Court Filings concerning ODM recommendations, ADE semi-annual monitoring report, PCSSD and LRSD settlement agreement, NLRSD motion to close Baring Cross School and to expand office complex at Redwood Elementary School, and PCSSD motion to modify desegregation plan regarding class sizes.

District Court, two orders; District Court, motion of the Joshua intervenors for the implementation of recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring; District Court, memorandum of the Joshua intervenors in support of their motion for the implementation of recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring; District Court, two orders; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) semi-annual monitoring report; Court of Appeals, standard of review; District Court, motion to shorten time to respond to discovery; District Court, motion for extension of time; District Court, motion to intervene as defendants; District Court, brief in support of motion to intervene as defendants; District Court, answer of intervenor school districts to second motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to enforce settlement agreement with the state; District Court, order; District Court, North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) motion to close Baring Cross School and to expand office space at Redwood Elementary School; District Court, North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) memorandum in support of motion to close Baring Cross School and to expand office complex at Redwood Elementary School; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to modify desegregation plan regarding class sizes; District Court, brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to modify desegregation plan respecting class sizes; District Court, memorandum and order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, notice of filing Little Rock School District (LRSD) project management tool The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors. ( \ U.S. OIST:-ICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARl:ANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEl\'ED 'JUL 2 1996 JUL O 1 1996 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES Office of D A Limited Partnership j esegregation Monitoring INTERVENORS ORDER Upon motion of the Joshua Intervenors, the Pulaski County Special School District, and the Little Rock School District, the time within which they must file their application for attorneys' - fees with respect to this Court's January 13, 1995 decision and with respect to the May 15, 1996 decision of the Eighth Circuit is hereby extended to thirty days after the mandate is issued by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. IT IS SO ORDERED this st- / day of July 1996. rl-115 DOCU:.1c:, i [::f n::r;:::0 c;~ DOCKET SHEET IN CC1MPUANCE WITH RULE 56 ANDiOR 79(a) FRCP ON 11119': --ev J;7\:: -=s 270 3 ( IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS fiLEfD U.S. OISTi-lCT COURT [:ASTERN DISTRICT ARV.ANSAS JUL O 1 1996 WESTERN DIVISION JAMES r ~RMACK, CLERK By: \ ' \A}\ AAO I:"-:,, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership ORDER OE? CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Upon motion of the Arkansas Department of Education, the time within which it must respond to the Pulaski County Special School District's, the Little Rock School District's, and the North Little Rock School District's pending motions to enforce the Settlement Agreement is hereby extended to and including July 22, 1996. IT IS SO ORDERED this ~ / day of July 1996. rHIS DOCUME ff [1-ffERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 56 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON /J It l9G BY tZJ: J I =t . 2704 u.foi\bfJ~1RT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL O 2 1996 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK WESTERN DIVISION By: -------;:;;:,;:;-;:;:;--;::-;:,;, DEP. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL filSTRICT, ET AL. REC I MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. JUL 2 1996 PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Office of Desegregation Monitoring MOTION OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE OFFICE OP- DESEGREGATION MONITORING (ODM) The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move for the entry of orders, as described in greater detail in this motion, requiring the LRSD defendants to implement various recommendations previously made by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), including the recommendations which the court ordered these defendants to implement in an order entered om July 10, 1992. This motion is based upon the ODM reports which it cites, the "law of the case," the record of the case generally, the accompanying memorandum, and the following allegations. (1.) In its court-approved desegregation plan (see amended version, April 29, 1992), the LRSD defendants agreed to undertake many actions for the benefit of the class of African-American students ( and their parents) , represented by the Joshua Intervenors. These actions were, among other things, to promote desegregation; to strengthen educational opportunities and outcomes 1 for African-American pupils; and to complete "the transition to a system of public education freed of racial discrimination" [Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 299 (1955)] in a comprehensive and sensitive manner. (2.) In its opinion directing that various settlement agreements of the parties be approved and a subsequent opinion setting forth standards for the modification of those initial agreements, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit identified particularly important features of the settlement, including the LRSD desegregation plan. