.
27. The closing of the three additional elementary schools generated only $336,000 in savings, according to Defendant's own data. This is only 4.6% of the total savings projected by the February Plan, and only 1/3 of 1% of the District's 1989-90 budget.
27.1 In fact, even the small purported cost savings of closing the additional three elementary schools was overstated, because it did not take into consideration the offsetting new transportation cost of busing minority children, within their community.
27.2 The February Plan also contained other additional cost reductions, so that the revised total savings was $7.34 million, $870,000 more than the January Plan. Even without the closing of the three additional elementary schools, the February Plan would have generated $534,000 more in cost reductions than the January Plan.
27

28. As a result of the February 14 actions, the entire burden of additional school closings was placed upon the students in the Southwest minority community:

Northwest Southwest Southeast Northeast
Total

2/14 2 5 4 0
11

Change from January (i) +3 o o
+2

29. As a result of the February 14 actions, Defendant projects an enrollment of 876 students for Washington Center, for which its data shows a capacity of 728, and an enrollment of 649 students for Mclntosh, for which their data shows a capacity of 576. Both of these overcrowded schools are in the Southwest quadrant.
29.1 On information and belief, Defendant failed to properly consider the space needs for Special Education and Federal Chapter 1 programs in the remaining schools in the Southwest quadrant. Consequently, the educational opportunities available to minority students in the Southwest quadrant will be adversely affected due to the closing of too many schools, and insufficient space in the remaining schools.
29.2 Set forth below are the capacities and projected enrollments for 1989-90 of the Southwest quadrant elementary schools. These enrollments are excluding special education students and with no apparent provision made for the extra classrooms required bv 28

Chapter 1 programs. There is little or no space for

such special programs. There also does not appear to be

any allowance for the "reduced class size" promised by

the Plan for schools with "a high incidence of

educationally and economically disadvantaged students."

(See Par. 22, above.)

School

Capacity

Enroll.

Avail. Capacity

Dennis Haskell King Lathrop Mclntosh Washington Wilson

480 456 528 528 576 728 1500

410 419 507 472 649 876 1227

70 37 21 56 (73) (148) 273

30. The Plan still shifts three elementary-level desegregative alternative programs from the Southwest quadrant to schools in the Northeast and Southeast quadrants.
3 0.1 These include the GIT program moved from Barbour to Froberg, the CASS program moved from Haskell to Jackson, and the Arts Alternative program moved from Ellis to Rock River.
3 0.2 In response to public protest, the January decision to reassign middle and high school level alternative programs was reversed, and those programs were restored to West and Auburn.

31. The January Plan also reduced, and the February Plan totally eliminated, the ROTC program. This was a racially integrated program in which 20% of the minority high school students and 6% of

29

Che white students were enrolled. The District has been uncooperative with private sector efforts to locate external funding to maintain the program at least at one high school, setting a short deadline of May 14 for such efforts to be completed.
32. The adverse and disproportionate impact of the revised 2/14 Reorganization Plan upon the minority community evoked substantial, and justified, protest from that community. However, the Board of Education refused to modify the plan, and reaffirmed it by a 6-l vote on February 28, 198 9. (The minority member of the Board opposed the Plan.)
3¯3. Plaintiff People Who Care requested the Community Relations Service of the U.S. Department of Justice to seek a dialogue with the District and to seek relief from the disproportionate burden and other discriminatory aspects of the Reorganization Plan. After two months of protest and mediation efforts, representatives of the District would meet with People Who Care only once, on April 10. Promptly thereafter the Board voted to refuse to reconsider its Plan. (The minority member of the Board again opposed this action.)
34. On April 14, the District announced a restrictive voluntary transfer program for minority students for the 1989-90 school year.
30

The program is segregative and burdensome in the following respects:
34.1 Transfers are available only for minority students out of segregated minority schools (those projected to be over 50% minority next year) . Transfers are not available for minority students out of other schools which exceed the systemwide minority enrollment (i.e., those between 28-50% minority.)
34.2 Eligible students may transfer only to specified elementary schools, which generally are those at the greatest distance requiring the longest transportation.
34.3 There is no educational program offering support to induce or assist minority students in making such transfers.
35. On April 25, the Interim Superintendent announced that the Reorganization Plan would require the transportation of 4,000 more students next year than were transported in the current school year. This will require the purchase of 36 additional buses at a cost of $900,000, and the overall transportation cost will rise by $1,000,000 per year. On information and belief, the great majority of additional students who will be transported are minority students.
36. On April 25, the District voted to sell or rent 13 schools, including four of the five newly closed elementary schools in the Southwest quadrant. If the District commits these schools to non-
31

school use, it will render the Reorganization Plan virtually irreversible.

Re-segregative Effect of the Diatrict'a Plan
37. The District's Reorganization Plan massively re-segregates the elementary schools in the Rockford school system. The change in distribution of segregated and desegregated elementary schools, using a 15-50% minority definition of a desegregated school, is as follows:

Segregated white (Under 15% minority)
Desegregated (15-50% minority)
Segregated minority (Over 50% minority)
Total

1988-89 11 22 6 39

1989-90 15
11
6 32

Chanqç
+4
-11

38. The re-segregation is even more apparent in terms of the

sharply increased proportion of the system's minority students who

will be attending segregated rather than desegregated elementary

schools:

1988-89 % of Min.

1989-90 % of Min.

Change

Segregated white

6%

(Under 15% minority)

Desegregated

62%

(15-50% minority)

13%

+7%

34%

-28%

32

Segregated minority

32%

(Over 50% minority)

52%

+20%

39. The Plan places more than 1800 minority elementary students in three highly segregated schools (Wilson and its K-2 feeder schools, with projected 80% minority enrollments).
3 9.1 In the current school year only one school, with 238 minority students, has an enrollment more than twothirds minority. Thus there is a seven-fold increase in the number of minority students subjected to a high degree of racial isolation.
3 9.2 There is a substantial probability that these three schools will in fact have virtually all-minority enrollments.

40. As detailed in Par. 30 above, three desegregative elementary alternative programs are relocated from Southwest predominantly minority schools to majority-white schools east of the River. The effects of this action are to increase the degree of segregation of the District's minority students and to diminish their access to special educational programs.
40.1 As detailed in Par. 21 above, Defendant also allocated the programs from the Rockford Area Career Center in a manner that was quantitatively and qualitatively adverse to minority students.
4 0.2 As detailed in Par. 31 above, Defendant closed the
integrated ROTC program, and have been uncooperative

33

with private efforts to maintain at least a part of the program. 41. As detailed in Par. 34 above, the restrictive voluntary transfer program adopted by Defendant is segregative and burdensome. 42. Defendant's actions stigmatize the schools in the Southwest quadrant as racially identifiable and inferior schools. 43. The Defendant's closing of West High School, a naturally integrated school, is contrary to the axiom in desegregation planning that highest priority should be given to preservation of residentially integrated schools. 44. Defendant's actions will result in a reduction in the level of minority teachers in the District, a level which is already deficient as described in Par. 11 above.
Diaproportion¾fc> Burdam Impond bv th> Rffon¾niz>fcioii Pl¶f> 45. The Defendant's Plan imposes acutely disproportionate burdens upon the minority students in the Southwest quadrant of the District. 46. The disproportion of existing elementary schools closed by the Plan, by quadrant, is as follows:
34

Northwest Southwest Southeast Northeast

Schools 88-89
6 10 17
6

Closed
i 5 3 0

% Closed
17% 50% 18%
0%

47. The disproportion is even more pronounced when split grade

structures, which amount to partial closings, are also considered:

Schools 88-89

Closed or Split

% Closed

Northwest

6

Southwest

10

Southeast

17

Northeast

6

1

17%

8

80%

7

41% ·

0

0%

48. Under Defendant's Plan, 80% of the elementary students in the Southwest quadrant (most of whom are minority students) will be subjected to the burdens of attending schools with split grade structures (which are described in Par. 20 above).
48.1 In the three predominantly white quadrants of the District, only 13% of the students will attend schools with split grade structures. Those are children at the Southeast edge of the District who would be transported to school in any event.

49. While the Defendant purported to be establishing a neighborhood elementary school system, the total and partial school closings in the Southwest quadrant will require a large portion of the students there to be transported to the few remaining schools.

35

50. As described in Par. 35, the net result of Defendant's Plan is to increase the number of children requiring transportation by 4000, most of whom will be minority children.
51. Wilson (1227 students) and Washington (876 students) are excessively large schools, respectively 2.25 and 1.6 times the size of the largest predominantly white elementary school next year. This excessive size is psychologically and educationally burdensome to the students attending those schools.
52. Two predominantly minority elementary schools (Washington and Mclntosh) are projected by Defendant to be overcrowded (see Par. 29 above). On information and belief, educational programs at these and other schools in the Southwest quadrant will be severely affected by lack of space resulting from the closing of too many schools.
53. The middle and high school attendance areas, by fracturing the minority community in four parts, impose the burden of desegregation, and a disproportionate burden of transportation, on the District's minority students.
i¾»jiiHlitv of x L··>a 3<qr<aitiv< »*id Burd·n>om· Alternative
54. One less segregative and burdensome alternative equally available to Defendant was to retain West as a high school and close any of the three high schools east of the River.
36

Essentially, this is identical to Defendant's January Plan, except for changing the identity of the high school to be closed.
54.1 This less onerous alternative would have kept open the two high schools (West` and Auburn) that have a substantial degree of residential integration, and would have allocated the transportation burdens of the high school attendance areas much more equitably between minority and white children.
54.2 This alternative would have involved much less burden and disruptive change in the school system. Wilson would remain a middle school, and three Southwest quadrant elementary schools would remain open. It would eliminate a substantial portion of the split grade structures and intra-community mandatory transportation imposed on the Southwest minority community by the February Plan revisions.
54.3 This less onerous alternative would have produced the same amount of cost reduction as Defendant's January Plan. In addition, it was no less consistent with other facilities planning considerations such as capacity, transportation, utility costs, repair costs and articulation from one school level to the next.
54.4 This alternative would still have involved unlawful resegregation and disproportionate burden, requiring judicial relief. However, the extent of relief required would have been significantly diminished.
37

54.5 Defendant's January and February Plans were both erroneous in closing too many Southwest quadrant elementary schools. As shown in Par. 2 9 above, this produces over-crowded enrollments and leaves insufficient space for special education, desegregative alternative programs and the Plan's promised class size reduction. For that reason, under any scenario it is apparently necessary to keep open a fourth (and possibly a fifth) Southwest quadrant elementary school, of the five that were closed.
COUNT I (Fourt6Mfch ^Tf
55. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides in part:
"No State shall...deny to any. person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
56. Section 42 U.S.C. 1983 provides that: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
57. The effects of the Defendant's conduct described in Paragraphs 1-54 are segregative and disproportionately burdensome to the
38

minority students of the District, and deprive those students of equal educational opportunities, including with respect to:
5 7.1 Elementary student assignment. 5 7.2 High school student assignment. 57.3 The selection of schools for closing and split grade
structures. 5 7.4 The placement and nature of special programs intended to
promote desegregation. 57.5 The placement and nature of other educational programs
within the District.
58. The Defendant engaged in the conduct described in Paragraphs 1 - 5 4 with discriminatory intent.
59. Accordingly, the conduct of the Defendant described in Paragraphs 1 - 5 4 and 57 - 58 violated the obligations of the Defendant and the rights of the Plaintiffs under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983.
60. The circumstances described in this Complaint warrant a remedy which both maximizes desegregation of students to the greatest practicable extent, and provides a legally compensatory educational remedy to those students who may remain in predominantly minority schools.
61. Without judicial intervention, Defendant will continue to implement its Reorganization Plan, and it is imminent that
39

Plaintiffs will be deprived of their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. 1983.
62. The aspects of the Reorganization Plan described in this Complaint, and the effects upon the Plaintiffs, would be impossible or exceedingly difficult to reverse once they have occurred. In addition, during any delay Plaintiffs would be deprived of fundamental rights with respect to equal educational opportunity. Plaintiffs would have no adequate remedy at law. The injury to the Plaintiffs would therefore be irreparable.
63. Conversely, the burden upon the Defendant of the injunctive relief requested herein will be comparatively slight. With respect to several schools (West, Wilson and 3 to 5 elementary schools), the relief involves maintaining the arrangements existing in the present school year. In addition, the preliminary relief requested by Plaintiffs for school year 1989-90 will have a minimal financial impact upon the District. Keeping open the schools proposed below will achieve the same degree of cost reduction as proposed by the District in its January Plan. (The possible exception would be the need to keep open additional Southwest elementary schools to insure sufficient capacity for special education and supplemental programs.)
64. The public interest will be best served by granting the relief requested by Plaintiffs.
40

65. The matters stated in Paragraphs 61 - 64 are especially evident with respect to Plaintiffs' requests, set forth below, for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Court:
I. Issue a temporary restraining order, pending the determination of the request for preliminary injunctive relief, prohibiting the Defendant from selling, leasing, or otherwise rendering unavailable for school year 1989-90 any school buildings now used by the District for school purposes.
II. Issue a preliminary injunction, for the duration of school year 1989-90, providing preliminary relief to Plaintiffs in the form which the Court deems necessary and proper. Plaintiffs suggest that such an Order should prohibit the Defendant from implementing the aspects of their Plan which are most unambiguously segregative and burdensome:
A. Keep West open as a high school. The District may close, in its discretion, any of the high schools east of the River or no high school.
B. Keep Wilson open as a middle school. C. Keep open the Stiles, Ellis and Barbour Elementary Schools. Keep open Church and/or Garrison Elementary Schools if necessary to provide sufficient capacity in the Southwest quadrant for regular programs and also for special education, Chapter 1 and "disadvantaged-schools class size reduction."
41

Insure that all schools kept open are in as good a condition of repair, maintenance and educational equipment as schools in the District that have predominantly white enrollments.
D. Assign students to the elementary schools in the Southwest quadrant in a manner which maximizes desegregation, and minimizes transportation within- the quadrant without increasing the criteria of eligibility for transportation. Eliminate split grade structures as necessary to achieve these objectives.
E. Establish, at Washington and one other location in the Southwest quadrant, elementary magnet schools of not more than 500 students, with a program calculated to attract desegregative transfers from elsewhere in the District, but without academic admission criteria. The program in each school shall include supplemental staffing of at least five teacher positions and appropriate educational equipment and supplies.
F. Retain in the Southwest quadrant any desegregative special programs located there during the current year, and take all feasible steps to eliminate within-school segregation with respect to those programs.
G. In relocating the programs from the Rockford Area Career Center (which is being closed), allocate at least 50% of those programs to West, Auburn or other locations in the Southwest quadrant.
42

H. Modify the voluntary transfer program so that any

minority student may transfer from a school more than 29%

minority to any school with less than 28% minority. The

District may recommend receiving schools that serve the

following goals:

desegregative effect;

minimizing

transportation distance; establishing a critical mass of

minority students; and providing effective educational

opportunities for transfer students.

I. Devote all net revenue increases from the State of

Illinois to the proposed new supplemental programs designed to

improve the quality of education in schools in the Southwest

quadrant. Net revenue increases means new revenue remaining

after the District first pays from that source the cost of

implementing this Preliminary Injunction Order.

J. Submit within two weeks a planning report for the

implementation of this Order, and after any Court proceedings

in connection therewith, submit within two weeks a final

implementation plan. Progress reports shall be submitted

every 3 0 days thereafter. Plaintiffs may comment to Defendant

or to the Court with respect to any such plans and reports.

The parties are directed to cooperate to the greatest extent

possible in the effectuation of this Order.

III. After further proceedings, declare the rights of the parties and afford permanent relief in such form and manner as the Court may deem necessary and proper to remedy segregative and disproportionately burdensome nature of the District's
43

Reorganization Plan. Among the issues that should be addressed in such proceedings is the most equitable alignment of high schools and middle schools in the District.
IV. Award Plaintiffs their costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees.
66-67. Paragraph 55 (setting forth the pertinent part of the Fourteenth Amendment) and paragraph 56 (setting forth Section 42 U.S.C. 1983) are realleged and incorporated herein as paragraphs 66 and 67.
68. Section 42 U.S.C. 1981 provides that: All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
69. The District has had a significant enrollment of Black and other minority students for many years.
70. The District has for over 30 years intentionally segregated and discriminated against black and Hispanic students. This unlawful conduct has infected every aspect of the school system to a significant extent, including: student assignment, faculty and
44

staff assignment; educational practices; educational programs; facilities; educational materials and equipment; transportation; discipline; employment practices; bilingual education; special education; vocational education; and extracurricular activities.
71. The present effects of the District's conduct described in Paragraph 70 permeate the Rockford Public School system, as well as other public and private school activities in the Rockford area.
72. The District has failed or refused to disestablish the racial segregation and discrimination alleged in Paragraph 70. The District has persisted in this failure or refusal on numerous occasions since 1954, despite many explicit efforts by aggrieved citizens and government agencies to persuade or compel the District to do otherwise.
73. The District has intentionally brought about and maintained racial segregation in the public schools through the following practices, among others:
73.1 The drawing and alteration of school attendance boundaries to create, maintain or increase racial segregation.
73.2 The manipulation of school feeder patterns to create, maintain or increase segregation.
73.3 The use of optional attendance zones to create, maintain or increase segregation.
45

73.4 The adjustment of grade structures among schools to create, maintain or increase segregation.
73.5 The siting of buildings so as to contribute to segregation.
73.6 The assignment or reassignment of students to create, maintain or increase segregation.
73.7 The use of building additions to perpetuate or increase segregation.
73.8 The use of portable classrooms to maintain or intensify segregation.
73.9 The closing of schools to foster segregation. 73.10 The manipulation of school capacity to effect
segregation. 73.11 The use of private rental facilities to perpetuate or
increase segregation. 73.12 The purchase of private facilities to maintain
segregation. 73.13 The assignment of like-race faculty and staff to
racially identifiable schools. 73.14 The assignment of like-race principals to racially
identifiable schools. 73.15 The use of transfer policies to perpetuate school
segregation. 73.16 The provision of inferior educational programs,
facilities, faculty, staff, equipment and materials to racially identifiable black schools.
46

73.17 The tracking and steering of minority students into segregated (and inferior) academic programs.
73.18 The operation of segregated alternative programs within putatively integrated schools.
73.19 The intact busing of students, including minority students in bilingual, special education and "desegregation" transfer programs.
73.20 The rescission on several occasions of measures purporting to alleviate segregation because District officials were opposed to implementing measures for that purpose or having that effect.
73.21 The adoption of the segregative Reorganization Plan described in Count I.
74. The practices summarized in Paragraphs 70-73 occurred over a substantial period of time and in a substantial portion of the District, and constitute a system-wide violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States.
75. The acts and omissions of the District summarized in Paragraphs 70-73 also have been directed toward and have had a segregative effect upon Hispanic students.
76. In addition to its conduct causing the segregation of the District's students, the District also intentionally discriminated against minority students through a pattern of conduct which
47

disproportionately burdened minority students and otherwise denied to them the educational opportunities afforded to white students:
76.1 The District provided a teaching staff to black schools that had less professional experience and less training than the teaching staff provided to white schools.
76.2 The District operated black elementary schools with inferior facilities and materials, and fewer available programs than white schools.
76.3 The District employed tracking and steering practices that had the pervasive effects of providing an inferior education to black and Hispanic students and of stigmatizing them as inferior.
76.4 The District instructed minority students in a manner that was typically different, inappropriate and inferior to that provided to white students.
76.5 The District operated vocational programs in a discriminatory fashion: vocational programs that were well-run and of high quality had few minority participants because minority students were discouraged from taking them, while the District's vocational programs of inferior quality were made a dumping ground for disproportionate numbers of minority students.

76.6

The District disciplined minority students much more frequently, and more severely, than it disciplined white students who behaved similarly.

48

76.7

The District provided disparate ancillary educational services to minority students (such as counselors) and interposed barriers to the educational success of

minority students.

76.3 The District provided disparate institutional support

and resources to minority schools and operated minority schools with an educational and organizational climate that stigmatized minority students as inferior and as

deserving only an inferior level of education.

76.9 The District failed to support or maintain its sporadic

programs to improve educational opportunities for minority students. 76.10 The District failed to provide training for staff to

facilitate successful integration or the improvement of

educational opportunity for minority students.

76.11 The District relied on unsuccessful compensatory education programs in low-income minority schools (such as Title I) as an alternative to the educational

benefits to such students from desegregation of the

school system, despite notice that such compensatory

programs were not effective for that purpose.

76.12 The District unlawfully contributed to the widespread

racial identif iability of extracurricular activities at

the high school level and employed policies and practices that diminished minority access to extracurricular activities.

49

76.13 The District unlawfully operated its Special Education Program in a manner that misclassified, stigmatized and disproportionately burdened minority students.
76.14 The District violated the rights of Hispanic students by operating a segregated, whole-day elementary bilingual program, which failed to allow for interaction between bilingual students and the rest of the school.
76.15 The District violated the rights of Hispanic students through the segregated intact relocation of the bilingual program, the imposition of severe transportation burdens on bilingual students and the failure to provide adequate services and resources to operate an effective program.
76.16 The District operated the school system in such a manner that there were pervasive, continuous and unlawful systemwide disparities in facilities, equipment, materials and supplies between black and white schools.
76.17 The District maintained a policy of underfunding schools with respect to allocations for equipment, materials and supplies, and then relying on parent and private gifts to particular schools to make up the underfunding, all of which had the inevitable effect of providing a lower quality and quantity of educational experience to students in minority schools.
50

76.18 The District maintained a policy of requiring -he mandatory assignment of minority students to schools outside their neighborhoods for desegregation purposes, while imposing no similar burdens on white students.
76.19 The District discriminated against minority students with regard to the type and quality of transportation services afforded.
76.20 The District unlawfully failed to hire minority teachers and staff and failed to meet its own minority hiring goals and affirmative action obligations.
15.21 The District perpetuated the existence of a board of education whose makeup severely underrepresented minorities and was dominated by persons opposed to minority interests.
76.22 The District adopted the Reorganization Plan described in Count I, which imposed extreme disparate burdens and educational disadvantages upon minority students.
77. The practices summarized in Paragraph 76 occurred over a substantial period of time and in a substantial portion of the District, and constitute a systemwide violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States.
78. The acts and omissions of the District summarized in Paragraph 76 also have been directed toward and have had a discriminatory effect upon Hispanic students.
51

79. Subsequent to the initial filing of Plaintiffs' Complaint in this action, the District has continued to engage in a pattern of affirmative segregative and discriminatory acts and has violated remedial orders entered by this Court.
79.1 In April 1991, the District adopted an Elementary Redistricting Plan which impeded the success of three integrative magnet schools by reducing enrollments at east side schools and thereby diminishing the need for transfers.
79.2 As a result of opposition from white parents and students, the District retracted a boundary change that would have contributed to the desegregation of Church School.
79.3 In response to objections from white parents concerning a 3 0* minority enrollment requirement, the District unlawfully retracted a plan to create an integrated Academics Plus Program at March School.
79.4 The District unjustifiably placed the entire burden of desegregating the day care system upon minority students: minority day care students were assigned across the river to white schools without a comparable burden placed upon white students.
79.5 The District unlawfully terminated compliance with the First Interim Order after one year of implementation.
79.6 The District unlawfully failed to implement numerous remedial steps ordered in the First Interim Order.
52

79.7 The District engaged in a pattern of substantial noncompliance with the Second Interim Order and failed to demonstrate a good faith commitment to its provisions.
80. The District's unlawful intent in connection with the conduct described in Paragraphs 70 through 79 is reflected by all of the following:
80.1 The District engaged in "classic" segregative techniques, such as busing students on an intact basis; busing minorities to racially identifiable schools farther away than majority schools with extra capacity; employing optional or multiple attendance zones; maintaining disparities between the physical quality of black and white schools; and implementing discriminatory transfer policies.
80.2 The District disproportionately assigned like-race teachers and staff to racially identifiable schools.
80.3 The District disproportionately assigned like-race principals to racially identifiable schools.
80.4 The District engaged in scores of actions that had the foreseeable and probable effect of increasing segregation or discriminating against minorities.
80.5 The District ignored many specific warnings about the discriminatory and segregative effects of its conduct.
8 0.6 The District maintained inferior facilities at minority schools.
53

80.7 The District engaged in a pattern of submitting to community members opposed to segregation.
8 0.8 The District made numerous discriminatory or segregative decisions for which its professed justifications were pretextual.
80.9 The District departed from its normal decision-making process in connection with discriminatory decisions.
80.10 The District ignored normal substantive considerations in connection with discriminatory decisions.
80.11 RBE members made contemporaneous statements reflecting the influence of racially discriminatory motives.
80.12 The District breached promises to improve educational opportunities for minority students and remedy the effects of segregation.
80.13 The District rejected numerous proposals that would have provided a measure of desegregation.
80.14 The District failed to comply with state law provisions requiring the District to alleviate segregation.
80.15 The District engaged in a pattern of half-hearted and calculatingly ineffective "desegregation programs."
81. Unless restrained by order of this Court, the District will continue to maintain and operate the Rockford public schools in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States, resulting in severe and irreparable harm. No adequate remedy is
available at law.
54

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Court:

I.

Declare that the policies, practices, actions and

omissions of the District alleged in this Complaint are in

violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States.

II. Enjoin Defendant from discriminating against students

on the basis of race and ethnic origin, and from continuing to

operate a racially segregated school system, and require Defendant

to implement such plan of desegregation as this Court may deem

necessary and proper to remedy the segregative and discriminatory

conduct practiced by Defendant.

III. Afford other preliminary and permanent relief in such

form and manner as the Court may deem necessary and proper to

remedy the segregative and discriminatory conduct of the District.

IV. Award Plaintiffs their costs of suit, including

reasonable attorneys' fees.

COÜMT III 32. Plaintiffs, Flossie Hoarde, Sidella and Nathan Hughes, Reverend Louis E. Malone, Christine Saleem, Beulah Tripplett, Granada Williams, Larry and Sue Curtin, and Jesus Medrano, as parents and next of kin to their minor wards, also Plaintiffs herein, are voters of School District 205.

83. Pursuant to state law, the Defendant is obligated to establish single-member subdistricts for school board elections in November 1991. (111. Rev. Stat. Ch. 122, Par. 9 -22). The obligation arose
55

as a result of a referendum initiated and sponsored by the Plaintiff, People Who Care, to rectify the pattern of all-white or predominantly-white membership on the Board of Education, and the underrepresentation of African-American and other minority citizens, parents, and students, which existed under the at-large election previously in effect. The referendum was adopted by a majority of the voters at the November 1989 school district election.
84. On May 21, 1991, Defendant adopted a set of subdistrict boundaries and a corresponding electoral map ("Adopted Map"). The Defendant intends to proceed with the November, 1991, school board election pursuant to the electoral boundaries established by the Adopted Map.
85. The Defendant's Adopted Map violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in that the electoral subdistrict boundaries of Defendant's Adopted Map fracture the African American community and thereby operate to minimize or cancel out the ability of African American voters to elect their preferred candidates. 42 U.S.C. §1973.
85.1 The African American community in School District 205 is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single subdistrict.
85.2 Under Defendant's Adopted Map, a single subdistrict with a voting age population of 50% African American
56

has not been created. No subdistricts under Defendant's Adopted Map contain even an African American majority of total population. Instead, the African American population is fractured and significant groups of African American voters are separated from contiguous African American communities and assigned to white majority subdistricts. Under Defendant's Adopted Map, the African American community in the southwest quadrant is divided among three subdistricts that contain a large white majority of both total and voting age population and one subdistrict that is comprised of 47* white voting age and 3 9* African American voting age population.
86. The African American community in District 205 is politically cohesive. The African Americans in the school district have tended to vote as a group and to vote for African American candidates.
87. The African American community is subject to majority bloc voting against its candidates.
88. Significant additional social and historical factors interact with the Adopted Map's fracturing of the African American community to cause minority vote dilution. These additional factors include lower income levels, depressed housing conditions, and racial
isolation in schools for African Americans in Rockford.
57

89. There exists no adequate remedy at law for Defendant's
violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court
declare Defendant to be in violation of §2 of the Voting Rights
Act, 42 U.S.C. §1973, enjoin Defendant from implementing its
Adopted Map, and grant such other relief as this Court deems
appropriate.
COUNT IV
90.-91. Plaintiffs' adopt and incorporate as paragraphs 90 and 91
of this Count IV, paragraphs 82 and 83 of Count III.
92. Section 9-22 of the Illinois School Code provides:
111. Rev. Stats.. Chapter 122, Para. 9-22
School board Districts A school board may, on its own motion, or
shall, upon the petition of the lesser of 2,500 or 5% of the voters registered in the district, order submitted to the voters of the district a regular school election or at the general election, the proposition for the election of board members by school board district rather than at large, and such proposition shall thereupon be certified by the secretary of the board for submission. If the proposition is approved by a majority of those voting on the proposition, the board shall divide the school district into 7 school board districts, each of which must be compact and contiguous and substantially equal in population to each other district. The terms of office of the board members incumbent at the time of proposition is adopted expire on the day of the next regular
school election, at which time one member shall
be elected from each school board district. In districts which have 4 year terms, those
58

members first elected after adoption of such a proposition shall, by lot, determine 3 to serve for 2 years and 4 for 4 years; their successors shall serve for a 4 year term. in districts which have 6 year terms, those members first elected after adoption of such a proposition shall, by lot, determine 3 to serve for 2 years, 2 for 4 years and 2 for 6 years; their successors shall serve for a 6 year term. Vacancies shall be filled as provided in section 10-10.
In the year following each decennial census, the school board shall reapportion the board districts to reflect the results of such census. The districts shall be compact, contiguous and substantially equal in population, and such reapportionment plan shall be completed and formally approved by a majority of the members of the board not less than 90 days before the last date established by law for the submission of nominating petitions for the next school board election. At the same board meeting, the board shall, publicly by lot, divide the board districts as equally as possible into 2 groups. In school districts which have 4 year terms, board members or their successors from one group shall be elected for successive terms of 2 years, 4 years and 4 years; and members or their successors from the second group shall be elected for successive terms of 4 years, 4 years and 2 years. In school districts which have 6 year terms, board members or their successors from one group shall be elected for successive terms of 4 years and 6 years; and members on their successors from the second group shall be elected for successive terms of 6 years and 4 years.
93. Section 9-22 requires that school board candidates reside
within the school board subdistrict from which they seek to be
elected.
94. In its roles as the local election official, school district
electoral board and canvassing board, Defendant is proceeding with
preparations for the upcoming November 1991 election as if there is
59

no subdistrict residency requirement for school board member candidates.
95. In proceeding without a board member residency requirement the Defendant is violating Section 9-22. By doing so, Defendant will diminish or defeat the purpose for which single-member subdistricts were authorized by the legislature and required by voter referendum -– namely, to ensure geographical representation on the Board of Education.
96. There exists no adequate remedy at law for Defendant's violation of Section 9-22.
97. This Court has pendent jurisdiction over this state law claim.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court declare that Defendant is in violation of Section 9-22 of the Illinois School Code, enjoin Defendants from proceeding with election preparations as if there is no subdistrict residency requirement, and grant such further relief as this Court deems appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
r lobert C. Howard
'Attorney for Plaintiffs
60

DATED: June 18, 1993
Robert C. Howard James G. Bradtke Kathleen Mangold-Spoto Charles J. Holley FUTTERMAN & HOWARD, CHTD. 122 S. Michigan Ave. Suite 1850 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 427-3600

Matthew J. piers Jonathan Alan Rothstein Jennifer L. Fischer GESSLER, FLYNN, FLEISCHMANN
HUGHES &. SOCOL Three First National Plaza Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 580-0100

j>k\c «Arock\pld\CompUi.ül

61

 
 851 F.Supp. 905 (1994)
PEOPLE WHO CARE, an unincorporated association; Larry & Chasty Hoarde, minors, by their parent and next friend, Flossie Hoarde; Jonathan Hughes, a minor, by his parents and next friends, Sidella and Nathan Hughes; Sidney and Andre Malone, minors, by their parent and next friend, Rev. Louis E. Malone; Shaheed Saleem, a minor, by his parent and next friend, Christine Saleem; Anissa Tripplett, a minor, by her parent and next friend, Beulah Tripplett; Asia Eason, a minor, by her parent and next friend, Granada Williams; James and Kelly Curtin, minors, by their parents and next friends, Larry Curtin and Sue
Belvoir; Leonardo Medrano, by his parent and next friend, Jesus Medrano; each individual suing as a class representative of the class certified by the court, Plaintiffs,
v. ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, SCHOOL DISTRICT # 205, Defendant,
and Rockford Education Association, Rockford Building Maintenance Association, and
Education Office Personnel Association, Intervenor-Defendants.
Civ. A. No. 89-C-20168.
United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, W.D.
February 18, 1994.
90678 *906 *907 Robert C. Howard, Futterman & Howard, Matthew J. Piers, Gessler, Flynn, Fleischmann, *908 Hughes & Socol, Ltd., Chicago, IL, for plaintiffs.
Anthony G. Scariano, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes Chtd., Chicago Heights, IL, for defendant.
Steven Katz, Katz and Buhai, South Barrington, IL, for intervenor-defendants.
ORDER
ROSZKOWSKI, District Judge.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROCEDURAL HISTORY ............................................... 908 LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................. 909 STUDENT TRACKING AND ABILITY GROUPING ............................ 912 SEGREGATION OF STUDENTS BY RACE WITHIN SCHOOLS ................... 915 STUDENT ASSIGNMENT ............................................... 917 FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT DISPARITIES ............................. 919 1989 REORGANIZATION PLAN ......................................... 922 EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ........................................ 923 STAFF ASSIGNMENT ................................................. 924 INEQUITABLE ACCESS TO TRANSPORTATION ............................. 925 DISCRIMINATORY CONDITIONS IN THE COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD ........ 926 EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES ....................................... 928 BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND OTHER EDUCATIONAL DISCRIMINATION
ISSUES AFFECTING HISPANICS .................................... 929 SPECIAL EDUCATION ................................................ 929

CONCLUSION ....................................................... 930 ORDER ............................................................ 933
INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the court on the plaintiffs' motion for a permanent injunction. Hearing was held before Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney, who issued a Report and Recommendation making extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law, ultimately concluding that the defendant had violated the plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection under the law by separating public school children on the basis of race. The plaintiffs, the defendant, and the intervenor-defendants have all filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. The parties have all extensively briefed the issues and the court hereby makes its findings of fact and conclusions of law.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This lawsuit was filed on May 11, 1989. It was filed by the plaintiffs, People Who Care, et al., as a reaction to the 1989 Reorganization Plan that had been adopted by the defendant, Rockford Board of Education School District # 205, in January and February of 1989. The lawsuit not only attacks the 1989 Reorganization Plan, but also alleges that the school district historically has engaged in a pattern of intentional segregation and discrimination on a systemwide basis.
Approximately two months into the litigation, the parties entered into an Interim Settlement in response to the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The Interim Settlement dealt mainly with the 1989 Reorganization Plan. The settlement was embodied in an Interim Agreed Order entered by the court on July 7, 1989. That order provided for certain modifications of the Reorganization Plan and for other remedial steps to be taken by the District.
A Second Amended Complaint was filed on November 9, 1989. On April 24, 1991, the plaintiffs and the defendant agreed to, and the court approved and entered, a Second Interim Order. The Second Interim Order was a more comprehensive interim remedial plan. The Second Interim Order did not resolve the plaintiffs' underlying liability claim and the District made no admission of liability in connection with either of the Interim Remedial Orders. Certain parts of the Second Interim Order were subsequently stricken by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. See People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., 961 F.2d 1335 (7th Cir.1992).
909 *909 On June 29, 1992, this court, by Minute Order, referred all matters pertaining to the plaintiffs' motion for a supplemental remedial order to Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney for ruling. By Order of September 8, 1992, this court, pursuant to Local Rule 1.71(c)(4) of the General Rules of the Northern District of Illinois, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(a), (b) and (c), transferred to the Magistrate Judge all "matters currently pending."
On April 8, 1993, this court reiterated the referral to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and in April of 1993 the Magistrate Judge commenced hearing the motion for a permanent injunction.
The injunction hearing began April 2, 1993. Approximately thirty witnesses testified on behalf of the plaintiffs, and approximately nine witnesses testified on behalf of the defendant and the intervenor-defendants. Over 3,500 pages of testimony were taken over the twenty-four days of the hearing. In addition, the court has taken into consideration 150 depositions presented to the court as evidence in lieu of testimony, as well as the literally thousands of pages of documents that have been presented to the court.
Pursuant to an "Agreement of Plaintiffs, Defendant Rockford School District 205 and Intervenor-Defendants Concerning the Liability Hearing Adjudication Process and Certain Remedial Matters," dated May 5, 1993, all parties stipulated that the Magistrate Judge would make a Report and Recommendation to this court which would then rule upon the permanent injunction and liability issues. Pursuant to the May 5th Agreement, the parties agreed that all present and future remedial matters in this case, without limitation, would be referred to the Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) and (c)(3), and under the rules of the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Illinois. The Agreement also allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint which conformed to the proofs presented. This Third Amended Complaint was filed June 23, 1993.
On May 5, 1993, pursuant to Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Second Interim Order, and Paragraph 13 of the May 5 Agreement, this court appointed Dr. Eugene E. Eubanks as Special Master.
The permanent injunction hearing ended on May 13, 1993. The parties submitted post-hearing briefs as well as proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
On November 3, 1993, Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney issued his Report and Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge made extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law, recommending that the defendant be found liable for violating the Fourteenth Amendment rights of the plaintiff class, and that the court enter an appropriate injunction and declaratory order against the defendant. All parties have filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and have extensively briefed their objections.
Pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), any party may serve and file written objections to a Magistrate Judge's proposed findings of fact and recommendation. The statute further provides, in pertinent part:
A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
The standard calls for a de novo determination, not a de novo hearing. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 674, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 2411, 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (1980). In making its de novo determination of the record, the court is entitled to afford the Magistrate Judge's credibility findings "such weight as their merit commands and the sound discretion of the judge warrants." Id. at 683, 100 S.Ct. at 2416.
LEGAL STANDARDS

Fourteenth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause

910

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities *910 of

citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,

without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of

the laws.

U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.

This case is based upon the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs have alleged that the defendant has separated public school children by race and has discriminated against African-American and other minority school children because of their race. For almost forty years, federal law on this issue has been clear. "[I]n the field of public education, the doctrine of `separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 495, 74 S.Ct. 686, 692, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954).

The elements for a prima facie case of intentional discrimination against a school district requires that there be segregation or discrimination, causation and intent. Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, Denver, Col., 413 U.S. 189, 208, 93 S.Ct. 2686, 2697, 37 L.Ed.2d 548 (1973); Diaz v. San Jose Unified School Dist., 733 F.2d 660, 662 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1065, 105 S.Ct. 2140, 85 L.Ed.2d 497 (1985). The Equal Protection Clause requires State and local governments to treat similarly situated groups of people in a similar fashion if that government classifies individuals in the distribution of particular benefits and burdens. Hooper v. Bernalillo

County Assessor, 472 U.S. 612, 618, 105 S.Ct. 2862, 2866, 86 L.Ed.2d 487 (1985). Classifications which burden a discrete and insular minority group are inherently suspect and are subject to "strict" judicial scrutiny. See United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152 n. 4, 58 S.Ct. 778, 783 n. 4, 82 L.Ed. 1234 (1938). Racial classifications are inherently suspect and are presumptively invalid absent an extraordinary justification. Personnel Administrator v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 272, 99 S.Ct. 2282, 2292-93, 60 L.Ed.2d 870 (1979). Even facially neutral state action violates the Equal Protection Clause when such action is intended to have a racial effect and does, in fact, have such an effect. Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 240-41, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 2047-48, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976).
The fact that racially segregated schools exist is not automatically a constitutional violation. Columbus Bd. of Educ. v. Panache, 443 U.S. 449, 464, 99 S.Ct. 2941, 2950, 61 L.Ed.2d 666 (1979). It is a violation when intentional governmental conduct has created or perpetuated the segregative conditions. Keyes, 413 U.S. at 213-14, 93 S.Ct. at 2699-2700. Absent statutory segregation in a state, a school district violates the constitution when "school authorities have carried out a systematic program of segregation affecting a substantial portion of the students, schools, teachers, and facilities within the school system." Id. at 201, 93 S.Ct. at 2694. To establish unconstitutional racial imbalance within a school system, the plaintiff must show that the governmental authorities created or maintained racial segregation in the schools and that their actions were motivated by segregative intent. Id. at 208, 93 S.Ct. at 2697; Diaz, 733 F.2d at 662.
Absolute segregation is certainly prohibited, as well as substantial segregation and racially identifiable schools. Pursuant to Green v. County School Bd. of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 20 L.Ed.2d 716 (1968), the court must examine the ethnic and racial composition of the schools as well as "every facet of school operations 0907 faculty, staff, transportation, extra-curricular activities and facilities." Id. at 435, 88 S.Ct. at 1693. The court will also consider the quality of education provided to both white and minority students. See Freeman v. Pitts, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 112 S.Ct. 1430, 1446, 118 L.Ed.2d 108 (1992).
Causation is established when it is shown that the defendant's conduct contributed in a substantial manner to the creation or perpetuation of racial segregation. In other words, the defendant's conduct must have more than a de minimis impact. United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ., 624 F.Supp. 1276, 1379 (S.D.N.Y.1985), aff'd, 837 F.2d 1181 (2nd Cir.1987); Berry v. School Dist. of Benton Harbor, 442 F.Supp. 1280, 1292 (W.D.Mich.1977).
911 *911 Second, the plaintiff must show segregative intent. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to establish segregative intent. Diaz, 733 F.2d at 662. Types of proof which support an inference of segregative intent include: discriminatory impact of acts, omissions or policies of the defendant; the history of events leading to conduct maintaining or exacerbating racial imbalance in schools; departures from regular procedures and policies used by the decision-makers; and evidence concerning the decision-making process. Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266-68, 97 S.Ct. 555, 563-65, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977). Upon a showing of a prima facie case of intentional segregation, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that the same segregative conduct would have occurred "even had the impermissible purpose not been considered." Id. at 271 n. 21, 97 S.Ct. at 566 n. 21.
Injunctive Relief
For a permanent injunction to issue from the court, the plaintiffs must prevail on the merits of their claim and establish that equitable relief is appropriate. Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 506-07, 79 S.Ct. 948, 954-55, 3 L.Ed.2d 988 (1959). Beacon Theaters implies that the factors considered for a permanent injunction are the same as those considered for a preliminary injunction, with victory on the merits replacing a reasonable likelihood of success. See e.g., United States v. Rural Electric Convenience Co-Op. Co., 922 F.2d 429, 432 (7th Cir.1991). Those other factors in the balance of equities are: an inadequate remedy at law; irreparable harm to the plaintiffs absent injunctive relief; the degree of hardship on the defendant; the public interest served; and the ability to fashion an appropriate injunction. The Magistrate Judge found each of those factors favored the plaintiffs and recommended that appropriate injunctive relief be entered against the defendant.

Objections to Evidence
Hearing on the motion for a permanent injunction was held before Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney pursuant to this court's referral order under 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Rule 1.71(c)(4) of the General Rules of the Northern District of Illinois ("Local Rules"). Pursuant to the referral, the Magistrate Judge entered a report and recommendation for review by the court. The district court has de novo review over such a report. "A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
As an initial matter, the parties have objected to various rulings made by the Magistrate Judge. A substantial number of depositions and affidavits were received in evidence in lieu of live testimony at the hearing. The Magistrate Judge allowed the submission of this evidence with the provision that specific objections made to deposition testimony would be ruled upon, and ruled upon those objections in an order dated June 23, 1993. The plaintiffs have objected to those rulings arguing that the defendant has waived those objections, that the court has previously rejected such objections, and that those objections are meritless. The defendant argues that its objections were based on the Federal Rules of Evidence and were not waived, based on an agreed order of the parties and approved by the court, allowing the defendant to preserve its objections to deposition testimony. Although the Magistrate Judge did overrule many of the defendant's motions in limine, a part of the basis for his ruling was that the defendant's objections were too generalized to identify to what the defendant had objected. Furthermore, some of the defendant's objections, once specified to particular portions of evidence, were meritorious. The defendant's objections to parts of the depositions focused on relevant matters such as whether the testimony was based on personal knowledge, whether there was proper foundation, whether the testimony was hearsay or multiple hearsay, whether the testimony related to post-1989 conduct, or whether the testimony was improper opinion testimony.
912 The depositions and affidavits were admitted into evidence subject to objections, which *912 were made to specific portions of testimony, rather than the generic, generalized objections made in the defendant's motions in limine. Having reviewed the depositions and affidavits and the plaintiffs' objections, and the Magistrate Judge's rulings, the court cannot find that the Magistrate Judge was clearly erroneous in any of those rulings. Therefore, the plaintiffs' objections to the rulings on the defendant's objections to depositions and affidavits are overruled. The depositions and affidavits are admitted, except for the portions of those depositions and affidavits which have had objections sustained to them.
The defendant's primary objection throughout its briefs is that the Magistrate Judge erred in concluding that the defendant intentionally discriminated against minority students. The defendant argues that the plaintiffs failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant engaged in purposeful and intentional discrimination and that the Magistrate Judge improperly jumped to that conclusion. The defendant further argues that the Magistrate Judge improperly gave too much weight to evidence it characterizes as "[i]solated incidents of conduct by school officials" and that "almost all evidence favorable to the District has been excluded from the proposed findings." The defendant correctly points out, as the court has stated earlier, that this court is reviewing the evidence de novo. The court is mindful of the burdens of proof in this case and is also aware of the degree of circumstantial evidence presented. As stated earlier here, and in the Magistrate Judge's Report, circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to infer the defendant's intent.
The court has reviewed all the evidence in this case in considering the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the corresponding sections of the Magistrate Judge's opinion.
The court will not attempt to answer each and every objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation filed by the parties, but will briefly comment on some of those objections. The parties have filed a multitude of objections, many of which have no basis in the record. Those objections not discussed here are rejected as meritless.

As stated earlier, the standard that guides the court in a case such as this, is that this court must make a de novo determination of the record. As the courts have consistently held a de novo hearing is not required. Furthermore, the court is entitled to accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge, and to afford his credibility findings such weight as their merit commands and the sound discretion of the court warrants. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 674-76, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 2411-13, 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (1980). The excellent Report and Recommendation submitted by the Magistrate Judge evidences a thorough understanding of both the law and the facts and how those facts apply to the law. In making its de novo determination in this case, the court has given due consideration to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in conjunction with the evidence.
STUDENT TRACKING AND ABILITY GROUPING
The Magistrate Judge found that the ability grouping and tracking practices of the Rockford School District (hereinafter RSD) did not represent a trustworthy enactment of any academically acceptable theory or practice and that the RSD tracking practices skewed enrollment in favor of whites and to the disadvantage of minority students. The Magistrate Judge further found that it was the policy of the RSD to use tracking to intentionally segregate white students, and that the policy existed in 1989 and had existed for many years prior thereto.
The defendant's principal objection to this finding is that the Magistrate Judge relied, to a large extent, on the testimony of the plaintiff's expert witness, Dr. Jeanne Oakes. The Magistrate Judge stated that "the most devastating witness testifying on behalf of the plaintiffs was Dr. Jeanne Oakes." Report and Recommendation at 940.
The defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge's finding because, the defendant asserts, "Dr. Oakes neither 913 visited a single *913 school, nor spoke with a solitary student, administrator, or member of the Rockford
community. She completed all of her analysis relative to the District through reliance on hearsay without ever personally viewing any of the Rockford Public Schools." Further, the defendant seems to question the Magistrate Judge's acceptance of Dr. Oakes as an expert witness, questioning her qualifications to state her opinions, based on her qualifications.
The court rejects the defendant's contentions. The Magistrate Judge's conclusion on this point is convincingly supported by the evidence.
First, Dr. Oakes is clearly qualified to testify on the subject of tracking[1] and her testimony is entitled to great weight, as the Magistrate Judge found. Dr. Oakes's expertise, integrity and credentials were acknowledged by the defendant's counsel. Tr. at 318, 322. Her conclusions were supported, at least in part, by the defendant's own expert, Dr. James Heald. Tr. 3293.[2]
Furthermore, contrary to the defendant's contention, Dr. Oakes's analysis was not based on hearsay. As the Magistrate Judge stated in his Report and Recommendation, her analysis is based upon an examination of a wide range of materials, which are documents obtained from the defendant's files.[3]
In addition, Dr. Oakes's testimony is wholly corroborated by the testimony of the defendant's personnel who are intimately acquainted with the tracking practice of the District. Specifically, see the testimony of Mr. William Bowen (Report and Recommendation at 947) and Mr. Nathaniel Martin's (Report and Recommendation at 948) both veteran administrators of the District, with many years of experience in observing the operation of the District's tracking method.
The defendant also objects to the Magistrate Judge's finding that the defendant's tracking practices "did not represent a trustworthy enactment of any academically acceptable theory or practice." This conclusion is supported by the testimony of Dr. Oakes and, in large part, by the testimony of Dr. Willis.
The Magistrate Judge further found that "it was the policy of RSD to use tracking to intentionally segregate white students from minority students." Report and Recommendation at 940. The defendant objects on the grounds

that "no evidence was adduced at the hearing which demonstrated that the defendant was motivated on the basis of race to track or ability group students according to their race or had the invidious intent to do so." As the plaintiffs correctly point out, the defendant's intent is what is at issue here, not its motivation.[4]
Furthermore, there is ample evidence to support the Magistrate Judge's conclusion on this point, including but not limited to: the assignment of minority students to lower track classes in consistently disproportionate numbers (Report and Recommendation at 946, 950-53), knowledge of these racial disproportions and woefully inadequate 914 efforts *914 to correct them (Report and Recommendation at 999), placing black students whose achievement scores qualified them for two or more tracks in lower tracks (Report and Recommendation at 959) and corroboration by District personnel (Report and Recommendation at 947-48).
The defendant also objects to the Magistrate Judge's finding that children were publicly labelled when they were "tracked." Contrary to the defendant's objections, the evidence clearly supports this finding, including the testimony of Dr. Oakes and the incredibly insensitive practice of the District of labelling the students by colorcoding them for all of the student body to see. Not only is this evidence compelling, it is astonishing, and completely uncontroverted.
The defendant also attacks Dr. Oakes's expertise on statistical analysis, although it presented no statistical expert in order to impeach her analysis, which it could have done. The defendant's claim is without merit.
The defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge's finding that the matters contained in Dr. Oakes's charts and tables are true and correct and his adopting them as findings of the court. The Magistrate Judge further found that "the record is replete with situations where, there were students (usually white) who scored below the national mean and who were still placed in the honors classes and, incredibly, there were students (usually minority) who scored in the ninety-ninth percentile who were placed in basic classes." This finding is amply supported by the record in this case. It is significant that the defendant offered no evidence to rebut the plaintiffs' proof, presumably because it could not do so.
The defendant also objects to the Magistrate Judge's finding that the defendant did not track students objectively and had a rigid tracking program. The defendant attributes these inequities to "mistakes" and not "intentional discrimination." The evidence on this point is replete with statistical, documentary and anecdotal support which establishes that the defendant was aware of the problem, but chose to do nothing to correct it. It is supported by the record in this case.
The Magistrate Judge found that the tracking systems used by the RSD did not remedy differences or ameliorate disparities in achievement among racial groups, nor did it function to move students out of the low-level track or move minority students into high-level tracks.
The ability grouping used by the RSD, therefore, cannot be justified as an attempt to target minority students with the hope of advancing them to higher achievement levels. The grouping practices used created racially identifiable classrooms, provided unequal opportunities to learn and served no remedial function for minority students. These practices did not even enable minority students to sustain their position relative to white students in the district achievement hierarchy.
Report and Recommendation at 999.
The defendant's objections to this finding seem to be that since the plaintiffs failed to prove that all minorities were improperly placed, no intent to discriminate can be found. The court finds such a suggestion to be incongruous and without any legal foundation. It would obviously be an impossible burden in any discrimination case to require the plaintiffs to demonstrate that every act of the District was discriminatory.
Furthermore, the record reflects that the evidence supports that groups of higher track students whose scores fell within a range that would qualify them for participation in either a higher or lower track were consistently "whiter" than groups of students whose scores fell within the same range but who were placed in the lower track and in a number of cases, high track classes included exceptionally low-scoring white students, but this was rarely the case for blacks. Conversely, quite high-scoring blacks who were often excluded from high track classes, were

often found instead in low track classes. This was seldom the case for white students. Report and Recommendation at 959.
The defendant apparently contends that these disparities show that since the District mistracked both black and 915 white students, no racial discrimination is shown. Contrary to the defendant's position, the evidence presented
*915 reveals that while blacks were misplaced "down" (i.e. into lower classes), whites were misplaced "up" (i.e. into higher classes).
The evidence clearly supports a finding that the mistracking resulted in unfavorable treatment for minority students. The ultimate result of this mistracking was that minority students whose achievement scores qualified them for regular and basic tracks were far more likely to be placed in the lower than the higher track for which they qualified, and white students were far more likely to be placed in the higher track than the lower track when their achievement scores qualified them for both tracks. Report and Recommendation at 977.
As to the defendant's contention that socio-economic factors account for the disparate treatment of minorities in track placement in the District, there is little, if anything, in the record supporting the defendant's position.
The defendant raises additional objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings under the heading "Student Tracking and Ability Grouping." The court finds that those objections are without merit and adopts the finds of the Magistrate Judge on those issues.
SEGREGATION OF STUDENTS BY RACE WITHIN SCHOOLS
In conjunction with the segregative practices involved in the tracking of students, the Magistrate Judge also found further use of special programs to separate children by race within Rockford public schools. During the periods when the RSD was involved with the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) and the QUEFAC lawsuit,[5] the RSD took actions which were purported to have desegregative effects. The Magistrate Judge found that those actions did not bring about any real racial interaction and instead, used programs which included intact busing and part-time programs, which had little, if any, desegregative effect. Those programs were subsequently rejected by the QUEFAC court and the ISBE in the mid-1970's.
The RSD then began to use both full-site and partial-site programs. Full-site programs included focus centers and open enrollment. Partial-site programs included such programs to place students in classrooms separate from the regular students in a school where the transfer students would not have much contact with the regular students. The use of the so-called "high status" partial-site programs, those with academic entrance requirements, placed groups of white students in minority schools, but the structure of the programs prevented the students from interacting with the minority students of the host school. The use of these kinds of programs allowed the District to count desegregation in terms of numerical percentages without consideration of continued separation of students within individual schools.
Furthermore, prior to the filing of this lawsuit, the RSD used voluntary alternative programs for desegregation which were primarily composed of white students. Desegregation programs for minority students were primarily mandatory transfers and often included mandatory busing. The alternative programs created isolated classrooms of white students in predominantly black schools in which children were in the same buildings, but had no interaction.
The defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge's findings on the basis that they are not supported by the evidence and because many of the programs discussed were done with the approval of the QUEFAC court. The QUEFAC court did not make a finding that the RBE violated the rights of minority students. The case was, in fact, dismissed pursuant to a voluntary dismissal. Plans such as the Grade Exchange Plan and the Special Interest Centers were not ordered by the court. The Grade Exchange Plan was rejected because it effected no true integration. The plan for Special Interest Centers was allowed to proceed although Judge Bauer had serious 916 reservations about the plan. He allowed the plan to go forward *916 only because there was no time in which to implement an alternative.

In 1977, the ISBE placed the RSD on probation because the plan it had submitted was found not to comply with the ISBE rules. Although these rules were held invalid by the Illinois Supreme Court, they did place the RSD on notice of the concern other governmental agencies had about its practices.
The defendant also objects to the findings regarding the partial-site programs stating that the separation between the gifted students and the regular students occurred because the students would "necessarily be located in different classrooms." The court finds this position meritless. The evidence supports the conclusion that minority students were excluded from the programs, with the resulting segregation among classrooms.
The Grade Exchange Plan provided for the transfer of students and their teachers from predominantly white schools to predominantly minority schools and vice versa. Each class transferred remained intact at the receiving school. Again, this was a program to effect the appearance of integration without actually mixing minority and majority students. The defendant argues the evidence does not support this conclusion; however, the evidence is clear from the minutes of the school board and from the proceedings in QUEFAC.
After the rejection of the Grade Exchange Plan, the District began using "Interest Centers" in 1975 to attempt to mix racially diverse students. The Interest Centers were designed to provide a course specific curriculum, but only for a five or ten day period during the school year. The plan was to provide a means to mix students while educating them in one particular field. The evidence shows, however, that classes were transferred en masse; minority classes were placed within an all white school, but were still kept separate.
The evidence also supports the Magistrate Judge's findings that even when minority students were placed in white schools, they were still kept separate from white students. The conclusion is supported by the discussion of student tracking, as well as the uncontradicted testimony of William Bowen and Keith Wilson. Further, the evidence supports the conclusion that many of the minority transfer students were part of Chapter I pull-out programs, who were then "pulled-out" of white classrooms to attend separate classes for significant portions of the day. The defendant asserts that this was not intentional segregation, but rather a means to maximize the District's funding under Chapter I. The defendant offers no evidence to support its argument. This objection is also contradicted by Dr. Stolee's testimony that there were no funding incentives to keep minority students in minority schools.
In conjunction with the full-site magnet programs, the District used partial-site alternative programs which were highly segregated. The defendant objects stating that the evidence does not support the Magistrate Judge's conclusions regarding the Focus Centers and Alternative Programs. The defendant states no basis for its objection. In 1987, the District changed its transportation policy, restricting eligible bus service to the school, which forced some minority students to drop out of the program because of the lack of transportation. Further, Dr. Greene's testimony about his experiences at Haskell School is evidence of the District's failure to support the Focus Center there and is not contradicted by the defendant. The RAES and RAMS showed promise as desegregative programs but were changed to partial-site programs and moved from the Lincoln Park school building. In 1982, RAES and RAMS were discontinued. The defendant argues that the closing of those programs does not show intent. The court disagrees. As the Magistrate Judge found, the use of these magnet programs showed that white students would participate in these types of desegregation programs.
In the late 1970's and early 1980's, the RSD created partial-site magnet programs, "Alternative Programs", and full-site programs called "Focus Centers." In 1982, the RSD cancelled transportation to the Focus Centers, and effectively shut them down. The partial-site programs were of two types: the so-called "high status" programs 917 such as *917 the Gifted Program, CAPA, Montessori, and the Arts Alternative Program; and "low status" programs such as GIT and CASS. The Magistrate Judge found that the alternative programs were used as a means to emphasize and reinforce racial separation. The court agrees. Over time, the high status programs became more segregated white, while the low status programs continued with disproportionately high minority enrollments through the 1980's. The District also created a "Minority Gifted Program", but did not allow minority students to enter the all-white Gifted Program, even though the Program's Director stated the minority gifted students were capable of performing just as well in the regular Gifted Program. The defendant's objections that those findings are not supported by the evidence are without merit and the court adopts the Magistrate Judge's findings regarding these programs.

Within school segregation by intentional conduct is the same as intentional conduct resulting in systemwide segregation. This internal segregation is unlawful. Reed v. Rhodes, 607 F.2d 714, 731 (6th Cir.1979); Hobson v. Hansen, 269 F.Supp. 401, 511-14 (D.D.C.1967), aff'd sub. nom. Smuck v. Hobson, 408 F.2d 175 (D.C.Cir.1969). Such internal segregation may even be more invidious because its effects are observable to the students every school day. Hart v. Community School Bd. of Educ., New York School Dist. # 21, 383 F.Supp. 699, 740 (E.D.N.Y. 1974), aff'd, 512 F.2d 37 (2nd Cir.1975). The Magistrate Judge concluded, as does the court, that the RSD engaged in intentional and purposeful discrimination in the operation of the District's purported desegregation programs, tracking system, bilingual education programs, magnet school programs, and the various alternative education programs. The defendant's objections to these findings are dismissed.
STUDENT ASSIGNMENT
The Magistrate Judge's section on Student Assignment found that over the years the RSD manipulated school attendance areas to separate majority students from minority students. When state and federal agencies pressured the RSD to change its practices, the changes had limited effects and often placed a disparate burden on the minority students. The section covers a long period of time, from the late 1950's through the 1980's. The defendant initially objects to the admission of evidence prior to 1973 as too remote in time to have any relevancy. The court has broad discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence based on remoteness. Cason v. Texaco, Inc., 621 F.Supp. 1518, 1527 (C.D.La.1985); Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, 521 F.2d 465, 473 (10th Cir.1975). The plaintiffs presented this historical evidence to show long-standing practices in the District, as such, their evidence is admissible. The defendant's objection goes only to the weight of the evidence and not its admissibility.
The defendant also argues that the Magistrate Judge's findings are not supported by the evidence. This objection is meritless. The defendant has offered nothing to contradict the substantial evidence presented by the plaintiffs regarding the movement of students in school assignment. The defendant also suggests that the QUEFAC court did not find the RSD had intentionally discriminated. The court is fully aware of that fact and of the fact that no findings were made because of a voluntary dismissal. No disposition was made on the merits. The court does not infer anything against the defendant based on QUEFAC, but does examine the total sum of evidence, including those time periods.
Similarly, the defendant has objected to evidence dealing with actions taken with the ISBE and under the rules and regulations promulgated by the ISBE. The ISBE Rules dealing with desegregation efforts were determined to be unconstitutional by the Illinois Supreme Court in Aurora East Public School Dist. No. 131 v. Cronin, 92 Ill.2d 313, 66 Ill.Dec. 85, 442 N.E.2d 511 (1982). The Magistrate Judge found, as does the court, that evidence of resistance or failure to comply with state law provisions can be evidence of unlawful intent. Diaz, 733 F.2d 660, 666; Morgan v. Kerrigan, 509 F.2d 580, 585 (1st Cir.1974) cert. denied, 421 U.S. 963, 95 S.Ct. 1950, 44 L.Ed.2d 918 449 (1975); Johnson v. San Francisco Unified School District, 339 *918 F.Supp. 1315, 1342 (N.D.Cal.1971), vacated on other grounds, 500 F.2d 349 (9th Cir. 1974). As in QUEFAC, the District worked with the ISBE to formulate desegregation programs. Although the rules and regulations of the ISBE were found to be an unconstitutional exercise of authority by a state agency, the actions taken by the RSD while those rules were in effect is probative of the pattern of segregative practices which the plaintiffs have alleged. Therefore, the defendant's objection is dismissed.
Most of the evidence presented here, as in the rest of this case, has been gleaned from the RSD's own records. Changes in the school attendance boundaries and attendance patterns were established by the RSD's School Boundary Descriptions, Student Attendance Maps, Board Minutes, RSD Memoranda, RSD correspondence with the United States Department of Justice, RSD correspondence with the ISBE, and the various RSD plans and reports, including the 1989 Reorganization Plan and the Individual Building Analysis. Additional support was provided by the testimony of former Superintendent Dr. Thomas Shaheen, former Board Member Marcella Harris, Pupil Placement Committee Member Robert Kufalk, Rev. William Collins, Bill Page, former Board Member Jo Minor, former ISBE Member Dr. Justine Walhout, M. Dickover and RBE Equity Consultant Dr. Harriet Doss Willis. Further documentary support included reports from the Community Desegregation Committee and the Pupil

Placement Committee, the record of Quality Education For All Children, Inc. v. School Board, 362 F.Supp. 985 (N.D.Ill.1973) and ISBE Reports. The defendant offered nothing to contradict this evidence. In fact, most of the evidentiary basis has been stipulated to by the defendant. The defendant argues that the evidence does not support the Magistrate Judge's findings. The court, however, finds the evidence amply supports the Magistrate Judge's findings.
Although the Magistrate Judge adopted a substantial portion of the plaintiffs' proposed findings, the plaintiffs' have objected to the Magistrate Judge's failure to adopt certain findings they proposed.
Specifically, the plaintiffs object to the Magistrate Judge's failure to adopt findings regarding the Teacher Development Center (TDC) and the study done by the American Association of University Women and the League of Women Voters. The court finds the Magistrate Judge properly rejected those proposed findings. Although the TDC was subsequently dropped by the Board, the plaintiffs have not sufficiently established that it was done with segregative intent. As to the plaintiffs' objection to the study of the American Association of University Women and the League of Women Voters, the Magistrate Judge properly rejected findings regarding the study. The plaintiffs failed to establish the reliability of the methods and procedures used. The court rejects these objections to the Report and Recommendation as well as the plaintiffs' other objections to the Magistrate Judge's failure to adopt their proposed findings.
School districts have often been found to have developed attendance boundaries in which racial segregation in school assignments resulted. See Report and Recommendation at 1078 (and citations therein). The court adopts the Magistrate Judge's findings and conclusions regarding school attendance zones as well as the conclusions that those attendance zones were used to create and maintain separate school systems based upon race. The court adopts the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that the RSD's policy of maintaining neighborhood schools was, in fact, a policy of maintaining neighborhood white schools. Report and Recommendation at 1079. Furthermore, the RSD also used feeder patterns for student assignment at the District high schools as well as satellite zones for elementary students to maintain segregation in the schools.
The use of optional attendance zones also contributes to the segregative conditions in a school district. United States v. School Dist. of Omaha, 521 F.2d 530, 540-43 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 946, 96 S.Ct. 361, 46 L.Ed.2d 280 (1975). The result of giving majority and minority students the option of attending predominantly 919 majority or minority schools is often student choices which will create or intensify student segregation. The *919 court finds that the RSD's open enrollment policy did not aid desegregation. Rather, the open enrollment policy benefited majority students with access to alternative programs, while burdening minority students through mandatory one-way busing.
The RSD's policies in the construction of new schools or school additions and the closing of old schools also contributed to segregative conditions in student assignments. See Report and Recommendation at 1079-80. The court adopts the Magistrate Judge's findings and conclusions that the RSD maintained segregative conditions when schools were closed so that white students were assigned to racially-identifiable white schools and minority students were assigned to racially-identifiable minority schools. Further, in the construction of school additions, the RSD intentionally added facilities to promote and maintain segregation within the school system.
The court further finds that the RSD manipulated school capacities and student transfer policies to maintain segregative conditions in the District. Racially-identifiable white schools were operated at overcapacity levels to avoid transferring white students to racially-identifiable minority schools. Transfer policies in the RSD allowed special transfers for majority students even when those transfers had a segregative effect on the schools involved.
The court adopts the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that the RSD was aware of desegregation plans which would have integrated the District. The RSD rejected those proposed plans and adopted plans which burdened minority students and benefited majority students.

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT DISPARITIES
In his Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge concluded that:
Systemwide disparities in facilities, equipment, materials and supplies between minority and predominantly white schools is unlawful. Such policies and practices of the RSD clearly indicate intentional discrimination.
Report and Recommendation at 1081. The Magistrate Judge further found that systemwide disparities in facilities and in equipment, materials and supplies between predominantly minority and predominantly majority schools existed during the past two decades.
The defendant's objections to these findings are: 1) that they are unsupported by the evidence, and 2) while the evidence covered a period of forty years, the Magistrate Judge's finding that disparities existed applies to only twenty years.
At no time did the defendant offer any evidence to counter the evidence produced by the plaintiffs on this issue. There is ample testimony in the record to support such a finding.
The defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge's reliance on the testimony of certain witnesses, specifically Carl Towns, a former Board Member; Eloise Beals, a former teacher; Pat Redmond, a former student; Marcella Harris, a former Board Member; Hiram Gregory Luna, a former member of the School Desegregation Committee; Michael Bozym, a former teacher; Dr. Thomas Shaheen, the former superintendent of the District, and Dr. Joanne Shaheen, his wife, who was also a teacher in the District; and Mary Williams, a former teacher in the District. The gist of the defendant's objections to the Magistrate Judge's reliance on the testimony of all these witnesses seems to be that the testimony was hearsay, that it was based on observations of events which occurred prior to the last two decades and that any opinions were the opinions of lay witnesses and were, therefore, inadmissible.
The court rejects the defendant's objections. First, all of these witnesses testified as to their personal observations which are clearly admissible, whether they are the observations of lay or expert witnesses. Second, even though they may have been evidence of events which occurred prior to the last two decades, such evidence may be probative of the attitude and practices of the defendant over an extended period of time. Third, under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a lay witness may state opinions, provided that such testimony is limited to those 920 opinions *920 or inferences which are: (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.[6] In each of these instances, the objection goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.
All of the witnesses relied upon by the Magistrate Judge testified to their own personal observations and any opinions[7] they may have had were based on the rational perception of the witness and their opinions were helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the determination of the fact in issue.
The defendant also objects to the following Magistrate Judge's finding in his Report and Recommendation:
Chart I shows the mean ranking of the physical systems by school type (African-American, integrated, white), ranked on a scale of 1 to 4, with 1 being the lowest and 4 being the highest. African-American schools had a mean ranking with regard to physical systems of 2.45. Integrated schools had a mean of 2.51, and white schools a mean of 2.57.
Report and Recommendation at 1082. The defendant's principal objection seems to be on the grounds that it is simply a subjective judgment concerning "physical systems" broken down by "school type." The defendant contends that without any type of explanation, such a finding cannot support a conclusion that the defendant intentionally discriminated with respect to physical facilities.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the chart was based on the District's own document, entitled "District Facility Plan." Furthermore, the defendant stipulated to the chart. In view of the stipulation and the fact that the

data used in the preparation of the chart was obtained from documents prepared by the District, it is difficult to see how the defendant can object to the Magistrate Judge's finding.

The defendant also objects to the Magistrate Judge's findings, that: 1) for each category of equipment, as the percentage of African-American students in the school increased, the number of pieces of equipment allocated to the school declined, and 2) that the equipment disparities revealed by defendant's January 2, 1990, Facilities and Equipment Evaluation were known to the School District through an annual equipment inventory process conducted by the District. Report and Recommendation at 1084, 1090. In short, the defendant states that "the analysis provided simply counted objects with no consideration for the factors noted above. Without addressing these other factors, a finding of intentional discrimination based on such an incomplete and inconclusive analysis is without merit and cannot withstand review."

The court notes that the 1990 Facilities and Equipment Evaluation was prepared from the District's own data for the purpose of evaluating equipment disparities between predominately white and predominately minority schools. Furthermore, the defendant presented no evidence as to why these equipment disparities existed or the reasons for the disparities. The court can only conclude that no such evidence was presented because none existed.

The defendant also objects to the Magistrate Judge's finding that:

Defendant's failure to produce pre-lawsuit inventory lists makes precise evaluation of equipment allocation to African-American schools at the time this suit was filed impossible. However, even defendant's post-lawsuit equipment evaluations, performed after some remedial measures were taken, showed strong disparities in equipment allocation.

Report and Recommendation at 1090. The defendant's objection is that:

921

*921 One cannot conclude that, in the absence of inventory data for thirty years, the inventory

data gathered after the filing of this lawsuit are dispositive of defendant's intent prior to the filing of

the lawsuit. No correlation was drawn by the Magistrate Judge. Furthermore, on November 23,

1993, the Magistrate Judge entered an order on three issues related to implementation of the

Second Interim Order, such Order stating, inter alia, that:

[A]s near as the court can tell, as of the date of this order the Board is substantially in compliance with and has engaged in no intentional violation of the Second Interim Order.

Specifically, the defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge's finding that the District's annual inventories are both probative of the usefulness of equipment and of the defendant's knowledge of the disparities in equipment.

As to the knowledge which may be imputed to the defendant, the court notes that the inventory process was prepared, or at least coordinated, by the defendant's Director of Purchasing. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to see how such knowledge cannot be imputed to the Director's principal, the defendant. Furthermore, the defendant's own forms called for comments on the condition of the various equipment. As to the defendant's objection to the Magistrate Judge's reliance on post-filing inventory, the court finds that under the circumstances here, the Magistrate Judge was entitled to rely on the data and to draw reasonable inferences therefrom, since they were the only inventories made available by the defendant.

The defendant also objects to the following finding of the Magistrate Judge:

Prior to its closing in 1973, Muldoon School, a predominantly African-American school in the Southwest Quadrant, was in dire need of renovation. Muldoon was an old, previously closed Catholic girls' school, that was purchased by the RSD and operated for only one year, housing 4th, 5th and 6th grade children from Ellis. In response to parent protests, the RSD allocated a small sum of money for repair work for the school year 1972-73.

Report and Recommendation at 1092-93.

The court is amazed that the defendant would even mention the conduct of the District as it relates to this finding. The Magistrate Judge's finding, was, in fact, very understated in view of the circumstances attending the socalled "restoration" of Muldoon School. In fact, the evidence revealed that the defendant received a life safety report which outlined an expenditure of $350,000.00 for necessary restoration and repairs. In response to the parents' protests, the District expended a total sum of $3,700.00, approximately one percent (1%) of the amount recommended, which failed to include a fire alarm or new heating system.[8] The court finds it incredible that the defendant would now point to such actions as "positive steps." Although it is true that the students were housed in this building for only one year, the District is fortunate to have averted a tragedy during that year.
The defendant also objects to the Magistrate Judge's finding that the RSD's private gifts policy contributed to EMS disparities. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge found that:
For twenty-five years, the RSD consistently operated in a manner that allowed parent gifts and other private gifts to provide a much better educational experience for white students than for minority students. Schools serving middle and upper income students received more gifts from their PTAs, PTOs and other third-parties, than schools serving lower income students. Accordingly, the schools serving middle and upper income students had far more equipment, materials and supplies.
Report and Recommendation at 1094.
The defendant objects to these findings on the basis that private acts of non-state officials (e.g. PTO, PTA, etc.) 922 do not support state action sufficient to prove a violation of *922 the Fourteenth Amendment. The defendant
further contends that knowledge of a twenty year history of accepting gifts cannot be imputed to each School Board and that no one Board had the benefit of knowledge of acts of its predecessory Boards so as to understand the impact of a policy on gifts accepted over a twenty year history. With respect to the chart contained on page 1096 of the Report and Recommendation and the statistics cited on page 1095, the defendant objects on the basis that these percentages were never "stipulated to by the parties, as is stated in footnote number 14."
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the District's practice in allocating these gifts was an exercise of its discretion, an affirmative state action. Furthermore, the Board was put on notice many times over a long period of years that its private gift practice had a disparate impact on predominately minority schools.[9]
As to the defendant's denial that it did not stipulate to the by-quadrant gift figures, the plaintiff has filed an affidavit of one of its counsel, which is unrebutted, confirming the stipulation.
The defendant raises some minor additional objections relative to the "Facilities and Equipment Disparities" section of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. The court rejects those objections as without merit and adopts the Magistrate Judge's findings as its own.
1989 REORGANIZATION PLAN
The complaint in this case was filed shortly after the RSD adopted a Districtwide reorganization plan on February 28, 1989, entitled "Together Toward a Brighter Tomorrow." ("The 1989 Reorganization Plan" or "Plan") The immediate effects of the Plan as proposed were to close the naturally integrated West High School, resegregate District elementary schools and impose extreme disparate burdens on minority students.
Some aspects of the Plan were implemented, many others were not. For the purposes of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and this opinion, the court evaluates the Plan in terms of the effects the RSD anticipated at the time of adoption, primarily through enrollment and program projections the RSD had on February 28, 1989, and projections made through May 11, 1989, the date this lawsuit was filed.
The defendant's initial objections are that because the Plan was never fully implemented, the court cannot use it as a basis for a finding of intentional discrimination. The court examines the intent of the defendant at the time of the filing of the lawsuit. This includes past and present actions of the RSD. In this instance, the court is examining

the completed action of the Board, namely, the adoption of the Reorganization Plan. Also, the Magistrate Judge often referred to proposals in the Plan as completed actions. As noted in the Report and Recommendation, however, and made clear throughout his discussion, the Magistrate Judge was looking at projected effects had the Plan been fully implemented from the time of the filing of the lawsuit to determine the defendant's intent. In evaluating the Plan, the Magistrate Judge also considered evidence of earlier versions of the Plan. The defendant objects, arguing that those versions were not implemented and that public protest from portions of the community does not evidence intentional discrimination. The court finds that the events preceding the defendant's decision is relevant to intent. Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266-69, 97 S.Ct. at 563-69. Furthermore, the defendant's responsiveness to public comment on its actions and foreseeability of the impact of its decisions are also relevant to the defendant's intent.
The defendant also objects to former Superintendent Maurice Sullivan's testimony as an "`after-the-fact' criticism of the deliberative process." The court finds Dr. Sullivan competent to offer testimony as an experienced school 923 administrator and educator. He has a broad base of knowledge about the *923 District and its practices. The court finds Dr. Sullivan well qualified to offer his opinions regarding the considerations taken in formulating the Reorganization Plan.
Prior to the Reorganization Plan, the RSD had the following distribution of elementary schools:

# of Schools

% of Schools

Racially-identifiable white

14

Desegregated

15

Racially-identifiable minority 10

__

Total

39

36% 38% 26% ____ 100%

At that time, the percentage of elementary students attending each type of school was as follows:

African-American/Hispanic Students

White Students

Racially-identifiable

white

5%

42%

Desegregated

39%

43%

Racially-identifiable minority

57%

16%

Report and Recommendation at 1099.

The Plan contained proposals for individual schools which District staff themselves had classified as de jure segregation. The Plan also proposed the creation of the so-called "mega schools" at Wilson and Washington schools. Wilson was projected to have 1227 elementary students, over twice the number of students than at any previous school in the District, and four times the size of the average elementary school in the District in 1988-89. Report and Recommendation at 1107. Evidence supports the conclusions that there was no educational justification for such a mega-school and the lack of such justification supports an inference of the defendant's intent to adopt such changes to promote segregation.

The defendant has also objected to the admission of the 1981 Individual Building Analysis report. The court finds that this report was a valid analysis made by RSD staff in which staff reported that proposed measures for individual schools would constitute de jure segregation. The defendant argues that these standards were used by lay-persons who were not using the term de jure segregation in its proper legal sense. The court does not take the conclusions in the report as legal conclusions, but as evidence of segregative effects within the District and as evidence of knowledge of segregative effect.

The court finds the evidence supports the Magistrate Judge's findings regarding the effects of the 1989 Reorganization Plan. The court adopts the Magistrate Judge's findings that "the 1989 Reorganization Plan would have had a devastating impact of the Rockford School District's minority community. The impact of this Plan is evidence that the Board intentionally sought to racially isolate minority elementary students in the Rockford School District." Report and Recommendation at 1125. The court also finds that the Plan closed the naturally integrated West High School for the pretextual reason of cost savings. The closing of West was not cost effective and increased the burdens placed on minority students. The court concludes that the 1989 Reorganization Plan was adopted with the intent to discriminate against the plaintiff class, and rejects the defendant's objections.
EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION
The Magistrate Judge found the RSD failed to meet minority hiring goals over the last twenty years. The Magistrate Judge found the District failed to effectively recruit minority applicants and failed to remedy underrepresentation of minorities in upper levels of the District administration.
The defendant objects arguing that those findings do not support a finding of intentional discrimination against the minority students of the District. The defendant does not dispute the factual basis of the Magistrate Judge's findings. The RSD set forth minority hiring goals, and those goals were not realized. The court must consider what the evidence means with regard to the allegations of intentional discrimination against minority students.
Discrimination in recruitment, hiring, and promotion of staff is properly considered in determining whether the 924 rights of minority students have been violated. Morgan v. Kerrigan, 530 F.2d 401, 432 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, *924
426 U.S. 935, 96 S.Ct. 2648, 2649, 49 L.Ed.2d 386 (1976). Because the court is considering the rights of the students, a strict employment discrimination analysis is not applied. Morgan v. O'Bryant, 671 F.2d 23, 27 (1st Cir.1982) (proof of individual hiring discrimination irrelevant).
The evidence establishes that since at least 1973, the RSD was aware that minorities were underrepresented in the District's work force. At that time, the RSD formally decided to redress this underrepresentation. The defendant set a goal of 15% minority employment at all levels and set a timetable of achieving this goal within three to five years. The RSD never met its goals. In fact, the percentage of minority certified staff was approximately the same in 1991-92 as it was in 1973, approximately 7%. In itself, failure to meet those goals is not necessarily evidence of discrimination, however, neither the defendant nor defendant-intervenor has provided evidence disputing the appropriateness of the District goal or evidence that the goal was unachievable. Absent such evidence, the court may properly consider the hiring goal and the failure to meet the stated goal. See Morgan v. Kerrigan, 530 F.2d at 432-34.
In adopting the Magistrate Judge's findings, the court does not comment on the dedication or abilities of the District teaching staff. In fact, the evidence supports the conclusion that most teachers were extremely dedicated to providing a quality education to all of their students. The court finds, however, that the RSD's failures in meeting hiring goals did contribute to the overall disparities in the District.
STAFF ASSIGNMENT
Closely related to the section on employment discrimination is the Magistrate Judge's discussion of staff assignment. The Magistrate Judge found minority teachers were predominantly assigned to racially identifiable minority schools. The Magistrate Judge found the same pattern existed for minority staff. The defendant objects to the findings stating that the evidence does not support them. The court finds the evidence does support the Magistrate Judge's factual findings and adopts them. The defendant and defendant-intervenors also object to the use of those findings to support the conclusion of intentional discrimination. In that regard, the court agrees and must reject several of the Magistrate Judge's conclusions.
As an initial matter, the defendant objected to certain findings which were based upon evidence of minority staff and staff percentages after the filing of the lawsuit. The court previously affirmed the Magistrate Judge's ruling that such post-1989 evidence is properly admitted in the discretion of the court when there is a sufficient showing

of a direct relationship between the post-1989 evidence and discriminatory intent of the defendant prior to 1989. The court finds the data charts the defendant objects to properly include data after the filing of the lawsuit. The data shows a continuation of the patterns of the previous years of conditions in the assignment of minority employees and is properly considered.
Although the data does indicate a disparity in the distribution of District staff, the plaintiffs have not established that this was caused with intent to discriminate against students. As the defendant-intervenors point out, the District was under certain obligations through collective bargaining agreements with District employees. These agreements gave teachers rights in their assignment based upon seniority and qualifications. Experience remained a qualification for promotional transfers. In cases where applicants had substantially equal qualifications, the selection was then based on seniority.
The plaintiffs have not established the statistical disparities in staff assignment contributed to the intentional discrimination against minority students. Furthermore, the District employees had rights through their union contracts. Absent a finding of intentional discrimination, the District could not disturb the assignment agreements with the unions to reassign employees based upon race. People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education School District # 205., 961 F.2d 1335 (7th Cir.1992). The court finds that although employee assignments in the 925 District show some racial disparity, the plaintiffs *925 have not established these disparities were done in furtherance of an intent to discriminate against the plaintiff class.
INEQUITABLE ACCESS TO TRANSPORTATION
The Magistrate Judge found the RSD placed disparate transportation burdens on minority students as opposed to minor burdens placed on majority students. The defendant objects arguing that the cutbacks in transportation it made were due to serious financial troubles in the District and the cutbacks were made equal for all students. The defendant further argues in its brief that when there were transportation burdens placed on minority students, the District had the tacit, if not express, approval of either the ISBE or the QUEFAC court to impose such burdens. The court finds the evidence does not support the defendant's objections.
The defendant argues that the cutbacks were because of financial constraints throughout this case. The defendant has not provided a factual basis for this argument. As found in the section dealing with the 1989 Reorganization Plan, the court found the arguments of financial constraint were based on faulty projections of the need within the District. The defendant also does not establish that it acted on the basis of this financial constraint. The closing of West High School required a substantial increase in transportation costs. The defendant has not shown the court evidence in the record that transportation cutbacks were inevitable.
The defendant also argues that cutbacks were made affecting minority and majority students equally. The defendant has provided no evidence to support that argument. For example, the 1981-82 elimination of transportation for open enrollment transfers had a distinct segregative effect. Also, the cutbacks in transportation to full-site alternative programs had a disparate negative impact on minority students. Report and Recommendation at 1154.
The defendant's remaining objections primarily are that the Magistrate Judge's findings are not supported by the evidence. The court finds the defendant's objections to be without merit. The defendant further argues that there was no evidence that the Board ever received the notes and memoranda supporting the disparities in transportation. The District's liability is based on a pattern of discriminatory conduct over time and a governmental entity is liable for unconstitutional acts of its employees when there is a continuing widespread pattern of such unconstitutional conduct. See Yonkers, 624 F.Supp. at 1447 n. 12; Brown v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 923 F.2d 1474, 1480-81 (11th Cir.1991).
The defendant has also objected to inferences the court made regarding notations made on various District records. The defendant has stipulated to most of these records and has stipulated to the appearance of the notations on District records. For example, a "mass transit only" notation appears next to many "minority open enrollment" and "bilingual focus" categories while "mass transit only" never appears next to a majority open enrollment or majority focus category. See Report and Recommendation at 1157-58. The notations are

corroborative of evidence of disparate treatment based on race. When there is an explicit racially conscious classification, the conduct is suspect and the burden shifts to the defendant to provide a compelling justification for the classification. Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429, 433-34, 104 S.Ct. 1879, 1882-83, 80 L.Ed.2d 421 (1984); Personnel Admin. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 272, 99 S.Ct. 2282, 2292, 60 L.Ed.2d 870 (1979). The defendant has not overcome its burden and has not offered a compelling justification for providing majority desegregation participants more favorable transportation than minority participants.
The evidence establishes that there were numerous transportation problems for students in the open enrollment programs. These problems were related to the defendant's provision of transportation, the defendant had notice and knowledge of the problems, and the problems in transportation had an adverse effect on minority open enrollment.
926 The court further finds the Magistrate Judge's findings regarding the burdens of *926 RMTD travel as opposed to RSD provided bus service to be supported by the evidence. See Report and Recommendation at 1165. The RSD's rule to provide transportation for children living more than 1.5 miles from their assigned school had a racially discriminatory result in its application. Further, majority students were provided transportation by the RSD, while minority students "were required to bear the cost of RMTD transportation and to suffer the qualitative differences of transportation provided to majority schools." Report and Recommendation at 1171.
The court also finds the evidence supports the Magistrate Judge's findings regarding the so-called "privy stops" to provide transportation to selected students had a racially discriminatory application. The court finds the disparate effect of the privy stops indicative of discriminatory intent and adopts the Magistrate Judge's findings.
The court must consider the way a school district provides transportation to and from school to its students in a case alleging racial discrimination. Transportation has become a major factor in how students are distributed within a district and is named in Green as one of the major factors considered in determining whether there is intentional discrimination. Both the benefits and the burdens of transportation must be operated in a unitary and non-discriminatory fashion. The court finds the RSD had a longstanding practice requiring the mandatory assignment of minority students to schools outside their neighborhoods for desegregative purposes without imposing a similar burden on majority students. The court finds this practice to be unfair and unconstitutional. More generous transportation services were provided to the predominantly majority students in voluntary integration programs, as opposed to the involuntary integration students who were predominantly minority. The court further adopts the Magistrate Judge's conclusions that the RSD's argument of cost as a justification for transportation cutbacks was pretextual, and that the RSD's opposition to mandatory busing for desegregation was in fact opposition to the mandatory busing of white students for desegregation.
DISCRIMINATORY CONDITIONS IN THE COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD
The defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge's finding that the RBE intentionally maintained an electoral system that it knew would minimize minority participation on the Board. The Magistrate Judge found that from 1965 through 1989 substantial evidence exists showing that the RBE intentionally pursued a policy to keep the Southwest Quadrant underrepresented on the Board.
The defendant's specific objections to this finding may be summarized as follows: 1) as a matter of law,[10] the Board could not, by itself, make the decision to move to a system of electing board members by sub-districts; 2) since white voters dominated the District, and therefore the "at large" election process, placing the issue before the voters would be futile, since such a proposition would be defeated; 3) that there is no evidence that the defendant was in violation of the Voting Rights Act; and, 4) that the Magistrate Judge has exceeded his authority in addressing these issues.
As to the defendant's first objection, namely that the Board was not responsible for maintaining a discriminatory electoral system because it was the voters, and not the Board, who were responsible for ultimately determining the type of system to be used in electing Board members, the court rejects the defendant's contention. The

927 defendant *927 misconstrues the Magistrate Judge's finding on this issue. What the Magistrate Judge found was that despite having had the statutory power to do so (105 ILCS 5/9-22), with one exception (1976), the Board failed to place the issue on the ballot for a vote by the public. This was true despite the fact that the Board has been requested to do so on many occasions. Report and Recommendation at 1179.
The defendant's assertion that placing the issue on the ballot would have been futile is refuted by the fact that the electorate passed a referendum in 1989 approving sub-district voting. Furthermore, the defendant offered little evidence, other than the defeat of the 1975 referendum, to support its position on this issue.
The defendant's third objection is clearly without merit. No separate Voting Rights Act claim is necessary to support a claim of segregation and discrimination in education. See Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 20 L.Ed.2d 716 (1968).
The defendant's further objection encompasses the Magistrate Judge's finding regarding the "RBE Gerrymandering of Subdistrict Electoral Boundaries." The defendant objects to these findings on the basis that there is a valid consent decree in force in these proceedings and the Magistrate Judge does not have the authority to alter a consent decree through his findings or conclusions.
The Magistrate Judge found that subsequent to the 1989 referendum, the Board adopted an electoral map that interfered with the voting and representational rights of minority voters in the District. Also, after passage of the subdistrict referendum in November 1989, and prior to the first election by subdistrict in November 1991, Board member Holzworth, on several occasions during Board or Board committee meetings, urged the RBE to gerrymander the new subdistrict to avoid creating a subdistrict with a majority of African-Americans.[11]
The defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge's findings in this area on the grounds that: 1) the Magistrate Judge ruled on pre-1989 conduct in violation of this court's previous order;[12] 2) that two members out of five appointed from 1965-1989, were minorities, making the Magistrate Judge's finding on this issue unsupported by sufficient evidence; 3) that there was an insufficient basis for the Magistrate Judge to conclude that the defendant intentionally created discriminatory conditions in drawing an effective and legal map, given the inherent difficulties encountered in drawing such a map.
Finally, the defendant points to a portion of this court's order of September 12, 1991, as supporting its contention that it was acting in good faith in attempting to adopt a conforming map.[13]
Although the court agrees with the overall finding of the Magistrate Judge that there was substantial evidence of intentional discrimination on the issue of the make-up of the Board, the court disagrees with the Magistrate Judge's findings that the Board deliberately gerrymandered the District in drawing the map which was submitted to the court. Although it is true that this court rejected that map and ultimately adopted the map which was jointly agreed to by the plaintiffs and the defendant, the evidence supports, and the court finds that, insofar as the production of the map is concerned, the District was acting in good faith in attempting to develop a conforming map.
In addition, the court does not agree with or adopt the finding of the Magistrate Judge insofar as it seems to 928 impute the actions and comments of one Board member, Mr. *928 Holzworth, to other members of the Board. On
the contrary, it appears to the court that the majority of the members of the Board, at that time, acted in good faith in attempting to correct some of the many inequities of the past. Although the Board did initially submit a deficient map which was rejected by this court, that is not to say that the court is of the view that the other Board members shared Mr. Holzworth's views. In fact, it appears that the opposite was true, at least as to the majority of the members. Board member Josephine Minor testified that she ignored Mr. Holzworth's "rantings and ravings" and that she did not believe any other Board member took Mr. Holzworth seriously. Minor Dep. at 47. The court rejects this finding of the Magistrate Judge.
Finally, with reference to the Magistrate Judge's finding that the Board's failure to appoint minority members to the Board constituted intentional discrimination, the evidence on this point is simply insufficient to support such a finding. As the defendant correctly points out, only five Board members were appointed to the Board between 1965 and 1989, and two of them were African-American constituting 40% of all vacancies, hardly sufficient

evidence supporting the conclusion that there were efforts to exclude minority applicants for vacancies on the Board. Williams Dep. at 7. The court rejects this finding of the Magistrate Judge and strikes the references to that finding.
Although the court disagrees with some of the Magistrate Judge's findings on the issue of discriminatory conditions in the composition of the Board, that is not to say that the court disagrees with his conclusion that from 1965 through 1989 substantial evidence exists showing that the defendant intentionally pursued a policy to keep the Southwest Quadrant underrepresented on the Board. Indeed, the court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that substantial evidence exists that the defendant intentionally pursued a policy to keep the Southwest Quadrant underrepresented on the Board.
EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES
The defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge's finding that the defendant did not provide children in the District with equal opportunities in extracurricular activities. Specifically, the defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge's reliance on various statements of certain minority students on the grounds that such statements are unfounded hearsay, without foundation, and inflammatory. The defendant further contends that the Magistrate Judge recognized a complete absence of discrimination in the RSD's extracurricular athletic activities.
Although the defendant's objection to some of the testimony of certain students and parents on hearsay grounds has merit, the Magistrate Judge's conclusion on this issue is supported by the record on two grounds: 1) the District's failure to provide equal access to transportation; and, 2) Superintendent Bowen's testimony regarding the selection process at East High School.
The Magistrate Judge's finding regarding after-school transportation is fully supported by the record. The evidence easily supports the conclusion that the defendant created inequitable travel demands on minority students. The defendant's statement, that after-school student transportation was not provided to any students, ignores the fact that it was the defendant's one-way busing policy that required the minority students to attend schools far away from their homes. Although it is true, as the defendant contends, that some minority students were able to make alternative transportation arrangements, this does not excuse the District's policy on this point. The record supports the conclusion that minority students were saddled with disproportionate and discouraging travel burdens.
As to Mr. Bowen's testimony regarding his observations and the changes he made in the selection of cheerleaders while he was Principal at East High School, this finding of the Magistrate Judge is clearly supported by the very credible testimony of Mr. Bowen.
Insofar as some of the testimony of certain students and parents are unsupported hearsay and uncorroborated, that testimony may be stricken. However, much of that testimony, particularly that which is based upon the observations of those witnesses, may stand.
929 *929 The objections of the defendant to the Magistrate Judge's findings that the defendant did not provide children in the District with equal opportunities in extracurricular activities are overruled. The Magistrate Judge's conclusion on this issue is adopted by the court.
BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND OTHER EDUCATIONAL DISCRIMINATION ISSUES AFFECTING HISPANICS
The Magistrate Judge found the RSD engaged in discriminatory conduct with regard to the District's Bilingual Program and with regard to other educational issues affecting Hispanic students. The Magistrate Judge found the RSD moved the location of the Bilingual Program four times in a twelve year period. The involuntary movement of the bilingual students was for the stated purpose of desegregation. The moves placed transfer burdens on those students while placing no similar burdens on majority students. The Magistrate Judge also found inferior transportation was provided to the bilingual students as compared to voluntary white desegregation students.

Once in the program, the Magistrate Judge found the bilingual students were segregated within the receiving schools and provided an inferior education as compared to white students.
The defendant objects to the use of evidence regarding the relocations of the Bilingual Program in support of a finding of discrimination. The defendant points to the fact that the program was moved only four times since its inception in 1972. However, that objection ignores that fact that the first relocation occurred in school year 1977-78 and thereafter was moved every three years, on the average, from Barbour and King schools to Whitehead, from Whitehead school to New Milford and Gregory, from New Milford school to Walker and from Walker school to Nashold in 1989-90.
The defendant states these moves were necessitated by desegregation directives from the ISBE and facility constraints within the District. The evidence does not support the defendant's argument. There is no indication that relocation of the Bilingual Program was necessitated by the ISBE nor that it was the only way to achieve integration. The one alternative of pairing Barbour school with a majority school was ignored by the RSD. The RSD used the Bilingual Program as a desegregation device without placing any similar burdens on majority students.
The defendant also argues that there was community support for relocation of the Bilingual Program, however, there is no evidence supporting the defendant's argument. The evidence supports the findings that parents expressed many concerns about relocation, especially moving the program away from the Hispanic area in which it was originally located. The court finds the relocations of the Bilingual Program placed undue burdens on the bilingual students where no similar burden was placed on majority students for desegregation purposes.
The court further finds the segregation of bilingual students by using the Bilingual Program as a full-time program rather than a part-time pull-out program is fully supported by the evidence and adopts the Magistrate Judge's findings. Additionally, the inequities in transportation for bilingual students as compared to majority students is supported by the evidence discussed in the Magistrate Judge's opinion in this section and the section dealing with transportation. The court adopts the Magistrate Judge's findings on those issues as well.
The goal of these types of language remediation programs is to integrate Spanish-speaking students into English language classrooms. Castaneda v. Pickard, 648 F.2d 989, 998 n. 4 (5th Cir.1981). They should not be used to isolate students. Id. The court finds the RSD operated the Bilingual Program in violation of the constitutional rights of the bilingual students. The court finds the defendant's objections to be meritless and adopts the Magistrate Judge's findings and conclusions in full.
SPECIAL EDUCATION
The Magistrate Judge found that Special Education students should be exempt from desegregation programs, 930 finding that those students have enough problems without being moved around in order to make a *930 building
appear numerically integrated. The Magistrate Judge further found that in the school year 1988-89, the District assigned 99.6% of the Southwest Quadrant elementary students to non-southwest schools. The Magistrate Judge concluded that he was not convinced that the assignment was an act of intentional discrimination and that the RSD should continue to exempt special education students from desegregation programs.
The plaintiffs object to the Magistrate Judge's general conclusion that "the court has not been convinced that the assignment was an act of intentional discrimination" and state that regardless, "in the context of the 1989 Reorganization Plan which the Magistrate Judge found to be `a plan to resegregate Rockford's schools', (see Report and Recommendation at 1125), the continuation of the disparate burdens on the RSD's Southwest Quadrant minority students was clearly an act of intentional discrimination because even though it was stipulated by the parties that it was specifically called to the RSD's attention by its own special education staff, no corrective action was taken by the RSD in the 1989 plan."
The court agrees with the plaintiffs' contention. It is difficult to see how the defendant's conduct could not have been intentional. The Magistrate Judge found that in the 1980-81 school year, full-time SCSE students were much more likely to be assigned to nonsouthwest side schools. See Report and Recommendation at 1193. While

the southwest side schools constituted roughly a third of all elementary schools, they received only 13.6% of the SCSE students. As a result, nonsouthwest schools had an average number of full-time elementary SCSE students that was roughly double that for southwest schools (an average of 42 versus an average of 22, respectively).
Although the court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that the RSD should continue to exempt special education students from the desegregation programs, it is difficult to conclude, in the face of the record before the court, that the assignment of Special Education students was not an act of intentional discrimination. To the extent that the Magistrate Judge concluded that those acts were not intentional, the court declines to adopt the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Because of their unique position, however, the District should continue to exempt special education students from desegregation programs.
CONCLUSION
In the preparation of this order, this court has examined hundreds of documents and reports, and read numerous depositions and transcripts of the testimony of various witnesses. The court has also examined, in great detail, the excellent Report and Recommendation prepared and submitted by Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney. In addition, the court has read and considered carefully the objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and the supporting briefs submitted by the plaintiffs, the defendant, and the intervenordefendants. The court has previously commented on those objections and will, therefore, make no further comments on those specific objections. The court is impressed by the Magistrate Judge's statement of the law of educational segregation and its application to the evidence and will not repeat the thorough analysis prepared by the Magistrate Judge. The court will, however, attempt to summarize the law of the case and the conclusions it draws from the law and the facts as they apply here.
In Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954), the United States Supreme Court held that "in the field of public education, the doctrine `separate but equal' has no place", and that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." Id. at 495, 74 S.Ct. at 692. The court further observed that "[t]o separate [minority children] from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone." Id. at 494, 74 S.Ct. at 691.
The law governing liability in a school desegregation case can be summarized in one sentence: a state or local 931 authority may not intentionally segregate or discriminate *931 against minority students because of their race. A
prima facie case establishing liability contains three elements: 1) "segregation or discrimination" (minority students must, in fact, experience either segregated conditions or suffer the detrimental effects of discriminatory conduct 0907 or both); 2) "causation" (school authorities must have caused, created or maintained such segregation or discrimination); and, 3) "intent" (the conduct of school officials must have been undertaken "intentionally").
This standard derives from the Equal Protection Clause that provides that "[n]o state ... shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
Cases subsequent to Brown, have clearly established that government conduct that leads to racial imbalance in school systems violates the Constitution. A constitutional violation occurs in school districts that have never been subject to statutorily-mandated racial segregation where "school authorities have carried out a systematic program of segregation affecting a substantial portion of the students, schools, teachers, and facilities within the school system." Keyes, 413 U.S. at 201, 93 S.Ct. at 2694. In order to prove unconstitutional racial imbalance in a school system, a plaintiff must show that: 1) the governmental authorities created or maintained racial segregation in the schools and, 2) their actions were motivated by segregative intent. Id. at 208, 93 S.Ct. at 2697; Diaz at 733 F.2d at 662.
In addition to proving that the defendant's conduct created or maintained racial imbalance in the schools, a plaintiff must show that the conduct was motivated by segregative intent, the second Keyes factor. Ordinarily, only circumstantial evidence is available to establish segregative intent. Diaz, 733 F.2d at 662. Evidence of the discriminatory impact of acts, omissions or policies is one type of circumstantial evidence supporting an inference

of segregative intent. Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266, 97 S.Ct. 555, 563-64, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977). Other types of circumstantial evidence relevant to proving segregative intent include: 1) the historical background and sequence of events leading up to the conduct maintaining or exacerbating racial imbalance in the schools; 2) departures from typical procedural sequences or substantive criteria normally considered important by the decisionmaker; and, 3) contemporaneous evidence concerning the decision-making process. Id. at 267-68, 97 S.Ct. at 564-65. If a plaintiff succeeds in establishing a prima facie case of intentional segregation, the burden then shifts to the defendant to establish that the same segregative conduct would have occurred "even had the impermissible purpose not been considered." Id. at 271, n. 21, 97 S.Ct. at 566, n. 21.
Further, a finding of intentionally segregative school board conduct in a meaningful portion of a school system creates a presumption that other segregated activity within the school system is not coincidental. Keyes, 413 U.S. at 208, 93 S.Ct. at 2697. This presumption places a burden upon the defendant to show that segregation in other schools and activities within the system have not resulted from intentionally segregative conduct. Id. In discharging this burden, the school authorities must rely upon more than some allegedly logical, racially neutral explanation for their actions. Id. at 210, 93 S.Ct. at 2698. The school district's burden is to adduce proof sufficient to support a finding that segregative intent was not among the factors that motivated its actions. Id.
The issue of the presence or absence of unlawful intent is one of fact. Armstrong v. O'Connell, 451 F.Supp. 817, 822 (E.D.Wis. 1978). The ultimate determination of segregative intent rests upon examination of the record as a whole, including the multiplicity and cumulative effect of the defendant's policies and practices. Morgan v. Hennigan, 379 F.Supp. 410, 479 (D.C.Mass.1974). A plaintiff may prove intent by direct, indirect, or circumstantial evidence. Armstrong, 451 F.Supp. at 826; Berry, 442 F.Supp. at 1291; NAACP v. Lansing, 429 F.Supp. 583, 590 (D.C.Mich.1976). Since direct evidence is difficult to obtain, ordinarily only circumstantial evidence is available to establish segregative intent. Diaz, 733 F.2d at 662.
932 *932 In the context of school desegregation cases, courts have cited a myriad of factors that by themselves or in combination with other facts support an inference of discriminatory intent. Evidence of the foreseeable segregative impact of decisions is one type of circumstantial evidence supporting an inference of segregative intent. See Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266, 97 S.Ct. at 563-64. Arlington Heights identifies several other types of evidence this court has used that supports the inference of intent:
1) "[T]he historical background of the decision ..., particularly if it reveals a series of official actions taken for invidious purposes;"
2) "the specific sequence of events leading up to the challenged decision;"
3) "contemporary statements by members of the decision making body, minutes of its meetings or reports;"
4) "departures from the normal procedural sequence;"
5) "substantive departures [from prior policies] ... particularly if the factors usually considered important by the decision maker strongly favor a decision contrary to the one reached;" and,
6) "[t]he legislative or administrative history ... especially where there are contemporary statements by members of the decision making body, minutes of its meetings, or reports."
Id. at 266-69, 97 S.Ct. at 563-66. The Supreme Court explicitly recognized this list as being non-exhaustive of the potential factors probative of intent. Id. at 268, 97 S.Ct. at 565.
Separated from all of its rhetoric, the defendant's purported defense in this case seems to be that even if the District is guilty of the conduct charged in the plaintiffs' complaint, they did not intend to violate the plaintiffs' constitutional rights, and, therefore, should not be held liable in this case. The court rejects the defendant's argument on this issue. In any case, whether criminal or civil, where proof of intent is involved, it is a rare circumstance indeed, where a defendant admits that there was an intention to violate the law. Indeed, that is the usual defense in such cases. The courts, in both civil and criminal cases, have consistently made clear that proof

of facts and circumstances which support an inference that the defendant is guilty of violating the law is sufficient to support a finding of an intentional violation. Here, the cumulative evidence overwhelmingly supports such a finding.
In segregation cases, such as this one, the courts have held that segregative intent should not be confused with evil motive.[14] Instead, the required intent is simply the intent to keep the races separate. Furthermore, conduct motivated by such intent is actionable even when there is no desire to inflict educational harm upon any racial group.
In this case, proof of intent is shown not by evil motive or a desire to inflict educational harm on the minority community; instead, a pattern of facts and circumstances occurring over a long period of time clearly supports a finding of intentional conduct by the defendant, as recommended by the Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation contains a thorough discussion and analysis of those facts and circumstances and need not be repeated here. Suffice it to say that no finder of fact, be it judge, jury or administrative body could have reached any other conclusion than the one reached by Magistrate Judge 933 Mahoney.[15]*933 Indeed, a jury selected at random from citizens of the District would, in the opinion of the court, have reached the same conclusion based on the evidence contained in the record of this case.
The court finds that the Rockford Board of Education is a public body created by the State of Illinois to administer and supervise its public schools within its statutorily-defined area and, under the laws of the State of Illinois, may sue and be sued. The court further finds that the current racial segregation of students in the public schools in Rockford was caused, in substantial part, by the acts and omissions of the defendant. Specific practices of the defendant that unlawfully segregated students on the basis of race and ethnic origin include, but are not limited to:
(1) The tracking of students by race into various educational programs offered by the RSD;
(2) The drawing and alteration of school attendance area boundaries in such a way as to create, maintain or increase racial or ethnic segregation of students;
(3) The maintenance of racially and ethnically segregated branches of schools;
(4) The failure to design and implement an effective desegregation plan even when ordered to do so by a Federal Court and by the ISBE;
(5) The provision of inequitable transportation and access to transportation to students based upon their race and ethnic origin;
(6) The disproportionate placing of the burdens of desegregation on minority students;
(7) The disparate placement of facilities and equipment so as to burden minority students and not provide them with an equal educational opportunity;
(8) The perpetuation of discriminatory conditions in the make-up of the Rockford Board of Education; and,
(9) The disproportionate burdens placed on minorities in the assignment of special education students.
These practices, among others discussed in this order, occurred over a substantial period of time and in a substantial portion of the Rockford public schools and constituted a system-wide attempt to separate the races. As discussed, the objections of the plaintiffs, the defendant, and the defendant-intervenors are granted in part and denied in part. Except as otherwise noted herein, the court agrees with the findings and conclusions contained in the Report and Recommendation. The court hereby accepts and adopts, as modified, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that equitable relief is appropriate in this case.[16] Accordingly, the court enters the order set forth below.

ORDER
1) The plaintiffs have prevailed on the merits of their claim and have established that the defendant has violated the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs;
2) The plaintiffs have demonstrated that the balance of equities weighs in favor of the grant of injunctive relief, inasmuch as:
a) The plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law;
b) The plaintiffs face irreparable injury in the absence of injunctive relief;
c) No undue or unnecessary hardship is placed on the defendant by requiring it to carry out its affirmative duty to remedy the effects of its intentionally segregative and discriminatory acts; and,
d) The public interest is best served by granting permanent injunctive relief.
934 3) There are no inherent difficulties in shaping injunctive relief that is appropriate, *934 narrowly tailored and adequate to protect the plaintiffs' rights.
The parties are directed to submit an appropriate Agreed Injunction and Declaratory Order, consistent with this decision, for approval by the court within ten days from the entry of this order. If the parties cannot agree to such an order, they are each directed to submit a proposed order and the court will prepare an order which is consistent with the court's opinion in this case.
Inasmuch as the parties have concurred and voluntarily consented that all present and future remedial matters in this case, without limitation, shall be referred to the Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) and (c)(3), and under the Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, this matter is hereby referred to the Magistrate Judge for all present and future remedial matters.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... 939
PROCEDURAL HISTORY ............................................................... 939
STUDENT TRACKING AND ABILITY GROUPING ............................................ 940 INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 940 FINDINGS OF FACT .............................................................. 940 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ............................................................ 999
SEGREGATION OF STUDENTS BY RACE WITHIN SCHOOLS ................................... 1001 INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 1001 FINDINGS OF FACT .............................................................. 1002 Within-
School Segregation In Mid-1970 "Desegregation Programs .............. 1002 Intact Busing: The Grade Exchange Plan ................................. 1002
Within-School Segregation Through PartTime Programs ....................... 1003
Segregation Of Minority Transfer students Within Receiving Schools ......... 1004 Elementary Schools ..................................................... 1004 Segregation Of Students Within Schools By Tracking ..................... 1005
Segregation Of Elementary Bilingual Students ............................... 1005 Segregation Of Special Education Students .................................. 1006

The RSD's De-Emphasis Of FullSite Magnet Programs ......................... 1006
May 1972 OneWeek Magnet Schools ....................................... 1006
Bloom Focus Center ..................................................... 1006 Haskell Focus Center ................................................... 1008 The Alternative Middle and Elementary Schools .......................... 1009 Purposeful Creation Of Segregated PartialSite Alternative Programs ........ 1009 The Gifted Program ......................................................... 1011 Partial Desegregation, Followed by ReSegregation, of the Gifted Program,
1977-1986 ............................................................ 1013 The RSD's 1987 Report and Personnel Testimony Revealing Gifted
Program Segregation .................................................. 1015 Continuing Segregation of the Gifted Program Up Through 1989 ........... 1016 Physical Segregation of Gifted from Regular Students Within the
Schools .............................................................. 1017 The RSD's Separate "Minority" Gifted Program ........................... 1017 RSD's "Satellite" Gifted Programs ...................................... 1018 The Creative And Performing Arts Program (CAPA) ............................ 1020 Montessori ................................................................. 1022 The Academics Plus Program ................................................. 1023 Arts Alternative ........................................................... 1023 LowStatus Alternative Programs ............................................ 1024 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ............................................................ 1024
STUDENT ASSIGNMENT ............................................................... 1026 INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 1026
935 *935 FINDINGS OF FACT ................................................................. 1027 Student Assignment and School Boundaries Prior to the QUEFAC Lawsuit and the ISBE Investigation ................................................. 1027 Student Assignment in the Late 1950's and Early 1960's .................. 1027 Attempts By Superintendent McIntosh to ReAssign Students ............... 1028 Assignment of Northeast Quadrant Students to Guilford Rather Than West High School ..................................................... 1030 Conversion of Jefferson Junior High School to a Senior High School ...... 1030 West Side Elementary School Boundaries0907Late 1950's0907Early 1960's ......... 1031 Refusal to Reassign Students to Balance School Utilization in 1965 ...... 1031 Assignment of Morris Kennedy and Nashold Ninth Graders From School District 125 to Auburn High School ............................ 1032 "Rockford Team" 1967 Integration Proposals .............................. 1032 The Pupil Placement Committee (PPC) ..................................... 1033 The Middle Schools Proposal ............................................. 1036 The Veritas, REA and the RSD Principals' 1970 Redistricting Proposals ... 1038 New School Construction in 1969-71 ...................................... 1038 1969 Elementary School Attendance Area Boundary Changes and Reassignments ....................................................................... 1039 Walker and Carlson Busing of Public Housing Children .................... 1040

Construction of John F. Kennedy and Eisenhower Junior High Schools ...... 1041 Proposals in 1966-67 to Close Old Schools in the Central Rockford Area .. 1042 Closing of Hall School .................................................. 1043 Closing of Montague School .............................................. 1043 Construction of Martin Luther King School ............................... 1044 Closing of Franklin School .............................................. 1045 Packing of White Schools to Maintain Segregation in the 1970's and
1980's ................................................................ 1045 Closing of Morris Kennedy Elementary School in 1971 ..................... 1047 Packing of AfricanAmerican Schools to Maintain Segregation ............. 1048 Student Assignment and School Boundaries During the QUEFAC Lawsuit and the ISBE Investigation ................................................ 1048 The Community Desegregation Committee ................................... 1050 Closing of Muldoon School and Clustering ................................ 1051 Reassignment of Lincoln Park Sixth Grade and Use of Portable Classrooms
....................................................................... 1052 Noncompliance With The ISBE Rules in September of 1973 .................. 1052 1973 QUEFAC Proceedings ........................................ 1052 Grade Exchange Plan ..................................................... 1053 REA Intervention in the QUEFAC Litigation ...................... 1054 Interest Center Implementation .......................................... 1056 The RSD's Knowledge of Successful Integration Efforts ................... 1056 The RSD 1975 Integration Plan ........................................... 1057 Mandatory Assignment of African-American Students From Satellite
Attendance Zones ...................................................... 1058 Open Enrollment Policies ................................................ 1058 1975 Status Report on Integration ....................................... 1060 The RSD's Refusal to Comply With The ISBE's 1976 Rules .................. 1061 Alternative School Programs: Failures, Disparate Burdens and Benefits ... 1062 1976 RSD Integration Plans .............................................. 1065 ISBE Finding of Noncompliance ........................................... 1065 October 1976 Revised Integration Plan ................................... 1066 1977 ISBE Finding of Noncompliance and Probationary Sanction ............ 1067 May 1977 Integration Plan ............................................... 1067 Revisions of the May 1977 Plan .......................................... 1068 Construction of New Jefferson High School ............................... 1069 Noncompliance With The ISBE Rules in The Late 1970's .................... 1070 The ISBE 1980 Finding of RSD Noncompliance .............................. 1071 The RSD Defiance of The ISBE Rules0907Opposition to Student Assignment
Goals ................................................................. 1071
936 *936 Disparate Burdens on African-American Students By Continuing Mandatory Assignment to Eastside Schools ......................................... 1071
Student Assignment and School Boundaries Subsequent to the QUEFAC Lawsuit and the ISBE Investigation ........................................ 1073 1980 Student Reassignments and Closing of Schools ....................... 1073 Integration Efforts of the RBE in 1981 .................................. 1075 1983 School Closings .................................................... 1076 Dismantling of Alternative Programs ..................................... 1077
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ............................................................. 1077

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT DISPARITIES .............................................. 1081 INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1081 FINDINGS OF FACT ............................................................... 1081 Systemwide Disparities In Facilities And EMS ................................ 1081 Data Demonstrating Systemwide Disparities ................................... 1082 Witness Testimony ........................................................... 1090 Disparity Examples At Individual Schools .................................... 1092 The RSD's Private Gifts Policy Contributed To EMS Disparities ............... 1094 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ............................................................. 1097
THE 1989 REORGANIZATION PLAN ...................................................... 1098 INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1098 FINDINGS OF FACT ............................................................... 1098 The Extent Of Segregation In The School System Prior To The Reorganization Plan ...................................................................... 1098 The January Version Of The 1989 Reorganization Plan ......................... 1099 The Revised February 1989 Reorganization Plan ............................... 1100 The Deliberative Process In Adopting The 1989 Plan Was Seriously Deficient .. 1102 The Effects Of The Reorganization Plan On the RSD Elementary Schools ........ 1102 The Reorganization Plan Resegregated The District's Elementary Schools And Students In Terms Of School Enrollments ............................... 1103 Resegregation of Southwest Quadrant Students ............................ 1103 Resegregation of Non-
Southwest Schools .................................. 1103 Systemwide Resegregation of African-American/Hispanic Elementary Students .............................................................. 1104 Systemwide Resegregation of White Elementary Students ................... 1104
The 1989 Plan Resegregated Schools By Adopting Measures That The District Itself Had Identified As Constituting De Jure Segregation ........ 1104
De Jure Segregation Criterion in 1981 IBA Report ............................ 1104 Church School ........................................................... 1105 Dennis School ........................................................... 1105 Stiles School ........................................................... 1105 Ellis School ............................................................ 1105 McIntosh School ......................................................... 1106 The New Wilson Elementary School ........................................ 1106 King and Barbour Schools ................................................ 1106 Haskell School .......................................................... 1106 Garrison School ......................................................... 1107 Resegregation of Non-
Southwest White Schools ............................ 1107 The 1989 Plan Resegregated African-American/Hispanic Students By Placing Them In Huge Warehouse Schools, Without Promised Educational Support ................................................................... 1107 The 1989 Plan Segregated The Schools By Promising, But Not Delivering, Educational Improvement Measures For African-American/Hispanic Students ........................................................................... 1109 The 1989 Plan Resegregated the Schools by Sharply Restricting Voluntary Transfer Opportunities .................................................... 1110 The 1989 Plan Resegregated The System By Removing The Alternative Programs From Southwest Elementary Schools ................................ 1111 The Plan, As Initially Adopted And Implemented, Created Segregated Academics Plus Alternative Programs ....................................... 1111

937 *937 The Pattern Of Elementary School Closings Imposed Disparate Burdens On Minority Students And Neighborhoods ......................................... 1112 Complete Closures of Schools ............................................... 1112 Partial Closures Through Split Grade Structures ............................ 1112 Closings and Pairings as a Percentage of Schools in a Quadrant ............. 1113 Under The Plan, The Schools In The Southwest Quadrant Were Overcrowded And No Space Was Available For Special Programs ............................. 1113 The Effects Of The 1989 Reorganization Plan On RSD Secondary Schools .......... 1114 The 1988 Level Of Desegregation In the RSD Secondary Schools .................. 1114 High Schools ................................................................ 1114 High School Attendance Areas As Of 1988 ....................................... 1114 Middle School Attendance Areas As Of 1988 ..................................... 1115 Recommendations Of The Ad Hoc Citizens' Committee ............................. 1115 The Board's Goals For The Reorganization Plan And Criteria For School Closings .................................................................... 1116 Information Before The Board In Its Deliberations ............................. 1116 The Administrative Staff's January 17 Recommendations To The Board ............ 1117 The January 24 Reorganization Plan ............................................ 1118 Public Reaction To The January Plan ........................................... 1119 Reconsideration Of The West High Closing ...................................... 1119 The RSD's February Reorganization Plan ........................................ 1122 Option Zones In The Final February 28 Secondary Boundaries .................... 1124 The 1989 Plan Promoted Segregated Conditions In Secondary Schools By Eliminating Voluntary Transfer Opportunities For Minority Students .......... 1124
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW .............................................................. 1125
EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION .......................................................... 1125 INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 1125 FINDINGS OF FACT ................................................................ 1125 Failure To Meet QUEFAC-Era Hiring Goals And Other Affirmative Action Obligations ................................................................ 1125 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW .............................................................. 1130
STAFF ASSIGNMENT ................................................................... 1130 INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 1130 FINDINGS OF FACT ................................................................ 1131 Assignment Of Black Teachers To Black Schools ................................ 1131 Principals And Other Administrative Staff .................................... 1139 Other Staff .................................................................. 1143 Collective Bargaining History: Teachers And Other Professional Staff ......... 1147 Collective Bargaining History: Clerical Employees ............................ 1151 Custodial Staff .............................................................. 1152 Other Staff .................................................................. 1152 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW .............................................................. 1152
INEQUITABLE ACCESS TO TRANSPORTATION ............................................... 1154 INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 1154 FINDINGS OF FACT ................................................................ 1154 Transportation Policies And Practices Affecting Desegregation And Desegregation Burdens .................................................................... 1154 Transportation Policies And Practices Diminished Desegregation ............... 1154

1970's and Early 1980's: Transportation Problems Discouraging Open Enrollment Transfers .................................................................. 1155
1970's and 1980's: Discriminatory Provision Of Open Enrollment Transportation ............................................................................ 1157
1970's and 1980's: Effects of Discrimination and Transportation Problems on Success of Open Enrollment ................................................. 1158
1980-1989: Direct Restriction of Open Enrollment Transportation .............. 1158 Discriminatory Transportation Policies and Practices As Between Minority
Integration Participants and White Integration Participants ................ 1162 Transportation Costs As Pretext For AntiBusing Stance ....................... 1165
938 *938 Additional Transportation Inequities ("Privy Stops") ................................ 11
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ..................................................................... 11
DISCRIMINATORY CONDITIONS IN THE COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD ................................. 11 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 11 FINDINGS OF FACT ....................................................................... 11 Board Members: 1965-1989 ............................................................ 11 Basic information ................................................................... 11 Board Member Residency ............................................................ 11 Board Member Race ................................................................. 11 Electoral System: The RBE's Role In Maintaining An Electoral System That Had A Disparate Impact On Minority Representation On the Board Of Education ...................................................................... 11 RBE Gerrymandering of Subdistrict Electoral Boundaries .......................... 11
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ...................................................................... 11
EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES ................................................................ 11 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 11 FINDINGS OF FACT ........................................................................ 11 Historical Discrimination In The Selection of Cheerleaders .......................... 11 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ...................................................................... 11
BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND OTHER EDUCATIONAL DISCRIMINATION ISSUES AFFECTING HISPANICS ............................................................... 11 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 11 FINDINGS OF FACT ........................................................................ 11 Disproportionate Desegregation Burdens Placed On Hispanic-American Students .................................................................................. 11 Segregation Of Elementary Bilingual Students ........................................ 11 Transportation Discrimination ....................................................... 11 Educational Deficiencies ............................................................ 11 State of Illinois And U.S. Department of Education Findings of Deficiencies ......... 11 Failure to Provide Effective Special Education to Non- and Limited-English-
Speaking Students .......................................................................... 11
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ...................................................................... 11
SPECIAL EDUCATION ......................................................................... 11 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 11 FINDINGS OF FACT ........................................................................ 11

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ...................................................................... 11
THE LAW OF EDUCATIONAL SEGREGATION AND ITS APPLICATION TO THE EVIDENCE ............................................................................ 11 Overview of the Law ................................................................... 11 Causation 0907 The First Keyes Factor ...................................................... Intent 0907 The Second Keyes Factor ................................................ 1199 The Scope of Liability 0907 Once the Keyes Factors Have Been Established ........... 1203 Liability For The Conduct Of Agents And Employees ..................................... 12 Natural Residential Segregation/
Neighborhood Schools Defense .......................... 1204 Incremental Segregative Effect ........................................................ 12 Equitable Relief Is Appropriate ....................................................... 12 CONCLUSION ............................................................................ 12
DEFINITIONS ............................................................................... 12
ADDENDUM: SCHOOL HISTORIES[*] .......................................................... ____
939 *939 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MAHONEY, United States Magistrate Judge.
INTRODUCTION
In the greatest dissent ever written, the first Justice Harlan stated:
The white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country. And so it is, in prestige, in achievement, in education, in wealth and in power.... But in the view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country, no superior, dominant ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color blind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights, as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land, are involved. It is, therefore, to be regretted that this high tribunal, the final expositor of the fundamental law of the land, has reached the conclusion that it is competent for a state to regulate the enjoyment by citizens of their civil rights solely upon the basis of race.
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 559, 16 S.Ct. 1138, 1146, 41 L.Ed. 256 (1896). Justice Harlan was dissenting from a decision of the United States Supreme Court that was later used to allow the separation of races in education. That decision was overturned by a later Supreme Court in the case of Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954). In Brown v. Board of Education, a unanimous Supreme Court pointed out:
In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, when the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be available to all on equal terms.
Id. at 493, 74 S.Ct. at 691.
The following opinion relates the activities of a school district that has consistently and massively violated the dictates of Brown v. Board of Education. It is the story of a school district that, at times, has committed such open

acts of discrimination as to be cruel and committed others with such subtlety as to raise discrimination to an art form.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This lawsuit was filed on May 11, 1989. It was filed by Plaintiffs as a reaction to the 1989 Reorganization Plan that had been adopted by Defendant, Rockford School District # 205, in January and February of 1989. The lawsuit not only attacks the 1989 Reorganization Plan, but also alleges that the school district historically has engaged in a pattern of intentional segregation and discrimination on a system-wide basis.
Approximately two months into the litigation, the parties entered into an Interim Settlement in response to Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. The Interim Settlement dealt mainly with the 1989 Reorganization Plan. The settlement was embodied in an Interim Agreed Order entered by the court on July 7, 1989. That order provided for certain modifications of the Reorganization Plan and for other remedial steps to be taken by the District.
A Second Amended Complaint was filed on November 9, 1989. On April 24, 1991, Plaintiff and Defendant agreed to, and the court approved and entered, a Second Interim Order. The Second Interim Order was a more comprehensive interim remedial plan. The Second Interim Order did not resolve Plaintiff's underlying liability claim and the District made no admission of liability in connection with either of the Interim Remedial Orders. Certain parts of the Second Interim Order were stricken by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. See People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., 961 F.2d 1335 (7th Cir.1992).
On June 29, 1992, District Court Judge Stanley J. Roszkowski, by Minute Order, referred all matters pertaining to 940 Plaintiff's motion for a supplemental remedial order to the Magistrate Judge for ruling. By Order *940 of
September 8, 1992, Judge Roszkowski, pursuant to Local Rule 1.71(c)(4) of the General Rules of the Northern District of Illinois, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(a), (b), (c), transferred to Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney all "matters currently pending."
On April 8, 1993, Judge Roszkowski reiterated the referral to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and in April of 1993 the Magistrate Judge commenced hearing the motion for a permanent injunction.
The injunction hearing began April 2, 1993. Approximately thirty witnesses testified on behalf of Plaintiff and approximately nine witnesses testified on behalf of Defendant and Intervenor-Defendants. Over 3,500 pages of testimony were taken over the twenty-four days of trial. In addition, the court has taken into consideration 150 depositions presented to the court as evidence in lieu of testimony, as well as the literally thousands of pages of documents that have been presented to the court.
Pursuant to an "Agreement of Plaintiffs, Defendant Rockford School District 205 and the Intervenor-Defendants Concerning the Liability Hearing Adjudication Process and Certain Remedial Matters," dated May 5, 1993, all parties stipulated that the Magistrate Judge would make a Report and Recommendation to Judge Roszkowski, who would then rule upon the permanent injunction and liability issues. Pursuant to the May 5th Agreement, the parties agreed that all present and future remedial matters in this case, without limitation, would be referred to the Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) and (c)(3), and under the rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Therefore, pursuant to Minute Order entered on May 5, 1993, Judge Roszkowski has referred all present and future remedial matters to the Magistrate Judge. The Agreement also allowed Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint which conformed to the proofs presented. This Third Amended Complaint was filed June 23, 1993. The following is the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge pursuant to the referral of the District Court and the stipulation of all parties.
STUDENT TRACKING AND ABILITY GROUPING

INTRODUCTION
The court finds that the ability grouping and tracking practices of the Rockford School District (hereinafter "RSD") did not represent a trustworthy enactment of any academically acceptable theory or practice. The RSD tracking practices skewed enrollment in favor of whites and to the disadvantage of minority students. The court finds that it was the policy of the RSD to use tracking to intentionally segregate white students from minority students, and that the policy existed in 1989 and had existed for many years prior thereto.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The most devastating witness testifying on behalf of Plaintiffs was Dr. Jeannie Oakes. Dr. Oakes is one of the leading experts in student tracking and related fields.[1] She received her Ph.D from the University of California, Los Angeles in 1980. From 1981 to 1985 she was senior research associate, Graduate School of Education, UCLA. In 1985 she joined the RAND Corporation as Sr. Social Scientist. In 1989 she returned to UCLA to accept the position of Associate Professor, Graduate School of Education. Dr. Oakes currently holds the position of full professor and is the vice-chair of the Department of Education in the Graduate School of Education at UCLA.
Dr. Oakes testified that she had studied the tracking practices in the Rockford School District. She examined the broad range of objective documentary material provided by the District. Her analyses included data tapes of the 1st through 6th grades for the years 1986 and 1987. She also reviewed the 10th and 12th grades for the same 941 years. In *941 addition, she examined middle school student data from 1988-89 and 1989-90. The data tapes examined by Dr. Oakes, therefore, cover the time period from 1987 through 1990.
Dr. Oakes testified that tracking is ability grouping. Tracking constitutes a set of strategies that a school and school district use to organize students for instruction. The object of ability grouping is to group students together in ways that narrow the range of their ability or prior achievements so that a teacher is able to target instruction to the level of the students within the identified group.
Three core features are always present in every tracking system: 1) Adults in the school system make judgments about how much intelligence children have and how likely is their potential for learning; 2) After the adults make their judgment, the children are placed into groups; 3) The groupings are then publicly labeled. This public labeling can take on a hierarchical nature. The groups are not thought of as equal. The highest grouped children are on the top, and the lowest children are on the bottom. It is easy, and people often slip, to associate the top children with being "the best kids" and the bottom children with being "the worst kids."
The educational reason for tracking is to tailor a curriculum and an instructional strategy for the children that are tracked into the class. What occurs in reality, is that different children are given different opportunities to learn and children in different groupings are given different access to knowledge.[2]
The court finds, based upon Dr. Oakes' testimony, that the RSD tracked students in a variety of ways. The tracks were different paths that Rockford students followed through the curriculum of the RSD. Some of the paths led to certifying a student as being prepared for college, some led to specific occupational preparation and other paths led essentially nowhere.
The heart of the tracking placement process were intelligence tests supplemented by other strategies such as teacher recommendations. Defendant claimed, however, that the objective test scores were supposed to be the primary basis across the grade levels for placement into groups and tracks.[3]
The stated purpose of ability grouping in the RSD was to narrow the range of achievement levels in classes so that instruction could be targeted to the appropriate level of the students. Dr. Oakes pointed out that the RSD, therefore, was making four fundamental assumptions: 1) Students were going to learn better if grouped; 2) low ability classes and low track general and vocational programs would provide a safe haven for students who were not very smart; 3) the RSD knew how to track students into groups to achieve homogeneous ability groups and

they knew how to do it in ways that were accurate and fair; and 4) teaching is easier if one does not have to deal with a diverse group of students.[4] Ability grouping in the RSD began at the end of the kindergarten year. At that time students were put into either a regular first grade or a transition class based upon a standardized test score and a teacher's recommendation. The transition class was essentially low-track first grade, and operated to put the transition class students approximately one year behind. Further, tracking and ability grouping at the elementary level consisted of both within and between class ability grouping. Students were divided into groups within classes; slow, middle, and fast learners; or were divided across classrooms so that teachers taught all of one ability group.
942 *942 Also at the elementary level in the District there were separate programs for the highest achieving students. These programs were called gifted programs. Separate programs for the low achievers were called GIT (Get it Together) and CASS (Career Awareness and Survival Skills).
At the middle school and junior high level, tracking was a much more formalized system where the academic subjects were divided into three different levels designed for students with different abilities: 1) Below grade level classes called "basic" classes; 2) at-grade level classes called "regular" classes; and 3) above grade level classes called "honors" classes. Separate programs were also available for highly gifted and talented students.
At the senior high school level there was an overlapping of these two systems. The first system had two or three ability/achievement levels of the same course in the same subject areas (e.g. basic, general and honors English). The second system consisted of tracks of different courses in other subjects (e.g. math and science). Tracks, therefore, existed that: 1) prepared a student to go to college; 2) prepared a student for college but at a slower pace; 3) provided accelerated progress toward college preparation; and 4) did not prepare a student for college.
Dr. Oakes' testimony analyzed the various tracks that existed in the RSD and their racial composition. She found that "the evidence is absolutely consistent." Whether one looks at the District's public figures or the statements of district officials or does a completely separate analysis of the data itself, as she has done, one inescapably comes to the same finding, which the court hereby adopts: African-American students were enrolled in consistently disproportionate numbers in the slow track, low ability classes. (Compared to the representation in the school as a whole). Furthermore, these students were consistently over-represented in classes for those students identified as having special educational needs. This conclusion is also true in regard to Latino students.
In contrast, the overwhelming evidence finds white students at all grade levels disproportionately assigned to high ability, college preparatory programs. In the RSD, the higher level of class examined, the whiter the class. The actual statistical analysis is contained in the graphs produced by Dr. Oakes, and the court incorporates those graphs into this opinion. Suffice it to say that the court finds, as was testified by Dr. Oakes, that these numbers were so striking that one could, simply by walking into a class and looking at the color of the children's skin, determine if the class was a high, middle or low ability class.
Text continued on p. 946.

Enrollment in Gifted and Regular Programs

by School and Race

Grade 2, 1986-87

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gifted

Regular

Total

N

Percent

N Percent

N

Percent

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barbour

White

10

52.6

5

11.9

15

24.6

Black

6

31.6

33

78.6

39

63.9

Hispanic

3

15.8

4

9.5

7

11.5

Other

0

0

0

0

0

0

Beyer White Black Hispanic Other

35

92.1

1

2.6

1

2.6

1

2.6

39

67.2

13

22.4

5

8.6

1

1.7

74

77.1

14

14.6

6

6.3

2

2.1

943 *943

Haight

White

15

100

Black

0

0

Hispanic

0

0

Other

0

0

27

54.0

22

41.0

1

2.0

0

0

42

64.6

22

33.8

1

1.5

0

0

District White Black Hispanic Other

60

83.3

7

9.7

4

5.6

1

1.4

1434 434 87 49

71.6 21.7
4.3 2.4

1494 441 91 50

72.0 21.2
4.4 2.4

District

Gifted

72

3.5

Regular

2004

96.5

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note. Grade 2 Gifted Program at these three elementary schools only.

Enrollment in Gifted and Regular Programs by School and Race

Grade 5, 1986-87

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gifted

Regular

Total

N Percent

N Percent

N

Percent

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

King

White

49

98.0

2

12.5

51

77.3

Black

0

0

10

62.5

10

15.2

Hispanic

0

0

4

25.0

4

6.1

Other

1

2.0

0

0

1

1.5

District White Black Hispanic Other

49

98.0

1265

0

0

388

0

0

66

1

2.0

50

71.5 21.9
3.7 2.8

1314 388 66 51

72.2 21.3
3.6 2.8

District

Gifted

50

2.7

Regular

1769

97.3

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note. Grade 5 Gifted Program at King Elementary only.

Enrollment in English Tracks by School and Race

Grade 8, 1989-90

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Track 1

Track 2

Track 3

Honors

Regular

Basic

Total

[*]

N Percent

N

Percent

N

Percent

N

Percent

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eisenhower

White

52

88.1

220

78.9

15

31.9 287

74.7

Black

3

5.1

41

14.7

28

59.6

71

18.5

Hispanic

0

0

7

2.5

3

6.4

10

2.6

Other

4

6.8

11

3.9

1

2.1

16

4.2

944 *944

Flinn

White

52

85.2

Black

6

9.8

Hispanic

0

0

Other

3

4.9

218

77.3

10

62.5

280

78.0

48

17.0

4

25.0

58

16.2

10

3.5

2

12.5

12

3.3

6

2.1

0

0

9

2.5

Lincoln

White

61

85.9

Black

1

1.4

Hispanic

2

2.8

Other

7

9.9

152

77.2

25

12.7

9

4.6

11

5.6

No Track 3

213

79.5

at Lincoln

26

9.7

11

4.1

18

6.7

West

White

68

85.0

Black

9

11.3

Hispanic

2

2.5

Other

1

1.3

104

57.5

40

46.0

212

61.3

71

39.2

44

50.6

122

35.3

3

1.7

3

3.4

8

2.3

3

1.7

0

0

4

1.2

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enrollment in Math Tracks by School and Race

Grade 8, 1989-90

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Track 1

Track 2

Track 3

Honors

Regular

Basic

Total

[*]

N

Percent

N

Percent

N

Percent

N

Percent

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eisenhower

White

73

89.0

198

75.0

18

41.9

289

74.3

Black Hispanic Other

2

2.4

0

0

7

8.5

48

18.2

9

3.4

9

3.4

22

51.2

3

7.0

0

0

72

18.5

12

3.1

16

4.1

Flinn White Black Hispanic Other

75

85.9

5

5.9

3

3.5

4

4.7

204

75.0

53

19.5

9

3.3

6

2.2

39

60.0

318

75.0

20

30.8

78

18.4

4

6.2

16

3.8

2

3.1

12

2.8

Lincoln White Black Hispanic Other

72

80.0

4

4.4

5

5.6

9

10.0

139

72.8

23

12.0

16

8.4

13

6.8

33

70.2

244

13

27.7

37

0

0

2

1

2.1

23

75.1 11.4
6.5 7.1

West

White

104

78.8

128

57.4

23

45.1

255

62.8

Black

21

15.9

90

40.4

24

47.1

135

33.3

Hispanic

4

3.0

3

1.3

4

7.8

11

2.7

Other

3

2.3

2

.9

0

0

5

1.2

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

945 *945

Enrollment in English Tracks by School and Race:

Grade 10, 1986-87

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Track 1

Track 2

Track 3

Honors

Regular

Basic

Total

[*]

N

Percent

N Percent

N

Percent

N Percent

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Auburn

White

20

64.5

81

58.3

22

40.7

123

54.9

Black

9

29.0

52

37.4

32

59.3

93

41.5

Hispanic

0

0

5

3.6

0

0

5

2.2

Other

2

6.5

1

0.8

0

0

3

1.3

West

White

36

73.5

90

66.7

Black

13

26.5

37

27.4

Hispanic

0

0

6

4.4

Other

0

0

2

1.5

15

31.9

141

61.0

24

51.1

74

32.0

7

14.9

13

5.6

1

2.1

3

1.3

East

White

77

Black

6

Hispanic

0

Other

1

91.7

194

7.1

50

0

11

1.2

7

74.0 19.1
4.2 2.7

35

51.5

30

44.1

2

2.9

1

1.5

306

73.9

86

20.8

13

3.1

9

2.2

Guilford

White

60

Black

2

Hispanic

0

Other

2

93.8

214

3.1

23

0

2

3.1

12

85.3 9.2 0.8 4.8

15

48.4

14

45.2

1

3.2

1

3.2

289

83.5

39

11.3

3

0.9

15

4.3

Jefferson

White

69

93.2

268

93.1

37

80.4

374

91.7

Black

4

5.4

14

4.9

7

15.2

25

6.1

Hispanic

1

1.4

3

1.0

2

4.3

6

1.5

Other

0

0

3

1.0

0

0

3

0.8

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enrollment in Math Tracks by School and Race:

Grade 10, 1986-87

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Track 2

Track 3

Track 4

Track 1

Regular

Slow Track

Non

Honors/Accelerated

College-Bound

College-Bound

College-

Bound

Total [*]

N

Percent

N Percent

N

Percent

N Percent

N

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Auburn

White

27

79.4

5

62.5

39

58.2

43

43.9

114

Black

5

14.7

3

37.5

27

40.3

50

51.0

85

Hispanic

0

0

0

0

1

1.5

5

5.1

6

Other

2

5.9

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

West

White

27

81.8

10

83.3

64

64.0

30

40.0

64

Black

3

9.1

2

16.7

30

30.0

36

48.0

71

Hispanic

3

9.1

0

0

5

5.0

7

9.3

15

Other

0

0

0

0

1

1.0

2

2.7

3

946 *946

East

White

54

87.1

27

Black

7

11.3

5

Hispanic

0

0

2

Other

1

1.6

3

Guilford

White

77

90.6

48

Black

0

0

0

Hispanic

0

0

0

Other

8

9.4

2

Jefferson

White

58

96.7

26

Black

1

1.7

0

73.0

135

71.8

13.5

36

19.1

5.4

8

4.3

8.1

9

4.8

96.0

117

85.4

0

13

9.5

0

2

1.5

4.0

5

3.6

96.3

174

94.6

0

9

4.9

64

61.0

281

37

35.2

85

3

2.9

13

1

1.0

14

50

60.2

292

31

37.3

44

2

2.4

4

0

0

15

97

81.5

355

16

13.4

26

Hispanic

0

0

0

0

1

0.5

5

4.2

6

Other

1

1.7

1

3.7

0

0

1

0.8

3

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Racial Composition of High School Vocational Tracks 1986-1987

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Business/

Computer

Total

Non-Vocational

Total

Engineering

Trades

Vocational

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Auburn

White

0

0

6

66.7

12

52.2

18 47.1

209 55.6

Black

2 100

3

33.3

11

47.8

16 52.9

152 40.4

Hispanic 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

10

2.7

West W B H

1 100

18

81.8

0

0

4

18.2

0

0

0

0

19

70.4

3

11.1

5

18.5

38 76.0 7 14.0 5 10.0

207 60.5

110 32.2

20

5.8

Guilford

W

2 100

39

86.7

B

0

0

5

11.1

H

0

0

0

0

16

72.7

5

22.7

0

0

57 82.6

10 14.5

0

0

557 85.2

75 11.1

4

0.6

East[*] W B H

3 100

24

68.6

0

0

11

31.4

0

0

0

0

17

54.8

8

25.2

3

9.7

44 63.8

19 27.5

3

4.3

558 75.3 113 17.9
20 2.7

Jefferson[ 0806 ]

W

8 100

50

94.3

48

87.3

106 91.5

570 93.1

B

0

0

2

3.8

4

7.3

6

5.1

29 4.7

H

0

0

1

1.9

0

0

1

.9

8 1.3

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The court further finds that the RSD was well aware of the disproportionate enrollments, particularly with the clustering of minority students in low ability and low track classes. This fact is confirmed by the testimony of Superintendent William Bowen and by Mr. Nathaniel Martin.

947 In regard to tracking and steering practices in the elementary schools and beyond, *947 Superintendent William Bowen's testimony is indeed revealing. He stated:

[S]omewhere in our school system, I think it probably starts when reading groups are formed, some decisions are made about tracking [of minority students] that need to be reviewed.... It looks to me as an observer that once you get into a particular track, or sometimes I refer to them as tubes, it's very difficult to get out of them.

Bowen Dep. at 110-111.

Mr. Bowen served as a teacher at Auburn High School in the early 1960's, as a counselor at Guilford High School for ten years, as principal at East High School for eleven years, and at the time of his deposition, was the superintendent of schools. When Mr. Bowen was at Auburn, the school had remedial, regular and honors tracks. The honors level was relatively more white in its composition than the total composition of the school. The

remedial level was relatively more African-American. The regular track was not easily identifiable in racial terms, according to Mr. Bowen. Most African-American students tended to be either in the remedial or regular track. In Mr. Bowen's opinion, the students in the remedial track did not get more help in any quantitative way. The school administration did not expect that the students in the remedial track would be able to improve and move on to any of the regular tracks. If a student was placed in a remedial track in seventh grade, that student probably would stay in that track throughout the rest of his or her junior and senior high years. Occasionally Mr. Bowen would notice minority students who he believed had a level of ability inconsistent with their being in the remedial tracks. These observations were based upon such matters as speaking skills, competence, self respect and, sometimes, writing skills. Mr. Bowen indicated that he, himself, often made an effort to try to move these students into higher track classes, but he would receive resistance from the student's counselors. Mr. Bowen at times, however, was able to move a student from one track to another track.
When Mr. Bowen went to East High School in the early 1970's, he observed essentially the same phenomena. This bothered him so much that after he had been at East for approximately seven years, around the year 1980, he undertook, as East's principal, to eliminate the remedial track classes in English and history.
[I]t was my observation that if you were in remedial English, you were with the same remedial kids all day. If you were in one remedial class, you were in everything remedial. ... You were even in the same PE because that's the way the schedule worked. Everybody in school knew where you were, and all the kids that were in this situation all knew each other. It was an identifiable group, and they were dissatisfied with their lot.
Id. at 117.
Remedial English and history were eliminated by Mr. Bowen. After he left, however, East High School reinstituted the remedial tracks. The court finds, based upon Mr. Bowen's testimony, that there was no other high school in Rockford during the 1970's or early 1980's that undertook to eliminate basic courses or otherwise to address racially disparate tracking practices.
Mr. Nathaniel Martin worked in the RSD for the past twenty years. He was the first African-American principal of a secondary school in Rockford and in 1981, became the first African-American person appointed principal of a predominately white school. In April 1993, he became the director of secondary education. Mr. Martin testified extensively about what he had seen in the Rockford school system regarding tracking and steering practices. He related his observations from his experience at Flynn Elementary School in the 1980's. He estimated that 75% of the African-American students enrolled at Flynn were in the basic or lower track and the rest were in the regular track. He stated that he could recall no African-American student enrolled in the honors track. He believed that the African-American students were perceived as a discipline problem and once this perception occurred, the 948 students were tracked lower in their abilities. The African-American students *948 were more likely to be seen as discipline problems than were the white students.
Mr. Martin confirmed Mr. Bowen's observation that once an individual was tracked in the Rockford school system, there was little movement and very little interaction between the tracks. Mr. Martin was of the opinion that the tracking system at Flynn was similar to the other RSD's tracking systems. Mr. Martin described the system as "a system of apartheid."
Nathaniel Martin engaged in approximately fifty to sixty conversations with high level administrators regarding the discriminatory effects of the tracking system. He was told by the then superintendent of schools that the tracking system could not be eliminated because it would upset the teaching staff and because the community would not buy into elimination of tracking. The court finds it clear that the RSD had substantial notice and intimate knowledge of the racial disparities found within its system.
The fact that white students were in honors classes and minorities were in basic classes did not mean there was intentional institutional discrimination, however. The white students of Rockford could have been innately smarter than the minority students in Rockford. Accordingly, Dr. Oakes had to address the issue of intentional discrimination.

In her analysis, the first question that Dr. Oakes asked regarding intent was whether the RSD used valid and objective measures in assigning students to ability groups. Dr. Oakes found that the measures used by the RSD were either invalid or, at the very best, had highly questionable validity for the purposes for which they were used. The tests were described by Dr. Oakes as outmoded and she largely discredited them.
The tests that were used by the Rockford School system as the basis for its tracking system were tests that were generally not recommended by their publishers to be used for class placement. The tests were not, in fact, intelligence tests. The tests did not measure a child's critical thinking ability, such as problem solving or applying knowledge in new situations. The tests measured a very narrow range of a child's knowledge and skills at one point in time.[5]
The court finds that not only were the standardized tests for class placement inaccurate, they were culturally biased and did not fairly measure the capacities of minority children. Dr. Oakes summed up the finding of the court when she stated:
[T]he measures used in the Rockford system did not represent a sound, valid or objective enactment of the theory, the theory of ability grouping and tracking.
Oakes Test., Tr. at 888.
Further, the court finds that the Rockford School District knew, or reasonably should have known based upon the information and literature that was available, that the measures it was using were not valid.
This conclusion, however, does not end the inquiry. This is still, as has been repeatedly brought to the court's attention, an intentional discrimination lawsuit. Simply because the RSD set up a tracking system that worked to the disadvantage of minority students and that system was based upon a measuring standard and methodology that was invalid, does not mean the RSD intended to discriminate against minority students. The possibility exists that the RSD may have just incompetently administered its tracking system. As a matter of fact, incompetency seems to be one of the main defenses offered by this school district.
As a result, Dr. Oakes then asked the next question: Did the RSD use these measures to narrow the range of ability among students and groups so that instruction could be appropriately targeted at homogeneous levels of ability that comprised each group? In other words, did it use this allegedly objective standard to do what it said it was trying to do? The court finds that the District did not.
949 *949 At Eisenhower Middle School in 1988 and 1990, the reading comprehension scores of eighth graders enrolled in the basic history course ranged from the first to the seventy-second national percentile. At Lincoln Junior High School in 1988 and 1990, the math achievement scores of the eighth graders in honors science ranged from the thirty-sixth to the ninety-ninth percentile. At Guilford High School, during the same period of time, tenth graders enrolled in the slow college prep track courses had math scores that ranged from the first to the ninety-ninth percentile. The actual data relied upon by Dr. Oakes is found in the charts and tables below. The court finds that the matters contained in those tables are true and correct and are adopted as specific findings of this court. This data shows, and the record is replete with situations where, there were students (usually white) who scored below the national mean and who were still placed in honors classes and, incredibly, there were students (usually minority) who scored in the ninety-ninth percentile who were placed in basic classes.
Text continued on p. 958.
950 *950
951 *951
952 *952
953 *953
954 *954
955

*955
956 *956
957 *957
958 *958 The RSD did not track students objectively. The RSD did not narrow the range of student achievement to justify the targeting of curriculum and instruction to groups of students who were similar. Students at all levels of ability were found in nearly all classes. In fact, the grouping that was done by the RSD was not homogenous or achievement grouping. The tracking system was an arbitrary system where children were placed into rigid tracks. The court further finds that the Rockford school system consistently used test scores that did not relate to or match the class in which the students were being grouped.
The court also specifically finds that once a child was ability grouped in the RSD it was very difficult or almost impossible to change ability groups. Mr. Bowen called these groups "tubes" and referred to the fact that the initial placement of a child by ability grouping set the child on a course, or put him in a tube, from which he was unlikely to emerge at any time during his contact with the RSD. This conclusion was enforced by the curriculum guide of Jefferson High School in 1988-89 which stated:
English, social studies, mathematics, and science offer different difficulty levels of the same subject. The most difficult are labeled accelerated or honors, and the least difficult fundamental or basic. Every attempt is made to properly place students upon their entry into Jefferson High School, and it is rare that a student is moved from one level to another.
The RSD set up a rigid tracking placement program. Once a student was labeled as being basic, low level or honors, the student maintained that label from kindergarten through twelfth grade.
In addition, the court finds that a low level or basic ability grouping would deprive students of the opportunity for various educational experiences, particularly in the mathematics and science field. If a child did not take algebra in the eighth grade, for example, he or she had no chance of taking calculus before completing his or her education in the RSD. In mathematics and science there was a system of prerequisite courses that meant that only the honors students in the lower grades could take certain courses in high school. Dr. Oakes described this system as:
[T]he most rigid system I have ever seen. It is the only instance where I've seen a written policy that specifies such a complex and multi-layered process that the student has to go through if there is a sense that the student has been misplaced.
Oakes Test, Tr. at 914-915.
Dr. Oakes also examined the relationship between the way the District used its measurements of achievement in placing students in groups and the rigidity of that grouping system in maintaining disproportionate class assignment. Dr. Oakes made several complex analyses. The court will not repeat all of those analyses. The syllogism is, however, quite easily restated. Most of the honors programs in the RSD were dominated by white students. Most of the basic programs were dominated by minority students. The placement of these students was by allegedly objective standardized tests. The tests were of questionable value as far as being used for this purpose and were probably culturally biased. Leaving that aside, the Rockford School District did not objectively use this testing procedure. A African-American student scoring well on the test did not have the same placement opportunities as a similar scoring white student. A white student scoring poorly on the test had more opportunities than a similar scoring African-American student. A white student scoring well on these tests was virtually guaranteed opportunities that high scoring blacks were denied.
Text continued on p. 999.
Rockford090704/15/93 10 0907
5. Did the way the district used scores for placement and/or the rigidity of the grouping system contribute to racially disproportionate class assignments?

5.1. Within the wide, overlapping ranges of achievement among Rockford's tracks and class ability

levels, there are clear patterns of racial bias in class placements at the elementary, junior, and

senior high levels. The result was that groups of higher track students whose scores fell within a

959

range that would *959 qualify them for participation in either a higher or lower track (i.e., their

scores were the same as students in the lower track) were consistently "whiter" than groups of

students whose scores fell within that same range but were placed in the lower track. (See

attached figures showing percentages of black students in overlapping ranges of track levels.)

5.2. At the elementary and junior high level, in particular, black students whose achievement scores qualified them for two or more tracks were far more likely to be placed in the lower than the higher track for which they qualified. For example, one would expect the representation ratio for students whose scores "qualified" them for either a higher or lower track to be 1.00. However, racial differences in representation in tracks were such that Black students had considerably lower representation ratios and whites considerably higher. (See attached table.) At the elementary level, this is exemplified by comparing the placements of similarly scoring Black and white students in Gifted and non-Gifted classes. Here, we find that the representation ratio in the 2nd grade Gifted classes for Black students whose scores qualified them for either the Gifted or regular class was .75 for math and .84 for reading (considerably lower than what would be normally expected). In contrast, their representation ratio in the non-gifted class was 1.02 slightly larger than expected. Whites in the same achievement range had a representation ratio of 1.04 and 1.01 in the gifted classes and 1.00 in the non-gifted classes, as would be expected. Even so, these ratios for 2nd graders are conservative, and undoubtedly inflated for Blacks, given the inclusion in our analysis of the separate, minority "pilot" gifted program at Barbour. More striking, at grade 5, none of the Black students whose reading and/or math achievement matched those of gifted white students were placed in gifted classes at King.

Similar, striking patterns are found at the junior high school level. (See attached table.) For example, at West, the representation ratio in the 10th grade honors English classes for Black students whose scores qualified them for either the honors or regular course was .50 (only half what would be normally expected). In contrast, their representation ratio in the regular track was 1.32, considerably greater than expected. In contrast whites in the same achievement range had a representation ratio of 1.21 in the honors course, and only .87 in the regular course. This pattern of lower than expected representation ratios in higher tracks for qualifying Black students and higher than expected ratios in the lower track classes for which they qualified was found in 37 of the 39 instances that were examined (i.e., in every subject area at every middle school in 1989-1990 0907 the exceptions were found in science at Lincoln and in social studies at West). In contrast, qualifying White students were represented in higher tracks at expected or greater than expected ratios in 33 of 37 instances that were examined, and had ratios of representation in low tracks that were greater than expected in only 4 of the 37 instances. (Note: The smaller number of minority students and the larger number of classes in which they were dispersed made these representation ratios analyses unreliable at the senior high school. Small numbers of Hispanics also prevented drawing conclusions from these analyses at either the junior or senior high schools level.)

5.3. Other analyses underscore Rockford's racial bias in placement, beyond what would be

expected by group differences in group achievement levels. In a number of cases, high track

classes included exceptionally low scoring white students, but this was rarely the case for Blacks.

Conversely, quite high scoring Blacks were often excluded from high track classes and, were often

found, instead, in low track classes. Again, this was seldom the case for whites. For example, at

960

both Jefferson and Guilford high schools in 1987, none of the Black *960 students who scored in

the top quartile (75-99 NP) on the CAP reading comprehension test were placed in high track

English, compared with about 40% of top quartile whites who were enrolled in the high track. In

contrast, at both these two schools and at West, a small fraction of white students who scored in

the bottom quartile (1-25 NP) were in high track classes, while no similarly scoring Blacks were so

placed. At East and Auburn, while some top-quartile Blacks were placed in Honors English, nearly twice as many top-scoring Blacks at East were in the Basic class. West High also placed a proportion of its top-quartile Black students in Basic English; no low scoring whites were so placed. Similar patterns are found in other subjects at the high schools. See attached figures.
At the junior highs, other specific examples are striking. For example, at Eisenhower, the range of reading comprehension scores among 8th graders enrolled in Basic English classes was from the 1st to the 72nd National Percentile. Of these, ten students scored above the national average of 50 NP. Six of the highest scoring, above average students were Black, including the highest achieving students in the class. One other of the above average students was Hispanic.
All of these analyses support the conclusion that Rockford's placement practices skewed enrollments in favor of whites over and above that which can be explained by measured achievement.
Supporting Data and Analyses
Percentage of students in overlapped range of qualifying achievement scores in regular & gifted grade 5 0907 1986-1987 0907 by race (black, Hispanic, & white) and school 0907 See attached figures.
New analyses of the percentage of students in overlapped range of qualifying achievement scores in junior high school basic, regular, honors (or accelerated), and gifted courses in English & mathematics 0907 1989-90 0907 grade 8 by race (black, Hispanic, & white) & school. (Computed pairwise 0907 e.g., compare percentage of "overlap" students by race (black, Hispanic, & white) in basic and regular; then regular and honors, etc.)
New analyses of the percentage of students in overlapped range of qualifying achievement scores in high school basic, regular, honors (or accelerated), and gifted English and Science courses 0907 1986-1987 grade 10 by race (black, Hispanic, & white) & school (Computed pairwise)
New analyses of the percentage of students in overlapped range of qualifying achievement scores in 4 types of high school math courses: a) non-college-bound math (basic, general, consumer, & business) b) slow-track college-bound math (Fund of Alg 1A-B; Fund of Algebra 2A-B), c) regular college bound (Geometry 1-2), d) fast-track college-bound (Honors Geometry, Intermediate Algebra, Algebra 3) by race (black, Hispanic, & white) & school (Computed pairwise)
961 *961
962 *962
963 *963
964 *964
965 *965
966 *966
967 *967
968 *968
969 *969
970 *970
971 *971
972 *972
973

*973 974 *974

975 *975 Racial Composition of English Overlaps and English Tracks by School

Grade 8

1989-1990

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overlap 1

Overlap 2

Track 1

Track 2

Track 2

Track 3

N

Percent N

Percent N

Percent N Percent

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eisenhower

White

50

87.7 128

88.3

89

67.9 14

34.1

Black

3

5.3

9

6.2

32

24.4 23

56.1

Hispanic 0

0

2

1.4

5

3.8

3

7.3

Other

4

7.0

6

4.1

5

3.8

1

2.4

Flinn

White

48

Black

6

Hispanic 0

Other

2

85.7 189

78.8

25

65.8

9

60.0

10.7

38

15.8

10

26.3

4

26.7

0

7

2.9

3

7.9

2

13.3

3.6

6

2.5

0

0

0

0

Lincoln

White

55

Black

1

Hispanic 2

Other

7

84.6

80

86.0

1.5

7

7.5

3.1

1

1.1

10.8

5

5.4

No Track 3 at Lincoln

West

White

59

84.3

77

60.2

92

55.4 39

46.4

Black

8

11.4

48

37.5

69

41.6 42

50.0

Hispanic 2

2.9

1

0.8

3

1.8

3

3.6

Other

1

1.4

2

1.6

2

1.2

0

0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Racial Composition of Math Overlaps and Math Tracks by School

Grade 8

1989-1990

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overlap 1

Overlap 2

Track 1

Track 2

Track 2

Track 3

N

Percent N

Percent N

Percent N Percent

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eisenhower

White

58

87.9

94

87.9

65

60.2 17

43.6

Black

2

3.0

6

5.6

34

31.5 19

48.7

Hispanic 0

Other

6

Flinn

White

44

Black

4

Hispanic 3

Other

4

0

2

1.9

7

6.5

3

7.7

9.1

5

4.7

2

1.9

0

0

80.0 128

79.5

63

64.3 20

56.7

7.3

24

14.9

29

29.6 34

33.3

5.5

4

2.5

5

5.1

4

6.7

7.3

5

3.1

1

1.0

2

3.3

976 *976 Lincoln White Black Hispanic Other

40 71.4 4 7.1 5 8.9 7 12.5

91 79.8 12 10.5
4 3.5 7 6.1

48 62.3

11 14.3

12 15.6

6

7.8

31 72.1 11 25.6
0 0 1 2.3

West

White

102 79.1

119 57.2

5 100.0

22 45.8

Black

20 15.5

85 40.9

0

0

22 45.8

Hispanic

4 3.1

3 1.4

0

0

4 8.3

Other

3 2.3

1 0.5

0

0

0

0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Racial Composition of Math Overlaps and Math Tracks by School

Grade 10

1986-1987

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overlap 1

Overlap 2

Overlap 3

Track 1

Track 2

Track 2

Track 3

Track 3

Track

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Auburn

White

16 72.7

5 62.5 0

0

32 64

7 41.2

43

Black

5 22.7

3 37.5 0

0

17 34

10 58.8

50

Hispanic

0

0

0

0 0

0

1 2

0

0

5

Other

1

4.5

0

0 0

0

0 0

0

0

0

West

White

27 81.8

10 83.3 0

0

Black

3

9.1

2 16.7 0

0

Hispanic

3

9.1

0

0 0

0

Other

0

0

0

0 0

0

37 71.2 27 56.3

29

11 21.2 19 39.6

32

3 5.8 2

4.2

7

1 1.9 0

0

2

East

White

51 86.4

Black

7 11.9

Hispanic

0

0

Other

1

1.7

26 74.3 1 50.0

5 14.3 0

0

2

5.7 0

0

2

5.7 1 50.0

124 71.7 11 73.3

64

34 19.7 2 13.3

37

7 4.0 1

6.7

3

8 4.6 1

6.7

1

Jefferson

White

51 96.2

26 96.3 0

0

115 94.3 59 95.2

97

Black

1

1.9

0

0 0

0

6 4.9 3

4.8

16

Hispanic

0

0

0

0 0

0

1 0.8 0

0

5

Other

1

1.9

1

3.7 0

0

0

0 0

0

1

Guilford

White

60 92.3

47 95.9 1 100.0

103 87.3 14 73.7

50

Black

0

0

0

0 0

0

11 9.3 2 10.5

31

Hispanic

0

0

0

0 0

0

1 0.8 1

5.3

2

Other

5

7.7

2

4.1 0

0

3 2.5 2 10.5

0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

977 *977

Representation Ratios for Qualifying Scores

(NTBS National Percentiles)

and Gifted Program

Elementary Schools 1986-87

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Black White Hispanic Black

White

Hispanic

Grade Subject Gifted Gifted Gifted Not Gifted Not Gifted Not Gifted

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2

MATH

.74

1.04

1.50

1.02

1.00

.97

2

READING

.89

1.01

2.48

1.01

1.00

.90

5

MATH

0

1.21

0

1.05

.99

1.05

5

READING

0

1.17

0

1.06

.99

1.06

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Representation Ratios for Qualifying Scores (NTBS National Percentile) and Trac

Middle Schools, Grade 8, 1989-90

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tracks 1 & 2 Overlap

Tracks 2 &

Black White Hisp Black White Hisp Black White Hisp Black White Hisp

Subject

School

Tr1

Tr1 Tr1

Tr2

Tr2 Tr2

Tr2

Tr2 Tr2

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Math

Eisenhower

.66

1.00

0 1.21 1.00 1.62

.87 1.08 .9

Flinn

.56

1.01 1.68 1.15 1.00 .77

.95 1.05 .9

Lincoln

.76

.92 1.69 1.12 1.04 .66

.78

.95 1.5

West

.50

1.21 1.49 1.32

.87 .69

0 1.96

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Science

Eisenhower

.73

1.03

0 1.04 1.00 1.16

.80 1.12 1.1

Flinn

.26

1.11

0 1.20

.97 1.26

.85 1.05 1.2

Lincoln

.44

1.00 .52 1.18 1.00 1.15

1.14 .85 1.4

West

.45

1.16 2.48 1.20

.94 .47

No Track

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Soc Studies Eisenhower

.69

1.02

0 1.06 1.00 1.19

.89 1.05 1.0

Flinn

.51

1.06 .93 1.09

.99 1.01

.96 .97 1.5

Lincoln

.36

1.15

0 1.20

.95 1.31

.83 .92 1.7

West

No Track 1 at West

1.08 .97 .8

==============================================================================================

English

Eisenhower

.89

1.00

0 1.05 1.00 1.39

.76 1.14 .8

(READNP)

Flinn

.72

1.07

0 1.07

.98 1.23

1.00 1.03 .8

Lincoln

.30

.99 1.62 1.49 1.01 .57

No Track

West

.40

1.23 1.89 1.33

.88 .52

.94 1.06 .7

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

English

Eisenhower

.91

.99

0 1.03

.98 1.34

.77 1.12 .8

(LANGNP)

Flinn

1.07

.99

0

.97 1.01 1.45

.98 1.01 .8

Lincoln

.20

1.02 1.43 1.43

.99 .77

No Track

West

.43

1.20 1.68 1.38

.87 .55

.99 1.03 .6

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note:

For Blacks assigned to Track 1, the representation ratio is the proportion of Blacks in Track

proportion of Blacks in the Tracks 1 and 2 overlap. Similar meanings apply for Whites and Hisp

Tracks. If the representation ratio equals 1.0, then that group is represented in that Track i

group's representation in the overlap. Thus, if race is not relevant, we expect these represen

1.0. A representation ratio less than 1.0 indicates under

representation in that Track. A representation ratio greater

than 1.0 indicates overrepresentation in that Track.

Instructions On How To Interpret The Following Distribution Graphs

The following exhibits graphically represent English class track placements matched against reading achievement scores and Science class track placements matched against math achievement scores for RSD high schools during the years 1986-1987.
The first two exhibits in the next sequence, pages 979 and 80, show the distribution for Jefferson High School. The first page shows the top two quartiles of reading achievement. The top row of boxes represent the students who scored in quartile 1. There is a small "Q-1" located on the side of the top row of boxes. Quartile 1 represents students scoring between the 75th and 99th percentile. The box on the left side of the page represents black students. The box on the right side represents white students. The numbers on the vertical axis of each box indicate the percentage of the total population scoring within each quartile. The numbers along the horizontal axis of each box (1, 2, 3) are the various tracks. One represents the accelerated or honors track, two represents the average or regular track and three represents the basic of low track.
Page 979 shows that 100 percent of the black students enrolled in Jefferson High School, grade 10, English 978 classes, who scored in quartile 1 (box, upper left) were placed in *978 the regular or average track classes.
Looking at the comparable group of white students, you see that approximately 40 percent of the white students scoring in quartile 1 (box, upper right) were placed in the accelerated or honors track classes. Sixty percent of the white students scoring in quartile 1 were placed in the average or regular track, and a very small fraction of top scoring white students were placed in the lower or basic track.
Page 980 shows the placement of black and white students who scored in quartile 3 and 4.
These exhibits:
[U]underscore[] that there was a racial bias in Rockford's placement practices beyond what would be expected by group differences in achievement levels. In a number of cases, high track classes included exceptionally low scoring white students, but this was rarely the case for blacks. Conversely, quite high scoring black students were often excluded from high track classes and were found instead in low track classes, and again this exclusion of high achieving whites from the high tracks was seldom the case.
Oakes, Trans., Tr. at 944.
979 *979
980 *980
981

*981
982 *982
983 *983
984 *984
985 *985
986 *986
987 *987
988 *988
989 *989
990 *990
991 *991
992 *992
993 *993
994 *994
995 *995
996 *996
997 *997
998 *998
999 *999 The foregoing graphs and charts demonstrate that in all schools and in all subject areas race contributed to class assignment and track placement. African-American students who qualified for two or more tracks above the level at which they were placed, were placed in the lower track rather than in the higher tracks, a track they had little or no chance of ever leaving.
All of this data shows that the RSD placement practices skewed enrollment in favor of whites. Mr. Bowen's testimony indicated that he knew since the 1960's that minority students had a level of ability that was inconsistent with their being in the remedial tracks into which they were placed. Further, the numbers and the patterns were obvious to anyone who observed or participated in the school system.
The tracking system used by the RSD did not remedy differences or ameliorate disparities in achievement among racial groups, nor did it function to move students out of the low level track or move minority children into the high level track. The ability grouping used by the RSD, therefore, cannot be justified as an attempt to target minority students with the hope of advancing them to higher achievement levels. The grouping practices used created racially identifiable classrooms, provided unequal opportunities to learn and served no remedial function for minority students. These practices did not even enable minority students to sustain their position relative to white students in the district achievement hierarchy.
Dr. Oakes expressed her opinion, and this court agrees and does hereby find, that there was a pattern of intentional system-wide discrimination against African-American and Latino students in the RSD. The RSD and the people who operated the RSD knew about it, understood what was happening and even, at times, exerted some effort to correct it. All attempts to correct the situation were short-lived and, in the court's opinion, woefully inadequate.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The basic principle governing this case is that governmental authorities may not intentionally segregate or discriminate against minority students because of their race. Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 189, 213-14, 93 S.Ct. 2686, 2700, 37 L.Ed.2d 548 (1973); United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ., 624 F.Supp. 1276 (S.D.N.Y.1985), aff'd, 837 F.2d 1181 (2nd Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1055, 108 S.Ct. 2821, 100 L.Ed.2d 922 (1988). This principle derives from the Equal Protection Clause, that provides that "no State ... shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Equal Protection Clause requires State and local governments to treat similarly situated groups of persons in a similar fashion when classifying people to receive particular benefits and burdens. Hooper v. Bernalillo County Assessor, 472 U.S. 612, 618, 105 S.Ct. 2862, 2866, 86 L.Ed.2d 487 (1985). In considering the degree of racial imbalance in a school system, courts have considered African-Americans and Hispanics as a group when there is evidence that both groups were victims of discrimination. See Keyes, 413 U.S. at 197-98, 93 S.Ct. at 2692; Yonkers, 837 F.2d at 1226; Hart v. Community School Bd. of Educ., New York School Dist. No. 21, 383 F.Supp. 699, 733 (E.D.N.Y.1974), aff'd, 512 F.2d 37, 45 n. 10 (2nd Cir.1975).
The conduct of individual employees of a school district is relevant in determining the district's liability, even if the conduct was not taken pursuant to a formal policy of the district. Yonkers, 624 F.Supp. at 1447 n. 112. Imposing liability in these circumstances comports with the general rule that a municipality may be held liable for the unconstitutional acts of its employees in circumstances where there is a continuing widespread pattern of such conduct. See, e.g., Brown v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 923 F.2d 1474, 1480-81 (11th Cir.1991); Spell v. McDaniel, 824 F.2d 1380, 1387 (4th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1027, 108 S.Ct. 752, 98 L.Ed.2d 765 (1988). Accordingly, liability in a case such as this is not predicated on an isolated instance of unauthorized discriminatory conduct against an individual victim but on the district's conduct in the face of a pattern of 1000 discriminatory acts and omissions over time. Id. See Turpin v. Mailet, 619 F.2d 196 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, *1000 449 U.S. 1016, 101 S.Ct. 577, 66 L.Ed.2d 475 (1980); Owens v. Haas, 601 F.2d 1242 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 980, 100 S.Ct. 483, 62 L.Ed.2d 407 (1979).
In school desegregation cases, courts have frequently addressed claims that minority students were not afforded an equal educational opportunity. See Yonkers, 624 F.Supp. at 1530; Berry v. School Dist. of Cty. of Benton Harbor, 442 F.Supp. 1280, 1306 (W.D.Mich.1977); Morgan v. Hennigan, 379 F.Supp. 410, 463 (D.Mass.1974); Oliver v. Kalamazoo Bd. of Educ., 368 F.Supp. 143, 176 (W.D.Mich.1973); Spangler v. Pasadena Cty. Bd. of Educ., 311 F.Supp. 501, 524 (C.D.Cal.1970); Hobson v. Hansen, 269 F.Supp. 401 (D.D.C.), aff'd, 408 F.2d 175 (D.C.Cir.1969) (en banc). Aside from any other considerations, the constitutional rights of minority students are violated when intentional State conduct results in a lower quality education for minority students than that provided to majority students. See id. This rule applies not only to instances where the government conduct has initially brought about the unequal conditions, but also in circumstances where responsible officials have failed to eliminate inequalities with respect to matters within their continuing charge. Price v. Denison Indep. School Dist., 694 F.2d 334, 371 (5th Cir.1982); Yonkers, 624 F.Supp. at 1430.
Disparities in curricula may also deny an equal educational opportunity to minority students. See, e.g., Yonkers, 624 F.Supp. at 1530; Oliver, 368 F.Supp. at 175 (students at a minority junior high school deprived of the variety of course offerings available at white junior high schools); Berry, 442 F.Supp. at 1305 ("new math" taught in white schools but "old math" taught in African-American schools). Tracking practices not only contribute to segregated conditions but may also deny to minority students the same educational opportunities afforded to majority students. Yonkers, 624 F.Supp. at 1445; Berry, 442 F.Supp. at 1306; Spangler, 311 F.Supp. at 519; Hobson, 269 F.Supp. at 443. Tracking denies minority students equal educational opportunity in circumstances where the classifications employed do not adequately reflect students' abilities and where students are locked into a single track of curriculum. See Hobson, 269 F.Supp. at 513. Moreover, teachers acting under frequently false assumptions from test scores are prone to treat these students in such a way that the students' performance conforms to the teachers' low expectations. Id. at 514. Thus, certain tracking systems amount to unlawful discrimination against students whose educational opportunities are limited on the assumption that they are incapable of doing more. Id.

In examining a tracking or ability grouping program, a court should scrutinize the principles underlying the program as well as the procedures and standards for making grouping assignments. See Spangler, 311 F.Supp. at 519-20 (segregated grouping assignments resulted from racially discriminatory "intelligence" tests, misguided assumptions by teachers and counselors about the abilities of African-American students and the effects of white parents' intervention in the placement process) cf. Vaughns v. Bd. of Educ. of Prince George's County, 758 F.2d 983, 992 (4th Cir.1985) (county adopted alternative means of selecting students for gifted programs because of possible cultural bias inherent in standardized testing). One important factor in evaluating an ability grouping program is whether the program, once sufficiently established, is effective in overcoming the problems it was designed to address. See United States v. Gadsden Co. School Dist., 572 F.2d 1049, 1052 (5th Cir.1978). In this regard, movement of students between ability groups provides a crucial indication: if ability grouping is providing all students with better educational opportunities, there should be movement of students from the lower sections to higher sections. Id.; see also, Quarles v. Oxford Municipal Separate School Dist., 868 F.2d 750, 755 (5th Cir.1989) (court notes impressive degree of movement among achievement levels by African-American students as well as white students). In an unlawful program, minority students may be locked into achievement groups and fail to move upward over time. cf. Georgia State Conference of Branches of NAACP v. Georgia, 775 F.2d 1403, 1419-20 (11th Cir.1985).
1001 *1001 Plaintiffs' claims require proof of three elements: (1) "segregation or discrimination" (minority students must in fact have experienced either segregated conditions or suffered the effects of discriminatory conduct 0907 or both); (2) "causation" (school authorities must have caused, created or maintained such segregation or discrimination); and (3) "intent" (the conduct of school officials must have been "intentional"). Keyes, 413 U.S. at 213-14, 93 S.Ct. at 2700; Yonkers, 624 F.Supp. at 1378.
The court finds, based upon an application of the facts of this case to the principles of law set forth above, that the RSD intentionally segregated and, therefore, discriminated against its minority students through the use of its ability grouping and tracking practices. The RSD both created this segregation by using invalid testing procedures and employing arcane assumptions and maintained such segregation by locking minority students into lower-track classes with little or no hope of ever moving upward. The placement of minority students into lower-track classes was not justified by either the capabilities or the achievements of the students. The RSD tracking practices historically produced racially identifiable classes and courses. Further, the court finds that the RSD was aware of its practices and the results.
SEGREGATION OF STUDENTS BY RACE WITHIN SCHOOLS
INTRODUCTION
This section addresses the segregation of students within the schools of the RSD. The RSD, in several instances, used student assignment and educational programming to separate students by race within a school. This pattern was evident in a wide range of purported "desegregation" transfer programs and was equally evident in the manner in which students were assigned to courses and classes within schools.
As described in the section on student assignment, (page 1026, within) when the RSD was first compelled by the Illinois State Board of Education (hereinafter "ISBE") and the QUEFAC court to engage in desegregation activity, the RSD adopted techniques that did not bring about any real racial interaction. The techniques used included intact busing and part-time programs. Such programs either did not mix students together at all or mixed students for only a few days a year. According to RBE member Colleen Holmbeck, the RSD was preoccupied with "numerical" desegregation as opposed to meaningful and interactive desegregative measures.
At the same time, the RSD began to mandatorily assign African-American/Hispanic students to Eastside white schools. Once there, however, these students were segregated within the schools, either by "ability-grouping" practices or by other aspects of school operations. This pattern of within-school segregation of mandatory transfer students continued through the 1970's and 1980's.

When intact busing and part-time programs were rejected by the QUEFAC court and the ISBE in the mid-1970's, the RSD experimented briefly with both full-site and partial-site programs.[6] The full-site programs included some voluntary measures, such as focus centers and open enrollment. In this context, the RSD's one-way mandatory busing of African-American students at both the elementary and secondary levels may also be viewed as a full-site program (in theory if not in practice). At the same time in the mid-1970's, RSD also began experimenting with partial-site voluntary desegregation programs, to which student transfers were attracted by unique educational offerings.
After brief experience with both types of programs, the RSD's favorite desegregation technique for white students became the partial-site alternative program, preferably one with academic entrance criteria. Using this technique, groups of white students were placed in predominantly minority schools, but kept in separate programs so that 1002 they had little interaction with minority students. The *1002 essence of this device was to count desegregation solely in terms of the total enrollment of a building, despite the continued separation of the students in that building, both educationally and socially.
The director of the RSD's Gifted program, Mr. Heideman, captured the essence of this historical policy in a 1990 memorandum to Superintendent Maurice Sullivan. Heideman Memo to Supt. Sullivan, 3/30/90, B507336. He described the policy as one "utilizing predominantly white children to attend a high minority impacted building to give the building a percentage balance." (In 1990, after the policy had been in effect more than a decade, Heideman said it was "no longer acceptable.") In contrast, the full-site programs, which contemplated some actual mixing and interaction of students of different races, lost favor with the RSD. Initiatives such as focus centers and open enrollment were strongly de-emphasized and finally phased out in the early 1980's. From then on, the only desegregation technique used by the RSD for African-American/Hispanic students was mandatory reassignment to white schools. This practice had been used with minority students ever since the Muldoon School closing in 1973.
In 1988, the long-standing policy of having predominantly white alternative programs was capsulized by the Citizens Ad Hoc Committee, a group appointed by the RSD and staffed by the RSD's Administrators. The Committee's final report, submitted in September of 1988, described the policy as follows:
Alternative Programs ... have been the mainstay of District 205 desegregation efforts, in hopes of offering incentives to draw white students to predominately high-minority schools. The only desegregation options offered to minority students are forced busing or special permits.
B24551, B24583. In 1989, the RSD confirmed the Committee's description in its answer to the Complaint in this case. Defendant stated, in part, that "Defendants admit that almost all minority movement for desegregation is mandatory while virtually all white movement is voluntary in response to special program offerings...." Answer, ¶ 9.5.
Despite their purported "desegregation" purpose, the alternative programs were an abysmal failure in that respect. These programs created virtually all-white enclaves within African-American schools 0907independent curriculums that were totally separate from the regular academic pursuits of these predominantly minority schools. For white parents who wanted an alternative education for their child but not within an integrated setting, this was the perfect solution. For the Rockford School District, these programs provided a veneer of "desegregation" without the actual results. Children were within the same schools, but not within the same room. All children were in the same building, but for the most part, African-Americans and whites lived separate lives.
The RSD's operation of partial-site alternative programs in a segregative nature was not necessary or inevitable. Several of these programs actually had some modest mixture of African-American and white students in the late 1970's. Thereafter, however, the high-status alternative programs were rigidly resegregated by the RSD. This pattern of resegregation continued, and even became more pronounced, through the 1980's up to the time of filing of this lawsuit. (The exceptions were a few low-status alternative programs for slow learners and underachievers, which had disproportionately high minority enrollments.)

FINDINGS OF FACT
Within-School Segregation In Mid-1970 "Desegregation Programs"
Intact Busing: The Grade Exchange Plan
The Grade Exchange Plan was adopted by the RSD in December of 1973 and constituted a conscious exercise in the separation of students within the schools. The Plan provided for exchanging classrooms of students between schools, along with their teachers, with each classroom remaining separate and intact within its receiving school. Bd.Min., 12/18/73, B14192.
1003 The Plan was a system of intact busing in which white students were being sent to sit *1003 in their own classrooms at African-American schools and vice versa. Entire grades were transferred together and were not mixed with students at the receiving school.
A letter from Superintendent Salisbury explained that schools on the Northeast side of Rockford were purposely excluded once the Plan went into effect. Salisbury's letter highlighted the intact busing situation by explaining the program's effect at Rolling Green School. The Grade-Exchange Plan called for all fourth grade classes at Rolling Green to be transported to Ellis. Salisbury noted: "In all schools where a grade is identified for transportation, all of the children in that grade are transported. This allows neighborhood[s] and classmates to stay together. The burden is equally shared." B2925.
In a federal court brief opposing the Grade Exchange Plan, the REA stated no real interaction would exist among the transported and the resident children because of segregation by classroom. In three of the schools, students would be isolated on separate floors and lunches would be arranged in shifts so that the students would not mingle. REA Brief in QUEFAC, Case No. 70 C 16, B32773. The REA brief further noted that the Plan would actually worsen racial isolation. Moving one or two predominantly African-American classes into an all-white school and keeping them separate would force those African-American students to group together even more. The effect would be to reinforce the idea that minority students are different, identifiable by race and out of place. Id.
In a memorandum opinion dated March 1, 1974, Judge Bauer rejected the Grade Exchange Plan and determined that the Plan was incapable of desegregating classrooms within the schools. Judge Bauer wrote: "[A] school desegregation plan which solely utilizes a grade exchange program is probably incapable of truly desegregating a school system or a single school. Such a plan in reality creates [segregated] classrooms within a school which is `desegregated' as far as mathematical ratios." Memorandum Opinion and Order, 3/1/74, QUEFAC, Case No. 70 C 16, B508043, B508046.
Within-School Segregation Through Part-Time Programs
During March of 1974, the RSD's Administrative Council recommended Special Interest Centers be housed in existing schools that were operating below capacity. The Centers would not significantly interfere with on-going programs. B32864. By 1975, the Rockford School District began using "Interest Centers" as an avenue toward school desegregation. Like the alleged goals of the Grade Exchange Program, the District claimed that the Interest Centers were educationally sound and were designed to both racially integrate the District and introduce children from the East and West sides of the District. B30599.
Three schools were designated as Interest Centers: Lathrop, Walker and Nelson. These schools served as intensive training centers where children were coursed in a specific discipline, but only for a five or ten day period during the entire school year. Third graders from across the District attended the ten-day Social Studies Interest Center at Lathrop Elementary School. Fourth graders attended the ten-day Language Arts Interest Center at

Nelson Elementary School and also attended the five-day Math-Science Interest Center at Walker School. B30618.
Students were transported to the Interest Centers by buses provided by the District. For students attending the Lathrop and Nelson Interest Centers, a particular school's fourth grade classes were not split but went as a group. Classes were split, however, for students attending the Walker Interest Center for the stated purpose of achieving "racial balance within the numerical constraints." Id.; B35680.
Another type of program, the Environmental Education Program, was located at Atwood Park. Children stayed overnight and were educated regarding the outdoors, pollution and the environment. Children conducted experiments and participated in activities that were meant to highlight ecological problems in society. B306741004 B30676. Like the Interest Centers, the school was to achieve classroom desegregation of students by mixing *1004 classrooms of students at the initial orientation stage. B35680. Accordingly, the purpose of the Interest Center and the Environmental Education Program was to integrate students of different races from different schools, but, again, only for a few days each year.
In reality, most classes were transferred to the Interest Centers en masse. The result was that minority classes were placed in an all-white school but kept separate, although the students involved were counted toward the total percentage of students in an integration program. The Environmental Education Program at Atwood Park, for example, was very segregated. Oscar Blackwell was concerned about the unwillingness of the Atwood Park staff and teachers to integrate minority and majority students upon arrival at the facility and throughout the two and one-half day program. As a result, staff members were given multi-cultural awareness training in order to combat insensitivity toward minority students. B35136-B35138. These part-time programs were nothing more than intact busing under a different name.
Segregation Of Minority Transfer students Within Receiving Schools
As the RSD bused minority children to primarily white schools, the minority children were ostracized or frequently kept physically separate from the other students.
High Schools
During deposition, RSD Superintendent William Bowen testified as to the hostile reception that the East High School staff gave to African-American transfer students in the early 1970's. In 1970, a portion of the West side was moved from the West High School feeder pattern to the East High School feeder pattern. At the same time, ninth grade was added to East High School, formerly a tenth through twelfth grade school. Bowen Dep. at 57, 60.
The Board decided to move boundaries, with little, if any, preparation or planning. East High School had an all white faculty that was used to a white school. Suddenly African-American students were introduced with no faculty preparation. Id. at 60. Bowen testified that the teachers viewed the situation as West High School having trouble with their African-American students and so the students were sent to East High School. Id. at 61.
One result of this perception by the staff at East High School was a disproportionate discipline of AfricanAmerican students. Such a perception also affected the selection of classes by the counselors, causing a tendency to assign African-American students to remedial classes. The phenomenon was "very pronounced" when Bowen went to East High where there was also a pronounced assignment of white students to the upper level tracks. Id. at 63.
While Bowen was Assistant Principal at East High, objections were voiced by some school staff to the increased presence of African-American students. Bowen reported that some faculty members said they wished the AfricanAmerican students were not there. Bowen also observed that the school nurse was very uncomfortable and had trouble dealing with African-American students. He noted that the nurse sprayed her office with deodorant when an African-American student left, and wiped off her desk if the student had touched it. Id. at 65.

Elementary Schools
Mr. Keith Wilson, Principal of Bloom Elementary School from 1976 to 1985, testified in his deposition that he was familiar with the practices at his school as well as the practices at other Northeast Quadrant receiving schools in relation to minority transfer students. Bloom School was 100% white through the 1972-73 school year. Over the next three years, the school experienced some minority enrollment beginning with 6% African-American enrollment and then increasing to approximately 15% African-American enrollment. B511482. During his first year at Bloom School in 1976, Wilson had the opportunity to observe the minority transfer students that were mandatorily sent to Bloom. According to Wilson, these African-American students were "there because they were 1005 told they had to go there." In his estimation, these students were angry about *1005 having been mandatorily reassigned to Bloom. Wilson Test., Tr. at 2195-96. Wilson also noted an impact on the educational participation of these students in the school because of their mandatory reassignment. Id. at 2196-97.
Wilson testified that many of the minority transfer students were in Chapter I pull-out programs. As a consequence, they were educated separately from the neighborhood students for significant portions of the school day. Id. at 2187. Furthermore, in talking to parents and staff about the atmosphere at the school, Wilson learned there had been difficulties initially when the African-American students first arrived. The difficulties presented themselves in relation to the receptivity on the part of the school staff and the white neighborhood parents toward the African-American students. Id. at 2179, 2183. In the morning, the African-American students went directly from the bus into the school. At the end of the school day, they returned directly to the bus. As a result, the transfer students did not interact with the neighborhood students on the playground either before or after school. Id. at 2187.
Ms. Sidella Hughes, a parent and a plaintiff in this lawsuit, is an employee of a State agency charged with the protection of children. In that capacity, she has occasion to visit the RSD schools. In her deposition, Ms. Hughes described conditions at a predominantly white school that was receiving minority transfer students.
The first time I noticed the difference in the way kids [were] treated was when I went to Rolling Green on an investigation and I got there before school started 0907 or when kids were getting off the bus. I was walking in the building. The black kids 0907 the teachers were kind of lined up and black kids went straight in. The kids on the playground kept playing, but the kids off the bus had to go straight into class, in the building ... [The teachers] were standing so that the kids would go straight into the building ... And kids in the playground 0907 the majority of the kids on the playground were white. The majority of the kids on the bus were black.
Hughes Dep. at 27.
Earnestine Kendall, a home school counselor for the RSD, visited the now-closed Kennedy and Haight Schools and observed African-American children being held on their buses until the bell for classes to begin rang. Raul Medrano recalled that during the years he and other Latino students were bused to Whitehead, Gregory and Lincoln schools they would arrive ten to fifteen minutes early and were forced to remain on the bus until classes began. The Latino transfer students had to sit on the bus and watch while neighborhood students played or, in some cases, shouted racial epithets at the students on the bus. In one particular incident, Medrano and others asked the principal at Lincoln if they could exit the bus and socialize with the other students since the weather was nice. The principal denied their request and told them if they did not like his decision, they could walk to school.
Segregation Of Students Within Schools By Tracking
The RSD pervasively segregated students within its schools via a system of educational tracking and steering. White students were disproportionately placed in upper-track classes and African-American and Hispanic students were disproportionately placed in lower-track classes. Students in lower-track classes received inferior educational services. The placements were not justified by either the capabilities or achievement levels of the

students. This subject is discussed in full in the section on tracking and educational discrimination. See Student Tracking and Ability Grouping. (Supra, Page 940.)
Segregation Of Elementary Bilingual Students
When the RSD's Bilingual Program began at Barbour School, the curriculum consisted of participants attending classes with regular students for part of the day and attending "pull out" bilingual classes for the rest of the day. This multi-cultural system served well to integrate bilingual students into the school's student body. Despite this 1006 success, *1006 however, the RSD terminated the pull out program and instituted a full-time bilingual program. Victoria Mayer, a RSD teacher and former bilingual program coordinator, testified that when the pull out program was terminated, bilingual students spent a whole day with the bilingual teacher. The only interaction they had with the regular students at the school was at lunch time and at recess. This subject is discussed in full in the section on bilingual students. See Bilingual Education and Other Educational Discrimination Issues Affecting Hispanics. (Within, page 1184.)
Segregation Of Special Education Students
From the inception of its desegregation activities in 1974, the RSD maintained the policy that Special Education students were "exempt" from desegregation programs. Beginning at least as early as 1980, and continuing through 1989, all Self-Contained Special Education ("SCSE") classes were located outside the Southwest Quadrant, even though over one-third of the Special Education students resided in the Southwest Quadrant. As such, disproportionate burdens were placed on minority SCSE students who were assigned to non-Southwest schools, while no non-Southwest SCSE students were assigned to Southwest schools. This subject is discussed in full in the section on special education. See Special Education. (Within, page 1192.)
The RSD's De-Emphasis Of Full-Site Magnet Programs
The Rockford School District de-emphasized the use of full-site Magnet schools (in which students of different races might interact with one another) in favor of partial-site Alternative Programs that were highly segregated.
May 1972 One-Week Magnet Schools
After the ISBE desegregation rules were adopted in December of 1971, local school districts were required to develop integration plans. On May 18, 1972, RSD Superintendent Salisbury announced that Montague, Ellis and Church Elementary Schools were being designated as "magnet schools" for the Fall of 1972 in order to raise pupil achievement levels and to meet State integration guidelines. Salisbury explained that the enrollment in each of these three schools would include the students who would normally attend the schools, therefore, following the neighborhood school concept. The schools, however, would be changed from closed to open enrollment, meaning that a parent from any other part of the city could choose to send their child to one of these magnet schools. B506211. The next day, Salisbury added Lincoln Park, Barbour and Dennis Elementary Schools to the list of magnet schools opening in Rockford in the Fall of 1972. B506213.
At that time, the racial composition of these six schools was as follows:

Dennis Ellis Montague/King
Barbour Lincoln Park Church

90% African-American 69% African-American 69% African-American
(King under construction) 64% African-American 45% African-American 22% African-American

On May 26, 1972, Salisbury stated that each magnet school would employ the District's best teachers and administrators and the best materials and programs. Class sizes would be reduced to a maximum of twenty students. The six magnet schools would also receive additional funding. B506214.
On June 16, 1972, less than one month after originally announcing the magnet school plan, Salisbury said he would no longer refer to the concept as "magnet schools." "I don't think that is the best terminology right now. Calling these six schools target schools is a little more accurate." According to Salisbury, a magnet school was one drawing students from outside its regular boundaries. The six schools identified for special programs and personnel would not have city-wide enrollment. B506219. Three weeks later, the Board of Education approved Salisbury's plan to "attack low achievement" in the six target schools. B506220.
Bloom Focus Center
The former principal at Bloom School, Mr. Keith Wilson, helped create a Focus Center as a voluntary 1007 desegregation measure. Wilson Test., Tr. at 2188-91. Through the interaction *1007 of parents, teachers and
administrators in developing the educational curriculum, Bloom School became a focal point for voluntary transfers from throughout the city. The actions of the RSD's Board and Superintendents, however, eventually deprived the school of its diverse transfer base and turned a model program into a re-segregated school.
In 1973, two years before Wilson became Principal at Bloom School, the RSD mandatorily assigned a large number of African-American students to Bloom. These students were sent to Bloom because Muldoon School was being closed. In the two years after Muldoon's closing, there were incidents of racial tensions at Bloom School, including physical altercations between staff and students.
When Wilson became principal at Bloom, he discovered that the students who were mandatorily transferred tested two to three grade levels below the other students at the school. Racial incidents continued between students and staff. One example Wilson recalled was a janitor who called a student a "nigger" over a dispute in the school lunchroom. Wilson calmed the situation by meeting with the African-American students and discussing their concerns. Id. at 2186. Wilson stated that he worked with parents to provide extra support for low achieving students. Students could get extra help through parental tutors, achievement level based grouping and through participation in the Title I program. Wilson testified that despite low achievement scores and the innovative responses, Bloom School never received any extra funds from the School District to help educate the transfer students or to train staff members.
The initial program at Bloom School became known as the Focus Center. Wilson testified that the program began as a school-initiated community project between parents and teachers. The curriculum concept was to assess each student in reading and math and to develop a program to meet that student's needs. All of the other subject areas contained an equal mix of children from all ability levels in order to avoid segregation based upon achievement levels. Superintendent Art Johnson originally allowed the program to operate as long as it was open to students from throughout the city. Id. at 2190-91.
Due to its open enrollment policy, the Bloom Focus Center received voluntary transfers from African-American students in the Southwest Quadrant in addition to continuing numbers of African-Americans that were mandatorily assigned, usually fourth through eighth graders. Wilson observed that the African-American students who voluntarily transferred blended into the school nicely. Their level of achievement approximated the level of the white students and both races interacted well in terms of interpersonal relations. The African-American students who were mandatorily assigned, however, did not achieve as well as the other students.
In approximately 1982, the school district changed its transportation policy regarding Bloom School. Previously, any student from the West side was eligible for bus transportation to Bloom. With the change in policy, only students from a certain area on the West side were allowed to attend Bloom School; accordingly, the number of African-American students decreased. The change reverted Bloom back to the mandatory transfer program of the 1970's. Some students were forced to drop out of the Focus Center program because of the lack of

transportation. The central administration of the School District showed a lack of concern regarding the existence of the Focus Center.
Wilson testified that when he first arrived at Bloom, Oscar Blackwell consistently stated that Principals should maintain a racial balance in school enrollments that reflected the number of minorities in the school system. In the early 1980's, however, once Mr. Blackwell left the Office of Integration, this goal changed dramatically. Communication also declined between Wilson and the Central Office Administrators regarding integration issues. Id. at 2214. Wilson recounted various non-educational reasons why African-American students were mandatorily assigned to various schools during their career. In some instances, African-American students were reassigned 1008 from one East side school to another to fill up class size maximums. Wilson *1008 could not remember a single incident where a white student from Bloom School was moved to another school in order to fill up a class size, but he recalled instances when African-American students were placed in Bloom to fill up classes.
Wilson related an incident where an African-American student was mandatorily reassigned from Westview School to Bloom School as a disciplinary assignment based upon a physical altercation at Westview. Wilson noted that this sort of procedure was common knowledge among Principals. Students were mandatorily reassigned and bused in the middle of the school year because of infractions. Wilson stated "we were just kind of a shipping society." According to Wilson, these policies applied specifically to African-American students. In fact, Wilson told School District Attendance Director, Mr. Mike Driscoll, that he was tired of the busing policy. "I told him that my father paid more attention to shipping his livestock to Chicago than he does about shipping African-American students."
According to the RSD's official enrollment reports, during the period that the Focus Center at Bloom was allowed to recruit voluntary enrollment of African-American students with transportation provided, African-American enrollment at Bloom increased significantly. In 1976, there were thirty-eight African-American students (10%); by 1979 there were ninety-two African-American students (18%). Over the next three years, African-American enrollment declined. In the year that transportation was eliminated, 1982, there were only fifty African-American students (9%). Thereafter, African-American enrollment at Bloom continued to decline and by the Fall of 1988, there were only seventeen African-American students (3%) attending Bloom School. Bloom had again become 94% white enrollment, thereby returning to its early 1970's status.
Haskell Focus Center
Dr. Robert Greene was Principal of Haskell School when it was designated as a Focus Center to aid desegregation in the late 1970's. Haskell School was built in 1959, in the Southwest Quadrant of Rockford. By 1971, Haskell's African-American student population was 62% and until 1992, the African-American student population remained between 49% and 67%. Dr. Greene was able to increase student achievement scores at Haskell in the late 1970s and the early 1980s through various curriculum innovations, parental involvement and constructive discipline approaches. These improvements, however, were achieved with little or no support from the RSD.
One example of this lack of support related to the absence of acoustical ceiling tile at Haskell. Teaching in Haskell was like teaching in a steel tank. Dr. Greene stated that, "acoustical ceiling tile was left out as a cost saving measure." Dr. Greene described the educational impact of this deficiency:
This was a fourth grade teacher that I judged to be a really good dedicated teacher with good rapport with the children and as I sat in her classroom and she asked questions, the noise level of a child squeaking his seat, rolling a pencil across the desk or dropping a book would wipe out the question. Her question reverberated on the floor, ceiling and other four walls, and then when she finally had gotten the question through so the children all heard it and waited for an answer, the child's answer you had the same acoustical rumbling, it was hard to understand the child's answer. An awful lot of time was wasted in that classroom by the teacher repeating herself to the children and the children having to repeat their answers 0907 and you had to maintain a tighter discipline to maintain the silence necessary to communicate than you would in a normal classroom.

Greene Dep. at 52-53.
Greene repeatedly proposed solutions for this problem and submitted the proposals by letter to the Assistant Superintendent. The proposals were rejected. Finally, Haskell School took action on its own and the students raised money to install acoustical tile in the classrooms, one classroom at a time. The students raised funds by recycling newspapers and selling candy. Classroom ceilings cost $640 a room. Ten to twelve years passed 1009 before acoustical ceiling tile had finally *1009 been installed in all of the classrooms. Id. at 57-58.
Another example of the RSD's failure to support Haskell School was the RSD's refusal to provide funds for a library learning center. The only way to build the library learning center at Haskell was for Dr. Greene, some teachers and their spouses and a social worker to do it themselves. Dr. Greene and his group went to buildings being demolished by HUD in order to obtain materials. After obtaining the free materials, Dr. Greene then asked the RSD if its tradesmen could install the materials. He was told that the tradesmen did not have the time. Thus, over the next few weeks, Dr. Greene and his crew proceeded to jackhammer, mortar, carpet, paint and otherwise build the library learning center themselves.
The Haskell Focus Center program was very successful. During the time that the Focus Center operated, achievement scores rose dramatically. Moreover, the Haskell program was a model of integration, with complete and harmonious interaction between African-American and white students. Greene Test., Tr. at 1532-33. The Haskell Focus Center demonstrated that white students were willing to transfer into full-site magnet schools where they were educated together with African-American students. Haskell school went from 70% minority when Dr. Greene became Principal in 1971 to 54% minority in 1980-81.
Through a series of transportation reductions and the ultimate elimination of transportation altogether, white transfer students were deterred from attending Haskell School and their numbers were accordingly reduced. Dr. Greene was told by the RSD to stop recruiting for the program altogether. The RSD further required Dr. Greene to split his time between Haskell School and another school. Consequently, Dr. Greene took early retirement. The RSD dropped the Haskell program entirely in 1985.
The Alternative Middle and Elementary Schools
In 1977, Lincoln Park School was closed as an elementary school. The Rockford Alternative Elementary School (hereinafter "RAES") and the Rockford Alternative Middle School (hereinafter "RAMS") were placed in the Lincoln Park building as a full-site magnet school. At the time of its closing as a regular school, Lincoln Park was a segregated school with 48% of the total African-American population enrolled. Bd.Min., 5/9/77, B15721. The magnet school opened in the Fall of 1977, with approximately 25% minority enrollment. The RAES/RAMS maintained desegregated enrollment for the next four years, and in the Fall of 1980, the enrollment was 18% African-American, almost exactly the RSD's systemwide African-American enrollment at that time. B4068.
In the Fall of 1981, the RSD closed the Lincoln Park building and shut down the fullsite magnet school. The RAES program was transferred to Ellis School as a partial-site alternative program. The RAMS program was transferred to Lincoln Middle School as another partial-site alternative program. The next year, the RSD shut down the RAES and the RAMS programs altogether. The successful operation of the RAES and the RAMS as a full-site magnet school belied the notion that white students would not transfer into full-site magnet schools. In the Fall of 1980, 166 white students transferred into RAES/RAMS at the Lincoln Park building. Id.
Purposeful Creation Of Segregated Partial-Site Alternative Programs
In the mid-1970's, the RSD began creating a series of partial-site magnet programs, called "alternative programs", as well as some full-site special programs called "focus centers." In 1982, the RSD canceled transportation to the focus centers, effectively shutting them down.
The partial-site alternative programs that remained were placed in schools with substantial or predominant minority enrollments for desegregation purposes. This occurred at both the elementary and secondary levels.

The RSD, however, set up two sharply different types of alternative programs: High-status programs with 1010 academic or other entrance barriers that included the Gifted, CAPA, Montessori and Arts Alternative programs;
*1010 and low-status programs for "under-achievers" and "slow learners," that included the GIT and CASS Programs. The predominantly white character of the high-status alternative programs was justified on the ground that white enrollment had to be maximized in order to bring down the minority percentage of the total school enrollment. For example, King School in 1986 had an 85% minority regular enrollment and a 95% white Gifted Program enrollment. The total enrollment at King School was thus 55% minority and 45% white.
Over time, these high-status alternative programs became more segregated rather than less. The RSD's data shows that all of the high-status programs resegregated during the 1980's, with one exception, the Arts Alternative Program. This pattern of resegregation is detailed for each program in the sections that follow.
The GIT and CASS low-status programs continued with disproportionately high minority enrollments throughout the 1980's. The RSD created a "minority Gifted Program," but would not allow the minority students in that program to enter into the all-white Gifted Program, even though the RSD's Gifted Director stated the minority gifted students were capable of performing in the regular Gifted Program.
The alternative programs became vehicles for emphasizing and reinforcing racial separation. In 1980 an exchange of correspondence between "Mr. U.S. Steele" (Ellis School staff) and Mr. Oscar Blackwell reflected the District's purposeful creation of predominantly white high-status alternative programs (such as Gifted) and disproportionately minority low-status alternative programs (such as GIT and CASS). Steele-Blackwell Correspondence, 7/10/80, B28743. Mr. Steele's June 27, 1980 memorandum to Mr. Blackwell expressed "concern and extreme dissatisfaction over the skewed structured selection format" established for the new alternative program at Ellis School. Each class was to contain twelve majority students and three minority students, in effect, to be 80% white. The program was described as one geared for "slow learners." The composition of the program should have been representative of the entire School District. The memorandum was referring to the CASS Program. The RSD applied the same 80% white enrollment guideline that was applied generally to alternative programs in minority schools.
In his response dated July 10, 1980, Mr. Blackwell reiterated that the RSD's policy was to make a concerted effort to reduce minority enrollment to a 50% level in those schools that exceeded such a balance. As such, the RSD thought it desirable to admit as many majority students into the program as possible. Mr. Blackwell's letter goes on to state, however, that because the Ellis program was also designed to assist students who had educational problems, it would be fair and within Board policy to admit students on an "as needed" basis. If a decision was made as to how many minority/majority students were to be admitted, "it would appear that admittance would have to be on an equal basis." Dr. Tucker, the RSD's Director of Alternative Programs, received copies of both the memorandum and Mr. Blackwell's letter. Mr. Blackwell's letter thus reflected a different enrollment policy for the "slow learner" program (CASS) than was followed for the other alternative programs. CASS opened at Ellis in the Fall of 1980 with a 58% African-American/Hispanic enrollment. B4068.
The divergence between white high-status programs and predominantly African-American low-status programs was strongly apparent in the RSD's Fall 1980 report of alternative program compositions. Id. That document is reproduced here as Figure 1.
ALTERNATIVE ENROLLMENTS AND MINORITY PERCENTAGES Dec
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL

ENROLL MAJOR MINOR

ORIEN

SCHOOL

MENT

ITY

ITY BLACK INDIAN TAL SPANISH

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BARBOUR-

GIT

175

144

31

25

2

4

18

BLOOM-

Academics Plus

515

433

82

79

CONKLIN-Physical Ed. & Math

Center

336

267

69

48

2

DENNIS-

Arts Alternative

163

140

23

18

1

3

3

13

3

1

1011 *1011

ELLIS-Career Awareness & Survival

Skills

36

15

21

20

FORBERG-

GIT

50

14

36

31

3

2

HASKELL-4-

R Center

328

148

180

163

1

16

HENRIETTA-

Montessori

50

37

13

12

1

JACKSON-

GIT

51

12

39

36

3

KING-

Gifted

269

230

39

29

2

8

ROCK RIVER-

Art Center

54

48

6

6

WALKER-

Science & Math Center

519

410

109

101

4

4

LINCOLN PARK-RAES &

RAMS

324

253

71

57

4

6

WASHINGTON-Creative & Performing

Arts

241

166

75

69

1

2

WILSON MIDDLE SCHOOL

Company-7th grade

78

74

4

4

Eureka-8th grade

74

72

2

2

GIT-7th grade

60

52

8

8

GIT-8th grade

61

55

6

6

AUBURN HIGH SCHOOL

Academy

197

182

15

Performing Arts

267

228

39

Performance Based

58

48

10

The high-status alternative programs had the following African-American/Hispanic enrollments:

1 72 55 26 76 1 11
3 3

Dennis Arts Alternative

14%

Henrietta Montessori

26%

King Gifted

14%

Rock River Arts Center

11%

Washington Creative and

Performing Arts

31%

Wilson Gifted

8%

Auburn Gifted

8%

Auburn Performing Arts

15%

In contrast, the low-status alternative programs had the following African-American/Hispanic enrollments:

Barbour GIT

18%

Ellis CASS

58%

Froberg GIT

72%

Jackson GIT

76%

Wilson GIT

12%

The Gifted Program

Since the time of its earliest origins, the Gifted Program was not administered equitably throughout the RSD school system.

Early Identification of Centralized Gifted as a Program for White Students

By 1975, the Rockford School District began to develop a centralized gifted program in an attempt to desegregate schools. An alternative school program for seventh and eighth graders was developed at Wilson Middle School, which included both basic skills and academically talented programs.
The academically talented program consisted of 110 seventh and eighth graders selected from Wilson and other middle schools in the District. These students were given a three-period block of time during which academic enrichment occurred. The students then participated in another period of individual pupil instruction that was utilized for individual and small group instruction purposes. The intent of the program was to "provide intensive, enriched, academic experiences for 110 students." B32950.
The Gifted Program was used as an incentive to attract white students to Southwest Quadrant schools. The program was also used to lower the overall percentage of minorities in Wilson School. For example, in 1972-73, minority students comprised 48.6% of the student population at Wilson. In 1974-75, minorities made up 48% of the school's population. In 1975-76, however, the advent of the Gifted Program, minority percentage at Wilson was projected at 36.9%. The program was used as a means to bring Wilson into compliance with State school integration laws. B32954.
In order to accomplish the goal of reducing the percentage of minorities in certain schools, the Gifted Program, 1012 like other alternative programs, had to contain as many *1012 white students as possible. The more white
students in the program, the lower the percentage of minorities at the school and the easier it was to allegedly bring the school into compliance. Of the students in the Gifted Program in 1975, 94% were white. B32882. In her affidavit, Ms. Eleanor Brown recalled that when she attended the Gifted Program for seventh and eighth graders during the 1977 and 1978 school years, there were approximately seven African-American students in the entire Gifted Program. Brown Aff. at ¶ 8.
The centralized Gifted Program at Wilson began in 1975. The program effectively created a "school within a school" for white students. Under the guise of integration, the District created a program that lured whites to the Southwest Quadrant for academics while helping students "acquire more knowledge concerning sub-cultures represented by the students." White students, however, were essentially the only culture represented. B32955. The white students in the program were not "subject to" interaction with the neighborhood students. The District's own documentation clearly reveals that the goal of this and other "integration" initiatives was to "further the integration of our schools," not the integration of the classrooms. Such a goal was made clear through within school segregation of the Gifted and Arts Alternative Programs. B32943.
The policy was also understood by teachers and administrators at Wilson. Mr. Curtis Anderson, a former Principal at Wilson, testified that, in his opinion, there were African-American students at Wilson clearly qualified to participate in the Gifted Program. He stated that it was understood, however, that the program was almost

exclusively for white students in an effort to keep Wilson School in compliance with State school integration laws. This effort maintained within-school segregation and created no real integration.
Mr. Anderson described the Gifted Program at Wilson.
[Students were selected] based upon recommendations from elementary school teachers. The Gifted Program had very few black students, despite the fact that the number of black students at Wilson was roughly twice that of the percentage of black students in the district. There were many black students that were eligible to participate in the Gifted Program. These black students were comparable to whites in the Gifted Program.
. . . .
Children in the Gifted Program ... were not taught in classes that contained non-program children ... Gifted Program students only had contact with the other students at Wilson School during nonacademic settings. Children in the regular and Gifted Programs had different class schedules.
Anderson Dep., Ex. 1, at ¶¶ 7-10.
Anderson further stated that many African-American students were eligible to participate in the Gifted Program based upon their performance on tests, grade average and school studies. Very few of the participants in the Gifted Program, however, came from Wilson School. "[T]hey just were not ... sought. In seeking participants in the program ... it was from other Eastside schools ... maybe two or three persons of our own school ... participated in the program. Most of the participants were students from outside the Wilson School." Although he did not exactly know the process followed in selecting the participants, "I do know that they usually used their performance on tests, you know like reading tests and the other tests. Their general attitude towards school itself ... whether they were ... seemed to like going to school, how they liked it and their willingness to participate and how they get along with teachers and so forth." Anderson Dep. at 24-26.
The centralized Gifted Program maintained a separate academic curriculum from the other students at Wilson. Students in the program had little, if any contact, with the other students at Wilson. B32952. For example, Ms. Eleanor Brown, a former student in the Gifted Program at Wilson, testified at her deposition regarding field trips taken by students in the Gifted Program as well as others in the school. In response to a question regarding field 1013 trips taken by students *1013 not in the Gifted Program, Ms. Brown stated, "[B]asically I don't know. We kind of 0907 that's the point. We did everything pretty much separate." Brown Dep. at 16. Brown maintained that for gifted students, field trips were often used as an educational tool. With regard to regular education students, however, Brown could not recall "them taking a lot of trips, but they could have, and I don't know about it. We did everything separate." Id. at 19.
The Gifted Program at Auburn High School, referred to as "the Academy," was also segregated from the rest of the school. Ms. Brown testified regarding her attendance in the Academy Program at Auburn: "The Academy students and their classes were separate from the rest of the school. All of our classes, for instance, were at one end of the hall, away from other students and classes. I was frequently teased by other students who were not in the Academy because of the separation of classes." Brown Aff. at ¶ 10.
Dan Dickover, a white student who attended the Gifted Program at King Elementary School, Wilson School and Auburn High School, testified that there were no sanctioned activities with "the neighborhood students" or the minority students at King. Only two or three minority students were in any of the Gifted Programs that Dickover attended. Gifted students might see the neighborhood students at lunch or recess, but Dickover had no way of getting to know them. He stated, "We were pretty much on our own in the school although we were all students in the school." Dickover testified that he held stereotypes of minorities that were fostered by this separation. At the time, he didn't understand that a separated environment was not necessary. Dickover now wishes he would have had the opportunity to approach the minority students comfortably.
The almost all white gifted students at Auburn High School, though kept entirely separate from the other students at Auburn, were included in the entire school's class ranking system. Additionally, the gifted students had weighted grades. Each grade was given a positive ranking. This meant, for example, that a student at Auburn

who was not in the Gifted Program could never become valedictorian, even if that student received straight A's all through school. Auburn in the early 1980's was approximately one-third minority.
Another all-white Gifted Program at Auburn, the Creative and Performing Arts (hereinafter "CAPA") Program, was also problematic. CAPA was given priority for instruments and for the use of the auditorium. In fact, an ethnic choir that Dr. Constance Goode started at Auburn was cancelled by the Principal of Auburn because the facilities and equipment were to be devoted to the CAPA Program. Goode Test., Tr. at 1294-96.
Ms. Melinda Reitman testified that when her son attended the Academy from 1978-1982, she remembered very few, if any, minority students in the program. Ms. Reitman was an active parent throughout her children's attendance at Auburn, serving as a board member in the Auburn High Parents Group and frequently volunteering at the school. She recalled that when her daughter, Lisa, attended the Academy from 1981-85, the dearth of minority students was still evident. Ms. Reitman noted that "youngsters who were participants in the alternative programs that were housed at Auburn tended to have little or nothing to do socially with the student body at large" as a result of the separation fostered by the school-within-a-school concept.
Partial Desegregation, Followed by ReSegregation, of the Gifted Program, 1977-1986
In the school year 1976-77, the first year for which systemwide data is available, African-American and Hispanic students were grossly under-represented in the RSD's Gifted Programs. B46722. African-American students comprised 17.2% of the school system, but constituted only 4.7% of students in Gifted Programs. Hispanic students comprised 2.0% of the RSD's total students, but only 1.2% of Gifted students.
A few years later, the RSD's Centralized Gifted Program actually achieved a modest level of desegregation at 1014 certain schools. A January 1978 memorandum to Superintendent *1014 Johnson stated that the elementary
gifted enrollment at that time (three years after the creation of the program) was 13% minority (16 students out of 128 students). Systemwide K-6 enrollment in the 1977-78 school year was 22.7% minority. B28441. According to the RSD's 1980 Report to the United States Office for Civil Rights, both the secondary-level and elementary-level Gifted Programs at that time had attained about 10% African-American enrollment. Form ED 102 submitted to U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Civil Rights (OCR), 12/15/80, B32253.
The RSD's Gifted Programs at the secondary level subsequently became very highly segregated over the next six years. In the middle schools and high schools combined, Gifted Programs declined from 10.6% AfricanAmerican in 1980 to 2.4% African-American in 1986, with most of this decline occurring in the first two years. See id.; Form ED 102, 12/15/82, B46747; Form 102 Summary, B507563.
At the middle school level, the RSD's reports to the United States Office for Civil Rights showed the following four-year trend in the composition of the Gifted Program:

Year Percent African-American Percent Hispanic

1980 1982 1984 1986

12.3% 1.0% 2.2% 0.0%

0.8% 0.0% 2.2% 0.6%

In 1980, the RSD's middle schools had 19% overall African-American enrollment, which grew to 21% in 1986. The Hispanic enrollment was 2% in 1980 and increased to 3.5% in 1986.

At the high school level, the Gifted Program began with small African-American and Hispanic percentages in 1980, which became smaller yet over the ensuing years:

Year Percent African-American Percent Hispanic

1980 1982 1984 1986

5.1% 3.9% 4.4% 3.8%

1.0% 0.8% 0.7% 0.8%

The RSD's overall high school enrollment was 18% African-American in 1980, and increased to 20% in 1986. Hispanic enrollment was 2% in 1980, increasing to 2.6% in 1986.

The same trend occurred in the elementary Gifted Programs, as shown below. The Gifted Programs, which were supposed to be the flagship of RSD's integration efforts, were almost completely resegregated by the RSD as soon as the pressure from the ISBE and from the QUEFAC case subsided. The Gifted Programs, which were the principal source of the purported voluntary movement of white students for integration purposes, were converted to segregated programs within each school. The RSD's elementary Gifted Program was resegregated from 1980 through 1986. African-American enrollment in Centralized Gifted Programs dropped from 11% in 1980 to 1.3% in 1986. In the same six years, Hispanic enrollment dropped from 3% to 0.7%. Form ED 102, 12/15/80, B32253.

The progressive resegregation of elementary Centralized Gifted Programs is highlighted in the following table:

Year Percent African-American Percent Hispanic

1980 1982 1984 1986

10.8% 6.8% 2.8% 1.3%

3.0% 3.1% 2.8% 0.7%

In part, the RSD brought about this resegregation of the Gifted Program by establishing the formally separate "minority" Gifted Program in 1986, and placing in that program African-American students who formerly would have been in the regular centralized Gifted Program.

The 1982 report to the Department of Education showed that the elementary Gifted Program at King (one of the two locations of elementary Centralized Gifted Programs), had 11.3% African-American students and 4.6% Hispanic students (22 and 9, respectively, out of 194 minority students). Four years later, however, the King program was only 1.4% African-American and 0.7% Hispanic. In that year, 1986, the separate "minority" Gifted Program was established at Barbour. Thus, while the RSD publicly claimed that the creation of the minority Gifted Program, known as the Pilot Gifted Program, was for the purpose of increasing minority participation in the Gifted Program, the fact is that it actually decreased minority participation in the regular Gifted Program.

1015 *1015 The RSD's 1987 Report and Personnel Testimony Revealing Gifted Program Segregation

In 1987, the RSD's Attendance Director, Mr. Mike Driscoll, submitted a report to the Board that depicted the highly segregated nature of both the Gifted Program and the RSD's other alternative programs. By using a chart form, the report demonstrated that the high-status programs were almost all white, in stark contrast to the racial composition of the rest of the student body in each school. Driscoll Report, B24820.
The "Driscoll Report" on alternative program composition was part of a larger demographic report prepared in the Fall of 1987 for use by the Demographic Study Committee of the Board of Education. D8396; D8401. Driscoll's data concerning alternative programs was presented in a special meeting in which the Board reviewed the demographic study. Bd. Min., 10/20/87, B20645. The report also received widespread circulation apart from the full demographic study, being reproduced in the 1988 Report of the Ad Hoc Citizens Committee, and being one of the planning documents circulated to Superintendent Swanson and the Board members during the 1989 reorganization process. B24551, B24601.

Driscoll's report showed that in the 1986-87 school year, the District's Centralized Gifted Program, for Grades K-12, was 2% African-American, 0.7% Hispanic and 93% white. Id. In that same year, the RSD's K-12 systemwide enrollment was 21% African-American, 3.7% Hispanic and 72.7% white. More specifically, Driscoll's report showed that the RSD's regular elementary Gifted Program was only 1.3% African-American and 0.7% Hispanic. In the entire regular elementary Gifted Program, there were four African-American students and two Hispanic students. Driscoll Report, B24820.
The racial composition of each site of the regular Gifted Program was as follows:

Location

Grades

% African-American

% Hispanic

Haight

1-3

Beyer

1-3

King

4-6

___

Total

K-6

0% 1.8% 1.4% ____ 1.3%

0% 0.9% 0.7% ____ 0.7%

At King, the 95% white Gifted Program contrasted with regular enrollment that was 85% minority. At Beyer, the 94% white Gifted Program contrasted with an enrollment that was 32% minority. At Haight, the 96% white Gifted Program contrasted with an enrollment that was 47% minority. In all of these schools, the presence of the virtually allwhite Gifted Programs, which were educationally separated from the regular programs in the school, constituted extreme instances of within-school segregation.

Simultaneously, the District operated a formally separate minority Gifted Program at Barbour in Grades 1-3, which included at least 25% African-American students and 9% Hispanic students. Mr. Gary Heideman, Director of the Gifted Programs, testified that, although these Pilot Gifted students were capable of performing acceptably in the regular Gifted Program, they were not permitted to enter the Gifted Program at fourth grade. Heideman Dep. at 41.

According to Driscoll's report, at the secondary-school level, the Centralized Gifted Program was 2.4% AfricanAmerican and 0.7% Hispanic. Driscoll Report, B24820. The Grades 7-8 program, located at Wilson, enrolled no African-Americans and only one Hispanic, out of a total of 157 students. This 96% white program contrasted with a regular enrollment at Wilson that was 47% African-American and 3% Hispanic. The high school program, located at Auburn, was 3.8% African-American and 0.7% Hispanic. This 89% white program contrasted with a 1016 regular enrollment *1016 at Auburn that was 50% African-American and 3% Hispanic.

Mr. Gary Heideman became Director of the Gifted Program in October 1984. Heideman Dep. at 3. Heideman acknowledged during his deposition that he had previously stated that "the Gifted Program operated like an exclusive country club for many years." Id. at 51-52. Prior to his arrival, a student who was in the Gifted Program at the kindergarten level would simply stay in the program all the way through their educational career, without any need to requalify and with very limited opportunity for other students to get into the program at higher grade levels. Id. at 53.

Heideman testified that he worked to eliminate the Gifted Kindergarten Program. He believed it was not possible to accurately assess student capabilities prior to kindergarten entry; Gifted Programs should begin at the first grade level. The Gifted Kindergarten continued in existence, however, until after the First Interim Order was signed in 1989. The RSD's 1989 interrogatory answers indicated that the Gifted Kindergarten was still in existence in school year 1988-89 at Barbour, with one African-American student and two Hispanic students enrolled, out of a total enrollment of 34 minority students. Id. at 19-20; D10784.

Dr. Harriet Doss-Willis, the RSD's educational equity consultant, testified at trial that the RSD Gifted Program was self-perpetuating and nurtured students who were identified as gifted as early as the first grade. The fact that very few minority students were placed in gifted classes at this early point of their academic careers meant that very few minority students participated in Gifted Programs at the secondary level.

Continuing Segregation of the Gifted Program Up Through 1989
Despite the highly segregated conditions shown by Driscoll's report and the wide dissemination it received, the RSD took no action to increase participation of African-American/Hispanic students in the Gifted Program. In the 1988-89 school year, the RSD's Gifted Programs continued to be highly segregated. The regular elementary Gifted Program was only 2.3% African-American and 1.0% Hispanic. In the entire Grade 4-6 Gifted Program at King, there were no African-American students and only two Hispanic students enrolled. In the Grade 1-3 programs at Haight and Beyer, there were no Hispanic students enrolled in the Gifted Program. D10770. The racial composition of each site of the regular Gifted Program was as follows:

Location

Grades

% African-American

% Hispanic

Barbour

K

Haight

1-3

Beyer

1-3

King

4-6

___

Total

K-6

2.9% 3.2% 5.0% 0.0% ____ 2.3%

5.9% 0% 0%
1.1% ____ 1.0%

Simultaneously, the District operated a formally separate minority Gifted Program at Barbour in Grades 1-3, which included 50% African-American students and 8.9% Hispanic students.

At King, the 96% white Gifted Program contrasted with regular enrollment that was 88% African-American and Hispanic (60.2% African-American, 27.3% Hispanic). At Barbour, the 88% white Gifted Kindergarten contrasted with an enrollment that was 66% African-American and Hispanic. At Beyer, the 95% white Gifted Program contrasted with an enrollment that was 39% minority. At Haight, the 92% white Gifted Program contrasted with an enrollment that was 56% minority. In all of these schools, the presence of the virtually all-white Gifted Programs, 1017 which were educationally separated *1017 from the regular programs in the school, constituted extreme instances of within-school segregation.

For the secondary-level Gifted Program, information on the Fall 1988 enrollment is not available. The next year for which information is available is the Fall of 1989. At that time the composition of the Grades 7-8 Gifted Program at West was 2.5% African-American and 1.2% Hispanic. B507433.

Physical Segregation of Gifted from Regular Students Within the Schools

The elementary Gifted students at King and the Arts Alternative students at Ellis were located in separate parts of the schools from the regular neighborhood students. Wells Dep. at 120-121. The students used separate entry doors and separate bathrooms from the regular students. As such, they virtually never came in contact with the neighborhood students.
Ms. Henrietta Dotson-Williams, a parent whose child was enrolled in the Gifted Program at King, observed that the program was completely separated from the rest of the school. The gifted children were separated from neighborhood school children for lunch, recess and classes. Dr. Harriett Doss-Willis, the RSD's education equity consultant, also testified as to the physical separation of white students in the RSD's Gifted Program at King Elementary School from the minority students in "neighborhood school classes." Dr. Willis observed this same phenomenon of "a school within a school" at Auburn High School in connection with the Gifted high school Program and the Creative and Performing Arts Program. These conditions existed at King and Auburn in 1989.
Ms. Doris Nolan stated that she observed the Gifted Program at King School through her involvement with Career Education. Nolan Dep. at 40-41. She said that "the Gifted children were in one wing [of the building] and

the other children were in another. They were not all together." Id. at 41-42. Similarly, Mr. Dan Dickover, a former King student in the Gifted Program observed that there was little interaction between the gifted and regular students outside of passing each other in the hallways. Finally, Mr. Horace Box, an Auburn High School teacher, stated that the Academy students kept to themselves and the Academy took certain rooms from each department. These rooms became known as the "Academy Rooms." The Academy students were kept together in English, Science and Math classes; "so in that way you can say it's a segregation from the rest of the building." Box Dep. at 16.
Such separation underscored and aggravated the within-school segregation created by the presence of virtually all white alternative programs in schools where the neighborhood population was virtually all African-American. RBE member, Ms. Colleen Holmbeck, expressed her concerns to the Superintendent and the RBE members about the negative effects of the white Gifted Program at King on neighborhood students, but no action was taken with regard to those concerns. Adding to the segregation of the gifted students at Wilson School was school tolerance of isolationist activities. Gifted students would wait on their school buses until the bell rang and then those students would enter the school by a separate door. At lunchtime, the gifted students were allowed to take their lunches and eat in the gifted classrooms instead of the cafeteria. Additionally, the extracurricular activities of the Gifted Program were never offered to the rest of the student body.
The operation of racially identifiable and separate magnet programs within neighborhood schools had negative effects on the neighborhood students. Neighborhood students learned that they were perceived as less capable and, therefore, became less determined, motivated and capable.
The RSD's Separate "Minority" Gifted Program
In 1986, the District created the Grades 1-3 Pilot Gifted Program. The District's Gifted Director, Mr. Heideman, described this in his deposition as a "Minority Gifted Program." In that year enrollment was comprised of 25% African-American and 9% Hispanic students, whereas the regular Gifted Elementary Program was 1.3% African1018 American and 0.7% Hispanic. B24820. By *1018 the 1988-89 school year, the Pilot Gifted Program was comprised of 50% African-American and 9% Hispanic enrollment, whereas the regular Gifted elementary Program was 2.3% African-American and 1% Hispanic. B10769.
At times, the RSD presented to the public combined information from these two programs, suggesting to the public that the Elementary Gifted Program had some level of integration when, in fact, the program consisted of separate and explicitly segregated programs for white students and minority students. The RSD stated in a 1988 report that the "non-traditional" Gifted Program was "started in 1986 to expand the cultural diversification of the Gifted Program." B46289. According to the same report, the Pilot Gifted Program started in 1986 with Grades 1 and 2 and was "scheduled to feed its fourth grades into a regular program at King School" in 1988.
Despite this purported purpose of the Pilot Gifted Program, the minority students were not allowed into the regular Gifted Program. Mr. Heideman stated that in 1988, both orally and in writing, that he recommended the Pilot Gifted students be admitted into the regular Gifted Program. Heideman said he prepared a memorandum to his supervisor and to the responsible Assistant Superintendent, that stated there were numerous AfricanAmerican students in the minority Gifted Program who were capable of performing well in the regular Gifted Program. Heideman had a meeting with those two supervisors during which he presented his memorandum and his recommendation, but the Assistant Superintendent said, brusquely, "We are not going to do that." No additional explanation was given. Heideman Dep. at 39-40.
As a consequence of the RSD's failure to fulfill its stated policy that Pilot Gifted students would feed into the regular program at fourth grade, the regular Gifted Program in 1989 (Grades 4-6 located at King) had no AfricanAmerican students and only two Hispanic students enrolled, out of 182 students in the entire three grades. The Pilot Gifted Program continued to exist until the filing of this lawsuit as a separate, second-class adjunct to the regular Gifted Program. By its treatment of the Pilot Gifted Program, the RSD presented to students, staff and the community a highly invidious and false distinction between white students who were "really gifted" and AfricanAmerican students who, even at their best, were not capable of being gifted. See D10767-D10771.

The RSD's "Satellite" Gifted Programs
Although the District's formal policy was that Gifted Programs were centralized in Westside schools for desegregation purposes, in fact, the District operated widespread "Satellite" Gifted Programs in white schools from 1977 to 1991. The existence of these virtually all-white Satellite Gifted Programs allowed Eastside white students to obtain gifted educational opportunities without having to go to the Centralized Gifted Programs located, for desegregation purposes, west of the river. Form ED 102, submitted to OCR 12/15/82, B46727.
The RSD's Civil Rights Survey response to the United States Department of Education in December of 1982 reflected the centralized middle school Gifted Program at Wilson (1.2% African-American). B46747. The same report reflected a Satellite Middle School Gifted Program at Eisenhower, which had no African-Americans and no Hispanics enrolled. B46739. Subsequent OCR survey forms submitted in 1984 and 1986, however, reported no Gifted Programs at Eisenhower, even though (as shown below) the program continued to exist at Eisenhower.
The same 1982 Civil Rights Survey response reflected elementary Gifted Programs not only in the centralized locations in minority schools (Beyer and King), but also in fifteen other elementary schools. Fourteen of those fifteen were predominantly white schools:

Bloom Brookview Carlson Cherry Valley Conklin Froberg Guilford Center

Haight Hillman Johnson Nashold Rolling Green Vandercook Welsh

The Satellite elementary Programs in 1982 had 308 students enrolled and the Centralized Program enrolled 352 1019 students. With *1019 the exception of the Conklin program, the Satellite Programs were devoid of minority
participation. Apart from Conklin, the remaining Satellite Programs were only 2.8% African-American and 1% Hispanic. After reporting the presence of Satellite Programs in both its 1980 and 1982 survey responses to the Office for Civil Rights, beginning in 1984 the RSD filed reports that gave no indication that the Elementary Satellite Programs existed, even though they did.

Gifted Director Heideman testified that when he took over the Gifted Program in 1985, he was "surprised" to learn of the existence of these Satellite Programs. Despite being a Gifted instructor in the Centralized Program at Auburn, he had no knowledge of the existence of these Satellite Programs. Heideman Dep. at 11. Mr. Heideman also testified that the Satellite Programs received financial support from the RSD's State Gifted grant, even though this support represented an improper division of funds from the Centralized Gifted Program. Heideman stated that the State Gifted grant funds were earmarked by the State for expenses incurred in the Centralized Gifted Program. Instead, the funds were used in the RSD to provide, in part, equipment, materials and supplies for the Satellite Gifted Programs. Id.

Despite Heideman's "surprise," the Satellite Gifted Programs remained in existence until 1991. As late as the 1989-90 school year, the concealment continued. In that year, staff presented a report to the Board that supposedly recited the history and current locations of the Gifted Programs, but that made no mention of the Satellite Programs or the fact that they were still in existence at that time. B502625.

The concealment operated at the school level as well. At Eisenhower School, a separate budget existed and materials and equipment for the Satellite Gifted Program were surreptitiously purchased without the knowledge of the school Principal. The RSD's Interrogatory Answers indicate that when the Gifted Program was established in 1977-78, "Satellite Facilities" were part of the program and remained part of the program until the 1990-91 school year when "Satellite Programs [were] dropped." See B41506.

Ms. Eleanor Brown testified that the segregative effects of the School District's policy led her to remove her daughter, Neangela, from the Gifted Program at King.
I just wanted her to be able to know everything about her school and the other people that went there, not just the people in the gifted program.... There were always these negatives being taught to the children who were in the gifted program. They always taught them like they were different than the rest of the school, and I know that's how they felt because when I was there, they did the same thing, so I had firsthand experience, and I didn't like that. And I didn't like the fact that when she would see somebody else in the school and she would want to say something to them, it was always, `no, you stay over there,' and the parents saying, `yes, because I don't want my kids with those kids over there,' and then not being allowed to do anything with them.
E. Brown Dep. at 70.
Ms. Brown further described the physical separation of the students in the Gifted Program from other students at King that she observed during her visits to the school. With regard to the placement of the regular third grade classes at King, Ms. Brown noted, "I actually never really even saw them because I was always at the end of the school where [my daughter] was...." She described the end of the school that housed the Gifted Program as being "sectioned off" from the rest of the school. Id. at 50.
In describing the physical layout of the school with regard to the issue of separation, Ms. Brown stated:
If you go up that stairway, as soon as you turn to your right, that's where the gifted program classes were. If you just stay on that level and you went to the right, then that's where the gifted programs were at. Now if you went up those stairs though and ... you go down a hall and there is a whole other wing. All those classrooms were non-gifted programs.
1020 *1020 Id. at 51. Ms. Brown also stated that physical separation was highlighted by a King School staffer during a tour Ms. Brown took of the school. During the tour, "They said our regular first grade, second grade are there, and they pointed out the other end of the hallway." Id. at 53. Brown maintained that this separation was prevalent and repeated in every visit that she made to the school. "And every function that I went to, everything was always on one end, so, no, I didn't see everything that happened at the other end of the school because I only went to one end of the school at all times." Id. Regarding other non-academic classes such as music and art, Ms. Brown noted that:
[T]hey went by past 0907 they went by past, yes, the other children's classes ... Music, yes they went to music class down by there, but when they did music productions or anything, they did theirs separate. They learned a different song. They would have one night that they do it, it would be one time they were on the stage, and the rest of the school disappeared.
Id. at 54-56.
Regarding school productions and activities, Ms. Brown observed that they were similarly segregated by gifted students and non-gifted students.
[T]hey actually sang the same song, but they actually split them up ... The regular education kids in the regular classrooms were together, and those who were in gifted were together. And whenever they did anything where they all came together, they still had them, "you stay over here and the other kids stay over there."
Id. at 57-58.
Ms. Brown further described the interaction between white parents and teachers of the Gifted Program at various functions involving the students. In answering a question regarding the segregation of students, Ms. Brown noted, "Because when I went to a couple of functions, I actually heard parents say, `you better not put my kids with those other kids.'" In particular she mentioned a function put on by the school PTO:

[T]he night that I actually went and actually saw the performance where the kids were separated, I heard parents say that, but the parents wouldn't just 0907 what angered me is the parents wouldn't say the comments just to one another. They would say them to the staff.... But if the parents said, `don't put them together period. I don't want my kids over there,' then what you would see is, you students stay on this side; those students stay on that side.... I asked the teacher once about the comments I was getting from the other parents, but the teacher had no response for me. All I heard was a parent say, `it should better stay that way,' and it did.
Id. at 60-61, 66.
Ms. Brown also noted that she felt that the separation of gifted and non-gifted students exacted a psychological toll on the children and that was why she removed her daughter from the program. "Academic-wise, yes, they will say they did it for this reason or that reason, but as far as the children, I think the negative is definitely there emotionally for them, and maybe not for white children but for African-American children." Id. at 71.
Ms. Susan Belvoir, a parent-plaintiff, testified that in the twelve years she and her children were involved in the Gifted Programs at Rockford, her children never interacted with a minority student. Belvoir Dep. at 13. Similarly, Linda Patterson, a teacher employed by the RSD for the past twenty years, testified that African-American children weren't encouraged to participate in the Wilson School Gifted Program. Throughout the years, there were very few, if any, African-American students enrolled in the program. Finally, Henrietta Dotson-Williams testified that after a teacher and a school psychologist recommended that her (African-American) son, Clifford, be put in a special behavior program, Ms. Williams decided to have Clifford tested for the Gifted Program. Clifford passed the test and was enrolled in the Gifted Program. No one with the RSD ever suggested that Clifford be tested for the Gifted Program.
The Creative And Performing Arts Program (CAPA)
1021 The CAPA Program exhibited the same pattern of resegregation during the 1980's as *1021 seen in the Gifted Program. An RSD staff summary gave the following "Historical Perspective" on the CAPA Program:
The program was started in response to success in other cities. It was patterned after the Cincinnati Performing Arts program. CAPA was one of the last alternative programs started, and was not tied as closely to the integration proposal of the '70s. Middle school grades were the initial part of the program. Grades 4-6 were started in the early 1980's.
B46291. According to the RSD's Fall 1980 report on alternative program enrollments, the CAPA Program was a desegregated program. At Washington, Grades 4-8 had a minority enrollment of 30%. At Auburn, Grades 9-12 had a minority enrollment of 15%.
In the 1986-87 school year, enrollment in the CAPA Program at the middle and high school levels included fairly adequate numbers of African-American students, but very few Hispanic students. Over the next five years the African-American enrollment dropped substantially. Driscoll Report, B24820.
In 1986, at the high school level, the CAPA Program at Auburn had an African-American enrollment of 23.6% and a Hispanic enrollment of 1.3%. Detailed grade-by-grade information available for the Fall of 1990, showed the progressive resegregation that was occurring in the high school CAPA Program. That data showed a decline over a four-year period in the number and the percentage of African-American students participating in CAPA:

Grade

African-American Number

12

23

11

18

African-American

Percentage

Entry Year

28.0% 20.7%

1987 1988

10

12

9

6

18.8% 9.7%

1989 1990

In 1986, at the middle school level, CAPA Grades 4-8 at Wilson had an African-American enrollment of 15.7% and a Hispanic enrollment of 0.4%. The composition of the elementary Creative And Performing Arts (CAPA) Program, in school year 1988-89, (located in Grades 4-6 at Wilson) was as follows:

White African-American Hispanic

93.6% 3.6% 2.7%

D10770. By the Fall of 1989, African-American enrollment in the CAPA Middle School Program (Grades 7-8) was down to 12.3%. Hispanic enrollment was down to zero. B507433.

The Fall 1990 grade-by-race data showed a similar trend in the CAPA Grades 4-8 Program. In the Fall of 1990, Grades 6 and 7 each had ten African-American students (about 12% of the enrollment at that grade level), while Grades 4 and 5 each had only three African-American students enrolled. B0066. This data indicated significant declines in the African-American enrollment in the CAPA Program from 1986 through 1990, despite the entry of the First Interim Order in 1989.

The District managed the CAPA entrance process in such a way as to rapidly resegregate the program. A historical overview of the Gifted and CAPA Programs indicated that, in 1988, additional criteria were added for CAPA enrollment, including a teacher recommendation and a "creativity questionnaire." B41506. The RSD created this segregated composition in CAPA even though the criteria for entry were based largely on capability in the performing arts, rather than academic achievement. The educational prerequisite for the program was only a 40th percentile score on a standardized reading test. Once past that threshold, selection was based on auditions judged by program staff (90%) and on "parent observation of traits of creativity" (10%). D10790. The fact that the RSD could operate a Performing Arts Program that was 93.6% white, despite the absence of any significant academic entry obstacle for minority students, shows, in this court's mind, the segregated nature of the RSD's high-status alternative programs.

During his deposition, Mr. Gary Heideman was asked about the small minority representation in the CAPA Program. Heideman responded that "selection of students for [the CAPA] Program ... rests upon subjective evaluation." Heideman Dep. at 56. Heideman added that he was unable to question the scoring of auditions for 1022 the program and *1022 did not have any idea about the number of minority students who tried out for the program. Id.

Montessori

The Montessori Program was another high-status elementary alternative program that was resegregated by the RSD. In the Fall of 1980, the Montessori Program was located at Henrietta School and had a 26% minority enrollment. B4068. By the 1986-87 school year, the Montessori Program at Lathrop School was down to an 11.5% African-American and a 0.9% Hispanic enrollment. In that year, the 88% white program contrasted with a regular enrollment at Lathrop which was 38% African-American and 4% Hispanic. Driscoll Report, B24820. In the 1988-89 school year, the Montessori Program (Grades pre-K through 6 at Lathrop) was 89% white, 11% AfricanAmerican and 0% Hispanic students. The virtually all-white Montessori Program contrasted with the regular enrollment at Lathrop that was 42% minority.
No academic achievement prerequisites for entry for the Montessori Program were enforced. Students were selected based upon teacher observations and interviews. Most applicants were admitted. The mechanism by which the segregated nature of the program was maintained was the prerequisite that a student must have attended a Montessori preschool at age four in order to be admitted into the Montessori kindergarten at age five. No students were allowed to enter the program, at kindergarten or any higher grade, without previous Montessori training. Participation in the RSD's Montessori preschool at age four required a tuition payment of $1,500. Private

Montessori preschools charged comparable tuitions. Additionally, the only entry point was to start one's child in Montessori preschool more than a year before students normally start public school kindergarten. Ironically, the Montessori Program was originally created about a century ago in Italy as a unique educational model designed specifically for low-income disadvantaged students.

With respect to the RSD's Montessori Program, Superintendent Sullivan produced, at his deposition, a memorandum from Elementary Director Barbara Lyman that stated, in part, that the District charged $1,500 for its Montessori Preschool Program, a charge "based on the cost of the private [Montessori] schools." Sullivan Dep., Ex. 2. Attendance at a Montessori preschool (either public or private) was a prerequisite to entry into the Montessori Program at kindergarten. The combined effect of these two requirements was that there was a major economic barrier to participation in the Montessori Program.

Ms. Ardis Cook, a parent, testified about her daughter's enrollment, or attempt to enroll, into a Montessori Program at Lathrop School in 1983. Cook Dep. at 41. She testified that "the process to enroll was to get on the waiting list and then they did a test." Id. at 42. Ms. Cook was one of the first people to sign up on the waiting list. "I took her down to the school. We had an appointment time and then they did an evaluation." Id. at 43. The applicant waited for the results. "I got a letter saying that while she was appropriate, that she would not be accepted at this time and to try again next year. So I called them when I got the letter." Id. The letter was signed by someone from the Board office. Id. at 44. Dr. Tucker told Ms. Cook "that the reason why they had the program at Lathrop was to achieve racial balance. Since my child was black, they really didn't need any more black children at the school." Id. at 46. "If I still disagreed with it, they gave me the name and phone number of the person that I could appeal it to." Id.

Ms. Cook further testified that the same person who signed that letter was the person who was in charge of all those programs. Id. at 47.

1023

She tried to tell me that, you know, they get so many children and so many children are appropriate.... I confronted her with the issue that I think that the reason my child didn't get in because she was black and you already have black children. And the reasons that they had the programs there are because you're trying to get white children there. And my child should not suffer and not be able to get *1023 into a program that is appropriate for her just because of her race. She agreed with me on that. And said, well, you know, I have to look and review and see what the situation is. I'm not totally sure that that was the exact situation. Let me review it. A week or two weeks later I got a letter saying she was accepted.

. . . .

At that time Montessori only had, besides my daughter, two other African-American children in the program. And it went from preschool up to sixth grade ... Montessori had its own internal program within the school. It was like a private school within the public school. We had our own association. We had our own events. We had our own meetings. They sent a directory of all of the students and their parents and their sibs.

Id. at 47-48.

Ms. Doris Nolan was familiar with the Montessori Alternative Program at Lathrop while she was a teacher there. She taught in one hall and the Montessori Program was in another hall. She testified:

And the children there were kept separate from the children in the other part of the school. And the recognition that the school received was always from the Montessori children, and that's a fact ... The teachers interact, students did not. The Montessori children were the Montessori children. The regular class was the regular class. [Even at lunchtime] they all sat at their own tables. They were still separated ... Each classroom had their own table.

Nolan Dep. at 45-47.

The Academics Plus Program
The Academics Plus Program at Bloom School was the partial-site remnant of the full-site Focus Center that the District initiated in the late 1970's. The same pattern of resegregation was exhibited in the Academics Plus Program during the 1980's. According to District reports, the African-American enrollment in the program declined from 15% in 1980, to 6% in 1986, to 4% in 1988. In the Fall of 1980, the RSD reported the full-site Academics Plus Program at Bloom had 79 African-American students out of a total enrollment of 515, or 15%. B4068. For the 1986-87 school year, the RSD reported the Focus Center had a 12.2% African-American enrollment (29 of 238), and no Hispanic students enrolled. At that time, the regular Bloom enrollment of 312 students was reported as 96% white. Viewing the school as a whole, the African-American enrollment was 5.5%. Driscoll Report, B24821.
Two years later, in 1988, the District reported that all students at Bloom were considered to be part of the Focus Center and that 21 of the 517 students (4.1%) were minority. The official Fall Housing Report for Fall 1988, however, showed 17 African-American students at Bloom, constituting 3.3% of the 517 total enrollment. B10657. In the same year, Hispanic enrollment at Bloom consisted of one student (0.2%).
No academic entrance restrictions existed at Bloom restricting minority entry into the Academics Plus Program. According to the RSD, enrollment was on a first-come, first-serve basis, with no criteria other than parental interest. The District, however, made no effort to recruit minority students and was no longer providing transportation for minority transfers. The Academics Plus Alternative Program was 94% white.
Arts Alternative
The only high-status elementary alternative program operated by the RSD that remained desegregated was the Arts Alternative Program. In the Fall of 1980, the program was located at Dennis School and had an 11% AfricanAmerican enrollment. B4068.
In the 1986-87 school year, this program had a 21.3% African-American enrollment, mirroring the systemwide K-6 African-American enrollment for that year. Hispanics comprised 1.6% of the program compared to a 4.4% systemwide enrollment for that year. Driscoll Report, B24819. Despite its own mixed enrollment, the Arts Alternative Program existed as a separate 77% white program within Ellis School, in contrast to a regular Ellis 1024 enrollment that was 86% African-American. In the 1988-89 school year, *1024 the minority composition of the Arts Alternative Program was 22% African-American and 0.8% Hispanic. Despite its own mixed enrollment for this school year, the Arts Alternative Program existed as a separate 77% white program within Ellis School, in contrast to a regular Ellis enrollment of 85% African-American (163 of 192 students).
Low-Status Alternative Programs
About one-third of the alternative programs in the RSD were low-status programs for "slow learners" or "underachievers". The low-status programs were established for the same policy reasons as the high-status programs, that is, to locate unique programs in predominantly minority schools where they would attract transfer students in order to desegregate school enrollments. See Alternative Enrollments and Minority Percentages, 12/15/80, B4068; Driscoll Report, B24821; D10747; D10755; D10709; D10581. While the high-status programs were almost exclusively white, the "slow learners" and "underachiever" low-status programs had large proportions of minority students.
The Get It Together (GIT) Program was designed for capable but underachieving students. D10709. The program was a self-contained basic skills program. In the Fall of 1980, the GIT Elementary Program was in two locations. The Barbour location was 14% African-American and 2% Hispanic. The Froberg location was 62% AfricanAmerican and 4% Hispanic. B4068. In the 1986-87 school year, GIT was located only at Barbour, with 25% African-American and 3% Hispanic students enrolled. B24820. At that time the program contrasted with the

regular enrollment at Barbour that was 86% African-American and 7% Hispanic. In the 1988-89 school year, 26% African-American and 6% Hispanic students were enrolled. D10709.
The Career Awareness and Survival Skills (CASS) Program was initiated in the RSD in 1979. The program was designed for "slow learners" who formerly would have qualified for Special Education, but under the new federal guidelines were to be mainstreamed into regular classrooms. Instead, these students were placed into the CASS Program, which was a "self-contained" alternative program. D10747.
In the Fall of 1980, CASS was located at Ellis School, and had a 56% African-American enrollment and a 3% Hispanic enrollment. B4068. In 1986-87, the racial composition of the CASS Program was 50% African-American and 0% Hispanic, with similarly-composed classrooms located at both Haskell and Jackson Schools. B24820. In the 1988-89 school year, the composition of the CASS Program was 60% minority, located at the same two schools. D10747.
The Transition Program was identified by the RSD as an alternative program in its 1989 interrogatory answers. That program was established for students who were perceived to have failed kindergarten, those not ready to enter regular first grade. In the 1988-89 school year, the transition program was located at fourteen elementary schools, five of which were in the Southwest Quadrant. The overall composition of the fourteen sites was 45% African-American and 2% Hispanic.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Intentional conduct that causes segregation within particular schools is the same as intentional conduct resulting in systemwide segregation. Such "internal segregation" is unlawful. Reed v. Rhodes, 607 F.2d 714, 731 (6th Cir.1979); Hobson v. Hansen, 269 F.Supp. 401, 511-14 (D.D.C.1967), aff'd sub nom., Smuck v. Hobson, 408 F.2d 175 (D.C.Cir.1969). As far as the students are concerned, internal segregation may be even more invidious than segregation by schools, since its effects are observable to the students each day. Hart v. Community School Bd. of Educ., New York School Dist. # 21, 383 F.Supp. 699, 740 (E.D.N.Y.1974), aff'd, 512 F.2d 37 (2nd Cir.1975).
A school district may not segregate students within a putatively integrated school by educating them in racially imbalanced classes or programs that are separate, isolated and insulated educational units. See Reed, 607 F.2d 1025 at 731; United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ., 624 F.Supp. 1276, 1460 *1025 (S.D.N.Y.1985), aff'd, 837 F.2d 1181 (2d Cir. 1987). Courts have found within-school segregation unlawful in various types of programs, including gifted programs. See, e.g., Spangler v. Pasadena City Bd. of Educ., 311 F.Supp. 501, 519 (C.D.Cal.1970) (special interest programs); Yonkers, 624 F.Supp. at 1445-46 (special education programs and tracked programs); and Hart, 383 F.Supp. at 740.
Tracking and ability grouping are common means of maintaining racial isolation within a putatively desegregated school. See, Hart, 383 F.Supp. at 740; Spangler, 311 F.Supp. at 519. Ability grouping and tracking practices are not unconstitutional per se. See, e.g., Quarles v. Oxford Mun. Separate School Dist., 868 F.2d 750, 753 (5th Cir.1989); Castaneda v. Pickard, 648 F.2d 989, 994 (5th Cir.1981). Rather whether a district may use ability grouping and tracking that has a disparate impact on minorities depends upon: (1) whether the school district is unitary; and (2) whether the program or procedures are tainted by racial discrimination. See, United States v. Gadsden County School Dist., 572 F.2d 1049 (5th Cir.1978); Spangler, 311 F.Supp. at 519. Generally, school districts operating under an affirmative duty to desegregate may use ability grouping or tracking practices only if such practices do not have a racially segregative effect. See e.g., Gadsden County School District, 572 F.2d at 1051-52 (ability grouping system unlawful because it perpetuated past discrimination); Lemon v. Bossier Parish School Bd., 444 F.2d 1400, 1401 (5th Cir.1971) (testing as a basis for assignment to schools prohibited when school district not unitary). No school district may act with segregatory or discriminatory intent in utilizing grouping or tracking practices. See, Georgia State Conf. of Branches of NAACP, 775 F.2d at 1403, 1415-15 (11th Cir.1985) ; Spangler, 311 F.Supp. at 519.
One important factor in evaluating an ability grouping program is whether the program, once sufficiently established, is effective in overcoming the problems it was designed to address. See Gadsden, 572 F.2d at 1052. In this regard, movement of students between ability groups provides a crucial indication: if ability grouping is

providing all students with better educational opportunities, there should be movement of students from the lower sections to higher sections. Id.; see also, Quarles, 868 F.2d at 755 (court notes impressive degree of movement among achievement levels by African-American students as well as white students). In an unlawful program, minority students may be locked into achievement groups and fail to move upward over time. Cf. Georgia State Conference of Branches of NAACP, 775 F.2d at 1419-20.
The practices of screening and steering minority students into particular educational programs are another cause of within school segregation. See e.g., Yonkers, 624 F.Supp. at 1445; Smuck v. Hobson, 408 F.2d 175, 183 (D.C.Cir.1969). "Steering" occurs when minority students receive academic counselling different from that received by white students. Yonkers, 624 F.Supp. at 1445-46. One common form of steering involves advising or encouraging minority students to enroll in a high school's general program (geared for non-college-bound students) instead of the school's regular academic program. Id.
"Screening" involves the discriminatory use of procedures and requirements in order to limit minority enrollment in particular programs. Yonkers, 624 F.Supp. at 1448-50. Some of the mechanisms that may be employed to limit minority enrollment in educational programs (and hence increase segregation) are counselor recommendations, reports on student behavior and educationally imprecise standards and test scores. Id. Particularly significant is when a school board is aware of the racially disproportionate consequences of the admissions process for a program, but fails to take action to address this condition. Id.
"Intact busing" is another form of within school segregation. Intact busing is "a classic segregative technique" in which African-American (or white) children are bused away from their neighborhood school to an identifiably opposite-race school. The transfer students are then isolated in classrooms separate from the receiving school's 1026 student population. Higgins v. Bd. of Education of *1026 Grand Rapids, 508 F.2d 779, 787 (6th Cir. 1974); Berry v. School Dist. of Benton Harbor, 442 F.Supp. 1280, 1306 (W.D.Mich.1977). Intact busing serves to "convert integrative opportunities to racially segregative nightmares for the children involved." Reed v. Rhodes, 455 F.Supp. 546, 563 (N.D.Ohio 1978). Intact busing not only is a constitutional violation, but also constitutes strong evidence of discriminatory intent. See Reed, 455 F.Supp. at 563; Berry, 442 F.Supp. at 1306; Armstrong v. O'Connell, 451 F.Supp. 817, 836-844 (E.D.Wis.1978).
Based upon the foregoing, the court finds that on repeated occasions, the RSD engaged in intentional conduct causing the unlawful segregation of students by race within schools. The RSD engaged in a series of purported "desegregation" transfer programs. Among the proposed and implemented "desegregation programs" promoting within-school segregation were:
The Grade Exchange Plan, which was in reality a system of intact busing with white students being sent to their own class-rooms at black schools and vice-versa;
Special Interest Centers, in which minority classes were often placed in an all-white school for a few days a year, kept separate, and then counted into the total percentage of students in an "integration" program; and
Partial-site Alternative Programs, which consisted of high-status identifiably white programs such as Gifted, CAPA and Montessori, and low-status identifiably minority programs such as GIT and CASS.
On many occasions during the 1970's and the 1980's, minority students bused to majority schools were unlawfully separated in receiving schools for purposes of instruction, lunch and recess. The RSD unlawfully segregated and stigmatized minority special education students by isolating predominantly minority selfcontained special education programs within non-Southwest Quadrant schools. Similarly, the RSD's partial-site alternative programs caused within-school segregation by creating virtually all-white enclaves of independent curricula that were totally separate from the regular academic pursuits of the predominantly African-American schools in which they were housed.
The centralized Gifted Program initiated at Wilson School in 1975 unlawfully created a segregated "school within a school" for white students. The design and use of the Gifted Program at Wilson as a program almost exclusively for white students led to within-school segregation. The Gifted Program at Auburn High School was

similarly segregated from the rest of the school. During the 1980's the Gifted Programs, which were the principal source of movement of white students for integration purposes, were maintained as bastions of unlawful withinschool segregation. Despite the RSD's knowledge of these highly segregated conditions, the RSD failed to take any action whatsoever to increase participation of minority students in the Gifted Programs.
Additionally, the creation of a "Minority Gifted Program" was an unlawful and explicitly segregative act. The "satellite" Gifted Programs were also conceived and operated on an unlawfully discriminatory basis. The court further finds that the RSD unlawfully resegregated the CAPA Program, the Montessori Program, and the Academics Plus Program during the 1980's. In contrast to the identifiably white high-status alternative programs operated by the RSD, the RSD operated alternative programs for "slow learners" or "underachievers" that were low-status and identifiably minority.
Accordingly, the court concludes as a matter of law, that the RSD engaged in intentional and purposeful discrimination in regard to the operation of the District's purported desegregation programs, tracking system, Bilingual Education Program, magnet school program and its various alternative educational programs. This intentional conduct resulted in systemwide segregation. The stigmatizing effect on the students is considered by this court to be a cruel act perpetuated by the RSD on its students.
STUDENT ASSIGNMENT
INTRODUCTION
1027 The Rockford School District consistently gerrymandered school attendance area *1027 boundaries in order to separate majority children from minority children. The RSD located new schools in geographic areas so as to insure that the schools would be racially-identifiable white. When the RSD closed a school, it reassigned students so that majority children would attend racially-identifiable white schools and minority children would attend racially-identifiable minority schools. This School District has a long history of using racial considerations when drawing school boundaries and making student assignments.
Over a period of time, the RSD has been under pressure from a variety of sources, including the Federal courts, to change its practice of isolating minority students. The documentary and testimonial evidence depict a District resistant to changes that would alleviate the patterns of racial isolation. The limited changes that were made tended to place a disparate burden upon the minority population.
The following findings are divided into three interdependent parts. The first part addresses student assignment and school boundaries prior to the influence of the QUEFAC lawsuit and the ISBE investigation. Part two focuses on the QUEFAC lawsuit and the ISBE investigation. Part three examines actions of the School District subsequent to the QUEFAC lawsuit and the ISBE investigation.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Student Assignment and School Boundaries Prior to the QUEFAC Lawsuit and the ISBE Investigation
Student Assignment in the Late 1950's and Early 1960's
The Rockford School District's secondary school boundaries did not change from 1953 to 1963. In 1953, the RSD maintained two high schools, East High School, serving all of the students east of the Rock River, and West High School, serving all the students west of the Rock River. See School Boundary Descriptions, 1950/51-1957/58, D23614. The RSD maintained four middle schools: Lincoln Park, Roosevelt, Lincoln and Washington. Between 1953 and 1962, none of the school boundaries crossed the Rock River. Id.

In 1962, the RSD considered some changes in school boundaries. On July 9, 1962, Samuel L. Dean, Jr., an African-American attorney in Rockford, wrote a letter to the RBE. Mr. Dean, at that time, was chair of a group called "Future Outlook League." Mr. Dean and his group knew that the Board was contemplating moving the school boundaries in the southwest section of the city to the east, from the Rock River to Kishwaukee Street. As such, minority students in this area would be sent west to schools in the Southwest Quadrant. In his letter, Mr. Dean stated:
This will mean a concentration of Negro students in the Washington Junior High School and West High School and then almost complete elimination of them from Jefferson Junior High School and East High School. We feel that in view of the fact that these schools have been fairly evenly integrated in the past, such a move would be very undesirable for the colored population of Rockford. The pattern of segregated schools is one that is highly frowned upon by the negro citizens in any of the northern cities where this practice occurs. It leads to inferior teachers, overcrowding, and all of the many of the ills concurrent with segregated education. This matter has been successfully attacked in the federal court by the citizens of New Rochelle, New York last year and has repeatedly been under attack in the City of Chicago during the current year.
Bd.Min., 7/9/62, B8632.
In 1963, the RSD enlarged the boundary for the two Westside secondary schools by approving the boundary change discussed in Mr. Dean's letter. Attendance Boundaries, 1961, D23618. The effect was to increase the concentrations of African-Americans in both of the Southwest Quadrant secondary schools and to increase the percentage of whites in the southeast quadrant secondary schools.
The RSD made other changes in attendance area boundaries in 1963. The only two integrated elementary 1028 schools on the east side of the Rock River were affected. These *1028 schools housed more than 50% of the
RSD's total population of African-American students. The students located in the area in the south half of Kishwaukee Street, 6% African-American, were assigned to Washington, a Westside African-American junior high school, and to West High School, a Westside integrated high school. Students in Hall School, 10% AfricanAmerican in 1960 and 22% African-American in 1967, were given the option of attending either West or East High Schools. The 1963 boundary for Washington Junior High School included the following area east of the Rock River: Following Keith Creek southeast to Kishwaukee Street, south on center of Kishwaukee Street to Blackhawk Park Avenue, west on center of Blackhawk Park Avenue to Magnolia, south on Magnolia (including both sides) to Quaker Road, west on Quaker Road to the Rock River. Much of the Southwest Quadrant area on the west side of the Rock River was also included.
The boundary of West High School was the area west of the river plus the eastside portion of Washington Junior High School area. Students in the area bounded by Y Boulevard, Longwood Street, East State Street and the Rock River, essentially the students in the Hall School area on the east side of the Rock River in downtown Rockford, also had the option of choosing either East or West High Schools.
In 1965, the following additional attendance zones that crossed the Rock River were established:
The Hall and Kishwaukee Districts on the east side of the river, south to Keith Creek, which later became the boundary between Kishwaukee and Beyer when Beyer was built later in the 1960's, were in the East High School zone as it was east of the Rock River.
Students entering seventh grade living on the east side of the river, west of North Longwood or Kishwaukee Street from Y Boulevard and Keith Creek, could choose either Washington or Roosevelt Junior High and West High School on the Westside or choose Lincoln Junior High School and East High School on the Eastside. Students from grades seven through twelve who were already enrolled in a Westside or Eastside secondary school and who moved into this area, were required to continue in the school where they were enrolled.
Students new to the district who moved into this area were allowed to choose either Westside or Eastside secondary schools.

Students in the area to the north, bounded by North Second Street, Spring Creek Road, Park View Avenue and Sinnissippi Park, were allowed to choose to go to the Westside schools, Walker, Roosevelt and West, although they were in the Guilford High School District.
RSD Attendance Boundaries, 1965, D23634; Boundary Maps and Student Placement Tables, 2/1/91, B37931. In 1960 and 1967 respectively, Kishwaukee School was 6% and 11% African-American and Hall School was 10% and 22% African-American. In 1966, the Sinnissippi Park area, bounded by North Second Street, Spring Creek Road, Parkview Avenue and Sinnissippi Park, was eliminated and was made exclusively a part of the Guilford High School District. RSD Attendance Boundaries, 1966, D23652.
Attempts By Superintendent McIntosh to Re-Assign Students
In March of 1959, Superintendent McIntosh proposed reassigning students from the Kishwaukee (6% AfricanAmerican in 1960) and Alpine (all white in 1960) elementary districts in the Southeast Quadrant to Washington Junior High School in the Southwest Quadrant. Washington was then a racially-identifiable junior high school with 22% African-American students and had the heaviest concentration of minority students of any secondary school in the RSD at the time. The reassignment proposal was based upon the Superintendent's desire to better utilize building capacity. The RSD received protests against the proposal from white parents in the two Eastside districts and the proposal was subsequently withdrawn. See Bd.Mins., 3/9/59, B7115; 3/23/59, B7121; 4/13/59, B7151; 10/26/59, B7434; PPC Report, B505857.
1029 *1029 In April of 1959, parents from the all white Summerdale elementary district in the Northwest Quadrant outside of the RSD, protested the proposed reassignment of their children to Wilson Junior High School. Wilson was located in the west end of the Southwest Quadrant and had a population of 7% African-American students in 1960. The same parents also protested the proposed reassignment to the adjacent, and soon to be opened, Auburn High School from the areas of assignment, Roosevelt Junior High School in the Southwest Quadrant with a population of 1% African-American students in 1960, and West High School in the same general area as Roosevelt with a 5% African-American student population. The RSD withdrew the plan to transfer these students as a result of the protests. Bd.Mins., 4/16/59, B7133; 4/13/59, B7151.
In November of 1959, Superintendent McIntosh proposed changes in the secondary school boundaries in order to address over-crowding on the Eastside at the all white Lincoln Junior High and at East High School, having a 1% African-American student population. The schools were on double shifts because of overcrowding. Superintendent McIntosh proposed that ninth graders from schools outside of the RSD be transferred from Lincoln Junior High to Wilson Junior High. He also proposed that all other out-of-district ninth, tenth and eleventh graders be sent to either Wilson Junior High or West High School in the near Northwest, with a 5% AfricanAmerican student population, instead of East High School. Superintendent McIntosh's proposal generated petitions and protests from hundreds of white parents of children from outside of the RSD who were or would be attending RSD secondary schools. Bd.Mins., 11/9/59, B7470; 12/14/59, B7480; 12/28/59, B7502. With the exception of the Lincoln Park School area to the west of the RSD, no school zone had more than a 1% AfricanAmerican student population that was outside of the RSD and was sending students to RSD schools.
Superintendent McIntosh responded to the parent protests by stating that granting the requests of these parents would result in 2800 students at East High School and the continuation of double shifts. East High School has a capacity of 1768 students. He further noted:
1. That second shift students at East High were frequently unable to engage in extracurricular activities;
2. That the East High faculty was overburdened; and
3. That Auburn was scheduled to be opened in 1960 and must be used to relieve overcrowding.
Superintendent McIntosh further noted that continued overcrowding might jeopardize the accreditation of the involved schools by the State authorities. Nonetheless, the RBE decided that the parents of children residing in

the Northeast Quadrant outside of the RSD could choose to continue to send their children to Eastside schools or could choose to send their children to Westside schools.[7] Bd. Min., 2/28/59, B7502.
In December of 1961, in anticipation of the opening of the new Guilford High School in the far Northeast Quadrant of Rockford in the 1962-63 school year, students who were to be in ninth grade at Lincoln Junior High and who lived north of Rural Street were given the option of attending either Lincoln Junior High or Guilford High Schools. Bd. Min., 12/11/61, B8377; Attendance Boundaries, 1963, D23618. Even though the Westside facilities of West High School and Roosevelt Junior High School had excess capacity and even though West and Roosevelt were close to the homes of these students, the students were not given the option of attending West or Roosevelt. No parents protested this move by the RSD. The students in question were predominantly or exclusively white.
1030 In September of 1963, Superintendent McIntosh reported to the RBE that all four *1030 RSD high schools and the two Eastside junior high schools were over capacity. The three Westside junior high schools, however, were not overcrowded. Further, the Westside high schools, particularly Auburn, were much less crowded than the Eastside high schools. Nevertheless, in the 1960's, the RSD engaged in no attempt to send white children from white Eastside schools to the available openings in the Westside secondary schools. Such was the case even though many of the white students living east of the Rock River were closer to the Westside secondary schools than to the Eastside secondary schools where they were assigned.
On September 9, 1963, RBE member Clifford Carlson suggested shifting students from Guilford High School to Auburn High School in order to alleviate overcrowding at Guilford. Although Auburn was the furthest west of the RSD's high schools, it was closer to some of the elementary attendance areas on the east side of the Rock River, which fed into Guilford, than Guilford High School itself. Bd.Min., 9/9/63, B9170. The Guilford High School attendance area included all of central Rockford on the east side of the river, including the Bloom, Jackson, Hall, Wight, Turner, Nelson, Hallstrom, Highland and the northern half of Kishwaukee Elementary Districts. The students living in the Jackson, Hall, Wight Kishwaukee, and Turner attendance areas, as well as others, lived closer to Auburn High School than to Guilford. Attendance Boundary Map, 1967-68, B38708. In spite of this fact, and Board Member Carlson's suggestion, the RSD never mandatorily assigned students in these areas to Auburn High School or to any other Westside secondary school.
Assignment of Northeast Quadrant Students to Guilford Rather Than West High School
In March of 1964, in a further effort to deal with the overcrowding of Eastside schools, Superintendent McIntosh announced that students in the Northeast Quadrant, living west of Parkview Avenue and north of Rural Street in the northwest portion of the Northeast Quadrant, would attend West High School rather than Guilford High School. This area included the Bloom Elementary School attendance area. At the time, West High was between 5% and 12% African-American and Guilford was all white. Most of the reassigned students were white. Many parents objected, even though these two schools were roughly equal distance from the area in question.
In response to the parental opposition, Superintendent McIntosh announced a delay in the implementation of his decision until the 1965-66 school year in order to determine if an addition could be built at Guilford High. Bd.Min., 3/9/64, B10564. The addition to Guilford School was, in fact, built in 1965 and opened in 1966. No further action was taken by the RBE with regard to the involuntary transfer of Northeast Quadrant white children to the Westside African-American or integrated schools. This failure to transfer white students in response to parental pressure furthered the segregation of the RSD's secondary schools.
Conversion of Jefferson Junior High School to a Senior High School
By the middle of the 1960's, it was clear to the RBE that even with the newly opened fourth high school, a need for additional high school capacity existed. The RBE began to consider the conversion of one of the junior high schools into a senior high school. Washington Junior High School had fewer students than its capacity and was

located in the Southwest Quadrant, the part of the RSD furthest from any existing high school. Washington Junior High also had by far the largest percentage of African-American students of any secondary school in the RSD with an African-American population of 22% in 1960 and 50% in 1967. PPC Report at 74, B505856. Washington would, therefore, have been a logical choice to convert to a high school.
The conversion of Washington to a senior high school was considered by the RBE in 1964. The Board decided against such a move for the purported reason that there were not enough students in Washington's existing attendance area. Bd.Mins., 11/13/64, B10489; 12/7/64, B10519. This reason made no practical sense because 1031 the attendance area of Washington could easily have been expanded across the Rock River in order to *1031 include additional students. The additional students, however, would have been white students, who would thus have attended an African-American school. Instead, the District decided to convert Jefferson Junior High School, on the Southeast side, into a senior high school and to assign it an attendance area entirely east of the river. The plan went into effect in 1971, and Jefferson High School remained at that location until a new Jefferson High School was built in 1978, located farther south in the Southeast Quadrant.
When Jefferson opened as a high school in 1971, it had a 6% African-American student population. The Districtwide high school population at the time was 10% African-American. Washington Junior High School, which had been renamed Washington Community School, had a 52% African-American student population. The RSD's decision to convert Jefferson to a high school rather than Washington and make it an "Eastside school" furthered the segregation of the RSD secondary schools.
West Side Elementary School Boundaries 0907 Late 1950's-Early 1960's
During the 1950's, two elementary school areas were located on the west bank of the Rock River between the Walker School attendance area, beginning at Guard Street, and the Montague School attendance area, beginning at Kent Creek. The two Westside schools were Garrison on the north, and Franklin on the south. The basic boundaries of the Garrison School area were Benderwirt, King and Reynolds Streets on the north, Main and Guard Streets on the northeast, the Rock River on the southeast, Whitman Street on the south and Kilburn Avenue on the west. Franklin School was immediately to the south, bounded by Kent Creek on the west and south. Attendance Boundaries, 1950-51, D23604.
By the late 1950's, a growing number of African-Americans were residing in the Franklin School area, which area encompassed the southern border of the Summerdale School area, and the west part of the Garrison School area, adjacent to the eastern boundary of Church School, which remained all white. In 1959, the RSD built Haskell School in this part of the city, and drew attendance boundary lines that included all of the AfricanAmericans living in the area of Summerdale, Garrison and the northern part of Franklin. The boundary lines of the new Haskell School were Auburn and Rockton, south on Rockton to Garfield, east on Garfield to Ridge Avenue, south on Ridge Avenue, extended to Fisher Avenue and Court Street, west on Fisher Avenue to Acorn Street, west on Acorn to Kilburn and north on Kilburn to Rockton. Bd.Min., 3/9/59, B7117.
In 1960, as a result of these boundaries, Church and Summerdale schools had a 100% white student population, Garrison had a 3% African-American student population and the newly opened Haskell School was racially identifiable African-American with a 23% African-American population.
In 1963 and in 1966, the boundaries of Haskell School were expanded. Attendance Boundaries, 1963, D23626; 1966, D23651; Student Assignment Boundary Map, 1967-68, B38708. As a result of this expansion of the Haskell School attendance area, by 1967, Church School and Summerdale School remained all white, Garrison School's African-American population decreased to 1% and Haskell's population increased to 37% African-American.
This gerrymandering of boundaries furthered the segregation of the RSD's Westside elementary schools. Although it was surrounded on three sides by schools with substantial African-American student populations in 1967 (Haskell, 37% African-American; Ellis, 50% African-American; and McIntosh, 20% African-American), Church School did not receive its first African-American student until 1968. In 1968, when Mr. Alfred Brewington and his family moved into the newly constructed Fairgrounds Valley Housing Development, on the east side of Kent Creek, Mr. Brewington, an African-American, sent his daughter to Church School.

Refusal to Reassign Students to Balance School Utilization in 1965
1032 In 1965, the RBE appointed Dr. Thomas H. Shaheen as the new Superintendent of the *1032 RSD. Bd.Mins., 11/8/65, B10875; 7/12/65, B11166. Within the first six months of his superintendency, the new superintendent had to deal with the problem of overcrowding in many of the RSD's schools.
In January of 1966, Superintendent Shaheen suggested to the RBE that class sizes in the various schools be balanced either by renting additional space or by transporting students to less crowded schools. Bd.Min., 11/7/66, B11244. At the time, the RBE was building two new elementary schools, McIntosh in the west end of the Southwest Quadrant, in between Wilson Junior High School and Church Elementary School (a part of town that had a sizeable African-American community) and Swan Hillman, in the far southeast corner of the Southeast Quadrant (an all white area). Superintendent Shaheen recommended that, if these two new schools were not opened by Fall 1966, students from overcrowded schools in those areas be transported to other schools with available capacity. The RBE rejected the Superintendent's recommendation. Instead, the Board decided that the students who would be attending McIntosh and Swan Hillman would be kept together and housed in emergency areas in the presently existing school buildings or in rented facilities, rather than being transported to other schools. The RBE's sole African-American member, Marcella Harris, voted against this decision.
The RBE also approved moving sixth grade students from the areas adjacent to McIntosh School to a new addition being built at Wilson Junior High School. The schools adjacent to McIntosh were Ellis, Henrietta and Church. At the time, Ellis was 50% African-American and Henrietta 66% African-American. Church School was all white. Bd.Min., 2/7/66, B11252. The refusal to accept Superintendent Shaheen's recommendation to shift students to ease overcrowding, except within a predominantly African-American area, furthered segregation in RSD elementary schools.
Assignment of Morris Kennedy and Nashold Ninth Graders From School District 125 to Auburn High School
In April of 1967, the RBE proposed assigning ninth graders from School District 125, south of Rockford District 205 on the east side of the Rock River, to Auburn High School. District 125 was one of the districts in the consolidated School District 211, which was the elementary school district outside of the RSD that used RSD secondary schools. The proposal was designed to lessen the serious overcrowding of Guilford High School. District 125 was almost exclusively white. The two schools involved were Nashold and Morris Kennedy. Auburn High, on the west end of the Southwest Quadrant, was 15% African-American in 1967.
On May 22, 1967, the RBE decided to implement the proposal to send District 125 ninth graders to Auburn, but also appointed a committee to study the situation for possible reconsideration in the 1968-69 school year. Bd.Min., 5/22/67, B11530. In 1970, the decision was reversed. The Board stated a policy that all student assignment would be done on "a neighborhood school basis" and that there would be no cross-town busing. Bd.Min., 4/28/69, B12128; 5/12/69, B12149; RSD Student Assignment Data and Boundary Map, 2/1/71, B37933. Accordingly, the ninth grade students were sent a farther distance to attend high school at 99% white, overcrowded (161% of CDB), Guilford High, starting in the 1970-71 school year.
"Rockford Team" 1967 Integration Proposals
In the Spring of 1967, Superintendent Shaheen, two board members and a group of Rockford citizens attended an integration workshop in Chicago conducted by Dr. Armin Beck, a leader in urban education in the late 1960's. Following this workshop, in June of 1967, this team of people, "the Rockford Team", issued and presented to the RBE a report entitled "Abstract Rockford Team" that contained the team's views on urban education. See T. Shaheen Test., Tr. at 29.

The report stated that compensatory programs used to counteract the negative influences of racial isolation achieved "little or nothing in comparison to the effects achieved by integration." Noted barriers in the white 1033 community to the resolution of civil rights problems in Rockford included: a high level *1033 of affluence and a "highly sophisticated procedure of smothering emerging Negro leadership in the benevolent paternalism of the white power structure." Noted barriers to school desegregation in the RSD included the lack of a policy statement by the RBE and the lack of transportation provided by the RSD.
Specifically, the Rockford Team described their concern in regard to racial isolation if Franklin School, having a 41% African-American student population, was demolished and its students were sent to nearby Haskell, Garrison and Ellis Schools. Haskell and Ellis Schools had growing minority populations. An addition was also planned for predominantly white Garrison and Walker Schools. The Rockford Team suggested that the addition to Ellis be postponed and consideration be given to increasing the size of the additions at Garrison and Walker in order to send Franklin students to Haskell, Garrison and Walker so as to minimize racial isolation.
Contrary to the Rockford Team's suggestion, in 1969, the RSD built additions onto Ellis, Haskell and Walker. The RSD not only proceeded with the addition to Ellis, but also purchased Muldoon School in 1971 in order to handle the overflow of students. In 1971, also contrary to the Rockford Team's suggestion, the RSD closed Franklin School and sent its student population, 55% African-American, to two predominantly African-American schools, Haskell School, which went from 62% African-American to 64% African-American in 1971-72, and Ellis School, which went from 65% African-American to 69% African-American in 1971-72.
In addition, the Rockford Team made suggestions with regard to student assignment in the then current and soon to be built middle schools. The first suggestion was to convert segregated, low achievement Washington Junior High School to a ninth grade Center and simultaneously convert white, high achievement Lincoln Junior High School and Jefferson Junior High School into seventh and eighth grade Centers. The second suggestion was to remove existing high-achievers in Roosevelt Junior High School and pair Roosevelt students with the to-be-built high-achieving Eisenhower students in order to achieve racial and achievement balance. The third suggestion was to pair the high achieving students from Roosevelt with the low achieving Wilson Junior High School students in order to form the attendance area for the new John F. Kennedy Jr. School.
The RBE did not follow any of these suggestions, but instead opened up the two new junior high schools as allwhite schools serving their neighborhood populations. The refusal of the RBE to implement the suggestions of the "Rockford Team" and its above described actions furthered the segregation of the RSD.
The Pupil Placement Committee (PPC)
In August and September of 1967, the RBE and Superintendent Shaheen formed the Pupil Placement Committee (hereinafter "PPC") to study the issues of student achievement, racial and socioeconomic balance in the schools and attendance boundaries as well as other issues related to student assignment, with particular regard to the planned expansion of RSD schools. Bd. Min., 9/11/67, B11625; T. Shaheen Test., Tr. at 41. When Superintendent Shaheen first visited the RSD before he was hired, he saw that there were tremendous disparities in the quality of schools and the quality of teaching among and within the schools of Rockford. Throughout Dr. Shaheen's superintendency, he observed a strong correlation between school quality and student achievement levels and the location of the school, that is, on the east or the west of the Rock River. School quality and student achievement levels tended to be better on the east side of the Rock River. Dr. Shaheen observed that AfricanAmerican students had lower achievement results. The PPC Report reported that there were academic imbalances in the RSD schools, with the African-American and poor schools showing the lowest achievement levels.
Two Rockford clergy, Rev. William Collins and Rev. Leon Riley, were appointed cochairs of the PPC. Rev. William Collins was appointed as a chair of the PPC because the PPC studied "volatile" and sensitive issues in the 1034 Rockford community. A member of the *1034 clergy was thought to be an effective person to speak about the issues of low achievement in the Rockford schools and racial disparities. Collins Dep. at 20-22.

Robert Kufalk was a principal at Washington Junior High School and was appointed coordinator of the PPC. Mr. Kufalk testified that race was the primary issue covered in the Committee's Report; however, because of community sensitivity, the members of the Committee determined to couch the Report more in terms of socioeconomic/educational issues. In this manner, it was hoped that the Report would be more favorably received by the Rockford community and the RBE.
The PPC members were selected by the RBE from a broad cross section of the Rockford community. The PPC met at least once a month for approximately one and one-half years. The PPC first examined a report on racial isolation in the United States printed by the Commission on Civil Rights and a study of the RSD by a RSD teacher, which showed that teachers in the low income areas in the RSD were not as well prepared as those in wealthier parts of the District. Collins Dep. at 20-22. The formation of the PPC was endorsed by the Rockford Human Relations Commission in a statement which said that there was de facto racial and economic segregation in the RSD, that led to insensitivity, underachievement and increased tensions.
In October of 1967, Superintendent Shaheen stated that one of the major problems in the RSD was the need for racial integration in the schools. The Southwest Quadrant was the lowest income area in the RSD. The PPC studied the schools in the Southwest Quadrant and found a great disparity between those schools and the rest of the district in terms of achievement levels. The PPC then tried to correlate those disparities with racial, economic and family factors. Id. at 29. On November 27, 1967, the PPC issued a progress report indicating that preliminary findings revealed a possible correlation between racial and socioeconomic make up of schools and academic achievement. Bd.Min., 11/27/67, B11683.
On March 25, 1968, the PPC issued its Report to the RSD. In its Report, the PPC noted a high correlation among the eighteen elementary schools and two secondary schools, all of which were in or near the Southwest Quadrant, that were "underachieving" that is, ranking below the fiftieth percentile on national standardized tests. PPC Report, 1968, B505856. The factors that had a high degree of correlation at these schools were: below average achievement, below average family income, high mobility of student body, low percentage of professional and managerial employment of parents and adults, high percentage of African-American enrollment and negative vote on school referendums. The PPC found that:
While negro enrollment increased by 166% over the past seven years, the percentage of additional schools which showed some negro enrollment only increased by 22%. The result has been an increasing concentration of an ever larger number of negro students into a very few schools.
Id.
In 1960, four elementary schools had an African-American enrollment in excess of 30%, and in 1967, there were ten such schools in the RSD. Also in 1960, one elementary school had an African-American enrollment of over 50%, and in 1967, there were five such schools. Twenty percent of the increase in enrollment in the last seven years was African-American. African-Americans increased from 6% of the student body in 1960 to 10% in 1967. Id. This data shows that there was an increasing concentration of an increasing number of African-Americans into a very few schools.
The PPC went on to state: "The compact and contiguous nature of the area which contains [these correlating factors] ... reflects a trend toward the increasing isolation of such groups of people from the rest of the community." Id. The PPC also found that "[a]ll schools with more than 30% negro enrollment were also schools with below average achievement scores." Id. The PPC reported to the RBE that the low achieving students in the RSD came overwhelmingly from the Southwest Quadrant, which was defined by the PPC as Eleventh Street on 1035 the east and Auburn Street on the north. This area *1035 contained most of the African-American population in Rockford and generally had low socioeconomic status.
As stated previously, the PPC reported that, although the RSD as a whole scored above the national average on standardized tests, eighteen elementary schools had achievement test scores far below the national average. Those schools and their percentage of African-American student population in 1967 were as follows:

School

% African-American

Barbour

47%

Dennis

91%

Ellis

50%

Franklin

41%

Hall

22%

Haskell

37%

Henrietta

66%

Kishwaukee

11%

Lathrop

66%

Lincoln Park

40%

McIntosh

20%

Montague

70%

Riverdahl

1%

Rock River

45%

Stiles

0%

Turner

0%

Wight

0%

Id. In 1967, the elementary school population of the RSD was 11.4% African-American. One all white school just outside of the Southwest Quadrant also scored below the national average on standardized tests, Whig Hill, in the Northwest Quadrant. Id. By 1978, the RSD had turned Whig Hill into a racially identifiable African-American school by busing in African-American students from a satellite attendance area near Dennis and Ellis Schools.

Of the eighteen underachieving elementary schools noted in the PPC Report, those that were racially identifiable African-American schools, that is, had a student population of 26.4% or more African-American, had lower standardized test scores than did either the integrated or the racially identifiable white schools. Ten of the eighteen schools had more than 15% of the District-wide elementary average of African-American students and were racially identifiable African-American: Dennis, Montague, Lathrop, Henrietta, Ellis, Barbour, Rock River, Franklin, Lincoln Park and Haskell. Three of the schools were integrated, that is, were between 5.7% and 26.4% African-American: Hall, McIntosh, and Kishwaukee. Five of the schools had less than half of the District-wide elementary average of African-American students and were racially identifiable white schools with less than 5.7% African-American students: Riverdahl, Stiles, Wight, Whig Hill and Turner.

One of the measures employed by the PPC to express student achievement levels was grade equivalency, that is, how far ahead or behind in terms of years of progress each school's students were in comparison with national averages. Of the eighteen low-achieving schools, the African-American schools averaged .41 years behind the national average, the integrated schools averaged .27 years behind the national average and the white schools averaged .20 years behind the national average.

The PPC also found that the two secondary schools had achievement test scores below the national average, Wilson Junior High with 22% African-American students in 1967, and Washington Junior High with 50% AfricanAmerican students in 1967. These were the only two secondary schools in the Rockford School District at the time that had more African-Americans than the district-wide percentage in the secondary school population (8.6% ).

Further, the PPC found that while African-Americans in the RSD had increased 166% since 1960, the percentage of schools that showed an increase in African-American enrollment only increased by 22% over the same time period. Therefore, a dramatic increase in the segregation and concentration of African-Americans in the RSD schools occurred.

The PPC also examined families living in areas along school district borderlines between high-achieving and lowachieving schools. The PPC found that families in those areas were usually people of similar economic

backgrounds and were generally racially mixed. The only distinguishing factor among the families was that their 1036 children attended different schools. The PPC found that the children of those families who *1036 went to low-
achieving schools achieved poorly and the children of those families who attended high-achieving schools achieved well. Collins Dep. at 35. Therefore, the PPC recommended drawing new school boundary lines that would have an enrollment of 70% high-achievers. The RSD, however, did not adopt this recommendation by the PPC and continued its adherence to neighborhood school boundaries. Id. at 38-40, 64.
On October 28, 1968, the RBE received a letter from the PPC asking that the RSD adopt a policy on pupil placement based upon the findings in the PPC's report. Board Members Marcella Harris and Dr. Robert Taylor moved that the PPC be instructed to prepare a plan for the placement of pupils within the elementary and secondary schools of the RSD. The plan was to be designed in such a way as to assure as equitable a balance of achievement as possible in each school. The plan was also to include recommendations as to how to balance achievement levels in new schools to be constructed. The motion was tabled and then defeated on November 11, 1968.
At the October 28th meeting, the RBE noted that the Illinois School Code required the RBE to provide equal education to all of its students. After the meeting, RBE Member Dr. Robert Taylor stated that the concept of neighborhood schools would have to be considerably altered in order to achieve what the PPC has been asked to do. Accordingly, the RBE specifically noted that the PPC's recommendations were to be subject to the RBE's approval. Bd.Min., 10/28/68, B11983; see Bd.Min., 11/11/68, B12010.
On November 11, 1968, the Board considered a student assignment policy based upon a PPC Report recommending that students be reassigned to different schools in order to obtain an achievement balance. Approximately 200 people attended the meeting. Prior to the meeting, the RBE received many letters opposing the busing of students. Many speakers at the meeting, including a representative of the Rockford Jewish Community Council, Delridge Hunter, who was also President of the West Side Community Organization (WESCO), Eugene Horwath of Responsible Citizens for Quality Education and others, urged the RBE to establish a policy that would solve the problem of under achievement even if it did not meet with complete popular approval. The RBE, on a 3-2 vote, voted down the PPC student assignment recommendations. Voting in the minority were RBE member Marcella Harris, the only African-American Board Member, and Dr. Robert Taylor. Bd.Mins., 12/7/69, B12037; 12/9/68, B12013; 12/11/68, B12010. An "achievement balance" would have necessarily resulted in a greater degree of racial integration. In connection with the PPC Report, Marcella Harris was told by another RBE Member: "Well, Marcella, you have to remember that sometimes the minority just has to wait until the majority is ready to settle things." Harris Test., Tr. at 656.
On January 27, 1969, at a meeting attended by 600 people, the RBE received recommendations from Reverend Collins on behalf of the PPC that it reassign students to achieve racial and achievement integration in the RSD's schools. The RBE also received a minority report from PPC member Robert P. Kennedy calling for "compensatory education" rather than school integration. Rev. Collins, the PPC Co-Chair, stated that he was unaware of the existence of a minority report until the day it was presented. Collins Dep. at 68.
The RBE added new members to the PPC between the time the PPC studies were conducted and the time the PPC made their recommendations. The new members did not dissent from the PPC recommendations at PPC meetings. PPC member Kennedy had earlier accepted the recommendations of the PPC, but on the day of the presentation of the PPC's Report to the RBE, Mr. Kennedy presented his own "minority report." The "compensatory education" approach recommended by the minority report called for teaching in the schools by achievement level rather than by reassignment of students. The RBE adopted neither the majority nor the minority report.
The Middle Schools Proposal
In January of 1969, the RBE also received a report from Dr. John Swanson, then principal of Guilford High 1037 School, and a committee *1037 of RSD administrators and supervisors. The report called for the conversion of
the RSD to a "middle school" structure. Available classroom space would thereby be filled by shifting student attendance assignments in order to make better use of currently available building and classroom space without

regard to "neighborhood schools." The middle school proposal would also allow centralized restructuring that would improve racial and student achievement integration. See Bd.Mins., 1/13/69, B12013; 1/27/69, B12043; 4/14/69, B12108. Assistant School Superintendent for Instruction, Dr. Herbert B. Smith, also recommended that the RSD employ the middle school concept instead of using junior high schools in its structure. Middle schools involved the grouping of grades six through eight, with four-year high schools. Prior to that date, the RSD always employed the junior high school, grades seven-eight-nine system. The change was recommended in order to better utilize class-room space.
The proposal for middle schools was part of a more generalized restructuring proposal that included: the integration of students by student achievement levels; the assignment of students from newly constructed housing projects in Rockford to any school the District believed appropriate; and the location of new schools in specific areas in order to improve racial integration, with specific reference to the two new junior high schools that were scheduled to be built, Eisenhower and John Kennedy. If adopted, the proposal was said to be designed to save the District $11 million as opposed to maintaining the status quo. See B505960.
The middle school proposal, as well as the general restructuring, would also improve racial balance by phasing toward a system where there would be four high schools and four middle schools that would be expanded over a five year period along with the construction of additional elementary schools. The result would be roughly comparable capacities in each of the secondary schools, city-wide distribution of pupils and greater integration, both academically and racially. Id.; T. Shaheen Test., Tr. at 59-63.
In response to the middle school/general restructuring proposal, Dr. Shaheen wrote a memo to the RBE. T. Shaheen Memo to RBE, 2/10/69, B505949. In his memo, Dr. Shaheen emphasized that the integration of schools was a critically important national goal. Dr. Shaheen stated that the 1969-70 school year was an opportune time to take initiative to comply with desegregation laws due to the findings contained in the PPC report, the middle school proposal, the availability of new construction in the RSD and the tremendous competition for school monies. Dr. Shaheen argued in his memo that taking no action would compound the segregation problem.
Dr. Shaheen's memo also related findings made by educational researchers, including:
School achievement in urban America would not improve without economic and ethnic integration;
Failure to achieve such integration could result in the enlargement of the urban ghetto;
The most expensive cost to a school district in terms of the placement of children, is a system of rigid and fixed boundary lines, which was illustrated at that time by problems at Johnson School in the RSD. (Johnson, 100% white in 1970, was overcrowded and a failure to adjust boundary lines to solve that overcrowding would have resulted in expenses for added teachers and/or rooms.);
Compensatory education is extremely expensive;
Integration results in better achievement for low-achievers; and
Integration does not result in lower achievement for high achievers.
Dr. Shaheen supported the proposals in Dr. Swanson's plan because the plan complied with desegregation laws, provided school assignment changes for a comparatively small number of students and maintained the neighborhood school for most students while recognizing the need to balance achievement levels, and saved millions of dollars. Id.
On February 25, 1969, the RBE gave qualified approval to the middle school proposal, subject to reviewing 1038 specific maps to be submitted *1038 defining the secondary districts and the feeder patterns involved. A RBE
Member expressed his opposition to making the new Eisenhower and Kennedy Middle Schools racially balanced and related to Dr. Shaheen that he hoped Shaheen "never put those African-Americans over in the Eisenhower School." T. Shaheen Test., Tr. at 91.

On April 14, 1969, the RBE approved the middle school proposal along with a policy that restructuring should take into consideration the prevention of segregation by race, color and nationality. However, in June 1970, a newly elected School Board voted to cancel the middle school proposal before it began.
The Veritas, REA and the RSD Principals' 1970 Redistricting Proposals
In 1970, Bill Page, the former principal of Stiles School and the head of the RSD's Community Open Schools Program, spoke to the Board and recommended that the RSD cross the Rock River when selecting schools to which students would be assigned, thus eliminating racial imbalance. Data was available showing that all high schools in the district could be integrated if there was simply some reassignment between Guilford and West High School students changing places. Bd.Min., 1/12/70, B12435; Veritas, 1/70, B505153.
Mr. Page was also the Chair of Veritas, a newsletter published by the Rockford Schoolmasters, Inc., a conglomeration of RSD educators. Page Test., Tr. at 594. The January, 1970 issue of Veritas contained various proposals regarding school redistricting from the members of Veritas, the REA and the "Principal's Proposal" 0907 a proposal developed by RSD principals. The Veritas group, the REA and the RSD principals all agreed that the proposals developed by the RSD Administration and approved by the RBE fell short of sincerely meeting the needs of the RSD's students. The Principal's Proposal suggested immediately implementing an orientation program directed toward human relations, a program that had been suggested three years previously by the PPC. The Principal's Proposal also stated that the District must deal with the problem of racial isolation. Id. at 596; Veritas, 1/70, B505153.
The REA Proposal suggested "complete and total integration of all Rockford Schools" with no school having a minority population of more than 20%. The foundation of the REA Proposal was the pairing of elementary schools [8] for the purpose of insuring racial and achievement level integration. Id. The advantages of school pairings were said to be the mixing of achievement levels in order to raise, not only educational achievement levels for all, but to expand understanding of different cultures. Id.
The Veritas proposal was designed to balance racial populations throughout the high schools in the RSD. The most important feature of the Veritas plan was that it drew high school districts that ignored the Rock River. Unlike virtually all other RSD boundary maps, the map drawn by the Veritas staff contained high school boundaries that crossed the Rock River. Page Test., Tr. at 597. The Veritas plan also involved elementary school pairing that concentrated on achievement level mixing. The drafters of the Veritas plan did not use the term "racial mixing" because, in Rockford, "it was not looked upon favorably to racially mix schools." Accordingly, the drafters thought that if the elementary schools were paired by achievement levels, the schools would automatically become racially mixed. The RBE did not take action on Mr. Page's proposals to cross the Rock River in districting the RSD or on the proposals of the REA, the RSD Principals, or the members of Veritas. Id. at 603.
New School Construction in 1969-71
In November of 1967, the RBE received approval through a tax referendum for new school construction. Additions were built in 1968-69 at Vandercook, Hillman, Garrison, Ellis, Walker, Gregory, McIntosh, Nelson and Rolling Green Schools. In 1968, Beyer School was built by the RSD and in 1969-70, Carlson and Haight Schools 1039 were built. In *1039 addition, the RSD built and opened J.F. Kennedy Junior High School in September of 1970 and Eisenhower Junior High School in 1971.
In 1971, the Area Vocational Center, a new construction, was opened. According to Dr. Shaheen, no attention whatsoever was given to attempting to further racial integration, lessen racial segregation or integrate students of different achievement levels in the different parts of the RSD in the planning or selecting of locations for these additions and new facilities. Shaheen Letter to U.S. Dept. of Justice, 6/13/69, D23510-D23529.

1969 Elementary School Attendance Area Boundary Changes and Reassignments
On July 10, 1969, the RBE approved a number of boundary changes that were recommended by Superintendent Shaheen in order to adjust capacity in light of the construction of additions to schools and in order to deal with overcrowding. The following findings detail these boundary changes.
First, the north boundary of West View School in the Northeast Quadrant was moved south from the City limits to Riverside Boulevard, transferring eighty to ninety children from the West View District (0% African-American) to Elmwood School (less than 1% African-American), about two miles away. In light of the increased distance to school, the RSD agreed to provide transportation for these students.
Next, the boundaries of Garrison, Haskell, Church, McIntosh and Ellis Schools were adjusted. The RBE had recently completed additions on Garrison, McIntosh and Ellis Schools. All of these schools were in the west end section of the Southwest Quadrant of Rockford.
Third, the Garrison School attendance area was expanded to include four blocks that were formerly part of the Haskell School zone immediately to the south and west. This transferred about 110 former Haskell students to Garrison and made space for approximately the same number of students from the Fairgrounds Valley Housing Development in the area to attend Haskell School. The percentages of African-American student populations in these schools were Garrison 0% and Haskell 44% in 1968-69 and Garrison 11% and Haskell 62% in 1970-71.[9]
Fourth, the boundaries of McIntosh School were increased to include portions of the former Church and Ellis School attendance areas. Fifth, the boundary between Church and McIntosh Schools was moved three blocks east, transferring about seventeen City blocks into the McIntosh school zone. This boundary change transferred about seventy elementary school children from Church to McIntosh, creating sufficient space in Church School to accommodate students from the Fairgrounds Housing Development.
Sixth, the boundary between Ellis and McIntosh School was adjusted in the southeast corner of the McIntosh area and the northwest corner of the Ellis area to allow for the transfer of about 95 students from Ellis to McIntosh. The African-American student percentages were as follows:

School

% AfricanAmerican 1968-69

% AfricanAmerican 1970-71

Church

4%

17%

Ellis

36%

65%

McIntosh

28%

35%

All of these schools were in an area of a growing percentage of African-American population at the time. In addition, in 1970, the RSD canceled the busing of Fairground students to Walker School and returned them to Ellis following the 1970-71 year.

Also in July of 1969, the RSD made several more changes. In the Southeast Quadrant, along the Rock River, the southern portion of the Kishwaukee area, which later became the Beyer School area, had, since 1963, been included in the Washington Junior High and West High attendance areas. The RSD transferred all fifth and sixth grade students from this portion of the Kishwaukee School area to Washington Junior High for sixth and seventh grade. (The students were already in the Washington zone for junior high purposes.) All of the fifth grade students from Franklin School, which was on the west side of the Rock River in downtown Rockford and which 1040 had the southern half of its zone *1040 already in the Washington Junior High attendance zone, were transferred to Washington for sixth grade.

Although many students in both of these zones lived more than 1.5 miles from Washington Junior High School, the Board made no provision for transportation as was provided for the West View School students. The percentages of African-American students in the schools in 1968-69 were: Franklin, 45%; Kishwaukee 20%; and Washington, 66%. In 1970-71, those percentages were: Franklin, 55%; Kishwaukee, 25%; and Washington, 52%.
The RSD reassigned all sixth grade students in the Alpine and Gregory School attendance areas, on the far east portion of the Southeast Quadrant, to seventh grade at Gregory School because of an addition to that school. Sixth grade students from Vandercook School, in the extreme southeast corner of the Southeast Quadrant, were transferred to the seventh grade at Buckbee School, about one and one-half miles away. The percentages of African-Americans in these schools in 1968-69 and 1970-71, respectively, were as follows: Alpine, 1% and 1%; Gregory, 0% and.5%; Buckbee, no data for 1968-69 and 0%; and Vandercook, 0% and 0%.
Student assignments in the Southeast Quadrant were also changed. Sixth graders from Rock River Elementary School were transferred to Lincoln Junior High School for seventh grade. Sixth graders from Riverdahl were transferred to Morris Kennedy School for seventh grade. This decision, however, was reversed by the RBE in June of 1970. The percentages of African-Americans in the student populations in these schools in the year 1968-69 were: Riverdahl, 2%; Morris Kennedy, data unavailable for 1968-69; Rock River, 40%; and Lincoln Junior High, 1%. Bd.Min., 7/10/69, B12216; Boundary Change/Attendance Data, B45764; B45753; B45755; B45749.
The RSD district-wide percentages of African-American elementary students were 15% in 1968-69 and 12% in 1970-71. This decrease was due to the interim annexation by the RSD of a number of white elementary schools. The above boundary changes and reassignments in 1969 maintained and increased segregation in the RSD.
Walker and Carlson Busing of Public Housing Children
On July 10, 1969, the RBE voted 4-2 to send about 150 African-American students from two public housing projects to elementary schools outside of their neighborhoods. Bd.Min., 7/10/69. The purpose of this reassignment was to integrate schools and reduce overcrowding.
Approximately 100 students from the public housing development of Jane Adams Village in the Southeast Quadrant of Rockford, the Kishwaukee Elementary School area, were to be transported to the newly-constructed Carlson School in the Northeast Quadrant. About fifty students from the Fairgrounds Valley Housing Development, in the area of Haskell, Church, Ellis and Franklin Schools, were to be transported to Walker School, located south of the Rockford Country Club Golf Course, predominantly in the Northwest Quadrant along the Rock River in the National Avenue area of Rockford. The RBE provided transportation for these students. Id.
The students were sent to their respective new schools for the 1969-70 school year. In April of 1970, a new School Board was elected with three members from the Community Education Committee.[10] Later that same month, the RBE began to reconsider these pilot student reassignment projects. Marcella Harris, testified that she visited Carlson School on several occasions and observed that the program was highly successful.
On June 1, 1970, the Fairgrounds Valley parents sent a petition to the RBE asking that their children be allowed to remain at Walker School for the following year. Bd. Min., 6/1/70, B12632. On June 22, 1970, the RBE, with one 1041 dissent, voted to discontinue *1041 the busing program to Carlson School and return the children to the neighborhood schools for the 1970-71 school year and to discontinue the Walker School Busing Program after the 1970-71 school year. The reason given for the additional year of the Walker School Busing Program was that there was not enough space in the neighborhood schools for the children living at Fairgrounds Valley. The children from the Jane Adams Housing Project were returned to their home school, Kishwaukee. In 1969, Kishwaukee was 20% African-American. In 1970-71, the year in which the Jane Adams children were returned to Kishwaukee, the school was approximately 25% African-American and had more African-American students than in any year thereafter. Kishwaukee School was enrolled at 147% of capacity. Kishwaukee was built in 1921 and no additions were ever put on the school.

Carlson was built in 1970. After the removal of the Jane Adams children, Carlson was at only 91% of its capacity and was 98% white. The RBE's decision to remove these children from Carlson School and assign them to Kishwaukee segregated both schools and submitted these children to grossly over-crowded conditions in an extremely old facility.
On January 25, 1971, the RBE determined that at the end of that school year the students from Fairgrounds Valley would be transferred from Walker to Ellis and Muldoon Schools. Muldoon was an old, previously closed, Catholic girls' school, that had recently been purchased from the Archdiocese of Rockford. Muldoon was opened as a RSD school for only one year before it was closed down and its students dispersed to several different schools throughout the RSD. During the 1971-72 school year, grades one through three were located at Ellis and grades four through six were located at Muldoon. In the prior school year, 1970-71, Ellis was overcrowded at 109% of its capacity and had a 65% African-American student population. For the 1971-72 school year, with the temporary use of Muldoon School, the crowding was somewhat alleviated, but both Ellis and Muldoon had African-American student populations of 69% and 70%, respectively. Walker School, on the other hand, was under capacity in both years. After the removal of the Fairgrounds Valley students, Walker School went from being 90% white to being 99% white. Bd.Min., 1/25/71, B12953.
Muldoon School was purchased by the RSD in 1971, because the RBE had decided to transfer the Fairgrounds Valley Housing Development students from Walker back to Ellis, but Ellis was overcrowded. The boundary of Ellis School was less than 1.5 miles from Walker School. The RBE's decision to remove these students from Walker and assign them to Ellis and Muldoon increased segregation at all schools and submitted the African-American students to overcrowded and substandard conditions.
Construction of John F. Kennedy and Eisenhower Junior High Schools
In the late 1960's, Rockford had five junior high schools, three on the west side of the Rock River (Wilson, Roosevelt and Washington) and two on the east side of the Rock River (Lincoln and Jefferson). All five schools were generally in the central or southern area of the city. The northernmost junior high school at that time was Roosevelt, which was a few blocks south of Auburn Street on the west side. The two new junior high schools that were constructed in 1970 and 1971 were John F. Kennedy on the northwest side and Eisenhower on the northeast side. Both of these schools were located significantly farther to the north than any of the preexisting junior high schools. In 1971, Jefferson Junior High School was closed and Morris Kennedy Elementary was converted to a junior high school in essentially the same general area on the southeast side.
In 1967-68, the African-American percentages at the junior high schools were as follows:

Wilson Roosevelt Washington Lincoln Jefferson

22% 8%
50% 0% 5%.

Eisenhower Junior High was opened as a 99.65% white school and John F. Kennedy Junior High was opened as 1042 a 99.34% white *1042 junior high. The preexisting junior high schools had the following African-American
populations in 1971-72:

Wilson Roosevelt Washington Morris Kennedy (formerly Jefferson)

38% 18% 54%
8%.

The RSD was 8-10% African-American in 1967-68 and was 12% African-American in 1971-72.
Morris Kennedy was a temporary replacement for Jefferson Junior High School. At the end of the 1977-78 school year, Morris Kennedy was closed, and replaced the following year by Flinn Junior High School on the southeast side. Flinn Junior High opened with fifty-seven African-American students. There were forty-one African-American students at Morris Kennedy when it closed. Flinn opened with 1095 white students while Morris Kennedy had 518 white students when it closed. Flinn opened with an African-American student population of 4.68% and Morris Kennedy closed with a 7% African-American student population.
From 1978 through 1989, Flinn School was never more than 8% African-American. In the 1977-78 school year, Lincoln had 980 whites and the following year it had 627 whites. The 350 white students were transferred to Flinn, thereby greatly increasing the white percentage and decreasing the African-American percentage at Flinn.
In February of 1969, Superintendent Thomas Shaheen warned the RBE that if the two new junior high schools that were scheduled to be built were to be given student assignment areas on the "neighborhood school concept," they would further racial isolation of the schools. Again Superintendent Shaheen's report received no action by the RBE.
On January 13, 1969, Rev. William Collins on behalf of the PPC urged the RBE not to use the so-called "neighborhood school" basis of assignment for the new junior high school. Rev. Collins predicted that building these two middle schools in the northern portions of Rockford would create two high-achieving white middle schools. The detrimental effect of the placement of these middle schools would be to draw off higher-achieving students into these new schools, which would then negatively impact the achievement levels of the middle schools in the middle portion of Rockford, Roosevelt and Lincoln, and result in Washington and Wilson becoming the lowest achieving middle schools in Rockford. He further predicted that it would lead to further deterioration of the neighborhoods served by Roosevelt, Wilson, and Washington Junior High Schools. B2840-B2845. Despite all data and warning to the contrary, the two middle schools both opened up as all-white middle schools serving their "neighborhood" populations.
Proposals in 1966-67 to Close Old Schools in the Central Rockford Area
Many of the west side African-American and integrated schools in the late 1960's and early 1970's, were both overcrowded and in poor condition. In October of 1966, Superintendent Shaheen recommended the closing of Garrison, Montague and Hall schools because of extremely bad conditions at these schools. All of these schools were located in central Rockford, along the Rock River.
Garrison (1% African-American in 1967) and Montague (70% African-American in 1967) were on the west side of the Rock River and Hall (22% African-American in 1967) was on the east side of the Rock River in the downtown Rockford area. B506071; B21810. Garrison was a school that bordered on an area of the city containing a large African-American population. By 1967, school officials had been recommending that Garrison be torn down for thirty years. Garrison was the oldest school in the RSD, having been built in 1887. B502575. The immediately adjacent school to the south along the Rock River was Haskell, which was 37% African-American in 1967.
In 1966, Superintendent Shaheen appointed a citizen's committee to review the facilities needs of the RSD. In January of 1967, the committee recommended the destruction and replacement of Church, Ellis, Garrison and Montague Schools. Church, like Garrison, was a boundary school between the African-American and white 1043 communities on the Westside. In 1967, Church was all white, in *1043 spite of the fact that it was surrounded on three sides by schools with large concentrations of African-American students: Haskell, to the east, was 37% African-American; Ellis, to the south, was 50% African-American; and newly opened McIntosh, to the west, was 20% African-American. The area on the north side of Church School was outside of the City of Rockford and contained the Whig Hill School District, which was all white. Bd. Min., 12/3/67, B11448.

The closing of white boundary schools would logically have forced integration of the white students with AfricanAmerican students in the adjoining attendance areas. This was especially true in the case of Church School, where all of the surrounding schools within the district had significant numbers of African-American students. Along these same lines, the prospect of closing schools such as Montague or Ellis, with sizeable AfricanAmerican populations, would pose the question of where to send the African-American students. In spite of long standing and numerous recommendations to close Church, Ellis, Garrison and Montague Schools, the RSD did not close Garrison until 1989. Montague School was closed in 1971. Church and Ellis Schools remain open.
Closing of Hall School
Hall School, in downtown Rockford on the east side of the Rock River, had an enrollment of 207 students and was 22% African-American in 1967. PPC Report, 1968, B505856. Immediately to the east of Hall was Jackson School, which was under capacity with 459 students and was 98% white in 1967. South of Hall was Kishwaukee School. Kishwaukee was an overcrowded school with 11% African-American students in 1967.
In 1970, when Hall School was closed, the RSD's Attendance Director, Betty Thro, recommended putting all of Hall's Kindergarten through fifth grade students in Jackson School and one sixth grade in Nelson School, a 0-1% African-American school to the south of Jackson. RSD Memo, B45716. Instead, all of Hall School's attendance area, except for sixteen blocks on the south end which were nearest the Kishwaukee area and the heavily African-American Jane Adams Village Housing Development in the Kishwaukee attendance zone, was incorporated into Jackson School.
The African-Americans in the old Hall School attendance area lived predominantly on the south end, in the area of Jane Adams Village. Those students were placed into Kishwaukee School. As a result of only receiving the white students from Hall School, Jackson remained 98% white in 1970-71.
In 1968, the Kishwaukee area was split in half by the construction of Beyer School to the south of Kishwaukee. As a result of the addition of the south fringe of the Hall area and the subtraction of the Beyer's School area to the south, by 1970-71, Kishwaukee remained over crowded at 147% of its capacity and was 25% AfricanAmerican.
Beyer School had an attendance area carved out of the south half of the former Kishwaukee School area and was 14% African-American in 1970-71. By dividing the Hall School area as it did, the RSD maintained Jackson School as a racially-identifiable white school and confined a significant percentage of the African-American students who lived on the east side of the Rock River to three districts: Kishwaukee, Beyer and Rock River.
Closing of Montague School
Montague School, across the Rock River from Kishwaukee and in the Southwest Quadrant, was 22% AfricanAmerican in 1967. PPc Report, B505856. Montague remained open until 1971. In the 1970-71 school year, Montague had an enrollment of 221 students and was 69% African-American.
In the Fall of 1971, the RBE considered sending the Montague fifth grade students to Washington Middle School, a racially identifiable African-American school in the Southwest Quadrant. Bd.Min., 11/1/71, B12924. Instead, the RBE rented space at St. Peter and St. Paul School, one block south of Washington. Bd.Min., 12/5/71, B12957. The RSD was under considerable pressure to move these students because Montague School was not in compliance with the State Fire Code. Bd.Min., 2/22/71, B12991. Substantial community pressure existed to bus 1044 the Montague students to an existing public *1044 school with capacity rather than moving the children to St. Peter and St. Paul School.
On February 16, 1971, approximately twenty Montague elementary students were removed from their classes by their parents and taken to Carlson Elementary School where the parents asked that their children be enrolled. Carlson School had available capacity since the Jane Adams Housing Project students, who had previously been

bused there, had been sent back to Kishwaukee School by the RBE. Bd.Min., 7/10/69, B12223. The students were not allowed to enroll at Carlson because they did not have the permission of the RBE.
At its February meeting, the RBE heard from the West Side Community Organization (hereinafter "WESCO"), the Montague School staff, Grant Schneider, the Area 4 Chair of the RSD, Rosa Stamps of the Concerned Parents of Montague School and others that the Montague students should be immediately moved to the then empty Page Park School northwest of Rockford. Despite the unsafe conditions at Montague and despite community concern, the RBE found that Montague was adequate to continue to house students for another four months, until the end of the school year. Bd.Min., 2/22/71, B12993.
In response to the RBE's refusal to remove these mostly African-American children from what was believed to be a dangerous facility, the parents and students began a boycott of the school. See Bd.Min., 3/8/71, B13013. On March 4, 1971, the parents agreed to end the boycott and return their children to school. Id. On March 8, 1971 the RBE agreed to transport Montague students to Page Park School for the remainder of the school year. Parents of these students were also given the option of transporting their children themselves to Barbour (52% African-American), Beyer (14% African-American) or Kishwaukee (25% African-American) schools. Barbour was adjacent to the old Montague School area to the west, and Kishwaukee and Beyer were immediately across the Rock River to the east. No other options were offered. Id.
In the 1971-72 school year, ninety-six of the Montague students, 85% of them African-American, were bused to Page Park. Beyer School received students from Montague School and increased its student population from 14% African-American to 33% African-American. Barbour School also received students from Montague and increased its student population from 52% African-American to 64% African-American. Kishwaukee, which was grossly overcrowded in the 1970-71 school year, received no Montague students. Carlson School, where the Montague parents wished to send their children, also received no students from Montague and continued to operate well under capacity at a student population of 98% white. The reassignments of Montague students furthered segregation in the RSD's elementary schools.
Construction of Martin Luther King School
In October of 1971, the RBE began to take bids for the construction of a new school at the site of the old Montague School. Bd. Min., 10/11/71, B13146. In 1972, Martin Luther King School was opened on the site of the old Montague School. In the 1972-73 school year, King School had 275 students, 84% of whom were AfricanAmerican. No consideration was given to a boundary adjustment or any other measure to diminish this level of segregation at the new King School.
Marcella Harris, believed that the RBE's goal was to tear down Montague School, preserve the land and rebuild on that site to maintain an all-African-American neighborhood school. Ms. Harris suggested that the RBE not rebuild on that site because growth in that neighborhood, as proved by census track analysis, was not feasible. Ms. Harris recommended examining other areas in which to build another elementary school.
Ms. Harris specifically recommended to the RBE that they create a magnet school in the downtown area to avoid further isolation and segregation of minority students. She had looked at a vacated department store that could have been restored. The location was accessible to all avenues of the community and was close to public 1045 transportation. Ms. Harris discussed the idea with the RBE *1045 and with the Superintendent. Ms. Harris' proposal was never implemented. Harris Test., Tr. at 637-640.
The RBE's failure to choose an option like the magnet school idea proposed by Marcella Harris in favor of building what they knew would be a racially-identifiable and isolated African-American school furthered segregation in the RSD. The court notes that there was testimony that some members of the African-American community wanted King School to be constructed on the Montague site.

Closing of Franklin School
In 1971, at the same time that the RSD closed Montague School, the RBE also closed the school immediately north of Montague, Franklin School. Id. at 637; Bd.Min., 1/25/71, B12956. The Franklin attendance area was in the Southwest Quadrant on the west bank of the Rock River, between the Montague and Haskell areas. Immediately across the Rock River from Franklin, on the east side of the river, were the Kishwaukee and Jackson School areas. In its last year of operation, 1970-71, Franklin had 198 students, 55% of them were AfricanAmerican. Although Kishwaukee School was badly over-crowded, Jackson School was operating well under capacity.
In 1971-72, Jackson was 109 students below its capacity of 544. Jackson School was also 99.31% white, having one Asian, two Hispanic students and no African-Americans in its student body of 435. The furthest parts of the Franklin School attendance area were less than 1.5 miles from Jackson School. Even if all of the Franklin students had been assigned to Jackson School, and all of those students actually attended Jackson, Jackson School would have operated at only 116% of its capacity, a level of operation that was common in the RSD for many Eastside and some Westside elementary schools. In fact, at least seven RSD elementary schools were above 116% of their CDB capacity in 1971-72.[11] Jackson School would have become integrated with the addition of the Franklin students.
The Franklin attendance area, in the center of the city, was connected to the Eastside of the city by three major bridges across the Rock River: Chestnut Street/Walnut Street, State Street and Jefferson Street. Attendance Boundary Maps, 1967-68, B38708; 1971-71, B38719. Students from that area could easily have attended Jackson School. The RSD, however, did not transfer any of the Franklin students to Jackson, but rather divided them between two neighboring predominantly African-American schools.
Haskell School, to the north of Franklin School, received the northern quarter of the Franklin attendance area, and went from a 62% African-American student population to a 64% African-American student population in 1971-72. The remainder of the Franklin students were assigned to Ellis School, the area immediately to the west. Ellis School went from 65% African-American student population to 69% African-American student population from 1970-71 to 1971-72.
In the same year, Ellis not only underwent expansion to include the Franklin attendance area, but was also split into two locations with the temporary addition of Muldoon School in the 1971-72 school year, and the return of the African-American students from the Fairgrounds Valley Housing Development who had previously been bused to Walker School as part of the Walker-Carlson busing program. The RSD thereby increased segregation in two African-American schools rather than integrate an equally available white school.
Packing of White Schools to Maintain Segregation in the 1970's and 1980's
Throughout the 1970's and early 1980's, the RSD engaged in a pattern of overcrowding white children into racially-identifiable white schools. These schools would have had racial balances closer to the district-wide average if their boundaries had been adjusted to balance their utilization.
1046 Three Northeast Quadrant racially-identifiable white schools were over capacity. Bell *1046 Elementary School, a far northeast school, had a CDB capacity of 145. From 1971 to 1978, Bell never had more than one minority student (one African-American student in two years and one Native American in two years). From 1970 to 1974, Bell School had no minority students whatsoever. From 1971 to 1979, Bell School operated at or greater than 123% of capacity. In the 1979-80 school year, Bell School enrolled three minority students, one Native American, one African-American and one Hispanic and Bell's capacity dropped to 112%. In the 1980-81 school year, Bell had seven African-Americans and two Asians and Bell's capacity dropped to 105%. The school was then closed, even though it was still operating over capacity at 105%. During the same years, the three neighboring

elementary schools, Spring Creek, Brookview and Guilford Center, were all under capacity and were integrated or had a significant minority population as a result of the busing of African-American students from Muldoon School.
Carlson, the furthest north of the Northeast side schools, operated between 112% and 128% of its CDB capacity of 446 from 1973 through 1978. During that time, the African-American student population at Carlson increased from 1% to 7%. During the 1977-78 school year, 19% of the RSD's elementary students were African-American. During the same years, the neighboring elementary school, Spring Creek, was integrated due to AfricanAmerican students being bused in from the Muldoon area. Spring Creek School operated at the following capacity levels:

Spring Creek Enrollment

1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78

84% of CDB 87% of CDB 82% of CDB 77% of CDB 70% of CDB.

Spring Creek had sufficient capacity to take all of the "excess" students from Carlson. In the 1977-78 school year, Carlson was 7% African-American and its capacity dropped to 92%. Thereafter, Carlson's capacity continued to decline while at the same time the percentage of African-American students attending Carlson rose.

Highland Elementary School, in the mid-Northeast Quadrant, operated at between 105% to 163% of its CDB capacity of 373 until fourteen African-American students arrived in 1975-76. The African-American students were Muldoon closing students. Prior to that, Highland was almost completely white with only two African-American students in 1970-71 and in 1971-72. During the same time, the two nearest elementary schools, Bloom and Johnson, which had substantial numbers of African-American students bused in from the Muldoon attendance area after 1972, had excess capacity. In the 1975-76 school year, Highland School dropped below its CDB capacity. The addition of twenty more African-American students raised Highland slightly above its CDB capacity the following year, but capacity dropped steadily thereafter as African-American enrollment increased. Highland School was closed after the 1980-81 school year with its student body at almost 16% African-American.

Riverdahl Elementary School, in the south central portion of the Southeast side near the Rock River, was operated over capacity from 1970 to 1976. Riverdahl had a minority student population of between 4 and 12% from 1970 to 1989, although it was 12% minority for only one year in 1977-78. Riverdahl's minority enrollment significantly decreased from 1977 until 1989 when Riverdahl closed for two years. Riverdahl reopened in 1991-92 with a Hispanic student population of 42% and an African-American student population of 3%. Riverdahl was located very near to Rock River School, also in the Southeast Quadrant which was approximately 30% AfricanAmerican since 1970 and always had excess capacity. White students were assigned to Riverdahl despite its over-crowded condition in order to preserve segregation from 1970 to 1976.

In the early and mid 1970's, both Northeast Quadrant junior high schools, Eisenhower and Lincoln, operated in excess of CDB capacity. Eisenhower Junior High School, the farther north and east of the two, operated in 1047 excess of its CDB capacity from 1972 to *1047 1977. Eisenhower was integrated in the 1976-77 school year and has operated below its capacity ever since.

Lincoln Junior High School, just north of the line dividing the Northeast and Southeast Quadrants, was operated as much as 138% over its CDB capacity of 1244 students from 1970 to 1977. Lincoln was integrated in the 1977-78 school year and has been operated under capacity ever since, dropping down to 58% of capacity in 1988-89. All four of the Westside junior high schools operated under capacity during the same years and with substantially higher minority populations. Some of the Eastside students assigned to Eisenhower and Lincoln during those years lived closer to Roosevelt and Washington Junior High schools.

Guilford High School was operated as much as 167% in excess of its CDB capacity of 1713 from 1970 to 1982. Guilford became integrated in the 1980-81 school year and was under CDB capacity two years later, essentially remaining integrated and at or below CDB capacity ever since.
During the same time, until the 1978-79 school year, the Guilford attendance zone included most of the Northeast Quadrant and wrapped around the far East and Southeast portion of Rockford, to include the essentially all white Southeast Quadrant elementary districts of White Swan, Cherry Valley, Vandercook and Sky View. These schools were closer to the Southeast Quadrant high schools, Jefferson and East, both of which had larger percentages of African-American students than the other high schools in the RSD. The furthest south elementary school, Sky View, was 9.2 miles from its assigned high school of Guilford. The RBE was apparently willing to bus white students 9.2 miles to attend a white high school, but were unwilling to reassign white students east of the Rock River to much closer schools just west of the Rock River.
Two high schools were located on the Southeast side, East High School, which was just below the line dividing the Northeast and Southeast Quadrants (Charles Street west of Alpine Road), and Jefferson High School, to the south at two locations (before and after 1978). East High was operated over capacity from 1970 to 1990, going as high as 167%. East was integrated in the 1971-72 school year by the mandatory assignment of AfricanAmerican students from the west side in the Barbour, King and Lathrop attendance areas. The Westside students assigned to East High were not provided transportation by the RSD.
Jefferson High School operated over capacity at all times from 1970 until the new school was built. In the 1974-75 school year, Jefferson had a African-American population of 10% and wavered above and below the integration line until it became racially identifiable white with an African-American population of between 6 and 8% from 1974 until 1989. When the new high school was built in 1978, Jefferson had a capacity of 2500 students.
The new Jefferson High School was always under-capacity. The attendance area for the new Jefferson High School never included any area west of the Rock River, despite being racially-identifiable and under-capacity. RSD Boundary Maps, 1978-79, B38728; 1984-85, B38699. Nearby East High School had twice as many AfricanAmerican students and was over-capacity and desegregated for twenty years.
Closing of Morris Kennedy Elementary School in 1971
Morris Kennedy Elementary School was close to Rock River, Riverdahl and Peterson Elementary Schools. Morris Kennedy was closed and converted to a junior high school after the 1970-71 school year and its elementary students were reassigned. At the time Morris Kennedy was closed, it was 10% African-American, 69 students out of a total student population of 723.
Even though the nearest elementary schools were Rock River, Peterson and Riverdahl, the African-American students from Morris Kennedy were sent to schools that already had significant numbers of African-American students: Rock River Elementary and Beyer Elementary Schools. Beyer Elementary School was farther from Morris Kennedy than Peterson and Riverdahl. Peterson and Riverdahl, however, were almost all-white schools. 1048 Riverdahl and Peterson *1048 remained racially identifiable and isolated white schools as a result of the AfricanAmerican students from Morris Kennedy being sent to other schools.
Beyer Elementary School went from being an integrated school with a 14% African-American student population in 1970-71, to being a segregated African-American school with a 33% African-American student population in 1971-72. Beyer School had 15% more African-American students than the district-wide average of AfricanAmerican students for the next decade. Rock River Elementary School remained a segregated African-American school with 36% African-American students in 1970-71 and 38% African-American students in 1971-72, after receiving more African-American students following the closing of Morris Kennedy School. The RSD's reassignment of Morris Kennedy elementary students created and maintained segregated schools in the 1970's.

Packing of African-American Schools to Maintain Segregation
In the early 1970's, the RSD's elementary school enrollments were decreasing. In 1970, twenty-five schools were under their CDB capacity. In 1972-73, thirty-six schools were under their CDB capacity.
In 1972-73, eleven racially-identifiable African-American elementary schools existed. Those schools were Dennis, King, Ellis, Henrietta, Lathrop, Barbour, Haskell, Lincoln Park, Rock River, Beyer and McIntosh. Only three of those schools, Lathrop, Rock River and Beyer, had excess capacity. Only one of those schools, Lathrop, was west of the Rock River.
In the same year, Rockford had four integrated elementary schools, Freeman, Church, Garrison and Kishwaukee. Church, Garrison and Kishwaukee had excess CDB capacity. The remaining forty-one elementary schools in the RSD had less than 6.75% African-American students. Only fifteen did not have excess capacity.
In the 1972-73 school year, 73% of the racially-identifiable African-American elementary schools, 89% of the Westside elementary schools, 25% of the integrated schools and 35% of the racially-identifiable white schools were filled to or were over capacity. The elementary schools that contained the overwhelming majority of AfricanAmerican students in the RSD were: Barbour, King, Ellis, Henrietta, Dennis, Haskell, Lincoln Park and McIntosh. All these schools were together in a compact, contiguous area of the Southwest Quadrant. The schools were surrounded by a ring of schools to the north, east and west that were racially-identifiable white or integrated and that had excess capacity: Stiles, Whig Hill, Church, Garrison, Jackson, Wight, Kishwaukee and Welsh. On the south, the circle around these schools was completed by two racially-identifiable African-American schools that also had excess capacity, Beyer and Lathrop. During this period, the RSD crowded African-American students into Southwest Quadrant schools and failed to make reasonable alterations to boundary lines in order to distribute these African-American students to adjacent, racially-identifiable white and integrated schools with excess capacity. RSD Attendance Boundary Map, 1971-72, B38719; QUEFAC Executive Committee Min., 1/11/75, B504567.
Student Assignment and School Boundaries During the QUEFAC Lawsuit and the ISBE Investigation
In March of 1970, a lawsuit was filed against the Rockford Board of Education by the Equal Education for All Children Committee. Plaintiffs charged that the RBE racially discriminated with regard to the boundary changes in the RSD. Other groups that joined as plaintiffs were the Rockford Chapter of the National Council of Negro Women, the Parent Advisory Board of the Wilson Open School Program, Rockford School Masters, Inc., a group of local educators, the Washington Community School Advisory Board, the Westside Community Organization, a group known as "The Committee" and more than one hundred school district residents. In April of 1973, West End Cares About Rockford Environment (WE CARE) joined the pending lawsuit.
In 1971, one year after the filing of the lawsuit, Quality Education For All Children Committee (hereinafter " 1049 QUEFAC"), the *1049 State of Illinois put the Rockford Board of Education on notice that Rockford had to begin
equalizing educational opportunities in all of the Rockford public schools. Report of Regional Director of State of Illinois Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, 3/12/71, B37542. Shortly after that, the Illinois Office of Public Instruction adopted compulsory State school desegregation guidelines. ISBE Rules Establishing Requirements and Procedures for the Elimination or Prevention of Racial Segregation in Schools, 9/2/72, (ISBE Rules), B501029. School districts in Illinois were asked by the State to file a report by January 2, 1972 indicating the racial composition of their schools and the efforts that had been made toward racial balance. Superintendent Salisbury indicated that he would not file a report until he received a formal request from the State. B506190.
The formal request came in December of 1971, along with State desegregation guidelines. The desegregation guidelines put forth by the State provided that a school was racially segregated if its pupils or staff failed to reflect, within fifteen percent, the proportions of such students and staff in the district as a whole at the grade

levels maintained. See ISBE Rules, B501025. Any school district found by the State to be racially segregated would be required to submit a plan for comprehensive integration.

According to State guidelines, the plan had to be developed with the involvement of community representations, minorities, students and teachers. Burdens of the plan were to be borne by majorities and minorities alike and students could not be racially segregated within an integrated school. Id. In May of 1972, Superintendent Salisbury announced that Montague, Ellis, Church, Lincoln Park, Barbour and Dennis Elementary Schools would be designated as magnet schools in a Rockford School District integration plan. Each of these schools was located in the Southwest Quadrant and had African-American enrollments of 22.37% to 90.22%. Superintendent Salisbury stated that one of the features of "magnet" schools would be that the schools would have open enrollment, meaning that any student from anywhere in the school district could choose to attend one of those schools. The magnet school program evolved into what was eventually called the "target school" proposal as put forth by Superintendent Salisbury in May of 1972.

On July 10, 1972, the RBE approved the target school program in order to give six RSD schools additional help, including additional funds, teacher aides and money for extra materials, in order to overcome low achievement. B508267-B508270; B508822-B508825. The six schools were Lincoln Park, Dennis, Ellis, Barbour, Church and Montague. The purpose of the target school was to provide compensatory education to low-achieving schools as opposed to bringing students into the schools from other areas of the district. The net result was that the program had no effect on desegregation.

In July of 1974, the RSD received a report indicating that the target schools were not improving and that the school test scores were below the city-wide average achievement levels. B31159-B31173. After this report, the RBE made the following changes in an effort to improve to the target school program:

1. Gave $100 to the petty cash fund of each school;

2. Provided $2 per student for field trips;

3. Set up a swimming program at the Y;

4. Provided each school with two teacher aides;

5. Provided each school with in-service training seminars; and

6. Set up an advisory council.

Bd.Min., 9/9/74, B14557. Little or no improvement in the academic achievement levels in the six target schools resulted from these changes.

In September of 1972, the State of Illinois informed the RSD that it had not met the school desegregation guidelines set forth by the ISBE and directed the RSD to immediately develop a comprehensive desegregation plan. The State found that:

1050

Buildings erected and boundaries changed since 1964 have increased, rather than decreased the rising minority enrollment percentages *1050 in non-compliance attendance centers.

Vakalis Letter to Salisbury, 9/12/72, B500582. The RBE met and discussed the directive from the State. The Board set up a Citizens' Committee to develop a comprehensive desegregation plan. Bd.Min., 9/25/72, B13533B13535; Walhout Test., Tr. at 379.

The Community Desegregation Committee

The Rockford Board of Education formed the Community Desegregation Committee (hereinafter "CDC") by selecting fifteen different groups of organizations, representing a cross-section of the community. Walhout Test., Tr. at 379. In January of 1973, the RBE requested that the CDC consider a proposal to have a 0% to 25% minority enrollment in each school in the RSD. In other words, the RBE requested guidelines that would indicate

that any school with under a 25% minority population would still be in conformity with the desegregation plan. Id. at 383. The RBE was all white at the time of that request. Since the RSD had slightly less than a 15% minority student population, the 0-25% range would have technically been legal under the State guidelines. Under the 0-25% plan, all-white schools would not have been required to integrate. Additionally, the 0-25% plan would have involved much greater movement by minority students than by white students.

The CDC eventually rejected the RBE's proposal and instead recommended a minority population range of 7%-21%, thereby requiring integration in all schools. The Board, in turn, rejected the CDC proposal and proposed a plan that set no numerical goals for minority student populations.

In April of 1973, after extensive thought, planning and dedication from hundreds of Rockford's concerned citizens, the CDC presented to the RBE a desegregation plan that would take place in two phases, the end result being that by the end of the 1974-75 school year all RSD schools would reflect the minority population of the district plus or minus 7%, that is, 7-21% Phase I was to take place from April 1, 1973 through September of 1973. Phase II was to take place from September of 1973 through June of 1975.

Along with the two-phased plan, the CDC recommended to the RBE that all future decisions involving boundary changes, closing of schools, construction of new schools and the like, be done with the primary consideration of maintaining an integrated school system throughout the schools. The CDC also suggested that the Board seriously consider establishing a School Board elected by geographic districts rather than the single, RSD-wide electoral district that was being used.

In 1973, an Illinois Institute of Technology Research (hereinafter "IITR") computer study reported that, if the RSD were to comply with the 7-21% minority enrollment guideline, some reassignment of high school students would be necessary. The study determined that, if the 7-21% minority population range was instituted, the racial percentage in RSD high schools would be affected in the following manner:

1. Auburn High School would go from 30.6% minority in the 1972-73 school year to 20% minority.

2. East High School would go from 9.6% minority to 7% minority.

3. Guilford High School would go from .6% minority to 7% minority.

4. Jefferson High School would go from 6.7% minority to 8% minority.

5. West High School would go from 15.5% minority to 14% minority.

See M. Dickover Test., Tr. at 549.

In April of 1973, the RBE presented its desegregation plan to the ISBE, rejecting the detailed plan formulated by the CDC. RBE Plan, 4/26/73, B500511-B500514; M. Dickover Test., Tr. at 560; Walhout Test., Tr. at 387. The RBE plan was very general, had no timetable, did not require any specific minority enrollment percentage guidelines and had no mandatory reassignment provisions. The RBE adopted a three-page document listing objectives, "the plan" and administrative recommendations.

The plan consisted of fourteen one-sentence "points" as follows:

1. An administrative staff member to oversee and implement the plan;

1051

*1051 2. Immediate development and implementation of extensive programs for in-service training of staff at all levels throughout the entire district to be evaluated and expanded on a long-term basis;

3. The establishment of at least three magnet schools during the 1973-74 school year, with transportation to be provided for students over 1.5 miles from school;

4. Seek all Federal and State funding;

5. Changes in boundaries and the use of school pairings to prevent minority isolation using IITR and other attendance data, taking care that such changes did not continue the isolation of children from low income families;
6. Active recruitment of minority personnel and integration of personnel throughout the RSD;
7. Encourage and facilitate open enrollment for minority students into all schools in the majority areas with available space and for majority students into all schools in the minority areas with available space, as well as develop
(a) a supportive community-wide program to promote such open enrollment and provide transportation for families involved; and
(b) opportunities for open enrollment were to be available only from May 1, 1973 to June 1, 1973 and then closed;
8. Request the cooperation of the City Counsel, the Rockford Housing Authority, the Winnebago County Housing Authority, the Rockford Human Relations Commission, the Winnebago County Board, the Township Board and the Real Estate Board in improving the implementation of the city open housing law;
9. Pay the transportation charges for those students riding Rockford mass transit for students willing to change schools in order to aid in desegregation;
10. Consider desegregation a priority whenever new construction of buildings was planned;
11. Review and evaluate the IITR study;
12. Closing of schools where the schools were not adequate for normal school operation. Such buildings might be used for special purposes;
13. Institute an improved comprehensive achievement testing program to better determine achievement levels of Rockford schools. Tests were to evaluate items such as self image, citizenship and attitudes as well as reading, writing and arithmetic;
14. Voluntary plan for the desegregation of the schools subject to continuous evaluation by the administration and the RBE throughout its usage.
RBE Plan, 4/26/73, B500511-B500514.
Judge Bauer, in August of 1973, rejected the RBE plan, describing it as inadequate. Judge Bauer stated:
From the facts set forth above, there appears to be problems of underachievers ... poor facilities and supplies in certain schools in the RSD.... The present School Board's voluntary desegregation plan and its other programs did not seem to be adequately meeting and solving these problems.
Quality Education for All Children, Inc. v. School Board., Etc., 362 F.Supp. 985, 1000-1002 (N.D.Ill.1973).
Closing of Muldoon School and Clustering
In the early 1970's, the RBE developed two specific actions as part of the Board's overall desegregation plan. Both of these specific actions resulted in mandatory busing, even though the RBE had stated several times its opposition to mandatory busing. The mandatory busing that was required was required of minority students.
The first action involved the closing of Muldoon Elementary School in the Southwest Quadrant. Muldoon was closed in 1972. Muldoon area students were bused to four elementary schools in the Northeast Quadrant of 1052 Rockford. Driscoll Report, B24820; Blackwell Letter, 10/1/80, B28891. In 1971-72, *1052 Muldoon was 70%

minority. The four schools and their racial percentages in 1971-72 were Spring Creek, 99% white, Bloom, 100% white, Johnson, 100% white, and Guilford Center, 96% white.
David Hauman, one of the two RBE members who had voted against the Board's plan, wrote an editorial in a Rockford newspaper. In his editorial, Mr. Hauman said:
I believe that the implications of this discrepancy are very evident. The Board displays a great deal of concern about the potential busing of majority students; it doesn't display nearly as much concern about busing minority students. This is a flagrant violation of Section 5.6 of the [ISBE] guidelines which say that the inconvenience or burdens occasioned by desegregation should be shared by all and not borne disproportionately by pupils and parents of racially identified groups.
Rockford Register Star, 5/5/73, B506260.
A document prepared by the RSD showed that by 1980, the Muldoon neighborhood children were attending nineteen different schools throughout the RSD, their neighborhood school never having been replaced. B28891. As the court has pointed out many times, throughout the history of the RSD, there has never been mandatory busing of students from Eastside schools to Westside schools.
The second action consisted of clustering student enrollments among Conklin, 100% white, Haskell, 63% AfricanAmerican, and Haight, 96% white, Elementary Schools on the Northwest side and exchanging some students between Whitehead, 100% white, and Rock River, 42.52% African-American, on the Southeast side. This plan left the schools on the Southwest side, which were racially-identifiable minority, and the racially-identifiable white schools, totally unaffected. A comprehensive clustering plan was never implemented in the RSD.
Reassignment of Lincoln Park Sixth Grade and Use of Portable Classrooms
In June of 1973, sixth grade students in predominantly African-American Lincoln Park Elementary School were told that because of overcrowding, they must transfer to either Stiles Elementary, John F. Kennedy Middle or Wilson Middle Schools. In 1972-73, Lincoln Park was at 114% of its capacity with 532 students. Less than one month later, on July 23, 1973, the RBE approved a motion to move portable classrooms to Bell and Vandercook Schools, all-white schools in the Northeast Quadrant, in order to solve overcrowding at those schools. Bd.Min., 7/23/73, B13961, B13973. Boundary lines were not adjusted to reassign students from overcapacity Bell and Vandercook Schools to nearby schools that were under capacity, such as Spring Creek and Thompson.
Of the twenty-eight portable classrooms installed by the RSD, only six of them were placed in Southwest Quadrant schools. Three were at Auburn, one was at Haskell in 1972, one at Henrietta in 1975 and one at West in 1972. Three more were put in the Northwest Quadrant at Welsh, one in 1972 and two in 1975. The rest were at Eastside schools, in predominantly white areas. B44226.
Noncompliance With The ISBE Rules in September of 1973
In September of 1973, thirteen schools in Rockford were still not in compliance with State desegregation guidelines. These schools were:

School
Barbour Beyer Dennis Ellis Haskell

Quadrant
Southwest Southeast Southwest Southwest Southwest

% African-American
70% 37% 92% 80% 63%

Henrietta

Southwest

72%

Lathrop

Southwest

76%

Lincoln Park

Southwest

56%

McIntosh

Southwest

41%

King

Southwest

69%

Rock River

Southeast

43%

Washington

Southwest

62%

Wilson

Southwest

48%

Six schools experienced increased percentages of minorities from 1972 to 1973: Barbour, Ellis, Lathrop, Lincoln Park, Rock River and Washington.

1973 QUEFAC Proceedings

In May of 1973, the attorney for the QUEFAC plaintiffs sought an injunction to keep the RBE from implementing 1053 the voluntary *1053 desegregation plan that the RBE had proposed in lieu of the CDC plan. See Quality
Education, 362 F.Supp. 985. In August of 1973, Judge William J. Bauer denied Plaintiffs' petition for a TRO that sought to restrain the RBE from "carrying forward on a plan known as the Voluntary Desegregation Plan" that had been approved on April 30, 1973. Judge Bauer also rejected the voluntary desegregation plan and stated that if an acceptable plan was not developed by February of 1974, he would reconsider issuing the TRO. Id.
From 1973 to 1976, the RBE did not submit plans to the State Board of Education. Instead, the RSD's desegregation activities were monitored by the Federal court in the QUEFAC proceedings. The State of Illinois participated in the QUEFAC case as amicus curiae.
In July of 1973, twelve witnesses testified for Plaintiffs in the QUEFAC case. The testimony revealed that 85% of minority elementary students and 96% of minority elementary teachers were clustered in twelve elementary schools. This did not comply with State desegregation guidelines. Further, 75% of minority middle school students and 75% of minority middle school faculty were clustered in the two middle schools, also not in compliance with State guidelines. Schools on the Westside of the city were inferior to those on the largely white, Eastside. At that time, the School Board was all white with no minority representation.

Grade Exchange Plan

In 1973, in response to pressure from the State and the court, the RBE developed the Grade Exchange Plan. Under this plan, whole classrooms of students in the upper elementary grades would be bused to schools outside their neighborhoods in an "exchange" with other schools in order to "substantially reduce the percentage of minority students in non-compliance schools in Rockford." B36190. Only thirty of the sixty-eight schools in the Rockford School District were to participate in the exchange, including four middle schools. Only two of the ten elementary schools in the Northeast Quadrant were affected by the plan, whereas 55% of the Southwest Quadrant schools were affected. Twenty-eight regular elementary schools were unaffected by the plan, only four of which were in the Southwest Quadrant. The plan was to be implemented in September of 1974. The Rockford School District knew that the Grade Exchange Plan placed extra burdens on minority schools and that the elementary schools in the Northeast Quadrant of Rockford were purposely excluded from the Grade Exchange Plan. Nevertheless, the plan was adopted by the RBE in a 4-3 vote on December 18, 1973.
The plan was the subject of a great deal of public debate. In January of 1974, 200 people attended an RBE meeting to voice their opposition to the Grade Exchange Plan. On January 4, 1974, pursuant to the mandate of the court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 16, 1973, the RBE submitted the Grade Exchange Plan to the Federal Court. One month later, on February 4, 1974, the REA filed comments in opposition to the Grade Exchange Plan to Judge Bauer. The REA noted that the Grade Exchange Plan did nothing more than create segregated classrooms within desegregated schools. The REA stated that the plan provided for the wholesale transportation of classrooms that would then be kept intact in the new receiving school.

