Court filings concerning Court approval of administrative reorganization, ODM report, ''Disciplinary Sanctions in the Little Rock School District (LRSD)'', and PCSSD motion to approve modification to student assignment plan

District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for Court approval of administrative reorganization; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Disciplinary Sanctions in the Little Rock School District (LRSD)''; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to approve modification to student assignment plan; District Court, brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to modify student assignment plan; District Court, opposition of the Joshua intervenors to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for Court approval of administrative reorganization; District Court, supplement to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for Court approval of administrative reorganization; District Court, order; 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. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUN O 5 2000 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAME]W.~McO RMJACK, CLERK WESTERN DMSION By '\ t l (\ /\A V ~ ' - .... ~ DEP filRi<'- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. I, et al., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * lntervenors. * ORDER Before the Court are the proposed budgets for the Office of Desegregation Monitoring for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001.1 Without objection, the Court finds the proposed budgets should be and are hereby approved. -f'l"-- IT IS SO _ORDERED THIS s._ DAY OF JUNE, 2000 i ~,t~21t C FJUD ' UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 Docket no. 3361. rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COUPLJ/tN7! WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(1) FRCP JH 0~ ~Qp BY zzt> . _ 3. 3 6 4 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903-1977) RO BERTS. LINDSEY ( 1913-1991) IS.A.AC A. SC OTT. JR . JOHN G. LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN 0 . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX . JR , GORDON S. RATHER . JR . TERRY L . MATHEWS OAVIO M. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD. JR . PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JEN NINGS , JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KA THLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES 111 JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHAR LES C. PRICE CHARLES T . CO LEMAN JAMES J . GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER. JR. CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E . MAY GREGORY T . JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNST EIN WALTER McSPADOEN ROGER 0 . ROWE NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY Mr. John Waiker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: PCSSD Dear Counsel and Ms. Brown: 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371 -0808 FAX (501) 376 -9442 WE BSITE : www .wl j .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M. TOCO WOOD Writ er's Di rect Dial No . 501-212 -1 273 m1ones(llwlj .com June 9, 2000 TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS JAMES M. MOODY. JR . KATH RYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVtN W. KENN EDY JERRY J . SALLINGS FRED M. PERKINS Ill WILLIAM STUAR T JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON C. TAO BOHANNON MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE M. WEISENFELS ROBERT W. GEORGE J . ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T . ALLEN Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RECEIVED Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon & Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 JUN 1 2 2000 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING , Enclosed is a copy of PCSSD's Motion for Court Approval of Administrative Reorganization which is being filed today. MSJ/ao Encl. 182475-v1 Cordially, WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD's MOTION FOR COURT APPROVAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE REORGANIZATION 1. Attached to this motion as Exhibit A is a Business Case dated June 9, 2000, supporting the combining of the responsibilities of the current offices of desegregation and pupil personnel. The specific reasons prompting and supporting this request are set forth in the Business Case. 2. In 1992, the PCSSD proposed a reorganization that, among other things, would have combined the responsibilities of the Offices of Desegregation and Pupil Personnel. The matter was litigated, but before it became necessai y for the Court to rule, an unexpected infusion of funds permitted the PCSSD to abandon this reorganization at that time. 3. The issue eventually was adjudicated in the context of a request for attorney's fees. In an Order dated December 1, 1992, this Court held that: [t]he Court finds that this reorganization was not so fundamentally in violation of the goals of the settlement plan that the Court would have reversed it. On the other hand, this Court would have permitted this reorganization to go forward with the understanding that the Court would 182441-v1 continue to monitor compliance with the settlement plan and would order a different organizational structure only if the new one proved unsatisfactory. 4. The PCSSD now, of course, operates pursuant to a new plan which does not contain the same rigid administrative hierarchy as the previous plan. 5. The district believes that it would be prudent, among other organizational changes it is making, to now effect the same reorganization that was proposed and evaluated by this Court in 1992. 6. This matter will be presented to the PCSSD Board of Directors on Tuesday, June 13, 2000. The Administration expects that the Board will approve the reorganization. