District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) stipulations and supporting documents.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<items type="array"> <item>

<dcterms_description type="array">

<dcterms_description>This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED APR - 2 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of March 1, 2002, the Arkansas Department of Education files the following six (6) agreements: 1. Stipulation for Proposed Order on Voluntary Majority to Minority 2. Transfers dated August 26, 1986; Stipulation for Recommendations Regarding Magnet Schools dated February 16, 1987; 3. Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement dated March, 1989; 4. The "Allen Letter" dated May 31, 1989; 5. Memorandum of Understanding between the Little Rock School District and the State of Arkansas; and 6. Agreement between the Little Rock School District and the State of Arkansas dated March 19, 2001. Respectfully Submitted, MARK.PRYOR Attorney General #94127 Assistant Attorney Ge al 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-3643 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on April 1, 2002, 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,ill Wright, Lindsey &amp; 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 P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 -- ( IN THE UNIT~D STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DiSTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL, SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. STIPULATION FOR PROPOSED ORDER ON VOLUNTARY MAJORITY TO MINORITY TRANSFERS PLAINTIFF INTERVENORS DEFENDANTS Plaintiff Little Rock School District ("LRSD"), and defend~nts Pulaski County Special School District ("PCSSD"), North Little Rock School District ("NLRSD"), and Arkansas State Board of Education ("State Board"), being in agreement on the voluntary majority-to-minority transfers, submit the following stipulations for the proposed order: 1. Beginning in the 1987-88 school year and continuing thereafter, LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD will permit and encourage voluntary majority-to-minority interdistrict transfers: The three districts will cooperate in the development of programs to acquaint parents, guardians and students with interdistrict opportunities. The implementation of majority-to-minority transfer provisions is contingent upon the implementation of all other provisions of the remedy ordered by the Court. 2. Eligibility: ADD-1 a. Black students who are members of the racial majority at a school in any participating distiict which district is 50 percent or more black in its enrollment shall be eligible to transfer voluntarily to a school and district in any other participating district in which school and district they would be in the racial minority. b. White students who are members of the racial majority at a school in a participating district which district is more than 50% white in its enrollment shall be eligible to transfer voluntarily to a school and district in any other participating district in which they would be in the racial minority. c. Prior to the transfer of any student, the home district shall issue a statement that the transferring student is in good standing. If the student is not in good standing, the student may be permitted to transfer on a provisional basis. 3. Students wishing to transfer shall file applications with their home districts. Applications must be filed before May 1 of the preceding school year and a student may not transfer more than once in any school year. The home district will process all applications and forward copies to the host districts. The home district will furnish its complete file on each student with his/her application. 2 ADD-2 le I I I I II ' f ;~ ;r_ . ' ~,.-, \~ ::f; d ._ 4. Transfer assignments will be made subject to av lability of space in schools and grade levels, and the host districts' ability to comply with state standards. 5. The host district shall honor the placement for the students as certified by the home district, which shall be communicated to the parent or guardian prior to transfer. during the first semester, testing, performance, remedial efforts, and consultation indicate that an adjustment of placement should be made, it shall be made after the first If,, semester in consultation with the student's parent or guardian. 6. The commitment to accept a student shall be for the duration of the student's voluntary participation. Once a student exercises his or her right to participate, the student will continue in the initially selected school for at least one full school year or until the student graduates or affirmatively withdraws from participation as herein set out. Students will not have to transfer each year or exercise a tran s fer choice to remain in the host district. Students shall be encouraged to continue to participate a~ their initial school of choice. It is expected that the student will follow the pattern of assigned schools for the resident students in the school in which the transfer student first enrolls. 7. Students who have elected to transfer shall remain students of the host district until they choose to return to the district where they reside. 3 ADD-3 I I I 8. Host districts shall not have the authority to remand tr sfer students to the home district. Host districts shall have the authority to discipline, suspend or expel a transfer student using the same due process procedures applicable to resident students. 9. Once admitted, transfer students will be expected to meet the same general standards, academic and other, as applied to students of the host district. 10. Information about each district's academic and disciplinary policies and procedures will be made available to prospective transfer students on request. This should include information on pupil-teacher ratios, promotion and retention, counseling assistance, grading, student code of conduct, disciplinary action, and suspension and expulsion. 11. The host district shall respond to the educational needs of students without regard to their status as a transfer or resident student. Transfer students shall be eligible and encouraged to participate in all school programs funded and sponsored by the host district (academic, athletic, extra-cuiricular and other) and shall not suffer any disability or ineligibility because they are voluntary interdistrict transfer students. Participation in after-school activities will be facilitated by the provision where needed of extra-curricular buses or other forms of transportation which will be available to all such transfer students, the cost of which shall be borne by the State as provided in paragraph 12. 4 ADD-4 I . . '- - I I I I I I &amp;: - - I -~ ~ ~ ' -. ~ 12. The State Board shall pay the full cost of tl 1sporting students opting for interdistrict transfers. However, the State Board shall have the option of (1) ?aying the school districts for transporting the students or (2) contracting for the services or (3) transporting the students with a state operated system. 13. The State Board shall pay the home and host districts ih accordance with the following procedures: a. Each year school di~tricts shall calculate and certify to the State Board of Education their cost per student in regular schools (grades K-12) including all add-ons for special education, TAG, vocational education and other purposes. The cost per student shall include all costs for instruction and support services minus student transportation, food servic8, and restricted federal program costs . (To the extent that the host district does not receive pro-rata increases in restricted federal program costs by hosting transfer students who are eligible to participate in federal programs, the cost per student shall be increased on a pro-rata basis for such transfer students.) The State shall pay the costs for full-time equivalent students who have been transferred to the host district. Payments made for the current year shall be based on costs for the 5 ADD-5 I - , previous year. The host district shall report each transfer student on forms as required by the State Department of Education. b. Each host district shall esti~ate the full-ti~e equivalent of transfer students and transmit such estimate, along with the names of the students, to C. the State in September of each year when payment begins. A correction will be made in January of each year. Payments shall be made by the State monthly through forward funding to each district based upon the September estimate as corrected . . The .students transferred to the host district shall not be counted in the number used to calculate regular state aid for the 3istrict. Each home district shall receive from the State for each student who voluntarily transfers fr om his/her home district to a host district one-half of the State aid (table rate) it would have received had the student remained in his/her home district. Information about these students shall be reported on forms as required by the State Department of Education and shall be reported at the same time as the reports are made by the host district. (he students transferred from the home district shall not be counted in the n_u_mber _u_s~d to calculate regular 6 ADD-6 I d. state aid for the home district. All transfers of handicapped students shall be contingent on the availability of appropriate prcg~ams and rescurces, as identified in the IEP, at the host sch0cl. The provisions contained herein do not apply to I magnet schools and programs. I 14. All parties to this stipulation recognize that the present racial balance of the North Little Rock School District approximates that of the entire county and they are desirous of not upsetting that balance through the operation of the Majority to Minority Transfer Program. The parties further recognize that any court approved student assignment plan by any party could be compromised if the Majority to Minority Transfe~ Program caused significant changes in student assignment plans. To avoid this result, all parties agree that any party may choose to include or not include said Majority to Minority transfer students for purposes of student assignment under any court order. Further, all parties recognize that substantial participation in the Majority to Minority program could have the result of creating technical departures from targeted student ratios at one or more schools. All parties agree that any such departure resulting from the lawful operation of the Majority to Minority program shall not give rise to a claim or contention that such departure from targeted ratios constitute 7 ADD-7 ;, violations of any law or regulation and, specifically, shall ne : be urged or suggested as grounds for liability in this or similar litigation. Additionally, any such resulting departu~es from targeted ratios shall not require the districts affected to reconstitute or recompose the student body of any affected school. Agreed this 26th day of August, 1986. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NOR ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF DIS EDUCATION (l~ &lt;~ 2258L 8 370 659 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT prised 28o/o of the membership in extracu ricular activities. PCSSD plan, Appen G. An affirmative recruitment plan will e implemented to remedy underreprese tation in activities where it occurs. PC SD Plan, Appendix H. The foregoing proposals of the desegregation plan represent not nly a turn in the right direction, but also significant progress toward achieving unitary school district. While much rem ns to be done, much has been accompli ed. Accordingly, this portion of the PC SD desegregation plan is hereby appro d. School &amp; Program Carver-Basic Skills Math-Science Williams-Basic Skills Booker-Arts Gibbs-Foreign Langu ge/ International udies Mann-Math-Sciences Arts Parkview-Arts-Perf rming Arts Total The curriculum emphasize the magn theme and all magnet students must f ly participate in magnet courses. As we as the magnet theme, all magnet school will have strong academically- oriented curricula. New magnets r expansion of magnets already existing may be provided for in subsequent sch ol years beginning 1988-89 under the pro sions of the Order of September 3, 19 . Any party may present applications or a magnet school or program not la r than the beginning of each school year preceeding the proposed year of implem tation. The Committee's decision and recommendation shall be submitted to the parties no later than N ovember 15. The MRC shall make its recommendat n to the Court not later than De- 15. IMPLEMENTATION parties propose that the District Co rt order the implementation of the six (6) aforementioned magnet schools for the 1 7-1988 school year. The host district all provide to the MRC and to the parties EXHIBIT A STIPULATION FOR RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING MAGNET SCHOOLS The undersigned parties have agreed to make the following described recommendation to the Magnet Review Committee for its consideration in formulating its recommendation regarding magnet schools. LOCATIONS AND THEMES The parties have agreed to recommend the following magnet school locations and programs: Grade K-6 K-6 K-6 K-6 7-9 10-12 Target Enrollment 475 530 720 348 975 1150 4198 its implementation timetable at the time a magnet proposal is submitted to the Court. FINANCING The parties agree to the financing formulas proposed by the Magnet Review Committee at the hearing held on January 29 and 30, 1987. These formulas require the State to pay one-half () of the actual costs of the construction or renovation of magnet schools as well as the customary state aid. and one-half () the cost of educating the magnet students attending those schools. It is understood that any district which does not provide a student to fill an allocated seat, and said seat is not occupied by any other student, will be required to pay to the host district as its full liability for said unfilled seat the per child cost of the host district's debt service payment, both principal and interest, for the construction or renovation of the schools in the magnet program. The host district will provide separate accounting and budgeting information regarding the magnet program to the Magnet Review Committee for review. ~ ' =- EX .H l B J.. t, ,IT A : RECOMMENDA- 1ING MAGNET OLS rties have agreed to scribed recommendaiview Committee for rmulating its recommagnet schools. ND THEMES $reed to recommend school locations and ;et Enrollment 475 530 720 348 975 1150 4198 1 - at the time a bmitted to the Court. TCING , the financing formuYiagnet Review Com; held on January 29 formulas require the :) of the actual costs renovation of magnet ~ customary state aid cost of educating the mding those schools. .t any district which 1dent to fill an allocat- 1t is not occupied by ill be required to pay .s its full liability for per child cost of the .ervice payment, both ;, for the construction schools in the magnet district will provide and budgeting infor e A net program to ~ ttee for review. LITILE ROCK SCH. DIST. v. PULASKI CO. SP. SCH. DIST. 371 Cite as 659 F.Supp. 363 (E.D.Ark. 1987) INTERDISTRICT served for the shadow area in the host TRANSPORTATION PLAN district. The remaining seventy-five per The State Board of Education remains centum (75%) of the seats shall be allocated committed to underwriting the entire actu- to each of the three districts in proportion al cost of transporting magnet and M-to-M to that district's percentage of county-wide transfer students, which includes the cost students at each school level (elementary, of transporting these students for extra- junior high, or senior high). At the elemencurricular activities. The districts agree tary level each district shall allocate its that transportation of magnet/M-to-M stu- seats in proportion to the racial ratio dents should be performed utilizing mea- present in such district at the elementary sures which are most cost efficient. The level. At the secondary level, each district interdistrict transportation plan shall not shall allocate ail its seats on the basis of be used as a means to seek compensation 50% black, 50% non-black. However, the for additional transportation vehicles un- total number of seats assigned to the less such vehicles are directly necessary North Little Rock School District shall not because of the interdistrict transportation exceed 475 seats with no more than 100 plan. New full -sized school buses pur- seats being allocated to the North Little chased in order to transport magnet/M- Rock School District from Parkview. to-M students will be added to the total It is understood that seat allocations will transportation fleet costs and applied on a not be made by district to a particular pro rata basis to the transportation of mag- school, but only by elementary, junior high net/M-to-M students. The cost of any oth- and senior high level. Therefore, a particuer vehicles purchased to transport isolated Jar district will be permitted to use its magnet/M-to-M students will be prorated allocated seats in accordance with the deaccording to their actual use in transport- sires of its students subject to space limitaing magnet/M-to-M students. Each dis- tions in particular magnet schools and the trict agrees to separately account for the maintenance of a 50-50 racial balance. If costs of transporting magnet/M-to-M stu- there is oversubscription among the disdents and to make those records fully avail- tricts by race, grade or school each district able to representatives of the State Depart- may make a recommendation to the MRC ment of Education at any reasonable time. for its approval regarding actual distribu- The parties agree that the Interdistrict tion of seats. The three districts agree Transportation Plan for both magnet that each district will establish an open schools and M-to-M transfers will be admin- enrollment policy for magnet schools and istered by an Interdistrict Transportation will be permitted to determine how children Authority (ITA). The ITA shall be com- will be selected for the magnet seats alloposed of the Transportation Director or cated to each district pursuant to that poliother designee of each district and a repre- cy. This provision shall not prohibit the sentative of the State. The parties agree establishment of geographic preference arthat any conflict may be determined by a eas where appropriate. U.S. Magistrate acting as a Special Master In the event there are unused seats by for the District Court. any district then persons on waiting lists to SEAT ALLOCATION All magnet schools shall have a student population which is fifty percent (50%) black and fifty percent (50%) non-black. The parties agree that for the 1987-88 school year the magnet school seats shall be allocated according to the following formula: Twenty-five per centum (25%) of the capacity of a magnet school shall be re-attend from the other districts shall be permitted to attend before any seat is left vacant. No student attending a magnet school will be considered as an M-to-M transfer student for incentive payment purposes. TARGETED RATIOS The parties have previously submitted to the Court a proposed stipulation for M-to-M i. 372 659 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT transfers which in part recognizes that if M-to-M transfers occur, ratios targeted by any of the districts for particular schools might be affected depending upon the locations from which M-to-M transfers occur. The parties in that stipulation agreed that the first priority should be a successful M-to-M transfer program and that if it did affect targeted ratios, such departures would not be regarded or urged as constitutional violations or departures from desegregation plans. The parties further recognize that a successful operation of the magnet school program could potentially have the same or similar effects upon targeted ratios. The parties therefore recommend that any magnet transfers