The REA outlined its objections to the plan in a brief to the court. First, the plan did not attempt to cure racial isolation among teachers and students in the schools. Nearly 85% of the students in the school system would be unaffected by the Plan. Even in the few affected schools, no real interaction would exist among the transported students because of segregation by classroom. In three of the schools, students would be isolated on separate floors and lunches would be arranged in shifts so that students would not mingle. Nothing in the Grade Exchange Plan was directed at reducing the achievement lag of minority students. Finally, the Grade Exchange Plan did not address the problem of boundary lines of the Rockford schools.
On February 2, 1974, John Schade, a member of the RBE, testified before the United States Senate about 1054 desegregation in Rockford. Mr. Schade testified that the RBE was *1054 vehemently opposed to any "forced
busing" or "redistribution of school children to accomplish equalization of achievement, social or racial desegregation or for any other reason." Mr. Schade further testified that for several years pressure was exerted on the Board for a busing program, but that the Rockford Board of Education had resisted this pressure from a past superintendent of the Rockford schools and a vocal militant minority in the city. Mr. Schade stated that the RBE was subjected to a form of harassment by way of the QUEFAC federal lawsuit filed in federal court.
On March 1, 1974, Judge Bauer issued a memorandum opinion and order rejecting the RBE's Grade Exchange Plan. See B32698. Judge Bauer stated that after carefully examining the plan, as well as the comments and criticisms of the parties, it appeared evident that there should be a more extensive factual and statistical analysis of the proposed plan by the parties. Further, alternative measures that would not necessarily involve forced busing or such an extensive use of busing should be explored. Judge Bauer recommended that the School District keep in mind certain points:
1. Busing should only be utilized when all other remedial measures appear impractical and ineffective.
2. Gerrymandering to achieve school desegregation is permissible.
3. The Grade Exchange Plan was incapable of desegregating classrooms within the schools.
Judge Bauer also stated that, "All things being equal it might well be desirable to assign pupils to schools nearest their homes but, all things are not equal in a system that has been deliberately constructed and maintained to enforce racial segregation." Judge Bauer declined to become an activist, but directed that the School District formulate its own plan and deliver it to the court by April 1, 1974.
REA Intervention in the QUEFAC Litigation
In February of 1974, the REA filed a petition to intervene in the QUEFAC case. In March of 1974, the REA presented to the RBE their recommendations for an integration plan. The REA made the following recommendations to the RBE:
1. Maintain the five existing high schools with suggested boundary changes in order to curtail heavy concentrations of minority groups in any one area;
2. Establish middle school attendance centers in each high school area. The REA recommended utilizing the following middle schools: Wilson, John F. Kennedy, Washington, Eisenhower, Lincoln and Roosevelt. Marsh Elementary School would be maintained with the elimination of its middle school program and Beyer would be established as a middle school.
3. Establish a plan to emphasize elementary level parental involvement, transportation and minority enrollment.
The REA's plan was to divide the city into three elementary attendance zones in order to guarantee adequate minority enrollments and to minimize transportation needs. Within each attendance zone, a community advisory council would be established. A minimum number of Interest Centers within each attendance zone would also be established. Minority enrollment would be guaranteed by altering the enrollment process. The plan further

provided that all elementary schools would establish a minority/majority percentage enrollment and that an opportunity would be given to each student to attend any elementary school in his/her attendance zone. Parents would thus be provided with a choice from among six schools in which to enroll their child.
If the plan submitted by the REA had been adopted, it would have resulted in the five high schools having a minority enrollment range of 10.2% to 32.2% due to boundary changes. Middle schools would have reflected a minority enrollment range of 10%-30% and elementary schools would have reflected a range of 17%-20%. REA Plan, B32712. The REA's plan closely resembled the plan proposed by the CDC. The REA plan, however, was rejected by Judge Bauer.
1055 *1055 The QUEFAC Plan
In March of 1974, the QUEFAC plaintiffs also submitted an integration plan to Judge Bauer. This plan had the following features:
1. The QUEFAC plaintiffs endorsed the REA's plan of three elementary zones that would consist of a Southern zone, a Middle zone, and a Northern zone. The minority percentage in the Southern zone would be 6.3%. The minority percentage in the Middle zone would be 17%. The Northern zone would have a minority percentage of 17.31%.
2. The middle schools would be divided in a similar fashion between a Southern, Middle, and Northern zone. All sixth graders would be placed in middle schools.
3. The Southern zone of the District's high schools would be served by Jefferson High School, the Middle zone by East and West High Schools and the Northern zone by Auburn and Guilford High Schools.
The RBE presented its revised plan to Judge Bauer on April 1, 1974 as ordered. The plan provided for elementary Special Interest Centers to be attended by students in grades three through six, but for only five to fifteen days of the school year. Interest Center themes would include reading, language, arts, science and mathematics, social studies, environmental education, health and safety and living arts. The open enrollment policy would be maintained and further voluntary transfers encouraged.
The Board also proposed retaining all current alternative schools and establishing new ones. The Board again brought up the concept of target schools and proposed establishing magnet schools in future years. The Southeast Quadrant of the city would be provided with a middle school to replace the antiquated Morris Kennedy building. More white students would be assigned to Wilson Middle School and minority students would be encouraged to transfer from Wilson.
The Board also proposed establishing an alternative high school at the ninth grade level for the 1975-76 school year, using its best efforts to encourage voluntary transfers, boundary changes and the building of a new high school to relieve overcrowding at East and Jefferson. The Board would encourage more minority students to attend Guilford with fewer attending Auburn. RSD Report, 3/26/74, B32812.
June 1974 QUEFAC Ruling
On June 27, 1974, Judge Bauer issued a memorandum opinion and order in the QUEFAC case giving his opinion on the various desegregation proposals before him, including the plans of the RSD, the REA, and the QUEFAC plaintiffs. As to the RSD's plan, Judge Bauer pointed out that the vast majority of the plan involved student participation in Special Interest Centers that only provided integration one-twelfth of the time. Judge Bauer stated that, although the Special Interest Centers may be both educationally attractive and sound, he was not convinced that they were the best means of sufficiently integrating the RSD. Judge Bauer also indicated that the RSD's plan failed to adequately state what, if any, mandatory busing would be required if a voluntary system did not work.

Judge Bauer then evaluated the REA plan. The court indicated that the REA's plan called for mandatory busing without an adequate showing of need. The REA's plan was said to be vague and absent the necessary details. Judge Bauer criticized the Community Advisory Counsel that would choose the one school of the six schools that a child desired to attend by luck of the draw. The court feared that the advisory counsel would be nothing more than a mini-school board, thereby potentially violating State law. Economic feasibility was also a problem with the REA plan.
In evaluating the QUEFAC plaintiffs' plan, the court stated that the QUEFAC plan relied heavily on the REA plan, and, therefore, the court's evaluation of the REA plan applied to the Plaintiffs' plan. As such, the court also rejected this plan.
The final conclusion of the court was that none of the three plans submitted were sufficiently developed or 1056 documented to be deemed an acceptable and ultimate plan for school desegregation in the RSD. Judge *1056
Bauer emphasized that he was desirous of an integrated school system. However, such a desire did not mean, and could not mean, that every school be an integrated unit. More importantly, the school system must be a genuinely integrated one with equal educational opportunities provided to all students.
Judge Bauer then sent the parties back to further develop, delineate, amend and study their respective plans in light of his principles and comments. Judge Bauer also said that, since he was entering no plan of his own, the RBE would be allowed to go ahead and implement its 1974-75 school desegregation plan, thereby providing empirical insight into what effect the different programs under the RBE's plan had on the problem of minority isolation. The parties were to report back to Judge Bauer on March 1, 1975 with new plans. QUEFAC, 70 C 16, Memorandum Opinion and Order, Bauer, J., 6/27/74, B31078.
Interest Center Implementation
The ruling by Judge Bauer in June of 1974 allowed the implementation of the Interest Center Program. The Interest Center Program was the product of poor planning by the RSD administration and was simply ineffective. The RSD staff had difficulty determining how many days the interest centers should operate. Further, by the time transportation problems were taken into consideration, a limited number of hours during the day were left that students could spend at the Centers. At a staff meeting in July of 1974, Steve Olejnik suggested that teachers conduct educational activities on the bus in order to make up for the shorter day. Staff Meeting Report, 7/1/74, B31576.
The Interest Center Program was not successful either educationally or as an integration tool and, therefore, did nothing to further integration in the RSD. Most of the time entire classes were transferred into the Interest Center. Blackwell Memo, 9/3/75, B35678. The result was that minority classes were placed in an all-white school, kept separate and the students involved would be counted into the total percentage of students in an integration program. The Special Interest Centers were used to boost the enrollment figures for integration compliance purposes.
In 1975, the RSD Director of Attendance reported to the RSD Superintendent that 28% of the K-12 enrollment in the RSD was involved in the integration program. Most of that 28%, however, were comprised of students taking part in the Special Interest Program. The participation constituted only five to fifteen school days per year. Accordingly, in 1975, only 6% of the elementary population was involved in any full-time integration program and 275 of these students were mandatorily reassigned African-American students. B. Thro (Dir. of Attendance) Memo to Johnson, 9/15/75, B37957. In the Fall of 1975, the Director of Integration authored a memorandum that revealed that the Interest Center concept had failed to work. In a document entitled "Plans for Desegregation for District 205, Long-Range Objectives and Goals," Mr. Oscar Blackwell recommended closing the Interest Centers and opening up centers that would receive students for a full nine months. Blackwell Memo to RBE, 11/13/75, B32910.

The RSD's Knowledge of Successful Integration Efforts
A review of the documents found in the files of the Director of Integration, Oscar Blackwell, shows that the RSD was well aware of various desegregation plans from around the country that were successful. The RSD had the United States Commission on Civil Rights report detailing the school desegregation efforts in Wichita, Kansas. The RSD had the State of Wisconsin's published manual, which was really a case study of the Oregon Middle School in Wisconsin. The RSD had a report on the program at the Battle Creek, Michigan Public School System. The RSD had a report on the Berkeley, California School System. The RSD had a study on the desegregation program in Evanston, Illinois. The RSD had a study on stability of racial mix in Illinois schools. The RSD had studies of the Morristown, New Jersey Plan and the Pontiac, Michigan Desegregation Plan. The RSD also had a study of the Houston, Texas Magnet School Program.
1057 *1057 Based upon this, the court finds that the Rockford Board of Education knew that reassignment of students was an integral part of most successful desegregation plans around the country, and intentionally refused to mandatorily reassign, or "bus" white students to achieve integration.
The RSD 1975 Integration Plan
In February of 1975, the RBE prepared and presented to Judge Bauer and the ISBE its "Recommendations for Student Housing in 1975-76 and Proposals for the Integration of the Rockford RSD # 205." B31159-B31173. The plan recommended "open enrollment" and "voluntary transfer" policies. The plan further recommended that the Special Interest Centers at Nelson and Walker Elementary Schools be continued and expanded by bringing in third grade students for a Social Studies Interest Center at Lathrop School. The outdoor environmental education program would continue for all fifth and sixth grade students, which they would attend for two and one-half days per school year. The Latham Park Alternative School and the Haight Arts Alternative School would be retained and expanded. A pre-school program for students aged 3-4 would be established at Dennis School.
The Board also proposed the consideration of two new alternative schools, one being a 4-R school emphasizing reading, writing, arithmetic and responsible citizenship and the other being an academically gifted school. Under the plan, the target school concept would continue to be expanded. The plan also utilized the "four school plus concept," which involved the combining of resources of four schools.
The proposals for the elementary schools included a statement that the RBE believed that the minority percentage of students attending Bloom, Guilford Center, Johnson and Spring Creek had "increased substantially" and, therefore, some of these minority students should be transferred to Brookview and Fairview Schools. Id. Bloom, Guilford Center, Johnson and Spring Creek received the Muldoon School closing minority students since 1973. In the 1974-75 year, the African-American percentages at these schools were:

Bloom:

16%

Guilford Center:

21%

Johnson:

9%

Spring Creek:

13%

The system-wide minority enrollment at the time was 18% African-American. As such, these schools could have minority enrollments up to 33% and still be considered integrated.

At the time that the RBE was proposing the transfer of African-American students from a Northeast Quadrant elementary school with 9% minority students, the RSD had elementary schools in the Southwest Quadrant with minority percentages as high as 92%. Nevertheless, the Board's proposal in this regard went into effect. In the 1975-76 school year, Fairview School gained fourteen minority students, bringing their minority student population up to 4.42%. Brookview gained thirty-two minority students bringing Brookview's minority enrollment up to 8.13%. At the same time, Bloom, Guilford Center, Johnson and Spring Creek lost an aggregate total of twenty-one minority students. Some of those students, who were still remnants of the Muldoon School closing,

were now being mandatorily reassigned to six different elementary schools and some were attending their third different elementary school in four years. Another recommendation contained in the elementary school section of the RSD's 1975 plan was the reopening of Argyle School in order to relieve overcrowding in the far Northeast at all-white Bell School.
The February 1975 plan contained the following recommendations for secondary schools: maintain the open enrollment policy; establish a Special Interest Center for seventh and eighth grade students at Wilson; expand the Freeman Alternative School; establish a Fine Arts Alternative School for seventh and eighth grade students; and develop the 4-R School and the Academically Gifted School for middle schools as well as elementary schools. The proposal for the high school included: maintain the open enrollment; apply for funds to build the new senior high school at 35th Street and Samuelson Road (far south, near the Rock River); and consider the two 1058 new alternative schools *1058 for the high schools as well. Id. The February 1975 plan submitted by the RBE contained many provisions and ideas that were utilized by the Board in the past.
Mandatory Assignment of African-American Students From Satellite Attendance Zones
In the late 1970's and early 1980's the RSD attempted to integrate racially-identifiable white schools by creating satellite attendance zones. Under this plan, African-American students were mandatorily bused to white schools. The white schools became the so-called "neighborhood schools" assigned to African-American satellite attendance zones. Consequently, students in a satellite attendance zone were required to travel distances of four to seven miles in order to attend their "neighborhood school."
In 1977-78, for example, part of the Northwest Quadrant Whig Hill Elementary School's attendance zone was located over four and one-half miles away in the Southwest Quadrant in what had previously been part of the Dennis School area. RSD Boundary Map, 1977-78, B38728. As a result of these Southwest Quadrant students becoming part of Whig Hill's attendance zone, Whig Hill's minority percentage went from 6% in 1976-77 to 49% in 1977-78 and Whig Hill became a racially-identifiable African-American school.
When Whig Hill was closed in 1980-81, students from the Whig Hill satellite attendance zone were then sent even farther north to Haight Elementary School and to Conklin Elementary School. RSD Boundary Map, 1981-82, B38709; RBE Memo, 9/19/81, B46539. This action changed Haight School from an integrated school in 1980-81 (16% African-American) to a racially-identifiable African-American school in 1981-82 (42% African-American). The action changed Conklin School from 15% African-American to 27% African-American in 1981-82.
Additionally, the Whig Hill/Haight/Conklin Southwest Quadrant satellite attendance zone became a satellite attendance zone for John F. Kennedy Middle School. RSD Boundary Maps, 1978-79, B38728; 1981-82, B38709. If these students were not a satellite attendance zone, they would have attended Wilson Middle School, less than one mile away. Instead, the students were bused over four and one-half miles to a middle school in the Northwest Quadrant.
The western part of the attendance area of Haskell Elementary School, a Southwest Quadrant, 55% AfricanAmerican school, became a satellite attendance zone in the 1980-81 school year. The attendance area became a satellite attendance zone, first, for White Swan School in the Northeast Quadrant and, then, for Brookview School in the Northeast Quadrant, in an attempt to integrate those schools. RSD Boundary Map, 1981-82, B38709; RBE Memo, 8/13/80, B28978. White Swan was eight and one-half miles and Brookview was seven miles from the Haskell School attendance area. When the Haskell satellite attendance zone was added to White Swan School, its minority student percentage went from 6% African-American to 22% African-American. After the Haskell satellite attendance zone was changed to become a part of Brookview School, White Swan's minority percentage dropped down to 1% African-American in 1981-82. Brookview School went from a minority student percentage of 10% in 1980-81 to 24% in 1981-82. The Haskell satellite zone students were removed from White Swan in 1981 and sent to Brookview in order to make room for white students from the recently closed Argyle and Bell Schools.

Open Enrollment Policies
Most of the desegregation plans proposed by the RBE, including the 1975 Plan, continued the RBE's open enrollment policies. The RSD's open enrollment policies began around 1972. In of May, 1972, Superintendent Salisbury announced that several Southwest Quadrant, African-American schools would be designated as magnet schools, meaning that they would have open enrollment. Any student in Rockford could enroll in a magnet school. The magnet school proposal, however, was not implemented in 1972.
In 1973, after the RBE rejected the CDC's plan, it submitted its own plan to the QUEFAC court. The primary focus 1059 of this plan was open enrollment. Open enrollment meant that any student could enroll in any *1059 school within
the RSD, as long as the transfer improved the school's racial balance. In Rockford, however, most schools in the Southwest Quadrant were academically inferior to the schools in the Northeast Quadrant as well as most schools in the Southeast Quadrant. Not surprisingly, therefore, there were few, if any, voluntary transfers of Northeast or Southeast Quadrant students into Southwest Quadrant schools. In September of 1974, only 47 of the 636 students (7%) in the RSD taking advantage of the open enrollment program were white. RSD Memo, 5 Year Student Enrollment Projections, 9/1/74, B38448. In 1975, only 3% of the open enrollment students were white. Desegregation Progress Report, 2/3/75, B31345. Integration Director Blackwell indicated that 1108 AfricanAmerican students were transferred to achieve integration. In contrast, the number of white students transferred was only 142, a ratio of almost 7.8 to 1. Blackwell Letter to H. Will, Rockford NAACP, 11/10/75, B23364. Some of these African-American students had been mandatorily reassigned as a result of school closings or overcrowding.
In September of 1974, the policy of the RSD with regard to open enrollment was that a transfer would only be granted when:
1. The transfer would contribute to the desegregation of the RSD; and
2. Space was available within the school requested.
In addition, new transfers were permitted for each semester and all transfers remained in effect until the end of the school year. The transfer option was closed on October 1, 1974, and each semester thereafter, on the 14th calendar day following the opening day of the new semester. Thro/Blackwell Memo to Johnson, 9/18/74, B37547.
Many problems with the open enrollment program existed. In October of 1974, John Wyeth, Assistant Superintendent in Charge of Operations, outlined these problems in a letter to Oscar Blackwell. Students who volunteered for desegregation but who had an early class schedule, had to provide their own transportation without reimbursement from the RSD. Minority students who volunteered to go to a middle or high school for desegregation purposes but whose classes started late in the school day, were unable to finish school by noon, thereby precluding them from obtaining an afternoon-evening job. Desegregation volunteers had to start school at a later time in order to take part in the desegregation program. As a result, students were withdrawing from the desegregation program because of an inability to receive transportation or the lack of a free lunch program. Wyeth (Supt. in Charge of Operations) Memo to Blackwell, 10/2/74, B33228.
In 1975, the open enrollment policy became even more restrictive by limiting a student's transportation options. That year, the stated policy regarding open enrollment was that transfers would be granted only when the following criteria were met:
1. The transfer aided in the integration of the RSD.
2. Space was available in the school and grade requested.
3. The student lived where a bus route already existed in order to provide transportation without additional expense to the RSD. Otherwise, the student or his/her parents would provide transportation.

Thro/Blackwell Memo to Johnson, 8/28/75, B37547-B37551. The number of open enrollment transfers was, therefore, reduced due to the constriction of available transportation. In the first year the open enrollment program was put into effect, 1973-74, there were only 194 voluntary transfers. In the 1974-75 school year, the number of voluntary transfers increased to 559 students. In the 1975-76 school year, the number fell to 393. Johnson Memo to Thro, 12/8/75, B32880.
As early as 1976, the ISBE noted that disparate applications in the transportation policies for open enrollment resulted in discrimination against minority students. The ISBE found that: "There is reason to believe that [open enrollment] transfers were cut off for some schools before they had reached even the average percentage of minority students." For example, one African-American student, Lavern Tammy Brown, was denied a transfer 1060 from Beyer School (43.27% African-American in 1975-76) to Eisenhower Middle *1060 School (predominantly white). The stated reason for the denial was that "the transfer would not aid in the integration of our RSD." Eisenhower Middle School at that time had only 10.04% minority students.
In 1976, the RSD Director of Attendance told a parent that minority students living in the East High area would no longer be allowed to transfer to Guilford because they were aiding integration by attending East. See E. Simon Letter to ISBE, 8/31/76, B27055. At the time, Guilford High School had only a 5% minority student population and East had a 14.3% minority student population. At the same time, the Muldoon School closing students, who had been mandatorily reassigned to the Guilford High School attendance zone elementary schools, were being denied enrollment at Guilford High School as they became ready for high school. This situation remained in effect until the 1979-80 school year.
The court finds that there were students who used the open enrollment policy to transfer into a different elementary schools and found that the restrictive transportation policy forced them to abandon their new school and return to their neighborhood school. Further, the court finds that the RSD failed to take steps that would have assured that teachers and administrators were prepared to handle the influx of open enrollment students into their schools. Many educational difficulties arose as many of the transferring students went from low-achieving schools into higher-achieving schools. The RSD teachers and staff were not trained to handle these difficulties.
In addition, the court finds that the open enrollment program as administered by the Rockford School District was ineffective as a desegregation tool. A lack of quality education in the African-American schools existed, causing a lack of desire on the part of white students to transfer into those schools. Inadequate transportation was provided, particularly for the minority students. Finally, many minority students who transferred into an elementary school were not allowed to attend the middle and high schools for which that elementary school was to be the natural feeder.
1975 Status Report on Integration
Shortly after the 1975 recommendations were submitted by the RBE to Judge Bauer, Superintendent Johnson and Integration Director Blackwell submitted a memorandum to the RBE detailing the status of the RSD in relation to their integration efforts. The status report revealed that severe problems with racial isolation continued in the RSD. The report revealed that, although some previously all-white schools in the Northeast Quadrant had increased minority student percentages, the Southwest Quadrant had not been helped quantitatively or qualitatively by any of the desegregation programs. The primary reason why Northeast Quadrant schools experienced increased minority student percentages was because minority students either were mandatorily reassigned away from their neighborhood schools or because a few minority students took advantage of open enrollment and traveled to white, Northeast Quadrant schools.
The report further indicated that integration achieved through voluntary transfers of minority students to some majority schools significantly raised the minority percentage in those schools to acceptable levels. These majority schools and the African-American and total minority student percentages in the 1974-75 school year were as follows:

School

% African-American

% Total Minority

Guilford High School

3%

3%

John F. Kennedy Middle

11%

11%

Guilford Center

21%

23%

Hillman Elementary

5%

6%

Spring Creek Elementary

13%

14%

Welsh Elementary

14%

15%

Eisenhower Middle

5%

6%

Bloom Elementary

16%

17%

Haight Elementary

15%

16%

Marsh Middle

3%

3%

Summerdale Elementary

10%

13%

West View Elementary

5%

5%

1061 *1061 Johnson/Blackwell Memo to RBE, 3/7/75, B30549. Of these twelve schools, three (Guilford Center, Spring Creek and Bloom) had increased minority student percentages only because of the mandatory reassignment of Westside minority students whose neighborhood school was closed and not rebuilt. At the time of this report, forty-five of Rockford's fifty-nine elementary schools were not within the 7-21% minority student percentage range. Thirty-three schools had less than a 5.3% minority student population and twelve schools had greater than a 32.5% minority student population. Additionally, five of the seven middle schools and two of the high schools were racially-identifiable.

Statistical data for the percentage of underachieving students in non-compliance schools revealed that the continued racial isolation of minority students in the Southwest Quadrant had severe negative effects on the students' education. In the African-American elementary schools, the percentage of underachievers was very high. Underachiever was defined for ESEA[12] Title I purposes as a student whose performance is at least 6 months behind where he or she should be based upon the student's actual grade or grade equivalent. The report contained the following data:

School

AfricanAmerican

% of Students that are "Title I underachievers"

Barbour [*]Beyer Church Dennis Ellis Haskell [*]Kishwaukee Lathrop Lincoln Park McIntosh [*]Rock River

66%
44% 33% 92% 75% 64.5%
15% 73% 54% 45%
47%

24%
29% 25% 62% 40% 64%
37% 36% 51% 34%
48%

The average percentage of students who were underachievers in the African-American schools was 41%. B31159-B31173; Desegregation Status Report, 3/7/75, B30549. The report further indicated that there were 13,117 students participating in the desegregation plan in the 1974-75 school year, out of a total student population of 37,291. Of those 13,117 students, 7,045 were participating in the Special Interest Centers. Accordingly, more than half of the students participating in the desegregation plan only participated for ten to fifteen days per year.

The 13,117 students also included 4,665 students who were enrolled at target schools. The target schools were African-American schools that were given extra funds in an attempt to raise student achievement levels at those schools. Students in the alternative Bicultural and Bilingual programs were also included as participating in the integration program. As such, only 1049 students were really participating in some form of desegregation. Of the 1049 remaining students, 636 of those students were transferring into different schools under the open enrollment policy and 413 students were enrolled in alternative schools. Therefore, only approximately 3.6% of the total student population were participating in integration efforts.
The RSD's Refusal to Comply With The ISBE's 1976 Rules
After the 1975 plan was submitted to Judge Bauer, most of Rockford School District's integration plans were submitted directly to the ISBE. After 1975, the district court assumed a very passive role in the lawsuit and the case was eventually dismissed, without prejudice, in 1981.
In 1976 the ISBE issued new desegregation rules and guidelines. The new rules were essentially the same as the rules drafted by the State of Illinois in 1971. The rules mandated that each and every school authority adopt and maintain pupil assignment practices and personnel hiring and assignment policies that eliminate and prevent segregation in schools. If a school was found to be in non-conformance, the school authorities for that district had 1062 to prepare a comprehensive plan to correct the specified deficiencies. In preparing the plan, school authorities *1062 were required to inform parents and other citizens of the pending issues and involve them in the planning. The rules prohibited school authorities from adopting or maintaining pupil groupings or classification practices that resulted in racial segregation of pupils within schools for a substantial portion of the school day. A district that refused to comply with the rules could be denied Federal funds. ISBE Rules, B25740-B25753.
In December of 1976, Dr. Harry Darland, a Member of the RBE, voiced his opposition to the State rules by arguing that, "To bus even one child against his parents' will would be unconstitutional and un-American." At the same time, the RBE was mandatorily busing African-American students to numerous schools against their parents' wishes due to the lack of a neighborhood school and due to overcrowding. Additionally, the creation of the satellite attendance zones created in minority areas resulted in the mandatory busing of minority students.
On March 2, 1976, the RBE was informed by the ISBE that the RSD was in non-compliance with the new ISBE rules. The reasons stated by the ISBE for the RSD's non-compliance were:
1. In September of 1972, the RSD was notified that one or more of its schools were segregated under the then existing rules and they were directed, at that time, to submit a desegregation plan;
2. The RSD requested and was granted additional time by the State to develop a plan;
3. Technical assistance was made available by the educational opportunity staff of the ISBE; and
4. The RSD then submitted a plan which was unacceptable and no acceptable plan was ever submitted, nor did the RSD take steps which did, in fact, substantially desegregate the schools under its control.
The ISBE also indicated that the RSD's system of desegregation placed undue burdens on minority children. These burdens followed a rather simple pattern: majority students were only moved voluntarily, but minority students were mandatorily reassigned to majority schools. As a result, the ISBE put the RSD on probationary status, the precursor to cutting off Federal funding. The RSD could remove itself from probationary status by submitting an acceptable desegregation plan to the ISBE. ISBE Letter to Johnson, 3/2/76, B25731-B25732.

Alternative School Programs: Failures, Disparate Burdens and Benefits
In 1975, the RSD began to propose the development of alternative programs to be housed in high-minority schools in an attempt to attract majority students into those schools so as to improve racial balance. Prior to this time, some alternative programs were operating, but they had little impact on the educational community and involved very few students.
Then, in 1975, the alternative center program began to receive increased emphasis in an attempt to draw white students voluntarily into high-minority schools. In June of 1975, a proposal was developed to house two alternative programs in Wilson Middle School, 37.36% minority. One of the programs would be for academically talented or "gifted" seventh and eighth grade students, and the other would focus on anthropology.
In August, Oscar Blackwell made a statement that "the only way to get the majority students to transfer to minority schools is to have offerings the majority students want that are not available in their home schools." The RSD thus developed a desegregation approach providing special programs and resources to white students that were generally not provided, or were less available, to minority students. When the open enrollment program began in 1973 and minority students started volunteering to transfer, the RSD had not expressed a concern with the need to entice minority students to transfer to white schools. The schools that the minority students were transferring to on the Eastside already had educational opportunities that their home schools simply did not have.
1063 In March of 1976, a plan to designate thirteen elementary schools as Special Focus *1063 Centers was developed by the RBE. The schools and programs were:

School

% African-American

Program

Whitehead Walker McIntosh Conklin Nelson Beyer Lathrop Haskell Kishwaukee Whig Hill Gregory School Rolling Green Fairview

0%

Arts Focus

1%

Math/Science

45%

Math

8%

Math Awareness/PhyEd

2%

Language Arts

43%

Language Arts

73%

Social Studies

60%

Environmental Ed.

15%

Instrumental Music

4%

Academics Plus/Vocal Music

2%

Academics Plus

0%

Academics Plus, Math, Language Arts

4%

Community Resources

The policy proposed that if a student lived in the neighborhood attendance area of the Focus Center and was already attending that school, priority would be given to those students who wished to remain in their neighborhood school, but only if integration would be served by the student remaining there. The proposal met with disapproval from some Southwest Quadrant parents.

The RBE then proposed a new group of schools designated as Special Focus Centers were:

School
King Barbour Lathrop

% African-American

Program

69%

Second Language, Kindergarten

59%

Second Language, Grades 1-5

73%

Social Studies, Career Awareness, Grades 1-5

Ellis Walker Haskell Henrietta Conklin Lincoln Park Dennis
Whig Hill Kishwaukee Rock River Whitehead Nelson Rolling Green

74% 1%
60% 71%
8% 54% 73%
4% 15% 41% 0.5%
2% 0%

Gifted, Grades 1-3 Science and Math, Grades 1-6 Urban environment, Grades 3-5 Reading, Grades 1-3 Math Awareness/PhyEd, Grades 1-5 Academics Plus, Grades 4-5 Environmental Awareness/Pre-School Family
Plan Grades K-4 Academics Plus/Vocal Music, Grades 1-6 Instrumental Music, Grades 1-6 Arts, Grades 1-6 Law, Grades 1-6 Language Arts, Grades 1-6 Academics Plus/Swimming, Grades 1-6

Bd.Min., 4/12/76, B15282.

By June of 1976, the student enrollment at the Focus Centers had fallen far short of the goal. A survey taken of teachers in relation to the alternative programs indicated that some teachers were unhappy with the planning of the alternative programs. The survey was intended to assess staff involvement in the implementation and 1064 development of *1064 the Focus Centers. The responses revealed a general lack of understanding as to what the Focus Centers were about and indicated a great deal of confusion at some schools. In short, the RBE made an inadequate attempt to involve teachers, parents or the community in the development of the Focus Center Programs even though the RBE possessed information and publications that stressed the importance of the involvement of these sectors in order to assure success of the desegregation program. Participation of these sectors was also required by the ISBE rules.

In the Summer of 1977, the RSD hired recruiters to recruit students into some of the alternative programs. The recruitment focus was on recruiting majority students into programs at minority schools.

In February of 1979, the RSD established rules and practices regarding the Focus Centers. The ethnic composition of the entire school that was housing a Focus Center and/or an alternative program was to reflect the District's student population. Accordingly, a student would not be admitted into the program if the student's presence did not help the ethnic composition of, not just the program, but the entire school. Rules Regulating Recruitment for Focus Centers, 2/22/79, B23469. Nevertheless, for some of the gifted alternative programs and Focus Centers, the recruitment efforts focused almost exclusively on majority students.

Some Focus Centers were predominately white but were operated in predominately African-American schools. The RSD considered these schools to be integrated because of the aggregate racial composition of the Focus Center and the regular school program. In other words, the school was classified as integrated if the entire school population, the neighborhood students combined with the alternative program students, were taken into consideration. For example, in 1979, Dennis Elementary School had a general student population that was 65% minority, but the Arts Alternative Program at Dennis School was 14% minority. The presence of the alternative program at Dennis allowed Dennis School to report an overall minority student percentage of 36%. Michaely (Dennis Principal) Memo to Johnson, 4/9/79, B29416.

Some, if not most, of the alternative program students were kept separate from the regular student population. The gifted students at King, for example, were kept separate from the regular students at King School. The "regular" student population was high minority. The gifted program at King was almost all-white. Due to the policy that a student was not allowed to enroll in an alternative program if the student did not aid integration, the RSD often denied entrance to African-American students because the alternative programs were located in schools that were already racially-identifiable African-American. As such, the alternative program and its attendant policies and practices segregated classrooms within schools and perpetuated tracking by keeping minority students in lower-achieving classes.

The RBE Equity Consultant, Dr. Harriet Doss Willis, testified that she observed such conditions in 1992. Dr. Willis indicated that it was her professional opinion that all of her observations in relation to the conditions would have existed prior to the filing of the lawsuit in 1989. Willis Test., Tr. at 160-169. At King School, for example, Dr. Willis observed very few minority students in the gifted classes. The gifted classes were physically separated from the "regular" classrooms. This practice was said to have been going on for many years. Additionally, the principal at King Elementary, when giving Dr. Willis a tour of the school, referred to the separate classes as the "gifted classes" and the "neighborhood school classes." Dr. Willis observed that the "neighborhood school classes" were almost all minority and the "gifted classes" were almost all white. Dr. Willis described such a phenomenon as a "school within a school." The court finds that the RSD intentionally operated segregated white classes in several minority schools. The classes were operated in such a manner that the white students would have very little, if any, contact with the minority neighborhood students.
Dr. Willis also observed this same phenomenon in the high school gifted program at Auburn High School. Id. at 1065 163. Again, the *1065 Auburn program was an alternative program composed of mostly white students that was
operated in a school that had a high minority population. The court finds that the presence of separate, gifted, predominately white programs in a high minority school had a negative effect on minority students. Further, the court was shown instances where a minority student was not allowed to enter into an alternative program and transfer from his or her neighborhood school because it did not aid integration efforts. The alternative programs were meant to be white programs. The court finds that the policies and practices of the segregated alternative schools contributed to a segregated school system of segregated classrooms within allegedly desegregated schools.
1976 RSD Integration Plans
On March 31, 1976, the RBE submitted another new desegregation plan to the ISBE. This plan provided for continued open enrollment, consolidated and expanded alternative schools, establishment of full-time Special Focus Centers, anticipated changed community enrollment patterns and involvement of parents in all planning and implementation.
On the elementary school level, the plan called for the maintenance of open enrollment, the expansion of Alternative Programs, where possible, the creation of Academics Plus Schools, the establishment of full-time Focus Centers, the creation of options where two or more schools could establish special programs, the cooperation with day care centers, the exemption of Special Education and Bilingual students and the examination of boundary line changes. In addition, a proposal was developed to continue moving sixth graders from Lincoln Park, Conklin and West View to attend John F. Kennedy Middle School and to utilize certain schools to receive Ellis attendance area students.
The 1976 plan proposed essentially the same things for the Middle Schools. The plan further proposed a specific boundary change to house the sixth grade students from Welsh, Church and Haskell Schools at Roosevelt Middle School and to house sixth grade students from Barbour, Lathrop and King Schools at Washington Middle School. The high school proposal was also essentially the same as the elementary school proposal. Plan for Continued School Integration, 1976-79, 3/29/76, B33915.
ISBE Finding of Noncompliance
The RSD's 1976 plan did not conform to the guidelines of the Illinois State Board of Education and, as such, was found to be unacceptable by the ISBE. The ISBE stated that the primary deficiency of the plan was the lack of a mandatory desegregation plan as previously required by the State. Other deficiencies noted in the plan were that the open enrollment policy involved primarily one way transfer of minority students to majority schools; the alternative programs had uneven success; the Special Interest Centers were not to be considered in a plan if they were not full-time; and the time-table submitted by the RSD to have 50% minority enrollment reduced by 1979-80, was inadequate to produce meaningful desegregation within a reasonable time period.

The ISBE also stressed that a district that had 39,000 students and a minority population of only 19% should find it relatively easy to desegregate. The ISBE then gave the RBE sixty days to submit amendments to the plan. Further, the ISBE stated that, if the RBE was unwilling to comply with this request, the ISBE would have no alternative but to place the RSD on probationary recognition status, which would be the step prior to the ISBE recommending that Federal funds to the RSD be cut off. Cronin (ISBE) 0907 Johnson Correspondence, B25618; B34730.
In April of 1976, the RBE responded to the ISBE's finding of non-compliance. The RBE denied that the District was in non-compliance with State rules. Further, the RBE argued that because the RSD was still essentially under Federal court jurisdiction, the RSD was going to submit plans that were acceptable to the court. The RBE also objected to the State rules establishing requirements and procedures for integration. The RBE claimed that the ISBE has no power to set forth racial quotas for attendance in schools. Additionally, the RBE argued that the 1066 rules adopted by the ISBE failed to provide proper due process, were arbitrary, *1066 unreasonable and capricious and invaded the provinces of individual Boards of Education. RBE Response, 4/1/76, B500299.
In May of 1976, the QUEFAC plaintiffs filed their comments with the Federal court on the RSD's 1976 desegregation plan. The QUEFAC plaintiffs believed that the Board's stated goal of reduction of minority isolation to 50% in three years fell far short of meeting any constitutional test of equality or opportunity for all RSD students. The plaintiffs also commented that totally voluntary measures simply did not work in Rockford. The plaintiffs further stated that they could not believe that majority parents were going to choose a Focus Center Program in different Quadrants of the RSD over continuing their students in high-achieving neighborhood schools. The plaintiffs also criticized the building of the new high school noting that it really would do nothing to improve racial balance at the high school level in Rockford. B25535.
The REA's response to the desegregation plan stated that the RSD's plans to build a new high school to replace Jefferson High School would not reduce overcrowding or aid integration. The REA criticized the voluntary transfer program as being inadequate and objected to the inclusion of the students moved from Muldoon School and Lincoln Park School in the voluntary transfer figures, contending that the transfers were involuntary transfers. The REA, however, favored the alternative schools program and indicated that Focus Centers could be educationally sound if there was involvement of staff and parents and if the centers were upgraded. The REA criticized the Board on its failure to provide teacher in-service training. B25500.
In response to the ISBE's request that the 1976 desegregation plan be modified, the RBE decided to house alternative programs in the more heavily minority-impacted schools. Bd.Min., 4/21/76, B15282. As previously described, however, alternative programs simply created a "school within a school" and did nothing to further integration.
In June of 1976, a letter was sent to the ISBE from the Superintendent of the RSD informing the ISBE that the RSD could not meet its stated goal of reducing minority enrollment in all schools to 50% or less minority by January of 1977. The RSD pushed back the date to achieve this goal to September of 1977. Johnson Letter to Cronin, 6/16/76, B25477. In July, after the ISBE disapproved of the RBE's plan, the RBE again amended its school desegregation plan reducing the number of Special Focus Centers from sixteen to eight. B500397. In August, the ISBE once again cited the RSD for its failure to develop an acceptable desegregation plan. The ISBE filed an interim report with the Federal court detailing the RSD's failures. Cronin Letter to Johnson, 8/2/76, B25474.
In October of 1976, the ISBE formally evaluated the RBE's plan. The ISBE found that the plan provided no realistic indication that the proposed voluntary plan would ever achieve the goals of desegregation. The ISBA further found that the Focus Centers did not affect the schools with the largest minority population. Many schools were completely left out of the desegregation plan. Finally, the ISBE noted that the RBE had failed to consider an alternate plan if the voluntary plan did not succeed. ISBE Evaluation, 10/1/76, B500351.

October 1976 Revised Integration Plan
In October of 1976, the RSD presented yet another desegregation plan to the ISBE. The plan stated that the RSD was going to need another two years to meet State rules and requirements for the elimination of racial segregation. The plan revolved around voluntary movements and transfers of students. The October 15, 1976 revised RSD integration plan listed the following schools as having more than 50% minority enrollment: Washington Middle School, 72%; Barbour, 86%; Beyer, 51%; Dennis, 93%; Ellis, 79%; Haskell, 65%; Henrietta, 70%; King, 91%; Lathrop, 73%; and Lincoln Park, 52%. The plan called for a reduction of these minority enrollments and stated that this would take at least another year. Revised School Integration Plan, 10/13/76, B25454.
1067 In January of 1977, Superintendent Johnson made his report to the Members of the *1067 RBE, listing ten schools in the Southwest Quadrant that had over 50% minority enrollment. The schools were Washington, 72.2%; Barbour, 86.2%; Beyer, 50.8%; Dennis, 92.8%; Ellis, 79.2%; Haskell, 64.9%; Henrietta, 69.9%; King, 91.4%; Lathrop, 73%; and Lincoln Park, 51.8%. Superintendent Johnson made the following findings and desegregation proposals. As of the Fall of 1977, fifteen schools had minority enrollments less than 7.7% minority and were thus not in compliance with the ISBE's guidelines. Fourteen of the fifteen were Eastside schools. Superintendent Johnson proposed pairing certain schools with African-American schools and reassigning the students in each pair to reduce racial imbalance. For example, to solve the 86.2% minority population problem at Barbour, Superintendent Johnson proposed pairing Barbour with Evergreen, another school in the Southwest Quadrant that in the 1976-77 school year had 9.96% African-American students. Another proposal was the pairing of Dennis, 87% African-American, and Stiles, 13% African-American in the 1976-77 school year, both elementary schools in the Southwest Quadrant, and only one mile apart from each other. Johnson Memo to RBE, 1/10/77, B37961.
1977 ISBE Finding of Noncompliance and Probationary Sanction
On March 10, 1977, shortly after this plan was approved by the RBE, the ISBE wrote to Superintendent Johnson regarding the RSD's continued failure to meaningfully desegregate their schools despite their continued promises to do so. The ISBE noted that the RBE had committed to having all schools, except Barbour, King and Washington, with a 50% or less minority enrollment by September of 1977. The ISBE's figures indicated that no school that had over 50% minority during the 1975-76 school year had dropped below 50% for the 1976-77 school year. In fact, six schools had increased in minority percentage and one school had increased to over 50% minority. The 50% minority figure was a target that the RBE had set for itself and 50% minority was not in compliance with State rules as they existed.
The ISBE also criticized all of plans of the RBE as being either not detailed enough or not doing anything to truly desegregate the schools. The ISBE informed the RBE that the RBE was in violation of the Armstrong Act and the State Board of Education Rules and, therefore, the RSD was placed on probation as of March 10, 1977. Cronin Letter to Johnson, 3/10/77, B500275.
May 1977 Integration Plan
On May 9, 1977, the RBE tried once again and sent a revised desegregation plan to the ISBE. The revised plan provided that the following schools with over 50% minority enrollment would have their minority enrollment percentage reduced to less than 50%: Barbour, Beyer, Dennis, Ellis, Haskell, King, Lathrop and Lincoln Park. The revised plan excepted Henrietta School (70% minority) and Washington Junior High (70% minority) from the 50% goal. This plan was divided into two phases, the second phase being a back-up plan that involved involuntary measures in case Phase I failed.
Phase I included the following:

Relocate bilingual programs from Barbour (60% African-American and 76% minority) and King (77% African-American and 91% minority) to Whitehead (99% white);

Shift Blackhawk Day Care Center students from Beyer (50% African-American) to another school;

Concentrate recruitment efforts on bringing majority students into high-minority schools;

Relocate alternative schools located at Latham Park (20% African-American) and Freeman Schools to Lincoln Park School (48% African-American);

Open Haskell (60% African-American) and Bloom (10% African-American, 89% white) as Academics Plus Centers;

Establish a gifted program at King;

Close Riverside (0% African-American) and transfer students to Lathrop (73% African-American);

Expand the Washington Middle Rainbow Alternative Program (Washington was 63% AfricanAmerican);

1068

House sixth grade students from Riverside (0% African-American), Evergreen (10% AfricanAmerican), King, Barbour and Lathrop *1068 Schools in Washington Middle School, Continue Focus Centers at Rock River (36% African-American), Conklin (17% African-American), Walker (95% white) and Kishwaukee (16% African-American); and

Invite Nelson (10% African-American) and Lathrop alternative programs to participate in Academics Plus Center at Haskell or Bloom.

The RBE reserved the right to assign attendance centers for day care students. The plan also called for the expansion of current alternative programs in order to raise minority enrollment to 30%. Open enrollment would be continued under the Plan and Alpine, Freeman, Latham Park, Lincoln Park and Riverside Schools would be closed.

Phase II provided for the following: Pair Stiles and Dennis Schools by housing K-3 in Stiles and 4-6 in Dennis; change boundary lines between Haskell (60% African-American) and Jackson (2% African-American); pair King (63% African-American) and Kishwaukee (16% African-American); and redistrict secondary school boundaries when the new Jefferson High School opened. Bd.Min., 5/9/77, B15721.

On May 23, 1977, the ISBE wrote to Superintendent Johnson notifying Mr. Johnson that the desegregation plan submitted by the RSD on May 9, 1977 was temporarily approved by the State Board of Education. The approval of the plan expired in March of 1978, at which time the RSD's minority percentages, and other pertinent information, would be re-examined by the State. Cronin Letter to Johnson, 5/23/77, B500269. On June 13, 1977, Oscar Blackwell recommended that the pairing of Dennis and Stiles Schools occur in Phase I instead of Phase II. The plan was changed per his recommendation.

Revisions of the May 1977 Plan

Shortly after the ISBE's temporary approval was granted, the RBE began changing its desegregation plan in response to the dissatisfaction of parents of students at majority schools affected by the plan. At a meeting on August 8, 1977 the RBE received a petition containing more than 685 signatures of citizens opposed to "nonvoluntary" busing. A speaker on behalf of the residents of the Stiles attendance area spoke in opposition to "nonvoluntary" busing of students for integration purposes. In August of 1977, the RBE approved changes in the plan to eliminate the busing of Stiles School (white) students to Dennis School (African-American). The RBE's minutes of August, 1977 indicated that Stiles School would continue to house K-6, but Dennis School would house only Pre-K-3. The RSD, however, continued to bus grades 4-6 students from Dennis School to Stiles School.

The original plan involved two-way busing of both Stiles and Dennis students. The change, of course, burdened the African-American students, placing them in a nonvoluntary situation, and protected the white students.
At the same time, the RSD received a petition from parents of Evergreen School (89% white) students protesting the transfer of their students. Phase I of the plan called for the transfer of sixth-grade Evergreen students to Washington Junior High School, which was predominantly African-American. In response to the petition, the RBE said it had made a mistake and that this transfer was only meant to be part of Phase II. Bd.Min., 6/13/77, B15735. The Evergreen School students were removed from the plan in June of 1977. B39277.
In the late 1970's, the RBE established a remedial program at Barbour School (79% African-American in 1977-78). In September of 1977, the RBE established the GIT (Get It Together) Program for sixth grade students at Barbour School and sent the regular sixth grade students to Washington Middle School. Bd.Min., 9/26/77, B15883. In April of 1979, the RBE expanded the GIT program to include all of grades four through six, and sent the regular fourth, fifth and sixth grade students to Whitehead, Rolling Green, Hillman and Vandercook Schools on the Eastside of Rockford. Bd.Min., 4/23/79, B16387; see also, 1989 Reorganization Plan § 2.13, B509184. The result was that African-American students from Barbour School were mandatorily assigned to racially1069 identifiable *1069 white Eastside schools. The RSD's "integration" programs thus placed disproportionate burdens on African-American students.
The changes that occurred in the RSD were the result of the mandatory shifting of African-American students. As to white students, the RSD's position was to provide special educational services that would attract white students to voluntarily transfer into the racially-identifiable minority schools. When the RBE first established the GIT program and sent the regular sixth grade students to Washington Middle School, eighty-nine additional white students came to Barbour in the 1978-79 school year and fifty-six African-American students left. In a similar situation in 1969, the RBE rejected a middle school plan that would have required white sixth grade students to attend a middle school as opposed to continuing in elementary school. When the GIT program was expanded and even more minority students sent away from their neighborhood school in 1980-81, Barbour lost forty-two more African-American students and gained nine white students.
By October of 1977, a total of twenty-eight elementary schools, one middle school and one high school were still out of compliance with State guidelines. Thirteen schools had minority percentages that were more than 15% higher than the total minority student population of the District and seventeen schools had minority percentages that were more than 15% lower than the total minority student population the District.
Construction of New Jefferson High School
By the 1977-78 school year, the Westside high schools, Auburn and West, were near their CDB capacities. The Eastside high schools were well in excess of their CDB capacities: East High, 133% of CDB capacity; Guilford High, 167% of CDB capacity; and Jefferson High, 177% of CDB capacity. This overcrowding intensified following the decision of the RBE to mandatorily assign mandatory Westside attendance zones to the Eastside high schools in an effort to integrate Eastside schools. In 1971, the area west of the Rock River and south of Loomis Street was assigned to East High School. RSD Boundary Map, 1971-72, B38719. This continued through the 1980's. By 1978, the area west of the Rock River, between Kent Creek and Jefferson Street was assigned to Guilford High School. RSD Boundary Map, 1978-79, B38728. This also continued through the 1980's. The western part of the Haskell Elementary School attendance area was assigned to White Swan and then to Brookview Schools. RSD Boundary Map, 1981-82, B38709. Muldoon closing students went east, to East and Guilford High Schools.
During 1978, the RBE considered balancing secondary enrollment by redrawing boundaries and splitting grades among the various high schools and middle schools. Instead, the RBE decided to construct a new high school on the far south part of the Southeast Quadrant and move the excess enrollment from the other Eastside high schools to this new school, Jefferson High School. All of the plans involved moving substantial numbers of mostly white students from Guilford and East High Schools to Auburn and West High Schools, except the plan calling for the construction of Jefferson High School.

In the mid to late 1970's and throughout the 1980's, student population at all of Rockford's high schools declined along with the RSD's total enrollment. Instead of drawing new attendance zones to balance attendance and decrease overcrowding, the RSD insisted upon building Jefferson High School in the Southeast Quadrant and drew boundaries that assigned all students east of the Rock River to the three Eastside high schools. These boundaries, to a large extent, maintained the racial imbalances that previously existed. The racial and capacity percentages at the five high schools were as follows:

1070 *1070

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

High School Percentage of African-Americans

Percentage of Capacity

--------------------------------------------------------------

1977-78

1978-79

1977-78

1978-79

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Auburn

37%

32%

102%

107%

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

East

14%

15%

149%

133%

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guilford

7%

9%

167%

136%

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jefferson

9%

8%

177%

96%

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

West

19%

21%

105%

100%

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a result of the actions of the RBE, for the next ten years the following situation existed: Auburn remained 30-36% African-American and operated at or under capacity. East remained 15-22% African-American and well over capacity. Guilford remained 10-15% African-American and essentially at or under capacity after 1982. Jefferson remained 6-8% African-American and well under capacity until West closed as a high school in 1989. The two high schools on the Westside were maintained racially-identifiably African-American and relatively underutilized. East High School was integrated and badly overcrowded. Guilford and Jefferson were maintained as white and under-utilized.

Throughout the 1970's and the 1980's the RSD refused to transfer white Eastside high school students to schools west of the Rock River for integration purposes. Jefferson and Guilford High Schools were kept predominantly white, first by packing whites into these schools and then by integrating and packing students into East High School. B38039-B38047.

Noncompliance With The ISBE Rules in The Late 1970's

In January of 1978, the RBE projected that every school, except two, would have a minority enrollment of under 36% in the 1978-79 school year. The two exceptions, Barbour and Washington, were projected to have minority enrollments of under 50%. B33904. In the plans for continued school integration dated January 30, 1978, the RBE put a "moratorium" on enrollment at the non-complying schools in Rockford. If a family moved after June 9, 1978, and the enrollment of their child in the nearest school did not aid integration, the child would be sent to another school.
In February of 1978, the ISBE gave the RSD another year to bring all of its schools into compliance with State desegregation guidelines. In the 1978-79 school year, nineteen of Rockford's sixty-eight schools were outside the ± 15% guidelines of the ISBE. Barbour School had a minority enrollment of 63%, Washington had a minority enrollment of 65% and eleven elementary schools still had minority enrollments over 36%, going as high as 73% at Ellis School.

Under the ISBE's conditioned monitoring of the RBE's desegregation plan, the RBE was required to submit a progress report to the ISBE in March of 1979. In February of 1979, Superintendent Johnson wrote to the ISBE requesting an extension for submission of their progress report and integration plan for 1979. Superintendent Johnson requested the extension because of bad weather which he claimed had delayed the evaluation of the desegregation program.

In June of 1979, the ISBE informed the RSD that an extension of its "6.1" waiver had been granted until January, 1980. The waiver allowed the RSD to continue receiving government funding despite its being found in noncompliance with the ISBE's rules and regulations. The basis for and conditions of this extension were:

1. The RSD had achieved a greater measure of desegregation since the RBE's resolution in June of 1976 but progress had been considerably less than projected;

1071

2. If the voluntary plans then underway did not achieve the 1979-80 projected enrollments by January, 1980, the District *1071 would be directed to develop and implement other desegregation measures not dependent on pupil or parent choice; and

3. During the interim period, Integration staff and other staff were directed to work closely with the RSD to further its desegregation efforts including an expanded staff in-service program.

ISBE Letter to Jonson, 6/18/79, B500240. Enrollment data for the 1979-80 school year showed that eleven elementary schools were out of compliance with the ISBE rules because their minority student enrollment was too high. Seventeen elementary schools were out of compliance with the ISBE rules for having a minority student enrollment that was too low. Included in these figures were five Southwest Quadrant schools (high minority schools) that fell further out of compliance from 1978-79 to 1979-80. Those schools were Church, Haskell, Henrietta, Lathrop and McIntosh.

In November of 1979, Superintendent Johnson presented desegregation proposals to the RBE that involved the busing of minority students in an effort to reduce minority enrollment at certain schools. One of the proposals involved moving the Fairgrounds Housing Development students out of Church School (50.5% minority) to reduce Church's minority enrollment. Another proposal suggested the busing of Champion Court and Concord Commons public housing development students "to a convenient school where their presence would not adversely affect the racial balance." Johnson Memo to RBE, 11/13/79, B500240.

The ISBE 1980 Finding of RSD Noncompliance

In January of 1980, the ISBE, by a 15-0 vote, found the RSD's desegregation plan inadequate and directed the RSD to amend the plan to include involuntary measures for the 1980-81 school year. Shortly after this, Dr. Cronin of the ISBE wrote to Superintendent Johnson directing the RSD to develop and implement an amendment to its desegregation plan that called for affirmative acts that were not dependent on pupil or parent choice for the 1980-81 school year. Dr. Cronin explained that this action was taken by the ISBE because the RSD had not achieved the level of desegregation expected by the State and by the RSD itself. Of the thirteen schools that the RSD projected decreased minority enrollment, only two met the RSD's projections.

The RSD Defiance of The ISBE Rules 0907 Opposition to Student Assignment Goals

The RBE challenged the ISBE's authority and the RBE's legal obligations to follow the dictates of the ISBE. In April of 1980, the RBE dropped its numerical integration goals. The RBE deleted from its policy statement a commitment to work toward a minority enrollment of 50% or less in each school, stating that the RSD would "oppose any set quotas for the purpose of integration." The RBE then pledged to achieve integration through the use of alternative schools, open enrollment and adjustment of school boundaries, feeder patterns and school closings. Bd.Min., 4/17/80, B16718. A review of RSD's student housing data revealed that there was virtually no

progress in desegregating African-American schools on Rockford's Westside between 1977 and 1981. B37928B37942.
Disparate Burdens on African-American Students By Continuing Mandatory Assignment to Eastside Schools
Throughout the 1970's and the 1980's, the RSD mandatorily bused Southwest Quadrant students away from their "neighborhood" schools to schools east of the Rock River in an effort to desegregate majority white schools. The busing of Northeast and Southeast Quadrant students to schools on the Westside of Rockford, however, was voluntary. The RBE allegedly had a policy against forced busing for the purposes of integration. A member of the RBE once stated: "We shouldn't move students around to achieve racial balance." The court finds, however, that the RBE's opposition to mandatory busing and mandatory integration measures was applicable only to white students.
In March of 1980, Superintendent Johnson made various integration proposals that affected white schools. The 1072 proposals included closing Evergreen School (83% white), Argyle *1072 (99% white) and Highland School (86%
white). B4198-B4229. One month later, these proposals were rejected by the RBE. Bd.Min., 4/28/80, B35526.
On April 28, 1980, the RBE adopted the following desegregation plan: fourth, fifth, and sixth grade Barbour students were reassigned to schools in the Northeast and Southeast Quadrants in order to make room for an expanded GIT program at Barbour. A RSD document entitled "Mandatory Busing" revealed that a total of 218 Barbour School students were bused from Barbour to Hillman, Nashold, Rolling Green and Vandercook Schools, all in the Southeast Quadrant, during the 1985-86 school year. B46710. The elementary and middle school components of the Creative and Performing Arts (CAPA) program were combined by transferring the Ellis School CAPA fourth through sixth grade students to Washington Junior High. In order to make room for these new CAPA students, the sixth grade Barbour students were removed from Washington and reassigned to Eastside schools. By the 1985-86 school year, a total of 329 students from Ellis School were mandatorily bused to six different schools in the following Quadrants: Bloom, Northeast; Carlson, Northeast; Jackson, Northeast; Spring Creek, Northeast; Welsh, Northwest; and Westview, Northwest. Id. The boundaries of Haskell School were changed so that some of the Haskell students were sent to nine Northeast area schools that already were receiving students from the Westside. Bd. Min., 4/28/80, B35526. Three of these four decisions involved the mandatory reassignment of students from African-American, Southwest Quadrant schools, to schools east of the Rock River. The court finds that the RBE was well aware of complaints and protests from minority parents that one-way busing was unfair and that in fact, the RBE had a policy against busing. The policy was enforced only for the protection of white neighborhood students.
In September of 1980, RBE Member Dr. Harry Darland filed a lawsuit against the ISBE requesting that the ISBE be permanently restrained and enjoined from enforcing its rules establishing requirements and procedures for the elimination and prevention of racial segregation in RSD schools. Further, in 1980, the Haskell School attendance boundaries were changed requiring approximately half of the pupils living west of Kilburn Avenue, just three blocks west of Haskell School, to ride buses to Eastside schools. This change affected fifty to sixty AfricanAmerican students. These African-American students were sent to White Swan School on the far Eastside of Rockford, about seven miles from the area where these students lived. See B509184. Students from Haskell were not given the option of attending any other neighborhood school. RBE Memo, 8/17/80, B4073. White Swan's minority percentage thus went from 5.64% African-American to 22.31% African-American. As a result of complaints from parents of students at White Swan School, the Haskell transfer students were at White Swan for only one year.
The year after the Haskell students were transferred into White Swan, Argyle and Bell Schools were closed. White students from Argyle and Bell were reassigned to White Swan and the African-American Haskell students were removed from White Swan. B509184. White Swan's minority percentage dropped dramatically down to .56% African-American, 5% lower than it was before the Haskell busing. Thus, White Swan was integrated and subsequently resegregated within two successive school years.

In 1981, the African-American students from the west part of the Haskell School attendance area were bused to Brookview School in the Northeast Quadrant with a 89% white and 10% African-American enrollment. RSD Attendance Map, 1981-82, B28709. This assignment remained in effect until the 1989 Reorganization Plan. From the 1980-81 to the 1981-82 school year, Brookview's African-American percentage increased from 10% to 24%. Brookview School was approximately five miles from the west part of the Haskell School area. The net result of the reassignment of the Haskell area students was to reduce Haskell's minority percentage enrollment by less 1073 than 6%, bringing that enrollment to just under 50%. The court *1073 finds that this busing imposed a substantial burden on the Haskell students who were forced to travel long distances to a new school, only to be taken out of that school one year later and "reassigned" to another new and distant school. The court further finds that this type of disparate impact and burden placed on minority students was not an isolated incident.
In the 1980-81 school year, a RSD analysis was performed in order to determine the number of neighborhood students attending their neighborhood schools. A review of this document revealed that in the racially-identifiable African-American schools in the Southwest Quadrant, only 64.56% of the neighborhood students were attending their neighborhood school. For example, only 195 of Barbour's 442 neighborhood attendance area students actually attended Barbour School. The other 247 students were bused to other schools. In contrast, in the racially-identifiable white schools in the Southwest Quadrant, 94.5% of the neighborhood students were enrolled in their neighborhood schools. In the Northwest, Northeast and Southeast Quadrants combined, an average of 91.58% of neighborhood students were attending their "neighborhood" schools. Further, a RSD document revealed that in the 1988-89 school year, all of the 2100 students who were mandatorily reassigned out of their neighborhood came from the predominantly minority Southwest Quadrant. Accordingly, the court finds that the RSD's claimed policy of "neighborhood schools" was, in reality, applicable only to white students in white neighborhoods.
Student Assignment and School Boundaries Subsequent to the QUEFAC Lawsuit and the ISBE Investigation
In March of 1981, the RBE passed a resolution regarding school integration. The resolution was presented by Board Member Dr. Harry Darland. The resolution stated that, because a State Appellate Court decision on the East Aurora School District 131 declared the ISBE rules unreasonable, arbitrary and void, the RSD would no longer comply with the rules and regulations of the ISBE. The RSD would operate according to its own integration policies. B36704.
In 1972, when the RSD was first asked to comply with the ISBE rules, approximately 90% of the RSD's students attended racially-identifiable elementary schools. In 1972, 93% of the RSD's elementary schools were raciallyidentifiable. By 1980, after the QUEFAC litigation and following pressure from the ISBE to desegregate RSD schools, the number of students attending racially-identifiable elementary schools was approximately 50%. After the section of the ISBE rules that set numerical student population requirements was declared invalid and the RBE eliminated its own numerical goals, the percentage of students in racially-identifiable elementary schools began to climb. By 1987, approximately 65% of the students in the RSD were attending racially-identifiable elementary schools and 56% of the RSD's elementary schools were racially identifiable.
After the ISBE lost its power in relation to the RSD and after the QUEFAC suit was dismissed without prejudice in 1981, the RBE undertook a series of actions that had the effect of isolating the minority students in the RSD. These actions included the dismantling of alternative programs, the restricting of transportation options for students and the closing of schools and the redrawing of school boundaries. All of these actions had a segregative effect on the RSD's schools.
1980 Student Reassignments and Closing of Schools
A RSD administrative task force report on future RSD building needs was presented to the RBE on March 10, 1980. Bd.Min., 3/10/80, B16678. The report named twelve schools recommended for further analysis to

determine whether they should be closed. Those schools included Whitehead, Beyer, Nelson, Peterson, Fairview, Argyle, Summerdale, Lathrop and Evergreen Elementary Schools. Also named for possible closure were Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Washington Middle Schools. Id.
On December 8, 1980, the RBE received a report from Northern Illinois University consultants hired to study 1074 buildings and facilities in the RSD. This report proposed closing *1074 eleven schools in the 1981-82 school year.
Bd.Min., 12/8/80, B16921. Those schools were Gunsolas, Highland, Wight, Henrietta, Bell, Argyle, White Hill, Peterson, Washington Middle School, Roosevelt Middle School and Lincoln Park School.
On February 9, 1981, the RBE received a study RSD staff had prepared of all school buildings in the district. Bd.Min., 2/9/81, B16955. This document was entitled the "Rockford Public Schools Individual Building Analysis." Individual Building Analysis (IBA), 2/9/81, B29808. The staff's report stated that "[i]n analyzing each building our committee used 13 components which were initially given equal ranking." Id. One of the thirteen components that appeared in the staff committee report was the concept of de jure segregation. The report explained that "[t]his factor takes into account whether reassignment of students due to a school closing could have de jure segregation implications, thus limiting the board's ability to reassign students to the closest school." Id.
With regard to Dennis School, the RSD staff report stated that "[a] change in boundaries to accommodate strictly a neighborhood population could result in de jure segregation." In 1983, and again in 1989, the RBE approved boundary changes to accommodate a neighborhood population with the result that Dennis School became more segregated. In the 1982-83 school year, Dennis was 31% African-American and in the 1983-84 school year, Dennis was 57% African-American.
With regard to Ellis School, the RSD staff report stated that "[r]eturning grades 4-6 could result in de jure segregation." In 1989, the "Muldoon" grades 4-6 were returned to Ellis School, causing Ellis' minority population to increase from 59.08% African-American to 92.08% African-American. Additionally, the Arts Alternative Program was removed from Ellis and sent to Washington. As a result, Ellis' white student population dropped to 17 in 1989-90 from 127 in 1988-89.
With regard to Henrietta School, the RSD staff report stated that "[r]eassignment of students must avoid de jure segregation." In the 1980-81 school year, Henrietta School was racially-identifiably African-American with a 63% minority enrollment. In the 1981-82 school year, Henrietta was closed and students were reassigned to Dennis, McIntosh and Haight Schools. Dennis School's African-American population rose to 32%. Haight School's African-American student population increased from 16% to 42%. McIntosh School's minority population increased from 45% to 53%.
With regard to Whig Hill, the RSD staff report stated that "[r]eassignment of students must avoid de jure segregation." In 1981, Whig Hill was closed and its 44% African-American students were reassigned to Haight School, which then became racially-identifiable African-American, going from 16% to 42% African-American, and to Conklin School, which went from 15% African-American to 27% African-American.
In the 1980-81 school year, Gunsolas School, in the Southeast Quadrant, was 93% white. When Gunsolas closed, its students were transferred to adjacent racially-identifiable white or integrated schools, New Milford, Sky View and Froberg. B46632. As a result of the addition of white students from Gunsolas, Froberg School went from being an integrated school at 19% African-American in 1980-81, to 3% African-American in 1981-82. The GIT program at Froberg was removed, also resulting in an increased majority student population. Bd.Min., 3/9/81, B16975. In an attempt to accommodate the Froberg GIT students, the GIT programs at Jackson and Barbour Schools were expanded.
In the 1980-81 school year, Argyle and Bell Schools were 98% and 95% white respectively. When these schools closed, the students were reassigned to nearby Spring Creek, Guilford Center and White Swan Schools. B46630. Haskell students were removed from White Swan, resulting in White Swan going from 22% African-American to 98% white.
In the 1980-81 school year, Peterson School was 88% white. The Peterson School attendance area was divided into four areas and its students were sent to Beyer, Hallstrom, Nashold and Rock River Schools. B46628. Beyer 1075 School, with a 41% African-American *1075 student population, received thirty-one additional African-American

students in 1981-82 and Rock River School, with a 41% African-American student population, received eleven additional African-American students. In contrast, Nashold School, with 5% African-American student population, received only two additional African-American students and Hallstrom School, with only a 5% African-American student population, received no new African-American students.
One week after receiving the staff's building study that indicated certain actions could result in de jure segregation, the RBE approved school closings and reassignments that, according to the report, could result in de jure segregation. In an open meeting approximately one month later, parents spoke to the RBE about the proposed school closings. Darlene Hanna, a Roosevelt School parent who later became an RBE member, discussed the disadvantages of closing Roosevelt Middle School and noted that Roosevelt was a naturally integrated school. Bd.Min., 1/26/81, B16951. The Roosevelt School boundaries ran from the Rock River on the east to Central on the west, Jefferson Street on the south and West Riverside on the North. Roosevelt's enrollment was integrated every year from 1970 through 1981. In its own Building Analysis, the RBE recognized and pointed out the value of natural integration in its discussion in relation to Lincoln Middle School. The elementary schools that naturally fed into Roosevelt were: Church (47.12% African-American), Garrison (25.23% African-American), Walker (19.35% African-American), Haskell (49.39% African-American), Welsh (19% AfricanAmerican), Summerdale (28% African-American), West View (15.03% African-American) and Conklin (15.20% African-American). These feeder schools were mainly integrated schools.
In the 1980-81 school year, Roosevelt Middle School had an integrated student population of 27.53% AfricanAmerican. The Roosevelt attendance area residents also had a diverse socioeconomic make-up. The Fairgrounds Park Housing Project (low-income) and the National Avenue District (high-income) were both contained within its boundaries. Roosevelt School was located in an area with dense population, had the largest number of students in its feeder schools, had one of the lowest costs to run per year of any RSD secondary school, was the only school in the area projected to increase enrollment over the next five years, was located within walking distance of community resources and was a school where students could stay after school for extracurricular activities. Id. Despite all these advantages, on February 18, 1981, the RBE approved the closing of Roosevelt Middle School. Bd.Min., 2/18/81, B16967, B16971.
The RBE also closed Washington Middle School, located in the Southwest Quadrant. Id. Washington Middle School was a racially-identifiable African-American school and, in the 1980-81 school year, had a 47.5% AfricanAmerican student population. By closing Roosevelt and Washington Middle Schools, the RBE closed the only naturally integrated middle school and the most heavily populated minority middle school. The closing of these two schools left the Southwest Quadrant without any middle or secondary school south of State Street and west of the Rock River.
Integration Efforts of the RBE in 1981

According to one RBE Member, the level of the RSD's commitment to integrative programs declined after the withdrawal of the ISBE. Unless outside pressure was present, the RBE undertook no steps in an effort to desegregate Rockford schools. In 1981, Rockford was released from the pressure of the ISBE and the United States District Court.

On February 18, 1981, the following policies were approved by the RBE:

1. Operating costs in the alternative education programs were cut.

2. All alternative program bus riders were charged for the actual cost of transportation to such programs except those families who qualified under the RSD's free lunch program.

1076

3. The position of Director of Integration was eliminated. All funds that were realized from the sale of closed school properties were used for construction *1076 in the attendance areas of Argyle, Bell and Guilford Center (Northeast) and Cherry Valley, Gunsolas and Vandercook (far Southeast). The attendance areas of these schools were almost completely white.

Bd.Min., 2/18/81, B16967; Walhout Test., Tr. at 420-421. In the 1981-82 school year, eight Southwest Quadrant elementary schools were racially-identifiable African-American. Those schools and their African-American student enrollment were:

Ellis Church McIntosh Haskell Barbour Lathrop Haight King

63% 54% 53% 52% 50% 47% 42% 37%.

1983 School Closings

In late 1982, eleven more schools were under consideration by the RSD for possible closure. These schools were Westview, Haight, Dennis, Evergreen or King, Guilford Center, Fairview, Garrison, Whitehead and Stiles, Cherry Valley and New Milford. B47879. Further closings were ruled out in the Northwest area where Whig Hill and Henrietta Schools were closed and in the inner Southeast area where Turner, Peterson and Wight Schools were closed. A savings of close to $2 million was projected to result from these closings. See B506492.
Evergreen School was closed in 1983 and its students were reassigned to Lathrop and New Milford. Lathrop's African-American percentage went from 47% to 38% and New Milford remained all white. The Evergreen students east of the Rock River were sent to New Milford, also east of the Rock River. Guilford Center was also closed in 1983 and its students were reassigned to Brookview. Brookview School's African-American percentage decreased from 22% to 16%. Fairview School was closed in 1983 and its students were reassigned to Johnson School, lowering Johnson's minority percentage from 13% to 6%. Fairview students were also reassigned to Rolling Green School, decreasing its minority percentage from 18% to 16%.
Garrison School's old building was closed in 1983, but its new addition remained open. Garrison's fourth through sixth grade students were reassigned to Walker and Haskell Schools. As a result, Walker's African-American student population decreased from 13% to 7% and Haskell's African-American student population increased from 57% to 63%. Garrison changed from a 27% African-American student population to an 18% African-American enrollment.
Skyview School, which was all white, was closed in 1983 and its students were reassigned to New Milford School, also all white, and to Froberg School. Froberg was 3% African-American in the 1982-83 school year. As a result of the reassignment, Froberg School became 1% African-American in the 1983-84 school year.
The RSD report also proposed closing Cherry Valley School, that was 99% white, and reassigning its students to Hillman School, that was 25% African-American. Cherry Valley, however, was not closed. Further, the RSD proposed closing Stiles School and reassigning its students to Dennis School. B47879. Stiles was previously 99% white; however, since 1973, Stiles had a 12-32% African-American student population due to the busing of African-American students from Dennis. In the 1982-83 school year, Stiles was 26% African-American, with 57 African-Americans in its student population of 223. Dennis was a school with a student population in excess of 90% African-American. Since 1975, Dennis had an increased percentage of whites as a result of receiving white students from the former Lincoln School area to the north. B509184. In the 1982-83 school year, Dennis was 31% African-American. Stiles was ultimately left open.
The only other school that experienced a big change in enrollment in the 1982-83 school year was Whitehead, which resegregated from 19.08% African-American to 3.39% African-American. The RBE approved wing closings at Whitehead School, Garrison School and Fairview School. Bd. Min., 3/28/83, B17558, B17561. As a result of 1077 these wing closings, Whitehead School lost only 17% of its white students. In contrast, *1077 Whitehead lost

88% of its African-American students. Similarly, Garrison School lost 53% of its white students, but lost 72% of its African-American students due to wing closings. An examination of minority percentage changes in schools during the 1983-84 school year, revealed that the percentage of non-minority students enrolled in raciallyidentifiable white schools increased slightly as did the percentage of African-American students enrolled in racially-identifiable African-American schools.
In its 1981 Individual Building Analysis, the RSD administrators warned that the closing of certain schools and the reassignment of those students to nearby schools resulting in segregation, would constitute de jure segregation. IBA, B29808. The following closings and reassignments were violative of this warning: Closing Evergreen and sending students to New Milford; closing Guilford Center and sending students to Brookview; closing Fairview and sending students to Johnson; closing Garrison and sending white students to Walker and African-American students to Haskell; closing Skyview and sending students to New Milford and Froberg; and expanding Dennis' boundaries, thereby increasing its racial isolation. The net result of these school and wing closings was that eight schools became substantially more racially isolated, three schools were allowed to remain racially and geographically isolated from the rest of the RSD and many other schools throughout the RSD experienced resegregative enrollment changes. The court finds that the RSD knew that these closures constituted de jure segregation.
Dismantling of Alternative Programs
After the State of Illinois and the Federal court allowed the Rockford Board of Education to proceed without scrutiny, the RBE began to dismantle the alternative programs. In 1981, free transportation and teachers for the full-site programs were canceled, thus effectively eliminating the programs. See, infra, Inequitable Access to Transportation. Additionally, free transportation was eliminated for all students in the secondary schools grades seven through twelve. RBE Letter to Parents, 4/81, B46529. Transportation to some of the alternative programs was also canceled. After the free transportation was canceled, the number of RSD students participating in the desegregation program decreased dramatically. In the 1980-81 school year, 674 students were participating in integration transfers. By the 1981-82 school year, that number had dropped to 277. B4069; B46711.
In March, 1981, the RBE decided to close Lincoln Park Elementary School. Lincoln Park was a full site magnet school that housed the Rockford Alternative Middle School (RAMS) and the Rockford Alternative Elementary School (RAES) programs. Bd. Min., 3/9/81, B16975. The RAMS program was to be moved from Lincoln Park to Lincoln Middle School and the RAES program was to be moved to Ellis School. Id. The RAMS and RAES programs were integrated magnet school programs. Subsequently, despite community protest, the RBE decided to discontinue the RAMS program. Bd.Min., 6/14/82, B17348.
By the 1988-89 school year, the year in which the RSD passed the Reorganization Plan that triggered this lawsuit, the mandatory one-way busing of African-American students was still underway in various schools and the burden of any remaining integration efforts was being borne exclusively by minorities. The RSD schools continued to be severely segregated. After twenty years of desegregation efforts in the Rockford School District, six schools had more than 50% minority enrollment, 63% of the elementary schools were racially-identifiable and 33% of the middle and high schools were racially-identifiable.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Generally, courts hearing liability claims avoid finding that some magical percentage of variance in a school's population from the racial composition of the district as a whole makes a school racially imbalanced. Some courts have explicitly held that it is unnecessary to find that specific schools are segregated or to set a precise numerical ratio that designates a school as segregated or integrated. Armstrong v. Brennan, 539 F.2d 625, 633 (7th 1078 Cir.1976), vacated and remanded, *1078 433 U.S. 672, 97 S.Ct. 2907, 53 L.Ed.2d 1044 (1977), on remand, Armstrong v. O'Connell, 451 F.Supp. 817 (E.D.Wis.1978), on remand, 463 F.Supp. 1295 (E.D.Wis.1979); Arthur v. Nyquist, 415 F.Supp. 904, 912 n. 9 (W.D.N.Y.1976), aff'd on reconsideration, 429 F.Supp. 206 (W.D.N.Y.1977), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 573 F.2d 134 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 860, 99 S.Ct. 179, 58 L.Ed.2d 169 (1978). A rigid mathematical formula would arguably conflict with the dictates of Keyes that

factors other than the composition of a school's student body, "such as the racial and ethnic composition of faculty and staff, and the community and administration attitudes toward the school, must be taken into consideration." Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, Denver Colorado, 413 U.S. 189, 196, 93 S.Ct. 2686, 2691, 37 L.Ed.2d 548 (1973) (emphasis added); see also, Oliver v. Kalamazoo Bd. of Educ., 368 F.Sup 143, 153 (W.D.Mich.1976), aff'd, 508 F.2d 178 (6th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 963, 95 S.Ct. 1950, 44 L.Ed.2d 449 (1975); NAACP v. Lansing Bd. of Educ., 429 F.Supp. 583, 592, aff'd, 559 F.2d 1042 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 997, 98 S.Ct. 635, 54 L.Ed.2d 491 (1977) and aff'd, 571 F.2d 582 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 438 U.S. 907, 98 S.Ct. 3126, 57 L.Ed.2d 1150 (1978).
This does not suggest, however, that student enrollment figures do not play a central role in desegregation cases. Typically the evidence in desegregation cases includes vast historical data showing enrollment by race in the school district and in its individual schools. Based upon the circumstances of the case, the court then makes findings that highlight: (1) the percentage deviation between the minority enrollment in particular schools and the minority population of the district as a whole; and (2) the existence and number of virtual one-race schools in the district. See, e.g., United States v. Yonkers, 624 F.Supp. 1276, 1386 (S.D.N.Y.1985), aff'd, 837 F.2d 1181 (2d Cir.1987) (64% of district's white students attended schools with at least 90% white students, while 28% of the minority students were enrolled in schools with at least 80% minority enrollment); Lansing, 429 F.Supp. at 609 (in a system in which 18,800 students attended 48 elementary schools and 79% of the students were white and 21% minority, two elementary schools were 85% minority and a third 49% minority); Morgan, 379 F.Supp. at 424 (in a system of 96,000 students, in which 61% of the students were white and 39% minority, 84% of the white students attended schools that were more than 80% white and 62% of the African-American students attended schools more than 70% African-American); Oliver, 368 F.Supp. at 153 (in a system of 29 elementary schools in which 16.1% of the elementary students were African-American, 92.3% of African-American children went to five schools).
In considering the degree of segregation in student assignments, courts frequently rely upon expert testimony that identifies particular schools as racially imbalanced based upon a certain percentage deviation between the proportion of minority enrollment in a given school and that in the whole district. See, Higgins v. Bd. of Educ. of Grand Rapids, 508 F.2d 779, 787 n. 12 (6th Cir.1974) (15% is a commonly accepted guideline); Penick v. Columbus Bd. of Educ., 429 F.Supp. 229 (S.D. Ohio 1977) (5% variation). Although these analyses do not provide a talismanic mathematical formula for racial identifiability, Price v. Denison Indep. School Dist., 694 F.2d 334 (5th Cir.1983), such formulas serve as a "rough gauge which is a useful reference point when examining particular schools." Columbus, 429 F.Supp. at 268-69. Based upon this type of statistical evidence, and with appropriate reference to conditions in the other areas noted in Keyes, a court may then conclude that the district's schools are "racially imbalanced" or "racially-identifiable."
Conduct Contributing to Racially Identifiable Schools
In cases involving non-statutory dual school systems, courts have cited a wide range of acts and omissions by school boards that have caused or maintained segregation in student assignment. The court finds that the Rockford School District engaged in a pattern of unlawful acts and omissions involving the conduct noted below that caused and maintained segregation in its schools.
1079 *1079 Boundary Changes and Attendance Zones
In most desegregation cases, courts have noted instances in which the defendant school district developed boundaries and attendance zones in such a manner that racial segregation in school assignments resulted. See Yonkers, 624 F.Supp. at 1430, 1526-27; Reed v. Rhodes, 455 F.Supp. 546, 558 (N.D. Ohio 1978), aff'd in part and remanded in part on other grounds, 607 F.2d 714 (6th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1018, 102 S.Ct. 1713, 72 L.Ed.2d 135 (1982); Berry v. School Dist. of Benton Harbor, 442 F.Supp. 1280, 1312-17 (W.D.Mich.1977); Lansing, 429 F.Supp. at 596; Penick v. Columbus Bd. of Educ., 429 F.Supp. 229, 245-46 (S.D.Ohio 1977), aff'd in part and remanded in part on other grounds, 583 F.2d 787 (6th Cir.1978), aff'd, 443 U.S. 449, 99 S.Ct. 2941, 61 L.Ed.2d 666 (1979); Arthur v. Nyquist, 415 F.Supp. at 924, 934-36; Amos v. Bd. of School

Directors of City of Milwaukee, 408 F.Supp. 765, 783-84 (E.D.Wis.), aff'd, Armstrong v. Brennan, 539 F.2d 625 (7th Cir.1976), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 433 U.S. 672, 97 S.Ct. 2907, 53 L.Ed.2d 1044 (1977); Morgan, 379 F.Supp. at 438; Oliver, 368 F.Supp. at 167; Booker v. Special School Dist. No. 1, Minneapolis, Minn., 351 F.Supp. 799, 804 (D.Minn.1972); Johnson v. San Francisco Unified School Dist., 339 F.Supp. 1315, 1336, 1341 (N.D.Cal.1971), vacated on other grounds, 500 F.2d 349 (9th Cir.1974); United States v. Bd. of School Commissioners of Indianapolis, 332 F.Supp. 655, 666-67 (S.D.Ind.1971); Spangler v. Pasadena City Bd. of Educ., 311 F.Supp. 501, 509-10 (C.D.Cal.1970); United States v. School Dist. 151 of Cook County, 286 F.Supp. 786, 798 (N.D.Ill.1968), aff'd, 404 F.2d 1125 (7th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 943, 91 S.Ct. 1610, 29 L.Ed.2d 111 (1971).
The court finds that the Rockford Board of Education gerrymandered school attendance area boundaries in order to create and maintain a separate school system based upon race. The RSD's alleged policy of maintaining neighborhood schools was, in fact, a policy of maintaining neighborhood white schools. Minority students simply did not have the same rights as majority students in the RSD.
Manipulating Feeder Patterns
In many schools districts, high school attendance is determined by feeder patterns geared to schools rather than to geographical areas. Thus, manipulation of these feeder patterns to perpetuate or increase segregation has the same effect as manipulating attendance zones boundaries. See Berry, 442 F.Supp. at 1310; Morgan, 379 F.Supp. at 442-48. The court finds that the Rockford School District consistently and intentionally manipulated school feeder patterns in order to maintain segregation in its schools.
Optional Attendance Zones and Open Enrollment
In some desegregation cases, courts have found that the defendant school districts contributed to segregative conditions by employing optional attendance zones or open enrollment policies by means of which students were permitted to attend one of two or more schools. See United States v. School Dist. of Omaha, 521 F.2d 530, 540-43 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 946, 96 S.Ct. 361, 46 L.Ed.2d 280 (1975); Oliver v. Michigan St. Bd. of Educ., 508 F.2d 178, 183-84 (6th Cir. 1974); Brinkman v. Gilligan, 503 F.2d 684, 695-696 (6th Cir.1974); Penick, 429 F.Supp. at 245-46; Arthur, 415 F.Supp. at 924, 939-41; Armstrong, 408 F.Supp. at 812; Morgan, 379 F.Supp. at 449; Booker, 351 F.Supp. at 804; Board of School Commissioners of Indianapolis, 332 F.Supp. at 668. The predictable result of giving majority or minority students the option of attending predominantly white or AfricanAmerican schools is student choices that create or intensify segregation in school enrollments. Id.
The court finds that the Rockford School District consistently and intentionally maintained an open enrollment policy that contributed nothing to the desegregation of its schools. The open enrollment policy benefited majority students through the use of alternative programs while, at the same time, burdened minority students through mandatory one-way busing.
Construction of New Schools
Courts commonly cite a school board's segregative building placement decisions as contributing to segregation in 1080 student assignments. *1080 See Omaha, 521 F.2d at 543; Reed, 455 F.Supp. at 561; Berry, 442 F.Supp. at
1326-27; Penick, 429 F.Supp. at 241-42; Armstrong, 408 F.Supp. at 788; Morgan, 379 F.Supp. at 428-31; Oliver, 368 F.Supp. at 170; Johnson, 339 F.Supp. at 1337, 1341. The placement of school facilities on particular sites is an action with a singular capacity to promote either integration or maintain segregation. Reed, 455 F.Supp. at 561 ; Booker, 351 F.Supp. at 804; School Dist. 151 of Cook County, 286 F.Supp. at 798. In Keyes, the United States Supreme Court condemned "the practice of building a school ... to a certain size and in a certain location, with conscious knowledge that it would be a segregated school." 413 U.S. at 201-02, 93 S.Ct. at 2694. Other courts have similarly found that situating schools, "under the guise of pursuing a neighborhood school policy ... so that these schools were segregated on the very day they opened their doors," represents "positive action to

aggravate segregation." Soria v. Oxnard School Dist., 386 F.Supp. 539, 543 (C.D.Cal.1974); Lansing, 429 F.Supp. at 622.
The court finds that when the RSD built a new school, boundaries were gerrymandered in order to continue to isolate minority populations. Further, the Rockford School District's decisions as to the location of new schools were made in such a way as to promote and retain segregation. Minority students bore a disproportionate burden in relation to transportation as a result of these decisions.
School Closings and the Assignment or Reassignment of Students
When faced with the need to close a school or to reassign students because of overcrowding or other similar factors, school districts are often presented with an opportunity to make either segregative or integrative student assignments. A school district's consistent choice of the more segregative option is evidence of unlawful conduct. See Yonkers, 624 F.Supp. at 1528; Reed, 455 F.Supp. at 560-61; Berry, 442 F.Supp. at 1313-15.
School closings can increase segregation if a district assigns students to other schools in a racially segregative manner. See Reed, 455 F.Supp. at 563; Berry, 442 F.Supp. at 1304. In some cases, school authorities have closed schools that appeared likely to become naturally integrated through changes in neighborhood residential patterns. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 21, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 1278-79, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971); Oliver, 368 F.Supp. at 164. This action has sometimes been accompanied by a decision to build new schools in outlying regions farthest from the minority population center so as to maintain the separation of the races with a minimum departure from the formal principles of "neighborhood schools." Swann, 402 U.S. at 21, 91 S.Ct. at 1278-79. Such a policy does more than just skew the short-run racial composition of the student body of the new school; the policy may well promote segregated residential patterns that, when combined with "neighborhood zoning," further lock the school system into the mold of segregation of the races. Id.
The court finds that when the RSD closed a school, it consistently reassigned the affected students in such a way that the white students went to racially-identifiable white schools and the African-American students went to racially-identifiable African-American schools. As such, the RSD maintained the segregative nature of its school district.
Additions to Existing Schools
Along these same lines, each decision concerning additions to existing schools offers a school district the option of locating the addition either to promote or alleviate racial segregation. For example, the decision to build an addition onto a school that is 100% African-American is a decision to increase the number of African-American students enrolled in that particular school. Accordingly, courts have frequently held that decisions to add to existing schools impermissibly contributed to segregation in student enrollments. See Reed, 455 F.Supp. at 562; Berry, 442 F.Supp. at 1310-12; Oliver, 368 F.Supp. at 173; Booker, 351 F.Supp. at 803; Johnson, 339 F.Supp. at 1318; Board of School Commissioners of Indianapolis, 332 F.Supp. at 667; Spangler, 311 F.Supp. at 517. The courts finds that the Rockford School District consistently and intentionally constructed additions to its facilities in 1081 such a way as *1081 to promote and maintain segregation within its school system.
Manipulation of School Capacity
In some instances, school districts have manipulated school capacities as a means of effecting racial segregation. See Reed, 455 F.Supp. at 565; Morgan, 379 F.Supp. at 426-27; Spangler, 311 F.Supp. at 518. School districts have permitted African-American schools to operate at overcapacity rather than transfer or reassign minority students to white schools or have operated white schools at overcapacity in order to avoid sending white students to African-American schools. Id., see, also, United States v. Texas Educ. Agency, 600 F.2d 518, 522 (5th Cir.1979). The court finds that the RSD operated its majority schools at overcapacity levels in order to avoid the transfer of majority students to racially-identifiable minority schools. The RSD engaged in such actions consistently and intentionally.

Special Transfers and Transfer Policies
In many cases, defendant school boards have employed transfer policies in order to perpetuate school segregation. One common technique is the use of special transfers to allow white students to avoid attending predominantly African-American schools. This device has an obvious segregative effect on student enrollments. See Omaha, 521 F.2d at 539-40; Reed, 455 F.Supp. at 566; Lansing, 429 F.Supp. at 597-601; Armstrong, 408 F.Supp. at 791-94, 819; Morgan, 379 F.Supp. at 473-74; Spangler, 311 F.Supp. at 520. Another segregative transfer technique is to limit African-American transfers to white schools by imposing various conditions on such transfers. See Berry, 442 F.Supp. at 1312 (no transfer granted if likely to lead to further transfers). When the foreseeable effect of a transfer policy is to increase the racial identifiability of schools with large minority enrollments, the policy strongly indicates segregative intent. NAACP v. Lansing Bd. of Educ., 559 F.2d 1042, 1051 (6th Cir.1977); Armstrong, 451 F.Supp. at 856-57; Berry, 442 F.Supp. at 1313.
The court finds that the RSD permitted special transfers for majority students whose parents requested such transfers. The RSD engaged in such action even when the transfer had a negative integration effect on the schools involved. Such a policy in the RSD had the effect of maintaining racially-identifiable schools.
Finally, the court finds that the RSD was aware of desegregation proposals that would have brought about the easy and swift integration of the Rockford School District. The proposals were all rejected. Any desegregation programs adopted by the RSD burdened only minority students and set up a benefit program for white students. The primary method used by the RBE to desegregate its schools was the mandatory transfer of minority students and the voluntary transfer of white students through the provision of special programs. When pressured by the State of Illinois and the United States District Court throughout most of the 1970's, the RBE used delay tactics in order to avoid compliance with the dictates of the United States Constitution and the rules and regulations of the ISBE.
FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT DISPARITIES
INTRODUCTION
Children of all races should have equivalent facilities, equipment and supplies. Children should have an equal opportunity to learn. The RSD, however, did not provide equivalent facilities, equipment or supplies to the raciallyidentifiable minority schools. Minority students and their teachers, at various times, had little support equipment, an insufficient number of textbooks (which were often dated) and a constant drought of supplies. Further, the record shows that minority students were taught in older, and at times poorly maintained buildings. The RSD also maintained a private gifts policy that contributed to the disparity between the races.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Systemwide Disparities In Facilities And EMS
Systemwide disparities in facilities and in equipment, materials and supplies (hereinafter "EMS") between 1082 predominantly minority *1082 and predominantly majority schools existed during the past two decades.
Educators and administrators in the RSD, and former members of the School Board itself, testified as to the disparities between the predominantly minority and the predominantly majority schools in the District. Their testimony supports the objective data derived from the RSD and third-party studies. This combination of RSD documents and witness testimony provide an in-depth look at facilities and EMS disparities at particular points in time over the past two decades.

Data Demonstrating Systemwide Disparities
At the RBE meeting of February 23, 1970, Superintendent Shaheen submitted a report indicating that there existed a considerable imbalance and uneven distribution of school equipment throughout the District at that time. Bd.Min., 2/23/70, B0012479. In light of these disparities among schools with regard to equipment, Dr. Shaheen recommended to the RBE that equipment and supplies be balanced among the schools in Rockford as much as possible. He recommended that such balancing be achieved by transfers of equipment where there was sizable imbalance and/or by additional purchases of equipment where balance can be readily achieved. Such a balancing was never performed.
In 1973-74, the RSD prepared a report entitled "1973-74 Elementary School Facilities." B48233, B48263B48575. Under Section C of that report, data was presented regarding physical systems (cooling systems, lighting, interior maintenance, exterior maintenance, and ground maintenance) in each of the elementary schools. Evaluation of this data revealed disparities between African-American schools and white schools. Chart 1 shows the mean ranking of the physical systems by school type (African-American, integrated, white), ranked on a scale of 1 to 4, with 1 being the lowest and 4 being the highest. African-American schools had a mean ranking with regard to physical systems of 2.45. Integrated schools had a mean of 2.51, and white schools a mean of 2.57.

Chart 1

1973-74 Elementary School Facilities

-----------------------------------------------------------

Quadrant

---------------------------------------------

NW

SW

NE

SE

-----------------------------------------------------------

A

1.30

2.04

2.32

2.20

B

2.80

2.55

2.74

2.53

C

2.00

2.50

2.64

2.50

D

1.80

3.04

2.87

2.75

------------------------------------------------------------

All Categories

2.53

2.53

2.64

2.50

____________________________________________________________

School Type

------------------------------------------------------------

Black Integrated White

------------------------------------------------------------

A

1.91

2.33

2.30

B

2.50

2.33

2.61

C

2.58

2.55

2.54

D

2.81

2.82

2.83

------------------------------------------------------------

All Categories

2.45

2.51

2.57

____________________________________________________________

The First Interim Order in this case, dated July 1989, required the RSD to perform a detailed evaluation of the 1083 physical condition and educational equipment of the Southwest *1083 Quadrant elementary schools. On January
2, 1990, Defendant filed a twenty-seven page Facilities and Equipment Evaluation, prepared by Jim Olson, District Supervisor of Buildings and Grounds. This report provided information on the number of various types of equipment allocated to each RSD elementary school. Facilities and Equipment Evaluation, B0509071. The RSD's data revealed that African-American schools had close to 40% less equipment than white schools.

Table 1 gives a detailed breakdown of the allocation of equipment by racial composition of the schools. Since the three categories of schools contained different numbers of schools, the pieces of equipment per school is evaluated. While there is some variation, the African-Americans schools tended to have the lowest per school allocation, with either integrated or white schools having the highest allocation of equipment. The magnitude of this difference is illustrated in the last column of the table, which shows the ratio of the white per school allocation to the African-American per school allocation. On most of the items, the ratio is greater than 1, indicating that the white schools had a greater number of pieces of equipment per school.

Table 1: Per School Equipment Allocation, by School Racial Composition.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Type of Equipment

Black

Integrated

White

Ratio of

Schools:

Schools:

Schools:

White to

Per School Per School Per School

Black

Allocation Allocation Allocation Per School

Allocation

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Student

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Microscope

0.71

4.42

8.31

11.63

Speak & Spell

0.00

0.17

0.08

__**

35mm Viewer

1.71

2.33

1.46

0.85

Language Master

2.29

2.67

1.46

0.64

Tape Recorder

14.14

24.92

26.15

1.85

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Teacher

_____________________________________________________________________________

Carts

16.00

21.25

28.38

1.77

Copy Machines

2.14

2.58

3.15

1.47

Duplicators

2.43

3.67

3.23

1.33

Kilns

0.43

0.67

0.85

1.97

Record Players

19.71

18.50

23.46

1.19

Pianos

2.71

3.67

3.77

1.39

Projectors

12.29

14.50

19.08

1.55

Opaque Projectors

1.00

1.33

1.77

1.77

Overhead Projectors

8.43

7.58

12.00

1.42

Screens

17.86

19.58

17.54

0.98

Slide Projectors

1.71

1.83

3.62

2.11

Televisions

2.43

4.00

7.46

3.08

VCR's

0.86

2.00

3.00

3.5

Tape Decks

0.00

0.00

0.15

__

Radios

1.29

1.75

0.92

0.72

Controlled Readers

1.57

3.92

5.46

3.48

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Miscellaneous

_____________________________________________________________________________

Adding Machines

0.86

1.08

1.08

1.26

Calculators

0.43

2.25

4.08

9.52

Stapler, Electric

0.00

0.33

0.31

__[*]

Typewriter

3.71

2.83

3.15

0.85

Microphone

0.57

1.67

3.15

5.52

Cameras

0.57

2.08

1.62

2.83

Dark Shade

0.00

5.42

7.31

__

Amplifier

0.00

0.33

0.69

__

Dry Mount Press

0.14

0.17

0.15

1.08

Fan

0.29

1.92

6.23

21.81

___________________________________________________________________________

1084 *1084

Computer

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Computers

16.00

20.92

20.92

1.31

Monitors

15.86

20.58

20.46

1.29

Printers

3.29

3.75

3.38

1.03

__________________________________________________________________________

Table 2: Pieces of Equipment per School, by School Racial Composition.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

School Type

Student

Teacher

Misc.

Computer

All

Equipment Equipment Equipment Equipment Equipment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Black Schools

18.86

90.86

6.57

35.14

151.43

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Integrated Schools

34.50

106.83

18.08

45.25

204.67

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

White Schools

37.46

133.85

27.77

44.77

243.85

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All Schools

32.28

114.31

19.50

42.84

208.97

________________________________________________________________________________

Table 2 summarizes the information contained in Table 1 by collapsing the various types of equipment into four categories: student equipment, teacher equipment, miscellaneous equipment and computer equipment. Table 2 shows that strong disparities existed in how equipment was allocated to schools of different racial composition. Specifically, African-American schools had close to 30% less equipment than did all schools in the system (151.43 pieces compared to 208.97 pieces) and close to 40% less equipment than did white schools (151.43 pieces compared to 243.85 pieces).

Figure 1 is a graph depicting these relationships. Figures 2 through 5 illustrate the relationship between number of pieces of equipment allocated (for the four categories of equipment) and the percentage of African-American students in school.[13] Overall, for each category of equipment, as the percentage of African-American students in the school increased, the number of pieces of equipment allocated to the school declined. The advantage of these graphs is that the schools are not grouped (i.e., "African-American", "integrated", "white") and, therefore, the full strength of the relationship between pieces of equipment and percentage of African-American students is conveyed.

1085 *1085

1086 *1086

1087 *1087

1088 *1088

1089 *1089

1090 *1090 The equipment disparities revealed by Defendant's January 2, 1990 Facilities and Equipment Evaluation were known to the School District through an annual equipment inventory process conducted by the District. The Facilities and Equipment Evaluation states that the District maintained permanent inventory lists that were utilized

annually to inventory equipment in various schools and District facilities. Facilities and Equipment Evaluation at 14-17, B509071. This process was coordinated by the Director of Purchasing. Permanent inventory forms were sent out annually to each school for correction and verification. These permanent inventory forms required itemby-item identification of any equipment that was received through Federal funds of any kind. The annual forms also called for comments on the condition of the equipment. Looking at the data, then, one could determine the usefulness of the equipment in each school.
John Costello, former RSD principal who was retained by the RSD in 1989 to close ten schools, testified that inventory lists for the years immediately prior to the filing of this lawsuit were unavailable because they were not retained in original form. Costello Dep. at 14. Defendant's failure to produce pre-lawsuit inventory lists makes precise evaluation of equipment allocation to African-American schools at the time this suit was filed impossible. However, even Defendant's post-lawsuit equipment evaluations, performed after some remedial measures were taken, showed strong disparities in equipment allocation.
Witness Testimony
Former Board member Carl Towns testified that when he became a Board member he performed a purposeful series of school visits to determine conditions in the schools. In his opinion, pervasive differences in EMS and in the curriculum being offered in the various schools existed. Towns Dep. at 25-26, 30. Dr. Robert Greene, former Haskell School principal, also testified that there were widespread disparities in EMS among the elementary schools. Greene Dep. at 79-84.
Eloise Beal taught both as a substitute teacher and as a full-time instructor. As a substitute, Beal taught in schools all over the district. During her tenure as a full-time teacher Beal taught at Church School and at Barbour School. Both Church and Barbour are Southwest Quadrant schools. Beal testified as to the disparities in facilities and equipment between East and West side schools. Beal noticed that East side schools had
[E]verything teachers need to do their job ... everything seemed to be in shape much better than the classrooms on the west side ... it was just more advanced, everything was. Everything [on the East side] seemed to be[,] in [a] certifiable sense, just about a hundred percent ... And I'm saying that the east side seemed to be more prepared in the classroom ... They had plenty things to 0907 seemingly to work with. There were times that we didn't have materials to work with ... The east side schools, the ones that I worked in, had really nice stuff.
Beal Dep. at 13-25.
Ms. Beal went on to testify about the shortage of textbooks in the schools on the West side. She told of pushing desks together and having multiple students reading from the same book. She testified as to shortages of materials of all kinds, including art supplies, visual aids and workbooks:
We didn't have ... workbooks for the children ... I have erased work in workbooks that children had done so the other children coming after, so they would have them, [to] do the same type of work, until these fingers were sore at the end of the day.
Beal Dep. at 31.
The students themselves were well aware of these disparities. One former student, Pat Redmond, went from McIntosh Elementary School, located in the Southwest Quadrant, to Eisenhower Middle School, located in the Northeast Quadrant. He noticed that everything at Eisenhower was basically brand new. He testified that he had newer books and more resources and facilities, and further testified that Eisenhower was "nice and neat." Redmond Dep. at 7.
1091 *1091 Marcella Harris, the first African-American member of the School Board, visited numerous AfricanAmerican schools on the West side of the city during her years as a Board member (1965-1970). She found these schools to be so overcrowded that "the kids reminded [her] of sardines packed in a can." Harris Test., Tr. at 640. In one African-American school, a converted coal bin was being used as an adjunct classroom. The

restroom facilities and water fountains were "abominable" and "unfit for human use." The pathways to the schools were littered with glass, rubble and garbage. In contrast, the older schools on the East side were well-maintained and fully operational.
Nathaniel Martin, a teacher and a principal in the RSD for twenty-eight years, observed pervasive disparities in the educational materials and equipment available at majority schools as opposed to minority schools. When Martin was part of a North Central accreditation team, he visited Eisenhower Middle School and observed a wealth of high technology equipment and books. In contrast, Washington Middle School, where Martin was principal, had insufficient numbers of books, books with outdated copyrights and a lack of high technology equipment. The distribution of discretionary funds to schools favored by the RSD's superintendents and assistant superintendents contributed to the disparities in equipment and materials between majority and minority schools. While Martin was principal at Washington Middle School, his requests for discretionary funds were repeatedly turned down by the RSD's administrators.
Hiram Gregory Luna, a former member of the School Desegregation Committee, visited a number of elementary schools on the East and West sides of Rockford. He remembers the schools being "worlds apart." Similarly, Sandra Glaspie, the current assistant principal at East High School and an employee of the Rockford School District for twenty years, noticed disparities of supplies and books between East and West side schools.
Michael Bozym was a teacher at the Royal Avenue Annex. From 1968-1970, the Annex housed fifth and sixth grade students from Ellis and Church Schools. The Annex was located in the Southwest Quadrant. Bozym remembers visiting Walker School on the East side. Walker was carpeted, had a full library and a media center. Bozym testified as to how surprised he was at the differences between Walker and the Annex where he taught. "I felt like a country kid in the big city looking at the buildings." Bozym Dep. at 17-18. The Annex did not have a library. As a result, teachers would put all of the school's books on a cart and roll it from room to room. As many as four students would need to share a book and no one could check the books out. Walker, in contrast, had a librarian, a library and many books. The whole environment at Walker was completely different from the Royal Avenue Annex. At Walker the environment "was inviting and it shaped behavior ... in a positive way for those children who were comfortable there." Id. at 19-23.
Dr. Thomas Shaheen, Superintendent of Schools from 1965-1970, observed that achievement levels and the quality of facilities correlated with the race of the student body. African-American students tended to have lower academic results and their schools were of poorer quality. Dr. Shaheen stated that the imbalances in equipment from school to school in the RSD was a substantial problem during his time as Superintendent. Access to equipment was dependent on where a child went to school. For example, parent organizations in some sections of Rockford could raise several thousands of dollars in one weekend to buy needed equipment. The poorer sections of Rockford, however, were in greater need for equipment and less able to raise additional funds. During his tenure, Dr. Shaheen informed the RSD that it was the obligation of the RSD to make sure that equipment and materials were available universally. Allowing the maintenance of a system that let wealthier schools have more equipment and materials was something he could not support. T. Shaheen Test., Tr. at 56-57.
1092 Joanne Shaheen testified that when a white school needed something, it was provided. *1092 For example, Maud Johnson School, a white school on the East side, had much more equipment than Henrietta School in the Southwest Quadrant. The parent organizations as well as RSD funding contributed to these disparities. Dr. Shaheen had aggressively tried to change the parental giving policy but was unable to do so. J. Shaheen Test., Tr. at 50.
Dr. Connie Goode, an African-American employee of the RSD, refused to send her children to their neighborhood school, Ellis, because the school was in very poor condition, the school was dirty and she didn't believe that the principal would be sensitive to the needs of her children. Dr. Goode also described the condition of educational materials and supplies that were available at Washington Middle School (in the Southwest Quadrant) in the 1960's. The books that were available were outdated and there was a lack of equipment in the science laboratory. Goode Test., Tr. at 1314.

Disparity Examples At Individual Schools
Individual school histories over a twenty year period highlight the systemwide facilities and equipment disparities detailed above. Montague School, located in the Southwest Quadrant, was 69% African-American in 1970-71. The RSD was under pressure to move the Montague students because Montague School was not in compliance with State fire codes. The State Fire Safety Code required minimum safety standards in all public schools as of 1964. In 1964, the year of the Code's enactment, the RSD unsuccessfully sued the State of Illinois in an attempt to have the Code declared unconstitutional. The conditions at Montague School were so bad that parents, teachers and community residents asked the Board to close Montague because they believed it was unsafe for the building to be occupied. On February 16, 1971, approximately twenty-five Montague elementary students were removed from their classes by their parents and taken to Carlson Elementary School, where the parents asked that their children be enrolled. Available space existed at Carlson since the Jane Adams Housing Project children, who had previously been bused there, were sent back to Kishwaukee School by the RSD.
Despite the unsafe conditions at Montague, the RSD found that Montague was adequate to continue to house children for another four months, until the end of the school year. In February of 1971, following the RSD's decision, the RSD heard from the West Side Community Organization (WESCO), the Montague School staff, Grant Schneider who was the Area 4 Chair of the RSD, Rosa Stamps of the Concerned Parents of Montague School and others that the Montague students should be immediately moved to the then empty Page Park School, northwest of Rockford. The RSD continued to refuse to relocate the Montague students until the end of the year.
In mid-February 1971, in response to the RSD's refusal to remove these mostly African-American children from what was believed to be a dangerous facility, the parents and students began a boycott of the school. On March 4, 1971, the parents agreed to end the boycott and return their children to school. On March 8, 1971, the RSD agreed to transport the Montague children to Page Park School for the remainder of the school year.
Mary E. Williams, a former teacher in both the Winnebago County and Rockford Public Schools from 1953 until 1982, testified regarding Montague School:
I was hired at Montague Elementary School, which was part of the City of Rockford public school system. I was very sad about going to Montague because it was nothing like Nashold. Nashold was a new school and very modern. Montague, on the other hand, was a much older structure. The school was very dark and dingy and did not have the modern conveniences of Nashold. I worked at Montague for two days before the School District informed me of an opening at Peterson Elementary School. Because of the condition of the school, I was happy to leave Montague and I stayed at Peterson for 25 years until the school was closed after the 1981-82 school year.
Mary Williams Aff. at ¶¶ 7-8.
1093 *1093 During her deposition, Williams elaborated on the differences between Nashold and Montague. With regard to Nashold, she noted "the modern conveniences" of the facility.
We had a wonderful library at Nashold, complete library. We had nice, clean modern bathrooms, visual aids, you know, with the maps and whatever. And nice window lighting and ceiling lighting and everything. It was just modern and it was just nice. Montague didn't have that. I remember when I first went down in the basement to take my children to the bathroom and I remember the steps creaking. I said, oh, my goodness, this is like going down in a dungeon, creaking to take them to the bathroom. And it was dark down there.
Mary Williams Dep. at 9.
Prior to its closing in 1973, Muldoon School, a predominantly African-American school in the Southwest Quadrant, was in dire need of renovation. Muldoon was an old, previously closed Catholic girls' school, that was

purchased by the RSD and operated for only one year, housing 4th, 5th and 6th grade children from Ellis. In response to parent protests, the RSD allocated a small sum of money for repair work for the school year 1972-73.
Haskell School (approximately 60% African-American from 1970 through 1988) suffered significant adverse effects from facilities conditions, which the School Board and Central Office refused to correct despite repeated pleas from the Haskell principal. These conditions were described by the principal, Dr. Robert Greene, in a paper he presented to the Illinois Principals' Association in October 1983, and were amplified in Dr. Greene's deposition testimony. Dr. Greene further testified that the conditions of these facilities had a significant negative impact on the educational process in the school. BH1860.
When the original seven room Haskell School was built in 1959, the building already had a significant minority enrollment. Pupil Placement Committee data for 1960 showed that the school had 23% African-American students. This percentage increased to 37% in 1967. By 1970, the enrollment was 62% African-American. Building additions in 1962 and 1966 expanded the building to twenty-one classrooms and consumed nearly all of the land surrounding this building, leaving no playground. Id. All three sections of Haskell, built in three different years, lacked acoustical treatment of any kind (except in the office area). The building had tile floors, prestressed concrete ceilings and steel venetian blinds at the windows. Acoustical treatment was lacking not only in the classrooms, but also in the gym and lunchroom. BH1861. Dr. Greene testified that Haskell was like "teaching inside a steel tank." The lack of acoustical treatment made it very difficult for children to hear teacher questions and for teachers to hear student answers. This seriously undermined the educational process. Dr. Greene testified that as soon as he became principal in 1971, he submitted a report to the Superintendent requesting installation of acoustical ceilings in all of the classrooms with carpeting, where feasible. BH1862. Dr. Greene stated that the School Board and the Central Office were unresponsive. Despite his constant pressure for the next twelve years, nothing was ever done by the District to correct this condition, with one exception. In the late 1970's the District did put acoustical ceilings in a couple of the classrooms.
Dr. Greene further testified that once he realized the District would not fix this condition at Haskell, he and the students began a laborious process of raising funds by collecting old newspapers and selling them to trash dealers. Through this process, Dr. Greene and the students were able to raise a few dollars each year and to put acoustical ceilings in one or two classrooms per year. Twelve years passed before all of the Haskell classrooms had acoustical ceilings. According to Dr. Greene, the actual cost of acoustical ceilings was relatively small. The problem could have been solved with a relatively small expenditure on the part of the District.
With respect to the lack of a playground, Dr. Greene testified that this caused "the feeling of claustrophobia, 1094 overcrowding and *1094 excessive noise level in the building...." Dr. Greene stated he felt like "he had been
handed the keys to a nice, clean, sanitized prison for 500 children serving 7 hour per day terms. A 4-year campaign by the principal and teachers with significant help from the news media finally overcame the bureaucratic buck passing and inertia." BH1861. A city block adjacent to the school was finally acquired, primarily through the assistance of the City and the Park District and Congressman John Anderson. In 1976, a four-acre playground was opened at Haskell School.
Dr. Greene's testimony shows that the RSD itself was either an obstacle or, at best, a passive participant in obtaining this playground. Dr. Greene stated that without the relationships developed during his four-year term as County Superintendent of Schools (1967-1971), it would not have been possible to get the playground for Haskell. Greene Dep. at 44-50. Dr. Greene's report states that:
[T]he preceding Principal and Parent-Teacher Organization had petitioned the School Board in 1967 for a playground, but the School Board's $24-million building program in 1969-71 failed to allocate any funds for Haskell School. This inaction continued despite a 1969 City-County Planning Commission Study that noted a high density of young children in the Haskell area and the need for a school-neighborhood playground, and despite a 1970 Park District application for federal revenue sharing funds for a Haskell playground.
BH1860.

A second facilities deficiency identified by Dr. Greene upon becoming principal in 1971 was the need for a library/ learning center. Dr. Greene made this need known in his report to the Superintendent's Office that year. BH1862. Dr. Greene testified during his deposition that he and parents made repeated efforts to get the library/learning center, but the District would not provide it. He stated that in his visits to Eastside schools, he saw that all of them had such facilities. Dr. Greene believed the School Board would not have failed to respond to a request from an Eastside school for such a facility. Greene Dep. at 61-62, 65-66. Dr. Greene testified that eventually he was able to get the library/learning center built at Haskell. The library/learning center was built, however, by going to downtown buildings that were being demolished for the new Metro Centre and salvaging used drywall and other building materials during the demolition. Dr. Greene then took those back to Haskell where they were installed by a combination of parents and moonlighting District tradesmen (who worked without knowledge of their Central Office supervisors). Id. at 67-72; Bd.Min. 8/14/72, B13458.
The RSD's Private Gifts Policy Contributed To EMS Disparities
For twenty-five years, the RSD consistently operated in a manner that allowed parent gifts and other private gifts to provide a much better educational experience for white students than for minority students. Schools serving middle and upper income students received more gifts from their PTA's, PTO's and other third-parties, than schools serving lower income students. Accordingly, the schools serving middle and upper income students had far more equipment, materials and supplies.
This problem was constantly recognized in RSD documents. Beginning with Superintendent Shaheen, who asked that the policy allowing gifts to individual schools be changed, through the QUEFAC/ISBE years and right up to the 1989 Reorganization Plan, which explicitly recognized the "inequities created by parent gifts," RSD at no time took any significant corrective action. In fact, the RSD's policy with regard to "Gifts, Grants and Bequests" gave the Board (and the Superintendent in consultation with the Board) complete discretion to accept or reject private gifts to the District. The Board also had complete discretion as to the purpose and allocation of such gifts to the schools.
Further, the RSD exercised discretion over reallocating property from closed schools. With regard to partial 1095 school closings and changes in building utilization due *1095 to decline and/or shifts in enrollment, the RSD
formulated a policy "that gifted property remain[ed] in the building so long as the use of that property remain[ed] appropriate." The policy also was, however, that the Board "reserve[d] the authority to control the placement or disposition of such property." Bd. Policy, 5/85, B44168; Bd. Policy, 9/8/87, B44169. During a board meeting held on February 23, 1981, when the RSD adopted a plan for several school closings, the RSD responded to a question raised as to the disposition of gifts from PTO and PTA organizations in schools to be closed, that it was Board policy that such gifts become the property of the school district and that they be placed where they were needed. Bd.Min., 2/23/81, B16973. The Board did, in fact, follow its own policy and exercised complete control and discretion over the re-allocation of gifts and PTO funds from schools closed in 1981.[14]
Despite the Board's admitted authority to control the allocation of gifts, the Board always opted (with the exception of closed schools) to allow the donors to decide where the gifts would go. A review of board minutes showed that the RSD accepted gifts as a regular part of each meeting. The Board minutes constituted the record of the gift and contained the value assigned to the gift by the donor. In most cases, the donor designated which school received the gift. Defendant's Response to Interrogatories, 1992-4, No. 6.
In 1987, Michael Williams, a Board member, raised the issue of private gift inequities before the Board. Williams expressed the concern that the Northeast Quadrant parents supported a private school system within the public school system and that it appeared the donor parents exerted substantial control over those schools. The RSD did nothing in response to Williams' concerns.
At a Board meeting on November 27, 1967, Superintendent Shaheen recommended to the Board a "gifts to school" policy that would allow the District, rather than the PTA's, PTO's or other donors, to determine in what manner and for which schools the gifts be used. Dr. Shaheen recommended that whenever gifts were offered by an individual or organization to the District, the Board be the one to determine the propriety of the acceptance of

such gifts. Dr. Shaheen also believed that the Board should not accept gifts with restrictions on their use. Any gift presented should become the exclusive property of the RSD and should be used for whatever purpose the administration of the school deemed appropriate. Dr. Shaheen subsequently withdrew his recommendation after the Board heard discussion on the recommended policy from members of the Booster Club of all four high schools and from parents of elementary school children. Thus, the Board did not adopt the suggested policy. Bd.Min., 11/27/67, B11683.
The Board's policy of allowing donors to determine the allocation of gifts resulted in some schools receiving substantially more in terms of equipment and supplies than other schools. The allocation of gifts, in turn, depended on the ability of PTA's and PTO's to raise money. Former Wilson Middle School Principal Curtis Anderson testified that there were "some schools where the PTO's were able to raise much more money to provide help to their schools ... than some of the parents in the poorer school districts ... [T]he need for those who 1096 were able to provide additional funds was not probably as great as the need for other schools that could *1096 not provide additional funds to get school supplies." Anderson Dep. at 32-33.
Accordingly, the court finds that the RSD was well aware that inequities were caused by disproportionate PTO contributions to schools in wealthier neighborhoods. An examination of Board Minutes reveals significant disparities by Quadrant in gifts received:[15]
a. The percentage of gifts going to elementary schools, listed by Quadrant, for the time period 1967-88 are: Southeast 47%, Northwest 21%, Northeast 21%, and Southwest 11%.
b. The percentage of gifts going to middle schools, listed by Quadrant for the time period 1967-1988 are: Northeast 53%, Southeast 24%, Northwest 22%, and Southwest .6%.
c. The percentage of gifts going to high schools, listed by Quadrant for the time period 1967-1988 are: Northeast 54%, Southeast 29%, and Northwest and Southwest 17%.

Elementary Schools

FIGURE 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dollar Amount and Percent Going to Quadrant

-------------------------------------------------------

NE

SE

NW

SW

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PTO Contributions

$269,918

$404,251

$154,887

$87,847

29%

44%

17%

10%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Gifts

$14,397

$8,491

$10,297

$30,377

23%

13%

16%

48%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contributions and

$284,315

$412,742

$165,184

$118,225

Gifts Combined

29%

42%

17%

12%

________________________________________________________________________________

Middle Schools

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dollar Amount and Percent Going to Quadrant

-------------------------------------------------------

NE

NW

SW

NW

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PTO Contributions

$78,585

$46,127

$30,607

$75

51%

30%

20%

0%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Gifts

$1,116

$6,784

$26,755

$21,695

2%

12%

47%

39%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contributions and

$79,701

$52,911

$57,362

$21,770

Gifts Combined

38%

25%

27%

10%

________________________________________________________________________________

1097 *1097

High Schools

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dollar Amount and Percent Going to Quadrant

----------------------------------------------

NE

SE

NW &

SW

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

PTO Contributions

$123,306

$44,046

$45,021

58%

21%

21%

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Gifts

$138,544

$64,847

$33,350

59%

27%

14%

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Contributions and

$261,850

$108,893

$78,371

Gifts Combined

58%

24%

17%

________________________________________________________________________

All Schools

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dollar Amount and Percent Going to Quadrant

---------------------------------------------------

NE

SE

NW

SW

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

PTO Contributions

$471,809

$494,424 $230,514 $87,922

37%

38%

18%

7%

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Gifts

$154,057

$80,122

$70,332

$52,072

43%

22%

20%

15%

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contributions and

$625,866 $574,546 $300,846

$139,994

Gifts Combined

38%

35%

18%

9%

____________________________________________________________________________

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The maintenance of unequal school facilities, equipment and educational materials denies minority students an equal educational opportunity. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 18, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 1277, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971); Green v. County School Bd., 391 U.S. 430, 435, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 1692-93, 20 L.Ed.2d 716 (1968). In some instances, the quality of the school facilities, equipment and materials may cause a school to be racially identifiable. See, Berry v. School Dist. of Benton Harbor, 442 F.Supp. 1280, 1303-1306 (W.D.Mich.1977) (African-American schools older, operated at higher percentage of capacity and had poorer physical conditions, educational materials and library facilities); United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ., 624 F.Supp. 1276, 1431-34 (S.D.N.Y.1985), aff'd, 837 F.2d 1181 (2nd Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1251, 109 S.Ct. 14, 101 L.Ed.2d 964 (1988) (minority schools lacked playground and recreational space and suffered from lack of classroom space, limited instructional areas for educational specialists and inferior facility conditions); Oliver v. Kalamazoo Bd. of Educ., 368 F.Supp. 143, 174-76 (W.D.Mich.1973) (minority schools were older, substandard and unsafe).
The court finds that the RSD's policies and practices with regard to facilities and the provision of equipment, materials and supplies to schools within the RSD caused great disparities in the quality of education between minority and predominantly white schools. System-wide disparities in facilities, equipment, materials and supplies between minority and predominantly white schools is unlawful. Such policies and practices of the RSD clearly indicate intentional discrimination.
1098 *1098 THE 1989 REORGANIZATION PLAN
INTRODUCTION
On February 28, 1989, the RSD adopted an extensive plan for changes in District operations entitled "Together Toward a Brighter Tomorrow." This plan, together with the explanatory and implementation documents generated by the RSD, is referred to in this section as the "Reorganization Plan" or "Plan."
The Reorganization Plan resegregated the District's elementary schools, closed naturally-integrated West High School and several African-American elementary schools, and imposed extreme disparate burdens and educational disadvantages upon minority students. The Plan triggered this litigation.
This section examines the Reorganization Plan and the circumstances of its consideration and adoption by the RSD. Particular aspects and impacts of the Reorganization Plan include: the consequences for elementary schools; the availability of a non-segregative alternative for elementary student assignment; effects on secondary schools, especially in the closing of West High; and the large net increase in transportation, despite a stated goal to reduce transportation.
Many aspects of the Reorganization Plan were never implemented. For the purposes of this opinion, the court has evaluated the Plan in terms of the consequences that Defendant RSD had anticipated at the time of the Plan's adoption, as reflected in enrollment and program projections issued on February 28, 1989 (or developed between that date and May 11, 1989, the date the Complaint in this lawsuit was filed). Similarly, any actions taken by the RSD staff to ameliorate the impact of the Plan after the Complaint in this case was filed are not considered by the court.
The RSD enrollment projections explained the impact of the Plan in terms of "% minority," that is, the combined percentage of all minorities in a school. No breakdowns by separate race/ethnic categories were performed. Accordingly, while most data in this order are presented for African-Americans and Hispanics separately, the particular findings in this section are based upon the District's "% minority" data. The court finds this to be a reasonably close approximation of African-American-plus-Hispanic enrollment, since only 3% of the Fall 1988 enrollment in the RSD was Asian and Native American. In the analysis of resegregative impact, however, the District's "% minority" data was converted into African-American-plus-Hispanic data, by subtracting from the

minority enrollment at each school the number of Asian and Native American students enrolled in that school in the Fall 1988.
Finally, this section employs the definition of desegregation used elsewhere in this Order. A school is "raciallyidentifiable minority" if the relevant enrollment percentage exceeds the systemwide average by more than fifteen percentage points. A school is "racially-identifiable white" if its minority enrollment percentage is less than 50% of the systemwide average.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Extent Of Segregation In The School System Prior To The Reorganization Plan
In 1988-89 school year, the overall African-American/Hispanic percentage of enrollment at the elementary level was 25.7%. Accordingly, a desegregated school in 1988-89 had a population ranging from 12.9% to 40.7% African-American/Hispanic. Based upon the total enrollment in each school, the RSD had the following distribution of elementary schools:

# of Schools

% of Schools

Racially-identifiable

white

14

Desegregated

15

Racially-identifiable

minority

10

__

Total

39

36% 38%
26% __ 100%

1099 *1099 At that time, the percentage of elementary students attending each type of school was as follows:

AfricanAmerican/ Hispanic Students

White Students

Racially-identifiable

white

5%

42%

Desegregated

39%

43%

Racially-identifiable

minority

57%

16%

B509103; D8388.

At the secondary level in 1988-89, the overall African-American/Hispanic percentage was 24.9%, yielding a desegregation range of 12.4% to 39.9%. On that basis, six of the ten middle and high schools in the system were desegregated. The remaining four were each within 3% of the desegregation range. Id. In large part, this level of desegregation was achieved through the mandatory reassignment of minority students to non-Southwest schools and through the voluntary transfer of white students to alternative programs located in predominantly minority schools. B509110; B509125; D8388. The RSD admitted in its 1989 Answer that "almost all minority movement for desegregation [was] mandatory, while virtually all white movement [was] voluntary in response to special program offerings." Complaint and Answer at ¶ 9.3.

The January Version Of The 1989 Reorganization Plan

On January 24, 1989, Interim Superintendent Swanson recommended and the Board of Education promulgated, the first version of the Reorganization Plan (hereinafter the "January Plan"). "[T]he primary rationale for the Plan was to reduce expenditures to offset projected future-year operating deficits." Id. at ¶ 14. The January version of the Plan estimated costs savings of approximately $6.47 million, enough to offset the RSD's deficit projection for 1989-90. Much of the costs savings was derived from steps such as closing swimming pools and staff reductions. B509142.

One provision of the Plan terminated the elementary mandatory assignment system then in effect. Complaint and Answer at ¶ 16.1. The January version of this provision read as follows:

2.12 Draw elementary school boundaries to enable all elementary students to attend schools in the general area of their homes.

This will facilitate parental involvement in the education of their children; reduce the need for transportation; and encourage the use of schools as neighborhood centers. Students will be allowed to transfer for purposes of desegregation and participation in alternative programs.

Id. Thus, the January version of the Plan relocated all or most of the desegregative alternative programs from schools in the Southwest Quadrant to schools in the Northeast and Southeast Quadrants. B509149.

The January plan also proposed closing six elementary schools, two of which were in the Southwest Quadrant, Garrison and Barbour. No schools in the Northeast Quadrant were to be closed. January Plan at 5, B509136. Three other Southwest elementary schools were to be partially closed through split-grade pairs (further explained below). Id. at 6, B509137. The January Plan also closed West High School, a naturally integrated school in a contiguous residential area that produced a racial mix of students reasonably approximating the systemwide racial proportions. In addition, the January Plan redrew the boundaries of the remaining secondary schools in such a manner that Westside students were mandatorily assigned to Eastside secondary schools. This provision stated:

2.13 Design secondary school boundaries which create racial and socio-economic diversity and optimum enrollment in each school; and make the high school boundaries identical with their underlying middle schools.

1100

This boundary pattern abandons the traditional eastside-westside pattern; provides natural diversity among students in each secondary school; equalizes the enrollments in the schools; more equitably shares the need to be transported among majority and minority students; and pairs *1100 each middle school with a high school for improved articulation. Displaced seniors may remain in their current high school but bus transportation will not be provided.

Id.

Although the RSD's stated purpose for the Plan was to reduce expenditures, no cost savings were projected by the Plan either from returning to neighborhood elementary schools or from relocating the alternative programs. The January version of the Plan was tentatively approved by the Board of Education and issued for public comment, by a 6-1 vote with the African-American member of the Board, Michael Williams, in opposition.

The Revised February 1989 Reorganization Plan

The January Plan evoked extensive public reaction, including criticism of its various proposals. In particular, the proposed closing of West High School aroused intense protest from the neighborhood where that school was located. Northwest side parents formed the "Save West High Committee" for the purpose of opposing the closing of West High School. Within two weeks, the Save West High Committee presented the Board with 12,000

signatures in opposition to the closing of West High. D11845-D12286. Rockford's Mayor, John McNamara, also publicly opposed the closing of West High School. See D13853.

In the face of community opposition, Superintendent Swanson and the Board sought to keep the West High building open. In reviewing alternatives to closing West High, the District's administrative leadership recommended that Auburn High School be closed. In his February 8, 1989 memorandum to the Board entitled "Modifications to Original Recommendations," Superintendent Swanson stated in an addendum:

After hearing the concerns of city officials and the business community, I feel we may not have given sufficient consideration to the impact on the West High business and residential neighborhood. I am suggesting that West High remain open and Auburn High School be closed.

B509177.

Within three weeks of its original decision to close West High School, the District promulgated, on February 14, 1989, a Modified Reorganization Plan that, among other things, rescinded the closing of West High School. This version of the Plan was also issued for public comment by a 6-1 vote, with the minority member of the Board in opposition. In the RBE minutes of the February 14, 1989 meeting, under a section entitled: "Modifications to Previously Recommended Changes in District Operations," it was noted that "a discussion took place regarding the equality of the revised recommendations ... [and] the effects the revised plan would have on the elementary children on the West side." Bd.Min., 2/14/89, B21642.

In the Revised Plan of February 14th, the Board rejected Superintendent Swanson's recommendation to keep West High open and close Auburn High instead. The Board opted, rather, to keep the West High building open by converting it to a middle school. In doing so, the Board adopted measures that, through a domino effect, placed burdens upon the minority students in the Southwest Quadrant. Summary of Modifications of Original Plan, 2/14/89, B509157; Confer Dep. at 59. Those measures included:

The West High building became a middle school rather than a high school. To keep the West building open, Defendants removed the GIT, Gifted and Grades 4-8 CAPA students from Wilson, located in the Southwest Quadrant.

Wilson was converted to a Grades 3-6 elementary school.

Three additional elementary schools, surrounding Wilson in the Southwest Quadrant, were closed: Church, Stiles and Ellis.

Two additional split grade structures (K-2) were established at McIntosh and Dennis, feeding into Wilson.

1101

*1101 Wilson was projected by Defendants to have 1227 students, more than twice as large as any previous elementary school in the system, and four times the size of the average elementary school in the District.

Wilson, and its feeder K-2 schools, Dennis and McIntosh, were all projected by Defendants to have 80% minority enrollment.

The Board's decision to close an additional three Southwest side elementary schools was made despite the fact that the Southwest side schools already lacked needed space. Lack of space on the Southwest side was evidenced by the fact that the District's stated justification for moving, under the January plan, all alternative schools out of the Westside schools was lack of space. Driscoll Dep. at 170. Lack of space on the Southwest side was further evidenced by District staff warnings in early February that even under the January Plan, which closed four Southwest side elementary schools as opposed to seven under the February Plan, the Southwest side schools would lack space. Lyman Memo to Sullivan, 2/3/89, D5940.

The Board's decision to convert West High School to a middle school and to close an additional three Southwest side elementary schools was made with a projected minimal cost savings of $336,000. February 14 Plan at 12,

B509190. The Board's decision to create a large elementary school at Wilson, however, was made despite the lack of any advanced planning as to the effects of such a huge elementary school.
In the Plan's February 14th version, the RSD had dropped from the language of the Plan the stated justification that neighborhood elementary boundaries would "reduce the need for transportation" and the justification that the new secondary boundaries would "abandon the traditional Eastside-Westside pattern" and "more equitably share the need to be transported among majority and minority students." All of these phrases contained in the January Plan were missing in both versions of the February Plan. Compare B509137 with B509163 and B509184.
The adverse and disproportionate impact of the revised February 14th Reorganization Plan upon the minority community evoked substantial protest from that community. On February 23, 1989, the District received a written objection from the group "Citizens for Educational and Social Equality" (CEASE) to the February Reorganization Plan. D11784. The group presented the District with detailed data showing that the new Plan would place substantial additional mandatory reassignment burdens on Westside students, most of them minority, beyond the substantial disproportionate burdens that already existed. The group's data showed that under the new Plan, at the high school level, there would be a net student movement from West to East of 733 students, compared to a net student movement from East to West of no students. This constituted additional mandatory reassignment in excess of any current West to East busing. Similarly, at the middle school level, the group's figures showed that there would be a net student movement from West to East of 441 students, compared to a net student movement from East to West of no students. Once again, this was in excess of any current West to East busing. CEASE concluded that the Board's February Plan slated the minority students to "bare the brunt of the student disruption." In addition, the group warned the District that the February Plan "exhibits a callous disregard for a large portion of hard-working, tax-paying and voting citizens of the City of Rockford." D11789.
On February 21, 1989, Rockford Mayor John McNamara urged Superintendent Swanson to withdraw the Board's decision to close three additional Southwest side elementary schools and create a large elementary school with a large attendance at Wilson. Mayor McNamara stated that: "[This plan] is contrary, or appears contrary, to the Board's stated policy of neighborhood elementary schools. It is straining the concept of `neighborhood' to the limit to consider this area, from the River to Meridian Road, the Wilson attendance area, as an expanded neighborhood." McNamara Letter to Swanson, 2/21/89, D11298. The Mayor further stated that, by closing 1102 neighborhood schools on the Southwest side, the Plan would negatively *1102 impact the minority community in the Southwest Quadrant and would leave the parents of minority students feeling increasingly distrustful of the Rockford school authorities. Finally, Mayor McNamara wrote that the cost savings of converting West to a middle school with an attendant closing of three additional Southwest side elementary schools was not substantial enough to justify such action.
Following presentation of the February 14th revised reorganization plan, Board member Wham testified that a significant number of minority parents disagreed with the school closing plans for the Southwest side. The parents also objected to creation of the Wilson mega-school. Wham 1989 Dep. at 25. Nevertheless, the Board of Education refused to modify the Plan and reaffirmed the Plan by a 6-1 vote on February 28, 1989. Again, the only minority member of the Board opposed the Plan.
The Deliberative Process In Adopting The 1989 Plan Was Seriously Deficient
Superintendent Sullivan reviewed the 1989 Reorganization Plan. During trial, he expressed his professional opinion that:
a. The Plan was adopted on the basis of an insufficient quantity of data to make decisions of that magnitude.
b. The quality of data was bad. The financial projection was based on unwarranted negative assumptions that overstated the size of the deficit.

c. The demographic projections contained unwarranted assumptions about decreases in student enrollments.
d. For changes of that magnitude, the deliberative process which the District went through was inadequate. For example, the measures were adopted without adequate planning information.
Sullivan Test., Tr. at 3170-80.
In the Board's minutes of its February 14th meeting, it states: "Dr. Swanson said that the selection of the schools to be closed had nothing to do with the quality of educational programs in those schools, but involved primarily location and size." Bd.Min., 2/14/89, B21642; D21129.
Board Member Jo Minor warned the other members of the Board that the Plan would cause resegregation of the schools. Others also made this warning. On December 8, 1988, a report from the elementary school Principals conveyed to Superintendent Swanson the responses of the Elementary School Principals to Swanson's Summary of the 1988 Ad Hoc Committee Report. D0079. In response to the comment in Superintendent Swanson's memorandum to the staff that "assignment of students to schools is made without determining impact on integration requirements," the elementary Principals' responses showed an interesting variation by Quadrant:
a. The response from the Southeast Quadrant was "agreement."
b. The response from the Northwest Quadrant was "integration must be a consideration."
c. The response from the Southwest Quadrant was: "it is unadvisable to assume that political assignments can be made without considering integration."
Id. The warnings, nevertheless, went unheeded.
The Effects Of The Reorganization Plan On the RSD Elementary Schools
The 1989 Reorganization Plan showed a resegregative effect in terms of the enrollment compositions of the individual schools and in terms of the increased percentage of both minority students and majority students assigned to racially-identifiable schools. The RSD adopted measures for individual schools that the District, itself, had identified as constituting de jure segregation. The creation of the so-called "mega schools" resegregated minority students into huge warehouse-type schools. The Plan promised, but did not deliver, educational improvement measures for minority students. The Plan also resegregated the schools by sharply restricting voluntary transfer opportunities. Disproportionate burdens were imposed on Southwest Quadrant minority 1103 students by the 1989 school closings. The Plan furthered segregation of the RSD's special education students. *1103 Finally, desegregative, non-burdensome alternatives were readily available to the RSD, making the segregative and disproportionate burdens imposed unnecessary. Each of these effects is discussed in detail below.
The Reorganization Plan Resegregated The District's Elementary Schools And Students In Terms Of School Enrollments
The resegregation that the 1989 Reorganization Plan created at the elementary level was evident both in terms of individual schools and systemwide segregation proportions. Since the 1989 Plan never went into effect, its racial impact must be measured from the only available document that projects the effect of the Plan. "School Data 1989-90" was issued by the RSD simultaneously with adoption of the Plan on February 28, 1989. B509149; D8388. The percentage minority data from that document has been converted into African-American-plusHispanic data.

Resegregation of Southwest Quadrant Students
Had the Reorganization Plan gone into effect, students in several Southwest Quadrant elementary schools would have experienced massive resegregation. The following table shows the percentage of African-American/ Hispanic students in certain schools existing in 1988-89, and compares that percentage to the percentage of African-American/Hispanic students in the school the students would have attended under the Plan.

1988-89 School

% African-American /Hispanic

1988-89 in 1989 Plan School

Dennis

54%

78%

Ellis

60%

79%

King

40%

54%

McIntosh

65%

79%

Stiles

38%

78%

B509103 and B509191.

% Af-Amer/ Hispanic Change
+ 24% + 19% + 14% + 14% + 40%

Resegregation of Non-Southwest Schools

Many non-Southwest schools resegregated in the opposite direction with precipitous drops in minority enrollment under the Reorganization Plan. Most of these, shown in boldface, changed into racially-identifiable white schools.

1988-89 School

1988-89 % African-American
/Hispanic

% African-American /Hispanic
in 1989 Plan School

Change

Brookview

13%

Carlson

17%

Conklin

49%

Haight

47%

Hillman

29%

Jackson

21%

Nashold

13%

Rolling Green

15%

Vandercook

22%

Walker

46%

Westview

26%

Whitehead

23%

4% 6% 11% 11% 11% 13% 5% 7% 6%[16] 17% 17% 13%

- 9% - 11% - 38% - 36% - 18% - 8% - 8% - 8%
- 16% - 29% - 9% - 10%

Id.

Conklin and Haight went from racially-identifiable minority status to racially-identifiable white status. These 1104 Northwest *1104 schools, originally white, were assigned so many mandatory African-American transfers in the
1980's that they became racially-identifiable minority schools. Under the 1989 Plan, African-American students were removed from both schools, and Haight was closed with its white students assigned to Conklin.

Systemwide Resegregation of African-American/Hispanic Elementary Students
The resegregation was also apparent in terms of the increased proportion of African-American and Hispanic students who would have attended racially-identifiable, rather than desegregated, elementary schools.

1988-89 % of African-American/
Hispanic in:

1989 Plan % of African-American/
Hispanic in:

Change

Racially-identifiable minority Desegregated Racially-identifiable white

56.8 38.6
4.6

67.2 22.5 10.3

+ 10.4 - 16.1 + 5.7

Id.

Sixteen percent of the RSD's African-American/Hispanic elementary students were switched from desegregated to segregated settings under the Reorganization Plan. This was a 26% increase in the number of such students in segregated settings. After the Reorganization Plan, 78% of the African-American/Hispanic elementary students would be in segregated settings.

Systemwide Resegregation of White Elementary Students

Similarly, many more white students would have attended racially-identifiable white schools under the 1989 Plan:

1988-89 % of White in:

1989 Plan % of White in:

Change

Racially-identifiable white Desegregated Racially-identifiable minority

41.5 42.9 15.6

61.8 27.3 10.9

+ 20.3 - 15.6 - 4.7

Id.

The 1989 Plan changed the educational setting for 20% of the RSD's white elementary students to a raciallyidentifiable white school. Accordingly, after the Plan, 73% of the RSD's white elementary students were assigned to segregated schools.

The 1989 Plan Resegregated Schools By Adopting Measures That The District Itself Had Identified As Constituting De Jure Segregation

Some of the changes adopted by the RSD in the 1989 Reorganization Plan were previously explicitly identified by the RSD staff as constituting de jure segregation.

De Jure Segregation Criterion in 1981 IBA Report

In 1981, a team of the RSD senior staff members presented the Board with a document entitled "Individual Building Analysis" (hereinafter "IBA"). IBA, B4889 (dated 2/9/81). The objective of the IBA was to evaluate each school building in the District "to determine if additional or alternative sites, other than the eleven indicated by the

NIU consultants, should be potential candidates for closing in the 1981-82 school year." IBA at B4890. The staff team evaluated each building in terms of thirteen criteria. One of those criteria was:
De jure segregation: This factor takes into account whether reassignment of students due to a school closing could have de jure segregation implications, thus limiting the Board's ability to reassign children to the closest school.
The meaning of this definition was elaborated on by the RSD staff in the 1988 report of the Building 1105 Subcommittee of the Board of Education Citizens' Committee. The Subcommittee *1105 was appointed to study
various school system issues. The Building Subcommittee was staffed by the RSD Assistant Superintendent Erickson and Mr. Driscoll, both of whom had served on the 1981 IBA staff team.
The Building Subcommittee Report described the 1981 IBA process and elaborated on the meaning of the de jure segregation criterion by adding a second sentence:
DE JURE SEGREGATION: This factor was rated by taking into account whether closing a school would have de jure segregation implications, thus limiting the Board's ability to reassign children to the closest school. In other words, if a school were closed, and the closure of the school would contribute to the segregation of students by sending them to the closest school, a school might be more difficult to consider for closure, thus would receive a lower rating.
B509082 at B509085. In other words, the RSD recognized in 1981 and again in 1988, that assigning students as a result of school closing in a way that maintained or increased segregation, constituted de jure segregation. The 1981 IBA Report analyzed individual schools. In doing so, the RSD staff identified certain potential actions that met the foregoing criterion and noted other similar actions that would constitute de jure segregation. Each of these is discussed individually below.
Church School
In 1981, on the page discussing Church School, the IBA staff team included this statement:
COMMENTS: In approving any boundary changes, the Board would need to avoid action which would result in de jure segregation.
IBA at B4900.
In the 1989 Plan, Church, then 83rican-American/Hispanic, was closed and its students reassigned to the closest remaining school, the Wilson/McIntosh/Dennis complex. The RSD projected that complex to have 80% minority enrollment. February 28 Plan at 5, B509183-B509185; cf. January Plan, B509149; February 14 Plan, B509191. Accordingly, the RSD's action concerning Church School in its 1989 Plan constituted de jure segregation.
Dennis School
In 1981, on the page discussing Dennis School, the IBA staff team included this statement:
COMMENTS: Population: As the boundaries are now established, the area surrounding Dennis School would not support the capacity of the building. A change in boundaries to accommodate strictly a neighborhood population could result in de jure segregation.
IBA, B4902.
Under the 1989 Plan, the boundaries of Dennis School were changed in order to accommodate a strictly neighborhood population. Students from the Dennis neighborhood, previously assigned by satellite zones to Haight and Conklin, were reassigned to Dennis. As a consequence, the minority enrollment at Dennis was projected by the RSD to increase from 55% in the Fall of 1988 to 80% under the Reorganization Plan. February

28 Plan at 5, B509183-B509185; cf. January Plan, B509149; February 14 Plan, B509191. Accordingly, the RSD's action concerning Dennis School in its 1989 Plan constituted de jure segregation.
Stiles School

No comment as to de jure segregation of Stiles School was made in the 1981 IBA report. The school was, however, segregated by the 1989 Reorganization Plan. In the Fall of 1988, Stiles had an enrollment 38% AfricanAmerican/Hispanic and was a desegregated school. Under the 1989 Plan, Stiles was closed and its students assigned to the Wilson/McIntosh/Dennis complex, projected by the RSD to have 80% minority enrollment. Id. Accordingly, the RSD's action concerning Stiles School in its 1989 Plan constituted de jure segregation.
Ellis School

In 1981, on the page discussing Ellis School, the IBA staff team included this statement:

Use* 0907 presently a K-3 building.

1106

*1106 COMMENTS: *However, by returning Grades 4-6 could result in de jure segregation.

IBA, B4903.

The 1989 Plan returned Grades 4-6 to the same "neighborhood" assignment as the Ellis Grades K-3 students. Under the Plan, Ellis School was closed and all of its K-6 neighborhood students assigned to the Wilson/ McIntosh/Dennis complex, projected by the RSD to be 80% minority. February 28 Plan at 5, B509183-B509185; cf. January Plan, B509149; February 14 Plan, B509191. Previously, the Ellis Grades K-3 students were in a 60% African-American/Hispanic school and the Ellis Grades 4-6 students were assigned to Carlson (17.3% AfricanAmerican/Hispanic), Jackson (20.9% African-American/Hispanic), Stiles (38.1% African-American/Hispanic), Westview (25.6% African-American/Hispanic), and Welsh (15.7% African-American/Hispanic). D0046. Accordingly, the RSD's action concerning Ellis School in its 1989 Plan constituted de jure segregation.

McIntosh School

The minority enrollment at McIntosh was projected to go from 65% in the Fall of 1988 to 80% minority under the 1989 Plan. February 28 Plan at 5, B509183-B509185; cf. January Plan, B509149; February 14 Plan, B509191. This was the consequence of all students from the Church School closing, and a portion of the students from the Ellis School closing, being assigned to McIntosh. Id.

The New Wilson Elementary School

Under the 1989 Plan, a new Grades 3-6 elementary school was created at Wilson, with a projected minority enrollment of 80%. Id. This was the consequence of:
a. The actions described above that resegregated Dennis, Ellis and Stiles;
b. The closing of Church, Ellis and Stiles; and
c. The assignment of all Grades 3-6 students from Church, Ellis, Dennis and Stiles to the Wilson building.
Based upon the criteria set forth in the 1981 IBA report, the RSD's Plan in this regard constituted an act of de jure segregation.

King and Barbour Schools
In 1981, on the page discussing King School, the IBA staff team stated:
COMMENTS: Any future reassignment of students from that neighborhood would have to avoid de jure segregation.
IBA, B4920. While no similar statement was included on the Barbour page (B4893), King and Barbour were situated within a few blocks of one another in the same neighborhood and, as such, the same comment would apply to both schools.
Prior to the 1989 reorganization plan, 222 students from the Barbour neighborhood in Grades 4-6 were assigned to five Eastside elementary schools. B509110. Barbour, through the presence of alternative programs including GIT, enrolled in the Fall of 1988, 60% African-American/Hispanic students. Under the 1989 Plan, Barbour School was closed and all of its K-6 neighborhood students were assigned to the King/Washington complex. The GIT program was removed from the Southwest Quadrant and assigned to Southeast schools. February 28 Plan at 4, 6-7, B509182-B509185; B509149. The projected minority composition of the King/Washington complex was approximately 56% African-American/Hispanic.
The purported level of total-building white enrollment in the King/Washington complex was derived from the presence of the Centralized Gifted program. The Gifted program existed in a totally separate, segregated environment within the buildings it was assigned. Accordingly, King and Barbour neighborhood students were actually assigned to a neighborhood program at the King/Washington complex that would be approximately 80% African-American/Hispanic, while the Gifted program was only 2.3% African-American and 1.0% Hispanic in the Fall of 1988. D10770.
Haskell School
In 1981, on the page discussing Haskell School, the IBA staff team stated:
1107 *1107 COMMENTS: Any reassignment of students would have to avoid de jure segregation.
IBA, B4914.
In 1980, a portion of the Haskell attendance area west of Kilburn Avenue was transferred to an Eastside school for two purposes: to desegregate the Eastside school and to open space at Haskell for a full-site Focus Center called the Four-R program. Subsequently, when the Focus Center at Haskell was discontinued, a partial-site alternative program, CASS, was placed at Haskell. B46298.
Under the 1989 Reorganization Plan, the area between Kilburn Street and Kent Creek, the satellite zone assigned to Eastside schools, was reassigned to the Haskell attendance area. Plan Attendance Map, B509095 (D4446). As a consequence, the students in the Kilburn-Kent Creek area were reassigned by the RSD from a desegregated school to a segregated African-American/Hispanic school. Accordingly, the RSD's action concerning Haskell School in its 1989 Plan constituted de jure segregation.
Garrison School
Garrison School received no "de jure segregation" comment in the 1981 IBA report. Under the 1989 Plan, Garrison was closed and its attendance area partitioned. Most of the attendance area was assigned to Walker, which under the 1989 Plan was projected to have a 17% minority enrollment. The western portion of the Garrison attendance area was assigned to Haskell School. Compare Plan Attendance Map, B509095 with Fall 1988 Attendance Map, B509088. This western portion was adjacent to the Kilburn-Kent Creek satellite zone, which was also reassigned by the 1989 Plan to Haskell School.

Resegregation of Non-Southwest White Schools
The 1989 Reorganization Plan turned many non-Southwest schools into resegregated racially-identifiable white schools by two separate actions:
a. Removing from many non-Southwest schools the African-American and Hispanic students who had previously been assigned to them.
b. Closing certain non-Southwest schools and reassigning their predominantly white enrollments to the closest schools, which were also predominantly white.
The 1981 IBA report stated that it would be an act of de jure segregation to reassign students from a school closing to the closest school, if that action maintained or increased segregation. While the RSD staff only examined the de jure segregation consequences for African-American/Hispanic schools and neighborhoods, the criteria used was equally applicable to white schools and neighborhoods. B29810 (second page of IBA Report, B4890 (omitted in original discovery)).
Under the 1989 Plan, Haight School was closed and its white students were assigned to Conklin. Haight's African-American/Hispanic students assigned were assigned to Dennis/Wilson. Riverdahl School (5% AfricanAmerican/Hispanic) was closed and a portion of its students were assigned to Froberg/New Milford, projected by the RSD to be approximately 5% minority. Hallstrom School (2% African-American/Hispanic in the Fall of 1988) was closed and its students were assigned to Nelson and Whitehead, projected by the RSD to be 16% and 15% minority, respectively. Vandercook School was closed and its neighborhood students were assigned to Hillman (projected 15% minority) and to White Swan/Cherry Valley (projected approximately 5% minority). As such, under the 1989 Reorganization Plan, measures were adopted that contained significant resegregative impacts upon most of the elementary schools in the RSD. The measures violated the criterion of de jure segregation established in the 1981 IBA report and re-articulated by the RSD's 1988 Citizens' Building Subcommittee report.
The 1989 Plan Resegregated African-American/Hispanic Students By Placing Them In Huge Warehouse Schools, Without Promised Educational Support
1108 The February 1989 version of the Reorganization Plan created huge elementary *1108 schools at Wilson and Washington. Reorganization Plan at 5-6, B509183-B509184; Enrollment Projections, B509149 and B509191. Wilson was projected to have 1227 students, more than twice the number of students as any previous elementary school in the system, and four times the size of the average elementary school in the District in 1988. Washington was projected to have 876 students, 332 more students than the Plan's largest white elementary school, Spring Creek.
Both Wilson and Washington were to be elementary schools placed in former middle school buildings, which enabled them to have this unprecedented size. McIntosh was also projected by the Plan to have 649 students, more than 100 students above the size of the largest white elementary school, Spring Creek.
The Plan placed more than 1800 African-American/Hispanic elementary students in one highly segregated complex of schools. The students constituted half of all the African-American and Hispanic elementary students in the RSD. Id.
The Wilson complex was commonly referred to as the "mega-school." The mega-school's boundary extended from the Rock River on the east to Meridian Road on the west, spanning the entire Westside. On the other axis, it ran from Montague Street on the south to north of Auburn Street. Plan Attendance Map, B509094. Superintendent Sullivan, who took office after the 1989 Plan had been adopted, expressed his opinion that the mega-school concept at both Wilson and Washington was unwise because the schools were too large. In his view, the concentration of such large numbers of low-income minority students would have had negative

educational effects on the students. Sullivan Test., Tr. at 3181. The same concern had previously been raised by the sole minority member of the Board, Michael Williams, but was not addressed by the Board or staff. Williams Test., Tr. at 2381.
Superintendent Bill Bowen testified that he began having reservations the longer he considered the proposed "mega-school" portion of the Reorganization Plan. "[T]he idea that the other schools were closing, early on that didn't have as much significance, and what those individual schools meant to people. And to take all those children and put them in one huge facility, it really0907and a great number of those would be African-American children. And that concentration didn't look right, start to feel right." Bowen Test., Tr. at 3370. Bowen further stated, "It started to look like a ghetto." Id.
The 1989 Plan's elementary reassignment measures were initially undertaken partly to reduce the need for transportation. The February Plan, however, required extensive transportation within the large "neighborhood" proposed for minority students. As such, in the February 1989 version of the Plan, the phrase "reduce the need for transportation" was deleted by the RSD.
The Wilson mega-school was created by the RSD with little advanced planning as to the educational or social consequences of a 1227 student elementary building or a 2300 student school complex. When asked in discovery in May of 1989 to produce documents concerning advanced planning for the mega-school concept, the RSD produced one memorandum dated February 22, 1989, describing telephone interviews conducted by RSD staff with the Principals of two large elementary schools, one in Belvidere (850 students) and one in Maple Park (1034 students). D5941; D5942. When asked for documentation as to the development and implementation of any special educational program in the mega-schools, the RSD produced only three staff memos, totalling five pages. D5947-48, D5949, D5966. The memos show that as late as June 1989, four months after the megaschools were established, no educational plan dealing with elementary schools made up of 1227 students and 876 racially-concentrated, low-income elementary students existed.
The January Plan proposed to "build two large elementary schools 0907 one in the eastern end of the district and one in the western end 0907 as soon as funds become available." B509136. In the February Plan, the RSD stated that the Wilson mega-school complex "eliminates the need to build a new elementary school on the far west 1109 side." The Plan retained the proposal to build a large elementary *1109 school on the Eastside. B509183B509184. Furthermore, no funds were allocated in the Plan to provide additional resources or staff to minority students. On February 28, 1989, despite the lack of planning, the questions and the community opposition, the Board rejected a motion by Michael Williams (the only African-American Board member) to delay the vote on the mega-school "for two weeks to allow the administration and Board an opportunity to further explore the impact of this proposal on the community." Bd.Min., 2/28/89, B214674. Superintendent Swanson urged the Board not to delay a vote, saying that "he was firmly convinced that this would be a model for the 21st century." Id.
The 1989 Plan Segregated The Schools By Promising, But Not Delivering, Educational Improvement Measures For African-American/ Hispanic Students
The first provision of the 1989 Reorganization Plan promised extensive supplemental educational benefits to the newly resegregated African-American/Hispanic elementary schools. Paragraph 1.1 of the January Plan stated:
In elementary schools with a high incidence of educationally and economically disadvantaged students, use regular budget and government funds (Chapters 1 and 2) to provide supplemental support staff and smaller class sizes and to offset the inequities created by gifts from parent organizations.
Early correction of learning deficits will help students experience academic achievement, progress through school at a normal rate and avoid some of the common causes of leaving school prior to graduation. The provision of supplemental materials and human resources ought not be dependent on the economic status of a school's constituency.

B509179.
Soon after assuming his position as Interim Superintendent, Superintendent Swanson became aware that "there was some discrepancy in the resources provided mainly due to the fact that some areas which have higher economic 0907 parents of higher economic status were able to provide things for their schools that were not available to all schools in the district." Swanson Dep. at 32-33. No district policy on equalization of resources existed at the time. Id. at 34. According to Superintendent Swanson, the intent of the Reorganization Plan was to "particularly provide the human resources, additional human resources, that [disadvantaged] people needed in terms of support personnel.... The hope was to distribute resources in with an extra emphasis on low-income schools." Id. at 39.
Not one of the three versions of the 1989 Plan, however, contained any budget allocation to carry out this provision. No specification of schools or program definitions in support of this proposal were provided. See January Plan, B509142; February 14 Plan, B509169; and February 28 Plan, B509190. The lack of such a budget was in contrast to other initiatives undertaken in the Plan. For example, the Dropout Implementation Committee was provided a budget of $75,000 for its initiating recommendations.
Superintendent Swanson admitted that no decision had been made to allocate any specific amount of funding for paragraph 1.1. programs. Swanson Dep. at 43. The only budget item discussed was a $500,000 allocation to schools with disadvantaged students. No specific distribution or implementation plan existed, however, with regard to the expenditure of these funds, being discussed only in general terms. Id. at 45. Similarly, Board member Gage testified that he had seen no proposal that an additional expenditure of funds be made for schools in low achieving areas. Gage Dep. at 73. No discussion between board members was held about providing a specific amount of money to balance inequities. Id. at 76-77.
The Plan also did not provide supplemental educational benefits to the newly resegregated minority elementary schools. Superintendent Sullivan testified that, in his opinion, the Plan would have had a particularly harmful effect on the RSD's provision of supplementary educational programs such as Art, Music, and Chapter I programs to minority students.
1110 *1110 The 1989 Plan Resegregated the Schools by Sharply Restricting Voluntary Transfer Opportunities
A fundamental characteristic of a non-segregated school system is a voluntary transfer program, the opportunity for any student to elect to attend any other school in the system if the transfer promotes desegregation and space is available. The 1989 Plan adopted a restrictive voluntary transfer policy, limiting the number of white schools to which minority students could transfer. Minority students were allowed to transfer to only five of the twenty-two elementary schools with white enrollment percentages above the system-wide elementary average. This was true even though fifteen of those schools had more than 82% white enrollment and most of them had available space. The RSD established no voluntary transfer program for white students to transfer to minority schools. Reorganization Plan (final version), B509187; School Data 1989-90, B509149; see also, Turrentine Memos, 3/16/89, D8012; 3/17/89, B502492; Swanson Memo, 6/1/89, B503809; RSD Press Release, 4/14/89, B509171; Lyman List of Available Classrooms, 4/4/89, D1108.
In the Reorganization Plan as adopted on February 28, 1989, the RSD issued the following voluntary transfer policy:
Allow minority students to transfer from schools having minority populations exceeding 50% to schools designated by the District. Allow majority students to transfer from schools having majority populations of more than 50% to schools designated by the District.
Transportation Director Patricia Turrentine sent a memo, dated March 16, 1989, initially establishing the list of schools to receive minority desegregation transfers as follows:
Carlson

Hillman
Rolling Green
Westview
White Swan (K-3)/Cherry Valley (4-6)
The Turrentine memo of March 17, 1989, then modified the list of receiving schools to the following four schools:
Brookview
Rolling Green
Westview
White Swan (K-3)/Cherry Valley (4-6)
Carlson and Hillman were eliminated as receiving schools by the March 17th memo, but those schools did have available classrooms for 1989-90. According to the list of April 4, 1989, prepared by Barbara Lyman, Director of Elementary Education, Carlson had three and Hillman had two available rooms. Carlson was a Northeast Quadrant school that was projected by the District at that time to have 92% white enrollment in the Fall of 1989. Hillman was a Southeast Quadrant school that was projected at that time to have 85% white enrollment in the Fall of 1989-90. School Data 1989-90, B509149.
Ultimately, the transfer policy publicly announced by the District on April 14, 1989, was as follows: Minority students from the King/Washington complex could transfer to White Swan/Cherry Valley or Rolling Green; minority students from the Dennis/McIntosh/Wilson complex could transfer to Rolling Green, Westview or White Swan/Cherry Valley; and minority students from Haskell could transfer to Brookview. The desegregation transfer system thus established by the District for minority elementary students limited their transfer opportunities in the following ways:
Minority students at King/Washington could transfer to only two schools: Rolling Green or the White Swan/Cherry Valley complex.
Minority students at Dennis/McIntosh/Wilson could transfer to only three schools: Rolling Green, Westview and White Swan/Cherry Valley.
Minority students at Haskell could transfer to only one school: Brookview.
The White Swan/Cherry Valley complex was located at the far eastern end of the District, a long distance for minority students. Brookview and Rolling Green were located in the central east portion of the District. Only Westview was located west of the River.
1111 *1111 The restrictions were established even though, at that time, the District projected that fifteen other elementary schools would have white enrollments of 82% or more in the Fall of 1989 and seven of those would have white enrollments of 92% or more. Such schools included Carlson and Hillman, which had originally been identified as transfer receiving schools and then withdrawn from the list. Id.
No significant measures were in place to desegregate the enrollments of those fifteen white schools. A possible exception was the Alternative Programs at four schools, two of which had been relocated from predominantly African-American schools to predominantly white schools. According to the February 28, 1989 School Data summary, the Alternative Programs at predominantly white schools were as follows:

Bloom Froberg/New Milford Jackson Welsh

Academics Plus GIT CASS Academics Plus

The voluntary desegregation transfer policy established by the District in the 1989 Reorganization Plan was not a two-way policy. Thus, while the Reorganization Plan referred to white students transferring from majority white schools to "schools designated by the District," no action was ever taken by the District to implement this policy. No receiving schools for white transfers were designated and subsequent public announcements referred only to minority students transferring to white schools. See, e.g., RSD Press Release, 4/14/89, B509171.
The 1989 Plan Resegregated The System By Removing The Alternative Programs From Southwest Elementary Schools
Relocation of Alternative Programs had the effect of reinforcing the segregation of the predominantly AfricanAmerican schools and of imposing a disproportionate burden on African-American students. While, the previous location of the programs in Southwest Quadrant schools required white students to transfer into predominantly African-American schools west of the river, the new program locations required African-American students to transfer to schools east of the river.
During the 1988-89 school year, the following elementary Alternative Programs were located in Southwest Quadrant predominantly minority schools for the express purpose of contributing to the desegregation of those schools:

King Barbour Haskell Ellis Lathrop

Gifted Gifted, GIT CASS Arts Montessori

The February 28, 1989 Reorganization Plan provided that the RSD would "continue all current Alternative Programs...." However, the "School Data 1989-90" indicated that the following Alternative Programs would be relocated from Southwest Quadrant African-American schools to Eastside majority-white schools:

GIT from Barbour to Froberg/New Milford.

CASS from Haskell to Jackson (where some CASS classrooms were already located).

Arts Alternative from Ellis to Rock River.

According to Board member Fred Wham, "alternative schools were not a big thing with the minority population ... on a priority basis it didn't seem to be really important to them." Wham 1989 Dep. at 63-63.

The Plan, As Initially Adopted And Implemented, Created Segregated Academics Plus Alternative Programs

The Reorganization Plan as adopted by the District on February 28, 1989, established a second Academics Plus program at Welsh School, located on the Westside. The original Academics Plus program was at Bloom School on the Eastside. Reorganization Plan, 2/28/89, B509180. In a meeting on March 15, 1989, Superintendent Swanson and other senior staff established the policy that "Academics Plus students will be assigned to Bloom if they live on the east side of the river and at Welsh if they live on the west side of the river. Students currently at Bloom living on the west side of the river may continue at Bloom but their siblings and all new applicants must go to the program based on their geographic location." D8012.
1112 *1112 The effect of these geographical restrictions was that the Academics Plus program at Bloom was virtually all white and the Academics Plus program at Welsh was predominantly minority. On March 28, 1989, the policy for Academics Plus students was changed, so that students could apply for either the Bloom or Welsh program regardless of their residence in the District. Turrentine Memo, 3/30/89, B502493.

The Pattern Of Elementary School Closings Imposed Disparate Burdens On Minority Students And Neighborhoods
Complete Closures of Schools
The January 1989 version of the Plan proposed closing six elementary schools in various parts of the District, except the Northeast Quadrant. B509135-B509137. The six school closings were distributed as follows:

Northwest

1

Southwest

2

Southeast

3

Northeast

0

__

Total

6

The February 1989 version of the Plan proposed closing three additional elementary schools: Church, Stiles and Ellis, all in the Southwest Quadrant. Reorganization Plan, B509183.

The closing of the three additional elementary schools generated only $336,000 in savings, according to RSD data. This was only 4.6% of the total savings projected by the February Plan and only one-third of 1% of the District's 1989-90 budget. Complaint and Answer at ¶¶ 27, 27.2.. Even the small purported cost savings of closing the additional three elementary schools was overstated because it did not take into consideration the offsetting new transportation cost of busing minority students. The February Plan contained other additional cost reductions so that the revised total savings was $7.34 million, $870,000 more than the January Plan. Even without the closing of the three additional elementary schools, the February Plan would have generated $534,000 more in cost reductions than the January Plan. B509190. School closings under the February Plan were as follows:

February Plan Change from January

Northwest

1

0

Southwest

5

+3

Southeast

3

0

Northeast

0

0

__

__

Total

9

+3

As a result, the entire burden of additional school closings was placed upon the students in the Southwest minority community.

Partial Closures Through Split Grade Structures

The January version of the Plan would have established split grade structures at four pairs of elementary schools. Schools sharing a split grade structure had a combined, larger attendance area, with all students in certain grades (e.g., K-2) attending one school and all students in the remaining grades attending the other school. One effect of establishing a split grade structure is comparable to the partial closing of each school: the mandatory reassignment of about half of its students to the other school. Due to the increased distance, in a neighborhood school context this would most likely require some of the students, who would otherwise be able to walk to school, to be transported. Another effect of a split grade structure is the psychological and educational burden on the students who are required to change schools in the middle of their elementary schooling.

Two of the split grade structures were established in the Southwest Quadrant: King-Washington and StilesDennis. This required transportation for some students who otherwise would have been able to walk to school. The two other pairs were to be at the southeast edge of the District: White Swan/Cherry Valley and Froberg/New Milford, where transportation was already required due to the sparse population in this area.
The February 1989 version of the Plan established an additional split grade structure in Southwest Quadrant schools. Wilson was converted to a Grades 3-6 elementary school and two additional split grade structures, K-2, were established at McIntosh and Dennis, feeding into Wilson. The net result was that 90% of the students in 1113 segregated *1113 minority elementary schools were placed in split grade structures and were required to change schools at third grade. The only exception was Haskell. Only 12% of the other elementary students in the RSD were subject to the burdens of a split grade structure.
The scope of the additional transportation burden that these split grade structures imposed on Southwest students was set forth in an April 1989 memorandum from the Director of Transportation. B502494. Focusing on only one of the split grade complexes, Dennis/Wilson/McIntosh, she stated:
It will take 23 buses to pick up the Dennis/Wilson students. It will take 805 feet, or 2.7 football field lengths to park these buses. This will place children a considerable distance from school when loading and unloading buses. At McIntosh the buses would be lined up from School Street to the exit of the Auburn parking lot. Students will have to walk in the snow since there are no sidewalks. It will also be difficult for the primary students to find their bus with 23 buses at a building.
Id.
Closings and Pairings as a Percentage of Schools in a Quadrant
One other way to view the disproportions imposed by the 1989 Plan's elementary closings and pairings is to consider the percentage of elementary schools in each Quadrant that was affected by such actions. The disproportion of existing elementary schools closed by the 1989 Plan, by Quadrant, were:

Schools 88-89Closed

% Closed

Northwest

6

1

17%

Southwest

10

5

50%

Southeast

17

3

18%

Northeast

6

0

0%

The following chart shows the result when split grade structures, which amount to partial closings, are also considered:

Northwest Southwest Southeast Northeast

Schools 88-89

Closed or Split

% Closed or Split

6

1

17%

10

8

80%

17

7

41%

6

0

0%

Under The Plan, The Schools In The Southwest Quadrant Were Overcrowded And No Space Was Available For Special Programs
School closings in the 1989 Plan placed Southwest Quadrant elementary schools at or over capacity. As a result of this action, students in minority schools were deprived of both educational programs routinely provided elsewhere in the District and supplemental educational programs that otherwise were provided in the minority schools.
Set forth below are the Capital Development Board's capacities and projected enrollments for the 1989-90 school year in minority elementary schools with a projected minimum enrollment of greater than 50%.

School

Capacity

Projected Enroll.

Avail. Capacity

Dennis Haskell King McIntosh Washington Wilson

439 494 468 523 728 1448

410 419 507 649 876 1227

29 75 (39) (126) (148) 221

The February Plan placed over capacity enrollments at three schools with over 50% minority enrollment. These enrollments excluded Special Education students and no apparent provision was made for the extra classrooms required by Chapter 1 programs. Little or no space was available for such special programs. No allowance was made for the "reduced class size" promised by the Plan for schools with "a high incidence of educationally and economically disadvantaged students." The RSD failed to properly consider the space needs for Special Education and Federal Chapter 1 programs in the remaining schools in the Southwest Quadrant. Consequently, the educational opportunities available to minority students in the Southwest Quadrant were adversely affected due to the closing of schools and insufficient space in the remaining schools.

On February 14, 1989, the RSD staff prepared a listing of the anticipated Fall 1989 location of special programs. 1989-90 Location of Special Programs, 2/24/89, D14149. Of all the special programs in the elementary schools, the only ones scheduled for Southwest Quadrant schools were the Gifted Alternative Program and the Spanish 1114 Bilingual Program, both located at King/Washington. *1114 The staff listing indicated that schools that contained either Chapter I or transition classrooms in 1988-89 "may or may not have the programs next year" because of uncertainty about available space. Id. With respect to Chapter I, Elementary Director Lyman notified Superintendent Swanson that "we will not have Chapter I teachers housed in full-size classrooms," due to space limitations. She said, "This will be a change for the faculty and, in many cases, it may be difficult for them to become accustomed to." D11077. Further, with respect to special education, Lyman informed Swanson that "we will not have room in each building for Learning Disabled resource teachers to be housed in a full-size classroom." Id.

The Effects Of The 1989 Reorganization Plan On RSD Secondary Schools

The 1988 Level Of Desegregation In the RSD Secondary Schools

High Schools
In the Fall of 1988, the RSD's overall high school enrollment was 21.46% African-American, meaning that a desegregated school was between 10.7% and 36.5% African-American. Four of the RSD's high schools were desegregated in 1988:

Auburn East Guilford West

35.3% African-American 21.1% African-American 15.4% African-American 34.9% African-American

One RSD high school was a racially-identifiable white school:

Jefferson

7.5% African-American

On an African-American-plus-Hispanic basis, Auburn was just within the desegregation range and West was just outside the range.

High School Attendance Areas As Of 1988

Of the five high schools in the RSD, only West High School was a naturally integrated school, that is, a school with an integrated enrollment derived from a reasonably contiguous attendance area around the school. RSD High School Attendance Map, Fall 1988, B509089. East and Guilford High Schools were desegregated by satellite mandatory assignment zones, and Auburn High School was desegregated by the Gifted and CAPA Alternative Programs, in which most of the students were white. Jefferson High School, having none of these attributes, was a racially-identifiable white school.
In 1988, West High School had a contiguous attendance area bounded by the Rock River, State Street, Central Avenue and Riverside Boulevard. In addition, West had a small satellite zone in the Southwest Quadrant, between Kent Creek and Montague Street. Without this satellite zone, West would have approached the systemwide level of African-American enrollment, that is, would have been a more integrated school. None of West's students had to be bused to school as none lived more than a mile and a half from the school. In contrast, Jefferson bused 1618 students out of the total student population of 1746. B502836.
Guilford High School was desegregated by a mandatory assignment satellite zone west of the Rock River. This area was bounded roughly by the Rock River, State Street, Central Avenue and Kent Creek. East High School was also desegregated by a satellite zone west of the Rock River, bounded roughly by Montague on the north and west, Ogilby Road on the south and the Rock River on the east. Jefferson High School had an attendance area at the far Southeast area of Rockford. Lacking any effort at desegregation, Jefferson was a raciallyidentifiable white school.
The desegregation of Auburn High School was accomplished largely by the presence of the Gifted and CAPA Alternative Programs. In the Fall of 1986 the component parts of Auburn were comprised as follows:

Gifted CAPA "No program"

5% African-American/ Hispanic 25% African-American/ Hispanic 53% African-American/ Hispanic

Total

38% African-American/ Hispanic

B509128. Auburn also had a satellite attendance area in the far Southwest area of the School District, but few students were generated from that area.

1115 *1115 The locations and boundaries of the high schools in the RSD strongly show that the RSD had four centrally located high schools and one remotely-located high school, Jefferson. West, Auburn, East and Guilford were located in areas of relatively dense population. These four schools were also reasonably well-distributed around the populated area of the District. In contrast, Jefferson was located at the far Southeast reaches of the School District, outside the Rockford City limits. No significant residential population was near Jefferson School. The fact that 93% of the students attending Jefferson had to be transported to school by virtue of living more than 1.5 miles from the school underscores this population distribution. No other school even approached that level of required transportation. Even Auburn, with its Gifted and CAPA transfers, had only 51% of its students requiring transportation. B502836.

The 1988 Level of Desegregation in RSD Secondary Schools: Middle Schools

In the Fall of 1988, the desegregation range for middle schools in the RSD was between 10.6% and 36.1% African-American. Three of the middle schools were desegregated in 1988:

Eisenhower Lincoln Wilson

14.3% African-American 28.7% African-American 23.3% African-American

One of the middle schools was racially-identifiable white:

Flinn

7.4% African-American

One of the middle schools was racially-identifiable minority:

Kennedy 37.6% African-American
Middle School Attendance Areas As Of 1988
The pattern of middle school attendance areas was quite similar to the high schools. About half of the Southwest middle school students attended Westside schools, Kennedy and Wilson. The other half were assigned by mandatory satellite zones in order to desegregate Eastside schools. The northern portion of the Southwest Quadrant from Auburn Street to State Street, was assigned to Kennedy School. This assignment paralleled the high school level, where students from this same neighborhood went to West. The central portion of the Southwest Quadrant, from State Street to Kent Creek, was assigned to Eisenhower as a satellite zone. This paralleled the assignment at the high school level, where students from this same neighborhood were assigned to Guilford. The southern portion of the Southwest Quadrant, from Kent Creek to Ogilby Road, was assigned as a satellite zone to Lincoln Middle School, on the Eastside. This differed somewhat from the treatment of this neighborhood at the high school level, where it was divided into two satellite zones, one assigned to East High and one to West High. The far southern portion of the Southwest Quadrant was assigned as a satellite zone to Wilson. This paralleled the assignment of this neighborhood at the high school level to Auburn. Finally, the southwestern portion of the Southwest Quadrant was assigned as a satellite zone to Kennedy. This additional satellite zone caused Kennedy to become a racially-identifiable African-American school.

In the 1981 IBA report prepared by RSD's senior staff, Lincoln Middle School was described as a school whose "location lends itself to natural integration." IBA, B4889, B4948. Since the IBA report was evaluating buildings for closing, it is reasonable to conclude that the RSD staff considered "natural integration" a factor militating against closing Lincoln Middle School at that time. In its February 1989 Reorganization Plan, the RSD said that its new secondary "boundary pattern provides natural diversity among students." Reorganization Plan at 6, B509184. While the RSD's characterization of its new boundaries was incorrect, the statement does show that the RSD recognized and supported the desirability of natural integration as opposed to mandatory desegregation.
Recommendations Of The Ad Hoc Citizens' Committee
The process of developing the 1989 Reorganization Plan began after Superintendent Swanson and the Board received the report of an Ad Hoc Citizens' Committee, which was appointed by the Board and studied school system reorganization questions in 1988. See Swanson Memo to RSD Employees, 11/17/88, B503659. After the 1116 Committee's report was *1116 received in October 1988, Interim Superintendent Swanson circulated a summary of the Committee's report to all district employees. The Committee recommended that, if buildings were closed for the purpose of cost savings, the guidelines should be to close "50% of the excess buildings." B503662.
The Board's Goals For The Reorganization Plan And Criteria For School Closings
The first draft stating the goals of the Reorganization Plan was presented by Superintendent Swanson on November 30, 1988. Swanson Memo to Board, 11/30/88, D13271. Goals eight and nine addressed student assignment:
8. Avoid unnatural segregation of racial, ethnic and socio/economic groups;
9. Assign pupils, especially at the lower elementary levels, to neighborhood schools.
The "Goals For Changes In District Operations" actually adopted by the Board on December 21, 1988 changed eight and nine to seven and eight and read as follows:
7. Balance the opportunity to attend neighborhood schools with the goal of racial, ethnic and socio/economic diversity in our schools;
8. Minimize travel time for students, especially at the lower elementary grade levels.
On the same day, the Board adopted its "Criteria For Closing Of Schools". B35247. Among the significant criteria were operating costs, capital costs and transportation implications. Absent from the list of eleven criteria was any reference to integration/desegregation factors and the impact of a school closing on the surrounding neighborhood. The next day, the Rockford City Council adopted a resolution stating that the School Board should establish an immediate dialogue with the City Department of Community Development "concerning the total economic, social and educational impact of projected school building closings upon individual neighborhoods." D11256. The RSD thus amended its closing criteria adding "impact on neighborhood." Id. This change was reflected in a letter from Superintendent Swanson to Mayor McNamara, stating that, in response to communications from City officials, "the Board directed the administration to include in its deliberations the impact of a school closing on a neighborhood." Swanson Letter to McNamara, 1/18/89, B38593.
Information Before The Board In Its Deliberations
The Superintendent and the Board of Education were committed to closing a high school under the Reorganization Plan. The reason put forth was that declining enrollment necessitated such a closing for costreduction purposes. In an information packet that Superintendent Swanson assembled and distributed to Board members, several pieces of relevant information were presented. B35229 (dated January 1989). The second

page of that packet contained an analysis of the residential distribution of the RSD's student population. At that time, 41% of the RSD's students lived west of the Rock River, and 59% lived east of the Rock River. The statistics suggest that, assuming four high schools of equal size, the retention of two high schools west of the Rock River would require 9% of the students to cross the river east to west. The retention of three high schools east of the Rock River, however, would require 16% of the students to cross the river east to west.
The information packet also discussed high school enrollments and capacities and showed that capacity was not a significant factor in selecting a high school for closing. The data showed the actual and projected enrollment of Grades 9-12 as follows:

Actual Fall 1988 Projected Fall 1989 Projected Fall 1993 Projected Fall 1998

7,670 7,354 6,829 7,082

B35232, B35234. Accordingly, in terms of capacity, any of the five high schools could have been closed. In other words, by closing any one high school, any combination of the four remaining high schools would have had enough capacity to handle the projected number of students. The "optimum contract operating size" and the "largest enrollment since 1965" of the five high schools are as follows:

1117 *1117 School

Optimum Size Largest Enrollment

Auburn East Guilford Jefferson West
Total

1,635 2,070 2,020 2,380 1,765 _____ 9,870

2,026 2,886 2,839 2,380 2,334 ______ 12,465

B35232. In terms of "optimum size", omitting the largest high school, Jefferson, leaves a total available capacity of 7,490. This exceeds the projected number of students for the Fall of 1989, as well as the projections for 1993 and 1998. Thus, even at "optimum contract operating size," nothing about school capacities compelled any particular conclusion regarding which high school to close.

The information packet further discussed projected maintenance and repair costs. Estimated Costs of Major Maintenance and Repair Projects, 1987/8809071992/93, B35241. The projected five-year cost for the four high schools was:

Auburn East Guilford Jefferson West

$416,780 440,500 370,066 564,005 266,305

Thus, West High School had the lowest repair cost of all the high schools and Jefferson High School had the highest repair cost. The projected costs savings from closing Jefferson rather than West, for example, would have been $298,000.

Apart from the Superintendent's information packet, the RSD's leaders had information on the operating costs of the various high schools. Finally, the RSD had a 1988 report from the North Central Accreditation Association strongly commending the educational program and educational conditions at West High School. As such, there

was no educational justification for closing West High School. The school was functioning well. NCA Report, 1988, B1302.
The Administrative Staff's January 17 Recommendations To The Board
On January 17, 1989, Superintendent Swanson presented recommendations as to the form of the Reorganization Plan to the Board of Education. Swanson Memo to Board, 1/17/89, D3925. The introductory note stated:
The following recommendations represent a consensus of the District-level Administrative Staff; respond to input from persons in all employee classifications and in many community groups; and are based on considerable data produced by staff personnel.
The document set forth the goals of the Administrative Staff's recommendations. The first category was "Buildings and Boundaries," for which three goals were articulated:
Provide optimum enrollment in all schools,
Assign elementary students to neighborhood schools, and
Establish secondary school boundaries to attain racial and socio/economic diversity.
Secondary-level integration was, therefore, the compromise for elementary school resegregation.
The first recommendation was to "Close West High School." The articulated reasons were as follows:
West High has the smallest enrollment of the five high schools; has the second smallest capacity; is located in close proximity to Auburn High School; along with East High, is the oldest of the high schools; and is advantageously located for purchase by a commercial or industrial firm.
The Administrative Staff's second recommendation was:
Design secondary school boundaries as corridors across the city east and west with students in the northernmost section attending Eisenhower and Guilford, near north attending Wilson and Auburn, near south attending Lincoln and East, and the southernmost corridor attending Flinn and Jefferson. Vary boundary lines as needed to achieve racial and socio-economic diversity in each school.
This boundary pattern abandons the traditional eastside-westside pattern; provides natural diversity among students in each secondary school; equalizes the enrollments in the schools; allows for greater use of RMTD bus 1118 routes; and more equitably shares the *1118 need to be transported among majority and minority students.
This recommendation abandoned the traditional Eastside-Westside pattern and more equitably shared transportation. The boundary plan calling for horizontal districts, would have abandoned the Rock River as a barrier. In one of the four corridors, Eastside students would have been assigned to attend Westside schools, Wilson and Auburn. The number of students so assigned would be increased by the fact that the Administrative Staff also recommended moving the high school alternative programs, Gifted and CAPA, out of Auburn and Wilson to East High School.
Another recommendation of the Administrative Staff dealt with the Rockford Area Career Center:
Convert the Rockford Area Career Center (RACC) into a Special Program Center.
RACC has experienced under-utilization since its opening in 1971. High School students have been reluctant to sacrifice the transportation time. Other districts belonging to the Joint Agreement have not been able to fulfill their student allocations.

The January 24 Reorganization Plan
The Administrative Staff's recommendation for two-way, cross-the-River secondary boundaries was not adopted. Just one week later, the RSD publicly issued its January 24th version of the Reorganization Plan, which bore little resemblance to the secondary boundaries proposed by the Administrative Staff. This version reverted to the RSD's historical practice of mandatorily assigning Westside satellite zones in order to desegregate Eastside high schools. In the new version, Guilford and Jefferson each had an elongated strip that snaked across the river to encompass pieces of the Southwest Quadrant. East High and Auburn, however, had relatively compact attendance areas under this Plan. One reason was that the high school alternative programs, CAPA and Gifted, were removed from Auburn and, as a result, Auburn had more minority students from the neighborhood. The most distinctive feature of the January 24th Plan was that it returned to mandatory one-way assignment of Westside minority students.
Despite the conceptual difference between the January 17th recommendations of the Administrative Staff, and the January 24th Plan released by the RSD, the January 24th Plan took, almost verbatim, the rationale statement presented by the Administrative Staff to justify the now-discarded January 17th recommendations. Thus, the January 24th Plan included each of the following statements that had been in the January 17th Administrative Staff recommendations:
This boundary pattern abandons the traditional Eastside-Westside pattern;
Provides natural diversity among students in each secondary school; and
More equitably shares the need to be transported among majority and minority students.
January Plan at 6, § 2.13, B509137. None of these statements were true in relation to the January 24th Plan. The Plan retained, rather than abandoned, the traditional Eastside-Westside pattern. Diversity was based on mandatory satellite zones rather than on a natural residential basis. Inequity in transportation among majority and minority students was increased and required even more minority students than before to be transported to the Eastside.
The amount of secondary school desegregation projected by the RSD under the January Plan represented only a slight improvement over the preexisting conditions in the Fall of 1988. Auburn would gain a few percent minority and would become a racially-identifiable minority school, with more than 15% minorities above the systemwide average. East would lose half of its minority enrollment, but would be below the systemwide proportion to the same extent, 8%, it had formerly been above that proportion. Guilford's composition would remain unchanged. Jefferson would become a desegregated school with 33% minority. The range between the highest and lowest minority percentages in the various high schools would be reduced only from 32% to 26%. D13891.
1119 *1119 Another provision of the January 24th Plan represented a significant departure from the January 17th Administrative Staff Plan. The Rockford Area Career Center, rather than becoming a "Special Program Center," was closed entirely. January Plan at 5, B509136.
Public Reaction To The January Plan
As stated earlier, the proposed closing of West High School aroused intense protest from the community in which that school was located. Northwest side parents formed the "Save West High Committee" for the purpose of opposing the closing of West High School. The Save West High Committee presented the Board with a petition signed by 12,000 persons who opposed the closing of West High.
Rockford's Mayor, John McNamara, also publicly opposed the closing of West High School. Mayor McNamara stated that "closing West would be a devastation to the city's west side." He said: "This area of the city has had to suffer the vacancy of Roosevelt middle school. Now we're looking at the closing and vacancy of West." B500613. A few days later, Mayor McNamara reiterated his position: "This is not an emotional reaction," adding that West

was big enough to house the number of students in the area and was in excellent structural condition. "My basic question is why keep schools open that are surrounded by cornfields and close schools surrounded by kids?" B500614-B500616.
In a letter responding to Mayor McNamara's comments, Superintendent Swanson and Board President Jackie Confer criticized Mayor McNamara for being "publicly confrontational" and suggested that future communications be directly to Superintendent Swanson. The letter to Mayor McNamara threatened that "pressuring the Board publicly may cause a backlash for you." Swanson-Confer Letter to McNamara, 2/1/89, D13853.
Reconsideration Of The West High Closing
In response to criticism of and objections to the decision to close West High School, Administrative Staff began exploring alternatives. One recommendation came from the RSD's Gifted Director, Mr. Gary Heideman. Mr. Heideman's major premises included:
1. Failure to maintain two west-side high schools will ultimately result in negative consequences for the community as a whole in later years.
2. The Rockford Area Career Center has never achieved its potential to provide effective career/ vocational education for Rockford high school students. This Center should remain open but with major operational and programmatic changes.
B507327. Essentially, Mr. Heideman proposed creating a Jefferson/RACC complex as a vocational magnet high school. His specific comments included:
[S]everal factors such as scheduling, student awareness, course availability and transportation have hindered rather than enhanced the availability of RACC offerings.
Beginning in 1989/90, Jefferson and RACC should be viewed as a single facility with the capacity to serve upwards of 3,200 students as Rockford's newest alternative or focus center school.
A major aspect of the Jefferson complex will be to serve both the academic and vocational training needs of any high school age youngster from throughout the system. Jefferson and RACC will employ all marketing recruitment practices utilized by other alternative programs which have resulted in both popular and appropriate educational programming.
Under this Plan, Auburn High School would retain the Gifted and CAPA programs plus a neighborhood feeder population, with an overall minority enrollment not to exceed 35%.
Mr. Heideman expressed the view that "West High School is an excellent facility which has many flexible sized classrooms and specialty areas such as the small theater." Mr. Heideman argued that removing the alternative programs and the combining West and Auburn neighborhood students would result in the Westside not having a 1120 high school that offered the same level of college preparatory *1120 training as other high schools in the District. He recognized that:
[T]he ultimate flaw in the thinking which suggests that the student bodies of Auburn and West be combined lies in the impression this combination makes to anyone residing on the west side or considering residency on the west side. If the only high school within their reach fails to provide a comprehensive program, the only alternatives are not to reside in the area or enter into private education. A "catch-22" based upon a self-fulfilling prophecy will ultimately result in a new set of issues within the next 10 years.
Mr. Heideman recommended keeping West High open and redrawing its boundaries "to encompass the east side of the river, specifically the Guilford High School area along North Alpine Road to Highcrest Road." The minority population would not exceed 35%. East High School was recommended to be closed because it was "not based in any of the major quadrants of the city." Guilford was to remain open, with part of its attendance area transferred to West High, and those students replaced with students from East High. Guilford would thus have "a

minority population approximating that of the other three remaining high schools." The primary educational program at Guilford would focus on being a general comprehensive high school with courses ranging from college preparatory to remedial, as in all the other high schools.
The key concepts in Mr. Heideman's proposal were to desegregate Jefferson High by linking it with RACC as a vocational magnet to attract minority voluntary transfers; keeping Auburn desegregated with alternative programs; keeping West desegregated with the assignment of Northeast white students across the river; and requiring Guilford to be a desegregated school with a full range of student population. For the first time minority students, instead of mandatory assignment through satellite zones, would have the opportunity to make voluntary transfers in response to special program offerings. Also, for the first time, Eastside students would be mandatorily assigned across the river to a Westside school. Nothing was presented to the court, however, indicating that Mr. Heideman's proposal received any serious consideration.
On February 5, 1989, Superintendent Swanson developed a confidential memo proposing modifications to the January 24th Plan. B503737. This was a draft of the document Superintendent Swanson would submit to the Board on February 8th. Modifications included a plan to return CAPA and Academy alternative programs to Westside schools. Also, a proposal was made to convert West High to a middle school building and to close Kennedy, Wilson and Lincoln Middle Schools. As a rationale for this recommendation, Superintendent Swanson said "this may overcrowd the middle schools temporarily ...," indicating once again the flexibility of school capacities. The memo further proposed to improve secondary level desegregation: "Modify secondary school boundaries so that all building capacities are used maximally and minority percentages in each school are between 20 and 35%." B503739.
On February 6, 1989, Deputy Superintendent Bowen sent a memo to the Board members presenting operating cost information for the RSD'S high schools. B503741. The information showed, for example, that the annual utilities costs of operating Jefferson were more than twice those of operating West and that keeping Jefferson open instead of West would cost a projected additional $1 million in utility costs over the next five years. B503742. The custodial and supply costs at Jefferson were also much higher than at West. Keeping Jefferson open instead of West would cost a projected additional $435,000 in this expense category over the next five years. Under the heading of "Major Repairs0907Capital Outlay," the information showed that the projected costs at Jefferson over the next six years would be more than twice those at West. The projected additional five-year cost of keeping Jefferson open instead of West was $338,000.
Mr. Bowen's information contained a summary page showing five-year projected costs for the items reviewed above plus administrative costs. The additional cost of operating Jefferson as compared to West was:

1121 *1121

Jefferson West
Cost difference

$5,339,715 3,474,037
__________ $1,865,678

B503746. Mr. Bowen's information also calculated annual operating cost on an alternative basis, per square foot. For Jefferson and West the costs were:

Jefferson West

$2.82 per square foot per year 1.84 per square foot per year

Mr. Bowen's information contained a calculation regarding the number of students transported. Jefferson involved busing by the RSD of 1,901 students, whereas West involved the busing by the RSD of only twenty-two students. At the RSD's average per-student cost for transportation of $225.54, this represented a cost differential of $423,790 per year. B509341; B509592. Over a five-year period this amounted to $2,118,948 in additional transportation costs to keep Jefferson open instead of West. Mr. Bowen testified that, after considering all of the factors, Jefferson was the school that should have been closed. He maintained that "transportation was more

difficult there. It was, as I remember, an energy hog. It was remote." Bowen Test., Tr. at 3341. Considering the fact that the primary rationale for the Reorganization Plan "was to reduce expenditures to offset projected futureyear operating deficits," the court finds no evidence that anyone paid any attention to the millions of dollars in additional costs that the RSD was incurring by deciding to close West instead of Jefferson.
The RSD documents also give no indication of consideration being given to the significance of the decision to close the Rockford Area Career Center. As Mr. Heideman advocated in his proposal, it would have made sense to keep Jefferson open, despite its remote location and high cost, if it were linked with RACC as a vocational magnet high school in order to attract minority transfers on a voluntary basis. The conception of Jefferson/RACC was also contained in the January 17th Administrative Staff Plan, which recommended converting RACC into a "Special Program Center." If RACC were closed, however, as the Board decided in the January 24th Plan, then serious reconsideration should have been given regarding the impact of that decision on Jefferson. With RACC gone, and the Board intending to increase the level of desegregation in all remaining high schools, the only way Jefferson could be desegregated was by the mandatory reassignment of large numbers of Southwest minority students to that remote location. Nevertheless, Superintendent Swanson and the Board focused primarily on whether to undo the West closing decision, and close Auburn instead. The alternative of keeping both West and Auburn open and closing Jefferson, as well as other alternatives presented to the RSD from numerous sources, received no serious consideration.
Superintendent Swanson, on a copy of the school closing criteria, inserted handwritten columns, for West and Auburn, containing pluses and minuses as the relative merits of closing one school or the other. B503753. He concluded that West was the preferable school to keep in terms of operating and maintenance costs, "viability for sale or lease," and "impact on neighborhood". Keeping Auburn open was preferable, on the other hand, in terms of potential for growth in student enrollment and the number of students required to transfer schools.
In his deliberations, Superintendent Swanson made certain notes. One was that the "northwest has two high schools and two middle schools 0907 28%." B35230. On the same sheet, Swanson noted "Cornfield argument used when East and Guilford built." This was a reference to the fact that Jefferson was located so far outside the city that it had been described by Mayor McNamara as being "in the cornfields." At the same time, however, the RSD was using the "cornfield" argument to justify closing two other schools. With respect to closing Kennedy Middle School, part of the RSD's stated rationale was that the school "is located in an area of current and future sparse student population. ..." Reorganization Plan, B509183. With respect to closing Haight Elementary School, the February Plan stated "Haight is located in a sparsely populated area...." Id. Haight and Kennedy were located on the far Northwest side, beyond any population center.
1122 *1122 In a February 8th confidential memorandum, Superintendent Swanson presented to the Board his proposed "Modifications to Original Recommendations." Swanson Memo to Board, 2/8/89, B503759. In the memo itself, he recommended converting West to a middle school and keeping Auburn open, with the Gifted and CAPA Programs returned there from Eastside schools. Superintendent Swanson wrote an Addendum to the memorandum, which stated:
Addendum
After hearing the concerns of city officials and the business community, I feel we may not have given sufficient consideration to the impact on the West High business and residential neighborhood. I am suggesting that West High remain open and Auburn High School be closed.
In contemplating this change, I urge the Board not to allow the pressures which have been applied by the Mayor and others to affect your objectivity. The important thing is to make the right decision. Changing our recommendations may cause criticism and extend the emotional pressure on us in the short term, but the decision will have long-term consequences for the School District and City. The Board's credibility will only be enhanced by choosing the more difficult but correct course.
West High is a larger building and has lower operating and maintenance costs, requires less transportation of students, is fully accessible to the handicapped, and has more impact on the

viability of the business and residential neighborhood than has Auburn. The continuing presence of Wilson and McIntosh on the site will reduce the negative impact on the neighborhood even if Auburn is closed. The cost savings will be approximately the same. We would be losing a newer building and a three-school complex currently existing.
Addendum to Swanson Memo, id. at B503762.
Of the three schools, Jefferson had by far the highest maintenance cost, the highest utility cost and the highest repair cost. While the cost savings were the same as between closing West or Auburn, closing Jefferson would have saved, over a five year period, $1,876,000 compared to closing West. Closing Jefferson would have saved $1,688,000 over five years as compared to closing Auburn.
In comparing Auburn and West, Superintendent Swanson said West "requires less transportation of students." West involved the transportation of only 22 students, whereas Auburn involved the transportation of 836. Jefferson, however, involved the transportation of 1,901 students, at a five-year cost of about $2 million. Swanson also said West "has more impact on the viability of the business and residential neighborhood than has Auburn." Jefferson, however, was not located in any neighborhood.
The motivation on the RSD's part was reflected in a memorandum from Superintendent Swanson to Mr. Driscoll on February 8, 1989, directing Mr. Driscoll to prepare new secondary boundaries based on the conversion of West to a middle school. Superintendent Swanson instructed the Attendance Director to "keep minority percentages between 25 and 35%" and to "leave eastside high school boundaries as close as possible to where they are this year." Swanson Memo to Driscoll, 2/8/89, D10847. Thus, it appears to the court that the RSD was unwilling to assign Eastside students to Westside schools while imposing burdens on minority children in deference to the interests of Eastside majority students.
The RSD's February Reorganization Plan
The Board did not follow the urging of Superintendent Swanson in his February 8th Addendum. Instead, the Board selected the option of converting West to a middle school. This new approach was publicly revealed in the modified Reorganization Plan released by the Board on February 14, 1989. B509131. This was also the date on which the RSD converted Wilson to a mega-elementary-school and closed several African-American elementary schools. To execute this plan and, at the same time, return the secondary-level alternative programs to the Westside, the RSD promulgated yet another set of secondary-school boundaries. Revised Attendance Map, B509093.
1123 *1123 The removal of the alternative programs from East, after a short stay of only three weeks, left East far below capacity and with a low minority enrollment. Therefore, East was once again assigned a satellite zone from west of the river. In response, and to these considerations, and to fulfill its objective of improving secondaryschool desegregation to offset elementary-school resegregation, the RSD again reorganized areas in the Southwest Quadrant. The following findings compare the February 14th secondary boundaries with the preReorganization boundaries existing in the Fall of 1988. Compare B509093 with B509089.
In 1988, the central portion of the Southwest Quadrant was Guilford's satellite zone. In the February 14th Plan, it became East's satellite zone. The southern portion of the Southwest Quadrant had previously been assigned as satellite zones to three different schools. One area was assigned to West, one to East, and one to Auburn. In the February 14th Plan, all of these areas became Jefferson's satellite zone. The northern portion of the Southwest Quadrant, which had been the southern part of West's attendance area in 1988, became a satellite zone for Guilford High School. Almost all Southwest Quadrant students, everyone south of Auburn Street and east of Central Avenue, were mandatorily assigned to a different high school than before.
Compared to the 1988 boundaries, a very large number of additional Southwest Quadrant high school students were assigned by satellite zone to Eastside high schools. This included:
The former southern one-third of the West attendance area, between Auburn and State, was now assigned to Guilford.

The former West students between Kent Creek and Montague Street, were now assigned to Jefferson.
A few students at the far southwest end of the district who were formerly assigned to Auburn were assigned to Jefferson.
Only a small portion of the Southwest Quadrant, west of Central Avenue between Auburn and Linden, was still permitted to attend high school on the Westside, at Auburn.
In accordance with Superintendent Swanson's direction to Mr. Driscoll that Eastside high school boundaries be disturbed as little as possible, Guilford's boundaries east of the river were virtually unchanged. Also, a small portion of Jefferson's attendance area was assigned to East, but otherwise the boundaries of East and Jefferson remained the same east of the river. Thus, the only Eastside white students required to change schools, at the high school level were a few students moving from Jefferson to East. The vast majority of Eastside high school students were undisturbed.
The pattern at the middle school level was very similar. The only difference was due to the fact that in 1988, and prior years, Southwest Quadrant satellite zones at the middle school level did not exactly match those at the high school level. Comparing the Fall of 1988 middle school boundaries to the February 14th boundaries, Southwest middle school students were subjected to the following changes:
The central portion of the Southwest Quadrant, previously assigned to Eisenhower, was switched to Lincoln.
The southern portion of the Southwest Quadrant, previously assigned to Lincoln, was switched to Flinn.
The northern portion of the Southwest Quadrant, previously assigned to Kennedy, was switched to Eisenhower. Another piece of the Southwest Quadrant at the west end, previously assigned to Kennedy, was assigned to the new West Middle School.
Thus, at the middle school level, as at the high school level, virtually every middle school student in the Southwest Quadrant was required to change schools. The number of Southwest Quadrant middle school students required to attend Eastside schools through satellite zone assignments was significantly increased. This increase consisted of the area bounded by Auburn, Central, State and the Rock River, which previously had been assigned to Kennedy. This is the same area that, at the high school level, was reassigned from West to Guilford. 1124 On the Eastside, relatively few middle school students were required to change schools. Only *1124 a few small areas shifted between Eisenhower, Lincoln and Flinn.
In the section of the Reorganization Plan stating and explaining its secondary-school boundary policy, the RSD deleted two of the rationale statements that had been present in both the January 17th and January 24th Plans. The deleted statements were:
This boundary pattern abandons the traditional Eastside-Westside pattern;
More equitably shares the need to be transported among majority and minority students. B509163. These rationale statements had their origin in the January 17th Staff Plan, that called for secondary boundaries to be east-west corridors across the city and for some Eastside students to be assigned to Westside schools. The deletion of these rationale statements indicates the RSD knew it was maintaining, rather than abandoning, the traditional Eastside-Westside pattern of mandatory satellite zone assignments. The RSD also knew that the new boundary pattern maintained, and even increased rather than more equitably distributed, the disproportionate transportation burdens on minority students. Compare B509137 with B509163. Prior to adoption of the final Reorganization Plan, the Board was aware of the concerns of the minority community regarding the inequitable burdens and effects of the Plan on minority students. The Board, however, did not address the concerns of the minority community.

Option Zones In The Final February 28 Secondary Boundaries
Despite continuing protest against the decision to close West High School and against the February 14th secondary boundary changes, the RSD finalized its decision on February 28, 1989 with only one significant change. The change was the creation of two optional attendance zones. Bd.Min., 2/28/89, B21674. One option zone on the Eastside, allowed students whom the Plan had transferred from Jefferson/Flinn to East/Lincoln to remain at Jefferson/Flinn if they wished. The affected students were white and this option zone increased the white enrollment percentage at Jefferson. RSD Secondary Schools Attendance Map, B38689 (final revision). The other option zone was established in the Southwest Quadrant, encompassing predominantly African-American/ Hispanic students. These students, whom the Plan had assigned to Guilford/Eisenhower, were allowed to attend Auburn/West if they wished to do so. The effect of this change was to increase minority enrollment at Auburn/ West and decrease minority enrollment at Guilford/Eisenhower.
As a result of these option zones, the eventual Fall 1989 enrollments in the RSD's secondary schools were not as racially-balanced as predicted. Before the option zones were adopted, RSD projected that the four high schools would be within a range of 25-29% minority, so that the difference between the highest and lowest minority enrollment would be only four percentage points. School Data 1989-90, 2/24/89, B509150. Due to increased white enrollment at Jefferson and increased minority enrollment at Auburn, the outcome in the Fall of 1989 was a variation of thirteen percentage points between the highest and lowest minority enrollments, three times as large a range as the RSD had projected. The actual high school minority percentages in the Fall of 1989 were as follows:

B0033.

Auburn East Guilford Jefferson

36.4% 30.0% 28.2% 23.2%

The 1989 Plan Promoted Segregated Conditions In Secondary Schools By Eliminating Voluntary Transfer Opportunities For Minority Students

The new voluntary transfer policy under the 1989 Plan provided that minority students could only transfer out of schools having more than 50% minority enrollment. No secondary school under the Plan, however, was projected to have more than 50% minority enrollment and no secondary school in the District's history ever had more than 50% minority enrollment, with the exception of Washington Middle School in the 1970's. The effect of this new policy, therefore, was that voluntary transfers by minority students were not permitted at the secondary level. 1125 Conversely, white students were permitted *1125 to transfer out of every secondary school because all secondary schools were over 50% white.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

School desegregation cases have described the many kinds of unconstitutional conduct which causes or maintains segregation. See, e.g., Reed v. Rhodes, 455 F.Supp. 546 (N.D.Oh.1978), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 607 F.2d 714 (6th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1018, 102 S.Ct. 1713, 72 L.Ed.2d 135 (1982). The prime factor to consider in evaluating the Reorganization Plan is that the constitutional rights of minority students are violated when intentional discriminatory conduct results in a lower quality education for minority students than that provided to white students. See United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ., 624 F.Supp. 1276, 1530 (S.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd, 837 F.2d 1181 (2d Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1055, 108 S.Ct. 2821, 100 L.Ed.2d 922 (1988); Morgan

v. Hennigan, 379 F.Supp. 410, 463 (D.Mass.1974), aff'd sub nom. Morgan v. Kerrigan, 509 F.2d 580 (1st Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 963, 95 S.Ct. 1950, 44 L.Ed.2d 449 (1975). This is true not only in instances in which school officials initially bring about educational inequalities, but also where school officials fail to eliminate inequalities with respect to matters within their continuing charge. Price v. Denison Indep. School Dist., 694 F.2d 334, 371 (5th Cir.1983).
The 1989 Reorganization Plan was a plan to resegregate Rockford's elementary schools. The Plan assigned African-American and white students to racially identifiable schools. The February version of the Plan proposed the creation of two huge "warehouse" elementary schools, one at Wilson, projected to have 1227 elementary students, and one at Washington, projected to have 876 elementary students. McIntosh School was close behind the mega-schools with a projected enrollment of 649 elementary students. All of these schools were in the Southwest Quadrant. The mega-schools would have created a ghetto warehouse for minority students. Wilson would have been four times the size of the average elementary school in the District in 1988. The Plan would have placed 1800 African-American and Hispanic elementary students in one highly segregated complex of schools, equivalent to one-half of the District's minority elementary student population. In contrast, the Plan called for no white elementary school to have an enrollment of over 550 students. The court finds that the 1989 Reorganization Plan would have had a devastating impact on the Rockford School District's minority community. The impact of this Plan is evidence that the Board intentionally sought to racially isolate minority elementary students in the Rockford School District.
At the secondary education level, the 1989 Reorganization Plan closed the only naturally integrated high school that existed in the District. The Board offered cost savings as the reason for closing West High School. The court finds that reason to be a pretext. Keeping Jefferson and closing West was not cost effective. Instead, it furthered the disparity in burdens placed on African-American students and white students. The court further finds the Plan was adopted with discriminatory intent on the part of Defendant.
EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION
INTRODUCTION
In 1973, the District approved a plan setting forth goals for minority employment. For the past twenty years, RSD has failed to meet those goals. While the minority population of the district has grown, minority staff in certified positions in the School District has remained at approximately 7% from 1974-75 through 1988-89. The District has not effectively recruited minority applicants, nor has it undertaken steps to remedy under-representation of minorities in upper level positions in the District.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Failure To Meet QUEFAC-Era Hiring Goals And Other Affirmative Action Obligations
The Board, at its regular Board meeting on April 23, 1973, considered and approved the objectives and "overall" 1126 plan for desegregating the Rockford schools. The objectives *1126 and overall plan were approved by a vote of 4
to 3, with Members Schade, Seeber, Tucker and Webster voting aye and Members Gustafson, Hauman and Heath voting nay. One of the points of the overall plan approved by the Board was that: "The Administration shall actively recruit minority personnel and shall integrate this personnel throughout the district." Bd.Min., 4/23/73, B0013820-B0013821.
At this meeting, Superintendent Salisbury presented a desegregation proposal prepared by the RSD's administrative staff. Included in this proposal was a commitment to integrate the entire staff of the district "as rapidly as possible." The hiring goal established by this proposal was to achieve a level of minority employment of 15% of employees in all categories employed by the District, including, central administration personnel,

administrators, teachers, clerks, secretaries, building engineers, custodians, tradesmen, food service workers and all classifications of paraprofessional personnel. The program set a time frame of three to five years to achieve this goal, and the program was to begin immediately. Adoption of the Superintendent's proposal was moved by Hauman and seconded by Heath. Id.
A special meeting of the Board of Education was held on April 30, 1973. The Board approved a modified version of the Superintendent's desegregation proposal by a vote of five to two with Hauman and Heath voting nay. The proposal, as approved, contained the 15% employment goal and the three to five year time table set forth in the original proposal.
In this court's 1973 opinion in QUEFAC v. School Board of School District # 205, 362 F.Supp. 985 (N.D.Ill.1973), it was found that in the 1972-73 school year the RSD employed 1679 school teachers, of whom, 100 or 5.95% were minority teachers. The court further found that 4.74% of all high school teachers were minority teachers, 7.55% of all middle school teachers were minority teachers and 5.63% of all elementary school teachers were minority teachers. The RSD submitted to the court a document, which was marked as group exhibit 15, depicting year by year hiring goals for minority teachers at each school level for the five year period ending with the school year 1977-78. This document reflected a hiring goal of 130 minority teachers at the elementary school level by 1978, 52 middle school minority teachers by 1978 and 73 high school teachers by 1978. Id.
For the 1973-74 school year, the RSD had committed itself to hiring sixteen minority teachers at the elementary school level, six minority teachers at the middle school level and eight minority teachers at the high school level. Dr. George D. Aschenbrenner, who was then the Assistant Superintendent for curriculum and instruction, was assigned the additional duty of insuring that the District meet its minority hiring goals. Bd.Min., 1/22/73, B0013680.
For the 1973-74 school year, the RSD failed to meet its hiring goals. As of June 25, 1973, the District had sent letters of intent to hire only eight minority staff members at the elementary school level, three minority staff members at the middle and high school level combined and five minority staff members for special education. Accordingly, recruitment and hiring for minority staff members for the 1973-74 school year failed to meet the goals established by the District.
During a Board meeting held on September 10, 1973, Dr. Aschenbrenner reported that the RSD had hired only 23 minority professional staff of a total of 178 new hires, which was 13% of new hires. Bd.Min., 9/10/73, B0014066. Specifically, the District achieved only 50% of its goal for elementary school teachers and only 21% of its hiring goal for secondary school teachers. B048599. At that meeting, Dr. Aschenbrenner identified the following recruitment methods for minority staff:
Mailings and follow-up mailings to 58 schools with predominately minority staff;
Reliance on current minority staff to provide names of friends; and
Contact with Northern Illinois University to discuss the situation with a placement officer.
1127 Dr. Aschenbrenner stated that the level of minority hiring was "not as high as we would *1127 like it to be," but that it "represented a substantial increase" over the prior year. Id.
At its meeting of February 12, 1973, the Board received a verbal report from Greg Luna, Chair of the Latin American Committee for Desegregation and a member of the steering committee of the Lay Advisory Committee on Desegregation regarding minority hiring. Mr. Luna recommended that a community advisory panel be established to assist Dr. Aschenbrenner in the recruitment of minority staff. The RSD did not create such a committee. The Board stated that "one of the best means of input is with minority members of our staff." Bd.Min., 2/21/73, B0013683.
On April 2, 1973, the Board received a report from the Central Committee on Desegregation from its Chair, Lee Shervey. This report recommended that an assistant be appointed for Dr. Aschenbrenner to assist in minority recruitment. Bd.Min. 4/2/73, B001377-B0013782. An assistant was never hired for this purpose. Aschenbrenner

Dep., 12/28/92, at 21. Mr. Shervey also recommended that an advisory committee be established for recruitment of new minority staff. Bd.Min., 4/2/73, B001377-B0013782. This recommendation was also not adopted.
Although Dr. Aschenbrenner was charged with the responsibility for minority recruitment, he had no role with respect to recruitment and hiring of faculty. When shown his job description setting forth this duty, Aschenbrenner testified that his only recollection of any role in hiring or recruitment of staff was to sign-off on recommendations from building principals who were responsible for recruitment and hiring. Aschenbrenner Dep. at 13, 16-17. If Dr. Aschenbrenner had any responsibility for recruitment and hiring, it occupied a very small percentage of his time. The initial contacts in hiring was done by individual building principals. Dr. Aschenbrenner's role was basically to sign-off on their selections. Id. at 20. At the time Dr. Aschenbrenner was assigned responsibility for minority recruitment and hiring, the RSD did not have a director of personnel. The first such director was Thomas Boyer, who began working for the RSD on January 1, 1978. Boyer Dep., 12/29/92, at 9, 12.
At its regular meeting of October 14, 1974, the Board adopted a document entitled "Equal Employment Opportunity Policy and Regulations." Bd.Min., 10/14/74, B0014621. This policy, which was unanimously adopted, provided as follows:
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY POLICY
That the Rockford School District shall at all times give equal employment opportunity to all persons regardless of race, creed, color, sex or national origin.
REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY POLICY
1. That Equal Employment is a fundamental School Board policy and shall be implemented by Affirmative Action, including goal setting programs with measurements and evaluations thereof, and accountability by administrators and those exercising employment responsibility.
2. Affirmative Action with respect to Equal Employment Opportunity shall be implemented in all employment practice, including (but not limited to) recruitment, hiring, transfer, promotion, training, compensation, benefits, layoff and terminations.
3. All administrative personnel, as well as all of those exercising employment duties, share a responsibility in the Affirmative Action Equal Employment Opportunity Program and performance thereof will be evaluated as in the implementation of other School Board Policies.
At the time of his hire, Mr. Boyer was interviewed by Arthur Johnson, then-Superintendent of the RSD. Mr. Boyer never discussed minority recruitment or hiring with Mr. Johnson despite the District's commitment to engage in such recruitment and hiring made in the QUEFAC case. Boyer Dep. at 15. Moreover, Mr. Johnson never 1128 discussed minority recruitment or hiring with the director of personnel at any time between *1128 1978 and his leaving the RSD in 1984. Id. at 36. Although Mr. Boyer had the responsibility for implementing the RSD's affirmative action policy, he was never made aware of the District's pledge regarding minority hiring in the QUEFAC case. Id. at 35. Therefore, he did not incorporate hiring goals or timetables into any of his affirmative action efforts on behalf of the District. Id.
The RSD maintained data on percentage of minorities in various categories by years. Starting in the 1974-75 school year, this data was compiled manually by an employee of the personnel department. Id. at 100. These manual compilations reflected the percentage of minorities in three categories: (1) certified staff; (2) non-certified staff; and (3) total staff, along with numbers of minority and majority employees in those categories. Annual Compilation of Min.Staff, 1974-75, B041285. A similar document was prepared for each school year thereafter (with the exception of the 1980-81 school year) until the 1984-85 school year, in which the reporting format was changed. See Annual Compilations of Min.Staff, 1975-76, B041190; 1976-77, B041106; 1977-78, B041106; 1978-79, B040949; 1979-80, B040969; 1981-82, B040729; 1982-83, B041666; 1983-84, B040606. Starting in the 1984-85 school year, the reporting format was changed to show minority employment by job category. B040539. The 1984-85 format was utilized until the 1988-89 school year, when the format was again changed. B040286. The format for subsequent years has remained basically the same.

The RSD's progress in minority hiring may be charted by comparing the statistics from each of these time periods. Following the first format change, the RSD did not report total staff or total professional and nonprofessional staff in each year. Thus, for the school years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88, this data does not exist. For the period after 1987-88, it is possible to aggregate the discrete categories of employees listed to reach a number of total employees, total certified employees and total non-certified employees.
The RSD maintained no other data to measure progress in minority employment. For example, the RSD made no effort to code applications by race to determine whether they were attracting a sufficient pool of minority applicants for positions. Boyer Dep. at 58. The RSD also did not evaluate its hiring or recruitment procedures to determine whether these procedures lead to an under-utilization of minority employees. Id. at 135-136.
Using this methodology and eliminating those years for which comparative data do not exist, an evidence summary of minority staff is incorporated herein as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Year

Total Staff % Min.

Total

% Min.

Total

% Min.

Total Staff Cert. Staff Cert. Staff NonCert NonCert

Staff

Staff

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1974-75 3702

8.00%

2333

7.00%

1369

9.00%

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1975-76 3734

7.10%

2324

6.97%

1411

7.30%

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1976-77 3276

7.39%

2043

7.05%

1233

7.95%

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1977-78 3324

8.69%

2043

6.95%

1281

11.48%

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1978-79 3538

7.72%

2190

6.35%

1348

9.94%

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1979-80 3760

7.69%

2521

5.91%

1239

11.30%

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1981-82 3754

8.28%

2333

6.30%

1421

11.54%

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1982-83 3722

8.60%

2278

6.32%

1444

12.19%

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1983-84 3449

8.81%

2115

6.38%

1334

12.67%

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1984-85 3587

9.17%

1948

7.03%

1639

11.71%

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1988-89 3636

10.70%

2204

7.08%

1432

16.27%

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1989-90 3488

10.46%

2047

7.43%

1441

14.78%

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1990-91 3575

10.97%

2147

7.27%

1428

16.53%

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1991-92 3769

11.83%

2239

7.24%

1530

18.56%

====================================================================================

1129 *1129 The RSD never met its 1973 goal of 15% employees in all categories of employment. For certified employees, the percentage of minority employees has not changed since the 1974-75 school year, which was the first year following its pledge to this court in QUEFAC that it would achieve those levels of employment for all categories of employees within three to five years.[17] Moreover, within these gross categories of employees, the

employment of minorities within the RSD reveals a pattern of uneven minority representation in various occupations. RBE Minority Report, 1988-89, B040286.
In 1988-89 (the school year in which this lawsuit was filed), the RSD employed 3636 employees, 66 less employees than it employed in the first full year following its pledge to achieve minority employment of 15% in all categories of employment. Only 8.6% of the 127 managers (including both central office and school based administrative staff) employed by the RSD were minority; similarly, only 7.0% of the teachers were minority. In the service (or non-certified) occupations, only 3.7% of the clerical employees were minority. The level of overall minority employment of 16.27% in the non-certified occupations was achieved because minorities had representation in other employment categories at high rates. Thus, 30% of the bus drivers were minority, as were 21.1% of aides. In the custodial category, minorities represented 17.6% of all employees; in food service, only 10.3%.
Prior to the filing of this lawsuit, the RSD had no regular plan for aggressively recruiting minority applicants for teaching or other professional positions within the RSD. In 1987-88, after Rockford School Board member Michael Williams raised the issue of the low percentage of minority teachers in the RSD, the RSD hired Constance Lane, a former RSD employee, to "go out on a recruiting expedition, to recruit minority applicants." Bowen Dep. at 122-123. Ms. Lane visited colleges with significant numbers of African-American education majors. Although Ms. Lane identified thirty-two graduating African-American college students that could have been recruited by the RSD, the RSD hired only four of the students. Prior to this time, the RSD had no regular minority recruitment effort that involved visiting campuses with large minority student enrollment. Id. This recruitment effort did not continue past a single school year. Id. The RSD never had a full-time minority recruitment officer.
Mr. Williams also attempted to get the RBE to address issues relating to its poor minority hiring performance and its lack of an affirmative action policy. Williams raised the following issues with RBE:
(1) the complete absence of minorities in the position of school secretary;
(2) the lack of minority administrators;
(3) the disproportionate assignment of minority employees to West and Southwest side schools; and
(4) the existence of a disproportionate number of minorities in menial jobs.
Williams' efforts to address these issues met with the response that the RSD already had an affirmative action policy.
At a 1988 RBE meeting, Michael Williams addressed the issue of the lack of minority high school principals and the need to recruit them. The reaction from fellow RBE member Darlene Hanna was that Rockford was "not ready" for an African-American high school principal. Accordingly, no minority candidates were sought for the position of high school principal during Williams' four and a half year tenure with the RSD.
Mr. Williams also raised the issue of the low percentage of African-American and other minority clerical employees at meetings of the Board. He was referred to Oscar Blackwell, who was responsible for testing potential clerical employees and determining their eligibility for employment. Mr. Williams spoke with Mr. Blackwell in 1987 regarding the underrepresentation of minorities in the clerical work force. He was advised by 1130 Mr. *1130 Blackwell that clerical vacancies were filled through word of mouth when a building principal would advise his or her staff that a clerical employee was leaving and that a vacancy would be available. No posting of clerical vacancies or any regularly scheduled testing of potential applicants occurred.
As a result of the discussion between Williams and Blackwell, the RSD developed a posting and selection procedure for clerical vacancies. This procedure included regularly scheduled tests and referral of more than a single, self-selected candidate to the principal for selection.

The RSD also did not measure its hiring of minority employees against any standard until the 1986-87 school year. In that year, for the first time, the RSD began to annually compare its percentage of minority employees in each category of employment to the available minority pool in the Rockford area. B32977.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Discrimination in the recruiting, hiring, and promotion of staff is a proper subject to be considered in a school desegregation case. See, e.g., Morgan v. Kerrigan, 530 F.2d 401, 432 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 935, 96 S.Ct. 2648, 49 L.Ed.2d 386 (1976); Arthur v. Nyquist, 415 F.Supp. 904, 946-47 (W.D.N.Y. 1976); Johnson v. San Francisco Unified School Dist., 339 F.Supp. 1315, 1332 (N.D.Cal.1971); Spangler v. Pasadena Cty. Bd. of Educ., 311 F.Supp. 501, 515 (C.D.Cal. 1970). In the school desegregation context, however, the rights of students, and not those of employees or applicants for employment, are at issue. Morgan v. Hennigan, 379 F.Supp. at 456. Accordingly, courts do not strictly apply legal principles developed in employment discrimination cases. See Morgan v. O'Bryant, 671 F.2d 23, 27 (1st Cir.1982) (proof of individual hiring discrimination irrelevant); Arthur v. Nyquist, 520 F.Supp. 961, 966 (W.D.N.Y.1981), appeal dismissed mem., 697 F.2d 287 (2nd Cir.1982).
The individual parts of a full spectrum school discrimination suit are not isolated from each other. See Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, Denver, Colo., 413 U.S. 189, 207, 93 S.Ct. 2686, 2697, 37 L.Ed.2d 548 (1973). Thus, the overall evidence of racial discrimination in other areas of the school system and in particular, the assignment of like-race staff and administrators to racially identifiable minority schools, provides relevant support for finding that disproportionately low minority hiring was purposeful. Arthur v. Nyquist, 429 F.Supp. 206, 212 (W.D.N.Y. 1977). In this context, school desegregation plaintiffs have frequently proven discrimination in the hiring and promotion of teachers and staff. See Arthur, 415 F.Supp. at 946-47 (11.4% minority teachers in a city that was 21% black); Oliver v. Kalamazoo Bd. of Educ., 368 F.Supp. 143, 177, 180 (W.D.Mich. 1973) (7.5% black teachers in district containing roughly 20% black students); Johnson, 339 F.Supp. at 1332 (9% black teachers and 8% black administrators in district with 28.7% black pupils).
For the past twenty years, the RSD has unlawfully failed to hire minority teachers and staff and has failed to meet its own hiring goals and affirmative action obligations. The RSD never met its QUEFAC-era goals. The only employment areas in which minorities exceeded 15% employment were bus drivers, teacher aides and custodial staff. The RSD has also failed to undertake any serious efforts in the areas of recruitment, hiring and promotion of minorities.
STAFF ASSIGNMENT
INTRODUCTION
Since at least 1963, the overwhelming majority of African-American teachers, at all school levels, taught in predominantly racially identifiable schools. The same pattern of assignment of minority teachers to schools with high numbers of minority students existed for non-professional staff. The highest percentage of minority principals ever employed by the RSD was five out of fifty (or 10%) which was in the 1987-88 school year. With one exception, no African-American principal has ever been assigned to a racially-identifiable white school. In the history of the RSD, no minority has ever been employed as a high school principal.
1131 *1131 The first collective bargaining agreement covering teachers and other professional staff of the RSD was negotiated in 1968. By the time the agreement was negotiated, the pattern of assignment of minority staff to schools with large concentrations of minority students was already established.
FINDINGS OF FACT

Assignment Of Black Teachers To Black Schools
On July 24, 1963, officials of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (hereinafter "NAACP") requested a list of all African-American personnel employed by the RSD. B41498. In response to that request, a document was prepared setting forth the African-American employees of the District divided into three categories: teachers, clerical employees and custodial employees. Id. At that time, the District employed approximately twenty-six African-American teachers. Of those teachers for whom a geographical assignment could be determined, 55% were employed in schools located in the Southwest Quadrant of the city. Seventy-five percent of those African-American teachers were employed in schools in the Western portion of the city; that is, in schools located west of the Rock River. In addition, 23% of the African-American teachers were employed in the special education program. Of those schools and programs in which African-American teachers were employed, only three schools had more than one African-American teacher on its staff: Washington Middle School, Henrietta School and Wilson Middle School. Each of these schools was located in the Southwest Quadrant of the city and had on their teaching staffs four, three and 1.5 African-American teachers, respectively. The special education program employed six African-American teachers. The 1963 report prepared by the District for the NAACP, when correlated to the figures for percentage of African-American enrollment in the schools as of 1960, demonstrated that:
1. At the high school level, one teacher was employed half time as a foreign language instructor. This teacher taught at Auburn School, which was a segregated white school.
2. The District employed six and one-half full-time equivalent minority teachers in its middle schools in 1963. Four of those teachers, or 61.54% of all African-American teachers employed in the middle schools, taught in racially-identifiable minority middle schools. One and one-half, or 23%, of the African-American teachers employed in the middle schools taught in integrated middle schools and one, or 15.38%, of the African-American teachers employed in the middle schools taught in racially-identifiable white middle schools.
3. In 1963, the District employed twelve African-American teachers at the elementary school level. Two, or 16.67%, of those teachers taught in racially-identifiable minority elementary schools. Three, or 25%, of those teachers taught in integrated elementary schools and seven, or 58.33%, of those teachers taught in racially-identifiable white elementary schools.
An evidence summary exhibit graphically representing these correlations is reproduced herein as follows:

Correlation Of 1960 PPC Attendance Data To 1963 Report To NAACP On African-American

Staff By African-American Enrollment

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

School

% African-American # African-

American # Other

Total African-American

Enrollment

Teachers

African-American Staff

Staff

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HIGH SCHOOLS

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

West

5.0%

0.0

4.0

4.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

East

1.0%

0.0

2.0

2.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guilford

0.0%

0.0

2.0

2.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1132 *1132

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Auburn

0.0%

0.5

4.0

4.5

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TOTAL

0.5

12.0

12.5

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MIDDLE SCHOOLS[18]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Washington

22.0%

4.0

1.5

5.5

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wilson

7.0%

1.5

2.0

3.5

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jefferson

3.0%

0.0

1.0

1.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roosevelt

1.0%

1.0

1.0

2.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lincoln

0.0%

0.0

4.0

4.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TOTAL

6.5

9.5

16.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS[19]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dennis

78.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lathrop

43.0%

1.0

0.0

1.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rock River

42.0%

1.0

0.0

1.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Montague

33.0%

0.0

1.0

1.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barbour

24.0%

0.0

1.0

1.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Haskell

23.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ellis

22.0%

1.0

0.5

1.5

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Franklin

16.0%

0.0

0.5

0.5

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hall

10.0%

0.0

0.5

0.5

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kishwaukee

6.0%

1.0

1.0

2.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hallstrom

4.0%

1.0

0.0

1.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Garrison

3.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Riverdahl

2.0%

0.0

1.0

1.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peterson

1.0%

1.0

1.0

2.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Henrietta

1.0%

3.0

0.0

3.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Welsh

1.0%

0.0

2.0

2.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Highland

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gregory

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hillman

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Church

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bloom

0.0%

1.0

2.0

3.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conklin

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evergreen

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Freeman

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fairview

0.0%

1.0

1.5

2.5

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alpine

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vandercook

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jackson

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Walker

0.0%

1.0

0.0

1.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

West View

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wight

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whitehead

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whig Hill

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Turner

0.0%

0.0

0.5

0.5

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summerdale

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1133 *1133

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Latham Park

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johnson

0.0%

0.0

1.0

1.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lincoln Park

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nelson

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stiles

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rolling Green

0.0%

0.0

1.0

1.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page Park

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B41498.

Teachers

In November of 1968, the District prepared a summary of African-American teachers in the Rockford elementary schools. B41493. As of that date, the District employed twenty-nine African-American elementary school teachers, excluding special education teachers. Of these twenty-nine teachers, twenty-one or 72.4% were employed in schools in the Southwest Quadrant. In addition, while six schools within the Southwest Quadrant had more than one African-American teacher on their staff, no school outside the Southwest Quadrant had more than one African-American teacher on its staff. Of the forty-two elementary schools in operation in Rockford in 1968, only seventeen schools had any African-American teaching staff. Twenty-five of the forty-two elementary schools within the District (59.5%) had no African-American teaching staff.
During the 1968-69 school year, the District had in operation five middle schools: Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Washington and Wilson. Of the 400 teachers employed in the middle schools, twenty-three (5.75% of the total) were African-American. Approximately 90% of those twenty-three African-American teachers were employed in two schools: Washington and Wilson, which were schools located in or near the African-American community.
A subcommittee of the Pupil Placement Committee (hereinafter "PPC") was formed and was composed of the following persons: John C. Swanson (Guilford Principal), Chair, Lona Huffington, Constance Lane, Margie Sturgis and Richard Stank. On January 15, 1968, the subcommittee submitted its analysis of data gathered through a questionnaire sent to principals regarding the professional staff in the Rockford public schools. The subcommittee's analysis revealed that the percentage of African-American teachers (less than 5%) appeared to be significantly lower than the percentage of African-American students. The subcommittee recommended that efforts be made to increase the number of African-American teachers, especially at the secondary level. The subcommittee report also noted that the majority of African-American teachers were located in "Title One" schools. This concentration of African-American teachers was "explained in part by the desires of principals in these schools to have negro staff members." The subcommittee recommended that efforts be made to maintain a balance of teachers by race, education and training throughout the system. These recommendations were never implemented by the Board. T. Shaheen Letter to Jerris Leonard, Assistant Attorney General, 6/13/69, at 12, D23522.
The PPC report also provided the Board with a tabulation of the number of professional staff assigned to each school. Included within this category were counselors, teachers, librarians and special education personnel. Nurses were not included in the tally. The report further provided to the Board a tabulation of the percentage of African-American professional staff in each school. B21810.
In 1967, 10.4% of the total enrollment of the District was African-American with African-American students accounting for 8.6% of secondary school enrollment and 11.4% of elementary school enrollment. Based upon these figures an elementary school was racially identifiable minority if it had more than 26.4% African-American 1134 enrollment; a *1134 school was racially identifiable white if it had less than 5.7% African-American enrollment. Further, in 1967, a secondary school was racially identifiable minority if it had more than 23.6% African-American enrollment and was racially identifiable white if it had less than 4.3% African-American enrollment.
At the high school level, the District employed three African-American professionals. One (or 33.33%) of those professionals was assigned to an integrated high school and two (or 66.67%) were assigned to schools that were racially identifiable white. The District employed 11 African-American professionals at the middle school level.

Four (or 36.36%) were employed in racially identifiable African-American schools. Seven (or 63.64%) were employed in integrated schools and none were employed in racially identifiable white schools. Finally, the District employed 34 African-American professionals at the elementary school level. Twenty-six (or 76.47%) worked in racially identifiable African-American schools, four (or 11.76%) worked in integrated schools and 4 (or 11.76%) worked in racially identifiable white schools. The following evidence summary exhibit graphically represents these correlations:

PPC Enrollment And 1967-68 Professional Staff Data Correlated 0907 By % African-

American

Enrollment

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

School

% African-American % African-American # African-American

Enrollment

Professional Staff Professional Staff

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HIGH SCHOOLS[20]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Auburn

15.0%

1.0%

1.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

West

12.0%

0.0%

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

East

2.0%

0.0%

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guilford

0.0%

1.7%

2.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MIDDLE SCHOOLS[21]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Washington

50.0%

8.8%

4.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wilson

22.0%

5.7%

5.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roosevelt

8.0%

1.3%

1.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jefferson

5.0%

1.1%

1.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lincoln

0.0%

0.0%

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS[22]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dennis

91.0%

20.8%

5.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Montague

70.0%

28.4%

4.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lathrop

66.0%

16.6%

4.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Henrietta

66.0%

10.0%

1.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ellis

50.0%

4.7%

1.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barbour

47.0%

7.4%

2.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rock River

45.0%

n/a

n/a

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Franklin

41.0%

5.8%

1.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lincoln Park

40.0%

31.8%

7.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Haskell

37.0%

4.3%

1.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hall

22.0%

10.0%

1.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

McIntosh

20.0%

14.2%

2.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kishwaukee

11.0%

0.0%

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1135 *1135

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hallstrom

6.0%

5.8%

1.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jackson

2.0%

0.0%

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Welsh

2.0%

2.7%

1.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alpine

1.0%

0.0%

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Riverdahl

1.0%

n/a

n/a

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Garrison

1.0%

0.0%

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wight

1.0%

0.0%

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gregory

0.0%

0.0%

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Church

0.0%

0.0%

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bloom

0.0%

0.0%

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conklin

0.0%

0.0%

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evergreen

0.0%

0.0%

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fairview

0.0%

4.1%

1.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johnson

0.0%

4.3%

1.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summerdale

0.0%

0.0%

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Highland

0.0

0.0%

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vandercook

0.0%

0.0%

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Walker

0.0%

0.0%

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

West View

0.0%

0.0%

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Turner

0.0%

0.0%

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Latham Park

0.0%

0.0%

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rolling Green

0.0%

0.0%

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hillman

0.0%

0.0%

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nelson

0.0%

0.0%

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peterson

0.0%

6.2%

1.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1968, employees of the District prepared a list of elementary schools employing African-American teachers and a copy of the directory of the Rockford public schools showing total staff for each school with hand written notations as to those staff members who were African-American. B41462. When this data is correlated to the 1967 student enrollment percentages set forth in the PPC report, it reveals the following.

The District employed eight African-American teachers at the high school level during the 1968-69 school year. Of those eight teachers, six (or 75%) taught in integrated schools and two (or 25%) taught in racially identifiable white schools. No racially identifiable African-American high schools existed in the Rockford school system in 1968-69. The high schools employing six of the eight African-American teachers were Auburn High School, with an African-American student enrollment of 15% and West High School, with an African-American student enrollment of 12%. East High School, which had an African-American student enrollment of 2%, employed no African-American teachers. Guilford High School, which had an African-American student enrollment of 0%, employed two African-American teachers.

At the middle school level, the District employed twenty-three African-American teachers. Ten (or 43.48%) of the African-American teachers employed in the middle schools were assigned to Washington School, which had a 50% African-American enrollment and was a racially identifiable minority school. Eleven of the twenty-three teachers employed at the middle school level taught at Wilson High School, which had an African-American student enrollment of 22%. Roosevelt Junior High and Jefferson Junior High, which respectively had an 8% and 1136 5% *1136 African-American student enrollment, each employed one African-American teacher. Lincoln School, which was a racially identifiable white school with a 0% African-American student enrollment, had no AfricanAmerican teachers on its staff. Grouping Wilson, Roosevelt and Jefferson together, the District employed thirteen African-American teachers (or 56.52%) in integrated or racially identifiable middle schools.

At the elementary school level, the District employed thirty-four[23] African-American teachers. Twenty-four (or 70%) of those African-American teachers were assigned to racially identifiable minority schools. Five (or 14%) of those teachers were assigned to integrated schools and three (or 8%) of those teachers were assigned to racially identifiable white schools. An evidence summary exhibit graphically represents these correlations:

Comparison Of Percentage of African-American Student Enrollment to Number and

Percentage of African-American Teaching Staff[24] 0907 1968-69

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

School

% African-American # African-American # Total % African-

American

Enrollment

Teachers

Teachers

Teachers to

Total By School

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HIGH SCHOOLS[25]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

West

15.0%

3

98

3.06%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Auburn

13.0%

3

98

3.06%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

East

1.0%

0

117

0.00%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guilford

0.0%

2

122

1.64%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MIDDLE SCHOOLS[26]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Washington

50.0%

10

46

21.74%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wilson

22.0%

11

90

12.22%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roosevelt

8.0%

1

73

1.37%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jefferson

5.0%

1

94

1.06%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lincoln

0.0%

0

97

0.00%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS[27]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dennis

92.0%

3

24

12.50%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Montague

71.0%

4

16

25.00%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Henrietta

70.0%

1

10

10.00%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lathrop

63.0%

2

22

9.09%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Franklin

45.0%

1

14

7.14%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Haskell

44.0%

3

20

15.00%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barbour

44.0%

4

28

14.29%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rock River

40.0%

1

22

4.55%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lincoln Park

36.0%

5

24

20.83%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ellis

36.0%

0

21

0.00%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

McIntosh

28.0%

2

15

13.33%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kishwaukee

20.0%

1

26

3.84%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1137 *1137

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hall

14.0%

1

9

11.11%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hallstrom

4.0%

1

18

5.56%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Church

4.0%

0

19

0.00%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Welsh

2.0%

0

35

0.00%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Riverdahl

2.0%

0

19

0.00%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alpine

1.0%

0

9

0.00%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wight

1.0%

0

17

0.00%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

West View

0.0%

0

21

0.00%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Garrison

0.0%

0

14

0.00%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fairview

0.0%

1

23

4.35%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nelson

0.0%

0

13

0.00%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evergreen

0.0%

0

17

0.00%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Walker

0.0%

0

20

0.00%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bloom

0.0%

0

24

0.00%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conklin

0.0%

0

22

0.00%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whitehead

0.0%

0

24

0.00%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gregory

0.0%

0

13

0.00%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whig Hill

0.0%

0

27

0.00%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johnson

0.0%

0

24

0.00%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vandercook

0.0%

0

11

0.00%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Latham Park

0.0%

0

6

0.00%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rolling Green

0.0%

0

18

0.00%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peterson

0.0%

1

17

5.88%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stiles

0.0%

0

16

0.00%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summerdale

0.0%

0

22

0.00%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jackson

0.0%

0

17

0.00%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Turner

0.0%

0

18

0.00%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Highland

0.0%

0

20

0.00%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hillman

0.0%

0

20

0.00%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On or about December 16, 1971, employees of the District prepared a listing of minority group staff members employed in the schools. B41377. As part of this document, the District noted that it had 1,758 teachers employed at all levels within the District and that ninety-one (or 5.18%) of those teachers were members of minority groups: eighty-eight African-American, one Native American, one Hispanic and one Asian.

During the 1971-72 school year the District employed forty-four minority teachers at the elementary school level. Twenty-eight of those minority teachers (or 68.29% of the total minority elementary school teachers) were employed in nine schools located in the Southwest Quadrant. Those schools were: Barber, Dennis, Ellis, Haskell, 1138 Henrietta, Lincoln Park, McIntosh, Muldoon and Peterson. Sixteen of the twenty-two minority *1138 teachers at the middle school level were employed in two schools, both of which were located in or near the minority community. These two middle schools were Washington and Wilson. The District employed twenty-five minority teachers out of 493 at the high school level. Seventeen of these minority teachers were assigned to two schools, Auburn and West, which served the minority community in the District. These seventeen teachers represented 68% of the minority teachers employed by the District. An evidence summary exhibit graphically representing these correlations is reproduced herein as follows:

Comparison of Percentage of African-American Student Enrollment to Number and

Percentage of African-American Teaching Staff 0907 1971-72

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Schools

% African-American % African-American # African-American

Enrollment

Professional Staff Professional Staff

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HIGH SCHOOLS[28]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Auburn

28.1

[29]

6.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

West

13.3

7.84

8.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

East

8.6

1.65

2.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jefferson

5.8

1.77

2.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guilford

0.5

1.57

2.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total

20.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MIDDLE SCHOOLS[30]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Washington

56.6

53.57

15.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wilson

46.5

17.86

10.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roosevelt

19.2

4.65

2.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lincoln

3.4

2.44

2.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

M. Kennedy

0.8

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eisenhower

0.7

3.39

2.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Kennedy

0.4

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total

31.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS[31]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dennis

92.5

20.83

5.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Montague

84.0

50.0

8.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Muldoon

74.4

38.89

7.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ellis

74.2

13.64

3.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Henrietta

74.1

11.11

1.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lathrop

70.1

12.50

2.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barbour

65.1

21.74

5.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Haskell

63.6

18.18

4.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lincoln Park

54.8

16.67

4.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rock River

41.2

20.0

5.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Beyer

38.5

18.75

3.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

McIntosh

34.8

17.39

4.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Church

20.6

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Garrison

14.1

5.88

1.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kishwaukee

13.5

4.35

1.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1139 *1139

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Welsh

4.9

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guilford Center

3.6

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nashold

2.8

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hallstrom

2.5

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Riverdahl

1.7

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

West View

1.7

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carlson

1.3

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gregory

1.2

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sky View

1.1

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evergreen

1.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summerdale

0.9

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peterson

0.9

13.33

2.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Haight

0.8

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stiles

0.7

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alpine

0.5

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Walker

0.5

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fairview

0.4

5.56

1.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spring Creek

0.4

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thompson

0.4

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brookview

0.4

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whig Hill

0.4

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vandercook

0.2

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Froberg

0.2

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marsh

0.1

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bloom

0.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conklin

0.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bell

0.0

0.00

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cherry Valley

0.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gunsolas

0.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Turner

0.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

White Swan

0.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wight

0.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whitehead

0.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Milford

0.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rolling Green

0.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nelson

0.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hillman

0.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Highland

0.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jackson

0.0

0.0

0.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johnson

0.0

5.56

1.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In July of 1973, testimony in the QUEFAC case revealed the following facts: Eighty-five percent of minority elementary students and 96% of minority elementary teachers were clustered in twelve elementary schools that were not in compliance with State desegregation guidelines. Seventy-five percent of minority middle school students and 75% of minority middle school faculty were clustered in two middle schools that were not in compliance with State desegregation guidelines.

Principals And Other Administrative Staff

In 1963, despite the presence of African-American teachers and minority clerical and custodial personnel, the 1140 District employed only one minority principal. Constance Renick *1140 (Lane) was made principal of Henrietta
School in the 1963-64 school year. No other minority assistant principals or other administrators were employed by the District. During the school year 1968-69, the District employed approximately 109 administrative employees, including central office administrators and principals and assistant principals in the schools. Of these 109 employees, three (or approx. 1.5%) were African-American. B41463; D23513; D23526. These three employees were: Constance Lane, Delridge Hunter and Robert Black. T. Shaheen Letter to Jerris Leonard, Assistant Attorney General, 6/13/69, at 3, 16; D23513, D23526. Mr. Hunter's name was deleted from the list of persons for reappointment by Board action on June 7, 1969. D23515; Bd.Min., 7/28/69, D23510-D23529. Mr. Black, who had been hired by the Board on November 11, 1968 as an administrative assistant to Dr. Shaheen, submitted his resignation to the Board on December 8, 1969.
A summary showing the number and percentage of minority principals for selected years from 1964-65 to 1988-89 is reproduced herein as follows:

Comparison of Minority Principals0907Selected Years

--------------------------------------------------------

School Year # Minority

# Total

% Minority

Principals Principals

Principals to

Total

1964-65

1.0

43.0

2.33%

--------------------------------------------------------

1974-75

5.0

70.0

7.14%

--------------------------------------------------------

1984-85

2.0

49.0

4.08%

--------------------------------------------------------

1987-88

5.0

50.0

10.00%

--------------------------------------------------------

1988-89

3.0

48.0

6.25%

--------------------------------------------------------

Correlating the data on principal assignment to student enrollment data by year, the District exhibited a pattern of assigning minority principals to schools having a high percentage of African-American and Hispanic-American enrollment. A summary demonstrating such a correlation is reproduced herein as follows:

Correlation of Minority Principals by School and Year to Percentage of Minority

Enrollment

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Principal

School

Year

% Afr-Am

% His-Am % Afr + His

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anderson,

Wilson

1971-72

38.33

1.60

39.92

Curtis

1972-73

46.52

2.02

48.54

1973-74

48.29

2.51

50.79

1974-75

46.55

3.04

49.60

1975-76

37.36

1.74

39.10

1976-77

33.43

2.24

35.67

1977-78

26.20

1.33

27.53

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Burrell,

Haskell

1991-92

66.03

6.09

72.12

Rachel

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cox, Fay

McIntosh

1986-87

56.17

3.74

59.91

1987-88

59.44

3.43

56.62

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Franklin,

Wilson

1985-86

24.86

2.14

27.00

Jeanette

1986-87

23.56

2.93

26.49

1987-88

20.82

2.65

23.47

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1141 *1141

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hildreth, G. New Milford

1990-91

4.27

2.51

6.78

1991-92

1.54

0.77

2.32

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Holley,

Ellis

1972-73

74.26

2.70

76.96

Sterling

1973-74

79.65

3.02

82.66

1974-75

75.00

1.19

76.19

1975-76

74.24

0.91

75.15

1976-77

78.55

0.35

78.89

1977-78

76.41

0.00

76.41

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lane,

Henrietta

1964-65

Constance

1965-66

1966-67

1967-68

66.00

1968-69

67.61

0.47

68.08

McIntosh

1966-67 1967-68

22.00

1968-69

27.56

0.26

27.82

1969-70

1970-71

34.65

1.97

1971-72

35.66

1.99

1972-73

34.86

1.53

1973-74

41.43

1.84

1974-75

45.12

2.09

1975-76

41.44

3.50

1976-77

45.45

4.21

1977-78

34.95

2.74

1978-79

36.80

3.40

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lara, Pedro Cherry Valley

1991-92

2.88

1.44

4.33

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mannery,

Beyer

1985-86

19.47

3.63

23.09

Jacki

1986-87

20.21

4.68

24.89

1987-88

23.46

4.32

27.78

1988-89

22.53

4.08

26.61

1989-90

30.32

6.45

36.77

1990-91

29.84

4.33

34.17

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Martin,

Washington

1971-72

53.74

3.83

57.57

Nathaniel

1972-73

60.55

7.27

67.82

1973-74

61.58

4.78

66.36

1974-75

62.81

5.69

68.50

1975-76

64.57

7.09

71.66

1976-77

20.46

6.99

70.46

1977-78

70.55

7.82

70.18

1978-79

64.63

4.27

63.01

1979-80

64.99

3.56

62.26

1980-81

51.54

2.69

50.19

Flinn

1981-82

5.13

1.51

6.64

1982-83

3.34

2.17

5.52

1983-84

5.34

1.72

7.06

1984-85

7.20

1.29

8.49

Eisenhower

1985-86

16.43

1.21

17.63

1985-87

15.84

1.11

16.96

1987-88

15.78

1.30

17.08

1988-89

14.29

1.12

15.41

1989-90

18.10

2.53

20.63

1990-91

19.87

2.73

22.60

1991-92

23.41

3.06

26.47

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Price, Marge

McIntosh

1979-80

39.25

2.08

41.32

1980-81

45.05

3.79

48.84

1142 *1142

Walker

1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87

53.42 53.55 55.60 55.38 57.24
6.43

3.42 3.85 3.38 3.74 3.91 36.58

56.84 57.40 58.99 59.12 61.15 43.01

1987-88

5.74

37.78

43.52

1988-89

6.33

39.60

45.93

1989-90

16.73

11.45

28.18

1990-91

16.39

11.84

28.23

1991-92

15.85

4.92

20.77

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revels, Helen Muhl Center

1973-74

21.13

0.70

21.83

1974-75

21.71

0.00

21.71

1975-76

16.28

1.55

17.83

1976-77

16.19

0.95

17.14

1977-78

19.00

2.00

21.00

1978-79

15.46

2.06

17.53

1979-80

13.16

3.95

17.11

1980-81

20.37

1.85

22.22

1981-82

1982-83

1983-84

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Van,

Dennis

1989-90

55.67

1.48

57.14

Giovanni

1990-91

61.27

1.45

62.72

1991-92

62.73

1.48

64.21

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From 1964 to the end of the 1989-90 school year, only six elementary schools, Beyer, Dennis, Ellis, Henrietta, McIntosh and Walker, had any African-American or Hispanic-American principals during any period, excluding Muhl Center, which was a special education facility. Of the middle schools, only Washington, Wilson, Flinn and Eisenhower had African-American principals during any period. Three of those assignments, at Flinn, Eisenhower and Washington, were held by one employee, Nathaniel Martin.

In the history of the RSD, there have been two non-white middle school principals, Nathaniel Martin and Curtis Anderson. Of the middle schools, Washington was racially identifiable minority during the entire time it had an African-American principal. Wilson school was racially identifiable minority from 1971 through the 1975-76 school year; from the 1977-78 school year until 1988, it was desegregated. Wilson did not have an African-American principal again until the 1985-86 school year. At that time it was still desegregated. Eisenhower school had an African-American principal from 1985 through 1992, and was desegregated during that entire period. The only racially identifiable white middle school in which an African-American principal has been assigned is Flinn, where Nathaniel Martin was employed from 1981-85, following the closing of Washington. The District has never employed an African-American or Hispanic-American principal in its high schools.

Dr. David Bennett, a desegregation expert proffered by Plaintiffs, testified that he observed public schools in Rockford were not only racially identifiable by students, but also by staff. Dr. Bennett began his analysis by looking at the assignment of minority principals within the District. He used this as a starting point because school districts have the fewest constraints placed upon them in the assignment of principals to schools. Principal assignment can, therefore, be a very revealing measure of racial identifiability of staff assignment. In addition, the principal of a school is a high profile, leadership position and plays a major role with regard to a school's racial identifiability. Dr. Bennett discovered that, through 1989, the Rockford School District had employed only eight minority principals. These eight principals had, collectively, thirteen separate assignments among them. Of those 1143 thirteen assignments, only one was to a school that was *1143 a school without a high minority enrollment. This evidence led Dr. Bennett to conclude that principal assignment in the RSD was made on a clearly segregated and racially identifiable basis. Dr. Bennett also analyzed the staff assignment data prepared by Dr. Michael Stolee to determine whether this racially segregated assignment of staff also carried over to teacher assignment. His review of the data led him to conclude that the same pattern was apparent with respect to teacher assignment and that the District assigned minority faculty to schools with large numbers of minority students. The persistence of racially segregated staff assignment continued despite the Board's awareness of the problem as early as 1973. Bennet Test., Tr. at 2693.

Dr. Bennett testified that some institutions assert that schools and staffs are racially identifiable to provide "role models" for minority students. Dr. Bennett believes, however, that it is important for all students, especially whites, to see "individuals of color in responsible positions, like principal positions and like teacher positions." Id. at 2690.
During his twenty-eight year tenure as a teacher and principal in the RSD, Nathaniel Martin noted the pattern of disproportionate assignment of minority staff to schools with high concentrations of minority students. In Mr. Martin's opinion this pattern resulted from the manner in which the RSD assigned teachers when they were first hired to work for the District, and not that African-American teachers desired to be placed in or transferred to schools with large African-American populations. Martin Test., Tr. at 2510-12.
Other Staff
As of July 24, 1963, the District employed four African-American clerical employees, two of whom were located at the central administrative office and two of whom were located in Auburn High School and Washington Junior Middle School. In 1963, the District employed thirty-eight African-American custodial personnel. Of these thirtyeight employees, 84.2% were employed in the janitor 2 position, 13.6% were employed as janitor/firefighter, and 2.6% were employed as custodian/engineer.
The African-American custodial employees employed in the four Quadrants and the central administration were assigned as follows: twelve employees (31.5%) in the Northeast Quadrant, eleven employees (29.0%) in the Northwest Quadrant, six employees (15.8%) in the Southeast Quadrant, five employees (13.2%) in the Southwest Quadrant and four employees (10.5%) in central administration. An evidence summary exhibit comparing the 1960 Pupil Placement Committee Report data on African-American student enrollment in the schools with the location of African-American staff in those schools, is incorporated herein as follows:

Correlation Of PPC Attendance Data For 1960 To 1963 Report To NAACP On African-

American

Staff By African-American Enrollment

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Schools

% Afr-Am

# Afr-Am

# Other

Total

Enrollment Teachers

Afr-Am

Afr-Am

Staff

Staff

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HIGH SCHOOLS

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

West

5.0%

0.0

4.0

4.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

East

1.0%

0.0

2.0

2.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guilford

0.0%

0.0

2.0

2.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Auburn

0.0%

0.5

4.0

4.5

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TOTAL

0.5

12.0

12.5

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MIDDLE SCHOOLS

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Washington

22.0%

4.0

1.5

5.5

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wilson

7.0%

1.5

2.0

3.5

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jefferson

3.0%

0.0

1.0

1.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1144 *1144

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roosevelt

1.0%

1.0

1.0

2.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lincoln

0.0%

0.0

4.0

4.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TOTAL

6.5

9.5

16.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dennis

78.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lathrop

43.0%

1.0

0.0

1.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rock River

42.0%

1.0

0.0

1.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Montague

33.0%

0.0

1.0

1.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barbour

24.0%

0.0

1.0

1.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Haskell

23.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ellis

22.0%

1.0

0.5

1.5

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Franklin

16.0%

0.0

0.5

0.5

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hall

10.0%

0.0

0.5

0.5

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kishwaukee

6.0%

1.0

1.0

2.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hallstrom

4.0%

1.0

0.0

1.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Garrison

3.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Riverdahl

2.0%

0.0

1.0

1.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peterson

1.0%

1.0

1.0

2.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Henrietta

1.0%

3.0

0.0

3.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Welsh

1.0%

0.0

2.0

2.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Highland

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gregory

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hillman

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Church

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bloom

0.0%

1.0

2.0

3.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conklin

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evergreen

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Freeman

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fairview

0.0%

1.0

1.5

2.5

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alpine

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vandercook

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jackson

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Walker

0.0%

1.0

0.0

1.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

West View

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wight

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whitehead

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whig Hill

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Turner

0.0%

0.0

0.5

0.5

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summerdale

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Latham Park

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johnson

0.0%

0.0

1.0

1.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lincoln Park

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nelson

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stiles

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rolling Green

0.0%

0.0

1.0

1.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page Park

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1145 *1145 Based upon this data, four (33.33%) of the African-American clerical and maintenance staff assigned to high schools worked in integrated high schools and eight (66.66%) of the African-American clerical and maintenance staff assigned to high schools worked in racially identifiable white schools. Further, 1.5 (15.79%) of the African-American clerical and maintenance staff assigned to middle schools worked in racially identifiable African-American schools, three (31.58%) worked in integrated schools and five (52.63%) worked in racially identifiable white schools. In the elementary schools, this data shows that two (13.79%) of the African-American

maintenance staff were assigned to racially identifiable African-American schools, 2.5 (17.24%) were assigned to integrated schools, and ten (68.97%) were assigned to racially identifiable white schools. The District employed no African-American clerical staff in its elementary schools in 1963.
A summary comparing the 1960 Pupil Placement Committee Report data on African-American student enrollment in the schools with the location of African-American staff in those schools, is reproduced herein as follows:

PPC Report On African-American Student Enrollment For 1967 Correlated To African-

American

Custodial And Clerical Staff For 1968-69 School Year

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Schools

% Afr-Am

# Afr-Am

# Afr-Am

Total

Enrollment Custodians

Clerical

Afr-Am

Staff

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HIGH SCHOOLS

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Auburn

15.0%

1.0

0.0

1.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

West

12.0%

3.0

0.0

3.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

East

2.0%

3.0

0.0

3.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guilford

0.0%

3.0

0.0

3.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TOTAL

10.0

0.0

10.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MIDDLE SCHOOLS

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Washington

50.0%

2.0

1.0

3.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wilson

22.0%

3.0

0.0

3.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roosevelt

8.0%

2.0

0.0

2.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jefferson

5.0%

2.0

0.0

2.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lincoln

0.0%

2.0

0.0

2.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TOTAL

11.0

1.0

2.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dennis

91.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Montague

70.0%

1.0

0.0

1.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lathrop

66.0%

1.0

0.0

1.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Henrietta

66.0%

1.0

0.0

1.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ellis

50.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barbour

47.0%

1.0

0.0

1.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rock River

45.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Franklin

41.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lincoln Park

40.0%

1.0

0.0

1.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Haskell

37.0%

0.5

0.0

0.5

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hall

22.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

McIntosh

20.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kishwaukee

11.0%

1.0

0.0

1.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1146 *1146

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hallstrom

6.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jackson

2.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Welsh

2.0%

2.0

0.0

2.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wight

1.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alpine

1.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Garrison

1.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Riverdahl

1.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evergreen

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Church

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conklin

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bloom

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gregory

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Freeman

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fairview

0.0%

1.0

0.0

1.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Latham Park

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Highland

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Walker

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vandercook

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

West View

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whig Hill

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whitehead

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Turner

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summerdale

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johnson

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hillman

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nelson

0.0%

.0

0.0

0.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page Park

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stiles

0.0%

0.0

0.0

0.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rolling Green

0.0%

0.5

0.0

0.5

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peterson

0.0%

0.5

0.0

0.5

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TOTAL

10.5

0.0

10.5

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By 1968, the assignment pattern for African-American custodial and clerical staff had changed. Four of ten (40%) African-American custodial and clerical employees worked in desegregated high schools with the balance working in racially identifiable white schools. For the middle schools, three (25.0%) of the African-American custodial and clerical employees assigned to the middle schools worked in racially identifiable African-American schools, seven (58.33%) worked in integrated schools and only two (16.67%) worked in racially identifiable white schools. At the elementary school level, 5.5 (52.38%) of the African-American custodial and clerical staff assigned to elementary schools worked in racially identifiable African-American schools, one (9.52) worked in integrated schools and four (38.10%) worked in white racially identifiable schools. During the 1968-69 school year, the District employed approximately 170 clerical employees, of whom only three (or approximately 1.75%) were African-American.

Dr. Michael Stolee compared minority staff to the percentage of minority pupils in schools at all levels from the 1147 early 1970's to the present. His data shows a correlation *1147 between African-American enrollment and a
significant percentage of African-American staff, both professional and non-professional, at all school levels.

Collective Bargaining History: Teachers And Other Professional Staff

Prior to 1967, the RSD did not recognize any union or employee association as the exclusive representative for any category of its employees. The District did, however, conduct informal discussions with two organizations representing teachers employed by the District: the Rockford Education Association (hereinafter "REA"), and the Rockford Federation of Teachers (hereinafter "RFT"). At its meeting of April 3, 1967, the Board of Education passed a resolution authorizing the District to conduct an election between these two groups to determine who

would be the exclusive bargaining representative for teachers in their negotiations with the School Board. At its meeting of April 17, 1967, the Board approved a motion defining the employees eligible to vote in this election. This motion defined the bargaining unit as all certified personnel and nurses, excluding central administrative office personnel, assistant principals, principals and deans of girls' secondary schools. The certification election was conducted on May 10, 1967 and the REA received the highest number of votes cast, thereby becoming the exclusive representative of these employees. Bd.Min., 4/3/67, B11482; Bd.Min., 4/17/67, B11496-B11500; B34080.
The District and the REA negotiated and entered into a collective bargaining agreement for the 1968-69 school year, with an effective date of July 1, 1968, and an expiration date of June 30, 1969. B34080; B50557. This contract embodied agreements reached between the District and the REA regarding wages, hours and certain working conditions for all certified personnel and nurses, exclusive of administrators and central office head supervisors. Included among the provisions of this agreement was Article XI, governing transfers by members of the bargaining unit. This provision gave tenured staff members the right to apply for a transfer to any available position in the school system. The provision further required the District to post a list of known and anticipated vacancies on or before February 1st of each school year and to supplement that list between May 1st and May 15th of each year. The provision also required the District to consider "the convenience and wishes of the individual staff member," but only "to the extent that ... [those wishes] ... do not conflict with the instructional requirements and best interests of the school system." B34080. In cases where more than one staff member applied for a position, the provision allowed the District to select the staff member "best qualified" for the position. In the event that qualifications were "substantially equal" seniority in the school system was to be the controlling factor.
The transfer provision obligated the District to notify teachers affected by a reassignment by August 15th of the year in which the change was to be made. In the event that notification by August 15th did not take place, the change in assignment was to be "voluntary on the part of the affected staff member." Id. The District retained the right to involuntarily transfer staff members, subject to the following conditions:
a. a staff member had the right to be released from his contract if he so requested;
b. a staff member was entitled to priority consideration for transfer to future vacancies; and,
c. a staff member was to receive his assignment for the following contract year prior to the end of the year spent in involuntary transfer.
Disputes regarding transfer or reassignment were subject to protest through the "procedures for resolving a professional problem." Id.
Superintendent Thomas A. Shaheen advised the Board of Education in December of 1968, that the restrictions placed on the District's ability to transfer teachers was a matter that needed "early revision." Dr. Shaheen advised the Board that the District needed "greater flexibility in the transfer of teachers." B34074. In response to a 1148 questionnaire submitted by the United States Department of Justice to the Board, Superintendent *1148 Shaheen further discussed the impact of the agreement on teacher assignment issues. D23510. The questionnaire asked specifically what steps had been taken to correct the PPC findings that low achievement schools had a greater percentage of non-degree teachers and teachers with less experience. D23524. In his response, Dr. Shaheen noted that "the Professional Agreement with the Rockford Education Association set some very rigid bounds on the movement of teachers from one school to another without their permission. It was, therefore, very difficult to take any major steps to implement the ideas of the Pupil Placement Report." Id. Dr. Shaheen also noted that "the Professional Agreement ... gives some right of choice to teachers within the system, result[ing] in teachers from low achieving junior high schools often requesting transfer to high achieving junior high schools or to high schools. There was a substantial number of teachers who either resigned or requested transfer from the low achieving Wilson Junior High School to other schools within the city." Id.
The RBE and the REA entered into a collective bargaining agreement for the 1969-70 school year. B50521. This agreement contained Article XVI regarding teacher transfers. With respect to involuntary transfers, the contract provided that such a transfer would only be allowed for "exceptional circumstance[s] resulting from the adoption

of the middle school concept, school construction, housing construction and/or the entrance of new school districts." Id. at 12, B50535. Involuntary transfer decisions were subject to the contract grievance procedure, which provided for binding arbitration before a third-party arbitrator of all grievances not successfully resolved by the parties. Id. at 7-9, B50530-B50532. The agreement also provided that "[t]he staff member who has submitted a transfer to the Grievance Procedure shall be maintained in the status quo." Id. at 13, B50536. The net effect of these provisions was to decrease the District's ability to transfer teachers in accordance with the contract terms.
The contract between the RBE and the REA also contained a new provision, Article XXXIII, Section C, regarding vacancies in promotional positions. Id. at 23-24, B50456-B50457. This section provided, inter alia as follows:
All vacancies in promotional positions, including specialists and/or special projects teachers, excepting the position of Superintendent, shall be filled pursuant to the following procedures:
....
3. Teachers who desire to apply for such vacancies shall submit their applications in writing to the Superintendent....
4. Such vacancies shall be filled on the basis of qualifications for the vacant post, provided, however, that where two or more applicants are substantially equally qualified, seniority in the Rockford School System shall control.
Id. This provision, if followed, obligated the RBE to fill all administrative positions, including principals, assistant principals, head teachers and all central office administrators (excluding the Superintendent), with qualified teachers applying from within the district before any other person, if qualifications of internal and external applicants were "substantially equal."
In 1969, an employee of the District named Howard Getts filed a grievance over the denial of a promotion to the position of Director of Personnel and Recruitment. Arbitration Award in REA and RBE, Case No. 51 39 0509 70 (March 23, 1971) at 6, B510713; Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205 v. Rockford Educ. Ass'n, 3 Ill.App.3d 1090, 280 N.E.2d 286 (2nd Dist.1972). This grievance alleged a violation of Article XXXIII, Section C of the 1969-70 agreement. Id. Following a hearing on December 29, 1969 in which the arbitrator found that the grievance regarding the failure to promote Getts was arbitrable, the RSD filed an action in the Circuit Court of Winnebago County, entitled Board of Education in and for the School District of the City of Rockford, No. 205, Winnebago County, Illinois, a Municipal Corporation v. Rockford Education Association, Inc., a Corporation, and Howard L. Getts, Case No. G-21860, seeking an order for declaratory judgment setting aside the decision regarding 1149 arbitrability of grievances regarding staffing *1149 decisions. B510723-B510725. On May 12, 1971, the circuit court granted declaratory and injunctive relief, finding that "the matter of selection or promotion of employees by Plaintiff are not subject to binding arbitration under any circumstances and that such a provision is void as an unlawful delegation of Plaintiff's discretionary powers." The court further held that Article XI of the agreement [the grievance provision] was "void and of no force and effect" in its provisions "relat[ing] to arbitration of matters of selection or promotion of employees...." Id. The REA appealed the decision and it was affirmed. Board of Educ. School Dist. No. 205 v. Rockford Educ. Ass'n, 3 Ill.App.3d 1090, 280 N.E.2d 286 (2nd Dist.1972).
In affirming the decision, the Illinois Appellate Court stated that "a [B]oard of [E]ducation does not require legislative authority to enter into a collective bargaining agreement" and that "such an agreement is not against public policy." Id., 280 N.E.2d at 287 (citation omitted). The court nevertheless held that "a [B]oard may not, through collective bargaining or otherwise, delegate to another party those matters of discretion that are vested in the [B]oard by statute ..." including the duty to select employees for positions, and determine their qualifications. Id. at 287-288.
Despite this clear ruling, the District and the REA negotiated a series of collective bargaining agreements containing provisions, which, if valid and enforceable, would have limited the Board's power to select employees for vacant positions. The agreements, covering the period from 1972 through 1980, exempted decisions regarding promotional assignments from the grievance procedure, but still required the Board to select the senior qualified internal applicant over other applicants, unless the other applicant was better qualified. The collective bargaining agreement covering the period 1980-82 deleted the requirement of selecting the most senior applicant

for promotion where two applicants were substantially equally qualified. This agreement also deleted the language exempting promotional decisions from the grievance and arbitration provision.
Beginning with the contract covering the 1972-73 school year, the District and the REA entered into an agreement containing the following language regarding promotional vacancies: "All appointments to the aforesaid [promotional] vacancies and openings shall be made without regard to age, race, creed, color, religion, nationality, sex, or marital status." B50479. Thus, the agreement prohibited the District from taking the race of applicants into account, even in those situations where significant under representation of minorities in administrative positions was found to exist. This provision was also present in subsequent collective bargaining agreements.
Then, beginning with the contract covering the 1984-87 school years, the District and the REA entered into an agreement combining the transfer, promotional and reduction-in-force (hereinafter "RIF") provisions into a single article entitled "General Employment Practices." B50236-B50239. Article 12 of this agreement covered all vacancies for administrative and teaching positions (excepting the Superintendent). It further required that "[i]f more than one applicant has applied for the same vacancy the applicant best qualified for that vacancy shall be appointed and qualifications being substantially equal, seniority in the system shall control." B50236-B50237. Article 12 also incorporated the race neutral selection procedure for all vacancies (not just promotions, as in past years) and made all decisions regarding appointments to vacancies subject to the grievance and arbitration provisions of the agreement. B50237-B50238. The language in Article 12 did not distinguish between the filing of promotional and other vacancies. The parties interpreted the agreement to require posting of promotional vacancies and bidding by bargaining unit members, but not requiring the selection of the most senior applicant in circumstances where the qualifications of two or more applicants were substantially equal.
In the agreement covering the 1988-89 school year, the REA and the District agreed that the District could 1150 reassign all high school and middle school principals without following the vacancy, posting and seniority *1150
provisions. These provisions applied only to vacancies resulting from such reassignments. B50149. The District further agreed to use its "best efforts" to follow the same procedure with respect to elementary principal vacancies. Id. This provision appeared in each of the subsequently negotiated provisions.
Throughout the history of the collective bargaining relationship between the District and the REA, the union has attempted to enforce provisions regarding teacher assignment and promotion. These enforcement efforts included filing grievances over denial of promotion and assignment decisions and periodic requests for arbitration of such grievances when they were denied at the final step prior to arbitration. Requests for arbitration continued even after the REA was enjoined from enforcing the promotion and assignment provisions of its contract by the courts. Despite the injunction prohibiting enforcement of the provisions through arbitration, the District voluntarily complied with some of these obligations, often adjusting grievances in favor of teachers who complained of involuntary transfer or failure to be appointed to a vacancy for which they applied.
In 1983, the District filed an action against the REA seeking injunctive relief with respect to its authority in employee selection matters. Bd. of Educ. v. Rockford Educ. Ass'n, Case No. 83 MR 120 (Circuit Court for the 17th Judicial District, Winnebago County); B510943. On July 13, 1984, the court entered an order against the REA and its agents "permanently enjoining [them] from filing arbitration demands on questions of discretionary teacher appointment." The court further found that the decision in Board of Educ. v. Rockford Educ. Ass'n, 3 Ill.App.3d 1090, 280 N.E.2d 286 (2nd Dist. 1972) was "[t]he controlling precedent for all issues" presented in the case, and that "notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained within the professional agreement between the parties ... the discretionary appointment of teachers to employment positions is vested exclusively in the School District, is not a delegable power, and is therefore not arbitrable." Id. This decision was affirmed by the appellate court in Board of Educ. v. Rockford Educ. Ass'n, 150 Ill. App.3d 198, 103 Ill.Dec. 317, 501 N.E.2d 338 (2nd Dist.1986).
In 1983, the Illinois General Assembly passed, and the governor signed, the Illinois Education Labor Relations Act (hereinafter "IELRA" or "the Act"). 115 ILCS 5/1 et seq., formerly Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 48, ¶ 1701, et seq. The IELRA is a comprehensive legislative scheme regulating the selection of employee representatives and governing collective bargaining in public school districts. The IELRA created a state agency, the Illinois Education Labor Relations Board (hereinafter "IELRB"), to enforce the Act. 115 ILCS 5/5, formerly Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 48, ¶

1705. The IELRA contains a section describing a public school district's duty to bargain with an employee representative. 115 ILCS 5/10, formerly Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 48, ¶ 1710. This paragraph provides that the educational employer and employee representative have the "authority and duty" to engage in collective bargaining and that the employer has a duty "to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment, and to execute a written contract incorporating any agreement reached by such obligation...." 115 ILCS 5/10(a), formerly Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 48, ¶ 1710(a). The Act further provides that "[t]he parties to the collective bargaining process shall not effect or implement a provision in a collective bargaining agreement if the implementation of that provision would be in violation of, or inconsistent with, or in conflict with any statute or statutes enacted by the General Assembly of Illinois." 115 ILCS 5/10(b), formerly Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 48, ¶ 1710(b). Finally, the Act makes inclusion of a grievance and binding arbitration provision for resolving disputes under the collective bargaining agreement mandatory, 115 ILCS 5/10(c), formerly Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 48, ¶ 1710(c), and makes refusal to comply with an arbitration award an unfair labor practice that can be remedied by the IELRB through an order requiring the employer to comply with the award. 115 ILCS 5/14(a)(8), formerly Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 48, ¶ 1714(a)(8).
1151 *1151 On March 29, 1989, the Illinois Supreme Court issued its decision in Board of Educ. of Warren Twp. v. Warren Twp. High School Fed'n of Teachers, 128 Ill.2d 155, 131 Ill.Dec. 149, 538 N.E.2d 524 (Ill.1989) (rehearing denied, May 26, 1989). In that case, the court held that the IELRA divests the circuit court of jurisdiction to enjoin arbitration hearings and further held that exclusive primary jurisdiction for deciding questions of arbitrability is vested by the legislature in the IELRB. Id. 131 Ill.Dec. at 154, 538 N.E.2d at 529.
Following this decision, the District and the REA agreed in April, 1989 to the entry of a court order dissolving the permanent injunction entered in 1984. Both before and after the entry of this injunction and its dissolution, the REA continued to file grievances over staff appointment issues and the District continued to resolve grievances regarding appointment issues.
Collective Bargaining History: Clerical Employees
The District entered into its first collective bargaining agreement covering clerical employees in 1984. B50796. The second agreement covered the period January 1, 1988 through December 31, 1990. B50772. Unlike the agreement covering professional employees, the clerical agreement contained no provision requiring assignment based upon seniority where candidates were substantially equally qualified. The agreements required, however, first consideration for internal qualified applicants over qualified non-employees of the District. B50807; B50782B50783. Selection of an external candidate by the RSD was allowed only if there was no qualified candidate already within the employ of the District.
On June 22, 1981, the Board adopted a resolution creating the Rockford Public Schools Employee Service System. B49488. The purpose of this system was to test and recruit employees for all non-certified positions, including clerical positions. Boyer Dep. at 27-28. This system was created in order to replace the services provided by the City of Rockford in testing and certifying applicants for such positions. Id. In the area of promotional examinations for clerical and custodial positions, the rules of the Commission created a system of assigning additional examination points for longevity as a District employee. B49528.
Thomas Boyer was the District's personnel director from January 1, 1978 until March 26, 1990. Boyer Dep. at 6. Mr. Boyer supervised the District's employee who was responsible for administering the testing procedures and he participated in meetings of the Employee Service Commission, a three member body created by Board resolution, to oversee operation of the testing and recruitment system. Id. at 94; B49532. Mr. Boyer testified that the use of longevity points in scoring promotional examinations resulted in a "skewing [of] the test scores so badly that they were meaningless." Boyer Dep. at 105. Accordingly, on December 21, 1988, it was reported to the Board that the Employee Service Commission decided to amend its rules to delete references to longevity points. Bd.Min., 12/21/88, at 3, B49503.
African-Americans and Hispanics were underrepresented in the clerical employment workforce during the entire time Mr. Boyer was employed by the District. Boyer Dep. at 36-37. For those years in which data exists comparing minority employment in this category to total employment by category (1986-1992), minority

employment among clerical reached its highest level in 1987-88 when minorities represented 3.6% of the total clerical workforce. For the 1990-91 school year, this figure declined to 2.8%. The effect of this historical underrepresentation, coupled with the assignment of longevity points for seniority, was to keep those few minorities employed as clerical locked in the lower-paying clerical jobs and prevented movement of those employees by promotion in order to achieve integration of clerical staff.
Conversely, seniority was never a factor in clerical transfers. Thus, to the extent that minority clerical employees were isolated in schools with high minority enrollment, as demonstrated by the high concentrations of minority staff of all types within the District, the isolation was not a function of the operation of a seniority system. Id. at 90.
1152 *1152 Custodial Staff
The custodial staff, including building engineers, custodians, assistant building engineers, stockroom employees, truck drivers, printers, painters, electricians, steamfitters, plumbers, brickmasons, carpenters, grounds maintenance employees, mechanics, and others, were first covered by a collective bargaining agreement in 1987. B50649. The contract was renegotiated twice. B50622 and B50586. The agreement covering custodial staff required non-promotional vacancies to be filled based upon seniority. B50659-B50660. Further, the contract required seniority be considered along with test scores and other criteria in filling promotional vacancies. Id. Finally, the agreement prohibited involuntary transfer of custodial staff unless: (1) The employee's position was eliminated, or (2) The District could "demonstrate that the employee's transfer [was] in the best interest of the District and/or the employee." Id.
Prior to 1987, however, the District was under no obligation to assign custodial employees by seniority. Thus, the pattern of assigning minority custodial employees to racially identifiable schools, which predated the advent of collective bargaining for those employees, was not a function of the operation of a seniority system.
Other Staff
The District negotiated its first collective bargaining agreement covering teacher aides, library aides, clerical aides, hall aides and special education aides for the period July 1, 1985 through June 30, 1988. B50710. This agreement was subsequently renegotiated twice. B50695 and B50674. Each of the agreements contained a provision regarding job posting and bidding for vacancies. B50714-B50715. The agreements provided that where a permanent vacancy occurred, it would be posted and aide employees would be allowed to bid. Seniority played no role in the selection of candidates for vacancies, with the sole limitation that qualified candidates inside the District were given preference over external candidates. Id. Prior to the advent of collective bargaining, there was no restriction on the ability of the District to assign aides within the school system. Accordingly, the assignment of minority aides to racially identifiable minority schools cannot be explained by reference to collective bargaining agreement provisions.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The assignment of faculty and staff on the basis of race is a significant contributor to school segregation. See, Reed v. Rhodes, 607 F.2d 714, 725 (6th Cir.1979); NAACP v. Lansing Bd. of Educ., 559 F.2d 1042, 1052 (6th Cir.1977); Morgan v. Kerrigan, 509 F.2d 580, 597-98 (1st Cir.1974); Oliver v. Michigan St. Bd. of Educ., 508 F.2d 178, 185 (6th Cir.1974); Berry v. School Dist of Cty. of Benton Harbor, Mich., 505 F.2d 238, 242 (6th Cir.1974). Assignment of teachers on the basis of race adds to the racial identifiability of a school, and, as such, it may hasten the segregation of a school (or help to preserve it in a segregated state). Berry v. School Dist. of Benton Harbor, 442 F.Supp. 1280, 1301 (W.D.Mich.1977).
Segregative faculty and staff assignment practices are clearly unlawful. See, United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ., 624 F.Supp. 1276, 1527 (S.D.N.Y.1985), aff'd, 837 F.2d 1181 (2nd Cir.1987) (assignment of disproportionate numbers of minority staff to disproportionately minority schools); Reed v. Rhodes, 455 F.Supp. 546, aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 607 F.2d 714 (6th Cir.1979) (84% of African-American elementary and junior high

school teachers and 90% of African-American senior high school teachers taught in schools that had 90% African-American student enrollment); Berry, 442 F.Supp. at 1301 (in schools that were 15-100% white, 1.3% of teachers were African-American; in schools that were 75-100% African-American, 41.24% of the teachers were African-American); NAACP v. Lansing, 429 F.Supp. 583, 606 (W.D.Mich.1976), aff'd, 559 F.2d 1042 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 997, 98 S.Ct. 635, 54 L.Ed.2d 491 (1977), and aff'd, 571 F.2d 582 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 438 U.S. 907, 98 S.Ct. 3126, 57 L.Ed.2d 1150 (1978) (Board stipulated that it assigned African-American teachers to predominantly African-American schools); Morgan v. Kerrigan, 401 F.Supp. 216 (D.Mass.1975), aff'd, 1153 530 F.2d 401 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 935, *1153 96 S.Ct. 2648, 49 L.Ed.2d 386 (1976); Arthur v. Nyquist, 415 F.Supp. 904, 944 (W.D.N.Y. 1976), aff'd on reconsideration, 429 F.Supp. 206 (1977), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 573 F.2d 134 (2nd Cir.1978) (significant number of teachers and administrators assigned to schools on basis of race); Morgan v. Hennigan, 379 F.Supp. 410, 459 (D.Mass.), aff'd sub nom., Morgan v. Kerrigan, 509 F.2d 580 (1st Cir.1974) (in school district in which approximately 1/3 of the schools were majority AfricanAmerican, 2/3 of the African-American teachers were sent to those schools); Oliver v. Kalamazoo Bd. of Educ., 368 F.Supp. 143, 177 (W.D.Mich.1973), aff'd, 508 F.2d 178 (6th Cir.1974) (direct correlation between racial proportions of students and teachers at all levels of instruction); United States v. School Dist. 151 of Cook County, 286 F.Supp. 786, 793 (N.D.Ill.1968), aff'd, 404 F.2d 1125 (7th Cir.1969) (with few exceptions, faculty assigned on basis of race).
In some cases, school authorities have tried to offer educational justifications for segregative faculty assignment policies. See Morgan, 379 F.Supp. at 460 (assignment of African-American teachers to predominantly AfricanAmerican schools purportedly allowed African-American teachers to serve as adult role models to AfricanAmerican pupils). Such attempts to justify teacher segregation have been uniformly rejected. Omaha, 521 F.2d at 538-39 n. 14; Morgan, 509 F.2d at 596-98; Reed, 455 F.Supp. at 566; Lansing, 429 F.Supp. at 606; Arthur, 415 F.Supp. at 946; Oliver, 368 F.Supp. at 177; cf. Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Educ., 476 U.S. 267, 274-75, 106 S.Ct. 1842, 1847, 90 L.Ed.2d 260 (1986) (interest in providing minority role models insufficient to justify racial classification in layoff provision). Intentional racial segregation, whether the motive behind it is evil or benign, does not pass scrutiny under the 14th Amendment. Arthur, 415 F.Supp. at 946; Oliver, 368 F.Supp. at 177.
Similarly, attempts to justify faculty segregation on the grounds that African-American teachers desired and requested assignment to African-American schools have also been rejected. "[E]ven if ... black teachers requested assignments to black schools, this would not overcome the prohibition of the fourteenth amendment which bans intentional racial segregation in public schools whatever may be the desires of black teachers or parents." Morgan, 379 F.Supp. at 461.
The court finds that the RSD's assignment practices with respect to teachers violated the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs through the intentionally disproportionate assignment of minority teachers to schools with a high percentage of minority students and majority teachers to schools with a high percentage of majority students.[32] The court further finds that the RSD's assignment practices with respect to minority principals also violated the rights of Plaintiffs through the intentionally disproportionate assignment of minority principals to schools with a high percentage of minority students and majority principals to schools with a high percentage of majority students. Similarly, the court finds that the RSD's assignment practices with respect to African-American custodial and clerical staff violated the rights of Plaintiffs through the intentionally disproportionate assignment of minority persons in these positions to schools with a high percentage of minority students and majority persons in these positions to schools with a high percentage of majority students. Finally, the court finds that the RSD's assignment practices with respect to total minority staff (professional and non-professional) violated the rights of Plaintiffs through the intentionally disproportionate assignment of minority staff to schools with a high percentage of minority students and majority staff to schools with a high percentage of majority students.
1154 *1154 INEQUITABLE ACCESS TO TRANSPORTATION

INTRODUCTION
Unequal burdens in relation to transportation must not be placed on students by a school district because of the color a student's skin. The RSD placed disparate transportation burdens on minority students. At times, minority students even had to pay for transportation to their assigned schools, while similarly situated white students did not. Further, the RSD's integration policies included mandatory one-way busing of minority students. No white student was ever involuntarily bused for integration purposes.
The major voluntary integration opportunity for minority students was the Open Enrollment Plan. Through incompetency and intentional discrimination, the RSD transportation policies scuttled the Open Enrollment Plan. The RSD provided no substitute for the Plan.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Transportation Policies And Practices Affecting Desegregation And Desegregation Burdens
The only significant, voluntary integration plans ever offered by the RSD were open enrollment and full-site focus centers. Though the RSD's stated policy with regard to these plans made provision for Board-paid transportation, the RSD's transportation practices discouraged and diminished voluntary integration.
The effect of these practices was the elimination of the open enrollment program at the secondary level and a significant decrease in elementary open enrollment transfers. The virtual loss of the voluntary open enrollment program left the RSD with a system of integration that was involuntary for minority students and voluntary for white students. Within this discriminatory system of integration, the transportation policies and practices were both discriminatory and contradictory.
Transportation Policies And Practices Diminished Desegregation
The RSD historically employed four types of integration methods: mandatory reassignment of minority students to predominantly white schools through attendance boundary adjustments and school and grade closings; voluntary transfers to alternative programs; voluntary transfers to focus centers; and voluntary open enrollment. Students transferred by mandatory reassignment were predominantly minority. Students transferred by alternative programs were predominantly white. Accordingly, the focus centers and the open enrollment offered the only significant opportunity for minority voluntary transfer. Open enrollment transfer students were predominantly minority.
In a document entitled "Reflections of District 205 Court Appearance," Director of Transportation Oscar Blackwell noted that "under the existing voluntary plan blacks were the majority that took part in voluntary busing." B35781, B35784. In September of 1974, only 47 of the 636 students (7%) in the RSD taking advantage of the open enrollment program were white. B38448. In 1975, only 3% of the open enrollment students were white. Desegregation Progress Report, B31345. As stated by a memorandum dated June 22, 1979 from Patricia Turrentine, Coordinator of Transportation, to RBE member Colleen Holmbeck, 88 white students and 766 minority students were bused for open enrollment in the school year 1978-79.
Focus centers were originally primarily full-site programs benefitting both minorities and white students. Eventually, focus centers became partial-site programs and predominantly white. The RSD's original stated transportation policy with regard to open enrollment and focus transfers was to provide transportation to all open enrollment and focus transfer students if the transfers aided integration. In a memorandum entitled "Meeting on Transportation Policy for School Year 1977-78," Transportation Director Blackwell stated that the transportation policy with regard to open enrollment was "All students that contribute to integration will be bused. Students must

1155 continue *1155 to aid in desegregation in order to continue in the feeder pattern school." B34416. In that same memorandum, Mr. Blackwell reported that for focus center transfers, the transportation policy was that "Students attending the Focus Centers will be transported providing they do not live in the school attendance area. Only students certified for the Focus Center by the Attendance Department or other authorized office, will be transported." Id.
In the next school year, 1978-79, the open enrollment transportation policy remained the same as in previous years, while transportation to focus centers was to "be determined by the open enrollment policy stated above." B34380 at B34385. Under the suggestion from the ISBE, the RSD, in the school year 1979-80, made "aiding integration" a condition of enrollment rather than of transportation for open enrollment and focus transfers. B32632. The resulting open enrollment policy was to provide transportation to all open enrollment students permitted to transfer under the "aiding integration" criteria for admittance. Id. at B32633-B32636.
1970's and Early 1980's: Transportation Problems Discouraging Open Enrollment Transfers
The open enrollment policies, both before and after the 1979 change urged by the ISBE, provide board-paid transportation to all voluntary transfer students whose movement aided integration. The actual practices during the 1970's and early 1980's were, however, contrary to the stated policy and served to confuse and discourage open enrollment and focus center transfers. For example, Transportation Director Blackwell believed that prior to the intervention of the ISBE, transportation policies and practices regarding open enrollment transfers were deliberately confusing. Mr. Blackwell stated:
It has been my experience that when you place the transportation and admittance policy together, interpretation is often not clear, and promises are made contrary to interest. I must say that I sincerely believe that oftentimes this confusion has been done by design.
Id. at B32636.
As early as 1974, those students who volunteered for open enrollment and who had an early class schedule had to provide their own transportation without any reimbursement from the RSD. Blackwell Memo, 10/2/74, B33228. Mr. Blackwell recognized that the RSD policy of not providing transportation for open enrollment students taking early classes was "counter-productive to voluntary desegregation." The policy placed several burdens on minority students:
Minority students volunteering to a middle or high school for desegregation purposes who happen to start late in the school day would not be able to finish with school by noon. This fact would not permit them to obtain an afternoon-evening job if they wanted one.
....
Some of the general public could charge District 205 with not providing equal educational opportunity to all youngsters, in as much as the desegregation youngsters may have to start at a later time in order to take part in the desegregation program.
Id. Mr. Blackwell agreed that this policy was contrary to the stated policy of the Transportation Department to provide open enrollment students with transportation on the same basis that other students would receive it, thereby allowing students to have schedules of their own choosing. Id.
Other transportation problems existed, including: late buses, delays in starting open enrollment transportation at the beginning of the school year and lack of transportation altogether in some circumstances. These problems served to discourage open enrollment transfers. In 1974, Mr. Blackwell wrote a memorandum to John Wyeth, Assistant Superintendent in Charge of Operations, highlighting some of the transportation problems for open enrollment students:

1156

In another memo of this date I informed you of the complaint I received from a Mrs. Cousin. I think that when a parent is interested in seeing that his youngster goes to school, arrives on time, and attends *1156 classes while in school, we certainly should not be a contributing factor for the constant tardiness of this youngster.

I have also been concerned about the fact that it takes 2 to 3 weeks for a youngster to get transportation provided to various schools under the desegregation program, and I would like to call to your attention that I am aware of at least 21 youngsters who have withdrawn from the desegregation program since school opened because of inability to receive transportation or the lack of a free lunch program.

Id. at B33229.

Despite the RSD's knowledge regarding problems with transportation for open enrollment students and its attendant negative effect on the success of the open enrollment program, problems remained from 1977 through 1979, showing little improvement.

In September of 1977, Ms. Margaret Newell, Chair of the Bloom School teachers, wrote to Mr. Blackwell on behalf of the Bloom School teachers regarding inadequate transportation "to Bloom School for our students from the west side of town." B27691-B27692. Ms. Newell related problems with bus drivers and with late buses. She stated that these problems were "defeating our purposes and that of voluntary desegregation." Id. Bloom School principal Keith Wilson testified that when he first arrived at the school in 1975, there was a period of approximately nine weeks when none of the Southwest side students arrived on time for school. Many arrived about an hour after school started.

In January of 1978, Mr. Blackwell met with school principals and with Jelco Bus officials, the persons with whom the RSD contracted for bus services, in order to discuss the open enrollment transportation problems. Mr. Blackwell's notes of that meeting covered the scope of the problems:

Dr. Connie Tucker, principal of Lathrop/McIntosh, stated that while the purpose of transportation is to aid integration, "at this point, I cannot give parents any assurance that transportation will be reliable."

Kent Meyers, principal of Carlson School, stated: "We have been experiencing deteriorating services. Two hundred sixty-two (262) lost student days have been logged so far."

Curtis Anderson, principal of Wilson stated: "There have been numerous late pickups in the morning and late pickups for children after school. As a result, there has been disorder and discipline problems on some of the buses. Some of the drivers have poor driving habits."

Harry Hulick, principal at Lincoln Middle School described how the transportation problems affected the white students' impression of the African-American students: "We have late buses almost daily. The black children are coming in late and naturally make noise. The white students get the impression that this is common behavior of blacks and this increases prejudice instead of aiding the integration of society which is the intent of the district."

Ed Ruef from Guilford Center reported that the effect of the transportation problems was discouraging open enrollment transfers: "Five students have requested to go back to their home schools because of the frustrating busing. They like the program at Guilford Center but the parents feel that the children are missing too much school because of the poor service."

Robert Greene from Haskell School stated: "This is the first year of busing to Haskell. Blacks are asking to come back to their neighborhood school. Although the whites are sticking it out, 1/3 are not riding buses but the parents are bringing them in."

Blackwell Report of 1/25/78 Meeting, B502874-B502875. While Jelco officials admitted that some of the problems were attributable to poor handling by Jelco, they pointed out that a great deal of the problems originated with the

RSD's failure to provide the necessary administrative and informational support and the RSD's failure to act to correct disciplinary problems. Id. at B502876-B502877. Although Mr. Blackwell stated in a letter to the president of the Bloom P.T.O. that "Mr. Johnson, Superintendent of Schools, Mr. Rundquist, President of District 205's 1157 Board of Education, and all *1157 board members have been kept advised as to the many difficulties we have had ... involving transportation," the problems continued. B28009.
In 1979, Mr. Blackwell received a letter from Mrs. Hyatt, the parent of a minority open enrollment transferee. Mrs. Hyatt related that her son had frequent absenteeism at his new school, Spring Creek, because of transportation problems. He had missed a full month of school the previous year because a bus never came to pick him up and he had developed bronchitis because he was forced to stand out in the cold many times waiting for a bus that was often late, if it came at all. Letter to Blackwell, 11/2/79, B34333.
The RSD further limited transportation to Guilford High School, expressly including a limitation on transportation for open enrollment students. Regular[33] bused students were transported to Guilford for periods four through nine, while open enrollment students were bused to Guilford for periods three through eight. Ms. Patricia Turrentine from the Transportation Department stated:
My understanding was that unless the students signs [sic] up for classes which correspond with the above busing schedule they will not be transported by school bus. I further understood that even if children are qualified to ride we will not put them on a bus route unless their schedule corresponds with the above because the school does not want them to be in the school for unassigned periods.
Turrentine Memo, 1/27/78, B502872.
1970's and 1980's: Discriminatory Provision Of Open Enrollment Transportation
The RSD provided transportation to majority open enrollment students on a more generous basis than that provided to minority open enrollment students, despite the fact that the open enrollment and focus center methods offered the only significant opportunity for voluntary minority transfer.
The RSD's transportation documents, beginning with the school year 1979-80, show that the RSD employed a coding system for qualifying students for transportation. The available codes under this system were "1" and "3." Notes on the documents defined a "1" as "more than 1.5 miles from both school and mass transit," and a "3" as "less than 1.5 miles from mass transit." B41527 at B41529. For the school years in which the qualifying codes were used (1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82), majority open enrollment and focus center students at the secondary level, that is, those attending Westside Auburn High School and Washington Middle School, qualified for Board-paid transportation under a combined "1/3" code. Id. at B41531. The combined "1/3" code meant that a student living more than 1.5 miles from school and mass transit would receive Board-paid transportation. Students living less than 1.5 miles (all other students) would also get Board-paid transportation. Id. All minority open enrollment students, except those attending Kennedy Middle School, qualified for Board-paid transportation under either a "1" or a "3" code.
Notations detailing transportation for minority open enrollment and focus center students indicate that the qualifying criteria for minority students were more restrictive than the criteria applied to majority open enrollment and focus center students. For example, the notation next to "minority open enrollment" at Jefferson stated "all outside Jefferson area 0907 mass transit only." The "mass transit only" notation also appeared next to: BilingualFocus at West High School; Bilingual Focus at Flinn Middle School; open enrollment at Flinn Middle School; minority open enrollment at Lincoln Middle School; and Bilingual Focus at Lincoln Middle School, with additional notation "Board paid, except Washington Area our bus." Id. The "mass transit only" notation never appeared next to a majority open enrollment or majority focus center classification. A RSD document entitled "Current Transportation Situation" and dated July, 1981 suggested that, not only should the Bilingual Focus transportation be by mass transit only, but also the regular focus center program at Lincoln. B507511 at B507512. The

1158 recommendation *1158 for mass transit only transportation for the Lincoln focus center students was implemented in the 1982-83 school year. B41533. In a transportation document entitled "Transportation by Categories 1981-82," data shows that thirty-three focus center transfers to Lincoln Middle School received Boardprovided buses while 115 students rode mass transit buses. In contrast, focus center transfers to Wilson Middle School received Board-provided buses in substantial numbers: 513 focus center students received Boardprovided buses while only sixteen focus center transfer students to Wilson rode mass transit buses. Wilson Middle School had predominantly white transfers because Wilson, itself, was predominantly minority.
1970's and 1980's: Effects of Discrimination and Transportation Problems on Success of Open Enrollment
The problematic transportation practices utilized for open enrollment had the effect of discouraging open enrollment transfers. Numerous students in the open enrollment program had opted to return to their neighborhood schools because of transportation problems. Teachers and principals from the schools receiving open enrollment transfers related that the transportation problems were discouraging open enrollment transfers and threatening the success of voluntary minority movement for integration purposes. See Newell Letter, B27691; Blackwell Letter, B27688; Blackwell Memo, B502874.
John Johnson, Conklin School Principal, stated in a memorandum to Mr. Blackwell in December of 1977 that one of the first students to attend Conklin through voluntary integration from the Westside had decided to transfer back to her neighborhood school, Haskell, because of an inability to get to Conklin by bus. Mr. Johnson believed that this was just the beginning of a trend of minority students returning to their neighborhood schools because transportation had become so uncertain. J. Johnson Memo, B27600. Mr. Johnson's prediction in 1977 was correct. In 1978, the number of students transported for open enrollment was 1296; by the 1980-81 school year, the total open enrollment was 674, nearly half of the enrollment for 1978. B33202; D5523.
1980-1989: Direct Restriction of Open Enrollment Transportation
In addition to the policies and practices that had the effect of discouraging open enrollment transfers, the RSD instituted transportation policies directly restricted open enrollment transfer options. In 1980, the RSD adopted and implemented a new open enrollment policy that restricted open enrollment transfer by geographic area. The policy was the first to restrict open enrollment on a district-wide scale.
Restricting open enrollment transfers by geographic area was first recommended in April of 1980 by Patricia Turrentine, Coordinator of Transportation, as means of saving money. B34705. Ms. Turrentine's recommendation was adopted as the new open enrollment policy of the RSD a few months later. B33166 at B33167; Bd.Min., 6/23/80, B16781. The new policy read as follows:
Open Enrollment
Open enrollment transportation is provided when the transfer contributes to integration at both the sending and receiving schools. Students living south of Kent Creek and East State Street will be transported to schools in that geographic area where efficient transportation can be provided and space is available. Students living north of Kent Creek and East State Street, but east of the Henrietta/McIntosh/Whig Hill area will be transported to schools designated in the northeast quadrant where efficient transportation can be provided and space is available. Students living west of Ellis/Church area and north of Kent Creek and west of the Rock River will be transported to schools designated in the northwest quadrant where efficient transportation can be provided and space is available.
Id. Figure 1 is a map of the RSD showing the geographic areas created by this policy.
The geographic restrictions in relation to open enrollment transportation split up the Southwest Quadrant into three areas and limited Board-paid transportation to schools within each geographic area. Under the policy, of the

1159 eighteen Southwest Quadrant *1159 schools, students from only six schools (Church, Ellis, Haskell, Garrison, Walker and Roosevelt) were given Board-paid transportation and allowed to transfer to the desirable Northeast Side schools.

1980-81 Open Enrollment Transportation Policy Map Key
Boundaries

Northeast:

North of Kent Creek and East State Street East of Henrietta/McIntosh, Whig Hill

Northwest:

North of Kent Creek and West of Ellis/Church and West of Rock River

South:

South of Kent Creek and West of Ellis/Church and West of Rock River

1. Stiles 2. Dennis 3. Lincoln Park 4. McIntosh 5. Henrietta 6. Church 7. Ellis 8. Haskell 9. Garrison 10. Walker 11. Welsh 12. Summerdale 13. Whig Hill 14. Conklin 15. West View 16. Elmwood 17. Haight 18. Barbour 19. Lathrop 20. King 21. Evergreen 22. Evergreen 23. Gunsolas 24. Froberg

Elementary School 26. Riverdahl 27. Rock River 28. Peterson 29. Hillman 30. White Head 31. Rolling Green 32. Thompson 33. Vandercook 34. Gregory 35. White Swan 36. Cherry Valley 37. Carlson 38. Spring Creek 39. Brookview 40. Guilford Center 41. Bloom 42. Johnson 43. Jackson 44. Kishwaukee 45. Beyer 46. Wight 47. Nelson 48. Hallstrom 49. Turner

Middle School

1. JFK 2. Wilson 3. Roosevelt 4. Washington

5. Eisenhower 6. Marsh 7. Morris Kennedy 8. Lincoln

High School

1. Auburn

4. East

2. West 3. Guilford

5. Jefferson

1160 *1160

1161 *1161 Students from the remaining twelve southwest side schools were restricted in their choice of transfer school to those located in the Southeast and Northwest in terms of Board-paid transportation.

The 1980 policy on open enrollment transportation had a tremendous effect on open enrollment transfers. In a document listing "students ... not eligible for transportation ... for the 1980/81 school year," students transferring into schools that were not their "home" schools were identified as being denied transportation to the receiving school. B33176-B33191. Three hundred, thirty-eight elementary students were denied transportation to receiving schools. Thirty-two secondary students were denied transportation to receiving schools.

In 1981-82, the RSD completely eliminated open enrollment transfers to secondary schools. Transportation documents for the 1981-82 school year, and for every year thereafter, specified "no open enrollment in or out of any middle or high school." B41531 at B41533. The effect of eliminating all secondary open enrollment transfers was to eliminate open enrollment in the RSD. In the school year 1980-81, the number of students involved in voluntary integration transfers was 674; in the school year 1981-82, that number dropped to 277. The number of open enrollments for the next three years never reached higher than 331. D5523. By the 1988-89 school year, the total number of students transported for open enrollment was 124. B502591.

In the early 1980's, the RSD discontinued transportation to four full-site focus center programs at the elementary level, resulting in decreased voluntary transfers for integration purposes to those schools. In meetings of the RBE in January of 1987 and in January of 1988, the Superintendent admitted that the four elementary focus center programs, those at Bloom, Walker, Haskell and Conklin, were effectively shut down by the discontinuation of transportation to those programs in the early 1980's. Bd.Min., 1/27/87, B19961; Bd.Min., 1/18/88, B20892.

The RSD eliminated transportation to Bloom Elementary School in 1982. B22615; B22604. According to the individual histories contained in Part M of Michael Driscoll's 1987 Demographic Study, the focus center at Bloom started in the school year 1977-78. No explanation was given for the elimination of transportation. Id. In the 1981-82 school year, prior to elimination of transportation to Bloom, the number of African-Americans at Bloom was seventy-five; in the 1982-83 school year, after transportation was eliminated, the number of AfricanAmericans at Bloom dropped to fifty-nine. Stolee Tab 24. Although African-American enrollment increased to seventy-three in the 1983-84 school year as a result of students transferred because of the closing of Guilford Center, minority enrollment declined consistently every year thereafter down to fifteen African-American students in 1989. Id.

In 1982-83 the RSD eliminated transportation for transfer students to the focus center program at Walker School. The focus center was started at Walker in the 1975-76 school year. B22772. After transportation was eliminated for focus center students, African-American enrollment at Walker fell from 13.42% in 1982-83 to 7.33% in 1983-84, reaching a low of 5.74% in 1987-88. Id.

In approximately 1981-82, transportation for focus center transfer students at Haskell School was terminated. Bd.Min., 1/27/87, B19961. The focus center at Haskell, a Southwest side school, was started in the 1977-78 school year. Prior to the focus center, African-American enrollment at Haskell was 60.06% in the 1976-77 school year. By the 1980-81 school year, the transfer of white students to the focus center reduced the percentage of minority enrollment to 49.39%. After the elimination of transportation for focus center transfers in 1981-82, white enrollment decreased by more than 10% by the 1982-83 school year, while the percentage of African-American students enrolled at Haskell increased to 57.36% and reached 62.81% the following year. B22772.

In the 1981-82 school year, the RSD eliminated transportation for focus center transfers at Conklin Elementary School on the northwest side. The focus center at Conklin had been started in the 1976-77 school year. At the 1162 same time that focus center transportation was eliminated to Conklin, the RSD *1162 mandatorily reassigned minority students to Conklin from Eastside Highland School. The RSD effectively terminated voluntary transfers as a means of integrating Conklin, a predominantly white school prior to the institution of the focus program, and substituted involuntary transfer of minority students who had been attending Highland. B22635.

By instituting policies and practices that nearly eliminated all open enrollment, the RSD eliminated the only significant opportunity for voluntary minority transfers. Without open enrollment and transfers to focus centers, the remaining types of movement for integration purposes in the RSD were involuntary movements of minorities through mandatory reassignments in the form of boundary changes, school closings and grade closings and voluntary movements of majority students through alternative programs.
Discriminatory Transportation Policies and Practices As Between Minority Integration Participants and White Integration Participants
The RSD transportation policy with regard to alternative program participants was to provide transportation if a student lived more than 1.5 miles from school, regardless of the student's proximity to a Rockford Mass Transit District (hereinafter "RMTD") bus stop. Students mandatorily reassigned by way of school boundary changes were not governed by a distinct transportation policy as were alternative program students. Rather, such students qualified for transportation only under the "regular" transportation policy. The regular transportation policy provided that a student qualified for Board-paid transportation only if he/she lived more than 1.5 miles from school and more than 1.5 miles from a RMTD stop. B34390. Since mandatory reassignment students were from the Southwest Quadrant, most lived within 1.5 miles from a RMTD bus stop and so were required to ride a bus and pay for it themselves. The RMTD route map showed four bus lines servicing the Southwest Quadrant. RMTD Route Map, B51195.
A Transportation Department document dated January 7, 1986, revealed the extent to which minority students were dependent on the RMTD. The document discussed the possible reduction in RMTD services due to a lack of Federal funding. The effect of a RMTD reduction on minority students was noted: "should this occur, they [the RSD] would anticipate reducing service to East and West High Schools which would affect students living in Southwest Rockford." Turrentine Memo, 1/7/86, B507475. Superintendent Bowen testified that when he was principal at the Northeast side East High School, "[t]he city bus lines were always within a mile and a half of where they [minority students] lived." Bowen Dep. at 99. This meant that "[t]here was [sic] black students at East that were never provided transportation ever and still are not. And that was 0907 they had to pay to ride the city bus. There's no yellow buses at East High School." Id.
Transportation documents confirm that mandatorily reassigned students, including all minority mandatorily reassigned students at the secondary level, received no Board-paid transportation. In 1988, the total number of mandatory reassignment students who attended Eastside high schools and middle schools, but who did not receive Board-paid transportation were:

East Guilford West Eisenhower John F. Kennedy Lincoln
Total:

389 172 148 117 145 271 ____ 1242 students

In 1986, 250 minority students were mandatorily reassigned to Eisenhower Middle School. B19103. A 1986 transportation document showed that none of these 250 students received Board-paid transportation. B41659.

1163 Students who were mandatorily reassigned by way of school closings received some *1163 Board-paid transportation at the elementary level but received no Board-paid transportation at the secondary level. Although the RSD sometimes regarded school closing students as open enrollment transfers, the mandatory nature of the transfers, resulting from closing schools or grades, was recognized by the RSD. See B33176-B33191; see also, B25500. Director of Transportation and Integration, Oscar Blackwell, referred to the Muldoon School closing

students as mandatory reassignments: "The closing of Muldoon resulted in one-way busing of blacks to all-white schools, placing great burdens, inconveniences, and responsibility to those blacks being bused." B35783.

Transportation documents for the years 1979-1988 showed that some school closing students at the elementary level received Board-paid transportation, while school closing students at the secondary level were treated as "regular" for transportation purposes, thus receiving no Board-paid transportation. B41527-B41549; B41656B41657; B511216. Transportation documents for the school years 1980-81, 1986-87 and 1988-89 showed Board-paid transportation by student category. The 1980-81 document showed no Board-paid transportation under the school closing category for secondary students, except for three students at Lincoln, whether by Board bus or Board-paid RMTD bus. Similarly, the 1986-87 and 1988-89 documents showed no Board-paid transportation for school closing students at the secondary level. These documents were consistent with other transportation documents that stated that school closing students at the secondary level were "treat[ed] as regular." B41527-B41549.

These same transportation documents highlighted the contrast between the provision of transportation for alternative program students and the absence of Board-paid transportation for mandatory reassigned students. The 1986-87 document showed that the RSD provided Board-paid transportation for 453 of Auburn's alternative program students in the school year 1986-87 and Board-paid transportation for 484 of Auburn's alternative program students in 1988-89. B511216; B41659. An enrollment document prepared by the District's Director of Attendance, Michael Driscoll, showed that the total alternative program enrollment at Auburn for the 1987-88 school year was 587. Driscoll Report, 1987, B24820-B24821. These figures revealed that a majority of alternative program students at Auburn, almost 500 out of 587, received Board-paid transportation. The form of transportation for these students was by yellow bus, since the Board provided RMTD travel to Auburn for only sixteen students during the 1988-89 school year. B511217.

Eleanor Brown, a former student in the gifted program at Wilson testified that the disparities in transportation did not end with transportation to and from school. The transportation provided for field trips taken by alternative students and "regular" students was also unequal. Ms. Brown stated: "I know they went to the zoo when we went to the Madison and Chicago area, we all went to that. We went separate, but we all went." E. Brown Dep. at 14. She also noted the difference in the mode of transportation. Regular education students rode on regular yellow school buses, but the gifted students rode on the more expensive motor coaches. Id.

The inequities of the RSD's transportation practices were summed up by Michael Driscoll, the RSD's Attendance Director:

Qualifications for riding District 205 buses do not depend entirely on district or state regulations but on a program or where you live in the city. Students who live on the southeast side of town may be treated differently from students who live on the northwest side of town even when similar situations exist. Students in the regular high school programs are treated differently than students in alternative programs even though distance and situations may be comparable.

....

1164

After reviewing the situation only one recommendation seems to be in order and that is to have a single set of clear, concise rules. These rules should be applied to all students. This would alleviate any ill feelings *1164 about any certain groups being treated unfairly at the expense of others.

B46276 at B46277.

The RSD ignored the demands of minorities for equitable distribution of transportation services, while generously providing transportation to alternative program students. In 1975, RBE member Dick Parrott met with the "Save Our Children Committee." The Committee demanded that the Board provide free transportation to the Southwest Quadrant students because there was no high school in that section of the District. The RBE did not pay for minority transportation in response to this demand. B15183. In contrast, the RBE provided transportation to white students who had been mandatorily reassigned. In February of 1970, the RBE approved a motion regarding transportation that stated:

Within the existing Board policy and within state statutes, students who choose to attend high schools in which they are now enrolled, and who have received free transportation from the Board of Education for high schools shall continue to receive such free transportation on the same basis.
B12488.
Similarly, at a RBE meeting on September 5, 1973, parents brought to the attention of the RBE transportation problems with regard to alternative program enrollees. A demand was made for the provision of Board-paid transportation to the alternative program sites. On September 10, 1973, a report was submitted to the RBE regarding the alternative programs at Latham Park, Haight and First Presbyterian Church. The report stated that all three alternative schools were without Board-paid transportation. Bd.Min., 9/10/73, B14066. One month later, Superintendent Salisbury announced that the RSD had an adequate number of drivers to alternative schools and all students who were supposed to receive transportation to alternative schools were getting it. B14120.
On February 18, 1981, the Superintendent recommended to the RBE that additional monies could be saved by charging all families with alternative education bus riders for the actual cost of transportation to such programs, with those charges being waived for any family who currently or in the future qualified under the RSD's free lunch program. The RBE rejected the Superintendent's recommendation. B16967-B16968.
The differing transportation policies for minority integration students and majority integration students created various burdens for the minority students. The RSD did little to alleviate these burdens. The cost of transportation alone was burdensome for minority mandatory reassignment students. At the student rate of $0.35 per round trip on the RMTD bus for 176 school days per year, minority parents of two children mandatorily assigned to Eastside secondary schools would pay $61.60 per child per year, for a total transportation expenditure of $123.00 annually. In contrast, under the RSD's policy, parents of alternative program students would expend $0.00 per year on transportation costs.
The RBE was placed on notice that the cost of RMTD transportation was burdensome for minority parents. At a meeting of the Education Committee of the RBE on February 24, 1976, a Southwest side parent protested the inequitable provision of transportation to majority voluntary desegregation students and minority mandatory desegregation students. The minutes of the Committee read:
Mrs. Florence Ausler, a parent, said since the district provides free transportation for elementary and middle school children in integration programs, all high school children in the southwest quadrant should have free transportation because there is no high school in that area. "That 40 cents a day per child is killing us on the southwest side," Mrs. Ausler said.
B3824.
In September of 1982, Henrietta Washington told the Board she represented fifteen mothers upset with the Board's busing policies for high school students. Ms. Washington stated that eight years after the voluntary desegregation plan the RSD had one-way busing. She believed that the transportation burden was on the 1165 minority community and that the Board policy of requiring *1165 some Westside students to take city buses to Eastside high schools was costly to the family. Bd.Min., 9/28/82, B506488.
Beyond the cost factor, qualitative differences between transportation by the RMTD and transportation by yellow school bus existed. Travel by the RMTD for mandatory desegregation students meant crowded conditions, with many more students than bus seats. Superintendent Bowen explained:
Well, they had what they call trippers, where the mass transit would have several buses lined up there and pack the kids in. If there was seats for 30, they'd have 80 and drive to East High School. And when I complained about that, one guy actually told me, well, if it tipped over, it's better off to have more kids in there because they wouldn't get as hurt when it rolled around. They wouldn't tip.
Bowen Dep. at 103.

Travel by the RMTD also meant a longer trip for minority mandatory reassignment students because of the need to transfer buses. Id. at 102-104. Superintendent Bowen testified that due to the public transportation rule, students on the Westside had to walk to the bus, ride downtown to the transfer point and then get on another bus out to East High School. The entire process from home to the bus line to the transfer point to East would take an hour and a half. Id. at 103-104. The situation was even worse for those students who wished to go to the Vocational Center. These students had to go through all of the transfer steps from the Southwest Quadrant to East High School and then take a special bus from East to go out to the Vocational Center. Id. at 104. In order to accommodate the increase in transportation time occasioned by having to transfer buses, minority students mandatorily reassigned to Eastside schools had to wake up especially early. Id. Moreover, because public transportation to the Eastside high schools was only available immediately after the end of the school day, the students riding the RMTD bus back to the Southwest side were impaired in their ability to participate in extracurricular activities. Id. at 138.
Transportation Costs As Pretext For Anti-Busing Stance
The RBE members and the RSD top administrators have, over the years, opposed mandatory busing using the purported justification that the transportation costs for mandatory busing were prohibitive. Despite this stated reason, the RSD provided Board-paid transportation for many reasons including: mandatory busing for purposes other than desegregation; mandatory busing of minority students; and busing for white voluntary desegregation transfers. In fact, the RSD's transportation of students increased precipitously over the past three decades, thus exposing the RSD's cost concerns as pretextual. The RSD's opposition to mandatory busing for desegregation was, in reality, opposition to forced busing of white students for desegregation purposes.
Over the years, the RSD cited the cost of transportation as prohibitive of mandatory busing for integration purposes. Cost was offered as a factor in opposition to mandatory busing for integration purposes despite the RBE's knowledge that most transportation costs were reimbursable by the State. In November of 1973, in response to a survey regarding the community's opinion on various desegregation plans, Director of Integration Oscar Blackwell said that the plan for 7% to 21% minority enrollment at all schools was most likely impossible because of the transportation problems and costs. B506294. In February of 1975, the RBE prepared and presented to Judge Bauer and the ISBE its "Recommendations for Student Housing in 1975-76 and Proposals for the Integration of the Rockford RSD # 205." This document was prefaced by a statement from the RBE that "the transportation fund will permit little, if any additional transportation of students for the next school year." In December of 1976, Superintendent Johnson told representatives of several community groups that "finances will determine the progress of integration in Rockford Public Schools.... If we don't have the money for transportation, then we've got to pull the ring in, so to speak." B506426. In a special meeting of the Board on January 19, 1988, 1166 the Board discussed the program delivery study. *1166 Board President Kearny asked if transportation costs were involved in the delivery study. Don Erickson responded that transportation costs were not considered because most in relation to transportation were reimbursable. B20892.
Despite its purported concern with the cost of transportation for integration purposes, the RSD transported an increasingly greater percentage of the student population since 1968. The RSD's figures show that during the period 1968 to 1986, the RSD's provision of transportation increased from 4% of the student population transported in 1968 to 60% transported in 1986. B24848-B24849. Board minutes from May 2, 1988 established that in 1988, the RSD was still transporting 60% of the student population. Bd.Min., 5/2/88, B21145. In fact, during the period of time from 1980 to 1986, when the RSD retreated on integrative measures, the RSD's provision of transportation actually increased at a rate greater than the entire preceding eleven year period. The period 1968-1979 showed an increase in Board-paid busing from 4% of student population in 1968 to 24% in 1979. B24848-B24849. In the period 1980-1986, Board-paid transportation increased from 28% of student population in 1980 to 60% in 1986. Id. The RSD prepared a graph that illustrated this rapid increase in Boardpaid transportation from 1980 to 1986. Id. (Figure 2).
1167 *1167
1168

*1168 None of the transportation figures represent mandatory busing of white students for integration purposes as white students were never involuntarily bused for this reason. The transportation figures, however, do represent Board-paid busing for many other purposes, including voluntary busing of students for integration purposes and a publicly unknown practice of providing privileged transportation services, or "privy stops," discussed below.
Comments and actions from Board members and top administrators over the years indicated that the RSD was willing to provide transportation for purposes such as overcrowding, safety, annexation and voluntary integration movement. Also, in at least one instance where the RBE opted to forego transportation, the Board did so where the transportation would have constituted mandatory busing of white students into minority schools, even though the cost of foregoing transportation was greater than the cost of the transportation itself. The following findings illustrate the RSD's willingness to transport for any reason other than mandatory integration movement of white students.
In May of 1968, Assistant Superintendent Dr. Herbert Smith and Superintendent Shaheen stated that the purpose of busing was to relieve crowding, not necessarily to achieve racial balance. B506101. In July of 1969, in a move aimed at integrating schools and reducing overcrowding, the Board voted 4-2 to move approximately 150 minority students from public housing areas to elementary schools outside of their neighborhood. The Jane Adams Village students were bused to Carlson School and the Fairgrounds Housing Project students were bused to Walker School. B506135; Bd.Min., 7/10/69, B12224-B12225.
At its Board meeting of August 11, 1969, a motion was made and passed authorizing Board-paid transportation for two groups of students: students from an annexed district and students affected by the pilot project at Walker and Carlson Schools. Bd.Min., 8/11/69, B12267. In June of 1970, the RBE unanimously voted to move the Carlson students back to their neighborhood schools. The Board voted to extend for one year the busing program at Walker School only because there was no room in the neighborhood schools for students from the Fairgrounds Housing Project who were being bused to Walker. Bd.Min., 6/22/70, B12682.
For safety reasons, the RBE closed Montague School in the Southwest Quadrant, after intense protest from the minority community, and agreed to bus students free of charge to Page Park School for the 1971-72 school year. The busing had nothing to do with busing for integration purposes. B506180.
At a special meeting of the RSD in September of 1973, Dr. Michael Bakalis of the ISBE responded to the RBE's resistance to an involuntary desegregation plan. Dr. Bakalis stated: (1) transportation of students is not foreign to Rockford or to the State of Illinois; (2) students have been transported since 1945 in vehicles everyday going back and forth to school and that is not anything new or made up by the courts; (3) the majority of the communities in Illinois that bus students have nothing to do with desegregation; and (4) when you say you don't want transportation, we can empathize, but it is not appropriate or accurate to say that students are not transported. In response to Dr. Bakalis' comments, Board member Ronald Webster stated that there was a difference between transportation and forced transportation. Dr. Bakalis replied that after the consolidation of schools through annexation, transportation was forced. B14035.
In January of 1980, the RBE unanimously voted to buy the Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Dealership for 1.4 million dollars. The District did so in order to operate its own bus system out of the facility. With this purchase, the RSD made a commitment to run its own bus service for regular and vocational-education students, starting with the 1980-81 school year. B506461.
At a RBE meeting in January of 1981, when the Board was discussing whether to close Roosevelt School, Darlene Hanna, a parent of a student at Roosevelt School, pointed out to the Board that no busing was necessary at Roosevelt. Roosevelt was the only school that was naturally integrated. B16951. Despite the fact 1169 that closing Roosevelt would create additional transportation *1169 burdens where none otherwise existed, the RBE voted in February of 1981 to close Roosevelt. Bd.Min., 2/18/81, B16963.
Similarly, in 1989, the RBE adopted its Reorganization Plan that called for the closing of naturally integrated West High School. The RBE closed West High School despite the fact that West required less transportation than the

other high schools in the district. Over a five-year period, the decision to close West instead of, for example, Jefferson High School, cost the district $2,118,948 in additional transportation costs.
Additional Transportation Inequities ("Privy Stops")
Prior to 1989, the RSD developed an unpublicized system of privileged transportation stops. Bowen Letter to Sullivan, B46283. These "privy" stops, as they were called, constituted an exception to the regular transportation policy that permitted transportation of a student who lived 1.5 miles from both a RMTD stop and a school. "Privy" stops were also an exception to the rule that students were required to walk up to six blocks in order to take a yellow bus. Id.
Privy stop practice allowed a student who would not otherwise qualify for transportation, or who would otherwise be required to walk to a designated bus stop, to receive transportation or to receive transportation pick-up at a location contrary to the six block rule. Id. The granting of privy stops was a wholly subjective process. The RSD's transportation consultant, Michael Turza, reported: "No set criteria or guidelines were established for adding these stops." Id.
The result of the privy stop practice was a little known system of privileged transportation that disproportionately benefited students whose parents were knowledgeable and articulate enough to request and pursue special treatment with regard to transportation. Privy stops were granted in response to parent requests and/or complaints. B46283. The highest number of privy stops was in the Spring Creek Elementary School area on the Northeast side, with nineteen privy stops in that area. Sullivan Dep., Ex. 5, B507294. The second highest number of privy stops was in the Bloom Elementary School area, also on the Northeast side, with sixteen privy stops. Id.
1170 *1170
1171 *1171 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Transportation is one of the "Green factors" used to determine whether a school district is operating a dual system. Transportation, and its attendant burdens must be operated in a unitary and non-discriminatory fashion. Clearly, a school district may not intentionally allocate inferior services or equipment to minorities. See, Carr v. Montgomery Bd. of Educ., 289 F.Supp. 647, 655 (M.D.Ala.1968), aff'd, 395 U.S. 225, 89 S.Ct. 1670, 23 L.Ed.2d 263 (1969).
In school districts implementing desegregation programs, transportation policies that unduly burden minority students are unlawful. Lansing, 429 F.Supp. at 620. Desegregation must not be effectuated solely, or even primarily, by transporting minority students to majority schools. Diaz v. San Jose Unified School District, 861 F.2d 591, 596 (9th Cir.1988); Parent Ass'n of Andrew Jackson High School v. Ambach, 598 F.2d 705, 717 (2nd Cir.1979). Such one-way busing programs place the burden of desegregating a school system disproportionately on minorities and have the effect of maintaining a neighborhood school policy a reality for majority students, while making such a policy chimerical for minorities. As a result, courts must closely scrutinize charges that the burdens of desegregation have been distributed inequitably. Id.
Unequal burdens must not be borne by certain racial groups unless a compelling justification is present. Diaz, 861 F.2d at 596; United States v. Lawrence County School Dist., 799 F.2d 1031, 1049 (5th Cir.1986); Higgins v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Grand Rapids, 508 F.2d 779, 793 (6th Cir.1974). Whether a group is burdened impermissibly turns on "the validity of the Board's justifications for its proposals and the availability of feasible alternatives" to the objectionable measures. Diaz, 861 F.2d at 596; Arvizu v. Waco Independent School District, 495 F.2d 499, 504 (5th Cir.1974); see also Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, Denver, 521 F.2d 465, 479 (10th Cir.1975) . Courts have condemned one-way busing plans that ignore other opportunities to achieve integration and place the burdens of integration solely on minorities. Lansing, 429 F.Supp. at 620; Brice v. Landis, 314 F.Supp. 974, 978 (N.D.Cal.1969). Even if the motivation for instituting such plans is not pernicious, the plans are nonetheless impermissible. Lansing, 429 F.Supp. at 621.

The RSD's longstanding practice of requiring the mandatory assignment of minority students to schools outside their neighborhoods for desegregation purposes, while imposing no similar burden on white students, was unfair, impermissible and unconstitutional. The RSD persisted with its practice of one-way busing despite widespread protests from the minority community. The transportation policies adopted by the RSD restricted and discouraged open enrollment and transfer to full-site focus centers.
Furthermore, the RSD discriminated against minority students by providing more generous transportation services to voluntary integration students, predominantly majority students, as opposed to involuntary integration students, predominantly minority students. Minority secondary students were required to bear the cost of RMTD transportation and to suffer the qualitative differences of transportation from the transportation provided to majority students. The RSD's invocation of transportation costs as a justification for its anti-busing stance was pretextual. The RSD's opposition to mandatory busing for desegregation purposes was, in reality, opposition to the forced busing of white students for desegregation purposes. The RSD also unlawfully developed an unpublicized system of preferential transportation services that benefited white students.
DISCRIMINATORY CONDITIONS IN THE COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD
INTRODUCTION
The minority community and the Southwest Quadrant have been severely underrepresented in the makeup of the Rockford Board of Education. From 1965 to 1989 only two Board members resided in the Southwest Quadrant. From 1965 to 1989 only three Board members were African-American and none were Hispanic.
The RBE intentionally maintained an electoral system that it knew would minimize minority participation on the 1172 Board. Substantial *1172 evidence exists showing that the RBE, from 1965 through 1989, intentionally pursued a
policy to keep the Southwest Quadrant underrepresented on the Board.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Board Members: 1965-1989
From the time of the first elected Board in 1965 until the filing of the present suit in April 1989, a disproportionate number of RBE members resided in the Northeast Quadrant. This geographic underrepresentation resulted in severe minority under-representation on the RBE and a concomitant dominance on the Board of opponents of busing for integration during the critical 1970's. Additionally, the underrepresentation of elected minorities was aggravated by the RBE's manipulation of appointments to preclude or minimize Southwest/minority representation on the RBE.
Basic information
Prior to 1965, the RBE members were appointed by the Mayor of Rockford. Bd. Min., 10/28/63, B009228. On numerous occasions in 1963, the RBE discussed changing the method of Board member selection from appointment by the Mayor to election atlarge. See, e.g., Bd.Min., 11/26/63, B009249; B009260; Bd.Min., 1/13/64, B010499. In January 1964, the RBE adopted a resolution to place on the ballot of April 14, 1964, a proposition to elect School Board members. Bd. Min., 1/13/64, B010499. In that election, the voters passed the referendum for the election of Board members at large. Bd.Min., 4/27/64, B010614. The first elected Board Members were then chosen in the April 1965 election. Bd.Min., 4/12/65, B011006.
Board members elected and appointed (to fill vacancies) from 1965 through 1989 were as follows:

1965: 1966: 1967: 1968:
1969:
1970:
1971: 1972: 1973: 1974:
1975: 1976: 1977: 1978: 1979:
1980: 1981:
1982:

Carlson, Harris, Severin, Thompson, Hollingsworth, Zaugg and Shafer elected. President Clifford Carlson reelected; John Floden elected. Marcella Harris reelected; Robert Taylor elected. Monte L. Atkinson, Harry E. Olson elected; Ben Zaugg reelected. Harry Olson resigned. Ben Zaugg resigned; an election held in April to replace the two resigned Board members and to fill vacancies for two expired terms of Board members. R. Page Reese, John Floden, Dr. John Schade and Robert Spangler elected to three and two year terms. Harold Seeber, Robert Cook, Edward Calhoon and W. Crawford Tucker elected. David Gustafson elected. David Hauman and Alice Heath elected to three year terms. Ronald Webster and Harold Seeber elected for three year terms. Richard A. Rundquist, Harry W. Darland and R.R. Dick Parrott elected to three year terms. Robert Beck, David Peterson and Mary Lou Yankaitis elected. Harold Seeber reelected; Delores Nilson elected. Dick Parrott and Richard Rundquist reelected; Carol Parker elected. Harry Darland and Colleen Homebeck elected to three year terms. Delores Nilson and Harold Seeber reelected to three year terms; Robert Niemann elected to a one year term. Carol Parker reelected; Robert Bates and Donald Goldman elected. Donald Goldman resigned and Carl Towns appointed. Colleen Holmbeck and Dr. Harry Darland elected to four year terms; and Carl Towns elected to two year term. Dr. Robert Bates resigned. Norman Kearney appointed. Harry Darland submitted his resignation. Randy Sturm appointed.

1173 *1173 1983:
1985:
1987:
1988: 1989:

Norm Kearney, Edward Conklin, Darlene Hanna, Robert McCarthy, Steven Imholt and Helene Price elected. Steven Imholt resigned. Michael Williams appointed. Jacqueline Confer, Terry Hodges, Robert McCarthy and Michael Williams elected. Robert McCarthy dies; Avery Gage appointed. Jo Minor and Mr. George Stevens elected. School Board President Norm Kearney resigns. Jacqueline Confer, Charles Holzwarth, Sara Ingrassia, Fred Wham and Terry Hodges elected.

Figure 1 shows the composition of the RBE from 1965 to 1989.

1174 *1174

COM

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1

Harris

Seeber

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2

Severin

Olson

Spengler

Gustafson

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3

Carlson

Schade Jr.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4

Schafer

Atkinson

Calhoun

Hauman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5

Thompson Floden

Cook

Webster

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6

Hollingsworth

Taylor

Tucker

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7

Zaug

Reese

Heath

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A = Appointed

1175 *1175 Board Member Residency

From 1965 to 1989 Board members resided in the following Quadrants of Rockford: 27 Board members resided in the Northeast Quadrant; 6 Board members resided in the Southeast Quadrant; 15 Board members resided in the Northwest Quadrant; 2 Board members resided in the Southwest Quadrant; Figure 2 shows the geographic representation of the RBE from 1965 to 1989.

Defendant has stipulated to this Figure/Table.

Figure. 2 Map Key

RBE Member Residency by Quadrant (1965-1989)[1]

NW (15 people) R.E. Hollingsworth Frances Shafer Ben Zangg R. Page Reese Robert Spengler John Schade David Gustafson Dick Parrott Robert Berk Marylou Yankaites Ed Conklin Darlene Hanna Jacqueline Confer George Stevens Terry Hodges
SW (2 people)

NE (27 people) Clifford Carlson Armer Severin John Pheden Sanwel H. Thomson Robert Taylor Edward Calhoun W. Crawford Tucker Hardd Seeley David Hauman Ron Webster Alice Heath Harry Darland Richard Rundquist Carol Parker Colleen Holmbeck Robert Nieman Robert C. Bates Stephen Inholt

Marcella Harris Michael Williams
SE (6 people)
Montie Atkinson Robert Cook David Peterson Dolores Nelson Carl Towns Terry Hodges
Board Member Race

Avery Gage Fred Wham Sara Ignassia Donald Goldman Norm Kearney Robert McCarthy Helen Price Jo Minor Charles Holzwarth

Although minorities constituted an increasingly greater portion of the RSD from 1965 to 1989 (10% in 1967 to 25% in 1989), an overwhelming percentage of Board members were white. Marcella Harris, Carl Towns and Michael Williams were the only African-American members on the RBE from 1965-1989. No Hispanics ever served as members of the RBE. Hiram Gregory Luna, an Hispanic and former member of the School Desegregation Committee, was a candidate for the RBE in 1973. He lost the election to Dr. Harold Seeber, an anti-bussing candidate supported by the Community Education Committee. Of the 175 Board member years from 1965 to 1989 (25 years times 7 board seats), only 12 and one-half years, or 7%, have been served by AfricanAmericans, and zero by Hispanics.[34]
1176 *1176 Figure 3 shows the racial makeup of the RBE for the years 1965 to 1989.
1177 *1177
1178 *1178 Electoral System: The RBE's Role In Maintaining An Electoral System That Had A Disparate Impact On Minority Representation On the Board Of Education

At present, Rockford School Board members are elected by geographic subdistrict. Though the Illinois statute authorizing election by subdistrict was first passed eighteen years ago, the first election of Board members by subdistrict in Rockford was held in November 1991. Over the years, beginning as early as 1973, the Board received recommendations from minorities, county officials, its own advisory committees and others that election by geographic subdistrict was necessary to "broaden the democratic base of Rockford's educational system" and to correct the virtual nonrepresentation of minorities on the Board under the existing at-large election system.
In mid-November, 1972, as part of its discussions relating to school desegregation, the Board of Education created an Advisory Committee to prepare a study and report on a system of electing Board members by geographic subdistrict. The basic tenant of the study was that geographic elections would facilitate a broadening of the democratic base of Rockford's education system. The Advisory Committee's conclusion was that election by geographic subdistrict would enable "minorities to be more effectively represented."
On December 10, 1973, the Advisory Committee submitted its finished report to the Board regarding election of Board members by geographic district. Despite Committee member comments in July to the contrary, the Committee concluded that the election of School Board members by geographical area "was a step in the right direction" to broadening the democratic base of Rockford's education system. The Committee submitted its final report to the Board on December 10, 1973. The Committee's report enumerated the following list of pros and cons of geographical representation:

Pros

(1) Minorities will be more effectively represented.

(2) More citizens will be interested in running.

(3) Campaigning will be easier and less expensive.

(4) Pressure groups' ability to dominate will be minimized.

(5) Board members will be accountable to specific constituents.

(6) People will have a more direct involvement in both:

(7) The election of their representative;

(8) Working with their representative.

(9) Elections will be less partisan and less expensive to conduct.

Cons

(1) A Board member will tend to represent only his/her district.

(2) All minorities will not be represented.

(3) District boundaries will change periodically and therefore cause confusion.

(4) Citizens will vote less often in voting by district.

(5) Pressure groups will be better able to dominate.

B506362. After consideration of these pros and cons, the Committee stated: "[W]e affirm the principle of election by geographic areas ... and we recommend that the Board request our local legislative representation to initiate ... legislation...." Id.

In February of 1973, a subcommittee appointed by the RBE to study desegregation proposed a seven point desegregation plan to the Board. Part one of the plan related to school governance. That section of the plan stated:

1179

[The condition of segregation] is directly attributable to the present school electoral process: At Large School Elections. It is our feeling that this process in itself is discriminatory. In this regard, we make the following recommendations: (a) that the Rockford School District No. 205 move toward electing its School Board Members by geographic sub-divisions, rather than at-large; (b) that a committee be set up by the Board of Education, composed of the Superintendent, teachers, and parents, (selected from the four quadrants), to investigate and make recommendations regarding Board selection by districts; (c) that *1179 this process be begun immediately, upon acceptance of the School Desegregation Plan.

B003003, B003010.

At its meeting of February 21, 1973, the RBE received the desegregation proposals of numerous groups, including a group representing the Latin American community. Among other things, the Latin American group proposed that election of School Board members be by geographic subdistrict. No action was taken by the Board.

On April 2, 1973, the Central Committee on Desegregation (steering committee for the Community Desegregation Committee) presented to the RBE its recommendations. As part of its recommendations, the Committee urged the RBE to consider the election of Board members by geographic subdistrict for the April 1974 election. No action was again taken by the Board.

In 1975, a second Advisory Committee was appointed by the Board to again study the pros and cons of election by geographic subdistrict enumerated by the 1973 Committee. The second Advisory Committee studied the election returns from all School Board elections since before the District became at-large in 1965. The Committee also did a demographic study of all the School Board candidates since 1965. Still no action was taken by the Board.
In August 1984, more than fifty Southwest residents met with Superintendent Mell Grell. The meeting was sponsored by the Booker Washington Center and was composed of minority organizations. The minority organizations expressed to Grell their concerns about minority under-representation on the School Board and in the school system.
Despite numerous attempts,[35] the RBE only once placed the issue of election by subdistrict on the ballot. Then in 1989, 10% of the electorate placed the issue on the ballot by petition and the referendum for election by subdistrict was finally passed.
RBE Gerrymandering of Subdistrict Electoral Boundaries[36]
Subsequent to the November 1989 referendum, the Board adopted an electoral map that interfered with the voting and representational rights of minority voters in the District. Also, after passage of the subdistrict referendum in November 1989, and prior to the first election by subdistrict in November 1991, Board member Holzworth, on several occasions during Board or Board committee meetings, urged the RBE to gerrymander the new subdistricts to avoid creating a subdistrict with a majority of African-Americans.
Holzworth further objected to hiring someone to draw the districts. He stated that he could draw them himself if 1180 he was given a pen. Holzworth also wanted to pick people in the community to draw them. Additionally, *1180
Holzworth made comments to the effect that he would not be responsible for creating a minority district. Mr. Holzworth believed that no such district should be created. Minor Dep. at 45; Confer Dep. at 104-106.
On more than one occasion, Holzworth stated that if the boundaries were drawn correctly no minority candidate would win a board seat. He again offered to draw districts that could accomplish this result. Minor Dep. at 47; Confer Dep. at 106. In the fall of 1991, while the issue of the electoral map was pending in this court, Holzworth stated that he didn't want to have "a district where an ignorant black could be elected," and that the subdistricts could be gerrymandered to avoid such a result. Minor Dep. at 48; Confer Dep. at 105-106, 114.
Although other former Board members have subsequently disavowed any sympathy for Holzworth's position, the RBE did, in fact, adopt an electoral subdistrict map that did not create a subdistrict with a majority of AfricanAmericans and that fractured the African-American community. The map was adopted by the RBE as drawn despite the fact that it was possible to create a subdistrict with a majority of African-Americans.
On May 21, 1991, the RSD adopted the proposed subdistrict electoral map for the election of Board members by subdistrict and submitted it to the court for approval. Plaintiffs filed an alternative electoral map with the court on July 15, 1991. This alternative map created a subdistrict with a strong African-American majority of total population and a 50% African-American voting age population.
On September 12, 1991, Judge Stanley J. Roszkowski made the following findings of fact:
The African American community in School District 205 is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single subdistrict.
The census figures demonstrate that almost 70% of Rockford's African American population resides in a geographically contiguous and cohesive area in the southwest quadrant of Rockford. Within the borders of the African American community live approximately 25,671 persons, of whom approximately 15,489 (60.37%) are African-Americans.

Using the average subdistrict size of 25,884, there is ample population within the African American communities to form a subdistrict with a total population over 60% African American and a voting age population over 50% African-American.
Despite these facts, the Defendant by its map failed to create a single subdistrict with a voting age population over 50% African-American.
No subdistricts under the Defendant's Map contained even an African-American majority of total population.
Under the Defendant's map, the African-American population was "fractured" and significant groups of African-American voters were separated from contiguous African-American communities and assigned to white majority subdistricts.
Under the Defendant's Proposed Map, the African-American community in the southwest quadrant was divided among three subdistricts that contain a large white majority of both total and voting age population and one subdistrict that is comprised of 47% white voting age and 39% AfricanAmerican voting age population.
The African-American community is politically cohesive. African-Americans tend to vote as a group and to vote for African-American candidates.
The African-American community is subject to majority bloc voting against its candidates. In addition to lay witness testimony in this regard, the evidence is that no non-incumbent AfricanAmerican candidate has ever been elected to the School Board.
There exist significant additional social and historical factors which interact with the Defendant's proposed fracturing of the African-American community to cause minority vote dilution.
These additional factors include lower income levels, depressed housing conditions, and school segregation, for African-Americans in Rockford.
These additional factors are supportive of Plaintiffs' claim of minority vote dilution.
1181 *1181 In its September 12, 1991 Order, the court held that the evidence "suggests a reasonable possibility that electoral subdistrict boundaries can be drawn which comport both with the dictates of the Voting Rights Act, and with the state law requirements and the federal legal norms of compactness and contiguity." The court then ordered the parties to immediately commence a joint effort to conform subdistrict boundaries to the requirements of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and Section 7-4(c) of the Illinois School Code. In sum, the court ordered the parties to create a map that would contain:
a. a subdistrict with a voting age population over 50% African-American;
b. a second subdistrict with a significant concentration of African-American and other minority voters;
c. no subdistrict which has an "excessive majority" of African-Americans (in line with Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 46 n. 11 [106 S.Ct. 2752, 2764 n. 11, 92 L.Ed.2d 25] (1986)); and
d. subdistrict boundaries which circumscribe only territories which are "compact and contiguous", as that phrase is defined under Illinois law.
On September 23, 1991, the parties submitted to the court a joint electoral map. The joint map created a subdistrict with a voting age population over 50% African-American; a second subdistrict with a significant concentration of African-American and other minority voters; no subdistrict with an excessive majority of AfricanAmericans; and subdistrict boundaries that circumscribed only territories that were compact and contiguous. On October 18, 1991, the court subsequently approved the parties' joint map as meeting the legal requirements of

the Voting Rights Act in that, as drawn, it did not diminish or defeat the representational rights of AfricanAmerican voters.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The court finds that the RSD pursued an intentional policy to keep minorities off the Board. The RSD did this in two ways. It unlawfully manipulated appointments to preclude or minimize minority representation. It further refused to allow election to the Board by subdistricts. By keeping election to the Board systemwide, the RSD assured that the Board would be white dominated. The actions of the Board subsequent to 1989 repugnantly display this intent to the court.
EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES
INTRODUCTION
As Defendant has pointed out, literally hundreds of minority students in the RSD have excelled in football, basketball, baseball, and other sports. This includes both male and female students. Plaintiff does not challenge this fact. If given equal opportunity, minority students have faired well, if not excelled. The evidence indicates that minority students were not at all times given an equal opportunity. Two specific examples of such discrimination were the RSD's transportation policies and the selection of students for activities such as the cheerleader squads.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Desegregation Transportation Policies
The RSD had a desegregation policy that involved the mandatory busing of minority students. This policy forced minority students away from their neighborhoods. School buses would operate based upon the normal school day. For the most part, the buses would not run in late afternoon or early evening. Therefore, if minority students wanted a ride back to their neighborhood, they would have to take the school bus home when the normal school day was over. Without access to alternate transportation, they could not participate in after-school activities.
Superintendent William Bowen testified that when he was principal at East High School, mandatory reassignment students attending East were effectively precluded from participating in extracurricular activities by virtue of the fact that mass transit transportation was not available after regular school hours and the RSD did not provide buses for after-school activities. No activity buses were provided by the RSD to allow minority participation in extracurricular activities. Bowen Dep. at 138-139.
1182 *1182 Several witnesses testified on behalf of Plaintiffs attesting to this fact and the resulting problems. Mr. Ousley Walker, an African-American, testified that he participated in a multi-racial parents group at East High School in 1973. One of the problems the group attempted to address was the lack of African-American students in extracurricular activities at East. Walker Dep. Ex. at ¶ 9. Linda Brown, an African-American female, had two children who attended the Rockford Public Schools. Ms. Brown enrolled her daughter, Eleanor, through the open enrollment program at Maud Johnson Elementary School. She testified that it was "impossible for Eleanor to join in after school activities because her school bus left right after class." Brown Dep. Ex. 1 at ¶ 14. Sidella Hughes testified that her children were bused to Brookview School in the Northeast Quadrant. Her children were unable to participate in certain programs since those programs "began 15 minutes after buses left the school to return children to the west side."
Finally, Alicia Benford, an African-American female who was mandatorily assigned to Guilford High School and graduated from Guilford in 1991, testified that "because I rode the school bus, I was prevented from joining many of the extracurricular activities at Eisenhower and during my first two years at Guilford." For example, she

testified, "I wanted to join the Student Council at Guilford, but I did not try because the group met after school and if I stayed for a meeting I may not have had a way home." Benford Dep. at 11.
Despite RSD recognition of the transportation problem faced by desegregation students desiring to participate in extracurricular activities, the lack of transportation remained an obstacle to minority access to after-school programs. As early as 1974, the Board recognized that lack of transportation diminished minority access to extracurricular activities. The Board discussed transportation for desegregation students who wished to participate in intramural events. According to the handwritten notes of the meeting, the following alternatives were proposed: (a) one bus was to come early and another to come later; (b) one late bus going to several schools; and (c) one additional late bus for one school only. B34059. Despite the Board's early recognition of the problem, lack of transportation has remained in recent years an obstacle to extracurricular participation by minorities involved in movement for desegregation.
In response to a drop-out study presented to the Rockford Board of Education by the Research and Development Committee on April 12, 1988, minority Board member Mike Williams pointed out that extracurricular activities are less accessible to students who are at high risk of dropping out (minorities). He attributed the inaccessibility to lack of transportation. Williams noted that parents wanted their children to participate in after school activities but lacked transportation for such activities. Bd.Min. 4/12/88, B21080; Williams Test., Tr. 2364.
Historical Discrimination In The Selection of Cheerleaders
RSD Superintendent William Bowen testified regarding the entrenched nature of racially exclusive cheerleader squads at East High School in the 1970's. When Mr. Bowen first became principal at East in the 1970's, "one of the huge issues" for African-American parents and African-American students in terms of unfair treatment was the fact that there were no African-American cheerleaders. The cheerleader selection process in the 1970's was such that all the judges were white and the white girls "had a farm system." Bowen testified: "[T]heir sisters were cheerleaders, their neighborhood had a cheerleader, they taught each other the cheers that were used in the selection process. They knew what to do. They knew how to do those cheers. They were trained, and so consequently when they tried out they would do better." Bowen 1992 Dep. at 71-72.
In connection with the multi-racial parent committee at East, Bowen changed the cheerleading faculty advisors the second year, developed a new judging process intended to be more objective and offered workshops for children in minority neighborhoods so they could learn the cheers. Bowen's acts of changing the faculty advisor and changing the selection process, were both signals that he, as the school's principal, wanted to change the 1183 racial composition of the cheerleading staff. He also sent a lot of *1183 other signals showing that the intention of these changes was to have some African-American cheerleaders, and "everybody knew that this was a big issue in the school." Despite the change in procedures, the result was the same 0907 all white cheerleaders. Id. at 73-74.
At that point, even though the Athletic Conference rule was a maximum of six cheerleaders, Bowen increased the number to eight and put two African-American cheerleaders on the squad. Bowen testified that once on the squad, they were competent cheerleaders, as good as anybody else. Id. at 74, 77.
Bowen further testified that his integration of the cheerleading staff was "not universally accepted" by the school staff. Staff members thought he had unfairly advantaged the minority cheerleaders to the detriment of the traditional selection process, the same process that resulted in all white cheerleaders. Some staff members were angry about Bowen's actions. Next year, Bowen put the African-American members of the faculty on the cheerleader selection team, provided more training for minority students and invited parents to come and watch the selection process. That year the selection process resulted in two or three African-American cheerleaders out of eight. This integration of the cheerleading squad remained during Bowen's tenure as principal. Id. 78-79. Based on his experience at East and later as Director of Secondary Education, Bowen testified that the same racial disproportion problems existed at other RSD high schools. Id.
Former Auburn High School student Gwen Robinson, an African-American, also testified regarding the racial identifiability of the cheerleading squad at Auburn. Before 1964, Auburn, like other Rockford high schools, had a history of whites-only cheerleading teams. Ms. Robinson testified that during her middle school years, all of the

older neighborhood minority girls who tried out for high school cheerleading were rejected and were consistently rejected over the years, despite their selection to cheerleading squads at the junior high level. When Ms. Robinson tried out during her junior year (1964), some members of the boys' basketball team threatened to boycott practice the day of the tryouts and threatened to quit the team if she was not selected as a cheerleader. The selection process involved instructors "walking among us and watching us, and then they began to week out those who they felt were not qualified ... What was interesting is that when they finally got the group down to, I would say, a magic number of, I am not sure what that number was, I was the only minority or black participant left." Robinson Dep. at 7-8.
Ms. Robinson's selection to the team was a major event in Rockford, gaining newspaper coverage. The selection process and her participation on the team, however, were not without incident. When Robinson was selected to the cheerleading team, her family and she received death threats and harassing phone calls at her home. "I remember callers saying that I had better not show up to cheer at particular schools. Another caller told me that he didn't want to see a `nigger messing up the cheers.'" Robinson Dep. Ex. at ¶ 9.
When the Auburn cheerleaders went to other schools, they were frequently jeered and booed by people in the stands. The cheerleading coach would not allow the girls to do flips because people "had complained to the coach that they did not want to `see some nigger girl's ass.'" Id. at ¶ 10. After she made the squad, Robinson was treated differently from the other cheerleaders by the RSD staff. She was told by the staff at Auburn High School that she would not be going to the cheerleading camp at Williams Bay since her parents could not afford the clinic. She attended the camp, nonetheless, since her parents, in fact, could afford to send her there. Id. at ¶ 11.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A unitary school system extends beyond the classroom to extracurricular activities. Green v. County School Bd. of New Kent Co., Va., 391 U.S. 430, 435, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 1692-93, 20 L.Ed.2d 716 (1968). Segregation or discrimination in extracurricular programs is unlawful. See Arvizu v. Waco Independent School District, 732 F.Supp. 721, 725 (W.D.Tex.1989). The full range of extracurricular programs is subject to strict scrutiny. See, 1184 Quarles v. Oxford Municipal Separate *1184 School Dist., 868 F.2d 750, 757 (5th Cir.1989) (school musical); Arvizu, 732 F.Supp. at 724-25 (cheerleader tryouts).
Every child, no matter their color, should have the opportunity to participate in all activities offered by a public school system. The RSD allowed subjective selection criteria to be used in connection with a student's participation in certain extracurricular activities. This subjective selection criteria resulted in racial identifiability and underrepresentation of minorities in these extracurricular activities. No barrier to participation in extracurricular activities based upon a child's skin color may exist.
Further, the RSD's desegregation policy of busing minority students away from their neighborhoods while retaining neighborhood schools for white students, coupled with the RSD's policy of refusing to provide afterschool transportation services to the bused minority students, resulted in the inability of minority students to participate in after-school events due to a lack of transportation home. The RSD has a legal obligation to see that this type of discrimination does not continue.
BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND OTHER EDUCATIONAL DISCRIMINATION ISSUES AFFECTING HISPANICS
INTRODUCTION
The RSD engaged in discriminatory conduct against Hispanic-American students with regard to the District's Bilingual Program and with regard to other educational issues. The discriminatory actions of the RSD included the following:

1. Involuntary movement of bilingual students for desegregation purposes while imposing no involuntary transfer burdens for desegregation purposes on white students;
2. Segregation of bilingual students within receiving schools;
3. Provided transportation for bilingual students that was qualitatively inferior to the transportation provided to voluntary white desegregation students;
4. Refused to provide bilingual special education programs for Hispanic-Americans while providing special education programs for English-speaking students; and
5. Provided lower quality education to bilingual students as compared to white students.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Disproportionate Desegregation Burdens Placed On HispanicAmerican Students
Like other minority students, Hispanics in the Bilingual Program were mandatorily reassigned for desegregation purposes while white student participation in desegregation programs was voluntary. The RSD frequently moved the Bilingual Program for purposes of desegregation. The relocations had negative effects on the bilingual students involved.
The Bilingual Program was established in 1972 at the urging of the Hispanic-American Community. Mr. Andy Campos, an activist in the Rockford Hispanic community, approached Superintendent Johnson regarding the institution of a bilingual program in the RSD. A need for a bilingual program existed in the school system as Spanish speaking students were tested and taught in English. Accordingly, many Hispanic students failed classes and were labeled as mentally retarded because they could not respond to the tests in English. Campos Test., Tr. at 3470.
In March of 1972, the Education Committee of the RBE voted unanimously to approve a bilingual education program. Bd. Min., 3/4/72, B506205. The committee reported that the Bilingual Program "was designed to exit the bilingual student when the language proficiency of the student [was] equal in both English and Spanish, and the student [was] performing at grade level." B27697.
The RSD's first Bilingual Programs were housed at Southwest Quadrant Barbour and King schools. The curriculum initially consisted of a pull-out program in which children in kindergarten through third grade spent half a day with a bilingual teacher implementing the curriculum in their native language. The other half of the school 1185 day was spent in the regular English-speaking classroom. Through this method, the program *1185 gave the students the assistance they needed and integrated them into the population of the building. In subsequent years, the program expanded to include a preschool program at King Elementary School, kindergarten-sixth grade at Barbour, a junior high school program at Washington and a high school component. Throughout this period, Ms. Victoria Mayer served as head teacher and then coordinator of the Bilingual Program. The Bilingual Program was successful at Barbour. Mayer maintained that in the six years of the program, the bilingual children experienced interaction and cohesiveness with the other children in the building. She believed that the program provided a real opportunity for cultures, especially Latino and African-American, to meet and interact. The same cohesiveness existed between the bilingual teaching staff and the other teachers in the school. Mayer further observed that there was a great deal of communication between parents and teachers in the program.
Hispanic-American parents were also pleased with the programs at Barbour and King, in part because the programs were housed in the center of the Latino community in Rockford. B32708; Gerdes Dep. at 21. In 1977, however, the RSD moved the King and Barbour programs out of the Southwest Quadrant to the Southeast Quadrant as part of its desegregation program.

