Court filings: District Court, amended motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance damages; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Report on the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) Preparations for Implementation of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan''; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to the districts' amended motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance damages; District Court, response to Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) and motion to modify settlement agreement; District Court, brief in support of response to Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) and motion to modify settlement agreement; 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. RECEIVED AUG 9 1999 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF WESTERN DIVISION DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL AMENDED MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE STATE TO DISTRIBUTE THE DISTRICTS' TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEAL TH INSURANCE DAMAGES For their amended motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) (the "Districts") state: 1. On February 18, 1997, this Court found that the state changed its method of funding the teacher retirement program to the detriment of the districts and in violation of the settlement agreement. This Court made the same finding with respect to the health insurance matching program on April 22, 1997. On July 1, 1998 the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court's decisions with respect to teacher retirement and health insurance and directed this Court to decide what relief would be appropriate for the districts. 2. After a hearing, all of the other parties agreed to accept the state's proposed - methodology for calculating damages. That methodology is set forth in Court's Exhibit 504. See Exhibit A to "Motion for an Order Directing the State to Distribute the Districts' Undisputed Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance Damages," filed February 9, 1999. 3. On February 9, 1999 the districts asked the Court to order the state to pay the undisputed amount shown in Exhibit 504 for the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school years. On March 4, 1999, this Court entered the requested order. The districts' efforts to reach an agreement with the state for payment for the 1998-99 school year and future years have been unsuccessful. The districts must therefore seek an order from this Court requiring those payments. 4. Beginning with the 1999-2000 school year, the state should be ordered to reimburse the districts each year on the same monthly schedule as equalization funding using prior year average participation numbers and current state minimum required contribution numbers, with adjustments to be made in September of each year using current year actual participation numbers. ~or the 1998-99 school year, the state should be ordered to immediately pay the districts the amount necessary to bring it into compliance with this paragraph. The districts have agreed that the total amount of damages calculated according to the methodology set forth in Court's Exhibit 504 should be distributed each year as follows: 60% to LRSD, 30% to PCSSD and 10% to NLRSD. WHEREFORE, the districts pray that the state be ordered to immediately pay the districts' damages for the 1998-99 school year calculated in accordance with Court's Exhibit 504 subject to an amendment in September, 1999; and, using the methodology in Court's Exhibit 504, to reimburse the districts in future years on the same monthly schedule as equalization funding using prior year average participation numbers and current year state minimum required contribution numbers, with adjustments to be made each September based on current year actual 2 participation numbers; and that the districts be awarded interest, costs, attorneys ' fees and all other just and proper relief to which they may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT FRJDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 ~ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT M. Samuel Jones WRJGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 NationsBank 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501-371-0808 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501-375-1122 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following on this 51h day of August, 1999: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown 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 4 Melissa Guldin Associate Monitor Norman Marshall Associate Monitor Horace Smith Associate Monitor u.s';fh.ED EASTi=RN o,srr,c ' '~.vRT ,, T t,,,,,,NS!\S Report on the r. u ,.. l .ti ti l ,-,09 Little Rock School District's 1 ..:.:., ' '1~ ~ . Preparations for Implementation of it~v-' ... :.:. .'." ::'.-.;-; f'L .::- .- -.., Revised Desegregation and Education Pfair .,_ -' K August 11, 1999 Office of Desegregation Monitoring l[.S. District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor - i:-;,~ Gene Jones Associate Monitor Margie Powell Associate Monitor Polly Ramer Office Manager IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVEO AUG 2 o 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONiTORINQ. LITfLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS ADE'S RESPONSE TO THE DISTRICTS' "AMENDED MOTION FORAN ORDER DIRECTING THE STATE TO DISTRIBUTE THE DISTRICTS' TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE DAMAGES" On May 11, 1999, the Districts filed a motion requesting immediate partial payment of their fiscal year 1999 teacher retirement and health insurance "damages." In that motion the Districts also requested that, for FY 2000, they should be paid such damages "on the same monthly schedule as equalization funding using prior year average participation numbers and current state minimum required numbers, with adjustments to be made in June of each year using current year actual participation numbers." In its response to that motion, filed May 25, 1999, ADE noted that the methodology used to create Court's Exhibit 504 - the methodology the Districts "agreed to accept ... for