Court filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for approval of Plan 2000; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) brief in support of Plan 2000; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for approval of Plan 2000

The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS NOV 0-5 J999 JAM~~~.:_ Mff!ORMACK, CLERK By: \/_ ~ \1 !\A\~ OEP CL,ERJ('"' This Order addresses two matters: the Magnet Review Committee's (MRC's) request to change the magnet schools' grade structure and number of seats and the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion to modify the settlement agreement. After careful consideration, the Court approves the MR.C's proposed changes regarding grade structure and seating configuration; this approval does not extend to proposals regarding funding for the approved changes. Further, the Court denies LRSD's motion to modify the settlement agreement to the extent LRSD seeks modification of the total number of magnet school seats the State must fund (4,065). However, to the extent LRSD seeks modification of the number of state-funded seats within individual magnet schools, the Court holds LRSD's motion in abeyance, pending further briefing from the parties. 1 - I. In a letter to the Court, the MRC requested approval to change the grade structure of the interdistrict magnet schools and the number of seats within five of the six schools. 1 The following chart is based on information contained in the MR.C's letter. It illustrates that, relative to the number of seats stipulated in the settlement agreement, the proposed changes decrease the number of seats in the four magnet elementary schools, increase the number of seats at Parkview, and leave unchanged the number of seats at Mann. 2 As a result, the total number of seats will increase by 132 (from 4,065 to 4,197). School Booker Carver Gibbs Williams Mann Parkview TOTALS Seats Stipulated in Settlement Agreement 660 613 351 515 935 991 4,065 Revised Seats!IJil~SJJ 4,191Mil The MRC projects that the proposed seating changes will increase costs by $129 per student. Further, the MRC proposes that the three Pulaski County school districts and the State 1 Docket no. 3269, attachment. The MRC explains that the changes would enable the magnet schools to conform to the changed structure ofLRSD schools. Pursuant to its revised desegregation plan, the LRSD reorganized its traditional elementary, junior high, and senior high schools into a new configuration, which includes middle schools. 2 See letter attached to docket no. 3269. 2 share in paying for the increased costs as follows: Party State North Little Rock School District Pulaski County Special School District Little Rock School District Proposed Increase $567,270 74,373 138,171 354,917 The Court gave the parties an opportunity to respond to the MR.C's request and advised that it would approve the changes if no objections were filed. 3 The State responded it did not object to changing the magnet schools' structure and seating, but did object to providing funds for more magnet school seats than specified in the parties' settlement agreement. 4 LRSD responded with a motion to modify the settlement agreement, 5 and the State replied. 6 II. No party has objected to the MR.C's request to change the magnet schools' grade structure and seating numbers. Accordingly, the Court approves the changes in structure and seating but emphasizes that the approval does not extend to MR.C's proposal for funding the cost of the approved changes-the subject to which the Court now turns. The State asserts it does not object to restructuring the magnet schools but does object to paying costs associated with magnet school enrollment in excess of the seating capacities set forth 3 Docket no. 3269. 4 Docket no. 3276. 5 Docket nos. 3292 & 3293. 6 Docket no. 3296. 3 - in the settlement agreement. 7 Part II of the settlement agreement states, in pertinent part, as follows: D. Restrictions on Funding Magnet Schools The State will have no further obligation to contribute any additional funds to magnet schools other than under paragraph II.E. below. . . . Any reference to the six existing magnet schools in this settlement shall mean, for funding purposes, up to their present seating capacities. Those seating capacities are as follows: Carver 613 Williams 515 Gibbs 351 Booker 660 Mann 935 Parkview 991 E. Continuation of Existing Funding In addition to any payment described elsewhere in this agreement, the State will continue to pay the following costs: (1) The State's portion of magnet school operational costs for the six existing magnet schools (Gibbs, Booker, Carver, Parkview, Mann and Williams) .... Despite the funding limitation included in the settlement agreement, LRSD argues the State is estopped from refusing to pay its share of costs associated with the approved changes because two members of the MRC, who represent the Arkansas Department of Education, voted that each District and the State would share in paying for the increased costs. 8 The Court disagrees that under a theory of estoppel, the State must provide more funding for magnet schools than required by the settlement agreement. For an estoppel theory to apply, "the party who is to be estopped, or one in privity with that party, must have asserted a fact or a claim, or made a promise, that another party relied on .... "Maitland v. University of Minnesota, 43 F.3d 357, 364 (8th Cir. 1994). Additionally, "estoppel is an equitable doctrine, and 7 Docket no. 3276 8 Docket no. 3293. 