Court filings concerning ADE's response to motion for approval of judgment on monitoring plan and motion for authorization to hold millage election

District Court, motion for approval of monitoring plan; District Court, brief in support of motion for approval of monitoring plan; District Court, motion for approval of judgment; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to motion for approval of judgment; District Court, order; District Court, judgment; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion for approval of monitoring plan; District Court, the opposition of the Joshua intervenors to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion for approval of monitoring plan; District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion for approval of monitoring plan; District Court, two orders; District Court, notice to the Joshua class; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, motion for authorization to hold millage election 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 RECEIVEtrl.~ FEB 2 2000 OfflCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORma LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MONITORING PLAN The Arkansas Department of Education hereby moves the Court for an order approving, as replacing and superceding the so-called" Allen Letter," the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan ("DMAP'') attached hereto as Exhibit A. The motion is made on the following grounds: 1. Pursuant to Section III.A. of the Settlement Agreement (as revised September 28, 1989), the State agreed, through the ADE, to monitor the implementation of compensatory education programs by the Districts and provide regular written monitoring reports to the parties and the Court. Section III.A. further provided that a plan for monitoring implementation of compensatory education would be submitted to the parties within sixty days of the date of execution of the Settlement Agreement. 2. On May 31, 1989, after a version of the Settlement Agreement had been executed but before the agreement was finally amended and revised on September 28, 1989, H. William Allen (counsel for the State Board of Education) sent a letter to the parties enclosing a monitoring plan (the "Allen Letter"). This Court has held that the "Allen Letter" constitutes the ADE' s monitoring plan under the Settlement Agreement and has directed that ADE monitor according to its terms. See this Court's order dated December 10, 1993. 3. Significant changes in circumstances warrant revision of the monitoring plan set forth in the Allen Letter. 4. The attached DMAP was developed in consultation with the parties. It is suitably tailed to the various changes in circumstance that have occurred since the Allen Letter was drafted and, if approved, will further the original purpose of Section III.A. of the Settlement Agreement in a more efficient and beneficial way. 5. The grounds for thi_s __ motion are ~ore fully set forth in the brief accompanying this motion. WHEREFORE, ADE respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion and enter an order approving the attached DMAP_as replacing and superceding the Allen Letter. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assista t Attorney General 323 C ter Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on February 1, 2000, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M.SamuelJones,m Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 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 & Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon & Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 3 Arkansas Department of Ed.ucatfon Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan Section I Goals The goal of the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan is to ensure educational excellence and equity in the Pulaski County School Districts by monitoring, through the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), the implementation of educational programs aimed at satisfactorily remediating racial, academic, and achievement disparities. This proposed Monitoring Plan will, if approved by the Court, supercede and replace the 1989 Monitoring Plan (the "Allen Letter") and formatting directives by eliminating unnecessary or redundant provisions, reducing the data collection and submission burden on districts, and ensuring that districts remain accountable for commitments made to quality desegregated education. To ensure the integrity of the monitoring reports, the ADE will continue to use the Standards of Educational Evaluation. The Standards for Educational Evaluation define four attributes of sound evaluation: 1. The utility of the evaluation to the audience to be served in relation to the problems they face; 2. The feasibility of the evaluation in terms of its efficient use of practical procedures; 3. 