The RSD desegregation plan included the transfer of the Bilingual Program to Whitehead School, from Barbour and King Schools, in order to reduce the minority population at King and Barbour. The distance from the King/ Barbour area to Whitehead school was approximately 5.5 miles. The RSD moved the bilingual program to the Eastside despite the existence of an alternative option that would have accomplished desegregation but retained the Bilingual Program at the Southwest side Barbour School. This alternative option involved the pairing of Barbour with a majority school. Such an alternative was illustrated in a memo to the RBE on January 10, 1977 from Superintendent Johnson in which he stated:
Another option would be to retain the bilingual-bicultural program at Barbour and pair Barbour with a majority school interested in such a program so that the number of majority and minority students are balanced to comply with school district integration objectives.
Johnson Memo, 1/10/77, B544117.
Parents of the bilingual students expressed many concerns about moving the program to Whitehead School. The children had become quite attached to Barbour and the move of the Hispanic students to an Eastside site had the effect of removing the program from the center of the Latino community in Rockford. B32708. Even though Mayer was coordinator of the Bilingual Program, neither she nor anyone on her staff was consulted by Superintendent Johnson, or any other administrator, before the decision was made to move the Bilingual Program to Whitehead. Resistance to the Bilingual Program occurred once it was moved to Whitehead. Mayer recounted one particular incident where a sign stating "Speak English Here" was placed in the faculty lounge. According to Mayer, the obvious reference was directed to the Bilingual Program teachers who often spoke Spanish in the lounge.
Even though the RSD moved the Bilingual Program from Barbour and King to the predominantly white Whitehead School in order to reduce the minority percentages at King and Barbour, the RSD failed to effectuate any significant changes at Barbour. The movement of the Bilingual Program only reduced the minority percentage at Barbour by less than two percent. No white students were added to Barbour after the Hispanic American students were relocated. Enrollment data for the school years 1976-77 and 1977-78 reveal that, while the transfer of the Bilingual Program out of Barbour reduced the Hispanic American percentage at Barbour from twenty-six to four percent, the total minority percentage at Barbour changed only slightly, from 85.66% in 1976-77 to 83.27% in 1977-78. Stolee Tab 24, Barbour and Whitehead Schools.
The use of the Bilingual Program over the years as a desegregation device (beginning with the BarbourWhitehead move), served to place greater desegregation burdens on Hispanic American students than on white 1186 students. The elementary Bilingual Program was moved an average of once every *1186 three years beginning with the move to Whitehead in 1977-78, up to and including the most recent move in 1989-90. The Bilingual Program remained at Whitehead for only two school years. Id., Staff History at 1.
In 1979-80, the Program in the lower elementary grades was moved from Whitehead to New Milford (predominantly white), a Southeast side school. The upper elementary grades were moved to Gregory (predominantly white), a Southeast side school. Id.; B500248. Gregory was seven miles from the Latino community in the King/Barbour area of the Southwest Quadrant; New Milford was eight miles. Milage Chart, B2018. In 1983-84, the RSD moved the Program from New Milford to Walker (predominantly white) in the Northeast Quadrant. Bd.Min., 4/30/83, B506500; Stolee Tab 24, Staff History at 1. Walker was three miles from the Hispanic-American community in the King/Barbour area of the southwest quadrant. Milage Chart, B2018. In 1989-90, the RSD moved the elementary Bilingual Program from Walker, in the Northwest Quadrant, back to the Southeast Quadrant to Nashold (predominantly white). Stolee Tab 24, Staff History at 1. The distance from the Barbour/King area to Nashold was six miles. Milage Chart, B2018.
The RSD's express purpose in moving the Bilingual Program was to establish increased minority enrollment at predominantly white schools. The RSD always labeled the Bilingual Program as a desegregation program. The move from King and Barbour to Whitehead was primarily for desegregation purposes. B39277. The Program was moved from Whitehead because that school was overcrowded. The Program was moved to New Milford because New Milford had a minority enrollment of only 0.4%. B500248. All subsequent moves were made to schools where the majority enrollment exceeded 80% (Walker 85.26% and Nashold 82.88%). Stolee Tab 24, Hispanic at

1. In transportation documents, the Bilingual Program over the years was consistently referred to as a "focus" program, the name assigned to the voluntary magnet schools.
The RSD's labeling of the Bilingual Program as a "focus" program implied that it was voluntary in the same sense as the predominantly white alternative and focus (magnet) programs established to lure white students to Southwest side schools. The essential educational function of the Bilingual Program, however, distinguished it from the educationally supplemental white alternative and focus (magnet) programs. For example, State regulations require that whenever a school has twenty or more non-English-speaking children or children for whom English is a second language, there is to be a bilingual program in that school. 105 ILCS 5/14C-3, formerly Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 122, ¶ 14C-3. In contrast, the predominantly white alternative/focus programs provided enhanced educational experiences for their students.
The RSD persisted in its discriminatory use of the bilingual students as involuntary participants in desegregation despite opposition by the Hispanic-American community. The transfer of the bilingual students from Barbour and King to Whitehead drew opposition from Hispanic-American parents concerned about the removal of the program from the heart of the Hispanic community. B32708. In December of 1979, the Bilingual Parent Advisory Council (hereinafter "BPAC") initiated a boycott of the Bilingual Program because of transportation problems, frequent relocation of the Program and placing of the program so far away from the Hispanic community so that parents could not easily get to the schools. Gerdes Dep. at 38; Bd.Min., 12/10/79, B16586-B16596; Pulido-Logeman Dep. at 16. Despite a promise to the BPAC (in response to the boycott) that it would attempt to curtail the frequent transfer of the Bilingual Program, the RSD failed to keep its promise. Gerdes Dep. at 42. In 1986, Hispanic parents met with Superintendent Mell Grell voicing opposition to the relocation of the bilingual program. The response of the Board was another relocation.
Given the fact that bilingual education is essential for non- or limited-English-speaking students, transfer of the Bilingual Program from school to school over the years was essentially a mandatory reassignment of the 1187 Hispanic-American students for desegregation purposes. Like the burden placed on *1187 African-American students in the RSD, the mandatory reassignment of Hispanic-American students for desegregation purposes was unmatched by the mandatory reassignment of white students for desegregation purposes.
Segregation Of Elementary Bilingual Students
When the RSD's Bilingual Program began at Barbour School, the curriculum consisted of participants attending classes with regular students for part of the day and then attending "pull out" bilingual classes for the other part of the day. Such a multi-cultural system served to integrate bilingual students into the school's student body.
Despite this success, however, the RSD terminated the pull out program and instituted a full-time Bilingual Program. Ms. Victoria Mayer testified that bilingual students spent a whole day with the bilingual teacher. Thus, the only interaction they had with the "regular" students at the school was during lunch and recess.
Transportation Discrimination
The RSD transportation for bilingual students was qualitatively different from the transportation provided for white desegregation students. White student participation in desegregation was voluntary in the RSD. The RSD transportation policy with regard to the voluntary alternative/focus programs (predominantly white) was to provide a yellow school bus to students who lived more than 1.5 miles from school, regardless of their proximity to an RMTD bus stop.
The bilingual students were provided with Board-paid transportation. Unlike alternative and majority focus program students, however, the transportation for bilingual students was, in most cases, through the Rockford Mass Transit District (hereinafter "RMTD") and not by yellow school buses. This was so, even though, for reporting purposes, the RSD called bilingual students "focus program" participants. See, supra, Inequitable Access to Transportation. Transportation Department documents showed that majority open enrollment, focus and alternative students qualified for Board-paid transportation both if they lived less than 1.5 miles from an RSD

stop and if they lived more than 1.5 miles from an RMTD stop. Accordingly, these white desegregation students qualified for Board-paid transportation under all circumstances. In contrast, when transportation was provided to bilingual students, it is always "mass transit only." No similar notation appeared next to any majority alternative, open enrollment or focus transfers. Id.
Even for those few bilingual students who rode yellow school buses, the burden of crosstown busing was substantial. Raul Medrano, a former student in the RSD's bilingual program, was bused, along with other students in his neighborhood, to Whitehead School. Medrano testified that because of the great distance and the long bus ride, his day usually began at 6:30 a.m. He walked five or six blocks to a bus stop for the 7:30 a.m. bus. The bus ride usually lasted 45-50 minutes. The bused students would then arrive 10-15 minutes before school began but were forced to remain on the school bus while neighborhood students were allowed on the playground.
Educational Deficiencies
Serious educational deficiencies in the Bilingual Program existed in the RSD. The educational services received by Bilingual Program students were not equal to those received by students in the regular instructional program. Furthermore, the RSD failed to adequately identify and assess students who were in need of bilingual services.
State of Illinois And U.S. Department of Education Findings of Deficiencies
In April of 1980, the Illinois State Board of Education (hereinafter "ISBE") issued findings with regard to the "degree of district conformance with requirements for transitional bilingual education programs." Bethke Letter, 4/17/80, B500230. As to the Bilingual Programs districtwide, the ISBE found that procedures for the identification of students in need of bilingual education "were inadequate." No standard procedures existed and "program personnel evidenced little understanding as to how students enter and exit the program." The ISBE further found that referrals for special services were not processed in a timely manner. Finally while the administrative staff at 1188 the building level demonstrated support for the efforts of the program, the ISBE reported that the *1188 RSD failed to provide the necessary leadership at the central staff level for communicating with parents and developing staff and curriculum. The RSD provided leadership that was said to be "diffused and unfocused." Id. at B500231.
The ISBE also reported numerous deficiencies with the Bilingual Program at both the elementary and secondary levels. At Gregory, for example, the ISBE found that the staff appeared to be "insufficient" for the English reading instruction, and stated that it was "doubtful that students receive[d] a full program." Id. at B500230. At Flinn Middle School, the ISBE reported that the "[English as a Second Language] ESL instruction was insufficient." Mr. Bethke of the ISBE explained:
Only one period of ESL is available to most students. Two periods per day should be the minimum. Required courses must be available to the students and 90 minutes of instruction using Spanish is required. This program should be examined thoroughly and restructured for the next year.
Id. at B500231.
The same findings were made with regard to the program at West High School. The West High program did "not conform to statutory requirements" and was ordered to be modified for FY-81. Id.
In July of 1980, after an investigation of the RSD's practices with regard to non- and limited-English-speaking students, the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (hereinafter "OCR") made several findings of educational discrimination by the Rockford School District. B32390-B32399. First, the OCR found that the RSD failed to identify and assess adequately those students who were non- and limited-English-speaking and who were, therefore, unable to participate effectively in the RSD's regular program of instruction. B32390.

Identification and assessment procedures were said to be seriously flawed. To illustrate, on an annual basis, the District determined which students were from non-English-language backgrounds and, thus, potentially non- and limited-English speaking. Principals, classroom teachers and secretaries generally relied on personal knowledge about the student's families to provide this information. In two schools, the Ethnic Code from the Student Information Form was used to identify non-English-language background students, even though ethnicity and home language background are not synonymous. In several other elementary schools, such information was provided by the students themselves or "in conjunction with students." B32391. The OCR considered this last method to be especially inappropriate with elementary-age students who may not have fully understood the questions or the reasons for which the information was sought. Id. The RSD also placed students in nonexistent language groups, for example, "East India, Oriental, Hawaiian, and Indian."
District staff admitted that students from non-English language backgrounds were missed, thus confirming the inadequacy of the identification process. Id. The result was that the non-English-speaking students were excluded from further consideration for bilingual or other special language services. As only the students who were from non-English backgrounds, according to the District's own records, were assessed for their English proficiency, those students who had not been initially identified in the screening process simply fell through the cracks. B32392.
Where students had successfully been identified as being from non-English backgrounds, classroom teachers and principals were personally responsible for determining whether students were limited English proficient and, therefore, eligible for bilingual services. District personnel indicated that these determinations were not based upon the results of a standardized valid instrument measuring English language proficiency; instead, District staff relied on other information (e.g., observations of students) which the OCR found to be an invalid method of determining English language proficiency. Id.
In addition, even when students were assessed by these flawed methods, there was no consistent District-wide procedure for evaluating the students' English language proficiency. For example, at one school, the only students who were identified as having limited English proficiency were those who spoke virtually no English 1189 (level I of the *1189 ISBE definition of English language fluency). In other schools, limited-English students were defined as those whose English language proficiency corresponded to levels I, II, III and IV of the ISBE definition. The bilingual coordinator indicated that it may have been appropriate to include even level V students in this category. Id.
In sum, many students who needed bilingual services were missed. In fact, the OCR investigators found that a number of recently-immigrated Laotian students who spoke very little English were not so identified. Id. The net effect of the District's procedures was that many students who were non-English-speaking or limited-Englishspeaking were entitled to bilingual services but never received such services since only those students who were initially identified as having limited English proficiency were eligible to receive a bilingual education. Id.
Second, the OCR found that the RSD failed to take adequate affirmative steps to insure that all non- and limitedEnglish-speaking students received educational services equally effective to those offered students in the regular instructional program. B32393. The OCR determined that students who spoke a non-English language other than Spanish and those who had not been identified as needing bilingual services due to the above-described methods, were not receiving the bilingual education to which they were entitled. Id.
To illustrate, the OCR found that three Hispanic students attended schools in which no bilingual program existed. Furthermore, sixty non- and limited-English-speaking Hispanic students in twenty-two schools were not receiving bilingual services. Id. District staff maintained that these students could transfer, at District expense, to a school with a Bilingual Program. The OCR determined, however, that otherwise-eligible students did not choose to do so for two primary reasons: (1) the District had no uniform procedure to notify parents, in their own language, that their children were eligible for bilingual instruction; and (2) some parents believed their children would have to be transported an unreasonable distance in order to participate in the Bilingual program. Id. The OCR concluded that parental notification of the Bilingual Program availability was not calculated to actually inform the parents since the notices were sent home in English. No translations of these notices to languages other than Spanish were available. The OCR also found that the perceived "unreasonable" distances to bilingual programs that

caused parents not to exercise the school transfer option did not obviate the District's responsibility to provide special bilingual services to non- and limited-English-speaking students. Id.
Third, and finally, when bilingual education was actually delivered despite these obstacles, the OCR found that the District did not deliver "equally effective educational services" as required by Title VI. For example, non- and limited-English-speaking Hispanic students at Flinn Middle School and West High School learned only one required subject in Spanish, Social Studies. No mathematics or science courses, also required subjects, were taught in Spanish. B32394. The net effect of the District's failure to offer all required courses in Spanish was that some non- and limited-English-speaking students were enrolled in only three one-period courses: BBP (bilingual bicultural program) social studies, BBP English and physical education. Id. The OCR further found that at Flinn Middle School, the main emphasis of the bilingual social studies course was on Latino American countries. As such, the course was not comparable to the curriculum received by English-speaking students in the regular classroom.
Educational Deficiencies Persist
Educational deficiencies in the Bilingual Program of the RSD remain today. Hispanics in Rockford have the highest dropout rate of all racial and ethnic groups. Pulido-Logeman Dep. at 8. Specifically with regard to the Bilingual Program, the RSD's failure to provide sufficient space has resulted in overcrowding of bilingual students and the holding of bilingual classes in inappropriate areas.
At Nashold, two bilingual classes at one time were held in the same room. Approximately fifteen to twenty students were on each side of the room. Children would turn around and listen to the other teacher. Noise and 1190 instruction from each class interfered *1190 with the other. Also at Nashold, the bilingual classes were moved into the gym. The bilingual students were put "on the stage while gym classes were going on" or the students "would stand in the aisle ... waiting for the gym to empty in order for them to go" back to class. Sometimes the class was held in the hallway. Campos Dep. at 19-24.
Ms. Mercado, a bilingual teacher at East, testified that during each of her four years at East, she ordered bilingual algebra books. She never received the books and the students had to share books. Ms. Mercado filed a grievance, but the algebra class was subsequently dropped, so the grievance was never handled. Mercado Dep. at 37.
Educational deficiencies in the Bilingual Program extended to problems in the manner in which counselling was provided to the bilingual students. Ms. Mercado testified that the counselors at East High School rejected her attempts to help bilingual students schedule their classes. When Ms. Mercado explained to the head counsellor that the students didn't speak English, the counselor replied "we understand each other." Id. at 31.
Ms. Mercado also testified that counselors steered the bilingual students toward easier classes. Every year Ms. Mercado helped her students prepare their schedules prior to their guidance counseling appointments and every year at least half of them came back to her with changed schedules. Instead of upper level classes, the girls were put into food and child development and the boys into technology. The justification offered by the counselor at East was that the classes that the bilingual students requested were too hard for them. Id. at 32. Ms. Mercado also observed a counselor at East laugh in a bilingual student's face because the student wanted to take French. Id. at 33.
Failure to Provide Effective Special Education to Non- and LimitedEnglish-Speaking Students
In 1980, during the course of its investigation into the practices of the RSD with regard to the Bilingual Program, the OCR discovered that the RSD also failed to assess and serve appropriately non- and limited-Englishspeaking students who required special education services. The RSD used bilingual psychologists to evaluate such students, and when bilingual psychologists were not available, the District obtained evaluations through the Northwestern Illinois Association (hereinafter "NIA"). The OCR found, however, that often there was a

considerable delay between the referral to the bilingual NIA psychologist and the completion of the evaluation. B32396. For example, one student was referred for an NIA evaluation on November 28, 1979, but was not scheduled to be tested until June 19, 1980. Id. In contrast, District officials told the OCR investigators that monolingual-English-speaking special education students were generally evaluated and staffed within sixty days, as prescribed by State regulations. Id.
Even when non- and limited-English-speaking students were timely evaluated, the appropriateness of those evaluations was doubtful. No determination was ever made of the student's English language proficiency, even though the District conducted evaluations of these students in English by monolingual English-speaking professionals. Id.
In addition to the flawed and inadequate evaluation procedures, the OCR found that the RSD did not provide appropriate special education services to non- and limited-English-speaking students in a language they could understand. Id. The RSD employed only one Spanish-speaking learning disabilities (hereinafter "LD") teacher. However, because of the District's practice of assigning LD teachers to particular schools, Spanish-speaking students in schools to which she was not assigned could not be evaluated or receive direct services from her except in unusual circumstances. B32397. Additionally, because this teacher conducted a large number of evaluations during the first year of her assignment to schools with bilingual programs, Spanish-speaking LD students did not receive direct services from her comparable to that received by monolingual English-speaking LD students from other LD teachers. Id. The OCR found that there was at least one limited-English proficient Spanish-speaking student who was determined to be mentally impaired (hereinafter "MI"). However, because 1191 there was no bilingual MI *1191 teacher, this student received educational services in the regular bilingual program; no direct services were provided by an MI teacher in either language. Id.
In light of its findings, the OCR ordered the RSD to "develop a comprehensive plan acceptable to the Department [of Education] which provides equally effective educational services to non- and limited-English-speaking national origin minority students." Id. In response to the OCR's mandate, the RSD made several changes. The RSD addressed the problem of parental notification of the existence of Bilingual Programs by distributing a survey to determine the home language background of all students in the District. B2598-B2603. The District followed up its survey with an assessment procedure to determine the English language fluency of students from non-English language backgrounds. B2598.
Despite these steps, the RSD's assessment of non- and limited-English-speaking students for special education remains inadequate and its education of special needs students who are non- and limited-English-speaking remains inferior to the special education it provides English-speaking students. Although English-speaking students are provided with self-contained special education classes at the middle and high school levels, the RSD does not presently offer a self-contained learning disabilities classroom or resource room or a behavior disorder class for bilingual students at the middle and high school levels. Mercado Dep. at 6-8. The result is that bilingual students who need special education are either left in bilingual classes without special education or are placed in special education classes where only English is spoken. Id. at 13-17. Furthermore, the RSD does not employ a bilingual learning disability/behavior disorder teacher at the secondary level. Id. at 8. The RSD also does not employ a LD/BD resource person for bilingual students at the high school level. Id. at 12. Accordingly, bilingual teachers must attempt to deal with the problems of the LD or BD student while trying to conduct a regular class. Id. The lack of bilingual teacher's aides has aggravated the problems caused by the shortage of bilingual special education teachers.
The absence of effective special education for students with non- or limited-English-speaking ability has left such students in the middle of an administrative stalemate. Ms. Mercado testified that she has expressed her concerns about bilingual LD/BD students to the Director of Special Education and to the coordinator of bilingual education:
I have asked them both for help. I have expressed my concerns about the students. I have told them their behaviors. And I have asked them if we could get someone to work with these kids. And the special education lady said that it is bilingual's job to hire a teacher to work with them. And bilingual said that it is special education's job to hire a teacher to work with those kids.
Id. at 23.

In addition to failing to provide effective special education services for non- or limited-English-speaking students, the RSD's LD/BD assessment procedure is also lacking. Though the OCR, thirteen years ago, found that the RSD's referral of bilingual students to an outside bilingual psychologist for evaluation of learning behavior disorders resulted in an unjustifiable delay in the assessment of these students, the RSD, at present has no bilingual psychologist on staff. The students continue to be referred to an outside contractor and the delays in assessment continue to result. Id. at 7-8.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A court may consider the school district's conduct relating to Bilingual Education Programs in evaluating the entire school system. See e.g., Lorain NAACP v. Lorain Bd. of Educ., 979 F.2d 1141 (6th Cir.1992); Coalition to Save Our Children v. Buchanan, 744 F.Supp. 582 (D.Del.1990); United States v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago, 588 F.Supp. 132, 169 (N.D.Ill.1984), vacated on other grounds, 744 F.2d 1300 (7th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1116, 105 S.Ct. 2358, 86 L.Ed.2d 259 (1985).
The goal of language remediation programs is to integrate Spanish-speaking students into the English language 1192 classroom. Castaneda v. Pickard, 648 F.2d 989, 998 n. 4 (5th Cir.1981). A properly implemented program *1192
raises the academic achievement of limited-English-proficient students, thus creating equal educational opportunities for these students. United States v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago, 588 F.Supp. at 169. Given these goals, language remediation programs should not isolate their participants from English speaking children. Castaneda, 648 F.2d at 998; Cintron v. Brentwood Union Free School Dist., 455 F.Supp. 57, 64 (E.D.N.Y.1978). As much as possible, the program should encourage contact between non-English and English-speaking children. Id. Allowing participation in mainstream academic and extracurricular programs is one manner of achieving this goal. See Coalition to Save Our Children, 744 F.Supp. at 594.
In reviewing the appropriateness of a school district's language remediation program, three factors are relevant: (1) whether the school system is pursuing a program informed by an educational theory recognized as sound by experts in the field; (2) whether the programs and practices actually used by a school system are reasonably calculated to implement effectively the educational theory adopted by the school; and (3) whether, after a sufficient period of time, the program actually overcomes the language barriers confronting students. Castaneda, 648 F.2d at 1009-10. Further, the school district's transportation policies with respect to specialized programs, such as bilingual education, should not place disproportionate or stigmatizing burdens on minority students. See United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ., 624 F.Supp. 1276, 1455 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).
The court finds that the RSD operated its Bilingual Education Program in violation of the constitutional rights of Hispanic students. The RSD placed an unlawful transportation burden on Hispanic students by requiring the involuntary movement of bilingual students for desegregation purposes. No involuntary transfer burdens for desegregation purposes were imposed on majority students. Repeated relocation of the Bilingual Program furthered the unlawful transportation burden on Hispanic students. Bilingual students were provided transportation that was qualitatively inferior to that provided to white desegregation students.
The court further finds that the RSD administered the Bilingual Program in violation of the constitutional rights of Hispanic students. The RSD converted the elementary half-day pull-out bilingual program which allowed bilingual students to interact with the general school population into a whole-day program completely segregated from the rest of the school. Bilingual students were steered toward easier and less beneficial classes by English-only speaking counselors and were inadequately provided with educational services and curricula comparable to white students. Furthermore, the RSD failed to adequately identify and assess non-and limited-English-speaking students as eligible to participate in the Bilingual Program. Finally, the RSD failed to provide effective and meaningful special education services to non- and limited-English-speaking students.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

INTRODUCTION
Special Education students should be exempt from desegregation programs. They have enough problems without being moved around in order to make a building appear numerically integrated. In the school year 1988-89, the RSD assigned 99.6% of the Southwest Quadrant elementary students to non-Southwest schools. The court has not been convinced that the assignment was an act of intentional discrimination. The RSD should continue to exempt special education students from desegregation programs.
FINDINGS OF FACT
In June of 1974, the RSD recommended to the QUEFAC court that elementary special education students be "exempt" from participating in desegregation programs due to their needs for special facilities and equipment. In subsequent status reports to the court, the RSD restated its position that special education students were exempt from desegregation programs.
Notwithstanding the RSD's stated policy that elementary special education students were "exempt" from desegregation activities, the RSD assigned all elementary students to non-Southwest schools. Most of these 1193 students were assigned to Eastside schools. This practice was evident as early as the first *1193 school-byschool Self-Contained Special Education (SCSE) data in 1980 and continued until entry of the Second Interim Order in 1991.
Dr. David Bennett testified regarding the RSD's assignment of SCSE students. Dr. Bennett noted that behavior disorder students are provided a program based in self-contained environments because of their fragile nature. Dr. Bennett noted that usually an effort is made by a school district to keep SCSE as close to the child's home as possible. Parents and guardians are frequently brought into the school to deal with the day-to-day behavior of these students. Illustrating this point, Dr. Bennett stated that parents are often brought in to the school because of behavior problems involving the child, emergency situations based upon the delicate nature of the child's behavior, and also to discuss with teachers and administrators appropriate program choices. Dr. Bennett found, however, that SCSE students in the RSD who lived on the Southwest side of Rockford were assigned to schools outside of the Southwest Quadrant. He observed this trend from 1981 to 1989.
In the 1980-81 school year, full-time SCSE students were much more likely to be assigned to non-Southwest schools. While the Southwest schools constituted roughly a third of all elementary schools, they received only 13.6% of the SCSE students. As a result, non-Southwest schools had an average number of full-time elementary SCSE students that was roughly double that for Southwest schools (an average of 42 versus an average of 22, respectively).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Percentage

Number of full-time

of all

special

full-time special

Number of

education

education

Total

schools with

[elementary

[elementary

schools SCSE programs

SCSE] students

SCSE] students

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Southwest

schools

12

4

86

13.6%

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

All other

schools

42

13

548

86.4%

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thereafter, the policy of assigning minority SCSE students out of the Southwest Quadrant became pervasive. In the school year 1988-89, prior to commencement of this lawsuit, there were virtually complete racial disproportions in the RSD's assignment of students. During the school year, 36% of the elementary SCSE students lived in the attendance areas of the ten Southwest Quadrant elementary schools and, consequently, were predominantly minority students. The RSD, however, assigned 99.6% of elementary SCSE students to nonSouthwest schools. All Southwest elementary SCSE students, except two, were assigned by the RSD to attend non-Southwest schools, but no SCSE students from elsewhere in the District were assigned to attend Southwest elementary schools. See D5291, D5334, B507386, B507061.
A similar, but somewhat less severe, pattern occurred at the high school level. During this same period, 44% of high school SCSE students lived in the attendance areas of Auburn and West, Southwest Quadrant schools, but 82% of all high school SCSE students were assigned to attend Eastside facilities. A less pronounced pattern occurred at the middle schools: 46% of SCSE students lived in the attendance areas of Kennedy or Wilson, also Southwest Quadrant schools, but 59% were assigned to Eastside schools.
This assignment policy of the RSD represented both a unique burden on minority students and an instance of within-school segregation by the placement of substantially minority special education classes in otherwise 1194 predominantly white schools. The RSD's continued placement of SCSE students *1194 from the Southwest Quadrant in schools outside of that Quadrant was also in sharp contrast to the policy the District was implementing in relation to other students. Specifically, in 1989, the RSD, through its Reorganization Plan, was attempting a policy that would have children attending school in their own neighborhood. This policy clearly was not pursued with regard to SCSE students on the Southwest side, who are "literally the most fragile students in the school district." The minority SCSE students who lived in the Southwest Quadrant were not given the opportunity to attend schools close to their homes while their white counterparts in other areas of the city were able to attend self-contained classrooms reasonably close to their homes. This occurred despite the fact that decreasing enrollments in Southwest Quadrant schools made available space for SCSE students.
Not only did these conditions exist, but the RSD special education staff were well aware of the SCSE assignment patterns. On January 12, 1989, Janet Jones, then Director of Special Education, submitted a memorandum to John Hartwig, Director of Student Services, presenting data that compared the residence and school assignments of SCSE students. Ms. Jones stated in her memorandum: "It is interesting to see where most children who are bused to self-contained programs live ... You may want to share this with [Supt.] Swanson." D5334. This memorandum was written during the month that the 1989 Reorganization Plan was being formulated. Ms. Jones apparently recognized the inequity of the RSD's assignment policy for SCSE students and suggested rectification of the disparities. However, no corrective action was taken. This fact was reflected by Ms. Jones' May 26, 1989 list of special education locations for the Fall of 1989 showing all elementary SCSE classes still located outside the Southwest Quadrant.
The burdensome pattern of SCSE student assignment is depicted on the map below. Each dot on the map represents a 1990 SCSE student and each star on the map represents a school to which SCSE students were assigned. The court is not able to tell from the record whether these transferred minority students were in fact "counted" for desegregation purposes. The court states, however, that the District would have a potential numerical motive to have made these kinds of transfers.
1195 *1195
1196 *1196 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Evidence of discrimination in the operation of a special education program is relevant in a school desegregation case. See United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ., 624 F.Supp. 1276, 1377 (S.D.N.Y.1985), aff'd, 837 F.2d 1181 (2nd Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1055, 108 S.Ct. 2821, 100 L.Ed.2d 922 (1988). In Yonkers, for example, the court found the defendant school district liable for discriminatory classification, transportation and other unlawful treatment of minority Special Education students. Id. The assignment policy of the RSD placed a burden on minority students and constituted an instance of within-school segregation through the placement of

substantially minority special education classes in otherwise predominantly white schools. The court, however, does not have sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that the actions of the RSD constituted an act of intentional discrimination.
THE LAW OF EDUCATIONAL SEGREGATION AND ITS APPLICATION TO THE EVIDENCE
Overview of the Law
In Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954), the United States Supreme Court held that "in the field of public education, the doctrine of `separate but equal' has no place" and that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." Id. at 495, 74 S.Ct. at 692. The Court further observed that "[t]o separate [minority children] from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone." Id. at 494, 74 S.Ct. at 691.
The law governing liability in a school desegregation case can be summarized in one sentence: a State or local authority may not intentionally segregate or discriminate against minority students because of their race. A prima facie case establishing liability contains three elements: (1) "segregation or discrimination" (minority students must, in fact, experience either segregated conditions or suffer the detrimental effects of discriminatory conduct 0907 or both); (2) "causation" (school authorities must have caused, created or maintained such segregation or discrimination); and (3) "intent" (the conduct of school officials must have been undertaken "intentionally").
This standard derives from the Equal Protection Clause that provides that "no state ... shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Equal Protection Clause requires State and local governments to treat similarly situated groups of persons in similar fashion when classifying individuals to receive particular benefits and burdens. Hooper v. Bernalillo County Assessor, 472 U.S. 612, 618, 105 S.Ct. 2862, 2866, 86 L.Ed.2d 487 (1985). While courts ordinarily defer to governmental classifications unless they lack a rational justification, classifications that burden "discrete and insular minorities" are "inherently suspect" and are subject to "strict" judicial scrutiny. See United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152 n. 4, 58 S.Ct. 778, 783 n. 4, 82 L.Ed. 1234 (1938).
Race is the paradigm "suspect" classification triggering strict scrutiny. Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429, 433-34, 104 S.Ct. 1879, 1882-83, 80 L.Ed.2d 421 (1984). State action that, on its face, involves a racial classification is presumptively invalid and can be upheld only upon an extraordinary justification. Personnel Administrator v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 272, 99 S.Ct. 2282, 2292-93, 60 L.Ed.2d 870 (1979). Facially neutral State action violates the Equal Protection Clause when the action is intended to have a racial effect and, in fact, has such an effect. Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 240-41, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 2047-48, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976).
The mere existence of racially segregated schools does not constitute a constitutional violation nor does it create an obligation on the part of a school board to take remedial action. Columbus Bd. of Educ. v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449, 464, 99 S.Ct. 2941, 2950, 61 L.Ed.2d 666 (1979). Racial imbalance in a school system only violates the Equal Protection Clause when intentional government conduct has caused or perpetuated the situation. Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, Denver, Col., 413 U.S. 189, 213-14, 93 S.Ct. 2686, 2700, 37 L.Ed.2d 548 (1973). A State 1197 statute or constitutional provision requiring separation *1197 of the races in schools is the most obvious type of government conduct causing or perpetuating segregation and is facially unconstitutional under Brown, 347 U.S. at 495, 74 S.Ct. at 692.
Cases subsequent to Brown, however, have clearly established that many less blatant forms of government conduct that lead to racial imbalance in school systems also violate the Constitution. A constitutional violation occurs in school districts that have never been subject to statutorily-mandated racial segregation where "school authorities have carried out a systematic program of segregation affecting a substantial portion of the students, schools, teachers, and facilities within the school system." Keyes, 413 U.S. at 201, 93 S.Ct. at 2694. In order to prove unconstitutional racial imbalance in a school system, a plaintiff must show that (1) the governmental

authorities created or maintained racial segregation in the schools and (2) their actions were motivated by segregative intent. Keyes, 413 U.S. at 208, 93 S.Ct. at 2697; Diaz v. San Jose Unified School Dist., 733 F.2d 660, 662 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1065, 105 S.Ct. 2140, 85 L.Ed.2d 497 (1985).
In a racially unbalanced school system, the existence of racial segregation need not be numerically absolute so long as the public schools are substantially segregated and "racially identifiable." United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ., 624 F.Supp. 1276, 1378 (S.D.N.Y.1985), aff'd, 837 F.2d 1181 (2nd Cir. 1987). What constitutes a racially identifiable school will depend upon the facts of each particular case. Keyes, 413 U.S. at 196, 93 S.Ct. at 2691. A court must examine the racial and ethnic composition of particular schools as well as "every facet of school operations0907faculty, staff, transportation, extra-curricular activities and facilities." Green v. County School Bd. of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, 435, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 1693, 20 L.Ed.2d 716 (1968). Further, a court should consider the quality of education afforded to both white and minority students. See Freeman v. Pitts, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 112 S.Ct. 1430, 1446, 118 L.Ed.2d 108 (1992). Thus, a plaintiff may prove a school system is racially identifiable by factors that may, but need not, include student assignment. Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 892 F.2d 851, 861 (10th Cir.1989), vacated on other grounds, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 1657, 118 L.Ed.2d 381 (1992).
With respect to causation, the first Keyes factor, the conduct of school authorities need not be the sole cause of racial segregation, but such conduct must have more than a de minimis impact. Yonkers, 624 F.Supp. at 1379. A plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant's conduct contributed in a substantial manner to the creation or perpetuation of racial segregation. Berry v. School Dist. of Benton Harbor, 442 F.Supp. 1280, 1292 (W.D.Mich.1977). The "conduct" under scrutiny includes acts of omission as well as affirmative acts. Yonkers, 624 F.Supp. at 1379.
In addition to proving that the defendant's conduct created or maintained racial imbalance in the schools, a plaintiff must show that the conduct was motivated by segregative intent, the second Keyes factor. Ordinarily, only circumstantial evidence is available to establish segregative intent. Diaz, 733 F.2d at 662. Evidence of the discriminatory impact of acts, omissions or policies is one type of circumstantial evidence supporting an inference of segregative intent. Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266, 97 S.Ct. 555, 563-64, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977). Other types of circumstantial evidence relevant to proving segregative intent include: (1) the historical background and sequence of events leading up to the conduct maintaining or exacerbating racial imbalance in the schools; (2) departures from typical procedural sequences or substantive criteria normally considered important by the decision-maker; and (3) contemporaneous evidence concerning the decision-making process. Id. at 267-68, 97 S.Ct. at 564-65. If a plaintiff succeeds in establishing a prima facie case of intentional segregation, the burden then shifts to the defendant to establish that the same segregative conduct would have occurred "even had the impermissible purpose not been considered." Id. at 271, n. 21, 97 S.Ct. at 566, n. 21.
Further, a finding of intentionally segregative school board conduct in a meaningful portion of a school system 1198 creates a presumption *1198 that other segregated activity within the school system is not coincidental. Keyes,
413 U.S. at 208, 93 S.Ct. at 2697. This presumption places a burden upon the defendant to show that segregation in other schools and activities within the system have not resulted from intentionally segregative conduct. Id. In discharging this burden, the school authorities must rely upon more than some allegedly logical, racially neutral explanation for their actions. Id. at 210, 93 S.Ct. at 2698. The school district's burden is to adduce proof sufficient to support a finding that segregative intent was not among the factors that motivated its actions. Id.
Causation 0907 The First Keyes Factor
In Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, 413 U.S. 189, 93 S.Ct. 2686, 37 L.Ed.2d 548 (1973), the United States Supreme Court developed two factors that must be established in a desegregation school case. The first of these factors is causation. Id. at 208, 93 S.Ct. at 2697. Accordingly, in order to prevail in a school desegregation case, the plaintiffs must show that the conduct of the defendant school system was State action that caused or maintained racial isolation and segregation. Yonkers, 624 F.Supp. at 1379; Berry, 442 F.Supp. at 1292; NAACP v. Lansing Bd. of Educ., 559 F.2d 1042 (6th Cir.) cert. denied 434 U.S. 997, 98 S.Ct. 635, 54 L.Ed.2d 491 (1977); Oliver v.

Kalamazoo Bd. of Educ., 368 F.Supp. 143, 159 (W.D.Mich.1973), aff'd 508 F.2d 178 (6th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 963, 95 S.Ct. 1950, 44 L.Ed.2d 449 (1975).
The plaintiffs must demonstrate that the defendant's conduct, including acts of omission, contributed in a substantial degree to the creation or perpetuation of racial segregation in the schools. Columbus Bd. of Educ. v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449, 99 S.Ct. 2941, 61 L.Ed.2d 666 (1979); Oliver, 368 F.Supp. at 159; Reed v. Rhodes, 455 F.Supp. 546, 553 (N.D.Ohio 1978), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 607 F.2d 714 (6th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1018, 102 S.Ct. 1713, 72 L.Ed.2d 135 (1982). The defendant is not liable if it only occasionally committed segregative or discriminatory acts and these acts were of trivial importance with no significant relationship to current conditions in the school district.
To meet their burden of proof, the plaintiffs in a school desegregation case are not required to prove de jure segregation as to each segregated school or student in the system. As the Court in Keyes explained:
[W]here plaintiffs prove that the school authorities have carried out a systematic program of segregation affecting a substantial portion of the students, schools, teachers, and facilities within the school system, it is only common sense to conclude that there exists a predicate for a finding of the existence of a dual school system.
413 U.S. at 201, 93 S.Ct. at 2694.
In school desegregation cases, courts have imposed liability upon defendants for conduct that entails both affirmative acts and failures to act. Lansing, 559 F.2d at 1046; Oliver, 508 F.2d at 182; Yonkers, 624 F.Supp. at 1379; Berry, 442 F.Supp. at 1293; Bradley v. Milliken, 338 F.Supp. 582, 587-88 (E.D.Mich. 1971). Affirmative acts include segregative techniques such as gerrymandering boundaries, assigning staff on the basis of race and employing intact busing. Acts of omission include, for example, a school board that, with segregative purpose, allows a racially-identifiable white school to operate at overcapacity rather than transfer or reassign white students to a nearby racially-identifiable minority school operating at undercapacity. The Board's failure to act in this instance is hardly benign. See Reed, 455 F.Supp. at 565. As noted by the court in Oliver, "where public issues are framed and questions posed which bear directly on the quality of education, a deliberate negative response from school authorities or a deliberate omission to act, can affect the shape of subsequent circumstances just as materially as can affirmative decisions and action." 368 F.Supp. at 178.
Similarly, in Keyes, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the proscribed conduct not only includes conduct that causes or brings about segregation, but also includes conduct that maintains segregation. The Keyes Court described the relevant inquiry as determining whether the school district's "policies and practices ... were ... taken in effectuation of a policy to create or maintain segregation." 413 U.S. at 213-14, 93 S.Ct. at 2700.
1199 *1199 The court finds that the Rockford Board of Education is a public body created by the State of Illinois to administer and supervise its public schools within its statutorily-defined area and, under the laws of the State of Illinois, may sue and be sued. The court further finds that the current racial segregation of students in the public schools in Rockford was caused, in substantial part, by the acts and omissions of Defendant. Specific practices of Defendant that unlawfully segregated students on the basis of race and ethnic origin include, but are not limited to:
(1) The tracking of students by race into various educational programs offered by the RSD;
(2) The drawing and alteration of school attendance area boundaries in such a way as to create, maintain or increase racial or ethnic segregation of students;
(3) The maintenance of racially and ethnically segregated branches of schools;
(4) The assignment of teachers and staff to schools in such a way as to match the race of the faculty and staff with the race of the students attending the schools;
(5) The failure to design and implement an effective desegregation plan even when ordered to do so by a Federal Court and by the ISBE;

(6) The provision of inequitable transportation and access to transportation to students based upon their race and ethnic origin;
(7) The disproportionate placing of the burdens of desegregation on minority students;
(8) The disparate placement of facilities and equipment so as to burden minority students and not provide them with an equal educational opportunity; and
(9) The perpetuation of discriminatory conditions in the make-up of the Rockford Board of Education.
These practices, among others discussed in this order, occurred over a substantial period of time and in a substantial portion of the Rockford public schools and constituted a system-wide attempt to separate the races.
Intent0907 The Second Keyes Factor
The second principle established by Keyes is that there must be "a finding of intentionally segregative school board actions in a meaningful portion of a school system." 413 U.S. at 208, 93 S.Ct. at 2697. Justice Brennan's opinion defined purposeful segregation as the equivalent of de jure segregation. "We emphasize that the differentiating factor between de jure segregation and so-called de facto segregation ... is purpose or intent to segregate." Id. at 208, 93 S.Ct. at 2697. However, the Keyes Court did not fully explain the concept of "segregative intent."[37] The question of who must harbor the requisite intent, individual school officials or the institution of the school board, and whether the standard of proof is subjective or objective, remained unanswered.
During the time period immediately following the Court's decision in Keyes, lower courts interpreted the segregative intent of school officials in a variety of ways. Those courts decided cases based on the subjective segregative intent of: assistant superintendents, United States v. School Dist. of Omaha, 521 F.2d 530, 540 n. 20, 544 n. 30 (8th Cir.) cert. denied, 423 U.S. 946, 96 S.Ct. 361, 46 L.Ed.2d 280 (1975), superintendents, Amos v. Board of School Directors, 408 F.Supp. 765, 809 (E.D.Wis.1976), school board members, Soria v. Oxnard School Dist. Bd. of Trustees, 386 F.Supp. 539, 540-42 (C.D.Cal.1974), parents, Morgan v. Hennigan, 379 F.Supp. 410, 1200 427, 438 (D.Mass.), aff'd sub nom., Morgan v. Kerrigan, 509 *1200 F.2d 580 (1st Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 963, 95 S.Ct. 1950, 44 L.Ed.2d 449 (1975) and voters, United States v. Missouri, 515 F.2d 1365, 1370 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 951, 96 S.Ct. 374, 46 L.Ed.2d 288 (1975). Other courts interpreted Keyes as requiring institutional, rather than individual, intent. Oliver v. Michigan State Board of Education, 508 F.2d 178, 182 (6th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 963, 95 S.Ct. 1950, 44 L.Ed.2d 449 (1975); Hart v. Community School Board of Education, 512 F.2d 37, 50 (2nd Cir.1975); Arthur v. Nyquist, 573 F.2d 134 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 860, 99 S.Ct. 179, 58 L.Ed.2d 169 (1978).
Some of the language in the Keyes majority opinion appears to endorse the interpretation that segregative intent refers to the subjective motivation of individual school officials. See, Keyes, 413 U.S. at 233, 93 S.Ct. at 2709-10 (Powell, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (interpreting majority as referring to subjective intent of school authorities). However, the Court presumed that intent continued among successive boards, despite changes in the identity of individual members. The Court asserted that evidence of the illicit motivations of prior school board officials was relevant to the issue of their successors' decisions "where, as here, the case involves one school board." 413 U.S. at 207, 93 S.Ct. at 2697. Further, the reference to the "board's intent" as opposed to the intent of the members of the board indicate that the Court may have conceived of segregative intent as being institutional rather than individual. See id.
The institutional concept of segregative intent was furthered by the Court's decision in Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976). The Washington Court, citing Keyes, held that strict scrutiny would be applied only where a discriminatory impact on a suspect class was accompanied by a showing of invidious purpose. Id. at 242, 96 S.Ct. at 2049. The adoption of the Keyes segregative purpose requirement forced the Court to reconsider its earlier decision in Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217, 91 S.Ct. 1940, 29

L.Ed.2d 438 (1971), which rejected motivation as an element of equal protection analysis. In Palmer, the Court held that the segregative purposes of the Jackson, Mississippi, city councilmen could not invalidate an ordinance closing municipal swimming pools in the face of a desegregation order. Washington reconciled its adoption of the "discriminatory purpose" requirement with the holding in Palmer v. Thompson by interpreting Palmer as holding "that the legitimate purposes of the ordinance ... were not open to impeachment by evidence that the councilmen were actually motivated by racial considerations." Washington 426 U.S. at 242, 96 S.Ct. at 2049. The Washington Court's reading of Keyes suggests that segregative purpose or intent refers to the subjective motivation of the school board as an institution. This interpretation was fostered by the Court in Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 97 S.Ct. 555, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977):

Rarely can it be said that a legislature or administrative body operating under a broad mandate made a decision motivated solely by a single concern, or even that a particular purpose was the "dominant" or "primary" one. In fact, it is because legislators and administrators are properly concerned with balancing numerous competing considerations that courts refrain from reviewing the merits of their decisions, absent a showing of arbitrariness or irrationality.

Id. at 265, 97 S.Ct. at 563. The court holds that the Rockford School Board, as an institution, must be shown to have the requisite segregative intent for the Plaintiffs to prevail.

The court now turns to the question of which standard, objective or subjective, is to be used in order to find the requisite intent. The objective theory focuses on the natural and probable consequences of the actor's conduct, while the subjective theory focuses upon what the actor actually intended.

The post-hoc determination of why various acts and policies were undertaken in the past is often difficult and the subjective intent of a school board is, at best, a nebulous concept. Thus, some courts have found the institutional theory of intent problematic because they have looked to the motives of individuals in order to discern the purposes behind the public acts of a deliberative body.

1201

*1201 When we consider the motivation of people constituting a school board ... we are dealing with a collective will. It is difficult enough to find the collective mind of a group of legislators.... It is even harder to find the motivation of local citizens, many of whom would be as reluctant to admit that they have racial prejudice as to admit that they have no sense of humor.

Hart v. Community School Bd. of Educ., 512 F.2d 37, 50 (2nd Cir.1975); See also, Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976) (Stevens, J., concurring). In Arthur v. Nyquist, 573 F.2d 134 (2nd Cir.1978), the Second Circuit explained their earlier decision to reject the subjective standard.

In Hart, we rejected a purely subjective standard of proof because we were unable to make good sense of the notion of a "collective will" which "intends" a certain outcome, and because of the "injustice of ascribing a collective will to articulate remarks of particular bigots...." [W]e steered a course between objective and subjective theories of segregative intent by holding that foreseeable consequences, while not specifically identifiable with intention, can provide evidence for its presence.

Arthur, 573 F.2d at 142 (citation omitted).

The second circuit approach focused on the actions taken by the board itself and not on the mental processes of a changing group of school board members.

At least one other court had harbored similar misgivings attempting to determine the collective will by looking at the subjective motivations of individuals. In Oliver v. Michigan State Bd. of Educ., 508 F.2d 178 (6th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 963, 95 S.Ct. 1950, 44 L.Ed.2d 449 (1975), the Sixth Circuit avoided the problem by shifting the focus from what the individual actors intended to the foreseeable results of the school official's actions.

A presumption of segregative purpose arises when plaintiffs establish that the natural, probable, and foreseeable result of public officials' action or inaction was an increase or perpetuation of

public school segregation. The presumption becomes proof unless defendants affirmatively establish that their action or inaction was a consistent and resolute application of racially neutral policies.
Id. at 182.
The Supreme Court subsequently rejected the use of such a presumption as a means of establishing segregative intent or shifting the burden of persuasion on the intent issue to the defendant. Dayton Bd. of Educ. v. Brinkman, 443 U.S. 526, 536 n. 9, 99 S.Ct. 2971, 2978 n. 9, 61 L.Ed.2d 720 (1977). Nonetheless, the Court reaffirmed that "proof of foreseeable consequences is one type of quite relevant evidence of racially discriminatory purpose." Id. See also, Columbus Bd. of Educ. v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449, 464-65, 99 S.Ct. 2941, 2950, 61 L.Ed.2d 666 (1979) (foreseeable effect of decision is "one of the several kinds of proofs from which an inference of segregative intent may be properly drawn"); Alexander v. Youngstown Bd. of Educ., 675 F.2d 787, 792-93 (6th Cir.1982) (court may infer discriminatory intent from acts or policies with foreseeable segregative result; inference is permissible rather than mandatory).
The court interprets requisite segregative intent be the institutional intent of the Rockford School Board. Therefore, this court has focused upon what the institution, as actor, actually intended. Further, and upon close review of the Keyes, Washington and Arlington Heights opinions, this court interprets the Supreme Court as requiring the subjective theory of proof regarding segregatory intent. The relevant standard of proof for intent in this case is: Plaintiff must prove that a motivating institutional purpose of the Rockford School Board was to keep the races separate.
The court draws an analogy between the school board's institutional intent and the concept of legislative intent. "Legislative intent" is not usually reduced to the subjective intents or motives of individual legislators, but rather is conceived as a characteristic of the actions of legislatures as institutions. See, e.g., MacCallum, Legislative Intent, 75 Yale L.J. 754 (1966); See also, Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87, 130-31, 3 L.Ed. 162 (1810). Thus, given any specific school board policy or decision, the individual board member's subjective intent, and 1202 what subsequently *1202 becomes the school board's subjective institutional intent, may or may not be one in the same. "Legislation is frequently multipurposed: the removal of even a "subordinate purpose" may shift altogether the consensus of legislative judgment supporting the statute." Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266 n. 11, 97 S.Ct. at 563 n. 11 (citing McGinnis v. Royster, 410 U.S. 263, 276-77, 93 S.Ct. 1055, 1063, 35 L.Ed.2d 282 (1973)).
Further proof of discriminatory intent must not be confused with proof of evil motive, racial hostility or a subjective desire to harm minority children. Omaha, 521 F.2d at 535; Higgins, 508 F.2d at 793; Armstrong, 451 F.Supp. at 7; Morgan, 379 F.Supp. at 478. As noted in Oliver, "when constitutional right are involved, the issue is seldom whether public officials have acted with evil motives or whether they have consciously plotted with bigotry in their hearts to deprive citizens of the equal protection laws." 508 F.2d at 182. The required intent in relation to segregation is simply the intent to keep the races separate. Omaha, 521 F.2d at 535; Armstrong, 451 F.Supp. at 866. Such intent may be shown even when there is no desire to inflict educational harm upon any racial group. Id.
The issue of the presence or absence of unlawful intent is one of fact. Armstrong v. O'Connell, 451 F.Supp. at 822. The ultimate determination of segregative intent rests upon examination of the record as a whole, including the multiplicity and cumulative effect of the defendant's policies and practices. Morgan, 379 F.Supp. at 479. A plaintiff may prove intent by direct, indirect or circumstantial evidence. Armstrong, 451 F.Supp. at 826; Berry, 442 F.Supp. at 1291; Lansing, 429 F.Supp. at 590. Since direct evidence is difficult to obtain, ordinarily only circumstantial evidence is available to establish segregative intent. Diaz, 733 F.2d at 662.
In the context of school desegregation cases, courts have cited a myriad of factors that by themselves or in combination with other facts support an inference of discriminatory intent. Evidence of the foreseeable segregative impact of decisions is one type of circumstantial evidence supporting an inference of segregative intent. See Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266, 97 S.Ct. at 563-64. Arlington Heights identifies several other types of evidence this court has used that supports the inference of intent:

1) "[T]he historical background of the decision ..., particularly if it reveals a series of official actions taken for invidious purposes;"
2) "the specific sequence of events leading up to the challenged decision;"
3) "contemporary statements by members of the decision making body, minutes of its meetings or reports;"
4) "departures from the normal procedural sequence;"
5) "substantive departures [from prior policies] ... particularly if the factors usually considered important by the decision maker strongly favor a decision contrary to the one reached;" and
6) "[t]he legislative or administrative history ... especially where there are contemporary statements by members of the decision making body, minutes of its meetings, or reports."
Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266-69, 97 S.Ct. at 563-66. The Supreme Court explicitly recognized this list as being non-exhaustive of the potential factors probative of intent. Id. at 268, 97 S.Ct. at 565.
Of particular significance in assessing whether segregation is the result of intentional acts is whether there is evidence of "classic" segregative techniques, including: intact busing; busing minorities to racially identifiable minority schools that are further away than majority schools with extra capacity; use of optional or multiple attendance zones; the existence of disparities between the physical quality of minority and majority schools; gerrymandering of attendance zones; and discriminatory use of transfer policies. Higgins, 508 F.2d at 787. In the present case, as the foregoing sections have shown, the RSD has engaged in all of these segregative practices.
In evaluating the cause of segregated conditions, a court must be sensitive to meaningful patterns of behavior by government agencies. Parents Ass'n of Andrew Jackson High v. Ambach, 598 F.2d 705, 713 (2d Cir. 1979); 1203 Oliver, 368 F.Supp. at 163. Although each school board decision taken alone might *1203 not compel the conclusion that the school board intended to foster segregation, the decisions taken together may lead to the conclusion that a purposeful pattern of racial discrimination existed. United States v. Bd. of School Commissioners of Indianapolis, 474 F.2d 81, 84 (7th Cir.1973); Oliver, 368 F.Supp. at 163. This rule is derived from the evidentiary rule that if actions having a particular effect are repeated, the inference is stronger that the effect of the actions was intended. See, Yonkers, 624 F.Supp. at 1294; 2 Wigmore, Evidence, § 312 (3d Ed.1940).
Based upon an examination of the record as a whole, including the multiplicity and cumulative effect of the RSD's policies and practices, the court concludes that the RSD's conduct in eleven of the twelve areas covered by the foregoing findings[38] was undertaken with unlawful intent.
The Scope of Liability 0907 Once the Keyes Factors Have Been Established
When intent and causation are established, the Keyes court advanced two presumptions to aid a trial court in determining the scope of liability. The first Keyes presumption is that:
[C]ommon sense dictates the conclusion that racially inspired school board actions have an impact beyond the particular schools that are the subjects of those actions. This is not to say, of course, that there can never be a case in which the geographical structure of, or the natural boundaries within, a school district may have the effect of dividing the district into separate, identifiable and unrelated units. Such a determination is essentially a question of fact to be resolved by the trial court in the first instance, but such cases must be rare. In the absence of such a determination, proof of state-imposed segregation in a substantial portion of the district will suffice to support a finding by the trial court of the existence of a dual system.

413 U.S. at 203, 93 S.Ct. at 2695 (emphasis added).
The second presumption established in Keyes is that:
[A] finding of intentionally segregative school board actions in a meaningful portion of a school system ... creates a presumption that other segregated schooling within the system is not adventitious. It establishes, in other words, a prima facie case of unlawful segregative design on the part of school authorities, and shifts to those authorities the burden of proving that other segregated schools within the system are not also the result of intentionally segregative actions.
....
... [I]t is not enough, of course, that the school authorities rely upon some allegedly logical, racially neutral explanation for their actions. Their burden is to adduce proof sufficient to support a finding that segregative intent was not among the factors that motivated their actions.
413 U.S. at 208, 210, 93 S.Ct. at 2697, 2698.
On the factual record established in this case, both principles are operative. First, since Plaintiffs have proven state-imposed segregation in a substantial portion of the RSD, a finding that the RSD has operated as a dual system is warranted. Second, inasmuch as Plaintiffs have proven intentionally segregative conduct by the RSD in a meaningful portion of the school system, a presumption arises that other segregated conditions and discriminatory conduct in the system were not adventitious. This shifts the burden to the RSD to establish that these other conditions and conduct were not intentional. The RSD has completely failed to meet this burden. The court will discuss the actual and implied defenses offered by the RSD.
Liability For The Conduct Of Agents And Employees
Defendants have argued that they should not be held accountable for conduct of individual employees because the conduct was not taken pursuant to official policy of the Board. This argument has been made by other defendants. See Yonkers, 624 F.Supp. at 1447 n. 112; Armstrong, 451 F.Supp. at 847. The reason that this argument is incorrect is because the liability of a school board in a school desegregation case is not predicated on a theory of respondeat superior. Yonkers, 624 F.Supp. at 1447 n. 112.
1204 *1204 In Yonkers, the court explicitly rejected the school board's argument that it could not be held liable for the individual acts of employees (principals, guidance counselors and teachers) because the acts were not pursuant to official board policy. Id. The district court held that the defendant's liability was "not predicated on an isolated instance of unauthorized discriminatory conduct against an individual victim but on the Board's conduct in the face of a pattern of discriminatory acts and omissions over time." Id.; see also, Turpin v. Mailet, 619 F.2d 196 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016, 101 S.Ct. 577, 66 L.Ed.2d 475 (1980); Owens v. Haas, 601 F.2d 1242 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 980, 100 S.Ct. 483, 62 L.Ed.2d 407 (1979). Imposing liability in these circumstances comports with the general rule that a municipality may be held liable for the unconstitutional acts of its employees in circumstances where there was a continued widespread pattern of such conduct. See, e.g., Brown v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 923 F.2d 1474, 1480-81 (11th Cir.1991); Spell v. McDaniel, 824 F.2d 1380, 1387 (4th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1027, 108 S.Ct. 752, 98 L.Ed.2d 765 (1988). In Yonkers, the fact that the school board's conduct, in the face of a pattern of discriminatory acts and omissions over time, was consistent with its own segregative practices, strengthened the basis for holding the school board legally responsible for the discriminatory conduct of its employees. Yonkers, 624 F.Supp. at 1447, n. 112.
An additional reason for rejecting this defense was noted in Armstrong. In that case, the defendant school board argued that it should not be held liable for the decision by individual school principals to have segregated recesses. 451 F.Supp. at 847. Despite the fact that the school board never had a policy requiring separate recesses, the district court held the school board accountable for the actions of the principals stating: "The requirements of the Constitution cannot be avoided by a fragmentation of authority among various government agents." Id.

Natural Residential Segregation/Neighborhood Schools Defense
Defendant's response to the overwhelming evidence brought forth by Plaintiffs was minimal at best. Defendant suggested that its actions over the past thirty years were, for the most part, motivated by the racially benign policy of neighborhood schools. Defendants argued that it should not be held liable because the segregated conditions in its schools arose from a combination of residential segregation, including the impact of public housing, and the neighborhood school policy, rather than Defendant's intentional segregative conduct. Defendant's defense is completely unavailing in this action.
The interrelationship between racial segregation in the schools and residential segregation has been recognized in many school desegregation cases. See Freeman v. Pitts, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 1430, 118 L.Ed.2d 108 (1992); Columbus Bd. of Educ. v. Penick, 443 U.S. at 465 n. 13, 99 S.Ct. at 2950 n. 13; Keyes, 413 U.S. at 202, 93 S.Ct. at 2694; United States v. Bd. of School Commissioners of Indianapolis, 573 F.2d 400, 408-09 n. 20 (7th Cir.1978); Lansing, 559 F.2d at 1049 n. 9; Armstrong v. O'Connell, 463 F.Supp. at 1307; Hart, 383 F.Supp. at 706. These cases observe that "housing and school patterns feed on each other." Hart, 383 F.Supp. at 706.
As a general matter, assigning children to schools in their neighborhoods does not offend the Constitution. See, e.g., Lansing, 559 F.2d at 1049; Higgins, 508 F.2d at 790. The application of a neighborhood school policy is supported by a variety of nondiscriminatory considerations and therefore may generally be considered a permissive form of action. See Keyes, 413 U.S. at 245-48, 93 S.Ct. at 2715-17 (Powell, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); United States v. Texas Education Agency, 564 F.2d 162, 168-69 & n. 9 (5th Cir.1977); Lansing, 559 F.2d at 1049; Deal v. Cincinnati Bd. of Educ., 369 F.2d 55, 60 (6th Cir.1966).
First, as long recognized in this Circuit, a valid neighborhood school doctrine presupposes "innocently arrived at" de facto segregation with "no intention or purpose" of segregating minority students. United States v. School District No. 151 of Cook County, 404 F.2d 1125, 1130 (7th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 943, 91 S.Ct. 1610, 29 L.Ed.2d 111 (1971). If, on the other hand, the school board made discriminatory decisions and followed 1205 discriminatory practices that contributed *1205 to the racial identifiability of the schools, the neighborhood school policy offers no defense. Board of School Commissioners of Indianapolis, 474 F.2d at 84. In fact, maintenance of a neighborhood school policy in such circumstances provides additional grounds for inferring segregative intent. Keyes, 413 U.S. at 208, 93 S.Ct. at 2697; Yonkers, 837 F.2d at 1229; Morgan, 379 F.Supp. at 473-74. As noted by Judge Bauer in the QUEFAC litigation: "All things being equal, it might well be desirable to assign pupils to schools nearest their homes. But all things are not equal in a system that has been deliberately constructed and maintained to enforce racial segregation." Quality Education For All Children, Inc. v. School Bd. of School Dist. No. 205 of Winnebago County, Illinois, 385 F.Supp. 803, 809 (N.D.Ill.1974). The litany of segregative conduct for which Defendant is guilty precludes a valid neighborhood school/residential segregation defense.[39]
Second, the neighborhood school defense is available only if the neighborhood school policy is a genuine one and is applied in a consistent manner. Yonkers, 624 F.Supp. at 1381. If a defendant's adherence to a neighborhood school policy is selective, and there is a pattern of deviations or manipulations which exacerbate the racial identifiability of the schools, the court should infer segregative intent. Yonkers, 837 F.2d at 1229. In the present case, the RSD had no coherent or consistent "neighborhood school" policy. For example, the RSD considered the gargantuan 1989 mega-school boundary extending from the Rock River on the east to Meridian Road on the west, and from Montague Street on the south to north of Auburn Street, a "neighborhood school." Similarly, the RSD's purported "neighborhood school" policy was no impediment to satellite attendance zones, the one-way busing of minority students (such as the Muldoon-Ellis students) or the intact busing of minority bilingual education students.
Third, the RSD made segregative student assignment and school construction decisions where less segregative alternatives were available and could have been implemented without violating a neighborhood school policy. Diaz, 733 F.2d at 665; Reed, 455 F.Supp. at 556; Lansing, 429 F.Supp. at 624. This consideration recognizes the distinction between a policy requiring students to attend schools within neighborhood attendance areas and the decisions relating to the siting of schools and drawing of attendance zones. While a school district may insist that

it follows a neighborhood school policy, "it must be emphasized that generally the Board defines the `neighborhood' when it draws the boundaries." Diaz, 733 F.2d at 665; Lansing, 429 F.Supp. at 624. In the present case, the RSD's pattern of segregative school construction and attendance zone decisions were inconsistent with a viable neighborhood school defense.
Finally, the RSD's neighborhood school defense was unsupported by evidence in the record and was actually at odds with the demographic evidence submitted at the liability hearing. Dr. Lichtman's testimony indicates that residential segregation in Rockford decreased during the 1970's and 1980's. (Lichtman Dep. Ex. 2; see also, Walhout Test., Tr. at 482) During the 1980's, however, segregation in RSD schools increased (whereas in 1980-1981, 46.14% of minority elementary students attended schools with minority enrollments 15% greater than the district average, in 1988-89, 56.66% of minority elementary students attended such schools). Under these circumstances, it is hardly tenable for the RSD to blame the increasingly segregated conditions in the schools on decreasingly segregated residential housing. The direct and clearly predominant cause of segregation in RSD schools was the pervasive pattern of affirmative segregative conduct by the RSD, and not residential segregation.
1206 *1206 Incremental Segregative Effect
In school desegregation cases where only a few discrete and isolated incidents of discrimination are established, a court must determine how much incremental segregative effect the violations had on the racial distribution compared to what would have occurred in the absence of the violations. Dayton Bd. of Educ. v. Brinkman, 433 U.S. 406, 420, 97 S.Ct. 2766, 2775-76, 53 L.Ed.2d 851 (1977). However, when the violations proven are widespread, as in this case, a plaintiff need not "prove with respect to each individual act of discrimination precisely what effect it has had on current patterns of segregation." Dayton Bd. of Educ. v. Brinkman, 443 U.S. 526, 540, 99 S.Ct. 2971, 2980, 61 L.Ed.2d 720 (1979) ("Dayton II"); United States v. Board of School Commissioners, 637 F.2d 1101, 1113 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 838, 101 S.Ct. 114, 66 L.Ed.2d 45 (1980). Moreover, the policies of systemwide application in this case necessarily had systemwide impact. Penick, 443 U.S. at 466-67, 99 S.Ct. at 2951. Thus, Plaintiffs need not show the incremental segregative effect of violations in this action.
Equitable Relief Is Appropriate
To be entitled to permanent injunctive relief, a plaintiff not only must prevail on the merits of its claim but also must carry the burden of what is referred to as "balancing the equities" or as drawing the "balance of convenience". 7 Moore's ¶ 65.18[3], at 65-136. As the Supreme Court put it in Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 506-07, 79 S.Ct. 948, 954-55, 3 L.Ed.2d 988 (1959): "The basis of injunctive relief in the federal courts has always been irreparable harm and inadequacy of legal remedies."
Moore's explicitly (and Beacon Theatres implicitly) suggest that a district court considering a permanent injunction should apply the same criteria our court of appeals has required for preliminary injunctive relief, substituting actual victory on the merits for a mere reasonable likelihood of success. See, e.g., United States v. Rural Electric Convenience Co-Op. Co., 922 F.2d 429, 432 (7th Cir.1991).
Applying these principles to the present case, Plaintiffs meet the burden with regard to each of the criteria:
1. Plaintiffs have prevailed on the merits of their claim and have established that the Defendant has violated the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs;
2. Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the balance of equities weighs in favor of the grant of injunctive relief, inasmuch as:
a. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law;
b. Plaintiffs face irreparable injury in the absence of injunctive relief;

c. No undue or unnecessary hardship is placed on Defendant by requiring it to carry out its affirmative duty to remedy the effects of its intentionally segregative and discriminatory acts; and,
d. The public interest is best served by granting permanent injunctive relief.
3. There are no inherent difficulties in shaping injunctive relief that is appropriate, narrowly tailored and adequate to protect Plaintiffs' rights.
A federal court in a school desegregation case has broad remedial authority and may employ its full equitable powers upon determining that intentional systemwide segregation or discrimination has occurred. Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 280-81, 97 S.Ct. 2749, 2757, 53 L.Ed.2d 745 (1977). A school desegregation remedy should be tailored to the nature and scope of the constitutional violation and designed to restore the victims to the position they would have occupied had the discrimination not occurred. Id. Within these parameters, however, a district court may order remedial programs even in areas in which intentional discrimination has not existed if it concludes that the remedy is necessary to "treat the condition that offends the Constitution" and that the "constitutional violation caused the condition for which remedial programs are mandated." Id. at 282, 286 n. 17, 287, 97 S.Ct. at 2758, 2760 n. 17, 2760-61. Each action of the school system, even though not unconstitutional in itself or prompted by discriminatory motives, may be examined by a district court and set aside if it interferes with efforts to desegregate the system. Wright v. Council of City of Emporia, 407 U.S. 451, 462, 92 S.Ct. 2196, 2203, 33 L.Ed.2d 51 (1972).
1207 *1207 In recognition of their desire to maintain a stable remedial framework in this case, the parties have concurred and voluntarily consented that all present and future remedial matters in this case, without limitation, shall be referred to the Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) and (c)(3), and under the Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
CONCLUSION
If one factor is uniform in a continuing series of events that are brought to pass through human intervention, the law would have to have the blindness of indifference rather than the blindness of impartiality not to attribute the uniform factor to man's purpose. The purpose may not be of evil intent or in conscious disregard of what is conceived to be a binding duty. Prohibited conduct may result from misconception of what duty requires.[40]
It is the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that an appropriate Injunction and Declaratory Order be entered by the District Court. Further, the Magistrate Judge recommends that, pursuant to the consent of the parties and Order of this court, this matter be referred to the Magistrate Judge for a remedial hearing in the near future.
DEFINITIONS
The court hereby finds and does employ the following definitions throughout this opinion:
1) "The Academy": Gifted program at Auburn High School.
2) "The Board": Rockford Board of Education, School District # 205.
3) "CAPA": Creative And Performing Arts alternative program.
4) "CASS": Career Awareness and Survival Skills alternative remedial program.
5) "CDB" and/or "CDB Capacity": Capital Development Board capacities for schools as indicated in the Final Report Facility Utilization Study, Rockford School District # 205, dated November, 1980.

6) "CDC": The Community Desegregation Committee formed by the Rockford Board of Education in 1973 to develop desegregation plans.
7) "Desegregated School" or "Integrated School": Having a school minority population of not more than 15% above and not less than 50% of the district-wide minority population percentage for that category or level of school in a given year.
8) "The District": Rockford School District # 205.
9) District Quadrants: The terms "Northeast Quadrant", "Northwest Quadrant", "Southeast Quadrant" and "Southwest Quadrant" have been employed by the Rockford School District in describing the areas of the District and are adopted by the court. The east/west boundary of the Quadrants is the Rock River; the north/south boundary west of the Rock River is Auburn Street; the north/south boundary east of the Rock River is State Street to Charles Street, then southeast on Charles Street to Alpine Road, then north to State Street.
10) "GIT": Get It Together alternative remedial program.
11) "ISBE": The Illinois State Board of Education. On January 13, 1975, the former Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction transferred its powers and duties to the Illinois State Board of Education. Therefore, the use of the term "ISBE" refers to the current State Board of Education as well as its predecessor, the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
12) "Minority": African-Americans, Hispanics, Asian-Americans and Native Americans either individually or collectively as specified within the opinion.
1208 *1208 13) "PPC": Pupil Placement Committee of the Rockford Board of Education, District # 205.
14) "Racially Identifiable Minority School" and/or "Minority School": Having a school minority population of more than 15% above the district-wide minority population percentage for that category or level of school in a given year.
15) "Racially Identifiable White School" and/or "White School": Having a minority school population of less than 50% of the district-wide minority population percentage for that category or level of school in a given year.
16) "RAES": Rockford Alternative Elementary School alternative magnet program.
17) "RAMS": Rockford Alternative Middle School alternative magnet program.
18) "RBE": Rockford Board of Education, School District # 205.
19) "REA": Rockford Education Association.
20) "RSD": Rockford School District # 205.
21) "SCSE": Self-Contained Special Education programs.
22) "Segregation": The separation of students by race or ethnicity regardless of the intent or motivation for doing so.
23) "TDC": Teacher Development Center formerly located at Welsh School in the Rockford School District #205.
24) "Title I" or "Chapter I": Refers to Federal grant monies and programs to be used to meet the special educational needs of disadvantaged children pursuant to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, 20 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq.
[13] If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.

Rule 702. Federal Rules of Evidence. Testimony by Experts.
[13] If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
Rule 702. Federal Rules of Evidence. Testimony by Experts.
[13] If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
Rule 702. Federal Rules of Evidence. Testimony by Experts.
[13] If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
Rule 702. Federal Rules of Evidence. Testimony by Experts.
[13] If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
Rule 702. Federal Rules of Evidence. Testimony by Experts.
[13] If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
Rule 702. Federal Rules of Evidence. Testimony by Experts.
[13] If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
Rule 702. Federal Rules of Evidence. Testimony by Experts.
[13] If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
Rule 702. Federal Rules of Evidence. Testimony by Experts.
[14] Dr. Heald testified that he agreed with Dr. Oakes's conclusions that Rockford's procedure of how it places students in ability group tracking did not fit the theory of how students should be ability grouped.
[13] If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
Rule 702. Federal Rules of Evidence. Testimony by Experts.
[13] If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
Rule 702. Federal Rules of Evidence. Testimony by Experts.

[14] Dr. Heald testified that he agreed with Dr. Oakes's conclusions that Rockford's procedure of how it places students in ability group tracking did not fit the theory of how students should be ability grouped.
[15] "[Dr. Oakes] examined a broad range of objective documentary material provided by the District. Her analyses included data tapes of the 1st through 6th grades for the years 1986 and 1987. She also reviewed the 10th and 12th grades for the same years. In addition, she examined middle school student data from 1988-89 and 1989-90. The data tapes examined by Dr. Oakes, therefore, cover the time period 1987 through 1990." Report and Recommendation at 940.
[16] The defendant's intent is what is at issue here, not its motivation. "[W]hen constitutional rights are involved, the issue is seldom whether public officials have acted with evil motives or whether they have consciously plotted with bigotry in their hearts to deprive citizens of the equal protection of the laws." Oliver v. Michigan State Bd. of Educ., 508 F.2d 178, 182 (6th Cir.1974). Intent may be proven even when there is no desire to inflict educational harm upon any racial group. Armstrong v. O'Connell, 451 F.Supp. 817, 866 (E.D.Wis.1978).
[17] Quality Education For All Children, Inc. v. School Board, 362 F.Supp. 985 (N.D.Ill.1973) ("QUEFAC").
[18] Rule 701. Federal Rules of Evidence. Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses.
[19] The court notes that many of these witnesses may have easily been qualified to testify as expert witnesses on certain aspects of this case and specifically on the disparities in facilities and equipment. Dr. and Mrs. Shaheen would certainly be well-qualified as would Marcella Harris and Carl Towns, both former Board Members and all of the witnesses who were former teachers in the District. See Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
[20] One can only speculate on what the District's action would have been if this were a school serving majority, rather than minority students.
[21] The Board was informed by Superintendent Shaheen, the QUEFAC plaintiffs, and board member Michael Williams, of the disparate effects of its gifts policy, and in its 1989 Reorganization Plan, publicly recognized these disparate effects. Report and Recommendation at 1094; Pl.Prop. Findings at 21-22 of "Facilities & Equipment".
[22] The Illinois School Code requires that a: "school board may, on its own motion, or shall, upon the petition of the lesser of 2,500 or 5% (the statute, as originally passed, required that the petition be signed by the lesser of 1000 or 10% of the voters registered in the district. These numbers were changed to "the lesser of 2500 or 5% in 1975) of the voters registered in the district, order submitted to the voters of the district at a regular school election or at the general election, the proposition for the election of board members by school board district rather than at large, and such proposition shall thereupon be certified by the secretary of the board for submission. If the proposition is approved by a majority of those voting on the proposition, the board shall divide the school district into 7 school board districts, each of which must be compact and contiguous and substantially equal in population to each other district." 105 ILCS 5/9-22 (1993).
[23] For a full understanding of the Magistrate Judge's finding see pp. 1179-81 of the Report and Recommendation.
[24] See Order of April 8, 1993 (Docket No. 1114). This order affirmed the Magistrate Judge's order allowing the admission of evidence of actions after May 11, 1989, (the date of the filing of this lawsuit) upon a showing of a close relationship between such post-May 1989 evidence and the defendant's intent prior to that date.
[25] The court had previously found that the defendant expressed to the court its good faith willingness to alter its adopted map to conform to the dictates of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. See Order of September 12, 1991 (Docket No. 498).
[26] Courts have agreed that segregative intent should not be confused with proof of evil motive, racial hostility or subjective desire to harm minority children. United States v. School District of Omaha, 521 F.2d 530, 535 (8th Cir.1975) Higgins v. Board of Education, 508 F.2d 779, 793 (6th Cir.1974); Armstrong v. O'Connell, 451 F.Supp. 817, 822 (D.C.Wis.1978); Morgan v. Hennigan, 379 F.Supp. 410, 478 (D.Mass.), aff'd sub nom, Morgan v. Kerrigan, 509 F.2d 580 (1st Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 963, 95 S.Ct. 1950, 44 L.Ed.2d 449 (1975). The

required intent is simply the intent to keep the races separate. Omaha, 521 F.2d at 535; Armstrong, 451 F.Supp. at 822. Conduct motivated by such intent is actionable even when there is no desire to inflict educational harm upon any racial group. Id.
[27] This is, of course, an equitable action in which the plaintiffs request injunctive relief. The court is the finder of fact and no Seventh Amendment right to a jury is implicated. See Wooddell v. International Broth. of Elec. Workers, Local 71, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 494, 116 L.Ed.2d 419 (1991).
[28] A federal court in a school desegregation case has broad remedial authority and may employ its full equitable powers upon determining that intentional systemwide segregation or discrimination has occurred. Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 280-81, 97 S.Ct. 2749, 2757-58, 53 L.Ed.2d 745 (1977).
[29] Dr. Oakes expertise, integrity and credentials were acknowledged by Defendant's lead counsel, Mr. Anthony Scariano. Tr. at 318, 322.
[30] Dr. Oakes gave an interesting account of the history of tracking. The court refers those who desire further background to the transcript of her testimony found within the court record at Oakes Test., Tr. at 822-830.
[31] The court notes that the RSD's system of tracking was very visible. Dr. Oakes in particular mentioned that, at times, the Rockford School system used colored forms for a child to take home that showed the ability level of the child. Dr. Oakes described this as "quite astonishing." Id. at 849.
[32] Dr. Oakes pointed out that there was no empirical evidence to support any of these assumptions and, in fact, indicated that the empirical data that does exist is leaning toward the conclusion that what one learns is not a function of who is sitting next to you in class.
[33] Intelligence is developmental. Children learn to be intelligent as their interests and interactions change. Human beings can expand their intelligence. The notion of measuring someone's intelligence at one point, then putting that student in a situation based on that measurement and tailoring instruction for their particular amount of intelligence as if it cannot ever be changed, is something that is generally discredited.
[1] Full-site programs, in theory, place transfer students into a school's regular classrooms. In contrast, a partialsite program places students in classrooms separate from the regular students in the school where transfer students may not have much contact with regular students.
[34] Overcrowding of east side secondary (and some elementary) schools existed in the RSD for at least three decades. Never in the history of the RSD were students from a racially-identifiable white school mandatorily assigned to any of the less crowded integrated or racially-identifiable African-American schools. The only such assignments were voluntary as part of the integration programs of the 1970's and 1980's.
[35] Three years later, the Community Desegregation Committee premised its comprehensive desegregation plan on school pairing. B33030 The Community Desegregation Committee Proposal based on school pairing was rejected by the RBE in 1973. See B500511-B500514.
[36] Data for the intervening year is unavailable.
[37] Members of the Community Education Committee were openly opposed to all busing for integration purposes. Jo Minor Dep. at 23-24; see also, B506157; B506198; B506118. Rather, members were in favor of neighborhood schools and were opposed to Federal involvement in the RSD. Id.
[38] RSD contracts with the REA frequently called for school capacities well in excess of CDB capacity, so-called "contract capacities."
[39] Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, 20 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.
[40] Lines represent trends fitted using least squares regression.

[] On the rare occasion that the Board exercised discretion over allocation of gifts, the Board did not take the opportunity to redress the EMS imbalance between African-American and white schools. Instead, the Board aggravated the imbalances by allocating to predominantly white schools the PTO funds from the closed Highland School, which was predominantly white. No African-American schools that received the minority Highland school closing students received any PTO funds from the closed school. In other words, funds from the Highland School PTO never followed, not even in proportion to their enrollment, minority students who were sent back to Southwest side schools. Driscoll Memo, 9/19/81, B46539.
[] This information is based on a review of Board Minutes from the stated time periods and has been stipulated to by the parties.
[] Average racial composition of the three schools to which Vandercook students would be assigned. February 28 Plan at 6, B509184.
[] Although the figures reported by the District show the percentage of minority employment for certified employees is 7% in 1974-75, that figure is rounded-off. Using the actual reported numbers, the percentage is 7.24%, the same percentage as in 1991-92.
[] Schools listed above the first set of double lines are racially identifiable African-American schools; schools listed between the sets of double lines are integrated schools; and schools listed below the second set of double lines are racially identifiable white schools.
[] Id.
[] Schools listed above the double lines are integrated; schools listed below the double lines are racially identifiable white schools.
[] See, supra, note 17.
[] Id.
[] Plaintiffs' Proposed Findings suggested there were 32 African-American teachers employed at the elementary school level. In reviewing Plaintiffs' Proposed Finding and the tables and calculations involved, there was an apparent arithmetic error. The court utilized the total found within the subsequent table and re-calculated the percentages found within this paragraph.
[] Using 1968-69 enrollment data in response to Justice Department and 1968-69 School Directory.
[] See, supra, note 19.
[] See, supra, note 17.
[] Id.
[] See, supra, note 19.
[] Information omitted from the proposed findings presented to the court.
[] See, supra, note 17.
[] Id.
[] The RSD introduced no credible or material evidence that proved to this court that these staff assignment patterns were the result of the RSD's desire to provide African-American role models to African-American students or the insistence of African-American teachers that they teach in schools with high African-American enrollments. See Martin Test., Tr. at 2510-12. Generally, it was not true that African-American teachers desired to be placed in or transferred to schools with high African-American enrollments. Such circumstances would be legally insufficient in any event. Morgan, 379 F.Supp. at 461.

[] "Regular" students were students who lived within the Guilford High School attendance boundaries and qualified for Board-paid transportation.
[] Marcella Harris served as an elected Board member for 5 years (1965-70). Carl Towns served as an appointed Board member for approximately 2.5 years (2 years, four months, August of 1981 to November of 1983). Michael Williams served as an appointed and elected Board member for 4 years and 9 months (March 26, 1985 to November 1989).
No non-incumbent African American candidate was ever elected to the RBE during the period 1965-1989. Marcella Harris was elected after her initial appointment by the Mayor. Michael Williams was elected after his initial appointment to fill a vacancy on the RBE. Carl Towns was elected after his initial appointment to fill a vacancy on the RBE.
[] In addition to the aforementioned attempts, on January 12, 1976, the Board discussed election of School Board members by geographic area. The Board refused to exercise its option under Section 9-22 of the Illinois School Code of placing the issue by Board resolution on the ballot for the upcoming election.
In March, 1976, a petition for election of School Board members by district was presented to the Board by VOICE, Volunteer Organization to Improve Community Efforts, but was twice rejected as not containing the required number of signatures to place the issue on the ballot. The Board itself then placed the issue on the ballot by Board resolution. That referendum to change School Board elections from an at-large system to elections by geographic sub-district was defeated at the polls.
From 1976 to 1981, the RBE took no action in regard to the issue of election by sub-district. On July 27, 1981, Board member Bates moved to place the issue of election by geographic subdistrict on the next election ballot. Upon seconding of the motion and its passage, Bates then moved to table the motion, thus precluding RBE consideration of the issue.
On August 29, 1983, the RBE received petitions seeking placement of the issue of election by subdistrict on the next election ballot. Because the petitions did not contain a sufficient number of signatures, County Auditor Michael Rotello addressed the RBE asking them to place the issue on the next ballot by Board resolution. The Board took no action with regard to the recommendation of Mr. Rotello.
[] Pursuant to the court's order regarding the admission of post-1989 evidence, the court finds this evidence on the electoral sub-districting to be sufficiently relevant and related to Defendant's actions prior to the filing of this lawsuit to be considered by the court. Plaintiffs have shown a pattern of conduct that began prior to 1989 and this information merely completes the circle.
[] Courts have agreed that segregative intent should not be confused with proof of evil motive, racial hostility or subjective desire to harm minority children. United States v. School District of Omaha, 521 F.2d 530, 535 (8th Cir.1975); Higgins v. Board of Education, 508 F.2d 779, 793 (6th Cir.1974); Armstrong v. O'Connell, 451 F.Supp. 817, 822; Morgan v. Hennigan, 379 F.Supp. 410, 478 (D.Mass.), aff'd sub nom, Morgan v. Kerrigan, 509 F.2d 580 (1st Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 963, 95 S.Ct. 1950, 44 L.Ed.2d 449 (1975). The required intent is simply the intent to keep the races separate. Omaha, 521 F.2d at 535; Armstrong, 451 F.Supp. at 822. Conduct motivated by such intent is actionable even when there is no desire to inflict educational harm upon any racial group. Id.
[] The court has not found intent in regard to the section entitled Special Education.
[] Moreover, a neighborhood school defense is at best only a partial defense in a school desegregation case. See Morgan, 379 F.Supp. at 470. Neither a neighborhood school policy nor residential segregation can absolve school officials for unrelated practices undertaken with unlawful intent, such as segregated faculty and staff assignments. Id. In the present case, the RSD engaged in numerous segregative and discriminatory practices unrelated to the assignment of students to particular schools.
[] Cassell v. Texas, 339 U.S. 282, 293, 70 S.Ct. 629, 634-35, 94 L.Ed. 839 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., concurring) (Equal protection challenge to a grand jury selection system that resulted in the virtual exclusion of African-

Americans from grand juries. Justice Frankfurter was responding to the state's argument that its jury commissioners had been acting in good faith when they chose only whites to serve.)
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. #205, Not Reported in F.Supp....

1991 WL 166960 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, N.D. Illinois.
PEOPLE WHO CARE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHOOL DISTRICT # 205, Defendant.
No. 89 C 20168. | Jan. 14, 1991.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Robert C. Howard, Hartunian Futterman & Howard, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.
John Schmidt, Conde, Stoner & Killoren, Rockford, Ill., Anthony Scariano, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chicago Heights, Ill., for defendant.
Stephen G. Katz, Katz, Friedman, Schur & Eagle, Chicago, Ill., for Intervenor, Rockford Board of Education.
Opinion
ORDER OF REFERENCE
ROSZKOWSKI, District Judge.
*1 In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53, the inherent equitable powers of this court, the Interim Agreed Order entered in this case on July 7, 1989 and the provisions of this Order of Reference, Dr. Eugene Eubanks (hereinafter “Special Master”) is hereby appointed to serve as a Special Master (a) to evaluate Defendant’s compliance with the July 1989 Order; (b) to monitor Defendant’s implementation of and to advise this court on Defendant’s compliance with the plan to effectuate the July 1989 Order and (c) to recommend a remedy for any deficiencies in Defendant’s compliance with that Order. Special Master shall have the responsibilities and powers specified in the following paragraphs of this Order.
Special Master shall have four principal duties:
(1) to examine in detail and to evaluate Defendant’s compliance with the July 1989 Order, including the issues brought forth in Plaintiffs’ October 1990 contempt petition, and to report to the court as promptly as possible with recommendations on this subject. (As part of this duty, Special Master is authorized to fully examine and

evaluate Defendant’s implementation of and compliance with Paragraph III.C.8 of the July 1989 Order, and to make recommendations with respect thereto;
(2) to develop, by a date certain to be determined by this court, a recommended remedial plan (using such input from consultants, experts, the parties and others as Special Master deems appropriate), to be presented to this court as a proposed remedial order, in order to fully effectuate the July 1989 Order and to recommend a fair and effective remedy for the Plaintiff class for any deficiencies in Defendant’s compliance with the July 1989 Order;
(3) to supervise implementation by Defendant of the July 1989 Order and this court’s supplemental remedial order;
(4) to report periodically to this court regarding Defendant’s compliance with the two remedial orders and the other orders of this court that have been and may be entered in this action, and to recommend to this court such modifications and alterations in the remedial orders as appear necessary and proper.
Special Master shall have the authority to employ all necessary administrative, clerical and support staff. All such persons, as well as the amount of their compensation, shall be approved by this court in advance of their employment. In addition, with advance permission of this court as to the persons and their compensation, Special Master may hire monitors, consultants and experts to consult with him and otherwise to assist him in fulfilling the duties and responsibilities assigned to him by this order. All costs of such staff, monitors, consultants and experts, as approved by this court, shall be paid by Defendant.
Special Master shall have all of the rights and powers provided under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53. Specifically, and not by way of limitation, Special Master and (when authorized and directed by Special Master) his monitors, consultants, experts and members of his staff shall have:
*2 (1) complete and unrestricted access to the facilities of School District 205, including unrestricted access to all records, files, reports, memoranda, correspondence, plans, notices, budgets, compliance reviews and other documents relevant to Special Master’s duties;
(2) authority to conduct, at reasonable times and places, interviews with persons who he believes have information that will assist him in performing his duties, including Defendant’s employees, agents and staff (with respect to whom Defendant is ordered to use its best efforts to encourage the full cooperation of such persons), and counsel for the parties, Plaintiffs, parents and students;
1

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. #205, Not Reported in F.Supp....

(3) authority to attend any formal institutional meetings or proceedings conducted by Defendant regarding subject matter relevant to his duties;
(4) authority to require written reports from any of Defendant’s employees, agents, staff or attorneys with respect to compliance with this court’s orders; and
(5) authority to conduct hearings (with proper notice to the parties) on implementation of and compliance with the July 1989 Interim Order, to which end Special Master (a) shall have the power to require the attendance of witnesses, including Defendant’s employees, agents and staff, and (b) shall exercise all other powers described in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(c).
The court suggests that Special Master perform his functions with relative informality, so long as that is consistent with the prompt and effective discharge of his duties.
All actions of Special Master, his monitors, consultants, experts and members of his staff will be under the direct control and supervision of this court. Special Master and his monitors, consultants, experts and members of his staff shall not be empowered to direct Defendant or any of its personnel to take or to refrain from taking any specific action to achieve compliance. Sole power to direct compliance and to punish noncompliance remains with this court, although Special Master may make such recommendations as he deems necessary and as may be based upon input from his monitors, consultants, experts or members of his staff, to direct compliance or punish noncompliance.

Special Master shall file quarterly reports with this court describing the activities in which he has engaged, Defendant’s compliance with Part III of the Interim Order and other matters that he deems appropriate. Special Master shall serve the reports on the parties, and either party may file written comments to them within fourteen (14) calendar days. Where Special Master’s report is based upon hearings conducted by him, the report shall be in the form of findings of fact and conclusions of law, and either party may file written comments to them within fourteen (14) calendar days and request a hearing or oral argument. As provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(e)(2), this court will overturn such findings or conclusions only if clearly erroneous.
*3 Special Master shall be compensated at his usual hourly rate for services performed in accordance with this order, with a daily cap to be determined by the court for services on any one day. Appropriate compensation for members of Special Master’s staff, monitors, consultants and experts shall be established by this court upon the recommendation of Special Master and after notice to all parties. All reasonable expenses incurred by Special Master, his monitors, consultants, experts and members of his staff in the course of the performance of their duties shall be reimbursed by Defendant.
All expenses of the mastership, including payments to the Special Master, his monitors, consultants, experts and members of his staff, shall be borne by Defendant.
This court retains jurisdiction in this matter.
	  

2

 
 People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

1991 WL 299104 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Western
Division.
PEOPLE WHO CARE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHOOL DISTRICT # 205, Defendant.
Civ.A. No. 89 C 20168. | Sept. 12, 1991.
Opinion
PRELIMINARY ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT TO ENGAGE IN JOINT EFFORT WITH REGARD TO ELECTION
ISSUES AND ENJOINING SCHOOL BOARD ELECTION
ROSZKOWSKI, District Judge.
BACKGROUND
*1 On July 7, 1989, this Court entered a Preliminary Injunction Order (“1989 Order”) which established extensive duties on the part of Defendant School District with regard to the racial integration of District No. 205 schools and the equalization of educational opportunities among the students of District No. 205. (Mem. Opinion and Order, July 7, 1989). In October, 1990, the Plaintiffs filed with the Court a Default/Contempt Petition alleging that Defendant was failing in numerous respects to carry out its duties as established in the 1989 Order.
On April 26, 1991, the Court entered by agreement of the parties a Second Preliminary Injunction Order (“Second Interim Order”). With one exception, entry of the Second Interim Order mooted all requests for immediate corrective action (Second Interim Order, par. A.12) raised in Plaintiffs’ Default/Contempt Petition. The allegation in the Default/Contempt Petition which gives rise to the one request for immediate corrective action not mooted by entry of the Second Interim Order is as follows:
13.B. Discrimination in Creation of New Electoral Districts. By referendum approved in November 1989, the District is obligated to establish single-member subdistricts for new elections in November 1991 of the entire membership of the Board. Since the present Board

is all white, despite the student enrollment of the District being 30% minority, it is evident that the delineation of the subdistrict electoral boundaries will determine the extent of minority representation on the Board and that it has crucial importance for the protection of the constitutional rights of the plaintiff class. Upon information and belief, the District (and persons in policy and management positions in the District) intend to gerrymander the electoral boundaries to preserve the eligibility of all of the white incumbent members, or otherwise to draw boundaries in a manner that minimizes and defeats the representational rights and interests of the plaintiff class. Because the District’s conduct with respect to the July 1989 Order demonstrates that the District is not fulfilling its obligations concerning the civil rights of plaintiffs in either a responsible manner or a good faith manner, this electoral-district aspect of the District’s conduct should be scrutinized in the Contempt Hearing. As part of its Remedial Order the Court should require the District to submit to the Court for its prior approval the electoral boundaries which the District proposes to adopt. This subparagraph is founded upon the Voting Rights Act as well as the Fourteenth Amendment.
The referendum referred to in Paragraph 13.B of the Default/Contempt Petition obligates Defendant to establish single-member subdistricts for new elections in November 1991. (Ill.Rev.Stat., Ch. 122, Par. 9–22).
Subsequently, on May 21, 1991, Defendant adopted a set of subdistrict boundaries and a corresponding electoral map (“Adopted Map”). On May 31, 1991, Defendant filed a Petition for Instructions wherein it sought a judicial resolution of the alleged invalidity of Defendant’s adopted map. Defendant urged the Court to take up that matter and to make a determination also of an issue raised by Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding the residency of candidates for the November, 1991, school board elections. Plaintiffs’ counsel had indicated orally to Defendant’s counsel that Plaintiffs intended to supplement their Default/Contempt Petition to allege that the action of Defendant—in proceeding with the November election preparations without a requirement that school board candidates be residents of the subdistricts they seek to represent—threatens to minimize and defeat the representational rights of minorities.
*2 In its Petition for Instructions the Defendant sought an expedited resolution of these issues because non-resolution would cast doubt on the Board’s status as a legally constituted governmental body (after the election), and would, therefore, leave in doubt (1) Defendant’s ability to comply with the Second Interim Order and other orders of this Court, and (2) Defendant’s ability to issue debt securities for compliance with the Court’s orders. In support of its Petition for Instructions, Defendant filed a
1

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

memorandum and Plaintiffs filed a responsive brief. Plaintiffs contended that Defendant’s adopted map was inadequate under the Voting Rights Act because it did not provide for any subdistrict with a strong African American majority of total population and with at least a 50% African American voting age population. Plaintiffs presented with their response the first draft of an alternative map, and on July 15, 1991, submitted the final draft. Plaintiffs’ alternative map succeeded in creating a subdistrict with a strong African American majority of total population and a 50% African American voting age population.
On August 2, 1991, Plaintiffs filed and the Court granted a motion to amend the Default/Contempt Petition for the purpose of joining as necessary parties-respondents to the Petition certain public officials responsible for the conduct of the November school board election. On July 18, 1991, the Court scheduled for August 14, 1991, an evidentiary hearing to resolve the issues raised by Paragaph 13.B of Plaintiffs’ Default/Contempt Petition and by Defendant’s Petition for Instructions. By newspaper publication on August 7, 1991, and August 13, 1991, notice of the August 14, 1991, hearing was given. The notice included publication of the parties’ respective electoral maps to be introduced into evidence at the hearing, the street descriptions of the boundaries of these maps, notice of the issues to be addressed and notice to affected third-parties of their right to intervene in the August 14 proceeding. By Order of the Court, the parties on August 7, 1991, lodged with the Clerk of the Court for public inspection the parties’ respective electoral maps to be introduced at the hearing. Neither on August 14, 1991, nor at any other time since the publication of the notices referred to in paragraph 11 above, has any person appeared for the purpose of intervening in the proceedings regarding the allegations raised in Paragraph 13B of Plaintiffs’ Default/Contempt Petition.
On August 14, 1991, Plaintiffs sought, and the Court allowed, the filing of a supplement to Plaintiffs’ Amended Default/Contempt Petition for the purpose of adding the allegation that Defendant’s action in proceeding with the November election preparations without a subdistrict residency requirement for candidates threatens to minimize and defeat the representational rights of African Americans. Also on August 14, 1991, upon notice to the parties-respondents and in lieu of an evidentiary hearing, Plaintiffs and Defendant submitted to the Court certain stipulations and affidavits relating to the allegations raised in Paragraphs 13B and 13C of Plaintiffs’ Amended Default/Contempt Petition.
*3 The Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Rockford, the County Clerk of Winnebago County, and the County Clerk of Boone County (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Election Authorities”) were represented before the Court on August 14, 1991.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs (all of which is uncontroverted and appears to be substantial and credible) and upon the parties’ stipulations, the Court concludes that there appears to be a strong likelihood that the implementation of Defendant’s adopted map would violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. More specifically, it appears from the evidence that the electoral subdistrict boundaries of Defendant’s adopted map would fracture the African American community and, thereby, operate to minimize or cancel out the ability of African American voters to elect their preferred candidates. See, Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 348 (1986); Ketchum v. Byrne, 740 F.2d 1398 (7th Cir.1984). To succeed in establishing a Section 2 violation, Plaintiffs do not need to prove intentional discrimination. The evidence before the Court appears to be sufficient to meet the three-pronged test for Section 2 violations set forth in the Supreme Court’s decision in Gingles. Gingles, 478 U.S. at 50–51.
Defendant and Plaintiffs have stipulated to certain predicate facts (e.g., census figures on total and voting age population and residence) which support a finding that the African American community in School District 205 is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single subdistrict. As the census figures demonstrate, almost 70% of Rockford’s African American population reside in a geograhically contiguous and cohesive area in the southwest quadrant of Rockford. Within the southwest quadrant live approximately 25,671 persons, of whom approximately 15,489 (60.37%) are African Americans. Using the average subdistrict size of 25,884, there is ample population within the African American communities to form a subdistrict with a total population over 60% African American and a voting age population over 50% African American.
Moreover, under Defendant’s adopted map, a single subdistrict with a voting age population over 50% African American has not been created. In fact, no subdistricts under the adopted map contain even an African American majority of total population. Instead, the African American population is “fractured” and significant groups of African American voters are separated from contiguous African American communities and assigned to white majority subdistricts. See, Ketchum, 740 F.2d at 1408 n. 8, 1409. Under Defendant’s adopted map, the African American community in the southwest quadrant is divided among three subdistricts that contain a large white majority of both total and voting age population and one subdistrict that is comprised of 47% white voting age and 39% African American voting age population.
2

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

*4 Furthermore, uncontroverted evidence from Plaintiffs indicates that the African American community is politically cohesive. The African Americans in the School District have tended to vote as a group and to vote for African American candidates. Plaintiffs have also submitted uncontroverted evidence that the African American community is subject to majority bloc voting against its candidates.
Finally, the stipulations reveal significant additional social and historical factors which interact with the adopted map’s fracturing of the African American community to cause minority vote dilution. These additional factors are supportive of Plaintiff’s claim of minority vote dilution (see, Gingles, 478 U.S. at 47–48 & n. 15; Ketchum, 740 F.2d at 1405), and include lower income levels, depressed housing conditions, and racial isolation in schools for African Americans in Rockford.
In addition to a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, Plaintiffs have also alleged in their Default/Contempt Petition a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. (See, par. 13c, Pl.’s supplement to Amended Default/Contempt Petition). In order to establish such a violation, Plaintiffs would be required to demonstrate that the Defendant had intentionally discriminated against minorities in its adoption of electoral boundaries. City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55, 66 (1980). If Plaintiffs could make out such a violation, there would, however, “be no difference in the practical result or in the available remedy” in this redistricting case as compared to the result and remedy available under Section 2, of the Voting Rights Act. Ketchum, 740 F.2d at 1409–10. Accordingly, should there be found to be a violation of Section 2, it will not be necessary at this time to reach the Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment claim. See, Id.
Though there appears to be a strong likelihood that Defendant’s adopted map violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, Plaintiffs’ alternative electoral map appears to conflict with the Illinois statutory requirement that the territories circumscribed by school district boundaries be “compact and contiguous.” Ill.Rev.Stat., Ch. 122, Par. 9–22. Upon a finding of a Section 2 violation this Court would have authority under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution to impose, if necessary, a remedy that contravenes State statutory law. Hillsborough County, Fla. v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc., 471 U.S. 707, 713 (1985). Nevertheless, under principles of Federal–State comity, where possible this Court should avoid or minimize federal preemption of state laws. Id. In addition, under Federal law, though “[t]he virtues of compactness and contiguity cannot override the court’s statutory ... obligation to provide a complete remedy” for a Section 2 violation, as a general rule, Federal courts faced with the task of fashioning new boundaries “should attempt to draw district lines ‘with an eye to compactness,

contiguousness, and the preservation of natural, political and traditional boundaries.” ’ Dillard v. Town of Louisville, 730 F.Supp. 1546, 1549 (M.D.Ala.1990), quoting, Marshall v. Edwards, 582 F.2d 927, 937 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied 442 U.S. 909 (1979).
*5 This Court’s review of Defendant’s adopted map, Plaintiffs’ alternative map, and the evidence submitted suggests a reasonable possibility that electoral subdistrict boundaries can be drawn that comport with the dictates of the Voting Rights Act, with State law requirements and with Federal legal norms of compactness and contiguity. Accordingly, a structured effort, with the participation of the parties, to expeditiously develop a new electoral map would be advantageous under the special circumstances of this case. These circumstances include the following:
(1) The Court’s Second Interim Order compels substantial actions on the part of Defendant in all significant aspects of administering the School District for the purpose of effecting racial integration and equalization of educational opportunities. Defendant’s duties under the Second Interim Order call for substantial financial commitments by Defendant. Expedited resolution of the electoral boundaries issue is necessary to remove doubt, created by Plaintiffs’ allegations, as to the post-election status of the Board as a legally constituted governmental body. (Affidavit of Daniel L. Johnson.) The possibility of post-election judicial invalidation of Defendant’s adopted map, and, therefore, of the newly elected Board, is critical to Defendant’s ability to obtain credit at the present time. (Id.) An inability on the part of Defendant to obtain credit would substantially impair Defendant’s efforts to comply with the Second Interim Order for the upcoming school year, which starts August 26, 1991.
(2) An effort at resolution, allowing for participation of the parties and their experts, within guidelines set by the Court, is more expeditious than a two-tiered liability and remedy proceeding before this Court.
(3) The need for expeditious resolution of the electoral boundaries issue is not due to any delay on the part of any party to these proceedings. Although the electoral boundaries issue was first raised by Plaintiffs in October of 1990 in Paragraph 13B of Plaintiffs’ Default/Contempt Petition, the allegation was made upon information and belief as to what Defendant intended to do but had not yet done with regard to adoption of an electoral map. Immediately upon Defendant’s adoption, on May 21, 1991, of its adopted map, Defendant filed its Petition seeking instruction from the Court as to both the validity of its map and the requirement of board member subdistrict residency. Plaintiffs’ response to Defendant’s Petition for Instructions was filed soon thereafter, and, with the permission of the Court, Plaintiffs joined as necessary parties-respondents the election commissioners and county clerks. On August 14, 1991, pursuant to order
3

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

of Court, the parties submitted evidence, which included stipulations, in an effort to avoid unnecessary litigation over undisputed facts.
(4) At all times since the filing of its Petition for Instructions, Defendant has expressed to the Court its good faith willingness to alter its adopted map to conform to the dictates of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
*6 (5) At all times since the filing of their response to Defendant’s Petition for Instructions, Plaintiffs have also expressed to the Court their good faith willingness to alter their alternative map to conform to the dictates of Section 9–22 of the Illinois School Code.
A decision to delay a scheduled election is within the sound discretion of the court, and such a decision must be based upon a thoughtful consideration of the equities involved. Neal v. Harris, 837 F.2d 632, 634 (4th Cir.1987); Banks v. Board of Educ., City of Peoria School District, 659 F.Supp. 394, 402–03 (C.D.Ill.1987). Upon careful consideration of all the circumstances in this case, the Court finds that it is in the best interests of the public, including the voters, taxpayers, students and parents of students of Rockford School District No. 205, to delay the school board election scheduled for November 5, 1991, until March 17, 1992, to be held simultaneously with the General Primary scheduled for that date. The circumstances warranting this delay include the following:
(1) Due to the late date and the burdens that would be placed upon the Election Authorities, proceeding with the November 5th election as scheduled, based upon an election map that the parties will have developed within the guidelines set by this court, would be physically impossible.
(2) Even if a November 5th election with a new map were physically possible, the radically shortened time lines for pre-election filings and proceedings would be unfair to all candidates, potential candidates, objectors to candidates and voters.
(3) Proceeding with the November 5th election based upon the adopted map followed by a special election based upon the newly developed map would do nothing to alleviate the problems recited above and would add the further factor of a governing board, the constitution of which has already been declared suspect by this Court. Unlike cases involving legislative bodies that were previously elected by the same election practice or procedure the legality of which was at issue, there have been no allegations that the present Board of Education, elected at-large, is illegally constituted. Only a November 5th election based upon the adopted map would create a Board of Education tainted by the probable Voting Rights Act violation found herein.

(4) Proceeding with the November 5th election, based upon the adopted map followed by a special election based upon the newly developed map, would result in a Board of Education with an extremely truncated tenure. The School District will likely have difficulty attracting qualified new candidates to run for such a short-term school board. Further, the holding of two elections within 4 ½ months would disrupt the continuity of leadership essential for both the implementation of this Court’s orders and the governance of the School District generally.
(5) Proceeding with the November 5th election, based upon the adopted map followed by a special election based upon the newly developed map, would create unnecessary confusion to the voters and cost to the taxpayers.
*7 (6) Delaying the school board election until an election map is adopted that meets the requirements set forth in this order and until the next regularly scheduled election date under State law, avoids the problems recited in subparagraphs (1) through (5) above in that it accomplishes the following: it gives the Election Authorities enough time to prepare for the election; it permits voters and candidates adequate time to prepare for the election; it avoids the creation of a school board for any length of time the constitution of which is tainted by allegations or findings regarding Voting Rights Act violations; it avoids the discontinuity of leadership inherent in a school board with an extremely short tenure of office; and it limits, albeit without eliminating, the voter confusion and the extra taxpayer cost that would result under the alternative schemes.
The Court does not, however, reach at this time the issue of whether Illinois law presently requires that school board members elected by subdistricts pursuant to Section 9–22 of the Illinois School Code (Ill.Rev. Stat., ch. 122, par. 9–22) must reside within the subdistricts by which they are each elected. Both parties have submitted legal memoranda on the issue and Plaintiffs have submitted arguments that subdistrict residency is required. Defendant does not argue in favor of or against a subdistrict residency requirement, but seeks this Court’s instructions on the issue in order that it may avoid liability under the Voting Rights Act and the United States Constitution while attempting to comply with this Court’s orders. In light of the fact that legislation is currently pending before the Illinois General Assembly on this issue, and the fact that the school board election is being delayed by order of this Court, the Court need not decide this issue at this time.
4

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

CONCLUSION
The Court hereby orders the following:
1. Plaintiffs shall submit by September 23, 1991, a proposed set of subdistrict boundaries that conform to the requirements of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and Section 9–22 of the Illinois School Code. Specifically, the proposed electoral map should contain:
(a) a subdistrict with a total voting age population over 50% African American;
(b) no subdistrict that has an “excessive majority” of African Americans (Gingles, 478 U.S. at 46 n. 11); and,
(c) subdistrict boundaries that circumscribe only territories that are “compact and contiguous” as that phrase is defined under Illinois law.
2. Not later than October 10, 1991, the School District shall complete its consideration of the map proposed by Plaintiffs. Such consideration shall include at least one public hearing convened with at least seven days notice.
3. The parties are to appear before this Court on October 11, 1991, at 10:00 a.m. to report to the Court on the

results of the foregoing effort.
4. The November 5, 1991, school board election for Rockford School District No. 205 is delayed until March 17, 1992. The School District and the Election Authorities are enjoined from conducting said election on the time schedule set by Illinois law for the November 5, 1991, nonpartisan election, but are ordered to take all actions otherwise required by Illinois election law. The parties and the election authorities shall submit, by October 11, 1991, a revised calendar incorporating such a schedule. For any actions required by Illinois election law, but not provided for by the revised schedule, the School District and Election Authorities shall act according to the time schedule for the March 17, 1992, general primary election to the extent said schedule is applicable.
*8 4. This Court will rule no later than December 15, 1991, on the issue of whether school board members elected by subdistricts must reside within such subdistricts, taking into consideration any action or inaction before such date by the Illinois General Assembly relating to this issue.
	  

5

 
 People Who Care v. Rockfrod Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

1991 WL 299105 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Western
Division.
PEOPLE WHO CARE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 205, Defendant.
Civ. A. No. 89 C 20168. | Oct. 4, 1991.
Opinion
INTERIM FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER PROVIDING FOR REMEDIAL RELIEF
ROSZKOWSKI, District Judge.
*1 This cause coming on to be heard on the Motion of Defendant for Leave of Court to Permit Implementation of Corrective Action, said motion having been filed with the Court on September 12, 1991, and the Court having heard the arguments of the parties concerning the same, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, it is hereby Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed as follows:
1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this cause and personal jurisdiction over the parties.
2. This Court entered an Order on April 24, 1991, the Second Interim Order, requiring the Defendant to take certain actions, including:
A. that the Defendant will construct by September 1993 a new building to serve the Church Elementary School attendance area (C.1.a., p. 31);
B. that the Defendant shall reacquire and rehabilitate Marsh School and open for the 1991–92 school year [C.1.f.(1), p. 34];
C. that the Defendant renovate and build an addition to the Riverdahl School (C.1.d., p. 33);
D. that the Defendant open a second magnet school (C.6, p. 40);
E. that the Defendant renovate and equip a Parent Center at the Garrison School site (B.5, p. 15);

F. that the Defendant develop computerized data systems capable of reporting and analyzing student and financial data (B.9, p. 25);
G. that Defendant develop computerized transportation planning and modeling (C.4.b., p. 37);
H. that Defendant renovate the Roosevelt School site (C.1.b, p. 32).
3. This Court recognizes the inherent authority of Defendant to provide for the foregoing relief, pursuant to the equitable jurisdiction of this Court, and within the provisions of law granting the Defendant the authority to arrange its school sites, all as contained in Chapter 122, Section 10, Illinois Revised Statutes (Illinois School Code).
4. This Court finds the Defendant is not possessed of sufficient funds to provide for the remedial action specified in said Motion.
5. This Court believes that such remedial action as specified in paragraph 3 A–E, supra., should be commenced without further delay.
6. This court finds that certain provisions of law, namely Chapter 85, Section 9–101 et. seq., Illinois Revised Statutes, provide that the Defendant is subject to the provisions of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act of the State of Illinois, as amended (The “Tort Immunity Act ”). The Tort Immunity Act empowers and directs a local public entity such as the Defendant to pay any liability imposed upon it for a tortious act under Federal or State common or statutory law or to pay any tort judgment or settlement for compensatory damages based on any injury caused by an alleged negligent or alleged wrongful act or omission of the local public entity. The Board of Education of the Defendant may, if it considers the action advisable, issue general obligation bonds without referendum to pay such liability, judgment or settlement. In addition thereto (or in the alternative), the Defendant may pay for such recurring and continual incremental costs for such programs specified in this Order by additional levies in the Defendant’s Tort Immunity fund. Pursuant to this Order, the Defendant is mandated to fund the cost of the activities required herein, including, but not limited to, the capital expenses of acquiring sites and altering, building, equipping, improving, rebuilding, reconstructing, renovating, repairing, and restoring school buildings and facilities. This Court has considered the provisions of Article IX—Payment of Claims and Judgment—of the Tort Immunity Act and finds that the funding by the Defendant of the cost of said activities constitutes and is the payment by the Defendant of a liability, tort judgment
1

People Who Care v. Rockfrod Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

or settlement that authorizes the issuance of the District’s non-referendum general obligation bonds referred to in Section 9–105 of the Tort Immunity Act and the levying of an annual rate of tax in the Defendant’s annual levy for Tort Immunity purposes, to pay for annual and recurring program costs (other than the institution of capital improvements) as required by this Order.
*2 7. This Court further finds that the relief requested by Defendant is in the nature of remedial action taken to protect Defendant against a potential finding of liability for violations of constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs, all as set forth in the original Complaint and second Amended Complaint filed in this cause. As such, the remedial action undertaken by Defendant on a voluntary basis would protect itself from such a finding of liability and hence is a proper expenditure of funds of Defendant to protect against a judgment which would sound in tort, pursuant to the provisions of Illinois Law.
8. Defendant is hereby given leave and is further directed to proceed with the selection of an appropriate site for and rebuild a Church School attendance center, in the approximate geographical vicinity of the currently existing Church School, provided however, that Defendant shall consult with Plaintiffs, as provided in Section C.1.9 of the Second Interim Order in selecting a site which would be appropriate for said facility. In the event the Defendant should require to exercise its power under state law for eminent domain, it shall in every case proceed pursuant to the provisions of Illinois law. The approximate cost of said facility shall be $3,600,000.00, and Defendant shall have the authority to issue bonds as approved by this Order for said purposes.
9. Defendant shall forthwith perform the renovation and restoration of the Marsh School site, and shall proceed to equip the same and make the same suitable for school purposes. The approximate cost of said work is $2,890,000.00, and, the Defendant shall have the authority to issue bonds as approved by this Order for said purposes.
10. Defendant is granted leave and is directed to forthwith make the additions, renovations, and alterations on the Riverdahl School, and to equip the same for school purposes. The approximate cost of such work is $1,930,000.00, and the Defendant shall have the authority to issue bonds as approved by this Order for said purposes.
11. The Defendant shall make certain repairs and purchase equipment for the second magnet school, at the Wilson School site, in approximate amount of $250,000.00, and shall have the authority to issue bonds as provided by this Order for said purposes.
12. Defendant is granted leave and is directed to forthwith

make the additions, renovations, and alterations on the Garrison School site for the Parent Center, and to equip the same for school purposes. The approximate cost of such work is $80,000.00, and the Defendant shall have the authority to issue bonds as approved by this Order for said purposes.
13. Defendant is granted leave and is directed to forthwith acquire the necessary computer hardware, systems and software programs for computerized data systems for student enrollment, transfers, and transportation, and for budget and expenditure analysis for school purposes. The approximate cost of such work is $2,368,378.00, and the Defendant shall have the authority to issue bonds as approved by this Order for said purposes.
*3 14. Defendant is granted leave and is directed to forthwith make the additions, renovations, and alterations on the Roosevelt School, and to equip the same for school purposes. The approximate cost of such work is $2,900,000.00, and the Defendant shall have the authority to issue bonds as approved by this Order for said purposes.
15. The Defendant is further given leave and is directed to issue said bonds, to employ counsel necessary for the issuance of said bonds, to pay for the cost of the issuance of said bonds and to pay the underwriting fees for the same. The entire amount of bonds to be sold pursuant to this Order shall be fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000.00), including costs and fees and the expenditure of the proceeds of said bonds shall be subject to the jurisdiction and supervision of this Court. Said amount includes the amounts set forth in finding 8–14, infra., plus architechtural fees, construction contingency amounts, bond and underwriting fees. It is reasonably anticipated by this Court and by the Defendant that said bonds, while being issued on a timetable submitted by the Defendant to this Court for approval, will no doubt result in the sale of all of said bonds within a short period of time. It is further reasonably anticipated by this Court and by the Defendant that said bond sale proceeds will be expended during the periods set forth in and in compliance with the provisions of Sections 148(f)(4)(C)(iv)(II) and (III) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Internal Revenue Code ”). In addition, it is reasonably anticipated by this Court and by the Defendant that at least 75 percent (75%) of the net proceeds of said issue are to be used for construction expenditures with respect to property which is owned by the Defendant as required by Section 148(f)(4)(C)(iv)(IV) of the Internal Revenue Code. Any unanticipated delays in selecting and acquiring title to sites, delays in ordering equipment and material, and the inherent delays of architectural surveys, approvals, drawings or the bid letting of public contracts which may require time in excess of any such periods or a lesser percentage amount of construction expenditures shall not in any way
2

People Who Care v. Rockfrod Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

whatsoever make inapplicable to the Defendant the exception as set forth in Section 148(f)(4)(C)(iv) of the Internal Revenue Code.
16. The Defendant is granted leave to raise sufficient funds for the other remedial action specified hereinabove and as set forth in this Court’s Second Interim Order through ad valorem tax rates of the Tort Immunity Fund. A preliminary analysis of said costs is more fully set forth in Defendant’s Progress Report filed with the Court on August 22, 1991, (to the extent such costs can presently be reasonably estimated).
17. This Court further finds that the relief granted herein

shall not impede, delay, or interfere with any other of the obligations of the Defendant as may be required by further orders of this Court in the implementation of the Second Interim Order, either by agreement between the parties or as determined as necessary by this Court.
*4 18. This Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms and conditions of this Order. The Defendant shall file, within forty-five (45) days, a plan of implementation of this Order with precise cost estimates and scheduling of its obligations ordered herein.
	  

3

 
 People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

1991 WL 299103 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Western
Division.
PEOPLE WHO CARE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHOOL DISTRICT # 205, Defendant.
Civ. A. No. 89 C 20168. | Oct. 21, 1991.
Opinion
ORDER WITH REGARD TO SCHOOL DISTRICT ELECTION ISSUES
ROSZKOWSKI, District Judge.
*1 Various issues concerning the process for election of Board Members of the Defendant School District (“District”) have been before the Court since May 31, 1991, when the District filed a Petition for Instructions, wherein it sought a judicial resolution of the alleged invalidity of the electoral sub-district boundaries adopted by the District on May 21, 1991.
In an Order entered September 12, 1991, this Court set forth the background of these issues, and made Findings and Conclusions concerning the electoral issues, which will not be reiterated here.
The September 12 Order established a process for resolution of the two final electoral issues: the precise electoral sub-district boundaries, and the detailed schedule of election events surrounding the School Board election now scheduled for March 17, 1992.
A. Electoral Sub–District Boundaries
In accordance with the September 12 Order, Plaintiffs submitted on September 23, 1991, a proposed set of sub-district boundaries delineated on a map (“Plaintiffs’ Proposed Map”). In a contemporaneous Submission, Plaintiffs represented that their Proposed Map conforms to the requirements of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and Section 9–22 of the Illinois School Code, and to the more specific criteria set forth in the September 12 Order.
Since September 23, the Plaintiffs’ Proposed Map has

been available for public inspection at the School District offices and in the office of the Clerk of this Court. In addition, after providing at least seven days’ notice, the District held a public hearing on October 2, 1991, and the District has reported that no objections to the Plaintiffs’ Proposed Map were voiced at that hearing.
In addition, from September 23 through October 17, the Proposed Map has been reviewed by the various Election Authorities who have the responsibility to conduct the School District’s elections. This review has also included a set of detailed street descriptions of the electoral sub-districts, which was transmitted by Plaintiffs on September 24 to the Election Authorities and the District.
In response to the request of the Election Authorities, Plaintiffs have agreed to make certain minor corrections in their Proposed Map and in the corresponding street descriptions, in order to minimize the number of splits of precincts. These changes were described in a letter dated October 8, 1991, from Mr. Howard to Messrs. Enichen, Scariano, and Schmidt, a copy of which was filed with the Clerk of this Court. Each of these changes involves only a very small number of voters (ranging from about three voters to less than ten), and each change involves only a very small amount of territory. Accordingly, these changes do not affect the geographic, demographic, or legal characteristics of Plaintiffs’ Proposed Map.
Plaintiffs have submitted to the Court on October 18, 1991, a Final Electoral Map and corresponding street descriptions, which incorporate the minor changes made since September 23, 1991. Plaintiffs have requested in open court on October 18, 1991, that the Court approve the Final Map and corresponding street descriptions and order that these electoral sub-district boundaries be used for the March 17, 1992 School Board election, and for future School Board elections until further order of this Court.
*2 The District, having had the Plaintiffs’ Proposed Map under consideration since September 23, and having been informed of the minor changes made at the request of the Election Authorities, has stated in open court on October 18, 1991, that it does not object to the Final Map and street descriptions, nor to the entry of an Order as requested by Plaintiffs. The Election Authorities, by their counsel, have also informed the Court on October 18 that they have no objection to the Plaintiffs’ Final Map and the corresponding final street descriptions.
B. Election Schedule
This Court’s Order of September 12 established a date of
1

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

March 17, 1992, for the election of Board Members for the District, and required the parties and the Election Authorities to submit a revised calendar for all events related to that election. Such a revised calendar has been submitted to the Court by the parties and the Election Authorities.
The parties and the Election Authorities have pointed out that the last date for candidates to file nomination papers is December 16, 1991. Therefore, from the date of this Order, candidates would have approximately 52 days to circulate petitions, rather than the 90 days which would normally be applicable. This modification, of course, results from the time required for judicial resolution of the various electoral issues. The parties and the Election Authorities have urged, and this Court concurs, that this modification does not represent a significant disadvantage to potential candidates, particularly since the required number of signatures is modest.
C. Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court hereby orders:
1. The Final Map of electoral sub-district boundaries submitted by Plaintiffs on October 18, 1991, and the corresponding final street descriptions attached hereto, are hereby approved, and the District and the Election Authorities shall use those electoral sub-district boundaries for the election of Board Members of the District to be held on March 17, 1992, and for future elections of Board Members until further order of this Court.
2. The Calendar for Revised Non–Partisan Election of the Rockford School District No. 205, submitted jointly by the parties and the Election Authorities and attached hereto, is hereby approved, and shall be used by the District and the Election Authorities in conducting the election of Board Members scheduled for March 17, 1992.
ATTACHMENT
ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 205
STREET DESCRIPTIONS OF ELECTORAL SUB–DISTRICT BOUNDARIES

In the following descriptions, the electoral sub-districts are referred to as A through G. Those references correspond to sub-districts I through VII as depicted on the map adopted by the United States District Court on October 18, 1991.
In many instances, these street descriptions are intended to conform to Rockford city limit lines and existing City of Rockford election precincts. The street descriptions shall be interpreted to conform to that intention.
PLAINTIFF PROPOSED SCHOOL SUB–DISTRICT A
*3 At western boundary of school district, follow State St. east to Victory. North on Victory to Lydia. East on Lydia to Springfield Ave. North on Springfield Ave. to School St. East on School St. to Overland. Northeast on Overland (following Rockford city limits) to Chisholm Terrace. Where Overland meets Chisholm, follow straight line east to the center of Auburn High School and then straight north through the middle of the school to Auburn St. East on Auburn St. (following Rockford city limits) to Kent Creek. Southeast following Kent Creek to Fairview Ave. East on Fairview Ave. until it ends and then directly east from Fairview across the railroad and the quarry to Horsmann St. South on Horsmann St. to Whitman St. West on Whitman St. to Forest Ave. South on Forest Ave. to West State St. East on W. State to Tay St. South on Tay St. to where it crosses the North Western Railroad tracks. Follow the railroad tracks southeast to South Winnebago St. Northeast on South Winnebago St. to Green St. Southeast on Green St. to the Rock River. Follow Rock River south to Fifteenth Ave. Follow Fifteenth Ave. east to Christina St. Follow Christina St. south to Blackhawk Park Ave. East on Blackhawk Park Ave. to Magnolia St. Follow Magnolia south to Harrison. West on Harrison to Rock River. Follow Rock River south to Sandy Hollow Rd. Sandy Hollow Rd. east to C.B. & Q. railroad. Follow railroad south to U.S. 20. Follow U.S. 20 northwest to western boundary of school district.
PLAINTIFF PROPOSED SCHOOL SUB–DISTRICT B
At Abell Ave., follow Auburn St. east to Evergreen St. North on Evergreen St. to Yonge St. West on Yonge St. to Virginia Ave. North on Virginia Ave. to Knight Ave. East on Knight Ave. to Edgemont St. North on Edgemont St. to West High School. West across school grounds, through West High School, to Rockton Ave. South on Rockton Ave. to Auburn St. East on Auburn St. to North Main St. South on N. Main St. to Reynolds St. West on Reynolds St. to Church St. Southwest on Church St. to Salem St. Southeast on Salem St. to N. Main St. Southwest on N. Main St. to Dickerman Dr. Southeast on Dickerman Dr. to the Rock River. Follow the Rock River north to Oakland Ave. Southeast on Oakland Ave to
2

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

Madison St. Southwest on Madison St. to Y Blvd. West on Y Blvd. to N. Second St. Southwest on N. Second St. to Longwood St. South on Longwood St. to Rural St. East on Rural St. to N. Prospect St. South on N. Prospect St. to Jackson St. East on Jackson St. to North Chicago Ave. South on North Chicago Ave. to Crosby St. West on Crosby St. to North Highland Ave. South on North Highland Ave. to State St. West on State St. to North Prospect St. South on North Prospect St. to Charles St. Southeast on Charles St. to Thirteenth St. South on Thirteenth St. to Illinois Central Railroad. Follow railroad tracks southeast to Broadway. Broadway west to Tenth St. Tenth St. south to Sixteenth St. West on Sixteenth Ave. to Eighth St. North on Eighth St. to Eleventh Ave. West on Eleventh Ave. to Sixth St. South on Sixth St. to Twenty-first Ave. West on Twenty-first Ave. to Kishwaukee St. South on Kishwaukee St. to Sandy Hollow Rd. The eastern boundary of sub-district A is the western boundary of sub-district B.
PLAINTIFF PROPOSED SCHOOL SUB–DISTRICT C
*4 At western boundary of school district, follow State St. east to Victory. North on Victory to Lydia. East on Lydia to Springfield Ave. North on Springfield Ave. to School St. East on School St. to Overland. Northeast on Overland (following Rockford city limits) to Chisholm Terrace. Where Overland meets Chisholm, follow straight line east to the center of Auburn High School and then straight north through the middle of the school to Auburn St. East on Auburn St. (following Rockford city limits) to Evergreen St. North on Evergreen St. to Yonge St. West on Yonge St. to Virginia Ave. North on Virginia Ave. to Knight Ave. East on Knight Ave. to Edgemont St. North on Edgemont St. to West High School. West across school grounds, through West High School, to Rockton Ave. South on Rockton Ave. to Auburn St. East on Auburn St. to North Main St. South on North Main St. to Reynolds St. West on Reynolds St. to Church St. Southwest on Church St. to Salem St. Southeast on Salem St. to North Main St. Southwest on North Main St. to Dickerman Dr. Southeast on Dickerman Dr. to the Rock River. Follow the Rock River north to Auburn St. West on Auburn St. to Logan St. North on Logan St. to Cottage Grove Ave. East on Cottage Grove Ave. to Douglas St. North along the west side of Douglas St. (including the houses on the west side of Douglas street) to Brown Ave. West on Brown Ave. to N. Main St. Follow N. Main St. north to W. Riverside Blvd. West on W. Riverside Blvd. to Huffman Ave. Continue straight north from Huffman Ave. for approximately one half-mile then turn west. Continue west for approximately one eighth of a mile then turn north again. Continue north to Elmwood Rd. East on Elmwood Rd. for approximately one quarter-mile then turn south. Continue south for approximately one eighth of a mile then turn west. Continue west for approximately one eighth of a mile then turn directly

south. Continue south for approximately one quarter-mile then turn east. Continue east for approximately one quarter-mile then turn north. Continue north for approximately one eighth of a mile then turn east. Continue east to N. Main St. Follow N. Main St. for approximately one eighth of a mile then turn west. Continue west for approximately one eighth of a mile then turn north. Continue north for approximately one eighth of a mile then turn east. Continue east to N. Main St. Follow N. Main St. to stream which leads to Rock River, west of Marquette Rd. Follow stream to Rock River. Follow Rock River north to northern boundary of school district.
PLAINTIFF PROPOSED SCHOOL SUB–DISTRICT D
On the west side of Rock River across from Marquette Rd., follow stream to Main Street. Follow N. Main St. to Elmwood Rd. West on Elmwood Rd. for approximately one eighth of a mile then turn south. Continue south for approximately one eighth of a mile then turn east. Continue east to N. Main St. Follow N. Main St. for approximately one eighth of a mile then turn west. Continue west for approximately one eighth of a mile then turn south. Continue south for approximately one eighth of a mile then turn west. Continue west for approximately one quarter-mile. Turn north at Huffman Blvd. Continue north from Huffman Blvd. for approximately one half-mile then turn east. Continue east for approximately one eighth of a mile then turn north. Continue north to Elmwood Rd. West on Elmwood Rd. for approximately one quarter-mile then turn south. Continue south for approximately one eighth of a mile then turn east. Continue east for approximately one eighth of a mile then turn south. Continue directly south for approximately one quarter-mile to Huffman Blvd. Follow Huffman Blvd. south to W. Riverside Dr. East on W. Riverside Dr. to N. Main St. South on N. Main St. to Brown Ave. East on Brown Ave. to Douglas St. South along the west side of Douglas St. (including the houses on the west side of Douglas St.) to Cottage Grove. West on Cottage Grove to Logan St. South on Logan St. to Auburn St. Auburn St. east to the Rock River. Follow Rock River south to Oakland Ave. Southeast on Oakland Ave. to Madison St. Southwest on Madison St. to Y Blvd. West on Y Blvd. to N. Second St. Southwest on N. Second St. to Longwood St. South on Longwood St. to Rural St. East on Rural St. to N. Prospect St. South on N. Prospect St. to Jackson St. East on Jackson St. to N. Chicago Ave. South on N. Chicago Ave. to Crosby St. West on Crosby St. to N. Highland Ave. South on N. Highland Ave. to State St. West on State St. to North Prospect St. Follow Prospect St. south to Seventh Ave. East on Seventh Ave. to Eighteenth St. North on Eighteenth St. to Charles St. Southeast on Charles St. to Hunter Ave. North on Hunter Ave. to State St. West on
3

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

State St. to James Ave. North on James Ave. to Jackson St. West on Jackson St. to Dawson Ave. North on Dawson Ave. to Rural St. West on Rural St. to Park View Ave. North on Park View Ave. to Guilford Rd. West on Guilford Rd. to James Ave. North on James Ave. to High Crest Rd. High Crest Rd. east to Kings Hwy. North on Kings Hwy. to Meadow Lane. Southeast on Meadow Lane to High Crest Rd. East on High Crest Rd. to Cynthia Dr. South along Cynthia Dr. to a point just south of Burmont Rd. Follow a straight line east between Burmont Rd. and Barrington Rd. to a point just east of Rebecca Dr. North along the edge of Rebecca to High Crest Rd. West on High Crest Rd. to 4200 High Crest. Cross northeast to 4200 Pine Crest. Northeast on Pine Crest to Center Dr. Go east to Delcy Dr.; go south on Delcy Dr. to Augustana Dr.; go southwest on Augustana to High Crest Rd.; East on High Crest to Larkspur Dr. Northeast on Larkspur to Hollyhock Drive. Northwest on Hollyhock to Jonquil Place. Northeast on Jonquil to Spring Creek Rd. East on Spring Creek Rd. to Mulford Rd. North on Mulford Rd. to Spring Brook Rd. Northeast on Spring Brook Rd. to Shaw Rd. South on Shaw Rd. to Spring Creek Rd. Spring Creek Rd. east to U.S. 90. North on U.S. 90 to East Riverside. East on E. Riverside to eastern boundary of school district. [The northeastern boundary of sub-district D is the northeastern boundary of the school district]
PLAINTIFF PROPOSED SCHOOL SUB–DISTRICT E
*5 The northern boundary of E is the southern boundary of D. The southern boundary of E begins at Seventh Ave. and Eighteenth St. At Seventh Ave. and Eighteenth St., south on Eighteenth St. to Tenth Ave. East on Tenth Ave to Twenty-third St. South on Twenty-third to Broadway. East on Broadway to Newburg Rd. Continue east on Newburg Rd. to South Mulford Rd. From S. Mulford Rd. the boundary of sub-district E follows the eastern boundary of precincts 9 and 10 of Ward 14, and the southern boundary of precinct 15 of Ward 1 to East State St. Northeast on State St. (including the portion of Precinct 15 Ward 1 lying south of State St.) to eastern boundary of school district.
PLAINTIFF PROPOSED SCHOOL SUB–DISTRICT F
The northern boundary of sub-district F is the southern boundary of sub-district E. At Broadway, southwest on Ohio Parkway to Oregon Ave. Southeast on Oregon Ave. to Carolina Ave. East on Carolina Ave. to Wisconsin Rd. South on Wisconsin Rd. to Harrison Ave. West on Harrison Ave. to Illinois Central Railroad. Follow tracks southeast (following Rockford city limits) to So. Alpine Rd. South on So. Alpine to north edge of O’Connell St. West on north edge of O’Connell St. to the end. South along west edge of O’Connell. East along south edge of O’Connell to South Alpine Road. South on So. Alpine to

Majesty Court. West on Majesty Court to Thirty Fifth. South on Thirty–Fifth to Sandy Hollow. East on Sandy Hollow to South Alpine. South on South Alpine to By–Pass 20. East on By–Pass 20 for approximately one-quarter mile then turn south. South to Samuelson Rd. West on Samuelson Rd. to Thirty-fifth St. South on Thirty-fifth St. to Blackhawk Rd. East on Blackhawk Rd. to Highway 51. South on Highway 51 to Kishwaukee River. Follow Kishwaukee River west to Route 251. South on Rt. 251 to southern boundary of school district.
PLAINTIFF PROPOSED SCHOOL SUB–DISTRICT G
At western boundary of school district, follow Highway 20 southeast to C.B. & Q. Follow tracks north to Sandy Hollow Rd. Follow Sandy Hollow Rd. west to Kishwaukee St. Follow Kishwaukee north to Twenty-first Ave. Follow Twenty-first Ave. east to Sixth St. Follow Sixth St. north to Eleventh Ave. East on Eleventh Ave. to Eighth St. South on Eighth St. to Sixteenth Ave. East on Sixteenth Ave. to Tenth St. North on Tenth St. to Broadway. East on Broadway to Woodruff Ave. Northwest on Woodruff Ave. to Thirteenth St. North on Thirteenth St. to Seventh Ave. East on Seventh Ave. to Eighteenth St. South on Eighteenth St. to Tenth Ave. East on Tenth Ave. to Twenty-third St. South on Twenty-third to Broadway. East on Broadway to Ohio Parkway. The western boundary of sub-district F is the eastern boundary of sub-district G.
ATTACHMENT
CALENDAR FOR REVISED NONPARTISAN ELECTION OF THE ROCKFORD SCHOOL
DISTRICT NO. 205
MONDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1991
First day to file original nomination papers for candidates for the office of school board member.
*6 MONDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1991
Last day to file nomination papers for candidates for the office of school board member.
MONDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1991
Last day the secretary of the School Board shall notify in writing a candidate of the acceptance of his nomination papers.
MONDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1991 4

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

Last day for filing a statement of Economic Interests with the County Clerk, as required by the Illinois Government Ethics Act. The receipt must be filed on, or before this date, with the local election official who received the nomination papers.
MONDAY, DECEMBER 23, 1991
Last day for an individual who has filed for 2 or more incompatible offices to withdraw from all but one of the offices with the office receiving the nomination.
MONDAY, DECEMBER 23, 1991
Last day for filing objections to nomination papers of school board candidates in the office receiving the nomination papers.
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 26, 1991
Last day lottery shall be conducted by the local election official when 2 or more petitions are received simultaneously for the same office as of the opening hours of filing period.
THURSDAY, JANUARY 16, 1992
Last day candidates may file withdrawal of nomination papers in the office of the local election official.
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 1992
Last day for local election official to certify offices and candidates to the election authority.
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1992
Last day for the election authority to have in his office a sufficient number of ballots printed and available for mailing to persons in the United States Service or their spouse or dependents and citizens of the United States who are temporarily residing outside the territorial limits of the United States.
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1992
For the purpose of issuing pollwatcher credentials, the last day for civic organizations and proposition proponents or opponents to register their names and addresses of their principal officers with the proper election authority.
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1992
First day for registered voters presently within the confines of the United States who expect to be absent from their county of residence on election day to make application by mail or in person to the election authority for an official ballot.
SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1992

First day for election authority to publish notice of Special School District Election and notice of referenda. (May include a list of precinct polling place addresses.)
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1992
Last day for registration or transfer of registration in the office of the election authority.
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1992
Last day for election authority to publish notice of Special School District Election and notice of referenda. (May include a list of precinct polling place addresses.)
TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 1992
Last day for election authority to have pollwatcher credentials available for distribution.
THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 1992
Last day automatic tabulating equipment may be tested.
*7 THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 1992
Last day for election authority to receive application by mail from any registered voter presently within the confines of the United States, who expects to be absent from his county of residence on election day and the last day for the election authority to mail such ballot.
THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 1992
Last day for the election authority to publish the specimen ballot label pages, as near as may be, in the form in which they will appear on the official ballot labels on election day.
FRIDAY, MARCH 13, 1992
Last day (by 5:00 p.m.) a person may file a notarized declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate with the proper election authority.
MONDAY, MARCH 16, 1992
Last day for election authority in counties having a population under 500,000 to publish a list of all the nominations that are to be voted for at the Special School District Election.
TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1992
SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ELECTION
TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 1992
Date by which election authorities shall certify results to the United States District Court.
5

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 1992

THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 1992

Date by which the United States District Court shall approve the certification of election results and approve the election of Board of Education members.

First date which reorganization meeting of the Board of Election elected on March 17, 1992 may take place.
	  

Footnotes

FN**NOTE: Underlined portion is copied from description of May 1991 version of School Board proposed District 4.

	  

6

 
 People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

1992 WL 184295 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Western
Division.
PEOPLE WHO CARE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, SCHOOL DISTRICT # 205, Defendant.
Civ. A. No. 89 C 20168. | June 16, 1992.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Robert C. Howard, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.
Anthony G. Scariano, Chicago, Ill., John Schmidt, Rockford, Ill., for defendant.
Stephen G. Katz, Chicago, Ill., for intervenor.
Opinion
INTERIM FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER PROVIDING FOR REMEDIAL RELIEF RELATIVE TO THE ISSUANCE OF $10,000,000.00 OF BONDS
ROSZKOWSKI, District Judge.
*1 This cause coming on to be heard on the Motion of Defendant for Leave of Court to Permit Implementation of Corrective Action, said motion having been filed with the Court on June 12, 1992, and the Court having heard the arguments of the parties concerning the same, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, it is hereby Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed as follows:
1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this cause and personal jurisdiction over the parties.
2. On January 29, 1992 this Court approved Defendant’s financial plan for implementation of the remainder of its obligations under the Second Interim Order; on January 31, 1992 this Court approved the issuance of $10,000,000.00 of additional bonds to effectuate such plan.
3. On May 22, 1992, this Court denied Defendant’s request to reduce the amount of said bond issue based on certain requested delays, and ordered Defendant to issue said bonds.

4. This Court recognizes the inherent authority of Defendant to provide for the foregoing relief, pursuant to the equitable jurisdiction of this Court, and within the provisions of law granting the Defendant the authority to arrange its school sites, all as contained in Chapter 122, Section 10, Illinois Revised Statutes (Illinois School Code).
5. This Court finds the Defendant is not possessed of sufficient funds to provide for the remedial action specified in said Motion.
6. This Court believes that such remedial action as specified in its Order of May 22, 1992, should be commenced without further delay.
7. This court has heretofore found that certain provisions of law, namely Chapter 85, Section 9–101 et seq., Illinois Revised Statutes, provides that the Defendant is subject to the provisions of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act of the State of Illinois, as amended (The “Tort Immunity Act” ). The Tort Immunity Act empowers and directs a local public entity such as the Defendant to pay any liability imposed upon it for a tortious act under Federal or State common or statutory law or to pay any tort judgment or settlement for compensatory damages based on any injury caused by an alleged negligent or alleged wrongful act or omission of the local public entity. The Board of Education of the Defendant may, if it considers the action advisable, issue general obligation bonds without referendum to pay such liability, judgment or settlement. In addition thereto (or in the alternative), the Defendant may pay for such recurring and continual incremental costs for such programs specified in the Second Interim Order by additional levies in the Defendant’s Tort Immunity fund. Pursuant to that Order, the Defendant is mandated to fund the cost of the activities required therein, including, but not limited to, the capital expenses of acquiring sites and altering, building, equipping, improving, rebuilding, reconstructing, renovating, repairing, and restoring school buildings and facilities. This Court has previously considered the provisions of Article IX—Payment of Claims and Judgment—of the Tort Immunity Act and has found that the funding by the Defendant of the costs of said activities constitutes and is the payment by the Defendant of a liability, tort judgment or settlement that authorizes the issuance of the District’s non-referendum general obligation bonds referred to in Section 9–105 of the Tort Immunity Act and the levying of an annual rate of tax in the Defendant’s annual levy for Tort Immunity purposes, to pay for annual and recurring
1

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

program costs (other than the institution of capital improvements) as required by that Order.
*2 8. This Court has further heretofore found that the relief requested by Defendant is in the nature of remedial action taken to protect Defendant against a potential finding of liability for violations of constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs, all as set forth in the original Complaint and second Amended Complaint filed in this cause. As such, the remedial action undertaken by Defendant on a voluntary basis would protect itself from such a finding of liability and hence has been and continues to be a proper expenditure of funds of Defendant to protect against a judgment which would sound in tort, pursuant to the provisions of Illinois Law.
9. Pursuant to this Court’s Order of May 22, 1992, Defendant shall forthwith cause to be issued and sold $10,000,000.00 of General Obligation Bonds to provide for the following purposes and in the following amounts shown in column three of the attached spread sheet, subject to the adjustments noted below:
(a) Marsh School (rehabilitation) [first bond issue] $107,000.00 to contingency fund
(b) Riverdahl School (rehabilitation) [first bond issue] $60,000.00 to contingency fund
(c) Church School (building costs) $116,000.00 to contingency fund
(d) Marsh School (rehabilitation costs) $360,000.00 to contingency fund
(e) Wilson School (rehabilitation costs) $400,000.00 to contingency fund

(f) An additional amount equal to $144,000.00 from the contingency funds shall be transferred to the Washington School capital budget pursuant to the Planning Committee’s recommendation.
(g) Once the second bond issue is disbursed, the amount of $97,400.00 shall be reimbursed on line 30 (Washington) from column three to column one.
(h) The balance of contingency funds from the first and second bond issues shall be placed in a special interest bearing escrow fund, and expenditures therefrom shall not be expended without the consent of the Court Appointed Monitor, Dr. Eugene Eubanks, or pursuant to further order of this Court.
(i) Any interest earned on the bond proceeds while awaiting expenditure shall be paid into the Contingency Fund.
10. This Court further finds that the relief granted herein shall not impede, delay, or interfere with any other of the obligations of the Defendant as may be required by further orders of this Court in the implementation of the Second Interim Order, either by agreement between the parties or as determined as necessary by this Court.
11. This Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms and conditions of this Order. The Defendant shall file, within sixty (60) days, a plan of implementation of this Order with precise cost estimates and scheduling of its obligations ordered herein.

	  

TORT	  IMMUNITY	  FINANCING	  DATA	  

	  	  

	  

ROCKFORD	  SCHOOL	  DISTRICT	  NO.	  205	  

	  	  

	  

(Prepared	  by	  Paul	  Schilling)	  

	  	  

	  

TORT	  IMMUNITY	  LEVY	  MODIFICATION	  AND	  BOND	  DATA	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

1	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

ACC’TG	  

	  	  

	  

Line	   	  

	  

PAGE	   PRG

REVISED	  

	  	  

	  	   M	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  	  

	  

2	   	  	   	   JAN	  ‘92	   	  	   	   BONDS	   	  	   	  

3	   	  	   	   MAY	  ‘92	   	  	   	   BONDS	   	  	   	  

4	   	  	   	   TOTAL	   	  	   	   BONDS	   	  	   	  
2

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

No.	  

DESCRIPTION	  

	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

1	   Regular	  Tort:	  

	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

2	   Liability	  Insurance	.  .............................................................	 	   	  

	  	   	  	  

	  

	  

3	   Treasurer’s	  Bond	 . .................................................................	 	   	  

	  	   	  	  

	  

	  

4	   Unemployment	  Compensation	.  .........................	 	   	  

	  	   	  	  

	  

	  

5	   Worker’s	  Compensation	 . ............................................	 	   	  

	  	   	  	  

	  

	  

6	   	  

	  

	  	  

	  

7	   Sub–Total	.  ........................................................................................	 	   	  

	  	   	  	  

	  

	  

8	   Less	  Interest	  Earned	. . .......................................................	 	   	  

	  	   	  	  

	  

	  

9	   	  

	  

	  	  

	  

10	   Estimated	  Regular	  Tort	  Levy	.  ...............................	 	   	  

	  	   	  	  

	  

	  

11	   	  

	  

	  	  

	  

12	   Court	  Order—Regular	  Levy:	  

	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

13	   Within	  School	  Integration	. . .......................................	 	   B1	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

14	   Human	  Relations	  Inservice	.  ....................................	 	   B2	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

15	   In	  School	  Suspension	.  ......................................................	 	   B3	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

16	   Parent	  Choice	.  ............................................................................	 	   B4	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

17	   Recruitment:	  Parent	  Centers	.  ...............................	 	   B5	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

18	   Garrison	  School	.  ......................................................................	 	   B5	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

19	   	  

	  

	  	  

	  

20	   Equity	  Impact	.  ............................................................................	 	   B6	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

21	   Computer/Resource	  Data	.  ........................................	 	   B9	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

22	   School	  Based	  Management	.  .....................................	 	   B10	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

23	   Staff	  Assignment	.  ...................................................................	 	   B11	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

24	   Elementary	  Facilities	.  ......................................................	 	   C1	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	  

REF.	   NO.	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

LEVY	  AMT	   	  	   	   	  

	  

	  

762,753	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

45,000	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

275,000	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

479,650	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	   	. . ....................................................	 	   

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

1,542,403	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

92,403	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	   	. . ....................................................	 	   

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

1,450,000	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

9	   700	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

12	   701	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

13	   702	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

14	   703	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

15	   704	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	   704	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

50,000	   	  	   	  
373,000	   	  	   	  
632,000	   	  	   	   0	   	  	   	  
237,000	   	  	   	   	  
	  

16	   705	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

25	   706	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

26	   707	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

26	   708	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

31	   709	  

	  	  

	  	  

50,000	   	  	   	  
100,000	   	  	   	   0	   	  	   	   0	   	  	   	   0	   	  	  

15m	   	  	   	   	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
80,000	   	  	   	   	  
	  
2,368,378	   	  	   	   	  
	  
	  

10m	   	  	   	   	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
50,000	   	  	   	  
373,000	   	  	   	   	  
50,000	   	  	   	   	  
0	   	  	   	   	  
	  
0	   	  	   	   	  
	  
	  

	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
50,000	   	  	   	  
373,000	   	  	   	   	  
50,000	   	  	   	   	  
80,000	   	  	   	   	  
	  
2,368,378	   	  	   	   	  
	  
	  
3

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

	  

	  

	  

25	   Church	  School	.  ...........................................................................	 	   C1a	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

26	   Marsh	  School	. . .............................................................................	 	   C1	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

27	   Riverdahl	  Addition	 . ............................................................	 	   C1d	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

28	   Alternative	  Programs	. . ....................................................	 	   C3	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

29	   Voluntary	  Movement	  Consult	.  .............................	 	   C4	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

30	   Washington	  Magnet	  School	.  ...................................	 	   C5	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

31	   Wilson	  Magnet	  School	  Staff	 . ...................................	 	   C6	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

32	   Wilson	  Magnet	  School	.  ...................................................	 	   C6	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

33	   Roosevelt	  Center	 . ..................................................................	 	   D4	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

34	   Church	  Magnet	  School	.  ..................................................	 	   C6A	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

35	   Core	  Program	  Equity	.  ......................................................	 	   C7	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

36	   Supplemental	  Programs	. . ............................................	 	   C8	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

37	   Voluntary	  Transfers	.  .........................................................	 	   C9o	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

38	   Facilities/Equipment	  Equity	.  ................................	 	   C10	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

31	   High	  School	  Program	.  ......................................................	 	   D6	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

32	   Affirmative	  Action	 . ..............................................................	 	   E	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

33	   Staff	  Compensation	.  ...........................................................	 	   F	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

34	   Administration	  of	  Order	. . ............................................	 	   G	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

35	   Attorneys/Evaluation	.  ....................................................	 	   	  

	  	   	  	  

	  

	  

36	   Contingency	. . ................................................................................	 	   	  

	  	   	  	  

	  

	  

37	   Cost	  of	  Issuing	  Bonds	.  .....................................................	 	   	  

	  	   	  	  

	  

	  

38	   	  

	  

	  	  

	  

39	   Sub–Total	.  ........................................................................................	 	   	  

	  	   	  	  

	  

	  

40	   Bonding	  Required	.  ...............................................................	 	   	  

	  	   	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

6,560,000	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

34	   709	  

	  

3,600,000	  

2,400,000	  

6,000,000	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

34	   709	  

	  

2,890,000	  

360,000	  

3,250,000	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

33	   709	  

	  

1,930,000	  

475,000	  

2,405,000	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

35	   710	  

357,000	  

	  

	  

	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

37	   711	  

0	  

	  

	  

	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

38	   712	  

260,000	  

	  

359,000	  

359,000	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

41	   713	  

260,000	  

	  

	  

	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

41	   713	  

	  

250,000	  

3,033,000	  

3,283,000	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

67	   723	  

	  

2,900,000	  

500,000	  

3,400,000	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

41	   714	  

0	  

	  

33,000	  

33,000	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

42	   715	  

0	  

	  

	  

	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

43	   716	  

2,144,000	  

	  

1,000,000	  

1,000,000	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

49	   717	  

445,000	  

	  

	  

	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

55	   718	  

0	  

	  

60,000	  

60,000	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

68	   719	  

210,000	  

	  

	  

	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

69	   720	  

150,000	  

	  

	  

	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

80	   	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  	  

	  

81	   721	  

232,000	  

	  

	  

	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

81	   722	  

1,500,000	  

	  

440,000	  

440,000	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	   724	  

0	  

461,166	  

497,000	  

958,164	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	   725	  

0	  

520,458	  

370,000	  

890,458	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	   	. . ....................................................	 	  . ..........................................................	 . ...........................................................	 . ...........................................................	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

6,800,000	  

15,000,000	  

10,000,000	  

25,000,000	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

15,000,000	  

10,000,000	  

25,000,000	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	   Capital	  Outlay	  Items	.  ...................................................	  

	  

	  

	  	  

4

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

	  

	  

	  

	  

3,440,000	  

	  

	   Cash	  Flow	  Items	.  ...............................................................	  

	  

	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

5

 
 People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Education, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2000)

KeyCite Red Flag - Severe Negative Treatment Reversed by People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. 205, 7th Cir.(Ill.), April 18, 2001
2000 WL 1855107 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, N.D. Illinois.
PEOPLE WHO CARE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, School District No. 205, Defendant, and
ROCKFORD EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Rockford Building Maintenance Association, and
Education Office Personnel Association, Intervenor–Defendants.
No. 89C20168. | Aug. 11, 2000.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MAHONEY, Magistrate J.
*1 This matter comes before the court on cross-motions by the plaintiff class and the defendant school board to modify the Comprehensive Remedial Order (“CRO”)1 in certain respects. Plaintiffs have moved for a reformulation and extension of the remedies called for in the CRO, while the Board has moved for partial unitary status and a definitive statement limiting its remaining obligations to the victims of discrimination. The motions were tried to the bench over fifteen trial days in February and March of this year. The parties adduced testimony from more than thirty witnesses, some of whom appeared in court and others who testified by deposition. The court held the record open after trial for submission of additional deposition testimony. Post-trial briefing and the submission of additional evidence was completed on May 9, 2000.
The court has reviewed pertinent portions of the record, and has also reviewed and considered the testimony and exhibits offered at trial, the testimony offered by deposition, the stipulations made by the parties, the findings of fact and conclusions of law proposed by the parties, and all arguments offered by counsel. All counsel have aided the court and done an outstanding job. The court now enters the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

INTRODUCTION
Much has transpired since entry of the CRO, four years ago. A brief overview at the outset will set the proper stage for this opinion, and certain portions of the liability findings and the CRO will be revisited in more detail below; the court must otherwise assume familiarity with the record. The provisions of the CRO can be grouped into four broad categories: three categories setting forth the remedies themselves, and one setting forth the means of implementing them. The first category is student assignment, which encompasses both the manner in which students are assigned to school buildings and the manner in which they are transported there. The second category is educational components, which addresses the manner in which students are assigned to classrooms and the level of education which they are being provided. The third category encompasses the remaining remedies; this opinion will address only discipline and co-curricular activities. The last category concerns implementation of the remedies, addressing such issues as the financing of remedies and the role of the special master.
Liability findings underlying the remedies were interrelated, and causation was often more synergistic than linear. The remedies were accordingly structured to work together in a cohesive and integrated fashion relying, of course, upon the good faith implementation of the District and the good faith support of the Board.
Student Assignment
Discrimination in student assignment concerned two separate areas. First, the District had intentionally created and maintained segregated school buildings. The District used an attendance zone system that ostensibly assigned students to schools by their geographic location; but attendance zones for elementary schools were gerrymandered to create or preserve racially-identifiable schools, and feeder patterns into secondary buildings (middle and high school) were manipulated to perpetuate the segregation in upper-level grades. See People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, 851 F.Supp. 905, 917–19, 1026–81 (N.D.Ill.1994). This strategy helped to create and preserve racially-identifiable minority schools, mostly on the west side of town. *2 Second, the District failed to provide sufficient building capacity in the minority neighborhoods. The southwest quadrant, which is three-quarters minority, had
1

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Education, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2000)

3,036 elementary seats for 4,272 resident elementary students. That translates into a utilization rate2 of 140%, or nearly three students for every two seats. The northeast quadrant, where the population was more than 85% majority, had 4,218 elementary seats available for 3,242 elementary students—one seat for every student, with almost another 1000 to spare. The following table demonstrates, by quadrant, the inverse relation between the minority population and available elementary capacity:
See Table 2, CRO at 58.3
Ellis School provides a stark example of how this capacity shortage affected students. The old Ellis (it has since been replaced), located in the southwest quadrant, served an attendance zone with 916 resident elementary students but only had seating capacity for 422. The remaining 494 students were physically displaced, but not to neighboring schools; those schools were also over capacity. The displaced Ellis students, and the displaced students from neighboring attendance zones, were bused as far as necessary to find seats for them.
The situation was similar at the secondary level. School closings left one middle school (West) and one high school (Auburn) operating in the northwest quadrant; there were no secondary schools at all in the southwest quadrant. Nearly two-thirds of all minority high school students lived in the northwest and southwest quadrant. Auburn had 1,635 seats for 2,267 residents, a utilization rate of 139%. The other three high schools, all in the northeast and southeast quadrants, combined to offer 6,470 seats to the remaining 4,477 students—a utilization rate of 69%, or nearly three seats for every two students.
The situation was worsened by the decision to house the District-wide Gifted and CAPA programs at Aubum. Gifted and CAPA are highly successful stand-alone programs that attract a significant voluntary enrollment of majority students from the east side; in fact, Gifted and CAPA students were the only east-side residents attending Aubum at the time. The programs consumed an estimated 550 seats, further reducing the available capacity for neighborhood students and raising its utilization rate to 209%—more than two students for every one seat.
From a qualitative standpoint, elementary schools in the southwest quadrant (again, there were no secondary schools) were the worst in the District. On average, they were older and less structurally sound than buildings throughout the rest of the District. Portions of some buildings, including an entire wing at Ellis, were closed off entirely, contributing to the capacity shortage.
*3 The ramifications of these capacity problems were not surprising: minority students endured grossly disproportionate transportation burdens. At the high

school level, for example, 58% of all minority students were bused across the Rock River4 from west to east, while only 8% of majority high school students were bused from east to west. Recalling that every one of those majority students had voluntarily enrolled into the Gifted or CAPA programs at Auburn, it is apparent that the system resulted in one-way mandatory busing for minority students.
The displacement problem actually resulted in a perverse form of integration. The racial balance of east-side schools improved as displaced minority students were involuntarily reassigned there. At the elementary level in 1994–95, for example, there were a total of 1041 “integration transfers” District-wide: 1007 of these transfers took minority elementary students from west to east, while only 34 took majority students from east to west. Those 1007 elementary students represented nearly 20% of the minority elementary population—one in five minority elementary students had been mandatorily reassigned to the other side of the city in order to alleviate overcrowding and to numerically integrate east-side schools. See CRO at 60.
The court ordered several measures to correct these inequities. First, it was clear that any long-term solution would require additional capacity in the southwest quadrant. The court ordered the replacement of two elementary buildings (Barbour and Ellis, both now K–8) and the construction of a new middle school (now known as the Rockford Environmental Science Academy, or “RESA”). These new buildings are all located in the southwest quadrant. Haight elementary school and Kennedy middle school, both northwest quadrant schools that had recently been closed, were reopened. The court also ordered a change in grade configuration: sixth-grade classes were “rolled up” into the middle schools, leaving the elementary schools with grades K—5 and the middle schools with 6—8. This helped to alleviate the capacity shortage, as the students could be more easily absorbed at the middle school level.
A revamped student assignment plan was also necessary. The court considered several options to determine which would most effectively address the capacity problems, the manipulation of attendance zones and feeder patterns, and the resulting transportation burdens. A comprehensive, mandatory reassignment plan would have been the most effective and most straightforward to implement: mandatory reassignment of every student in the District offers the greatest ability to tailor assignment patterns in a fair and equitable manner. The court rejected this approach, however, because it posed the most rigid and harsh interference with the District and its day-to-day operations.
In the end, the District itself proposed5—and the court adopted—a voluntary assignment plan called Controlled
2

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Education, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2000)

Choice. Controlled Choice is designed to achieve system-wide desegregation through voluntary transfers. The former assignment system was disbanded and students are now allowed to select almost any school throughout the District.6 Students and their parents choose the schools which they would like to attend by rank-order preference. Assignments are made on the basis of these choices, within the limits of racial fairness guidelines: incoming classes are structured to fall within +/15 percentage points of the District-wide racial makeup at that grade level. Controlled Choice thus allows parents and students, rather than the court, to be responsible for selecting schools.
*4 Controlled Choice is being phased in through a grandfathering system. Students are not uprooted from prior assignments; only students needing new school assignments (i.e., students at entry-level grades or transfer students) go through the choice process. Unfortunately, some minority students have been grandfathered into discriminatory assignments. This problem could have been addressed by implementing Controlled Choice simultaneously at all grade levels, but the District contended that the resulting system-wide disruption would have been too great. The phase-in was adopted at the District’s request.
There are also educational components to Controlled Choice. A handful of schools develop magnet themes in order to attract diverse enrollment; homogenous offerings do not stimulate voluntary transfers, particularly by east-side students who are content with nearby schools. Schools which are consistently underchosen are targeted for review and improvement. Finally, minority students who were historically underserved are provided with tutoring and other supplemental programs to enable their transition into new schools.

Educational Components
Discrimination in the District’s educational offerings was in many ways more perverse than in student assignment. The most direct and egregious offense was “tracking.” The District implemented a system of tracking courses, ostensibly to segregate students by achievement; in reality, the system was used to segregate students by race. Minority students were systematically placed into low-track courses while majority students were systematically placed into honors-level courses. Minority students with reading and math scores as high as the 99th percentile nationwide were being placed into low-track courses while majority students scoring as low as the 50th percentile were placed into honors courses. See 851 F.Supp. at 949, 959–60. Worst of all, low-track enrollment was effectively self-perpetuating; the low-track curriculum did not offer the instruction or tools necessary to matriculate into higher-track courses. Once placed into low-track courses, students were generally there to stay. The combination of racially segregative tracking and a racially segregative assignment system resulted in a school system that denied equal education to minority students.
*5 Educational interventions were designed to accomplish three interrelated objectives. First, they were designed to repair the faulty education which so many minority students still in the system had received—to restore those students, so well as reasonably practicable, to the position which they would have occupied in the absence of discrimination. Second, programs were designed to help high-scoring minority students transition out of the low tracks and into more challenging courses. Finally, as mentioned above, the student assignment plan required educational programs to facilitate the transition of minority students into new schools.

The court declined to choose a new assignment system at the secondary level. The court required the District to meet the racial fairness guidelines, but allowed the District to determine the best means of doing so. The District ultimately proposed that Controlled Choice be implemented at the middle schools and high schools. This proposal was approved by the court.
The court also declined to order any capital projects at the high school level. Additional capacity was desirable to serve the west side, but all parties agreed that the District could not support an additional high school. Any decision to open a new high school would have necessarily involved closing another. Instead, the court generally charged the District with the responsibility of alleviating the capacity shortage at Auburn, and particularly required that the stand-alone Gifted and CAPA programs be moved to another building.

Remaining Remedies
The remaining remedies that will be addressed in this opinion are student discipline and co-curricular activities. The court notes that many provisions of the CRO are not addressed in this opinion; those provisions are left undisturbed, and continue in full force and effect consistent with the law of the case. Liability findings regarding discipline generally found disparate treatment: minority students were referred for discipline in disproportionate numbers, and the discipline which they received was disproportionately harsh. The court directed the District to develop a discipline code that was race-neutral on its face and in its operation. The court also directed the District to either eliminate subjective criteria or to equalize the frequency and severity of discipline; the Circuit Court modified this last provision, fearing that either approach would unduly limit
3

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Education, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2000)

the discretion necessary for teachers and administrators to govern their classrooms and their schools.
Liability regarding co-curricular activities flowed largely from the inequitable provision of after-school transportation. Minority students who had been mandatorily reassigned to distant schools were not provided with the transportation necessary to participate in after-school activities. The court found specific instances of discrimination in the racial makeup of certain programs, but those findings were overturned by the Circuit Court on appeal. The court directed the District to encourage participation by all students in co-curricular activities, and also to ensure that financial barriers to participation (the District charges participating students an activity fee) did not have racially disparate impacts.
Conclusion
Four years have passed since the CRO was entered. This is an opportune time to review the progress that has been made, to consider what reasonably practicable steps remain to be taken, and to estimate how soon the court will be able to divest itself of this involvement in the District’s affairs. This timeframe turns upon two considerations. First are the needs of the remedial measures themselves: some have not yet been fully implemented, such as the student assignment plan; others have been fully implemented but are still needed, such as the educational programs.
Second is the good faith of the District and of the Board. For reasons explained below, it appears that this good faith requirement may be the determining factor in bringing this litigation to a close. The court will discuss this consideration first, as it will determine the manner and extent to which this court withdraws its jurisdiction over this case.
ACTIONS OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION—BAD FAITH
*6 After discrimination has been found, a school board must demonstrate “its good faith commitment to the entirety of a desegregation plan.” Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 498 (1992). “A history of good faith compliance ... enables the district court to accept the school board’s representation that it has accepted the principle of racial equality and will not suffer intentional discrimination in the future.” Freeman, 503 U.S. at 498. This good faith requirement helps to separate school boards that are actively battling discrimination from those

that are putting on “a temporary constitutional ritual,” Morgan v. Nucci, 831 F.2d 313, 321 (1st Cir.1987); “a district court need not accept at face value the profession of a school board which has intentionally discriminated that it will cease to do so in the future,” Board of Education v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 249 (1991). The good faith showing is also important to the community. The minority community is entitled to some assurance that their children and their children’s children will not suffer the harms inflicted upon generations past. In determining whether to dissolve the decree in whole or in part, the court must consider “whether the district has demonstrated to the public and to the parents and students of the once disfavored race its good-faith commitment to the whole of the decree and to those statutes and constitutional provisions that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first place.” Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 71 (1995). The Board must “show its good-faith commitment to the entirety of a desegregation plan so that parents, students, and the public have assurance against further injuries or stigma.” Freeman, 503 U.S. at 498.
Ridicule of the District and Circuit Courts: “Wacko” and “Insane”
Historically, the Rockford Board of Education has been predominantly made up of white members. That holds true today: five of the seven members currently sitting are white, while one is Hispanic and one is African–American. The most disturbing events of recent years involve members of the white majority ridiculing both the federal courts and the remedial efforts that the Board itself agreed to undertake. The latest round of appeals resulted in opinion from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejecting a number of appeals filed by the Board. See People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, 171 F .3d 1083 (7th Cir.1999). At the time, the Circuit Court characterized certain actions of the “newly elected school board and its newly retained law firm ... [as] guerilla warfare against the very provisions of a remedial decree to which their predecessors had consented.”See 171 F.3d at 1085.
Some Board members took those comments to heart, though perhaps not as the Circuit Court intended. At least one member of the sitting majority, David Strommer, publicly declared himself “proud” to be a “guerilla warrior” fighting against a decree which was not to his liking:
*7 “Guerrilla warfare doesn’t mean you’re on the wrong side of the fence. We’re standing up for what’s right. America ... is not a dictatorship run by judges. I’ll be proud to call myself a guerrilla warrior.”—Mr. Strommer, March 25, 1999 (PX 35; Strommer 925–28).7
4

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Education, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2000)

Other previous public comments from Mr. Strommer have included the following:
“We’re mortgaging our future and our kids and our city just to satisfy the whims of a few minorities.... We’ve got people who’ve come into our country, crossed our borders and expect the general populous [sic] to support them. I say, ‘Hell no.” ’—Mr. Strommer, December 9, 1996 (Strommer 948; PX 38).
Judge Mahoney is a “wacko” and “insane,” and the CRO is “extreme overkill”—Mr. Strommer, December 9, 1996 (Strommer 947; PX 38).
Several other prominent examples arose out of the “Rally for Rockford.” This rally, held in February 1998, featured guest speakers and audience members addressing this litigation and issues tangential to it. Testimony at trial indicated that the event was organized by Thomas Fleming, a co-founder of an organization called the League of the South. The League of the South, according to the testimony, is an organization that advocates the rights of individual States to secede from the Union and seeks to resurrect a Southern Anglo–Celtic culture. (Delugas 604–06; Epps 1757–58; Strommer 959–61).
Board President Patricia Delugas, Vice President Theodore Biondo, and member Mr. Strommer, all members of the white majority, were featured guests at this rally. Ms. Delugas and Mr. Strommer testified at trial that they had received personal pleas from the head of the local chapter of the NAACP alerting them to Mr. Fleming’s associations and urging them not to attend. (Delugas 605, Strommer 959–61). They did attend, however, and together with Mr. Biondo appeared on the dais with Mr. Fleming himself.8 A videotape of the rally was submitted into evidence (DX 358), and reveals that each of these three Board members—after being introduced in their official capacities—gave rousing speeches before a raucous crowd. Excerpts from Ms. Delugas and Mr. Strommer include the following:
“The Rockford School District was found guilty of discrimination. False!”—Ms. Delugas.
“The school board is recalcitrant and lawless. False! If you answered ‘true,’ you ... need to be de-programmed.”—Ms. Delugas.
“Magistrate Mahoney’s opinions are the law of the land. False!”—Ms. Delugas.
“Neighborhood schools are illegal and inherently racist. False! If you answered ‘true,’ you’re a graduate of the Stanley J. Roszkowski School of Constitutional Law.”—Ms. Delugas.

“Rockford is a city held captive by judicial tyranny.”—Mr. Strommer.
“Rockford has a king—P. Michael Mahoney, who has his general. General Eubanks9 and his occupation army are quartered in our community.”—Mr. Strommer. See DX 358 (Video); PX 29 (Transcribed).
*8 Statements such as these speak for themselves. They do not show the court, much less the minority community, a good faith commitment to the decree or the principles underlying it.
Abdication of Board Function
The public statements of the Board members have been backed up by their actions. Their actions have demonstrated a refusal to participate meaningfully in the litigation, an outright abdication of their legal function, and efforts to derail the remedial process.
Refusal to Participate in Formulating Remedial Plan or Annual Budgets
The first obligation of a school district that has been found liable for discrimination is to come forward with a plan to remedy the effects of that discrimination. See Green v. School Board, New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, 438–39 (1968) (“The burden on a school board today is to come forward with a plan that promises realistically to work, and promises realistically to work now”). This court followed Green by charging the District with the initial responsibility of proposing a remedial plan. This approach served several objectives. First, it minimized judicial intrusion into local affairs. Second, it preserved judicial resources by leaving the court out of educational debates. Third, it offered some promise of a superior plan, as the District itself sits in the best position to integrate remedial objectives into its overall educational mission.
These efforts went for naught. Despite the extension of deadlines, the District failed to ever come forward with a remedial plan. The initial task ultimately fell to the special master. The District then joined the process and agreed to many of the remedies before later challenging them in the Circuit Court.
The Board has taken the same approach to the annual budgeting process, which involves an extensive review of expenditures for the remedial programs. District staff, as opposed to Board members, have cooperated extensively with the master in this process; the former superintendent, Dr. Ronald Epps, was particularly helpful in developing
5

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Education, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2000)

the annual budgets. The support ends there, however; as the Circuit Court noted in its most recent opinion, the Board’s approach to budgeting consisted of taking “pot shots” at the budget proposed by the master. See 171 F.3d at 1087. That observation has held true every year.
Refusal to Enter Tax Levies
Once each annual budget has been finalized, monies to fund that budget must be identified. This court declined to order the use of any particular funding source in the CRO. The court instead noted that the District was responsible for funding the remedies, and left the details of that endeavor to the District. CRO at 210–14. The Board responded by proposing that the annual costs of CRO implementation be paid by entering levies each year pursuant to the Illinois Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Immunity Act, 745 ILCS 10/1–101 et seq. (the “Tort Immunity Act”). This proposal proved controversial, and spawned satellite litigation that has subsequently wound through both the federal and state courts. See In re Consolidated Objections to Tax Levies of School Dist. No. 205, 306 Ill.App.3d. 1104 (2nd Dist.1999); In re Application of County Collector, 96 F.3d 890 (7th Cir.1996); and In re Application of County Collector, 918 F.Supp. 235 (N.D.Ill.1990).
*9 The court approved the proposal because it appeared then—and appears now—to be the least intrusive means of funding the remedial measures. It should be noted that alternative funding sources have been identified for certain expenses; capital improvements, for example, have been funded by Certificates of Participation (“COPs”), which are debt instruments similar to bonds. The Tort Immunity Act has been identified and utilized only as a funding source for year-to-year expenses. The Board has never come forward to propose an alternative.
The annual entry of levies has generally not gone well. The first difficulties arose in December 1996. Three pertinent levies were before the Board at its meeting on December 10 of that year. The first was a levy that would generate income sufficient to retire the COPs over their lifetime; this levy was a prerequisite to actually issuing the COPs, which had not yet been done. The second was a lease levy, which would raise funds to lease educational space. The third was the annual levy for funding programs through the Tort Immunity Act. All three levies had been ordered by the court, but all three failed that night: one on a deadlocked 3–3 vote (one sitting member was absent from the meeting) and the others for lack of a second.
The levy resolutions themselves had been prepared by the law firm of Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, then counsel to the Board. Ms. Delugas requested that the Scariano

firm revise the resolutions to reflect, among other things, that the levies had been ordered by the court without regard for the feelings of voters or of the Board. The Board acceded to counsel’s insistence that an additional revision excusing the Board from voting on the levies altogether could not be inserted; but this accession came only after a failed motion (made by Mr. Neblock and seconded by Ms. Delugas) to terminate employment of the Scariano firm.
Following this board meeting, the Scariano firm and in-house Board counsel, Mr. William Quinlan, filed a status report with the court. See Docket 2494 (December 16, 1996). The report is striking for both its candor and its implications. In addition to recounting the events of the December 10 meeting, the report states that, “[i]n sum, the Scariano Law Firm and William J. Quinlan can no longer report to the Court with any certainty that the Board of Education will take the actions necessary to implement the CRO and subsequent orders entered by this Court.” Status Report at 1–2.
The levies came up again for vote at the Board meeting of December 17, 1996. The levy resolutions had been amended to include clauses reading as follows: “the Board of Education does adopt this levy under compulsion of Court order and subject to any appeals process available to the Board of Education including the Board’s pending appeal from the December 6, 1996 Order to the United States Court of Appeals from the Seventh Circuit.” (PX 33 at Bates Stamp 7832). The levies were approved in this form.
*10 Both the Scariano firm and Mr. Quinlan were later terminated. Dr. Epps, who was intimately familiar with the Board in general and with these proceedings in particular, testified that the Scariano firm was terminated because the Board majority believed that the firm “[was] not effectively representing them and their wishes”; the Board majority wanted to pursue “litigation objectives relative to stopping ... the sale of the COPs,” while the Scariano firm’s objective was “implementing the [court’s] order.” (Epps 1734–35).
The next year brought a different course of events. After a hearing to set the 1997–98 expenditure plan, the court directed the Board to propose a means for funding the expenditures. The Board’s report “assume[d] that this Court can and will enter” an order directing the Board to levy under the Tort Immunity Act, but stopped short of either espousing that approach or proposing any other. See Docket 2781 (September 24, 1997).
Plaintiffs moved for entry of a revenue generation order, but the court initially denied the motion. Noting the “responsibility of the District to fully fund all CRO remedies,” the court concluded that “the court cannot be expected to continuously spoon-feed the RSD regarding
6

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Education, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2000)

every aspect of CRO implementation,” and that “the RSD should require decreasing involvement from the court, rather than increasing involvement and continuous direction.” See Docket 2844 (December 8, 1997).
The Board persisted in refusing to either enter the levy or propose alternative funding. The court ultimately directed that the levy be entered, issuing an order that ran against each Board member in his or her “official capacity.” The levy was entered, but three individual members—Mr. Biondo, Ms. Delugas, and Mr. Strommer—sought to personally intervene into the litigation. Docket 2881 (12–22–97). That attempt was denied by both this court and by the Circuit Court. Docket 3009 (5–7–98); 171 F.3d at 1088–90.
Finally, 1998 brought a third scenario. The Board entered into a stipulation in September 1998 indicating, among other things, that it was willing to close its schools rather than levy under the Tort Immunity Act:
2.7.10 The “FY 99 Unfunded CRO Costs”... total approximately $24,678,507.
3.4. The Board has been unable to develop an alternative plan to simultaneously fund the FY 99 CRO Expenditure Plan and the regular operations of the school system.
5. The Rockford Board of Education will not voluntarily use the tort immunity levy to generate revenue for the FY 99 CRO expenditure plan or COPs debt service payment.
5.3. In the absence of some form of a levy to raise revenues to pay for the FY 99 CRO Expenditure Plan as ordered by the Court, RSD would most likely be incapable of sustaining its operations through the second half of FY 99 ....
See Plaintiffs’ Motion for Revenue Generation Order, Exhibit E, Docket 3116 (September 16, 1998). The District made no funding motion under Missouri v. Jenkins. The court again directed each member of the Board, in his or her “official capacity,” to take sufficient steps to enter a levy to fund the unfunded portion of the FY 99 expenditure plan. See Docket 3144 (October 28, 1998), and Docket 3154 (November 6, 1998). *11 The white majority of the Board refused to follow the order, having developed a new litigation strategy. The first hint of the strategy came when the Board contended that no portion of the FY 99 expenditure was “unfunded,” despite contrary stipulations by the Board and findings of fact by this court. See Docket 3209 (December 16, 1998). The Board majority was hoping, first, that the Circuit Court would invalidate about half of the expenditures

called for in the FY 99 expenditure plan. (Epps 1769). The board members then hoped to fund the remaining programs by raising the general education levy through public referendum. (Epps 1769). This strategy was never proposed to the court, and it carried substantial risk. State law required that the Tort Immunity levy be entered on or before December 29, 1998; but argument before the Circuit Court was not scheduled until the following February and the referendum could not be placed upon a ballot until April.
Indeed, the strategy failed. The Circuit Court rejected the Board’s appeals in a decision handed down March 19, 1999, finding neither an “alternative budget figure ... from which the funding of the improper programs had been subtracted” nor “any crisp, quantitative sense of what [the Board’s] own preferred mode of compliance would look like.” See 171 F.3d at 1087–88. The referendum was defeated at the polls a few weeks later. (Epps 1735).
On April 15, 1999, Plaintiffs moved this court to enjoin the state law deadline for entering a Tort Immunity levy (the county still had time to include a levy in that year’s property tax assessment). See Docket 3281 (April 15, 1999). The court denied that motion, placing the responsibility for a funding solution where it belonged: on the District’s own shoulders. See Docket 3290 (April 15, 1999). The District made its own motion on April 26, requesting that the court enjoin the state-law deadline. That motion was allowed the same day and the levy was ultimately entered successfully.
The court was neither eager nor pleased to take so drastic a step. The court is striving to extricate itself from local affairs, but episodes like this only complicate and deepen the court’s involvement. The exigency here was entirely of the Board’s own making; only its unilateral defiance of funding orders entered the previous Fall made court action necessary. Nevertheless, at least one individual who was then a member of the Board majority maintained as recently as February of this year that the Board had never been ordered to enter a levy at all: “During the course of the four years [that I was a Board member], I don’t think the magistrate actually ever ordered us to [levy].” (Neblock 793). Such denial, which is simply inaccurate, is indicative of the battles which the court has been forced to fight to fund the remedial programs of the CRO.
Refusal to Authorize Remedial Expenditures
Once an annual budget and funding source are in place, day-to-day implementation of the programs requires day-to-day expenditures. The Board has often dragged its feet in approving expenditures, delaying their votes or refusing to vote altogether.
7

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Education, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2000)

*12 Judge Roszkowski first encountered such resistance after entering the First and Second Interim Orders. Judge Roszkowski appointed a special master (the same master now overseeing implementation of the CRO) to counter those tactics, directing that expenditures approved by the master be made even while Board approval was still pending. This allowed the master to begin implementing remedies without Board interference.
State law still requires that the expenditures be approved by the Board, but recently the Board has withheld its approval altogether. CRO expenditures were originally included among other day-to-day expenditures for approval, but the Board has altered that process. (Epps 1716–20). CRO expenditures are now singled out and receive neither review nor a vote; believing themselves powerless to disapprove of the expenditures, the Board majority has consistently refused to take any action upon them at all. (Strommer 850) (“voting for something that the board has no control over is rather nonsensical.”).
The tragedy here is opportunity lost; the Board could demonstrate a commitment to the remedial programs by an affirmative vote. The expenditures are still being made, and the programs are still being run; the Board’s stance is largely symbolic. That stance betrays the Board’s lack of commitment to the remedial process and objectives embodied in the CRO.
Moreover, the Board’s actions have concrete effects upon the programs. Inaction speaks as loudly as action, and inaction such as this affects the morale of good and dedicated people in the schools who are trying to deliver the educational remedies. (Orfield 2212–13, 2262). The District’s own employees testified that the perception of Board opposition to the programs impairs their implementation. (Dimke 369–71; Epps 1707–1709; Swanson 1594–97). Dr. Epps felt compelled to choose between implementing the CRO and keeping his job. (Epps 1708–10).
Conclusion
In the shadow of this record, the Board now seeks credit for the very progress that has been made without its aid and, at times, in the face of its active opposition. The Board claims a right to conduct “guerrilla warfare” under the First Amendment, as if finding “ ‘bad faith’ would ... undermine the very principles of freedom upon which this nation was founded.” Defendants’ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at 183. Eloquence cannot disguise the fallacy in suggesting that the First Amendment secures both a freedom to speak and immunity from the consequences that speech may bring; the former is as true as the latter is false. More fundamentally, the Board fails to acknowledge that its

consistent course of conduct has left this court without any rational basis for finding good-faith support of the remedial process. In many ways, this litigation was brought about by years, decades, and generations of District actions taken without regard for consequences to the minority community; further disregard by the District for the consequences of its actions is hardly the road towards resolution of this matter. *13 The court is anxious to bring this litigation to a close, but something more must certainly be expected of the Board. The court’s experience in this case and the evidence admitted at trial make one proposition exceedingly clear: This Board, at this time, cannot be fully trusted with the constitutional welfare of the minority students committed to its care.
That said, there are certain areas—outlined below—where the court’s work is complete. The court will accordingly relieve the District of further affirmative obligations with respect to those areas and return control of their day-to-day operations to the District; but, in light of the concerns expressed here, the special master will retain a monitoring function with respect to those areas, and the court will retain jurisdiction to redress any discrimination which might recur. See Freeman, 503 U.S. at 498 (court may withdraw level of supervision incrementally consistent with underlying remedial purposes). This approach will provide the Board with abundant opportunities to prove its constitutional mettle.
MODIFICATIONS TO THE CRO
The court’s involvement in this case has always been driven by three primary considerations. First, the court has a constitutional obligation to eradicate the vestiges of discrimination to the extent reasonably practicable and to return the minority students of Rockford to the position which they would have occupied in the absence of past discrimination. Second, the nature of the remedies must be tailored to the nature and scope of the constitutional violation. Third, the court is striving to return control of the District to local authorities as soon as possible. Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 280–81 (1977). Education is inherently a function of local government and is, perhaps, the last and most jealously guarded bastion of State sovereignty.. With those guiding principles in mind, the court will review the progress towards those goals and determine what reasonably practicable measures remain to be taken.
I. Facilities, Student Assignment, and Transportation
The interrelated problems regarding facilities, student
8

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Education, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2000)

assignment, and transportation stem primarily from the capacity shortage in minority communities: structural displacement forced minority students to accept one-way busing to distant schools. The court will thus begin by reviewing the present capacity situation and its implications for transportation and assignment.
1. Facilities
The need for capital improvements was driven first by the southwest capacity problem; additional capacity was needed in the quadrant to alleviate the overcrowding and transportation burdens suffered by those students. On the qualitative side, capital improvements were necessary to bring buildings in predominately minority areas of the city up to par with buildings throughout the rest of the District. Three new buildings have been built in the southwest quadrant. Barbour and Ellis, both formerly K–6 elementary schools, were each razed and replaced with K–8 buildings. The new Barbour houses a bilingual/bicultural magnet, while Ellis has been developed as a performing arts magnet. The third new building is the Rockford Environmental Sciences Academy (“RESA”), a 6–8 facility developed as an environmental science magnet. (Olson 445–49).
*14 Two schools in the northwest quadrant have been reopened. Kennedy Middle School was reopened as a comprehensive 6–8 middle school, and Haight Elementary School was reopened as a K–6 Montessori program. (Olson 442–43). Other projects include air conditioning at Haskell, where a year-round calendar has been implemented, and computer labs to support the technology focus at the Rockford Science and Technology Academy (“RSTA”). (Olson 442–46).
These projects have satisfied the capital improvements contemplated by the CRO at the elementary and middle school levels. James Olson, who is the General Director of Operations for the District and whose judgment carries great weight with the court, testified that the buildings in the northwest and southwest quadrants are now qualitatively superior to buildings in the northeast and southeast quadrants. (Olson 467). The court can thus discern no reason to pursue further capital improvements at the elementary or middle school level.
Utilization problems persist at the high school level, however. The closing of West High School in 1989 left west side students with only one local high school (Auburn), and the subsequent reopening of West as a middle school failed to address that problem. Auburn offers only 1,635 seats to the 2,643 high school students residing west of the Rock River. The Gifted and CAPA programs are still located at Auburn, where they consume about one-third of the seats that could otherwise go to

west-side students seeking to enroll in traditional comprehensive classes.
These problems have been largely cured by the implementation of Controlled Choice. First choice rates—the percentage of students receiving their first choice of schools—have consistently been very high at each of the four high schools, at times reaching 100%. Thus, even though the distribution of capacity is not proportional to the geographic distribution of students, the distribution of capacity does comport very well with student demand. The court thus sees no pressing reason to increase capacity at Auburn.
In particular, the court sees no need to relocate either the Gifted or CAPA programs out of Auburn, as originally contemplated in the CRO. The District has agreed to fill its stand-alone Gifted program with at least the same proportion of minority students found in the general student population; thus, although the Gifted program consumes seats at Auburn, it does not impact the overall desegregation. CAPA does not share that distinction, but Auburn has been able to meet its student demand even with CAPA present in the building.
A residual transportation burden does remain for the high school students. The disproportionate geographic distribution of high school seats forces minority students to travel, on average, longer distances to school. A similar residual burden is noted later in this opinion with respect to elementary students, but the burden is much less troubling at the high school level; high school students can endure transportation much more easily than kindergarten students. The court concludes that this burden is too small to justify further measures to improve capacity at the high school level.
*15 Capital improvements are needed at Auburn. With the agreement of the parties and the master, the court earlier released 5.1 million dollars of carryover funds to make renovations at Auburn. Those funds were released in advance of this opinion so that work could commence during these summer months. The project is currently being overseen jointly by Mr. Olson and Dr. Eubanks. The court is confident that they will make the best possible use of those funds.
The court does not foresee further capital improvements at the high school level, but this conclusion comes with a significant caveat. The resident utilization rate at Auburn remains high and the situation is only acceptable because Controlled Choice has resulted in proportional student demand for each of the District’s high schools. If some change should upset that balance—changes in choice rates, for example, or replacement of Controlled Choice with a mandatory assignment system—then additional measures might be necessary and justified.
9

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Education, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2000)

2. Assignment Plan
Controlled Choice was first implemented for the 1997–98 school year. At the District’s request, it was implemented only at “entry-level” grades—students who had already been assigned to a school building were allowed to progress through the highest grade offered at that building. This results in a phase-in of the remedy as those entry-level students matriculate into higher grades each year. Choice could have been implemented simultaneously at all grade levels, but the prospect of reassigning 27,000 students through a new and unfamiliar system was an administrative nightmare. By 1999–2000, choice had progressed into grades K–2, 6–8, and 9–11; grades 3–5 and 12 remained bound, for the most part, to prior segregative assignments. Some progress has been made in those non-choice grades, as new students transferring into the District (a total of about 2,000 students each year) and intra-District transfers have been subject to the racial fairness guidelines at all grade levels; but that does not change the fact that the Class of 2000 just graduated high school without ever participating in the assignment remedy, nor does it change that fact that next year’s fourth- and fifth-grade students are still honoring assignments made under the former discriminatory system. Choice will not be fully operational until 2002–03.
The Board contends that three years of choice have been sufficient, and wishes to dismantle the plan now in favor of an unspecified alternative. The Board cites progress already made in desegregating the schools and in making capital improvements in the southwest quadrant to support its request, notwithstanding its own opposition to those very initiatives. The Board has developed an analysis which purports to show that the southwest quadrant now has sufficient capacity for all of its resident elementary students. (DX 161; Trapp 23–35). The crux of this analysis lies in converting every last elementary building on the west side—including the Gifted program at King—into comprehensive elementary classrooms. (Trapp 131–32).
*16 This analysis, however, does not consider all of the liability findings that the student assignment remedy was designed to address. In fact, it raises more questions than it answers. What attendance zones would be used by a new assignment plan? The attendance zones used in this analysis were specifically found to have been gerrymandered for purposes of artificially segregating schools in the District. See 851 F.Supp. at 917–19, 1026–81. Dr. Eubanks determined that a return to the former attendance zones would resegregate 20 of the 35 elementary schools overnight. (Eubanks 2733; CEX 10).
What would become of the magnet programs that have

been developed? The Board’s plan would convert all of the magnet schools into comprehensive elementary schools. Destruction of the programs which are just taking root would not only be a monumental waste of time, money, and effort, but would impair the remedial purposes that those same programs continue to serve. Would the magnet programs be relocated to east side schools? That might resegregate the schools even further, for the magnets were deliberately located on the west side to attract voluntary desegregative transfers by majority students.
What class sizes would such a system yield? The capital improvements ordered by the court were designed to alleviate overcrowding, but those improvements addressed only a minimum of needs. It appears that the Board’s plan would yield west-side elementary schools with utilization rates of nearly 100% and east-side schools with utilization rates comfortably below that level; and that says nothing of the high school capacity problem that would return if Auburn were to revert to an attendance zone facility.
Finally, what of the fourth- and fifth-graders who have not yet participated in the assignment remedy? The District’s own phase-in process has forced them to wait until sixth grade in order to participate in choice. The Board is content to leave them without a remedy. Even their own expert disagrees here. Dr. David Armor would continue choice at this time in order to eradicate the last discriminatory assignments at the elementary level. (Armor 991–95).
The court has never expected any remedy to be perfect, least of all the assignment remedy; some students have had to wait years to participate in the choice process. That imperfection is the result of the year-by-year phase-in process. It is important to remember that the choice plan itself and the phase-in approach were initially proposed by the District; the Board cannot now be heard to argue that it is impracticable to see that phase-in through to the end.
The Board is trying to dismantle its own plan before it is even fully implemented. Even the success of the plan cannot justify such a result. If it could, a mandatory assignment plan could be adopted and abandoned after only one year; surely that is not the case.
The difficulty lies in confusion of independent obligations regarding implementation and duration. Clearly, the District is on course to satisfy that provision of the CRO requiring implementation of Controlled Choice as of the 2002–03 school year; but that says nothing of the duration for which the plan should operate. If mere implementation satisfied durational requirements, then litigation such as this would achieve no more than a fleeting snapshot of equal protection. The moment of full
10

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Education, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2000)

implementation transcends neither the vestiges of discrimination past nor the potential for discrimination in the future.

court has used the following chart in approaching this task:

*17 The difficult task is determining a duration of the

	  

plan that will address remaining vestiges of

discrimination to the extent reasonably practicable. The

	  

ELEMENTARY	  SCHOOLS	  

MIDDLE	  

HIGH	  SCHOOLS	  

	  	  

SCHOOLS	  

	  	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

K	  

1	  

2	  

3	  

4	  

5	  

6	  

7	  

8	  

9	  

10	  

11	  

12	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

1997—98	   	  	   	  

K	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

7	  

	  

9	  

	  

	  

	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

1998—99	   	  	   	  

K	  

K	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

7	  

7	  

9	  

9	  

	  

	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

1999—00	   	  	   	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

	  

	  

	  

6	  

7	  

7	  

7	  

9	  

9	  

	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

2000—01	   	  	   	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

	  

	  

6	  

6	  

7	  

7	  

7	  

9	  

9	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

2001—02	   	  	   	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

	  

6	  

6	  

6	  

7	  

7	  

7	  

9	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

2002—03	   	  	   	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

6	  

6	  

6	  

6	  

7	  

7	  

7	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

2003—04	   	  	   	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

6	  

6	  

6	  

6	  

7	  

7	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

2004—05	   	  	   	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

6	  

6	  

6	  

6	  

7	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

2005—06	   	  	   	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

6	  

6	  

6	  

6	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

2006—07	   	  	   	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

6	  

6	  

6	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

2007—08	   	  	   	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

6	  

6	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

2008—09	   	  	   	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

6	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

2009—10	   	  	   	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

K	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

A few words of explanation regarding the chart are in order. The columns of the chart represent grade levels, and the rows represent school years. The chart begins with the 1997–98 school year, the first year that Controlled Choice was implemented. For each school year, reading across, the chart indicates which grade levels have been affected by Controlled Choice and what school year those students first exercised choice. Thus, for the 2000–01 school year that is about to start, students in grades K–3 will have first exercised choice in kindergarten; students in grades 4–5 will not have exercised choice at all; students in grades 6–7 will have first exercised choice in grade 6; and so forth. Note the change in middle school configuration effective with the 1999–00 school year.

Students entering the fourth grade this Fall are the last class of students still honoring discriminatory assignments. Full implementation of the plan would give these students their first opportunity to participate in choice when they enter sixth grade in 2002–03. If those students are to be assured that they will not suffer from another discriminatory assignment, then the assignment plan should remain in place until they enter high school in 2005–06.
That would be a duration of nine years—less than one generation of students, but enough to see the students who suffered from prior discriminatory assignments enter middle schools and high schools of their choice. The first Controlled Choice kindergarten class will be in eighth grade.
11

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Education, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2000)

The court concludes that Controlled Choice should remain operational until 2005–06. After that time, assuming good faith by the Board between now and then, the court should be in a position to return day-to-day control of student assignment to the District. The court reiterates that it is now, and has always been, willing to consider alternative student assignment plans from the parties. The court even delayed part of the CRO when the Board hoped to propose a new plan at the eleventh hour. See CRO at 71–73 (“The Board claims a new and improved plan. The court is willing to listen.”). Any alternative plan, however, must be sufficiently developed so that the court and the parties can assess its impact upon student assignment, transportation, and other desegregation objectives. Changes to the student assignment system entail great disruption to the District’s operations and cannot be taken lightly.
3. Transportation
*18 Transportation problems arose in two contexts. First, the southwest quadrant capacity problem created additional transportation burdens for the minority students concentrated there; if the schools are not brought to the children, the children must be brought to the schools. Second, minority students did not have equal access to after-school transportation. Many minority students were unable to take advantage of after-school tutoring and co-curricular activities. The first problem has been largely cured by the conversion to choice-based assignments and the increased capacity in the southwest quadrant. Choice tends to equalize transportation burdens by mobilizing students of all races District-wide. Choice also ensures that, to some degree, transportation burdens are being voluntarily assumed by students; the former attendance zone system resulted in mandatory one-way busing for minority students.
The average travel time for students who travel to school has been equalized for all students: majority students travel an average of 22 minutes, and minority students travel an average of 22 minutes. (Armor 1022–23; DX 187). A residual burden remains, however; though the average travel time is uniform, the number of students traveling long distances to school is not. Dr. Armor testified that nearly 1 in 3 majority elementary students (30%) lives within 1.5 miles of his or her school, while the same is true for only 1 in 5 minority elementary students (19%). The same pattern holds true in the middle schools (17% of majority students, 13% of minority students) and the high schools (18% of majority students, 11% of minority students). (DX 184; Armor 1020–21). Though these travel burdens depend upon students’ individual choice of schools, there is a relation to the

disproportional allocation of seating capacity throughout the District; majority students, on average, still have more schools closer to home from which to choose.
The court is not aware of reasonably practicable means to further equalize these transportation burdens at this time. Additional construction in minority communities would improve the situation, but not well enough to justify the expense.
The after-school transportation problem has been resolved. After-school transportation which is provided is apportioned throughout the District and among students on an equal basis. (Creighton 301–02). Again, the conversion to choice-based student assignments has played an important role in resolving this problem: not only has equalizing the racial makeup of the District’s schools equalized access to resources such as after-school transportation, but the element of choice in making assignments ensures that some of the transportation burdens remaining have been voluntarily assumed.
There is no need for further changes in the provision of transportation. The court thus returns day-to-day responsibility for transportation to the District, but charges the master to monitor the transportation system.
II. Educational Components
*19 Educational components are a vital part of the CRO for three reasons. First, supplemental programs are needed to counter the discrimination which minority students had suffered; those students still in the system are entitled to a better education than they have received. Second, some transitional programs are needed to desegregate classrooms throughout the District. This is particularly true where the discriminatory use of tracking had wrongfully placed many high-scoring minority students into low-track courses. Minority students cannot be expected to thrive in mainstream classrooms without assistance to ease their transition. (Orfield 2207).
Finally, both transitional and magnet programs are needed to support the student assignment plan. Transitional programs help minority students take advantage of the new assignment plan; in the words of the master, it would be a “cruel hoax” to desegregate the schools without helping minority students transition into the schools from which they had formerly been excluded. See CRO at 30. Magnet programs are an integral part of the plan itself; they are used to break down racially-identifiable schools by encouraging voluntary desegregative transfers. See CRO at 87.
12

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Education, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2000)

1. Supplemental Programs
The overriding justification for supplemental programs is the deficient education which many minority students had received. Discriminatory assignments, inadequate facilities, and classroom segregation had combined to deny minority students a full and equal educational opportunity. A number of programs have been implemented to address these shortcomings. The programs are, on the whole, well-established and well-respected in the educational community. Success for All (“SFA”) is an intensive literacy program at the elementary schools that was originally developed at Johns Hopkins University. SFA provides students with 90 minutes of specialized reading instruction each day, and then builds upon that instruction through tutoring and family involvement. The program has been phased in throughout the District and is currently operating in ten elementary schools. The first schools came online in the 1992–93 school year, and the most recent school came online during this past school year, 1999–2000. SFA has been well received and is considered a success. (Dimke 340–345; Swanson 1578–1600).
Reading Recovery is another literacy program. Overseen in the United States by the Ohio State University, Reading Recovery targets the lowest 20% of the first grade population. Those students receive about 60 sessions of one-on-one tutoring with a specialized teacher. Reading Recovery and its Spanish equivalent, Descrubiendo la Lectura, have also been phased in over the last several years; some schools implemented the programs as early as 1994–95, and others have implemented as recently as 1999–2000. Though full implementation has been hampered by lack of funds, these programs are also widely regarded as a success. (Dimke 345–46, Ragagli 1612–13).
*20 Other programs are designed to prevent deficiencies at the earliest stages of education. Early Childhood Education (“ECE”) was implemented after remand from the Circuit Court, see 111 F.3d at 539, and has been integrated with Head Start and other State-funded programs for preschool students. These programs serve a total of about 1400 four-year-olds who qualify under State guidelines for preschool services. (Dimke 347). All–Day Kindergarten provides a full-day, rather than half-day, placement for kindergarten students. The District’s kindergarten offerings currently include 93 all-day and 17 half-day sections; the all-day sections are consistently overchosen by incoming students. (Dimke 346–47).
The CRO supports two types of programs in the secondary schools. The first are magnet programs, which provide specialized education in a variety of disciplines; their curricula are discussed in greater detail below. Five magnet programs are currently operating in the middle schools. There are no CRO-supported magnets currently

operating at the high school level, but there are plans to complement the science and technology programs at McIntosh (K–2) and RSTA (3–8) with a similar program at Auburn High School.
The CRO also supports traditional tutoring and summer school programs in the secondary schools. Middle school tutoring is funded entirely through the CRO. High school students with one course failure are enrolled into summer school; students with two or more failures are enrolled into the Saturday Academy. (Dimke 349).
These supplemental programs are serving the students well; the primary debate concerns their duration. Resolution of that debate turns largely upon the relation that these programs bear to classroom desegregation and the student assignment plan.
2. Within–School Desegregation
Within-school desegregation measures the degree to which students within a school are segregated into different classrooms. Classroom segregation resulted largely from the use of tracking, a practice which this court initially forbade outright; on appeal, the Circuit Court held that the District need not abandon tracking if it could develop “objective and nonracist” criteria to govern admission into upper-level courses. See 111 F.3d at 536. The District rejected that option on remand. Rather than develop and apply “objective and nonracist” criteria, the District opted for a numerical standard in both the elementary and secondary schools. The District specifically stipulated that a standard of +/12 percentage points would provide the latitude necessary to desegregate all of its core courses (within-school requirements do not apply to elective courses). The court adopted the District’s proposal.
Efforts to desegregate elementary classrooms have been very successful. In 1999–2000, 550 of 556 elementary classrooms were desegregated; the last six classrooms were, on average, out of compliance by less than one student. (Trapp 63–64; DX 141). Middle school classrooms have also been desegregated very successfully: despite isolated areas of concern (such as mathematics classes at Eisenhower, where one section had no minority enrollment at all in 1998–99), District-wide compliance stands at 94.5% for 1999–2000. (Trapp 65–66; DX 140).
*21 Compliance at the high school level is in a shambles. The District achieved very high within-school desegregation at the high school level prior to the 1997–98 school year: 86.3% compliance in 1993–94; 88.9% in 1994–95; 90.5% in 1995–96; and 88.3% in 1996–97. District-wide compliance then fell to 75.7% in
13

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Education, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2000)

1997–98, and 57.9% in 1998–99. 100% compliance

period. The following tables provide snapshots of

within a particular subject matter (for example,

compliance at each of the four high schools in 1996–97

mathematics at East High School in 1995–96) was not

and 1998–99:

uncommon prior to 1997–98, but has not been duplicated

since then. Guilford High School alone plummeted from

78.1% overall compliance in 1996–97 to 33.1% two years

	  

later; mathematics sections at Guilford dropped nearly 75

percentage points (93.5% to 19.4%) over that same

Auburn	  

1996–97	  

1998–99	   Guilford	  

1996–97	  

1998–99	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	   	  

	  

	  

English	  

98.0	  

74.4	   English	  

83.6	  

33.3	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	   	  

	  

	  

Social	  Studies	  

94.4	  

57.9	   Social	  Studies	  

68.0	  

54.5	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	   	  

	  

	  

Mathematics	  

91.2	  

58.6	   Mathematics	  

93.5	  

19.4	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	   	  

	  

	  

Science	  

89.7	  

75.0	   Science	  

62.9	  

31.3	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	   	  

	  

	  

Overall	  

94.0	  

69.3	   Overall	  

78.1	  

33.1	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	   	  

	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	  
East	   	  	   	   English	   	  	   	   Social	  Studies	   	  	   	   Mathematics	   	  	   	   Science	   	  	   	   Overall	   	  	   	  

1996–97	   	  	   	  
100.0	   	  	   	  
100.0	   	  	   	  
90.2	   	  	   	  
92.1	   	  	   	  
95.7	   	  	   	  

1998–99	   Jefferson	   	  	   	  	   	   	  
75.0	   English	   	  	   	  	   	   	  
52.0	   Social	  Studies	   	  	   	  	   	   	  
41.7	   Mathematics	   	  	   	  	   	   	  
62.2	   Science	   	  	   	  	   	   	  
60.0	   Overall	   	  	   	  	   	   	  

1996–97	   	  	   	  
80.0	   	  	   	  
94.1	   	  	   	  
82.4	   	  	   	  
83.3	   	  	   	  
83.2	   	  	   	  

1998–99	   	  	   	  
59.2	   	  	   	  
80.0	   	  	   	  
72.5	   	  	   	  
75.0	   	  	   	  
69.3	   	  	   	  

Every single measure of within-school desegregation at every single high school declined. Modest improvement was seen in some areas in the 1999–2000 school year, but the problem is still pervasive. If there are salient, non-discriminatory variables that would explain this systematic and system-wide return to segregated classrooms, the District has not offered them.

The District contends generally that desegregation of the high schools is complicated by the flexibility given to students in selecting their own classes. This argument fails to acknowledge that desegregation requirements apply only to non-elective core courses (English, social studies, mathematics, and science) that all students are scheduled into; there is no desegregation requirement for
14

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Education, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2000)

elective courses. The argument is undercut altogether by the District’s own track record in desegregating its classrooms: 100% compliance was achieved in some core subjects as recently as 1996–97.
The differentiation between upper- and lower-level courses is also blamed for the problem. This course differentiation is a holdover from the former tracking regime, but structural barriers to courses have been removed; upper-level courses are now open enrollment and available to all students. (Miller 185–86). Minority representation in upper-level courses has increased, but is still lacking; minority students make up 37% of the high school population but only 16% of honors enrollment. (DX 208; Rossell 1213–14). In the 1999–2000 school year, 97 out of 155 high school honors courses failed to satisfy the racial fairness guidelines, all of them for want of minority students. (PX 112, 113; Oakes 1906–07).
*22 Dr. Christine Rossell testified on behalf of the District that minority students are over-represented in gifted courses. Her analysis was based upon minority student test scores: finding, for example, that minorities constituted only 6% of the “high scorers”11 on standardized exams but 23% of gifted enrollment, Dr. Rossell concluded that minority students were being adequately served by upper-level courses. (Rossell 1214–15; DX 211, 212).
This analysis would be much more pertinent if the District had adopted test scores as objective and nonracist criteria to govern admission into all of its upper-level courses. The District has always passed on that option, however, choosing instead to apply numerical standards at all levels. That choice has costs and benefits; it allows the District to enroll low-scoring majority students into upper-level courses, but only on the condition that minority students are also fairly represented.
In this same regard, the District also suggests that the racial fairness guidelines be applied separately to upper-level courses; that is, that desegregation of upper-level courses be measured only against the enrollment of minority students into upper-level courses. The court rejects the suggestion for two reasons. First, it contradicts the District’s own proposal to use the +/12 percentage point standard. The District represented that this standard was sufficiently flexible to desegregate its classrooms. Second, applying the same standard to all levels gives the District an incentive to encourage minority enrollment into upper-level courses—an essential element in breaking down the former tracking system.
Moreover, the court is swayed by the analysis provided by Dr. Jeannie Oakes. Dr. Oakes analyzed the enrollment of minority students into the full range of advanced classes offered by the District,12 rather than just the Gifted

program. Dr. Oakes also used “linked” data, which allows students’ individual test scores to be linked to their individual course enrollments; Dr. Rossell’s analysis relies upon aggregated data, which allows analysis of trends but does not recreate the experience of actual students. The linked approach provides a more accurate picture of student enrollments.
The court also notes that Dr. Oakes has concentrated upon ability grouping, tracking, and within-school integration for her entire career. Dr. Oakes has “probably published more about this topic than anyone else in the country,” with more than one hundred peer-reviewed articles on ability grouping and tracking and fifty to one hundred peer-reviewed articles on within-school integration to her credit. (Oakes 1884–87). Dr. Oakes has twice been recognized by the American Educational Research Association for her work in these areas. (Oakes 1887–88). Dr. Rossell’s expertise is equally impressive, but it is focused upon other areas: building-level desegregation, white flight, and bilingual education. Dr. Rossell has written an article regarding within-school integration that had been submitted for publication at the time of trial, but she had not otherwise published peer-reviewed work in this area. (Rossell 1251–58).
*23 Dr. Oakes’ analysis breaks a student body into deciles of achievement according to test scores. Within each decile, Dr. Oakes compared the enrollment of majority and minority students into advanced classes.13 This analysis revealed the following:
(PX 144; Oakes 1927–30).
This analysis reveals substantially similar enrollment patterns at either end of the spectrum: high-scoring and low-scoring students are enrolled into advanced classes at similar rates. Those students are the easy cases; battles are fought at the margin. Here, the fifth, sixth, and seventh deciles—that is, students who are on the borderline for enrolling into advanced classes—reflect the greatest racial disparities. The seventh decile, for example, reflects a differential of 9 percentage points, the highest overall; majority enrollment outpaces minority enrollment by one-third at the fifth decile. Course enrollment patterns have not yet equalized; minority students, the victims of a tracking system only recently torn down, still enroll into low-level courses in disproportionate numbers. The result is not necessarily surprising, as minority high school students received substandard education in elementary school. The infusion of student choice into the course selection process is a positive development, as are the modest improvements seen in classroom desegregation in the past year. The court expects that minority enrollment into upper-level courses will continue to improve over time as a result of the programs now in place.
The standard that is now in place was proposed by the
15

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Education, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2000)

District itself. The District represented that +/12

percentage points was sufficiently flexible to desegregate

The District’s own track record confirms that it can do

its classrooms. The court has always been willing to

better at the high school level; 100% compliance was

consider alternatives if the District wants to rely upon

achieved as recently as 1996–97. Classroom

objective and non-racist criteria. No matter what approach

desegregation at the high school level simply must

is used, however, that approach will be applied to students

improve. The court will accept Dr. Eubanks’

of every race. The court cannot sanction the application of

recommendation that present measures are adequate to

different standards to students of different races.

address the problem, and that only effort is lacking. For

want of any alternative proposal, the court reaffirms the

The court also notes that the District has never enlisted

within-school desegregation standards formerly proposed

the aid of the master or the court in resolving this

by the District and adopted by the court.

problem. The CRO explicitly stated that the District

should never apply classroom desegregation requirements

to the educational detriment of students. See CRO at 198, 215. The court established a waiver system, empowering

3. Support for Student Assignment Plan

the District to apply to the master for a waiver in the event that the requirements became educationally unsound. The District never approached the master for such a waiver, even as its overall compliance at the high schools fell more than 30 percentage points in two years. (Eubanks 2766–67).

Finally, educational programs support the student assignment plan. This need is two-fold. First, supplemental programs are necessary to enable minority students to participate in the plan; this need is served by many of the same programs described above, which will not be revisited here.

*24 Dr. Eubanks believes that the resegregation of classrooms is the result of inattention and neglect of the District’s obligations. (Eubanks 2766). He believes that redoubled efforts, rather than drastic changes to either the system or to the CRO, will improve the situation. One

Second is the magnet programs, which are an integral part of the assignment plan; their variety of specialized programs encourage voluntary transfers to schools that were formerly racially-identifiable. (Orfield 2221–22). The District is currently operating 11 magnet programs:

recent change which he expects will prove helpful is the

recent purchase of new course scheduling software that

will better account for desegregation standards in course

	  

scheduling.

Barbour	  (K–8)	  

—Bilingual	  (Spanish)	  and	  bicultural	  immersion	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  	  

	  

Dennis	  (K–5)	  

—Nature	  science	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  	  

	  

Ellis	  (K–8)	  

—Arts	  magnet;	  includes	  the	  K–8	  CAPA	  program	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  	  

	  

Haight	  (K–6)	  

—Montessori	  program	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  	  

	  

Haskell	  (K–5)	  

—Year–round	  schooling	  (9	  weeks	  on,	  2	  weeks	  off)	  

	  	  

	  	  

16

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Education, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2000)

	   	  	   	   Lewis	  Lemon	  (K–5)	   	  	   	   	  	   	   McIntosh	  (K–2)	   	  	   	   	  	   	   RESA	  (6–8)	   	  	   	   	  	   	   RSTA	  (3–8)	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Stiles	  (K–5)	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Washington	  (K–8)	   	  	   	  

	  
—Global	  studies	   	  	   	  
—Science	  and	  technology	   	  	   	  
—Environmental	  science	   	  	   	  
—Science	  and	  technology	   	  	   	  
—Investigative	  learning	   	  	   	  
—Communications	   	  	   	  

Some magnets have only been recently implemented and require additional time to take root in the school and the student body; magnet programs generally require 4–6 years for full implementation. RESA, for example, was just opened in 1999–2000 and is entering its second year as a magnet. Barbour was magnetized in 1995–96, but it will be another three years before grandfathered non-magnet students graduate out of the building and the immersion program can be fully implemented.
The magnet programs vary in their success: Montessori is a very popular program and a desegregative success; Dennis and Stiles have had particular difficulty in attracting first-choice applications. These experiences fuel the ongoing process of identifying successful programs and underchosen schools—the former so that they may be replicated, the latter so that they may be improved. This

process is an ongoing effort overseen by the master with input from the parties.
4. Conclusion
*25 The District has offered to run the educational programs for an additional two years, but the court thinks that time frame is too short to satisfy the purposes which the programs serve. The student assignment plan will remain in place until 2005–06, and segregation of high school classrooms is a continuing problem. Appropriate educational programs should continue consistent with those initiatives. The master expects that the programs will require decreased funding over the coming years—annual
17

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Education, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2000)

reductions of about 10%, by his projection, starting with the 2000–01 school year. This is a reasonable goal that the court expects will be obtained. This wind-down approach should allow gradual preparation for the return of student assignment and educational programs to local control after 2005–06.
The court sees no reason, however, to commit to particular programs or combinations of programs at this time. Those decisions are best made on a year-to-year basis that allows for continuing review of each program’s efficacy. This is particularly true during a wind-down period, where the most educationally sound sequence for winding down or discontinuing programs might change from year to year and might not necessarily reflect the relative worth of those programs. The court, therefore, modifies the CRO to allow for the wind-down proposal by the master. The court notes that annual reductions in funding needs—assuming good faith by the District—will result in decreasing involvement by the court in funding.

personally observed and corrected multiple instances where minority students have been treated unfavorably; he has found it necessary to rescind suspensions and even quash expulsion proceedings that he thought discriminatory in nature. (Miller 259–60). Overall, Dr. Miller admits to “concerns” that discipline is not being handed out fairly, and views correction of those inequities—or at least those inequities that are pursued through the complaint process—as his own responsibility. (Miller 261).
*26 The court is equally concerned by Dr. Miller’s testimony. Disparate treatment is never acceptable, and students should never be left to depend upon a review process for equity. The court’s contribution to remedying these problems, however, is complete. The District has adopted a race-neutral discipline code, and the court would be hard-pressed to improve upon the multi-level review process now in place. The court returns day-to-day responsibility for discipline to the District, but charges the master to continue monitoring the area.

III. Discipline and Co–Curricular Activities
Discipline and co-curricular activities are the last two remedial areas that the court wishes to address. These areas bear some relation to those discussed above, but they are better addressed separately.
1. ____Discipline
The CRO required the District to develop a uniform code of student conduct and to apply the code fairly, impartially, and equitably. The court has had an opportunity to review a complete copy of the District’s discipline code. (DX 16). The code is thorough, well-developed, and uniform; above all, it is race-neutral. The code is printed in English, Spanish, and Laotian, and is distributed to students, teachers, administrators, and parents. (Miller 191). Application of the code remains a concern, however. The code properly affords wide discretion to teachers and administrators, but that discretion raises the possibility of differential treatment. A complaint system is in place to review complaints of discrimination: if a complaint is not resolved on the building level, it is reviewed by the Area Superintendent who oversees that school.14 (Miller 193–95).
Dr. Nathaniel Miller, an Area Superintendent for the last four years, testified that discriminatory application of the discipline code at the building level remains a problem. (Miller 195) (“I am not going to say [discrimination] doesn’t happen on the lower level, but I am going to say that we have the review process there to catch those kinds of things before they go too far.”). Dr. Miller has

2. ____Co–Curricular Activities
The CRO addressed two concerns regarding co-curricular activities. The first concerned transportation: minority students who had been mandatorily reassigned to distant schools were not provided with the after-school transportation necessary to participate in co-curricular activities. The second concerned participation levels; though no quantifiable thresholds were set, the CRO admonished the District to encourage co-curricular participation by all of its students, and to take steps to ensure that financial hurdles did not prevent minority students from participating. Many of these concerns have been addressed through implementation of Controlled Choice. The activity bus problem was a consequence of mandatory assignment of minority students to distant schools. The District’s activity bus is not comprehensive; at some schools, activity buses are only available 2 days out of the week. Insofar as the District’s schools have been desegregated, however, the shortcomings of that system are borne equally by students of all races; the system might not be ideal, but it is not discriminatory. There is also no need for concern that racially-identifiable majority schools enjoy better co-curricular activities than racially-identifiable minority schools; Controlled Choice has nearly eliminated racially identifiable schools altogether.
Darryl Creighton, the District’s Athletic Director, testified that all students are encouraged to participate in co-curricular activities. The court has no reason to believe otherwise. The District has also implemented a fund-raising program to help students to satisfy the annual
18

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Education, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2000)

$50 activity fee.
The court finds no reason to retain control over the day-to-day administration of co-curricular activities, and returns that responsibility to the District. The master will continue a monitoring function.
IV. Finance and Administration
Finally, the court will address several issues pertaining to implementation of the remedies. The question of financial impact was raised sua sponte by the court, and will be updated here. The Citizens’ Advisory Committee will be addressed, and the roles of the Associate Superintendent for Education and Equity and the master will be clarified.
1. Financial Impact

lawsuit, however, because many of the obligations set forth in the CRO are obligations which the District should have been fulfilling in the course of its general operations. The obligation to provide equal transportation, for example, will not expire with this lawsuit; that cost must be absorbed by the District. The capital projects, as well, should not have required the impetus of litigation; Ellis school should have been attended to long before disrepair forced an entire wing of the building closed. In many ways, this lawsuit is correcting artificial deflations in past operating costs occasioned by the underprovision of services to minority students.
Other obligations are more compensatory in nature. Tutoring programs that help high-scoring minority students transfer out of low-track courses, for example, are designed to compensate for past deficiencies in educational services. Those temporary costs are the very costs which will now decrease from year-to-year as the short-term needs which they addressed are satisfied.

The court would like to re-examine the financial impact

which this litigation has had upon the District and upon

the community. Funding of remedies is ultimately the

responsibility of the District, but the court is sensitive to

financial realities and raised the issue sua sponte in the

CRO. See CRO at 7, 209–214. This District has financial

difficulties that predate this litigation and, unfortunately,

will likely outlast it as well. The court has strived to

endorse the most economical remedies that would make

minority students whole.

*27 It can be difficult to delineate the costs of this

1996–97	  

$24,063,399	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

1997–98	  

23,761,050	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

1998–99	  

21,891,224	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

1999–00	  

19,625,827	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

These compensatory costs are the costs which the court would like to isolate in assessing the financial impact of this lawsuit, for they are the temporary measures. Unfortunately, that breakdown is not available.15 The accounting that is available allows the court to review the total dollars spent pursuant to the CRO. Those dollars have been accounted for in “Fund 12” as follows:

	  
$25,555,297	   	  	   	  
25,227,669	   	  	   	  
24,569,329	   	  	   	  
22,483,699	   	  	   	  

$24,118,104	   	  	   	  
21,013,184	   	  	   	  
23,596,038	   	  	   	   –	   	  	   	  

$1,437,193	   	  	   	  
4,214,485	   	  	   	  
973,291	   	  	   	  
–18	   	  	  
	  

Totals	   	  	   	  

89,341,500	   	  	   	  

	  
97,835,994	   	  	   	  

68,727,326	   	   	  	   	  

The court notes that Fund 12 has not impacted the District’s general operating funds—and, more particularly, has not contributed to the accumulated deficit in the District’s general operating funds. Fund 12 represents the Tort Immunity levy, which is a distinct revenue stream that would not be available to the District

in the absence of litigation. Fund 12 has run a surplus every year; it is the accumulated Fund 12 surplus that was designated by the court for capital improvements at Auburn.
As noted above, the court has ordered a wind-down of the
19

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Education, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2000)

educational programs. This wind-down will reduce the

need for new funds by about 10% annually. The court

	  

anticipates future budgetary needs as follows:

Fiscal	  Year	   	  	   	  
2001	   	  	   	  
2002	   	  	   	  
2003	   	  	   	  
2004	   	  	   	  
2005	   	  	   	  
2006	   	  	   	  

Budgeted	   	  	   	  
$17,550,000	   	  	   	  
15,795,000	   	  	   	  
14,215,000	   	  	   	  
12,793,950	   	  	   	  
11,514,555	   	  	   	  
10,363,10019	   	  	  
	  

The annual costs noted above do not include capital expenditures, which have been financed separately. Capital projects called for by the CRO—construction of Barbour, Ellis, and RESA; reopening of Kennedy and Haight; and renovations of other buildings—have totaled $49,624,105.20 The court has been informed by the parties, however, that substantial grant monies may be available from the State to defray these costs. The court would be pleased by such a development and the relief which it would bring for local taxpayers.

*28 The court is aware that the District relies disproportionately upon local property taxes for funding. Dr. Paul Schilling, who acted as a court-appointed expert on the subject of finance, reported that Rockford has the

Fiscal	  Year	  

Tax	  Rate	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

1996–97	  

	  	  

	  

1997–98	  

third-highest effective tax rate in the State of Illinois, trailing only Cahokia and East St. Louis. (CEX 26 at 11). There was no evidence at trial that would provide a national context for Rockford’s tax rate.
Dr. Schilling also broke down the local tax rates to delineate those portions attributed to the annual expenditure plans. These tax rates represent the total tax rate for “compensatory,” non-“compensatory,” and capital costs. This data allows calculation of the actual tax dollars paid by the owner of a $60,000 home (EAV $20,000) since 1996:

	  
Tax	  Dollars	   	  	   	   1.5017	   	  	   	   1.3081	  

300.34	   	  	   	  
261.62	  
20

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Education, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2000)

	  	   	   1998–99	   	  	   	  

	  	   	   1.3359	  (est.)	   	  	   	  

	  	   	  
267.18	  (est.)21	   	  	  
	  

	   1999–00	  
	  	   	  

–	  

–	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

This tax burden will decrease as the wind-down of programs requires decreasing funding. Grant monies from the State would also reduce the tax burden.
2. Citizens’ Advisory Committee
The initial stages of implementing the CRO were aided by a Citizens’ Advisory Committee. The Committee included business, religious, and community leaders representing many different parts of Rockford. The Committee has been an invaluable resource, and its members have provided dedicated and selfless service to the court, the District and, by extension, the entire city. The court today, however, hopes to change the focus of this litigation from design and implementation of the CRO, to completion of its objectives. The court accordingly feels that this is a proper time to discontinue formal operation of the Committee. The court remains indebted to the Committee members for their service, and is certain that they will play important roles in resolving this matter by virtue of their leadership positions within the community.
3. Associate Superintendent for Education and Equity (ASEE)
The office of the ASEE was established in 1993 to oversee District implementation of remedial programs. The ASEE reports directly to the Superintendent, and works with the Area Superintendents, the General Director of Desegregation Implementation, the General Director of Curriculum and Instruction, the Director of Special Education, the General Director of Bilingual–Bicultural Education, and the Gifted program. The office has been the subject of some experimentation. Dr. Barbara Pulliam resigned the position in December 1997 to relocate to another state. At the District’s urging, the office was left vacant; the District hoped that

absorbing the ASEE’s responsibilities into the regular operations of the District would obviate the need for the office altogether. The court acceded to that request, and allowed the District a window of six months—beginning in August 1998—to demonstrate that the CRO could be implemented without oversight by the ASEE. The court indicated that the future of the position would hinge upon the stability of District leadership and progress made in implementing the CRO. See Docket No. 3093 (August 13, 1998).
*29 Both considerations later compelled the court to order the position filled. The following months saw the Board vote to replace Dr. Epps, whose personal dedication to implementing the CRO had been a primary consideration in leaving the position vacant. The Board also terminated its counsel during this time, on grounds that he had been committed to implementing the CRO rather than re-litigating it. The Fall of 1998 saw three individual members of the Board attempt to personally intervene into the litigation, as noted earlier in this opinion.
Implementation also waned. Resegregation of high school classrooms was a particular concern during this time. Dr. Epps and the master thus recommended that the ASEE be replaced, and the court agreed. See Docket No. 3348 (September 21, 1999). After an appropriate search, the master reports that the position has been filled. The position thus remained vacant for more than two years, but the court anticipates that the position will remain filled during these last stages of implementing the CRO. In light of the ASEE’s overriding importance to successful implementation, the court further directs that she may not be relieved of her duties without concurrence of the master or the court. See CRO at 203–04.
4. Special Master
The special master has been the lone constant among District leadership since the CRO was entered. The school
21

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Education, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2000)

board has seen significant turnover. The superintendent of schools left the District last Fall, and the court has learned that a permanent replacement was recently hired. The office of the ASEE was vacant for more than two years. Turnover at all levels is inevitable when operating an institution as large as the Rockford School District. The court finds no reason to conclude that the turnover seen was driven by anything other than natural political and administrative functions. Nonetheless, the turnover underscores the need for stability in the master’s office. The court takes great comfort in the capability and dedication of those functionally responsible for implementing the court’s orders, but no other leader in the District shares the master’s depth of experience with, or comprehension of, the CRO. The court has found his services indispensable; loss of his assistance would severely hamper the remaining work to be done.
Nevertheless, the court contemplates that the master’s role will diminish over time; surely it must, if the court is to extricate itself from local affairs as soon as constitutionally possible. That process has begun today, as the court has redefined the master as a monitor with respect to transportation, discipline, and co-curricular activities.
The student assignment plan will be fully operational starting in 2002–03, when today’s fourth-graders reach middle school. The wind-down of educational programs will be well underway by that time. The last of the magnet programs will have been implemented, and most magnets will have been in place for the 4–6 years necessary to become fully operational. The capital project at Auburn

should be complete, and the District will have had three years to demonstrate improved within-school desegregation in the high schools. In light of the progress expected by the end of the 2002–03 school year, that would be a proper time for the District to assume functional responsibility for the remaining remedial measures and for the master to assume a purely monitoring function.
*30 Continuation of the student assignment plan through 2005–06 will see today’s fourth-graders enter high school, the objective identified earlier in this opinion. The magnet programs, all of which will have been online for four years or more, will have served their role supporting the assignment plan. The educational programs will have wound down to a baseline level of operation. Further involvement of the master or of the court beyond 2005–06 will be unnecessary; continuation of these initiatives will then be a question for the local community.
CONCLUSION
In consideration of the reasons stated in this opinion, the court allows each of the cross-motions in part. The CRO is hereby modified to the extent set forth in this opinion. Any provision not modified by this opinion shall continue in full force and effect, consistent with the law of the case.
	  

Footnotes

1

The CRO was issued in six consecutively paginated portions between January and June of 1996: see Docket 1989 (January 26,

1996) (Pages 1–46), Docket 1999 (February 2, 1996) (Pages 47–73), Docket 2073 (March 12, 1996) (Pages 74–115), Docket 2170

(May 17, 1996) (Pages 116–122), Docket 2183 (May 28, 1996) (Pages 123–155), and Docket 2203 (June 7, 1996) (Pages

156–215). The CRO is reported in full at 1996 WL 364802 (N.D. Ill. June 7, 1996). Certain provisions of the CRO were modified

by the Circuit Court on appeal. People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, 111 F.3d 528 (7th Cir.1997). Small

modifications have also been made by this court. See, e.g., Docket 3011 (May 7, 1998). Unless stated otherwise, references to “the

CRO” should be understood as references to the CRO as modified.

2

The “utilization rate” is the ratio of students to seats.

Quadrant (Percentage Minority Population) Capacity

Resident Students

Excess Seats

Southwest (76.3%)

3036

4272

(1236)

Northwest (24.9)

2318

2181

137

Southeast (17.7)

6407

5766

641

Northeast (12.3)

4218

3242

976

3

Citations to the CRO will reference page numbers of the court’s original memorandum opinion.

Utilization 140.7% 94.1 90.0 76.9

4

The Rock River, running north-south through Rockford, is generally accepted to be a boundary between the west and east sides of

the city.

22

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Education, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2000)

5

The debacle surrounding this endorsement is set forth at pages 70–74 of the CRO.

6

The only limitations upon choice of schools is that northeast students cannot apply to southeast schools, and vice versa. The plan

also contains subtleties such as a proximity preference and a sibling preference. A more complete description of Controlled Choice

can be found at pages 78–84 of the CRO.

7

Citations to trial testimony will provide the name of the witness and pertinent page of the record. “PX” and “DX” will be used to

designate Plaintiffs’ and Defendant’s trial exhibits, respectively.

8

The videotape of the rally reveals that Mr. Fleming, in his own speech that night, characterized the federal courts as “imperial” and

the undersigned magistrate judge as a “viceroy.”

9

Dr. Eugene Eubanks, of the University of Missouri at Kansas City, is the special master overseeing implementation of the CRO

remedies.

10

Numerical paragraph designations have been lifted from the original document.

11

Dr. Rossell defined a “high scorer” as a student whose averaged Mathematics and Reading score was above the 85th percentile.

12

There was some disagreement between the parties as to what constituted an “advanced” course. Algebra 1–2 was a particular

subject of dispute. Dr. Oakes made her definition of “advanced” contingent upon the grade level at which the course was being

offered; Algebra was considered an advanced course if taken in the 9th grade, but not in the 11th or 12th. The District would reject

that approach, instead defining “advanced” courses by their content alone, without respect to grade level.

The court believes that Dr. Oakes’ approach is the better barometer of student enrollment patterns. Mathematics courses, in

particular, are generally taught in a more rigid sequence; the grade level at which Algebra is taken reflects a student’s

advancement relative to cohorts in the same grade. Students who take Algebra at an early grade level will have opportunities to

take even higher-level courses in later grades; the same is not true of students who do not reach Algebra until much later.

13

This analysis uses student “records” rather than students. A student record represents one student enrolled into one course; thus,

one student who enrolls into four courses will generate four student records. This approach allows the analysis to account for

students who take courses of different levels in different subject areas. Thus, by way of example, there are not 2,124 majority

students scoring in the tenth decile; rather, majority students scoring in the highest decile enrolled into a total of 2,124 courses,

86% of which were advanced. Similarly, there were not 9 minority students scoring in the tenth decile; rather, the minority

student(s) scoring in the tenth decile enrolled into a total of 9 courses, 81% of which were advanced.

Decile

Number of Student Records in Decile (Percentage enrolled into Advanced Courses)

Majority

Minority

Tenth (Highest)

2,124 (86%)

9 (81%)

Ninth

2,271 (74%)

227 (70%)

Eighth

2,346 (61%)

377 (59%)

Seventh

1,788 (46%)

446 (37%)

Sixth

1,819 (31%)

650 (24%)

Fifth

1,367 (20%)

667 (15%)

Fourth

1,492 (15%)

1,109 (13%)

Third

1,166 (7%)

1,103 (7%)

Second

941 (5%)

1,207 (4%)

First (Lowest)

633 (3%)

1,212 (2%)

14

The District employs two Area Superintendents, each responsible for about one-half of the District’s schools.

23

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Education, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2000)

15

A line-by-line review of each year’s expenditure plan might yield an answer, but the effort—particularly if a definitive answer

were to require adversary presentations—is certainly not justified.

Fiscal Year16

Bud geted17

Appropriated

Expended

Surplus

16 The last portion of the CRO was issued in June 1996, shortly before the start of the 1996–97 fiscal year on July 1, 1996. The court
will therefore adopt the 1996–97 cutoff in reviewing the financial impact of the CRO. The court notes that many of the initiatives had actually commenced prior to that time, pursuant to the agreement of the District under the First and Second Interim Orders. Those efforts were taken into account by the court in fashioning the remedies called for by the CRO. See pages 209–214 of the CRO for discussion of expenditures made prior to 1996–97.

17 Appropriations each year have included some carryover of unexpended funds from the previous year; thus the differential between
amounts budgeted and appropriated. Budgeted amounts thus represent new funds raised each year, and appropriations represent the total funds available

18 Final numbers for FY 2000 are not yet available.

19 The master’s initial projection extended through 2004–05 (CEX 15), but the court has found that some programs will need to
continue through 2005–06 in order to support the student assignment plan. The court has retained the 10% reduction factor in projecting 2005–06 budgetary needs, but notes that there has been no representation whether this is appropriate; it is possible that 2004–05 funding levels represent a bare minimum. The court will address this question with the master and the parties when the time arrives.

20

Again, the court wishes to note that the District undertook capital projects totaling $24,318,186 before the CRO was entered in

1996.

21 Final figures for 1998–99 were not available, and have been provided as estimates; figures for 1999–2000 were not available at all.

	  

24

 
 People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

2001 WL 755306 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern
Division.
PEOPLE WHO CARE, et. al., Plaintiff, v.
ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 205, Defendant.
No. 89 C 20168. | June 29, 2001.

205(RSD) is declared to be unitary with respect to all six Green factors—student assignment, faculty, staff, transportation, extracurricular activities and facilities and student discipline, effective immediately upon entry of this order;
2) RSD’s sole remaining obligation under the Comprehensive Remedial Order (CRO) is to provide certain Milliken II remedies1 which provide educational and remedial advantages to the Plaintiff class through June 30, 2002. Effective immediately upon entry of this order, RSD is relieved of any other obligation under the CRO other than is set forth herein;

Opinion
Memorandum Opinion and Order
MAHONEY, Magistrate J.
*1 There has been nothing subtle about the Seventh Circuit Court’s orders in this case. The order of April 18, 2001 is a good example. Two concepts dominate that order. 1) The decree is to be dissolved as of June 30, 2002 and the District is to be in control of its schools and 2) the district is entitled to no more relief than requested. This court has re-examined the District’s October 15, 1999, motion and brief and will now enter an order granting all relief requested, including transferring control of the schools back to the District as of June 30, 2002.
Therefore, it is hereby ordered:

3) The CRO is modified to reflect that nothing contained in the CRO, as modified, shall limit the ability of RSD to fund the required remedy from grants;
4) The court Special Master, Dr. Eugene Eubanks, is relieved of all duties and obligations under the CRO as Special Master. The court appoints Dr. Eubanks as a Court Monitor with the responsibility of monitoring the implementation of the Milliken II programs and remedies through June 30, 2002. The court will enter a monitoring order, at a later date, which will address the responsibility of the court-appointed monitor.
5) Effective June 30, 2002, the remedial decree is dissolved and this case is dismissed with prejudice. The court does retain jurisdiction to enforce this order, including through contempt proceedings, if necessary.
	  

1) Rockford Board of Education School District No.

Footnotes

1

RSD’s October 15, 1999, brief specifies that its CRO obligations be limited to funding the following Milliken II programs at a rate

not to exceed $19.5 million per annum: 1) Magnet school programs, 2) Bilingual program, 3) Success For All, 4) Reading

Recovery, 5) Summer School, 6) Site Based Allocations, 7) All Day Kindergarten, 8) Early Childhood Education, 9) Tutorials and

10) Inservice Training.

	  

1

 
 People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. #205, Not Reported in...

2001 WL 910504 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Western
Division.
PEOPLE WHO CARE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, SCHOOL DISTRICT # 205, et al., Defendants.
No. 89 C 20168. | Aug. 8, 2001.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SETTING RESPONSIBILITIES AND POWERS OF MONITOR
MAHONEY, Magistrate J.
*1 Pursuant to the Order of June 29, 2001, the role of the Master, Dr. Eugene Eubanks, was transferred by this court to the role of Monitor. This Order will lay out the responsibilities and powers of the Monitor. The Order is based, to a large extent, on the Order entered April 24, 1991, by Judge Roszkowski, which was an order of reference to Monitor for the Second Interim Order and related again to Dr. Eubanks.
The Monitor shall have the following principal duties: To examine and evaluate the full scope of Defendant’s implementation of and compliance with the representations made both to the District Court and to the Court of Appeals concerning the Milliken II remedies which are to be provided through June 30, 2002. The representations are contained in the Motion for Unitary Status, memorandums filed in support of that motion, findings of fact and conclusions of law that were filed by the District in regard to the Motion for Unitary Status, testimony from the hearing on unitary status and any representations made in the briefs and materials filed with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals regarding Milliken II.
The Monitor shall review any substantial concerns raised by either party concerning implementation and compliance with the Milliken II remedies. The Monitor shall report to the court twice prior to June 30, 2002. The first report shall be at approximately the end of the first semester of the 2001–2002 school year. The second report may be filed when deemed appropriate by the Monitor but must be filed prior to June 1, 2002.

The Monitor may make suggestions or recommendations to the parties or the court as the Monitor deems appropriate, either in the reports which shall be filed with the court, or otherwise. The Monitor may also make recommendations to the District regarding implementation of the Milliken II remedies. The Monitor shall provide to the court information, suggestions or recommendations as may be requested by the court at any time in relation to the Milliken II remedies. If the Monitor makes a recommendation to the court, both parties will have the opportunity to respond before the court takes any action. The Monitor shall have the authority to employ necessary clerical staff. The Monitor shall be paid to the same extent and through the same system as was provided for when the Monitor functioned as Master.
The Monitor shall have the following powers: 1) The Monitor shall have the complete and unrestricted access to the facilities of District 205, including access to all records, files, reports, memoranda and correspondence, plans, notices, budgets, compliance reviews or other documents relative to the Monitor’s duties contained in this document. 2) The Monitor shall have the authority to conduct at reasonable times and places interviews with persons whom he believes to have information that will assist him in performing his duties. This will include Defendant’s employees, agents and staff. Defendant is ordered to encourage the full cooperation of people under their control. The Monitor may also consult with the Plaintiffs, parents and students. The Monitor may attend any formal institutional meetings or proceedings conducted by Defendant regarding subject matter relative to the duties contained in this Order. The Monitor shall have the authority to require, through the Superintendent, written reports from any defendants, employees, agents or staff with respect to compliance with the Milliken II remedies. The Monitor shall also have the authority to require submissions from counsels for the parties.
*2 The court suggests that the Monitor perform his functions with relative informality in order to hold costs down and to discharge his duties in a prompt, effective and efficient manner. The Monitor, of course, has no right to secure information that is subject to the attorney-client or work-product privilege unless the court orders that the matters be divulged. All actions of the Monitor shall be under the direct control and supervision of this court. The Monitor shall not be empowered to direct Defendant school district or any of its personnel to take or to refrain from taking any specific action. The sole power to direct the school district and to punish non-compliance remains with this court.
	  
1

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. #205, Not Reported in... 2

 
 lillll

till)'

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WESTERN DIVISION

PEOPLE WHO CARE, ec al., Plaintiffs,
vs.
ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, SCHOOL DISTRICT #205, et al. ,
Defendants.

)
) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 89 C 20168
) JUDGE ROSZKOWSKI ) ) ) )

INTERIM AGREED ORDER
This cause is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motions for:
1. Preliminary Injunction 2. Discovery Matters
a. Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories; b. Motion to Compel Production of Documents; c. Motion to Compel Attendance at Deposition; d. Motion to Compel and Bar the Testimony of Dr.
William Hazard; and 3. Motion for Class Certification and Motion to Add Plaintiffs. This cause is further before the Court on the Defendants' Motions for: 1. Dismissal of Certain Plaintiffs due to Lack of
Standing; 2. Evidentiary Hearing on Class Certification; 3. Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories; 4. Motion to Compel Production of Document; 5. Motion to Bar the Testimony of Dr. Ashraf Manji.

6. Motion to File Deposition Transcripts. 7. Motion for Summary Judgment. The parties, through their respective counsel, having first participated in extensive pretrial settlement conferences, and having further represented to the Court that present matters of controversy have been temporarily settled, and compromised, IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:
I. JURISDICTION This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the
subject matter of this cause. The Court will later determine the issues of standing and class certification, and all other pending motions of Plaintiff and Defendant, (except the May 1989 Motion for Preliminary Injunction) at a date set by the Court.
II. NO FINDING OF LIABILITY; CONSENT TERMS; ORDER As the parties have voluntarily entered into this Interim Agreed Order (subject to extension, modification and change, as specified herein), this Court finds that the parties have not compromised any of their positions as set forth in the pleadings and contained within the Record of this cause. As such the Plaintiffs maintain and will continue to maintain their position that the Defendant, Board of Education, (hereinafter referred to as "Board" or "District") has maintained a dual system of segregated schools and has intentionally acted in a manner that places disproportionate burden on minority students; the Defendants maintain and will continue to maintain that such
-2-

allegations are without merit.
However, the parties have, at the urging of the Court, agreed to certain modifications of Defendants' school closing and reorganization plan as originally adopted by the Defendant Board of Education on or about February 28, 1989, in part in order to:
1. Avoid a lengthy hearing on the aforementioned Motions and a trial, all of which would consume approximately four (4) weeks of time;
2. Avoid the costs of the same, choosing rather to spend the resources of the Defendant School District on the education of children.
3. Avoid the acrimony and the possible attendant polarization of the School District, resulting from a contested trial.
The Court acknowledges that Plaintiffs have announced their intention to file an amended Complaint alleging system-wide segregation and discrimination by the School District, subject to Defendants' right to file responsive pleadings thereto.
The Court further finds that the entry of this Order shall not be construed by the Court, nor shall the same be characterized by any of the parties, as admissions of liability, wrong-doing, or withdrawal of any of the stated positions, allegations, and defenses asserted herein, or those to be asserted at a later date. This Court reserves judgment of liability with regard to the Defendants.
This Order, therefore, is legally enforceable, and shall remain in effect until further order of the Court. Upon proper petition, notice and hearing, this Court retains jurisdiction to enforce all of the terms and conditions of this
-3-

Order. Any changes, modifications and/or additions hereto shall be determined by this Court. While this Order is entered pursuant to agreement by and between the parties, the terms of this Order represent equitable relief granted in the form of an injunction; therefore the Defendant Board of Education, its members, employees, agents, servants, attorneys and these acting through, under, and for them, are enjoined, restrained, and are directed as follows:
III. SCHOOL ALIGNMENT AND PROGRAMS, 1989-90; FURTHER PLANNING; ADMINISTRATION OF THIS ORDER
A. INTRODUCTION. These interim provisions are for the purposes of maintaining the status quo in key respects, alleviating problems in the Reorganization Plan, initiating desegregation and supplemental education programs and allowing time for further comprehensive planning by the District and for judicial consideration of the merits of the litigation.
3. SECONDARY SCHOOLS For school year 1989-90, to keep open all options concerning the alignment in 1990-91 and thereafter of high schools and middle schools in the District: 1. For the 1989-1990 school year, the Rockford West High School building shall be used to house a middle school program as defined by the Board of Education.
-4-

2. For the 1989-1990 school year the Wilson School shall be used, as space permits, to house the following temporary, nonelementary District programs:
a. Nursing program. b. Adult Education program. c. Special education machine shop. d. Drop-out Prevention program. e. Evening programs previously scheduled for
Jefferson and East High Schools. f. Park district program. g. Rock Valley College extension program, h. RACC programs i. Such other temporary, non-elementary school
program purposes as may be determined by the Board and Administration. 3. For the 1989-1990 school year the District ROTC program shall be housed at Auburn High School. 4. The use of the foregoing buildings in school year 199091 and thereafter shall be determined through the planning process described in Part III, Section (E) below or by further Order of the Court.
C) SOUTHWEST QUADRANT ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Take the following initial steps toward quality integrated
elementary schools in the Southwest Quadrant, while also
-5-

pursuing the planning process described in Part III, Section (E) below. For purposes of this Order, the term "Southwest Quadrant" shall be defined as that area of the School District located south of Auburn Street and west of the Rock River, provided, however, that the Defendants have agreed to said definition solely for purposes of this Agreed Order and further reserve the right to challenge said definition in any further or future litigation which may arise in this or any similar matter.
1. For the 1989-90 school year the following elementary schools shall remain operational:

Barbour Church Dennis Ellis Haskell

King Lathrop Mclntosh Stiles Washington

2. Eliminate to the greatest possible extent any split grade pairs within the Southwest Quadrant; provided that Dennis and Stiles may be paired. All other Southwest elementary schools shall . be K-6 schools for that year, unless the District shows compelling need for a different arrangement at a particular school, based upon space availability and not upon financial efficiency.
3. To preserve existing desegregation, locate elementary alternative programs in Southwest Quadrant schools with high residential minority concentrations, as identified below. For the 1989-90 school year the following alternative educational

programs shall be located in schools in the Southwest Quadrant: a. Elementary gifted program. b. CASS program. c. GIT program. d. Arts alternative program. e. Montessori program.
The District may match programs and schools in a manner designed to serve both desegregation and space utilization objectives. Additionally, all legally permissible measures will be utilized to prevent segregation within each of the elementary schools located in the Southwesr Quadrant.
4. In establishing the school boundaries, and grade configurations provided above, minimize the transportation of elementary school students, within existing guidelines for providing bus transportation, as provided in Part III, Section (D), infra. If it is necessary for movement of students to occur tc match students and space, the parries shall first make every effort to elicit such movement on a voluntary basis consistent with the terms of this Order. All Southwest Quadrant elementary students who volunteer, or ultimately must be assigned, to attend a school other than their neighborhood school (including the students in the Dennis/Stiles pair), shall receive transportation if they live more than six blocks from the school they attend; provided the District has available transportation facilities, and if not, said six block distance shall be expanded.
-7-

5. Establish Washington as a full-site magnet school, without academic entrance restrictions.
a. Provide supplemetal funding in the amount of S350 per student, including one extra teacher per 100 students.
b. Relocate gifted alternative programs to other Southwest Quadrant elementary schools.
c. Manage the admissions process in a manner that avoids skimming high-achieving minority students out of other Southwest Quadrant schools. The target enrollment shall be 50% minority, 50% white, with a priority among minority students for those residing in the Southwest Quadrant.
d. The District will promptly commence a planning process to determine what particular arrangements will best serve the desegregative purpose of a Washington Magnet School. Matters addressed will include the educational focus of the school, methods of recruitment, and the timeline on which the Magnet School should be implemented. Implementation shall be substantially completed by the second semester of 1989-90, and completed not later than September 1990.
e. All 1989-90 enrollment at Washington school shall first be on a voluntary basis, with transportation provided for those students who reside more than six blocks from the school.
-8-

6. The Board shall establish a second magnet school in the Southwest Quadrant during the 1990-91 school year, such program to be established and funded under the same guidelines found in Section CÍ5), above. This requirement shall be subject to alteration by agreement of the parties and by Order of the Court in the event the Planning Process described herein in Part III, Section (E), produces equally effective alternatives for achieving the desegregative purposes contemplated to be served by a magnet school.
7. For the 1989-90 school year the Board will provide sufficient classroom space in the Southwest Quadrant elementary schools to achieve the following:
a. To establish regular elementary school class sizes no larger than the average elementary school class size found in schools outside the Southwest Quadrant, before adjustments for additional staffing which may be required for magnet and supplemental programs.
b. To offer art and music curriculum to the same extent available in elementary schools outside the Southwest Quadrant.
c. To conduct Chapter I programs on the same basis in terms of classroom usage as available during the 1988-89 school year, provided student enrollment in such programs is consistent with such enrollment for the 1988-89 school year.
-9-

d. To provide the alternative educational programs described in Part III, Section C(3), above, with class sizes established at approximately 85

percent of the relevant maximum class sizes established in the collective bargaining agreement between the Board of Education and the Rockford Educational Association, 1988-39, assuming available space for such class size.

e. To offer non self-conrained special education services to the same extent available in

elementary schools outside the Southwest Quadrant.

8. Provide supplemental educational programs in the Southwest Quadrant to alleviate the effects of racial concentration and economic and educational disadvantage.
a. From unrestricted District funds and in addition to

any other funds which the District is required to

target upon low-income

or educationally

disadvantaged students, such as Federal Chapter 1

and Federal and State funds for early childhood

education, the Board of Education shall fund the

supplemental educational programs provided herein and in other requirements found in Sections 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 of the Reorganization Plan adopted by the Board of Education on or about February 28, 1989. Such programs shall be funded for the 1989-90 school

year at a level no less than 1.25 million dollars. Such funds shall be budgeted and expended by the

-10-

Rockford Board of Education according to said Reorganization Plan and this Agreed Order. b. The District will immediately undertake a planning process to determine what particular programs will best serve the purposes of this subsection in 198990. c. Consideration shall be given to the following supplemental programs: 1. class size reduction. 2. provision of preschool education in addition to
that already funded by Federal and State funds. 3. Equipment and resources to offset the
inequities created by parent gifts to schools in higher-income neighborhoods. 9. The Board shall encourage all voluntary transfers of elementary students that enhance integration by providing educational and transportation incentives for all such transfers. a. Voluntary transfers shall be permitted, and transportation provided: 1. For any minority student from any school containing more than 28 percent (28%) minority population to any school containing less than 28 percent (28%) minority population; and 2. For any non-minority student from any school containing less than 28 percent (28%) minority population to any school containing more than 28 percent (28%) minority population.

b. As parr of the above referenced voluntary transfer prcgram, the 3oard shall establish priority receiving schools to accomodate the voluntary transfer of minority students out of the Southwest

Quadrant to schools with relatively low minority

enrollments.

Availablity

of space

and

transportation time shall also be considered, but

the District shall take reasonable steps to make

space available in such schools without displacing

resident students.

c. The District shall establish a system to monitor such voluntary transfer requests and to prohibit any voluntary or special permit transfer that does not enhance the opportunity for school integration, except in cases of hardship.

10. Insure that Southwest Quadrant schools are of the same

physical quality, including educational equipment, as other

elementary schools in the District. a. The age of school buildings is excluded from this provision, but the degree of repair, maintenance and cleanliness is included. All educational equipment is also included.

b. The District shall commence by July 20 an initial assessment, and shall obtain information from the 1988-89 principals and custodians of

Southwest Quadrant school buildings, to determine what steps should be taken before the

-12-

beginning of the 1989-90 school year to make the schools clean and serviceable for that year. c. The District shall by December 31, 1989: 1. perform a more detailed evaluation of the
physical condition and educational equipment of the Southwest Quadrant elementary schools, and 2. present to the Court a plan for achieving by the opening of the 1990-91 school year equity of facilities and educational equipment. d. The District shall take all steps necessary to achieve by the opening of the 1990-91 school year equity of physical facilities and educational equipment. e. This Court finds that the District has now available Fire Prevention and Life Safety funds from pre 198 2 levies and other sale of bonds, which would be appropriate to spend, if necessary, and if in the judgment of the Board of Education, the funds are required to satisfy the foregoing provisions. 11. The parties recognize and agree that the responsibility for funding all activities required by this Consent Order rests solely with the Board of Education. To this end, the Board shall determine from what sources funds shall be made available
-13-

to implement the terms and conditions of this Order. Likewise, the Board agrees that to the extent additional souces of revenue become available for the 1989-90 school year, said funds which are spent for educational programs shall be allocated equitably across the District so as to avoid a dilution of the supplemental programs required under Part III, Section C of this Order. The foregoing shall not be interpreted to mean that the Board is prohibited from spending additional funds solely on Southwest Quadrant Elementary School programs for reasons expressed in or for the type and quality of those programs specified in Section 1.1 through 1.4 of the reorganization plan.
D. IMPLEMENTATION FOR SCHOOL YEAR 198 9-90 Defendants shall be liable for re-enrolling students in those schools and educational programs required by the terms and conditions of this Order, which process they shall undertake immediately, consistent with sound educational practices, and shall provide to the Plaintiffs the procedures, data, and interim progress reports concerning the same. Defendants shall attempt to minimize the enrollment/assignment of resident elementary students in said Southwest Quadrant which would require the use of transportation as may be required by law (Chapter 122, par. 29-3, 111. Rev. Stat.) . Defendants, thereafter, shall be liable for the assignment of professional staff (and other staff to support the functions
-14-

of such education) as may be required to render functional all schools in the Rockford Public School system, for a timely and orderly commencement of the 1989-1990 school year, consistent with the calendar cf school attendance previously adopted by the Defendant 3oard of Education.
The Court finds that in so doing, the Defendant Board of Education may be required to take sreps in the re-assignment of professional staff which may necessitate the temporary suspension of Article XII of the Agreement between the Board of Education and the Rockford Education Association, IEA-NEA. Nothing, however, in this Order shall be deemed to abrogate the legal responsibility of the Board of Education to bargain with the Rockford Education Association over either impact of such assignments and the impact of implementation of this Order or the terms and conditions of a new labor agreement for the 198990 school year and years thereafter. However, nothing expressed herein shall be deemed to relieve the Board of Education from its required duty as expressed herein to implement this Order while it engages in such bargaining as may be required by law or by the terms of any contractual responsibility of the Board of Education. However, any remedies of the Rockford Board of Education and for its employees and the Rockford Education Association shall be subject to enforcement only by this Court, consistent with this Order.
E. FURTHER PLANNING; PROCEDURES FOR IMPLSMENTATION OF ORDER; ADMINISTRATION; OVERSIGHT
1. The Board will undertake as soon as possible a comprehensive planning process with respect to student
-15-

assignment, educational program offerings, facilities, financial conditions, and other appropriate matters. The articulation in this Section of policies and issues for the planning process does not, in itself, create or alter the District's substantive obligations and responsibilities under the law. The purposes of this planning process are as follows:
a. To determine what school facilities, educational programs, management and personnel arrangements should be provided in the 1990-1991 school year and thereafter. However, nothing in this Section shall be deemed to interfere with the Superintendent's authority to realign administrative staff.
b. To examine all aspects of the Districts operations from a financial perspective, including a determination as to whether there are additional and/or alternative cost reduction measures to those selected by the Board for the 1989-1990 school year.
c. To identify and undertake practicable steps to achieve a racially integrated and unitary school system.
d. To develop measures for achieving system-wide equity in school operations, with significant supplemental programs for economically and educationally disadvantaged students.
-16-

2. The parties recognize that it is the ultimate authority of the Board to conduct the planning process described herein and, where appropriate, to make decisions based upon said process, consistent with any Orders of this Court. Plaintiffs will be kept fully informed with respect to the planning and decisional process contemplated herein, and will have continuing and timely opportunity to make recommendations and to discuss alternatives with responsible District personnel. without limiting the preceding sentence, Plaintiffs will have the opportunity to address significant issues before decisions are made by the Board.
3. The planning process will be guided by the following general principles:
a. Schools in the District should be integrated. b. "Integrated" shall mean that the percentage of
minority population of a school's student body is within plus or minus fifteen percent (15%) of the percentage of minority students attending school in the District as a whole. Voluntary methods of student assignment desegregation such as magnet schools and/or programs, are preferable to mandatory methods of student assignment. d. Significant supplemental resources should be provided to off-set the effects of educational and
economic disadvantages and minority racial
-17-

concentration. Other resources should be allocated equitably to preserve the supplemental character of such programs. e. Burdens of desegregation should be minimized, and necessary burdens should be shared equitably. f. Minority staff should be recruited and retained at all levels of District operation, in ways consistent with law. g. School facilities and equipment should be of reasonably comparable quality across the District. 4. The Board shall select and retain appropriate independent consultants to aid in the planning process. Such consultants will be retained with respect to, at a mini-aura, the following disciplines: a. Demography. b. Facilities planning. c. Magnet Schools and other desegregative student assignment methods. d. Supplemental educational programming to alleviate the effects of racial concentration and economic and educational disadvantage. Plaintiffs shall receive advance notice of the identity and qualifications of such consultants, and in the event Plaintiffs disagree with the selection of consultants by the Board, the Plaintiffs retain the right to Petition the court to make a

determination of the appropriateness of the consultants selected, provided such Petition is made after proper notice to the 3oard.
5. The planning process will address all alternatives concerning the appropriate number and location of high schools and middle schools to be operated by the Board during the 19901991 school year and thereafter, which alternatives shall include the following:
a. The operation of five high schools and four middle schools.
b. The "Auburnite Plan" and other proposals for operating five high schools and a reduced number of middle schools.
c. The operation of none, one, two or more high schools west of the Rock River, and the closing of one high school previously operated by Defendants.
During the planning process there shall be no beginning presumption that the alignment of secondary schools operated by the Board during the 1989-90 school year is the most appropriate and/or not subject to alteration.
6. The planning process shall also address and answer the following concerns:
a. Prevention of within-school segregation. b. Equitable course offerings, testing, class
assignment and discipline.
-19-

c. School-level staff selection by the administration as a method of enhancing the effectiveness of magnet and supplemental programs.
d. Preservation of "natural residential integration" as related to school attendance. For purposes of this Order, said term shall refer to the puJblic school students who reside within a reasonably compact geographic area contiguous to the school, who would attend such school.
e. Examination of contiguous boundaries for revisions to promote school integration.
f. Active involvement of each schools' teachers, parents and community members in school-based management.
g. Significant involvement of the Rockford Education Association with the planning process.
h. Board/Administration control by policy over distribution of private donations and gifts to schools.
7. During the planning and decisional process outlined above, the Board shall not dispose of, or otherwise render unavailable for potential use during the 1990-1991 school year, any facility without a public determination, after at least t h i r t y (30) says notice to Plaintiffs, that the f a c i l i t y has no potential use in implementation of any of the matters under
consideration in the planning process.
-20-

8. The Board shall establish objective evaluation criteria for all desegregation, equity and affirmative action activities and an evaluation function with respect to the same.
9. The planning and decisional process shall include substantial and continual consultation with parent, community, staff and union representatives.
10. The establishment of School District boundaries shall be subject to approval of this Court. As a result, any proposed changes in School District boundaries by detachment, annexation, division, dissolution, or any combination of such methods or other methods of boundary change or School District creation found in Article 7, 11A, 11B, 11C or 12 of the Illinois School Code (111. Rev. Stat., Ch. 122, 1989), shall require approval of this Court.
11. The Board shall submit progress reports to this Court concerning the implementation of this Consent Order and the progress of the planning process. Such reports shall be made initially on August > $ , September Ì6, October ½5, and at no loss ½‡ran 60-day intervals thereafter.
IV. ATTORNEYS FEES This Order resolves all requests for preliminary relief
presented with Plaintiffs' May 1989 Motions for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, and such matters are merged herein, with the exception of attorneys fees. Plaintiffs are given leave to file such a request at a time
-21-

selected by Plaintiffs, by proper petition and notice; Defendants shall respond thereto. Appropriate hearings thereon shall be scheduled by Order of this Court.

DATED: <^~">l /

7

APPROVED:

s

1989 /I

ROBERT C. HOWARD Attorney for Plaintiffs

ANTHONY G. SCARIANO Attorney for Defendants

ENTER: U.S. DISTRR¾¾ÕÕTT¯¯'JUDGE\ /7

DATED : <û/,s 7, /ff<7

-22-

 
 SD-L-0001-0003
School Finance 101 Basic information about how the public school system is funded

General Information about the School District:

The Rockford Public School District #205 has 27,507 students in 41 schools:
• There are 15,087 elementary students in Kindergarten through 6th grade. • There are 4 middle schools with 4,186 students in grades 7th and 8th. • There are 4 high schools with 6,449 students in grades 9th through 12th.

The student population is as follows: • 54.6% white • 29.6% black • 12.1% Hispanic • 3.7% Asian, Native American and other races.

School District Employees:

¿)f ^ ï l A ^, ^ ( / , v A / , j Lj · ^ ,„

• 3,88000 people that include *2#OO tcacheis aim oilier classroom omµlovtca.

5jeke¢k4h^gHre.

l·//¡

Desegregation Lawsuit: A Brief Summary Í"*"~¯*¯ / J "

In 1989, a grassroots organization called People Who Care filed a lawsuit against Rockford School District #205. People Who Care claimed that the Rockford School District had discriminated against black and Hispanic students. In 1994, the Federal Court found the School District guilty and ordered the School District to correct the past and present discrimination. The Federal Court order is called the Comprehensive Remedial Order (CRO). The Federal Court also ordered the School District to pay for the cost of the CRO by setting up a special fund and collecting real estate taxes. This is called the Court Tort Fund.

District Spending:
The School District expects to collect $2î2fmillion in this school year. About half of this money will come from real estate taxes that are paid by Rockford homeowners, renters, and businesses. The rest of the money will come from the State of Illinois, the Federal government, and other sources.
Rockford Public School District #205 plans to spend $S3tfmillion in this school year. This does not include the building of the new schools. The schools keep track of their money in different funds, depending upon how it is to be used. There are funds for general education; Court ordered spending; building operation and maintenance; student transportation; food service; and several other funds.

Current Situation:
The Rockford School District expects to spend the same amount as they receive through income for their funds except in the General Education and Court Ordered funds. These two funds expect to spend about $162 million this year. They expect to receive $146 million this year. This means that the School District will spend $16 million more than they expect to receive for this school year. How did this happen? What will the School District have to do to bring this into balance?
The Rockford School District School Board did not agree to the Federal Court's requirement to use the special tax to pay for the remedies that the Court ordered. The School Board appealed to a State of Illinois Court, which ruled that the special tax was not allowed under the Illinois Constitution. As a result of this ruling, the School Board did not budget for these special taxes this year. Those taxes would have been $22 million. Magistrate Mahofl£y-disaGrees-MJtÜLthe Appe¢fltfT'oiirt rttttîT^~
The Federal Court has the ahility-tû exercise^the use^af the Je can initiate a`pri>Cedure¾iaíwill requíKeJJrel)ismcfof lè\
The School District must either increase their income or reduce their spending to balance the budget. The School Board has very little that they can do on their own to increase income. Nearly all areas of income depend upon local voters (referendum), the State of Illinois, or the Federal government to increase their income.
The School Board decided to ask the voters to approve a referendum that will increase their regular real estate taxes. This will give the School District about $12 million per year as income to run the School District.
The School Board is still looking at ways to reduce their spending enough to balance the budget over the next few years. How much spending must be reduced will depend upon the outcome of the referendum and the School Board's appeal to the State of Illinois Court. However, if the referendum passes and the State of Illinois Court rules in favor of the School District on all of its appeals, the School Board must still reduce its spending by $14 million. This will probably mean closing schools; increasing class sizes; reducing the number of teachers and other School District employees; reducing fringe benefit costs; and other spending cuts.
# # #

 
 SD-IL-0001-0004
ROCKFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS Financial Services Group
201 South Madison Street Rockford, IL 61104
(815) 966-3066 / Fax (815) 966-3733

DATE:

January 16, 1997

TO:

School Board Members

FROM:

Tom Hoffman, General Director of Finance

SUBJECT: Description of Funds

CC:

Dr. Ronald Epps, Matthew Corby

Funds, as defined in the Illinois Program Accounting Manual, are independent fiscal and accounting entities requiring their own set of self-balancing accounts for a specific activity or for attaining certain objectives. Each fund must be accounted for so that the identity of its resources and obligation and its revenues and expenditures is continually maintained. To designate the funds by number rather than using the full description, a standardized numerical designation has been established.
Educational Fund Fund 10 - Education Fund Fund 18 - Special Grants Fund 19 - Food Services
The Educational Fund covers transactions that are not specifically covered in another fund. Expenditures that must be charged to this fund include the direct costs of instructional, health and attendance services, lunch programs, all costs of administration, and related insurance costs. Salaries for teachers, administrators, aides, and food service staff are paid from the Educational Fund.
Tort Immunity Fund Fund 11 - Tort Immunity
Costs for liability protection for the District are charged to the Tort Immunity Fund. Non-CRO legal fees, liability insurance, workers' compensation costs, and expenditures for due process hearings, along with salaries for the attorney and his secretary, hall aides, and police are included in Fund 11.
Court Tort Immunity Fund 12 - Court Tort Immunity
The Court Tort Immunity Fund covers transactions required for compliance with remedies for the Comprehensive Remedial Order. Salaries for teachers, administrators, and instructional aides as well as legal fees, consultant fees, instructional supplies, and equipment are paid from this fund.

Memo to School Board Members Page 2 January 16, 1997
Operations and Maintenance Fund Fund 20 - Operations and Maintenance Fund
All costs of maintaining, improving, or repairing school buildings and property, renting buildings and property for school purposes, or paying of premiums for insurance on school buildings are charged to the Operations and Maintenance Fund. Salaries for custodians, building engineers, truck drivers, groundsmen, and tradesmen are included in this fund.
Bond and Interest Fund Fund 30 - 42.4M Issue Fund 34- 58.7M Issue
Tax collections from levies to provide cash to retire bonds issued by the District, and pay the interest on those bonds, is accounted for in the Bond and Interest Fund. A separate bond and interest fund is required for each bond issue.
Transportation Fund Fund 40 - Transportation Fund
The costs for transporting pupils for any purpose, including the purchase of vehicles, insurance on buses, and bus driver salaries, are paid from the Transportation Fund.
Municipal Retirement/Social Security Fund Fund 50 - Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund Fund 51 - Social Security/Medicare Fund
These funds are used to account for the District's share of retirement benefits for covered employees, and for the District's share of social security and medicare payments for covered employees.
Site and Construction/Capital Improvement Fund Fund 63 - Construction - Tort 10M Issue Fund 64 - Tort 48M Issue Fund 65 - Energy Management Cycles 1 & 2
All the proceeds of each construction bond (except Fire Prevention and Safety) are placed in a Site and Construction Fund to separate these special monies from operating funds. Special monies may be spent for the purposes specified in the bond indenture. Salaries for the in-house District Construction Manager and his secretary are paid from Fund 64.
Working Cash Fund Fund 70 - Working Cash
When a separate tax is levied for working cash purposes, or if bonds are sold for this purpose, the Working Cash Fund is used. Interfund loans from the District's Working Cash Fund may be made to any fund for which taxes are levied.

Memo to School Board Members Page 3 January 16, 1997
Fire Prevention and Safety Fund Fund 92 - Life Safety
A Fire Prevention and Safety Fund is used when a tax is levied, or a bond issued, for fire prevention, safety, energy conservation, or school security purposes. Salaries for the District's asbestos workers are paid from the Life Safety Fund.
Miscellaneous Fund Fund 90 - Pupil Activities Fund 91 - Miscellaneous
The miscellaneous funds are used to account for student activity funds in the custody of the District.
/1/TJH0116a

 
 SD-IL-0001-0005
STATE OF ILLINOIS
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
COUNTY OF WINNEBAGO

PARENTS AGAINST CONTROLLED

)

CHOICE, an unincorporated association;

)

COURTNEY SMITH, a minor, by her parents, )

and next friend, RON MANNS and SHEILA )

MANNS; CHRISTINA SHAVER, a minor, by )

her parents, and next friend, MARK SHAVER )

and DAWN SHAVER; RYAN ERICKSON, )

a minor, by his parents, and next friend, )

HARRY ERICKSON and LISA ERICKSON; )

JESSIE`JR. and JAMECKA, minors

)

by theifþarents, and next friend, JESSE

)

LEACH and ROSALIND OWENS;

)

KEYOSHA LOTTIE, KENESHA LOTTIE and )

KENNETH LOTTIE, minors, their parent, and )

next friend, CAROLYN LOTTIE; DESIREE )

CLARK and CHRISTOPHER CLARK, minors,)

by their parents, and next friend, CHARLIE )

CLARK and AMY CLARK; ANDREW

)

TROTTER, a minor by his parents, and next )

fiiend, DON TROTTER and DARCY

)

TROTTER; MICHAEL S ARVER, a minor, by )

his parents, and next friend, PATRICK

)

SARVER and MARY BETH SARVER;

)

ALEXANDER SCHLEUTERMANN, a minor,)

by bis parents, and next friend, CARL

)

SCHLEUTERMANN and CATHERINE

)

SCHLEUTERMANN; TRAVIS GAUT, a )

minor by his parents, and next friend, DONNA )

GAUT and GREG GAUT; DUSTY WILSON, )

a minor, by his parents, and next friend, PAUL )

WILSON and PENNY WILSON; MELISSA )

PARNELLO, a minor, by her parents, and next )

friend, MICHAEL PARNELLO and

)

LINDA L. PARNELLO; MARQU1SHA

)

GRIFFIN, a minor, by her parent, and next )

friend, TAMILA ADAMS; ANTOINETTE )

PARCHMAN, a minor, by her parent, and next )

friend, ANN HOLLIMAN; ADAM WALKER )

and ALAN WALKER, minors, by their parents,)

and next friend, LON WALKER and RENEE )

WALKER; CAROLYN WARNER, MELISSA )

1

CIVIL ACTION
97C5O3»6

£ Vf..ï.

U= ,. •...

¡S:`7

¾ i r„.,r

CASE NO. 97

WARNER and MATTHEW WARNER,

)

minors, by their parents, and next friend, ) TOM WARNER and CATHY WARNER; )

CARISSA PHELAN, a minor, by her parent, )

and next friend, DEBBIE FOSTER; NICOLAS ) SCHMOLL and MATTHEW SCHMOLL, )

minors, by their parents, and next friend,

)

ARNIE SCHMOLL and BRENDA SCHMOLL;)

BRIANNA DYKHUIZEN, a minor, by her )

parents, and next friend, LORI DYKHUIZEN )

and RON DYKHUIZEN; CHRISTINE

)

HUXMAN, a minor, by her parent, and next )

friend, MARCIA WIERCK4 ASHLEY

)

GILMORE, a minor, by her parent, and next )

friend, TODD GILMORE; KRISTIN

)

KADER¯ABECK, a minor, by her parents, and )

next friend, DENNIS KADERABECK and ) JANKADERABECK; SARA STRICKLAND, )

a minor, by her parents, and next friend,

)

JEFF BOLLOCK and DARALEE BOLLOCK; )

ERIC HOOPER, CORY HOOPER and

)

BRITTANY HOOPER, minors, by their parent,) and next friend, JENNY HOOPER; KEVIN )

UNDERWOOD, a minor, by his parents, and )

next friend, THOMAS UNDERWOOD and )

ELAINE UNDERWOOD; ADAM

)

VORACHJT, a minor, by his parents, and next )

friend, YEN VORACHIT; ALEX LAWTON )

and ERIC LAWTON, a minor, by their parent, ) and next friend, TERRA LAWTON; TIFFANY)

VANDERKOLK, a minor, by her parent, and )

next friend, LAURA VANDERKOLK;

)

KHANEIDRA HILL, a minor, by her parents, )

and next friend, CHARLES HILL and SHEILA )

HILL; BRITTANY, a minor, by her parents, )

and next friend, JEFFERY BATSON and

)

TINA HUFF; NICHOLAS WYATT and

)

DOUGLAS WYATT, minors, by their parents, )

and next friend, BRAD WYATT and

)

MARILYN WYATT; ANGELINA ALLEN )

and LUJZON ALLEN, minors, by their parents,)

and next friend, DON ALLEN and

)

ELIZABETH ALLEN; RICHARD

)

ANDERSON, a minor, by his parents, and next)

friend, ROSS ANDERSON and AMY

)

ANDERSON; RENAY IRVIN, a minor, by her )

parents, and next friend, BRIAN IRVIN and )

MARY SANSONE; KERSTEN SHELTON )

and HARLEE SHELTON, minors, by their )

parents, and next friend, KEN SHELTON and )

KARLA SHELTON; BRITTANY NELSON )

and ELLA NELSON, minors, by their parents, )

and next friend, TOM NELSON and SHAYNA)

NELSON; MATTHEW WITTNER and

MICHAEL WITTNER, minors, by their parents)

and next friend, MARK WITTNER and

)

MARCIA WITTNER; STEVEN BAXTER, )

a minor, by his parents, and next friend,

)

BRENT BAXTER and MARGARET BAXTER)

JACK RHEINGANS and SEIL RHEINGANS, )

minorvby their parents, and next friend, JIM )

RHEINCANS and DEBBIE RHEINGANS; )

RICARLUS CURTIS, a minor, by his parent, )

and next friend, JOY CURTIS; CHRISTINE )

BURKHART, a minor, by her parents, and next)

friend, DAVID BURKHART and ANNA

)

BURKHART; DANELLE JOHNSON, a minor,)

by her parents, and next friend, STEVE

)

JOHNSON and CHAR JOHNSON; RACHEL )

WARRINGTON, a minor, by her parents, and )

next friend, ROWLAND WARRINGTON and )

REBECCA WARRINGTON; KEVIN VEIGEL,)

a minor, by his parents, and next friend, UWE )

VEIGEL and ANNA VEIGEL; SHERESE )

TENNIAL and DONNETTE TENNIAL,

)

minors, by their parent, and next friend,

)

WILLIE MAE TENNIAL; DEONDRA

)

HARRIS, a minor, by her parent, and next )

friend, ANNA HARRIS; SHEKEDIRA

)

WILLIAMS, a minor, by her parent, and next )

friend, MARCIE WILLIAMS; PHILLIP

)

CALTAGERONE, a minor, by his parent, and )

next friend, STEPHANIE CALTAGERONE; )

ALEXANDRIA DOBRATZ and CAROL )

DOBRATZ, minors, by their parent, and next )

friend, KIMBERLY DOBRATZ; MATTHEW )

ALBRIGHT and MICHAEL ALBRIGHT, )

minors, by their parents, and next friend, )

MICHAEL ALBRIGHT and MEREDITH )
ALBRIGHT; JUN1TA STONECIPHER, a )
minor, by her parent, and next friend, RUBY )
STONECIPHER; SHANE MURPHY, a minor,)

by his parent, and next friend, TAMMY MURPÇY;

RYAN MCCORMICK, a minor, by his parent, )

and next friend, BONNIE MCCORMICK; )

ANNEEA EWALDZ, a minor, by her parents, )

and next friend, DAVID and ADINA

)

EWALDZ; ALYSSA KASTEN, a minor, by )

her parent, and next friend, AMY KASTEN; )

MORGAN COOPER, a minor, by her parent, )

and next friend, LAURIE A. COOPER;

)

CASSANDRA BLAISDELL and KIMBERLY )

BLAISDELL, minors, by their parent, and next )

friend, CONNIE BLAISDELL; RYAN, a minor,)

by his parents, and next friend, MIKE

)

CAPRIOLA and BARB ERICKSON; SHAYLA)

HOWARD and NICHOLAS HOWARD,

)

minorsfby their parent, and next friend, ROBIN)

HOWARD; CAITLIN WALSH, a minor, by her)

parents, and next friend, JOHN WALSH and )

SUSAN WALSH; AMANDA TURNER, a )

minor, by her parent, and next friend, SABRINA)

TURNER; LEO WASKIEWICZ, JR., a minor, )

by his parents, and next friend, LEO

)

WASKIEWICZ and BARB WASKIEWICZ; )

BRITTANY DUNKIN, a minor, by her parent, )

andnext friend, TAMMY DUNKIN·_ JUSTIN )

FRANCK, a minor, by his parent, and next )

friend, BILLIE FRANCK; MICHAEL

)

DEVLIEGER, a minor, by his parents, and next)

friend, JEFF DEVLIEGER and DeANN

)

DEVLIEGER; DOMEICA BUTITTA and )

HANNAH BUTITTA, minors, by their parent, )

and next friend, MARY BUTITTA;

)

SHEDURA STOCKWELL, a minor, by her )

parent, and next friend, LUGINA HORTON; )

JESSIE MILES, a minor, by his parents, and )

next friend, JESSE MILES and KAREN

)

MILES; CRYSTAL LOWRY, a minor, by her )

parents, and next friend, RICHARD HESLER )

and MARY HESLER; KARA OLSON, a minor¿

by her parents, and next friend, MITCH

)

OLSON and SHARON OLSON; BRITTANY )

FENNELL, a minor, by her parents, and next )

friend, ALLEN FENNELL and LAURA

)

FENNELL; KAYLA EISNAN, a minor, by h e r ) parent, and next friend, KAREN EISNAN; ) NICHOLAS HEDBERG, a minor, by his parent^

and next friend, MINDY HEDBERG;

)

JACQUELINE PAULSON and JORDAN )

PAULSON, minors, by their parent, and next )

friend, MDCE PAULSON; STEVEN JONES, )

a minor, by his parent, and next friend, KAREN)

JONES; KAITLYNNLAURSEN, a minor, by )

her parent, and next friend, SUE LAURSEN; )

DANIEL ROCCAFORTE, a minor, by his )

parent, and next friend, KAYE ROCCAFORTE;)

ALEX SCHWEINLER, a minor, by his parent, )

and next friend, PAULA SCHWEINLER; )

BRITTANY BLACKBURN, a minor, by her )

parents, and next friend, CHRIS BLACKBURN)

and REBECCA BLACKBURN; SHELDON )

BAXTER* a minor, by bis parents, and next )

friend,-ŠTEVE BAXTER and PATRICIA

)

BAXTER; and BRANDON ALEXANDER and)

DENNIS ALEXANDER, minors, by their )

parent and next friend, BRANDY

)

ALEXANDER;

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

BOARD OF EDUCATION, ROCKFORD )

SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 205, Winnebago )

and Boone Counties, Illinois, a municipal

)

corporation,

)

)

Defendant

)

COMPLAINT

COME NOW the plaintiffs, above-named, by their attorney, G. MICHAEL SCHEURICH, and as and for their complaint against the defendant alleges as follows:
I. Parties. 1. The plaintiffs are minor school children, resident within the defendant school district, located primarily in Winnebago County, Illinois, by their parents and next friends, and an unincorporated association comprising some or all of the aforesaid parents.

2. The defendant is a special charter school district, operating elementary and high schools primarily in the City of Rockford, Illinois and surrounding areas in Winnebago and Boone Counties, and is a municipal corporation and body politic and a subdivision of the State of Illinois.

II. Jurisdiction.

3. The plaintiffs bring this action to redress, rights, privileges and immunities

guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State of Illinois, particularly

therign¾·loequal educational opportunities free from racial discrimination.

^

4. The defendant, SCHOOL DISTRICT, has adopted and is implementing a

program of student assignment to schools within the district based on the race of the student to be

so assigned. This program of racially determined school assignment is commonly known as "controlled choice" and defendant, SCHOOL DISTRICT, purports to implement the plan of controlled choice pursuant to certain decrees and orders entered by the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in the case captioned People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education

School District No. 205.

5. Jurisdiction of this court is found specifically in 28 U.S.C. 1331,1334(aX3),

and (a)(4), authorizing suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988, and also 20 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202.

. III. General Allegations.

6. Despite there being openings for attendance, the plaintiffs have been denied

access, by the defendant, to schools conducted by the defendant, on the basis of the race of each such

plaintiff, as follows:

Student's Name Courtney Smith Christina Shaver Ryan Erickson Jessie Jr. Jamecka Keyosha Lottie Kenesha Lottie Kenneth Lottie Desiree Clark Christopher Clark Andrew Trotter Michael Sarver Alexander Schleutermann Travis Gaut Dusty Wilson Melissa Pamello Marquisha Grifñn Antoinette Parchman Adam Walker Alan Walker Carolyn Warner Melissa Warner Matthew Warner Carissa Phelan Nicolas Schmoll Matthew Schmoll Brianna Dykhuizen Christine Huxman Ashley Gilmore
Kristin Kaderabeck

Race Black White White Black Black Black Black Black White White White White White White White White Black Black White White White White White White White White White White White White

School Denied Haskell Flinn Flinn Froberg Froberg Lewis Lemon Lewis Lemon Lewis Lemon Lewis Lemon
Lewis Lemon ¯_J Bloom
Flinn Froberg Whitehead Flinn Lincoln Beyer Beyer Hillman Froberg Conklin Conklin Conklin Jackson Rolling Green Rolling Green Rolling Green Westview Froberg Froberg

Student's Name Sara Strickland Eric Hooper Cory Hooper Brittany Hooper Kevin Underwood Adam Vorachit Alex Lawton Eric Lawton Tiffany Vanderkolk KhaneLðra Hill Brittany Nicholas Wyatt Douglas Wyatt Angelina Allen L·ujzon Allen Richard Anderson Renay Irvin Kersten Shelton Harlee Shelton Brittany Nelson Ella Nelson Matthew Wittner Michael Wittner Steven Baxter Jack Rheingans Seil Rheingans Ricarlus Curtis Christine Burkhart Danelle Johnson Rachel Warringtoii

Race White Black Black Black Mixed Laos Hispanic Hispanic White Black White Mixed Mixed Black Black White White White White White White White White White White White Black White White White

School Denied Froberg Ellis Ellis Ellis Bloom Flinn Flinn Gregory Summerdale Alice King Westview Westview Washington Washington Springcreek Hinn White Swan White Swan White Swan White Swan White Swan White Swan White Swan White Swan White Swan Auburn Flinn Thompson Thompson

Student's Name Kevin Veigel Sherese Tennial Donnette Tennial Deondra Harris Shekedira Williams Phillip Caltagerone Alexandria Dobratz Carol Dobratz Matthew Albright Mich|£l¯Albright Junita Stonecipher Shane Murphy Ryan McCormick Anniea Ewaldz Alyssa Kasten Morgan Cooper Cassandra Blaisdell Kimerly Blaisdell Ryan Shayla Howard Nicholas Howard Caitlin Walsh Amanda Turner Leo Waskiewicz, Jr. Brittany Dunkin Justin Franck Michael Devlieger Domeica Butitta Hannah Butitta
Shedura Stockwell

Race German Black Black Black Black White White White White White Black White White White White White White White White White White White White White White Hispanic White White White
Black

School Denied Thompson Ellis Ellis Carlson Lewis Lemon Welsh Whitehead Whitehead Welsh Welsh ¯ _¯ Ellis Rolling Green Flinn Bloom Carlson Thompson Walker Walker Flinn Gregory Gregory Brookview Welsh White Swan Beyer Flinn Flinn Gregory Gregory Ellis

Student's Name Jessie Miles Crystal Lowry Kara Olson Brittany Fennell Kayla Eisnan Nicholas Hedberg Jacqueline Paulson Jordan Paulson Steven Jones Kaitl}Sn. Laursen Daniel Roccaforte Alex Schweinler Brittany Blackburn Sheldon Baxter Brandon Alexander Dennis Alexander

Race White White White White White White White White White White White White White White White White

School Denied Froberg West Carlson Froberg Thompson Nelson Müford Froberg Nelson Brookview ;_ West Brookview Thompson Flinn White Swan White Swan

7. Without judicial intervention, the defendant will continue to implement the

program of controlled choice, thereby denying student's preferred class and school assignments

impermissibly based on the race of the student.

8. Thefinancialburden to the defendant of relief herein is slight when compared

with the deprivation of constitutional rights suffered by the plaintiffs.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this court:

A. Grant such preliminary and permanent injunctions as may be necessary to

enjoin the defendant from engaging in impermissible racial discrimination not justified by

compelling state interest or required to redress racial segregation caused by a constitutional violation

by the defendant.

10

%€JL 7OVJkfc
(\ 5> á

B. meet and just.
C.

Declare the rights of the parties in such manner and form as this court deems
Award plaintiffs their costs and reasonable attorney's fees herein. PARENTS AGAINST CONTROLLED CHOICE, an unincorporated association, Plaintiffs,

B\5· (One of their attorneys)

G. MICHAEL SCHEURICH (#25) Guyer & Enichen, P.C. 202 West State Street, Suite 400 Rockford, Illinois 61101 (815)965-8775

11

 
 LEGISLATIVE DIST. 33

ILLINOIS STATE BOARD O F EDUCATION

RECEIVED
OCT 2 3 1998

PART

11

31-045-0460-2 SCHOOL DISTRICT 46

1 9 9 7 - 9 8 SCHOOL YEAR REPORT CARD

DISTRICT STATISTICS

TEACHER

CHARACTERISTICS

DISTRICT % STATE %

WHITE 88.0
84.8

BLACK 2.9
11.3

HISPANIC ASIAN

8.2

0.8

3. 1

0.7

NAT AMER 0.1
0.1

MALE 22.8
24.8

FEMALE 77.2 75.2

TOTAL 1 ,824 116,574

*TEACHER EXPERIENCE* AND EDUCATION

DISTRICT AVERAGE

STATE AVERAGE

AVERAGE FOR DISTRICTS OF:

SAME TYPE

SIMILAR SIZE

YEARS OF TEACHING EXP % OF TEACHERS WITH:
BACHELOR'S DEGREE MASTER'S DEGREE/+ * PUPIL-TEACHER RATIO * ELEMENTARY (PK-8) SECONDARY (9-12) PUPIL-ADMIN RATIO PUPIL-CERTIFIED STAFF RATIO

15.5
47.5 52.3
21.9: 1 18.2 : 1 245.8 : 1 15.7 : 1

15.0
53.5 46.3
20.0 : 1 18.5 : 1 250.6 : 1 14.6 : 1

13.1
56.8 42.9
20.5 : 1 18.3 : 1 276.1 : 1 14.8 : 1

15. 1
52.2 47.4
21.1 : 1 19.9 : 1 295.4 : 1 15.2 : 1

*FINANCIAL INFORMA T ION*

TEACHER SALARY ADMINISTRATOR SALARY EAV PER PUPIL TOT SCHL TAX RATE PER $100
INSTRUCT EXPEND PER PUPIL OPER EXPEND PER PUPIL

t 46,552

t 75,071

$ 84,385

$

5.30

$ 3,717

$ 5,895

43,806 73,423
---–
3,747
6,281

41,900 69,489 47,847
4.29 3.614 5,875

44,293 72,738 45.816
4.34 3,787 6,113

(1997-1998) (1997-1998)
(1995) (1995) ( 1996-1997) (1996-1997)

* EXPENDITURE BY FUND - 1996-1997 *

DISTRICT

DISTRICT %

STATE '/.

EDUCATION OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE TRANSPORTATION BOND AND INTEREST RENT MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT/SOCIAL SECURITY FIRE PREVENTION AND SAFETY SITE & CONSTRUCTION/CAPITAL IMP
TOTAL EXPENDITUR ES
* EXPENDITURE BY FUNCTION - 1996-1997 INSTRUCTION GENERAL ADMINISTRATION SUPPORTING SERVICES OTHER EXPENDITURES

145, 770,110 10, 401,771 9, 6 9 1 , 6 0 2 14, 595,991 0 4,791,457 681,331 60, 7 1 5 , 1 4 0 " "
246, 627,402
—— _J^¯¯~
106, 366,541 2, 998,641
59, 7 5 3 , 1 0 1 77. 509,119

59. 1 4.2 3.9 5.9 0.0 1.9 0.3
24.6
43.1 1.2
24.2 31.4

73 .0
a.7
3 .4 4 .8 04 17 18 63
47 6 26
32 0 17 8

51
i =
1 I
mC/)5S
§Sr1=m
O•S ••~ OS— *~» o¾s-s
=
H>I----

-MORE STATISTICS From the 1997-98 District Report Cards

`>chool District Low Income Students % Attendance Rate Mobility Rate Average Years of Teacher Experience Teachers with Bachelor's Degrees % Teachers with Master's Degrees & Above % Average Teacher Salary Average Administrative Salary "Operational Expenditure per Pupil
'From FY98 Annual Financial Report

North Belvidere Boone

Prairie Harlem Kinn¡kinnick Hill Shirland Rockton

• ,,;Ï'I5¯4' ```¿ 'Í3 O^ *.r-'94 6 , •r-95 3

* *v * -.4
"– '¯`96!·5 ¯` :`¯97,3, •`i¾»»95 3 `

\ v `.l·6ò

-– ' 9'á
t

"¯ ¯` 4 € Z - 4¾¯``88 6

54.3

ll``4

`t¿-, » . ¾ `

-¾á9.é54; ~-*„< . i ' •

-$29,f99

•$67\?I9. $59,486
r\$íiïo ' $4,701

"">r6.5

17 0

*I2 9

,-;.':::Í0,3 ' '¯`v^3·7:

` 16,1

- • ' 10.6

,¯.j,
,'',Î43 9;
`"~56¯J •'

.77,7
" -. í 4 -,T "~
;4o'9` "· '**22 3 J

57,7
í`:-42.3

si ^í > >

•r-él.O

, >*

i»

. -*39t0.

• $*4Î93*41 437,003 -t$3?,38ä
$72,498 ^¯ ' ^ . `^ti¯ •-469,997
"$69,35f

`` $37¦,I4Í^
¯·Î-Í·I,Î`5 ` · „;c:ï,k ,,v
.:$65`;3"7ö2. : $68,026

$6*339 u$4472 ' $5*383 j$4,58¯ÿ `^|4f882

School District Low Income Students % Attendance Rate Mobility Rate Average Years of Teacher Experience Teachers with Bachelor's Degrees % Teachers with Master's Degrees & Above % Average Teacher Salary Average Administrative Salary "Operational Expenditure per Pupil
'From FY98 Annual Financial Report

Rockford

South ¯iononegah Beloit Pecatonica
¾¾fij3 7; "3*?vS3;5; <'-Ä¾¾4-4,

Durand Winnebago '•-:V.;'6,2

State

{>V 9·l·3 *" 4¯¯¾3 8 v ; "93 4 - v í 9 5 6' . ^ ^ ¾ 5 . O

93.9

'¯.^;¾7Ì; ...Î'¾9,,,8
-„ ¦ `_Yg 2 ¯I2,9

¯'ìt¾4 8. ¯ ' ïl¯2

¾`¯§·&¯
'/l"l'3 5

• ->,-

-•

".•·_¯' "¯r10v..9

v¾`.;J3.p

" -18.2
r `- f¾'o
.",¯ ^ 3 6

f- ¯¯ -, . • . * . \ "`"¯5O.6 ">À¯ "· ` >"·~ ^,\,'"6lÔ¯ / ` `77.5

. 5¢7- :;!;';.,;5`3 5

-^34,«4 `¯Ã¾g,o

22.5¦ ç·T>Ï48.3_

46,3

, $4¾,IO3 ¯ $43·.'6S4' $¾i;345 Íâ5té85- •;$¾2,5I8: `$38,Ö8O 443,806-

` $68,439 ,^;$¾95r 1 J$6Æ46

$55:,51S` ` $64,275 > $63,'24¾
— •' r
• $5,520 $5,53S' ' $6,455Ì

¯$64,244 •v $5,Õ85

-^$73,423 " $6;2^8l

 
 STUDENT ASSIGNMENT BETWEEN SCHOOLS

COPY

The Court found that RSD intentionally segregated students between schools by race and resisted change that would have alleviated the patterns of racial isolation. The limited changes that were

made placed disparate burdens on Afiican American and Hispanic students.

Specific Violations Found
RSD gerrymandered school attendance area boundaries in order to create and maintain a racially segregated school system.
RSD maintained an alleged neighborhood schools policy which the court found was, in fact, a policy of maintaining neighborhood white schools.
RSD offered high status alternative programs to white students as an incentive to voluntarily attend predominately minority schools but burdened minority students with mandatory one-way busing. This was the primary desegregation method of the RSD.
RSD used school construction to further segregate students by race; when new schools were built, boundaries were gerrymandered to continue to isolate minority students; located new schools in ways to promote and retain segregation.

Vestiges/Effects
Minority students continued to bear a disproportionate transportation burden due to the lack of elementary, middle and high school seats in the Southwest quadrant.
Westremaineda middle school; there was no comprehensive high school West of the Rock River since Auburn also housed the Gifted Academy and CAPA programs.
Little desegregative progress was demonstrated through voluntary measures such as magnet schools and voluntary transfers.

Remedial Provisions Ordered
Controlled Choice ordered for elementary school student assignment; RSD voluntarily elected to implement Choice at the secondary level.
Capital Improvements Ordered:
New Barbour and Ellis facilities as K-8 grade magnet schools.
New Westside middle school and re-open Kennedy Middle School.
Easing of Southwest capacity problems through the addition of elementary and middle school seats:
Washington and RSTA extended to K-8 magnet schools.
Gradereconfigurationfor elementary and middle schools by shifting 6th grade to middle school.

Controlled Choice student assignment was implemented for entry level grades (Kindergarten, 7th and 9th) with the 1997-98 school year. Overall, 95% of students received their first, second or third school choice:
Of 5,048 early applications, 100% of 9th grade students and 92% of seventh grade students received their first school choice; 86% of kindergarten students received their first or second choice school.
More schools are desegregated in the 1997-98 year than in prior year. No elementary school wasre-segregatedas aresultof Choice and most are closer to compliance with the racial fairness guidelines than in the prior year. All secondary schools continue to be desegregated.
Since the 1990-91 school year, the number of integrated elementary schools increased from 15 to 28 and the number of segregated schools decreasedfrom21 to 11.

RSD manipulated studentreassignmentfrom closed schools in ways whichretainedthe racial identifiability of schools and maintained segregation. RSD ignored warnings from its own staff that certain actions constituted de jure segregation.
RSD abandoned successful, voluntary desegregation programs, such as the Bloom Focus Center, by withdrawing transportation for minority students and/or simply terminating the programs.

• •• • • • • • • • •
5D-IL-OOO1-OOO7

Racial fairness student assignment guideline of +/-15% of the districtwide percentage of minority students; 25% minimum minority enrollment in secondary schools.
Establish a comprehensive SWQ high school either move CAPA and Gifted from Auburn to another school and renovate Auburn, or renovate and reopen West as a high school.

Despite the fact that the SWQ still lacks a comprehensive high school, RSD refused to reopen West as a high school.
Because Controlled Choice is being phased in at entry grades, minority students continue to bear a disproportionate busing burden; until new school construction is completed and the 6th grade reconfiguration is completed, the SWQ will lack sufficient capacity.

SEGREGATION WITHIN SCHOOLS

DRAFT Rev. 11-02-98

The RSD intentionally used student assignment and educational programming to separate students by race within a school. High status, voluntary alternative programs for white students were placed in predominately minority schools creating separate "schools within schools."

Specific Violations Found
When ordered to desegregate in the 1970's, RSD intentionally used methods which segregated students within schools and produced only "numerical" desegregation:
Classrooms of white students, with their teacher, were bused to African-American schools and vice versa but remained separate and "intact", with no interaction with students of the opposite race in the receiving schools. Part-time programs used the same scheme but placed students in the school for as little as one week while counting them in integration data for the entire year.
In the 1980's, RSD refined within school segregation by placing partial site, high status white alternative programs (Gifted, CAPA, Montessori) in minority schools but kept minority and majority students physically separated including entrance doors, lunch, playground recess periods, and even bathrooms.
RSD obstructed successful voluntary integration by terminating programs and withdrawing transportation services.
RSD segregated Hispanic students by placing bilingual classes in white schools but allowing little or no interaction among the students; Hispanic students were "held" on their bus until classes began and required to go directly to their room to prevent interaction with white neighborhood children on the playground.
RSD segregated students through intentionally discriminatory tracking and ability grouping.

Vestiges/Effects
The pattern of within school segregation persisted up through and including the CRO hearings in the 1995-96 school year, establishing an "unbroken chain of within school segregatory conditions."
Class sections of the same course continued to be racially identifiable at the time of the CRO hearings. At Auburn, for example, two sections of English were 75% and 100% African American, while a third section of the same course had no minorities.
Alternative programs (Gifted, Montessori, CAPA) continued to have a disappointing level of minority student participation, particularly the Auburn Gifted Academy where African American and Hispanic participation decreased in the 1994-95 school year.
Compliance with within school integration standards typically decreased from the first to the second semester in secondary schools. At West Middle School in the 1994-95 year, even the racial composition of teams varied between semesters: the second semester 7th grade variance increased from 30.4% minority to 46.7% minority while the 8th grade variance for the same period went from 28.3% to 46.4%.
Although at the elementary level, only 1.4% of classrooms were racially identifiable, there were disturbing patterns of disproportíonaliry in placing minority students in certain class sections (at Rolling Green, 4th grade, one of three classes had 10 minority students while the other two had only 5 minority students.

Remedial Provisions Ordered
The CRO required:
Regular and honors core classes, and classes in alternative and compensatory education programs, must be within +/- 5%* of the compliance pool (the percentage of minority students at each grade level in each building).
* The 7th Circuit remanded the within school integration compliance standard after finding the +/- 5% range "too tight" The standard was adjusted to +/-12% following remand hearings before Judge Mahoney on tracking and ability grouping, and within school integration.
* RSD may not separate students by race within classrooms via instructional methods.
• Elective classes are excepted from the +/-12% compliance standard but RSD is enjoined from steering minority students to low-level or segregated classes and ordered to provide fair and non-biased guidance counseling to all students.
• Gifted and CAPA must have an overall student enrollment within +/• 15% of the districtwide minority ratio for each grade configuration and a "floor percentage" not less than the percentage of minority students districtwide and not exceed that percentage by 15 points at each entry grade level.

Status
Under the Interim Orders and CRO, minority enrollment in alternative programs has steadily increased:
Minority student enrollment in the elementary Gifted program is 31.9% for the 1997-98 school year and the elementary Gifted program is "stand alone" at King School.
Minority enrollment at the middle school Gifted Program at West is 29.2% while the Auburn Academy continues to show disappointing minority student participation at only 16.6%.
Minority student enrollment in the CAPA program has steadily increased and is 24.7% for the 1997-98 school year.
Montessori minority enrollment is 37.3% for the 1997-98 school year.
Minority participation in honors classes and advanced elective courses (especially math and science courses) continues to be disappointing, despite the District's open enrollment policy.
Minority parents, and some teachers, still report biased counseling of minority students in course selections, including denial of admission to higher level math and science classes.

TRACKING AND ABILITY GROUPING

DRAFT Rev. 10-10-98

The Court found that tracking and ability grouping was "the most egregious and blatant form of intentional discrimination against minority schoolchildren." RSD's tracking and ability grouping practices "did not represent a trustworthy enactment of any academically acceptable theory or practice." RSD intentionally used tracking and ability grouping to segregate white students fiom minority students.

Specific Violations Found
RSD used tracking and ability grouping to intentionally skew classroom and course enrollment to the educational advantage of white students and to the educational disadvantage of African American and Hispanic students:
African American and Hispanic students were disproportionately enrolled in slow track, low ability classes while White students were disproportionately assigned to high ability, college prep tracks and programs.
The disproportionate placement of minority students into lower track classes was not justified by either the capabilities or achievements of the students, or socio-economic factors:
The trial record was "replete" with situations where white students who scored below the national mean were still placed in honors classes while minority students who scored in the 99th percentile were placed in low achievement basic track classes.
Minority students whose achievement scores qualified them for two or more tracks were far more likely to be placed in the lower track man in the higher track for which they qualified.
High level RSD administrators had repeated notice of the discriminatory effects ofthe tracking system, but refused to take steps to eliminate the system because it would "upset the teaching staff and "the community would not buy into elimination oftracking."

Vestiges/Effects
The court found that up through 1989, vestiges and effects of discriminatory tracking and ability grouping included:
Inferior educational services to African American and Hispanic students
Unwarranted racial disparities in course placement/participation
Lesser educational opportunities or inputs for African American and Hispanic students (especially in the fields of math and science)
Racial isolation of students and the perpetuation of racial stereotypes
Although RSD claimed to have eliminated basic classes by September 1994, the District's own consultants found that "there continues to be at least two, and probably more, parallel curriculum structures in place [which] look, smell, and taste like tracking" and continue to have a segregative effect.
During the CRO hearings, the Master concluded that while RSD had made some progress relative to tracking and ability grouping, "it is clear that patterns of continued tracking and grouping exist in a manner which reflects the vestiges of segregation and violates the [1991] Second Interim Order.

Remedial Provisions Ordered
The Court ordered RSD to eliminate "remedial" tracks and ability groups at all grade levels but permitted honors, and gifted classes to continue as long as they are integrated. The 7th Circuit reversed the CRO's elimination of tracking and ability grouping but held that RSD may only engage in tracking/ability grouping if it is done in accordance with valid, objective, nonracist criteria and not for the purpose of segregating students by race.
The CRO has continued the full range of compensatory educational programs, such as the Success for All and Reading Recovery reading programs, and the H.O.T.S. critical thinking program, and die supplemental educational programs such as secondary tutorial, 9th grade transition, Saturday Academy and Summer School programs.
The CRO required that all elementary classes and secondary core courses must reflect a minority enrollment within +/- 5% of the minority student enrollment for each grade level in the school. The 7th Circuit remanded the +/5% classroom integration standard for nontracked core classes.
On May 7,1998, following remand hearings and by stipulation of the parties, the Court modified the CRO to adopt a within school integration standard of+/-12%.
Gu:\_Qvc\ 33.r

Stains
At the secondary level, RSD continues to have two different "regular" core courses for the same subject area (algebra, chemistry) which suggests one of the courses contains "diluted" content and is the equivalent of the allegedly discontinued basic track courses:
Enrollment in honors classes escalated after the basic track was eliminated which may suggest that the "regular" core courses are simply a new designation for the former diluted content basic track courses.
Several Board members have openly advocated instituting low, middle and high ability groups, without specifying any placement criteria for making such decisions.
The District's high schools have regressed in the percentage of core class sections which are in compliance with within-school integration standards(even using a +/-13% standard):
Overall District Compliance:
1993 86.3% 1994 88.0% 1995 90.5% 1996 88.3% 1997 75.7%
1997-98 Compliance by High School:
Auburn 88.6% East 72.4% Guilford 55.6% Jefferson 86.9%

PERCENTAGE OF COMPLIANT CLASS SECTIONS 9/30/93 TO 9/30/98
HIGH SCHOOL CORE COURSES

English Social Studies Mathematics Science GIFTED
TOTAL

93
89.9 84.2 91.7 70.6 93.8 87.9

93

English

93.8

Social Studies 100

Mathematics

84.2

Science

89.3

TOTAL

91.8

93

English

83.6

Social Studies

96

Mathematics

76.5

Science

67.9

TOTAL

81

English Social Studies Mathematics Science
TOTAL

93 81.4 82.8 90 84 83.9

Auburn High School

94

95

96

100

100

98

84.2

100

94.4

80

90

91.2

100

100

89.7

87.9

90.6

96.4

91.5

96.3

94

East High School

94

95

96

97.1

98.5

100

100

100

100

76.1

100

90.2

92.7

100

92.1

91.3

99.4

95.7

Guilford High School

94

95

96

81.4

79.6

83.6

91.7

95.5

68

88.1

81.3

93.5

87.5

70.6

62.9

86.1

80.3

78.1

Jefferson High School

94

95

96

87.5

86.3

80

72

78.9

94.1

70.3

75.8

82.4

93.9

85.7

83.3

81.8

82.6

83.2

97 86.4 100 90.6 82.1 88.9 88.6
97 82.7 62.5 63.2 73.7 72.4
97 52.7 76 41.4 57.6 55.6
97 91.5 95.2 78.4 84 86.9

98 74.4 57.9 58.6 75 76.9 69.3
98 75 52 41.7 62.2 60
98 33.3 54.5 19.4 31.3 33.1
98 59.2 80 72.5 75 69.3

BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND OTHER fflSPANIC ISSUES

DRAFT Rev. 10-16-98

The RSD engaged in discriminatory conduct against Hispanic students with regard to the District's Bilingual Education Program, and with regard to other educational issues affecting Hispanic students.

Specific Violations Found
• For an extensive period, RSD used the Bilingual Program as a desegregation device which placed greater educational and transportation burdens on Hispanic students than on white students:
- The elementary Bilingual Program was displaced an average of once every three years beginning in 1977-78 and continuing through 1989-90. The constant relocations had negative educational effects on the bilingual students involved.
• The RSD provided transportation to bilingual desegregation students that was qualitatively inferior to the transportation provided to voluntary white desegregation students (free District-provided transportation services for white students vs. mass transit only for Hispanic students).
• The RSD failed to adequately identify and assess students who were in need of bilingual services.
• The RSD failed to assess and serve appropriately non- and limited-Englishspeaking students who required special education services.
• The educational services received by Bilingual Program students were not equal to those received by students in the regular instructional program.

Vestiges/Effects
Deficiencies in the Bilingual Program continued at the time of the CRO hearings:
Bilingual secondary classes offered a very basic curriculum; RSD continued to ignore parent/students' complaints that there were no advanced math and science classes. Bilingual teachers were often required to teach a wide variety of classes, some outside of their professional preparation areas.
In response to the increasing number of students in the Bilingual Program, RSD moved students out of the program and into the regular curriculum even if they were not proficient in English. The District had in place no specific and dependable "exit" or transition measures.
Education of special needs students who are non- and limited-English-speaking remained inferior to the special education RSD provided for English language students.
Throughout the entire RSD system, vestiges and effects of the District's adjudicated discrimination with regard to Hispanic students continued:
Hispani¢s in Rockford continued to have the highest drop-out rate of all racial and ethnic groups.

Remedial Provisions
• RSD must ensure that the effects of the educational inequities with regard to Hispanic students, including bilingual students, are eliminated to the extent practicable, including:
- Eliminating mandatory assignment of Hispanic students; locating bilingual programs in appropriate places within the Hispanic community; cease relocating Spanish language bilingual programs as a desegregation device to put individual schools in compliance with racial fairness guidelines.
The Bilingual Program must provide alternatives to full day bilingual classes as an option for eligible children.
Transportation services provided to bilingual students must be of the same quality as transportation for other RSD students.
• Replace the Bilingual Advisory Committee with the Hispanic Education Committee.
• Include multicultural awareness and staff development as part of the BEP.
• Develop and implement a comprehensive plan for special education services for non and limited English speaking national origin minority students.

Status
• The District continues to have significant problems recruiting and retaining bilingual teachers, particularly those fluent in Spanish. Each year of CRO implementation has seen positions budgeted by the CRO for bilingual programs remain unfilled.
• Secondary Spanish language course offerings are still limited and curriculum development has been inadequate.
• Barbour Elementary School, which will house the two-way language immersion program in Spanish/English, is still under construction. When completed, Barbour will significantly increase the number of seats in the SW quadrant where the largest number of Hispanic students reside.
• Curriculum development and recruitment for special education support staff/services for Hispanic bilingual students remains grossly inadequate.
• RSD reorganized the BEP staff structure to include a General Director who was hired in mid-September of 1998; specific personnel have also been hired to improve transportation services provided to Hispanic students and their fámilines.
• The Hispanic drop-out rate, remains the highest of any racial or ethnic group in the Rockford Public Schools. (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)

Violations Continued
The RSD failed to provide sufficient space for the Bilingual Program, resulting in overcrowding of bilingual students and holding of bilingual classes in inappropriate areas:
At one site two bilingual classes were once held in the same room.
At the same school, the bilingual classes were later moved to the gymnasium. The bilingual students were put "on stage while gym classes were going on". Students had to wait in the aisles for the gym to empty in order to return to class. Sometimes the class was held in the hallway.
Bilingual students were steered toward easier and less beneficial classes by English-only speaking counselors.
The RSD segregated bilingual students within receiving schools:
RSD terminated a bilingual program in which the curriculum design allowed students to attend classes with mainstream students for part of the day and attend "pull out" bilingual classes the rest of the day.
Instead, RSD instituted a full-time, "contained" program where the children stayed with their bilingual teacher for the full day; the only opportunity for bilingual students to interact with mainstream students was lunch and recess.

BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND OTHER HISPANIC ISSUES CONTINUED
Violations Continued
More man 50% of Hispanic students who enter Rockford high schools do not graduate.
Across the board in bilingual and non-bilingual schools, Hispanic high school students do not receive appropriate counseling for careers or for further schooling.

EDUCATIONAL DISCRIMINATION WITHIN CLASSROOMS AND SCHOOLS

DRAFT Rev. 11-02-98

In addition to tracking and student assignment, the Court recognized that RSD treated minority students differently than white students within classrooms and schools. RSD afforded a quality of instruction to minority students that was different, inappropriate and inferior to that afforded to white students.

Specific Vintøtions Found
Faculty often acted upon stereotypical views of minority children as less capable than white students:
Teacher-initiated discriminatory tracking practices at the elementary level included dividing students within classrooms into slow, middle and fast learners, and providing different instruction to each group. Minority students were typically overrepresented in the slow groups. This resulted in the provision of lesser educational opportunities and services to African-American and Hispanic students.
African-American and Hispanic students received inferior educational opportunities in terms of curriculum and services:
The disproportionate number of African American and Hispanic students in lower-track classes received inferior educational services.
Discrimination in tracking resulted in the preclusion of African-American and Hispanic students from entire math and science curricula.
The RSD's Bilingual Program was plagued by serious educational deñciencies, and the educational services received by Bilingual Program students were inferior to those received by students in the regular instructional program.

Vestiges/Effects
• Differences in curriculum for white and black students were identified in 1990 and continued through the CRO hearings:
"[T]he curricular and instruction revision/revitalization has only been initiated and has not yet addressed all the areas where inequities exist"
"Curriculum and instructional changes, such as staff development and curriculum changes in mathematics, English, science, and social studies, continue to be needed in the secondary schools."
• There continue to be teachers who have lower expectations for minority students and fail to hold them to high standards of performance:
"Much of the resistance that consultants experienced during the delivery of proven instructional approaches is based on well entrenched attitudes and beliefs that staff have and their unwillingness to try to work seriously with all students."
• The RSD's discriminatory educational practices resulted in worse educational outcomes for African-American and Hispanic students.

Remedial Provisions Ordered
Supplemental and compensatory educational programs and services at all grade levels:
Intensive supplementary and compensatory programs at the elementary level in reading and math (Success for All, Reading Recovery, Higher Order Thinking Skills).
Achievement/enrichment programs and tutorial support at the secondary level.
Mentoring and peer tutoring at all grade levels.
Saturday Academy program for secondary students consisting of academic and study skills improvement.
Staff development and human relations programs geared toward encouraging multicultural teaching methods and reshaping attitudes and perceptions regarding minority students.
Implementation of learning centers/labs and before and after school programs, such as homework clubs, study skills, test taking.
Abolition of tracking, including segregating students within classrooms and offering "watered down" instruction.
All high school students are required to complete math through geometry and science through chemistry.

Status
The proven success of the supplemental and compensatory educational programs has not been replicated in RSD. School districts that are not under desegregation orders tend to exhibit stronger student achievement gains with, for example, Success For All and Reading Recovery.
Supplemental and compensatory programs surfer a high staff turnover rate, due in large part to recent faculty and staff layoffs, and collective bargaining provisions which place seniority over specialized training in layoff priority.
Despite the voluminous evidence of pervasive educational discrimination, RSD successfully appealed the CRO provision which required the District to close a portion of the achievement gap between minority and majority students.
Although the 7th Circuit reversed only the "gap closing" provision, RSD has repeatedly attempted to eliminate funding for supplemental and compensatory educational programs (Success For All, Reading Recovery, E.L.L.I., etc.).
A primary objective of RSD's Strategic Plan is to eliminate the disparity in «rtandwrdi7H achievement test performanceamong all identified ethinic/racial groups.

COUNSELING AND ADVISING

DRAFT Rev. 10-10-98

Minority students in RSD received qualitatively different counseling. The Court found that RSD counselors discriminatorily steered white students into higher level classes and African-American and Hispanic students into lower level classes.

Specific Violations Found
Counselors urged minority students to enroll in basic classes and discouraged them from participating in honors classes.
Vocational instructors discouraged minority student interest in academic classes and college, and told minority students that their blue collar parents would be unable to send them to college.
Counselors steered bilingual students toward easier classes; the girls were put into home economics and child development and the boys into technology.
RSD counselors resisted efforts to move students from one track to another.
RSD counselors were insensitive to the educational needs and development of minority students.

Vestiges/Effects
* There were/are continuing disparities in counseling and course placement practices in the RSD:
Minority students in Rockford schools continue to be significantly over-represented within many non-college preparatory and special education classes, while at the same time they are significantly under-represented in honors, advanced and college preparatory classes.
* The direct effect of discrimination in counseling has been the provision of lesser educational opportunities to African-American and Hispanic students. This effect has been compounded by the rigidity of placement under the tracking system.

Provisions Ordered
RSD ordered to provide fair and non-biased guidance counseling to all students.
RSD is enjoined from steering minority students to either low-level or segregated classes.
RSD ordered to implement Human Relations and Staff Development programs to change racially biased perceptions and stereotypes regarding minority student's academic and career potential.

Status
Minority parents and students continue to express the concern that they encounter obstacles to enrollment in honors core classes and advanced elective classes, despite RSD's open enrollment policy for honors classes.
Although the 1991 Second Interim Order required RSD to conduct a study of its counseling program, and provided funding, the study was not completed until October, 1997 and failed to address key issues related to discrimination against minority students, such as:
what counseling services are provided to nonEnglish speaking students; are minority students still steered to lower level classes; do college recruitment services in RSD differ for minority students?
A disturbing number of minority students whose grades and/or test scores qualify them for honors classes are "advised" to enroll in regular and extended time classes (such as Chem Com and the two year algebra course).
Minority students continue to be overrepresented in lower level elective classes and underrepresented in advanced elective classes (e.g. keyboarding v. computer programming).
Although the Court provided $30,000 for a comprehensive counselor training program in the 1997-98 school year, no training program was conducted.

TRANSPORTATION

DRAFT 11-98

Through intentional discrimination, the RSD's transportation practices discouraged and diminished voluntary integration and created disparate integration burdens. The RSD's longstanding practice of requiring the mandatory assignment and transportation of minority students to schools outside their neighborhoods for desegregation purposes, while imposing no similar burdens on white students, was unfair, impermissible and unconstitutional.

Specific Violations Found
Within RSD's discriminatory system of integration, transportation policies and practices were both discriminatory and contradictory:
The RSD provided transportation to majority open enrollment students on a more generous basis than that provided to minority open enrollment students, despite the tact that the open enrollment and focus center methods offered the only significant opportunity for voluntary minority student transfers.
Mandatorily reassigned secondary minority students received no Board-paid transportation, while the RSD provided transportation for voluntary integration students (predominantly white).
The dual transportation policies for minority integration students and majority integration students created numerous disparate burdens for African-American and Hispanic students (cost, quality, overcrowding).

Vestiges /Effects
Minority students continued to carry the transportation burden. For all practical purposes, the District continued to have a school system where transportation was mandatory for minority students to attend secondary schools outside their neighborhood, while no mandatory transportation burden was placed on majority students.
Through the 1989 Reorganization Plan, the RSD created a system where a greater mandatory transportation burden for schooling was placed on minority students.

Remedial Provisions Ordered
RSD may not implement policies or practices which place disparate transportation burdens on minority students compared to other students.
RSD may not confer transportation benefits on majority students as compared to minority students.
RSD must ensure that transportation is provided equitably to all students in order that minority students are able to fully participate in extra-curricular activities without significant hardships.
RSD must provide free transportation to students making desegregative transfers, to students participating in extra-curricular activities, and to other students and parents engaged in desegregation activities.

Status
Until Controlled Choice is fully implemented, and additional elementary, middle and high school capacity is added to Westside schools, minority students will continue to bear disproportionate transportation burdens.
Minority students and parents contend that because minority students still bear disproportionate transportation burdens, buses are overcrowded resulting in longer route times, safety issues, more discipline problems, and unfair punishments.
Some elementary schools have unilaterally eliminated after school activity buses or imposed burdensome scheduling requirements which impede minority students participation in extracurricular activities.
Because the Southwest quadrant, and the entire Westside, lacks a comprehensive high school, minority high school students continue to be subjected to disparate transportation burdens.

The RSD unlawfully developed an unpublicized system of preferential transportation services that disproportionately benefitted white students, such as "privy stops" in predominately white areas.

DISCIPLINE & HOSTILE SCHOOL CLIMATE

DRAFT 10-98

The Court found that racial disparities in discipline were attributable to RSD conduct Specifically, disciplinary action against minority studentstypicallywas based on racial stereotypes about behavior and racial assumptions about the need for disciplinary action.

Specific Violations Found
• Historically, RSD subjected minority students to disciplinary actions (referrals, suspensions) at a disproportionate rate:
- As late as the 1991-92 school year, African American students were 3.5 times more likely than white students to experience some form of disciplinary action.
- For the 1993-94 school year, Hispanic students constituted 6.4% of the total student enrollment, but 7% of the years' disciplinary actions involved Hispanic students.
- In Eastside (C-9) schools, minority students were disciplined 3.2 times as often as white students while in Westside schools, minority students were disciplined only 1.5 times as often as white students (1994 data).

Vestiges/Effects
In the CRO, the court noted the following existing disparities in disciplinary action involving majority v. minority high school students:
For the 1994-95 school year, minority students were "far more likely" to receive at least one disciplinary referral while majority students were nearly twice as likely as minority students to receive no disciplinary referrals.
of the students receiving five or more referrals, 51% were minority although the total minority enrollment was only 32%.
At Jefferson High School, 92% of the 293 African-American students enrolled received one or more referrals; 68% received 5 or more.

Provisions Ordered
RSD must:
Discipline all students fairly, without regard to race or ethnicity; "comparable conduct must receive comparable sanctions."
Develop a uniform, objective code of conduct.
Develop a plan to reduce the high number of referrals, suspensions and classroom exclusions which disproportionately impact minority students.
Enhance counseling approaches, implement multi-cultural education programs, and develop alternative approaches to discipline.
Conduct regular audits summarizing the reasons and sources of referrals and other pertinent information.
Implement alternatives to out of school suspension.

Status
RSD data for the first semester of the 1996-97 school year (the most recent available) indicates that minority elementary students accounted for 63% of the 421 out-of·school suspensions while comprising only 38.1% of the total student enrollment.
At the secondary level, minority students, who comprised about 34% of the total enrollment, accounted for 59% of the out-of-school suspensions for the same period. This represented an increase from 55% in the first semester of 1994-95.
RSD has developed a uniform discipline code, including a Spanish language translation. Codes are mailed to all parents at the beginning of the school year.
Minority students and parents continue to cite glaring examples of differential application of the discipline code to majority vs. minority student misconduct. The most common discrepancies involve fighting and subjective areas such as disruptive behavior, intimidation/threatening, and "unruliness."
Although required to implement alternatives to out-of-school suspension, several secondary schools have eliminated in school suspension programs. Other schools, notably Lincoln Middle School, have supported alternative discipline programs such as dispute resolution and peer mediation which can reduce conflict and resulting suspensions.

STAFF RACIAL ATTITUDES AND THE STIGMATIZATION OF MINORITIES

DRAFT 5-8-98

The court found that RSD administrators and teachers engaged in racist behavior and exhibited negative racial attitudes towards minority students on a pervasive basis. The court made numerous findings concerning RSD employees who injected pre-conceived stereotypes and prejudices into their classrooms and schools.

Specific Violations Found
The court made numerous findings related to the stigmatìzatíon of African-American and Hispanic student and staff and schools which were racially identifiably minority schools:
When the RSD bused minority children to primarily white schools, the minority children were ostracized and frequently kept physically separate from the other students.
Latino transfer students who arrived by bus were met with racial epithets and prevented from socializing and playing with the school's other students. Minority students were "held" on buses and required to go straight to classes before school and immediately board buses after school.
White students who attended overwhelmingly white Gifted programs housed in minority schools were intentionally, and very publicly, kept separate from the neighborhood minority students:
The predominately white students in the centralized gifted program "used separate entry doors and separate bathrooms from the regular [minority] students and were separated from neighborhood school children for lunch, recess and classes."
The RSD's discriminatory tracking practices stigmatized African-American and Hispanic students as educationally inferior to white students

Vestiges/Effects
Expert witnesses and consultants testifying at the CRO hearings noted that many RSD administrators and teachers still exhibited negative racial attitudes and resisted meaningful desegregation reforms:
"For many years the tracking of students that has become accepted practice in the District makes it difficult for staff to envision being able to design curriculum, instruction and strands of courses that will accommodate a range of student abilities, retain academic standards, and simultaneously satisfy parents who are concerned about their low and high performing children."
"Some teachers remain skeptical about teaching a more diverse student population, particularly students who represent a broader range of prior achievement and reading levels. Instead these teachers focus their concern on managing inappropriate student behavior."
As regards desegregative reforms, it appears that "staff are anticipating that this too will pass' and are engaging in waiting until conditions and circumstances return to their perception of'normal' - the way it used to be." This resistance is attributed to "well entrenched attitudes and beliefs of staff and their unwillingness to try to work with all students."

Remedial Provisions Ordered
The CRO required:
* A comprehensive staff development program which emphasizes exploring and changing racial beliefs which negatively impact minority students' educational experiences.
* A Human Relations program to "foster the educational, attitudinal and developmental progress" of school staff, students and other appropriate target groups in support of desegregation and educational equity.
* Equity compliance and student support staff to work at the administrative and building levels to resolve equity complaints and infuse equitable practices into all educational and social areas of the schools.

Status
A pervasive atmosphere of denial hampers efforts to move towards an equitable educational environment. Some Board members ridicule staff development programs such as Healing Racism and Multicultural Awareness.
Evaluation of the Healing Racism program by teachers and other staff has been positive; some staff members plan to become program facilitators and are involved in efforts within their buildings to improve the social and educational climate for minority students and parents.
There are many teachers and other staff who are dedicated to the premise that all students must have a full and equal opportunity to learn and the staff and students in the school have or will create the conditions to fulfill this premise.
Some Board members have consistently ridiculed and attempted to eliminate equity support positions, particularly those in Eastside schools (Human Relations Support Specialists, Parent Liaisons, etc.).
Minority parents continue to report an unacceptable number of incidents in which minority students and parents are subjected to actions based on racial stereotypes and prejudices:
Minority students are too frequently misidentified in school records as being gang affiliated based on student rumor, doming style and color combinations, jewelry,

STATUS CONTD
handshakes, etc. Majority students are not subjected to the same stereotypes based on their attire or conduct
A disturbing number of minority fathers report being identified or mistaken by school staff as "boyfriends" despite having identical surnames, addresses, etc. in their child's student records.
Adolescent [mis]behavior by minority students is often 'criminalized' and the students, particularly minority males, subjected to police action and other harsh punishment Comparable behavior by majority students is not categorized as being criminal and the resulting disciplinary action is less severe.

EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES AND WHOLE SCHOOL ACTIVITIES

DRAFT 54-98

The Court found that if given equal opportunity to participate in extracurricular activities, minority students excelled. However, RSD policies and practices reduced minority students' opportunities to participate in such activities. While in 1989, there were no high school extracurricular activities in which whites did not participate, 36% of all extracurricular activities had no African-American participants and 72% had no Hispanic participants.

Specific Violations Found
RSD's desegregation policies required die mandatory, one way busing of minority students awayfromtheir neighborhoods. School buses operated based upon the normal school day and generally did not run in the late afternoon or early evening:
Mandatory reassignment students attending Eastside schools were effectively precluded from participating in extracurricular activities as RSD did not provide buses for after-school activities and mass transportation was often not available.
The RSD allowed subjective selection criteria to be used in connection with a student's participation in certain extracurricular activities. This subjective selection criteria resulted in racial identifîability and underrepresentation of minorities in certain extracurricular activities such as cheerleading.

Vestiges/Effects
Disparities in extracurricular activities remained at the time of the CRO hearings. A significant effect of the District's policies and conduct was the continued racial identifîability of extracurricular activities and the underrepresentation of African-American and Hispanic students in extracurricular activities:
In the 1994-95 school year, 55% of the extracurricular activities reported at Auburn, East, Guilford, Jefferson, Skyview, Eisenhower and Flinn were racially identifiable. 28% of those activities had no African-American participants; 45% of the reported activities had no Hispanic Participants.

R¢BI¢difll Provisions Ordered
The CRO established the "objective" mat all extra-curricular activities have a minority student population/participation within +/15% of the percentage of minority students at each school; RSD is obligated to see that the goal is achieved to the extent practicable.
Although the 7th Circuit reversed the provision which required a ipinimum minority participation on cheerleading squads, the RSD is still required to ensure nondiscriminatory cheerleading selection practices.
RSD must develop a level playing field for participation in extracurricular activities and regularly examine methods and criteria for recruiting and selection to ensure racial fairness:
Selection and participation criteria must be based on interest and merit, and not reflect the racial backgrounds of students.
Transportation must be readily available and cost barriers removed.
Scheduling of extracurricular activities should be done in a way which allows full participation.
RSD must "rigorously promote its extracurricular activities" (coaching and mentoring).
RSD must conduct a student interest survey of extra-curricular activities.

Status
• For the 1996-97 school year,* the total minority cheerleading percentage was 23% for African American students but only 1% for Hispanic students. The overall (9th - 12th grade) percentage at individual schools ranged from a high of 52% African American cheerleaders at Auburn to a low of 4% African American cheerleaders at East:
- Out of 110 cheerleaders in the four RSD high schools, only one was Hispanic (East 10th grade squad).
East had one African American cheerleader on the 9th grade squad and none on the 10th 12th grade squads.
• None of the RSD Progress Reports issued since the CRO was entered indicate whether the student interest survey has been conducted.
• Since the 7th Circuit opinion was issued, RSD Progress Reports on CRO Implementation no longer include data on minority cheerleading participation.

DISTRICT NON-RESPONSIVENESS TO MINORITY PARENTS' CONCERNS

The Court found that in numerous instances, RSD failed to respond to concerns expressed by minority parents and the minority community.

Specific Violations Found
Maintained one-way mandatory busing of minority students despite repeated protests from minority parents.
Ignored minority parents' concerns relating to unsafe school conditions (Muldoon, Montague, Church), and student assignment.
Ignored minority parents' protests regarding the 1989 Reorganization Plan which closed several predominately minority Westside elementary schools and West High School, and imposed extreme disparate burdens and educational disadvantages on minority students.
In contrast to the unresponsiveness to minority parents and community concerns, RSD repeatedly responded to concerns raised by majority parents, particularly with regard to student assignment.

Vestiges/Effects
Due to the historical nonresponsiveness to minority parents and the community, parents have little faith in the RSD and its ability and/or willingness to educate their children.
Minority students' exposure to their parents' lack of faith in the educational system has caused minority students to believe it is impossible to succeed in the RSD.
The RSD's historical nonresponsiveness to minority parent and community concerns has led to lower levels of parent and community involvement in the schools.
Significant research indicates that meaningful parent involvement in the educational process is associated with improved education outcomes for students.

Provisions
Human Relations Program.
Family Support Center.
Parental Involvement Staff (Parent/Community Liaisons, Human Relations Support Specialists, equity assistant principals in secondary schools).
Citizen's Advisory Committee.
School monitoring of minority parent involvement

DRAFT 5-8-98
Status
Through the efforts of die Family Support Center, Parent and Community Liaisons, Human Relations Resource Specialists and other staff, minority parent and community involvement in the schools is gradually increasing. Although the work of these support staff units is long-term and ongoing, RSD administration and a majority of Board members have repeatedly attempted to eliminate these positions.
Minority parent and community input and viewpoint is largely still ignored by RSD administration and the Board majority. For example, the District has announced plans to reimplement tracking (labeling it "ability grouping") despite strong opposition in the minority community.
Predominately white anti-CRO groups, such as REACH, are perceived as having undue influence in RSD and Board decisions. AntiCRO persons have been appointed by the Board to key Board Committees.

LACK OF STAFF DEVELOPMENT OR ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

DRAFT 5-8-98

Although many faculty members had few encounters with minority students prior to desegregation activities, RSD did not provide adequate multi-cultural training to its staff. RSD also failed to provide administrative support to any of its sporadic desegregative programs.

Specific Violations Found
Sporadic efforts to improve educational opportunities for minority students and encourage voluntary desegregation transfers were poorly supported and not maintained by RSD (e.g. Welsh Teacher Development Center; Washington Community Center, Haskell and Bloom Focus Centers).
In the 1970s, the Bloom Focus Center became a focal point for voluntary desegregation transfersfromthroughout the city. The actions of RSD's Board and Superintendents, however, eventually deprived the school of its diverse transfer base and turned a model program into a re-segregated school.
the Haskell Focus Center program was a successful model of integration, with complete and harmonious interaction between AfricanAmerican and white students, but received little or no supportfromthe RSD. Through a series of transportation reductions and eventual elimination of transportation, white transfer students were deterredfromattending Haskell School and their numbers were accordingly reduced.
As of 1993, the Staff Evaluation Plan of the Rockford Public Schools contained no provisions for evaluating teachers or other staff on the basis of any racial integration or educational equity objectives or requirements.

Vestiges/Effects
As recently as 1995, independent educational consultants found mat principals generally did not provide strong leadership at the elementary or secondary levels in connection with desegregation effects, noting that principals did not attend any of the staff development sessions conducted by the consultants. The consultants further found that:
"Some of the most obstructive individuals are the currently appointed department chairs in the middle and high schools."
"It is hard for teachers who are deeply rooted in the system to be aggressive about change and innovation. To date, these individuals have been defensive and see their roles and responsibilities as much to satisfy department chairs and their peers in the schools as to implement the innovations and improve equity conditions."

Remedial Provisions Ordered
To support desegregation efforts, the CRO ordered:
• The creation of a Department of Desegregation reporting jointly to the Superintendent and the Special Master. The Department includes a network of administrative and technical support staff to ensure effective CRO implementation successful desegregation (transportation, Parent Information Center, MIS staff).
• A staff development program focused on multicultural development and high order thinking skills consistent with the recommendation of Southwest Regional Educational Lab.
• Human Relations Support Specialists and Curriculum Implementers to support equitable educational and social development practices and encourage positive attitudinal change in faculty and support staff.

Status
There remains a great deal of resistance to equity related staff development by the REA. Some Board members are openly critical of and derisive towards staff development programs which seek to shape positive attitudes toward minority students and an inclusive, tolerant school climate (i.e. Healing Racism, multicultural awareness training, etc.)
The Board has consistently attempted to abolish staff positions which relate to equity, inclusion, and nondiscrimination:
During the 1997 Budget Reduction process to reduce the General Education Fund deficit, the Board, in defiance of CRO governance rules, sought to eliminate many CRO/Tort funded equity positions (Curriculum bnplementors, Human Relations Support Specialists, Parent Liaisons).
In a unilateral and unauthorized action, the Board "voted" to reduce Human Relations Support Specialists from 12 month to 10 month positions. These staff members were all African American and Hispanic and worked in Eastside, predominately white schools.
The District has done little to foster a teamoriented relationship among regular and desegregation staff and departments. Rather, the administration and Board continue to create an "us against them" atmosphere with regard to CRO implementation, both at the administrative and school level.

EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION & FACULTY AND STAFF SEGREGATION

DRAFT 5-8-98

For decades, minorities were grossly under-represented in most employment classifications in the RSD. For more than twenty years, RSD failed to meet the 15% minority hiring goal it agreed to as part of the QUEFAC case. The Court found that the District's schools were racially identifiable by faculty & staff as well as by student composition.

Specific Violations Found

Vestiges/Effects

Remedial Provisions Ordered

Status

Although the RSD in 1973 committed to minority hiring goals (increasing each year to culminate in a goal of 15%), the percentage of certified employees in District in 1988-89 was almost identical to the percentage in 1974-75 (7.0% vs. 7.2%).
In 1988-89, minorities were woefully underrepresented among the RSD's 3,636 employees:
Only 8.6% of the 127 managers at the central office and in school administration were minority.
Only 7.0% of teaching staff were minority.
In non-certified service occupations, only 3.7% of the clerical employees were minority.
RSD achieved an overall minority employment level of 16.3% because minority employees constituted 30% of bus drivers, 21% of aides; minorities represented 17.6% of the custodial employees but only 10.3% of food service employees.
RSD purposefully failed to take serious efforts to recruit, hire and promote minority employees:
When RSDfirsthired a personnel director in 1978, no one informed him of the Districts minority hiring goals; between 1978-1984, the RSD Superintendent never discussed minority recruitment or hiring with the personnel director.

The only employment classifications in which RSD exceeded its minority hiring goal of 15% were bus drivers, teacher aides and custodial staff.
In the 1995-96 school year, RSD's minority teacher percentage was only 9% overall— 6% African American and 3% Hispanic. The minority student population was well over 30%.
Significant faculty and staff segregation continued to exist at the time of the CRO hearings. In the 1995-96 school yean
of the 97 African American and Hispanic teachers in elementary schools, 82 were assigned to the fourteen C.8 and magnet schools (primarily West of the River and generally having a higher percentage of minority students).
on average, minority faculty accounted for only 3% of the teachers in C.9 schools (primarily East of the River with predominately white enrollments).
eight C.9 schools had no minority teachers, 11 had one, and two schools had two minority teachers. Overall, 38% of the C.9 schools still had all white teaching staffs.

Achieve a faculty of at least 13.5% minority teachers in each grade configuration (elementary, middle and high schools) as soon as practicable.
To prevent newly hired minority faculty from being laid off under "last in,firstout" reduction in force (RIF) contract provisions, the RSD's post-RIF minority facultyratiomust approximately equal the pre-RIF ratio.
Enjoined contractual faculty placement provisions, by allowing RSD a period of time to place a minority teacher in any vacancy for which he/she qualifies.
At the elementary level, no school is to exceed the percentage of the RSD's elementary minority faculty by 5% (a current compliance standard of 12.3% moving to the 5% standard as hiring approached the 13.5% level).
Secondary schools held to the +1-5% standard presently and after achieving 13.5% minority faculty hiring.
Enjoined any part of the RSD/REA collective bargaining agreement which would prevent implementation of the faculty hiring and placement provisions.

• Although the Seventh Circuit reversed the minority faculty hiring and retention goals and assignment provisions, RSD still must increase minority faculty representation to provide a desegregated environment:
the district has a continuing obligation to recruit bilingual teachers and support staff. A large number of bilingual teacher and support staff positions remain vacant.
the state of Illinois imposes upon school districts a duty to engage in affirmative action recruitment and hiring.
• As of the 1997-98 school year, ten elementary schools in the RSD have a 100% white teaching staff.
• The REA collective bargaining agreement expires in 1999, providing the District another opportunity to negotiate the removal of provisions which obstruct faculty integration.
• Minority faculty continue to be clustered in Westside schools. Currently, %of minority elementary classroom teachers are assigned to Westside, formerly C.8 schools. As Controlled Choice is phased in at all grade levels, school student populations will become integrated while faculty remains segregated.
• In RSD's central administration, the Superintendent is the only minority cabinet level administrator who is not partially or fully Tort funded. (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)

EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION & FACULTY AND STAFF SEGREGATION CONTINUED

Violations Continued
From 1963-1989, the overwhelming majority of African American teachers, at all grade leveb, taught in racially identifiable minority schools:
Testimony in the 1973 QUEFAC case revealed that 96% of minority teachers were clustered in twelve racially identifiable minority elementary schools; 75% of middle school faculty were clustered in two racially identifiable minority middle schools.
The racially skewed assignment patterns for teachers continued at all grade levels through the time of the liability hearing.
• Through 1989, RSD hired only eight minority principals who, collectively, had thirteen assignments. Only one assignment was to a school without a high minority enrollment
• At a 1989 Board meeting, the sole African American member questioned the fact mat RSD had no minority high school principals. Another Board member responded mat Rockford "was not ready" for an AfricanAmerican high school principal:
- In 1993, at the time of the liability hearing, RSD had never employed an AfricanAmerican or Hispanic as a high school principal.
• Despite acknowledging mat REA contract provisions related to faculty assignment obstructed faculty and staff desegregation, RSD continued to renegotiate the provisions into subsequent contracts.

Violations Continued
Minority non-certified staff were also clustered in racially identifiable minority schools, even when contract provisions covering noncertified employees did not hinder the RSD from making desegregative assignments.

Status Continued
Board members have repeatedly attempted to eliminate CRO equity related positions which are staffed by minority employees:
During the 1997 Budget Reduction process, Board members sought to eliminate the Human Relations Support Specialists, who are all African-American or Hispanic and assigned to Eastside schools. These staff members are often the only minority staff assigned to Eastside schools.
The Board also attempted to eliminate Parent Liaisons, who work to increase minority parent involvement in the schools, and minority student participation.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

DRAFT 5-8-98

The RSD engaged in intentional discrimination by assigning students in its special education program in a manner which unduly burdened minority students. RSD assigned vastly disproportionate numbers of minority elementary special education students to non-Southwest quadrant schools.

Specific Violations Found
Although RSD's stated policy exempted special education students from desegregation programs, prior to the People Who Care lawsuit RSD assigned 99.6% of Southwest Quadrant elementary self contained special education (SCSE) students to schools outside the Southwest Quadrant Most of these predominately minority students were assigned to Eastside schools. A similar pattern occurred in middle and high school special education assignments.
Although the Court did not make specific findings as to the disparate placement of minority students into special education classifications, RSD's stipulated enrollment data from 1973 to 1990 revealed the following:
During the 1970's African-American students were four times as likely as whites to be placed in subjective, low-status special education classifications such as Behavior Disorder and Educable Mentally Handicapped/Retarded.
For Learning Disabled, a syþjective category involving less stigma, African-American students were only slightly more likely man whites to be placed in such classes.

Vestiges/Effects
Minority students continued to be disproportionately referred to and placed in certain special education classifications:
As recently as 1995, RSD sequestered 3.6 times as many African-American than white students within self-contained classes presumed to treat behavior disorders (BD).
During the 1995-96 school year, AfricanAmerican students, who made up only 25% of the students in the RSD, were assigned to 51.1% of the seats in SCSE/BD classes.
In one school, students classified as behavior disordered were forcibly placed in "time out rooms" — concrete boxes with steel doors locked from the outside. RSD consultants condemned the practice as "cruel, and educationally damaging", particularly since it was aimed "far more frequently at AfricanAmerican students (males in particular) than at other racial/ethnic groups."
Once placed in special programs, minority students are infrequently mainstreamed into the traditional curriculum and instead typically continued in special programs for the duration of their educational programs in the Rockford schools.

Remedial Provisions Ordered
Judge Roszkowski held that the RSD's assignment of almost 100% of minority SCSE students to schools outside the Southwest Quadrant was an act of intentional discrimination. However, he agreed with Judge Mahoney that special education students, who already race significant educational burdens, should be exempt from desegregation programs. Therefore, no special education remedy was ordered.
The Master recommended mat all AfricanAmerican students in the RSD's self contained behavior disordered classes be re-evaluated to ensure that the placements were valid and not racially motivated. The District Court disagreed and the decision was upheld by the 7th Circuit

Status
Control of the special education program was returned to RSD in the final segment of the CRO issued June 7,1996.
While under the Second Interim Order, RSD increased the number of SCSE seats in the Southwest quadrant to 4 1 % in 1994-95. Since RSD assumed full controlled of special education, the number of Southwest quadrant SCSE seats has dropped precipitously, to 24.7% in 1997-98.
Minority children are still overrepresented in the special education program in both selfcontained classes (particularly behavior disorder classes) and pull-out services:
For the 1997-98 school year, the percentage of minority elementary students in SCSE classifications, most of whom reside in the Southwest Quadrant, was at 53.7% vs. a districtwide elementary minority enrollment of approx. 38.0 %.
Minority parents continue to distrust the high percentage of minority students referred and placed into special education classifications, particularly self contained classrooms.

