District Court, motion to release four-year-old seats; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) separate motion for summary judgment on the issue of the state funding formula; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to motion to have Southwest Junior High School placed in receivership and for the appointment of a special administrator; District Court, memorandum brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to motion to have Southwest Junior High School placed in receivership and for the appointment of a special administrator; District Court, two orders; District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion for approval of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) revised desegregation and education plan; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL OFFICE OF PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DESEGREGATION MONITORma INTERvENoRs INTERVENORS MOTION TO RELEASE FOUR-YEAR OLD SEATS For its motion to release four-year old seats, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. LRSD has encouraged parents to register their children for four-year old seats during the regular registration process. Many black parents have registered their children but those children cannot be assigned because of the number of seats which have been reserved for white students. 2. The LRSD engaged in vigorous recruitment efforts during the 1996-97 school year as it prepared for registration for the 1997-98 school year. Attached to this motion as Exhibit 1 is a partial list of those recruitment efforts. Additionally, the information contained in LRSD's quarterly program planning and budget documents, status reports and project management tools serve to supplement this listing. 3. Although most of the schools with four-year old programs have racially balanced programs with no vacancies, seats are available in some four-year old programs and no white students are - on the waiting lists for those programs. The vacancies are shown on Exhibit 2 attached to this motion, which is titled "1997-98 FourYear Old Applications." LRSD seeks permission to fill the vacancies shown on Exhibit 2 with students from the waiting lists. 4. LRSD endeavored to register as many new white students as possible in its four-year old programs. Most of those programs are racially balanced. The seats that still remain vacant should now be released to black students who can benefit from the educational opportunities which will be provided. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District moves for an order permitting it to release the vacant four-year old program seats for the 1997-98 school year to students on the waiting list. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 ~:~ Christo:~------ Bar No. 81083 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion To Release FourYear Old Seats has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 2nd day of September, 1997. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 3 - August 25, 1997 To: Nancy Acre, Director of Student Assignment From: Becky Rather, Essie Middleton, Parent Recruiters Re: Recruitment Efforts For Four-Year-Old Seats January edition of Little Rock Family Magazine published Public School Issue as a results of our involvement. January 2 Worked with Dawn Jackson in planning neighborhood parent meeting, resulting in a number of west Little Rock parents applying for four-year-old programs and kindergarten. 6 Provided packets to Rector Phillips Morse Realtors 6 Mailed 15,000 Home and School Connection newsletters informing parents of registration. 6 Mailed registration packets to: 7 10 13-14 14 14 16 16-17 16 17 18 21 21 24 27 27 28 30 31 135 Childcare Centers 44 Homeowners Associations 210 Special Interest Patrons of Little Rock 88 Ministers Gave presentation to HIPPY staff Taped promo for Channel 11, "Always Kids, Educated Choice" Show and Tell in all schools sponsored and advertised through Alliance for Our Public Schools Presented at Early Childhood meeting Presented at evening HIPPY parent group meeting Sent flyers home with elementary children on registration Posted flyers throughout the city on registration. Attended evening parent meeting in private home of Dawn Jackson. Mailed 400 brochures to PCSSD on Incentive Schools Participated in Saturday Mall show Registration begins through Jan. 31 . Provided information to Christ Temple Church Assist Steve Pintor Realtors Assist Rainey Realty Open House, Incentive and Interdistrict Open House, Elementary Area . Participate in Arkansas Legislative Day on Education with PT A Assist Mc eil Smith Realtors February 3 Evening presentation to network of Executive Women 4 Presentation to Charlotte John Realty EXHIBIT 1 4 6 7 8 11 12 19 20 21 24 24 March 3 4 4 5 10 13 18 19 26 27 April Report to Biracial Committee Parent Involvement meeting Work with CARE office Attend Saturday, Title 1 Parent Involvement program Report to Early Childhood board on 4-year-old registration HIPPY board meeting Attend Kids Count Coalition at Children 's Hospital Meet with PCS SD PT A parents Work with McKay Realty Meet with Janet Jones Realty Meet with NLR PT A parents Assist Byer Agent Realtors Mail assignment letters Report to Biracial Committee Assist Howell Realtors Assembly for Success Assisted Grobmyer Realty Presentation to Janet Jones Realty Spent afternoon with Lisa Woodrow, new relocation specialist for RPM Realty Worked with Barbara Sumpter, new relocation specialist for Entergy Early Childhood Parent Involvement meeting. 