4 it should not be given effect beyond what is necessary to accomplish justice between the parties." Id The Court does not find that justice requires invoking an estoppel theory in the present situation or that the State (by proxy) asserted it would fund more magnet school seats than required under the settlement agreement. Alternatively, LRSD moves the Court to modify the parties' settlement agreement with the State "to the extent necessary to implement MR.C's decisions." In 1991, the Eighth Circuit explained that this Court may approve modifications of the parties' consent decree when proposed modifications merely alter details that do not affect the parties' substantive commitments to desegregation. Little Rock Sch. Dist. , 949 F.2d 253, 255 (81h Cir. 1991). Ordinarily, parties should consent to such minor changes, but "if a party refuses to consent and the moving party has a reasonable basis for its request, the court should modify the decree." - Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 112 S. Ct. 748, 760 n.7 (1992). A different standard applies when the parties dispute a proposed modification that alters a basic agreement among the parties. In these cases, a party may obtain relief from a consent decree when it is no longer equitable that the decree should have prospective application, "not when it is no longer convenient to live with the terms of the consent decree." Rufo, 112 S. Ct. at 760. "Accordingly a party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree." Rufo, 112 S. Ct. at 760; also see Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski Cty. Special Sch. Dist. , 56 F.3d 905, 914 (8th Cir. 1995). A party seeking modification may meet its initial burden by showing a significant change in factual conditions or the law. See id The Court finds that under the parties' settlement agreement, the State may not be 5 required to fund more than 4,065 magnet school seats. This proviso constitutes a basic agreement among the parties, not a dispensable detail. LRSD asserts the Court should modify the agreement, to the extent necessary to implement restructuring of the magnet schools, because the magnet schools promote desegregation. However, the Court finds that LRSD's general assertion falls short of establishing that significant changes in fact or law warrant revision of the provision limiting the State's funding to 4,065 magnet school seats. Finally, LRSD urges that the Court should at least require that the State continue funding the total number of magnet school seats stipulated in the settlement agreement (4,065). Under LRSD's interpretation of the agreement, the State must fund at least 77 new seats at Parkview, to offset the reduction in seats at Booker, Carver, Gibbs, and Williams, and insure the State continues to fund a total of 4,065 seats.9 The State asserts that the settlement agreement limits the State's funding obligations to costs associated with a maximum number of seats for each school: 613 seats at Carver, 515 seats at Williams, 351 seats at Gibbs, 660 seats at Booker, 935 seats at Mann, and 991 seats at Parkview.10 The State maintains that under the settlement agreement, the stipulated number of seats for each school is fixed and does not vary according to changes in the number of seats in other schools. The Court has concluded it lacks a proper basis to increase the total number of magnet ' school seats the State must fund beyond 4,065. However, it isnot clear whether the number of stipulated seats for each individual school, as set forth in the settlement agreement, involves a substantive commitment (which may not be modified absent a showing of significant change in fact or law) or a detail (which may be modified when a reasonable basis for modification exists). 9 See table, supra page 3. 10 Docket no. 3276, page 3. 6 The Court requests that the parties brief the Court regarding this issue. m. THEREFORE, no party having objected to MR.C's request for approval to change the interdistrict magnet schools' grade structure and seat numbers, the Court hereby approves the proposed changes. The Court's approval does not extend to the Committee's proposals for funding. FURTHER, the Court declines increasing the total number of magnet school seats funded by the State, and to this extent, LRSD's motion to modify the parties' settlement agreement with the State is hereby DENIED IN PART [docket no. 3292]. FURTHER, the Court directs the parties to brief the Court regarding whether under the settlement agreement, the stipulated number of state-funded seats for individual magnet schools may vary (providing the total number of state-funded seats remains at 4,065) without disrupting the substantive commitments contained in the agreement. To this extent, LRSD's motion to modify the parties' settlement agreement with the State is hereby HELD IN ABEYANCE [docket no. 3292]. FURTHER, the parties have to and including 60 days from entry of this Order, to submit the requested briefs. ~ - ~ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS~DAY OF ,< , 1999 ~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN ~:=ce WITH RULE se AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ~ i./:;>:-CJ1 BYJiZC:...i .