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F. 2d 1371, 1386 ( 1990) ( "the kinds of programs that the plan contemplates for the Incentive Schools"); 949 F.2d 253, 256 (1991) (including "double funding for students attending the incentive (virtually all-black) schools; ... the agreed effort to eliminate achievement disparity between the races; ... appropriate involvement of parents"). (3.) In its 1990 opinion in this case, the Court of Appeals required the creation of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) "to be headed by a Monitor appointed by (this court], with such additional personnel as (this court] shall deem appropriate." See 921 F. 2d at 1388. The creation of ODM was to help insure "that the parties' compliance with (the settlement agreements would] be carefully monitored." Id. The 1990 opinion also set forth the responsibility of this court to address inadequate compliance with the agreements and, at minimum, implicitly, the propriety of the court's relying upon the findings of its monitors as a predicate 2 for requiring remedial actions. 1 (4.) ODM has described in periodic reports many inadequacies in the LRSD defendants' implementation of their court-approved desegregation plan. Many have involved areas which the Court of Appeals identified as of critical importance. ODM has also set forth many recommendations for addressing the shortcomings in plan implementation which it found. These actions, if carried out in a meaningful manner, would strengthen the implementation of the plan, and thereby benefit the persons represented.by Joshua. (5.) Orders requiring the LRSD defendants to implement ODM recommendations constitute "action (which] is appropriate ... to ensure compliance with the (LRSD desegregation plan] ... " (921 F. 2d at 1394], so long as these defendants have an opportunity to demonstrate that the implementation of a particular recommendation should not be required. (6.) In an order dated July 10, 1992, this court adopted the recommendations made by ODM in its 1991-92 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report. However, the LRSD defendants have failed to implement these recommendations adequately. 1 See 921 F.2d at 1386 ("It is important for the settlement plans to be scrupulously adhered to -- and here we have in mind especially the kinds of programs that the plan contemplates for the Incentive Schools -- and it will be the job of the District Court to see that this monitoring is done effectively, and that appropriate action is taken if the parties do not live up to their commitments."); ig., at 1390 ("We accept these undertakings [to implement compensatory and remedial education programs], again with the reminder that compliance with them will be closely monitored. If the District Court becomes convinced in the future that money is being wasted, and that desegregation obligations contained in the settlement plans are being flouted, it will be fully authorized to take appropriate remedial action."); .ig., at 1394, para. 8. 3 (7.) It is appropriate for the court to order the LRSD defendants to implement the following recommendations, including those set forth in the ODM 1991-92 Incentive Schools Monitoring report, absent a satisfactory particularized showing of impropriety as to a specific recomme.ndation: (a.) 6/5/92 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report 1991-92 ( i) recommendation to assign students with sensi ti vi ty to the relationship between placement stability and academic progress (Summary at 2) (ii) five recommendations to improve student recruitment [Summary at 4-5; see also paras. 7-c. and 7-i.(i)] (iii) two staffing recommendations to improve quality of staff selections [Summary at 6; see also paras. 7-f., 7-h.-(ii), 7-k., 7- 1.] (iv) four recommendations to improve and implement staff development [Summary at 7-8; see also paras. 7-h.-(iii), (ix)-(xi), (xiii) , (xix)] (v) three recommendations to implement court orders and improve class sizes and three recommendations re student groupings (Summary at 10-11) (vi) five recommendations to improve implementation of the commitment to multicultural education (Summary at 13) (vii) three recommendations to improve instructional practices ( Summary at 14) (viii) four recommendations regarding materials and equipment which support the instructional process [Summary at 15; re science 4 program, # 4, see also para. 7-h.-(xi)] (ix) four recommendations re the Early Childhood program to improve its implementation [Summary at 17; see also paras. 7-h.( viii) ; 7-i.] (x) two recommendations re the Special Education program [Summary at 18; re gifted and talented program,# 2, see also para. 7-h.