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this Court approving the reorganization as described herein. 182441-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By -:-:-~..,,,---:- nes Iii (7 ulaski C t 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 9, 2000, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 182441-v1 .amueloneslll 3 Pulaski County Special School District Business Case June 9, 2000 Submitted to Judge Susan Weber Wright 1. Executive Summary: Pulaski County Special School District seeks to consolidate the positions of Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel and Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation into one new, blended position entitled Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Personnel. This administrative change will allow for greater accountability, efficiency of operation, as well as cost savings for the District. 2. Background: . The Assistant Superintendents for Pupil Personnel and for Desegregation will both retire from the District on June 30, 2000. These positions have compatible areas of accountability and responsibility for equity and student affairs . within the District. These positions share an affinity that the District wishes to build on. Streamlining these positions into one area of responsibility will be an efficient way to address the Issues of accountability and equity faced by the District. 3. Problem Statement: Pulaski County Special School District has been experiencing decreasing enrollment, triggering declining State funding levels. Reductions In personnel are being carried out to provide revenue for employee raises in 2000 - 2001. Besides the elimination of fifty-four (54) teaching positions, the Superintendent is proposing eliminating five (5) district office and three (3) assistant principal positions. In his proposed reorganization, he proposes streamlining operations with fewer people and reconfigured job responslbllltles. 4. Alternatives: Since personnel salaries make up over eighty percent (80%) of the operating budget and remaining expenses are largely fixed costs, Increasing salary costs In-a condition of declining revenues leaves two other alternatives, in addition to the proposed action. First, the District could continue current overstaffed parameters and pay for raises out of fund reserves (savings) which amount, at present, to about $8 million. Gradually, the fund reserve would be depleted, causing deficits and leaving the District In a precarious financial state. The second alternative would be to deny employees raises, including experience steps and cost of living adjustments. I EXHIBIT jJ 5. Action Recommended: Because both the Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel and Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation are retiring June 30, 2000, there is a propitious opportunity is being afforded to consolidate the two positions into one new one entitled Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Personnel. 6. Objective: To reduce one assistant superintendent position and to save $105,000 per year by merging the two divisions. A. Goal Support: The functions of the pupil personnel and desegregation divisions have a clear affinity and significant interface. Attendance zoning, majority -to-minority issues, transfer requests, and minority student and personnel recruitment are major examples. The two connected areas can more effectively produce results to advance the goals of the District and Plan 2000 in a consolidated division. B. Benefits: . Benefits to the District would be in accountability, streamlining, efficiency of operations, reduction of administrative overhead, and the resulting cost savings. 7. Impact: The Impact on District programs will be positive, as the administrative accountability will be more concise. In the same manner, the District's desegregation plan, Plan 2000, will not suffer any negative consequence of this action and will, in fact, also be more efficiently managed. 8. Hesourcec: The two divisions will be merged. Existing personnel will be available as will the financial resources of these divisions. Reconfiguration to afford more productivity and proficient use of resources will be the result. Recurring cost savings of $10~,000 per year will be yielded. 9. Plan for Implementation: The Superintendent will bring his proposal to the Board of Directors at the June 13, 2000 meeting. With the Board's approval and the Court's acceptance, the plan will be Implemented as soon as is expedient. 2 Margie L. Powell Associate Monitor DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT June 14, 2000 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor PoJly Ramer Office Manager IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUN 2 6 ZOOQ OfFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN The PCSSD, for its motion states: 1. The PCSSD proposes to modify certain student assignments within the southeast sector. 2. The proposal is fully explained in the accompanying memorandum brief and the exhibits and business case attached to this motion. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an Order of this Court approving its proposed modification of student assignments in the southeast sector. Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 .:. By 'i(,1, ~u..d- ~ '~ ~,4.JIJ,., -, 6J,Ju;b_ M. Samuel Jones 1(76060) l'1 16 , '\ Attorneys for Pulaski County Special 1 'iJ School District 185439-v1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 2-3 , 2000, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 185439-v1 2 SCHOOL CAPACITY INFORMATION PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 30, 1999 - HIGH SCHOOL SCHOOL CAPACITY Jacksonville 1025 Mills 780 North Pulaski 900 Oak Grove Jr./Sr. 935 Robinson 506 Sylvan Hills 998 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SCHOOL CAPACITY Fuller 945 Jacksonville Middle 800 Jacksonville Junior High 800 Northwood 964 Robinson (2-rooms devided) 486 Alpha Academy 300 Sylvan Hills 925 - ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SCHOOL CAPACITY Adkins 370 Arnold Drive 420 Baker 330 Bates 768 Bayou Mete 660 Cato 576 Clinton 833 College Station 340 Crystal Hill 820 Dupree 465 Fuller 526 Harris 525 Jacksonville 785 Landmark 568 Lawson 325 Oak Grove 476 Oakbrooke 500 Pine Forest 556 Pinewood 523 - Robinson 450 Scott 280 Sherwood 460 EXHIBIT Sylvan Hills 456 TMoullrereslol nT aylor 455700 I 4 OLD BATES White Black Total SALINE CO. STUDENTS White 62 Black 3 153 199 57% 352 LANDMARK White 224 58% Black 163 42% Total 387 OPTION 1 OPTION 2 Landmark Landmark minus minus Wrightsville Wrightsville plus Arch Street White 214 75% White 275 Black 71 25% Black 107 Total 285 Total 382 72% 28% ---- ARCH ST. STUDENTS White 61 -- Black 36 OPTION 3 Landmark minus Wrightsville plus Arch Street & Saline Co. White 337 75% Slack 110 25% Total 447 -----~~---~-O-L~D ~FU-L-L-E-R~ ----, - ,,,_ Whitt! 161 43% ----- ', --------+-------+----1 ----.,,. .,. Blaclc 217 - - -- Totz,I 378 57% \ ,,' WRIGHTSVILLE , , ' STUDENTS White 11 Black 92 Total 103 NEW BATES White 314 43% Black 416 57% Total 730 OPTION 1 OPTION 2 :?T!ON 3 New Bates New Bates ~Jaw 3a~=s plus plus J/us Wrightsville Wrightsville .'iriQ ntsiilia minus minus Arch Street ,J..rr;h .3:r;at 3 S8linJ C;:i. White 325 39% White 264 36 \1'/hite 202 30~',, Black 508 61% Black 472 64% Slack --169 70% Total 833 Tota l 736 Total Oi 1 1. PCSSD BUSINESS CASE FOR MODIFICATION OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN JUNE 23, 2000 Executive Summary: The PCSSD seeks to modify certain aspects of its student assignment plan respecting Landmark and new Bates Elementary Schools in the southeast sector to reassign certain students closer to their neighborhoods and to reduce the amount of transportation for those students. The particulars of the reassignment are reflected in Exhibit 8 to the motion, which accompanies this Business Case. 2. Background: Last year this Court approved the construction of the new Bates Elementary School and the transfer of the student bodies from old Bates and Fuller Elementary School to new Bates. Since the Court's decision, and as construction of new Bates has proceeded, interest has increased in the affected communities to effect a reassignmenL of certain students to schools closer to their homes. - 3. Problem Statement: The reassignment proposed projects that new Bates would have an initial student body that would be 70% black and 30% white. At the same time, the proposed reorganization would reduce transportation, assign more students to schools closer to their homes and likely assist the District in reacquiring students who have left the District. The problem, thus, becomes essentially one of a balancing act and selection from among competing priorities. 4. Alternatives: One alternative is to simply retain the status quo and make no reassignment proposals. The alternatives are set forth and explained in Exhibit 8. This action would be detrimental to both children and their parents by requiring larger bus routes. 5. Action Recommended: The impetus for this move has come from the African American Community. Because the District believes that the projected opening enrollment percentages can be ameliorated over time and that the number of students attending schools in the southeast sector could ultimately grow, that the proposed reassignment should be implemented in the interest of children, particularly the black children in Wrightsville who - would otherwise be bused away from their neighborhood school (new Bates). EXHIBIT 185373-v1 I 6. Objective: To accommodate the desires of many in the community to have their students assigned to the closest available elementary school and to reduce transportation without departing unreasonably from the District's student assignment goal. 7. Impact: The reassignment should save the District money in terms of transportation, should promote parental involvement in the schools, should promote additional voluntary transfers and should result in re-attracting students to this area who have previously left the District. 8. Resources: The proposed reassignment should reduce transportation costs in an amount not yet quantified. ;. 9. Plan for Implementation: The District's Board of Directors, on June 15, 2000, approved this rezoning subject to discussions with Joshua and approval by the Court. If approved, the District proposes to implement all aspects of the reassignment for the upcoming 2000-01 school year with the exception of the shift of the arts and music programs from Landmark to new Bates which would not occur until the following school year when the District anticipates it will have implemented the middle school concept district-wide. 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PCSSD MOTION TO MODIFY STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN Introduction 11Ece1:veo -JUN '2' 6 -~ioOb OfflCEOf, ______., i~ \BEGRESATION 'MONIT-ORINU PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Last year this Court approved the closing of Bates and Fuller Elementary Schools and the transfer of their student bodies to the new Bates Elementary School located off 145 Street, just west of the Community of Wrightsville in the southeast sector of the PCSSD. (Docket #3281 ). As the new Bates School nears completion, pressure has mounted from the community to consider changes in the student assignment pattern for new Bates and Landmark Elementary. Pursuant to a motion proposed by the African American Board Member representing the greater Wrightsville area and virtually all of the southeast sector of the district, the District's Board of Education voted recently to propose certain student assignment rearrangements and to submit those to Joshua and the Court for consideration. The proposed changes, and the reasons for them, are fully explained in the business case (Exhibit "C" attached to the motion) and in this memorandum. 