 
 SD-IL-0001-0008
ROCKFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS Financial Information Summary
August 1998
Contents

Financial Facts SD #205 and Total Tax Rate, FY1999 Budget, State Aid Revenue, Long-Term Debt, Staff Salaries

Page 1-2

Teachers' Compensation Salary & Benefits for Average Teacher (Entry Level, Mid Range, and Top of Scale), Workday, Per Hour Pay

Page 3-4

Salary Schedule 1997-1998 Salaries for all Teachers

Page 5

Teachers' Additional Pay Additional Pay (Differentials) for Extracurricular Activities

Page 6-7

Benefits Benefit Highlights

Page 8

Teacher Profile Highest Education Attained & Seniority

Page 9

Teaching Staff by Category Teachers in classroom vs support staff

Page 10

Teacher Horizontal Movement on Pay Scale 3-year history of teachers' horizontal movement along salary table

Page 11

tchrindx

ROCKFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS / SD#2O5 - FINANCIAL FACTS

TAX RATE

SD #205

1997 LEVY TAX RATE

EDUCATION

3.12

SPECIAL EDUCATION OPER & MAINT TRANSPORTATION LIFE SAFETY LEASE LEVY REFERENDUM LIMITED RATES»

0.04 0.50 0.20 0.05 0.05 3.96

TORT-REGULAR TORT-DESEG TORT-COPS MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT SOCIAL SECURITY WORKING CASH DEBT SERVICE
TOTAL SD #205
CITY OF ROCKFORD WINNEBAGO COUNTY ROCKFORD PARK DISTRICT ROCK VALLEY COLLEGE LIBRARY OTHER (AIRPORT, WATER, TOWNSHIP,
FOREST PRESERVE) TOTAL TAX RATE

0.56 1.18 0.19 0.10 0.13 0.05 0.40
6.5679
2.00 0.76 0.80 0.39 0.32
QJ1
11.60

TAX ON $75,000 HOME AMOUNT
$780
$10 $125
$50 $13 $13 $978

COMMENTS
1997 LEVY RATE OF 6.57 MEANS TOTAL PROP TAX REVENUE OF $122.6 MIL

$140 $294
$48 $24 $33 $13 $100
$1.629
$500 $189 $200
$98 $80 S193
S?.888

56% 100%

EACH ADDITIONAL $1 MIL NEEDED ROUGHLY TRANSLATES INTO TAX INCREASE OF $13.40 FOR THE OWNER OF A $75,000 HOME

SD#2O5 FY 1998/1999 BUDGET
(in millions of $)

REVENUE PROP TAX STATE AID GRANTS-STATE GRANTS-FED OTHER TOTAL

EXPEND

SALARIES BENEFITS PRINCIPAL & INTEREST OTHER TOTAL

REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPEND

TOTAL DISTRICT EDUCATlOt`ì FUND (10) COURT TORT FUND (12)

AMOUNT

°A AMOUNT

°A AMOUNT

%

$122.8 31.0 31.8 17.3 23.8
S226.7

54% 14% 14%
8% 10% 100%

$59.9
31
15.6 3.1
1AA
S123.7

48% 25% 13%
3% 11% 100%

$21.6
ÇL2. $22.5

96% 0% 0% 0%
á2t 100%

$133.0 46.0 15.3 66.4
$260.7

51% 18% 6% 25% 100%

$92.1 30.3 2.3
S133.6

69% 23%
2% 7Jft 100%

$14.7 3 9
0.3
Ifi
$22.5

65% 17%
1%
A£%-
iflQ2i

¢$34.O)

(S9.9Ì

SO.O

/$Î33.6 EXPEND. = `¯`\
\. 51% OF TTL DISTRICT

$22.5 EXPEND. = 9% OF TTL DISTRICT

ANTICIPATED ACCUMULATED DEFICIT AS OF JUNE 30,1998 ¯¯*· ($21.4)

-1-
08/20/98...l/FINFAX.WK4

ROCKFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS / SD#2O5 - FINANCIAL FACTS

¾D#2O5 STATE AID

(A) - STATE AID EARNED (In millions of $)
(B) - AVERAGE DAILY STUDENT ATTENDANCE
ATTENDANCE RATE (for information only)
STATE AID RECEIVED PER STUDENT PER YEAR (A) DIVIDED BY (B)
:^
SD #205 LONG-TERM DEBT AT JULY 1998

1996 $33.2 25,423
91.7 $1,306

GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS (Final installmentl due in year 2014)
CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION INSTALLMENT CONTRACTS ASBESTOS NOTES
SUBTOTAL
TEACHERS' 5&5 EARLY RETIREMENT (est) OTHER PENSION & HEALTH PAYMENTS (es OTHER BENEFITS (est)
TOTAL

$98.0 MILLION
$45.5 3.7
M.
150.6 <4
2.2 24.2
2J.
$179.1 MILLION

1997 $33.2 25,248
91.6 $1,315

1998 $32.8 26,040
91.3 $1,260

ESTIMATE 1999
$32.7
23,663 UNAVAIL
$1,382

= APPROXIMATELY 58.5% OF LEGAL
DEBT LIMIT OF DISTRICT (LIMIT=MORE THAN $257 MILLION, AND IS LIMITED TO 13.8% OF EQUALIZED ASSESSED VALUATION)

Excludes $44.0 million of Tax Anticipation Warrants borrowed in January 1998, due October 1998.

SD #205 STAFFING - FY 1998 /1999 BUDGET (in millions of $)

SALARIES

AMOUNT

%_

ADMIN & CENTRAL SUPPORT STAFF DESEGREGATION ADMIN. & SUPPORT

$13.8 6.5

10% } Includes central support (management, } non-supervisory and clerical staff) and school building
5% } admin/support staff (principals, office staff, aides)

TEACHERS' SALARIES TEACHERS' ADDITIONAL PAY SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS

90.7

68%

3.7

3%

1.4

1%

OTHER OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE FOOD SERVICE BUS TRANSPORTATION

2.0

2% Police officers, crossing guards, other overtime & subs

7.5

6%

2.4

2%

5.0

4%

TOTAL

$133.0 100%

-208/20/98...I/F1NFAX.WK4

TEACHERS' COMPENSATION - 1997/98 RATES

COMPENSATION
SALARY Base Salary Average Additional Pay (See detail below) Total Salary

ENTRY-LEVEL

AVERAGE

TOP OF SCALE

(B.A. degree)

(M.A. +10 credits, (M.A. + 40 credits, 13 yrs seniority) 20+ yrs seniority)

%of Amount Tti Comp.

%of Amount Tti Comp.

%of
Amount Tti Comp.

$23,439 1,916

$42,940 1,916

$51,472

•

1,916

$25,355

77% $44,856

83% $53,388

84%

BENEFITS TRS Pension - 8% of salary THIS-.5% of salary Health Insurance Medicare (if hired after 1986)
Total Benefits

Note (a) Note (b) Note (c)
Note (d)

2,038 137
5,209 340

3,734 243
5,209 0

4,476 289
5,209 0

$7,724

23% $9,186

17% $9,974

16%

TOTAL COMPENSATION (Salary & Benefits) $33,079 100% $54,042

100% $63,362

100%

Í#:¥¢í5¾rø:røÿí:¾ï:¾ï:¾î

ADDITIONAL PAY - OTHER PAID ACTIVITIES

Workshop Attendance

$20 per hour

Noíe (e)

Differentials (coach, advisor, etc.)

See separate "Differential Schedule"

Tutoring

$20 per hour

Comment: District FY99 budget for these activities is $3.6 million

í>SÍ:¾v?·'·'·:····>···· :•:-:•''•'•••-
Notes: (a) Excludes payment by State of Illinois of approximately 9% of teacher's salary (b) District is responsible for the .5% TRS health care contribution under the currrent contract (c) Health Insurance includes employer paid group medical, dental & life insurance; disability benefits (d) Other benefits not shown in this table are workers' compensation, unemployment insurance, Flex Spending Account plan, 4O3(b) plan [a salary deferral program], and the Employee Assistance Program. (e) Some workshops qualify for salary credit. E.g., 16 hour course = 1 salary credit. Accumulate 10 credits, and receive raise of $1,219.

Source: Teachers' Contract expiring June 30, 1999 & District Budget for FY1998-1999

-3-
08/25/98...L\TCHR_A.WK4

TEACHERS1 COMPENSATION TEACHER'S AVERAGE WORKDAY

Elementary Teacher. Secondary Teacher.

6 hours a day / 30 hours per week (includes 1/2 hr planning period each day) Includes maximum 15 minutes required presence before & after school Student contact time: maximum of 5 hours each day / 25 hours per week
6+ hours a day / 30+ hours per week Includes maximum 15 minutes required presence before school Student contact time: 4+ hours each day / 21 hours a week
(5 classes @ 50 minutes each class)

TEACHER'S WORK YEAR :

180 Days

[Maximum 176 days with students]

EXAMPLE - ELEMENTARY TEACHER PAY
Salary only. Annual Base Salary Daily Pay (180-day basis) Hourly Pay (6-hour day basis)

1st year Teacher
$23,439 $130
$22

Masters + 10 13 yrs seniority
$42,940 $239
$40

Top of Scale Teacher
$51,472 $286
$48

Total Compensation (Salary & benefits): Annual Compensation (incl benefits) Daily Compensation Hourly Rate

$33,079 $184
$31

$54,042 $300
$50

$63,362 $352 $59

-k~

08/25/98...L\TCHR A.WK4

Computation Schedule for

Illinois Teacher Retirement System Purposes

A= Salary C=TotallTRS Compensation

1997-98

STEPS B.A +10 +20 MA. +10 +20 +30

1 A 23,439 24,658 25,877 27,095 28,314 29,533 30,752 C 25,477 26,802 28,127 29,451 30,776 32,101 33,426

+40
31,971 34,751

2 A 24,658 25,877 27,095 28,314 29,533 30,752 31,971 . 33,190 C 26,802 28,127 29,451 30,776 32,101 33,426 34,751 36,076

3 A 25,877 27,095 28,314 29,533 30,752 31,971 33,190 34,4OS C 28,127 29,451 30,776 32,101 33,426 34,751 36,076 37,400

4 A 27,095 28,314 29,533 30,752 31,971 33,190 34,408 35,627 C 29,451 30,776 32,101 33,426 34,751 36,076 37,400 38,725

5 A 28,314 29,533 30,752 31,971 33,190 34,408 35,627 36,846 C 30,776 32,101 33,426 34,751 36,076 37,400 38,725 40,050

6 A 29,533 30,752 31,971 33,190 34,408 35,627 36,846 38,065 C 32,101 33,426 34,751 36,076 37,400 38,725 40,050 41,375

7 A 30,752 31,971 33,190 34,408 35,627 36,846 38,065 39,284 C 33,426 34,751 36,076 37,400 38,725 40,050 41,375 42,700

8 A 31,971 33,190 34,408 35,627 36,846 38,065 39,284 40,503 C 34,751 36,076 37,400 38,725 40,050 41,375 42,700 44,025

9 A 33,190 34,408 35,627 36,846 38,065 39,284 40,503 41,721 C 36,076 37,400 38,725 40,050 41,375 42,700 44,025 45,349

10 A C

34,408 37,400

35,627 38,725

36,846 40,050

38,065 41,375

39,284 42,700

40,503 44,025

41,721 45,349

42,940 46,674

11 A 35,627 36,846 38,065 39,284 40,503 41,721 42,940 44,159 C 38,725 40,050 41,375 42,700 44,025 45,349 46,674 47,999

12 A 36,846 38,065 39,284 40,503 41,721 42,940 44,159 45,378 C 40,050 41,375 42,700 44,025 45,349 46,674 47,999 49,324

13 A C

41,721 42,940 44,159 45,378 46,597 45,349 46,674 47,999 49,324 50,649

14 A C

45,378 46,597 47,816 49,324 50,649 51,974

15 A C

47,816 49,034 51,974 53,298

16 A
C

49,034 50,253 53,298 54,623

Longevity Step (plus 20 years experience)
2 0 + A 38,065 39,284 40,503 42,940 C 41,375 42,700 44,025 46,674

44,159 47,999

46,597 50,649

50,253 54,623

51,472 55,948

-5-

ROCKFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS DIFFERENTIAL PAY SCHEDULE
Additional Pay for Extracurricular Activities - School Year 1997-1998 (per REA Contract)

HIGH SCHOOL
Newspaper Advisor Yearbook Dramatics Debate Band Orchestra Chorus Aquatics

Index on Base Amount

0.0386
0.0386 0.0612 0.0612 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0339

$904.75
904.75 1,434.47 1,434.47 1,659.48 1,659.48 1,659.48
794.58

Base Salary 1997-98

= SCHOOL
Newspaper Advisor Yearbook Dramatics Band Orchestra Choir Intramura!s

Index on Base Amount

0.0339
0.0339 0.0386 0.0511 0.0511
0.045 0.045

$794.58
794.58 904.75 1,197.73 1,197.73 1,054.76 1,054.76

ADDED RESPONSIBILITIES
Index on Base Amount

Department Head Team Leader Head Teacher Designated Teacher Coordinator/Facilitator Patrol Supervisor Consulting Teacher Quiz Bowl Chess Student Council - Sec. Student Council - Elem Peer Mediation Interracial Club

0.0708 $1,659.48
0.0708 1,659.48 0.0708 1,659.48 0.0339 794.58 0.1144 2,681.42 0.0172 403.15 0.0572 1,340.71 0.0612 1,434.47 0.0708 1,659.48 0.0612 1,434.47 0.0339 794.58 0.0511 1,197.73 0.0612 1,434.47

$23,439

08/25/98 02:35 PM l\l DIFFER.WK4

-6-

ROCKFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS DIFFERENTIAL PAY SCHEDULE Additional Pay for Extracurricular Activities • School Year 1997-1998
(per REA Contract)
Base Salary 1997-98:

$23,439

ATHLETICS

1-2 Yrs of Experience

3-5 Years of Experience

6+ Years of Experience

Index on Base Amount Index on Base Amount Index on Base Amount

Student Athletic Coordinator

0.1716 $4,022.13

0.1924 $4,509.66

0.2008 4,7O6.55¯

Football - Boys

Head Coach Asst.

0.1223 2,866.59 0.0901 2,111.85

0.1431 3,354.12 0.1014 2,376.71

0.1515 $3,551.01 0.1107 2,594.70

Basketball

Head Boys Head Girls Asst.

0.1223 0.1110 0.0901

2,866.59 2,601.73 2,111.85

0.1431 0.1250 0.1014

3,354.12 2,929.88 2,376.71

0.1515 0.1345 0.1107

3,551.01 3,152.55 2,594.70

Swimming

Head Asst.

0.0901 2,111.85 0.0701 1,643.07

0.1110 2,601.73 0.0820 1,922.00

0.1180 2,765.80 0.0885 2,074.35

Track Cross Country Baseball/Softball Wrestling Tennis Golf Volleyball Soccer Bowling Cheerleading Ticket Manager Pompon

Head Asst.
Head Asst.
Head Asst.
Head Asst.
Head Asst.
Head Asst.
Head Asst.
Head Asst.
Head Asst.

0.0901 2,111.85 0.0701 1,643.07

0.0701 1,643.07 0.0612 1,434.47

0.0901 2,111.85 0.0701 1,643.07

0.0901 2,111.85 0.0701 1,643.07

0.0701 1,643.07 0.0612 1,434.47

0.0701 1,643.07 0.0612 1,434.47

0.0901 2,111.85 0.0701 1,643.07

0.0901 2,111.85 0.0701 1,643.07

0.0386 0.0328

904.75 768.80

0.0901 0.0701 0.0701

2,111.85 1,643.07 1,643.07

0.1110 2,601.73 0.0820 1,922.00

0.0820 1,922.00 0.0724 1,696.98

0.1110 2,601.73 0.0820 1,922.00

0.1110 2,601.73 0.0820 1,922.00

0.0820 1,922.00 0.0724 1,696.98

0.0820 1,922.00 0.0724 1,696.98

0.1110 2,601.73 0.0820 1,922.00

0.1110 2,601.73 0.0820 1,922.00

0.0452 1,059.44 0.0384 900.06

0.1110 0.0820 0.0820

2,601.73 1,922.00 1,922.00

0.1180 2,765.80 0.0885 2,074.35

0.0885 2,074.35 0.0782 1,832.93

0.1180 2,765.80 0.0885 2,074.35

0.1180 2,765.80 0.0885 2,074.35

0.0885 2,074.35 0.0782 1,832.93

0.0885 2,074.35 0.0782 1,832.93

0.1180 2,765.80 0.0885 2,074.35

0.1180 2,765.80 0.0885 2,074.35

0.0481 1,127.42

0.0409

958.66

0.1180 0.0885 0.0885

2,765.80 2,074.35 2,074.35

-708/25/98 02:42 PM /I/ DIFFER.WK4

TEACHERS' COMPENSATION Benefit Highlights -FY1998/1999

TRS (TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM) PENSION
TRS is a state-sponsored retirement program for certified employees, primarily teachers. The plan is funded via two sources. One source is the state's contribution of about 9% of each eligible employee's salary. The second source o funding is the employee's contribution of 8% of his/her salary. The Rockford School District's contract with its teachers' union provides that the District pays this 8% contribution on behalf of its employees.

Cost: District's total TRS pension payment budget for FY 1995-1996 is $8.9 million.

¾¾¾¾¾¾^^
GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE (Med¡cal/Dental/Life/D¡sab¡Uty Benefits)

Medical Insurance Plan Choices: Two HMO's and two PPO plans

PPO Plan Coverage:

$100 annual deductible; maximum $300 per family No deductible for hospital room & hospital doctor charges $6,000 lifetime maximum for out-of-pocket expenses

Dental Insurance Plan Choices: One HMO and one standard plan

Life Insurance Plan:

$20,000 benefit per teacher

Disability Benefit:

Maximum 2/3rd of salary, in conjunction with TRS benefits

Cost (Monthly):

*The District pays about $434 per month ($5,209 per year) for each employee's group health insurance coverage.

Employee's monthly premium:
Single Coverage Family Coverage

$0 $0 to $25.00

-808/25/98...L\TCHR A.WK4

TEACHING STAFF PROFILE

HIGHEST EDUCATION ATTAINED

(5.7%)M&%>MA

(9.9%)BA+20

(7.5%)MA+20 ^ - ^ T ¯ C ^ > ^ (5.9%)BA+10

(9.1%)MA+30

(47.3%) MA+40

YEARS OF SENIORITY

(21.8%) 11-19 Years

(12.3%) 6-10 Years (13.0%) 1-5 Years

(52.8%) 20+ Years

STAFF DISTRIBUTION BY SENIORITY & EDUCATION

YEARS EDUCATION

SENIORITY

BA BA+10

0

13

1

1

11

2

2

21

5

3

17

8

4

15

10

5

11

11

6

4

4

7

10

12

8

8

5

9

6

5

10

2

5

11

33

29

12

13

14

15

20+

19

16

BA+20
1 1 8L 3 15 16 11 7 9 7 7 54
51

TTL

170

112

189

% TOTAL

9%

6%

10%

EDUCATION

MA MA+10

4

0

2

1

4

0

7.8

4

8

5

8

7

6

4

10

5

2

7

6

7

3

6

12j

2

21

33

I

15

29

MA+20
0 0 1 1 5
9j
8 7 5 3 5 3 8 38
50

MA+30
0 0 0 1 1 3 3 9 4 3 4 4 5 4 5 24 103

MA+40
1 0 1 1 2 3 5 4 8 6 5 9 15 11 27 79 722

108

109

142

173

898

6%

6%

7%

9%

47%

A

TOTAL % TOTAL

STAFF SENIORITY
t

20 17 40 43 61 68 45 62 48 43 36 146 82 53 32 103, 1,003

1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 4% 2%! 3% 3%1 2% 2% 8%1 4% 3%! 2% 5% 53%'

1,900

100%

100%

-9-
08/25/98...L\TCHR_A.WK4

TEACHING STAFF PROFILE - FTE's (Based on teaching positions, including vacancies)
(57.2%) Classroom

(16.9%) Special Ed.

(26.0%) Support Staff

TEACHER CATEGORY
Classroom Teachers Special Education
Resource Self-Contained Support Services Title 1 Elem. Art/Music/PE Dept. Heads Counselors Other
TOTAL

Elem.
623 212

LEVEL

M.S.

H.S.

District

182

316

41

78

TOTAL
1,120 331

50

50

97

97

0

12

23

35

131

21

22

153

327

1,112

256

438

153

1,959

-1008/25/98...L\TCHR A.WK4

TEACHERS1 SALARY SCHEDULE ADVANCEMENT

Three-year history of teachers' progression on salar>i schedule Data reflects movement from one lane to another, e.g. from "Bachelor's" to " 3achelor's + 10 credit hours". For table of lanes, refer to Salary Schedule on Page 5.

| Overall Movement
Up 1 Lane Up 2 Lanes Up 3 Lanes Up 4 Lanes Up 5 Lanes Retro Retirement

1997-1998 1996-1997 1995-1996 Average

75%

56%

77%

69%

11%

13%

13%

12%

7%

20%

6%

11%

3%

6%

2%

4%

3%

3%

2%

2%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

3%

0%

1%

100%

100%

100%

-11-
08/27/98...L\ED.WK4

 
 SD-L-0001-0009
ROCKFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS Fiscal Year 1998/1999 Budget
Respectfully submitted: Dr. Ronald Epps, Superintendent Dr. Ellen Bueschel, Associate Superintendent of Management
Services Tom Hoffman, General Director of Finance
August 11,1998

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

PAGE 1

II. 1997/1998 BUDGETED REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES BY FUND

A. District Summary:

* Statement of Revenues, Expenditure and Fund Balances

4

* Comparative Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Fund Balances

5

B. Education and Special Revenue Funds:

* Comparative Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Fund Balance - Education (10)

6

* Comparative Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Fund Balance - Grants (18)

7

* Comparative Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Fund Balance - Food Service (19)

8

* Comparative Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Fund Balance - Tort Immunity (11) 9

* Comparative Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Fund Balance - Court Tort (12)

10

* Comparative Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Fund Balance - O & M (20)

11

* Comparative Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Fund Balance - Transportation (40) 12

* Comparative Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Fund Balance - IMRF/FICA (50)

13

C. Trust, Agency and Other Funds:

* Comparative Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Fund Balance - COPs Tort (35)

14

* Comparative Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Fund Balance - Lease COPs (25)

15

* Comparative Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Fund Balance - Debt Service

16

* Comparative Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Fund Balance - Construction (60)

17

* Comparative Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Fund Balance - Working Cash (70) 18

* Comparative Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Fund Balance - Life Safety (90)

19

I. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

August 11, 1998
Members of the Board and Citizens of Rockford School District #205

r
ROCKFORD PUBLIC
SCHOOLS
Administration Building 201 South Madison Street Rockford, Illinois 61104-2092 815/966-3000

Dear Members of the Rockford School Community:
We hereby summit the 1998/1999 Budget for the Rockford School District. The budget is the summation, expressed in monetary terms, of the decisions made previously affecting the delivery of educational programs to the children of Rockford. Among these are the staffing plan, impact of negotiated agreements with collective bargaining unions, requested and mandated program changes, and proposed means of financing the services and programs for the 1998/1999 year. The budget, as the end product of these decisions, reflects, in one document, the projected costs of implementing those decisions and the continuation of programs and services as required by the Board or state and federal governments.
The presentation of the budget is in the form required by the Illinois State Board of Education and is organized around the concept of 'funds'. A fund is a separate legal and accounting entity created to separate sources of funding and corresponding expenditures into categories for which the sources of funding are required to be used. The use of 'funds' is designed to enhance and focus decision making around our primary organizational mission.
Mission Statement
The mission of the Rockford Public Schools, as an educational system committed to excellence, is to serve the community by equipping all of its diverse students with the tools necessary to:
• Compete in a global marketplace, • Succeed in future educational pursuits, and • Contribute to society;
This is accomplished by creating integrated learning environments that respond to the needs and aspirations of the individual student in partnership with family and community.

Budget Development Parameters and Assumptions

In developing the budget certain parameters and assumptions were made. The key parameters and assumptions are:

•

No significant change from 1997/98 in the number of students.

•

Growth in Equalized Assessed Valuation by 5.0%, of which 40% is new property.

•

All funds with statutory or referendum limits will be at their maximum.

•

Grant revenues will remain approximately the same as 1997/98.

•

Interest earned on investments will be at a rate of 5.5%.

•

A decrease in General State Aid due to a correction in the ADA count for FY 97 resulting

in a reduced allocation to be received in FY 99.

•

Receipt of new Block Grant from the state in the amount of $750,000.

•

Issuance in December of Tax Anticipation Warrants.

•

Increase in total teacher salaries by 3% (2% salary adjustment and 1% longevity increase).

•

Increase in all other salaries by 3%.

•

One percent vacancy included in Fund 10.

•

All expenses are critically evaluated before any commitment.

•

The budget is a planning document, and is not the authorization to make an expenditure.

•

The Gifted, Bilingual, and Adult Education Grants, previously in fund 10, have been

included in the fund 18 budget.

Major Initiatives

The following provides a brief outline of the challenges and priorities for 1998/99:

•

Implementing the directives of the Comprehensive Remedial Order which include, among

others, controlled choice and completion of construction on two new elementary schools,

and continued construction on new middle school.

•

Improvements in student achievement.

Progress towards meeting the financial goals detailed in the plan submitted to the Board on December 17, 1996.
Increased focus on client satisfaction.

Financial Summary

The 1998/1999 budget for all funds anticipates revenues of $226,717.1 and expenditures of $260,680.6. A tabular summary of the groups of funds is as follows:

Revenues Expenditures Excess (Deficit)

Operating Funds $211,932.8 $216.550.3 (4,617.5)

Trust, Agency, and Other Funds $14,784.3 $44.130.3 (29,346.0)

(note: the above figures are represented in thousands)

Future Prospects

The 1998/99 year presents special challenges for the District. Successfully meeting these challenges is critical. The ability to meet and succeed rests with the commitment of the Board, Staff and the community. We are confident that these challenges will be met as we work in an atmosphere of collaboration and confidence that we are making the right choices for the children ofRockford.

Respectfully submitted,

Dr. Ronald Epps Superintendent

Dr. Ellen Bueschel Associate Superintendent of Management Services

Tom Hoffman General Director of Finance

II. 1998/1999 BUDGETED REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES BY FUND

ROCKFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS SUMMARY STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND FUND BALANCE
FY 1998-1999 PROPOSED BUDGET
(Amounts in thousands of $)

REVENUES LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES CORPORATE TAXES FOOD SERVICE SALES OTHER TOTAL LOCAL SIA1E GENERAL STATE AID BLOCK GRANT GRANTS TOTAL STATE F_EJ2ERAL GRANTS OTHER TOTAL FEDERAL TOTAL REVENUES
EXPENDITURES SALARIES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PURCHASED SERVICES SUPPLIES & MATERIALS CAPITAL OUTLAY OTHER TOTAL EXPENDITURES
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE ENDING FUND BALANCE

EDUCTION EUJ4D
(10)

GRANT FUND
(18)

FOOD SERVICE
(19)

TORT IMMUNITY
(11)

COURT TORT (12)

COPS IQRT_
(35)

COPS LEASE
(25)

OPER& MAINT.
(2X)

TRANSP. (40)

IMRF/FICA (5X)

DEBT SERVICE
(30, 34)

LIFE SAFETY
(92)

WKG CASH
(70)

CONSTR. (6X)

IQTAL,

$59,868.5

$0.0

$10,282.0

$0.0

$0.0

$0.0

$3,931.0

$0.0

$74,081.5

$0.0

$30,986.5 $750.0
$14,784.4 $46,520.9

$0.0 $8,882.9 $8,882.9

$3,055.0 $0.0
$3,055.0 $123,657.4

$10,362.5 $0.0
$10,362.5 $19,245.4

$0.0 $0.0 $2,334.7 $60.0 $2,394.7
$0.0 $0.0 $224.0 $224.0
$3,850.0 $0.0
$3,850.0 $6,468.7

$10,205.4 $0.0 $0.0 $7.2
$10,212.6
$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $10,212.6

$21,575.5 $0.0 $0.0
$60.0 $21,635.5
$0.0 $0.0 $850.0 $850.0
$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $22,485.5

$3,238.3 $0.0 $0.0
$3,238.3
$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $3,238.3

$947.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
$947.0
$0.0 $0.0
$0.0
$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $947.0

$9,473.0 $4,488.0
$451.0 $14,412.0
$0.0 $0.0
$0.0
$0.0 $0.0 $14,412.0

$3,831.3 $0.0 $0.0
$10.5 $3,841.8
$0.0 $0.0 $6,300.0 $6,300.0
$0.0 $0.0 $10,141.8

$4,359.4 $900.0 $0.0
. $50.0 $5,309.4
$0.0 $0.0
$0.0
$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $5,309.4

$7,428.5
$100.0 $7,528.5
$0.0 $0.0
$0.0
$0.0 $0.0 $7,528.5

$947.0 $0.0 $0.0
$75.0 $1,022.0
$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,022.0

$947.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1.5
$948.5
$0.0 $0.0
$0.0
$0.0 $0.0 $948.5

$0.0 $0.0
$1,100.0 $1,100.0

$122,820.9 $15,670.0 $2,334.7 $5,846.2
$146,671.8

$0.0 $30,986.5

$0.0

$750.0

$31,041.3

$0.0 $62,777.8

$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,100.0

$17,267.5 $0.0
$17,267.5 $226,717.1

$92,120.4 $30,346.5
$3,921.5 $3,182.4 $1,488.3 $2,511.0 $133,570.1 ($9,912.7)
$0.0 ($9,912.7)

$10,765.2 $3,715.5 $2,901.3 $1,027.9 $835.5 $0.0
$19,245.4 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0

($21,360.7) ($31,273.4)

$209.7 $209.7

$2,352.5 $260.0 $707.2
$2,652.4 $310.0 $13.0
$6,295.1 $173.6 $0.0 $173.6
$1,248.7 $1,422.3

$703.0 $156.0 $5,157.0
$2.0 $0.0 $0.0 $6,018.0 $4,194.6 $0.0 $4,194.6
($6,980.0) ($2,785.4)

$14,653.3 $3,981.8 $2,216.6 $938.8 $321.7 $313.3
$22,425.5 $60.0 $0.0 $60.0
($3,392.2) ($3,332.2)

$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $3,961.2 $3,961.2 ($722.9) $947.0 $224.1
$1,197.6 $1,421.7

$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
$0.0 $947.0 _($947,O)
$0.0
$84.7 _$84.7

$7,073.9

$4,962.6

$1,085.4

$1,076.1

$1,092.5

$1,746.7

$3,161.2

$1,022.0

$1,009.0

$800.5

$527.9

$138.4

$13,949.9 . $9,746.3

$462.1

$395.5

$0.0

$0.0

$462.1

$395.5

($3,137.3) ($2.675.2)

$7,712.6 $8,108.1

$0.0 $5,300.0
$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $5,300.0 $9.4 $0.0 $9.4
$1,914.2 $1,923.6

$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $7,224.6 $7,224.6 $303.9 $0.0 $303.9
$2,437.3 $2,741.2

$384.6 $44.5 $8.8 $51.0
$1,505.0 $240.2
$2,234.1 ($1,212.1)
$0.0 ($1,212.1)
$1,984.8 $772.7

$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $948.5 $0.0 $948.5
$40,672.2 $41,620.7

$0.0 $0.0 $397.2
$30,313.2 $0.0
$30,710.4 ($29,610.4)
$0.0 ($29,610.4)

$133,015.5 $45,965.8 $18,148.8 $12,037.7 $36,583.2 $14,929.6
$260,680.6 ($33,963.5)
$0.0 ($33,963.5)

$37,238.6 $7,628.2

$59,830.2 $25,866.7

<4`>
L/99BUDWIP.WK4 08/06/98...02:33 PM

ROCKFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES - ALL FUNDS
FY1995-FY1999

REVENUES LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES CORPORATE TAXES FOOD SERVICE SALES OTHER TOTAL LOCAL STATE GENERAL STATE AID BLOCK GRANT GRANTS TOTAL STATE FEDERAL GRANTS OTHER TOTAL FEDERAL
TOTAL REVENUES

FY95

FY96

CONSOLIDATED DISTRICT #205

FY97

FY98 BUDGET

FY98 FY99 ACTUAL BUDGET

(Unaudited)

FY99 vs FY98.

AMOUNT

3L

$87,206.1 $12,768.2
$1,521.7 $5,515.5 107,011.5

$79,624.5 $13,564.9
$1,480.2 $5,751.4 100,421.0

$105,087.8 $14,685.6 $1,457.6 $5,880.5 127,111.5

$117,997.7 $14,970.0 $1,536.0 $6,293.0 140,796.7

$118,097.6 $15,395.6 $1,473.7 $7,820.7 142,787.6

$122,820.9 $15,670.0 $2,334.7 $5,846.2 146,671.8

$17,733.1 $984.4 $877.1 ($34.3)
19,560.3

22.3% 7.3%
59.3% -0.6% 19.5%

$35,022.1 $0.0
$17,502.3 52,524.4

$33,174.4 $0.0
$17,962.4 51,136.8

$33,155.2 $0.0
$27,614.5 60,769.7

$33,140.0 $715.0
$25,604.3 59,459.3

$34,490.1 $794.2
$28,362.3 63,646.6

$30,986.5 $750.0
$31,041.3 62,777.8

($2,168.7) $750.0
$3,426.8 2,008.1

-6.5% ERR
19.1% 3.9%

$9,475.9 $0.0
9,475.9
169,011.8

$10,497.8 $0.0
10,497.8
162,055.6

$12,504.4 $0.0
12,504.4
200,385.6

$14,266.3 $0.0
14,266.3
214,522.3

$14,466.5 $0.0
14,466.5
220,900.7

$17,267.5 $0.0
17,267.5
226,717.1

$4,763.1 $0.0
4,763.1
26,331.5

45.4% ERR
45.4%
16.2%

EXPENDITURES SALARIES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PURCHASED SERVICES SUPPLIES & MATERIALS CAPITAL OUTLAY OTHER
TOTAL EXPENDITURES

$108,174.0 $29,808.6 $13,745.5 $7,857.6 $6,377.5 $10,905.9

$104,526.7 $28,786.2 $12,369.3 $8,452.7 $5,956.5 $11,325.5

$122,010.6' $129,232.0 $40,251.1 $41,466.6 $14,079.5 $23,622.1 $10,535.1 $12,593.2 $6,861.6 $39,174.4 $11,239.5 $17,653.5

$123,770.7 $42,116.2 $20,458.6 $10,782.0 $21,118.9 $15,398.1

$133,015.5 $45,965.8 $18,148.8 $12,037.7 $36,583.2 $14,929.6

$11,004.9 $5,714.7 $4,069.3 $1,502.6
$29,721.6 $3,690.1

176,869.1 171,416.9 204,977.4 263,741.8 233,644.5 260,680.6 55,703.2

10.5% 19.9% 32.9% 14.3% 433.2% 32.6%
32.5%

EXCESS (DEFICIENCY)

(7,857.3)

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES/(USES) $12,229.1

CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE

4,371.8

(9,361.3) (4,591.8) $2,932.6 $46,754.3 (6,428.7) 42,162.5

(49,219.5) $1,400.0 (47,819.5)

(12,743.8) $1,165.2 (11,578.6)

(33,963.5) (29,371.7) $0.0 43,821.7
(33,963.5) 14,450.0

313.8%

BEGINNING FUND BALANCE ENDING FUND BALANCE

$31,198.7 35,570.5

$39,170.8 32,742.1

$29,246.3 71,408.8

$71,408.8 23.589.3

$71,408.8 59,830.2

$59,830.2 25,866J

L/99BUDWIP.WK4 08/06/98...02:32 PM

REVENUES LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES CORPORATE TAXES FOOD SERVICE SALES OTHER TOTAL LOCAL STATE GENERAL STATE AID BLOCK GRANT GRANTS TOTAL STATE FEDERAL GRANTS OTHER TOTAL FEDERAL
TOTAL REVENUES

ROCKFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
FY1995-FY1999

FY95

FY96

EDUCATION (Fund 10)

FY97

FY98

FY98

BUDGET ACTUAL

(Unaudited)

FY99 FY99 vs FY98 Act.

BUDGET AMOUNT

°L·

$48,937.5 8,047.8 0.0 3,572.3
60,557.6

$51,840.8 8,751.3 0.0 4,233.6
64,825.7

$54,016.9 9,695.4 0.0 4,019.8
67,732.1

$57,047.3 9,838.5
3,942.2 70,828.0

$56,549.3 10,136.4
3,152.5 69,838.2

$59,868.5 10,282.0
3,931.0 74,081.5

$3,319.2 $145.6 $0.0 $778.5 4,243.3

5.8% 1.5% ERR 19.7% 6.0%

35,022.1 0.0
6,637.9 41,660.0

33,174.4 0.0
7,039.3 40,213.7

33,155.2 0.0
U,j307.6 47,962.8

33,140.0 715.0
._ 12,755.1 46,610.1

34,490.1 794.2
14,078.2 49,362.5

30,986.5 750.0
14,784.4 46,520.9

($3,503.6) ($44.2) $706.2
(2,841.6)

-10.6% -6.2% 5.5% -6.1%

229.4

1,130.8

2,133.9

1,820.4

3,444.1

3,055.0

229.4 102,447.0

1,130.8 106,170.2

2,133.9 117,828.8

1,820.4 119,258.5

3,444.1 122,644.8

3,055.0 123,657.4

($389.1) $0.0
(389.1)
1,012.6

-21.4% ERR
-21.4%
0.8%

EXPENDITURES SALARIES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PURCHASED SERVICES SUPPLIES & MATERIALS CAPITAL OUTLAY OTHER
TOTAL EXPENDITURES

80,259.7 19,451.7 2,058.9 1,211.8
691.2 1,496.2
105,169.5

84,010.7 19,753.4 1,943.5 1,863.7
950.4 2,129.8
110,651.5

88,232.3 27,430.4 2,507.8
1,935.6 1,262.2 2,673.4
124,041.7

91,072.3 27,106.4
2,670.7 3,332.5 1,528.6 3,335.3
129,045.8

88,359.5 29,090.5
3,262.2 2,156.9 1,532.0 2,999.2
127,400.3

92,120.4 30,346.5 3,921.5 3,182.4
1,488.3 2,511.0
133,570.1

$3,760.9 $1,256.0
$659.3 $1,025.5
($43.7) ($488.2)
6,169.8

EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES/(USES) CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE

(2,722.5) 0.0
(2,722.5)

(4,481.3) 223.3
(4,258.0)

(6,212.9) 0.0
(6,212.9)

(9,787.3) 0.0
(9,787.3)

(4,755.5) 122.6
(4,632.9)

(9,912.7) (9,912.7)

(5,157.2) ($122.6) (5,279.8)

4.1% 4.6% 24.7% 30.8% -2.9% -14.6%
4.8%
52.7%

BEGINNING FUND BALANCE ENDING FUND BALANCE

(3,534.2) (6,256.7) (10,514.9) (16,727.8) (16,727.8) (6,256.7) (10,514.9) (16,727.8) (26,515.1) (21,360.7

U99BUDWIP.WK4 08/06/98...02:32 PM

REVENUES LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES CORPORATE TAXES FOOD SERVICE SALES OTHER TOTAL LOCAL STATE GENERAL STATE AID BLOCK GRANT GRANTS TOTAL STATE FEDERAL GRANTS OTHER TOTAL FEDERAL
TOTAL REVENUES

ROCKFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
FY1995-FY1999

FY95

FY96

FY97

GRANTS (Fund 18)

FY98

FY98

BUDGET ACTUAL

(Unaudited)

FY99 FY99 vs FY98 Act.. BUDGET AMOUNT

$0.0

$0.0

$0.0

$0.0

$0.0

$0.0

$0.0

ERR

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

$0.0

ERR

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

$0.0

ERR

341.7

145.3

(39.2)

0.0

0.0

0.0

$0.0

0.0%

341.7

145.3

(39.2)

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0%

0.0
4,110.0 4,110.0

4,499.8 4,499.8

5,664.4 5,664.4

5,572.6 5,572.6

6,608.9 6,608.9

8,882.9 8,882.9

$0.0 $0.0 $2,274.0 2,274.0

ERR ERR 50.5% 50.5%

6,271.4
6,271.4 10,723.1

6,383.6
6,383.6 11,028.7

6,575.7
6,575.7 12,200.9

8,824.9
8,824.9 14,397.5

7,603.3
7,603.3 14,212.2

10,362.5
10,362.5 19,245.4

$2,759.2 $0.0
2,759.2
5,033.2

43.2% ERR
43.2%
45.6%

EXPENDITURES SALARIES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PURCHASED SERVICES SUPPLIES & MATERIALS CAPITAL OUTLAY OTHER
TOTAL EXPENDITURES

6,728.8 1,836.9 1,482.8
324.6 31.3 31.0
10,435.4

EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES/(USES) CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE

287.7 287.7

6,850.4 1,756.7 1,683.4
668.9 210.6
0.0
11,170.0

7,110.4 2,269.4 1,854.6
787.8 271.4
3.6
12,297.2

8,268.3 2,469.6 2,228.4
789.5 641.7
0.0
14,397.5

7,343.1 1,953.6 2,319.2 1,192.2
872.5 1.0
13,681.6

(141.3)

(96.3)

(0.0)

530.6

(141.3)

(96.3)

(0.0)

530.6

10,765.2 3,715.5 2,901.3 1,027.9
835.5 0.0
19,245.4

$1,157.9 $200.2 $373.8 $1.7 $370.3 ($3.6)
2,100.3

16.9% 11.4% 22.2%
0.3% 175.8%
ERR
18.8%

0.0 2,932.9 -2075.7% 0.0
0.0 2,932.9

BEGINNING FUND BALANCE ENDING FUND BALANCE

(371.0) (83.3)

(83.3) (224.6)

(224.6) (320.9)

(320.9) (320.9)

(320.9) 209.7

209.7 209.7

U99BUDWIP.WK4 08/06/98...02:32 PM

REVENUES LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES CORPORATE TAXES FOOD SERVICE SALES OTHER TOTAL LOCAL STATE GENERAL STATE AID BLOCK GRANT GRANTS TOTAL STATE FEDERAL GRANTS OTHER TOTAL FEDERAL
TOTAL REVENUES

ROCKFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
FY1995-FY1999

FY.95.

FY96

FY97

FOOD SERVICE (Fund 19)

FY98 BUDGET

FY98 ACTUAL

FY99 FY99 vs FY98.Act.

BUDGET AMOUNT

î

(Unaudited)

1,521.7 0.0
1,521.7

1,480.2 0.0
1,480.2

1,457.6 67.4
1,525.0

1,536.0 37.0
1,573.0

1,473.7 59.3
1,533.0

2,334.7 60.0
2,394.7

$861.0 $0.7
861.7

ERR ERR 58.4% 1.2% 56.2%

146.4 146.4
2,656.1
2,656.1 4,324.2

198.5 198.5
2,939.7
2,939.7 4,618.4

225.3 225.3
3,325.3
3,325.3 5,075.6

233.0 233.0
3,621.0
3,621.0 5,427.0

241.0 241.0
3,419.1
3,419.1 5,193.1

224.0 224.0

($17.0) $17.0

-7.1% 7.1%

3,850.0 $430.9

12.6%

3,850.0 6,468.7

430.9 $1,275.6

12.6% 24.6%

EXPENDITURES SALARIES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PURCHASED SERVICES SUPPLIES & MATERIALS CAPITAL OUTLAY OTHER
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES/(USES) CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE

1,798.2 241.9 165.0
1,649.8 90.0 6.5
3,951.4
372.8
372.8

1,661.3 216.3 526.3
1,768.2 115.4 10.9
4,298.4
320.0
320.0

1,765.2 211.4 561.3
2,361.1 157.5 9.2
5,065.7
9.9
9.9

2,002.4 260.0 623.5
2,393.3 283.5 10.5
5,573.2
(146.2)
(146.2)

1,901.4 232.6 577.8
2,082.0 236.5 12.9
5,043.2
149.9
149.9

2,352.5 260.0 707.2
2,652.4 310.0 13.0
6,295.1
173.6

$451.1 $27.4
$129.4 $570.4
$73.5 $0.1
1,251.9
23.7

173.6

23.7

23.7% 11.8% 22.4% 27.4% 31.1% 0.8% 24.8%
15.8%
0.2

BEGINNING FUND BALANCE ENDING FUND BALANCE

396.1 768.9

768.9 1.088.9

1,088.9 1,098.8

1,098.8 952.6

1,098.8 1,248.7

1,248.7 1.422.3

L/99BUDWIP.WK4 08/06/98...02:32 PM
8

REVENUES LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES CORPORATE TAXES FOOD SERVICE SALES OTHER TOTAL LOCAL STATE GENERAL STATE AID BLOCK GRANT GRANTS TOTAL STATE FEDERAL GRANTS OTHER TOTAL FEDERAL
TOTAL REVENUES

ROCKFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
FY1995 - FY1999

FY95

FY96

FY97

TORT IMMUNITY (Fund 11)

FY98 BUDGET

FY98 ACTUAL

FY99 FY99 vs FY98.Act.

BUDGET AMOUNT

<_

(Unaudited)

$3,460.8 $0.0

$4,449.0 $0.0

$5,457.5 $0.0

$7,156.2 0.0

$8,633.0 $10,205.4 $1,572.4

84.5 3,545.3

0.0 4,449.0

7.2 5,464.7

7.2 7, 163.4

16.7 8,649.7

7.2 10,212.6

($9.5) 1,562.9

ERR ERR ERR
0.0% ERR

0.0
0.0 3,545.3

0.0
0.0 4,449.0

0.0
0.0 5,464.7

0.0
0.0 7,163.4

$0.0

$0.0

$0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 8,649.7

0.0 10,212.6

$0.0 $0.0
0.0
1,562.9

ERR ERR ERR ERR
ERR ERR ERR ERR

EXPENDITURES SALARIES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PURCHASED SERVICES SUPPLIES & MATERIALS CAPITAL OUTLAY OTHER TOTAL EXPENDITURES
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES/(USES) CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE

57.1 7.4
2,689.7
62.5
2,816.7 728.6 0.0 728.6

804.8 104.3 5,737.7
6,646.8 (2,197.8)
0.0 (2,197.8)

833.3 84.9
3,554.4 1.5
4,474.1 990.6 0.0 990.6

845.6 149.3 5,248.5
1.5
6,244.9 918.5 0.0 918.5

840.3 100.5 5,439.9
3.1
0.0 6,383.8
2,265.9 0.0
2,265.9

$703.0 $156.0 $5,157.0
$2.0 $0.0 $0.0 6,018.0
4,194.6 0.0
4,194.6

($137.3) $55.5
($282.9) $0.5 $0.0 $0.0
(364.2)
1,927.1 ERR ERR

ERR ERR ERR 33.3% ERR ERR
ERR
ERR

BEGINNING FUND BALANCE ENDING FUND BALANCE

(8,767.3) (8,038.7)

(8,038.7) (10,236.5)

(10,236.5) (9,245.9)

(9,245.9) (8,327.4)

(9,245.9) (6,980.0)

(6,980.0) (2,785.4)

L/99BUDWIP.WK4 08/06/98...02:32 PM

REVENUES LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES CORPORATE TAXES FOOD SERVICE SALES OTHER TOTAL LOCAL STATE GENERAL STATE AID BLOCK GRANT GRANTS TOTAL STATE FEDERAL GRANTS OTHER TOTAL FEDERAL
TOTAL REVENUES

ROCKFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
FY1995-FY1999

FY95

FY96

COURT TORT (Fund 12)

FY97

FY98 BUDGET

FY98 ACTUAL

(Unaudited)

FY99 FY99 vs FY98.Act. BUDGET AMOUNT

$13,162.9 $17,645.5 $20,472.2 $23,369.2 $22,514.7 $21,575.5

24.1 13,187.0

(89.6) 17,556.0

31.4 20,503.6

31.3 23,400.5

60.4 22,575.1

60.0 21,635.5

($939.2) $0.0 $0.0 ($0.4)
(939.6)

-5.3% ERR ERR 0.4%
-5.4%

836.0

743.6

861.1

850.0

0.0

0.0

836.0

743.6

861.1

850.0

495.7

469.5

0.0 13,187.0

495.7 18,051.7

469.5 21,809.1

0.0 24,144.1

0.0 23,436.2

0.0 22,485.5

$0.0 $0.0 ($11.1) (11.1)
$0.0 $0.0
0.0 (950.7)

ERR ERR ERR ERR
0.0% ERR 0.0% -5.3%

EXPENDITURES SALARIES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PURCHASED SERVICES SUPPLIES & MATERIALS CAPITAL OUTLAY OTHER TOTAL EXPENDITURES
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY)
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES/(USES) CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE

8,844.3 1,907.4 2,607.0 1,081.6
666.8 11.6
15,118.7
(1,931.7)
(1,931.7)

11,589.1 2,030.9 2,869.5
993.3 454.7
9.5 17,947.0
104.7 0.0
104.7

12,374/1 3,043.2 2,458.5 994.2 1,081.1 282.8
20,233.9
1,575.2 (3,884.3) (2,309.1)

15,108.9 3,657.5 3,409.8 1,708.7 958.9 1,127.5
25,971.3
(1,827.2)
(1,827.2)

13,104.3 3,279.5 2,336.0 1,063.9 991.1 248.9
21,023.7
2,412.5
2,412.5

14,653.3 3,981.8 2,216.6
938.8 321.7 313.3
22,425.5

$1,549.0 $702.3 ($119.4) ($125.1) ($669.4) $64.4
1,401.8

13.4% 34.6% -4.2% -12.6% -147.2% 679.3%
7.8%

60.0 (2,352.5) -2247.6% 0.0 (3,884.3)
60.0 (6,236.8)

BEGINNING FUND BALANCE ENDING FUND BALANCE

(1,668.6) (3,600.3)

(3,600.3) (3,495.6)

(3,495.6) (5,804.7)

(5,804.7) (7,631.9)

(5,804.7) (3,392.2)

(3,392.2) (3,332.2)

L/99BUDWIP.WK4 08/06/98...02:32 PM

10

ROCKFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
FY1995-FY1999

REVENUES LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES CORPORATE TAXES FOOD SERVICE SALES OTHER TOTAL LOCAL STATE GENERAL STATE AID BLOCK GRANT GRANTS TOTAL STATE FEDERAL GRANTS OTHER TOTAL FEDERAL
TOTAL REVENUES

FY95

FY96

OPERATIONS & MAINT. (Fund 2X)

FY97

FY98 BUDGET

FY98 ACTUAL

FY99 BUDGET

(Unaudited)

FY99 vs FY98.Act. BUDGET AMOUNT

$7,740.2 3,825.1
514.4 12,079.7

$8,202.6 3,943.5
485.5 12,631.6

$8,547.4 $4,155.2
630.0 13,332.6

$9,026.2 4,216.5
465.0 13,707.7

$8,976.9 4,344.2
651.5 13,972.6

$9,473.0 4,488.0
451.0 14,412.0

$496.1 $143.8
$0.0 ($200.5)
439.4

5.5% 3.3% ERR -30.8% 3.1%

$0.0

ERR

$0.0

ERR

$0.0

ERR

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

ERR

0.0 12,079.7

0.0 12,631.6

0.0 13,332.6

0.0 13,707.7

0.0 13,972.6

0.0 14,412.0

$0.0 $0.0
0.0
439.4

ERR ERR ERR
3.1%

EXPENDITURES SALARIES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PURCHASED SERVICES SUPPLIES & MATERIALS CAPITAL OUTLAY OTHER TOTAL EXPENDITURES
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY)
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES/(USES) CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE

6,312.1 938.7 767.7
2,377.1 2,297.8
67.1 12,760.5
(680.8) 284.1 (396.7)

6,494.5 845.9
1,033.8 3,102.7 1,744.0
432.4 13,653.3
(1,021.7) 1,755.3
733.6

6,810.5 824.7
1,024.5 3,377.2 1,023.2
597.5 13,657.6
(325.0) 310.0 (15.0)

6,814.4 945.8
1,217.6 3,206.5 2,629.1
653.9 15,467.3
(1,759.6) 1,400.0 (359.6)

6,967.5 915.2
1,340.8 3,212.9 1,220.0
504.9 14,161.3
(188.7) 920.0 731.3

7,073.9 1,085.4 1,092.5 3,161.2 1,009.0
527.9 13,949.9
462.1 0.0
462.1

$106.4 $170.2 ($248.3) ($51.7) ($211.0)
$23.0
(211.4)

1.5% 18.6% -18.5% -1.6% -17.3% 4.6%
-1.5%

650.8 -344.9% ($920.0)
0.6

BEGINNING FUND BALANCE ENDING FUND BALANCE

(4,190.5) (4,587.2)

(4,587.2)

(3,853.6) (3,868.6)

(3,868.6) (4,228.2)

(3,868.6) (3,137.3)

(3,137.3)

L/99BUDWIP.WK4 08/06/98...02:32 PM

11

REVENUES LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES CORPORATE TAXES FOOD SERVICE SALES OTHER TOTAL LOCAL STATE GENERAL STATE AID BLOCK GRANT GRANTS TOTAL STATE FEDERAL GRANTS OTHER TOTAL FEDERAL
TOTAL REVENUES

ROCKFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
FY1995 - FY1999

FY95

FY96

TRANSPORTATION (Fund 40)

FY97

FY98 BUDGET

FY98 ACTUAL

FY99 FY99 vs FY98. BUDGET AMOUNT

(Unaudited)

$3,098.0 1.4
96.4 3,195.8

$3,281.1 1.4
46.1 3,328.6

$3,419.2 0.0
6.0 3,425.2

$3,610.8 0.0
18.0 3,628.8

$3,591.5 0.0
252.7 3,844 .2

$3,831.3 $0.0
10.5 3 ,841 .8

$239.8 $0.0 $0.0
($242.2) (2.4)

7.3% 0.0% ERR -525.4% -0.1%

6,608.0 6,608.0

6,224.8 6,224.8

6,081.2 6,081.2

6,300.0 6,300.0

6,573.1 6,573.1

6,300.0 6,300.0

$0.0 $0.0 ($273.1) (273.1)

ERR ERR -4.4% -4.4%

0.0 9,803.8

0.0 9,553.4

0.0 9,506.4

0.0 9,928.8

0.0 10,417.3

0.0 10,141.8

$0.0 $0.0
0.0
(275.5)

ERR ERR ERR
-2.9%

EXPENDITURES SALARIES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PURCHASED SERVICES SUPPLIES & MATERIALS CAPITAL OUTLAY OTHER
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES/(USES) CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE

3,802.9 948.9
1,628.0 838.7 103.7 912.2
8,234.4
1,569.4 1,146.6 2,716.0

4,272.1 1,009.7 1,277.0 1,013.6 1,235.8
961.5 9,769.7
(216.3) 778.5
562.2

4,421.4 1,026.5 1,433.9 1,063.0
798.5 352.3 9,095.6
410.8 0.0
410.8

4,688.0 1,204.1 2,058.1 1,106.2 1,176.1
235.9 10,468.4
(539.6) 0.0
(539.6)

4,808.8 1,111.2 1,366.0 1,048.7 1,199.9
235.9 9,770.5
646.8 0.0
646.8

4,962.6 1,076.1 1,746.7 1,022.0
800.5 138.4 9,746.3
395.5 0.0
395.5

$153.8 ($35.1) $380.7 ($26.7) ($399.4) ($97.5)
(24.2)

3.6% -3.5% 29.8% -2.6% -32.3% -10.1%
-0.2%

(251.3) 0.0
(251.3)

116.2%

BEGINNING FUND BALANCE ENDING FUND BALANCE

3,376.8 6,092.8

6,092.8 6,655.0

6,655.0 7,065.8

7,065.8 6,526.2

7,065.8 7,712.6

7,712.6 8,108.1

L/99BUDWIP.WK4 08/06/98...02:32 PM
12

REVENUES LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES CORPORATE TAXES FOOD SERVICE SALES OTHER TOTAL LOCAL STATE GENERAL STATE AID BLOCK GRANT GRANTS TOTAL STATE FEDERAL GRANTS OTHER TOTAL FEDERAL
TOTAL REVENUES

ROCKFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
FY1995 - FY1999

FY95

FY96

IMRF & FICA (Fund 5x)

FY97

FY98 BUDGET

FY98 ACTUAL

(Unaudited)

FY99 FY99 vs FY98.

BUDGET AMOUNT

%_

$3,225.2 893.5
96.3 4,215.0

$3,398.8 868.3
112.9 4,380.0

$4,261.7 835.0
184.4 5,281.1

$4,254.4 915.0
177.5 5,346.9

$4,257.1 915.0
472.6 5,644.7

$4,359.4 $900.0
50.0 5,309.4

$102.3 ($15.0)
$0.0 ($422.6)
(335.3)

3.0% -1.7%
ERR -374.3%
-7.7%

$0.0

ERR

$0.0

ERR

$0.0

ERR

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

ERR

0.0 4,215.0

0.0 4,380.0

0.0 5,281.1

0.0 5,346.9

0.0 5,644.7

0.0 5,309.4

$0.0 $0.0
0.0
(335.3)

ERR ERR ERR
-7.7%

EXPENDITURES SALARIES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PURCHASED SERVICES SUPPLIES & MATERIALS CAPITAL OUTLAY OTHER
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES/(USES) CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE

4,435.4
4,435.4 (220.4) 0.0 (220.4)

5,054.2
5,054.2 (674.2) 0.0 (674.2)

5,316.2
5,316.2 (35.1) 0.0 (35.1)

5,628.6
5,628.6 (281.7) 0.0 (281.7)

5,393.5
5,393.5 251.2 0.0 251.2

5,300.0
5,300.0 9.4 0.0 9.4

$0.0 ($93.5)
$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 (93.5)
(241.8) 0.0
(241.8)

ERR -1.8%
ERR ERR ERR ERR
-1.8%
35.9%

BEGINNING FUND BALANCE ENDING FUND BALANCE

2,592.7 2,372.3

2,372.3 1,698.1

1,698.1 1,663.0

1,663.0 1,381.3

1,663.0 1,914.2

1,914.2 1,923.6

L/99BUDWIP.WK4 08/06/98...02:32 PM
13

REVENUES LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES CORPORATE TAXES FOOD SERVICE SALES OTHER TOTAL LOCAL STATE GENERAL STATE AID BLOCK GRANT GRANTS TOTAL STATE FEDERAL GRANTS OTHER TOTAL FEDERAL TOTAL REVENUES
EXPENDITURES SALARIES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PURCHASED SERVICES SUPPLIES & MATERIALS CAPITAL OUTLAY OTHER TOTAL EXPENDITURES
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES/(USES) CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE ENDING FUND BALANCE

ROCKFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
FY1995 - FY1999

FY9S
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

FY96
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

COP'S TORT (Fund 35)

FY97

FY98 BUDGET

FY98 ACTUAL

(Unaudited)

FY99 FY99 vs FY98.Act.

BUDGET AMOUNT

24.

$0.0 $3,636.5 $3,737.7 $3,238.3 ($499.4)

$0.0

$0.0

0.0

33.8

($33.8)

0.0

3,636.5

3,771.5

3,238.3

(533.2)

ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR

$0.0

ERR

$0.0

ERR

$0.0

ERR

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

ERR

$0.0

$0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 3,636.5

3,771.5

3,238.3

(533.2)

ERR ERR ERR
ERR

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3,961.5

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3,964.8

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3,961.2

$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 ($3.6)

ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR

0.0

0.0

0.0

3,961.5

3,964.8

3,961.2

(3.6)

ERR

0.0

0.0

0.0

(325.0)

(193.3)

(722.9) (529.6)

ERR

0.0

0.0

1,342.6

1,390.9

947.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1,017.6

1,197.6

224.1

(529.6)

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 1,197.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

1,017.6

1,197.6

1,421.7

L/99BUDWIP.WK4 08/06/98...02:32 PM

14

REVENUES LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES CORPORATE TAXES FOOD SERVICE SALES OTHER TOTAL LOCAL STATE GENERAL STATE AID BLOCK GRANT GRANTS TOTAL STATE FEDERAL GRANTS OTHER TOTAL FEDERAL
TOTAL REVENUES

ROCKFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
FY1995-FY1999

FY95
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

FY96
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

LEASE COP'S (Fund 25)

FY97

FY98 BUDGET

FY98 ACTUAL

(Unaudited)

FY99 BUDGET

FY99 vs FY98.

AMOUNT

%_

$440.5

$902.0

$899.8

$947.0

$47.2

ERR

$0.0

ERR

$0.0

ERR

0.1

12.6

($12.6)

ERR

440.6

902.0

912.4

947.0

34.6

ERR

$0.0

ERR

$0.0

ERR

$0.0

ERR

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

ERR

0.0 440.6

0.0 902.0

0.0 912.4

0.0 947.0

$0.0

ERR

$0.0

ERR

0.0

ERR

34.6

ERR

EXPENDITURES SALARIES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PURCHASED SERVICES SUPPLIES & MATERIALS CAPITAL OUTLAY OTHER

TOTAL EXPENDITURES

0.0

EXCESS (DEFICIENCY)

0.0

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES/(USES)

CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE

0.0

$0.0

ERR

$0.0

ERR

$0.0

ERR

$0.0

ERR

$0.0

ERR

$0.0

ERR

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

ERR

0.0

440.6

902.0

912.4

947.0

34.6

ERR

(1,342.6) (1,268.3)

(947.0)

0.0

0.0

440.6

(440.6)

(355.9)

0.0

34.6

BEGINNING FUND BALANCE ENDING FUND BALANCE

0.0

0.0

0.0

440.6

440.6

84.7

0.0

0.0

440.6

0.0

84.7

84.7

L/99BUDWIP.WK4 08/06/98...02:32 PM
15

REVENUES LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES CORPORATE TAXES FOOD SERVICE SALES OTHER TOTAL LOCAL STATE GENERAL STATE AID BLOCK GRANT GRANTS TOTAL STATE FEDERAL GRANTS OTHER TOTAL FEDERAL
TOTAL REVENUES

ROCKFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
FY1995-FY1999

FY95

FY96

DEBT SERVICE (Fund 3x)

FY97

FY98 BUDGET

FY98 ACTUAL

(Unaudited)

FY99 FY99 vs FY98.

BUDGET AMOUNT

%_

$6,807.2
250.3 7,057.5

S7,458.7
303.8 7,762.5

$7,004.2
305.0 7,309.2

$7,190.8 $7,138.9

190.5 7,381.3

499.8 7,638.7

$7,428.5
100.0 7,528.5

$289.6 $0.0 $0.0
($399.8) (110.2)

3.9% ERR ERR -131.6% -1.4%

$0.0

ERR

$0.0

ERR

$0.0

ERR

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

ERR

3,635.0 7,057.5

0.0 7,762.5

0.0 7,309.2

0.0 7,381.3

0.0 7,638.7

0.0 7,528.5

$0.0 $0.0
0.0
(110.2)

ERR ERR
ERR
-1.4%

EXPENDITURES SALARIES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PURCHASED SERVICES SUPPLIES & MATERIALS CAPITAL OUTLAY OTHER
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES/(USES) CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE

8,146.1 8,146.1
(1,088.6) (1,051.2) (2,139.8)

7,496.5 7,496.5
266.0
266.0

7,081.0 7,081.0
228.2
228.2

7,188.7 7,188.7
192.6 0.0
192.6

7,190.8 7,190.8
447.9 0.0
447.9

7,224.6 7,224.6
303.9 0.0
303.9

$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $33.8 33.8
(144.0) 0.0
(144.0)

ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR 0.5% 0.5%
-54.1%

BEGINNING FUND BALANCE ENDING FUND BALANCE

3,635.0 1,495.2

1,495.2 1,761.2

1,761.2 1,989.4

1,989.4 2,182.0

1,989.4 2,437.3

2,437.3 2,741.2

L/99BUDWIP.WK4 08/06/98...02:32 PM

16

REVENUES LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES

CORPORATE TAXES

FOOD SERVICE SALES OTHER

STATE

TOTAL LOCAL

GENERAL STATE AID BLOCK GRANT

GRANTS TOTAL STATE

FEDERAL

GRANTS OTHER

TOTAL FEDERAL

TOTAL REVENUES

ROCKFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
FY1995-FY1999

FY95

FY96

CONSTRUCTION (Funds 6x)

FY97

FY98 BUDGET

FY98 ACTUAL

(Unaudited)

FY99 FY99 vs FY98. BUDGET AMOUNT

56.5 56.5
0.0 175.8 175.8 232.3

0.0
0.0 43.7 43.7 43.7

326.8 326.8

1,352.1 1,352.1

2,394.1 2,394.1

1,100.0 ($1,294.1) 1,100.0 (1,294.1)

ERR ERR

$0.0

ERR

$0.0

ERR

$0.0

ERR

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

ERR

0.0 326.8

0.0 1,352.1

0.0 2,394.1

0.0 1,100.0

$0.0

0.0%

$0.0

ERR

0.0

0.0%

(1,294.1) -2961.3%

EXPENDITURES SALARIES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PURCHASED SERVICES SUPPLIES & MATERIALS CAPITAL OUTLAY OTHER
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES/(USES) CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE

151.8 356.4 1,081.9
1,590.1 (1,357.8)
0.0 (1,357.8)

19.4 10.5 183.1
213.0

48.9' 5.0
491.2 1.2
812.0
1,358.3

56.1 6.7
6,156.7 4.0
28,385.3 900.0
35,508.8

48.5 5.5
2,774.4 9.0
12,080.2 0.0
14,917.6

0.0

($48.5)

ERR

0.0

($5.5)

ERR

397.2 ($2,377.2) -12253.6%

($9.0) -85.7%

30,313.2 $18,233.0 9957.9%

0.0

$0.0

ERR

30,710.4 15,792.8 7414.5%

(169.3) 0.0
(169.3)

(1,031.5) 50,328.6 49,297.1

(34,156.7) (34,156.7)

(12,523.5) (12,523.5)

(29,610.4) (17,086.9) 10092.7% (29,610.4) (17,086.9)

BEGINNING FUND BALANCE ENDING FUND BALANCE

1,992.1 634.3

634.3 465.0

465.0 49,762.1

49,762.1 15,605.4

49,762.1 37,238.6

37,238.6 7,628.2

L/99BUDWIP.WK4 08/06/98...02:32 PM

17

REVENUES LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES CORPORATE TAXES FOOD SERVICE SALES OTHER TOTAL LOCAL STATE GENERAL STATE AID BLOCK GRANT GRANTS TOTAL STATE FEDERAL GRANTS OTHER TOTAL FEDERAL
TOTAL REVENUES

ROCKFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
FY1995 - FY1999

FY95

FY96

WORKING CASH (Fund 70)

FY97

FY98 BUDGET

FY98 ACTUAL

(Unaudited)

FY99 BUDGET

FY99 vs FY98.

AMOUNT

%_

$774.3 0.4
0.5 775.2

$820.3 0.4

$855.5

d·3) 819.4

1.5 857.0

$902.2
1.5 903.7

$898.8
2.1 900.9

$947.0
1.5 948.5

$48.2 $0.0 $0.0 ($0.6) 47.6

5.9% 0.0% ERR 46.2% 5.8%

$0.0

ERR

$0.0

ERR

$0.0

ERR

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

ERR

0.0 775.2

0.0 819.4

0.0 857.0

0.0 903.7

0.0 900.9

0.0 948.5

$0.0

ERR

$0.0

ERR

0.0

ERR

47.6

5.8%

EXPENDITURES SALARIES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PURCHASED SERVICES SUPPLIES & MATERIALS CAPITAL OUTLAY OTHER
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES/(USES) CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE

0.0 775.2
775.2

0.0 819.4
819.4

0.0 857.0
857.0

0.0 903.7
903.7

0.0 900.9
900.9

0.0 948.5
948.5

$0.0

ERR

$0.0

ERR

$0.0

ERR

$0.0

ERR

$0.0

ERR

$0.0

ERR

0.0

ERR

47.6

5.8%

0.0

47.6

BEGINNING FUND BALANCE ENDING FUND BALANCE

37,319.7 38,094.9

38,094.9 38,914.3

38,914.3 39.771.3

39,771.3 40,675.0

39,771.3 40,672.2

40,672.2 41,620.7

L/99BUDWIP.WK4 08/06/98...02:32 PM

18

REVENUES LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES CORPORATE TAXES FOOD SERVICE SALES OTHER TOTAL LOCAL STATE GENERAL STATE AID BLOCK GRANT GRANTS TOTAL STATE FEDERAL GRANTS OTHER TOTAL FEDERAL
TOTAL REVENUES

ROCKFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
FY1995-FY1999

FY95
478.5 478.5
0.0 143.2 143.2 621.7

FY96 $173.2
425.5 598.7
0.0
0.0 598.7

LIFE SAFETY (Fund 92)

FY97

FY98 BUDGET

FY98 ACTUAL

(Unaudited)

FY99 BUDGET

FY99 vs FY98.

AMOUNT

%_

$612.7 340.1 952.8
0.0
0.0 952.8

$902.1 70.7
972.8
0.0
0.0 972.8

$899.9 212.6
1,112.5
0.0
0.0 1,112.5

$947.0 75.0
1,022.0
0.0
1,022.0

$47.1 $0.0 $0.0 ($137.6) ($90.5) $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
0.0

27.2% ERR ERR
-32.3% -15.1%
ERR ERR ERR ERR
ERR ERR ERR 0.0%

EXPENDITURES SALARIES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PURCHASED SERVICES SUPPLIES & MATERIALS CAPITAL OUTLAY OTHER
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES/(USES) CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE

370.9 40.3
2,194.6 17.6
1,352.3 235.2
4,210.9
(3,589.2) 11,849.6
8,260.4

432.9 45.7 148.2 25.1
1,517.2 294.4
2,463.5

414.5 39.4
193.3 13.5
1,455.7 239.7
2,356.1

376.0 38.6 8.8 51.0
3,571.2 240.2
4,285.8

397.3 34.1
1,042.3 13.3
2,986.7 239.7
4,713.4

(1,864.8) 175.5
(1,689.3)

(1,403.3)
(1,403.3)

(3,313.0)
(3,313.0)

(3,600.9)
(3,600.9)

384.6 44.5 8.8 51.0
1,505.0 240.2

($12.7) $10.4 ($1,033.5) $37.7 ($1,481.7)
$0.5

-2.9% 22.8% -697.4% 150.2% -97.7%
0.2%

2,234.1 (2,479.3) -100.6%

(1,212.1)
(1,212.1)

2,479.3 0.0
2,479.3

-133.0%

BEGINNING FUND BALANCE ENDING FUND BALANCE

417.9 8,678.3

8,678.3 6,989.0

6,989.0 5,585.7

5,585.7 2,272.7

5,585.7 1,984.8

1,984.8 772.7

L/99BUDWIP.WK4 08/06/98...02:32 PM
19

 
 SD-IL-0001-0010

Shannon Fisk

Preliminary Bibliography as of 11/17/98

I. Cases: The following are the cites for the published cases in the litigation. The title for all of these cases is People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education. School District No. 205. As I mentioned earlier, I have not yet obtained from the court any of the unpublished opinions, etc. Finally, I assume that as my research progresses, there will be other cases that I will want to look to for comparison.

1989 WL 197569 (N.D. 111. Dec. 15, 1989)
1989 WL 197568 (N.D. 111. Dec. 22, 1989)
1990 WL 25883 (N.D. 111. Feb. 23, 1990), reconsideration denied by
1990 WL 53282 (N.D. 111. Apr. 10, 1990), and appeal dismissed by 921 F.2d 132 (7th Cir. Jan.2, 1991)
1990 WL 304277 (N.D. 111. Jun. 19, 1990)
1991 WL 166960 (N.D. 111. Jan. 14, 1991)
1991 WL 299102 (N.D. 111. Jul 23, 1991)
1991 WL 299104 (N.D. 111. Sep. 12, 1991)
1991 WL 299105 (N.D. 111. Oct. 4, 1991)
1991 WL 299103 (N.D. 111. Oct. 21, 1991)
1992 WL 184297 (N.D. 111. Jan. 31, 1992)
1992 WL 184301 (N.D. 111. Jan 31, 1992) 961 F.2d 1335 (7th Cir. Apr. 22, 1992), rehearing denied by 964 F.2d 639 (7th Cir. May 18, 1992)
1992 WL 184303 (N.D. 111. May 22, 1992)
1992 WL 184295 (N.D. 111. Jun 16, 1992)
1992 WL 300998 (N.D. 111. Oct. 13, 1992)
851 F.Supp. 905 (N.D. 111. Feb. 18, 1994), affirmed in part, reversed in part by 111 F.3d 528 (7th Cir. Apr. 15, 1997) 68 F.3d 172 (7th Cir. Oct. 12, 1995)
1996 WL 364802 (N.D. 111. Jun 7, 1996) 90 F.3d 1307 (7th Cir. Aug 1, 1996)
179 F.R.D. 551 (N.D. 111. May 7, 1998) 150 F.3d 686 (7th Cir. Jul. 17, 1998) 153 F.3d 834 (7th Cir. Sep. 4, 1998)

n. Newspaper/Magazine Articles: These articles were turned up through Westlaw searches. The next task in this area is to find a source for the local Rockford, 111. newspaper, which I assume would have many articles on the litigation.

Elizabeth Austin, "A River Knifes Though It: Nature Split Rockford First, But It Has Taken A Desegregation Lawsuit To Truly Divide The City", Chicago Tribune Magazine, Sept. 27, 1998, pg. 10

Ron Grossman, "In North, Desegregation Still Unfinished Business", Chicago Tribune, May 17, 1994
"Discrimination Ruling Against Rockford Schools Approved", Peoria Journal-Star, Feb. 19, 1994
Linda Campbell, "US: School Bias is Rife in Rockford", Chicago Tribune, Jan. 14, 1993
"Judge: Rockford Schools Raised 'Discrimination to an Art Form'", The State Journal-Register, Nov. 4, 1993
Cathy Ward, "How One Man Took A School System To Court", USA Today, April 8, 1993
Casey Banas, "Rockford Backs Down On School Revamp Plan", Chicago Tribune, July 11, 1989
Tammy Williamson, "Illinois Judge Rules Against School District's Use of'Tort Immunity Tax'", Bond Buyer, Nov. 13, 1997
Patricia Williams, "The Theft of Education", The Nation, May 19, 1997
Tammy Williamson, "Trends In the Region: Rockford, IL", Bond Buyer, May 14, 1997
"News & Views: Racial Segregation In Education As An Art Form", Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, Mar. 31, 1994
HI. Law Review Articles: Westlaw searches turned up a number of articles that may be useful. There was a mix of cases studies and more general overviews of school desegregation law. I suspect that as I read through these, I may discover other sources to check out.
David Armor, Facts and Fictions About Education In The Sheff Decision, 29 Connecticut Law Review 981, 1997
„ J Andrew Gold, In the Aftermath of Sheff- Considerations For A Remedy, 29 Connecticut Law Review 1043, 1997
Michael Rebell & Robert Hughes, Efficacy and Engagement - The Remedies Problem Posed By Sheff v. O'Neill - And a Proposed Solution, 29 Connecticut Law Review 1115, 1997
I Angela Dickens, Revisiting Brown v. Board of Education: How Tracking Has Resegregated `J America's Public Schools, 29 Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems 469, 1996
Gary Öçfíeld, Metropolitan School Desegregation: Impacts On Metropolitan Society, 80 MinnesotaL·aw-Review 825 1996_

Pedro Ròguera, Ties That Bind, Forces That Divide: Berkeley High School & The Challenges of Integration, 29 University of ¾a¾-Fi^iciscofcaW^ëview--715^19S5 __^

terCõìívèr¾e«6e-ef^^ On School Desegregation During the Four Decade Evolution of the Plans, 36 William andTVtaTy-iawReview 613, 1995

Chris Hansen, Are the Courts Giving Up? Current Issues In School Desegregation", 42 Emory Law Journal 863, 1993

MarîïMarcus, Lè¾mm¾¯Tog«thfiiiJusùce_Marshairs Desegregation Opinions" 61 Fordham Law

Review 69, 1992

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯`

—

Joseph Henry Bates, Out Of Focus The Misapplication of Traditional Equitable Principles In The Nontraditional Arena of School Desegregation (A Case Study of Desegregation in Little Rock, Arkansas), 44 Vanderbilt Law Review 1315, 1991

James Liebman, Desgregating Politics: 'All-Out' School Desegregation Explained, 90 Columbia Law Review 1463, 1990

IV. Books: These books were located through Hollis searches. Due to time constraints, and the fact that a lot of these books were checked out (most of them were due back on Nov. 15th but
had not yet been reshelved), I have not had a chance to look at many of the books yet. I assume
that some of the following will turn out to not be useful while others may lead me to looks at
some new sources.

Gary Orfield, Deepening Segregation In American Public Schools, 1997

Gary Orfield, Dismantling Desegregation, 1996

Gary Orfield, "School Desegregation After Two Decades", in Race In America: The Struggle For Equality, Herbert Hill & James Jones, eds., 1993

Charles Elliot Crockett, Legal and Historical Development Of American Magnet Schools and Student Admission Rights to Them, 1994

David JòTmšön7ed., Miñontîëš¯¾üJ¯Giris4a-School: Effects in Achievement and Performance,
íyy I

Brian Fife, School Desegregation in the 21 ^-Century: The Focus Must Change" 1996

Joseph Feldman, Edward Kirby and Susan Eaton, Still Separate, Still Unequal: The Limits of Milliken II's Educational Compensation Remedies, 1994

Sondra Aston Stave, Achieving Racial Balance: Case Studies of Contemporary School Desegregation, 1995

Brian Fife, Desegregation In American Schools: Comparative Intervention Strategies, 1992

Joseph Watias, Politics, Race and Schools: Racial Integrations, 1954-1994, 1997

David Armor, Forced Justice: School Desegregation and the Law, 1995

Barbara Jacobs, The Los Angeles Unified School District's Desegregation Case: A Legal History, 1989

Karen Armstrong, The Effect of Race on Ability Grouping, 1998

V. Interviews: Because of the previous lack of a phone, I have not yet tried to contact anyone to interview them about the case. There are a large number of lawyers who were involved at the litigation. Below I have listed the main ones, and many of the other lawyers were from the same law firms as the ones listed. In addition, I hope to try to speak with some of the leaders of People Who Care, individual litigants, the Special Master and other relevant parties.

5 W â*"

For Plaintiffs: R o b e r t c · Howard, Hartunian, Futterman & Howard James Bradtke, Soule & Bradtke Andrew Campos, Rockford Area Hispanic Coalition Eugene Eubanks, Jr., Kansas City, MO Denise Reid Hogard, Little Rock, AR

' ` For Defendants and Intervenors:
Thomas Bueschel, Conde, Storer & Killoren Stephen Katz, Katz, Friedman, Schur & Eagle V. Anthony Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes • •Michael O'Brien

<2/të ¶~ 3 C uO

VI. Further Research: As I have mentioned above, there is more research I plan to do. This includes contacting the court to get unpublished decisions, special master's reports, progress reports, briefs and pleadings filed by the parties, etc. I also am going to try to find the Rockford newspaper and contact parties involved to interview. Finally, I plan to contact Professor Orfield about his Harvard Project on School Desegregation. Any further suggestions you might have would be appreciated.

-3(ûõ

 
 SD-IL-0001-0012
Rockford Public Schools Department of Desegregation
Middle School Reconfiguration

Controlled Choice Middle School Assignments Results for the 1999-2000 School Year

For Release:

March 25, 1999

The Comprehensive Remedial Order (CRO) requires that the District 205 middle school grade structure be reconfigured from a 7-8 grade structure to a grade 6-7-8 configuration. The middle school reconfiguration which will satisfy a part of the mandate of the CRO by allowing for the assignment of a larger number of elementary students to West Zone elementary seats, also will provide numerous educational advantages for middle school students. One of the most significant advantages for these students is the opportunity for a three-year experience at the middle school level, which allows staff to
become more familiar with the individualized learning needs of students and
provides a longer transition period for high school. Also, the 6 through 8th grade structure is the middle school structure that is most often used nationwide.
Due to facilities limitations, the District was unable to make this structural change until (a) the Ellis Arts Academy children vacated the Kennedy Middle School, which is needed for use as a middle school, and (b) the new Rockford Environmental Science Academy (RESA) is completed. The construction of RESA is expected to be completed in July of 1999 and will be occupied for the 1999-2000 school year. Construction is underway at the Kennedy Middle School facility, which will be ready for occupancy in August of 1999.

The Department of Desegregation has completed the 1999-2000 Early Assignment batch of students entering middle school in grades six and seven. Following are significant factors that impacted the results of this process.

1. It was necessary to reduce the assignable capacity at the seventh grade level. Instead of the 450 seats at the 7th grade that have been available
during the prior two years, a capacity of 300 was established in order to

have enough room to house three grades as opposed to the two grades that are currently housed in Flinn, Eisenhower, Lincoln, and West Middle Schools.
2. The capacity at the sixth grade also had to be established at 300 in order to accommodate the impact of the reconfiguration. Without reducing seats at the 7th grade and establishing an assignable capacity of 300 at the 6th grade the enrollment in these schools would have exceeded the program capacity in these schools.
3. The possible retention rate of current middle school students is a factor in reducing first choice assignments. The retention rate is anticipated to approach 8 percent, further limiting the number of seats available for the assignment of the incoming 6th and 7th grade students.
Grade 6 Assignments
As shown in Table A, the Department of Desegregation assigned a total of 1,790 students to a Grade 6 school for the 1999-2000 school year. Of these newly assigned Grade 6 students, 1,075 or 60.1% are desegregation majority and 715 or 39.9% are desegregation minority. At this time, approximately 91% of the projected Grade 6 students have been assigned for the next school year, including 1,749 who were early assigned primarily to a school of choice and 41 late applicants.
Early Assignments
• The Department of Desegregation has Early assigned 1,749 students to a Grade 6 school for the 1999-2000 school year. As shown in Table A, 1,055 or 60.3% of these students are desegregation majority and 694 or 39.7% are desegregation minority.
• Overall, 97.1% of the students were assigned to a school of choice, only 2.9% were administrative assigned, and 81.6% were assigned to their first choice school.
• 90.7% of the students were assigned to their first or second choice schools.

• 111 students were assigned to the Gifted Program at West Middle School. Of these students 71 or 64% are desegregation majority, and 40 or 36% are desegregation minority, which is 5% below the District minority grade 6 percentage of 41%. The Gifted Program is not in compliance with the CRO at Grade 6.
Late Assignments
• The Department of Desegregation also assigned 41 late applicants to a Grade 6 school for the 1999-2000 school year. Of these students, who applied late, only 26.8% were assigned to their first choice school as compared to 81.6% who applied early.
• Overall 85.4% were assigned to a school of choice, including 24.4% who received their second choice school, and 14.6% received administrative assignments as compared to any 2.9% who applied early.
Grade 7 Assignments
The Department of Desegregation assigned a total of 1,840 students for a Grade 7 school for the 1999-2000 school year. Of these newly assigned Grade 7 students, 1,119 or 60.8% are desegregation majority and 721 or 39.2% are desegregation minority. At this time, approximately 93% of the projected Grade 7 students have been assigned, including 1,789 who were early assigned primarily to a school of choice and 51 late applicants
Early Assignments
• As shown in Table B, the Department of Desegregation early assigned 1,789 students to a Grade 7 school for the 1999-2000 school year. Of the early assigned students 1,092 or 61% are desegregation majority and 697 or 39% are desegregation minority.
• Overall, 94.8% of the early Grade 7 applicants have been assigned to a school of choice, including 78.5% to their first choice school, 11.0% to their second choice and 5.3 % to their third or fourth choice schools.

• As discussed above, only 78.5% of the early Grade 7 applicants were assigned to their first choice school, as compared to 89.6% in the current 1998-1999 school year. The 11% decrease in first choice assignment is due primarily to Grade 7 retentions and the significant under selection of the Kennedy Middle School which received only 56 first choices.
• While the vast majority of students were early assigned to a school of choice, 94 or 5.2% received administrative assignments, including 47 desegregation majority students and 47 desegregation minority students.
Late Assignments
• Table B indicates that 51 students who applied late were also assigned to Grade 7 schools for the 1999-2000 school year. Of those late applicants, 27 or 52.9% were desegregation majority and 24 or 47.1% were desegregation minority.
• Only 19.6% of the late applicants were assigned to their First choice school and 41.2% received administrative assignments.

Middle School Reconfiguration Table 'A'
1999 - 2000 Early and Late Assigned - 6th Grade as of 3/24/99

EARLY Assigned to Choice School

By Ethnic Group Deseg Majority
#

Deseg M¡noriy

%

#

%

Total
#

1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total Choice Assigned

840 131 40 28 1039

79.6% 12.4%
3.8% 2.7% 98.5%

588 84.7%

29

4.2%

29

4.2%

14

2.0%

660 95.1%

1428 160 69
42
1699

%
81.6% 9.1% 3.9% 2.4%
97.1%

Administrative Assignments

16 1.5%

34 4.9%

50

2.9%

Total Early Grade 6 Assigned
Priority First Choice Assignments
Sib/Prox Sib Prox
Total Grade 6 Priority Assigned
LATE Choice Assignments
1st 2nd 3rd 4th
Choice Assigned
Late Administrative Assignments
Total Applicants

1055 60.3%

694 39.7%

1749 100.0%

Deseg Majority
21 81 156

Deseg Minoriy
13 30 84

Total
34 111 240

258

127

385

Deseg Majority
5 5 4 4
18

Deseg Minoriy
6 5 2 4
17

Total
11 10 6
8
35

26.8% 24.4% 14.6% 19.5%
85.4%

2 20 48.8%

4
21 51.2%

6 14.6%
41

Total Grade 6 Assigned

1075 60.1%

715 39.9%

1790

Middle School Reconfiguration Table 'B*
1999 - 2000 Early and Late Assigned - 7th Grade as of 3/24/99

EARLY Assigned to Choice School

Deseg Majority

#

%

By Ethnic Group

Deseg Minoriy

#

%

Total

#

%

1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total Choice Assigned

816 158 35
36 1045

74.7% 14.5% 3.2% 3.3% 95.7%

588 84.4%

39

5.6%

13

1.9%

10

1.4%

650 93.3%

1404 197 48 46
1695

78.5% 11.0% 2.7% 2.6% 94.8%

Administrative Assignments

47

4.3%

47

6.7%

94

5.2%

Total Early Grade 7 Assigned
Priority First Choice Assignments
Sib/Prox Sib Prox
Total Grade 7 Priority Assigned
LATE Choice Assignments
1st 2nd 3rd 4th
Choice Assigned
Late Administrative Assignments
Total Applicants

1092 61.0%

697 39.0%

1789 100.0%

Deseg Majority
13 43 202

Deseg Minoriy
12 27 54

Total
25 70 256

258

93

351

Deseg Majority

Deseg M¡noriy

Total

5

5

10 19.6%

4

4

8 15.7%

3

3

6 11.8%

4

2

6 11.8%

16

14

30 58.8%

11 27 52.9%

10
24 47.1%

21 41.2%
51

Total Grade 7 Assigned

1119 60.8%

721, 39.2%

1840

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WESTERN DIVISION

PARENTS AGAINST CONTROLLED

)

CHOICE, an unincorporated association; et al., )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

vs.
BOARD OF EDUCATION, ROCKFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 205, Winnebago and Boone Counties, Illinois, a municipal corporation,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 97 C 50326
fí
m •• «• •• •• • m
SD-IL-0001-0015
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS

A. Background The background statement by RSD is an accurate and sufficient statement, to which Plaintiffs agree.
B. Argument 1. Plaintiffs herein are not estopped or bound by res judicata.
RSD first argues that the Plaintiffs are barred from seeking relief— minority Plaintiffs having been represented by the PWC class and non-minority Plaintiffs by RSD ~ by operation of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The same argument was presented in Martin v. Wilks. 490 U.S. 755 (1989), and there rejected by the Supreme Court. There, the Court recognized that the rule preventing "impermissible collateral attack" commanded the approval of the great majority of the Federal Courts of Appeal, nevertheless the Supreme Court held with the contrary
1

view, 490 U.S. at 762. While Martin v. Wilks involved a consent decree, there is nothing in the decision to suggest, nor is there any policy reason to support, the proposition that a third party's right may be adversely affected, without notice or joinder, by a court order resulting from a litigated matter. Whether a matter is contested or agreed between certain parties has no effect on the interest of a third party in preserving his or her rights. What matters is that the third party should not, and cannot, be deprived of an interest without notice or joinder. The Supreme Court recognized the policy and arguments RSD here proffers, but held instead in favor of the rights of those not party to the original litigation.
2. RSD attempts to justify race-conscious de-segregation as a proper remedy for discrimination.
The authority RSD presents to justify the race-based student assignment plan applies to situations in which the actor was determined to have been responsible for prior dejure racial segregation, and is today of less certain persuasiveness in view of recent pronouncements in cases such as Hopwood v. Texas. 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996), and People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education. 111 F.3d 528 (7th Cir. 1997). More basically, approval of a race-conscious student assignment plan requires acceptance of factual findings justifying such a plan. Acceptance of such factual findings as binding on the Plaintiffs here effectively deprives them of a hearing on their complaint, and makes any rights recognized in Martin v. Wilks illusory.
A race-conscious student assignment is, according to the 7th Circuit opinion in People Who Care, "highly suspect...and has to be justified by solid evidence." To say only that it has already been ordered in this school district begs the question whether "Controlled Choice" is justified by the past misconduct of RSD, and whether it is sufficiently narrowly drawn so as to be
2

as non-intrusive as practicable in impacting on students' rights to be free from racially discriminatory state action. That determination is not so simple a question as to be decided on RSD's Motion to Dismiss. In Freeman vs. Pitts. 503 U.S. 467 (1992), the court cautioned that:
Racial balance is not to be achieved for its own sake. It is to be pursued when racial imbalance has been caused by a constitutional violation. Once the racial imbalance due to de jure violation has been remedied, the school district is under no duty to remedy imbalance that is caused by demographic factors. If under Martin v. Wilks. the Plaintiffs here have the right to be heard, then they have the right to challenge whether, first, a race-conscious assignment plan is justified at all, and, even if so, whether the particular "Controlled Choice" plan comports with controlling law.
C. Conclusion The Plaintiffs allege that they are being harmed by racially motivated student assignment decisions of RSD. In this they are situated similarly to the firefighter Plaintiffs in Martin v. Wilks. There the Supreme Court ruled that neither resjudicata nor collateral estoppel served more important ends than allowing the Plaintiffs to assert their rights when they discovered the City of Birmingham was discriminating against them on the basis of race. Here, the Plaintiffs discovered after the implementation of "Controlled Choice" that their ability to attend neighborhood schools was to be controlled based on race. Justice Scalia concurring in Freeman, recognized as one of the "...ordinary principles of our law, of our democratic heritage, and of our educational tradition...that it is "desirable" to permit pupils to attend "schools nearest their homes"..." Under Martin v. Wilks the Plaintiffs should be heard. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs ask that this Court deny the Motion to Dismiss, and order that the Defendant seasonably plead to the complaint.
3

Respectfully submitted, PARENTS AGAINST CONTROLLED CHOICE, an unincorporated association, et al., Plaintiffs
By: G. MICHAEL SCHEURICH
G. MICHAEL SCHEURICH (#25) Attorney for Plaintiffs 202 West State Street, Suite 400 Rockford, Illinois 61101 (815) 965-8775

 
 ROCKFORD BOARD ,OF.EDyÇATîQN SCHOOL DISTRICT N ( $ ¾ 5 *
Defendant-Appellan

ì4 _ A

Ä

r·

n c t o t v¾„v¾·.

Division

ROCKFORD EDUCATION
ROCKFORD BUILDING ASSOCIATION PERSONNEL ASSOCIATION,
Defendants-Intervenois. ' 'J ' `) ` l·_ f /
» • < , r¯»·

>`` Ä

CONSOLIDATED BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES

¯»a ,`%í
vr Robert C. Howard Kathleen Mangold-Spoto
Craig B. F u t t e n n a n * ¾ ¾ # ¾ ^ /•`¯¯ FUTTERMAN ÄiHÓWARD, CHTD. 122 S. Michigan Ave. K A Suite 1850 ^ ¾ ! Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 427-3600

Robert E. Lehrer LEHRER & REDLEAF 205 W. Monroe St Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 332-2121

^^ , Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees

«s.

< —it'

. <>&,t -^ff¾fl

'V
•î

5D-IL-OOO1-0017

CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST

„_ „. c o

¾-lObb, %a¯·UQ5, 98-1231, 98-1449, 98-2452,

Appellate Court No:98-2488, 98-3340, and 98-3858

c , . - . People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education

bnort Laption:

j_

_^____^_^_^______^__________

To enable the judges to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a non-

governmental party or amicus curiae, or a pnvate attomey representing a government party, must furnish a

certificate of interest stating the following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1. NOTE: Counsel

is required to complete the entire certificate and to use N/A for any information that is not applicable.

(1) The full name of every party or amicus the attorney represents in the case: See Attachment 1

(2) If such party or amicus is a corporation:

i)

Its parent corporation, if any; and

N/A

ii) A list of stockholders which are publicly held companies owning 10% or more of the stock in the party or amicus:

N/A

;

.

(3) The names of all lawfirmswhose partners or associates have appearedforthe party in the case or are expected to appear for the party in this court:
Futterman & Howard, Chtd..; Gessler Hughes & Socol, Ltd.; Soule & Bradtke;
Hartunian & Associates; Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland; Lehrer & Redleaf

This certificate shall be filed with the appearance form or upon the filing of a motion in this court, whichever occurs first. The attomey furnishing the certificate must file an amended certificate to reflect; material changes in the required information. The text of the certificate (Le·. caption omit£d) shall alsoj included in from of the table of contents of the party's main brief.

Attorney's Signature: .

Date:

l ?/i 6/qs

Attorney's Printed Name: Robert c. Howard

Address:

Futterman & Howard, Chtd.

Suite 1850, 122 S. Michigan Ave.

Phone Number
Aa·nd·d 10/6/97

C.hicaen TL 60603 312-427-3600

Attachment 1 fto C e ^ M * > nf Interest) (1) The full name of every party or amicus the attorney represents in the case:
PEOPLE WHO CARE, an unincorporated association; LARRY & CHASTY HOARDE, minors, by their parent and next friend, Flossie Hoarde; JONATHAN HUGHES, a minor, by his parents and next friends, Sidella and Nathan Hughes; SIDNEY and ANDRE MALONE, minors, by their parent and next friend, Rev. Louis E. Malone; SHAHEED SALEEM, a minor, by his parent and next friend, Christine Saleem; ANISSA TRIPPLETT, a minor, by her parent and next friend Beulah Tripplett; ASIA EASON, a minor, by her parent and next friend, Granada Williams; JAMES and KELLY CURTIN, minors, by their parents and next friends, Larry Curtin and Sue Belvoir; LEONARDO MEDRANO, by his parent and next friend, Jesus Medrano; each individual suing as a class representative of the class certified by the court.
[dp c:\wpdocs\cbf\pwc\certintr.an]

sch\.or_t (r_`ap»ti·on:

CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST ¢ ¾ l ü b , yb-lfO5,

98o -123„1,

n9o8-1, 4/ 4/ n9,

O9Q8 -o2/4,5.2 ,

Appellate Court No:98-2488, 98-3340, and 98-3858

Peo`p_le Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education

To enable the judges to determine whether recusai is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a nongovernmental party or amicus curiae, or a private attorney representing a government party, must furnish a certifícate of interest stating the following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1. NOTE: Counsel is required to complete the entire certifícate and to use N/A for any information that is not applicable.
(1) The full name of every party or amicus the attorney represents in the case:
See Attachment 1

(2) If such party or amicus is a corporation:

i) Its parent corporation, if any, and

N/A

_.

ii) A list of stockholders which are publicly held companies owning 10% or more of the stock in the party or amicus:

N/A

;

•

(3) The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appearedforthe party in the case or are expected to appear for the party in this court:
Futterman & Howard, Chtd.; Gessler Hughes & Socol, Ltd.; Soule & Bradtke;
Hartunian & Associates; Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland; Lehrer & Redleaf

This certificate shall be filed with the appearance form or upon the filing of a motion in this court, whichever occurs first The attorney furnishing the certificate must file an amended certificate to reflect any material changes in the required information. The text of the certificate (i.e. caption omitted) shall also be included in from of the table of contents of the party's main brief.

Attorney's Signature:

Y4o\**>Jt c. 7

Date:

1 ? /1 f/t9 8

Attorney's Printed Name: Robert E. Lehrer

Address:

Lehrer & Redl·eaf

205 W. Monroe S t .

Chi ra¤t^ TL 60606

Phone Number

312-332-2121

10/6/97

Attachment 1 (to Certificate of Interest) (1) The full name of every party or amicus the attorney represents in the case:
PEOPLE WHO CARE, an unincorporated association; LARRY & CHASTY HOARDE, minors, by their parent and next friend, Flossie HoardeJ JONATHAN HUGHES, a minor, by his parents and next friends, Sidella and Nathan Hughes; SIDNEY and ANDRE MALONE, minors, by their parent and next friend, Rev. Louis E. Malone; SHAHEED SALEEM, a minor, by his parent and next friend, Christine Saleem; ANISSA TRIPPLETT, a minor, by her parent and next friend Beulah Tripplett; ASIA EASON, a minor, by her parent and next friend, Granada Williams; JAMES and KELLY CURTIN, minors, by their parents and next friends, Larry Curtin and Sue Belvoir; LEONARDO MEDRANO, by his parent and next friend, Jesus Medrano; each individual suing as a class representative of the class certified by the court.
[dp c:\wpdocs\cbf\pwc\certintr.att]

Table of Contents

Table of Authorities

v

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

1

A. Orders Appealed

1

B. Appellate Jurisdiction

2

C. Status Of Plaintiffs' Motions To Dismiss

3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

3

Nature of Case and Course of Proceedings

3

Statement of Facts

5

A. Master Facts

5

B. Educational Input Remedies and The FY98 and FY99 Budget Orders . . . 9

1. CRO-Formulation Concurrences, 1995-1996

10

2. FY97 Budget

12

3. FY98 Budget

14

4. FY99 Budget Proposals and Order .

15

5. CRO Financial Projections and Actual Costs to Date

19

6. Actual Amount and Use of Unspent FY98 Funds

21

C. FY98 and FY99 Hearing Procedure Issues

22

1. FY98

22

2. FY99

23

D. Early Childhood Education

24

ISSUES PRESENTED

26

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

28

ARGUMENT

34

I. INTRODUCTION: CONTROLLING LEGAL PRINCIPLES

34

A. Principles Limiting RSD's Relitigation Attempts

34

B. Standard Of Review

38

H. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION

IN ENTERING THE FY98 AND FY99 BUDGET ORDERS

39

A. All Programs To Which RSD Objects On Mandate Grounds Are

Proper Under The Circumstances In This Case

39

1. The Mandate - What It Prohibits

40

2. The Mandate - What It Does Not Prohibit

41

3. This Court's Mandate Does Not Require Elimination Of

The Programs To Which RSD Objects

44

a. Reading Recovery (#7340), Success For All (#7330),

and Higher Order Thinking Skills (#7381)

45

b. Curriculum Implementors, Student Support Specialists,

Human Relations Specialists, Parent Liaisons (## 7220,

7230, 7330, 7350, 7411, 7412, 7415, 7520, 7537)

45

c. High School Attendance Specialists (#7651-52)

46

d. Saturday Program (#7561)

46

u

e. Discipline: (1) group of programs under Master's

Narrative Part XEI: ##7510, 7520, 7531, 7533,

7537, 7590, 7595 and (2) group of programs under

Master's Narrative Part XV: ##762l, 7623, 7631,

7633, 7635, 7651, 7664, 7690, 7695 and (3) #7935

47

f. Office of Evaluation- Consultants (#7160 and 7130) . . . 48

4. This Court's Social Engineering Language Does Not

Require Elimination Of Programs To Which RSD Objects

49

B. This Court Should Dismiss RSD's Non-Mandate Objections,

Or Affirm Without Reaching The Merits Of The Objections

51

C. The FY98 And FY99 Hearing Procedures Were Fair, And In Any Event

RSD Agreed To Or Waived Procedural Objections It Now Raises

54

1. For FY99 RSD Got What It Now Says It Wants

55

2. The FY99 Hearing Moots FY98 Fair Hearing Issues,

Which Are Meritless And Waived Anyway

57

3. The Master's Communication And Reporting Procedures

Are Proper Under Unappealed Final Orders, RSD's

Stipulations And Rule 53 Precedent

58

D. The District Court Properly Allocated Capital Expenses And

FY98 Carryovers

61

E. The District Court Gave Appropriate Consideration To

The Financial Condition Of The RSD

63

m. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN

ENTERING THE EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION ORDER

64

A. The ECE Order Respected The Local Control Objective

64

B. The ECE Remedy Is Within The Scope Of Permissible Remedies

And Is Narrowly Tailored

65

m

IV. RSD's PROCEDURAL MASTER APPEALS ARE WITHOUT MERIT . . . . . 67

A. RSD Is Barred From Re-Litigating The Master's Procedural

Methods Conclusively Established In The CRO

67

B. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Allowing

The Master Continued Assistance Of Counsel

68

C. RSD's Appeal From The Interim Fee Order Should Be Dismissed

69

V. CIRCUIT RULE 36 REASSIGNMENT OF THIS CASE ON

REMAND IS WHOLLY UNWARRANTED

69

CONCLUSION

71

Attachment I

73

IV

Table of Authorities

Cases

Aeostini v. Felton. 117 S.Ct. 1997 (1997)

52

Amcast Industrial Corp. v. Detrex Corp.. 45 F.3d 155 (7th Cir. 1995)

59

Arizona v. California. 460 U.S. 605 (1983)

38

Avitia v. Metropolitan Club of Chicago. Inc.. 924 F.2d 689 (7th Cir. 1990)

35, 53

Browder v. Illinois Department of Corrections. 434 U.S. 257 (1978)

38

Buckhanon v. Percy. 708 F.2d 1209 (7th Cir. 1983)

35

Carter v. Sea Land Services. 816 F.2d lOl8(5th Cir. 1987)

71

Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp.. 486 U.S. 800 (1988)

68

Cohen v. Bucci. 905 F.2d 1111 (7th Cir. 1990)

53

Continental Illinois Corp. v. C.I.R.. 998 F.2d 513 (7th Cir. 1993)

36, 60

Crocker v. Piedmont Aviation. Inc.. 49 F.3d 735 (D.C. Cir. 1995)

35

Donohoe v. Consolidated Operating and Prod. Corp.. 30 F.3d 907 (7th Cir. 1994) . . . 40

Dugan v. U.S.. 18 F.3d 460 (7th Cir. 1994)

36

Employers Ins. Of Wausau v. Browner. 52 F. 3d 656 (7th Cir. 1995),

cert, denied. 116 S. Ct. 699 (1996)

38

Favia v. Indiana Univ. of Pa. 7 F.3d 332 (3rd Cir. 1993)

53

Foeel v. Chestnutt. 668 F.2d 100 (2d Cir. 1981),
cert, denied. 459 U.S. 828 (1982) Freeman v. Pitts. 503 U.S. 467 (1992)

16 10, 43, 44, 66

Garlineton v. O'Learv. 879 F.2d 277 (7th Cir. 1989)

39

Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing Authority. 436 F.2d 306 (7th Cir. 1970)

58

Green v. County Sch. Bd,. 391 U.S. 430 (1968)

10

Harman v. Lvphomed. Inc.. 945 F.2d 969 (7th Cir. 1991)

38

INB Banking Co. v. Iron Peddlers. Inc.. 993 F.2d 1291 (7th Cir. 1993)

36

Jackson v. Nassau County Bd.. 157 F.R.D. 612 (E.D.N.Y. 1994)

68

Jordan v. Continental Airlines. 1996 U.S. Dist. Lexis 14883 (E.D. Pa.)

37

Kansas v. Colorado. 484 U.S. 910 (1987)

68

Kindred v. Duckworth. 9 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 1993)

71

Kovilic Construction Co. v. Missbrenner. 106 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 1997)

70

Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District 716 F.Supp. 1162 (E.D. Ark. 1989), rev'd on other grounds.

921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990)

65

Matter of Maurice. 21 F.3d 767 (7th Cir. 1994)

36, 57

Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Cammon. 1990 U.S. Dist. Lexis 3852 (N.D. 111.)

37

MiUiken v. Bradley. 433 U.S. 267 (1977)

43

Missouri v. Jenkins. 495 U.S. 33 (1990)

62

Missouri v. Jenkins. 515 U.S. 70 (1995)

19, 66

Montana v. U.S.. 440 U.S. 147 (1979)

37

Morales Feliciano v. Romero Barcelo. 672 F.Supp. 591 (D. Puerto Rico 1986)

69

Morgan v. Kerrigan. 530 F.2d 401 (1st Cir.),

cert, denied. 426 U.S. 935 (1976)

61

VI

Nat'l Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Mullen.

828 F.2d 536(9th Cir. 1987)

61

Palmquist v. Selvik 111 F.3d 1332 (7th Cir. 1997)

39

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. I l l F.3d 528 (7th Cir. 1997)

passim

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. 153 F.3d 834 (7th Cir. 1998)

36, 54

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ.

851 F.Supp. 905 (N.D. 111. 1994)

3, 22, 42, 50

Prvmer v. Ogden. 29 F.3d 1208 (7th Cir. 1994)

38

Reed v. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. 607 F.2d 737 (6th Cir. 1979)

61

Roboserve. Inc. v. Kato Kagaku Co.. 121 F.3d 1027 (7th Cir. 1997)

40, 41

Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail. 502 U.S. 367 (1992)

34

Ruiz v. Estelle. 679 F.2d 1115, amended in part, vacated in part, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1982),

cert, denied. 460 U.S. 1042 (1983)

61

S.E.C. v. Suter. 832 F.2d 988 (7th Cir. 1987)

34

Schering Corp. v. Illinois Antibiotics Co.. 89 F.3d 357 (7th Cir. 1996)

35

Stern v. United States Gvpsum. Inc.. 547 F.2d 1329 (7th Cir.), -

cert, denied. 434 U.S. 975 (1977)

55

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed.. 402 U.S. 1 (1971)

49

Thompson v. Enomoto. 815 F.2d 1323 (9th Cir. 1990)

60

Transportation Cybernetics v. Forest Transit Com'n. 950 F.2d 350 (7th Cir. 1991) . . . 35

United States v. Paradise. 480 U.S. 149 (1987)

38

Vll

Williams v. Lane. 851 F.2d 867 (7th Cir.), cert, denied. 488 U.S. 1047 (1989)
Wilson v. Williams. 1998 WL 828426, *5 (7th Cir. November 30, 1998)

5, 30, 58, 60 39

Statutes and Rules

105 ILCS 5/2-3.71

50

28 U.S.C. §l292(a)(l)

2, 3, 34, 35, 39, 73

28 U.S.C. §636(c)(4)

70

Circuit Rule 36 of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit . 32, 69-70

F.R.A.P. Rule 4

34

F.R.A.P. Rule 47(a)(l)

70

Fed. Rules Evid. Rule 8Ol(c)

57

Fed. Rules Evid. Rule 8Ol(d)(2)

56

Fed.R.Civ.P. (6O)(b)(5)

26, 52

Other Authorities

9 Moores Federal Practice 3D §53.l4[3][a]

61

vni

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT1
The jurisdictional statement of Defendant-Appellant Rockford Board of Education
("RSD") is not complete or correct.
A. Orders Appealed
In Nos. 98-1056 and 98-1105 (the "Master Appeals"), RSD appealed, by notices of
appeal filed 12/31/97 and 1/7/98: (1) a 12/3/97 order (A 149) allowing interim fees to the
Master's attorney; and (2) a 12/9/97 order (A150-161) denying RSD's motions to bar the
Master from using counsel and from communicating informally with the parties. In Nos.
1 Plaintiffs employ the following citation conventions.
"RB " = RSD's opening brief. "PDS" = Appellees' Circuit Rule 3(c) Docketing Statement, filed 12/1/98. "PSR" = Appellees' Status Report, filed 10/30/98. "MD Mem. 98-1231" = Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of their Motion to Dismiss Nos. 98-1231 and 98-1449, filed 4/30/98. "MD 98-1056" = Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Nos. 98-1056 and 98-1105, filed 2/20/98. "A " = RSD's Appendix. "PA " = Plaintiffs' Supplemental Appendix. "D " = district court docket number (pages within documents are "p. " and transcript pages "T "). "# " = a CRO remedial program. "F¶ " = a Statement of Facts paragraph.
Many dates are stated in the form "M/D/Y." Fiscal years are "FY " (e.g., July
1996-June 1997 is FY97). The district court's 1996 Comprehensive Remedial Order ("CRO") was entered in segments (D1989, 1999,2073,2170,2182,2203, and 2278). CRO page numbers are cited "CRO ". The first CRO segment (pp. 1-46) and the governance and finance sections (pp. 201-214) are at PA 1-62.

98-1231 & 98-1449 (the "FY98 Budget Appeals"), RSD appealed, by notices of appeal filed 1/28/98 and 2/23/98, four of the district court's nine FY 1998 Budget Orders.2
In No. 98-2488 (the "ECE Appeal"), RSD by notice of appeal filed 6/10/98 appealed the district court's 5/12/98 order, approving and directing continued implementation of an Early Childhood Education ("ECE") program as part of the remedial programs required under the Comprehensive Remedial Order ("CRO").
In Nos. 98-3340 and 98-3858 (the "FY99 Budget Appeals"), RSD by notices of appeal filed 9/11/98 (No. 98-3340) and 11/5/98 (No. 98-3858) appealed the FY 1999 Budget Orders entered 8/13/98, 10/28/98, and 10/30/98. (A163-202.)

„

A ., , . .. .

B. Appellate Jurisdiction

rr

1. Nos. 98-1056 & 98-1105

As stated at PDS 7, the district court had

..,. .

,.

, <-»o TTO/~·

jurisdiction over this cause under 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1331 and l343(a)(3).

For reasons explained in MD 98-1056, this Court is without appellate jurisdiction over

Nos. 98-1056 and 98-1105.

2. Nos. 98-1231, 98-1449, 98-3340 & 98-3858

As explained in PDS 7-25, this Court has appellate jurisdiction over these appeals

under 28 U.S.C. §l292(a)(l), but only in part.

2 The nine FY 1998 Budget Orders were entered 9/12/97, 10/15/97, 11/6/97, 12/8/97, 12/18/97, 1/27/98 (two orders), 2/2/98 and 2/18/98. The principal FY98 Budget Orders are A2-14.

3. No. 98-2488 This Court has appellate jurisdiction over No. 98-2488 (the "ECE appeal") under 28
U.S.C. §l292(a)(l) because the appealed 5/12/98 Order, by its terms, constituted a modification of the CRO, which is an injunction.
C. Status Of Plaintiffs' Motions To Dismiss
Of seven consolidated appeals in this proceedings, four (Nos. 98-1056, 98-1105, 981231 & 98-1449) are the subject of pending motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs stand on their Motion to Dismiss Nos. 98-1056 & 98-1105 (Master Appeals). Plaintiffs stand on their Motion to Dismiss Nos. 98-1231 & 98-1449, to the extent described at PDS n.9.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Nature of Case and Course of Proceedings
In this school desegregation and educational discrimination case, the district court in 1994 found RSD intentionally and repeatedly discriminated against a class of black and Hispanic school children, and enjoined it to "eliminate root and branch, throughout the school system, all vestiges of racial, ethnic and national origin discrimination against African-American and Hispanic students." People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. 851 F.Supp. 905 (N.D. 111. 1994); D1369. That order was not appealed.

In 1996 the district court entered a Comprehensive Remedial Order ("CRO"). The CRO described the general types of remedies and many of the specific remedial programs RSD would be required to implement to remedy its constitutional defaults, and directed RSD to fully fund those programs. The CRO anticipated the entry of annual budget orders detailing the remedial programs to be implemented in each year's "CRO Expenditure Plan." (CRO 212-14, PA60-62.) The first set of budget orders was entered Fall 1996 for FY 1997. (D2387.)
RSD took a limited appeal from certain CRO provisions, and appealed the FY97 budget orders. In People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. 111 F.3d 528 (7th Cir. 1997) ("PWC 1997"). this Court reversed or remanded certain aspects of the CRO. However, as relevant to these appeals, PWC 1997 did not reverse any of the remedial programs required under the CRO and the FY 1997 Budget Orders. Subsequent to PWC 1997. the district court entered the FY 1998 and FY 1999 Budget Orders, some of which RSD now appeals. (981231,98-1449,98-3340, and 98-3858.) Those orders, without relevant exception, continued remedial programs approved in the FY 1997 Budget Orders. Those orders provided steadily declining CRO expenditure amounts and tax rates.
After the parties stipulated in 1995 to an Early Childhood Education ("ECE") remedy the CRO declined to order one. (PA 29-33.) This Court remanded ÍPWC 1997 539), and the district court then ordered an ECE remedy from which RSD now appeals. (98-2488.)
In 1991 and 1993, Judge Roszkowski entered three Master Orders. (D308, D374, D1313.) RSD appealed none of the orders, and concurred in entry of the latter two. The
4

Master's appointment, powers and procedures were reaffirmed and finalized in the CRO, with RSD's concurrence. RSD took no appeal concerning the Master's informal communication and reporting procedures. It did take a limited (unsuccessful) appeal concerning certain substantive powers (PWC 1997 539). After changing counsel, RSD initiated a mandamus and appeals concerning certain procedures of the Master, which this Court dismissed. (PWC 1997 540-41.) RSD thenfilednew motions challenging the Master's procedures (not powers): the propriety of informal Master-party communications and assistance of counsel. RSD appeals the denial of the motions. (98-1105.)
RSD also appeals an interim fee order overruling objections to a two-month invoice from the Master's legal advisor. (98-1056.)
Statement of Facts
A. Master Facts
1. Judge Roszkowski's 1991 Master Order (D308) and Monitor Order (D374) adopted almost verbatim the master order approved by this Court in Williams v. Lane. 851 F.2d 867, 884 (7th Cir.), cert, denied. 488 U.S. 1047 (1989). (A153.)
2. RSD recommended Dr. Eubanks (then RSD's expert) to the Judge as an acceptable person if a Master were appointed. (A152.)
3. The 1991 Orders conferred related powers on the Master. The Master Order authorized him to examine RSD's compliance, develop recommended remedies, supervise

RSD's implementation of orders, and report periodically to the court. The Monitor Order directed him to oversee remedy implementation, identify and resolve disputes by communicating with the parties, and recommend dispute resolutions to the court. (A152-54.)
4. The 1991 Orders explicitly authorized the Master to "conduct... interviews with persons who he believes have information that will assist him in performing his duties, including RSD's employees, agents and staff..., and counsel for the parties, Plaintiffs, parents, and students." (Emphasis added.) Both Orders authorized submission of informal reports, and the Master Order also authorized formal hearings and reports under Rule 53. (A152-54.)
5. RSD did not appeal either of the 1991 Orders. 6. After two years' experience with the Master and his methods, RSD agreed to continuation and expansion of the Master's authority. (A155.) Concurrently Judge Roszkowski independently entered the 5/5/93 Master Order expanding his powers. (A155.) 7. After three more years' experience, RSD reiterated those concurrences in the CRO-formulation process. In CRO-governance position statements, RSD supported the Master's continuation but sought elimination of an implementation committee ("PIC") in which Plaintiffs' counsel participated. (D1764, p.91-92.) Concerning the Master's communication procedures, RSD counsel stipulated at the evidentiary governance hearing 3/19-20/96, that "the Master has the ability to bring in anyone he wants, either individually
or in groups, to discuss any issues he wants relative to the order." (CRO Hearing Transcript,

T5408-09.) Accepting RSD's position, the district court eliminated PIC from the CRO. (PA 52-53.)3
8. The 1991 and 1993 Master Orders were incorporated and reaffirmed in the final CRO order. (CRO 201-05, PA49-53.) RSD took no appeal from the provisions authorizing the Master's informal communication and reporting procedures.
a. RSD took a limited appeal from other CRO governance provisions, asserting that the Master's substantive powers were too broad, making him a "systemwide Master." PWC 1997 539 held that challenge "largely moot, or at least premature,. . . ."
b. RSD has taken no post-CRO appeal concerning the Master's substantive powers, but only concerning his procedural methods.
9. In accordance with the 1991,1993 and 1996 orders, the Master has informally conferred almost daily since 1991, individually and in group settings, with RSD staff executives and employees, implementation consultants, counsel for each party, and Plaintiff Class and community members. RSD counsel have repeatedly conferred privately with the Master, as have counsel for Plaintiffs and the Unions.
a. The fact and scope (if not content) of such Master interviews has always been openly acknowledged and documented, including counsel's and the Master's
3 The foregoing Master facts are articulated in more detail in MD 98-1056, in the 12/8/97 order appealed (A150-61); and in the Statement of Facts in Appellees' Response Brief in RSD's 1997 mandamus and appeal (Nos. 97-1116 and 97-1157).

time records filed with the court since 1991 and dozens of fee submissions. For example, the invoices of RSD counsel, the Scariano firm, for 7/93 through 4/98 record 73 private telephone conversations with the Master. (PA158-59.) Furthermore, RSD General Counsel Quinlan communicated with the Master on more than 20 occasions. (PA160.) b. The vast majority of the Master's informal communications are with RSD representatives (primarily RSD staff executives). 10. In late 1996 a group of self-described "tax objectors" formed a 4-3 majority of the Board of Education and has maintained majority control to this date. (Brief of Biondo, et al., No. 98-2452, p. 10.) That group has filed a large number of motions and appeals seeking to relitigate numerous CRO provisions and other final orders and stipulations. (PSR 10/30/98, p.3-4, 12-15.) a. In January 1997 that group changed lead counsel in this litigation. (D2552, 2559, 2580.) b. Simultaneously (D255l) RSD filed its first appeal attacking the Master's procedures (Nos. 97-1116 and 97-1157). This Court dismissed RSD's appeals holding that the challenged orders were non-injunctive, procedural and moot. PWC 1997 540-41. 11. The Master's authority to use (with court permission) "consultants and experts to consult with him and otherwise to assist him in fulfilling the duties and responsibilities

assigned to him" has been established for eight years, and was part of the final CRO. (D3O8, p.2; D374, p.3; D1313; PA 48.)
12. RSD agreed to appointment oflegal counsel forthe Master in September 1995. (D1812.)
a. RSD joined 6/24/96 in Intervenors' Motion to Bar Further Representation of Master by Counsel. (D2222.) The court ruled 8/9/96 the Master could have counsel assistance until a final CRO is in place, with no appeals pending. (D228O.) RSD did not appeal that Order.
b. Since PWC 1997 the role of the Master's legal advisor has diminished. The 7/15/98 Order (D3O76) explained: "The court takes this opportunity to explain Master's counsel's role: The Master requires counsel to assist him because the Master is not an attorney. Implementation of the CRO is an ongoing, complicated legal process. The Master may have specifically legal questions in the future regarding implementation of the CRO. The court believes that repeatedly dismissing and re-appointing Master's counsel each time legal questions arise would be inefficient, expensive, and burdensome to the court and to the parties."
c. Since PWC 1997, the Master has not participated in this case in the role of a
litigant, either in hearings or otherwise.
B. Educational Input Remedies and The FY98 and FY99 Budget Orders
From 1995 through the FY99 budget process, the parties continue to be in substantial
agreement as to the propriety, content and cost of the educational input (and other) remedial

programs.4 (For FY98 and FY99, those concurrences are subject to RSD's general "mandate" objection that PWC 1997 affected the propriety or scope of some programs.)
1. CRO-Formulation Concurrences, 1995-1996 13. The liability finding here is four years old. It encompassed quality of
education discrimination (Freeman v. Pitts. 503 U.S. 467 (1992)) and other within-school educational discrimination, in addition to traditional violations in student assignment, transportation, facilities and staff (the Green v. County Sch. Bd.. 391 U.S. 430 (1968) factors). Many violations in both education and student assignment continued as recently as the 1996 CRO trial. (PSR 10/30/98, pp.9-11.)
14. After the liability finding, the Master was ordered to develop comprehensive remedial recommendations through consultation with all parties. (PA 6-9.) RSD submitted its 2/95 plan ("the RSD 1995 Plan"), broadly supporting educational input remedies. Large portions thereof were adopted in the Master's 8/6/95 Proposed Comprehensive Remedial Plan ("PCRP"). (D1787, Appendix I.)
15. Concerning the relationship of educational input remedies and educational outcome measures, RSD's 8/21/95 Response to the PCRP opposed outcome requirements and
4 For purposes of this brief, "educational input remedies" means resources and programs provided to improve education for minority students in areas of school operations where the liability and remedial orders in this case make a remedy appropriate and practicable. The term "educational input remedies" is used in contradistinction to "educational outcome requirements," several of which were reversed in PWC 1997.
10

simultaneously supported input remedies for the purpose of increasing minority student achievement:
Minority Student Participation and Performance. RSD rejects all guaranteed outcome-based components and standards. However, RSD continues to support the identification and implementation of research-based programs which have demonstrated the ability to improve minority student achievement and to close the achievement gap between majority and minority students. (D1793, p. 10.) RSD concurred with other Master educational-input remedial proposals, many RSD helped formulate. Plaintiffs also supported those remedies. (D1795.) 16. The CRO evidentiary hearing 11/22/95 Stipulation reiterated the August 1995 concurrences. (PA70-75.) 17. The CRO adopted many, though not all, educational input remedies concurred in by Master and parties. CRO Part HI, entitled "Educational Components/Stipulated Areas," addresses educational input remedies based on the 11/22/95 Stipulation and other CROhearing testimony and evidence. (PA14-47.) (Separately, educational outcome measures were addressed in CRO Part VI, entered 6/7/96 after separate hearing thereon.) (CRO 156.) 18. The CRO Judgment was finalized 8/8/96. RSD appealed only nine specific points, concentrating on quantitative outcome requirements in educational and staff remedies. RSD did not appeal any educational-input remedies, nor any student assignment, facilities or transportation remedies. fPWC 1997 533.534-39.ì (See RSD brief 11/18/96 in Nos. 962410, 96-3022, 96-3226, 96-3244, 96-3283.)
11

2. FY97 Budget

19. CRO 202 set forth a yearly CRO-budget approval process. The Master

proposes yearly expenditure plans after consultation with RSD administration and others.

RSD is then permitted to object to the Master's proposed plan. (PA5O; A9.)

20. The Master proposed his FY97 budget 9/4/96. (D2356.) Specific remedial

programs implementing the CRO were identified by "program numbers" running from 7100

to 7995. The major remedial categories are:

7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600 7700 7800 7900
7990

Administration, Curriculum, Research/Evaluation, Personnel Magnet Schools Community Academies (schools in minority neighborhoods) Community Schools (other elementaries) Middle Schools High Schools Roosevelt Secondary Academy Controlled Choice Parent Information and Family/Community Services Staff Development
Bilingual Services

A program number often includes several detail allocations. For example, #7340

Reading Recovery includes teachers at several schools, test materials, supplies, teacher

training, and travel allocations. Other program numbers encompass only one staff position.

21. For purposes of this appeal the FY97 and FY99 budgets are programmatically

identical. The FY99 budget on appeal includes 70 remedial programs. (PA117-133.) 67 of

those - all but three, or 95% - were in the FY97 budget. (Compare PA117-133 with

D2377, Exhibit F, PA82-106.)

12

a. The three programs in the FY99 budget but not the FY97 budget are 7270

(Magnet Schools), 7994 (Transportation), and 7652 (High School Parent

Liaison - $24,589). Of those three, only #7652 is appealed in the FY99

Budget Appeal; but that program is also in RSD's FY99 alternative budget.

b. In addition to the 67 programs that correspond to FY99, the FY97 expenditure

plan included 14 other remedial programs since eliminated. (There is also

some program renumbering from FY97 to FY99 in the 7200 category.)

22. In FY97 as in FY99, RSD presented its own budget and objections to the

Master's budget. (IdL, PA76-107.)

a. RSD stated its FY97 budget "supported and proposed" all but four programs

in the Master's budget. (PA79.)

b. The four programs not supported by RSD were:

7125

General Director Desegregation

7137

Student Assignment Implementation

7199

Master's Counsel

7635

Counseling Study

The Court granted RSD's #7125 objection and denied the others. (D2387.)

c. RSD proposed FY97 expenditures of $22.4 million. RSD's FY97 objections

totaled $1.8 million. The Court granted $775,000. The remaining $ 1,027,000

RSD/Court difference was 4%. (D2387.)

13

23. RSD's submission affirmatively advocated the FY97 remedial programs, "assuring... the Court and the community that all proposed expenditures are securely grounded in the requirements of the Comprehensive Remedial Order." (PA78).
24. RSD appealed the FY97 budget order (No. 96-3662, eventually consolidated with the CRO appeal). RSD's brief primarily addressed revenue issues rather than programs or expenditures. RSD's four-page expenditure argument only said the remaining $ 1,027,000 objections should have been granted. RSD did not challenge the propriety of any remedial program. (PA108-113.)
25. This Court in PWC 1997 did not reverse any of the FY97 budget orders, and did not reverse or disallow any remedial programs in the FY97 CRO budget.
3. FY98 Budget 26. The FY98 budget approved 9/12/97 totaled $22,743 million, down $700,000
from FY97. (A2-3.) 27. Comparing FY98 to FY97, the Court stated: "No major new programs are
added. No large-scale programs are removed." (A10.) 28. RSD's new Board and counsel adopted a horizontal, "categorical" approach,
requesting: a. "Purchased services" reduced 56% to a flat $ 1,000,000. b. "Supplies" reduced 64% to $500,000. c. All equipment, most travel, dues and fees expenditures eliminated.
14

d. Approximately 10 remedial staff positions eliminated. (##7141, 7215, 7850, 7651, 7911, 7550, 7663, 7800, 7850.)
These objections (approximately $3,500,000) were 15% of the Court's budget. (D2756, pp.27-28;D2760,pp.1-3.)
29. RSD objected only to parts of two programs as contravening the PWC 1997 mandate. (#7150, Minority Teacher Recruitment, #7160 Evaluation Office Consultants; D2756, pp.17, 19-20.) The court granted the first objection.
30. RSD sought elimination of only three programs (#7651, 7550, 7663.) Two were granted. (#7550, 7663; A3.)
4. FY99 Budget Proposals and Order 31. The Master's FY99 budget included 69 remedial programs. (D2992.) All had
been in the FY98 and FY97 CRO budgets. (F¶21,27.) (The Court's eventual budget contains 70. PA117-133.)
32. For FY99, RSD presented an "alternative budget" supporting all but three of the 69 programs in the Master's budget. The Master recommended $2l.4-million expenditures, and RSD recommended $19.7 million, a $l.7-million difference, or 8%. (D2992, p.24; D3015 p. 15 and D3O28 p.3.)5
5RSD's alternative budget was subject to its "Mandate Objection" to 30 remedial programs, ÌJL, that the district court's approval of such programs transgressed the mandate in PWC 1997. At PDS n.4, Plaintiffs put the number of FY98 and FY99 mandate-objection programs at "some 36 programs." The actual number, however, appears to be 30. First, RB objects to two programs that were deleted upon its FY98 objection. (RB28-29, ##755O,
15

33. RSD's Superintendent testified the "alternative budget" reflected starting-from-

scratch analysis ofthe liability findings, the CRO, the 3-year implementation experience, and

staff feedback. He created a grid linking each remedial program back to the relevant liability

finding(s) and CRO remedial requirements. He made the remedy as cost-efficient as

possible. His (and RSD's) conclusion was that RSD needed $19.7 million to bring about the

CRO remedy. (D3O34, 5/12/98 T71-78.)

34. The Superintendent testified all those factors justified continued support and

implementation of all (but three) programs in the Master's FY99 budget (D3O99, T42-43):

Mr. Howard: And for every program number in which the Master has an allocation, RSD also has an allocation in its budget, with two exceptions, right? One is the ASEE position and the other is the Master's counsel?

Dr. Epps:

That's correct.

Mr. Howard: There is a third area in which RSD didn't make an allocation, but there is an agreement that there is an expense there, right? There's an interest expense that we all agree has to be paid this year?

Dr. Epps:

That's correct.

7663, middle/high school improved performance incentives.) Second, plaintiffs incorrectly "double-counted" four programs (##7330,7520,7537 and 7651), RSD having placed those in two different categories. See PDS n.4. Attachment I lists and categorizes all RSD program objections.
16

35. The three "disputed programs" are:

#7100, interest expense (cash-flow

financing)

$300,000

#7120, Office of Assoc. Supt. Education/Equity

$176,307

#7199, Master's counsel

$60.000

Total:

$536.307

The Court granted the #7100 objection (A184); denied #7199 (A175); and partially granted #7120. (A170-71.)6

36. There was substantial agreement on the nature of the 66 programs the Master

and RSD jointly supported (subject to RSD's mandate objection) and disagreement only on

details such as the number of staff positions or amounts allocated for certain expenses.

These "detail differences" within agreed programs involved various pluses and minuses, but

netted to $l.2-million, or 6%. (The $l.7-million initial difference, less the three "disputed

programs".) (Compare D2992 and D3O28; see comparisons D3O79, Master's 5/29/98

Comments.)

37. RSD's budget acknowledged there are not "significant differences" between the

Master's budget and its own concerning most educational input remedies. (D3015, p. 16) It

6 Following the bifurcated approach the 1/27/98 Order established (A10), RSD filed a separate motion to modify the CRO deleting #7120. (D2959.) RSD also moved separately regarding Master's counsel. (D2683.) There was no other CRO modification motion for FY98 or FY99.
The 1/27/98 Order makes CRO modifications (by adding/dropping programs) separate from the budget process, in separate evidentiary hearings. RSD received evidentiary hearing 6/16/98 on its D2959 motion concerning #7120, and a separate Order 8/13/98 deferred final ruling but kept the ASEE position vacant until early 1999. (D3094-95.) RSD did not appeal.
17

identified as significant (a) the three "disputed programs," and (b) a $1.1-million difference in magnet costs, and stated:
"As for the remaining portion of the budget, the differences between the Master's proposal and RSD's alternative budget are not significant." 38. RSD's FY99 budget included many positions RSD questioned in FY98, including all human relations, student support and parent liaison positions, and most curriculum implementor positions. (RSD includes these in #7200, 7212, 7230, 7300, 7315, 7330, 7400, 7411, and 7415.) (D3015, Exhibit 3; RB52; D3O79, pp.4-6.) 39. RSD's budget proposed no remedial programs not already in the Master's budget. 40. Following hearings, the 8/13/98 Order (A167) resolved these similarities and differences: a. Adopted all remedial programs supported by both Master and RSD budgets. b. On those agreed programs, adopted the Master's expenditure detail, $1.2
million more than corresponding RSD proposals. c. Compromised on the three "disputed programs." (F¶35.) 41. Reasons stated for adopting the Master's expenditure details included: a. The Master's staffing presentation and overall expenditure plan were more
complete, detailed and consistent than RSD's presentations. (A164-66; A16770.) b. RSD did not carry its burden of establishing its objections. (Id.)
18

c. RSD's Superintendent testified it would fund the same programs for 6% less by shifting various CRO activities to federal ESEA Title I funding. Plaintiffs' post-hearing submission showed that would violate "supplement-not-supplant" provisions of the Title I statute. (D3O78, p. 10-13.)
42. Contrary to RB16 and 29, neither the CRO nor any budget order provides for "helping the community access social services, health care or electricity." The CRO explicitly rejectedûie "proposal that RSD provide... linkages with... social service agencies... health services, the criminal justice system...," as outside the Missouri v. Jenkins. 515 U.S. 70 (1995) ("Jenkins ü f ì principle that remedial decrees must directly address the constitutional violation. (CRO 28, PA29.) CRO 27 did approve seeking substantial community and parental involvement in the desegregation process, particularly minority parents and the minority community, and providing parental aides and mentoring programs. (PA28.)
5. CRO Financial Projections and Actual Costs to Date 43. CRO Part XII, 209-14, considered expenditure levels, revenue sources and
local tax burdens. It projected local tax revenue for annual CRO operating budgets ("Fund 12") would start at $25 million and increase 4% for four years. It projected a $ 1.66 Fund 12 tax rate ($500 taxes on a $30,000 EAV home.) (PA57-62.)
19

44. CRO 213 (PA6l) established a corresponding cap on Fund 12 taxes, which

both parties appealed and this Court reversed (PWC 1997 538). No other CRO finance

provision was appealed.

45. Rather than increasing as projected, actual Fund 12 costs and tax rates have

declined since 1996.

Projected
Budget CRO 214

Projected
Tax Rate ifEAV

Year at 4% + 4%/vr.

Actual Actual CRO Exp. Fund 12
Plan7 Tax Rate8

FY 1997 $25.0 $1.66

$23,449 $1.30

FY1998

26.0 $1.66

22.743

$1.18

FY 1999 27.3 $1.66

21.856

$1.01

FY2OOO 28.4 $1.66

46. CRO 214 projected Fund 12 representing 15% of RSD's total budget. (18/118

= 15%; PA62.) Actually, FY99 Fund 12 represents 10% of RSD's $2l6-million budget.

(D3116, Exhibit C, p.3, 8/11/98 Budget.)

47. RSD states total remedies exceed $144 million since 1989. (RB53.) But that

is still only about 10% of RSD's approximately $1.5 billion aggregate expense since 1989.

7 Annual budget amounts from D2387, D2778, and A192.
8 Tax rates from PA134-36. The FY99 tax rate is the court's final levy amount ($19,576 million, A200), divided by 1998 EAV ($1,941 billion, PA135).
20

6. Actual Amount and Use of Unspent FY98 Funds 48. RSD stipulated the FY99 revenue hearing would consider only FY98 unspent
funds, not earlier-year amounts. (PA144.) The parties submitted a factual stipulation rather than testimony at that 9/17/98 hearing. (PA137.)
49. Only 11% of the FY98 budget remained unspent at final reckoning of expenditures-versus-budget.
a. Actual unspent funds are $2,601 million of $23.743-million budgeted (11%). (A198, F¶45.)
b. RSD's $ 1,068,000 disagreement (D3133, p.5) would make unspent funds only 15%.
50. Mid-year unspent-funds reports (especially in May, e.g., RB8, 18) are unreliable data concerning actual year-end salvage. Final accounting is in September. (A190.)
51. The court concurred84% with RSD on charging "capital expenditures" against FY98 unspent funds.
a. The Master identified $ 1.97 million capital needs. RSD concurred, but wanted those charged against $3.l-million construction funds.
b. The court granted RSD's request on $1.65 million, or 84%. Only $321,000 went against FY98 unspent funds. (A198-99.)
52. The Haskell expenditure was from previously-approved FY98 magnet funds.
21

a. RSD cross-examined the Master about Haskell in the FY99 budget hearing. (D3O98, T147-52.) It could have again in the FY99 revenue hearing 9/17/98. (A189.)
b. The Board approved a year-round Haskell magnet. The Master and Superintendent agreed air conditioning is essential. (D3179, p.3.)
c. Air conditioning only white schools was part of the facilities discrimination violation. (851 F.Supp. 1082.)
C. FY98 and FY99 Hearing Procedure Issues
53. In both FY98 and FY99, the Master disclosed his information sources before the hearing (mostly RSD staff but also Plaintiffs' counsel). For FY99 the Court did hold hearings, swear witnesses, identify exhibits and make findings. (F¶54-62.)
1. FY98 54. The Master's 8/6/97 budget narrative (D2753, "MNAR") identified persons he consulted: "District building and central administration staff including the [Superintendent, ASEE, Desegregation Director]" and plaintiffs' counsel. (MNAR 12-15.) His sources were not "unidentified." 55. RSD made no attempt before the 9/9/97 hearing to obtain further information or make any hearing-procedure request. In the day-long FY98 budget hearing, RSD made
22

no request for testimony, cross-examination or further information from the Master, or to present RSD witnesses. (A16-143.)
56. Thereafter, RSD moved 9/19/97 to reconsider, requesting alternatively no additional written findings or an evidentiary hearing. (D2777.) The 1/27/98 order granted the first alternative. (A7-10.)
2. FY99 57. The 1/27/98 order also established prospectively the bifurcation of CROmodifìcation motions/hearings from annual budget proceedings. (A9-10; n.6, supra.) 58. Nonetheless, the court held an evidentiary, testimonial FY99 budget hearing over six weeks (5/12, 6/16 and 6/21/98). The hearing transcripts total 325 pages. (D3O34, 3098, 3099.) 59. For FY99, the Master again clearly identified persons he consulted: a. The 5/1/98 submission identified various RSD school and central office staff.
(D2992, pp. 1-2.) The Master testified he conferred with Plaintiffs' counsel (D3O98, T74, 106.) The court confirmed the Master's sources. (A169-70.) b. The Master's consultation process paralleled the Superintendent's process preparing RSD's "alternative budget." (A169; D3O34, T71-78.) 60. The Master reported 5/1/98 that each allocation had a written expenditure plan developed by RSD personnel and the Master. (D2992, pp. 1-2.) He testified extensively
23

concerning these plans, the detail underlying his narrative and spreadsheet budgets. (D3O98, T72-77.)
a. He had those plans during testimony and offered them to RSD. (D3O98, T166.) The documents were not "unidentified." (RB23.)
b. Plaintiffs asked whether those plans should be an exhibit. RSD counsel declined. (D3O98, T176-77.)
61. Concerning different documents (two letters) one month earlier, RSD requested three minutes and received a recess to examine correspondence the Master relied on. (D3O34,T 11-27. Çf. RB23-24.)
62. RSD never objected during FY99 budget hearings the Master was required to proceed through formal Rule 53 hearings andfindings,or that his informal communications (mostly with RSD's staff) were improper.
Ð. £arly Childhood Education
63. The RSD 1995 Plan proposed an ECE remedy serving all 3- and 4-year-old children residing in Community Academy (predominantly minority) attendance areas. RSD's Plan estimated 2,000 such children, half already receiving service, and proposed serving the remaining 900-1,000. (PA147-49.)
64. The November 1995 stipulation reiterated this commitment. (PA72.) 65. Nevertheless, CRO 29-32 declined an ECE remedy. (PA3O-33.) This Court remanded (PWC 1997 539).
24

66. On remand, the court requested an ECE proposal based on "the original ECE Plan agreed to by the parties at the time of the CRO hearings." (D2924.)
67. The Master's 3/24/98 report documented feasibility and value of ECE and described RSD's program. He proposed gradually serving "all 3- and 4-year-old minority children residing in the former C.8 attendance zones," estimating 690 such students. He recommended initial FY99 expansion for 288, which RSD staff confirmed feasible. (D2967, p.8-12.)
68. RSD's ECE position throughout strongly supported maximizing ECE within state funding, (e.g., D2996, p.1-2.)
69. At ECE evidentiary hearing 4/23/98 the Master presented his report and was cross-examined. RSD challenged no aspect of the Master's Report or testimony except feasibility of 288-student FY99 expansion. (D3033.)
70. Staff testified RSD was applying for FY99 state funding to expand 80-120 children. (D3033, T97.)
71. The 5/11/98 ECE Order found ECE an appropriate CRO remedy, praised RSD's program, and left control with RSD. It adopted RSD's 80-student FY99 expansion. Noting ECE is state-funded, it authorized $200,000 as backup funding were RSD's proposal unsuccessful. (D3016.) It did not "mandate" tort funding. (RB54.)
72. RSD received state funding for 120 additional students. RSD staff notified the Board 8/25/98 this "eliminates need to access Fund 12." (PA 152.)
25

ISSUES PRESENTED
Issues Presented in Nos. 98-1331, 98-1449, 98-3340 & 98-3858 1. Whether RSD's "Mandate objection" to remedial programs approved in the
FY98 and FY99 Budget Orders must be rejected in light of: (a) RSD's failure to raise this objection in the FY98 Budget proceedings, except
as to one program; (b) RSD's failure to show that any change in law rendered by PWC 1997 required
modification of the CRO under Fed.R·Civ.P. (6O)(b)(5), when this Court's decision did not reverse any of the challenged programs, and these programs serve legitimate goals not invalidated by this Court's decision?
2. Whether, as to RSD's "non-mandate objections" to remedial programs approved in the FY98 and FY99 Budget Orders, this Court should not reach the merits of those objections, because it is without appellatejurisdiction to review them or because the standard for modification ofjudicial decrees under Fed.R·Civ.P. 6O(b)(5) obliges that result?
3. Whether RSD's procedural objections to the FY98 and FY99 Budget hearings must be rejected in light of:
(a) RSD's failure timely to raise, in the FY98 and FY99 Budget proceedings themselves, these procedural objections;
(b) its having received below the procedures it here requests?
26

4. Whether RSD's procedural objections to the FY98 Budget proceedings are moot?
5. Whether RSD's procedural objections to the FY98 and FY99 Budget proceedings, based on the Master's role therein, must be rejected in light of:
(a) RSD's agreement to the procedures to which it now objects on appeal; (b) its failure timely to appeal orders authorizing such procedures; and (c) the clear propriety on the merits of the Master's communication and reporting
procedures? 6. Whether the district court gave appropriate consideration to RSD's financial condition in entering the FY98 and FY99 Budget Orders, in Hght of, among other facts, that these orders approved CRO budgets that were lower than the CRO itself projected and lower than the FY97 budget?
Issue Presented in No. 98-2488 7. Whether the district court properly exercised its discretion in approving and
directing the continued implementation of RSD's own Early Childhood Education program as one of the programs required under the CRO?
Issues Presented In Nos. 98-1056 & 98-1105 8. Whether this Court is without appellate jurisdiction over these appeals? 9. Whether the district court properly exercised its discretion in denying RSD's
motions to bar the Master's legal advisor and his alleged ex parte communications? 27

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
This is an unusual appeal. It arises from the desperate effort of RSD's new tax-protest Board to relitigate matters previously resolved, and to create chaos out of order.
Every issue raised here is governed by prior orders not appealed, or RSD stipulations, or is inappropriate for determination due to lack of jurisdiction or failure to raise the issue below. If this Court applies the normal rules applicable to such circumstances, it would reach the merits of virtually none of these appeal issues. (§I.A.)
That course of action would have the highly salutary effect of bringing finality to the remedy-formulation stage of this case, and putting a firm halt to the "avalanche of appeals" strategy the RSD Board is pursuing.
There is one substantial merits issue: did PWC 1997's reversal of quantitative outcome requirements in educational and staff remedies in any way limit educational-input remedies? Significantly, RSD stipulated to the appropriateness of input remedies ~ while opposing outcome requirements — in the CRO hearing, and did not appeal that aspect of the CRO. Correspondingly, PWC 1997 did not prohibit input remedies, but rather accepted them in its discussion of compensatory education remedial programs and early childhood remedies. In any event, all the programs in question serve valid remedial purposes other than increasing minority achievement. (§II.A)
Apartfromthat, the powerful fact is that virtually no FY98 or FY99 remedial-program issues remain for this Court to resolve. Of the court's 70 programs, RSD's "alternative
28

budget" concurs that all (but two) are appropriate under the liability findings and the CRO (subject to the "mandate" objection). In ordering those programs the court granted RSD's position. Furthermore, those remedial programs were previously finalized because they were in the FY97 budget order, and were neither appealed nor reversed in PWC 1997.
Within those agreed programs, there is only a $l.2-million difference (6%) in proposed costs. For several reasons, that renders inappropriate, and surely unnecessary, decision of the myriad quibbles comprising that $1.2 million. (§II.B.)
It is important to pause, and recognize the considerable accomplishment just described. It is certainly a major achievement by the district court, Master, RSD and staff, and even the RSD Board, that but for the "mandate" issue there is no material disagreement as to what remedial programs are proper to implement the CRO, and what the cost of those programs currently should be. If this Court resolves the "mandate" issue and declines to entertain annual budget disputes of micro-magnitude, there is good prospect that this litigation will settle down to a stable remedial phase, at both the district and appellate court levels, as well as in the Rockford school system and community. As indicated in Plaintiffs' 10/30/98 Status Report, that is what Rockford's business, religious and civic leaders hope for. (PSR pp.5, 7-9, 14.)
On the "fair hearing" issue, the simple answer is that in F Y99 RSD got all elements of procedural fairness to which it claims entitlement — including a full evidentiary hearing
and pre-hearing disclosure of the Master's information sources. For FY98 RSD waived this
29

issue by making no objection until after the hearing. The FY98 issue is also moot because FY99 approved the same programs after a hearing. (§§ II.C. 1-2.)
That brings us to the most remarkable invention of RSD's opening brief. RSD contends it is improper for the Master to communicate informally with the parties in preparing his annual budget recommendations. (The vast majority of the Master's contacts are with RSD staff executives, whom RSD calls "unidentified persons.") This contention first sees daylight in RSD's appellate brief, not having been asserted in the FY99 or FY98 budget proceedings, nor at any time since the Master Order was entered in 1991.
That 1991 Master Order was essentially a verbatim copy of the one approved by this Court in Williams v. Lane. 851 F.2d 867, 884 (7th Cir.), cert, denied. 488 U.S. 1047 (1989). It expressly authorized the Master to communicate informally with a range of persons, including District staff, community members and counsel for the parties, and authorized him to report to the Court informally. The Order also authorized formal Rule 53 hearings, but the Master has never used that procedure. For seven years RSD has expressly and repeatedly agreed to and availed itself ofthe Master's informal communication and reporting methods — because that promotes negotiation and minimizes litigation.
RSD did not appeal the 1991 Master Order, even when it was finalized in the 1996 CRO. The district court and the Master have faithfully conformed to the explicit terms of that Order concerning communication and reporting methods. Frankly, this is an issue on which RSD should be reprimanded for its wholly unwarranted attack on the integrity of the Master and the court. (§II.C.3.)
30

Issues about the use of FY98 unspent funds are largely illusory. The court granted most of RSD's proposals concerning allocation of those funds. RSD's attempt here to dip into the Construction Fund to reduce FY99 operating-budget tax levies is dubious, and was expressly waived by RSD's trial counsel. (§II.D.)
The district court has thoroughly considered financial practicability, indeed from Plaintiffs' perspective given it too much weight. The CRO finance section projected an annual budget increasing from $25 million in FY97 to $27.3 million in FY99, with a flat $1.66 tax rate (which RSD did not appeal). Instead, for FY99 the court granted a budget $5.5 million lower, and a vastly lower $1.01 tax rate. (The low rate arises from granting RSD's request ~ opposed by Master and Plaintiffs — that $2.6 million unspent FY98 funds be considered "revenue" for FY99.) Overall, as the CRO budget has declined and RSD's regular budget increased, the CRO has fallen to only 10% of RSD's overall expenditures. (§n.E.)
RSD struggles to find something appealable about an Early Childhood Education order that costs RSD nothing. RSD directly mis-states the order, saying it mandated tort funding. In fact it granted RSD's proposal that state funding be used ~ funding that arrived 10 weeks before RSD's brief. It also granted RSD's proposal on size of ECE expansion (80 students), declining a larger expansion supported by the Master and Plaintiffs. All told, Plaintiffs suggest that affirming ECE requires this Court to decide no substantial dispute. (§III.)
31

Finally, there is RSD's attempt to relitigate procedural issues about the Master far less significant than the Master-procedural issues for which PWC 1997 found jurisdiction lacking. Furthermore, on the merits, the district court and Master have ceased since PWC 1997 whatever occasional "litigant" activities this Court questioned — another example of their adhering to PWC 1997. while RSD disrespects it. (§IV.)
As this overview demonstrates, RSD's opening brief is a remarkable exercise in creating a false picture that there are major disputes for this Court to decide, or that on this record they are properly presented for decision.
Through those tactics and its stream of adhominem rhetoric, RSD seeks to manipulate this appellate proceeding by portraying wholly false propositions ~ that the Master is acting in a procedurally unfair manner, that the district court is consistently and arbitrarily ruling against RSD, and consequently that the district court proceedings in this case are somehow in disarray or are over-reaching in the procedures and orders being adopted.
RSD hopes that, rather than having its remedial obligations confirmed by this court, it can provoke unwarranted frustration in this Court about the volume of litigation (which RSD is generating), and about the prospects for a stable remedial phase in the district court. Recognizing it is not entitled on the merits to a reduction in the scope of the remedies, RSD hopes it can nevertheless secure a quantum reduction in the remedial process by eliciting unwarranted action from this court undermining the district court and the Master. RSD hopes it can destroy the constitutional message by killing the judicial messengers. Thus RSD's invocation (RB36) of Circuit Rule 36. (§V.)
32

In contrast, Plaintiffs believe that this Court seeks, in deciding the current appeals, not to pre-emptively remove from the Plaintiff Class the remedy they secured by the recent final liability and remedial adjudications, but rather to end the constant relitigation of old issues and create a period of repose for remedy implementation. As noted in Plaintiffs' 10/30/98 Status Report, the best solution to all these concerns is a straightforward decision of the issues properly presented on this appeal, and an equally straightforward rejection of RSD's relitigation strategy and of its unfounded attacks on the Master and the district court.
33

ARGUMENT
I. INTRODUCTION: CONTROLLING LEGAL PRINCIPLES
A. Principles Limiting RSD's Relitigation Attempts
Because RSD's appeals are attempts to resurrect previously litigated and finally decided issues, and issues it consented to or otherwise waived, Plaintiffs set forth three operative principles curtailing this relitigation strategy.
First, RSD may not now appeal issues determined in the 1996 CRO and companion FY97 Budget Order, a final Rule 54 judgment, which it deliberately forewent appealing in 1996. Three related doctrines (discussed in more detail in MD Mem. 98-1231), oblige application of the first principle here.
1. Jurisdictional Limits over Untimely Appeals. To modify a final injunction, a party must prove a "significant" change in controlling fact or law, and may then appeal an order denying such modification under 28 U.S.C. §l292(a)(l). See Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail. 502 U.S. 367, 393 (1992). But if the modification motion is a mere pretense for belated appeal of the original injunction (ie^., there is no legitimate claim to a significant change in fact or law), "we penetrate through form to substance and treat the appeal from the denial of the motion... as an untimely appeal from the injunction, and dismiss the appeal [under F.R.A.P. Rule 4] for lack of jurisdiction." S.E.C. v. Suter. 832
34

F.2d988, 990 (7th Cir. 1987). See Transportation Cybernetics v. Forest Transit Com'n. 950 F.2d 350, 353 (7th Cir. 1991) (application of Rule 4 to dismiss appeals is "an application of the doctrine of issue preclusion"); Buckhanon v. Percy. 708 F.2d 1209, 1212 (7th Cir. 1983) (§1292 (a)(l) jurisdiction over orders modifying or refusing to modify injunction "is not intended to allow litigants to circumvent by the filing of repetitive motions the time limitation for taking appeals").
2. Issue Preclusion. See Avitia v. Metropolitan Club of Chicago. Inc.. 924 F.2d 689, 691 (7th Cir. 1990) (barring later appeal of issue conclusively determined by a prior final appealable order that the party chose not to appeal (despite the opportunity to do so) and the time to appeal that order has expired).
3. Waiver/Law of the Case. See Schering Corp. v. Illinois Antibiotics Co.. 89 F.3d 357,358 (7th Cir. 1996) (barring defendant from bringing in second appeal an issue that could have been raised in an earlier appeal: "[A] ruling by the trial court, in an earlier stage of the case, that could have been but was not challenged on appeal is binding in subsequent stages of the case."), citing Crocker v. Piedmont Aviation. Inc.. 49 F.3d 735, 739 (D.C. Cir. 1995) ("appellate courts are precluded from revisiting not just prior appellate decisions but also those prior rulings of the trial court that could have been but were not challenged on an earlier appeal.")
Application of the first principle defeats RSD's attempts to relitigate the propriety of educational input remedies (§II.A), programs approved in the FY97 Budget Order (§II.B), and informal Master-party communications (§§ II.C.3 and IV). Allowing RSD to bring new
35

appeals challenging issues that could have been raised in the PWC 1997 appeal invites the "avalanche of appeals" swelling this Court's already-busy docket, about which this Court has already expressed concern. People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. 153 F.3d 834 (7th Cir. 1998) ("PWÇ_I998"). By holding back these challenges for two years while it appealed other aspects of the CRO, RSD multiplied the number of present appeals, and seeks to open the door to a huge number of future appeals.
RSD should not be allowed to profit from laying back as the time for appealing these issues passed. Moreover, it is unfair to Plaintiffs to have to defend the same lawsuit on appeal over and over again as RSD conjures up previously decided issues that could have been raised in earlier appeals. As Judge Friendly observed, this would lead to the bizarre result that RSD, by choosing not to argue these issues on the CRO appeal, "should stand better as regards the law of the case than one who had argued and lost." Fogel v. Chestnutt 668 F.2d 100, 109 (2d Cir. 1981), cert, denied. 459 U.S. 828 (1982).
The second principle is that RSD is bound by its prior consents, waivers, stipulations, and conduct. See INB Banking Co. v. Iron Peddlers. Inc.. 993 F.2d 1291, 1292 (7th Cir. 1993) ("we cannot consider any errors that may be assigned which were in law waived by the consent..."); Matter of Maurice. 21 F.3d 767, 771 (7th Cir. 1994) (failing to timely object to alleged error waives right to later appeal.); Dugan v. U.S.. 18 F.3d 460, 463 (7th Cir. 1994) (party bound by its stipulations); Continental Illinois Corp. v. C.I.R.. 998 F.2d 513, 518 (7th Cir. 1993) ("A party can argue inconsistent positions in the alternative, but once it
36

has sold one to the court it cannot turn around and repudiate it in order to have a second victory".)
The play of this second principle arises, in the first instance, from the proceedings leading to the CRO and FY97 Budget Orders. During such proceedings, RSD agreed to the propriety of educational input remedies (§¤.A), Early Childhood Education (§III), and informal Master-party communications (§§II.C.3 andlV). Moreover, in proceedings leading to the FY98 and FY99 Budget Orders on appeal here, RSD waived virtually all of its "mandate objections" to remedial programs (n.9, infra), and did not ever present in support of its non-mandate objections any significant changes in fact or law, as is required to win a modification of a prior injunction order, here the CRO. (See §II.B, infra.) Finally, RSD may not use its subsequent change of counsel (see F¶10(a)) as a springboard to vitiate its prior admissions, agreements, and waivers. See Jordan v. Continental Airlines. 1996 U.S. Dist. Lexis 14883 (E.D. Pa.): Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Cammon. 1990 U.S. Dist. Lexis 3852 (N.D. 111.).
The third principle is that, to overcome the bar against relitigation of finally decided or waived issues, RSD must identify and demonstrate that exceptional circumstances exist, such as significant intervening changes in controlling law or fact, so that the failure to revisit the finally decided issue would result in a miscarriage of justice. Specifically, applying jurisdictional limits and issue preclusion, RSD must demonstrate "significant changes in controlling facts or legal principles" or other "special circumstances," to avoid the CRO's conclusive resolution of those issues. Montana v. U.S.. 440 U.S. 147, 157-8 (1979).
37

Applying law of the case, RSD must prove that the late-challenged CRO orders are "clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice." Arizona v. California. 460 U.S. 605,618-9, n.8 (1983). To avoid its waivers, RSD must show that exceptional circumstances exist, that substantial rights are affected, and that a miscarriage ofjustice will result. Prymer v. Ogden. 29 F.3d 1208,1214 (7th Cir. 1994). In this context, the salient point is that, with respect to each issue RSD seeks to revive here, RSD either makes no attempt whatsoever or utterly fails in proving such exceptional circumstances. (See §§ II.B, C.3, and IV, infra.)
B. Standard Of Review
The Master Appeals are from orders: (1) allowing fees to the Master's attorney and (2) denying RSD's motions to bar the Master from using counsel and from ex parte communications. The fee order is reviewable under an abuse of discretion standard. Harman v. Lvphomed. Inc.. 945 F.2d 969, 973 (7th Cir. 1991). Review of the order denying RSD's motion to bar, which was based principally upon the district court's interpretation of its own prior orders in the case (A151-161), is deferential. Employers Ins. Of Wausau v. Browner. 52 F. 3d 656, 666 (7th Cir. 1995), cert, denied. 116 S. Ct. 699 (1996). The FY98 and FY99 Budget Appeals and the ECE appeal involve the review of a district court's exercise of its equitable powers to remedy past and continuing wrongs, and are reversible only where the appellant shows that the district court has abused its discretion. United States v. Paradise. 480 U.S. 149,183-84 Q987i See Browder v. Illinois Department of Corrections. 434 U.S. 257,263 (1978) (appeals from orders modifying or refusing to modify judgments reviewable
38

under abuse of discretion standard). Moreover, insofar as RSD raises in the FY98 and FY99
Budget Appeals questions about evidentiary rulings of the district court, review of these
rulings is also under an abuse of discretion standard. Pal·mquist v. Selvik. I l l F.3d 1332,
1339 (7th Cir. 1997), except that to the extent that RSD failed to make a timely and specific
objection to disputed evidence, review is for "plain error" only, Wilson v. Williams. 1998
WL 828426, *5 (7th Cir. November 30, 1998).
II. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN ENTERING THE FY98 AND FY99 BUDGET ORDERS
A. AH Programs To Which RSD Objects On Mandate Grounds Are Proper Under The Circumstances In This Case.
RSD's principal FY99 objection is that 30 programs contravene the PWC 1997 mandate.9 (F¶32n.5; Attachment I, infra.) RSD frames this as a CRO modification required
by the Mandate. (RSD Docketing Statement 11/12/98 at 6-8.)
9 Appellate jurisdiction to consider the Mandate objection exists under 28 U.S.C. § l292(a)(l). See PDS 15-16, 20-22. However, of 30 programs, RSD objected to only one (#7160, Office of Evaluation) in the district court in the FY98 budget proceedings. See Objections (D2756, pp. 19-20). Those proceedings came four months after PWC 1997. so RSD had every opportunity to raise its Mandate objection. Since RSD raised it as to only one (#7160), RSD waived the objection as to all other programs. See Garlington v. O'Learv. 879 F.2d 277, 282 (7th Cir. 1989).
In its stricken FY98 Budget brief, RSD challenged approximately 41 programs. However, RB 27-35 makes no reference to 17 of those FY98 programs (listed at PDS n.5). As to those 17, Plaintiffs had argued lack ofjurisdiction. MD Mem. 98-1231 at 12-35. Now that RSD has dropped those issues, this Court need not pass on that contention.
39

RSD primarily argues two points: (1) this Court's mandate means that all "remedial programs... created to achieve certain outcomes... [must] be modified" (RB15); and (2) the mandate includes a prohibition on "social engineering," and any programs relating to "community involvement and support" and "climate" are social engineering and must be eliminated (RB17-19, 29-31).
Plaintiffs will show that (1) this Court's reversal of certain outcome requirements doesn't eliminate programs for which attaining that outcome was only one of several
purposes; (2) this Court's mandate does not prohibit educational input remedies which seek, in part, to address educational deficiencies caused by RSD's discrimination; and (3) this Court's "social engineering" language is not a directive for elimination of any specific programs, and in any event, does not prohibit "community involvement and support" and "climate" goals.
1. The Mandate - What It Prohibits A district court's obligation to follow the mandate is part of "law of the case" doctrine.
Donohoe v. Consolidated Operating and Prod. Corp.. 30 F.3d 907, 910 (7th Cir. 1994). An essential requirement is that issues deemed "law" of the case were actually decided. See Roboserve. Inc. v. Kato Kagaku Co.. 121 F.3d 1027, 1031-32 (7th Cir. l997)("Lawof the case is limited insofar as it applies only to issues that were decided.")
What this Court was asked to rule on in PWC 1997. and what it decided, was that the CRO had erred by: (1) prohibiting tracking in class assignments (PWC 1997 535-36); (2)
40

imposing on non-tracked classes "racial quotas" that were "too tight" (537); (3) requiring the achievement test gap between white and minority students to be closed by 50% within 4 years (537-38); and (4) forbidding RSD from referring a higher percentage of minority students than white students for discipline unless "subjective" criteria were purged from the disciplinary code. (Id.)
In addition to these rulings, this Court laid out general admonitions. It emphasized that courts are not to venture into projects of "social engineering". (¯PWC 1997 534.) It stressed also that remedial orders "must be formulated with sensitivity to the separation of powers and the dignity of the states as quasi-sovereigns." (TWC 1997 533.)
Importantly, in PWC 1997. RSD did not ask for elimination of any of the remedial programs it now says violated the mandate. (F¶24.) See Roboserve. 121 F.3d at 1031.
2. The Mandate - What It Does Not Prohibit The issue of achievement requirements on standardized tests came to this Court via
RSD's objection during the CRO hearing to "all guaranteed outcome-based components and standards." (F¶I5.) Expressly limiting its objection to outcome requirements, RSD stated its unequivocal support for input programs, even those whose function is to improve minority student achievement on standardized tests. RSD also concurred with most other Master educational-input proposals, many RSD helped formulate. (Id.)
After RSD objected only to outcome requirements, the CRO adopted many, though not all, of the stipulated educational input remedies. The RSD appealed only nine specific
41

points, concentrating on educational and staff outcome requirements. RSD did not appeal
any educational-input remedies. (F¶I8.)
In holding insufficient the evidence quantifying the achievement gap, this Court said:
There isn't even evidence that the gap in scholastic achievement... is any greater than the gap... in school districts that have not been found to have discriminated against their black and Hispanic students.
**** The idea that the educational deficiencies of minority students in the Rockford public schools are due primarily to discrimination by the school authorities and can be rectified by an equitable decree is at once unsubstantiated by responsible evidence and - since there is no evidence that these deficiencies are any greater than in school districts around the country that have not been held to have discriminated against minority students — implausible.
PWC 1997 537-38.
In context, then, this Court's reference in to "educational deficiencies" refers to the
achievement gap on standardized test scores, precisely because that was the issue facing the
Court for decision. (PWC 1997 537-38.) On the other hand, educational deficiencies, as
used by the Court, does not — because the issues were never the subject of the 1997 appeal
— refer to educational injuries by way of diminished educational opportunities, inequities in
educational quality, and racial stigma and isolation, all of which are attributable to RSD's
adjudicated racial discrimination. See, e ^ 851 F.Supp. at 914-15, 958-59, 999, 1005
(RSD's discrimination in tracking caused stigmatization, diminished and "unequal"
educational opportunities and inputs for minority students, and provision of inferior
educational services); Id at 1000-01 (fewer educational opportunities is effect of RSD's
discrimination in counseling).
42

Further, there is nothing in this Court's decision suggesting that this Court rejected precedent recognizing that racial segregation breeds myriad educational consequences for minority students. See Milliken v. Bradley. 433 U.S. 267, 287-88 (1977) (pointing out that "pupil assignment alone does not automatically remedy the impact of previous, unlawful educational isolation; the consequences linger and can be dealt with only by independent measures."). See also. Freeman. 503 U.S. at 492 (court noted that "quality of education" may be a proper remedial focus).
Indeed, this Court's PWC 1997 discussion strongly suggests approval of educational input remedies. This Court (1) remanded the issue of ECE (an input program of great success and efficiency) back to the district court for reconsideration (PWC 1997 539), and (2) by implication, supported input remedies for RSD's discrimination when it held "compensatory education (that is, remedial) programs" should not be subject to racial composition requirements. (PWC 1997 538.)
Finally, to the extent that compensatory/remedial programs facilitate student integration by assuring "minority parents that some level of compensatory programs are available to their children when they opt to attend [traditionally white] schools" (D2992, p. 12), PWC 1997 did not invalidate these input programs.
All of these reasons expose the over-reaching of RSD's suggestion that the district court "erred in holding programs designed to... address educational deficiencies could be part of the remedial decree." (RB16-17).
43

3. This Court's Mandate Does Not Require Elimination OfThe Programs To Which RSD Objects Plaintiffs fully recognize that this Court's striking down outcome requirements with
respect to standardized test scores and subjective discipline referrals demands elimination of any program whose sole purpose is attainment of those now invalid requirements. This is the plain meaning of applying an appellate mandate. What RSD seeks to do, however, is to go further and secure elimination of programs whose purpose or design include other legitimate, remedial aims not affected by this Court's decision.
The Supreme Court has made clear that the demise of one remedial justification for a program does not necessarily signal the program's elimination. Freeman. 503 U.S. at 491. The Court reasoned there may be other legitimate remedial goals to be achieved by those programs. Id
Importantly, RSD itself recognizes that these programs are properly founded on the liability findings and remedial orders in this case. RSD's alternative budget proposes retention of all educational input programs. (F¶32-35.)
For these reasons, and those itemized below, every program RSD challenges as violating this Court's mandate is warranted and appropriate; each one furthers other legitimate remedial goals not even remotely the subject of this Court's mandate.
44

a. Reading Recovery (#7340), Success For All (#7330), and Higher Order Thinking Skills (#7381) (RB17)
These programs "are tailored to the constitutional violations and vestiges found in the use of ability groups and tracking." (PA19.) As compensatory programs for RSD's adjudicated tracking violations, "which had a tremendous detrimental impact on educational opportunities for minorities," they are warranted regardless of the fact they also have the salutary effect of increasing minority achievement. (PA24-25.) See also D2992. pp. 12-13 (building-level integration and within-school integration goals are also furthered).
b. Curriculum Implementors, Student Support Specialists, Human Relations Specialists, Parent Liaisons (## 7220, 7230, 7330, 7350, 7411, 7412, 7415, 7520, 7537) (RB29,3l)
These programs facilitate successful intra-district controlled choice student assignment by improving the performance of schools toward the goal of "attract[ing] majority students" to traditionally minority schools. (D2753, pp.5-6). See also, D2992 p. 14 (positions help "better integrate [minority] students into the school setting" at traditionally white schools).
Further, these programs are "essential to the success of any desegregation plan" for the added reason that they are "crucial in gaining district-wide support for the CRO." (CRO 19-20, PA20-21) The task of gaining support for desegregation is not, as RSD argues, "social engineering." Likewise, the goal of improving "school climate" toward the end of encouraging intra-district transfers and facilitating integration of diverse student bodies is not "social engineering". See subpart 4, below.
45

To the extent RSD argues that staff in these positions have engaged in helping minority parents secure electricity or medical care, Plaintiffs agree those functions are not within the scope of the remedy. But this is a false issue, since the CRO itself expressly refused to authorize such activities. (F¶42.) If one of these persons may have in practice provided such services, that is RSD's unilateral activity, not a CRO-authorized or CROfunded activity.
Finally, to the extent these positions help provide alternatives to discipline, they are not contrary to the mandate. See subpart e, below.
c. High School Attendance Specialists (#7651-52) (RB3O,49) These programs are devoted, at least in part, to compensating victims of RSD's discriminatory tracking (D2753) by "improv[ing] attendance of minority students at school and in classes" (D2753 p.8), in order to effectuate the goal of "improved learning." (A102.) This Court did not disapprove compensatory programs for the victims of discriminatory tracking. PWC 1997 535-36.
d. Saturday Program (#7561) (RB48-49) While one purpose of the Saturday Academy was originally to help close the achievement gap, its other purposes include (1) educational compensation (i.e., in the form of extra class time) for discriminatory tracking, and (2) facilitating the successful integration of minority students (program directly linked to overcoming "racial isolation of students,
46

[and] the stigmatization of minority students as inferior"). (CRO 18, PA19.) See also. D2992 p. 18 (facilitates within-school integration and is alternative for suspension).
e. Discipline: (1) group of programs under Master's Narrative Part XHI: ##7510, 7520, 7531, 7533, 7537, 7590, 7595 and (2) group of programs under Master's Narrative Part XV: ##762l, 7623,7631, 7633, 7635, 7651, 7664, 7690, 7695 and (3) #7935 (RB28-29.)
This Court did not strike down those aspects of the CRO relating to equity in discipline procedure and administration, or relating to eradication of other lingering vestiges of RSD's discrimination in discipline. Indeed, this Court appeared to accept the continued legitimacy of addressing racial unfairness in administration of discipline. See PWC 1997 538 ("[A]nd [quotas] incidentally are inconsistent with another provision of the decree, which requires that discipline be administered without regard to race or ethnicity."). These programs are not contrary to the mandate, therefore, to the extent they facilitate racially equitable administration of discipline, help eradicate lingering effects of past discrimination in discipline, and/or facilitate other goals unrelated to discipline. Specifically:
1) #7531 is targeted in part (as is #7631) for the express purpose of providing "alternatives to suspension." (D2753 pp.7-8). RSD does not explain how this goal is an impermissible "quota" or otherwise in violation of this Court's ruling on subjective discipline criteria. 2) Program #7935 is for "staff development activities in the area of'piloted' uniform code of student conduct and development of alternative discipline, climate changes and diversity training." (D2753 p. 11.) At the heart of this program is
47

training of teachers in administration of a "uniform," nondiscriminatory code of conduct in an integrated ("diverse") student body. 3) Concerning ten programs to which RSD objects generally10, the Master recites undisputedly permissible remedial goals unaffected by PWC 1997. such as "within school integration [and] curricula and instructional reforms." (D2753 p.8) See also D2992 p. 15 ("Students who were victims of the [discriminatory tracking] system continued to be students in the secondary school. [These] personnel and programs... are intended to assist these students to overcome prior discriminatory actions of the RSD and to permit them to experience the full benefits of a desegregated secondary education.")
f. Office of Evaluation - Consultants (#7160 and 7130) (RB33) The job (in part) of these consultants is "to provide objective evaluation of components of the CRO so that data are available... to evaluate the implementation and outcomes of education improvement and equity provisions required by the CRO." (D2753 p.3) RSD contends these consultants' accumulation and reporting of performance data for evaluative purposes is "impermissible" under PWC 1997. (RB33 citing RSD's Objections p. 19.) This contention is nonsensical. PWC 1997 didn't address the question whether outcome information — as opposed to outcome requirements — is permissible. Indeed, RSD
10 The "ten programs" RSD refers to generally but not by line-item number (RB 28,29) are 7621, 7623, 7631, 7633, 7635, 7651, 7664, 7690, 7695 and 7663.
48

concedes that it wants CRO funds to be used "to acquire a student management system which would allow the district to analyze some achievement issues..." (RB5l). See also D2992 p.6 quoting CRO 37 (information is "critical in making the CRO... efficient and cost effective").
4. This Court's Social Engineering Language Does Not Require Elimination Of Programs To Which RSD Objects RSD contends this Court's social engineering statement requires elimination of
programs that seek to affect "climate" and "community involvement" in the school setting. (RB16.)11 This Court's statement was:
[T]he remedy must be tailored to the violation, rather than the violation's being a pretext for the remedy. Violations of law must be dealt with firmly, but not used to launch the federal courts on ambitious schemes of social engineering. Çf. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, supra. 402 U.S. at 22.... PWC 1997 534. Accordingly, social engineering programs are those which are not tailored to any adjudicated violation. In addition, this Court's citation to Swann further distinguishes social engineering programs as those which seek to advance purposes "lying beyond the jurisdiction of school authorities." Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed.. 402 U.S. 1, 22 (1971). The programs to which RSD objects have neither of these characteristics:
11 RSD also objects to securing "electricity" and other public or social services for minority parents. This is a non-issue. See F¶42.
49

Educational or school climate in general relates to attitudes and beliefs of educators and administrators which affect behavior and results. D.775 p. 14 (quoting RSD's Superintendent); 2/16/96 Parish CRO T10-11. School climate is an accepted and important subject among educators and administrators, even RSD's. See, e.g.. D775 p. 14; 2/6/96 Parish CRO T10-11. Climate is, therefore, "within [their] jurisdiction." Further, school climate as it relates to discrimination is tied to the liability findings in this case. Throughout its liability decision the district court found that RSD's administrators and educators held discriminatory beliefs and attitudes, and thereby engaged in practices which were discriminatory. 851 F. Supp. 905, et seg. Those discriminatory beliefs and practices persist (see, e ^ , Willis CRO T4514), along with staff resistance to the desegregation remedies. See exhibits cited in D2O96, pp.32-38.
Likewise, community and parent involvement and support for the desegregation remedies is not "social engineering", but a proper remedial subject. Community involvement in and support for the schooling process is not only highly important to educators and administrators outside the desegregation context (see, e.g.. RSD's pre-suit ECE program, containing significant parent involvement component (Plaintiffs' Liability Ex. 3, p.6) and Illinois educational policy of parent involvement in early years (105 ILCS 5/2-3.71)), it is especially important to the successful implementation of desegregation remedies. (CRO 26, noting RSD's substantial concurrence in that proposition.) The goal of community involvement and support is, therefore, tied to the liability findings to the extent it facilitates all of the remedies (CRO 28).
50

Finally, it is important to note that the current CRO goal of community education, involvement and support is narrower than, and reflects the Magistrate's rejection of, the Master's original, broader proposal that "RSD provide community grants and linkages with the business community, college, social services agencies, [etc.]." Id,
B. This Court Should Dismiss RSD's Non-Mandate Objections, Or Affirm Without Reaching The Merits Of The Objections.
RSD's "non-mandate" objections, boil down to the "detailed differences within agreed programs," for FY99, which represent a net $l.2-million difference. (F¶36.) These nonmandate objections supersede the FY98 ones, because FY98 is over, because RSD greatly narrowed its objections in FY99, because the budget order now in effect is the FY99 order. For these reasons, RSD's non-mandate objections to the FY98 Budget order are moot. (See PDS 22-24.)
As a threshold matter, this Court does not have jurisdiction to even review the FY99 non-mandate objections. (See PDS §III.)
Even ifjurisdiction to review the non-mandate objection is found, issue preclusion principles and the standards governing modification ofjudicial decrees teach that this Court should not consider the non-mandate objections on the merits. This is because the 22 FY99 programs objected to on non-mandate grounds were part ofthe FY97 Budget Order reviewed in PWC 1997. RSD did not, however, challenge any of the 22 programs on that appeal, and none were reversed. (F¶¶24-25.)
51

Accordingly, PWC 1997 represented a final adjudication, not only of the CRO, but

of the specific implementing remedial programs, delineated in FY97 and continued in FY98

andFY99. (F¶¶2l, 27, 31.)

The usual vehicle for challenging a final injunction is a Rule 6O(b)(5) motion to

modify the prior judgment based on a substantial change of law or fact. See §1.A, supra;

Agostini v. Felton. 117 S.Ct. 1997, 2006-7 (1997). However, RSD did not present below,

in anyform, much less a Rule 60 motion, any changes in fact or law (in support of its non-

mandate objections) that even RSD characterized as significant ones warranting CRO

modification. (See D3015; D3O28 p.2) (summarizingprior objections as based on contention

that positions "are not in the best interests of RSD or its students"; no specific reference to

significant changes in fact or law); (D3O98, passim; D3O99, passim.)

To the contrary, RSD expressly recognized that the only CRO-modification issues it

had raised were its mandate objection and its #7120 Motion to Modify (D2454) and that its

remaining non-mandate objections were "fine tuning," not requests to modify the CRO:

The Court:

"There are three alternatives here: Either the Seventh Circuit threw out the program in its mandate. Either the District or the Plaintiff comes forward as you have done in other areas and files a motion to modify the CRO, which sets up a separate process and hearing, or in fact... fine tuning is done in the budgetary process.

Mr. Lester: We have approached the fine tuning to the budgetary process in the first section of our brief. We have filed the motion to modify the CRO back in March as it relates to the ASEE." (D3O34, T24-25.)

Furthermore, RSD acknowledged that these non-mandate objections were "not significant."

(F¶37.) 52

This Court should not be obliged to rummage through the district court record, searching out objections for RSD based on significant changes in fact or law, when RSD itself did not (and does not even in this Court) press such objections. See Favia v. Indiana Univ. of Pa. 7 F.3d 332 (3rd Cir. 1993) at 337-38 & n.8 (motion or other paper seeking modification must itself "assert[ ] the change of circumstances that is necessary to our appellate jurisdiction"). See also Cohen v. Bucci. 905 F.2d 1111, 1112 (7th Cir. 1990).
Accordingly, this Court should reject RSD's non-mandate objections, without reaching their merits, as attempts to re-litigate questions about the approved remedial programs that the CRO and the FY97 Budget Order had previously, and finally, resolved. See Avitia. 924 F.2d at 690-92, Cohen. 905 F.2d at 1112-13.
If this Court were to review the merits of RSD's non-mandate objections, it would conclude the court did not abuse its discretion denying them. For example:
a. Despite the salad bowl of numbers tossed around in RSD's brief, the nonmandate objections involve nothing but 6% internal-detail differences within agreed remedial programs. (F¶36.)
b. There were strong reasons for choosing the Master's expenditure detail over RSD's "alternative budget." These included that RSD's budget was incomplete (lacking any narrative presentation) and inconsistent, and that RSD proposed cutting costs by violating the" supplement-not-supplant" prohibitions of ESEA Title I. (F¶4l).
53

c. There is no reason for this Court to be reviewing whether to reduce, e.g., one Evaluation Office research analyst; one Ellis Academy student support specialist; four Reading Recovery teachers (while many others are retained); and 12.5 paraprofessionals in #7400 (while numerous others are retained). (D3015, pp. 6-9.)
d. RSD has the burden of proof to establish its objections, and did not carry it. Finally, it is important to relate RSD's appeal concerning non-mandate objections to this Court's concerns about the avalanche of appeals in this case, and about how many more there will be in the future. (PWÇ_I998.) If every "fine-tuning" budget objection is appealable and must be reviewed on its merits, this Court will have committed itself to the annual review of innumerable detailed disputes. Disputes of minor magnitude are properly and best committed to the sound discretion of the district court. The legitimate interests of this Court ~ both in providing review of the remedial process, and also in managing its docket and preventing inappropriate appeals — are best served if this Court refrains from micro-review of the remedy at that level.
C. The FY98 And FY99 Hearing Procedures Were Fair, And In Any Event RSD Agreed To Or Waived Procedural Objections It Now Raises.
For seven pages, and indeed throughout its brief, RSD rants about asserted procedural unfairness of the FY98 and FY99 budget hearing procedures. (RB20-27).
54

Despite the rhetoric, in the end RSD only contends that it was entitled to the following procedures: (1) that the district court "hold hearings", including "swearing witnesses, identifying and filing all exhibits, and making findings"; and (2) that the master "cease, or at a minimum, disclose the source of his information before the hearing, including ex parte information from plaintiffs." With such disclosure, RSD states, it "can then effectively cross-examine the master and call the source as a witness." (RB27.)
1. For FY99 RSD Got What It Now Says It Wants For FY99, RSD was afforded exactly those procedures. The court held a full
evidentiary hearing, on three dates over six weeks, aggregating 325 transcript pages. Witnesses testified and were cross-examined (the Master three times), exhibits identified and filed, and transcripts prepared. (F¶¶45-50.) The court's 19-page order adopted detailed findings. (A167-186.)
As staunchly as RSD now argues that it was denied due process, it did not raise any "fair hearing" objections in the district court budget hearings, thus waiving them. Stern v. United States Gvpsum. Inc.. 547 F.2d 1329, 1333 (7th Cir.), cert, denied. 434 U.S. 975 (1977). RSD first voices disclosure complaints here about materials it knew about but never asked to see. (RB27.) RSD does not cite a single instance where the court below denied it access to any information requested.
Long before his testimony, the Master disclosed his information sources in writing — essentially each District's executive with program/expenditure responsibility. (F¶59.) He
55

also reported that for each proposed expenditure, a written expenditure plan had been developed by responsible RSD personnel and the Master. (F¶6O.) RSD made no request, at any time during the six-week span of three cross-examinations of the Master, for more specific identification of his sources, or for a copy of the expenditure plans. Even when Plaintiffs invited RSD in open court to make the expenditure plans an exhibit, RSD declined.12 (F¶6O(b).)
The Master's testimony volunteered he had one budget discussion with Plaintiffs' counsel several months earlier "in which [Plaintiffs' counsel] were arguing for certain programs which I didn't adopt." On cross-examination RSD counsel asked one question about the content of that meeting and pursued it no further. (D3O98, T74, 106.)
Although all these disclosures were made in writing beforehand and in hearing testimony, RSD's brief contrives to depict these as the Master's "unidentified sources" and "unidentified documents" to which it was "denied access." (RB24,27.) Not even an ostrich could equal such acquired ignorance.
RSD further waived its newfound objections to "hearsay" testimony (RB13, 27) and "ex parte" investigations (RB23). RSD raised no hearsay objection to any testimony or materials during the budget hearings, nor could it have since the statements were by RSD officials and only offered to show bases for Master opinions (see Fed. Rules Evid. Rules
12 In the midst of discussing 6/16/98 access to the expenditure plans, RB23-24 throws in a reference to the Court giving RSD five minutes to examine "the documents." However, that concerned different documents on a different hearing date one month earlier, when RSD received more time than it requested to examine two letters the Master referred to. (F¶6l.)
56

8Ol(d)(2) and 801(c)). Finally, RSD never complained during the budget proceedings that the Master's communications with RSD and Plaintiffs were improper or unfairly prejudiced the hearings. (E.g., D3O34, T3-4, D3O98, T78.) Maurice. 21 F.3d at 771.
2. The FY99 Hearing Moots FY98 Fair Hearing Issues, Which Are Meritless And Waived Anyway FY98 procedural issues are moot at this point, because after a full FY99 hearing the
district court approved the same programs it had approved for FY98. In any event, there were no procedural irregularities. For FY98 the Master disclosed
his sources in writing six weeks before the hearing, and at the all-day hearing the court offered both parties "the opportunity to make any record you think is necessary." (F¶¶42-43; D28O5, T94:IO, A109.)
In addition, RSD waived anyrightto an evidentiary hearing for FY98 because it made no such request before or during the 9/9/97 hearing.13 Only thereafter did RSD raise the hearing issue, and then only in alternative form — that the court not enter any further written findings, or alternatively hold a testimonial hearing. The court granted RSD's first alternative in the 1/27/98 Order. (F¶44; A7-ll.)
13 RSD falsely asserts it objected at the hearing "to the procedure for resolving the dispute over the budget..." (A135, TI2O.)(RBIO, 15.) Even a quick transcript review shows RSD's counsel was not making a general objection to informality of the entire proceedings, but was addressing only the substantive sufficiency of the evidence on the line-item under consideration, not any procedural issue. (A135, T120.)
57

Under this Court's decision in Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing Authority. 436 F.2d 306, 311 (7th Cir. 1970), a party participating in informal procedures without objection cannot complain on appeal it was denied due process by the informality.
3. The Master's Communication And Reporting Procedures Are Proper Under Unappealed Final Orders, RSD's Stipulations And Rule 53 Precedent. RSD's central theme — that the Master's informal communications and reporting
procedures rendered the budget proceedings "inadequate" (RB23) and a "violation of due process" (RB62) - is contrary to the express terms of the 1991 Master Order authorizing such procedures, which RSD did not appeal either in 1991 or when the Order was finalized as part of the CRO in 1996. RSD is able to advance this theme only by mischaracterizing court orders and by ignoring its own agreements and conduct under the orders. (RB4, 57.)
Judge Roszkowski entered the initial Master Order in 1991. (D308.) The Master Order tracked almost verbatim one this Court approved in Williams v. Lane. 851 F.2d at 884. It allows the Master to "conduct... interviews with persons who he believes have information that will assist him in performing his duties, including Defendant's employees, agents and staff... and counsel for the parties, Plaintiffs, parents and the students" (emphasis added). (F¶¶l-4.) RSD omits the italicized language of the Order from its brief to manufacture ambiguity, when there is none. (RB4, 57.)
The Master's informal communication and reporting procedures were reauthorized with RSD's consent in an order entered 5/5/93. (F¶6.) The propriety of informal Master communications with both RSD and Plaintiff representatives was then reaffirmed in the 1996
58

CRO governance hearing, where RSD acknowledged "the Master has the ability to bring in anyone he wants, either individually or in groups, to discuss any issues he wants relative to the order." (F¶7.)
All the previous Master Orders were incorporated in the CRO, a Rule 54 final judgment. (PA49-53.) While RSD certainly recognized its opportunity to appeal, appealing numerous CRO provisions (including some related to the powers of the Master), it "deliberately delayed in seeking authoritative resolution" of the Master communication and reporting provisions. Amcast Industrial Corp. v. Detrex Corp.. 45 F.3d 155, 159 (7th Cir. 1995).
Because RSD failed to appeal, it is precluded from now challenging the communication and reporting procedures expressly authorized by those Orders. (See §1. A, supra, first principle.) Furthermore, RSD is estopped to challenge those procedures by its prior agreements to them — and by its prior and continuing participation in those communication procedures. (See F¶¶6-7, 9, 62 and §I.A, supra, second principle.) RSD does not even claim (or try to prove) a single change in any law or fact, much less a significant one, to support its attempt to re-litigate the Master's procedures. (See §I.A, third principle.)
Moreover, during the CRO hearings, RSD explicitly conceded the Master's authority to cornmunicate separately with the parties, in order to persuade the court that elimination of "PIC," a remedial governance committee in which Plaintiffs' counsel were full participants, would not impair Plaintiffs' access to the remedy-formulation and
59

implementation process. (F¶7.) The court accepted RSD's representations and deleted PIC from the CRO, while continuing the Master's responsibilities under the prior Master orders. (CRO 204-05, PA52-53.) As this Court's decision in Continental Illinois Corp.. 998 F.2d at 518 teaches, RSD may not repudiate its stipulation to private Master-party communications, undermining the basis for its previous district court victory, to obtain a second victory here. (See §I.A., supra.)
RSD's hearing procedure objections are untimely attempts to unravel the CRO and destabilize the remedial process. The Master's communication and reporting methods form a significant underpinning of the court's supervision over the CRO. The ability to conduct private interviews is part of the Master's investigatory function, and is essential to monitoring remedial implementation. Stripping the Master of authority to communicate with the parties (other than in a formal hearing setting) would accomplish RSD's true goal — to defeat the Master's ability to monitor the implementation of court-ordered remedies.
Unfettered access to persons and their information is particularly important since the Master's function arises not only from RSD's consent and judicial efficiency, but from RSD's continuing pattern of noncompliance with remedial orders. (PA49, 65-67.) Williams, 851 F.2d at 884 ("Certainly [the judge] cannot be expected to neglect his busy docket to ensure that recalcitrant defendants no longer violate basic rights of this class.").
Moreover, ex parte communications are an everyday occurrence in federal cases, where Masters (and other agents of the court, e.g., experts and probation officers) perform investigative or monitoring functions. See Thompson v. Enomoto. 815 F.2d 1323,1326 (9th
60

Cir. 1990); Nat'l Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Mullen. 828 F.2d 536, 54445 (9th Cir. 1987); Ruiz v. Estelle. 679 F.2d 1115, 1162, amended in part, vacated in part, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1982), cert, denied. 460 U.S. 1042 (1983); Reed v. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. 607 F.2d 737, 741 (6th Cir. 1979). See also 9 Moores Federal Practice 3D §53.l4[3][a](ex parte communications between masters and parties generally considered appropriate).14
Certainly the district court did not "abdicate his role" when, as RSD admits, the Master did not hold any hearings or make findings subject only to "clearly erroneous" review. (RB23, 61) The Master first investigated, then presented his opinions in an evidentiary hearing where RSD had a full opportunity to cross examine him and object to his recommendations. The district court, not the Master, made findings.
Because RSD got in FY99 precisely the hearing procedures that it now requests, RSD clearly fails to meet this Court's requirement that any purported Master procedural "irregularity" must have prejudiced the outcome of the hearing in question. PWC 1997 541.
D. The District Court Properly Allocated Capital Expenses And FY98 Carryovers
RSD manufactures disputes about allocation of capital expenses and FY98 unspent funds ("carryovers").
14 "Masters... have not been held to the same strict standards of impartiality... applied to judges." Morgan v. Kerrigan. 530 F.2d 401, 426 (1st Cir.), çert denied. 426 U.S. 935 (1976).
61

RB36 says undisputed capital costs ($1,972,906) should go to the Construction Fund, not Fund 12. The court granted 84% of that request, so RSD has no complaint. (PA 199, F¶5l.)
RB36 opposes air conditioning Haskell Year-Round Magnet, as not budgeted FY98 and not justified by liability findings. In reality, magnet development funds were approved FY98. RSD approved a 12-month magnet; the Master and Superintendent agreed air conditioning is essential. Furthermore, air conditioning only white schools was one facilities discrimination violation. (F¶52.)
Finally, RB37 seeks all unexpended remedial funds-including the Construction Fund held for incomplete capital projects ~ as an FY99 revenue credit. (The unstated point: that would lower the FY99 tax levy.) However, RSD's trial counsel stipulated "any carryovers from other than FY98 will not be at issue" at the 9/17/98 revenue hearing. (PA144.) RSD's post-hearing submission reiterated that. (D3133, pp. 1-5.)
RB37 imprudently suggests determination of carryover revenue credits should ignore operation of Illinois' tax cap statute. Excessive credit one year would limit ability to fund future years within state law. (A 199.) The court was doing exactly what this Court directed — making sure Missouri v. Jenkins, 495 U.S. 33 (1990) authority is only a last resort. PWC 1997. 539-40.
62

E. The District Court Gave Appropriate Consideration To The Financial Condition Of The RSD
RSD complains vaguely the court "failed to give sufficient weight to RSD's financial limits," and to consider actions "which would cut costs while implementing the CRO." (RB52-54.)
The reality is completely the opposite. The CRO projected annual costs increasing from $25 million in FY97 to $27.4 million in FY99, and higher in future years, generated by a flat $1.66 tax rate. RSD did not appeal in PWC 1997 either the estimated cost or the tax rate. (F¶33-34.)
In actuality, the annual cost has declined each year, and for FY99 is $21.9 million, $5.4 million less than projected. (Id) That decline dwarfs the $l.2-million difference RSD is seeking to appeal for FY99.
Even more important — since RSD is overwhehningly focused on local real estate tax rates — the CRO tax rate has plummeted from the $1.66 projected in the CRO to only $1.01 for FY99. (F¶34.) That results from the court reducing CRO expenditures, and allowing RSD to use unspent carryover dollars as revenue, and from property values increasing.
Another measure demonstrating the court's financial prudence is that annual CRO expenditure now comprises only 10% of RSD's total operating expense. That also is substantially less than the 15% projected in the CRO. (F¶35.)
63

RSD likes to play the game of adding up all remedial costs since the beginning of this case, which exceed $150 million. (RB53.) Butthat still constitutes only 10% of RSD's $1.5billion aggregate expenditure over those years. (F¶36.)
i n . THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN ENTERING THE EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION ORDER
RSD appeals an ECE remedy much narrower than it has repeatedly agreed to, and contrives to appeal an order that resolved current issues in the manner proposed by RSD.
A. The ECE Order Respected The Local Control Objective
The ECE order is a model ofjudicial restraint. Having found that ECE is properly within the scope of the remedy, the court incorporated ECE as part of the CRO. The only substantive change required by the order was one RSD had already proposed: expanding the program by 80 students. Indeed, RSD pursued and obtained on its own initiative state funding for an even larger expansion of the program -– to 120 additional students. (F¶¶7O, 72.)15
15 The ECE order notes that the "ECE program is funded by the State of Illinois." It provided "up to $200,000" from the FY98 contingency fund as a backup source if state funding were not received for the 80-student increase. (A147-48.)
State funding for 120 students was received in August 1998, and RSD staff then informed the Board that this "eliminates the need to access tort funds to serve an additional 80 children as allowed by the Court." (D3173, PA152-153.) RSD's statement in its brief (RB54) that the ECE order mandates "tort funding, not state funding" is therefore plainly wrong in terms of the Order's directive and as a matter of fact.
64

Having made the expanded ECE part of the CRO, the court went no further in assuming control of it. "The court will not disturb the current ECE program. The State of Illinois and the RSD have a good ECE program in place." (A 147). The court also held that "ECE will remain under the control of the RSD in its current administrative structure." (A147).
The court, by its ECE order, dealt deftly with the dual (and sometimes conflicting) remedial goals of providing an effective remedy for victims of discrimination and striving for greatest amount of local control.
B. The £ C £ Remedy Is Within The Scope Of Permissible Remedies And Is Narrowly Tailored
ECE is fully within the scope of permissible remedies. First, ECE as a compensatory program serves the remedial function of ameliorating the effects of RSD's discrimination in educational opportunity and quality (see §II.A.2, supra). It also "enhances the chances of success" for minority students "in other remedial programs established by the CRO." (A146). Likewise, it represents an efficient use of taxpayer money, for it reduces the need in later years for compensatory and remedial programs in the higher grades. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District 716 F.Supp. 1162 (E.D. Ark. 1989), rev'd on other grounds. 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990).
65

Second, ECE's undisputed success in preparing students for school (RB54), facilitates successful and meaningful integration of students between schools and within classrooms. As the district court recognized, "The more real academic choices the minority students have, the easier to implement controlled choice. The higher the academic performance by the minority students, the easier to implement the within-school desegregation guidelines." (A146-147.)
Third, RSD does not dispute that ECE facilitates controlled choice student assignment and within-school integration. RSD's contention is that the standard of "facilitat[ing] the implementation of the student assignment plan" is akin to the standard, struck down in Jenkins in. of "desegregative attractiveness." (RB55.) RSD's contention is without merit since the Supreme Court has approved a facilitation standard: remedial authority in one school operational area may be based upon the need to "achieve compliance in other facets of the school system". Freeman. 503 U.S. at 497.
RSD also contends that the ECE order required expansion by 80 students "regardless of eligibility" (RB10), and without "evidence as to [their] racial makeup" (RB55). Both contentions are wrong.
First, RSD in 1995 proposed serving all 3 and 4 year-old children in the C.8 attendance areas, coverage well beyond what the district court ordered for FY99. (F¶63.)
Secondly, the ECE order expressly refers to "80 youngsters... who have qualified..." (A147) (emphasis added). It also considers the racial makeup of unserved students who will benefit remedially from ECE expansion and notes the high percentage of minority children
66

considered to be "at risk" (the eligibility criterion for state funding) (A146-47). Further, in ordering expansion by 80 students, the order notes that "there are many more minority students who could be recruited... for next year." (emphasis added).
IV. RSD's PROCEDURAL MASTER APPEALS ARE WITHOUT MERIT
A. RSD Is Barred From Re-Litigating The Master's Procedural Methods Conclusively Established In The CRO
RSD seeks to re-litigate Master procedural issues long determined both by final orders and consent: propriety of separate Master-party communications and his assistance of counsel. (RB56-57.) RSD does not challenge the Master's substantive authority or any specific exercise of that authority.
RSD uses these stale issues to launch a groundless, disrespectful assault on the integrity of the Master and court. Its inflammatory rhetoric is calculated to suggest taint and new irregularities. However, RSD has participated and consented in informal Master-party communications for eightyears, and stipulated when itfirstraised the" communication" issue that "the case law clearly allows for [discussions] between the Master and the Magistrate." (See §II.C.3 and PA155-56.)
RSD resurrected the communication issue through a motion to bar "ex parte" MasterPlaintiff communications. (D2682.) RSD's 5/30/97 motion (divorced from any substantive hearing) is disrespectful to this Court, given its admonition just a month earlier that such
67

Master procedural orders are not appealable. (PWC 1997 540-1.) The district court appropriately declined, recognizing the conclusive nature of prior orders and RSD's waivers. (A159.)
As shown in MD 98-1056, this Court should dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. In addition to these reasons, this Court should dismiss, or affirm without reaching the merits, for all the reasons stated in §§I.A and II.C.3, supra.
Were the merits reached, informal Master-party communications are appropriate. §II.C.3, supra.
B. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Allowing The Master Continued Assistance Of Counsel
There is no jurisdiction over this issue. (See MD 98-1056.) RSD consented to the 9/26/95 Order appointing the Master's counsel. RSD thereby waived arguments against such assistance. Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp.. 486 U.S. 800, 817(1988). On the merits, Master counsel is appropriate for the reasons stated in the order appealed (A159-60), and the later 7/15/98 order (not appealed). (F¶l2(b).) The federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have authorized legal assistants for masters and allowed reimbursement of legal expenditures. Kansas v. Colorado. 484 U.S. 910 (1987); Texas v. New Mexico. 475 U.S. 1004 (1986); Jackson v. Nassau County Bd.. 157 F.R.D. 612, 615
68

(E.D.N.Y. 1994); Morales Feliciano v. Romero Barcelo. 672 F.Supp. 591, 624 (D. Puerto Rico 1986).
Furthermore, heeding this Court's comments in PWC 1997. since then neither the Master's counsel nor the Master have engaged in litigant-type activities. The role of the Master's counsel's role has sharply diminished, to providing almost exclusively out-of-court consultation on legal issues. (F¶12(c).)
C. RSD's Appeal From The Interim Fee Order Should Be Dismissed
As shown in MD 98-1065, there is no jurisdiction. On the merits, Plaintiffs withhold comment. Plaintiffs are not the real parties to a dispute over the reasonableness of fees RSD owes to the Master's attorney.
V. CIRCUIT RULE 36 REASSIGNMENT OF THIS CASE ON REMAND IS WHOLLY UNWARRANTED
In the end, the reason emerges for RSD's ad hominem rhetoric and creation of spurious issues. RSD concludes with a one-sentence request that this case be reassigned under Circuit Rule 36. It makes no supporting argument.
Rule 36 reassignment is wholly unwarranted. First, because this case is beyond the stage of remand for new trial, this appeal is not subject to Rule 36 "by its terms." (Circuit Rule 36.) This Court may nonetheless, in its discretion, direct a Rule 36 remand. (¡4, second sentence.) The decisions of this Court, however, teach that to win reassignment
69

under the Rule's second sentence, the party requesting reassignment must make some showing there is justification for it, and a showing only that the district court erred will not carry the day. See e.g.. Kovilic Construction Co. v. Missbrenner. 106 F.3d 768, 774 (7th Cir. 1997).
In this consent referral case, moreover, this Court is obliged to require that there be at least "good cause," if not even "extraordinary circumstances," justifying any Rule 36 reassignment. That is because RSD's request under Rule 36 is, in effect, a request to vacate the order of reference, to which it consented under 28 U.S.C. §636(c)(4). Both requests seek precisely the same result, a new judge. But §636(c)(4) establishes a much higher standard: consent references to magistrate judges may not be vacated except upon "good cause shown on... [the court's] own motion, or under extraordinary circumstances shown by any party." RSD makes no attempt to demonstrate "good cause," much less "extraordinary circumstances." Reassignment under Rule 36 without such a showing would permit RSD to make an end-run around the Judicial Code standard of §636(c)(4). Only holding RSD to the §636(c)(4) standard for purposes of adjudging its Rule 36 request will square the Rule with the Judicial Code, as F.R.A.P. Rule 47(a)(l) specifically requires.
Even if the Rule 36 standard were a relaxed one, RSD's unadorned reassignment request does not meet it. Indeed, the only "showing" RSD makes is that it is unhappy with rulings that ~ on virtually all issues ~ merely uphold RSD's own prior stipulations and waivers, or previous final adjudications. In many instances, RSD is even objecting to orders
70

granting its requests or proposals. In many others, RSD is objecting for the first time on appeal to points not even raised below.
A party's dissatisfaction with a Magistrate Judge's rulings is not justification for reassignment. See Carter v. Sea Land Services. 816 F.2d 1018, 1020-21 (5th Cir. 1987) ("[a]ny rule that would allow the party... to strike the reference should the magistrate issue a ruling not quite to the party"s liking... would [require the court] to countenance... [a] fast and loose toying with the judicial system").
This case should stay where it is — with the experienced, knowledgeable and able Magistrate Judge (sitting by consent of RSD) who tried the case and has presided over the entire remedial phase of the litigation since 1993. See Kindred v. Duckworth. 9 F.3d 638, 641 (7th Cir. 1993) ("we are mindful of the special deference owed to trial judges who have had years of experience with a particular matter").
CONCLUSION
This Court should dismiss Nos. 98-1056 & 98-1105 for want of appellate jurisdiction. Similarly, it should dismiss, for want of appellate jurisdiction, RSD's appeals in Nos.981231, 98-1449, 98-3340 & 98-3858 insofar as they raise (a) "non-mandate objections" to remedial programs approved in the FY98 and FY99 Budget Orders; and (b) procedural objections to the FY98 Budget proceedings.
71

To the extent that this Court exercises jurisdiction over these consolidated appeals,
the Court should affirm the FY98 and FY99 Budget Orders, the ECE Order, and the Master
Orders.
Respectfully submitted,
\)ne of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees
DATED: December 16, 1998
Robert C. Howard Kathleen Mangold-Spoto Joan Matlack Craig B. Futterman FUTTERMAN & HOWARD, CHTD. 122 S. Michigan Ave. Suite 1850 Chicago, IL 60603 (312)427-3600
Robert E. Lehrer LEHRER&REDLEAF 205 W. Monroe St. Chicago, IL 60606 (312)332-2121

[dp c:\wpdocs\rel\98consl.app]

72

Attachment I
RSD's Appeal From The Budget Orders Approving Remedial Programs: Plaintiffs' Responses
Introductory Note
Plaintiffs have identified the programs RSD appeals by examining RSD's consolidated brief at 15-19, 27-35, 41-52 (denominating programs objected to by program numbers or descriptive or record reference). Plaintiffs divide the appealed programs into two categories.
Cat. 1: FY98 and FY99 programs as to which RSD raises, on appeal, a Mandate objection based on this Court's decision in PWC 1997. (RB15-19, 29-31, 41-52.) Responses are as follows.
a. Appellate jurisdiction to consider this objection exists under 28 U.S.C. §l292(a)(l)· See PDS 15-16,20-22. But see n.9. supra (contending that RSD has waived the objection as to all such programs except #7160).
b. On its merits, the Mandate objection is insubstantial as to all programs in this category. While PWC 1997 invalidated certain remedial requirements, the programs RSD challenges are also supported by other legitimate goals not invalidated by this Court's decision. See §II.A, supra.
Cat. 2: FY98 and FY99 Programs as to which RSD raises, on appeal, one or more "nonmandate objections." Responses are as follows.
a. Appellate jurisdiction is wanting to consider any of these objections. See PDS 8-25.
b. Even if there were jurisdiction, under issue preclusion principles and the standard governing modification of injunctive decrees under Fed.R,Civ.P. 6O(b)(5) this Court should not review these objections on their merits. No non-mandate objection RSD raised in the district court can fairly be read as even presenting a significant change in fact or law. See §II.B, supra.
c. On their merits, the non-mandate objections are insubstantial as to all programs in this category, because the record establishes that RSD did not meet its burden of showing, in the district court, that a significant change in fact or law supported these objections. See §II.B, supra.
73

Line Items

7130 Director of Desegregation (consultants)

7137 Student Assignment Services

7138 Public Information

7160 Evaluation Office (consultants)

7199 Master's Counsel

7200 Magnet Schools:

Site-Based Allocations/Staff

7212

Montessori Magnet

7215

Magnet Planning

7220

Curriculum Implementors

7230

Parent Liaisons

7261

All-day Kindergarten

7300 Community Academies: Site-Based Allocation

7330

Success for All

7340

Reading Recovery

7350

Parent Liaisons

7381

Higher Order Thinking Skills

7400 Community Schools (C.9.):

Site-Based Allocations

7411

Human Relations Specialists

7412

Curriculum Implementers

7415

Parent Liaisons

7510 Middle Schools:

Assistant Principals

Cat. 1 1
1
1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1

Cat. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2

74

Line Items

7520

Curriculum Developers

7531

Discipline Alternatives

7533

Tutoring Programs

7537

Parent Liaison

7561

Saturday Academy

7590

Summer School

7595

Transportation Services

7621 High Schools:

Associate Principals

7623

Assistant Principals

7631

Discipline Alternatives

7633

Tutorial Programs

7635

Counselor Training

7651

Attendance Specialists

7652

Parent Liaisons

7664

9th Grade Transition Program

7690

Summer School

7695

Transportation Services

7800 Family Support Services

7921 Curriculum Inservice

7935 Discipline, Climate, Diversity Inservice

ALL "SUPPLIES" (No specific line items identified by RSD)

Cat. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1

Cat. 2
2
2 2 2
2 2 2 2

[dp c:\wpdocs\rcl\98consl.app]

75

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE PURSUANT TO CIRCUIT RULE 32(d)(3) Robert C. Howard hereby certifies that he is one of the attorneys for the
Plaintiffs-Appellees and that this brief complies with the type volume limitations set by this Court's Order of December 3, 1998. Specifically, according to the word counter of the word processing program used to prepare this brief (WordPerfect 5.1), the brief, excluding those portions that may be excluded from the word count under Circuit Rule 32(d), contains 15,748 words.
One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees
[pc\C:\WF\ROCK\APPEAL4\CERT.COM]

 
 Nos. 96-2410, 96-3022, 96-3226, 96-3244 and 96-3283
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
PEOPLE WHO CARE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants,

ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHOOL DISTRICT #205,
Defendant-Appellants/Cross-Appellees,
and
ROCKFORD EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, ŒA-NEA, ROCKFORD BUILDING MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION, IEA-NEA, and EDUCATIONAL OFFICE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATION, IEA, NEA,
Intervening Defendants-Appellees/Cross Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division
Civil Action No. 89 C 20168
Judge Stanley J. Roszkowski
Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney
U.S.C.A. - 7th Circuit
RECEIVED EM JAN 2 1 1997

TLJ/·~\tl W F. 3TRU6BE

NOTICE OF FILING

CLERK

and

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

TO: See Attached Service List

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 21, 1997,1filedwith the Clerk of Court the attached BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS, including a copy on digital media pursuant to Circuit Rule 3 l(e). I certify that on this date I caused the same to be served by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon counsel of record.

of Plaintiffs' Attorneys

• •

VH

HV

W

•

•

SD-IL-0001-0018

Robert C Howard Ronald L. Futterman Kathleen Mangold-Spoto Joan Matlack
Carol R. Ashley Vincent I Haskell FUTTERMAN & HOWARD, CHTD. 122 S. Michigan Ave. Suite 1850 Chicago, IL 60603 (312)427-3600

James G. Bradtke SOULE & BRADTKE 155 N. Michigan Ave. Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 616-4422

 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

v

APPELLEES' JL¯RJSDICTIONAL STATEMENT

1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1

A. The Liability Phase

1

B. The Remedial Proceedings

2

C. The Comprehensive Remedial Order

2

1. Segment One (Educational Components and Stipulated Areas)

3

2. Segment Two (Student Assignment and Related Issues)

5

3. Segment 3 (Faculty Hiring and Placement, Student Achievement and

Other Issues)

6

D. Motions for Reconsideration and Appeals

8

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

10

A. The Plaintiffs' Appeal

10

B The Appeals By RSD and the Union

11

ARGUMENT

13

I. The Applicable Appellate and Remedial Standards Support Affirming Most of

theCRO

,

13

A. RSD and the Union Carry a Heavy Burden of Establishing an Abuse

of Discretion by the District Court

13

B. The District Court Has Broad Remedial Authority to Eliminate the

Vestiges of Discrimination

14

C Strict Scrutiny Does Not Apply to Race-Conscious Desegregation

Remedies Ordered after Liability Adjudications

15

• •• •• ••

•••

SD-IL-0001-0019

II. The District Court Erred in Rejecting the Proposed Early Childhood

Education Remedy

13

A ECE is an Appropriate Facultative Remedy

18

1 The Illinois Statutory Scheme Authorizes ECE Programs

19

2. RSD Has Operated ECE Programs

20

B ECE is a Warranted and Appropriate Remedy for Injuries Already Incurred 20

1. Preschool Minority Children Are Victims in Fact of RSD's

Adjudicated Violations

21

2. Preschool Minority Children Have Suffered Legally Cognizable

Injuries

21

III. The District Court Erred in Rejecting the. Proposed Special Education Remedy

23

IV. The Tort Fund Cap Is an Arbitrary and Impracticable Limitation on the

School District's State Law Authority To Raise Funds to Implement

the Desegregation Remedy

24

A. The Tort Fund Cap Improperly Limits the School District's Authority

Under State Law

25

B. The Tort Fund Cap Creates an Impracticable Limitation on Funding

the Remedies in this Case and Could Lead to More Intrusive Funding

Measures

26

V The Plaintiff Class Is Entitled to a Remedy Which Eliminates the Vestiges

of RSD's Employment Discrimination

27

A. The District Court's Failure to Create Hiring Subgoals for Black and

Hispanic Teachers was an Abuse of Discretion

29

B. The Inclusion of Bilingual Teachers in the Hiring Goal Undermines the

Faculty Desegregation Remedy

30

C The Objections Made by RSD and the Union to the Hiring and Staff

Assignment Remedies Should Be Rejected

31

¯l

The District Court Properly Directed Affirmative Measures to

Remedy RSD's Employment Discrimination

31

2. The Hiring Goal and Assignment Remedies Are Fully Supported

by the Record and Caselaw

32

3

The Hiring and Desegregation Remedies Do Not Violate the

Equal Protection Clause

34

VI The Magistrate Judge Properly Admitted Expert Testimony Regarding Student

Achievement and Educational Outcomes

38

A. The Expert Testimony Concerning Student Achievement and Educational

Outcomes was based upon Scientific Knowledge

38

B. The Expert Testimony Concerning Student Achievement and Educational

Outcomes Provided Assistance to the Trier of Fact

40

C. The School District Offered No Plausible Grounds for Excluding the

Expert Testimony

:

40

VII. The Achievement Remedy. Ordered by the District Court Is Proper in All Respects 41

A. The Liability Findings Address the Negative Effect of RSD's Unlawful

Conduct upon Minority Student Achievement

41

B. The District Court Properly Applied the Requirements of Jenkins III

42

C. The Record Fully Supports the District Court's Incremental Effects

Determination and Its Remedial Directives

43

1. The District Court applied a Sound Methodology to the Incremental

Effect Issue

43

2. The District Court's Incremental Effects Determination is Supported

by the Evidence and is Not Clear Error

44

3. It is Irrelevant That the Increment Cannot Be Measured with

Mathematical Certainty

45

D The Lower Court's Remedial Requirements are Appropriate and Fully

Supported by the Evidence

46

111

¯l

The District Court's Achievement Remedy is Appropriately

Specific and Goal-Oriented and is Sufficiently Flexible

4ó

2. The District Court's Feasibility Findings are Fully Supported on

the Record and Do Not Constitute Clear Error

47

VIII Given the School District's Blatant Discrimination in Tracking and Ability

Grouping, the District Court Properly Limited Ability Grouping in the RSD

48

A. The Findings From the Liability Trial and the Remedial Hearing Support

the District Court's Ability Grouping Remedy

48

B. The Ability Grouping Remedy Was Well Within the District Court's

Discretion

49

C. Because RSD Stipulated to the District Court's Ability Grouping Remedy

Under the Comprehensive Remedial Order, the RSD Should be

Prohibited From Appealing the Ability Grouping Remedy

50

IX. Given the School District's History of Within School Segregation, the District

Court's Within School Segregation Remedy Is Appropriate

50

A. The Plus/Minus 5% Compliance Standard Is Appropriate and Tailored

to Remedy RSD's Intentional Within School Segregation

50

B. Exempting Compensatory Education Programs From Within School

Integration Requirements Would Effectively Render the Ability Grouping

Remedy Meaningless

51

C. The CRO Properly Allows the Master to Determine Which Classes Are

Core and Which Classes Are Elective

52

D Minimum Minority Enrollment Requirements for Gifted and CAPA

Programs Are Necessary to Eliminate Discrimination in These Formerly

Segregated Programs

52

X. The Discipline Remedies Ordered by the Court Are Warranted

53

XI. The Magistrate Judge Ordered an Appropriate Remedy for Discrimination

.Affecting Minority Participation in Cheerleading

55

XII. The Magistrate Judge Adopted Appropriate Provisions Regarding the Govemanc

and Implementation of CRO Remedies

56

iv

A. The Present Governance Provisions Reflect a Structure Previously Agreed

to by the School District

`o

B There is a Strong Evidentiary Basis for the Governance Provisions

57

C The School District Retains Substantial Control and Input with

Regard to its Administration

58

CONCLUSION

59

Cases

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Armstrong v O'Conneli. 463 F Supp. 1295 ( E D Wise. 1979)

Arthur v Nvquist. "12 F 2d 816 (2d Cir 1983V cert denied. 466 \', S Q-¾6MQS4^ Bradley v Milll·ken. 540 F2d 229 (6th Cir. 1976V affd. 433 US 267(IQ77)

Citv of Richmond v Croson. 488 U.S. 469 H989ì

Coalition to Save Our Children v Stated Bd. of Educ 90 F 3d 752 HH Cir 1996)

Columbus Board of Education v. Penick. 443 U.S. 449 (1979)

Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993)

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. Inc.. 43 F 3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1995)

Davton Bd. of Education v. Brtnkman. 443 U.S. 526 (1979)

Fort Bend Indep. School Dist. v Citv of Safford. 651 F.2d 1133 (Sth Cir 198H

Freeman v Pitts. 503 U.S. 467 (1992)

Green v Countv School Bd.. 391 U.S. 430 (1968)

In re Application of the Countv Collector. 96 F.3d 890 (7th Cir. 1996)

Jacobson v Cincinnati Bd. of Educ 961 F.2d 100 (6th Cir. 1992)

Keves v. Congress of Hispanic Educators. 902 F.Supp. 1274 (D.Col. 1995)

Kromnickv School Dist. of Philadelphia. 739 F.2d 894 (3rd Cir. 1984)

Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski Countv Special School Dist.. 839 F 2d 1296 (8th Cir.), cert, denied. 488 U.S. 869 (1988)

Lorain NAACP v. Lorain Bd. of Educ 768 F.Supp. 1224 (N.D. Ohio 1991), rev'd QH other grounds.. 979 F.2d 1141 (6th Cir. 1992)

Lorain NAACP v Lorain Bd. of Education. 979 F.2d 1141 (6th Cir. 1992)

vi

46 \i 26 p.18 54 14 38, 40 39 42, 43 31 14, 15, 24 17, 29, 31 25 17, 34 54 35
37
29 14

McDaniel v Barresj 40" í ' S ^QMQ7n McLauahlin v Boston School Committee. 938 F Supp iOOl<D\fass 1996)

^ ¡ö 29

McN'eal v Tate County School Dist 508 F 2d iOl7C^rh Cir 1975)

4q

Milliken v Bradley 433 I.¯ S 267 M9771 .

13.15

Missouri v Jenkins. ("Jenkins II"I 495 U S 33 (19901

26

Missouri v Jenkins. 115 S Ct. 2038 (19951

25.26,42,43

Morgan v. Burke. 926 F.2d 86 (1st Cir. 19911. cert, denied. 503 U.S. 983 (1992)

36

Morgan v Kerrigan. 530 F 2d 401 (1st Cir. 19761 Morgan v McDonough.,689 F 2d 265 (1st Cir 19821

15,32 17

Morgan v O'Brvant. 671 F 2d 23 (1st Cir. 1982)'

37

Morrow v Crisler. 479 F.2d 960 (5th Cir. 1973), cert, denied. 419 U.S. 895 (1974) Parents in Action v Hannon. 506 F.Supp. 831 (N.D 111. 1980) Pasadena Citv Board of Education v Spangler. 427 U.S. 424 (1976)

15 33 16, 17

Peacock v Bd. of School Comm'rs. 721 F.2d 210 (7th Cir. 1983)

38

People Who Care v Rockford Bd. of Educ. 961 F.2d 1335 (7th Cir. 1992)

14, 15, 37

People Who Care v Rockford Bd. of Education. 851 F. Supp. 905 (N.D. 111. 1994) . Passim

Ouarles v. Oxford Municipal Separate School District. 868 F.2d 750 (5th Cir. 1989)

56

Reed v Rhodes. 455 F. Supp. 569 (N.D. Ohio 1978)

50

Swann v Charlotte-Mectclenburg Bd. of Educ . 402 U.S. 1 (1971) . . . 13, 15-17, 21, 22, 26, 56

Tasbv v. Estes. 643 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir. 1981)

54

Tasbvv Wright. 713 F.2d 90 (5th Cir. 1983)

29

Transpower Constructors v Grand River Dam Auth.. 905 F.2d 1413 (10th Cir. 1990)

46

VII

L·' S \ Montgomery Countv Bd of Educ . 395 I.' S 225(1969)

L'S v Paradise. 480 US. 149 (1987)

Vaughnsv Bd. of Ed of Prince George Countv. 742 F Supp 1275 (D Md. 1990). ,iffd without opinion. 977 F 2d 574 (4th Cir 1992)

Wilson v Wilson. 46 F 3d 660 (7th Cir 1995)

Wittmerv Peters. 87 F 3d 916 (7th Cir 1996)

Wright v Council of Empona. 407 U.S. 451 (1972)

Statutes

105 E-CS 225/2

105 ILCS 5/2-3.62

105 ILCS 5/2-3.71

105 ILCS 5/2-3.7l(a)(4)

745 ILCS 10/9-101

`

Additional Authorities

Restatement of Torts. Second (¯I965). Section 435 (b)

¡0. ;¯ 2° ¡-i
1". 35 50
35.48 15
19 19 19 19 -•*
22

via

APPELLEES' JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT The Appellant Cross-Appellee School District's Junsdictional Statement is complete and correct, with the exception that all motions to reconsider were timely filed under Rule 59 (App 4~O n.2)
STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. The Liability Phase This case is a school desegregation class action In 1989, the plaintiffs filed a Complaint and .Amended Complaint alleging that Rockford Board of Education School District No 205 ("RSD") intentionally segregated and discriminated against .African-American and Hispanic students. (R. 1, R.6) On April 2, 1993, Magistrate Judge Mahoney commenced a 24-day hearing on the merits of plaintiffs' claims. Approximately 40 witnesses testified and 150 depositions were received into evidence. (R.1088 et seq ì On November 3, 1993, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation. People Who Care v Rockford Bd of Education. 851 F. Supp. 905 (N.D. 111. 1994). The Magistrate Judge found that the activities of the RSD had "consistently and massively violated Brown v Board of Education." and observed that RSD had "committed such open acts of discrimination as to be cruel and others with such subtlety as to raise discrimination to an art form." IsL at 939 The Magistrate Judge recommended that RSD should be held liable for violating the Fourteenth Amendment rights of the plaintiff class, l¿. at 1207. On February 18, 1994, Judge Roszkowski adopted most of the Magistrate Judge's fine ¿s. líL at 933. On March 29, 1994, Judge Roszkowski entered an order finding that the entire Rockford

public school system was "a dual school system" and directing RSD "to eliminate root and branch. throughout the Public School system, all vestiges of racial, ethnic and national origin discrimination against African-American and Hispanic students.'1 ü . (R. 1560)
B. The Remedial Proceedings All remedial issues were referred to Magistrate Judge Mahoney by consent of the panies (the "May 3, 1993 Agreement") and pursuant to Judge Roszkowski's May 5, 1993 and February 18. 1994 Orders. Sgg, People Who Care. 851 F. Supp. at 934. .Also, pursuant to the May 3, 1993 Agreement and these orders, the court appointed Dr. Eugene Eubanks as a Special Master, with authority regarding the formulation and implementation of remedies. (R. 1311; R. 1313) On August 6, 1995, the Master submitted a Proposed Comprehensive Remedial Plan (the "PCRP"). (App.500) The parties commented on the PCRP and prepared for an evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed issues. The Magistrate Judge divided the remedial hearing into three parts: (1) Educational Components/Stipulated Areas; (2) Student Assignment and Related Issues; and (3) Faculty Hiring and Placement, Student Achievement and Other Issues. (App.253-54) The CRO hearing commenced on October 16, 1995; the final part of the hearing concluded on March 27, 1996 (App.253) C. The Comprehensive Remedial Order The Magistrate Judge issued the Comprehensive Remedial Order ("CRO") in three segments corresponding to the three parts of the hearing. In general, the CRO builds upon a foundation of

remedial provisions embodied in the prior interim orders1, and appropriately expands ;hese provisions in view of the findings of systemic liability and continuing vestiees of discrimination The Magistrate Judge took a middle ground approach, rejecting more extensive remedies proposed by the Master and plaintiffs, as well as ineffective or insufficient remedies proposed by RSD The CRO specifically finds that anything short of the CRO remedies would fail to correct the constitutional violations by RSD (App 461)
I. Segment One (Educational Components and Stipulated Areas) The first segment of the CRO addresses certain stipulated remedies and educational components of the desegregation remedy. (App.254)
a) Ability Grouping. The Magistrate Judge found that in view of continuing discrimination against minority children practiced through ability grouping, RSD would not be permitted to engage in tracking and ability grouping practices. (App.260)
b) Human Relations Program. The Magistrate Judge approved the Master's recommendation for a human relations program designed to foster the educational, attitudinal and developmental progress of staff and students in support of desegregation efforts (App.265)
c) Curriculum and Instruction. The Magistrate Judge approved the Master's recommendation for curricula offerings and standards to ensure equity in learning opportunities for minority students. (App.267) The Magistrate Judge rejected the Master's proposal
'The interim orders (the "Interim Order" and "Second Interim Order") arose out of contested motions filed by plaintiffs and provided some preliminary relief to the plaintiff class. (R.75, R.376)
3

for a mandated multi-cultural curriculum and proposals by plaintiffs regarding the duration and scope of curriculum remedies. (App 270)
d) Community Education. Involvement and Support The Magistrate Judge adopted the portion of the Master's proposal related to fostering community and parental involvement in the desegregation process. (App 270) The Magistrate Judge rejected the Masters proposal that the RSD provide community grants and develop linkages with the business community, colleges and other organizations. (App.274)
e) Earlv Childhood Education. The Magistrate Judge rejected the parties' proposal for an Early Childhood Education Program on the grounds that this program was not linked to remedying intentional discrimination by RSD and was beyond the scope of RSD's operations. (App.275)
f) Bilingual Education. The Magistrate Judge approved a Bilingual Education Program to remedy the effects of unlawful segregation of Hispanic students and educational discrimination against them. (App.278)
g) Research and Development Programs. The Magistrate Judge approved the parties' stipulation concerning research, development and evaluation services related to implementation of the remedial plan. (App.282)
h) Staff Development. The Magistrate Judge adopted the recommendations of the Master regarding a Staff Development Program to address educational discrimination against minority students. (App.283)

i) Transportation The Magistrate Judge adopted the Masters

recommendations concerning the elimination of RSD's discriminatory transportation practices

(App 236)

j)

Disposition or Acquisition of Facilities The Magistrate Judge

approved a stipulation providing that RSD would not unilaterally dispose of, acquire or construct

facilities during the desegregation process (App.288)

k) Alteration of Boundaries. The Magistrate Judge approved a

stipulation providing that RSD would not unilaterally alter boundaries during the desegregation

process. (App.288)

1) Racial Incidents. The Magistrate Judge approved a stipulation

providing for policies and procedures addressing racial incidents of discrimination, harassment or

inequity. (App.289)

m) Funding/Budgeting, The Magistrate Judge approved a stipulation

relating to the process for developing the yearly budget for CRO remedies. (App.291)

2. Segment Two (Student Assignment and Related Issues)

The second segment of the CRO addresses student assignment and school capacity issues

The Magistrate Judge ordered the School District to implement a "controlled choice" student

assignment plan to achieve desegregation of its elementary schools. (App.343) The controlled

choice plan is voluntary to the extent that parental assignment choices are honored so long as these

choices in aggregate result in school enrollments within fifteen percentage points of the district-wide

average of minority students. (App.326-27)

The Magistrate Judge rejected RSD's position that controlled choice would constitute a sufficient student assignment remedy without additional provisions to remedy the gross undercapacity of schools in minority neighborhoods and inequitable transportation burdens placed upon minority students. (App.35l) Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge ordered the construction and renovation of certain school facilities, together with changes in grade configurations í App 3 51-61)
3. Segment 3 (Faculty Hiring and Placement, Student Achievement and Other Issues)
Segment 3 of the CRO addresses the remaining remedial issues. a) Faculty Hiring and Placement. The Magistrate Judge ordered RSD
to achieve a faculty with at least 13.5% minority teachers in each grade configuration (elementary, middle and high schools) as soon as practicable. (App.388) The Magistrate Judge also directed that in any reduction in force situation, the District's post-RTF minority faculty ratio must approximate the pre-RIF ratio. (App.388)
As regards faculty assignment, the Magistrate Judge held that RSD must desegregate its faculty as soon as practicable. (App.401) The Magistrate Judge ordered that the percentage of minority faculty in each elementary school should not exceed the percentage of RSD's minority faculty by more than 5% and that middle and high schools should be held to a +/- 5% standard. (App.403-4)
b). Student Achievement, The Magistrate Judge found that RSD's intentional discrimination was a substantial factor in causing an achievement gap between majority and minority students, but refused to hold RSD 100% responsible for this gap. (App.422) The Magistrate Judge held that RSD could remedy the effects of its violations in this area by: (1)

reducing the disparity in standardized test scores between majority and minority students by at least 50% within four years; or (2) bringing 90% of RSD's minority students within one year of the national norm on the Degrees of Reading Power Test and a test similarly measuring achievement in mathematics (App 423, 489) Additionally, the Magistrate Judge approved educational programs focussing on RSD's minority students, including Reading Recovery, Success For All, and other high order thinking skills programs. (App.424) Although the Master and the plaintiffs further contended that the court should require specific reductions in disparities in grades, attendance, drop-out and graduation rates, the Magistrate Judge approved only a 20% "goal," (as opposed to a requirement), in these areas (App.421 n. 152)
c) Discipline. The Magistrate Judge ordered RSD to develop a uniform code of conduct and held that so long as disciplinary criteria were objective and all students received comparable discipline for comparable conduct, the court would not require statistical equivalence. (App.425) Citing the connection between disproportionate discipline for minority students and poor achievement outcomes, the Magistrate Judge also ordered RSD to enhance its counseling approaches and to develop alternative approaches to discipline. (App.430)
d) Extracurricular Activities. Based upon findings of a twenty year pattern of intentional discrimination affecting minority participation in cheerleading, the Magistrate Judge ordered that cheerleading squads should have minority participation at least equal to the minority enrollment percentage in a particular school. (App.434) With regard to all other extracurricular activities, the court established a "goal" (but not a requirement) of +/-15% of the percentage of minority students at each school. (App.435)

e) Within School Segregation Based upon findings chat within school segregation continued to be a widespread problem in RSD. the Magistrate Judge directed that all classes and programs, with certain narrow exceptions, come within -í·5¼ of the percentage of minority students in the "compliance pool." defined as the percentage of minority students at each K-12 grade level at each building. (App 437) The Magistrate Judge ordered the application of within school requirements to both regular and honors classes, but not to elective courses in secondary schools (App.443-45)
f) Special Education. The Magistrate Judge rejected the modest remedial proposals of the plaintiffs and Master regarding special education and directed that control over special education programs be returned to RSD. (App.450)
g) Governance. The Magistrate Judge reappointed Dr Eubanks as Master to oversee remedial areas of the CRO and identified his responsibilities and authority (App.452)
h) Finance. The Magistrate Judge held that RSD has responsibility to fund the CRO remedies. (App.461) The Magistrate Judge estimated the cost of capital improvements under the CRO at $48 million and operating costs for 1996 at $23.4 million. (App 361, 463) The Magistrate Judge limited the use of funding raised pursuant to Article IX of the Tort Immunity Act, 745 ELCS 10/9-101 et seq.. to $25 million per year, with a maximum 4% increase for each of the next four years. (App.465)
D. Motions for Reconsideration and Appeals The parties filed various motions to alter or amend segments of the CRO, which the Magistrate Judge decided on August 8, 1996. (App.468)
8

The parties, including the Intervening teacher and staff unions, (the "Union1), appealed from the court's orders.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1

Whether the Magistrate Judge erred in rejecting Early Childhood Education t ECE")

as a remedy despite clear evidence that ECE is within RSD's operational domain and that preschool

minority children are victims of RSD's adjudicated discrimination.

2. Whether the Magistrate Judge erred in refusing to order a special education remedy

on an uncontroverted record that the disproportionate placement of minority students in special

education is a vestige of unlawful tracking.

3. Whether the Magistrate Judge improperly limited the School District's state law

authority to utilize funding under the Tort Immunity Act to pay for the costs of implementing the

court-ordered desegregation remedy, especially when the court also found that no other feasible

financing alternative exists.

4. Whether the Magistrate Judge erred by failing to provide hiring subgoals for black

and Hispanic teachers and by including bilingual teachers in the hiring goal when these

determinations will diminish the faculty hiring and desegregation remedy.

5. Whether the Magistrate Judge abused his broad discretion in approving remedies in

the following areas to eliminate the vestiges of RSD's intentional discrimination:

(a) student achievement;

(b) faculty hiring;

(c) staff assignment;

(d) discipline; (e) extracurricular activities, (0 tracking; (a) within school segregation, and (h) governance.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The Magistrate Judge presided over a remedial hearing of extensive scope and depth. The CRO is carefully reasoned, and in almost all respects, provides sound remedies for RSD's constitutional violations. The propriety of these remedies should be measured under wellestablished desegregation standards, and the race conscious remedies are not subject to strict scrutiny review. A. The Plaintiffs' Appeal The only aspects of the CRO that should be modified on appeal are: (1) the rejection of Early Childhood Education as a remedial component; (2) the failure to order the reevaluation of minority students placed in behavior disorder classes; (3) the restriction of RSD's state law authority to raise funding for desegregation remedies under the Illinois Tort Immunity Act; and (4) the failure to create hiring subgoals for minority teachers and to exclude bilingual teachers from staff hiring goals. Earlv Childhood Education. The court's rejection of an Early Childhood Education ("ECE") remedy on grounds that ECE lay too far outside the responsibilities of the RSD is clearly erroneous: both the Illinois statutory scheme for local school districts and the history of RSD preschool
10

programs establish that ECE falls within the operational domain of the RSD Further, the court's rejection of ECE is also erroneous because the record clearly establishes that minority preschool children are victims of RSD's adjudicated violations
Special Education. A special education remedy of devaluating all African-American students in Self-contained Special Education Behavior Disorder classes is warranted by uncontroverted evidence that the gross overrepresentation of minority students in such classes is a vestige of RSD's tracking violations.
Tort Immunity Act Funding. The CRO's limitation on RSD's authority to raise funds under the Tort Immunity Act tofinancedesegregation remedies is improper because it unnecessarily limits RSD's authority under state law and creates an impracticable limitation on funding remedies in this case.
Faculty Hiring and Placement. The faculty desegregation remedies.are deficient in two respects. Hiring subgoals for Black and Hispanic teachers are needed to facilitate educational desegregation remedies and eliminate faculty racial identìfiability; and bilingual teachers should have been excluded from the hiring goal, just as they were excluded from the teacher assignment provisions. Given that bilingual teachers will be concentrated in specific schools, their inclusion in the hiring goal will ultimately diminish the racial diversity of faculty in non-bilingual schools.
B. The Appeals By RSD and the Union The arguments raised by RSD and the Union on appeal should be rejected. Faculty Hiring and Placement. The faculty hiring and assignment remedies are supported by extensive liability findings in this case and by evidence of numerous vestiges and effects of RSD's discrimination. In each instance, the race-conscious faculty hiring, layoff and assignment
11

remedies are narrowly tailored and create a minimal burden on third parties. The Magistrate Jud^e exercised appropriate discretion in adopting a 13 5% hiring goal and in placing a ceiling or floor on minority teacher representation in each school. The court also properly created a race-conscious assignment system to desegregate the faculty within each school. Given that the teacher's contract impedes faculty desegregation, the CRO properly subordinates the teacher's contract, but only to the extent necessary to implement the remedy.
Student Achievement. The Magistrate Judge properly admitted expert testimony concerning student achievement and educational outcomes because this evidence was based upon scientific method and provided assistance to the trier of fact. The court correctly concluded that there is an achievement gap between the performance of RSD's minority and majority students and that this gap resulted in substantial part from RSD's intentional discrimination. The court properly relied upon extensive evidence in the record in making a conservative determination that RSD was responsible for 50% of this gap and adopted appropriate but flexible outcome requirements.
Ability Grouping and Within School Segregation. The CRO's remedial provisions prohibiting ability grouping and addressing within school segregation are supported by extensive evidence of intentional discrimination in these areas. The remedies are appropriately designed to achieve integration at a classroom level after decades of RSD practices that have segregated minority students and provided them with an inferior education.
Discipline. The CRO's discipline remedy -– whereby if RSD continues to use subjective discipline categories it must achieve equitable referral outcomes - is wholly supported by the record and caselaw. The evidence establishes that the current discipline disparities are vestiges of the
12

RSD's adjudicated violations, and further, that those current disparities are conditions •Ahose remediation would facilitate the achievement and student assignment remedies
Extracurricular Activities. In view of a twenty year pattern of discrimination affectina minority participation in cheerleading, the Magistrate Judge properly ordered that cheerleading squads have minority participation at least equal to the minority enrollment percentage at a particular school. This requirement although more demanding than other aspects of the remedy for discrimination in extracurricular activities, was narrowly tailored and did not alter the overall standard for unitary status.
Governance. The Magistrate Judge adopted appropriate provisions regarding the governance and implementation of CRO remedies. The governance provisions, including the reappointment of the Master to oversee remedial implementation, are necessitated by RSD's long history of resistance to remedial measures.

ARGUMENT

I.

The Applicable Appellate and Remedial Standards Support Affirming Most of the

CRO

A. RSD and the Union Carry a Heavy Burden of Establishing an Abuse of Discretion by the District Court

In a school desegregation case, "[o]nce a right and a violation have been shown, the scope

of a district court's equitable powers to remedy past wrongs is broad." Swann v. Charlotte-

Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ. 402 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1971). The district court's remedial authority to

"restore the victims to their rightful positions" derives from this well-recognized equitable power

Milliken v Bradley. 433 U.S. 267, 280-81 (1977).

13

The burden falls upon RSD and the L¯nion to establish that the lower coun abused its broad equitable powers. U S v Paradise. 480 U S. 149, 193 (1987) That burden is made heavier by the fact that the vast majority of arguments advanced by RSD and the L¯nion challenge factual and mixed legaL·facrual determinations by the court-- determinations which must be shown to be "clearly erroneous." Lorain NAACP v Lorain Bd. of Education.- 979 F 2d 1141 1 148 íftrh fir 1992)
B. The District Court Bas Broad Remedial Authority to Eliminate the Vestiges of Discrimination
In a school desegregation case, the remedy must eliminate every vestige of racial discrimination in the schools to the extent practicable. Freeman v Pitts. 503 U.S. 467, 485 (1992). A current condition is a vestige, and therefore properly the subject of remediation, where it is "traceable" by a "causal link" to the original violations. I¿. at 496. In determining whether a causal connection has been proven, the court need not find that the current condition would not exist "but for" the prior violations. Rather, the legal standard for causation is "contributing cause." Columbus Board of Education v. Penick. 443 U.S. 449, 465 n.13 (1979). In this regard, a court must be mindful that there may be reciprocal cause-effect relationships at work. Freeman. 503 U.S. at 497
In addition to eliminating the vestiges of discrimination, the remediation of current conditions, regardless of whether they are current vestiges, is warranted if this would facilitate the elimination of conditions that are vestiges. Freeman. 503 U.S. at 491.
Once the vestig«s of discrimination are determined, the court must determine how to eliminate those vestiges. This entails consideration of the "appropriateness" of various remedial measures. People Who Care v Rockford Bd of Educ. 961 F.2d 1335, 1339 (7th Cir. 1992) ("appropriate remedy for a legal wrong"). Appropriateness encompasses such factors as
14

effectiveness and_practicability. Freeman 503 U S at 497-98, Wright v Council or' Fmpnn, 4,;r U S, 451, 462 (1972). Appropriateness also includes consideration of circumstances justifying a strong remedial response, such as the "longstanding" nature of the violations and their virulence, Milliken II. 433 U S at 283, or a school district's history of resistance to court orders Morgan v Kerrigan. 530 F2d 401, 424 (1st Cir. 1976).
Under certain circumstances, the concept of appropriateness also encompasses an evaluation of the "necessity" of the proposed remedial measures to the attainment of the adopted goal A necessity evaluation is made where the remedial measure would alter the contractual or state law rights of third parties. People Who Care. 961 F 2d at 1339. Such a determination asks whether the rights of the third parties, as embodied in a contract or state-law, "interfere with the remedies for violations." I¿. at 1338. "Necessity," however, does not require that the remedial goal be impossible absent the contract modification. Morrow v. Crisler. 479 F.2d 960, 964 (5th Cir 1973), cert, denied. 419 U.S. 895 (1974).
C. Strict Scrutiny Does Not Apply to Race-Conscious Desegregation Remedies Ordered after Liability Adjudications
RSD and the Union contend that the strict scrutiny test should apply to race-conscious portions of the lower court's Desegregation Plan. Like someone arriving in the middle of a conversation, the appellants begin and end their discourses on strict scrutiny with happy neglect of the entire jurisprudentialJl conversation" preceding their arrival.
In remedying adjudicated discrimination, school boards and courts are empowered to undertake race-conscious measures. Swann v Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Education. 402 U.S. 1,24 (1971). As the Court observed in McDaniel v Barresi. 402 U.S. 39. 41 (1971). in formulating
15

a school desegregation plan race "will almost invariably" be taken into account, ¡d. Without raceconscious measures, desegregation would be "severely hampered" because "[a]ny other approach would freeze the status quo that is the very target of all desegregation processes." ¡d_
There is a long history of judicial approval of race-conscious desegregation remedies In US v. Montgomery County Bd. of Educ.. 395 U.S. 225 (1969), the Supreme Court approved the use of race-conscious outcome requirements with regard to faculty integration. The Court found that the lower court's order employing race-conscious numerical outcomes ("ratios") was warranted in light of the command in Green that desegregation plans "promise realistically to work now." Montgomery. 395 U.S. at 235-36 (emphasis in original).
Two years later in Swann. the Court reaffirmed the use of race-conscious outcome requirements with respect to faculty composition, and further approved the use of mathematical ratios in the area of student assignment. The central remedial concept of Swann is that race-based outcomes are not only appropriate in remedying segregation and discrimination, but are often necessary components of a meaningful remedy. The Court emphasized that courts may rely upon race-based outcomes, but should do so in ways which are not overly rigid. Swann. 402 U.S. at 25 (goal should be a "starting point" and not "an inflexible requirement").
In Pasadena Citv Board of Education v. Spangler. 427 U.S. 424 (1976), the Court struck down the district courts order for the year-by-year adjustment of student assignment zones, but only because it was an "inflexible requirement" improper under the dictates of £wajm.. Spangler. 427 U.S. at 434-35. The lack of flexibility in the order at issue in Spangler related primarily to the continued application of the student assignment outcome requirement despite evidence that
16

subsequent changes in residential demographics were responsible for the current racial imbalances in the student body compositions 427 L¯ S at 435
The governing principles of Montgomery. Swann. and Span¾ler have been routinely applied by lower courts in approving race-conscious outcome remedies in numerous school desegregation cases and should govern review of such remedies in this case. See eg.. Arthur v Nvquist. 712 F 2d 8l6(2dCir. 19831. cert, denied. 466 U.S. 936 (1984): Morgan v McDonou¾h. 689 F 2d 265. 2¯4 (1st Cir. 1982). These standards continue to be applied subsequent to the Supreme Court's decision in Citv of Richmond v. Croson. 488 U.S. 469 (1989). Sj¦££jt., Jacobson v. Cincinnati Bd of Educ . 961 F 2d 100 (6th Cir. 1992); Vaughns v Bd. of Ed. of Prince George's County. 742 F Supp. 1275, 1293 (D.Md. 1990), aff d without opinion. 977 F.2d 574 (4th Cir. 1992).
Appellants' contention that this court should ignore this well-established body of desegregation standards and apply the strict scrutiny standard of review should be rejected for several reasons. First, no constitutional infirmity has ever been found in race-conscious desegregation remedies so long as those remedies comply with traditional desegregation principles. No principled reasons have been offered by the Appellants— nor are there any— for disturbing this body of law.
Second, lower courts implementing desegregation remedies are obligated to follow the Supreme Court directives in the school desegregation setting which have sanctioned race-conscious remedies. See e.g.. Green v County School Bd.. 391 U.S. 430, 439 (1968) (favoring timely and effective relief for the plaintiff victims). As the Supreme Court emphasized in Montgomery, raceconscious requirements have the "capacity to expedite, by means of specific commands, the day
17

when a completely unified, unitary, nondiscnminatory school system becomes a reality instead ot¯ a hope " 395 U.S. at 235-36.
Finally, a court acting after a full adversary proceeding is unlike a legislature or executive officer acting politically, voluntarily and unilaterally. Rather, a judicial decision rendered after trial is the product of the rigors of trial-- an adversary event proceeding under evidentiary and procedural rules, and presided over by an independent third party. These standards provide sufficient safeguards against arbitrary and capricious action. See Croson. 488 U.S. at 493
In short, the question for appellate review is not whether the race-conscious components of the lower court's order meet the strict scrutiny test, but rather, whether the court's decision in this case adheres to the remedial desegregation standards set down by the Supreme Court.2
n. The District Court Erred in Rejecting the Proposed Early Childhood Education Remedy A. ECE is an Appropriate Facilitative Remedy Despite finding that an ECE program would facilitate the successful implementation of the
student assignment remedies (App.276, 471), the district court rejected ECE because it believed that ECE lay "too far" outside the "responsibilities" of a school district. (App.276-78; 471-72) In reaching this conclusion, the district court expressed particular discomfort with the parent involvement component of the Proposed ECE program. (App.278) Contrary to the court's finding, ECE falls within the operational domain of the RSD under Illinois statutes and as evidenced by the history of RSD preschool programs.
2Even if the strict scrutiny standard were applied to race conscious remedies in this case, that standard is met. See, pp.34-35.
18

I. The Illinois Statutory Scheme Authorizes ECE Programs Far from being too removed from the responsibilities of RSD, local school district implementation of early childhood education programs is permitted and encouraged under the Illinois School Code As a general matter, the Illinois legislature "finds and declares" in the Illinois School Code that "[a] tremendous need exists for preschool training, both in a school setting and in the home..." (105 ILCS 225/2) More specifically: — Section 2-3.62 of the School Code provides that services to local schools may include assistance in other "program areas such as . . . early childhood education." (105 ILCS 5/23.62) ~ Section 2-3.71 of the School Code calls for "grants to public school districts to conduct preschool educational programs for children ages 3 to 5 which include a parent education component." (105 ILCS 5/2-3.71) -– Section 2-3.71 of the School Code provides that local district preschool programs should target "disadvantaged" children. (105 ILCS 5/2-3.71(a)(4)) - Section 2-3.71 a of the School Code provides for ISBE implementation and administration of a grant program for "model pilot early childhood parental training programs," which "include activities that require substantial participation and interaction between parent and child." (105 ILCS 5/2 3.71a (a)(4)) Under this statutory scheme, three things are clear: early childhood education falls within the purview of public education in Illinois generally; it falls within the authority and powers of local
19

school districts to implement and administer; and a parent involvement component is accepted under the statutory scheme
2. RSD Has Operated ECE Programs The fact that ECE is within RSD's operational domain is evidenced by the history of RSD preschool programs. Since the early 1980's, the Rockford School District has administered some form of early childhood education. By 1986, (prior to this lawsuit), RSD had instituted the SEEK program, an early childhood education program using a curriculum with significant parent participation components. (Plaintiffs' Liability Ex.3, p.6) After this lawsuit commenced in 1989, and as part of the 1991 agreed Second Interim Order, the RSD expanded its preschool education program. (R.376 at 46). Within the Second Interim Order the RSD expressly acknowledged that "Every provision of this order... represents the exercise by the Defendant District of its authority to act on behalf of and for the benefit of the school system and the students..." (Id., at 4-5) B. ECE is a Warranted and Appropriate Remedy for Injuries Already Incurred The district court also rejected ECE on the alternative ground that ECE cannot be justified as a direct, as opposed to a facüitative remedy, because preschool minority children are not victims of the RSD's adjudicated violations. (App.277, 471-72) In reaching this decision, the district court made two mistakes: (1) despite uncontroverted evidence, it refused to find that as a matter of fact preschool minority children have sustained educational injury as a result of the RSD's adjudicated violations (App.49O n.8); and (2) it held as a matter of law that the court lacks remedial authority to recognize preschool minority children as victims of the RSD's adjudicated violations. (App.422 n.147)
20

-L Preschool Minority Children Are Victims in Fact of RSD's Adjudicated Violations
Vestiges and effects of an adjudicated violation include educational conditions that are indirectly linked to an adjudicated violation. See Swann. 402 U.S. at 20-2.
RSD's massive acts of segregation and other educational discrimination against black and Hispanic students have contributed significantly to the low educational, housing, employment, and economic attainment of those former students. (Crain Tr 4283-4326) These impaired socioeconomic conditions in turn have created in subsequent generations of incoming students reduced school readiness and reduced academic achievement. (Crain Tr.4221-24; Hoffer Tr.5094-95) In fact, the school district's own expert, Dr. Thomas Hoffer, conceded the intergenerational effect of discriminatory practices (such as tracking). (Hoffer Tr.5120-28)
In light of all this evidence, the district court erred in declining to make a "causation-in-fact determination" as to the injurious effect of the RSD's discrimination on the school readiness and educational achievement of the incoming generation of minority students. (App.49O n.8)
2. Preschool Minority Children Have Suffered Legally Cognizable Injuries In rejecting ECE, the lower court also rejected, as a matter of law, the notion that the intergenerational educational effects of the school district's discrimination on minority students entering the school system are legally cognizable injuries. (App.277-78, n.24; 490 n.8, 421-22 n. 147) Whether viewed as a legal determination of the meaning of "proximate cause" in this setting, or as a legal determination of the limits of the judiciary's remedial powers, the lower court's determination is clear error.
21

The Supreme Court has charged school districts committing intentional acts of segregation and discrimination with the duty to remedy the ultimate educational consequences of their conduct, even where the causal path between the school district's conduct and the educational consequences passes beyond school operational boundaries, and passes through and among third parties See e ¾. Swann. 402 U.S. at 20-21 (housing segregation, as a product of private and public decision-making, may be a vestige of a school district's segregation). In the present case, the educational effects of RSD's discrimination on the second generation of Rockford minority students are in no way more "remote" from the original violations than educational effects flowing from white flight or housing choices. Moreover, the plaintiffs seek only to hold RSD remedially accountable for the educational effects of its discrimination (diminution of school readiness) and are not seeking to hold the district responsible for remedying the "extra-educational" effects themselves (housing and employment discrimination, or other socio-economic injuries).
Finally, traditional tort rules further support holding RSD legally responsible for all educational injuries to which its adjudicated violations have contributed. It is hornbook law that the egregiousness of the harm and "the degree of... moral wrong in acting" may be important factors in determining whether a defendant is liable for resulting harm. Restatement of Torts. Second (1965), Section 435 (b). In this case, the egregious nature of RSD's conduct is no longer disputed, even by the School District, and supports broad accountability. (Sfi£ R.2017, Sections 4 1, 4 6) (RSD characterizes its own conduct as "a massive and purposeful constitutional violation")

i n . The District Court Erred in Rejecting the Proposed Special Education Remedy At the liability hearing, the court found that: (1) RSD engaged in intentional discrimination
against minority special education students by assigning virtually all of them to schools in the Southwest Quadrant; and (2) RSD disproportionately placed and tracked African-American students in lower ability classes. People Who Care. 851 F Supp at 930, 1005
In the PCRP, the Master observed that "disproportionate placement of African-American students in SCSE BD [self-contained special education behavior disorder classes] is, another manifestation of grouping and tracking." (App.544) In support of this conclusion, the Master expressly cited the Magistrate Judge's liability finding that African American and Hispanic students were disproportionately placed in lower-track classes. (App.544, citing 851 F Supp at 1005) In addition, since 1991 the Master has documented a continuing pattern of extreme overrepresentation of minorities in special education classes in his Analyses of Within School Integration and Quarterly Reports to the Court. (R.2129, pp. 112-26) For example, during the 1995-96 school year AfricanAmerican students constituted approximately 25% of the student population, but 51.5% of the students assigned to SCSE BD classes. (App. 544-45)
To address these findings and disparities the Master recommended that all African American students in SCSE BD classes be re-evaluated to determine whether they had been correctly assigned. (App. 543-44) The Magistrate Judge rejected the Master's recommendation on grounds that: (1) the statistical data and evidence regarding tracking presented at the liability hearing did not encompass special education; and (2) the court and the parties treated special education as a separate "category" from tracking at the liability hearing. (App.451)
23

The Magistrate Judge's conclusion rejecting special education remedies is erroneous because a discrete liability finding that special education was a tracking method is not a prerequisite to holding that the overrepresentation of minorities in special education classes is a vestige of tracking In Freeman. 503 L¯ S at 487, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that desegregation remedies must eliminate every vestige of racial segregation and discrimination that flows from a constitutional violation. Here, there is unrebutted testimony that the disproportionate placement of minority students in special education flows from RSD's tracking violations:
Special education is just an artifact of the tricking system. The special education program here in Rockford is leading to far disproportionate placement of minority children in behavioral disorder classes. (EubanksTr.48ll) Considering this evidence and the applicable remedial standard, it is irrelevant that: (1) a particularized special education finding about tracking was not made at the liability hearing; and (2) the parties and the court treated special education as a separate "category" when organizing liability findings.
FV. The Tort Fund Cap Is an Arbitrary and Impracticable Limitation on the School District's State Law Authority To Raise Funds to Implement the Desegregation Remedy Article IX of the Tort Immunity Act, 745 ELCS 10/9-101 si $£‰ establishes a
comprehensive funding scheme to allow local public entities in Illinois to generate funds sufficient to satisfy liabilities relating to tort judgments and settlements. To fund its remedial obligations, first
24

under the Second Interim Order and later under the March 29. 1994 Declaratory Judgment Order. RSD has issued bonds and levied taxes pursuant to the Tort Immunity Act.' (App 462-ÒJ)
In the Finance segment of the Comprehensive Remedial Order, the Magistrate Judge restricted the use of this mode of financing by capping Tort fund levies at S25 million per year, with a maximum increase of 4% per year (App 465) The limitation on Tort funding adopted by the court is independent of its determination as to the remedies necessary to address the constitutional violations in the case, and there is no cap on the remedial budget. (App.487) Thus, the cost of the remedies may exceed the amount of funding permitted by the District Court under the Tort Immunity Act.
A. The Tort Fund Cap Improperly Limits the School District's Authority Under State Law
RSD's authority to raise funds under the Tort Immunity Act to finance the court-ordered desegregation remedies does not derive from the remedial powers of the district court, but arises from state law As such, the court's order restricts the prerogatives of local authorities and intrudes upon the operation of state law.
Normally, a district court in a school desegregation case should endeavor to avoid unnecessary interference with the affairs of state and local authorities. $££, Missouri v Jenkins, f Jenkins HI'") 115 S. Ct. 2038 (1995). The primary exceptions to this principle involve circumstances where: (1) a recalcitrant school district defaults in fulfilling its remedial obligations.
3The use of the Tort Immunity Act to finance remedial activities in this case was explicitly approved by Judge Reinhard in the wake of tax objections asserting that this funding mechanism was unlawful; however, Judge Reinhard's opinion was vacated on jurisdictional grounds and the tax objections remanded to state court where they remain pending. See. In re Application of the County Collector. 96 F.3d 890 (7th Cir. 1996).
25

Swann v Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Educarion 402 L¯ S 1 (1971), or (2) state law limitations on local authorities interfere with the ability of local authorities to implement a remedy Missouri v Jenkins. ("Jenkins II'") 495 L' S 33 (1990). The Ton Fund cap presents neither ot` these circumstances and instead limits RSD's ability to take positive steps consistent with state law toward fulfilling its constitutional obligations
The Magistrate Judge's rationale for imposing the Tort Fund cap misconstrues certain statements in Jenkins III, which address the scope of desegregation remedies, not the method of financing them. (App.464) The Tort Fund Cap does not address concerns about remedies being excessive in scope because it does not increase or decrease the cost of implementing the CRO.
B. The Tort Fund Cap Creates an Impracticable Limitation on Funding the Remedies in this Case and Could Lead to More Intrusive Funding Measures
The portion of the CRO which imposes the Tort Fund Cap should also be reversed because: (1) the record establishes that RSD does not have funds available to pay for remedial programs (App.462; Schilling Test. 4142-44); (2) state law tax rate limits and referendum requirements restrict RSD from raising non-Tort Fund levies sufficiently to fund the CRO (Master's Ex. 54; App.497); and (3) it is impermissible - either under the terms of the CRO or desegregation case law -– to fund the CRO through cuts in RSD's core educational programs. See. Bradley v Milliken. 540 F.2d 229, 245 (6th Cir. 1976), afitf. 433 U.S. 267 (1977).
The unavailability of alternative sources of revenue to fund operating and capital expenditures under the CRO has been reaffirmed in Orders issued by the district court on September 18, 1996, November 12, 1996 and December 6, 1996. For example, in the September 18, 1996 Order, the Magistrate Judge observed that the Education Fund is running a "significant deficit," that
26

funding the desegregation remedies from that fund is "unrealistic and impracticable." and that no other feasible funding alternative [to Tort Immunity Act funding] exists at this time." (R 238")
Because the only practicable funding mechanism that will assure that the CRO remedies are implemented is the Tort Immunity Act. it was doubly inappropriate for the Magistrate Judge to limit RSD's use of this financing source.
V. The Plaintiff Class Is Entitled to a Remedy Which Eliminates the Vestiges of RSD's Employment Discrimination In the Liability Decision, Judge Roszkowski adopted all of the Magistrate Judge's factual
findings as to both the District's intentional employment discrimination and the existence of faculty and staff racial ¡dentifiab¡lity. 851 F. Supp. at 923-24 The court found that RSD had engaged in intentional employment discrimination by failing to meet its own minority hiring goals over a 20 year period and by failing to recruit minority teacher and staff applicants. I¿. at 923 The court further found that for more than 25 years minority teachers had been overwhelmingly assigned to racially identifiable minority schools, but that the racial identifiability of the teaching staff was a function of assignment provisions in the teachers' collective bargaining agreement, which allowed teachers to exercise preferences for specific vacancies based on teacher seniority and specified qualifications. I¿. at 924.
At the remedial hearing, the court found that the current systemwide percentage (8.7%) of minority teachers in the RSD is a vestige of the RSD's adjudicated hiring discrimination, and that minority teachers are so unevenly distributed that "the District's elementary schools are racially identifiable by faculty as well as by students." (App.374, 389-90) The court also found that the RSD's long-term historical hiring discrimination had three practical consequences: (1) it depressed
27

the percentage of.minority teachers in the local labor market, making the local market an unreliable measure of minority teacher availability (App 385-86), 12) it resulted in disproportionately greater seniority and relevant training for white teachers, which placed them at a distinct advantage over minority teachers in securing assignments at the more "desirable" and racially identifiable white (C .9) schools and in securing their jobs in the event of a layoff (App 386, 388-401). and (3) without a change in placement methods, any gains in hiring minority teachers may result in even greater racial identifiability of school faculties. (App.390-397) The court concluded that the contract 'impedes [minority] hiring, recruitment and placement which unquestionably hinders the District's ability to diversity its staff." (App.397)
The court ordered three types of staffing remedies which are now under review: (1) a 13.5% hiring goal for minority teachers in each grade configuration (App.388); (2) a reduction in force mechanism to preserve the RSD's minority hiring gains in the event of a lay-off (App.388); and (3) a teacher assignment procedure which allows RSD limited opportunities to directly place minority teachers into school assignments for desegregative purposes and places a cap and/or floor on their distribution in each school (App.402-404). The court also enjoined the collective bargaining agreement to the extent it would prevent implementation of the CRO. (App.405)
Overall, the hiring, layoff and assignment remedies ordered by the district court were necessary, appropriate and well within the court's discretion. Plaintiffs appeal only two discrete components of these remedies: (1) the court's failure to create separate hiring goals for Black and Hispanic teachers; and (2) the inclusion of teachers hired specifically for bilingual programs in satisfying the overall hiring goal.
28

A. The District Court's Failure to Create Hiring Subgoals for Black and Hispanic Teachers was an Abuse of Discretion
The test of an appropriate desegregation remedy is whether it `¯promises realistically to work, and promises realistically to work now " Greeq. 391 U S at 439. In the context of faculty desegregation, the Supreme Court has interpreted this requirement in favor of setting fixed ratios for faculty desegregation, on the principle that "specific commands" improve the speed and efficacy of the remedy by creating concrete compliance standards. Montgomery County. 395 U S at 235-36
In seeking to achieve faculty diversity, both black and Hispanic teachers must be represented adequately. As uncontroverted evidence in the record reflects, a racially diverse staff: (1) serves the goal of fostering a positive desegregated school climate and providing all racial groups a voice within the faculty to change the discourse and culture within the school; (2) changes the status quo of a segregated system; and (3) enhances cultural understanding and interactions by exposing all students to teachers of different races and backgrounds. (Harris Tr.1736-38, 1744; Parish Tr 18041806, 1832, 1841-44; Levine Tr. 1885-89; Crain Tr.2127-35, 2085; PX26) See also. McLaughlin v Boston School Committee. 938 F.Supp. 1001, 1009-1015 (D.Mass. 1996) (recognizing benefits of a racially and ethnically diverse educational environment).
The overall benefits of a racially diverse faculty are undermined, however, when the hiring goals are so unspecific, as here, that they literally allow the hiring of a minority faculty that is entirely black or entirely Hispanic, not proportionally black and Hispanic. To avoid such anomalous results, racial subgoals have been used routinely in both court-ordered and voluntary teacher hiring and assignment desegregation remedies. See e.g.. Tasbv v Wright. 713 F.2d 90 (5th Cir. 1983); Lorain NAACP v. Lorain Bd of Educ. 768 F.Supp. 1224, 1228 (N.D. Ohio 199IV rev'd on other
29

, 979 F 2d 1141 (6th Cir 1992) Here, hiring subgoals for African-American and Hispanic teachers in a ratio of 3 to 1. respectively, are supported by the evidence in the record, which shows that the ratio of Black to Hispanic teachers nationally is approximately 2 to 1 and in Illinois is approximate^ 4 5 to 1 (PX210. p.5 and attachment 2, p 1)
B. The Inclusion of Bilingual Teachers in the Hiring Goal Undermines the Faculty Desegregation Remedy
In the present case, the inclusion of bilingual teachers in the overall hiring goals also undermines the effectiveness of the hiring and assignment remedies. If bilingual teachers count toward the overall achievement of the hiring goal, but are not included in the faculty assignment goals, the presence of minority faculty in non-bilingual schools will be greatly diminished.
To illustrate this point under current conditions, more than 25% of the minority elementary teachers in the District's schools are teaching in bilingual programs (26 bilingual teachers out of 97 total minority elementary teachers). (App.4O3) Consequently, there are only 71 minority teachers to diversify the staff at the 37 elementary schools without bilingual programs -– an average of only 1.9 minority teachers per school.
The problem will continue in the future: assuming the unlikely event that the percentage of minority teachers in bilingual programs were to remain constant, if the RSD fully achieved the mandated goal of 13.5% minority faculty, the adjusted percentage of minority faculty distributed in the RSD's non-bilingual elementary schools would be approximately 10%. Under a +/- 5% faculty assignment standard, schools with only 5% minority faculty could be in compliance.
An affirmative action program created to desegregate school faculties must be designed to yield minority teachers in sufficient numbers that they can be meaningfully distributed throughout
30

the system. See Fort Bend Indep School Dist. v City of Safford. 65 1 F 2d 1133. 1 137 15th Cir 1981) The inclusion of bilingual teachers in meeting the hiring goal, especially when coupled with the lack of hiring subgoals, leads to the undesirable result that students in non-bilingual programs will have a significantly less diverse faculty than their peers in bilingual programs, or. worse still, will continue to attend schools with racially identifiable faculties
C. The Objections Made by RSD and the Union to the Hiring and Staff Assignment Remedies Should Be Rejected4 I. The District Court Properly Directed Affirmative Measures to Remedy RSD's Employment Discrimination
The Union concedes that "[t]here is no doubt that students... have a right to attend schools free from discrimination, and that injury to students caused by the School District's past discrimination against minority teacher applicants must be remedied." (REA Br.2l) The Union contends, however, that the injuries to the minority students can be sufficiently remedied simply through the "elimination of the noxious practice and its open, aggressive repudiation." (REA Br 22)
This argument is contrary to the facts in this case and to long-standing desegregation jurisprudence. As early as Green, the Supreme Court held that it was remedially insufficient for a school district to merely stop its unconstitutional practice of segregating pupils on the basis of race because the "effects" of the school district's violations were not addressed by such action. Green. 391 U.S. at 440. In the present case, as well, the district court was justified in finding that the mere
4Due to space limitations, plaintiffs incorporate by reference arguments fully briefed before the distnct court concerning the inapplicability of strict scrutiny to race conscious faculty desegregation remedies in school desegregation cases, (R. 1657, 26-46), and the necessity of contract subordination to achieve those remedies. (R. 1634, 125-133).
31

cessation of RSD's unlawful conduct would not remedy the effects of RSD's employment discrimination and in ordering the combination of a hiring goal and certain teacher assignment measures
In addition to finding that there are continuing effects of RSD's employment discrimination on the composition of the RSD faculty, the court also found that these effects would obstruct the remediation of student assignment discrimination. (App.400) The court observed that racially identifiable faculties -– a result in part of the RSD's employment discrimination -– would "severely undermine[ ]" the controlled choice student assignment remedy. Id..
In short, unless affirmative remedial measures are implemented in response to RSD's adjudicated employment discrimination, the overall remedy afforded to minority students will be minimized and obstructed.
2. The Hiring Goal and Assignment Remedies Are Fully Supported by the Record and Caselaw
RSD mischaracterizes the lower court's analysis in arguing that the hiring remedy was not the product of a strict labor market analysis utilized in employment discrimination cases. While the court acknowledged that a labor market analysis need not serve as the basis for a faculty hiring remedy in a desegregation case (App. 380-81, citing Morgan v. Kerrigan. 530 F.2d 431 (1st Cir 1976)), the court nevertheless opted for this conservative approach. (App.381)
RSD also challenges the court's finding that the percentage of minority teachers in the relevant labor market is 13.5% and asserts that in light of the current percentage of minority teachers in RSD, RSD is already unitary in its teacher hiring. Such an argument—that no remedy exists for an adjudicated hiring violation—has been rejected out of hand in other school desegregation cases.
32

For example, in_Morgan v Kerrigan. 530 F 2d at 433. the court held that approving a hiring uca¡ 'ess than the current percentage of minority teachers in the school district "would entirely nullify the court's previous finding of constitutional violations in the recruitment and hiring of faculty and would [permit] backtracking rather than constituting remedial relief."
Moreover, the 13 5% hiring goal adopted by the court is amply supported by evidence presented by the plaintiffs' and RSD's labor market experts. (App.381-87. 685. 695-701) It was well within the discretion of the Magistrate Judge to reject the conclusions reached by Defendants expert, Evelyn Freeman, and to establish a hiring goal using labor market data which was essentially common to both experts. See Parents in Action v Hannon. 506 F.Supp. 831 (N D 111. 1980). First, the court rejected Ms. Freeman's analysis because of the heavy weighting she gave to the local market as a primary source of teachers for the RSD and because she ignored the negative impact of the contract and placement system on the RSD's applicant flow. (App.385-6) The court concluded that the figures for the availability of minority teachers in the local market were inherently unreliable because the RSD's prominence as an employer in the area, coupled with its long history of race discrimination, had artificially depressed the number of minority teachers locally I¿.
The court also rejected the assumption underlying Ms. Freeman's analysis that Chicago is not a viable source of minority teachers for the RSD. (App.386-87) After reviewing the evidence presented, the court determined that "Defendant has unfairly seized upon Rockford's relative lack of success in recruiting from Chicago," and concluded that eliminating Chicago from the labor pool is unwarranted. (App.387)
Finally, RSD asserts, without any support whatsoever, that the court abused its discretion by imposing a 5% ceiling on the percentage of minority teachers in each elementary school and a
33

— - 5°-o compliance standard in the middle and high schools In fact, these standards are consistent with the ranges employed in other desegregation cases ¿e_e., Jacobson v Cincinnati Bd ot' Education. 961 F 2d 100, 102 (6th Cir 1992).
3. The Hiring and Desegregation Remedies Do Not Violate the Equal Protection Clause
The Union concedes that "where necessary to correct injury caused to minority students by employment discrimination, race-conscious remedies may be used in teacher hiring and assignment." (REA Br. 18). Nonetheless, the RSD and Union challenge the specific assignment and layoff remedies ordered, arguing that: (1) those remedies are subject to strict scrutiny review, and (2) the remedies do not meet strict scrutiny because they are not narrowly tailored.
a. Race Conscious Remedies are Fundamental to the Desegregation Process and Are Not Subject to Strict Scrutiny
As discussed earlier in this brief at pp. 15-18, strict scrutiny does not apply to judicially ordered race-conscious remedies in a desegregation case. This provides the short answer to any narrow tailoring argument.
b. Even if the Faculty Remedies are Subject to Strict Scrutiny, They Satisfy that Test
Even if strict scrutiny were applied to the race conscious remedies ordered in this case, the remedies are narrowly tailored and meet this test. The hiring, assignment and lay-off remedies are necessary and more effective than alternative remedies; they are flexible because they are limited in their application; and they were conservatively calculated, using labor market statistics for the hiring goal and using equilibrium principles for the layoff and assignment remedies.
34

The hiring goal is flexible and achievable. It has no deadline date and does not exclude nonminority applicants. Realistically, the number of Black and Hispanic teachers that will need to be hired to fulfill the 13 5% hiring goal will be approximately 70, Considering that the RSD's total teaching staff is approximately 2000. and its normal attrition rate during the last several years was 50-80 teachers, the hiring goal is not unduly burdensome. (PX141, PX2O7)
The layoff remedy is a narrowly tailored protective device. It preserves existing minority faculty percentages in the event of a layoff and is not a tool for achievement of the hiring goal Minority teachers do not have layoff protection per se\ nor do white teachers as a group lose their contractual and seniority rights. Reverse seniority will be suspended in a layoff only in those limited instances when it is necessary to balance its racial impact. (App.388)
Finally, the teacher assignment remedy is narrowly tailored and does not arbitrarily or unnecessarily impinge upon the rights of third parties. It does not force any incumbent teacher to involuntarily transfer; nor does it strip incumbent teachers of their contractual transfer and assignment rights. It allows the RSD, during designated intervals, to directly place newly hired (or willing incumbent) minority teachers into schools which are out of compliance with faculty desegregation standards. For the remaining time, the contractual assignment provisions remain fully in effect. Thus, the assignment remedy places only minimal burdens upon incumbent teachers by diminishing their placement choices under circumstances where they would impede faculty integration.5
5The Union's argument that the faculty assignment remedy is improper because there was no finding of intentional discrimination by RSD in faculty assignments completely misses the point that a court's remedial authority in a desegregation case may even extend to areas of the school system in which no vestiges of discrimination are found. See. Vaughns. 742 F. Supp. at 1291 (faculty
35

4. The Subordination of Contractual Rights Is Necessary to the Remedy The district court properly held that alteration or modification of the collective baraamina agreement is necessary to integrate the District's schools The evidence presented in the lower court established that application of the race-neutral assignment provisions of the union contract has caused RSD's segregated faculty, obstructed efforts to diversify its staff, and impeded its minority hiring success (App 386, 394-95) First, the liability opinion found the teacher's contract to be the operational cause of the RSD's segregated faculty. 851 F Supp. at 924. Simply stated, history has shown that when faculty assignment has been primarily seniority driven and teachers have been afforded the opportunity to exercise their choice about where to teach based on that seniority, white teachers have been more likely to choose racially identifiable white schools and minority teachers have been more likely to choose racially identifiable minority schools. (App.389-97, 680-81) Moreover, the disparity in seniority between majority and minority teachers is a vestige of RSD's employment discrimination. (App.395-97) As in Morgan v Burke. 926 F.2d 86, 89-90 (1st Cir. 1991), c_eiL denied. 503 U.S. 983 (1992) "over the years, because of the disincentives and obstacles depressing minority recruitment, the seniority system had become one dramatically favoring white teachers and staff, and . . . any substantial layoff of faculty in order of reverse
desegregation remedy approved despite absence of finding of staff assignment discrimination); Kromnick v School Dist. of Philadelphia. 739 F.2d 894, 904-5 (3rd Cir. 1984) (assignment plan to integrate faculty is considered remedial even when it does not follow a liability finding in the faculty assignments area). See also. Wittmer v Peters. 87 F.3d 916, 919 (7th Cir. 1996). (racebased promotions implemented in prison system not violative of equal protection, even though not remedial).
36

seniority, as provided for in the collective bargaining agreements, would undo in a day what had taken years to accomplish."
Furthermore, the evidence demonstrated that seniority provisions of the teacher's contract have caused faculty segregation to worsen as more minority faculty have come into RSD dunna the last several years Dr LaLonde opined that faculty segregation may grow even worse if the assignment procedures continue to be applied as the number of new minority hires grows (App.657) •
Considering all this evidence, the court unquestionably had authority to subordinate the teacher's contract. The authority to take such action turns on whether subordination of the contract is necessary to the desegregation remedy, and in particular whether the agreement impedes, disrupts or interferes with the desegregation plan. Little Rock School Dist. v Pulaski County Special School Dist.. 839 F.2d 1296, 1314-16 (8th Cir.), cert, denied. 488 U.S. 869 (1988). Provisions of a collective bargaining agreement must yield if necessary to vindicate the constitutional rights of students to a unitary system. People Who Care. 961 F.2d at 1338.
Here the evidence conclusively showed and the lower court found that operation of the contract continues to create and perpetuate segregation of faculty and that it impedes, and is inconsistent with, an effective desegregation remedy. (App.386, 395-97) The balance of competing interests between the plaintiff class and teachers who would be affected by alteration of the contract weighs heavily in favor of the school children and their parents. Morgan v O'Brvant. 671 F.2d 23 (1st Cir 1982). The interest of the plaintiff class in a desegregated school system is a compelling one of a constitutional magnitude. In contrast, what is at stake for affected teachers is a short term denial of some placement opportunities; and for some, the possibility that in particularized
37

circumstances, ¯and only in the event oí a layoff, they may be effected by a layoff from which they might otherwise be insulated.6
VI. The Magistrate Judge Properly Admitted Expert Testimony Regarding Student Achievement and Educational Outcomes The Magistrate Judge properly admitted into evidence expert testimony concerning student
achievement gaps between minority and majority students that are vestiges of the School Districts intentional discrimination. The testimony presented by the plaintiffs' and Master's experts easily meets the standard under FRE Rule 702 and Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals., 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993), that an expert must testify to (1) scientific knowledge that (2) will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue. M· at 2796.
A. The Expert Testimony Concerning Student Achievement and Educational Outcomes was based upon Scientific Knowledge
In order to qualify as "scientific knowledge," testimony must be based on scientific method as opposed to subjective belief or unsupported speculation. ¡¿. at 2796-97. In Daubert. the Supreme Court identified a non-exhaustive list of considerations that bear on this issue, including: (a) whether the theory or technique can be (and has been) tested; (b) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review or publication; (c) the known or potential rate of error for a scientific technique; and (d) the extent to which a technique has "widespread acceptance" in the relevant scientific community. I¿. Some of the factors mentioned in Daubert are not readily applicable in
6In connection with its arguments against modification of its contract rights, the Union also asserts that it should receive a new trial in light of execution of a new teacher's contract after the close of the remedial hearing. The Magistrate Judge properly denied this motion because Rule 6O(b) does not apply to evidence that did not exist at the time of the initial hearing. Peacock v Bd. of School Comm'rs. 721 F.2d 210, 214 (7th Cir. 1983).
38

all cases, such, as cases involving social science opinions. Sá£. Daubert v \terrell Do-.v Pharmaceuticals. Inc. 43 F.3d 1311. 1317 (9th Cir. 1995)
In this case, the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the testimony ot Drs Crain. Shapiro, Levine and Parish was based on scientific knowledge. Dr Crain, plaintiffs' expert, is a professor of sociology and education at Columbia University and has studied the outcomes and effects of desegregation on minority students for thirty years. (Crain Tr980-81) Dr Crain s testimony about the effects of segregation on educational achievement was based upon standard accepted methodology in the social science field, including his own qualitative field studies, data from widely accepted national data bases, including longitudinal and cohort data bases, other researchers' materials that have been published and subjected to peer review, and mega-analysis, a process of re-analysis of other researchers' materials and findings. (Crain Tr.99l, 987-96, 4274-75, 4277)
The testimony of the Master's experts (Drs. Shapiro, Levine and Parish) also qualified as scientific knowledge. Dr. Shapiro, has taught university level courses related to student performance and employed standard statistical methods, including multiple regression analysis to analyze RSD data. (Shapiro Tr.4544-46, 4553-54; Master's Ex. 58) Similarly, Dr. Levine formed his opinions after studying achievement scores and other RSD data and employed well-tested methodology subjected to peer review. (Levine Tr.4965-77; App.48O) Finally, Dr Parish based his opinions upon years of experience in the field of education and organization culture and reliable and accepted methods of sociological study, including interviews with RSD teachers, students and parents, on-site observations and the collection and review of data. (Parish Tr.4633, 4639-41,
39

Master's Ex. ó¯O, App 481) As the Magistrate Judge suggested. Dr Parish's opinions are equallIV admissible as personal observations of conditions in Rockford í App 481)
B. The Expert Testimony Concerning Student Achievement and Educational Outcomes Provided Assistance to the Trier of Fact
The second requirement under FRE 702 and Daubert is that the testimony will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue. Here, as specifically found by the trier of fact. (the Magistrate Judge), this standard is "easily met." (App.479) The technical nature of data relating to student achievement and the fact that the effects of segregation and educational discrimination on student achievement are at the core of this case render the testimony of Drs. Crain, Shapiro, Levine and Parish "extremely relevant." (App.479)
C. The School District Offered No Plausible Grounds for Excluding the Expert Testimony
The School District's various arguments for excluding the testimony of the plaintiffs' and the Master's experts mischaracterize the actual testimony at the remedial hearing.
As discussed in more detail in the next section, it is simply incorrect for RSD to assert that these experts were unable to testify concerning the cause of the achievement gap or to quantify the effects of the District's unlawful conduct with respect to that gap. (RSD Br.45). To the contrary, Dr. Crain testified that the effects of segregation produced a tangible loss in the order of 3/10 to 4/10 of a standard deviation in minority achievement, (Crain Tr.4279), that the disparities in achievement test scores in RSD are statistically significant, (Crain Tr433I), that apart from segregation, educational discrimination has had a detrimental impact on minority student achievement, (Crain Tr. 4281-82), and that ultimately, if RSD had not engaged in any form of discrimination, there would be no performance gaps between minority and majority students. (Crain Tr.4326)
40

To the same effect, Dr Shapiro testified that differences in reading comprehension and mathematics scores in RSD were 20 N'CEs between .African-American and non-minority students and that, in his opinion, the 20 NCE difference measured the performance difference attributable to discrimination by RSD (Master's Ex. 58) Dr. Levine also opined that achievement gaps are related to the intentional discrimination of RSD. (Levine Tr.4972-74, 5008-9)
The School District grossly exaggerates about the testimony of its expert, Dr Butler, when it argues that his testimony suggests that the methodology employed by Drs. Crain, Shapiro, Levine and Parish was inadequate. As the Magistrate Judge correctly found, merely because the parties' experts disagree about a conclusion or use different methodology does not make the testimony of either party inadmissible. (App.48l)
Even if Dr. Butler had expressed such opinions, he lacked the qualifications to provide credible criticism of the testimony of the other experts. Dr. Butler admitted that he has never conducted any research, taught any courses, or published any materials in the area of student achievement outcomes, and does not consider himself an expert in tests, measurements or achievement scores. (Butler Tr.5184, 5239-40)
VTJ. The Achievement Remedy Ordered by the District Court Is Proper in All Respects A. The Liability Findings Address the Negative Effect of RSD's Unlawful Conduct upon Minority Student Achievement Contrary to the RSD's contention, (RSD Br.3O), the district court made several specific
findings in its 1993 liability decision relating to the negative impact of the RSD's adjudicated violations on minority student achievement. The findings are summarized by the district court in the CRO (App.407-08), and address the impact on achievement of violations such as student
41

assignment segregation, discriminatory tracking practices, and discrimination in school facilities (id.)
In its liability decision , the district court also found that (1) RSD was fully aware of the link between its discriminatory student assignment practices and the impaired achievement ot` minority students, and (2) despite being apprised of that link, RSD on numerous occasions rejected recommendations that it address low minority achievement through a change in student assignment practices. (851 F.Supp. at 1035-36, 1042). These facts were before the court and properly considered by it when it made its 50% incremental effects determination. S_S£, Davton Bd. of Education v. Bnnkman. 443 U.S. 526, 541 (1979) ("the Court of Appeals was also quite justified in utilizing the Board's failure to fulfill its affirmative duty--and indeed its conduct resulting in increased segregation—to trace the current, systemwide segregation back to the purposefully dual system of the 1950's and the subsequent acts of intentional discrimination")
B. The District Court Properly Applied the Requirements of Jenkins EH The RSD complains that the district court ignored the command of Jenkins III that it make an incremental effects determination. (RSD Br.32)
RSD has misconstrued the district court's statement that "identifying the incremental effect that segregation has had on student achievement is unnecessary." (App.419) In its Order on the motions to reconsider (App.468), the district court explained that it meant that because RSD's adjudicated violations include more than just "segregation," (i.e., educational discrimination), its incremental effects finding relates to more than just the effects of segregation. (App.489-90)
As the district court correctly perceived, there is no requirement under Jenkins III that the court further parse the incremental effects determination according to type of discrimination by the
42

RSD See Dayton. 443 US at 540-41 (it is not necessary to show 'with respect to each individual act of discrimination precisely what effect it had on current patterns of segregation") Rather, it was sufficient to allocate remedial responsibility by determining the incremental effect of the totality of the RSD's adjudicated violations
C. The Record Fully Supports the District Court's Incremental Effects Determination and Its Remedial Directives
Contrary to RSD's claim that the lower court "flouted" the commands of Jenkins III by failing to consider the effects of factors beyond the control of the RSD, (RSD Br 32), the district court carefully considered all the relevant evidence.
I. The District Court applied a Sound Methodology to the Incremental Effect Issue
After identifying the current achievement disparity as 35 percentile points or 20 NCE on standardized tests (App.4l8), the lower court proceeded to determine what portion of that current disparity or "gap" is attributable to the RSD's adjudicated violations, Le^ what portion of the gap is a "vestige" of the RSD's discrimination. (App.164) In making this determination, the court rejected the notion that the RSD is liable for indirect causation (Le^., multigenerational effect) (App. 171 n. 147) and further explicitly removed the impact of "external" or socio-economic factors from the incremental effects calculus. (App.419) By accounting for the effects of these external factors, and considering the history and nature of RSD's violations, the court then properly attributed the remaining increment of the disparity to RSD's violations.
43

¯2. The District Court's Incremental Effects Determination is Supported by the Evidence and is Not Clear Error
The undisputed evidence indicates that school segregation and intentional educational discrimination negatively affect the educational achievement of minority students. ¿ee. e ¾,. CRO summary of expert testimonies (App.412, 414-416, Willis Tr.4512-13, Parish Tr4633, Crain Tr.4278-83) RSD itself concedes that "intentional discrimination may negatively impact minority student achievement" (RSD Br.32). Accordingly, the issue is not whether RSD's violations have damaged minority achievement, but rather, "what percentage of the achievement gaps can be attributed to the intentional segregation and tracking practices." (App.418)
Acknowledging that the increment could.not be determined with mathematical precision (App.42l), the lower court proceeded to carefully weigh the evidence. The court relied on the testimony of the Master's expert. Dr. Levine, that poverty may account for approximately 23 to 30% of the achievement gap. (App.422 n. 148; Levine Tr.4973) The evidence before the court was that poverty is associated with a plethora of family and social characteristics, and that poverty level is a reliable proxy for a wide range of socio-economic factors. (Crain Tr.4319; Butler Tr 5189; Hoffer Tr 5111, 5136; DX 2 at 7) The inference which the lower court reasonably drew from the evidence was that the remaining 70 to 77% of the achievement gap was due to something otht than socioeconomic factors. (App.422 n.148; Hoffer Tr.5136-37)
The district courtalso looked to 1995 data on standardized achievement tests in the RSD, which was presented in a form which took into account eligibility for subsidized lunch. Evidence in the record established that subsidized lunch status is a credible and reliable proxy for socio-
44

economic status (App.410 n. 140. Hotfer T r 5 l l l ) . The 1995 achievement data estabhsned the following:
-– The average gap across all grade levels between "free lunch" whites and "free lunch" blacks was 10 5 NCE in reading and 10 4 NCE in math. In other words, there is a 10 NCE difference between the scores of poor black students and poor white students Even when the socio-economic status is accounted for, there still remains a gap which is a full 50% o( the overall gap. (App 410-11, Crain Tr.4333-34; 4336) - Similar disparities in the free lunch category were present with respect to white and Hispanic scores. (App.410-11) -– There is only a small difference between the scores of "free lunch" minority students and non- free-lunch minority students. (Levine Tr.4978; Grain Tr.4336) Based on this record, and the testimony of the experts regarding achievement effects, the district court could have made an increments determination much higher than 50%. ÍSee. Levine Tr.4973) (70 to 77% of achievement gap not accounted for by poverty) However, erring on the side of being conservative, the court found that while the RSD was responsible for "at least" 50% of the gap, the court would fix the proportion of RSD's responsibility at 50% and not higher (App.422)
3. It is Irrelevant That the Increment Cannot Be Measured with Mathematical Certainty
At times, RSD appears to argue that because the increment cannot be exactly measured, the lower court erred in making any educated apportionment. But mathematical precision has never been required in the law generally with respect to apportionment of damages. As in many cases, the
45

court "had before it the best evidence of damages which the nature of the case admits [and the fact] that this evidence might not permit a mathematically precise apportionment of damages is irrelevant." Transpower Constructors v Grand River Dam Auth.. 905 F 2d 1413. 1417 (10th Cir 1990) In the school desegregation setting, in particular, courts have recognized that it would be futile to insist upon mathematical precision. See Armstrong v O'Connell. 463 F Supp 1295. 1302 ( E D Wise. 1979).
D. The Lower Court's Remedial Requirements are Appropriate and Fully Supported by the Evidence 1. The District Court's Achievement Remedy is Appropriately Specific and Goal-Oriented and is Sufficiently Flexible
After finding RSD responsible for a substantial portion of the current achievement disparity, the court ordered RSD to close 50% of that gap within four years. (App.423) Relying on evidence that such a goal was feasible (s££ below), the court further observed that "it is important to specify goals when working to improve student performance. Without goals... educators have difficulty focusing on improving the performance o f laggard' groups." (App.414, citing Levine Tr 4891-93; MX 63 at 4; seje. a]sü Eubanks Tr.483l, 4867-68; 4872, 4885; Levine Tr.4985; Crain. Tr 4345; Parish Tr.4629, 4665, Willis Tr.4485-86)
In adopting the specific goal of reducing the achievement disparity by 50% over 4 years, the court built a significant measure of flexibility into its order. First, as an alternative to closing by 50% the gap in the standardized test scores, the court offered RSD the option of bringing 90% of minority students in the school district to within one grade level of the national norm on alternative reading and math tests. (App.423)
46

Second, ihe CRO contains other mechanisms which provide for flexibility in reaching goals. including the achievement goals. For instance, the CRO provides for regular assessment of the educational interventions ordered for the purpose of measuring their effectiveness. I App 424) [n addition, the CRO governance provisions contain a mechanism by which the RSD may raise practicability problems with the court-appointed Master as they arise, and appeal to the court any decisions by the Master relating to those problems. (App 452-53). Finally, the court's order explicitly provides that the Master may "waive, for good reason, the percentage requirements of this order and that the Master's decision is appealable to the court.
2. The District Court's Feasibility Findings are Fully Supported on the Record and Do Not Constitute Clear Error
As noted above, the court ordered the RSD to reduce the racial disparity in achievement scores by 50% over a four-year period. Considering that the disparity generally is 35 percentile points (on a standardized test), the 50% goal calls for an average annual increase in minority scores of 4 3 percentile points. In adopting that goal, the district court relied on the testimony of several expert witnesses7 that annual progress at the even higher rate of 5 percentile points is reasonably feasible given vigorous and good faith efforts by the RSD at implementing the desegregation and educational improvement components of the CRO. Sfi£ Eubanks Tr.4829-30; Levine Tr.4984-85; Crain Tr.4338-39; Parish Tr.4665-66; Shapiro Tr.4574. In particular, Dr. Levine testified at length
7In support of its claim that this remedy is not feasible, the RSD cites testimony to the effect that the gap will take many more than four years to close. (RSD Br.36-37) The RSD's reliance on this testimony is misplaced. First, the witnesses all were referring to closing the entire gap. Second, Dr. C rain's estimate of 25 years to close the entire gap was based on his opinion that a portion of that gap is attributable to multigenerational effects, which would take much longer to eradicate. (Crain Tr4342-43)
47

regarding the experiences 01 other school districts in raising test scores ` Even the RSD s own expert. Dr Hoffer. agreed that educational interventions can effectuate improvements in achievement. (Hoffer Tr.5131-34, 5117)
The RSD tries to make something of the fact that Drs. Cram and Parish, who supported the Master's goals, could give no guarantees that the RSD could achieve such results (RSD Br 3") But in all events the standard is reasonable feasibility not absolute certainty, and a "judgment call" by professional educators is an ample predicate for the remedy ordered in this case. Ç£ Wittmer v Peters. 87 F 3d 916, 920 (7th Cir. 1996) (reasonable social science judgments about the efficacy of proposed measures are sufficient support for measures)
YTTI. Given the School District's Blatant Discrimination in Tracking and Ability Grouping, the District Court Properly Limited Ability Grouping in the RSD A. The Findings From the Liability Trial and the Remedial Hearing Support the District Court's Ability Grouping Remedy To appreciate the need for the CRO provisions proscribing ability grouping, a more thorough
description of the School District's adjudicated discrimination in this area is required. More than "a form of intentional discrimination," (RSD Br. 13), the School District's ability grouping practices constituted "the most egregious and blatant form of intentional discrimination against minority schoolchildren." (App.260) As determined in the liability opinion and cited in the CRO, RSD's ability grouping practices were not supported by any trustworthy academic theory, provided unequal opportunities to learn, and served no remedial function for African-American and Hispanic students
"As regards the court's alternative goal-- 90% of minority students within one of grade level on alternative test measures- and contrary to the contention of the RSD that there was "no showing that this was possible," (RSD Br.38), the record also demonstrates feasibility. (Levine Tr.4985-88)
48

(351 F Supp 915, 940, 946-47. 958. 999. App.26O) Minority students were dispropomonatel> enrolled in slow track, low ability classes, while white students were overenrolled in high track college preparatory classes. (851 F Supp. 942. App 260)
The tests which RSD used to separate students were not valid for predicting future achievement and were culturally biased. (851 F Supp. 948-59) Even if the tests had been valid, RSD applied them unreliably, invalidly, and inconsistently: RSD routinely assigned students to classes which did not match their test scores. (851 F. Supp. at 958)
Racially identifiable tracking in the RSD continues to this day. The Special Master has advised the court that in many cases, "Basic Courses" have been merely retitled "Regular Classes," with the net effect being that instead of having four tracks, RSD now has three. (App.262 n. 15) Many honors classes remain racially identifiable white, while basic classes remain ¡dentifiably minority. ¡¿L; S££. Master's Ex. 56, Table 3 (identifying minority enrollment in regular and honors classes).
B. The Ability Grouping Remedy Was Well Within the District Court's Discretion Given all the findings of intentional discrimination in this area and the vestiges of discrimination which remain, the court ordered the School District to eliminate all ability grouping except for (1) a stand alone gifted program which contains a minimum minority enrollment, and (2) academic and social support programs to help minority students succeed in heterogeneous classes (App.262, 446-49) This order is supported by two sets of remedial principles. First, the remedy is appropriate to overcome RSD's intentional discrimination in its ability grouping and tracking practices. Sj£ McNeal v Tate County School Dist. 508 F.2d 1017 (5th Cir. 1975). Second, the remedy facilitates
49

the overall desegregation process. See Reed v Rhodes 455 F Supp 569. 598 (N D Ohio l`5``Si (ordering the elimination of ability grouping and tracking despite "no evidence of discriminatory use in the past')
The School District's brief, although citing some ability grouping cases at pp 14-15. fails to recognize that these cases involve the standard for determining whether a school district has discriminated in the area of ability grouping, not the proper remedy once discrimination has been established.
C. Because RSD Stipulated to the District Court's Ability Grouping Remedy Under the Comprehensive Remedial Order, the RSD Should be Prohibited From Appealing the Ability Grouping Remedy
During the Comprehensive Remedial hearing, the School District entered into a stipulation in which it agreed to the Master's proposed ability grouping remedy, excluding provisions relating to entrance requirements for magnet schools and alternative programs. (R. 1922, p.2) In light of this stipulation, the School District is precluded from its present broad appeal of the ability grouping remedy, £â£ Wilson v. Wilson. 46 F 3d 660, 667 (7th Cir. 1995).
EX. Given the School District's History of Within School Segregation, the District Court's Within School Segregation Remedy Is Appropriate A. The Plus/Minus 5% Compliance Standard Is Appropriate and Tailored to Remedy RSD's Intentional Within School Segregation. Within school segregation was and is the most pervasive student enrollment problem in the
District. (App.437) As part of the within school segregation remedy, the court ordered that the racial composition of all classes come within +/- 5% of the racial composition of students eligible to be enrolled in each class section. (App.443) This remedy is appropriate for two reasons: ( l ) a s
50

previously discussed, race conscious remedies are required to overcome race conscious discrimination; and (2) without a -/- 5% standard, the permissible variation in the racial composition of classes would render the within school discrimination remedy meaningless
In the present case, the Magistrate Judge noted that within school segregation remedies "can best be thought of as an extension of the racial fairness guidelines under the student assignment plan." (App.439) Under the CRO, the within school compliance range is actually •+••- 20% schools may vary ->-/'-15% in racial composition, and within the classrooms of those schools, classes mayvary another -r/¯ 5%. Because the within classroom requirements are grafted onto the between school compliance range, RSD's proposed remedy (+/- 15% at the classroom level) would produce an effective within school compliance range of +/-30% and allow a class of 30 students to have anywhere from 2 to 20 minority students. (App.440) The district court properly concluded that these variations were too broad to establish a meaningful within school discrimination remedy and ordered a +/- 5% standard at the classroom level.
B. Exempting Compensatory Education Programs From Within School Integration Requirements Would Effectively Render the Ability Grouping Remedy Meaningless
If the School District could exempt Compensatory Education programs from within school integration requirements, RSD's curriculum would remain as it existed prior to remedial implementation: stigmatized remedial core classes disproportionately filled with minority students Even when proposed remedial programs are supplemental, a scheduling conflicts exemption could still lead to racially identifiable classes. For example, if a remedial program exempted from compliance guidelines were offered first period, then other first period classes might remain racially identifiable.
51

In all events, the CRO is sufficiently flexible to address any legitimate concerns that may arise The Master may grant a waiver where within school integration requirements are incompatible with insuring that remedial programs reach victims of the RSD's discrimination (App449)
C. The CRO Properly Allows the Master to Determine Which Classes Are Core and Which Classes Are Elective
The School District's argument that allowing the Master to determine core and elective classes usurps local authority is entirely without merit. In the present case, the district court found that RSD "has a long history of course manipulation"to maintain discrimination. (App 483) In formulating the CRO, the court feared that RSD would simply relabel core courses not in compliance as electives in order to avoid a violation. (App.445) As such, allowing the Master to determine core and elective classes is an appropriate remedy tailored to RSD's long history of course manipulation and within school segregation.
D. Minimum Minority Enrollment Requirements for Gifted and CAPA Programs Are Necessary to Eliminate Discrimination in These Formerly Segregated Programs
Gifted Programs and CAPA (Creative and Performing Arts) classes are forms of ability grouping which (1) were an explicit part of the District Court's liability finding and (2) continue to have low minority enrollment. (App.439-446) With "a great deal of hesitance," the district court allowed Gifted and CAPA programs to continue to operate. (App.446) However, to protect against the possibility that these programs would remain vestiges of RSD's ability grouping discrimination, the district court required a minimum minority enrollment at each entry grade level. (App.446) Given RSD's history of using these high status programs as enclaves for the white students, the
52

district court's j¯emedy strikes an appropriate balance between eliminating within school discrimination and eliminating these specialty programs.
X. The Discipline Remedies Ordered by the Court Are Warranted Contrary to the assertions of the RSD, the lower court's discipline remedy is wholly
supported by the record and by caselaw, both as an appropriate response to the discipline disparity which is a vestige of the RSD's adjudicated violations and as a facüitative remedy.
In addition to the liability finding that race-based perceptions of RSD staff "resulted in the disproportionate referral of minority students for disciplinary problems," (App.426), citing People Who Care. 851 F.Supp at 1004), the evidence at ths remedial hearing established that current racial disparities in discipline are causally linked to the RSD's adjudicated violations. As the Master explained, the RSD's failure to adequately engage minority students academically and socially in the schooling and learning process, including through discriminatory tracking, "directly contributes to the disparity in discipline referrals and discipline sanctions." (App.54O; Shapiro Tr.4567-68) In turn, these disparities contribute to impaired minority achievement. (Eubanks Tr.48O4, Willis Tr.4512-13; Shapiro Tr.4569; Parish Tr.4633) In addition, the discriminatory culture in RSD -– a dimension of which is staff racial and cultural assumptions - is itself a vestige of the RSD's violations and taints the RSD's use of subjective categories of discipline. (Willis Tr.4484, 4487, 4511-14; Parish Tr.4630-32, 4638-39, 4677)
Apart from the need for a discipline remedy to eliminate there current vestiges of the RSD's violations, remedial measures in this area would also facilitate the achievement remedy (by keeping minority students in the classroom more often) and the student assignment remedy (by addressing
53

cultural problems arising in newly desegregated schools). (App.43O, 537-38. Parish Tr Levine Tr.5O33)
For both these reasons, the Master recommended as one part of a "comprehensive approach" (Eubanks Tr 4805), that RSD be required to achieve equity in the suspension rate where discipline is based upon the subjective categories of "disruptive behavior", "insubordination", and "verbal abuse." (App.54O, 425-26; Eubanks Tr 4805-06) The district court adopted a less restrictive version of the Master's recommendation, requiring only that the RSD insure that there is no disparity in the referral rates for these categories if the RSD continues to use them. (App.43O)
The RSD's contention that the district court exceeded its authority in ordering this remedy is meritless. First, the cases upon which the RSD relies are inapposite. Unlike the present case, in Coalition to Save Our Children v Stated Bd. of Educ. 90 F.3d 752 (3d Cir. 1996), Keves v. Congress of Hispanic Educators. 902 F.Supp. 1274 (D.Col. 1995), and Tasbv v Estes. 643 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir. 1981), the courts found that there was no causal link between the school district's violations and the current racial disparities in discipline. Coalition. 90 F 3d at 775; Keves. 902 F.Supp. at 1304; Tasbv. 643 F.2d at 1108.
Secondly, by requiring that there be no racial disparity in the interim outcomes (Le^., the referrals as opposed to the final disciplinary action) if the RSD continues the use of the subjective categories, the lower court has simply acted to ensure that RSD in fact administers its discipline code nondiscriminatorily. By even allowing the continued use of these subjective categories, the court has acted less restrictively than it did with regard to tracking, which was similarly based on RSD's subjective and discriminatory assumptions and was abolished. Given that the court would have been justified in taking stronger measures regarding subjective discipline categories, the more
54

moderate approach of requiring equity in referral rates if RSD continues to use these categories is clearly appropriate as a safeguard against discriminatory abuses
XI. The Magistrate Judge Ordered an Appropriate Remedy for Discrimination Affecting Minority Participation in Cheerleading The Magistrate Judge's determination that RSD's cheerleading squads should have a
minimum minority participation equal to the minority enrollment percentage at a particular school is supported by an extensive record and comports with the relevant remedial standards.
In the liability opinion, the court made extensive findings that minority students were not afforded an equal opportunity to participate in extracurricular activities and were discriminated against by RSD through such devices as subjective selection criteria and inequitable transportation policies. (851 F. Supp. at 1181-84) As regards cheerleading, the court specifically held that RSD engaged in a 20 year pattern of intentional discrimination against minority students, ( ü at 1182-83) According to the testimony of RSD former Superintendent Bowen and other witnesses, the cheerleader selection process was historically manipulated to exclude black cheerleaders, resulting in cheerleading squads that were all-white. (IdJ The few black cheerleaders who were chosen were "not universally accepted" by school staff and were frequently jeered, booed and even physically threatened. (IsLat 1183)
As regards extracurricular activities generally, the CRO rejects the stronger remedies sought by plaintiffs and establishes a "goal" of minority participation in extracurricular activities of +/-15% of the total minority students at a school. (App.433-35) The only extracurricular activity where the court went farther was cheerleading, where the court held that the extensive evidence of discrimination required that cheerleading squads in the RSD have a minimum minority participation
55

equal to the minority enrollment percentage at a particular school. (App 183) The Magistrate Judue observed that this requirement, although "more demanding" than other aspects of the remedy for discrimination in extracurricular activities, was narrowly tailored and did not alter the overall standard for unitary status. (App.482)
The cheerleading remedy is amply supported by the record and comports with case law holding that race-based outcome requirements are appropriate (and often necessary) components of remedying the effects of prior discrimination. See, e.g.. Swann, 402 U.S. at 25 The cases cited in the School District's brief are inapposite inasmuch as they do not relate to appropriate remedial measures for adjudicated discrimination but the question of when a school district has attained unitary status. Ss£, £*g» Ouarles v. Oxford Municipal Separate School District. 868 F 2d 750, 75758 (5th Cir. 1989) (school district attained unitary status with regard to extracurricular activities in view of finding that there was no evidence of further discrimination during nineteen year remedial phase of case).
XII. The Magistrate Judge Adopted Appropriate Provisions Regarding the Governance and Implementation of CRO Remedies A. The Present Governance Provisions Reflect a Structure Previously Agreed to by the School District In its brief, RSD fails to provide important background relating to governance issues In
1991, Dr. Eugene Eubanks was appointed to monitor the Second Interim Order (R.373) Subsequently, in a May 5, 1993 Order, Judge Roszkowski appointed Dr. Eubanks as Special Master with the responsibility to develop and oversee the implementation of the remedies in this case. (R. 1313) Dr. Eubanks was originally recommended to the court by RSD; the authority conferred
56

upon him regarding the Second Interim Order was by consent of RSD as well as order ot¯ the coun. and the authority conferred upon him as Special Master in May 1993 was by consent of both RSD and the L'nion. as well as order of the court. (R.373, R. 1310, R. 1313)
In the CRO, the Magistrate Judge reappointed Dr Eubanks as Master to oversee all remedial areas of the CRO. (App.452) The court explicitly declined to make Dr Eubanks a system-wide master, rejecting a proposal made by the Union for a system-wide master (R. 1794) The governance structure under the CRO mirrors the provisions of the prior orders. The only significant change made by the CRO is that, with the concurrence of RSD, the operation of the Planning and Implementation Committee ("PIC") has been suspended, and its functions assumed by the Master. (App.455-56) The Master's decisions remain appealable to the court as provided under the prior agreed orders and in accord with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (App.453)
In short, the CRO governance structure continues the prior structure ordered by Judge Roszkowski, which has been in place for almost six years without challenge. (App.486)
B. There is a Strong Evidentiary Basis for the Governance Provisions According to the School District, the CRO provisions relating to governance and implementation are improper because "there were no witnesses or evidence presented on the issue of governance." (RSD Br.57) Nothing could be farther from the truth: the record is filled with evidence bearing on the need for an effective administrative structure. In the first place, the Magistrate Judge made an explicit finding in the CRO, (App 349), that "the District is unable to consistently support remedies in this case." The court cited the School Board's flip-flop on its commitment to controlled choice as evidence of this problem.
57

The Magistrate Judge then elaborated on this finding in his ruling on the School District's motion to alter or amend:
The court finds, as Judge Roszkowski did almost three years ago, [that] a Master is necessary to implement the remedies ordered by this court. The District's prior record of noncompliance and delays in implementing ordered [interim] remedies necessitates this appointment." (App.486) The court went on to specifically identify numerous examples of RSD's remedial misconduct and recalcitrance. (App.486) In addition, many other examples of the School District's failure to adequately implement the Second Interim Order are thoroughly documented in the Master's Quarterly Reports, which reflect incidents of RSD's noncompliance extending to every area of school operations, including within school integration, student assignment, community and parent relations, administration, education services, facilities and transportation, staff, employment and assignment and discipline.9 See. R.2139. C. The School District Retains Substantial Control and Input with Regard to its
Administration The School District complains that "control of the RSD has been handed over to the Master." (RSD Br.58) To the contrary, the court explicitly declined to make Dr. Eubanks a system-wide master and carefully limited the Master's authority to the remedial matters specified in the CRO As the Magistrate Judge observed, the bulk of the decision-making process has been left with the Board
'Recent events confirm the that the CRO governance provisions are critically important. Last month, the School Board's refusal to fund final and unappealed remedial obligations led to the initiation of contempt proceedings against the School Board and its members.
58

and school administrators "as long as the District's actions are in accordance with the CRO remedies and do not discriminate against minority children." (App.487) In addition, the court returned control of some entire areas to the Board, (such as Special Education), directed RSD alone to take the initiative in other areas, (developing a Human Relations program, deciding assignment practices at the District's secondary schools), and ordered authority shared by RSD and the Master in others (the administrative structure of Controlled Choice). (App.486-87)
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs respectfully request that this court affirm the CRO, except for the provisions appealed from by plaintiffs relating to Early Childhood Education, the Tort Funding Cap, Special Education and Faculty Hiring.
Respectfully submitted,

Date: January 21, 1997

Robert C Howard

Ronald L. Futtennan

Kathleen Mangold-Spoto

Joan Matlack

Carol R. Ashley

.

Vincent I. Haskell

FUTTERMAN & HOWARD, CHTD.

122 S. Michigan Ave.

Suite 1850

Chicago, IL 60603

(312)427-3600

[dp c: wpdoci Icmi croippLbrf]

One of Plaintiffs1 Attorneys
James G. Bradtke SOULE & BRADTKE 155 N. Michigan Ave. Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60601 (312)616-4422
J '

CERTIFICATE OF CO\IPLL\NCE WITH VOLUME LL\nTATIONS By order dated January 8, 1997, this Court granted Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants' motion to file an oversize brief to the extent that it does not exceed 120% of the type volume limitations of Circuit Rule 32(d). Calculated according to Circuit Rule 32(d)(2`)(C), Plaintiffs' Brief contains 16,314 words. Plaintiffs' attorneys prepared this brief using WordPerfect 6.0a. Because 16,800 words is 120% of the volume limitation contained in Rule 32(d), Plaintiffs-Appellees/CrossAppellants' Brief complies with the volume limitations established in this Court's January 8, 1997 Order.
L· e of Plaintiffs' Attorneys
[dp c. wpdoc*`kmj comply.cer]

 
 Appendix B: Progress Report: Student Assignment Component of the Comprehensive Remedial Order
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WESTERN DIVISION

PEOPLE WHO CARE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Civil Action No. 89 C 20168

ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION ) SCHOOL DISTRICT #205,
Defendant.

Judge Stanley J. Roszkowski Magistrate P. Michael Mahoney

PROGRESS REPORT Student Assignment Component
of the Comprehensive Remedial Order

• • i •• •• •• •• • •
SD-L-0001-0022

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WESTERN DIVISION

PEOPLE WHO CARE, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v·

)

)

ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION )

SCHOOL DISTRICT #205,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Civil Action No. 89 C 20168 Judge Stanley J. Roszkowski Magistrate P. Michael Mahoney

PROGRESS REPORT Student Assignment Component
of the Comprehensive Remedial Order

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Department of Desegregation of the Rockford School District is

required to report to the Court Master on the implementation of the Student

Assignment Component of the Comprehensive Remedial Order. This document is

one mechanism for reporting the system's progress in implementing the

Controlled Choice Student Assignment Plan.

' ·

Implementation of the Controlled Choice Student Assignment Plan was

ordered by the federal court at the elementary school level to address a finding of

unconstitutional intentional discrimination against minority school children which

caused segregated schools. Although the court did not order Controlled Choice as

the method to be used to assign students at the secondary level, the Rockford

School Board chose that plan and that choice was subsequently accepted by the

court. Thus, the mechanics of Controlled Choice were implemented at the

elementary level on November 1, 1996, and at the secondary level on January 1,

1997. From these dates forward, all student assignments have been made pursuant

to the mechanics of the plan. This has included assignment of all students new

and returning to the system, assignment of entry-grade students through the

batching process, transfers and grandfathering of students at non-entry grades.

Controlled Choice guarantees to all racial groups proportional access to all

schools and programs so that each school will have a student body reflective of the

District as a whole. While the basic mechanics of the Plan are the same for all

grade levels, the School District is divided into three elementary zones: West,

Northeast, Southeast and one districtwide secondary zone. Middle and high

school students are entitled to apply to attend any middle or high school

appropriate for their grade level. Elementary students who reside in the West

Zone may also apply to attend any elementary school in the District. Those

residing in the Northeast Zone may apply to schools within this zone as well as schools located in the West Zone. Southeast Zone residents may make application to schools within the Southeast Zone as well as any West Zone schools. However, residents of the Northeast Zone may NOT choose schools in the Southeast Zone and Southeast Zone residents may NOT choose schools in the Northeast Zone.
Students enrolled in schools in non-entry grades were exempt from ( . assignment via Controlled Choice and are allowed to remain at their presently assigned schools until completion of the school's highest grade pursuant to the "grandfather" clause of the Plan. During the entry-level batches, students who already had a brother or sister in their first choice school were given priority over other students making application and were assigned to those schools in all cases, except one. A third consideration is for proximity. A student whose home address is within 1.5 miles of their first choice school was assigned to that school before a student of the same racial group whose address was outside the 1.5 mile distance.
Under the Racial Fairness Guidelines of the Plan, assignable capacities were established for each class in all schools. Available seats were initially allocated for majority and minority students on the basis of their actual proportion in the District as a whole at each grade. Compliance goals were established for schools based upon grade and category of school. Under the Plan, a non-magnet elementary and middle school is considered desegregated when it enrolls a student body that is within +/- fifteen (15) percentage points of the districtwide percentage of minority students. An elementary magnet school is required to enroll a student population that does not exceed the districtwide minority student percentage by more than 15%. These schools should have a floor of at least the percentage of districtwide minority students at entry-grade levels. A secondary school is

considered desegregated when a student population is enrolled that is within the +/-15% guideline. In addition, high schools are required to maintain a 25% floor, meaning that each high school shall maintain at least a 25% minority student population.
To implement the Controlled Choice Student Assignment Plan, the administrative structure defined in the Comprehensive Remedial Order was) . established. A Director of Desegregation was selected jointly by the Superintendent and the Court Master. A Citywide Parent Information Center was established and began operations on November 1, 1996. The Center is staffed by a Director, Student Assignment Officer, Program Manager, five Choice Specialists and two Transportation Specialists. This document reports progress made by staff during the first year of Controlled Choice implementation.
During the first year, the Parent Information Center made a good faith effort to implement Controlled Choice for newly enrolling students, students requesting voluntary transfers and students enrolling in the entry-grades in all of the District's elementary, middle and high schools. Assignable capacities were established for all entry and non-entry grades for the 1997-1998 school year in accordance with the Controlled Choice Student Assignment Plan. All assignments and voluntary transfers were made in accordance with the court ordered Racial Fairness Guidelines.
The following is a summary of the major findings contained in this report: • The District has more desegregated schools in the 1997-1998 school
year than in the prior years. • No elementary school was re-segregated as a result of Controlled
Choice. • Most of the elementary schools are closer to compliance with the

court ordered desegregation standard than in the prior school year. All of the District's middle and high schools continue to be desegregated as a result of Controlled Choice. The majority of parents from all racial groups prefer all-day kindergarten which indicates that more all-day kindergarten classes are needed in the Rockford School District. Ten (10) elementary schools were "under-chosen" by both majority and minority parents. These schools are located in all three zones. Seven (7) elementary schools were "over-chosen" by both majority and minority parents. These schools are located in all three zones. On October 28, 1996, there were fifteen (15) racially identifiable schools in the District, and on September 30, 1997, there are twelve (12) racially identifiable schools in the District. And, the enrollment data indicates that the desegregation variance has been narrowed in most of these racially identifiable schools. The progress in desegregation in the 1997-1998 school year was accomplished by assigning students primarily to a school of choice.

I. ASSIGNABLE CAPACITIES

CONTROLLED CHOICE ASSIGNMENTS 1996-1997 SCHOOL YEAR

Controlled Choice was implemented at the elementary school level for students new to the District (K-6) on November 1,1996 and at the secondary level, grades 7-12 on January 1, 1997. From November 1, 1996 to June 9, 1997, 763 students were assigned into Rockford Public Schools under Controlled^ . Choice. Of these "new" students, 384 were minority and 379 were majority.
Analysis of new students by grade level is as follows:

Elementary

Kindergarten 84

Grade 1

79

Grade 2

57

Grade 3

65

Grade 4

73

Grade 5

68

Grade 6

5_5

Total

481

Middle

Grade 7 45

Grade 8 21

Total

98

High

Grade 9 84

Grade 10 53

'Grade 11 34

Grade 12 _li

Total

184

CONTROLLED CHOICE ASSIGNMENTS 1997-1998 SCHOOL YEAR
A. Kindergarten Assignable Capacities
During the 1996-1997 school year, the Rockford School District operated 109 kindergarten classes for approximately the same number of children projected to be served during the 1997-1998 school year. Five of the 109 sections were devoted to Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE) for Spanish-speaking children at Nashold (1), Riverdahl (3) and RSTA (1) and (1) Transitional Bilingual Education section for Laotian children at Kishwaukee Elementary School, leaving 103 sections for children in the regular education program.

The 1996-1997 Kindergarten Section Allocations

West Zone

Northeast Zone

Southeast Zone

All-day Kindergarten

35

10

15

Half-day Kindergarten AM

4

10

11 `

Half-day Kindergarten PM

4

10

10

\ •

43

30

36

Percent of the total # of

39%

28%

33%

Kindergartens

The above chart indicates a disproportionate distribution of kindergarten sections by zone for the 1996-1997 school year. There were more sections than needed in the eastside zones, resulting in the structural displacement of AfricanAmerican and Hispanic minority students out of the West Zone.
To correct the displacement of West Zone minority children through Controlled Choice, the number of kindergarten sections available were reallocated for the 1997-1998 school year.

1997-1998 Kindergarten Section Allocations

West Zone

Northeast Zone

All-day Kindergarten

33

11

Half-day Kindergarten AM

4

9

Half-day Kindergarten PM

1

5

40

25

Percent of the total # of Kindergartens

43.5%

27.2%

Southeast Zone 12 8 7 27
29.3%

Under Controlled Choice the number of kindergarten sections allocated to each zone is proportional to the number of students who reside in the zone. Accordingly, 43.5% of the seats were allocated in the West Zone, 27.2% in the Northeast Zone and 29.3% in the Southeast Zone.
As a cost saving measure, the District reduced the number of kindergarten sections for the 1997-1998 school year from 109 to ninety-two (92) sections. · Seven of the 92 sections were designated as Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE) classes for Spanish-speaking children and one (1) section set aside for Laotian children, leaving 84 sections for students who are English-speaking for Controlled Choice assignments. Of the 92 sections, 59 are all-day classes, 20 are half-day (AM) and 13 are half-day (PM) classes. The Transitional Bilingual Education classes are all-day sections. The breakdown between all-day and halfday classes for school year 1996-1997 and school year 1997-1998 are as follows:

SY 1996-1997 1997-1998

ADK 60 59

HDK/AM 25 20

HDK/PM 24 13

TOTAL 109 92

The assignable capacities or the number of students to be enrolled in each kindergarten class was established at 24, the contract maximum class size, except for the Transitional Bilingual Education classes that were enrolled at 90% of the contract maximum class size, or 21 children in accordance with state regulations. All multi-age classes were enrolled at 23 students. The number of kindergarten sections along with the assignable capacities are defined by school and by zone in the charts that follow.

Kindergarten Sections School Year 1997-1998

School

WestZone Schools

# of Sections

Assignable Capacities

HDK AM

HDK PM

ADK

HDK AM

HDK PM

ADK

Barbour * * * Conklin Dennis Ellis Haskell Kins Lathrop * Lewis Mclntosh * Montessori RSTA Stiles Summerdale Walker Washington Welsh West View Totals
* Contains One (1) (ADK) TBE Section

69

24

24

24

48

72

48

69 72 117 68

48

48

24

24

72

24

24

24

24

33

96

12

779

*** Two Way Language Immersion Program

Kindergarten Sections School Year 1997-1998

School

Northeast Zone Schools

# of Sections

As,sionahle Cap; cities

HDK AM

HDK PM

ADK

HDK AM

HDK PM

ADK

Bloom

1

1

Brook view

Carlson

Gregory

Jackson

Johnson

Kishwaukee

Marsh *

Nelson

Spring Creek

Tot¾i * Contains One (I) (ADK) TBE Section

^>4

74

•24

94

74

04

24

74

74

24

24

69

74

74

45

74

24

24

24

Ì7(ì

School

Southeast Zone Schools

# of Sections

Assignable Capacities

HDK AM

HDK PM

ADK

HDK AM

HDK PM

ADK

Beyer

Cherry Valley

Froherg

Hillman

2

Nashold

New Milford

Riverdahl ** 2

Rock River

Rolling Green

Thompson

White Swan

Whitehead

Total
** Contains Two (2) (ADK) TBE Sections

72

24

24

48

48

48

42

48

2L·

2L·

2L·

2L·

2L·
74

2L·

22L4·

J.6S

IS4

11

B. Assignable Capacity - Seventh Grade Assignable capacities were established for the seventh grade level in each of
the middle schools and for each elementary school where the grade configuration was changed from K-6 to K-7, or K-8 for the 1997-1998 school year as follows:

SCHOOL
Eisenhower Flinn Lincoln
Lincoln - TBE West
West- Gifted Barbour (Gr. K-7) Ellis (Gr.K-8) RSTA(Gr. K-7) Washington (Gr. K-7) Total Assignable Capacity
* Indicates a fully enrolled Gifted Program.

SEVENTH GRADE » · ASSIGNABLE CAPACITY

438

435

400

40

324

120 *

26

¯

60

120

7_S

2041

12

C. Assignable Capacity - Ninth Grade For the 1997-1998 school year, an assignable capacity of 488 was
established for ninth grade in each of the high schools, except for Aubum High School which houses the high school Gifted and CAPA programs.

SCHOOL Aubum
CAPA Gifted East Guilford Jefferson Assignable Capacityf * Indicates a fully enrolled Gifted Program.

ASSIGNABLE CAPACITY 318 80 98 * 488 488 488
1960

In summary, 2,187 kindergarten seats, 2,041 seventh grade seats and 1,960 ninth grade seats were established for the "entry" grade Controlled Choice assignments for the 1997-1998 school year.
The following tables indicate the Controlled Choice assignable capacities for non-entry grades in each of the elementary, middle and high schools for the 1997-1998 school year.
These non-entry grade assignable capacities will be used as a basis for identifying available seats for students who will be newly enrolling in the District and for students requesting voluntary transfers.

13

D. Assignable Capacities for Non-entry Grades

Assignable Capacities Elementary Grades - Other Than Kindergarten
School Year 1997 -1998

School

West Zone School*
_a_

Barbonr

52

32

26

27

30

26

Conklin

78

78

78

52

55

J58

Dennis

52

52

30

30

3 d 30

Ellis

IS_ 52

52

52_ 52

60

60

fíaskell

52

52

52

52

26

52

King (lifted 78

78

78

90

86

90

L·athron

46

46

49

47

47

52

Lewis Lemon 78

79

78

78

58

McTntosh

130 78

McTntosh

21.

Montessori * 69

51

34

2£L

20

16

RSTA

78

130 120 121

30 120

RSTA TBE

23

23

23

23

Stiles

26

26

26

26

Summerdale^ 52 52 52 52

57

Walker

52

78

78

73

70

Washington 78

53

78

78

52

78

Welsh

78

57

78

58

West View

52

61

Totnl

1048 I 1039 I 1000

* 44 children are enrolled in Pre-K

S2á. 92SL· 201. ñ0-

14

Assignable Capacities Elementary Grades - Other Than Kindergarten
School Year 1997 -1998

Southeast Zone Schools

School Bever Cherrv Vallev Froberg

í 2 34
mm 78 56 52 53
'mm,mm. WyWy¦WíM‰ 82 mm mm/ mm 'mm 78 78 78

5 6 y7 8

52 59

WWA

80 y78

Hillman Nashold Nashold TBE New Milford Riverdahl Riverdahl TBE Rock River Rolling Green Thompson White Swan Whitehead Total Seats

78 78 78 64 58 58 W/Æy W//M.

mm 'mm 'mm. 26 91 86 78 ÜÜ

wm mm y

81 81 54 ÜÜ

mmmm 'mm. mmmm, mm. üü78 78 84 y

104 104 80

Ü§É

mmy

mm mm 92 92 69

IWM üü

mm. mm 53 52 52 52 52 27

y

mm mm, 104 104 78 78 87 87

mm, 78

78

78

64 /71

y 78 yyyyyyWy

mm, mm mm, 78 104 78 W%y%

/yyyWy%

y

mm mm, 54 78 78 53 78 60

mm mm, 797 824 747 696 7?3 663

Assignable Capacities Elementary Grades - Other Than Kindergarten

School Year 1997 -1998

School

1

Bloom

78

Brookview 52

Carlson

52

Gregorv

55

Jackson

52

Johnson

78

Kishwaukee 78

Marsh

104

Nelson

78

SDrin2 Creek 78

S. Crk TBE 23

Total Sents 7^>R

Nor fhe^s† Zone Schools

2 78 78 52 78

3 78 78 78 52

4 78 53 53 52

5 78 73 79 41

6
86 60 58 43

`w7 mw8m ymmmm.rmvmmmmm.;,

52

54

53 61

78

78

56

84

56 ymyyM,

s¯>
104
78
76 23 749

78 90
78
76 23 763

52 57

'mm. 90

99

mm 78 66

mm 52

56

mm^mm 'yWy%y%-

mm- 616 686

52 WüíM
90
90 \W¦m,
58 WAWŽ<:
654

15

SECONDARY ASSIGNABLE CAPACITIES FOR NON-ENTRY GRADES

Middle School Assignable Capacity

SCHOOL

8TH GRADE

v

ASSIGNABLE CAPACITY

Eisenhower

450

1 ·

Flinn

450

Lincoln

400

Lincoln - TBE

50

West

330

West - Gifted

120

Barbour (Gr. K-7)

N/A

Ellis (Gr. K-8)

60

RSTA (Gr. K-7)

N/A

Washington (Gr. K-7)

N/A

Total Assignable Capacity

1860

Does not include self-contained Special Education

High School Assignable Capacity

10th

*SC

Ilth

SC

12th

SC

Auburn

604

32

488

19

488

20

East

560

27

488

20

488

14

Guilford

560

31

488

22

488

20

Jefferson

560

4g8

22

418

6

2344

124

1464

83

1464

60

Self¯Contained Special Education

16

II. BATCH APPLICATION PROCESS
17

ENTRY-GRADE CONTROLLED CHOICE "BATCH PROCESS" 1997-1998 SCHOOL YEAR
The District 205 Controlled Choice Early Application Period was held from January 3 through January 31, 1997. During this period the parents of students^ entering kindergarten, seventh and ninth grades were encouraged to make application at the Parent Information Center for an early assignment for 1997* 1998 school year.
Preparation for the Early Application Period began in November of 1996. In order to assist parents in making informed decisions during the school selection process, a number of comprehensive publications were developed. Individual school profiles and marketing brochures were created to promote diverse educational programs, accomplishments and unique characteristics of each school. These publications and other Choice informational materials were made available to parents at the Parent Information Center and distributed at various District and community presentations during the Choice recruitment period. Additionally, a Magnet School Forum was held at the Roosevelt Community Education Center in December to recruit students for the District's nine magnet schools. Five of these schools were newly designed magnets which were to be implemented at the beginning of the 1997-1998 school year.
From November through January, staff from the Department of Desegregation Parent Information Center conducted in excess of forty informational presentations for Early Childhood and Head Start classes, PTO meetings, individual school open houses, and community groups to explain the Choice Application process for the 1997-1998 school year and encourage parents to make application at the Parent Information Center during the Choice Application Period. School Choice Specialists also arranged school tours throughout the District for interested parents.
18

An informational campaign focusing on the Choice Early Application Period utilized radio and television spots, promotional billboards throughout the community in English and Spanish, ads in El Conquistador and other local newspapers, public service announcements on all local media outlets, and informational videos on Channel 20.
Prior to the close of the application period, the District's Parent Liaisons attempted follow-up contact with the parents of sixth and eighth grade students who had not turned in their Choice Application Forms.
The Parent Information Center staff created the Advantages Newsletter which detailed the Department of Desegregation Parent Information Center's student assignment services and functions and explained the Choice Application process and procedures. This publication was sent through the mail to every District 205 family and disseminated to the media and targeted publics throughout the community. Informational Choice flyers were also developed and distributed to day care centers, child care providers, and other appropriate sites.
In addition to these efforts, the District's middle and high schools hosted Choice Informational Open Houses for the parents of entry level seventh and ninth-grade students in early December. Between one-hundred fifty and fourhundred parents attended each of these meetings. In mid-December, preprinted Choice Application Forms were sent by mail to the homes of every sixth and eighth grade student in the District, so each parent could complete the Form and return it to the Parent Information Center by the end of December for processing and eventual school assignment through the computer "Batch" process. The high school assignments for ninth grade students were completed and sent in the mail to each student by February 19, 1997. The middle school assignments for seventh grade students were completed and sent to each student by March 14, 1997. Kindergarten assignments were completed and mailed to parents on March 27, 1997.
19

Analysis of Early Assignment Application Period results indicated 5,048

early assignments for the entry-grades of kindergarten, seven and nine, were made

with an extraordinarily high accommodation of choice. One-hundred percent

(100%) of ninth grade students and 92% of seventh grade students received first

choice and 86% received their first or second choice at the kindergarten level.

Overall 95% of students received their first, second or third choice.

, .

Kindergarten Lottery

During the Early Assignment Period, it was determined that an All-Day

Kindergarten section could be added to one school in each elementary zone. An

All-Day section of 24 students was allocated for Marsh Elementary School in the

Northeast Zone and for Whitehead Elementary School in the Southeast Zone. An

All-Day section of 23 students was allocated for the Montessori Magnet in the

West Zone. A lottery Application Period for students who would be

kindergartners for the 1997-1998 school year was held from April 2 - April 25,

1997. Approximately ninety (90) parents of prospective kindergartners applied

for each All-Day section. Lottery assignments were made under the Controlled

Choice Guidelines and all seats were assigned. All parents/guardians were

notified by mail on May 9, 1997, as to whether their child(ren) received a seat

assignment.

Non-entry Level Transfer Period

During the May 1 through May 15 Non-Entry Level Transfer Period (which

was extended through June 16, 1997), the applications of over seven-hundred

(700) students requesting school transfers for the 1997-1998 school year were

received, reviewed and acted upon by the Parent Information Center staff.

Approximately three-hundred (300) transfers were granted based upon seat

availability and the Racial Fairness Guidelines.

20

From January 1, 1997 to the present, Parent Information Center staff have served over 8,500 parents who have signed the Visitor Log. It is of note that since November 1, 1996, approximately 24% of the entire District 205 student population has enrolled or transferred under Controlled Choice.
21

III. ANALYSIS OF CONTROLLED CHOICE BATCH DATA

Parents of all entry-grade children were invited to participate in the Early Application choice process. Kindergarten parents were instructed to select from three (3) to five (5) choices of schools, ranking them in order of preference. Parents of grade seven and grade nine students were instructed to select and rank four (4) schools in order of preference. Parents were advised of the mechanics of the Controlled Choice process. The Racial Fairness Guidelines, availabilit¡y of seats, sibling/proximity priority, sibling priority and proximity priority were explained. The graphics which follow depict various aspects of the process. A. Kindergarten Applicant's First choice
Excluding the Montessori Magnet Pre-Kindergarten, 1,678 kindergarten applications were received. As shown below, 70% of those seeking enrollment into a kindergarten class, selected all-day kindergarten including 91% of AfricanAmerican parents, 86% of Hispanic parents, 58% of Caucasian parents, 59% of Asian parents and 54% of Native-American parents. This data strongly suggests that parents from all racial groups prefer all-day kindergarten.

Kindergarten Applicants First Choice

| A< O·y 7 0 * | ^~

~~.

V

ü
^ ` , H»K O·y 3OS )

Kindergarten Applicants' First Choice Numbers by Ethnicity

Tvnp Half-dav

Hi<?ní¾nir 25

Afri- Amf»r Caiif·íì<?iíin

39

423

A<;ìnn 12

TnHiíin
6

All-Hnv

178

377

594

17

7

Tvne

IVnmhpr

Half-dav All-d*v

505 1173

1 ·

*Data from Controlled Choice Early Application Period, January 3 through January 31, 1997.

B. Parental First Choice According to the "batch" data, the five most selected schools for all-day
kindergarten were: Lewis Lemon Global Studies Academy, Froberg Elementary School, Mclntosh Science and Technology Magnet, Bloom Elementary School and Barbour Two-way Language Immersion Magnet. The same data shows that the five least chosen schools were: Dennis Nature Science Magnet, Haskell, Kishwaukee, Rock River and Beyer Elementary Schools. The least chosen school for TBE students was Spring Creek Elementary School.
Analysis of half-day kindergarten parental first choice "batch" data shows that the five most selected schools were: Marsh, Johnson, Welsh, Whitehead and Spring Creek Elementary Schools; and the five least selected schools were Conklin, Nelson, Walker, Hillman, and Gregory Elementary Schools.
The number of first choices should be viewed in light of the number of seats that were made available in each school. As indicated in the prior tables delineating assignable capacities, the number of seats varied from school-toschool due primarily to the relative size of the school building.

24

C. Relative Rank-Ordered Popularity of First Choice Schools For example, the Lewis Lemon Global Studies Academy was selected by
more all-day kindergarten applicants than that of the other elementary and/or magnet schools. Lemon has three all-day kindergarten classes with an assignable capacity of seventy-two. A total of 139 children applied for a kindergarten seat, some 67 more children than seats available. Froberg Elementary School operates two (2) half-day kindergarten classes and one (1) all-day kindergarten class with assignable capacities of 48 and 24 respectively. This was the second most often selected school for all-day kindergarten, with 87 children seeking admission into 24 seats. The schools least selected (with fewer than 10 first choice applicants) were Haskell, Dennis and Spring Creek.
The first table (Table 1) shows the schools with all-day kindergarten classes listed in rank order with the school selected number #1 the greatest number of times ranked as number one and the school least selected by the kindergarten students ranked as number twenty-seven.
The second table (Table 2) shows the schools with half-day kindergarten classes listed in rank order with the school selected number #1 ranked as number one and the school least selected by the kindergarten students ranked as number twenty.
25

TABLE 1 ALL-DAY KINDERGARTEN APPLICANTS - CHOICE #1

Rank

School

Zone Hispanic African - CauAmerican casian

1 Lewis T.emon w

9

9

Froberg

SF.

6

3

McTntosh W

19

4

Rloom

NF

5

5

Rarbour

W

52

6

Conklin

W

3

7 Rolling Green SF

1

8

Rrookview NF

3

9

Fllis

W

•)

10 Washington W

2

11 White Swan SF

4

12

Hiliman

SF

7

13

Carlson

NF

3

14

T.athrop

W

0

15

Riverdahl

SF

40

16

Walker

W

6

17 Thomnson SF

0

18

Stiles

W

3

19

Nelson

NF

3

20

Gregorv

NF

0

71 Summerdale W

-•>>

99

Rever

SF

9

73 Rock River SF

5

24 Kishwaukee NF

1

^5

Haskeil

W

0

76

Dennis

W

0

9 7 Sn Trk TRF N F

111

26

10

69

32

33

16

50

1

0

10

39

7

41

13

31

71

74

32

12

7

33

9

28

11

24

74

16

0

0

7

27

9

96

17

14

9

26

7

70

5

71

10

1 1

1

13

4

5

7

4

0

0

Asian
0
9
0
9
0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 0
9
0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0
o

Native \ Total American /Alaskan

0 ' ¯ 139

0

87

0

84

0

73

0

53

0

52

9

59

0

48

0

48

1

47

1

46

0

45

0

41

1

41

0

40

0

40

1

38

0

34

1

39

0

30

0

29

0

23

o

19

o

11

o

9

o

7

0

26

TABLE 2

HALF-DAY KINDERGARTEN APPLICANTS - CHOICE #1
!

Rank

School

Zone

Hispanic

African Caucasian American

1

Marsh

NF

3

7

Tohnson

NF

1

3

Welsh

W

3

4

Whitehead SF

7

5 Snrino¯ Creek NF

7

6

Riverdahl

SF

1

7

Froberg

SF

4

8

Rioom

NF

1

9

Brook¯view N F

i

10 Rolling Green SF

?

11 White Swan SF

0

P

West View W

1

13

Thomnson

SF

0

14

Jackson

NF

0

15

Carlson

NF

0

16

Grep;orv

NF

7

17

Hiliman

SF

1

18

Walker

W

0

19

Nelson

NF

0

?O

Conklin

W

o

5

49

1

36

6

26

3

27

8

23

?

28

0

26

0

26

1

' 93

3

21

9

71

4

18

0

??

9

15

0

15

1

11

0

13

0

10

1

8

o

4

Asian
1
?
0
1 0
1 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 1
0 0
0 0 1

Native American/
Alaskan
0
0 1
1 0
0 0
0
?
0 1 0 1 0 0
0 0
0 0
o

Total
*
58
40 36 34 33 3? 31
28
28 28 75 74. 23 17 16 14 14 10 9

27

D. Computer Algorithm for "Batch" Assignments The computer algorithm was designed in accordance with the court order
Controlled Choice rules and procedures. Initially, all students in the Rockford School District were assigned a computer generated random number in the event that assignment to schools had to be made by a lottery, due to oversubscription. These numbers have been used in an ascending order in those instances w‡iere there was a contest for seats. The computer generated batch assignments were made as follows:
• Applications were sorted by first choice schools • Students were sorted by majority and minority ethnic groups The minority and majority students were then sorted and batched, in accordance with the following court ordered priorities. 1. Students with both sibling and proximity priority. Children seeking enrollment in a school who already had a brother or sister (sibling) in their first choice school were assigned to that school over other children of the same ethnic group (sibling priority). Another consideration was given for proximity. A student whose home address was within 1.5 miles of their first choice school was assigned to that school before a student of the same racial group whose address was outside the 1.5 mile distance (proximity priority). 2. Students with sibling priority only 3. Students with proximity priority only 4. Students with no sibling or proximity priorities. Once the applicants were sorted by first choice school and the above priorities, first choice assignments were made based upon available seats and the Racial Fairness Guidelines.
28

All students who did not receive their first choice school were automatically placed on a waiting list for that school. In the event that a student did not receive his/her first choice school, the school choice data was sorted in accordance with their second choice school for possible assignment. The batching process continued until all applicants were given the opportunity to be assigned to one of their rank-ordered schools of choice. The applications of students who did(not receive an assignment to a school of choice were held for a possible administrative assignment to a school nearest to their home with an available seat within the Racial Fairness Guidelines. However, every effort was made to encourage the parents of these "unassigned" students to return to the Parent Information Center to visit and possibly select a school of choice that had available seats. (See next chart of First Choice Schools by Assignment Priorities).
Although the assignment process was concluded successfully, the work was punctuated by repeated impediments to timely and accurate completion. Serious problems were encountered in the process of securing adequate support by technical personnel, receiving access to sufficient computer run time and implementing a security directive. In order to achieve required schedule performance, all walk-in assignments of students new to the District were made manually. The MIS computer program which computes the percent minority enrollment based upon the number of minority seats as opposed to actual minority enrollment produces a flawed result. Use of this algorithm could lead to the further racial identifiability of schools. That computer programming problem existed November 1, 1996 and has not been corrected. Further, there is a problem with the computer program written for the batch assignments in those schools with TBE sections. The algorithm did not reserve seats for minority TBE students, making it impossible to racially balance the kindergarten classes at Lathrop,
29

Mclntosh and Spring Creek. Also, there are assignment functions that had to be done manually because there was no computer program written (i.e. student transfers).
The hostage relationship with the MIS Department that is not under the direction of the court should not continue. Significant unplanned labor resources were expended to compensate for the lack of adequate technology. It is ( • imperative that adequate MIS resources be made available and placed under the direction of the Office of Desegregation for the 1998-1999 school year.
30

First Choice Schools by Assignment Priorities for the 1997-1998 School Year

Srhnnf

Sìh/Pfnv

Ših Cn<\o. Prr«Y Cr>fíp

R<irhmir

Aim

n

á

-»7

T7

</¯
\r
`r

Rpwr

ATÌK

7

Rinnm

WT>K`

Q

7

17

ATÌK¯

7

4

70

47

Rrnnlnipw

HT>K`

11

1

1 1

4

ATÌK

10

1 1

4

77

í¯¯`!iri<înn

HTHK^

^

-,

1

8

\r>K

0

7

8

17

rnnLlin

WT»K

1

0

•,

1

AHÎ<r

11

7

17

17

r>pnni<!

AF)K¯

1

^>

4

0

F11U

ATIK¯

10

1

17

7S

Frnhpra

HT)K¯

1

1 1

4

IS

Crp<jnrv

AF)K

•>

TTHK^

17

14

S7

s

«,

ATÌKT

1

14

W<I<=L·PII

Ar)K·

n

7

1

Millmíin

H¯nK¯

7

^

•>

4

ATÌV

8

14

7

\f,

.Tíi<`lf<:r»n

WTìK

10

1

1

Tnhnsnn

WT>K¯

14

0

18

8

K¯i«hvvniilípp

ATÌTC

7

0

4

0

í athrnn

ATÌK¯

7

14

IS

T p\vi« T pmr<n

ADK`

16

S7

SI

Mîir<!h

WT>K

7S

8

70

M<`Tntn<îh

ATÌK`

16

14

7Q

Noknn

WTìK¯

0

-,

0

An‰r

n

0

18

~i

Rivf>rri;ihl

VIT)K

4

7

\T)K

i

10

1

77

Rnrlí Rivpr

ADT^

1

S

1

Rnllino drpcn

VTC)`K

0

1

10

8

\T)K

10

6

17

77

•snrina Crt>f>\¿

HFlif

-,

14

-»

17

0

1

0

4

<SHIPS

AÍ>K¯

1

8

7

17

SMmmprHalp

ATÌk"

¿

17

7

Thnmnsnn

WTÌK"

8

-,

10

ATÌK¯

1 1

,,

1 1

W!ìlL-Pr

WT>K

7

0

1

\T>K

0

0

16

Washinaínn

AI¯)K¯

7

Q

10

^>I

WPUH

RTìí<r

14

•>

1 S

4

W ^ t VÌP\V

HDK¯

17

4

7

Wlii ÍP <?\vnn

HT>K¯

1

16

ATÌK`

14

^>4

Wh itch "Til

HT`K

1 T

8

Tn†:»ì
77 ^>8 77 78
48 16 \ 41
7
48 71
8¯
14 70
Q
14
4S 17
40 1 1
41 I7Q S8 84 0 77 77
40
10
•> *>
74 ¯>Q 7-
78
10
40
4¯
76 ~>J.
7Í
46
"^ 1

E. Under-chosen Schools The Controlled Choice Student Assignment Plan is more than a student
assignment plan. The Plan was designed to help drive school improvement. The Plan requires that the Director of Desegregation identify schools that are "underchosen" by majority and/or minority parents and target these schools for educational improvements and enhancements that will attract desegregated {student populations (CRO at 81). Towards that end, several elementary schools were identified as "under-chosen" by both racial groups (i.e. fewer students chose these schools than could be accommodated by the assignable capacity for these schools).
The ten (10) "under-chosen" elementary schools were located in each zone; therefore, school improvement measures should be implemented to attract students on a districtwide basis.
In accordance with the CRO, the Director of Desegregation has begun the process of establishing the Citywide Improvement Council. The Council will diagnose the factors which might explain why certain schools were "underchosen" and recommend ways to attract desegregated student populations. They will study the attractive features of the schools that were "over-chosen" by both racial groups for possible replication in the least chosen schools. This Council is advisory in nature and will make recommendations to the Director of Desegregation. The educational enhancement of least chosen schools will be determined from this body with input and recommendations from the schools.
32

1. List of Under-chosen Schools by Both Racial Groups for the 1997-1998 School Year

NORTHEAST ZONE
Jackson Elementary School Kishwaukee Elementary School

HDK ADK

SOUTHEAST ZONE Beyer Elementary School Riverdahl Elementary School Rock River Elementary School

ADK ADK/TBE & HDK ADK

WEST ZONE Dennis Nature Science Magnet Conklin Elementary School Haskell Elementary School Walker Elementary School West View Elementary School

ADK HDK ADK HDK HDK

2. List of "Over-chosen" Schools by Both Racial Groups for the 1997-1998 School Year
The Controlled Choice Plan was also designed to identify schools that were "over-chosen" by all racial groups. Analysis of the 1997-1998 "batch" data indicated that seven elementary schools, located in all three zones, were "overchosen" by minority and majority kindergarten parents. The Citywide School Improvement Council will study and identify the attractive features of these schools. The Council will also recommend ways to replicate these positive features in other schools.

NORTHEAST ZONE Bloom Elementary Brookview Elementary Carlson Elementary

# IN EXCESS OF CAPACITIES 37 majority/12 minority 28 majority/7 minority 13 majority/5 minority

SOUTHEAST ZONE White Swan Elementary

# IN EXCESS OF CAPACITIES 21 majority/2 minority

WEST ZONE Conklin Elementary Walker Elementary

# IN EXCESS OF CAPACITIES 24 majority/5 minority 12 majority/4 minority \

Montessori Magnet School (Pre-K) 39 majority/20 minority

3. "Over-chosen" by One Racial Group and "Under-chosen" by O†her

Racial Groups

It should be noted that certain schools, although not on the prior list of

schools "under-chosen" by both racial groups, were "under-chosen" by one racial

group and "over-chosen" by the other racial group.

The Citywide School Improvement Council will also study these schools

and recommend ways that they might attract the "under-chosen" racial group.