-(iv)] (xi) three recommendations to enhance supplemental programs, such as foreign language, Latin program, cl~ssics reading, African American studies and field trips [Summary at 18-21; re school themes, # 3, se also para. 7-h.-(x)] (xii) six recommendations to improve and implement discipline commitments in the plan [Summary at 23; see also para. 7-h.-(iii)J (xiii) five recommendations to improve implementation of the extended day, week, and year activities [Summary at 25; see also para. 7-h.-(xvi)-(xviii)J (xiv) recommendation to evaluate the relationship between the Homework Hotline and Homework Centers (Summary at 26) (xv) three recommendations re guidance counseling services [Summary at 27; see also para. 7-h.-(xxii)J (xvi) two recommendations to improve implementation of wellness program (Summary at 29} (xvii) three recommendations to improve implementation of mentoring program (Summary at 29-30; see also para. 7-h.-(xiv)] (xviii) 11 recommendations to help reduce achievement disparity (Summary at 31-32) 5 I I I I I I I I I (xix) two recommendations to help reduce student retention in grade (Summary 33) (xx) 12 recommendations to improve parental involvement through implementation of programs such as Parent council, parent workshop, home visits, PTA, etc. (Summary 37-39; see also para. 7- h.-(xxiv)-(xxv)] (xxi) recommendations to correct apparent physical facility problems . at each school (Summary at 43 (excluding Ish and Stephens); see also para. 7-h.-(v)-(vi)] (xxii) three recommendations to implement double funding (Summary at 47; see also para. 7-h.-j.J (b.) 11/16/92 Report on the Biracial Committees 21 recommendations designed to strengthen the operation of the biracial committee (see also, 1994-95 Incentive Schools monitoring report, at 62, # 38) (c.) 3/11/94 Recruitment Monitoring Report 12 recommendations to improve recruitment (at 12-13, 19-20; excluding# 11, at 19) (d.) 12/18/94 Report on the Alternative Schools 21 recommendations designed to strengthen each aspect of the LRSD alternative school program (at 14-17); (however, Joshua intervenors do not seek expansion of the alternative school program, at least until such time as the system demonstrates the ability to deal with black youth who are dropouts or potential dropouts in an evenhanded manner) (e.) 9/6/94 Involvement in the 1994-95 Selection of Principals 6 19 recommendations~ the principal interview and selection process, with an emphasis upon the effective involvement of parents (at 21-23) (f.) 12/2/94 Incentive Schools Staffing 1994-95 three recommendations to promote involvement of incentive schools staffing committees in the selection of all certified personnel (at 3, 4) (g.) 12/22/94 Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grants four recommendations directed to the timeliness and quality of these activities (at 31-32) (h.) 5/17/95 Incentive Schools Mon. Report 1994-95 (and Incentive Schools Monitoring Reports for 1992-93 and 1993-941 (i) identify the actions that are working to make Rockefeller 4I a desegregated school and adopt or adapt them for the other incentive schools [1992-93, at 5; 1993-94, at 5] (ii) three recommendations designed to improve the assessment, on an annual basis, of the positions needed in each incentive school (1992-93, at 15; see also 1993-94, at 15] (iii) hold periodic meetings to discuss successful techniques for addressing disciplinary needs (1993-94, at 29] (iv) increase the amount of time the gifted and talented specialist spends in each incentive school to improve the quality of the program and the identification of youths who should be participants (1992-93, at 34; 1993-94, at 32] (v) develop a system of preventive maintenance which assures that each structure will be maintained in good working order and 7 have sufficient aesthetic appeal (cleanliness, fresh paint, landscaping, and other evidence of care and attention) to attract parents and students (1993-94, at 36] (vi) carry out any of ODM's other recommendations concerning facilities, which have yet to be carried out (see 1992-93, at 38; 1993-94, at 36; 1994-95, at 17] (vii) seven recommendations to improve the functioning of the Incentive Schools Parent Council (1992-93, at 41] (viii) two recommendations to improve ~he functioning of the Early Childhood Education Task Force (1992-93, at 43] {ix) recommendations to improve the abilities of teachers and administrators to implement the new curriculum (1992-93, at 45-46) {x) a total of four recommendations to improve the integration of the school theme in the various aspects of the program [1992-93, at 47-48, excluding recommendation re Ish; 1993-94, at 46) {xi) a total of three recommendations to insure adequate inservice training of science teachers, availability of adequate materials for science instruction, and humane treatment of laboratory animals [1992-93, at 49; 1993-94, at 47; 1994-95, at 36) {xii) a total of four recommendations to provide for the implementation of the foreign language program promised in the plan [1992-93, at 51; 1993-94, at 48) {xiii) provide in-service training to implement plan provision for criterion referenced assessment [1992-93, at 53] {xiv) three recommendations to increase the number of mentors and their skills [1992-93, at 61, 78; 1993-94, at 84] 8 (xv) allow three and four year-olds to use buses for field trips [1992-93, at 63) (xvi) a