calculating damages" - requires full-year data on school district employee health insurance participation, for the Districts and for all other school districts in the State. Further, the methodology used to create Exhibit 504 also requires - full-year data concerning health insurance participation by employees of the ODM. As of the date of its response, such data was not available because FY 1999 had not ended and LRSD had not yet provided to ADE data concerning ODM employee health insurance participation for FY 1999. In their "amended" motion the Districts again ask for immediate payment of their teacher retirement and health insurance damages for FY 1999. In addition, the Districts have only slightly modified their proposed schedule for such damage payments for FY 2000. With respect to FY 2000 and beyond, the Districts now state: Beginning with the 1999-2000 school year, the state should be ordered to reimburse the districts each year on the same monthly schedule as equalization funding using prior year average participation numbers and current state minimum required contribution numbers, with adjustments made in September of each year using current year actual participation numbers. Amended motion, ,r 4.1 With respect to the Districts' request for "immediate" payment of their FY 1999 retirement and health insurance damages, the motion is moot. ADE has now obtained complete full-year FY 1999 data on school district retirement costs and health insurance participation and has also received from LRSD full-year FY 1999 retirement and health insurance data for ODM employees, which has enabled it to perform the "Exhibit 504" 1 In its initial motion filed May 11, the Distric:ts correctly noted that there were issues concerning teacher retirement and health insurance" damages" that had not been resolved by this Court. The Districts' amended motion has deleted any reference to unresolved issues, but unfortunately unresolved issues still exist. LRSD and PCSSD have appealed this Court's June 16, 1999 order, in which this Court rejected the Districts' contention that they were entitled to damages to compensate them for more than 100% of their actual retirement and health insurance costs. 2 - damage calculations for FY 1999. See Exhib~t A hereto. The attached calculation and supporting paperwork have already been submitted to the Department of Finance and Administration and warrants payable to the Districts, in the amounts indicated on Exhibit A hereto, should be available shortly. The Districts' request for monthly payments during FY 2000, based upon some form of II averaging" of prior year's participation data, should be denied. As the Districts admit, the Districts "agreed to accept the state's proposed methodology" for calculating damages, and that methodology clearly requires full-year actual cost data for the Districts and all other school districts in the State before the calculation may be performed. More important, though, is the fact that the Districts' proposal makes little sense in light of the way the Exhibit 504 calculations are performed and in light of the availability of the data necessary to perform the Exhibit 504 calculations. For example, as best ADE understands it, the Districts' proposal would require payments II on the same monthly schedule as equalization funding," which means that some sort of estimated payment would need to be made in August of each fiscal year. At the same time, however, the Districts' motion appears to concede th~t in some circumstances final data for the prior fiscal year's damage calculation might not be available until the September after the fiscal year has ended,2 and as the Districts know, information 2 Amended motion, 1 4 (requesting" adjustments to be made in September of each year using actual participation numbers [for the prior fiscal year]). 3 concerning school district retirement matching costs is not available until sometime in October of the fiscal year. While ADE is willing to agree to some form of interim payment schedule in which estimated payment or payments would be made to the Districts at some point or points during the fiscal year with a final accounting and adjustment to be performed when compete fiscal year data is available, the "monthly payment" plan proposed by the Districts, as best ADE can understand it, makes little sense. Accordingly, the Districts' motion should be denied. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney neral 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on August 19, 1999, I caused a copy of the . foregoing document to be served by first class U.S. Mail on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M.SamuelJones,m Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2000 NationsBank Plaza 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 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 Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 5 \ Page 1 State 1998-99 Equalization Additional Distribution Equalization Est. Total for Est Funding Pursuant Eimdin1 D!.lnifii11 D!.lnifit!I R!.lguir!.ld to Qrd!.lr / / Little Rock School District: $ 46,660,674 $ 14,681,738 $ 6,966,462 $ 7,616,276 $ 6,173,264 North Litlle Rock School District: $ 26,187,899 $ 4,914,660 $ 3,917,710 $ 996,941 $ 1,028,877 Pulaski County Special School District: $ 66,864,014 $ 10,032,813 $ 8,367,266 $ 1,676,666 $ 3,086,632 State Totals: $ 1,340,461,886 $ 200,602,491 $ 200,633,098 $ 10,288,773 $ 10,288,773 14.96% ~('c . -,~ ~~ T ~ 11--:r r:> ,1,.