34

SCHOOLS THAT HAVE BEEN OVER & UNDER-CHOSEN FOR KINDERGARTEN AFTER 1ST CHOICE BATCH PROCESSING 1997-1998

School

Class

Ethnic Group *Over-chosen"

Seats Taken

High Seats Allowed

On Wait List

Ethnic Group "Under-chosen"

Seats Taken

High Seats . Allowed

Barbour Brookview

22

Minority

20

Majority

Carlson

20

Majority

Froberg Froberg

20

Majority

22

Majority

Gregory

22

Majority

Johnson

20

Majority

Lewis Lemon

22

Minority

Marsh

20

Majority

Mclntosh

22

Minority

Nelson

22

Majority

Rolling Green

22

Stiles

in

Majority Minority

Thompson

20

Majority

Washington

22

Minority

Whitehead

20

Majority

22) All-day Kindergarten

41

41

5

15

15

11

15

15

1

15

15

12

29

29

42

15

15

8

29

29

11

28

28

• 85

29

29

21

46

46

4

15

15

12

15

15

29

19

19

1

15

15

8

28

28

7

15

15

14

Majority

7

28

Minority

3

9

Minority

o

9

Minority

4

9

Minority

16

19

Minority

7

9

Minority

4

19

Majority

26

44

Minority

8

19

Majority

34

71

Minority

5

9

Minority

8

9

Majority

14

29

Minority

9

Majority

14

44

Minority

5

9

(20) Half-day Kindergarten

IV. CONTROLLED CHOICE DATA ASSIGNMENT ANALYSIS
36

In addition to assignments made via the "batching process", walk-in assignments were made at the Parent Information Center which account for the total number of students enrolled to date. This section of the report analyzes enrollment data as of September 30, 1997, resulting from the total "batch" process, walk-in assignments, grandfathered assignments and transfers.
ENTRY-LEVEL GRADES DESEGREGATION STATUS Kindergarten
The West Zone has fifteen schools in which kindergarten classes are located and twelve of these schools have desegregated kindergarten classes, as of'9/30/97. Last year on 10/28/96, there were 16 schools with kindergarten classes and eleven were desegregated.
The Southeast Zone has nine schools in which kindergarten classes are located and all nine of these schools have desegregated kindergarten classes as of 9/30/97. Last year on 10/28/96, there were nine schools with kindergarten classes and six were desegregated.
The Northeast Zone has ten schools in which kindergarten classes are located. Six of these schools had desegregated kindergarten classes as of 9/30/97. Last year on 10/28/96, there were 10 schools with kindergarten classes and 6 were desegregated. Seventh Grade
The seventh grade entry-level classes at the four middle schools are desegregated as of 9/30/97 and were also desegregated as of 10/28/96. Ninth Grade
The ninth grade entry-level classes at the four high schools are desegregated as of 9/30/97 and were also desegregated as of 10/28/96.
37

Desegregation Effects on Entry-Grade Enrollment The Controlled Choice Plan was designed to desegregate the Rockford
Schools primarily through the assignment of students at the entry-grades in elementary, middle and high schools. As a result of the entry-grade "batch" process and analysis of the late kindergarten assignments, data indicates that: • Twenty-eight (28) of the District's 35 elementary schools with
kindergartens have desegregated kindergarten enrollments. • Of the seven (7) schools with racially identifiable kindergarten enrollments;
three (3) (Lathrop, Mclntosh and Spring Creek) have TBE classes. One (1) (Barbour School) is converting to a two-way bilingual magnet and was exempt from administrative assignment; and at three (3) schools; Jackson, Johnson and Nelson Elementary Schools, the kindergarten children were assigned within the Racial Fairness Guidelines based upon last year's percent minority enrollment (39.2) plus or minus 15%. Due to an increase in the percent of minorities currently enrolled in the District (which is 44.3%), these classes are out of compliance by approximately two (2) students. • Another factor which contributed to the three (3) schools with minority segregated kindergarten classes was that the original Controlled Choice computer algorithm, designed by the District's MIS Department, failed to set aside seats for only TBE minority students. In these schools where the enrollment of minority students is at the maximum (+15% level), it is not possible to add TBE Spanish speaking minority students without exceeding the range within which a class may be considered desegregated. • All seventh and ninth grade classes remain desegregated under Controlled Choice.
38

School
Barbour Barbour Conkün Conklin Dennis Dennis
Ellis Elìis Haskell Haskell Kins Kins Lathrop Lathrop Lemon Lemon Mclntosh Mclntosh Montessori Montessori Stiles Stiles Summerdale :; Sümrnerdaîe Walker Walker Washington Washington Welsh Welsh RSTA RSTA West View
We<;f View

DESEGREGATION PERCENTAGES WEST ZONE
ENTRY-GRADES

Grade

Date

School District Percent Minority Minority Variance Percent Percent

WK

9/30/97

wK

10/28/96

wK

9/30/97

wK

10/28/96

wK

9/30/97

w

10/28/96

wK

9/30/97

wK

10/28/96

wK

9/30/97

w

K

10/28/96

w N/A 9/30/97

wK

10/28/96

wK

9/30/97

wK

IÖ/28/96

wK

9/30/97

wK

10/28/96

wK

9/30/97

wK

10/28/96

wK

9/30/97

wK

10/28/96

wK

9/30/97

wK

10/28/96

wK

9/30/97

wK

10/2S/96

wK

9/30/97

wK

10/28/96

wK

9/30/97

wK

10/28/96

wK

9/30/97

w

••••

K

iö/28/96 • : • . . • : .

w

9/30/97

wK

10/28/96

wK

9/30/97

wK

64.4% 69.8% 37.5% 36.2% 53.3% N/A 52.5% 66.1 % 47.8% 64.3% N/A N/A 61.7% 43.5% 55.9%
5l.4%¯ 61.3% 41.3% 37.8% 36.1% 46.8% 59.0% 33.3% 42.9% 39.1% 36.0% 53.6% 53.3% 39.6% 24.4% N/A N/A. 40.0%
¯¾"> - 1 %

60.00%* 39.4% 44.3% 39.4% 44.3% N/A 44.3% 39.4% 44.3% 39.4% N/A N/A 44.3% 39.4% 44.3% 39.4% 44.3% 39.4% 44.3% 39.4% 44.3% 39.4% 44.3% 39.4% 44.3% 39.4% 44.3% 39.4% 44.3% 39.4% N/A N/A 44.3%

4.4% 30.4% -6.8% -3.2% 9.0% N/A 8.2% 26.7% 3.5% 24.9% N/A N/A 17.4% 4.î% 11.6% 12.0% 17.0% 1.9% -6.5% -3.3% 2.5% 19.6% -11.0% 3.5% -5.2% -3.4% 9.3% 13.9% -4.7% -15.0% N/A
N/Ã
-4.3% -7 0%

Desegregated Yes/No

N. V
N Y

» Y

Y

N/A :

Y

N

Y

N

N/A N/A :

N

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

:

N/A

N/A

Y

Y

39

DESEGREGATION PERCENTAGES SOUTHEAST ZONE ENTRY-GRADES

School
Bever Bever Froberg Froberç Hillman Ffülman Riverdahl Rîverdahl Nashold Nashofd New Mil ford New Milford Rock River Rock River Rolling Green Rolling Green Thompson Thompson Whitehead Whitehead White Swan White Swan Cherrv Vallev Cherrv Vallev

Grade Date

School District Percent Deseg-

Minority Minority Variance regated

Percent Percent

Yes/No

SE K

9/3O<'97

52.9%

44.3%

8.6%

Y

SE K í 0/28/96 50.8% 39.4% 11.4%

Y

SE K

9/30/97 34.3% 44.3% -10.0%

Y

SE K î 0/28/96 27.6% 39.4% -11.8%

Y

SE K

9/30/97 33.8% 44.3% -10.5%

Y

SE K ì 0/28/96 26.2% 39.4% -13.2%

Y

SE K

9/30/97 50.0% 44.3%

5.7%

Y

SE K ì 0/28/96 55.9% 39.4% 16.5%

N

SE

9/30/97

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

SE

10/28/96 N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A .

SE

9/30/97

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

SE

í 0/28/96 N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

SE K

9/30/97 33.3% 44.3% -11.0%

Y

SE K

ì 0/28/96 43.1% 39.4%

3.7%

Y

SE K

9/30/97 31.0% 44.3% -13.3%

Y

SE K î 0/28/96 26.3% 39.4% -13.1%

Y

SE K 9/30/97 39.6% 44.3% -4.7%

Y

SE K 10/28/96 25.0% 39.4% -14.4%

Y

SE K

9/30/97 46.8% 44.3%

2.5%

Y

SE K ! 0/28/96 \9.6% 39.4% -19.8%

-N

'••

SE K

9/30/97 30.0% 44.3% -14.3%

Y

SE K ìOPS/96 1 6:5%: 39;4% -22.9%

N

SE

9/30/97

N/A

44.0%

N/A

N/A

`¾/A' • ^Q¦4%

N/A

40

DESEGREGATION PERCENTAGES NORTHEAST ZONE ENTRY-GRADES

School

Grade

Bloom

NE K

Bloom

NE K

Brookview NE

K

Brookview NE

K

Carlson

NE K

Carlson

NE

K

Gresorv

NE

K

Gresorv

NE

K

Jackson

NE K

Jackson

NE K

Johnson

NE

K

Johnson

NE

K

Kish\vaukee NE

K

Kishwaukee NE

K

Marsh

NE K

Marsh

NE K

Nelson

NE K

Nelson

NE K

Spring Creek NE

K

Snn'¯no Cr?<*\c • ` ' N F - · ·

Date
9/30/97 10/28/96 9/30/97 10/28/96 9/30/97 10/28/96 9/30/97 10/28/96 9/30/97 10/28/96 9/30/97 10/28/96 9/30/97 10/28/96 9/30/97 10/28/96 9/30/97 10/28/96 9/30/97 1f)/?8/96:

School Minority Percent

District Minority' Percent

Percent Variance

40.0%

44.3%

31.8%

39.4%

37.5%

44.3%

35.3%

39.4%

39.1%

44.3%

28.8%

39.4%

37.0%

44.3%

32.1%

39.4%

26.2%

44.3%

21.4%

39.4%

26.1%

44.3%

22.0%

39.4%

45.5%

44.3%

20.6%

39.4%

51.6%

44.3%

22.4%

39.4%

25.0%

44.3%

25.0%

39.4%

61.8%

44.3%

39 4 % ` 4 t ^ < % · •••'

-4.3% -7.6% -6.8% -4.1% -5.2% -10.6% -7.3% -7.3% -18.1% -18.0% -18.2% -17.4% 1.2% -18.8% 7.3% -17.0% -19.3% -14.4% 17.5%
VQO'„-

Desegregated Yes/No
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N N -\ Y N Y N N Y N Y ;:

41

DESEGREGATION PERCENTAGES MIDDLE SCHOOL ENTRY-GRADES

School

Grade

Lincoln MS 7

Lincoln • MS 7

Eisenhower MS 7

Eisenhower MS 7

Flinn

MS 7

Flinn

MS 7

West

MS 7

West

MS

7

Date
9/30/97 î 0/28/96 9/30/97 î 0/28/96 9/30/97 10/28/96 9/30/97 îfV>R/96

School District Percent Minority Minority Variance Percent Percent

35.3% 35.4% 33.2% 33.2% 30.4% 32.5% 43.5%
¿L> ¯>%

37.7% 36.7% 37.7% 36.7% 37.7% 36.7% 37.7% 36 7%

-2.4% -1.3% -4.5% -3.5% -7.3% -4.2% 5.8% RS%

Deseg- . regated Yes/No
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

42

DESEGREGATION PERCENTAGES HIGH SCHOOL ENTRY-GRADES
WITHOUT RETENTIONS

School
Auburn Auburn
East East Guilford Guilford Jefferson Jefferson

Grade

HS

9

HS

9

HS

9

HS

9

HS

9

HS

9

HS

9

TTS 9

Date
9/30/97 10/28/96 9/30/97 10/28/96 9/30/97 10/28/96 9/30/97 10/2S/96

School Minority Percent

District Minority Percent

Percent Variance

40.6% 38.3% 40.6% 35.1% 41.0% 47.0% 32.5% 34.7%

39.4% 39.3% 39.4% 39.3% 39.4% 39.3% 39.4% 39.3%

1.2% -1.0% 1.2% -4.2%
1.6%
7.7% -6.9% -4.6%

Desegregated lYea/No
Y Y Y Y
Y
Y Y Y

DESEGREGATION PERCENTAGES HIGH SCHOOL ENTRY-GRADES
* WITH GRADE 9 RETENTIONS

School

Grade

Date

School Minority Percent

District Minority Percent

Percent Variance

Desegregated Yes/No

Auburn

HS

9

9/30/97

43.4%

42.7%

0.7%

Y

Auburn

HS

9

10/28/96 38.3%

39.3%

-1.0%

Y

East

HS

9

9/30/97 42.9%

42.7%

0.2%

Y

East

HS

9

10/28/96 " 35; 1% 39:3%

Y ¾

Guilford

HS

9

Guilford

HS

9

9/30/97 10/28/96

48.0% 47.0%

42.7%

5.3%

: : ¯ 3 - 9 : 3 % •••:•- • 7.7%1

Y Y -:

Jefferson

HS

9

9/30/97

34.7%

42.7%

-8.0%

Y

Tt?ff<?rson

HS

9

T0/">8/96 34 7%

"9 >%

-l 6%

Y

' Includes 554 students (249 44.9% majority and 305 or 55.1 % minority), who were retained

and enrolled in Grade 9for the 1997-1998 school year. On August 8th the high schools reported

that 737 Grade 9 students had been retained. Available data indicates that over 100 of these

students have been "dropped" or disenrolledfrom the Rockford School District.

43

V. . ENROLLMENT DATA
44

CONTROLLED CHOICE DESEGREGATION EFFECTS ON SCHOOL ENROLLMENT
Under the CRO, a regular elementary school is considered desegregated if the minority enrollment is within +/- 15 percentage points of the District's actual grade-level minority percentage. A magnet school is considered desegregated based upon the criteria for elementary schools, except that the percentage of · minorities shall be at least equal to the District's actual grade-level minority percentage.
At the secondary level, middle and high schools are considered desegregated if the minority enrollment is within +/- 15 percentage points of the District's actual grade-level minority percentage, except that the percent of minorities at the high school level may not go below 25%.
The analysis of the overall racial enrollment in the Rockford Schools for 1997-1998 school year indicates that more schools have become desegregated as a result of the implementation of Controlled Choice. The data further shows that no schools have been resegregated as a result of Controlled Choice and that most schools now have a percentage of minority and majority students that is closer to the districtwide percentage of minority and majority students.
The tables on pages 4 8 - 5 1 display the desegregation status of the total enrollment for each elementary, middle and high school by Controlled Choice. The elementary school tables are divided by zones for comparison purposes.
In order to compare the progress of desegregation this year, each school in these tables is compared utilizing two rows. The first row represents the school's minority enrollment as of 9/30/97. The second (shaded row) represents the school's minority enrollment data as of 10/28/96, the District's racial enrollment prior to the implementation of Controlled Choice on November 1, 1996.
45

The crucial figure in each of these rows is the percent variance column.

This percent variance figure is derived from subtracting the minority percentage in

each school from the corresponding School District's grade-level minority

percentage. The closer to zero achieved by the variance figures, the more the ^

actual grade corresponds to the District's actual grade level minority percentage.

West Zone

1 ·

The West Zone is comprised of 17 elementary schools and 11 of these schools are

desegregated as of 9/30/97 and six schools are segregated. However, five of the

six schools not in compliance have a lower variance score and are closer to being

in compliance than last year. Washington Communication Academy is out of

compliance because the gifted classes were moved to King School. It would also

have been out of compliance last year if the gifted students were not counted in

the desegregation figures. Last year on 10/28/96, there were 9 schools

desegregated in the West Zone, excluding Washington.

Southeast Zone

The Southeast Zone is comprised of 12 elementary schools and 7 of these schools

are desegregated as of 9/30/97. Eleven schools have a lower variance and are

closer to compliance than last year. Four of the schools not in compliance are split

grade-level schools and all four of these schools have a lower percent variance

figure and are closer to being in compliance than last year. On 10/28/96, there

were 7 schools desegregated in the Southeast Zone.

Northeast Zone

The Northeast Zone is comprised of 10 elementary schools and all 10 of these

schools are desegregated as of 9/30/97. On 10/28/96, there were 8 schools

desegregated in the Northeast Zone.

The following schools were racially identifiable on October 28, 1996 and, as a

46

result of Controlled Choice, were desegregated as of September 30, 1997: Ellis,

Marsh, Johnson and Stiles.

Middle School Desegregation

All middle schools are desegregated as of 9/30/97 and were also desegregated pn

10/28/96.

High School Desegregation

\

All high schools are desegregated as of` 9/30191 and were also desegregated on

10/28/96.

47

DESEGREGATION COMPLIANCE WEST ZONE
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

School

Grade

Date

School District Percent
Minority Minority Variance
Percent Percent

Rnrhnnr

w K-7

Q/",O/Q7

76 <;%

Raj-hour

\v K-f.

mnx/Qf, R? 9%

fn-iVlin

w K-f,

Q/¯ÍO/Q7

IR 6%

rYml'l in

w K-f,

]{)OR/Q6

1^ 1%

Dennis

w K-f

Q/"n/Q7

67 1 %

r>f¯·nni<¯

\v K-f>

WDRfC)6 61 6<¼

Fili·î

w K-R

Q/"0/07

^ 0 10/n

Fllï<5

w K-f>

10/?R/Qf;

7^ 6%

\v K-f,

o/in/Q7

6^ 6%

w JC.6

mn%;qf.

75 7%

Kino

\v 1-6

qnn/Q7

11 9°/n

K¯tna

\v 1-1

lO/?R/Qf=;

19 i»/rv

T a†hrnn

\v K-f,

Q/"D/Q7

49 ^·°/r,

T arhrnn

w TC-Ä

Tf>/OR/^

1 9 fi·¼

T pmnn

w K-6

9/10/97

51 9%

T pmnn

vv K-f>

10/?R/Q6

51 1 %

MrTntnsh

w K-~>

9/10/97

59 1 %

Mr·Tntnsh

w K-f,

56 O»/n,

Mnntf="¯;<¯;r>n

w V>rrK-f, 9/"0/97

17 1%

N/fnnte<¢<¯:nn

\v T>rpK~f, 10/9R/QÄ

I5'>%

Stiles

\v K-f,

9/10/97

4 1 5o/n

Stiles

w K-ï

ÏOPR/QÄ

5 6 7<>/rv

5>iimmf»rr¯inlp

w

K-f,

Q/in/Q7

40 1%

FÎMmmpri¯¯latf¯1

w

K-f,

10/7R/9fi 40 7%

W,ilWer

\v K-f,

9/10/97

17 7%

Walter

\v K-6

in/^R/96

11 7%

Washinaînn w K-f,

9/^0/97

5R 9<¼

Wp<¯¦Tiin<¯¯tnn*

w

K-f> -ThnR/96 : ; '¯4/-n·Mv¯¯

Washinarr>n

w K-7

0/in/97

5 R 1<>/n

\v W a <¯¯;î¯¯ïi no†n n * *

K-f,

1(W>R/96

57 5%

Welsh

w K-f,

9/10/97

19 7%

¾;¾i:>::;;:x'Wekh !

w K-fi>

lft/78/QÄ

17 1»/ft

RSTA

w

~>.l

9/10/97

67 f%

\v K-f,

10/0R/96

6 1 •>»/„

West View
Wf=*<¯¯f `Vi<*`v

w K-f, \v K-f

9/10/97 Î(V^>9'96

40

1

0/ n

1Ñ 70/,

* Includes Gifted and Talented

** Does not include Gifted and Talented

41 00/n IRI<M>
4 1 ^>0/o
IRI%
4 1 ^>0/n
IR I^n
4 1 ^'°·'r, I R 10-ív 4 1 ^)<»·í,
I R I°¯·í· 41 7% IR 1% 41 70/n IR 1%
4 1 ^·o/n
IR I<¼ 41 ^>% IR 1% 41 7% IR 1 %
4 1 7O¯-r, I R 10/r>
41 7o/n IR 1 % 41 7o/n IRI>¼ 41 7o/n 1R10/n 41 7% IR 1% 41 70/n
41 ¯>0/o 1R10/. 4 1 ¯·o¯-„
¯` Q ¯¯;O<,

1-^ 40/n
44 6% -"> fK
- 1 70/n ^>l 1 %
: 75 iq/„ ::
9 1<>/n
17 1 % ''4 4"^
1 7 4<¼
-9 io/n -6O°Í»
1 1% 1 7 7% Î4R% 1 7 0% î 7 7% -1 9% -1 1%
1 ¯ÍO/n
ì 7 90-ív
-1 1%
7 4°/rv -R 5% :-^6<>>í>. 1 7 70/n 7 Ro/n 1 6 9% î 9 7% -1 5o/„ -1 7<% 7 1 4°/n 7 4 q¯>/„
-1 19-;

Desegregated
Yes/No

\r

Y

!
N

•••?*

Y

N

N
¯\'
Y

Y

Y

V

Y

V

M

M

Y

Y

Y

M

Y

Y

;:i

Y

Y `-i

Y

:

M

N

Y

Y

V

M

Y

Y

48

DESEGREGATION COMPLIANCE SOUTHEAST ZONE
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

School

Grade Date

Bever Bever Froberg Frobere Hillman Hillman Riverdahl Riverdahl Nashold Nashold New Milford New Mil ford Rock River Rock River Rollins Green RoUin2 Green Thompson Thompson Whitehead Whitehead White Swan White Swan Cherrv Vallev CherrvVfillrv :

SE K-6 9/30/97 SE K-6 10/28/96 SE K-3 9/30/97 SE K-3 î 0/2 8/96 SE K-6 9/30/97 SE K-6 ï 0/28/96 SE K-3 9/30/97 SE K-3 10/28/96 SE 3-6 9/30/97 SE K-6 10/28/96 SE 4-6 9/30/97 SE 4-6 f 0/2 8/96 SE K-6 9/30/97 SE K-6 î 0/28/96 SE K-6 9/30/97 SE K-6 10/28/96 SE K-6 9/30/97 SE K-6 10/28/96 SE K-6 9/30/97 SE • K - 6 • î 0/2 8/96 SE K-3 9/30/97 SE `; K-3v--::;· 10/28/96 SE 4-6 9/30/97
ÇF

School District Minority IVDnority Percent Percent

48.6% 43.3% 25.9% 20.3% 35.1% 29.6% 56.4% 54,6% 53.5% 51.0% 12.9% 9.8% 41.7% 36.5% 28.8% 28.0% 30.2% 24.6% 31.8% 25.6% 22.4% 16.6% 19.2% ]"ï-'>%'

41.2% 38.3% 41.2% 38.3% 41.2% 38.3% 41.2% 38.3% 41.2% 38.3% 41.2% 38.3% 41.2% 38.3% 41.2% 38.3% 41.2%
38¾%
41.2% 38.3% 41.2% 38:3% 41.2%

Percent Variance

Desegregated Yes/No

7.4% 5.0% -15.3% -18.0% -6.1% -8.7% 15.2% 16.3% 12.3% 12.7% -28.3% -28.5% 0.5% -1.8% -12.4% -10.3% -11.0% -13.7% -9.4% -12.7% -18.8% -21.7% -22.0% -V> 1%

Y Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Y
v Y ::
Y

••"• Y

^`:-

Y

Y: • •
Y Y : N N N N

49

DESEGREGATION COMPLIANCE NORTHEAST ZONE
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

School
Bloom Bfoom Brookvie\v Brookview Carlson Carlson Gresorv Gresorv Jackson Jackson Johnson Johnson Kishwaukee '•• Kishwaukee Marsh Marsh Nelson Nelson Spring Creek S>pnn¤` Creek

Grade
NE K-6 NE K-6 NE K-6 NE K-6 NE K-6 NE K-6 NE K-6 NE K-6 NE K-6 NE K-6 NE K-6 NE K-6 NE K-6 NE K-6 NE K-6 NE K-6 NE K-6 NE K-6 NE K-6 NF K-6

Date
9/30/97 10/28/96 9/30/97 10/28/96 9/30/97 10/28/96 9/30/97 10/28/96 9/30/97 10/28/96 9/30/97 10/28/96 9/30/97 10/28/96 9/30/97 10/28/96 9/30/97 10/28/96 9/30/97 1o/9 8/96

School District Percent Minority ÎVBnorify Variance Percent Percent

Deseg- : regated i Yes/No 1

37.0% 32.4% 37.2% 29.8% 34.7% 30.5% 31.2% 30.5% 34.3% 32.4% 28.8% 22.8% 35.1% 30.2% 31.3% 21.2% 30.9% 28.5% 46.7% ~7¢%

41.2%

-4.2%

38.3% -5.9%

41.2% -4.0%

38.3% -8.5%

41.2%

-6.5%

38.3% -7.8%

41.2% -10.0%

38.3% -7.8%

41.2%

-6.9%

38.3% -5.9%

41.2% -12.4%

38.3% -15.5%

41.2%

-6.l%

38.3% -8.1%

41.2%

-9.9%

38.3% -17.1%

41.2% -10.3%

38.3% -9.8%

41.2%

5.5%

" 8 ^ % : : -0 9%:: :

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N·` ;: Y Y Y V

50

DESEGREGATION COMPLIANCE MIDDLE SCHOOLS

School
Lincoln Lincoln Eisenhower Eisenhower Flinn Flinn
West West

Grade Date

School District Percent

Minority Minority Variance

Percent Percent

MS 7-8 MS 7-8 MS 7-8 MS 7-8 MS 7-8 MS 7-8 MS 7-8 MS 7-8

9/30/97 10/28/96 9/30/97 10/28/96 9/30/97 10/28/96 9/30/97 1 0/78/96

35.9% 35.1% 33.4% 34.0% 32.0% 31.2% 45.7% 44 ¿%

37.7% 36.0% 37.7% 36.0% 37.7% 36.0% 37.7%
•*rt o%

-1.8% -0.9% -4.3% -2.0% -5.7% -4.8% 8.0%
R 4%

Deseg- : regáted Yes/No 1
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
y ¦

DESEGREGATION COMPLIANCE HIGH SCHOOLS

School
Auburn Auburn
East East Guilford Guilford Jefferson TH~fer·;on

Grade Date

School District Percent Deseg-

Minority Minority Variance regated

Percent Percent

Yes/No

HS 9-12 9/30/97 36.6% HS 9-12 10/28/96 35.7% HS 9-12 9/30/97 35.4% HS 9-12 10/28/96 28.8% HS 9-12 9/30/97 34.9% HS 9-12 10/28/96 31.5% HS 9-12 9/30/97 29.6%
Q-17 10/"?g/Q6 ^8 ì%

34.7% 31.5% 34.7% 31.5% 34.7% 31.5% 34.7% 1\ ^%

1.9% 4.2% 0.7% -2.7% 0.2% 0.0% -5.1% .1 d¾

Y

Y

¦

Y

Y

Y

Y :

Y

Y :

VI. ENROLLMENT DATA 1997-1998

With the implementation of Controlled Choice, the Department of Desegregation has made every effort to verify the actual enrollment of the Rockford School District. This process began November 1, 1996, with the effort to identify "available seats" for students new to the District. This effort was further carried out to identify "available seats" for non-entry grade or "grandfathered" students who were requesting a transfer for the 1997-1998 school year. The high volume of students coming into the system in July and August also necessitated an aggressive verification of all "available sets" in grades K through 12.
The Parent Information Center was particularly concerned with the availability of kindergarten seats when the assigned enrollment for kindergarten exceeded the number of kindergarten seats originally allocated for the 1997-1998 school year. This required an increase in assignable kindergarten capacities in certain elementary schools.
As a result of this process, students who were no longer attending the Rockford School District prior to and after the end of the 1996-1997 school year were "dropped" or disenrolled from the Rockford Public Schools. A preliminary analysis of the "available drop" data for 1997-1998 school year indicates that a number of students from all racial groups who were dropped actually stopped attending the Rockford School District during the 1996-1997 school year.
The Department of Desegregation's analysis of these disenrolled students is ongoing and the results will be reported to the court at a later date. The Department is extremely concerned about instances of school-age students who were dropped without proper verification. As a result of the Department of Desegregation's involvement in the drop of students, it is clear that a policy needs to be developed concerning the timely and educationally sound procedure to address this issue.
:>3

The following data indicates grade-level enrollment changes for the past three years for both entry and non-entry grades.

1997-1998 ENROLLMENTS BY GRADE LEVEL September 30, 1997

Table 1
PRE-K K 1 2 3 4 5 6 SPFT) TOT AT

Q/W/Qï
1276 2224. 2236 2161 2177 2197 2128 1923
490 16812

Q/W/Q6
1288 2196 2327 2228 2102 2133 2172 2062 515
17ím

CM 4 X¢?F
12 -28 91 67 -75 -64 44 139
?5 ?11

Q/W/Q7
1407 2080 2268 2272 2194 2015 2053 2101
565 I6Q^

1 -
CM 4 NC,F
119 -116 -59 44 92
-118 -119 39
50

7* 8* T O T AT

Q/W/Q*>
2063 1969 aim

Q/W/Q6
1937 2004 ^941

Cl·TA NOT? -126 3S -91

Q/W/Q7
2020 1885
ions

rUf4NGT? 83 -119
J\fy

10* 11*
Î2* T O T AT

Q/W/QS
2456 1628 1305 P.81
6670

Q/W/Q6
2501 1718 1294 1376
688Q

CFTA NGF
45 90 -11 9^
?19

Q/W/Q7
2585 1711 1298 1130
6Q74

rfT4 V<7F 84 -7 4 -46

t>nap T>nrk

1?.?.

124

117

•-.-••-17

DISTRICT 27636

27977 : 341

27896

-81

* Includes Special Education Students

54

VII. RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are being made to improve upon the
efficacy of the Controlled Choice student assignment process for the 1997-1998 school year and beyond.
1. All MIS staff performing computer related services that support the implementation of Controlled Choice be held accountable to the Director of Desegregation.
2. The number of all-day kindergarten sections be increased to accommodate parent demands for a desegregative kindergarten experience for their children.
3. The overall number of kindergarten sections, particularly for children who are monolingual, be increased.
4. The assignable capacity of 24 students for kindergarten classes only be honored in "over-chosen" schools.
5. The Citywide School Improvement Council be established as soon as possible and recommendations made concerning "over and under chosen schools".
6. Certified staff from the Special Education Department be assigned to the Parent Information Center to assist parents in making informed choices for their children. Currently, this is the only category of students from which an immediate assignment cannot be made. Our experience demonstrates that these students need to be afforded more opportunities to benefit from Controlled Choice.
7. Every effort be made to complete the magnet school planning and development process in the racially identifiable minority schools prior to the beginning of the Controlled Choice entry-grade "batch" process for the 1998-1999 school year.
8. Procedures and safeguards be implemented to ensure that no student is inappropriately dropped from the Rockford School District.
56

 
 CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 1 of 307

PROTO, SuppressAnsRpt, TERMED
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 (Rockford)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:89-cv-20168

People Who Care, et al v. Rockford Board Of Ed Assigned to: Honorable P. Michael Mahoney Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 05/11/1989 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Special Master Eugene E. Eubanks

Plaintiff Larry Hoarde

represented by Jonathan A. Rothstein Gessler Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym Ltd. 70 West Madison Street Suite 4000 Chicago, IL 60602 (312)580-0100

Plaintiff Chasty Hoarde

represented by Jonathan A. Rothstein (See above for address)

Plaintiff Jonathan Hughes

represented by Jonathan A. Rothstein (See above for address)

Plaintiff Cindy Malone

represented by Jonathan A. Rothstein (See above for address)

Plaintiff Shaheed Saleem

represented by Jonathan A. Rothstein (See above for address)

Plaintiff Anissa Tripplett

represented by Jonathan A. Rothstein (See above for address)

Plaintiff Asia Eason

represented by Jonathan A. Rothstein (See above for address)

Plaintiff

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 2 of 307

Stephanie Burfield
Plaintiff Joshua Burfield Plaintiff Brandon Burfield Plaintiff People Who Care

represented by David P. Faulkner Faulkner & Jensen LLC 6832 Stalter Drive Rockford, IL 61108-2585 815-963-8050 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy E. Shappert Lord, Bissell & Brook LLP 120 West State Street Rockford, IL 61101 (815) 963-8050
Jeffry S. Spears Hinshaw & Culbertson 100 Park Avenue P.O. Box 1389 Rockford, IL 61105-1389 (815) 963-8488 Email: jspears@hinshawlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan A. Rothstein (See above for address)
represented by Jonathan A. Rothstein (See above for address)
represented by Jonathan A. Rothstein (See above for address)
represented by Eugene Eubanks 12737 Oakmont Drive Kansas City, MO 64145 (816) 235-2448 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janet L. Pulliam Pulliam & Wright, P.A. 1501 North University Avenue Suite 552 Little Rock, AR 72207 (501) 604-4100 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 3 of 307

Robert C. Howard Futterman & Howard, Chtd. 122 South Michigan Avenue Suite 1850 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 427-3600 Email: bobhoward@attglobal.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Claire T. Hartfield Futterman & Howard, Chtd. 122 South Michigan Avenue Suite 1850 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 427-3600
Denise Reid Hoggard Pulliam & Wright, P.A. 1501 North University Avenue Suite 552 Little Rock, AR 72207 (501) 604-4100
Jennifer Louise Fischer Gessler Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym Ltd. 70 West Madison Street Suite 4000 Chicago, IL 60602 (312)580-0100
Jonathan A. Rothstein (See above for address)
Kathleen Mangold Spoto Law Office of Kathleen Mangold Spoto
12108 Hensel Road Huntley, IL 60142 (847) 669-2847
Ronald L. Futterman Futterman & Howard, Chtd. 122 South Michigan Avenue Suite 1850 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 427-3600 Email:

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 4 of 307

Plaintiff Johnny Devereueawax TERMINATED: 02/20/1991 Plaintiff Marie Devereueawax TERMINATED: 02/20/1991 Plaintiff Sidney Malone
Plaintiff Andre Malone
Plaintiff James Curtin
Plaintiff Kelly Curtin
Plaintiff Leonardo Medrano
V. Defendant Rockford Board Of Education School District #205

rfutterman@futtermanhoward.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jonathan A. Rothstein (See above for address)
represented by Jonathan A. Rothstein (See above for address)
represented by Robert C. Howard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert C. Howard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert C. Howard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert C. Howard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert C. Howard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles J. Cooper Cooper & Kirk, PLLC 1500 K Street Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 5 of 307

(202) 220-9600 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Michael Hess Attorney at Law 10989 Shaw Road Rockford, IL 61114 815-885-1523 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noel Francisco Cooper & Kirk, PLLC 1500 K Street Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 220-9600 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas J. Lester Hinshaw & Culbertson 100 Park Avenue P.O. Box 1389 Rockford, IL 61105-1389 (815) 963-8488 Email: tlester@hinshawlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William J. Quinlan, Jr. McDermott, Will & Emery LLP 227 West Monroe Street #4400 Chicago, IL 60606-5096 (312) 372-2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gary Richard Kardell Hinshaw & Culbertson 100 Park Avenue P.O. Box 1389 Rockford, IL 61105-1389 (815) 963-8488 Email: gkardell@hinshawlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael W. Kirk

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 6 of 307

Defendant Jacquelyn Confer Defendant Avery Gage Defendant Terry Hodges Defendant Jo Minor Defendant George Stevens Defendant Fred Iii Wham Defendant Michael Williams Intervenor Rockford Education Association

Cooper & Kirk, PLLC 1500 K Street Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 220-9600 Stephen T. Moore Hinshaw & Culbertson 100 Park Avenue P.O. Box 1389 Rockford, IL 61105-1389 (815) 963-8488
represented by Stephen Gary Katz Dowd, Bloch & Bennett 8 South Michigan Avenue 19th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 372-1361 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Denise S. Poloyac Katz Friedman Eagle Eisenstein & Johnson 77 West Washington Street 20th Floor

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 7 of 307

Intervenor Rockford Education Association
Intervenor Rockford Building Maintenance Association Intervenor Educational Office Personnel Association Intervenor Milestone, Inc.
Intervenor Theodore Biondo TERMINATED: 05/14/1998

Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 263-6330
represented by Barbara Jean Buhai Law Office of Joseph D. Ryan, P.C. 1896 Sheridan Road Highland Park, IL 60035 (847)432-5971 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Barbara Jean Buhai (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Barbara Jean Buhai (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Patrick H. Agnew Hinshaw & Culbertson 100 Park Avenue P.O. Box 1389 Rockford, IL 61105-1389 (815) 963-8488 LEAD ATTORNEY
Charles F. Thomas Hinshaw & Culbertson 100 Park Avenue P.O. Box 1389 Rockford, IL 61105-1389 (815) 963-8488
Thomas J. Lester (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter Alexander Alexander & Cicero, P. C. One Court Place Suite 401 Rockford, IL 61101 (815) 962-7083 TERMINATED: 05/14/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 8 of 307

Intervenor Patricia Delugas TERMINATED: 05/14/1998
Intervenor David L. Strommer TERMINATED: 05/14/1998

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter D. DeBruyne Peter DeBruyne, P.C. 838 North Main Street Rockford, IL 61103 (815) 964-3810 TERMINATED: 05/14/1998 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter Alexander (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter D. DeBruyne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/1998 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter Alexander (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter D. DeBruyne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/1998 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 10/04/1990 10/05/1990 10/09/1990 10/10/1990
10/10/1990

#

Docket Text

260 Form from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing that case is assigned Appeal No. 90-3163 (fce) (Entered: 10/05/1990)

261 RETURN receipt green card from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing that short record was signed for on 10/1/90 (fce) (Entered: 10/10/1990)

262 PLAINTIFFS' DESIGNATION OF RECORD (fce) (Entered: 10/12/1990)

263 PETITION by plaintiff for Determination of Default with Respect to the July 1989 Order; Petition to Hold Defendant in Contempt for its Violation of the July 1989 Order; Motion for an Accelerated Discovery and Hearing Schedule (fce) (Entered: 10/12/1990)

264 NOTICE by plaintiff regarding petition [263-1] (fce) (Entered:

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 9 of 307

10/11/1990 10/11/1990 10/11/1990 10/12/1990 10/12/1990 10/12/1990 10/12/1990
10/12/1990
10/12/1990 10/19/1990 10/19/1990 10/19/1990 10/19/1990 10/22/1990 11/07/1990

10/12/1990)
265 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed ( paid, receipt #24656) (fce) (Entered: 10/12/1990)
266 NOTICE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed regarding appeal [265-1] (fce) (Entered: 10/12/1990)
267 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT filed (fce) (Entered: 10/12/1990)
268 NOTICE OF APPEAL by plaintiff ( unpaid) (fce) (Entered: 10/12/1990)
269 NOTICE by plaintiff regarding appeal [268-1] (fce) (Entered: 10/12/1990)
270 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT filed (fce) (Entered: 10/12/1990)
TRANSMITTED 10/12/90: Short record on appeal on Scariano appeal to the USCA for the 7th Circuit consisting of transmittal letter, file stamped copy of notice of appeal, Circuit info sheet, copy of order appealed, copy of docket entries incl, Jurisdictional Statement sent certified mail P707 118 817 (fce) (Entered: 10/12/1990)
TRANSMITTED 10/12/90: Short record on appeal on plaintiffs second appeal to the USCA for the 7th Circuit consisting of transmittal letter, file stamped copy of notice of appeal, Circuit info sheet, copy of order appealed, copy of docket entries incl, Jurisdictional Statement sent via certified mail P707 118 818 (fce) (Entered: 10/12/1990)
271 MINUTE ORDER of 10/12/90 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : Status hearing held & Continued to 11/8/90 at 2:00 Notice not required (fce) (Entered: 10/15/1990)
272 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal USCA 903284, Plaintiff's Appeal (fce) (Entered: 10/31/1990)
274 RETURN receipt green card from U.S. Court of Appeals showing record on appeal was signed for 10/16/90 on Defendant's appeal (fce) (Entered: 10/31/1990)
275 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal USCA 903291, Defendant's Appeal. (fce) (Entered: 10/31/1990)
276 PLAINTIFFS DESIGNATION OF RECORD (fce) (Entered: 11/05/1990)
273 RETURN receipt green card from U.S. Court of Appeals showing record on appeal was signed for on 10/15/90 on Plaintiff's appeal. (fce) (Entered: 10/31/1990)
277 FILED 11/7/90: CERTIFIED COPY of order from the USCA for the 7th Circuit Court entered 11/2/90: It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal (90-3163) is dismissed as unnecessary. [268-1] (fce) (Entered: 11/07/1990)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 10 of 307

11/08/1990 11/16/1990 11/16/1990 11/16/1990 11/29/1990 11/30/1990 12/06/1990
12/19/1990 12/19/1990 12/19/1990 12/19/1990 12/19/1990 12/19/1990 12/19/1990 12/19/1990
12/19/1990

278 MINUTE ORDER of 11/8/90 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : Enter order regarding setting of briefing schedules (DRAFT). Status hearing held. Notice mailed (fce) (Entered: 11/13/1990)
279 SUPPLEMENT by plaintiff regarding petition [263-1] (fce) (Entered: 11/20/1990)
280 NOTICE by plaintiff regarding [279-1] (fce) (Entered: 11/20/1990)
281 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 11/8/90 Before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski (fce) (Entered: 11/20/1990)
282 Second SUPPLEMENT by plaintiff regarding plaintiffs' contempt petition [263-1] (fce) (Entered: 11/30/1990)
283 CERTIFIED copy of Order from the USCA for the 7th Circuit Court: IT IS ORDERED that appeal number 90-3163 is DISMISSED as unnecessary. - Flaum, Circuit Judge (fce) (Entered: 12/06/1990)
284 MINUTE ORDER of 12/6/90 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : Conference with the court is hereby reset for 12/19/90 at 11:00 a.m. All parties are ordered to be present with their counsel. Notice mailed (fce) (Entered: 12/10/1990)
285 MOTION by defendants for hearing date on class certification issue and for new hearing date on contempt petition ; notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 12/19/1990)
286 Partial RESPONSE by defendants to plaintiffs' second supplement to plaintiffs' contempt petition (fce) (Entered: 12/19/1990)
287 MOTION by defendants to strike a portion of plaintiff's second supplement to plaintiffs' contempt petition ; notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 12/19/1990)
288 RESPONSE by defendants to plaintiffs' supplement to plaintiffs' contempt petition; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/19/1990)
289 RESPONSE by defendants to the court's suggestion of an appointment of an expert to report to court (fce) (Entered: 12/19/1990)
290 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for order to extend lease term for Garrison School; Notice of Filing ; notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 12/19/1990)
291 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for more definite statement ; notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 12/19/1990)
292 RESPONSE by defendants to plaintiffs' petition for determination of default with respect to the July 1989 order and petition to hold defendant in contempt for its violation of the July 1989 order and motion for an accelerated discovery and hearing schedule; notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 12/19/1990)
293 LETTER from Judge Roszkowski's staff requesting us to put Andrew

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 11 of 307

12/19/1990 12/19/1990 12/19/1990
12/19/1990 12/19/1990 12/19/1990 12/19/1990 12/20/1990 12/24/1990 12/28/1990
01/07/1991 01/09/1991
01/09/1991 01/14/1991

Campos on service list for notices. (Completed on 12/19/90) (fce) (Entered: 12/19/1990)
294 Filed plaintiffs' statement concerning the parties' respective positions in this case. (UNDER SEAL IN VAULT) (fce) (Entered: 12/20/1990)
295 Filed proposed second interim ORDER (UNDER SEAL IN VAULT) (fce) (Entered: 12/20/1990)
296 MINUTE ORDER of 12/19/90 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : Status hearing held. , Settlement Conference set for 1/7/91 at 10:00 a.m. Plaintiffs and defendants are given until 1/9/91 to respond to Rockford Education Association's motion to intervene. Notice mailed (fce) (Entered: 12/20/1990)
297 Second MOTION by defendants for partial summary judgment ; notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 12/20/1990)
298 RULE 12 Statement of material facts as to which there are no genuine issues by defendant (fce) (Entered: 12/20/1990)
299 Renewed MOTION by defendants for leave to file deposition (fce) (Entered: 12/20/1990)
300 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for enlargment of time to respond to discovery requests and to continue evidentiary hearing on contempt petition ; notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 12/20/1990)
301 LETTER to Judge Roszkowski from Rockford Area Hispanic Coalition dated 12/14/90 (fce) (Entered: 12/27/1990)
302 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to the court's request for suggestions concerning appointment of a master (fce) (Entered: 12/27/1990)
303 MINUTE ORDER of 12/28/90 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : granting motion for order to extend lease term for Garrison School [2901]. The current lease is extended until and should expire on April 1, 1991. Notice mailed (fce) (Entered: 01/02/1991)
304 MINUTE ORDER of 1/7/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : Status hearing held and set for 1/9/91 at 2:00 p.m. Notice not required. (fce) (Entered: 01/08/1991)
305 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to motion to intervene on behalf of the Rockford Education Association, IEA-NEA, Rockford Building Maintenance Association, IEA-NEA, and Educational Office Personnel Association, IEA-NEA (fce) (Entered: 01/14/1991)
306 MINUTE ORDER of 1/9/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : Status hearing held. Pretrial conference held. Notice not required (fce) (Entered: 01/14/1991)
307 MINUTE ORDER of 1/14/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : Enter order of reference. Notice mailed by judge's staff. (fce) (Entered: 01/14/1991)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 12 of 307

01/14/1991 01/14/1991
01/14/1991 01/15/1991 01/15/1991 01/15/1991
01/17/1991 01/17/1991 01/30/1991 01/30/1991
01/31/1991 01/31/1991 02/11/1991
02/15/1991
02/15/1991
02/15/1991
02/15/1991

308 ORDER of Reference (fce) (Entered: 01/14/1991)
309 MINUTE ORDER of 1/14/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : Enter order. Status hearing set for 2/15/91 at 9:30 a.m. Notice mailed by judge's staff. (fce) (Entered: 01/14/1991)
310 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 01/14/1991)
311 MOTION to intervene (fce) (Entered: 01/15/1991)
312 PLEADING by intervenor Rockford Education, intervenor Rockford Building, intervenor Educational Office (fce) (Entered: 01/15/1991)
313 MEMORANDUM by intervenor Rockford Education, intervenor Rockford Building, intervenor Educational Office in support of motion to intervene [311-1] (fce) (Entered: 01/17/1991)
314 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 12/19/90 Before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski (fce) (Entered: 01/18/1991)
315 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 12/19/90 Before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski (fce) (Entered: 01/18/1991)
316 Defendant's Proposed ORDER (fce) (Entered: 01/30/1991)
317 CERTIFIED copy of Order from the USCA for the 7th Circuit Court regarding appeal [268-1], regarding appeal [265-1] - IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by this court that the judgment of the District Court in these causes appealed from be, and the same are hereby DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction, with costs, in accordance with the opinion of this court filed this date. - Ripple, Circuit Judge. (fce) (Entered: 01/31/1991)
318 Plaintiffs' Submission of Proposed Interim Order (fce) (Entered: 01/31/1991)
319 Second Interim ORDER (fce) (Entered: 01/31/1991)
320 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defendant's motion to vacate and revoke, or in the alternative to modify, the court's special master order of reference (fce) (Entered: 02/11/1991)
321 REPLY Memorandum in Support by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed of motion to vacate and revoke, or, in the alternative, modify order of referece (fce) (Entered: 02/19/1991)
322 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to strike, or in the alternative, to restate plaintiffs' proposed order of 1/30/91 ; notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 02/19/1991)
323 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to vacate and revoke, or in the alternative, modify order of reference ; notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 02/19/1991)
324 Plaintiffs' Suggestions concerning procedure for addressing plaintiffs' default/contempt petition (fce) (Entered: 02/19/1991)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 13 of 307

02/15/1991
02/20/1991 02/20/1991 02/20/1991
02/21/1991 02/25/1991 03/08/1991 03/19/1991 03/19/1991 03/19/1991

325 MINUTE ORDER of 2/15/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : denying motion to strike, or in the alternative, to restate plaintiffs' proposed order of 1/30/91 [322-1] Status hearing held. Defendants' motion to vacate and revoke, or in the alternative, modify order of reference is held in abeyance. Plaintiffs' suggestions concerning procedures for addressing plaintiffs' default/contempt petition is also taken under advisement. Defendants are given until 2/22/91 to respond to plaintiffs' suggestions concerning procedures for addressing plantiffs' default/contempt petition. Both defendants and plaintiffs are given until 3/15/91 to respond to the motion to intervene on behalf of the Rockford Education Association filed on 2/7/91. Notice mailed (fce) (Entered: 02/19/1991)
326 Renewed MOTION by intervenor Rockford Education to intervene as of right on behalf of the Rockford Education Association, IEA-NEA, Rockford Building Maintenance Association, IEA-NEA and Educational Office Personnel Association, IEA-NEA ; notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 02/20/1991)
327 STIPULATION for voluntary dismissal of certain plaintiffs (fce) (Entered: 02/21/1991)
328 MINUTE ORDER of 2/20/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : Status hearing held. The clerk's office is hereby ordered to place Dr. Eugene Banks, 136 W. 140th St., Kansas City, MO 64114 on the service list to receive notices from this court. Next status hearing set for 3/21/91 at 10:30 a.m. , terminating party Marie Devereueawax, party Johnny Devereueawax nunc pro tunc as of 12/1/90 by stipulation of the parties. Notice mailed (fce) (Entered: 02/21/1991)
329 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 2/15/91 Before Honorable Stanley Roszkowski (fce) (Entered: 02/26/1991)
330 Response and OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiff's Suggestions concerning procedures for addressing plaintiffs' default/contempt petition [324-1] (fce) (Entered: 03/01/1991)
331 MINUTE ORDER of 3/8/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : The court corrects a minute order dated 2/20/91 which incorrectly stated the address of Dr. Eugene Eubanks. The correct address of Dr. Eugene Eubanks is: 136 West 104th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64114. Notice mailed (fce) (Entered: 03/11/1991)
332 MINUTE ORDER of 3/19/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : The court hereby orders the Clerk's Office to place the document entitled "Report from the Court Appointed Expert" in the court's file under seal. Notice not required (fce) (Entered: 03/20/1991)
333 Report from the Court Appointed Expert (UNDER SEAL IN VAULT) (fce) (Entered: 03/20/1991)
334 MINUTE ORDER of 3/19/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : Briefing schedule on the REA's petition to intervene is hereby revised as

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 14 of 307

03/20/1991 03/20/1991 03/21/1991
03/21/1991
03/21/1991 03/21/1991 03/21/1991 03/21/1991 03/21/1991 03/21/1991
03/21/1991
03/26/1991 03/26/1991
03/27/1991
03/28/1991
03/28/1991
03/28/1991

follows: Plaintiff's and Defendant's response to the petition to intervene is due March 21, 1991. Notice mailed (fce) (Entered: 03/20/1991)
335 MOTION to intervene (fce) (Entered: 03/22/1991)
336 CLAIM by intervenors Milestone, Inc. (fce) (Entered: 03/22/1991)
337 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for leave to substitute collateral and motion for leave to reacquire school site (fce) (Entered: 03/22/1991)
338 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for intervenor Milestone, Inc. by Patrick H. Agnew, Charles F. Thomas, Thomas J. Lester (fce) (Entered: 03/22/1991)
339 RULE 39 Affidavit of Charles F. Thomas (fce) (Entered: 03/22/1991)
340 RULE 39 Affidavit of Thomas J. Lester (fce) (Entered: 03/22/1991)
341 RULE 39 Affidavit of Patrick H. Agnew (fce) (Entered: 03/22/1991)
342 PETITION to intervene by Milestone, Inc. (fce) (Entered: 03/22/1991)
343 MEMORANDUM by intervenor Milestone, Inc. in support of petition [342-1] (fce) (Entered: 03/22/1991)
344 MINUTE ORDER of 3/21/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : Status hearing held. Status hearing magistrate set for 4/4/91 at 1:00 p.m. (Please note time change.) (DRAFT). Notice mailed (fce) (Entered: 03/22/1991)
345 MOTION by plaintiffs for a prompt schedule to address plaintiffs' default/contempt petition (UNDER SEAL IN VAULT) (fce) (Entered: 03/22/1991)
346 Defendant's Proposed Schedule for Hearing (UNDER SEAL IN VAULT) (fce) (Entered: 03/26/1991)
347 RESPONSE by plaintiff to defendant's motion for leave to substitute collateral and re-acquire school site (UNDER SEAL IN VAULT) (fce) (Entered: 03/26/1991)
348 RESPONSE by defendants to petition for intervention filed by Rockford Education Association, REA, IEA/NEA (UNDER SEAL IN VAULT) (fce) (Entered: 03/28/1991)
349 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to petition of Milestone, Inc. to intervene with respect to the Marshal School Transaction (UNDER SEAL IN VAULT) (fce) Modified on 03/28/1991 (Entered: 03/28/1991)
350 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to the renewed motion to intervene as of right on behalf of the Rockford Education Association and other employee unions (UNDER SEAL IN VAULT) (fce) (Entered: 03/28/1991)
351 REPLY by plaintiffs concerning scheduling for proceedings on plaintiffs' petition for a default determination and plaintiffs' petition for a contempt

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 15 of 307

04/01/1991 04/04/1991 04/04/1991 04/04/1991 04/04/1991 04/04/1991 04/05/1991 04/05/1991 04/05/1991 04/05/1991
04/10/1991 04/15/1991
04/15/1991 04/16/1991 04/17/1991

determination. (UNDER SEAL IN VAULT) (fce) (Entered: 03/28/1991)
352 Court ORDER regarding defendant's motion to vacate and revoke, or, in the alternative, modify order of reference (UNDER SEAL IN VAULT) (fce) (Entered: 04/01/1991)
353 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to strike petition for intervention of Milstone, Inc. ; notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 04/05/1991)
354 RESPONSE by intervenor Milestone, Inc. to motion to strike petition for intervention of Milstone, Inc. [353-1] (fce) (Entered: 04/05/1991)
355 MEMORANDUM by intervenor Milestone, Inc. in support of motion response [354-1] (fce) (Entered: 04/05/1991)
356 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for an accelerated discovery schedule4 ; notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 04/05/1991)
357 MOTION by intervenor Milestone, Inc. to quash ; notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 04/05/1991)
358 LETTER to court from defendant's counsel dated 3/19/91 re: correspondence from plaintiff's counsel dated 3/19/91 (UNDER SEAL IN VAULT) (fce) (Entered: 04/05/1991)
359 LETTER to court from plaintiffs' counsel dated 3/19/91 re: plaintiffs' suggestions for 3/21 status hearing (UNDER SEAL IN VAULT) (fce) (Entered: 04/05/1991)
360 Defendant's PETITION for a rule to show cause for contempt; notice of motion and certificate of service (UNDER SEAL IN VAULT) (fce) (Entered: 04/05/1991)
361 MINUTE ORDER of 4/5/91 before Magistrate Patrick M. Mahoney : Enter Magistrate Judge Orders and Report and Recommendations regarding scheduling in relation to plaintiffs' default/contempt petition. See draft attached. Notice mailed (fce) (Entered: 04/08/1991)
362 Proposed Form of BOND in amount of $ 500,000 filed by intervenor Milestone, Inc. (fce) (Entered: 04/12/1991)
363 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to compel proposed intervenor Milestone Inc.'s compliance with defendant's first set of interrogatories and first request for production of documents (fce) (Entered: 04/15/1991)
364 MOTION and Petition by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed ; notice of filing. (UNDER SEAL IN VAULT) (fce) (Entered: 04/15/1991)
365 Plaintiffs' Suggestions concerning the role of the master in the default/contempt proceedings (UNDER SEAL IN VAULT) (fce) (Entered: 04/18/1991)
366 RESPONSE by intervenor Milestone, Inc. to defendant's motion to

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 16 of 307

04/18/1991
04/19/1991
04/23/1991 04/24/1991 04/24/1991 04/24/1991 04/24/1991
04/24/1991 04/24/1991
04/24/1991 04/25/1991 04/26/1991

compel proposed intervenor (fce) (Entered: 04/18/1991)
367 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to dismiss, or in the alternative, for judgment on the pleadings, with respect to the second supplement to plaintiffs' contempt petition ; notice of motion; notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 04/22/1991)
368 MINUTE ORDER of 4/19/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : Settlement conference held. Settlement conference set for 4/23/91 at 10:00 a.m. granting motion of REA to intervene. Parties are to prepare an order. Notice not required (fce) (Entered: 04/22/1991)
369 MINUTE ORDER of 4/23/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : Pretrial conference held and continued to 4/24/91 at 11:30 a.m. Notice not required (fce) (Entered: 04/24/1991)
370 MINUTE ORDER of 4/24/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : Pretrial conference held. Notice not required (fce) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
371 Renewed MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for new hearing dates on class certification and contempt petition and petition for instructions ; notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
372 OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to order of reference and motion to modify special master's authority or appoint as a Rule 706 expert witness; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
373 MINUTE ORDER of 4/24/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : For the reasons set forth in the draft and subject to the provisions of the attached order, the court hereby appoints Dr. Eugene Eubanks to serve as a Monitor in this cause of action. Notice not required (fce) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
374 ORDER of reference (fce) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
375 MINUTE ORDER of 4/24/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : Upon recommendation of the parties and the court's expert, the court hereby adopts the Second Interim Order to make interim provision for certain school arrangements that are at issue in this litigation. The order shall remain in effect until further order of this court. Notice not required (fce) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
376 SECOND INTERIM ORDER (fce) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
377 LETTER to Ann Dittmar from Eugene Eubanks dated 4/25/91 (fce) (Entered: 04/26/1991)
378 MINUTE ORDER of 4/26/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : The court makes the following rulings in relation to the motions currently pending in this cause: plaintiffs' motion to lift the seal with respect to the expert's report and all other pleadings and motions is granted with the exception noted hereafter. (For clarification purposes, the seal shall be lifted on documents numbered 294, 295, 333, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 358, 359 and 365.) The seal shall be lifted on Monday,

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 17 of 307

04/29/1991 05/07/1991
05/14/1991
05/21/1991 05/22/1991 05/22/1991 05/22/1991 05/23/1991 05/23/1991

April 29, 1991 at 12:00 noon; defendant is to file a reply to plaintiffs' response to defendant's motion to clarify or vacate the master order; the parties are to submit a proposed order in relation to the REA's petition to intervene; defendant's motion to substitute collateral (Marsh School) is withdrawn as moot; Milestone's petition to intervene is denied as moot; defendant's motion to compel Milestone to answer discovery is denied as moot; defendant's motion under seal and labeled as document numbers 360 and 364 is withdrawn and, therefore, said documents shall remain under seal; defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' supplement to the contempt petition is withdrawn as being covered by the second interim order; defendant's motion to dismiss the second supplement to plaintiffs' contempt petition is withdrawn as being covered by the second interim order; defendant's motion for hearing on class certification is continued generally; and defendant's second motion for partial summary judgment is continued generally. Notice mailed (fce) (Entered: 04/26/1991)
379 LETTER to Judge Roszkowski from Patrick Agnew dated 4/8/91 (fce) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
380 MINUTE ORDER of 5/7/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : Plaintiff has until 5/15/91 to file a renewed motion for class certification. Defendant has until 5/22/91 to file a response. A hearing on plaintiff's motion for class certification is set for 6/6/91 at 11:00 a.m. A necessity hearing concerning the REA's objections to parts B.11 and F.5 of the second interim order is also set for 6/6/91 at 11:00 a.m. Notice mailed (fce) (Entered: 05/07/1991)
381 MINUTE ORDER of 5/14/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : By agreement of the parties, plaintiff is given until 5/21/91 to file a renewed motion for class certification. Defendant's are given until May 28, 1991 to respond. Notice mailed (fce) (Entered: 05/16/1991)
382 MINUTE ORDER of 5/21/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : The REA's motion for the entry of an order granting intervenor status is set over to 5/29/91 at 9:30 a.m. Notice mailed (fce) (Entered: 05/22/1991)
383 Renewed MOTION by plaintiffs for class certification (fce) (Entered: 05/22/1991)
384 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 4/24/91 Before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski (fce) (Entered: 05/22/1991)
385 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 4/23/91 Before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski (fce) (Entered: 05/22/1991)
386 MOTION by intervenor Rockford Education, intervenor Rockford Building, intervenor Educational Office to extend time for appeal (fce) (Entered: 05/24/1991)
387 MINUTE ORDER of 5/23/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : granting intervenors motion to extend time for appeal to and including June 24, 1991 [386-1] Notice mailed (fce) (Entered: 05/24/1991)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 18 of 307

05/23/1991 05/29/1991
05/29/1991 05/29/1991
06/03/1991 06/04/1991 06/04/1991
06/05/1991 06/05/1991 06/06/1991 06/06/1991 06/06/1991 06/06/1991
06/06/1991 06/06/1991

388 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 05/24/1991)
389 Parties' Joint RESPONSE to the motion of the REA/RBMA/EOPA for an order of intervention which seeks to enjoin implementation of the second interim order. (fce) (Entered: 05/30/1991)
390 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to motion for class certification [383-1] (fce) (Entered: 05/30/1991)
391 MINUTE ORDER of 5/29/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : Intervenors are given until 5/31/91 to respond, in writing, to plaintiffs' and defendant's joint order with respect to the petition for intervention. Plaintiffs and defendant are given until 6/3/91 to reply. Defendants are to prepare a draft order relating to Dr. Eubanks' fees. Notice not required (fce) (Entered: 05/30/1991)
392 MEMORANDUM by intervenors in support of motion to enter order with respect to intervention. (aew) (Entered: 06/06/1991)
393 MOTION by defendant Rockford Public Schools for instructions [relevant to school district elections . (aew) (Entered: 06/06/1991)
394 JOINT REPLY of the parties in support of intervention order proposed by plaintiffs and the district; Notice of filing. (aew) (Entered: 06/06/1991)
395 MOTION by plaintiffs to dismiss and add plaintiffs ; notice of motion (Exhibits). (aew) (Entered: 06/06/1991)
396 MOTION for entry of an order granting intervenor status ; notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 06/10/1991)
397 STIPULATION of the parties with regard to plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/10/1991)
398 Joint memorandum of the Parties regarding the Merits of the Intervention Issues; Notice of Filing (fce) (Entered: 06/10/1991)
399 MOTION by intervenor ; notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 06/10/1991)
400 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for intervenor Rockford Education, intervenor Rockford Building, intervenor Educational Office by Barbara J. Buhai (fce) (Entered: 06/10/1991)
401 RULE 39 Affidavit of Barbara J. Buhai (fce) (Entered: 06/10/1991)
402 MINUTE ORDER of 6/6/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : Hearing on class certification held. , Hearing on necessity held and continued to 6/7/91 at 9:30 a.m. The REA's motion to enter the appearance of additional counsel, Barbara Buhai, is granted. Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss certain named plaintiffs and to add certain plaintiffs is granted. The parties are given 14 days in which to file briefs in relation to defendant's petition for instructions (relevant to school district elections). Notice not required (fce) (Entered: 06/10/1991)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 19 of 307

06/07/1991
06/07/1991 06/07/1991 06/07/1991 06/10/1991 06/11/1991
06/11/1991
06/11/1991 06/14/1991 06/14/1991 06/17/1991 06/18/1991 06/18/1991 06/18/1991

403 MINUTE ORDER of 6/7/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : For the reasons set forth in the attached order, the following class is certified pursuant to FRCP 23(b)(1)(A), 23(b)(1)(B) and 23 (b)(2); SEE ORDER. The parties are directed to give notice to all class members as provided in the attached order. Notice not required (fce) (Entered: 06/10/1991)
404 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 06/10/1991)
405 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 5/29/91 Before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski (fce) (Entered: 06/10/1991)
406 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 4/4/91 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 06/10/1991)
407 MINUTE ORDER of 6/10/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : Hearing on necessity held and continued to 6/11/91 at 9:30 a.m. Notice not required (fce) (Entered: 06/10/1991)
408 MINUTE ORDER of 6/11/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : Necessity hearing held. See transcript for rulings of the court. Parties are to submit definitions of the terms in B.11 of the second interim order to the court on 6/25/91 at 9:30 a.m. Parties are to submit a grievance procedure to this court along with findings of fact and conclusions of law on 7/12/91 at 10:00 a.m. Notice not required (fce) (Entered: 06/12/1991)
409 MINUTE ORDER of 6/11/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : For the reasons set forth on the attached order and subject to the limitations set forth on the attached order, the court grants the intervenors leave to intervene as of April 23, 1991. Notice not required (fce) (Entered: 06/12/1991)
410 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 06/12/1991)
411 MOTION by plaintiff for leave to file brief in excess of 15 pages ; notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 06/17/1991)
412 MOTION by plaintiff for court approval of class certification notice ; notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 06/17/1991)
413 First Progress Report Second Interim Order; Notice of Filing (fce) (Entered: 06/17/1991)
414 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defendant's petition for removal and consolidation; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/19/1991)
415 MOTION by plaintiff to extend briefing schedule (fce) (Entered: 06/19/1991)
416 MINUTE ORDER of 6/18/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : granting plaintiff's motion for leave to file brief for award of attorney's fees and reimbursement of expenses with regard to the implementation of the 1989 agreed order in excess of 15 pages [411-1] Briefing schedule on this motion is set as follows: Answer brief to motion due 7/18/91. Reply

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 20 of 307

06/18/1991 06/21/1991 06/21/1991 06/21/1991 06/21/1991
06/21/1991
06/25/1991 07/01/1991 07/01/1991 07/01/1991 07/02/1991 07/02/1991 07/02/1991 07/08/1991

to answer brief due 8/2/91. Notice mailed (fce) (Entered: 06/19/1991)
417 MOTION by plaintiff for attorney fees and reimbursement of expenses with regard to implementation of the 1989 agreed order; Memorandum in Support (fce) (Entered: 06/19/1991)
418 RESPONSE by Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' motion for extension of briefing schedule on the issue of Electoral Districts; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/21/1991)
419 MEMORANDUM by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed in support of petition for instructions relevant to School District Elections (fce) (Entered: 06/21/1991)
420 NOTICE OF APPEAL by intervenors ( $105.00 paid) (fce) (Entered: 06/21/1991)
421 MINUTE ORDER of 6/21/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : Plaintiffs' motion for extension of briefing schedule in relation to the issue of electoral districts is granted. The revised briefing schedule is as follows: Answer brief to motion due 7/10/91. Reply to answer brief due 7/17/91. Notice mailed (fce) (Entered: 06/25/1991)
422 MINUTE ORDER of 6/21/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : granting plaintiffs' motion for court approval of class certification notice [412-1]. The court hereby approves the proposed notice of class certification and orders that the notice be published in the Rockford Register Star and the Vital Force, each for a period of two days. Notice mailed (fce) (Entered: 06/25/1991)
423 RETURN receipt green card from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing short record was signed for on 6/24/91 (fce) (Entered: 06/26/1991)
424 MOTION for leave to implement section C.1.f(1) of the Second Interim Order (fce) (Entered: 07/03/1991)
425 SUPPLEMENTAL Request for fees at customary hourly rate and for reimbursement of expenses relating to litigation of original fee award by plaintiffs; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/03/1991)
426 Intervenors' Designation of Additional Items to be Included in the Record on Appeal (fce) (Entered: 07/03/1991)
427 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 6/6/91 Before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski (fce) (Entered: 07/03/1991)
428 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 6/7/91 Before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski (fce) (Entered: 07/03/1991)
429 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 6/11/91 Before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski (fce) (Entered: 07/03/1991)
430 LETTER of 7/1/91 from defendant Rockford Board Of Ed requesting extension of time to file response to Mr. Howard's petition for atty's fees. (fce) (Entered: 07/09/1991)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 21 of 307

07/08/1991
07/08/1991
07/15/1991 07/15/1991
07/15/1991 07/16/1991 07/16/1991 07/16/1991
07/16/1991 07/16/1991 07/17/1991 07/18/1991

431 MINUTE ORDER of 7/8/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : The court grants Defendant's motion for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' latest fee petition. Defendant shall have until August 19,1991 to respond and Plaintiffs have until September 2, 1991 to reply. Notice mailed (fce) (Entered: 07/09/1991)
432 MINUTE ORDER of 7/8/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : Status hearing reset from July 12, 1991 to July 18, 1991 at 9:30a.m. If the parties cannot agree on proposed definitions and grievance procedures, the parties are to submit their respective positions, in writing, to this court by July 12, 1991. Notice mailed (fce) (Entered: 07/09/1991)
433 Joint Submission of Plaintiffs and the School District concerning definitions and procedures for implementation of B.11 of the Second Interim Order. (fce) (Entered: 07/16/1991)
434 MINUTE ORDER of 7/15/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : Plaintiffs are given leave to file their memorandum in response to Defendant's petition for instructions relevant to school district elections in excess of 15 pages. Notice not required (fce) (Entered: 07/16/1991)
435 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff People Who Care in response to defendant's petition for instruction relevant to school district elections., notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 07/16/1991)
436 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for order to amend lease agreement for Rockford Area Career Ccenter Building ; notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 07/17/1991)
437 SUPPLEMENT by plaintiff submission of proposed alternative electoral subdistricts, notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 07/17/1991)
439 MINUTE ORDER of 7/16/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : granting motion for order to amend lease agreement for Rockford Area Career Center Building [436-1] Notice mailed (fce) (Entered: 07/17/1991)
440 MINUTE ORDER of 7/16/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : granting motion for leave to implement section C.1.f(1) of the Second Interim Order [424-1] Notice mailed (fce) (Entered: 07/17/1991)
441 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 07/17/1991)
438 Recommendation of the REA regarding B-11 Definitions and Vacancy Filling Grievance Procedure. (fce) (Entered: 07/17/1991)
442 MINUTE ORDER of 7/18/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : Defendant is ordered to remove the fuel tank at Marsh School immediately. In this removal, defendant is to comply with all relevant fire codes. Plaintiffs and defendant are ordered to work jointly in developing a map of electoral subdistricts. A Fairness Hearing on the map will be held August 14, 1991 at 10:00 a.m. The parties are ordered to publish the proposed map and a public notice by August 7, 1991. Notice mailed. (fce) (Entered: 07/19/1991)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 22 of 307

07/18/1991 07/18/1991
07/18/1991 07/18/1991 07/18/1991 07/18/1991 07/19/1991 07/22/1991 07/22/1991 07/23/1991
07/23/1991 07/24/1991
08/02/1991
08/02/1991 08/02/1991

443 CONCERNS by intervenors regarding the quality of the plaintiffs' and defendant's dealings with the unions (Attachment). (fce) (Entered: 07/19/1991)
444 MINUTE ORDER of 7/18/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : Intervenor's motion to stay pending appeal is denied. Plaintiffs and defendant are given until 08/08/91 to respond to intervenor's and the IELRB's petition for remand. Intervenor and the IELRB are given until 08/22/91 to reply. Plaintiff is given leave to file the appearance of Judson Miner as additional counsel. Status hearing held. Notice mailed. (fce) (Entered: 07/19/1991)
445 MOTION by intervenor to stay pending appeal ; notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 07/24/1991)
446 MEMORANDUM by intervenor in support of motion to stay pending appeal [445-1] (fce) (Entered: 07/24/1991)
447 AFFIDAVIT of Stephen G. Katz (fce) (Entered: 07/24/1991)
448 AFFIDAVIT of Robert R. Corder (fce) (Entered: 07/24/1991)
449 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 7/18/91 Before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski (fce) (Entered: 07/24/1991)
450 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiffs by Judson H. Miner (fce) (Entered: 07/24/1991)
451 RULE 39 Affidavit of Judson H. Miner (fce) (Entered: 07/24/1991)
452 MINUTE ORDER of 7/23/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : The court enters the attached order defining the terms used in B.11 of the Second Interim Order and specifying the grievance procedure to be used in cases of conflict in relation to B.11. Notice mailed by judge's staff. (fce) (Entered: 07/24/1991)
453 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 07/24/1991)
454 MINUTE ORDER of 7/24/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : The court grants plaintiffs' and defendant's oral motion for extension of time to 8/7/91 to file findings of fact and conclusions of law. Notice mailed (fce) (Entered: 07/25/1991)
455 MINUTE ORDER of 8/2/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : As stated by this court at the statu shearing on 07/18/91, the court desires the election officials to be present in open court for the hearing on 8/14/91. Accordingly, the court instructs the Clerk of the Court to issue a summons and subpoena for Sylvia E. Schroeder and Gloria M. Lind to appear on 8/14/91 at 10:00 a.m. Notice mailed (fce) (Entered: 08/02/1991)
SUBPOENA issued as to: Sylvia Schroeder & Gloria Lind per minute order dated 8/2/91 (fce) (Entered: 08/02/1991)
SUMMONS issued as to Sylvia Schroeder and Gloria Lind per minute

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 23 of 307

08/08/1991 08/08/1991 08/14/1991
08/14/1991
08/14/1991
08/14/1991 08/14/1991 08/14/1991 08/14/1991 08/14/1991 08/14/1991 08/14/1991 08/14/1991 08/14/1991 08/14/1991

order dated 8/2/91 (fce) (Entered: 08/02/1991)
456 Notice of Publication (fce) (Entered: 08/12/1991)
457 FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law (fce) (Entered: 08/12/1991)
458 MINUTE ORDER of 8/14/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : Hearing held. Intervenors are given until 8/21/91 to respond to plaintiffs' and defendant's motion to reconsider and modify this court's order entered 7/23/91. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a supplement to plaintiffs' amended default/contempt petition is granted. Notice not required (fce) (Entered: 08/15/1991)
459 MINUTE ORDER of 8/14/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : Intervenor's are given until 8/29/91 to respond to plaintiffs' and defendant's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the necessity of B.11 and F.5 of the 4/24/91 order. Defendant is granted leave to file the affidavit of Daniel L. Johnson. Notice not required (fce) (Entered: 08/15/1991)
460 MINUTE ORDER of 8/14/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : Plaintiffs are given leave to file the affidavit of Lilly King. The stipulations of plaintiffs and defendants are allowed filed. Parties are to report back to this court 9/12/91 at 10:00 a.m. Notice not required (fce) (Entered: 08/15/1991)
461 MINUTE ORDER of 8/14/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : Enter order regarding payment of the court appointed monitor. Notice not required (fce) (Entered: 08/15/1991)
462 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 08/15/1991)
463 MOTION by plaintiffs for leave to file amended default/contempt petition for the purpose of joining as respondents election commissioners and County Clerks ; notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 08/15/1991)
464 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for relief from implementation of second interim order ; notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 08/15/1991)
465 STIPULATIONS of the plaintiffs and defendant (fce) (Entered: 08/15/1991)
466 AFFIDAVIT of Daniel L. Johnson (fce) (Entered: 08/15/1991)
467 MOTION by plaintiffs to reconsider and modify order entered 7/23/91 (fce) (Entered: 08/15/1991)
468 AFFIDAVIT of Lillie King (fce) (Entered: 08/15/1991)
469 Notice of Payment of Fees and Expenses to the Court Appointed Monitor; Notice of Filing (fce) (Entered: 08/15/1991)
470 Amended PETITION for determination of default and contempt (fce) (Entered: 08/15/1991)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 24 of 307

08/14/1991 08/15/1991 08/16/1991 08/19/1991 08/19/1991 08/19/1991 08/22/1991 08/23/1991
08/23/1991 08/23/1991 08/26/1991
08/28/1991 08/30/1991 08/30/1991 09/03/1991

471 MOTION by plaintiffs for leave to file supplement to plaintiffs' amended default/contempt petition ; notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 08/15/1991)
472 MINUTE ORDER of 8/15/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : The time for defendant to file its next progress report is extended to 8/22/91. Notice mailed (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1991)
473 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 8/14/91 Before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski (fce) (Entered: 08/19/1991)
474 MOTION by defendant for leave to file brief in excess of 15 pages (fce) (Entered: 08/21/1991)
475 MINUTE ORDER of 8/19/91 before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski : granting defendant's motion for leave to file brief in excess of 15 pages [474-1] Notice not required (fce) (Entered: 08/21/1991)
476 RESPONSE by defendants to petition of plaintiffs' for award of attorneys' fees; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/21/1991)
477 SECOND PROGRESS REPORT-SECOND INTERIM ORDER; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/22/1991)
478 MINUTE ORDER of 8/23/91 before Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Defendant's oral motion to substitute page 38 of its Response to Plaintiffs' Fee Petition is granted. The court directs the Clerk of Court to substitute page 38 of defendant's response, attached, and disguard page 38 of the filed response to plaintiffs' fee petition. Notice not required (fce) (Entered: 08/23/1991)
Substitued page 38 of response to plaintiffs' fee petition as ordered in minute order of 8/23/91 (fce) (Entered: 08/23/1991)
479 Notice of Oral Argument from the U.S. Court of Appeals stating that they are now ready for record on appeal (fce) (Entered: 08/26/1991)
TRANSMITTED 8/26/91 complete record on appeal to USCA for the 7th Circuit consisting of transmittal letter, certificate, 4 volumes pleadings, and multiple loose bound bulky pleadings consisting of 4 boxes. (fce) (Entered: 08/26/1991)
480 Joint MOTION for order concerning the schedule for consideration and effectuation of sections E.6 and E.7 of the second interim order (fce) (Entered: 08/29/1991)
481 Intervenors' Comments upon Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with Respect to Necessity of B.11 and F.5 of April 24, 1991 Order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/30/1991)
482 RESPONSE by intervenor to motion to reconsider and modify order entered 7/23/91 [467-1] (fce) (Entered: 08/30/1991)
483 MINUTE ORDER of 9/3/91 before Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Attorneys for the plaintiffs, defendants and intervenors are ordered to appear before this court with their clients on 9/4/91 at 11:00 a.m. General

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 25 of 307

09/04/1991 09/04/1991 09/04/1991 09/04/1991
09/04/1991 09/09/1991
09/09/1991 09/09/1991 09/12/1991 09/12/1991
09/12/1991 09/12/1991 09/12/1991
09/12/1991 09/12/1991

Counsel for the IEA is also ordered to appear. Dr. Eugene Eubanks will also be present. Notice mailed (fce) (Entered: 09/09/1991)
484 Suggestions of Plaintiffs concerning the Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Relating to Section B.11 of the Second Interim Order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/09/1991)
485 Defendant's RESPONSE to plaintiffs' Suggestions (fce) (Entered: 09/09/1991)
486 MINUTE ORDER of 9/4/91 before Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Status hearing held. Notice not required (fce) (Entered: 09/09/1991)
487 MINUTE ORDER of 9/4/91 before Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : For the reasons set forth and pursuant to the attached order, the court orders that Sections E.6 and E.7 of the Second Interim Order are not in effect until further Order of this court following the process set forth on the attached order. Notice not required (fce) (Entered: 09/09/1991)
488 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 09/09/1991)
489 MINUTE ORDER of 9/9/91 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Enter the attached findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the necessity of B.11 and F.5 of April 24, 1991 order. mailed by judge's staff Notice (fce) (Entered: 09/10/1991)
490 FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law (fce) (Entered: 09/10/1991)
491 B.11 Grievance; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/11/1991)
492 copy of Order from the USCA for the 7th Circuit Court regarding appeal [420-1] dated 9/11/91 order the Clerk of the U.S. District Court to supplement the record on appeal. (fce) (Entered: 09/12/1991)
TRANSMITTED 9/12/91 supplemental record on appeal to USCA for the 7th Circuit consisting of transmittal letter, certificate, and one volume pleadings via certified mail no. P707 118 926. (fce) (Entered: 09/12/1991)
493 MOTION by defendant for leave to permit implementation of corrective action ; notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 09/13/1991)
494 RESPONSE by defendant to the quarterly report of monitor for second interim order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/13/1991)
495 MINUTE ORDER of 9/12/91 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Plaintiffs' oral motion for an extension of time in which to file their reply to their attorney's fee petition is granted. Plaintiffs are given until 9/26/91 to file their reply. no Notice (fce) (Entered: 09/13/1991)
496 MINUTE ORDER of 9/12/91 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Status hearing held. , Status hearing for presentation of electorial district map set for 10/11/91 at 10:00 a.m. no Notice (fce) (Entered: 09/13/1991)
497 MINUTE ORDER of 9/12/91 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Enter

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 26 of 307

09/12/1991 09/16/1991 09/17/1991 09/20/1991 09/20/1991 09/20/1991 09/23/1991 09/24/1991 09/25/1991 09/26/1991 10/03/1991
10/04/1991 10/04/1991
10/04/1991 10/07/1991

order concerning election issues and enjoining school board election mailed by judge's staff Notice (fce) (Entered: 09/16/1991)
498 Preliminary ORDER Compelling Plaintiffs and Defendant to Engage in Joint Effort with Regard to Election Issues and Enjoining School Board Election (fce) (Entered: 09/16/1991)
499 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 9/12/91 Before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski (fce) (Entered: 09/17/1991)
500 ORDER from the U.S. Court of Appeals dated 9/11/91. IT IS ORDERED that the request for supplementation of the record is GRANTED. (fce) (Entered: 09/18/1991)
501 EXHIBIT #1 (fce) (Entered: 09/20/1991)
502 EXHIBIT #2 (fce) (Entered: 09/20/1991)
Transmitted Exhibits 1 & 2 to the U.S. Court of Appeals per their order to supplement the record on appeal via certified mail no. P707 118 928. (fce) (Entered: 09/20/1991)
503 RETURN receipt green card from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing supplemental record was signed for on 9/16/91 (fce) (Entered: 09/26/1991)
504 Plaintiffs' Submission of Proposed Electoral Subdistrict Boundaries; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/26/1991)
505 RETURN receipt green card from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing supplemental record on appeal consisting of Exhibits 1 & 2 signed for on 9/23/91. (fce) (Entered: 09/26/1991)
506 Notice of Payment of Fees and Expenses to the Court Appointed Monitor; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/30/1991)
507 MINUTE ORDER of 10/3/91 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : The court will hold defendant's motion for relief from the implementation of the second interim order filed August 5, 1991 in abeyance until a ruling is made by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the Second Interim Order. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/04/1991)
508 INTERIM FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law and order providing for remedial relief (fce) (Entered: 10/07/1991)
509 MINUTE ORDER of 10/4/91 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : For the reasons set forth on the attached order and pursuant to the conditions set forth on the attached order, the court enters interim findings of fact, conclusions of law and the order providing for remedial relief re [493-1] Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/07/1991)
510 MOTION by plaintiffs for leave to file a brief in excess of 15 pages ; notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 10/07/1991)
511 MINUTE ORDER of 10/7/91 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : granting

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 27 of 307

10/07/1991 10/10/1991 10/10/1991 10/11/1991 10/15/1991 10/18/1991
10/21/1991 10/21/1991 10/21/1991 10/24/1991 10/25/1991 11/05/1991 11/06/1991

motion for leave to file a brief in excess of 15 pages [510-1] No notice (fce) (Entered: 10/08/1991)
512 REPLY by plaintiffs to response to motion for attorney fees and reimbursement of expenses with regard to implementation of the 1989 agreed order [417-1] (Attachments). (fce) (Entered: 10/08/1991)
513 COMMENTS by plaintiffs on the Monitor's quarterly report and the defendant's response thereto; Notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 10/11/1991)
514 LETTER from Robert C. Howard to E. Enichen, A.Scariano and J. Schmidt dated 10/08/91 (Attachments). (fce) (Entered: 10/11/1991)
515 MINUTE ORDER of 10/11/91 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Status hearing reset for 10/18/91 at 10:30 a.m. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/11/1991)
517 Interim Progress Report - Second Interim Order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/22/1991)
516 MINUTE ORDER of 10/18/91 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Status hearing held. The court finds that it was and is the intention of the Illinois legislature in enacting Illinois Revised Statutes chapter 122, paragraph 922, (1989) to require that a person be a resident of the district from which he or she runs for school board membership. The parties are to prepare and submit to this court proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in relation to this ruling. The court takes the school district election issues under advisement. no notice (fce) (Entered: 10/21/1991)
518 MINUTE ORDER of 10/21/91 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Enter order with regard to school district election issues. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/23/1991)
519 THIRD PROGRESS REPORT (Second Interim Order) (Exhibits); 2 vols. (518-1 and 518-2). (fce) Modified on 10/23/1991 (Entered: 10/23/1991)
520 NOTICE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed regarding Third progress report [519-1] (fce) (Entered: 10/23/1991)
521 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 10/18/91 Before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski (fce) (Entered: 10/24/1991)
522 MINUTE ORDER of 10/25/91 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : The court grants Dr. Eugene Eubanks until 11/15/91 to file his second quarterly report. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/29/1991)
523 MOTION by plaintiffs for order prescribing candidate durational residency requirement for March 1992 school board election ; notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 11/05/1991)
524 MINUTE ORDER of 11/6/91 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Defendant is given until 11/12/91 to file a response to plaintiff's motion for order prescribing candidate durational residency requirement for March 1992 school board election. mailed notice (fce) (Entered:

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 28 of 307

11/13/1991 11/13/1991 11/13/1991 11/13/1991 11/15/1991 11/19/1991 11/25/1991 11/25/1991 11/25/1991 12/03/1991
12/05/1991
12/05/1991 12/06/1991 12/13/1991

11/07/1991)
525 MINUTE ORDER of 11/13/91 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Trial date heretofore set for 1/6/92 is hereby stricken. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/14/1991)
526 FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/14/1991)
527 Plaintiffs' Comment on the Monitor's Second Quarterly Report; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/14/1991)
528 MOTION by plaintiffs for leave to file two additional counts to plaintiffs' amended complaint to conform to the proofs ; notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 11/14/1991)
529 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to motion for order prescribing candidate durational residency requirement for March 1992 school board election [523-1]; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/18/1991)
530 Notice of Payment of Fees and Expenses to the Court Appointed Monitor (fce) (Entered: 11/22/1991)
531 MOTION by plaintiffs for referral of plaintiffs' fee petitions to magistrate for report and recommendation ; notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 11/27/1991)
532 SUPPLEMENT to plaintiffs' motion for leave to file two additional counts to plaintiffs' amended complaint to conform to the proofs [528-1] (fce) (Entered: 11/27/1991)
533 MOTION by plaintiffs for reimbursement of expert fees (Exhibits) (fce) (Entered: 11/27/1991)
534 MINUTE ORDER of 12/3/91 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : granting plaintiffs' motion for order prescribing candidate durational residency requirement for March 1992 school board election [523-1], for the reasons set forth on the reverse of this order. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/05/1991)
535 MINUTE ORDER of 12/5/91 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : granting plaintiffs' motion for leave to file two additional counts to plaintiffs' amended complaint to conform to the proofs [528-1] mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/05/1991)
536 Two Additional Counts to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (fce) (Entered: 12/05/1991)
537 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to motion for referral of plaintiffs' fee petitions to magistrate for report and recommendation [531-1] (fce) (Entered: 12/10/1991)
538 Second Quarterly Report of the Court Appointed Monitor (fce) (Entered: 12/13/1991)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 29 of 307

12/16/1991 12/16/1991 12/16/1991 12/17/1991
12/30/1991
12/30/1991 12/30/1991
12/30/1991 12/31/1991 01/03/1992 01/03/1992 01/03/1992 01/03/1992 01/06/1992 01/06/1992 01/06/1992

539 MOTION by plaintiffs for fees and costs in the election issues of the lawsuit ; notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 12/17/1991)
540 MINUTE ORDER of 12/16/91 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Status hearing held. Status hearing set for 1/21/91 at 11:30 a.m. no notice (fce) (Entered: 12/17/1991)
599 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiffs' Petition for Reimbursement of Expert Fees. (temporarily unavailable for docketing) (fce) (Entered: 03/18/1992)
541 MINUTE ORDER of 12/17/91 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : The court hereby adopts the recommendation of the monitor in relation to the B.2 dispute (Human Relations). mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1991)
542 MINUTE ORDER of 12/30/91 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Enter order regarding findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to Board member residency requirement under Section 9-22 of the Illinois School Code. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/30/1991)
543 FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law (fce) (Entered: 12/30/1991)
544 MINUTE ORDER of 12/30/91 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Enter order regarding stipulation for modification of street descriptions of electoral subdistrict boundaries. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/30/1991)
545 STIPULATION for modification of street descriptions of electoral subdistrict boundaries (fce) (Entered: 12/30/1991)
546 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defendant's motion to vacate court's December 17 order and for leave to take deposition of monitor; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/02/1992)
547 REPLY Brief by plaintiffs in support of petition for reimbursement of expert fees; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/06/1992)
558 Four Progess Report - Second Interim Order (fce) (Entered: 01/08/1992)
559 EXHIBITS to Fourth Progress Report (fce) (Entered: 01/08/1992)
560 NOTICE of filing regarding fourth progress report [558-1] (fce) (Entered: 01/08/1992)
548 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for implementation of section C.9(o) of second interim order ; notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 01/07/1992)
549 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to vacate (fce) (Entered: 01/07/1992)
550 Joint MOTION regarding master list of timeline changes ; notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 01/07/1992)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 30 of 307

01/06/1992 01/06/1992 01/06/1992 01/06/1992
01/06/1992
01/07/1992 01/07/1992 01/10/1992
01/10/1992 01/13/1992 01/13/1992 01/14/1992

551 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to set a briefing schedule ; notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 01/07/1992)
552 REPLY by defendant to plaintiffs' response to motion to vacate court's December 17 order and for leave to take deposition of monitor; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/07/1992)
553 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for leave to take deposition of the monitor ; notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 01/07/1992)
554 MINUTE ORDER of 1/6/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : The court adopts the joint motion of plaintiffs and defendant regarding the master list of timeline changes. Defendant is given until 1/20/92 to file its response to Judd Miner's fee petition. Defendant is given until 1/13/92 to file a supplemental brief to its original response to plaintiffs' fee petition. no notice (fce) (Entered: 01/07/1992)
555 MINUTE ORDER of 1/6/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Defendant is given until 1/10/92 to file its response to Dr. Eubanks' recommendation with regard to the B.2 dispute resolution. Plaintiff is given until 1/13/92 to reply. This court's order of 12/17/91 is held in abeyance until that time. Defendant's motion to take the deposition of Dr. Eubanks is withdrawn. Plaintiff is given until 1/9/92 to respond to defendant's motion to implement Section C.9(o) of the Second Interim Order. Dr. Eubanks is given until 1/17/92 to file his recommendation to the court. Plaintiffs and defendant are given until 1/20/92 to reply to Dr. Eubanks' recommendation. Status hearing held. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/07/1992)
556 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 12/16/91 Before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski (fce) (Entered: 01/08/1992)
557 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 1/6/92 Before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski (fce) (Entered: 01/08/1992)
561 MINUTE ORDER of 1/10/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Status hearing reset from 1/21/92 to 1/23/92 at 11:30 a.m. Defendant's response to Judd Miner's petition for fees is due 1/21/92. Plaintiffs' and defendant's reply to Dr. Eubanks' recommendation regarding the implementation of Section C.9.o is due 1/21/92. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/10/1992)
562 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defendant's motion for implementation of section C.9.o of the second interim order (fce) (Entered: 01/10/1992)
563 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed and Objections to Recommendation of Monitor with Respect to Section B.2 (fce) (Entered: 01/17/1992)
564 SUPPLEMENT by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to its Response to Plaintiffs' Petition for Reimbursement of Expert Fees (fce) (Entered: 01/17/1992)
565 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of plaintiffs' petition for reimbursement of expert fees; notice of filing (fce)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 31 of 307

01/17/1992 01/21/1992 01/21/1992 01/22/1992 01/23/1992 01/23/1992 01/23/1992
01/24/1992
01/24/1992
01/24/1992 01/28/1992 01/29/1992 01/29/1992 01/30/1992

(Entered: 01/17/1992)
566 REPLY by plaintiffs' in support of the monitor's recommendation with respect to section B.2 of the second interim order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/17/1992)
575 January 21, 1992 Compliance Report; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/29/1992)
576 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to petition for fees and costs in the election issues of the lawsuit (fce) (Entered: 01/29/1992)
567 Comments of Plaintiffs on Defendant's January 21, 1992 Compliance Report (fce) (Entered: 01/24/1992)
568 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for leave to file corrected tax levy and for leave to add certain parties (fce) (Entered: 01/24/1992)
569 Plaintiffs' Concurrence in Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Corrected Tax Levy (fce) (Entered: 01/24/1992)
570 MINUTE ORDER of 1/23/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : The following modifications of time scchedules are set: Dr. Eubanks is given until 2/17/92 to file his quarterly report; Defendant is given until 3/15/92 to file its next progress report and progress reports are due every 60 days thereafter from defendant. Defendant is given leave to file a new tax levy sheet (Exhibit A). Status hearing held & continued to 1/30/92 at 1:30 p.m. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/24/1992)
571 MINUTE ORDER of 1/24/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Plaintiff's motion for referral of plaintiffs' fee petition to the Magistrate Judge for report and recommendation is granted. Parties are ordered to appear before the Magistrate Judge on 1/30/92 at 1:00 p.m. for a determination as to whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary in this case on this matter. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/24/1992)
572 MINUTE ORDER of 1/24/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Enter order granting defendant's motion for leave to file a corrected tax levy and for leave to add certain parties. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/28/1992)
573 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 01/28/1992)
574 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date: 1/23/92 Before Honorable Stanley Roszkowski (fce) (Entered: 01/28/1992)
577 MINUTE ORDER of 1/29/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Enter order concerning defendant's January 21, 1992 compliance report. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/30/1992)
578 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 01/30/1992)
579 REPLY memorandum in support of additional counsel's petition for fees and costs; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/30/1992)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 32 of 307

01/31/1992 01/31/1992
01/31/1992
01/31/1992 01/31/1992
01/31/1992 02/03/1992 02/03/1992 02/04/1992 02/07/1992 02/11/1992 02/11/1992
02/11/1992 02/18/1992 02/24/1992

580 MINUTE ORDER of 1/31/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Status hearing held. Oral argument on plaintiffs' fee petition is set for 2/6/92 at 2:30 p.m. no notice (fce) (Entered: 01/31/1992)
581 MINUTE ORDER of 1/31/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Status hearing held. Status hearing set for 2/27/92 at 1:30 p.m. before Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney. Parties are to report on the progress with negotiations between the union and the district. no notice (fce) (Entered: 02/03/1992)
582 MINUTE ORDER of 1/31/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Enter order granting defendant's motion for leave to file a corrected tax levy and for leave to add certain parties, the court having considered and concurring with the motion. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/03/1992)
583 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 02/03/1992)
584 MINUTE ORDER of 1/31/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : For the reasons set forth in the attached order, the court adopts the Monitor's recommendation in relation to the Section B.2 dispute resolution with one exception. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/03/1992)
585 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 02/03/1992)
586 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 1/31/92 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 02/03/1992)
587 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 1/31/92 Before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski (fce) (Entered: 02/03/1992)
589 Defendant's Clarification of its Brief in Response to Plaintiffs' Counsel's (Judson Miner, Esq.) Petition for Attorneys' Fees; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/11/1992)
588 MINUTE ORDER of 2/7/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Oral argument on plaintiffs' attorney's fees petition reset for 2/17/92 at 11:00 a.m mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/07/1992)
590 LETTER to Judge Roszkowski from Brian Dean Shore dated 2/5/92 (fce) (Entered: 02/11/1992)
591 MINUTE ORDER of 2/11/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Enter order regarding stipulation for modification of street descriptions of electoral subdistrict boundaries. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/11/1992)
592 STIPULATION for modification of street descriptions of electoral subdistrict boundaries (fce) (Entered: 02/11/1992)
593 LETTER to Magistrate Judge Mahoney from Robert Howard dated 2/14/92 (fce) (Entered: 02/20/1992)
594 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 2/17/92 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 02/24/1992)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 33 of 307

02/26/1992 02/27/1992
02/28/1992 03/11/1992
03/16/1992 03/23/1992 03/25/1992 03/26/1992 03/26/1992
03/27/1992 04/07/1992 04/08/1992 04/17/1992 04/17/1992

595 Notice of Payment of Fees and Expenses to the Court Appointed Monitor; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/28/1992)
596 MINUTE ORDER of 2/27/92 by Hon. Patrick M. Mahoney : Status hearing held. Status hearing set for 3/26/92 at 1:30 p.m. All briefs in support of the motions to remand are to be filed by 3/12/92. All briefs in response to the motions to remand are to be filed by 3/26/92. (Parties are to note the change in schedule from that given in court.) mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/28/1992)
597 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 2/27/92 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 03/03/1992)
598 MINUTE ORDER of 3/11/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : By agreement of the parties, all brief in support of the motions to remand are to be filed by 3/18/92. All briefs in response to the motions to remand are to be filed by 4/1/92. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/12/1992)
600 Fifth Progress Report/Second Interim Order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/20/1992)
601 MOTION by plaintiffs for enforcement of Section B.6 of the Second Interim Order ; notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 03/26/1992)
602 PETITION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for Instructions on Reorganization of Board of Education after Court delayed Election (fce) (Entered: 03/26/1992)
603 MOTION by intervenor Rockford Education Association, IEA-NEA to Immediately Seat Victors in March 17, 1992 Board of Education Election ; notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 03/26/1992)
604 MINUTE ORDER of 3/26/92 by Hon. Patrick M. Mahoney : Plaintiff's motion for enforcement of Section B.6 of the Second Interim Order is withdrawn. Intervenor's (R.E.A., IEA-NEA) motion to immediately seat victors in March 17, 1992, Board of Education election is denied. Enter order approving election results and instructing on new Board Members terms. Status hearing held & set for 5/8/92 at 2:30 p.m. , mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/30/1992)
605 ORDER Approving Election Results and Instructing on New Board Member Terms (fce) (Entered: 03/30/1992)
606 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 3/26/92 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 04/07/1992)
607 MEMORANDUM by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed in support of its Petitions for Removal and Consolidation, and in Opposition to Motions to Remand; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/08/1992)
608 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (fce) (Entered: 04/17/1992)
609 MINUTE ORDER of 4/17/92 by Hon. Patrick M. Mahoney : Enter Report and Recommendation concerning various fee petitions pending in

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 34 of 307

04/20/1992 04/20/1992 04/20/1992
04/21/1992 04/21/1992 04/23/1992 04/23/1992 04/23/1992
04/24/1992 04/24/1992
04/27/1992

this court. Parties are given 10 days from receipt of this report and recommendation to file any objections with Judge Roszkowski. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/17/1992)
610 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to REA's Motion to Remand; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/21/1992)
611 LETTER to Judge Roszkowski from Eugene E. Eubanks dated 4/13/92 (fce) (Entered: 04/21/1992)
612 MINUTE ORDER of 4/20/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : By agreement of the parties and the court, the Monitor's next progress report is due June 15, 1992 rather than May 1, 1992 in order to allow Dr. Eubanks to spend a week in the district during the month of May. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/21/1992)
613 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to Magistrate's Report and Recommendation of April 17, 1992; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/21/1992)
614 MOTION by plaintiffs for a Supplemental Report and recommendation regarding Costs and Expenses Requested in Plaintiffs' Petition 2; ; notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 04/21/1992)
615 MOTION by plaintiffs for a supplemental report and recommendation regarding costs and expenses requested in plaintiffs' petition for fees and costs pertaining to the election issue ; notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 04/24/1992)
616 MOTION by plaintiffs for a supplemental remedial order ; notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 04/24/1992)
617 MINUTE ORDER of 4/23/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Status hearing held. Defendant's attorney is given one week from today's date to file with this court a reaffirmation from the School Board that it intends to comply with all of the terms of the Second Interim Order as well as this court's previous orders. Defendant is also given one week to file its response to plaintiff's motion for a supplemental remedial order. For this court's further comments and orders, the parties are referred to the transcript of today's status hearing. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/24/1992)
618 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (fce) (Entered: 04/28/1992)
619 MINUTE ORDER of 4/24/92 by Hon. Patrick M. Mahoney : For the reasons set forth in the attached order, it is the supplemental report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that plaintiffs be awareded $2513.00 for costs and expenses incurred in litigating the first fee petition and $15,379.00 for costs and expenses incurred in litigating the electoral issues of the lawsuit. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/28/1992)
620 RESPONSE and Objections by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Report and Recommendation of Magistrate with Respect to Fee Petitions (fce) (Entered: 05/01/1992)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 35 of 307

04/27/1992 04/29/1992 04/29/1992 04/29/1992 05/01/1992 05/01/1992 05/01/1992 05/01/1992 05/04/1992
05/05/1992 05/05/1992 05/07/1992 05/08/1992 05/12/1992

621 NOTICE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed regarding response [620-1] (fce) (Entered: 05/01/1992)
622 Certificate of Acknowledgement of Responsibility; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/01/1992)
623 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' motion for supplemental remedial order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/01/1992)
624 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for temporary relief relative to Roosevelt School Construction and Issuance of Bonds ; notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 05/01/1992)
625 OBJECTIONS by plaintiffs to defendant's Certificate of Acknowledgement of Responsbility; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/01/1992)
626 MOTION by plaintiffs for corrected order ; notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 05/01/1992)
627 SUPPLEMENTAL Response by plaintiffs to Magistrate's Report and Recommendation; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/01/1992)
633 RESPONSE and Objections by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to supplemental report and recommendation of Magistrate with Respect to Fee Petitions; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/08/1992)
628 MINUTE ORDER of 5/4/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Plaintiff's response to defendant's motion for temporary relief is due 5/4/92. The court instructs the Monitor to investigate this matter and submit his recommendation to the court by Monday morning, May 11th. Status hearing set for 5/12/92 at 10:00 a.m. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/04/1992)
629 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to the New Board of Education's Proposal to Delay Compliance with Respect to Roosevelt School; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/07/1992)
630 REPLY by plaintiffs to Defendants' Objections to Magistrate's Report and Recommendation; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/07/1992)
631 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' to the New Board of Education's Proposal to Reduce the Amount of the Second Bond Issue; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/07/1992)
632 SUPPLEMENT by plaintiff to Responses to the New Board of education's Motion for Temporary Relief; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/08/1992)
637 MINUTE ORDER of 5/12/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Status hearing held. , Hearing on plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction will be set for this Fall. Plaintiff is to submit a motion regarding the procedural aspects for the preparation of this hearing to the court by 5/18/92. All appropriate aspects for preparing for and conducting the

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 36 of 307

05/13/1992 05/13/1992 05/13/1992 05/13/1992 05/14/1992
05/14/1992 05/14/1992 05/14/1992 05/15/1992 05/22/1992
05/22/1992 05/22/1992
05/27/1992 05/27/1992
05/27/1992

hearing are referred to Magistrate Judge Mahoney, including the taking of evidentiary depositions. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/15/1992)
634 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 4/23/92 Before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski (fce) (Entered: 05/14/1992)
635 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 4/23/92 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 05/14/1992)
636 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 5/12/92 Before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski (fce) (Entered: 05/14/1992)
638 Notice of Payment of Fees and Expenses to the Court Appointed Monitor; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/15/1992)
639 SUPPLEMENT by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Response to Magistrate's Report and Recommendation; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/15/1992)
640 SUPPLEMENT to Plaintiffs' Responses to the New Board of Education's Motion for Temporary Relief; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/15/1992)
641 Report from Monitor (fce) (Entered: 05/15/1992)
642 Report from Monitor (fce) (Entered: 05/15/1992)
643 Sixth Progress Report/Second Interim Order; Notice of Filing (fce) (Entered: 05/20/1992)
644 REPLY by plaintiffs to Defendant's Supplement to Defendant's Response to Magistrate's Report and Recommendation (Expert Fees Issue); notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/22/1992)
645 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 05/26/1992)
646 MINUTE ORDER of 5/22/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : For the reasons set forth in the attached order, defendant's motion for temporary relief relative to Roosevelt School Construction and issuance of bonds is denied. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/26/1992)
647 MOTION by plaintiffs for preliminary injunction ; notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 05/28/1992)
648 MOTION by plaintiffs for an order establishing procedures for the determination of plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction (fce) (Entered: 05/28/1992)
652 CERTIFIED copy of Order from the USCA for the 7th Circuit Court regarding appeal [420-1]; IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by this Court that the district court is directed to VACATE those portions of the decree overriding the seniority provisions of the collective bargaining agreements or relieving the Board of its obligation to bargain with the unions and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings, in accordance with the decision of this Court entered this date. Costs shall be taxed against the appellees. (fce) (Entered: 06/02/1992)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 37 of 307

05/29/1992 05/29/1992 05/29/1992
05/29/1992
06/08/1992
06/09/1992 06/10/1992 06/10/1992 06/10/1992 06/10/1992 06/10/1992 06/10/1992
06/10/1992
06/15/1992 06/16/1992

649 Transmittal letter from the U.S. court of Appeals showing that partial record was returned. (fce) (Entered: 06/01/1992)
650 Transmittal letter from the U.S. Court of Appeals indicating how much of the record will be returned at a later date (fce) (Entered: 06/01/1992)
651 MINUTE ORDER of 5/29/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Defendant is given until 6/15/92 to respond to plaintiff's motion for an order establishing procedures for the determination of plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/01/1992)
653 MINUTE ORDER of 5/29/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : For the reasons set forth on the reverse of this order, plaintiff's motion for a corrected order is granted nunc pro tunc February 23, 1990. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/05/1992)
655 MINUTE ORDER of 6/8/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Defendant's motion for leave to relocate defendant's historical records to defendant's attorneys' office is granted. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/11/1992)
654 REPLY by plaintiffs' in support of motion for a supplemental remedial order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/09/1992)
656 MOTION by defendants for leave to permit implementation of corrective action ; notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 06/11/1992)
657 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for leave to relocate the defendant's historical records to the defendant's attorneys' office ; notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 06/11/1992)
658 SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL ORDER (proposed by plaintiffs) (fce) (Entered: 06/11/1992)
659 MOTION by plaintiffs to file brief in excess of 15 pages (fce) (Entered: 06/11/1992)
660 INDEX to Attachmenet 1 to plaintiffs' reply in support of plaintiffs' motion for a supplemental remedial order (fce) (Entered: 06/11/1992)
662 MINUTE ORDER of 6/10/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file its reply brief in support of plaintiffs' motion for a supplemental remedial order in excess of 15 pages is granted. Defendant is given until 6/19/92 to file a sur-reply to plaintiffs' motion for a supplemental remedial order. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/17/1992)
663 MINUTE ORDER of 6/10/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Defendant is given until 6/22/92 to file its response to plaintiffs' motion for procedures for preliminary injunction mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/17/1992)
661 INDEX to Attachment 1 to Plaintiffs' Rreply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for a Supplemental Remedial Order. (fce) (Entered: 06/16/1992)
664 Interim FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law and Order providing

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 38 of 307

06/16/1992
06/17/1992 06/17/1992 06/19/1992
06/19/1992
06/19/1992 06/19/1992 06/22/1992 06/22/1992 06/22/1992 06/25/1992 06/25/1992 06/25/1992

Remedial Relief relative to the Issuance of $10,000,000.00 of Bonds (fce) (Entered: 06/18/1992)
665 MINUTE ORDER of 6/16/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Enter order regarding interim findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order providing for remedial relief relative to the issuance of $10,000,000.00 bonds. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/18/1992)
666 MOTION by plaintiffs for leave to substitute additional counsel ; notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 06/18/1992)
667 MOTION by intervenors for entry of order pursuant to mandate of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ; notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 06/22/1992)
668 MINUTE ORDER of 6/19/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Granting plaintiffs' motion for leave to substitute additional counsel [666-1]. Matthew J. Piers and Jonathan A. Rothstein are substituted in place of Judson H. Miner who is withdrawn. telephoned notice (fce) (Entered: 06/22/1992)
669 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff Marie Devereueawax, plaintiff Johnny Devereueawax, plaintiff People Who Care, plaintiff Asia Eason, plaintiff Anissa Tripplett, plaintiff Shaheed Saleem, plaintiff Cindy Malone, plaintiff Jonathan Hughes, plaintiff Chasty Hoarde, plaintiff Larry Hoarde, plaintiff Brandon Burfield, plaintiff Joshua Burfield, plaintiff Stephanie Burfield by Matthew J. Piers, Jonathan A. Rothstein (fce) (Entered: 06/22/1992)
670 RULE 39 Affidavit of Jonathan A. Rothstein (fce) (Entered: 06/22/1992)
671 RULE 39 Affidavit of Matthew J. Piers (fce) (Entered: 06/22/1992)
672 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to motion for an order establishing procedures for the determination of plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction [648-1] (fce) (Entered: 06/26/1992)
673 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to motion for preliminary injunction [647-1] (fce) (Entered: 06/26/1992)
674 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' motion for leave to substitute additional counsel (fce) (Entered: 06/26/1992)
675 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to motion for entry of order pursuant to mandate of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit [667-1] (fce) (Entered: 06/26/1992)
676 Defendant's Suggestion for Scheduling Hearing Date on Plaintiffs' Motion for Supplemental Remedial Relief (fce) (Entered: 06/26/1992)
677 MINUTE ORDER of 6/25/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Defendant and plaintiffs are given until 7/15/92 to respond to the REA's motion for the entry of an order pursuant to mandate of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. The REA is given until 7/22/92 to reply.

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 39 of 307

06/29/1992
06/29/1992 06/29/1992 06/29/1992 06/29/1992 06/29/1992 06/30/1992
06/30/1992
06/30/1992 06/30/1992 06/30/1992
06/30/1992 07/01/1992

mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/26/1992)
678 MINUTE ORDER of 6/29/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : The court refers all matters pertaining to plaintiffs' motion for a supplemental remedial order to the Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/29/1992)
679 MINUTE ORDER of 6/29/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Status hearing magistrate set for 7/6/92 at 11:00 a.m. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/29/1992)
680 MINUTE ORDER of 6/29/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Status hearing set for 8/20/92 at 10:30 a.m. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/29/1992)
681 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for leave to file subpoena and request to produce ; notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 06/29/1992)
682 Final RESPONSE by plaintiffs to Defendant's Surreply to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Supplemental Remedial Order (fce) (Entered: 06/30/1992)
683 MINUTE ORDER of 6/29/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Granting defendant's motion for leave to file subpoena and request to produce [681-1] mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/30/1992)
684 MINUTE ORDER of 6/30/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : The court refers plaintiffs' supplemental response to the Magistrate's report and recommendation filed May 1, 1992 back to the Magistrate. The court also refers defendant's supplemental response to the Magistrate's report and recommendation filed May 14, 1992 back to the Magistrate. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/30/1992)
685 MINUTE ORDER of 6/30/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery conference on plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction set for 7/6/92 at 9:30 a.m. (note time change). Evidentiary hearing on plaintiffs' motion for a supplemental remedial order set for 7/6/92 at 10:00 a.m. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/30/1992)
686 Plaintiffs' Submission of Supplemental Motion and Revised Proposed Remedial Order (fce) (Entered: 06/30/1992)
687 MOTION by plaintiffs for a Supplemental Remedial order ; notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 06/30/1992)
688 MINUTE ORDER of 6/30/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant given leave to file sur-reply to plaintiff's motion for a supplemental remedial order in excess of 15 pages. no notice (fce) (Entered: 06/30/1992)
689 Defendant's Sur-Reply to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Supplemental Remedial Order (fce) (Entered: 06/30/1992)
690 REPLY by plaintiffs in support of motion for preliminary injunction; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/01/1992)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 40 of 307

07/01/1992 07/01/1992
07/01/1992
07/02/1992 07/02/1992 07/02/1992 07/02/1992 07/06/1992
07/06/1992

691 Plaintiffs' Proposed Supplemental Remedial Order pursuant to Section A.19 of the Second Interim Order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/01/1992)
692 MINUTE ORDER of 7/1/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons set forth on the reverse of this order, it is the report and recommendation of the Magistrate that defendant's objections to the Magistrate's report as to the reimbursement of experts' fees be granted. The Magistrate, therefore, recommends that the court set aside those provisions of the report and recommendation dated April 17, 1992 allowing plaintiffs reimbursement for the costs of services relating to plaintiffs' experts. (DRAFT). mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/06/1992)
693 MINUTE ORDER of 7/1/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons set forth on the reverse of this order, it is the report and recommendation of the Magistrate that plaintiff be awarded paralegal fees at the market rates for those services covered by the fee petitions that were before the Magistrate and reported on in April of 1992. The Magistrate further recommends that plaintiffs' request for cocmpensation for delay be denied. (DRAFT) mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/06/1992)
694 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for protective order ; notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 07/06/1992)
695 MINUTE ORDER of 7/2/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons set forth on the reverse of this order, defendant's motion to strike plaintiffs' final response to defendant's surreply to plaintiff's motion for a supplemental remedial order is granted. Defendant's motion to strike plaintiffs' reply in support of plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is denied. (DRAFT) mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/06/1992)
696 MINUTE ORDER of 7/2/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : The court adopts the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation of April 17 and April 24 of 1992. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/06/1992)
697 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to strike plaintiffs' final response to defendant's surreply to plaintiffs' motion for a supplemental remedial order and plaintiffs' reply in support of plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction ; notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 07/06/1992)
698 MINUTE ORDER of 7/6/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : All depositions pertaining to plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction are to be held in Chyicago except for the depositions of the members of the Board of Education and those where Chicago would be unreasonable. Plaintiffs and defendant are given until July 13, 1992 to file a motion in relation to the appropriate role of the Intervenor in the preliminary injunction proceedings. Intervenor is given until July 20, 1992 to respond. Discovery conference set for 8/10/92 at 9:30 a.m. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/06/1992)
699 MINUTE ORDER of 7/6/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's objections to plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction are denied. Pretrial matters in relation to the preliminary injunction hearing are set

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 41 of 307

07/06/1992
07/07/1992
07/09/1992 07/14/1992 07/14/1992 07/15/1992 07/16/1992 07/20/1992 07/21/1992 07/22/1992 07/22/1992
07/22/1992

for January 7th and 8th, 1993 at 9:30 a.m. Hearing on plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is set for the weeks of January 11th, 18th and 25th, 1993 beginning at 9:30 a.m. Defendant's counsel's office is to serve as the depository for documents pertaining to the preliminary injunction hearing. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/06/1992)
700 MINUTE ORDER of 7/6/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Hearing on plaintiffs' motion for a supplementary remedial order held and continued to 8/10/92 at 9:30 a.m. Defendant is given until 7/13/92 to file its objections to plaintiffs' exhibit 1, tab 2. Plaintiffs' exhibit 2 is admitted into evidence. Defendant's response to plaintiffs' findings of fact are due 7/24/92. Plaintiffs are to give their list of deponents to defendant by 7/24/92. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/06/1992)
701 MINUTE ORDER of 7/7/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : The court adopts the Magistrate Judge's minute order of June 19, 1992 granting plaintiffs' motion for leave to substitute additional counsel. Matthew J. Piers and Jonathan A. Rothstein are substituted in placce of Judson H. Miner who has withdrawn. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/07/1992)
702 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 7/6/92 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 07/13/1992)
703 MOTION by plaintiffs for order directing intervenors to plead (fce) (Entered: 07/15/1992)
705 Seventh Progress Report - Second Interim Order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/16/1992)
706 Notice of Payment of Fees and Expenses to the Court-Appointed Monitor; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/16/1992)
704 RESPONSE by plaintiff to intervenors' motion for entry of order pursuant to Mandate of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/16/1992)
709 Intervenors' response to plaintiffs' and defendant's motions for an order directing intervenors to plead; notice of filing. [708-1], [703-1] (smw) (Entered: 07/27/1992)
710 Plaintiffs' Objections to the Magistrate's Reports and Recommendations of 07/01/92; notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 07/27/1992)
707 MINUTE ORDER of 7/22/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs and defendant are given until 07/28/92 to reply to their motion directing intervenors to plead. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 07/23/1992)
708 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for directive to intervenors to plead in alignment with the defendant with respect to the preliminary injunction proceedings ; notice of motion; notice of filing. (smw) (Entered: 07/27/1992)
711 Defendant's Objections to Plaintiffs' Group Exhibit 1; notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 07/27/1992)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 42 of 307

07/23/1992
07/24/1992 07/24/1992 07/24/1992 07/24/1992 07/27/1992 07/27/1992 07/27/1992 07/27/1992 07/28/1992 07/28/1992
07/28/1992 07/28/1992

712 MINUTE ORDER of 7/23/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Having received no objections from defendant and having reviewed the record in this matter as well as plaintiffs' untimely objections, the court adopts the Magistrate Judge's reports and recommendations of 07/01/92 granting Plaintiffs' motion for paralegal fees at the market rates for services covered by the fee petitions that this court ruled upon 07/02/92, denying plaintiffs' motion for compensation for delay and granting defendant's objections to the reimbursement of experts' fees. This provision of the court's order of 7/2/92 is, therefore, set aside. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 07/27/1992)
713 NOTICE by plaintiff of taking deposition of John Nolte on 08/01/92 (aew) (Entered: 07/28/1992)
714 RETURN OF SERVICE of deposition subpoena executed as to John Nolte on 7/18/92 (aew) (Entered: 07/28/1992)
715 NOTICE by plaintiffs of trial subpoena of Superintendent Maurice Sullivan on 08/10 and 08/12/92 (aew) (Entered: 07/28/1992)
716 RETURN OF SERVICE of trial subpoena executed as to Superintendent Maurice Sullivan on 7/20/92 (aew) (Entered: 07/28/1992)
717 NOTICE by plaintiff of filing and certificate of service of plaintiffs' proposed order pursuant to mandate (Attachment) . (aew) (Entered: 07/28/1992)
718 REPLY by intervenors to plaintiffs' and defendants' responses to intervenors' motion for entry of order pursuant to mandate of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit [667-1]; notice of filing. (aew) (Entered: 07/28/1992)
719 PROPOSED FINDINGS of fact by defendant as to the documentary record concerning compliance with the second interim order; notice of filing. (aew) (Entered: 07/28/1992)
720 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' proposed findings. (aew) (Entered: 07/28/1992)
721 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to declare defendant's employment acctions made pursuant to the second interim order, prior to the issuance of mandate by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, immune from collateral attack . (aew) (Entered: 07/28/1992)
722 MINUTE ORDER of 7/28/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Briefing schedule on Defendant's motion to declare its actions prior to the issuance of mandate immune from collateral attack [721-1] is set as follows: Answer brief to motion due 08/11/92. Reply to answer brief due 8/18/92. Mailed notice (aew) (Entered: 07/28/1992)
723 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for leave to file brief in excess of 15 pages ; notice of motion. (aew) (Entered: 07/28/1992)
724 MINUTE ORDER of 7/28/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski :

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 43 of 307

07/28/1992
07/28/1992 07/31/1992 08/05/1992 08/05/1992 08/05/1992 08/05/1992 08/07/1992 08/07/1992 08/10/1992
08/10/1992

Defendant's motion for leave to file its brief in support of defendant's motion to declare its actions immune from collateral attack in excess of 15 pages [723-1] is granted. Mailed notice (aew) (Entered: 07/28/1992)
725 MEMORANDUM by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed in support of motion to declare defendant's employment acctions made pursuant to the second interim order, prior to the issuance of mandate by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, immune from collateral attack [721-1] (aew) (Entered: 07/28/1992)
726 REPLY by plaintiffs in Support of Motion for an Order Directing Intervenors to Plead; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/04/1992)
727 REPLY by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed in Support of its Motion for Directive to Intervenors to Plead in Alignment with the Defendant with Respect to the Preliminary Injunction Proceedings; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/04/1992)
728 REPLY by plaintiffs' in Support of Proposed Findings of Fact as to the Documentary Record Concerning Non-Compliance with the Second Interim Order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/06/1992)
729 REPLY by plaintiffs' to Defendant's Objections to Group Exhibit 1 in the Supplemental Remedial Hearing; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/06/1992)
730 Plaintiffs' August 1992 Proposed FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law concerning a Supplemental Remedial Order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/06/1992)
731 RESPONSE by plaintiff to motion to declare defendant's employment acctions made pursuant to the second interim order, prior to the issuance of mandate by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, immune from collateral attack [721-1]; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/06/1992)
732 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' to defendant's motion for leave to file all discovery materials; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/10/1992)
733 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in opposition to motion for protective order [694-1]; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/10/1992)
734 MINUTE ORDER of 8/10/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Magistrate will rule by mail on defendant's motion for Intervenor's to file a responsive pleading. Parties are to hold a Rule 12(k) telephone conference to set up depositions for August. Discovery conference set for 9/9/92 at 2:00 p.m. Magistrate will rule by mail as to defendant's objections to plaintiff's exhibit no. 1 mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/11/1992)
735 MINUTE ORDER of 8/10/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Hearing on plaintiff's motion for supplemental remedial relief held. Matter is taken under advisement. Parties are to submit an agreed order of detachment regarding a change in school district boundaries. Defendant's motion for leave to file all discovery is granted as to objections to

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 44 of 307

08/11/1992 08/13/1992 08/14/1992
08/18/1992
08/19/1992 08/19/1992 08/19/1992 08/25/1992 08/26/1992 08/26/1992 08/28/1992 08/28/1992

discovery and discovery requests. Evidentiary material is not to be filed. Defendant is given until 8/14/92 to reply to its motion for a protective order. Magistrate will rule by mail. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/11/1992)
737 RESPONSE by intervenor to motion to declare defendant's employment acctions made pursuant to the second interim order, prior to the issuance of mandate by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, immune from collateral attack [721-1] (fce) (Entered: 08/18/1992)
738 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Magistrate's Inquiry concerning Plaintiffs' August 1992 Proposed Supplemental Remedial Order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/18/1992)
736 REPLY by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Portective Order Barring ex parte Communications with Former Members of the Board of Education and Control Group Administrative Staff; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/18/1992)
741 REPLY by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Intervenor's Response to Defendant's Motion to Declare Employment Actions Made Pursuant to the Second Interim Order, prior to the Issuance of Mandate by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Immune from Collateral Attack; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/20/1992)
739 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Education for a protective order regarding ex parte communications ; notice of motion; notice of filing. (smw) Modified on 08/19/1992 (Entered: 08/19/1992)
740 MEMORANDUM in support of defendant's motion for protective order barring ex parte communications with former members of the Board of Education and control group administrative staff [739-1]. (smw) (Entered: 08/19/1992)
742 SUR-REPLY by plaintiffs' in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order regarding Ex Parte Communications; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/20/1992)
745 REPLY by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiffs' Surreply in Opposition to defendant's motion for a protective order regarding ex parte communications; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/01/1992)
743 ORDER regarding motion for a protective order regarding ex parte communications [739-1] (smw) (Entered: 08/26/1992)
744 MINUTE ORDER of 8/26/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons set forth in the attached order and subject to the provisions of the attached order, defendant's motion for a protective order is granted [7391]. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 08/26/1992)
746 Various Correspondence and notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/01/1992)
747 Defendant's Report on Discovery to the Magistrate (fce) (Entered:

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 45 of 307

08/31/1992 08/31/1992 08/31/1992 09/02/1992 09/02/1992
09/02/1992
09/03/1992
09/03/1992 09/03/1992 09/03/1992 09/04/1992 09/08/1992 09/08/1992

09/01/1992)
748 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for leave to file all discovery pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ; notice of filing; notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 09/01/1992)
749 Plan of Implementation of Order Requiring Fifteen Million Dollar Bond Sale; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/01/1992)
752 MINUTE ORDER of 8/31/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Per request of the parties, discovery conference set for 09/09/92 at 2:00 p.m. is changed to 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 09/03/1992)
750 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 09/02/1992)
751 MINUTE ORDER of 9/2/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Granting defendant's and plaintiffs' motion for order directing intervenors to plead [703-1]. Intervenors are to submit a response to plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction within 30 days of the date of this order. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/02/1992)
753 MINUTE ORDER of 9/2/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's objections to plaintiffs' group exhibit 1 are denied. The exhibit is admitted in its entirety for purposes of plaintiffs' motion for supplemental remedial relief. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/03/1992)
754 MINUTE ORDER of 9/3/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons set forth on the reverse of this order, defendant's motion in limine and defendant's motion for a protective order regarding the scope of discovery are denied. (See reverse of M.O.) mailed notice (fce) Modified on 09/08/1992 (Entered: 09/08/1992)
755 AMENDMENT to Plan of Implementation of Order Requiring Fifteen Million Dollar Bond Sale by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/09/1992)
756 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed in limine , for protective order regarding the scope of discovery ; notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 09/09/1992)
757 MEMORANDUM by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed in support of motion in limine [756-1], of motion for protective order regarding the scope of discovery [756-2] (fce) (Entered: 09/09/1992)
758 Plaintiffs' Discovery Request 1992-4; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/09/1992)
759 SUPPLEMENTAL Report on Discovery to the Magistrate by plaintiffs; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/09/1992)
760 MINUTE ORDER of 9/8/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : The court wishes to clarify that, in conformance with Local Rule 1.71 (b)(4) of the General Rules of the Northern District of Illinois and 28 USC 636(a), (b) and (c), the court transfers this case to Magistrate Judge P. Michael

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 46 of 307

09/08/1992 09/08/1992 09/09/1992 09/09/1992 09/09/1992 09/09/1992 09/09/1992 09/09/1992 09/09/1992 09/09/1992
09/09/1992
09/10/1992 09/14/1992

Mahoney's calendar. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/09/1992)
770 RESPONSE and Objections by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to the Magistrate Judge's Ruling on Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order (fce) (Entered: 09/10/1992)
771 MEMORANDUM by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed in support of response and objections to Magistrate Judge's Order on defendant's Motion for a Protective Order (fce) (Entered: 09/10/1992)
761 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to change school district boundaries (fce) (Entered: 09/09/1992)
762 Plaintiffs' Report on Discovery to the Magistrate; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/09/1992)
763 MOTION by plaintiffs to compel enforcement of subpoena ; notice of filing ; notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 09/09/1992)
764 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to add parties ; notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 09/09/1992)
765 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to stay arbitrations ; notice of filing ; notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 09/09/1992)
766 Agreed ORDER (fce) (Entered: 09/09/1992)
767 MINUTE ORDER of 9/9/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's motions to add parties and to change school district boundaries are grnated. Enter Order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/09/1992)
768 MINUTE ORDER of 9/9/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Intervenors are given until 9/23/92 to respond to defendant's motion to stay arbitration. Defendant is given until 9/30/92 to reply. As for plaintiffs' motion for enforcement of subpoena, the court finds that the State Board of Education should submit personnel for the taking of their deposition with 7 days notice from the parties unless circumstances are such that this time limitation as to a particular person to be deposed is unreasonable. In such a case, the deposition is to proceed at a reasonable time and place for that person. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/09/1992)
769 MINUTE ORDER of 9/9/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Intervenors are to receive a joint letter from plaintiffs and defendant as to scheduled deposition dates from today's date until the end of November. Further, intervenors are to be given at least 48 hours verbal notice of the location and the person to be deposed. If intervenors are present at the deposition, they are to be allowed to participate as a full party. Discovery conference set for 9/30/92 at 9:45 a.m. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/09/1992)
772 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 8/10/92 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) Modified on 09/14/1992 (Entered: 09/10/1992)
773 Plaintiffs' Discovery Request 1992-5; notice of filing (fce) (Entered:

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 47 of 307

09/16/1992
09/17/1992 09/17/1992
09/17/1992 09/18/1992 09/21/1992 09/21/1992 09/21/1992
09/21/1992 09/23/1992 09/23/1992 09/23/1992
09/23/1992 09/28/1992

09/15/1992)
774 MINUTE ORDER of 9/16/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Telephone conference held. From this time forward, if not before, Local Rule 9(g) is inapplicable in this cause of action. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 09/17/1992)
775 ORDER regarding motion for a Supplemental Remedial order [687-1] (smw) (Entered: 09/21/1992)
776 MINUTE ORDER of 9/17/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons set forth in the attached order, plaintiffs' motion for a supplemental remedial order is granted in part and denied in part [687-1]. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 09/21/1992)
777 Joint Report of the Parties Concerning Depositions and Witnesses; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/21/1992)
778 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to Defendant's Objections to Magistrate's Order on Defendant's Motion for Protective Order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/21/1992)
779 NOTICE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed of taking deposition of Anthony R. Fabiano on 10/22/92; notice of filing. (aew) (Entered: 09/22/1992)
780 RETURN OF SERVICE of deposition subpoena executed on 9/18/92 as to Anthony R. Fabiano. (aew) (Entered: 09/22/1992)
784 Response and OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Magistrate Judge Mahoney's Order on Defendant's Motion in Limine and Defendant's Motion for Protective Order regarding the Scope of Discovery; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/28/1992)
785 MEMORANDUM by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed in support of objection [784-1] (fce) (Entered: 09/28/1992)
781 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 09/09/92 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (aew) (Entered: 09/23/1992)
782 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (fce) (Entered: 09/24/1992)
783 MINUTE ORDER of 9/23/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons set forth on the attached order, it is the report and recommendaiton of the Magistrate that Intervenor's motion for an order pursuant to mandate be granted, that defendant's motion for an order that its actions are immune from collateral attack be denied, and that the District Court enter attached order "Exhibit A". mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/24/1992)
786 MEMORANDUM by intervenor Rockford Education in opposition to motion to stay arbitrations [765-1]; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/28/1992)
787 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiffs' Discovery

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 48 of 307

09/28/1992 09/28/1992 09/28/1992 09/28/1992 09/28/1992 09/28/1992 09/29/1992
09/30/1992 09/30/1992 09/30/1992 09/30/1992 10/01/1992 10/01/1992
10/01/1992

Request 1992-2 (fce) (Entered: 09/28/1992)
788 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiffs' Discovery Request 1992-3 (fce) (Entered: 09/28/1992)
789 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiffs' Discovery Reuqest 1990-3 (fce) (Entered: 09/28/1992)
790 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiffs' Discovery Request 1992-1 (fce) (Entered: 09/28/1992)
791 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiffs' Document Request 1990-1 (fce) (Entered: 09/28/1992)
792 Rockford Board of Education's Plan of Implementation of Order requiring Ten Million Dollar Bond Sale (fce) (Entered: 09/28/1992)
793 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Temporarily Suspend Compliance with Section G.2 of the Second Interim Order ; notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 09/28/1992)
797 MINUTE ORDER of 9/29/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery conference held. Discovery conference to be held by telephone set for 10/9/92 at 11:00 a.m. Discovery conference hearing in open court set for 10/28/92 at 9:00 a.m. (See reverse of minute order) mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/30/1992)
794 Second MOTION by plaintiffs to compel enforcement of Subpoena and Request for Expenses ; notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 09/30/1992)
795 Rule 37 MOTION by plaintiffs ; notice of filing ; notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 09/30/1992)
796 MOTION by plaintiffs to compel depositions and for expenses ; notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 09/30/1992)
798 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 9/29/92 Before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski (fce) (Entered: 10/01/1992)
799 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Modify the Clerk of the Court's Service List ; notice of motion; notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 10/01/1992)
800 RESPONSE and Objections by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to the Order of the Magistrate Judge granting (in part) Plaintiffs' Motion for a Supplemental Remedial Order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/06/1992)
801 RESPONSE and Objections by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Report and Recommendation of Magistrate with Respect to Defendant's Motion to Declare Defendant's Employment Actions made Pursuant to the Second Interim Order, Prior to the Issuance of Mandate by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Immune from Collateral Attack; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/06/1992)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 49 of 307

10/01/1992 10/01/1992 10/02/1992 10/05/1992 10/05/1992
10/05/1992
10/08/1992 10/09/1992
10/09/1992

802 MOTION by plaintiff for reconsideration or in the alternative, Objections to Magistrate's Report and Recommendation Concerning Implementation of the Court of Appeal Decision (fce) (Entered: 10/06/1992)
803 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' to Defendant's Objections to Magistrate's Order on Defendant's Motion in Limine and Defendant's Motion for Portective Order regarding the Scope of Discovery; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/06/1992)
807 RESPONSE by intervenor to motion for preliminary injunction [647-1]; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/09/1992)
804 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' to Defendant's Objections to the Magistrate's Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for a Supplemental Remedial Order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/06/1992)
805 MINUTE ORDER of 10/5/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Granting defendant's motion to Modify the Clerk of the Court's Service List [7991]. The Clerk is ordered to modify the service list in this case by removing Thomas A. Bueschel from the service list and reflect that John N. Schmidt is lead counsel in this matter. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/06/1992)
806 MINUTE ORDER of 10/5/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Denying defendant's motion to stay arbitrations [765-1] pursuant to the Magistrate's report and recommendation of 9/23/92 recommending that intervenor's motion for an order pursuant to mandate be granted and denying defendant's motion for an order that its actions are immune from collaterial attack. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/06/1992)
831 Plaintiffs' Statement of Position regarding Defendant's Privilege Claims; notice of filing (temporarily unavailable for docketing) (fce) (Entered: 10/23/1992)
808 MINUTE ORDER of 10/9/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's motion for a protective order in relation to statements made by individual board members about a potential second interim order is granted. Defendant's motion for a protective order in relation to conversations of board members about aspects of the pending litigation is denied. During depositions, defendant is to assert either an attorney/client or deliberative process privilege. If defendant asserts the deliberative process privilege, the deponent is to answer the question, the deposition is to be placed under seal for an in camera inspection by this court. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 10/13/1992)
809 MINUTE ORDER of 10/9/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Telephone discovery conference held. Parties to submit written status report by noon on 10/19/92. Telephone discovery conference set for 10/19/92 at 3:00 p.m. If necessary, discovery conference set for 10/20/92 at 1:30 p.m. Parties are to hold a 12(k) conference in relation to personnel documents. Defendant given until 10/19/92 to produce documents under plaintiffs' Rule 37 motion. Plaintiffs to submit a new Rule 37 motion by 10/16/92. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 10/13/1992)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 50 of 307

10/13/1992 10/13/1992
10/13/1992
10/13/1992
10/13/1992 10/14/1992 10/14/1992 10/14/1992 10/15/1992
10/15/1992 10/15/1992 10/15/1992 10/16/1992
10/19/1992 10/19/1992

810 ORDER (smw) (Entered: 10/14/1992)
811 MINUTE ORDER of 10/13/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : For the reasons set forth in the attached order, defendant's objections to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation are granted in part and denied in part. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 10/14/1992)
812 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Education to plaintiffs' discovery request 1992-93; notice of filing. (smw) (Entered: 10/16/1992)
817 OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Intervenors' Response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/20/1992)
818 OBJECTIONS by plaintiffs' to Intervenors' Response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/20/1992)
819 Defendant's Report to Court Concerning Administrative Reorganization and Request for Approval (fce) (Entered: 10/20/1992)
820 Partial RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiffs' Discovery Requests 1992-4 and 1992-5 (fce) (Entered: 10/20/1992)
821 Eighth Progress Report Second Interim Order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/20/1992)
813 MINUTE ORDER of 10/15/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Depositions of Michael Driscoll, Sterne Roufa and Jacquelyn Confer are ordered filed. No notice (smw) (Entered: 10/16/1992)
814 DEPOSITION of Michael Driscoll taken on the following date(s): October 5, 1992 (smw) (Entered: 10/16/1992)
815 DEPOSITION of Sterne Roufa taken on the following date(s): October 5, 1992 (smw) (Entered: 10/16/1992)
816 DEPOSITION of Jacquelyn Confer taken on the following date(s): September 29, 1992 (smw) (Entered: 10/16/1992)
822 Response and OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Recommendation of Magistrate Judge with REspect to Defendant's Motion to Stay Arbitrations; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/20/1992)
823 MOTION by plaintiffs' to compel Discovery and for Sanctions ; notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 10/20/1992)
824 MINUTE ORDER of 10/19/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant is to immediately submit to this court a list of the days this week on which it will comply with plaintiffs' first Rule 37 motion. Defendant is given until Friday, October 23, 1992 to respond to plaintiffs' second Rule 37 motion. Plaintiffs are given until 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 27, 1992 (note date and time change) to reply. Telephonic discovery conference held. Discovery conference remains set for 10/28/92 at 9:00 a.m. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/20/1992)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 51 of 307

10/19/1992
10/19/1992
10/20/1992
10/20/1992 10/21/1992 10/22/1992 10/23/1992 10/23/1992 10/27/1992 10/27/1992 10/27/1992 10/28/1992

825 MINUTE ORDER of 10/19/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Having reviewed the record in this matter, including the parties' briefs, the Magistrate's order and the parties' objections thereto, the court finds that the Magistrate was not clearly erroneous in denying defendant's motion in limine and defendant's motion for a protective order regarding the scope of discovery on September 3, 1992. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/20/1992)
826 MINUTE ORDER of 10/19/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Having reviewed the record in this matter, including the Magistrate's order and the parties' objections thereto, the court finds that the Magistrate was not clearly erroneous in granting defendant's motion for a protective order on August 26, 1992. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/20/1992)
827 MINUTE ORDER of 10/20/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery conference re-set to 10/30/92 at 9:00 a.m. Defendant's response to plaintiffs' second Rule 37 motion due Monday, 10/26/92. Plaintiffs' reply due Wednesday 10/28/92. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 10/21/1992)
828 MINUTE ORDER of 10/20/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The Magistrate orders the attached discovery schedule sent by defendant to be made part of the court record. no notice (fce) (Entered: 10/22/1992)
829 MINUTE ORDER of 10/21/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The court approves of defendant's administrative reorganization plan. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/22/1992)
830 MINUTE ORDER of 10/22/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic discovery conference held. Plaintiffs' motion to preserve student records until further order of this court is granted. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 10/22/1992)
832 Defendant Rockford Board of Education's Report to the Court regarding Status of Responses to Plaintiffs' Discovery Requests 1992-4 and 1992-5; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/26/1992)
833 Plaintiffs' Discovery Request 1992-7; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/28/1992)
834 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to Defendant's Objections to Magistrate's Recommendation with Respect to Motion to Stay Arbitrations (fce) (Entered: 10/29/1992)
835 OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiffs' Discovery Request 1992-7; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/29/1992)
836 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to motion to compel Discovery and for Sanctions [823-1] (fce) (Entered: 10/29/1992)
837 RESPONSE by intervenor to Defendant's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Recommendation Denying Motion to Stay Arbitrations; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/29/1992)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 52 of 307

10/29/1992 10/29/1992 10/30/1992 10/30/1992 10/30/1992 10/30/1992
10/30/1992
10/30/1992 10/30/1992 10/30/1992 10/30/1992 11/02/1992 11/09/1992

849 NOTICE of payment of fees and expenses to the court-apppointed monitor (Exhibits); notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 11/03/1992)
838 REPLY Brief by plaintiffs' on Motion to Compel and for Sanctions; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/30/1992)
839 RESPONSE by intervenor to Court Proposal for Scheduling a Systemwide Trial on the Merits (fce) (Entered: 10/30/1992)
840 Plaintiffs' Suggestions re: Converting Preliminary Injunction Hearing to a Permanent Injunction Trial; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/02/1992)
841 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Court Proposal for Scheduling a Systemwide Trial; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/02/1992)
842 MINUTE ORDER of 10/30/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery conference hearing held. Discovery conference hearing with trial counsel set for 12/2/92 at 9:00 a.m. As a result of the hearing conducted on plaintiffs' second Rule 37 motion, the Magistrate, under FRCP 16 and 26, establishes the following procedure: Every monday beginning November 2, 1992 and continuing until discovery is completed, the court will meet with plaintiffs', defendant's and intervenor's counsel in charge of discovery at 11:00 a.m. no notice (fce) (Entered: 11/02/1992)
843 MINUTE ORDER of 10/30/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : With the concurrence of all parties to this lawsuit, the court converts plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction into a motion for a permanent injunction. Hearing date of 1/7/93 on the preliminary injunction is hereby stricken. Hearing on plaintiffs' motion for a permanent injunction is set for 4/2/93 at 10:00 a.m. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/02/1992)
844 Intervenor's Answers to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories to the Intervenors (fce) (Entered: 11/02/1992)
845 MINUTE ORDER of 10/30/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs are given until 11/13/92 to file an amended complaint. no notice (fce) (Entered: 11/02/1992)
846 MINUTE ORDER of 10/30/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The Clerk of the Court is ordered to place defendant's in camera submission of discovery material under seal in the court file. no notice (fce) (Entered: 11/02/1992)
847 In camera submission of defendant regarding discovery (UNDER SEAL IN VAULT) (fce) (Entered: 11/02/1992)
848 MINUTE ORDER of 11/2/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery conference held. See reverse side of this order for further details. No notices required, advised in open court. (smw) (Entered: 11/03/1992)
850 MINUTE ORDER of 11/9/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery conference held. Discovery conference will be held on 11/16/92 at 11:00

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 53 of 307

11/10/1992 11/16/1992 11/16/1992 11/24/1992 11/24/1992 11/24/1992
11/30/1992 11/30/1992
11/30/1992
11/30/1992

a.m. Parties are referred to the reverse side of this order for further detail. (See reverse of minute order) mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/10/1992)
851 LETTER from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing one large loose pleading was returned (fce) (Entered: 11/12/1992)
852 MOTION by plaintiffs for order directing the defendant to allow plaintiffs to review personnel records ; notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 11/16/1992)
853 MINUTE ORDER of 11/16/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery conference held. Next discovery conference will be held 11/30/92 at 11:00 a.m. See reverse side for further orders. (See reverse of minute order) mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/16/1992)
854 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiffs' Discovery Request 1992-4 (clb) (Entered: 11/25/1992)
855 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiffs' Discovery Request 1992-5 ; notice of filing (clb) Modified on 11/25/1992 (Entered: 11/25/1992)
856 MINUTE ORDER of 11/24/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic discovery conference held. All document requests must be made by all parties by 2/1/93. Final pretrial conference set for 3/22/92 at 2:00 p.m. Final pretrial order, including exhibits, must be submitted to the court at that time. Trial in this matter will commence 4/5/93 at 10:00 a.m. , Discovery deadline is 3/12/93. Parties will meet with the court for a pretrial conference on 4/2/93 at 10:00 a.m. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/25/1992)
857 Defendant's First Discovery Request to Plaintiffs (fce) (Entered: 11/30/1992)
858 MINUTE ORDER of 11/30/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery conference held. Next week's agenda includes a report on computer records and defendant's privilege documents listing. Plaintiffs are to examine the year books at their locations in Rockford. Plaintiff's motion to review personnel records is granted provided that a member of the district is present when the records are reviewed. See protective order. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/01/1992)
859 MINUTE ORDER of 11/30/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs are given 30 days to answer defendant's first discovery request. Plaintiffs are to provide the court with a short letter brief by 12/4/92 outlining the 1992-4 and 1992-5 discovery requests that are at issue along with the specific discovery requests and defendant's response thereto. Defendant is given until 12/11/92 to respond. This matter will be discussed on 12/21/92 at 11:00 a.m. Parties are to provide the court with a protective order and notice regarding student records by 12/2/92. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/01/1992)
860 MOTION by intervenor for protective order ; notice of motion. (fce)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 54 of 307

11/30/1992 11/30/1992 12/01/1992 12/01/1992
12/02/1992 12/02/1992 12/02/1992 12/02/1992 12/02/1992 12/02/1992 12/02/1992 12/02/1992
12/03/1992 12/03/1992 12/04/1992

(Entered: 12/01/1992)
861 PROTECTIVE ORDER (fce) (Entered: 12/01/1992)
862 MINUTE ORDER of 11/30/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Enter protective order [860-1] mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/01/1992)
863 Plaintiffs' Discovery Request 1992-9; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/01/1992)
871 MINUTE ORDER of 12/1/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery hearing set for 12/7/92 at 11:00 a.m. is reset to 9:30 a.m. Defendant is given until 12/21/92 to respond to plaintiffs' discovery request 1992-7. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/03/1992)
864 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 10/30/92 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (UNDER SEAL IN VAULT) (fce) (Entered: 12/02/1992)
865 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 10/30/92 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 12/02/1992)
866 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 11/2/92 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 12/02/1992)
867 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 11/9/92 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 12/02/1992)
868 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 11/16/92 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (UNDER SEAL IN VAULT) (fce) (Entered: 12/02/1992)
869 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 11/16/92 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 12/02/1992)
870 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 11/30/92 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 12/02/1992)
872 MINUTE ORDER of 12/2/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery conference held. Discovery conference set for 1/7/93 at 10:00 a.m. The court puts plaintiffs' discovery request 1992-10 on the court's agenda for Monday, December 7, 1992. Parties are to submit their positions in writing to the court by Friday, December 4, 1992. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/03/1992)
873 MINUTE ORDER of 12/3/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : It is ordered that the tapes of the proceedings held on 10/30/92 and 11/16/92 be filed under seal with this court. no notice (fce) (Entered: 12/03/1992)
874 Tapes from hearing held on 10/30/92 and 11/16/92 filed UNDER SEAL pursuant to ordered entered 12/3/92. (fce) (Entered: 12/03/1992)
876 MINUTE ORDER of 12/4/92 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : The Monitor's request for an extension of time to 1/15/93 to file his next Quarterly Report is granted. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/07/1992)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 55 of 307

12/07/1992 12/07/1992 12/07/1992
12/07/1992
12/07/1992 12/07/1992 12/07/1992 12/07/1992 12/08/1992 12/08/1992 12/11/1992 12/11/1992 12/11/1992 12/11/1992
12/15/1992

875 LETTER to Judge Roszkowski from Eugene E. Eubanks dated 12/1/92 (fce) (Entered: 12/07/1992)
877 Defendant's Report Concerning Discovery and Pretrial Procedures for the Permanent Injunction Hearing; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/07/1992)
879 MINUTE ORDER of 12/7/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Intervenors are to submit contention interrogatories to plaintiffs. All affidavits are to be submitted by 2/1/93. Depositions of non-parties are to be taken at reasonable times with the concurrence of the deponents. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/08/1992)
880 MINUTE ORDER of 12/7/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery hearing held. Discovery hearing set for 12/21/92 at 11:00 a.m. Defendant's report on computer records is continued until that date. Plaintiffs are to mark a reasonable number of documents for an in camera inspection as to defendant's privileges claim. The inspection will be performed 12/21/92. The court will attempt to attain from the parties the number of non-expert witnesses they intend to call on 2/1/93. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/08/1992)
881 ORDER approving notice and disclosure of special education records (fce) (Entered: 12/08/1992)
882 MINUTE ORDER of 12/7/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Enter order approving notice and disclosure of special education records. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/08/1992)
883 PROTECTIVE ORDER (fce) (Entered: 12/08/1992)
884 MINUTE ORDER of 12/7/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Enter protective order. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/08/1992)
878 LETTER to Magistrate Judge Mahoney from James G. Bradtke dated 12/4/92 (fce) (Entered: 12/08/1992)
885 Plaintiffs' Discovery Request 1992-10; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/09/1992)
886 PROTECTIVE ORDER (fce) (Entered: 12/14/1992)
887 MINUTE ORDER of 12/11/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Enter protective order. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/14/1992)
888 ORDER approving disclosure of regular education student records responsive to plaintiffs' discovery request 1992-6 (fce) (Entered: 12/14/1992)
889 MINUTE ORDER of 12/11/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Enter order approving disclosure of regular education student records responsive to plaintiffs' discovery request 1992-6. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/14/1992)
890 Defendant's Second Set of Interrogatories to the Intervenors; notice of

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 56 of 307

12/15/1992 12/21/1992 12/21/1992
12/22/1992 12/28/1992 12/30/1992
12/30/1992
12/30/1992
12/31/1992 12/31/1992

filing (fce) (Entered: 12/16/1992)
891 Defendant's Second Discovery Request to the Plaintiffs; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/16/1992)
892 Defendant's Third Discovery Request to the Plaintiffs; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/22/1992)
893 MINUTE ORDER of 12/21/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery hearing held. Telephonic discovery hearing set for 12/29/92 at 11:00 a.m. Plaintiffs to initiate the call. Court will make an in camera inspection of records. Defendant to report on progress on plaintiffs' 19924 discovery request at next conference. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/22/1992)
894 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to direct plaintiffs to file and serve proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/22/1992)
895 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiffs' Discovery Request 1992-7; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/29/1992)
896 MINUTE ORDER of 12/30/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Hearing on motion to reconsider held. Motion is granted to the following extent: School Board is allowed discovery on the disqualification issue but solely as to the factual and conclusory allegations contained in the motion to disqualify and the affidavit filed in support thereof. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/31/1992)
897 MINUTE ORDER of 12/30/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Due to the unavailability of the District Court during the period of time of discovery, supervision of discovery is assigned to the only Magistrate available in this division. Supervision of discovery is to be conducted by Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney. Discovery cutoff is set for 2/26/93. Response to motion to disqualify due 3/12/93, reply due 3/19/93. Court will rule by mail. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/31/1992)
898 MINUTE ORDER of 12/30/92 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic discovery conference held. Discovery hearing set for 1/11/93 at 11:00 a.m. Agenda for this conference to be set on 1/7/93. Defendant's suggestions regarding scheduling to be discussed on 1/7/93. Defendant given until 1/15/93 to respond to plaintiffs' modified 1992-4 discovery request. Defendant given until 1/8/93 to respond to plaintiffs' 1992-9 discovery request. Defendant is to file a supplemental response to Question #11 of plaintiffs' first set of interrogatories by 1/5/93. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/31/1992)
899 Defendant's Petition for Instruction; Notice of Petition; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/04/1993)
900 MEMORANDUM by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed in support of Petition for Instructions [899-1] (fce) (Entered: 01/04/1993)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 57 of 307

01/04/1993
01/04/1993 01/04/1993 01/05/1993 01/05/1993 01/05/1993 01/06/1993 01/07/1993 01/07/1993
01/07/1993 01/07/1993
01/07/1993

901 MINUTE ORDER of 1/4/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Due to an error on the part of the court's law clerk, orders docketed numbers 896 and 897 and dated December 30, 1992 were entered in error in this case. These orders shall be vacated. The law clerk apologizes for any confusion this may have caused. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/04/1993)
902 Discovery Request 1992-14; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/04/1993)
903 Discovery Request 1992-15 (fce) (Entered: 01/04/1993)
904 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 12/2/92 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 01/07/1993)
905 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 12/7/92 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 01/07/1993)
906 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to Defendant's Petition for Instructions concerning Interim Implementation Fees and Expenses; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/07/1993)
907 MOTION by plaintiffs to Enforce Sections B.1, B.6, D.6, F.4 and G.7 of the Second Interim Order and the Supplemental Remedial Orders of September/October 1992 ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/07/1993)
908 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 01/07/1993)
909 MINUTE ORDER of 1/7/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons set forth in the attached order, the court finds that document number 3 of the Conde file and document numbers 4, 7 and 9 of the Blackwell files are privileged. Document numbers 7, 11, 12 and 13 of the Conde files and document number 1 of the Blackwell files are not privileged and, therefore, must be disclosed to plaintiffs. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/07/1993)
910 Supplemental RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories, Interrogatory No. 11; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/11/1993)
911 MINUTE ORDER of 1/7/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery conference held. Discovery conference set for 2/3/93 at 11:00 a.m. Defendant's motion to direct plaintiffs to file and serve proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is continued until 2/3/93. Magistrate Judg ewill rule by mail on defendant's petition for instructions. Defendant is given until 1/11/93 to respond to plaintiffs' motion to enforce Sections B.1, etc. Plaintiffs to inform court on 1/11/93 if reply time is desire. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/11/1993)
912 MINUTE ORDER of 1/7/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs are to produce affidavits to defendant as they are signed. Plaintiffs are to use their best efforts to get affidavits to defendant as soon as possible. Parties to report on their efforts as to the affidavits and the number of affidavits every Monday. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/11/1993)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 58 of 307

01/11/1993 01/11/1993 01/11/1993 01/11/1993 01/11/1993 01/11/1993 01/11/1993
01/11/1993 01/13/1993 01/13/1993 01/13/1993 01/13/1993
01/13/1993 01/14/1993 01/14/1993
01/14/1993

913 Plaintiffs' Discovery Request 1992-11; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/12/1993)
914 Plaintiffs' Discovery Request 1992-12 (fce) (Entered: 01/12/1993)
915 Discovery Request 1992-13 (fce) (Entered: 01/12/1993)
916 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to Defendant's Second Discovery Request; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/12/1993)
917 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to Defendant's Third Discovery Request (fce) (Entered: 01/12/1993)
918 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiffs' Discovery Request 1992-9; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/12/1993)
919 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to motion to Enforce Sections B.1, B.6, D.6, F.4 and G.7 of the Second Interim Order and the Supplemental Remedial Orders of September/October 1992 [907-1]; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/12/1993)
920 Gary Kaeding's MOTION for leave to Intervene and Demand to Dismiss Action (fce) (Entered: 01/12/1993)
921 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 12/21/92 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 01/14/1993)
922 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 1/7/93 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 01/14/1993)
923 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 1/11/93 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 01/14/1993)
924 REPLY by plaintiffs' in Support of motion to enforce sections B.1, B.6, D.6, F.4 and G.7 of the Second Interim Order and the supplemental remedial orders of September/October 1992; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/14/1993)
925 EXHIBIT Letter; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/14/1993)
926 Agreed General Procedures for Depositions (fce) (Entered: 01/14/1993)
927 MINUTE ORDER of 1/14/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery hearing held. Discovery hearing set for 1/19/93 at 11:00 a.m. Defendant is to use its best and reasonable efforts to obtain answers to plaintiffs' 1992-12 and 1992-15 discovery requests not to exceed the normal response time. On agenda for next week: Progress on student records, defendant's answers to plaintiffs' interrogatories #11 and #15, plaintiffs' objections to defendant's first discovery request, Report as to Plaintiffs' effort to give affidavits to defendant, report on plaintiffs' 1992-4 discovery request. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/14/1993)
928 AFFIDAVIT of Gary Kaeding of Bias and Prejudice pursuant to 28 USC Sec. 144 (fce) (Entered: 01/15/1993)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 59 of 307

01/19/1993 01/22/1993 01/22/1993 01/22/1993
01/25/1993 01/26/1993 01/26/1993 01/26/1993 01/27/1993 01/27/1993 01/27/1993
01/28/1993 01/28/1993

929 MINUTE ORDER of 1/19/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic discovery hearing held. Discovery conference set for 2/3/93 at 10:00 a.m. Parties to submit a proposed agenda for this conference by 2/1/93. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/20/1993)
930 MOTION by plaintiffs' for a further supplemental remedial order to ensure fulfillment of the second interim order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/25/1993)
931 SUPPLEMENTAL Response by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiffs' Discovery Request 1992-4; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/25/1993)
932 MINUTE ORDER of 1/22/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Status hearing held. Discovery conference set for 2/3/93 at 10:00 a.m. is moved to 3:00 p.m. Hearing on plaintiffs' motion for a further supplemental remedial order to ensure fulfillment of the second interim order is set for 2/3/93 at 9:00 a.m. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/25/1993)
933 MINUTE ORDER of 1/25/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Petitioner Faith Academy's motion to quash is set for hearing on 2/3/93 at 3:00 p.m. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/26/1993)
934 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to strike references in affidavits to opinions, inferences, and conclusions relative to alleged intent ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/26/1993)
935 PROTECTIVE ORDER (fce) (Entered: 01/27/1993)
936 MINUTE ORDER of 1/26/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Enter protective order. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/27/1993)
937 Plaintiffs' Additional Submission in Support of Motion for a Further Supplemental Remedial Order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/28/1993)
938 SUPPLEMENTAL Discovery Request regarding intervenors' answers to defendant's second set of interrogatories to the intervenors by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/28/1993)
939 MINUTE ORDER of 1/27/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The court approves the School Board's appointment of William L. Bowen as Superintendent of School District 205 effective 1/26/93 through 6/30/94. The court, sua sponte, resets the hearing on plaintiffs' motion for the appointment of a master to 5/5/93 at 10:00 a.m., if necessary. Discovery conference with trial counsel set for 10:00 a.m. on 2/3/93. Discovery conference with Attys. Rapacz, Bradkte and Katz set for 2/3/93 at 11:00 a.m. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/28/1993)
940 MINUTE ORDER of 1/28/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Hearing on motion to quash a subpoena set for 2/3/93 at 3:00 p.m. is reset as to time only for 11:00 a.m. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/29/1993)
941 MOTION by Leslie S. Pergande and Ottilia P. Pergande to intervene and

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 60 of 307

01/28/1993 01/28/1993 01/28/1993 01/28/1993 01/28/1993 01/29/1993 02/01/1993 02/02/1993 02/02/1993 02/02/1993 02/02/1993 02/02/1993 02/03/1993 02/03/1993
02/03/1993

demand to dismiss action (fce) (Entered: 02/01/1993)
942 MOTION by Kevin T. Noble to intervene and demand to dismiss action (fce) (Entered: 02/01/1993)
943 MOTION by Sandra J. Lucas to intervene and demand to dismiss action (fce) (Entered: 02/01/1993)
944 MOTION by Richard A. Leatherby and Mary J. Leatherby to intervene and demand to dismiss action (fce) (Entered: 02/01/1993)
945 MOTION by Edwin Ahmer and Evelyn L. Ahmer to intervene and demand to dismiss action (fce) (Entered: 02/01/1993)
946 MOTION by Elliott W. Ahmer and Evelyn M. Ahmer to intervene and demand to dismiss action (fce) (Entered: 02/01/1993)
947 Defendant's Fourth Discovery Request to Plaintiffs; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/01/1993)
952 RESPONSE by plaintiff to defendant's motion to strike references in affidavits [934-1] (fce) (Entered: 02/04/1993)
949 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to compel Exhibit A,B,C; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/04/1993)
950 MOTION by plaintiff in limine regarding the admissibility of newspaper articles less than twenty years old. (fce) (Entered: 02/04/1993)
951 MOTION by plaintiff to compel deposition ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/04/1993)
953 FIRST DISCOVERY REQUEST by plaintiff to Intervenors; notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 02/04/1993)
954 DISCOVERY REQUEST 1993-1 by plaintiff; notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 02/04/1993)
948 MOTION to quash subpoena by Faith Academy (fce) (Entered: 02/04/1993)
957 MINUTE ORDER of 2/3/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery conference held. All signed affidavits are to be submitted to Defendant and Intervenors by 5:00 p.m. on Feb. 13, 1993. Parties are ordered to reserve the week of Feb. 15th and 22nd to take affiants depostions. All work in relation to affidavits to be completed by March 1, 1993. All motions in limine to be filed by March 15, 1993. They will be considered by the court on March 22, 1993 at the Final Pretiral Conference. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/05/1993)
958 MINUTE ORDER of 2/3/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs are to submit a summary of Board minutes and newspapper articles to Defendant and Intervenors by February 14, 1993. Discovery conference with lead trial counsel set for Feb. 25, 1993 at 10:30 a.m. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/09/1993)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 61 of 307

02/03/1993
02/03/1993
02/03/1993
02/04/1993 02/04/1993 02/08/1993 02/08/1993 02/10/1993 02/12/1993 02/12/1993

959 MINUTE ORDER of 2/3/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney :Plaintiffs' motion to compel deposition the deposition of Dr. David Hartman is denied. [951-1] The court reserves ruling on whether Dr. Hartman's deposition may be taken with regard to the period of time Dr. Hartman was not employed as Defendant's expert. The court will consider Dr. Eugene Eubanks as the court's expert witness, but not Harriett DossWillis. Plaintiffs' motion in limine with respect to newspaper articles is denied. [950-1] mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/09/1993)
960 MINUTE ORDER of 2/3/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery conference with lead discovery counsel set for February 10, 1993 at 9:30 a.m. Parties are to fax a proposed agenda to the court on February 9, 1993. Included on this agenda is the following: status of computer records, progress on student records, report on affidavits and miscellaneous document production/deposition transcripts. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/09/1993)
961 MINUTE ORDER of 2/3/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Denying motion to quash subpoena by Faith Academy [948-1]. Faith Academy is given until Feb. 10, 1993 to respond to the subpoena. Defendant is given until Feb. 10, 1993 to respond to the subpoena. Defendant is given until Feb. 12, 1993 to respond to Plaintiffs' interrogatories numbers 11 through 15. Court will perform an "in camera" inspection of Plaintiffs' alleged work product documents. Defendant is to produce computer records of tracking documents by February 10, 1993. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/09/1993)
955 MINUTE ORDER of 2/4/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Having performed an "in camera" inspection of certain documents provided to this court by plaintiffs' counsel, the Magistreate Judge finds that all of the documents are subject to the work product privilege. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/05/1993)
956 RESPONSE by plaintiff to Defendant's First Discovery Request. (fce) (Entered: 02/05/1993)
962 MINUTE ORDER of 2/8/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Per request of the parties, discovery conference with lead discovery counsel reset from 2/10/93 to 2/18/93 at 11:00 a.m. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/09/1993)
963 NOTICE of payment of fees and expenses to the court-appointed monitor, exhibits A, B., notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 02/11/1993)
964 APPLICATION to specially intervene to obtain approval to file petition for boundary change, notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 02/11/1993)
965 MINUTE ORDER of 2/12/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic discovery conference held. Telephonic conference set for 2/15/93 at 3:30 p.m. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/16/1993)
966 MINUTE ORDER of 2/12/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The Court hereby instructs Defendant per its Petition for Instructions. See attached

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 62 of 307

02/12/1993
02/12/1993 02/15/1993
02/16/1993 02/16/1993 02/16/1993 02/16/1993 02/16/1993 02/16/1993 02/17/1993 02/17/1993 02/18/1993
02/19/1993 02/24/1993

Order. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/16/1993)
967 MOTION by plaintiff for an order prohibiting interference with communications between plaintiffs' counsel and non-administrative district employees. Exhibits A,B; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/18/1993)
968 PARTIAL RESPONSE by Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiffs' Discovery request 1992-10. (fce) (Entered: 02/18/1993)
969 MINUTE ORDER of 2/15/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic discovery conference held. The filing of affidavits for the 23 individuals discussed is extended and will remain open for one week after the new memorandum is distributed. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/18/1993)
970 RESPONSE by Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' Discovery request 1992-15. (fce) (Entered: 02/18/1993)
971 RESPONSE by Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiffs' Discovery request 1992-11. (fce) (Entered: 02/18/1993)
972 RESPONSE by Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiffs' Discovery request 1992-12. (fce) (Entered: 02/18/1993)
973 RESPONSE by Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiffs' Discovery request 1992-13. (fce) (Entered: 02/18/1993)
974 NINTH PROGRESS REPORT, SECOND INTERIM ORDER by Rockford Board Of Ed (fce) (Entered: 02/18/1993)
975 RESPONSE by Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiffs' Discovery request 1992-14. (fce) (Entered: 02/18/1993)
976 RESPONSE by People Who Care to Intervenors' Discovery Request 1993-1. (fce) (Entered: 02/19/1993)
977 RESPONSE by Faith Academy to a subpoena. (fce) (Entered: 02/19/1993)
978 MINUTE ORDER of 2/18/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery conference held. Review of special education records, depositions of out of town deponents and status of computer records are carried on the agenda. Defendant and Intervenors are given until March 11, 1993 to respond to Plaintiffs' request to admit. Defendant is to respond to #1 and # 3 of Plaintiffs' discovery request 1992-5(a). Defendant does not have to respond to #2 and #4. Parties are to hold a 12(k) conference before 2/24/93. Parties are to fax to court agenda for 2/25/93 or notify the court as to next date for discovery conf. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/19/1993)
979 LETTER of 12/16/93 from Rockford Education regarding interrogatories. (fce) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
980 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' to Motion to compel Deposition of Susan

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 63 of 307

02/24/1993 02/24/1993 02/25/1993 02/25/1993 02/25/1993 02/25/1993 02/25/1993 02/25/1993 02/25/1993 02/25/1993 02/25/1993 02/25/1993 02/25/1993

Belvoiri, Exhibit A, notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
983 RESPONSE by Rockford Education to Plaintiffs' Discovery request 1992-5(a), notice of filng. (fce) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
984 LETTER of 2/18/93 from plaintiffs' attorney, Matthew Piers regarding discovery material. (fce) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
981 MOTION by Rockford Education to compel the deposition of Susan Belvoir. ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
982 MEMORANDUM by Rockford Education in support of motion to compel the deposition of Susan Belvoir. [981-1] (fce) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
985 PARTIAL RESPONSE by Rockford Education to Plaintiffs' Discovery request 1993-1. notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
986 MOTION by plaintiff to strike and dismiss "verified motions for leave to intervene and demand to dismiss action" and for sanctions ; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
987 RETURN OF SERVICE executed Roland Burris on 2/19/93 (fce) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
988 NOTICE of Motion (for leave to interven and demand to dismiss action) filed by interveners. (fce) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
989 MOTION by Rockford Education to strike and dismiss ' "verified motin for leave to intervene and demand to dismiss action" and for sanctions ;notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
990 AMENDMENT by Rockford Education to motion to strike [989-1], and dismiss [989-2], impositions for sanctions [989-3] (fce) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
991 MOTION by Rockford Education for protective order regarding depositions of out-of-state affiants. Exhibit A; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
992 MOTION by Rockford Education for protective order regarding nonexpert witness testimony, Exhibits A-G; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
993 MINUTE ORDER of 2/25/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic discovery conference on Defendant's motion to compel the deposition of Susan (Curtin) Belvoir set for 2/26/93 at 9:30 a.m. Deposition of Ivan Linnabarry will be taken in Arkansas either at his home or principal place of business. The depositions of Lillian hankerson, Florence Ausler and Loretta Bowen will be taken telephonically. delridge hunter's witness affidavit will not be offered and the witness will testify live. Defendant has leave to take Mr. Hunter's deposition during trial prior to his testimony by videotape. mailed by judge's staff (fce) (Entered: 03/03/1993)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 64 of 307

02/25/1993 02/25/1993 02/25/1993 02/25/1993
02/25/1993 02/25/1993

994 MINUTE ORDER of 2/25/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : All work regarding affiant depositions is completed. By stipulation of all parties, the court allows the depsoitions of Dr. David Bennett (March 29th), Dr. Alan Lichtman (March 30) and Dr. Sprague (March 24) to be taken after the final pretrial conference date of March 22, 1993, with the understanding that any modification in the pretrial order will occur on 4/2/93 and that the trial date set for 4/5/93 will not be delayed. other expert depositions needed after March 22, maybe taken by order of the court. mailed by judge's staff (fce) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
995 MINUTE ORDER of 2/25/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery conference held. John and Kristine Gore's application to specially intervene to obtain approval to file petition for boundary change is granted. Counsel are to submit an order to the court within one week. mailed by judge's staff (fce) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
996 MINUTE ORDER of 2/25/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Intervenors to respond to Plaintiffs' motion for an order directing Intervenors to plead by 3/2/93. Court will rule upon motion on 3/8/93 at the 11:00 a.m. discovery conference. The court will keep on the agenda the setting of reasonable time restraints on all parties for the trial in this matter. Plaintiffs are to pare down their list of witnesses to 50 within 24 hours. Some attempt should be make to prioritize the witnesses. mailed by judge's staff (fce) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
997 MINUTE ORDER of 2/25/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's and Palintiffs' briefs in support of their motions to strike and dismiss the "verified Motions for leave to intervene and Demand to Dismiss Action" and for imposition of sanctions due March 11, 1993. the response is due 4/8/93. Reply due 4/15/93. This minute order is to be sent to all persons who have filed the motion for leave to intervene who have given the clerk's office their addresses. A copy of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and rule 11 are to be sent to all who have filed the motion for leave to intervene. rule to show cause is taken under advisement. mailed by judge's stafff (fce) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
999 MINUTE ORDER of 2/25/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs are given leave to file as additional appearance for Plaintiffs Ms. Jennifer Ffisher. Papers can be filed with the court by mail, along with the Rule 39 filing. Discovery responses from Intervenors are kept on the agenda for the March 8, 1993 conference. Defendant's granted leave to file as additional appearance for Defendant Ms. Lisa Rapacz. Pretrial conference set for 3/8/93 at 11:00 a.m. mailed by judge's staff (fce) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
1000 MINUTE ORDER of 2/25/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : As to Defendant's motion for protective order regarding non-expert witness testimony, [992-1], the court orders that each party is to give reasonable notice to the other party. The court will, telephonically make a determination as to waht constitutes reasonable notice if the parties disagree. More time should be allowed regard the taking of the deposition of a client or someone who can bind either party or all parties than would

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 65 of 307

02/26/1993
03/01/1993
03/01/1993 03/01/1993 03/02/1993 03/02/1993 03/02/1993 03/03/1993 03/03/1993 03/03/1993 03/03/1993 03/03/1993 03/03/1993 03/04/1993 03/04/1993

be necessary of a witness offered by either party. Status of special education records and computer records is kept on the court's agenda. mailed by judge's staff (fce) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
998 MINUTE ORDER of 2/26/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic discovery conference held. Defendant's motion to compel the deposition of Susan (Curtin) Belvoir is granted [981-1]. Deposition will take place Thursday, March 4, 1993 at 10:00 a..m. in the Rockford Federal Courthouse. Defendant is to provide the court reporter. Questions as to Plaintiffs' methodology and strategy will not be allowed. mailed by judge's staff (fce) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
1004 MINUTE ORDER of 3/1/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Pursuant to request of the parties, the deposition of Susan Belvoir is reset to March 8, 1993 at 2:00p.m. in the Rockford Federal Courthouse. notified counsel by telephone (fce) (Entered: 03/04/1993)
1005 CORRECTED REQUEST to admit by plaintiff (fce) (Entered: 03/04/1993)
1006 MOTION by plaintiff for order directing intervenors to plead. Exhibit A; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/04/1993)
1001 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date: 1/22/93 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
1002 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date: 2/3/93 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
1003 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date: 2/25/93 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
1007 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' to Defendant's Fourth Discovery Request. (fce) (Entered: 03/12/1993)
1008 REQUEST by plaintiff to Intervenors to admit. (fce) (Entered: 03/12/1993)
1009 RESPONSE by intervenor to Plaintiffs' motion for order directing intervenors to plead. [1006-1] (fce) (Entered: 03/12/1993)
1010 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for People Who Care by Jennifer Louise Fischer (fce) (Entered: 03/12/1993)
1011 RULE 39 Affidavit of Jennifer Louise Fischer (fce) (Entered: 03/12/1993)
1012 LETTER from the USCA for the 7th Circuit Court returning the 25 loose pleadings not returned with original record. (fce) (Entered: 03/12/1993)
1013 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for Rockford Board Of Ed by Lisa Ann Rapacz (fce) (Entered: 03/12/1993)
1014 RULE 39 Affidavit of Lisa Ann Rapacz (fce) (Entered: 03/12/1993)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 66 of 307

03/08/1993 03/08/1993
03/08/1993 03/08/1993
03/08/1993
03/10/1993 03/10/1993 03/11/1993 03/12/1993 03/15/1993 03/15/1993 03/15/1993

1015 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE by Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiffs' Discovery Request 1993-1. (fce) (Entered: 03/12/1993)
1016 MINUTE ORDER of 3/8/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Petitioner's John Gore and Dristine Gore's application to specially intervene is hereby GRANTED. Petitioners are further granted approval by this court to file such petition as is appropriate by which to seek to annex to Rockford Charter School District 205. mailed by judge's staff (fce) (Entered: 03/12/1993)
1017 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 03/12/1993)
1018 MINUTE ORDER of 3/8/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Pursuant to Rule 19(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for the purposes of upcoming liability hearing, Intervenors Rockford Education Assoc., IEANEA; Rockford Building Maint. Assoc., IEA-NEA; Education Office Personnel Assoc., IEA-NEA are hereby named Party Defendants in the above captioned matter. Intervenor Defendants have seven (7) days from March 8, 1993 to plead an answer in this matter. [1006-1] mailed by judge's staff (fce) (Entered: 03/12/1993)
1019 MINUTE ORDER of 3/8/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant Intervenors have seven (7) days from March 8, 1993 to provide Plaintiffs with one paragraph summary of defendant Intervenor witness testimony, summary to include witness backgrounds. All parties will appear before this court on Tuesday, March 16, 1993 at 2:00 p.m. for a discovery conference. All parties input regarding trial time restraints should be submitted to this court by Monday, March 15, 1993. Plaintiffs have until April 2, 1993 to submit final documentaray and exhibit evidence. mailed by judge's staff (fce) (Entered: 03/12/1993)
1020 MEMORANDUM by Rockford Board Of Ed in support of motion to strike [989-1], and dismiss [989-2] Verified Motions for leave to intervene and demand to dismiss action and for imposition of sanctions. (fce) Modified on 03/12/1993 (Entered: 03/12/1993)
1022 RESPONSE by Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiffs' request to admit. notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/15/1993)
1021 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of motion to strike [986-1] dismiss [986-2] proposed intervenors' petitions. (fce) (Entered: 03/12/1993)
1023 RESPONSE by intervenor-defendants' to Plaintiffs' request to admit, notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 03/15/1993)
1024 REPORT by Defendant's to the Court regarding estimated time for presentation of case, notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 03/15/1993)
1025 MOTION by Rockford Board Of Ed in limine ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/15/1993)
1026 MOTION by Rockford Board Of Ed for leave to file brief in excess of fifteen pages ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/15/1993)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 67 of 307

03/15/1993 03/15/1993 03/16/1993 03/16/1993 03/16/1993 03/16/1993 03/16/1993 03/17/1993 03/17/1993 03/17/1993
03/17/1993
03/17/1993
03/17/1993

1027 MEMORANDUM by Rockford Board Of Ed in support of defendant's motion in limine, Exhibit A, B. (fce) (Entered: 03/15/1993)
1028 MOTION by Rockford Board Of Ed To exclude Michael J. Stolee as an expert witness. Exhibit A; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/15/1993)
1029 MOTION by Rockford Board Of Ed to compel completiton of Deposition or bar testimony of Dr. Constance Goode and for other relief. ;notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 03/18/1993)
1030 MOTION by Rockford Board Of Ed to adopt accelerated briefing schedule re: Motion in Limine. ;notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/18/1993)
1031 STATEMENT regarding Trial time by intervenors-defendants', notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 03/18/1993)
1033 MINUTE ORDER of 3/16/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Granting motion for leave to file brief in excess of fifteen pages [1026-1] mailed by judge's staff (fce) (Entered: 03/18/1993)
1040 MOTION by People Who Care in limine Exhibit A,B; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/19/1993)
1032 STATMENT regarding trial time and witness list deletions by plaintiff, notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 03/18/1993)
1034 ANSWER to Second Amended Complaint and Affirmative defenses by intervenors-defendants'; notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 03/18/1993)
1035 MINUTE ORDER of 3/17/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : ALL parties to submit estimate of time needed to present their case and crossexamination, by March 22, 1993. Estimate is to be in hours. Parties to furnish the court with color coded copies of all depositions by April 2, 1993. Color codes are as follows: Plaintiffs-red, Defendant Intervenorsgreen, Defendants-blue. mailed by judge's staff (fce) (Entered: 03/19/1993)
1036 MINUTE ORDER of 3/17/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Pretrial conference held and set for 3/22/93 at 2:00 p.m.. Pretrial conference held March 16, 1993. Parties ordered to hold 12(k) conference on Friday, March 19, 1993. Parties to report to the court by telephonic conference during the afternoon of Friday, March 19, 1993 regarding possible schedule and venue change for March 22, pre-trial conference. mailed by judge's staff (fce) (Entered: 03/19/1993)
1037 MINUTE ORDER of 3/17/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The motion to compel completiton of Deposition or bar testimony of Dr. Constance Goode and for other relief is withdrawn, pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, in open court, during pre-trial conference of March 16, 1993. [1029-1] mailed by judge's staff (fce) (Entered: 03/19/1993)
1038 MINUTE ORDER of 3/17/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney :

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 68 of 307

03/17/1993
03/17/1993
03/19/1993 03/19/1993
03/22/1993 03/22/1993 03/22/1993 03/22/1993 03/23/1993 03/23/1993 03/23/1993 03/23/1993

Defendant's motion to adopt accelerated briefing schedule re: Motion in Limine is ALLOWED AS MODIFIED by the court. [1030-1] iPlaintiffs' response to Defendant's motion in Limine due 3/23/93. Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' motion in limine due 3/24/93. There will be NO REPLY BRIEFS ALLOWED. NO ORAL ARGUMENT. mailed by judge' staff (fce) (Entered: 03/19/1993)
1039 MINUTE ORDER of 3/17/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Deadlines for Trial Briefs, exhibits, Exhibit Lists & Findings of fact and Conclusions of Law are as follows: Plaintiffs'-March 25, 1993 by 2:00 P.M.-filed with court. Defendants' -April 4, 1993 by 3:00 p.m. rough draft by fax to plaintiffs, filed with court on 4/5/93. mailed by judge's staff (fce) (Entered: 03/19/1993)
1041 MINUTE ORDER of 3/17/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : At the request of the plaintiffs, in open court, during pre-trial conference of 03/16/93, plaintiff's motion to enforce Sections B.1, B.6, D.6, F.4, & 6.7 of the second interim order & the suplemental remedial orders of September & October, 1992 is withdrawn. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 03/23/1993)
1042 MOTION by plaintiffs to exclude William Hazard from testifying as an expert witness and for sanctions ; notice of filing and certificate of service (smw) (Entered: 03/23/1993)
1043 RESPONSE by intervenor Rockford Education, intervenor Rockford Building, intervenor Educational Office to plaintiffs' first discovery request to intervenors (Exhibits); notice of filing & certificate of service (smw) (Entered: 03/23/1993)
1055 MOTION by Sandra Lucas to strike verified motion for leave to intervene and demand to dismiss action (smw) (Entered: 04/02/1993)
1056 MOTION by Kevin T. Noble to strike verified motion for leave to intervene and demand to dismiss action (smw) (Entered: 04/02/1993)
1057 MOTION by Richard A. Leatherby and Mary J. Leatherby to strike verified motion for leave to intervene and demand to dismiss action (smw) (Entered: 04/02/1993)
1058 MOTION by Leslie S. Pergande and Ottilia P. Pergande to strike verified motion for leave to intervene and demand to dismiss action (smw) (Entered: 04/02/1993)
1044 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS of counsel for intervenorsdefendants; notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 03/24/1993)
1045 ESTIMATE OF REQUIRED TRIAL TIME by plaintiffs; notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 03/24/1993)
1046 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for request to take judicial notice (Exhibits); notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 03/24/1993)
1047 MINUTE ORDER of 3/23/93 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski :

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 69 of 307

03/23/1993
03/23/1993 03/23/1993 03/23/1993
03/23/1993 03/23/1993 03/23/1993 03/24/1993 03/24/1993

Petitioners Kevin Noble, Sandra Lucas, Richard and Mary Leatherby, and Leslie and Ottilia Pergande have moved to withdraw their petition to intervene. The motion is granted and their petition is stricken. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 03/24/1993)
1048 MINUTE ORDER of 3/23/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The following time limitations are hereby imposed upon the parties for the upcoming liability hearing: Plaintiffs shall be limited to ninety-five (95) hours to present their case in chief and cross-examine witnesses. Defendants shall be limited to forty-five (45) hours to present their defense and cross-examine witnesses. Defendant intervenors shall be limited to twenty (20) hours to present their defense and cross-examine witnesses. Parties are hereby on notice that the court will strictly adhere to the above time limitations. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 03/25/1993)
1049 MINUTE ORDER of 3/23/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's motion for request to take judicial notice [1046-1] shall be heard by this court as part of the pre-trial conference set for 04/02/93 at 10:00 a.m. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 03/25/1993)
1059 RESPONSE by plaintiff to defendant's motions to exclude evidence [1028-1] [1025-1]; notice of filing (Exhibit) (smw) (Entered: 04/02/1993)
1060 MINUTE ORDER of 3/23/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs will submit a substantially complete exhibit list in the citations (footnotes or endnotes) to their findings of fact. Plaintiffs will submit a final list of exhibits at the 04/02/93 pre-trial conference, defendant and defendantintervenors by 04/04/93 at 3:00 p.m. Plaintiffs will object to same no later than prior to defendant's case. A document which is Bates-stamped and has been produced in discovery in this case will not be barred from admission at trial solely because it has not been listed as a pre-trial exhibit. Parties will retain the right to object to admission of any such documents. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 04/02/1993)
1061 MINUTE ORDER of 3/23/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Copies of exhibits sought to be admitted shall be tendered to the court on 04/05/93. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 04/02/1993)
1062 MINUTE ORDER of 3/23/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Schedule for submission of student-assignment findings. (See reverse side of minute order.) Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 04/02/1993)
1063 MINUTE ORDER of 3/23/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's position with regard to plaintiffs' requests to admit. (See reverse side of minute order.) Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 04/02/1993)
1054 RESPONSE by Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiffs' motion in limine [1040-1] (fce) (Entered: 03/29/1993)
1064 RESPONSE by intervenors-defendants Rockford Education, Association, Rockford Building Maintenance, and Educational Office Personnel to plaintiffs' motion in limine [1040-1]; notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 04/02/1993)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 70 of 307

03/24/1993 03/25/1993 03/25/1993 03/25/1993 03/25/1993 03/25/1993 03/26/1993 03/26/1993
03/26/1993
03/26/1993
03/26/1993
03/26/1993 03/26/1993 03/26/1993

1065 NOTICE OF FILING by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed regarding motion response [1054-1] (smw) (Entered: 04/02/1993)
1050 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date: 2/18/93 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 03/29/1993)
1051 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date: 3/8/93 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 03/29/1993)
1052 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date: 3/16/93 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 03/29/1993)
1053 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date: 3/19/93 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 03/29/1993)
1066 AMENDED RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' requests to admit; notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 04/02/1993)
1067 PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs regarding legal authorities; notice of filing (smw) Modified on 04/02/1993 (Entered: 04/02/1993)
1068 MINUTE ORDER of 3/26/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's motion in limine [1025-1] is allowed in part, as modified and denied in part. (See reverse side of minute order for clarification.) Written opinion to be filed at a later date. Mailed notice (smw) Modified on 04/02/1993 (Entered: 04/02/1993)
1069 MINUTE ORDER of 3/26/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiff's motion in limine [1040-1], Items 1, 3 & 4 are allowed as modified. (See reverse for modifications.) Argument regarding Item 2 will be heard during the final pre-trial conference on 04/02/93. Written opinion to be filed at a later date. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 04/02/1993)
1070 MINUTE ORDER of 3/26/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs' motion to exclude William Hazard from testifying as an expert [1042-1] shall be heard as part of the final pre-trial conference to be held on 04/02/93. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 04/02/1993)
1071 MINUTE ORDER of 3/26/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's motion to exclude Michael J. Stolee as an expert witness [1028-1] is denied. Written opinion to be filed at a later date. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 04/02/1993)
1072 NOTICE OF RECORD RETURN showing 18 loose pleadings enclosed (smw) (Entered: 04/02/1993)
1073 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT by plaintiffs Parts 3-16; notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 04/02/1993)
1078 MINUTE ORDER of 3/26/93 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Petition to Intervene of Proposed Intervenors Kaeding, Elliot and Evelyn M. Ahmer, and Edwin and Evelyn L. Ahmer is denied and the petition is dismissed. Motion for Sanctions is denied. [989-3], [986-3], [946-1], [945-1], [920-1] mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/12/1993)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 71 of 307

03/29/1993 03/29/1993 03/29/1993 03/29/1993 03/30/1993 03/30/1993
03/31/1993
04/01/1993 04/01/1993 04/01/1993 04/01/1993 04/01/1993 04/01/1993 04/01/1993 04/02/1993

1074 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT regarding student assignment & other related issues (Findings Section 2); notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 04/02/1993)
1075 ROCKFORD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HISTORIES (smw) (Entered: 04/02/1993)
1076 STAFF SEGREGATION & COLLECTIVE BARGAINING HISTORY (Findings Section 3) (smw) (Entered: 04/02/1993)
1077 EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION (Findings Section 17) (smw) (Entered: 04/02/1993)
Text not available. (Entered: 04/12/1993)
1080 MINUTE ORDER of 3/30/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Setting hearing on motion to strike "Plaintiffs' March 25 Proposed Statement of Facts", or Certain Portions thereof, and for other relief, [1079-1] at 8:30 on 3/30/93. Defendant's Motion is hereby GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. See Reverse Side of this order for Specific Ruling. mailed by judge's staff (fce) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
1079 MOTION by Rockford Board Of Ed to strike "Plaintiffs' March 25 Proposed Statement of Facts", or Certain Portions thereof, and for other relief, Exhibits A-G; notice of emergency motion to be heard 3/29/93. (fce) Modified on 04/12/1993 (Entered: 04/12/1993)
1081 MOTION by intervenor for request to take judicial notice ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
1082 MOTION by Rockford Board Of Ed to strike certain portions of Plaintiffs' proposed findings of fact ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
1083 MOTION by Rockford Board Of Ed for request to take judicial notice of administrative proceedings ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
1084 MOTION by Rockford Board Of Ed for leave to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law with respecxt to post 1989 conduct. ;notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
1085 MOTION by Rockford Board Of Ed of withdrawal of experts. ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
1086 MOTION by Rockford Board Of Ed to exclude certain testimony of Plaintiffs' experts Jeanne Oakes and David Bennett. Exhibits A,B; notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
1087 MOTION by Rockford Board Of Ed for protective order ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
1088 EXHIBIT list by People Who Care for the April 5, 1993 Permanent injunction hearing, attachments 1,2, notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 04/12/1993)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 72 of 307

04/02/1993 04/02/1993 04/02/1993 04/02/1993 04/02/1993 04/02/1993 04/02/1993
04/05/1993
04/05/1993 04/05/1993 04/05/1993 04/06/1993 04/07/1993

1089 Plaintffs' Designation of Deposition Testimony to be admitted in evidence, notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
1090 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT of April 2, by Plaintiffs' Parts 1-15 and 17, notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
1091 RESPONSE by intervenor to motion to exclude certain testimony of Plaintiffs' experts Jeanne Oakes and David Bennett. [1086-1] (fce) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
1092 RESPONSE by Rockford Board Of Ed and objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order imposing time limitation, notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
1093 MOTION by Rockford Board Of Ed to reconsider and vacate order imposing time limitations. ;notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
1094 MOTION by Rockford Board Of Ed to reconsider order denying defendant's motion in limine ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
1095 MINUTE ORDER of 4/2/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Pretrial conference held. Pretrial conference Set for April 6, 1993 at TBA. Trial set for 4/7/93 at 9:30 a.m. On the court's own motion, liability hearing scheduled to begin April 5, 1993, is hereby rescheduled to start Wednesday, April 7, 1993 at 9:30 a.m.. Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law shall be filed by Thursday, April 15, 1993. Defendant-Intervenor's response shall be filed by Thursday, April 22, 1993. mailed by judge's staff (fce) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
1096 MINUTE ORDER of 4/5/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : ORDER AND WRITTEN OPINION addressing DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE is hereby ORDERED FILED. The written opinion MODIFIES this courts previous ruling by minute order regarding Defendant's Motions in Limine. (#1068) The written opinion MODIFIES this court's previous ruling by minute order regarding Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine. (#1069). See reverse side of this order or written opinion for modification. mailed by judge's staff notice (fce) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
1097 ORDER, re: #1096 order of 4/5/93. (fce) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
1098 NOTICE of Payment of fees and expenses to the court-appointed monitor, Exhibits A, B; notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
1099 RESPONSE by Rockford Board Of Ed and Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order Denying Defendant's Motion in Limine; notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
1100 MOTION by Educational Office, Rockford Building, Rockford Education, Rockford Education for leave to to transfer to Article III Judge. (fce) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
1101 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date: 4/2/93 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 04/12/1993)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 73 of 307

04/07/1993 04/07/1993 04/07/1993 04/07/1993 04/07/1993
04/07/1993 04/07/1993
04/07/1993
04/08/1993 04/08/1993
04/08/1993
04/08/1993 04/08/1993

1102 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date: 3/29/93 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
1103 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date: 3/30/93 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
1104 MOTION by People Who Care for the Appointment of a special master ;notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1105 MEMORANDUM by People Who Care in opposition to motion for leave to to transfer to Article III Judge. [1100-1] (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1106 MINUTE ORDER of 4/7/93 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : The parties are ordered to have all attorneys who have materially participated in the compilation of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law present April 8, 9, and 10(if necessary), 1993 for the purpose of conducting a Rule 12(k) conference. mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1107 MINUTE ORDER of 4/7/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Denying motion to reconsider order denying defendant's motion in limine [1094-1] mailed by judge's staff notice (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1108 MINUTE ORDER of 4/7/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's Motion to Reconsider and Vacate this court's imposition of time limitations during the upcoming injunction hearing is hereby DENIED. Written opinion to be filed at a later date.[1093-1], [1093-2] mailed by judge's staff (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1109 MINUTE ORDER of 4/7/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Hearing hearing held and continued to 4/9/93 at 10:00 a.m. Permanent injunction hearing held and continued to Friday, April 9, 1993 at 10:00 a.m. no notice (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
Text not available. (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1110 MINUTE ORDER of 4/8/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The parties are allowed to make copies in the Clerk's Office free of charge during the 12 K conferences conducted pursuant to the order of Judge Roszkowski on April 8 and 9, 1993. Thses copies are for the convenience of the court. no notice (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1111 MINUTE ORDER of 4/8/93 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : The motion to transfer the proceedings and the motion for appointment of a master are denied. The referral to Magistrate Mahoney pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec 636(b)(1)(B) stands as previously ordered. [1104-1], [1100-1] mailed by judge's staff (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1112 ORDER, re: minute order of 4/8/93, #1111. (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1113 MINUTE ORDER of 4/8/93 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Defendant's Objections to the Magistrate's order on Defendant's motions in limine are denied. See Order attached mailed by judge's staff (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 74 of 307

04/08/1993 04/08/1993 04/08/1993 04/08/1993
04/09/1993 04/09/1993 04/09/1993 04/09/1993 04/09/1993
04/09/1993 04/12/1993

1114 ORDER, re: minute order of 4/8/93, #1113 (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1115 MINUTE ORDER of 4/8/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : WRITTEN OPINION regarding Defendant's Motion to Reconsider and Vacate Order Imposing Time Limitations is ORDERED FILED. See Order attached. mailed by judge's staff (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1116 ORDER, re:minute order of 4/8/93, #1115. (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1117 MINUTE ORDER of 4/8/93 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Defendant's motion for enlargement of time at hearing is granted in part and denied in part. Time limitations as set by the magistrate are to stand. upon good cause shown by either party, the Magistrate is to allow that party to proceed beyond its time limitations. mailed by judge's staff (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1118 REPLY by Rockford Board Of Ed to response to Plaintiffs Memorandum in opposition to joint motion of Defendants and Intervenors for Transfer of Permanent Injunction Proceedings to District Court Judge. (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1119 OBJECTIONS by Rockford Board Of Ed to and Appeal from that Portion of the Magistrate Judge's Order and written opinion denying Defendant's Motions in Limine, notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1120 OBJECTIONS by Rockford Board Of Ed to appeal from Magistrate Judge's Order denying Defendant's Motion to reconsider and vacate order imposing time limitations. (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1121 OBJECTIONS by Rockford Board Of Ed to and appeal from the Magistrate Judge's Order denying Defendant's motion to reconsider order denying defendant's motions in limine, notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1122 OBJECTIONS by Rockford Board Of Ed to and appeal from that portion of the Magistrate Judge's Order denying defendant's emergency motion to strike "Plaintiffs" March 25 Proposed statement of facts", or certain portions thereof, and for other relief, notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1123 MINUTE ORDER of 4/9/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Per mament injunction hearing held and continued to Monday, April 12, 1993. Hearing held and continued to Monday, 4/12/93 at 9:30 a.m.. no notice (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1124 MINUTE ORDER of 4/12/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The Department of Housing and Urban Development is hereby ORDERED AND DIRECTED to provide this court with a copy of the case file in Case No. 05-76-07-001-350, between the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Rockford Housing Authority. The case file in question should be sent to this court no later than Monday, April 26, 1993. Notices mailed by judge's staff. (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 75 of 307

04/12/1993
04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993
04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993

1125 MINUTE ORDER of 4/12/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's motion for leave to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to post 1989 conduct. [1084-1] is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. mailed by judge's staff (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1126 MINUTE ORDER of 4/12/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs' motion to exclude testimony of defendant expert Turza is shown as WITHDRAWN by Plaintiff in open court on Friday, April 9, 1993. mailed by judge's staff (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1127 MINUTE ORDER of 4/12/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's Motion to take Judgicial Notice shown as WITHDRAWN pursuant to Defendant' request in open court on Friday, April 9, 1993. [1081-1] mailed by judge's staff (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1128 MINUTE ORDER of 4/12/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : GRANTING motion for protective order as MODIFIED by the parties in open court on Friday, April 9, 1993. [1087-1] mailed by judge's staff (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1129 MINUTE ORDER of 4/12/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's motion for request to take judicial notice of administrative proceedings [1083-1] is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT, awaiting arrival of Administrative record in case no. 05-76-07-001-350.(HUD). . mailed by judge's staff (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1130 MINUTE ORDER of 4/12/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Hearing held and continued to Tuesday, 4/13/93 at 9:30 a.m.. Permanent injunction hearing held and continuted to Tuesday, April 13, 1993. no notice (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1131 MINUTE ORDER of 4/12/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The CLERK of the court is hereby ORDERED TO FILE ALL DEPOSITIONS offered by the parties in the above captioned matter. no notice (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1132 DEPOSITION of Phyllis Archambeau taken on the following date: 12/17/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1133 DEPOSITION of George Aschenbrenner taken on the following date: 12/28/92 (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1134 DEPOSITION of Chester Baker taken on the following date: 3/8/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1135 DEPOSITION of Bobbie Belk taken on the following date: 3/22/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1136 DEPOSITION of Carol Bell taken on the following date: 3/5/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1137 DEPOSITION of Susan Belvoir taken on the following date: 3/8/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 76 of 307

04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993

1138 DEPOSITION of David Bennett taken on the following date: 3/29/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1139 DEPOSITION of Betty Bias taken on the following date: 3/8/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1140 DEPOSITION of William Bowen taken on the following date: 10/22/92 (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1141 DEPOSITION of Thomas Boyer taken on the following date: 12/29/92 (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1142 DEPOSITION of Alfred Brewington taken on the following date: 3/12/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1143 DEPOSITION of Anthony Brown taken on the following date: 3/9/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1144 DEPOSITION of Robert Buchholtz taken on the following date: 2/4/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1145 DEPOSITION of William Patrick Collins taken on the following date: 9/4/92 (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1146 EXHIBITS #1-4, of William Patrick Collins (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1147 DEPOSITION of Jacquelyn Confer taken on the following date: 9/29/92 (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1148 DEPOSITION of Tiana Cook taken on the following date(s): 3/9/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1149 DEPOSITION of John Costello taken on the following date: 1/7/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1150 DEPOSITION of Dan Dickover taken on the following date: 3/12/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1151 DEPOSITION of Mary Dickover taken on the following date: 3/11/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1152 DEPOSITION of Michael Driscoll taken on the following date: 10/5/92 (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1153 DEPOSITION of Anthony Fabiano taken on the following date: 1/12/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1154 DEPOSITION of Avery Gage taken on the following date: 2/3/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1155 DEPOSITION of Constance Goode taken on the following date: 3/24/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1156 DEPOSITION of Constance Goode taken on the following date: 3/8/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 77 of 307

04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993

1157 DEPOSITION of Robert Greene taken on the following date: 1/14/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1158 DEPOSITION of Marcelle Harris taken on the following date: 3/11/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1159 DEPOSITION of George Hayward taken on the following date: 3/8/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1160 DEPOSITION of William Hazard taken on the following date: 3/17/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1161 DEPOSITION of James Heald taken on the following date(s): 3/8/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1162 DEPOSITION of Gary Heideman taken on the following date(s): 2/3/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1163 DEPOSITION of Terry Hodges taken on the following date(s): 2/3/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1164 DEPOSITION of Colleen Holmbeck taken on the following date: 1/19/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
1165 DEPOSITION of Florence Ausler taken on the following date: 2/26/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1166 DEPOSITION of Curtis Anderson taken on the following date: 1/27/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1167 DEPOSITION of Eloise Beal taken on the following date: 1/29/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1168 DEPOSITION of Alecia Benford taken on the following date: 2/16/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1169 DEPOSITION of Kara Biery taken on the following date: 2/8/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1170 DEPOSITION of Horace Box taken on the following date: 2/9/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1171 DEPOSITION of Eleanor Brown taken on the following date: 2/18/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1172 DEPOSITION of Linda Brown taken on the following date: 2/16/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1173 DEPOSITION of Andy Campos taken on the following date: 2/9/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1174 DEPOSITION of Ardis Cook taken on the following date: 1/27/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1175 DEPOSITION of Galon Darby taken on the following date: 2/15/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 78 of 307

04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993

1176 DEPOSITION of Rosa Gerdes taken on the following date(s): 1/29/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1177 DEPOSITION of Sandra Glaspie taken on the following date: 3/3/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1178 DEPOSITION of Karen Vaughn Harding taken on the following date: 1/12/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1179 DEPOSITION of Mary Hawks taken on the following date(s): 2/24/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1180 DEPOSITION of Barbara Hildreth taken on the following date: 2/24/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1181 DEPOSITION of Paul Hill, Jr taken on the following date(s): 2/8/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1182 DEPOSITION of Flossie Hoarde taken on the following date: 2/16/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1183 DEPOSITION of Sidella Hughes taken on the following date: 1/29/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1184 DEPOSITION of Isaac Johnson taken on the following date(s): 1/29/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1185 DEPOSITION of Charles Joseph taken on the following date: 2/8/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1186 DEPOSITION of Arthur Johnson taken on the following date: 2/9/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1187 DEPOSITION of Robert Kufalk taken on the following date(s): 3/11/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1188 DEPOSITION of Nona Larson taken on the following date(s): 1/12/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1189 DEPOSITION of Adrienne Lilly taken on the following date: 3/10/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1190 DEPOSITION of Ivan Linnabary taken on the following date: 3/12/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1191 DEPOSITION of Ruth Lewis taken on the following date(s): 2/8/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1192 DEPOSITION of Martha Pulido Logemann taken on the following date: 2/10/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1193 DEPOSITION of Hiram G. Luna taken on the following date(s): 3/10/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1194 DEPOSITION of Charles Mc Anarny taken on the following date: 1/7/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 79 of 307

04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993

1195 DEPOSITION of Kenneth McKenzie taken on the following date: 3/4/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1196 DEPOSITION of Rick McVinnie taken on the following date(s): 3/22/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1197 DEPOSITION of Louis Malone taken on the following date(s): 1/27/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1198 DEPOSITION of Wilfort Malone taken on the following date(s): 1/27/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1199 DEPOSITION of Nate Martin taken on the following date(s): 1/7/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1200 DEPOSITION of Victoria Mayer taken on the following date(s): 3/11/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1201 DEPOSITION of Della Mayhorn taken on the following date(s): 3/8/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1202 DEPOSITION of Mary Mercado taken on the following date(s): 1/27/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1203 DEPOSITION of Josephine Minor taken on the following date(s): 10/20/92 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1204 DEPOSITION of Julia Miranda taken on the following date(s): 3/30/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1205 DEPOSITION of Corwyn Moore taken on the following date(s): 3/10/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1206 DEPOSITION of Barbara Neville taken on the following date(s): 12/17/92 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1207 DEPOSITION of Doris Nolan taken on the following date(s): 1/27/92 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1208 DEPOSITION of Jeanne Oakes taken on the following date(s): 3/9/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1209 DEPOSITION of James Olson taken on the following date(s): 12/17/92 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1210 DEPOSITION of Billy Page taken on the following date(s): 2/17/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1211 DEPOSITION of Linda Patterson taken on the following date(s): 3/12/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1212 DEPOSITION of Patricia Poole taken on the following date(s): 9/25/92 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1213 DEPOSITION of Karen Portis taken on the following date(s): 3/8/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 80 of 307

04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993

1214 DEPOSITION of Gwen Robinson taken on the following date(s): 2/10/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1215 DEPOSITION of Katherine Robinson taken on the following date(s): 2/25/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1216 DEPOSITION of Sterne Roufa taken on the following date(s): 10/5/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1217 DEPOSITION of Ann Rundell taken on the following date(s): 2/10/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1218 DEPOSITION of Pat Redmond taken on the following date(s): 1/29/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1219 DEPOSITION of Christine Saleem taken on the following date(s): 3/1/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1220 DEPOSITION of Curtis Saulter taken on the following date(s): 3/15/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1221 DEPOSITION of Joanne Shaheen taken on the following date(s): 4/5/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1222 DEPOSITION of Byron Shanklin taken on the following date(s): 9/22/92 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1223 DEPOSITION of Glenda Shaver taken on the following date(s): 1/14/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1224 DEPOSITION of Doral Simons taken on the following date(s): 2/10/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1225 DEPOSITION of Michael Stolee taken on the following date(s): 2/26/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1226 DEPOSITION of Kurt Suhr taken on the following date(s): 12/17/92 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1227 DEPOSITION of Maurice Sullivan taken on the following date(s): 2/5/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1228 DEPOSITION of Marshall Starks taken on the following date(s): 3/5/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1229 DEPOSITION of Marshall Starks taken on the following date(s): 3/5/93, VOL II. (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1230 DEPOSITION of Robert Taylor taken on the following date(s): 3/11/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1231 DEPOSITION of Lecie Threet taken on the following date(s): 2/16/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1232 DEPOSITION of Amy Bradley-Thomas taken on the following date(s): 3/12/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 81 of 307

04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993 04/13/1993
04/13/1993

1233 DEPOSITION of Marvin Thompson taken on the following date(s): 1/7/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1234 DEPOSITION of Carl Towns taken on the following date(s): 1/19/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1235 DEPOSITION of William Trapp taken on the following date(s): 12/17/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1236 DEPOSITION of Beulah Tripplett taken on the following date(s): 2/15/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1237 DEPOSITION of Joseph Turner taken on the following date(s): 2/25/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1238 DEPOSITION of Michael Turza taken on the following date(s): 3/1/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1239 DEPOSITION of Ousley Walker taken on the following date(s): 3/3/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1240 DEPOSITION of Richard Wehrle taken on the following date(s): 1/29/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1241 DEPOSITION of Edwin Wells taken on the following date(s): 1/8/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1242 DEPOSITION of Karen Wilkerson taken on the following date(s): 3/4/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1243 DEPOSITION of Mary Williams taken on the following date(s): 2/15/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1244 DEPOSITION of Clifford Wilson taken on the following date(s): 1/14/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1245 DEPOSITION of Costello Wilson taken on the following date(s): 2/8/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1246 DEPOSITION of Robert Wright taken on the following date(s): 2/19/93 (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1247 NOTICE of filing by Rockford Board Of Ed of Depositions #1132-1246. (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
1248 MINUTE ORDER of 4/13/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Parties are hereby ORDERED to reveal their proposed witnesses at least twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the day they are scheduled to testify. Further parties shall provide opposing counsel with copies or a listing of the documents and/or exhibits the proposed witness intends to use. mailed by judge's staff (fce) (Entered: 04/15/1993)
1249 MINUTE ORDER of 4/13/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs' proposed Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law, with respect to witnesses who have testified through April 17, 1993, inclusive, are to be

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 82 of 307

04/13/1993
04/14/1993
04/14/1993 04/14/1993 04/14/1993 04/14/1993 04/14/1993 04/14/1993 04/14/1993 04/14/1993 04/14/1993 04/14/1993 04/14/1993 04/14/1993 04/14/1993 04/14/1993 04/14/1993

filed by 5:00 p.m., April 23, 1993. Defendant and Defendant-Intervenors shall respond by 5:00 p.m., April 30, 1993. mailed by judge's staff (fce) (Entered: 04/15/1993)
1250 MINUTE ORDER of 4/13/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Hearing on motion for permanent injunction [647-1] held and continued to 9:30 am on 4/14/93 no notice (fce) (Entered: 04/15/1993)
1251 MINUTE ORDER of 4/14/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Permanent injunction hearing held and continued to 4/15/93 at 1:00 p.m.. no notice (fce) (Entered: 04/15/1993)
1253 DEPOSITION of William Bowen taken on the following date(s): 6/9/89. (fce) Modified on 04/16/1993 (Entered: 04/16/1993)
1254 DEPOSITION of Thomas Boyer taken on the following date(s): 6/9/89. (fce) Modified on 04/16/1993 (Entered: 04/16/1993)
1255 DEPOSITION of Robert Buchholtz taken on the following date(s): 6/7/89 (fce) (Entered: 04/16/1993)
1256 DEPOSITION of Jacquelyn Confer taken on the following date(s): 6/16/89 (fce) (Entered: 04/16/1993)
1257 DEPOSITION of Larry Curtin taken on the following date(s): 6/13/89 (fce) (Entered: 04/16/1993)
1258 DEPOSITION of John Devereueawax taken on the following date(s): 6/21/89 (fce) (Entered: 04/16/1993)
1259 DEPOSITION of Avery Gage taken on the following date(s): 6/20/89 (fce) (Entered: 04/16/1993)
1260 DEPOSITION of Jacquelyn Ferguson taken on the following date(s): 6/21/89 (fce) (Entered: 04/16/1993)
1261 DEPOSITION of James Heald taken on the following date(s): 6/22/89 (fce) (Entered: 04/16/1993)
1262 DEPOSITION of William Hazard taken on the following date(s): 6/19/89 (fce) (Entered: 04/16/1993)
1263 DEPOSITION of Robert Howard taken on the following date(s): 10/18/89 (fce) (Entered: 04/16/1993)
1264 DEPOSITION of Sidella Hughes taken on the following date(s): 6/21/89 (fce) (Entered: 04/16/1993)
1265 DEPOSITION of Ashraf Manji taken on the following date(s): 6/26/89 (fce) (Entered: 04/16/1993)
1266 DEPOSITION of Jo Minor taken on the following date(s): 6/16/89 (fce) (Entered: 04/16/1993)
1267 DEPOSITION of Christine Saleem taken on the following date(s): 6/21/89 (fce) (Entered: 04/16/1993)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 83 of 307

04/14/1993 04/14/1993 04/14/1993 04/14/1993 04/14/1993 04/14/1993 04/15/1993
04/15/1993 04/16/1993 04/16/1993
04/17/1993
04/19/1993 04/20/1993 04/21/1993 04/21/1993

1268 DEPOSITION of John Swanson taken on the following date(s): 6/27/89 (fce) (Entered: 04/16/1993)
1269 DEPOSITION of Beulah Tripplett taken on the following date(s): 6/21/89 (fce) (Entered: 04/16/1993)
1270 DEPOSITION of Edwin Wells taken on the following date(s): 6/13/89 (fce) (Entered: 04/16/1993)
1271 DEPOSITION of Fred Wham III taken on the following date(s): 6/16/89 (fce) (Entered: 04/16/1993)
1272 DEPOSITION of 6/20/89 taken on the following date(s): 6/20/89 (fce) (Entered: 04/16/1993)
1273 NOTICE by Rockford Board Of Ed of transcripts of #1253-1272. (fce) (Entered: 04/16/1993)
1252 MINUTE ORDER of 4/15/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Upon Plaintiffs' motion and without any objection, certain portions of the deposition of Doral Simons taken on 2/10/93, (1224) are hereby ORDERED REDACTED. no notice (fce) (Entered: 04/15/1993)
1275 OBJECTIONS by plaintiffs to the Magistrate's April 5, 1993 order [1097-1]; notice of filing (Exhibit) (smw) (Entered: 04/21/1993)
1274 NOTICE to the Court of Service of Court Order by Rockford Board of Education. (fce) (Entered: 04/16/1993)
1276 MINUTE ORDER of 4/16/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Permanent injunction hearing held and continued to Saturday, 04/17/93 at 9:30 a.m. No notices required. (smw) Modified on 04/21/1993 (Entered: 04/21/1993)
1277 MINUTE ORDER of 4/17/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Permanent injunction hearing held and continued to Monday, 04/19/93 at 9:30 a.m. No notices required. (smw) Modified on 04/21/1993 (Entered: 04/21/1993)
1278 MINUTE ORDER of 4/19/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Permanent injunction hearing held and continued to Tuesday, 04/20/93 at 9:30 a.m. No notices required. (smw) (Entered: 04/21/1993)
1279 MINUTE ORDER of 4/20/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Hearing held and continued to Wednesday, 04/21/93 at 9:30 a.m. No notices required. (smw) (Entered: 04/22/1993)
1280 MINUTE ORDER of 4/21/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Permanent injunction hearing held and continued to Thursday, 04/22/93 at 9:30 a.m. No notices required (smw) (Entered: 04/26/1993)
1283 MINUTE ORDER of 4/21/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs stipulate their motion to exclude (#1042) [1042-1] is now moot, therefore, the clerk is hereby ordered to take notice and have the record so indicate. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 04/26/1993)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 84 of 307

04/21/1993
04/22/1993 04/22/1993
04/23/1993 04/23/1993 04/23/1993 04/26/1993 04/26/1993 04/26/1993 04/26/1993 04/26/1993 04/26/1993

1298 MINUTE ORDER of 4/21/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's motion to take judicial notice [1046-1] is granted as modified. The court hereby takes judicial notice of the decisions and facts stated in the opinions Aurora East Public School District No. 131 v. Cronin, 92 Ill. 2d 313 (1982) and 92 Ill.App.3d 1010 (1981); Chicago Heights Public School v. Illinois State Board of Education, 97 Ill.App.3d 246 (1981). The court takes judicial notice of the decisions and the court file, (to the extent it is extant), in the QUEFAC cases, Quality Education for All Children, Inc. v. School Board of School District No. 205, 362 F.Supp. 985 (1973); and 385F.Supp. 985 (1973). Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 04/27/1993)
1281 MINUTE ORDER of 4/22/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Permanent injunction hearing held and continued to Friday, 04/23/93 at 9:30 a.m. No notices required, advised in open court. (smw) (Entered: 04/26/1993)
1282 MINUTE ORDER of 4/22/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Rockford School District No. 205 is hereby ordered and directed to produce, at District expense, their employee Ms. Victoria Mayer. Ms. Mayer is to appear before this court on Friday, 04/23/93 at 9:00 a.m. No notices required, advised in open court. (smw) (Entered: 04/26/1993)
1284 MINUTE ORDER of 4/23/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Permanent injunction hearing held and continued to Monday, 04/26/93 at 9:30 a.m. No notices required (smw) (Entered: 04/26/1993)
1300 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Education to plaintiffs' objections to the Magistrate's 04/05/93 order; notice of filing; (received for docketing on 04/28/93). (smw) Modified on 04/28/1993 (Entered: 04/28/1993)
1301 OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Education to and appeal from the Magistrate Judge's written opinion regarding defendant's motion to reconsider and vacate order imposing time limitations; notice of filing; (received for docketing on 04/28/93). (smw) (Entered: 04/28/1993)
1285 DEPONENT'S CERTIFICATE by Marshall Starks (smw) (Entered: 04/27/1993)
1286 DEPOSITION of David A. Bennett taken on the following date(s): 04/18/93; notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 04/27/1993)
1287 DEPOSITION of Michael J. Williams taken on the following date(s): 03/16/93 (smw) (Entered: 04/27/1993)
1288 DEPOSITION of Henrietta Dotson-Williams taken on the following date (s): 03/16/93 (smw) (Entered: 04/27/1993)
1289 DEPOSITION of Earnestine Kendall taken on the following date(s): 03/09/93 (smw) (Entered: 04/27/1993)
1290 DEPOSITION of Wanda Hill taken on the following date(s): 03/09/93 (smw) (Entered: 04/27/1993)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 85 of 307

04/26/1993 04/26/1993 04/26/1993 04/26/1993 04/26/1993 04/26/1993 04/26/1993
04/26/1993 05/03/1993 05/03/1993 05/04/1993 05/05/1993
05/05/1993 05/05/1993
05/05/1993

1291 DEPOSITION of Raul Medrano taken on the following date(s): 03/09/93 (smw) (Entered: 04/27/1993)
1292 DEPOSITION of Melinda Reitman taken on the following date(s): 03/09/93 (smw) (Entered: 04/27/1993)
1293 DEPOSITION of Katherine D. Golden taken on the following date(s): 03/16/93 (smw) (Entered: 04/27/1993)
1294 DEPOSITION of Jermane McDaniel taken on the following date(s): 03/09/93 (smw) (Entered: 04/27/1993)
1295 VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION of Dr. Joanne Shaheen taken on the following date(s): 04/05/93 (smw) (Entered: 04/27/1993)
1296 CERTIFICATE of videotape operator regarding the deposition of Dr. Joanne Shaheen [1295-1] (smw) (Entered: 04/27/1993)
1297 MINUTE ORDER of 4/26/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendants' motion to exclude certain testimony of plaintiffs' experts Oakes & Bennet [1086-1] is hereby denied as to plaintiffs' expert Oakes, and taken under advisement, as to plaintiffs' expert Bennett. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 04/27/1993)
1299 MINUTE ORDER of 4/26/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Permanent injunction hearing held and continued to Wednesday, 04/28/93 at 9:30 a.m. No notices required. (smw) (Entered: 04/28/1993)
1302 LETTER dated 04/29/93 to Honorable P. Michael Mahoney from Thomas Higginbothan of the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (smw) (Entered: 05/04/1993)
1303 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' proposed findings of fact; notice of filing (Attachments) (smw) (Entered: 05/07/1993)
1304 RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to the plaintiffs' list of exhibits for the 04/05/93 permanent hearing (Attachment) (smw) (Entered: 05/07/1993)
1305 MINUTE ORDER of 5/5/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's motion to strike portions of plaintiffs' proposed findings of fact [1082-1] is allowed as modified and agreed by the parties during the court ordered Rule 12 deliberations. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 05/07/1993)
1306 MINUTE ORDER of 5/5/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's motion to exclude certain testimony of plaintiffs' expert David Bennett [1086-1] is hereby denied. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 05/07/1993)
1307 MINUTE ORDER of 5/5/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's response and objections to plaintiffs' list of exhibits for the 04/05/93 permanent injunction hearing is hereby denied. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 05/07/1993)
1308 MINUTE ORDER of 5/5/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 86 of 307

05/05/1993
05/05/1993 05/05/1993 05/05/1993
05/05/1993
05/05/1993 05/06/1993 05/06/1993 05/06/1993 05/06/1993

motion to file findings of fact & conclusion of law with respect to post89 conduct [1083-1] is hereby denied. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 05/07/1993)
1309 MINUTE ORDER of 5/5/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The court's order of this date regarding defendant's motion to file findings of fact and conclusion of law with respect to post-89 conduct [1083-1] is hereby stricken, and the following ruling is ordered filed nunc pro tunc. Defendant's motion to file findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to post-89 conduct [1084-1] is denied. However, post-89 material shall be accepted as an offer of proof. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 05/07/1993)
1311 MINUTE ORDER of 5/5/93 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : The court hereby approves and enters the agreement of plaintiffs, defendant Rockford School District 205, and the intervenor defendants concerning the liability hearing adjudication process and certain remedial matters. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 05/07/1993)
1312 ORDER (smw) Modified on 05/07/1993 (Entered: 05/07/1993)
1313 MINUTE ORDER of 5/5/93 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Pursuant to the agreement of the parties concerning the liability hearing and certain remedial matters, para. 13, the second interim order, FRCP 53, and plaintiffs' motion for appointment of a master, the court hereby appoints Dr. Eugene Eubanks Special Master under the second interim order and paragraph 13 of the agreement. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 05/07/1993)
1314 MINUTE ORDER of 5/5/93 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636 (c) (1) and (3) and the agreement of the parties concerning the liability hearing and certain remedial matters, paragraph 12, the court hereby refers all present and future remedial matters in this cause to Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney for hearing. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 05/07/1993)
1328 MINUTE ORDER of 5/5/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Permanent injunction hearing held and continued to Thursday, 05/06/93 at 9:30 a.m. No notices required, advised in open court. (smw) (Entered: 05/13/1993)
1310 AGREEMENT of plaintiffs, defendant Rockford School District 205, and the intervenor-defendants concerning the liability hearing adjudication process and certain remedial matters (Attachments) (smw) (Entered: 05/07/1993)
1315 DEPOSITION of Tiana Cook taken on the following date(s): 03/09/93 (Attachment) (smw) (Entered: 05/07/1993)
1316 DEPOSITION of Karen Wilkerson taken on the following date(s): 03/04/93 (Attachment) (smw) (Entered: 05/07/1993)
1317 DEPOSITION of Ivan Linnabary taken on the following date(s): 03/12/93 (Attachment) (smw) (Entered: 05/07/1993)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 87 of 307

05/06/1993 05/06/1993 05/06/1993 05/06/1993 05/06/1993 05/06/1993 05/06/1993 05/06/1993 05/06/1993 05/06/1993 05/06/1993
05/10/1993
05/10/1993 05/10/1993 05/10/1993 05/10/1993
05/10/1993

1318 DEPOSITION of George Aschenbrenner taken on the following date(s): 12/28/92 (Attachment) (smw) (Entered: 05/07/1993)
1319 DEPOSITION of Anthony L. Brown taken on the following date(s): 03/09/93 (Attachment) (smw) (Entered: 05/07/1993)
1320 DEPOSITION of Linda Patterson taken on the following date(s): 03/12/93 (Attachment) (smw) (Entered: 05/07/1993)
1321 DEPOSITION of William Bowen taken on the following date(s): 10/22/92 (Attachment) (smw) (Entered: 05/07/1993)
1322 DEPOSITION of Carl Towns taken on the following date(s): 01/19/93 (Attachment) (smw) (Entered: 05/07/1993)
1323 DEPOSITION of William Trapp taken on the following date(s): 12/17/92 (Attachment) (smw) (Entered: 05/07/1993)
1324 DEPOSITION of Wilfort Malone taken on the following date(s): 01/27/93 (Attachment) (smw) (Entered: 05/07/1993)
1325 DEPOSITION of Michael J. Williams taken on the following date(s): 03/16/93 (Attachment) (smw) (Entered: 05/07/1993)
1326 DEPOSITION of Mr. Jordan (Lou) Gaspard taken on the following date (s): 08/06/92 (Attachment) (smw) (Entered: 05/07/1993)
1327 DEPOSITION of George Hayward taken on the following date(s): 03/08/93 (Attachment) (smw) (Entered: 05/07/1993)
1329 MINUTE ORDER of 5/6/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Permanent injunction hearing held and continued to Monday, 05/10/93 at 9:30 a.m. No notices required, advised in open court. (smw) (Entered: 05/13/1993)
1330 MINUTE ORDER of 5/10/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Permanent injunction hearing held and continued to Tuesday, 05/11/93 at 9:30 a.m. No notices required, advised in open court. (smw) (Entered: 05/13/1993)
1331 Proposed FINDINGS of fact by defendant Rockford Board of Ed; notice of filing (smw) Modified on 05/13/1993 (Entered: 05/13/1993)
1332 TRIAL brief by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed (smw) (Entered: 05/13/1993)
1333 List of EXHIBITS for the permanent injunction hearing by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed (Exhibits) (smw) (Entered: 05/13/1993)
1334 OFFER OF PROOF by plaintiffs' in the liability proceeding concerning defendant's non-compliance with Section C.8.f (Attachments); notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 05/13/1993)
1341 MINUTE ORDER of 5/10/93 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : The Special Master Order of 05/05/93 (#1312) is amended to correct a transcription error to include plaintiffs' counsel as a member of the planning and implementation committee. (See reverse of minute order.)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 88 of 307

05/11/1993 05/12/1993 05/13/1993 05/13/1993 05/13/1993 05/13/1993 05/13/1993 05/13/1993
05/13/1993 05/13/1993 05/25/1993 05/26/1993 05/26/1993 05/27/1993 06/02/1993

Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 05/20/1993)
1335 RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to the plaintiffs' list of exhibits for the 04/05/93 permanent injunction hearing (Attachment); notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 05/13/1993)
1342 MINUTE ORDER of 5/12/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Hearing held and continued to 05/13/93 at 9:30 a.m. No notices required. (smw) (Entered: 05/20/1993)
1336 DEPOSITION of Delridge Hunter taken on the following date(s): 04/06/93; notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 05/13/1993)
1337 DEPOSITION of Dr. Michael H. Bozym taken on the following date(s): 04/06/93 (smw) (Entered: 05/13/1993)
1338 DEPOSITION of Robert Corder taken on the following date(s): 03/24/93 (smw) (Entered: 05/13/1993)
1339 DEPOSITION of Molly Phalen taken on the following date(s): 03/24/93 (smw) (Entered: 05/13/1993)
1340 DEPOSITION of Thomas Morgan taken on the following date(s): 03/24/93 (smw) (Entered: 05/13/1993)
1343 MINUTE ORDER of 5/13/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Hearing on motion for permanent injunction ended as of this date. Motion is taken under advisement by the court. Report and recommendation to be submitted to the Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski. No notices required. (smw) (Entered: 05/20/1993)
1344 MINUTE ORDER of 5/13/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Parties are hereby ordered to appear for a post-hearing status conference on 06/09/93 at 10:00 a.m. No notices required. (smw) (Entered: 05/20/1993)
1345 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' proposed findings of fact; notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 05/20/1993)
1346 Proposed FINDINGS of fact reflecting defendant's admissions; notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 05/28/1993)
1347 Plaintiffs' Section One ("Individual School Histories") of the plaintiff's proposed findings reflecting defendant's admissions; notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 05/28/1993)
1348 EXHIBIT to plaintiffs proposed findings of fact (smw) (Entered: 05/28/1993)
1349 MINUTE ORDER of 5/27/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant is given until 06/25/93 to file offer of proof regarding post-89 findings of fact and conclusions of law. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 05/28/1993)
1383 OBJECTIONS by plaintiffs to the Magistrate's 06/23/93 order (Exhibit); notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 07/07/1993)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 89 of 307

06/08/1993 06/08/1993
06/08/1993
06/09/1993 06/09/1993 06/09/1993 06/09/1993 06/09/1993 06/09/1993 06/09/1993 06/09/1993 06/09/1993 06/09/1993
06/09/1993

1350 SUPPLEMENTAL stipulated facts by defendant (smw) (Entered: 06/11/1993)
1361 MINUTE ORDER of 6/8/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendants' motion for file Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with regard to Post-89 Conduct [1083-1] is hereby DENIED. Said findings will be accepted as an OFfer of proof. mailed by judge's staff notice (fce) (Entered: 06/15/1993)
1362 MINUTE ORDER of 6/8/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendants' Motion to exclude Certain testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert Bennett is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. All testimony by Plaintiffs' expert Bennet not specifically related to pre-89 time periods is hereby excluded and accepted as an Offer of Proof. [1086-1] mailed by judge's staff (fce) (Entered: 06/15/1993)
1351 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defendant's proposed findings of facti; notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 06/11/1993)
1352 Proposed FINDINGS of fact by plaintiffs [Book I (1-3) & Book II (417)] (smw) Modified on 06/11/1993 (Entered: 06/11/1993)
1353 Proposed general FINDINGS by plaintiffs; notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 06/11/1993)
1354 Proposed CONCLUSIONS of law by plaintiffs (smw) (Entered: 06/11/1993)
1355 POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs (smw) (Entered: 06/11/1993)
1356 POST-HEARING BRIEF by defendant Rockford Board of Education; notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 06/11/1993)
1357 Post-Hearing FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law by defendant Rockford Board of Education (smw) (Entered: 06/11/1993)
1358 POST-TRIAL BRIEF by intervenors-defendants Rockford Education Assoc., Rockford Building Maintenance Assoc., Educational Office Personnel Assoc.; notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 06/11/1993)
1359 List of EXHIBITS for trial by intervenors-defendants Rockford Education Assoc., Rockford Building Maintenance Assoc., Educational Office Personnel Assoc.; notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 06/11/1993)
1360 MOTION by intervenors-defendants Rockford Education Assoc., Rockford Building Maintenance Assoc., Educational Office Personnel Assoc. to substitute corrected copy of 1991-1994 Educational Office Personnel Association, IEA-NEA, collective bargaining agreement (Attachment); notice of filing (smw) Modified on 06/11/1993 (Entered: 06/11/1993)
1363 MINUTE ORDER of 6/9/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Post hearing conference held. Plaintiff given until June 23, 1993 to file an

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 90 of 307

06/09/1993 06/10/1993 06/10/1993 06/21/1993 06/21/1993 06/21/1993
06/22/1993 06/23/1993
06/23/1993 06/23/1993 06/23/1993
06/23/1993 06/23/1993
06/23/1993

amended complaint. Defendants given until July 7, 1993 to respond. mailed by judge's staff (fce) (Entered: 06/15/1993)
1364 PROPOSED FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law (fce) (Entered: 06/15/1993)
1365 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 5/5/93, Before Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski (fce) (Entered: 06/15/1993)
1366 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 4/8/93, Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 06/15/1993)
Text not available. (Entered: 06/23/1993)
1367 RESPONSE by Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiffs' Proposed Findings of Fact, Exhibits A, B, and notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 06/23/1993)
1368 MINUTE ORDER of 6/21/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Previous order of this date directing parties to appear on June 25, 1993 is hereby stricken. Parties are hereby ORDERED to appear before Hon. P. Michael Mahoney on Wed. June 23, 1993 at 11:30.a.m. in chambers. Parties should be prepared to discuss the Rockford School District 1993-94 Revenue Plan. Defendant Intervenors are excused at their option. mailed by judge's staff (fce) (Entered: 06/23/1993)
1373 Tenth PROGRESS REPOROT second interim order; notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 06/25/1993)
1369 MINUTE ORDER of 6/23/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney :The court rules upon the objections made to questions and testimony during depositions and affidavits. See attached Order. mailed by judge's staff (fce) (Entered: 06/23/1993)
1370 ORDER re: ruling of objections during depositions and affidavits. (fce) (Entered: 06/23/1993)
1371 RESPONSE by plaintiff to defendants' objections to affidavits and deposition evidence. (fce) (Entered: 06/23/1993)
1372 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT by People Who Care, Asia Eason, Anissa Tripplett, Shaheed Saleem, Cindy Malone, Jonathan Hughes, Chasty Hoarde, Larry Hoarde; adding Sidney Malone, Andre Malone, James Curtin, Kelly Curtin, Leonardo Medrano (fce) (Entered: 06/23/1993)
1374 ORDER (smw) (Entered: 06/28/1993)
1375 MINUTE ORDER of 6/23/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Status hearing held; re-set for 07/16/93 at 11:30 a.m. The clerk is directed to file the attached order regarding the tort desegregation fund and attorney's fees. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 06/28/1993)
1376 MINUTE ORDER of 6/23/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant-intervenor's motion to substitute corrected copy of collective bargaining agreement [1360-1], is hereby granted. Mailed notice (smw)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 91 of 307

06/23/1993 06/24/1993 06/28/1993 06/30/1993 07/02/1993
07/02/1993 07/06/1993 07/07/1993 07/08/1993 07/08/1993 07/09/1993 07/13/1993

(Entered: 06/28/1993)
1377 OFFER OF PROOF concerning post-filing of lawsuit matters by defendant Rockford Board of Ed; notice of filing (temporarilly unavailable for docketing) (smw) Modified on 07/01/1993 (Entered: 07/01/1993)
1378 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defendant's proposed findings of fact; notice of filing (temporarily unavailable for docketing) (smw) Modified on 07/01/1993 (Entered: 07/01/1993)
1380 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintifffs' offer of proof in the liability proceeding concerning defendant's non-compliance with Section C.8.f.; notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 07/01/1993)
1379 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defendant's amended response to plaintiffs' proposed findings of fact; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/01/1993)
1381 MINUTE ORDER of 7/2/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The court hereby adopts the recommendation of the Master and does now order and require the Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205 to immediately institute the 1993-94 expenditure plan outlined within the Master's report and recommendation dated 06/30/93. The court further orders that the PIC committee be permitted to make budget adjustments within the spending plan that are appropriate and necessary. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 07/06/1993)
1384 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to strike plaintiffs' response to defendant's proposed findings of fact (Exhibit); notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 07/08/1993)
1382 OBJECTIONS by plaintiffs' to the Magistrate's 06/23/93 order (Exhibit); notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 07/06/1993)
1385 MINUTE ORDER of 7/7/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's motion to strike plaintiffs' response to defendant's proposed findings of fact [1384-1] is hereby denied. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 07/09/1993)
1386 ANSWER by intervenors-defendants Rockford Education Association, Rockford Building Maintenance Association, Educational Office Personnel Association to third amended complaint and affirmative defenses; notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 07/12/1993)
1387 NOTICE of payment of fees and expenses to the court-appointed monitor (Exhibits); notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 07/13/1993)
1391 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defendant's motion to strike plaintiffs' responses to defendant's proposed findings of fact; notice of filing and certificate of service (smw) (Entered: 07/16/1993)
1388 RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS of defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to 06/23/93 order of Magistrate Judge regarding the tort desegregation fund and attorneys' fees; notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 07/14/1993)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 92 of 307

07/13/1993 07/13/1993 07/14/1993 07/14/1993
07/16/1993 07/16/1993 07/16/1993 07/16/1993 07/16/1993 07/19/1993 07/19/1993

1389 COMMENTS by plaintiff on defendant's response and objections to 06/23/93 order of Magistrate Judge regarding the tort desegregation fund and attorneys' fees [1388-1]; notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 07/14/1993)
1390 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defendant's motion to reconsider and vacate Magistrate Judge's orders of 07/02/93 and 07/07/93; notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 07/14/1993)
1397 RESPONSE to plaintiff's objections to the Magistrate Judge's 06/23/93 order ruling upon the objections made to questions and testimony during depositons and affidavits by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed (Attachments); Notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 07/21/1993)
1404 MINUTE ORDER of 7/14/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Upon request, plaintiff has provided the court with additional information regarding one of plaintiffs' proposed findings of fact. (Section 1 School Histories: Page Park Elementary School) (Admitted as true by defendant.) The court requested further information regarding the pre1971 history of Page Park Elementary School. Plaintiff provided this information in the form of a letter, dated 07/09/93 with a copy sent to defendant. Defendants are hereby given two weeks from receipt of this order to respond to plaintiff's submission. No notice (fce) (Entered: 07/21/1993)
1392 MOTION by plaintiffs for the court to approve and supplement the Master's June 30 remedial recommendations (Attachments); notice of filing and certificate of service (smw) (Entered: 07/16/1993)
1393 MOTION by plaintiffs to exclude from court-order funds all attorneys' fees not directly connected to implementation of the second interim order ; notice of filing and certificate of service (smw) (Entered: 07/16/1993)
1394 ANSWER to plaintiffs' third amended complaint by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed; notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 07/16/1993)
1395 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to stay Master's 1993-94 expenditure plan pending submission of defendant Rockford Board of Education's proposed expenditure plan and a hearing (Exhibits); notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 07/16/1993)
1396 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to reconsider and vacate orders of July 2 and 7, 1993 ; notice of filing; notice of motion (smw) (Entered: 07/19/1993)
1398 MINUTE ORDER of 7/19/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The court hereby orders and directs the parties involved in this action to serve copies of all court filings and communications to counsel of record in a timely manner. Telephoned notice (fce) (Entered: 07/21/1993)
1399 MINUTE ORDER of 7/19/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs' motion to exclude from court-order funds all attorneys' fees not directly connected to implementation of the second interim order is hereby, taken

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 93 of 307

07/19/1993 07/19/1993 07/19/1993 07/19/1993
07/19/1993 07/21/1993 07/21/1993 07/22/1993
07/22/1993 07/22/1993

under advisement. Brief in support of motion due 08/09/93. Answer brief to motion due 08/20/93. No reply. Hearing on attorneys' fees set for 08/24/93 at 11:00 a.m. Telephoned notice (fce) (Entered: 07/21/1993)
1400 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 07/21/1993)
1401 MINUTE ORDER of 7/19/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : This court's order of 06/23/93 is hereby detailed by the attached order. No notice (fce) (Entered: 07/21/1993)
1402 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 07/21/1993)
1403 MINUTE ORDER of 7/19/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Hearing on 93-94 exp. plan set for 08/20/93 at 9:30 a.m. Plaintiff's motion to approve and supplement 1993-94 expenditure plan is hereby taken under advisement. Defendant's motion to stay 1993-94 expenditure plan pending submission of proposed expenditure plan and for a hearing is granted in part and denied in part. [1395-1] Defendant is to file their proposed budget and expenditure plan by 07/22/93. Defendant's motion to reconsider and vacate orders of 07/02/93 and 07/07/93 is granted. No notice (fce) (Entered: 07/21/1993)
1407 RESPONSE and objections to 07/07/93 order of Magistrate Judge regarding plaintiffs' response to defendant's proposed findings of fact by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed; Notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 07/22/1993)
1405 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to deny and/or strike plaintiffs' proffer and submission of post-hearing evidence ; Notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 07/21/1993)
1406 MINUTE ORDER of 7/21/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant is granted an extension time from 07/22/93 until 08/02/93 to file their proposed budget and expenditure plan. No notice (fce) (Entered: 07/21/1993)
1408 RESPONSE by intervenor Educational Office, intervenor Rockford Building, intervenor Rockford Education, intervenor Rockford Education to the response and objections of defendant Rockford Board of Education to 07/07/93 order of Magistrate Judge regarding plaintiffs response to defendant's proposed findings of facts; Notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 07/22/1993)
1409 LETTER dated 07/09/93 to Robert Fagan, Esq. from Jennifer L. Fischer of Gessler, Flynn, Fleischmann, Hughes & Socol, Ltd. regarding the history of Page Park Elementary School (smw) (Entered: 07/22/1993)
1410 MINUTE ORDER of 7/22/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The background information regarding the history of Page Park Elementary School submitted in the form of a letter, dated 07/09/93, by plaintiffs, upon request of this court, is hereby stricken from the evidentiary record. The information contained in plaintiffs' letter will not be considered by this court. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 07/22/1993)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 94 of 307

07/22/1993 07/23/1993 07/26/1993 07/26/1993 07/26/1993
07/27/1993 07/27/1993 07/29/1993 07/29/1993 07/30/1993

1411 RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to the decision rendered by the Master in the dispute relative to Section B.3.d (in-school suspensison program at secondary schools) of the second interim order (Exhibit); notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 07/23/1993)
1412 DISCOVERY REQUESTS by plaintiffs relating to the payment of attorneys' fees from court-order funds; notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 07/26/1993)
1413 JOINDER to defendant Rockford Board of Education's motion to deny and/or strike plaintiffs' proffer and submision of post-hearing evidence by intervenors-defendants. (fce) (Entered: 07/27/1993)
1414 MOTION by intervenor Educational Office, intervenor Rockford Building, intervenor Rockford Education, intervenor Rockford Education for timely issuance of decision(s) of U.S. District Court on defendant's objections to magistrate judge's 09/23/93 and 10/06/92 "report and recomendations" (Exhibits). (fce) (Entered: 07/27/1993)
1415 MINUTE ORDER of 7/26/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Filed motion to exclude from court-order funds all attorneys' fees not directly connected to implementation of the second interim order [1393-1] Brief in support of motion due motion to serve as brief in support. Answer brief to motion due 08/17/93. Reply to answer brief due 08/20/93. Hearing on attorneys' fees set for 08/24/93 at 11:00 a.m. Briefing schedule on plaintiffs' motion to exclude from court-order funds all attorneys' fees not directly connected to implementation of the second interim order is hereby modified as indicated supra. Original hearing date and time to stand. Parties are directed to serve responses to any discovery requests related to the foregoing motion by 08/17/93. No notice (fce) (Entered: 07/27/1993)
1416 MINUTE ORDER of 7/27/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Attorneys Patrick H. Agnew and Barbara J. Buhai are to be taken off the list to receive mailed notices at their oral request. No notice (fce) (Entered: 07/27/1993)
1417 REQUEST by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to admit; Notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 07/27/1993)
1419 RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS of defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to July 19, 1993 order of Magistrate Judge regarding the tort desegregation funds and attorneys' fees (Attachments); notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 08/03/1993)
1420 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to reconsider and modify July 19, 1993 order of Magistrate Judge regarding the Master's 1993-94 expenditure plan ; notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 08/03/1993)
1418 RESPONSE by intervenor-defendants Rockford Education Association, Rockford Building Maintenance Association, Educational Office Personnel Association to response and objections of defendant Rockford

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 95 of 307

08/02/1993 08/06/1993 08/06/1993 08/09/1993 08/10/1993 08/11/1993
08/11/1993 08/13/1993 08/13/1993 08/13/1993 08/13/1993 08/16/1993

Board of Ed to the decision rendered by the Master in the dispute relative to Section B.3.d (in-school suspension program at secondary schools) of the second interim order (smw) (Entered: 07/30/1993)
1421 Proposed BUDGET by defendant Rockford Board of Ed for implementation of the second interim order for fiscal year 1994 (Exhibits); notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 08/06/1993)
1422 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for extension of time to file eleventh progress report ; notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 08/09/1993)
1423 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 07/16/93 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (smw) (Entered: 08/09/1993)
1424 MINUTE ORDER of 8/9/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's motion for extension of time to file eleventh progress report [1422-1] is allowed. Defendant's eleventh progress report is now due 09/15/93. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 08/12/1993)
1425 STATEMENT of plaintiffs in support of Master's dispute resolution decision re section B.3 in-school suspension program costs for fiscal year 1992-93 (Attachments); notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 08/12/1993)
1426 REPLY by intervenors-defendants Rockford Education, intervenor Rockford Building, intervenor Educational Office to statement of plaintiffs in support of Master's dispute resolution decision re section B.3 in-school suspension program costs for fiscal year 1992-93 (smw) (Entered: 08/16/1993)
1427 OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' discovery request concerning implementation funding issues and interrogatories 3 and 4 of plaintiffs' 07/22/93 discovery requests (Exhibit); notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 08/16/1993)
1428 MOTION by plaintiff to quash defendant's notice of deposition of Special Master and subpoena duces tecum ; notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 08/18/1993)
1429 MOTION by plaintiff for sanctions against defendant and defendant's counsel ; notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 08/18/1993)
1430 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to vacate , reject , and/or modify the August 5, 1993 report of the Master regarding implementation of second interim order attorneys' fees (Attachments); (smw) (Entered: 08/18/1993)
1431 NOTICE OF MOTION; NOTICE OF FILING by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed regarding motion to vacate [1430-1], reject [1430-2], and/or modify [1430-3] (smw) (Entered: 08/18/1993)
1437 MEMORANDUM by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed in support of response and objections of defendant Rockford Board of Ed to the decision rendered by the Master in the dispute relative to Section B.3.d

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 96 of 307

08/16/1993 08/17/1993 08/17/1993 08/17/1993 08/17/1993 08/17/1993 08/17/1993 08/17/1993 08/18/1993 08/18/1993
08/18/1993 08/18/1993

(in-school suspension program at secondary schools) of the second interim order (smw) (Entered: 08/20/1993)
1438 NOTICE of filing by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed regarding memorandum [1437-1] (smw) (Entered: 08/20/1993)
1432 MOTION by plaintiffs for leave to file instanter plaintiffs' response to defendant's objections to the July 19, 1993 order of the Magistrate Judge regarding the tort desegregation funds and attorneys' fees ; notice of filing (smw) Modified on 08/19/1993 (Entered: 08/19/1993)
1433 RESPONSE & REQUEST for sanctions by plaintiffs with respect to defendant's motion to reconsider and modify the 07/19/93 order of the Magistrate Judge regarding the Master's 1993-94 expenditure plan (Exhibits); notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 08/19/1993)
1434 POSITION STATEMENT by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Master regarding per-pupil expenditures (Exhibits); notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 08/19/1993)
1435 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' motion to exclude from court-order funds all atorneys' fees not directly connected to implementation of the second interim order (Exhibits); notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 08/19/1993)
1436 DISPUTE SUBMISSION by plaintiffs to the Master concerning perpupil expenditures (Exhibits); notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 08/19/1993)
1439 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' discovery requests related to the payment of attorneys' fees from court-order funds (smw) (Entered: 08/20/1993)
1440 NOTICE of filing by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed regarding response [1439-1] (smw) (Entered: 08/20/1993)
1441 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to compel Dr. Eugene Eubanks to appear and give testimony at deposition and to produce documents (Attachments); notice of motion; notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 08/20/1993)
1442 MEMORANDUM by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed in support of defendant Rockford Board of Ed's motion to compel Dr. Eugene Eubanks to appear and give testimony at deposition and to produce documents [1441-1] and in RESPONSE to plaintiffs' motion to quash defendant's notice of deposition of Special Master and subpoena duces tecum; notice of filingn (smw) (Entered: 08/20/1993)
1443 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' motion for sanctions against defendant and defendant's counsel [1429-1] ; notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 08/20/1993)
1444 MINUTE ORDER of 8/18/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's motion to compel Special Master to appear and give

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 97 of 307

08/20/1993 08/20/1993 08/20/1993 08/20/1993 08/20/1993 08/23/1993 08/25/1993
08/25/1993
08/25/1993
08/27/1993

testimony at deposition and to produce documents [1441-1] is hereby denied. Plaintiffs' motion to quash defendant's notice of deposition of Special Master and subpoena duces tecum [1428-1] is hereby granted. Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions against defendant and defendant's counsel [1429-1] is hereby taken under advisement. (See reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 08/23/1993)
1445 RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to the decision rendered by the Master in the dispute relative to Section C.8.f.3 - per-capita expenditures from "regular district funds" (Attachment)/(Exhibits) (smw) (Entered: 08/25/1993)
1446 NOTICE OF FILING by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed regarding response [1445-1] (smw) (Entered: 08/25/1993)
1447 REPLY brief by plaintiffs in support of motion to exclude from courtorder funds all attorney's fees not directly connected to implementation of the second interim order [1393-1] (smw) (Entered: 08/25/1993)
1448 COMPARISON by plaintiffs of the Master's 06/30/93 expenditure plan and defendant's 08/02/93 proposed implementation budget (smw) (Entered: 08/25/1993)
1449 SUGGESTIONS by plaintiff concerning the procedures for the court's hearing on Master dispute resolution recommendation (smw) (Entered: 08/25/1993)
1450 REPLY brief by plaintiffs in support of motion to exclude from courtorder funds all attorney's fees not directly connected to implementation of the second interim order [1393-1]; notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 08/26/1993)
1451 MINUTE ORDER of 8/25/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Evidentiary hearing regarding 1993-94 remedial budget and expenditure plan held on Friday, 08/20/93. Matter taken under advisement, Magistrate Judge to rule by mail. No notices required. (smw) Modified on 08/26/1993 (Entered: 08/26/1993)
1452 MINUTE ORDER of 8/25/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Evidentiary hearing held on Tuesday, 08/24/93, regarding: 1)attorney's fees, 2) B.3 ISS teachers issue and, 3) C.8 per capita student expenditures. Matters taken under advisement, Magistrate Judge to rule by mail. No notices required. (smw) (Entered: 08/26/1993)
1454 MINUTE ORDER of 8/25/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : All data acquired from school yearbooks is hereby found inadmissable, and will not be considered by the court. All data acquired from or based upon the AAUW report, survey methodology, is hereby found inadmissable and will not be considered by the court. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 08/30/1993)
1455 MINUTE ORDER of 8/27/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's motion to reconsider and modify July 19, 1993 order of

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 98 of 307

08/27/1993 08/27/1993 08/27/1993
08/27/1993 08/30/1993 09/08/1993 09/13/1993
09/13/1993
09/15/1993 09/16/1993

Magistrate Judge regarding the Master's 1993-94 expenditure plan [14201] is hereby denied. Defendant is hereby ordered to implement the Master's 1993-94 expenditure plan immediately. Said plan is to remain in effect until this court rules on defendant's proposed 1993-93 expenditure plan and budget. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 09/01/1993)
1456 MINUTE ORDER of 8/27/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiff's motion for leave to file instanter their response to defendant's objections to the July 19, 1993 order of the Magistrate Judge... [1432-1] is granted. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 09/01/1993)
1457 ORDER (smw) (Entered: 09/01/1993)
1458 MINUTE ORDER of 8/27/93 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge's orders of 06/23/93 and 07/19/93 and the objections thereto, the court affirms and adopts the Magistrate Judge's orders. Defendant is directed to comply with those orders and the procedures made pursuant to those orders. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 09/01/1993)
1459 MINUTE ORDER of 8/27/93 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Defendant is hereby directed to implement the Master's remedial recommendations of 06/30/93. (See reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 09/01/1993)
1460 RESPONSE & Objections of defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to 08/18/93 order of Magistrate Judge regarding subpoena for documents and deposition of Master (Exhibits); notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 09/02/1993)
1461 MOTION by plaintiff for order authorizing payment of implementation fees and expenses in accordance with the recommendations of the Master (Attachments); Notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 09/10/1993)
1462 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to motion for order authorizing payment of implementation fees and expenses in accordance with the recommendations of the Master [1461-1] and motion to vacate, reject and/or modify the 09/02/93 report of the master regarding implementation of second interim order attorneys' fees (Attachments); Notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 09/14/1993)
1462 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to vacate, reject and/or modify the 09/02/93 report of the master regarding implementation of second interim order attorneys' fees and response to motion for an order authorizing payment of implementaton expenses in accordance with the recommendations of the master (Attachments); Notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 09/14/1993)
1463 Defendant's Eleventh Progress, Second Interim Order, Exhibits 1-20, by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed (fce) (Entered: 09/20/1993)
1464 MINUTE ORDER of 9/16/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The Rockford Board of Education, School District no. 205, is hereby

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 99 of 307

09/16/1993
09/16/1993
09/22/1993 09/22/1993 09/22/1993 09/22/1993 09/28/1993 09/28/1993
10/07/1993

ORDERED AND DIRECTED to charge against and disburse monies from court ordered desegregration funds as specified on the reverse side of this order. See order on the reverse. mailed by judge's staff (fce) (Entered: 09/20/1993)
1465 MINUTE ORDER of 9/16/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : It is hereby ORDERED that the court appointed Master, Dr. Eugene Eubanks, make a reasonable effort, based upon the circumstances, to provide for the parties any underlying data and communications which form the basis for recommendations, either filed or presented in open court, as to any contested issue before the court. mailed by judge's staff (fce) (Entered: 09/20/1993)
1466 MINUTE ORDER of 9/16/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Granting motion for order authorizing payment of implementation fees and expenses in accordance with the recommendations of the Master. [14611] Having reviewed Plaintiffs' fee request, Defendants' objections and the Master's recommendations this court does now hereby ORDER Defendants' objections OVERRULED. Further the rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205 is ORDERED AND DIRECTED to charge against and disburse monies from court ordered desegregation funds as specified on the reverse side of this Order. See order on the reverse side. mailed by judge's staff (fce) (Entered: 09/20/1993)
1467 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date: 8/18/93 Before Honorable P.Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 09/22/1993)
1468 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date: 8/20/93 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 09/22/1993)
1469 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date: 8/24/93 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 09/22/1993)
1470 MOTION by Rockford Board Of Ed to vacate, reject, and/or modify the Sept. 13, 1993 Report of the Master gregardign Second Interim Order Attorneys' fees. attachments; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/24/1993)
1471 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to motion to vacate, reject, and/or modify the Sept. 13, 1993 Report of the Master regarding Second Interim Order Attorneys' fees [1470-1]; Notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 09/28/1993)
1472 MINUTE ORDER of 9/28/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Denying motion to vacate, reject, and/or modify the 09/13/93 Report of the Master regarding Second Interim Order Attorneys' fees [1470-1]. The Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205, is hereby ordered and directed to charge against and disburse monies from court ordered desegregation funds as specified on the reverse side of this order. (See reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/29/1993)
1473 MINUTE ORDER of 10/7/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Pursuant to Paragraph 13 F, of the Interim Agreement of May 5, 1993, the court does hereby accept and approve the employment of Dr. Steven Wesley as the Assistant Superintendent for Educational equity for the Rockford

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 100 of 307

10/29/1993
11/03/1993 11/03/1993 11/03/1993
11/03/1993 11/03/1993 11/03/1993 11/03/1993 11/03/1993
11/04/1993

Public Schools. See order on the reverse. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/08/1993)
1474 MINUTE ORDER of 10/29/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney: A draft of the report and recommedation of the Magistrate Judge has been sent to all lead counsel of record in this case. The draft opinion is for lead counsel eyes only. The opinion itself and the information contained within is not to be duplicated, communicated or disseminated in any way. The Magistrate Judge reserves the right to make changes or corrections. This order shall remain in effect until the report and recommendation is filed by the court. Mailed notice (smw) Modified on 11/03/1993 (Entered: 11/03/1993)
1475 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION concerning motion for preliminary injunction [647-1] (smw) (Entered: 11/04/1993)
1476 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ADDENDUM concerning motion for preliminary injunction [647-1] (smw) (Entered: 11/04/1993)
1477 MINUTE ORDER of 11/3/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : It is the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that an appropriate injunction and declaratory order [647-1] be entered by the District Court, in conformance with the attached opinion. The parties have ten (10) days from receipt of this opinion to file specific objections. Objections, or motions for additional time to file objections should be directed to the Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski, Judge, U.S. District Court. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 11/04/1993)
1478 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for leave of court to file its objections to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation ; Notice of motion; Notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 11/04/1993)
1500 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for leave of court to file its brief in support of defendant's objections to the report & recommendation ; Notice of motion; Notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 11/04/1993)
1501 OATH of Dr. Eugene Eubanks (smw) (Entered: 11/10/1993)
1502 MINUTE ORDER of 11/3/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Enter Special Master's oath administered on 11/03/93. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 11/10/1993)
1503 MINUTE ORDER of 11/3/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Finding defendant's motion filed 11/03/93 for leave of court to file its objections to report and recommendation [1478-1] moot. Transferring to Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski for ruling defendant's motion filed 11/03/93 for leave of court to file its brief in support of defendant's objections to the report & recommendation [1500-1]. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 11/10/1993)
1479 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 04/07/93 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (smw) (Entered: 11/04/1993)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 101 of 307

11/04/1993 11/04/1993 11/04/1993 11/04/1993 11/04/1993 11/04/1993 11/04/1993 11/04/1993 11/04/1993 11/04/1993 11/04/1993 11/04/1993 11/04/1993 11/04/1993 11/04/1993 11/04/1993 11/04/1993 11/04/1993 11/04/1993

1480 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 04/09/93 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (smw) (Entered: 11/04/1993)
1481 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 04/12/93 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (smw) (Entered: 11/04/1993)
1482 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 04/13/93 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (smw) (Entered: 11/04/1993)
1483 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 04/14/93 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (smw) (Entered: 11/04/1993)
1484 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 04/16/93 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (smw) (Entered: 11/04/1993)
1485 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 04/17/93 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (smw) (Entered: 11/04/1993)
1486 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 04/19/93 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (smw) (Entered: 11/04/1993)
1487 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 04/20/93 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (smw) (Entered: 11/04/1993)
1488 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 04/21/93 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (smw) (Entered: 11/04/1993)
1489 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 04/22/93 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (smw) (Entered: 11/04/1993)
1490 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 04/23/93 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (smw) (Entered: 11/04/1993)
1491 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 04/26/93 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (smw) (Entered: 11/04/1993)
1492 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 05/03/93 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (smw) (Entered: 11/04/1993)
1493 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 05/04/93 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (smw) (Entered: 11/04/1993)
1494 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 05/05/93 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (smw) (Entered: 11/04/1993)
1495 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 05/06/93 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (smw) (Entered: 11/04/1993)
1496 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 05/10/93 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (smw) (Entered: 11/04/1993)
1497 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 05/11/93 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (smw) (Entered: 11/04/1993)
1498 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 05/12/93 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (smw) Modified on 11/04/1993

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 102 of 307

11/04/1993 11/04/1993 11/09/1993
11/15/1993
11/15/1993
11/15/1993
11/15/1993 11/15/1993 11/17/1993 11/17/1993 11/19/1993

(Entered: 11/04/1993)
1499 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 05/13/93 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (smw) Modified on 11/04/1993 (Entered: 11/04/1993)
1504 Document Sealed (pursuant to Court Order): Volume XI excerpt of injunction hearing before the Honorable P Michael Mahoney on 04/22/93 (smw) (Entered: 11/15/1993)
1505 MINUTE ORDER of 11/9/93 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Granting defendant's motion for leave to file a brief in support of any objections to the Magistrate's Report & Recommendation [1500-1] is granted. In addition, intervenors and plaintiffs are granted leave to file briefs. All parties' briefs are due on or before 12/06/93. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 11/17/1993)
1506 MINUTE ORDER of 11/15/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The Rockford Bd of Ed, Sch Dist Number 205 is ordered and and directed to c harge against and disburse monies from court ordered desegregation funds as specified on the reverse side of this order. (See reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 11/22/1993)
1507 MINUTE ORDER of 11/15/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The Rockford Bd of Ed, Sch Dist Number 205, is ordered and directed to charge against and disburse monies from court ordered desegregation funds as specified on the reverse side of this order. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 11/22/1993)
1508 MINUTE ORDER of 11/15/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The Rockford Bd of Ed, Sch Dist Number 205, is ordered & directed to charge against and disburse monies from court ordered desegregation funds as specified on the reverse side of this order. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 11/22/1993)
1509 TWELFTH PROGRESS REPORT - Second Interim Order by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed (Attachments); Notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 11/29/1993)
1510 RESPONSE & Objections by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to 11/03/93 Report & Recommendation of Magistrate Judge [1476-1], [1475-1] (Attachments); Notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 11/29/1993)
1511 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for extension of time to file brief in support of response & objections to 11/03/93 Report & Recommendation of Magistrate Judge ; Notice of motion; Notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 11/29/1993)
1512 OBJECTIONS by intervenor Rockford Education, intervenor Rockford Building, intervenor Educational Office to Report & Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge [1476-1], [1475-1] (smw) (Entered: 11/29/1993)
1513 MINUTE ORDER of 11/19/93 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Defendant's motion for extension of time to file its brief in support of its

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 103 of 307

11/19/1993 11/22/1993
11/22/1993 11/22/1993 11/23/1993 11/23/1993
11/24/1993 11/24/1993 12/09/1993 12/09/1993 12/09/1993 12/13/1993

objections [1511-1] is granted in part. All parties' briefs are due on or before 12/10/93. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 12/02/1993)
1514 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff People Who Care to 11/03/93 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney [1476-1], [1475-1]; Notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 12/02/1993)
1515 MINUTE ORDER of 11/22/93 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : The briefing schedule for briefs in support of objections to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation is extended to 12/15/93. No further extensions will be considered. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 12/03/1993)
1516 RESPONSE & Objection by plaintiffs to defendant's motion for extension of time to file brief in support of objections to the Report & Recommendation of Magistrate Judge; Notice of filing (smw) Modified on 12/03/1993 (Entered: 12/03/1993)
1517 AMENDED OBJECTIONS by plaintiff to 11/03/93 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney [1476-1], [1475-1]; Notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 12/03/1993)
1518 ORDER regarding [1393-1] (smw) (Entered: 12/03/1993)
1519 MINUTE ORDER of 11/23/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : On 08/24/93 the court held a hearing and now rules in regard to three issues, the decision of the Master regarding Section C.8. Per-Capita Expenditures, the In-School Suspension Fund Expenditure. Plaintiff's motion to exclude from court-order funds all attorney's fees not directly connected to implemenation of the second interim order [1393-1] is denied. See attached order. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 12/03/1993)
1520 ORDER (smw) (Entered: 12/06/1993)
1521 MINUTE ORDER of 11/24/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : With the modifications contained in the attached order, the budget of the Master is hereby approved and ordered implemented by the court. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 12/06/1993)
1522 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for leave to file brief in excess of 15 pages ; Notice of motion; Notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 12/13/1993)
1523 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to vacate , reject , and/or modify the 11/22/93 report of the Master regarding second interim order attorneys' fees (Attachments); Notice of motion (smw) (Entered: 12/13/1993)
1524 NOTICE of filing by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed regarding motion to vacate [1523-1], regarding motion reject [1523-2], motion modify the 11/22/93 report of the Master regarding second interim order attorneys' fees [1523-3] (smw) (Entered: 12/13/1993)
1525 MINUTE ORDER of 12/13/93 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney :

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 104 of 307

12/14/1993
12/14/1993 12/14/1993 12/14/1993
12/14/1993 12/15/1993 12/16/1993 12/16/1993 12/17/1993 12/22/1993 12/22/1993

Defendant's motion for leave to file brief in excess of 15 pages [1522-1] is hereby referred to Judge Roszkowski. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 12/14/1993)
1526 MINUTE ORDER of 12/14/93 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Granting defendant Rockford Bd of Ed's motion to file a brief in excess of 15 pages [1522-1]. All parties are granted leave to file briefs in support of their objections to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation in excess of 15 pages. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 12/17/1993)
1527 SUGGESTIONS by plaintiffs concerning the Master's 11/22/93 recommendation on plaintiffs' implementation fees for July - September 1993; Notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 12/17/1993)
1528 SUGGESTIONS by plaintiffs concerning defendant's implementation fees for July - September 1993; Notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 12/17/1993)
1529 MOTION by intervenor Rockford Education, intervenor Rockford Building, intervenor Educational Office for extension of time to 12/17/93 to file brief in support of objections to 11/03/93 report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge ; Notice of motion; Notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 12/17/1993)
1530 MINUTE ORDER of 12/14/93 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Granting intervenor-defendants' motion for extension of time [1529-1] is granted. Intervenor-defendants' brief is due 12/17/93. Mailed notice (smw) (Entered: 12/17/1993)
1534 MEMORANDUM by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed in support of response and objections of defendant Rockford Board of Education to November 3, 1993, Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/03/1994)
1531 LETTER from Robert C. Howard to Magistrate P. Michael Mahoney, dated 12/14/93 (smw) (Entered: 12/20/1993)
1532 BRIEF by plaintiffs in support objections to 11/03/93 report and recommendations of Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney [1517-1]; Notice of filing (smw) (Entered: 12/20/1993)
1533 BRIEF by intervenor Rockford Education, intervenor Rockford Building, intervenor Educational Office in support of objections to report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge [1512-1] (Attachment) (smw) (Entered: 12/21/1993)
1535 REPLY by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiffs' Suggestions concerning defendant's implementation fees for July-September, 1993; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/03/1994)
1536 RESPONSE and Objections by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' suggestions concerning the master's 11/22/93 recommendation on plaintiffs' implementation fees for July-September, 1993; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/03/1994)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 105 of 307

12/27/1993
12/30/1993 01/03/1994 01/10/1994
01/10/1994 01/18/1994 01/18/1994 01/19/1994 01/19/1994
01/19/1994 01/24/1994 01/28/1994
02/04/1994 02/04/1994 02/18/1994

1537 RESPONSE and Objections to by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' motion for time to reply to objections to 11/3/93 report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/04/1994)
1538 MOTION by plaintiff for leave to file briefs instanter in excess of fifteen pages ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/05/1994)
1539 Lisa Rapacz's NOTICE of change of address (fce) (Entered: 01/05/1994)
1540 REPLY Statement by plaintiffs' in Support of their Suggestions Concerning the Master's Recommendations regarding plaintiffs' JulySept. 1993 Implementation Fees; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/11/1994)
1541 MOTION by defendants-intervenors to strike plaintiffs' responses to defendants and intervenors-defendants' objections to Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation (fce) (Entered: 01/11/1994)
1545 Thirteenth Progress Report (fce) (Entered: 01/20/1994)
1546 NOTICE of filing [1545-1] (fce) (Entered: 01/20/1994)
1542 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to strike plaintiffs' response to defendant's objections to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/20/1994)
1543 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to vacate, reject, and/or modify the 1/5/94 report of the master regarding second interim order implementation attorneys fees ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/20/1994)
1544 LETTER to Magistrate Mahoney from Eugene Eubanks dated 1/5/94 (fce) (Entered: 01/20/1994)
1547 RESPONSE by plaintiff in support of the master's recommendation regarding plaintiffs' October/November 1993 implementation fees; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/25/1994)
1548 MINUTE ORDER of 1/28/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The Rockford Board of Education School District No. 205, is ordered and directed to charge against and disburse monies from court ordered desegregation funds as specified on the reverse side of this order. (For further detail see reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/31/1994)
1549 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' to intervenor-defendants' objections to Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/11/1994)
1550 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' to defendants objections to Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/11/1994)
1551 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 02/18/1994)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 106 of 307

02/18/1994
02/23/1994 02/23/1994
03/08/1994 03/08/1994 03/08/1994
03/10/1994 03/18/1994 03/29/1994 03/29/1994 03/29/1994

1552 MINUTE ORDER of 2/18/94 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Pursuant to the attached opinion, the plaintiffs' motion for a permanent injunction is granted. The court hereby accepts and adopts, as modified, the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation. The parties are ordered to submit an agreed injunction and declaratory order within 10 days. If the parties cannot agree, they are each to submit a proposed order within 10 days. The court will then enter an appropriate order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/18/1994)
1553 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 02/24/1994)
1554 MINUTE ORDER of 2/23/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205, is ordered and directed to charge against and disburse monies from court ordered desegregation funds as specified by the attached order. The court further orders and directs the Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205, to maintina their copy of this opinion for any future accounting and/or auditing functions as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/24/1994)
1555 LETTER to Magistrate Mahoney from Anthony Scariano dated 2/23/94 (fce) (Entered: 03/08/1994)
1556 LETTER to Magistrate Mahoney from Justino Petrarca dated 2/28/94 (fce) (Entered: 03/08/1994)
1557 MINUTE ORDER of 3/8/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : There being no objections, both the Master's request and defendant's motion are hereby granted. The Master has until 3/21/94 to file next quarterly report. Defendant's have until 3/31/94 to file the 14th Progress Report. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/08/1994)
1558 LETTER to Magistrate Mahoney from Eugene Eubanks dated 2/10/94 (fce) (Entered: 03/14/1994)
1559 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to vacate, reject, and/or modify the March 10, 1994 report of the master regarding second interim order implementation attorneys' fees ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/18/1994)
1560 Declaratory Judgment and Permanent Injunction ORDER (fce) (Entered: 03/30/1994)
1561 JUDGMENT: It is ordered and adjudged pursuant to Rule 54(b): Declaratory judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiffs with costs and attorneys' fees. (fce) (Entered: 03/30/1994)
1562 MINUTE ORDER of 3/29/94 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : The court hereby enters the attached declaratory judgment and permanent injunction order. Judgment is entered in favor of plaintiffs. Pursuant to the court's previous orders and the May 5, 1993 agreement of the parties, the cause is referred to Magistrate Judge Mahoney for further proceedings. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/30/1994)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 107 of 307

03/31/1994
03/31/1994 04/12/1994 04/12/1994 04/12/1994 04/18/1994 04/22/1994 04/25/1994 04/25/1994
04/26/1994
05/09/1994

1563 MINUTE ORDER of 3/31/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205, is ordered and directed to charge against and disburse monies from court ordered desegregation funds as specified by the attached order. The court further orders and directs the Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205, to maintain their copy of this opinion for any future accounting and/or auditing functions, as the court may order. (For further detail, see reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/01/1994)
1564 Fourteenth Progress Report, Second Interim Order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/08/1994)
1565 Plaintiffs' Comments and Suggestions concerning defendant's January 1993 implementation fees (Master's Recommendation March 24, 1994); notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1994)
1566 MINUTE ORDER of 4/12/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Pursuant to stipulation of the parties, the plaintiff's petition for attorneys' fees is due on or before 6/28/94. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1994)
1567 Supplementary Progress Report regarding student assignment second interim order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/18/1994)
1568 Verified BILL OF COSTS submitted; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/20/1994)
1569 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for more definite statement to plaintiffs' verified bill of costs ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/25/1994)
1570 STIPULATION (fce) (Entered: 04/26/1994)
1571 MINUTE ORDER of 4/25/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205, is ordered and directed to charge against and disburse monies from court ordered desegregation funds as specified by this order. The court further orders and directs the Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205, to maintain their copy of this opinion for any future accounting and/or auditing functions as the court may order. (For further detail see reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (fce) Modified on 04/26/1994 (Entered: 04/26/1994)
1572 MINUTE ORDER of 4/26/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's motion for a more definite statement is hereby granted. Within 30 days of receipt of this order, plaintiff shall provide a more specific explanation of their claimed printing and copying expenses as follows: (1) The charge per page of the documents copies. (2) Information sufficient to show the necessity and purpose for the documents listed as printing and copying expenses. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/26/1994)
1573 RESPONSE by plaintiff to defendant's "Supplementary Progress Report" regarding student assignment; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/11/1994)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 108 of 307

05/16/1994 05/18/1994 05/18/1994
05/19/1994 05/19/1994 05/19/1994 05/25/1994
06/08/1994 06/15/1994 06/24/1994
06/24/1994 06/28/1994 06/28/1994 07/01/1994
07/01/1994

1574 Fifteenth Progress Report; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/19/1994)
1575 MOTION by plaintiffs for remedial order addressing desegregation of school faculties ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/19/1994)
1576 MINUTE ORDER of 5/18/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs' motion presented and taken under advisement. Court to rule after submission and consideration of proposed remedial plan. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/23/1994)
1577 NOTICE of Motion (fce) (Entered: 05/23/1994)
1578 Plaintiffs' More Definite Statement Concerning Printing and Copying Expenses in the Liability Proceeding Bill of Costs (fce) (Entered: 05/23/1994)
1579 Plaintiffs' Amended BILL OF COSTS submitted (fce) (Entered: 05/23/1994)
1580 MINUTE ORDER of 5/25/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Pursuant to Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 45(a) of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the Magistrate Judge hereby refers plaintiffs' amended bill of costs to the clerk of the court. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/26/1994)
1581 MINUTE ORDER of 6/8/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiff is to submit their bill of costs on the Bill of Costs form AO 133. Thereafter, the clerk will tax the costs. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/09/1994)
1582 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to vacate, reject, and or/modify the 6/6/94 report of the master regarding second interim morder attorneys' fees ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/16/1994)
1583 MINUTE ORDER of 6/24/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendants' motion for extension of time to file 16th progress report is hereby allowed. Sixteenth progress report is now due 8/15/94. Masters request for extension of time to file quarterly report is hereby allowed. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/27/1994)
1584 MINUTE ORDER of 6/24/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : All parties are hereby ordered to appear before the court on Thursday, 6/30/94 at 1:30 p.m. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/27/1994)
1585 LETTER to Magistrate Mahoney from Justino Petrarca dated 6/16/94 (fce) (Entered: 06/29/1994)
1586 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 5/18/94 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 07/01/1994)
1587 MINUTE ORDER of 7/1/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant School District is hereby given until 9/2/94 to file objections to plaintiffs' petition for fees and costs related to the liability proceedings. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/11/1994)
1588 MINUTE ORDER of 7/1/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 109 of 307

07/01/1994 07/01/1994
07/05/1994 07/06/1994 07/07/1994 07/08/1994 07/12/1994 07/15/1994 07/19/1994
07/21/1994 07/25/1994 07/25/1994

School District is hereby given until 9/1/94 to file a comprehensive multi-year remedial desegregation plan for the Rockford School District. The plan should begin with the 1995-96 school year, and be designed to bring the Rockford School District in compliance with the Constitution of the United States. The plan should address the specific findings of this court in both the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge dated 11/3/93 and Judge Roszkowski's order adopting the report and recommendation dated 2/16/94. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/11/1994)
1589 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 07/11/1994)
1590 MINUTE ORDER of 7/1/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The clerk is hereby directed to file the attached order regarding the court ordered Master's Report on the assignment of minority faculty within the Rockford School District. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/11/1994)
1591 MINUTE ORDER of 7/5/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Hearing on objections to master's report set for 8/4/94 at 9:30 a.m. No notice (fce) (Entered: 07/11/1994)
1592 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' to defendatn's objections to the Master's 6/6/94 report concerning plaintiffs' February/March 1994 Implementation Fees; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/11/1994)
1593 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 6/30/94 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 07/11/1994)
1594 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for more definite statement ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/11/1994)
1595 RESPONSE by plaintiff to motion for more definite statement [1594-1]; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/13/1994)
1596 LETTER to Robert Howard from Gale Graeff dated 7/15/94 (fce) (Entered: 07/19/1994)
1597 MINUTE ORDER of 7/19/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205, is hereby ordered and directed to charge against and disburse monies from the court ordered desegregation funds as specified by this order. The court further orders and directs the Rockford Board of Education, School lDistrict No. 205, to maintain their copy of this opinion for any future accounting and/or auditing functions, as the court may order. (For further detail see reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/20/1994)
1598 MOTION by intervenors/defendants to revoke 7/1/94 reference to master ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/25/1994)
1599 Plaintiffs' PETITION for Fees and Costs related to the liability proceedings, and for adjustment of certain prior awards of fees and costs (Volumes 1 through 3) (fce) (Entered: 07/25/1994)
1600 NOTICE of Hearing (fce) (Entered: 07/28/1994)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 110 of 307

07/28/1994 07/29/1994 07/29/1994
08/01/1994 08/01/1994 08/04/1994 08/04/1994
08/05/1994 08/05/1994
08/08/1994 08/08/1994 08/08/1994 08/08/1994

1601 RESPONSE by defendant to motion for remedial order addressing desegregation of school faculties [1575-1]; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/01/1994)
1602 Agreed ORDER (fce) (Entered: 08/01/1994)
1603 MINUTE ORDER of 7/29/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Enter agreed order. Parties given to 8/12/94 to object to master's Report. Brief in support of Faculty Desegregation due 8/19/94. Response due 9/2/94. Reply due 9/12/94. Brief in support of motion to revoke reference to Master due 8/2/94. Response due 8/16/94. Reply due 8/23/94. , Pretrial conference set for 9/1/94 at 1:30 p.m. Evidentiary hearing set for 10/3/94 at 10:00 a.m. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/01/1994)
1604 LETTER to Gale Graeff from Robert C. Howard dated 7/18/94 (fce) (Entered: 08/02/1994)
1605 BILL OF COSTS (fce) (Entered: 08/02/1994)
1606 MOTION by plaintiffs to expedite discovery (fce) (Entered: 08/08/1994)
1607 MINUTE ORDER of 8/4/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205, is hereby ordered and directed to charge against and disburse monies from the court ordered desegregation funds as specified by this order. The court further orders and directs the Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205, to maintain their copy of this opinion for any future accounting and/or auditing functions, as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/08/1994)
1608 Plaintiffs' Discovery Request 1994-1 to defendant and defendant intervenors; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/08/1994)
1609 MINUTE ORDER of 8/5/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : This court's order of 7/1/94, requiring defendant School Board to file a proposed comprehensive multi-year remedial desegregation plan by 9/1/94 is hereby modified as follows: The original filing date of 9/1/94 is hereby extended to 11/1/94. Defendants are to file a proposed comprehensive multi-year remedial desegregation plan for the Rockford School District on or before Tuesday, November 1, 1994. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/08/1994)
1610 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for leave to file additional appearance ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/09/1994)
1611 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for leave to file withdrawal of appearance of John N. Schmidt (fce) (Entered: 08/09/1994)
1612 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for leave to file withdrawal of appearance of Linda L. Eyestone (fce) (Entered: 08/09/1994)
1613 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed motion to review taxation

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 111 of 307

08/09/1994 08/09/1994 08/09/1994
08/12/1994 08/12/1994 08/12/1994 08/12/1994 08/12/1994
08/12/1994
08/12/1994
08/12/1994 08/15/1994 08/15/1994 08/17/1994

of costs ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/09/1994)
1614 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for leave to file brief in excess of 15 pages (fce) (Entered: 08/10/1994)
1615 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for leave to file briefs in excess of 15 pages relating to the faculty assignment issues ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/10/1994)
1616 MINUTE ORDER of 8/9/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Granting defendant's motion for leave to file briefs in excess of 15 pages relating to the faculty assignment issues [1615-1], Granting defendant's motion for leave to file brief in excess of 15 pages [1614-1] regarding plaintiffs' fee petition. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/10/1994)
1617 OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Master's Report regarding faculty assignment; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1994)
1618 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to motion to revoke 7/1/94 reference to master [1598-1]; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1994)
1619 MINUTE ORDER of 8/12/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's motion for leave of court to file withdrawal of appearance of Linda L. Eyestons is granted. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1994)
1620 MINUTE ORDER of 8/12/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's motion for leave of court to file withdrawal of appearance of John N. Schmidt is granted. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1994)
1621 MINUTE ORDER of 8/12/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's motion for leave of court to file the appearance of William Quinlan as an additional attorney of record for defendants is granted. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1994)
1622 MINUTE ORDER of 8/12/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's motion for extension of time to file 16th progress report is granted. Defendant's 16th progress report shall be filed no later than 9/2/94. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1994)
1623 MINUTE ORDER of 8/12/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Clerk is hereby directed to file the attached memorandum opinion and order regarding plaintiffs' and defendant's fee petitioner for implementation of agreed orders. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1994)
1624 MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1994)
1625 Statement OBJECTIONS by plaintiffs to the July 21, 1994 report of the master concerning faculty desegregation (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1994)
1626 OBJECTIONS by intervenors/defendants to report and recommendation of the master (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1994)
1627 RESPONSE by plaintiff to motion to revoke 7/1/94 reference to master

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 112 of 307

08/17/1994
08/18/1994 08/19/1994
08/22/1994
08/23/1994 08/24/1994 08/24/1994 08/24/1994 08/24/1994
08/29/1994 08/30/1994

[1598-1] (fce) (Entered: 08/18/1994)
1628 MINUTE ORDER of 8/17/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Due to the court's mathmatical error, the following corrections are made to the memorandum opinion and order regarding plaintiffs' and defendant's fee petitions: Page 14-Last line on page is deleted. Page 25-after Total Fees and Expenses for July 1993-Delete $26,983.69 and insert $40,464.50. Page 25, last two lines-Defendant's Total Fees and Expenses and Balance to be Charged Against Fund 12-delte $426,438.72 and insert $439,919.53. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/18/1994)
1629 RESPONSE by plaintiff to motion motion to review taxation of costs [1613-1]; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/22/1994)
1630 MINUTE ORDER of 8/19/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : At the request of the parties, the date for filing plaintiff's brief in support of faculty desegregation is extended to Monday, August 22, 1994. Response to be filed by 9/6/94. Reply brief due 9/16/94. No notice (fce) (Entered: 08/22/1994)
1631 MINUTE ORDER of 8/22/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The court hereby supplements its 8/12/94 order regarding implementation fees. The defendant is directed to pay to the law firm of Futterman & Howard the additional sum of $3430.31. (For further detail see reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/23/1994)
1632 Intervenors-Defendants' REPLY to Plaintiffs' response in oppsoitition to intervenors-defendants' motion to revoke July 1, 1994 reference to master (fce) (Entered: 08/24/1994)
1633 Joint MOTION to extend time to file response briefs ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/24/1994)
1634 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in support of motion for a remedial order addressing desegregation of school faculties (fce) (Entered: 08/24/1994)
1635 EXHIBITS by plaintiffs concerning factuly desegregation in conjunction with plaintiffs' memorandum in support of motion for a remedial order adressing desegregation of school faculties (fce) (Entered: 08/24/1994)
1636 MINUTE ORDER of 8/24/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs' motion to exceed page limitations is granted and its brief regarding Faculty Desegregation is allowed to be filed. Defendant and Intervenors' motion for extension of time is granted. Defendant and Intervenors' response to plaintiffs' factulty desegregation brief is due 9/12/94 and plaintiffs' reply is due 9/19/94. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/25/1994)
1637 Witness List and EXHIBITS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed (fce) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
1638 Tentative List of Witnesses and EXHIBITS by plaintiffs to be presented at the hearing on motion for remedial order addressing desegregation of school faculties; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/31/1994)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 113 of 307

08/31/1994 09/01/1994 09/01/1994
09/01/1994 09/01/1994
09/02/1994 09/02/1994 09/06/1994 09/07/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/15/1994 09/15/1994

1639 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to vacate, reject anda/or modify the 8/25/94 report of the master regarding Marsh School notice of filing; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
1640 Memorandum of Law in RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to the Magistrate Judge's request for further briefing on faculty assignment and related cases; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/01/1994)
1641 RESPONSE and Objections by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' petition for fees and costs related to the liability proceeding, and for adjudgment of certain prior awards of fees and other costs; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/01/1994)
1642 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' to defendant's motion to vacate or modify the 8/25/94 report of the master regarding Marsh School; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/02/1994)
1645 MINUTE ORDER of 9/1/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Pretrial conference on remedial hearing and attorneys' fees held and continued to 9/15/94 at 1:30 p.m. Telephonic status set for 9/2/94 at 3:30 p.m., defendant to place the call. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/12/1994)
1643 Sixteenth Progress Report; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/06/1994)
1646 MINUTE ORDER of 9/2/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic status conference held and continued to 9/7/94 at 3:30 p.m. Defendant to place the call. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/12/1994)
1644 REPLY by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' response to defendant's motion to review taxation of costs; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/06/1994)
1647 MINUTE ORDER of 9/7/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic status hearing held. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/12/1994)
1648 MOTION by intervenor/defendant's for leave to file brief in excess of 15 pages instanter ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/14/1994)
1649 RESPONSE by Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' memorandum in support of plaintiffs' motion for a remedial order addressing school faculties; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/14/1994)
1650 MOTION by defendant for protective order regasrding expert witnesses and depositions related to the hearing on the faculty assignment issues ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/14/1994)
1651 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 9/1/94 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 09/16/1994)
1653 MINUTE ORDER of 9/15/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Pretrial conference on attorneys' fees held. Telephonic status set for 9/16/94 at 9:15 a.m., defendant to place call. Plaintiffs' oral request for extension of time on its faculty desegregation reply brief is granted. Reply is due 9/20/94. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/19/1994)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 114 of 307

09/16/1994 09/21/1994 09/22/1994
09/28/1994 09/28/1994 09/29/1994
10/03/1994 10/11/1994 10/11/1994 10/11/1994
10/13/1994 10/17/1994 10/18/1994
10/18/1994

1652 MINUTE ORDER of 9/16/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic status held. Pretrial conference on attorneys' fee is set for 9/22/94 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
1654 MEMORANDUM by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed in support of motion to vacate, reject and/or modify the 8/25/94 report of the master regarding Marsh School; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/21/1994)
1655 MINUTE ORDER of 9/22/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Pretrial conference held. Defendant's supplemental brief due 9/29/94, plaintiffs' supplemental brief due 10/20/94. Plaintiffs' reply on faculty desegregation is due 9/26/94. The parties are to submit, within 30 days, by letter to the court, a statement concerning their respective positions on the necessity and scope of a hearing on attorneys' fees. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/30/1994)
1656 MOTION by plaintiff for leave to file brief in excess of 15 pages ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/30/1994)
1657 REPLY Memorandum by plaintiffs in support of motion for a remedial order addressing desegregation of school faculties (fce) (Entered: 09/30/1994)
1658 MINUTE ORDER of 9/29/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : By agreement of the parties, the heaering scheduled for Monday, October 3, 1994 is hereby continued to 10/4/94 at 1:30 p.m. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/30/1994)
1659 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for leave to file brief in excess of 15 pages ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/03/1994)
1660 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for hearing on the Marsh School dispute ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/13/1994)
1661 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 10/13/1994)
1662 MINUTE ORDER of 10/11/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The court confirms its previous order that the District is to file its proposed Remedial Plan by 11/1/94. See attached order. Discovery hearing set for 12/12/94 at 1:30 p.m. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/13/1994)
1663 MINUTE ORDER of 10/13/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The following motions are moot: docket numbers 930, 1523, 1538, 1543 and 1559. No notice (fce) (Entered: 10/13/1994)
1664 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 10/4/94 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 10/18/1994)
1665 MINUTE ORDER of 10/18/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : By agreement of the parties, plaintiff is granted an additional 2 weeks, to 11/3/94, within which to file reply to petition for fees and costs related to the liability proceedings. Telephoned notice (fce) (Entered: 10/19/1994)
1666 MINUTE ORDER of 10/18/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 115 of 307

10/21/1994 10/21/1994
10/28/1994 11/02/1994 11/02/1994 11/02/1994 11/03/1994 11/03/1994 11/03/1994 11/03/1994 11/03/1994
11/09/1994
11/14/1994 11/16/1994

Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205 is hereby ordered and directed to charge against and disburse monies from the court ordered desegregation funds as specified by this order. The court further order and directs the Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205, to maintain their copy of this opinion for any future accounting and/or auditing functions, as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/19/1994)
1667 MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER (fce) (Entered: 10/24/1994)
1668 MINUTE ORDER of 10/21/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Clerk is hereby directed to file the attached memorandum opinion and order regarding plaintiffs' and defendant's fee petitions representing work done related to implementation of the second interim order, for May and June 1994. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/24/1994)
1669 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in opposition to defendant's motion to vacate, reject or modify the 8/25/94 report of the master regarding Marsh School; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/28/1994)
1670 Agreed MOTION to delay filing of brief ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/02/1994)
1671 Agreed MOTION for leave to file brief in excess of 15 pages ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/02/1994)
1672 17th Progress Report - Second Interim Order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/02/1994)
1673 LETTER to Judge Mahoney from Anthony Scariano dated 11/1/94 (fce) (Entered: 11/07/1994)
1674 Proposed Remedial Decree (fce) (Entered: 11/07/1994)
1675 Proposed Remedial Decree (fce) (Entered: 11/07/1994)
1676 EXHIBITS A through H to Proposed Remedial Order by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed (fce) (Entered: 11/07/1994)
1677 MINUTE ORDER of 11/3/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Granting plaintiffs' agreed motion for leave to file brief in excess of 15 pages [1671-1], Granting plaintiffs' agreed motion to delay filing of brief [1670-1] in support of petition for fees and costs to 11/4/94. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/07/1994)
1678 REPLY Memorandum by plaintiffs' in support of petition for fees and costs related to the liability proceedings, and for adjustment of certain prior awards of fees and costs; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/09/1994)
1679 Correction to Reply Memorandum by plaintiffs; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/15/1994)
1680 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for leave to file brief in

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 116 of 307

11/22/1994 11/22/1994 11/22/1994 11/29/1994 11/29/1994 11/30/1994 12/01/1994 12/05/1994 12/05/1994 12/05/1994
12/07/1994 12/12/1994 12/12/1994 12/12/1994

response to plaintiffs' reply memorandum in support of petition for fees ; notice of filing (fce) Modified on 12/06/1994 (Entered: 11/16/1994)
1681 OBJECTIONS by plaintiffs' to defendant's motion to file response to replly brief concerning attorney's fees; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/22/1994)
1682 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 11/23/1994)
1683 MINUTE ORDER of 11/22/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Enter attached order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/23/1994)
1684 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' to the court's November 22, 1994 order concerning community involvement in the remedial process; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/29/1994)
1685 RESPONSE by intervenors to the court's November 22, 1994 order concerning community involvement in the remedial process; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/29/1994)
1686 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to the court's 11/22/94 order concerning community involvement in the remedial process; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/01/1994)
1687 MOTION by defendant for leave to permit implementation of corrective action ; notice of filing; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 12/02/1994)
1688 OBJECTIONS by plaintiffs to defendants' motion for leave of court to permit implementation of corrective action; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/06/1994)
1689 Interim findings of fact, conclusions of law, and ORDER providing for remedial relief relative to the issuance of $22,500,000 of bonds (fce) (Entered: 12/06/1994)
1690 MINUTE ORDER of 12/5/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Granting defendant's motion for leave to permit implementation of corrective action [1687-1] over objection. Enter interim findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order providing for remedial relief relative to the issuance of $22,500,000 of bonds. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/06/1994)
1691 Suggestions concerning fees related to the comprehensive remedial process by plaintiff; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/08/1994)
1692 Michael O'Brien's MOTION to intervene ; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 12/14/1994)
1693 MOTION by intervenor Michael F. O'Brien for expedited decision and for order extending time for filing notice of appeal (fce) (Entered: 12/14/1994)
1694 MINUTE ORDER of 12/12/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic discovery hearing held. Master's Report due 2/14/95. Discovery hearing continued to 1/19/95 at 2:00 p.m. Remedial hearing

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 117 of 307

12/14/1994 12/14/1994 12/14/1994 12/14/1994 12/14/1994 12/14/1994 12/14/1994
12/16/1994 12/16/1994 12/19/1994 12/19/1994 12/20/1994
12/20/1994
12/21/1994 12/21/1994

reset for 4/5/95 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/14/1994)
1695 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' suggestions concerning fees related to the remedial process; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/14/1994)
1696 MEMORANDUM by intervenor Michael F. O'Brien in support of motion for expedited decision (fce) (Entered: 12/15/1994)
1697 MEMORANDUM by intervenor Michael F. O'Brien in support of motion to intervene (fce) (Entered: 12/15/1994)
1698 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to motion to intervene [1692-1] (fce) (Entered: 12/15/1994)
1699 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for intervenor Michael F. O'Brien by Michael F. O'Brien (fce) (Entered: 12/15/1994)
1700 RULE 39 Affidavit of Michael F. O'Brien (fce) (Entered: 12/15/1994)
1701 MINUTE ORDER of 12/14/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Hearing on proposed intervenor, Michael F. O'Brien's motion to intervene heard. Rockford Board of Education's motion to file brief in excess of 15 pages granted. Proposed intervenor's motion for expedited decision is granted. Proposed intervenor consents to Magistrate Judge ruling on motion. Court will rule by mail. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/15/1994)
1702 REPLY Memorandum by Michael F. O'Brien in Support of Motion to Intervene (fce) (Entered: 12/19/1994)
1703 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to motion to intervene [1692-1] (fce) (Entered: 12/19/1994)
1704 OPINION (fce) (Entered: 12/20/1994)
1705 MINUTE ORDER of 12/19/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons discussed in the attached opinion, proposed intervenor O'Brien's motion to intervene is denied. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/20/1994)
1706 MINUTE ORDER of 12/20/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's motion for an evidentiary hearing on attorneys' fees related to the liability proceedings is granted. The evidentiary hearing will begin on 1/23/95 at 9:30 a.m. The hearing will be consluded no later than 1/24/95. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/20/1994)
1707 JUDGMENT: Proposed intervenor Mr. O'Brien's motion to intervene is denied. Pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court's order of 12/19/94 is final and appealable. (fce) (Entered: 12/21/1994)
1708 Michael F. O'Brien's NOTICE OF APPEAL ( $105.00 paid) (fce) (Entered: 12/21/1994)
1709 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT filed by Michael O'Brien. (fce) (Entered: 12/21/1994)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 118 of 307

12/21/1994 12/22/1994 12/27/1994 12/27/1994 12/27/1994 12/29/1994
12/30/1994 01/04/1995
01/10/1995
01/18/1995 01/19/1995 01/19/1995
01/23/1995 01/27/1995

1710 LETTER to Magistrate Mahoney from Lawrence Jay Weiner dated 12/16/94 (fce) (Entered: 12/21/1994)
1711 NOTICE of filing regarding jurisdictional statement [1709-1], and notice of appeal [1708-1] (fce) (Entered: 12/23/1994)
1712 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date: 12/14/94 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 12/29/1994)
1713 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal USCA 943954 (fce) (Entered: 01/03/1995)
1714 Copy of Seventh Circuit Transcript Information Sheet signed by Mary Lindbloom on 12/27/94 (fce) (Entered: 01/03/1995)
1715 MINUTE ORDER of 12/29/94 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205, is hereby ordered and directed to charge against and disburse monies from the court ordered desegregation funds as specified by this order. The court further orders and directs the Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205, to maintain their copy of this opinion for any future accounting and/or auditing functions, as the court may order. (For further detail see reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/03/1995)
1716 PETITION for Fees for November 1994 by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/03/1995)
1717 MINUTE ORDER of 1/4/95 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The Rockford Board of Education School District No. 205, is granted an extension of time to 1/23/95 to submit the 18th progress report to this court. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/05/1995)
1718 MINUTE ORDER of 1/10/95 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic Status hearing held. Hearing on fees reset for February 13 and 14, 1995 at 9:30 a.m. Parties to submit list of witnesses and any discovery not already disclosed by 2/1/95. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/11/1995)
1719 REPLY by plaintiffs in support of an interim payment order concerning remedial process fees; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/18/1995)
1720 Amended PETITION for fees for November 1994 by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed (fce) (Entered: 01/20/1995)
1721 MINUTE ORDER of 1/19/95 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery hearing held. Provided the parties provide the court with a court approved remedial schedule by 1/26/95, the remedial hearing is rescheduled from 4/5/95 to 9/28/95. Discovery hearing is set for 3/15/95 at 11:30 a.m. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/20/1995)
1722 18th Progress Report - Second Interim Order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/23/1995)
1723 PETITION for fees for December 1994 by defendant Rockford Board Of

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 119 of 307

01/27/1995 01/27/1995 01/30/1995 02/01/1995 02/01/1995
02/06/1995 02/08/1995
02/13/1995 02/16/1995 02/21/1995
03/02/1995

Ed (fce) (Entered: 01/30/1995)
1724 Objections and MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for protective order ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/30/1995)
1725 MEMORANDUM by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed in support of motion for protective order [1724-1] (fce) (Entered: 01/30/1995)
1726 Plaintiffs' Comments on Defendent's Petition for Fees for December 1994 (Remedial Process Fees); notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/31/1995)
1727 Emergency MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to compel discovery regarding plaintiffs' fee petition for the liability hearing ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/01/1995)
1728 MINUTE ORDER of 2/1/95 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The schedule for the remedial hearing and comprehensive remedial order is hereby revised in accordance with the reverse side of this opinion. (For further detail see reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/02/1995)
1729 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for leave to take an additional deposition ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/07/1995)
1730 MINUTE ORDER of 2/8/95 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The Master has submitted to the court and parties a lisst of consultants to be used in the development of the Comprehensive Remedial Order. Parties are given 7 days to file any objections. The resumes of the consultants will be maintained by the court and will be available for inspection during normal business hours. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/09/1995)
1731 Comments on plaintiffs' Comments on defendant's petition for fees for December 1994 and the Subject in General by intervenors-defendants (fce) (Entered: 02/14/1995)
1732 Plaintiffs' Comments Concerning the Master's List of Consultants for the Comprehensive Remedial Order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/17/1995)
1733 MINUTE ORDER of 2/21/95 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The Master has submitted to the court and parties a list of consultants to be used in the development of the Comprehensive Remedial Order. Having reviewed the comments made by counsel, the court hereby adopts and approves of the list of consultants and suggested hourly rates provided by the Master. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/22/1995)
1734 MINUTE ORDER of 3/2/95 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205, is hereby ordered and directed to charge against and disburse monies from the court ordered desegregation funds as specified by this order. The court further orders and directs the Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205, to maintain their copy of this opinion and underlying documents for any future accounting and/or auditing functions, as the court may order. (For further detail, see reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (fce)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 120 of 307

03/15/1995 03/21/1995
03/23/1995 03/24/1995 03/24/1995
04/04/1995
04/04/1995 04/11/1995 04/11/1995 04/12/1995 04/12/1995 04/13/1995

(Entered: 03/07/1995)
1735 MINUTE ORDER of 3/15/95 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic discovery hearing held. Parties to disclose experts and Rule 26 material by 9/1/95. Telephonic discovery hearing continued to 4/13/95 at 11:30 Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/16/1995)
1736 MINUTE ORDER of 3/21/95 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205, is hereby ordered and directed to charge against and disburse monies from the court ordered desegregation funds as specified by this order. The court further orders and directs the Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205, to maintain their copy of this opinion and underlying document for any future accounting and/or auditing functions, as the court may order. (For further detail, see reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/22/1995)
1737 19th Progress Report; Second Interim Order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/24/1995)
1738 MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER (fce) (Entered: 03/27/1995)
1739 MINUTE ORDER of 3/24/95 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Clerk is hereby directed to file the attached memorandum opinion and order regarding plaintiffs' fee petitions representing work done related to implementation of the Second Interim Order, for July through November 1994. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/27/1995)
1740 MINUTE ORDER of 4/4/95 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : i Clerk is hereby directed to file the attached memorandum opinion and order regarding defendant's fee petitions representing work done related implementation of the second interim order for July through November 1994. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/05/1995)
1741 MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER (fce) (Entered: 04/05/1995)
1742 MOTION by plaintiffs for entry, instanter, of interim payment order concerning remedial process fees ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1995)
1743 MOTION by plaintiffs' for reconsideration of the March 24, 1995 implementation fees order with respec to the issue of paralegal rates ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1995)
1744 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to withdraw appearance of Lisa A. Rapacz ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1995)
1745 Notice of Oral Argument from the U.S. Court of Appeals stating that they are now ready for the entire record on appeal (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1995)
1746 MINUTE ORDER of 4/13/95 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Granting defendant's motion to withdraw appearance of Lisa A. Rapacz [1744-1].

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 121 of 307

04/14/1995 04/18/1995
04/18/1995 04/19/1995 04/20/1995 04/20/1995
04/27/1995 05/03/1995
05/15/1995 05/15/1995 05/17/1995

Response to plaintiffs' motion for entry of interim payment order due 4/17/95. Reply due 4/24/95. Plaintiffs' motino for reconsideration of 3/24/95 implementation fees order is held in abeyance pending ruling on liability fees. Telephonic discovery hearing held. Telephonic discovery hearing continued to 4/20/95 at 11:00 a.m. In court discovery conference set for 5/17/95 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/13/1995)
1747 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for leave to substitute service on defendant's attorneys ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1995)
1748 MINUTE ORDER of 4/18/95 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : The requests for extensions of time to file progress reports are granted. Dr. Eubanks is given until 6/16/95 to submit his Fourteenth Quarterly Report and defendant is given until 6/23/95 to submit the Twentieth Progress Report. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/19/1995)
1749 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to motion for entry, instanter, of interim payment order concerning remedial process fees [1742-1] (fce) (Entered: 04/19/1995)
1750 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 12/5/94 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 04/19/1995)
1751 REPLY by plaintiffs' in Support of Motion for Interim Payment Order concerning Remedial Process Fees; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/20/1995)
1752 MINUTE ORDER of 4/20/95 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Granting Rockford Board of Education's motion for leave to substitute service on defendant's attorneys [1747-1]. Telephonic discovery conference continued to 4/27/95 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/20/1995)
1753 MINUTE ORDER of 4/27/95 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic discovery conference held and continued to 5/5/95 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/27/1995)
1754 MINUTE ORDER of 5/3/95 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic discovery hearing set for 5/5/95 is stricken. Defendant's final submission due by 5/15/95. Plaintiff's reply due 5/31/95, at which time discovery for the liability fees proceeding is closed. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/04/1995)
1755 Suggestions to the Court Concerning the Master's 5/5/95 Recommendations with Respect to Implementation Fees by plaintiffs; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/16/1995)
1756 Rockford Board of Education's Position Statement regarding the Stipulation of the Parties concerning Selected Additional Facts for the Liability Fee Proceeding (fce) (Entered: 05/16/1995)
1757 MINUTE ORDER of 5/17/95 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic discovery hearing held. Response to court appointed experts'

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 122 of 307

05/31/1995 05/31/1995
06/07/1995 06/07/1995 06/08/1995 06/09/1995 06/19/1995
06/20/1995 06/21/1995 06/26/1995 06/28/1995
06/28/1995 06/28/1995

objections (excluding student assignment) due 6/6/95. Telephonic discovery hearing continued to 6/7/95 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/18/1995)
1758 LETTER to Magistrate Mahoney from Matthew J. Piers dated 5/26/95 (fce) (Entered: 06/01/1995)
1759 MINUTE ORDER of 5/31/95 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs have requested a 7 day extension of time to file their final submission to the court with regard to the liability fee proceedings. Defendant does not object. Accordingly, the motion is granted and plaintiffs are given until 6/7/95 to respond. See attached letter. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/01/1995)
1760 MINUTE ORDER of 6/7/95 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic discovery hearing held. Telephonic discovery hearing continued for 9:30 6/21/95 . Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/08/1995)
1761 Plaintiffs' Proposed Remedial Objectives and Standards; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/08/1995)
1762 MOTION by plaintiffs for leave to file brief in excess of 15 pages instanter ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/08/1995)
1763 MOTION by plaintiffs for leave to file brief in excess of 15 pages (fce) (Entered: 06/12/1995)
1764 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to the Master's "Proposed Basic Remedial Objectives for Long-Term Desegregation Order in the Rockford Public Schools"; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/19/1995)
1765 Initial RESPONSE by intervenors-defendants to master's proposed basic remedial objectives for long-term desegregation order in the Rockford public schools; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/20/1995)
1766 MINUTE ORDER of 6/21/95 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic discovery hearing held. In court discovery hearing set for 2:00 7/10/95 . Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/22/1995)
1767 20th Progress Report/Second Interim Order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/26/1995)
1768 MINUTE ORDER of 6/28/95 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : On 6/7/95, plaintiffs requested leave of this court to file a brief in excess of 15 pages for their supplemental submission in the post-liability proceeding. Defendant does not object. Accordingly, the motion is granted. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/29/1995)
1769 SUPPLEMENTAL Submission by plaintiffs in the Post-Liability Fee Proceeding (fce) (Entered: 06/29/1995)
1770 SUPPLEMENTAL Appendices by plaintiffs in the Post-Liability Fee Proceeding (fce) (Entered: 06/29/1995)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 123 of 307

07/06/1995 07/11/1995 07/12/1995 07/13/1995
07/14/1995 07/21/1995 07/21/1995 07/24/1995 07/24/1995
07/26/1995 07/26/1995

1771 MINUTE ORDER of 7/6/95 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Pursuant to request of the parties, the discovery hearing is reset for 9:30 7/13/95 . Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/10/1995)
1772 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for entry of an order approving 1995-1996 court ordered budget (fce) (Entered: 07/13/1995)
1773 MOTION by plaintiffs' to limit intervenors-defendants' participation in the comprehensive remedial order process to the scope of intervention previously defined by intervenors and by the court's orders ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/13/1995)
1774 MINUTE ORDER of 7/13/95 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : Status hearing held. The schedule for the comprehensive remedial hearing is revised as follows: On 8/4/95, the Master is to submit his report to the parties; parties to respond to master's report by 8/21/95, which is also the cutoff for Rule 26 disclosures of experts by all parties; proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law due by 9/28/95; the comprehensive remedial hearing is to begin 10/16/95. Plaintiffs given 7 days to amend motion to limit intervenors' participation, intervenors given 14 days to respond, plaintiffs given 7 days to reply. There being no objection, the court hereby approves defendant's 1995-96 budget. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/17/1995)
1775 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for rulings on the admissibility of evidence and other matters (fce) (Entered: 07/17/1995)
1776 Edwin Wells' MOTION for proposed plaintiff order as final desegregation order (fce) (Entered: 07/21/1995)
1777 Amended MOTION by plaintiffs' to limit intervenors-defendants' participation in the comprehensive remedial order process to the scope of intervention previously defined by intervenors and by the court's orders ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/21/1995)
1778 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 07/24/1995)
1779 MINUTE ORDER of 7/24/95 by Judge P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons stated in the attached opinion, plaintiffs' counsel, the Futterman & Howard firm, will be awarded $2,025,486.66 for attorneys' fees and costs for all categories in the rpesent petition. Not included in this award is the interest on the separate awards using the prime rate or any award for fees on fees and associated costs. These two calculations are to be submitted to the court as directed in the attached opinion. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/24/1995)
1780 MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER (fce) (Entered: 07/31/1995)
1781 MINUTE ORDER of 7/26/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons stated in the attached opinion, the court holds that defendant has improperly charged Court Tort Funds for costs associated with reacquiring and rehabilitating Marshal School. The court enters a

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 124 of 307

07/26/1995
07/27/1995 07/27/1995
07/28/1995 08/04/1995 08/07/1995 08/07/1995
08/10/1995 08/11/1995
08/16/1995
08/21/1995

judgment against defendant where defendant is hereby ordered and directed to reimburse the Court Tort Funds in the amount of $939,025.00 Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/31/1995)
1782 MINUTE ORDER of 7/26/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205, is hereby ordered and directed to charge against and disburse monies from the court ordered desegregation funds as specified by this order. The court further orders and directs the Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205, to maintain their copy of this opinion for any future accounting and/or auditing functions, as the court may order. (For further detail, see reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/31/1995)
1783 MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER (fce) (Entered: 07/31/1995)
1784 MINUTE ORDER of 7/27/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Clerk is hereby directed to file the attached memorandum opinion and order regarding plaintiffs' and defendant's fee petitions representing work done related to the implementation of the Second Interim Order, for December 1994 through May 1995 Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/31/1995)
1785 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 7/13/95 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 07/31/1995)
1786 Joint Report of the Parties Implementing the Court's 7/24/95 Fee Order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/07/1995)
1787 Eugene E. Eubanks' Proposed Comprehensive Remedial Plan and Order for the Rockford School District with exhibits (fce) (Entered: 08/07/1995)
1788 MEMORANDUM by intervenors in opposition to plaintiffs' amended motion to limit intervenors-defendants' participation in the comprehensive remedial order process to the scope of intervention previously defined by intervenors and by the court's orders; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/07/1995)
1789 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for reconsideration ; notice of filing; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 08/14/1995)
1790 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to motion to limit intervenors-defendants' participation in the comprehensive remedial order process to the scope of intervention previously defined by intervenors and by the court's orders [1777-1]; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/14/1995)
1791 REPLY by plaintiffs' in Support of its Amended Motion to Limit Intervenors-Defendants' participation in the comprehensive remedial order process to the scope of intervention previously defined by intervenors and by the court's orders; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/17/1995)
1792 RESPONSE by plaintiff to motion for reconsideration [1789-1]; notice of

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 125 of 307

08/21/1995 08/22/1995 08/22/1995 08/22/1995
08/23/1995 08/24/1995 08/24/1995 08/24/1995 08/25/1995
08/25/1995
08/28/1995

filing (fce) (Entered: 08/21/1995)
1793 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to the Master's Proposed Comprehensive Remedial Plan and Order for the Rockford School District; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/22/1995)
1794 RESPONSE by intervenor-defendants' to Master's proposed comprehensive remedial plan and order for the Rockford Public Schools; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/22/1995)
1795 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' to the Master's Comprehensive Remedial Plan and Order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/22/1995)
1796 MINUTE ORDER of 8/22/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court feels that it needs a background briefing on school finance and taxation. The court has requested that Dr. Eubanks set up a background briefing session with Dr. Paul Schilling, which will occur on 8/31/95 at 10:30. All counsel of reocrd, if they desire, may attend the briefing. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/23/1995)
1797 MINUTE ORDER of 8/23/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant has requested an extension of time until 10/1/95 to submit the 21st progress report. No party has objected. Defendant's request for an extension of time is granted. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/24/1995)
1798 NOTICE of Motion by defendant (fce) (Entered: 08/24/1995)
1799 PETITION by plaintiffs' for fees and costs related to the attorneys' fee proceedings; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/24/1995)
1800 Submission Concerning FY 1994-95 Hourly Rates; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/24/1995)
1801 MINUTE ORDER of 8/25/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court has examined the submissions of the parties concerning the upcoming Comprehensive Remedial Order hearings. No mandatory student reassignment proposal has been submitted. The court wants the availability of all options at the CRO hearings. The Master is specifically directed to develop a mandatory student re-assignment plan. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/28/1995)
1802 MINUTE ORDER of 8/25/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Based on the documentation submitted concerning the hourly rates for defendant's attorneys in this case, the court amends its July 27, 1995 order to reflect that the market rate for associates is $140.00 per hour and $150.00 per hour for partners. No party has objected to these rate increases. Defendant is ordered to submit its proposed adjustment to the interim award based on these differentials. The parties and master will be allowed to comment. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/28/1995)
1803 MINUTE ORDER of 8/28/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Status hearing held. Defendant given until 10/2/95 to respond to plaintiffs' fees on fees petition. Plaintiffs given until 10/9/95 to reply. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/29/1995)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 126 of 307

08/31/1995 08/31/1995 09/01/1995 09/07/1995 09/12/1995 09/15/1995 09/15/1995
09/25/1995 09/26/1995
09/26/1995

1804 MINUTE ORDER of 8/31/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons stated on the reverse side, final judgment is entered on plaintiffs' liability fee petition in the amount of $2,469,127.36. (For further detail, see reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/01/1995)
1805 JUDGMENT: Pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, final judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiffs on their liability fee petition in the amount of Two million, four hundred sixtynine thousand, one hundred twenty-seven dollars and thirty-six cents ($2,469,127.36). (fce) (Entered: 09/01/1995)
1806 Proposed Adjustment to the July 27, 1995 Interim Fee Award Regarding Defendant's Implementation Fee Submissions by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed (fce) (Entered: 09/01/1995)
1807 MOTION by plaintiffs' to supplement record concerning the 1994-1995 hourly rates of Futterman & Howard, Chtd. ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/12/1995)
1808 MINUTE ORDER of 9/12/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Denying at this time defendant's motion for rulings on the admissibility of evidence and other matters [1775-1]. The motion will be considered as a trial brief on evidentiary matters for the upcoming Comprehensive Remedial Order hearings. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/14/1995)
1809 MOTION by plaintiffs' to conform April - August 1994 Implementation Fee Orders to the Rates Awarded in the 7/24/95 order ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/18/1995)
1810 MINUTE ORDER of 9/15/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 8/25/94, this court entered an order approving defendant's hourly rate increases for its attorneys. On 9/1/95, defendant submitted a proposed adjustment to this court's 7/27/95 ruling on interim fees. No party has objected to defendant's calculations. Therefore, defendant's motion to reconsider the 7/27/95 order is granted. That order is amended as follows: Defendant is authorized to charge $208,382.63 against Fund 12 for fiscal year 1994/95. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/18/1995)
1811 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for leave to file brief in excess of 15 pages ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/27/1995)
1812 MINUTE ORDER of 9/26/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court appointed Master, Dr. Eubanks, has requested to be assisted by attorney Janet L. Pulliam at the Comprehensive Remedial Order hearing to commence 10/16/95. The Magistrate considers this to be appropriate. Therefore, the court appoints Janet L. Pulliam to aid the Master at the CRO hearing. counsel shall sumit her charges on a monthly basis to the court and will be awarded a reasonable fee as determined by the court. Each party will have 7 days to object. The court will order a hearing if necessary. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/27/1995)
1813 MINUTE ORDER of 9/26/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 8/28/95, defendant provided the court with a rough schedule for the CRO hearing.

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 127 of 307

09/26/1995
09/26/1995
09/28/1995 09/28/1995 09/29/1995
09/29/1995 10/02/1995 10/02/1995 10/02/1995

The parties are hereby ordered to submit a final schedule for the hearing by 10/10/95. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/27/1995)
1814 MINUTE ORDER of 9/26/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's motion to file brief in excess of 15 pages is granted. Defendant will be limited to 27 pages for its response brief to plaintiffs' petition for fees and costs related to the attorneys' fees proceedings and plaintiffs' submissino on FY 1994-95 rates. The 27 pages equals the 12 pages plaintiffs used for their original brief plus the 15 pages used for their supplemental submission. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/27/1995)
1815 MINUTE ORDER of 9/26/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 9/8/95, the Master provided the court with the total fees anad expenses for the consultants for work done in developing the comprehensive remedial plan. No party has objected. Accordingly, the court enters judgment against defendant; defendant is to pay the following: Frank Aquila, $5,591.40; Prentise Baptiste, $3,840.00; Frank Brown, $2,140.80; John Harris, $2,500.68, Robert Henley, $2,435.00; Daniel Levine, $6,360.00; Ralph Parish, $8,740.98; Kathy Walter-Mack, $1,506.55; and William Wayson, $2,400.00. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/27/1995)
1816 Proposed Conclusions of Law by plaintiffs' notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/02/1995)
1817 Preliminary FINDINGS of fact relating to the remedial hearing by plaintiffs' (fce) (Entered: 10/02/1995)
1818 MINUTE ORDER of 9/29/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 4/11/95, plaintiffs filed a motion to receive an interim payment for attorneys' fees for work done on the remedial process in this case. Having fully considered the motion, the Magistrate now enters judgment against the Rockford School district in the amount of $121,438.32. This figure represents 50% of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees for work done on the remedial process that were generated from 7/1/94, through 12/31/94. The court hereby reserves ruling on the balance of these fees after a full hearing, if necessary. Mailed notices (fce) (Entered: 10/02/1995)
1819 MINUTE ORDER of 9/29/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant is given an extension to 10/5/95 to file its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for the upcoming remedial hearing. Intervenordefendant is given until 10/6/95 to file the same. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/02/1995)
1820 NOTICE OF APPEAL by plaintiff ( $105.00 paid); notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/02/1995)
1821 DOCKETING STATEMENT by plaintiff . (fce) (Entered: 10/02/1995)
1822 MINUTE ORDER of 10/2/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court has recently ordered the Master to address at the remedial hearing the alternative of mandatory student assignment for grades K through 12. Attached to this order is a letter from Robert A. Dentler addressing this issue. All parties are given seven days to comment on the reasonableness

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 128 of 307

10/02/1995 10/02/1995 10/03/1995
10/04/1995 10/04/1995 10/04/1995
10/04/1995 10/04/1995
10/05/1995 10/10/1995 10/10/1995

of the methodology suggested by Mr. Denter as well as the proposed fees for developing the plan. (Attachment) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/03/1995)
1823 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' motion to conform April - August 1994 Implementation Fee Orders to the Rates Awarded in The 7/24/95 Order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/03/1995)
1824 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' Petition for Fees and Costs Related to the Attorneys' Fees Proceedings and Plaintiffs' Submissino Concerning FY 1994-1995 Hourly Rate; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/03/1995)
1825 MINUTE ORDER of 10/3/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's request for an extension of time to submit the 21st progress report is granted. Defendant is given until 14 days after the Master submits his 15th quarterly report to submit the 21st progress report. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/04/1995)
1826 REPLY by plaintiffs' in support of motion to conform April-August 1994 implementation fee orders to the rates awarded in the 7/24/95 order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/04/1995)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on appeal . Mailed notice to all counsel. (clb) (Entered: 10/04/1995)
1827 MINUTE ORDER of 10/4/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 9/7/95, plaintiffs filed a motion to supplement the record concerning the 1994-95 hourly rates of Futterman & Howard, Chtd. No objections waas filed. Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion is hereby granted. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/05/1995)
1828 MINUTE ORDER of 10/4/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The following motions are moot: docket entry numbers 1559, 1575, 1598, 1650 and 1691. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/05/1995)
1829 MINUTE ORDER of 10/4/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 9/15/95, plaintiffs filed their motion to conform certain 1994 implementation fee orders to the rates awarded in the 7/24/95 order. Defendant's objections are overruled. However, for the reasons stated in this court's 7/26/95 order, no interest is payable with respect to implementation awards. Therefore, defendant is hereby ordered and directed to pay the Futterman and Howard firm $29,478.30 and to charge this amount against the court ordered desegregation funds. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/06/1995)
1830 Rockford Board of Education's Proposed FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/06/1995)
1831 Plaintiff's Conclusion of Law concerning the limited scope of intervenors' rights with respect to the Board's Statutory powers to appoint. (fce) (Entered: 10/11/1995)
1832 Comments on the process for development by plaintiff of a mandatory

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 129 of 307

10/10/1995 10/10/1995 10/10/1995 10/11/1995
10/12/1995 10/12/1995 10/12/1995 10/12/1995 10/12/1995 10/13/1995 10/13/1995 10/16/1995 10/16/1995

student assignment plan. (fce) (Entered: 10/11/1995)
1833 Return of Certified Receipt from U.S.C.A. of short record on 10/5/95. (fce) (Entered: 10/11/1995)
1834 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal USCA 953365 (fce) (Entered: 10/11/1995)
1835 Intervenors- Defendants' Proposed FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law (fce) (Entered: 10/11/1995)
1836 MINUTE ORDER of 10/11/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 10/2/95, this court entered an order concerning Robert Dentler's proposal for developing a mandatory student reassignment plan. The parties were requested to comment on the reasonableness of the proposed rates as well as Mr. Dentler's methodology. Plaintiffs have responded with no objection and the remaining parties have not commented. Accordingly, the court hereby approves the Master's selection of Mr. Dentler for developing the reassignment plan and orders the District to contract with Mr. Dentler for these services as outlined in Mr. Dentler's letter of 9/23/95. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/12/1995)
1837 STIPULATION of the parties that Parts of the Record be Retained in the District Court; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/17/1995)
1838 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed concerning the stipulation and submissino of additional findigns of facts and conclusions of law (fce) (Entered: 10/17/1995)
1839 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed concerning exclusion of witnesses at the remedial hearing (fce) (Entered: 10/17/1995)
1840 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed concerning the retention of Janet Pulliam as counsel for Dr. Eugene E. Eubanks (fce) (Entered: 10/17/1995)
1841 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed concerning the appointment of consultants to create a mandatory reassignment plan ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/17/1995)
1842 NOTICE OF Cross APPEAL by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed ( $105.00 paid); notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/17/1995)
1843 DOCKETING STATEMENT by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed . (fce) (Entered: 10/17/1995)
1844 MOTION for attorneys Janet Pulliam and Denise Hoggard to appear pro hac vice ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/17/1995)
1845 MINUTE ORDER of 10/16/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Commencement of the Comprehensive Remedial Order hearing. Granting motion for attorneys Janet Pulliam and Denise Hoggard to appear pro hac vice [1844-1]. Plaintiffs' are given an additional 7 days to reply on the fees on fees petition for the liability hearing. Defendant

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 130 of 307

10/16/1995 10/16/1995 10/16/1995 10/17/1995 10/18/1995
10/18/1995
10/18/1995 10/18/1995 10/18/1995 10/18/1995 10/18/1995 10/19/1995

given 7 days to file a brief in support of filing a third party complaint; all other parties given 7 days to respond. Plaintiffs given 21 days to respond to defendant's motion to reconsider and defendant's motion in limine; 7 days to reply. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/17/1995)
1846 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff People Who Care by Janet L. Pulliam, Denise Reid Hoggard (fce) (Entered: 10/17/1995)
1847 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed in 3:89-cv-20168 for leave to file third aprty complaint ; notice of filing; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 10/18/1995)
1850 Master's RESPONSE to Motion of Defendant Rockford Board of Education for Advanced Rulings on the Admissibility of Evidence and Other Matters; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/23/1995)
1848 MINUTE ORDER of 10/17/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Remedial bench trial hearing held and continued to 10/18/95 at 9:30 a.m. No notice (fce) (Entered: 10/18/1995)
1849 MINUTE ORDER of 10/18/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 10/2/95, this court entered an order concerning Robert Dentiler's proposal for developing a mandatory student reassignment plan. The parties were required to comment on the reasonableness of the proposed rates as well as Mr. Dentler's methodology. Plaintiffs have responded with no objection and the remaining parties have not commented. Accordingly, the court hereby approves the Master's selection of Mr. Dentler for developing the reassignment plan and orders the Master to contract with Dr. Dentler for these services as outlined in Dr. Dentler's letter of 9/23/95. The court further orders the District to provide all payments thereunder within 30 days of invoice and provide all information services requested by Dr. Dentler. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/19/1995)
1851 MINUTE ORDER of 10/18/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Remedial trial held. Plaintiff presents motion for summary judgment. Response due 12/8/95. Reply due 12/22/95. Trial continued to 10/19/95. No notice (fce) (Entered: 10/23/1995)
1852 MOTION by plaintiffs for leave to file motion for summary judgment (fce) (Entered: 10/23/1995)
1853 MOTION by plaintiffs' for summary judgment and memorandum of law in Support (fce) (Entered: 10/23/1995)
1854 NOTICE of Filing by plaintiff (fce) (Entered: 10/23/1995)
1855 RULE 12M Statement of material facts as to which there are no genuine issues by plaintiff (fce) (Entered: 10/23/1995)
1856 APPENDIX filed by plaintiff (fce) (Entered: 10/23/1995)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on appeal . Mailed notice to all counsel. Mailed via certified mail Z 034 401 299. (clb) (Entered: 10/19/1995)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 131 of 307

10/19/1995
10/23/1995
10/23/1995 10/23/1995 10/24/1995 10/24/1995
10/25/1995 10/25/1995 10/25/1995 10/25/1995 10/25/1995 10/25/1995 10/25/1995
10/25/1995
10/26/1995
10/27/1995

1857 MINUTE ORDER of 10/19/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Remedial bench trial held and continued to 10/23/95 at 9:30 a.m. No notice (fce) (Entered: 10/23/1995)
1863 MINUTE ORDER of 10/23/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Remedial bench trial held and continued to 10/24/95 at 9:30 a.m. No notice (fce) (Entered: 10/25/1995)
1864 Master's MOTION for expert data base and memorandum of law in support ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/25/1995)
1865 Master's MOTION for Rule 16 order ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/25/1995)
1858 DESIGNATION of appeal record no. 95-3365; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/24/1995)
1866 MINUTE ORDER of 10/24/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Remedial trial hearing held and continued to 10/25/95 at 9:30 a.m. No notice (fce) (Entered: 10/25/1995)
1859 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff by David P. Faulkner, Jeffry S. Spears, Amy E. Shappert (fce) (Entered: 10/25/1995)
1860 RULE 39 Affidavit of David P. Faulkner (fce) (Entered: 10/25/1995)
1861 RULE 39 Affidavit of Jeffry S. Spears (fce) (Entered: 10/25/1995)
1862 RULE 39 Affidavit of Amy E. Shappert (fce) (Entered: 10/25/1995)
1867 RETURN receipt green card from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing that short record was signed for on 10/20/95 (fce) (Entered: 10/25/1995)
1868 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal USCA 953493 (fce) (Entered: 10/25/1995)
1869 REPLY by plaintiffs' in Support of Petition for Fees and Costs Related to the 1994-95 Liability Fee Proceeding; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/25/1995)
1870 MINUTE ORDER of 10/25/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Remedial bench trial held. The Master's motion for a Rule 16 order is granted as stated in open court. The Master's motion for expert data base is granted. Defendant-intervenors are to provide this information by 11/24/95. Remedial bench trial continued to 10/26/95. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/30/1995)
1871 MINUTE ORDER of 10/26/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Remedial bench trial held and continued to 10/30/95 at 9:30 a.m. No notice (fce) (Entered: 10/30/1995)
1872 MINUTE ORDER of 10/27/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant seeks leave to file a third party complaint against the Illinois State Board of Education and Dr. Joseph Spagnolo. Essentially, the complaint states that the ISBE should pay its proportionate share for all relief ordered by

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 132 of 307

10/27/1995
10/30/1995 10/30/1995 10/31/1995 10/31/1995 10/31/1995
10/31/1995 11/02/1995 11/03/1995 11/03/1995 11/03/1995
11/03/1995

this court as a result of the Comprehensive Remedial Order. FRCP 14(a) provides that after 10 days from filing the original answer, a party seeking to file a third party complaint must seek leave of court. The decision to grant such leave is discretionary. Because the adding of a new party at this late stage of the proceedings would unduly delay and complicate matters, defendant's motion is denied. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/30/1995)
1873 MINUTE ORDER of 10/27/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 10/25/95, the Master respectfully requested this court to increase his hourly rate from $75 to $85 per hour, effective 7/1/95. All parties are given 7 days to respond. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/30/1995)
1874 MINUTE ORDER of 10/30/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Remedial bench trial held and continued to 10/31/95 at 9:30 a.m. No notice (fce) (Entered: 11/02/1995)
1875 Statement of Pulliam Law Offices, P.A.; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/02/1995)
1876 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to vacate, reject, and/or modify the 10/23/95, report of the Master regarding second interim order attorneys' fees ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/02/1995)
1877 MINUTE ORDER of 10/31/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Remedial bench trial held and continued to 11/27/95 at 9:30 a.m. No notice (fce) (Entered: 11/02/1995)
1878 MINUTE ORDER of 10/31/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court has received the billing statment for the Master's appointed counsel for the period ending 10/14/95. All parties are given 7 days to comment. This procedure will govern all future billing statements by the Master's appointed counsel. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/02/1995)
1879 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to motion for summary judgment and memorandum of law in Support [1853-1]; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/02/1995)
1880 Comments regarding Statement of Pulliam Law Offices by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/03/1995)
1881 Comments Concerning the Master's Hourly Rate by plaintiff's; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/03/1995)
1882 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed and Objections to an Increase in the Master's Hourly Rates (fce) (Entered: 11/06/1995)
1883 MINUTE ORDER of 11/3/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : By agreement of counsel, all parties rae given an extension until 11/13/95 to respond to defendant's motrion in limine concerning expert witnesses. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/06/1995)
1884 MINUTE ORDER of 11/3/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The parties are hereby ordered to stipulate to a map that shows the attendance zones

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 133 of 307

11/06/1995 11/06/1995 11/07/1995 11/08/1995 11/08/1995 11/09/1995 11/09/1995 11/13/1995
11/13/1995
11/13/1995 11/13/1995 11/13/1995 11/13/1995

for elementary schools for Fall of 1989. This map is to be submitted to the court as an exhibit within 3 days. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/06/1995)
1885 Implementation Fees June-July 1995: Plaintiffs' Comments on the Master's Recommendations by plaintiffs; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/06/1995)
1886 AFFIDAVIT of Ronald L. Futterman in Support of Supplemental Petition for Fees; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/06/1995)
1887 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to compel Dr. Christine Rossell to produce documents ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/08/1995)
1888 NOTICE of Motion by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/09/1995)
1889 Additional Comments on the Statement of Pulliam Law Offices by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/09/1995)
1890 Master's Identification of Expert Witnesses; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/09/1995)
1911 Master's Notification of Expert Unavailability (fce) (Entered: 11/24/1995)
1891 MINUTE ORDER of 11/13/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : By agreement of counsel, all parties are given until 11/20/95, to respond to defendant's motion to reconsider findings relative to desegregation of the Rockford School District staff. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/17/1995)
1892 MINUTE ORDER of 11/13/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's motoin to compel the production of documents from Dr. Christine Rossell is granted. Dr. Rossell's report on the St. Louis schools is ordered to be produced to all parties by 11/30/95. If the litigants int he Liddell case believe that they have a valid reason to withhold the report, they should request a Rule 26(c) protection order from the District Court in St. Louis. This court will of course honor any such order that is issued. Otherwise, the failure to produce the documents may result in appropriate sanctions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mailed notices (fce) (Entered: 11/17/1995)
1893 BILL OF COSTS submitted (fce) (Entered: 11/17/1995)
1894 BILL OF COSTS submitted (fce) (Entered: 11/17/1995)
1895 REPLY by plaintiffs' in Support of the Proposed Increase in the Master's Hourly Rate; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/17/1995)
1896 Special Master's RESPONSE to defendant Rockford Board of Education's Motion in Limine to Bar the Testimony of Daniel U. Levine and all other Experts Whose Opinion about Minority Achievement are

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 134 of 307

11/13/1995 11/14/1995 11/15/1995
11/15/1995 11/15/1995 11/15/1995 11/15/1995 11/15/1995 11/16/1995 11/17/1995

not Based on Scientific Knowledge; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/17/1995)
1897 AFFIDAVIT of Janet L. Pulliam to Support Hourly Rate of Janet L. Pulliam Attorney for Special master Eugene Eubanks; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/17/1995)
1898 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' to the Defendant's Brief in Suport of Motion in Limine to Bar the Testimony of Daniel U. Levine and all other Experts Whose Opinion on Achievement Outcomes is Not Based on Scientific Knowledge; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/17/1995)
1899 MINUTE ORDER of 11/15/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 10/30/95, the court received the billing statement from Janet L. Pulliam, appointed counsel for Dr. Eubanks. All parties were given 7 days to comment on the reasonableness of the fee request. Ms. Pulliam has adequately demonstrated to the court that the requested rates of $175 and $145 per hour for attorneys Pulliam and Hoggard, respectively, are at or below the rate charged to the firm's regularly billed clients. Therefore, the court hereby orders and directs defendant to pay the Pulliam Law Firm in the amount of $33,904.19 for the period ending 10/14/95. No tort desegregation and/or implementation funds are to be used for making this payment. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/17/1995)
1900 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed in limine to bar the testimony of Daniel U. Levine and all other experts whose opinion of achievement outcomes is not based on scientific knowledge (fce) (Entered: 11/17/1995)
1901 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for reconsideration of court's findings relative to desegregation of the Rockford School District Staff (fce) (Entered: 11/17/1995)
1902 MEMORANDUM by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed in support of motion for reconsideration of court's findings relative to desegregation of the Rockford School District Staff [1901-1] (fce) (Entered: 11/17/1995)
1903 RESPONSE and Objections by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Fee Petition; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/17/1995)
1904 MEMORANDUM by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed in support of Motion in Limine to Bar the Testimony of Daniel U. Levine and all other epxerts whose opinions about Minority Achievement are not based on Scientific Knowledge (fce) (Entered: 11/17/1995)
1905 MINUTE ORDER of 11/16/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court has recevied the billing statement from consultant Michael J. Alves requesting compensation in the amount of $9,332.55 for his services. All parties are given 7 days to comment. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/20/1995)
1906 MINUTE ORDER of 11/17/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 135 of 307

11/17/1995 11/21/1995 11/21/1995 11/21/1995 11/22/1995 11/22/1995 11/22/1995 11/22/1995
11/24/1995 11/24/1995 11/27/1995 11/27/1995

has received plaintiffs' motion for additional partial payment on CRO Fees. All parties are given 7 days to comment. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/20/1995)
1907 MOTION by plaintiffs' for a further order concerning partial payment of comprehensive remedial order fees and expenses July 1994 through May 1995 at Interim Rates ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/20/1995)
1908 Comments on the Billing Statement of Michael Alves by plaintiff; notice of filing (fce) Modified on 11/21/1995 (Entered: 11/21/1995)
1909 RESPONSE by plaintiff to motion for reconsideration of court's findings relative to desegregation of the Rockford School District Staff [1901-1]; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/22/1995)
1910 The Master's RESPONSE to motion for reconsideration of court's findings relative to desegregation of the Rockford School District Staff [1901-1]; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/22/1995)
1912 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiffs' Motion for Further Order concerning partial payment of comprehensive remedial order fees and expenses July 1994 through may 1995 at Interim Rates; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/24/1995)
1913 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to compel plaintiffs to produce expert reports ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/24/1995)
1914 MINUTE ORDER of 11/22/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : By agreement of all counsel, defendant is given until 12/1/95 to reply to defendant's motion in limine and defendant's motion to reconsider. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/24/1995)
1915 MINUTE ORDER of 11/22/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court has received from the parties the proposede December schedule for the Comprehensive Remedial Order hearings. The court finds that the schedule appears to be set at a leisurely pace. All counsel are expected to have their witnesses prepared for testimony up to 6:00 p.m. for each day of testimony. If a party does not have a particular witness present and ready to proceed, that party may be closed from live testimony on that particular subject. The parties are to complete most of their presentation of evidence on the remainder of the remedial issues by the end of December 1995. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/24/1995)
1916 CERTIFIED copy of Order from the 7th Circuit setting briefing schedule. ( 95-3365, 95-3493) (fce) (Entered: 11/27/1995)
1917 STATEMENT of Pulliam Law Offices, P.A.; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/27/1995)
1918 The Master's MOTION and Memorandum for sanctions to bar the testimony of Dr. Christine Rossell ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/27/1995)
1919 MINUTE ORDER of 11/27/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 136 of 307

11/27/1995
11/27/1995 11/27/1995 11/27/1995
11/28/1995
11/29/1995
11/29/1995 11/29/1995 11/29/1995 11/30/1995

directs the defendant-intervenors provide the Rockford Parent Survey interview sheets with only the names redacted prior to the deposition of Joel Coward on 11/28/95 at 12:00 p.m., and that Mr. Steven Katz maintain in his possession the originals. The court further orders defendant intervenors provide all written communications between mr. Cowan and Dr. Rossell and/or the REA, the protocols, as well as all other underlying documents. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/28/1995)
1920 MINUTE ORDER of 11/27/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Thhe court has received the billing statements from Pulliam Law Offices for the period ending 11/14/95, from Mr. Alves (invoice dated 11/13/95) and from Oliver S. Brown Associates (invoice dated 10/31/95). All parties are given 7 days to comment. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/28/1995)
1921 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for leave to file report to the court under seal ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/28/1995)
1922 STIPULATION of the Parties concerncing Uncontested Sections of the Master's Proposed Comprehensive Remedial Plan and Order (fce) (Entered: 11/28/1995)
1923 MINUTE ORDER of 11/27/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Remedial trial held. Defendant's motion to file report under seal is taken under advisement. The Master's motion for sanctions to bar the testimony of Dr. Christine Rossell is taken under advisement. Trial continued to 11/28/95. No notice (fce) (Entered: 11/30/1995)
1924 MINUTE ORDER of 11/28/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant-intervenor's motion for protective order regarding the survey is granted as stated in open court. The Master's motion for sanctions to bar testimony is denied at this time. Remedial trial held. Trial continued to 9:30 11/29/95. No notice (fce) (Entered: 11/30/1995)
1925 MINUTE ORDER of 11/29/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Remedial trial held. Parties to file findings of fact, conclusions of law regarding stipulated areas by 12/13/95. Deposition, exhibits and disk of Joel B. Cowen to be filed. Defendant's motion to file report to the court under seal is granted. Defendant-intervenors' oral motion for extensionof time to file Dr. Rossell's report is granted. Dr. Rossell to submit report to parties by 5:00 pm, 12/1/95. Failure to submit report timely will result in the barring of Dr. Rossell's testimony. Dr. Rossell's deposition to take place on December 4 and 5, 1995, as stated in open court. Remedial trial continued to 11/30/95 Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/30/1995)
1926 Defendant's Report to the Court on Discovery, filed under seal pursuant to order dated 11/29/95. (UNDER SEAL) (fce) (Entered: 11/30/1995)
1927 DEPOSITION of Joel B. Cowen taken on the following date(s): 11/28/95 (fce) (Entered: 11/30/1995)
1928 EXHIBITS to deposition of Joel B. Cowen (fce) (Entered: 11/30/1995)
1929 MINUTE ORDER of 11/30/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 137 of 307

11/30/1995 11/30/1995
12/01/1995 12/01/1995 12/04/1995
12/05/1995 12/05/1995 12/05/1995

Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205, is hereby ordered and directed to charge against and disburse monies from the court ordered desegregation funds as specified by this order. The court further orders and directs the Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205, to maintain their copy of this opinion and underlying documents for any future accounting and/or auditing functions, as the court may order. (For further detail, see reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/04/1995)
1930 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 12/04/1995)
1931 MINUTE ORDER of 11/30/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons stated in the attached opinion, plaintiffs' counsel, the Futterman & Howard firm and the Gessler, Hughes firm, will be awarded a total $194,844.37 for attorneys' fees and costs for their fees on fees petition. No included in this award is interest to be calculated at the primate rate. The parties are to agree upon a date for final judgment for which interest at the primate rate is to accrue. This calculation is to be submitted to the court within 7 days. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/04/1995)
1932 REPLY by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiffs' and Master Eubanks' Responses to Defendant's Motion in Limine to Bar the Testimony of Daniel U. levine and all Other experts whose opinion on achievement outcomes is not based on scientific knowledge; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/04/1995)
1933 REPLY by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiffs' and master's Responses to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of Court's Findings Relative to Desegregation of the Rockford School District Staff; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/04/1995)
1934 MINUTE ORDER of 12/4/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Remedial trial held. All parties stipulate to a data base concerning the labor pool. Defendant is given to 12/8/95 to comment on data base, and to 12/13/95 to make any necessary additions. Defendant is ordered to pay $750.00 of Dr. LeLand's fees, as well as 110 paralegal hours. Remedial trial continued to 1:30 12/5/95 . Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/05/1995)
1935 Proposed Conclusions of Law supporting a Discipline Remedy Addressing the Hostile School Climate and Inappropriate Curriculum in the Rockford School district by plaintiffs; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/06/1995)
1936 Proposed Conclusions of Law Concerning Cost as a Defense to the Implementation of Appropriate Desegregation Remedies by plaintiffs; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/06/1995)
1937 MINUTE ORDER of 12/5/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Remedial trial held. Defendant is given an extension of time to 12/15/95 to comment on the labor pool data base, and to 12/20/95 to make any necessary additions. The court has received a 12/4/95 communication regarding the invoice from Oliver Brown Associates. All parties are given to 12/15/95 to comment on the 12/4/95 letter regarding payment

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 138 of 307

12/06/1995
12/06/1995 12/06/1995 12/07/1995 12/07/1995 12/08/1995 12/11/1995 12/11/1995
12/11/1995 12/11/1995

Remedial trial continued to 9:30 12/6/95 . Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/07/1995)
1938 MINUTE ORDER of 12/6/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Presently before the court is plaintiffs' motion for further partial payment of fees related to work performed on the CRO. The court hereby grants plaintiffs' motion and order the Rockford Board of Education to pay the law firm of Futterman & Howard, $171,533.52. This figure represents 50% of the total fees for the 11 months, from July 1994 through May 1995, minus the amount payable under the court's September 29, 1995 order and 100% of the out of pocket expenses for these 11 months. The court reserves ruling on the balance of these fees at a later date. No tort desegregation and/or implementation funds are to be used for making this payment. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/07/1995)
1939 Comments on the Billing Statement from Pulliam Law Offices by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/07/1995)
1940 MINUTE ORDER of 12/6/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Remedial trial held. Plaintiff given an extension of time to 12/14/95 to file interest calculations regarding the fees on fees petition. Remedial trial continued to 9:30 12/7/95 . No notice (fce) (Entered: 12/11/1995)
1941 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for protective order ; notice of filing; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 12/11/1995)
1944 MINUTE ORDER of 12/7/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Remedial trial H&C to 9:30 12/11/95 . No notice (fce) (Entered: 12/14/1995)
1942 MINUTE ORDER of 12/8/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : There will be no trial held for the CRO hearings on 12/18/95, so that all parties and counsel may have the opportunity to fully observe Hanukkah. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/11/1995)
1943 MOTION by plaintiffs' for leave to enter appearance of Carol R. Ashley and Joan Matlack ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/11/1995)
1945 MINUTE ORDER of 12/11/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Remedial trial held. All parties given until 12/20/95 to file Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law related to the stipulated areas. The court has received the billing statement from Pulliam Law Offices for the period ending 11/14/95. No party has objected. Therefore, the court hereby orders and directs defendant to pay the Pulliam Law Firm in the amount of $70,133.24 for the period ending 11/14/95. No tort desegregation and/or implementation funds are to be used for making this payment. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/14/1995)
1946 MINUTE ORDER of 12/11/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Remedial trial H&C to 9:30 12/12/95 . No notice (fce) (Entered: 12/14/1995)
1947 Comments on the Billing Statement from Oliver S. Brown Associates by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed; notice of filing (fce) (Entered:

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 139 of 307

12/12/1995 12/13/1995 12/13/1995
12/14/1995 12/14/1995
12/19/1995 12/20/1995 12/20/1995 12/20/1995 12/20/1995

12/14/1995)
1948 Proposed Conclusions of Law supporting a Controlled Choice Student Assignment Plan by plaintiffs; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/14/1995)
1949 Master's Joinder in Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/14/1995)
1950 MINUTE ORDER of 12/13/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Remedial trial held. The court has received no objection to Mr. Alves' invoices dated 11/10 and 11/13/95. Accordingly, the court hereby orders and directs the defendant to pay Mr. Alves the amount of $13,782.55. No tort desegregation and/or implementation funds are to be used for making this payment. Remedial trial continued to 9:30 12/14/95. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/15/1995)
1951 MOTION by plaintiffs' for reconsideration of court's hourly rate determination in its 11/30/95 order on plaintiffs' petition for fees and costs related to the 1994-95 liability fee proceeding ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/15/1995)
1952 MINUTE ORDER of 12/14/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Remedial trial held. Defendant-Intervenors are allowed 45 minutes on 12/19/95 to complete evidence on student assignment. All parties given to 1/11/96 to file findings of fact and conclusions of law on student assignment. The labor market analysis witnesses are to be deposed and the transcripts are to be presented to the court by 1/22/96. Defendant-intervenors are given 1/22 and 1/23/96 for faculty assignment. All parties given 14 days from 1/23/96 to file findings of fact and conclusions of law on faculty assignment. Trial continued to 12/19/95. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1995)
1953 MINUTE ORDER of 12/19/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Remedial trial held. Defendant given to 1/2/96 to respond to plaintiff's motion to reconsider. Reply due 1/9/96. Remedial trial continued to 9:30 12/20/95. No notice (fce) (Entered: 12/20/1995)
1954 The Master's Proposed FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law (fce) (Entered: 12/26/1995)
1955 Statement of Pulliam Law Offices; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/26/1995)
1956 Intervenors-Defendants' Proposed FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law (fce) (Entered: 12/26/1995)
1957 MINUTE ORDER of 12/20/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Remedial trial held. Defendant-intervenors are to provide list of faculty assignment witnesses to all parties by 1/3/96. All depositions are to be taken by 1/22/96. Defendant-intervenors must respond to defendant's interrogatories and request for documents by 1/8/96. The court has received the letter dated 12/15/95, concerning the invoices of Ralph

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 140 of 307

12/21/1995 12/21/1995
12/21/1995 12/27/1995 12/28/1995 12/29/1995
12/29/1995 12/29/1995
01/04/1996 01/04/1996
01/08/1996 01/09/1996 01/09/1996

Parish and Daniel Levine. All parties given 7 days to comment. Trial continued to 12/21/95. No notice (fce) (Entered: 12/26/1995)
1958 The Master's MOTION to amend findings of fact and conclusions of law on the uncontested issues ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/26/1995)
1959 MINUTE ORDER of 12/21/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Remedial trial held. Defendant-intervenors are given until 1/20/96 to respond to plaintiffs/master's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs given 3 weeks to reply. All parties are given 7 days to respond to Court's Exhibit 2. Trial continued to 1/22/96. No notice (fce) (Entered: 12/26/1995)
1960 Plaintiffs' FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/26/1995)
1961 Master's MOTION to extend time to respond to defendants report concerning tracking of students ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/28/1995)
1962 Plaintiffs' Proposed FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law (fce) (Entered: 12/28/1995)
1963 MINUTE ORDER of 12/29/95 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Granting the Master's motion to extend time to respond to defendants report concerning tracking of students [1961-1]. The Master is given until 1/5/96 to respond to defendant's report concerning tracking. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/02/1996)
1964 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to the defendant's Memorandum read into the Record 12/21/95; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/02/1996)
1965 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to motion for reconsideration of court's hourly rate determination in its 11/30/95 order on plaintiffs' petition for fees and costs related to the 1994-95 liability fee proceeding [1951-1]; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/02/1996)
1966 REPLY by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Memoranadum read into the record 12/21/95; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/08/1996)
1967 OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting uncontested areas of the master's proposed comprehensive remedial plan; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/08/1996)
1968 Intervenors-Defendants' MOTION for order for the master to prepare a voluntary student assignment plan with magnet schools ; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 01/08/1996)
1969 The Master's RESPONSE to Defendant's Memorandum of 12/21/95 filed in response to Court's Inquiry on Tracking (fce) (Entered: 01/10/1996)
1970 MINUTE ORDER of 1/9/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Having received no objection, the court hereby orders and directs defendant to

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 141 of 307

01/09/1996
01/10/1996 01/11/1996 01/12/1996 01/16/1996 01/16/1996 01/17/1996 01/17/1996 01/17/1996
01/18/1996

make payment on the following invoices: Oliver Brown (10/31/95); Oliver Brown (11/17/95); Daniel Levine and Ralph Parish (per Dr. Eubanks' 12/15/95 letter); Oliver Brown Associates (per Dr. Eubanks' 12/22/95 letter); and Pulliam Law Offices (12/20/95). The court reminds the parties of the standing order that all parties have 7 days to comment on any invoice received from any court appointed expert. Finally, no tort desegregation and/or implementation funds are to be used for making these payments. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/10/1996)
1971 MINUTE ORDER of 1/9/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Denying Intervenor-defendants' motion for order for the master to prepare a voluntary student assignment plan with magnet schools [1968-1]. All evidence relating to student assignment was closed on 12/22/95, and the area will not be opened by the court. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/10/1996)
1972 REPLY by plaintiffs in Support of Motion to Reconsider the Court's Hourly Rate Determination in its 11/30/95 Fee Order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/12/1996)
1973 MINUTE ORDER of 1/11/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic Status call is set to 10:00 1/22/96. Defendant to initiate. By agreement of all counsel, the reconvening of the CRO hearings will be continued until 9:30 2/5/96 . Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/12/1996)
1974 MOTION by plaintiffs to bar intervenors-defendants' evidence concerning analyses of the selection of candidates for teaching vacancies for the 1995-96 anad 1994-95 school years ; notice of filing; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 01/12/1996)
1975 LETTER to Magistrate Mahoney from Barbara J. Buhai dated 1/12/96 (fce) (Entered: 01/18/1996)
1976 Plaintiffs' Proposed FINDINGS of fact related to student assignment; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/18/1996)
1977 RESPONSE and Objections by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' proposed conclusions of law supporting a discipline remedy addressing the hostile school climate and inappropriate curriculum in the Rockford School District (fce) (Entered: 01/18/1996)
1978 RESPONSE and Objections by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' proposed conclusions of law concerning cost as a defense to the implementation of appropriate desegregation remedies; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/18/1996)
1979 MINUTE ORDER of 1/17/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : By agreement of all counsel, the reconvening of the CRO hearings will be continued to 9:30 2/20/96. By agreement of all counsel, all parties are given until 1/26/96 to file findings of fact and conclusions of law on student assignment. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/18/1996)
1980 Comments in Support of the Master's Recommendations for Payments to

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 142 of 307

01/18/1996 01/18/1996
01/19/1996 01/22/1996
01/24/1996
01/26/1996 01/26/1996 01/26/1996 01/26/1996 01/26/1996 01/29/1996 01/29/1996 01/29/1996

CRO Expert Witnesses Baptiste, Shapiro, and Metro Chicago by plaintiffs; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/22/1996)
1981 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to quash subpoena to Compel Testimony of Dr. Ronald L. Epps ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/22/1996)
1982 MINUTE ORDER of 1/18/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court does not want any misunderstanding regarding the continuation of the CRO hearings to 2/20/96. There may be orders issued by the court during the time period counsel for defendant-intervenors are out of the country. The court assums that there will be counsel in the U.S. monitoring this case. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/22/1996)
1983 Comments in Support of the Master's Recommendations for Payments to CRO Expert Witnesses Brown and Kazanjian by plaintiffs; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/22/1996)
1984 MINUTE ORDER of 1/22/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : As stated on the reverse side, defendant-intervenor's motion for an extension of time to respond to plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted. In addition, the schedule for the remainder of the CRO Hearings is ordered as stated on the reverse. CRO hearings resume 9:30 2/22/96. (For further detail, see reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/25/1996)
1985 Comments on Plaintiffs' Motion to Bar Intervenors-Defendants' Evidence concerning analyses of the selection of candidates for teaching vacancies for the 1995-1996 and 1994-1995 school years by defendants; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/25/1996)
1986 NOTICE of Motion by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed (fce) (Entered: 01/30/1996)
1987 Intervenors-Defendants' Recommended FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/30/1996)
1988 Plaintiffs' Amended FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/30/1996)
1989 Comprehensive Remedial ORDER (fce) (Entered: 01/30/1996)
1990 MINUTE ORDER of 1/26/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The clerk is hereby ordered to enter the first segment of the Comprehensive Remedial Order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/30/1996)
1991 The Master's Proposed FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/30/1996)
1992 Conclusions of Law Supporting Student Assignment Remedies by plaintiffs; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/30/1996)
1993 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to reopen proofs relative to student assignment ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/30/1996)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 143 of 307

01/31/1996 02/01/1996 02/01/1996 02/01/1996 02/02/1996 02/02/1996 02/02/1996
02/05/1996 02/05/1996
02/05/1996 02/06/1996 02/06/1996 02/06/1996

1994 Comments in Support of the Master's Recommendations for Payment to CRO Expert Witness Baptiste by plaintiffs; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/01/1996)
1995 Comments on the Board's Motion to Reopen Proofs Relative to Student Assignment by plaintiffs; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/01/1996)
1996 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to compel deposition of Dr. Eugene Eubanks ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/01/1996)
1997 Intervenors-Defendants' MOTION in Support of Defendant Rockford Board of Education's Motion to Reopen Proofs Relative to Student Assignment ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/01/1996)
1998 Intervenors-Defendants' MOTION in Support of Defendant Rockford Board of Education's Motion to Reopen Proofs Relative to Student Assignment (fce) (Entered: 02/05/1996)
1999 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 02/05/1996)
2000 MINUTE ORDER of 2/2/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The clerk is hereby ordered to enter sections A and B of the second segment of the Comprehensive Remedial Order. Defendant's motion to reopen proofs relative to student assignment is granted in part and denied in part as stated in the attached order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/05/1996)
2001 REPLY by plaintiffs' to Defendant's Motion to Quash Subpoena to Compel Testimony of Dr. Ronald Epps; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/05/1996)
2002 MINUTE ORDER of 2/5/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Intervenordefendants' motion in support of defendant's motion to reopen proofs is hereby rendered moot in light of this court's 2/2/96 order. Therefore, the notice of presentment for that motion schedulked for 2/14/96 is stricken by the court. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/06/1996)
2003 MINUTE ORDER of 2/5/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant is hereby ordered to make payment on the invoices as stated on the reverse side. (For further detail, see reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/06/1996)
2004 Intervenors-Defendants' MOTION for protective order quashing defendant Rockford Board of Education's First, Second, Third and Fourth Set of Interrogatories ; notice of filing; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 02/06/1996)
2005 MINUTE ORDER of 2/6/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons stated on the reverse side, defendant's motion to reconsider factula findings is denied. (For further detail, see reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/09/1996)
2006 MINUTE ORDER of 2/6/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons stated on the reverse side, plaintiffs' motion to reconsider this court's 11/30/95, hourly rate determination is granted. (For further detail,

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 144 of 307

02/07/1996 02/07/1996
02/09/1996 02/09/1996 02/09/1996 02/12/1996
02/13/1996 02/13/1996 02/13/1996 02/13/1996 02/13/1996 02/14/1996

see reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/09/1996)
2007 STIPULATION of the Parties concerning the Deposition of Dr. Eugene E. Eubanks (fce) (Entered: 02/09/1996)
2008 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to vacate the directive of the master and rescind the contract between the Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205, and Dr. Michael Alves ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/09/1996)
2009 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for reconsideration of the comprehensive remedial order ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/09/1996)
2010 Master's MOTION for Dr. Edgar Butler's Expert Data Base ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/09/1996)
2011 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to bar testimony of Dr. W. Patrick Dolan ; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 02/09/1996)
2012 RESPONSE by plaintiffs in opposition to motion to vacate the directive of the master and rescind the contract between the Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205, and Dr. Michael Alves [2008-1]; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/12/1996)
2013 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for leave to withdraw motion to vacate the master's directive and rescind defendant's contract with Michael Alves ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/14/1996)
2014 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to strike the intervenorsdefendants' findings of fact and conclusions of law on student assignment ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/14/1996)
2015 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for leave to withdraw its motion to reopen proofs relative to student assignment ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/14/1996)
2016 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for leave to amend its motion for reconsideration of the comprehensive remedial order ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/14/1996)
2017 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for leave to file instanter proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding student assignment ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/14/1996)
2018 MINUTE ORDER of 2/14/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Granting defendant's motion for leave to file instanter proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding student assignment [2017-1], Granting defendant's motion for leave to withdraw its motion to vacate the Master's directive and rescind defendant's contract with Michael Alves. [2015-1], Denying defendant's motion to strike the intervenorsdefendants' findings of fact and conclusions of law on student assignment [2014-1] Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/20/1996)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 145 of 307

02/15/1996 02/15/1996
02/15/1996
02/15/1996 02/15/1996 02/15/1996 02/15/1996 02/16/1996 02/20/1996 02/20/1996 02/20/1996 02/20/1996

2019 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 02/20/1996)
2020 MINUTE ORDER of 2/15/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Denying defendant's motion in limine to bar the testimony of Daniel U. Levine and all other experts whose opinion of achievement outcomes is not based on scientific knowledge [1900-1] for the reasons stated in the attached opinion. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/20/1996)
2021 MINUTE ORDER of 2/15/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The Comprehensive Remedial Order hearing are scheduled to resume on 2/22/96 and the hearings are scheduled to last through the end of March 1996. This schedule will be strictly followed by the court so that the District may receive the CRO in time to begin implementation of the remedies fro the 1996-97 school years. Accordingly, all counsel are required to be present for all scheduled dates for the time period from 2/22 through late march 1996. This specifically includes lead counsel for defendant, Anthony Scariano and Justino Petrarca. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/20/1996)
2022 MOTION by plaintiffs for reconsideration and joinder in defendants motion for reconsideration of portions of court's 1/26/96 "First Segment" of comprehensive remedial order ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/20/1996)
2023 Plaintiffs' Fees and Interest Calculation Implementing the Court's 2/6/96 order granting reconsideration of the 11/30/95 fee order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/20/1996)
2024 STATEMENT of Pulliam Law Offices, P.A.; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/20/1996)
2025 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to alter or amend judgment or, in the alternative, to certify judgment for appeal to the seventh circuit court of appeals ; notice of filing; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 02/20/1996)
2026 Request for the Expedited Production of Documents from the Master and from Plaintiffs by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/20/1996)
2027 Comments by plaintiffs in support of the Master's recommendations for payments to CRO expert witnesses Brown and Kazanjian; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/20/1996)
2028 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' to defendant's motion for leave to withdraw its motion to reopen proofs relative to student assignment; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/20/1996)
2029 RESPONSE anda Objections by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' fees and interest calculation implementing the court's 2/6/96 order granting reconsideration of the 11/30/95 order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/20/1996)
2030 Renewal of Motion to Bar the Testimony of Dr. W. Patrick Dolan by

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 146 of 307

02/20/1996
02/20/1996 02/21/1996
02/21/1996 02/21/1996 02/21/1996 02/21/1996 02/22/1996 02/22/1996 02/22/1996 02/22/1996 02/22/1996 02/22/1996 02/23/1996 02/23/1996

defendant Rockford Board Of Ed (fce) (Entered: 02/20/1996)
2031 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to motion for protective order quashing defendant Rockford Board of Education's First, Second, Third and Fourth Set of Interrogatories [2004-1] (fce) (Entered: 02/20/1996)
2032 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for modification of tort budget ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/20/1996)
2033 Renewal of Defendant's Motion in Limine to Bar the Testimony of Daniel U. Levine and all other experts whose opinion on achievement outcomes is not based on scientific knowledge; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/21/1996)
2034 MOTION to renumber exhibits ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/21/1996)
2035 Renewal of Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of the court's findings relative to desegregation of the Rockford School District Staff; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/21/1996)
2036 Special master's MOTION to supplement evidence with facilities assessment report and ten year facilities report ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/21/1996)
2037 OBJECTIONS by plaintiffs to defendant's request for expedited production of documents from the Master and from Plaintiffs; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/22/1996)
2038 Stephen G. Katz's MOTION for leave to file appearance on behalf of intervenors-defendants ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/23/1996)
2039 MOTION to quash subpoena to depose Webbs Norman ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/23/1996)
2040 Rockford Board of Education's Request for the Expedited Production of documents from the Master's expert (fce) (Entered: 02/23/1996)
2041 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for reconsideration of its motion in limine ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/23/1996)
2042 MOTION by plaintiffs to bar the testimony of Dr. Edgar Butler regarding any statistical analyses not disclosed by 2/1/96 ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/23/1996)
2043 MINUTE ORDER of 2/22/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : CRO hearings resume. Trail continued to 2/23/96. No notice (fce) (Entered: 02/26/1996)
2044 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to motion to quash subpoena to depose Webbs Norman [2039-1]; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/26/1996)
2045 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to motion to bar the

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 147 of 307

02/23/1996 02/23/1996 02/23/1996 02/23/1996 02/23/1996
02/23/1996
02/24/1996 02/26/1996 02/26/1996 02/27/1996 02/27/1996 02/28/1996 02/28/1996 02/29/1996

testimony of Dr. Edgar Butler regarding any statistical analyses not disclosed by 2/1/96 [2042-1]; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/26/1996)
2046 Special Master's MOTION to reorder proof ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/26/1996)
2047 Master's OBJECTIONS to the defendant Rockford Board of Education's Request for the Expedited Production of Documents from the Master and from Plaintiff's; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/26/1996)
2048 Request to Admit by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/26/1996)
2049 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' to defendant's motion to reconsider the court's 2/6/96 order determining F&H's hourly rates for the 1994-95 liability fee proceedings; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/26/1996)
2050 MINUTE ORDER of 2/23/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons stated on the reverse side, defendant's motion to alter or amend this court's 2/6/96 order granting plaintiffs' motion to reconsider is denied. Defendant's objection to plaintiffs' recalculation is granted. (For further detail, see reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/26/1996)
2052 MINUTE ORDER of 2/23/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : CRO hearings held. Trial continued to 2/24/96. For rulings on motions, see reverse side. (For further detail, see reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/26/1996)
2053 MINUTE ORDER of 2/24/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Remedial trial H&C to 9:30 2/26/96. No notice (fce) (Entered: 02/28/1996)
2051 Preliminary Conclusions of Law regarding the scope of Vestige's and defendant's responsibility for the reduction in minority educational advantage by plaintiffs; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/26/1996)
2054 MINUTE ORDER of 2/26/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Remedial trial H&C to 9:30 2/27/96. No notice (fce) (Entered: 02/28/1996)
2055 Comments in Support of the Master's Recommendations for Payment to CRO Expert Witness Shapiro by plaintiffs; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/28/1996)
2057 MINUTE ORDER of 2/27/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Remedial trial H&C to 9:30 2/28/96. No notice (fce) (Entered: 02/29/1996)
2056 Submission of Comprehensive Remedial Process Fees for JuneDecember 1995 and Plaintiffs' Request for an Interim Payment Order by plaintiffs; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/28/1996)
2058 MINUTE ORDER of 2/28/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Remedial trial H&C to 9:30 2/29/96. No notice (fce) (Entered: 03/01/1996)
2059 MINUTE ORDER of 2/29/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Remedial trial H&C to 9:30 3/4/96. No notice (fce) (Entered: 03/04/1996)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 148 of 307

03/04/1996 03/04/1996
03/05/1996 03/05/1996
03/05/1996
03/06/1996 03/06/1996 03/06/1996 03/06/1996
03/07/1996
03/07/1996 03/08/1996 03/08/1996

2060 Report to the Court Concerncing Effectuation of the 2/23/96 Fess Order by plaintiffs; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/04/1996)
2061 MINUTE ORDER of 3/4/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Granting Master's motion to supplement evidence as stated in open court. [2036-1]. Expert testimony on implementation issues for defendant-intervenor is limited to Mr. Dolan, whose deposition is to be tkane by 3/11/96. Remedial trial held and continued to 9:30 3/5/96 No notice (fce) (Entered: 03/07/1996)
2062 Statement of Pulliam Law Offices, P.A.; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/07/1996)
2063 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to the Special Master's Motion to Supplement the Evidence with Facilities Assessment Report and Ten Year facilities Report; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/07/1996)
2068 MINUTE ORDER of 3/5/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Remedial trial H&C to 9:30 3/6/96. Defendant-intervenor's motion to quash interrogatories is denied in part and granted in part as stated in open court. No notice (fce) (Entered: 03/08/1996)
2064 Intervenors-Defendants' RESPONSE to motion for summary judgment [1853-1] (fce) (Entered: 03/07/1996)
2065 Intervenors-Defendants' Local Rule 12N RESPONSE to Plaintiffs' Local Rule 12M Statement (fce) (Entered: 03/07/1996)
2066 Intervenors-Defendants' Memorandum of Law in RESPONSE to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (fce) (Entered: 03/07/1996)
2069 MINUTE ORDER of 3/6/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Finding defendant's motion for modification of tort budget [2032-1] moot. Instructions on the relationship of CRO to 1995-96 budget stated in open court. Remedial trial H&C to 9:30 3/7/96. No notice (fce) (Entered: 03/08/1996)
2067 Intervenors-Defendants' MOTION for leave to file Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, Local Rule 12N Response and Supporting Memorandum of Law in Excess of 15 Pages (fce) (Entered: 03/07/1996)
2070 MINUTE ORDER of 3/7/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Remedial trial H&C to 9:30 3/19/96. No notice (fce) (Entered: 03/08/1996)
2071 STIPULATION of the Parties and the Master regarding the Implementation Schedule for part III(A) of the Court's 1/26/96 Order (fce) (Entered: 03/08/1996)
2072 MINUTE ORDER of 3/8/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The stipulation of the parties is approved by the court and becomes an order of the court. No notice (fce) (Entered: 03/08/1996)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 149 of 307

03/12/1996 03/12/1996
03/12/1996 03/12/1996 03/13/1996 03/14/1996 03/15/1996 03/15/1996 03/15/1996 03/15/1996 03/18/1996 03/19/1996 03/19/1996

2073 Sections C and D of the second segment of the Comprehensive Remedial ORDER (fce) (Entered: 03/14/1996)
2074 MINUTE ORDER of 3/12/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The clerk is hereby ordered to enter Sections C and D of the second segment of the Comprehensive Remedial order. Defendant's motion for leave to withdarw motion to reopen proofs is granted. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/14/1996)
2075 Plaintiffs' Comments in Support of Master's Recommendations for payment to CRO Expert Witness Levine; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/14/1996)
2076 MOTION by plaintiffs to confirm FY 1994-95 Implementation Fee Orders to the Final Hourly Rates Approved by the Court for that Fiscal Year ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/15/1996)
2077 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiffs' Submission of Comprehensive Remedial Process Fees for JuneDecember 1995 and Plaintiffs' Request for an Interim Payment Order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/15/1996)
2078 REPLY by plaintiffs' to Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' CRO Fees Submission for June-December 1995 and Plaintiffs' Request for an Interim Payment Order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/15/1996)
2079 MOTION by plaintiffs', intervenors and the Master to extend to 3/25/96 the date for staff assignment findings and conclusions ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/18/1996)
2080 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for leave to add an expert witness on Governance Issues ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/18/1996)
2081 MOTION by plaintiffs, intervenors and the Master to extend to 3/25/96 the date for staff assignment findings and conclusions ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/18/1996)
2082 MINUTE ORDER of 3/15/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Motion of the parties and the master to extend to 3/25/96 the date for Staff Assignment Findings and Conclusions is granted. No notice (fce) (Entered: 03/18/1996)
2083 Master's OBJECTIONS to defendant Rockford Board of Education's motion for leave to add an expert witness on governance issues or in the alternative for a continuance; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/18/1996)
2084 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs' in opposition to defendant's motion to add an expert witness on governance issues, and in the alternative plaintiffs' motion to defer the governance hearing; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/19/1996)
2085 Master's Recommendation to the Court Regarding Governance; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/19/1996)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 150 of 307

03/19/1996
03/19/1996
03/19/1996 03/20/1996
03/20/1996 03/20/1996 03/20/1996 03/22/1996 03/22/1996 03/25/1996 03/25/1996

2086 MINUTE ORDER of 3/19/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant is hereby ordered and directed to charge against and disburse monies from the court ordered desegregation funds and to make payment on the 2/12/96 invoice from Eugene Eubanks. The court further orders and directs defendant to maintain its copy of this opinion and the underlying documents for any future accounting and/or auditing functions, as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/22/1996)
2087 MINUTE ORDER of 3/19/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Having received no bojection, the court hereby orders and directs defendant to make payment on the following invoices: Pulliam Law Offices (periods ending 1/15 and 2/15/96); Oliver S. Brown Associates (12/20/95); Dr. Martin Shapiro (2/13/96); and Dr. Daniel Levine (2/12/96). No tort desegregation and/or implementation funds are to be used for making these payments. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/22/1996)
2101 MINUTE ORDER of 3/19/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Remedial trial H&C to 9:30 3/20/96. No notice (fce) (Entered: 04/01/1996)
2088 MINUTE ORDER of 3/20/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Presently before the court is plaintiffs' request for an interim payment order on CRO fees for June-December 1995. The court hereby grants plaintiffs' motion and orders the Rockford Board of Education to pay the law firm of Futterman & Howard $657,249.24. This figure represents 50% of the total fees for the seven months, from June 1995 through December 1995, and 100% of the out of pocket expenses for these 7 months. The court reserves ruling on the balance of these fees at a later date. No tort desegregation and/or implementation funds are to be used for making this payment. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/22/1996)
2089 Comments in Support of the Master's Recommendations for Payment to CRO Expert Witness Parish by plaintiffs; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/22/1996)
2090 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to strike plaintiffs' report to the court concerning effectuation of the 2/23/96 fees order ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/22/1996)
2102 MINUTE ORDER of 3/20/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Remedial trial H&C to 9:30 3/27/96. No notice (fce) (Entered: 04/01/1996)
2091 STIPULATION and Request of the Parties concerning the Dates for Certain Submissions; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/22/1996)
2092 MOTION by plaintiffs for reconsideration of parts IV.C and D of the Court's Remedial Order - Student Assignment ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/22/1996)
2093 Master's MOTION to amend and supplement his Recommendation to the Court regarding Governance with the Master's Motion to the Court regarding Governance ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/26/1996)
2094 Joint Report of the Parties implementing the Court's 2/23/96 Fee Order;

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 151 of 307

03/25/1996 03/26/1996 03/27/1996 03/27/1996 03/27/1996 03/27/1996 03/27/1996 03/28/1996 03/29/1996
03/29/1996 03/29/1996 04/01/1996

notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/26/1996)
2095 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to motion to confirm FY 1994-95 Implementation Fee Orders to the Final Hourly Rates Approved by the Court for that Fiscal Year [2076-1]; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/26/1996)
2096 Plaintiffs' Proposed FINDINGS of fact Related to Staff Hiring and Assignment; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/26/1996)
2097 Proposed Conclusions of Law regarding Employment Issues by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/28/1996)
2098 Master's FINDINGS of fact related to faculty and staff; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/28/1996)
2099 Rockford Board of Education's Proposed FINDINGS of fact regarding employment issues (fce) (Entered: 03/28/1996)
2100 Intervenors-Defendants' FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/28/1996)
2103 MINUTE ORDER of 3/27/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Remedial trial continued. Remedial trial ends. No notice (fce) (Entered: 04/01/1996)
2104 Proposed Conclusions of law by plaintiffs supporting Faculty and Staff Hiring and Assignment Remedies; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/01/1996)
2105 MINUTE ORDER of 3/29/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : With respect to the final payments for plaintiffs' fees-on-fees petition for fees connected with the liability hearing, the court accepts the calculations in the parties' joint stipulation filed 3/25/96. Accordingly, defendant is hereby ordered to pay the Futterman & Howard firm the amount of $14,775.76 and the Gessler Hughes firm $6,199.53. No tort desegregation and/or implementation funds are to be used for making these payments. Defendant's motion to certify judgment for appeal is denied. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/01/1996)
2106 REPLY by plaintiffs to Defendant's Response and Objections to Plaintiffs' Motion to Conform FY94-95 Implementation Fee Order to the Final Hourly Rates approved by the Court for that Year; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/01/1996)
2107 Comments in Support of the Master's Recommendations for Payment to CRO Expert Witness Levine by plaintiffs; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/01/1996)
2108 Suggestion to the Court by plaintiffs' Concerning Implementation Fees for June through December 1995; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/01/1996)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 152 of 307

04/01/1996 04/04/1996 04/04/1996
04/04/1996
04/04/1996 04/04/1996 04/05/1996 04/05/1996 04/08/1996 04/10/1996 04/10/1996 04/12/1996

2109 JUDGMENT: Pursuant to FRCP 54(b) this court's order dated 3/12/96 implementing the student assignment plan, is a final appealable order. The court finds no just reason to delay entering judgment. Mailed notices (fce) (Entered: 04/02/1996)
2110 JUDGMENT: It is ordered and adjudged pursuant to FRCP 54(b) the order of this court dated 1/26/96 implementing fourteen remedial areas is considered a final order. The court finds no just reason to delay the appeal of this order. (fce) (Entered: 04/05/1996)
2111 MINUTE ORDER of 4/4/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On its own motion, the court has reconsidered its 3/29/96 ruling on defendant's motion to certify judgment for appeal with respect to the fees-on-fees litigation. The 3/29/96 order completed the fees-on-fees litigation for the fees arising from the liability phase of this trial. For this reason, the court enters final judgment in the amount of $215,819.66, calculated through the date of 3/31/96. After partial payment made by defendant, the balance due the Futterman & Howard firm is $14,775.76 and the balance due the Gessler Hughes firm is $6,199.53. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/05/1996)
2112 JUDGMENT: Pursuant to FRCP 54(b), final judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiffs on their fees-on-fees petition for fees associated with the liability fee petition in the amount of Two hundred fifteen thousand, eight hundred nineteen dollars and sixty-six cents ($215,819.66) calculated through 3/31/96. The Court finds no just reason to delay the appeal of this order. (fce) (Entered: 04/05/1996)
2113 STATEMENT of Lord, Bissell & Brook; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/05/1996)
2114 Master's REPLY to Intervenor's Response to Motion for Summary Judgment (fce) (Entered: 04/05/1996)
2115 REPLY Memorandum by plaintiffs in Support of motion for Summary judgment; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/05/1996)
2116 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to the Master's Motion to the Court regarding Governance; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/05/1996)
2117 Renewed MOTION by plaintiff Stephanie Burfield for reconsideration of parts IV.C and D of the Court's Remedial Order - Student Assignment ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/09/1996)
2118 Master's Consented to Motion for an Extension to File Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding Educational Remedies; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/11/1996)
2119 Plaintiffs' Comments in Support of the Master's Recommendations for Payment to CRO Expert Witness Doss Willis; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/11/1996)
2120 Renewed MOTION by plaintiff for reconsideration of portions of Court's

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 153 of 307

04/15/1996 04/15/1996
04/19/1996 04/19/1996 04/19/1996 04/23/1996
04/23/1996
04/26/1996 04/26/1996 04/26/1996
04/26/1996 04/26/1996 04/26/1996

1/26/96 first segment of comprehensive remedial order and court's 4/4/96 judgment order ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/15/1996)
2121 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed regarding the Suggested use of West as a Secondary Facility; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/15/1996)
2122 MINUTE ORDER of 4/15/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The Master's motion for an extension of time is granted. All parties' findings of fact and conclusions of law on the remaining CRO issues are due on 4/26/96. All parties are given seven days to comment on defendant's response regarding the suggested use of West. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/18/1996)
2123 Response and OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiffs' Suggestion to the Court concerning Implementation Fees for June through December 1995; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/23/1996)
2124 STATEMENT of Lord, Bissell & Brook; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/23/1996)
2125 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to vacate and recall judgments in a civil case on segments 1, 2 and 3 of the comprehensive remedial order (fce) (Entered: 04/23/1996)
2126 Defendant Rockford Board of Education's Comments regarding the Master''s Recommendation for Payment to Comprehensive Remedial Order Witness Dr. Harriet Doss-Willis; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/23/1996)
2127 MINUTE ORDER of 4/23/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : DefendantIntervenors' motion for extension of time is granted. All parties are given until 4/26/96 to comment on defendant's response regarding the suggested use of West. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/25/1996)
2128 Proposed Conclusions of Law by plaintiffs' regarding the Educational Remedies; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/26/1996)
2129 Plaintiffs' Proposed FINDINGS of fact relating to educational remedies; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/26/1996)
2130 Post Trial MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to strike testimony of Daniel U. levine and all other experts who opinions about minority achievement are not based on scientific knowledge (fce) (Entered: 04/26/1996)
2131 Rockford Board of Education's Proposed FINDINGS of fact regarding educational remedies (fce) (Entered: 04/26/1996)
2132 Proposed Conclusions of Law by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed regarding educational remedies; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/26/1996)
2133 The Master's REPLY to Rockford Board of Education's Response to the

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 154 of 307

04/29/1996 04/29/1996 04/29/1996
05/01/1996 05/02/1996
05/02/1996 05/02/1996 05/02/1996 05/02/1996 05/03/1996
05/03/1996 05/03/1996 05/03/1996 05/03/1996 05/06/1996
05/06/1996

Courts Request for Dialog Regarding West and to RBE's Motion to Revisit Issues Decided by the CRO; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/29/1996)
2134 The Master's Proposed FINDINGS of fact related to Educational Remedies (fce) (Entered: 04/29/1996)
2135 Master's Proposed Conclusions of Law related to Educational Remedies; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/29/1996)
2136 Plaintiffs' Comments on Defendant's Response regarding the Suggested Use of West as a Secondary Facility; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/29/1996)
2137 Katz & Buhaie's NOTICE of change of address; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/01/1996)
2138 Intervenors-Defendants' Proposed FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law related to educational outcomes and governance; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/06/1996)
2139 Plaintiffs' Proposed FINDINGS of fact related to governance; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/06/1996)
2140 Plaintiffs' Proposed FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law related to funding and budgeting; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/06/1996)
2141 Conclusions of Law regarding finance issues by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/06/1996)
2142 Proposed Findings of Fact regarding finance issues by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed (fce) (Entered: 05/06/1996)
2143 REPLY by plaintiffs' to defendant's comments regarding the Master's recommendation for payment to CRO expert wtiness Dr. Doss-Willis; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/06/1996)
2144 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed ( $105.00 paid); notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/06/1996)
2145 DOCKETING STATEMENT by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed . (fce) (Entered: 05/06/1996)
2146 NOTICE OF APPEAL by plaintiff ( $105.00 paid); notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/06/1996)
2147 DOCKETING STATEMENT by plaintiffs. (fce) (Entered: 05/06/1996)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on appeal . Mailed notice to all counsel. Mailed via certified mail Z 034 401 321. (clb) (Entered: 05/06/1996)
2148 MINUTE ORDER of 5/6/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic hearing regarding bonds H&C to 2:00 5/20/96 . Telephoned notice (fce) (Entered: 05/07/1996)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 155 of 307

05/06/1996 05/06/1996 05/07/1996 05/07/1996 05/09/1996 05/10/1996 05/10/1996 05/10/1996 05/13/1996 05/13/1996 05/13/1996 05/13/1996
05/13/1996 05/13/1996

2149 Master's proposed FINDINGS of fact related to Funding of the Court's Comprehensive Remedial Order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/07/1996)
2150 Master's Proposed Conclusions of Law related to Funding of the Court's Comprehensive Remedial Order (fce) (Entered: 05/07/1996)
2151 OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to the invoices of Michael Alves, Oliver Brown Associates, Robert Dentler, Helen Dentler and Charles Willie; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/07/1996)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on appeal . Mailed notice to all counsel. Mailed via certified mail Z 034 401 322. (clb) (Entered: 05/07/1996)
2152 STATEMENT of Lord, Bissell & Brook; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/10/1996)
2153 Notice of Recent Judicial Appellate Decision of case cited in intervenorsdefendants' opposition to plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment (fce) (Entered: 05/10/1996)
2154 NOTICE of hearing by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/10/1996)
2155 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' to defendant's objection to Alves, Dentler, and Brown fee invoices; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/10/1996)
2156 RETURN receipt green card from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing that short record was signed for on 5/8/96 (fce) (Entered: 05/14/1996)
2157 RETURN receipt green card from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing short record was signed for on 5/9/96 (fce) (Entered: 05/14/1996)
2158 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal USCA 962132 (fce) (Entered: 05/14/1996)
2159 RESPONSE to motion to strike testimony of Daniel U. levine and all other experts who opinions about minority achievement are not based on scientific knowledge [2130-1]; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/14/1996)
2160 DESIGNATION of appeal record; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/14/1996)
2161 MINUTE ORDER of 5/13/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court hereby orders and directs defendant to make payment on the following invoices: Lord, Bissell and Brook (periods ending 11/30/95, and 12/31/95); Ralph parish (3/10/96 invoice); Harriet Doss Willis )per Dr. Eubanks' 4/1/96 letter); and Michael Alves, Oliver Brown Associates, Robert Dentler, Helen Dentler and Charles Willie (per Dr. Eubanks' 4/2/96 letter). Defendants' objections concerning to the Alves, Oliver Brown, Dentler and Willie invoices are overruled. No trot desegregatioon and/or implementation funds are to be used for making these payments.