not be counted as a departure from a desegregation plan or urged as a co_nstitutional violation. LITTLE ROCK MAGNET GRANT The parties agree and recommend that, should the Little Rock District now or in the future prove successful in obtaining grants for the operation of magnet schools, any such monies shall be applied off the top to the obligations of all parties. The parties further agree and recommend to the Court that they cooperate in the development of an application for any future magnet grants. ADMINISTRATION The daily administration and operation of the magnet schools shall be the responsibility of the host district. The host district shall designate a person who shall have principal responsibility for overseeing the development and implementation of its magnet program. STUDENT RECRUITMENT The parties agree that the Magnet Re- view Committee shall establish a Magnet/ M-to-M Educational Team (MET). The major responsibilities of the MET shall include community education and information dissemination of educational opportunities in the magnet programs and recruitment for both magnets and M to M transfers. It shall report to the MRC. The MET shall be composed of the person from each school district and the State responsible for desegregation planning, and two additional persons selected by each of the following parties: Joshua Intervenors Little Rock School District North Little Rock School District Pulaski County Special School District State of Arkansas These additional representatives of the MET shall not be employees or officials of any of the districts or the State. February 16, 1987 PCSSD Administrative Offices The Magnet Review Committee (MRC) endorses the foregoing stipulations. Pulaski County Special School District Isl ______G_ e_n_e_J_o_n_es ______ North Little Rock School District Isl _____J_ a_m_e_s_R_._S_m_it_h_ _____ Little Rock School District Isl ____ J_e_s_se_L_._R_a_n_c_if_e_r ___ _ Arkansas Department of Education Isl ____ M_a_r_c1_a_A_. H_a_r_d_in_g ____ _ Arkansas Department of Education Morris F. Holmes Isl ---------------- The EXHIBIT B MAGNET REVIEW COMMITIE REPORT TO THE COURT Eastern District of Ar ansas P.O. Box 3683 Little Rock, Ark sas 72203 Dear Judge W ods: The Ma t Review Committee submits for your onsideration the attached report includ g nine separate recommendations con ming magnet schools in Pulaski unty. ----------~--- --- -- ---- PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DESEGREGATION CASE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT March, 1989 (As Revised September 28, 1989) .. EXHIBIT 1 3 i I PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DESEGREGATION CASE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT r. II. Introduction ..... General Provisions. CONTENTS Magnet Funding Calculation Magnet Surplus Credit ...... . A. B. c. D. E. F. Magnet Operational Charge. . . ... G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. o. P. Restrictions on Funding Magnet Schools. Continuation of Existing Funding .... Compensatory Education, Early Childhood Education and other Statewide Programs .. . Conditions to Settlement. . .. . Act 34 Exemption. . . . . . .. . Staff Development ........ . Recognition of Autonomy ...... . District Budgets . . . . . Prohibition of Punitive Action ..... . Rededicated Millages .... . Limit of Liability ...... . Majority to Minority Provisions. Consent Order. . . . . III. State's Role in the Desegregation Process . A. Monitoring Compensatory Education. . . . . . B. Statement of Support for the Plans . . . . . c. Petition for Election. . . . . . . D. Statutes and Regulations Affecting Desegregation. . . . . . . . . . . E. Elimination of the Pulaski County Education Service Cooperative. . . . . . . . . . F. Commitment to Princit,les . . . . . . . . G. Remediation of Disparities in Academic Achievement. . . . . . . . . . . H. Test Validation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. In-Service Training. . . . . . . . . . . J. Recruitment of Minority Teachers . K. Financial Assistance to Minority Teacher Candidates . . . . . . . . ... L. Minority Recruitment for ADE Staff . . . . . M. School Construction. . . . . . ii . . . . . . 1 2 2 2 3 4 4 6 6 7 8 9 10 10 10 11 11 12 13 13 13 14 14 14 15 15 16 16 16 17 17 18 IV. Dismissal of Litigation .. . . . - . . . . 18 A. Dismissal of the State with Prejudice and Release.~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 B. Agreement Regarding Litigation Among Joshua and the Districts. . . ......... 19 C. Reserved Issue . . . . . . 19 V. VI. Attorneys' Fees ... The LRSD Settlement. VII. VIII. A. B. The A. B. c. D. The A. B. c. D. Payment Schedule and Terms . Loan Provisions. PCSSD Settlement. . . . . Financial Settlement . . . . . 1. Magnet Payments . . . . . 2. Other Payments. . Staff Development. . . . . . . Food Services. . . . . . Housing. . . . . NLRSD Settlement. Magnet Payments. . .... Compensatory Education Payments .. Additional Payments ....... . Description of Additional Compensatory Education Programs. IX. Execution ....... . ATTACHMENTS Attachment A Release of Claims - State Attachment B Release of Claims - LRSD Attachment C Release of Claims'- PCSSD Attachment D Release of Claims - NLRSD iii 20 22 22 24 27 27 28 28 29 30 30 30 30 31 31 36 36 I. Introduction The Little Rock School District ( "LRSD") Desegregation Plan (January 31, 1989), the Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 ( "PCSSD") Permanent Desegregation Plan (October 3, 1988, as supplemented February 15, 1989), the North Little Rock School District ("NLRSD") Desegregation Plan of March and October, 19 8 6 ( as amended or modified through February 15, 1989 or by operation of this settlement agreement) and the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan (February 15, 19 89) ( the "Plans") hold excellent promise for achieving unitary school systems in these three districts which are free from the vestiges of racial discrimination. Continued litigation regarding funding and other issues may make more difficult and further delay effective implementation of the constitutional obligations of the State of Arkansas and the three Pulaski County school districts (the "Districts"). This settlement of the issues concerning the Districts, the Joshua Intervenors ("Joshua"), the Knight Intervenors ("Knight") and the State of Arkansas in Li t'tle Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District, et al, No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors ("this Litigation") is in the best interest of the students, patrons and staffs of the Districts and the people of the State. 1 - The superintendents of the Districts support the settlement and it has_ received the unanimous approval of their respective boards of directors. The business community as represented by the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce also supports the settlement and the Plans. That group has pledged the strong support of its membership to help the Districts achieve many of the goals of the Plans. The black plaintiff intervenors ("Joshua"), the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., the Little Rock and North Little Rock chapters of the NAACP and the Greater Little Rock Christian Ministerial Alliance pledge their support to the Plans and this settlement. The settlement is also supported by Knight (LRCTA, PACT, NLRCTA and the AEA). The Arkansas State Board of Education, the Arkansas Department of Education ("ADE") and the Governor of Arkansas support the settlement. II. General Provisions A. Magnet Fund~ng Calculation . Each District's magnet students will be included in the calculation of that District's table rate in determining State aid to be paid under the MFPA formula or any future funding formula. B. Magnet Surplus Credit Any cash surplus remaining in the magnet school fund for a given fiscal year after all expenses and receivables for that fiscal year have been accounted for (including a payment to the host District for administrative costs) will be returned to Districts and ADE as follows: (1) NLRSD will receive the difference between its table rate and $1,550 multiplied by its average daily membership in the magnet schools for the fiscal year to the extent surplus funds are available: (2) If additional surplus funds exist following the payment to NLRSD, PCSSD will receive the difference between its table rate and $1,550 multiplied by its average daily membership in the magnet schools for the fiscal year, to the extent surplus funds are available: (3) If additional surplus funds exist following the payments to NLRSD and PCS SD, 2 the LRSD will receive the difference between its table rate and $1,550 multiplied by its average daily membership in the magnet schools for the fiscal year, to the extent surplus funds are available. (4) If additional surplus funds remain following the payments to NLRSD, PCSSD and LRSD, the ADE will be refunded its magnet operation payments to the extent such funds are available. This provision will remain in effect for seven years beginning with the 1988-89 school year. The payment to the host District for administration of the magnet schools for the 1988-89 school year will be 3.09% of the magnet school fund. In future years, the payment to the host District for the administration of magnet schools will be the same percentage of the magnet fund as the state-determined percentage of the host District's budget attributable to administrative costs. C. Magnet Operational Charge The current per pupil operational charge for magnet students ($3,100) will remain in force until changed by the Magnet Review Cammi ttee, or in the event the Magnet Review Committee is restructured or eliminated, then by agreement of the parties, subject to the review of the district court in any event. 