Court filings concerning proposed changes to ADE monitoring and reporting responsibilities, districts' undisputed teacher retirement and health insurance damages, and ODM report, ''Racial Composition of the Certified Staff in the Secondary Schools and the Administrators in the Central Office of the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD)''

District Court, progress report on proposed changes to Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) monitoring and reporting responsibilities; District Court, motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' undisputed teacher retirement and health insurance damages; District Court, memorandum brief in support of the motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' undisputed teacher retirement and health insurance damages; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Monitoring report, ''Racial Composition of the Certified Staff in the Secondary Schools and the Administrators in the Central Office of the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD)''; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to the districts' motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' undisputed teacher retirement and health insurance damages; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors. STATE OF ARKANSAS OFFIC.KOF rim ATTORNEY GENERAL Mark Pryor Attorney General Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 February 1, 1999 Re: little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Spedal School District No. 1, et~ LR-C-82-866 Dear Ms. Brown: RECEIVED FEB 2 1999 Oltl~i 0f lllltGMIOll110~rroruNs Telephone: (501) 682-2007 Enclosed for your files and information, please find copy of the Progress Report on Proposed Changes to ADE Monitoring and Reporting Responsibilities. cj enclosure Sincerely Carol Robbins Secretary to T101othy G. Gauger Assistant Attorney General 200 Catlett-Prica Tower, 323 Center Street Uttle Rock, Arkansas 72201-2610 -~--- Internet Website. http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED rtB 2 1999 OfflCEOF OESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS PROGRESS REPORT ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO ADE MONITORING AND REPORTING RESPONSIBnITIES Pursuant to the Court's December 18, 1998 order, the Arkansas Department of Education submits this report on the progress made in developing proposed . changes to ADE' s monitoring and reporting responsibilities. After the issuance of ODM' s report on ADE' s monitoring, ADE, with the support of the State Board of Education, sought to meet with all parties to this action to discuss possible revisions to ADE' s monitoring and reporting requirements that would, among other things, address some of the concerns and criticisms contained in the ODM report. All the parties, including the Joshua and Knight intervenors, were invited and encouraged to participate in the process. As required by the Court, meetings between representatives of ADE and the parties have been documented and described in ADE' s monthly project management tools. The information contained in the monthly PMTs will not be repeated here. However, if the Court desires more detailed information about I - these meetings or would like to review meeting agendas, lists of participants, or correspondence between the parties related to these discussions, ADE will be happy to submit such information or documents to the Court for its review. To comply with the Court's December 18, 1998 order, ADE has prepared the attached Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report. A draft of this report was shared with representatives of the parties for review and comment in January of 1999. The Report is intended to be a summary of the recommendations and comments made by the parties to date. As the Court will di.seem from reviewing the Report, the parties have focused their discussion on a plan that, among other things, (a) would provide for continued monitoring by ADE in six areas relevant to the Districts' desegregation efforts; (b) would provide for ADE analysis of selected data; and (c) would include ADE assistance to each District in areas such as staff development, curriculum alignment, and recruitment of minority teachers and administrators. The attached Report is a work in progress. Many details will need to be discussed and refined by the parties before any proposed new monitoring and reporting plan can be submitted to this Court for approval. ADE intends to continue its meetings with the parties to discuss these issues so that a new monitoring and reporting plan can be presented to the Court as soon as practicable. 2 Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Atto General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on February 1, 1999, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Roe~ AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Roe~ AR 72201 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 3 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Oark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon & Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Desegregation Monitoring Prelimbuuy Progress Report-revised llllUUlrY 21, 1999 Arlwua Dq,art,nenl of Edllcation Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report Arkansas Department of Education January 1999 NOTE: The following document summarizes the recommendations, written documents and comments made by district desegregation superintendents, specialized district staff, Office of Desegregation Monitoring, ADE staff and the parties in Pulaski County Desegregation Case. This preliminary progress report is a work in progress. It is intended to be disseminated among interested parties for discussion. comment, review and suggestions during the January 28, 1999 meeting. A revised'aiaft of the progress report shall be forwarded to all parties for review after administrative and Board review. 