---- 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAN 2000 The PCSSD for its motion, states: NOV 1 8 1999 OfflCEOF DESEGREGATION MDNITORJUB PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. The PCSSD petitioned for unitary status on March 25, 1999. 2. By order dated July 19, 1999, this Court ruled that the PCSSD had not achieved unitary status. 3. Appended to the PCSSD petition for unitary status was a document entitled Pulaski County Special School District Post Unitary Commitments. While Joshua opposed the PCSSD petition for unitary status, it, in the words of this Court, "embraced" the PCSSD post unitary commitments and, except for the issue concerning the duration of the commitments, agreed that the commitments could serve as a new or amended desegregation plan. 139757-v1 \ 4. This Court has frequently encouraged the parties to modify their desegregation plans to make them more workable, has elicited testimony from court experts to assist the parties regarding issues being monitored by the district court and has approved a new Little Rock plan that is very similar to proposed Plan 2000. Further, the district court's finding that the PCSSD is not yet unitary is at least a de facto finding that its plan warrants modification. 5. The PCSSD converted the post unitary commitments to "Plan 2000" which was considered by and unanimously approved by the PCSSD Board of Directors on November 4, 1999. 6. Plan 2000 was previously considered by the Court and the parties as the PCSSD Post Unitary Commitments and was furnished to all parties before the PCSSD - Board action. 7. The PCSSD submits that Plan 2000 is constitutional, workable and fair to Joshua Class members and that it comports with the requirements of this and the Court of Appeals' standards for approval. 8. Attached to this motion as Exhibit A is a copy of Plan 2000. Exhibit Bis a letter dated November 2, 1999, detailing the changes which converted the Commitments to Plan 2000. Exhibit C is a proposed notice for publication to Joshua Class members and Exhibit D is a proposed order for the consideration of this Court. 9. This motion is accompanied by a memorandum brief which fully explains and supports the relief sought herein. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays that this Court give tentative approval to Plan 2000, that it order publication of the notice attached as Exhibit C, that it assign a closing 139757-v1 2 date for comments to be submitted to the United States District Court clerk and that, thereafter, it approve Plan 2000 as submitted and dismiss the PCSSO petition for unitary status without prejudice. Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 0) ty Special CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On November_!_!_, 1999, 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 OOM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 139757-v1 3 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 A. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAN 2000 DA TED November 4, 1999 Scope of This Plan (1) This Plan shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders in Pulaski County Special School District, U.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82-866, and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation of the Pulaski County Special School District with the following exceptions: (a) The Pulaski County School Desegregation case "Settlement Agreement" as revised on September 28, 1989; (b) The Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987; (c) Order dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee; (d) The M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986; and ( e) Orders of the district court and the court of appeals interpreting or enforcing sections (a) through (d) above to the extent not inconsistent with this Plan. B. General Obligation PCSSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to provide that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color, or ethnicity in the operation of the PCSSD, and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending PCSSD schools. C. Assignment of Students (1) The PCSSD shall continue to implement the current standards for the assignment of students to schools within the district. The PCSSD shall inform the Joshua lntervenors of the documents which set forth the details of the existing plan. This notice shall be provided within 30 days of the court's approval of this Plan. (2) The PCSSD shall submit not later than October 15 in each school year a report concerning one race classes. The report shall set forth for each such class: (i) the school, (ii) the class including the grade level, (iii) the racial make-up of~th~ec-la~ss, --- ijQt..-r ;. ,~. - '1f" ::::..~.: ~ -. ... ~~-'/) :: : . ~if.