total of nine recommendations designed to increase the number of youth participating in the extended year program and to enhance its quality ( 1992-93, at 68; 1993-94, at 65-66] (xvii) a total of four recommendations to increase participation in and otherwise improve the extended week program [1993-94, at 60; 1994-95, at 36) (xviii) three recommendations re the extended day program (1992-93, at 72; 1994-95, at 36) (xix) two recommendations designed to improve coordination between teachers and teacher aides and to enhance the aides' skill levels (1992-93, at 76] (xx) two recommendations to increase the involvement in the schools of persons enrolled in pre-professional programs and employed in community agencies (1992-93, at 78) (xxi) recommendatf ons for standardizing the content of student profiles and insuring their preparation for each student [1992-93, at 85; 1993-94, at 70) (xxii) a total of eight recommendations designed to strengthen the provision of guidance and social work services in the schools, and to promote the comprehensiveness and the coordination of available services (1992-93, at 89, #'s 1 and 3; 1993-94, at 73; 1994-95, at 37) (xxiii) three recommendations re the incentive schools parent program (.i;:g parent job skills, providing requested help, and use of 9 community resources to meet parents educational needs) (1992-93, at 91-92] (xxiv) a total of four recommendations to improve parent workshops (coordinate training with other agencies, evaluate workshops in terms of their purposes, secure feedback from participants, try new approaches) (1992-93, at 97; 1993-94, at 79; 1994-95, at 62] (xxv) a total of five recommendations regarding the extent of parental involvement (standardize methods for recording contacts, develop transportation to increase parent involvement, promote increased use of parent centers and document their use, provide updated contracts for parents to sign) (1992-93, at 105; 1993-94, at 77] (xxvi) three recommendations to improve the programs for speakers bureaus and key communicators (1992-93, at 109; 1993-94, at 86; 1994-95, at 62] (i.) 5/26/95 1994-95 Four-Year-Old Program in the LRSD (i) three recommendations re improved recruitment (at 13) (ii) workshops for parents earlier in the school year (at 22) ( iii) strengthen tracking of youth attending programs to improve the ability to study the relationship of participation to later academic success (two recommendations, at 26) (iv) replace worn out consumable furnishings (at 28) (j.) 8/16/95 Double Funding of Incentive Schools budget annually an amount of money adequate to double fund the incentive schools without overspending that budget category (at 4) 10 (k.) 9/15/95 Staffing: Elementary Classroom Teachers - (i) develop policies on numerical ranges for black staffing at individual schools (at 11) (ii) develop specific methods to identify and address instances in which subgroups of staff are racially identifiable (at 11) 10) (1.) 5/10/96 Incentive School Staffing 1995-96 (i) conduct exit interviews of departing staff (at 8) (ii) develop support system for first year teachers (at 8) (iii) select experienced principals for incentive schools (at (iv) develop specific methods to identify and address instances in which subgroups of staff are racially identifiable (at 12) (see also 12\22\94 report on incentive schools staffing, at 6) WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray that the court order the LRSD defendants: ( 1. ) to implement each recommendation listed in paragraph ( 7. ) of this motion, as originally described by ODM, absent a satisfactory particularized showing of impropriety as to a specific recommendation; (2.) to report to the court and the parties 120 days from the date of the court's order re the recommendations, and at 120 day intervals thereafter until excused by the court, the system's progress in implementing each recommendation; and ( 3. ) to respond to any reasonable requests by the Joshua Intervenors to learn the system's progress in implementing a 11 particular recommendation(s). Respectfully submitted, ohn W. Walker# 64046 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing motion was sent via United States mail to all counsel of record on this ~ day of July, 1996. 12 RE UUL 2 1996 I JUL O 2 1996 / Office of Desegr:Hfli't\{IJ!prmfil!'J'ED STATES DISTRICT COUR.l?\MES W McCORMACK, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS By: WESTERN DIVISION -----~D~E=P~C~LE=R=K LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING (ODM) Joshua's motion for enforcement of ODM recommendations is straightforward. The LRSD defendants agreed in their desegregation plan to implement many actions for the benefit of the class of persons represented by the Joshua Intervenors . Beginning in 1992, ODM has documented these defendants' failure to fulf i ll, in an adequate manner, many of the promises which they made. ODM has also made a large number of specific recommendations for remedial action, many set forth more than once. An order requiring implementation of these ODM recommendations is in keeping with the guidance provided to this court by the Court of Appeals, and earlier action by this court. In its opinion at the end of 1990 directing appr oval of the various settlements, the Court of Appeals