4. Section II Propriety, which calls for fair treatment of participants in the evaluation and ethical use of evaluation procedures and findings; Accuracy, which calls for obtaining valid, reliable and objective findings and reporting justified conclusions and recommendations. Purpose Monitoring by the ADE will be closely related to the identified needs and priorities of the school districts so that monitoring becomes an integral part of the accountability function of quality schools and districts. In particular, monitoring will focus on efforts to raise the standard for student achievement and reduce achievement disparities. The monitoring indicators are divided into five sections that are important for a high quality desegregated educational system: (1) achievement, (2) discipline, (3) staff development and technical assistance, ( 4) minority teacher recruitment and staffing, and (5) racial balance in enrollments. The purpose of the monitoring is to provide the means for determining whether the process is meeting its goals: that is, to determine how "on target" schools are by comparing achieved outcomes with intended ones. Exhibit A Page 1 Section m Achievement All students should perform at the proficient level as measured by the State-mandated criterion referenced assessments. All students should perform at grade level as measured by the State-mandated norm-referenced assessment. 1. The ADE will analyze achievement on the basic battery of the norm-referenced test, annually and longitudinally. Trends in educational performance will also be provided. 2. The ADE will analyze achievement on the criterion-referenced test annually and longitudinally to help schools determine the most critical areas of need. 3. The ADE will also analyze test scores to determine if racial academic disparities are being reduced. Analysis of achievement data will be conducted by the ADE and consultants hired by the ADE. Results of the analysis shall be used by the ADE and schools to: Increase student performance. Communicate current levels of student performance to school customers. Assist in the orchestration of School Improvement Plans. Focus on reducing achievement gaps between black and white students. Identify group strengths and weaknesses in content areas. Ensure that prescriptive instructional assistance matches student needs. Determine the number of students who reach the proficient level in Math and Reading. Guide decision making about ways to improve student performance. After testing each year, monitors will determine the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Exhibit A Are plans in place to address areas of academic deficiency? Has the standard of adequate yearly progress been met? Is there significant disparity in the scores of black and white students? Are there more than 50% of the students achieving below grade level in mathematics and reading? How does the school's achievement compare to the state average and to schools with similar demographics? Is student achievement progressively improving? Page2 Section IV Discipline/Disciplinary Disparity Schools shall be organized and operated in a manner that creates safe, secure schools that are most conducive to student learning. The ADE will: I . Monitor the Annual Discipline Report Summary from each school district to determine if consequences for the same offenses are consistently applied to black and white students by reviewing disaggregated data by race, gender, offense, and total number of days suspended. 2. Review the suspension and expulsion rates. 3. Examine each school's implementation of their Disciplinary Management Plans to ascertain whether goals and objectives are being met. 4. Make recommendations as needed based on educational research, theory and best practice. Section V Staff Developmentff echnical Assistance - The State is committed to assisting with staff development, preparation, and support of educators whose primary focus is on student learning and who possess the knowledge, skills and the commitment to teach to high academic standards. The State will, through the Smart Start and School Improvement Programs assist in the collaborative development of staff development programs that ensure that instructional delivery models are aligned to student needs, state standards, and assessments. The State will also provide staff development based on needs identified as a result of the monitoring process. The ADE will: I. Monitor the district's evaluation component of staff development. 2. Collaborate with the Office of Pupil Personnel in each district in sponsoring professional development aimed at reducing the disparity in minority suspensions and expulsions with a special focus on schools with the highest disparity of discipline rates in each of the three districts. 3. Assist schools with analysis of assessment results and strategies for improved student performance. Exhibit A Page 3 4. Provide staff development on ways to recruit, retain and support teacher recruitment of minority teachers. 5. Provide staff development to schools through the Smart Start Initiative. 6. Assist schools in the alignment of the curriculum with State standards and mandated assessments. 