~;., 1367~v1 (iv) a description of steps taken to eliminate the particular one race class and the reason(s) why this proved to be infeasible. The PCSSD shall submit not later than March 1 of each school year a similar, supplemental report concerning any one race classes in courses commencing in the second semester of the school year. D. Advanced Placement, Gifted and Talented and Honors Programs Not later than 45 days after the court's approval of this Plan, the PCSSD shall provide to the Joshua lntervenors the standards then in place for selecting secondary students for and educating them in advanced placement, gifted and talented, and honors programs, including standards to promote racial diversity in these programs. The PCSSD shall include in this submission notices which are used to inform staff members of the relevant standards. E. Student Assignment; lnterdlstrlct Schools (1) PCSSD and LRSD shall operate interdistrict schools in accordance with the following: 136743-v1 (a) PCSSD lnterdistrict Schools. PCSSD shall operate Baker Elementary, Clinton Elementary, Crystal Hill Elementary and any new elementary school which may be constructed in the Chenal Valley area as lnterdistrict Schools. (b) LRSD lnterdistrict Schools. LRSD shall operate King Elementary, Romine Elementary and Washington Elementary as lnterdistrict Schools. ( c) Racial Composition. The ideal composition at the interdistrict schools shall be as close to 50%-50% as possible with the majority race of the host district remaining the majority race at the interdistrict school, except that Baker School shall not be subject to this requirement. (d) Reserved Seats. PCSSD shall reserve at least 200 seats at Clinton Elementary and up to 399 seats at Crystal Hill Elementary for interdistrict transfer students from LRSD. The District shall also reserve up to half of the seats for LRSD black students in any new Chenal Valley School. ( e) Recruitment. PCSSD and LRSD agree to implement programs at interdistrict schools designed to attract 2 (f) (g) interdistrict transfer students and to work cooperatively to recruit interdistrict transfer students to interdistrict schools. Outside Students. lnterdistrict schools shall be open to students who reside outside Pulaski County where the acceptance of the transfer will assist the interdistrict school in achieving its ideal racial composition. Transportation. Transportation shall be provided by the PCSSD for interdistrict transfers from Pulaski County to interdistrict schools. F. Discipline (1) The PCSSD will continue to gather data which allows a full assessment of its success in achieving its objective of eliminating racial disparities in the imposition of school discipline. As a foundation for this effort, disciplinary records shall be kept on each student concerning the nature of any discipline imposed (suspension, Saturday school, expulsion, etc.); the teacher and staff member involved; and the school, race, and sex of the student. (2) Not later than 45 days after the court's approval of this Plan, the Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation shall submit to the Joshua lntervenors, for comment, proposed criteria for identifying, from the data collected: (i) teachers and other staff members who are experiencing problems which require attention; (ii) schools which have atypically high discipline rates; and (iii) schools which have atypically high racial disparities in discipline. The Joshua lntervenors shall have 21 days to provide comments on these proposed criteria. The PCSSD shall then complete the criteria promptly. (3) The Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation and the Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel shall thereafter provide for and participate in specific efforts to work with teachers and other staff members and the personnel of schools, identified pursuant to the criteria set forth in paragraph 2, to promote achievement of the goal of eliminating racial disparities in school discipline. The Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation shall maintain records showing the specific steps undertaken. ( 4) PCSSD shall conduct a comprehensive study of the disciplining of African-American students, particularly male students, at the secondary level. The participants (a minimum of twelve (12)), one-half designated by the Joshua lntervenors and one-half by PCSSO and the PACT and PASS, shall consider the causes for the high rates of discipline for African-American students and possible remedies. The panel 3 136748-v1 shall, among other things: review discipline records to secure an understanding of the circumstances in which African-American students are disciplined; interview and\or survey African-American students regarding their experiences in the system generally and in the discipline process; and consider the possibility of a relationship between unmet academic needs and discipline rates. The written study shall be completed not later than 150 days after court approval of this Plan and shall provide suggestions for prevention and intervention measures. (5) The PCSSD shall develop a specific initiative to reduce the rates of discipline in the PCSSD shown in ODM's report dated March 18, 1998. This initiative shall be implemented not later than 150 days after the court's approval of this Plan. (6) PCSSD shall adhere to the policies set forth in the Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline, as revised after consultation with the Joshua lntervenors, PACT and PASS, to provide that students are disciplined in a fair and equitable manner. The Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel shall be responsible