(. o~~ -" ...... ._ ---- -------- RECEIVED AUG 3 1 1999 OFflCE 01- DESEGREGATIOtl MONITORING ufol6~cijRT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C'OSRllT'J DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS AUG 2 7 1999 WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By: OEP. CLERK PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO ADE AND MOTION TO MODIFY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT For its Response and Motion, the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") states: 1. LRSD's revised Desegregation and Education Plan requires the reorganization of , LRSD's grade structure to employ the middle school concept in all schools including Magnet - Schools. The Arkansas Department ofEducation ("ADE") did not object to this aspect of the revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 2. The Magnet Review Committee has approved a change in the grade structure and the number of seats at the Magnet Schools for the 1999 school year. According to the MRC's letter to the Court seeking approval of its action, the entire MRC, including the two ADE representatives, voted to change the grade structure and to increase the number of seats in the Magnet Schools. The MRC determined that ADE and the three Pulaski County School Districts should share the cost increase in the same proportion each party now pays to support the Magnet Schools. This is a fair and reasonable approach supported unanimously by representatives of all the parties concerned. 3. The MRC's May 7, 1999 letter to the Court asked the Court to approve a proposed increase in ADE's share of Magnet School funding in the amount of$567,270.00. With respect to the proposed increase in the number of Magnet School seats, the proposed cost increase, and the allocation of the increased costs among the parties, the MRC Chairperson told the Court: "All MRC members agree to the described changes, and the MRC respectfully requests the Court's approval of these changes." 4. The ADE now objects to the changes proposed unanimously by the MRC. No other party has made an objection. The MRC's request should be approved by the Court. 5. The total number of seats potentially funded by ADE under the settlement agreement is 4,065. If the Court does not approve the MRC proposal in its entirety, the Court should at least require the State to continue to fund this number of seats regardless of the fact that the location of some of the seats has been changed because ofrestructuring. 6. The terms of the settlement agreement and the Allen letter obligate ADE to help LRSD achieve unitary status. Magnet Schools are an important part of that effort. A modification of the settlement agreement to permit the changes unanimously supported by the MRC would be a permissible modification of an equitable decree to further the purpose of the decree. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the accompanying Brief, LRSD requests a hearing and prays for an Order approving the MRC's action described in its May 7, 1999 letter to the Court and, if necessary, for an Order modifying the settlement agreement to the extent necessary to approve the MRC's action. 2 Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHRISTOPHER HELLER JOHN C. FENDLEY FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol A venue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 Christopher Heller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following on trusZ}__ ~y of August, 1999: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 NationsBank 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown VIA HAND DELIVERY 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 Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol A venue -==~ ~--- 3 9E~E!l'~~ ufol~~~RT .AUG 31 1999 OFFICEOF fGREGATION MONITORJNQ EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG 2 7 1999 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W McCORMACK, Qbg~K By: -----'"Rifl6DE"P~m&EfRfRi LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE TO ADE AND MOTION TO MODIFY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT The MRC Correctly Decided the Magnet School Issue The Little Rock School District's ("LRSD") Revised Desegregation and Education Plan ("Revised Plan") requires that LRSD change its grade structure: Middle Schools. LRSD shall establish a schedule for the orderly conversion of some or all of its Junior High Schools to Middle Schools for grades 6, 7 and 8 and move the 9th grade to High Schools. As a part of this conversion, LRSD reserves the right fo -change the grade level structure at all of its schools, including Magnet Schools. Revised Plan 3.4. No party objected to this requirement of the Revised Plan. The Magnet Review Committee ("MRC") is the policy making group which governs the Magnet Schools hosted by the Little Rock School District. The MRC is composed of representatives of the parties in the Pulaski County desegregation case with two representatives from the Arkansas Department of Education. On December 15, 1998, the MRC voted unanimously to approve a change in the grade structure and the number of seats at the Magnet Schools for the 1999-2000 school year. The reasons for that vote are set forth in the MRC Chairperson's May 7, 1999 letter to the Court seeking approval of the MRC action. The MRC decisions described in the May 7th letter are clearly the product of cooperative hard work by representatives of all the effected parties. Even though representation on the MRC is weighted in favor of the Arkansas Department of Education, the MRC members were able to reach a unanimous agreement about all of the issues related to restructuring the Magnet Schools. That agreement is well described in the May 7th letter which should be adopted by the Court. ADE's Position is Directly Contrary to its MRC Representatives The ADE has objected to the MRC action and now takes a position directly contrary to the position taken by its two representatives on the MRC. ADE argues that its funding obligations for the Magnet Schools should be limited in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. The MRC clearly decided to proportionately increase the funding obligations of the three Pulaski County School Districts and the ADE and seeks the Court's permission to alter the terms of the Magnet School stipulation and the March 1989 settlement agreement to the extent necessary to implement its decision concerning restructuring of the Magnet Schools. ADE Should be Estopped to Oppose its MRC Representatives The representatives of the MRC worked on this issue for a long time before their December 15, 1998 decision. The ADE has been on notice for all of that time about the position taken by its representatives and, ultimately, the vote of the MRC. After all the time and effort devoted to this issue by the MRC, the ADE should not be allowed to take a position directly contrary to the position taken by its representatives and relied upon by the other