1 Kids Count meeting 8 Early Childhood Advocacy Committee 8 PTA Council, Dunbar 8 Meeting at Clinton Elementary 9 Work with Fair Park parents on recruitment 14 Kids Count meeting 15 Four-year-old assignments mailed 15 Worked with Fair Park parents on recruitment May Worked with !!!illlY parents who did not get into 4-year-old program offering assistance and information to best serve those students. 15 PT A Council Gibbs 15 Mailed letters to all parents of white 4-year-old students who did not get into a school of their choice, offering seats in schools with vacancies June 4 Report to Biracial Committee 5 Arranged for and provided program for mid-west Little Rock parents meeting at Books A Million in the evening - 16 July 2 3 7 8 15 16 23 Gained approval to purchase ad in Kids Directory and provided copy emphasizing Incentive schools and four-year-old program Full page ad purchased to run full month in Kids Directory Prepared Four-Year-Old flyer Met with Hispanic organization informing them of programs offered Mailed letters to white PCS SD parents who did not get into program at King or Rockefeller offering other schools with vacancies Notified Communications to prepare "Check In" flyers and posters Arranged tour of Rightsell for PCS SD white parents, enrolling 4. Wrote article about school programs for Central Hispanic Newsletter Mailed information letters and flyers to: 68 Childcare centers 33 Community leaders 86 Churches 29 Kids Count Coalition meeting, announced white seats available in program 30 Displayed "Check In" posters throughout the city in grocery stores, etc. August 1 Worked with Parents for Public Schools in providing information for Parent Connection hotline We continue to accept applications for P4 program and process and assign all that we can in schools that have vacancies. All white students are advised as to openings that may be available at this time and toured if not convinced. Forms were sent to all schools with P4 so they could FAX in any drops they might find as people checkin. Vacancies are then filled from the waiting lists according to the race of the child who is not coming this year. Sheet1 1997-98 4-YEAR OLD APPLICATIONS NAME OF SCHOOL ENROLLED WAITING LIST BL NBL TOTAL CAPACITY VACANCIE~ %BLACK BL NBL Badgett 18 2 20 36 16 90% 8 0 Bale 18 18 36 36 0 50% 58 4 Baseline 18 9 27 36 9 67% 86 0 Brady 9 9 18 18 0 50% 91 36 Chicot 18 18 36 36 0 50% 72 3 Cloverdale 18 7 25 36 11 72% 88 0 Fair Park 18 18 36 36 0 50% 50 20 Franklin 36 21 57 72 15 50% 82 0 Garland 9 2 11 18 7 82% 42 0 Geyer Springs 18 18 36 36 0 50% 82 5 Martin L. King 36 36 72 72 0 50% 260 52 Mabelvale 9 9 18 18 0 50% 52 4 Mitchell 9 3 12 18 6 75% 71 0 Rightsell 9 9 18 18 0 50% 70 0 Rockefeller 27 27 54 54 0 50% 140 20 Romine 18 18 36 36 0 50% 92 7 Washington 27 27 54 54 0 50% 104 7 Watson 18 4 22 36 14 82% 52 0 Wilson 9 9 18 18 0 50% 70 4 Woodruff 18 18 36 36 0 50% 27 10 *Clinton 25 0 25 25 0 100% 15 0 *Crystal Hill 32 0 32 32 0 100% 36 0 TOTAL 417 282 699 777 78 1648 172 *denote Pulaski Countv Page 1 EXHIBIT 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEP 2 1997 EASTERN DIST~~CT OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of AD E's Project Management Tool for August, 1997. Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General TIMO Assistant ey General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS AD~SPROJECTMANAGEMENTTOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of August 29, 1997 Based on the information available at July 31, 1997, the ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 97/98, subject to periodic adjustments. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-86JtECE.1\fED PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL SEP 3 1997 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OFFICE OF INTERVENORS DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PCSSD'S SEPARATE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF THE STATE FUNDING FORMULA Introduction The Arkansas Department of Education ("ADE") recently filed - its opening brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in the consolidated appeals concerning teacher retirement and health insurance. In the concluding paragraphs of that brief, as well as elsewhere throughout, the ADE contends that: .... [t]he fact that these three Districts in the aggregate and individually are "winners" under the new formula should preclude any finding or even any inference that the new funding scheme was enacted with intent to discriminate against them. 1 ADE App. Br. at p. 24, attached to motion as Exhibit 2. [Emphasis supplied.] 