for determining the fairness of student disciplinary decisions. He will delegate the student hearing function to a single hearing officer who will consider the appeal brought by parents and the position of the administrator making the recommendation and then make a decision based upon equitable factors. An aggrieved student may appeal to the Superintendent of Schools. The Superintendent may review the matter or refer it to the school board for action. The committee approach which utilizes school principals in the student appeal process has been discontinued and will not be reinstituted. G. Multicultural Education (1) The PCSSD shall continue its efforts to infuse multicultural instruction in all curriculum areas. All phases of a school's environment (~. instructional materials, lesson plans and lessons, library contents, bulletin boards, extracurricular activities, school assemblies, speaker programs, and food services) shall reflect the system's Plan to multicultural education. (2) A principal activity of the Coordinator for Multicultural Education and the Coordinator's office shall be on-site visits to individual schools to determine whether the system's policy and the provisions of this Plan are being implemented in fact. The Coordinator shall maintain records permitting an evaluation of the status of implementation at each school visited. H. School Facilities (1) The PCSSD shall prepare, with the help of consultants, as necessary, a plan so that existing school facilities are clean, safe, attractive and equal. The plan shall address alternatives for funding its implementation. The Board of School Directors shall approve a plan not later than 150 days after the court's approval of this Plan. The 4 136748-v1 Joshua lntervenors shall be given a 14 day period to comment on the content of the plan prior to its adoption. (2) An elementary school, located around 145th Street, and a middle school or junior high school in the Crystal Hill\Maumelle area will be built. The Board will address the development of a plan for new school construction during the term of this Plan if funds are sufficient, including its funding, and report its conclusions not later than 150 days after the court's approval of this Plan. Moreover, the PCSSO shall not close schools which are located in predominantly African-American areas absent reasons of compelling necessity (which does not include the opposition of white patrons to attending such schools). (3) The PCSSD shall notify the Joshua lntervenors of plans for constructing new schools and for adding capacity to existing schools. The notice shall identify the capacity of the proposed facility, the area of the system to be served, and the projected impact on the racial make-up of the students in each school expected to be affected by the new construction. The Joshua lntervenors shall have a period of 14 days in which to provide input concerning each such proposal. I. Scholarships Within 30 days from the date that the LRSD successfully establishes its own scholarship program, PCSSD shall establish a bi-racial committee to explore a program for providing college scholarships to designated PCSSO students. J. School Resources PCSSO shall design and carry out, in consultation with the Joshua lntervenors, a study to determine whether school resources are allocated equitably among the schools of the district. The resources assessed may include such factors as pupil\teacher ratio; pupil\staff ratio; square feet per pupil; percentage of staff with a masters degree and nine or more years of experience; the turnover rate of certified staff; school size: computer\pupil ratio; per pupil expenditure; volunteer hours per pupil; and donations per pupil. The study shall contain recommendations, where appropriate, to address any problems identified. K. Special Education (1) Not later than 45 days after the court's approval of this Plan, the PCSSD shall provide to the Joshua lntervenors the standards then in place for: (i) stressing intervention strategies and regular class modifications in an effort to prevent inappropriate referrals of black males and kindergarten students; (ii) monitoring the folders of all kindergarten students and black students who are being considered as in need of special education under IDEA and Section 504 to insure nondiscrimination in 5 136748-v1 evaluation and placement. The PCSSD shall include in this submission materials which are used to inform staff members of the relevant standards. (2) The Director of Special Education shall develop a specific plan for additional monitoring each year, by his\her staff, of schools where there are atypically high racial disparities in special education classification, generally or as to black male students. The PCSSD shall provide a copy of this plan to the Joshua lntervenors, which shall include criteria for identifying schools for monitoring. L. Staff (1) The PCSSD shall recruit applicants for each available administrative position, by internal and external means, in a manner designed to communicate, broadly, its availability and to develop a racially diverse pool of applicants. The Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation shall, with the cooperation of the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel, be informed of the make-up of