provided for the creation of ODM; stated that this court was responsible for the careful monitoring of the systems' compliance with the agreements 1 (obviously with considerable reliance on the work of ODM); and identified "the job (of this court]" as involving the framing of remedies in the event of the "flout(ing] 11 of "desegregation obligations contained in the settlement plans .... " See Little Rock School District v. Pulaki County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1386, 1390, 1394 (8th Cir.). The Joshua Intervenors proceed in accord with these principles. Joshua's motion provides, in effect, that a prima facie case is established by an ODM finding of non-compliance with a particular provision of the desegregation plan. That is, the ODM finding establishes the predicate for the court's requiring compliance with the corresponding ODM recommendation (or a variant deemed to be more appropriate), absent a particularized showing by LRSD that it is not appropriate to require compliance with a particular recommendation. See Motion, at paras. 5., 7. We submit that the Court of Appeals sanctioned this approach. In three instances, the Court's articulation of this court's obligation to monitor compliance with the agreements was immediately followed by the identification of this court's responsibility to take appropriate remedial action in the event of noncompliance. 1 This language either states or clearly implies that the results of monitoring -- otherwise determined by the Court of Appeals to be the task of ODM -- provide one basis for requiring further remedial action. It would be senseless to provide for a separate monitoring 1 See Little Rock School District, supra, 921 F.2d at 1386, 1390, 1394 at para. s. 2 office at considerable expense, and then to limit the impact of its actions to providing notice of problems only. In an order entered on July 10, 1992, this court after a hearing "adopt[ed) the recommendations of the ODM contained in the (1991-92) Incentive Scho~ls Monitoring Report." To be sure, the court there noted the absence of objections to the report. While that may not be the case here, again, Joshua's motion recognizes the right of LRSD to seek to show that a recommendation or recommendations should not be adopted. Thus, fairness to the LRSD defendants is guaranteed. Because there has not been adequate compliance with the court's order of July 10, 1992, the current motion requests the court to reiterate the requirement to implement the recommendations set forth in the 1991-92 Report. There is an obvious relationship between the current motion and Joshua's earlier motion seeking the appointment of a wellqualified educator independent of the LRSD to direct the implementation of the incentive schools provisions of the agreements. Compliance with the current motion, if granted, will require, among other things, fact gathering; assessment of facts; policy development; implementation of policies; program devlopment; designing and carrying out training programs; and reaching out to staff and parents, including those serving on various committees. Granting of the earlier motion will mean that new leadership will lead and oversee these endeavors. The facts set forth in the earlier motion establish the need for the change in leadership. See also "Monitoring Report: The Little Rock School District 1994- 3 95 Incentive Schools Extended Year Program," ODM Report, Dec. 1, 1995, at 12 ("While we have noted pockets of excellence many times, never have we seen the top-level commitment and consistent effort that would yield the superior quality of education envisioned in the 1992 Desegregation P_lan. The extended year program in 1995 is no exception.") The relief sought by Joshua requiring periodic reports of compliance and Joshua's ability to secure additional information is appropriate. Compare Louisiana v. United Sates, 380 U.S. 145, 155- 56 (1965) (monthly reporting); and Vail v. Board of Education, 354 F. Supp. 594, 604 (D.N.H. 1973) (right of plaintiffs' counsel to inspect records to insure compliance with court's order). Lastly, it is again appropriate to note that the LRSD - defendants have had more than enough time to comply with the promises which they made to the class represented by Joshua. Thus, one finds Judge Henry Woods in his order of December 11, 1989, 4 lamenting, i nter alia, LRSD's failure to implement its own proposals regarding the incentive schools, a continuing problem. 2 Walker# 64046 Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Ment via United States mail to all couns of record on this day of July, 1996. 2 Judge Woods wrote, in part: " .... The LRSD apparently intends to continue its course of complying only with court orders it likes. Once again the areas of non-compliance concern the all-black schools. The LRSD ignored and failed to implement virtually every educational component which would justify the existence of the allblack schools. This includes approved portions of their own plan for the proposed 'Incentive Schools.' ... " (at 16, footnote omitted). 