184914-v1 Background As part of the territorial exchange ordered in this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ordered the transfer of the Granite Mountain community from the LRSD to the PCSSD. This transfer, together with the transfer of the southwest Little Rock area to the LRSD, created a land-locked, majority black area of the PCSSD which the parties have consistently referred to throughout this litigation as the southeast sector. In the wake of the territorial transfer which left the PCSSD short of elementary seats, the PCSSD acquired the old Timex facility as an emergency measure, converted it to an elementary school, and opened it as Bates Elementary with an enrollment in excess of 800 students. Since that date, the enrollment of "old" Bates has dropped to 41t 352 students, of whom 43% are white and 57% are black. During the same time period, the PCSSD has seen the enrollment at Fuller Elementary shrink to 378 students, of whom 161 are white and 217 are black. (Exhibit "B" attached to the motion). As previously noted, the Court has approved the transfer of these two student bodies to the new Bates Elementary School. The current capacity of old Bates is 768 students and that of Fuller Elementary is 526 students. (Please see Exhibit "A" attached to the motion). Landmark Elementary, with a current capacity of 468 students, had an enrollment last year of 387 students, of whom 224 were white and 163 were black. Of the white enrollees, approximately 51 are white students recruited from north of the river for the school art and music specialty programs. 184914-v1 2 The Proposed Changes As Exhibit "B" reflects, there are three areas of student population proposed for reassignment. They are a mostly white area currently assigned to Bates hereafter referred to as the Arch Street students. A group of predominantly white students, heretofore assigned to Fuller, will be referred to as the Saline County students. A group of predominantly black students from the Wrightsville area, and proximate to the new school, will be referred to as the Wrightsville students. They are currently assigned to Landmark. Although it will statistically impact initial racial balance projections, the PCSSD proposes to shift the Saline County and Arch Street students from new Bates to Landmark and to assign the Wrightsville students from Landmark to new Bates. The - initially projected enrollments occasioned by these shifts project Landmark to be 25% black and new Bates to be 70% black. However, for reasons that will be explained hereafter, the District genuinely believes that these percentages can be rather expeditiously improved and that the immediate and proximate impact is to benefit children of both races and reduce unnecessary busing. The Wrightsville Students These students are located, geographically, on the far east side of the southeast sector. Until the early 1990s, these Wrightsville students were all schooled in the neighborhood at J.C. Cook Elementary School. After it burned, the decision was made not to rebuild and these students were shifted to Landmark. If no change is made, the same students will be transported twice daily past the new Bates Elementary School en - route to Landmark. To eliminate this prospect, and to substantially reduce the 184914-v1 3 - transportation burdens on these students, the PCSSD believes it to be educationally sound to reassign these students to new Bates which, in the context of the geography of the PCSSD, would act as a neighborhood school for the Wrightsville students. The Arch Street Students These students are located, geographically, on the west side of the southeast sector. Most of these students attended Baseline Elementary when it was part of the PCSSD. After the territorial shift, they were necessarily reassigned to new Bates. While the assignment to old Bates did not create a substantial transportation burden for these students, their continued assignment to new Bates would. Because this group o( students largely mirrors the racial composition of the PCSSD as a whole, and because :::.. their assignment to Landmark would represent a somewhat reduced transportation obligation for them, the PCSSD believes it to be educationally sound for these students to be assigned to Landmark Elementary. The Saline County Students These students are located, geographically, on the far west side of the southeast sector. Prior to the desegregation plan, these students were assigned to Landmark Elementary as their closest school. In an effort to racially balance Fuller Elementary, these students were reassigned during the late 1980s to Fuller Elementary School, a considerable distance from their homes. To partially replace the Wrightsville students proposed for reassignment to new Bates, to reduce the transportation obligation for the Saline County students, who would otherwise be bused from the west to the east side of the sector, and to hopefully recoup some of the student losses that the District has 184914-v1 4 experienced from the Saline County area, the PCSSD believes it to be educationally sound to transfer the Saline County students from new Bates to Landmark. The Landmark Specialty Students The PCSSD is also seeking permission to shift the art and music specialty program from Landmark to new Bates for the 2001-2002 school year. Even without the specialty students, Landmark is projected to be comfortably within the student assignment ratios for the PCSSD. The PCSSD further believes that new Bates would prove an attractive alternative to the specialty students since it would provide a shorter and more convenient transportation trip and would house the specialty students in a brand new school. All of these specialty students are white. Their transfer to new Bates would significantly reduce the initially projected minority enrollment at the school and, over