each such applicant pool and they shall have the authority to direct that additional recruitment take place prior to the offering of the position to a particular applicant. (2) The PCSSD shall engage in recruitment so that new teachers are selected from a racially diverse pool of applicants. The Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation shall monitor the recruitment process so that recruitment is extensive and sustained, and the hiring process so that no policy; practice, or custom has the purpose or the effect of imposing an upward limit on the proportion of black teachers. (3) The PCSSD shall continue to implement programs, policies and\or procedures which result in an increase in the number of African-American earty childhood teachers, primary grade teachers, and secondary core teachers, including offering incentives for African-American teachers to obtain certification in these areas, and to assign those teachers to the PCSSD schools where the greatest disparity exists. (4) The PCSSD will allocate teachers and other professional staff in a manner which avoids the racial identification of schools. M. Student Achievement (1) The PCSSD shall implement the plans designed to improve student achievement, recommended by Dr. Stephen Ross, and shall work with Dr. Ross in their implementation. See Attachment (plans). (2) The PCSSD shall continue to implement its home-school counselor program. 6 136748-v1 N. Monitoring (1) The Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation shall: (i) develop a plan so that he (or she) and his (or her) staff focus their monitoring and compliance efforts on the specific elements of this Plan; and (ii) provide the Joshua lntervenors within 30 days of the court's approval of this Plan a list, geared to the sections of this Plan, identifying the staff member or members with particular responsibilities for its implementation and the position held by each. (2) Upon reasonable notice, the Joshua lntervenors shall have the opportunity: (i) to examine and secure copies of records relating to the PCSSO's compliance with this Plan, including records identified in this Plan, and (ii) to meet with the Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation or a staff member responsible for a particular part of the implementation of the Plan. 136748-v1 (3) The PCSSO shall submit statistical reports showing the following: (a) The enrollment in each school by race; (b) The enrollment in gifted and talented programs, honors programs, and advanced placement classes, by school and by race; (c) The make-up of special education programs: (i) by disability category, including Section 504, by race, and by sex; and (ii) by school, by race, and by sex; provided that the system may comply with this reporting requirement by providing copies of materials submitted to ADE, as long as they include all information designated in this paragraph; (d) For each school and the system, the number of instances of each form of discipline, by race and by sex; for each school and the system, the number of students receiving each form of discipline, by race. and by sex; (e) The racial make-up, in each school, of (i) the administrators, (ii) the faculty, (iii) other professional staff, and (iv) support staff; (f) The racial make-up, by category, of the various categories of administrators, faculty, support staff, and other workers employed in the PCSSO. 7 The information in all sub-paragraphs other than sub-paragraph (d) shall be submitted not later than November 1 of each year, and the information in sub-paragraph (d) twice a year, not later than 30 days after the end of each semester. N. Continuing Jurisdiction (1) General Rule. The district court shall have continuing jurisdiction to address issues regarding compliance with and modifications of this Plan. Nothing in this Plan shall affect the district court's jurisdiction to enforce the Plan in the manner required by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. (2) Process for Raising compliance Issues. Before requesting the district court to exercise its jurisdiction with regard to a compliance issue, the Joshua lntervenors shall follow the procedures set forth below. 136748-v1 (a) Joshua shall as soon as reasonably practicable give the PCSSO Superintendent or his designee specific written notice which includes the following: (i) the paragraph(s) of the Plan at issue; (ii) the names of all students involved, if any; (iii) the names of all PCSSD agents or employees involved, if any; (iv) all facts of which the Joshua lntervenors are aware relevant to the compliance issue: and (v) a copy of all documents in the Joshua lntervenors' possession relevant to the compliance issue. (b) PCSSD shall conduct a reasonable investigation of the alleged noncompliance and shall provide the Joshua lntervenors a written response within a reasonable period not to exceed 30 days from the receipt of written notice from the Joshua I ntervenors or such later time as agreed. 8 (c) If the Joshua lntervenors are unsatisfied with PCSSD's response, the Joshua lntervenors shall within 15 days of receipt of PCSSD's response submit the compliance issue to the Department of Justice, Community Relations Service, for facilitation of an agreement between the parties. (d) If the compliance i