1It should be noted that the Settlement Agreement speaks in terms of "impact" and requires no showing of "intent". Agreement at~ L, page 10, attached to motion as Exhibit 1. 1 Contrary to the ADE's assertion that the PCSSD was a ''winner", and as it will demonstrate below, the PCSSD lost over $5,000,000 this past year because of the new funding system. The ADE also argues: ADE submits that in this context it was particularly inappropriate to isolate and rule on the changes in teacher retirement and health insurance funding without giving any legal weight or effect to the undisputed beneficial effect the new funding system had on the Districts. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement authorizes or even suggests that such a piecemeal dissection and comparison of certain discrete aspects of the old and new funding systems is appropriate, and nothing in the Settlement Agreement requires or permits the Districts to be insulated from having to make the sometimes difficult choices and deal with changes in the law that all other school districts in the State must grapple with. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement or in any notion or [sic) equity or common sense permits the Districts to be relieved of aspects of a new funding system that they do not like without taking into account those aspects of the new funding system that operate to their benefit. The Intervenors are equally blunt in their argument to the Court of Appeals: The Districts received more State aid under the new formula than under the old formula. Int. App. Br. at p. 10, attached to motion as Exhibit 3. The PCSSD accepts the challenge of the ADE and the 111 school districts to scrutinize the effect of the new funding system as a whole upon the PCSSD and will demonstrate that the new funding system as a whole is unfair to the PCSSD and violates the Settlement Agreement and previous orders of this Court. 2 Effects of the New System The PCSSD has now obtained updated information from the Arkansas Department of Education which demonstrates precisely how all major categories of State aid were distributed for the 1996- 97 school year. This document, attached to the Stewart Affidavit as Exhibit "A", compares all major categories of total State aid from the 1995-96 fiscal year to the 1996-97 fiscal year. 2 Stewart Affidavit, attached to motion as Exhibit 4. This comparison demonstrates that the PCSSD experienced a net growth in State aid of 1.12% this past year as compared to the previous year. Overall, however, the average increase in State aid per school district for this past year was 12.09% before adjustment is made for the PCSSD. When the PCSSD is removed from the calculation, the average overall state increase becomes 12.64%. The Case Law and the Settlement Agreement Prohibit this Disparity As this Court observed in its order of April 22, 1997 regarding health insurance: The appellate court held that the State can change its funding scheme for workers' compensation, "so long as the change is, in the words of the settlement agreement, 'fair and rational' and of 'general applicability.'" . . . . "So long as the change affects all districts to the same degree, it does not run afoul of the Settlement Agreement." Order, pp. 3-4. (Citations omitted) [Emphasis supplied.] 2This Exhibit A is essentially an updated version of the - analysis accepted by the District Court on February 18, 1997. 3 In commenting further upon the disparity that actually resulted from the funding system, this Court quoted the Court of Appeals' conclusion that: This results in precisely what the anti-retaliation clause was meant to prevent. It funds the Pulaski County districts to a lesser degree than the other districts in the state. It is of no moment that the State reached this result in a mathematically consistent manner." Order, p. 4. (Citation omitted). The Disparity Is Immense Of the 111 Intervening School Districts, over one-half have 1996-97 State aid outcomes which are right at or which greatly exceed the state average of a 12.09% increase. 3 As drawn from Exhibit A to Dr. Stewart's Affidavit, attached to motion as Exhibit 4, they are as follows: District Fountain Lake Alread Carthage Bentonville Gillett Biggers-Reyno Greenland Yellville-Summit Leslie Junction City Nettleton White Hall Valley Springs Greenwood Increase Over 1995-96 61.97 51. 42 41.08 37.35 36.98 35.75 29.45 27.94 27.12 24.45 24.34 24. 