1 Arkansas Department of Education Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report: Preliminazy Drqft-Revised Section I Goal The goal of the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance is to ensure educational excellence and equity in the Pulaski County School Districts by monitoring, through the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), the implementation of educational programs, aimed at satisfactorily remediating racial, academic, and achievement disparities. The proposed Monitoring Plan will revise the 1989 Monitoring Plan and formatting directives by eliminating unnecessary, or redundant provisions, reducing the data collection and submission burden on districts, and ensuring that districts remain accountable for commitments made to quality desegregated education. To ensure the integrity of the monitoring reports, the ADE will continue to use the Standards of Educational Evaluation. The Standards for Educational Evaluation define four attributes of sound evaluation: A B. C. D. Section Il The utility of the evaluation to the audience to be served in relation to the problems they face; The feasibility of the evaluation in terms of its efficient use of practical procedures; Propriety, which calls for fair treatment of participants in the evaluation and ethical use of evaluation procedures and findings; Accuracy, which calls for obtaining valid, reliable and objective findings and reporting justified conclusions and recommendations. Purpose Monitoring by the ADE will be closely related to the identified needs and priorities of the school districts so that monitoring becomes an integral part of the accountability function of quality schools and districts. In particular, monitoring will focus on efforts to raise the standard for student achievement and reduce achievement disparities. The monitoring indicators are divided into six sections that are important for a high-quality desegregated educational system: (1) achievement, (2) discipline, (J) staff development and technical assistance, (4) minority teacher recruitment and staffing, (5) financial resources/budget, and (6) racial balance in enr'ollments. The purpose of the monitoring is to provide the means for determining whether the process is meeting its goals: that is to determine how "on target" schools are by comparing achieved outcomes with intended ones. Section m Achievement All students will perf onn at grade level by the end of the fourth grade as measured by the State-mandated criterion referenced and nonn-ref erenced assessments. The ADE will analyze achievement on the basic battery of the norm-referenced test, annually and longitudinally. Trends in educational performance will also be provided. The ADE will analyze achievement on the criterion-referenced test annually and longitudinally to help schools determine the most critical areas of need. 2 The ADE will also analyze test scores to determine if racial academic disparities are being reduced. Results of the analysis shall be used by the ADE and schools to: Increase student performance Communicate current levels of student performance to school customers Assist in the orchestration of School Improvement Plans Focus on reducing achievement gaps between black and white students Identify group strengths and weaknesses in content areas Ensure that prescriptive instructional assistance matches student needs Determine the number of students who reach the proficient level in Math and Reading Guide decision making about ways to improve student performance. After testing each year, monitors will determine the following: 1. Are plans in place to address areas of academic deficiency? 2. Has the standard of adequate yearly progress been met? 3. Is there significant disparity in the scores of black and white students? 4. Are there more than 50% of the students achieving below grade level in mathematics and reading? 5. How does the school's achievement compare to the state average and to schools with similar demographics? 6. Is student achievement progressively improving? - - Note: Analysis q,fachievement data wi /I be conducted by the ADE and consultants hired by the ADE, -i Section IV Discipline/Disciplinary Disparity Schools shall be organized and operated in a manner that creates safe, secure schools which are most conducive to student learning. The ADE will: 1. 2. 3. 4. Section V Monitor the Annual Discipline Report Summary from each school district to determine if consequences, for the same offenses are consistently applied to black and white students Review the suspension and expulsion rates Examine each school's implementation of their Disciplinary Management Plans to ascertain whether goals and objectives are being met Make recommendations as needed based on educational research, theory and best practice. Staff Development/l'echnical Assistance (Ways the ADE might assist Districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement) The State is committed to assisting with staff development, preparation, and support of educators whose primary focus is on student learning and who possess the knowledge, skills and the commitment to teach to high academic standards. The State will, through the Smart Start and School Improvement Programs assist in the collaborative development of staff development programs that ensure that instructional delivery models are aligned to student needs, state standards, and assessments. The state will also provide staff development based on needs identified as a result of the monitoring process. The ADE will: 1. Monitor the district's evaluation component of staff development 2. Collaborate with the Office of Pupil Personnel in each district in sponsoring professional development aimed at reducing the disparity in minority suspensions and expulsions 3. Assist schools with analysis of assessment results and strategies for improved student perfonnance 4. Provide staff development on ways to recruit, retain and support teacher recruitment of minority teachers . - 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Section VI Provide staff development to schools through the Smart Start Initiative Assist schools in the alignment of the curriculum with State standards and mandated assessments Provide staff development on researched-based and proven model in reducing achievement and disciplinary disparities with demographics similar to schools in Pulaski County Provide assistance in curriculum and assessment in the identified targeted areas Ensure that the monitoring reports are useful, succinct, readable and understandable, by assisting districts in the use of five essential steps: (1) disaggregation, (2) analyzation, (3) interpretation, (4) communication