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 156 of 307

05/13/1996
05/13/1996
05/14/1996 05/14/1996
05/14/1996 05/16/1996 05/17/1996 05/17/1996 05/17/1996 05/17/1996 05/17/1996
05/20/1996

Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/14/1996)
2162 MINUTE ORDER of 5/13/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant is hereby ordered to charge against and disburse monies from the court ordered desegregation funds and to make payment on the 4/15/96 invoice from Eugene Eubanks. The court further orders the District to maintain its copy of this opinion and the underlying documents for any future accounting and/or auditing functions, as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/14/1996)
2163 Order from the U.S. Court of Appeals dated 5/10/96; Pursuant to Circuit Rule 11(a), the entire record is to be transmitted to this court immediately for use in the decision in the above named cause. (fce) (Entered: 05/14/1996)
2164 RESPONSE by plaintiff in 3:89-cv-20168 to motion to vacate and recall judgments in a civil case on segments 1, 2 and 3 of the comprehensive remedial order [2125-1]; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/14/1996)
2165 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' to the defendant's post-trial motion to strike the testimony of Daniel U. Levine and all other experts whose opinions about minority achievement are not based on scientific knowledge; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/16/1996)
2166 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal USCA 962151 (fce) (Entered: 05/17/1996)
2167 STATEMENT of Pulliam Law Offices, P.A.; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/17/1996)
2168 STIPULATION of the parties that parts of the record be retained in the district court; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/17/1996)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the long record on appeal no. 962132 consisting of 15 folders and 24 expandable folders (3 boxes) mailed via UPS. (clb) (Entered: 05/17/1996)
2169 Master's Report Regarding Implementation Progress and Problems Necessitating the Court's Attention (fce) (Entered: 05/20/1996)
2170 Student Assignment Plan - Addendum (fce) (Entered: 05/20/1996)
2171 MINUTE ORDER of 5/17/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The clerk is hereby ordered to enter the Student Assignment Plan - Addendum to the second segment of the Comprehensive Remedial Order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/20/1996)
2172 MINUTE ORDER of 5/20/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court has received and reviewed the Master's Report Regarding Implementation Progress of the CRO filed on 5/17/96. The District is ordered to file a proposed job description for the position of the Director of the Department of Desegregation by 5/22/96 at 1:00 p.m. The Master has filed his proposed job description with the Report. The court will choose between the two or draft its own job description. The court

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 157 of 307

05/22/1996
05/22/1996
05/24/1996 05/24/1996
05/24/1996 05/28/1996 05/28/1996 05/28/1996 05/28/1996 05/28/1996 05/28/1996
05/28/1996

expects this position to be filled by 6/3/96 per the parties' timetable. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/20/1996)
2173 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for reconsideration of order, or, in the alternative, motion to set hearing on question of student assignment plan or director of the department of desegregation ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/23/1996)
2174 MINUTE ORDER of 5/22/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant has filed a motion to reconsider this court's 5/20/96 order requiring the RSD to file a job description for the position of the Director of the Department of Desegregation by 5/22/96. The District's motion is granted in part and denied in part. The RSD will have to 5/24/96 at 1:00 p.m. to file its response. A hearing on this issue is not necessary. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/23/1996)
2175 APPENDIX I filed to Master's Supplemental Report (fce) (Entered: 05/28/1996)
2176 Plaintiffs' Comments in Support of the Master's Report and Request regarding Implementation Progress and Problems and in Opposition to Defendnat's Motion for Reconsideration of Order or in the Alternative to Set a Hearing; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/28/1996)
2177 NOTICE of Motion; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/28/1996)
2178 Copy of transmittal LETTER returned from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing that entire record on appeal was stamped received on 5/23/96 (fce) (Entered: 05/28/1996)
2179 MOTION by intervenors/defendants to disqualify Dr. Eugene Eubanks as master in this case (fce) (Entered: 05/29/1996)
2180 OBJECTIONS by intervenors/defendants to master's representation by legal counsel and motion to bar such further representation of the master by counsel; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 05/29/1996)
2181 Defendant's Position Regarding the Director of Desegregation; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/29/1996)
2182 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 05/29/1996)
2183 MINUTE ORDER of 5/28/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The clerk is hereby ordered to enter the first part of the third segment of the CRO. Defendant's renewed motion to reconsider factual findings is denied. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment based on the Wehrle case is denied. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/29/1996)
2184 MINUTE ORDER of 5/28/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : At the District's request, this court held a hearing concerning the position of the director of desegregation. The court holds that the title of this position will be The Director of Desegregation. Irrespective of title, this person shall have the power necessary to carry out all aspects of the student assignment plan as detailed in the CRO. The salary for this position shall

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 158 of 307

05/30/1996 05/30/1996
05/30/1996
05/31/1996 05/31/1996 05/31/1996 06/03/1996 06/03/1996 06/03/1996
06/04/1996 06/04/1996 06/04/1996 06/04/1996 06/04/1996

be at the level of associate superintendent in this District. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/29/1996)
2185 STATEMENT of Lord, Bissell & Brook; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/30/1996)
2186 JUDGMENT: Pursuant to FRCP 54(b) the court finding no just reason to delay the appeal, Court enters judgment on the Student Assignment PlanAddendum to the second segment of the Comprehensive Remedial Order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/31/1996)
2187 JUDGMENT: Pursuant to FRCP 54(b) the court finds that there is no just reason to delay the appeal, the court enters judgment on the first part of the third segment of the CRO regarding faculty assignment. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment based on the Werhrle case is denied. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/31/1996)
2188 copy of Order from the 7th Circuit directing parties for briefing schedule. ( 96-2132 and 96-2151) (fce) (Entered: 06/03/1996)
2189 JOB DESCRIPTION for Director of Desegregation by Rockford Board Of Ed (fce) (Entered: 06/03/1996)
2190 POSITION STATEMENT on the Placement of the Montessori Magnet Program by Rockford Board Of Ed. (fce) (Entered: 06/03/1996)
2191 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Rockford Education, Rockford Building, Educational Office from statement [2185-1], from judgment [2187-1] ( not paid) (fce) (Entered: 06/03/1996)
2192 DOCKETING STATEMENT by Rockford Education, Rockford Building, Educational Office regarding appeal [2191-1] . (fce) (Entered: 06/03/1996)
2193 REPLY by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' response to defendant's motion to vacate and recall judgment in a civil case on segments one, two and three of the comprehensive remedial order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/06/1996)
2194 Plaintiffs' Comments on Defendant's Job Description for the Director of Desegregation; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/06/1996)
2195 Plaintiffs' Comments in Support of the Master's Recommendations for Payment to CRO Expert witness Shapiro; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/06/1996)
RECEIPT regarding payment of filing fee paid; on 6/4/96 in the amount of $ 105.00, receipt # 292515. (fce) (Entered: 06/06/1996)
2196 MINUTE ORDER of 6/4/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic discovery hearing H&C to 10:00 7/11/96. Telephoned notice (fce) (Entered: 06/06/1996)
2197 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for hearing on ability grouping, the gifted program, and special education ; notice of filing (fce)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 159 of 307

06/05/1996 06/05/1996
06/06/1996 06/06/1996
06/06/1996 06/06/1996 06/07/1996 06/07/1996 06/11/1996 06/12/1996 06/13/1996 06/13/1996 06/13/1996 06/13/1996 06/13/1996

(Entered: 06/06/1996)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on appeal . Mailed notice to all counsel. Mailed via certified mail Z 034 401 334. (clb) (Entered: 06/05/1996)
2198 MINUTE ORDER of 6/5/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : All parties are given 10 days to respond to defendant-intervenors' motion to disqualify Dr. Eubanks as Master and defendant-intervenors' objection to the Master's continued representation by legal counsel. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/06/1996)
2199 Plaintiffs' Comments on Defendant's Request for Deadline Extension re: Director of Desegregation; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/06/1996)
2200 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to strike plaintiffs' proposed findings of fact related to governance and to disallow any fees relating to the preparation thereof ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/06/1996)
2201 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for hearing on the placement of the Montessori Magnet Program (fce) (Entered: 06/06/1996)
2202 Twenty First Progress Report - Second Interim Order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/06/1996)
2203 Third and Final Segment ORDER of the CRO (fce) (Entered: 06/10/1996)
2204 MINUTE ORDER of 6/7/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The clerk is hereby ordered to enter the third and final segment of the CRO. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/10/1996)
2205 RETURN receipt green card from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing that short record was signed for on 6/7/96 (fce) (Entered: 06/12/1996)
2206 DESIGNATION by Rockford Board Of Ed in 3:89-cv-20168 of appeal record; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/12/1996)
2207 Intervenors-Defendants' DESIGNATION of appeal record (fce) (Entered: 06/17/1996)
2208 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal USCA 962410 (fce) (Entered: 06/17/1996)
2209 NOTICE of Motion by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed in 3:89-cv20168; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/17/1996)
2210 MOTION by plaintiffs in 3:89-cv-20168 for reconsideration of segment three of the comprehensive remedial order related to faculty hiring and placement notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/17/1996)
2211 MOTION by plaintiffs in 3:89-cv-20168 to reconsider, alter or amend the comprehensive remedial order addendum (pages 116-122) with respect to

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 160 of 307

06/14/1996 06/17/1996 06/19/1996 06/19/1996 06/19/1996 06/19/1996 06/20/1996 06/20/1996 06/21/1996 06/21/1996
06/21/1996 06/24/1996

West High School notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/17/1996)
2212 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed in 3:89-cv-20168 to alter or amend that portion of segment three of the comprehensive remedial order relating to faculty hiring and placement ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/17/1996)
2213 MINUTE ORDER of 6/17/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Granting defendant's motion for hearing on the placement of the Montessori Magnet Program [2201-1] The hearing is set for 9:30 6/25/96. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/18/1996)
2214 Special Master's RESPONSE to Intervenors-Defendants' Motion to Var Representation of the Master by counsel and memorandum of Law in Support; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/19/1996)
2215 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to stay the Master's Directive on the Location of the Montessori Program ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/21/1996)
2216 MINUTE ORDER of 6/19/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The hearing on the placement of the Montessori program is reset to 9:00 6/28/96. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/21/1996)
2226 Special Master's RESPONSE to motion to disqualify Dr. Eugene Eubanks as master in this case [2179-1] and Memorandum of Law in Support; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/02/1996)
2217 RESPONSE by plaintiff to motion to disqualify Dr. Eugene Eubanks as master in this case [2179-1]; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/21/1996)
2218 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' to Intervenors-Defendants' Objection to Master's Representation by legal counsel and Motion to Bar Such Further Representation of the Master by Counsel; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/21/1996)
2219 Copy of Order from the 7th Circuit. ( 96-2410) IT IS ORDERED that the appellants shall tender the necessary documents to the clerk of the District Court by 6/27/97. The District Court shall prepare, certify and transmit the supplemental record by 7/1/96. (fce) (Entered: 06/25/1996)
2220 MINUTE ORDER of 6/21/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court hereby orders and directs defendant to make payment on the invoice from Dr. Levine per Dr. Eubanks' 3/25/96, letter. No tort desegregation and/or implementation funds are to be used for making this payment. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/25/1996)
2221 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to alter or amend portions of segment three of the comprehensive remedial order ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/25/1996)
2222 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to intervenorsdefendants' Objection to Master's Representation by Legal Counsel; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/25/1996)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 161 of 307

06/24/1996 06/24/1996 06/25/1996
06/27/1996 06/28/1996 06/28/1996 06/28/1996 06/28/1996 07/01/1996
07/01/1996 07/01/1996 07/01/1996

2223 JUDGMENT: The court finds no just reason to delay the appeal in this case and pursuant to FRCP 54(b), the court enters judgment on the third and final segment of the Comprehensive Remedial Order. Mailed notices (fce) (Entered: 06/25/1996)
2224 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 5/28/96 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 06/25/1996)
2225 MINUTE ORDER of 6/25/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic status conference held. All witnesses for the hearing regarding the Montessori program, scheduled for 6/28/96 at 9:00 a.m., shall be available as is reasonable and practicable under the circumstances. All counsel to hold 7/1/96, open for reconvening the hearing if necessary. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/26/1996)
2227 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to motion to reconsider, alter or amend the comprehensive remedial order addendum (pages 116-122) with respect to West High School [2211-1]; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/02/1996)
2228 MOTION by plaintiffs' to limit the presentation of testimonial evidence at the Montessori hearing and to establish clearly erroneous review of the Master's Montessori site report ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/02/1996)
2229 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to stay certain portions of the comprehensive remedial order ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/02/1996)
2230 Plaintiffs' Position Statement in Support of the Master's Directive on the 1996-97 Location of the Montessori Magnet School; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/02/1996)
2231 MINUTE ORDER of 6/28/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Hearing held regarding the Montessori program anda the St. Patrick's facility. Hearing continued to 1:00 7/1/96. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/02/1996)
2232 MINUTE ORDER of 7/1/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Hearing held regarding the Montessori program and the St. Patrick's facility. The Master's Rule 53 report is adopted by the court with the modifications as stated in open court. The RSD's objections to the report are denied in part and granted in part as stated in open court. The Rockford School District is hereby ordered to copmly with this court's order as stated in open court. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/02/1996)
2233 Offer of Proof and Supporting Affidavit (fce) (Entered: 07/02/1996)
2234 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 7/1/96 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 07/02/1996)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit supplement to appeal no. 96-2410 consisting of three volumes of pleadings, one transcript and one bulky item mailed via certified mail Z 034 401 343. (clb) (Entered: 07/02/1996)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 162 of 307

07/02/1996 07/02/1996 07/03/1996
07/03/1996 07/03/1996
07/05/1996 07/08/1996 07/09/1996 07/09/1996 07/10/1996 07/10/1996 07/10/1996 07/10/1996

2235 Rockford Board of Education's Citation of Additional Authority for Placement of Montessori Magnet Program at Haight Elementary School; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/03/1996)
2236 Montessori Dispute Resolution Offer of Proof; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/03/1996)
2237 MINUTE ORDER of 7/3/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court hereby orders and directs defendant to make payment on the following invoices: Lord, Bissell and Brook (periods ending 3/31/96 and 4/30/96); Pulliam Law Offices (period ending 3/15/96; and Robert Dentler and Oliver Brown Associates (per dr. Eubanks' 6/17/96 letter). No tort desegregation and/or implementation funds are to be used for making these payments. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/03/1996)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit supplement to appeal no. 96-2410 consisting of one volume of pleadings and one transcript mailed via certified mail Z 034 401 348. (clb) (Entered: 07/03/1996)
2238 MINUTE ORDER of 7/3/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court has received a request from Dr. Eubanks to extend the contract with the Planning Team on a temporary basis until the budget is approved by the court. All parties are given 7 days to object. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/05/1996)
2239 Renewal MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to alter or amend portions of segment three of the comprehensive remedial order ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/09/1996)
2240 Master's REPLY to Defendant's Response to Intervenors-Defendant's Objection to Master's Representation by Counsel; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/09/1996)
2241 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to alter or amend the court's order regarding St. Patrick's Elementary School ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/10/1996)
2242 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to stay the court's order regarding St. Patrick's Elementary School ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/10/1996)
2243 RETURN receipt green card from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing that supplemental record was signed for 7/8/96 (fce) (Entered: 07/10/1996)
2244 RETURN receipt green card from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing that supplemental record was signed for on 7/5/96 (fce) (Entered: 07/10/1996)
2245 Copy of transmittal LETTER returned from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing that supplemental record was stamped received on 7/8/96 (fce) (Entered: 07/10/1996)
2246 MOTION by plaintiffs' for reconsideration of portions of court's 6/7/96

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 163 of 307

07/10/1996
07/11/1996 07/11/1996 07/11/1996 07/11/1996 07/11/1996 07/12/1996 07/15/1996 07/15/1996 07/18/1996 07/18/1996
07/19/1996

third segment of comprehensive remedial order (fce) (Entered: 07/11/1996)
2247 MINUTE ORDER of 7/10/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Rockford Board of Education's motion to stay the court's order regarding St. Patrick's elementary school pending decision on motion to alter or amend is granted. The only exception is that the Master is authorized to continue negotiations concerning the building. Rockford Board of Education's motion to alter or amend the court's order regarding St. Patrick's elementary school presented. Response due 7/24/96. Reply due 7/31/96. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/11/1996)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit supplemental record consisting of one volume of pleadings, one transcript and one bulky item mailed via certified mail Z 034 401 351. (clb) (Entered: 07/11/1996)
2248 MOTION to stay pending appeal and pending resolution of motion for hearing to receive new evidence ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/11/1996)
2249 MEMORANDUM in support of motion to stay pending appeal and pending resolution of motion for hearing to receive new evidence [22481] (fce) (Entered: 07/11/1996)
2250 MOTION for hearing to receive new evidence (fce) (Entered: 07/11/1996)
2251 MINUTE ORDER of 7/11/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic discovery hearing H&C to 10:30 8/27/96. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/15/1996)
2252 Copy of transmittal LETTER returned from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing that supplemental record was stamped received on 7/5/96 (fce) (Entered: 07/15/1996)
2253 OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to the Extension of the Alves Planning Team Contract (fce) (Entered: 07/16/1996)
2254 OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to the Plaintiffs' Offer of Proof and Supporting Affidavit; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/16/1996)
2255 Intervenors-Defendants' NOTICE of Motion (fce) (Entered: 07/19/1996)
2256 MINUTE ORDER of 7/18/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Intervenordefendant's motions for stay pending appeal and for hearing to receive new evidence are taken under advisement and will be ruled upon by mail. The noticed hearing date of 724/96 is stricken. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/19/1996)
2257 RETURN receipt green card from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing that supplemental record on appeal was signed for on 7/15/96 (fce) (Entered: 07/19/1996)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 164 of 307

07/23/1996 07/23/1996 07/23/1996 07/24/1996 07/25/1996 07/26/1996 07/26/1996
07/26/1996 07/29/1996 07/31/1996 08/01/1996

2258 MINUTE ORDER of 7/23/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Per the reverse side, the District is hereby ordered to make payment for fees associated with implementation of the Second Interim order, for the months June 1995 through December 1995. (For further detail, see reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/24/1996)
2259 MINUTE ORDER of 7/23/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court hereby order and directs defendant to make payment on the invoice from Dr. Shapiro per Dr. Eubanks' 5/28/96 letter. No tort desegregation and/or implementation funds are to be used for making this payment. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/24/1996)
2260 MINUTE ORDER of 7/23/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Dr. Eubanks' request to extend the contract with the Planning Team on a temporary basis until budget approval is hereby granted. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/24/1996)
2261 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' to defendant Rockford Board of Education's Motion to Alter or Amend the Court's order regarding St. Patrick's Elementary School; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/24/1996)
2262 NOTICE of Motion by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed (fce) (Entered: 07/25/1996)
2263 Plaintiffs' Request to School District with Regard to CRO Funding Initiatives; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/29/1996)
2264 MINUTE ORDER of 7/26/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs' motion to conform FY 1994-95 Implementation Fee Orders is granted. Plaintiffs' counsel are to be awarded a supplemental payment in the amount of $31,187.00 due to the rate differentials. Defendant is hereby ordered to charge against and disburse $31,187.00 from the court ordered desegregation funds. The court further orders the District to maintain its copy of this opinion and the underlying documents for any future accounting and/or auditing functions, as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/29/1996)
2265 MINUTE ORDER of 7/26/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : the court has received the 7/24/96 letter from Dr. Eubanks concerning the use of the Fund 12 balance to begin the implementation of the CRO capital improvements. All parties are given 7 days to comment. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/29/1996)
2266 RESPONSE and Objections by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to the Master's 7/10/96 Request for Fees; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/30/1996)
2267 REPLY by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to the Plaintiffs' Response to Motion to Alter or Amend the Court's Order regarding St. Patrick's Elementary School; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/01/1996)
2268 STATEMENT of Lord, Bissell & Brook; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/05/1996)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 165 of 307

08/01/1996 08/01/1996 08/05/1996 08/05/1996 08/05/1996 08/05/1996
08/07/1996 08/07/1996 08/07/1996 08/08/1996 08/09/1996

2269 MOTION to quash or modify certain subpoenas, or, in the alternative, for a protective order ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/05/1996)
2270 Seth Atwood's MOTION to quash or modify certain subpoenas, or, in the alternative, for a protective order ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/05/1996)
2271 Plaintiffs' Comments Regarding Dr. Eubanks' 7/24/96 Letter Concerning the use of the Fund 12 Balance to Begin the Implementation of the CRO Capital Improvements; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/07/1996)
2272 Defendant's PETITION for Instructions relating to Factuly Hiring and Placement; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/07/1996)
2273 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to compel the depositions of Mr. Seth Atwood, Bishop Thomas G. Doran, Father Ronald A. Jones and Mr. Wayne M. Lenell ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/07/1996)
2274 MINUTE ORDER of 8/5/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court has received defendant's 7/31/96 letter concerning the Board's desire to meet with the court to discuss governance issues. All parties are given 7 days to comment. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/07/1996)
2275 Plaintiffs' Comments on Defendants' Response and Objections to the Master's 7/10/96 Request for Fees; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/07/1996)
2276 Master's RESPONSE to defendants' Response and Objections to his 7/10/96 Request for Fees; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/07/1996)
2277 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to the 7/24/96 Report of Dr. Eubanks Concerning the use of the Fund 12 Balance; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/08/1996)
2279 ORDER by Magistrate/Judge P. Michael Mahoney. (fce) (Entered: 08/09/1996)
2278 MINUTE ORDER of 8/9/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons stated in this opinion, Defendant motion to vacate or recall Rule 54(b) judgments is MOOT,[2125] Defendant's motion for leave to amend its motion to reconsider segment one is GRANTED,[2016] Defendant's motion to reconsider segment one is DENIED [2009], Plaintiff's motion to reconsider segment one is DENIED [2022, 2120], Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider segment two is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part [2092,2117], Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider segment two--addendum, is DENIED [2211],Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider segment three--faculty is denied [2210], Defendant's motion to reconsider segment three-faculty is DENIED [2212], Defendant -Intervenor's motion for hearing and/or stay is DENIED [2248], Defendant's motion to reconsider segment three is DENIED [2221,2239], Defendant's DAUBERT motion to exclude witnesses is DENIED [2130], Defendant's motion for hearing on ability grouping and Gifted program is DENIED [2197], Defendant's motion for stay is MOOT [2229] and Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider segment three

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 166 of 307

08/09/1996
08/09/1996
08/09/1996 08/09/1996 08/09/1996 08/12/1996 08/13/1996 08/13/1996
08/13/1996

is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part [2246]. See order attached. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/09/1996)
2280 MINUTE ORDER of 8/9/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : DefendantIntervenors' motion to disqualify Dr. Eubanks as Master is denied. Regarding defendant-intervenors' motion to bar representation of the Master by counsel, the parties are correct in pointing out that the Master is not a party and is not entitled to participate in any appeals. However, the Master may need counsel to present evidence to the court in future hearings. Therefore, the Master will continue to have representation of counsel until a final Comprehensive Remedial Order is in place, with no appeal pending. Defendant-Intervenors' motion is denied. Mailed notices (fce) (Entered: 08/12/1996)
2281 MINUTE ORDER of 8/9/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court has decided the motions to alter or amend judgment concerning the CRO. All parties will be responsible for picking up their exhibits in order to complete a record of appeal, if any appeal is taken. the parties are directed to contact the Magistrate's staff during normal business hours to receive their exhibits. If the parties desire, the court is willing to serve as a depository for the CRO exhibits after any appeal is completed. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/12/1996)
2282 MINUTE ORDER of 8/9/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Responses to motion to compel depositions and motion to quash depositions due 8/16/96. Replies due 8/21/96. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/12/1996)
2283 NOTICE OF APPEAL by plaintiffs ( $105.00 Paid); notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/12/1996)
2284 DOCKETING STATEMENT by plaintiffs. (fce) (Entered: 08/12/1996)
2285 MINUTE ORDER of 8/12/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs' motion to limit defendant-intervenors' participation is granted as stated on the reverse side. (For further detail, see reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/14/1996)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on appeal . Mailed notice to all counsel. Mailed via certified mail Z 034 401 363. (clb) (Entered: 08/13/1996)
2286 MINUTE ORDER of 8/13/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The following motions are either moot or have already been decided by the court: docket numbers 2250, 2228, 2215, 2200, 2093, 2090, 2080, 2067, 2042, 2041, 2038, 2034, 2013, 2010, 2008, 2004, 1996, 1943, 1941, 1913, 1876, 1777, 1776, 1773 and 1772. The only motions presently before the court are docket numbers 2273, 2270, 2269 and 2241. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/14/1996)
2287 Plaintiffs' STATEMENT concerning defendant's request for the Board to meet with the court to discuss governance issues; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/14/1996)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 167 of 307

08/13/1996
08/14/1996 08/15/1996 08/15/1996 08/15/1996 08/15/1996 08/15/1996 08/15/1996 08/15/1996 08/15/1996 08/15/1996 08/15/1996 08/15/1996

2288 MINUTE ORDER of 8/13/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court has received defendant's petition for instructions relating to faculty hiring and placement. In the court's opinion, the CRO is clear in its directive. The District has been given the tools to meet the hiring and placement goals in the order and the court expects the District to use these tools. The balance of the petition, particularly the role of surplussing as it related to the objectives of the CRO, is referred to the Master for a report to the court. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/14/1996)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit supplement consisting of one file folder (#2258-2284) and one under seal item (#1926). (clb) (Entered: 08/14/1996)
2289 Volume I of TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date(s): 10/16/95 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2290 Volume II TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date(s): 10/17/95 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2291 Volume III TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date(s): 10/18/96 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2292 Volume IV TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date(s): 10/19/95 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2293 Volume V TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date(s): 10/23/95 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2294 Volume VI TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date(s): 10/24/95 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2295 Volume VII TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date(s): 10/25/96 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2296 Volume VIII TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date (s): 10/26/95 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2297 Volume IX TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date(s): 10/30/95 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2298 Volume X TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date(s): 10/31/95 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2299 Volume XI TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date(s):

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 168 of 307

08/15/1996 08/15/1996 08/15/1996 08/15/1996 08/15/1996 08/15/1996 08/15/1996 08/15/1996 08/15/1996 08/15/1996 08/15/1996 08/15/1996 08/15/1996

11/27/95 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2300 Volume XII TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date(s): 11/28/95 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2301 Volume XIII TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date (s): 11/29/95 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2302 Volume XIV TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date (s): 11/30/95 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2303 Volume XV TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date (s): 12/4/95 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2304 Volume XVI TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date (s): 12/5/95 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2305 Volume XVII TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date (s): 12/5/95 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2306 Volume XVIII TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date (s): 12/7/95 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2307 Volume XIX TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date (s): 12/11/95 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2308 Volume XX TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date (s): 12/12/95 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2309 Volume XXI TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date (s): 12/13/95 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2310 Volume XXII TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date (s): 12/14/95 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2311 Volume XXIII TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date (s): 12/19/95 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2312 Volume XXIV TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date (s): 12/20/95 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 169 of 307

08/15/1996 08/15/1996 08/15/1996 08/15/1996 08/15/1996 08/15/1996 08/15/1996 08/15/1996 08/15/1996 08/15/1996 08/15/1996 08/15/1996 08/15/1996 08/15/1996

2313 Volume XXV TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date (s): 12/21/95 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2314 Volume XXVI TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date (s): 2/22/96 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2315 Volume XXVII TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date(s): 2/23/96 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2316 Volume XXVIII TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date(s): 2/24/96 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2317 Volume XXIX TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date (s): 2/26/96 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2318 Volume XXX TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date (s): 2/27/96 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2319 Volume XXXI TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date (s): 2/28/96 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2320 Volume XXXII TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date(s): 2/29/96 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2321 Volume XXXIII TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date(s): 3/4/96 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2322 Volume XXXIV TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date(s): 3/5/96 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2323 Volume XXXV TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date(s): 3/5/96 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2324 Volume XXXVI TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date(s): 3/7/96 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2325 Volume XXXVII TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date(s): 3/19/96 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2326 Volume XXXVIII TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date(s): 3/20/96 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered:

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 170 of 307

08/15/1996 08/15/1996
08/15/1996
08/15/1996
08/16/1996 08/16/1996 08/16/1996 08/16/1996 08/19/1996 08/19/1996 08/19/1996 08/19/1996

08/16/1996)
2327 Volume XXXIX TRANSCRIPT of trial proceedings for the following date(s): 3/27/96 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2328 MINUTE ORDER of 8/15/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant is hereby ordered to charge against and disburse monies from the court ordered desegregation funds and to make payment on the 7/10/96 invoice from Eugene Eubanks. Defendant's objections are overruled. The court further orders the District to maintain its copy of this opinion and the underlying documents for any future accounting and/or auditing functions, as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2329 MINUTE ORDER of 8/15/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court requests a report from the Master indicating the current status of negotiations for the purchase of St. Patrick's School. The report should also indicate what progress is being made to establish the PEM program in the SW Quadrant, including an analysis of cost and financing. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2330 MINUTE ORDER of 8/15/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons stated on the reverse sdie, the Master is hereby authorized to use $4 million from Funds 12 and 63 to begin the immediate implementation of capital improvements ordered by the court in the CRO. (For further detail, see reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2331 REPLY by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiff's Response and Objections regarding the Master's Fee Submission; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
2335 Hinshaw & Culbertson's NOTICE of change of address (fce) (Entered: 08/20/1996)
2336 MEMORANDUM in support of Emergency Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoenas served on Bishop Thomas G. Doran, Reverend Ronald A. Jones, and wayne Lenell, or in the alternative, for a Protective Order (fce) (Entered: 08/20/1996)
2337 MEMORANDUM in support of Emergency Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena Served on Seth Atwood, or in the Alternative, for a Protective Order (fce) (Entered: 08/20/1996)
2332 Master's EXHIBITS (fce) (Entered: 08/19/1996)
2333 Plaintiff's EXHIBIT List (fce) (Entered: 08/19/1996)
2334 Court EXHIBIT (fce) (Entered: 08/19/1996)
2338 RETURN receipt green card from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing that short record was signed for on 8/15/96 (fce) (Entered: 08/20/1996)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 171 of 307

08/19/1996 08/19/1996 08/19/1996 08/21/1996
08/22/1996
08/23/1996
08/23/1996 08/23/1996 08/23/1996 08/23/1996 08/27/1996
08/27/1996
08/28/1996
08/29/1996 08/29/1996 08/29/1996

2339 DESIGNATION of appeal record (fce) (Entered: 08/20/1996)
2340 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal USCA 963022 (fce) (Entered: 08/20/1996)
2341 Copy of Seventh Circuit Transcript Information Sheet signed by Court Reporter on 8/19/96 (fce) (Entered: 08/20/1996)
2342 REPLY by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to the Responses of Seth Atwood, Bishop Thomas G. Doran, Reverend Ronald A. Jones and Wayne Lenell to the defendant's Motion to Compel; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/22/1996)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit supplement consisting of one volume of pleadings, Master's Exhibits and Court Exhibit (Box 1 of 1); 26 transcripts (Box 2 of 3) and Defendant's Exhibits (Box 3 of 3) mailed via certified mail Z 034 401 366, Z 034 401 367 and Z 034 401 368. (clb) (Entered: 08/22/1996)
2343 RETURN receipt green card from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing that supplemental record was signed for on 8/15/96 (fce) (Entered: 08/26/1996)
2344 Defendant's DESIGNATION of appeal record (fce) (Entered: 08/27/1996)
2345 Master's EXHIBITS (fce) (Entered: 08/27/1996)
2346 Defendants' EXHIBITS (fce) (Entered: 08/27/1996)
2347 Remedial Hearing EXHIBITS (fce) (Entered: 08/27/1996)
2348 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to alter or amend minute order dated 8/15/96 relating to St. Patrick's School ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/28/1996)
2349 MINUTE ORDER of 8/27/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic discovery hearing H&C to 10:30 10/7/96. Telephoned notice (fce) (Entered: 08/28/1996)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit supplement consisting of one volume of pleadings, Defendant's Exhibits (#2346) and Plaintiff's Exhibits (#2347) mailed via certified mail Z 034 401 370. (clb) (Entered: 08/28/1996)
2350 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed ( $105.00 paid); notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/30/1996)
2351 DOCKETING STATEMENT by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed (fce) (Entered: 08/30/1996)
2352 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to alter or amend minute order dated 8/15/96 relating to the expenditure of $4 million from funds 12 and 63 ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/03/1996)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 172 of 307

08/30/1996 08/30/1996 09/03/1996 09/03/1996 09/04/1996 09/04/1996
09/06/1996 09/06/1996 09/06/1996 09/06/1996
09/09/1996
09/09/1996 09/09/1996 09/10/1996

2353 Response and OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Lord, Bissell & Brook's Fee Request for the Period ending 6/30/96; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/03/1996)
2354 RETURN receipt green cards from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing that supplemental record was signed for on 8/26/96 (fce) (Entered: 09/03/1996)
2355 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 6/28/96 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 09/03/1996)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on appeal . Mailed notice to all counsel. Mailed via certified mail Z 034 401 372. (clb) (Entered: 09/03/1996)
2356 Master's Proposed FY 97 Desegregation Expenditure Plan (fce) (Entered: 09/04/1996)
2357 MINUTE ORDER of 9/4/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The Master has filed the proposed FY 97 desegregation expenditure plan. Plaintiffs and defendant are given until 3:00 p.m. on 9/11/96 to file any written objections with the court. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/06/1996)
2358 NOTICE OF APPEAL by intervenors ( $105.00 paid) (fce) (Entered: 09/06/1996)
2359 DOCKETING STATEMENT by intervenors. (fce) (Entered: 09/06/1996)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on appeal . Mailed notice to all counsel. Mailed via certified mail Z 034 401 373. (clb) (Entered: 09/06/1996)
2360 MINUTE ORDER of 9/6/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery conference held. Telephonic discovery conference continued to to 1:30 9/10/96. Plaintiffs and defendant given until 9/16/96 at 3:00 p.m. to file any written objections to the Master's proposed FY97 desegregation budget. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/09/1996)
2361 MOTION by plaintiff for specific revenue-generation order, for findings of bad faith non-compliance, for orders removing the board's revenue discretion, and for other relief as appropriate ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/09/1996)
2362 Comments on defendant's Motion to Alter or Amend Minute order dated 8/15/96 relating to St. Patrick's School; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/09/1996)
2363 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for protective order ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/09/1996)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit supplement to appeal no. consisting of one volume of pleadings (#2350-2363), one transcript (#2355) and one bulky item (#2356) mailed via certified maill Z 034 401 374. (clb) (Entered: 09/10/1996)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 173 of 307

09/10/1996 09/10/1996 09/10/1996 09/10/1996 09/10/1996
09/11/1996 09/11/1996 09/11/1996
09/12/1996 09/12/1996 09/13/1996 09/13/1996 09/16/1996 09/16/1996 09/16/1996 09/16/1996

2364 RETURN receipt green card from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing that supplemental record was signed for on 9/5/96 (fce) (Entered: 09/11/1996)
2365 DESIGNATION by Rockford Board Of Ed in 3:89-cv-20168 of appeal record; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/11/1996)
2366 Certification with Regard to Transcript for Record on Appeal; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/11/1996)
2367 RESPONSE by plaintiffs in opposition to motion for protective order [2363-1]; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/11/1996)
2370 MINUTE ORDER of 9/10/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Denying defendant's motion for protective order [2363-1]. The noticed depositions are to commence on 9/17/96 in Rockford, Illinois. Defendant is given until 9/17/96 to file a response to plaintiffs' motion for specific revenue generation orders. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/13/1996)
2368 Intervenors-Defendants NOTICE OF APPEAL ( $105.00 paid) (fce) (Entered: 09/13/1996)
2369 Intervenors-Defendants DOCKETING STATEMENT (fce) (Entered: 09/13/1996)
2371 MINUTE ORDER of 9/11/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The Clerk of the Court is directed to remove the name of Matthew J. Piers as an attorney to receive notices in this case. No notice (fce) (Entered: 09/13/1996)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on appeal . Mailed notice to all counsel. Mailed via certified mail Z 034 401 375. (clb) (Entered: 09/13/1996)
2372 RETURN receipt green card from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing that short record was signed for on 9/6/96 (fce) (Entered: 09/13/1996)
2373 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal USCA 963226 (fce) (Entered: 09/13/1996)
2374 RETURN receipt green card from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing that short record was signed for on 9/11/96 (fce) (Entered: 09/16/1996)
2375 RETURN receipt green card from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing that supplemental record was signed for on 9/12/96 (fce) (Entered: 09/18/1996)
2376 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal USCA 963244 (fce) (Entered: 09/18/1996)
2377 OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to the Master's Proposed 1996-97 Tort Budgete and Submission of the proposed 1996-97 Tort Budget of the Board of Education (fce) (Entered: 09/18/1996)
2378 MOTION by plaintiff for protective order ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered:

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 174 of 307

09/16/1996
09/16/1996 09/16/1996 09/16/1996 09/17/1996 09/17/1996
09/18/1996 09/18/1996 09/18/1996
09/19/1996 09/20/1996 09/23/1996 09/23/1996

09/18/1996)
2379 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to strike plaintiffs' Motion for Specific Revenue-Generation Order, for findings of bad faith NonCompliance, for orders removing the Board's revenue discretion, and for other relief as appropriate ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/18/1996)
2380 Emergency Additionl MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for protective order (fce) (Entered: 09/18/1996)
2381 RESPONSE and Objections by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Protective Order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/18/1996)
2382 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for protective order ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/18/1996)
2383 Plaintiffs' Comments on the Master's FY 97 Desegregation Budget; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/18/1996)
2384 MINUTE ORDER of 9/17/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's motion to strike is denied. Plaintiffs' motion for a protective order is denied. The District is permitted one representative, in addition to the deponent, to attend the scheduled depositions. Defendant's motion for a protective order is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs are permitted to depose the RDS's CFO and Superintendent, and are limited to two hours for each Board member. Discovery hearing held. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/18/1996)
2385 Intervenors-Defendants DESIGNATION of appeal record (fce) (Entered: 09/18/1996)
2386 NOTICE of Hearing (fce) (Entered: 09/18/1996)
2387 MINUTE ORDER of 9/18/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons stated on the reverse side, the Master's proposed FY 97 desegregation expenditure plan is approved in the amount of $23,449,152.00. The RSD is hereby ordered to immediately utilize the tort levy to generate $23,449,152.00 in order to fund the FY 97 desegregation expenditure plan. (For further detail, see reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/20/1996)
2388 RETURN receipt green card from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing that short record was signed for on 9/16/96 (fce) (Entered: 09/20/1996)
2389 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal USCA 963283 (fce) (Entered: 09/24/1996)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit supplemental record consisting of one volume of pleadings (#2365-2387), one exhibit (#2385), one bulky item (#2377) and one deposition. (clb) (Entered: 09/23/1996)
2390 Copy of Seventh Circuit Transcript Information Sheet signed by Mary Lindbloom on 9/23/96 (fce) (Entered: 09/24/1996)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 175 of 307

09/25/1996
09/26/1996 09/27/1996 09/27/1996 09/30/1996 10/01/1996 10/01/1996 10/03/1996 10/03/1996 10/07/1996
10/07/1996
10/09/1996

2391 MINUTE ORDER of 9/25/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons stated on the reverse, defendant's motion to alter or amend the minute order of 8/15/96, relating to funding is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant's motion to alter or amend the minute order of 8/15/96, relating to St. Patrick's school is denied. (For further detail, see reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/26/1996)
2392 Intervenors-Defendants' SUPPLEMENT to the Record on Appeal; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/26/1996)
2393 STATEMENT of Pulliam Law Offices, P.A.; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/27/1996)
2394 Copy of Order from the 7th Circuit setting briefing schedule (fce) (Entered: 09/27/1996)
2395 RETURN receipt green card from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing that supplemental record was signed for on 9/25/96 (fce) (Entered: 10/01/1996)
2396 Master's Directive re: Proposed School Closing for 1997-1998; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/01/1996)
2397 Master's Directive re: Middle School Site Acquisition; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/01/1996)
2398 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to supplement [2398-1] the record on appeal of the comprehensive remedial order ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/03/1996)
2399 Copy of transmittal LETTER returned from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing that supplemental record on appeal was stamped received on 9/26/96 (fce) (Entered: 10/03/1996)
2400 MINUTE ORDER of 10/7/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The time for the Rockford School District to file its capital improvements plan is extended from 10/16/96 to 10/25/96. A hearing on the matter is continued from 11/5/96 at 9:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m on 11/12/96 . Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/08/1996)
2401 MINUTE ORDER of 10/7/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court orders that the Plaintiff, the Defendnat and the Intervenor may nominate up to four persons to serve on the community liaison committee by 10/30/96. The community liaison committee will serve as a forum for the Master to disseminate information and receive input from concernced citizens. SEE CRO at 202. The Plaintiff, Defendant and Intervenor may contact up to four persons and secure their permission for the submission of their names and addresses to the Magistrate. The Magistrate will use this list and potentially other sources to select the community liaison committee. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/10/1996)
2402 STATMENT OF services by Attorneys, Lord, Bissell and Brook. (fce) (Entered: 10/11/1996)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 176 of 307

10/10/1996 10/11/1996 10/15/1996 10/15/1996 10/17/1996 10/17/1996
10/17/1996 10/21/1996 10/21/1996 10/21/1996 10/21/1996
10/21/1996

2403 copy of Order from the 7th Circuit, DENYING the petition of rehearing en banc. ( 95-3365 and 95-3493) (fce) (Entered: 10/11/1996)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit supplemental record consisting of one volume of pleadings (#2391-2401) and one bulky item (#2398) mailed via certified mail Z 034 401 390. (clb) (Entered: 10/11/1996)
2404 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Rockford Board Of Ed from motion minute order [2387-2] ( paid) (fce) (Entered: 10/16/1996)
2405 DOCKETING STATEMENT by Rockford Board Of Ed regarding appeal [2404-1] . (fce) (Entered: 10/16/1996)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on appeal . Mailed notice to all counsel. Mailed via certified mail Z 034 401 392. (clb) (Entered: 10/17/1996)
2406 MINUTE ORDER of 10/17/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court hereby orders and directs defendant to make payment on the following invoices: Lord, Bissell and Brook (period ending 6/30/96); and Pulliam Law Offices (period ending 6/15/96). No tort desegregation and/or implementation funds are to be used in making these payments. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
2407 RETURN receipt green card from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing that supplemental record was signed for on 10/15/96 (fce) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
2408 MINUTE ORDER of 10/21/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The clerk of the court is directed to file the report from the master indicating the current status of negotiations for the purchase of St. Patrick's School. No notice (fce) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
2409 Report from the Master (fce) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
2410 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
2411 MINUTE ORDER of 10/21/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court hereby makes the following orders: The District's motion to compel the depositions of Bishop Doran, Father Jonesand Mr. Lenell is denied. The District's motion to compel the deposition of Mr. Atwood is granted to the extned of a one hour deposition. The District's motion fro costs is denied. the District's motion for disqualification of Hinshaw & Culbertson as counsel in this matter is denied. Further, the court sets for hearing both the Master's report and the motion to reconsider for 11/19/96 at 9:30 a.m. All parties are given an extension until 11/4/96 to file any objections to the Master's report. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
2412 CERTIFIED COPY of order from the 7th Circuit dated 8/1/96: The judgment of the District Court is REVERSED with costs. The case is REMANDED in accordance with the decision of this court entered this date. ( 95-3365 & 95-3493) (fce) (Entered: 10/22/1996)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 177 of 307

10/22/1996 10/22/1996
10/24/1996
10/25/1996 10/25/1996 10/28/1996 10/28/1996 10/28/1996 10/28/1996 10/28/1996 10/29/1996 10/30/1996 10/30/1996
10/30/1996

2413 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to stay portions of the District Court's 9/18/96 Order ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
2414 MINUTE ORDER of 10/22/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : the court hereby orders that the Master and the plaintiff are given until 10/29/96 to comment on the Rockford Board of Education's motion to stay certain portions of the District Court's 9/18/96 order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
2415 Copy of Order from the 7th Circuit: It is ordered that motoin to re-align the parties is denied. It is further ordered that the request to file a cross appellant reply brief is granted. It is also ordered that the agreed joint motion for an extension of the briefing schedule is granted. (fce) (Entered: 10/28/1996)
2416 STATEMENT by Rockford Board Of Ed with Respec to the Capital Improvements ordered by the CRO (fce) (Entered: 10/28/1996)
2417 DESIGNATION by Rockford Board Of Ed in 3:89-cv-20168 of appeal record (fce) (Entered: 10/28/1996)
2418 MOTION by plaintiffs to modify court's 10/7/96 order concerning nominations to the Community Liaison Committee ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
2419 RETURN receipt green card from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing that short record was signed for on 10/21/96 (fce) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
2420 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal USCA 963662 (fce) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
2421 Copy of transmittal LETTER from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing that supplemental record was stamped received on 10/23/96 (fce) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
2422 MEMORANDUM in opposition to motion to modify court's 10/7/96 order concerning nominations to the Community Liaison Committee [2418-1] (fce) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
2423 MOTION by plaintiffs concerning the scope of the 11/12/96 hearing ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
2424 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' to the Board's motion to stay portions of the District Court's 9/18/96 Order [2413-1]; notice of filing (fce) Modified on 11/25/1996 (Entered: 10/30/1996)
2425 MINUTE ORDER of 10/30/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court finds plaintiff's motion concerning the scope of the 11/12/96 hearing interesting but will decline to expand the scope of the 11/12/96 hearing. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
2426 MINUTE ORDER of 10/30/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Denying plaintiff's motion to modify court's 10/7/96 order concerning nominations

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 178 of 307

10/30/1996 10/31/1996 11/01/1996 11/04/1996 11/05/1996 11/05/1996 11/06/1996 11/06/1996 11/06/1996 11/07/1996
11/07/1996
11/07/1996

to the Community Liaison Committee [2418-1]. Plaintiffs are given an extension of 48 hours to file their suggestions. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
2427 master's RESPONSE to motion to stay portions of the District Court's 9/18/96 Order [2413-1]; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
2428 RESPONSE and Objections by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiffs' Motion for Modification of the Court's 10/7/96 Order (fce) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
2429 Response and OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Lord, Bissell and Brook's 8/20-9/20/96 Statement for Fees; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/05/1996)
2430 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to the Master's Report on the PEM Program; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/05/1996)
2431 Nominations by plaintiffs' to the Community Liaison Committee; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/05/1996)
2432 Master's MOTION to shorten tim to respond to interrogatories anad memorandum in support ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/07/1996)
2433 Intervenors-Defendants' Nominations to Community Liaison Committee (fce) (Entered: 11/07/1996)
2434 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 11/07/1996)
2435 MINUTE ORDER of 11/6/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Denying motion to stay portions of the District Court's 9/18/96 Order [2413-1] Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/07/1996)
2436 MINUTE ORDER of 11/7/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant is hereby ordered to charge against and disburse monies from the court ordered desegregation funds and to make payment on the 10/21/96 invoice from Dr. Eugene Eubanks. the court further orders the District to maintain its copy of this order and the underlying documents for any future accounting and/or auditing functions, as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/13/1996)
2437 MINUTE ORDER of 11/7/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court hereby orders and directs defendant to make payment on the invoice of Lord, Bissell & Brook for the period ending 9/20/96. Defendant's objections are overruled. In addition, the court hereby reminds the parties of the standing order that they have 7 days to comment on the reasonableness of fee requests. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/13/1996)
2438 MINUTE ORDER of 11/7/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court hereby makes the following correction to its 11/6/96 order: On page 7, the court's citation to the "District's (10/25/96) statement with respect to the capital improvements ordered by the CRO at paragraph 10" is hereby changed to "District's 10/25/96 statement with respect to the capital improvements ordered by the CRO at paragraphs 11-12, 17." Mailed

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 179 of 307

11/12/1996 11/12/1996 11/12/1996
11/14/1996
11/15/1996 11/15/1996
11/18/1996 11/19/1996 11/19/1996

notice (fce) (Entered: 11/13/1996)
2439 Memorandum of Law Regarding Practicability; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/14/1996)
2440 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to bar introduction of all evidence not produced in response to defendant's request dated 11/1/96 (fce) (Entered: 11/14/1996)
2441 MINUTE ORDER of 11/12/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Hearing on capital improvements held. The court orders the Rockford Board of Education to increase the Lease Tax Levy to maximum extent possible. The rockford Board of Education is ordered to place itself in a position to issue certificates of participation in an amount to be determined by the court in a future opinion. Further, the rockford Board of Education, the District administration and Chief Financial Officer Matthew Corby are hereby ordered to submit a plan to the court and to BancOne which eliminates the annual operating budget deficit of the District within three to five years. This plan must be submitted by 12/20/96. There will be no stays issued with respect to this order. Defendant is hereby ordered to comply immediately. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
2442 MINUTE ORDER of 11/14/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court hereby orders that the hearing regarding the Master's 10/4/96 report and the Rockford Board of Education's motion to alter or amend the court's order regarding St. Patrick's Elementary School is reset for 12/10/96 at 9:30 a.m. The morning of 12/11/96 from 9:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. will also be held open for this hearing, if this time is necessary. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
2443 OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to the admission of evidence introduced by plaintiffs at the 11/12/96 hearing; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
2444 MINUTE ORDER of 11/15/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 11/12/96, the court ordered the Rockford Board of Education, the District administration and Chief Financial Officer Matthew Corby to submit a plan to the court and to BankOne which eliminates the annual operating budget deficit of the District within three to five years. The court ordered the submission of this plan by 12/20/96. In addition, the court hereby orders the rockford Board of Education, the Board administration and Chief Financial Officer Matthew Corby to submit a long range plan which eliminates the cumulative debt of the District. This plan is to be submitted to the court and to BankOne by 12/20/96. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
2445 Statement of Lord, Bissell & Brook; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
2446 Submission of CRO Fees for January-June 1996 and plaintiffs' request for an interim payment order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
2447 MINUTE ORDER of 11/19/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : the court

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 180 of 307

11/19/1996 11/21/1996 11/21/1996 11/21/1996 11/22/1996 11/22/1996 11/25/1996
11/26/1996 11/27/1996 11/27/1996 11/27/1996

accepts the Master's 10/21/96 recommendation to implement a Hispanic Education Committee in place of the Bilingual Education Committee, to add two additional parents and/or community persons to the committee and to add a teacher teaching in the bilingual program to the committee. Further, with regard to defendant Rockford Board of Education's objections to the admission of exhibits introduced by plaintiffs at the 11/12/96 hearing, the objections are overruled. The exhibits will be considered by the court. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
2448 LETTER to Magistrate Mahoney from Eugene Eubanks dated 10/21/96 (fce) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
2449 RESPONSE by plaintiffs in opposition to defendant's memorandum of law regarding practicability; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
2450 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to compel ; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
2452 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to strike plaintiffs' preliminary proposed findings of fact regarding funding of the capital construction requirements of the CRO ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
2453 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' submission of comprehensive remeidal order fees for January - June 1996 and Plaintiffs' Request for an Interim Payment Order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
2454 Rockford Board of Education's Proposed FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law regarding practicability (fce) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
2455 MINUTE ORDER of 11/25/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On its own motion, the court will reconsider its order of 11/19/96, regarding defendant Rockford Board of Education's objection to the admission of Dr. Ronald Epps' deposition testimony of 10/1/96 and 10/31/96, introduced by plaintiffs at the 11/12/96 hearing. The court hereby sustains the objection with respect to this deposition testimony and will not consider it as evidence. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
2451 Video tapes titled "Attachment 1 to plaintiffs' motion for specific revenue-generation orders..." (fce) (Entered: 11/26/1996)
2456 MOTION by plaintiffs in limine to limit the scope of the 12/10/96 hearing on the purchase of St. Patrick's and the implementation of the personalized education model ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
2457 REPLY by plaintiffs to defendant Rockford Board of Education's Response to plaintiffs' submission of comprehensive remedial order fees for January - June 1996 anda plaintiffs' request for an interim payment order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
2458 Seth Atwood's RESPONSE to Rockford Board of Education's Motion to Compel (fce) (Entered: 12/02/1996)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 181 of 307

11/27/1996
11/29/1996 11/29/1996 11/29/1996
12/03/1996 12/03/1996 12/04/1996 12/04/1996 12/04/1996 12/04/1996 12/05/1996 12/05/1996 12/05/1996

2462 MINUTE ORDER of 11/27/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant does not appear. Defendant's motion granted in part. Mr. Atwood is ordered to answer the question stated in open court. Mr. Atwood will have seven days, until 12/4/96, to answer in writing. The balance of the motion is transferred to Judge Roszkowski pursuant to Local Rule 2.43 and the parties are to re-notice before Judge Roszkowski if they wish. Because of the delay caused by defendant's failure to appear or notify counsel that defendnat would not appear, the attorney who signed the3 notice and motion shall pay to Mr. Lester 1-1/2 hours of attorney fees. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/05/1996)
2459 RESPONSE and Objections by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Lord, Bissell and Brook's August 20-September 20, 1996 Statement for Fees; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
2460 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to supplement the record on appeal of the court's 9/18/96 order ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
2461 Copy of Order from the 7th Circuit. It is ordered that the motion for leave to file additional bill of costs is granted. It is further ordered that additional bill of costs of plaintiffs-appellants is granted and plaintiffsappellants, cross-appellees are awarded $164.00 in costs. (fce) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
2463 Master's Witness List for St. Patrick's/PEM School Hearing; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/05/1996)
2464 MOTION by plaintiff Leonardo Medrano for reconsideration or to alter or amend order of 11/25/96 notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/05/1996)
2465 RESPONSE of Master Dr. Eugene Eubanks to Document Requests for the 12/10/96 Hearing; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/05/1996)
2466 Plaintiffs' Witness List for the 12/10/96 on St. Patrick's; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/05/1996)
2467 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to postpone 12/10/96 hearing for failure to respond to discovery requests and to compel production ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/05/1996)
2468 Notice of Depositions (fce) (Entered: 12/05/1996)
2469 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' to defendant Rockford Board of Education's Motion to postpone 12/10/96 hearing for failure to respond to discoveyr requests and to compel production; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/05/1996)
2470 PETITION for Instructions by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 12/05/1996)
2471 MINUTE ORDER of 12/5/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant Rockford School Board's petition for instructions is hereby denied. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/05/1996)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 182 of 307

12/05/1996
12/05/1996 12/05/1996 12/06/1996 12/06/1996 12/06/1996 12/06/1996
12/06/1996 12/06/1996
12/09/1996

2472 MINUTE ORDER of 12/5/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic conference held. Discovery conference set for 12/10/96 at 10:00 a.m. Further, the court hereby orders that the hearing regarding the Master's 10/4/96 report and the Rockford Board of Education's motion to alter or amend the court's order regarding St. Patrick's Elementary School is reset for 1/2/97 at 9:30 a.m. and 1/3/97 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/06/1996)
2473 MINUTE ORDER of 12/5/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court hereby orders Dr. Eugene Eubanks's 10/21/96 fee submission filed. No notice (fce) (Entered: 12/06/1996)
2474 Dr. Eubanks 10/21/96 Fee Submission (fce) (Entered: 12/06/1996)
2475 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for protective order in response to the plaintiffs' motion to compel the further deposition of William Trapp ; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 12/09/1996)
2476 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' in opposition to defendant Rockford Board of Education's motion to strike plaintiffs' preliminary proposed findings of fact regarding funding of the Capital Construction Requirements of the CRO; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/09/1996)
2477 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to compel responses to defendant's discovery for the 1/2/96 hearing (fce) (Entered: 12/09/1996)
2478 MINUTE ORDER of 12/6/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant is hereby ordered to charge against and disburse monies from the court ordered desegregation funds and to make payment on the following invoice: Lord, Bissell & Brook (period ending 9/30/96). The court further orders the District to maintain its copy of this order and the underlying documents for any future accounting and/or auditing functions, as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/09/1996)
2479 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 12/09/1996)
2480 MINUTE ORDER of 12/6/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court orders the RSD to issue COP's by 12/30/96, in an amount sufficient to generate $48,002,831. The court orders that the Master may use up to $13,451,082 for the new Ellis, up to $10,780,380 for the new Barbour, up to $20,330,625 for the new middle school, up to $2,814,101 for the reopened Kennedy and up to $75,363 for Haight. The court orders the RSD, the District Administration and CFO Corby to take the steps necessary to obtain insurance for the COP's issuance by 12/30/96. Further, the court orders the RSD, the District administration and CFO Corby to provide Chapman and Cutler with the information necessary for Chapman and Cutler to issue an unqualified legal opinion regarding this COP's issuance by 12/30/96. there will be no stays issued with respect to this order. Defendant is ordered to comply immediately. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/09/1996)
2481 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to the plaintiffs' motion in limine to limit the scop of the 12/10/96 hearing; notice of filing (fce)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 183 of 307

12/09/1996 12/09/1996 12/09/1996 12/10/1996 12/10/1996 12/10/1996 12/10/1996
12/11/1996 12/12/1996 12/12/1996
12/12/1996 12/13/1996

(Entered: 12/09/1996)
2482 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed ( $105.00 paid); notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/09/1996)
2483 DOCKETING STATEMENT by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed (fce) (Entered: 12/09/1996)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit supplement to appeal consisting of one volume of pleadings (#2402-2483) mailed via certified mail Z 034 401 410. (clb) (Entered: 12/09/1996)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on appeal . Mailed notice to all counsel. Mailed via certified mail Z 034 401 411. (clb) (Entered: 12/10/1996)
2489 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to amend the 11/27/96 order ; notice of filing; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
2490 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to bar the participation of Master Eubanks in the 1/2/97 hearing re: St. Patrick's Elementary School ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
2491 MINUTE ORDER of 12/10/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's motion to alter or amend, filed 12/10/96, is allowed to correct a typographical error in the minute order of 11/27/96. The transferral was pursuant to Local Rule 2.34. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
2492 Proposal Regarding the Use of West as a Comprehensive High Schoolby defendant Rockford Board Of Ed; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
2484 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed ( $105.00 paid); notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/16/1996)
2485 MINUTE ORDER of 12/12/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Presently before the court is plaintiffs' request for an interim payment order on CRO fees for January - June 1996. The court hereby grants plaintiffs' motoin and orders the Rockford Board of Education to pay the law firm of Futterman & Howard $463,956.75. This figure represents 50% of the total fees for the January - June 1996 period, and 100% of the out of pocket expenses for the January - June 1996 period. The court reserves ruling on the balance of the January - June 1996 fees for a later date. No tort desegregation and/or implementation funds are to be used in making this payment. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/16/1996)
2488 DOCKETING STATEMENT by Rockford Board Of Ed regarding appeal [2484-1] . (clb) (Entered: 12/17/1996)
2486 MOTION by plaintiffs' to enforce the comprehensive remedial order and the court's related CRO funding orders by an adjudication of civil contempt against the school district and against its individual board members and by the imposition of appropriate sanctions ; notice of filing

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 184 of 307

12/13/1996 12/16/1996
12/16/1996 12/16/1996 12/16/1996 12/16/1996 12/16/1996
12/16/1996 12/16/1996 12/16/1996
12/16/1996 12/16/1996 12/16/1996

(fce) (Entered: 12/16/1996)
2487 Master's RESPONSE to defendant's motion to compel responses to defendant's discovery for the January 2, 1997 hearing; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/16/1996)
2493 Master's RESPONSE to defendant Rockford Board of Education's Motion to bar the participation of Master Eubanks in the 1/2/97 hearing re: St. Patrick's Elementary School; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
2494 Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes' and William J. Quinlan's Report to Court re: the expectation of the Board of Education's copmliance with the orders of the court (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
2495 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for summary judgment of the propriety of PEM and purchase of St. Patrick's School ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
2496 MEMORANDUM by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed in support of motion for summary judgment of the propriety of PEM and purchase of St. Patrick's School [2495-1] (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
2497 RULE 12 Statement of material facts as to which there are no genuine issues by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
2498 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to dismiss plaintiffs' petition to enforce the CRO and the court's related CRO-funding orders by an adjudication of civil contempt against the School District and its individual board members and by the imposition of appropriate sanctions ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
2499 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for a stay of the 11/12/96 and 12/6/96 orders pending appeal ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
2500 RETURN receipt green card from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing that short record was signed for on 12/12/96 (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
2501 SUPPLEMENTAL Reply by plaintiffs to defendant's document requests to plaintiffs for the 1/2/97 hearing and plaintiffs' response to defendant's motion to compel responses to defendant's discovery for the 1/2/97 hearing; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
2502 REPLY by plaintiffs' to defendant's motion for a protective order in response to the plaintiffs' motion to compel the further deposition of William Trapp; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
2503 REPLY by plaintiffs' to response of the defendant to plaintiffs' motion in limine to limit the scope of the 12/10/96 hearing; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
2504 Plaintiffs' Comments on defendant Rockford Board of Education's motion to bar the participation of the Master Eubanks in the 1/2/97

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 185 of 307

12/16/1996 12/16/1996 12/16/1996
12/16/1996
12/16/1996 12/17/1996 12/17/1996 12/17/1996

hearing regarding St. Patrick's elementary school; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
2505 AMENDMENT by plaintiffs to petition to enforce the comprehensive remedial order and the court's related CRO-funding orders by an adjudication of civil contempt against the School District and against its individual board members and by the imposition of appropriate sanctions; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
2506 Second PETITION by plaintiffs' to enforce the comprehensive remedial order and the court's related CRO-funding orders -- by the appointment of a "CRO implementation board" to assume and carry out all powers and duties of the Rockford Board of Education arising from or relating to implementation of the court's CRO and related orders; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
2507 MINUTE ORDER of 12/16/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Hearing held. The court orders attorneys for defendant to present a report at a hearing set for 11 AM, 12/20/96, regarding the action of the Board. At that time, the court will take up plaintiffs' Rule 70 motion. Further the court sets for hearing at 9:30 a.m. on January 7, 8, 9 and 10 (1) plaintiffs' petition/amended petition to enforce the CRO and the court's related CRO-funding orders by an adjudication of civil contemp against the school district and against its individual board members and by the imposition of appropriate sanctions, and (2) plaintiffs' second petition to enforce the CRO and the court's related CRO-funding orders -- by the appointment of a "CRO implementation board" to assume and carry out all powers and duties of the Rockford Board of Education arising from or relating to implementation of the court's CRO and related orders. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
2508 MINUTE ORDER of 12/16/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Hearing held. The court hereby orders that the hearing regarding the Master's 10/4/96 report and the Rockford Board of Education's motion to alter or amend the court's order regarding St. Patrick's Elementary School is reset for 1/27/97 at 9:30 a.m. and 1/28/97 at 9:30 a.m. Defendant's motion for summary judgment on the propriety of PEM and purchase of St. Patrick's School is taken under advisement to be ruled upon at the 1/27/97-1/28/97 hearing. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
2509 MINUTE ORDER of 12/16/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Denying defendant's emergency motion for a stay of the 11/12/96 and 12/6/96 orders pending appeal [2499-1] Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on appeal . Mailed notice to all counsel. Mailed via certified mail Z 034 401 414. (clb) (Entered: 12/17/1996)
2510 LETTER to Magistrate Mahoney from Eugene Eubanks dated 10/21/96 (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
2511 MINUTE ORDER of 12/17/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs'

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 186 of 307

12/17/1996 12/17/1996
12/17/1996 12/17/1996
12/19/1996 12/19/1996
12/20/1996 12/20/1996 12/20/1996

motion to compel the further deposition of william Trapp, filed 12/4/96, is granted to the extent that plaintiff will have an additional one and onehalf hours to question Mr. Trapp at a time and place which is convenience for the parties. Defendant's motion for a protective order in response to the plaintiffs' motion to compel the further deposition of William Trapp, filed 12/6/96, is denied. notice (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
2512 MINUTE ORDER of 12/17/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider, alter or amend the court's order of 11/25/96, filed 12/3/96, is denied. Mailed notices (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
2513 MINUTE ORDER of 12/17/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs' motion in limine to limit the scope of the 12/10/96 hearing (reset for 1/27/97 and 1/28/97) on the purchase of St. Patrick's and the implementation of the personalized education model, filed 11/27/96, is denied. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
2514 MINUTE ORDER of 12/17/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's motion to supplement the record on appeal of the court's 9/18/96 order, filed 11/29/96, is granted. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
2515 MINUTE ORDER of 12/17/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The Master's motion to shorten time in which to respond to interrogatories, filed 11/5/96, ,is rendered moot in light of this court's 12/5/96 and 12/16/96 orders. Further, the defendant's motion to strike plaintiffs' preliminary proposed findings of fact regarding the capital construction requirement of the CRO, filed 11/21/96, is rendered moot in light of the court's 12/6/96 order. Mailed notices (fce) (Entered: 12/23/1996)
2516 DESIGNATION by Rockford Board Of Ed in 3:89-cv-20168 of appeal record; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/23/1996)
2517 Third PETITION by plaintiffs' to enforce the comprehensive remedial order and the court's related CRO-funding orders by the entry of orders under Rule 70 and pursuant to the Griffin and Swann decisions to effectuate the CRO-funding order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/23/1996)
2518 Plaintiffs' Suggestions in Support of the court's denial of stays of its orders of 11/12 and 12/6/96; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/23/1996)
2519 Defendant's Report to the Court regarding the board meeting of 12/17/96; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/23/1996)
2520 MINUTE ORDER of 12/20/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : defendant's motion to compel, filed 12/6/96, is granted in part and denied in part. the Master is subject to discovery to the extent the Master is occupying the position of a traditional litigator in a matter or hearing before the court. When the Master is not occupying such a position, the Master is not subject to discovery. With respect to St. Patrick's, the Master occupies such a position as a person involved with the hearing set

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 187 of 307

12/20/1996
12/20/1996 12/20/1996 12/23/1996
12/24/1996 12/24/1996 12/24/1996 12/26/1996 12/26/1996

for 1/27/97-1/28/97. As such, he must respond to discovery relevant to that hearing either by producing documents or by claiming a privilege. If a privilege is claimed, the Master must produce a Vaughn index to support and identify the claimed privilege. Further defendant's motion for costs, filed 12/6/96 is denied. Mailed notices (fce) (Entered: 12/23/1996)
2521 MINUTE ORDER of 12/20/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's motoin to bar the participation of the Master in the 1/2/97 hearing regarding St. Patrick's Elementary School (reset for 1/27/971/28/97) is denied. The court believes that it is entitled to take information from any source helpful to the court. The Master is a valuable source. The Master may be allowed to participate at hearing which directly impact the CRO as he was allowed to participate and provide the court information during the CRO hearing itself. The court notes that there may be hearings in the future when the Master will not be allowed to participate, but will be an observer. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/23/1996)
2522 District Court Statement regarding its 12/16/96 Order (fce) (Entered: 12/23/1996)
2523 MINUTE ORDER of 12/20/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter District Court Statement regarding its 12/16/96 Order Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/23/1996)
2524 MINUTE ORDER of 12/23/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic conference held. The hearing set for 1/7/97-1/10/97 is continued to 9:30 1/27/97 to give the Board of Education an opportunity to complete the issuance of Certificates of Participation. Telephonic conference set for 1/7/97 at 10:00 a.m. Further, the court orders that the funds generated by the issuance of Certificates of Participation shall be placed in an account under the control of the court and the Master. Any interest generated by these funds shall remain in this account under the control of the court and the Master. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/26/1996)
2525 RETURN receipt green card from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing that short record was signed for on 12/8/96 (fce) (Entered: 12/26/1996)
2526 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal USCA 964138 (fce) (Entered: 12/26/1996)
2527 Copy of Order from the 7th Circuit. We request that the district court provide a statement of its reasons supporting its 12/16/96 order denying a stay of its 11/12/96 and 12/6/96 orders, by 12/23/96. (fce) (Entered: 12/26/1996)
2528 NOTICE of Motion by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed (fce) (Entered: 12/27/1996)
2529 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to extend time to file school based management plan ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/27/1996)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 188 of 307

12/26/1996 12/27/1996 12/30/1996 12/30/1996 12/31/1996 12/31/1996 01/02/1997
01/02/1997
01/02/1997 01/02/1997 01/02/1997

2530 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to supplement the record on appeal of the court's 11/30/95 and 4/4/96 orders concerning "Fees on Fees" ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/27/1996)
2531 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' second petition to enforce the comprehensive remedial order and the court's related CRO funding orders; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/27/1996)
2532 Pulliam's Law Offices' NOTICE of change of address; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/30/1996)
2533 MINUTE ORDER of 12/30/96 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Since the court does not maintain exhibits, the parties are directed to pick up their 11/12/96 hearing exhibits from the Chambers of Magistrate Mahoney by 1/28/97. If these exhibits are not picked up by 1/28/97, they will be discarded. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/31/1996)
2534 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 11/12/96 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 01/02/1997)
2535 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 12/16/96 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 01/02/1997)
2536 MINUTE ORDER of 1/2/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : In light of the 12/17/96 actions of the Board, plaintiff's petition, filed 12/13/96, and plaintiff's amended petition, filed 12/16/96, to "enforce the CRo and the court's related CRO-funding orders by an djudication of civil contempt against the school district and against its individual board members and by the imposition of appropriate sanctions" are hereby dismissed, as discussed at the telephonic conference of 12/18/96 (12/18/96 transcript at 5). Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/03/1997)
2537 MINUTE ORDER of 1/2/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : In light of the court's 1/2/97 order dismissing plaintiffs' petition and amended petition for civil contempt, defendant's "motoin to dismiss plaintiffs' petition to enforce the CRO and the court's related CRO-Funding orders by an adjudication of civil contempt against the school district and its individual board members and by the imposition of appropriate sanctions" is mooted. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/03/1997)
2538 MINUTE ORDER of 1/2/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter Master's Response to defendant Rockford Board of Education's motion to bar the participation of Master Eubanks in the 1/2/97 hearing regarding St. Patrick's Elementary School. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/03/1997)
2539 Master's RESPONSE to defendant Rockford Board of Education's Motion to Bar the Participation of Master Eubanks in the 1/2/97 Hearing regarding St. Patrick's Elementary School; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/03/1997)
2540 MINUTE ORDER of 1/2/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter affidavit of Daniel L. Johnson of the Chapman and Cutler law firm

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 189 of 307

01/02/1997 01/03/1997 01/06/1997 01/07/1997
01/08/1997 01/08/1997 01/08/1997 01/08/1997 01/09/1997
01/13/1997
01/15/1997 01/17/1997 01/17/1997 01/21/1997
01/21/1997
01/22/1997 01/22/1997

regarding unqualified approving legal opinion of certificates of participation. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/03/1997)
2541 AFFIDAVIT of Daniel L. Johnson (fce) (Entered: 01/03/1997)
2542 Master's Vaughn Index; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/03/1997)
2543 Master's RESPONSE to the Rockford Board of Education's Supplemental Financial Plan; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/07/1997)
2544 MINUTE ORDER of 1/7/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic conference held. Telephonic conference set to 10:00 1/21/97. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/07/1997)
2545 STATEMENT of Pulliam law offices. (fce) (Entered: 01/08/1997)
2546 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs' to RBE Supplemental Financial Plan. (fce) (Entered: 01/08/1997)
2547 NOTICE of filing of amended certificate by defendant (fce) (Entered: 01/08/1997)
2548 NOTICE of HEARING by defendants (fce) (Entered: 01/08/1997)
2549 Copy of Order from the 7th Circuit. It is ordered that the emergency motion of the Rockford Board of Education for of stay of the 11/12/96 and 12/6/96 order pending appeal is DENIED. (fce) (Entered: 01/13/1997)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit supplement to appeal consisting of six volumes of pleadings, 2 transcripts, 2 depositions, 1 exhibit and 6 loose pleadings mailed via certified mail Z 034 401 450. (clb) (Entered: 01/13/1997)
2550 Copy of Seventh Circuit Transcript Information Sheet signed by Mary Lindbloom on 1/2/96 (fce) (Entered: 01/21/1997)
2551 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed ( $105.00 paid); notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/21/1997)
2552 LETTER to Magistrate Judge from Thomas Lester dated 1/15/97 (fce) (Entered: 01/21/1997)
SCHEDULE set on 1/21/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic Status hearing H&C to 11:00 2/4/97 . Mailed notice (glg) (Entered: 01/21/1997)
2553 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to stay the January 27 and 28, 1997 hearing and/or the December 20, 1996 orders pending appeal and/or determination of the writ of mandamus and/or prohibition ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/27/1997)
2554 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 01/27/1997)
2555 MINUTE ORDER of 1/22/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons stated in the attached order, on the court's own motion, the court's

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 190 of 307

01/22/1997
01/22/1997 01/22/1997 01/22/1997 01/23/1997 01/23/1997 01/24/1997 01/27/1997 01/28/1997 01/28/1997 01/29/1997 01/29/1997

7/1/96 order regarding the St. Patrick's facility is hereby vacated. Further, this matter is returned to the Master to make any necessary factual findings and report to the court as soon as practicable regarding the need for St. Patrick's as an additional facility in the southwest quadrant, the type of program which would be properly located at St. Patrick's, and how St. Patrick's relates to current remedial effortts which the Master is undertaking. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/27/1997)
2556 MINUTE ORDER of 1/22/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : In light of the court's 1/22/97 order regarding St. Patrick's Elementary School; (1) the District's motion for summary judgment on the propriety of PEM and the purchase of St. Patrick's School (filed 12/16/96), and (2) the District's "Motion of the Rockford Board of Education for a Stay of the January 27 and 28, 1997 hearing and/or the December 20, 1996 orders pending appeal and/or Determination of the Writ of mandamus and/or Prohibition" (filed 1/21/97), are hereby mooted. Further, the hearing set for 1/27/97-1/28/97 is hereby cancelled. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/27/1997)
2557 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to supplement the record on appeal of the court's 11/12/96 and 12/6/96 orders ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/27/1997)
2558 Response and OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to 6/16/96 and 9/15/96 statement of fees of Pulliam Law Offices; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/27/1997)
2559 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for appearance as additional counsel ; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 01/27/1997)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on appeal . Mailed notice to all counsel. Mailed via certified mail Z 034 401 452. (clb) (Entered: 01/23/1997)
2560 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal USCA 971116 (fce) (Entered: 01/28/1997)
2561 STATEMENT of Lord, Bissell & Brook; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/29/1997)
2562 NOTICE of Motion by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed (fce) (Entered: 01/29/1997)
2563 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to supplement [2563-1] the record ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/29/1997)
2564 MINUTE ORDER of 1/28/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Granting defendant Rockford Board of Education's motion to supplement [2563-1] the record [2563-1] Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/29/1997)
2565 DESIGNATION by Rockford Board Of Ed in 3:89-cv-20168 of appeal record; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/04/1997)
2566 MINUTE ORDER of 1/29/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Hinshaw

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 191 of 307

01/30/1997 01/30/1997 01/31/1997 02/03/1997 02/03/1997 02/03/1997 02/04/1997
02/05/1997 02/05/1997 02/05/1997
02/06/1997 02/06/1997

and Culbertson is to file a brief as to past representation and actions that there is no conflict of interest in support of their motion to file as additional counsel for the Rockford Board of Education by 2/5/97. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/04/1997)
2567 RETURN receipt green card from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing that short record was signed for on 1/27/97 (fce) (Entered: 02/04/1997)
2568 Copy of Seventh Circuit Transcript Information Sheet signed by Court Reporter (fce) (Entered: 02/04/1997)
2569 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal USCA 971157 (fce) (Entered: 02/07/1997)
2570 EXHIBITS by Rockford Board Of Ed to supplement the record, which consists of two transcripts. (fce) (Entered: 02/07/1997)
2571 MOTION by People Who Care to alter, amend or reconsider the 1/22/97 order vacating order of 7/1/96. Exhibits A, B; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/07/1997)
2597 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal USCA 971212 (fce) (Entered: 03/11/1997)
2572 MINUTE ORDER of 2/4/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic conference held. Telephonic confrence set for 2/27/97 at 1`:00 a.m. Hearing regarding "Plaintiffs' second petititon to enforce the Comprehensive remiedial order and the court's releated CRO-funding orders--by the appointment of a CRO Implementation Board to assume and carry out all powers and duties of the Rockford Board of Education arising from or relating to implementation of the court's CRO and related orders, "file 12/6/96, is set for 4/7,8,9, and 10/97, to commence each day at 9:30 a.m.. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/07/1997)
2573 Anthony Scariano's MOTION for leave to file submissions ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/10/1997)
2574 Hinshaw & Culbertson's MOTION for leave to file submissions ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/10/1997)
2575 MINUTE ORDER of 2/5/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant is hereby ordered to charge against and disburse monies from the court ordered desegregation funds and to make payment on the following invoices: Lord, Bissell & Brook (period ending 12/31/96); Pulliam Law Offices, P.A. (period ending 9/15/96). Defendant's objections are overruled. The court further orders the District to maintain its copy of this order and the underlying documents for any future accounting and/or auditing functions, as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/10/1997)
2576 RETURN of letter from USCA receiving record on appeal on 2/3/97. (fce) (Entered: 02/12/1997)
2577 MOTION in letter form by Rockford Board Of Ed for appearance

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 192 of 307

02/06/1997 02/06/1997 02/06/1997
02/06/1997 02/06/1997 02/06/1997 02/06/1997 02/14/1997
02/19/1997 02/20/1997 02/20/1997

additional attorneys of record. (fce) (Entered: 02/12/1997)
2578 MINUTE ORDER of 2/6/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter letter of Hinshaw & Culbertson, dated 2/4/97, regarding Hinshaw & Culbertson's motion for leave to file appearance as additional counsel. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/12/1997)
2579 MOTION by Rockford Board Of Ed to objection for leave to file submissions, exhibit C; Notice of Filing (fce) (Entered: 02/12/1997)
2580 MINUTE ORDER of 2/6/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The motion of Hinshaw & Culbertson, pursuant to Local Rule 3.15 of the Local rules of the US District Court, Northern District of Illinois, for leave to appear as additional counsel of record on behalf of the Rockford Board of Education, School district No. 205, filed 1/22/97 is hereby GRANTED. The Clerk's office is to add Mr. Thomas J. Lester of Hinshaw & Culbertson to the list of attorneys to receive notices in this case. Further, the motion of Scariano, Kula, Ellch, and Hines, Chtd., for leave to file submissions, filed 2/5/97 is hereby DENIED. [2579-1], [2577-1], [25591] Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/12/1997)
2581 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for Rockford Board Of Ed by Thomas J. Lester, Stephen T. Moore, Gary Richard Kardell (fce) (Entered: 02/12/1997)
2582 RULE 39 Affidavit of Gary Richard Kardell, Stephen T. Moore, Thomas J. Lester (fce) (Entered: 02/12/1997)
2583 MINUTE ORDER of 2/6/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's motion to supplement the record on appeal of the court's 11/12/96 and 12/6/96 orders is hereby GRANTED. [2557-1] Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/12/1997)
2584 NOTICE of Hearing by Rockford Board Of Ed (fce) (Entered: 02/12/1997)
2585 MINUTE ORDER of 2/14/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant is hereby ordered to charge against and disburse monies from Fund 12 and to make payment on the 1/8/97 billing invoice from Dr. Eugene E. Eubanks (for the period 10/1/96 through 12/31/96). The court further orders the District to maintain its copy of this order and the underlying documents for any future accounting and/or auditing functions, as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/19/1997)
2586 OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to the Master's Approval of Additional Resources; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 02/24/1997)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit supplement to appeal consisting of one volume of pleadings (#2543 and 2550 through 2585) and two volumes of transcripts (2570) mailed via certified mail Z 034 401 467. (clb) (Entered: 02/20/1997)
2587 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to motion to alter,

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 193 of 307

02/20/1997 02/21/1997 02/24/1997 02/25/1997 02/26/1997
02/27/1997
02/27/1997 02/28/1997 02/28/1997
03/03/1997 03/04/1997 03/07/1997 03/07/1997 03/07/1997

amend or reconsider the 1/22/97 order vacating order of 7/1/96 [2571-1]; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/25/1997)
2588 Copy of Order from the 7th Circuit: it is ordered that the motion is GRANTED and appeal 97-1212 is DISMISSED pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). (fce) (Entered: 02/25/1997)
2589 REPORT by the Master as to Controlled choice for 1997-98. (fce) (Entered: 02/28/1997)
2590 REPORT by Rockford Education regarding Collective Bargaining. (fce) (Entered: 02/28/1997)
2591 MOTION by Rockford Board Of Ed to supplement the record on Appeal ; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/28/1997)
2592 MINUTE ORDER of 2/26/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's objection to the master's approval of additional resources presented. Plaintiff given to 3/10/97 to respond. Reply due 3/17/97. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/03/1997)
2593 CERTIFIED COPY of order from the 7th Circuit:. ( 97-1212) IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED and appeal 97-1212 is DISMISSED pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). (fce) (Entered: 03/03/1997)
2594 MINUTE ORDER of 2/27/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic conference held. Telephonic conference set to 11:00 3/10/97. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/04/1997)
2595 RETURN receipt green card from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing supplemental record on appeal was signed for on 2/24/97 (fce) (Entered: 03/04/1997)
2596 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for judgment on the pleadings as to plaintiffs' second petition to enforce the comprehensive remedial order and plaintiff's third petition to enforce the comprehensive remedial order ; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 03/04/1997)
2598 CERTIFIED copy of Order from the 7th Circuit vacating and dismissing appeals pursuant to FRAP 42(b). (96-2132/96-2151) (fce) (Entered: 03/11/1997)
2599 NOTICE of Motion by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed (fce) (Entered: 03/11/1997)
2600 Master's Report on Controlled Choice beginning Seventh Grade Student Assignments for 1997-98; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/11/1997)
2601 BILL OF COSTS submitted by Eugene E. Eubanks (fce) (Entered: 03/11/1997)
2602 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to dismiss or in the alternative, to reply to Rockford Education Associations' report to the court regarding collective bargaining negotiations over magnet school

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 194 of 307

03/07/1997
03/07/1997
03/07/1997 03/07/1997 03/10/1997
03/13/1997 03/19/1997 03/19/1997 03/19/1997 03/19/1997 03/20/1997 03/20/1997 03/21/1997 03/21/1997

issues ; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 03/11/1997)
2603 MINUTE ORDER of 3/7/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court has read with concern the "Rockford Education Association's report to the court regarding collective bargaining negotiations over magnet school issues." The court requests the Master to immediately look into this matter and report to the court. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/11/1997)
2604 MINUTE ORDER of 3/7/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Granting deft. Rockford Board of Education's motion to supplement the record on Appeal [2591-1] of the court's 12/20/96 orders, filed 2/25/97. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/11/1997)
2605 MINUTE ORDER of 3/7/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter billing statement submitted by Dr. Eugene E. Eubanks for the period 10/1/96 through 12/31/96. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/11/1997)
2606 MINUTE ORDER of 3/7/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings presented. Response due 3/21/97. Reply due 3/28/97. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/11/1997)
2607 MINUTE ORDER of 3/10/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic conference held. Telephonic conference set for 3/25/97 at 11:00 A.M.. Hearing set for 4/7,8,9,and 10, 1997 is cancelled. This hearing is reset for 9:30 am. on 3ach of the following dates: 6/2,3,4 (morning only), and 5,/97 . Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/13/1997)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit supplement consisting of one volume of pleadings (#2586-2606) mailed via certified mail Z 034 401 472. (clb) (Entered: 03/13/1997)
2608 NOTICE of Hearing by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed (fce) (Entered: 03/25/1997)
2609 MOTION by plaintiffs' for leave to file instanter ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/25/1997)
2610 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for reconsideration of the 3/7/97 order ; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 03/25/1997)
2611 MINUTE ORDER of 3/19/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Rockford Board of Education's motion to reconsider is presentend and set for hearing on 4/1/97 at 10:30 a.m. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/25/1997)
2612 RETURN receipt green card from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing supplement record was signed for on 3/18/97 (fce) (Entered: 03/25/1997)
2615 MOTION by plaintiffs' to modify the briefing schedule ; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/28/1997)
2613 RESPONSE in Opposition by plaintiffs' to defendant's objection to the Master's approval of additional resources for controlled choice implementation (fce) (Entered: 03/26/1997)
2614 MINUTE ORDER of 3/21/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney :Plaintiff's

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 195 of 307

03/25/1997 03/27/1997 03/28/1997 04/02/1997 04/03/1997 04/03/1997 04/03/1997 04/03/1997 04/07/1997
04/07/1997 04/08/1997 04/08/1997
04/08/1997 04/08/1997 04/08/1997

motion for leave to file instanter, filed 3/19/97, is GRANTED. The District's reply date is hereby extended to Wednesday, 3/26/97. [2609-1] Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/28/1997)
2616 MINUTE ORDER of 3/25/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic conference held. Telephonic conference set to 10:00 4/10/97. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/31/1997)
2617 NOTICE of Motion by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed (fce) (Entered: 04/01/1997)
2618 RESPONSE by plaintiff to motion for reconsideration of the 3/7/97 order [2610-1]; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/01/1997)
2619 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for leave to file instanter (fce) (Entered: 04/07/1997)
2620 Master's Report on Controlled Choice Kindergarten and Overall Student Assignments for 1997-98; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/07/1997)
2621 Intervenor-Defendant's MOTION for leave to file instanter memorandum in excess of 15 pages (fce) (Entered: 04/07/1997)
2622 MOTION by intervenor Rockford Education to stay pending decision on appeal ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/07/1997)
2623 Plaintiffs' Submission of CRO Fees for July-October 1996 and Plaintiff's Request for an Inteirm Payment Order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/07/1997)
2624 MINUTE ORDER of 4/7/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Rockford education Association' motion for leave to file an excess page brief (17pages) in support of motion to stay is granted.[2621-1] No notice (fce) (Entered: 04/09/1997)
2625 MEMORANDUM by Rockford Education, in support of motion to stay pending decision on appeal [2622-1] (fce) (Entered: 04/09/1997)
2626 RESPONSE by Rockford Board Of Ed to motion to stay pending decision on appeal [2622-1] (fce) (Entered: 04/09/1997)
2627 MINUTE ORDER of 4/8/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs' motion to modify the briefing schedule on defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, filed 3/20/97, is granted. Plaintiffs' response to the motion for judgment on the pleadings is due 4/21/97. Defendant's reply is due 4/28/97. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1997)
2628 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1997)
2629 MINUTE ORDER of 4/8/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons set forth in the attached order, the REA's 4/3/97 motion to stay is denied. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1997)
2648 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date: 4/8/97 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 04/18/1997)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 196 of 307

04/09/1997 04/09/1997 04/09/1997 04/09/1997
04/09/1997 04/10/1997
04/10/1997 04/11/1997 04/16/1997 04/17/1997 04/17/1997 04/17/1997

2630 Master's Report Regarding Collective Bargaining Negotiations over Magnet School Issues for the 1997-98 School Year; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1997)
2631 MINUTE ORDER of 4/9/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's motion for leave to file instanter, filed 4/2/97, is granted. No notice (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1997)
2632 REPLY Brief by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed in Support of Defendant's "Objection to Master's Approval of Additional Resources for Controlled Choice Implementation" (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1997)
2633 MINUTE ORDER of 4/9/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's "motion for an extension of time to file school-based management plan", filed 12/26/96, is granted. According to defendant, the Rockford Education Association and the Rockford School District met on 12/19/96 and determined that they would be able to submit a plan to this court by 4/30/97. The court orders defendant to submit the school-based dmanagement plan by 4/30/97. According to defendant, the Master has been informed of this new submission date and has no objections. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1997)
2634 MINUTE ORDER of 4/9/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's motion to supplement the record on appeal of the court's 11/30/95 and 4/4/96 orders concerning "fees-on-fees", filed 12/26/96, is granted. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1997)
2635 MINUTE ORDER of 4/10/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's motion to supplement the record on appeal of the comprehensive remedial order, filed 10/3/96, is granted. Defendant's motion to bar introduction of all evidence not produced in response to defendant's request dated 11/1/96, filed 11/12/96 is moot. The court has previously ruled on the following motion: Defendant's motion to compel the further deposition of William Trapp, filed 12/6/96. Therefore, the court orders that this motion be administratively removed from the court's "pending motion" list. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1997)
2636 MINUTE ORDER of 4/10/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic conference held. Telephonic conference set to 10:00 4/28/97. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1997)
2637 Statement of Pulliam Law Offices; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1997)
2639 CORRECTED service list by Rockford Education (fce) (Entered: 04/18/1997)
2638 NOTICE of Hearing by Rockford Education (fce) (Entered: 04/18/1997)
2640 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date: 12/18/96 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 04/18/1997)
2641 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date: 1/15/97 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 04/18/1997)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 197 of 307

04/17/1997 04/17/1997 04/17/1997 04/17/1997 04/17/1997 04/17/1997 04/18/1997
04/18/1997 04/22/1997 04/23/1997 04/23/1997
04/23/1997 04/23/1997 04/25/1997 04/28/1997

2642 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date: 1/21/97 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 04/18/1997)
2643 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date: 2/4/97 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 04/18/1997)
2644 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date: 2/27/97 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 04/18/1997)
2645 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date: 3/10/97 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 04/18/1997)
2646 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date: 3/25/97 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 04/18/1997)
2647 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date: 4/1/97 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 04/18/1997)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit supplemental record on appeal consisting of one volume of pleadings, nine transcripts and 3 bulky items (#2613, 2623 and 2625) mailed via certified mail Z 034 401 490. (#26072648) (clb) (Entered: 04/18/1997)
2649 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for assistance ; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 04/22/1997)
2652 REQUEST for payment by the Master's Attorney. (fce) (Entered: 04/29/1997)
2650 MOTION by plaintiffs' for an order directing the Master to issue recommendations regarding institution of an early childhood education program Exhibits A-E; Notice of Motion (fce) (Entered: 04/29/1997)
2651 MINUTE ORDER of 4/23/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney :Plaintiffs' motion for an order directing the Master to issue recommendations regarding institution of an early childhood education program is taken under advisement. [2650-1] Defendant's motion for assistance is denied without prejudice as premature. [2649-1] Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/29/1997)
2653 MOTION by plaintiff for an order implementing the 8/1996 Fee opinion of the Court of Appeals and awarding Plaintifs further laibility proceeding fees. ; Notice of Filing (fce) (Entered: 04/29/1997)
2654 MOTION by plaintiff for order awarding CRO Fees and Expenses for 7/94-12/96. ; Exhibits 1-7 Notice of Filing (fce) (Entered: 04/29/1997)
2655 MOTION by plaintiff for order clarifying that submission of a schoolbased management plan prusuant to the comprehensive remedial order. Attachments 1,2; Notice of Filing (fce) (Entered: 04/29/1997)
2656 MINUTE ORDER of 4/28/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic conference held. Telephonic conference set for 5/9/97 at 10:00 a.m., to be initiated by Mr. Bob Ellch. Further, the hearing set for June 2, 3, 4 and 5, 1997, is reset for August 11, 12, 13 and 14, 1997. Mailed notice (fce)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 198 of 307

04/30/1997 04/30/1997 05/01/1997
05/01/1997
05/01/1997
05/01/1997 05/01/1997 05/01/1997 05/06/1997 05/07/1997 05/08/1997

(Entered: 05/06/1997)
2657 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' motion for a clarifying order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/06/1997)
2658 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to extend time (fce) (Entered: 05/07/1997)
2659 MINUTE ORDER of 5/1/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's motion for extension of time to file with the court the proposed schoolbased management plan, "filed 4/30/97, is granted. Defendant is ordered to submit a school-based management plan to the Master and to the court on or before 5/16/97. In light of this order, Plaintiffs' "motion for a clarifying order that submission of a school-based management plan prusuant to the comprehensive remedial order be initially to the Master rather than the court," is moot. [2658-1], [2655-1] mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/08/1997)
2660 MINUTE ORDER of 5/1/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Having received no objections, the court orders defendant to charge against and disburse monies from the court-ordered desegregation funds and to make payment on the following invoices: Pulliam Law offfices, P.A. (for the period of 9/16/96 to 12/15/96; Lord, Bissell, Brook (for the period ending 1/31/97). The court orders the District to maintain its copy of this order and the underlying documents for any future accounting and/or auditing functions, as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/08/1997)
2661 MINUTE ORDER of 5/1/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Having received no objections, the court orders defendant to charge and disburse monies from Fund 12 and to make payment on the 4/11/97 billing invoice from Dr. Eugene Eubanks (for the period 1/1/97 through 1/1/97 through 3/31/97. The court further orders the Distrcit to maintain its copy of this order and the underlying documents for any future acounting and/or auditing functions, as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/08/1997)
2662 CLAIM by Dr. Eugene Eubanks. (fce) (Entered: 05/08/1997)
2663 MINUTE ORDER of 5/1/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter 4/11/97 invoice from Dr. Eugene E. Eubanks (for the period of 1/1/97 through 3/31/97 Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/08/1997)
2664 CLAIM by Plaintiff's submission of CRO Fees for 11-12/96 and Plaintiff's request for an Interim Payment Order; Attachments 1-4 (fce) (Entered: 05/08/1997)
2665 NOTICE of Hearing by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed (fce) (Entered: 05/12/1997)
2666 Master's Report on Rockford School District's proposal Regarding the use of West Middle School; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/12/1997)
2667 Copy of transmittal LETTER returned from the U.S. Court of Appeals

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 199 of 307

05/09/1997 05/09/1997 05/09/1997
05/09/1997
05/12/1997 05/13/1997 05/14/1997 05/14/1997

showing that they received supplemental record on appeal on 5/5/97 (fce) (Entered: 05/12/1997)
2668 RETURN receipt green card from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing that they signed for supplemental record on appeal on 5/5/97 (fce) (Entered: 05/12/1997)
2669 MINUTE ORDER of 5/9/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic conference held. Telephonic conference set to 10:00 5/21/97. Telephonic conference to be initiated by Mr. Bob Ellch. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/12/1997)
2670 MINUTE ORDER of 5/9/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Presently before the court is plaintiffs' request for an interim payment order on CRO fees for July-October 1996, filed 4/3/97. The court grants plaintiffs' motion and order the Rockford Board of Education to pay the law firm of Futterman & Howard $114,246.00. This figure represents 50% of the total fees for the July-October 1996 period. The court reserves ruling on the balance of the July-October 1996 fees for a later date. No tort desegregation and/or implementation funds are to be used in making this payment. The court orders the District to maintain its copy of this order and the underlying documents for any future accounting and/or auditing functions, as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/12/1997)
2671 MINUTE ORDER of 5/9/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Presently before the court is plaintiffs' request for an interim payment order on CRO fees for November-December 1996, and CRO expenses for JulyDecember 1996, filed 5/1/97. The court grants plaintiffs' motion and order the Rockford Board of Education to pay the law firm of Futterman & Howard $90,667.04. This figure represents 50% of the total fees for the November-December 1996 period, and 100% of the out of pocket expenses for the July-December 1996 period. The court reserves ruling on the balance of the November-December 1996 fees for a later date. No tort desegregation and/or implementation funds are to be used in making this payment. The court orders the District to maintain its copy of this order and the underlying documents for any future accounting and/or auditing functions, as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/12/1997)
2672 NOTICE of Motion by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed (fce) (Entered: 05/12/1997)
2673 MASTER'S REPORT and Request for a limited waiver. Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/16/1997)
2674 TRANSCRIPT of Telephonic proceedings for the following date(s): 5/9/97 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 05/16/1997)
2675 TRANSCRIPT of Telephonic proceedings for the following date(s): 4/28/97 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 05/16/1997)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 200 of 307

05/16/1997 05/19/1997 05/21/1997 05/22/1997 05/22/1997 05/23/1997
05/23/1997 05/30/1997 05/30/1997 06/02/1997 06/02/1997 06/02/1997 06/02/1997 06/03/1997 06/04/1997 06/04/1997

2676 Agreement to Collaborate between the Rockford Public Schhol District and REA concerning sit-based shared decision making; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/20/1997)
2677 Second Quarterly Comprehensive Remedial Order Implementation Progress Report; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/20/1997)
2678 MINUTE ORDER of 5/21/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic conference H&C to 1:00 5/23/97. Mr. Bob Ellch will initiate the call. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/27/1997)
SCHEDULE set on 5/22/97 by Hon. Stanley J. Roszkowski : Conference with attorneys held. No notice (glg) (Entered: 05/22/1997)
2679 NOTICE of Motion by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed (fce) (Entered: 05/27/1997)
2680 MINUTE ORDER of 5/23/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons stated on the reverse sdie of this minute order, the court believes that the RSD's West proposal is not fasible at this time. The court will continue to monitor controlled choice. Further, in light of the successful implementation of controlled choice, that portion of the CRO which ordered the relocation of the gifted and CAPA programs to East is hereby held in abeyance until further order of court. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/02/1997)
2681 MINUTE ORDER of 5/23/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic conference held. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/02/1997)
2682 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to bar the Master's ex parte communications ; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 06/02/1997)
2683 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to bar Master's continued use of counsel (fce) (Entered: 06/02/1997)
2684 Plaintiffs' Updated Nominations to the Community Liaison Committee; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/02/1997)
2685 Plaintiffs' Submission concerning FY 96 and 97 Hourly Rates (fce) (Entered: 06/02/1997)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the long record on appeal no. consisting of 1 vol. of pleadings. Mailed notice to all counsel. (fce) (Entered: 06/05/1997)
2686 STATEMENT of services for Attorneys for Dr. Eubanks. (fce) (Entered: 06/05/1997)
2687 AMENDED NOTICE by Rockford Board Of Ed for Motion to Bar Master's Contined Use of Counsel. (fce) (Entered: 06/05/1997)
2688 Second Amended NOTICE Notice of Hearing (fce) (Entered: 06/10/1997)
2689 Intervenors-Defendants' Updated Nominations to Community Liaison

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 201 of 307

06/04/1997 06/05/1997 06/06/1997
06/09/1997 06/13/1997
06/13/1997 06/13/1997
06/16/1997 06/18/1997
06/18/1997 06/20/1997 06/23/1997

Committee (fce) (Entered: 06/10/1997)
2690 STATEMENT of Pulliam Law Offices, P.A. (fce) (Entered: 06/10/1997)
2691 Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205 Nominations to Community Liaison Committee; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/10/1997)
2692 MINUTE ORDER of 6/6/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic conference held. Response to defendant's "motion to bar Master's continued use of counsel and motion to bar the Master's ex parte communications" is due on 7/7/97. Reply due 7/21/97. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/10/1997)
2693 Copy of Order from the 7th Circuit. The petition for rehearing is denied. (fce) (Entered: 06/10/1997)
2698 CERTIFIED copy of Order from the 7th Circuit. It is ordered that #2 is granted and the clerk is directed to file instanter the tendered copies of the oversized petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc of the plaintiffs. It is furhter ordered that #1 is denied. (fce) (Entered: 07/01/1997)
2699 CERTIFIED copy of Order from the 7th Circuit. The petition for rehearing is denied. (fce) (Entered: 07/01/1997)
2700 CERTIFIED COPY of order from the 7th Circuit: The comprehensive remedial order is AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part, as indicated in this court's opinion and the matter is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this court's opinion; the financing orders are AFFIRMED; the appeal from orders relating to the special master's participation in the canceled hearing is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction; and the petition for a writ of mandamus is DENIED. The above is in accodrance with the decision of this court entered on this date. No costs shall be awarded. (fce) (Entered: 07/01/1997)
2694 Plaintiffs' Supplemental Nomination to the Community Liaison Committee; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/23/1997)
2695 Plaintiffs' RESPONSE in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiffs' Second Petition to Enforce the Comprehensive Remedial Order and Plaintiffs' Third petition to Enforce the Comprehensive Remedial Order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/23/1997)
2696 Renewed MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to stay and motion for assistance; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 06/23/1997)
2697 STATEMENT of Pulliam Law Offices; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/23/1997)
SCHEDULE set on 6/23/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic Status hearing H&C to 10:00 6/24/97 . Telephoned notice (glg) (Entered: 06/23/1997)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 202 of 307

06/24/1997 06/24/1997 06/24/1997
06/25/1997 06/25/1997
06/25/1997
06/26/1997

2701 STATEMENT of Pulliam Law Offices, P.A.; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/01/1997)
2702 Intervenor-Defendant's MEMORANDUM in opposition to Motion for Stay (fce) (Entered: 07/01/1997)
2703 MINUTE ORDER of 6/24/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic conference held. Trial counsel, the Master, Mr. Petrarca, and Dr. Epps are ordered to appear at 10:00 7/3/97. Plaintiff given until 7/8/97 to file response to defendant's site based management plan (filed 5/16/97). Master given until 7/8/97 to submit comments regarding defendant's site based management plan. Defendant given until 7/8/97 to file reply regarding defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings (filed 2/28/97). The Magistrate Judge will rule by mail on defendant's motoin to stay (filed 6/18/97). The balance of defendant's motion to stay is referred to the Master. Plaintiff given until 8/11/97 to respond to defenant's motion to bar master's continued use of counsel and to bar master's ex parte communications (filed 5/30/97). Defendnat's reply due 8/18/97. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/01/1997)
2704 SUPPLEMENTAL Submission by plaintiffs re: FY 96 and FY 97 Hourly Rates: Stipulation of the Parties re: FY 95 Rate Affidavits, and Plaintiffs' Comments on Said Stipulation; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/01/1997)
2705 MINUTE ORDER of 6/25/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Having received no objections, the court orders defendant to charge against and disburse monies from the court ordered desegregation funds and to make payment on the following invoices: Pulliam Law Offices, P.A. (for the period of 12/16/96 to 3/15/97); Pulliam Law Offices, P.A. (for the period ending 4/30/97). The court orders the District to maintain its copy of this order and the underlying documents for any future accounting and/or auditing functions, as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/01/1997)
2706 MINUTE ORDER of 6/25/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Before this court are the attorneys' fee requests from Scariano, Kula, Ellch and Himes for the months of July, August, September, October, and November 1996. The court now orders and directs defendant to pay or charge against Fund 12 as outlined on the reverse, for hours and expenses which are "directly connected to" and "reasonably necessary" for carrying out provision of the CRO. (For further detail, see reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/01/1997)
2707 MINUTE ORDER of 6/26/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Before this court are the attorneys' fee requests from Scariano, Kula, Ellch, & Himes for the months of December 1996, January 1997, February 1997, and March 1997. The court now orders and directs defendant to pay or charge against Fund 12 as outlined on the reverse for hours and expenses which are "directly connected to" and "reasonably necessary" for carrying out provision of the CRO. (For further detail, see reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/01/1997)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 203 of 307

06/27/1997 06/27/1997 07/02/1997 07/03/1997 07/03/1997
07/03/1997
07/07/1997 07/09/1997 07/11/1997 07/11/1997 07/11/1997 07/14/1997 07/14/1997

2708 MOTION by plaintiffs' to compel discovery ; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 07/01/1997)
2709 Intevenors-Defendants' MOTION to extend time to file petition for attorneys fees ; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 07/01/1997)
2710 OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Statement of Pulliam Law Offices for Period of 3/16/97 to 5/15/97 (fce) (Entered: 07/08/1997)
2711 STATEMENT of Lord, Bissell & Brook (fce) (Entered: 07/08/1997)
2712 MINUTE ORDER of 7/3/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Status hearing held. Trial counsels, Dr. Epps, Dr. Eubanks and Mr. petrarca are ordered to appear for a status hearing set to 10:00 8/5/97. Hearing set for 8/11/97 through 8/14/97 is cancelled. Intervenor-defendants' motion for extension of time to file petition for attorneys fees filed 6/27/97 is granted. Intervenor-defendants' petition for attorney fees due 8/1/97. Plaintiffs' motion to compel, filed 6/27/97, presented. Defendants' response due 7/17/97. Plaintiffs' reply due 7/24/97. Magistrate will rule by mail. Master's budget report due 8/6/97. The parties must file any objections to the Master's budget report by 8/15/97. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/08/1997)
2713 MINUTE ORDER of 7/3/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The briefing schedule regarding the following motions is extended by 7 days: (1) Plaintiffs' motion for an order implementing the August 1996 fee opinion of the Court of Appeals and awarding plaintiffs further liability proceeding fees, and (2) Plaintiffs' motion for a final order awarding CRO fees and expenses for the period July 1994 through December 1996. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/08/1997)
2714 MINUTE ORDER of 7/7/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiff's response to defendant's site based management plan is due 7/15/97. The Master is given until 7/29/97 to submit comments regarding defendant's site based management plan. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/09/1997)
2715 Plaintiff's Additional Nomination to the Community Liaison Committee; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/09/1997)
2716 MOTION by plaintiff for dispostion of 4/23/97 fee motion. ; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/14/1997)
2717 MASTERS' RESPONSE to motion to bar the Master's ex parte communications [2682-1] (fce) (Entered: 07/14/1997)
2718 REPLY BRIEF by Rockford Board Of Ed in support of motion for judgment on the pleadings. [2596-1] (fce) (Entered: 07/14/1997)
2719 MASTER'S RESPONSE to motion to bar Master's continued use of counsel [2683-1] (fce) (Entered: 07/14/1997)
2720 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to Defendant's motion to bar Master's continued use of counsel [2683-1] (fce) (Entered: 07/14/1997)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 204 of 307

07/14/1997 07/15/1997 07/17/1997 07/17/1997 07/17/1997
07/18/1997 07/21/1997 07/22/1997 07/23/1997 07/23/1997 07/23/1997
07/23/1997

2721 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to Defendants' motion to bar the Master's ex parte communications [2682-1], Exhibits A-I (fce) (Entered: 07/14/1997)
2722 NOTICE of Motion; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/17/1997)
2723 Master's RESPONSE to Rockford Board of Education School District No. 205's Objection to the Statement of Pulliam Law Offices for Period of 5/16/97 to 6/15/97; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/17/1997)
2724 Intervenors-Defendants' Revisions to Suggested Nominees to Community Advisory Committee; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/17/1997)
2725 MINUTE ORDER of 7/17/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The Master's request for a limited waiver for the Barbour Tw-Way Bilingual magnet School, filed 5/13/97, is hereby granted. The student assignment configuration will be implemented as outlined by the Master in this request. Any variance from this configuration will be subject to approval by teh Director of the Department of Desegregation and by the Master. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/21/1997)
2726 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel (fce) (Entered: 07/21/1997)
2727 Plaintiffs' Comments to the Master and the Court concerning Implementation of the School Based Planning Section of the CRO; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/21/1997)
2728 STATEMENT of Pulliam Law Offices; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/22/1997)
2729 REPLY by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Responses to Defendant's Motion to Bar the Master's Continued Use of Counsel; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/25/1997)
2730 REPLY by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to the Response of the Master of the Plaintiffs to the Rockford Board of Education's Motion to Bar the Master's Ex Parte Communication (fce) (Entered: 07/25/1997)
2731 MINUTE ORDER of 7/23/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 2/3/97, plaintiffs filed their "motion to alter, amend, or reconsider the 1/22/97 order vacating order of 7/1/96" (hereinafter "Plaintiffs motion to reconsider"). After careful consideration of the parties' respective positions, the court hereby denies plaintiffs' motion to reconsider. The court believes that the $3,000,000.00 commitment for the PEM from the private business community was an integral part of the Master's 10/4/96 report. When this commitment was no longer secured, a re-evaluation of the St. patrick's issue became necessary. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/25/1997)
2732 MINUTE ORDER of 7/23/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant is hereby ordered to charge against and disburse monies from Fund 12 and to make payment on the 7/14/97 billing invoice from Dr. Eugene E. Eubanks (for the period 4/1/97 through 6/29/97). The court further orders the District to maintain its copy of this order and the underlying

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 205 of 307

07/23/1997
07/23/1997 07/23/1997
07/23/1997 07/23/1997
07/24/1997 07/24/1997 07/24/1997 07/24/1997

documents for any future accounting and/or auditing functions, as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/25/1997)
2733 MINUTE ORDER of 7/23/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court orders defendant to charge against and disburse monies from the court ordered desegregation funds and to make payment on the following invoices: Pulliam Law Offices, P.A. (for the period of 3/16/97 to 5/15/97); Pulliam Law Offices, P.A. (for the period of5/16/97 to 6/15/97); Lord, Bissell & Brook (period ending 5/31/97). Defendant's objections are overruled. The court orders the District to maintain its copy of this order and the underlying documents for any future accounting and/or auditing functions, as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/25/1997)
2734 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 07/25/1997)
2735 MINUTE ORDER of 7/23/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons stated in the attached order, Defendant's motion for reconsideration of the 3/7/97 order denied [2610-1], Defeendant's motion to dismiss or in the alternative, to reply to Rockford Education Associations' report to the court regarding collective bargaining negotiations over magnet school issues [2602-1] moot. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/25/1997)
2736 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 07/25/1997)
2737 MINUTE ORDER of 7/23/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons stated in the attached order, plaintiffs' "second petition to enforce the comprehensive remedial order and the court's related CRO funding orders - by the appointment of a 'CRO Implementation Board' to assume and carry out all powers and duties of the Rockford Board of Education arising from or relating to implementation of the court's CRO and related orders, " filed 12/16/97, is dismissed. Further, in light of the aforementioned dismissal, defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, filed 2/28/97, is moot. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/25/1997)
2738 STIPULATION (fce) (Entered: 07/25/1997)
2739 MINUTE ORDER of 7/24/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The "Agreement Regarding Disbursements from Account Holding the Proceeds of the Certificates of Participation," submitted by District counsel on 7/22/97 is hereby approved by the court and hereby becomes an order of the court. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/25/1997)
2740 Agreement Regarding Disbursements from Account Holding the proceeds of the Certificates of Participation (fce) (Entered: 07/25/1997)
2741 MINUTE ORDER of 7/24/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter "Agreement Regarding Disbursements from Account Holding the Proceeds of the Certificates of Participation." Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/25/1997)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 206 of 307

07/29/1997 07/30/1997 08/04/1997 08/05/1997
08/06/1997 08/06/1997
08/11/1997 08/11/1997 08/12/1997
08/12/1997 08/12/1997 08/12/1997 08/13/1997 08/15/1997 08/15/1997 08/18/1997

2742 Master's Request for Authority to Extend Experts' Contract; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/05/1997)
2743 STATEMENT of Lord, Bissel & Brook; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/05/1997)
2744 Third Quarterly Comprehensive Remedial Order - Implementation Progress Report 8/1/97 (fce) (Entered: 08/05/1997)
2747 MINUTE ORDER of 8/5/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Status hearing held. trial consels, Dr. Epps, Dr Eubanks, and Mr. Petrarca are ordered to appear for a status hearing set for 10:00 9/9/97 . Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/13/1997)
2748 LETTER from Dr. Eubanks to Magistrate Mahoney of 7/23/97. (fce) (Entered: 08/13/1997)
2749 MINUTE ORDER of 8/6/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter letter from Dr. Eubanks to the court, dated 7/23/97. The aforementioned 7/23/97 letter meets with the court's approval. Further, the parties are given seven (7) days (until 8/13/97) to respond to the "Master's request for authority to extend experts' contract" (filed 8/29/97). Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/13/1997)
2745 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 7/3/97 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/11/1997)
2746 TRANSCRIPT of telephonic proceedings for the following date(s): 5/23/97 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/11/1997)
2750 MINUTE ORDER of 8/12/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's objection to the Master's approval of additonal resources, filed 2/19/97, is moot, in light of the attached letter. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/13/1997)
2751 RESPONSE by plaintiffs in support of the Master's Request for authority to extend experts' contract. (fce) (Entered: 08/13/1997)
2752 MINUTE ORDER of 8/12/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court orders proposed expenditure plan of the Master filed in the court file. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/13/1997)
2753 MASTER'S PROPOSED EXPENDITURE PLAIN (fce) (Entered: 08/13/1997)
2754 STIPULATION; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/19/1997)
2755 OBJECTIONS by Rockford Education to Master's Proposed Budget; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/19/1997)
2756 OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to the Master's Proposed 1997-1998 Budget; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/19/1997)
2757 Plaintiffs' Comments and Suggestions concerning the Master's

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 207 of 307

08/18/1997
08/18/1997
08/20/1997 08/20/1997 08/25/1997 08/27/1997
08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/29/1997 08/29/1997

Expenditure Plan for Fiscal year 1997-1998; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/26/1997)
2758 MINUTE ORDER of 8/18/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court hereby directs the RSD to file, by Wednesday, August 20, 1997 at 9:15 a.m., a three page document, indicating specifically which line items of the Master's budget reports are being objected to by the RSD. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/26/1997)
2759 MINUTE ORDER of 8/18/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The parties are hereby given until 9/2/97 to file responses to the RSD's objections to the Master's budget report. Further, oral presentation on the budget is set for 9/9/97 at 9:30 a.m. Status hearing set for 9/9/97 at 10:00 a.m. will take place immediately following the oral presentation on the budget. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/26/1997)
2760 SUPPLEMENT by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Objections to the Master's Proposed 1997-1998 Budget; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/26/1997)
2761 SUPPLEMENT to Plaintiffs' Comments and Suggestions concerning the Master's Expenditure Plan for fiscal year 1997-1998; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/26/1997)
2762 Master's Proposed FINDINGS of fact regarding the readiness of the Rockford School District to Implement the Controlled Choice Student Assignment Plan; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
2763 MINUTE ORDER of 8/27/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court requires immediate written clarification from the master regarding the amount of $1,070,707.00 listed under XII, p. 6 of the Master's budget summary. Such clarification should include the account number(s) from the budget documents. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
2764 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to extend ; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
2765 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to amend caption and service list ; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
2766 MOTION by plaintiffs' to strike the Rockford Education Association's Objections to Master's Proposed Budget ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
2767 MINUTE ORDER of 8/29/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : In a 6/11/91 order, Judge Roszkowski stated that the REA's limited intervention "shall not entitle the intervenors to participate generally in the litigation...nor participate in Court proceedings concerning any aspects of the [Second Interim Order] other than the intervention issues." People Who Care 89 C 20168 (N.D.Ill.) filed 6/11/91; See also Id. filed 8/12/96, attached hereto. Therefore, on the court's own motion, the "Rockford Education Association's Objections to Master's Proposed Budget," filed 8/15/97, is hereby stricken. The REA may file the

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 208 of 307

08/29/1997 08/29/1997 08/29/1997
09/03/1997 09/03/1997 09/04/1997 09/08/1997 09/12/1997
09/12/1997 09/19/1997

"Rockford Education Association's comments and suggestions concerning the Master's expenditure plan for fiscal year 1997-1998" by 9/5/97. Consequently, plaintiffs' motion to strike REA's objections, filed 8/29/97 is moot. Mailed notices (fce) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
2768 MINUTE ORDER of 8/29/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The RSD's "motion for extension of time" filed 8/28/97, is hereby granted. The RSD is given until 12/31/97 to file the RSD's proposal regarding the use of West as a comprehensive high school. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
2769 MINUTE ORDER of 8/29/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs are hereby given a one-day extension, until 9/3/97, to file plaintiffs' response to the RSD's objections to the Master's budget report. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
2770 MINUTE ORDER of 8/29/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The RSD is hereby ordered to provide the court with a written report providing specific account line items from the Master's budget regarding the Master's "contingency funds" which, according to the RSD, amount to $473,863.00. (See RSD objections at 25, 27). This report must be filed no later than 9/3/97. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
2771 SUPPLEMENT by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Objections to Master's Budget; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
2772 Master's RESPONSE to the Court's Inquiry Regarding the Master's Expenditure Summary at XII; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
2773 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' to the Objections from the Rockford School Board Members and the Rockford Education Association to the Master's FY 98 Expenditure Plan; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
2774 COMMENTS with respect to Master's Proposed budget by Rockford Education Association (fce) (Entered: 09/11/1997)
2775 MINUTE ORDER of 9/12/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Budget hearing held 9/9/97. The court hereby rules on the Master's expenditure plan and the RSD's objections as explained on the reverse of this minute order. Memorandum opinion may follow. The RSD is given until 9/24/97 at 4:30 p.m. to file the RSD's plan for funding the expenditure plan as put forward by this court and the Master. The parties are given until 9/17/97 to file findings of fact and conclucsions of law regarding the rulings of the court on the Master's expenditure plan and the RSD's objectionsw. The REA is given until 9/30/97 to file a response to the RSD's "motion to amend caption and service list" filed 8/28/97. The RSD is given until 10/7/97 to reply. (For further detail, see reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/15/1997)
2776 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 8/19/97 (fce) (Entered: 09/15/1997)
2777 MOTION by Rockford Board Of Ed to alter or amend order of 9/12/97.

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 209 of 307

09/23/1997 09/23/1997 09/23/1997 09/24/1997 09/24/1997 09/25/1997 09/25/1997
09/26/1997 09/29/1997 10/03/1997 10/07/1997 10/10/1997
10/10/1997 10/10/1997 10/14/1997

Exhibit A; Notice of Hearing (fce) (Entered: 09/25/1997)
2778 MASTERS' REPORT Providing revised summary for the FY 1998 tort fund expenditure plan. (fce) (Entered: 09/26/1997)
2779 No document #2779 and Notice of Appeal. (fce) Modified on 11/04/1997 (Entered: 09/26/1997)
Text not available. (Entered: 11/04/1997)
2780 Plaintiff's FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law (fce) (Entered: 09/26/1997)
2781 STATUS REPORT Required pursuant to 9/12/97 Order. (fce) (Entered: 09/26/1997)
2782 MASTER'S REPORT Providing Staff Development evaluation data. (fce) (Entered: 09/26/1997)
2783 MINUTE ORDER of 9/25/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Hearing held. Hearing set to 9:30 10/15/97. The Magistrate will hold a conference in chambers immediately following the 10/15/97 hearing. Attorneys of record, Dr. Eubanks, Dr. Epps, and Mr. Justing Petrarca are ordered to attend. Regarding the RSD's "motion to alter or amend order of 9/12/97" filed 9/19/97, plaintiffs are given until 10/6/97 to respond. RSD's reply due 10/13/97. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/30/1997)
2784 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to joint necessary parties ; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 09/30/1997)
2785 RESPONSE and objection by intervenor-defendant's motion to amend caption and service list [2765-1] (Exhibits); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/02/1997)
2786 MOTION by plaintiffs for reassignment based on relatedness (Exhibit); Notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 10/03/1997)
2787 STATEMENT of Pulliam Law Offices, P.A. (fce) (Entered: 10/07/1997)
2788 REPLY by Rockford Board Of Ed to Intervenors-defendant's response and objection to Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205's motion to amend caption and service list [2765-1]; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/10/1997)
2789 MASTER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION regarding the use of West Middle School for school year 1998/99; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/10/1997)
2790 RESPONSE by plaintiff in oppposition to defendant's motion to alter or amend order of 9/12/97 [2777-1]; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/14/1997)
2791 OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to statement of Pulliam Law Offices, P.A. [2787-1] (Exhibits); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/15/1997)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 210 of 307

10/15/1997 10/15/1997 10/15/1997 10/15/1997
10/21/1997 10/23/1997 10/24/1997 10/27/1997 10/30/1997 11/03/1997 11/03/1997

2792 PROGRESS REPORT student assignment component of the comprehensive remedial order; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/15/1997)
2793 SUGGESTIONS for orders on remand and for further determinations consistent with the appellate court's decision by plaintiffs; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/15/1997)
2794 COMMENTS and suggestions concerning the court's disposition of $2.8 million in unallocated tort funds from FY91-FY97 by plaintiffs; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/15/1997)
2795 MINUTE ORDER of 10/15/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Hearing held. Status hearing set to 9:30 11/18/97. As explained on the record, the court orders that the $2.8 million identified by the Master as carryover will be retained in Fund 12. The court takes no further action regsasrding how the $2.8 million carryover retained in Fund 12 will be applied in the future. The RSD will file comments and suggestions regarding a possible remand hearing (including any response to plaintiffs' comments and suggestions, filed 10/15/97) by 10/29/97. Plaintiffs are given until 11/5/97 to reply. Plaintiffs are given until 10/20/97 to file comments regarding the REA's intervention status. The RSD is given until 10/22/97 to file its reply regarding plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend the 9/12/97 order. Attorneys of record, Mr. Petrarca, Dr. Epps and Dr. Eubanks are ordered to attend. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/20/1997)
2796 Plaintiffs' Comments and Suggestions to the Court regarding RSD's Motion to Amend Caption and Service List; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/21/1997)
2797 REPLY brief by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed in support of their motion to alter or amend order of 9/12/97 [2777-1]; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/24/1997)
2798 Master's RESPONSE to Rockford Board of Education's Objection to the Statement of Pulliam Law Offices for period of 7/18/97 to 9/11/97 (fce) (Entered: 10/27/1997)
2799 NOTICE of filing regarding response by Master to Rockford Board of Education School District No. 205's Objection to the Statement of Pulliam Law Offices, P.A., for period of July 18, 1997 to September 11,1997 [2798-1] (fce) (Entered: 10/27/1997)
2800 STATEMENT of Lord, Bissell, & Brook (Counsel for the Master) (Attachments); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/31/1997)
2801 LETTER from the 7th Circuit returning the record on appeal no. 97-1212 consisting of 6 volumes of pleadings, 6 loose pleadings, 2 volumes of transcripts, 1 volume of exhibits, 2 volumes of depositions. (fce) (Entered: 11/03/1997)
2802 Suggestions for Dealing with the Remand Issue by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/04/1997)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 211 of 307

11/05/1997 11/05/1997 11/05/1997 11/05/1997 11/05/1997 11/06/1997 11/06/1997 11/07/1997 11/18/1997
11/21/1997 11/21/1997
11/24/1997 11/24/1997 11/24/1997 11/26/1997

2803 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 09/25/97 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 11/05/1997)
2804 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 10/15/97 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 11/05/1997)
2805 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 09/09/97 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 11/05/1997)
2806 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 08/18/97 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney, Volume 1 (fce) (Entered: 11/05/1997)
2807 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 08/19/97 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney, Vol. II (fce) (Entered: 11/05/1997)
2808 SUUPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT ORDER (fce) (Entered: 11/06/1997)
2809 MINUTE ORDER of 11/6/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter supplemental judgment order. See reverse of minute order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/06/1997)
2810 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION to pay transportation costs from the FY 1998 contingency funds by Master; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/07/1997)
2811 MINUTE ORDER of 11/18/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Status hearing held. The parties are ordered to file a list of pending motions by 11/21/97. Further, the parties are given until 12/2/97 to file comments, suggestions, and/or objections regarding the "Master's report and recommendation to pay transportation costs from the FY 1998 contingency funds", filed 11/7/97. Status hearing set to 1:30 12/2/97. The court orders attorneys of record, Dr. Eubanks, Dr. Epps, and Attorney Justin Petrarca to attend the 12/2/97 status hearing. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/19/1997)
2812 LIST of pending motions by Rockford Board Of Ed; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/24/1997)
2813 RESPONSE by plaintiffs in case no. 97 CV 50326, Parents Against Controlled Choice, to plaintiff's in 89 CV 20168 motion for reassignment based on relatedness [2786-1]; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/24/1997)
2814 MOTION by plaintiff for revenue-generation order concerning the FY 98 remedial operating budget and the FY 98 cops debt service levy ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/24/1997)
2815 Plaintiffs' List of Motions, Petitions and other Matters pending before the Court; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/24/1997)
2816 REPLY by plaintiffs' in Opposition to Defendant's Suggestions for Dealing with the Remand Issue; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/24/1997)
2817 NOTICE OF FILING MATERIAL by plaintiff's in support of plaintiffs'

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 212 of 307

11/26/1997 11/28/1997 12/01/1997 12/02/1997 12/02/1997
12/02/1997
12/02/1997
12/02/1997

motion for revenue-generation order concerning the FY 98 remedial operating budget and the FY 98 cops debt service levy [2814-1] (Attachments); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/01/1997)
2818 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to strike ; Notice of hearing (fce) (Entered: 12/01/1997)
2819 NOTICE of presentment of motion regarding motion for revenuegeneration order concerning the FY 98 remedial operating budget and the FY 98 cops debt service levy [2814-1] (fce) (Entered: 12/01/1997)
2820 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in support of their motion for revenuegeneration order concerning the FY 98 remedial operating budget and the FY 98 cops debt service levy [2814-1] (Attachments); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/01/1997)
2821 MINUTE ORDER of 12/2/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : the court hereby adopts the findings and recommendations made in the Master's "report and recommendation regarding the use of West Middle School for school year 1998/99," filed 10/10/97. The RSD is ordered to adopt and follow the aforementioned findings and recommendations of the Master. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/03/1997)
2822 MINUTE ORDER of 12/2/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court orders defendant to charge against and disburse monies from the court ordered desegregation funds and to make payment on the following invoices: Lord, Bissell, & Brook (for the period ending 6/30/97 and for the period ending 9/30/97). The court orders the RSD to maintain its copy of this order and the underlying documents for any future accounting and/or auditing functions, as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/03/1997)
2823 MINUTE ORDER of 12/2/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant is hereby ordered to charge against and disburse monies from Fund 12 and to make payment on the 10/20/97 billing invoice/statement submitted by Dr. Eugene E. Eubanks (for the period 6/30/97 through 10/01/97). The court further orders defendant RSD to maintain its copy of this order and the underlying documents for any future accounting and/or auditing functions, as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/03/1997)
2824 MINUTE ORDER of 12/2/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court orders defendant to charge against and disburse monies from the court ordered desegregation funds and to make payment on the following invoices: Pulliam Law Offices, P.A. (for the period of 6/16/97 to 7/15/97 and for the period of 7/16/97 to 9/15/97). Defendant's objections are overruled. The court orders the RSD to maintain its copy of this order and the underlying documents for any future accounting and/or auditing functions, as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/03/1997)
2825 MINUTE ORDER of 12/2/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Hearing held. The RSD's response to plaintiffs' "motion for a revenue generation

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 213 of 307

12/02/1997 12/02/1997
12/02/1997 12/02/1997
12/02/1997 12/02/1997
12/02/1997 12/02/1997
12/02/1997 12/02/1997 12/03/1997

order concerning the FY 98 remedial operating budget and the FY 98 COPs debt service levy" (filed 11/24/97, supporting memo filed 12/1/97) is due 12/5/97. Plaintiffs' response to the RSD's "motion to strike" (filed 11/26/97) is due 12/5/97. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/03/1997)
2826 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 12/03/1997)
2827 MINUTE ORDER of 12/2/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Before this court are the attorneys' fee requests from Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes for the month of April 1997. The court now orders defendant RSD to make payment from Fund 12 as outlined in the attached order, for expenses and fees which are "directly connected to" and reasonably necessary" regarding implementation of the CRO. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/03/1997)
2828 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 12/03/1997)
2829 MINUTE ORDER of 12/2/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Before this court are the attorneys' fee requests from Scariano, Kula, Ellch and Himes for the month of May 1997. The court now orders defendant RSD to make payment from Fund 12 as outlined in the attached order, for expenses and fees which are "directly connected to" and "reasonably necessary" regarding implementation of the CRO. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/03/1997)
2830 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 12/03/1997)
2831 MINUTE ORDER of 12/2/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Before this court are the attorneys' fee requests from Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes for the month of June 1997. The court now orders defendant RSD to make payment from Fund 12 as outlined in the attached order, for expenses and fees which are "directly connected to" and "reasonably necessary" regarding implementation of the CRO. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/03/1997)
2832 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 12/03/1997)
2833 MINUTE ORDER of 12/2/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Before this court are the attorneys' fee requests from Scariano, Kula, Ellch and Himes for the months of July 1997 and August 1997. The court now orders defendant RSD to make payment from Fund 12 as outlined in the attached order, for expenses and fees which are "directly connected to" and "reasonably necessary" regarding implementation of the CRO. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/03/1997)
2834 MINUTE ORDER of 12/2/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter the 10/20/97 billing invoice/statement (and attachments) submitted by Dr. Eugene E. Eubanks for the period 6/30/97 through 10/1/97. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/03/1997)
2835 Billing Invoice/Statement (and attachments) submitted by Dr. Eugene Eubanks (fce) (Entered: 12/03/1997)
2836 MINUTE ORDER of 12/3/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 214 of 307

12/03/1997 12/04/1997 12/08/1997 12/08/1997 12/08/1997 12/08/1997
12/08/1997
12/08/1997 12/08/1997
12/08/1997 12/08/1997

September 26, 1997, the RSD filed its "motion to join necessary parties" [2784-1]. Plaintiffs are hereby given until 12/8/97 at 4:30 pm to file a response. Mailed notice (fce) Modified on 12/04/1997 (Entered: 12/04/1997)
2837 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed, school district no. 205, to plaintiffs' motion for revenue-generation order concerning the FY 98 remedial operating budget and the FY 98 cops debt service levy [2814-1] (Exhibits); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/04/1997)
2838 MINUTE ORDER of 12/4/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Status hearing set for 2:30 12/11/97 . Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/05/1997)
2839 REPLY by plaintiffs' in Support of Motion for a Revenue-Generation Order concerning the FY 98 Remedial Operating Budget and the FY 98 Cops Debt Service Levy; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/09/1997)
2840 Master's Court Appointed Legal Assistant's REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION to the Master regarding the Option of Early Childhood Education; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/09/1997)
2841 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Strike; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/09/1997)
2842 MINUTE ORDER of 12/8/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : In light of the court's previous rulings and/or stipulations of the parties, the following motion is hereby mooted: Plaintiffs' "motion under Local Rule 12(P) for dispositive of plaintiffs' 4/23/97 fee motion following defendant's failure to file answering memorandum" filed 7/11/97. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/09/1997)
2843 MINUTE ORDER of 12/8/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : In light of the court's previous rulings and/or stipulations of the parties, the following motions are hereby mooted: Plaintiffs' "motion to compel discovery," filed 6/27/97; Plaintiffs' "motionf or an order implementing the August 1996 fee opinion of the Court of Appeals and awarding plaintiffs further liability fees," filed 4/23/97; and Plaintiffs' "petition for a final order awarding CRO fees and expenses for the period July 1994 through December 1996 filed 4/23/97. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/09/1997)
2844 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 12/09/1997)
2845 MINUTE ORDER of 12/8/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons stated in the attached opinion, Plaintiffs' "motion for a revenuegeneration order concerning the FY 98 operating budget and the FY 98 COPs debt service levy," filed 11/24/97, is denied as unnecessary. Mailed notices (fce) (Entered: 12/09/1997)
2846 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 12/09/1997)
2847 MINUTE ORDER of 12/8/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs' motion for reassignment based on relatedness filed 10/3/97 is denied [2786-1] as explained in the attached opinion. Mailed notice (fce)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 215 of 307

12/08/1997 12/08/1997
12/08/1997 12/08/1997
12/09/1997 12/10/1997 12/11/1997 12/11/1997 12/11/1997 12/11/1997
12/15/1997 12/16/1997
12/16/1997

(Entered: 12/09/1997)
2848 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 12/09/1997)
2849 MINUTE ORDER of 12/8/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons stated in the attached opinion, the RSD's motion to amend caption and service list filed 8/28/97 is denied [2765-1] Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/09/1997)
2850 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 12/09/1997)
2851 MINUTE ORDER of 12/8/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons stated in the attached opinion, the following motions are denied (1) the RSD's motion to bar Master's ex parte communications, filed 5/30/97, ,and (2) the RSD's motion to bar Master's continued use of counsel, filed 5/30/97. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/09/1997)
2852 REPLY by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' response in opposition to defendant's motion to strike [2841-1]; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/10/1997)
2853 RESPONSE in opposition to defendant's motion to joint necessary parties [2784-1]; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/10/1997)
2854 SUBMISSSION of Rockford Education Association regarding Southwestern Regional Lab-Edwest (Attachments) (fce) (Entered: 12/11/1997)
2855 RENEWED MOTION by plaintiffs for a revenue-generation order concerning the FY 98 remedial operating budget and the FY 98 cops debt service levy (Exhibits); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/12/1997)
2856 EXHIBIT A to plaintiff's renewed motion for a revenue- gereration order concerning the FY 98 remedial operating budget and the FY 98 cops debt service levy by plaintiffs (fce) (Entered: 12/12/1997)
2857 MINUTE ORDER of 12/11/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Status hearing held . Plaintiffs' renewed motion for a revenue-generaltion order is presented and taken under advisement. Status hearing continued to 3:30 12/16/97 . Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/12/1997)
2858 MOTION by plaintiffs for expedited discovery ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/16/1997)
2859 MOTION by plaintiffs' for findings, sanctions and enforcement actions concerning the Rockford Board of Education's failure and refusal to adopt tort immunity levies necessary to fund FY 98 CRO and COPS remedies ; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/16/1997)
2860 MINUTE ORDER of 12/16/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery granted [2858-1] The court orders all Board members, Superintendent Epps, and the Chief Financial Officer of the RSD to be available for depositions at 211 S. Court St., all day on 12/17/97 and 12/18/97, beginning at 9:00 a.m. Status hearing held. Status

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 216 of 307

12/18/1997 12/18/1997
12/18/1997 12/19/1997
12/19/1997 12/19/1997 12/19/1997 12/19/1997 12/19/1997 12/19/1997 12/19/1997 12/19/1997 12/19/1997 12/19/1997

hearing set to 3:30 12/18/97. Mr. Justin Petrarca is ordered to appear for the 3:30 p.m. 12/18/97 status hearing. Further, all Board members and attorneys of record are ordered to be available in Rockford on 12/22/97 and 12/23/97. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/17/1997)
2861 ORDER (Attachment) (fce) Modified on 12/19/1997 (Entered: 12/19/1997)
2862 MINUTE ORDER of 12/18/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Hearing held . For the reasons stated in the attached memorandum opinion, the court orders the RSD to take whatever action is necessary to adopt levies pursuant to the Tort Immunity Act in amounts sufficient to fully fund: (1) the FY 1998 CRO expenditure plan, and (2) FY 1998 COPs debt service, by 12/23/97 at 10:30am. Status hearing is set for 11:30 12/23/97 . For further detail see order attached to the original minute order. Mailed notice (fce) Modified on 12/19/1997 (Entered: 12/19/1997)
2863 MASTERS'S REPORT REGARDING CORE CURRICULUM (Exhibit); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/19/1997)
2864 MINUTE ORDER of 12/19/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter deposition transcripts of Matthew Corby, Dr. Roanld L. Epps, Theodore Joseph Biondo, Patricia Delugas, David L. Strommer, Alice Saundargas, Carol Denise Bell, and Gloria Cardenas Cudia. No notice (fce) (Entered: 12/19/1997)
2865 DEPOSITION of Dr. Ronald L. Epps taken on the following date(s): 12/17/97 (fce) (Entered: 12/19/1997)
2866 DEPOSITION of Mr. Theodore Joseph Biondo taken on the following date(s): 12/17/97 (fce) (Entered: 12/19/1997)
2867 DEPOSITION of Matthew Corby taken on the following date(s): 12/17/97 (fce) (Entered: 12/19/1997)
2868 DEPOSITION of Mrs. Patricia Delugas taken on the following date(s): 12/17/97 (fce) (Entered: 12/19/1997)
2869 DEPOSITION of Mrs. Carol Denis Bell taken on the following date(s): 12/18/97 (fce) (Entered: 12/19/1997)
2870 DEPOSITION of Alice Saudargas taken on the following date(s): 12/18/97; Notice of filing (fce) Modified on 12/19/1997 (Entered: 12/19/1997)
2871 DEPOSITION of David L. Strommer taken on the following date(s): 12/18/97 (fce) (Entered: 12/19/1997)
2872 DEPOSITION of Ms. Gloria Cardens Cudia taken on the following date (s): 12/18/97 (fce) (Entered: 12/19/1997)
2873 MASTER'S DIRECTIVE TO COMPLY WITH COMPREHENSIVE REMEDIAL ORDER; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/22/1997)
2874 RETURN OF SERVICE executed on 12/19/97 upon Carol D. Bell by

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 217 of 307

12/19/1997 12/19/1997 12/19/1997 12/22/1997 12/22/1997 12/22/1997 12/22/1997 12/22/1997 12/22/1997 12/23/1997
12/31/1997 01/02/1998 01/02/1998
01/02/1998 01/02/1998

U.S. Marshal Service (fce) (Entered: 12/23/1997)
2875 RETURN OF SERVICE executed on 12/19/97 upon Ted Biondo by U.S. Marshal Service (fce) (Entered: 12/23/1997)
2876 RETURN OF SERVICE executed on 12/19/97 upon David Strommer by U.S. Marshal Service (fce) (Entered: 12/23/1997)
2877 RETURN OF SERVICE executed on 12/19/97 Patricia L. Delugas by U.S. Marshal Service (fce) (Entered: 12/23/1997)
2878 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 12/18/97 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 12/23/1997)
2879 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 12/02/97 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 12/23/1997)
2880 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 12/11/97 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 12/23/1997)
2881 MOTION to intervene (fce) (Entered: 12/29/1997)
2882 MOTION by intervenor Theodore Biondo, intervenor Patricia Delugas, intervenor David L. Strommer to vacate ; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 12/29/1997)
2883 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for intervenor Theodore Biondo, intervenor Patricia Delugas, intervenor David L. Strommer by Peter Alexander, Peter D. Debruyne (fce) (Entered: 12/29/1997)
2884 MINUTE ORDER of 12/23/97 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Status hearing held. Motion to intervene (by Theodore Biondo, Patricia Delugas and David Strommer) presented. Brief in support due 1/2/98. Response(s) due 1/16/98. Reply due 1/20/98. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/29/1997)
2885 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed ( $105.00 paid) (fce) (Entered: 12/31/1997)
2886 MOTION by intervenor Theodore Biondo, intervenor Patricia Delugas, intervenor David L. Strommer to amend ; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 01/05/1998)
2887 Amended MOTION by intervenor Theodore Biondo, intervenor Patricia Delugas, intervenor David L. Strommer to vacate order and response and objection to plaintiffs' motion for findings, sanctions and enforcement actions (fce) (Entered: 01/05/1998)
2888 MEMORANDUM by intervenor Theodore Biondo, intervenor Patricia Delugas, intervenor David L. Strommer in support of motion to intervene (fce) (Entered: 01/05/1998)
2889 AFFIDAVITS in Support of Application to Intervene (fce) (Entered: 01/05/1998)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 218 of 307

01/06/1998 01/06/1998 01/07/1998
01/07/1998 01/07/1998
01/07/1998 01/09/1998 01/12/1998 01/12/1998 01/12/1998 01/16/1998 01/16/1998 01/16/1998 01/20/1998 01/20/1998

2890 LETTER from Clerk's Office regarding appeal. Mailed copy to Thomas Lester. (fce) (Entered: 01/06/1998)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on appeal . Mailed notice to all counsel. Mailed via certified mail Z 034 401 571. (clb) (Entered: 01/06/1998)
2891 PROOF OF SERVICE by intervenor Theodore Biondo, intervenor Patricia Delugas, intervenor David L. Strommer regarding their motion to intervene, motion to vacate order and notice of motions (fce) (Entered: 01/07/1998)
2892 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed from minute order [2851-1] (pd $105.00 on 1/07/98) (fce) (Entered: 01/08/1998)
2894 MINUTE ORDER of 1/7/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic conference held . Proposed intervenor-defendants' motion for leave to amend [2886-1]presented. Proposed intervenor-defendants' brief in support due 01/16/98. Response due 01/30/98. Reply due 2/9/98. In addition, the court gives RSD until 01/30/98 to file a report regarding West. Regarding Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions, the RSD is given until 01/28/98 to respond [2859-1]. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/08/1998)
2893 DOCKETING STATEMENT by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed regarding appeal [2892-1] . (fce) (Entered: 01/08/1998)
2946 NOTICE by intervenor, defendant of change of address; Notice of filing (misdocketed on 01/12/98) (fce) Modified on 02/20/1998 (Entered: 02/20/1998)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on appeal . Mailed notice to all counsel. Mailed via certified mail Z 034 401 577. (clb) (Entered: 01/12/1998)
2895 RETURN receipt green card returned from U.S. Court of Appeals short record on appeal signed for on 01/08/98. (fce) (Entered: 01/12/1998)
2896 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal USCA 981056 (fce) (Entered: 01/13/1998)
2897 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 12/23/97 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 01/16/1998)
2898 SUPPLEMENTAL by intervenor Theodore Biondo, intervenor Patricia Delugas, intervenor David L. Strommer in support of motion to intervene [2881-1]; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/20/1998)
2899 RETURN of green card from U.S. Court of Appeals. Return of short record signed for on 01/14/98. (fce) (Entered: 01/20/1998)
2900 MOTION by plaintiff for leave to amend ; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/20/1998)
2901 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal USCA 981105 (fce) (Entered: 01/20/1998)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 219 of 307

01/21/1998 01/23/1998
01/23/1998 01/26/1998 01/26/1998 01/27/1998
01/27/1998 01/27/1998
01/28/1998 01/28/1998 01/29/1998

2902 NOTICE of Motion by plaintiffs (fce) (Entered: 01/22/1998)
2903 MINUTE ORDER of 1/23/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend "motion for findings, sanctions and enforcement actions concerning the Rockford Board of Education's failure and refusal to adopt Tort Immunity Levies" is granted [2900-1]. Previously set briefing schedule to stand. Hearing date of 01/28/98 is stricken . Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/23/1998)
2904 MOTION by plaintiffs' for fees and costs related to the liability fee app4eals, CRO merits appeal, CRO finance appeal, CRO master appeal and recent fee litigation ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/23/1998)
2905 NOTICE of presentment of motion regarding motion for fees and costs related to the liability fee appeals, CRO merits appeal, CRO finance appeal, CRO master appeal and recent fee litigation [2904-1] (fce) (Entered: 01/26/1998)
2906 CERTIFIED copy of Order from the 7th Circuit. ( 98-1056) (fce) (Entered: 01/27/1998)
2907 MINUTE ORDER of 1/27/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court has reviewed the "Master's report and recommendation to pay transportation costs from the FY 1998 contingency funds," filed 11/07/97. In accordance with the Master's report and recommendation, the court orders that $266,655 be expended from the contingency fund in the FY 1998 expenditure plan for the transportation costs set forth in the Master's 11/07/97 report and recommendation. For further detail see order attached to the original minute order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/27/1998)
2908 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 01/27/1998)
2909 MINUTE ORDER of 1/27/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The RSD's "motion to alter or amend order of September 12,1997, " filed September 19,1997, is granted in part and denied in part [2777-1]. The RSD's motion is granted to the extent that the court stated the following in its September 12, 1997 order: "Memorandum opinion may follow." The court will enter no further evidentiary findings at this time. Rather, the court will rely on the rulings contained in the September 9, 1997 transcript and the evidentiary findings contained in the CRO. For further detail see order attached to the original minute order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/27/1998)
2910 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed from minute order dated 01/27/98 which ruled on defendant's motion to alter or amend [2909-1] ( pd 105.00 receipt number 294147) (fce) (Entered: 01/29/1998)
2911 DOCKETING STATEMENT by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed regarding appeal [2910-1] . (fce) (Entered: 01/29/1998)
2912 CERTIFIED copy of Order from the 7th Circuit. ( 98-1056, 98-1105) (fce) (Entered: 01/30/1998)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 220 of 307

01/30/1998 01/30/1998 01/30/1998 01/30/1998 01/30/1998 01/30/1998
01/30/1998 01/30/1998 01/30/1998
01/30/1998

TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on appeal . Mailed notice to all counsel. Mailed via certified mail Z 034 401 593. (clb) (Entered: 01/30/1998)
2913 BILLING INVOICE/STATEMENT of 07/14/97 by Eugene E. Eubanks (Attachments) (fce) (Entered: 02/02/1998)
2914 MINUTE ORDER of 1/30/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter the 07/14/97 billing invoice/statement (and attachments) submitted by Dr. Eugene E. Eubanks for the period 04/01/97 through 06/29/97. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/02/1998)
2915 LETTER from Stephen G. Katz as attorney for Intervenors-Defendants' Educational Office, Rockford Building, Rockford Education, Rockford Education (fce) (Entered: 02/02/1998)
2916 MINUTE ORDER of 1/30/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter July 31,1997 letter from Stephen G. Katz, counsel for Intervenor-Defendants, to Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/02/1998)
2917 MINUTE ORDER of 1/30/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant RSD is hereby ordered to charge against and disburse monies from Fund 12 and to make payment on the 01/08/98 billing invoice/statement submitted by Dr. Eugene E. Eubanks (for the period 10/02/97 through 12/31/97). The court further orders Defendant RSD to maintain its copy of this order andthe underliying documents for any future accounting and/or auditing functions, as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/02/1998)
2918 BILLING INVOICE/STATEMENT by Eugene E. Eubanks on 01/08/98 (Attachments) (fce) Modified on 02/02/1998 (Entered: 02/02/1998)
2919 MINUTE ORDER of 1/30/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter the 01/08/98 billing invoice/statement (and attachments) submitted by Dr. Eugene E. Eubanks for the period 10/02/97 through 12/31/97. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/02/1998)
2920 MINUTE ORDER of 1/30/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : In light of the court's order relating to Plaintiffs' motions for a revenue-generation order concerning the FY 1998 remedial operating budget, the RSD's motion to strike, filed 11/26/97, is moot. See People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 (N.D. Ill. December 18,1997). The court orders the Clerk's Office to remove the RSD's motion to strike, filed 11/26/97, from the court's pending motion list. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/02/1998)
2921 MINUTE ORDER of 1/30/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Before this court are the attorneys' fee requests from Scariano, Kula, Ellch, & Himes for the months of September, October, November, and December 1997. The court now orders Defendant RSD to make payment from June 12 as outlined in the attached order, for expenses and fees which are "directly connected to" and "reasonably necessary" regarding implementation of the CRO. For futher detail see order on the reverse side of the original

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 221 of 307

01/30/1998 01/30/1998 02/02/1998
02/02/1998
02/02/1998 02/02/1998
02/05/1998 02/06/1998 02/06/1998

minute order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/02/1998)
2922 STATEMENT OF LORD, BISSEL, & BROOK (Attachment); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/02/1998)
2923 REPORT OF WEST HIGH SCHOOL by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed (Exhibit); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/02/1998)
2924 MINUTE ORDER of 2/2/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court has reviewed the "Master's report regarding core curriculum," filed 12/18/97. Having received no objections from either the Plaintiffs or the RSD, the court hereby adopts the Master's determinations regarding (1) which courses are considered "core," and ( 2) which courses are considered "elective," for purposes of the within school segregation guidelines. See People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 (N.D. Ill. December 18, 1997, Docket No. 2863). Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/03/1998)
2925 MINUTE ORDER of 2/2/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : As explained on the reverse side of this minute order, based on the court's review of the REA Submission and the Master's Report, the court believes that SWRL promotes a better atmosphere for learning in the Rockford Public Schools in a way which is directly connected to the goals of the CRO. Therefore, the court orders SWRL funded for FY 1998. For further detail see order on the reverse side of the original minute order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/03/1998)
2926 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 02/03/1998)
2927 MINUTE ORDER of 2/2/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : As explained in the attached order, a hearing on remand issues is set for 9:30 3/9/98 . The RSD is directed to file responses to the following questions by 02/17/98: (1) Has tracking, in whatever form, been re-established in the RSD? (2) If so, which classes are utilizing tracking? (3) If so, what objective, non-racist criteria are being used by the RSD in the implementation of tracking? The Master is directed to submit his early childhood development plan by 03/01/98. In light of this order, Plaintiff's motion for an order directing the Master to issue recommendations regarding institution of an early childhood education program, filed 04/23/97, is moot. The court orders the Clerk's Office to remove this motion from the court's pending motion list. For futher detail see order attached to the original minute order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/03/1998)
2928 RETURN of green card from the U.S. Court of Appeals. Short record signed on 02/02/98. (fce) (Entered: 02/06/1998)
2929 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to dismiss plaintiffs' amended motion for bad faith findings ; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/09/1998)
2930 RESPONSE to petition to intervene by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/09/1998)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 222 of 307

02/06/1998
02/06/1998 02/09/1998
02/10/1998 02/10/1998 02/10/1998 02/10/1998 02/13/1998
02/17/1998 02/17/1998
02/17/1998 02/17/1998 02/18/1998

2931 MINUTE ORDER of 2/6/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court has reviewed the RSD's "report on West High School," filed 01/30/98. The court appreciates the work done by the Board and the administration on this issue. The consultant's report (i.e., the Anderson report) is clear. This court no longer intends to pursue the issue of a fifth comprehensive high school located in the building formerly occupied by West High School. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/09/1998)
2932 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal USCA 981231 (fce) (Entered: 02/09/1998)
2933 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to Board Members Biondo, DeLugas, and Strommer's motion to intervene filed 12/22/97 [2881-1] and amendment to motion to intervene filed 01/02/98 [2886-1] (Attachments); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/09/1998)
2934 Stephen Katz's NOTICE of change of address (fce) (Entered: 02/11/1998)
2935 MOTION by plaintiffs to alter or amend the court's order of January 27, 1998 ruling on RSD's motion to amend the the court's September 12, 1997 order ; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/11/1998)
2936 MOTION by Master for extension oftime to file early childhood development plan ; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/11/1998)
2937 OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to statement of Lord, Bissell, and Brook (fce) (Entered: 02/11/1998)
2938 MINUTE ORDER of 2/13/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic conference held. Remand issues hearing set for 3/9/98 cancelled. Remand issue hearing set for 9:30 4/20/98. The Master is given until 3/25/98 to submit his report on early childhood development. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/18/1998)
2939 REPLY Brief in Support of Motion to Intervene by intervenor David L. Strommer, intervenor Theodore Biondo (fce) (Entered: 02/18/1998)
2940 Copy of Order from the 7th Circuit. ( 98-1231) The court, on its own motion, orders all parties to file statements addressing whether this appeal should be consolidated with any of the appeals not pending before this court. The statements of the parties are due no later than 2/13/98. (fce) (Entered: 02/18/1998)
2941 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' Motion to Alter or Amend; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/18/1998)
2942 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Court Order dated 2/2/98; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/18/1998)
2943 MINUTE ORDER of 2/18/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On its own initiative, pursuant to Rule 60(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court hereby makes the following clarification/addition regarding the 01/27/98 order: At pages 2 and 4 of the 01/27/98 order, the court

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 223 of 307

02/19/1998 02/19/1998
02/20/1998 02/20/1998 02/20/1998 02/24/1998
02/26/1998 02/27/1998 03/02/1998 03/03/1998
03/04/1998 03/04/1998
03/04/1998

lists/cites to the orders which comprise the CRO, including the orders of 01/26/96, 05/17/96, nad 06/07/96. See People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 at 2,4 (N.D. Ill. January 27, 1998, Docket No. 2908). The court hereby adds the court's 08/08/96 order to the aforementioned citations at pages 2 and 4 of the 01/27/98 order. Consequently, Plaintiffs' "motion to alter or amend the court's order of 01/27/98 ruling on RSD's motion to amend the court's September 12, 1997 order" (filed 02/11/98) is moot: The court orders the Clerk's Office to remove this motion form the court's pending motion list. For futher detail see order on the reverse side of the original minute order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/20/1998)
2944 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 02/20/1998)
2945 MINUTE ORDER of 2/19/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The RSD is ordered to fully respond to the court's February 2, 1998 order by March 9, 1998. For further detail see order attached to the original minute order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/20/1998)
2947 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed ( $105.00 paid) (fce) (Entered: 02/23/1998)
2948 DOCKETING STATEMENT by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed regarding appeal [2947-1] . (fce) (Entered: 02/23/1998)
2949 REPORT TO THE COURT ON CONROLLED CHOICE STUDENT ASSIGNMENTS (fce) (Entered: 02/23/1998)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on appeal . Mailed notice to all counsel. Mailed via certified mail Z 034 401 595. (clb) (Entered: 02/24/1998)
2950 CERTIFIED copy of Order from the 7th Circuit. ( 98-1231) (fce) (Entered: 02/27/1998)
2951 CERTIFIED copy of Order from the 7th Circuit. ( 98-1056, 98-1105) (fce) (Entered: 02/27/1998)
2952 Return receipt green card from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing that short record was signed for on 2/27/98 (fce) (Entered: 03/03/1998)
2953 MINUTE ORDER of 3/3/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Hearing set for April 20, 9:30 is cancelled and reset for 4/23/98 at 9:30am . Maield notice (fce) (Entered: 03/04/1998)
2954 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal USCA 981449 (fce) (Entered: 03/05/1998)
2955 MINUTE ORDER of 3/4/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : In light of subsequent order, the RSD's renewed motion to stay, filed June 18, 1997, is moot. The court orders the Clerk's Office to remove this motion form the court's pending motion list. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/05/1998)
2956 MINUTE ORDER of 3/4/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 1/30/98, the court received the "Statement of Lord, Bissell & Brook" for services

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 224 of 307

03/12/1998 03/13/1998 03/16/1998 03/20/1998 03/25/1998 03/25/1998
03/31/1998 03/31/1998 03/31/1998 03/31/1998
03/31/1998 03/31/1998 04/01/1998

renedered for the period ending 12/31/97. On 02/11/98, the court received the RSD's objections regarding the aforementioned stated of Lord, Bissell & Brook. The RSD's objections are overruled. The court orders Defendant to charge against and disburse monies form the courtordered desegregation funds and to make payment on the Lord, Bissell & Brook invoice for the period ending 12/31/97. The court orders the RSD to maintain its copy of this order and the underlying documents for any future accounting and/or auditing functions, as the court may order. (fce) (Entered: 03/05/1998)
2957 Master's report to the court on controlled choice student assignments; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/13/1998)
2958 CERTIFIED copy of Order from the 7th Circuit. ( 98-1231, 98-1449) (fce) (Entered: 03/13/1998)
2959 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to modify comprehensive remedial order (Exhibit); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/17/1998)
2960 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed response to Court orders dated February 2, 1998 and February 19, 1998 [2945-1], [2927-2]; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/20/1998)
2961 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 03/25/1998)
2962 MINUTE ORDER of 3/25/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court now directs the RSD to pay or charge against Fund 12 as outlined in the attached order. For futher detail see order attached to the original minute order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/25/1998)
2963 STATEMENT of Lord, Bissell, and Brook (Attachment); Notice of filing (fce) Modified on 03/31/1998 (Entered: 03/31/1998)
2964 LETTER from Master regarding the Hispanic Education Committee. (fce) (Entered: 04/01/1998)
2965 MINUTE ORDER of 3/31/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter Master's March 27, 1998 letter regarding the Hispanic Education Committee. No notice (fce) (Entered: 04/01/1998)
2966 MINUTE ORDER of 3/31/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The parties are given seven (7) days to respond to the Master's March 27, 1998 letter regarding the Hispanic Education Committee. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/01/1998)
2967 LETTER from the Master on March 24, 1998 regarding the report on the Early Childhood Department Plan (Exhibits) (fce) (Entered: 04/01/1998)
2968 MINUTE ORDER of 3/31/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter Master's March 24, 1998 report on the Early Childhood Development Plan, with Exhibits. No notice (fce) (Entered: 04/01/1998)
2969 YEAR-END (1996-97) COMPREHENSIVE REMEDIAL ORDER IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS REPORT by defendant Rockford

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 225 of 307

04/01/1998 04/02/1998
04/06/1998 04/08/1998 04/09/1998
04/10/1998 04/13/1998 04/14/1998 04/14/1998 04/14/1998
04/15/1998 04/16/1998

Board Of Ed (Attachments); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/01/1998)
2970 MOTION by intervenor David L. Strommer, intervenor Patricia Delugas, intervenor Theodore Biondo for decision on motion to intervene ; Notice of motion and Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/02/1998)
2971 MINUTE ORDER of 4/2/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Hearing held. Hearing on staffing set to 9:30 5/12/98. RSD's response to the Master's staffing proposals due 4/15/98. Plaintiffs' comments on the Master's staffing proposals anad on the RSD's response thereto due 4/22/98. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/07/1998)
2972 MASTER'S REPORT regarding the Kindergarten Early Application and assignment process for the 1998-1999 school year; Notice of filing and certificate of service (fce) (Entered: 04/07/1998)
2973 STATEMENT OF PULLIMAN LAW OFFICES (Attachments); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/08/1998)
2974 MINUTE ORDER of 4/9/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court has received the Master's report on the Early Childhood Development Plan. People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 (N.D.Ill. March 31, 1998, Docket No. 2968). The court orders that Dr. Eubanks be available to testify as the court's witness regarding remand issues at the remand hearing on April 23, 1998. See People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 (N.D. Ill. March 3, 1998, Docket No. 2953). Dr. Eubanks will be crossexamined specifically with regard to within-school segreation and his report on the Early Childhood Development Plan. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/10/1998)
2975 NOTICE by counsel for the master of his change of address; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/10/1998)
2976 OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Lord, Bissell & Brook Attorneys' fees [2963-1] (Attachments); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/15/1998)
2977 LETTER from Magistrate Mahoney to Stephen G. Katz (fce) (Entered: 04/15/1998)
2978 LETTER from intervenor Rockford Education by Stephen Katz dated April 9, 1998 (fce) (Entered: 04/15/1998)
2979 MINUTE ORDER of 4/14/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs' "motion under Local Rule 12(P) for dispostion of Plaintiffs' 4/23/97 fee motion following Defendants' failure to file answering memorandum," filed July 11, 1997, is moot: The court has ruled on Plaintiffs' motions filed on April 23, 1997 [2716-1]. moot. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/15/1998)
2980 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for extension of time ; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/16/1998)
2981 MINUTE ORDER of 4/16/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 226 of 307

04/21/1998
04/21/1998 04/22/1998
04/22/1998 04/22/1998 04/23/1998 04/23/1998 04/23/1998

Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205's motion for extension of time granted [2980-1]. the court's 9/12/95 order is hereby amended in the following respect: The RSD, or any party of interest, will have 21 days from the receipt of any fee petition or application for compensation by the Master, the Master's counsel, or any Court appointed expert to file any objections. The RSD is given until 5/5/98 to file any objections to the following fee petitions: (1) Statement of Pulliam Law Offices, P.A. filed 4/8/98; and (2) the Master's 4/8/98 fee submission for the period 1/1/98 through 3/31/98. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/17/1998)
2982 MINUTE ORDER of 4/21/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On January 20, 1998, Plaintiffs filed their "motion for leave to amend." On January 23, 1998, the court granted Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend. However, the court file does not contain the Plaintiffs' "amended motion for bad faith findings." See Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend at 2. The court orders PLaintiffs to file Plaintiffs' amended motion for bad faith findings after consultation with counsel for RSD: Counsel for the RSD will confirm that Plaintiffs' amended motion for bad faith findings, filed pursuant to this minute order, is identical to the "amended motion for bad faith findings" referred to in the RSD's "motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended motion for bad faith findings," filed February 6, 1998. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/22/1998)
2983 STIPULATION concerning within-school integration remedies; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/22/1998)
2984 MINUTE ORDER of 4/22/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic conference held at 11:30AM. RSD indicates that they will call a substitue witness, Ms. Janet Jones, at the April 23, 1998 hearing on Early Childhood Development. The court orders the RSD to compose a summary of the testimony to be given by Ms. Jones at tomorrow's hearing. The court orders the summary of Ms. Jones's expected testimony to be faxed to the parties and to the court by 3PM today, April 22, 1998. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/22/1998)
2985 SUMMATION OF POSSIBLE TESTIMONY by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/23/1998)
2986 AMENDED MOTION by plaintiffs for bad faith findings ; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/23/1998)
2987 PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED CRO-MODIFICATION ORDER concerning the tracking/ability-grouping aspect of the April 23, 1998 remand hearing by plaintiffs; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/24/1998)
2988 LEGAL MEMORANDUM on remand by plaintiff in support of Early Childhood Development Plan; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/24/1998)
2989 MASTER'S CORRECTION TO HIS REPORT to the Corut on Early Childhood Development; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/24/1998)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 227 of 307

04/30/1998 04/30/1998 05/01/1998 05/01/1998 05/05/1998 05/05/1998 05/06/1998 05/06/1998 05/06/1998 05/06/1998
05/06/1998
05/06/1998

2990 STATEMENT OF LORD, BISSELL & BROOK (Attachments); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/30/1998)
2991 STATEMENT OF PULLIAM AND WRIGHT (Attachments); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/30/1998)
2992 MASTERS' PROPOSED FY 99 CRO EXPENDITURE PLAN (fce) (Entered: 05/01/1998)
2993 MINUTE ORDER of 5/1/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter Master's proposed FY 99 CRO expenditure plan. No notice (fce) (Entered: 05/01/1998)
2994 MASTER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT regarding the Early Childhood Education Program; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/06/1998)
2995 STATEMENT by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/06/1998)
2996 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/07/1998)
2997 STATEMENT OF PULLIAM AND WRIGHT (Attachments); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/07/1998)
2998 OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Pulliam Fee request for Fourth Quarter of 1997 and for other relief (Exhibits); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/07/1998)
2999 MINUTE ORDER of 5/6/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs' "motion for findings, sanctions and enforcement actions concerning the Rockford Board of Education's failure and refusal to adopt tort immunity levies necessary to fund FY 98 CRO and COPS remedies," filed 12/16/97, is shown as withdrawn [2859-1]. See People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168, (N.D. Ill. January 20, 1998, Docket Nos. 2900, 2903). The court orders the Clerk's office to remove Plaintiffs' 12/16/97 motion from the Court's pending motion list. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/07/1998)
3000 MINUTE ORDER of 5/6/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic conference held . RSD response to Master's FY 99 CRO expenditure plan is due May 12, 1998. Master's reply due May 20, 1998. Plaintiffs' comments and suggestions due May 20, 1998. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/07/1998)
3001 MINUTE ORDER of 5/6/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : In light of the court's December 18, 1997 order, Plaintiff's renewed motion for a revenue-generation order concerning the FY 98 remedial operating budget and the FY 98 cops debt service levy is [2855-1] moot. See People Who Care, No. 89 c 20168 (N.D. Ill. 12/18/97, Docket No. 2862). The court orders the Clerk's Office to remove this motion from the court's pending motion list. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/07/1998)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 228 of 307

05/06/1998 05/06/1998
05/06/1998 05/06/1998 05/06/1998 05/06/1998 05/07/1998 05/07/1998
05/07/1998 05/07/1998 05/07/1998 05/07/1998 05/11/1998

3002 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 05/07/1998)
3003 MINUTE ORDER of 5/6/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The RSD's motion to join necessary parties, filed 09/26/97, is denied [2784-1]. The RSD's motion to consolidate, filed 09/26/97, is denied. For further detail see order attached to the original minute order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/07/1998)
3004 LETTER from Master dated 12/05/97 (Attachments) (fce) (Entered: 05/07/1998)
3005 MINUTE ORDER of 5/6/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : ENTER Master's 12/05/97 letter regarding airline receipt. No notice (fce) (Entered: 05/07/1998)
3006 REPORT OT THE COURT AND THE PARTIES ON PROPOSED CONTINUATION OF STAFFING POSITIONS (Exhibits) (fce) (Entered: 05/07/1998)
3007 MINUTE ORDER of 5/6/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : ENTER Master's March 9, 1998 report to the court and the parties on proposed continuation of staffing positions, with exhibits. No notice (fce) (Entered: 05/07/1998)
3008 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 05/08/1998)
3009 MINUTE ORDER of 5/7/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The following motions are denied: (1) Petitioners' "motion to intervene," filed 12/22/97; and (2) petitioners' companion motion to vacate order, filed 12/22/97. The following motions are moot: (1) Petitioners' "amended motion to vacate order and response and objection to Plaintiffs' motion for findings, sanctions and enforcement actions," filed 01/02/98; and (2) petitioners' motion for leave to amend, filed 01/02/98. The court orders the Clerk's Office to remove the mooted motions from the court's pending motion list. For further information see order attached to the original minute order. Mailed notice. (fce) (Entered: 05/08/1998)
3010 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 05/08/1998)
3011 MINUTE ORDER of 5/7/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The CRO is modified regarding within-school segregation/tracking/ability grouping as enumerated in this order. For further detail see order attached to the original minute order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/08/1998)
3012 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING AN EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT REMEDY AS PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE REMEDIAL ORDER by plaintiffs; Notice of filings (fce) (Entered: 05/08/1998)
3013 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to withdraw and for instructions (Exhibit); Notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 05/08/1998)
3014 Comments and OBJECTIONS by plaintiffs' to the Master's March 1998 Report to the Court on Proposed Continuation of Staffing Positions for

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 229 of 307

05/11/1998 05/11/1998 05/11/1998 05/11/1998
05/11/1998
05/13/1998 05/13/1998
05/14/1998 05/14/1998

FY 99; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/12/1998)
3015 OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to the Master's Proposed Continuation of Staffing Positions for Fiscal Year 1999; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/12/1998)
3016 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 05/12/1998)
3017 MINUTE ORDER of 5/11/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court, having reviewed the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law submitted by the RSD, the Plaintiffs, and the Master, hereby alters the CRO with repsect to Early Childhood Education, as enumerated in the attached memorandum opinion. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/12/1998)
3018 MINUTE ORDER of 5/11/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant is hereby ordered to charge against and disburse monies from Fund 12 and to make payment on the April 8, 1998 billing invoice/statement submitted by Dr. Eugene E. Eubanks (for the period January 1, 1998 through March 31, 1998). The court further orders Defendant RSD to maintain its copy of this order and the underlying documents for any furture accounting and/or auditing functions, as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/13/1998)
3020 MINUTE ORDER of 5/11/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : ENTER Master's July 14, 1997 "Rockford Fee Report," regarding Plaintiffs' counsel's billing for hte "second half of fiscal year 1996 and the first half of fiscal year 1997." The court has previously ruled regarding the Master's July 14, 1997 Rockford Fee Report. However, the court believes that this report should be made a part of the court file. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/13/1998)
3019 Master's July 14, 1997 "Rockford Fee Report (fce) (Entered: 05/13/1998)
3021 MINUTE ORDER of 5/13/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Hearing held on May 12, 1998. Regarding the RSD's motion to modify the CRO, filed March 16, 1998: Plaintiff is given until May 29,1998 to respond. The RSD's reply is due June 5, 1998. Further, the RSD is given until May 18, 1998 to file an additional, detailed submission on its FY 99 expenditure plan, including specific line items for each and every aspect of the FY 99 CRO budget discussed by the RSD in the additional submission and previous submission(s). The Master is given until May 29, 1998 to file comments on the RSD's FY 99 budget proposal. FY 99 CRO budget hearing set for June 12, 1998 at 9:20am. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/13/1998)
3022 MINUTE ORDER of 5/14/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The Master is given until May 29, 1998 to respond to the RSD objections to the Master's counsels' fee petitions. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/15/1998)
3023 MINUTE ORDER of 5/14/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs' counsel is ordered to submit a written summary of all of Plaintiffs'

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 230 of 307

05/14/1998 05/14/1998 05/14/1998
05/14/1998 05/18/1998 05/18/1998 05/20/1998 05/20/1998 05/21/1998 05/26/1998

counsels' pending fee matters which require action by this action by this court, including filing dates for any materials relevant to said fee matters, by June 1, 1998. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/15/1998)
3024 MASTER'S JULY 28, 1997 LETTER to the Magistrate (Exhibits) (fce) Modified on 05/15/1998 (Entered: 05/15/1998)
3025 MINUTE ORDER of 5/14/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : ENTER Master's July 28, 1997 letter to the Magistrate Judge regarding School Improvement Councils, with exhibits. No notice (fce) (Entered: 05/15/1998)
3026 MINUTE ORDER of 5/14/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Minute order of May 13, 1998 is stricken [3021-1]. Hearing held on May 12, 1998. Regarding the RSD's motion to modify the CRO, filed May 29, 1998 to respond. The RSD's reply is due June 5, 1998. Further, the RSD is given until May 18, 1998 to file an additional detailed submission on its FY 99 expenditure plan, including specific line items for each and every aspectof the FY 99 CRO budget discussed by the RSD in the additional subission and previous submissions(s). The Master is given until May 29, 1998 to file comments on the RDS's FY 99 budget proposal. Hearing set for 9:30 6/12/98 regarding (1) FY 99 CRO budget; and (2) RSD's motion to modify CRO . Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/18/1998)
3027 ENTERED JUDGMENT: Petitioners Theodore Biondo, Patricia Delugas and David L. Stommer's motion to intervene nad motion to vacate order are denied. Pursuant to FRCP 26(b), it appears to the court that there is no just reason for delay, this order is final and appealable. (Mailed notices)(fce) Modified on 05/18/1998 (Entered: 05/18/1998)
3028 ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS REGARDING THE SCHOOL YEAR 1999 EXPENDITURE PLAN by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed (Attachments); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/19/1998)
3029 MASTER'S SUBMISSION OF ROCKFORD PARENT ATTITUDE SURVEY TOWARD CONTROLLED CHOICE; Notice of filing (Attachment) (fce) (Entered: 05/19/1998)
3030 OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Lord, Bissell & Brook Attorneys' fees request [2990-1] (Exhibit); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/20/1998)
3055 OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Pulliam Fee request for first quarter of 1998 (Attachments); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/18/1998)
3031 MOTION by plaintiff to reconsider, alter or amend the court's order of May 7, 1998 regarding within-school segregation/tracking/ability grouping ; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/22/1998)
3032 OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Pulliam Fee request for April 1, to April 30 (Exhibits); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered:

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 231 of 307

05/29/1998 05/29/1998 05/29/1998 05/29/1998 06/01/1998 06/02/1998 06/03/1998
06/04/1998 06/05/1998 06/08/1998 06/08/1998 06/08/1998 06/08/1998 06/09/1998 06/10/1998

05/27/1998)
3033 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date: 4/23/98 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 05/29/1998)
3034 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date: 5/12/98 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 05/29/1998)
3035 Master's Special Assistant's RESPONSE to Rockford School District's Objection to the Statement of Pulliam and Wright, P.A.; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/01/1998)
3036 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to Defendants objections to Pulliam Fee request for first quarter of 1998; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/01/1998)
3037 RESPONSE by the Master to Rockford School District's Objection to the Statement of Pulliam and Wright, for first quarter 1998; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/01/1998)
3038 STATEMENT of Pulliam and Wright, P.A. (Attachments); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/03/1998)
3039 REPLY by plaintiffs to RSD's objections to the Master's proposed continuation of staffing positions for FY 1999 [3015-1] and RSD's additional submissions regarding the FY 99 expenditure plan [3028-1]; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/04/1998)
3040 AMENDED NOTICE of Motion by Scariano, Kula, Ellch and Himes for their motion to Withdraw and for Instructions (fce) (Entered: 06/05/1998)
3041 RESPONSE by Master's Assistants' to Rockford School District's Objection to the Statement of Pulliam and Wright for April 1998; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/05/1998)
3042 MOTION by plaintiffs to modify the CRO with respect to the remedial administrative structure ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/09/1998)
3043 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' to RSD's Motion to Modify the CRO with Respect to the Remedial Administrative Structure (fce) (Entered: 06/09/1998)
3044 NOTICE OF APPEAL by intervenor David L. Strommer, intervenor Patricia Delugas, intervenor Theodore Biondo ( $105.00 paid) (fce) (Entered: 06/09/1998)
3045 DOCKETING STATEMENT by intervenor David L. Strommer, intervenor Patricia Delugas, intervenor Theodore Biondo. (fce) (Entered: 06/09/1998)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on appeal . Mailed notice to all counsel. Mailed via certified mail Z 034 401 631. (clb) (Entered: 06/09/1998)
3046 LETTER from intervenor David L. Strommer, intervenor Patricia Delugas, intervenor Theodore Biondo's attorney Peter DeBruyne dated

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 232 of 307

06/10/1998 06/10/1998 06/10/1998 06/11/1998 06/12/1998 06/12/1998 06/15/1998 06/15/1998 06/18/1998 06/18/1998
06/19/1998 06/19/1998 06/22/1998 06/23/1998

June 9, 1998. (fce) (Entered: 06/11/1998)
3047 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed from motion minute order [3017-2], from order [3016-1] ( pd $105.00, receipt #294354) (fce) (Entered: 06/11/1998)
3048 DOCKETING STATEMENT by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed regarding appeal [3047-1] . (fce) (Entered: 06/11/1998)
3049 SUPPLEMENT to plaintiffs' response to RSD's motion to modify the CRO with respect to the remedial administrative structure [3043-1] by plaintiffs'; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/11/1998)
3050 REPORT concerning pending fee matters by plaintiffs; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/12/1998)
3051 Comments and Suggestions by plaintiffs' concerning the Scariano Law Firm's Motion to Withdraw and for Instructions; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/15/1998)
3052 REPLY by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to the Master's Response to the Submissions of RSD; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/15/1998)
3053 RETURN of green card from U.S. Court of Appeals. Short record signed for on 06/11/98 (fce) (Entered: 06/16/1998)
3054 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' comments and suggestions concerning the Scariano Law Firm's motion to withdraw and for instructions; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/16/1998)
3056 MINUTE ORDER of 6/18/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The RSD is directed to use its best efforts to bring Matthew Corby to the hearing continued to June 22, 1998. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/19/1998)
3057 MINUTE ORDER of 6/18/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Hearing held June 16, 1998. Regarding the Plaintiffs' motion to modify the CRO, filed June 8, 1998, the RSD is given until June 30, 1998 to respond. The Master is given until June 30, 1998 to file comments. Plaintiffs are given until July 7, 1988 to reply. The court will take under advisement the Scariano firm's motion to withdraw, filed May 7, 1998, until such time as the ocurt has determined what is to be done with the materials being held by the Scariano firm. Regaridng hte RSD's motion to modify the CRO, filed March 16, 1998, the court will rule by mail. Hearing continued to 1:30 6/22/98 . Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/19/1998)
3058 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal USCA 982488 (fce) (Entered: 06/22/1998)
3059 RETURN of green card from U.S Court of Appeals. Short record signed for 06/16/98 (fce) (Entered: 06/22/1998)
3060 COPY of Seventh Circuit Transcript Information sheet (fce) (Entered: 06/23/1998)
3061 OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Pulliam Fee

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 233 of 307

06/24/1998
06/24/1998 06/24/1998 06/24/1998 06/24/1998 07/06/1998 07/06/1998 07/07/1998 07/07/1998 07/07/1998 07/08/1998 07/13/1998

rquest for May 1 to May 31, 1998 (Exhibits); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/24/1998)
3062 MINUTE ORDER of 6/24/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Hearing held on June 22, 1998 . Regarding the FY 99 Fund 12 expenditure plan, final submissions of the parties and final comments by the Master are due July 7, 1998. Regarding the Plaintiffs' motion to modify the CRO, hearing date set for 10:30 7/20/98 . The RSD's proposed FUnd 12 revenue generation plan due September 1, 1998. FY 99 Fund 12 revenue generation plan hearing set for 9/17/98 . Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/25/1998)
3063 REPLY by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to the Master's assistant's response to objections to the attorney fee request for April 1998 [3041-1] (fce) (Entered: 06/25/1998)
3064 REPLY by defendant Rocford Board of Education School District No. 305 to the Master's response to Objections to the attorney fee request for the first quarter of 1998 [3037-1]; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/25/1998)
3065 REPLY by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' reaponse to objections to Pulliam Fee request for first quarter of 1998 [3036-1] (fce) (Entered: 06/25/1998)
3066 REPLY by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Master's special assistant's response to objections to fourth quarter fees (fce) (Entered: 06/25/1998)
3067 STATEMENT of Pulliam and Wright (Attachments); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/07/1998)
3068 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiff's motion to modify the CRO with respect to the remedial administrative structure [3042-1] (Exhibit); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/07/1998)
3069 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 07/08/1998)
3070 MINUTE ORDER of 7/7/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant RSD is ordered to make payment to Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes for the period January 1998 through April 1998, as outlined in the attached minute order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/08/1998)
3071 Eugene Eubanks billing for the period of 1/1/98 through 3/31/98 and Master's comments on RSD's FY99 budget proposal entitled "Response of Master to 5/11/98 Submissions of RSD"; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/08/1998)
3072 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to strike the Master's comments on RSD's motion to modify the CRO ; Notice of hearing (fce) (Entered: 07/09/1998)
3073 COPY of Order from the 7th Circuit. ( 98-2452) (fce) (Entered: 07/14/1998)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 234 of 307

07/13/1998 07/15/1998 07/15/1998
07/16/1998 07/16/1998 07/17/1998 07/17/1998 07/17/1998 07/20/1998 07/21/1998 07/21/1998 07/24/1998

3074 OBJECTIONS by intervenor Rockford Education, intervenor Educational Office, intervenor Rockford Building to plaintiffs' and Master's proposal regarding re-establishment of PIC [3071-1]; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/14/1998)
3075 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 07/15/1998)
3076 MINUTE ORDER of 7/15/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court orders Defendant to charge against and disburse monies from the courtordered desegregation funds and to make a 50% interim payment in the amount of $36,231.02 on the following invoices: Pulliam Law Offices, P.A., for the period of September 16, 1997 through December 31, 1997, filed April 8, 1998; Statement of Pulliam & Wright, P.A., for the periods of January 1, 1998 to March 31, 1998, filed April 30, 1998, April 1, 1998 to April 30, 1998, filed May 6, 1998, and May 1, 1998 to May 31, 1998, filed June 23, 1998. The court orders the RSD to maintain its copy of this order and the underlying documents for any future accounting and/or auditing functions, as the court may order. For further detail see order attached to the original minute order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/15/1998)
3077 POST-TRIAL SUBMISSION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed (Exhibit); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/17/1998)
3080 MINUTE ORDER of 7/16/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter Master's "Response of Master to 05/11/98 and 05/18/98 submissions of RSD," dated 05/29/98. No notice (fce) (Entered: 07/17/1998)
3078 POST-HEARING SUBMISSION concerning the FY 99 expenditure plan by plaintiffs (Attachments); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/17/1998)
3079 RESPONSE of Master to 05/11/98 and 05/18/98 submissions of RSD (fce) (Entered: 07/17/1998)
3081 Plaintiffs' Post-Hearing Submission in Opposition to defendant's motion to modify the CRO with respect to the remedial administrative structure; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/20/1998)
3082 REPLY in support by plaintiffs in support of their motion to modify the CRO with respect to the remedial administrative structure [3042-1] (Attachment); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/20/1998)
3083 MEMORANDUM by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed in support of its motion to modify the comprehensive remedial order; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/22/1998)
3084 STIPULATION of the Parties with respect to Plaintiff's June 8, 1998 motion to modify the CRO [3042-1]; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/22/1998)
3085 OBJECTION by intervenor Educational Office, intervenor Rockford Building, intervenor Rockford Education to stipulation of the "parties" with respect to plaintiffs' June 8, 1998 motion to modify the CRO [30841]; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/27/1998)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 235 of 307

07/24/1998
07/27/1998 08/03/1998 08/07/1998 08/10/1998
08/13/1998 08/13/1998
08/13/1998 08/13/1998
08/13/1998 08/13/1998
08/14/1998
08/18/1998 08/18/1998 08/21/1998 08/24/1998

3086 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Plaintiffs' reply in support of Plaintiffs' motion to modify the CRO (Exhibit); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/27/1998)
3087 OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Pulliam Fee Request for 6/1/98 to 6/30/98; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 07/28/1998)
3088 Master's Assistant's RESPONSE to the Court's Order of 7/15/98; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/04/1998)
3089 STATEMENT of Lord, Bissell & Brook; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/10/1998)
3090 Copy of Order from the 7th Circuit. The court, on its own motion, orders that these appeals are consolidated for purposes of briefing and disposition. Further briefing in these appeals is suspended. (fce) (Entered: 08/11/1998)
3091 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 08/14/1998)
3092 MINUTE ORDER of 8/13/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter order of court adopting FY99 CRO expenditure plan as set forth in attached order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/14/1998)
3093 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 08/14/1998)
3094 MINUTE ORDER of 8/13/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons stated in the attached order, RSD's motion to modify is dnied without prejudice. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/14/1998)
3095 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 08/14/1998)
3096 MINUTE ORDER of 8/13/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiff's motion to modify the CRO with respect to the remedial administrative structure is granted in part and denied in part, as set forth in the attached order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/14/1998)
3097 RESPONSE by Master's Assistants' to Rockford School District's Objection to the Statement of Pulliam and Wright for June 1998; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/17/1998)
3098 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 06/16/98 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/18/1998)
3099 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 06/22/98 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 08/18/1998)
3100 STATEMENT of Pulliam and Wright (Attachment); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/21/1998)
3101 MINUTE ORDER of 8/24/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant is hereby ordered to charge against and disburse monies from Fund 12 and to make payment on the 7/6/98 billing invoice/statement submitted by Dr. Eugene E. Eubanks (for the period 4/1/98 through 6/30/98). The court further orders defendant RSD to maintain its copy of this order and

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 236 of 307

08/24/1998 08/24/1998 08/24/1998
08/24/1998 08/24/1998
08/24/1998
08/24/1998 08/27/1998 09/01/1998 09/01/1998 09/04/1998
09/08/1998 09/11/1998

the underlying documents for any future accounting and/or auditing functions, as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/25/1998)
3102 MINUTE ORDER of 8/24/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter Master's 7/13/98 letter to Magistrate Mahoney regarding changes in the Master's FY 99 submission. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/25/1998)
3103 LETTER from Master to Magistrate Mahoney dated 7/13/98 (fce) (Entered: 08/25/1998)
3104 MINUTE ORDER of 8/24/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : In light of the court's 8/13/98 order denying the RSD's motion to amend the CRO, the RSD's "motion to strike the Master's comments on RSD's motion to modify the CRO" filed 7/8/98 is moot. The court orders the Clerk's Office to remove this motion from the court's pending motion list. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/25/1998)
3105 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 08/25/1998)
3106 MINUTE ORDER of 8/24/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant RSD is ordered to make payment to Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes for the period May 1998, as outlined in the attached order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/25/1998)
3107 MINUTE ORDER of 8/24/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter Master's 5/29/98 response to the 5/11/98 and 5/18/98 submissions of the RSD regarding the FY 99 CRO expenditure plan. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/25/1998)
3108 RESPONSE of Master to 5/11/98 and 5/18/98 submissions of RSD (fce) (Entered: 08/25/1998)
3109 REPLY by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Master's Assistant's Response to the court's order of 7/15/98; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/28/1998)
3110 STATEMENT by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed in response to this court's order that it file a revenue generation plan (Exhibits); Notice of fiing (fce) (Entered: 09/02/1998)
3111 STATEMENT OF INTENT by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for application of the carryover; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/02/1998)
3112 MINUTE ORDER of 9/4/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Counsel Robert Ellch is hereby ordered to attend the hearing in this matter scheduled for 9:30 a.m., 9/17/98 concerning generation of revenue by the Rockford Board of Education for FY 1999. Notice to Mr. Ellch by telefacsimile of this order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/08/1998)
3113 STATEMENT of Pulliam and Wright, P.A.; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/09/1998)
3114 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed ( $105.00

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 237 of 307

09/11/1998 09/15/1998 09/16/1998 09/17/1998
09/17/1998
09/17/1998 09/17/1998 09/17/1998 09/18/1998
09/21/1998 09/21/1998 09/23/1998 09/23/1998

paid) (fce) (Entered: 09/11/1998)
3115 DOCKETING STATEMENT by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed . (fce) (Entered: 09/11/1998)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on appeal . Mailed notice to all counsel. Mailed via certified mail Z 034 401 655. (clb) (Entered: 09/15/1998)
3116 Position STATEMENT by plaintiffs' concerning the FY 99 Revenue Generation Hearing and Plaintiffs' Motionfor a Revenue Generation Order; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/17/1998)
3117 MINUTE ORDER of 9/17/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Hearing held the date . Reports by the Master relating to FY 98 carry over funds and to FY 99 expenditure plan, both dated September 16, 1998, are submitted to the court. Pursuant to FRCP 53(e)(2), responses by any party to the Master's reports are due 09/28/98. Responses may be no longer than 5 pages, not including any exhibits which may be attached thereto for reference. No notice (fce) (Entered: 09/18/1998)
3118 MINUTE ORDER of 9/17/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Filed plaintiffs' motion for revenue generation order and finding of bad faith. Answer brief to motion due 10/8/98. Reply to answer brief due 10/15/98. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/21/1998)
3120 LETTER to Magistrate Mahoney from Eugene E. Eubanks dated 9/16/98 (fce) (Entered: 09/21/1998)
3121 LETTER to Magistrate Mahoney from Eugene Eubanks dated 9/16/98 (fce) (Entered: 09/21/1998)
3122 Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205's Semi-Annual Implementation Progress Report for the Comprehensive Remedial Order for the period of 7/1/97 through 12/31/97 (fce) (Entered: 09/21/1998)
3119 MINUTE ORDER of 9/18/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The parties are given leave until 9/25/98 to file comments regarding Jack Packard's September 17 letter to the court. Notice by telefacsimile of this Order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/21/1998)
3123 RETURN receipt green card from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing that short record was signed for on 9/17/98 (fce) (Entered: 09/22/1998)
3124 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal USCA 983340 (fce) (Entered: 09/22/1998)
3125 OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Pulliam Fee request for July 1 to July 30, 1998; Notice of filing (Attachment) (fce) (Entered: 09/24/1998)
3126 MINUTE ORDER of 9/23/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The parties are given leave until September 30, 1998 to file comments regarding Jack Packard's September 22 letter to the court. Notice by telefacsimile of this

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 238 of 307

09/24/1998
09/25/1998 09/28/1998 09/28/1998 09/29/1998 09/30/1998 10/01/1998 10/05/1998 10/07/1998 10/07/1998 10/13/1998 10/16/1998 10/26/1998 10/27/1998 10/27/1998

Order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/24/1998)
3127 Rockford Education Association's Clarification regarding statements made by: (1) Plaintiffs in their "position statement concerning the FY '99 revenue generation hearing and motion for a revenue generation order" and (2) the Master in his 9/16/98 (3 page) submission to the court (fce) (Entered: 09/25/1998)
3128 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Court Order dated 9/18/98; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/28/1998)
3129 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 09/17/98 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 09/28/1998)
3130 COPY of Order from the 7th Circuit. ( 98-1056, 98-1105, 98-1231, 981449, 98-2488, 98-3340) (fce) (Entered: 09/28/1998)
3131 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' to the Master's 9/16/98 Reports Relating to the FY 99 Expenditure Plan and the FY 98 Carryover Funds; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/30/1998)
3132 LETTER from the 7th Circuit returning the record on appeal no. 96-2410 consisting of 4 volumes pleadings, 3 bulky pleadings and 11 transcripts (fce) (Entered: 10/01/1998)
3133 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to the Master's 09/16/98 letter; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/01/1998)
3134 Copy of Order from the 7th Circuit setting briefing schedule. ( 98-2452) (fce) (Entered: 10/06/1998)
3135 STATEMENT of Pulliam and Wright; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/08/1998)
3136 Master's Assistant's RESPONSE and Motion to Strike Objections to Pulliam Fee Request for 7/1 to 7/30/98; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/08/1998)
3137 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 12/16/97 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 10/14/1998)
3138 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to the Court's orders of September 18 and September 23, 1998 concerning the community advisory committee; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/19/1998)
3139 Copy of Order from the 7th Circuit. On consideration of defendantappellant's motion for extension of time filed 10/16/98, it is ordered that the motion is granted. (fce) (Entered: 10/27/1998)
3140 LETTER from Eugene Eubanks to Magistrate Mahoney (Exhibit) (fce) (Entered: 10/28/1998)
3141 LETTER dated 7/6/98 from Eugene Eubanks to the Magistrate regarding the Master's fees for the period of 4/1/98 through 6/30/98; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/28/1998)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 239 of 307

10/27/1998 10/28/1998 10/28/1998 10/28/1998
10/30/1998
10/30/1998
11/03/1998 11/03/1998 11/03/1998

3142 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' request for a bad faith finding; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/28/1998)
3143 COPY of Order from the 7th Circuit denying plaintiffs motion for extension of time with respect to the status reports scheduled for 10/30/98. ( 98-1056, 98-1105, 98-1231, 98-1449, 98-2488, 98-3340) (fce) (Entered: 10/29/1998)
3144 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 10/29/1998)
3145 MINUTE ORDER of 10/28/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Status hearing set to 1:30 11/23/98 . Enter FY 99 Revenue Order. For the reasons explained therein, the court orders the Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205 to take whatever actions are necessary to amend the FY 99 budget, if necessary, and to enter levies pursuant to the Illinois Tort ImmunityAct in amounts sufficient to fully fund: (1) the FY 99 CRO expenditure plan, and (2) the FY 99 COPs service payments, on or before Wednesday, December 2, 1998. Status hearing is set for Monday, November 23, at 1:30pm. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/29/1998)
3146 MINUTE ORDER of 10/30/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Except as noted in the memorandum order of 10/28/98 [3145], the court adopts and approves the Master's September 16,, 1998 recommendations [3120] in all respects. Insofar as the following expenditures have not been explicitly approved by the ocurt in the past, the court hereby approves them and authorizes theMaster to allocate funds for them in the following manner: (1)$183,000 for library resources at Barbour, Ellis, and the new middle school, to be funded from the FY 98 Fund 12 reserves; (2) $138,587 for the physical education facilities at Lewis Lemon school, to be funded from the FY 98 aFund 12 reserves; and (3)$1,651,319 for fixtures, furniture, and equipment at Barbour, Ellis, and the new middle school, to be funded from Fund 12 reserves prior to FY 98. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/02/1998)
3147 MINUTE ORDER of 10/30/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Hearing on Plaintiffs' 04/22/98 and 09/16/98 motions for findings of Bad Faith set for 10:00 1/11/99, continued to 10:00am 01/12/9. Answer brief to defendant's February 6, 1998 motion to dismiss due 11/16/98. Reply brief thereto due 11/23/98. Answer brief to Defendant's 10/27/98 motion to dismiss due 11/16/98. Reply brief thereto due 11/23/98 . Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/02/1998)
3148 Eugene Eubanks' Billing for the period 7/1/98 through 10/1/98 (fce) (Entered: 11/04/1998)
3149 MINUTE ORDER of 11/3/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant Rockford School District is ordered to make payment to Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes for the period August 1998, as outlined on the reverse of this Order. (For further detail see order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/04/1998)
3150 MINUTE ORDER of 11/3/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 240 of 307

11/04/1998
11/05/1998 11/05/1998 11/05/1998 11/06/1998
11/12/1998 11/12/1998 11/16/1998 11/17/1998 11/17/1998 11/17/1998 11/17/1998 11/17/1998

is hereby ordered to charge against and disburse monies from Fund 12 to make payment on the 10/5/98 billing invoice/statement submitted by Dr. Eugene Eubanks for the period 7/1/98 through 10/1/98. The court further orders defendant Rockford School District to maintain its copy of this order and underlying documents for any future accounting or auditing functions that the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/04/1998)
3151 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed from motion minute order [3145-2], from motion minute order approving the Master's September 16,1998 recommendation in all respects [3146-1] ( pd $105.00 on 11/04/98, receipt #293558) (fce) (Entered: 11/05/1998)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on appeal . Mailed notice to all counsel. Mailed via certified mail Z 034 401 736. (clb) (Entered: 11/05/1998)
3152 Copy of Appeal LETTER mailed to Thomas Lester (fce) (Entered: 11/06/1998)
3153 Uncontested MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to amend order ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/06/1998)
3154 MINUTE ORDER of 11/6/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant's uncontested motion to amend order, filed November 5, 1998, is granted [3153-1]. The Order of 10/28/98 (3144) is modified to reflect unfunded FY 99 COPs debt service payments totaling $2,956,745. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/09/1998)
3155 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal USCA 983858 (fce) (Entered: 11/13/1998)
3156 CERTIFIED copy of Order from the 7th Circuit. ( 98-1056, 98-1105, 981231, 98-1449, 98-2488, 98-3340, and 98-3858) (fce) (Entered: 11/13/1998)
3157 RETURN receipt green card from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing that short record was signed for on 11/13/98 (fce) (Entered: 11/17/1998)
3158 Amended NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed ( $105.00 paid); notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/18/1998)
3159 Amended DOCKETING STATEMENT by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/18/1998)
3160 Master's Undated LETTER enclosing counsel for defendant billing for the month of May 1998; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/18/1998)
3161 Master's LETTER of 11/5/98 seeking an extension until 12/1/98 to submit an expenditure plan to the court; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/18/1998)
3162 Master's Undated LETTER enclosing counsel for defendant billing for the month of June, 1998; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/18/1998)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 241 of 307

11/17/1998 11/17/1998 11/17/1998 11/17/1998 11/18/1998 11/18/1998
11/18/1998 11/19/1998 11/19/1998 11/19/1998 11/19/1998 11/20/1998 11/20/1998

3163 Master's LETTER of 10/5/98 enclosing billing for the period of 7/1/98 to 10/1/98; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/18/1998)
3164 Master's LETTER of 7/6/98 regarding Master's comments on motions for modification of the CRO requested by the parties; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/18/1998)
3165 Consolidated REPLY Brief by plaintiffs' to defendants' motions to dismiss filed 2/6/98 and 10/27/98; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/18/1998)
3166 MOTION by plaintiffs' for leave to file "amended and consolidated motion for bad faith findings" ; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 11/18/1998)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on appeal . Mailed notice to all counsel. Mailed via certified mail Z 034 401 738. (clb) (Entered: 11/18/1998)
3167 SUPPLEMENT by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to semi-annual implementation progress report for the comprehensive remedial order for the period of 07/01/97 through 12/31/97; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/19/1998)
3168 Semi-Annual implementation progress report by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for the comprehensive remedial order for the period January 1998 through July 1998 (fce) (Entered: 11/19/1998)
3169 Plaintiffs' Submission of EAV and Tax Rate Information; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/20/1998)
3170 APPENDIX - Volume I - filed by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/20/1998)
3171 APPENDIX -Volume II - filed by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed (fce) (Entered: 11/20/1998)
3172 APPENDIX - Volume III - filed by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed (fce) (Entered: 11/20/1998)
3173 Plaintiffs' Submission of Information re: State Funding for Early Childhood Education; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/24/1998)
3174 MINUTE ORDER of 11/20/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Status hearing H&C to 11:00 12/21/98. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file amended and consolidated motion for bad faith findings presented and taken under advisement. Telephonic status hearing set to 9:30 12/3/98. Plaintiffs' counsel to initiate call. Hearing originally set for 1/11/99 is reset for 10:00 2/22/99. That hearing will only address plaintiffs' motion for bad faith findings filed 4/22/98 and 9/16/98. Defendant's motion for 2 day extension of deadline for reply briefs in support of motions to dismiss is granted. Reply briefs due 11/25/98. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/24/1998)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 242 of 307

11/23/1998 11/23/1998
11/23/1998 11/23/1998 11/24/1998 11/24/1998 11/24/1998
11/25/1998 11/27/1998 11/27/1998 11/27/1998 11/30/1998 12/02/1998 12/03/1998 12/03/1998

3175 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 11/24/1998)
3176 MINUTE ORDER of 11/23/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons explained in the attached Order, the Rockford School District is ordered to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the following amounts in payment to Pulliam and Wright, P.A.: $35,406.28, for the aggregate period 9/16/97 through 5/31/98; $1,064.63 for the period 6/1 through 6/30/98; $3,172.66 for the period 7/1 through 7/31/98; $2,242.73, for the period 8/1 through 8/31/98; and $2,142.44, for the period 9/1 through 9/30/98. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/24/1998)
3177 COPY of Order from the 7th Circuit denying plaintiffs motion for extension of time to file brief and motion for leave to file oversized brief not exceeding 16,00 words. ( 98-1056) (fce) (Entered: 11/24/1998)
3178 LETTER from the 7th Circuit returning the record on appeal no. 96-2132 consisting of 1 box of exhibits (fce) (Entered: 11/24/1998)
3179 Master's LETTER of 10/7/98 to the Magistrate Judge concerncing the air conditioning expenditure at Haskell School; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/25/1998)
3180 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 11/25/1998)
3181 MINUTE ORDER of 11/24/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : For the reasons in the attached Order, the court now orders the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the following amounts in payment to Lord, Bissell & Brook: $2,604.80 for the period 1/1 through 2/28/98; $198.08 for the period 3/1 through 3/31/98; and $889.50 for the period 4/1 through 6/30/98. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/25/1998)
3182 REPLY brief by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed in support of its motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended and consolidated motions for bad faith findings; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/27/1998)
3183 RETURN receipt green card from the U.S. Court of Appeals showing that short record was signed for on 11/23/98 (fce) (Entered: 11/30/1998)
3184 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal USCA 984009 (fce) (Entered: 11/30/1998)
3185 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 11/20/98 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 11/30/1998)
3186 CERTIFIED COPY of order from the 7th Circuit: Dismissing appeal. ( 98-4009) (fce) (Entered: 12/01/1998)
3187 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to strike ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/03/1998)
3188 MOTION by plaintiffs for expedited discovery ; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 12/07/1998)
3189 MINUTE ORDER of 12/3/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 243 of 307

12/03/1998
12/04/1998 12/04/1998 12/04/1998
12/07/1998 12/07/1998 12/07/1998

status hearing anad Rule 16 conference held. Defendant to file before 12:00 p.m. 12/4/98 a written status report summarizing actions of the school baord and votes of individual board members with respect to implementation of the 10/28/98 order taken at the 12/1/98 school board meeting. Plaintiffs are given until 12/7/98 to file written motion for entry of an order under FRCP 70. Counsels are to be available for convening depositions on 12/11 and 12/14. Defense counsel is to ensure that all witnesses originally scheduled for deposition on 12/4 and 12/7 are available for deposition at reasonable times on 12/11 and 12/14. Telephonic discovery hearing set to 1:30 12/7/98 Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/07/1998)
3190 MINUTE ORDER of 12/3/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court strikes plaintiffs' motion for bad faith findings, filed 4/22/98 anad 9/16/98. Plaintiffs given leave until 1/9/99 to re-file a consolidated motion addressing all allegations of bad faith by the Rockford School District. Plaintiffs' motion to file amended motion for bad faith findings is denied as moot. Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied as moot. The hearing date previously set for 2/11/99 is stricken. Defendant's motion to strike is denied as moot, because the letter addressed in the motion has not been filed in the court record. However, the court has destroyed the copy of that letter which was sent directly to chambers. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/07/1998)
3191 Plaintiff's LETTER to defendant dated 12/1/98 regarding the court's order of 10/28/98; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/07/1998)
3192 STATUS REPORT by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/07/1998)
3193 MINUTE ORDER of 12/4/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 12/3/98, the court denied as moot, defendant's motoin to strike "because the letter addressed in the motion has not been filed in the court record." Plaintiffs subsequently filed the letter in question. On its own motion, the court reconsiders the 12/3/98 order and allows defendnat's motion to strike. The clerk of court is directed to expunge "Plaintiff's Letter to defendant" filed 12/4/98, from the court record. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/07/1998)
3194 LETTER from Eugene E. Eubanks (Exhibit) (fce) (Entered: 12/08/1998)
3195 MINUTE ORDER of 12/7/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : As explained on the reverse of this minute order, plaintiffs' motion to reconsider is denied [3031-1]. (For further detail see order.) Mailed notice (fce) Modified on 01/14/1999 (Entered: 12/08/1998)
3196 MINUTE ORDER of 12/7/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter Master's 11/13/98 letter regarding fees and expenses submitted by the Scariano firm on 10/08/98. As no party has made objection, the court orders defendant Rockford board of Education to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 a total of $862.29, representing $657.00 in fees and $205.29 in expenses, in payment to the law firm of Scariano, Kula,

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 244 of 307

12/07/1998
12/07/1998
12/08/1998 12/08/1998 12/08/1998 12/08/1998 12/10/1998 12/10/1998 12/11/1998

Ellch and Himes for the period ending 09/30/98. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/08/1998)
3197 MINUTE ORDER of 12/7/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic Status hearing held. Plaintiffs' motion for "a further order specifying the dollar amounts RSD is obligated to levy," a copy of which was provided to the court by telefacsimile, is to be filed by plaintiffs on 12/08/98. Response thereto due at 4:30pm 12/08/98. The court stresses an alteration to this deadline, originally set for 5:00pm 12/08/98, to conform to the business hours of the office of the clerk of court. Reply brief in support due 12:00pm 12/09/98. If a party is not going to file a brief in response or reply, it is that party's obligation, with the time frame established by this order, to so notify the court in writing. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/08/1998)
3198 MINUTE ORDER of 12/7/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs' motion for "entry of orders under Rule 70," a copy of which was provided to the court by telefacsimile, is to be filed by plaintiffs on 12/08/98. Response thereto due at 2:00pm 12/10/698. Reply brief in support due 4:30 pm 12/11/98. If a party is not going to file a brief in resposne or reply, it is that party's obligation, within the time frame established by this order, to so notify the court in writing. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/08/1998)
3199 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' motion to enforce the comprehensive remedial order and the court's related CRO funding orders; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/09/1998)
3200 MOTION by plaintiffs to enforce the comprehensive remedial order and the Court's related CRO funding orders ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/09/1998)
3201 MINUTE ORDER of 12/8/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Pursuant to agreement by the parties, plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery is withdrawn [3188-1] No notice (fce) (Entered: 12/09/1998)
3202 MOTION by plaintiffs to enforce the comprehensive remedial order and the Court's related CRO funding orders ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/09/1998)
3203 REPLY by plaintiffs concerning entry of a further order specifying the dollar amounts RSD is obligated to levy to effectuate the FY 99 CRO funding orders; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/11/1998)
3204 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to motion to enforce the comprehensive remedial order and the Court's related CRO funding orders [3202-1] (Exhibits); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/11/1998)
3205 MOTION by intervenor Educational Office, intervenor Rockford Building, intervenor Rockford Education for order requiring parties to provide advance notice of court telephone conferences to their counsel with opportunity to participate ; Notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 12/14/1998)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 245 of 307

12/15/1998
12/15/1998 12/15/1998 12/16/1998 12/16/1998
12/16/1998 12/17/1998
12/18/1998 12/18/1998 12/23/1998 12/23/1998 12/30/1998
12/30/1998

3206 MINUTE ORDER of 12/15/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The Magistrate Judge hereby confirms the appointments to the Citizens Advisory Committee that have been made by Judge Roszkowski and adopts those as if they were the Magistrate Judge's same appointments. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/16/1998)
3207 MOTION by plaintiffs to extend time to respond to intervenordefendant's motion regarding advance notice of court telephone conferences ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/16/1998)
3208 REPLY by plaintiffs' in support of petition to enforce the comprehensive remedial order and the court's related CRO fudning orders; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/16/1998)
3209 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 12/16/1998)
3210 MINUTE ORDER of 12/16/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : As explained in the attached order, Plaintiffs' motion for a further order is denied [3202-1]. (For further detail see order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/16/1998)
3211 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for attorneys' fees, interest and costs (Attachments); Notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 12/16/1998)
3212 MINUTE ORDER of 12/17/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : As explained on the reverse of this Order, Plaintiff's for a Rule 70 appointment is denied [3200-1]. The Status hearing previously set for 12/21/98 at 11:00am is stricken as unnecessary . (For further detail see order.) Mailed notice (fce) Modified on 12/18/1998 (Entered: 12/18/1998)
3213 Plaintiffs' Comments on the Scariano Firm's Motion for Attorney's Fees; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/21/1998)
3214 MINUTE ORDER of 12/18/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendants' motion for attorneys' fees is entered and continued to 1:30 1/6/99. No notice (fce) (Entered: 12/21/1998)
3215 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 12/3/98 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 12/23/1998)
3216 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 12/7/98 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 12/23/1998)
3217 MINUTE ORDER of 12/30/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court will meet with the Citizens' Advisory Committee, in the Magistrate's courtroom on 1/14/99 at 3:30 p.m. All counsel of record are invited to attend. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/31/1998)
3218 MINUTE ORDER of 12/30/98 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter defendant's 12/23/98 letter to the court regarding attorneys' fees. No notice (fce) (Entered: 12/31/1998)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 246 of 307

12/30/1998 12/31/1998 01/05/1999 01/06/1999 01/06/1999 01/11/1999 01/12/1999 01/12/1999 01/19/1999 01/19/1999
01/19/1999
01/20/1999 01/29/1999

3219 LETTER to Magistrate Mahoney from Thomas J. Lester dated 12/23/98 (fce) (Entered: 12/31/1998)
3220 SUPPLEMENT to Scariano, Kula, Ellch and Himes' motion for attorneys' fees, interest and costs; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/04/1999)
3221 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes' motion for attorneys' fees, interest and costs [3211-1] (fce) (Entered: 01/06/1999)
3222 Notice of Oral Argument from the U.S. Court of Appeals requesting entire record on appeal (fce) (Entered: 01/07/1999)
3223 MINUTE ORDER of 1/6/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic conference on motion for attorneys' fees H&C to 10:30 1/20/99. Telephoned notice (fce) (Entered: 01/07/1999)
3224 NOTICE by intervenor Rockford Education of change of address (fce) (Entered: 01/12/1999)
3225 MOTION by plaintiff for bad faith findings , for enforcement of CRO , and for modification of CRO under FRCP 60 ; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/13/1999)
3226 AGREED MOTION by the Master to amend court's order of 11/23/98 ; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/13/1999)
3227 LETTER from Eugene Eubanks dated 12/18/98 (Exhibits) (fce) (Entered: 01/20/1999)
3228 MINUTE ORDER of 1/19/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter Master's 12/18/98 letter regarding fees and expenses submitted bythe firm of Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes on 11/09/98 and 12/07/98. The court orders RSD to charge against the disburse from Fund 12 a total of $381.50 in payment to Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes for the periods ending 10/31/98 and 11/30/98. RSD is also ordered to maintain their copies of this order and all underlying documents for any future auditing or accounting functions that the court may order. (For further detail see order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/20/1999)
3229 MINUTE ORDER of 1/19/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Agreed motion to amend court's order of 11/23/98 [3226-1] made by counsel for the Master, is allowed. The court's 11/23/98 Memorandum Opinion [3175] and Minute order [3176] are corrected as outlined on the reverse of this Order. RSD is ordered to maintain their copy of this Order for any future auditing or accounting functions that the court may order. (For further detail see order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/20/1999)
3230 MINUTE ORDER of 1/20/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic conference on motion for attorneys' fees held and continued to 10:30 2/3/99. Telephoned notice (fce) (Entered: 01/21/1999)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the long record on appeal consisting

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 247 of 307

02/03/1999 02/03/1999 02/03/1999 02/05/1999
02/05/1999 02/05/1999
02/05/1999 02/08/1999 02/11/1999 02/11/1999 02/16/1999 02/17/1999

of 40 boxes sent via U.P.S. on 01/29/99. (clb) (Entered: 02/23/1999)
3231 LETTER from defendant Rockford Board Of Ed dated 02/02/99 (fce) (Entered: 02/04/1999)
3232 LETTER from plaintiff's counsel dated 02/01/99 (fce) (Entered: 02/04/1999)
3233 MINUTE ORDER of 2/3/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Status hearing held and continued to 10:30 2/17/99 . Enter 02/01/99 letter from plaintiffs' counsel and 02/02/99 letter from defendant's cousnel. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/04/1999)
3234 MINUTE ORDER of 2/5/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter master's 1/8/99 letter to the court detailing fees and expenses for the period 10/2/98 through 12/31/98. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the fees and expenses and finds that they are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the Comprehensive Remedial Order. The court therefore authorizes and orders defendant Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205 to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $24,083.95 in payment to the Master, representing $21,143.75 in professional fees and $2,940.20 in reimbursable expenses. The court further orders Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205 to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/08/1999)
3235 Master's LETTER dated 1/8/99 (fce) (Entered: 02/08/1999)
3236 MINUTE ORDER of 2/5/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter 2/3/99 letter from defendant's counsel to the court. Pursuant to agreement between the parties, plaintiffs' consolidated motion for bad faith findings, motion for enforcement of CRO, and motion for modification of CRO under FRCP 60 is considered presented as of this date. Response due 2/16/99. Reply due 3/12/99. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/08/1999)
3237 Thomas Lester's LETTER dated 2/3/99 (fce) (Entered: 02/08/1999)
3238 STIPULATION; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/09/1999)
3239 MINUTE ORDER of 2/11/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter Master's 2/1/99 report concerning FY 99 transportation costs. Pursuant to FRCP 53(e)(2), the parties are allowed 10 days to make any objections. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/12/1999)
3240 Master's 2/1/99 Report (fce) (Entered: 02/12/1999)
3241 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' consolidated motion for bad faith findings [3225-1], motion for enforcement of CRO [3225-2], motion for modification of CRO under FRCP 60 [3225-3]; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/17/1999)
3242 MINUTE ORDER of 2/17/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic discovery conference held and continued to 1:00 3/8/99. Mailed notice

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 248 of 307

02/18/1999 02/22/1999 02/22/1999 02/23/1999 02/25/1999
02/25/1999
02/26/1999 03/01/1999 03/04/1999 03/04/1999

(fce) (Entered: 02/18/1999)
3243 MINUTE ORDER of 2/18/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic discovery conference held and continued to 3:30 2/25/99. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/19/1999)
3244 MOTION by plaintiffs' for order directing immediate filing of the vacant position of associate superintendent for education and equity ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/22/1999)
3245 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' to the Master's 2/1/99 report relating to FY 99 transportation costs; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/22/1999)
3246 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Master's 02/11/99 report relating to FY 99 transportation costs; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/24/1999)
3247 MINUTE ORDER of 2/25/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The parties have concurred in the Master's 2/1/99 report. The court approves and adopts the 2/1/99 report of the Master with one exception, as noted on the reverse of this order. The court modifies the order of 8/13/98 to allocate a total of $389,349.06 for Account No. 7995. The court further authorizes and directs RSD to expend the full $389,349.06 from Fund 12 for FY 99 transportation expenses. (For further detail see order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/26/1999)
3248 MINUTE ORDER of 2/25/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs' motion for order directing immediate filing of the vacant position of associate superintendent for education and equity [3244-1] filed. Answer brief to motion due 03/11/99. Reply to answer brief due 3/18/99. Telephonic Status hearing held. Raw data from RSD concerning student assignemnt to high school core courses to be submitted to the court by 03/01/99. Master's report for FY 00 staffing due 03/01/99, comments or objections by the parties are to be filed and served upon all other parties, inclduing the Master, no later than 03/15/99. Hearing on FY 00 staffing hearing set for 10:00 3/16/99 . Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/02/1999)
3249 REPORT on controlled choice assgnments for Grade 9 for the 1999-2000 school year; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/02/1999)
3250 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board of Education, School District no. 205 for extension of time ; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/02/1999)
3251 Master's 03/01/99 report on proposed continuation of staffing positions for FY 2000 (Attachments) (fce) (Entered: 03/05/1999)
3252 MINUTE ORDER of 3/4/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter Master's 03/01/99 report on proposed continuation of staffing positions for FY 2000. As set forth in the order of 02/25/99 (3248), comments or objections by the parties are to be filed and served upon all other parties, including the Master, no later than 03/15/99. Defendant's motion for extension of time, filed 03/01/99, is granted [3250-1]. Raw data

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 249 of 307

03/04/1999 03/05/1999
03/09/1999
03/10/1999 03/15/1999 03/16/1999
03/18/1999 03/18/1999 03/19/1999 03/22/1999 03/22/1999

concerning student assignemtn for high school core courses is to be filed by 03/04/99. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/05/1999)
3253 DATA ON WITHIN-SCHOOL INTEGRATION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed (Attachments); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/05/1999)
3254 MINUTE ORDER of 3/5/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The parties and the Master are allowed 14 days from receipt of this order to file comments on the statistical data and analysis contained in the Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205's Data on Within-School Integration, filed 03/04/99. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/08/1999)
3256 MINUTE ORDER of 3/9/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : ng regarding FY 2000 staffing, previously set for 10:00 03/16/99, is stricken. Hearing is reset for 1:15 3/22/99, subject to the availablility of the Master and Superintendent Epps. 03/15/99 deadline for filing and serving objections to or comments upon the Master's 03/01/99 report regarding staffing is extended to 03/18/99. Briefing schedule set on 02/25/99 for plaintiffs' motion to fill position of associate superintendent for education and equity is stricken, to be reset at an appropriate date in the future. Telephonic Status hearing set to 10:00 3/16/99 . Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/11/1999)
3255 MINUTE ORDER of 3/10/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic Status conference held and continued to 10:30 3/26/99 . Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/11/1999)
3257 REPLY MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in support of plaintiffs' consolidated motion for bad faith findings [3225-1], of motion for enforcement of CRO [3225-2], of motion for modification of CRO under FRCP 60 [3225-3] (fce) (Entered: 03/16/1999)
3258 MINUTE ORDER of 3/16/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic status hearing held. Deadline for the parties and the Master to file comments on the statistical data and analysis contained in the Rockford Board of Education School District No. 205's data on within-school integration, filed 3/4/99 is extended to 4/5/99. Reply by Rockford Board of Education due 4/14/99. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/16/1999)
3259 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Master's report to the court on prposed continuation of staffing positions for FY2000 (Exhibits); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/19/1999)
3260 RESPONSE by Intervenors Educational Office, Rockford Building, Rockford Education to Master's report to the court on proposed continuation of staffing positions for FY 2000; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/19/1999)
3261 COMMENTS ON THE MASTER's FY 2000 staffing-continuation report by plaintiffs; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/22/1999)
3262 STIPULATION (fce) (Entered: 03/23/1999)
3263 MINUTE ORDER of 3/22/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : enter

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 250 of 307

03/26/1999
03/29/1999 03/29/1999 03/30/1999 03/31/1999 03/31/1999 03/31/1999 04/05/1999
04/05/1999 04/13/1999 04/13/1999
04/13/1999

3/22/99 stipulation of the parties. The court approves the stipulation and directs RSD to take whatever actions are necessary to implement the reductions in force provided for in the Master's 3/1/99 report to the court on proposed continuation of staffing positions for FY 2000. The hearing previously scheduled for 3/22/99 to address FY 2000 staffing is stricken. The court will consider the objections and comments of the parties to the Master's 3/1/99 report in conjunction with the FY 2000 budgetary process. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/23/1999)
3264 MINUTE ORDER of 3/26/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic Status hearing held and continued to 10:30 4/20/99 . The parties represent that they have reached agreement concerning the document depository, and will file a stipulation regarding the same with the court. (fce) (Entered: 03/29/1999)
3265 AMENDED REQUEST TO FILE STATEMENTS of Pulliam and Wright. P.A. Covering Five Periods; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/30/1999)
3266 PROGRESS REPORT 1998-1999 school year (Attachment); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/30/1999)
3267 STATEMENT of Lord, Bissell & Brook (Attachments); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/30/1999)
3268 LETTER CC: to Magistrate Mahoney to Mr. Lester from Anthony G. Scariano dated 01/28/99 (Attachment) (fce) (Entered: 03/31/1999)
3269 Report of Office of Desegregation on the Middle School Reconfiguration; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/01/1999)
3270 MOTION for leave to file statements of Pulliam and Wright P.A. covering five periods ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/01/1999)
3271 MINUTE ORDER of 4/5/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter Master's 4/3/99 report regarding within school integration. Per this court's order of 3/16/99, response by the District to the Master's report is due 4/14/99. Status hearing set to 9:00 4/15/99. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/06/1999)
3272 Master's 4/3/99 Report regarding within school integration (fce) (Entered: 04/06/1999)
3273 COMMENTS on RSD's data on within-school integration by plaintiffs (Attachments); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/14/1999)
3274 SEMI-ANNUAL IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS REPORT by Rockford Board of Education for the comprehensive remedial order for the period 07/01/98 through 12/31/98; Notice of filing (fce) Modified on 08/05/1999 (Entered: 04/14/1999)
3275 APPENDIX (volume I) filed by Rockford Bd of Education regarding their semi-annual implementation progress report for the comprehensive remedial order for the period 07/01/98 through 12/31/98 [3274-1] (fce)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 251 of 307

04/13/1999 04/14/1999 04/14/1999 04/14/1999 04/14/1999
04/15/1999 04/15/1999 04/15/1999
04/16/1999
04/16/1999 04/19/1999

Modified on 08/05/1999 (Entered: 04/14/1999)
3276 APPENDIX (VOLUME II) filed by Rockford Board of Educ regarding their semi-annual implementation progress report for the comprehensive remedial order for the period of 07/01/98 through 12/31/98 [3274-1] (fce) Modified on 08/05/1999 (Entered: 04/14/1999)
3277 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Master's comments on within-school integration; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/15/1999)
3278 JUDGMENT-with oral argument (fce) (Entered: 04/15/1999)
3280 CERTIFIED copy of Order from the 7th Circuit ordering that the Rockford Board of Education is not involved in this appeal. ( 98-2452) (fce) (Entered: 04/15/1999)
3279 CERTIFIED COPY of order from the 7th Circuit: Affirming the decision of the District Court [3151-1], Affirming the decision of the District Court [3047-1], Affirming the decision of the District Court [2947-1], Affirming the decision of the District Court [2910-1], Affirming the decision of the District Court [2892-1] . ( 98-1056,98-1105,98-1231,981449,98-2452,98-2488,98-3340, 98-3858) (fce) (Entered: 04/15/1999)
3281 MOTION by plaintiffs for order directing defendant RSD to adopt FY 99 CRO fund 12 and cops levies, extending the state law deadline for leavy adoption (Attachments); (fce) (Entered: 04/16/1999)
3282 BRIEF by plaintiffs in support of their motion for order directing defendant RSD to adopt FY 99 CRO fund 12 and cops levies, extending the state law deadline for leavy adoption [3281-1]; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/16/1999)
3283 MINUTE ORDER of 4/15/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Status conference held. The court directs counsel for the parties to initiate settlement efforts, as suggested by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in their opinion of 03/19/99. If the District brings forth a petition for relief from state law limitations that would otherwise prevent the District from fully funding the CRO, the court will consider such a petition at 9:30am 04/26/99. In the absence of such a petition, the court will conduct a status conference at 9:30am 04/26/99. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/16/1999)
3284 MINUTE ORDER of 4/16/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter deposition transcript of Dr. Ronald Epps dated 2/26/99, deposition transcript of Thomas Hoffman dated 2/26/99, deposition transcript of Dr. Ellen Beuschel dated 2/26/99, deposition transcript of Thomas Hoffman dated 4/1/99, deposition transcript of Dr. Ronald Epps dated 4/1/99, deposition exhibits 1-5 dated 2/26/99, and deposition exhibits 6-9 dated 4/1/99. No notice (fce) (Entered: 04/19/1999)
3285 Deposition TRANSCRIPTS (fce) (Entered: 04/19/1999)
3286 STIPULATION (fce) (Entered: 04/20/1999)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 252 of 307

04/20/1999
04/21/1999 04/21/1999
04/23/1999 04/23/1999 04/26/1999 04/26/1999 04/26/1999 04/26/1999 04/26/1999
04/26/1999

3287 MINUTE ORDER of 4/20/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic status hearing held. Enter 4/19/99 stipulation filed by the parties governing document transfer, possession and storage. In light of the stipulation, the court now allows the motion of Anthony G. Scarino, Justino D. Petrarca, and all other attorneys from Scariano, Kula, Ellch and Himes, Chtd. who have appeared in this matter to withdraw as counsel of record for the District. The court retains jurisdiction over all signatories to the stipulation to enforce its terms and conditions. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/21/1999)
3288 REPORT of controlled choice Kindergarten assignment results for the 1999-2000 school year (Attachments); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/22/1999)
3289 MINUTE ORDER of 4/21/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Upon agreement to submit the matter to arbitration, the motion by Scariano, Kula, Ellch, and Himes, Chtd. to withdraw their motion for attorneys' fees [3211-1] without prejudice is allowed. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/22/1999)
3290 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 04/15/99 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 04/23/1999)
3291 STATEMENT of Pulliam and Wright (Attachments); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/26/1999)
3292 EXHIBITS on Defendant's motion to extend the State law deadline for the adoption of a levy (fce) (Entered: 04/27/1999)
3293 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to extend the state law deadline for the adoption of a levy ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 04/27/1999)
3294 MINUTE ORDER of 4/26/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : As stated on the reverse of this order, the court directs the parties to prepare for meaningful negotiations towards ending this litigation in the near future. (For further detail see order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/27/1999)
3295 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 04/27/1999)
3296 MINUTE ORDER of 4/26/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Hearing held on defendant's motion. Enter Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4 as stated in open court. As stated in open court, defendant has modified its motion to reflect an FY 1999 tort levy of $22,532,969. With that modification, defendant's motion is allowed. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/27/1999)
3297 MINUTE ORDER of 4/26/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic status hearing set to 1:30 5/3/99. Intervenor-defendants' motion for advance notice of court telephonic conferences is granted in part and denied in part. The court directs counsel for the plaintiff class and for defendant to ensure that counsel for intervenor-defendants is apprised of all scheduling changes that either: (a) relate to any live appearance in court, or (b) to any telephonic conference expected to implicate issues

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 253 of 307

04/29/1999 04/30/1999
04/30/1999
05/03/1999 05/10/1999 05/12/1999 05/12/1999

that are within the scope of defendants-intervenors' intervention. Insofar as the motion seeks to expand the scope of intervention it is denied. Plaintiffs' motion for extension of time is denied as moot. No notices (fce) (Entered: 04/27/1999)
3298 MINUTE ORDER of 4/29/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : In light of this court's order of 4/26/99 directing the parties to seek a middle ground in resolution of this litigation, the court resets the deadline for submission of the Master's FY 2000 budget to 5/24/99 in order to allow additional input from the parties. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/03/1999)
3299 MINUTE ORDER of 4/30/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Motions by Pulliam and Wright, P.A. for leave to file petitions for fees and costs are allowed. No party has objected. the court has reviewed the petitions, and finds that the fees and costs contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO> the court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $3131.10 to Pulliam and Wright, P.A. representing professional fees of $2600.50 and reimburseable costs of $530.60 for the aggregate period 10/1/98 through 2/28/99. The court further orders the District to retain its copy of this order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/oir accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/04/1999)
3300 MINUTE ORDER of 4/30/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 3/30/99, Lord, Bissell & Brook submitted a petition for fees and costs for the period ending 1/31/99. No party has objected. The petition fails to substantiate telephone charges of $27.30. The court finds that all other fees and costs contained in the petition are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO, and authorizes and directs the District to charge against and disubrse from Fund 12 the sum of $41.52 in payment to Lord, Bissell, representing $38.00 in professional fees and $3.52 in reimbursable charges. The court grants Lord, Bissell leave to resubmit the telephone charges with substantiation by 5/7/99. The court further orders the District to maintain its copy of this order and all underlying materials for such future accounting and/or auditing purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/04/1999)
3301 MINUTE ORDER of 5/3/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic Status hearing held and continued to 10:00 5/4/99 . No notice (fce) (Entered: 05/04/1999)
3302 STATEMENT of Pulliam and Wright (Attachments); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 05/11/1999)
3303 LETTER from Eugene Eubanks dated 04/12/99 detailing fees and expenses for the period 01/01/99 through 04/01/99 (fce) (Entered: 05/13/1999)
3304 MINUTE ORDER of 5/12/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter Master's 04/12/99 letter to the court detailing fees and expenses for the

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 254 of 307

05/19/1999 05/26/1999
06/02/1999 06/02/1999 06/07/1999 06/07/1999

period 01/01/99 through 04/01/99. No party has objectioned. The court has reviewed the fees and expenses, and finds that they are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the Comprehensive Remedial Order. The court therefore authorizes and orders Defendant Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205 to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $35,665.62 in payment to the Master, representing $31,556.25 in professional fees and $4,109.37 in reimbursable expenses. The court further orders Rockford Board of Education, School District 205 to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/13/1999)
3305 MINUTE ORDER of 5/19/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Deadline for submission of the Master's proposed FY 2000 budget, previously set for 5/24/99 is stricken. The deadline will be reset by the court at an appropriate time. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/20/1999)
3306 MINUTE ORDER of 5/26/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 4/23/99, Pulliam and Wright, P.A. petitioned the court for fees and costs for the period 3/1/99 to 3/31/99. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the petition, and finds that the fees and costs contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $1,914.82 to Pulliam and Wright, P.A. representing professional fees of $1,743.50 and reimburseable costs of $171.32 for the above stated period. The court further orders the District to retain its copy of this order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/27/1999)
3307 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 06/03/1999)
3308 MINUTE ORDER of 6/2/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : In furtherance of the order of 4/26/99, the court now appoints Howard S. Bellman, Karl J. Jacobs, and Nathaniel Martin to act as Facilitators. The court directs the clerk's office to make copies of the Facilitators' curricula vitae available for public inspection and copying. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/03/1999)
3309 LETTER from Eugene Eubanks dated 05/07/99 detailing fees and expenses for the period 04/02/99 through 04/30/99. (fce) (Entered: 06/08/1999)
3310 MINUTE ORDER of 6/7/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter 05/07/99 letter from Eugene Eubanks to the court detailing fees and expenses for the period 04/02/99-04/30/99. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the petition, and finds that the fees and costs contained therein are directly related to and reaonsably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 255 of 307

06/07/1999
06/17/1999 06/21/1999 06/24/1999 07/12/1999
07/12/1999 07/15/1999

12 the sum of $11,289,.42 to Eugene Eubanks, representing professional fees of $7,796.25 and reimbursable costs of $1,493.17, for the above stated period. The court further orders the District ot retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/08/1999)
3311 MINUTE ORDER of 6/7/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 05/10/99, Pulliam and Wright, P.A., petitioned the court for fees and costs for the period 04/01/99 to 04/30/99. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the petition, and finds that the fees and costs contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District ot charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $1,539.54 to Pulliam and Wright, P.A., representing professional fees of $1,298.00 and reimburseable costs of $241.54, for the above-stated period. The court further orders the District to retain its copy of this order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/08/1999)
3312 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Rockford Board Of Ed by James Michael Hess (Attachment) (fce) (Entered: 06/18/1999)
3313 NOTICE of change of address of Pulliam and Wright, P.A.; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 06/22/1999)
3314 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 4/26/99 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 06/25/1999)
3315 MINUTE ORDER of 7/12/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter letter of 06/07/99 from the Master to the court setting forth fees and expenses for the period 05/01/99-05/31/99. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the petition, and finds that he fees and costs continaed therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $10,198.76 to the Master, representing professional fees of $8202.50 and reimbursable costs of $1996.26, for the above-stated period. The court further orders the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/13/1999)
3316 LETTER from Eugene Eubanks dated 06/07/99 to the court setting forth fees and expenses for the period 05/01/99-05/31/99. (fce) (Entered: 07/13/1999)
3317 MINUTE ORDER of 7/15/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Upon receiving satisfactory status reports from the facilitators and the parties, and upon recommendation that additional time is necessary to complete ongoing discussions among them, the court now extends those discussions beyond the 7/19/99 date established by order of 6/2/99. The

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 256 of 307

07/26/1999 07/26/1999 08/02/1999 08/04/1999 08/04/1999 08/04/1999 08/04/1999
08/09/1999
08/09/1999

court will set an alternative completion date for this process when appropriate, in light of further status reports from the factilitators and the parties. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/16/1999)
3318 STATEMENT OF PULLIAM AND WRIGHT, P.A., Notice of filing (Attachments) (fce) (Entered: 07/27/1999)
3319 STATEMENT of Pulliam and Wright, P.A.; Notice of filing (Attachments) (fce) (Entered: 07/27/1999)
3320 RESPONSE of Master's Special Assistant to inquiry of RBE regarding fee petition (Exhibits); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/03/1999)
3321 MINUTE ORDER of 8/4/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter Master's proposed FY00 Expenditure Plan. In light of the ongiong facilitation efforts, the period for comment on the proposed expenditure plan is suspended until further order of the court. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/05/1999)
3322 MASTER'S Proposed FY00 Expenditure Plan (fce) (Entered: 08/05/1999)
3323 LETTER from Eugene Eubanks dated 7/6/99 setting forth fees and expenses for the period 6/1/99 - 6/30/99 (fce) (Entered: 08/05/1999)
3324 MINUTE ORDER of 8/4/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter letter of 7/6/99 from the Master to the court setting forth fees and expenses for the period 6/1/99 - 6/30/99. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the petition, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $10,846.58 to the Master, respresenting professional fees of $8,946.25 and reimbursable expenses of $1,900.33, for the above stated period. The court further orders the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future audiuting and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/05/1999)
3325 MINUTE ORDER of 8/9/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter the following: statement from N. Martin to the court setting forth fees and expenses for the period ending July 20, 1999; statement from K. Jacobs to the court setting forth fees and expenses for the period ending July 31, 1999; and statement from H. Bellman to the court setting forth fees and expenses for the period ending July 31, 1999. Copies of the above statements are to be provided to the parties herewith. As provided by the June 2, 1999 order, the parties are allowed 21 days from receipt of the enclosed statements to comment thereupon. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/10/1999)
3326 LETTER to Magistrate Mahoney dated 08/08/99 from Mediator Bellman. (fce) (Entered: 08/10/1999)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 257 of 307

08/09/1999 08/09/1999 08/12/1999 08/20/1999
08/20/1999 08/24/1999
08/24/1999
08/27/1999 08/27/1999

3327 FACILITATOR'S FEES AND EXPENSES (fce) (Entered: 08/10/1999)
3328 FACILIATORS FEES AND EXPENSES (fce) (Entered: 08/10/1999)
3329 Plaintiffs' COMMENTS on the Facilitators' Fee Submissions; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 08/13/1999)
3330 MINUTE ORDER of 8/20/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Response to plaintiffs' motion to fill the position of Associate Superintendent for Education and Equity, filed 2/22/99 is due 09/03/99. Reply brief due 09/10/99. Comments on the Master's proposed FY 2000 expenditure plan are due 09/03/99. Hearing on plaintiffs' motion and the FY 2000 expenditure plan set for 1:30 9/21/99. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/23/1999)
3331 STATEMENT OF PULLIAM & WRIGHT; Notice of filing (Attachments) (fce) (Entered: 08/23/1999)
3332 MINUTE ORDER of 8/24/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 7/26/99, Pulliam & Wright, P.A. petitioned the court for fees and costs for the month of June 1999. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the petition, and finds that hte fees and costs contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $131.94 to Pulliam & Wright, P.A. representing professional fees of $122.50 and reimbursable costs of $9.44, for the above stated period. The court further orders the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying mat4erials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/25/1999)
3333 MINUTE ORDER of 8/24/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 7/26/99, Pulliam & Wright, P.A. petitioned the court for fees and costs for the month of May 1999. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the petition, and finds that the fees and costs continaed therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $314.43 to Pulliam & Wright, P.A. representing professional fees of $186.00 and reimbursable costs of $128.43 for the above stated period. The court further orders the District to retain its copy of this order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/25/1999)
3334 LETTER from Howard Bellman, Mediator & Arbitrator to Magistrate P. Michael Mahoney dated 08/25/99 (fce) (Entered: 08/30/1999)
3335 MINUTE ORDER of 8/27/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter letter of 08/25/99 from H. Bellman to the court. Upon request of the facilitators, the court allows them to employ a legal expert or experts to aid in developing a "middle-ground" framework based upon the interests and positions of the Plaintiffs and Defendant for use in further negotiations. The facilitators may disclose "information received during

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 258 of 307

09/01/1999 09/03/1999 09/07/1999 09/07/1999 09/07/1999
09/07/1999
09/07/1999

the negotiations" and "confidences," as those terms are used in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order of June 2, 1999, to the retained expert(s) shall maintain all such material in the strictest confidence. Reasonable expert fees and expenses will be treated as an "expense" to the facilitators, and will be reimbursed in the manner provided in paragraph 3 of the June 2, 1999 order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/30/1999)
3336 MINUTE ORDER of 9/1/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : By agreement of the parties, deadline for submitting objections to the Master's proposed FY 2000 expenditure plan reset for 09/15/99. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/01/1999)
3337 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' motion for order directing immediate filling of the vacant position of associate superintendent for education and equity; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/07/1999)
3338 MINUTE ORDER of 9/7/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter scheduling order as found on reverse. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/08/1999)
3339 LETTER dated 08/05/99 to Magistrate Mahoney from the Master (Attachments) (fce) (Entered: 09/08/1999)
3340 MINUTE ORDER of 9/7/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter letter of 08/05/99 from the Master to the court setting forth fees and expenses for the period 07/01/99-07/31/99. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the petition, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge agianst and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $11,459.29 to the Master, representing professional fees of $9,923.75 and reimbursable expenses of $1,535.54, for the above-stated period. The court further orders the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/08/1999)
3341 MINUTE ORDER of 9/7/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : As explained on the reverse of this order, the court authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from unallocated carryover monies in Fund 12 the sum of $21,153.25 to Howard Bellman, representing professional fees of $16,975.00 and reimbursable expenses of $4,178.25, for the period ending 07/31/99. The court further orders the District to retain its copy of the order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. (For further detail see order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/08/1999)
3342 MINUTE ORDER of 9/7/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 08/09/99 K. Jacobs submitted a statement setting forth fees and expenses for the period ending 07/31/99. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the petition, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 259 of 307

09/07/1999
09/15/1999 09/16/1999 09/17/1999 09/20/1999
09/21/1999

directly related to and reasonably necessary for the facilitation process. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from unallocated carryover monies in Fund 12 the sum of $5621.17 to Mr. Jacobs, representing professional fees of $5475.00 and reimbursable expenses of $146.17, for the above-stated period. The court further orders the District to retain its copy of this order and all underlying materials fror such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/08/1999)
3343 MINUTE ORDER of 9/7/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 08/09/99 N. Martin submitted a statement setting forth fees and expenses for the period ending 07/31/99. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the petition, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for the facilitation process. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from unallocated carryover monies in Fund 12 the sum of $4001.35 to Mr. Martin, representing professional fees of $3950.00 and reimbursable expenses of $51.35, for the above -stated period. The court further orders the District to retain its copy of this order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/08/1999)
3344 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT by defendant Rockford Board of Education of the FY 2000 Remedial Budget; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/16/1999)
3345 REPLY brief by plaintiffs in support of Plaintiff's motion to fill ASEE vacancy and in response to RSD's request that the ASEE position be elminated; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/16/1999)
3346 RESPONSE by plaintiffs concerning the FY 2000 FUnd 12 expenditure play; Notice of filing (Attachment) (fce) (Entered: 09/20/1999)
3347 MINUTE ORDER of 9/20/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 08/20/99, Pulliam & Wright, P.A., petitioned the court for fees and costs for the month of July 1999. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the petition, and finds that the fees and costs contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $407.75 to Pulliam & Wright, P.A., representing professional fees of $315.00 and reimbursable costs of $92.75, for the above-stated period. The court further orders the District to retain its copy of this Order and all udnerlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/21/1999)
3348 MINUTE ORDER of 9/21/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Hearing held. Plaintiffs' motion to fill the vacant position of associate superintendent for education and equity is granted [3244-1]. The court directs the district to begin efforts to fill that position in the manner

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 260 of 307

09/21/1999
09/21/1999
09/23/1999 09/23/1999 09/27/1999 09/28/1999 09/28/1999 09/28/1999 09/28/1999

provided in the CRO and subsequent court orders, provided that all functions assigned by the Superintendent in that process shall be performed by the Acting Superintendent. The court further adopts the FY 2000 expenditure plan that was jointly proposed by the Master and by Superintendent Epps, and hereby approves the same. The court further approves of the application of unallocated Fund 12 monies for FY 19999 expenditure plan The District's proposed revenue generation plan for FY 2000 is due 11/15/99. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/22/1999)
3349 MINUTE ORDER of 9/21/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706(a), the court appoints Dr. Eugene Eubanks to act as the court's expert at the hearing regarding modification of the CRO. His expert report will be due 11/30/99. The court's expert will testify after all parties proposed modification have presented their evidence, and he will offer opinions on the propriety of any modification that is proposed. Direct examination of the court's expert shall be conducted by Janet Pulliam. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/22/1999)
3350 MINUTE ORDER of 9/21/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : In order to ensure the integrity of ongoing facilitation efforts, the court clarifies the scheduling order entered on 09/07/99 in the following manner. The October 1 deadline established by that order for filing of motions to modify the CRO does not preclude filing of joint motions for modification. The court will entertain joint motions for modification at any time, and expects that the parties will continue good faith facilitation efforts towards developing such a joint moiton beyond the 10/01 date. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/22/1999)
3351 MINUTE ORDER of 9/23/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter 09/22/99 letter from T. Lester to the court. The court hereby modifies the scheduling order of 09/07/99, though a lesser degree than requested by the parties. (For further detail see order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/23/1999)
3352 LETTER from Thomas Lester to Magistrate Mahoney dated 09/22/99 (fce) (Entered: 09/23/1999)
3353 STATEMENT of Pulliam & Wright P.A.; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 09/28/1999)
3354 MINUTE ORDER of 9/28/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter fee submissiosn by H. Bellman, N. Martin, and K.Jacobs for August 1999. Objections within 21 days of receipt. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/28/1999)
3355 LETTER to Magistrate Mahoney dated 09/13/99 from Howard Bellman (fce) (Entered: 09/28/1999)
3356 FACILITATORS' FEES AND EXPENSES (Attachments) (fce) (Entered: 09/28/1999)
3357 FACILITATORS' FEES AND EXPENSES (Attachments) (fce) (Entered: 09/28/1999)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 261 of 307

09/29/1999 09/29/1999 09/30/1999 10/01/1999 10/01/1999 10/04/1999
10/12/1999 10/12/1999
10/13/1999 10/15/1999 10/18/1999

3361 LETTER to Magistrate Mahoney dated 09/04/99 from Eugene Eubanks (Attachments) (Received for docketing on 10/05/99) (fce) (Entered: 10/05/1999)
3363 LETTER from Janet Pulliam dated 09/30/99 to Magistrate Judge Mahoney (Attachment) (fce) (Entered: 10/05/1999)
3358 YEAR END IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS REPORT FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE REMEDIAL ORDER FOR THE 1998-1999 SCHOOL YEAR by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed (2 volumes of Attachments); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/01/1999)
3359 MOTION by plaintiffs to extend the litigation schedule for the bad faith/CRO modification hearing ; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/04/1999)
3360 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to extend scheduling order deadlines ; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/04/1999)
3362 MINUTE ORDER of 10/4/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter letter of 09/04/99 from the Master to the court setting forth fees and expenses for the period 08/01/99-08/31/99. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the petition, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $9,591.10 to the Master, representing professional fees of $7,841.25 and reimbursable expenses of $1,749.85, for the above-stated period. The court further orders the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. (For further detail see order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/05/1999)
3364 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defendant's motion to extend scheduling order deadlines [3360-1]; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/13/1999)
3365 MINUTE ORDER of 10/12/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Motions to extend the schedule order are denied [3359-1], [3360-1]. As noted in the order of 09/23/99, timely resolution of motions to modify the CRO is of utmost importance to tehcourt. The court recognizes that Ms. Janet Pulliam, who was previously designated to question the court's expert, may be unable to attend the Jan 17, 2000 hearing. If Ms. Pulliam cannot participate, the court's expert will testify in narrative form. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/13/1999)
3366 SUBMISSION RE FACILITORS' FEES by plaintiffs; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/14/1999)
3367 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for partial unitary status and to modify the comprehensive remedial order ; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/15/1999)
3368 MOTION by plaintiff for modification, clarification and enforcement of

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 262 of 307

10/26/1999 10/26/1999 10/26/1999 10/26/1999

the comprehensive remedial order ; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/19/1999)
3369 MINUTE ORDER of 10/26/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 09/27/99, Pulliam & Wright, P.A., petitioned the court for fees and costs for the month of August 1999. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the petition, and finds that the fees and costs contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $271.60 to Pulliam & Wright, P.A., representing professional fees of $245.00 and reimbursable costs of $26.60, for the above-stated period. The court further orders the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/27/1999)
3370 MINUTE ORDER of 10/26/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 09/16/99, H. Bellman petitioned the court for fees and expenses for August 1999. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the petition, and finds that the fees and expenses contianed therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for the facilitation process. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge agianst and disburse from unallocated carryover monies in Fund 12 the sum of $15,515.85 to Mr. Bellman, respresenting professional fees of $9,975.00 and reimbursable expenses of $5,540.85, for the above-stated period. The court further orders the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accouting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/27/1999)
3371 MINUTE ORDER of 10/26/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 09/28/99, K. Jacobs petitioned the court for fees and expenses for August 1999. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the petition, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for the facilitation process. The court therefore authorizes and idrects the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from unallocated carryover monies in Fund 12 the sum of $2,725.15 to Mr. Jacobs, representing professional fees of $2,643.75 and reimbursable expenses of $81.40, for the above-stated period. The court further orders the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/27/1999)
3372 MINUTE ORDER of 10/26/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 09/28/99, N. Martin petitioned the court for fees and expenses for August 1999. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the petititon, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for the facilitation process. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from unallocated carryover monies in Fund 12 the sum of $1,800.74 to Mr. Martin, representing professional fees of $1,762.50 and

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 263 of 307

10/26/1999 10/26/1999 10/26/1999 10/27/1999 11/01/1999 11/02/1999 11/02/1999
11/02/1999 11/02/1999
11/02/1999 11/03/1999 11/03/1999 11/03/1999

reimbursable expenses of $38.24, for the above-stated period. The court further orders the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auding and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/27/1999)
3373 MINUTE ORDER of 10/26/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter fee petitions from N. Martin and K. Jacobs for September 1999. Objections due within 21 days of receipt. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/27/1999)
3374 FACILITATORS' FEES AND EXPENSES (fce) (Entered: 10/27/1999)
3375 FACILITATORS' FEES AND EXPENSES (fce) (Entered: 10/27/1999)
3376 CURRICULUM Management Audit of the Rockford Public Schools; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 10/28/1999)
3377 STATEMENT OF PULLIAM & WRIGHT (Attachments); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/02/1999)
3378 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 11/03/1999)
3379 MINUTE ORDER of 11/2/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter rule to show cause regarding appointment of Dr. Eugene Eubanks as an expert witness. (For further detail see order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/03/1999)
3380 MOTION by plaintiffs to reconsider 09/23/99 scheduling order, and to reset discovery, expert report and hearing schedule on the pending motions ; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/03/1999)
3381 MINUTE ORDER of 11/2/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : IN order to protect the integrity of privileged communications and work product regarding the pending motions to modify the CRO without sacrificing the detail which the court has demanded in fee submissions, the court excuses all obligations to file fee submissions until after the motions to modify have been ruled upon. Fee submissions may be filed during the interim at the filer's discretion, and will be reviewed and ruled upon in accordance with prior court orders. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/03/1999)
3382 MOTION by plaintiffs to strike or to deny without an evidentiary hearing, defendant RSD's full unitary status motion (Attachments); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/03/1999)
3383 MOTION by plaintiffs to withdraw January 1999 motion for bad faith finding ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/03/1999)
3384 BILLING from Master (fce) (Entered: 11/04/1999)
3385 MINUTE ORDER of 11/3/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Response to plaintiffs' motion to strike or to deny without an evidentiary hearing due 11/10/99. Response limited to 10 pages. Reply due 11/17/99, limited to 5 pages. Plaintiffs' motion to withdraw motion for bad faith findings is allowed. Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider scheduling order is taken under

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 264 of 307

11/03/1999
11/09/1999 11/10/1999 11/10/1999 11/10/1999 11/10/1999 11/10/1999 11/10/1999 11/10/1999 11/10/1999 11/12/1999

advisement to be ruled upon in conjunction with motion to strike. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/04/1999)
3386 MINUTE ORDER of 11/3/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter letter of 10/7/99 from the Master to the court setting forth fees and expenses for the period 9/1/99 - 9/30/99. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directes the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $9,276.16 to the Master, representing professional fees of $8,287.50 and reimbursable expenses of $988.66 for the above stated period. The court further orders the District to retain its copy of this order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/04/1999)
3387 NOTICE by plaintiffs of potential claims and remedies; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/10/1999)
3388 RESPONSE by defendants to plaintiffs' motion to strike (Exhibit); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/12/1999)
3389 COMMENTS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed on Rule to Show Cause; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/12/1999)
3390 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiff's motion to reconsider scheduling order [3380-1] (Exhibit); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/12/1999)
3391 COMMENTS by plaintiffs on 11/02/99 order Re: Scope onf the Master's expert witness participation; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/12/1999)
3392 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for admittance of Charles J. Cooper pro hac vice ; (fee paid) (fce) Modified on 11/24/1999 (Entered: 11/12/1999)
3393 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for attorney Michael Kirk to appear pro hac vice ; (fee paid) (fce) Modified on 11/24/1999 (Entered: 11/12/1999)
3394 AFFIDAVIT of Charles J. Cooper (fce) (Entered: 11/12/1999)
3395 AFFIDAVIT of Michael W. Kirk (fce) (Entered: 11/12/1999)
3396 MINUTE ORDER of 11/12/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter letter of 10/12/99 form H. Bellman setting forth fees and expenses for 09/99. The court has reviewed the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for the facilitation process. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from unallocated carryover monies in Fund 12 the sum of $5,632.54 to Mr. Bellman, representing professional fees of $4,550.00 and reimbursable expenses of $1,082.54, for the above stated period. The court further

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 265 of 307

11/12/1999 11/15/1999 11/15/1999
11/15/1999 11/15/1999
11/16/1999 11/16/1999 11/17/1999 11/17/1999
11/17/1999 11/17/1999
11/18/1999 11/18/1999 11/18/1999

orders the District to retain its copy of this order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/15/1999)
3397 LETTER from Howard S. Bellman to Magistrate Judge Mahoney dated 10/12/99 (fce) (Entered: 11/15/1999)
3398 MASTER'S CONSENT to appointment as court appointed expert; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/16/1999)
3399 MINUTE ORDER of 11/15/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter consent to appointment as Court-appointed expert, provided to the court this date by Dr. Eugene Eubanks via facsimile. Dr. Eubanks has requested that the following persons be allowed to testify at the January 2000 hearing: R. Dnetler, M. Alves, O. Brown, D. Taylor, C. Mitchell, M. Shapiro, and P. Schilling. Comments from the parties upon this request are due 11/22/99. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/16/1999)
3400 REPORT TO THE COURT ON FUNDING by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed (Exhibits); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/16/1999)
3401 MINUTE ORDER of 11/15/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Motions by C. Cooper and M. Kirk for admission pro hac vice and for leave to file appearances are taken as presented this date. Any objections due 11/22/99. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/16/1999)
3402 CONSENT to Appointment as Court Appointed Expert; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/17/1999)
3403 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for attorney Noel Francisco to appear pro hac vice ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/17/1999)
3404 FACILITATORS' FEES AND EXPENSES (fce) (Entered: 11/18/1999)
3405 MINUTE ORDER of 11/17/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter submission from K. Jacobs setting forth fees and expenses for the period October 1999. Objections due within 21 days of receipt. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/18/1999)
Text not available. (Entered: 11/18/1999)
3406 MINUTE ORDER of 11/17/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Motion by N. Francisco for admission pro hac vice and for leave to file appearance taken as presented this date. Objections due by 11/24/99. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/18/1999)
3407 REPLY Memorandum by plaintiff in support of motion to strike; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/19/1999)
3408 REPLY Memorandum by plaintiffs' in support of motion to reset schedule; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/19/1999)
3409 Facilitators' FEES & Expenses (fce) (Entered: 11/19/1999)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 266 of 307

11/18/1999
11/18/1999
11/19/1999 11/22/1999 11/22/1999 11/24/1999 11/24/1999 11/24/1999 11/24/1999 11/24/1999 11/24/1999 11/24/1999
11/24/1999 11/24/1999

3410 MINUTE ORDER of 11/18/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter submission from N. Martin setting forth fees and expenses for the period October 1999. Objections due within 21 days of receipt. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/19/1999)
3421 MINUTE ORDER of 11/18/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Motions by defendant for attorney Michael Kirk to appear pro hac vice is granted [3393-1], motion for admittance of Charles J. Cooper pro hac vice is granted [3392-1] Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/26/1999)
3411 COMMENTS by plaintiffs on defendant's 11/15/99 report to the court on funding; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/22/1999)
3412 Plaintiffs' COMMENTS in Support of the Master's Request to present testimony of his implementation team; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/23/1999)
3413 Defendant's COMMENTS on Master's Consent to appointment as court appointed expert; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/23/1999)
3414 SUPPLEMENTAL Comment by plaintiffs in support of the Master's Request concerncing testimony of his implementation team; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 11/26/1999)
3415 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 11/26/1999)
3416 MINUTE ORDER of 11/24/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter order to show cause regarding appointment of Dr. Paul Schilling as an expert witness. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/26/1999)
3417 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 11/26/1999)
3418 MINUTE ORDER of 11/24/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter order appointing Dr. Eugene Eubanks as an expert witness pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/26/1999)
3419 ORDER (fce) (Entered: 11/26/1999)
3420 MINUTE ORDER of 11/24/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiff's motion to strike is denied. Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider 09/23/99 scheduling order is allowed in part. Notice to Mr. Howard and Mr. Lester by telefacsimile of this order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/26/1999)
3422 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Rockford Board Of Ed by Charles J. Cooper, Michael W. Kirk (fce) (Entered: 11/26/1999)
3423 MINUTE ORDER of 11/24/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 10/26/99, N. Martin submitted a statement setting forth fees and expenses for September 1999. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the petition, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for the facilitation process. The court therefore authorized anad directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from unallocated carryover monies in Fund 12 the sum of $455.28 to Mr. Martin, representing professional fees

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 267 of 307

11/24/1999
11/29/1999 11/30/1999 11/30/1999 11/30/1999
12/03/1999 12/03/1999

of $450.00 and reimbursable expenses of $5.28 for the above stated period. The court further orders the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/26/1999)
3424 MINUTE ORDER of 11/24/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 10/26/99, K. Jacobs submitted a statement setting forth fees and expenses fo September 1999. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the petition, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonable necessary for the facilitation process. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from unallocated carryover monies in Fund 12 the sum of $743.41 to Mr. Jacobs, representing professional fees of $675.00 and reimbursable expenses of $68.41, for the above stated period. The court further order the District to retain its copy of this order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/26/1999)
3425 STATEMENT of Pulliam and Wright (Attachments) (fce) (Entered: 11/29/1999)
3426 PETITION for resolution of residual disputes concerning 1997 fees, and for acceptance of the master's recommendation to approve plaintiffs' 1997 implementation work as reasonable and necessary by plaintiffs' (Attachments); Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/01/1999)
3427 MINUTE ORDER of 11/30/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Motions by defendant for admission pro hac vice and for leave to file appearance by N. Francisco are allowed [3403-1]. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/01/1999)
3428 MINUTE ORDER of 11/30/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 11/01/99, Pulliam & Wright, P.A., submitted fees and costs for the month of September 1999. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the petition, and finds that the fees and costs contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $1,108.13 to Pulliam & Wright, P.A., representing professional fees of $1,050.00 and reimbursable costs of $58.13, for the above-stated period. The court further orders the District to retain its copy of this order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/01/1999)
3429 MOTION by plaintiff to modify, clarify and enforce the CRO (Exhibits); Notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 12/06/1999)
3431 MINUTE ORDER of 12/3/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic discovery conference held at request of parties. Enter order as stated telephonically. Parties to file transcript of discovery conference for the

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 268 of 307

12/06/1999 12/07/1999 12/07/1999 12/07/1999
12/07/1999 12/07/1999
12/10/1999 12/10/1999 12/10/1999 12/10/1999 12/10/1999 12/10/1999

court file. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/07/1999)
3430 Defendants' COMMENTS concerning the appointment of Dr. Paul Schilling as an expert witness (fce) (Entered: 12/07/1999)
3432 Plaintiffs' COMMENTS concerning the appointment of Dr. Paul Schilling as an expert witness; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/08/1999)
3433 INVOICE from Mediator, Howard S. Bellman (fce) (Entered: 12/08/1999)
3434 MINUTE ORDER of 12/7/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : the parties have indicated that they have no objections to the appointment of Dr. Paul Schilling as an expert witness pursuant to Rule 706(a). This order will make final Dr. Schilling's appointment upon the terms set forth in the court's order of 11/24/99. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/08/1999)
3435 MINUTE ORDER of 12/7/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Filed plaintiffs' discovery motion. Plaintiffs' motion to compel is allowed in part and denied in part. Defendants to respond to discovery requests as stated in open court. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/08/1999)
3436 MINUTE ORDER of 12/7/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter letter of 11/3/99 from H. Bellman setting forth fees and expenses for October 1999. The court has reviewed the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for the facilitation process. The court therefore authorizes and directs the rockford School District to charge against and disburse from unallocated carryover monies in Fund 12 the sum of $9,166.70 to Mr. Bellman, representating professional fees of $8,225.00 and reimbursable expenses of $941.70, for the above stated period. The court further orders the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/08/1999)
3437 Facilitators FEES & Expenses (fce) (Entered: 12/13/1999)
3438 BILLING from Eugene Eubanks (fce) (Entered: 12/13/1999)
3439 Facilitators FEES and EXPENSES (fce) (Entered: 12/13/1999)
3440 LETTER to Magistrate Mahoney from Eugene E. Eubanks dated 12/7/99 (fce) (Entered: 12/13/1999)
3441 MINUTE ORDER of 12/10/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter letter from N. Martin to the court setting forth fees and expenses for November 1999. Objections due within 21 days of receipt. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/13/1999)
3442 MINUTE ORDER of 12/10/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter letter from K. jacobs to the court setting forth fees and expenses for November 1999. Objections due within 21 days of receipt. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/13/1999)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 269 of 307

12/10/1999
12/10/1999 12/13/1999 12/14/1999 12/15/1999 12/15/1999 12/16/1999
12/16/1999

3443 MINUTE ORDER of 12/10/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter letter of 11/5/99 from E. Eubankis to the court setting forth fees and expenses for October 1999. Enter letter of 12/7/99 from E. Eubanks to the court noting certain corections to the same. A full 21 days has passed without objection from the parties to the November 7 submission. Any objections to the December 7 submission, which results in a net decrease of fees and expenses for the period, are due by 12/17. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/13/1999)
3444 MINUTE ORDER of 12/10/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Response to plaintiffs' petition for resolution of residual fee disputes concerning CY 1997 fees due 12/23/99. Reply due 12/30/99. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/13/1999)
3445 MOTION by plaintiffs in limine regarding application of the deliberative process privilege ; Notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/14/1999)
3446 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 12/7/99 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 12/14/1999)
3447 MINUTE ORDER of 12/15/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs' motion in limine is taken as presented this date and is denied without prejudice [3445-1]. (For further detail see order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/17/1999)
3455 MINUTE ORDER of 12/15/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for additional experts, received this date by telefacsimile. Plaintiffs' motion for additional experts is taken as presented and denied. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/23/1999)
3448 MINUTE ORDER of 12/16/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 11/18/99 N. Martin petitioned the court for fees and expenses for 10/99. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the petition and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for the facilitation process. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from unallocated carryover monies in Fund 12 the sum of $486.97 to Mr. Martin, representing professional fees of $475.00 and reimbursable expenses of $11.97 for the above-stated period. The court further orders the District to retain its copy of this order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/17/1999)
3450 MINUTE ORDER of 12/16/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 11/17/99, K. Jacobs petitioned thecourt for fees and expenses for 10/99. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the petition, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for the facilitation process. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from unallocated carryover monies in Fund 12 the sum of $717.36 to Mr. Jacobs, representing professional fess of $712.00 and reimbursable expenses of $5.36, for the above-stated period. The court

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 270 of 307

12/17/1999 12/23/1999 12/23/1999 12/23/1999 12/23/1999 12/23/1999
12/23/1999 12/27/1999
12/27/1999
12/28/1999 12/30/1999 01/03/2000

further orders the District to retain its copy of this order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/17/1999)
3449 MOTION by plaintiffs for additional expert witnesses ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/17/1999)
3451 REPLY by plaintiffs in support of their motion for additional rebuttal experts (fce) (Entered: 12/23/1999)
3452 RESPONSE by defendants to plaintiffs' motion to extend the time for submission of plaintiffs' rebuttal expert reports; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/23/1999)
3453 RESPONSE by defendants to plaintiffs' motion for additional expert witnesses; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/23/1999)
3454 MOTION by plaintiffs to extend the time for submission of plaintiffs' rebuttal expert reports ; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 12/23/1999)
3456 MINUTE ORDER of 12/23/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic hearing held. Plaintiffs' motion for extension of time for submission of rebuttal expert reports presented and allowed in part. Rebuttal expert reports due 1/10/00. Production of witness lists and marking of exhibits pursuant to Rule 26(a)(3) by 1/14/00. Discovery hearing set for 1:30 1/13/00. All counsel, including trial counsel, are to appear. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/23/1999)
3457 REPLY by plaintiffs in support of their motion for additional rebuttal experts; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 12/23/1999)
3459 MINUTE ORDER of 12/27/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Pursuant to Rule 60(a), the court corrects a clerical error in thecourt order denying plaintiffs' motion for leave to present additional rebuttal experts. The order bore the incorrect date of 12/15/99. The order was issued, filed with the clerk of court, and forwarded by telefacsimile to the offices of J. Matlack and T. Lester on 12/23/99. No notice (fce) (Entered: 12/29/1999)
3460 MINUTE ORDER of 12/27/99 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Schedule for submissions regarding CY1997 fees is reset by agreement of parties. Response due 12/30/99. Reply due 1/7/00. Telephoned notice (fce) (Entered: 12/29/1999)
3458 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 12/23/99 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 12/29/1999)
3461 OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' fees for calendar year 1997 (fce) (Entered: 01/03/2000)
3462 MINUTE ORDER of 1/3/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to Make payment to Pulliam & Wright, PA as outlined on the reverse. (For further detail see order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/04/2000)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 271 of 307

01/03/2000
01/05/2000 01/05/2000
01/06/2000 01/06/2000 01/07/2000 01/07/2000 01/07/2000 01/07/2000 01/07/2000 01/07/2000

3463 MINUTE ORDER of 1/3/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The Master has submitted to the court his fees and expenses for October 1999. Certain mathematical errors in the submission were addressed in a letter of 12/7/99 from the Master to the court. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the submission and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $13,181.57 to the Master, representing professional fees of $11,411.25 and reimbursable expenses of $1,770.32, for the above stated period. The court further orders the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/04/2000)
3464 Third MOTION by plaintiff for discovery ; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 01/06/2000)
3465 MINUTE ORDER of 1/5/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Discoveyr conference held at request of the parties. Plaintfifs' oral motion to compel production of data or algorithms sufficient to link teacher data to student course data is denied. All other issues raised by plaintiffs' third motion to compel will be considered by the court upon presentment of the motion on 1/7/00. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/07/2000)
3466 Emergency MOTION by plaintiff for reconsideration ; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 01/07/2000)
3467 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to compel ; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 01/07/2000)
3468 MINUTE ORDER of 1/7/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Schedule for submissions regarding CY1997 fees is reset by agreement and request of parties. Reply due 1/11/00. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/10/2000)
3469 MINUTE ORDER of 1/7/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to make payment to K. jacobs as outlined on the reverse. (For further detail see order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/10/2000)
3470 MINUTE ORDER of 1/7/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter letter received 1/7/00 from K. Jacobs to the court setting forth fees and expenses for December 1999. Copies of the same to be provided to the parties with this minute order. Objections due within 21 days of receipt. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/10/2000)
3471 LETTER from Karl Jacobs (fce) (Entered: 01/10/2000)
3472 LETTER from Eugene Eubanks dated 12/5/99 (fce) (Entered: 01/10/2000)
3473 MINUTE ORDER of 1/7/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter letter of 12/9/99 from the Master to the court setting forth fees and expenses for

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 272 of 307

01/07/2000
01/07/2000
01/10/2000 01/10/2000 01/11/2000 01/12/2000

November 1999. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $10,031.97 to the Master, representing professional fees of $8,266.25 (for 97.25 itemized hours) and reimbursable expenses of $1,765.72, for the above state period. The court further orders the District to retain its copy of this order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/10/2000)
3474 MINUTE ORDER of 1/7/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 12/10/99, N. Martin petitioned the court for fees and expenses for November 1999. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the petition, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for the facilitation process. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disubrse from unallocated carryover monies in Fund 12 the sum of $612.14 to Mar. Martin, representing professional fees of $600.00 and reimbursable expenses of $12.14 for the above stated period. The court further orders the District to retain its copy of this order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/10/2000)
3475 MINUTE ORDER of 1/7/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery hearing held. Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider is allowed on the basis of prior agreement reached between the parties. Defendant to produce material sufficient to link teacher and student course data. Plaintiffs' third discovery motion is allowed in part. Defendant to confirm with their experts that all material relied upon in preparing 26(a)(2) reports has been made available to plaintiffs. Supplemental rebuttal expert reports are due 1/14/00. Exchange of witness lists and marking of documents by 1/21/00. Defendants' motion to compel is allowed in part. Plaintiffs to respond to interrogatories and documents requests by 1/14/00. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/11/2000)
3476 MINUTE ORDER of 1/10/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter letter from N. Martin setting forth fees and expenses for December 1999. Objections due within 21 days of receipt. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/11/2000)
3477 LETTER from N. Martin (fce) (Entered: 01/11/2000)
3478 REPLY Memorandum by plaintiffs' in support of its petition for resolution of residual disputes concerning 1997 fees, and for acceptance of the master's recommendation to approve pliantiffs' 1997 implementation work as reasonable and necessary; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/12/2000)
3479 MOTION by plaintiffs to extend hearing date (fce) (Entered: 01/14/2000)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 273 of 307

01/12/2000 01/13/2000
01/13/2000
01/14/2000 01/18/2000 01/18/2000 01/19/2000 01/19/2000 01/21/2000
01/21/2000 01/21/2000

3480 Fourth MOTION by plaintiffs for discovery (fce) (Entered: 01/14/2000)
3482 MINUTE ORDER of 1/13/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery conference held. Plaintiffs' fourth and fifth discovery motions are allowed in part. District to produce disaggregated discipline data in computer form by 1/17/00. District to respond to plaintiff's interrogatories 7, 8 and 9 by 1/19/00. District to make a reasonable attempt, which need not exceed 2 days effort by one individual, to link teacher and student course data. Plaintiff allowed leave until 1/24/00 to serve the supplemental 26(a) (2) report by Dr. Orfield. Plaintiffs' motion to extend the 2/14/00 hearing date is denied. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/14/2000)
3483 MINUTE ORDER of 1/13/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Janet Pulliam, as counsel responsible for questioning the expert witnesses appointed under Rule 706, indicated to the court during the discovery conference held this date that disagreement has arisen regarding the production of material not specifically relied upon by the 706 experts in preparing their reports pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2). No concrete dispute is currently before the court, but in order to facilitate prompt completion of depositions presently scheduled the court will indicate that the 706 experts are expected to provide all "data or other information considered by the witness(es) in forming the opinion" pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(B). Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/14/2000)
3481 Fifth MOTION by plaintiffs for discovery (fce) (Entered: 01/14/2000)
3484 MINUTE ORDER of 1/18/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : enter letter of 1/18/00 from W. Trapp to the court. No notice (fce) (Entered: 01/19/2000)
3485 LETTER to Magistrate Mahoney from W. Trapp dated 1/18/00 (fce) (Entered: 01/19/2000)
3486 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' fourth discovery motion (fce) (Entered: 01/21/2000)
3487 STATEMENT of Pulliam and Wright; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/21/2000)
3488 MINUTE ORDER of 1/21/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter letter of 1/20/00 to the court from J. Pulliam on behalf of P. Schilling. As requested, and in light of the recent death in Dr. Schilling's family, the court will allow an additional 5 days for service of Dr. Schilling's expert report. Dr. Schilling's report will be due on 2/3/00. The court extend its own condolences to dr. Schilling and his family, has has no doubt that all counsel will extend Dr. Schilling the greatest of courtesies, both professional and personal, in matters of scheduling. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/24/2000)
3489 LETTER to Magistrate Mahoney from Janet Pulliam dated 1/20/00 (fce) (Entered: 01/24/2000)
3490 Copy of LETTER sent to Howard Bellman, Karl Jacobs and Nathaniel

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 274 of 307

01/24/2000 01/24/2000 01/24/2000 01/24/2000 01/24/2000 01/25/2000 01/25/2000 01/25/2000 01/25/2000 01/25/2000 01/25/2000
01/25/2000

Martin from Magistrate Mahoney dated 1/21/00 (fce) (Entered: 01/24/2000)
3491 Master's SUBMISSION entitled "Rockford Leavers: A Survey of Parents Who Withdrew from the Rockford Public Schools after the 1998-1999 Year"; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/25/2000)
3492 MOTION by plaintiffs to extend hearing date ; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 01/25/2000)
3493 MOTION by plaintiffs to modify order limiting the number of witnesses who may testify at trial (fce) (Entered: 01/25/2000)
3494 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to compel production of Rule 26(a)(3) Witness Disclosures ; notice of motion (fce) (Entered: 01/25/2000)
3495 MEMORANDUM by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed in opposition to plaintiffs' renewed motion to extend the hearing date; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/25/2000)
3496 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 1/5/00 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 01/26/2000)
3497 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 1/7/00 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 01/26/2000)
3498 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 1/13/00 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 01/26/2000)
3499 INVOICE from Howard Bellman dated 12/21/99 (fce) (Entered: 01/26/2000)
3500 MINUTE ORDER of 1/25/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : iDefendants' oral motion to extend fact discovery cutoff date is allowed in part. Deposition of fact witnesses to be completed by 2/11/00. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/26/2000)
3501 MINUTE ORDER of 1/25/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter letter of 12/28/99 from H. Bellman setting forth fees and expenses for November 1999. The court has reviewed the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for the facilitation process. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from unallocated carryover monies in Fund 12 the sum of $11,486.43 to mr. Bellman, representing professional fees of $4,287.50 and reimbursable expenses of $7,198.93, for the above stated period. The court further orders the District to retain its copy of this order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/26/2000)
3502 MINUTE ORDER of 1/25/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Hearing held. Plaintiffs' motion to extend hearing date is presented and denied. Plaintiffs' motion to modify witness limitation is allowed in part. Prior

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 275 of 307

01/27/2000 01/28/2000
01/28/2000 01/28/2000 02/04/2000 02/04/2000 02/04/2000 02/04/2000
02/04/2000

limitation to 7 fact witnesses is stricken. Prior limitation to 3 epxert witnesses remains in force. Each side will be allowed 5 days to present their cases. This time limitation may be adjusted during trial, in light of evidence which has been presented, upon showing of a resonable need for additional time to provide reasonably accurate and complete information to the court. Parties are allowed leave to update their Rule 26 (a)(3) witness lists in light of this modification to the scheduling order by 1/28/00. Defendants' motion to compel is denied without prejudice. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/26/2000)
3503 REPORT of Court Appointed Expert; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 01/27/2000)
3504 MINUTE ORDER of 1/28/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic discovery conference held at request of parties. Plaintiffs' oral motion to reschedule deposition of C. Rossell is allowed in part. Deposition is to go forward on 1/31 as scheduled, but defendnats are also to make Ms. Rossell available on 2/5 for reasonable questioning concerning documents which were produced to plaintiffs this date. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/31/2000)
3505 MINUTE ORDER of 1/28/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter expert report submitted to the court this date by P. Schilling. Copies to all counsel of record to accompany this order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/31/2000)
3506 CRO Financial Study (fce) (Entered: 01/31/2000)
3507 Facilitator's FEES & Expenses (fce) (Entered: 02/07/2000)
3508 LETTER to Magistrate Mahoney from Eugene Eubanks dated 1/4/00 (fce) (Entered: 02/07/2000)
3509 MINUTE ORDER of 2/4/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter statement from K. Jacobs setting forth fees and expenses for January 2000. Parties to receive copies of the statement along with this minute order. Objections due within 21 days of receipt. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/07/2000)
3510 MINUTE ORDER of 2/4/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic conference held. Counsel for plaintiffs has requested, without objection, a 7-day continuance of the February hearing in light of a personal loss recently suffered by her family. That continuance is allowed. The resulting hearing schedule must unfortunately include some interruption. The court will convene the hearing on the following dates: February 21 (otherwise a federal holiday; the courthouse will beopened for purposes of this hearing only) through February 25; February 28 through March 2; March 9; and March 13 through March 16, as necessary to complete the haring within the time limitations established by the court. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/07/2000)
3511 MINUTE ORDER of 2/4/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter letter of 1/4/00 from E. Eubanks to the court setting forth fees and expenses for

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 276 of 307

02/04/2000
02/04/2000
02/07/2000 02/07/2000 02/07/2000 02/07/2000

December 1999. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disubrse from Fund 12 the sum of $10,031.97 to Dr. Eubanks, representing professional fees of $10,051.25 and reimbursable expenses of $2,213.55, for the above-stated period. The court further orders the District to retain its coy of this Order and all underlying materials for such fuure auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/07/2000)
3512 MINUTE ORDER of 2/4/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 1/10/00 N. Martin submitted a statement setting forth fees and expenses for December 1999. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the petition, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for the facilitation process. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from unallocated carryover monies in Fund 12 the sum of $1,085.45 to Mr. Martin, representing professional fees of $1,075.00 and reimburseable expenses of $10.45, for the above stated period. the court further orders the District to retain its copy of this order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes a sthe court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/07/2000)
3513 MINUTE ORDER of 2/4/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 1/7/00 K. Jacobs submitted a statement setting forth fees and expenses for December 1999. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the petition, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for the facilitation process. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from unallocated carryover monies in Fund 12 the sum of $1,596.48 to Mr. Jacobs, representing professional fees of $1,537.50 and reimbursable expenses of $58.98 for the above stated period. The court further orders the District to retain its copy of this order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/07/2000)
3514 Eugene E. Eubanks' MOTION to supplement or correct report of court appointed expert ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/08/2000)
3515 Second MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to compel ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/08/2000)
3516 Facilitators' FEES & Expenses (fce) (Entered: 02/08/2000)
3517 MINUTE ORDER of 2/7/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter statement from N. Martin setting forth fees and expenses for January 2000. Parties to receive copies of the statement along with this minute order. Objections due within 21 days of receipt. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/08/2000)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 277 of 307

02/08/2000 02/08/2000
02/08/2000
02/09/2000 02/09/2000 02/09/2000 02/10/2000 02/10/2000 02/10/2000 02/10/2000 02/11/2000 02/11/2000 02/11/2000
02/14/2000

3518 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to compel ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/09/2000)
3519 MINUTE ORDER of 2/8/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter letter of 2/4/00 from Dr. P. Schilling to the court. Requests by both Dr. Schilling and Dr. Eubanks to amend their expert reports pursuant to Rule 26(e) are allowed. Enter corrected expert report provided to the court by Dr. Schilling. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/09/2000)
3520 MINUTE ORDER of 2/8/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendants' motion for production of Rule 26(a)(3) disclosures is allowed. Plaintiffs are to separately identify those witnesses whom they expect to present and those whom they may call if the need arises at trial. Disclosure to be made by 2/10/00. Notice to Mr. Howard and Mr. Lester by telefacsimile of this order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/09/2000)
3521 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 1/25/00 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (fce) (Entered: 02/10/2000)
3522 Financial REPORT by Paul Schilling (fce) (Entered: 02/10/2000)
3523 CRO FINANCIAL Study (fce) (Entered: 02/10/2000)
3524 MOTION by plaintiffs' to compel (fce) (Entered: 02/11/2000)
3525 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' defendant's motion to compel; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/11/2000)
3526 Eugene E. Eubanks' MOTION to supplement or correct report of court appointed expert ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/11/2000)
3527 STATEMENT of Pulliam & Wright, PA; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/11/2000)
3528 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' motion to compel; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/14/2000)
3529 MINUTE ORDER of 2/11/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Request by court-appointed expert Dr. Eugene Eubanks for leave to supplement his expert report is allowed. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/14/2000)
3530 MINUTE ORDER of 2/11/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : In resposne to an informal inquiry from the Master, the court notes a clerical error in the minute order of 2/4/00 regarding payment of fees and expenses. The professional fees and reimbursable expenses were stated correctly, but their total should have been stated as $12,264.80. The court hereby amends the 2/4/00 order to authorize and direct the District to charge against and disburse the sum of $12,264.80 to Dr. Eubanks. The court further directs the District to maintain their copy of this order for such future auditing and/or acocunting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/14/2000)
3531 Third MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to compel ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 02/15/2000)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 278 of 307

02/15/2000
02/17/2000 02/17/2000 02/17/2000 02/17/2000
02/17/2000
02/18/2000

3532 MINUTE ORDER of 2/15/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 1/19/00, Pulliam & Wright, P.A. submitted fees and costs for the period November 16 to December 15, 1999. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the petition, and finds that the fees and costs contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $17,922.64 to Pulliam & Wright, P.A. representing professional fees of $13,392.50 and reimbursable costs of $4,530.14, for the above-stated period. The court further order the District to retain its copy of this order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes a sthe court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/16/2000)
3533 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defendant's third motion to compel [3531-1] production of rule 26(a)(3) witness disclosures and to strike witnesses from plaintiffs' witness list (Exhibits). (aew) (Entered: 02/22/2000)
3534 PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM by plaintiff. (aew) (Entered: 02/22/2000)
3535 NOTICE by plaintiff of filing and certificate of service of response [3533-1] and pretrial memorandum [3534-1] (aew) (Entered: 02/22/2000)
3536 MINUTE ORDER of 2/17/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs' motion to compel or to strike [3524-1] is allowed in part. Plaintiffs may supplement the rebuttal report by Dr. Oakes by 2/23/00. Defendants' motion to compel [3518-1] is allowed in part. Plaintiffs are to produce the batabase used by Dr. Kupermintz and identify all queries run against that database which resulted in data that were [3531-1] is allowed in part. The following witnesses are struck from Plaintiffs' 26(a)(3) witness list: Drs. Shapiro, Cooper, Cowen, Datnow, Franke, Hartman, Kupermintz and Werner; Messrs. Hess and Moyer; and Mesdames Dooley and Hammond. the court reserves the right to call the testimony of any of these witnesses if necessary to clarify other testimony elicited during the hearing. Mailed notice (aew) (Entered: 02/22/2000)
3537 MINUTE ORDER of 2/17/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs' motion to compel or to strike [3524-1] is allowed in part. Plaintiffs may supplement the rebuttal report by Dr. Oakes by 2/23/00 by 2/23/00. Defendants' motion to compel [3518-1] is allowed in part. Plaintiffs are to identify all databases used by Dr. Kupermintz, all protocols used to merge databases, and all queries which generated data considered in the preparation of Dr. Oakes' expert report. Defendants' motion to strike [3531-1] is allowed in part. The following witnesses are struck from Plaintiffs' 26(a)(3) witness list: Drs. Shapiro, Cooper wen, Datnow, Franke, Hartmaan, Kupermintz, and Werner; Messrs. Hess and Moyer; and Mesdames Dooley and Hammond. The court reserves the right to call the testimony of any of these witnesses if necessary to clarify other testimony elicted during the hearing. Mailed notice (aew) (Entered: 02/22/2000)
3538 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 02/17/00 Before

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 279 of 307

02/18/2000
02/18/2000 02/21/2000 02/21/2000
02/22/2000 02/22/2000 02/22/2000 02/22/2000
02/22/2000 02/22/2000 02/22/2000 02/23/2000

Honorable Mahoney (aew) (Entered: 02/22/2000)
3539 MINUTE ORDER of 2/18/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter letter of 12/28/99 from H. Bellman setting forth fees and expenses for November 1999. The court has reviewed the submission, and now authorizes and directs the District to make payment to Mr. Bellman as outlined on the reverse. The court further orders the district to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. (See reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (aew) (Entered: 02/22/2000)
3540 LETTER from Howard S. Bellman dated 1/20/00 regarding expenses (Attachments). (aew) (Entered: 02/22/2000)
3541 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed in limine to exlude expert reports. (aew) (Entered: 02/22/2000)
3542 MINUTE ORDER of 2/21/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Bench trial convened and continued to 9:15 2/22/00. Plaintiffs' oral motion to compel is allowed in part. Plaintiffs are allowed leave to reconvene the deposition of Dr. Dueschel for two hours. Deposition to be completed by 2/24/00. No notice (aew) (Entered: 02/22/2000)
3543 MOTION by plaintiffs to strike revised exhibits or to extend time for submission of Oakes' supplemental report (aew) (Entered: 02/22/2000)
3543 MOTION by plaintiffs to strike revised exhibits or to extend time for submission of Oakes' supplemental report ; Notice of filing (aew) (Entered: 02/22/2000)
3544 MOTION by plaintiff to bar defendant's supplemental expert reports ; Notice of filing (Attachments). (aew) (Entered: 02/22/2000)
3545 MINUTE ORDER of 2/22/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Bench trial held and continued to 9:30 2/23/00. Defendants' oral motion to quash subpoena is denied. Plaintiffs are allowed leave to notice the deposition of Mr. W. Neblock. Deposition limited to 90 minutes. Mailed notice (aew) (Entered: 02/24/2000)
3546 MOTION by plaintiffs for leave to file appearance of Venita Hervey as additional counsel ; Notice of filing. (aew) (Entered: 02/24/2000)
3547 MOTION by plaintiff to bar defendant's supplemental expert reports ; (Exhibits). Notice of filing. (aew) (Entered: 02/24/2000)
3548 MOTION by plaintiffs to strike revised exhibits or to extend time for submission of Oakes' supplemental report ; Notice of filing. (aew) (Entered: 02/24/2000)
3549 MINUTE ORDER of 2/23/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : In response to an informal inquiry from Mr. H. Bellman, the court notes that the 2/18/00 minute order regarding fees and expenses submitted by him contains a clerical error. The minute order should reference a letter from Mr. Bellman to the court dated 1/25/00 setting forth fees and expenses

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 280 of 307

02/23/2000 02/23/2000 02/23/2000
02/23/2000
02/23/2000 02/24/2000 02/25/2000 02/25/2000 02/28/2000 02/28/2000

for December 1999. The authority and obligation of the District to make payment to Mr. Bellman in the amounts set forth in the 2/18/00 order remain unchanged. [3539-1] Mailed notice (aew) (Entered: 02/24/2000)
3550 RESPONSE by defendants to motion to bar defendant's rebuttal expert reports [3547-1] (Exhibits). (aew) (Entered: 02/24/2000)
3551 CORRECTED EXHIBIT A by plaintiffs to their motion to bar defendant's supplemental expert reports [3547-1]; Notice of filing. (aew) (Entered: 02/24/2000)
3552 MINUTE ORDER of 2/23/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs' motion to bar defendant's expert reports is denied [3544-1] [3547-1]. Plaintiffs' motion to strike revised exhibits [3548-1] is denied in part and allowed in part. Plaintiffs will be allowed leave to supplement the reports of their own experts as necessary to respond to the recently-produced material. Parties are to meet and confer to develop a timeframe for supplementation of Plaintiffs' expert reports. This timeframe will allow supplementation before the dates upon which Plaintiffs' experts are expected to testify. No notice (aew) Modified on 02/24/2000 (Entered: 02/24/2000)
3553 MINUTE ORDER of 2/23/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendants' motion in limine to exclude expert reports [3541-1] is denied without prejudice. The court expects that the variety of reports at issue are not necessarily amenable to wholesale treatment. The court will entertain objections to the reports on a case-by-case basis as they are introduced into evidence. No notice (aew) (Entered: 02/24/2000)
3554 MINUTE ORDER of 2/23/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Bench trial held and continued to 9:15 2/24/00 . Mailed notice (aew) (Entered: 02/25/2000)
3556 MINUTE ORDER of 2/24/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Bench trial held & continued to 9:15 2/25/00 . Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/29/2000)
3555 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to clarify the court's order of 2/23/00 (Exhibits). (aew) (Entered: 02/25/2000)
3557 MINUTE ORDER of 2/25/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Bench trial held & continued to 9:15 2/28/00 . Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/29/2000)
3558 MINUTE ORDER of 2/28/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Bench trial held & continued to 9:15 2/29/00 . No notice (fce) (Entered: 02/29/2000)
3559 MINUTE ORDER of 2/28/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The court's order of 2/23/00 referenced certain "recently-produced material". That reference encompassed both the expert reports addressed in plaintiffs' motion to bar and the revised exhibits addressed in plaintiffs' motion to strike. Insofar as defendants' motion for clarification urges a differing interpretation, that motion is denied. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered:

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 281 of 307

02/29/2000 03/01/2000 03/02/2000 03/02/2000 03/02/2000
03/02/2000
03/02/2000

02/29/2000)
3560 MINUTE ORDER of 2/29/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Bench trial held & continued to 9:15 3/1/00. By agreement of all parties, and in light of the scheduling demads placed upon all involved by the present trial, the court extends the deadline for submission of the Master's FY 2001 staffing report to 3/17/00. No notice (fce) (Entered: 03/02/2000)
3561 MINUTE ORDER of 3/1/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Bench trial held & continued to 9:15 3/2/00 . No notice (fce) (Entered: 03/02/2000)
3562 MINUTE ORDER of 3/2/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Bench trial held & continued to 9:15 3/9/00 . No notice (fce) (Entered: 03/02/2000)
3563 BILLING from Eugene E. Eubanks (fce) (Entered: 03/03/2000)
3564 MINUTE ORDER of 3/2/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter letter of 2/7/00 from E. Eubanks to the court setting forht fees and expenses for January 2000. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $14,294.28 to Dr. Eubanks, representing professional fees of $12,835.00 and reimbursable expenses of $1,459.28, for the above stated period. The court further orders the District to retain its copy of this order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/03/2000)
3565 MINUTE ORDER of 3/2/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 2/7/00, N. Martin submitted a statement setting forth fees and expenses for January 2000. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the petition, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for the facilitation process. the court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from unallocated carryover monies in Fund 12 the sum of $450.00 to Mar. Martin, representing professional fees of $450.00, for the above-stated period. The court further orders the District to retain its copy of this order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/03/2000)
3566 MINUTE ORDER of 3/2/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 2/4/00, K. Jacobs submitted a statement setting forth fees and expenses for January 2000. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the petition, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for the facilitation process. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from unallocated carryover monies in Fund 12 the sum of $693.66 to Mr. Jacobs, representing professional fees of $675.00 and reimbursable expenses of $18.66 for the above-stated period. The court further orders the District to retain its copy of this order and all

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 282 of 307

03/06/2000 03/06/2000
03/08/2000 03/08/2000
03/09/2000 03/09/2000 03/09/2000
03/09/2000 03/09/2000 03/10/2000 03/10/2000 03/10/2000 03/10/2000 03/10/2000 03/11/2000

underlyiung materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/03/2000)
3567 Copy of LETTER to Bob Howard from Paul Schilling dated 2/17/00 (fce) (Entered: 03/08/2000)
3568 MINUTE ORDER of 3/6/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter letter of 2/17/00 from P. Schilling to r. Howard responding to certain inquiries regarding Dr. Schilling's expert report. Copies of the letter to accompany this minute order to all counsel of record. Mailed notice (fce) Modified on 03/08/2000 (Entered: 03/08/2000)
3569 MEMORANDUM Regarding Recent Decision in Missouri v. Jenkins; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/09/2000)
3570 Plaintiffs' MEMORANDUM in support of the admissibility of the testimony of Dr. Garth Taylor; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/09/2000)
3571 MOTION by plaintiffs to compel defendant's witness to answer deposition questions ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/10/2000)
3572 MOTION by plaintiffs for leave to present witnesses by deposition and designation of materials already in the record (fce) (Entered: 03/10/2000)
3573 MOTION by plaintiffs for instructions concerning the timing of certain cross examination of the court's expert Dr. Eubanks ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/10/2000)
3574 STATUS REPORT on School Desegreation of the Rockford Public Schools; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/10/2000)
3575 A Summary EVALUATION of Magnet Schools in the Rockford Public School District No. 205; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/10/2000)
3576 SUPPLEMENTAL Statement by plaintiffs in support of motion to compel; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/13/2000)
3577 RESPONSE by defendants to plaintiffs' request for instructions concerning the testimony of Dr. Eubanks (fce) (Entered: 03/13/2000)
3578 MOTION by defendant in limine to exclude certain testimony by Dr. Eubanks (fce) (Entered: 03/13/2000)
3579 MOTION by defendant in limine to exclude dertain testimony of plaintiffs' expert Dr. Gary Orfield (fce) (Entered: 03/13/2000)
3580 RESPONSE by defendant to plaintiffs' motion to compel (fce) (Entered: 03/13/2000)
3581 MINUTE ORDER of 3/11/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter order nunc pro tunc 3/9/00: Bench trial held & continued to 9:15 3/11/00. Response to plaintiffs' motion to compel answer to depositoin questions due 3/10/00 at 3:00 p.m. No notice (fce) (Entered: 03/14/2000)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 283 of 307

03/11/2000 03/11/2000 03/13/2000 03/13/2000 03/13/2000 03/13/2000
03/13/2000
03/13/2000 03/14/2000

3582 MINUTE ORDER of 3/11/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Bench trial held & continued to 9:15 3/13/00. No notice (fce) (Entered: 03/14/2000)
3583 MINUTE ORDER of 3/11/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs' motion to compel deposition testimony is denied. (For further detail see order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/14/2000)
3584 Howard Bellman's 7th INVOICE for facilitation services and travel expenses (fce) (Entered: 03/14/2000)
3585 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' motion for leave to present witnesses by deposition and plaintiffs' designation of materials already in the record (fce) (Entered: 03/14/2000)
3586 MINUTE ORDER of 3/13/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendant has moved to exclude certain testimony by Dr. Gary orfield, designated as an expert witness for plaintiffs. Upon representation from counsel that plaintiffs will not offer the testimony in question, the motion is withdrawn without prejudice. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/14/2000)
3587 MINUTE ORDER of 3/13/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter letter of 2/14/00 from H. Bellman to the court setting forth fees and expenses for January 2000. The court has reviewed the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for the facilitation process. The court therefore authroizes and directs the rockford School District to charge against and disburse from unallocated carryover monies in Fund12 the sum of $5,400.65 to Mr. Bellman, representing professional fees of $4,287.50 and reimbursable expenses of $1,113.15 for the above stated period. The court further directs the District to retain its copy of this order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/14/2000)
3588 MINUTE ORDER of 3/13/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On 2/10/00 Pulliam & Wright P.A. submitted fees and expenses for the period 12/16/99 through 1/19/00. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the petition and finds that the fees and costs contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $27,043.89 to Pulliam & Wright P.A. represneting professional fees of $23,219.00 and reimbursable costs of $3,824.89 for the above stated period. The court further directs the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/14/2000)
3589 MINUTE ORDER of 3/13/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Bench trial held & continued to 9:15 3/14/00. No notice (fce) (Entered: 03/14/2000)
3590 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defendant's motion in limine to exclude certain testimony by Dr. Eubanks; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/14/2000)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 284 of 307

03/14/2000 03/15/2000 03/15/2000
03/15/2000 03/16/2000 03/16/2000
03/20/2000
03/20/2000 03/20/2000 03/20/2000 03/21/2000

3591 MINUTE ORDER of 3/14/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Bench trial held & continued to 9:15 3/15/00. No notice (fce) (Entered: 03/16/2000)
3592 REPLY Brief by plaintiffs in support of request for instructions concerning the timing of certain cross examination of the court's expert Dr. Eubanks (fce) (Entered: 03/16/2000)
3593 MINUTE ORDER of 3/15/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Bench trial held & continued to 9:15 3/16/00. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to submit deposition testimony allowed in part as stated in open court. Plaintiffs' oral motion to bar testimony of William Trapp is denied. Defendnats to produce Mr. Trapp for deposition as stated in open court, granscript to be filed as additional cross and re-direct examination. Defendants' motion in limine to exclude testimony by Eugene Eubanks denied as stated in open court. No notices (fce) (Entered: 03/16/2000)
3594 RESPONSE by plaintiff Leonardo Medrano to defendant's motion in limine to exclude certain testimony by Dr. Eubanks; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/16/2000)
3595 MINUTE ORDER of 3/16/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The temporary stay of submissions for reimbursement of fees and expenses is lifted. Any submissions which were withheld during the stay are due 3/31/00. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/20/2000)
3596 MINUTE ORDER of 3/16/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Bench trial completed and taken under advisement. Record held open for submission of additional exhibits and deposition testimony as stated in open court. Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law due 4/10/00. Responses due 4/28/00. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/20/2000)
3597 MINUTE ORDER of 3/20/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter letter of 7/6/98 from E. Eubanks to the court setting forth fees and expenses for the period 4/1/98 to 6/30/98. No action is necessary with respect to the fees and expenses set forth therein, as they were previously ruled upon by minute order 8/24/98 (Docket entry 3101). No notice (fce) (Entered: 03/21/2000)
3598 LETTER from E. Eubanks dated 7/6/98 (fce) (Entered: 03/21/2000)
3599 REPORT on Lewis Lemon School; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/21/2000)
3600 MINUTE ORDER of 3/20/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : By agreement of parties, deadline for submission of designated deposition testimony from D. J. Oakes reset for 3/24/00. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/21/2000)
3601 MINUTE ORDER of 3/21/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic conference held. Enter letter of 3/17/00 from E. Eubanks to the court regarding FY 2001 staffing. Request by Dr. Eubanks for leave to file a narrative concerning the report on 3/27/00 is allowed. Responses due 4/4/00. Replies due 4/11/00. Hearing set for 10:00 4/13/00. Mailed notice

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 285 of 307

03/21/2000 03/21/2000 03/24/2000 03/24/2000
03/27/2000 03/27/2000 03/27/2000 03/27/2000 03/29/2000 03/29/2000 03/30/2000 03/30/2000
03/30/2000
04/04/2000 04/04/2000

(fce) (Entered: 03/24/2000)
3602 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for reconsideration of admission of deposition of Dr. Garth Taylor ; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/24/2000)
3603 LETTER to Magistrate Mahoney from Eugene E. Eubanks (fce) (Entered: 03/24/2000)
3604 STIPULATION regarding the admission of the expert report of Dr. Christine Rossell (fce) (Entered: 03/28/2000)
3605 MINUTE ORDER of 3/24/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : By agreement of parties, deadlines for completing Taylor depositoins and for submission of transcript from Trapp deposition are extended to 4/3/00. No notice (fce) (Entered: 03/28/2000)
3606 Designated Portions of DEPOSITION of Dr. Jeannie Oakes' (fce) (Entered: 03/28/2000)
3607 Amended ANSWERS to defendant's first requests for admissions (fce) (Entered: 03/28/2000)
3608 Defendant's REPLY to plaintiffs' resposne to defendant's motion to reconsider admission of depositoin of Dr. Garth Taylor; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/28/2000)
3609 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' to defendant's motion to reconsider admission of deposition of Dr. Garth Taylor (fce) (Entered: 03/28/2000)
3610 LETTER from Charles J. Holley dated 3/27/00 (fce) (Entered: 03/30/2000)
3611 LETTER from Carol R. Ashley dated 3/27/00 (fce) (Entered: 03/30/2000)
3612 STATEMENT of Pulliam & Wright P.A.; notice of filing (fce) (Entered: 03/31/2000)
3613 MINUTE ORDER of 3/30/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Defendants' trial objection to testimony offered by Dr. Gary Orfield is sustained in part. (For further detail see order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/31/2000)
3614 MINUTE ORDER of 3/30/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter letter of 3/21/00 from R. Howard to the court. Defendants' motion to reconsider admission of testimony by Dr. Garth Taylor by deposition is denied. (For further detail see order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/31/2000)
3615 STATEMENT of Pulliam & Wright PA (Attachments); Notice of filing and certificate of service (eav) (Entered: 04/06/2000)
3616 UNOPPOSED EMERGENCY MOTION by plaintiff to extend the time to file proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ; Notice of filing and Certificate of Service (eav) (Entered: 04/06/2000)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 286 of 307

04/04/2000 04/05/2000 04/05/2000 04/05/2000 04/05/2000 04/05/2000
04/10/2000 04/10/2000
04/11/2000 04/11/2000 04/11/2000 04/12/2000

3617 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to the Master's proposed FY 2001 staffing report; Notice of filing (eav) (Entered: 04/06/2000)
3618 MINUTE ORDER of 4/5/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for extension of time is allowed. [3616-1] Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are due 4/14/00. Responses due 5/2/00. Mailed notice (eav) (Entered: 04/07/2000)
3619 COMMENTS by plaintiffs on the Master's FY 01 proposed continuation of CRO Staffing Report (Attachments) (eav) (Entered: 04/07/2000)
3620 COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS FROM THE DEPOSITION of Dr. Jeannie Oakes taken on the following date(s): 3/27/00 (Attachments) (eav) Modified on 04/10/2000 (Entered: 04/10/2000)
3621 LETTER from Eugene E. Eubanks to Magistrate Judge Mahoney dated 3/6/2000 (Attachments) (eav) (Entered: 04/10/2000)
3622 MINUTE ORDER of 4/5/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter letter of 3/6/00 from E. Eubanks to the court setting forth fees and expenses for February 2000. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $21,469.55 to Dr. Eubanks, representing professional fees of $18,763.75 and reimbursable expenses of $2,705.80, for the above-stated period. The court further orders the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (eav) (Entered: 04/10/2000)
3624 LETTER from Robert C. Howard to Magistrate Judge Mahoney dated 03/21/00 re oral proof on 03/15/00 (mak) (Entered: 04/12/2000)
3626 MINUTE ORDER of 4/10/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Enter letter of 04/06/00 from P. Schilling to the court expert. Copies of Dr. Schilling's letter to be forwarded to counsel of record along with the minute order. Objections due within 21 days of receipt. Mailed notice by judge's staff. (mak) (Entered: 04/12/2000)
3623 INVOICE from Paul M. Schilling re preparation of CRO Financial Study in the amount of $2,000.00 (mak) (Entered: 04/12/2000)
3625 REPLY by plaintiffs to defendant's response to the Master's proposed FY2001 Staffing Report [3617-1]; Notice (mak) (Entered: 04/12/2000)
3628 REPLY by defendant to plaintiffs' comments on the Master's FY01 proposed continuation of CRO Staffing report [3623-1]; Notice. (mak) (Entered: 04/13/2000)
3627 EXHIBIT 315, Counter-designations from Joyce Price's deposition by plaintiffs; Notice. (mak) (Entered: 04/13/2000)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 287 of 307

04/12/2000 04/13/2000
04/17/2000 04/18/2000 04/18/2000 04/18/2000 04/19/2000 04/19/2000 04/28/2000
05/05/2000 05/05/2000 05/05/2000 05/08/2000 05/08/2000

3629 STIPULATION of the parties related to supplementation of the cross examination of William Trapp by plaintiffs (Exhibits); Notice. (mak) (Entered: 04/13/2000)
3638 MINUTE ORDER of 4/13/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Hearing held to address Master's proposed continuation of staffing positions for FY 2001. Ruling by mail. As stated in open court, the district is authorized to expend, upon concurrence of the Master, up to $5.1 million of unallocated carryover funds in furtherance of capital improvements at Auburn High School. (jm) (Entered: 05/04/2000)
3635 PROPOSED FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law by defendants (Attachments); Notice. (mak) (Entered: 04/21/2000)
3632 POST-TRIAL brief by plaintiffs (mak) (Entered: 04/20/2000)
3633 PROPOSED FINDINGS of Fact on behalf of the plaintiff Class (Two Volumes) (mak) (Entered: 04/21/2000)
3634 PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS of law by plaintiffs (mak) (Entered: 04/21/2000)
3630 LETTER dated 04/17/00 from Thomas J. Lester to Clerk, Magistrate Judge re filing of Exhibit 401, Deposition of Robert Dentler (mak) (Entered: 04/20/2000)
3631 OFFER OF PROOF regarding testimony of the court master by plaintiffs (Exhibits); Notice. (mak) (Entered: 04/20/2000)
3637 MINUTE ORDER of 4/28/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : plaintiff's objections to the Master's proposed FY 2001 staffing plan are overruled. The court approves of the plan and authorizes the Master and the District to take whatever steps are necessary to implement it for 2001. Master's proposed FY 2001 expenditure plan due 05/27/00. (jm) (Entered: 05/04/2000)
3639 RESPONSE by intervenor-defendants to plaintiffs proposed findings and brief. (jm) (Entered: 05/05/2000)
3640 RESPONSE by defendant to plinatiffs' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and brief in support thereof. (jm) (Entered: 05/08/2000)
3641 NOTICE by defendant of response to plaintiffs proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and brief in support thereof [3640-1] (jm) (Entered: 05/08/2000)
3642 MOTION by plaintiff to reopen proofs regarding facilities and funding issues and to hold in abeyance decisions on those issues (Attachments) (jm) (Entered: 05/08/2000)
3643 MINUTE ORDER of 5/8/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter letter of 04/06/00 from P. Schilling to the court setting forth fees for his service as court expert. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 288 of 307

05/08/2000
05/08/2000
05/08/2000 05/08/2000

submission, and finds that the fees requested therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for Dr. Shilling's service as court expert. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $2,000 to Dr. Schilling. The court further directs the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notices. (jm) Modified on 08/24/2000 (Entered: 05/10/2000)
3644 MINUTE ORDER of 5/8/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On March 30, 2000, Pulliam & Wright, P.A. submitted fees and expenses for the period ending February 15, 2000. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the petition, and finds that the fees and costs contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $40,899.71 to Pulliam & Wright representing professional fees of $32,722.50 and reimbursable costs of $8,127.21, for the above stated period. The court further directs the District to retain its copy of this order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notices. (jm) Modified on 08/24/2000 (Entered: 05/10/2000)
3645 MINUTE ORDER of 5/8/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : On April 4, 2000, Pulliam & Wright, P.A. submitted fees and expenses for the period ending March 25, 2000. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the petition, and finds that the fees and costs contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $45,246.72 to Pulliam & Wright, representing the professional fees of $39,822.50 and reimbursable costs of $5,424.22, for the above stated period. The court further directs the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notices. (jm) Modified on 08/24/2000 (Entered: 05/10/2000)
3646 LETTER from Eugene Eubanks to the court setting forth consulting expenses incurred by Dr. Eubanks in his capacity as court expert. (jm) (Entered: 05/10/2000)
3647 MINUTE ORDER of 5/8/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter letter of 3/29/00 from E. Eubanks to the court setting forth consulting expenses incurred by Dr. Eubanks in his capacity as court expert. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the submission, and finds that the expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for preparation of the court expert. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $19,349.00 to Dr. Eubanks. The court further directs the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 289 of 307

05/08/2000 05/08/2000
05/09/2000 05/09/2000 05/09/2000 05/09/2000 05/09/2000 05/19/2000 05/19/2000
06/02/2000

as the court may order. Mailed notices. (jm) Modified on 08/24/2000 (Entered: 05/10/2000)
3648 LETTER from Eugene Eubanks setting forth fees and expenses for March 2000. (jm) (Entered: 05/10/2000)
3649 MINUTE ORDER of 5/8/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter letter of 4/06/00 from E. Eubanks to the court setting forth fees and expenses for March 2000. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $19,440.65 to Dr. Eubanks, representing professional fees of $17,191.25 and reimbursable expenses of $2,249.40, for the above-stated period. The court further directs the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notices. (jm) Modified on 08/24/2000 (Entered: 05/10/2000)
3650 MOTION by plaintiff for leave to file reply brief and plaintiffs' reply findings of fact instanter . (jm) (Entered: 05/10/2000)
3651 NOTICE by plaintiff of motion for leave to file reply brief and plaintiffs' reply findings of fact instanter [3650-1] (jm) (Entered: 05/10/2000)
3652 MINUTE ORDER of 5/9/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : motion to reopen proofs regarding facilities and funding issues and to hold in abeyance decisions on those issues is denied [3642-1] motion for leave to file reply brief and plaintiffs' reply findings of fact instanter is granted [3650-1]. Mailed notices. (jm) (Entered: 05/10/2000)
3653 REPLY brief by plaintiff to District's request for unitariness declaration. (jm) (Entered: 05/10/2000)
3654 FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law filed as a reply by plaintiff. (jm) (Entered: 05/10/2000)
3655 LETTER from plaintiff People Who Care. (fce) (Entered: 05/22/2000)
3656 MINUTE ORDER of 5/19/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Enter letter from the Master to the court received 5/19/00. The Master has requested an extension from 5/27/00 to 6/15/00 for submission of the proposed FY2001 expenditure plan. The Master indicates that the parties do not object to the requested extension. Prior practice leads the court to conclude that an extension will not prevent timely adoption of a final expenditure plan, and will therefore grant the request. Master's proposed FY2001 expenditure plan due 6/15/00. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/22/2000)
3658 MINUTE ORDER of 6/2/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Enter letter of 5/3/00 from E. Eubanks [3657-1] to the court setting forth fees and expenses for April 2000. No party has objected. The court has reviewed

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 290 of 307

06/02/2000 06/15/2000 06/19/2000
06/21/2000 06/22/2000 06/22/2000 06/23/2000
06/28/2000 06/29/2000 06/30/2000

the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $6,548.65 to Dr. Eubanks, representing professional fees of $5,631.25 and reimbursable expenses of $917.40, for the above-stated period. The court further directs the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/02/2000)
3657 APPLICATION by unknown Eugene Eubanks for payment of fees and expenses (Attachments). (fce) (Entered: 06/27/2000)
3659 LETTER from unknown Eugene Eubanks regarding proposed new expediture plan. (fce) (Entered: 06/19/2000)
3660 MINUTE ORDER of 6/19/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Entered letter of 6/15/00 from the Master to the court setting forth the proposed expediture plan for FY 2001. Comments from parties due 7/5/00. Responses due 7/12/00. Hearing on FY 2001 expenditure plan on 8/29/00 at 10:00 AM. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/19/2000)
3661 Defendant's Notice of Supplemental Authority by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed (Attachments); Notice. (fce) (Entered: 06/22/2000)
3662 MINUTE ORDER of 6/22/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Defendant's Notice of Supplemental Authority accepted by the court [3661-1]. Response addressing the supplemental authority due 6/30/00. Reply due 7/7/00. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/22/2000)
3663 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for leave to file a surrebuttal to plaintiff's reply memorandum (Attachments). (fce) (Entered: 06/22/2000)
3664 MINUTE ORDER of 6/23/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Defendant's motion for leave to file a surreply regarding fee submissions from counsel for the Plaintiffs is denied [3663-1] as untimely. Defendant's cite no change in circumstances that would warrant filing of a surreply several months after briefing regarding the petitions was completed. The petitions will be considered at an appropriate time on the basis of the briefs already submitted. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/23/2000)
3665 MINUTE ORDER of 6/28/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Briefing schedule set by order of 6/19/00 is stricken. Comments from all parties regarding proposed FY 2001 expenditure plan now due 8/1/00. Responses due 8/15/00. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/29/2000)
3666 RESPONSE by plaintiff defendant's notice of supplemental authority [3661-1]; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 06/29/2000)
3667 STATEMENT for services of Pulliam and Wright, Special Assistant to the Master, for the period of 03/26/00 to 05/15/00. Notice. (jm) (Entered: 07/03/2000)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 291 of 307

07/06/2000 07/06/2000 07/06/2000
07/21/2000 07/21/2000 07/31/2000 07/31/2000
07/31/2000

3668 REPLY by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiff's response to defendant's notice of supplemental authority [3666-1]. (fce) Modified on 08/02/2000 (Entered: 07/06/2000)
3669 LETTER from unknown Eugene Eubanks regarding expenses. (fce) (Entered: 07/06/2000)
3670 MINUTE ORDER of 7/6/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Entered letter of 6/7/00 from E. Eubanks to the court setting forth fees and expenses for 5/00. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $14,136.7 to Dr. Eubanks, representing professional fees of $12,388.75 and reimbursable expenses of $1,748.02, for the above-stated period. The court further directs the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/06/2000)
3671 EXHIBIT list for motion to modify by plaintiff (Attachments); Notice. (fce) (Entered: 07/21/2000)
3672 EXHIBIT list by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 07/21/2000)
3673 BILL OF COSTS submitted by Eugene Eubanks. (fce) (Entered: 07/31/2000)
3674 MINUTE ORDER of 7/31/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Entered letter of 7/6/00 from E. Eubanks #3673 to the court setting forth fees and expenses for 6/2000. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $11,257.73 to Dr. Eubanks, representing professional fees of $9,966.25 and reimbursable expenses of $1,291.48, for the above-stated period. The court further directs the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such furture auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/31/2000)
3675 MINUTE ORDER of 7/31/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: On 6/30/00, Pulliam & Wright, P.A. submitted fees and expenses for the period of 3/26/00 through 5/15/00. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the petition, and finds that the fees and costs contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $3,264.38 to Pulliam & Wright, P.A., representing professional fees of $2,572.50 and reimbursable costs of $691.88, for the above-stated period. The court further directs the District to retain its copy of this Order and

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 292 of 307

08/01/2000 08/01/2000 08/09/2000 08/11/2000
08/16/2000 08/21/2000 08/21/2000
08/21/2000 08/23/2000 08/23/2000 08/24/2000 08/29/2000 08/29/2000
08/29/2000

all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/31/2000)
3676 STATEMENT of Pulliam and Wright, P.A. from Janet L. Pulliam; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 08/01/2000)
3677 RESPONSE by plaintiff to court's minute order of 6/19/00 (Attachments); Notice. (fce) (Entered: 08/02/2000)
3678 MOTION by plaintiff's for fees and costs related to the 1998-1999 consolidated appeals (Attachments); Notice. (fce) (Entered: 08/09/2000)
3679 MINUTE ORDER of 8/11/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Defendant's motion for partial unitary status and to modify the CRO is granted in part [3367-1]. Plaintiff's motion for modification, clarification and enforcement of the CRO is granted in part [3368-1]. Entered memorandum opinion and order. (For further detail see order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/13/2000)
3680 REPLY by defendant to bill of costs [3673-1]. (fce) (Entered: 08/16/2000)
3681 LETTER from the 7th Circuit returning the record on appeal no. 96-3022 consisting of 1 in camerca material. (fce) (Entered: 08/21/2000)
3682 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 2/21/00, 2/22/00, 2/23/00, 2/24/00, 2/25/00, 2/28/00, 2/29/00, 3/1/00 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney. (8 vols.: 3682-1 thru 3682-8) (fce) (Entered: 08/21/2000)
3683 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 3/2/00, 3/9/00, 3/11/00, 3/13/00, 3/14/00, 3/15/00, 3/16/00, Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney. (7 vols.: 3683-1 thru 3683-7) (fce) (Entered: 08/21/2000)
3684 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed from minute order [3679-1]. (paid) (fce) (Entered: 08/23/2000)
3685 DOCKETING STATEMENT by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed regarding appeal [3684-1]. (fce) (Entered: 08/23/2000)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on appeal . Mailed notice to all counsel. Mailed via certified mail Z 429 879 952. (clb) (Entered: 08/24/2000)
3686 LETTER from special master Eugene Eubanks dated 4/3/99. (fce) (Entered: 08/29/2000)
3687 MINUTE ORDER of 8/29/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Entered letter of 4/3/99 from E. Eubanks to the court containing "comments on the statistical analysis contained in the Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205's Data on Within-School Integration, filed 3/4/99." No notice (fce) (Entered: 08/29/2000)
3688 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 4/13/00 Before

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 293 of 307

08/29/2000 08/29/2000 08/29/2000 08/29/2000 08/29/2000
08/29/2000 08/29/2000
08/29/2000 08/29/2000

Honorable P. Michael Mahoney. (fce) (Entered: 08/29/2000)
3689 REPORT to the court on proposed continuation of staffing positions for FY 2001 by special master Eugene Eubanks. (fce) (Entered: 08/29/2000)
3690 COPY OF LETTER from special master Eugene Eubanks to James Olson, General Director of Operations, Rockford School District. (fce) (Entered: 08/29/2000)
3691 PROPOSED continuation of staffing plan for FY 01 by special master Eugene Eubanks. (fce) (Entered: 08/29/2000)
3692 MINUTE ORDER of 8/29/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Entered master's report of 3/27/00 regarding proposed continuation of staffing positions for FY 2001. Entered letter of 3/27/00 from E. Eubanks to the court regarding continuation of staffing. Entered letter of 4/13 from E. Eubanks to J. Olson regarding proposed capital project at Auburn. No notice (fce) (Entered: 08/29/2000)
3693 MINUTE ORDER of 8/29/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: On 8/1/00, Pulliam & Wright, P.A. submitted fees and expenses for the period June 16 through July 15, 2000. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the petition, and finds that the fees and costs contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $984.54 to Pulliam & Wright, P.A., representing professional fees of $70.00 and reimbursable costs of $914.54, for the above-stated period. The court further directs the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/30/2000)
3694 LETTER dated 8/2/00 from special master Eugene Eubanks regarding fees. (fce) (Entered: 08/30/2000)
3695 MINUTE ORDER of 8/29/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Entered letter of 8/2/00 from E. Eubanks to the court setting forth fees and expenses for 7/2000. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation for the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $7,321.39 to Dr. Eubanks, representing professional fees of $5,971.25 and reimbursable expenses of $1,350.14, for the above-stated period. The court further directs the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such futher auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/30/2000)
3696 LETTER dated 8/22/00 from special master Eugene Eubanks. (fce) (Entered: 08/30/2000)
3697 MINUTE ORDER of 8/29/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Entered letter of 8/22/00 from E. Eubanks to the court regarding development of

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 294 of 307

08/30/2000 08/31/2000 08/31/2000 08/31/2000 08/31/2000
09/01/2000 09/01/2000
09/05/2000 09/06/2000 09/12/2000 09/13/2000 09/13/2000 09/14/2000 09/19/2000

alternative middle school. Hearing held regarding the FY 2001 expenditure plan developed by the master and the superintendent. The court adopts the proposed expenditure plan and hereby approves the same. The court further approves of the application of unallocated FY 2000 funds to the FY 2001 expenditure plan. The District's proposed revenue generation plan for FY 2001 is due 11/15/00. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/30/2000)
3698 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal [3684-1] USCA 00-3200 (fce) (Entered: 08/30/2000)
3699 EXHIBIT list by defendant; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 08/31/2000)
3700 LETTER dated 5/1/98 from special master Eugene Eubanks. (fce) (Entered: 08/31/2000)
3701 LETTER dated 7/6/98 from special master Eugene Eubanks. (fce) (Entered: 08/31/2000)
3702 MINUTE ORDER of 8/31/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Entered letter of 5/1/98 from E. Eubanks to the court setting forth proposed FY 1999. Entererd letter of 7/6/98 from E. Eubanks to the court regarding modification of the CRO requested by the parties. No notice (fce) (Entered: 08/31/2000)
3703 LETTER from defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to clerk's office regarding inclusion of exhibits and post trial memorandums to the appeal. (fce) (Entered: 09/05/2000)
3704 MINUTE ORDER of 9/1/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Entered trial exhibits as designated by parties for inclusion in record on appeal. Parties are allowed leave to withdraw exhibits which are not designated for inclusion in the record. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/05/2000)
3705 MINUTE ORDER of 9/5/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Entered court-appointed expert exhibits for inclusion in record on appeal. No notice (fce) (Entered: 09/05/2000)
3706 AMENDED EXHIBIT list by plaintiff; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 09/06/2000)
3707 NOTICE OF APPEAL by plaintiff's from minute order [3679-1] (paid); Notice. (fce) (Entered: 09/12/2000)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit supplemental record on appeal consisting of 9 boxes mailed via U.P.S. (clb) (Entered: 09/13/2000)
3708 LETTER regarding docketing statement . (fce) (Entered: 09/13/2000)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on appeal . Mailed notice to all counsel. Mailed via certified mail Z 429 879 957. (clb) (Entered: 09/14/2000)
3709 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 8/29/00 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney (vol.3709-1.) (fce) (Entered:

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 295 of 307

09/20/2000 09/21/2000 09/25/2000 10/10/2000 10/12/2000 10/12/2000
10/16/2000 10/20/2000 11/03/2000 11/03/2000

09/19/2000)
3710 RETURN of U.S. Post Office receipt # Z 429 879 957 received 9/18/00. (fce) (Entered: 09/20/2000)
3711 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal [3684-1] USCA 00-3411 (fce) (Entered: 09/21/2000)
3712 CERTIFIED copy of Order dated 9/20/00 from the 7th Circuit. (00-3200, 00-3411). The court, on its own motion, orders that these appeal are consolidated for purposes of briefing and disposition. (fce) (Entered: 09/25/2000)
3713 PLAINTIFF'S suggestions concerning briefing and decision schedules on pending fee petitions; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 10/10/2000)
3714 MOTION by special master Eugene Eubanks billing for the month of 7/2000 . (fce) (Entered: 10/12/2000)
3715 MINUTE ORDER of 10/12/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Enter letter of 9/1/00 from E. Eubanks to the court setting forth fees and expenses for 8/2000 [3714-1]. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $9,353.04 to Dr. Eubanks, representing professional fees of $7,820.00 and reimburseable expenses of $1,533.04, for the above-stated period. The court further directs the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice. (fce) (Entered: 10/12/2000)
3716 CERTIFIED copy of Order dated 10/13/00 from the 7th Circuit. (003411) IT IS ORDERED that this cause is dismissed, pursuant to Fedleral Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). (fce) (Entered: 10/17/2000)
3717 STATEMENT by Pulliam and Wright, P.A. counsel assisting special master for the period of 8/1/00 - 8/31/00 (Attachements); Notice. (fce) (Entered: 10/20/2000)
3718 LETTER dated 10/2/00 from special master Eugene Eubanks. (fce) (Entered: 11/06/2000)
3719 MINUTE ORDER of 11/3/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Enter letter of 10/02/00 from E. Eubanks to the court setting forth fees and expenses for 9/00. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from fund 12 the sum of $7,378.89 to Dr. Eubanks, representing professional fees of $6,460.00 and reimbursable expenses of $918.89, for the above-stated period. The court further directs the District

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 296 of 307

11/13/2000 11/28/2000
12/01/2000 12/01/2000
12/18/2000 12/18/2000
12/18/2000

to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/06/2000)
3720 REPORT to the court on funding by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed, school district no. 205 (Attachments). (fce) (Entered: 11/13/2000)
3721 MINUTE ORDER of 11/28/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: On 10/20/00, Pulliam & Wright, P.A. submitted fees and expenses for the period of 8/1 through 8/31/00. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the petition, and finds that the fees and costs contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $405.14 to Pulliam & Wright, P.A., representing professional fees of $367.50 and reimbursable costs of $37.64, for the above-stated period. The court further directs the Distrcit to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/28/2000)
3722 LETTER dated 11/1/00 from special master Eugene Eubanks regarding reimbursement of fees (Attachments). (fce) (Entered: 12/01/2000)
3723 MINUTE ORDER of 12/1/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Enter letter of 11/1/00 from E. Eubanks to the court setting forth fees and expenses for 10/00. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $7,011.68 to Dr. Eubanks, representing professional fees of $5,737.50 and reimbursable expenses of $1,274.18, for the above-stated period. The court further directs the District to retain is copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Entered letter. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/01/2000)
3724 LETTER dated 12/14/00 from unknown Howard S Bellman regarding fees. (fce) (Entered: 12/18/2000)
3725 MINUTE ORDER of 12/18/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: The court enters a letter received 12/18/00, from Howard Bellman outlining fees owed to Hogan & Hartson of $8,471.13 for services rendered in December of 1999 in conjunction with mediation work previously done in this case. The parties are given until 1/18/00 to file objections with the court in regard to this invoice. If no objections are received the court will order that the amount be disbursed. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/18/2000)
3726 MINUTE ORDER of 12/18/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: The court hereby orders that a hearing will be held on 1/23/01 at 9:30 am to address the issues raised in Defendant's 11/13/00, Report to the Court on Funding. Any written submission the parties wish the court to consider

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 297 of 307

01/02/2001 01/02/2001
01/03/2001 01/05/2001 01/05/2001 01/22/2001
01/29/2001 01/29/2001 01/29/2001

for that hearing should be submitted no later than the morning of 1/16/01. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/18/2000)
3727 COPY of letter dated 1/11/00 from unknown Hogan & Hartson L.L.P. regarding professional services rendered through 12/31/99. (fce) (Entered: 01/02/2001)
3728 MINUTE ORDER of 1/2/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: The court enters an invoice for professional services rendered by Hogan and Hartson through December of 1999. The invoice has been forwarded to this court by Howard Bellman. The invoice was accidentally omitted from Mr. Bellman's 12/18/00, submission to this court regarding the oversight in payment for mediation and facilitation services provided previously in this case. The invoice should be considered in conjunction with Mr. Bellman's previous submission. The parties age given until 1/18/01 to file objections with the court in regard to this invoice. If no objections are received the court will order that the payment be disbursed. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/02/2001)
3729 MINUTE ORDER of 1/3/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Pursuant to telephonic conference and with the agreement of the parties the hearing previously scheduled for 1/23/01 at 9:30 am is hereby rescheduled for 2/5/01 at 9:30 am. Any written submission the parties wish the court to consider for that hearing must be filed no later than the morning of 1/29/01. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/03/2001)
3730 LETTER from unknown Eugene Eubanks regarding billing for period 11/1/00 - 12/1/00. (fce) (Entered: 01/05/2001)
3731 MINUTE ORDER of 1/5/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Enter letter from Dr. Eubanks. Entered letter. (For further detail see order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/05/2001)
3732 MINUTE ORDER of 1/22/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Pursuant to this court's minute order of 12/18/00, the court authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from unallocated carryover monies in Fund 12 the sum of $8,471.13 to Howard Bellman, representing reimbursable expenses for mediation services provided by Hogan & Hartson. The court further orders the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/22/2001)
3733 COMMENTS by intervenor's Rockford Building, Rockford Education, Rockford Education to the court regarding funding crisis in school district #205. (fce) (Entered: 01/29/2001)
3734 SUPPLEMENTAL report to the court on funding by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 01/29/2001)
3735 COMMENTS by plaintiff's and suggestions concerning FY 2001 CRO revenue generation and RBE's November 2000 report on CRO revenue (Attachments); Notice. (fce) (Entered: 01/29/2001)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 298 of 307

02/06/2001
02/12/2001 02/26/2001
02/28/2001 02/28/2001 03/06/2001 03/06/2001 03/12/2001

3736 MINUTE ORDER of 2/6/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Enter letter of 1/2/01 from E. Eubanks to the court setting forth fees and expenses for December 2000. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore autorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $5,338.36 to Dr. Eubanks, representing professional fees of $4,775.00 and reimburseable expenses of $663.36, for the above-stated period. The court further directs the Distirct to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/06/2001)
3737 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 2/5/01 Before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney. (fce) (Entered: 02/12/2001)
3738 MINUTE ORDER of 2/26/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: This court hereby orders Defendants to pay the remainder of Plaintiff's 1997 attorney's fees in accordance with the quidelines set forth in the attached order. Those fees are to be paid within thirty days of the date of this order. This court further orders that all fees accruing after 1/1/01, be submitted on a quarterly basis in accordance with the attached order. Entered order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/26/2001)
3739 LETTER dated 2/26/01 from special master Eugene E. Eubanks to Magistrate Judge Mahoney. (fce) (Entered: 02/28/2001)
3740 MINUTE ORDER of 2/28/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: The court files the Master's Report on Controlled Choice for Grade 9 for 2001-2002 school year. This report was received 2/28/01, from the Special Master, Dr. Eubanks. No notice (fce) (Entered: 02/28/2001)
3741 MASTER'S report on Controlled Choice for grade 6 for 2001-2002 school year by special master Eugene E. Eubanks. (fce) (Entered: 03/06/2001)
3742 MINUTE ORDER of 3/6/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: The court files the Master's Report on Controlled Choice for Grade 6 for 2001-2002 school year. This report was received from the special master, Dr. Eubanks, on 3/1/01. No notice (fce) (Entered: 03/06/2001)
3743 MINUTE ORDER of 3/12/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Enter letter of 2/2/01 from E. Eubanks to the court setting forth fees and expenses for 1/2000. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $11,741.58 to Dr. Eubanks, representing professional fees of $10,242.50 and reimbursable expenses of $1,499.08, for the above-stated period. The court further directs the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 299 of 307

03/12/2001 03/27/2001 03/28/2001 04/04/2001
04/04/2001 04/05/2001 04/06/2001 04/10/2001
04/10/2001 05/04/2001 05/24/2001

may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/12/2001)
3744 LETTER dated 2/2/01 from special master Eugene E. Eubanks. (fce) (Entered: 03/12/2001)
3745 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed from minute order [3738-1] (pd). (fce) (Entered: 03/28/2001)
3746 LETTER regarding docketing statement . (fce) (Entered: 03/28/2001)
3747 MINUTE ORDER of 4/4/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: The court files the attached Special Master's Report to the Court on proposed continuation of staffing positions for FY 2002. Also, the court grants the Special Master's request regarding the composite expenditure plan. The Special Master is given until 5/31/01, to complete the expenditure plan for CRO remedies for FY 2002. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/04/2001)
3748 EXPENDITURE plan dated 3/15/01 by special master Eugene E. Eubanks. (fce) (Entered: 04/04/2001)
3749 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal [3745-1] USCA 01-1784 (fce) (Entered: 04/05/2001)
3750 RETURN of U.S. Post Office receipt #Z 226 495 383 received 4/3/01. (fce) (Entered: 04/06/2001)
3751 MINUTE ORDER of 4/10/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Enter letter of 3/5/01 from E. Eubanks to the court setting forth fees and expenses for February, 2001. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therin are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $11,226.12 to Dr. Eubanks, representing professional fees of $9,753.75 and reimbursable expenses of $1,471.75, for the above-stated period. The court further directs the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such further auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/10/2001)
3752 LETTER dated 3/5/01 from special master Eugene E. Eubanks to Magistrate Mahoney. (fce) (Entered: 04/10/2001)
3753 MINUTE ORDER of 5/4/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: It is ordered that the fees in the amount of $8,672.79 be paid to the Special Master, Eugene Eubanks, as directed on the reverse of this order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/07/2001)
3754 COPY of Order dated 5/22/01 from the 7th Circuit. ( 00-3200) On May 2, 2001 plaintiffs-appellees filed a petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc. All the judges on the original panel have voted to deny the petition, and none of the active judges has requested a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition is therefore denied. (fce) (Entered: 05/24/2001)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 300 of 307

06/01/2001 06/01/2001 06/01/2001 06/01/2001 06/01/2001 06/05/2001
06/05/2001 06/14/2001 06/15/2001
06/22/2001
06/22/2001 06/26/2001

3755 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed for entry of order ; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 06/01/2001)
3756 PROPOSED expenditure plan for fiscal year 2002 by special master (Attachments). (fce) (Entered: 06/01/2001)
3757 CERTIFIED COPY of order from the 7th Circuit: Reversing and remanding the Decision of the District Court [Appeal [3684-1]. (003200) (fce) (Entered: 06/01/2001)
3758 CERTIFIED COPY of OPINION from the 7th Circuit: Argued 3/27/01; Decided 4/18/01. (00-3200) (fce) (Entered: 06/01/2001)
3759 LETTER from the 7th Circuit returning at a later date the record on appeal no. 00-3200 consisting of 14 vols. pldgs., 15 vols. transcripts, 5 boxes of exhibits, 12 vols. of depositions. Record being retained for use in appeal number 01-1784. (fce) (Entered: 06/01/2001)
3760 MINUTE ORDER of 6/5/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Enter letter of May 2, 2001 from E. Eubanks to the court setting forth fees and expenses for April 2001. It is ordered that Defendants reimburse the Special Master his fees and expenses in accordance with the order on the reverse. (For further detail see order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/05/2001)
3761 LETTER to Magistrate Mahoney from special master Eugene E. Eubanks dated 5/2/01. (fce) (Entered: 06/05/2001)
3762 MOTION by defendant for leave to , to supplement appellate record ; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 06/14/2001)
3763 MINUTE ORDER of 6/15/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: This court requests that the parties submit any of the following documents they have in their possession to aid this court in complying with the order of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals: Defendant's motion requesting that this court find unitary status, any briefs in support of that motion and any subsequent motions and briefs addressing that issue and any previously entered monitor orders. The parties have until 6/22/01, to submit these documents to the court. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/15/2001)
3764 MINUTE ORDER of 6/22/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Plaintiff has requested that this court's previously entered schedule for responding to Defendants' June 1, 2001, Motion for Entry of Judgment be extended to June 26, 2001. Having been informed that defendants do not oppose Plaintiff's request, this court orders that the schedule be extended as follows: Plaintiff's response to Defendants motion will be due June 26, 2001, and Defendants' reply will then be due July 3, 2001. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/25/2001)
3765 MINUTE ORDER of 6/22/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Defendants' motion to supplement the appellate record is granted [3762-1] [3762-2]. No notice (fce) (Entered: 06/25/2001)
3766 RESPONSE by plaintiff in opposition to defendant's motion for entry of

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 301 of 307

06/29/2001 06/29/2001
07/09/2001 07/09/2001
07/10/2001 07/10/2001 07/10/2001 07/24/2001
07/31/2001 07/31/2001 08/02/2001

order [3755-1](Attachments); Notice. (fce) (Entered: 06/26/2001)
3767 RESPONSE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiff's response and opposition to defendant's motion for entry of order [3766-1] (Attachments); Notice. (fce) (Entered: 06/29/2001)
3768 MINUTE ORDER of 6/29/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: In accordance with the decision of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals the attached Memorandum Opinion and Order is hereby entered. Entered Memorandum Opinion and Order. (For further detail see order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/29/2001)
3769 LETTER dated 6/4/01 from special master Eugene E. Eubanks (fce) Modified on 07/09/2001 (Entered: 07/09/2001)
3770 MINUTE ORDER of 7/9/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Enter letter of June 4, 2001, from E. Eubanks to the court setting forth fees and expenses for May, 2001. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $11,584.05 to Dr. Eubanks, representing professional fees of $9,860.00 and reimbursable expenses of $1,724.05, for the above-stated period. The court further directs the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/09/2001)
3771 NOTICE by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed of filing. (fce) (Entered: 07/10/2001)
3772 COPY of letter dated 2/1/99 from Futterman & Howard with exhibits 110. (fce) (Entered: 07/10/2001)
3773 COPY of letter dated 11/30/99 from Eugene Eubanks to Magistrate Judge with exhibits 1-7. (fce) (Entered: 07/10/2001)
3774 MINUTE ORDER of 7/24/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Attached is this court's Proposed Order Setting Responsibilities and Powers of Monitor. The parties are invited to submit comments, suggestions and objections to this court regarding the order, not to exceed 5 pagaes, by 7/31/01. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/24/2001)
3775 RESPONSE by plaintiff People Who Care to minute order dated 7/24/01 [3774-1]; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 08/01/2001)
3776 COMMENTS, suggestions and objections by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to the proposed order [3774-1]; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 08/01/2001)
3777 MINUTE ORDER of 8/2/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Enter letter of 7/2/01, from E. Eubanks to the court setting forther fees and expenses for June 2001. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 302 of 307

08/02/2001 08/08/2001 08/14/2001 08/14/2001 08/14/2001 08/23/2001
09/05/2001 09/05/2001
09/06/2001

directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $6,510.90 to Dr. Eubanks, representing professional fees of $5,333.75 and reimbursable expenses of $1,177.15, for the above-stated period. The court further directs the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/03/2001)
3778 LETTER dated 7/2/01 to Magistrate Mahoney from special master Eugene E. Eubanks. (fce) (Entered: 08/03/2001)
3779 MINUTE ORDER of 8/8/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Enter attached Memorandum Opinion and Order Setting Responsibilities and Powers of Monitor. Entered Memorandum Opinion and Order. (For further detail see order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/08/2001)
3780 MOTION by defendant for leave to , file a brief in excess of 15 pages ; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 08/15/2001)
3781 RESPONSE by defendant to plaintiffs' attorneys' motion for fees and costs related to the 1998-1999 consolidated appeals [3678-1]. (fce) (Entered: 08/15/2001)
3782 EXHIBITS by defendant to response [3781-1] (2 vols.) (fce) (Entered: 08/15/2001)
3783 MINUTE ORDER of 8/23/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Defendant's motion for leave [3780-1], to file a brief in excess of 15 pages is granted [3780-2]. Plaintiffs' reply to defendant's response to plaintiff's attorney's fee petition for the consolidated appeals is due 9/20/01. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/23/2001)
3784 LETTER dated 8/3/01 from special master Eugene E. Eubanks to Magistrate Judge Mahoney. (fce) (Entered: 09/06/2001)
3785 MINUTE ORDER of 9/5/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Enter letter of 8/3/01, from E. Eubanks to the court setting forth fees and expenses for July 2001. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from fund 12 the sum of $4,224.05 to Dr. Eubanks, representing professional fees of $3,442.50 and reimbursable expenses of $781.55, for the above-stated period. The court further directs the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/06/2001)
3786 MINUTE ORDER of 9/6/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Pursuant to agreement of the parties, the date on which Plaintiff's reply with regard to their petition for attorney's fees is due is extended to 10/19/01. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/06/2001)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 303 of 307

10/03/2001
10/03/2001 10/17/2001 10/19/2001 10/22/2001 10/30/2001 11/05/2001
11/05/2001 12/03/2001

3787 MINUTE ORDER of 10/3/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Enter letter of 9/3/01, from E. Eubanks to the court setting forth fees and expenses for 8/2001. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $3,248.51 to Dr. Eubanks, representing professional fees of $2,613.75 and reimbursable expenses of $634.76, for the above-stated period. The court further directs the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such furture auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/03/2001)
3788 LETTER dated 9/4/01 to Magistrate Mahoney from special master Eugene E. Eubanks. (fce) (Entered: 10/03/2001)
3789 MOTION by plaintiffs for extension of time to file reply in support of 1998-99 consolidated appeals fee petition ; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 10/17/2001)
3790 OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Plainitffs' motion for extension of time to file reply in support of 1998-99 consolidated appeals fee petition [3789-1]; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 10/19/2001)
3791 STATEMENT by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed as to plaintiff's attorney's fees for the 1998-2000 calendar years, exclusive of appeals fees and motion to enter briefing order (Attachments-1 box); Notice. (fce) (Entered: 10/23/2001)
3792 RESPONSE by plaintiff to defendant's statement [3791-1](Attachments); Notice. (fce) (Entered: 10/30/2001)
3793 MINUTE ORDER of 11/5/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter letter of 10/01/01, from E. Eubanks to the court setting forth fees and expenses for September 2001. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $5,561.07 to Dr. Eubanks, representing the professional fees of $4,611.25 and reimbursable expenses of $949.82, for the above-stated period. The court further directs the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (jmm (Entered: 11/06/2001)
3794 LETTER from Dr. Eubanks requesting payment of fees (jmm (Entered: 11/06/2001)
3795 MINUTE ORDER of 12/3/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Enter letter of 11/1/01, from E. Eubanks to the court setting forth fees and expenses for October 2001. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the submissions, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 304 of 307

12/03/2001 12/26/2001 01/07/2002
01/07/2002 01/16/2002
01/22/2002 01/25/2002 01/25/2002 01/25/2002

CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $6,364.05 to Dr. Eubanks, representing professional fees of $5,461.25 and reimbursable expenses of $902.80, for the above-stated period. The court further directs the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/03/2001)
3796 LETTER from special master Eugene E. Eubanks to Magistrate Mahoney dated 11/1/01.(Attachments). (fce) (Entered: 12/03/2001)
3797 MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to bar plaintiffs' counsel from seeking any attorney's fees or costs ; Attachments; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 12/26/2001)
3798 MINUTE ORDER of 1/7/02 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Enter letter of 12/3/01, from E. Eubanks to the court setting forth fees and expenses for 11/2001. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and dispurse from Fund 12 the sum of $6,293.64 to Dr. Eubanks, representing professional fees of $5,312.50 and reimbursable expenses of $981.14, for the above-stated period. The court further directs the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/08/2002)
3799 LETTER dated 12/3/02 from special master Eugene E. Eubanks to Magistrate Mahoney. (fce) (Entered: 01/08/2002)
3800 COPY of Order dated 1/14/02 from the 7th Circuit. (01-1784) On December 27, 2001 plaintiffs-appellees filied a petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc. All the judges on the original panel have voted to deny the petition, and none of the active judges has requested a vote on the the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition is therefore denied. (fce) (Entered: 01/16/2002)
3801 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff People Who Care in opposition to motion to bar plaintiffs' counsel from seeking any attorney's fees or costs [37971](Attachment). (fce) (Entered: 01/22/2002)
3802 LETTER from the 7th Circuit returning the record on appeal no. 01-1784 consisting of: 14 vols. of pldgs., 15 vols. trnscpts., 5 vols. exh., 12 vols. depos. (fce) (Entered: 01/25/2002)
3803 CERTIFIED COPY of order from the 7th Circuit: Affirming in part, reversed in part, and remanded in part, the decision of the District Court [3745-1]. (01-1784) (fce) (Entered: 01/25/2002)
3804 OPINION from the 7th Circuit: Decided 11/29/01. (01-1784) (fce) (Entered: 01/25/2002)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 305 of 307

01/29/2002 01/30/2002 02/06/2002
02/07/2002
02/11/2002 03/04/2002
03/21/2002

3805 REPLY by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' response [3801-1] (fce) (Entered: 01/29/2002)
3806 AGREED MOTION by plaintiff for approval of stipulated agreement of the parties related to plaintiffs' fourth quarter 2001 fee request . (fce) (Entered: 01/30/2002)
3807 MINUTE ORDER of 2/6/02 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Enter letter of 1/3/02, from E. Eubanks to the court setting forth fees and expenses for December 2001. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $5,778.13 to Dr. Eubanks, representing professional fees of $5,078.75 and reimbursable expenses of $699.38, for the above-stated period. The court further directs the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/07/2002)
3808 MINUTE ORDER of 2/7/02 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: As stated on the reverse, Defendant's motion to bar plaintiffs' from seeking any attorney's fees is denied [3797-1]. This court has determined that a comprehensive approach to Plaintiff's fees petitions is appropriate. As stated on the reverse, the parties are to comply with Local Rule 54.3 and the modified schedule provided by this court. (For further detail see order.) Mailed notice (fce) Modified on 02/08/2002 (Entered: 02/08/2002)
3809 MOTION by plaintiff People Who Care for a scheduling order concerning fee petition for work from 1998 to present and for direction to RSD to producie documents and information required by Rule 54 (Attachments); Notice. (fce) (Entered: 02/11/2002)
3810 MINUTE ORDER of 3/4/02 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: As stated on the reverse, the court authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $7,505.66 to Dr. Eubanks, representing professional fees of $6,502.50 and reimbursable expenses of $1,003.16, for the stated period. The court further directs the District of retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. (For further detail see order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/04/2002)
3811 MINUTE ORDER of 3/21/02 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: On 2/11/02, plaintiffs filed a motion for scheduling order. This court had on 2/7/02, entered a scheduling order with regard to Plaintiffs' fee petitions and therefore considered Plaintiffs' motion moot. However, plaintiffs included in their motion a request that Defendants be required to submit billing materials to plaintiffs in accordance with LR 54.3. This court enters the following briefing schedule on that issue: Plaintiff's are to submit a brief regarding the requested material by 3/28/02, defendants response is due 4/4/02, and plaintiffs' reply will be due 4/11/02. The

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 306 of 307

03/26/2002 03/29/2002 04/04/2002 04/15/2002 05/01/2002
06/05/2002
06/28/2002

submissions are not to exceed 3 pages. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/21/2002)
3812 MINUTE ORDER of 3/26/02 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: As a result of this court's 2/7/02, order providing for a comprehensive schedule for plaintiffs' fee petition, Plaintiff's 8/8/00, motion for fees (docket entry number 3678) is moot. No notice (fce) (Entered: 03/26/2002)
3813 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff People Who Care in support of their motion for direction to RSD to produce documents and information required by Rule 54 [3809-1]; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 03/29/2002)
3814 MINUTE ORDER of 4/4/02 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: This court has reviewed Dr. Eubanks' letter of March 2002, setting forth fees and expenses for February 2002. The court authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $7,044.09 to Dr. Eubanks, as stated on the reverse. (For further detail see order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/05/2002)
SCHEDULE set on 4/15/02 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic status hearing held. Telephonic Settlement conference set for 11:30 5/29/02 . Telephoned notice (glg) (Entered: 04/15/2002)
3815 MINUTE ORDER of 5/1/02 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Enter letter of April 1, 2002, from E. Eubanks to the court setting forth fees and expenses for March 2002. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $6,515.32 to Dr. Eubanks, as stated on the reverse. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/02/2002)
3816 MINUTE ORDER of 6/5/02 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The Magistrate has reviewed the letter of 5/01/02, from E. Eubanks to the court setting forth fees and expenses for April 2002. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $7,232.04 to Dr. Eubanks, as stated on the reverse. (For further detail see order on the reverse side of the original minute order.) Mailed notice (jmm (Entered: 06/05/2002)
3817 MINUTE ORDER of 6/28/02 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Pursuant to LR 26.2, any documents filed with the court as restricted, under seal, or subject to a protective order will be returned to the party who filed the document or exhibit, with the opposing party receiving a copy of the Clerk's transmittal letter. Those doucments shall then be retained for at least 90 days and made available to opposing counsel and the Court Monitor, with reasonable advance notice. Documents being held pursuant to Paragraph 5 of the parties March 25, 1999, stipulation, as adopted by

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 307 of 307

06/28/2002 07/01/2002

this court's April 20, 1999, order are hereby released to the control and custody of the District and shall be available to opposing counsel and the Court Monitor, with reasonable notice, for 90 days. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/01/2002)
3818 MINUTE ORDER of 6/28/02 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Pursuant to the May 30, 2001, mandate of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, the permanent injunction declaratory order entered February 18, 1994, is hereby dissolved. The District is declared to be totally unitary. Full control of Rockford School District No. 205 is hereby returned to the Board of Education effective June 30, 2002, and the case is dismissed, with prejudice. The Court Monitor, Dr. Eugene Eubanks, is relieved of all duties related to the case effective Jun 28, 2002. All pending motions are moot. terminating case Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/01/2002)
3819 MINUTE ORDER of 7/1/02 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: The Magistrate has reviewed the letter of June 3, 2002, from E. Eubanks to the court setting forth fees and expenses for May 2002. No party has objected. The court has revewied the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from fund 12 the sum of $11,516.56 to Dr. Eubanks, as stated on the reverse. (For further detail see order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/02/2002)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

PACER Login: Description: Billable Pages:

11/17/2005 16:28:04

hs0328

Client Code:

Docket Report Search Criteria:

30

Cost:

3:89-cv-20168 2.40

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?905120808094184-L_923_0-1

11/17/2005

 
 272 F.3d 936 (2001)
PEOPLE WHO CARE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 205, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-1784.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Submitted April 3, 2001. Decided November 29, 2001. Rehearing and Rehearing Denied January 14, 2002.
937 *937 Jonathan A. Rothstein (submitted), Gessler Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Chicago, IL, Amy E. Shappert, Lord Bissell & Brook, Rockford, IL, Robert C. Howard, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, IL, Venita Hervey, Futterman & Howard, Rockford, IL, Janet L. Pulliam, Pulliam & Wright, Little Rock, IL, Eugene Eubanks, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
William J. Quinlan (submitted), Rockford Public Schools, Rockford, IL, Thomas J. Lester, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Rockford, IL, Michael Kirk, Cooper Carvin & Rosenthal, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BAUER, POSNER, and KANNE, Circuit Judges.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied January 14, 2002.
POSNER, Circuit Judge.
The defendant, a school district, in this long-running school desegregation case (see, e.g., People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, 246 F.3d 1073 (7th Cir.2001), 171 F.3d 1083 (7th Cir.1999), 153 F.3d 834 (7th Cir.1998) (per curiam), 90 F.3d 1307 (7th Cir.1996), 921 F.2d 132 (7th Cir.1991)) appeals from an order awarding the plaintiffs some $800,000 in fees for services performed by their lawyers in 1997. The threshold question is whether we have jurisdiction of this appeal, which is interlocutory because the underlying litigation has not yet concluded. Although an award of attorneys' fees is appealable separately from the decision on the merits, Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196, 108 S.Ct. 1717, 100 L.Ed.2d 178 (1988), this case involves an interim award of fees, and so is not the final order in the proceeding to obtain attorneys' fees. We (and other courts as well) have held, however, that where the fees might not be recoverable by the defendant from the plaintiff if the award were reversed at the end of the litigation, so that refusal of an immediate appeal might inflict irreparable harm on the defendant, the award is appealable immediately as a collateral order. E.g., People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, supra, 171 F.3d at 1086; Construction Industry Retirement Fund v. Kasper Trucking, Inc., 10 F.3d 465, 468 (7th Cir.1993); People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, supra, 921 F.2d at 134-35; Richardson v. Penfold, 900 F.2d 116 (7th Cir.1990); Palmer v. City of Chicago, 806 F.2d 1316 (7th Cir.1986); Law v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 134 F.3d 1025, 1027 (10th Cir.1998); Riverhead Savings Bank v. National Mortgage Equity Corp., 893 F.2d 1109, 1113-15 (9th Cir.1990); Webster v. Sowders, 846 F.2d 1032, 1035 (6th Cir.1988); cf. Walker v. HUD, 99 F.3d 761, 766 (5th Cir.1996). For it is final in the practical sense that it may well be the last opportunity the defendant has to obtain relief from the order from the appellate court. That is the situation here. The defendant contends that the plaintiffs' law firm is small and fragile 0907 and the plaintiffs do not contest the contention, and so we accept it as true and proceed to the merits.
The principal challenge is to an award of almost $90,000 in prejudgment interest on attorneys' fees, that is, interest on the fees before any award is entered. The district court directed that interest would accrue (and be 938 compounded) from the thirtieth day after the services generating *938 a claim for fees were rendered. Bearing in mind that the purpose of a fee award is to reimburse the plaintiff for the cost he would reasonably incur if he purchased legal assistance in the market, Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 894, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984); In re Synthroid Marketing Litigation, 264 F.3d 712, 718-19 (7th Cir.2001); Gaskill v. Gordon, 160 F.3d 361,

363 (7th Cir.1998) ("When a fee is set by a court rather than by contract, the object is to set it at a level that will approximate what the market would set. The judge, in other words, is trying to mimic the market in legal services" (citations omitted)); People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, supra, 90 F.3d at 1310, we think the proper approach to the calculation of interest requires consideration of prevailing practices in the legal-services market. This follows from the "market mimicking" approach, orthodox in this circuit, to computing the fee award. The idea is to "estimate the terms of the contract that private plaintiffs would have negotiated with their lawyers," In re Synthroid Marketing Litigation, supra, 264 F.3d at 718 (emphasis added), and if such a contract, express or implied, would provide for interest, the fee award should include interest, or some equivalent adjustment, as in Ohio-Sealy Mattress Mfg. Co. v. Sealy Inc., 776 F.2d 646, 662-63 (7th Cir.1985). So if the prevailing practice is that lawyers either are paid on the thirtieth day after rendering their services or charge interest beginning on the thirty-first day, then the district court's order was proper. But not only is there no evidence of this; it obviously is incorrect. Lawyers rarely bill their clients within days of rendering services in an ongoing suit, receive payment within thirty days of that rendition, or charge interest for payment after thirty days. Institutionalized Juveniles v. Secretary of Public Welfare, 758 F.2d 897, 923 (3d Cir.1985); Reid F. Trautz & Paul McLaughlin, "How to Get Paid," 27-1 Law Practice Management 30, 31 (2001). No doubt if the client refused to pay or delayed unreasonably in paying, the lawyer might decide to charge interest; and if he had to sue to get paid, he would certainly do this, and would thus seek an award of prejudgment interest. But the plaintiffs here are seeking interest as a matter of course rather than as a penalty for bad faith, obduracy, or foot-dragging.
The award of interest was especially unjustifiable because the plaintiffs did not bill the defendant for their 1997 attorneys' fees until 1999. Imagine the response of a client in the market who received a bill more than a year after the rendition of the services covered by it and was told that he owed not only the amount of the bill but compound interest for every month but one since the services were rendered.
The defendant's other challenges to the order do not have sufficient merit to warrant a reversal of any portions of it other than the award of interest. The order is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 921 F.2d 132 (1991)
PEOPLE WHO CARE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants 0907 Cross-Appellees, v.
ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION DISTRICT NO. 205, Defendant-Appellee-CrossAppellant.
Nos. 90-3284, 90-3291 and 90-8098.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Submitted November 5, 1990. Decided January 2, 1991.
133 *133 Robert C. Howard, Claire T. Hartfield, Ronald L. Futterman, Aram A. Hartunian, Kathleen Mangold-Spoto, Hartunian, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs-appellants 0907 cross-appellees.
Lawrence J. Weiner, Linda L. Eyestone, John M. Izzo, Anthony G. Scariano, A. Lynn Himes, G. Robb Cooper, David P. Kula, Justino D. Petrarca, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chicago, Ill., Thomas A. Bueschel, John N. Schmidt, Conde, Stoner & Killoren, Rockford, Ill., for defendant-appellee 0907 cross-appellant.
Before FLAUM, EASTERBROOK and RIPPLE, Circuit Judges.
EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge.
A partial consent decree in this school desegregation case afforded the plaintiffs some relief in time for the 1989-90 school year. Many questions remain for future determination. Not wanting to wait until the litigation was over to collect attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, plaintiffs filed an application for an interim award. On February 23, 1990, the district court directed the Rockford Board of Education to pay substantial fees and costs. The court gave counsel their regular hourly rates, without enhancement for risk. 1990 WL 25883, 1990 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 2977 (N.D.Ill.). On reconsideration the court added an award to cover the costs of expert assistance but again declined to adjust for risk. 1990 WL 53282, 1990 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 4997 (N.D.Ill.). The order, filed on April 11, 1990, provides: "Defendants are ordered to make a prompt payment of the interim fee award in the amount of $112,935.50 and costs in the amount of $18,514.65."
134 *134 On June 8 the parties filed a joint motion asking the district court to certify its order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The court obliged on September 25, entering a judgment that provides in full: "The Parties are hereby granted leave to file an interlocutory appeal concerning this court's award of attorney's fees and litigation expenses." An opinion explains that the "controlling question of law is the legal standard applicable to enhancement of the lodestar on account of contingent risk, after Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Council for Clean Air, [483 U.S. 711,] 107 S.Ct. 3078 [97 L.Ed.2d 585] (1987)". The parties immediately filed the necessary petition for this court's permission (No. 90-8098). Just to be safe, they filed notices of appeal in early October invoking our jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Plaintiffs' appeal (No. 90-3284) contends that counsel are entitled to an adjustment for risk; the Board of Education's appeal (No. 90-3291) contends that the plaintiffs are not yet entitled to any award. We called for memoranda on the question whether any of these appeals comes within our jurisdiction.
Section 1292(b) provides that a district court may certify an order for interlocutory appeal when it "shall be of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation". Although there may well be "substantial ground for difference of opinion" about the status of risk multipliers after Delaware Valley, it is hard to see how resolving the dispute one way or the other could "materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." Although the district court believed it "manifestly fair that the basic parameters of fee entitlement be resolved early in this case rather than at the end", a sentiment the parties share, § 1292(b) does not give district judges power to authorize interlocutory appeals generally. The question

must be one the resolution of which "may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." Disputes about the quantum of attorneys' fees do not satisfy that standard. We therefore deny the petition for leave to appeal under § 1292(b).
According to the parties, § 1291 furnishes all necessary authority: first because Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) governs the order of September 25, and second because the award is a "collateral order" appealable on the theory of Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949), and its intellectual forbear Forgay v. Conrad, 47 U.S. (6 How.) 201, 12 L.Ed. 404 (1848). The first of these founders because Rule 54(b) allows the entry of judgment only with respect to the final disposition of a claim for relief. Attorneys' fees are not a separate claim for relief, Mulay Plastics, Inc. v. Grand Trunk Western R.R., 742 F.2d 369, 371 (7th Cir.1984), and as their name implies "interim" fees are not the last word on the subject. What is more, Rule 54(b) comes into play "only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment." See Auriemma v. Chicago, 906 F.2d 312 (7th Cir.1990). This record contains neither the "express determination" nor the "express direction" 0907 no surprise, for the judge was addressing a motion under § 1292(b). It is, then, the collateral order doctrine or nothing.
Awards of attorneys' fees are appealable independently of the merits. Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196, 108 S.Ct. 1717, 100 L.Ed.2d 178 (1988); White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment Security, 455 U.S. 445, 102 S.Ct. 1162, 71 L.Ed.2d 325 (1982). Although interim awards are not final in the traditional sense, because the court may award more later (or direct the plaintiffs to repay the money if they ultimately fail to establish an entitlement to relief), we have held that they are appealable under the collateral order doctrine when the defendant may have difficulty getting the money back. Richardson v. Penfold, 900 F.2d 116 (7th Cir.1990); Palmer v. Chicago, 806 F.2d 1316 (7th Cir.1986). Accord, Shipes v. Trinity Industries, Inc., 883 135 F.2d 339 (5th Cir.1989); Webster v. Sowders, 846 *135 F.2d 1032 (6th Cir.1988). Contra, Rosenfeld v. United States, 859 F.2d 717 (9th Cir.1988). Because awards of fees are separate judgments for purposes of § 1291, the Cohen "collateral order" doctrine is not a neat fit. An award is collateral to the merits, but the final award is independently appealable and an interim award is not "collateral" to that decision. Forgay, which allowed an appeal when the judge directed an immediate transfer of property, may offer the better analogy. Awards of interim fees compel payment in mid-litigation, with chancy prospects of recoupment at the end, the sort of situation Forgay contemplated. See O D C Communications Corp. v. Wenruth Investments, 826 F.2d 509, 513-16 (7th Cir.1987) (discussing the "irreparable harm" component of appellate jurisdiction under Forgay).
Sailing is not smooth for these parties, however. Plaintiffs were not required to pay anything; they do not face a risk of irreparable injury in paying now and being unable to recover later. If at the end of the case the court determines that Delaware Valley allows a risk multiplier, counsel can be fully compensated, including interest to cover the time value of money. They prefer money now to money later, but the difference is not an irreparable loss and does not allow immediate appeal. Yakowicz v. Pennsylvania, 683 F.2d 778, 783 (3d Cir.1982). Perhaps plaintiffs believe that their appeal can ride pendent to the Board of Education's. Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 662-63, 97 S.Ct. 2034, 2041-42, 52 L.Ed.2d 651 (1977), puts a hurdle in the way, but there is an even steeper one: timeliness.
Judge Roszkowski made his interim award in February 1990 and refined it in April. Neither side filed a notice of appeal until early October, well after the 30 days allowed by Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1). October would be plenty of time if the appeals were taken from the order of September 25. Yet the judge did not make the collateral order in September; he certified an earlier order under § 1292(b).
The dispositive question becomes whether the reentry of a collateral order (if that is the best way to characterize the action in September) restarts the time for appeal. It does not. Weir v. Propst, 915 F.2d 283 (7th Cir.1990). The court denied a motion to dismiss in Weir. That denial was immediately appealable because the defendants wanted the court to recognize their immunity from suit. After the time for appeal had run, the defendants asked the court to certify the order for interlocutory appeal under § 1292(b). We explained: "The deadlines in Rule 4(a) for appeals in civil cases apply to all appealable orders, including collateral orders.... If the deadline is missed, the order is not appealable. The [party] must wait until another appealable order (normally, the final judgment) is entered, upon appeal of which he can challenge any interlocutory order that has not become moot." Weir, 915 F.2d at 286 (citations omitted). See also, e.g., Zayas-Green v. Casaine, 906 F.2d 18 (1st Cir.1990).

