Court filings concerning PCSSD's March 24 plan, ADE project management tool, and ODM ''Secondary School Facilities in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'' report

District Court, motion for enlargement of time; District Court, two orders; District Court, joint motion of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and Joshua for approval of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) March 24 plan; District Court, memorandum brief in support of joint motion of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and Joshua for approval of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) plan; District Court, memorandum opinion and order; District Court, two orders; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Monitoring report, ''Secondary School Facilities in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'' The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors. t' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. NO. LRC-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. MQJIQN EQB ENLARGEMENT Of IIME PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On March 24, 1998, this Court ordered PCSSD and Joshua to submit, within ten days, the agreed amendment to the PCSSD Desegregation Plan together with a joint motion, brief in support and proposed notice. The parties desire an enlargement of time to comply with the Court's Order until and including April 9, 1998. WHEREFORE, Joshua and the PCSSD pray for an enlargement of time until and Including April 9, 1998 within which to comply with the Court's directive. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 c00d THEJOSHUAINTERVENORS John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 dll SEIN I NH3.f '8 '.!-.3S@ I 7 'lH':l I ~M > t CERTIFICATE OF EBYICE On April ___(_ ~_, 1998, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. Mail to each of the following: Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell & Street 401 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 Jack, Lyon & Janes 425 West Capltol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 00d 2 dll S':JN I tlN3f '8 ' X3SCTN I 7 ' lH':J I df~ RECEIVED FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT AP.KANSAS APR 8 1998 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION APR O 71998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING JA~AES ! M~MACK, C~ERK By. ~ ) c}_ ~ D!:P CL.fR.~ ' UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., lntervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. ORDEB. Before the Court is a motion filed by the Pulaski County Special School District ("PCSSD") and the Joshua Intervenors ("Joshua") requesting a continuance to and including April 9, 1998 in which to file their agreed proposed Revised PCSSD Desegregation Plan, in addition to a joint motion and brief in support requesting that the Court approve the proposed Revised Plan and a notice regarding the proposed Revised Plan. This Court grants the parties' request. The PCSSD and Joshua have to and including April 9, 1998 in which to file these documents and pleadings. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 7~ day of April 1998. rHIS DOCUMENT ENTER COMP~ce T RuJ~e c:g,0OcRK7er SHEET IN ON 7/ 8 l!Y 7Z1-:: 9(a) FRCP FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT APR 8 199,9 EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OFFICE OF DESE6REGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION APR O 7 1998 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * JA~ES W. ~~ORMACK, CLERK By.. 'L 'QI ,u D 41 V'-:a DEP CI.ERll Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * ORDER Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a reply filed by Ms. Hafeeza Majeed on April 6, 1998 on - behalf of Toe Fact-Finding Committee for the Little Rock School Desegregation Plan--Is It Working for African-American Youth?" Ms. Majeed filed this reply in response to Mr. John Walker's letter regarding Ms. Majeed's initial objection to the proposed January 16 Revised LRSD Desegregation Plan. 1 The Clerk is hereby directed to serve the parties involved in this case with copies of this Order and attached Exhibit A. 2 By separate Order, the Court will inform the parties how the Court will proceed in regard to Ms. Majeed's latest filing. 1 See Docket No. 3130 for a copy of Ms. Majeed's initial objection. See Docket No. 3135 for Mr. Walker's response to Ms. Majeed's objection. 2 The Clerk should also send copies to the following individuals: Mr. Markton Cole Ms. Hafeeza B. Majeed 7320 S. Ridgeland Ave. 2A 8505 Holmes, #174. .. Chicago, Illinois 60649 Kansas City, Missouri 64131 ; . i IT IS SO ORDERED TiilS day of April 1998. fHIS DOCUMENT E1.JTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN ;~~ t'$RULE s:;N~(a) FRCP - . ,, \. 2 .. ,. . ' . ~:' : " : April 6, 1998 TO: FROM: ;-;:: ,. :l rr.: --..... U~- -~ - . _ ) ... .'? :.. . I'~., , . 1. I l I , _ _ EAs, .:Hr, c:, ie:~ -<, ~.'-: .. ,1r The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -'..' .. l.-f ' :_;,:s,\s Federal Judge Eastern District of Arlamsas, Western Di~ U 6 [SJ J/l.