3 The parties will review the operational charge on an annual basis but will not increase the charge solely for the purpose of creating a surplus. Calculations in paragraphs II.B., VII.A.I. and VIII.A assume a $3,100 operational charge. D. Restrictions on Fundina Magnet Schools The State will have no further obligation to contribute any additional funds to magnet schools other than under paragraph II E. below. The Districts obligation to contribute funds to magnet schools shall be limited to their paying their portion of the costs of the six existing magnet schools pursuant to the Court's order of February 27, 1987. 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 Williams Gibbs Booker Mann Parkview 613 515 351 660 935 991 E. Continuation of Existing Funding In addition to any payment described elsewhere in this agreement, the State will continue to pay the following costs: 4 (1) The State's portion of magnet school operational costs for the six existing magnet schools (Gibbs, Booker, Carver, Parkview, Mann and Williams) using the formula employed by the State during the 1987-88 school year modified by the inclusion of the number of students from each District attending magnet schools in the calculation of that District's table rate for distribution of MFPA; (2) Majority to minority student transfer incentive payments to the host and home Districts as described in the August 26, 1986 M to M stipulation; (3) The State's share of Magnet Review Committee allocated; expenses as currently (4) Transportation to the six existing (5) magnet schools; Transportation of majority to minority transfer students between the Districts as described in the August 26, 1986 M to M stipulation; and (6) The State's share of any and all programs for which the Districts now receive State funding. 5 ., The funds paid by _the State under this agreement are not intende~ to supplant any existing or future funding which is ordinarily the responsibility of the State of Arkansas. F. Comoensatory Education, Early Childhood Education and other Statewide Programs The settlement payments described in this agreement are exclusive of any funds for compensatory education, early childhood development or other programs that may otherwise be due LRSD (or any successor district or districts to which students residing in territory now within LRSD may be assigned or for the benefit of such students if the State or any other entity becomes responsible for their education), PCSSD or NLRSD under present and future school assistance programs established or administered by the State. The State will not exclude the Districts from any compensatory education, early childhood development, or other funding programs or discriminate against them in the development of such programs or distribution of funds under any funding programs. G. Conditions to Settlement This settlement is conditioned upon approval by the Districts' boards of directors (already done) and the State Board of Education (already done), the certification of the classes and class representatives by the court (already done), the 6 . ' execution of the releases attached hereto as Attachments A, B, C and D, the dismissal of the State from this Litigation with prejudice consistent with the terms of Attachment A, the approval of the terms of the settlement by the court and the enactment of legislation prior to August 15, 1989 either (1) making provision for the funding of the Settlement or (2) authorizing the Arkansas State Board of Education (State Board) to enter into a consent order which directs the State Board to make the payments which would fund the obligations of the State under the Settlement (already done) . As used in this agreement, "final approval" means after all these conditions have been satisfied. If final approval of this settlement agreement is not obtained, no statement in the agreement may be used for or against any party as an admission of liability intent. H. Act 34 Exemption No sums received by t.h e Districts pursuant to this settlement shall be regarded as included within the definitions of total local resources, net local resources, gross current revenue, or miscellaneous funds pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. Section 6-20-301, et seq. or pursuant to any amendments to those sections which may hereinafter be enacted. 7 .. All funds received by the Districts pursuant to this agreement, . including any interest or earnings thereon, will be exempt from Sections 8 and 11 of Act 34 of 1983 (A.C.A. Sections 6-20-307 and 6-20-319) as amended or as may be amended, with the following exceptions: (1) For the 1989-90 and later school years, all MFPA funds received by the Districts, as calculated in accordance with A.C.A. 6-20-302 (1987 Supp.), including the portion of that calculationrepresented by the Districts' magnet students, will not be exempt; and (2) the funds received by the Districts for any compensatory education, early childhood education, and other statewide programs contemplated by paragraph II.F. will be exempt only if the funds are exempt in all other districts in the State, and if so, those funds which are exempt cannot be counted by the Districts as expenditures satisfying Act 34's requirement that 70% of net current revenue be used to pay certified personnel. I. Staff Development To facilitate the Plans, the ADE authorizes each District up to four "release days" per year for the 1989-90 and 1990-91 school years. Those would be divided as two release days per semester. Further, two such release days, one per semester, shall be provided for the 1991-92 school year. 8 These "rele~e days" will have the effect of shortening by ~our days in each of the first two years and two days in the last year, the student contact/instructional days contained within the Districts school .calendars. The parties recognize that any detriment which might result from the reduction of contact days will be outweighed by the benefits derived from the staff development training (which will include all appropriate desegregation training and specialized training in strategies designed to reduce the level of achievement disparity between black and white students) and the increased efficiency and competence of the trained teachers. It is further understood and agreed that these release days shall be in addition to any staff development days currently required or which might be required in the future by ADE or other State authority. J. Recognition of Autonomy The State, Joshua and LRSD recognize that PCSSD and NLRSD are independent, sovereign desegregating school districts operating pursuant to court orders and agreements and that this agreement is both necessary and desirable to facilitate their desegregation activities as well as their cooperative desegregation activities with the LRSD and others. 9 K. District Budgets The Distric~s may utilize the receipt of funds paid pursuant to this settlement to _balance previous years' budgets and if this is done, neither the previous year's deficit nor such fund usage will be regarded as a violation of State law. L. Prohibition of Punitive Action The State shall take no action (including the enactment of retaliating legislation) against the for the purpose of Districts (including retaliatory failure to increase State aid and retaliatory reduction in State aid) because of this Litigation or this settlement. The State will enact no legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the Districts to desegregate. Fair and rational adjustments to the funding formula which have general applicability but which reduce the proportion of State aid to any of the Districts shall not be considered to have an adverse impact on the desegregation of the Districts . M. Rededicated Millages The court ordered on December 29, 1986 (reinstated Jan. 7, 1987) the rededication of certain millages of the Districts. It was the intent of the Districts and the court that all millages due to expire before the year 2007 be rededicated. The motion seeking the extension, however, failed to list 10 all of the millages and consequently not all of the millages sought .to be rededicated have actually been rededicated. The parties agree that the court's order of December 29, 1986 (reinstated January 7, 1987) should be corrected to include all millages of the Districts which would otherwise expire before or during the year 2007. Pursuant to this settlement, a corrected order has been submitted to the court for approval following final approval of the settlement. Upon approval, the order will be delivered to the responsible county officials. N. Limit of Liability The State's financial liability under this Settlement beyond that set forth in II.E. and II.F. shall be limited to $129,750,000 to be paid as set forth in Sections V, VI, VII and VIII herein. O. Majoritv to Minority Provisions (1) In any application for aid pursuant to Section 6 of Act 24 of the 1989 Regular Session of the Arkansas General Assembly, the receiving district / for M to M students may include in such application any M to M students it hosts who are eligible for participation pursuant to Section 6(A) of said Act. (2) The State will continue to make payments under the August 26, 1986 M to M stipulation so that -the host district receives its average cost of , , educating a student fQr each M to M transfer stud~nt enrolled in the host district. (3) When at least one Interdistrict School is operating in LRSD and in PCSSD, all M to M payments generat::id by Interdistrict School students paid by the State to LRSD and PCSSD (including payments to each district as sending district and receiving district), except transportation payments, will be pooled for the education of all Interdistrict School students. The instructional budgets of Interdistrict Schools will be equalized. the This provision does not change each district's obligation to construct and maintain the Interdistrict Schools within its boundaries. The State payments for M to M students not enrolled in Interdistrict Schools will continue in accordance with paragraph (2) above. ( 4) .-Beginning _the irst -year an -Interdistrict School is operating in LRSD and PCSSD, PCS SD will contribute $200,000 per year for five years to the pool of funds to be used by .b oth districts to operate Interdistrict Schools. P. Consent Order The parties consent to the entry of an order containini the requirements of Act 1 of 1989, Second Extraordinary Session, to the extent it is not inconsistent with this settlement. 