One remaining possibility is that the joint petition filed on June 8 is an informal request to extend the time for appeal, filed within 60 days of the order of April 11, and that the district court's action in September is equivalent to an extension under Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5). Whether cases treating documents filed during the time allowed for appeal as "informal" notices survive Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 108 S.Ct. 2405, 101 L.Ed.2d 285 (1988), is an interesting question, but not one with which we must grapple. Neither side contends that this is the proper characterization. An extension under Rule 4(a)(5) after the 30 days have expired depends on a demonstration of "excusable neglect", Lorenzen v. Employees Retirement Plan, 896 F.2d 228 (7th Cir.1990), which the parties have not supplied; the judge did not find that there was excusable neglect. Treating papers as "informal" notices of appeal is one way to protect the interests of unrepresented persons; both sides in this case are upholstered with lawyers. Moreover, an extension under Rule 4(a)(5) that comes after the 60 days have 136 expired may not run more than 10 days past the date of the order. Neither notice of appeal *136 was filed within 10 days of the September 25 order. So the notices are untimely even if the parties receive the benefit of every conceivable doubt.
The petition for leave to appeal under § 1292(b) is denied. The appeals are dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 961 F.2d 1335 (1992)
PEOPLE WHO CARE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 205, Defendant-Appellee, and
Rockford Education Association, et al., Intervenors-Appellants.
No. 91-2438.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Argued September 16, 1991. Decided April 22, 1992.
Ronald L. Futterman, Kathleen Mangold-Spoto, Robert C. Howard (argued), Hartunian, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, Ill., Andrew Campos, Rockford Area Hispanic Coalition, Centro Hispano Sembrador, Rockford, Ill., Eugene Eubanks, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff-appellee People Who Care.
Ronald L. Futterman, Kathleen Mangold-Spoto, Robert C. Howard (argued), Hartunian, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs-appellees, Larry Hoarde, Chastity Hoarde, Johnathan Hughes, Shaheed Saleem, Anissa Tripplett, Asia Eason, Sidney Malone, Andre Malone, James Curtin, Kelly Curtin and Leonardo Medrano.
Lawrence J. Weiner, Justino D. Petrarca, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chicago, Ill., Thomas A. Bueschel, Conde, Stoner & Killoren, Rockford, Ill., Anthony G. Scariano (argued), Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chicago 1336 Heights, Ill., John N. Schmidt, Rockford Public Schools, Rockford, *1336 Ill., for defendant-appellee Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205.
Stephen G. Katz, Katz, Friedman, Schur & Eagle, Chicago, Ill., Jeremiah A. Collins, Robert H. Chanin (argued), Susan Carle, Bredhoff & Kaiser, Washington, D.C., Barbara J. Buhai, Illinois Educ. Ass'n, Chicago, Ill., for intervenors-appellants Educational Office Personnel Ass'n, Rockford Bldg. Maintenance Ass'n, and Rockford Educ. Ass'n.
Before BAUER, Chief Judge, and POSNER and EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judges.
EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge.
Pupils, parents, and civic associations filed this suit seeking desegregation of the public schools in Rockford, the second-largest city in Illinois. The district court certified a class of all black or Hispanic pupils in the district, plus all other children attending racially identifiable schools there.
Figures compiled for litigation during the 1970s showed that although minorities made up approximately 15% of the pupils in Rockford's schools, several elementary schools had more than 70% minority enrollment and one had more than 90%. The school district adopted a plan involving voluntary transfers and educational enrichment, see Quality Education for All Children, Inc. v. School District No. 205, 385 F.Supp. 803 (N.D.Ill.1974) (Bauer, J.), but imbalance persisted. A second suit foundered when the plaintiffs were unwilling to allege that Rockford's officials intentionally used race as a ground of decision. Coates v. Illinois State Board of Education, 559 F.2d 445 (7th Cir.1977). Plaintiffs in this suit have alleged intentional discrimination. But they have yet to prove it. They settled with the Board, and the court entered the settlement agreement as an injunction.
Under the consent decree the Board is to establish three magnet schools and several magnet programs. Another 15 schools will be home to supplemental programs for disadvantaged minority students. The Board believes that these programs will achieve more if it assigns teachers of its own choosing. Collective bargaining agreements with several unions contain seniority provisions giving teachers rather than principals the dominant role in matching teachers with schools. The settlement agreement undercuts seniority as a principle of assignment. Section B.11.b of the injunction provides that "[t]eaching staff for [the] programs shall be selected without

emphasis on seniority and shall not be subject to displacement solely on the basis of seniority; rather, seniority shall be considered as one of the elements in determining qualification for selection or retention". Under the collective bargaining agreement the most junior teachers at a shrinking school are declared "surplus" and have bumping rights elsewhere in the system; under the injunction principals may choose teachers to let go without regard to seniority, and the "surplus" teachers lose their bumping rights at the magnet schools and new programs, which cover about 25% of the positions in the school district. The district's unions intervened to protest this alteration of their contracts.
Two other types of provisions in the injunction have drawn the unions' ire. Sections of the decree oblige the Board to establish training programs and specify the compensation for training time, to change class size, to extend the school year at one magnet school, to develop procedures to deal with complaints of discrimination, and so on. Unilateral action would abrogate the unions' entitlement, under state law, to bargain about changes in the terms and conditions of employment. The other category of provisions calls for racial preferences. Section E.7 of the decree compels the Board to discard the last-hired-first-fired system and instead to lay off white teachers exclusively, until it has reached specified levels of minority employment. Section E.6 requires the Board to take race into account when assigning teachers to schools. The unions contend that these provisions violate not only the collective bargaining agreements but also the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. 1337 See Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. 267, 106 S.Ct. 1842, 90 *1337 L.Ed.2d 260 (1986); Britton v. South Bend Community School Corp., 819 F.2d 766 (7th Cir.1987) (in banc). The district judge has suspended the application of §§ E.6 and 7, so we limit our attention to the provisions that alter the seniority rules and the obligation to bargain.
The district court issued the injunction on April 24, 1991. In June the court held what it called a "necessity hearing" to consider the unions' objections. This hearing took its name from language in Brown v. Neeb, 644 F.2d 551 (6th Cir.1981), to the effect that a court may abrogate parts of a contract when "necessary" to carry out the parties' agreement. The judge took evidence and in September issued an opinion concluding that "a sufficient factual predicate exists to support the District's decision to enter into" the consent decree. The court did not explain what this "factual predicate" is, but it appears to be racial imbalance in the schools. Next the court concluded that the decree is "necessary" 0907 not to eliminate racial discrimination, for none has been found, but "necessary for equalizing the educational opportunities of minority students as compared to white students." Finally the court held that alteration of seniority is "necessary" to make the consent decree work. The decree's rules "are necessary to ensure staff quality, program quality and staff stability", which the court thought not only important to the success of the new programs but also hard to achieve when seniority allows teachers to choose where to teach.
Rockford has not admitted engaging in discrimination; it has denied all liability; the district court wrote that "there has not been an admission of ultimate liability by Defendant or a determination by the Court of such liability." The unions jump off from here. Consent decrees are fundamentally contracts. True, when the imprimatur of the injunction joins the parties' agreement, the result is more than a contract, but the source of authority to require the parties to act remains their acquiescence rather than rules of law. Firefighters Local 93 v. Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501, 519-22, 106 S.Ct. 3063, 3073-75, 92 L.Ed.2d 405 (1986). In consequence, "parties who choose to resolve litigation through settlement may not dispose of the claims of a third party, and a fortiori may not impose duties or obligations on a third party, without that party's agreement." Id. at 529, 106 S.Ct. at 3079. See also Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755, 109 S.Ct. 2180, 104 L.Ed.2d 835 (1989); Larry Kramer, Consent Decrees and the Rights of Third Parties, 87 Mich.L.Rev. 321 (1988). In particular, they may not alter collective bargaining agreements without the union's assent. W.R. Grace & Co. v. Rubber Workers Local 759, 461 U.S. 757, 771, 103 S.Ct. 2177, 2186, 76 L.Ed.2d 298 (1983). Neither may litigants agree to disregard valid state laws. Dunn v. Carey, 808 F.2d 555, 560 (7th Cir.1986); Kasper v. Board of Election Commissioners, 814 F.2d 332, 340-41 (7th Cir.1987); Bates v. Johnson, 901 F.2d 1424, 1426 (7th Cir.1990). Cf. Ragsdale v. Turnock, 941 F.2d 501 (7th Cir.1991), at 510-11 (Posner, J., concurring), 515 (Flaum, J., dissenting in part); Bass v. FSLIC, 698 F.2d 328 (7th Cir.1983).
What the parties may do for themselves, they may do through a consent decree even if third persons lose out; so, for example, a city might agree with the EPA to build a new sewage treatment plant even though it must raise taxes to finance the project. A city does not need a court's blessing to raise taxes. When the parties to a decree seek to enlarge their legal entitlements 0907 to grant themselves rights and powers that they could not achieve

outside of court 0907 their agreement is not enough. We held in Dunn that a local government may not use a consent decree to eliminate a requirement under state law that it conduct a referendum before issuing construction bonds. Many persons bridle at restrictions that state law and their own prior agreements create and sincerely believe that the public would be better off in the absence of these constraints. More than this belief, and more than the "consent" of the person seeking liberation from the obligation, is necessary to alter or avoid it.
1338 The unions want us to stop here and adopt the holding of United States v. Miami, *1338 664 F.2d 435 (5th Cir.1981) (in banc), that no consent decree may alter any collective bargaining agreement, unless the district court finds that the agreement violates the law or frustrates the remedy for such a violation. So long as the judge is agnostic about the existence of any violation, neither finding is possible 0907 and Judge Roszkowski made neither. He found the decree necessary to curtail racial imbalance (and the alteration of seniority necessary to carry out the decree) but not that racial imbalance violates any rule of law. Recently the Supreme Court reiterated that racial imbalance does not offend any federal norm. "Racial balance is not to be achieved for its own sake. It is to be pursued when racial imbalance has been caused by a constitutional violation." Freeman v. Pitts, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 112 S.Ct. 1430, 1447, 118 L.Ed.2d 108, 136 (1992).
Remedies for violations of the Constitution may include altering statutory or contractual rules for assigning teachers to schools. So much has been clear since Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971). Is proof of a violation essential to the adoption of a remedy that affects third parties? Suppose that the violation were obvious 0907 that Rockford had laws requiring segregation, or that its Board routinely drew school boundaries grouping pupils by race. Would it be necessary to adjudicate the obvious before adopting (or permitting the parties to agree on) a remedy that altered the assignment of teachers? Cf. McDaniel v. Barresi, 402 U.S. 39, 91 S.Ct. 1287, 28 L.Ed.2d 582 (1971). It is not wholly satisfactory to say that if the violation is clear the litigation will be swift and cheap; legal processes create opportunities for reluctant parties to postpone the day of reckoning. "Consent" that is no more than knuckling under to the inevitable is more like an adjudication than a contract. Perhaps this is what the sixth circuit had in mind in Brown v. Neeb, whose opaque opinions resist close analysis. A "necessity" hearing then would be a cousin to a hearing leading to a preliminary injunction. The court would examine the evidence quickly, and if it found that victory for the plaintiffs was probable could approve a settlement reflecting the probable outcome of a contest. If a court may order preliminary relief without fully adjudicating the merits, may it not sometimes order relief on a combination of the parties' assent plus a review of the merits?
We need not decide whether a finding of probable success on the merits after a bobtailed factual inquiry, combined with the consent of the parties, could support the alteration of contracts. The district judge made no such finding. As the case comes to us, we must assume that the plaintiffs will be unable to show intentional discrimination.
Even a remedy supported by a summary finding must get at the wrong. "A remedy is justifiable only insofar as it advances the ultimate objective of alleviating the initial constitutional violation." Freeman, 112 S.Ct. at 1445. Courts have been reluctant to conclude that seniority systems are discriminatory or interfere with remedies for violations. E.g., Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 424 U.S. 747, 96 S.Ct. 1251, 47 L.Ed.2d 444 (1976); Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 97 S.Ct. 1843, 52 L.Ed.2d 396 (1977); Firefighters Local 1784 v. Stotts, 467 U.S. 561, 104 S.Ct. 2576, 81 L.Ed.2d 483 (1984); Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. 267, 106 S.Ct. 1842, 90 L.Ed.2d 260 (1986); Lorance v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 490 U.S. 900, 109 S.Ct. 2261, 104 L.Ed.2d 961 (1989). Changing seniority or other contractual rights would make the remedial job easier, but this does not license a court to impose these changes on persons who have done no wrong. Suppose, for example, that Rockford were strapped for cash and could not afford magnet schools on its current budget. Cf. 1339 Missouri v. Jenkins, 495 U.S. 33, 110 S.Ct. 1651, 109 L.Ed.2d 31 (1990). Could the *1339 Board and the plaintiffs then agree with each other (over the unions' objections) to reduce teachers' salaries by 10%, diverting the money to pay for books? That the unions' pension fund would contribute $100,000 toward the cost of the new programs?
Seniority has value, enabling teachers to obtain postings that pay more or return greater psychic income. The Board could buy out the teachers' seniority rights. Apparently it attempted to do so but found the price too steep. It then "agreed" with the plaintiffs to eliminate these rights, for free. This is a great deal for the Board, and with the

savings it can achieve more of what plaintiffs desire. No surprise that the original litigants consented. New assignment rules may even be "necessary" to the achievement of their mutual objectives. But before altering the contractual (or state-law) entitlements of third parties, the court must find the change necessary to an appropriate remedy for a legal wrong. Even if this finding may come on abbreviated proceedings (a subject we have not decided), there must be such a finding. As there is none, we direct the district court to vacate those portions of the decree overriding the seniority provisions of the collective bargaining agreements or relieving the Board of its obligation to bargain with the unions. The case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 964 F.2d 639 (1992)
PEOPLE WHO CARE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 205, Defendant-Appellee, and
Rockford Education Association, et al., Intervenors-Appellants.
No. 91-2438.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
May 18, 1992.
Ronald L. Futterman, Kathleen Mangold-Spoto, Robert C. Howard, Hartunian, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, Ill., Andrew Campos, Rockford Area Hispanic Coalition, Rockford, Ill., and Eugene Eubanks, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Lawrence J. Weiner, Justino D. Petrarca, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chicago, Ill., Thomas A. Bueschel, Conde, Stoner & Killoren, Rockford, Ill., Anthony G. Scariano, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chicago Heights, Ill., and John N. Schmidt, Rockford Public Schools, Rockford, Ill., for defendant-appellee.
Stephen G. Katz, Katz, Friedman, Schur & Eagle, Chicago, Ill., Jeremiah A. Collins, Robert H. Chanin, Susan Carle, Bredhoff & Kaiser, Washington, D.C., and Barbara J. Buhai, Illinois Educ. Ass'n, Chicago, Ill., for intervenors-appellants.
Before BAUER, Chief Judge, and POSNER and EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judges.
ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs and the Board seek rehearing, contending that instead of vacating the portions of the consent decree that conflict with the collective bargaining agreement, we should modify the decree only to the extent it enjoins implementation of the agreement. Such an order would leave the Board with incompatible obligations 0907 bound by contract with the union to do one thing and by judicial decree to do something else. That result, the plaintiffs insist, is the command of W.R. Grace & Co. v. Rubber Workers Local 759, 461 U.S. 757, 103 S.Ct. 2177, 76 L.Ed.2d 298 (1983).
Grace entered into a conciliation agreement with the EEOC. The agreement contained provisions inconsistent with those in an agreement between Grace and one of its unions. The union obtained an award of damages from an arbitrator, and the Court held that Grace must pay.
Plaintiffs and the Board point to language in Grace that the civil rights laws do not forbid an employer to assume 640 inconsistent contractual obligations. Yet the *640 logical possibility of inconsistent obligations does not imply that
a judge must or even may assist in the creation of such conflicts. Grace undertook two contractual obligations. So did the Rockford Board of Education, but we are not concerned with the status, as contract, of the agreement between plaintiffs and the Board. The litigants wanted, and got, an order preferring their bargain over the Board's pact with the union. They ask us to leave that rule of preference in place, enforced by an injunction, remitting the unions to damages even though an arbitrator under the collective bargaining agreement might believe specific performance appropriate. We have said many times that judges should not enter consent decrees interfering with the legal entitlements of non-consenting parties. E.g., Kasper v. Board of Election Commissioners, 814 F.2d 332 (7th Cir. 1987). Rockford's unions sought 0907 as Grace's unions did not 0907 the elimination of any judicial compulsion behind the employer's conflicting promise. They are entitled to that relief.

Plaintiffs and the Board ask us to remand so that they may make a showing of discrimination adequate to support greater relief under the framework of our opinion. A remand is scarcely necessary: the case is ongoing, and hearings on the merits lie ahead. Just in case, we repeat the final sentence of our opinion: "The case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion."
The petitions for rehearing are denied. No judge has called for a vote on the Board's suggestion of rehearing in banc, which is rejected.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 111 F.3d 528 (1997)
PEOPLE WHO CARE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v.
ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 205, Defendant-Appellant/ Cross-Appellee, and
Rockford Education Association, et al., Intervening-Defendants-Appellants/CrossAppellees.
In the Matter of ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 205, Petitioner.
Nos. 96-2410, 96-3244, 96-4090, 96-3022, 96-3283, 96-4138, 96-3226, 96-3662, 97-1157, 97-1116.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Argued February 28, 1997. Decided April 15, 1997.
Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing Denied June 3, 1997.
52390 *529 *530 Joan Matlack, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, IL, for Larry Hoarde, Chasty Hoarde, Jonathan Hughes, Cindy Malone, Stephanie Burfield in No. 96-2410.
Ronald L. Futterman, Robert C. Howard, argued, Joan Matlack, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, IL, for People Who Care in No. 96-2410.
William Quinlan, Rockford Public Schools, Rockford, IL, for Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205 in No. 96-2410.
Virginia A. Seitz, argued, Bredhoff & Kaiser, Washington, DC, Barbara J. Buhai, Stephen G. Katz, Tammara M. Lovett, Katz & Buhai, Barrington, IL, for Rockford Educ. Assoc., IEA-NEA, Rockford Building Maintenance Assoc., Educational Office Personnel Assoc. in Nos. 96-2410, 96-3226, 96-3244, 96-3283.
Ronald L. Futterman, Kathleen Mangold-Spoto, Robert C. Howard, argued, Joan Matlack, Vincent I. Haskell, Carol R. Ashley, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, IL, James G. Bradtke, Soule & Bradtke, Chicago, IL, for People Who Care in No. 96-3022.
Lawrence J. Weiner, Rosanne Ciambrone, Justino D. Petrarca, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chicago, IL, William J. Quinlan, Rockford Public Schools, Rockford, IL, Anthony G. Scariano, argued, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chicago Heights, IL, for Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205 in No. 96-3022.
531 Denise S. Poloyac, Katz, Friedman, Schur & Eagle, Chicago, IL, Virginia A. Seitz, argued, *531 Bredhoff & Kaiser, Washington, DC, Barbara J. Buhai, Stephen G. Katz, Tammara M. Lovett, Katz & Buhai, Barrington, IL, for Rockford Edc. Assoc., IEA-NEA in No. 96-3022.
Virginia A. Seitz, Barbara J. Buhai, Stephen G. Katz, Tammara M. Lovett, Katz & Buhai, Barrington, IL, for Rockford Building Maintenance Assoc., Educ. Office Personnel Assoc. in No. 96-3022.
Ronald L. Futterman, Kathleen Mangold-Spoto, Robert C. Howard, argued, Craig B. Futterman, Joan Matlack, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, IL, for People Who Care in No. 96-3226.
Ronald L. Futterman, Kathleen Mangold-Spoto, Robert C. Howard, argued, Craig B. Futterman, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, IL, Matthew J. Piers, Jonathan A. Rothstein, Dana H. Sukenik, Gessler, Hughes & Socol, Ltd., Chicago, IL, for Larry Hoarde, Chasty Hoarde, Jonathan Hughes, Cindy Malone in No. 96-3226.

Lawrence J. Weiner, Rosanne Ciambrone, Justino D. Petrarca, Patrick J. Broncato, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chicago, IL, William J. Quinlan, Rockford Public Schools, Rockford, IL, Anthony G. Scariano, argued, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chicago Heights, IL, for Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205 in No. 96-3226.
Kathleen Mangold-Spoto, Joan Matlack, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, IL, for Larry Hoarde, Chasty Hoarde, Jonathan Hughes in No. 96-3244.
Ronald L. Futterman, Kathleen Mangold-Spoto, Robert C. Howard, argued, Joan Matlack, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, IL, for People Who Care in No. 96-3244.
Kathleen Mangold-Spoto, Joan Matlack, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, IL, for Stephanie Burfield in No. 96-3244.
Lawrence J. Weiner, Rosanne Ciambrone, Justino D. Petrarca, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chicago, IL, William Quinlan, Rockford Public Schools, Rockford, IL, Anthony G. Scariano, argued, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chicago Heights, IL, for Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205 in No. 96-3244.
Ronald L. Futterman, Robert C. Howard, argued, Kathleen Mangold-Spoto, Joan Matlack, Vincent I. Haskell, Carol R. Ashley, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, IL, for Larry Hoarde, Chasty Hoarde, Jonathan Hughes in No. 96-3283.
Ronald L. Futterman, Robert C. Howard, Kathleen Mangold-Spoto, Joan Matlack, Vincent I. Haskell, Carol R. Ashley, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, IL, for People Who Care in No. 96-3283.
David Faulkner, Amy E. Shapper, Jeffry S. Spears, Lord, Bissell & Brook, Rockford, IL, Matthew J. Piers, Gessler, Hughes & Socol, Ltd., Chicago, IL, for Stephanie Burfield in No. 96-3283.
Lawrence J. Weiner, Rosanne Ciambrone, Justino D. Petrarca, Patrick J. Broncato, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chicago, IL, Anthony G. Scariano, argued, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chicago Heights, IL, for Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205 in No. 96-3283.
Joan Matlack, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, IL, James G. Bradtke, Soule & Bradtke, Chicago, IL, for Larry Hoarde, Chasty Hoarde, Jonathan Hughes in No. 96-3662.
David Faulkner, Amy E. Shappert, Jeffry S. Spears, Lord, Bissell & Brook, Rockford, IL, Jonathan A. Rothstein, Gessler, Hughes & Socol, Ltd., Chicago IL, for Stephanie Burfield in No. 96-3662.
Robert C. Howard, argued, Joan Matlack, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, IL, James G. Bradtke, Soule & Bradtke, Chicago, IL, for People Who Care in Nos. 96-3662, 96-4090.
Lawrence J. Weiner, Rosanne Ciambrone, Justino D. Petrarca, Patrick J. Broncato, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chicago, IL, William Quinlan, Rockford Public Schools, Rockford, IL, Robert H. Ellch, argued, Anthony G. Scariano, argued, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chicago Heights, IL, for Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205 in Nos. 96-3662, 96-4090, 96-4138.
Joan Matlack, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, IL, James G. Bradtke, Soule & Bradtke, Chicago, IL, for Larry Hoarde, Chasty Hoarde in No. 96-4090.
532 *532 David Faulkner, Amy E. Shappert, Lord, Bissell & Brook, Rockford, IL, Jeffry S. Spears, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Rockford, IL, Jonathan A. Rothstein, Gessler, Hughes & Socol, Ltd., Chicago IL, for Stephanie Burfield in Nos. 96-4090, 96-4138.
Robert C. Howard, Joan Matlack, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, IL, James G. Bradtke, Soule & Bradtke, Chicago, IL, for Sidney Malone in No. 96-4090.
Stephen G. Katz, Katz & Buhai, South Barrington, IL, for Rockford Educ. Assoc., IEA-NEA in Nos. 96-4090, 96-4138.

Robert C. Howard, argued, Joan Matlack, Vincent I. Haskell, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, IL, James G. Bradtke, Soule & Bradtke, Chicago, IL, for People Who Care in No. 96-4138.
Vincent I. Haskell, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, IL, for Larry Hoarde in No. 96-4138.
Robert C. Howard, Vincent I. Haskell, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, IL, for Sidney Malone, Andre Malone in No. 96-4138.
Robert C. Howard, Craig B. Futterman, Joan Matlack, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, IL, for People Who Care in No. 97-1157.
Craig B. Futterman, Joan Matlack, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, IL, for Larry Hoarde, Chasty Hoarde, Jonathan Hughes in No. 97-1157.
Diane I. Jennings, Charles A. Egner, Lord, Bissell & Brook, Chicago, IL, David Faulkner, Lord, Bissell & Brook, Rockford, IL, for Stephanie Burfield in No. 97-1157.
Lawrence J. Weiner, Anthony G. Scariano, Rosanne Ciambrone, Justino D. Petrarca, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chicago, IL, for Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205 in No. 97-1157.
Barbara J. Buhai, Stephen G. Katz, Tammara M. Lovett, Katz & Buhai, Barrington, IL, for Rockford Educ. Assoc., IEA-NEA in Nos. 97-1157, 97-1116.
Lawrence J. Weiner, Anthony G. Scariano, Rosanne Ciambrone, Justino D. Petrarca, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chicago, IL, for Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205 in No. 97-1116.
Robert C. Howard, Craig B. Futterman, Joan Matlack, Vincent I. Haskell, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, IL, for People Who Care in No. 97-1116.
Diane I. Jennings, Charles A. Egner, Lord, Bissell & Brook, Chicago, IL, David Faulkner, Lord, Bissell & Brook, Rockford, IL, Janet L. Pulliam, Denise Reid Hoggard, Little Rock, AR, for Eugene Eubanks in No. 97-1116.
Before POSNER, Chief Judge, and BAUER and KANNE, Circuit Judges.
Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc Denied in Nos. 96-2410, -3022, -3226, -3244, -3283, June 3, 1997.
POSNER, Chief Judge.
We have consolidated for argument and decision nine separate appeals, plus one petition for mandamus, arising out of the remedial phase of the Rockford, Illinois desegregation litigation. The current lawsuit is "only" eight years old, but litigation over racial segregation in the Rockford public schools began a quarter of a century ago, see Quality Education for All Children, Inc. v. School Board, 362 F.Supp. 985 (N.D.Ill.1973), and we have heard many appeals in it. The recent flurry of appeals, threatening to become an avalanche, induced us to direct that all pending and future appeals be submitted to this panel.
We need go no farther back in the history of this litigation than 1994, when the district judge found that the school district had intentionally discriminated against black and Hispanic students in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 851 F.Supp. 905 (N.D.Ill.1994). That discrimination was not, of course, commanded or authorized by state or local law, like the school segregation invalidated in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954); see also Brown v. Board of Education, 892 F.2d 851, 854 (10th Cir.1989), vacated, 503 U.S. 978, 112 S.Ct. 1657, 118 L.Ed.2d 381 (1992); on remand, 978 F.2d 585 (10th Cir.1992). The inference of intentional discrimination was drawn primarily from disparities in educational achievement between white and minority students and from the school district's failure to take effective steps to 533 prevent its schools from becoming all-white or all-minority. The *533 school district accepted the determination of liability, and the parties consented to have a magistrate judge preside over the remedial phase of the litigation with power to enter judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

The magistrate judge appointed a special master to assist him, pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 53, and in 1996, after evidentiary hearings, entered an elaborate equitable decree (the "comprehensive remedial order"). The decree contains a number of provisions concerning the operation of the school district that are assailed in the appeals by the school district and the teachers' and other school employees' unions. The appeal of the plaintiffs, who brought this suit on behalf of minority children in the school district, focuses on the omission from the decree of provisions proposed by either the plaintiffs or the special master. A number of the provisions in the decree are not challenged by any party, including ones designed to give parents a measure of choice about which school within the school district to send their children to and, most important, ones requiring racial integration of each school in the district. The decree also requires the school district to build additional schools at an estimated cost of $48 million. That provision is not challenged either, but the school district does challenge the method that the magistrate judge decreed, in separate orders, for financing the building program. A third set of challenges by the school district is to two orders by the magistrate judge regarding the special master's role in a hearing on the implementation of one of the remedial measures.
The discretionary power of a district court to formulate an equitable remedy for an adjudicated violation of law is broad. Where necessary for the elimination of the violation, the decree can properly fence the defendant in by forbidding conduct not unlawful in itself. FTC v. National Lead Co., 352 U.S. 419, 430, 77 S.Ct. 502, 509, 1 L.Ed.2d 438 (1957); Sasnett v. Sullivan, 91 F.3d 1018, 1021 (7th Cir.1996); Szabo v. U.S. Marine Corp., 819 F.2d 714, 721 (7th Cir. 1987). But equitable discretion is not unlimited, and a number of principles have emerged to guide its exercise. For example, because the violation of an equitable decree is punishable as a contempt of court, the decree should not command the defendants to do something that is entirely beyond their control. Haley v. Pataki, 883 F.Supp. 816, 826 (N.D.N.Y.), vacated as moot, 60 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 1995); Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 755 F.Supp. 1468, 1483 (D.Colo.1991); cf. Pasadena City Board of Education v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424, 438-40, 96 S.Ct. 2697, 2705-07, 49 L.Ed.2d 599 (1976). Moreover, equitable decrees often affect innocent third parties; their interests must be fully considered in the formulation of the decree, especially when the interests are of constitutional dignity. People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, 961 F.2d 1335, 1338 (7th Cir. 1992); Walgreen Co. v. Sara Creek Property Co., 966 F.2d 273, 276 (7th Cir.1992); NLRB v. P*I*E Nationwide, Inc., 894 F.2d 887, 893 (7th Cir.1990); Duran v. Elrod, 760 F.2d 756, 759 (7th Cir.1985); cf. Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753, 765-66, 114 S.Ct. 2516, 2524-25, 129 L.Ed.2d 593 (1994). And when the decree is addressed to a branch of government rather than to private persons, it must be formulated with sensitivity to the separation of powers and the dignity of the states as quasi-sovereigns. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 378-79, 96 S.Ct. 598, 607-08, 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976); Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) v. Edgar, 56 F.3d 791, 798 (7th Cir.1995); Hoover v. Wagner, 47 F.3d 845, 850-51 (7th Cir.1995). Some of these interbranch decrees are ambitiously designed to reform important public institutions. In such cases the court must be sensitive not only to the concerns of comity but also to the practical limitations of the federal judiciary as an administrative body, in this case a super school board. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84-85, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 2259-60, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547-48, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1878-79, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979); Stone v. City & County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 860-61 (9th Cir.1992).
The court must also bear in mind the general precept, which is the valid core of equity's former reluctance to 534 decree mandatory relief, 1 Dan R. Dobbs, Law of Remedies: *534 Damages 0907 Equity 0907 Restitution § 2.9, pp.
224-25 (2d ed.1993), that decrees which prohibit specified conduct are generally preferable to those that impose affirmative duties. They are easier to obey and easier to enforce than decrees that command the defendant to do something rather than to desist from doing something, and by so commanding enmesh the federal courts in administration. Affirmative decrees are a formula for protraction. Forty-eight years after it had first been initiated, litigation to desegregate the public schools of Topeka was still producing appeals generating 100-page judicial opinions. Brown v. Board of Education, supra, 892 F.2d at 851-957.
It should go without saying that equitable remediation must be guided by norms of proportionality. Dalton v. Little Rock Family Planning Services, ___ U.S. ___, ___-___, 116 S.Ct. 1063, 1064-65, 134 L.Ed.2d 115 (1996) (per curiam); Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman, 433 U.S. 406, 417, 419, 97 S.Ct. 2766, 2774, 2775, 53 L.Ed.2d 851 (1977); Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 22, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 1279, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971); Waldman Publishing Corp. v. Landoll, Inc., 43 F.3d 775, 785 (2d Cir.1994); Gulf Oil Corp. v. Brock, 778 F.2d 834, 842-43 (D.C.Cir.1985); Ameron, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 787 F.2d 875, 888,

890 (3d Cir.1986). That is, the remedy must be tailored to the violation, rather than the violation's being a pretext for the remedy. Violations of law must be dealt with firmly, but not used to launch the federal courts on ambitious schemes of social engineering. Cf. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, supra, 402 U.S. at 22, 91 S.Ct. at 1279. Children, the most innocent of the innocent persons occasionally brushed by draconian decrees, should not be made subjects of utopian projects.
A related point, as we shall see, is that the guidelines for the admissibility of expert testimony that the Supreme Court laid down in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), apply to the testimony of social scientists as well as to that of natural scientists. Sheehan v. Daily Racing Form, Inc., 104 F.3d 940, 942 (7th Cir.1997); Tyus v. Urban Search Management, 102 F.3d 256, 263 (7th Cir.1996). And not only to their testimony at the liability stage of a lawsuit, but also to testimony offered at the remedy stage.
Every one of these precepts was violated by one or more provisions of the decree in this case. Consider first the provision that at least 13.5 percent of the teachers in each school in the school district be black or Hispanic and that they be given superseniority so that in the event of layoffs the percentage of minority teachers will not dip below the prescribed level. No teachers are even plaintiffs in this suit. And while there are references in the district judge's opinion on liability to the underrepresentation of minority teachers (currently 8.7 percent) in the school district's teaching staff, there is no finding that the school district has ever discriminated (by which we mean discriminated intentionally 0907 the only kind of discrimination that violates the equal protection clause, Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman, supra, 433 U.S. at 413, 97 S.Ct. at 2772; Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976); Barnett v. Daley, 32 F.3d 1196, 1198-99 (7th Cir.1994)) in the hiring, promotion, firing, assignment (to one school or another), or transfer of teachers. See 851 F.Supp. at 923-24. The magistrate judge thought he was finding intentional discrimination in hiring, see id. at 1130, but he based his finding of intentional discrimination on statistical disparities, which need not reflect discrimination, intentional or otherwise, and on the school district's failure to reach its self-imposed hiring goals 0907 so that failure to achieve affirmative action was treated, erroneously, Yatvin v. Madison Metropolitan School District, 840 F.2d 412, 415-16 (7th Cir.1988); Mozee v. American Commercial Marine Service Co., 940 F.2d 1036, 1051 (7th Cir.1991), as a form of intentional discrimination against the beneficiaries of the affirmative action. The record does not support an inference of intentional discrimination against black or Hispanic teachers. The white teachers currently 535 employed by the school district who will lose seniority rights, and future white applicants for teaching *535 jobs who will be discriminated against in favor of minority applicants, cannot be deemed to owe their jobs, their job prospects, or their seniority to being beneficiaries of past discrimination against minorities.
These white teachers are to be made victims of court-decreed racial discrimination in order to secure to the minority students the conjectural benefits of making it more difficult to identify particular schools as "white" or "black" (or Hispanic), of reducing the disciplinary problems of minority students 0907 problems assumed to be less serious if their teachers are black or Hispanic 0907 and of fostering achievement by providing minority students with role models of their own race or ethnicity. Although such benefits may be real, the evidence for them in the record of this case is scanty. More important, it is not the kind of evidence that justifies infringing the constitutional right not to be discriminated against in hiring and seniority on account of race. Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. 267, 274-76, 106 S.Ct. 1842, 1847-48, 90 L.Ed.2d 260 (1986) (plurality opinion); id. at 294-95, 106 S.Ct. at 1857-58 (separate opinion).
It is true that "reverse discrimination" 0907 discrimination by whites against whites because of race 0907 is not unlawful per se, at least when it is intended to remedy past misconduct by the reverse discriminator, Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 115 S.Ct. 2097, 2117, 132 L.Ed.2d 158 (1995) (plurality opinion), and perhaps in a few other types of case as well. Wittmer v. Peters, 87 F.3d 916 (7th Cir.1996). But it is highly suspect, e.g., Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 642-43, 113 S.Ct. 2816, 2824-25, 125 L.Ed.2d 511 (1993), and therefore, as we emphasized in Wittmer, has to be justified by solid evidence. This is especially true when it takes the form of a quota embodied in an equitable decree and hence enforceable by contempt sanctions and continuing federal judicial control. See Lockett v. Board of Education, 92 F.3d 1092, 1101 (11th Cir. 1996); Tasby v. Estes, 643 F.2d 1103, 1105 (5th Cir.1981). The threat of sanctions and protracted federal tutelage would place pressure on the school district to relax its hiring standards as much as was necessary to fill the quota, with the almost certain consequence that the teachers it was hiring would on average not be as good as if it were on the

basis purely of merit. To make a case for reverse discrimination the reduction in quality would at a minimum have to be traded off against the benefits in racial and ethnic matching, and this has not been done. The incremental benefits 0907 not the benefits of having a substantial percentage of minority teachers but the benefits of having 13.5 percent rather than the current 8.7 percent 0907 would have to be compared with the costs in reduced quality of teachers, and that comparison has not been made either. And because the percentage of minority teachers currently being hired by the school district is well above 13.5 percent, the district is on its way toward that level anyway, cf. Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman, supra, 433 U.S. at 411, 97 S.Ct. at 2770, so that the quota probably is unnecessary as well as 0907 on this record, which does not begin to justify a racial quota for teachers 0907 unconstitutional. Britton v. South Bend Community School Corp., 819 F.2d 766, 771-72 (7th Cir.1987) (en banc).
What makes this aspect of the comprehensive remedial order even more troubling is that it contravenes the statement by this court in an earlier opinion in this lawsuit that "changing seniority or other contractual rights would make the remedial job easier, but this does not license a court to impose these changes on persons who have done no wrong." People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, supra, 961 F.2d at 1338. That is what the magistrate judge has done, in violation of the law of the case doctrine 0907 as well as of the Constitution.
Several of the challenged provisions of the decree relate to class assignment of students. The decree forbids tracking 0907 that is, grouping students by ability. There are some exceptions; for example, classes for especially gifted students are permitted. But the exceptions are illusory, because even in those classes the decree imposes racial quotas. And, what is closely related to the prohibition of tracking, the decree requires that the racial 536 composition of every nonelective class in every school in the district match *536 the racial composition of the school, with a leeway of only 5 percent. So in a class of 30 students in a school in which 40 percent of the students are minority students, there must be between 35 percent and 45 percent minority students 0907 which is to say no fewer than 10 minority students nor more than 14 0907 or else the decree is violated. That is a misplaced exactitude.
Tracking is a controversial educational policy, although just grouping students by age, something no one questions, is a form of "tracking." Lawyers and judges are not competent to resolve the controversy. The conceit that they are belongs to a myth of the legal profession's omnicompetence that was exploded long ago. To abolish tracking is to say to bright kids, whether white or black, that they have to go at a slower pace than they're capable of; it is to say to the parents of the brighter kids that their children don't really belong in the public school system; and it is to say to the slower kids, of whatever race, that they may have difficulty keeping up, because the brighter kids may force the pace of the class. "The vast majority of public school students in the United States are tested, ranked, and segregated into separate ability groups and classes based on standardized test performance." Note, "Teaching Inequality: The Problem of Public School Tracking," 102 Harv. L.Rev. 1318 (1989) (footnote omitted). This may be deplorable, as the author of the student note (who at the time of writing the note was neither a public school student nor, it is a safe guess, a parent) believes, id. at 1340-41; but as the consensus of the nation's educational authorities, it deserves some consideration by a federal court.
Were abolition of tracking the only means of preventing the school district from manipulating the tracking system to separate the races, it might be a permissible remedy. It is not the only way 0907 as we take the plaintiffs implicitly to concede by accusing the school district of having placed white kids in higher tracks, and black kids in lower tracks, without always complying rigorously with objective criteria, such as scores on achievement tests. If that is the wrong, the remedy is obvious: forbid the district, on pain of contempt if the prohibition is flouted, to track students other than in accordance with criteria that have been validated as objective and nonracist. Quarles v. Oxford Municipal Separate School District, 868 F.2d 750, 754-55 (5th Cir.1989). This form of remedy is not only proportioned to the violation and duly respectful of the autonomy of educators in matters educational; it also requires less administrative supervision by the special master (and hence by the magistrate judge), who under the existing decree must supervise the school district's decisions on what courses to make elective and must police the absurdly confining 5 percent tolerances.
Tracking might be adopted in order to segregate the races. The well-known correlation between race and academic performance makes tracking, even when implemented in accordance with strictly objective criteria, a pretty effective segregator. If tracking were adopted for this purpose, then enjoining tracking would be a proper as well as the natural remedy for this form of intentional discrimination, at least if there were no compelling evidence

that it improves the academic performance of minority children and if the possible benefits to the better students and the social interest in retaining them in the public schools were given little weight. The general view is that tracking does not benefit minority students, Daniel U. Levine & Rayna F. Levine, Society and Education 38-41 (9th ed.1996), although there is evidence that some of them do benefit. Adam Gamoran & Robert D. Mare, "Secondary School Tracking and Educational Inequality: Compensation, Reinforcement, or Neutrality?" 94 Am. J. Sociology 1146, 1177 (1989). All this is neither here nor there. The plaintiffs' argument is not that the school district adopted tracking way back when in order to segregate the schools. It is that it misused tracking, twisting the criteria to achieve greater segregation than objective tracking alone would have done. See 851 F.Supp. at 913-14. The school district should be enjoined from doing this 0907 not, on this record, enjoined from tracking.
To the extent that tracking is restored, classroom racial quotas will go by the board; they are incompatible with 537 tracking. In *537 classes that are not tracked, the magistrate judge will have to reexamine the use of such quotas;
the 5 percent tolerances are too tight.
Another unjustifiable provision of the decree is the requirement that within four years half the gap in test scores between the white and minority students be closed. The main objections are not to the period of years, absurdly short though it seems, but to requiring the school district, under pain of contempt sanctions if it fails, to achieve a goal that depends to a significant degree on circumstances beyond its control 0907 were there a feasible means, decreeable by a court, of closing the gap in educational achievement between white and black students, the gap would have been closed by now 0907 and to ascribing half the gap to past discrimination by the school district. The 50 percent estimate is the magistrate judge's, and though it is purportedly based on testimony by expert witnesses about the achievement gap, no witness attempted to measure the size of the gap attributable to discrimination by the school district. One did say that 30 percent of the gap was attributable to poverty. But this made it merely possible, not probable 0907 in fact highly improbable, as we are about to see 0907 that the rest of the gap was due to discrimination (intentional discrimination, that is) by the school district.
The only study of the achievement gap that was conducted for this lawsuit did not attempt to quantify the causes of the gap and was in any event inadmissible under the Daubert test. That test requires, so far as bears on this case, that the methods used by the expert to derive his opinion satisfy the standards for scientific methodology that his profession would require of his out-of-court research. Sheehan v. Daily Racing Form, Inc., supra, 104 F.3d at 942; Braun v. Lorillard Inc., 84 F.3d 230, 235 (7th Cir.1996); Raynor v. Merrell Pharmaceuticals Inc., 104 F.3d 1371, 1375 (D.C.Cir.1997). The test is not whether his results are accepted by his scientific peers, but whether the methods he used to obtain them are good science or pseudoscience. The study in question, designed to correct for the influence of poverty on academic test scores, compared the scores of the poor white students in the school district with those of the poor minority students, with "poor" defined solely as receiving free lunches. The implicit assumption was thus that the only factor other than discrimination by the school district that could cause minority students to underperform white students on scholastic tests is poverty. The study did not even measure poverty. It merely identified students who were below a poverty line. Even if the line was correctly chosen, the black students eligible for free lunches could be on average significantly poorer than the white students eligible for them; they could be further below the poverty line, and this could make a difference in their educational achievement. And poverty is not the only family or demographic characteristic affecting scholastic performance. If it were, the well-documented scholastic achievements of the children of poor immigrants would have to be ascribed to discrimination in favor of immigrants! The social scientific literature on educational achievement identifies a number of other variables besides poverty and discrimination that explain differences in scholastic achievement, such as the educational attainments of the student's parents and the extent of their involvement in their children's schooling. E.g., David J. Armor, Forced Justice: School Desegregation and the Law 96, 98 (1995); James S. Coleman, Equality of Educational Opportunity 302 (1966). These variables cannot be assumed to be either randomly distributed across the different racial and ethnic groups in Rockford or perfectly correlated with poverty. There isn't even evidence that the gap in scholastic achievement between white and minority students in Rockford is any greater than the gap between white and minority students in school districts that have not been found to have discriminated against their black and Hispanic students.
A statistical study is not inadmissible merely because it is unable to exclude all possible causal factors other than the one of interest. But a statistical study that fails to correct for salient explanatory variables, or even to make the 538 most elementary comparisons, has no value as causal explanation and *538 is therefore inadmissible in a federal

court. The idea that the educational deficiencies of minority students in the Rockford public schools are due primarily to discrimination by the school authorities and can be rectified by an equitable decree is at once unsubstantiated by responsible evidence and 0907 since there is no evidence that these deficiencies are any greater than in school districts around the country that have not been held to have discriminated against minority students 0907 implausible.
The decree forbids the school district to refer a higher percentage of minority students than of white students for discipline unless the district purges all "subjective" criteria from its disciplinary code. The decree requires this even though important disciplinary criteria (such as disrupting classes) are unavoidably judgmental and hence "subjective" within the sense of the decree, and even though the disparity in minority and white referrals is smaller in the Rockford school district than in the nation as a whole. This provision cannot stand. Coalition to Save Our Children v. State Board of Education, 90 F.3d 752, 775 (3d Cir.1996); Keyes v. Congress of Hispanic Educators, 902 F.Supp. 1274, 1303-04 (D.Colo.1995). Racial disciplinary quotas violate equity in its root sense. They entail either systematically overpunishing the innocent or systematically underpunishing the guilty. They place race at war with justice. They teach schoolchildren an unedifying lesson of racial entitlements. And they incidentally are inconsistent with another provision of the decree, which requires that discipline be administered without regard to race or ethnicity.
The decree also perversely limits minority enrollment in compensatory education (that is, remedial) programs to the percentage of minority students in the school as a whole. These programs are designed largely although not entirely for minority students, because they have on average more educational deficits. To forbid these students access to these programs on the ground that it would foster unfavorable stereotypes is the kind of "benign discrimination" thinking (illustrated by Bradwell v. Illinois, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 130, 141-42, 21 L.Ed. 442 (1873) (concurring opinion)) that the courts have long rejected. See, for recent examples, United States v. Starrett City Associates, 840 F.2d 1096, 1102 (2d Cir.1988); Larkin v. Michigan, 883 F.Supp. 172, 176-77 (E.D.Mich. 1994). It is impermissible.
No party defends the provision of the decree that limits the amount of money that the school district may take from "Fund 12" to finance compliance with the decree. Fund 12 is part of a tort immunity fund, which is a fund that local government agencies in Illinois are authorized by state law to create out of revenue from property taxes in order to pay tort judgments. 105 ILCS 5/17-2.5; 745 ILCS 10/9-107. The question whether it is lawful under Illinois law to use the tort fund for compliance with a desegregation decree is currently before the Illinois courts. We cannot fathom the magistrate judge's desire to "wean" the school district from its dependence on this fund to finance compliance with the decree, especially given the limits that Illinois law places on the power of local government to raise property taxes. 35 ILCS 200/18-185 to -245; 105 ILCS 5/12-11.1, 5/17-2.
Another indefensible provision of the decree prescribes the racial and ethnic composition of the cheerleading squads. The percentage of cheerleaders in each school who are black or Hispanic must be no lower than the corresponding percentage of the school's population as a whole. Of course the school district may not discriminate against minority aspirants for the cheerleading squads. But to fix a racial quota for cheerleaders demeans the remedial process in school desegregation litigation and cannot possibly be justified in the absence of evidence (of which there is none) that any current cheerleaders owe their position to past discrimination against blacks or Hispanics by the school district or its agents. Cf. Coalition to Save Our Children v. State Board of Education, supra, 90 F.3d at 768-69. To prevent children who are not beneficiaries of past discrimination from becoming cheerleaders, because of their race, is, on this record, a barefaced denial of equal protection.
539 *539 The school district also challenges the breadth of the special master's authority. But this challenge is largely moot, or at least premature, in light of our rulings on the challenges to specific provisions of the decree. These rulings curtail the special master's authority in precisely those areas in which the school district complains about his uncanalized powers. The district has not complained about specific abuses of the powers of his that have not been challenged. When and if he abuses those powers, the district may seek a remedy.
What we have said so far disposes of portions of the cross-appeal by the plaintiffs 0907 for example their argument that there should be separate quotas for black and Hispanic teachers, which we obviously reject; their argument that teachers (all of whom are Hispanic) in bilingual education programs should not count toward the quota for minority teachers, which is moot in light of our rejection of the quota; and their argument that Fund 12 should not

be capped, which we have accepted. But there is more to the cross-appeal. Although the plaintiffs are not complaining about the decree's failure to impose a racial quota on special education programs for children suffering from behavioral disorders, they want the black students in these programs reevaluated to make sure they belong there and haven't been put there because of their race. But as there is no finding that this form of racial discrimination occurred, 851 F.Supp. at 1182-83, there is no basis for a remedial order concerning it, in the absence of a "fencing in" rationale that has not been argued.
We agree with the plaintiffs, however, that the magistrate judge erred in excluding preschool programs on the ground that preschoolers can't have been injured by past discrimination against minority students since by definition they were not students then. (This was not his only ground, but we cannot tell how important it was in his thinking.) Well, neither were first graders. Because kids grow up faster than school desegregation cases reach the remedy stage, there is never a close matching of the class discriminated against with the class benefited. To insist on such matching would be to abolish school desegregation litigation. Although the line must be drawn somewhere, it is arbitrary to draw it, as the magistrate judge did, between prekindergarten and kindergarten, without some better explanation than he offered. This provision of the decree, unlike the others that we have discussed (all but the provision relating to the master's powers), we do not reverse outright, but merely remand for reconsideration by the magistrate judge.
We come to the financing of the $48 million building program. The program is designed to facilitate integration by upgrading predominantly minority schools and building three new schools in predominantly minority neighborhoods. A common way in which local governments in Illinois finance such programs is by the issuance of a type of debt instrument called a "certificate of participation." This is similar in many respects to a bond but can be issued by a school district without a referendum. The magistrate judge ordered the school district to issue certificates of participation to finance the building program. In the background of the order is a decision by this court last summer that a suit which a number of Rockford residents had brought challenging the school district's authority under state law to finance its compliance with the decree out of the tort immunity fund belonged in state court. In re Application of County Collector, 96 F.3d 890 (7th Cir.1996). The district court had held that the school district was authorized to use the tort immunity fund for this purpose. Our action in vacating the decision cast a cloud over the school district's authority to do so, and thereby undermined the district's prospects of financing the building program through certificates of participation or any other sort of debt instrument, because the district had been looking to the tort immunity fund to service the debt. As we mentioned earlier, the district's authority under state law to levy other property taxes is limited.
It might seem quite enough for the decree to order the school district to do the building, and let the school district 540 figure out where to get the money for it from. That would not be a case of ordering the district to *540 do
something beyond its control, for if it found itself stymied by state law the federal district court could as a last resort command the state to come up with the money. Missouri v. Jenkins, 495 U.S. 33, 57, 110 S.Ct. 1651, 1666, 109 L.Ed.2d 31 (1990); In re Application of County Collector, supra, 96 F.3d at 904; United States v. Board of Education, 11 F.3d 668, 673-74 (7th Cir.1993). But the court would of course be reluctant to do this, and reluctant also to be put in the position of having to do it by the school district's foot-dragging. The district court was therefore justified in ordering the school district to use a method of financing the building program that would avoid displacing the state's taxing authority into the federal court system.
We cannot see what as a practical matter the school district hopes to gain by appealing from this portion of the decree. It concedes that it has to find the $48 million for the building program; it doesn't have $48 million; it has to borrow it; certificates of participation are the method of borrowing that the school district itself prefers. If the district finds itself stymied by state law in selling or repaying the certificates of participation, it will have to ask the district court for relief. That court has the power, as we have just noted, though it is a power to be exercised sparingly, to require the state to come up with the money to fund a valid federal decree, whatever state law may provide. No purpose would be served by delaying the issuance of the certificates of participation to await, what may be years in coming, a definitive ruling on the lawfulness under state law of using the tort immunity fund as a source for repaying them.
Last and least is the school district's appeal, backed up by its petition for mandamus, challenging a brace of orders by the magistrate judge relating to the powers of the special master. A hearing was held on a proposal by

him that the school district be ordered to buy a property for one of the programs required by the decree. The master, very curiously, participated with the aid of a lawyer and did party-like things like seeking and resisting discovery. The school district asked the magistrate judge to bar the special master from participating in this way in a further hearing on the order to buy the property. The magistrate judge refused, later remarking that the special master occupies "the position of a traditional litigator" in certain matters relating to the administration of the decree. Since a special master is an ad hoc judicial officer, his occupying the status of a party or "litigator," whatever exactly the magistrate judge meant by that, may certainly be questioned. E.g., In re Gilbert, 276 U.S. 6, 9, 48 S.Ct. 210, 211, 72 L.Ed. 441 (1928); Reed v. Cleveland Board of Education, 607 F.2d 737, 747 (6th Cir.1979). And we are mindful of the criticisms that have been made of the use of special masters in institutional reform litigation 0907 a use that involves endowing a private individual with powers over state government. See, e.g., Linda J. Silberman, "Judicial Adjuncts Revisited: The Proliferation of Ad Hoc Procedure," 137 U. Pa. L.Rev. 2131, 2161-68 (1989). But we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal, and will not allow our lack of jurisdiction to be circumvented by the facile expedient of a petition for mandamus.
The further hearing was canceled because the order to buy the property was vacated. This development makes the school district's motion to bar the special master from participating in the hearing, and the appeal from the denial of the motion, thoroughly moot. In any event, the magistrate judge's orders allowing the special master to discover and be discovered, and otherwise to play the party role in the hearing, are not injunctions, and so are not appealable regardless of finality. They are merely procedural orders, and while such orders have the form of injunctions because they order a party to do or not to do something, they are for obvious reasons not treated as injunctions for purposes of determining appealability. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 377-78, 101 S.Ct. 669, 675-76, 66 L.Ed.2d 571 (1981); United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 690-91, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 3098-99, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974); Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 60 S.Ct. 540, 84 L.Ed. 783 (1940); Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Express Freight Lines, Inc., 971 F.2d 5, 6 541 (7th Cir.1992); In re Establishment Inspection of Skil Corp., 846 *541 F.2d 1127, 1129 (7th Cir.1988). Should any appealable order be issued after a hearing in which the special master participated in an irregular manner, the appellant if he was prejudiced by the irregularity can ask us to reverse on that basis.
To summarize, the comprehensive remedial order is affirmed in part and reversed in part, as indicated in this opinion, and the matter remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion; the financing orders are affirmed; the appeal from orders relating to the special master's participation in the canceled hearing is dismissed; and the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 68 F.3d 172 (1995)
PEOPLE WHO CARE, Larry Hoarde, Chasty Hoarde, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, School District # 205, Jacquelyn Confer, Avery Gage, et al., Defendants-Appellees,
Appeal of Michael F. O'BRIEN, Proposed Intervenor-Appellant.
No. 94-3954.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Argued May 11, 1995. Decided October 12, 1995.
173 *173 Matthew J. Piers, Jonathan A. Rothstein, Jennifer L. Fischer, Gessler, Flynn, Fleischmann, Hughes & Socol, Robert C. Howard, Kathleen M. Spoto, Joan Matlack, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, IL, Andrew Campos, Rockford Area Hispanic Coalition, Rockford, IL, Eugene Eubanks, Jr., Kansas City, MO, James G. Bradtke (argued), Soule & Bradtke, Chicago, IL, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Lawrence J. Weiner (argued), Robert H. Ellch, Justino D. Petrarca, Jonathan A. Pearl, Albert L. Himes, George R. Cooper, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chicago, IL, Anthony G. Scariano, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chicago Heights, IL, for defendants-appellees.
Michael F. O'Brien (argued) Rockford, IL, pro se.
Before CUDAHY, ESCHBACH and RIPPLE, Circuit Judges.
CUDAHY, Circuit Judge.
Michael O'Brien contests the legality, under Illinois law, of funding mechanisms adopted to remedy discrimination in the Rockford school system. He filed tax protests in state court in 1992, 1993 and 1994 contesting the taxes levied to fund remedial programs, and now seeks to intervene in the federal discrimination suit against the Rockford Board of Education. The district court found the motion to intervene untimely. We affirm.
I. FACTS
O'Brien attempts to intervene in the lawsuit of People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, No. 89 C 20168 (N.Dist.Ill.). This lawsuit was begun in 1989 as a challenge to racially discriminatory practices in the Rockford, Illinois school system. As discovery proceeded in People Who Care, the parties entered into interim agreements to address some of the segregation problems in the schools.
The first such interim order was entered in July 1989 in response to People Who Care's preliminary injunction motion. It consisted primarily of modifications to the Board of Education's proposed reorganization plan. The second interim order was entered in April 1991. This interim order, among other things, authorized the Board of Education to issue bonds without referendum and levy taxes under the authority of the Local Government and 174 Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act), 745 *174 ILCS 10/1-101 et seq.[1] Following this order, the Board of Education began funding remedial measures under the Tort Immunity Act as the order authorized.
These orders did not, however, determine the merits of the case. The merits were not resolved until the spring of 1993, when a hearing was held before Magistrate Judge Mahoney. Following this hearing and the recommendations of the Magistrate, Judge Roskowski entered a Declaratory Judgment and Permanent Injunction Order on March 29, 1994, finding the Board of Education guilty of "system-wide intentional

discrimination." Judge Roskowski ordered the Board of Education to eliminate this discrimination, and, at the agreement of the parties, ordered the Magistrate to oversee all remedial matters in this case.
In November of 1994 the Board of Education, as ordered by the Magistrate, submitted a proposed remedial decree setting forth its plans for remedying the discrimination. This proposed remedial decree endorses the continued issuance of bonds and levying of taxes without referendum under the Tort Immunity Act. The proposed remedial decree also reaffirms the orders in the interim decrees and continues the funding and implementation of desegregation plans begun in the interim orders.[2] At this time the district court has not acted on the proposed remedial decree.
Although this is his first attempt to intervene as a party in this case, O'Brien has contested the funding provisions 175 of these orders in other forums since 1992. O'Brien *175 filed tax protest objections on behalf of himself and
others[3] in Illinois state court in 1992, 1993 and 1994 (contesting taxes from 1991, 1992 and 1993). These tax objections contend that the Tort Immunity Act may not be used to levy taxes to fund court-ordered desegregation remedies 0907 the same issue O'Brien raises in this attempt to intervene. Each tax protest was removed to federal court by the Rockford Board of Education (the tax levying unit), and they are now pending in the district court.
O'Brien now contends that he should be allowed to intervene in the instant case under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a). The district court denied his petition to intervene, finding it untimely.
II. DISCUSSION
In order to intervene as a matter of right under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a), "a plaintiff must (1) make timely application, (2) have an interest relating to the subject matter of the action, (3) be at risk that that interest will be impaired, as a practical matter, by the action's disposition and (4) lack adequate representation of the interest by the existing parties." Nissei Sangyo America, Ltd. v. United States, 31 F.3d 435, 438 (7th Cir.1994) (internal citations omitted); see also B.H. v. McDonald, 49 F.3d 294, 297 (7th Cir.1995). "Failure to satisfy any one of these requirements is sufficient grounds to deny an application." United States v. City of Chicago, 798 F.2d 969, 972 (7th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1041, 108 S.Ct. 771, 98 L.Ed.2d 858 (1988).
The district court determined that O'Brien's action was not timely and that the parties in the case would suffer significant prejudice if an intervention were allowed at this late date. The court also found that O'Brien would not suffer great prejudice from the denial of his motion to intervene, as his concerns could and should be addressed in his pending tax protest cases. We review the timeliness decision for abuse of discretion, while the other factors are reviewed de novo. Nissei, 31 F.3d at 438.
The timeliness factor is essentially a reasonableness inquiry, requiring potential intervenors to be reasonably diligent in learning of a suit that might affect their rights, and upon learning of such a suit, to act to intervene reasonably promptly. Nissei, 31 F.3d at 438. However, "[i]ntervention is unavailable to the litigant who `dragged its heels' after learning of the lawsuit." Id. This circuit has established four factors to be considered in determining if a motion to intervene is timely. They are 1) the length of time the intervenor knew or should have known of his interest in the case, 2) the prejudice to the original party caused by the delay, 3) the resulting prejudice to the intervenor if the motion is denied, and 4) any unusual circumstances. Shea v. Angulo, 19 F.3d 343, 348-49 (7th Cir.1994); Schultz v. Connery, 863 F.2d 551 (7th Cir.1988).
O'Brien must first establish how long he knew or should have known of his interest in this case. He is now petitioning to intervene to contest the issuance of bonds without a referendum under the Illinois Tort Immunity Act as the means of funding the remedial measures ordered by the court. However, this is an issue of which he has long been aware. O'Brien has been challenging this method of funding since his first tax protest in 1992. That first tax protest, and the others following it, raised the same issues as are raised in the motion to intervene here. O'Brien was the lead attorney in the tax protest cases from the very beginning and clearly was very much aware of the funding mechanism in the interim orders and its probable impact on his interests. Even O'Brien concedes that he knew that his interest might be "adversely affected by this action since at least the filing of the first tax protest objection in the fall of 1992." Intervenor Br. at 18. Thus O'Brien fails to establish that he moved to intervene in a timely manner after he learned of the case's effect on his interests.

O'Brien contends that the district court's most recent order, issued December 5, 1994, authorizing the issuing of 176 bonds without referendum *176 under the authority of the Tort Immunity Act, and the proposed remedial decree
discussed earlier, are the motivation for his current effort to intervene and the explanation of his failure to intervene sooner. He claims that his intervention is timely because he is contesting the December 5th order shortly after its entry, and because the recently proposed remedial decree affects his interests more than the previous interim orders. However, these events, while recent, are not new. They do not erase the fact that the court has authorized funding under the Tort Immunity Act since the second interim order in 1991, and that O'Brien has been aware of this funding and its ramifications since at least 1992. The December 5, 1994 order approving the issuance of bonds is just the newest in a series of such court-authorized bonds. Further, the proposed remedial decree simply adopts and ratifies the language first accepted by the court in the second interim order in 1991. Even if adopted, the remedial decree would not create or "retroactively validate" any means of funding that was not already approved and implemented by the district court in the second interim order.[4] O'Brien has no legitimate reason for waiting so long to intervene; the district court was correct in concluding that O'Brien had clearly "dragged his feet" on an issue of which he had been aware for years. Mem.Op. at 7.
However, the conclusion that O'Brien has unjustifiably delayed in moving to intervene does not necessarily answer the timeliness question. As the district court noted, the ultimate test in considering timeliness is the prejudice suffered by the parties because of O'Brien's delay in petitioning to intervene. Mem.Op. at 7; Nissei, 31 F.3d at 439 ("the most important consideration in deciding whether a motion for intervention is untimely is whether the delay in moving for intervention ... will prejudice the existing parties to the case"). In this case, we believe the prejudice to the parties to be significant for a number of reasons. The bonds proposed in the interim orders have already been ordered by the court. In October of 1991 the court ordered the Board of Education to fund school renovations and capital expenditures using the contested bond method, and in June of 1992, the court ordered the issuance of $10 million in bonds to fund other remedial obligations under the second interim order. Taxes have also been levied in 1991, 1992 and 1993 to fund the mandates of the second interim order. Hearings have been held on liability, and extensive findings have been made both by the Magistrate Judge and by the district court. A Declaratory Judgment and Permanent Injunction was issued in 1994, and the parties have been formulating remedial programs, and funding for these programs, literally for years. O'Brien's intervention at this stage would be significantly disruptive and detrimental to both parties and to the goal of ending discrimination.
O'Brien argues, however, that the prejudice to the parties in the case stems simply from his proposed intervention, not from the delay involved in his proposed intervention, and thus should not be considered. He is correct that prejudice resulting from delay is the operative issue. Schultz v. Connery, 863 F.2d 551, 554 (7th Cir.1988); City of Bloomington v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 824 F.2d 531, 535 (7th Cir.1987). However, the prejudice here does result from delay. The parties have proceeded since 1991 in designing remedies based on the funding that O'Brien contests. Had he intervened earlier, other methods of funding could certainly have been explored; at the least the parties and the court would not have wasted the time and effort designing, approving and implementing this funding program. But now bonds have been issued, taxes levied and remedial arrangements put into place. Two interim orders have been proposed, adopted and implemented, a final judgment has been issued and remedial programs are already well established in the schools. Thus, we agree with the district court's conclusion that O'Brien's considerable delay in moving to intervene would cause 177 significant prejudice to the parties were the intervention allowed at this late date. City of Bloomington, 824 *177 F.2d at 536 (fact that "time invested in ... painstaking negotiations would be wasted" if late intervention were allowed was significant factor in denying intervention).
O'Brien next claims that the prejudice he himself will suffer if denied the right to intervene outweighs the prejudice suffered by the parties if he does intervene. Specifically, he argues that "the disposition of this case `may' be binding ... as a result of res judicata or collateral estoppel," thereby barring him from pursuing his tax protest cases. Intervenor Br. at 28. The Board of Education and People Who Care both argue that O'Brien will not be prejudiced by the denial of his motion to intervene because he can litigate his concerns in his pending tax protest cases. He has, they argue, a forum where his concerns can be addressed, where he is already a party and where, in fact, consideration of his concerns has already begun. However, O'Brien contends that, if the district court adopts the proposed remedial decree, his tax protest cases will be barred by res judicata or collateral

estoppel, and he will never have his interests adjudicated. We thus examine each doctrine in turn to determine the effect its application may have on O'Brien's tax cases.
There are three elements required for a suit to be barred by res judicata. There must be 1) an identity of the parties or their privies, 2) an identity of the causes of action, and 3) a final judgment on the merits. Barnett v. Stern, 909 F.2d 973, 979 (7th Cir.1990). O'Brien contends that he meets these criteria because he "may" be considered in privity with the Board of Education.
While "[p]rivity is an elusive concept," it is generally applied to those with a sufficiently close identity of interests. In re L & S Industries, Inc., 989 F.2d 929, 932 (7th Cir.1993). Thus, the preclusive effects of judgments have been expanded to apply to nonparties, id., and "[r]es judicata can sometimes operate to bar the maintenance of an action by persons who ... were not parties to the initial action." Gonzalez v. Banco Central Corp., 27 F.3d 751 (1st Cir.1994). "Under the doctrine of virtual representation, a person may be bound by a judgment even though not a party if one of the parties to the suit is so closely aligned with his interests as to be his virtual representative." In re L & S Industries, 989 F.2d at 933 (internal citations omitted). Thus to be bound by res judicata, O'Brien must share interests so parallel to those of the Board of Education that it becomes his virtual representative.
This requirement of identity of interests and virtual representation is the missing element in O'Brien's argument. O'Brien's point here is that res judicata will bar his claim if he is not allowed to intervene. Res judicata cannot bar his claim, though, unless O'Brien's legal interests are so closely aligned with one or more of the parties that they are at least his virtual representatives. However, if he is so closely aligned with one or more of the parties that they are his virtual representatives, then his concerns have certainly received adequate representation. And, if his interests are represented, he need not intervene; in fact, he cannot intervene unless he lacks adequate representation by the existing parties. See, e.g., Nissei, 31 F.3d at 438; United States v. South Bend Community School Corp., 692 F.2d 623 (7th Cir.1982). Thus if O'Brien may intervene because he lacks sufficient representation, then there is no privity and res judicata will not bar his claim. Further, if he is adequately represented, there is privity and he is too well represented to intervene. Consequently, in attempting to prove that res judicata could bar his claim, O'Brien proves that he is adequately represented and should not be allowed to intervene. Therefore, the only time that res judicata could be of concern to O'Brien is when his legal interests are so aligned with those of the parties that he has no need or right to intervene in the first instance.
O'Brien's argument also may fail other requirements of the res judicata test. In addition to privity, res judicata requires an identity of the causes of action. Such identity exists where there is a "single core of operative facts giving rise to a remedy." Doe v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 985 F.2d 908, 913 (7th Cir.1993). In other words, O'Brien's 178 cause of action must be based on the same *178 facts and raise the same issues as the cause of action in People Who Care. The People Who Care suit is brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and 1988 for the alleged violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, and for declaratory relief under 20 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. The central facts involve the discriminatory practices of the Rockford schools. O'Brien's claim, on the other hand, involves state law; he challenges the validity, under Illinois law, of the funding provisions used to provide the remedy. The tax claim asserted by O'Brien has not been raised in the present case. No existing party apparently shares O'Brien's concerns and therefore none has raised or is likely to raise the issues he has pursued. Thus the only way O'Brien's claim could be pursued in this federal case would be if O'Brien were allowed to intervene. There is obvious circularity to the argument that O'Brien should be allowed to intervene to raise a core of operative facts that could subsequently form the basis of a res judicata bar against O'Brien, which in turn could be invoked as a reason to allow him to intervene in the first place.
We conclude therefore that res judicata cannot bar O'Brien's pending tax cases, and that the only way it could do so would be in a scenario where his interests were so similar to those of the existing parties that he would have no need to intervene. We thus find O'Brien's claim that he should be allowed to intervene because he will otherwise be prejudiced by res judicata to be without merit.
O'Brien also claims that his tax cases may be barred by collateral estoppel. For collateral estoppel to apply, 1) the issue sought to be precluded must be the same as that involved in the prior action, 2) the issue must have been actually litigated, 3) the determination of the issue must have been essential to the final judgment, and 4) the party against whom estoppel is invoked must be fully represented in the prior action. Freeman United Coal

Mining Co. v. Office of Workers' Compensation Program, 20 F.3d 289, 293-94 (7th Cir.1994); La Preferida v. Cerveceria Modelo, 914 F.2d 900, 906 (7th Cir.1990).
Again, we find that O'Brien's tax cases are not likely to be precluded. The fact that the issue O'Brien contests in his tax cases is the method of funding the remedy in the federal case does not create an identity of causes of action for purposes of collateral estoppel. The issue he contests 0907 the funding of the remedy 0907 was only addressed by the district court in its adoption of the consent agreements; it was not contested and litigated. The final judgment in this case dealt with issues of discrimination, not funding. The state law issue was not "litigated." See Kunzelman v. Thompson, 799 F.2d 1172, 1176 (7th Cir.1986) ("[d]ue process does not permit application of collateral estoppel against a party who did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the earlier proceeding").
Thus, the final judgment against the Board of Education concerned its responsibility for discriminatory practices; only the interim orders and the proposed remedial decree involve the funding issues. It is possible that these remedial orders could be seen as analogous to consent judgments, and O'Brien argues that as consent judgments they could be considered "final judgments" on the issue. However, "[c]onsent judgments, while settling the issue definitively between the parties, normally do not support an invocation of collateral estoppel." La Preferida, 914 F.2d at 906. The reason behind this general rule is that "issues underlying a consent judgment generally are neither actually litigated nor essential to the judgment." Id.[5] This is precisely the case here. Therefore, the remedial orders cannot estop O'Brien collaterally.
Finally, we note that O'Brien's collateral estoppel argument suffers from the same problems as his res judicata 179 argument on the issues of adequate representation. For collateral *179 estoppel to bar his tax cases, O'Brien
must have been adequately represented in the present case. However, if his interests are so similar to those of the parties in this case that his concerns were fully represented, then he has no right to intervene. Again, his argument in support of the application of collateral estoppel undermines his claim that he needs to intervene.
In conclusion, we do not find the threat of res judicata or collateral estoppel to be a legitimate basis of prejudice to O'Brien. Further, even if O'Brien were prejudiced, and even if he could establish that he has interests that require separate representation, it would not overcome the obstacle of untimeliness. His concerns about preclusion were equally significant (or insignificant) three or four years ago when O'Brien decided to proceed in state court rather than moving to intervene in this case. The parties would be greatly prejudiced as a result of O'Brien's delay, and we do not find any prejudice that O'Brien might suffer, or any unusual circumstances, sufficient to require us to overturn the district court's denial of the motion to intervene. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to intervene as untimely.
Finding the motion untimely, we need not address the other factors for consideration in a motion to intervene. City of Bloomington, 824 F.2d at 534 ("[i]f [an application to intervene] is untimely, intervention must be denied." (citing NAACP v. New York, 413 U.S. 345, 365-66, 93 S.Ct. 2591, 2602-03, 37 L.Ed.2d 648 (1973))); see also, e.g., Schultz v. Connery, 863 F.2d 551, 553 (7th Cir.1988). In conclusion, however, we note that this discussion also resolves the issue of practical impairment. O'Brien's interests are not significantly impaired by the denial of his motion to intervene. He can pursue his interests in his tax cases. We thus conclude that, even if O'Brien's interests have not been adequately represented in this case, the quite untimely filing of his motion, the prejudice that delay would cause to the parties in the case and the availability of alternative avenues by which O'Brien's concerns can be addressed all support the denial of his motion to intervene.
For these reasons, the opinion of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
[1] The second interim order, dated April 23, 1991, states in relevant part:
The Board of Education ... may ... issue general obligation bonds without referendum to pay such liability, judgment or settlement. In addition thereto (or in the alternative), the District may pay for such recurring and continual incremental costs for such programs specified in this Order by additional levies in the District's Tort Immunity Fund.

. . . . .
This Court has considered the provisions of Article IX 0907 Payment of Claims and Judgment 0907 of the Tort Immunity Act and finds that the funding by the District of the cost of said activities constitutes and is the payment by the District of a liability, tort judgment or settlement that authorizes the issuance of the District's non-referendum general obligation bonds referred to in Section 9-105 of the Tort Immunity Act or the levying of an annual rate of tax in the District's annual levy for Tort Immunity purposes, to pay for annual and recurring program costs (other than the institution of capital improvements) as required by this Order.
[2] The proposed remedial decree states, in relevant part:
The Board of Education ... may ... issue general obligation or revenue bonds without referendum to pay or for the purpose of creating a reserve for the payment of any such liability, judgment, or settlement. In addition thereto (or in the alternative), the District may pay for such liability and judgment, or settlement by additional levies in the District's Tort Immunity Fund.
. . . . .
This Court has considered the provisions of Article IX 0907 Payment of Claims and Judgment, of the Tort Immunity Act and other applicable provisions of the Tort Immunity Act, and expressly finds that the activities, obligations, programs, and other remedial relief (including the annual, recurring, and incremental costs thereof) required by the Remedial Decree (other than the institution of capital improvements) constitute compensatory damages for the violation of the rights of the Plaintiff class under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and that the funding of the costs thereof by the Defendant Board of Education is for that reason and otherwise the payment by the Defendant Board of Education of a liability, tort judgment, or settlement under the Tort Immunity Act that authorizes the issuance of the Board of Education's non-referendum general obligation bonds referred to in Section 9-105 of the Tort Immunity Act or the levying of annual rate of tax in the School District's annual levy for Tort Immunity purposes under Section 9-107 of the Tort Immunity Act, to pay for the obligations, activities, programs, and other remedial relief, including the annual, recurring, and incremental costs thereof, (other than the institution of capital improvements) required by this Remedial Order.
. . . . .
IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that the funding provisions of this Remedial Decree are retroactively applied to, and this Court hereby approves and ratifies, all taxes previously levied (including any taxes levied from 1989 to the present) and bonds previously issued by the Defendant Board of Education to pay and fund any and all prior remedial measures and actions (other than the institution of capital improvements). ...
[3] O'Brien's tax objections were filed on behalf of himself and eight other 1991 taxpayers, himself and about 2600 other 1992 taxpayers, and himself and about 1600 other 1993 taxpayers. Intervenor Br. at 7.
[4] The proposed remedial decree contains language analogous to that used in the second interim order. See, supra, notes 2 and 3.
[5] When consent decrees have been given collateral estoppel effect, it is in situations where the factual findings necessary to a judgment are incorporated into a consent decree or where parties have "indicated clearly the intention that the decree to be entered shall ... determine finally certain issues." Klingman v. Levinson, 831 F.2d 1292, 1296 (7th Cir.1987); see also, e.g., Meyer v. Rigdon, 36 F.3d 1375, 1379 (7th Cir.1994); Graham v. IRS, 973 F.2d 1089, 1097 (3d Cir.1992).
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 90 F.3d 1307 (1996)
PEOPLE WHO CARE, an unincorporated association, Larry Hoarde, Chasty Hoarde, minors, by their parent and next friend, Flossie Hoarde, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants and
Cross-Appellees, v.
ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 205, Jacquelyn Confer, Avery Gage, et al., Defendants-Appellees and Cross-Appellants.
Nos. 95-3365, 95-3493.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Argued April 17, 1996. Decided August 1, 1996. Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing Denied October 8, 1996.
13089 *1308 *1309 Matthew J. Piers, Jonathan A. Rothstein, Jennifer L. Fischer, Gessler, Hughes & Socol, Chicago, IL, Ronald L. Futterman, Robert C. Howard (argued), Craig B. Futterman, Kathleen M. Spoto, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, IL, for People Who Care in No. 95-3365.
Matthew J. Piers, Jonathan A. Rothstein, Jennifer L. Fischer, Gessler, Hughes & Socol, Chicago, IL, Claire T. Hartfield, Ronald L. Futterman, Robert C. Howard (argued), Kathleen M. Spoto, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, IL, Andrew Campos, Rockford Area Hispanic Coalition, Rockford, IL, Eugene Eubanks, Kansas City, MO, Janet L. Pulliam, Little Rock, AR, for People Who Care in No. 95-3493.
Matthew J. Piers, Jonathan A. Rothstein, Gessler, Hughes & Socol, Chicago, IL, Ronald L. Futterman, Robert C. Howard, Craig B. Futterman, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, IL, for Larry Hoarde, Chasty Hoarde, Johnathan Hughes, Sidney Malone, Shaheed Saleem, Anissa Tripplett, Asia Eason in No. 95-3365.
Matthew J. Piers, Jonathan A. Rothstein, Gessler, Hughes & Socol, Chicago, IL, for Larry Hoarde, Chasty Hoarde, Cindy Malone, Stephanie Burfield, Johnathan Hughes, Joshua Burfield, Brandon Burfield, Shaheed Saleem, Johnny Devereueawax, Anissa Tripplett, Asia Eason, Marie Devereueawax, Sidney Malone in No. 95-3493.
Ronald L. Futterman, Robert C. Howard, Craig B. Futterman, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, IL, for Andre Malone, James Curtin, Kelly Curtin, Leonardo Medrano in No. 95-3365.
Robert C. Howard, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, IL, for Andre Malone, James Curtin, Kelly Curtin, Leonardo Medrano in No. 95-3493.
Lawrence J. Weiner (argued), Robert H. Ellch, David P. Kula, Justino D. Petrarca, Jonathan A. Pearl, Albert L. Himes, George R. Cooper, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chicago, IL, William J. Quinlan, Rockford Public Schools, Rockford, IL, John M. Izzo, Anthony G. Scariano, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chicago Heights, IL, for Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205 in No. 95-3365.
Lawrence J. Weiner (argued), Anthony G. Scariano, Justino D. Petrarca, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chicago, IL, William J. Quinlan, Rockford Public Schools, Rockford, IL, for Rockford Bd. of Educ, School Dist. No. 205 in No. 95-3493.
1310 *1310 Before POSNER, Chief Judge, CUMMINGS and COFFEY, Circuit Judges.
Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc Denied October 8, 1996.
CUMMINGS, Circuit Judge.

In 1989, plaintiffs hired the law firm of Futterman & Howard ("F & H") to file a class action challenging a reorganization plan adopted by defendant Rockford Board of Education. Two months later, the parties entered into a consent decree whereby the Board rescinded most of the plan's segregative elements. The case was not over, however, for the consent decree preserved plaintiffs' right to pursue a liability adjudication, which they did. Following the entry of the consent decree, the district court granted F & H an interim fee award relating to attorney's fees incurred in the implementation and enforcement of the consent decree. Both parties challenged the calculation of that award and Judge Roszkowski certified the question for appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). We dismissed the appeal, however, on the ground that it was not a "final order," People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Education, 961 F.2d 1335, 1339 (7th Cir. 1992), and F & H thus continued to accept interim fee awards while reserving their objections to those amounts until the entry of a final judgment.
The district court entered a Liability Judgment Order on August 31, 1995, requiring the Board "to eliminate root and branch, through the Rockford public school system, all vestiges of racial, ethnic and national origin segregation discrimination against African American and Hispanic students." In a Final Judgment Order entered on August 31, 1995, the court disposed of all issues regarding fees and expenses for the liability litigation, as well as reconsideration of the interim fee awards, by awarding F & H $1,827,124 in fees and $198,342 in expenses (plus interest on both). F & H appeals, and Rockford cross-appeals, the fees portion of that order on the ground that the district court's calculation was incorrect. For the following reasons, we reverse the district court's fee determination.
I.
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, prevailing parties are entitled to "reasonable" fees as a portion of their cost of bringing suit. Clear guidelines have been developed to aid courts in calculating the amount of those fees. The "lodestar" method 0907 reasonable hourly rates multiplied by hours reasonably expended 0907 is the most appropriate starting point. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1939, 76 L.Ed.2d 40. In determining "reasonable hourly rates," the Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed that "attorney's fees awarded under [Section 1988] are to be based on market rates for services rendered." Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 283, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 2469, 105 L.Ed.2d 229; see also Pressley v. Haeger, 977 F.2d 295, 299 (7th Cir.1992). The attorney's actual billing rate for comparable work is "presumptively appropriate" to use as the market rate. Gusman v. Unisys Corp., 986 F.2d 1146, 1150 (7th Cir.1993). If the court is unable to determine the attorney's true billing rate, however (because he maintains a contingent fee or public interest practice, for example), then the court should look to the next best evidence-the rate charged by lawyers in the community of "reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation." Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 892, 895 n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 1545, 1547 n. 11, 79 L.Ed.2d 891. Once the court reaches an amount using the lodestar determination, it may then adjust that award in light of factors adopted by Congress in enacting Section 1988, known as the Hensley factors,[1] 1311 although most of those factors are usually subsumed within the initial *1311 lodestar calculation. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434 n. 9, 103 S.Ct. at 1940 n. 9.
II.
With these principles in mind, we must determine whether the district court's calculation in this case was an abuse of its discretion. Bankston v. State of Illinois, 60 F.3d 1249, 1255 (7th Cir.1995). We conclude that it was. The court properly began by using the lodestar method and a historical rate-plus-interest approach to compensate F & H for the delay in receiving its payments. See Smith v. Village of Maywood, 17 F.3d 219, 221 (7th Cir.1994). Where it erred, however, was in its calculation of "reasonable hourly rates" and "reasonable hours."

A.
Because the court's treatment of hourly rates was essentially the same for each of F & H's personnel, this opinion need only discuss in detail its calculation of Mr. Howard's rate.[2] Initially, Mr. Howard submitted an affidavit indicating that his requested rates over the five-year period were the rates that he actually billed. For 1989-90, he presented actual statements reflecting 33.4 hours billed at $210. He further submitted evidence that he was awarded $210 per hour in similar cases during that period (see, e.g., Littlefield v. Mack, 750 F.Supp. 1395 (N.D. Ill.1990); ACLU v. City of Chicago, No. 75 C 3295 (N.D. Ill. filed Feb. 22, 1993), aff'd, sub nom. Alliance to End Repression, No. 74 C 3268, 1994 WL 86690 (N.D.Ill. March 11, 1994)). Finally, he referred the court to affidavits that he had submitted in 1990 (in reference to the Interim Fee Order) indicating that the $210 rate was in line with similarly situated attorneys. For 1991-92, Mr. Howard submitted billing statements indicating that he billed one hour at $240 and that his partner, Mr. Futterman, billed 21.9 hours at that rate. He further submitted evidence that he was awarded a $250 per hour rate in ACLU v. City of Chicago, supra. For 1992-93, he presented no statements relating to hours that he had billed paying clients because he "was required to devote substantially all of his time to [this case]." He did, however, present evidence that elsewhere his partner, Mr. Futterman, had billed 36.75 hours at $260 per hour and had been awarded rates of $275 and $280 in numerous other cases. See, e.g., Jaffee v. Redmond, 855 F.Supp. 244 (N.D.Ill.1994).
The district court acknowledged that an attorney's actual billing rate is "presumptively appropriate." Gusman, 986 F.2d at 1150. However, for each of the above years, the district court concluded that Mr. Howard's evidence failed to establish that his requested rate was his actual billing rate. It concluded that the number of hours on his billing statements was "insufficient"; that it was "not bound by [other fee award] decisions"; and that the evidence of Mr. Futterman's billing rates was "entirely irrelevant." Furthermore, looking to the next best evidence, the court considered the statements indicating Mr. Futterman's rate "not enough" to establish that it was the rate similar attorneys charged for similar work; and it concluded that the affidavits of other Chicago civil rights lawyers were relevant only to the years in which they were submitted (1989-90 and 1993-94) because the affiants spoke only in current terms. Thus the court held that "under Gusman, effectively, there is no presumption."
The court was correct that the Gusman approach requires a plaintiff's attorney to do more than merely request an hourly rate; he must present evidence to establish that the requested rate is his actual billing rate. The court erred, however, in setting the amount of evidence required at a nearly unattainable level. The evidence F & H submitted was more than sufficient to establish its rates, and the district court's contrary conclusion was an abuse of its discretion. On remand, the court should take into account the following considerations:
1312 *1312 First, there is nothing inappropriate about establishing an attorney's overall rate using only a small sample of the hours that he has billed to other clients. Compiling years of invoices and billing statements is not inexpensive and a rule forcing attorneys to do so would add little to the integrity of the fee-collecting process.
Second, evidence of fee awards received in similar cases should not be dismissed as "non-binding." While each court should certainly arrive at its own determination as to a proper fee, rates awarded in similar cases are clearly evidence of an attorney's market rate. Tolentino v. Friedman, 46 F.3d 645, 652 (7th Cir.1995).
Third, the billing rates of other attorneys in the same firm should not be dismissed as simply "irrelevant." If a court chooses to look to the next best evidence of what similarly situated attorneys charge, there is no reason that it should refuse consideration of those who practice in conjunction with the attorney at issue. The billing correlation between attorneys in the same firm is likely to be much stronger than that of attorneys who are merely in the same practice region. And while there may be occasions to distrust the rates of a related attorney, disproving all potential reasons for doing so is not part of the attorney's initial burden.
Fourth, an attorney's billing rate for a certain year need not be viewed in a vacuum. Evidence of his rate in Year 3 can still act as relevant evidence as to his rate in Year 2 and Year 4. For example, based upon affidavits signed in 1990, the court accepted as reasonable Mr. Howard's $210 rate for 1989-90.[3] Based upon affidavits signed in 1994, it accepted as reasonable his $275 rate for 1993-94. However, it refused to view these affidavits as relevant evidence for establishing a rate for the years in between. Such a refusal is illogical: If a $210 rate was

reasonable in 1989-90 and a $275 rate was reasonable in 1993-94, then the gradual increases requested for the years in between are most likely reasonable as well.

Fifth, the fact that an attorney spends nearly every hour of a certain year on the case at hand should not act to his detriment. Here the district court concluded that because many of the F & H attorneys billed very few hours to other clients in certain years, they had simply failed to establish their overall rate. But the goal is not to determine what an attorney actually made in a certain year. The goal is to determine what the attorney could have made "if he were not representing this plaintiff in this case." Gusman, 986 F.2d 1146. The fact that an attorney bills other clients very few hours at his requested rate does not necessarily imply that the requested rate is not the rate that he would have earned had he not been working on this case.

Sixth, atypical billing arrangements with certain clients should enter a court's calculation in a manner that is consistent with the attorney's overall practice. We have recognized that attorneys often provide services to some of their clients on terms that decrease their "true" billing rate:

1313

Consider two cases: (1) An attorney who ordinarily works 2,000 hours in a year sells 1,900 of these hours to clients who pay $250 per hour and devotes the other 100 hours to civil rights litigation in which the court will fix the fee; (2) An attorney who ordinarily works 2,000 hours in a year sells 100 of these hours to clients who pay $250 per hour and devotes the other 1,900 to civil rights litigation in which the court will fix the fee. The willingness of clients to buy almost all of the attorney's time in Case 1 at $250 per hour implies that he could have sold the rest at that rate or close to it. Any discount needed to fill the remainder of his calendar would not have been steep. Thus $250 per hour is a good estimate of the opportunity cost of the civil rights case. In Case 2 the inference is not nearly so strong. Selling the first 5% of one's time is much easier than filling the remaining 95% of the timesheet. Too, most work in fee-shifting cases is compensated only if the client prevails. Even a *1313 lawyer who wins 80% of his cases is working, in effect, for 80% of the stated hourly wage.... Unless this lawyer is donating the other 20% of the value of his time to a favored cause, his behavior tells us that his market-clearing price is less than $250 per hour, perhaps considerably less. Thus we do not require the district court to leap directly from the willingness of some persons to pay $X to Lawyer Y that $X is "the" hourly rate of Lawyer Y. But this is, as we have said in many other cases, and reiterate today, the starting point.

Gusman, 986 F.2d at 1150-1151. However, reduced-rate hours should be considered only in proportion to the percentage of the attorney's practice they represent.

Here F & H had provided services to one of its largest clients, the Chicago Board of Education ("CBOE"), at rates that were lower than those charged to its other clients.[4] However, the evidence indicated that the services provided the CBOE represented only 5 percent of F & H's total billable hours for this period. Despite this low percentage, the district court concluded that the CBOE rate should be used as the overall rate for those years in which the CBOE hours represented a large proportion of an attorney's "non-People Who Care" hours. This was an incorrect approach. The work completed for the CBOE may have represented 50 percent, 60 percent, or some greater amount of an attorney's "non-People Who Care" hours, but that is not the proper inquiry. The focus should be on the amount the attorneys would have made if they had not been representing the plaintiffs in this case. And there is no indication that F & H would have billed any more hours to the CBOE than it did had it spent the rest of its time working for clients other than these plaintiffs. Thus the CBOE rate should have been viewed, at most, as 5 percent of F & H's billing rate.[5]

Finally, and most important, the second half of the Gusman burden-shifting approach must be followed. Once an attorney provides evidence of his billing rate, the burden is upon the defendant to present evidence establishing "a good reason why a lower rate is essential." Gusman, 986 F.2d at 1151. A defendant's failure to do so is essentially a concession that the attorney's billing rate is reasonable and should be awarded. Here, other than an affidavit regarding paralegal rates, the Board presented absolutely no rebuttal evidence. And while the district court recognized this fact, "[n]otably, ... Defendant has not submitted any affidavits or other evidence to contradict the $275 per hour rate ... and Mr. Howard's evidence ... remains unrebutted," it only applied it to the last of the 1314 five years in question. This was improper. See Pressley *1314 v. Haeger, 977 F.2d 295, 299 (7th Cir.1992)

(holding that court was required to award an attorney's billing rate where defendant had submitted no evidence on fees).
B.

The district court also abused its discretion in reducing F & H's hours. First, the court reduced Mr. Howard's request by 161.3 hours. The reason for the reduction was that Mr. Howard would have had to bill 42.5 hours per week to reach the figure he requested. The court concluded that this amount was "patently incredible," and because it found 32.5 hours per week to be a "more reasonable" number, it awarded Mr. Howard that amount. This reduction was an abuse of discretion. There is nothing "incredible" about billing 42.5 hours per week. This equates to roughly 2,100 hours per year, which is below some of the minimum requirements of Chicago law firms and 600 hours below the annual hours awarded to other attorneys in this case. Moreover, the evidence indicated that Mr. Howard's opposing counsel billed more hours during this period than Mr. Howard did.
An attorney's hours are subject to the scrutiny of the court and unreasonable hours should not be compensated. However, "[t]he record ought to assure us that the district court did not `eyeball' the fee request and `cut it down by an arbitrary percentage because it seemed excessive to the court.'" Spellan v. Bd. of Educ. for Dist. 111, 59 F.3d 642, 647 (7th Cir.1995) (quoting Tomazzoli v. Sheedy, 804 F.2d 93, 97 (7th Cir.1986)). Here the court did not conclude that Mr. Howard had failed to achieve a successful result, see Anderson v. Secretary of Health & Human Serv., 80 F.3d 1500, 1505 (10th Cir.1996); that he had been inefficient or duplicitous; or that he had inadequately documented his time, see Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437, 103 S.Ct. at 1941. Rather, it essentially found that he had worked too many of his hours in too short a period. That is not a proper basis for finding requested hours unreasonable.
Additionally, the court reduced by half all of the hours F & H had spent preparing for the plaintiffs' appeal of the 1990 Interim Fee Order. The court concluded that because we dismissed the appeal as premature, the plaintiffs had not been "successful" and attorney's fees were therefore unwarranted. See Bankston, supra. We disagree with this conclusion. A court's focus should not be limited to the success/failure of each of the attorney's actions. Rather, it should be upon whether those actions were reasonable. In other words, the court should not look to whether F & H "won" the 1990 appeal, but should instead look to whether the fees F & H requests for that appeal were reasonably incurred. We conclude that they were. First, because the Board also appealed the 1990 Order, F & H would have been forced to incur substantially the same amount of fees in briefing and arguing the issue even if the plaintiffs had not chosen to appeal. Second, the decision to appeal was not unreasonable at the time it was made. Despite the fact that we dismissed it as premature, both parties, as well as Judge Roszkowski, felt that an immediate appeal of the issue was in everyone's best interest. Thus F & H's fees in relation to the 1990 appeal were not unreasonable.
III.

Finally, we address two remaining concerns. First, we do not mean to suggest that there are never occasions where a court should depart from the lodestar determination. For example, in its original 1990 Interim Fee Award Order, the district court determined that the billing statements and affidavits established that the $210 per hour rate Mr. Howard requested for 1989-90 was the presumptive market rate. However, it did not award that rate for the following reason:

1315

The court finds that [F & H] lacks the requisite experience in school desegregation cases to support the Chicago rates charged in their fee petition. For example, Attorney Robert Howard stated in his deposition that he has never, with the exception of a Chicago Board of Education case, handled a school desegregation case prior to the instant case. Furthermore, Mr. Howard knows of no other partner in *1315 his firm that has handled any other school desegregation cases.... The court believes that an attorney asking $210 to $225 per hour in attorney's fees should be very familiar with school desegregation law. People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., 1990 WL 25883 at *5 (N.D.Ill.).

Although the court awarded Mr. Howard his requested rate one year later, it set his rate for 1989-90 at $150 per hour. The experience (or inexperience) of an attorney is a permissible reason to depart from the presumptive rate. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 430 n. 3, 103 S.Ct. at 1938 n. 3. However, courts must be careful in defining "experience": It would be possible to define it so narrowly that no attorney has experience in the type of case in front of him, which would be clearly an incorrect approach. Although this is a close case 0907 Mr. Howard presented evidence of his work in other civil rights cases, but also admitted that he had never handled a desegregation case 0907 we cannot say that the court's refusal to award Mr. Howard the market rate for experienced desegregation lawyers in 1989-90 was an abuse of discretion.
Next is the issue of paralegal rates. The district court refused to award F & H its requested $75 paralegal rate for 1991 through 1994, although it did conclude that the rate was within the range charged by other Chicago law firms. The Board's rebuttal evidence on this issue took the form of an affidavit from Cathy Heath, a former Vice President of the Illinois Paralegal Association. Ms. Heath testified that while $75 was within the range of Chicago paralegal rates for those years, the median rate for Chicago paralegals was $53 per hour. She further testified that the work done by F & H paralegals on this case was not sufficiently complex to command a higher, $75 per hour rate. In her opinion, complex paralegal work consists of duties such as "factual investigation, conducting legal research, summarizing depositions, checking citations, and compiling statistical and financial data." The district court agreed with Ms. Heath's conclusion, noting that the paralegal work on this case consisted mostly of "document preparation, coding and organizing." Thus he awarded F & H $60 for each paralegal hour.
When evaluating the hourly rates of paralegals, it is improper to focus on whether the work at issue was at the upper or lower range of complexity for paralegal-type work. Attorneys do staff their law firms with various "levels" of employees, and it is not unreasonable to require those attorneys to delegate work to the correct level, according to its complexity. However, requiring attorneys to staff their offices with paralegals representing the spectrum of the hourly rate range, and to assign each "paralegal task" to the correct paralegal takes the concept too far. The only inquiry for requested paralegal fees should be whether the work was sufficiently complex to justify the efforts of a paralegal, as opposed to an employee at the next rung lower on the pay-scale ladder. With this focus in mind, it is unclear whether "document preparation, coding and organizing" is reasonably considered paralegal work. On remand, if the court determines these tasks to be sufficiently complex to justify the services of a paralegal, as opposed to clerical staff, then it should have no problem in awarding paralegal rates.
IV.
In conclusion, F & H provided ample evidence to establish the billing rates of each of its personnel: It introduced affidavits of its rates; it corroborated these by submitting actual billing statements; it provided evidence of other cases in which it had been awarded those same rates; and finally, it provided next best evidence indicating that its rates were in line with those of similarly situated attorneys. Given that the district court reached an opposite conclusion regarding the establishment of these rates, a remand is necessary to allow it to recalculate the reasonable hourly rates for each F & H employee in light of this opinion. It should also reconsider the work completed by F & H paralegals to determine whether the requested paralegal rate was appropriate. Furthermore, if the court believes that additional evidence is necessary for it to achieve rate determinations that are supported by the record, then further evidentiary submissions should be required of the parties.
1316 *1316 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for a recalculation of F & H's fees in a manner consistent with this opinion.
COFFEY, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
"People Who Care," the prevailing plaintiffs in a school desegregation case, appeal the district court's reduction of their fee petition. Despite the extremely deferential standard of review for such petitions and the magistrate judge's comprehensive and thoughtful 82 page report and recommendation, approved by the experienced trial court judge, the majority reverses the fee petition and remands for recalculation. I respectfully dissent.

I. Background
In 1989, "People Who Care" (an association of concerned residents of Rockford, Illinois) sued the Rockford School District under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the district had engaged in a continual pattern of intentional segregation and discrimination. After two interim agreements between the parties,[1] the district court transferred the case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) to make proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the district court's disposition of the matter. In April 1993, The magistrate judge held a hearing, spanning some twenty-four days and heard testimony from over 40 witnesses, reviewed 150 depositions, and thousands of pages of documentary evidence. Some six months thereafter, in November 1993, the magistrate judge concluded in his report and recommendation that the Rockford School District had engaged in systematic segregation and discrimination against minority school children. In February 1994, the district court, after having had the opportunity to review the record, adopted the magistrate's report and granted the plaintiffs' motion for a permanent injunction against the school district.
Since the plaintiffs were "prevailing parties" in their civil rights suit against the school district, section 1988(b) of Chapter 42 of the U.S. Code provides that: "the court in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs." Accordingly, the plaintiffs submitted a fee petition to the magistrate judge, who held pretrial conferences, discovery conferences and allowed an extended briefing schedule concerning the award of attorney's fees. The plaintiffs requested a total of $3,755,999.00 in attorney's fees and costs. After a thorough review, the magistrate judge rejected the majority of the school board's objections to the fee petition and recommended to the district judge, in a detailed 82-page report, reducing the award to $2,025,486.00. The magistrate judge found that (1) the amount of preparation hours claimed for trial was excessive; (2) the evidence failed to support the plaintiffs' lawyer's contention that his requested hourly rate was in fact his normal market rate; and (3) the evidence concerning the plaintiffs' lead lawyer's experience in 1989 as an expert in the field of school desegregation law failed to qualify him as an expert and thus his requested rate for 1989 was unreasonable. The district court accepted the magistrate's report and the plaintiffs appeal.
II. Analysis
In reviewing the district court's determination of "reasonable" attorney's fee awards, our standard is the highly deferential "abuse of discretion" standard. Spellan v. Board of Educ., 59 F.3d 642, 645 (7th Cir.1995); Dunning v. Simmons Airlines Inc., 62 F.3d 863, 872 (7th Cir.1995). "We will not find an abuse of discretion if reasonable persons could differ over the district court's view." Leffler v. Meer, 936 F.2d 981, 984 (7th Cir. 1991) (citing Lightfoot v. Walker, 826 F.2d 516, 520 (7th Cir.1987)).
The Supreme Court has emphasized that "the district court has discretion in determining the amount of the fee 1317 award." Hensley *1317 v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1941, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). The Court
went on to state that discretionary review is "appropriate in view of the district court's superior understanding of the litigation and the desirability of avoiding frequent appellate review of what essentially are factual matters." Id. The district court is afforded significant deference in fee matters because the desirability of avoiding a second major litigation over attorneys' fees outweighs the need for uniformity in attorneys' fee awards. Spellan, 59 F.3d at 645 (citing Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437, 103 S.Ct. at 1941).
The authoring judge of today's decision has observed in a prior case that "there is no one correct formula for determining a fee award" and that the district court's calculation requires deference because it is "anything but an arithmetical exercise." Spanish Action Comm. of Chicago v. City of Chicago, 811 F.2d 1129, 1134 (7th Cir.1987) (Cummings, J.) (quoting Tomazzoli v. Sheedy, 804 F.2d 93, 97 (7th Cir.1986)). Further, as the other judge in the majority has previously stated: "the district judge can, of course, and should, disallow particular expenses that are unreasonable whether because excessive in amount or because they should not have been incurred at all." Henry v. Webermeier, 738 F.2d 188, 192 (7th Cir.1984). Following the law articulated in Henry, the magistrate

judge, as described above, reduced the rates and hours of attorney's fees requested by the plaintiffs' lawyers, finding them to be unreasonable and excessive.
"Despite the district court's wide latitude in determining a fee award, if the requested hourly rate or number of hours is reduced, a clear explanation must be provided." Leffler, 936 F.2d at 985 (citing Tomazzoli, 804 F.2d at 97 ). For instance, we remanded a fee reduction in Henry because the district judge had failed to provide any explanation as to his reasoning regarding the reasonableness or unreasonableness of requested fees or hours. 738 F.2d at 192. The judge in Henry erred by relying on a statute to disallow certain expenses, instead of making his own, reasoned decision as to the appropriate attorney's fees and costs to award to the prevailing party. Id. at 195. In contrast, in the case before us, the magistrate judge provided a detailed, thoughtful and well-reasoned explanation for each and every reduction in the hourly rate and requested hours for the plaintiffs' lawyers. See Spanish Action Comm., 811 F.2d at 1134 (affirming reduction in attorney's fees because "[t]he district court's opinion here provides a lengthy and detailed explanation for its decision to reduce substantially the number of hours for which plaintiff requested compensation....") (Cummings, J.). I fail to understand how, in light of the clear statements of law in Spanish Action Committee and Henry and the explanations of the magistrate judge explicitly following the law, the majority has seen fit to remand this case to the trial court for reevaluation of the fee request.
In People Who Care, the magistrate judge, along with the experienced district court judge (a former very talented and experienced trial counsel), oversaw the six years of protracted litigation in this case, presided at the numerous hearings, personally interacted with the lawyers for both sides, and reviewed their voluminous submissions to the court. The experienced trial judge approved the magistrate judge's clear and reasonable explanation of each one of his findings.
For instance, in 1990, the trial judge, while presiding over this case, reduced the hours for the lead plaintiffs' attorney by 25 percent, finding that the requested number of hours for that time frame "was patently incredible to this court."[2] Given each of the judges' intimate familiarity and daily contact with the proceedings and the lawyers, the district court and magistrate judge's explanations that the lead lawyer billed an excessive amount of hours for a particular proceeding was eminently reasonable. I fail to understand how we as appellate judges can 1318 second guess a factual determination of this nature *1318 based solely on the cold pages of an appellate record. See United States v. Hatchett, 31 F.3d 1411, 1416 (7th Cir.1994) (observing that great deference is given to factfinders for they have the best opportunity to observe the witnesses).
Further, the trial court reduced the lead lawyer's rate in two of the six years, finding that the plaintiffs' lawyer had submitted a self-serving statement with insufficient documentary evidence to establish that the inflated rate requested would have been paid by another client had he not been involved in the civil rights litigation. See Gusman v. Unisys Corp., 986 F.2d 1146, 1150 (7th Cir. 1993) (observing that "the best measure of the cost of an attorney's time is what that attorney could earn from paying clients."). The magistrate judge noted that in the two years in question, the plaintiff's lawyer had submitted evidence of his rates for only a handful of his hours (because, according to the attorney in his self-serving statement, the bulk of his time had been taken up with the school desegregation case). Thus, following Gusman, the magistrate judge found that the plaintiffs' lawyer had not established a presumptive market rate for his services, because if a paying client pays a high rate for a portion of the attorney's time, it does not necessarily follow that all of the attorney's time will be bartered at the same inflated rate. See Id. at 1150-51. Similarly, the magistrate judge observed that the secondary evidence submitted by the plaintiff's lawyer in support of his claimed lost "opportunity costs" (i.e. the billing rates of other lawyers in his firm and the billing rates of other civil rights lawyers in Chicago) was insufficient to support the requested fee rate in two out of the six years. The magistrate judge, who was familiar with the lawyers in the case, found that the rates of Chicago civil rights lawyers for 1993-94 (submitted as evidence by the plaintiff's lawyer) fell short of establishing that the plaintiffs' lawyer's requested rate for 1989-90 was reasonable.
While we as individual judges of this court may come to a different conclusion if we were sitting in the trial court's place, we are obliged to review, according to case precedent, the district court's determinations under the wellsettled abuse of discretion standard. Although the magistrate judge made voluminous findings weighing the submissions of the parties and his own knowledge of the litigation, the majority of this court focuses on but one or two isolated findings to declare that the entire trial court's calculations were "unreasonable."

Our job on appeal is not to second-guess the district court's discretionary rulings, but only to review the record in its totality under the abuse of discretion standard. The reductions in the hours and rates that the judge deemed appropriate were supported with clear, well-reasoned, and detailed explanations. Because the majority for reasons unexplained failed to apply the appropriate standard of review, abuse of discretion, I am forced to dissent.
[1] These factors are: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions; (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the "undesirability" of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases. S. Rep. No. 1011, 94th Cong.2d Sess. 6 (1976) (citing Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-719 (5th Cir.1974)).
[2] The following chart reflects the rates requested by, and the rates awarded to, Mr. Howard:

Requested: Awarded:

1989-90 $210 $150

1990-91 $225 $225

1991-92 $250 $225

1992-93 $260 $225

1993-94 $275 $275

[3] That rate was adjusted down to $150 based upon Mr. Howard's lack of experience in school desegregation cases. We discuss this adjustment below.

[4] During 1989-90, F & H had reduced its rates for the CBOE as follows: 12.5% for associates, 20% for junior partners, and 28.5% for Mr. Howard. From 1991 through November 1993, F & H charged the CBOE a flat fee of $135 for each hour worked by F & H attorneys. Then from November 1993 through the end of this case, F & H charged the CBOE the same rates that it requested in this case, but deferred payment on 20% of that amount until a later date.

[5] We use the phrase "at most" because there is some suggestion that the CBOE rate should have had no effect on F & H's billing rate at all. F & H asserted that the CBOE rate reduction was implemented for philosophical/ ideological reasons and the Board apparently stipulated to this fact: "F & H represented the CBOE in efforts to create, maximize, and promote remedies addressing educational and business opportunities for minorities". The court stated that "the work done for the CBOE should not bind [F & H] to the agreed hourly rates," but because it concluded that F & H had not met its initial burden, ruled as follows:

The agreement with CBOE becomes important, however, when there is no other (or very little) evidence of what paying clients paid a particular F & H attorney for the years in question for the present petition. In that situation, there would be no evidence that there was a willing client to pay the particular attorney his or her unreduced or "normal rate."

Because we have concluded that F & H did meet its initial burden, the weight the CBOE hours should have in calculating F & H's billing rate will have to be redetermined. However, if the CBOE rate reduction was truly implemented with a charitable motive, then using that rate in the calculation is improper. Gusman, 986 F.2d at 1149 ("Lawyers who donate their services at bargain rates to legal aid organizations may [still] collect under § 1988 the fees they could obtain if the charitable elements were removed" (citing Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 79 L.Ed.2d 891)).

[1] The agreements obligated the school district to implement a plan of desegregation for Rockford public schools, without admitting liability for intentional racial discrimination in its school policies.

[2] The interim fee award that reduced a portion of the attorney's requested hours was granted by the district court in 1990 before the case was transferred to the magistrate judge. Thus, for this reduction it was the district court who provided the explanations for the reduction. The magistrate judge, in his 82 page report, found and agreed that the district court's prior reduction was reasonable.

Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 171 F.3d 1083 (1999)
PEOPLE WHO CARE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 205, Defendant-Appellant, Theodore Biondo, Patricia Delugas, and David L. Strommer, Intervenor-Appellants.
Nos. 98-1056, 98-1105, 98-1231, 98-1449, 98-2452, 98-2488, 98-3340 and 98-3858.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Argued February 8, 1999. Decided March 19, 1999.
1084 *1084 Robert C. Howard (argued), Kathleen Spoto, Joan Matlack, Craig Futterman, Futterman & Howard, Chtd., Robert E. Lehrer, Lehrer & Redleaf, Chicago, IL, for People Who Care, Larry and Chasty Hoarde, Stephanie Burfield, and Jonathan Hughes.
Nancy G. Lischer (argued), Thomas Lester (argued), Stephen R. Swoffard, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Chicago, IL, for Rockford Board of Education School District No. 205.
Peter D. Debruyne, Debruyne, Yalen & Olsen, Rockford, IL, Peter Alexander, Rockford, IL, for Theodore Biondo, Patricia Delugas and David L. Strommer in docket No. 98-2452.
1085 Janet Pulliam, Little Rock, AR, David Faulkner, Amy E. Shappert, Lord, Bissell *1085 & Brook, Rockford, IL, for Special Master Dr. Eugene Eubanks, of Kansas City, MO.
Before POSNER, Chief Judge, and BAUER and KANNE, Circuit Judges.
POSNER, Chief Judge.
We have consolidated for decision eight appeals, seven by the Rockford, Illinois, board of education and the eighth by three members of the board who sought to intervene in the district court and were turned down. The board's appeals challenge budget orders by the magistrate judge who is presiding over the long-running Rockford public school desegregation case. None of the appeals has merit. A newly elected school board and its newly retained law firm are engaged in guerrilla warfare against the very provisions of a remedial decree to which their predecessors had consented, and are also drawing unwarranted inferences from our prior decision reported at 111 F.3d 528 (7th Cir.1997). In doing these things they are missing the proper route to the speedy termination of this litigation that is their rightful goal.
The suit began almost a decade ago, though litigation over racial segregation in Rockford's public school system has been going on for more than a quarter of a century. Five years ago, the district court found that the school district had, indeed, intentionally discriminated against black and Hispanic students, in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The board of education did not challenge that finding. And the parties consented to have a magistrate judge, aided by a special master, preside over the remedial phase of the litigation. In 1996, the magistrate judge entered an elaborate equitable decree, the "Comprehensive Remedial Order." Both parties appealed, each challenging several provisions of the decree; many of its provisions, however, neither party challenged. We invalidated several provisions, mainly those challenged by the school board. These were racial quotas for teachers and superseniority for minority teachers; classroom racial quotas; a four-year deadline to halve the gap in test scores between white and minority students; the purging of "subjective" considerations in the disciplining of students; limiting minority students' access to compensatory education in order to avoid creating unfavorable stereotypes; limiting the school district's access to its "tort immunity fund" as a source of funding compliance with the decree; prescribing the racial composition of cheerleading squads; and excluding pre-kindergarteners from the decree's protection.

We did not consider we 0907 were not asked to consider0907the financial implications of our decision. There might, of course, be some. For example, the magistrate judge might have ordered funding for purging subjective elements from student discipline or for trying to close half the achievement gap between white and minority students within four years. But this could not be assumed. Programs might have multiple objectives, and shearing away one of them might not call for a significant, or even any, reduction in its scope and expense. Some "programs," such as regulating the racial composition of the cheerleading squads, might not have required any funding, and so eliminating the program would not reduce the budget for compliance with the decree.
1086 *1086 In the wake of our 1997 decision the master submitted to the magistrate judge proposed budgets for funding the Comprehensive Remedial Order in fiscal years 1998 and 1999. The school board complained that the budgets included funding for provisions of the decree that we had invalidated. The magistrate judge made a few cuts, but not as many as the board wanted. The board's appeals challenge the various budget orders that the magistrate judge entered for these two fiscal years.
The plaintiffs argue that we lack jurisdiction to consider these appeals because they are nonfinal orders that do not modify the Comprehensive Remedial Order. But equitable decrees that impose a continuing supervisory function on the court commonly and here contemplate the subsequent issuance of specific implementing injunctions. See, e.g., Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 74-80, 115 S.Ct. 2038, 132 L.Ed.2d 63 (1995); System Federation No. 91 v. Wright, 364 U.S. 642, 647, 81 S.Ct. 368, 5 L.Ed.2d 349 (1961); Waste Management of Ohio, Inc. v. City of Dayton, 132 F.3d 1142, 1145-46 (6th Cir. 1997); Donald L. Horowitz, "Decreeing Organizational Change: Judicial Supervision of Public institutions," 1983 Duke L.J. 1265, 1268. Each such injunction is appealable regardless of finality, whether it is considered a modification of the original decree or, as seems to us more realistic, a separate injunction, the decree being an injunction generator. The characterization makes no difference because both injunctions and orders modifying injunctions are appealable without regard to finality. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
It could hardly be otherwise. The Rockford Board of Education could not be expected, when it first appealed from the Comprehensive Remedial Order, to challenge budget orders not yet entered. And though in form orders to pay, the budget orders, as means of follow-on relief in an equitable proceeding, are in fact injunctive orders 0907what in Wisconsin Hospital Ass'n v. Reivitz, 820 F.2d 863, 868 (7th Cir.1987), we called "equitable supplement[s]" to an equitable decree. And anyway payment orders can be appealed without regard to finality when the appellant has no prospect of recovering the money should the order later be found to have been in error. See, e.g., Cleveland Hair Clinic, Inc. v. Puig, 104 F.3d 123, 126 (7th Cir.1997); Trustees of Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers & Warehouse Workers Union (Independent) Pension Fund v. Central Transport, Inc., 935 F.2d 114, 116 (7th Cir.1991); Palmer v. City of Chicago, 806 F.2d 1316, 1319-20 (7th Cir.1986); I.A.M. National Pension Fund Benefit Plan A v. Cooper Industries, Inc., 789 F.2d 21 (D.C.Cir.1986). There is no way the plaintiffs can be made to repay millions of dollars to the taxpayers of Rockford should it turn out several years from now when this litigation is finally wound up that the budget orders are overgenerous.
So the board can challenge the 1998 and 1999 budget orders, and although fiscal year 1998 has ended, the challenge to the 1998 order is not moot. If the board "overpaid," it may be able to recoup out of the unexpended funds from that budget; indeed, one of the challenges to the 1999 budget order is that the amount ordered is excessive in light of the surplus in the 1998 budget.
So there is no jurisdictional bar to the board's appeals. But none of the board's challenges to the magistrate judge's budget rulings has merit. The board exaggerates the practical scope of judicial review of such rulings. 1087 Public school desegregation litigation, like other *1087 institutional reform litigation, is remote from the conventional Anglo-American model of litigation. This is especially true of the remedial phase, which often and in this case thrusts the federal courts into a managerial rather than adjudicative role. See Abram Chayes, "The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation," 89 Harv. L.Rev. 1281, 1298, 1302 (1976); Horowitz, supra, 1983 Duke L.J. at 1307; Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 385-88, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (concurring opinion); Missouri v. Jenkins, supra, 515 U.S. at 124-26, 115 S.Ct. 2038 (concurring opinion). We can decide which provisions of the remedial decree are valid and which invalid, but when it comes to the design of specific programs for achieving the objectives of the valid provisions, and to the funding for those programs, we have no practical alternative to deferring broadly to the judgment of the district court. Cf. Swann v. Board of Education,

402 U.S. 1, 15, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971). There is very little law to apply (cf. 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2); Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182, 190-92, 113 S.Ct. 2024, 124 L.Ed.2d 101 (1993); Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 599-600, 108 S.Ct. 2047, 100 L.Ed.2d 632 (1988); Bogard v. Wright, 159 F.3d 1060, 1064 (7th Cir.1998)) to such questions as whether programs designed to make school personnel more sensitive to cultural differences that are correlated with race or ethnicity are validly oriented toward desegregation or, rather, cross the fine line that separates the valid goal of eliminating discrimination and its specific, demonstrable effects from the invalid goal of seeking equality of test results, or other performance outcomes. The required determinations are quintessentially judgmental, cf. Avitia v. Metropolitan Club of Chicago, Inc., 49 F.3d 1219, 1225 (7th Cir. 1995), and there is little that an appellate court can do to improve them, except in egregious cases, such as Missouri v. Jenkins, supra, which this one is not.
The board objects, for example, to the funding of "high school attendance specialists" on the ground that "attendance specialists do not differentiate between minority and majority students, because principals want all students in class," and anyway "there is no evidence that [the school district] discriminated against minorities by encouraging their truancy." But if minority attendance is lower as a consequence of past discrimination by the school district, as it might be even if the district never encouraged minority students to be truants, then expenditures designed to increase minority attendance might well be within the scope of the remedial decree. The board objects on similar grounds to the funding of "human relations specialists," and again overlooks the possibility that they are necessary to help integrate minority students into schools that used to exclude them, a proper object of the remedial decree. It is unnecessary to discuss the board's other objections to specific expenditure items in the budget orders; they are no more convincing, and often more picayune, and some are completely groundless, such as the charge that the budget is financing efforts to help minority parents obtain electricity.
It is notable that while claiming that the budgets approved by the magistrate judge are inflated by the cost of programs oriented toward the provisions of the decree that we invalidated in our 1997 decision, the board did not submit an alternative budget figure for either 1998 or 1999 from which the funding of the improper programs had been subtracted. That is, they never proposed, as an alternative to the plaintiffs' submissions, their own set of programs for achieving compliance with the remedial decree. They merely took pot shots at the plaintiffs' set. 1088 They repeat *1088 this approach in this court. They make a series of objections which, like the objection to the funding of attendance specialists, is difficult to assess because each program to which they object may or may not be primarily oriented toward invalidated provisions of the decree. They have not given us any crisp, quantitative sense of what their own preferred mode of compliance would look like.
The board also contends that the budget orders are marred by procedural irregularities, in particular the fact that the master engaged in ex parte communications with the plaintiff's lawyers. This is an example of trying to change litigating positions in midstream without any justification rooted in changed circumstances, and hence in the teeth of the law of the case doctrine. Carr v. O'Leary, 167 F.3d 1124, 1125-26 (7th Cir.1999); see also Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 236, 117 S.Ct. 1997, 138 L.Ed.2d 391 (1997); Bethesda Lutheran Homes & Services, Inc. v. Leean, 154 F.3d 716, 719 (7th Cir. 1998); Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisconsin v. Marshfield Clinic, 152 F.3d 588, 591 (7th Cir.1998); Schering Corp. v. Illinois Antibiotics Co., 89 F.3d 357 (7th Cir.1996); Crocker v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc., 49 F.3d 735, 739 (D.C.Cir.1995). A series of orders to which the school board did not object and which were incorporated into a provision of the Comprehensive Remedial Order that the board did not appeal from authorize the master to meet or otherwise communicate with lawyers for the parties, with district staff, with the magistrate judge, and with other interested persons without the presence of lawyers from the other side. The reason is practical, and is connected once again with the managerial character of institutional reform litigation in the remedial phase. The master is not a judge, and the judicializing of his role would slow him down and thus further protract this litigation, already in its tenth year. You do not put together a proposed budget by having lawyers make adversary presentations on each line item. And you do not request such a procedure if you want to minimize cost and time, which the board claims to want to do. But the important point is that the board agreed to this informality, and cannot retract its agreement. It also agreed to the master's having his own counsel.
The board argues that the master has demonstrated his bias by meeting more often with the plaintiffs' lawyers than with the school board's. This is an absurd argument. The master met constantly with the board's general

counsel until the new board fired him and its new lawyers decided they would refuse to meet with the master ex parte in order to lay a foundation for the argument of bias that they now press on us. In its reply brief in this court, the board argues for the first time0907and much too late 0907that the magistrate judge is biased against the board and that we should take the case away from him. In light of such arguments, if the magistrate judge is exasperated by the board's tactics (of which there is, however, no evidence), he can hardly be blamed.
We have referred to the "new board," and its newness is the essential background not only to the board's appeals but also to the appeal of the three would-be intervenors. They were elected to the school board on a platform of opposition to funding compliance with the Comprehensive Remedial Decree out of the school district tort immunity fund. They duly voted against a levy, deadlocking the board, which at the time had only six members. 1089 (Since then, they have obtained a majority.) The magistrate judge ordered the board to approve the levy and *1089 gave the members until a specific date to carry out their duty in this regard, that is, to vote for the levy. All the members then voted for it. The members who want to intervene complain that by ordering them to vote against their consciences, the magistrate judge "injured Biondo [and the other two would-be intervenors] in his individual capacity by turning him into another dissembling politician in the minds of his constituents in reversing (under court compulsion) his position on the tort taxes." They argue that this injury is sufficient to confer standing to challenge the magistrate judge's order. They also argue that the magistrate judge did not have jurisdiction to rule on their motion to intervene because, unlike the parties, they had not consented to have the case heard, and a dispositive order (as distinct from a mere recommendation) entered, by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1).
We disagree with both arguments, and let us take up the second first. Although the power of a magistrate judge to enter binding judgments depends on the consent of the parties, it would erode that power unduly if would-be intervenors had to consent as well. If the motion to intervene were submitted to and granted by a district judge, the intervenors would become parties, and the case could not proceed to judgment by the magistrate judge without their consent. Williams v. General Electric Capital Auto Lease, Inc., 159 F.3d 266 (7th Cir.1998); Brook, Weiner, Sered, Kreger & Weinberg v. Coreq, Inc., 53 F.3d 851, 852 (7th Cir.1995). They made clear to us at argument that they would not consent, and so the entire case, or at least the parts of it on which their claims bore, would be shifted to a different adjudicator. The consequences would be delay, confusion, duplication of effort, the possibility of inconsistent determinations, and a drain on judicial resources. Some of these consequences would ensue even if the district judge denied the motion to intervene. For to rule on the motion he would have to familiarize himself with a case pending before another adjudicator, and the case would be frozen, as a practical matter, while he was mulling over his ruling.
We conclude that the power to rule on motions to intervene is a necessary and proper incident of the magistrate judge's power to decide the underlying case. This conclusion does no violence to the language of § 636(c)(1), which requires only the consent of "parties" to the magistrate judge's entering dispositive orders; an applicant for intervention is not a party, Atlantic Mutual Ins. Co. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 24 F.3d 958, 960 (7th Cir.1994); cf. Williams v. General Electric Capital Auto Lease, Inc., supra, 159 F.3d at 269 he 0907 wants to become a party. He is a litigant, and if there were a good reason to classify him as a party the language of the statute would certainly bend far enough to allow this. But the good reasons are on the other side.
So the magistrate judge was empowered to rule on the motion to intervene; and he was right to deny it. An order to do something in one's official capacity does not create the kind of injury that can support a suit in federal court consistent with Article III's limitation of the judicial power of the United States to cases or controversies, and we require a showing of such an injury by all intervenors. Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin v. Doyle, 162 F.3d 463, 465 (7th Cir.1998); Solid Waste Agency v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 101 F.3d 503, 507 (7th Cir. 1996). Suppose an appellate court orders a trial judge to dismiss a suit. Could the judge seek judicial relief against the order on the ground that the appellate court had "injured" him by making him do something that he didn't want to 1090 do? The answer is "no," D'Amico v. Schweiker, 698 F.2d 903 (7th Cir.1983); Nash v. Bowen, 869 F.2d *1090 675, 677-78 (2d Cir.1989), and it is equally applicable to a challenge by a member of an agency who is ordered to do something in his official capacity. The magistrate judge's order ran in the first instance against the school board, the board members being mentioned in the order only to make sure that the board complied. This was the proper way of structuring the order. Spallone v. United States, 493 U.S. 265, 280, 110 S.Ct. 625, 107 L.Ed.2d 644 (1990) . Had the order named only the board members, or if, as in Spallone, it had sought to impose sanctions on them,

they would be the proper appellants. In the first situation they would be the board, and in the second they would be facing tangible harm. We have neither situation here.
Allowing a judge to seek judicial relief against the order of a higher court would have very peculiar consequences. Suppose that, as in our earlier example, the appellate court ordered the trial judge to dismiss the case, and the plaintiff accepted the decision but the judge did not, and the judge appealed to a still higher court, which reversed and reinstated the case. Who would litigate it? The plaintiff, who had abandoned the case? The judge? This case is similar. The board did not appeal the order that it pay for compliance with the remedial decree out of the tax immunity fund. If the members of the board who are unhappy with the order are able to intervene, and they succeed in getting the order reversed, and the matter is remanded to the magistrate judge for further proceedings, who will prosecute the further proceedings? The board that had decided not to challenge the order? Or the rump of the board that had succeeded in getting the order overthrown?
The board has standing to challenge the district court's budget orders, of course. United States v. Board of School Commissioners, 128 F.3d 507, 511 (7th Cir.1997). The board is an institution, with legal capacity to sue and be sued, that is being ordered to spend millions of dollars in ways that it does not like. The issue is whether members of the board can also challenge the court's orders, even though the members are not being ordered to pay out of their own pocket or do anything else that would infringe their liberty or property as distinct from their official powers. To allow them to intervene would be as anomalous as allowing a corporate officer to intervene in a suit against the corporation.
The effort at intervention in this case is misguided to the point of being preposterous, since the would-be intervenors are not a minority of the board, but are part of the majority. The only effect of allowing them into the case would be to slow it down, which is the opposite of what the board wants or should want. United States v. City of Chicago, 870 F.2d 1256, 1259 (7th Cir.1989).
Speaking of slowing this litigation down, we expressed concern both in our 1997 decision and in a more recent procedural decision, consolidating a number of the board's appeals, 153 F.3d 834 (7th Cir. 1998) (per curiam), with the looming interminability of this litigation. We pointed out that the Supreme Court has repeatedly in recent years emphasized the importance of moving institutional reform litigation in general and school desegregation litigation in particular toward early termination, enabling the devolution of control over core state and local functions from unelected federal judges to democratically legitimate state and local authorities. We hoped that our 1997 decision, in cutting back the scope of the comprehensive remedial decree, would set the stage for an early termination. We had thought it would be followed by the school board's submitting a plan for winding up the 1091 litigation within a definite and short period of time. Instead *1091 we are being inundated by groundless appeals challenging peripheral and for the most part unexceptionable facets of the magistrate judge's administration of the remedial decree.
The board told us at argument that it thinks full compliance with the decree is achievable by 2002; and when full compliance is achieved, the decree must be dissolved. Board of Education v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 246-50, 111 S.Ct. 630, 112 L.Ed.2d 715 (1991); Bogard v. Wright, supra, 159 F.3d at 1065; United States v. Board of School Commissioners, supra, 128 F.3d at 511-12. As we explained in our previous opinion, compliance does not mean eliminating every disparity between white and minority achievement or performance that might conceivably be attributed to past discrimination. 111 F.3d at 534; see also Missouri v. Jenkins, supra, 515 U.S. at 89, 115 S.Ct. 2038; Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 112 S.Ct. 1430, 118 L.Ed.2d 108 (1992); Board of Education v. Dowell, supra; United States v. Board of School Commissioners, supra, 128 F.3d at 510-12. Full compliance so defined would never be achieved. The school district of a modest-sized city is being required to pay in excess of $20 million a year to fund the decree. That's more than $120 million between 1996 and 2002. That's an awful lot of compliance, and it is not purchased cheaply; legal fees in the litigation already exceed $20 million. Expenditures beyond the $120 million figure might be difficult to justify as being needed to pay for programs realistically designed just to remedy the lingering effects of racial and ethnic discrimination now years in the past, which is the only legitimate function of the remedial decree. The logical next step, therefore, is for the board to propose to the magistrate judge, after consultation with the plaintiffs and the master, a modification of the decree that will include an appropriate termination date (perhaps a series of different dates, for different programs) contingent on the achievement of specific targets demonstrating a reasonable approximation to full compliance by then. Cf.

Freeman v. Pitts, supra, 503 U.S. at 489-92, 112 S.Ct. 1430; United States v. Board of School Commissioners, supra, 128 F.3d at 510-12. The board will get nowhere with its present litigating strategy. Persistence in it will merely invite the imposition of sanctions for prosecuting frivolous appeals. AFFIRMED.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 150 F.3d 686 (1998)
ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 205, Plaintiff-Appellant, and
People Who Care, et al., Intervenors-Appellants, v.
ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 97-3415, 97-3416.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Submitted June 18, 1998. Decided July 17, 1998.
687 *687 Anthony G. Scariano (submitted on brief), Scariano, KUla, Ellch & Himes, Chicago, IL, William Quinlan, Thomas J. Lester, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Rockford, IL, for Plaintiff in No. 97-3415.
Lawrence J. Weiner (submitted on brief), Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chicago, IL, William Quinlan, Thomas J. Lester, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Rockford, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant in No. 97-3416.
Kathleen Mangold-Spoto, Robert C. Howard, Joan Matlack, Futterman & Howard, Robert E. Lehrer, Lehrer & Redleaf, Chicago, IL, for Intervenors-Appellants in No. 97-3415 and Intervenors in No. 97-3416.
James E. Ryan, Illinois Attorney General, Barbara A. Preiner, Solicitor General, A. Benjamin Goldgar, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Appeals Division, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before POSNER, Chief Judge, and BAUER and KANNE, Circuit Judges.
POSNER, Chief Judge.
Twenty-five years ago a suit was brought to rectify what was alleged to be intentional racial discrimination by the Rockford, Illinois public school system. Two years ago the district court, having found that the public school system had indeed discriminated intentionally against its black and Latino students, in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, entered a comprehensive remedial decree. In People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, 111 F.3d 528 (7th Cir.1997), we affirmed the decree in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings on remedy. Those proceedings are continuing. Meanwhile, in 1995, the defendant in the desegregation case, Rockford's board of education, brought a satellite suit against the state board of education and its superintendent (in his official capacity) charging that the state board had contributed to the segregation of the Rockford public schools in violation of various federal civil rights laws including 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and should therefore be required to pick up part of the tab for compliance with the 688 remedial decree in the desegregation case. The plaintiff in that case, *688 People Who Care, representing the minority students in the Rockford schools, sought to intervene in the present suit. The district judge granted the defendant's motions to dismiss the complaint and deny the petition to intervene, and these appeals, by the Rockford board and by People Who Care, followed.
The dismissal of the petition to intervene was clearly proper. People Who Care is unable to indicate any respect in which it would benefit from the entry of a decree against the state board of education, and so under any view of the interest necessary to support either intervention as a matter of right or permissive intervention (for contrasting views, see, e.g., Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 101 F.3d 503, 507 (7th Cir.1996); Moy v. Cowen, 958 F.2d 168, 170 (7th Cir.1992) (per curiam); Standard Heating & Air Conditioning Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 137 F.3d 567, 570, 573 (8th Cir. 1998); U.S. Postal Service v. Brennan, 579 F.2d 188, 190-91 (2d Cir.1978)), the district judge cannot be faulted for denying the petition to intervene. PWC is not seeking damages, but only equitable relief. The remedial decree in the underlying desegregation suit, when finally entered, will give PWC all the equitable relief to which it is entitled. Having the decree run against

another organ of state government will give it nothing more 0907 at least so far as can be determined at this time. It is always possible that the decree will prove inadequate if it runs only against the local school board. Maybe the board, several of whose efforts to fund those portions of the decree that were not contested or have been upheld have foundered, will be unable to comply with the financial obligations imposed by the decree. Maybe it will turn defiant. Maybe the state will dissolve it. Who knows? But at present these dire possibilities are entirely speculative. Should they ever loom as real threats to PWC's ability to obtain the complete relief to which the law entitles it, it can seek supplementary relief in the desegregation suit. To order such relief now, in a different proceeding, when so far as appears the Rockford board will comply in full with any decree that is entered and withstands challenge on appeal, would be premature.
Would in fact be worse than premature. For the board's complaint was properly dismissed, and this means there is nothing for PWC to be intervening in. Apart from the fact that a city or other municipality cannot bring a suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, City of Chicago v. Lindley, 66 F.3d 819, 823 n. 6 (7th Cir.1995); City of East St. Louis v. Circuit Court, 986 F.2d 1142, 1144 (7th Cir. 1993), and that a state can't be sued under that statute either, Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 117 S.Ct. 1055, 1069, 137 L.Ed.2d 170 (1997); Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989), the board does not assert an interest that federal law protects, and so the entire suit, not merely the section 1983 claims, fails at the threshold. The notion that the board presses on us, that it is representing the minority students (who do of course have a legal interest in the rectification of discriminatory conditions), is preposterous, not only because it has been their adversary for the past quarter century but also because the students are already represented, by PWC 0907 and anyway, as we just saw, they have, so far as appears, nothing to gain from getting a decree against an additional defendant.
The board's concern is not with the students, but with its own pocketbook. It does not want to bear the full cost of complying with the decree in the desegregation case. In effect it is seeking a contribution to the cost of that compliance from an alleged joint tortfeasor, the state board of education. We cannot find any basis in federal law for such a claim. The federal civil rights laws do not confer a right to sue on the violators of those laws. Cf. DeKalb County School District v. Schrenko, 109 F.3d 680, 689 (11th Cir.1997) (per curiam). The violators are not intended beneficiaries of the laws and therefore have no right to invoke them. Cf. Federal Election Commission v. Akins, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 118 S.Ct. 1777, 1783, 141 L.Ed.2d 10 (1998); Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 475, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 689 (1982); North Shore Gas *689 Co. v. EPA, 930 F.2d 1239, 1243 (7th Cir. 1991). Contribution might conceivably be sought by a defendant in a civil rights suit against a third-party tortfeasor as a mode of ancillary relief under federal common law (though we cannot find a case on the issue) 0907 but not where the parties to the dispute over contribution are organs of state government. DeKalb County School District v. Schrenko, supra, 109 F.3d at 689-90; Stanley v. Darlington County School District, 84 F.3d 707, 716-17 (4th Cir.1996); Kelley v. Metropolitan County Board of Education, 836 F.2d 986 (6th Cir.1987). These cases point out that federal courts don't want to involve themselves in the internal financial affairs of state governments when there is no federal interest at stake. See also United States v. Board of School Commissioners, 677 F.2d 1185, 1190-94 (7th Cir.1982) (dissenting opinion). And anyway that is not the nature of the Rockford board's pleading. It has not filed a third-party complaint for contribution in the desegregation suit; instead it has sought to bring an independent action, and for that there is no conceivable basis in federal law.
It is true that if the state board were a defendant along with the local board in the desegregation suit, the court in that suit would have the power to decide what each defendant would have to do in order to comply with the law, and the decision would have financial implications for each defendant. That is all that Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 97 S.Ct. 2749, 53 L.Ed.2d 745 (1977), was about; see Kelley v. Metropolitan County Board of Education, supra, 836 F.2d at 991-92. The premise is missing here; the state board was not a defendant in the desegregation suit, and the relief sought by the local board is not being sought in that suit.
The dismissal of the appellants' claims was proper and so is
AFFIRMED.

Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 153 F.3d 834 (1998)
PEOPLE WHO CARE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 205, Defendant-Appellant, and
Theodore Biondo, et al., Intervenors-Appellants.
Nos. 98-1056, 98-1105, 98-1231, 98-1449, 98-2452 and 98-2488.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Submitted August 26, 1998. Decided September 4, 1998.
Jonathan A. Rothstein, Gessler, Hughes & Socol, Chicago, IL, for Larry Hoarde and Chasty Hoarde in dockets 98-1056, 98-1105.
Amy E. Shappert, Lord, Bissell & Brook, Rockford, IL; Jeffry S. Spears, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Rockford, IL; Jonathan A. Rothstein, Gessler, Hughes & Socol, Chicago, IL, for Stephanie Burfield in dockets 98-1056, 98-2488.
Robert C. Howard, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, IL; Eugene Eubanks, Doctor, Kansas City, MO; Denise Reid Hoggard, Little Rock, AR; Jennifer L. Fischer, Chicago, IL, for People Who Care in docket 98-1056.
Jonathan A. Rothstein, Gessler, Hughes & Socol, Chicago, IL, for Jonathan Hughes in dockets 98-1056, 98-1105, 98-2488.
Stephen R. Swofford, Nancy G. Lischer, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Chicago, IL; William J. Quinlan, Rockford Public Schools, Rockford, IL; Anthony G. Scariano, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chicago Heights, IL, for Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205 in docket 98-1056.
David Faulkner, Lord, Bissell & Brook, Rockford, IL; Jeffry S. Spears, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Rockford, IL; Jonathan A. Rothstein, Gessler, Hughes & Socol, Chicago, IL, for Stephanie Burfield in dockets 98-1105, 98-1231.
Robert C. Howard, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, IL; Eugene Eubanks, Doctor, Kansas City, MO; Jonathan A. Rothstein, Gessler, Hughes & Socol, Chicago, IL; Denise Reid Hoggard, Little Rock, AR, for People Who Care in docket 98-1105.
Stephen R. Swofford, Nancy G. Lischer, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Chicago, IL; A. Lynn Himes, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chicago, IL, William J. Quinlan, Rockford Public Schools, Rockford, IL; John M. Izzo, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chicago, IL, for Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205 in docket 98-1105.
Ronald L. Futterman, Robert C. Howard, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, IL; Eugene Eubanks, Doctor, Kansas City, MO; Robert E. Lehrer, Lehrer & Redleaf, Chicago, IL; Jonathan A. Rothstein, Gessler, Hughes & Socol, Chicago, IL; Janet L. Pulliam, Little Rock, AR, for People Who Care in dockets 98-1231, 98-1449.
Robert E. Lehrer, Lehrer & Redleaf, Chicago, IL; Jonathan A. Rothstein, Gessler, Hughes & Socol, Chicago, IL, 835 for Larry Hoarde, Chasty Hoarde, minors and Jonathan *835 Hughes, a minor in dockets 98-1231, 98-1449.
Nancy G. Lischer, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Chicago, IL; Anthony G. Scariano, Scariano, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chicago, IL; William J. Quinlan, Rockford Public Schools, Rockford, IL; David P. Kula, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chicago Heights, IL, for Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205 in docket 98-1231.
David Faulkner, Lord, Bissell & Brook, Rockford, IL; Jonathan A. Rothstein, Gessler, Hughes & Socol, Chicago, IL, for Stephanie Burfield in docket 98-1449.

Nancy G. Lischer, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Chicago, IL; William J. Quinlan, Rockford Public Schools, Rockford, IL, for Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205 in docket 98-1449.

Robert C. Howard, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, IL; Robert E. Lehrer, Lehrer & Redleaf, Chicago, IL; Jonathan A. Rothstein, Gessler, Hughes & Socol, Chicago, IL, for Larry Hoarde, Chasty Hoarde and Jonathan Hughes in docket 98-2452.

Amy E. Shappert, Lord, Bissell & Brook, Rockford, IL; Robert E. Lehrer, Lehrer & Redleaf, Jonathan A. Rothstein, Gessler, Hughes & Socol, Chicago, IL, for Stephanie Burfield in docket 98-2452.

Robert C. Howard, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, IL; Eugene Eubanks, Doctor, Kansas City, MO; Robert E. Lehrer, Lehrer & Redleaf, Chicago, IL; Denise Reid Hoggard, Little Rock, AR; Jennifer L. Fischer, Chicago, IL; Venita Hervey, Futterman & Howard, Rockford, IL, for People Who Care in docket 98-2452.

Peter D. Debruyne, Debruyne, Yalen & Olsen, Rockford, IL; Peter Alexander, Rockford, IL, for Theodore Biondo, Patricia Delugas and David L. Strommer in docket 98-2452.

Ronald L. Futterman, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, IL; Eugene Eubanks, Doctor, Kansas City, MO; Denise Reid Hoggard, Little Rock, AR; Jennifer L. Fischer, Chicago, IL, for People Who Care in docket 98-2488.

William J. Quinlan, Rockford Public Schools, Rockford, IL; Thomas J. Lester, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Rockford, IL; Anthony G. Scariano, Scariano, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chicago, IL; for Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205 in docket 98-2488.

Before POSNER, Chief Judge, and BAUER and KANNE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Last year we consolidated and decided nine appeals and one petition for mandamus arising from the remedial phase of the long-running litigation over racial segregation in the public school system of Rockford, Illinois. People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, 111 F.3d 528 (7th Cir.1997). We remarked that the "flurry of appeals" in the case was "threatening to become an avalanche," and so we directed that future appeals be directed to this panel. Id. at 532. The avalanche is almost upon us. Already this year six more appeals have been filed, and there is no end in sight. We are faced with a substantial problem of managing our own docket, but more worrisome still is the failure of the parties, and, it seems, the magistrate judge and the special master who is assisting him, to heed the admonition of the Supreme Court, see Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 99, 115 S.Ct. 2038, 132 L.Ed.2d 63 (1995); Board of Education v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 248, 111 S.Ct. 630, 112 L.Ed.2d 715 (1991), which we have repeated, United States v. Board of School Commissioners, 128 F.3d 507, 510 (7th Cir.1997), to bend every effort to winding up school litigation and returning the operation of the schools to the local school authorities.

In an effort to render the appeal process manageable by us, and to put the case on the road to an early final resolution, we hereby direct each of the parties to file within thirty days of today a status report containing the following information:

1. The total number of appeals that have been filed to date in this litigation, listing each appeal separately by appellate docket number and by date filed and (if applicable) decided.

2. An estimate of the number of appeals that will be filed in this litigation in the remainder of 1998, in 1999, and in 2000.

836

*836 3. An estimate of when the decree (the "comprehensive remedial order") entered in this

litigation will be dissolved, and a statement of the efforts that the parties have made and are

making to bring about the termination of the litigation and the return of control of the Rockford

public schools to Rockford.

4. The total amount of attorney fees incurred by the parties to this date that have been or are expected to be defrayed out of public funds, together with an estimate of the attorney fees that the parties expect to incur between now and the completion of the litigation.
We further direct that the five pending appeals in which the same parties are on both sides of the appeal shall be consolidated and treated as a single appeal for purposes of briefing and oral argument. The briefs that have been filed in these cases are hereby stricken and the Rockford Board of Education (the appellant in these cases) is directed to file its consolidated brief within thirty days of today.
SO ORDERED.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 246 F.3d 1073 (2001)
PEOPLE WHO CARE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 205, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 00-3200.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Argued March 27, 2001. Decided April 18, 2001. Rehearing and Rehearing Denied May 22, 2001.
1074 *1074 Johathan A. Rothstein, Gessler, Hughes & Socol, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs-Appellees Larry and Chasty Hoarde and Jonathan Hughes.
Jonathan A. Rothstein, Gessler, Hughes & Socol, Chicago, IL, Amy E. Shappert, Lord Bissel & Brook, Rockford, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee Stephanie Burfield.
Robert C. Howard (argued), Futterman & Howard, Chicago, IL, Venita Hervey, Futterman & Howard, Rockford, IL, Janet L. Pulliam, Pulliam & Wright, Little Rock, AR, Eugene Eubanks, Doctor, Kansas City, MO, for PlaintiffAppellee People Who Care.
Thomas J. Lester, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Rockford, IL, Michael Kirk (argued), Cooper Carvin & Rosenthal, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellant Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205.
Before BAUER, POSNER, and KANNE, Circuit Judges.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied May 22, 2001.
POSNER, Circuit Judge.
Twelve years ago the plaintiffs filed this suit against the board of education of Rockford, Illinois, charging that the board had intentionally discriminated against black and Hispanic students. Though nominally a new suit, it was actually a continuation of school desegregation litigation that had started long before and had resulted in the entry of a remedial decree as early as 1973. See Quality Education for All Children, Inc. v. School Board, 362 F.Supp. 985 (N.D.Ill.1973). Realistically, we are dealing with a lawsuit that is almost 30 years old.
In 1994, the district judge found, by inference from disparities in educational achievement between white and minority students and from the school board's failure to take effective measures to prevent individual public schools from becoming all white or all minority, that the board had indeed engaged in intentional racial discrimination. 851 F.Supp. 905 (N.D.Ill. 1994). The board did not appeal, and so the litigation moved into the remedial stage, presided over by a magistrate judge with the consent of the parties. A formidably complex and ambitious remedial decree was entered in 1996, provoking appeals that led us the following year to vacate many of its provisions, such as racial quotas for cheerleaders, superseniority for minority teachers, unrealistic goals for closing the white-minority gap in test scores, and limits on the number of minority students who could enroll in remedial classes. 111 F.3d 528 (7th Cir.1997). We pointedly warned against "ambitious schemes of social engineering" and stated that children "should not be made subjects of utopian projects." Id. at 534. Apart from misdescribing our opinion as having merely "modified" certain provisions of the decree, the magistrate judge managed to avoid any reference to that opinion in his latest, 57-page opinion here under review.
Later we remarked "the failure of the parties, and, it seems, the magistrate judge and the special master who is assisting him, to heed the admonition of the Supreme Court, see Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 99, 115 S.Ct. 2038, 132 L.Ed.2d 63 (1995); Board of Education v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 248, 111 S.Ct. 630, 112 L.Ed.2d 715 (1991), which we have repeated, United States v. Board of School Commissioners, 128 F.3d 507, 510 (7th

Cir.1997), to bend every effort to winding up school litigation and returning the operation of the schools to the local school authorities." 153 F.3d 834 (7th Cir.1998) (per curiam). And the following year, in still another opinion, we warned of "the looming interminability of this litigation," and noting the school board's representation that full compliance with the decree was achievable by 2002 we suggested that the board submit to the magistrate judge 1075 a plan for winding up the litigation. 171 *1075 F.3d 1083, 1090-91 (7th Cir.1999). The board then moved the magistrate judge to dissolve the decree, effective June 30, 2002, the end of the 2001 school year. The board argued that it had achieved full compliance with the decree's objectives and that the remaining inequalities in educational achievement between white and minority students could not be attributed to the illegal conduct on which the litigation was based. (Why the board asked for deferred rather than immediate dissolution is unclear, but we are not disposed to give it more relief than it asked for.) The magistrate judge agreed to relax some provisions of the decree, but ruled that others must continue for at least another six (now five) years. The plaintiffs would like the decree to continue in effect for at least 11 more years. We stress "at least." Nothing in the logic of either the magistrate judge's opinion or the plaintiffs' brief on appeal suggests any natural terminus to the decree.
Through the end of 1999 the taxpayers of Rockford had incurred total costs of $238 million to comply with the 1996 decree and its predecessors going back only to 1989, of which more than half had been incurred since 1996. By now the total must be substantially greater. Attorneys' fees alone are approaching $20 million. Twenty percent of the school district property taxes paid by homeowners in Rockford go to fund the decree. As a result of the improvements enabled by this large expenditure, and a policy of allowing parents to choose which Rockford public school to send their kids to, the school district had by the end of 1999, when the school board filed its motion to dissolve the decree, succeeded in desegregating its schools. Desegregation had been defined by the magistrate judge as the condition in which the minority composition of each school would not deviate by more than 15 percentage points from the minority composition of the population of the school district. Because this is a tighter range than imposed in most school desegregation cases, the Rockford public schools are now less segregated than those in any previous case in which a school system was declared "unitary" (that is, declared sufficiently desegregated to require the dissolution of the decree and the return of control of the public schools to the school board). The plaintiffs fear backsliding, and so want a wait-and-see period of at least 15 years after desegregation, during which the decree would remain in force.
The length of the litigation, the scale of the expenditures, and the achievement of desegregation constitute, against the background of applicable law, compelling arguments to end this litigation. It used to be extremely difficult to modify any kind of equitable decree. See United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106, 52 S.Ct. 460, 76 L.Ed. 999 (1932). But as we noted recently in ordering radical modification of another institutional reform decree, one that had subjected the Chicago police to severe restrictions on its power to investigate terrorist activities, the Supreme Court has adopted a much more flexible standard for the modification of decrees entered in institutional reform litigation than the Swift standard of yore. Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago, 237 F.3d 799, 800-01 (7th Cir.2001); see Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 378-81, 112 S.Ct. 748, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992); Board of Education v. Dowell, supra, 498 U.S. at 248, 111 S.Ct. 630; see also Alexander v. Britt, 89 F.3d 194, 197-98 (4th Cir.1996). The Court believes the states and their subdivisions have a right to the restoration of control over the institutions of state and local government as soon as the objectives of the federal remedial decree have been achieved. Missouri v. Jenkins, supra, 515 U.S. at 99, 115 S.Ct. 2038; Bogard v. 1076 Wright, 159 F.3d 1060, 1065 (7th Cir.1998); People Who Care v. Rockford *1076 Board of Education, 153 F.3d 834 (7th Cir.1998) (per curiam); United States v. Board of School Commissioners, supra, 128 F.3d at 510. Unlike decrees that bind private parties, decrees that hand over the control of important state functions, such as education, to federal courts "are not intended to operate in perpetuity." Board of Education v. Dowell, supra, 498 U.S. at 248, 111 S.Ct. 630. "[T]he Supreme Court disfavors permanent injunctions in school cases. The administration of public schools is a state executive function rather than a federal judicial function, and so ought not to be subjected to the perpetual tutelage of the federal courts." United States v. Board of School Commissioners, supra, 128 F.3d at 510.
The purpose of a school desegregation decree is to eliminate the consequences of segregation. When they have been eliminated the decree has done its job and should be lifted. This simple principle, which we don't understand the plaintiffs to be quarreling with, dictates our decision. The Rockford public schools have been desegregated. No longer are there any schools that are "white only" or "minority only," or even approximations to

such schools. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been poured into the construction and renovation of schools and into programs designed to extirpate the traces of unlawful segregation. Although minority educational achievement lags behind that of whites, there is no evidence that the lag is any greater in Rockford than in otherwise similar districts that have no history of racial discrimination.
Four years ago almost to the day we noted the absence of "evidence that the gap in scholastic achievement between white and minority students in Rockford is any greater than the gap between white and minority students in school districts that have not been found to have discriminated against their black and Hispanic students." 111 F.3d at 537. One might have expected the plaintiffs to take the hint and look for such evidence. If they have looked, they have found nothing. Although peppered with references to programs designed to achieve "vestige elimination," the plaintiffs' brief cites no evidence that there are vestiges of unlawful discrimination still to eliminate. "At some point," moreover, "the continuing and ineliminable traces of an earlier violation are too slight to justify continued federal judicial control of public education." United States v. Board of School Commissioners, supra, 128 F.3d at 511.
The reality is that until minority students achieve parity of educational achievement with the white students in the Rockford public schools, the plaintiffs will contend that the minority students are victims of the unlawful discrimination of an earlier period in Rockford's history. Yet it is obvious that other factors besides discrimination contribute to unequal educational attainment, such as poverty, parents' education and employment, family size, parental attitudes and behavior, prenatal, neonatal, and child health care, peer-group pressures, and ethnic culture. Some of these factors may themselves be due to or exacerbated by discrimination, but not to discrimination by the Rockford school board. The board has no legal duty to remove those vestiges of societal discrimination for which it is not responsible. Insofar as the factors that we have mentioned, rather than unlawful conduct by the Rockford school board in years past, are responsible for lags in educational achievement by minority students, the board has no duty that a federal court can enforce to help those students catch up. It may have a moral duty; it has no federal constitutional duty.
1077 No effort has been made by the plaintiffs, despite our warnings, to partition, *1077 however crudely, the lag in achievement that is due to the school board's past illegalities and the lag that is due to other factors, factors for which the school board bears no federal legal responsibility. The partition could be made by comparing minority academic performance in Rockford with the performance of minority students in other school districts after adjusting for the various factors that are not the school board's legal responsibility yet might be thought to influence the academic performance of Rockford's minority students, such as poverty, family stability, health, class size, and quality of teachers. There are statistical methods for holding these factors constant in order to isolate the influence, if any, of the board's illegal conduct on the academic performance of Rockford's minority students. No such scientific comparison has been attempted 0907 nor even anything cruder.
The plaintiffs' failure to recognize the importance of trying to unpack the causes of disparate educational performance is illustrated by their contention that although the Rockford schools may now be desegregated, the classrooms within those schools remain segregated and until they are desegregated the decree must remain in force. What they mean by the classrooms still being segregated is that minority students are underrepresented in advanced courses. Yet enrollment in those courses is open. No one is being kept out. (If enrollment were not open but instead were rationed by test scores, a much smaller percentage of minority students would be enrolled in the advanced classes, the magistrate judge found 0907 6 percent rather than 23 percent.) To suppose that minority students are enrolling in these classes at a lower rate than white students because of school segregation in the past is illogical, or at least unsubstantiated. The schools are desegregated, the advanced courses are open to any student, and if fewer minority students are enrolling than their proportion in the school or school district as a whole, the natural inference is not that the proportion is being held down by the fact that years ago the schools were segregated. That is conceivable, but so improbable that evidence is required to use the fact as a basis for continuing a federal judicial officer in control of the public school system. The plaintiffs' case is an extreme version of post hoc ergo propter hoc. It is provincial and naive to suppose that because Rockford once engaged in de facto segregation of its public schools, the choices of its minority students regarding voluntary enrollment in advanced classes open to all are a legacy of that segregation.

The plaintiffs' principal argument for the indefinite continuation of the decree is that the school board has not been complying with it in good faith. The difference between technical compliance and compliance in good faith is that the latter form of compliance does not exploit loopholes and ambiguities. Philips Medical Systems Int'l B.V. v. Bruetman, 8 F.3d 600, 604 (7th Cir.1993); United States v. Board of Education, 799 F.2d 281, 289-90, 295 (7th Cir.1986); Manning v. School Board, 244 F.3d 927, 945-46 (11th Cir.2001). It is not, as the plaintiffs would have it, that the school board must "actively" support the decree, must express "commitment" to it, and, above all, must not criticize it. The undemocratic implications of this position leave us almost speechless. Are elected officials, the members of the school board, elected long after and not complicit in the illegalities that gave rise to the litigation, forbidden, under threat of never resuming control of the public school system that they were elected to govern, to criticize a decree that in pursuit of an ambitious and possibly quixotic scheme of social engineering has imposed a formidable tax burden on the people who elected these officials?
1078 *1078 Pressed at argument, the plaintiffs' able lawyer could not cite an instance in which the school board has violated any of the numerous provisions of the decree. He may well be correct that the decree would have achieved more had it been enthusiastically embraced by the board, but state and local officials are under no duty to love the chains that federal judges, however justifiably, fasten upon them.
The judgment is reversed with instructions to grant the relief requested by the school board. It should go without saying that if the board takes advantage of its new freedom from federal judicial control to discriminate against minority students in violation of federal law, it will expose itself to a new and draconian round of litigation. We trust that $238 million later, it has learned its lesson.
REVERSED AND REMANDED, WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, 179 F.R.D. 551 (1998)

179 F.R.D. 551 United States District Court,
N.D. Illinois, Western Division.
PEOPLE WHO CARE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 205, Defendant, and
Rockford Education Association, Rockford Building Maintenance Association, and Education
Office Personnel Association, Intervenors–Defendants.
No. 89 C 20168. | May 7, 1998.
Attorneys and Law Firms
*552 Jonathan A. Rothstein, Gessler, Flynn, Fleischmann, Hughes & Socol, Ltd., Chicago, IL, David P. Faulkner, Amy E. Shappert, Lord, Bissell & Brook, Jeffry S. Spears, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Rockford, IL, Ronald L. Futterman, Robert C. Howard, Claire T. Hartfield, Kathleen Mangold Spoto, Futterman & Howard, Chtd., Jennifer Louise Fischer, Gessler, Flynn, Fleischmann, Hughes & Socol, Ltd., Chicago, IL, Janet L. Pulliam, Denise Reid Hoggard, Pulliam Law Offices, P.A., Little Rock, AR, Eugene Eubanks, Dr., Kansas City, MO, for Larry Hoarde, Chasty Hoarde, Jonathan Hughes, Cindy Malone, Shaheed Saleem, Anissa Tripplett, Asia Eason, Stephanie Burfield, Joshua Burfield, Brandon Burfield, People Who Care, Sidney Malone, Andre Malone, James Curtin, Kelly Curtin and Leonardo Medrano.
Denise S. Poloyac, Katz, Friedman, Schur & Eagle, Chtd., Chicago, IL, *553 Stephen Gary Katz, Krukowski & Costello, Milwaukee, WI, for Rockford Education Association.
Albert Lynn Himes, Anthony Gael Scariano, Lawrence Jay Weiner, George Robb Cooper, Justino D. Petrarca, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chtd., Chicago, IL, Gary Richard Kardell, Stephen T. Moore, Thomas J. Lester, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Rockford, IL, David P. Kula, John M. Izzo, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes Chtd., Chicago Heights, IL, William J. Quinlan, Rockford Public Schools, Rockford, IL, for Rockford Board of Education School District # 205, Jacquelyn Confer, Avery Gage, Terry Hodges, Jo Minor, George Stevens, Fred III Wham and Michael Williams.
Barbara Jean Buhai, Katz & Buhai, P.C., Barrington, IL, Charles F. Thomas, Thomas J. Lester, Patrick H. Agnew, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Peter D. DeBruyne, DeBruyne, Yalden & Olsen, Peter Alexander, Alexander & Cicero,

P.C., Rockford, IL, for Rockford Education Association, Rockford Building Maintenance Association, Educational Office Personnel Association, Milestone, Inc., Theodore Biondo and Patricia Delugas.
Opinion
ORDER
MAHONEY, United States Magistrate Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION On December 22, 1997, petitioners Theodore Biondo, Patricia Delugas, and David L. Strommer (collectively, “petitioners”), all members of the Rockford Board of Education (School District No. 205) (“RSD Board”), filed their “motion to intervene.” People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205, No. 89 C 20168 (N.D. Ill. December 22, 1997, Docket Nos. 2881). Also on December 22, 1997, petitioners filed their “motion to vacate order.” People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 (N.D. Ill. December 22, 1997, Docket No. 2882).
On January 2, 1998, petitioners filed the following: (1) petitioners’ “motion for leave to amend.” People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 (N.D. Ill. January 2, 1998, Docket No. 2886); (2) petitioners’ amendment to motion to intervene, consisting of paragraphs 13–20; (3) petitioners’ brief in support of motion to intervene; and (4) petitioners’ “amended motion to vacate order and response and objection to Plaintiffs’ motion for findings, sanctions and enforcement actions.” People Who Care, No 89 C 20168 (N.D. Ill. January 2, 1998, Docket No. 2887).
For the reasons stated in this order, the following motions are denied: (1) petitioners’ “motion to intervene,” filed December 22, 1997; and (2) petitioners’ related motion to vacate order, filed December 22, 1997.
Further, as explained below, the following motions are moot: (1) Petitioners’ “amended motion to vacate order and response and objection to Plaintiffs’ motion for findings, sanctions and enforcement actions,” filed January 2, 1998; and (2) petitioners’ motion for leave to amend, filed January 2, 1998.
II. BACKGROUND On September 12, 1997, the court ruled on the Master’s FY 98 expenditure plan and the RSD’s objections thereto. People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 (N.D. Ill. September
1

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, 179 F.R.D. 551 (1998)

12, 1997, Docket No. 2775). In the September 12, 1997 order, the court adopted the Master’s FY 98 CRO expenditure plan, albeit with some changes. Also in the September 12, 1997 order, the court directed the RSD to submit “the RSD’s plan for funding the expenditure plan ...”. Id.
On September 24, 1997, the RSD filed its “report required pursuant to September 12, 1997 order.” People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 (N.D. Ill. September 24, 1997, Docket No. 2781). In the RSD’s September 24, 1997 report, the RSD stated the following:
It is inconceivable that [the] RSD could fund the remedial relief required by the Court’s Expenditure Plan for FY 98 out of its general operating funds .... As a result, RSD assumes that this Court can and will enter an Order consistent with the September 12, 1997 Order finding that the Court ordered Expenditure Plan is a supplemental judgment issued in connection with the CRO and previously entered liability findings which found that RSD had committed constitutional torts when it violated the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. *554 Upon entry of such an Order, RSD will be bound under State law to levy a tax under the Illinois Tort Immunity Act to pay for such supplemental judgment.
People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 at 2–3 (N.D. Ill. September 24, 1997, Docket No. 2781).
On November 6, 1997, the court entered the RSD’s proposed supplemental judgment order as requested by the RSD on September 24, 1997. As pointed out by the RSD on September 24, 1997, the RSD was then “bound under State law to levy a tax under the Illinois Tort Immunity Act to pay for such supplemental judgment.” People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 (N.D. Ill. September 24, 1997, Docket No. 2781); People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 (N.D. Ill. November 6, 1997, Docket No. 2808).
Also on November 6, 1997, Judge Rapp of the Circuit Court of Carroll County, Illinois, issued an opinion stating that for consent decree levy years 1991 through 1993, the Illinois Tort Immunity Act did not permit use of tort levies to pay for those remedies. See People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 at 11–14 (N.D. Ill. December 22, 1997, Docket No. 2879) (Transcript for December 2, 1997 proceedings). However, Judge Rapp’s November 6, 1997

opinion did not constitute a final order or an injunction, as explained by RSD counsel Thomas Lester:
MR. LESTER: I mean, there is no injunction prohibiting the district to levy under the Tort Immunity Act nor is there any order directing them to do so.
THE COURT: In fact, the last time I asked you the question, your answer was no. Has anything changed? Is there any legal impediment that prevents the board from fully funding the CRO through the tort levy?
MR. LESTER: I believe I just said currently there is no injunction in place or court order which prohibits the district from levying under the Tort Immunity Act. Similarly, there is no order directing them to do so.
THE COURT: Is the district requesting such an order?
MR. LESTER: No, your honor.
People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 at 29–30 (N.D.Ill. December 22, 1997) (Transcript for December 16, 1997 hearing). Altogether, RSD counsel stated (1) that no court order and/or injunction prevented the RSD from levying pursuant to the Tort Immunity Act to fund the FY 98 CRO expenditure plan and FY 98 COPs debt service; and (2) that the RSD was not requesting an order from the District Court specifically directing the RSD to levy pursuant to the Tort Immunity Act.
On November 24, 1997, Plaintiffs People Who Care, et al. (“Plaintiffs”) filed their “motion for revenue generation order concerning the FY 98 CRO remedial operating budget and the FY 98 COPs debt service levy.” People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 (N.D. Ill. November 24, 1997, Docket No. 2814). Plaintiffs’ November 24, 1997 motion for revenue-generation order requested that the court specifically direct the RSD to levy pursuant to the Tort Immunity Act. As the court understood Plaintiffs’ concerns, Plaintiffs believed that the RSD Board would not levy pursuant to the Tort Immunity Act to fund the FY 98 CRO expenditure plan and the FY 98 COPs debt service. More specifically, Plaintiffs believed that the RSD Board would not levy prior to December 30, 1997, thereby leading to the financial collapse and resulting complete shutdown of the Rockford Public Schools during FY 98.
On December 8, 1997, the court denied Plaintiffs’ November 24, 1997 “motion for revenue generation order concerning the FY 98 remedial operating budget and FY 98 COPs debt service” by the following order:
On September 12, 1997, the court ruled on the Master’s FY 1998 Comprehensive Remedial Order (“CRO”) expenditure plan and the Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205 (“RSD”) objections thereto. In the September 12, 1997 order, the court adopted the
2

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, 179 F.R.D. 551 (1998)

Master’s FY 1998 CRO expenditure plan, albeit with some changes. People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 (N.D. Ill. September 12, 1997, Docket No. 2775). Also in the September 12, 1997 order, the court directed the RSD to submit “the RSD’s plan for funding the expenditure plan as put forward by this court and the Master.” People Who Care, *555 No. 89 C 20168 (N.D.Ill. September 12, 1997).
On September 24, 1997, the RSD filed its “report required pursuant to 9/12/97 order” (the “RSD’s report”). People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 (N.D. Ill. September 24, 1997, Docket No. 2781). In the RSD’s report, the RSD explained that the RSD has consistently suffered significant deficits in its general operating fund. Id. Clearly, the RSD cannot reasonably fund the FY 1998 CRO expenditure plan through its general operating fund.
In the RSD’s report, the RSD “assumed that this Court can and will enter” an order directing the RSD to levy under the Tort Immunity Fund to provide the revenue needed for the FY 1998 expenditure plan. Id.
In addition to the FY 1998 CRO expenditure plan, the RSD must make debt service payments in FY 98 on the Certificates of Participation (“COPs”) which were issued earlier this year to pay for CRO-ordered school construction. The debt service payments total approximately $4.1 million. Of this $4.1 million, approximately $900,000 will come from the lease levy, leaving a total of approximately $3.2 million for which a revenue source is needed. Clearly, the RSD cannot reasonably fund FY 1998 COPs debt service through the general operating fund.
On September 18, 1996, the court explicitly directed the RSD to utilize the tort levy to generate the full amount required to fund the FY 1997 CRO expenditure plan. People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 (N.D.Ill. September 18, 1996). In Plaintiffs’ motion for a revenue-generation order, Plaintiffs ask the court to issue a similar order with respect to (1) the FY 1998 CRO expenditure plan, and (2) FY 1998 COPs debt service.
However, the court cannot be expected to continuously spoon-feed the RSD regarding every aspect of CRO implementation. The CRO states unequivocally that “it is the responsibility of the [Rockford School] District to fully fund all CRO remedies.” People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 at 214 (N.D. Ill. June 7, 1996, Docket No. 2203). Therefore, the FY 1998 CRO expenditure plan must be funded. The FY 1998 COPs debt service must be funded. By levying pursuant to the Tort Immunity Fund, the RSD can fund the FY 1998 CRO expenditure plan and FY 1998 COPs debt service. Altogether, the RSD should require decreasing involvement from the

court, rather than increasing involvement and continuous direction. If the [RSD] Board does not intend in good faith to implement the CRO, the court will have to look at alternatives.
Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motion for a revenue-generation order is denied as unnecessary.
People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 (N.D. Ill. December 8, 1997, Docket Nos. 2844, 2845).

In the days following the court’s December 8, 1997 order, the RSD Board demonstrated that it did not intend to fund the CRO. At its December 9, 1997 meeting, the RSD Board failed to levy pursuant to the Tort Immunity Act. Therefore, the FY 1998 CRO expenditure plan and FY 1998 COPs debt service remained unfunded. The RSD Board would have adopted the necessary levies at the December 9, 1997 meeting but for the exit of Board Members Biondo and Delugas. By leaving the December 9, 1997 meeting, RSD Board members Biondo and Delugas defeated the quorum necessary to pass the levies.
Following the December 9, 1997 performance, on December 11, 1997, Plaintiffs filed their “renewed motion for a revenue generation order concerning the FY 98 remedial operating budget and the FY 98 COPs debt service levy.” People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 (N.D. Ill. December 11, 1997, Docket No. 2855).
On December 15, 1997, Plaintiffs filed their motion for expedited discovery, in which Plaintiffs requested authorization to take the depositions of the RSD Board members at the Federal Building in Rockford, Illinois, on December 17 and 18, 1997.

At the December 16, 1997 RSD Board meeting, the RSD Board was reminded by RSD Superintendent Epps and Chief Financial Officer Corby of the following: (1) The *556 RSD Board was obligated to fund the FY 98 CRO expenditure plan; (2) the RSD Board was obligated to fund FY 98 COPs debt service; (3) a levy pursuant to the Tort Immunity Act was necessary to fund the FY 98 CRO expenditure plan and FY 98 COPs debt service; and (4) Judge Rapp’s opinion did not prevent the RSD Board from levying pursuant to the Tort Immunity Act. People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 at 2–6 (N.D. Ill. December 22, 1997, Docket No. 2880) (Transcript for the December 16, 1997 hearing).

Nevertheless, on December 16, 1997, the RSD Board again failed to adopt the necessary levies by a vote of 3–3.1

1

On December 16, 1997, the RSD Board consisted of

only six members. Normally, the RSD Board consists

of seven members. However, on December 8, 1997,

3

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, 179 F.R.D. 551 (1998)

RSD Board President William Neblock resigned from his RSD Board position following Mr. Neblock’s altercation with fellow RSD Board member David L. Strommer in front of the Hinshaw & Culbertson offices, 100 Park Avenue, Rockford, Illinois. See People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 at 14 (N.D. Ill. December 16, 1998, Docket No. 2880) (Transcript for the December 16, 1998 hearing). Consequently, the RSD Board consisted of only six members until February 18, 1998, when William Neblock was appointed by Regional Superintendent Richard L. Fairgraves to fill the vacancy left by William Neblock’s December 8, 1997 resignation.
At a status hearing later on December 16, 1997, counsel for the RSD reported to the court that the RSD Board had passed all non-CRO tax levies, but had failed to pass levies to fund the FY 98 CRO expenditure plan and the FY 98 COPs debt service. Counsel for the RSD also reported that the RSD Board had no alternative plan to fund the FY 98 CRO expenditure plan and the FY 98 COPs debt service, and that the RSD Board had been informed by Superintendent Epps and Chief Financial Officer Corby that failure to adopt these levies would result in the financial collapse of the RSD and the consequent shutdown of the Rockford Public Schools during 1998. People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 at 2–6 (N.D. Ill. December 22, 1997, Docket No. 2880) (Transcript for the December 16, 1997 hearing).
Also on December 16, 1997, Plaintiffs filed their “motion for findings, sanctions, and enforcement actions concerning the Rockford Board of Education’s failure and refusal to adopt tort immunity levies necessary to fund FY 98 CRO and COPs remedies.” People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 (N.D. Ill. December 16, 1997, Docket No. 2859).
On December 16, 1997, Plaintiffs’ December 15, 1997 motion for expedited discovery was granted: “The court orders all Board members, Superintendent Epps, and the Chief Financial Officer of the RSD to be available for depositions at 211 S. Court St. all day on 12/17/97 and 12/18/97, beginning at 9 AM.” People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 (N.D. Ill. December 16, 1997, Docket No. 2860).
On December 17 and 18, 1997, Plaintiffs took the depositions of Superintendent Epps, CFO Corby, and the six remaining RSD Board members. The deposition testimony of these persons indicated that the RSD Board would levy pursuant to the Tort Immunity Fund only if ordered to do so by the District Court, despite the fact that “there [was] no injunction in place or court order which prohibit [ed] the District from levying under the Tort Immunity Act.” See People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 at 29–30 (N.D.Ill. December 22, 1997) (Transcript for December 16, 1997 hearing).

On December 18, 1997, the court made the following ruling:
Taking into consideration the deposition testimony of all Rockford School Board members, Chief Financial Officer Matthew Corby, and Superintendent Dr. Ronald Epps, the court orders Carol Bell, in her official capacity as a member of the Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205, Theodore Biondo, in his official capacity as a member of the Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205, Gloria Cudia, in her official capacity as a member of the Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205, Patricia Delugas, in her official capacity as a member of the Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205, Alice Saudargas, in her official capacity as a member of the Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205, and David Strommer, in his official capacity as a member *557 of the Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205, to take whatever action is necessary to adopt levies pursuant to the Illinois Tort Immunity Act in amounts sufficient to fully fund: (1) the FY 1998 CRO expenditure plan, and (2) FY 1998 COPs debt service, by December 23, 1997, at 10:30 AM.
The court finds:
1. That the Rockford School Board has failed to adopt the tort levy by a 3–3 vote.
2. That the Rockford School Board does not intend to take any further action prior to December 30, 1997.
3. That by state law the levy must be in place by December 30, 1997.
4. That Superintendent Dr. Ronald Epps stated under oath on December 17, 1997, that if the tort levy is not approved by the Board before December 30, 1997, “the district would be incapable of sustaining its operations, the best case scenario, [the Rockford Public Schools would close down] by October of the next school year ... the worst case scenario, we would shut down before January [1998] is over if the most negative information is correct.” People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 at 42 (N.D. Ill. December 17, 1997, deposition transcript of Dr. Ronald Epps).
5. That Chief Financial Officer Mr. Matthew Corby agrees with the financial assessment of Dr. Epps. People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 (N.D. Ill. December 17, 1997, deposition of Mr. Matthew Corby).
6. That no Board member has a credible plan to fund the CRO and the schools.
7. That without this order, the Rockford Public Schools will close down and stop all operations by Fall 1998, at
4

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, 179 F.R.D. 551 (1998)

the very latest.
8. That there is no legal impediment to levying pursuant to the Tort Fund.
9. Attached to this order is a memorandum opinion of Judge Philip G. Reinhard. The court adopts the reasoning of Judge Reinhard’s opinion, and holds that the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois would allow the use of the tort levy to fully fund (1) the FY 1998 CRO expenditure plan, and (2) FY 1998 COPs debt service.
The court sets this case for a status hearing on December 23, 1997 at 11:30 AM. People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 (N.D. Ill. December 18, 1997, Docket No. 2862) (the “December 18, 1997 order”) (emphasis supplied).2

2

Similarly, on September 18, 1996, the court ordered the

RSD “to immediately utilize the tort levy to generate

$23,449,152.00 in order to fund the FY 97

desegregation expenditure plan.” People Who Care,

No. 89 C 20168 (N.D. Ill. September 18, 1996, Docket

No. 2387). The RSD did not appeal the September 18,

1996 order.

At a special RSD Board meeting held on December 22, 1997, the RSD Board voted 6–0 to levy pursuant to the Tort Immunity Act to fund the FY 98 CRO expenditure plan and the FY 98 COPs debt service. The RSD Board did not vote to appeal the court’s December 18, 1997 order. Rather, the RSD Board tied 3–3 when they voted regarding a possible appeal of the December 18, 1997 order. People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 at 14–15 (N.D. Ill. January 2, 1998, Docket No. 2888).
Also on December 22, 1997, RSD Board members Theodore Biondo, Patricia DeLugas, and David Strommer (the “petitioners”) filed their motion to intervene. People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 (N.D. Ill. December 22, 1997, Docket No. 2881).
At the December 23, 1997 status hearing, counsel for the RSD reported to the court that the RSD had complied with the court’s December 18, 1997 order.
On January 2, 1998, petitioners filed their “motion for leave to amend.” People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 (N.D. Ill. January 2, 1998, Docket No. 2886). Also on January 2, 1998, the petitioners filed their proposed amendment to their motion to intervene, which includes numbered paragraphs 13–20. People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 (N.D. Ill. January 2, 1998, Docket No. 2887) (“proposed amendment”). In the proposed amendment, the petitioners explain their reasons for filing the motion for leave to amend: “[F]or the additional, limited purpose of

defending against the PWC plaintiffs’ pending motion for findings, sanctions and enforcement *558 actions against them ...”. People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 at 1 (N.D. Ill. January 2, 1998, Docket No. 2887).
On January 20, 1998, Plaintiffs filed their motion for leave to amend their December 16, 1997 “motion for findings, sanctions, and enforcement actions concerning the Rockford Board of Education’s failure and refusal to adopt tort immunity levies necessary to fund FY 98 CRO and COPs remedies.” People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 (N.D. Ill. January 20, 1998, Docket No. 2900). Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend states, in relevant part, the following:
1. Plaintiffs wish to reduce the scope of their original motion in the following respects:
a. Withdraw all requests for sanctions, actions or findings against any individual board members;
b. Withdraw all requests for civil contempt findings and sanctions against the Board, since such findings and sanctions are for the purpose of coercion and the need for coercion was eliminated on December 23, 1997 when the Board adopted the real estate tax levies necessary to fund the FY 1998 CRO annual operating and debt service financial obligations.
c. Withdraw all requests for Rule 70 relief, in light of the Board’s action on December 23, 1997.
2. The Plaintiffs will retain in their Amended Motion their request for findings regarding the bad faith conduct of the Rockford Board of Education. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Freeman v. Pitts, such findings are appropriate and necessary to this Court’s ultimate determination of unitariness.
People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 (N.D. Ill. January 20, 1998, Docket No. 2900). Plaintiffs’ January 20, 1998 motion for leave to amend was granted on January 23, 1998. People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 (N.D. Ill. January 23, 1998, Docket No. 2903).
Consequently, Plaintiffs’ “amended motion for bad faith filings” replaced Plaintiffs’ December 16, 1997 motion, and states, in part, the following:
1. For the second year in a row, the Rockford Board of Education purposely refused to adopt the real estate tax levies necessary to fund CRO annual operating and debt service financial obligations.
2. The conduct of the Board of Education was in bad faith, and demonstrates a lack of commitment to its constitutional obligations and to the whole of this Court’s remedial decree.
5

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, 179 F.R.D. 551 (1998)

3. The conduct of the Board placed this Court in the position of having to enter a judicial directive on December 18, 1997 specifically ordering the Board to adopt the real estate tax levies.
4. It was only after receiving this specific judicial directive, and despite having been obligated prior to entry of that order to provide for the funding of the CRO, that the Board finally, on December 23, 1997, adopted the real estate tax levies.
5. The full factual context of the Board’s conduct reveals the depth of the Board’s bad faith ... under the requirements of Freeman v. Pitts .... [T]he Plaintiffs respectfully request that the court make appropriate findings of bad faith conduct by the Rockford Board of Education.
Plaintiffs’ amended motion for bad faith findings at 1–2.

order them to vote for [Tort Immunity Act] taxes because they [petitioners] do not believe the School Board has the lawful authority ... to levy taxes ... pursuant to the so-called ‘tort fund’ provisions of the Tort Immunity Act, 745 ILCS 10/9–107 (1996), in order to fund the cost of complying with the agreed or court ordered equitable remedies.” People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 at 2 (N.D. Ill. December 22, 1997, Docket No. 2881).
Petitioners’ related motion to vacate order moves for the nullification of the court’s December 18, 1997 order directing the RSD Board “to take whatever action is necessary to adopt levies pursuant to the Tort Immunity Act in amounts sufficient to fully fund (1) the FY 1998 CRO expenditure plan, and (2) FY 1998 COPs debt service, by 12/23/97 at 10:30 AM.” People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 (N.D. Ill. December 18, 1997, Docket No. 2862).

III. DISCUSSION
A. PETITIONERS’ MOTIONS BEFORE THE COURT Petitioners’ “amended motion to vacate order and response and objection to Plaintiffs’ motion for findings, sanctions and enforcement actions,” filed January 2, 1998, and petitioners’ motion for leave to amend, also filed January 2, 1998, are moot. Petitioners stated that their January 2, 1998 “amended motion to vacate order and response and objection to Plaintiffs’ motion for findings, sanctions and enforcement actions” was filed “for the additional, limited purpose of defending against the PWC plaintiffs’ pending motion for findings, sanctions and enforcement actions against them ...”. People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 (N.D.Ill. January 2, 1998). However, Plaintiffs “motion for findings, sanctions, and enforcement actions concerning *559 the Rockford Board of Education’s failure and refusal to adopt tort immunity levies necessary to fund FY 98 CRO and COPs remedies,” filed December 16, 1997, has been withdrawn by Plaintiffs and replaced by Plaintiffs’ “amended motion for bad faith findings.” Since Plaintiffs’ December 16, 1997 motion for findings, sanctions and enforcement actions has been withdrawn, the petitioners’ January 2, 1998 amendments are moot.
Consequently, the following motions of petitioners remain: (1) petitioners’ motion to intervene, filed December 22, 1997; and (2) petitioners’ companion motion to vacate order, also filed December 22, 1997.
In petitioners’ motion to intervene, petitioners argue that they have the right to intervene in the People Who Care case in order to dispute the authority of the District Court to order the RSD to levy pursuant to the Tort Immunity Act: “The [petitioners] challenge this Court’s authority to

B. AUTHORITY OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE REGARDING PETITIONERS’ MOTIONS [1] In petitioners’ motion to intervene, petitioners state the following: “The proposed intervenors [petitioners] object to and do not consent to the Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction to adjudicate this motion, the attached motion to vacate or any other aspect of this case.” People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 at 4 (N.D. Ill. December 22, 1997, Docket No. 2882).
Petitioners’ objection “to the Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction to adjudicate this motion” is without legal effect. The petitioners are not parties to this case. The Seventh Circuit has stated that “§ 636(c)(1) requires consent only by the ‘parties.’ ” Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 24 F.3d 958 (7th Cir.1994) (“[T]he Council is only a would-be intervenor. It never acquired the status of a party, and § 636(c)(1) requires consent only by the ‘parties.’ Until it became a party, the Council had no statutory entitlement to exercise choice over the type of adjudicator.”)
The existing parties, including the RSD, have consented to the Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction over the remedial phase of this case. Therefore, petitioners’ motion to intervene is decided by the Magistrate Judge in this memorandum opinion.
C. RULE 24(a)(2) In order to establish intervention as of right, petitioners must demonstrate that they have satisfied the requirements of Rule 24(a)(2).
Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party seeking to intervene as of right must satisfy four requirements: (1) the application to intervene
6

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, 179 F.R.D. 551 (1998)

must be timely; (2) the party must have an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) the party must be so situated that the disposition of the action may, “as a practical matter,” impair or impede the party’s ability to protect that interest; and (4) the party’s interest must not be adequately represented by the existing parties to the action. See People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205, 68 F.3d 172, 174 (7th Cir.1995), citing Nissei Sangyo America, Limited v. United States, 31 F.3d 435, 438 (7th Cir.1994).
*560 D. PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO INTERVENE IS UNTIMELY Attorney Michael O’Brien attempted to intervene in the People Who Care case in order to make the same arguments which the petitioners claim they wish to make regarding the legality of levies pursuant to the Tort Immunity Act. People Who Care, 68 F.3d 172 (7th Cir.1995). The District Court denied Mr. O’Brien’s motion to intervene as untimely. The District Court’s decision was upheld by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. People Who Care, 68 F.3d 172 (7th Cir.1995).
Presently before the court is “petitioners” ‘ motion to intervene. The court believes that petitioners’ motion to intervene is a rehash of the attempt made by Attorney Michael O’Brien to intervene in the People Who Care case. See People Who Care, No. 89 C 20168 (N.D. Ill. December 22, 1997, Docket No. 2882).
[2] [3] As with the original attempt at intervention, the current motion to intervene is untimely. The most important consideration in deciding whether a motion to intervene is untimely is whether the delay will prejudice the existing parties to the case. People Who Care, 68 F.3d 172, 176 (7th Cir.1995). Petitioners’ motion to intervene will cause unacceptable prejudice to the existing parties in this case. As pointed out by the Seventh Circuit, “[t]he bonds proposed in the interim orders have already been ordered by the court. In October of 1991, the court ordered the Board of Education to fund school renovations and capital expenditures using the contested bond method, and, in June of 1992, the court ordered the issuance of $10 million in bonds to fund other remedial obligations under the second interim order.” People Who Care, 68 F.3d 172, 176 (7th Cir.1995). Since the 1995 Seventh Circuit decision, the court has ordered additional Tort Immunity Act levies in amounts counted in the tens of millions of dollars. The RSD has levied pursuant to the Tort Immunity Act to raise this money. Further, “[h]earings have been held on liability, and extensive findings have been made both by the Magistrate Judge and by the district court. A Declaratory Judgment and Permanent Injunction was issued in 1994, and the parties have been formulating remedial programs, and funding

for these programs, literally for years.” People Who Care, 68 F.3d 172, 176 (7th Cir.1995). The petitioners’ intervention at this stage “would be significantly disruptive and detrimental to both parties and to the goal of ending discrimination.” See People Who Care, 68 F.3d 172, 176 (7th Cir.1995).
Altogether, petitioners’ motion to intervene is untimely.
E. PETITIONERS HAVE NO LEGALLY COGNIZABLE INTEREST AND NO STANDING [4] The petitioners have failed to establish an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the People Who Care action. Similarly, petitioners have failed to demonstrate that they have standing to intervene.
Under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, federal courts have jurisdiction over disputes only if a “case” or “controversy” exists. This is a “bedrock requirement.” Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 758, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982). Regarding the case or controversy requirement, the Supreme Court has stated the following: “No principle is more fundamental to the judiciary’s proper role in our system of government than the constitutional limitation of federal-court jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies.” Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26, 37, 96 S.Ct. 1917, 1924, 48 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976).
The case or controversy requirement includes the necessary element of “standing” to sue. Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, ––––, 117 S.Ct. 2312, 2317, 138 L.Ed.2d 849 (1997). Intervenors participate on an equal footing with the original parties to the suit. Therefore, a movant for leave to intervene must satisfy the same Article III requirements as the original parties, including the requirement of “standing.” Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL–CIO v. Reich, 40 F.3d 1275, 1282 (D.C.Cir.1994), citing *561 City of Cleveland v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 17 F.3d 1515, 1517 (D.C.Cir.1994) (per curiam), Southern Christian Leadership Conference v. Kelley, 747 F.2d 777, 779 (D.C.Cir.1984).
To meet the standing requirements of Article III, a party “must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Raines v. Byrd, 521U.S. 811, ––––, 117 S.Ct. 2312, 2317, 138 L.Ed.2d 849 (1997), citing Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 3324, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984). The Supreme Court stated the following regarding the “personal” nature of the injury alleged: “We have consistently stressed that a plaintiff’s complaint must establish that he has a ‘personal stake’ in
7

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, 179 F.R.D. 551 (1998)

the alleged dispute, and that the alleged injury suffered is particularized to him.” Raines v. Byrd, 117 S.Ct. 2312, 2317 (1997). See also Lujan, 504 U.S., at 560–561 and n. 1, 112 S.Ct., at 2136 and n. 1 (To have standing, the plaintiff must have suffered a “particularized” injury, which means that, “the injury must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.”).
In the case of Bender v. Williamsport Area School District, 475 U.S. 534, 543–544, 106 S.Ct. 1326, 1332, 89 L.Ed.2d 501 (1986), the Supreme Court concluded that a school board member who “has no personal stake in the outcome of the litigation” has no standing. Because the Bender case shares many common issues relating to petitioners’ motion to intervene, the court will summarize the relevant facts of Bender.
In Bender, a group of high school students formed a club for the purpose of promoting “spiritual growth and positive attitudes in the lives of its members.” The group asked the principal for permission to hold club meetings on the school premises during student activity periods. The matter was referred to the School Superintendent, who denied permission on the basis of an opinion of the School District Solicitor, and the School Board upheld the denial. The students then filed suit in Federal District Court against the School District, members of the School Board, the Superintendent, and the Principal, alleging that the refusal to allow the club to meet on the same basis as other student groups because of its religious activities violated the First Amendment, and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The District Court, on motions for summary judgment, ruled in the students’ favor, but entered no injunction and granted no relief against any defendant in his individual capacity. The School District took no appeal, but complied with the judgment and allowed the students’ club to conduct the meetings as requested. However, a Mr. Youngman, who was then still a member of the School Board, did appeal. No one raised any question about his standing to appeal, and the Court of Appeals held in his favor. The Supreme Court reversed. Bender, 475 U.S. 534, 106 S.Ct. 1326, 89 L.Ed.2d 501 (1986).
In the instant case, the December 18, 1997 order entered no injunction and granted no relief against any RSD Board member in his or her individual capacity. See Bender, 475 U.S. 534, 539, 106 S.Ct. 1326, 89 L.Ed.2d 501 (1986) (“No injunction was entered, and no relief was granted against any defendant in his individual capacity.”). The court was very specific in this respect, ordering each RSD Board member “in his official capacity” or “in her official capacity,” to levy pursuant to the Tort Immunity Act. For example, the court ordered “Carol Bell, in her official capacity as a member of the Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205 ... to take whatever action is necessary to adopt levies pursuant to the Illinois Tort Immunity Act ...”. People Who Care, No. 89 C

20168 (N.D. Ill. December 18, 1997, Docket No. 2862). See Bender, 475 U.S. 534, 537, 106 S.Ct. 1326, 89 L.Ed.2d 501 (1986) (“[T]he specific allegation concerning each of the named members of the [School] Board was in this form: ‘John C. Youngman, Jr., is a member of the Williamsport Area School Board and is sued in that capacity.’ ”).
After the court’s December 18, 1997 order, the RSD Board voted 6–0 to levy pursuant to the Tort Immunity Act. The RSD Board did not vote to appeal the court’s December 18, 1997 order. Rather, the RSD Board tied 3–3 when they voted regarding a possible appeal of the December 18, 1997 order. The RSD Board made no motion to stay the court’s December 18, 1997 order. See *562 Bender, 475 U.S. 534, 539, 106 S.Ct. 1326, 89 L.Ed.2d 501 (1986) ( “The School District did not challenge the judgment of the District Court in any way. It made no motion for a stay and took no appeal. Instead, it decided to comply with the judgment ...”.).
As members of the RSD Board, ordered to take action in their official capacities, the petitioners have no personal stake in the matters for which they move to intervene. Therefore, petitioners have no standing to become intervenors in the instant case. See Bender, 475 U.S. 534, 543, 106 S.Ct. 1326, 89 L.Ed.2d 501 (1986) (“As a member of the School Board sued in his official capacity, Mr. Youngman has no personal stake in the outcome of the litigation and therefore did not have standing to file the notice of appeal.”).
An order directing public officials, such as School Board members, to act in their official capacities imposes liability on the public entity. Regarding the December 18, 1997 order, no liability was imposed on the RSD Board members in their individual capacities. See Brandon v. Holt, 469 U.S. 464, 471–472, 105 S.Ct. 873, 83 L.Ed.2d 878 (1985) (“[A] judgment against a public servant ‘in his official capacity’ imposes liability on the entity that he represents ...”.).
Therefore, the petitioners’ status as School Board members does not permit them to step into the shoes of the RSD Board and invoke its right to appeal the December 18, 1997 order. The vote of the RSD Board determined that the RSD Board would not appeal the December 18, 1997 order. Individual Board members cannot circumvent the RSD Board’s own vote and take up an appeal themselves. See Bender, 475 U.S. 534, 544, 106 S.Ct. 1326, 89 L.Ed.2d 501 (1986) (“Mr. Youngman’s status as a School Board member does not permit him to ‘step into the shoes of the Board’ and invoke its right to appeal.”). In this respect the Supreme Court has stated the following:
Generally speaking, members of collegial bodies do not have standing to perfect an appeal the body itself has
8

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, 179 F.R.D. 551 (1998)

declined to take. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit so held in Smuck v. Hobson, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 372, 374–375, 408 F.2d 175, 177–178 (1969) (en banc) (footnote omitted):
“We also find that Mr. Smuck has no appealable interest as a member of the Board of Education. While he was in that capacity a named defendant, the Board of Education was undeniably the principal figure and could have been sued alone as a collective entity. Appellant Smuck had a fair opportunity to participate in its defense, and in the decision not to appeal. Having done so, he has no separate interest as an individual in the litigation. The order directs the Board to take certain actions. But since its decisions are made by vote as a collective whole, there is no apparent way in which Smuck as an individual could violate the decree and thereby become subject to enforcement proceedings.”
See id., at 387, 408 F.2d at 190 (McGowan, J., concurring in part and concurring in result).
Bender, 475 U.S. 534, 544–545, 106 S.Ct. 1326, 89 L.Ed.2d 501 (1986). Consequently, individual RSD Board members have no power to appeal decisions of the RSD Board as a whole. Permitting individual RSD Board members to intervene so that decisions of the RSD Board can be circumvented would be akin to permitting individual citizens to appeal decisions of the RSD Board.
The petitioners assert that they have a personal stake and a resulting right to intervene arising from the December 18, 1997 order in the form of (1) effect on petitioners’ “political reputation;” (2) an inability to “vote their consciences;” and (3) the loss of the “effectiveness” of their votes.
The court is aware of no legally cognizable personal stake in the “political reputation” of elected officials, especially in the context of Rule 24(a)(2) and/or the standing requirement of Article III. Further, petitioners have not cited to any relevant legal authority in this respect.
Regarding the petitioners’ claim that they were unable to “vote their consciences” because of the December 18, 1997 order, the petitioners have failed to demonstrate a personal stake. In *563 Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 88 S.Ct. 1923, 20 L.Ed.2d 1060 (1968), the

Supreme Court recognizes a “personal stake” for individual legislators when they face the possibility of expulsion from office. The court never stated or intimated that the RSD Board members faced the possibility of expulsion from office if they voted against the Tort Fund Act levy. Further, the Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions against the individual RSD Board members was withdrawn in January 1998.
Petitioners also claim a personal stake due to an alleged loss of the “effectiveness” of their votes. Petitioners cite the case of Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 59 S.Ct. 972, 83 L.Ed. 1385 (1939), and the case of Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 117 S.Ct. 2312, 138 L.Ed.2d 849 (1997), to support petitioners’ claimed personal stake in the effectiveness of their votes. In Coleman, the Supreme Court explained that “the plaintiffs include twenty senators, whose votes against ratification have been overridden and virtually held for naught although if they are right in their contentions that their votes would have been sufficient to defeat ratification. We think that these senators have a plain, direct, and adequate interest in maintaining the effectiveness of their votes.” Coleman, 307 U.S. 433, 438, 59 S.Ct. 972, 83 L.Ed. 1385 (1938). In Raines v. Byrd, the Supreme Court discussed the Coleman case when it held that individual members of Congress do not have a personal stake sufficient to invalidate the Line Item Veto Act: “It is obvious, then, that our holding in Coleman stands (at most, see n. 8, infra) for the proposition that legislators whose votes would have been sufficient to defeat (or enact) a specific legislative act have standing to sue if that legislative action goes into effect (or does not go into effect), on the ground that their votes have been completely nullified.” Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, ––––, 117 S.Ct. 2312, 2319, 138 L.Ed.2d 849 (1997).
First, the court notes that the factual scenarios of Coleman and Raines are wildly distinguishable from the instant case. In Coleman, the Supreme Court examined issues including state ratification of amendments to the U.S. Constitution and the justiciability thereof. Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 59 S.Ct. 972, 83 L.Ed. 1385 (1939). In Raines, members of Congress claimed diminution of their voting power due to the Line Item Veto Act. Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 117 S.Ct. 2312, 138 L.Ed.2d 849 (1997).
Second, the court reminds the petitioners that the Rockford Board of Education, School District No. 205 has been found guilty of intentional and blatant discrimination against Black and Hispanic students. See People Who Care, 851 F.Supp. 905 (N.D.Ill.1994); People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., 111 F.3d 528, 531 (7th Cir.1997) (“[T]he District Judge found that the school district had intentionally discriminated against Black and Hispanic students in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment .”). A
9

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, 179 F.R.D. 551 (1998)

remedial decree has been entered in the form of the Comprehensive Remedial Order (“CRO”). See People Who Care, 111 F.3d 528, 532 (7th Cir.1997). The RSD is years away from unitary status. The court’s view is quite simple: The court must be able to order the RSD to follow the CRO. School District action is taken by votes of the RSD Board. If the court may not order the RSD Board to take certain actions as part of their official duties, the court is powerless to enforce the very CRO which has already been appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In this sense, the RSD Board’s voting effectiveness has been limited, in order to remedy the RSD’s repeated violations of fundamental, Constitutionally protected rights to equal protection under the law.
F. THE TORT IMMUNITY ACT FUNDING ISSUE IS NOT “CAPABLE OF REPETITION, YET EVADING REVIEW” Petitioners argue that issues surrounding their votes on Tort Immunity Act levies are capable of repetition, yet evading review.
[5] The court disagrees. The Illinois courts may provide definitive guidance by December 1998 regarding use of Tort Immunity Act levies to fund civil rights remedies.3 *564 Further, the RSD Board vacancy no longer exists. As explained in Footnote 1 above, on February 18, 1998, William Neblock was appointed by the Regional Superintendent Fairgraves to fill the vacancy on the RSD Board following William Neblock’s December 8, 1997 resignation. Therefore, the RSD Board will not again deadlock regarding a possible appeal of District Court orders, as they did in December 1997.

3

In this context, the court notes that the Seventh Circuit

Court of Appeals declined to rule on the validity of

taxes levied pursuant to the Illinois Tort Immunity Act.

Matter of County Collector, 96 F.3d 890 (7th

Cir.1996).

G. RULE 24(b)(2) In the Seventh Circuit, permissive intervention is largely within the discretion of the District Court. Shea v. Angulo, 19 F.3d 343 (7th Cir.1994) (reversal of district court’s decision denying permissive intervention “ ‘is a very rare bird indeed, so seldom seen as to be unique.’ ”).
The court believes that petitioners have not met the requirements for permissive intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As explained above, petitioners’ motion for permissive intervention must be denied for the following reasons: (1) petitioners’ motion to intervene has not been timely; and (2) petitioners’ intervention would cause undue prejudice to the existing parties in the People Who Care case.
IV. CONCLUSION Petitioners’ motion to intervene, filed December 22, 1997, is denied. Further, petitioners’ companion motion to vacate order, filed December 22, 1997, is also denied.
Parallel Citations
128 Ed. Law Rep. 262
	  

10

 
 People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

1989 WL 197569 United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Western
Division.
PEOPLE WHO CARE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHOOL DISTRICT # 205, et al., Defendants.
No. 89 C 20168. | Dec. 15, 1989.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Robert C. Howard, Hartunian, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.
Thomas A. Bueschel, Conde, Stoner & Killoren, Rockford, Ill., Stephen G. Katz, Katz, Friedman, Schur & Eagle, Chicago, Ill., Anthony Scariano, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chicago Heights, Ill., Michael O’Brien, Clark, McGreevy & Johnson, Rockford, Ill., for defendants.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ROSZKOWSKI, District Judge.
*1 This action comes before the Court on motion of the Rockford Education Association to intervene in this lawsuit as a non-aligned party. For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion below, this Court denies the Rockford Education Association’s motion to intervene in this lawsuit as a non-aligned party.
BACKGROUND
This action was initiated by People Who Care, a not-for-profit group, on May 11, 1989 challenging certain alleged discriminatory practices within the Rockford School District # 205. The parties to the litigation arrived at an Interim Agreed Order which was signed by this Court on July 7, 1989. In that Interim Agreed Order, a section was included relating to the collective bargaining agreement with the Rockford Education Association which stated as follows:
Defendants ... shall be liable for the assignment of professional staff (and other staff to support the functions

of such education) as may be required to render functional all schools in the Rockford Public School system, for a timely and orderly commencement of the 1989–1990 school year, consistent with the calendar of school attendance previously adopted by the Defendant Board of Education.
The Court finds that in so doing, the Defendant Board of Education may be required to take steps in the re-assignment of professional staff which may necessitate the temporary suspension of Article XII of the Agreement between the Board of Education and the Rockford Education Association, IEA–NEA. Nothing, however, in this Order shall be deemed to abrogate the legal responsibility of the Board of Education to bargain with the Rockford Education Association over either impact of such assignments and the impact of implementation of this Order or the terms and conditions of a new labor agreement for the 1989–90 school year and years thereafter. However, nothing expressed herein shall be deemed to relieve the Board of Education from its required duty as expressed herein to implement this Order while it engages in such bargaining as may be required by law or by the terms of any contractual responsibility of the Board of Education. However, any remedies of the Rockford Board of Education and for its employees and the Rockford Education Association shall be subject to enforcement only by this Court, consistent with this Order.
Interim Agreed Order, Section III(D) (emphasis added).
Pursuant to this Interim Agreed Order, the Rockford Board of Education and the Rockford Education Association negotiated the terms and conditions of the assignments and/or re-assignments of teachers and professional staff for the 1989–90 school year. This Court was not involved in that process nor was this Court called upon to make any rulings with respect to those assignments and/or re-assignments.
On September 28, 1989, the Rockford Education Association moved this Court to intervene as a non-aligned party to the underlying lawsuit.
DISCUSSION
Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs intervention in the district courts. Rule 24 allows for intervention as of right and permissive intervention. The Rockford Education Association has not suggested that they qualify under Rule 24 for intervention as of right. Therefore, this Court treats the R.E.A. motion for intervention as a motion for permissive intervention.
1

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

*2 Rule 24 states as follows:
(b) Permissive Intervention. Upon timely application anyone may be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) when a statute of the United States confers a conditional right to intervene; or (2) when an applicant’s claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common.... In exercising its discretion the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b).
Based on the plain language of the Rule, the intervenor must show, at a minimum, that the applicant’s claim or defense and the main action have a common question of law or fact. In this case, the R.E.A. has utterly failed to show that there is even some legitimate claim or defense which exists at all. The only thing this Court has been able to ascertain regarding some claim or defense by the R.E.A. is the possibility that at some future time the rights of the R.E.A. may be implicated by the adjudication of the underlying claim.
The R.E.A. points to the fact that the portion of the Interim Agreed Order quoted above provides for the possibility of abrogation of certain portions of the collective bargaining agreement between the Rockford School Board and the Rockford Education Association. However, in fact, there was no abrogation of any sections of the collective bargaining agreement and the parties to that collective bargaining agreement negotiated all the terms of the assignments which resulted from the Interim Agreed Order. Since that time, no events have occurred which this Court is aware of which impact in any way on the Rockford Education Association, its members or the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. The R.E.A. motion to intervene appears to be based solely on a fear or caution regarding events which may occur in the future.

Unfortunately for the R.E.A., however, that is insufficient to intervene under Rule 24(b)(2). Therefore, the motion by the Rockford Education Association to intervene as a non-aligned party must be denied.
While this Court denies the motion of the Rockford Education Association to intervene, the Court is certainly cognizant of the concern which the R.E.A. has regarding the potential impact rulings in the underlying action may have on its membership. Therefore, in order to keep the R.E.A. and its membership fully apprised of the proceedings before this Court relating to the underlying action, this Court will order that some designate of the R.E.A. be placed on the service list and receive copies of all pleadings and other matters before this Court relating to the underlying action. In addition, this Court orders the Clerk of the District Court to send to the designate of the R.E.A. any and all notices which are sent to the parties to the underlying action.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth in the foregoing opinion, this Court denies the motion of the Rockford Education Association for permissive intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b)(2). Further, this Court orders the Rockford Education Association to be added to the service list for the underlying action and to be provided with notices relating to all phases of the underlying action by the Clerk of the District Court.
Parallel Citations
133 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2976
	  

2

 
 People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

1989 WL 197568 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Western
Division.
PEOPLE WHO CARE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, SCHOOL DISTRICT # 205, et al., Defendants.
No. 89 C 20168. | Dec. 22, 1989.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Robert C. Howard, Hartunian, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.
Thomas A. Bueschel, Conde, Stoner & Killoren, Rockford, Ill., Stephen G. Katz, Katz, Friedman, Schur & Eagle, Chicago, Ill., Anthony Scariano, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chicago Heights, Ill., Michael O’Brien, Clark, McGreevy & Johnson, Rockford, Ill., for defendants.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ROSZKOWSKI, District Judge.
*1 This action comes before the Court on proposed intervening defendants, Lillian V. Hinkle and Ardis M. Cody’s motion to intervene as of right pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2) and motion to vacate and dissolve Part III(E)(10) of ex parte Interim Agreed Order and September 20, 1989, Order. For the reasons set forth in the opinion below, this Court grants proposed intervening defendants, Lillian V. Hinkle and Ardis M. Cody’s motion to intervene for the sole and limited purpose of presenting their motion to vacate and dissolve Section III(E)(10) of this Court’s July 7, 1989 Interim Agreed Order. Further, this Court denies the companion motion to vacate and dissolve Part III(E)(10) of the Interim Agreed Order and the September 20, 1989 Order.
For the reasons also set forth in the opinion below, this Court holds that Section III(E)(10) of the Interim Agreed Order was not intended to affect detachment petitions filed prior in time to the complaint in the underlying desegregation action and, therefore, allows intervening defendants to proceed in front of the Special Hearing Board on their detachment petition. Lastly, this Court reaffirms that any detachment petitions which were filed

after the initiation of the underlying lawsuit are enjoined from proceeding. In addition, any action by potential detachers can only be taken in accordance with Section III(E)(10) of the Interim Agreed Order and by order of this Court.
I. BACKGROUND
The intervening defendants are the title owners of approximately 80 acres of real property currently located within the boundaries of the Rockford Special Charter District No. 205. In addition, the property is adjacent to, contiguous with and bounded on three sides by Hononegah Community High School District No. 207 and Kinnikinnick Community Consolidated Schools District No. 131. Intervening defendants have indicated a plan to develop the property in question by building and selling homes. To that end, on July 3, 1979, intervening defendant’s father petitioned the Winnebago County Board for rezoning of the property from agricultural to rural residential to facilitate the development of a residential subdivision. That petition was granted on September 27, 1979.
On February 15, 1989, the intervening defendants filed a petition for detachment from the Rockford Special Charter District No. 205 and for annexation to the Hononegah Community High School District No. 207 and the Kinnikinnick Community Consolidated Schools District No. 131. Pursuant to Illinois statute, Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 122, para. 7–2.4 et seq., a Special Hearing Board was organized to hear and make a determination with respect to the detachment petition.
On May 11, 1989, the instant lawsuit was initiated by People Who Care, et al. Following numerous hearings and negotiations, on July 7, 1989, this Court entered an Interim Agreed Order which resolved the preliminary injunction phase of the lawsuit and provided for certain immediate remedial action by the Rockford Board of Education and for a “planning process” which would evaluate any racial disparity, segregation or segregative effects from the Board’s Reorganization Plan. Included in the Interim Agreed Order was the following language:
*2 10. The establishment of School District boundaries shall be subject to approval of this Court. As a result, any proposed changes in School District boundaries by detachment, annexation, division, dissolution, or any combination of such methods or other methods of boundary change or School District creation found in Article 7, 11A, 11B, 11C or 12 of the Illinois School Code (Ill.Rev.Stat., Ch. 122, 1989), shall require approval of this Court.
1

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

Interim Agreed Order, Section III(E)(10).
On September 6, 1989, the Special Hearing Board convened in order to take evidence and render a decision on petitioner’s motion for detachment. At that hearing, School District No. 205 moved to stay the proceedings before the Special Hearing Board which motion was denied. However, the Board did enter an order continuing the hearing until September 20, 1989 to give this Court an opportunity to clarify Section III(E)(10) of the Interim Agreed Order. On September 20, 1989, this Court held oral hearings on this matter, at which time intervening defendant appeared and was heard, this Court entered an oral order essentially enjoining intervening defendant from detaching.
On October 20, 1989, intervening defendants filed the instant motions to intervene as of right and to vacate and dissolve Part III(E)(10) of this Court’s July 7, 1989 Interim Agreed Order and September 20, 1989 order.

basis, and that limited basis only, this Court grants Hinkle and Cody’s motion to intervene. Intervening defendants are granted intervenor status for the sole purpose of pursuing their motion to vacate Part III(E)(10) of the Interim Agreed Order and are specifically not provided with intervening status as to liability on the underlying discrimination suit.
B. Motion to Vacate Part III(E)(10) of the Interim Agreed Order *3 This Court now holds that there is no need to rule on the merits of intervening defendant’s motion to vacate this Court’s July 7, 1989 Interim Agreed Order. Because this Court allows intervening defendant’s to go forward with their detachment proceedings in front of the Special Hearing Board for the reasons set forth below, this Court finds as moot all the claims presented by intervening defendant’s in their motion to vacate and dissolve.

II. DISCUSSION
A. Motion to Intervene Hinkle and Cody propose to intervene pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24 which states as follows:
(a) Intervention of Right. Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: ... (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2). Rule 24 further states the procedures to be followed in a motion to intervene:
(c) Procedure. A person desiring to intervene shall serve a motion to intervene upon the parties as provided in Rule 5. The motion shall state the grounds therefor and shall be accompanied by a pleading setting forth the claim or defense for which intervention is sought.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(c).
The pleading which accompanies Hinkle and Cody’s motion to intervene pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(c) is the motion to vacate Part III(E)(10) of the Interim Agreed Order. Therefore, it appears to this Court that the sole and limited purpose for Hinkle and Cody’s motion to intervene is to bring the instant motion to vacate. On that

C. Intervening Defendant’s Detachment Proceedings It is quite clear to this Court that the instant detachment proceedings were initiated almost three months prior to the initiation of the underlying desegregation case. However, the parties have not briefed, nor does this Court recall the issue being raised on oral argument on September 20, 1989. This Court believes that the filing of the detachment petition prior in time to the filing of the underlying desegregation case is virtually dispositive of the issue of intervening defendant’s right to proceed with detachment in front of the Special Hearing Board.
However, this Court notes that all information points to the fact that this is the only pending detachment proceeding which was filed prior to the filing of the underlying desegregation suit. This Court has absolutely no intention of allowing detachment or the attendant proceedings to proceed relating to petitions which were filed after the May 11, 1989 filing date of the underlying desegregation action. This Court still considers Section III(E)(10) to operate as a bar to any potential detachers proceeding with any detachment petitions which were filed after that May 11, 1989 filing date.
This Court raises three specific reasons for its ruling at this time. First, the parties to the underlying action had constructive, if not actual, notice of the petition for detachment as of the date of filing that petition; second, this Court never intended the inclusion of Section III(E)(10) to retroactively apply to pre-filed petitions; and third, as a substantive matter, the detachment of barren land should have no effect on the ongoing planning process so far as the purposes behind Section III(E)(10) are concerned. Some limited comment on each of these reasons is warranted.
2

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

1. Constructive/Actual Notice of Intervening Defendant’s Petition On the date of filing of the petition to detach, February 15, 1989, the parties to the underlying desegregation case were put on constructive, if not actual, notice of the pendency of the detachment proceedings. At the time of negotiations leading to the entry of the Interim Agreed Order on July 7, 1989, this Court was never made aware, nor was the issue ever raised, of the pendency of detachment petitions. This particular circumstance, pre-filed detachment petitions, was never contemplated by this Court in the inclusion of Section III(E)(10) of the Interim Agreed Order. Certainly, the parties to the underlying suit had ample opportunity to raise the issue and specifically provide for that circumstance in the Interim Agreed Order. In fact, the general language contained in Section III(E)(10) was never intended to cover this eventuality and the Court will not retroactively give it that effect when the parties had the opportunity to address the issue.
2. Court’s Intention in Including Section III(E)(10) of the Interim Agreed Order *4 As alluded to above, this Court never intended Section III(E)(10) of the Interim Agreed Order to retroactively apply to pre-filed petitions. The inclusion of that section, as this Court interprets it, was to preclude a series of detachment petitions being filed by property owners within the Rockford Special Charter District No. 205, following the filing of the underlying desegregation suit, in order to avoid the effects of an order which this Court might fashion, or the effects of some potential settlement between the parties, relating to the underlying desegregation action.
This Court did not intend Section III(E)(10) to apply to pre-filed detachment or annexation petitions. The parties to the underlying suit did not bring the fact of any detachment or annexation petitions to the attention of the Court at the time of the entry of the Interim Agreed Order. Had the Parties done so, the Interim Agreed Order would certainly have reflected more specificity in distinguishing, for example, between types of petitions. While a detachment of property on a fully developed parcel or an existing and fully developed subdivision might have some important impact on the planning process and on the collection of reliable data, annexation or detachment of barren or undeveloped land would not. Had the instant problem been brought to the attention of the Court at the time of the entry of the Interim Agreed Order, the Order would have been more specific in this regard.
Again, this Court’s intention in including Section

III(E)(10) in the Interim Agreed Order was to maintain district boundary integrity to facilitate the collection of data for use in the planning process ordered by this Court in the July 7, 1989 Interim Agreed Order. No pre-filed petitions were contemplated by the inclusion of that section.
3. Detachment of Undeveloped Land This Court noted above that Section III(E)(10) was included to preserve the integrity of the data collection for the planning process and that no pre-filed petitions were contemplated by the inclusion of Section III(E)(10). This is especially true in this case because the tract of land at issue here is totally undeveloped.
Given that the purpose of the inclusion of Section III(E)(10) was to avoid difficulties in the collection of data on, inter alia, the racial composition of the district, the impact that an undeveloped tract of land has on the collection of that data is irrelevant. There are no households or students which would be included in the data, and the tax revenues which that 80–acre farm tract generates is negligible in the larger tax revenue picture. Therefore, even if pre-filed detachment petitions were contemplated, this particular petition is not the type for which this Court had concern in including Section III(E)(10).
4. Detachment Petitions Filed After May 11, 1989 As discussed in Section II(C), supra, this Court has no intention of allowing wholesale detachments from Special Charter District # 205 or from allowing detachments to in any way inhibit or impede the planning process which this Court has set in motion pursuant to the July 7, 1989 Interim Agreed Order. Therefore, while this Court holds today that the Hinkle and Cody petition was not intended to be covered by Section III(E)(10) of the Interim Agreed Order, any detachment petition which was instituted following May 11, 1989, is still considered covered under that section and any such potential detachers are still enjoined from proceeding before any Special Hearing Board or other state administrative agency or court in furtherance of that detachment petition.
CONCLUSION
*5 For the reasons set forth in the foregoing opinion, this Court (1) grants Hinkle and Cody’s motion for status as an intervening defendant for the limited purpose of presenting the motion to vacate and dissolve Section III(E)(10) of the Interim Agreed Order; (2) denies
3

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

intervening defendant’s motion to vacate and dissolve Section III(E)(10) of the Interim Agreed Order; (3) clarifies Section III(E)(10) of the Interim Agreed Order by holding that detachment petitions filed in advance of the filing of the instant desegregation action were not contemplated by Section III(E)(10), are not covered by Section III(E)(10), no injunction will issue relating to intervening defendant’s detachment petition currently before the Special Hearing Board and no further order of this Court is deemed necessary in order to effectuate any

detachment granted pursuant to the applicable state statutes; and (4) further clarifies the Interim Agreed Order noting that any detachment petitions filed after May 11, 1989 are still enjoined from proceeding without leave of this Court and are still bound by the language in Section III(E)(10) of the Interim Agreed Order.
	  

4

 
 People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

1990 WL 25883 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Western
Division.
PEOPLE WHO CARE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, SCHOOL DISTRICT # 205, et al., Defendants.
No. 89 C 20168. | Feb. 23, 1990.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Robert C. Howard, Hartunian, Futterman & Howard, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.
Thomas A. Bueschel, Conde, Stoner & Killoren, Rockford, Ill., Stephen G. Katz, Katz, Friedman, Schur & Eagle, Chicago, Ill., Anthony Scariano, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chicago Heights, Ill., Michael O’Brien, Clark, McGreevy & Johnson Rockford, Ill., for defendants.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ROSZKOWSKI, District Judge.
*1 This action comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ petition for attorney’s fees and costs. Defendants have filed objections to Plaintiffs’ petition. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ petition for attorney’s fees in the amount of $112,935.50 and costs in the amount of $14,765.54.
DISCUSSION
Fee petitions are turning into major lawsuits in themselves. Judge Posner of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated, and this court agrees, that:
Fee litigation has become a heavy burden on the federal courts. It can turn a simple civil case into two or even more cases--the case on the merits, the case for fees, the case for fees on appeal, the case for fees for proving fees, and so on ad

infinitum, or at least ad nauseam.
Ustrak v. Fairman, 851 F.2d 983, 985 (1988). The present case is no exception to the current trend.
Plaintiffs brought suit on May 11, 1989 challenging Defendant School Board’s Reorganization Plan on equal protection grounds under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The plan was to be implemented by September 1989. An Interim Agreed Order was entered by this court on July 7, 1989. The order provided, inter alia, for systemwide integration and an equity planning process. Plaintiffs now seek an interim award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976. 42 U.S.C. §1988.
The Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Award Act, 42 U.S.C. §1988, (hereinafter ““§1988”) was enacted by Congress to encourage the representation of plaintiffs in civil rights cases. Section 1988 provides:
In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of section . . .1983 . . . of this title . . . the court, in its discretion, may also allow the prevailing parties . . . a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.
A prevailing party is defined as one who succeeds “on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing the suit.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983) (citation omitted). “The fact that [a plaintiff] . . . prevailed through a settlement rather than through litigation does not weaken [the plaintiff’s] claim to fees.” Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122, 129 (1980).
A plaintiff is entitled to fees in a settled case, such as this one, where (1) the lawsuit was causally linked to achievement of the relief obtained and (2) the defendant did not act wholly gratuitously. Lovell v. City of Kankakee, 783 F.2d 95, 96-97 (7th Cir. 1986). In the present case, the court finds it clear that the result obtained in this matter would not have been attained but for the bringing of the lawsuit by Plaintiffs. In other words, the lawsuit was causally linked to the preliminary injunction settlement. Without the lawsuit, there would have been no Interim Agreed Order. Furthermore, this court does not believe that Defendants acted gratuitously in settling the case. A defendant acts wholly gratuitously only where the plaintiff’s claims are “frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.” Id. at 97. Such is not the case in the present cause of action.
*2 Plaintiffs seek an interim award of attorney’s fees because they believe they have prevailed on a significant
1

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

issue in the litigation. Interim awards of attorney’s fees are allowed under §1988. The legislative history surrounding the enactment of §1988 states:
[T]he phrase ‘prevailing party’ should not be limited to a victor (sic) only after entry of a final judgment following a full trial on the merits . . . A fee award may thus be appropriate where the party has prevailed on an interim order which was central to the case . . .
H. R. Rep. No. 96-1418, p. 11 (1980), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. News 1980, p. 4990. The United States Supreme Court has also recognized the appropriateness, in some cases, of an interim award of attorney’s fees. In Texas State Teachers Association v. Garland, 489 U.S. 782, 109 S. Ct. 1486, 1492 (1989), the Court upheld an award of fees after final disposition of that case. The Court, however, noted:
if petitioners’ victory on the teacher-to-teacher communication issue had been only an interim one, with other issues remanded for further proceedings in the district court, petitioners would have been entitled to some fee award for their successful claims under §1988. Congress cannot have meant ‘prevailing party’ status to depend entirely on the timing of a request for fees: A prevailing party must be one who has succeeded on any significant claim affording it some of the relief sought, either pendente lite or at the conclusion of the litigation.
This court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to an interim award of attorney’s fees. As stated before, the filing of the lawsuit was related to the relief obtained and Defendants have not acted gratuitously. Furthermore, the court finds that Plaintiffs have achieved some of the benefits Plaintiffs sought in bringing the suit. Plaintiffs have, therefore, prevailed on at least one significant issue.1 As such, Plaintiffs can be considered “prevailing parties” for purposes of an interim award of attorney’s fees.
The question then becomes the amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded. Plaintiffs usually cannot monitor the amount of hours and the quality of hours their attorneys spend in their particular cases. An incentive is thus created for attorneys to “run up hours” when working on cases where defendants may be required to pay the prevailing party’s attorney’s fees. See, e.g., Kirchoff v.

Flynn, 786 F.2d 320, 324 (7th Cir. 1986). The court is, therefore, left with the duty of monitoring the amount and quality of time an attorney puts into a case reflected by the resulting fee petition. The only guideline a court has is that the fees must be “reasonable.” This is indeed a vague guideline.2
*3 In Freeman v. Franzen, 695 F.2d 485, 494 (1982), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1214 (1983), the Seventh Circuit held that a district court has discretion in setting the amount of attorney’s fees awarded. In so doing, a judge must use his experience in deciding whether the requested number of hours were reasonably expended. See, e.g., Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal, Inc., 670 F.2d 760, 765 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 956 (1983). Fee applicants bear the burden of proving to the satisfaction of the court the appropriate number of hours expended at reasonable hourly rates. In so doing, an applicant is expected to exercise “billing judgment.” This means that no excessive, redundant or unnecessary hours should be included in the fee petition. Tomazzoli v. Sheedy, 804 F.2d 93, 96 (7th Cir. 1986). If such hours are included in a fee petition, the district court has the power to deduct the hours from the attorney’s fees requested. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983).
A district court in deciding fee petitions must make judgments based upon the nature of the case and the details of the petition requested. Heiar v. Crawford County, Wis., 746 F.2d 1190, 1204 (7th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1027 (1985). The court must compensate an attorney for all hours reasonably expended. However, the court may exclude hours that are based on inaccurate or misleading records. Tomazzoli v. Sheedy, 804 F.2d 93, 96 (7th Cir. 1986). No precise rule or formula is available to a district court in reducing fee awards. Again, discretion lies in the district court because of the court’s familiarity with the litigation. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983). The Seventh Circuit has recognized, however, that it is unrealistic to expect a district court to evaluate and rule on every entry in an application for attorney’s fees. Tomazzoli v. Sheedy, 804 F.2d 93, 98 (1986).
As stated above, the starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable fee “is the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). This lodestar calculation is made considering the following factors: (1) the amount of time and labor expended and (2) the fees customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services. Waters v. Wisconsin Steel Works of Int. Harvester Co., 502 F.2d 1309, 1322 (7th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 997 (1976); Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal, Inc., 670 F.2d 760, 768-69 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 956 (1983).
2

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

A. Time And Labor Expended This court has already acknowledged the tremendous effort made by both parties in this litigation. At the proceedings in which the Interim Agreed Order was signed, the court stated:
Each side, both the plaintiffs and the defendants, have worked untiringly throughout the past weeks giving unselfishly of their time, including the Fourth of July weekend, in order to resolve any differences which may have stood in the way of a fair and equitable settlement.
*4 The attorneys on both sides have worked and contributed mightily in the present and best traditions of the legal profession. Without such an outstanding effort, a long and protracted trial, followed by a difficult and lengthy decision, could not have been avoided . . .
Transcipt of proceedings, July 7, 1989 at 4. Accordingly, the court has no problems with most of the hours submitted by Plaintiffs’ attorneys and their staff reflecting the time and labor they expended in this matter. The court, however, does have problems with the hours submitted by Mr. Robert Howard, Plaintiffs’ lead counsel.
In Plaintiffs’ fee petition, Mr. Howard states that he worked on this case a total of 681.3 hours from April 11, 1989 through July 31, 1989.3 This period encompasses 16 weeks or 111 days. Assuming Mr. Howard worked 5 days per week, he worked 80 days during the relevant time period (5 days x 16 weeks). In order to total the number of hours Mr. Howard claims he worked, he would need to work an average of 8.5 hours per day of billable time. This seems patently incredible to this court. Mr. Howard’s partner, Mr. Aram Hartunian, stated at his deposition that he can bill between 30 and 35 hours per week, with an average of 32.5 hours per week. Hartunian Deposition, October 6, 1989 at 42. Furthermore, this court knows from experience that many more hours of office or court time are required to achieve 8.5 billable hours. While Mr. Howard might have spent some extraordinarily long days working on this case, the court cannot believe that such extraordinary days, 5 days per week for sixteen weeks were spent on nothing but the present cause of action. Accordingly, the court finds it more reasonable to believe that Mr. Howard billed 32.5 hours per week for 16 weeks. Mr. Howard’s billable hours for the relevant time period then becomes 520 hours. From this 520 hours, 23.3 hours must be subtracted as that is the number of hours Mr. Howard claims he spent preparing the fee petition during July. The court will not deal with the fees for preparing the fee petition in this order. Mr. Howard’s total hours from April 11 to July 31, 1989, are, then, 496.7.

B. Fees Customarily Charged Plaintiffs’ fee petition requests hourly rates for attorneys ranging from $100 per hour to $225 per hour and hourly rates for paralegals of $60 per hour. The court finds these rates to be unreasonable.
The burden of establishing that the rate claimed is reasonable rests with fee applicants. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 897 (1984); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). Fee applicants generally satisfy this burden by presenting specific evidence of prevailing market rates within the relevant community of attorneys with similar skill and experience handling similar work. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984); Lightfoot v. Walker, 826 F.2d 516, 524 (7th Cir. 1987). In Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal, Inc., 670 F.2d 760, 769 (1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 956 (1983), the Seventh Circuit held that the relevant community for determining hourly rates is not always the place where the lawsuit is heard. If a case is so complex either factually or legally and of such a specialized nature that counsel with the required skills is not available locally, a plaintiff is justified in securing out-of-town counsel, and the relevant community for determining the fee customarily charged then becomes the place where such counsel normally practices. Id. Adjustments may be necessary, however. Id.
*5 The court agrees that Chicago may be considered the relevant community for determining reasonable hourly rates in this case. However, the court finds that Plaintiff’s Plaintiffs’ counsel lack the requisite experience in school desegregation cases to support the Chicago rates charged in their fee petition. For example, Attorney Robert Howard stated in his deposition that he has never, with the exception of a Chicago Board of Education case, handled a school desegregation case prior to the instant case. Furthermore, Mr. Howard knows of no other partner in his firm that has handled any other school desegregation cases. Howard’s Deposition, October 18, 1989 at 16. The court believes that an attorney asking $210 to $225 per hour in attorney’s fees should be very familiar with school desegregation law. Therefore, the court believes rate changes are necessary in this case in order to bring the fee award within a reasonable range.
The court awards the following reasonable hourly rates to the following respective attorneys and staff members:4
Once the lodestar calculation is made, the reasonableness of the lodestar figure can further be tested by considering: (1) the results obtained and (2) the experience, reputation and ability of Plaintiffs’ counsel. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983); Waters v. Wisconsin Steel Works of Int. Harvester Co., 502 F.2d 1309, 1322 (7th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 997 (1976).

3

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

C. Results Obtained As stated previously, Plaintiffs are considered prevailing parties in this matter because they have achieved some of the benefits Plaintiffs sought in bringing the present cause of action and have, therefore, prevailed on at least one significant issue. The results that Plaintiffs have obtained, however, cannot be considered “exceptional”, as stated below. Plaintiffs and Defendants have worked together to achieve a fair and equitable settlement. The lodestar calculation reflects Plaintiffs’ counsels’ efforts and yet does not overcompensate Plaintiffs’ attorneys. Any award above the lodestar would, in effect, “punish” Defendants for their cooperation. The lodestar amount, therefore, is reasonable considering the results obtained.
D. Experience, Reputation, Ability *6 Finally, the court believes the lodestar calculation adequately reflects the experience, reputation and ability of Plaintiffs’ counsel. As stated above, Attorney Howard acknowledged at his deposition the fact that he and the other partners in his firm had very little, if any, experience in school desegregation matters. Therefore, the lodestar calculation certainly cannot be adjusted upward based upon counsels’ experience. The court, however, does not believe a downward adjustment is required either. The court does not question Plaintiffs’ counsels’ reputation. The court further finds counsels’ ability in the present cause of action, at least as reflected in the courtroom, to be very competent. Accordingly, the lodestar calculation survives a reasonableness test based upon the experience, reputation and ability of Plaintiffs’ counsel.

Section 1988 was enacted to provide adequate fee awards in order to attract competent counsel to handle a plaintiff’s case. Section 1988, however, was not enacted to provide a windfall to a plaintiff’s attorney. City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561, 580 (1986). As stated above, the lodestar calculation is presumed to be a reasonable amount for attorney’s fees purposes. The novelty and complexity of the issues, the special skill and experience of counsel, the quality of representation and the results obtained from the litigation are presumably fully reflected in the lodestar amount and, thus, cannot serve as independent bases for increasing the fee award. Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council, 478 U.S. 546, 565 (1986). In fact, the lodestar amount “includes most, if not all, of the relevant factors constituting a ‘reasonable’ attorney’s fee.” Id. at 566.5
In the opinion of this court, the present case does not fall under the “exceptional success” standard enunciated in Hensley. The present cause of action is neither a “rare” case nor an “exceptional” case. Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council, 478 U.S. 546, 565. While it is true that the filing of the lawsuit was causally linked to the results obtained, the court does not find that the results are in any way “exceptional”. Plaintiffs and Defendants have entered into an Interim Agreed Order under which Defendant School Board must reexamine its Reorganization Plan and develop a plan that follows the provisions in the Interim Agreed Order. This is not “exceptional success” as that term is used for fee enhancement purposes. Furthermore, Section 1983 actions are a long way from being labelled “rare.”

E. Fee Enhancement Plaintiffs also request a fee enhancement of 1.75 with respect to work performed up to the entry of the Interim Agreed Order. Plaintiffs make this request on three separate bases. First, Plaintiffs argue that due to the contingent risk of the case, including the complex nature of the case, fee enhancement is appropriate. Second, Plaintiffs argue that the undesirable nature of the case requires a multiplier. Finally, Plaintiffs contend that they were precluded from other employment and, therefore, fee enhancement is appropriate.
The calculation of hours reasonably expended at reasonable hourly rates is presumed to be the reasonable fee to which counsel is entitled. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 898 (1984). The Supreme Court, however, in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 435 (1983) recognized that “in some cases of exceptional success an enhanced award may be justified.” The burden of establishing that an adjustment of the lodestar figure is necessary in order to provide a reasonable fee rests with the fee petitioner. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 898.

*7 The court is further of the opinion that the present case did not involve a high degree of contingent risk. In Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council, 483 U.S. 711, 107 S. Ct. 3078, 3086 (1987), four members of the United States Supreme Court were of the opinion that Congress did not intend that “the risk of losing a lawsuit to be an independent basis for increasing the amount of any otherwise reasonable fee for the time and effort expended in prevailing.” The plurality rejected any notion that fee enhancement for risk is necessary or allowable. See, also, Bonner v. Coughlin, 657 F.2d 931, 936 (7th Cir. 1981); McKinnon v. City of Berwyn, 750 F.2d 1383, 1392 (7th Cir. 1984); In Re Burlington Northern, Emp. Practices Lit., 810 F.2d 601, 608 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 821, 108 S. Ct. 82 (1987); Hagge v. Bauer, 827 F.2d 101, 111 (7th Cir. 1987).
This court also does not believe that the present action involves an undesirable case necessitating fee enhancement. This is not a case that has a stigma attached or a case which poses a real potential economic impact on Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ firm. Plaintiffs’ attorneys have experienced no proven damage to their reputation by taking on a case of the nature presented here.
4

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

Finally, Plaintiffs’ argument that fee enhancement is appropriate due to the preclusion of other employment must likewise fail. This fee petition covers only the time from April 11, 1989 to July 31, 1989. This is not a case, as it was in Independent Federation of Flight Attendants v. Zipes, 491 U.S. 754, 109 S. Ct. 2732 (1989), that counsel had to fight all the way to the United States Supreme Court in a hotly contested dispute. This is not a case that has gone on for years. Rather, the interim fee award covers a period of less than four months. Plaintiffs were not required to go to trial. An Interim Agreed Order was entered into between Plaintiffs and Defendants. Plaintiffs have submitted no evidence of potential clients being turned away due to the burdensome workload that has been brought about by this cause of action. Thus, fee enhancement in this case is inappropriate, at least at this stage of the proceedings and under the current circumstances surrounding this case.

The final matter before the court is Plaintiffs’ request for an award of $19,062.20 in litigation expenses for the time from April 11 to July 31, 1989.6 The court allows Plaintiffs litigation expenses in the amount of $14,765.54. The court has subtracted the following amounts from the requested total: (1) $3,749.11 for expert witnesses. The court reserves ruling on this amount until it is provided with a satisfactory explanation from Plaintiffs that this amount was reasonably incurred.7 (2) $189.80 for a subscription to the Rockford Register Star. The court finds this item is not a reasonable out-of- pocket expenditure normally charged to a client and, therefore, not recoverable under § 1988. (3) $357.75 for computer rental. The court also finds this item to be unreasonable.
SUMMARY

F. Litigation Expenses
Attorney	   	  	   	  

	  
Hours	  Allowed	   	  	   	  

	   Partners	   	  	   	  

	  
Hartunian	   	  	   	   Futterman	   	  	   	   Howard	   	  	   	   Weissbourd	   	  	   	   Bradtke	   	  	   	  

	   $165.00	   	  	   	  
	  
	  
	  
	  

85.88	   	  	  
	  
38.7	   9	   	  	   	  	   	   	  
496.7	   	  	   	  
0.5	   	  	   	  
19.3	   	  	   	  

$150.00	   	  	   	  
$125.00	   	  	   	  
$110.00	   	  	   	  

$14,157.00	  
	  	  
	  
$150.00	  
	  	  
	  
$74,505.00	   	  	   	  	   	   	  
$	  62.50	   	  	   	  	   	   	  
$	  2,123.00	   	  	   	  	   	   	  

	  
$	  5,805.00	   	  	   	  

	   Associates	   	  	  
5

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...
	  

	  
Crocker	   	  	   	   Spoto	   	  	   	   Petrini	   	  	   	  

	  

4.3	  

	  	  

	  

	  

176.9	   10$	  75.00	  

	  	   	  	  

	   	  

	  

2.5	  

	  	  

	  

$	  80.00	   	  	   	  
$	  75.00	   	  	   	  

$	  344.00	   	  	   	  	   	  

	  

$13,267.50	  

	  

	  	  

	  

$	  187.50	   	  	  

	  	   	   	  

Attorney Hours Allowed Hourly Rate Total PartnersHartunian 85.8 $165.00 $14,157.00 [FN8]Futterman 38.7 [FN9] $150.00 $ 5,805.00Howard 496.7 $150.00 $74,505.00Weissbourd 0.5 $125.00 $ 62.50Bradtke 19.3 $110.00 $ 2,123.00 AssociatesCrocker 4.3 $ 80.00 $ 344.00Spoto 176.9 [FN10]- $13,267.50 $ 75- .00Petrini 2.5 $ 75.00 $ 187.50FNFN8 Plaintiffs’ original fee petition requested a total of 96.9 hours for Attorney Hartunian’s work. However, Appendix 3, page 10 to Plaintiffs’ reply memorandum states that the correct number of hours should be 85.8. FNFN9 Plaintiffs’ original fee petition requested a total of 27.6 hours for Attorney Futterman’s work. However, Appendix 3, page 10 of Plaintiffs’ reply memorandum states that the correct number of hours should be 38.7FNFN10 This number

does not include the hours requested for preparation of the fee petition. ParalegalsGronlund 50.8 $ 30.00 $ 1,524.00Haynes 13 [FN11] $ 30.00 $ 390.00Cervantes 19 $ 30.00 # 570.00 -------....Total 907.5 $112,935.50 Litigation Expenses « $ 14- ,765- .54 ------- $127,701.04
CONCLUSION
*8 For the reasons set forth herein, the court awards Plaintiffs a total of $112,935.50 in attorney’s fees and $14,765.54 in costs.
	  

Footnotes

1

For example, Plaintiffs prevented Defendants from implementing the School Board’s Reorganization Plan to the extent that a

number of Southwest Quadrant elementary schools remained operational during the 1989-90 school year. See Interim Agreed

Order § III (B).

2

In determining what constitutes a “reasonable” fee, numerous courts have followed the twelve factors first enunciated in Johnson v.

Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-719 (5th Cir. 1974). The factors are: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the

novelty and difficulty of the questions; (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of other

employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) the

time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the experience,

reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the “ “undesirability” of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional

relationship with the client; and (12) the fee awards in similar cases.

3

This total includes the 23.3 hours Mr. Howard claims for preparing the fee petition during this same time period.

4

The rates allowed by this court are approximately 75% of the amounts originally requested by Plaintiffs’ counsel. The one

exception is the rate awarded to the paralegals. The paralegal rate is one-half the amount requested. The court refuses to believe

that $60.00 is a reasonable hourly rate for paralegal work. As such, the court declines to make paralegals a profit-making venture.

The court, however, believes that the $30.00 per hour rate awarded for paralegal work still gives the Plaintiffs’ law firm a

reasonable profit.

Partners

Aram Hartunian

$165.00

Ronald Futterman

$150.00

6

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

Robert Howard

Robert Weissbourd

James Bradtke

Associates

Phyllis Crocker

Katie Mangold-Spoto

Christopher Petrini

Paralegals

Valerie Cervantes

Nancy Gronlund

Helen Haynes

5

For the relevant factors, see Johnson, supra at n.2.

$150.00 $125.00 $110.00
$80.00 $75.00 $75.00
$30.00 $30.00 $30.00

6

In Plaintiffs’ August 8, 1989 fee petition, the litigation expenses totalled $17,456.45. However, in Plaintiffs’ reply memorandum in

support of their petition for attorneys’ fees, Plaintiffs claim additional July 1989 expenses in the amount of $1246.45. This amount,

then, must be added to Plaintiffs’ original request. Furthermore, in a letter to this court dated January 23, 1990, Plaintiffs informed

the court of a clerical error in a xeroxing amount for depositions. The amount for this work in the fee petition was stated as $81.50.

The amount actually should have been $440.80. The difference between the two amounts, $359.30, therefore, must also be added

to Plaintiffs’ original fee petition.

7

The court has read Plaintiffs’ explanation of these charges in Plaintiffs’ Appendix 4, page 7. The court finds, however, Plaintiffs’

explanation to be inadequate to give this court a proper basis on which to decide if the expense was reasonably incurred.

FN8 Plaintiffs’ original fee petition requested a total of 96.9 hours for Attorney Hartunian’s work. However, Appendix 3, page 10 to Plaintiffs’ reply memorandum states that the correct number of hours should be 85.8.

FN9 Plaintiffs’ original fee petition requested a total of 27.6 hours for Attorney Futterman’s work. However, Appendix 3, page 10 of Plaintiffs’ reply memorandum states that the correct number of hours should be 38.7

FN10 This number does not include the hours requested for preparation of the fee petition.
Paralegals

Gronlund Haynes Cervantes ....Total

50.8 13 11 19
907.5
Litigation Expenses

$ 30.00
$ 30.00 $112,935.50

$ 1,524.00
$ 30.00
# 570.00

$ 390.00

$127,701.04

FN11 Plaintiffs’ original fee petition requested a total of 16 hours for Paralegal Haynes’ work. However, Appendix 3, page 10 of Plaintiffs’ reply memorandum states that the correct number of hours should be 13.

	  
7

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in... 8

 
 People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

1990 WL 53282 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Western
Division.
PEOPLE WHO CARE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHOOL DISTRICT # 205, et al., Defendants.
No. 89 C 20168. | April 10, 1990.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Robert C. Howard, Hartunian Futterman & Howard, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.
Thomas A. Bueschel, Conde, Stoner & Killoren, Rockford, Ill., Anthony Scariano, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chicago Heights, Ill., for defendants.
Stephen G. Katz, Katz, Friedman, Schur & Eagle, Chicago, Ill., for intervenor Kockford Education Association.
Opinion
ORDER
ROSZKOWSKI, District Judge.
*1 This matter comes before the court on Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the court’s order regarding Plaintiffs’ petition for attorney’s fees. For the reasons set forth herein, the court denies Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider. The court allows Plaintiffs reimbursement for the expenses incurred in securing expert witnesses. Finally, Defendants are hereby ordered to make a prompt payment of the interim fee award in the amount of $112,935.50 and costs in the amount of $18,514.65.
BACKGROUND
On February 23, 1990, this court issued an order with respect to Plaintiffs’ petition for an interim award of attorney’s fees. The court found that Plaintiffs were entitled to an interim award of attorney’s fees and costs despite strong opposition from Defendants. The court determined a lodestar amount1, following applicable legal guidelines, that it found to be reasonable under the

circumstances of this particular case. The court denied, however, any enhancement of the lodestar amount.
Plaintiffs now move this court for reconsideration of the interim award of attorney’s fees. Plaintiffs ask this court to reinstate the hours of Attorney Robert Howard that were disallowed, reinstate the hourly rates requested by Plaintiffs’ attorneys, issue a revised opinion and order concerning Attorney Howard’s hours and experience, award an interim lodestar fee without reduction of the lodestar for any reason, award reimbursement to Plaintiffs for the expense of expert witnesses and order Defendants to make a prompt payment of the interim award of fees and costs.
DISCUSSION
The court denies Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the number of hours allowed by Attorney Robert Howard. The court believes that the hours allowed are reasonable, reflecting what this court finds is a reasonable amount. The court further finds that the reduction of hours is in this court’s discretion and in line with applicable legal standards. See, February 23, 1990 order at 4–7. The court rejects Plaintiffs’ invitation to examine the number of hours Defendants’ attorneys spent in this case. The court is not called upon to make a determination with regard to the reasonableness of Defendants’ attorney’s claimed number of hours. The court need only make a determination as to the reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ hours.
The court does note, however, that it did not wish in any way to give the impression that it was challenging or attacking the integrity of Attorney Robert Howard. On the contrary, the court has nothing but the highest regard for Mr. Howard. The court does not question Mr. Howard’s honesty in the number of hours he spent in this matter, but only the reasonableness of those hours when viewed in the context of this case. Therefore, the court simply exercised its discretion in its February 23, 1990 order by reducing Mr. Howard’s hours to reflect what the court found to be a more reasonable amount. See, e.g., Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal, Inc., 670 F.2d 760, 765 (7th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 956 (1983), stating that a district court must use his experience in deciding whether the requested number of hours were reasonably expended.
*2 The court also denies Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the hourly rate allowed Plaintiffs’ attorneys. Again, the court believes that it has properly exercised its discretion in reducing the requested rates to a reasonable hourly rate. As with the number of hours found to be reasonably expended, the court has used the
1

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

popular Johnson factors as well as the United States Supreme Court’s Hensley factors in determining what constitutes a reasonable hourly rate. Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717–719 (5th Cir.1974); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983).
The court further denies Plaintiffs’ motion for a revised opinion and order concerning Attorney Howard’s hours and experience. The court believes that the above clarification is sufficient in this matter and, beyond that, the court stands on its original order.
In this court’s February 23, 1990 order, the court left open the question of whether Plaintiffs should be allowed to recover the amount claimed as expenses for expert witnesses. The court asked Plaintiffs to submit a satisfactory explanation showing that the amount claimed was reasonably incurred. Plaintiffs have submitted such an explanation. Accordingly, the court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for reimbursement of the costs expended in order to secure expert witnesses. Plaintiffs are allowed to recover $3,749.11 for monies expended for the consultative services of the two expert witnesses.

Finally, the court hereby orders Defendants to make a prompt payment of the interim award of fees and costs to Plaintiffs’ counsel in line with the court’s February 23, 1990 order. Defendants are ordered to pay Plaintiffs a total of $112,935.50 in attorney’s fees and $18,514.65 in costs.2
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, the court denies Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider. The court allows Plaintiffs reimbursement for the expenses incurred in securing expert witnesses. Defendants are hereby ordered to make a prompt payment of the interim fee award in the amount of $112,935.50 and costs in the amount of $18,514.65.
	  

Footnotes

1

The lodestar amount was calculated by multiplying a reasonable hourly rate by a reasonable number of hours.

2

The court’s February 23, 1990 order allowed Plaintiffs to recover $14,765.54 in costs. Added to this amount is the $3,749.11

allowed in this order for expert witnesses expenses.

	  

2

 
 People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. #205, Not Reported in F.Supp....

1990 WL 304277 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, N.D. Illinois.
PEOPLE WHO CARE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHOOL DISTRICT # 205, et al., Defendants.
No. 89 C 20168. | June 19, 1990.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Robert C. Howard, Hartunian Futterman & Howard, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.
John Schmidt, Conde, Stoner & Killoren, Rockford, Ill., Anthony Scariano, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chicago Heights, Ill., for defendants.
Stephen G. Katz, Katz, Friedman, Schur & Eagle, Chicago, Ill., for Intervenor, Rockford Board of Education.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ROSZKOWSKI, District Judge.
*1 This action comes before the Court on plaintiffs’ motion for an order directing defendants’ compliance with the supplemental funding obligation of the Interim Agreed Order dated July 7, 1989. For the reasons set forth in the opinion below, this Court grants in part and denies in part plaintiffs’ motion for an order directing compliance. Further, this Court holds that defendants have satisfied their obligations under ¶ III(C)(8) of the Interim Agreed Order. Finally, this Court orders the parties to bear their own respective costs and attorney’s fees.
I. BACKGROUND
This case centers around allegations that the Rockford Board of Education School District # 205 is maintaining a segregated school district which discriminates on the basis of race in the provision of educational and related services. The catalyst for this lawsuit appears to have been the announcement of a reorganization plan under

which certain schools would be closed and/or consolidated. Following some lengthy negotiations between the parties, this Court entered an Interim Agreed Order on July 7, 1989, directing specific and enumerated conduct on the part of the school board. Paragraph III(C)(8) of the Interim Agreed Order mandates that the school board:
[p]rovide supplemental educational programs in the Southwest Quadrant to alleviate the effects of racial concentration and economic and educational disadvantage.
a. From unrestricted District funds and in addition to any other funds which the District is required to target upon low-income or educationally disadvantaged students, such as Federal Chapter 1 and Federal and State funds for early childhood education, the Board of Education shall fund the supplemental educational programs provided herein.... Such programs shall be funded for the 1989–90 school year at a level no less than 1.25 million dollars. Such funds shall be budgeted and expended by the Rockford Board of Education according to said Reorganization Plan and this Agreed Order.
b. The District will immediately undertake a planning process to determine what particular programs will best serve the purposes of this subsection in 1989–90.
c. Consideration shall be given to the following supplemental programs:
1. class size reduction.
2. provision of preschool education in addition to that already funded by Federal and State funds.
3. Equipment and resources to offset the inequities created by parent gifts to schools in higher-income neighborhoods.
Interim Agreed Order, ¶ III(C)(8) (July 7, 1989).
In satisfaction of the provisions of ¶ III(C)(8) of the Interim Agreed Order, the School Board itemized compliance expenditures in the amount of $1,540,040.65—$290,040.65 above the required $1.25 million. In response, the plaintiffs have challenged three of the claimed expenditures: (1) $135,000.00 claimed by the School Board for planning process staff, supplies, consultants, travel and supplemental materials; (2) $62,296.00 claimed by the School Board for additional enrichment time for art/music/PE in Southwest Quadrant (deletion of non-supplemental portion); and (3) $295,713.00 for bus transportation costs for student transportation for alternative programs. The Court will
1

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. #205, Not Reported in F.Supp....

discuss each of plaintiff’s contested expenditures separately.
II. DISCUSSION
*2 This Court clearly has the authority to enter an order directing compliance with a prior order of the Court and this Court’s authority to enter such an order is not contested by the parties. Little decisional law is available to aid the Court in determining the validity of each of the specific claims contained in plaintiffs’ motion for compliance. Therefore, few citations to case will be found in the instant opinion.

amount includes only those monies expended on the 1989–90 school year planning process. It is this Court’s intention to allow the school board to claim an amount equal to the amount expended on the planning process for the 1989–90 school year only. While plaintiff’s might foster some expectation that administrative costs will not be included in ¶ III(C)(8) supplemental educational funds, this Court is of the view that administrative costs are routinely included as part of the overall annual “educational” budget, and that administrative costs should be reflected as a part of the provision of educational services. Clearly, administrative costs were anticipated by the Interim Agreed Order as ¶ III(C)(8)(b) directs the District to “immediately undertake a planning process to determine what particular programs will best serve the purposes of this subsection in 1989–90.”

A. Planning Process Expenditures With respect to planning process expenditures, plaintiffs request two distinct holdings from this Court. First, the plaintiffs request this Court to state, as a blanket generalization, that expenditures which are required by the Interim Agreed Order, other than those required in ¶ III(C)(8) are ineligible to be counted towards ¶ III(C)(8) compliance. Second, the plaintiffs request that this Court negate the planning process expenditures for purposes of ¶ III(C)(8) compliance.
Some brief observations on the intent and framework of the Interim Agreed Order are warranted. The parties structured the Interim Agreed Order to provide for some short-term as well as long-term progress in negating the effects of alleged discrimination in the Rockford School District. To this end, the Interim Agreed Order provides that certain schools in the Southwest Quadrant remain open despite being targeted for closure pursuant to the Reorganization Plan. In addition, the Interim Agreed Order provides that certain remedial steps be taken during the 1989–90 school year to help ameliorate the effects of alleged past discrimination. To this end, the Interim Agreed Order provided for a planning process directed specifically towards the 1989–90 school year which has now ended. Further, the Interim Agreed Order provided for a comprehensive long-term planning process which would result in specific recommendations for long-term amelioration.
The School Board evidently undertook the short-term planning process1 and now seeks to include those expenditures towards its obligations under ¶ III(C)(8). As set forth in plaintiffs’ Attachment 1, the amount now claimed by the School Board is $135,000.00. It is unclear to the Court at this time whether the $135,000.00 claimed by the School Board is the cumulative amount expended on both the 1989–90 school year and multi-year comprehensive planning processes, or whether this

*3 Had the School Board approached this Court with a figure for the cost of administration of the planning process which the Court considered exorbitant and which flaunted the letter and spirit of the Interim Agreed Order, this Court would have taken a dim view of the expenditures and likely have granted plaintiffs’ motion. However, the expenditure of $135,000.00 viewed in light of a total mandated expenditure of $1.25 million only results in administrative expenditures equal to 10.8%. This percentage drops even lower if we use the total expenditures figure contained in this Order for the total amount of eligible expenditures. Taking the total calculated by this Court to be eligible expenses, $1,434,375.29,2 this Court calculates that the administrative costs are somewhere in the range of 9.41% of the total amount expended. This figure for administrative cost appears to this Court to be entirely reasonable under the circumstances. In fact, administrative costs which are held to under 10% of a budget would be considered a reasonable figure in any private business enterprise.
For these reasons, this Court allows the expenditure of $135,000.00 for planning process staff, supplies, consultants, travel and supplemental materials to be included in the eligible expenditures under ¶ III(C)(8) of the Interim Agreed Order.
B. Art/Music/PE Enrichment Time Defendants have implemented a program, outlined for this Court in the District’s Fourth Progress Report, under which additional art, music and physical education programs are provided to students in the Southwest Quadrant. Plaintiffs argue that additional art, music and physical education programs were also provided for non-Southwest Quadrant schools and, therefore, only the differential between what was provided to the Southwest Quadrant schools and that provided for the non-Southwest Quadrant schools ought to the eligible for inclusion under
2

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. #205, Not Reported in F.Supp....

¶ III(C)(8) of the Interim Agreed Order.
This Court agrees with plaintiffs’ logic in this regard. If, hypothetically, the School Board had provided Southwest Quadrant schools and non-Southwest Quadrant schools with exactly the same additional programs and services, the differential between the services and programs provided for Southwest Quadrant schools and all other schools would remain the same. No progress towards narrowing or eliminating the gap between the schools contained in the different geographic areas would have been accomplished—and it is the gap which essentially defines any alleged discriminatory effect on schools in the Southwest Quadrant. For this reason, plaintiffs logic is compelling.
Defendants respond to plaintiffs’ motion regarding additional enrichment instruction by characterizing plaintiffs’ argument as political rather than legal. This Court, however, would characterize defendants’ argument as theoretical rather than practical. In theory, defendants have provided $62,296.00 of additional enrichment instruction as per the Interim Agreed Order. However, defendants have at the same time lessened the ameliorative effect on the Southwest Quadrant by adding additional like programs to the rest of the district. Therefore, practically, the gap between the Southwest Quadrant and the rest of the district has not been closed by $62,296.00. Rather, it has been closed only by the difference between the additional Southwest Quadrant expenditures and the expenditures throughout the rest of the district. This, by the Court’s own calculation, amounts to a net eligible expenditure for additional enrichment instruction of $30,559.00.
*4 For the reasons discussed above, this Court holds that the amount of $30,559.00 is eligible for inclusion in the monies ordered to be expended pursuant to ¶ III(C)(8) of the Interim Agreed Order. To this extent, plaintiffs’ motion is granted.
C. Transportation Costs The School Board has listed as an eligible supplemental educational program under ¶ III(C)(8) monies spent to bus students to the alternative program sites at Washington, Lathrop, King and Barbour schools. Plaintiffs challenge the School Board’s inclusion of the $295,713.00 item arguing that this expenditure of monies for transportation is being used to bus non-minority students and students from geographic locations outside the Southwest Quadrant and is therefore outside the scope of a “supplemental educational program” for purposes of effectuating ¶ III(C)(8) of the Interim Agreed Order.
On its face, plaintiffs’ argument is somewhat alluring. Clearly, the monies expended here are being used to bus

students who are neither educationally, economically or socially disadvantaged. Equally as clear, ¶ III(C)(8) was intended to benefit economically, educationally and socially disadvantaged students—particularly those schooling in the Southwest Quadrant. Leaving aside the arguments of the parties in their continuing verbal volleyball match, it is relatively easy to recognize that the programs which are truly at issue here are the alternative programs now being housed at the Washington, Lathrop, King and Barbour schools. The housing of these alternative programs in the Southwest Quadrant is no small step in efforts to alleviate the burden of busing falling solely on Southwest Quadrant students. It must be kept in mind, however, that as far as this Court is concerned, the housing of alternative programs in the Southwest Quadrant is a “supplemental educational program” for the Southwest Quadrant and this Court so holds.
The last step is to determine how much, if any, of the transportation costs qualify under ¶ III(C)(8) of the Interim Agreed Order. This Court believes that the proper measure of what is eligible under ¶ III(C)(8) is the difference between what the transportation costs would have been had the program been housed elsewhere in the District where a greater number of students who are involved in the alternative programs are in school, thus reducing or obviating the necessity for transportation costs, and the actual transportation costs of the program as it is currently housed in the Southwest Quadrant. This differential would provide a number which reflects the additional costs of housing the alternative programs in the Southwest Quadrant (with their attendant benefit to the students of that geographic area). These additional costs are, in this Court’s view, an accurate partial representation of the financial impact of housing the alternative programs at these Southwest Quadrant schools.3
It would be difficult, though probably not impossible, for this Court to engage in a precise calculation of the exact dollar amount which would result from the formula laid out above. This Court does not have the statistical data available, nor does this Court care to engage the School Board in the task of finding and providing that information to the Court.4 Roughly speculating, this Court is comfortable suggesting that 75% of the transportation costs incurred as a result of the housing of the alternative programs at Washington, Lathrop, King and Barbour schools are “new” transportation costs5 necessitated by situating those programs at these schools.6 The Court, therefore, will allow the defendants to claim 75% of the total transportation costs listed in subpart (7) of Exhibit C to the Fourth Progress Report. The defendants listed as $295,713.00 as eligible; 75% of that figure equals $221,784.75. The Court will accept the amount of $221,784.75 as eligible under ¶ III(C)(8) of the Interim Agreed Order towards the School Board’s obligation to provide $1.25 million in supplemental education funding.
3

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. #205, Not Reported in F.Supp....

CCCONCLUSION

III. COMPLIANCE WITH INTERIM AGREED ORDER
*5 Using simple arithmetic, this Court finds that all the eligible expenses for supplemental educational funding under ¶ III(C)(8) of the Interim Agreed Order total $1,434,375.29. The School Board undertook an obligation to provide a minimum of $1.25 million in supplemental educational funding. It is this Court’s view that that obligation has been met, the School Board having spent an additional $184,375.29 over and above what was required under the Interim Agreed Order.7 Plaintiffs’ motion for compliance is, therefore, denied with prejudice.
In evaluating defendants’ request for the assessment of attorney’s fees, this Court is of the opinion that plaintiffs’ motion was not frivolous or spurious. The motion for compliance raised genuine issues of interpretation and this Court is not disposed to assess attorney’s fees in such a situation. Therefore, fees and costs associated with plaintiffs’ motion for compliance are to be borne by the respective parties.

For the reasons set forth in the opinion above, this Court denies plaintiffs’ motion for compliance with ¶ III(C)(8) of the Interim Agreed Order with prejudice, and makes the following specific findings: (1) that $135,000.00 in planning process costs for the 1989–90 school year are eligible expenditures; (2) that $30,559.00 of the claimed $62,296.00 for additional enrichment time for art, music and physical education is an eligible expenditure; (3) that $221,784.75 of the claimed $295,713.00 for transportation costs for the alternative programs at Washington, Lathrop, King and Barbour schools is an eligible expenditure; and (4) that costs and attorney’s fees with respect to the bringing of this motion are to be borne by the respective parties.
Personnel $ 586,831.54 Materials & Equipment $ 122,463.00 Planning Process (Admin.) $ 135,000.00 Add’l Enrichment Time $ 30,559.00 Staff Development (Not Yet Spent) $ 50,000.00 Curriculum, Equipment & Supplies (Not Yet Spent) $ 287,737.00 Bus Transportation $ 221,784.75----------------------------------------------- TOTAL ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES $ 1,434,375.29
	  

Footnotes

1

There is certainly no evidence to the contrary and plaintiffs do not contest that the short-term planning process took place. Instead,

plaintiffs merely argue that the monies expended in that regard are not eligible to be counted towards ¶ III(C)(8) compliance.

2

The Court’s total eligible expenditures equal $1,434,375.29. That figure is broken down as follows:

Personnel

$

Materials & Equipment

$

Planning Process (Admin.)

$

Add’l Enrichment Time

$

Staff Development (Not

Yet Spent)

$

Curriculum, Equipment &

Supplies (Not Yet Spent)

$

Bus Transportation

$

TOTAL ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES

$

3

The Court represents these costs as an “accurate partial representation” because there were and are additional costs which were

incurred by the School Board in setting up the alternative programs at these four Southwest Quadrant schools. For example, there

were undoubtedly costs for physical and/or structural changes to the buildings, set-up costs, etc. Transportation for students to

attend the programs is only one of the costs and, hence, referred to by this Court as a “partial” cost.

4

In order for the precise calculation to be made, this Court would likely have to be in possession of the following information: the

4

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. #205, Not Reported in F.Supp....

number of students involved in the respective programs, where those students are currently living, where those students are currently in school, where the alternative programs were housed (or would have been housed), where the particular alternative program is currently housed, mileage differentials for the particular program sites, and possibly even bus routing information.

5

In other words, roughly 25% of the $295,713.00, or $73,928.25 would have been spent by the district transporting students to

alternative program sites had those sites not been housed in the Southwest Quadrant.

6

However, even assuming that 75% is on the high side of the spectrum, according to this Court’s calculations, the percentage figure

would have to drop to under 11.63% for the total expenditures under ¶ III(C)(8) to have fallen below the $1.25 million mark

mandated by the Interim Agreed Order. It is difficult, if not impossible, for this Court to fathom that the extensive busing

necessitated by housing the alternative programs in the Southwest Quadrant would have resulted in a differential in transportation

costs of under 11.63%. If this was the case, and the School Board was only spending an additional $34,391.42 to bus students to

the Southwest Quadrant, common sense would dictate that a majority of the students in the alternative programs are living and/or

being schooled in the Southwest Quadrant. This is contrary to the Court’s understanding of the demographics of the alternative

programs in the District.

7

See infra notes 5–6 and accompanying text, however, for an understanding that the transportation calculation was merely an

approximation. The excess expenditure figure of $184,375.29, therefore, is likewise approximated.

	  

5

 
 People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

1991 WL 299102 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Western
Division.
PEOPLE WHO CARE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, SCHOOL DISTRICT # 205, et al., Defendants.
No. 89 C 20168. | July 23, 1991.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Robert C. Howard, Hartunian Futterman & Howard, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.
John Schmidt, Conde, Stoner & Killoren, Rockford, Ill., Anthony Scariano, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chicago Heights, Ill., for defendants.
Stephen G. Katz, Katz, Friedman, Schur & Eagle, Chicago, Ill., for Intervenor Rockford Board of Education.
Opinion
INTRODUCTION
ROSZKOWSKI, District Judge.
*1 On June 11, 1991, this court ordered the parties to submit to the court objective definitions of the terms used in § B.11 of the Second Interim Order entered in this case on April 24, 1991. The court recognized that total objective standards were not possible to define, but the court asked that the definitions be as objective as possible so that an impartial hearing officer could use the definitions in resolving any differences that may arise from time to time. The definitions were to be provided to the court, in writing, by July 18, 1991. If the parties could not agree on the definitions, the parties were to present themselves before this court at which time the court would aid the parties in arriving at definitions of the terms. Further, the court indicated to the parties that it would define the terms for the parties if the parties could not agree.
The parties to this cause of action have now represented to this court that they cannot agree on the definition of the terms in question. Plaintiffs and Defendant have submitted a joint proposal concerning the definitions and the procedures for implementing § B.11 of the Second

Interim Order. The Rockford Education Association (hereinafter “REA”), Intervenors in this case, have filed their proposal concerning the definitions and the procedures. Considering the proposals submitted to this court and following consultation with Dr. Eubanks, the court’s expert in this matter, the court adopts the following definitions.
BACKGROUND
Section B.11 of the Second Interim Order mandates that six elements be considered in determining qualifications for the making of staff assignments in those schools housing the educational improvement programs under § C.8, the alternative programs described in § C.3 and the magnet schools described in §§ C.5, C.6 and C.6A. These elements are: seniority, education, experience, attendance, prior evaluations and ability to work successfully with parents, staff members and students. The purpose of these elements is to enable Defendant to select, train and retain those staff who in the judgment of the Administration of the District are best trained for, and most capable of, providing the programs required under the Second Interim Order.
In evaluating those elements of qualification, and in determining which persons are “best trained for, and most capable of, providing the programs required,” the District should consider not only quantitative information, but also qualitative considerations that will contribute to effective and successful program implementation, such as:
a. Interest in and commitment to the school or program;
b. Personal qualities such as initiative, creativity and diligence; and
c. Openness and ability to work with multi-cultural groups and with multiple-ability groups, including high expectation levels for such children.
Accordingly, the court adopts the following definitions of the elements set forth in § B.11 of the Second Interim Order. The court wants to emphasize at this point that there is no predetermined ranking of these six elements. All of the elements in § B.11 are to be ranked and treated equally.
DEFINITIONS
1

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

General Definitions *2 Order
Defined as the Second Interim Order entered April 24, 1991, by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division in Case No. 89 C 20168, People Who Care, et al. v. Rockford Board of Education.
Schools
Defined as those schools denoted as Community Academies and referenced in Section C.8 (pp. 43–48) of the Order.
Magnet Schools
Defined as those schools referenced in Sections C.5, C.6 and C.6A (pp. 38–42) of the Order.
Alternative Programs
Defined as those educational offerings referenced in Section C.3 (pp. 35–36) of the Order.
Staff Assigned To Special Programs
Defined as those certified staff members assigned to C.8 schools, magnet schools or alternative programs.
Relevant
Defined as “that which has a bearing on the matter at hand.”
In assessing the relevance, “bearing on the matter at hand” shall be viewed in the context of the unique set of circumstances presented by the Second Interim Order and the characteristics and purposes of the programs and remedies being implemented under that Order. Relevance shall also be viewed from the perspective of a reasonable educational practitioner responsible for complying with that Order and successfully implementing those programs and remedies.
Seniority Defined by using the provisions of Article 12 (“General Employment Practices”) Section A (“Definitions”) of the parties’ Professional Agreement (1989–91, and as amended July 1, 1991). As a result, “seniority” shall be defined, in the first instance, as total continuous service in the employment of District No. 205. Ties in seniority, seniority for part-time teachers, and the effect of unpaid leaves of absence on seniority determination shall be likewise governed by Section A of the Professional Agreement.

Education The definition of education encompasses the following:
1. Legal certification as determined under the Illinois School Code.
2. Legal qualifications as determined by reference to “State Board Document 1” of the Illinois State Board of Education, or by reference to other provisions established by the State of Illinois or the Illinois State Board of Education.
3. The amount of coursework completed by a teacher, provided the coursework is relevant to the vacancy to be filled or the staff assignment to be made;
4. The content of any coursework completed by a teacher, provided the content of the coursework is relevant to the vacancy to be filled or the staff assignment to be made;
5. Training, including non-college workshops, in-service activities, conferences and seminars, provided the same are relevant to the vacancy to be filled or the staff assignment to be made;
6. Degrees conferred (i.e. BA, MA, ED, PhD.), provided the degree is relevant to the vacancy to be filled or the staff assignment to be made.
7. Grades, awards or other assessments of competence in educational or training activity.
*3 8. Certificates of completion or other recognitions with respect to training activities.
Experience The definition of experience encompasses the following:
1. The nature and amount of prior teaching experience, either inside or outside District 205.
2. Any other employment that is relevant to the vacancy to be filled or the staff assignment to be made, either inside or outside District No. 205.
3. Any voluntary professional or community activity that is relevant to the vacancy to be filled or the staff assignment to be made.
4. Any other previous activity that is part of the person’s background of experience and that is relevant to the vacancy to be filled or the staff assignment to be made.
2

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

a. For example, if while a student at any level, the person participated in a program to tutor other students, such activity could be considered as a part of the person’s overall experience.
b. For example, if a person engaged in activity not related to education or to previous employment, but such activity reflects characteristics which are desirable on the part of a teacher, such as diligence, ingenuity, consciousness of the problems facing disadvantaged students, etc., such activity may be considered as part of a person’s overall experience.
5. In applying this factor, of primary importance shall be prior experience relating to the unique set or circumstances presented by the Second Interim Order and the particular characteristics and purposes of the subject vacancy or assignment in that context. Accordingly, the experience of the person shall be assessed in light of questions such as the following:
a. Has the person had experience in teaching and/or working with culturally diverse populations?
b. Has the person had experience in working with the development and implementation of innovative and new programs?
c. Has the person had experience with difference levels of student learners?
d. Has the person had experience with the development of curriculum that provided for alternative curriculums and methods of instruction, for culturally diverse learners?
e. Is the person an active and participating member of professional organizations in addition to a teachers bargaining association or union?
Attendance The definition of attendance encompasses the following:
1. Information contained in Section II (“Professional Responsibilities”), Subparagraphs H and I of the District’s Evaluation Plan, and any related Supporting Statement. The Administration shall consider each and all of the person’s evaluations with respect to the specified items since July 1, 1987.
2. Whether the person regularly attends faculty and committee meetings in the building and/or the District, and actively participates as a member and/or leader of committees and in staff meetings.
3. Whether the person has a pattern of absence related to days before and after holidays and weekends.

4. Whether the person annually uses in excess of the allowed personal and sick leave.
Prior Evaluations *4 The definition of prior evaluations encompasses the following:
1. Any and all evaluations received by the person since July 1, 1987, under the District’s Evaluation Plan.
a. Consideration may be given to any and all ratings and Supporting Statements on individual evaluation items in the Plan, as well as to the overall performance rating.
b. It is understood that persons may not have comparable numbers of evaluations available for review.
2. Any other evaluations, performance assessments or recommendations relating to any of the person’s education or experience that are relevant to the vacancy to be filled or the staff assignment to be made and that provide a basis for assessing the person’s performance in those contexts.
a. For example, an evaluation, assessment or recommendation relating to relevant employment in a non-teaching position outside the District may be considered.
b. For example, a letter of recommendation concerning some aspect of the person’s relevant experience of a non-employment nature may be considered.
3. In applying this factor, of primary importance shall be prior evaluations relating to the unique set of circumstances presented by the Second Interim Order and the particular characteristics and purposes of the subject vacancy or assignment in that context. Accordingly, prior evaluations of the person shall be assessed in light of questions such as the following:
a. Do the person’s previous evaluations provide evidence that the person is a competent teacher with no pronounced weaknesses in the areas of student learning?
b. Do the person’s evaluations indicate an above average ability to successfully provide instruction using a variety of instructional processes to promote understanding and higher thinking with a culturally diverse student population, including technology, manipulative, print media, teacher and student developed materials, games, simulations, small group learning and cooperative learning?
c. Do the person’s previous evaluations demonstrate an 3

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

above average ability to develop and use culturally diverse instructional materials and curriculum?
d. Do the person’s previous evaluations demonstrate an above average ability to develop positive classroom relationships with children so that they show development in the ability to become self disciplined and responsible for meeting their agreements?
e. Do the person’s previous evaluations provide evidence that children under the person’s leadership learn at a level and pace representing substantial progress in achievement, consistent with the school’s improvement plans (if any), regardless of race, class or gender?
f. Do the person’s previous evaluations indicate that the person is an initiator, can work independently and creatively, and consistently expresses concern for student welfare and development?
Ability To Work Successfully With Parents, Staff Members and Students This definition encompasses the following:
*5 1. Consideration shall be given to evaluations made since July 1, 1987, under the District’s Evaluation Plan. Any and all ratings and other information expressed in such evaluations may be considered that relate to the person’s ability to work successfully with students, staff and parents, and that are relevant to the vacancy to be filled or the staff assignment to be made.
2. Any information arising from the person’s education, experience, attendance or prior evaluations, or any other background information relating to the person’s ability to work successfully with parents, staff, and students and that is relevant to the vacancy to be filled or the staff assignment to be made.
3. In applying this factor, of primary importance shall be prior experience relating to the unique set of circumstances presented by the Second Interim Order and the particular characteristics and purposes of the subject vacancy or assignment in that context. Accordingly, background information concerning the person shall be assessed in light of questions such as the following:
a. Is the person an active member of community, social or cultural organizations?
b. Does the person regularly make contact with family of students to develop positive relationships between school and family?
c. Does the person share, coach and learn from and with other teachers and staff in the District?

d. Does the person spend extra time advising, coaching, and assisting students outside of regular classroom activities?
e. Does the person sponsor a club, school activity, sponsor a class or student government, or work with students in some other capacity in addition to classroom assignments?
f. Is the participant an active member of a Parent, Teacher, Community organization?
GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES
On June 11, 1991, the court also ordered the parties and the intervenors to develop a procedure by which all individual grievances will be handled under § B.11. The procedure was to specify a neutral hearing officer or master who would review the individual grievances in order to determine if the staff assignment was, in fact, made in accordance with the principles specified in § B.11. Further, if the parties were unable to agree on a procedure, the parties were to present themselves before this court at which time the court would develop a procedure for the parties to follow. Again, the parties were unable to reach an agreement and so the court adopts the following grievance procedure by which all individual grievances will be handled under § B.11.
General Procedures And Principles 1. Selection and retention decisions under § B.11 will be made by the principal of the school in question, in consultation with senior administrators. This may include, as appropriate, the Director of Integration, the Assistant Superintendent for Instruction, and the Director of Human Resources (or their designees). With respect to each selection and retention decision, this group will be referred to as the “Administration.”
*6 2. With respect to each selection and retention decision, the Administration shall consider information which is consistent with the definitions of the six § B.11 elements. The Administration must consider all such information without a predetermined priority of elements or sequential ranking of elements. The Administration shall not consider qualification criteria other than the six § B.11 elements.
3. The measure of the selection or retention process will be that the Administration can reasonably articulate the reasons for its decision, in terms of the purposes of § B.11, the position in question, and the permissible
4

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

information about the person in question as set forth in the Definitions.
4. The District will develop and implement a training program for principals and other staff concerning the purposes and effective use of the § B.11 selection and the requirements and limitations applicable to the process.
Procedures Applicable Specifically To The Selection Process 1. Advertisements for positions to be filled will contain sufficient information to inform potential applicants as to the nature of the position and the types of information which may be submitted by applicants.
2. The advertisement may contain, to the extent determined appropriate by the Administration, specific additional criteria appropriate for the position in question. (Any such additional criteria shall be consistent with the six § B.11 elements.)
3. The Administration shall consider all applicants without predetermined priority. If the Administration determines that none of the applicants are suitable for the position in question, the Administration is not obligated to choose an applicant at that time, and the position may be re-advertised.
4. Personal interviews may be conducted by the Administration as part of the selection process. However, the Administration will determine the extent of such interviews, and no person has an entitlement to being interviewed.
5. The Administration may consider all information concerning each applicant which is permitted by the definitions, and weigh the variables from applicant to applicant, and determine which applicant is best suited for the position.

filing. A written decision shall be given to the REA by the end of the second business day after the meeting.
Step 2 The REA may appeal from an adverse Step 1 decision by submitting its request for a review hearing to the Superintendent by the end of the second business day after its receipt of the Step 1 decision.
*7 B. The Review Hearing
1. The hearing shall be conducted by a permanent umpire selected by the parties. The permanent umpire shall be selected pursuant to established collective bargaining procedures previously used by the parties. The permanent umpire shall hear the case at the next scheduled umpire availability date.
2. The parties shall obtain sufficient umpire availability dates in advance to allow the speedy processing of § B.11 grievances.
3. The hearings shall proceed pursuant to recognized arbitration practice.
4. Fees for the umpire shall be paid by the District. Each party shall bear its own costs for presenting its position to the umpire.
5. The umpire may reverse a § B.11 decision of the District only if he/she finds it resulted from improper application of the § B.11 criteria and definitions.
6. The intent of this procedure is to allow a rapid adjudication of § B.11 grievances. The status quo must be maintained pending the umpire’s § B.11 decision.
7. A party who believes the umpire acted in excess of his/her authority may submit its appeal of the decision to this court, provided it is done by the end of the second business day after the party’s receipt of the umpire’s written decision. Otherwise, the umpire’s decision shall be binding upon the parties.

Appeal And Review Criteria And Procedures A. Step 1 The REA may file a grievance protesting a particular application of the § B.11 criteria by filing the grievance with the Superintendent by the end of the tenth day after the REA became aware of the facts underlying the grievance.
The Superintendent, or a designee possessing decisional authority, and the designated REA representative shall meet to discuss the grievance within five (5) days after its

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, the court adopts the definitions and grievance procedure for § B.11 of the Second Interim Order as stated above.
	  

5

 
 People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

1992 WL 184297 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Western
Division.
PEOPLE WHO CARE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, SCHOOL DISTRICT # 205, Defendant.
Civ. A. No. 89 C 20168. | Jan. 31, 1992.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Robert C. Howard, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.
Anthony G. Scariano, Chicago, Ill., John Schmidt, Rockford, Ill., for defendant.
Stephen G. Katz, Chicago, Ill., for intervenor.
Opinion

of which is for the purposes of the Second Interim Order).
3. The County Clerks shall extend such 1991 tax levy for Defendant for such increased amount in the form of ad valorem taxes on Defendant’s equalized assessed valuation forthwith.
4. Said total levy of $8,250,000.00 for the Tort Immunity Fund of Defendant shall constitute the amount of taxes to be received by Defendant, and against such sum the Defendant is granted leave to issue Tax Anticipation Warrants in anticipation of collection of the same, pursuant to the provisions of law. Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 85, par. 9–107.
5. The Section F.4 Principles re: Funding Sources and Obligations submitted by the parties of the Second Interim Order of make appropriate under the standards set forth in Rufo any significant modification of the provisions of the Second Interim Order.
EXHIBIT A

ORDER ROSZKOWSKI, District Judge.

ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

*1 This cause coming on to be heard on Defendant’s Motion For Leave To File A Corrected Tax Levy And For Leave To Add Certain Parties, the Court having considered the concurrence of the Plaintiffs and the Court appointed Monitor therewith, and after having heard the parties and considered their arguments, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED as follows:
1. Leave is granted to add the County Clerks of Boone and Winnebago Counties (the “County Clerks”) only for the limited purposes of the relief to be granted herein. Objections to such joinder may be filed within ten (10) days of this Order’s entry.

Department of School Finance Finance Section
100 North First Street Springfield, Illinois 62777–0001

2. Defendant is granted leave to adopt its amended 1991 tax levy in the form as set forth in Exhibit A, attached

CERTIFICATE OF TAX LEVY

hereto and made a part hereof, increasing the levy for Tort

Immunity purposes from the previous levy adopted on

November 26, 1991 in the amount of $2,305,000.00, for a

	  

total levy for such fund of $8,250,000.00 ($6,800,000.00

A	  copy	  of	  this	  Certificate	  of	  Tax	  Levy	  shall	  be	  filed	  with	  each	  County	  Clerk	  of	   	  	   	  	   	  	  

each	  county	  in	  which	  the	  school	  district	  is	  located	  on	  or	  before	  the	  last	  

	   	   	  

Tuesday	  in	  December	  for	  districts	  with	  a	  population	  of	  less	  than	  500,000.	  

School	  districts	  in	  counties	  having	  a	  population	  in	  excess	  of	  700,000	  

inhabitants	  but	  less	  than	  2,000,000	  inhabitants,	  shall	  file	  this	  Certificate	  of	  

1

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

Tax	  Levy	  with	  the	  county	  clerk	  on	  or	  before	  the	  last	  Tuesday	  in	  February	  of	  

the	  calendar	  year	  following	  the	  year	  for	  which	  the	  levy	  ismade.	  

	  	  

	  

DISTRICT	  NAME	  

	  	   	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	   	   	  

	  

ROCKFORD	  SCHOOL	  DISTRICT	  

	  	   	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	   	   	  

	  

AMOUNT	  OF	  LEVY	  

	  	   	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	   	   	  

	  

Educational	   	.  .......................................................................................................................................................................................	 	   	  	   	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	   	   	  

	  

Operations	  and	  Maintenance	  

	  	   	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	   	   	  

	  

Transportation	   	 . ..............................................................................................................................................................................	 	   	  	   	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	   	   	  

	  

Working	  Cash	   	.  ..................................................................................................................................................................................	 	   	  	   	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	   	   	  

	  

Municipal	  Retirement	   	 . .............................................................................................................................................................	 	   	  	   	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	   	   	  

	  

Social	  Security	   	.  ................................................................................................................................................................................	 	   	  	   	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	   	   	  

	  

Rent	   	.  ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................	 	   	  	   	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	   	   	  

	  

See	  explanation	  on	  reverse	  side.	  

	  	   	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	   	   	  

	  

NOTE:	  Any	  district	  proposing	  to	  adopt	  a	  levy	  in	  an	  amount	  which	  is	  more	  than	  105	   	  	   	  	   	  	  

percent	  of	  its	  prior	  year’s	  extension,	  must	  comply	  with	  the	  provisions	  set	  forth	  in	   	   	   	  

the	  Truth	  in	  Taxation	  Act.	  

	  	  

	  

We	  hereby	  certify	  that	  we	  require	  

	  	   	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	   	   	  

	  

	  

	   	   	  

	  

	   	   	  

2

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

	  

	   	   	  

	  

	   	   	  

	  

	   	   	  

	  

	   	   	  

	  

	   	   	  

	  

	   	   	  

	  

	   	   	  

	  

	   	   	  

	  

	   	   	  

	  

	   	   	  

Signed	  this	  14	  day	  of	  January,	  1992.	  

	  	   	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	   	   	  

	  

	  

	   	   	  

	  

	   	   	  

	  

	   	   	  

When	  any	  school	  is	  authorized	  to	  issue	  bonds,	  the	  school	  board	  shall	  file	  a	  certified	   	  	   	  	   	  	  

copy	  of	  the	  resolution	  in	  the	  office	  of	  the	  county	  clerk	  of	  each	  county	  in	  which	  the	   	   	   	  

district	  is	  situated	  to	  provide	  for	  the	  issuance	  of	  the	  bonds	  and	  to	  levy	  a	  tax	  to	  pay	  

for	  them.	  The	  county	  clerk	  shall	  extend	  the	  tax	  for	  bonds	  and	  interest,	  as	  set	  forth	  

in	  the	  certified	  copy	  of	  the	  resolution,	  each	  year	  during	  the	  life	  of	  the	  bond	  issue.	  

Therefore,	  to	  avoid	  a	  possible	  duplication	  of	  tax	  levies,	  the	  school	  board	  should	  not	  

include	  a	  levy	  for	  bonds	  and	  interest	  in	  the	  district’s	  annual	  taxlevy.	  

	  	  

	  

Number	  of	  bond	  issues	  of	  said	  school	  district	  that	  have	  not	  been	  paid	  in	  full	   	 . ..................	 	   	  	   	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	   	   	  

	  

Detach	  and	  Return	  to	  School	  District	  

	  	   	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	   	   	  

	  

This	  is	  to	  certify	  that	  the	  Certificate	  of	  Tax	  Levy	  for	  School	  District	  No.	  

	  	   	  	   	  	  

____________________	  ____________________	  County,	  Illinois,	  on	  the	  equalized	  assessed	   	   	   	  

value	  of	  all	  taxable	  property	  of	  said	  school	  district	  for	  the	  year	  19___,	  was	  filed	  in	  

the	  office	  of	  the	  County	  Clerk	  of	  this	  County	  on	  ____________________,	  19___.	  

	  	  

	  

In	  addition	  to	  an	  extension	  of	  taxes	  authorized	  by	  levies	  made	  by	  the	  Board	  of	   	  	   	  	   	  	  

Education	  (Directors),	  an	  additional	  extension(s)	  will	  be	  made,	  as	  authorized	  by	   	   	   	  

resolution(s)	  on	  file	  in	  this	  office,	  to	  provide	  funds	  to	  retire	  bonds	  and	  pay	  interest	  

thereon.	  The	  total	  levy,	  as	  provided	  in	  the	  original	  resolution(s),	  for	  said	  purposes	  

for	  the	  year	  19___,	  is	  $____________________.	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	   	   	  

Date	   	.  ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................	 	   	  	   	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	   	   	  

3

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...
	   	   ISBE	  50–02	  (6/91)	   	  	   	  

	   	   	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	   	   	  

A copy of this Certificate of Tax Levy shall be filed

with each County Clerk of each county in which the

school district is located on or before the last Tuesday in

December for districts with a population of less than

500,000. School districts in counties having a population

in excess of 700,000 inhabitants but less than 2,000,000

inhabitants, shall file this Certificate of Tax Levy with the

county clerk on or before the last Tuesday in February of

the calendar year following the year for which the levy

ismade.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

---------DISTRICT NAME DISTRICTNUMBER

COUNTY ROCKFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT 205

WINNEBAGO“BO-

ONE----------------------------------------------------------------

--------------- AMOUNT OF LEVYEducational ....

$41,160,900.00 Fire Prevention, Safety, Environmental

and Energy Conservation .... ------------------

--------------------Operations and $ 6,134,600.00 Tort

Immunity ..... $8,250,000.00 Maintenance ------------------

--------------------Transportation $ 1,938,000.00 Special

Education $ 527,700.00 .............. .................

------------------ --------------------Working Cash $ “0“

Other

.............

..............

------------------

--------------------Municipal $ “0“ Other .............

Retirement

..............

------------------

--------------------Social Security $ 4,269,750.00 Other

............. .............. ------------------ --------------------Rent

........... $ Total Levy ........ $59,975,950.00 ------------------

--------------------See explanation on reverse side. NOTE:

Any district proposing to adopt a levy in an amount which

is more than 105 percent of its prior year’s extension,

must comply with the provisions set forth in the Truth in

Taxation Act. We hereby the sum of 41,160,900.00

dollars to be levied as a certify that special tax for

educational purposes, and we require the sum of

6,134,600.00 dollars to be levied as a special tax for

operations and maintenance purposes, and the sum of

1,938,000.00 dollars to be levied as a special tax for

transportation purposes, and the sum of “0“ dollars to be

levied as a special tax for a working cash fund, and the

sum of “0“ dollars to be levied as a special tax for

municipal retirement purposes, and the sum of

4,269,750.00 dollars to be levied as a special tax for

social security purposes, and the sum of ____________

dollars to be levied as a special tax for rental of facilities

owned by the State of Illinois as provided by the Capital

Development Board, and the sum of ____________

dollars to be levied as a special tax for fire prevention,

safety, environmental and energy conservation purposes,

and the sum of 8,250,000.00 dollars to be levied as a

special tax for tort immunity purposes, and the sum of

527,700.00 dollars to be levied as a special tax for special

education purposes, and the sum of ____________ dollars

to be levied as a special tax for ____________________,

and the sum of ____________ dollars to be levied as a

special tax for ____________________, and the sum of

____________ dollars to be levied as a special tax for

____________________ on the taxable property of our

school district for the year 19___.Signed this 14 day of

January,

1992.

_____

President

_________________________________________ Clerk

or Secretary of the School Board of Said School

DistrictWhen any school is authorized to issue bonds, the

school board shall file a certified copy of the resolution in

the office of the county clerk of each county in which the

district is situated to provide for the issuance of the bonds

and to levy a tax to pay for them. The county clerk shall

extend the tax for bonds and interest, as set forth in the

certified copy of the resolution, each year during the life

of the bond issue. Therefore, to avoid a possible

duplication of tax levies, the school board should not

include a levy for bonds and interest in the district’s

annual taxlevy. Number of bond issues of said school

district that have not been paid in full

______________________________________________

_______________________________-----------------------

-------------------------------------------------------- Detach

and Return to School District This is to certify that the

Certificate of Tax Levy for School District No.

____________________

____________________

County, Illinois, on the equalized assessed value of all

taxable property of said school district for the year 19___,

was filed in the office of the County Clerk of this County

on ____________________, 19___. In addition to an

extension of taxes authorized by levies made by the Board

of Education (Directors), an additional extension(s) will

be made, as authorized by resolution(s) on file in this

office, to provide funds to retire bonds and pay interest

thereon. The total levy, as provided in the original

resolution(s), for said purposes for the year 19___, is

$____________________.

----------------------------------------- Signature of County

ClerkDate

___________

_________________________________________

CountyISBE 50“02 (6/91)

4

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

EXPLANATION
*2 The school board of any school district having a population of less than 500,000 inhabitants may levy a tax annually, for educational purposes, upon all the taxable property of the district at the value, as equalized or assessed by the Department of Revenue. Section 17–2, the School Code.
The school board of any school district having a population of less than 500,000 inhabitants may levy a tax annually, for operations and maintenance purposes, upon all the taxable property of the district at the value, as equalized or assessed by the Department of Revenue. Section 17–2, the School Code.
The school board of any school district having a population of less than 500,000 inhabitants may levy a tax annually, for transportation purposes, upon all the taxable property of the district at the value, as equalized or assessed by the Department of Revenue, Section 17–2, the School Code.
The school board of any school district having a population of less than 500,000 inhabitants may levy a tax known as a “Working Cash Fund Tax” upon all the taxable property in the district, annually. Section 20–3, the School Code.
The school board of any school district may levy a tax for municipal retirement purposes in a sum sufficient to provide all the contributions required of the school district by including the amount to be levied for such purposes in the Certificate of Levy for other school taxes, or such district may file with the county clerk a separate certificate or resolution setting forth the amount of tax to be levied for such purpose. Chapter 108 ½, Section 7–171, Illinois Revised Statutes.
The school board of any school district may levy a tax for social security (includes Medicare only) purposes in a sum sufficient to provide all the contributions required of the school district by including the amount to be levied for such purposes in the Certificate of Levy for other taxes, or such district may file with the county clerk a separate certificate or resolution setting forth the amount of tax to be levied for such purpose. Chapter 108 ½, Sections 21–110 and 21–110.1 of the Illinois Revised Statutes.
The school board of any school district which has authorized by referendum a special tax for payment of rental of facilities owned by the State of Illinois, as provided by the Capital Development Board, may include the tax levy for such purpose in the

Certificate of Levy for other school taxes of the district, or it may file a separate Certificate of Tax Levy for the tax so authorized with the county clerk at any time before the end of the calendar year. Section 35–23, the School Code.
The school board of any school district having a population of less than 500,000 inhabitants may levy a tax upon all the taxable property of the district at the value as assessed by the Department of Revenue for the purposes of professional surveys, alterations, and reconstruction for fire prevention, safety, environmental and energy conservation purposes upon certain definite statutory conditions. Section 17–2.11, the School Code.
*3 The school board of any school district may levy a tax upon all the taxable property within the district for tort immunity purposes in a sum sufficient to pay the costs of purchasing such insurance or sufficient to pay any tort judgment, settlement or insurance imposed upon it under the Local Government and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act including liabilities under the Workers’ Compensation Act, Occupational Diseases Act, or the Unemployment Insurance Act, Chapter 85, Section 9–107, Illinois Revised Statutes, Section 17–2.5, the School Code.
The school board of any school district, with voter approval, may levy a tax upon all the taxable property of the district as equalized or assessed by the Department of Revenue to pay health insurance premiums for school employees. Section 17–2.6, the school code.
The school board of any school district may levy, with voter approval, a tax upon the full, fair cash value as equalized or assessed by the Department of Revenue within the district for a capital improvement fund (which levy is in addition to that for building purposes) and such fund is to be levied, accumulated, and spent only in accordance with Section 17–2.3, the School Code.
The school board of any school district having a population of less than 500,000 inhabitants, by proper resolution, may levy an annual tax upon the full, fair cash value as equalized or assessed by the Department of Revenue for special education purposes including the purposes authorized by Section 10–22.31b and Section 17–2.2a, the School Code.
The school board of any school district having a population of less than 500,000 inhabitants, with voter approval, may levy a tax annually, for summer school purposes, upon all the taxable property of the
5

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

district at the value, as equalized or assessed by the Department of Revenue, Section 17–2.1, the School Code.
The school board of any school district having a population of less than 500,000 inhabitants may, by proper resolution, levy an annual tax upon the value as equalized or assessed by the Department of Revenue for a period of not more than 5 years for area vocational education building purposes including the purposes authorized by Section 10–22.31b, the School Code, upon the condition that there are not sufficient funds available in the operations and maintenance fund of the district to pay the cost thereof. Such tax shall not be levied without the prior approval of the State Board of Education and prior approval by a majority of the electors voting upon the proposition at a general or special election. Section 17–2.4, the School Code.
The school board of any school district having a population of less than 500,000 inhabitants may levy an annual tax not to exceed 0.05% upon the taxable property as equalized or assessed by the Department of Revenue for the purposes of leasing educational

facilities from other school districts or from private or parochial schools. Section 17–2.2e, the School Code.
*4 The school board of any school district, upon determining that a surplus of funds is available, shall adopt a resolution or ordinance reducing the tax levy of such district for the year for which the resolution or ordinance is adopted. The district shall certify the action to the county clerk who shall abate the levy in accordance with the provision of the ordinance. Chapter 120, Paragraph 638a, Illinois Revised Statutes.
The Truth in Taxation Act affects all units of local government, school districts, and community colleges, including home rule units, who are authorized to levy property taxes. For the basic requirements of the law, refer to the Illinois Revised Statutes, Chapter 120, paragraphs 861 through 869.1 or “State, Local and Federal Financing for Illinois Public Schools, 1990–1991,” pages 76 and 79.
	  

6

 
 People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., Not Reported in F.Supp. (1992)

1992 WL 184301 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Western
Division.
PEOPLE WHO CARE, et al. Plaintiffs, v.
ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants.
No. 89 C 20168. | Jan. 31, 1992.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Robert C. Howard, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.
Anthony G. Scariano, Chicago, Ill., John Schmidt, Rockford, Ill., for defendant.
Stephen G. Katz, Chicago, Ill., for intervenor.
Opinion
ORDER
ROSZKOWSKI, District Judge.
*1 Before the court is the Monitor’s recommendation in relation to the Section B.2 dispute resolution. For the reasons set forth herein, the court adopts the Monitor’s recommendation with one exception.
BACKGROUND
Section B.2 of the Second Interim Order provides as follows:
Human Relations. A systemwide program will be carried out on a continuing basis to address human relations attitudes and expectations throughout the school system. This will include staff development, as well as training/education programs directed to parents and other appropriate target groups. During each school year for the duration of this Order, activities will be implemented having the cost equivalent of one full day of systemwide in-service training for all staff. For 1990–91 these activities shall be implemented before June 1 and shall focus on cultural differences including culturally different learning styles and on equity in discipline, school rules and discipline procedures.

The parties to this order agreed that $373,288.00 would be expended each year for three consecutive years for this purpose.
The problem then developed as to how these funds would be allocated. In an effort to resolve this dispute, Dr. Eubanks, the court appointed Monitor, met with the parties and reviewed their respective positions. The Monitor then considered the problem and submitted a recommendation to this court in accordance with Section G.8(e) of the Second Interim Order. Both parties have now been given an opportunity to respond, in writing, to the Monitor’s recommendation. The recommendation is now before this court for approval.
DISCUSSION
The Monitor’s recommendation acknowledges that both parties have accepted the fact that resources should be made available to provide education and other support functions to further parental involvement in the schools. The Monitor believes, and this court agrees, that community-based organizations and agencies are indispensable assets for promoting and eliciting minority parental involvement in the education of their children. Accordingly, it follows that the organizations that are best suited for carrying out such efforts are at the grass-roots level, composed of community persons that have meaningful credibility in the community and that understand and can make use of their own creative energies. The Monitor then sets forth in his recommendation the goals and purposes that any organization should have in order to receive funding through Section B.2. The court agrees with these goals and purposes. The court also agrees with the Monitor’s suggestions concerning eligibility for funding under Section B.2.
One such organization that the Monitor has singled out in his recommendation is the Community Coalition On Education. The Coalition is composed of key community groups such as the Education Committee of the Rockford Ministerial Fellowships, the National Council of Negro Women, the NAACP, the Black Elected Officials of Rockford and the Hispanic Coalition. The Monitor recommends that $40,000.00 be earmarked as a grant for the Coalition, providing a suitable proposal is submitted.
*2 Defendant objects to the advance designation of the Community Coalition On Education as a recipient of Section B.2 funds. Defendant argues that the Coalition is presently engaged in political activities, including the forthcoming School Board election. Defendant also
1

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., Not Reported in F.Supp. (1992)

objects to the advance designation on the basis that no one knows who are all the members of the Coalition. Defendant contends that Plaintiffs or their attorney could be members of the Coalition or involved with the Coalition.
Plaintiff, on the other hand, defends the Coalition asserting that the Coalition has only engaged in the entirely non-partisan function of providing technical assistance to potential School Board candidates and providing a forum in which candidates could meet with each other and with individual voters. Plaintiff also states that Plaintiff organization is not a member of the Coalition, although individual Plaintiffs may attend Coalition meetings, but are not members thereof. Plaintiffs’ counsel has no attorney-client relationship or financial relationship with the Coalition. Plaintiff points out the fact that senior School District administrators have, themselves, consulted extensively with the Coalition’s leaders about numerous educational issues during the past year, including appointing Coalition representatives to various School District committees.
The court finds that it is appropriate to give great weight to the Monitor’s recommendation as he has the requisite expertise on such matters. The court also finds that the Community Coalition On Education is just such an organization fitting the purposes, goals and eligibility requirements the Monitor sets out in his recommendation. Nevertheless, the court agrees with Defendant that there should be no pre-selection of any group or organization. All applicants for grants should be considered together and, at least initially equally. Those whose goals and purposes meet the guidelines of the Monitor and those who are considered eligible for funding should receive grant awards. All applicants should be required to submit a suitable grant proposal and be considered with the other qualifying applicants.
Defendant also objects to the selection process of qualified applicants recommended by the Monitor.

Specifically, Defendant objects to that portion of the selection process that provides for all disputes relating to the selection, funding, disbursements and continued funding of organizations to be resolved by a majority vote of Plaintiffs, Defendant and the Monitor. Defendant asserts that this excises the court’s authority from further implementation of Section B.2 of the Second Interim Order.
The court disagrees with Defendant. The court finds that the Monitor’s proposal for the administration of the grant program provides for a prompt method of decision making in relation to grant applications and the disbursement of funds. Such a resolution for issues of detail does not usurp the court’s power in relation to the Second Interim Order but rather conserves judicial resources by preventing the parties from constantly returning to the court with minor issues better left resolved between the parties with the aid of the Monitor. The court wishes to emphasize, however, that any and all major disputes that may arise between the parties will be resolved with the aid of the court pursuant to Section G.8 of the Second Interim Order and the Order of Reference to the Monitor.
CONCLUSION
*3 For the reasons set forth herein, the court adopts the Monitor’s recommendation in relation to the Section B.2 dispute resolution in its entirety with the exception of the pre-selection of the Community Coalition On Education as a grant recipient. The court further notes that the time limits set in the Monitor’s recommendation for the approval process for applicants need to be changed and the court defers to the Monitor’s discretion in this regard.
	  

2

 
 People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

1992 WL 184303 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Western
Division.
PEOPLE WHO CARE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, SCHOOL DISTRICT # 205, et al., Defendants.
No. 89 C 20168. | May 22, 1992.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Robert C. Howard, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.
Anthony G. Scariano, Chicago, Ill., John Schmidt, Rockford, Ill., for defendants.
Stephen G. Katz, Chicago, Ill., for intervenor.
Opinion
ORDER
ROSZKOWSKI, District Judge.
*1 Before the court is Defendant’s motion for temporary relief relative to the renovation of Roosevelt School and the issuance of bonds. For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant’s motion is denied.
BACKGROUND
On April 29, 1992, Defendant filed with this court a motion for relief. That motion contains two parts. First, Defendant seeks relief from renovation in relation to Roosevelt School. Second, Defendant seeks relief from the issuance of bonds in the amount of ten million dollars.
The Second Interim Order entered in this case on April 23, 1991, provides as follows:
C.6.e.... [T]he programs presently located at Wilson will be relocated to Roosevelt prior to the beginning of the 1992–93 school year. The District will make necessary physical repairs and improvements to the Roosevelt building in such amount as is determined ... to be necessary to render the Roosevelt building serviceable.

D.4. Roosevelt For the duration of this Order the Roosevelt School shall be used to house the following District program (presently located at Wilson) and such other programs as are determined under § G.7.b:
a. Nursing program.
b. Adult Education program.
c. Special education machine shop.
d. Drop-out Prevention program.
e. Evening programs previously scheduled for Jefferson and East High Schools.
f. Park district program.
g. Rock Valley College extension program.
h. RACC programs.
Pursuant to Section G.7.b. of the Second Interim Order, the parties have estimated the cost of renovating Roosevelt School to be $3,400,000.00 of which $2,900,000.00 was appropriated by the sale of $15,000,000.00 Tort Immunity Bonds. The remainder of the estimated cost of Roosevelt School rehabilitation is to be paid from the second bond issue of $10,000,000.00.
Defendant now seeks to delay the opening of Roosevelt School under the guise of studying the feasibility of various alternatives that may or may not save the district money. Defendant contends that it owns facilities sufficient to house the Wilson programs for the 1992–1993 school year, thereby eliminating the need to renovate the Roosevelt School and thus obviating the necessity to expend $3,400,000.00 through the issuance of bonds. In short, under Defendant’s current plan, the programs scheduled to be housed at Roosevelt School would be housed at Wilson School and the Wilson School programs would be housed at Haight School. Haight School is currently owned by Defendant and leased to Family Christian Fellowship. Defendant asserts that the relocation of the Wilson programs to Haight School would not interfere with the integrative provisions of the Second Interim Order and would not adversely affect the constituents of such programs.
Plaintiffs oppose such a request by Defendant. Plaintiffs argue that the request is made solely for the purposes of delay and alleged financial savings, two impermissible grounds for modification of the Second Interim Order. Plaintiffs further contend that Defendant’s proposal actually costs money rather than saves money and that the proposal has significant adverse educational and desegregation consequences.
1

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

*2 Defendant’s second request involves reducing the second bond issue from $10,000,000.00 to $5,000,000.00.1 The Board of Education has recently approved the issuance of $10,000,000.00 in bonds with the caveat that a lesser amount would be issued if this court so approves. Defendant states that if this court would require the renovation of the Roosevelt School at some point in the future then Defendant would fully fund such renovation by the issuance of further bonds.
Plaintiffs also oppose this request contending that it is a recipe for financial and jurisprudential disaster. In so arguing, Plaintiffs point out that the Board of Education has failed to even once consult the district’s own financial consultant on this matter. Plaintiffs assert that Defendant’s request fails to provide adequate funding for the Second Interim Order, disrupts agreements concerning the allocation and management of the proceeds of the second bond issue, wastes money instead of conserving money and engenders unnecessary future litigation.
DISCUSSION
Section G.3.d. of the Second Interim Order sets forth the criteria under which Defendant may seek modification of the Order. This Section provides, in pertinent part:
If in any instance the District believes that it is impossible to comply with the Order, or that a different but equally effective method of compliance should be permitted, the District shall fully present the matter to plaintiffs, and if necessary to the Monitor and the Court, and obtain either the concurrence of the plaintiffs or approval under § G.7 or § G.8 before adopting such a course of conduct.
A recent United States Supreme Court case has also shed light on the subject of modification of a consent decree. In Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 112 S.Ct. 748, 760 (1992), the Court held:
Although we hold that a district court should exercise flexibility in considering requests for modification of an institutional reform consent decree, it does not follow that a modification will be warranted in all circumstances. Rule 60(b)(5) provides that a party may obtain relief from a court order when “it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application,” not when it is no longer convenient to live with the terms of a consent decree. Accordingly, a

party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree. If the moving party meets this standard, the court should consider whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance.2
A party seeking modification of a consent decree may meet its initial burden by showing either a significant change in factual conditions or in law.
The court finds it obvious that there has been no change in law necessitating a modification of the Second Interim Order. The Supreme Court explained that:
A consent decree must of course be modified if, as it later turns out, one or more of the obligations placed upon the parties has become impermissible under federal law. But modification of a consent decree may be warranted when the statutory or decisional law has changed to make legal what the decree was designed to prevent.
*3 Id. at 762. Clearly, such in not the case here. Desegregation has been the law in this land for four decades. The question thus becomes whether there has been a significant change in the factual conditions surrounding the Second Interim Order.
In considering a change in factual conditions, the Supreme Court’s decision in Rufo is again instructive. The Court explained:
Modification of a consent decree may be warranted when changed factual conditions make compliance with the decree substantially more onerous.... Modification is also appropriate when a decree proves to be unworkable because of unforeseen obstacles ... or when enforcement of the decree without modification would be detrimental to the public interest....
Ordinarily, ... modification should not be granted where a party relies upon events that actually were anticipated at the time it entered into a decree.... If it is clear that a party anticipated changing conditions that would make performance of the decree more onerous but nevertheless agreed to the decree, that party would have to satisfy a heavy burden to convince a court that it agreed to the decree in good faith, made a reasonable effort to comply with the decree, and should be relieved of the undertaking under Rule 60(b).
Id. at 760–61 (citations omitted). The court finds that Defendant has not met its burden of showing a significant change in factual conditions necessitating a modification
2

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

of the Second Interim Order.
This court has personally visited the schools at issue; namely, Roosevelt School, Haight School, Wilson School and Garrison School. The court has also personally talked with a variety of school administrators, educators, financial consultants, architects and building maintenance personnel and has reviewed numerous reports and documents submitted by these individuals. Finally, the court’s own monitor has investigated and reported to the court concerning the matters at hand. The court finds that there are no factual conditions necessitating delaying the renovation of Roosevelt School or reducing the amount of the bonds to be issued. In fact, the court finds that such a delay and reduction would be counter-productive for the following reasons.
I
Defendant first moves this court for temporary relief relative to the renovation of Roosevelt School. In relation to this motion, Defendant sets forth several “temporary alternative proposals.” The court finds no reason to continue to delay the renovation of Roosevelt School.
Defendant relies heavily on Haight School as an alternative to Roosevelt School for housing three programs. The court finds Haight School to be totally inappropriate as an alternative to Roosevelt School for several reasons. First, and most important, the court finds that Haight School is not a viable alternative to Roosevelt School in terms of desegregation, the trust of the Second Interim Order. The location of Haight School is the main reason. Haight School is in a majority neighborhood and the programs to be implemented at Roosevelt School under the Second Interim Order aim at minority students.3 Moreover, Haight School is located exactly three miles north of Roosevelt School. No mass transportation services the area around Haight School and the mass transit authority is unwilling to service the area.4 The location of Haight School would simply add one more hurdle to already burdened minorities, making it difficult to attract students into these programs. Accordingly, the school district would have to absorb the costs of transportation, which is estimated to be $137,700.00 annually. This cost is totally avoided by reopening Roosevelt School, a school centrally located and within easy walking distance of community services such as public libraries, museums, parent centers and the Health Department.
*4 Furthermore, Haight School is an elementary school and, as such, renovation would be required in order to accommodate adult students (e.g., restrooms, drinking fountains). Haight School is also a “pod” school, a

concept popular in the 1960’s but soon found to be unworkable and unmanageable. The money spent in this renovation would be lost dollars should Roosevelt School become the permanent site for the housing of the programs. In addition, the School District would also lose $18,000.00 in revenue dollars from the tenant currently occupying Haight School. While the court recognizes that Haight School is large enough to accommodate the programs proposed to be housed there and the building is in good condition, the court finds that a movement of the programs to Haight School diminishes the educational and desegregative efforts of the Second Interim Order as the individuals using the programs that would be housed at Haight School would have difficulty travelling to the school.
The court also finds that Garrison School is not a viable alternative to Roosevelt School.5 Garrison School was erected in 1887 and would require a lot of basic renovation work, including wiring, window replacement and heating system renovation. The estimated cost of this basic renovation of Garrison School is $850,000.00 to $950,000.00. This estimate does not include asbestos removal. Parking is also insufficient at Garrison School. The money that would be required to be put into the renovation of Garrison School would, in short, be a total waste of taxpayer dollars.
Under the terms of the Second Interim Order, Wilson School is to be a full-site magnet school housing the Science and Technology Academy. Defendant proposes that six other programs also be located at Wilson School.6 Numerous problems exist with this aspect of Defendant’s proposal. Both the monitor and educators agree that a full-site magnet school is necessary if full realization of magnet educational and desegregative outcomes are to occur. One must have a clear identity with a magnet program in a magnet school and this identity would be lost if the magnet program would become mixed with other programs at the site. Consolidating other programs into Wilson limit the expansion of the Science and Technology program.
Educators are also concerned with the potential disciplinary problems that may arise when high school age students are mixed with elementary students. Dissimilar ages and types of students within the same building is not an educationally sound alternative. Furthermore, additional expenses would have to be incurred in adjusting classroom locations to allow for a multiple use facility. For example, approximately $20,000.00 would have to be spent to improve the lighting and lower the ceiling in the area where the Rockford School of Practical Nursing would be housed. Accordingly, the court finds that Defendant has not shown a significant change in factual conditions in order to modify this major portion of the Second Interim Order.
3

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

*5 As stated earlier, this court has personally viewed the schools at issue in this matter. The court must say that it was quite impressed with Roosevelt School. The court was assured by experts, including architects and construction engineers, that Roosevelt School is “structurally sound” and easily worth renovating. Such a school could not be built today and anything similar in size7 would cost approximately $20,000,000.00 to $25,000,000.00. While Roosevelt School has not been used to house classrooms since 1981, the building has a new roof8 and is very clean as it has been used for janitorial training. Roosevelt School also has an auditorium that was remodeled one year before the school was closed and which the court views as a community asset.9 The Auditorium seats approximately 800 individuals and can be used daily by the nursing program and at least once per month by the Teacher Development Center as well as any other large group activity. In short, Roosevelt School is an extremely versatile building. The court has also been informed that Roosevelt School is one of the most economical schools in the district to operate. The school has two boilers, both of which are in good operating condition.
Defendant’s main concern is for more time to study the alternatives to renovating Roosevelt School. The court finds such a delay would accomplish nothing and would cost the district more money in the long run. Numerous experts, as well as the court, have studied the situation, both prior to the entry of the Second Interim Order and again at this juncture, and have found no suitable alternative to Roosevelt School. In fact, delaying the opening of Roosevelt School will actually cost the district money. Utility and maintenance costs on an empty building are estimated at $50,000.00 to $60,000.00 per year. Vandalism is also always a concern when attempting to maintain an empty building. Furthermore, construction costs will certainly increase due to inflation the longer the project is delayed. Finally, increased attorney’s fees would certainly result from challenges by Plaintiffs to Defendant’s continued non-compliance with the Second Interim Order.
Costs have already been incurred under the Second Interim Order in anticipation of the reopening of Roosevelt School. The architect has estimated that his planning fees for work already performed is $130,000.00. Asbestos removal planning has incurred expenses ranging from $16,000.00 to $32,000.00 depending on the final bid for asbestos removal. These costs would be lost if Roosevelt School is not renovated as planned. Moreover, the court notes that there will be costs with relocating programs wherever they may be housed. For example, moving expenses, telephone expenses, overtime and computer hookups expenses will be incurred. These costs are estimated to be between $25,000.00 and $50,000.00. This expense occurs every time a program is moved.