~:1:::~ ,., i i~l'.C'R . " The Fact-Findina Conmiittee for the Little Rock S:choortiisTtfor ,,\,,.._, /(, CCRK D~H,,-.,-in ftllBl h It w~ Pw MHv1B1Amm,1m Ym;f,91'' THROUGH: Hafeeza B. Majeed, Cbairpenon RE; LITI'LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Judge Wright: V: LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUN1Y SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NOTICE (EXHIBIT C, JANU'ARY 16 REVISED DESEGREGATION PLAN'') The following open letter to Little Rock School District students.parents. and friends. is also a formal request desiring your approval: "OPEN LETTER JO 11IE UITLI ROCK COMMUNITY" "Thank yor/' to the maoy friends and supporters ofThe Fa.rt-Finding Committee with whom I met and enjoyed talkin! to during the weekend. A special iha:nk yor/> to those who supported our efforts with your signatures. AB promised to you, the following request to the Honorable Susan Webber Wright has been submitted in your behalf 1. We, the 1D1dersigned, recognize that we are represented in the Joshua Class, as defined by the attached "Notice.'' (Exhibit C. LRSD January 16 Revised ..,. . 3. Plan) We agree that we were provided a copy of the ~otice .. by the Fact-Finding Committee, represented by Ms. HafeezaB. Majeed. We agree, like several others who chose not place their signatures, that we have not been informed about the information contained in the attached "Notice'' regarding the proposed Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. We believe that the responsibility for BIDlOIDlcing this information to the cormmmity should rest with ColDlSel for Joshua, Attorney Jolm W. Walker, as well as with the LR.SD Board ofDirectors, as designated in the "Notice." We ~e that we have not been informed by the Little Rock School District regarding information contained in the "Notice.'' Therefore, we respectfully request that you delay your approval or disapproval of the Revised LR.SD Desegregation and Education Plan, pending the following: Court's Exhibit A 1. Counsel for the Joshua Class, Attorney John W. Walker, should schedule a fonnal hearing to adequately iofonn the Joshua Cius about the Revised LRSD Desesregation and Education Piao. This hearing shall be scheduled at a time conducive to the schedules of working parentl. 2. The hearing shall be attended by a representative fi-om The Fact-Finding Committee, a representative from the LRSD , a represeotative :from ODM. and the Joshua Class. 3. Io sight of the fact that many persons who are defined as "Joshua" have not been afforded adequate and timely information regarding the Revised LRSD Desegregation and Education Plan; we request that the LRSD anno1mce an extended deadline to receive written objections to the Piao. The Fact-Finding Committee prayermlly seeks yow approval of this request that represents the concerns ofLRSD Pareots, students, aod friends who were interviewed by our representative, Ms. Hafeeza B. Majeed, during the weekend. Again, ''thank yoli' :from The Fact-Finding Committee. and we shall continue to "Fight For Our Children." Respectfully, J L ~ 1f. fr[a1u,f Hafee:1-~*ed, Chairperson f' cc: All Signees ColDlSel for Joshua Class LRSD ODM Attachments ---------- - - --- -- - - - ---- ---- - ------ - -- - - .. - - -------- - - -- --- - - . . . - - - - . . - ---- EDWARD L. WRIGHT ( 1003-1 071) ROBERT S. LINOSEY ( 1013- 1001) ISAAC A. SCOTT,_./R . JOHN G. LILE GORDON S. RATHER, JR. TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD , JR. PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULOROW-N. M. NORTON EDGAR J. TYLER CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR. CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER SAMMYE L. TAYLOR WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T . JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPAODEN WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 llTTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 379-0442 OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M. TODD WOOD April 9, 1998 ROGER 0 . ROWE NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY JOHN 0 . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX, JR . HARRY S. HURST . JR . TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA A. SIEVERS JAMES M. MOODY, JR . KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS FRED M. PERKINS Ill WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY M. ROBINSON BETSY MEACHAM AINSLEY H. LANG KYLE R. WILSON C. TAD BOHANNON DON S. McKINNEY MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge 600 W. Capitol, Room 302 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 HAND DELIVERED Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al. Dear Judge Wright: APR 1 0 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Enclosed are copies of each of the items you directed the PCSSD and Joshua to prepare as regards the amendment to the PCSSD Plan. I have retained the originals for the moment as they do not bear Mr. Walker's signature. Mr. Walker has indicated some doubt about his execution of these documents and I am simply submitting copies so as to comply with the Court's deadline as best I can. By copy of this letter to Mr. Walker, I am asking him to communicate his current position .~o the Court. MSJ/jhs Enclosures Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP Jon~_,/ I I I cc: Counsel of record (w/encl.) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 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. RECE!VED APR 1 0 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENOR$ INTERVENORS JOINT MOTION OF PCSSD AND JOSHUA FOR APPROVAL OF PCSSD'S MARCH 24 PLAN Defendant Pulaski County Special School District ("PCSSD") and the Joshua - lntervenors ("Joshua") for their Joint Motion for Approval of PCSSD's March 24, 1998 Plan state: 1. Joshua and PCSSD move for tentative and, ultimately, final approval of PCSSD's March 24, 1998 Plan (attached hereto as Exhibit "A"). 2. On October 14, 1997, PCSSD filed its Petition seeking release from federal court jurisdiction (the Petition). Prior to the start of the hearing on the Petition, PCSSD and Joshua engaged in extensive negotiations in an effort to develop an amended plan which both parties could support. Those negotiations resulted in PCSSD's March 24, 1998 Plan. The PCSSD Board of Directors approved the Plan on March 23, 1998 and authorized submission of the Plan to this Court for approval. 3. PCSSD and Joshua stipulate to the following facts in support of this tit Motion: a. That the record in this case supports modification of PCSSD's desegregation obligations; b. That the March 24, 1998 Plan is an appropriate modification of PCSSD's desegregation obligations. c. That the March 24, 1998 Plan is constitutional, workable and fair to Joshua class members; and, d. That, upon approval of the Plan, the PCSSD should be dismissed as a party to this case except as respects its financial claims arising under the settlement agreement. 4. PCSSD and Joshua recognize that their compromise and settlement should not be approved by this Court without notice to Joshua class members. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). Accordingly, PCSSD and Joshua propose dissemination of the notice attached hereto as Exhibit B. This notice shall be published no less than thirty (30) days before a deadline established by this Court for Joshua class members to submit written objections to approval of the March 24, 1998 Plan. PCSSD shall bear all costs associated with publication of the notice. PCSSD shall cause the notice to be published in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette; shall print and distribute copies of the notice to teachers; and shall prominently post the notice at all schools. 5. PCSSD and Joshua have prepared for the Court's consideration an Order (attached hereto) granting the relief sought in this Motion. WHEREFORE, PCSSD and Joshua pray that this Court tentatively approve PCSSD's March 24, 1998 Plan, pending the filing of objections filed by Joshua class members; that the notice attached hereto as Exhibit B be published at least thirty (30) 2 days bef~re the deadline for Joshua class members to submit written objections; and that this Court finally approve PCSSD's March 24, 1998 Plan upon consideration of any objections filed by Joshua class members. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 By: 3 THEJOSHUAINTERVENORS John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 By: _________ _ John W. Walker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April ___ , 1998, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. Mail to each of the following: Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell & Street 401 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 Jack, Lyon & Jones 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, Ill 4 Section 1: Pulaski County Special School District Plan Dated March 24, 1998 Prior Agreements and Orders. RECEIVED APR 1 0 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 1. This Plan, which is a "Desegregation and Education Plan," shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreeme:nts and orders in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, U.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82-866, and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation of the Pulaski County Special School District ("PCSSD") with the following exceptions: a. The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989 ( "Settlement Agreement"); b. The Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987; c. Order dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee; d. The M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986; e. The Interdistrict Plan; and f. Orders of the district court and court of appeals interpreting or enforcing sections a. through d. above to the extent not inconsistent with this Plan. SECTION 2: Obligations. 