12 III. State's Role in the Desegrecration Process A. Monitorincr. Comoensatorv Education The State shall be required (as a non-party) to monitor, through the ADE, the implementation of compensatory education programs by the Districts. If necessary as a last resort, ADE may petition the court for modification or changes in such programs being implemented by the Districts (but not for a reduction in the agreed level of State funding). If such petitions are filed, the undersigned parties will not object based upon lack of standing. ADE shall provide regular written monitoring reports to the parties and the court. Monitoring by the State shall be independent of that of the other parties. It is being done to 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 . A State plan for monitoring implementation of compensato~y education will be submitted to the parties within 60 days following execution of the settle.me.nt agreement. B. Statement of Support for the Plans The State, Districts and Joshua will provide to the court a statement of full support for the Plans 13 _, upon final approval of the settlement. This statement of . support will not be construed to burden the State with additional funding obligations beyond those existing at the ti.me of the execution of this agreement except those specifically set forth in this agreement. C. Petition for Election The State will join LRSD if LRSD petitions the court to allow it to hold a millage election. D. Statutes and Regulations Affecting Desegrecration The ADE will research and list laws that impede desegregation and submit legislation to repeal such laws to the General Assembly as soon as practicable. ADE will not knowingly promulgate or retain any regulations which impede desegregation, and the other parties will notify ADE of any regulations which they believe would have such an effect. If any regulation is demonstrated to have such an effect, the regulation will be modified or repealed or an exemption will be provided. The Districts, Knight and Joshua will assist the ADE in identifying existing and proposed statutes and regulations that impede desegregation. E. Elimination of State Funding for the Pulaski County Education Service Cooperative State funding for the Pulaski County Education Service has ceased and the funds were reallocated 14 to the Metropolitan Supervisor by order of the Court. Should these funds no longer be required by the Metropolitan Supervisor, they will be used to assist the ADE in securing the services of trained consultants to develop effective compensatory, remedial education programs designed to eliminate achievement disparities between black and white students and for other purposes intended to enhance desegregation. F. Commitment to Principles The State remains corrani tted to the following principles: a. There should be a remediation of the racial academic achievement disparities for Arkansas students. b. Special education classes and gifted and talented classes should not be racially identifiable. c. The ADE and the Districts should work cooperatively to promote the desegre-gation goals of the State and the Districts and to ensure educational excellence in the public schools in Pulaski County and throughout the State. G. Remediation of Disparities in Academic Achievement The ADE, with the assistance of the Court's desegregation expert(s), will develop and will search for programs to remediate achievement disparities between black and white students. If necessary to develop such programs, the ADE will employ appropriately trained and experienced consultants in the field of remediation of racial achievement disparities and/or hire as staff members persons with such training and experience. The remediation of racial achievement disparities shall remain a high priority with the ADE. H. Test Validation ADE will conduct periodic reviews of tests used in the State's testing program to determine if students' race, sex, or culture adversely affect their test scores. If bias is found in any test, that test will not be used unless modified to eliminate the bias. I. In-Service Training ADE will establish in-service programs to assist in providing training for the staffs of desegregating school districts. Such programs will first be made available to the Districts. J. Recruitment of Minority Teachers The Districts will annually supply ADE information identifying the subject areas in which they have actual or foreseeable shortages of minority teachers. The ADE will then obtain from higher education sources information by race on new teacher 16 graduates in those subject areas and make such information available to the Districts. ADE will seek to increase the pool of minority teachers available to the Districts and to other districts in the state through recruitment efforts both in and out of state, and at the same time shall develop annual profiles of teachers available by race, specialty, subject area and area of certification. K. Financial Assistance to Minority Teacher Candidates The ADE will work with the Arkansas Department of Higher Education to reduce any racial disparity that may exist in the distribution of existing scholarships and to secure passage of legislation to financially assist minority students attending Arkansas colleges and universities who commit to become teachers in Arkansas, including scholarships for freshmen and sophomores who are committed to pursuing a teacher-training program and juniors and seniors who have been accepted in teacher education programs. L. Minority Recruitment for ADE Staff The ADE will develop and implement a plan to identify jobs and consultant positions within the Department in which minorities are underrepresented and will recruit and employ minority applicant_s for those positions so as to create a balanced, desegregated staff at all levels. , .., M. School Construction The ADE will. develop criteria for site selection of new schools, major school expansion and school closings. ADE will require that a district applying to it for approval of new construction or major school expansion provide a desegregation impact statement setting forth evidence that the proposed improvements do not have a segregative effect. ADE will not recommend or approve the site of any school in any county contiguous to Pulaski County if the construction or expansion of the school at the requested location of such school will have a substantial negative impact on any District's ability to desegregate. IV. Dismissal of Litigation A. Dismissal of the State with Prejudice and Release The State conditions this settlement upon its dismissal from this Litigation with prejudice in accordance with the terms of Attachment A. The settlement is also conditioned upon the full execution of and compliance with the terms of the release of all claims against the State affixed hereto as - Attachment A. The settlement of the State's liability, while contingent on the district court's approval, is not contingent upon court approval of any District's plan or a finding of 18 unitary status for . any District. Further, the settlement is c~ntingent upon a determination by the district court that the settlement is binding on the classes of all current, past and future LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD black students, their parents and next friends. As part of this settlement, the parties stipulate that the Joshua Intervenors are proper class representatives under and otherwise meet the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and support their approval. The settlement is also conditioned upon the full execution of the releases of the Districts attached as Attachments B, C and D. The parties pledge to diligently pursue acceptance of the settlement by the court. B. Agreement Regarding Litiaation Among Joshua and the Districts Joshua releases the Districts of all liability for issues which have been raised, or could have been raised, in this Litigation and commits that there will be no further liti~ation among or between Joshua, Knight and any of the Districts, other than proceedings to enforce the terms of this settlement or the terms of the Plans. c. Reserved Issue The Districts and Joshua contend that ADE has the authority to regulate private schools and should exercise that authority to insure that private schools comply with the same educational standards that are applicable to p_ublic schools. ADE is not persuaded that it is vested with such authority. The parties therefore agree that the issue of State regulation of private schools is not settled by this agreement and may be presented _ to the court for resolution at a future date. As this settlement provides for the dismissal with prejudice of the State as a party to this Litigation, the ADE agrees to make a special appearance following such dismissal -for the sole purpose of responding to a motion filed by any of the Districts or Joshua seeking the resolution of the single question of its legal authority to regulate private schools and require them to comply with certain educational standards. A finding that the ADE has such authority shall not be used by any party as the basis for any State liability for the period prior to such finding. V. Attorneys' Fees LRSD agrees to make no additional c !aims for attorneys' fees and to hold the State, PCSSD and NLRSD harmless for all pending LRSD claims for attorneys' fees against the State, PCSSD and NLRSD. If necessary to enforce the hold harmless agreement, the State will be entitled to deduct the amount of any payment for LRSD attorneys' fees made after the execution 20 of this agreement from any payment due from the State to LRSD under this agreem~nt more than five months after the . attorneys' fees payment is made. The State, LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD will pay attorneys' fees and costs to the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Ful)d, Inc . . (LDF). The fees will be paid upon terms set forth below for the work performed in this Litigation and other litigation which preceded this Litigation beginning with Aaron v. Cooper, Graves v. Board of Education and their progeny. The payment to LDF is on behalf of, and for the work of, all attorneys who have worked with LDF on behalf of the interests of black children in the Districts, to desegregate schools therein, over the duration of the Litigation. The amount is exclusive of the payments heretofore made by any of the parties. The State's portion of the fee will be $750,000 (Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars); . the LRSD' s portion shall be $2,000,000 (Two Million Dollars); the PCSSD's portion shall be $300,000 (Three Hundred Thousand Dollars); and NLRSD's portion shall be $100,000 (One Hundred Thousand Dollars), which shall include settlement of fees for the voting rights action also ' pending in this court of which settlement on the merits is contemplated shortly. All such payments shall be due and payable on final approval except for the payments due from the PCS SD and NLRSD. The PCSSD payment shall mature six years from the date of final approval of the settlement. The NLRSD shall make two payments each in the amount of $50,000 (Fifty Thousand Dollars) no later than 10 days of final approval of ., , the settlement and July 1,. 