members of the MRC for almost a year. This Court has the equitable power to prevent the State from attempting to nullify the position taken in good faith by the State's representatives on the MRC. The Eighth Circuit Court 2 of Appeals has previously addressed an estoppel argument in this case. In LRSD v. PCSSD, 56 F.3d 904,914 {8th Cir. 1995) the Eighth Circuit discussed Joshua's estoppel argument that LRSD should be barred from closing Ish because Ish's low attendance was due to LRSD's failure to implement its recruitment duties. The Eighth Circuit resolved Joshua's estoppel argument as follows: We have recognized that "estoppel is an equitable doctrine, and it should not be given effect beyond what is necessary to accomplish justice between the parties." Maitland v. University of Minnesota, 43 F.3d 357, 364 {8th Cir. 1994). Justice would not be served by requiring Ish to remain open when the evidence indicates that the goal of desegregation will be served by closing it. Thus, Joshua's estoppel argument must fail. Id. at 915. In this case, however, the MRC's action in restructuring the Magnet Schools promotes desegregation. Thus, ADE could appropriately be estopped from attempting to reverse the position taken by its two representatives on the MRC. - Modification of the Settlement Agreement In addition to its equitable power to estop the ADE from taking a position contrary to its MRC representatives, this Court clearly has the authority to approve the MRC's action by granting a modification of the settlement agreement to the extent necessary to implement the MRC' s decision. The United States Supreme Court in Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992) outlined the standard for modification of a consent decree: [A] party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree. If the moving party meets this standard, the Court should consider whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance. Id. at 393, 116 L.Ed.2d at 866. The Eighth Circuit applied the Rufo standard in affirming this Court's decision to close Ish Incentive School and to assign the former Ish attendance zone students 3 to the new King Interdistrict School. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 56 F.3d 904, 914 (8th Cir. 1995). It held that modification was appropriate where the modification furthered the goal of desegregation. Id. The Eighth Circuit's application of Rufo is consistent with the rule of equity which allows the Court to modify an equitable decree to further the purpose of the decree. See e.g., Larkin Minnesota, Inc. v. Wray, 881 F.Supp. 1413, 1419 (D. Minn. 1995). It is also consistent with decisions from other jurisdictions which have identified myriad changed circumstances which justify modification. See, e.g., Jacksonville Branch, NAACP v. Duval County School Board. 978 F.2d 157 4, 1582 (11 th Cir. 1992) ("Modification [ of a consent decree] may be considered when ( 1) a significant change in facts or law warrants change and the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the change, (2) significant time has passed and the objectives of the original agreement have not been met, (3) continuance is no longer warranted, or ( 4) a continuation would be inequitable and each side - has a legitimate interest to be considered."). Therefore, the issue before the Court is whether the MRC action described in its May 7, 1999 letter would further the goal of achieving a unitary school system. The Magnet Schools were among the very first methods to promote desegregation agreed upon by the parties to this case. They predate the settlement agreement. It has always been a priority among the parties, through their representatives on the MRC, to make certain that the Magnet Schools are well run and adequately funded. The Magnet Schools have established a reputation as providing a high quality education in a racially balanced setting. The MRC' s decision makes good sense for the Magnet Schools and will enable those schools to continue to promote county wide desegregation. This Court should therefore 4 adopt and approve the action of the MRC described in its May 7, 1999 letter, even if it is necessary to modify the settlement agreement to the extent necessary to do so. The changed circumstance which required MRC action is the restructuring ofLRSD schools for educational reasons. The MRC's decisions about how the adjust the Magnet School program in response to restructuring are suitably tailored to the changed circumstance. They represent the minimum necessary change to the settlement agreement in order to fairly maintain the educational and financial foundations of the Magnet Schools. Conclusion The Arkansas Department of Education should be estopped from taking a position directly contrary to the position taken for the past year by its MRC representatives. If the Court determines that an estoppel is not appropriate in this case, the Court should modify the settlement agreement to the limited extent necessary to implement the MRC's decision. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Christopher Heller John C. Fendley FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol A venue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-201 i 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following on this'Z7~ of August, 1999: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 NationsBank 200 West Capitol A venue Little Rock, AR 72201 6 Ms. Ann Brown VIA HAND DELIVERY 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 Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED SEP 1 1999 Off!CH'f DESmRESA1UlY ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS 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 ADE' s Project Management Tool for August, 1999. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney neral 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 ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL 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 (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of August 31, 1999 i~!iiiifi~i;~iwdi~t~~~,j~,~!%.\~~!~}ii~~lifiil!!il!~l:~~i~il'~411 i;ij t6i 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. This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.