7. Provide staff development on researched-based and proven model in reducing achievement and disciplinary disparities with demographics similar to schools in Pulaski County. 8. Provide assistance in curriculum and assessment in the identified targeted areas. 9. Ensure that the monitoring reports are useful, succinct, readable and understandable, by assisting districts in the use of five essential steps: (1) disaggregation, (2) analyzation, (3) interpretation, ( 4) communication and ( 5) utilization of report findings. Section VI Recruitment of Minority Teachers The quality of teachers is central to plans dedicated to improving student performance. The three districts in Pulaski County will need to recruit additional teachers, especially minority teachers due to retirement, and attrition. The ADE will remain committed to teacher recruitment through financial assistance for Minority Teacher Candidates, relevant job market information, and through the improvement of standards for teacher certification. The ADE will: 1. Maintain a current list of minority teachers and administrators who are seeking employment. This list should include certification areas, permanent addresses and phone numbers, and dates of availability. 2. Review the number of minority teachers hired each year. 3. Monitor the number of jobs offered to minority teachers. 4. Examine recruitment plans and efforts such as the job fair participation. 5. Assess racial balance in staffing by school and content/specialty areas. 6. Disaggregate the percent of classes taught by teacher on a deficiency removal plan. Exhibit A Page 4 Section VII Racial Balance1 in Enrollments The ADE will monitor to ensure that all students have access to a demanding curriculum, high quality instruction, and nourishing classrooms. The ADE will: I . Monitor school enrollment for racial balance in accordance with court-approved desegregation plans outlined for each district. 2. Review the enrollment of minority students enrolled in advanced placement (AP) and special education programs. 3. Evaluate the impact of interdistrict and intradistrict transfers on racial balance. 4. Review the enrollment or participation of minority students in special clubs, teams, and activities. 5. Analyze average daily attendance. 6. Review the completion rate. - Section IX Monitoring Process A. The monitoring process shall be conducted to ensure effectiveness of court ordered remedies and will include site visitations, review of plans, review of statistical and administrative data as well as responses from school personnel, patrons and students. B. Monitoring teams shall be selected by the Director of the. ADE. The team shall include ADE personnel and may include representatives of Intervenors and other educational consultants as designated by the Director. I The ADE recognizes that the Revised Desegregation Plan for the Little Rock School District (LRSD), does not require that every LRSD school be racially balanced, and that nothing in LRSD's Revised Plan shall be construed as requiring a particular racial balance at every LRSD school or as obligating LRSD to recruit students to obtain a particular racial balance in every LRSD school. Exhibit A Page 5 C. D. Section X The ADE will: Each district shall include in their school improvement plans appropriate objectives to achieve compliance with each court order related to the Agreement and recommendations made by the ADE. The ADE shall monitor annual school improvement plans through the Arkansas Consolidated School Improvement Planning Model (ACSIP) to determine progress toward achieving educational goals. District plans should provide evidence of compliance with court orders and a process to ascertain progress. Continuous, independent, systematic monitoring and evaluation are processes necessary for assuring and demonstrating the quality of desegregated education. However, each school and district will be encouraged to conduct internal evaluations prior to monitoring by the ADE. No system can achieve its potential and maintain a high level of service if it does not constantly assess its performance, and modify its practices accordingly to ensure internal accountability. Data Collection & Analysis 1. Collect, interpret, evaluate, and report the monitored data in a lucid, understandable manner so that the parties, the Court, the public, and ADE itself will have meaningful information that indicates the progress of desegregation, uncovers new or continuing problems, and points to needed changes. 2. Collect, analyze, and interpret selected data annually for every school in Pulaski County. 3. Examine the internal data collection and dissemination procedures annually with a view toward eliminating the duplicate collection of data throughout the monitoring process. 