1990, respectively. The State will advance LRSD's share. of the fees and reduce total payments due LRSD under this agreement by that amount. The amounts will be deducted in the final years of payment to LRSD. The parties are satisfied that over the thirty-three years of this Litigation, Joshua and its predecessor parties, all of whom have been represented by attorneys for the LDF have expended time and incurred costs for which they have not been compensated. The parties are also satisfied, upon a review of their own time records and costs in this Litigation over the last five years, that the payment is fair and reasonable and consistent with the payments made over that period of ti.me to counsel for the o~er parties. The parties also agree for purposes of this settlement that Joshua is a prevailing party for purposes of relief. VI. The LRSD Settlement A. Payment Schedule and Terms The State will make the following payments to the LRSD (or any successor district or districts to which the territory now within LRSD may be assigned or for the benefit of the students in such territory if the State or any other entity becomes responsible for the education) on or before the dates indicated: 22 - (1) Payments for compensatory education progr_ams and other desegregation expenses will be as follows: Within 10 days of Final Approval $4,475,000 January 1, 1990 3,475,000 July 1, 1990 4,609,250 January 1, 1991 3,609,250 July 1, 1991 4,747,528 January 1, 1992 3,747,528 July 1, 1992 4,889,954 January 1, 1993 3,889,954 July 1, 1993 5,036,652 January 1, 1994 4,036,652 July 1, 1994 4,057,460 January 1, 1995 3,057,460 July 1, 1995 2,985,131 January 1, 1996 1,985,131 July 1, 1996 1,844,811 January 1, 1997 844,811 July 1, 1997 1,266,770 January 1, 1998 266,770 July 1, 1998 152,387 . January 1, 1999 152,387 $59,129,886 - 23 (2) The State will make additional payments to LRSD totaling $13,870,114 over a seven year period as set forth below: Within 10 days of Final Approval $2,000,000 7/1/90 $2,000,000 7/1/91 $2,000,000 7/1/92 $2,000,000 7/1/93 $2,000,000 7/1/94 $2,000,000 7/1/95 $1,870,114 These payments are cash equivalent payments in lieu of formula guarantees for LRSD provided for in an earlier signed version of this settlement. B. Loan Provisions In addition to the above-mentioned payments, the State agrees to provide loans to LRSD (or any successor district or districts to which the territory now within LRSD may be assigned or for the benefit of the students in such territory if the State or any other entity becomes responsible for their education) .between July 1, 1989 and July 1, 1999 in a cumulative amount of not more than $20,000,000.00 on the following terms: (1) . Each loan will be amortized over a 20-year period to be paid in full to an escrow account established by the parties as described below with 20 24 equal annual payments of principal begin~ing seven years following the execution of the loan: (2) No more than $6,000,000 will be loaned in any biennium and no loan will be made before July 1, 19891 (3) Each loan will bear interest beginning seven years following the execution of the loan at the rate of three percent (3%) per annum, such interest to be paid annually at the time of the annual principal payments to an escrow account established by the parties as described below; (4) The proceeds of the loans shall be made payable to a trust governed by a trust committee consisting of the Director of the Department of Education {or designee), the LRSD Superintendent {or designee) and a designee of Joshua. The loan proceeds shall be used for desegregation purposes including, but not limited to, school construction or renovation, salaries of instructional personnel, equipment purchase of instructional and supplies, program development and implementation costs, consultant,s' fees and and staff development training of LRSD principals , and teachers to promote desegregation. The loan proceeds will not be utilized directly or indirectly as a vehicle for generating income for LRSD through higher interest rates; (5) The loan(s) will be secured by a first lien in favor of the State on existing, extended or new millages (whichever the State chooses}, such first lien to be assured by an opinion letter to the benefit of the State from LRSD's bond counsel; ( 6) LRSD and the State will establish a joint escrow account into which all principal and interest due on loans made under this agreement will be paid. If at any time between the date of this agreement and December 31, 2000 the composite scores of LRSD black students (excluding special education students) on a standardized test agreed upon by the State and LRSD are 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD white students (excluding special education students} , the escrowed funds will be 26 paid to LRSD and any outstanding loans will be forgiven . If the 90% goal is . not reached by December 31, 2000, the escrow funds will be paid to the State and any outstanding loans will continue to be repaid according to the schedule set orth in this agreement. The intent of this subsection is that LRSD will receive twenty million dollars plus any accrued interest if its goal of increasing student achievement as described in this subsection is reached and that the State will be repaid in full amount of all loans plus interest if LRSD does not reach its goal. VII. The PCSSD Settlement A. Financial Settlement PCSSD and Joshua have asserted claims and potential claims against the State on behalf of PCSSD students relating to miscalculation of MFPA, the State's role in the Granite Mountain transfer and compensatory education needs. The following provisions are made to settle all such claims and any others which have been or could have been made by PCSSD or Joshua against the State on behalf of PCSSD students. 27 ., 1. Magnet Pavments The ADE sha~l, beginning with the 1989-90 school . year, make . payments of school aid for PCSSD magnet students directly to PCSSD which shall in turn reimburse LRSD at the rate of $1,550 per PCSSD magnet school student being educated in LRSD magnet schools less any magnet surplus credit available under paragraph II.B. herein. The State may, at its option, continue the direct payment to the LRSD of the remaining $1,550 of magnet school operational costs for PCSSD magnet students or may make such ~id payments for PCSSD magnet students directly to PCSSD. If the latter option is selected, then PCS SD shall make total payments to LRSD of $3,100 per year for each PCSSD magnet student or the appropriate pro rata share of said $3,100 if such students are magnet students for less than the full school year less any magnet surplus credit available u~der II.B. herein. 2. Other Payments (a) The State shall make the following six scheduled payments to PCSSD: Within 10 days of Final Approval $3,000,000 07/01/90 07/01/91 07/01/92 07/01/93 07/01/94 28 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 (b) The State shall make the following payments as cash equivale?ts in lieu of the Temporary Formula and the transportation aid adjustment set out in an earlier signed version of this settlement: Within 10 days of Final Approval $1,000,000 7/1/90 7/1/91 7/1/92 7/1/93 7/1/94 7/1/95 B. Staff Develooment $1,500,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 PCSSD is exploring the utility of a program under which all certified staff would experience three college hours of course work in Black History or other similar course offering. PCSSD is exploring and evaluating this concept to facilitate its efforts to reduce the achievement disparity between black and white students. ADE and PCSSD recognize and understand that such a program, if it required PCSSD to fully fund presently prevailing college tuition charges, would be prohibitively expensive. ADE pledges to use its best efforts to work with appropriate Arkansas colleges and universities to facilitate a special arrangement which would significantly reduce the cost of such a program to PCSSD and 29 make it financially possible to implement. ADE . assumes no additional financial responsibility pursuant to this commitment. c. Food Services LRSD agrees to contract with PCS SD for any food products which LRSD can obtain from PCSSD at the same or lower cost than LRSD can obtain the same quality products from other vendors. D. Housing ADE agrees to use its best efforts to influence appropriate state agencies to assist PCSSD in its efforts to promote and secure scattered site housing in the PCSSD by securing and providing, to the extent feasible, state owned or controlled land suitable for such