time, the PCSSD believes that the transfer of the program would increase the number of white transfer students electing to attend the school, thereby annually moving new Bates closer to its ultimate racial balance goals. Because the sixth graders will be at the new Bates for the 2000-2001 year until the sixth grade is shifted to what will be Fuller Middle in 2001-2002, the transfer of the specialty program needs to be delayed until space opens up. By delaying the movement of this program until 2001-2002, the PCSSD should have ample time to educate and persuade the specialty students and their parents that movement of the specialty program to new Bates is a sound educational move. 184914-v1 5 The Long Term As this court is aware, the PCSSD proposes to shift to a middle school structure district wide beginning with the 2001-2002 school year. Little Rock has already completed this reorganization and the Court has previously approved the middle school concept in PCSSD's Jacksonville area. (Docket #2647). The PCSSD believes that the middle school concept, combined with the shifting of the Saline County students to Landmark and the reconstitution of the art and music specialty program at new Bates, will ultimately result in an increased white enrollment in these southeast sector schools. Except for the middle school concept, nothing about the current proposal will modify the feeder pattern to Fuller Junior High School and Mills High School. Neither will any of the proposals contained, herein, affect the current student assignment effort at College Station Elementary. It is also worth mentioning that the shift of the Fuller Elementary student body to new Bates will bring with it the string orchestra specialty program currently provided at Fuller Elementary. The PCSSD believes that the reconstitution of the art and music program from Landmark at new Bates, combined with the move of the string orchestra program from Fuller Elementary to new Bates, and the institution of a full-time physical education curriculum, will work a synergy making these programs even more attractive to white students from north of the Arkansas River since those interested in music in all of its dimensions will have more opportunities for this experience at new Bates if the PCSSD proposal is approved. 184914-v1 6 For all the foregoing reasons, PCSSD prays for an order of this Court approving its motion to modify student assignment plan. 184914-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By V . J~~ 'f:f i-~6..J, ~ M. Samuel Jones 7(i666oj ( q7( 5<-J) Attorneys for Pulaski County Special School District 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On JuneZ..3 , 2000, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 184914-v1 8 - -- REC.EIV~D bJi__;--:[) EAST~ffN ~if ~,hl ~~~~SAS JUN 2 J 2000 JAMES 'N. McCGRMACK, LERK By: _____ _,,D.,...E""P-,-.C"LE-.-RroK JUN 2 8 2000 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V CASE NO. 82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT INTER VENO RS INTER VENO RS OPPOSITION OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS TO PCSSD'S MOTION FOR COURT APPROVAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE REORGANIZATION The Joshua Intervenors oppose the defendants' motion. First, there were no discussions as contemplated by the desegregation plan between the parties prior to this matter having been presented to the Court. See Letter from Mr. Jones to the Court dated May 24, 2000 as Exhibit A; Letter to the Court from undersigned Counsel dated June 12, 2000 as Exhibit B. Second, there is no brief attached to the motion as required by the local rules. Third, the business case does not address desegregation issues nor does it address how the changes will effectuate the desegregation commitments of the revised desegregation plan. Fourth, the business case is one which purports to save the school district money and nothing else. It does not address the desegregation staff nor define the work duties and responsibilities of those individuals. There is not a proposed job description of the new position that has been shared with Joshua. Indeed, there are myriad problems that should have been considered in the normal course of addressing desegregation issues that have not been addresse&' by the proposal. These matters could have been dealt with as contemplated by the desegregation plan had the administration not sought to evade the Joshua Intervenors and had they not sought to denigrate Joshua's role in the desegregation process. Fifth, the Superintendent for Desegregation had a responsibility in the past for oversight of the Pupil Personnel Department and other departments, at least to the extent of identification of potential problems, which impeded desegregation and to make recommendations to the Superintendent directly. The current proposal is unclear, at the least, about what the duties of the position are or will be in the future. Sixth, the combination of the two positions will mean the elimination of two black - administrators from the major administrative hierarchy of the District. There is no reference to the process that the District will use to fill positions and it was, therefore, highly suspect that the District will fill the two vacated positions with white administrators who have already been selected. Seventh, to this date. Neither the Superintendent nor his major administrator, Dr. James Fox, have had any meetings whatsoever with counsel for Joshua Intervenors regarding any issue. As stated earlier, it is Joshua's opinion that they are uninformed and uncertain to the desegregation initiatives and commitments that have been in place in the District for years. (See Joshua's previous brief to the Court regarding the District's Motion to Approve Revised Desegregation Plan). Because of the uncertainties of the Defendants' proposal and how it will impact desegregation, and because Defendants' by p