4. Use the desegregation monitoring process to help the Pulaski County schools meet their desegregation commitments and improve student achievement. Section XI The Reporting Process 1. The ADE shall provide a written report to the parties and the Court on an annual schedule. The report will be written by the ADE and in collaboration with consultants hired by the ADE. The report will be submitted on October 1 of each year. 2. The written report shall contain a description of the progress of the desegregation process in Pulaski County. Exhibit A Page 6 3. Analysis of data shall be conducted by appropriate ADE personnel and other persons as designated by the ADE Director. Additional data may be required of the districts, as deemed necessary by the ADE for the monitoring reports. 4. Since data analysis is essential to the monitoring process, the State requests the Court to instruct the three districts to provide the ADE all data necessary to implement the monitoring activities. 5. In accordance with Section III-A of the Settlement Agreement: Exhibit A (1) (2) (3) ADE will monitor independently of the other parties. ADE's monitoring will ensure that the State will have a continuing role in satisfactorily remediating achievement disparities. Any recommendations made by ADE shall not form the basis of any additional funding responsibilities of the State. Page 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED FEB 2 2000 OltlCE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.1, et al. DEFENDANTS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MONITORING PLAN The Arkansas Department of Education submits this brief in support of its motion for an order approving ADE' s proposed Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan ("DMAP") as replacing and superceding the "Allen Letter." As discussed below, significant changes in circumstances that have occurred since mid- 1989, when the Allen Letter was drafted, warrant revisions to the State's plan for monitoring the Districts under the terms of the Settlement Agreement The proposed plan, which was drafted with the cooperation and input of the parties and the ODM, is suitably tailored to the various changes in circumstance which have occurred since the Allen Letter was drafted and, if approved, will further the original purpose of Section ill.A. of the Settlement Agreement in a more efficient and beneficial way. As this Court noted in its November 5, 1999 order concerning the Magnet Schools (docket no. 3308), "this Court may approve modifications of the Settlement Agreement when the proposed modifications merely alter details that do not affect the parties' substantive commitments to desegregation. . . . 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."' November 5, 1999 order, page 5. If, however, the proposed modification alters a basic agreement among the parties, the party seeking modification must show that a significant change in factual conditions or the law warrants revision of the decree. Id. (citing Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 112 S.Ct. 748, 760 and fn.7 (1992); Appeal of Little Rock School District, 949 F.2d 253, 255 (8th Cir. 1991); and Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 56 F.3d 905, 914 (8th Cir. 1995)). Under either standard, a revision of the Allen Letter is warranted and the proposed DMAP should be approved by the Court. Significant changes in circumstances have occurred since 1989 that warrant revision of the monitoring plan set forth in the Allen Letter. At the time the Allen Letter was drafted and submitted to the parties, what was to become the final version of the Settlement Agreement and the Districts' individual desegregation plans had not yet been finally approved by the District Court and the Court of Appeals. Perhaps the greatest indicator of the change in circumstances that has occurred since 1989 is that since that time the Districts have been relieved of court supervision over various portions of their respective plans, and, in the case of the LRSD, this Court has approved a new desegregation plan that completely supercedes the LRSD's previous plan. Pending before the court is a motion for approval of new plan that would, if approved, supercede and replace PCSSD' s previous plans. Both the LRSD' s new plan and the PCSSD' s proposed new plan focus heavily on increasing student achievement generally, and reduction of achievement disparities in particular, as major plan goals. Further, the Settlement Agreement makes clear that one of the major reasons the State agreed to extensively monitor the Districts was that the Districts were scheduled to receive millions of dollars in additional funds under the Settlement in coming years for "compensatory education" programs. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, those additional funds are no longer being provided to the Districts. In 2 addition, at the time the Allen Letter was drafted the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals had not yet directed the establishment of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and while ADE does not contend that the creation of ODM supplants ADE' s monitoring obligations under the Settlement, it is worth noting that the Allen Letter was drafted at a time when there was no permanent office that could, as an arm of the court, regularly monitor and report on some of the same areas touched upon in the Allen Letter.1 Finally, and most important, ADE believes that experience of the parties in implementing their plans (as reflected in the various pleadings, testimony and other matters submitted to the Court, the reports prepared by ODM, the content of LRSD' s new plan and PCSSD' s proposed new plan, and the views expressed by the Districts during the process of drafting the DMAP) indicate that there are specific areas in which the Districts need or desire more focused monitoring and assistance from ADE than was called for in the Allen Letter. Experience has also shown that the Allen Letter and ADE's monitoring under it can and should be revised to be of more value to the parties and the Court. In its December 18, 1997 report on ADE's monitoring, the ODM outlined shortcomings in ADE' s previous efforts and provided suggested ways in which monitoring and reporting could be improved. In that report, among other things, it was noted that District staff members told ODM that Extended COE self-studies were helpful for the state-mandated school improvement process, but were not useful as a desegregation monitoring activity, and that previous monitoring reports produced 1 ADE obviously does not contend or intend that the DMAP, if approved, would limit in any way any monitoring or reporting activities that might be undertaken by ODM, the Joshua or Knight Intervenors, or the Districts themselves. Further, the DMAP, if approved by the Court, should not be construed as relieving the Districts of any other reporting or other requirements imposed by State law on all school districts in the State, nor should the DMAP be construed as prohibiting the ADE or other state agencies from collecting data from the Districts for other purposes, such as making reports to the Arkansas General Assembly or any of its committees. 3 pursuant to the Allen Letter were unduly voluminous and not conducive to assisting the Districts in developing strategies for quality desegregated education. ODM recommended, among other things, that ADE monitoring focus more on analysis and interpretation of data rather than mere data reporting; that ADE monitor all schools in the County annually; that ADE use, where available, data already collected by the State so as to avoid unnecessary duplicate collection of data as part of the desegregation monitoring process; that the practice of creating semiannual monitoring reports be reevaluated to eliminate duplications and omissions of information between the two reports; and that the monitoring process be more focused on helping the Districts meet their desegregation commitments. ADE took ODM' s report to heart and undertook its effort to develop a . new monitoring and assistance plan. All parties were invited to participate in all meetings in which drafts of a new plan were discussed, and the attached DMAP was thus developed in consultation with and with the input of the parties and the assistance of ODM. During the drafting process the Districts provided useful input on the specific areas in which monitoring, analysis, and assistance were needed. The parties also provided valuable input on monitoring activities and data collection under the Allen Letter that did not prove helpful to them or assist them in implementing their desegregation plans or improving student achievement. As recommended by the Districts and in ODM's December 18, 1997 report, the DMAP places more emphasis than the "Allen Letter" on analysis of data and providing assistance to enable the Districts to use the results of monitoring to improve student achievement, reduce achievement disparities, and meet other goals of their respective plans. The DMAP is thus superior to the monitoring plan outlined in the Allen Letter, is better tailored to current circumstances and the needs of the Districts as they implement their current desegregation plans, and will further the original purpose of 4 Section ill.A. of the Settlement Agreement in a more efficient and beneficial way. Accordingly, ADE, respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion and enter an order approving the DMAP as replacing and superceding the Allen Letter. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assista Attor eneral 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on February 1, 2000, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M.SamuelJones,m Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 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 & Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon & Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Timothy(; r 0 6 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. MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF JUDGMENT The three Pulaski districts for their motion, state: FEB 4 2000 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR/tlG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. Submitted as Exhibit "A" to this motion is proposed Judgment regarding prejudgment interest for teacher retirement and health insurance benefits submitted pursuant to a previous order of this Court. 