and (5) utilization of report findings. Recruitment of Minority Teachers 4 The quality of teachers is central to plans dedicated to improving student performance. The three districts in Pulaski County will need to recruit additional teachers, especially minority teachers due to retirement, and attrition. The ADE will remain committed to teacher recruitment through financial assistance for Minority Teacher Candidates, relevant job market information, and through the improvement of standards for teacher certification. The ADE will: 1. Maintain a current list of minority teachers and administrators who are seeking employment. This list should include certification areas, permanent addresses and phone numbers, and dates of availability 2. Review the number of minority teachers hired each year 3. Monitor the number of jobs offered to minority teachers 4. Examine recruitment plans and efforts such as the job fair participation 5. Assess racial balance in staffing by school and content/speciality areas 6. Disaggregate the percent of classes taught by teacher on a deficiency removal plan. - s Section VII Racial Balance in Enrollments The ADE will monitor to ensure that all students have access to a demanding curriculum, high quality instruction, and nourishing classrooms. The ADE will: 1. Monitor school enrollment for racial balance in accordance with court-approved desegregation plans outlined for each district. 2. Review the enrollment of minority students enrolled in advanced placement (AP) and special education programs 3. Evaluate the impact of interdistrict and intradistrict transfers on racial balance 4. Review the enrollment or participation of minority students in special clubs, teams, and activities 5. Analyze average daily attendance 6. Review the completion rate. Note: The ADE recognizes that the Revised Desegregation Plan for the Little Rock Pubic Schools (LRSD), does not require that every LRSD school be racially balance. Additionally, nothing in LRSD 's Revised Plan shall be construed as requiring a particular racial balance at every LRSD school or as obligating LRSD to recruit students to obtain a particular racial balance in every LRSD school. Section VIII Budget The monitoring of finances in the three school districts of Pulaski County will be the same as for all other school districts in the .state except for areas of the budget in which the districts receive financial support unique to the desegregation case. Also, monitoring done by the State in the financial area will be done from the standpoint of what the districts have agreed to do in their respective desegregation plans. Section IX Monitoring Process A The monitoring process shall be conducted to ensure effectiveness of court order remedies and will include site visitations, review of plans, review of statistical and administrative data as well as responses from school personilel, patrons and students. B C. D. 6 Monitoring teams shall be selected by the Director of the ADE. The team shall include ADE personnel and may include Intervenors, and other educational consultants as designated by the Director. Each district shall include in their school improvement plans appropriate objectives to achieve compliance with each court order related to the Agreement and recommendations made by the ADE. The ADE shall monitor annual school improvement plans to determine progress toward achieving educational goals. District plans should provide evidence of compliance with court orders and a process to ascertain progress. Continuous, independent, systematic monitoring and evaluation are processes necessary for assuring and demonstrating the quality of desegregated education. However, each school and district will be encouraged to conduct internal evaluations prior to monitoring by the ADE. No zysteni can achieve its potential and maintain a high level of service ifit does not constantly assess its performance, and modi fr its practices accordingly to ensure internal accountability. Section X Data Collection The ADE will: I . Collect, interpret, evaluate, and report the monitored data in a lucid, understandable manner so that the parties, the Court, the public, and ADE itself will have meaningful information that indicates the progress of desegregation, uncovers new or continuing problems, and points to needed changes 2. Collect, analyze, and interpret selected data annually for every school in Pulaski County 3. The ADE will produce two semiannual reports which are complementary to each other. The primary focus of each report will be achievement and selected monitoring indicators that impact student achievement 4. Examine the internal data collection and dissemination procedures annually with a view toward eliminating the duplicate collection of data throughout the monitoring process ,.~~ 5. Use the desegregation monitoring process to help the Pulaski County schools meet their desegregation commitments and improve student achievement . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED FEB 9 1999 OfflCEOF OESEGREGATIOM MOll1JIIIII MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE STATE DEFENDANTS INTER VENERS INTER VENERS TO DISTRIBUTE THE DISTRICTS' UNDISPUTED TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEAL TH INSURANCE DAMAGES LRSD, NLRSD and PCS SD (the "Districts") for their Motion state: 1. The Districts have reached a compromise and settlement whereby PCS SD agrees to and does hereby withdraw opposition to the State's methodology for calculating the Districts' damages for teacher retirement and health insurance as set forth on the State's Revised Exhibit 504 filed January 19, 1999, subject to the modification set forth proposed in Districts' Briefin Response to ADE's Submission on the Issues of Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance filed August 19, 1998. Docket No. 3 18 7. The Districts' agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. As a result of the Districts' compromise and settlement, there is no dispute that the Districts' are entitled to the damages as set forth in Revised Exhibit 504. Accordingly, the Districts' seek an immediate order directing the State to pay to the Districts the amounts shown on Revised - Exhibit 504. The State should be directed to make payment within ten days of entry of the Court's Order or to show cause why payment cannot be made within ten days. 1 3. The only remaining issue for the Court to resolve is whether the Districts' damages should be based on their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs or the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by the State to other school districts. The State contends that the Districts' damages should be based on their actual costs. The Districts contend that their damages should be based on the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by the State to other school districts. This issue was the subject of the Districts' Brief in Response to ADE's Submission on the Issues of Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance filed August 19, 1998. Docket No. 3187. In addition to the reasons stated therein, the Districts' believe that Section II.F. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement requires that they be paid the same percentage of their teacher retirement and health insurance costs as the average for all school districts in the state. See - LRSD v. PCSSD, 148 F.3d 9556, 964 n.2 (8th Cir. 1998). 4. In addition to their damages as provided for on Revised Exhibit 504, the Districts should be awarded prejudgment interest. 5. The Districts' memorandum brief in support of this motion is hereby incorporated by reference. WHEREFORE, the Districts pray that the State immediately be ordered to pay the Districts the amounts set forth on Revised Exhibit 504 within ten days of entry of the Court's Order or to 1The Districts believe that Exhibit 504 should be revised a second time to reflect better information obtained by the Districts concerning their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs. The Districts have presented this information to the State for consideration. The Districts reserve the right to present this issue to the Court if no agreement is reached with the State. However, this should not delay the Court's ruling on this Motion. The revised numbers now being proposed by the Districts would increase the Districts damages, and therefore, the State could be ordered to pay any additional damages at a later date. 2 show cause why payment cannot be made within ten days; that the Districts be awarded prejudgment interest on said amounts pursuant to 28 U.S . C. 1961 ; that they be awarded their costs and attorneys' fees expended herein and that they be awarded all other just and proper relief to which they may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 B NOR TH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 F:IHOME\FENDLEY\LRSD\des-tea-mot-dis.wpd 3 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by hand-delivery on thi~day ofFebruary, 1999. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 7220 I Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 20 I East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 7220 I Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 F:IHOMEIFENDLEY\LRSD\des-tu-mot-dis.wpd Christopher Heller John C. Fendley, Jr. 4 AGREEMENT AMONG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, JOSHUA INTERVENORS AND KNIGHT INTERVENORS REGARDING TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEAL TH INSURANCE This Agreement among Little Rock School District ("LRSD"), Pulaski County Special School District ("PCSDD"), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), Joshua Intervenors ("Joshua") and Knight Intervenors ("Knight") regarding teacher retirement and health insurance remedy (the "Agreement") is made and entered into on this 8th day of February, 1999. LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, Joshua, and Knight shall be collectively referred to as the "Parties." LRSD, PCS SD and NLRSD shall be collectively referred to as the "Districts." WHEREAS, the Parties disagree as to the correct method for calculating the three Pulaski County school districts' damages for the State of Arkansas' violation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs; and, WHEREAS, the Parties have determined that it is in the best interest of all of the Parties to reach a voluntary settlement of their disagreement; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED: 1. That the Districts' collective damages for the State of Arkansas' violation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs shall be calculated pursuant to the methodology proposed by ADE as set forth in Court's Exhibit 504; 2. That the Parties shall submit to the Court within five (5) days of this Agreement final numbers for the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school years from which the Districts damages may be calculated using the methodology proposed by ADE as set forth in Court's Exhibit 504. The State should be ordered to pay those damages within fourteen days of this Agreement; 3. The State should be ordered to reimburse the district in future years on the same EXHIBIT "A" monthly schedule as equalization funding using prior year average participation numbers and current year State minimum required contribution numbers, with adjustments to be made in January and June based on current year actual participation numbers. The State should be ordered to make payments for the 1998-99 school year, within thirty days of this Agreement, as necessary to bring it into compliance with this paragraph. 4. That the total amount of damages for the Districts as calculated according to the methodology set forth in court's Exhibit 504 shall be distributed each year as follows : 60% to LRSD, 30% to PCSSD and 10% to NLRSD; 5. That the amounts received by each district pursuant to paragraph 3 above shall 9e regarded as the actual amount of each district's teacher retirement and health insurance remedy. 6. This Settlement Agreement does not resolve the question of whether the State should be required to pay the districts 100% of each district's costs for teacher retirement and health insurance or the average percentage of actual costs received by other school districts in the State. That issue is ripe for adjudication by the Court. 7. That LRSD and PCS SD have entered into a separate agreement related to the Pooling Agreement and challenges to the Act 917 funding system which, in part, serves as consideration for this Agreement; 8. That LRSD and Knight have entered into a separate agreement related to teacher pay which, in part, serves as consideration for this Agreement. 