5 IN TIIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. . NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ..... JUL ~) 1996 Office of DeseQregation Monitoring ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUl O 3 1996 PLAINTIFF DEFENDAN1S INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors shall be allowed 30 additional days to respond to the discovery request of the Little Rock School District conerning the Joshua fee petition. Therefore, a response shall be served not later than July 29, 1996. fHIS DOCUM~NT ENTcRC:D O~J DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 5tl AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON 1Li/9.b BY_.lj,_ ----=--- 2707 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs . No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership ORDER FILED U.S. DIST~ICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL t 2 1996 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Court has previously scheduled hearings for July 29 and 30, 1996 to consider Little Rock School District (LRSD) budget matters for FY 1996-97. Also on those dates, the Court intended to review the 1996-97 budgets for the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). Due to scheduling conflicts on the Court's docket (primarily as a result of an ongoing criminal trial), the Court will be unable to hold budget hearings on the dates scheduled. Those hearings are therefore canceled. In lieu of budget hearings, the Court orders the LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD to submit to the Office of Desegregation monitoring (ODM), on a date and time to be determined by them, any information ODM deems necessary for an adequate review of each district's budget. The Court expects the LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD to cooperate in good faith with ODM 2709 regarding submission of any requested information so that further - orders of the Court are unnecessary. Also before the Court is the Joshua Intervenors' motion for an interim award of attorney's fees and costs (doc.#2565] . 1 The Court hereby schedules a hearing on this motion to begin at 9:30 a.m. on July 29, 1996, in room #305, 600 West Capitol Avenue, U.S. Courthouse, in Little Rock, Arkansas. IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of July 1996. TE:S-- D:tSTicT JUDGE 1 A hearing on this motion had previously been scheduled for July I , 1996, but had to be cancelled due to an ongoing criminal trial. -2- Atkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK ARKANSAS 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division July 15, 1996 John W. Walk~r, Esq. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 M. Samuel Jones III, Esq. Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Boatmen's Bank Building Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Richard W. Roachell, Esq. First Federal Plaza 401 West Captiol Avenue Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Counsel of Record: Christopher J. Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge, & Clark First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3401 Ann S. Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A. TCBYTower 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 RECE!V~D ;!c,,,, c' ,J,; .. ,,., ,, t d JUL 1 5 199/, c;: ::,-i' 4 ..... Office of Desegregation Monitoring ' -- - -- -- -- -- .. - -- - - - -. -- --_,..,, .4 Please find enclosed a copy of the Arkansas Department of Education's Semi-Annual Monitoring Report. If you need any additional information, please let me know. Sincerely, J ilMa/41/4 , ;li~~th Turner Enclosure --STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chairman - RICHARD C. SMITH~ JR .. McGeheo Vice Chairman - WILLIAM 8 . FISHER, Paragould Members: CARL E. BAGGETT, Rogers GARY BEASLEY. Crossett LUKE GORDY. Van Buren MITCH LLEWELLYN, JR. , Fort Smith JAMES McLARTY III, Newport RAE RICE PERRY, Arkadelphia BETTY PICKETT, Conway ELAINE SCOTT, Little Rock SHERRY WALKER, Little Rock JAMES WHITMORE, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employor UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL.,----- MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., LR-.C,....-. 82-866 RECEIVED )/lf,,.J- J)e/, ,,,4., c.,!_ DEFENDANTS , 1111 1 5 1996 INTER VEN ORS 7 ! .)d"~ Olfic8 ot Desegregation Monitoring INTER VEN ORS THE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S SEMI-ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT (J:fc.J ,,, ,.-1. .. ,,. .. y) In compliance with this Court's Order of December 10, 1993, and the Department's Implementation Plan filed with this Court, the Arkansas Department of Education submits its - Semiannual Monitoring Report to the parties and the Court. The Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee met on July 8, 1996, and discussed this report. The Committee noted no representatives from the parties or the Office of Desegregation Monitoring attended. The Committee invites the parties and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to attend committee meetings and offer comments and suggestions on the semi-annual monitoring reports. Respectfully submitted, ELIZETHTlJRNER, Bar I.D. # 90-181 Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 401A Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Elizabeth Turner, do hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing response by hand delivering on this A.day of July 1996, to: John W. Walker, Esq. John W. Walker, P.A. 1