2. Attached to the Judgment is a worksheet by which the districts calculate the sums set forth in the Judgment. 3. While the State has not yet had an opportunity to indicate its agreement with the calculations, the proposed Judgment is submitted at this time to meet the deadline previously established by this Court. 4. The districts believe that the calculations are accurate and that the State will not object to them .. 5. Further, by this motion, the three Pulaski districts indicate their agreement with the methodology for current and future payment of teacher retirement and health insurance benefits owed the three districts all as set forth in the State's submission dated January 21, 2000. 154793-v1 WHEREFORE, the Pulaski districts pray that the Court enter the proposed Judgment as submitted. Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On February _2_, 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 154793-v1 2 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 154793-v1 3 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. JUDGMENT PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS By Order dated June 16, 1999, this Court first held that the three Pulaski districts were entitled to an award of prejudgment interest upon the previous award for teacher retirement and health insurance payments. That Order was reduced to judgment and was filed on July 28, 1999. On January 13, 2000, this Court held once again that the three Pulaski districts were entitled to an award of prejudgment interest upon the teacher retirement and health insurance payments due during 1998-99, the principal amount of which was paid by the State on September 2, 1999. The Pulaski disJricts have submitted a worksheet calculating the prejudgment interest due on those sums totaling $387,260.60 broken down as $232,356.36 to the LRSD; $116,178.18 to the PCS SD; and $38,726.06 to the NLRSD. The three districts have also calculated prejudgment interest on the sums owed to date by the State pursuant to the methodology submitted by the State on January 21, 2000. The Court has been advised that the three districts have no objection to the State's proposed calculation. 154769-v1 The districts have utilized March 1, 2000, as the assumed payment date for this interest. Pursuant to that calculation, which is done identically to the calculation for 1998-99, the districts calculate that they are owed the total sum of $103,202.51 and of that sum $61 ,921.50 would go to the LRSD; $30,960.75 to the PCSSD and $10,320.25 to the NLRSD. Accordingly, the districts are entitled to and are awarded prejudgment interest as set forth above. If the sums due as of March 1, 2000, are paid on or before March 1, 2000, the State will owe no additional prejudgment interest. However, in the event that the payment is not made on or before March 1, 2000, interest shall continue to accrue on the sums due and payable at the current Federal rate of 6.2870%. Inasmuch as the districts have agreed to the State's methodology for present and future payments of teacher retirement and health insurance benefits, it is further ordered and adjudged that the methodology submitted by the State shall be and shall continue to be the method by which such sums are calculated and paid to the districts and this methodology and timetable shall remain in effect pending further order of this court. 154769-v1 IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this_ day of February, 2000. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 INTEREST CALCULATION FOR TEA. RET. & HEAL TH INSURANCE - COURT ORDERED FUNDING INTEREST RATE 6.2870% 1998-99 AMT. $10,288,773 DATE MO. PAY AMT. INTEREST TOT. DUE 09/01/98 $935,343.00 $935,343.00 10/01/98 $935,343.00 $4,833.29 $1,875,519.29 11/01/98 $935,343.00 $10,014.61 $2,820,876.89 12/01/98 $935,343.00 $14,576.59 $3,770,796.49 01/01/99 $935,343.00 $20,134.71 $4,726,274.20 01/31/99 $935,343.00 $24,422.54 $5,686,039.73 03/01/99 $935,343.00 $28,402.63 $6,649,785.36 04/01/99 $935,343.00 $35,507.49 $7,620,635.84 05/01/99 $935,343.00 $39,378.85 $8,595,357.70 06/01/99 $935,343.00 $45,896.15 $9,576,596.84 07/01/99 $935,343.00 $49,486.08 $10,561,425.92 09/02/99 $0.00 $114,607.68 $10.676,033.60 09/02/99 PAID AMOUNT $10,288,773.00 INTEREST DUE $387,260.60 $387 .260.60 LRSD SHARE $232.356.36 PCSSD SHARE $116,178.18 NLRSD SHARE $38,726.06 -INTEREST CALCULATION FOR TEA. RET. & HEALTH INSURANCE COURT ORDERED FUNDING INTEREST RATE 6.2870% 1999-2000 EST. AMT. $10,288,773 DATE MO. PAY AMT. INTEREST TOT. DUE 09/01/99 $935,343.00 $935,343.00 10/01/99 $935,343.00 $4,833.29 $1,875,519.29 11/01/99 $935,343.00 $10,014.61 $2,820,876.89 12/01/99 $935,343.00 $14,576.59 $3,770,796.49 01/01/00 $935,343.00 $20,134.71 $4,726,274.20 02/01/00 $935,343.00 $25,236.62 $5,686,853.82 03/01/00 $935,343.00 $28,406.69 $6,650,603.51 04/01/00 $935,343.00 $0.00 $7,585,946.51 05/01/00 $935,343.00 $0.00 $8,521,289.51 06/01/00 $935,343.00 $0.00 $9,456,632.51 07/01/00 $0.00 $0.00 $9,456,6