2.1. PCSSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to - comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past EXHIBIT 1 I A APR 1 0 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 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. MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS JOINT MOTION OF PCSSD AND JOSHUA FOR APPROVAL OF PCSSD'S PLAN This motion is brought pursuant to the amendment provision of the Pulaski County Special School Distirict permanent Desegregation Plan dated April 29, 1992, as well as Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1., 56 F.3d 904, 914 (8th Cir. 1995); Appeal of the Little Rock Sch. Dist., 949 F .2d 253 (8th Cir. 1991 ); Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990). PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 THEJOSHUAINTERVENORS John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 By: _________ _ John W. Walker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April ___ , 1998, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. Mail to each of the following: Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell & Street 401 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 Jack, Lyon & Jones 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, Ill 2 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STAff.S DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, * * * * vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * * KA IBERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * No. LR-C-82-866 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER FBLED US. ulS T;;:1cT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT AR!<ANSAS APR 1 0 1998 Before the Court are the initial joint motion and the renewed joint motion filed by the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") and the Joshua Intervenors ("Joshua") requesting that this Court approve the LRSD's proposed Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1998 ("LRSD Proposed Revised Plan" or "proposed Plan").1 L Approval of the Proposed Plan After evaluating the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan, this Court hereby grants the joint motions filed by the LRSD and Joshua and hereby approves the proposed Plan. 1 Docket Nos. 3107 and 3136. 1 A. In 1990, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved the current version ofLRSD Desegregation and Education Plan or the 1990 Plan. In 1996, after the LRSD had operated under the 1990 Plan for six (6) years, this Court scheduled a series of hearings to gather evidence upon which to evaluate the success of the 1990 Plan, along with the settlement plans of the other districts, and the desegregation remedies endorsed therein. 2 At that time, even though the Court had withdrawn supervision over certain aspects of the 1990 Plan, there remained portions of that Plan which were of concern to the Court. Therefore, the Court called expert witnesses to testify, and invited the parties to call other expert witnesses to testify, regarding desegregation remedies in general in an attempt to aid the Court and the parties in evaluating the effectiveness of the 1990 Plan. Those evidentiary hearings were held in May of 1996.3 At those hearings and on several other occasions, the Court has noted that the parties themselves must develop and present for Court approval any proposed modifications to the desegregation and education plans under which they operate. In December of 1996, the LRSD requested and this Court approved a "plan development period" in which the LRSD could concentrate its efforts on developing such modifications to the 1990 Plan, in an attempt to 2 Docket No. 2631. 3 The following expert witnesses testified: (1) Herbert J. Walberg, Ph.D., then a Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago . See Docket No. 2692. (2) David J. Armor, Ph.D., then a Research Professor at George Mason University in the Institute of Public Policy. See Docket Nos. 2693, 2694. (3) Gary Orfield, Ph.D., then a Professor of Education and Social Policy at Harvard University and the Director of The Harvard Project on School Desegregation. See Docket No. 2768. 2 improve education and desegregation within the district. Some time during this period, the LRSD commenced negotiations with Joshua regarding modifications to the 1990 Plan. As a result of those negotiations, the LRSD and Joshua agreed upon the provisions included in the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan currently before the Court. B. The LRSD and Joshua have agreed that, if approved, the proposed Plan: shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders in the Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, U.S .D.C. No. LR-C-82-866, and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation of the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") with the following exceptions: a. The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989 ("Settlement Agreement"); b. The Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987; c. Order dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee; d. The M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986; and, e. Orders of the district court and court of appeals interpreting and enforcing sections a. through d. above to the extent not inconsistent with this Revised Plan. 5 Based upon this provision, this Court considers the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan an entirely new consent decree or settlement agreement between the LRSD and Joshua. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that because the law strongly favors settlements, courts should hospitably receive them, especially in cases such as this in which the parties have engaged in protracted, highly divisive litigation and in which any lasting solution necessarily depends upon the good faith and cooperation of all of the parties. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Spec. Sch. Dist., 921 F.2d 1371, 1383 (811, Cir. 1990). When evaluating a settlement agreement, "O]udges should not substitute their own 4 Docket No. 2901. 5 Docket No. 3107, Exhibit A, at 1. 3 judgment as to optimal settlement terms for the judgment of the litigants and their counsel." 921 F.2d at 1385 (quoting Armstrong v. Board of Sch. Dirs. of the City of Milwaukee, 616 F.2d 305, 315 (7111 Cir. 1980)). The district court must consider the proposal as submitted by the parties. "Of course, the district court may suggest modifications but ultimately, it must consider the proposal as a whole and as submitted. Approval must then be given or withheld." Id. at 1383 ( quoting Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm 'n of the City and County of San Francisco, 688 F.2d 615, 630 (91h Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1217 (1983)). Although settlement agreements carry with them a presumption of acceptability, id at 1385, a district court need not automatically approve every settlement agreement the parties submit, id at 13 83 . A court has a strong interest in not involving itself, along with the prestige of the law, in an ongoing equitable decree which is either manifestly unworkable or plainly unconstitutional on its face. In addition, this is a class action, and courts are not obliged (indeed, they are not pennitted) to approve settlements that are unfair to class members, or negotiated by inadequate class representatives. Id. at 1383 . "[B]efore a settlement agreement may be rejected because it initiates or authorizes a clearly illegal or unconstitutional practice, prior judicial decisions must have found that practice to be illegal or unconstitutional as a general rule." Id at 1385 (quoting Armstrong, 616 F.2d at 321). In the area of desegregation law, the Supreme Court has detennined that the Constitution does not of its own force forbid all-African-American schools. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 26 (1971). The Constitution of its own force also does not require any particular racial percentage in various schools in the districts. Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 740-41 (1974). Furthermore, the Constitution of its own force does not demand that all students 4 regardless of race satisfy national achievement norms. Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 100-01 (1995). Obviously, parties in a desegregation case may and indeed should agree to eliminate the effects of prior de Jure segregation to the extent practicable. However, the details of such efforts are not specifically dictated by the Constitution. Even if the court is uncertain that the means proposed in the settlement agreement will succeed in integrating the district or concerned that the lack of sufficient detail in the settlement agreement may impede successful implementation, such concerns alone do not render the settlement agreement unconstitutional on its face, especially when the parties to the settlement agreement have consented to continued monitoring. 921 F.2d at 1385-86. This Court has carefully reviewed the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan as jointly submitted by the LRSD and Joshua and concludes that the Revised Plan is not manifestly unworkable or plainly unconstitutional on its face. The parties have consented to continued monitoring by this Court. Although the Court acknowledges that the Revised Plan will present new challenges in regard to monitoring, these anticipated challenges do not render the Revised Plan unworkable or plainly unconstitutional. Therefore, this Court concludes that the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan should be and hereby is approved. C. In the alternative, if this Court were to consider the proposed Plan as simply a modification of the 1990 Plan, this Court would approve the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan. A party seeking modification of a consent decree "must establish that a significant change in facts or law warrants revision of the decree." Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 393 (1992). If the moving party meets this burden, the District Court 5 must then detennine "whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance." Id. at 39 1. The modification "must not create or perpetuate a constitutional violation," nor "strive to rewrite a consent decree so that it confonns to the constitutional floor." Id. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. , 56 F.3d 905, 914 (8th Cir. 1995). This Court concludes, after reviewing the circumstances of this case and the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan, that this standard for modifying a consent decree has been satisfied. Based upon the voluminous Court record generated by this case since the 1990 Plan was instituted and based upon the conclusions which may be drawn from the evidentiary hearings conducted by this Court in May of 1996, this Court concludes that circumstances and conditions have changed which warrant modifying the 1990 Plan. Specifically, there are certain aspects of the 1990 Plan that have been successfully implemented by the LRSD. Some areas of the 1990 - Plan have been so successfully implemented that this Court has withdrawn supervision