04 23.69 23.34 3Anticipating that the Intervenors may once again make their Parade Magazine argument concerning "averages", it should be observed that the Blevins School District, one of the Intervenors, had a statistical increase which is right at the state average and that the Magazine District experienced a State aid increase almost precisely that of the state average when the PCSSD is removed from the calculation. See, infra, p. 5. 4 - - Beebe 22.81 Greene County Technical 18.47 Lavaca 18.30 Ashdown 18.25 Wonderview 18.09 Ozark 17.97 Weiner 17.38 Glen Rose 17.11 Guy-Perkins 17.09 Stuttgart 17.06 Manila 17.03 Alma 16.80 Van Buren 16.73 Mayflower 16.51 Jonesboro 16.18 Pocahontas 16.10 Centerpoint 16.08 Crossett 15.79 Cutter-Morning Star 15.69 County Line 15.49 Winslow 15.30 Oden 14.48 Marion 14.33 Batesville 14.01 Rural Special 13 .44 Wickes 13. 33 Marshall 13. 05 Waldron 13. 02 McGehee 12.73 Magazine 12.67 Smackover 12.34 West Fork 12.32 Charleston 12.28 Blevins 12.22 Booneville 11. 90 So. Conway Co. 11. 31 Green Forest 11. 22 Bryant 10.98 Prairie Grove 10.69 Searcy 10. 52 4 Pulaski County Special 1. 26 4This group of intervening districts is 90.71 white at the elementary level and 91.07 white at the secondary level. See Exhibit 5 attached to motion. 5 Fiscal Crisis Relief Funding The Court will further see from an examination of Exhibit "A" that many districts, including many of the intervening districts, received fiscal crisis relief funding as well as fiscal crisis relief funding for transportation. On January 22, 1997, the PCSSD sought an enlargement of time from the State to submit its application for fiscal crisis relief funding. See Exhibit "8". The State has distributed all $10,000,000 appropriated for fiscal crisis relief funding for this school year. The PCSSD received no response to its application for an enlargement of time. In the Court's order of February 18, 1997 dealing with separate funding issues, this Court stated the following: The Court finds persuasive the figures submitted by the PCSSD which show that its total State funding in 1996- 97 will be less under the new formula than it would have been under the old. See PCSSD MFPA Calculation Estimate with Act 34 of 1996-97, Ex. A, PCSSD Prehearing Brief (doc. #2854). In response to the State's figures that indicate that the PCSSD does better under the new formula, see Green Deel., State's Resp. to M. Summ. J., the PCSSD points out that the State's figures are not adjusted for the increases in teacher retirement and health insurance costs that the PCSSD is experiencing this year and instead rely on data from the previous school year. The figures that this Court found persuasive were that the PCSSD would receive $3,462,880 less in 1996-97 under Act 917 than it would have received had Act 34 remained the law. The difference became $4,479,527 if the State added more money to the Act 34 formula. See PCSSD brief dated November 18, 1996 at pp. - 3-4 and Exhibit "A" to that brief. 6 When the PCSSD prepared these estimates last November, it assumed initially that only $56,000,000 would be added to the equalization formula. That resulted in the decrease of $3,462,880. The decrease of $4,479,527 resulted from the PCSSD assumption, made then, that $80,000,000 might be added to the formula. In fact, with final figures now available, $142,672,000 was in fact added to the formula or available for distribution to school districts. Had Act 34 been in existence, the State would have used approximately $9,911,000 of that increased amount to fund increases in teacher retirement and health insurance, leaving $132,760,638 available for distribution through the Act 34 formula. See Stewart Affidavit5 , attached to motion as Exhibit 4. Utilizing the actual new money that was added to the formula after controlling for teacher retirement and health insurance increases, and utilizing the same methodology that the PCSSD used in Exhibit "A" from last November, the PCSSD calculates its actual loss for 1996-97 to be $5,631,491. That is, if Act 34 had remained in operation for this past school year, and utilizing the actual addition to the formula of $132,760,636, the PCSSD lost over $5,600,000 under Act 917 as compared to Act 34. 5This is essentially the same affidavit and calculations, now updated, which the District Court found persuasive on February 18, 1997. To the extent necessary, the PCSSD incorporates by reference its previous statements of material and undisputed facts, prior affidavits, and the prior findings of this Court. 