use. VIII. The NLRSD Settlement NLRSD and Joshua have asserted claims and potential claims against the State on behalf of NLRSD students relating to miscalculation of MFPA and to compensatory education needs . The following provisions are made to settle all such claims and any others which have been or could have been made by NLRSD or Joshua against the State on behalf of NLRSD students. A. Magnet Pavrnents The ADE shall, beginning with the 1989-90 school year, make payments of school aid for NLRSD magnet students directly to NLRSD which shall in turn 30 reimburse LRSD at he rate of $1,550 per NLRSD magnet school student ~eing educated in LRSD magnet schools less any magnet surplus credit available under paragraph II.B. herein. The State may, at its option, continue the direct payment to the LRSD of the remaining $1,550 of magnet school operational costs for NLRSD magnet students or may make such aid payments for NLRSO magnet students directly to NLRSD. If the latter option is selected, then NLRSD shall make total payments to the LRSD of $3,100 per year per each NLRSD magnet student or the appropriate pro-rata share of said $3,100 if such students are magnet students for less than the full school year less any magnet surplus credit available under paragraph II.B. herein. B. Compensatory Education Pavments Beginning with the 1989-90 school year and continuing through the 1995-96 school year, the State will, on July 1 of each year, pay NLRSD $389,025 (a total of $2,723,175 for the seven year period). C. Additional Payments As additional compensatory education assistance, beginning with the 1990-91 school year and continuing through the 1996-97 school year, the NLRSD will receive payments to support the reduction of the percentage of the total black student population that 31 is in its special education program. The formula fbr such payments is_ as follows: (1) The first step is to determine a Base Year, or starting point, to which placements in further years will be compared. The October 1, 1987 general enrollment data and the December, 1987 special education count will be used to establish this base and calculations pursuant to this formula will be based on those counts in future years. On October 1, 1987, the NLRSD had 4083 black students, including those attending magnet schools, (Total Black Population - "TBP") and 805 black students were in special education, including those attending magnet schools, (Blacks in Special Education - "BSE") in December, 1987. Thus, 19.72% of the District's total black population was in special education ( "Black Placement Rate"). (2) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (3) below and solely for determining the amount of these formula payments, the NLRSD will receive the State Base Equalization Rate (SBER) multiplied by the special education weights for the difference between the number of black students actually in special education and the number that would have been in special education if there had been no reduction in the BPR since the Base Year. Because of delayed year financing, the student counts will be taken in school 32 _., years 1989-90 through ~995-96 but payments for those counts will be made in 1990-91 through 1996-97 using the payment year's SBER. By way of illustration, if the TBP in 1989-90 is 4212, applying the BPR for the Base Year would result in .1972 x 4212, or 830.6, black students in special education. If the actual number is 772, the District would be entitled to payment for the special education weights (average .714 per student) for 58.6 students, which would result in 41.8 weights. (3) Since the District cannot control placement decisions in other districts, for purposes of this formula black students who transfer into the NLRSD already placed in special education by their original school district will be excluded from the count of TBP and BSE for their first year of enrollment in the NLRSD to the extent that those incoming transfers exceed black students in special education who transfer from the NLRSD to other districts. For example, if 52 black special education students transfer into the NLRSD between the 1988-89 and 1989-90 school years while only 37 transfer out, 15 black students would be excluded from the TBP and ESE in 19 89-9 0 for the purpose of this formula. Thus, the NLRSD would be counted as only having 4197 TBP instead of 4212 and 757 BSE instead of 772 and would be paid for the special education weights associated _, I i \. ( with the difference between 827.6 and 757 BSE, i.e., 70.6. (4) As further support for the reduction of black students placed in special education and solely for the purpose of determining the amount of the payments, the NLRSD will be entitled to payment for the special education weights associated with the difference between the number of students removed from special education in the NLRSD and placed in the regular program in the NLRSD and those moved from the regular NLRSD program an_d placed in special education in the NLRSD. For example, if between 1988-89 and 1989-90 the District removed 83 black students from special education and placed 64 in special education, the District would be paid for the special education weights for an additional 19 students, which would result in 13.6 weights. (5) A list of names (and identification numbers, if available) of the special education students referred to in paragraph ,3 and 4 above, will be provided to the Arkansas Department of Education, before any payment is made under these provisions. (6) Because of delayed year financing, the operation of this formula will not result in any additional funds until 1990-91. Presently, the SBER is $1,944.55 and, asswning a $74.00 per year 34 increase, it would be $2,018 in 1990-91. Using the above examples, ~his would generate $129,757. (7) The District may continue to receive payments under this formula only through the 1996-97 school year {inclusive) but in no event will the District receive more than $2,344,055 cumulatively through the operation of this formula. The limit of the State's obligation under this formula is $1,276,825. If the amount of the payments exceeds $1,276,825, LRSD and PCSSD agree to pay those excess amounts up to the point that either (a) the over-all payments to NLRSD under this formula reach $2,344,055 or (b) the expiration of the formula, whichever comes first. (8) Any payments required of LRSD and PCSSD under paragraph (7) will be shared on the basis of 75% for LRSD and 25% for PCSSD. (9) If, when the formula expires, the fonnula has generated less than $1,276,825, the State will pay the difference between what it has paid and $1,276,825 to LRSD and PCSSD on the basis of 75% to LRSD and 25% to PCSSD. (10) Any payments made pursuant to this formula will be separate from the District's usual MFPA payments. D. Description of Additional Comoensatory Education Programs Within fifteen days of the final approval of this settlement, the NLRSD will develop a description of the compensatory education programs to be developed with the additional compensatory education funds made available through this settlement and will petition the court to amend NLRSD s Plan accordingly. The State, Joshua, and the Districts will support the NLRSD in this effort. IX. Execution A. This Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement of March, 1989, is executed as revised by counsel with authority of their clients this 28th day of September, 1989. LITTLE BY'l ~~q~~~::;2:~~~- Christopher Helle One of Its Attorneys * * * * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 By~l \h.-nn-1,(Q.,'n,- ~_1/amuel Jones / / i~e o/ts Attvs ./ 36 * * * * * NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRI~ By: , ~ t). sifpnw. Jones ~ One of Its Attorneys * * * * * ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF :::CA~~~ H. William Allen One of Its Attorneys .. * * * * JOSHUA INTERVENORS By: ~ ti Id, ih&amp; ( b t,/A s "JR) d6hn W. Walker J One of Their Attorneys .. * * * * KNIG~RVENORS By: )~ Pauz?/ Ward One 6 Their Attorneys . RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE STATE For and in consideration of its payments and commitments set forth in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement to which this release is attached (hereafter, "the Consideration), the undersigned parties do hereby release, acquit and forever discharge the State of Arkansas, its constitutional officers, elected officials, appointees, employees, agencies, departments, their predecessors and successors including, but not limited to, the Arkansas State Board of Education and its members (hereafter collectively referred to as "the Released Parties") of and from any and all actions, causes of action, claims and demands which the undersigned now have or may hereafter have arising out of or in any way related to any acts or omissions of any and every kind to the date of the execution of this release by the released parties which in any way relate to racial discrimination or segregation in public education in the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas or to the violation of constitutional or other rights of school children based on race or color in the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas. It is understood and agreed that the Consideration is valuable and is given in full and final compromise of disputed claims and that the giving of the Consideration is not to be construed as an admission of any liability on the part of any of the Released Parties beyond 2 the liability found to date by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth -Circuit and that the terms of this release are contractual and not a mere recital. It is further understood and agreed that the litigation now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al, No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (the "Litigation") is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the Arkansas State Board of Education and the former and current members of that board named in the Litigation. We have read this release and had it explained to us by our attorneys who have signed as witnesses hereto and we understand that the above referenced payments or commitments are in full and final compromise of any and all claims and causes of action. We understand that in the event all parties for which there is a signature blank below do not sign this release, the release is effective and binding on those parties that do sign. EXECUTED this day of ______ , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: FRIDAY, ELDREDGE &amp; CLARK 200 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 By=-~-----,.