The court does find it interesting to note that since the April 23, 1991 Interim Order was entered, Defendant wasted no time in implementing those provisions that Defendant wanted to complete. The court points out that the Second Interim Order represents a negotiated settlement agreement, negotiated in good faith, with benefits to all parties to this action. Some parts of the Second Interim Order have already been carried out. However, now that the time has come to expend monies in order to renovate Roosevelt School Defendant is reluctant to carry out it obligations under the Order. A full year has passed since the entry of the Second Interim Order in this case, any alternatives to renovating Roosevelt School should have been brought to light long before now. Defendant’s suggested temporary alternatives fly in the face of the educational and desegregative efforts of the Second Interim Order.
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for temporary relief in relation to Roosevelt School is denied. The court finds that Defendant’s proposal fails to meet the modification criteria set forth in the Second Interim Order and set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County, supra. Furthermore, the court finds that Defendant merely seeks delay and presents no viable alternatives to Roosevelt School. As outlined above, Defendant’s proposal actually wastes money rather than saves money10 and, most importantly, has significant adverse educational and desegregation consequences. Defendant’s alternatives burden the minority district and diminishes the provisions of the Second Interim Order. Accordingly, Defendant’s proposal does not, as Defendant argues, “do the same thing only cheaper.” When all is done, Defendant’s proposals have not solved the problem that the Second Interim Order addresses. Therefore, the court orders Defendant to immediately take whatever steps are necessary to renovate Roosevelt School in line with the terms of the Second Interim Order.
II
*6 Defendant also seeks relief in relation to the issuance of $10,000,000.00 in bonds to fund various provisions of the Second Interim Order. The court has also intensely investigated this matter and has consulted with various experts. Again the court finds that many problems exist in relation to this part of Defendant’s motion making Defendant’s proposal unsatisfactory and financially irresponsible.
The biggest problem with a $5,000,000.00 reduction in the bond issuance is that a $973,824.00 deficit would result. Obviously more bonds would have to be issued almost immediately. Multiple bond issues result in unnecessary duplicative costs.11 Moreover, the court has
4

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

been informed by various experts that the current bond market is at a five year low and therefore, represents a favorable bond market at this time.

money can be expended without written permission of the monitor in order to ensure that the money is spent responsibly.

With the issuance of $10,000,000.00 in bonds, a $776,176.00 contingency fund would result. This contingency fund serves two basic purposes. First, the fund provides additional money if the ultimate cost of any of the items under this part of the Second Interim Order exceeds the initial estimate. Second, the fund provides capital for other provisions of the Order, the cost of which have not yet been determined. Accordingly, the court views that amount in the contingency fund to be conservative in size.
Finally, the court has been informed that there is no advantage in terms of bank qualification designation, avoidance of arbitrage or rebate penalties in doing two separate bond issues. However, there is an interest rate risk involved with the postponement of $5,000,000.00 in total borrowing. The court recognizes that no one can predict, with any degree of certainty, the rise or fall of rates. The court simply points out that very attractive rates are available at the present time for issuers of municipal debt.
The court is concerned, however, that none of the money in the contingency fund be wasted. The court recognizes the tendency to spend dollars that are too easily available and not earmarked for a particular purpose. Accordingly, the court places the monitor, Dr. Eugene Eubanks in charge of the contingency fund. No contingency fund

III
In conclusion, the court wishes to emphasize that the sooner the Order is implemented, the less expensive it will be in terms of increased costs due to inflation and increased legal fees challenging the terms of the Second Interim Order and responding to these challenges. The court finds that delays in implementing the provision of the Second Interim Order are counterproductive and accomplish nothing. The court urges all parties to make a positive effort to commit to, and work toward, the completion of the terms of the Second Interim Order.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant’s motion for temporary relief relative to the renovation of Roosevelt School and the issuance of bonds is denied. The parties are ordered to proceed forthwith in implementing the terms and provisions of the Second Interim Order.
	  

Footnotes

1

Although Defendant’s motion asks for a reduction of $3,400,000.00 in Bonds, Defendant has stated to the court, the court monitor,

Plaintiffs as well as the public that it seeks a reduction of $5,000,000.00 in bonds.

2

In a footnote, the Supreme Court noted that this standard only applies “when a party seeks modification of a term of a consent

decree that arguably relates to the vindication of a constitutional right. Such a showing is not necessary to implement minor

changes in extraneous details ... unrelated to remedying the underlying constitutional violation.” This court finds that the

enunciated standard applies to the matter at hand. What Defendant seeks to modify, as will be detailed later, in effect changes the

entire desegregation decree by changing the plan for the housing of various programs necessary to the education of minority

students. Id. n. 7.

3

Fifteen separate programs are to be housed at Roosevelt School. Defendant proposes that the adult education program, the

alternative high school and the adult evening high school be housed at Haight. Sixty-one percent of the students in these programs

are minorities. These students represent the least socialized, least socio-economic advantaged and least mobile individuals in the

community.

4

The court was informed by the educators consulted that adult students enrolled in the adult education programs constantly stop by

the school for assistance with educational issues and concerns and attend school while at the same time accommodating a work and

family schedule. Thus, they comprise an extremely mobile student population.

5

Defendant proposes that the following programs be housed at Garrison School: early childhood, parent information center, staff

development teacher center, source and 0–3 infant education.

6

These programs are: Rockford School of Practical Nursing, Specialized Vocational Education, Home School Counselors, Private

and Parochial, SEEK/Early Childhood and Chapter 1.

5

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

7

Roosevelt School is comprised of 150,000 square feet.

8

The roof was replaced in late 1991.

9

The court is not so naive as to think that Roosevelt School is in perfect operating condition. Obviously this is not the case since

renovation costs are $3.4 million. The court, however, after consulting with numerous experts finds this money to be wisely spent.

10

The costs of Defendant’s temporary alternatives have been estimated to be between $600,000.00 and $180,356.86 for all annual

and one time costs. This would be wasted money should no permanent alternative to Roosevelt School be found and Roosevelt

School be renovated at some point in the future.

11

The cost of issuing bonds in two stages is $329,330.00. The cost of one bond issuance is $265,540.00. Accordingly, there would be

an estimated additional cost of $63,790.00 if the bonds were sold in two bond sales of $5,000,000.00 each.

	  

6

 
 People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. #205, Not Reported in F.Supp....

1992 WL 300998 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Western
Division.
PEOPLE WHO CARE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, SCHOOL DISTRICT # 205, et al., Defendants.
No. 89 C 20168. | Oct. 13, 1992.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Robert C. Howard, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.
Anthony G. Scariano, Chicago, Ill., John Schmidt, Rockford, Ill., for defendants.
Stephen G. Katz, Chicago, Ill., for intervenors.
Opinion
ORDER
ROSZKOWSKI, District Judge.
*1 Before the court are Defendant’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s order granting, in part, Plaintiffs’ motion for supplemental remedial relief. For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant’s objections are granted in part and denied in part.
BACKGROUND
On September 17, 1992, the Magistrate Judge entered an order in this case granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs’ motion for a supplemental remedial order. Plaintiffs motion was directed at correcting “Defendant’s substantial, pervasive and deliberate pattern of non-compliance with the Second Interim Order, with supplemental agreements of the parties, and with supplemental Orders of this Court.” Plaintiffs noted several instances of behavior on the part of Defendant Board of Education in requesting a determination of “substantial non-compliance” with this court’s Second Interim Order. Plaintiffs then sought various supplemental remedial measures in order to correct Defendant’s alleged non-compliance.

In a thorough and well-reasoned opinion, the Magistrate Judge discussed the relevant standard in evaluating Defendant’s conduct for the purpose of Plaintiffs’ motion for supplemental remedial relief. Neither party objects to the standard used by the Magistrate. The Magistrate then methodically set forth numerous specific instances of misconduct on the part of Defendant Board of Education as well as the results of Defendant’s misconduct in relation to the effective and expedient implementation of the provisions of the Second Interim Order. Finally, the Magistrate Judge ordered certain remedies for Defendant’s misconduct. Certain of these remedies are the subject of Defendant’s objections to the Magistrate’s order.
The Magistrate noted that Plaintiffs withdrew their request for a Master at the conclusion of the hearing with regard to Plaintiffs’ motion for supplemental remedial relief. As such, the Magistrate did not consider the question of the previously requested appointment of a Master. The Magistrate did, however, find that some supplemental remedial relief was necessary in this case and cited legal support for his decision.
First, the Magistrate Judge ordered the parties to continue to meet beyond the “sunset provisions” of the Second Interim Order in, what has now been referred to as, PIC meetings. These weekly conferences were provided for in the Second Interim Order between District staff and counsel, Plaintiffs’ counsel and the court-appointed Monitor. The Magistrate, however, thought it appropriate to invite a member of Intervenors to attend and participate in PIC and to meet more frequently if the Monitor believed it necessary.
Second, the Magistrate found that Defendant’s past implementation and compliance problems demonstrated a need for streamlined supervision in order to insure fulfillment of the provisions of the Second Interim Order. Accordingly, the Magistrate set forth an accelerated dispute resolution process, as authorized by Section G.7.d(2) and Section A.19 of the Second Interim Order.
*2 Both Plaintiffs and Defendant object to the Magistrate’s determination that a member of the Intervening class be invited to participate in PIC meetings. Defendant further objects to the Magistrate’s streamlined approach to problem solving. The court, thus, turns its attention to these objections to the Magistrate Judge’s order.
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) provides that, for
1

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. #205, Not Reported in F.Supp....

nondispositive motions, a District Court Judge is to review objections to a Magistrate Judge’s order under a “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard of review. “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Bobkoski v. Board of Ed. of Cary Consol. School Dist. 26, 141 F.R.D. 89, 90–91 (N.D.Ill.1992), citing, United States v. United States Gypsum, 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948).
The court heartedly approves of the Magistrate Judge’s analysis in relation to Plaintiffs’ motion for supplemental remedial relief. The court, however, believes that the Magistrate erred in suggesting that a member of the Intervening class be invited to engage in PIC meetings and discussions. Such relief was not requested by either party to this cause of action or by Intervenors themselves. The court finds it would be inappropriate and potentially disruptive for Intervenors to engage discussions on issues that have no relationship to issues with which Intervenors are concerned. As argued by Defendant, PIC deals with issues regarding the formulation of Defendant’s budget and potential modifications to that budget as well as issues regarding the formulation, administration and evaluation of numerous educational programs. Intervenors have no legal interest in such topics.
The court does agree, however, with the Magistrate’s premise that more open and inclusive discussion is needed between the parties to this cause of action and Intervenors. As such, the court modifies the Magistrate Judge’s order to provide that Plaintiffs’, Defendant and Monitor meet on a regular basis with Intervenors regarding implementation issues pertaining to and involving Intervenors. These meetings should occur monthly in order to facilitate a dialogue process with

Intervenors.
Furthermore, the court agrees with Defendant that PIC should continue to meet on an “as needed” basis, as determined by the court-appointed Monitor. Such a basis has been used in the past and the court is not aware of any problems that have arisen from this practice. The Magistrate Judge’s ordered is, therefore, modified in this regard.
The court, however, does not agree with Defendant’s objections to the expedited problem solving procedure set forth in the Magistrate’s order. The court does not believe such a procedure usurps or improperly delegates any powers or authority of anyone, including the school board, the superintendent or the court. The Magistrate’s procedure simply provides a vehicle for an accelerated dispute resolution process with prompt consideration of any implementation problem that may arise under the Second Interim Order. The Magistrate Judge’s order clearly outlined the need for such a procedure based upon Defendant’s past deeds of misconduct and the results thereof. Accordingly, Defendant’s objections to the Magistrate’s order in this regard are denied.
CONCLUSION
*3 For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s order regarding Plaintiffs’ motion for supplemental remedial relief are granted in part and denied in part.
	  

2

 
 People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

KeyCite Red Flag - Severe Negative Treatment Order Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part by People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205, 7th Cir.(Ill.), April 15, 1997
1996 WL 364802 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Western
Division.
PEOPLE WHO CARE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
ROCKFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 205, Defendant, and
Rockford Education Association, Rockford Building Maintenance Association, and Education
Office Personnel Association, Intervenor–Defendants.
No. 89 C 20168. | June 7, 1996.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Matthew J. Piers, Jonathan A. Rothstein, Gessler, Flynn, Fleischmann, Hughes & Socol, Ltd., Chicago, IL, for plaintiffs Larry Hoarde, Chasty Hoarde, Jonathan Hughes, Cindy Malone, Shaheed Saleem, Anissa Tripplett, Asia Eason, Joshua Burfield, Brandon Burfield, Johnny Devereueawax, Marie Devereueawax.
David P. Faulkner, Jeffry S. Spears, Amy E. Shappert, Lord, Bissell & Brook, Rockford, IL, Matthew J. Piers, Jonathan A. Rothstein, Gessler, Flynn, Fleischmann, Hughes & Socol, Ltd., Chicago, IL, for plaintiff Stephanie Burfield.
Ronald L. Futterman, Robert C. Howard, Claire T. Hartfield, Kathleen Mangold Spoto, Futterman & Howard, Chtd., Chicago, IL, Matthew J. Piers, Jonathan A. Rothstein, Jennifer Louise Fischer, Gessler, Flynn, Fleischmann, Hughes & Socol, Ltd., Chicago, IL, Andrew Campos, Centro Hispano Sembrador, Rockford Area Hispanic Coalition, Rockford, IL, Eugene Eubanks, Dr., Kansas City, MO, Janet L. Pulliam, Denise Reid Hoggard, Pulliam Law Offices, P.A., Little Rock, AR, for plaintiff People Who Care.
Robert C. Howard, Futterman & Howard, Chtd., Chicago, IL, for plaintiffs Sidney Malone, Andre Malone, James Curtin, Kelly Curtin, Leonardo Medrano.
Denise S. Poloyac, Katz, Friedman, Schur & Eagle, Chtd., Chicago, IL, Stephen Gary Katz, Katz & Buhai, P.C., Barrington, IL, for intervenor Rockford Educ. Ass’n.
Albert Lynn Himes, Lawrence Jay Weiner, George Robb

Cooper, Justino D. Petrarca, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chtd., Chicago, IL, David P. Kula, Anthony Gael Scariano, John M. Izzo, Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes Chtd., Chicago Heights, IL, William J. Quinlan, Rockford Public Schools, Rockford, IL, for defendant Rockford Board of Education School District # 205.
Barbara Jean Buhai, Katz & Buhai, P.C., Barrington, IL, for intervenors Rockford Education Association, Rockford Building Maintenance Association, Educational Office Personnel Association.
Charles F. Thomas, Thomas J. Lester, Patrick H. Agnew, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Rockford, IL, for intervenor Milestone, Inc.
Opinion
COMPREHENSIVE REMEDIAL ORDER
MAHONEY, United States Magistrate Judge.
*1 School desegregation lawsuits are divided into two distinct and separate phases: first, a finding of intentional discrimination and, second, formulating a remedy that is designed to undo the harm inflicted upon the affected schoolchildren. The present case is at stage two; in 1993 and 1994 the Rockford Board of Education was found liable of intentional discrimination against African–American and Hispanic students for a period extending well over two decades.1 The Magistrate Judge has reviewed this court’s Report and Recommendation to Judge Stanley J. Roszkowski and, also, Judge Roszkowski’s Order. A review of those documents causes the Magistrate to clearly recall the evidence and testimony of the liability hearing. The evidence consisted of approximately 40 witnesses producing over 3,500 pages of testimony in the twenty-four days of trial. In addition, the court considered 150 depositions submitted in lieu of live testimony and literally thousands of pages of exhibits. In the end, the Rockford School District was found guilty of intentional discrimination against minority schoolchildren. The present order is targeted at providing an adequate remedy for the still lingering effects of that discrimination.
I. Introduction The city of Rockford is located in the northwest part of Illinois, approximately 90 miles west of Chicago. From the 1990 census, Rockford’s 1990 population was 139,426, making Rockford the second most populated city in Illinois. In 1990, 28.4% of Rockford’s population was minority.2 For convenience and statistical analysis,
1

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

the City of Rockford and the Rockford School District have been divided into four “quadrants” that are based on geographic dividers. The Rock River, which runs north/south, divides Rockford east and west. There is some dispute whether Auburn Street or State Street, both running east/west, is the appropriate divider of Rockford north and south.3
For the 1994–95 school year, the Rockford School District (“District” or “RSD”) had an enrollment of approximately 26,370 students in grades K through 12.4 For 1994–95, the total minority enrollment of students in the entire district was 34.9%.5 For the 1994–95 school year, the RSD had a total of 15,446 elementary students (grades K through sixth) enrolled in 39 elementary schools. The racial composition of the District’s elementary level students was 63.7% White and 36.3% minority. In 1994–95, 76.3% of the elementary students that resided in the Southwest Quadrant were minority. For the year 1994–95, approximately 70% of the minority elementary students lived west of the Rock River and approximately 60% of the minority elementary school students lived in one of the city’s four quadrants—the Southwest.
For the 1994–95 school year, the RSD had 4,044 students enrolled in grades 7–8 in the District’s four middle schools. The racial composition of the District’s middle school students was 64.9% White and 35.1% minority. For the 1994–95 school year, 6,744 students attended the RSD’s four public high schools.6 The racial composition of the District’s high school students was 68.3% White and 31.7% minority. The enrollment at Page Park, a special education K–12 school, was 136 students. The following chart summarizes the above statistics:
*2 The present Comprehensive Remedial Order is targeted at ending the intentional discrimination in the Rockford School District, eradicating the vestiges of the intentional discrimination and providing all of the students in the RSD the opportunity for an equal education, as mandated by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
A. Procedural History The People Who Care lawsuit was filed on May 11, 1989. Plaintiffs filed the suit in response to the 1989 Reorganization Plan of the RSD. The suit alleged that the District had historically engaged in a pattern of intentional discrimination against Black and Hispanic schoolchildren. On July 7, 1989, District Court Judge Stanley J. Roszkowski entered the First Interim Order in this case. Essentially, the order dealt with the 1989 Plan, modifying it in some respects and dismantling it in other respects.
On April 21, 1991, the court entered the Second Interim

Order, which embodied an agreement reached by Plaintiffs and Defendant. The Second Interim Order was more comprehensive in its remedial measures than the First, but left unresolved Plaintiffs’ underlying liability claim.8 On June 29, 1992, Judge Roszkowski referred certain matters to the Magistrate Judge for ruling. Then, by order dated September 8, 1992, Judge Roszkowski transferred all matters currently pending to the Magistrate Judge. This order was pursuant to Local Rule 1.71(c)(4) of the General Rules of the Northern District of Illinois and 28 U.S.C. § 636(a)–(c).
Judge Roszkowski reiterated the referral on April 8, 1993, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Magistrate conducted the liability hearing in April of 1993, consisting of twenty-four days of trial. Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, dated May 5, 1993 (the “May 5th Agreement”), all parties stipulated that the Magistrate would make a Report and Recommendation to Judge Roszkowski, who would then rule upon the permanent injunction and liability issues.9
On November 3, 1993, the Magistrate issued his Report and Recommendation recommending that the District be found liable for violating the Fourteenth Amendment and that the district court enter a permanent injunction against the RSD. All parties filed objections to the Report and Recommendation and on February 18, 1994, Judge Roszkowski entered an order granting the requested injunctive relief and affirming the liability findings of the Magistrate in most respects.10 In that order, Judge Roszkowski referred all present and future remedial matters, which includes the issue of unitary status, to the Magistrate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) and (c)(3). See People Who Care, 851 F.Supp. at 934.
Since the time of the permanent injunction, the parties and the court-appointed Master, Dr. Eugene Eubanks, have worked on developing a comprehensive remedial plan. On February 1, 1995, the Magistrate ordered the Master to submit a proposed Comprehensive Remedial Order (“CRO”) to the court by August 4, 1995. The Master submitted his proposed CRO to the court on August 6, 1995. All parties commented on the proposed remedial objectives of the Master and in turn, submitted preliminary findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the remedial objectives at issue. The CRO hearings commenced on October 16, 1995.
B. Outline *3 Upon completion of each segment of the CRO hearings, the court will enter a remedial order dealing with the proposed remedial objectives raised in the Master’s proposed plan. The Master’s proposed plan has no less than twenty-nine categories of objectives: (1) desegregated schools; (2) within school integration; (3)
2

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

ability grouping; (4) extra-curricular activities; (5) human relations program; (6) discipline code; (7) curriculum and instruction; (8) special education; (9) community education; (10) early childhood education; (11) magnet schools; (12) bilingual education; (13) school-based planning; (14) research and development; (15) staff development; (16) student participation and performance; (17) student assignment; (18) implementation and monitoring; (19) organizational structure of the administration; (20) transportation; (21) personnel department; (22) actions by District administration and board; (23) disposition/acquisition of facilities; (24) alteration of District boundaries; (25) racial incidents; (26) facilities and equipment; (27) affirmative action; (28) desegregation of teaching staff; and (29) funding and budgeting. The court has added a final category: financial impact.
Because of the number and complexity of the issues involved in formulating the CRO, the Magistrate has essentially divided the CRO hearing into three areas: (1) Educational Components/Stipulated Areas; (2) Student Assignment/Related Issues; and (3) Faculty Assignment, Student Achievement and other issues. The first portion of the trial ran from October 16 through October 31, 1995. The second portion ran from November 27 through December 22, 1995. The final portion of the trial is scheduled to run from February 22 through March 21, 1996. Because of the RSD’s need to implement many of the court ordered remedies for the 1996–97 school year, the Magistrate has decided to issue the CRO in separate segments. Delivering the opinion in this manner will effectively allow the Rockford School District to begin implementation of ordered remedies much sooner than if the court delivered the opinion in its entirety upon completion of the hearings.
This first segment of the CRO will deal with fourteen of the thirty objectives that are either educational components or stipulated areas: ability grouping, the human relations program, curriculum and instruction, community education, early childhood education, bilingual education, research and development, staff development, student participation and performance, transportation, disposition/acquisition of facilities, alteration of District boundaries, racial incidents and funding/budgeting. The first segment begins with a brief overview of the law of remedying intentional discrimination and guidelines for the court to follow in developing a comprehensive remedial plan. The second segment of the CRO will deal with student assignment. Finally, the third segment will deal with minority hiring and desegregation of the teaching staff, participation and performance (student achievement) and the remaining twelve areas.

CRO: SEGMENT ONE
[Dated January 26, 1996]
II. Supreme Court Precedent in Formulating Remedial Decrees *4 The Magistrate and District Court Judge in this case both found that the Rockford School Board had consistently and intentionally discriminated against minority school children over the past two decades. Given this finding, the school board is “charged with the affirmative duty to take whatever steps” are necessary to convert to a unitary system in which racial discrimination is eliminated root and branch. Green v. County Sch. Bd. of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, 437–38 (1968). The main objective of a remedial decree is to “effectuate a transition to a racially nondiscriminatory school system.” Green, 391 U.S. at 436. Ultimately, the offending school district has the burden to put forth a plan that “promises realistically to work, and promises realistically to work now.” Green 391 U.S. at 439.
Starting with Brown v. Board of Educ., 349 U.S. 294 (1955) (“Brown II ”), the Supreme Court has consistently held that a district court must be guided by equitable principles in formulating an appropriate remedial decree. In Brown II, the Court stated, “Traditionally, equity has been characterized by a practical flexibility in shaping its remedies and by a facility for adjusting and reconciling public and private needs. These cases call for the exercise of these traditional attributes of equity power.” Brown II, 349 U.S. at 300. In applying the principles of equity, a district court must focus on the following three factors: one, that the nature of the desegregation remedy is to be determined by the nature and scope of the constitutional violations; two, that the decree must be “designed as nearly as possible ‘to restore the victims of discriminatory conduct to the position they would have occupied in the absence of such conduct’ ”; and three, that consideration must be given to the interests of state and local authorities in managing their own affairs. Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 280–81 (1977) (“Milliken II ”) (quoting Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 746 (1974) (“Milliken I ”)).
Traditionally, once a segregated, dual school system has been found to exist, a critical beginning point in a remedial decree is student assignment patterns. The district court must focus on the degree of racial imbalance in the school district, by comparing the ratio of minority to majority students in the school district as a whole to the racial composition of students in individual schools. Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 474 (1992). In addition to student assignment patterns, a district court is directed to look at the following components in formulating a
3

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

remedial decree: faculty, staff, transportation, extracurricular activities, facilities and the quality of overall education offered to the student population as a whole.11 These “Green factors” are a starting point, and are not meant to be an exhaustive list. See Milliken II, 433 U.S. at 283 (“[D]iscriminatory student assignment policies can themselves manifest and breed other inequalities built into a dual system founded on racial discrimination. Federal courts need not, and cannot, close their eyes to inequalities, shown by the record, which flow from a longstanding segregated system.”).12
*5 In addition to focusing on the Green factors, a district court must be careful in a remedial order to “eliminate from the public schools all vestiges” of the intentional discrimination. Swann, 402 U.S. at 15. In Milliken II, the Court stated that an appropriate remedy is one that is “tailored to cure the ‘condition that offends the Constitution.’ ” Milliken II, 433 U.S. at 282 (quoting Milliken I, 418 U.S. at 738). At issue in Milliken II were four educational components that were part of the district court’s remedial order: remedial reading programs, in-service training for teachers and administrators, guidance and counseling programs and revised testing procedures. The Supreme Court found that these educational components were an appropriate remedy, as they were tailored to the constitutional violation.
In 1992, the Supreme Court in Freeman stated, “The Green factors are a measure of the racial identifiability of schools in a system that is not in compliance with Brown, and we instructed the District Courts to fashion remedies that address all these components of elementary and secondary school systems.” Freeman, 503 U.S. at 486. Further, the Court stated that while “[t]he vestiges of segregation that are the concern of the law in a school case may be subtle and intangible,” they must “be so real that they have a causal link to the de jure violation being remedied.” Freeman, 503 U.S. at 496.13
At some point, it is imperative that the federal courts relinquish control over the school district to the local authorities. The Supreme Court stated the proper test for “unitary” status is “whether the Board ha[s] complied in good faith with the desegregation decree since it was entered, and whether the vestiges of past discrimination ha[ve] been eliminated to the extent practicable.” Dowell, 498 U.S. at 249–50. In Dowell, the Supreme Court noted that, “[f]rom the very first, federal supervision of local school systems was intended as a temporary measure to remedy past discrimination.” Dowell, 498 U.S. at 247. A return to local control over education is necessary to “allow[ ] citizens to participate in decisionmaking, and [to] allow [ ] innovation so that school programs can fit local needs.” Dowell, 498 U.S. at 248. See also Brown II, 349 U.S. at 299 (“School authorities have the primary responsibility for elucidating, assessing, and solving these [varied local school] problems; courts will have to

consider whether the action of school authorities constitutes good faith implementation of the governing constitutional principles.”).
On the other hand, “A district court need not accept at face value the profession of a school board which has intentionally discriminated that it will cease to do so in the future.” Dowell, 498 U.S. at 249. Therefore, the Magistrate will carefully monitor the progress of the Rockford School District in eliminating, root and branch, all the vestiges of the intentional discrimination against minority school children. Upon a showing that the District has complied in good faith with the directives of this court and that the vestiges of the prior discrimination have been eliminated to the extent practicable, supervisory control of the school district will be returned to local authorities.
*6 In summary, the Magistrate will utilize the flexible equitable power of the federal courts in fashioning remedies that are linked to the constitutional violations found in this case. Three considerations are of the utmost importance: one, the nature of any desegregation remedy is to be determined by the nature and scope of the constitutional violation (the remedy must relate to the discriminatory act); two, the court must restore the victims of the discriminatory conduct to the position they would have occupied but for the discrimination; and three, that local autonomy is a vital national tradition and the court must strive to restore local control of the school system.
The Magistrate notes that, in the final analysis, this court’s remedial focus must be both flexible and practical, reconciling both public and private needs. A remedial order must afford a school district a “precise statement” of its obligations and the Magistrate will attempt to formulate a remedial decree that will realistically work now for all the concerned parties in this case.
III. Educational Components/Stipulated Areas On November 27, 1995, the parties filed with the court a stipulation concerning their positions on fourteen of the thirty remedial areas. Testimony and evidence related to the first segment of the opinion were completed in November 1995. The educational components consisted of portions of the Master’s proposed CRO that were, to some extent, agreed upon by all parties. By order dated November 29, 1995, all parties were given until December 13, 1995, to submit Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law relating to these uncontested issues. This order was subsequently modified, and all parties provided their submissions to the court by December 20, 1995.
4

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

A. Ability Grouping The first remedial objective concerns ability grouping. The court-appointed Master, Dr. Eugene Eubanks, has proposed that the District not engage in any tracking which produces racially identifiable compositions. Ability grouping is, however, appropriate for the provision of academic and social support to minority students who needed assistance. Master’s Ex. 1 at 22–23 (Proposed Comprehensive Remedial Plan) (hereinafter “Proposed Plan”). The Master’s recommendation to prohibit tracking stems directly from the findings in the Report and Recommendation. The findings were that the RSD’s tracking practices were not supported by any trustworthy academic theory, and instead, the tracking system was used to intentionally segregate White students from Black students. See People Who Care, 851 F.Supp. at 941–45.
Ability grouping or tracking was the most egregious and blatant form of intentional discrimination against minority schoolchildren. Track enrollments in the Rockford schools were racially identifiable. For example, African–American and Hispanic students were consistently enrolled in disproportionate numbers in the lower track, while White students, at all grade levels, were disproportionately assigned to the high ability tracks. People Who Care, 851 F.Supp. at 942. Once placed in a lower track, it was often difficult, if not impossible, to change into a higher track. Perhaps what was most troubling to the court is that many minority students who scored well above the national mean on tests were intentionally put in racially identifiable low ability tracks, while low or average scoring White students were often placed in disproportionately White higher tracks. Id. at 949, 959–60. The court found that minority students scoring at the 99 percentile were placed in the basic tracks and White students at the 50 percentile were placed in the honors tracks.
*7 While proposing that tracking be discontinued, the Master does propose that certain gifted programs be allowed to continue. Dr. Eubanks recommended that the gifted programs be permitted to operate as “stand alone” programs. Tr. 1636. He placed two conditions on the retention of the gifted programs: (1) that there must be clear, objective entry guidelines and (2) that there must be a minimum percentage of minority participation. Proposed Plan at 23.14
The Master further noted several programs in place since 1989 that made supplementary resources available for appropriate academic and social support so that students could effectively participate in classes in a non-ability group setting. Proposed Plan at 24. The Master recommended that these programs, including the early childhood education, Success for All, Reading Recovery and other programs, be continued as a part of the CRO to remove the vestiges created by a student placement system that intentionally discriminated against minorities

by placing them in lower tracks. At trial, Dr. Eubanks testified that these programs were essential if ability groups were to be discontinued. CRO Transcript (hereinafter “Tr.”) at 1638. In other words, the continuation of these programs would be necessary to assure that the once-tracked minority students could be “full participants and [would] perform at an acceptable level” in their regular classes. Tr. 1638.
The court accepts a portion of the Master’s proposed remedial recommendation under ability grouping. In light of this court’s detailed findings concerning the abuse of ability grouping in the past, ability grouping and/or tracking will no longer be allowed in the Rockford schools. The exception suggested by the Master for gifted programs is not approved by the court at this time due to the possibility of continued unlawful tracking by the District.15 The court will revisit the issue of gifted programs later in the opinion.
Regarding the supplemental programs proposed by the Master, the court notes that six of the suggested programs, early childhood education, staff development, human relations programs, multi-cultural education programs, curriculum and pedagogical development programs and transportation, are distinct categories and will be dealt with separately in this segment of the opinion. The other recommended supplemental programs include the ADK, Success for All, Reading Recovery, Saturday Academy, summer school programs, tutorial activities and high order thinking programs. The Master recommended that these programs be continued so as to provide additional assistance to assure that students can perform in the regular classes.
In the instant case, the Magistrate specifically approves of the supplemental programs aimed at assuring that all students will be able to meaningfully participate in a non-ability group setting. See Milliken II, 433 U.S. at 287 (holding that educational components are an important feature of a remedial plan). The programs in the instant case are directly related to the findings by this court that the grouping and tracking of minorities denied Black and Hispanic students an equal educational opportunity and often locked minorities into lower performing tracks. People Who Care, 851 F.Supp. at 1000; 851 F.Supp. at 999, 1005 (findings in the Report and Recommendation concerning lesser educational opportunities for Black and Hispanic students). In addition, findings were made concerning the racial isolation of students, the stigmatization of minority students as inferior and the failure of the school system to remedy differences in achievement among racial groups. Id. at 947–48, 914–15, 999.16 The court holds that the ADK, Success for All, Reading Recovery, Saturday Academy, summer school programs, tutorial activities and high order thinking programs are all tailored to the constitutional violation and the vestiges found in the discriminatory use of ability
5

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

groups and tracking. Therefore, the Magistrate orders these supplemental programs to be continued as part of the CRO, subject to financial restraints as will be discussed in other portions of this opinion.17
B. Human Relations Program *8 The Master’s proposed CRO contains a recommendation for a human relations program (“HRP”). This program is to “foster the educational, attitudinal, and developmental progress of school staff, students, and other appropriate target groups in support of desegregation and educational equity.” Proposed Plan at 32. The program shall focus on awareness and sensitivity to cultural differences and similarities, equity in discipline and school rules, and improved educational outcomes for minority students. Id. Because school districts that implement desegregation plans often face major obstacles such as getting the community and the district employees to accept the fact that discrimination has occurred, the program is essential to effectively implement a desegregation plan. Dr. Eubanks testified, “There is a need in Rockford for continuing education on the part of persons ... to accept [ ] ... the fact that this district did engage in intentional segregation and discrimination against minority children and that indeed we need to make changes, but not only do we need to make changes, we need to work with persons so that they appreciate the need to make changes and [that] they have [the] ... knowledge, understanding and ability to make those particular changes.” Tr. 1647–48.
The court agrees with the Master that an effective HRP is essential to the success of any desegregation plan. Given this court’s findings that the Rockford Board of Education intentionally discriminated against its minority students for over twenty years, a human relations program will be crucial in gaining district-wide support for the CRO. The Report and Recommendation is replete with examples of failed attempts at desegregation because of the lack of understanding cultural differences. See, e.g., People Who Care, 851 F.Supp. at 947–48 (tracking kept in place in one instance because dismantling it would upset teaching staff); 851 F.Supp. at 1004 (finding that administration staff was “uncomfortable” with new presence of Black children in school). The court also finds it significant that in the Master’s vast desegregation experience, spanning over 25 years, human relations programs have been essential in other cities having desegregation plans including Detroit, Michigan, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Kansas City, Missouri, and Mobile, Alabama. Tr. 1649.
Therefore, the court orders that the District develop an HRP that targets administrators, teaching staff, parents, the general community and “all persons that have involvement and interaction within the context of the Rockford School District.” Tr. 1648. Ultimately, this

program will help bring about necessary changes relative to community and staff expectations and will increase the quick acceptance and understanding of a multi-racial student program. Tr. 1647–48. In short, the HRP is essential so that the CRO “promises realistically to work, and promises realistically to work now.” Green, 391 U.S. at 439; see also Armstrong v. Board of Sch. Directors of Milwaukee, 616 F.2d 305, 311–12 (7th Cir.1980) (wherein the Seventh Circuit approved of a settlement agreement in a desegregation case that required a human relations program).18 As in all areas of the CRO, the HRP is subject to funding restraints.
C. Curriculum and Instruction *9 The Master’s proposed plan contains a provision for curricula offerings “which ensure equity and compensation in learning opportunities and outcomes for minority students, and which also ensure the meaningful and effective advancement of their social development.” Proposed Plan at 39. The proposed curricula offerings would be governed by the following standards: (1) the offerings should continue to be revised in compliance with national and state standards, with a focus on multi-cultural education and high order thinking skills; (2) all students are required to complete mathematics through geometry and science through chemistry; (3) enhanced meaningful staff development, focusing on multi-cultural development and high order thinking skills, should continue and be consistent with the recommendations of the Southwest Regional Educational Lab; (4) supplementary programs for enhanced instructional time targeted at minority students, including tutoring, double period scheduling of core courses, summer school programs, learning centers, before and after school programs, mentoring, and Saturday Academies, shall be put in place to improve educational outcomes; and (5) the standard for compliance for the RSD is that these programs be provided to all minority students, based on need, in order to reduce any achievement gaps. Proposed Plan at 39–40; Tr. 1657–59.19 The programs and activities should be continued as long as they are effective and are needed to provide equitable performance outcomes for minority students. Proposed Plan at 40; Tr. 1659.
There are two principal sets of objections to the Master’s recommendation relating to curriculum offerings. First, Intervenor–Defendants object to any reference to the Southwest Regional Educational Lab. While the Master considers the Lab to have done a credible job in the past in aiding the continual development process, Intervenor–Defendants object to Dr. Harriet Doss–Willis and the entire Southwest Regional Educational Lab, stating that they “should be fired immediately.” Intervenor–Defendants’ Response to Proposed Plan at 4. Intervenor–Defendants support a revised curricula using in-house expertise and the programs suggested by the
6

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

Master. Id.
The second set of objections to the Master’s recommendation concerning curriculum offerings comes from Plaintiffs. First, Plaintiffs contend that the present level of funding for curriculum spending should be increased. Plaintiffs’ Response to Proposed Plan at 12. Second, Plaintiffs disagree that the duration of the curriculum remedies should be measured by the Master’s two stated standards: (1) whether District personnel have had an opportunity to learn and implement the new strategies; and (2) whether the programs are effective and are needed to provide equitable performance outcomes for minority students. Plaintiffs maintain that the measuring tool should not be when the staff have had the “opportunity” to change discriminatory practices and attitudes, but rather, when District personnel have actually changed those attitudes. Furthermore, Plaintiffs maintain that the educational remedies should be continued until all vestiges and effects of segregation and discrimination have been eradicated root and branch in all areas of the CRO. Plaintiffs’ Response to Proposed Plan at 12–13.20
*10 The Magistrate concurs with and adopts the Master’s proposal regarding curriculum and instruction as follows. The proposed curriculum offerings shall be governed by the following standards: (1) all students are required to complete mathematics through geometry and science through chemistry; (2) supplementary programs (as suggested by the Master) targeted at minority students shall be put in place; and (3) enhanced meaningful staff development, focusing on multi-cultural development and high order thinking skills, should continue and be consistent with the recommendations of the Southwest Regional Educational Lab. As in previous sections, this court’s findings with respect to tracking and ability grouping without question support these proposed curriculum offerings. The findings of this court with respect to tracking and ability grouping include the finding that once minority students got placed in a lower track, they tended to stay there, which had a tremendous detrimental impact on educational opportunities for minorities. See People Who Care, 851 F.Supp. at 946–47, 1000; Tr. 1660. The court has not followed the proposal for a mandated multi-cultural curriculum, because the Magistrate is unable to relate the concept to any liability finding. The only liability findings concerning multi-culturalism related to District staff and faculty training. Programs addressing these findings are included in the CRO.
As to other aspects of the curricula proposal, the court accepts the Master’s recommendation to have curriculum audits, because they will be effective in determining whether such programs have indeed been put in place and to what extent they are working. See Tr. 1706 (the CRO contemplates an ongoing process of reviewing, refining, improving and exchanging programs in light of

experience). In fact, the Magistrate orders that a system of continual reviewing and refining be established for all educational components of the CRO. This process will weed out ineffective programs to make place for those that are the most useful. This is an important check on the use of scarce tort fund dollars in remedying the past discrimination in the RSD. These programs are to be funded as approved by the court and shall continue as long as they are effective and necessary.21
D. Community Education, Involvement and Support The Master’s proposed plan calls for community education, involvement and support for the RSD and providing equity for minority students in the RSD. This proposal requires that the District “ensure substantial community and parental involvement in the desegregation and schooling process particularly as such participation relates to minority parents and the minority community.” Proposed Plan at 44. The District is required to ensure that parents have meaningful access to District processes, operations, information and programs. A special emphasis is to be placed on District staff and administrators to aggressively provide for the participation of minority parents. Id. The community education program is essential to the CRO because “[i]nformation and understanding of the desegregation process and positive constructive discourse on issues of desegregation and equity are a necessity in effectively implementing a desegregation plan.” Id. at 46.
*11 Two standards are proposed to guide the community education program. First, the RSD shall provide for parental aides, community grants, mentoring programs, and linkages with the business community, colleges, social services agencies, park district, civil rights organizations, health services, the criminal justice system and the media. Second, these linkages to community groups shall be established for specific desegregative functions and shall be coordinated by the RSD’s central administration, parent centers and/or at the building level. Proposed Plan at 44; Tr. 1655.
As part of its effort, it is recommended that the District should be required to publish a biannual report card to the community on desegregation and equity. Expanded communication with PTOs and other parent groups should be made a goal. In addition, the District should continue its promotion of desegregation plans to the press and to continue to market magnet schools, parent information centers and parent aides. Tr. 1655.
The Master noted that, presently, the District has components in place to achieve most of these objectives. For example, community grants, a parent center, parent aides in school and public relations programs have proven to be valuable in informing and garnering community
7

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

support for interim desegregative remedial programs. The Master noted, however, that what is missing is a cohesive and comprehensive plan tying all of these programs together. Proposed Plan at 45; Tr. 1652–53. Specifically, the Master proposed that the Office of the Associate Superintendent for Education and Equity, complimented by the Office of Public Relations, should be charged with the responsibility to develop the comprehensive plan to rally the schools and entire community in support of the CRO. Tr. 1656. The Master predicted that additional costs associated with developing a comprehensive plan should not exceed $50,000.00. To achieve compliance with implementing this program, the RSD must document whether it has developed a coherent and comprehensive community education program that promotes desegregation and equity for minority children. Proposed Plan at 46.
The Master’s proposal concerning community education is uncontested but for two exceptions. First, the parties are not in agreement concerning the projected $50,000.00 in additional costs. Both the Master and the parties recognized that budget concerns need further planning. Therefore, the $50,000.00 shall serve as a preliminary estimate of costs, but shall be neither a ceiling nor a floor for the actual costs developed after additional planning. Parties Stipulation on Uncontested Areas at 3. The other area of disagreement is the standard to measure the District’s compliance with this remedial component. Plaintiffs object to the Master’s proposed standard—whether the District has developed such a plan—and contend that the true measure should be whether the District has developed a plan that has met the Master’s stated objectives. Id. Defendant disagrees with Plaintiffs’ proposed standard. Similar to the curricula proposal, the Master takes the position that this aspect of the remedy should continue as long as it is needed.22
*12 The court adopts the portion of the Master’s proposed community education objective requiring the District to ensure substantial community and parental involvement in the desegregation process, particularly as the participation relates to minority parents and the minority community. In addition, the court agrees that the RSD should be required to provide for parental aides and mentoring programs. This portion of the Master’s proposed remedy is directly related to the liability findings made by this court. In numerous instances, the RSD failed to respond to concerns expressed by minority parents and the minority community. See Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings on Uncontested Areas at 13. The court also notes with importance the Master’s finding that the exclusion of minority parents from the educational process has had detrimental effects on the achievement of minority students. See Master’s 10th Quarterly Report at 4 (effective parental involvement of minority parents is a major factor in improving minority student achievement); Master’s 11th Quarterly Report at 49 (increased minority

parent involvement will improve academic outcomes for minority students); Master’s 14th Quarterly Report at 76 (parent center at Roosevelt showed promise to increase parental involvement and increase minority student performance).
In addition, the Magistrate is well aware that for a desegregation plan to work effectively, the community must be adequately informed of the plan. See, e.g., People Who Care, 851 F.Supp. at 1064 (District made an inadequate attempt to involve teachers, parents or the community in the development of the Focus Center Programs and the general lack of community understanding about Focus Centers led to their failure). The Master’s proposal takes into account the importance of a well-informed community in the process of desegregation. Community education programs have been implemented in similar cases and are essential in developing a plan that promises to realistically work now. See Bradley v. Milliken, 402 F.Supp. 1096, 1118 (E.D.Mich.1975).
The court disagrees, however, with the Master’s proposal that the RSD provide community grants and linkages with the business community, colleges, social services agencies, park district, civil rights organizations, health services, the criminal justice system and the media. These portions of the Master’s proposal simply do not meet the standard recently reiterated by the Supreme Court: a remedial decree “ ‘must directly address and relate to the constitutional violation itself.’ ” Jenkins III, 115 S.Ct. at 2049 (quoting Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. at 281–82). While a well-informed community is desirable to garner support for a desegregation plan, it does not follow that the Master’s proposals concerning community grants, etc. are reachable by a federal court in an intentional discrimination case. The reason is simple—by requiring these latter programs, the court will have almost entirely left the realm of education. These areas were not part of the liability findings and do not relate to any vestiges of intentional discrimination. This is a court order to correct intentional discrimination; it is not to be the “Great Society” revisited. These types of programs are not approved at this time and will only be approved after a specific showing of their relationship to intentional discrimination.23
E. Early Childhood Education *13 The Master’s proposed plan contains a recommendation for Early Childhood Education (“ECE”) programs. The Master noted that in the liability opinion the Magistrate found that tracking and ability grouping led to the placement of minority students in classes that did not provide the same educational opportunities as did the placement of majority students. The Master further noted that RSD data indicated substantially lower
8

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

achievement in the C.8. (predominantly minority) schools when compared with C.9. (predominantly majority schools) or when compared to the District as a whole. The Master then concluded that “The longstanding policies and procedures of segregation in the Rockford School District have contributed to lower achievement in these schools and, over time, have contributed to poor readiness skills on the part of students entering these C.8. schools.” Proposed Plan at 46.
The ECE programs have an objective to maximize readiness for minority students so that these students could take full advantage of a non-discriminatory school system and its educational programs. The Master based his recommendation on a large body of scholarly evidence that demonstrates that early childhood programs can improve school performance. Proposed Plan at 47 n. 4. See also Tr. at 1640–42.
The ECE program, as proposed, is to be guided by four standards. First, a parent education program should be established to help parents understand the social and physical development of their children. Second, the program should be a “developmentally appropriate” pre-school program for all three and four year olds. Third, an inter-agency coordination program should be designed to address health, nutrition, child care and social service programs to improve the readiness of school children in the C.8. attendance zones. Finally, the ECE program should include a program for before and after school care for elementary age children in the C.8. attendance zones. Proposed Plan at 47.
While testifying about this aspect of his proposed Plan, the Magistrate questioned Dr. Eubanks about the necessity of the ECE as it related to any group that was discriminated against in the present lawsuit. Tr. 1642–43. It is undisputed that the three and four year olds that would benefit from the ECE were not even born when the lawsuit was initiated in 1989. The Master responded by stating the ECE was a key provision in any student assignment plan. If, for example, a controlled choice plan or a mandatory assignment plan required a student to transfer from school A to B, then the ECE would help to make sure that a C.8. youngster transferring to a C.9. school would be “ready” to take advantage of the educational programs. Tr. 1643. In the Master’s opinion, it would be a “cruel hoax” to implement a student assignment plan and not provide the complementary instructional support that is necessary for the students to participate in the program. Tr. 1644.
For the same reasons as not allowing the community grants, the Magistrate rejects the notion that an Early Childhood Education program should be included in the CRO. In the first instance, the proposal is not linked to discrimination against any group that was affected by the District’s conduct. Moreover, the programs that are

continued under ability grouping, such as ADK, Success for All, Reading Recovery, Saturday Academy, summer school programs, tutorial activities and high order thinking programs, are specifically designed to help students take advantage of the educational opportunities available in the desegregated school system. The Magistrate is aware of the fact that some of these programs may help children who were not victims of any discrimination, such as a minority child who transfers in from another school district. There is a point, however, when a program that is justified because it may help minority students achieve a level playing field in a desegregated school system exceeds the equitable power instilled in the federal courts to remedy prior intentional discrimination. The ECE program reaches that point. The Master’s justification for the ECE program would equally lend itself to supporting any program that was shown to help minority participation in the school system. This is beyond the scope of this court’s remedial powers; the nature of the desegregation remedy is to be determined by the nature and scope of the constitutional violation and the remedial decree must be “designed as nearly as possible ‘to restore the victims of discriminatory conduct to the position they would have occupied in the absence of such conduct.’ ” Milliken II, 433 U.S. at 280–81.
*14 In support of the ECE, the Master states that:
It is essential to provide educational opportunities to the offspring of those denied such opportunities to insure the required community interaction of such programs....
....
Early childhood development in education produces meaningful involvement of parents at the early age which transcends into enhanced educational opportunities in the later years. The best time to involve parents in the education of their children is when the children are very young, pre-kindergarten. The Early Childhood Education Program integrally involves parents in the education process.
....
Parents that initiate this process at an early stage with their children become more comfortable with the school district, and those persons will have a sustained involvement in the education of their children.
Master’s Proposed Findings on the Uncontested Areas at 4–6.
The court does not dispute that the ECE would be beneficial to students entering the public school system. In fact, the court strongly urges the District to continue the program because of its proven educational benefits.
9

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

The problem, however, is that by ordering such a remedial program, the court will go beyond the scope of its equitable powers. The ability of parents to “understand the social and physical development of their children” is an external factor beyond the control of the RSD and cannot be ordered by this court as part of the CRO. See Jenkins v. Missouri, 115 S.Ct. 2038, 2055–56 (1995).24
F. Bilingual Education The Master has proposed that the District shall ensure that the effects of the educational inequities with regard to Hispanic students, including bilingual students, are eliminated to the extent practicable. The Bilingual Education Program (“BEP”) is to remedy the unlawful segregation of Hispanic students and to provide equity for Hispanic and bilingual students. The BEP is to be guided by five standards: (1) Hispanic students in the BEP shall not be mandatorily reassigned while White student participation in desegregation programs is voluntary; (2) Bilingual programs shall be located in appropriate places within the Hispanic community; (3) Bilingual programs shall not be moved as a desegregation device to put individual schools in compliance with racial composition guidelines; (4) alternatives to full day classes must be provided as an option for eligible children, so that bilingual students are not isolated for the entire day; and (5) the transportation of bilingual students shall be of the same quality as transportation for other students in the District. Proposed Plan at 50–51.
The Bilingual Education Program is substantially uncontested, now that the Master has withdrawn the gifted-eligibility provision. The program is contested to the extent that the impact of the program may affect the wages, hours and terms of employment for Intervenor–Defendants.
Another area of disagreement concerns the creation of the Bilingual Education Committee (“BEC”), as proposed by Dr. Eubanks. Dr. Eubanks testified that the present Hispanic Advisory Committee should be replaced by the BEC. The District opposes the BEC, maintaining that the new committee is unnecessary to effectively oversee the bilingual program. Dr. Eubanks recommended that an individual from the human resources department serve on the newly formed BEC. Tr. 1681. All parties agree that an effective bilingual plan must include one or more teachers, who should be, if possible, bilingual teachers. Parties Stipulation Concerning Uncontested Areas at 4. This would enable the BEC to identify suitable candidates to fill positions such as psychologists and teachers for the bilingual program. The BEC would be kept accountable by requiring the BEC to keep records of what occurs during the meetings. Tr. 1681.
*15 Presently, the bilingual programs are housed at

Nashold and Riverdahl, which primarily conduct bilingual classes at the elementary level. Dr. Eubanks recommends a third site, at Barbour elementary, to cure the problem of inadequate space for the program. Tr. 1682. This suggestion will be discussed in another portion of the opinion. In addition, the Master recommends that multi-cultural awareness and staff development be made a part of the bilingual program. This recommendation was based on the fact that prior multi-cultural awareness programs have been aimed at the needs of African–American students, and were not responsive to the needs of Hispanic students. Tr. 1683. In addition, the program calls for a comprehensive plan for special education services for non and limited English speaking national origin minority students. The Master states that this is necessary to assure that students are not being placed in special education simply because they do not speak English.
The findings by this court that are contained in the Report and Recommendation clearly support all the objectives under the Master’s proposed Bilingual Education Program. Regarding transportation, a Green factor that is without question a permissible remedial area, this court found that the RSD placed an unlawful transportation burden on Hispanic students by requiring the involuntary movement of bilingual students for desegregation purposes. At the same time, no involuntary transfer burdens were placed on majority students to achieve desegregation. The bilingual program was repeatedly relocated in the past, often to bring certain schools into compliance with racial composition numbers, that furthered the unlawful transportation burden on Hispanic students. Finally, bilingual students were provided transportation that was qualitatively inferior to transportation provided to other District students. People Who Care, 851 F.Supp. at 1192.
Beyond transportation, the RSD in the past converted the half-day pull-out bilingual program (that allowed bilingual students to interact with the general school population) to a whole-day program that completely and unlawfully segregated the bilingual students from the rest of the school. Bilingual students were “steered” towards easier and less beneficial classes by English speaking counselors. In addition, bilingual students were provided with inferior educational services and curricula than were provided to White students. Finally, the RSD failed to identify potential non and limited English speaking students for the bilingual program and failed to provide meaningful special education services to non and limited English speaking students. People Who Care, 851 F.Supp. at 1192; see generally Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings Concerning Uncontested Areas at 17–24 (discussing Report and Recommendation findings of intentional discrimination and vestiges).
Given these findings in the Report and Recommendation
10

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

which were specifically adopted by Judge Roszkowski, the court hereby orders the Master’s proposed Bilingual Education Program to be implemented in its entirety, subject to the stipulations and the proposal for a third site at Barbour. The court accepts the Master’s recommendation to implement a Bilingual Education Committee in place of the existing Hispanic Advisory Council. From his testimony, which is uncontested, there has not been a single year where all the necessary psychologist and teacher positions have been filled. Tr. 1680. As to the other components of the Bilingual Education proposal, the Magistrate holds that all of these programs are appropriate under Milliken II as necessary educational components to remedy victims of past segregation or are expressly contemplated remedial areas under Green.25
G. Research, Development and Evaluation of the CRO *16 The Master’s Proposed plan calls for a “full-scale and comprehensive research, development, and evaluation unit” in the RSD. Research, development and evaluation services are “vitally important” for successful implementation of the remedial plan. Proposed Plan at 81. The Master notes that accurate, timely and user-friendly data relative to minority student participation and performance is required if the schools are to achieve and maintain equitable desegregation. In essence, this aspect of the plan is for “formative evaluation”—“what is taking place, how is it taking place, why it is taking place, [and] what changes need to take place.” Tr. 1663. Specifically, this portion of the Master’s Proposed Plan calls for the collection and dissemination of three types of data: (1) data related to student performance and participation broken down by racial/ethnic and economic background; (2) data related to classroom and schools that provides direct and practical assistance in planning and delivering instructional improvements; and (3) data that is needed to coordinate and harmonize major instructional interventions. Proposed Plan at 82.
The staffing, consultant services and funding necessary for the Evaluation and Assessment Office should be reviewed by the newly appointed Director of Research and Evaluation to determine if there are adequate personnel in place to carry out the goals of this section of the plan. By September 1 of each school year, the Director of Research and Evaluation, working with District staff and external consultants, will prepare a year end report on the progress of the RSD in meeting participation and performance standards as set forth in the court’s CRO. Proposed Plan at 83.
The court agrees with the parties’ stipulation that successful implementation of desegregation activities requires the collection and utilization of meaningful data in which both the District and the faculty become aware

of actual problems in the classroom and curricula, as well as at other levels of instruction in the District. Per Green, Swann and Freeman, a district court is to devise a remedy that is sufficiently broad and must promise to work realistically. Obviously, some implemented programs may not work as intended. The constant process of research, development and evaluation will be critical in making the CRO an efficient and cost-effective remedial program. See Liddell v. State of Missouri, 731 F.2d 1294, 1317 (8th Cir.1984) (holding that desegregation and long-range planning programs serve important compensatory and remedial objectives). As in all sections of the CRO, this program is to be funded subject to financial restraints.
H. Staff Development The Master’s Proposed Plan calls for a continuing, comprehensive staff development program for teachers, administrators and staff. The Staff Development Program is to address the findings of the court of intentional discrimination: education deficiencies in programs for minority students, student tracking/ability grouping, and segregation of students by race. Proposed Plan at 83. The Master testified that a large body of research indicates that staff development is a prerequisite for the successful implementation of a desegregation plan. Tr. 1669–70. The program is directed at remedying educational deficiencies for minority children in curricula, extra-curricular activities, pedagogical approaches, multi-culturalism and climate in schools throughout the District. Id.26
*17 The District’s current staff development programs include some 17 activities and recommendations. Essentially, the Master’s proposed Staff Development Plan suggests a coherent and comprehensive method of looking at the staff development programs that are currently embodied in the District’s Comprehensive Multi–Year Remedial Plan. In particular, the Master recommends that a committee of principals and implementers should prepare a report suggesting recommended changes in District staff development plans. Second, a revised plan incorporating modifications made by RSD personnel should be submitted to the Planning and Implementation Committee (“PIC”) and the Master. Proposed Plan at 84; Tr. 1669–71.27
The court hereby adopts the recommendations of the Master regarding the Staff Development Program. Administrators, faculty, and other staff all require orientation and training for desegregation. See, e.g., Evans v. Buchanan, 447 F.Supp. 982, 1015 (D.Del), aff’d, 582 F.2d 750, 770 (3d Cir.1978); Bradley v. Milliken, 402 F.Supp. 1096, 1118 (E.D.Mich.1975) (“In a system undergoing desegregation, teachers will require orientation and training for desegregation.”). As indicated in several quarterly reports to this court, the staff in the
11

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

District’s schools must have sufficient training and skills to effectively teach and educate students, especially in light of the prior discrimination in Rockford. Teachers and staff accustomed to virtually one-race schools will need a special emphasis in the area of culturally diverse behavior and learning patterns. See Master’s 5th Quarterly Report at 2 (training of faculty and staff needed to address problems of within school segregation); Master’s 14th Quarterly Report at 69, 72, 110 (stressing the need for additional training in the area of culturally diverse behavior and learning patterns). In the present case, the Staff Development Program is not at all unlike the in-service training program that was expressly approved of as a necessary educational component by the Supreme Court in Milliken II. See Milliken II, 433 U.S. at 287. Consequently, the Master’s Proposed Staff Development Program is ordered as a component of the CRO.
I. Participation and Performance of Minority Students The Master has proposed that the “participation and performance of minority students in the District shall reflect equitable outcomes when compared with other students in the District.” Proposed Plan at 84. The District will be required to take all practical steps to ensure that minority students attain performance outcomes comparable to other students in the District in the area of achievement, attendance, grades, graduation rates, drop-out rates, discipline referrals, discipline sanctions and other appropriate performance measures. Id.
At the present time, the court does not have enough evidence to render a decision on these issues. The parties have merely stipulated that the District will continue to “support the identification and implementation of research-based programs which have demonstrated the ability to improve minority student achievement and to close the achievement gap between majority and minority students.” Defendant’s Amended Response to Master’s Proposed Plan at 10. In other words, the stipulation does not concern the heart of the Master’s proposal, that success in this area be determined by qualitative measures. Tr. 1685–86. This issue, Student Achievement, is scheduled for segment three of the CRO, to be released in Spring of 1996.28
J. Transportation and Desegregation of Schools *18 The Master has made recommendations concerning transportation and desegregation of schools. The liability findings concerning inequitable transportation are too numerous to recount in this space.29 What is disturbing is that the District continues to operate a school system where transportation is mandatory for minority students to attend secondary schools, outside their neighborhood, while no mandatory transportation burden is placed on

majority students. Proposed Plan at 126. Through the 1989 Reorganization Plan, the District actually created a greater transportation burden on minority students than had previously existed. Id.
The Master’s transportation proposal has four principal objectives. First, the District shall not place disparate transportation burdens on minority students compared to other students and shall not confer transportation benefits on majority students as compared to minority students. Second, the District shall ensure that transportation is provided equitably to all students, in order that minority students are able to fully participate in extra-curricular activities without significant hardships. Third, the District shall provide free transportation to students making desegregative transfers under a student assignment program, to students participating in extra-curricular activities, and to other students and parents engaged in desegregation activities. Fourth, to help ensure that minority students do not continue to suffer transportation burdens, the quantity of facilities, in terms of student and program capacity, that is placed by the RSD in minority neighborhoods shall, in comparison to the rest of the District, correspond to the relative proportion of students at that grade level who reside in the minority neighborhoods. Proposed Plan at 126–27.
The Master’s proposal was agreed upon except to the extent that Intervenor–Defendants state that, “There should be no imposed disparate transportation burdens placed upon any group of students. The flawed Alves, et al., recommendations should not be adopted as part of the remedy.” Intervenor–Defendants Response to Master’s Proposed Plan at 10. In essence, the Court understands Intervenor–Defendants’ objection to concern any link the transportation remedy has to controlled choice, a student assignment program that they oppose.
The Magistrate accepts, adopts and orders the first three of the Master’s recommendations regarding transportation and desegregation of schools. Transportation is one of the Green factors and the Constitution requires that transportation be provided to all students in an equitable fashion, regardless if for regular classes, desegregative purposes or extra-curricular activities. The fourth objective may have a possible impact on placement and quantity of facilities and will be handled elsewhere in the opinion.30
K. Disposition or Acquisition of Facilities In his Proposed Plan, the Master noted that the disposition and/or acquisition of a facility can be used by a school district either to enhance desegregation or promote resegregation. One only needs to remember the closing of West High School to recall a recent example in Rockford. Therefore, the Master has proposed that any disposition or
12

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

acquisition of a facility must be used to enhance desegregation efforts. A requirement in the CRO is that the District shall not dispose of or acquire a facility without the concurrence of the PIC, the Master, and if necessary, the court. Proposed Plan at 136.
*19 The Magistrate is mindful of the Supreme Court’s admonition in Swann:
[I]n devising remedies where legally imposed segregation has been established, it is the responsibility of the local authorities and district court to see to it that future school construction and abandonment ... do not serve to perpetuate or reestablish the dual system....
Swann v. Charlotte–Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 21 (1971). The Master’s uncontested proposal is reasonable and is within the remedial power of this court; therefore, the disposition or acquisition of facilities proposal is ordered as part of the CRO. The Magistrate further orders that no construction of a facility shall occur without prior court approval.31
L. Alteration of School District Boundaries The Master has recommended that the RSD shall be precluded from altering the District’s boundaries through detachment, annexation, division, dissolution or any combination of these methods unless any such proposed action advances desegregation efforts. The court must explicitly determine and rule that any proposed action advances desegregation efforts and provides enhanced equity for minority students in the RSD. Proposed Plan at 137. The Master stated that this requirement is necessary for the CRO because, historically, school districts engaged in desegregation plans across the country attempted to alter boundaries to create separate enclaves for majority and/or minority students. Tr. 1673. In fact, the Second Interim Order details how this was attempted in Rockford, after the filing of the present lawsuit. Tr. 1674; Proposed Plan at 136. The Master’s recommendation would simply preclude the RSD from carving the school district up into separate majority and minority school districts.
The Magistrate fully adopts the Master’s proposal concerning any actions related to the alteration of school boundaries. The Report and Recommendation specifically lists examples of the RSD gerrymandering attendance boundaries in order to isolate minority students. Even without these findings, the Master’s proposed remedy is appropriate. The Supreme Court has specifically held that a district under a desegregation plan may not create new

districts to carve out “safe havens” for White students, because the creation of such districts impedes desegregation efforts. United States v. Scotland Neck City Bd. of Educ., 407 U.S. 484, 490 (1972). Accordingly, the Master’s proposal is hereby adopted by the court as a necessary part of the CRO.
M. Racial Incidents, Discrimination, Harassment or Inequity The Master included in his plan a proposal concerning racial incidents that involve discrimination, harassment or inequity. Since these incidents impede efforts to successfully implement a desegregation plan, the Master recommended that the RSD take all practicable steps to preclude and minimize the effects of racial incidents involving discrimination, harassment or inequity. Proposed Plan at 137.
*20 The proposal calls for the District to review and, if appropriate, modify, an enforceable discipline policy on racial incidents. The policy shall require the District to investigate any racial discrimination or harassment by any employee or student directed at any student, parent, or employee and apply appropriate sanctions. In addition, the policy shall be applied to any school-related incident which the District has the capability to remedy. The policy shall provide for a complaint process and the policy shall be widely disseminated by the District to employees and students. The policy shall explicitly contain a provision that enjoins the District and its agents from harassing or retaliating against any member of the plaintiff class in pursuit of implementing the CRO. Finally, the District shall inform, on a quarterly basis, the Master, Plaintiffs and Intervenor–Defendants of any investigations pursued, findings made, and, if appropriate, sanctions imposed. Proposed Plan at 137–38; Tr. 1674–76.
The stipulation provides that the basis for this remedy is Section G.9 of the Second Interim Order and the existing complaint policy and procedures thereunder.32 The stipulation further provides that all parties will have access to documents concerning implementation of this aspect of the remedy. Parties’ Stipulation on Uncontested Areas at 5.
The Magistrate hereby adopts the Master’s recommendation concerning racial incidents. No racial incidents will be allowed to impede desegregation efforts. A complaint policy and procedure, as contained in the Second Interim Order, will insure that the District does not apply the code in a discriminatory manner. In addition, the standards proposed by the Master provide that the policy is fully understood by administrators, faculty, students and parents. The racial incidents policy is reasonable and necessary for successful implementation
13

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

of the CRO. See, e.g., Evans, 582 F.2d at 772 (school board required to “develop a code of rights and responsibilities regarding such issues as student conduct and suspension and expulsion, and to insure administration of the code in an unbiased manner”).
N. Funding/Budgeting Under this objective, the Master has proposed that developing a yearly budget for the CRO remedies be continued as outlined in the May 5th Agreement. Under that agreement, the Master works with the Planning and Implementation Committee (PIC) during mid-Winter prior to the next school year.33 The Master noted that the process has worked successfully for the past two years, during which time a tort budget was developed and presented to the court without involving any dispute resolution. Because of its success, the Master has recommended that this policy continue. Proposed Plan at 150–51.
The Magistrate adopts the proposed funding mechanism for the CRO. A remedial order requires sufficient funding for its programs and input from a variety of sources assures that remedial dollars will be spent wisely and efficiently. If the PIC ceases to exist, it will be the responsibility of its successor, such as the Master aided by a citizen advisory board, to develop the budget. The court, however, will have the final say on approving the budget.
CONCLUSION: SEGMENT ONE
*21 This segment of the opinion has dealt with fourteen of the thirty remedial objectives for the CRO: ability grouping, the human relations program, curriculum and instruction, community education, early childhood education, bilingual education, research and development, staff development, student participation and performance, transportation, disposition/acquisition of facilities, alteration of District boundaries, racial incidents and funding/budgeting. The Magistrate hereby orders and directs the Rockford School District to begin immediate implementation of the fourteen remedial areas as discussed in this opinion.
SEGMENT TWO34
[Dated February 2, 1996]

IV. Student Assignment Like many urban school districts across the country, the Rockford School District (“RSD” or “District”) has been undergoing demographic changes. In 1980, the RSD had a total student population of 31,952 and the percentage of White students was 76%. 1994–95 Fall Housing Report at Tables C.7–C.11. By the 1994–95 school year, the total student population had dropped to 26,370 and the district wide percentage of White students had fallen to 65%. This segment of the opinion will deal with student assignment issues and will tackle the difficult task of developing a workable remedy that assigns students to the RSD’s public schools in a constitutional fashion. This remedy, like all remedies in the CRO, must relate to and address the liability findings of intentional discrimination that are contained in the 1993 Report and Recommendation and 1994 Order by Judge Roszkowski adopting the student assignment findings. This segment will have four sections: A. Report and Recommendation Liability Findings; B. RSD Desegregation Efforts from 1989 through 1994; C. Proposed Remedies for Student Assignment; and D. Student Assignment Remedy.
A. Report and Recommendation Liability Findings
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS The instances of intentional discrimination found in the Report and Recommendation are numerous and space does not permit a detailed review here. For purposes of a constitutional student assignment remedy for both elementary and secondary schools, the RSD must correct the vestiges of intentional discrimination as detailed in the Report and Recommendation. While not an exhaustive list, the RSD must address the following findings of the court with respect to student assignment. The court found that the RSD engaged in a pattern of unlawful acts and omissions that caused the segregation of its schools, including: the gerrymandering of school attendance area boundaries in order to create and maintain a separate school system based upon race; the manipulation of secondary school feeder patterns in order to maintain segregation; maintaining an open enrollment policy that primarily benefitted White students with voluntary alternative programs and burdened minority students through mandatory one-way busing; the building of new schools in locations so as to promote and retain segregation; the closing of schools and the reassignment of the affected students in such a way that White students went to racially identifiable White schools and Black students attended racially identifiable minority schools; the manipulation of school capacities in order to racially isolate students; and the policy of permitting special transfers to students in order to avoid attending predominantly African–American schools. See People Who Care, 851 F.Supp. at 1079–81.

14

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

*22 In addition, throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the RSD was aware of desegregation proposals that would have brought about the “swift integration” of the District. They were all rejected. Similar to the current trends in the 1990s, the programs initiated in the 1980s burdened minority students to the benefit of White students. Id. at 1081.35 Accordingly, any student assignment plan must address all of these identified areas in order to be an acceptable remedy for the constitutional violations. Tr. 25.36
B. RSD Desegregation Efforts from 1989 through 1994 A student assignment plan must take into account the liability findings and current vestiges of intentional discrimination. An important starting point for the court is to analyze student assignment patterns in the RSD since 1989. This section will track the progress of desegregation from 1989 through 1994 by grade configuration: elementary schools and secondary (middle and high) schools.
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS For student assignment at the elementary level, the vestiges that remain of the intentional discrimination are complex in nature and, at times, interrelated. For these reasons, the section on elementary schools will be discussed in six parts: (1) desegregation progress from 1989 through 1994; (2) the Southwest Quadrant capacity problem; (3) how partial desegregation was achieved; (4) the use of magnet schools; (5) present desegregation methods; and (6) conclusion.

1. Desegregation Progress From 1989 through 1994 For the 1989–90 school year, there was a total of 15,171 students enrolled in the RSD’s 36 elementary schools.37 1989–90 Fall Housing Report. The elementary student population reflected a racial composition of 29.5% minority students. Master’s Ex. 7 (Table E1 from Master’s Ex. 6). 24 schools were racially identifiable—11 racially identifiable minority (African–American and/or Hispanic) schools and 13 racially identifiable majority (White) schools.38
By the 1994–95 school year, there was a total of 15,473 elementary students, and the number of elementary schools had increased to 39. The racial composition of the elementary students had changed to 63.7% White and 36.3% minority. The number of racially identifiable schools had been reduced by the year 1994–95. In 1994–95, a racially identifiable minority school included any school that was greater than 51.3% minority (36.3% plus 15%); similarly, a racially identifiable majority school included any elementary school that had greater than 78.7% White (63.7% plus 15%) enrollment. By the 1994–95 school year, the number of racially identifiable schools had changed for the better to 12: 7 racially identifiable minority and 5 racially identifiable majority. Master’s Ex. 7; Tr. 54–55.39 Table 1 lists the elementary schools and their racial composition for 1989–90 and 1994–95. Maps 1 and 2 show, respectively, the racially identifiable schools for 1989–90 and 1994–95.40
[Editor’s Note: Maps 1 and 2 are not reproducible.]
	  

Table	  141	   	  	  
	  
	  	   	  

	  
	  
School	   	  	   	   Barbour	   	  	   	   Beyer	   	  	   	   Bloom	   	  	  

1989–90	   	  	   	   %	  White	   	  	   	  
25.7	   	  	   	   55.1	   	  	   	   95.1	  w	   	  	  

	  
%	  Minority	   	  	   	   74.3	  m	   	  	  
	  
44.9	  m	   	  	  
	   4.9	   	  	  

1994–95	   	  	   	   %	  White	   	  	   	  
20.2	  
	  	  
	  
60.6	  
	  	  
	  
68.4	  
	  	  

	  
%	  Minority	   	  	   	  
79.8	  m	   	  	   	   39.4	   	  	   	   31.6	   	  	  

15

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

	   Brookview	   	  	   	   Carlson	   	  	   	   Cherry	  Valley	   	  	   	   Church	   	  	   	   Conklin	   	  	   	   Dennis	   	  	   	   Ellis	   	  	   	   Fairview	   	  	   	   Froberg	   	  	   	   Gregory	   	  	   	   Haskell	   	  	   	   Hillman	   	  	   	   Jackson	   	  	   	   Johnson	   	  	   	   King	   	  	   	   Kishwaukee	   	  	   	   Lathrop	   	  	   	   Lewis	  Lemon	   	  	   	   Marsh	   	  	   	   McIntosh	   	  	   	   Nashold	   	  	  

	  
87.6	  w	   	  	  
	  
82.2	   	  	   	   92.6	  w	   	  	  
	  
18.9	   	  	   	   71.2	   	  	   	   42.4	   	  	   	   6.4	   	  	   	   69.4	   	  	   	   95.9	  w	   	  	  
	  
85.2	   	  	   	   29.8	   	  	   	   85.6	  w	   	  	  
	  
73.5	   	  	   	   86.7	  w	   	  	  
	  
52.2	   	  	   	   53.8	   	  	   	   64.5	   	  	   	   not	  open	   	  	   	   not	  open	   	  	   	   36.4	   	  	   	   52.4	   	  	  

	   12.4	   	  	   	  
17.8	   	  	   	  
7.4	   	  	   	  
81.1	  m	   	  	  
	  
28.8	   	  	   	   57.6	  m	   	  	  
	  
93.6	  m	   	  	  
	  
30.6	   	  	   	  
4.1	   	  	   	  
14.8	   	  	   	   70.2	  m	   	  	  
	   14.4	   	  	   	  
26.5	   	  	   	  
13.3	   	  	   	  
47.8	  m	   	  	  
	  
46.2	  m	   	  	  
	  
35.5	   	  	   	   	  
	  
63.6	  m	   	  	  
	  
47.6	  m	   	  	  

	   74.7	   	  	   	  
71.7	   	  	   	  
93.9	  w	   	  	   	   closed	   	  	   	  
62.9	   	  	   	  
37.8	   	  	   	   16.9	   	  	   	  
closed	   	  	   	  
83.2	  w	   	  	   	  
75.1	   	  	   	  
17.3	   	  	   	   71.6	   	  	   	  
66.4	   	  	   	  
77.9	   	  	   	   43.7	   	  	   	   55.5	   	  	   	  
62.2	   	  	   	   46.9	   	  	   	   74.3	   	  	   	  
38.7	   	  	   	   52.4	   	  	  

	   25.3	   	  	   	  
28.3	   	  	   	  
6.1	   	  	   	   	  
37.1	   	  	   	  
62.2	  m	   	  	   	   83.1	  m	   	  	   	  
	  
16.8	   	  	   	  
24.9	   	  	   	  
82.7	  m	   	  	   	   28.4	   	  	   	  
33.6	   	  	   	  
22.1	   	  	   	   56.3	  m	   	  	   	   44.5	   	  	   	  
37.8	   	  	   	   53.1	   	  	   	   25.7	   	  	   	  
61.3	  m	   	  	   	   47.6	   	  	  

16

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

	   Nelson	   	  	   	   New	  Milford	   	  	   	   Riverdahl	   	  	   	   Rock	  River	   	  	   	   Rolling	  Green	   	  	   	   Sci/Tech	  Adad.	   	  	   	   Spring	  Creek	   	  	   	   Stiles	   	  	   	   Summerdale	   	  	   	   Thompson	   	  	   	   Walker	   	  	   	   Washington	   	  	   	   Welsh	   	  	   	   Westview	   	  	   	   West	  CAPA	   	  	   	   Whitehead	   	  	   	   White	  Swan	   	  	   	   	  
	  
w	  =	  racially	  identifiable	  White	   	  	  
	  
m	  =	  racially	  identifiable	  Minority	   	  	  
	  

	   86.3	  w	   	  	  
	  
96.3	  w	   	  	  
	  
not	  open	   	  	   	   66.9	   	  	   	   78.1	   	  	   	   not	  open	   	  	   	   92.7	  w	   	  	  
	  
28.2	   	  	   	   62.9	   	  	   	   92.0	  w	   	  	  
	  
71.8	   	  	   	   56.9	   	  	   	   84.1	   	  	   	   66.9	   	  	   	   90.8	  w	   	  	  
	  
89.3	  w	   	  	  
	  
94.1	  w	   	  	  
	  
	  
	  

	   13.7	   	  	   	   3.7	   	  	   	  
	  
33.1	   	  	   	   21.9	   	  	   	   	  
7.3	   	  	   	  
71.8	  m	   	  	  
	  
37.1	   	  	   	  
8.0	   	  	   	  
28.2	   	  	   	   43.1	   	  	   	   15.9	   	  	   	   33.1	   	  	   	  
9.2	   	  	   	   10.7	   	  	   	   5.9	   	  	   	  
	  
	  

	  
78.4	  
	  	  
	   92.3	  w	  
	  	  
	  
48.7	   	  	   	   62.5	   	  	   	   76.5	   	  	   	   48.8	   	  	   	  
74.9	  
	  	  
	  
40.3	  
	  	  
	  
65.4	   	  	   	  
80.2	  w	  
	  	  
	  
75.1	   	  	   	   54.1	   	  	   	   70.9	   	  	   	   68.4	   	  	   	  
75.2	  
	  	  
	  
72.2	  
	  	  
	  
79.1	  w	  
	  	  
	  
	  
	  

	  
21.6	  
	  	  
	  
7.7	  
	  	  
	  
51.3	   	  	   	   37.5	   	  	   	   23.5	   	  	   	   51.2	   	  	   	  
25.1	  
	  	  
	  
59.7	  m	  
	  	  
	  
34.6	   	  	   	  
19.8	  
	  	  
	  
24.9	   	  	   	   45.9	   	  	   	   29.1	   	  	   	   31.6	   	  	   	  
24.8	  
	  	  
	  
27.8	  
	  	  
	  
20.9	  
	  	  
	  
	  	   	   	  	   	  

17

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

*23 Table 1 demonstrates that on the elementary school level, the RSD has made improvements in desegregating its schools.42 A close look at how this level of desegregation was accomplished, however, reveals two disturbing facts: One, by and large, the burden of desegregation falls directly on the RSD’s minority student population; and, two, the RSD appears to be intentionally discriminating against minority students.
As Map 1 demonstrates, in 1989–90, with the exception of three racially identifiable schools that were only slightly imbalanced (Nashold, Kishwaukee and Beyer), the District’s eight most racially identifiable minority schools were located west of the Rock River in the Southwest Quadrant. And, with the exception of the gifted CAPA program for grades 4 through 6 at West Middle School, all of the District’s 13 racially identifiable White elementary schools were east of the river. Master’s Ex. 6 at 10, 55.43 Although the number of racially identifiable schools dropped from 24 in 1989, to 12 in 1994, Map 2 demonstrates that the geographic and historical distribution of racially identifiable White and minority schools has not changed in response to interim orders. Master’s Ex. 6 at 10–11. In other words, the racially identifiable minority schools are still in the Southwest Quadrant and the racially identifiable White schools remain east of the Rock River. This is a pattern that has existed for decades and is a pattern which the RSD has been found to have intentionally maintained for decades. A constitutional student assignment policy must, to the extent practicable, bring the remaining twelve racially identifiable schools within 15 percentage points of the elementary minority student population.

229. In short, under the present configuration of the RSD’s elementary schools, a significantly greater proportion of White students attend neighborhood schools than minority students. Master’s Ex. 6 at 13. The question that must be answered is why?
In 1994–95, the RSD had a total capacity of 15,979 elementary students in the 35 attendance zone schools. Master’s Exhibit 6 at 56–57. The capacity breaks down as follows: SW Quadrant, 3,036; NW Quadrant, 2,318; NE Quadrant, 4,218; and SE Quadrant, 6,407. While the SW Quadrant has capacity for 3,036 students, some 4,272 elementary students reside in the SW Quadrant, meaning that approximately 1,236 elementary students residing in the Southwest Quadrant are displaced—they cannot attend their neighborhood school if they want to. Tr. 61–62.
*24 Take, for example, a student who is assigned to and resides in the Ellis School attendance zone. The Ellis School attendance zone has 916 resident students but only has capacity for 422, less than 50% of the resident students. This gives a parent of a student in the Ellis attendance zone certain choices. Obviously, a certain number of students can actually attend Ellis School. Since more than half of Ellis School parents do not have this option, a parent might then choose to have his or her K through 6 student attend one of the adjoining or nearby attendance zones. An important observation, however, makes this second option not an option at all: all of the attendance zones adjacent to Ellis School are also over capacity. In the same way that there is no room at Ellis for the student; likewise, the parent cannot send his or her child to an adjoining attendance zone school because there is no room.

2. The Southwest Quadrant Capacity Problem The RSD presently utilizes attendance zones44 to assign the vast majority of its elementary students. Presently, the RSD has 35 elementary schools that are being operated as attendance zone schools.45 Thirteen of these elementary schools have attendance areas west of the river and twenty-two elementary schools have attendance areas on the east side of the river. For the 1994–95 school year, a total of 10,283 elementary students (66.5%) attended their

Ellis School is just an example; in fact, this problem burdens the entire Southwest Quadrant, which has an elementary resident student population that is 76.3% minority. The Southwest Quadrant has 140.7% resident utilization—meaning, the SW Quadrant has 40.7% more elementary resident students than available seats. Table 2 shows the capacity, number of resident students, percent resident minority and percent resident utilization for the city’s four quadrants.

residence-zone school. 79% of the District’s White

elementary students attended their residence-zone school,

as compared to 44% of the RSD’s minority students. Tr.

	  

Table	  2	  

	  	  

	  

	  	  

	  

18

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

	  
Quadrant	   	  	   	  
Southwest	   	  	   	  
Northwest	   	  	   	  
Northeast	   	  	   	  
Southeast	   	  	   	  

Capacity	   	  	   	  
3,036	   	  	   	  
2,318	   	  	   	  
4,218	   	  	   	  
6,407	   	  	   	  

#	  resident	  students	   	  	   	  
4,272	   	  	   	  
2,181	   	  	   	  
3,242	   	  	   	  
5,766	   	  	   	  

%	  resident	  minority	   	  	   	  
76.3	   	  	   	  
24.9	   	  	   	  
12.3	   	  	   	  
17.7	   	  	   	  

%	  resident	  utilization	   	  	   	  
140.7	   	  	   	  
94.1	   	  	   	  
76.9	   	  	   	  
90.0	   	  	   	  

Therefore, Table 2 makes it clear that students living east of the Rock River (who are predominantly White) may attend their residential attendance zones, if they so choose. This same opportunity is not afforded to elementary students that live in the Southwest Quadrant (who are overwhelmingly minority). The Magistrate concludes that the Southwest Quadrant is the only sector of the City that lacks sufficient space to accommodate its resident students in their neighborhood attendance zones. See Master’s Ex. 6 at 17. The lack of capacity problem has, in part, led to over 2,000 minority students transferring out of the SW Quadrant to attend elementary schools in 1994–95. Id. at 17–18, 56.
The Magistrate finds that the racial disparities in student access to elementary schools continue as a result of the District’s discriminatory closing of several Southwest Quadrant schools in the 1970s and 1980s. See Master’s Ex. 6 at 19; Tr. 230. The Magistrate concludes, therefore, that the capacity shortage in the Southwest Quadrant of some 1,200 seats is a vestige of the intentional discrimination of the RSD. In addition, the present attendance zone student assignment policy continues to contribute to segregative student enrollments and has a discriminatory impact. Tr. 81. The capacity problem, which lingers as a vestige of intentional discrimination, must be addressed in a constitutional student assignment policy.
3. How Partial Desegregation was Achieved *25 The question of how the District has achieved some desegregation from 1989 through 1994 still has not been answered. Unfortunately for Rockford’s minority elementary student population, the answer lies in the Southwest Quadrant’s capacity problem. As will be seen, the RSD has actually had an incentive to keep the SW Quadrant at a level of significant under-capacity—because by doing so, some 2,000

elementary students per year (most of whom are minority) are compelled to ride buses far outside their attendance zone. In short, it is apparent that the RSD has been attempting to desegregate its schools by maintaining and preserving the capacity shortage in the Southwest Quadrant.
In reality, the Rockford School District has already selected its method of desegregation: the busing of students. Student transportation by yellow buses is a fact of life in Rockford. For the 1994–95 school year, with no court-ordered student assignment plan in place, approximately 7,969 or 51% of the elementary students were transported to their schools. Master’s Ex. 6 at 27. The problem with the District’s present student assignment plan, however, is that it does not apply the “remedy” in a non-discriminatory fashion. To start, almost 60% of the District’s minority elementary students ride a bus, as compared to roughly 50% of the District’s White elementary students. Master’s Ex. 6 at 27. In the Southwest Quadrant alone, approximately 1,957 of the minority elementary students were transported in 1994–95, a significant number of whom were transported outside their attendance zones. Master’s Ex. 6 at E.5.
Further, the data shows that, by and large, only the transportation of minority students had any significant desegregative effect. For example, approximately 17% of the District’s transported White elementary students had a positive effect on desegregation, as compared to at least 50% of the transported minority students. The vast majority of White students who are transported, travel to their attendance zone school or to other schools on the east side of the river. See Master’s Ex. 6 at 28.
In addition, the pattern of integration transfers reveals disparate transportation burdens. In 1994–95, for example, 1,041 elementary students were granted “integration” transfers. Of those transfers, 1,007 were minority and only 34 were White. Master’s Ex. 6 at 24.
19

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

Therefore, 1,007 minority elementary students are bused each and every day to “integrate” the Rockford public school system. Only 34 White students share this burden. Tr. 73.46
In the Magistrate’s opinion, these 1,000 plus minority transfers can hardly be called “voluntary.” Four reasons can be advanced why a parent would place his or her child on a bus to be transferred out of that child’s attendance zone. First, a parent may believe in integrated schools as desirable so that children can, at an early age, interact with children of different races and backgrounds. This noble reason for transferring a child is based on a belief that children who get to know and associate with each other, will, in the future, be able to live in peace together. A second reason would be the belief that your attendance zone school is not as “good” a school as the school to which your child will be bused. A parent would, therefore, be sending his or her child to a better educational experience. A third reason would be an attractive magnet program at the school to which your child is being transferred. Currently, however, there are no magnet programs that would attract minority children to the east side of the river. Rather, all of the magnet programs are on the west side of the river. The fourth and last reason for a child to leave his or her attendance zone would be that the school district had mandatorily reassigned the child.

the child can then be mandatorily reassigned, notwithstanding that this may be labeled a “voluntary integration transfer” by the RSD. The court cannot allow the RSD to achieve levels of desegregation solely by the displacement of minority elementary students. The Magistrate finds, therefore, that the pattern of “voluntary”47 transfers for purposes of integration further demonstrates that the RSD has placed the burden of desegregation on the District’s minority students.
4. The Use of Magnet Schools One of the components of the present effort by the RSD to numerically desegregate its elementary schools is the use of the magnet school. Since 1989–90, the RSD has built three elementary magnet schools: Lewis Lemon, the Rockford Science and Technology Academy (“RSTA”) and Washington. In 1994–95, these three schools had a combined enrollment of 1,409 students. Master’s Ex. 6 at 24. The magnets enrolled a total of 813 White students, 400 from the west side and 413 from the east side. This data supports the notion that White students will voluntarily enroll in west side schools if there is an educationally attractive program. The magnet programs are classified by this court as a success. They provide an excellent educational opportunity for both the minority and majority students and do help desegregate the elementary population.48

*26 Therefore, for minority children, the only applicable reasons are numbers one, two and four. Although reason one is noble, it does not explain the vast number of transfers out of the SW Quadrant. That leaves reasons two and four. The problem with the second reason is that it is perhaps in the District’s interest to make sure that the Southwest Quadrant elementary schools are perceived as being not as “good” as the other elementary schools in the district. The present system utilized by the RSD arguably fosters the perception in the minority community that their child will be better off if the child is bused to the other (White) side of town. In other words, the student assignment program for minority elementary students is aided (the court hopes unintentionally) by low performance levels at SW Quadrant schools, when in fact, the School Board should be encouraged to increase the performance level of those schools. Consequently, any student assignment plan must encourage the RSD to improve the achievement levels of the west side schools.

5. Present Desegregation Methods: Voluntary for White Students, Mandatory for Minority Students Observing how the seven elementary schools changed from racially identifiable White in 1989, to “integrated” in 1994, illustrates the RSD’s current method of desegregating the elementary schools. Bloom school, for example, before transfers were considered, had 13 minority students out of 282 in 1994–95. 1994–95 Fall Housing Report at Table E.2. Bloom school received 90 White transfers and 156 minority transfers, to arrive at a total of 525 students. Thus, before the transfers, Bloom school was 95.4% White. After the transfers, which were over 60% minority, Bloom school was no longer racially identifiable White, with 68.4% White and 31.6% minority. Table 3 summarizes this data for the seven elementary schools that changed from racially identifiable White to “integrated.”

The fourth reason, that the child is mandatorily

reassigned, is a problem because it encourages the RSD to

maintain the shortage of seats in the SW Quadrant. If

	  

there is no room for a child in his or her attendance zone,

Table	  3	  

	  	  

	  

	  	  

	  

20

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

	  
School	   	  	   	  
Bloom	   	  	   	   Spr.	  Creek	   	  	   	   Whitehead	   	  	   	   Brookview	   	  	   	   Johnson	   	  	   	   Nelson	   	  	   	   Hillman	   	  	   	  

Pre–T	  %	  White49	   	  	  
	  
95.4	   	  	   	   85.9	   	  	   	   79.5	   	  	   	   90.6	   	  	   	   88.8	   	  	   	   81.1	   	  	   	   79.3	   	  	   	  

W–Transfers50	  
	  	  
	  
90	   	  	   	   −31	   	  	   	   −49	   	  	   	   −24	   	  	   	   4	   	  	   	   −70	   	  	   	   −6	   	  	   	  

*27 Table 3 demonstrates the dual nature of the RSD’s present desegregation efforts. First, through voluntary programs, White elementary students have left racially identifiable east side schools and have entered magnets, gifted programs or alternative programs. Second, partly because of under capacity, many minority students have had no choice but to enroll in these east side schools, thereby achieving some levels of numeric integration. The conclusion is simple and inescapable: the system is presently voluntary for White elementary students and mandatory for minority elementary students.53

6. Conclusion: Elementary Schools In summary, Rockford has achieved some statistical improvement in the area of student assignment in its elementary schools. This section has shown, however, that the current methods of desegregation in Rockford are essentially voluntary for Whites and mandatory for children of color. Beyond being unfair, this pattern effectively continues the RSD’s policy of unlawfully discriminating against Black and Hispanic schoolchildren. Specifically, the student assignment plan in this school district must address three problems at the elementary level. One, the lack of (or under) capacity in the SW Quadrant. Two, the assignment plan must not engage in intentional discrimination and the unequal transportation burdens on minority schoolchildren must be removed. Three, the assignment plan must correct the previous

M–Transfers51	  
	  	  
	  
153	   	  	   	   52	   	  	   	   26	   	  	   	   80	   	  	   	   56	   	  	   	   0	   	  	   	   46	   	  	   	  

Post–T	  %	  White52	  
	  	  
	  
68.4	   	  	   	   74.9	   	  	   	   72.2	   	  	   	   74.7	   	  	   	   77.9	   	  	   	   78.4	   	  	   	   71.6	   	  	   	  

intentional discrimination of the RSD in the student assignment area, as delineated in section IV.A. of this segment of the opinion. A constitutional student assignment plan must, to the extent practicable, bring all elementary schools to plus or minus 15% of the racial composition of the District’s elementary student population. This court will not endorse any plan which is voluntary for the White elementary students of the city of Rockford, while being a mandatory reassignment plan for the minority students.

SECONDARY SCHOOLS For the most part, the most severe constitutional violations and vestiges concern the elementary students in the RSD. Nonetheless, a constitutional student assignment plan at the secondary level must address three problems in addition to correcting the previously mentioned vestiges of the intentional discrimination (see supra section IV.A.): (1) the lack of capacity; (2) unequal transportation burdens; and (3) disparity in facilities.

1. Secondary School Enrollment and Capacity For 1994–95, there were 4,044 students enrolled in the RSD’s middle schools (grades 7–8) and 6,744 high school students (grades 9–12).54 Of the 10,78855 seventh through twelfth graders, 3,586, or 33% were minority students. Of
21

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

the 6,744 high school students, 2,145, or 31.7% were

Hispanic and who live west of the river attend one of

minority. In terms of secondary student enrollment by

these two west side secondary schools. The other half are

residence, 2,267, or 35% of all high school students

bused across the river to mandatory assignments in east

resided west of the Rock River and 64% of the minority

side secondary schools. Therefore, the Magistrate

high school students resided on the west side of the Rock

concludes that the southwest and northwest quadrants are

River. For the 1,404 African–American RSD high school

“supply side” locales that provide minority students to

students, 77% resided on the west side. Master’s Ex. 6 at

balance east side schools. See Master’s Ex. 6 at 33.

30.

The problem at the secondary level, as with elementary

*28 Given that minority students in grades seven through

schools, is lack of capacity. Table 4 shows the 1994–95

twelve are heavily concentrated on the west side, the

capacity for the RSD’s four high schools.

problem with the District’s present student assignment

policy is that only two of the eight secondary facilities,

West Middle School and Auburn High School, are located

	  

on the west side. Master’s Ex. 6 at 32. Half of the

secondary students who are African–American or

Table	  4	  

	  	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	   High	  School	   	  	   	  
Auburn	   	  	   	   East	   	  	   	   Guilford	   	  	   	   Jefferson	   	  	   	  

	  	   Capacity	  

	  	  

	   	  	  

	  

	  

	   1,635	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	   2,070	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	   2,020	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	   2,380	  

	  

	  	  

	  

The problem becomes apparent when considering that of the 6,744 high school students, approximately 2,267 reside west of the Rock River. With Auburn High School as the only “local” facility, that translates into 139% utilization, or 39% over capacity. By contrast, the remaining 4,477 high school students live east of the river, with capacity in the three high schools at 6,470. This results in a comfortable utilization rate of 69%.
The problem is not helped by the existence of two specialized programs housed at Auburn High School: the

Creative and Performing Arts Program (“CAPA”) and the Centralized Gifted Program (the “Academy”). These two “stand alone” programs have a total enrollment of 500 to 600 individuals, a significant percentage of whom are White students, many of whom are from the east side of the river.56 Thus, the specialty programs at Auburn High are predominantly White and function to bring the school into compliance with the district wide percentage of minority/majority students. Tr. 353.
Whether the specialty programs constitute within school
22

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

segregation is not relevant with regard to student assignment. For this part of the opinion, the court will assume that these programs will be allowed to continue. The problem, however, is that at Auburn High, the specialty programs take up approximately 550 seats, when there is already a capacity problem west of the river. After subtracting those seats from Auburn’s total capacity of 1,635, the utilization rate soars to 209%.57 If these high school specialty programs are allowed to continue, they must be housed at another location.

condition of the existing facilities. Not only must west side minority students deal with a lack of capacity problem, the middle school which they attend in the greatest percentage, West Middle School, is inferior to the other middle schools in space, physical condition and equipment. The facility deficiencies are too many to address here, but the inadequacies contained in the report by Dr. James Heald must be addressed in any constitutional student assignment plan. See also Tr. 355–359 (structural deficiencies at West Middle School and Auburn High School).60

2. Unequal Transportation Burdens As might be expected, similar to the problems existing in the elementary schools, the lack of secondary facilities on the west side has led to inequitable transportation burdens. One stark example is that 58% of African–American students are bused from west of the river to east side secondary schools, while only 8% of White students on the east side are bused across the river. Master’s Ex. 6 at 34.
*29 There are essentially three categories of secondary school transportation. First, 25% of all secondary student transportation includes students (mostly minority) that are bused from west to east to achieve racial balance in east side schools. Second, a mere 8% of the total transportation is for east side White students to attend west side specialty programs. Third, the remaining 67% of secondary student transportation has little or no effect on desegregation. Master’s Ex. 6 at 34. No White students from grades seven through twelve, except for those few attending specialty programs, travel from east of the Rock River to schools on the west side. Master’s Ex. 6 at 32; Tr. 349. The Magistrate finds that minority secondary students, especially African–American students, bear an extremely disproportionate share of the transportation burden. Tr. 350.58
Therefore, the first problem that exists in the secondary schools is the lack of seats (capacity) west of the river which inevitably causes the second problem, the disparate transportation burdens. Given that minority students are heavily concentrated on the west side of the river and only two of the eight secondary facilities are west of the river, it should be no surprise that from 1989 through 1994, RSD minority secondary students were bused across the river to schools that were 30 to 60 minutes away from their homes. Master’s Ex. 6 at 32. In contrast, very few east side White students cross the river and those that do are-enrolled in specialty programs.59
3. Disparity in Facilities The third major problem that exists in the secondary schools (beyond capacity and transportation) is the

4. Conclusion: Secondary Schools In conclusion, the RSD must correct the intentional discrimination as detailed in the Report and Recommendation, as stated in section IV.A. of this segment of the opinion. More specifically, a constitutional student assignment plan must correct the following inequities: the west side capacity situation (both middle and high school), transportation burdens and quality of facilities. The court cannot endorse a student assignment remedy that does not address the inequalities in each of these areas. Finally, as with elementary student assignment, the student assignment plan for secondary students must assign students to each secondary school so that each school is within 15 percentage points of the district wide percentage of majority/minority secondary students.61
C. Proposed Remedies for Student Assignment During the CRO hearings, the Magistrate considers there to have been four proposed solutions to the student assignment problems in the RSD: controlled choice (option A), controlled choice with magnets (option B), mandatory reassignment and maintaining the present, misnomered “voluntary” plan. The court has already rejected the status quo.
*30 That leaves the controlled choice options and mandatory reassignment. According to the evidence at trial, controlled choice was fully supported by the Rockford School Board (“RSB”) by a 7 to 0 vote before the CRO hearings commenced. According to Dr. Ronald Epps, the Superintendent of the Rockford School District, the RSD supported controlled choice as the “best means for desegregat[ion]” as early as January 6, 1995. Tr. 3699–3700. In addition, the RSD repeated its position in favor of controlled choice (option A) in its amended response to the Master’s proposed CRO, filed in August of 1995.
The CRO hearings commenced on October 16, 1995. Testimony and evidence relating to student assignment was taken in the first segment of the trial, from October
23

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

16 through October 31, 1995. Additional testimony and evidence on student assignment was taken during the week of December 18, 1995. During this time period, from October 16 to December 21, 1995, the RSD presented its position to the court on student assignment: option A of controlled choice. This was no surprise, as the RSD had supported this remedy for approximately one full year. On December 22, 1995, all evidence on student assignment was closed.
Within the last few days, on January 26, 1996, the RSD filed a motion to reopen the evidence on student assignment. The motion states that on November 7, 1995, midway through the hearings, a school board election took place, and four new members were elected to the RSB. The motion further states that on January 9, 1995, the newly elected RSB voted to rescind the action of the previous board, relative to its support for controlled choice. The RSD now wants to submit a new plan to the court.
It is the obligation of this court to fashion a remedy that places this school district in compliance with the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth amendment may not be revoked by a community at a school board election.
There is always the possibility, however, that a new plan could be developed that addresses all of the liability findings, ends intentional discrimination and corrects the vestiges of past discrimination.62 The Board claims a new and improved plan. The court is willing to listen. A word of caution, however, is in order. If the school board does not demonstrate the determination to implement an effective plan to eliminate the vestiges of intentional discrimination in the student assignment area, the court will establish a mechanism to do so.
For now, however, the motion of the RSD is GRANTED to the following extent. The RSD will be given fourteen (14) days to present in writing a detailed student assignment plan that addresses each and every one of the constitutional violations discussed in this segment of the opinion. The plan must correct the acts of intentional discrimination and the results or vestiges of those acts of intentional discrimination as detailed in the Report and Recommendation. All parties are given seven days thereafter to respond. There will be no extensions of this schedule, for any reason. The plan submitted by the RSD will be considered along with the controlled choice options and mandatory reassignment plan when the court orders a remedy in the conclusion of this segment of the opinion. The court is in no need of further testimony. After receipt of the plan and comments by the parties, the court will complete Sections C, Proposed Remedies for Student Assignment and D, Student Assignment Remedy.

SEGMENT TWO63
[Dated March 12, 1996]
IV. Student Assignment (continued)
C. Proposed Remedies for Student Assignment (continued) *31 On February 2, 1996, this court entered the first part of segment two of the CRO. At that time, the court considered a motion by the District to reopen proofs on student assignment because the Rockford School Board (“RSB”) had changed its position on controlled choice. The Magistrate granted the RSD’s motion and allowed the Board to file a new student assignment plan by February 16, 1996. On February 13, 1996, the District filed a motion for leave to withdraw its motion to reopen proofs on student assignment. In that motion, Defendant detailed that on February 9, 1996, the Board met to consider its efforts at developing an alternative plan, determined that an alternative plan was not feasible, and therefore, voted by four to three to switch again and support controlled choice Option A. Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Withdraw Motion to Reopen Proofs at 5–6. Defendant’s motion is GRANTED; accordingly, there is no alternative plan from the RSD.
Consequently, there are three proposed remedies for the constitutional violations discussed in Sections A and B of this segment of the opinion: a mandatory assignment plan (“MAP”), controlled choice Option A and controlled choice Option B. A possible “fourth” alternative, the status quo, has already been rejected by this court in Sections B and C of this segment. This section will detail the elements of these three plans, and, in Section D, the court will order a student assignment remedy.
1. Mandatory Assignment Plan The MAP has a primary focus on the distribution of students in a racially equitable manner. Master’s Ex. 46 at 2. The MAP is designed to systematically assign students to all RSD schools according to racial/ethnic classifications. The MAP would end the practice of minority students alone being mandatorily reassigned. (See supra p. 64); Master’s Ex. 45 at 3.
At the elementary school level, the building blocks of the MAP are “geocodes.” Geocodes are census tract or subtract groupings of residential blocks. Under the MAP, all RSD elementary schools would be assigned students
24

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

by geocode unit clusters. Geocodes would be aggregated in clusters that are within the fifteen points of the district wide percentage of minority elementary students. Master’s Ex. 45 at 4. At the elementary level, the MAP’s first objective is to desegregate the remaining seven SW Quadrant racially identifiable minority schools. As planned, the MAP would be immediately successful in numerically desegregating all of the former racially identifiable minority schools in the SW Quadrant. Master’s Ex. 45 at 12. Included in the MAP proposal is that the Cherry Valley and New Milford Schools be closed. Closing these two schools would serve to minimize overall transportation distances because these schools lie on the outskirts of the District. Master’s Ex. 45 at 13; Tr. 3081. Finally, the assignment methods of the MAP would eventually equalize transportation burdens. Master’s Ex. 45 at 13.
*32 In addition to numerical desegregation at the elementary level, the MAP has certain recommendations concerning facilities and equipment. For example, the MAP recommends that both Barbour and Ellis be replaced by new K–8 elementary schools, each with a capacity for 550 elementary and 260 middle school students. Master’s Ex. 45 at 26; Master’s Ex. 46 at 4; Tr. 3082. In addition, the MAP suggests that the elementary Gifted and CAPA programs be moved to Wilson (Rockford Science & Technology Academy (RSTA)) within a K–8 grade structure.
The MAP also contains recommendations at the secondary school level. In contrast to the plus or minus 15% guideline for the elementary schools, the MAP proposes that all secondary schools be within 5% of the district wide average. Master’s Ex. 45 at 17. The MAP proposes that RSD have five middle schools: Eisenhower, Flinn, Lincoln, a reopened Kennedy and a new nature magnet middle school in the SW Quadrant. The addition of the new magnet would alleviate west side capacity shortages.
The four non-magnet middle schools would be assigned students from designated elementary “feeder” schools. Master’s Ex. 45 at 20. Wherever practicable under the MAP, middle school facilities would be assigned students from elementary schools that were proximate to each middle school in order to minimize transportation. At the middle school level, the MAP would reconfigure the middle school grades to 6–8 instead of 7–8. The addition of sixth graders would be absorbed by the additional magnet school and the 6–8 grade seats at Barbour, Ellis and Wilson. Master’s Ex. 46 at 4.
The RSD would continue to have four high schools: Auburn, Guilford, Jefferson and a new West/East High School. The MAP recommends that the facility at West be replaced because repairing, renovating and maintaining the existing facility would not be cost-effective.

Therefore, a new West/East High School is recommended to be built in the SW Quadrant which would absorb the former East High School students. The new school in the SW Quadrant would equalize capacity relative to resident enrollment, thereby equalizing transportation burdens. Master’s Ex. 46 at 3.64
Similar to the middle schools, the four high schools would have feeder patterns from the District’s elementary schools. Thus, the MAP provides some degree of stability and continuity, as a parent would know from a child’s elementary assignment both the assigned middle and high school. Master’s Ex. 45 at 34; Tr. 3075. The MAP would also equalize some of the transportation burdens outlined in the previous section: for the first time, majority students would be required to take buses across the Rock River to attend west side secondary schools. Tr. 3076.
The MAP provides for an implementation structure to carry out the plan. The structure would require organizational and administrative changes in the District in order to carry out the educational purposes of the plan. Tr. 3070. A Desegregation Office would be established, headed by a person jointly responsible to the court and the school board. Tr. 3087. Additionally, a parent information center would be essential so that parents could be informed about various components of the plan. Master’s Ex. 45 at 38; Tr. 3082.
*33 The MAP is projected to have a one-time construction/renovation cost in the amount of $72,865,125. In addition, there would be a one-time implementation cost of $1,025,270. Finally, the annual operating cost of implementing the MAP would be approximately $3,108,650. Therefore, the MAP would cost the RSD nearly $74 million in one-time charges and an additional $3 million per year in annual operating costs. Master’s Ex. 50A; Tr. 3197–3234.
2. Controlled Choice Option A A second student assignment plan is controlled choice. There are two controlled choice plans before the court. The District supports controlled choice with no capital improvements (Option A). The Master and Plaintiffs support controlled choice with capital improvements, commonly referred to as magnet multipliers or Option B. The two alternatives will be discussed as separate plans.65
a. Concepts of Controlled Choice Under controlled choice, all racial groups are guaranteed proportional access to all schools and programs of choice so that all schools will have a student body reflective of the District as a whole. Tr. 112–15, 1345–46. Controlled choice is essentially a voluntary plan combined with a
25

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

mandatory back-up. Tr. 241. The plan is voluntary to the extent that any parent in the District is given the freedom to choose schools at all grade levels so long as these choices result in the District’s schools being within fifteen percentage points of the district wide average of minority students. The testimony is that 80 to 90% of parents will receive their first, second or third choice.66 The system has a mandatory component to the extent that parents’ choices result in schools that would not be within these racial/ethnic guidelines. Tr. 241.
An important precept of controlled choice is that all students are to be assigned schools within the plan’s racial fairness guidelines. These guidelines direct that “non-magnet” elementary and middle schools will be considered “desegregated” if the school’s racial composition is within fifteen points of the district wide percentage of minority67 students at that grade configuration. Tr. 114–15. Therefore, district wide minority/majority ratios at the three grade configurations, elementary, middle and high schools, will be important in determining whether a school is within the racial fairness guidelines.68 Furthermore, the plan calls for all available space or unused classroom seats in each school and program of choice to be allocated to majority and African–American and/or Hispanic students on the basis of their proportion in the District at each grade level. Master’s Ex. 14 at 21. This provision would guarantee equal access to all schools and programs of choice to both majority and minority students. This requirement would also facilitate within-school desegregation by grade, program and classroom. Id.
b. The Mechanics of Controlled Choice The mechanics of the controlled choice plan are the same for all grade levels. All parents are allowed to select the schools and programs by their own rank-order preference. Master’s Ex. 14 at 23; Tr. 101–02. Some students, however, would be exempt from assignment via controlled choice. First, students already enrolled in the District’s schools would be allowed to remain at their presently assigned school until completion of the school’s highest grade. Tr. 92–93. This is the “grandfather” clause.69 A second exception is for sibling assignments. Students who already have a brother or sister in their first choice school will be assigned to that school, if the parents so choose. Tr. 116–17. A third exception is for proximity. A student whose home address is within 1.5 miles of their first-choice school would be assigned to that school before other applicants of the same racial group who do not meet the 1.5 mile radius qualification. Master’s Ex. 14 at 26. Random lottery assignment would be used in the event that the number of non-sibling applicants is greater than the number of available seats for majority and/or minority students. Id.70

*34 Under the controlled choice plan, there inevitably will be “over-chosen” schools. An over-chosen school is one where the number of majority or minority applicants is greater than the number of available seats for that racial group. In the event that a student cannot be assigned to his or her first-choice school, the student would be assigned to the second-choice school, racial fairness guidelines permitting.71 In the event that a student cannot be assigned to a rank-ordered school of choice, the student would be administratively assigned to the school that is closest to his or her home. Master’s Ex. 14 at 27.
Just as there will be over-chosen schools, it is likely that some schools will be “under-chosen.” Under or “least” chosen schools will be identified by the Director of Desegregation and will be targeted for improvement and/or educational enhancements to make the school more “attractive” to parents and the student body. Tr. 128–29, 761. In a similar fashion, regularly over-chosen schools will be identified and efforts will be made to isolate the attractive elements of those schools and reproduce the features in under-chosen schools. Master’s Ex. 14 at 30; Tr. 127–28.
Another consideration is that controlled choice is scheduled to be phased in. The mechanics of controlled choice would only apply to students entering kindergarten, seventh (sixth grade with a grade reconfiguration) and ninth grades. Master’s Ex. 14 at 51–52. In addition, controlled choice would apply to students transferring to the RSD and entering the school system for the first time as well as to students not electing to remain at their “grandfathered” school. The Master proposes that controlled choice would place all schools within the racial fairness guidelines by 1998–99. Master’s Ex. 1 at 2.
c. Controlled Choice by Grade Configuration The controlled choice plan, although constant in its fundamentals, varies slightly by grade configuration.72 A district that encompasses approximately 168 square miles requires that limits be placed on elementary school choices. Therefore, at the elementary school level, controlled choice divides the District into three geographic attendance areas: the Northeast, Southeast and West Zones. Tr. 95–97. Each east side zone would have a similar proportion of resident African–American and Hispanic students of about 20%. The West Zone would have 59% resident minority students. Master’s Ex. 14 at 12–13.
The controlled choice NE Zone is proposed to contain ten elementary schools: Jackson, Johnson, Gregory, Kishwaukee, Bloom, Brookview, Carlson, Nelson, Marsh and Spring Creek. The SE Zone is proposed to contain the following twelve elementary schools: Beyer, Rock River,
26

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

New Milford, White Swan, Froberg, Thompson, Hillman, Rolling Green, Whitehead, Riverdahl, Nashold and Cherry Valley. Master’s Ex. 14 at 11. The West Zone is to contain seventeen elementary schools, including thirteen non-magnet schools: Barbour, Conklin, King, Summerdale, Westview, Lathrop, Walker, Welsh, Stiles, Haskell, McIntosh, Ellis and Dennis. The three magnet schools are Lewis Lemon, Wilson (RSTA) and Washington.
*35 As proposed, the three zones in controlled choice all have sufficient capacity for resident students. The two east zones each have a K–6 elementary student population of approximately 4,500 students, with capacity in each zone approximately at 5,300 students. The West Zone has a resident elementary student population of 6,453 students and a capacity for 7,262 students. Master’s Ex. 14 at Table E2. Thus, the two east side zones have approximately 85% utilization rate and the West Zone has an 88% utilization rate.73
At the elementary school level, the West Zone residents would have a choice of all 39 district wide schools. NE Zone students could choose one of the ten schools in their zone or one of the seventeen West Zone schools. Likewise, SE Zone students could chose one of the twelve schools in their zone or one of the seventeen West Zone schools.74 Under this configuration, all elementary students would have access to at least 27 schools of choice. The group of schools available to parents residing in each zone would include both schools that are close to home and other schools and programs that are educationally desirable. Master’s Ex. 14 at 15.
The controlled choice plan incorporates the District’s three elementary magnet schools. Since the three magnets are located in the West Zone, they would be available choices for all RSD parents. Although the magnet schools and alternative programs would all be subject to racial fairness guidelines, the appropriate standard is a point of debate. The planning team suggests that the magnet schools must be within fifteen points of the district wide percentage of minority elementary students. Master’s Ex. 14 at 22, 25. The Master, however, proposed in his CRO that the full-site elementary magnet schools should not exceed 15% of the district wide minority student percentage and should have a floor of at least 40% of the minority student population at the entry levels of these schools. The floor is designed to ensure that minority students enjoy the full benefits of the magnet schools at ensuing grade levels. Master’s Findings of Fact on Student Assignment at 29. Plaintiffs, in contrast, call for a floor equal to the district wide percentage of minority elementary students at the entry level and all grade levels. Plaintiffs’ Amended Findings of Fact on Student Assignment at 30.
Secondary schools would also be assigned students via

controlled choice. As proposed, all middle and high schools would be district wide schools of choice, meaning that every student could choose among these schools. The secondary schools would be subject to the same racial fairness guidelines, with the added requirement that high schools have at least 25% combined African–American and Hispanic students.
d. The Administrative Structure of Controlled Choice There are essentially two proposals concerning oversight of the controlled choice plan. The planning team recommends that a Department of Desegregation be established that would consolidate all organizational and administrative agencies in the RSD. The Department would have the responsibility for implementing all aspects of controlled choice. Master’s Ex. 14 at 17.
*36 The planning team proposes that the Department be headed by a Director of Desegregation, a position which must be approved by the court. The Director would oversee the implementation of all administrative and school improvement aspects of the plan. Master’s Ex. 14 at 16. The Director of Desegregation would be directly accountable to the court-appointed Master, Dr. Eubanks. Tr. 199–204. The Director would also be accountable to the school board and should be a member of the Superintendent’s cabinet. The Director would be responsible for organizing the District to support the effective implementation of controlled choice. The Director would be required to make quarterly reports on the status of implementation to the court-appointed Master, Superintendent, school board and the parties in the case. Master’s Ex. 14 at 17.
The District disagrees with the proposed administration of controlled choice in certain respects. First, the District maintains that the Director of Desegregation should be selected by the Superintendent, not the court. The District agrees that the Director is to oversee and supervise the implementation of controlled choice and apparently agrees that the Director would be responsible to the court-appointed Master. Defendant’s Findings of Fact on Student Assignment at 29. The Magistrate notes that Defendant’s position appears to have changed. At trial, Superintendent Dr. Ronald Epps testified that he should be in charge of overseeing the implementation of the plan. Dr. Epps argued for a “shared” responsibility between the District and the Master, with Superintendent Epps in control and ultimately responsible to the court.
Another administrative component of controlled choice is parent information centers. The plan calls for the District to establish at least three parent information centers and that one center be located in each attendance zone. The centers are to be staffed with full-time administrators accountable to the Director of Desegregation. In addition,
27

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

the centers would have a staff comprised of parent liaisons reflecting the racial and linguistic diversity of the RSD. Master’s Ex. 14 at 18. The centers are to provide parents with information relating to school selection and the variety of programs in the RSD. Tr. 103, 738.
e. Projected Cost of Controlled Choice The projected cost of implementing the mechanics of controlled choice was not fully developed at trial. At a bare minimum, there would be expenses for parent information centers and transportation. These two costs are estimated to be $133,000 in one-time costs and approximately $1 million per year in operating costs. See Master’s Ex. 49B. However, the court notes that additional costs—not estimated—may be necessary for the Department of Desegregation and implementation personnel.
3. Controlled Choice Option B In addition to the mechanical elements of Option A, Option B of controlled choice proposes the following: (a) the addition of magnet schools and programs; (b) a change in the RSD’s grade configurations; and (c) facility repairs and improvements. For purposes of clarity, these issues will be discussed separately. Finally, subsection (d) will address the projected costs of controlled choice Option B.
a. Magnet “Multipliers” *37 The three existing magnet schools in Rockford have been a success in attracting majority east side students to schools west of the Rock River. Magnets enlarge the range of educational opportunities available to students in the District and can attract students from diverse parts of the city. Tr. 76–77. Accordingly, Option B seeks to expand on this success by creating additional magnets and “magnetizing” existing schools. Master’s Ex. 14 at 30–31; Tr. 783–84. Option B calls for magnet schools and/or programs at all grade configurations.
At the elementary school level, twelve magnet schools and/or programs are proposed. First, the plan proposes four K–8 magnet schools: (1) Barbour, (2) Ellis, (3) Washington and (4) Wilson (RSTA). Barbour would become a Bicultural/Hispanic Magnet School and Ellis would become the Extended Day Magnet in the Arts. Master’s Ex. 14 at 32.75 Washington would become the site for a K–8 Communication Arts Magnet Program and Wilson School would become a K–8 Science and Technology Magnet. These magnets would, in addition to offering unique educational opportunities, serve to desegregate formerly minority racially identifiable

schools and, in turn, would alleviate SW Quadrant capacity problems.
Option B also calls for four specialized programs to be housed in certain elementary schools to aid desegregation efforts. First, the Montessori Program76 in grades pre K–5 is to be housed at Haskell Elementary School.77 The relocation would be beneficial in desegregating Haskell. Second, Lathrop is scheduled for a new magnet program to be developed by the District officials. Third, King elementary is proposed to become the grades 1–5 site for the Centralized Gifted Program currently based at both King and Washington Schools. Fourth, the plan calls for Haight Elementary School to become the site for the first age group half of the students in the Personalized Education Model (“PEM”) magnet school.78
Finally, Option B proposes that Lewis Lemon continue as a magnet and that three schools develop magnet themes: (1) McIntosh Elementary School should become the K–5 component of the Science and Technology Magnet in collaboration with Wilson and Auburn Schools;79 and (2, 3) Dennis and Stiles Elementary Schools would each develop magnet themes. Master’s Ex. 14 at 33.
At the middle school level, additional schools are proposed to handle the proposed grade reconfiguration to grades 6–8 (discussed in the following subsection). Option B proposes that West Middle School be rebuilt and become a health and medical careers magnet. Furthermore, the plan proposes that Kennedy School be reopened and a new nature magnet middle school be created in the SW Quadrant. Additional middle school space would exist in the four K–8 magnet schools already mentioned: Barbour, Ellis, Washington and Wilson. Master’s Ex. 14 at 36.
At the high school level, the planning team recommended that each of the existing four high schools, Auburn, East, Guilford and Jefferson, should develop magnet programs instead of operating as traditional comprehensive high schools. Auburn is proposed to have a science magnet theme to collaborate with McIntosh and Wilson Schools; East would have a comprehensive arts program; Guilford would have a magnet theme to be developed through controlled choice; and Jefferson would become a technology academy. Master’s Ex. 14 at 37–39. In addition, the new West Middle School is proposed to house a 400 seat high school facility to complement the middle school’s health and medical careers magnet. Id. at 35, 38.80
b. Changing the Existing Grade Configurations *38 Presently, the RSD’s elementary schools house grades K–6 and the middle schools contain grades 7–8. Option B proposes that these grade configurations be
28

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

changed so that the elementary and middle schools would, respectively, be aligned grades K–5 and 6–8. Master’s Ex. 14 at 34; Tr. 98, 1342. The change is to contribute to racial desegregation in several ways. Most noteworthy is that the elimination of grade 6 from existing elementary schools will greatly improve the capacity problem in the SW Quadrant by creating additional space. Master’s Ex. 14 at 14; Tr. 216, 1230–31. In addition, the planning team suggests that the three years of continuity would be beneficial to minority students. Master’s Ex. 14 at 34; Tr. 366–68, 392–95, 1346–47.
c. Facility Improvements and Repairs Option B proposes certain recommendations for facility additions, improvements and repairs. Under the controlled choice plan, schools with inferior facilities and equipment would receive attention at the beginning of the plan so that they will be both educationally attractive and effective. Tr. 132–33, 780. The facility additions to alleviate capacity have already been discussed.81 A second area addresses changes in existing facilities. Because of dilapidated conditions, it is recommended that the current facilities at Barbour, Ellis and West be replaced. At the high school level, it is recommended that Auburn be fundamentally renovated, reequipped and upgraded in all of its facilities and equipment. Master’s Ex. 14 at 37; Tr. 355–56. A third area addressed is facility improvements, including improvements in library media centers, science labs, art and music rooms, technical education facilities and existing school sites. Id. Finally, disparities in equipment, materials and supplies in the SW Quadrant schools would be remedied to correct historical inequities. Tr. 1359.
d. Projected Cost of Controlled Choice Option B The various elements of the full controlled choice remedy (Option B) carry price tags. In total, there is a projected one-time cost of $77 million for controlled choice Option B. In addition, the plan would cost over $6 million per year to operate. The projected costs are described in detail on Master’s Ex. 49B, reproduced on the following page in its entirety.82
D. Student Assignment Remedy In the present case, both the Magistrate and Judge Roszkowski found that the RSD had engaged in an unconstitutional pattern of intentional discrimination against minority schoolchildren for decades. Regarding student assignment, the court found that the RSD engaged in a pattern of unlawful acts and omissions that caused the segregation of its schools. See, e.g., People Who Care, 851 F.Supp. at 1079–81.

In addition to addressing these findings, a constitutional student assignment plan must address three areas at the elementary school level: (1) the SW Quadrant capacity problem; (2) the unequal transportation burdens on minority schoolchildren; and (3) the vestiges of the previous intentional discrimination. At the secondary school level, a constitutional student assignment plan must correct the following inequities: the west side capacity situation (both middle and high school), transportation burdens and quality of facilities. See supra pp. 64–65, 70.
*39 In fashioning an appropriate student assignment remedy, this court will utilize traditional equitable principles. In applying these principles, the court will focus on the following three factors: one, that the nature of the desegregation remedy is to be determined by the nature and scope of the constitutional violations; two, that the decree must be “designed as nearly as possible ‘to restore the victims of discriminatory conduct to the position they would have occupied in the absence of such conduct’ ”; and three, that consideration must be given to the interests of state and local authorities in managing their own affairs. Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 280–81 (1977) (“Milliken II ”) (quoting Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 746 (1974) (“Milliken I ”)).
1. Mandatory Assignment Plan The Magistrate rejects the MAP because it is not a suitable remedy in this case. Although there was testimony at trial that the MAP would numerically desegregate Rockford’s schools, the court is concerned with more than just numbers. While mandatory plans with forced busing were utilized in the early years after Brown I to desegregate schools, the court finds this to be a dated approach to desegregation. On this point, the Magistrate notes the position of former Justice Powell of the Supreme Court:
A constitutional requirement of extensive student transportation solely to achieve integration presents a vastly more complex problem. It promises, on one hand, a greater degree of actual desegregation, while it infringes on what may fairly be regarded as other important community aspirations and personal rights. Such a requirement is also likely to divert attention and resources from the foremost goal of any school system: the best quality education for all pupils. The Equal Protection Clause does, indeed, command that
29

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

racial discrimination not be tolerated in the decisions of public school authorities. But it does not require that school authorities undertake widespread student transportation solely for the sake of maximizing integration.

student assignment plan addresses the problems identified in Section IV.B. of this opinion: (a) that the RSD assigned students to schools in an unconstitutional manner; (b) that the RSD intentionally created a capacity shortage for elementary students in the SW Quadrant; and (c) that the RSD intentionally created capacity and facility disparities at the secondary school level.85

Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, Denver, Colorado, 413 U.S. 189, 242 (1973) (Powell, J., concurring/dissenting).
The MAP is being rejected for two reasons. First, the primary focus of the MAP is not where it should be. The focus should be on a high quality education for all of Rockford’s schoolchildren, especially those that were the objects of discrimination. Second, there was convincing testimony that the MAP could cause a number of students to leave the District. Tr. 2324, 3171. The court wants a constitutional plan that focuses on education and helps the RSD preserve its student population.83
2. Student Assignment Plan The court-ordered student assignment plan will not be identical at all grade configurations. At the elementary school level, controlled choice will be implemented along with certain capital improvements: (a) a reopened elementary school at Haight; (b) the addition of two new facilities at Barbour and Ellis, which are to become K–8 magnets; (c) the extension of the Washington and Wilson (RSTA) magnets to grades K–8;84 and (d) the grade reconfiguration for elementary and middle schools. At the secondary school level, although the court does not order controlled choice, the student assignment plan will require that all secondary schools meet the +/− 15% standard and that all high schools have a floor of 25% African–American and Hispanic students combined. In addition, the following capital improvements are ordered: (a) a new middle school on the west side; (b) a reopened Kennedy Middle School; and (c) the housing of the CAPA and gifted programs at a different high school than Auburn, possibly at a renovated West facility.
*40 The Magistrate adopts the elements of controlled choice at the elementary level for three reasons. First, the RSD has historically used different methods and criteria in assigning elementary students to their respective schools. Minority students were not assigned by the same methods as majority students. Under controlled choice, students will be assigned through one system that treats all students equally and fairly. Second, unlike the present situation in the District, controlled choice produces an incentive to improve the schools on the west side, and particularly, in the SW Quadrant. Third, the controlled choice plan addresses the liability findings of this court.
In this subsection, the court will demonstrate how this

a. Unequal Student Assignment Practices The mechanical elements of controlled choice are ordered for the RSD’s elementary schools because they directly address the following liability findings: that the RSD gerrymandered school attendance area boundaries in order to create and maintain a separate school system based upon race; that the RSD manipulated secondary school feeder patterns in order to maintain segregation; that the RSD maintained an open enrollment policy that primarily benefitted White students with voluntary alternative programs and burdened minority students through mandatory one-way busing; that the RSD closed schools and reassigned the affected students in such a way that White students went to racially identifiable White schools and Black students attended racially identifiable minority schools; and that the RSD permitted special transfers to students in order to avoid attending predominantly African–American schools. See People Who Care, 851 F.Supp. at 1079–81.
The mechanics of controlled choice address these findings because all students will be treated equally. Specifically, the plan’s racial fairness guidelines mandate that all elementary schools must be within fifteen points of the district wide percentage of minority elementary students.86 The +/− 15% standard is flexible, allows for changing demographics and has been approved by other district courts implementing student assignment plans. See, e.g., Coalition to Save Our Children v. State Bd. of Educ. of Delaware, 757 F.Supp. 328, 351 (D.Del.1991). In addition to equal treatment, there was voluminous testimony at trial on the benefits of an integrated educational environment.87
Furthermore, the Magistrate orders the following controlled choice concepts as detailed in Section IV.C. of this opinion: (1) parents are to select the schools and programs they want their children to attend by their own rank-order preference; (2) controlled choice will be grandfathered;88 (3) sibling and proximity preferences89 will be honored, racial fairness guidelines permitting;90 (4) voluntary transfers will be permitted to any student so long as the desired school can handle the transfer within the plan’s racial fairness guidelines; (5) students whose primary language is not English and who are eligible for bilingual education will be assigned to a school that provides these services; and (6) special education students will be assigned to a school providing the necessary
30

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

services.
*41 The Magistrate accepts the recommendation that for controlled choice at the elementary level, the District be divided into three geographical attendance zones as detailed in Section IV.C.2.c. of this opinion. See also Master’s Ex. 14 at 9–15. The three zone model treats all students fairly and provides all students a wide range of schools of choice. Students in the West Zone can choose among all of the RSD’s elementary schools, while students in the NE and SE Zones will be restricted to schools in their zone, as well as West Zone schools.91 The three zone model is supported by the RSD’s large geographic size and number of elementary schools, allows for flexibility in population movement and promises to make controlled choice manageable. The three zone model also addresses a liability finding in that the West Zone partially alleviates SW Quadrant capacity shortage by combining all of the elementary schools in the SW and NW Quadrants into the new West Zone. Master’s Ex. 14 at 13; Tr. 772. In addition, the plan provides all students with a minimum of 27 schools of choice. Master’s Ex. 14 at 15. Since the racial composition of the NE and SE zones are nearly identical, there is no desegregative purpose for allowing interzone assignments between the two. Tr. 100–01.92
The Magistrate agrees with the recommendation that controlled choice be phased in, and accordingly, only those students entering kindergarten will be affected commencing with the 1997–98 school year.93 The RSD is ordered to assign elementary students in this fashion until all elementary schools, to the extent practicable, fall within the plan’s racial fairness guidelines. Master’s Ex. 1 at 1–2.94 At that point, assuming compliance with respect to middle and high schools, the District would have made great strides towards unitary status in this area.
The final element of controlled choice is the administrative structure. The Director of Desegregation will manage the newly created Department of Desegregation. The establishment of the Department as well as the selection of the Director are the joint responsibility of the RSD Superintendent and the Master. See Tr. 204, 750. If they cannot agree, the court will intervene. The Director cannot be fired except by agreement between the Superintendent and the Master or by the court. The Superintendent will be in charge of the day to day operations and the Master is to monitor the program. The Director and Superintendent shall be directly responsible to the court to carry out this court’s orders. The Director and Superintendent are ordered to implement the student assignment plan immediately.
The Department of Desegregation is to consolidate all organizational and administrative agencies in the RSD. Ultimately, the Department will have the responsibility for implementing all aspects of the student assignment

plan, both at the elementary and secondary schools. Lastly, the specific guidelines concerning the duties of the Director and the role of the Department, as described in Master’s Ex. 14 at 17–18, 30, 50–61, are adopted by the court, except to the extent that these guidelines may be inconsistent with this opinion.
*42 The court specifically rejects the District’s position that the newly created administrative structure is unnecessary. The District argues that the Department of Desegregation is unnecessary because the District has already started to implement certain aspects of controlled choice, has shown a commitment to controlled choice and is ready and capable of implementing the plan on its own. See Tr. 3288, 3666–67, 3289. Ironically, the Rockford School Board itself has supplied the best reason not to give the District control: the District is unable to consistently support remedies in this case. The Board went from supporting controlled choice by a 7–0 vote, before the CRO hearings began, to changing its mind against the plan mid-trial. The recent vote to support controlled choice is of little comfort. It is evident to the court that this school board is not uniformly committed to this method of desegregating its schools. The Magistrate, of course, hopes this will change. For now, control will rest with the Master and Superintendent.
The Magistrate further orders that the RSD develop and implement parent information centers, consistent with Master’s Ex. 14. The number and location of centers is to be established through the Department of Desegregation. The centers are to be staffed with a full-time administrator, accountable to the Director of Desegregation. In addition, the centers must contain a staff comprised of parent liaisons, reflecting the racial and linguistic diversity of the RSD. Master’s Ex. 14 at 18. The uncontroverted testimony at trial was that the success of controlled choice in different school districts across the country was dependent upon parents receiving accurate information on the plan. These centers aid parents in understanding how controlled choice functions, coordinate parental visits to schools and provide current information to parents on all available educational opportunities in the RSD.95
The court does not order controlled choice to be implemented at all grade configurations. As detailed in Section IV.B. of this opinion, by far the largest problem with respect to student assignment in the RSD concerns elementary schools. Currently, the RSD has eleven racially identifiable elementary schools and no racially identifiable middle or high schools. Therefore, the mechanics of controlled choice are ordered for the RSD’s elementary schools. The racial fairness guidelines will apply to the RSD’s middle and high schools; each school must be within 15% of the district wide average of minority students for that grade configuration. For the RSD’s high schools, there must be a minimum of 25%
31

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

minority enrollment in each school.96 The District may, at this time, choose its own assignment practices for these schools. The District may choose controlled choice, a feeder pattern or assignment zones as long as all middle and high schools are within the racial fairness guidelines each school year starting with 1996–97. The student assignment plan at the secondary school level is to be implemented by the Director of Desegregation.

b. The SW Quadrant Capacity Problem *43 The Magistrate rejects the RSD’s position that the mechanics of controlled choice alone would be a constitutional student assignment plan for the RSD’s elementary schools.97 The student assignment plan must address the vestiges of the intentional discrimination. Option A, by only looking at numbers, does not correct two symbiotic liability findings: structural displacement (under-capacity) and inequitable transportation burdens. Tr. 1332, 3109.98 The ordered elements of Option B, on the other hand, with new schools and programs, address these findings.

The adopted components of Option B address the SW Quadrant capacity problems (detailed in Section IV.B.) in three distinct ways. First, the proposed grade reconfiguration will add seats to the existing elementary schools. Second, Option B adds new facilities to the SW Quadrant. Third, the three zone model itself evenly distributes capacity and resident enrollment for the RSD elementary students.

The court adopts the recommendation for, and orders the

change in, grade configurations. Normally, the court

would consider this decision to be a local governmental

function. In the present case, however, the change directly

addresses liability findings. The RSD will be required as

soon as is practicable to realign its elementary and middle

schools to K–5 and 6–8. The change to K–5 directly

addresses the 1,200 seat under-capacity problem when

examining the immediate consequences of the grade

reconfiguration. Namely, the pool of SW Quadrant

elementary students will shrink when the sixth grade is

combined into the middle schools. In 1994–95 there were

4,272 resident K–6 students in the SW Quadrant. K–6

contains

seven

grade

levels,

so

roughly

/1 7

of

the

4,272

(or

approximately 600) SW Quadrant K–6 students are sixth

graders. Therefore, the Magistrate estimates that the need

for 600 seats will be eliminated in the SW Quadrant by

placing these sixth graders in middle schools. Thus, the

grade reconfiguration itself has a tremendous impact on

the SW Quadrant structural displacement problem.

The capacity problem is further addressed by the K–8 magnets at Barbour and Ellis and the K–5 magnet at Haight, which will add a net gain of over 200 elementary seats in or near the SW Quadrant.99 Master’s Ex. 14 at

13–14. In addition, the SW Quadrant capacity shortage is further alleviated when considering that several hundred SW Quadrant resident students attend one of the three existing magnet schools. See 1995–96 Fall Housing Report at Table E.5. Therefore, the court rejects Plaintiffs’ request for an additional 500 student magnet school in the SW Quadrant.
The capacity problem and inequitable transportation burdens are interrelated: once the capacity problem is addressed, inequities in transportation burdens will vanish. Tr. 68 (SW Quadrant structural displacement leads to inequitable transportation burdens). In addition, under controlled choice, all students will have equal access to schools close to their homes and will fairly share the transportation burdens of education.
*44 Thus far, capacity has been discussed in terms of correcting the minority student displacement vestige in the SW Quadrant. It cannot be forgotten, however, that controlled choice has three zones to consider. With the new magnets and the grade reconfiguration, the zone capacity and enrollment break down as follows. The West Zone will have capacity for 7,473 K–5 students and a resident student population of 5,529. This correlates to a 74% resident utilization rate. The SE Zone will have capacity for 5,360 K–5 students, and a resident student population of 3,878, with a corresponding 72% utilization rate. The NE Zone will have capacity for 5,243 K–5 students, and a resident student population of 3,278, with a corresponding 62.5% utilization rate. Master’s Ex. 14 at Tables E1, E2.
Therefore, capacity is equalized under the three zone model: the NE Zone has 26% of the RSD’s elementary students and 29% of the available seats; the SE Zone has 31% of the RSD’s elementary students and 30% of the available seats; and, the West Zone has 43% of the RSD’s elementary students and 41% of the available seats. Master’s Ex. 14 at Tables E1, E2. Thus, capacity is distributed evenly in the three zone model; moreover, these capacities allow for equal access to schools for both minority and majority students.
Defendant takes the position that the grade reconfiguration, as well as the new magnets, are not needed. Dr. Heald testified on behalf of Defendant that under the three zone approach, the elementary schools could remain K–6 and there would still be enough capacity in each zone. Dr. Heald testified that in order to operate efficiently, a school should operate at approximately 85% capacity. Tr. 563–64. Dr. Heald testified that the enrollment, capacity and utilization of the three zones as they currently exist (with K–6 elementary schools) are as follows: the NE Zone has 4,543 students and a capacity of 5,242 for a utilization rate of 86.7%; the SE Zone has 4,862 students and a capacity of 5,360 for a utilization rate of 90.7%; and the
32

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

West Zone has a 6,066 students and a capacity of 7,412 for a utilization rate of 81.8%. Defendant’s Heald Ex. 4. Essentially, the District argues that these numbers justify controlled choice without reconfiguring the grades or adding new schools.
The court rejects the District’s position. First, while the new zones would have similar utilization rates, the District’s proposal does nothing to correct the vestiges of the intentional discrimination. Namely, that through school closings and openings over the past 20 years, the minority students residing in the SW Quadrant have been mandatorily bused out of their neighborhoods due to insufficient capacity. Under the District’s proposal there is no equal opportunity and access. In effect, a significant portion of these SW Quadrant students will be forced to attend schools away from their homes. In short, the court agrees with the recommendation of the planning team that for controlled choice to be equitable, all capacities must be relatively equalized. Tr. 226–28. The West Zone with a grade K–6 configuration appears equal on the surface, but it leaves unresolved the capacity shortage and consequent transportation inequities for the RSD’s principal victims of intentional discrimination: minority schoolchildren living in the southwest portion of the city. See Master’s Ex. 1 at 127; Tr. 166–67, 230–235, 461.100
*45 In addition, Dr. Heald testified that if the District switched to K–5, there would be no need to add the additional Option B magnet schools because the percent utilization for each zone would remain low at 70 to 80%. Defendant’s Heald Ex. 11. This proposal is rejected because it ignores that the Option B components, e.g. new K–8 schools at Barbour, Ellis, Washington and Wilson, are essential for three reasons.
First, the Report and Recommendation contains findings that schools such as Barbour and Ellis were left in disrepair while other elementary schools were not. Barbour and Ellis are structurally inferior facilities when compared to other RSD elementary schools. Tr. 1285. Second, for controlled choice to work, these schools must be made “attractive”; therefore, they require immediate attention and magnetization at the beginning of the implementation of controlled choice. Tr. 780–84. Barbour and Ellis, both historically racially identifiable minority, will now be attractive to students district wide because of their unique themes. Barbour will be the permanent site for the Bicultural/Hispanic bilingual magnet program. This directly addresses the liability finding that the RSD’s Hispanic students were constantly moved from school to school. Ellis is proposed to become the Extended Day Magnet Program in the Arts, a recommendation that makes sense to the court.101 Third, since the middle school grades are being reconfigured, more capacity is needed district wide for grades 6–8. Barbour, Ellis, Washington and Wilson as K–8 schools add to middle grade capacity overall, and specifically, add middle grade capacity where

it is needed the most, on the west side. For these reasons, Barbour and Ellis are ordered to be replaced with the K–8 magnets and Washington and Wilson are to be extended to K–8 programs.102
c. Secondary School Capacity and Facilities
Middle and High School Capacity The grade reconfiguration which alleviates capacity problems at the elementary level creates a capacity shortage at the existing middle schools. For this reason, more capacity is needed and the Magistrate specifically adopts the proposal to reopen Kennedy and build one new middle school in or near the SW Quadrant. For reasons that will be discussed, the court rejects the proposal for a second new west side middle school (commonly referred to as the new West Middle School). Under the court’s scenario, the RSD will have five 6–8 middle schools, two on the west side (in addition to the 6–8 seats available at Barbour, Ellis, Washington and Wilson) and three on the east side.
The planning team sought to significantly reduce capacities at the existing middle schools to allow for smaller classrooms. Tr. 392–93. Under the planning team’s scenario, the total capacity for the middle schools, including the existing three east side schools, two new west side schools, a reopened Kennedy, and the 6–8 seats at K–8 schools, would be approximately 6,065. Master’s Ex. 14 at 44. The planned capacity was approximately 795 for each full middle school. The court notes, however, that enrollment for grades 6–8 was approximately 5,731 for 1995–96.103 1995–96 Fall Housing Report at Table B.1. Using the 85% capacity benchmark, there is a need for at least 6,700 capacity, if the smaller school model of 795 students is used. Therefore, the planning team’s proposal for smaller schools is not feasible from a capacity standpoint, even if the second new west side middle school is considered.
*46 If the middle schools remain somewhat larger, there would be enough middle school capacity, without the second new west side middle school. The three east side middle schools, Eisenhower, Flinn and Lincoln, have a combined capacity for 3,931 students. Master’s Ex. 14 at 44. Dr. Heald, however, testified that the combined capacity is 3,637. Defendant’s Heald Ex. 12. The new west side middle school is planned for 1,170 capacity (see Master’s Ex. 49B), Kennedy is projected to have 996 capacity (see Defendant’s Heald Ex. 12) and 1,295 6–8 seats will be available at the K–8 magnets. The total middle school capacity, without the second west side middle school, is 7,098. With the 5,731 students, this results in a utilization rate of 81%.104 Therefore, the proposal for a second new west side middle school is rejected. The space is not needed. In addition, the court
33

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

notes that there will be 3,465 middle school seats west of the river and 3,637 seats east of the river. Therefore, the capacity problem identified in Section IV.B. of this opinion is resolved, and in turn, the transportation inequities will have been resolved.105
Finally, the court notes that the new west side middle school is targeted to have a nature magnet theme. While this may be a good suggestion, the Magistrate finds it unnecessary for the court to order a particular theme. This decision will be made with the help of the community, parents, teachers and administrators. After this input, the District and the Master are to agree upon a theme for the new middle school, if a theme is considered necessary.

assumes that they will continue in the RSD. However, in terms of location, there is no room for them at Auburn. These stand alone programs could be housed at a renovated West High School. The court realizes that these two programs could not possibly fully utilize this large facility. However, perhaps the District could use the balance of the space at the West facility to house office space, storage or other educational programs. These two programs at the West facility would add 550 high school seats to the west side. By taking these programs out of Auburn, the full capacity of that school can be utilized. The high school capacity situation would change as follows.

At the high school level, the Magistrate has previously

	  

discussed the Centralized Gifted Program (the

“Academy”) and CAPA and, for purposes of this section,

Table	  1	  

	  	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	   High	  School	   	  	   	  
Auburn	   	  	   	   East	   	  	   	   Guilford	   	  	   	   Jefferson	   	  	   	   West	  (CAPA	   	  	   	   and	  Academy)	   	  	   	  

	  	   Capacity	   	   	  	  
	   	   1,635	  
	  	   	   	   2,070	   	  	   	   	   2,020	   	  	   	   	   2,380	   	  	   	   	   	  
	   550	   	  	   	  

Accordingly, the court finds that this would make

substantial progress in equalizing capacity for west side high school students. For 1994–95, there were 6,744 high
34

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

school students and approximately 2,267 resided west of the river. There would now be 2,185 seats west of the river which would result in a utilization rate of 104%. Although this is not very close to the 69% utilization rate east of the river, it demonstrates substantial improvement.
*47 The court notes that Plaintiffs are calling for the creation of the West/East High School to be placed on the west side. This would add approximately 1,300 seats to the West Side, but would subtract 2,070 from the east side by closing East. The west side would have a utilization rate of 77% (2,267 students divided by 2,935 seats) and the east side would have a utilization rate of 102% (4,477 students divided by 4,400 seats) for the east side. This seems lopsided as well. In short, there is no simple solution to the problem, even by spending additional dollars. Therefore, the court will not order a new West/East High School to be built. At the high school level, the capacity problem may be addressed by removing the CAPA and Academy programs from Auburn and placing them at a renovated West.106
Middle and High School Facilities The court notes that the planning team has made several recommendations concerning facility renovation and improvement for district wide schools. To some extent, these recommendations have been addressed with the building of a new Barbour, Ellis and a middle school, a reopened Kennedy and the closing of West as a middle school. However, several millions of dollars in facility improvements have been requested. In the Magistrate’s opinion, this is not a problem unique to Rockford; in fact, this is a problem facing many school districts throughout the country. The parties must look to the Illinois legislature, not to this court, to solve many of these problems.
The Magistrate reads a financial component into the “practicable” standard for desegregation remedies. Practicable means workable and feasible. The capital improvements ordered by this court, including the new Barbour and Ellis, the new magnet at Haight, the new middle school, a reopened Kennedy, and the consolidation of the CAPA and Academy programs at West, will cost approximately $48,002,831.107 Master’s Ex. 49B; Defendant’s Motion to Reopen Proofs on Student Assignment, Ex. C at 8 ($7.5 million to renovate West). These remedies will be paid through the tort fund.
While the court will more fully expound on the finances of the District and the limitations on the tort funds in the next segment of this opinion, for now, this court cannot consider tort fund dollars to be an unlimited source of revenue for this school district. However, the lack of tort dollars does not completely excuse the District from funding necessary facility improvements. The District’s

annual operating budget is in the millions of dollars. The court notes that if there was no People Who Care lawsuit, the District would still have an obligation to repair facilities in poor condition and provide equipment. In other words, the District has a responsibility to implement facility repairs and provide equipment to all students in the District. The District is hereby ordered to provide reasonable and necessary facility improvements to the extent practicable. See Tr. 1359.
Student Assignment Plan—Summary *48 The student assignment plan as ordered by this court specifically addresses the liability findings contained in the Report and Recommendation and the liability order by Judge Roszkowski. The mechanics of controlled choice will only apply to elementary students. The three zone model with the +/− 15% racial fairness guidelines at the elementary level will end practices such as gerrymandering of attendance areas that result in racially identifiable schools. In addition, the grade reconfiguration as well as creation of the new Barbour, Ellis and Haight magnet schools, will help resolve the elementary structural displacement problem, which will in turn equalize transportation burdens.
At the secondary school level, all schools are to be within the +/− 15% guideline, in addition to the 25% floor for high schools. The addition of a new middle school and a reopened Kennedy will ease the west side capacity shortage and transportation inequities. The housing of the high school CAPA and Academy programs at a renovated West would make strides in equalizing high school capacities relative to resident enrollment.
The brand new Barbour and Ellis, the new magnet middle school and the renovation at West will be a serious step forward in equalizing facility conditions. All told, student assignment programs ordered in this opinion will cost approximately $48 million. The District, however, may be held responsible for other reasonable and practicable facility and equipment improvements to be paid by the District’s other funds during the pendency of court supervision. Finally, only the Option B components specifically addressed in this opinion are ordered to be implemented at this time.
CONCLUSION
The Rockford School District is hereby ordered to immediately begin the implementation of the student assignment plan, as detailed by the court in this opinion.
35

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN—ADDENDUM
[Dated May 17, 1996]
In the student assignment remedy portion of the CRO, this court did not definitively decide on the use of the West facility, currently hosting CAPA grades 4–8, Gifted grades 7–8 and a middle school for grades 7–8. Because of high school capacity problems west of the river, the court suggested that perhaps West could be reopened to host the high school Gifted and CAPA programs currently housed at Auburn. The court’s proposal would have accomplished two very important goals. First, by taking the specialty programs out of Auburn, the westside would have one full comprehensive high school, in comparison to the three east of the river. Second, westside high school capacity would increase from 1,635 to 2,185 seats, decreasing the westside high school capacity utilization rate from 139% to 104%. An additional benefit the court mentioned, is that removing the specialty programs from Auburn would alleviate the many concerns of the court with within school segregation problems.
The court, however, did not order this use for the West facility because it was not proposed by any party at trial and the financial information on the cost of renovating West to house these two programs was sketchy at best. The Rockford School Board provided the only estimate of the price tag—$7.5 million. Defendant’s Motion to Reopen Proofs on Student Assignment, Ex. C at 8. Concerned about the efficient use of dollars in this case and the relatively untested nature of the court’s proposal, the Magistrate desired a dialog with the Rockford School Board on the use of the West facility. On March 12, 1996, the court asked the Board to study this proposal “from an educational and economic point of view” and report to the court within thirty days. CRO (segment two) at 112 n. 106.
The Board’s Response *49 The Board filed its response on April 13, 1996. Surprisingly, the Board addressed only one of the court’s two inquiries. Absolutely no economic data was provided concerning the cost for the court’s proposal, or other alternatives, such as converting West into a true comprehensive high school. The District did consider the use of West from an educational point of view, albeit in a manner not anticipated by the court. The District proposed that West be opened to house 1,200 students: 650 middle school seats for the grades 6–8 Gifted and CAPA programs and 550 seats for a “comprehensive” high school. Under the District’s proposal, the high school Gifted and CAPA programs would remain at Auburn.

Before discussing the District’s suggested use of West, the Court will discuss two related proposals by the District. First, the court notes that the Board voted in favor of implementing controlled choice at the secondary level and developing themes for the District’s middle and high schools. The court approves this proposal, as it will ensure that the racial fairness guidelines of the student assignment plan are met at the secondary schools. The second proposal is actually a request from the District for a one year extension until the 1997–98 school year, to comply with the racial fairness guidelines at the secondary schools. The apparent basis for this proposal is the decision to implement controlled choice at the secondary schools. The court rejects this request. As Plaintiffs point out, all of the District’s middle and high schools currently meet the +/− 15% racial fairness guidelines, and all high schools except Guilford meet the 25% minimum minority enrollment standard. Accordingly, the court has the utmost confidence that the District will be able to meet these two requirements for the 1996–97 school year.
The court now turns to the District’s proposed use of the West facility. The District responded to the court’s invitation for a dialog with what is really a motion to reconsider this court’s student assignment remedy for the RSD’s middle schools. The District’s position is that 650 additional middle school seats are needed at West in order to facilitate the grade configuration change. Essentially, the District states that this court erred when considering (1) the future enrollment for grades 6–8 and (2) the planned or actual capacities at what will be the District’s five middle schools.
The court rejects the District’s proposed use of West for a compelling reason: by leaving the Gifted and CAPA programs at Auburn, the District’s proposal does not provide for a full comprehensive high school on the westside. This was the underlying motivation for the Court’s proposed use of West. While the District refers to its suggested 550 seat component at West as a “comprehensive” high school, it is simply another specialty program. “Comprehensive,” in the court’s view, means a full, regular high school comparable in enrollment with the eastside high schools. The District’s proposal does increase westside high school capacity, but, in doing so, takes away what to the court would be a very significant accomplishment—finally providing westside high school students with a comprehensive high school. Accordingly, the District’s proposed use of West is rejected.108
Three Options for the Future Use of West *50 Left for the court to decide, therefore, is the future use of West. In analyzing this issue, the court has considered three options for West, each with its share of
36

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

advantages and disadvantages. These three options demonstrate that there is no simple solution in deciding the future use of the West facility.
Option One The first option is to make West a comprehensive high school. Under this scenario, the Gifted and CAPA programs would remain at Auburn.109 There are at least three benefits to this option. First, reopening West as a full comprehensive high school most directly addresses the liability findings of this court concerning the closing of West in 1989, and establishes a comprehensive high school on the westside. The closing of West in 1989 in many ways precipitated this lawsuit; reopening West, therefore, would be neatly tailored to this liability finding. Second, if West had approximately 1,000 high school seats, then the District would have 2,635 westside high school seats. As there are 2,267 westside high school students, this option would result in a westside utilization rate of 86%. The third benefit of this option is that by leaving the Gifted and CAPA programs at Auburn, there would be less overall disruption in the movement of students.
Option one, unfortunately, has its drawbacks, and the major one is money. The District has not provided the court any additional financial information concerning renovating West or the additional annual operating cost for operating the facility. The court utilized the District’s $7.5 million figure in segment two and assumes that renovating West into a full high school may cost additional dollars. The court, however, does not have solid information. In addition, the court is aware that this option would mean five high schools for the District. This may be an inefficient use of money and space.110
Option Two A second option is essentially the court’s suggestion in the CRO. West would be reopened for the high school components of the Gifted and CAPA programs, with the use of the remainder of the building to be determined at a later date. The benefits of this option have been already stated in the CRO. First, 550 westside high school seats would be added, decreasing the current utilization rate of 139% to 104%. Although this is an improvement over the current capacity situation, opening West as a full comprehensive high school does much better in terms of capacity. Second, option two would solve many of the within school segregation problems at Auburn. Lastly, a benefit to this plan is that the District would not be running five full-enrollment high schools.
This proposal has drawbacks as well. First, it may be an inefficient use of money to spend $7.5 million on 550

students. Second, this proposal would disrupt the students in these programs at Auburn when they would be forced to move to West. Third, the court questions whether this proposal has an inherent flaw in overlooking that the CAPA students at Auburn utilize the comprehensive core courses in English, math, etc. at that school. If CAPA were moved to West, there would be no comprehensive core courses for these students to utilize.111 Lastly, the cost of maintaining a stand alone Gifted program at West may be prohibitive.
Option Three *51 A third option is that the District move the Gifted and CAPA programs to East and simply close the West facility. There are three benefits to this proposal. First, closing West may make fiscal sense, if it is, indeed, inefficient to spend millions of dollars on West’s restoration and annual operating costs. Second, Auburn, which is currently almost 60% minority if the specialty programs are excluded, would become truly integrated. Third, the remedy would occur much more quickly than with the first two options, because no renovation would be required.
There are drawbacks to this option as well. First, although Auburn would be a full comprehensive high school on the westside, there would be only 1,635 westside seats, which results in a utilization rate of 139%, the worst of the three options. Second, closing the West facility would do nothing to address the 1989 closing of West High School.
Conclusion The above discussion concerning the use of West underscores the difficult nature of the problem. The first option, perhaps, best addresses the liability findings of this court. It was no doubt a bad decision to close West High School in 1989. However, the current circumstances in the District may make the decision to reopen West a bad decision in 1996. A logical and perhaps necessary consequence of reopening West is that one eastside high school would eventually close because five high schools may not be needed in the District. If one eastside high school did close, the District would remain with four high schools and the Gifted and CAPA programs could remain at Auburn. In the end, the decision to spend millions of dollars to open a school that may not be needed and may result in the closing of one eastside high school is not a decision the court should make.
The court concludes, therefore, that, at this time, this decision is more properly in front of the Rockford School Board which is in the best position to weigh the alternatives and plan the future of West. The court encourages the Rockford School Board to give
37

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

consideration to the many issues concerning West raised in this opinion. At this time, the court will decide only the following. The District is hereby ordered to develop by April 1, 1997, a comprehensive plan for the future of West that is acceptable to the court. If the District fails to do so, the RSD will be ordered to move the Gifted and CAPA programs to East High School by the start of the 1997–98 school year.
SEGMENT THREE
[Dated May 28, 1996]
V. Faculty Hiring and Placement In his proposed comprehensive remedial order, the Master’s recommendations regarding the RSD faculty fall into three categories: the personnel department, affirmative action and the desegregation of teaching staff. See Master’s Ex. 1 at 127, 140, 147; CRO (segment one) at 7. In the court’s opinion, these three areas overlap and will be discussed under two categories: A. Faculty Hiring and B. Faculty Placement.
A. Faculty Hiring *52 In 1973, the RSD set a goal to hire at least 15% minority faculty. Master’s Ex. 1 at 140.112 For some twenty-three years, the RSD has been unsuccessful in achieving this goal. From 1974 to 1992, minority certified staff ranged from approximately 6 to 7%. Master’s Ex. 1 at 140–41.113 In 1994–95, there were approximately 7.8% minority teachers (Master’s Ex. 1 at 141) and in 1995–96, the percentage rose to 8.7%. Defendant’s Harezlak Ex. 2, 1995–96 Data at 1. In short, the District has not met the 15% standard and, in fact, has only recently been able to achieve approximately one-half of its long-stated goal.114
As with the other CRO remedies, the court will begin its analysis of the faculty hiring issue by reviewing the liability findings. Judge Roszkowski affirmed the Magistrate’s holding that the RSD intentionally discriminated against minorities in the hiring and promotion of teachers and staff. People Who Care, 851 F.Supp. at 923–24, 1130. The disproportionately low minority hiring was found to be intentional for at least two reasons: one, the evidence of overall discrimination in other areas of the school system provided an inference of intentional discrimination; and two, the RSD’s failure to hire minority staff, despite their own hiring goals and affirmative action obligations. Id. at 1130.115
The present, task, therefore, is for the court to remedy

these findings of intentional discrimination that, as one vestige, has left the RSD with 8.7% minority teachers in 1995–96. Before addressing the appropriate remedy for these violations, a word is, perhaps, in order on the need for a remedy at all in this area. One might argue that the discrimination against minority teachers in hiring has had no demonstrable effect on the minority schoolchildren. A remedy is necessary, however, because the schoolchildren have a right to be in a school district that is free from all forms of discrimination.
The task remaining, consequently, is to fashion an appropriate remedy. Using the Supreme Court’s guidance in Milliken II, the nature of the remedy in this instance will be determined by the scope of the constitutional violations and must be designed to restore the victims of the discriminatory conduct to the position they would have occupied but for the discrimination. Milliken II, 433 U.S. at 280–81. The violation in this case was the discrimination in hiring and recruitment of minority teachers and the victims are the schoolchildren in the RSD. The remedy, therefore, must somehow provide the victims with a minority faculty in a percentage that would be in place had there been no discrimination.
What this percentage is, of course, is the source of disagreement between the parties. The Master, for example, has proposed that the District be ordered, as part of the CRO, to achieve a minority faculty of at least 15% by the 1997–98 school year. Master’s Ex. 1 at 127. The Master’s recommendation of 15% is based on several factors, including the District’s prior goal of 15% minority faculty and the District’s ability in recent years to hire an average of 16.8% minority faculty for new teacher vacancies.116 In addition, it is the Master’s opinion that a higher percentage of minority teachers is needed to facilitate the court’s student assignment remedy of controlled choice, to effectuate educational remedies and to positively influence minority student achievement. Tr. 1956.
*53 The District, on the other hand, argues that the percentage of minority faculty must be determined by the relevant labor market, citing Hazlewood Sch. Dist. v. United States, 433 U.S. 299 (1977); Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Educ., 476 U.S. 267 (1986); and Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, Denver, Colorado, 902 F.Supp. 1274 (D.Colo.1995). Plaintiffs and the Master counter with Morgan v. Kerrigan, 530 F.2d 431 (1st Cir.1976), contending that a strict labor market analysis is not needed in the present case. In the alternative, Plaintiffs and the Master contend that if a strict labor market analysis is utilized under Wygant and Hazlewood, the relevant labor market for minority teachers in this case supports the 15% hiring recommendation of the Master.
In Hazlewood, the Attorney General filed suit alleging that the Hazlewood school district in St. Louis County,
38

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

Missouri had engaged in a pattern and practice of employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After a trial, the district court ruled in favor of the defendants, finding unpersuasive the government’s statistics revealing a small percentage of African–American teachers compared to the percentage of African–American pupils in the school district. Hazlewood, 433 U.S. at 304. The court of appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed, finding the district court’s comparison of African–American teachers to African–American students irrelevant. In the appellate court’s view, the proper comparison was between African–American teachers in the district and the African–American teachers in the relevant labor market area. The Eighth Circuit selected St. Louis county and St. Louis city as the relevant area, which, according to 1970 census figures, revealed a labor force of 15.4% African–American teachers. Because the district’s faculty was approximately 1 to 2% African–American, the Eighth Circuit held that the statistical disparity constituted a prima facie case of a pattern or practice of racial discrimination. Hazlewood, 433 U.S. at 305.
On review, the Supreme Court reversed. The Court held that the court of appeals was correct in its determination that in employment discrimination cases, the proper comparison is between the racial composition of the district’s teaching staff and the racial composition of the qualified public school teacher population in the relevant labor market. Hazlewood, 433 U.S. at 308. The Court held that the Eighth Circuit erred, however, when it substituted its judgment for that of the district court in defining the relevant labor market and when the court of appeals failed to consider whether the prima facie statistical evidence had been adequately rebutted. Hazlewood, 433 U.S. at 309. The case was remanded to the district court for further findings on the relevant labor market.
In Wygant, at issue was an agreement between the school board and the teachers’ union that essentially granted minority teachers preferential status in lay-offs. When nonminority teachers that had more seniority than the protected minority teachers were laid off, the nonminority teachers contended they were unconstitutionally laid off because of their race. Wygant, 476 U.S. at 272. The Court ultimately held that the lay-off provision was unconstitutional. The board provided the following rationale for the provision: it was an attempt to remedy societal discrimination by providing role models for minority schoolchildren. The Court rejected this rationale and held that before racial classifications of that nature could be used, there needed to be a showing of prior discrimination by the governmental unit. Wygant, 476 U.S. at 274. The Court, citing Hazlewood, added that the proper comparison for determining the existence of actual discrimination is between the racial composition of the district’s teaching staff and the racial composition of the qualified public school teacher population in the relevant

labor market. Id. at 275.
*54 Unlike Hazlewood and Wygant, the Keyes decision, which was at the district court level, dealt with the issue of faculty hiring in the context of a school desegregation case. In Keyes, the school district was found guilty of intentional race discrimination from 1960 through 1969. At issue in 1995 was the district’s unitary status motion to terminate the court’s jurisdiction over the school district. With respect to the faculty issue, the district court noted that there was no allegation or finding in the case of intentional discrimination in the hiring of faculty. Nonetheless, in 1974 the court ordered the implementation of a program to recruit minority teachers. The program ordered the district to achieve a goal of having Black and Hispanic teachers reflect the ratio of Black and Hispanic students in the district. After the Supreme Court’s 1986 decision in Wygant, however, the district court vacated the 1974 order and the district’s recruitment goal was modified to comparing the district’s faculty to the racial composition in the available labor pool. Keyes, 902 F.Supp. at 1296.
In determining whether the school district had met the labor force goal, the Keyes court focused on the state of Colorado as the relevant labor market. For African–American teachers, the court noted that the Colorado labor pool was approximately 2.5% and the district’s percentage of African–American teachers over the past eight years had ranged from 8 to 13%. Similarly, for Hispanics, the Colorado labor pool ranged from 6 to 7% and the district’s percentage of Hispanic teachers ranged from 10 to 13%. Relying on these statistics and the district’s efforts at recruiting minority faculty, the district court held that the school district had met or exceeded the relevant labor market pool for minority teachers and was not required to achieve higher percentages. Keyes, 902 F.Supp. at 1299.
The district court rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that the district should have been required to meet its loftier affirmative action goals that were based on the percentage of minority students in the district. The proper inquiry, the court explained, was whether the district had met the available labor force goal. Keyes, 902 F.Supp. at 1297. In addition, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that the labor pool should be defined by focusing on large urban districts that could have “70 percent or more minority students.” This notion was rejected because the plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence to suggest that the labor pools in outside markets were different from those discussed by the court. Keyes, 902 F.Supp. at 1298. The court held that the school district’s efforts at out-of-state recruitment, recruitment at colleges producing high percentages of minority teachers and various in-state recruitment techniques were sufficiently adequate, in light of the fact that the district had met or exceeded the available labor pool. Keyes, 902 F.Supp. at 1298–99.
39

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

*55 The case cited by Plaintiffs and the Master, Morgan v. Kerrigan, 530 F.2d 431 (1st Cir.1976) involved the school desegregation case in Boston, Massachusetts. In Morgan, the lawsuit resulted in a finding of intentional discrimination in several areas, including in the hiring and recruitment of African–American teachers. In Morgan, the intervening teachers’ union challenged a district court order that required the school district to hire one African–American teacher for every White teacher until 20% of the faculty was African–American. The 20% figure was selected by the district court because it represented the percentage of Blacks in the Boston population. Morgan, 530 F.2d at 432.
On appeal, the teachers’ union argued that the appropriate comparison was not to minorities in the general population but, rather, to the labor pool of the college graduates in the Boston area. The First Circuit rejected the position of the teachers’ union. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Green and Swann, the court of appeals stated:
This argument fundamentally misapprehends the nature of this case. The plaintiffs are not the black teachers or would-be teachers who have been discriminated against because of their race. The district court’s examination of the School Committee’s recruitment, hiring, transfer and promotion policies was undertaken to determine whether those policies violated the rights of black Boston public school children. It is the rights of those children that the order in issue is intended to protect.
Morgan, 530 F.2d at 432.

decisions regarding relevant labor market analysis are not completely on point. Unlike Wygant, there has been a finding in this case of intentional discrimination. This finding was affirmed by Judge Roszkowski and was not appealed by any party.
The court agrees with the observation of the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Morgan that, in a desegregation case, the remedial order seeks to protect the rights of the affected schoolchildren and, therefore, a strict labor market analysis as utilized in employment cases may not be necessary. On the other hand, there must be some benchmark to measure the scope of the remedy. The court will not order the District to hire minority teachers at an arbitrary percentage in order to provide role models. However, as stated by Justice O’Connor in her concurrence in Wygant, the rejected role model theory is quite different from the important governmental interest in promoting racial diversity among the faculty. Wygant, 476 U.S. at 288 n. * (O’Connor, J., concurring). This cogent observation gets the Magistrate no further; the question remains—how diverse does the faculty have to be? The answer, and the appropriate benchmark comparison, must lie in the percentage of minority teachers in the relevant labor market. Following Milliken II, this percentage most accurately reflects what the minority faculty ratio would have been in the absence of the discrimination that occurred.
*56 The “relevant labor market” for teachers is far from an unambiguous term. In a national economy, school districts as well as other employers hire and recruit employees on a broad national level. In addition, as of August 1995, there are approximately 38 states that have reciprocity with Illinois as far as teacher certification. Tr. 2191. These economic realities cause the Magistrate to reject the relevant labor pool as being local, i.e. the two closest counties, where the percentage of minority teachers hovers around 4%. Plaintiff’s Ex. 210 at Table 2.117

The First Circuit noted that the 20% goal was supported by other cases where the courts had resorted to gross population ratios for remedial purposes. Ultimately, the court held that if the appropriate comparison pool was recent college graduates, the union failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the percentage of recent African–American college graduates was lower than the percentage of African–Americans in the Boston population. Morgan, 530 F.2d at 433–34.

In the present case, there are principally two expert witnesses on the subject of the relevant labor pool for teachers available to the RSD. Dr. LaLonde testified on behalf of Plaintiffs. In his report, Dr. LaLonde utilized the percentages of minority teachers by region reported below in Table 1.118
In addition to these figures, Dr. LaLonde worked with a stipulated database that reflects the flow of applicants for teaching positions in the RSD, reported below in Table 2.

In analyzing the present case, the Magistrate first notes

that this is not an employment discrimination case but,

rather, is a school desegregation case with a component of

	  

intentional discrimination against minorities in hiring and

recruitment. Therefore, the Hazlewood and Wygant

Table	  2	  

40

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

	  	   Residence	  of	  Applicant	   	   	  	  
	   	   By	  Region	  
	  	   	   	   	  
	   National	  (excluding	  six	  state	  area	   	  	   	  
	   and	  Illinois)	   	  	   	  
	   	  
	   Six	  State	  Area	   	  	   	  
	   	  
	   State	  of	  Illinois	   	  	   	  
	   (excluding	  Chicago	  area,	  Chicago	  and	   Rockford)	   	  	   	  
	   	  
	   Chicago	  area	   	  	   	  
	   (excluding	  city	  of	  Chicago)	   	  	   	  
	   	  
	   Chicago	   	  	   	  
	   	  

	  	   	   	  	   	  
Percentage	  Applying	  to	   	  	   	   the	  Rockford	  School	  Dist.	   	  	   	   	  	   	   32.3%	   	  	   	   	  
	  	   	   17.7%	   	  	   	   	  	   	   6.5%	   	  	   	   	  
	  	   	   14.3%	   	  	   	   	  
	  	   	   2.4%	   	  	   	   	  	   	  

41

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

	   Rockford	   	  	   	  

26.9%119	   	  	  
	  

Utilizing this data, Dr. LaLonde concluded that the RSD could achieve 20% minority faculty if the District felt this percentage was educationally productive. In his opinion, the 20% figure could be achieved over time if the District increased recruiting expenditures, improved working conditions, provided non-salary incentives and, perhaps, provided higher salaries. Plaintiffs’ Ex. 210 at 2. Although Dr. LaLonde stated that a goal of 20% would be within the District’s reach, his ultimate conclusion was that the size and scope of the RSD’s labor market for teachers depended on the willingness and availability of qualified teachers to relocate to Rockford. Id. at 7. As such, the availability of minority teachers “can not be described simply by a single number.” Plaintiffs’ Ex. 210 at 5.
Therefore, according to Dr. LaLonde, the availability of teachers for the RSD depends on the willingness of applicants to relocate to Rockford and the efforts made by the RSD to attract qualified applicants. Id. at 6. The data listed in Table 2, above, was significant to Dr. LaLonde in reaching his conclusion and underscored two points. First, the RSD’s teacher labor market is clearly not local; rather, the RSD attracts applicants on a nationwide basis. Second, although Chicago has the largest concentration of minority teachers in the Midwest, the District attracts very few applicants from that city. Plaintiffs’ Ex. 210 at 10.
*57 In Dr. LaLonde’s opinion, if the District expanded its recruiting efforts to cover the 21 counties in northern Illinois, he would expect the District’s minority new hires to mirror that of the 21 county percentage, or 19%. However, since 93% of all minority teachers in northern Illinois are in Chicago, reaching this 19% figure necessarily depended on successful Chicago recruiting. Plaintiffs’ Ex. 210 at 15. If Rockford successfully recruited from all of Illinois, Dr. LaLonde would expect new hires to be approximately 15% (see Table 1). Particularly important to Dr. LaLonde was that over the last three years, the RSD has been able to recruit an average of 16.8% minority hires. This fact, along with the influx of applicants from across the nation, led Dr. LaLonde to conclude, “The [District’s] labor market for teachers is to some degree something that it chooses so as to reflect its educational objectives.” Id. at 1.
Defendant’s expert, Dr. Freeman, reached a different conclusion. First, Dr. Freeman noted the percentage of minority teachers in the regional labor markets listed below in Table 3.120

Next, Dr. Freeman calculated a “weighted availability.” In essence, this weighted availability took into account the percentage of applicants from these six regions (in Table 3). For example, although Cook county has 32.4% minority teachers, the District is only receiving 2.4% of its applicants from this area (Table 2, above). Therefore, from Chicago, the RSD can expect .78% of its applicants to be minority (32.4% times 2.4%). When all the geographic areas are similarly weighted by their applicant flow into the RSD, Dr. Freeman arrived at her conclusion that the available labor pool for teachers is 9.4% minority. Freeman Dep. Ex. 8 at 4, Exhibit 7. Given the 8.7% minority faculty currently present in the District, Defendant argues that the RSD has a minority faculty approximating the available labor pool and, therefore, no remedy is needed.
In analyzing this problem, the Magistrate notes two major drawbacks with Dr. Freeman’s approach. First, the RSD employs one-half the teachers in the Rockford area and has discriminated against minorities in hiring and recruitment for several years. Therefore, the approximately 4% minority faculty in the area utilized by Dr. Freeman in her weighted approach is likely to be unreliable.
Second, Dr. Freeman treats the applicant flow as a static variable. The data in Table 2, however, is only a snapshot in time of applicants from the 1994–95 school year. The applicant flow could change significantly from the figures used in Dr. Freeman’s analysis. For reasons that will be more fully discussed under the faculty placement section, the collective bargaining agreement and the District’s hiring round placement system have a negative impact on the District’s potential to successfully recruit minority teachers. Plaintiffs’ Ex. 210 at 10, 22; Master’s Ex. 1 at 146; Tr. 2185–93; Tr. 3396–97; Tr. 3462–63, 3551; Tr. 3609–10; Tr. 4014–15.121 Thus, for example, if these impediments were removed, one would expect greater success in recruiting from places like Chicago, the Midwest and other U.S. geographic locations.122 Once recruiting is more successful, one would expect an increase in the applicant flow from these areas above the 1994–95 figures.123
The major difference between Drs. LaLonde and Freeman can be said in one word—Chicago. In the Magistrate’s opinion, Defendant has unfairly seized upon Rockford’s relative lack of success in recruiting from Chicago. Statistics, unfortunately, are subject to manipulation. When Chicago—which is only 90 miles from
42

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

Rockford—is carved out of the labor pool, the percent of potential minority faculty drops significantly. This is not warranted. The word may be out that Rockford is not hiring minorities. People sometimes do not apply for jobs that they know they have little or no chance of getting. Who knows what effect this may have had on deterring applicants.
*58 The Magistrate, however, will not base the faculty hiring remedy on speculation. The minority faculty labor pool in Illinois is 15%. Plaintiff’s Ex. 210 at Table 2. The court notes that the court in Keyes chose the state of Colorado as the relevant labor market. If the Magistrate did so here, then the relevant labor market would be 15%, which equals the figure selected by the Master. Choosing Illinois as the relevant labor market, however, ignores that approximately 50% of the RSD’s applications are from outside the state. Teachers, especially minority teachers, are a commodity in the national economy, and the relevant labor market needs to reflect this reality.
The court adopts the following analysis in reaching the relevant labor market for minority teachers in the RSD. As stated, the labor pool in Illinois is 15%. The minority faculty labor pool outside Illinois, i.e., the United States, is 12%. Plaintiff’s Ex. 210 at Table 2. Although the stipulated applicant flow data has some limitations, the Magistrate will use this data because it is the best estimate available that reflects the RSD’s labor pool for minority faculty on a national level. Using Dr. Freeman’s statistics, approximately 50% of the RSD’s teacher applicants are from outside Illinois and 50% are from the state of Illinois. Utilizing the corresponding percentages of minority faculty in these two geographic regions (12% and 15%), a weighted availability reveals that the relevant labor market pool for teachers in the RSD is 13.5% minority ((50% times 12%) plus (50% times 15%)). This is the percentage of minority faculty that would be present in the RSD but for the discrimination in hiring and recruitment. The RSD is ordered, therefore, to achieve a faculty of at least 13.5% minority teachers in each grade configuration (elementary, middle and high schools) as soon as practicable.
A closely related problem to minority faculty hiring is the potentiality for reduction in force (RIF) lay-offs. When, for example, the District is successful in meeting the 13.5% minority faculty requirement, a problem will exist if the District is forced to lay off teachers for economic reasons. By the terms of the collective bargaining agreement (“contract”) the District has with Defendant–Intervenors (“REA”), the teachers with the least seniority in the District are the first to go. Plaintiffs’ Ex. 61 at 20. In other words, all the success in hiring new minority recruits may be wiped out if these teachers are the first to go in a “last in, first out” RIF situation.
These lay-off provisions could be a significant setback to

the progress of the RSD in achieving a racially diverse faculty. A natural and direct consequence of the District’s hiring discrimination is that all of the recently hired and all of the newly hired minority faculty to correct this discrimination will have significantly less seniority that nonminority teachers. Because these minority teachers will have been the “last in,” they will also be the first to go.
*59 The court orders, therefore, that in any RIF situation, the District’s post-RIF minority faculty ratio must approximately equal the pre-RIF ratio. The court realizes that this could result in the lay-off of teachers with more seniority than certain minority teachers not being laid off. This provision, however, serves the compelling goals of preserving the racial diversity of the RSD faculty and facilitating the remedy for the unlawful discrimination in this case. The court also realizes that this lay-off provision is race-conscious. The intentional discrimination in this case, however, requires race-conscious remedies in some instances. Accordingly, the Wygant decision is inapposite because it dealt with a voluntary affirmative action program where there had not been a finding of prior intentional discrimination. See, e.g., Morgan v. O’Bryant, 671 F.2d 23, 25 (1st Cir.1982) (upholding a similar lay-off provision, stating, “[These provisions] were necessary to safeguard the progress toward desegregation painstakingly achieved over the last seven years. Without them, the percentage of blacks would have fallen almost to its level nearly a decade ago....”).
B. Faculty Placement If the RSD’s faculty were evenly distributed, there would be no issue concerning faculty placement. Analyzing the current distribution, however, quickly demonstrates the problem in the RSD.
For the 1995–96 school year, there were a total of 994 teachers and 97 minority school teachers in the RSD’s 39 elementary schools. Plaintiffs’ Ex. 190. By terms of the Second Interim Order, the District’s elementary schools were classified as C.8. and C.9. The C.8. schools are generally west of the river and include the District’s six racially identifiable minority schools. Conversely, the C.9. schools are generally east of the river and include the District’s five racially identifiable White schools. Unfortunately, the District’s elementary schools are racially identifiable by faculty as well as by students. Particularly telling is that of the twenty-one C.9. elementary schools, eight schools have no minority teachers, eleven schools have only one minority teacher and the remaining two schools each have two minority teachers. Plaintiffs’ Ex. 190. Of the fourteen C.8. schools, three schools have one minority teacher, three schools have three minority teachers, five schools have four or five minority teachers, one school has seven and the
43

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

remaining two schools which host bilingual programs, have twenty-six minority teachers between them. Id.124
This data demonstrates that the RSD’s minority faculty is unevenly distributed.125 Unfortunately, this means that most of the RSD’s eastside elementary schools are racially identifiable White merely by looking at the constitution of the school’s faculty. When the District is successful in obtaining 13.5% minority faculty, there will be approximately 134 minority teachers in the elementary schools. If the current placement methods remain the same, a greater disparity in the disproportion of minority teachers in west side schools may occur.
*60 In most areas in the CRO, the Magistrate has started the discussion of a particular remedial area with the Master’s recommendations. The recommendations, however, have little meaning unless the District’s current teacher placement system is first understood. For this reason, the Magistrate will begin this section with a discussion of current teacher placement methods in the RSD.
The placement methods currently utilized in the District are difficult to understand and at times seem convoluted. No business expecting to survive in a competitive market place could be run in the same fashion. The court understands, however, that this system is the result of collective bargaining and both parties to the contract seem satisfied with the system. Days were spent in trial explaining the placement system and an additional thousand pages of deposition transcripts were submitted, thankfully, in lieu of live testimony. What follows is this court’s understanding of the process, summarized and brutally simplified to the extent possible.
Current Faculty Placement in the RSD Bob Corder, Vice–President of the REA, was very helpful to the court in understanding the placement process. The placement process does not begin until there is a vacancy to be filled. Vacancies arise in several different ways—from the District creating new positions to teachers leaving the District or retiring. Once a vacancy is filled by an incumbent teacher, that teacher’s former position becomes a vacancy to be filled. And so on. This process was described at trial as the “domino” effect.
Sometime during the school year, the RSD administrators, usually the principals, determine the number of allocations needed for each school for the following year. Tr. 3748. If a principal knows there is going to be a vacancy for the next year, she notifies the human resources department which, in turn, publicizes the vacancy in the school buildings and in the job vacancy newsletter, the Communicator. Tr. 3712; 3854. The vacancies are to remain open for at least ten days.

Plaintiffs’ Ex. 61 at 15. Typically, the first “round” of vacancies is published in the Communicator in late April of a particular school year (Tr. 3717), although Mr. Harezlak, the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources, testified that these allocations should be known as early as February or March. Tr. 3412.
It is a requirement that all vacancies be filled within thirty days of the last publication. Plaintiffs’ Ex. 61 at 17. During this time period, incumbent teachers (as well as new hires) can apply for a vacancy by filling out an application. Tr. 3712. Human resources then generates a computerized list of applicants for each vacancy; the applicants appear on the list in order by years of seniority. Tr. 3712–13. The principals receive these lists and then submit a written recommendation for hire.126 Tr. 3713. For each round there is a placement day, when RSD administrators and REA representatives meet at human resources. Typically, the first placement day each year occurs in mid to late May. Tr. 3716.
*61 If more than one applicant has applied for a position, the applicant “best qualified,” based upon relevant certification, education and training, shall be appointed to the vacancy. Plaintiffs’ Ex. 61 at 18. Although the contract does not weight these three criteria, in practice, they are weighted in that order. Tr. 3898–99. If the qualifications are substantially equal, the most senior applicant is to be appointed to the vacancy. Plaintiffs’ Ex. 61 at 18.
At placement day, the selection process begins by looking at the most senior applicant for a vacancy and the principal’s selection. If the principal has chosen the most senior applicant, that person is assigned the position. Tr. 3713–14. In practice, the most senior applicant gets the position 50% of the time. Tr. 3792. In Mr. Harezlak’s opinion, the current practice in the RSD is to primarily look at seniority in filling positions. Tr. 3376. If the principal does select the most senior applicant, a rationale for the decision is not required and there is never a dispute over who is the most qualified. Tr. 3902–03. In short, a principal can avoid controversy merely be selecting the most senior applicant. Tr. 4025.
If the principal has not selected the most senior applicant, the human resource administrator and the union’s representative will look at the principal’s rationale for not choosing the most senior applicant. Tr. 3714. The rationale must be based on the relevant certification, education and training required for the position, as contained in the advertisement for the vacancy. Tr. 3727. In practice, most rationales are not challenged. Tr. 3742. A challenged rationale may lead to a grievance process. If a rationale is accepted and the most senior applicant is not selected for a position, the placement administrator and the union’s representative look to the next senior applicant. This process continues until the position is
44

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

staffed.127
What has been described thus far is the first round, usually starting in April and completed by May. A necessary consequence of the first round is that the teachers filling the first round vacancies in turn, themselves, leave vacancies. There is no provision in the contract specifying the number of transfers a teacher can seek per year, the number of rounds per year or the number of placement days. Each round, however, lasts about one month from posting, although the time period is lessened the closer the round is to the start of the school year. Tr. 3715–16. In 1995–96, for example, there were 129 vacancies filled in the first five rounds. Underscoring the number of internal transfers of teachers is that, of the 129 vacancies, only six were filled by new hires. Tr. 3923. A result of the round system starting late and allowing limitless transfers is that, as a practical consideration, new hires often do not get a chance at the vacancies until the last rounds, usually at the end of summer.128 Tr. 4014.
Two Consequences of the Placement System *62 It has become clear to the Magistrate that the perceived most desirable teaching positions in the District are in the C.9. schools. See Tr. 1809–10; 3444. At the beginning of the school year, for example, the number of vacancies in C.8. schools far outweighs those in C.9. schools. Tr. 1978. Thus, at the end of the rounds, the desirable positions in C.9. schools have been filled, leaving vacancies in the C.8. schools. In 1995–96, hiring round five was advertised on August 29, 1995, and of the thirty non-magnet vacancies (both full and part-time positions), twenty-eight were in the C.8. schools. Defendant–Intervenors’ Corder. Ex. 12. A direct result of the contract is that a disproportionate percentage of faculty filling those C.8. positions are minority teachers. Tr. 3442–45.
The most direct way the contract produces this result stems from the seniority and training provisions. Because of the intentional discrimination in hiring, newly hired minority teachers as well as the minority hires in recent years will have much less seniority and training than the incumbent majority teachers. Therefore, in the opening rounds in which most of the C.9. positions are filled, the minority new hires most likely will not have the training for a position that is advertised. In recent years, for example, “intense” training, particular to Rockford, is often listed in the job descriptions, placing minority new hires at a distinct disadvantage. Tr. 3440–41. If a minority new hire does apply for a vacancy for which she is equally qualified in terms of certification, education and training, chances are that the vacancy will go to an incumbent teacher that has more seniority.

The problem with this scenario is that the recent minority new hires, as well as the future new hires as a result of the CRO, are minority teachers that the District should have hired over the past twenty years. They are being hired now as a remedy. Unfortunately, they have little or no seniority, have little localized training because they are new to the District and, therefore, cannot compete for the perceived desirable positions. Tr. 2193; 3899–3900, 3992–94. A direct result is that most new hire minority teachers are placed in August or September in positions for which there is usually not much competition from incumbents. Tr. 3592. In short, the incumbent teachers have already filled most of the C.9. positions, leaving C.8. vacancies for minority new hires. The immediate result is the disproportionate percentage of minority faculty in C.8. schools.
The second effect of the present placement system is the burden it places on the RSD’s ability to recruit and hire minority teachers. Since minority teachers are a treasured commodity in the national labor market, successful recruiting is necessary in early Spring. The problem in recruiting, however, is that the potential minority new hires cannot be guaranteed where they will be working or what they will be teaching at the time of recruitment. This uncertainty often deters the potential new hires who end up at other school districts that can offer more reliable placement.129
*63 Over the last several years, the District developed a “surplussing” system where it would offer a minority recruit a contract in the Spring, although the exact placement would not be known until late in the round system at the end of Summer. Tr. 2173–74. As stated above, however, although these surplussed teachers can compete in every round of the placement system, as a practical matter, they have to wait for the final rounds to successfully fill a vacancy because they have no localized training and no seniority. Therefore, Mr. Creighton’s testimony that he has been more successful in placing minority new hires in C.8. schools than C.9. schools comes as little surprise. Tr. 2184. In 1994, in fact, of the twelve minority new hires at the elementary level, eleven went to C.8. schools. Tr. 1829.
In sum, the present placement system has two detrimental effects on the District’s progress in diversifying its faculty. The collective bargaining agreement unquestionably favors the incumbent teachers in placement. As the C.9. positions are perceived as the most desirable, a natural consequence is that a disproportionate amount of majority teachers occupy those positions. If there had been a level playing field for the last twenty years, more minority teachers would have been hired and would have acquired seniority and training. Because they have only recently been hired in greater percentages means that they cannot successfully compete for the C.9. positions. As a result, the RSD’s faculty has become
45

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

racially identifiable. The second effect of the contract and the placement system is the impediment they impose on minority recruitment and hiring. The contract, therefore, impedes hiring, recruitment and placement which unquestionably hinders the District’s ability to diversify its staff. Tr. 1751; 2193; 3561; 3602–03.
The Master’s Recommendations The Master has essentially two recommendations on faculty placement. The first recommendation addresses the round system problem by starting the process earlier. Under the Master’s proposal, the RSD would be required to determine the number of allocations for the next year by January 15th. The round system would then begin, with the same publication requirements. By May 30th, the District and the REA would be required to complete three rounds of placement, with the most qualified applicant receiving the position under the current terms of the contract. Between June 1st and June 30th, the RSD would place any surplussed or RIF’d employee in any appropriate vacancy. After June 30th, the RSD would be able to directly place, without regard to seniority, any newly employed minority elementary teachers in C.9. vacancies until the individual schools were within +/− 15% of the districtwide percentage of minority faculty. See Master’s Ex. 1 at 132–33.
The Master’s second faculty placement recommendation concerns the retention of specially trained teachers at C.8. schools and schools with more than 33% minority students. Teachers with specialized training are critical at these schools in order to improve the academic performance of the students and aid overall desegregation efforts. Master’s Ex. 1 at 129. Essentially, the Master wants to preserve the number of specially trained teachers at these schools by assuring that if teachers leave these schools, they are replaced by teachers with similar training. Id. Further protection is sought in that teachers at these schools who have the specialized training are not to be surplussed or RIF’d. Id. at 128. In addition, the Master would require that a sufficient number of teachers with specialized training are, in the future, assigned to C.8. schools. Id. at 129.
The Liability Findings *64 To be consistent, the court will begin its analysis with an overview of the liability findings with regard to faculty placement. In the report and recommendation, the Magistrate concluded that the RSD violated the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs through the intentional assignment of a disproportionate percentage of minority teachers, principals and custodial/clerical staff to schools with a high percentage of minority students. Conversely, majority staff (both certified and non-certified) were

disproportionately assigned to schools with a high percentage of majority students. People Who Care, 851 F.Supp. at 1153.

Judge Roszkowski reversed these findings because Plaintiffs failed to establish that the statistical disparities contributed to the intentional discrimination against minority students. Judge Roszkowski stated:

Although the data does indicate a

disparity in the distribution of

District staff, the plaintiffs have not

established that this was caused

with intent to discriminate against

students.

As

the

defendant-intervenors point out, the

District was under certain

obligations through collective

bargaining agreements with District

employees. These agreements gave

teachers rights in their assignment

based upon seniority and

qualifications.... In cases where

applicants had substantially equal

qualifications, the selection was

then based on seniority.

People Who Care, 851 F.Supp. at 924.

Faculty Assignment Remedy Intervenor–Defendants cling to Judge Roszkowski’s decision regarding placement and argue that any provision in the CRO disrupting the current placement system is unwarranted. The issue boils down to whether, notwithstanding Judge Roszkowski’s findings, this court is able to disrupt the collective bargaining agreement that, in the court’s view, has unquestionably led to a racially identifiable faculty in the District. In the Magistrate’s view, the answer is yes, for two very good reasons.
The first reason is grounded in the liability findings concerning faculty hiring. From Brown II in 1955 to Jenkins III in 1995, the Supreme Court has been consistent in its mandate that the vestiges of intentional discrimination must be eliminated root and branch. The liability finding of concern here is that the RSD intentionally discriminated against minorities in hiring and recruiting over the past twenty years. A direct vestige of this discrimination is that newly hired minority teachers will not have the seniority they would have had but for the discrimination. In a placement system with a presumption that the most senior applicant for a vacancy receives the position, a direct and immediate consequence of the intentional discrimination is that, in the twenty-one C.9. schools that consist of predominantly majority students, nineteen of those schools have one or zero
46

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

minority faculty members.130
The second reason is just as obvious: what sense does it make to racially balance the schools under the student assignment plan if the faculty remains racially identifiable? The efforts at desegregation through controlled choice will be severely undermined if a school remains racially identifiable by looking at its faculty. The language from the Supreme Court in Freeman, quoted at page 11 of the CRO, bears repeating here, “The Green factors are a measure of the racial identifiability of schools in a system that is not in compliance with Brown, and we instructed the District Courts to fashion remedies that address all these components of elementary and secondary school systems.” Freeman, 503 U.S. at 486. With respect to faculty, the Court stated:
*65 We have long recognized that the Green factors may be related or interdependent. Two or more Green factors may be intertwined or synergistic in their relation, so that a constitutional violation in one area cannot be eliminated unless the judicial remedy addresses other matters as well. We have observed, for example, that student segregation and faculty segregation are often related problems.
Freeman, 503 U.S. at 497.
Freeman requires, therefore, that this court address the faculty placement system that, in its present state, maintains a racially identifiable faculty. Desegregating the faculty is essential to facilitating the student assignment remedy. A remedial order that only partially addresses the full list of Green factors would inherently be insufficient. Ultimately, it would be illogical to desegregate the Rockford public school system in some areas, only to leave the faculty segregated. Accordingly, the RSD is hereby ordered to desegregate its faculty as soon as is practicable.131
The court now turns to fashioning a remedy in this area. The court has considered the recommendations of the Master and finds them to be insufficient. While the proposal to hasten the round system would help minority recruiting, it would accomplish little in terms of desegregating the faculty. Direct placement of newly hired minority teachers after June 30th would be ineffective if the majority of vacancies were in C.8. schools.
It is time for the Rockford School Board to regain its control over the faculty hiring and placement process.

Accordingly, in order to desegregate its faculty, the District will now have the power and ability, through this order, to directly place a minority teacher in any arising vacancy for which he or she is qualified. The District will not be required to place every minority new hire or an arbitrary percentage of minority new hires in C.9. vacancies. Rather, the District is to use direct placement to desegregate the faculty in a timely fashion. The court orders the following procedure for direct placement. For any vacancy arising before July 1st, the RSD, when notified of the vacancy, shall be given twenty-one days to directly place either a qualified minority new hire or a qualified minority incumbent willing to leave their former position. If the District does not fill the position with direct placement, then the vacancy shall be advertised and filled in the normal procedure. The twenty-one day period will be shortened as the school year approaches. Therefore, for vacancies arising after July 1st, the RSD shall be given fourteen days to fill the position before it is advertised; for vacancies arising after August 1st, the time period for direct placement will be seven days.132
This faculty placement provision serves two purposes. First, it will enable the District to desegregate its faculty. Because the provision applies to the earliest known vacancies as well as the late summer vacancies, the District will have the opportunity to directly place minority faculty into many more C.9. positions than with the Master’s proposal. Second, the District’s recruiting efforts will be enhanced. With this system in place, the District’s recruiter will be able to guarantee positions to minority recruits in early Spring. This will undoubtedly make the District more competitive in recruitment and will serve the RSD in meeting the 13.5% minority faculty mandate. The court recalls the testimony of Mr. Creighton who stated that with direct placement, he would have been able to hire more minority teachers. Tr. 2192.
*66 At the elementary level, the court orders that no school exceed the percentage of the RSD’s elementary minority faculty by 5%. Currently, the RSD has 97 minority teachers at the elementary level, out of 994 total elementary teachers. However, this includes 26 Hispanic teachers in the bilingual programs that will be exempt from the placement provisions.133 This results in a total of 71 minority teachers for 37 elementary schools. The adjusted percentage of elementary minority faculty in the RSD (without the bilingual teachers) is 7.3% (71 divided by 968). Therefore, presently, the District cannot have more than 12.3% minority faculty at any elementary school. The ceiling will naturally change from year to year as the RSD progresses toward a 13.5% minority faculty. The effect of the ceiling is that a large percentage of minority faculty in the C.8. schools may move to other schools in the District. A floor requirement at this point would be too inflexible, given the low number of minority elementary teachers compared to the number of elementary schools. When the District does reach 13.5%
47

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

elementary minority faculty, the court may consider a +/− 5% standard for elementary schools.134
Middle and high schools, however, will be held to the +/− 5% standard, both presently, and after the 13.5% minority faculty requirement is met because the fifty-five minority teachers at the eight secondary schools allow for sufficient flexibility. As the District is to accomplish these requirements by vacancy filling only, the court realizes that it may be problematic to reach these goals in the first year of implementation. In addition, the court notes that the current high school faculty is 7% minority and the +/− 5% standard allows high schools to have as low as 2% minority faculty. This problem will disappear, however, when the District progresses to 13.5% minority faculty at the high school level with deliberate speed.
The court rejects the Master’s second recommendation concerning the retention of faculty with specialized training at C.8. schools. This proposal is inconsistent with the spirit of the CRO. With controlled choice in full operation, the C.8. and C.9. distinctions will be rendered obsolete. This School Board will be forced to treat the District as one entity, instead of the C.8./C.9. or west/east distinctions. Under controlled choice, every elementary school will range from approximately 21 to 51% minority students; consequently, the need for teachers with specialized training may exist at any one of the RSD’s elementary schools. The court orders, therefore, that the District staff schools with these teachers, as appropriate.135 Any part of the collective bargaining agreement between the RSD and the REA which would prevent this section of the CRO from being implemented is hereby enjoined.136

“support the identification and implementation of research-based programs which have demonstrated the ability to improve minority student achievement and to close the achievement gap between majority and minority students.” See CRO (segment one) at 39. The Master, however, has proposed quantitative measures to gauge the efforts of the RSD in ensuring that minority students attain performance outcomes comparable to other students in the District, in the area of student achievement. The court will begin this section with a brief review of the liability findings.
Liability Findings In the report and recommendation, the Magistrate found that there were significant and long lasting disparities between the achievement levels of minority students as compared to majority students, particularly as measured by standardized test scores. People Who Care, 851 F.Supp. at 1033–36. The court concluded that the District’s student assignment practices led to the “continued racial isolation of minority students in the Southwest Quadrant [which] had severe negative effects on the students’ education.” Id. at 1061. In addition to the RSD’s unlawful segregation through student assignment practices, a second causative factor related to minority student achievement was the District’s discriminatory tracking practices, where minority students were often placed in lower achieving tracks because of their race. Id. at 999. Lastly, the court found a strong correlation between the facility disparities west of the river and poor student achievement. Id. at 1033. These findings were not disturbed by Judge Roszkowski.

SEGMENT THREE—CONTINUED
[Dated June 7, 1996]
VI. Student Achievement In his proposed remedial order, the Master made recommendations under “Participation and Performance of Minority Students in the RSD.” CRO (segment one) at 7. The recommendations concerned the areas of student achievement, attendance, grades, graduation rates, drop-out rates and discipline. Master’s Ex. 1 at 84–85. These recommendations, except for discipline, will be discussed under the category “Student Achievement” in this section. Discipline referrals and sanctions will be discussed in Section VII.
*67 In segment one of this opinion, the court noted the parties’ stipulation that the District will continue to

Achievement Disparities Unfortunately, the statistical disparities continued throughout the 1990s. In 1991 and 1992, for example, the achievement scores of the RSD’s White students were more than twice that of the District’s African–American students. Plaintiffs’ Findings of Fact on Educational Remedies at 97. Majority students scored at the 58th percentile on national tests whereas African–American students performed at the 27th percentile. Id. At the District’s secondary schools in 1992, the disparities between White and African–American students in reading comprehension ranged from a low of 17 percentile points at Flinn, to a high of 44 percentile points at Eisenhower. In math, the disparities ranged from a low of 18 percentile points at West, to a high of 49 percentile points at Eisenhower. See Master’s 4th Quarterly Report at 20–21. These gaps continued in 1993 and 1994. Master’s 8th Quarterly Report at 17; Master’s 13th Quarterly Report at 81–108.
48

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

The Master’s Recommendations The Master proposed the following standards to govern the RSD’s progress in achieving equitable outcomes. First, the present disparity in performance on standardized tests would be required to be reduced by five percentile points each successive school year until equitable outcomes in standardized testing were achieved and maintained.137 Second, the Master proposed that 90% of minority students must be within one year of the national norm on the Degrees of Reading Power Test by 1997. Third, the disparity in attendance, drop-out and graduation rates would be required to be reduced each year by 20% of the difference between majority and minority students until equity was achieved and maintained. Master’s Ex. 1 at 85–86.138

development. Master’s Ex. 1 at 89.139 In the Master’s opinion, the use of outcome measures is appropriate because they contribute to the speed and efficiency of the remedy and provide definitive criteria for the District to follow. Tr. 4831, 4883–84.
The Experts There was no shortage of experts available to testify on student achievement issues. Dr. Crain testified, on behalf of Plaintiffs, regarding the achievement disparities. The 1995 data, utilized by Dr. Crain and other experts, is displayed below in a chart reproduced from Master’s Ex. 1 at 90.

*68 In the Master’s opinion, equitable outcomes in these

areas can be achieved by remedying the prior

	  

discrimination, providing additional classes and tutoring,

providing additional learning opportunities outside

normal school hours and improving staff training and

1995	  Reading	  and	  Mathematics	  Scores	  in	  Normal	  Curve	  Equivalents	  for	  

	  	  

	  

Grades	  3	  through	  8,	  and	  10,	  and	  Subsidized	  Lunch	  Status.140	   	  	  
	  

Grade	   	  	   	  

Subsidized	  Lunch	   	  	   	  

Reading	  

	  

Mathematics	  

	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  
	   Status	   	  	   	  
3	   Free	   	  	   	  	   	   	   	   Regular	  
	  	   	   	   	  
4	   Free	   	  	   	  	   	   	   	   Regular	  
	  	   	   	   	  
5	   Free	   	  	   	  	   	   	   	   Regular	  
	  	   	   	   	  

Afr/Am	   	  	   	  
33.5	   	  	   	  
36.9	   	  	   	   	  
30.0	   	  	   	  
35.8	   	  	   	   	  
32.5	   	  	   	  
39.7	   	  	   	   	  

Non–Min	   	  	   	  
44.1	   	  	   	  
56.6	   	  	   	   	  
41.6	   	  	   	  
56.9	   	  	   	   	  
44.2	   	  	   	  
55.2	   	  	   	   	  

Afr/Am	   	  	   	  
33.2	   	  	   	  
37.2	   	  	   	   	  
32.8	   	  	   	  
38.0	   	  	   	   	  
32.0	   	  	   	  
37.1	   	  	   	   	  

Non–Min	   	  	   	  
43.9	   	  	   	  
49.5	   	  	   	   	  	   	  
43.4	   	  	   	  
56.3	   	  	   	   	  	   	  
44.1	   	  	   	  
56.7	   	  	   	   	  	   	  
49

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

6	   Free	   	  	   	  	   	   	   	   Regular	  
	  	   	   	   	  
7	   Free	   	  	   	  	   	   	   	   Regular	  
	  	   	   	   	  
8	   Free	   	  	   	  	   	   	   	   Regular	  
	  	   	   	   	  
10	   Free	   	  	   	  	   	   	   	   Regular	  
	  	   	  

33.7	   	  	   	  
38.7	   	  	   	   	  
33.2	   	  	   	  
35.9	   	  	   	   	  
31.2	   	  	   	  
32.6	   	  	   	   	  
29.8	   	  	   	  
37.7	   	  	   	  

45.4	   	  	   	  
57.7	   	  	   	   	  
36.7	   	  	   	  
55.2	   	  	   	   	  
40.0	   	  	   	  
52.7	   	  	   	   	  
45.1	   	  	   	  
55.3	   	  	   	  

34.0	   	  	   	  
39.5	   	  	   	   	  
30.8	   	  	   	  
32.9	   	  	   	   	  
26.1	   	  	   	  
28.5	   	  	   	   	  
30.9	   	  	   	  
35.1	   	  	   	  

45.3	   	  	   	  
58.4	   	  	   	   	  	   	  
45.5	   	  	   	  
52.2	   	  	   	   	  	   	  
35.1	   	  	   	  
49.4	   	  	   	   	  	   	  
46.0	   	  	   	  
56.8	   	  	   	  

Dr. Crain concluded that, with respect to reading scores, there was an average gap of 10.5 normal curve equivalents (“NCEs”) between African–American and White students in the free lunch category.141 In the regular lunch category, the average gap was 18.9 NCEs. Tr. 4334. With respect to math scores, the average gaps were 10.4 and 20.2 for free lunch and regular lunch, respectively. Tr. 4334. Similar disparities existed between White and Hispanic test scores. Tr. 4332. In Dr. Crain’s opinion, the disparities were statistically significant—there is only one chance in 10,000 that these results could have occurred by accident. Tr. 4331. Dr. Crain’s conclusions on the existing disparities were essentially undisputed by all parties’ experts. The areas of disagreement, rather, are what caused these disparities and to what extent the District should be held responsible for assuring quantitative or equitable outcomes.
Dr. Crain testified regarding these latter issues as well. In Dr. Crain’s opinion, the segregation of students by race, on its own, has had a direct negative impact on achievement for the RSD’s minority students from the late 1950’s to the present. Tr. 4281.142 Dr. Crain estimated that the effects of segregation produced a tangible loss in the order of 3/10 to 4/10 of a standard deviation in minority student achievement. Tr. 4279. Dr. Crain stated that this loss could be recouped by desegregating students

starting at kindergarten or first grade. Tr. 4279.
*69 Dr. Crain further testified that, apart from segregation, discrimination in educational practices has had a detrimental impact on minority student achievement. For example, the RSD’s discriminatory use of tracking denied minorities equal academic preparation. Plaintiffs’ Ex. 208 at 7–8. Once in the lower tracks, students received less teaching, had less homework assigned, became alienated, had higher delinquency problems and were less likely to attend college. Tr. 4282, 4301; see also CRO (segment two) at 98 n. 87.
Dr. Crain also testified regarding the multi-generational effects of school segregation and educational discrimination. In the multi-generational theory, the first generation is directly discriminated against by a school district. In the RSD’s case, school segregation and discriminatory tracking have had direct negative effects on the educational attainment of the first generation. As discussed, low educational attainment means lower graduation rates, less college attendance and fewer years of college attended. In addition, school segregation and tracking affect the first generation by instilling feelings of inferiority and minority alienation. Tr. 4289–90. Minority students learn to avoid and withdraw from interracial relationships, are less likely to attend desegregated colleges and fail to develop social networks that serve as
50

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

an entrance into society’s mainstream. Plaintiffs’ Ex. 208 at 14, 17–18; Tr. 4290–91, 4293–94. As a result, Dr. Crain testified that members of the first generation are more likely to end up in segregated housing, to work in segregated employment, have low socio-economic status and to be victims of employment discrimination. Plaintiffs’ Ex. 208 at 15–17, 20–21; Tr. 4295; Tr. 4297–98.
In turn, the second generation of children are directly and adversely affected by the discrimination lodged against their parents. These children, Dr. Crain testified, are likely to grow up in an area of concentrated poverty and have low wage parents who do not foster the educational development of their children. Tr. 4302–08. Growing up in a concentrated area of poverty negatively affects student achievement, because these areas have higher numbers of single parent households and potentially less parental involvement in education. Tr. 4303–06. Consequently, in a child’s developmental years prior to entering kindergarten, factors such as neighborhood poverty, single parenting, low socio-economic status and poor cognitive development at home, all serve to lower a child’s ability to achieve future academic success. Tr. 4307, 4325. Therefore, these children are at a disadvantage when entering school. If a school district is still discriminating when these children enter school, the second generation faces yet another obstacle and, inevitably, the cycle will repeat itself.143
Ultimately, Dr. Crain concluded that if the RSD had not engaged in any form of discrimination from 1959 to the present, there would be no performance gaps between minority and majority students. Tr. 4326. Dr. Crain proposed as a remedy that the District take all practical steps to ensure that minority students attain performance outcomes comparable to other students in the RSD in the areas of achievement, attendance, grades, graduation rates and drop-out rates. Tr. 4341. Dr. Crain supported the Master’s proposal that the District be required to reduce the achievement gaps by five percentiles per year until equalized. Tr. 4338. Given his multi-generational theory, however, Dr. Crain testified that it would actually take a minimum of twenty-five years to eliminate the gaps. Tr. 4342.144
*70 Dr. Levine testified on behalf of the Master. Ultimately, he agreed with the Master’s recommendation that the RSD should be required to reduce achievement gaps by five percentiles, until equitable outcomes in standardized testing are achieved and maintained. Master’s Ex. 63 at 1. Dr. Levine stated that this goal is reasonable and attainable given “excellent implementation of interventions” designed to eliminate the vestiges of segregation. Id.; Tr. 4985. Dr. Levine stressed that it is important to specify goals when working to improve student performance. Without goals, he stated, educators have difficulty focusing on improving the

performance of “laggard” groups. Master’s Ex. 63 at 4; Tr. 4979–81.
Dr. Levine also testified concerning the causes of the achievement gaps between minority and majority students in the RSD. In Dr. Levine’s opinion, the 1995 data demonstrates that race, ethnicity and social class are “related to” achievement. Tr. 4978. According to Dr. Levine, although approximately 23 to 30 percent of variance in achievement gaps can be explained by poverty (Tr. 4973), the amount of the present achievement gap due to the intentional discrimination is not quantifiable. The most Dr. Levine could state is that the gaps are “to some extent” a result of the intentional discrimination in the RSD. Tr. 5008. Dr. Levine stated, however, that merely integrating the classrooms could result in a gain of six NCEs. Tr. 5010.
Dr. Levine was not able to precisely quantify the causal relationship between intentional discrimination and achievement gaps, because other factors, such as segregated housing, poverty, discrimination in jobs and institutional discrimination, all affect achievement. Dr. Levine agreed with Dr. Crain, however, that these, too, are vestiges of intentional discrimination in schooling. Tr. 5021–22; Tr. 5380. In addition, Dr. Levine stated that the following are predictors of achievement: students’ sense of efficacy or futility, multicultural instruction and sensitivity, personal development of students and students’ responsibility for learning. Tr. 5048–49. In the final analysis, Dr. Levine concluded that a substantial portion of the racial disparity between minority and majority test scores is wrapped up in social class. Tr. 5370.
Dr. Shapiro also testified on behalf of the Master. Dr. Shapiro analyzed the same 1995 data and concluded that differences in both reading comprehension and mathematics were 20 NCEs between African–American and nonminority students. Master’s Ex. 58 at 11. In Dr. Shapiro’s opinion, the 20 NCE difference in student performance “may be” considered to be the measure of the performance difference attributable to the discrimination of the RSD. Id. at 11–12. Dr. Shapiro reviewed other 1995–96 data that expressed performance in terms of percentile scores. To some extent, socio-economic status was taken into account by comparing students on “regular” lunch. The mean nonminority percentiles in math and reading ranged from 49 to 67%; the mean African–American percentiles ranked from 15 to 31%. Dr. Shapiro stated that the approximate difference of 35 percentiles “may be” considered to be an alternative measure of the performance difference attributable to the RSD’s discrimination. Id. at 12.145
Dr. Parish testified on behalf of the Master. Dr. Parish testified that the discrimination in Rockford has led to a
51

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

school and organizational culture that perceives minority students in certain ways. For example, these cultural beliefs include the notions that, in comparison to majority children, minority children are not as intelligent, have lower attention spans, are more likely to be disruptive and are more violent. In addition, these beliefs foster the notions that all minority children come from dysfunctional families, do not care about school and learning and want to only associate with other minority children. Master’s Ex. 60 at 8; Tr. 4631–32.
*71 In Dr. Parish’s opinion, the discrimination and the cultural belief vestiges have negatively affected minority school children’s achievement. Master’s Ex. 60 at 15. Dr. Parish testified that the five percentile per year reduction in the achievements gaps was a reasonable standard for the RSD, although he did state that the five percentile mark was reached after talking to professional educators “who are looking and guessing.” Tr. 4666.
Dr. Butler testified on behalf of the District in two areas. First, Dr. Butler disagreed with the Master’s view on the cause of achievement gaps. Dr. Butler’s position is that there are several factors outside the District’s control, e.g., the influences of society, local communities, families and peers, as well as individual motivation, that affect academic achievement. Defendant’s Butler Ex. 2 at 6. Second, although Dr. Butler found goals and standards important in achieving success, he concluded that the Master’s goals were not based on a solid research foundation and were not clearly delineated. Dr. Butler referred to the Master’s suggestions to improve achievement as a “shot gun” approach, trying “a little of this, a little of that” under the belief that “anything different will be better than what currently exists.” Defendant’s Butler Ex. 2 at 5, 12. In his opinion, there needs to be more emphasis on the quantitative evaluation of the suggested programs, in order to monitor their success, or lack thereof, in aiding student achievement. Tr. 5234. In other words, there is no data present to aid in the determination whether the intervention programs suggested by the Master would decrease the achievement gaps over time. Tr. 5230. Ultimately, Dr. Butler reviewed the Master’s proposals and stated that to, a large degree, the plan should be followed. Tr. 5234.
Dr. Hoffer also testified on behalf of the District. Dr. Hoffer essentially testified on the causal relationship between the actions and non-actions of the District and the achievement gaps. He testified along the same lines as Dr. Butler, in that there are several factors outside the District’s control that affect students’ performance. For example, the level of parental education and the level of parental involvement in a child’s learning process are two important predictors of achievement outcomes. Tr. 5102. Dr. Hoffer’s opinion is stated in his report to the court:

The most important factor behind all of the background factors discussed here is the severity of economic circumstances that most black and low-parent-education households confront. Chronic poverty takes an enormous toll on families and the energy and resources parents bring to bear on child-rearing. Chronic poverty is much more common among black than among white households, even among parents with comparable levels of education. Thus while excellent programs such as Success for All and Reading Recovery can make significant inroads on the racial achievement gaps, the gaps are not likely to disappear until real improvements begin to become manifest in the economic bases and prospects of the black community.
*72 Defendant’s Hoffer Ex. 2 at 7.
Student Achievement Remedy The issues posed by the District’s unlawful tracking practices and the historical achievement gaps in the RSD are perhaps the most complex problems facing the court in the CRO. There can be no doubt that the segregation and educational discrimination (i.e. tracking) have had a substantial negative impact on minority student achievement in this school district. There is also no doubt that, currently, achievement gaps persist in the RSD of about 35 percentiles (or 20 NCE’s) for both math and reading at all grade levels. All experts would agree that the RSD’s segregation, discrimination and tracking account for some percentage of these gaps. The issue to be decided, ultimately, is what percentage of the achievement gaps can be attributed to the intentional segregation and tracking practices.
The court begins its analysis with the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court on this issue. In Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 115 S.Ct. 2038 (1995) (Jenkins III ), the district court ordered the defendant to continue to fund quality education programs because student achievement levels were still at or below national norms at many grade levels. The Supreme Court rejected this standard. The Court stated that, “The basic task of the District Court is to decide whether the reduction in achievement by minority students attributable to prior de jure segregation has been remedied to the extent practicable.” Jenkins III, 115 S.Ct. at 2055. A district court must provide a school district with a precise statement of its obligations. Concerning the issue of
52

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

student achievement, this requires the court to “identif[y] the incremental effect that segregation has had on minority student achievement.” Jenkins III, 115 S.Ct. at 2055.
In addition, the Court noted that numerous external factors, beyond the control of the school district, affect minority student achievement. The Court stated, “So long as these external factors are not the result of segregation, they do not figure in the remedial calculus.” Jenkins III, 115 S.Ct. at 2056. As a final comment, the Court stated that the district court should “sharply limit, if not dispense with” its reliance on outcome based achievement requirements. Jenkins III, 115 S.Ct. at 2055.
In this court’s view, achievement gaps can be caused by many factors: poverty, social class, societal prejudice and stereotyping, to list a few. In addition, segregation and intentional discrimination in educational practices also cause these gaps. Under Jenkins III, it is the responsibility of this court to identify, to the extent possible, the incremental effect the RSD’s intentional discrimination has had on student achievement. Drs. Crain and Levine both state that merely desegregating the classrooms in the RSD would produce a six NCE gain. The court, however, is not convinced that this result would occur. Dr. Crain testified that these were results that were expected, not guaranteed. Tr. 4380. Dr. Levine was equally unsure. Tr. 5010.
*73 In the court’s opinion, identifying the incremental effect that segregation has had on student achievement is unnecessary. If the experts are correct and the segregation of students, on its own, has a detrimental impact on minority student achievement, these losses will be recouped with the court’s student assignment plan that will integrate the District’s classrooms. The real question to be asked is at what point has the RSD overcome its intentional educational discrimination, particularly in the area of tracking. Unlike segregation, simply doing away with tracking will not correct the harm.
Children of all races can learn equally. Therefore, there is a strong inclination to assume that any achievement gap is inherently the result of the District’s discrimination. It is unthinkable to the Magistrate that bright and aspiring minority schoolchildren were intentionally placed in low performing tracks for years. Many of these children are still students in this school district. The RSD’s acts of discrimination had a direct and negative impact on these students’ ability to learn and perform. This impact was substantial. Plaintiffs carry the burden, however, of measuring this impact.146
It may well be the case that social scientists cannot precisely determine, incrementally, the causes of achievement gaps as measured by test scores. Nevertheless, the court will not allow the District to walk

away from the harm it inflicted and escape from the responsibility of fixing a problem that it played a substantial role in creating. The court finds that the District’s intentional discrimination was a substantial factor that proximately caused the achievement gaps. This finding warrants holding the District responsible for closing a significant portion of the gaps.
The District, however, will not be held to close 100% of the gaps. The acts of discrimination, reprehensible as they are, do not account entirely for the achievement disparities. The evidence at trial established that nationwide, in all sorts of school districts, achievement gaps exist. The undisputed evidence was that several factors outside the District’s radius of influence, including poverty, societal discrimination and parental involvement, may affect student achievement.147
In summary, the court has decided that the District will be held to closing more than 0% but less than 100% of the achievement gaps. After considering all the evidence in this area, the court finds that, at the very least, 50% of the achievement gaps are directly attributable to the RSD’s discriminatory conduct. This finding is both fair and reasonable.148 Therefore, the court holds that the District must close the gaps by at least 50%. With the resources and programs available through the CRO, the RSD should be able to accomplish much more. In the court’s view, the level of success in improving student achievement will ultimately depend on the attitude of the administration and the community and the degree of dedication of the RSD faculty. The court accepts the testimony that as a baseline comparison, these gaps are currently 35 percentiles (or 20 NCEs) across all grade levels in the District.
*74 A word needs to be said about test scores. The court heard a great deal of evidence concerning standardized tests and how those tests are normed. The Magistrate agrees with the Master’s recommendation that the achievement gaps to be closed are those between majority and minority students in the RSD. This measure, as opposed to comparing Rockford to another city or the nation, keeps many factors particular to this community constant. Despite their drawbacks, standardized tests are possibly the best measure currently available to track achievement progress. After hearing all the evidence on this issue, especially Dr. Crain’s testimony on the norming procedure of standardized tests, the court is not convinced that one of these tests is more appropriate than another. Therefore, the Master and the RSD administration are to agree upon an appropriate test to monitor the progress of cohort groups in the District. At this time, the court will not order the gaps to be closed by 5 percentiles per year. Instead, the District will be required to close the existing 35 percentile (or 20 NCE) gaps by 50% within four years starting with the 1997–98 school year.
53

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

The court will allow an alternative method for the District to reach partial unitary status on student achievement.149 The Master proposed that 90% of minority students must be within one year of the national norm on the Degrees of Reading Power Test by 1997. The Magistrate has reviewed the testimony in this area and is satisfied that this test may better reflect students’ achievement and progress than standardized tests. However, the Master has made this recommendation as a requirement in addition to closing the gaps. The court disagrees. The Magistrate would find it acceptable if 90% of the RSD’s minority students were within one year of grade level in reading and math. This alternative method provides flexibility for the District but in no way provides the District with an easy escape through the back door. Given the present achievement levels in the District, the court would be very satisfied if this percentage of minority students were within one year of grade level.150
Finally, the court specifically adopts the Master’s proposals for educational programs that primarily focus on the RSD’s minority students. The court notes that these programs will also positively influence all students’ academic achievement. The court adopts the proposals at Master’s Ex. 1 at 89, 91–93. In particular, the Reading Recovery, Success for All and other higher order thinking skills programs are to be implemented by the District. Because the C.8./C.9. distinction will eventually disappear, the Master’s recommendations at pp. 93 to 101 of his proposed CRO are to be targeted at any school in need of special attention.151 Lastly, the court orders the District to provide the Master with the tools necessary to accumulate data so that quantitative evaluations of these programs can be performed to measure their effectiveness.152
VII. Discipline Referrals and Sanctions *75 Discipline is an important area in running a school district. It is the responsibility of this school district to maintain a safe place for children to learn and teachers to teach. The administration of discipline, however, must be done in a fair and equitable manner. Disciplinary sanctions must relate to and correct the particular underlying behavior. This district must maintain control of its schools and its classrooms, but it also must ensure that children are disciplined only to the extent justified by their conduct. Discipline may never be used as a pretext to prevent a child from obtaining an education.
The Master’s proposed CRO contains recommendations concerning discipline in the District’s schools. The Master contends that the unlawful discrimination in this case has produced inequitable disparities between minority and majority schoolchildren with respect to the rates of disciplinary infractions and sanctions. Master’s Ex. 1 at

37. In the Master’s opinion, the discipline disparities are primarily a product of two sets of factors: one, a District staff lacking in culturally diverse training and proper organizational structure and two, the failure of the District to sufficiently engage minority students in the schooling and learning process.
The Master proposed twelve objectives aimed at reducing the disparate rates in discipline. Essentially, these objectives fall into three areas. First, the Master proposed that the District adopt a uniform discipline code that provides safety and equitable treatment for all RSD students, regardless of race or ethnicity. Second, the Master proposed that the District shall reduce any disparities in the suspension rates between majority and minority students for conduct involving disruptive behavior, insubordination or verbal abuse by 20% per year until equity is achieved and maintained.153 Third, the Master proposed that the District shall provide enhanced counseling, multi-cultural education programs and other programs designed to respond to the loss of instructional time by minority students and designed to enhance RSD staff knowledge concerning minority students, their culture and their community. Master’s Ex. 1 at 34, 37–38.
The Liability Findings The court did not make extensive liability findings concerning the disparities in discipline, although the court did conclude that the disparities at some schools were the result of “unprepared” staff. In 1970, for example, some African–Americans students were moved from West High School to East High School as part of a feeder pattern. The all-White faculty at East perceived that these students were coming to East because West was having trouble with their African–American students. This perception resulted in the disproportionate referral of minority students for disciplinary problems. People Who Care, 851 F.Supp. at 1004.
The Current Disparities Overall, in the 1994–95 school year, the data reveals that at the high school level, minority students were far more likely to receive at least one disciplinary referral. In addition, majority students were nearly twice as likely as minority students to receive no discipline referrals. Master’s Ex. 58 at 4. Furthermore, of the students receiving five or more referrals, approximately 51% were minority, when the total minority high school enrollment districtwide was 32%. Master’s Ex. 58 at 4. A revealing statistic comes from Jefferson: out of 293 African–American students, only 24 (8%) received no disciplinary referrals; therefore, 92% received one or more referrals, with 68% of the African–American students at Jefferson receiving five or more referrals. Tr.
54

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

4561–62.154 The RSD has offered no satisfactory explanation for these disparities.
*76 Table 1, adapted from Master’s Ex. 60 at 10, shows discipline referrals by category in the RSD’s elementary schools in 1994–95, when the districtwide percentage of minority elementary students was 36.3%.155
The Experts Drs. Parish, Shapiro and Butler testified concerning the disparities in discipline referrals. Dr. Parish testified that certain cultural beliefs held by the RSD staff and administration, e.g., that minority children are more likely to be disruptive, have low attention spans and are more violent, are vestiges of the intentional discrimination in this case. In turn, these beliefs play a role in the disparate rate of minority referrals. Master’s Ex. 60 at 10. Tr. 4638–39. Dr. Shapiro agreed with the Master and stated that the existing disparities in discipline referrals supported the proposals of the Master. Master’s Ex. 58 at 3. Dr. Butler disagreed and stated that regardless of social characteristics, the District should ensure that each and every student is treated equitably. Defendant’s Butler Ex. 2 at 10. In other words, Dr. Butler does not support the proposal that certain categories of referrals be reduced by 20% each year.
Dr. Harriet Doss–Willis also testified in the area of discipline, based on her personal observations in the RSD’s classrooms. Her observations support Dr. Parish’s testimony concerning the cultural belief vestiges in the District. For example, some behaviors are assumed to be inappropriate when the behaviors are culturally different, which results in more frequent disciplinary referrals for African–American males. Tr. 4484–87. Dr. Willis testified that there is sometimes a presumption that if there is a disruption involving a minority student, it must be the minority student that caused the disturbance. Tr. 4511–12.
Discipline Remedy The District must discipline all of its students fairly without regard to race or ethnicity. In the court’s view, there is a vast difference between objective and subjective criteria used to discipline students. For categories of referrals that utilize objective criteria, the Magistrate accepts that there may be disparate discipline rates as long as comparable conduct receives comparable sanctions. For example, if ten weapons were brought to the Rockford schools in a given year, and six were brought by minority students and four by majority students, a disparity in discipline referrals would exist, especially in relation to percent of enrollment. This scenario poses no problems to the court, as long as the students were treated

comparably.
The objective categories are the ones that are most likely to be administered fairly. A student bringing a weapon to school is objective. A staff member can look and see the weapon. If objective criteria are used for objective violations, then the fact that there is a disparate impact is simply irrelevant. In the court’s view, the categories of truancy, theft or possession of stolen property, assault, possession or use of a weapon, vandalism, tardiness, forgery, gambling, alcohol/drug use and the distribution of, or use of, tobacco should implicate objective criteria for disciplinary referrals. Master’s Ex. 60 at 10–11.
*77 In contrast, other categories of referrals have a subjective element. The three areas cited by the Master, disruptive behavior, insubordination and verbal abuse, are prime examples. Insubordination, for example, may involve a situation where a student does not know exactly what conduct breaches the rules of teachers from classroom to classroom. In addition, teachers, each with their individual cultural and social backgrounds, may interpret conduct and speech in different ways. When these types of subjective disciplines are administered disproportionately to minority students, as demonstrated by the Jefferson statistics, particularly in a school district that has intentionally discriminated, the court has concerns. Some of the disparities in these subjective areas are a byproduct of the intentional discrimination and are properly reachable by the CRO.
The court orders the following. The district will be required to develop, as quickly as possible, a uniform objective code of conduct for the students, teachers and parents of the Rockford School District. The code should be sufficiently detailed so that the students, teachers and parents know what type of conduct constitutes a violation in each category.156 In addition, this code must be drafted to ensure that students of various racial and ethnic groups receive comparable discipline for comparable conduct. Disciplinary measures shall be administered fairly, impartially, and with equality. Hopefully, there will no longer be subjective criteria. If the District insists on subjective criteria, it shall be the responsibility of the District to achieve and maintain parity in discipline referrals between the majority and minority students. The court is requiring no statistical parity in discipline as long as the criteria remain objective and all students receive comparable discipline for comparable conduct.
In addition, it shall be the responsibility of the District to develop a plan to handle the high number of referrals, suspensions and “removal from classes” which are occurring in the District. When a student is not in the classroom it is impossible for that child to learn. Unfortunately, this impediment falls disproportionately on minority students. The District will have difficulty meeting the student achievement goals of the CRO if a
55

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

disproportionate number of minority students are constantly absent from class. To aid in these areas, the court orders the District to enhance its counseling approaches, develop multi-cultural educational programs and develop alternative approaches to discipline, so that there is minimum detraction from learning.
Further, the court orders that a regular audit be conducted that reports the reasons for referral, sources of referrals and other pertinent information, in order to analyze the disciplinary situations in the schools. This data shall be made available to the school staff, the parents in the community and all parties to this action. Parents must be provided access to these issues, as they often can aid the schools in handling a particular problem.
VIII. Extra–Curricular Activities
The Liability Findings *78 The court found that minority students were not afforded an equal opportunity to participate in extra-curricular activities. Discrimination in access to transportation, for example, meant that many minority students did not have the transportation available to participate in many after-school activities. People Who Care, 851 F.Supp. at 1181. In addition, subjective selection criterion resulted in racial identifiability and under-representation of minorities in certain extra-curricular activities. People Who Care, 851 F.Supp. at 1183–84. In particular, the District intentionally discriminated against minority students with respect to cheerleading. Schools often had all-White cheerleading squads and when steps were taken to integrate the cheerleading staff, minority participants were treated differently and harassed. People Who Care, 851 F.Supp. at 1182–83.
The Current Disparities In the 1994–95 school year, 55% of the extra-curricular activities reported at Auburn, East, Guilford, Jefferson, Skyview, Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Flinn were racially identifiable. Master’s 14th Quarterly Report at 62. Further, 28% of those activities had no African–American participants and 45% of the reported activities had no Hispanic participants. Id. These disparities have existed over the years and the court adopts the historical data as contained in Plaintiffs’ Findings of Fact on Educational Remedies at 49–54.
The Master’s Recommendations Originally, the Master proposed that all extra-curricular activities in the RSD have a minority student participation

within a range of +/−1/8% of the percentage of minority students enrolled in a particular school; if any activity did not comply for two consecutive years, or for two out of three years, then the activity was to be cancelled. Master’s Ex. 1 at 26. In his proposed CRO, however, the Master limited these two recommendations to cheerleading, because that activity involved the most explicit liability findings. Master’s Ex. 1 at 26–27. Instead of the +/−15% guidelines with respect to the other activities, the Master proposed that all students have equal access and an equal opportunity to participate. Id. at 28–29. In addition, the Master proposed that all extra-curricular activities be regularly examined to assure that groups are not racially identifiable and that the only criteria being used are interest and merit. Lastly, the Master recommend that costs, transportation and scheduling should be monitored so as not to provide obstacles to any student seeking to participate in a particular activity. Id. at 29.
The Master also proposed that a student interest survey be conducted to measure interest in present and potential future activities. If the survey identified activities that were not within +/−15%, then the RSD would be required to initiate aggressive efforts in order to increase the minority students’ participation. Tr. 4801; Master’s Ex. 1 at 30. In addition, the Master proposed that promotional efforts be made to increase awareness and interest in the District’s existing extra-curricular activities. Tr. 4800; Master’s Ex. 1 at 30–32.
The Court’s Remedy *79 Extra-curricular activities play an important role in a student’s educational and social development. Unfortunately, many disparities—both historically and in the present—exist in the RSD’s extra-curricular activities. These disparities in minority participation in extra-curricular activities warrant a judicial remedy. Participation in extra-curricular activities has been recognized by the Supreme Court as a Green factor, which serves as an indicia of a segregated school system. Therefore, it is the responsibility of this court to fashion an appropriate remedy. This is particularly true where the District has not provided equal access to transportation or an equal opportunity to participate in activities over the past two decades.
It is the responsibility of this school district to broaden the horizons of the children entrusted to it and to not engage in racial stereotyping. For example, no one should stereotype and assume that African–American children do not desire to play golf or join the Physics Club, that White children do not want to play basketball or that Hispanic children have no desire to be in the Shakespeare Club. The District must be creative and imaginative in its efforts to make resources available to all students to ensure full student body participation in these activities. This may
56

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

require that the RSD consult with the park district to see that golf courses are accessible to minority students; similarly, a bilingual coach may be necessary for the Chess Club. The import here, of course, is that certain activities cannot be associated with eastside students; rather, all activities must ensure fair and equal opportunity.
The court will begin with cheerleading squads. The Magistrate will not repeat the details concerning the discrimination with respect to cheerleading squads in the District. Suffice it to say that there was intentional discrimination that must be rectified. Therefore, the court orders that the cheerleading squads in the RSD shall have a minimum minority participation equal to the minority enrollment percentage at a particular school.
The court turns to the balance of the extra-curricular activities. These activities are quickly associated with sports but, in fact, they include a multitude of opportunities for students to expand and refine their knowledge and skills. Besides the exploits of the basketball and football teams, there is an opportunity to enrich students’ lives through participation in math, audio-visual and chess clubs, debate and drill teams, drama and theater troupes, student publications and community service organizations. Equal access and opportunity to participate in all extra-curricular activities is a must in any school district. Therefore, the court adopts as an objective that all extra-curricular activities shall have a minority student population within +/−15% of the percentage of minority students at each school. It is the obligation of the RSD to see that the goal is achieved to the extent practicable.
*80 The District is ordered to adhere to the following measures that will ensure that the extra-curricular goals are met. First, the RSD must provide a level playing field for participation in extra-curricular activities. Selection and participation criteria must be based on interest and merit and shall not in any way reflect the racial backgrounds of the students. Transportation must be readily available to all students participating in these activities. Costs should never be a barrier to participation—in appropriate circumstances the RSD should consider defraying and waiving costs so that all students can participate. Scheduling should be done in a manner that all students wanting to participate may be able to do so.
In addition, the District will be required to rigorously promote its extra-curricular activities, as suggested by the Master. All students shall be clearly informed of the prerequisites for each activity. Coaching and mentoring should be made available to assure the full and equal opportunity for all aspirants in a particular activity. Third, the RSD shall regularly examine the methods and criteria for recruiting and accepting students into an

extra-curricular activity to assure that no group is inadequately represented because of their race. The court orders the RSD to conduct the survey recommended by the Master in order to measure students’ interest in present and potentially future extra-curricular activities. The survey guidelines are contained in Master’s Ex. 1 at 29–30.
Finally, the court notes that, except for cheerleading, no quotas have been established with respect to participation in extra-curricular activities. The court has entered an order that requires the District to do everything reasonable and practicable to see that all students have the opportunity to participate in all extra-curricular activities to the extent of their desires and abilities. If the District meets the +/−15% goal in all activities, unitary status in this area will be granted. If this goal is not met, unitary status may be obtained if the District sufficiently demonstrates that they have taken all necessary, responsible and even substantial measures in order to reach the established goal.
IX. Within School Segregation Achieving racial balance in the District’s elementary, middle and high schools would have little meaning if individual classes within buildings are permitted to be all African–American or all White. The Master, therefore, has proposed racial fairness guidelines at the classroom level. Within school segregation concerns one major principle: “Classes, programs, courses, curriculum, whole school activities, extracurricular programs and instructional methods within schools shall not be identifiable by the race of students.” Master’s Ex. 1 at 8.
Liability Findings Within school segregation was, and to some extent, still is the most pervasive student enrollment problem in the District. Tracking was just one method the RSD utilized to segregate its students by classroom. For example, many partial-site desegregation programs were used by the RSD to numerically desegregate some schools, although the result was “virtually all-white enclaves within African–American schools.” People Who Care, 851 F.Supp. at 1002–03, 1026. Other forms of discrimination that produced within school segregation included high status white alternative programs, low status minority alternative programs and within school segregation of bilingual students. See People Who Care, 851 F.Supp. at 1001–02, 1005–06, 1026.
Current Within School Segregation Problems *81 A large percentage of the within school segregation
57

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

problems in the RSD exist at the high school level. In 1994–95, 111 high school classes out of a total 1,513 districtwide had no African–American students, approximately 7.3%. Master’s Fourteenth Quarterly Report at 27. In 1994–95, 21.2% of all high school English and 35.3% of all high school math class sections were not within +/−15% of the African–American enrollment percentage. Furthermore, twenty-two classes at Auburn, six classes at East, five classes at Guilford and seven classes at Jefferson all had less than 5% minority participation. Master’s Fourteenth Quarterly Report at 24–25. In addition, 75% of the music class sections at Auburn and 100% of the home economics classes at Guilford were racially identifiable minority. Plaintiffs’ Findings of Facts on Educational Remedies at 29.157

1994–95, Auburn, East, Guilford and Jefferson had 18.8%, 10.9%, 13.4% and 41.8% of their honors courses racially identifiable, respectively. At Guilford, for example, the following honors courses had less than 10% minority enrollment: freshman and junior English, world cultures, U.S. History, economics, geometry, advanced algebra, biology, physics and science electives. Master’s Ex. 56 at Table 3. These patterns existed at East and Jefferson, although to a lesser extent. Id.158
Within school segregation problems existed in the RSD’s alternative programs as well. Table 1 provides the percent minority enrollment data for the Gifted and CAPA programs for the past five years.

Many of the District’s high school honors classes were

	  

also racially identifiable. For the second semester of

Table	  1159	  

	  	  

	  

	  	  

	  

Gifted	  

1991–92	  

1992–93	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

*Elementary	  

19%	  

22%	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

*Middle	  

8%	  

15%	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

*High	  

8%	  

10%	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

CAPA	   	  	   	  
*Elementary	   	  	   	   *Middle	   	  	   	   *High	   	  	   	  

	  
22%	   	  	   	  
18%	   	  	   	  
13%	   	  	   	  

	  
25%	   	  	   	  
26%	   	  	   	  
17%	   	  	   	  

1993–94	   	  	   	  
21%	   	  	   	  
16%	   	  	   	  
13%	   	  	   	   	  
	  
27%	   	  	   	  
30%	   	  	   	  
20%	   	  	   	  

1994–95	   	  	   	  
22%	   	  	   	  
20%	   	  	   	  
10%	   	  	   	   	  
	  

1995–96	   	  	   	  
25%	   	  	   	   26%	   	  	   	   10%	   	  	   	   	  	   	   	  

23%	   	  	   	  
29%	   	  	   	  
22%	   	  	   	  

19%	   	  	   	   32%	   	  	   	   24%160	   	  	  
	  

The Master’s Recommendations The recommendations concerning within school segregation can best be thought of as an extension of the racial fairness guidelines under the student assignment plan. Under that plan, each building in the District must be within +/−15% of the districtwide percentage of

minority students at a particular grade configuration. In 1994–95, for example, with the districtwide percentage of minority elementary students at 36%, each elementary school could have a low of 21% minority students to a high of 51% minority students. The recommendations under within school segregation examine more than the racial composition of the building; in addition, they focus on the level of minority student participation in individual classrooms.
58

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

Classroom Level With respect to classrooms, the current within school segregation guidelines under the Second Interim Order are that each class must be within +/−15% of the compliance pool. Master’s Ex. 1 at 18. The “compliance pool” is defined as the total number of students who are eligible to be enrolled in each class section. The compliance pool is most often the percentage of minority students in each grade level at a school. See, e.g., Master’s Ex. 1 at 20. In turn, the percentage of minority students at a particular grade level in a school roughly approximates the minority enrollment in that school. Therefore, as a practical matter, each classroom must be within +/−15% of the minority population of a given school.
*82 An example illustrates the problem with the present guidelines. Currently in the District, an elementary school can have from 21% to 51% minority enrollment and remain within the racial fairness guidelines. At the classroom level, a school with 21% minority enrollment can have as low as 6% minority students (21% minus 15%), and a school with 51% minority enrollment can have 66% minority students (51% plus 15%), and both meet the within school guidelines. For a class of thirty students, this means as low as two minority students at a 21% minority school (with a 6% minority classroom), and as high as twenty students at a 51% minority school (with a 66% minority classroom). The Master views this possibility as unacceptable because it allows anywhere from two to twenty minority students in a classroom of thirty. As a solution, the Master has proposed that, at the classroom level, the range be narrowed to +/−10% at all grade configurations. Master’s Ex. 1 at 8. At the elementary level, classes of thirty students could then range from three to eighteen minority students.
At the middle school level, the current classroom guidelines under the Second Interim Order are +/−15%. Master’s Ex. 1 at 18. Similar to the elementary schools, this could lead to a variance of three to eighteen minority students in middle school classes across the District. Master’s Ex. 1 at 19. The Master proposes that within three years, all middle school classes be within +/−10% of the total minority students in the compliance pool. Id. at 20.161 The compliance pool would be the total number of minority students enrolled at each grade level in a particular building. Id.
At the high school level, the districtwide percentage of minority students is approximately 32%. The court has already ordered that the District’s high schools have a floor of 25% minority enrollment at each school. Therefore, presently, classes at a high school could range from 10% (25% floor minus 15%) to 62% (47% ceiling

plus 15%) minority students. High school classrooms of 30 students could range from three to nineteen minority students. The Master proposes, therefore, a classroom range of +/−10% of the grade level compliance pool. The classrooms would then have a range of five to seventeen minority students.162
Finally, the Master has made recommendations concerning minority participation in magnet schools and two specialty programs, Gifted and CAPA. In the magnet schools, the Master recommends that instead of the +/− 15% controlled choice guidelines, each school have a floor of at least the minority student percentage at the appropriate grade entry level and no more that 15% above the districtwide percentage of minority students. Master’s Ex. 1 at 2, 4. The magnet schools would also be subject to the +/−10% range for individual classes. The Master proposes that the Gifted and CAPA programs each have a floor of at least the minority student percentage in the District at the appropriate grade entry level and no more than 15% above the districtwide percentage of minority students. Id. at 6–8. The Master proposed the same +/−10% standard for individual Gifted and CAPA classes. Lastly, the Master proposed that the CAPA audition requirements be eliminated.
Within School Segregation Remedy *83 Guidelines concerning within school segregation are essential for three reasons. First, the liability findings of this court and the current data in the District warrant racial fairness guidelines at the program and classroom level. Second, minority students must be given the same educational opportunities as majority students. Third, a student assignment plan that equally and fairly assigns students to schools would be pointless if individual classes and programs are permitted to be racially identifiable. In the court’s view, the proposals in this remedial section concern four areas: (1) within school segregation in the grades K–12 classrooms; (2) honors courses and electives; (3) the Gifted and CAPA programs; and (4) exceptions to within school segregation guidelines.
1. Within School Segregation Guidelines The court rejects the +/−15% guidelines in the Second Interim Order and the Master’s +/−10% proposal. The Master’s proposal would change the current guidelines, which permit classrooms of 30 students to range from two to twenty minority students, to a system that permits the classes to range from approximately three minority students to a high of fifteen to eighteen minority students. In short, the Master’s proposal does not go far enough to have a measurable impact.
59

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

In the Magistrate’s opinion, it would be counterproductive to the goals of the CRO to permit a westside third grade class to have sixteen minority students and an eastside third grade class to have three minority students. Therefore, the court orders all classes and programs, except as otherwise noted in this opinion, to be within +/−5% of the compliance pool. The compliance pool will be defined as the percentage of minority students at each K–12 grade level in each building. Master’s Ex. 1 at 20.163 Finally, the court notes the Master’s recommendations concerning within classroom segregation via instructional methods. Tr. 4851. Once students are in the classroom, the District will not be permitted to separate students on the basis of race.164

culture problem related by Dr. Parish.
Nonetheless, the court will not impose guidelines in this area at this time. Racial fairness guidelines on elective courses may infringe upon all students’ capabilities to enroll in the courses they desire. The District is ordered to provide fair and non-biased guidance counseling to all students. Furthermore, the RSD is enjoined from the steering of minority students to either low-level or segregated classes. At the high school level, the court has already decided that mathematics through geometry and science through chemistry are core courses. As to other curriculum, the Master is to determine which courses are considered “core” and “elective” for purposes of the within school segregation guidelines.

2. Honors Courses and Electives—Secondary Schools The within school segregation guidelines will apply to both “regular” and “honors” core courses. A +/−5% standard will assure sufficient minority participation in all phases of learning in the District’s schools. An example illustrates the need for these guidelines. In 1995–96, Guilford had 21.7% minority students. Plaintiffs, the Master, and quite frankly the court, were disappointed to see that there were only 7% minority students in the honors junior English class at Guilford in 1995–96. The District, however, correctly pointed out that under the current standards, there is no within school segregation at Guilford, unless a class has less than 6.7% (21.7% minus 15%) minority students. As such, the junior English class at Guilford is not “racially identifiable” by current standards. The District has shown, therefore, that the current guidelines of the Second Interim Order are too generous. Under the court’s guidelines, however, classes at Guilford, under the current example, would be required to have a minimum of 16.7% minority students. This is the best standard to assure sufficient minority participation in both regular and honors core courses.
*84 Core courses are different from elective courses. Because individual students choose elective courses, why should a school district be required to assure that a certain percentage of minority students participate in each elective? The court sees at least three potential problems in exempting electives from the within school segregation guidelines. First, many electives are on the continuum of courses in which minority students have been historically denied a fair chance of participation. A low level minority representation in such an elective may not be the result of student choices but may well be the result of the District’s prior discrimination. Second, if electives were exempted, the possibility of course manipulation exists. Core courses not in compliance could be relabeled “electives” to avoid a violation. Third, there was testimony at the liability hearing that some guidance counseling “steered” minority students into segregated low-level electives. People Who Care, 851 F.Supp. at 946–48. This is part of the school

3. The Gifted and CAPA Programs The Gifted and CAPA programs are forms of ability grouping. Dr. Eubanks proposed that these two programs be permitted to operate as “stand alone” programs provided the following conditions are established: (1) there must be clear and objective entry guidelines and (2) there must be a minimum percentage of minority participation. Master’s Ex. 1 at 23.
With a great deal of hesitance, the court will allow the continuance of the Gifted and high school CAPA programs.165 The court’s reservations are two-fold: the historic exclusiveness of these programs and, concerning the Gifted program, the court questions the status problems associated with three class sections (“regular”, “honors” and “Gifted”) for each core course. Notwithstanding these reservations, the court was impressed with the testimony of Cheryl Peters, the director of these programs, and notes that the Gifted and CAPA programs are perceived by the community as important from an educational standpoint. As stand alone programs, it will be easy for the Master and the court to monitor these programs to prevent intentional discrimination.
The court orders the following. The Gifted and CAPA programs are to each have an overall student enrollment within +/−15% of the districtwide minority ratio for each grade configuration. In addition, both of these programs must have a floor of percentage not less than the percentage of minority students districtwide and not to exceed this percentage by 15 points at each grade entry level. Finally, each class within these programs must be within +/−5% of the appropriate compliance pool. The compliance pool for these programs is the percentage of minority students enrolled in the program at each grade level. The court is convinced that these guidelines will ensure sufficient minority participation in these two specialty programs, and the District is ordered to achieve compliance as soon as is practicable.
60

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

*85 The CAPA program has the additional component of audition requirements. In the report and recommendation, the court observed that audition requirements were partly responsible for CAPA grades 4–6 being 94% White. People Who Care, 851 F.Supp. at 1021. Accordingly, the Master has recommended that audition requirements for CAPA enrollment be eliminated.
The court disagrees for four reasons. First, auditions or not, the District will be required to achieve and maintain a minority enrollment in the program reflective (within 15%) of the minority population in the District. In addition, the floor requirement at the grade entry level will serve as an additional safeguard in assuring minority participation. Second, Ms. Peters testified that the auditions were not used as acceptance criteria but, rather, were used to measure a student’s interest and potential. Tr. 961. In the court’s view, measuring interest is a proper and objective use of auditions, and in the future, interest is to be the main criteria utilized for admission. Third, there was testimony at trial from the District that auditions were required to receive funding for this program. Tr. 973. Eliminating this requirement might have the effect of eliminating the program. Fourth, the court notes that in the last two years, there has been improvement in attracting minority talent to the program. In fact, additional audition rounds have been provided in recent years to attract more minority students. Tr. 968.
Although the court cannot guarantee that the Gifted and CAPA programs will continue to be handled with the same dedication and responsibility as they are handled presently, the court is convinced that the guidelines established under this order will assure sufficient minority participation in these once segregated programs. If not, the court will take swift and appropriate action.
4. Exceptions In addition to the elective exception requested by Defendant, the District has further requested that compensatory education programs (e.g., tutorials, all-day kindergarten, Saturday Academy, Success for All, Reading Recovery, etc.) and scheduling conflict assignments be exempted from the within school segregation guidelines. The court agrees, however, with the Master’s recommendation that tutorial sections, all-day kindergarten and courses posing scheduling conflicts should not be exempted. The +/−5% standard adopted by the court provides sufficient flexibility.
The Master has proposed that the Saturday Academy program be exempt from the guidelines because it is a unique program targeted at improving minority academic achievement by “encouraging and empowering the minority community” to take an active role in the

schooling process. Master’s Ex. 1 at 22. In the court’s opinion, this rationale could apply to the Reading Recovery and Success for All programs as well. In the court’s view, any remedial program that is all or mostly minority reinforces the culture of this school district that negatively stereotypes the minority student. These are exactly the cultural beliefs Dr. Parish hopes to extinguish. Therefore, the court will not exempt the Saturday Academy or other educational programs. The Master, of course, has the authority to exempt a particular class, from time to time, through his waiver powers.166
X. Special Education *86 The Master’s proposed CRO contains recommendations pertaining to special education. In the report and recommendation, the Magistrate found that, although nearly 100% of SW Quadrant elementary special education students were assigned to non-SW Quadrant schools, the assignment was not an act of intentional discrimination. On review, Judge Roszkowski reversed this finding and held that the assignment of special education students was intentional discrimination. He agreed, however, with the conclusion of the Magistrate that special education students should be exempt from desegregation programs. People Who Care, 851 F.Supp. at 929–30. Besides the finding relative to assignment, no other liability findings were made.
The Master’s Recommendations With respect to assignment, the Master observed the 1994–95 data and concluded that the RSD increased the number of available special education seats in the SW Quadrant to 41%. Consequently, the Master’s recommendations in this area do not concern assignment patterns. Rather, the Master is concerned with the placement of students in special education programs. In the Master’s opinion, special education placement can be another method of tracking students. Particularly troubling to the Master is that in the 1995–96 school year, RSD African–American students comprised 51.5% of the students enrolled in special education compared to the districtwide percentage of minority students of 25%. Therefore, the Master recommended that all African–American students in SCSE BD classes be reevaluated to ensure that these students were properly placed. Master’s Ex. 1 at 40–43.
The Court’s Remedy The court rejects the Master’s proposal in this area. The statistical data and the evidence received in regard to tracking in the RSD did not encompass special education. Special education was treated by both the Magistrate and
61

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

the District Court Judge (as well as the parties) as a separate category. The court, therefore, will not extend the tracking findings to special education. The District has already corrected the constitutional violations concerning assignment patterns, and no party proposes any further assignment or capacity remedy. Therefore, it is the order of this court that control of the special education program be returned to the RSD.
XI. Governance One of the fundamental principles of a desegregation plan is that it must have the proper administrative structure in place in order to carry out the remedies in a prompt, effective and efficient manner. Master’s Ex. 1 at 120. In his proposed CRO, the Master made structural recommendations in three areas: organizational structure of the RSD administration, implementation and monitoring and school-based planning. See CRO (segment one) at 7. These proposals all relate to governance and will be addressed in this section of the CRO.
A. The Role of The Court–Appointed Master Starting in 1991, Dr. Eugene Eubanks has been the court-appointed Master charged with the responsibility to develop and oversee the implementation of the interim remedies in this case. Dr. Eubanks was recommended to the court by the District and has performed well in carrying out his duties. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53, the court specifically reappoints Dr. Eubanks as the Master to oversee all remedial areas of the CRO. The Master is to have the full remedial authority granted to him by this court’s orders of April 24, 1991, September 17 and October 13, 1992 and May 5, 1993. In particular, the Master shall have the responsibility and authority to insure the prompt, effective and full implementation of all remedial matters in this case.167
All of the Master’s decisions are effective immediately without Board ratification and shall be expeditiously carried out by the Superintendent and the RSD. The RSD shall continue to implement such decisions, notwithstanding the pendency of any judicial review process. All District management and staff are directed to assist and collaborate with the Master. The Master shall have the specific responsibility to develop an annual budget for all CRO remedial matters. In addition, the Master shall have the specific responsibility to oversee all capital improvements and new buildings ordered by the court. The Master’s decisions are appealable to the court as indicated in previous orders and the Rules of Civil Procedure.
*87 In the court’s view, it is essential that the community

have an active role in public education. Therefore, the Master will be required to report to an advisory community liaison committee on a quarterly basis. This committee will serve as a forum for the Master to disseminate information and receive input from concerned citizens. The constitution of this advisory committee will be decided in the future by the court.
The court notes that the Master has made recommendations concerning potential actions of the RSD administration and Board that may impact on desegregation efforts. See Master’s Ex. 1 at 134–36. The court agrees with the Master’s proposals that actions by the Board and/or Superintendent that concern any remedial aspect of the CRO, e.g., the opening or closing of schools, grade policy, enrollment policy, curricula, assignment and placement of staff, etc., require the Master’s approval.168 This check is essential in assuring that the remedial objectives of the CRO are not adversely impacted by independent RSD administration or Board actions.
The only exception, thus far, to the Master’s exclusive remedial power is in the area of administering the student assignment plan. In that plan, the court authorized the establishment of the Department of Desegregation. The court stated that the Master and the Superintendent have the “joint responsibility” to establish the Department. The Superintendent will be in charge of the day-to-day operations and the Master is to monitor the Department. “Monitor” was used in reference to running the department after it has been firmly established and operating efficiently. Until that time, the Master and the Superintendent shall have equal decision-making authority concerning the creation of the Department.
The Department of Desegregation will be subdivided as follows. The Director of Desegregation will be selected (as described in the CRO) and, in conjunction with the Superintendent, will have the responsibility to implement the student assignment remedy. A student assignment officer shall be selected and will be responsible for coordinating all aspects of the student assignment plan within the Department. In addition, the student assignment officer will be responsible for certifying all student assignments and reassignments in the RSD. An administrator will be selected for each parent information center established in the District and will report directly to The Director of Desegregation. Lastly, the Director of Transportation, who is charged with the responsibility of overseeing the safe transportation of all the students in the RSD, will report directly to The Director of Desegregation. Master’s Ex. 14 at 17.
In his proposed CRO, the Master made recommendations concerning the Office of the Associate Superintendent of Education and Equity. Under the Associate Superintendent, several Directors, including the Director
62

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

of Magnet Schools and Programs, appear to have duties that directly relate to the educational and other remedies in the CRO. To the extent that these directors have duties that relate to CRO implementation, these directors are ultimately answerable to the Master. See Master’s Ex. 1 at 122. Furthermore, any administrator holding a position in the RSD organizational structure that has CRO responsibilities is ultimately answerable to the Master, with respect to CRO implementation.169
B. Implementation and Monitoring *88 The Second Interim Order established the Planning and Implementation Committee (PIC) to oversee the implementation of interim remedies in this case. Prior to the CRO hearings, the continuation of PIC in its present form was contested by the parties. After this court issued the student assignment remedy in segment two of the CRO, the Master filed a motion recommending that PIC be dissolved and, subsequently, all parties agreed to a suspension of the operation of PIC. See Plaintiffs’ Findings’ of Fact on Governance at 3. The motion stated that the Master is convinced that implementation of the CRO can occur without PIC, given the power invested in the Master under FED.R.CIV.P. 53.
In the absence of this oversight committee, the Master proposes that he will immediately begin carrying out the court’s remedial objectives. In addition, the Master proposes to confer with all the parties as necessary and conduct fact-finding pursuant to Rule 53. Periodic meetings will be held, as necessary, with all parties’ counsel and the Superintendent. The Master recommends that these meetings be conducted in the United States District Courthouse. Lastly, these meetings are proposed to be for fact-finding and the identification of issues, not for voting.
The court agrees with the Master’s recommendation to suspend the operation of PIC. Although the court views that PIC has been successful in the past as a remedial oversight mechanism, the administrative overlay of PIC is unnecessary, given the Master’s broad remedial powers under Rule 53. The Master is hereby ordered to assume all the responsibilities previously handled by PIC and to begin the implementation of the CRO remedies immediately. The Master is specifically authorized to utilize the United States District Court building when needed.
C. School–Based Planning Thus far, governance has been described at the top level of the administration. The Master has proposed a governance structure at the school level as well. School-based planning involves the administrators and

faculty at individual schools taking a proactive role in decision-making and management. Master’s Ex. 1 at 78–79. In the Master’s opinion, school-based planning is essential to accomplish many of the CRO remedial objectives, primarily student achievement. Tr. 4816.
School-based planning has been attempted in the District during the past two years, but the results have been disappointing. The present system involves site-based teams comprised of three to five teachers for each school. Master’s Ex. 1 at 79. These teachers are elected by their peers. The problem, according to the Master, is that the principals in the District do not have accountability. Tr. 4814–15. Therefore, the Master proposes a change in the selection of teachers: an election of teachers by their peers at each school and an appointment process by principals. Tr. 4814. The Master proposes that for each elementary school, five teachers are to participate in this process. At the middle and high schools, the proposed number of teachers is seven and nine, respectively. In the Master’s opinion, this system would yield better results because the principals would take a more active role and would be held responsible for their schools.
*89 At the CRO hearings, Drs. Levine, Parish and Dolan testified concerning school (or site)-based planning. Dr. Levine stated that the Master’s proposal is designed to give principals greater opportunity to exercise leadership. Tr. 4997. In Dr. Levine’s opinion, school-based planning will only be successful if each school has clear and achievable goals with respect to areas of improvement. This requires firm guidance and monitoring by central decision-makers. Tr. 4998. Examples of “key instructional issues” to focus on include how students are grouped, performance expectations and the administration of discipline. Tr. 5001–02.
Dr. Parish testified concerning his familiarity with the recent operation of school-based planning in the District. In his opinion, the number of teachers participating in the process needs to be expanded. The additional teachers would add faculty that were not selected by the teacher’s union. Tr. 4661. Dr. Parish testified that school-based planning is vital to changing the culture in the RSD’s schools. Tr. 4662.
Dr. Dolan testified on behalf of Defendant–Intervenors. Dr. Dolan described the present governance structure in the RSD schools (as well as in most school districts) as a top-down hierarchical system, starting at the central office and working its way down to the principal. Tr. 5437. The system has excellent informational flow from top levels, because the way it is designed. However, a significant drawback is very poor informational flow upwards from the faculty, students and parents. In addition, the top-down model is ineffective because it is cumbersome and does not respond quickly to changes in educational needs. Tr. 5443. Lastly, the top-down model fosters a
63

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

belief in students that they have little or no responsibility for their learning progress. Tr. 5444.
A better alternative, according to Dr. Dolan, is site-based management. In his opinion, it takes a commitment from the school board, administration, teachers’ union and the community to work together and restructure themselves constantly to institute “deep changes” at the schools. Tr. 5446. A school-based planning system would start with four to five days at the beginning of each school year, collecting input and data from children, parents and teachers to evaluate various aspects of particular schools. Tr. 5449. In the end, for the schools to be successful, Dr. Dolan believes that there must be a deep, authentic and honest relationship between the students, parents, teachers and the RSD administration.
Dr. Dolan described the Master’s proposal in this area as a “terrific plan.” Dr. Dolan noted, however, that the proposed governance structure has a Master vested with a great deal of authority. This could cause a sense of alienation from the schooling process on the part of teachers, parents and students. Further, Dr. Dolan criticized the Master’s proposal, in that it places too much emphasis on the principal’s role. Instead, Dr. Dolan would center site-based management around the community and teaching staff. In his opinion, a site-based decision-making committee would be comprised of the principal, department heads, four or five elected faculty members, five to seven parents and several students, depending on the size of the school. Tr. 5458–59. This model would give these groups the motivation to make the schools much better. Tr. 5463.
*90 In the court’s opinion, it will take a great deal of commitment for this District to move forward to effective site-based management. As Dr. Dolan pointed out, a school district under a desegregation remedial decree requires a certain amount of centralized decision-making, including a Master with broad remedial powers. Tr. 5476–77. Therefore, at this time, a top-down management system with the Master, Superintendent and the Board is necessary to initiate the remedial process. In the court’s view, however, there is a need for an effective site-based management system in order to accomplish many of the CRO’s remedial objectives. Many of the disparities in achievement, discipline and drop-out/graduation rates are problems that are best addressed by a system described by Dr. Dolan. Presently, however, the school-based planning system being operated is costing approximately $360,000 per year and in many schools has been a dismal failure. The Master’s proposal—to simply add more teachers—will not make the system any better. Therefore, the court orders the parties and the Master to carefully develop a detailed school-based management plan as recommended by the experts.170 The court will consider full implementation of such a plan in the future. The court expects a plan by January 1, 1997. For now, the present

plan is scrapped.
XII. Finance In the CRO, the court has dealt with the twenty-nine remedial objectives proposed by the Master. See CRO (segment one) at 7. On its own initiative, the court has added a final category, not suggested by the Master or any party: finance. In this section, the court has requested and received information relative to the economic condition of the District, sources of funding the CRO remedies and the financial impact on the local community.
Before discussing these issues, a word is necessary concerning the system of funding public education in Illinois. Through the use of real estate property taxes, the local governmental unit bears the major responsibility of paying for public education. The RSD is funded as follows: 61.5% local; 29.8% State of Illinois; and, 8.7% federal. Master’s Ex. 53–D. The 61.5% supplied by local real estate taxes is derived as follows: 68.7% residential properties; 21.3% commercial; 9.3% industrial; .7% farm; and .1% railroad. Master’s Ex. 53–E. Unfortunately, this breakdown demonstrates that the costs of remedies in this desegregation lawsuit fall disproportionately on the local homeowners in this community.171
In the twenty-nine remedial areas, the court has been careful to limit the remedies in this case to addressing the constitutional violations reported in the liability findings. The Magistrate has further chosen the most economical remedies which will make the victims in this case whole. For example, the educational remedies ordered in this case are necessary to compensate the victims of unconstitutional tracking. The facility construction ordered by this court directly addresses the historic discrimination against minority schoolchildren that led to significant under-capacity west of the river. In turn, these new facilities will correct the unequal transportation burden findings in the report and recommendation. The court has also chosen a reasonable student assignment plan to correct the historic patterns that have created racially identifiable schools.
*91 In other words, the court has not ordered a 2,000 square foot planetarium, a twenty-five acre farm with an air-conditioned room for 104 people or a Model United Nations. Jenkins III, 115 S.Ct. at 2044–45. Rather, this court has ordered narrowly tailored remedies and specifically finds that anything short of these remedies would not sufficiently correct or address the constitutional violations in this case.
It is the responsibility of the RSD to fund these remedies. The remedies to be funded in this case fall into two categories. First, under the student assignment plan, the court ordered an estimated $48 million in capital
64

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

improvements. Normally, these would be funded through bonds. Second, the court ordered various other CRO remedies including educational programs. These types of yearly programs are usually paid for through an annual levy.
The court chose Dr. Paul Schilling as its expert to examine the financial condition of the RSD. Dr. Schilling found in FY 95 that the district received approximately $140 million in regular revenues in its educational fund. Master’s Ex. 55 (Tab 1) at 2. Unfortunately, the district ran a deficit of $41 million in that same fund in 1995. Tr. 4144. After looking at the overall condition of the District, the conclusion of the expert was that the district was $11.5 million in the red, not including the District’s long term outstanding debt, as of June 30, 1995, of $144 million.172 Tr. 4189, 4213; Master’s Ex. 53–G. Based on his examination, it was Dr. Schilling’s conclusion that the district’s financial condition was “extremely precarious.” Tr. 4142. While the court passes no judgment on the general economic condition of the school district, it is clear, based upon the testimony presented to the court, that the RSD does not have surplus on-hand revenues to conduct meaningful remedial programs.173

of the district in order to make remedial funds available. This would be a massive interference by the district court in the local affairs of this school district and could also, possibly, create a situation where the district would be in conflict with its contractual obligations. At this time, the court is reluctant to engage in this type of massive interference.
Historically, interim remedial measures in this case have been funded from outside sources. The first type of outside or “alternative” funding involved capital improvements. From 1991 to the present, three major capital improvements have been implemented as interim remedies: Roosevelt, Lewis Lemon and Marsh Schools. These capital improvements have been funded through issuing bonds pursuant to the Illinois Tort Immunity Act. Typically, these bonds are financed through tax levies that retire the bonds in twenty years.
In addition to capital improvements, the interim remedies in this case have required funds for annual implementation costs. All annual implementation costs have been paid through Fund 12. Table 1 shows the Fund 12 budget and expenditures for FY 92 to the present.

One method to fund the CRO remedies would be from the

existing education budget of the RSD. The court could

	  

interfere in the budgeting and resource allocation process

Table	  1174	  

	  	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	  

FY	  

	  	  

Budgeted	  

	  	  

Expended	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

(in	  millions)	  

	  

(in	  millions)	  

	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  	  

	  

1992	  

	  

$	  6.8	  

	  

$	  3.8	  

	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

1993	  

	  

$	  9.2	  

	  

$	  7.9	  

	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

1994	  

	  

$11.0	  

	  

$10.0	  

	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

1995	  

	  

$20.6	  

	  

$15.2	  

	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

1996	  

	  

$23.4	  

	  

N/A	  

	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

65

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

*92 Fund 12 expenditures are financed differently than capital improvements. As stated above, capital improvements are funded through bond issuances with a twenty year retirement schedule. Fund 12 expenditures are financed through annual tort property levies. Fund 12 has been created by the District and is funded through levies under the Illinois Tort Immunity Act, a practice which was recently held to be proper by District Court Judge Philip G. Reinhard. See In the Matter of the Application of the County Collector of the County of Winnebago, Nos. 92 C 20331, 93 C 20310, 94 C 50357 (consolidated) (N.D.Ill. filed Feb. 26, 1996) (appeal pending in the 7th Cir.Ct. of Appeals, No. 96–1716). In 1991, the tort levy was .5331. Master’s Ex. 53–V. This means that for every one hundred dollars of equalized assessed value (EAV) of a home, 53.31 cents in taxes were levied to finance Fund 12. In 1991, for example, an individual with a $90,000 home, with an EAV of $30,000, would have contributed $160 to financing the interim remedies through Fund 12. By 1995, the tax levy had increased to 1.0093; the same homeowner was now paying approximately $303 to fund the annual second interim order remedies. In 1995, approximately 9% of the total real estate property taxes went to fund desegregation remedies. The balance, or 91% of the aggregate real estate taxes, funded the day-to-day operations of the RSD and other governmental units.175
The court is cognizant of Chief Justice Rehnquist’s admonition in Jenkins III: “Each additional program ordered by a district court” and financed from an additional source increases the school district’s dependence on court supervision. Jenkins III, 115 S.Ct. at 2054. Therefore, in striving to return this District to the control of local authorities, it is this court’s duty to wean the District from dependence on Fund 12 (and other such funds). The court will monitor the cost-effectiveness of all CRO programs and will eliminate those programs that are either ineffective or unnecessary.
At the present, the court will set the cap on tort fund use in the amount of $25 million per year which represents the approximate yearly budget of interim remedies, plus the costs of additional CRO remedies. In 1995, the District’s regular revenues in the education fund were $140 million. Master’s Ex. 55 (Tab 1) at 2. Therefore, the $25 million for CRO remedies amounts to the equivalent of an 18% increase in the education fund. The $25 million per year is the current maximum amount that the CRO annual budget may be financed through tort funds. This figure will be allowed to increase by a maximum of 4% per year for four years. At that point, the court expects that the Fund 12 budget will decrease. The court reiterates that it is the responsibility of the District to fully fund all CRO remedies. If cuts become necessary, they will be in

non-CRO expenditures.
Financial Impact The court believes that the Rockford community is entitled to know the probable financial impact of the CRO remedies on individual homeowners. Dr. Schilling calculated a hypothetical for the court. An individual with a home having a fair market value of $90,000 and an EAV of $30,000 currently pays $329 in real estate taxes to fund both types of interim remedies. This $329 per year, however, will not produce $25 million per year to finance the CRO annual budget and the buildings ordered by the CRO. In fact, the current levies produce approximately $17.5 million per year. Carry-over funds are currently being used in balancing the tort budget. In order to fully fund the CRO remedies and construct the buildings ordered in the student assignment plan, the cost will be approximately $518 per year for the owners of the same $90,000 house.176 A 4% growth rate limits the tort fund taxes to approximately twenty additional dollars per year. The court orders that after a four year period, this figure must decrease.
EPILOGUE
*93 The court, throughout this opinion, has set very specific guidelines for this district to implement the CRO. These numbers are a means to an end. The end result that the court is attempting to achieve is the quality education of all children in the Rockford School District. The numerical requirements established by the court should not be implemented by the District so as to cause any educational detriment to any child.
The RSD is directed to follow this order and its numerical requirements. However, the overriding consideration is educational soundness. Always, the RSD must do what is educationally sound for each individual student under its control. Therefore, the court specifically authorizes the Master to waive, for good reason, the percentage requirements of this order. Any requested numerical waiver should be directed to the Master, with appeal to this court.
At page one of the CRO, the court stated that there are two stages in school desegregation cases: the liability determination and the comprehensive remedial order. There are actually three. The final phase is a complete return of the school district to local authorities. This is called “unitary status” and marks the end of the district court’s involvement in the local affairs of running the
66

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

school district. This order is a road map toward that unitary status.
Since 1991, this court has sat through approximately 10,000 pages of testimony, has seen literally thousands of documents and reviewed hundreds of depositions. The court has lived with this case for approximately five years. This level of involvement precipitates a few closing observations. Most city planners believe three things are necessary in order to make a community the size of Rockford vibrant. A city must have exceptional medical facilities, recreational facilities and educational institutions. Rockford has all three. However, the touchstone of a thriving community is its ability to deliver quality education to all of its children. The Rockford

Public School system is a great institution. The time has come to fully share this great institution with this city’s children of color. Complete success is ultimately up to the community. If this community chooses not to support the road map set down in this order, it risks losing its economic and social identity. Hopefully, this will not happen. The court has given this district a plan which is achievable. The court believes the citizens of Rockford will respond not only in a positive and determined manner, but also with a sincere desire to correct the wrongs inflicted.
	  

Footnotes

1

The liability findings are contained in the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the liability order of Judge

Roszkowski and the permanent injunction issued by Judge Roszkowski. See People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. Sch. Dist.

No. 205, 851 F.Supp. 905 (N.D.Ill.1994) (containing both Judge Roszkowski’s Order and the Magistrate’s Report and

Recommendation); People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. Sch. Dist. No. 205, 89 C 20168 (N.D.Ill. filed March 30, 1994).

2

“Minority” is being used here to include all non-Whites.

3

For the purposes of this opinion, however, it makes little difference.

4

The total enrollment figure does not include 1,038 pre-kindergarten students for the 1994–95 school year.

5

This figure and the figures that follow are taken from the RSD Planning Department Fall 1994 Housing Report. The 1994–95

Housing Report elected to use the minority classification to include African–Americans, Hispanics, Asian–Americans, Pacific

Islanders and Native Americans. In the past, the court has defined “minority” to include the two plaintiff classes,

African–American and Hispanics. Where possible, the court will use the all inclusive definition.

6

This figure includes 367 students attending the specialty schools of Roosevelt Alternative High and Sky View.

School Elementary Middle High Page Park

Students 15,446 4,044 6,744
136

September 1994 RSD Student Enrollment Percent White 63.7 64.9 68.3 68.4

Percent Minority 36.3 35.1 31.7 31.6

Totals

26,370

65.1

34.97

7

After the CRO hearings began, the school district made available to the court and the parties the 1995–96 Fall Housing Report. The

court wants all district-wide data to be as current as possible. The updated statistics for 1994–95 are as follows:

School Elementary Middle High Page Park

Students 15,536 4,032 6,670
122

Percent White 64.2 65.8 70.8 73.0

Percent Minority 35.8 34.2 29.2 27.0

Totals

26,360

66.1

33.9

67

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

8

Certain aspects of the Second Interim Order affected the collective bargaining agreement between the District and the local

teacher’s union. The Rockford Education Association intervened in the case and was successful in having certain portions of the

Second Interim Order stricken on appeal. See People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. Sch. Dist. No. 205, 961 F.2d 1335 (7th

Cir.1992).

9

In the May 5th Agreement, the parties specifically consented to having the Magistrate enter a Report and Recommendation after

the liability hearing and fully consented to having the Magistrate enter a remedial order. The Agreement provides as follows:

For the past year all remedial proceedings under the Second Interim Order have been conducted by Magistrate Judge

Mahoney on referral. To maintain a stable remedial framework, Plaintiffs, Defendant, and Intervenors concur and voluntarily

consent that all present and future remedial matters in this case, without limitation, shall be referred to Magistrate Judge

Mahoney under 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1) and (c)(3), and under the Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of

Illinois. This referral shall remain in effect for the duration of remedial proceedings in this case.

People Who Care, 89 C 20168 (N.D.Ill. filed May 5, 1993) at 5–6.

10

Judge Roszkowski disagreed with essentially three conclusions reached by the Magistrate. First, although Judge Roszkowski

agreed that there was a disparity in the distribution of district staff, he was not convinced that this was caused by intentional

discrimination or that the disparity showed intentional discrimination against the students. Second, although Judge Roszkowski

agreed with the overall finding that there was substantial evidence of intentional discrimination on the issue of the make-up of the

School Board, Judge Roszkowski rejected the Magistrate’s finding that the Board deliberately gerrymandered the District in

drawing the map submitted to the court. Judge Roszkowski further found that the failure to appoint minority members to the Board

did not constitute intentional discrimination, as found by the Magistrate. Lastly, Judge Roszkowski overturned the Magistrate in an

area where the Magistrate did not find intentional discrimination—assignment of Special Education students. Rather, Judge

Roszkowski agreed with Plaintiffs that the RSD’s conduct in assigning Special Education students amounted to intentional

discrimination. Judge Roszkowski agreed, however, that the RSD should continue to exempt Special Education students from the

desegregation programs. People Who Care, 89 C 20168 (N.D.Ill. filed February 18, 1994).

11

The first five of these factors have traditionally been recognized as the “Green factors.” See Green, 391 U.S. at 435. The sixth

factor, overall quality of education, which is sometimes included as a Green factor, was first recognized by the Supreme Court in

Freeman, 503 U.S. at 473.

12

See also Brown II, 349 U.S. at 300–01 (A district court may consider “problems related to administration, arising from the physical

condition of the school plant, the school transportation system, personnel, revision of school districts and attendance areas into

compact units to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis, and revision of local laws

and regulations which may be necessary in solving the foregoing problems.”); Swann v. Charlotte–Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402

U.S. 1, 18–19 (1971) (wherein the Supreme Court stated, “In the[ ] areas [of transportation, supporting personnel, extracurricular

activities, maintenance of buildings and the distribution of equipment], normal administrative practice should produce schools of

like quality, facilities and staffs.”); Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, Denver, Colorado, 413 U.S. 189, 196 (1973) (wherein the Court

stated, “What is or is not a segregated school will necessarily depend on the facts of each particular case. In addition to the racial

and ethnic composition of a school’s student body, other factors, such as the racial and ethnic composition of faculty and staff and

the community and administration attitudes toward the school, must be taken into consideration.”); Board of Educ. of Oklahoma

City Public Schs. v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 250 (1991) (quoting Green, 391 U.S. at 435) (“In considering whether the vestiges of de

jure segregation had been eliminated as far as practicable, the District Court should look not only at student assignments, but ‘to

every facet of school operations—faculty, staff, transportation, extracurricular activities and facilities.’ ”).

13

Once a remedy is found to be necessary to cure a vestige of a constitutional violation, state law cannot be used by a school district

as a defense to implementing the remedy. See Brown II, 349 U.S. at 301 (The district court may consider “revision of local laws

and regulations ... to solv[e] the foregoing problems.”); Missouri v. Jenkins, 495 U.S. 33, 57 (1990) (“Jenkins II ”) (“It is therefore

clear that a local government with taxing authority may be ordered to levy taxes in excess of the limit set by state statute where

there is reason based in the Constitution for not observing the statutory limitation.”).

14

Dr. Eubanks did not endorse the continuation of the Creative And Performing Arts program (CAPA) in its present form. The

Master only endorsed CAPA to the extent that entrance requirements were dropped. Under the stipulation, the parties did not agree

on entrance requirements to CAPA and other alternative programs. This issue will be decided in another segment of this opinion.

15

The question of whether tracking and/or ability grouping exists today in the RSD is more easily asked than answered. To be sure,

ability grouping was already ordered to be halted as of the Second Interim Order in 1991, unless the District was able to

demonstrate a sound educational and/or academic rationale for grouping. During testimony in December 1995, the Magistrate

certified the following four questions to the District concerning ability groups: (1) Are there any basic classes in Rockford

secondary schools?; (2) Is there any evidence of continued tracking?; (3) Does Rockford have weighted grades?; and (4) Are

Academy (gifted) students included in class rank?

Dr. Barbara Pulliam, the Associate Superintendent for Education and Equity, answered the four questions in a memorandum that

was read into the record on December 21, 1995. Regarding question number one, Dr. Pulliam stated that by September of 1994,

all basic classes had been eliminated. As to question two, Dr. Pulliam stated that taken as a whole, core classes were not tracked.

Dr. Pulliam further stated that there is an appearance of tracking in a total of nine algebra courses offered in four schools.

68

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

Regarding the third question, Dr. Pulliam answered that as of February 22, 1994, the Board of Education voted to discontinue the practice of assigning weighted GPAs beginning with the senior class of 1998. Therefore, only the present junior and senior classes have weighted grades. Regarding the fourth question, Dr. Pulliam responded that the gifted students attending Auburn are included in class rank with all other students attending Auburn. In a follow up inquiry, Dr. Pulliam reported that of the top ten percent of Auburn’s 1995 graduating class, 93% were from the Academy (gifted program). In addition, all of Auburn’s Valedictorians and Salutatorians for the last five years have come from the Academy. Plaintiffs commented on Dr. Pulliam’s answers and presented the following evidence that tracking does still exist. For example, Dr. Harriet Doss–Willis, a consultant with the Southwest Regional Educational Lab hired by the RSD, reported in March 1994 that there continues to be parallel curriculum structures in place in the RSD. She states that the system “continues to look, smell, and taste like tracking, therefore it probably is tracking.” Plaintiffs’ Ex. 77 at 8–9. “[B]latant” examples of tracking that still existed in the high schools were the mathematics courses. Dr. Willis observed that there are courses labeled “algebra” that are “diluted” and do not contain algebra in content. Plaintiffs’ Ex. 77 at 9. In addition, in 1995, Dr. Willis noted that although most of the basic courses had been removed, students were still being ability grouped within the honors courses. Indeed, the court notes that in Dr. Pulliam’s memorandum, Table 3, there is a very low percentage of minority students in the geometry and advanced algebra courses in Guilford, East and Jefferson high schools. At Guilford, for example, there are 22% minority students in the regular geometry class compared to 7% minority in the honors program. On January 5, 1996, the Master responded to Defendant’s answers for the four questions. Regarding question one, the Master agreed that, as of September 1994, the use of the words “Basic Courses” to identify courses was eliminated. However, based on his quarterly reports, the Master noted in many cases, “Basic Courses” were simply retitled “Regular Courses.” The net effect, the Master concluded, was that instead of having four tracks, Honors, Regular, Basic and Special Education, the District now has three tracks, Honors, Regular and Special Education. Regarding question two, the Master has responded that the RSD has not adequately responded to the court’s inquiry concerning whether tracking currently exists. Namely, the Master contends that the District failed to note relevant data in the 14th Quarterly Report that contained evidence of tracking. A couple of examples are striking—there were 47 classes at Auburn that had no African–American students, there were 60 racially identifiable class sections at Guilford and 109 such class sections at Auburn. See Master’s Response to Defendant’s Memorandum at 2 (listing examples). Similar examples exist for Rockford’s elementary and middle schools. Regarding questions three and four, the Master accepted the representation of the District. In particular, the court notes the Master’s conclusion, “[W]hile some progress ha[s] been made in the Rockford Public Schools relative to grouping and tracking, [it is] clear [that] patterns of continued tracking and grouping exist[ ] in a manner which reflects the vestiges of segregation and violates the Second Interim Order.” Master’s Response to Defendant’s Memorandum at 4. That tracking and ability grouping—arguably the most severe discrimination tool of the Rockford School District—may still be in place, is extremely disheartening to the court. Before making a more specific order on the gifted programs, the Magistrate would like to see the results of Dr. Willis’ January 1996 report on tracking in the RSD.

16

See generally Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Proposed Findings of Fact at 47–51; Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings of Fact Supporting

Uncontested Areas at 4–9 (discussing vestiges and factual findings contained in the Report and Recommendation).

17

A comment is in order concerning the duration of these programs. These educational components under ability grouping are to be

funded as long as they are effective and necessary. These programs are not necessarily to be continued to unitary status, which

encompasses the much broader standard of whether the District has, to the extent practicable, eradicated the vestiges of intentional

discrimination. On the road to unitary status, some of the educational components will come and go, making way for more

effective ones. Therefore, the standard—as long as they are effective and necessary—is appropriate for educational components.

18

Two portions of the Master’s proposed HRP are contested. The first concerns a recommendation that the teachers and staff be

compensated for participating in the program subject to the May 5th Agreement as it relates to staff development time and

compensation for participation in the program. Intervenor–Defendants’ stipulation provided that to the extent this program has any

impact on wages, hours, terms and conditions of employment, the specific terms will be negotiated by Defendant–Intervenors and

the Rockford School District. The second area of disagreement concerns the Master’s recommendation that the HRP have an

annual budget of at least $450,000 per year for the next three years. Proposed Plan at 33. Defendant objects to the duration and

costs of the HRP. The Magistrate orders the program to be continued as long as it is effective and necessary. The cost portion of

the HRP will be resolved through the budgeting process.

19

In the meantime, the Master recommends that present curriculum development activities and instructional improvement programs,

such as funding for C.8. (predominantly minority) schools, magnet schools, secondary intervention programs, funding for

Computer Assisted Instruction and critical thinking, funding for community schools, funding for C.9. (predominantly majority

school) curriculum implementers, funding for curriculum developers, funding for assistant principals for Curriculum and

Instruction, funding for curricular in-service training, funding for gifted education, and funding for comprehensive planning,

should continue at the level of present funding until a curriculum audit is conducted and a new multi-cultural curriculum is

established. Proposed Plan at 40.

20

Plaintiffs also seek language modeled on Section B.6.a. of the Second Interim Order that requires the District to revise curriculum

programs to eliminate lower-status instructional processes and expectations provided to minority students. In addition, Plaintiffs

seek broader language requiring the RSD to continually revise programs to “ensure that African–American and Hispanic students

participate in courses, curriculum and instruction which are as challenging as that provided to white students....” Plaintiffs’

69

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

Response to Proposed Plan at 15–16. The court rejects these suggestions made by Plaintiff as they are redundant and already provided for in the Master’s Proposed Plan.

21

The court considers the Master’s language “as long as they are needed” to conform to the court’s standard “effective and

necessary.” The court rejects Plaintiffs’ proposed standard, which is a unitary status standard. As stated before, several educational

components may come and go on the road to unitary status. The constant reviewing and reconsideration of the effectiveness of all

of these ordered programs is an important process to ensure that court-ordered programs are not useless and wasteful.

22

Regarding the areas of disagreement, the court accepts the $50,000.00 to be a rough estimate of the costs associated with instituting

a cohesive community education plan. Further guidelines on budgetary restraints will be made in following sections. Regarding the

standard to apply in determining whether the District has adequately developed such a program, the standard is that these programs

must be funded as long as they are both effective and necessary. Part of this analysis will necessarily involve determining whether

the community education remedy has been developed and evaluating to what extent the plan has been successful in achieving its

goals.

23

In Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 115 S.Ct. 2038 (1995) ( “Jenkins III ”), the Court cautioned that there are limits on a district

court’s remedial power:

‘[E]limination of racial discrimination in public schools is a large task and one that should not be retarded by efforts to achieve broader purposes lying beyond the jurisdiction of the school board authorities. One vehicle can carry only a limited amount of baggage. It would not serve the important objective of Brown I to seek to use school desegregation cases for purposes beyond their scope, although desegregation of schools ultimately will have impact on other forms of discrimination.’

Jenkins III, 115 S.Ct. at 2048 (quoting Swann v. Charlotte–Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 22–23 (1971)).

24

In support of the ECE, the Master also proffers the generation victim theory. The theory is that minority parents that have had

children discriminated against in the past in the segregated system, may be less likely to be take an integral role in their present

pre-schooler’s education. In other words, the present students are considered “victims” because the parents have become

disaffected as a result of a previous child in the system that actually was a victim of discrimination. Master’s Proposed Findings on

Uncontested Areas at 26. The court does not dispute the empirical evidence that parents that become involved early on in the

educational process will be more comfortable with the school district and will have a sustained involvement in the education of

their children. The court is unpersuaded, nonetheless, that the Master has demonstrated a sufficient nexus between the ECE

program and any victim of past discrimination.

25

The BEP has seven goals that are spelled out in great detail from pages 51 through 78 of the Master’s proposed plan. To the extent

that these areas are stipulated to, the court hereby orders these specific provisions to be part of the BEP, subject to financial

restraints.

26

The details of the plan are located in Appendix I of the Master’s Proposed Plan.

27

The Master’s proposed dates for the Staff Development Plan have passed. Therefore, the court orders the District to implement the

Staff Development Program as soon as practicable. In addition, the stipulation contains the same proviso contained in the Human

Relations Program: any impact on wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment will be negotiated by the parties and the

District does not agree to the duration of this program and its costs. In addition, both the District and Intervenor–Defendants

oppose any further involvement of the PIC. Budget restraints and the PIC will be discussed in a future segment of this opinion.

28

To the extent that the Master’s proposal in this area may affect staff assignment issues and the REA’s collective bargaining

agreement (see Intervenor–Defendants’ Response to Master’s Proposed Plan at 8–9) these issues will be discussed in subsequent

sections of this opinion.

29

For instance, the RSD intentionally discriminated against minorities when it discouraged and diminished voluntary integration and

created disparate integration burdens. People Who Care, 851 F.Supp. at 1154–55. In addition, the RSD had a longstanding practice

of requiring minorities to be mandatorily assigned outside their neighborhood schools for desegregative purposes, while imposing

no similar requirement on majority students. Id. at 926. Furthermore, mandatorily reassigned secondary students did not receive

free transportation while the RSD provided free transportation for voluntary integration students who were predominantly majority.

Id. at 1162–65. See generally Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Findings of Fact at 186–88.

30

As to duration, the transportation objectives must be carried out, to the extent practicable, until all vestiges concerning unequal

transportation burdens have been eradicated from the District.

31

The court reserves ruling on the future participation of the PIC, if any, in the proposed facility disposition process.

32

See People Who Care, 89 C 20168 (N.D.Ill. filed April 21, 1991) at 96–98 (Section G.9. of the Second Interim Order).

70

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

33

Although it is not stated in the stipulation by the parties, the court notes that in other areas both Defendant and

Defendant–Intervenors object to the continuation of the PIC. This issue will not be addressed here and will be decided in the

future.

34

Segment one of the CRO was issued on January 26, 1996. Segment two, issued on February 2, 1996, deals with student

assignment. The court is issuing the CRO in segments so that the Rockford School District can begin the immediate

implementation of the court-ordered remedies.

35

The discriminatory conduct of the RSD continued through the 1980s, was apparent in the 1989 Reorganization Plan and, in fact,

continues today. For example, in both 1983 and 1989, the RSD approved boundary changes with respect to Dennis school that

resulted in the further segregation of that school. See People Who Care, 851 F.Supp. at 1074. An example of a reassignment of

students after a school closing that further segregated students is seen in 1989: when the Muldoon grades 4 through 6 were returned

to Ellis School, the African–American student population rose from 59 to 92%. Id. Similar instances in the early 1980s led to the

creation of racially identifiable minority schools at Haight, McIntosh and Conklin. Id. This pattern and practice continued

throughout the 1980s. See, e.g., People Who Care, 851 F.Supp. at 1076–77 (discussing the effects of the 1983 school closings).

The 1989 Reorganization Plan further demonstrated the RSD’s intent to racially isolate its minority elementary students. One

idea in the Plan that, thankfully, never got further than the planning stage, was the notion to create mega-schools in the

Southwest Quadrant. This would have, in effect, created “ghetto warehouses” for minority students. Id. at 1125. At the

secondary level, the Plan was successful in closing West High School, the only naturally integrated high school in the RSD. Id.

36

The court hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the factual findings related to student assignment contained in the Report

and Recommendation at 851 F.Supp. 1026–1082, 1098–1125. These findings and the continuing vestiges of the intentional

discrimination must be addressed by an acceptable student assignment plan for both elementary and secondary students.

37

For all school years that are concerned in this opinion, elementary schools in the RSD housed grades K through 6.

38

“Racially identifiable” minority includes schools that were not within 15 percentage points of the district wide percentage of

minority students. Therefore, a racially identifiable minority school included any school that had a minority student percentage

greater that 44.5% (29.5% plus 15%). Similarly, a racially identifiable White school included any elementary school not within 15

percentage points of the district wide percentage of White students, which was 70.5%. Therefore, a racially identifiable White

elementary school included any school that had a White enrollment of greater than 85.5%.

39

Table El of Master’s Ex. 6 (not shown here) actually states there are 8 racially identifiable minority schools. The reason is that

Table E1 includes the Lewis Lemon magnet school as racially identifiable, because it had an enrollment of 53.1% minority. The

magnet schools, however, were designated to be 50–50 enrollment. For this reason, the Magistrate will not count Lewis Lemon as

racially identifiable.

40

By 1995–96, the number of racially identifiable minority schools had dropped to 6: Barbour, Dennis, Ellis, Haskell, McIntosh and

Riverdahl. The number of racially identifiable White schools remained constant at 5: Cherry Valley, Froberg, New Milford, West

CAPA and White Swann.

41 The figures are taken from the 1989–90 and 1994–95 Fall Housing Reports. For 1989–90 and 1994–95 “minority” is defined as all
non-Whites.

42

Two observations reveal that the progression from 24 to 12 racially identifiable schools is not as significant an accomplishment as

it may at first seem. First, two formerly racially identifiable minority schools, Nashold and Kishwaukee, are now classified as

desegregated even though the racial composition of the schools has not really changed since 1989. They are no longer racially

identifiable because the district wide elementary student racial composition (which was 29.5% in 1989–90) rose to 36.3% in

1994–95, thus encompassing Nashold and Kishwaukee within the 15% parameters. These two schools, therefore, became

“desegregated” with no effort from the District. Second, two formerly White identifiable schools, Johnson and Nelson, have

achieved a “fragile” degree of desegregation and would become resegregated with the addition of two to three White students.

Moreover, an additional ten schools that are considered desegregated could be racially identifiable with a shift of twenty or more

minority or White students. Master’s Ex. 6 at 11; Tr. 239–40 (although there are 26 elementary schools that are presently within

the +/−15 percent guideline, only 16 of those are “stably desegregated”). By the same token, however, the court notes that two

schools presently classified as racially identifiable White, White Swan and Thompson, are only a few minority students away from

being classified as desegregated.

43

Map 1 does not include West CAPA, which, although a racially identifiable gifted program in 1989–90, is not a separate school

facility.

44

An attendance zone policy is a residential-based, mandatory student assignment policy, where the District draws geographic

attendance boundaries that are assigned to a particular school. Tr. 56–57.

71

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

45

The remaining four of the total 39 schools include three magnets that do not have attendance zones, and Page Park, a special

education school that is exempted from the discussion of student assignment.

46

Particularly troubling is that for the Southwest Quadrant’s seven racially identifiably minority schools, only 16 White students

voluntary transferred in, while 48 White students were granted “hardship” transfers out of these minority segregated schools.

Master’s Ex. 6 at 24.

47

The transfers are, therefore, not truly “voluntary” when considering that the Southwest Quadrant is over capacity by 1,200

students. In other words, these students have no choice but to choose other than a neighborhood school.

48

The court notes, however, that a by-product of the magnet schools is that assigned west side majority students are also transferring

to the magnet schools. In 1994–95, some 232 or 58% of west side majority students were voluntarily assigned into these magnets

from schools that were racially identifiable minority. These assignments may have segregative effects because the SW Quadrant’s

seven racially identifiable minority schools do not presently offer an attractive alternative program to compete with the magnets. In

other words, by losing these west side White elementary students, the SW Quadrant’s seven racially identifiable minority schools

may be becoming more segregated. See Master’s Ex. 6 at 26.

49 Pre–T % White refers to the percentage of White students at the school before transfers are considered.

50 W–Transfers refers to the net increase or decrease in White student enrollment at a particular school after considering all transfers.
A negative number means that as a result of all transfers, there was a net loss of White students.
51 M–Transfers refers to the net increase of minority student enrollment at a particular school after considering all minority transfers.

52 Post–T % White refers to the percentage of White students after considering the transfers.

53

Another unfair method to achieve statistical desegregation is simply to move an overwhelmingly minority program to a racially

identifiable White school. For example, Nashold School was racially identifiable White prior to 1989–90 and, simply by moving

the bilingual program to Nashold, thereby adding 201 Hispanic students, Nashold changed from 82.4% White to 52.4% White.

1994–95 Fall Housing Report at Table E.2.

54

These figures are taken from the 1994–95 Fall Housing Report (Table B.2).

55

The total number of secondary students is reported to be 10,897 in Table C.2 of the 1994–95 Fall Housing Report. The Magistrate

notes that this number is inconsistent with the number in Section A of the report. Section A states that the total middle school

enrollment is 4,044 and the total high school enrollment is 6,744.

56

The total enrollment figures for the two programs are taken from the 1994–95 Fall Housing Report at Table F.1. The Academy

enrolled 332 students and CAPA enrolled 314 students. Added together, the total enrollment would be 646. However, since several

Academy students are also in the CAPA program, the Magistrate realizes the total combined enrollment (without double counting)

is probably closer to 550 students. The other west side secondary school, West Middle School, houses four specialty programs:

centralized gifted, CAPA (4–6), CAPA (7–8) and Get It Together (“GIT”). The total enrollment for these programs is 604 students,

434 of which are majority or White. Master’s Ex. 6 at 61.

57

This figure represents 2,267 resident west side students, divided by the 1,085 non-specialty program seats at Auburn.

58

For example, at the high school level, of the 4,123 high school students residing east of the river, no student, except for those

enrolled in the Gifted and CAPA programs, crossed the river to attend high school. Master’s Ex. 6 at 29–30.

59

At the middle school level, there are 4,140 students, of which approximately 2,600, or 63%, are White. Only 216, or 8%, of these

White middle school students cross the Rock River from east to west, and nearly all of the 216 attend either CAPA or centralized

gifted programs. Master’s Ex. 6 at 32.

60

The court is aware that the condition of facilities is a separate Green factor from student assignment. The quality and condition of

facilities becomes relevant to student assignment, however, when, as shown here, significant minority populations attend those

facilities. While addressed here briefly, the quality and condition of all RSD facilities will be addressed in another section of this

opinion.

61

In addition, there is agreement by the parties that a high school may not have less than a 25% enrollment of African–American

72

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

and/or Hispanic students. Without the 25% floor for high school enrollments, the permissible enrollment of minority students at individual high schools could go as low as 15%. Tr. 888. When the minority student population at a school falls this low, problems may occur relative to within school segregation.

62

The Magistrate does observe, however, that considering all the evidence that this court has heard, the likelihood of this being

accomplished by pure voluntary measures seems remote. For example, Bill Trapp, the General Director of Planning for the RSD,

testified that the RSD has reached a plateau in terms of the number of schools that can be desegregated. Tr. 855. Dr. Alves testified

that the RSD cannot further desegregate its schools in an equitable fashion by using the existing mandatory student assignment

practices, together with the limited number of transfer options. Tr. 81–2, 165. In addition, the court reminds the Board of Dr.

Dentler’s testimony that the use of magnet schools alone will not eradicate the vestiges of the intentional discrimination. Tr. 371.

Since opening magnet schools in the Southwest Quadrant has had the effect of enrolling significant percentages of west (as well as

east) side White elementary students, there may be increased racial isolation in the west side, non-magnet elementary schools. Tr.

238.

63

Segment one of the CRO was issued on January 26, 1996. Sections A and B and the beginning of Section C of segment two were

issued on February 2, 1996. This portion of the opinion completes segment two which deals with student assignment and related

issues, including: desegregated schools, magnet schools and the organizational structure of the administration.

64

Under the MAP, there would be a slight increase in the amount of student transportation. Currently, approximately 64% of all RSD

students ride buses, and with the MAP, this could rise to 70% Master’s Ex. 45 at 35. The MAP provides that there would be no

cost for additional buses.

65

For convenience, the court will refer to Option A as “controlled choice.” Option B contains the same functional/mechanical

elements as Option A. Option B is different than Option A in that it proposes the addition of magnet schools and facility

repairs/improvements that will be discussed in subsection 3.

66

See Master’s Ex. 13 at 23; Tr. 623 (in the Lowell, Massachusetts controlled choice plan, 70% of parents received their first choice

and 90% received their first or second choice); Tr. 817 (in the Cambridge, Massachusetts controlled choice plan, 80% of parents

received their first, second or third choice); Tr. 922 (in the St. Lucie County, Florida controlled choice plan, 84% of parents

received their first or second choice).

67

“Minority” in controlled choice is defined as African–American and Hispanic students combined. Master’s Ex. 14 at 22.

68

Magnet schools and magnet programs, including alternative “school within a school” programs (e.g. gifted programs), must also

meet the plus or minus 15% standard. In addition, these programs must have an entry-grade enrollment that is equal to or greater

than the district wide percentage of African–American and Hispanic students for that grade, combined. Lastly, all high schools, in

addition to the 15% standard, must have an enrollment that is not less than 25% Black/Hispanic students combined. Master’s Ex.

14 at 22.

69

If a “grandfathered” student wishes to change schools, that student would be granted a voluntary transfer to another school so long

as the selected school would remain within the racial fairness guidelines. The grandfather clause does not apply to a student who

must obtain a new school assignment due to changes beyond the student’s control, e.g., school closures, program relocations or

changes in a school’s grade structure. Master’s Ex. 14 at 25.

70

Finally, voluntary transfers would be permitted to any student so long as the desired school can handle the transfer within the

plan’s racial fairness guidelines. Students whose primary language is not English and who are eligible for bilingual education

would be assigned to a school that provides these services. Similarly, special education students would be assigned to a school

providing the necessary services. Master’s Ex. 14 at 28–29.

71

All students who do not receive their first-choice school would be placed on a waiting list for that school. Any student receiving a

mandatory assignment would be placed on a waiting list for both the first and second-choice schools. Master’s Ex. 14 at 27.

72

Controlled choice Option A leaves the elementary schools grades K–6, the middle schools grades 7–8 and high schools grades

9–12.

73

At the elementary level, capacities are to be established so that each zone is afforded its proportional share of seats at each grade

level. This is to be accomplished by allocating seats based on the resident elementary school population within each zone. Master’s

Ex. 14 at 20.

74

Because the NE and SE Zones have essentially the same racial constitution, there would be no desegregation benefit in interzone

assignments between them. Tr. 100–01.

75

At Barbour, all students would participate in a core curriculum devoted to developing proficiency in both English and Spanish as

73

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

well as building a foundational understanding of Hispanic and Latino cultures. At Ellis, the arts magnet would be open to all students having an interest in music, theater, dance and the fine arts. See Master’s Ex. 14 at 31–32. In addition, all four K–8 magnets would be attractive as an alternative program to parents and students who preferred the continuity of grades K–8 in one school. Tr. 374–75.

76

The Montessori Program is a unique educational program that focuses attention on the whole child, considering the physical, social

and emotional needs of a child in addition to intellectual needs. The program incorporates a special attitude of respect for each

child that nurtures self-esteem and joy in learning for all children.

77

But see Plaintiffs’ Findings of Fact on Student Assignment at 41. Apparently, the recommendation to house the Montessori

program at Haskell has been changed because the RSD has leased St. Patrick’s School to run the program. Plaintiffs request that

the court order that the program be permanently located in the SW Quadrant. Id. The Master agrees with this proposal. Master’s

Findings of Facts on Student Assignment at 33.

78

The PEM is a program that concentrates on the development and education of students by using an individualized student learning

approach. The program model focuses on the utilization of computers and technology to enhance comprehension, problem solving

and other higher-order thinking skills.

79

At trial, the Master proposed that McIntosh become a K–2 science and technology magnet and that Wilson (the RSTA) should

complement the theme and house grades 3–8. Tr. 1347–48.

80

The Master has proposed that the high school component at West should contain approximately 550 seats to provide sufficient

capacity west of the river. Master’s Ex. 1 at 114–15. According to the Master, this would address the liability finding of the court

relative to the closing of West High School in 1989. Id. at 115.

81

During the presentation of the mandatory plan at trial, the members of the planning team proposed that West and East be closed

and a new West/East high school be constructed in the SW Quadrant. The Master has adopted the MAP’s West/East high school

recommendation and has applied it to the controlled choice remedy. The Master recognizes that sufficient expert testimony

supports the construction of a new West/East high school in that it would address the unconstitutional closing of West High School

and is reasonable and practical. Master’s Findings of Fact on Student Assignment at 35. The planning team testified that, in the

long run, the construction of a West/East high school would be less expensive than renovating and maintaining the current West

building and East High School. Tr. 3273–74. In addition, there would be two high schools west of the river, more fully addressing

the capacity problem than the 550 seat proposal at West Middle School.

82

The court notes that two categories of projected costs are not accounted for in these totals: the costs associated with developing

certain magnet themes at elementary, middle and high schools and the costs of necessary repairs/improvements in those existing

elementary, middle and high school facilities west of the river. The court further notes that the Master has suggested that Roosevelt

no longer should be a learning magnet. Tr. 3216. In that case, the cost of controlled choice would drop by $43,865.

Rockford Public Schools Controlled Choice Plan—Cost Estimate Summary

Ref. No. HS–3 Pg 38

Title/Description CAPA from Auburn to East Move the CAPA program with students to East High School.

Construct/Ren Costs $25,000

plementati Costs
$102,125

d. Operati Costs $0.00

EL–11 pg 33

Expand Communication Arts at Washington 300 students

$25,000

$52,155

$0

EL–5 pg 32

Relocate Gifted Program Into King 375 students

$25,000

$76,530

$0

MS–2 pg 35

Relocate Gifted Program Into Flynn from West 270 students

$25,000

$81,565

$0

HS–4 pg 39

Relocate Gifted Program Into Gullford 300 students

$25,000

$103,635

$0
74

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

EL–2 pg 31 EL–4 PG 32 EL–3 pg 31 EL–6 pg 32
EL–9 pg 32 EL–13 pg 33 HS–1
MS–6 pg 35 MS–4 pg 35 HS–2 MS–4 g 35 & 38 MS–1 pg 34 HS–5 pg 39
EL–10 pg 32 B.3.
B.2.
B.3.

Replace Barbour K–8 Biling/bicult
Replace Ellis New school for 575 students 66125sf
Montessori to Haskell 300 students pk–5
PEM to Haight
Staff Equipment Balance of Schools
Science and Tech Magnet to Mcinstosh 424 students
Science and Tech Magnet to RSTA Program contiuation of RSTA
Science and Tech Magnet to Auburn 1635 students
New Nature Middle School New school for 1170 students 157,950sf
New West Secondary School New school for 1170 students 157,950sf
Health and Medical Careers at West Addn West Secondary for 350 students Approx. 54,250sf 350 students
Global Studies at Eisenhower 1170 students
Tech Prep Program at Jefferson Reopen Technical Ed building at Jefferson; 400 students
Roosevelt Inv. Learning Magnet 146 students
Parent Information Centers 3 centers
Extended Day Kindergarten 1284 students
Staffing for Middle School Grade Restructuring 6000 students

$8,740,000 $8,770,000
$10,000 $2,245,931
$0 $50,000 $50,000 $9,495,000 $16,110,900 $15,439,613 $5,926,813
$50,000 $2,706,000
$0 $16,000 $320,000
$0

$137,665 $137,665 $57,480 $33,090 $595,000 $107,580 $80,255 $267,100 $204,380 $216,880 $126,750
$179,570 $199,100
$43,865 $72,000 $98,600
$0

$567,200 $126,555
$0 $241,226
$0 $0 $0 $0 $662,345 ($164,300) $357,075
$120,400 $925,000
$0 $379,800 $760,000 $1,380,000
75

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

A–7

Transportation

HS and MS lates already funded

$0

$45,000

$562,640

MS–5 pg 36

Re-open Kennedy from Facilities Plan

$4,636,000

$48,960

$416,670

Totals

$74,691,256

$3,066,950

$6,334,611

83

A mandatory student assignment plan may be reconsidered if the RSD is unable or unwilling to successfully implement the court’s

remedial orders.

84

Lewis Lemon is to continue as an elementary magnet.

85

Defendant–Intervenors’ expert, Dr. Rossell, testified against the controlled choice plan and in favor of maintaining the status quo.

The court rejects her recommendations. Dr. Rossell essentially provided two reasons for her recommendation to maintain the

current plan: (1) Rockford has already achieved a sufficient degree of desegregation, and (2) controlled choice will produce “White

flight.”

Dr. Rossell stated that since Rockford has 80% of its students in racially balanced schools and is less racially imbalanced than

school districts across the country recently achieving unitary status, the court should allow the District to use purely voluntary

means to achieve further desegregation. The court rejects this argument for three reasons. First, the court has already stated that

the present level of desegregation is insufficient—the District is required to make a good faith effort to desegregate all of its

schools to the extent practicable, irrespective of what other school districts have done. Second, the present level of desegregation

achieved through “voluntary” measures is very unstable. 80% of the District’s attendance zone elementary schools are

automatically segregated at the start of each year. Controlled choice is needed to provide stability and flexibility. Third, and

most importantly, the present system is voluntary for majority students alone. The court cannot endorse a student assignment

plan that is voluntary for White students and mandatory for African–American and Hispanic students. Placing inequitable

burdens upon minority students is nothing more than discrimination. Discrimination used to obtain integration still violates the

Constitution.

Dr. Rossell’s second argument in favor of maintaining the present system is that controlled choice will produce White flight. On

this issue, the court notes the following. In the worst case scenario, controlled choice may produce a one-third increase in the

normal decline in White student enrollment. Without any court-ordered student assignment plan in place, Rockford annually

loses about 3% of its White students. Tr. 2280. The effect of controlled choice may add one-percent; therefore, the RSD might

lose 4% instead of 3% of its majority students. Tr. 2589. However, controlled choice is only being ordered for the RSD’s

elementary students. Given that there are approximately 8,500 majority K–5 students, the 1% increase in the decline amounts to

a potential loss of 85 students beyond the expected decline. In the Magistrate’s opinion, any loss of students—regardless of

race—due to the student assignment remedy would be unfortunate. These estimates, however, do not provide a sufficient

justification to allow intentional discrimination to continue or to fail to eliminate the vestiges of the intentional discrimination.

For these reasons, Dr. Rossell’s recommendation that the District maintain the status quo is rejected.

86

To be clear, the court is defining minority as African–American and Hispanic students combined.

87

For example, attending desegregated schools may have a tendency to make all racial groups less prejudiced against members of

other groups. Tr. 1002, 1005. Black students who attend desegregated schools may be less likely to remain in segregated settings in

the future, may be more likely to attend predominantly White colleges and may be more likely to have positive interracial social

and professional relationships in their adult lives. Tr. 1007–08. In addition to reducing societal prejudice, desegregated schools

may have a positive influence on minority student achievement, minority graduation and drop-out rates, minority college

graduation rates, minority delinquency, minority employment prospects and minority students’ self-esteem. See Tr. 1019–30,

1050–74.

88

If a “grandfathered” student wishes to change schools, that student will be granted a voluntary transfer to another school so long as

the selected school will remain within the racial fairness guidelines. In addition, the grandfather clause does not apply to a student

who must obtain a new school assignment due to changes beyond the student’s control, e.g., school closures, program relocations

or changes in a school’s grade structure.

89

The court notes that with the proximity preference, transportation distances as well as costs will be reduced. Tr. 118, 1354.

90

Random lottery assignment will be used in the event that the number of non-sibling applicants is greater than the number of

available seats for majority and/or minority students.

91

All magnet schools, including the three existing elementary magnets, Lewis Lemon, Washington and Wilson, will be schools of

choice for all students. All magnet schools operating in the RSD will be subject to the +/− 15% racial fairness guidelines. The +/−

76

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

15% proposal for each grade level as well the recommendation for floor percentages at entry grade levels will be decided in the within school segregation section in the third segment.

92

Another desegregative benefit of three zones as compared to the present residence attendance zone approach comes from the fact

that only seven of the RSD’s existing residence zone schools have resident student populations that are naturally desegregated.

That correlates every year to 80% of the elementary schools initially (before “voluntary” transfers are considered) being

segregated. Master’s Ex. 14 at 10. In contrast, the three zone approach will keep the district from being “resegregated” each and

every year.

93

In addition, controlled choice will apply to students transferring to the RSD and entering the school system for the first time as well

as to students not electing to remain at their “grandfathered” school.

94

This goal of all schools being desegregated is feasible and practicable. See Tr. 24, 28, 32, 406, 3667, 3681–82.

95

The court notes that parent information centers have been integral in helping controlled choice programs succeed across the United

States. There was abundant testimony at trial from controlled choice administrators in Cambridge and Lowell, Massachusetts and

St. Lucie County, Florida. All three of these districts successfully implemented controlled choice within a few years, and all three

have a stricter compliance standard (+/− 10%) than proposed in Rockford. The court also notes the following percentages of

honored choices: 80% of kindergarten students in Cambridge received their first, second or third choice; 70% of the students in

Lowell received their first choice and 90% of students in Lowell received their first, second or third choice; and, 90% of St. Lucie

County middle school students received their first choice. See generally Tr. 593–626, 805–39, 913–56. In Rockford, where the

compliance standard is more lenient at +/− 15%, it is projected that even higher percentages of parents and students will receive

their top choices. Tr. 623, 817.

96

Without this minimum enrollment, schools could exist within the racial fairness guidelines and have as low as 15% minority

enrollment at an individual high school. Tr. 888.

97

At trial, Superintendent Epps testified that the Board’s support of controlled choice Option A was due to the fact that the District

did not have the opportunity to fully consider Option B components. Tr. 3663–64. Dr. Epps testified that the District would act on

these components after community input and additional financial data were gathered. Tr. 3664–66. The Magistrate rejects

Defendant’s position that the Rockford School Board did not have adequate time to consider Option B components. First, the

planning team that developed controlled choice presented both options, merged as one, to the Planning and Implementation

Committee (PIC). Tr. 90. This recommendation, that Option B could not be separated from Option A, was first embodied in the

team’s draft of Memorandum II. Memo II was submitted to the PIC on May 1, 1995. In that memo, the combination of Options A

and B was considered “foundational” to a workable and acceptable remedy. Master’s Ex. 13 at 2. Therefore, the District has had

ample time to fully consider the separate components of Option B. The liability findings in this case occurred in 1993 and it is time

to develop remedies for the plaintiff class. The Option B components are in no way underdeveloped or premature. Indeed, the

planning team has taken input from parents, teachers, the community and the administration on the magnet proposals. Tr. 209–10,

389–90, 486–87, 732–733, 1372, 3688.

98

Another reason supporting the adopted components of Option B over Option A is relatively straightforward: a controlled choice

plan that does not make schools educationally attractive and effective could potentially be more mandatory than voluntary. In fact,

if the RSD were to only implement Option A, the planning team testified that the District would be better off with a mandatory

student assignment plan. Tr. 493–94. By developing unique and attractive themes and programs under Option B, all schools are

encouraged to attract students on a district wide basis. Tr. 745–46. Therefore, Option A would leave far too many schools

under-chosen. As such, controlled choice (without at least some facility changes) is not a plan that promises to realistically work

now in the RSD.

99

Haight is important because it adds an additional 180 seats to the west side for elementary students. Haight is not currently being

used by the District and the planning team saw an opportunity to place the PEM where it would increase the number of west side

elementary seats. Tr. 388–89. The 180 seats are incorporated into the 7,473 available K–5 seats at Table E.2. of Master’s Ex. 14.

Further, the court notes that the PEM program is targeted for Haight. While the Magistrate considers this to be a good idea, this is

the type of decision to be made by local authorities in conjunction with the Master.

100 Defendant’s position for maintaining the present grade structure is undermined by its motion to reopen proofs to submit an alternative plan. In that motion, the District attached the blueprint for its new plan which suggested the new K–5, 6–8 grade restructuring. Defendant’s Motion to Reopen Proofs on Student Assignment, Ex. C at 6.

101 The Magistrate agrees with the recommendation of the parties to house the CAPA programs (currently at West Middle School and Washington Elementary School) at Ellis. CAPA will compliment the arts magnet program at Ellis. The court will address the admission criteria for the centralized gifted program in the next segment of the opinion in the section on within school segregation. Regarding the location of the gifted programs, the Master has proposed that the elementary centralized gifted program be housed at King and the middle school gifted program (currently at West Middle School) be housed at Flinn. The court will not make these

77

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...
decisions, as they seem the type of educational decisions more appropriate for local authorities. The District and the Master are to agree on appropriate locations for these programs.
102 In its motion to reopen proofs on student assignment, Defendant specifically committed to creating magnets at Barbour and Ellis, as well as constructing two new magnet schools in the SW Quadrant. Defendant’s Motion to Reopen Proofs on Student Assignment, Ex. C at 5.
103 These figures and the analysis that follows do not consider special education enrollment.
104 If Eisenhower, Flinn and Lincoln move towards the smaller 1,170 school model, the total district capacity would be 6,971 with a utilization rate of 82%.
105 Dr. Heald also testified that if the grade configuration is changed to 6–8, there exists enough capacity in the District without adding a new middle school. The court rejects this analysis because Dr. Heald did not account for capacity equity in his figures. For example, Dr. Heald admitted that in his scenario, only 17% of middle school capacity would be in the SW Quadrant. Tr. 717.
106 The court desires a dialog with the RSB on this proposed use of West High School. This use was not proposed by any party at trial, but seems to the court to be a reasonable proposal. The RSD should study this proposal from an educational and economic point of view and report a position to the court within thirty (30) days. If the RSD believes this proposal is unwise or unworkable it must indicate in which high school(s), other than Auburn, these programs are to be located. The court notes that if the stand alone programs are housed at a separate facility this would alleviate many of the within school segregation problems that have plagued these programs and have caused the court concern over their continued existence.
107 This figure does not include the costs for added transportation and parent information centers. The costs for these two areas will be presumably less than reported in Master’s Ex. 49B because controlled choice will only affect elementary students. For the approximate $48 million in capital improvements, the court notes that a home owner with an assessed valuation of $90,000 will pay an additional $50 to $60 a year in property taxes to fund these expenditures. Master’s Ex. 53I (extrapolation). This figure does not include the funding of other remedial programs.
108 Based on the Master’s analysis of the District’s proposal, at this time the court does not see a need for any middle school seats at West. See Master’s Reply to the Board’s Suggested Use of West at 5–9. Finally, the court notes that it has already been decided that the middle school CAPA program is to be absorbed into the K–8 magnet at Ellis. CRO (segment two) at 108 n. 101. Consequently, the District’s proposal to house middle school CAPA at West appears to be in direct conflict with this court’s previous order.
109 The court again assumes in this section that these specialty programs will continue in the RSD. The fate of the Gifted and CAPA programs will be decided in the within school segregation section.
110 The court also notes that leaving the specialty programs at Auburn leaves the potential for future within school segregation problems. Given that minimum minority enrollment will be required in these programs, however, the court might allow the programs to remain at Auburn in exchange for a full, regular high school at West.
111 The court’s understanding is that the Gifted program has separate core courses that are exclusive to Gifted students.
112 To be clear, as in the student assignment section, the court is defining “minority” to include African–American and Hispanic RSD staff.
113 Certified staff refers to teachers and other certified personnel, including psychologists, nurses, librarians, etc. See Defendant’s Harezlak Ex. 2, 1995–96 Data at 1.
114 In other staffing areas, the District has had more success. In 1995–96, for example, there were 9.7% minority certified staff. This included 37.3% minority principals in the District. Of non-certified staff, e.g. custodians, food service personnel and bus drivers, 23.3% were minority. In total, the RSD staff, both certified and non-certified, was 15.4% minority in 1995–96. Defendant’s Harezlak Ex. 2, 1995–96 Data at 1. The heart of the liability findings, however, concerned RSD faculty, and for this reason, the staffing remedy will be limited to RSD teachers. Although this order does not directly affect the other certified and non-certified positions, the court will consider the District’s hiring in these areas when determining unitary status.
115 On February 6, 1996, this court denied Defendant’s motion to reconsider the report and recommendation liability findings which were based in part on the RSD’s failure to meet its hiring goals. On February 21, 1996, the RSD renewed the motion to reconsider. To the extent that the renewed motion to reconsider seeks a reversal of this court’s 1993 and 1994 liability determination, it is DENIED. The motion, however, will be considered as background material for this section.
78

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...
116 This average is derived from the last three years of available hiring data for new hires in the RSD. In 1994–95, for example, the RSD hired 23.2% minority teachers for new positions. The District hired 13% and 14.3% minority new hires, respectively, for the years 1993–94 and 1992–93. Plaintiff’s Ex. 210 at Table 3.
117 There is another important reason to reject the local labor market. The RSD has discriminated against minorities in its hiring practices for many years. Because the District employs one-half of the teachers in the metropolitan area, these past discriminatory practices have depressed the percentage of minority teachers in the local area below the level that it would otherwise have been. Plaintiff’s Ex. 210 at 14.
118 This table is adapted from Plaintiffs’ Ex. 210, Table 2.
Table 1

Region Rockford Area (Winnebago/Boone Counties)

% Minority Teachers 4%

Northern Illinois

19%

(21 northern counties)

Illinois

15%

Midwest

8%

(Illinois plus six surrounding states)

Urban Fringe/Large Town

17%

United States

12%

119

This table is taken from Dr. Freeman’s Dep. Ex. 8 at 2. Dr. LaLonde used the same data and reported the same percentage of applications to Rockford from the National region, six surrounding states and Rockford. Instead of breaking the rest of Illinois (excluding Rockford) into three subsets (state of Illinois, Chicago area and Cook county), Dr. LaLonde reported one percentage for the “Rest of Illinois”—23%, including 3% from Chicago. Plaintiffs’ Ex. 210 at Table 1 (Applications–2). The court notes that this figure, 23%, is only at a slight variance from the sum total of Dr. Freeman’s three subsets for Illinois (excluding Rockford), which add up to 23.2%.

120 This table is derived from Freeman Dep. Ex. 8 at Exhibit 5.

Table 3

Geographic Area Rockford Cook County (Chicago) Chicago Area (less Cook county) Illinois (less Rockford, Cook County and Chicago area) Six–State Area

% Minority Teachers 3.7% 32.4% 4.7% 5.9%
8% 79

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

United States (less IL and 6 states)

16.1%

121 The hiring round placement system operates such that new hires cannot be definitively told during the recruiting season what and where they will be teaching. At trial, there was no dispute that this was an obstacle to the successful recruitment of minority teachers.

122 Dr. Shapiro, an expert retained by the Master, criticized Ms. Freeman’s approach along the same lines. In Dr. Shapiro’s view, Ms. Freeman’s analysis was flawed because it failed to consider the elasticity of either the geographic representation or the ethnic composition of the applicant flow. Shapiro Dep. Ex. 1(b), Affidavit at 2–3.

123 Dr. LaLonde, for example, noted that once more minorities are successfully placed in the District, a network with contacts would likely be established in these geographic areas, thereby producing more minority recruits. Accordingly, more applicants could be expected. Plaintiffs’ Ex. 210 at 12.

124 In addition, the court notes the following. Although 40% of the District’s elementary faculty teach at C.8. schools, 70% of the District’s minority elementary faculty teach at these schools. The District’s C.9. schools utilize approximately 50% of the RSD’s elementary teachers but only have 15% of the RSD’s minority elementary teachers. The remaining 15% of the District’s minority faculty teach at the three magnet schools.

125 As in student assignment, most of the problems with the faculty placement issue lie in the elementary schools. In 1995–96, when the districtwide percentage of minority faculty was 8.7%, the RSD’s four middle schools ranged from a low of 8% minority faculty to a high of 12%. At the high school level, Auburn had 8% minority faculty, East had 11%, and both Guilford and Jefferson had 4%. Plaintiffs’ Ex. 190 at 2.

126 The collective bargaining agreement requires the District to provide the three most senior applicants an opportunity to interview. Plaintiffs’ Ex. 61 at 18. Although required by the contract, the interview process is seldom utilized. Tr. 3732.

127 This is actually a simplified version of the placement process. The court has described the process as position driven. However, a position driven system would look at each position and who applied for that opening. When that position was filled, the next position would similarly be filled until all positions are staffed. The process in practice is not position driven but, rather, is senior applicant driven. A list is generated of all applicants listed in order by seniority. The process begins by looking at the most senior applicant and that applicant’s first choice for a vacancy. If an acceptable rationale is provided and the most senior applicant is denied the vacancy, the next step is to look at that applicant’s second choice. This process continues until the most senior applicant fills a position. If no other choices are indicated, then the most senior applicant returns to his prior position. The process continues by looking at the second most senior applicant and that applicant’s first choice. In reality, therefore, the process is driven much more by seniority than in the court’s brief summary of the process. See Tr. 3714.

128 If a vacancy occurs after the eight pupil attendance day, the principal is allowed to directly place an individual for the current school year. Tr. 3753. If a RIF’d teacher applies for the position, state law mandates that, if qualified, that individual receive the position. The position is only temporary, however, and the position is advertised and filled for the next school year.

129 The court realizes, of course, that a placement system that does not provide for job security in the Spring affects the District’s ability to hire new teachers, regardless of race. However, since qualified minority teachers are highly coveted by school districts across the country, minority candidates may be less inclined to commit to the RSD when they have several other offers from school districts that can guarantee specific positions. In fact, Mr. Creighton, the District’s former recruitment director, could recall four to five minority recruits that he has lost because he did not have a vacancy to offer. Tr. 2189.

130 In the event that localized training is decisive in vacancy filling, the intentional discrimination in hiring and recruitment has denied minority faculty the opportunity to receive this training. For example, if a minority faculty member had been hired ten years ago instead of today, then that teacher would have at least had the chance to receive specialized training that is particular to Rockford.

131 Another reason supports desegregating the RSD’s faculty. Since Brown II, the Supreme Court has held that revision of local laws may be necessary in addressing problems related to transportation, facilities and personnel. Brown II, 349 U.S. at 300–01. To the extent that the collective bargaining agreement is a binding contract under Illinois law, it will not be permitted to interfere with the U.S. constitutional requirements that every vestige of the intentional discrimination in Rockford must be eliminated. The court further notes Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in this area based on Board of Educ. of Rockford Sch. Dist. No. 205 v. Illinois Educ. Labor Relations Bd. 165 Ill.2d 80, 649 N.E.2d 369 (Ill.1995). This case involved a grievance filed by Dr. Peter Wehrle, a tenured teacher in the RSD. Dr. Wehrle’s grievance led to arbitration which resulted in a finding that the RSD had unfairly acted against him without just cause. Review of this decision ultimately reached the Illinois Supreme Court. In the Wehrle case, the supreme court held that grievance arbitration concerning the “just cause” provision in the collective bargaining agreement was prohibited by section 10(b) of Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act (“Act”). The court held that, “[W]here a provision in a collective-bargaining agreement is in violation of, or inconsistent with, or in conflict with any Illinois statute, section 10(b) prohibits its implementation in an arbitration award.” 649 N.E.2d at 372. The court held that if a provision

80

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...
in a collective bargaining agreement merely supplements the Illinois School Code, without being in conflict with it, the provision would be properly arbitrable. In the Wehrle case, the arbitration based on the “just cause” portion of the contract was prohibited by section 10(b) because the provision provided a duplicate method for challenging the process for dismissal and, therefore, was “in conflict” with the Illinois School Code. 649 N.E.2d at 374. In the present case, Plaintiffs argue that Article XII., Section D.1. and other sections of the collective bargaining agreement dealing with the vacancy advertising and filling provisions are in direct conflict with, in violation of, or inconsistent with the Illinois School Code. Article XII., Section D.1. provides that, “If more than one applicant has applied for the same vacancy, the applicant best qualified (based upon relevant certification, education and training) for that vacancy shall be appointed, and qualifications being substantially equal, seniority in the system shall control.” Plaintiffs’ Ex. 61 at 18. Plaintiffs contend that this provision is in conflict with sections 10–20.7, 24–1 and 24–11 of the Illinois School Code, that, in Plaintiffs’ view, “expressly” grant school boards the power to appoint teachers, determine teacher qualifications and transfer teachers. According to the Wehrle case, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment turns on an interpretation of whether the contested collective bargaining provisions are in conflict with, or supplement, the School Code. The court declines to make that interpretation. Although there is a case or controversy between Plaintiffs and Defendant–Intervenors in the remedial hearings, there is no case or controversy before the court concerning these provisions of the collective bargaining agreement, as was the case in the Wehrle decision. Plaintiffs’ request to “obtain a ruling” is nothing more than asking this court for an advisory opinion and, therefore, presents no justiciable controversy for this court to decide. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
132 Under this remedy, no teachers will be involuntarily transferred or forced out of the positions they are currently holding. Rather, equitable distribution of the RSD’s faculty will occur through the vacancy filling process.
133 These teachers will be counted towards the overall 13.5% minority faculty hiring requirement.
134 When there are 13.5% minority teachers at the elementary level, the adjusted percentage of elementary minority faculty may be lower when accounting for the exempt bilingual programs currently at Nashold and Riverdahl. Barbour, which is slotted for a bicultural program, however, will not be exempt from these requirements.
135 To some extent the REA argued that certain minority teachers preferred to be in the C.8. schools because they wanted to teach minority students. The court passes no judgment on whether this is true. The court does note, however, under the racial fairness guidelines of controlled choice, a minority teacher expressing such a preference might be as equally attracted to an east side school as to a Southwest Quadrant school.
136 The court is aware that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d) has been read by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to require that an injunction must be set forth in a “separate” document. Metzl v. Leininger, 57 F.3d 618, 619 (7th Cir.1995). In the Magistrate’s view, this entire order on faculty assignment can be read as a separate document complying with Metzl. The opinion deals only with faculty issues and precisely details what portions of the collective bargaining agreement are enjoined: those dealing with reduction in force, faculty placement, posting, notice and applicant selection. In the event a RIF occurs, the RIF sections will be enjoined until such time that the RSD meets the requirement that the post-RIF minority percentage approximately equals the pre-RIF ratio. The sections of the contract dealing with placement, posting, notice and applicant selection are enjoined for the direct placement time periods stated in this opinion. After those time periods elapse, the contract may operate as usual.
137 Although standardized tests would be used for measuring equitable outcomes, the Master noted that the use of standardized tests has several shortcomings. First, the tests do not provide an adequate measure of progress, particularly for low achieving students who cannot read the tests. Second, standardized tests provide relatively little diagnostic information which can aid remedial instruction. Master’s Ex. 1 at 101–02. The Master, therefore, recommended a battery of other tests that would concentrate on reading comprehension, the identification of students’ progress and the identification of specific goals for students. Id. at 102.
138 The Master’s proposals related to these areas, as well as discipline, are located at Master’s Ex. 1 at 106–113.
139 The Master cited some eighteen improvement efforts that have been in place during the last several years, e.g., the provision of additional support personnel, the Success for All and Reading Recovery programs at C.8. schools, the expansion of after-school and summer school programs and the introduction of Higher Order Thinking Skills and other programs at several schools. The Master notes that, although the overall results to date have been somewhat disappointing, some of these programs promise to lay the groundwork for much greater success in the future. The Master proposed, therefore, that these programs be ordered as part of the CRO to hasten the goal of equitable outcomes in student achievement. See Master’s Ex. 1 at 91–93. In addition, the Master has proposed eight further actions that should be taken by the RSD to help improve academic performance at C.8. schools. For example, appropriate staff should be placed at C.8. schools, and the District would be required to audit the instructional and organizational arrangements, such as identifying low reading subgroups and identifying staffing inadequacies. See Master’s Ex. 1 at 93–100. Efforts at the C.9. elementary schools and the middle and high schools would be guided by the District’s Comprehensive Multi–Year Remedial Plan. Id. at 100–01.
81

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...
140 Subsidized lunch status was used as a control factor for socio-economic status. In Illinois, students in public schools may be
eligible for subsidized lunches. Eligibility for free lunch requires an annual family income (for a family of four) below $19,695. Reduced lunch eligibility requires an annual family income between $19,695 and $28,028. Tr. 4335–36.
141 NCEs are units on an equal interval scale that enable one to compare results from different standardized tests. Tr. 4366–67.
142 Dr. Crain also testified that segregated schools lead to increased delinquency, higher dropout rates and lower college attendance rates for minorities. Tr. 4279–80; Plaintiffs’ Ex. 208 at 22–23.
143 Defendant’s expert, Dr. Hoffer, seems to agree with Dr. Crain’s generational theory. Tr. 5127–28.
144 Plaintiffs also offered Dr. Stolee on the issue of the relationship between school segregation and segregated housing patterns. Dr. Stolee concluded that, “School segregation and residential segregation are mutually dependent in Rockford, and each helps to create and strengthen the other.” Plaintiffs’ Ex. 219 at 10. As a result of the discrimination in this case, Dr. Stolee stated that the Southwest Quadrant schools are racially identifiable minority and have the least and poorest equipment and facilities. Incoming Whites to the community thus look elsewhere for housing. In addition, Dr. Stolee stated that the minorities affected by the discrimination tend to be less comfortable in multi-racial situations, are more likely to drop-out of school and less likely to attend college. In Dr. Stolee’s opinion, this causes minorities to tend to stay in the same geographic location which leads to residential segregation. Id. at 10.
145 After reviewing additional data, Dr. Shapiro strengthened his opinion. Dr. Shapiro compared sixth grade reading and mathematics IGAP scores for 1993–94. He controlled for the income of the students’ households and found that a disparity existed between minority and majority test scores, irrespective of the percent of low income students taking the tests. Master’s Ex. 66 at 3–4; Tr. 5288. This means, for example, that a disparity existed between minority and majority students when 20% of the test takers were low income and a similar disparity existed when 80% of the test takers were low income. Furthermore, Dr. Shapiro performed a multiple regression analysis for nine predictors of achievement, e.g. parental involvement, mobility, attrition rate, low income, truancy rates, type of school (C.8. v. C.9.) and the racial composition of the school. Importantly, he found that none of the nine variables sufficiently explained the test score disparity, suggesting that the discrimination was responsible for 100% of the gaps. Tr. 5292.
146 Perhaps the most interesting legal point made by the experts on this issue comes from Dr. Shapiro. Dr. Shapiro stated that once intentional discrimination is established, it should be the District’s burden to show that the achievement disparity is not a result of the discrimination. Tr. 4611–12. The concept of “burden shifting” is a critical issue in this case. No burden of proof is ever desirable; that is particularly true where the burden may be impossible to carry. Because of the numerous external factors that influence and affect student achievement, the Supreme Court’s Jenkins III directive to identify the “incremental effect” of the discrimination may be inherently impossible to fulfill. Dr. Levine, for example, states that the causes of the gaps are measurable only “to some extent.” Tr. 5009. An impossible burden is not at odds with the Court’s obvious hesitancy towards considering student achievement at all. Plaintiffs and the Master cite Keyes and Freeman for their burden shifting argument. In those two cases, the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of current segregation of students after a finding of prior intentional discrimination. In Keyes, the Court stated that, “[A]fter past intentional actions resulting in segregation have been established ... the burden becomes the school authorities’ to show that the current segregation is in no way the result of those past segregative actions.” Keyes, 413 U.S. at 211 n. 17. In Freeman, the Court stated, “The school district bears the burden of showing that any current imbalance is not traceable, in a proximate way, to the prior violation.” Freeman, 503 U.S. at 494. The Court in Keyes and Freeman, however, was talking about racial imbalances in student attendance at schools, not in achievement scores. The Magistrate does not dispute the legal concept that with regard to the continued segregation of students, the burden shifts to a school district after a prior showing of intentional discrimination. The Magistrate, however, will not extend the use of “imbalances” to include disparities in achievement tests. Accordingly, the burden shifting argument is rejected.
147 The court is mindful, however, of the Court’s proviso in Jenkins III: “So long as these external factors are not the result of segregation, they do not figure in the remedial calculus.” Jenkins III, 115 S.Ct. at 2056. In effect, the multi-generational theory supported by Drs. Crain, Levine and Hoffer makes the argument that, in Rockford, these external factors are the result of the segregation. This theory, already rejected by the court in segment one of the CRO when dealing with the Early Childhood Education program, essentially states that all of the external factors that negatively impact on student achievement are the vestiges of the District’s discriminatory conduct. If segregated housing causes low achievement in minority students, this was “caused” by the District. If a parent shows little interest in her child’s educational development, this too is the District’s fault. This court explicitly rejects the multi-generational victim theory as a legal argument. The theory appears to be good social science but, to this court, seems bad law. The role of a district court in desegregation cases is to remedy the victims of the discrimination—it is not to engage in social engineering or to develop a new social contract. The District must be held liable for the harm it has proximately caused and no more. This court is not aware of a single Supreme Court case where the Milliken II standard of “victim” has been extended to subsequent generations. The multi-generational theory would take this court far outside the realm of education and far outside its equitable authority. The court is unwilling to stretch the definition of vestiges to creating new generations of victims.
82

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...

148 The court notes that Dr. Levine stated that approximately 23 to 30% of the achievement gaps are due to poverty. Tr. 4973. It could be argued that the remaining gap, 70 to 77%, is due to the District’s discrimination.
149 The court is aware of the testimony that the intervention programs ordered by this court may have the effect of raising all test scores in the District. In this scenario, minority achievement could increase while leaving the gap unchanged. In fact, the Magistrate hopes that all students’ performance will benefit from these programs. However, one would expect the majority students’ gains to plateau at some point, and, at that time, with continued success in minority student achievement, the gaps would significantly decrease. See Tr. 4581–82. If not, this alternate method will be more appropriate.
150 The only testimony provided on this proposal related to the Degrees of Reading Power Test. This test, or one agreed to by the Master and the RSD administration, will be used to measure the progress of the District towards meeting this requirement.
151 The Master’s recommendations at pages 106 to 113 of his proposed CRO pertain to school culture and site-based management issues. Site-based management will be discussed in the Governance section of the Comprehensive Remedial Order.
152 The court realizes that the Master has made recommendations concerning disparities in grades, attendance, drop-out and graduation rates. The Master proposes that these disparities should be reduced each year by 20% of the difference between majority and minority students until equity is achieved and maintained. Master’s Ex. 1 at 85–86. The data with respect to drop-out rates reveals that on average, approximately 11 to 12% of African–American and 15% of Hispanic students exit school each year compared to 7% of the majority students. Plaintiffs’ Ex. 217 at 1. When following a group of high school students from freshman year to completion (a cohort analysis), approximately 46% of African–Americans and over one-half of Hispanic students did not graduate within four years compared to 29% of majority students. Id. at 2. The court is unwilling at this point to place quantitative outcome measures in the areas of grades, attendance, drop-out and graduation rates. In the court’s view, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a sufficient causal connection between the acts of discrimination and the disparities in these four areas. The 20% per year reduction in these areas, therefore, will be a goal, but not a requirement. The court will look at the success in reducing the disparities in these areas when revisiting these issues at a unitary status hearing.
153 The Master also made recommendations with respect to disparities in discipline sanctions. The evidence demonstrates, however, that there were only disparities in referrals. In other words, there was no evidence to suggest that majority and minority students referred for the same conduct received different punishment.
154 There are also disparities in the category of out-of-school suspensions. In sum, minority students received a disproportionate percentage of these suspensions compared to their enrollment ratio. See Master’s Ex. 58 at 8–10.
155 The court incorporates the data from Master’s Ex. 60 at 11 showing similar disparities districtwide. In addition, the court has discussed discipline disparities for 1994–95 only. Indeed, these disparities have been present since the 1970’s and continue to this day. See Plaintiffs’ Findings of Fact on Educational Remedies at 59–86.
Table 1

Category Truancy Insubordination Disruptive behavior Fighting Verbal Abuse/Student Verbal Abuse/Staff Theft Threatening/Student Threatening/Staff Physical assault/Student Physical assault/Staff Possession weapon Use of weapon Vandalism Other

Majority % 67 42 49 35 52 51 40 36 38 39 39 41 37 32 28

Minority % 33 58 51 65 48 49 60 64 62 61 61 59 63 68 72
83

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in...
156 The court notes that as part of the CRO, the District has been ordered to implement a human relations program that will, among other things, provide multi-cultural training to RSD faculty. One intention of this program is to lessen the impact of cultural differences on discipline referrals.
157 Within school segregation problems also exist in the District’s elementary and middle schools. See Master’s Fourteenth Quarterly Report at 37–48; Plaintiffs’ Findings of Fact on Educational Remedies at 35–36.
158 Dr. Willis examined this data and concluded that the freshman honors English courses, which averaged around 10% minority at the three eastside high schools, provided evidence of continued tracking in the RSD. Tr. 4472–73. Dr. Willis further noted that there are five levels of algebra offered in the District, a curriculum even she cannot understand. Tr. 4509. In Dr. Willis’ opinion, the multi-tiered algebra curriculum may be working to the detriment of minority students. Tr. 4509–10. Dr. Shapiro reviewed this data as well. In his opinion, the low percentage of minority students in several high school honors sections was statistically significant. Tr. 4557–58.
159 This data is derived from Tables F.3. and F.4. of the yearly fall housing reports. Minority is defined here as including
African–American and Hispanic students.
160 There are other categories of classes, programs, etc. in addition to regular and honors classes and alternative programs. Space
limits the court to those discussed above. The court adopts the historical data illustrating these problems as contained in Plaintiffs’ Findings of Fact on Educational Remedies at 6–38.
161 In the event that the compliance pool is less than 20% minority students, the Master proposed that the compliance range would be one-half the percentage of the minority students in the compliance pool at the low end to +10% at the high end. For example, if a middle school has a minority enrollment of 18%, then the low end would be 9% (½ of 18%) and not 8% (18% minus 10%). In addition, there are classes in the middle schools that are open to both seventh and eighth graders. For these classes, the compliance pool is proposed to be the mean percentage of minority students in the seventh and eighth grades.
162 The Master has made recommendations at the high school level regarding compliance pools that are less than 20%. As the court has ordered a floor of 25% minority students at all high schools, these proposals are moot. In addition, the court notes that the Master has exempted the bilingual, special education and other specially designated programs (namely the Saturday Academy) from the +/− 10% requirements. Master’s Ex. 1 at 17. Finally, the District requested that elective courses, compensatory programs (e.g., tutorials, Success for All, Reading Recovery and all-day kindergarten) and assignments resulting from scheduling conflicts be exempted from the +/− 10% standard. Tr. 4886. The Master rejected this proposal stating that the flexible 10% standard accommodated scheduling needs. The Master argued that allowing tutorial, all-day kindergarten and elective exemptions would simply continue the pattern of racially identifiable classrooms in the District. Tr. 4799.
163 The court can think of two exceptions. First, the compliance pool for any stand alone specialty program will be the percentage of minority students enrolled in the program at each grade level. Second, some schools may have classes in which more than one grade level can participate (the Master mentioned seventh and eighth graders for some middle school classes). In that situation, the compliance pool will be the weighted average of the percentage of minority students in those grade levels.
164 Because the court has selected a more stringent standard than the Master, the court sees no application for the “below 20% compliance pool” calculus using one-half of such a compliance pool as the floor. Lastly, the within school segregation guidelines are to apply to the RSD’s magnet schools. In addition, because of the historical underrepresentation in many educational programs, the court accepts the Master’s proposal that the magnet schools should have student populations that do not exceed the districtwide minority student percentage by more than 15% and should have a floor of at least the percentage of districtwide minority students at entry grade levels. This floor at entry grade levels will assure sufficient minority participation in subsequent grade levels; accordingly, the court rejects Plaintiffs’ suggestion to require a floor at each grade level.
165 The court’s understanding is that the grades 4–8 CAPA are to be “absorbed” into the Ellis K–8 arts magnet. The court assumes this means that there will be no CAPA program for these grade levels. If the court is wrong in this assumption, then the guidelines adopted for the high school component will apply equally to grades K–8 CAPA at Ellis.
166 The court accepts the Master’s recommendations to exempt the bilingual and special education programs from the within school segregation guidelines. Master’s Ex. 1 at 8. In addition, the court notes that the District, Plaintiffs and the Master have agreed to eliminate the Get it Together (GIT) and Career Awareness and Survival Skills (CASS) programs at the end of the 1995–96 school year. Master’s Ex. 1 at 5. The court accepts and adopts this proposal.
167 The court is not creating a system-wide Master. Rather, the Master’s power is limited to all remedial matters in the CRO.
168 For a more complete list, see Master’s Ex. 1 at 134.
84

People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. School Dist. No. 205, Not Reported in... 169 Lastly, the court notes that the Master has recommended a Director of Middle Schools to oversee the CRO grade restructuring and
middle school capital improvements. In the court’s view, it has not been sufficiently demonstrated, however, that the present organizational structure, including The Director of Desegregation, is inadequate. Therefore, this recommendation will not be ordered at this time. 170 In addition to Dr. Dolan’s fine book, the court recommends that the parties, District administrators and faculty consider the works of W. Edwards Deming. 171 The court notes that the RSD has filed suit alleging that the State of Illinois was a co-conspirator in the intentional discrimination. See Rockford Bd. of Educ. v. Illinois State Bd. of Educ., No. 95 C 50301 (N.D.Ill.). If that suit is successful, the State of Illinois may be partially responsible for funding the CRO remedies. Until that time, however, the cost of funding these remedies falls primarily on the shoulders of the local homeowners. Indeed, the homeowners have reacted. Between 1985 and 1990 there was an average of four to five tax protest objections filed each year. The number rose to 2,600 in 1992, and in 1994, 16,000 tax protests were filed. Tr. 4228. The court observes that the number of tax protests has risen in direct proportion to the amount of money expended by the District on interim remedies. 172 Illinois law allows a legal debt up to 13.8% of the most recent equalized valuation. In 1994 the District’s EAV was $1.622 billion. Thus, the legal debt limit in 1995 was $224 million. Master’s Ex. 55 (Tab 4) at 2. 173 At the court’s request, Dr. Schilling compared the RSD to thirteen other large school districts in Illinois. Excluding Chicago, the RSD was third in size, eighth in equalized assessed valuation and was the second highest in total tax rates. The only school district with a higher tax rate was East St. Louis. In addition, the RSD ranked first as far as operating costs per capita, spending $6,811 per student annually. The RSD also ranked first in what is described as tuition costs per capita, spending $6,008 per student per year. Of all school districts within a thirty mile radius, the RSD was first in the total aggregate tax rate, first in the school tax rate, second in operating costs per capita and second in tuition costs per capita. Master’s Ex. 55 (Tab 3) at 2.
174 Table 1 is based on Master’s Ex. 53–N.
175 In 1995, the total tax rate was 11.1619 and the tort tax levy was 1.0093. Therefore, approximately 9% of property taxes levied in the county were paying for Second Interim Order desegregation programs. By comparison, in 1991, the total tax rate in this community for the public schools and all other governmental units was 10.3348. Master’s Ex. 55 (Tab 2) at 11. Therefore, 5.1% (.5331 tort levy divided by 10.3348) of a local homeowner’s property taxes went to Fund 12 remedies.
176 This figure is derived from Master’s Ex. 53–I. The projected taxes are $500 for an annual $25 million tax levy and a $35 million bond issue. The cost of every additional $5 million capital improvements will cost the hypothetical homeowner $6. As the court has ordered approximately $50 million in capital improvements, an extra $15 million in bonding authority is needed. This corresponds to an $18 increase above the $500 figure quoted by Dr. Schilling.
	  
85