over those areas. However, there are other stated goals in the 1990 Plan which have not been achieved. Evidence in the record tends to indicate that the LRSD has put forth minimal effort to achieve certain of these stated goals. More importantly, however, there are certain goals in the 1990 Plan which are out of date for the current situation that exists in the LRSD6 and other specific, rigid goals in the 1990 Plan which expert testimony indicates may never be met, regardless of the amount of effort and good faith put forth by the LRSD. 7 Therefore, the 1990 Plan warrants 6 For example, the sections of the 1990 Plan regarding Student Assignment and Facilities are out of date with regard to the current situation that exists in the LRSD. 7 Specifically, the goals in the 1990 Plan regarding achievement disparity may never be met, regardless of the effort put forth by the LRSD. See the testimony of Dr. Walberg, Docket No. 2692, at 17-25; Dr. Armor, Docket No. 2693, at 18-39; and Dr. Orfield, Docket No. 2768, at 25-31. 6 - -- - - - modification. Furthermore, this Court concludes that the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan furthers the original purpose of the decree in a more efficient way, without upsetting the basic agreement between the parties. The LRSD Proposed Revised Plan is suitably tailored to the changed circumstances, does not create or perpetuate a constitutional violation, and has not been rewritten to conform only to the constitutional floor. Therefore, this Court concludes that the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan should be approved. D. Having approved the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan, this Court notes that once a modification to a consent decree or a decree itself has been approved by the Court, its terms, . including the details, become binding on the parties. 921 F.2d at 1384. Although at this time the - Court does not anticipate the need for further modification, the Court does wish to clarify that if progress under this Revised Plan is clearly insufficient or if certain sections of the Revised Plan should prove to be unworkable, the parties may again apply for a modification of the Revised Plan. Consent decrees partake of the nature of contracts, as well as of judicial action, and parties seeking to change them bear an extremely heavy burden. They are not, however, immutable in any absolute sense, and extraordinary circumstances can arise that would enable the District Court, within its discretion, to consider modifications. Id. at 1387. II. Objections to the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan By previous Order, this Court directed the LRSD to provide notice of the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan and set March 13, 1998 as the deadline for receiving objections to the 7 - proposed Plan from individual members of the Joshua Class and from other parties to the litigation. 8 Dr. Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of the LRSD, submitted an affidavit indicating that the LRSD had complied with the Court's Order regarding notice of the proposed Plan. 9 A. The Court notes that although the other school districts and parties in this case were not involved in the negotiations which produced this proposed Plan, those parties were given notice of the proposed Plan and of their ability to object. 10 None of those parties have filed an objection with this Court to the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan. B. On the last day for filing objections, Mr. Markton Cole, on behalf of "The FactFinding Committee for the LRSD Desegregation Plan--Is It Working For African-American Youthr ("Fact-Finding Committee"), filed several documents which he characterized as an objection to the proposed Plan. 11 The documents which Mr. Cole filed included a letter from Ms. Hafeeza Majeed, the Chairperson of the Fact-Finding Committee, and a report initially submitted by the Fact-Finding Committee to the Court on September 20, 1996. In response to the documents filed by Mr. Cole, Mr. John Walker, counsel for Joshua, filed a letter essentially requesting that this Court strike the documents and not consider the 8 Docket No. 3114. 9 Docket No. 3131. 10 Docket No. 3114. 11 Docket No. 3130. 8 - documents an objection to the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan. 12 Mr. Walker claims inter alia: (1) that the documents filed by Mr. Cole and Ms. Majeed had been previously submitted to and considered by this Court; (2) that the documents pertained to the LRSD Desegregation and Education Plan entered into by the LRSD and Joshua in 1990 ("the 1990 Plan"), not the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan currently before the Court; and (3) that Mr. Cole and Ms. Majeed lack legal standing to object because they are not residents of the LRSD and do not otherwise allege that either they or their own children will be harmed by the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan. This Court agrees with Mr. Walker's assertions and hereby strikes the documents filed by Mr. Cole on behalf of the Fact-Finding Committee and Ms. Majeed. Specifically, the Fact-Finding Committee report filed by Mr. Cole was previously submitted to this Court in September