9. That this Agreement may not be altered or modified except by written instrument executed by all Parties; and, 2 - - - ----- - - 10. That the Parties have authorized their respective attorneys to execute this Agreement on their behalf IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement this 8th day of February, 1999. Cnristopher Heller Attorney for LRSD Ste Jone~ Att( 'e : NL~f c{ /'. --r-+-'1.-_ v_L_-_--J _Y_ J;v ? .......,.= 1 J lvv. Walker \ / ttorney for Joshua Intervenors 3 Richard Roachell Attorney for Knight + IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL RECEi\fED DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL FEB 9 1999 OFFICE 0~ DESEGREGATION MONITORING MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE STATE DEFENDANTS INTER VENERS INTER VENERS TO DISTRIBUTE THE DISTRICTS' UNDISPUTED TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE DAMAGES I. Section H.F. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. The Districts' agreement leaves this Court to decide whether the Districts' damages should be based on their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs or the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by the State to other school districts. The State contends that the Districts' damages should be based on their actual costs. The Districts contend that their damages should be based on the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by the State to other school districts. This issue was the subject of the Districts' Brief in Response to ADE's Submission on the Issues of Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance filed August 19, 1998. Docket No. 3187. In addition to the reasons stated therein, the Districts' believe that Section II.F. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement requires that they be paid the same percentage of their teacher retirement and health insurance costs as the average for all school districts in the state. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 148 F.3d 9556, 964 n.2 (8111 Cir. 1998). Section II.F. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement provides: The State will not exclude the Districts from any compensatory education, early childhood development, or other funding programs or discriminate against them in the development of such programs or distribution of funds under any funding programs. (emphasis supplied). In affirming this Court's decision in this case, the Eighth Circuit noted, "This provision may actually fit the present case better than Sections ILE. and ILL., which are the focus of the District Court's opinion and most of the parties arguments." Id. While the Eighth Circuit discussed Section II.F. in the liability context, this Court should consider Section II.F. in determining the appropriate remedy. The State's current method for funding the teacher retirement and health insurance programs results in the average school district in the state receiving approximately 106% of its teacher retirement and health insurance costs. Even so, the State proposes to pay the Districts only 100% of their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs. To pay the districts less than the average amounts to discrimination in violation of Section II.F. Therefore, the Districts' damages should be based on the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by the State to other school districts. II. Prejudgment Interest. The Districts are further entitled to an equitable award to compensate them for the State's delay in paying the Districts' teacher retirement and health insurance costs. As the Eighth Circuit stated in affirming the grant of summary judgment on these issues, "the districts are entitled to be held harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change." Id., 148 F.3d at 968 . The adverse effect on the Districts has manifested itself in many ways, including deprivation of funds -- or the use of 2 funds - to which they have been entitled since 1996. The Districts seek prejudgment interest as a matter of law and equity. The award of "damages" here is ancillary to the prospective relief of continued compliance by the State with its teacher retirement/medical insurance obligations under the Settlement Agreement. As such, there is no Eleventh Amendment bar to an award of prejudgment interest. Cf. Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 437 U.S . 678 (1978)(The Eleventh Amendment does not bar an award of attorney's fees ancillary to a grant of prospective relief). 1 Courts have awarded prejudgment interest in similar situations. For example, the Eighth Circuit has held that courts have the power to award prejudgment interest against state defendants under Title VII, notwithstanding that Title VII does not expressly authorize such awards. Winbush V. Iowa, 66 F.3d 1471, 1482-83 (8th Cir. 1995). Cf Reoppell V. Massachusetts, 936 F.2d 12 (1 st Cir.), cert. denied 502 U.S. 1004 (1991)(Eleventh Amendment does not bar award of prejudgment interest against state in action under Veteran's Reemployment Rights Act if, under normal litigation principles and rules of statutory construction, the district court could have been expected to allow prejudgment interest on underlying recovery; it was not necessary that the Act expressly sanction prejudgment interest). The equitable award of prejudgment interest is akin to the enhancement of attorneys' fees to compensate for delay in payment. Indeed, the Eighth Circuit in Winbush relied upon the attorneys' fee holding and rationale in Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S . 274 (1989), in determining that prejudgment interest was proper in Title VII cases. The Jenkins holding and rationale also support 1 The "no interest" rule articulated by the Supreme Court in Library of Congress v. Shaw, 4 78 U.S. 310 (1986) is strictly limited to the sovereign immunity of the Federal Government. Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 109 S.Ct. 2463 (1989). 3 the request for prejudgment interest by the Districts in the present case. Indeed, in light of the Supreme Court's decision that adjustment of a fee award to account for delay in awarding fees is appropriate and not barred by the Eleventh Amendment, "ot