7 At this rate of loss, the State will recoup within approximately five years all of the desegregation case settlement money it ever paid the PCSSD. The State has represented to the Court of Appeals that: [t]he three Districts emerged from the change in the funding system unscathed. In fact, from a state aid perspective the three Districts benefited from the passage of Act 917 when compared to 1995-96, the last year of operation of the old Act 34 system ... For 1996-97 PCSSD received approximately $700,000 more in state aid than it did for the 1995-96 school year. ADE App. Br. at pp. 8-9, attached to motion as Exhibit 6. The fashion in which the State compared aid outcomes for 1995-96 against 1996-97 is meaningless. What must be compared, as the PCSSD has done supra, are aid outcomes comparing 1996-97 State aid under Act 917 versus Act 34 utilizing 1996-97 funding levels for each Act. Thus, the State's boast that PCSSD benefited to the extent of $700,000 becomes picayunish when the proper analysis is made. The District Court has already rejected the $700,000 claim by the State, see Order dated February 18, 1997 at p. 12, attached to motion as Exhibit 7 and, since the calculation by the State was made in December, 1996, it included the $81,000 in growth funding that the State later took away from the PCSSD as we point out infra at page 9. Further, in the same order, in the context of considering the teacher retirement issue, this Court held: Even if the Court were to find that the new funding scheme for teacher retirement is an "adjustment" to the funding formula which has "general applicability", 8 however, the Court cannot find that it is a "fair and rational adjustment." Throughout these proceedings, the State and Intervenors have consistently argued that the changes in State aid should be viewed as a whole, not piecemeal. They have also argued that when the entire system is considered, the Pulaski County school districts fare better under the new system than under the old. With the fiscal year now ended, the PCSSD can conclusively demonstrate that the State's argument, as to the PCSSD, is simply wrong. As observed above, the PCSSD lost over $5,500,000 under the new system as compared to the old. It trails in the wake of more than one-half of the intervening school districts, was not considered for the fiscal crisis relief funding or extra transportation aid that was lavished upon the wealthy Newark School District (indeed its application for an extension of the deadline was not even acknowledged), and is basically being penalized because it votes one of the highest millages in the state, thus reducing its State aid entitlement under the new scheme. In contrast, Newark, which is either the wealthiest or second wealthiest district in the State, received additional base funding, fiscal crisis relief funding and extra transportation funding. (See Exhibit A to Exhibit 4 to motion at pp. 7 and 8. It qualified for this State aid because it only levies local taxes of approximately one-half those voted in the PCSSD. How can it plausibly be argued by the State that the adjustments it - has made to the formula are "fair and rational", at least to the 9 - extent they affect the PCSSD, a relatively poor district, so negatively? The State Revoked the PCSSD Growth Funding Earlier this year, the PCSSD unsuccessfully sought to persuade this Court, via motion for summary judgment, . to restore loss funding. In its response dated February 10, 1997, the State jabbed the PCSSD's claim for the restoration of loss funding stating: in a crowning bid of irony, all three of the Pulaski County Districts are eligible for and will receive growth funding for 1996-97. The Districts' argument that the Settlement Agreement requires the "reinstatement" of loss funding under these circumstances is plainly frivolous. The State did pay growth funding to the PCSSD for a period of time, but then revoked it. Despite the rhetorical theatrics of the State noted above, the State did on June 13, 1997 request return of the $81,000 it had paid the PCSSD as "growth funding". See Exhibit C attached to motion as Exhibit 4. The PCSSD immediately complied and returned the money. Once again, while not sought directly by this motion, the PCSSD ended the year where it has been for the last several years, a candidate for loss funding with no loss funding available. As a relatively poor school district, should not the PCSSD reasonably expect to be treated at least as well as the average school district in Arkansas, especially when the "average" school district has none of the extra commitments and expenditures that the PCSSD has, as repeatedly pointed out by this Court? 10 Conclusion The Intervening Districts have, of course, intervened to protect their gains at the Court of Appeals level and seek intervention again to protect their gains in light of the latest order of this Court. The PCSSD is a relatively poor district when compared to all other school districts in the state of Arkansas. It asks only to be brought up to the state-wide average, i.e., that it be funded to the same degree, as the average school district in Arkansas fared under the new formula. This adjustment will not totally ameliorate for the PCSSD's high special education costs, its loss of loss funding, cuts in residential treatment aid, etc., but it will lend some equity to a situation that is inequitable on its - face, a situation which violates the Settlement Agreement as interpreted by this Court and the Court of Appeals. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this Court requiring that the Arkansas Department of Education correct its 1996-97 overall State-aid to obtain the result of the same average increase as experienced by the average school district in Arkansas, or, in the alternative, for the sums it would have received in 1996-97 under Act 34. 11 Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September 2-, 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following persons. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson & Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 J ,J hslOS0.030 12 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT oF ARKANsPI LED Or-FlCE OF A WESTERN DIVISION u.s. DISTRICT ccuRTnE~tGREGATION MONITORING W E.A.STE;;N CISTRICT ARK.A:'L ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SEP 51997 PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: ------;;;:;::;-;O:E;P;". CELEoRiKi PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LRSD'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO HAVE SOUTHWEST JR. HIGH SCHOOL PLACED IN RECEIVERSHIP AND FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR LRSD for its Response states: 1. Joshua's Motion arises out of the alleged "misfeasance and malfeasance of the [Southwest Junior High School) principal, Dr. Walter Marchalek (sic)." Joshua's Motion, 1 1. Dr. Marshaleck' s competency to perform his duti es is an individual personnel matter. Consistent with this Court's past practice, LRSD respectfully requests that it be permitted to address this matter in accordance with its own internal processes. See Order filed Jan. 23, 1997, Docket No. 2915, attached hereto as Exhibit A. LRSD prays that Joshua's Motion be dismissed without a hearing. 2. LRSD admits that late summer changes in Southwest's master schedule resulted in approximately 80 registered students not having a schedule on the first day of classes. To accommodate these students, Dr. Marshaleck planned to provide hand-written schedules to these students upon arrival. This effort was slowed by the illness of Southwest's registrar who missed the first three days of school. Southwest's attendance secretary was also absent the first day of school due to illness. The effort was further complicated by the arrival of approximately 60 students not previously registered to attend Southwest. These students also needed schedules. Students without schedules were supervised in the cafeteria without incident. Every effort was made, including 16-hour workdays, to provide all students with schedules as quickly as possible. All Southwest students had schedules and were attending class by August 27, 1997. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 1 of Joshua's Motion except as specifically admitted above. 3. LRSD denies that "numerous" students were "misassigned" by Dr. Marshaleck. LRSD admits that one special education student was erroneously assigned to a gifted and talented class as a result - of a data entry error. First priority was given to students with no schedules. As soon as all students had schedules, work began on correcting scheduling errors. The special education student's schedule was corrected on August 28, 1997. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 2 of Joshua's Motion except as specifically admitted above. 4. LRSD admits the allegation set forth in paragraph 3 of Joshua's Motion. Individualized education plans are only prepared for special education students. 5. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 4 of Joshua's Motion. 2 6. LRSD admits that one student was slightly injured during an altercation with another student which occurred while a teacher left a class unattended. This was against LRSD policy and appropriate action has been taken in response to this incident. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 5 of Joshua's Motion except as specifically admitted above. 7. LRSD admits that students without schedules were not receiving instruction. LRSD denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 6 of Joshua's Motion. The teaching staff at Southwest has been asked to make every effort to ensure that students who were assigned to class late do not fall behind. 8. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 7 of Joshua's Motion. 9. LRSD admits that it was aware of the scheduling problem at Southwest. LRSD believes it responded appropriately by making additional personnel available to assist Southwest, and the problem has now been resolved. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 8 of Joshua's Motion except as specifically admitted above. 10. LRSD denies the allegations