---------- Christopher Heller One of its Attorneys LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By ~P:-r_e_s_i.,. .a~e-n-:-t-,----:B=-o-a-r"""'a=--o-f-=--=-o-:-i-r_e_c_,t-o-r-s- EXECUTED THIS day of WITNESSED AND APPROVED: WRIGHT, LINDSEY &amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 3 * * * * * -------, 1989 by: PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 BY----,--,,----,----,,--,,,__.....,.. ___ _ President, Board of Directors By: -M-. -S-am-u-e=l J-o-n-es- -------- One of its Attorneys * * * * * EXECUTED this --- day of -------, 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: JACK LYON &amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower Little Rock, AR 72201 By: -S-te-p-h-e,n- -W-. -J-o-n-e-s- -------- One of its Attorneys NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By __ __,...,,------------,----- President, Board of Directors * * * * * EXECUTED this day of -------, 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: (NAACP) LEGAL AND EDUCATIONAL DEFENSE FUND, INC. BNyorm-a-n -J-. -C-ha-ch-k-in- ----- One of its Attorneys and JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 By ______________ _ John W. Walker One of its Attorneys THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS By ____ ...,,.,,--,,.,,._ _______ -,--__ _ LRSD Class Representative By ____ ...,....,,-----.---.---.---- President, Little Rock, Arkansas Branch of the NAACP BY.,.,..,,.........,~----,,-----------,-"T"""- NLRSD Class Representative and President of the North Little Rock, Arkansas Branch of the NAACP ByP-C:S:S-D- ::C=l-a:s=s- -R-=ep:-r-e-s-e-n-t-a-t-i-v-e,- --- EXECUTED this --- day of WITNESSED AND APPROVED: MITCHELL &amp; ROACHELL 1014 W. Third Little Rock, AR 72201 4 * * * * * ------, 1989 by: KNIGHT INTERVENORS By _________ --,-_____ _ LRCTA Representative BY__,. _____________ _ Richard W. Roachell One of its Attorneys By _________ - _____ _ PACT Representative By __________ - ____ _ NLRCTA Representative ....... RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE LRSD For and in consideration of its relinquishment of claims and commitments set forth in the Plans and the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement to which this release is attached (hereafter, "the Consideration"), the undersigned parties do hereby release, acquit and forever discharge the LRSD, its directors, administrators, appointees, employees, successors agencies, (hereafter departments, their predecessors and collectively . referred to as "the Released Parties") of and from any and all actions, causes of action, claims and demands which the undersigned now have or may hereafter have arising out of or in any way related to any acts or omissions of any and every kind to the date of the execution of this release by the released parties which in any way relate to racial discrimination, segregation in public education, or to violations of other constitutic~al or statutory rights of school children, based on race or color, in the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas. It is understood and agreed that the Consideration is valuable and is given in full and final compromise of disputed claims and that the giving of the Consideration is not to be construed as an admission of any liability on the part of any of the Released Parties beyond the liability found to date by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and ATTACHMENT B 2 that the terms of this release are contractual and not a mere recital. . It is further understood and agreed that the litigation I now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al, No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (including, but not limited to, Coooer v. Aaron, Norwood v. Tucker and Clark v. Board of Education of the Little Rock School District) (the "Litigation") is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the LRSD and the former and current members of its board named in the Litigation. This dismissal is final for all purposes except that the Court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding the implementation of the Plans. We have read this release and had it explained to us by our attorneys who have signed as witnesses hereto and we understand that the above referenced relinquishment of claims and commitments are in full and final compromise of any and all claims and causes of action. We understand that in the event all parties for which there is a signature blank below do not sign this release, the release is effective and binding on those parties that do sign. 3 EXECUTED this --- day of -------, 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: ALLEN LAW FIRM A Professional Corporation 1200 Worthen Bank Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION By-::-.--,----------=--,,---:----- By: _______________ Chairman, Board of Directors H. William Allen One of its Attorneys * * * * * EXECUTED THIS --- day of -------, 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: WRIGHT, LINDSEY &amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 By: _M_ __s am_u_e~l__J_ o__ n_e_s_ _____ One of its Attorneys PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 By __ ,_ ___________ _ President, Board of Directors * * * * * EXECUTED this --- day of -------, 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: JACK LYON &amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower Little Rock, AR 72201 By __ -,-___________ _ Stephen W. Jones One of its Attorneys NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By-----,-:-------,-----,----- President, Board of Directors * * * * * EXECUTED this --- day of _______ , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS (NAACP) LEGAL AND EDUCATIONAL DE_FENSE FUND, INC. By _____________ _ Norman J. Chachkin One of its Attorneys and By ______________ _ LRSD Class Representative ByP-r-e-s-i-d,e-n:-t,- -L--i.t-t-l-e= -R-o=c:k-, -,----- Arkansas Branch of the NAACP JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 7220l ByJo~h-n= W--. -W=-a-lk-e-r= --c--------- One of its Attorneys 4 By :--::Nc-:L-=RS=o::--::c::-:1.-a=-s-s-=R-e_p_r_e_s_e_n_t,...a_t,...1.,.. v-e-- and President of the North Little Rock, Arkansas Branch of the NAACP By- =-==-==-=---=-'=-----=,-----,--.,......,..--- PCS SD Class Representative * * * * * EXECUTED this --- day of ______ , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: MITCHELL &amp; ROACHELL 1014 W. Third Little Rock, AR 72201 BRyic~ha-rd- -W.- -R-oa-c-he-ll- ----- One of its Attorneys RNIGHT INTERVENORS By -L=RC-=TA= =R-e=p-r-e--s-e=n-t-a-t-i-v-e-, ---,------- By= -===--==-------,--....,.....,,------- PACT Representative By =NL- R=C- T=A ::R=e:p:r-e-s::e:n-t-a-t-i-v-e- ,-------- RELEASE bF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE PCSSD For and in consideration of its relinquishment of claims and commitments set forth in the Plans and the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement to which this release is attached (hereafter, "the Consideration"), the undersigned parties do hereby release, acquit and forever discharge the PCSSD, its directors, administrators, appointees, employees, agencies, departments, their predecessors and successors (hereafter collectively referred to as "the Released Parties") of and from any and all actions, causes of action, claims and demands which the undersigned now have or may hereafter have arising out of or in any way related to any acts or omissions of any and every kind to the date of the execution of this release by the released parties which in any way relate to racial discrimination, segregation in public education, or to violations of other constitutional or statutory rights of school children, based on race or color, in the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas. It is understood and agreed that the Consideration is valuable and is given in full and final compromise of disputed claims and that the giving of the Consideration is not to be construed as an admission of any liability on the part of any of the Released Parties beyond the liability found to date by the United States District Court for the Eastern ATTACHMENT C 2 - District of Arkansas and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and that the.terms of this release are contractual and not a mere recital. It is further understood and agreed that the litigation now pending in the United States District Court for tl}e Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al, No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (including, but not limited to, Zinnamon v. Pulaski Countv School District, LR-C-68-154) ( the "Litigation") is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the P.CSSD and the former and current members of its board named in the Litigation. This dismissal is final for all purposes except that the Court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation of the Plans. We have read this release and had it explained to us by our attorneys who have signed as witnesses hereto and we understand that the above referenced relinquishment of claims and commitments are in full and final compromise of any and all claims and causes of action. We understand that in the event all parties for which there is a signature blank below do not sign this release, the release is effective and binding on those parties that do sign. .... 3 EXECUTED this --- day of ______ , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: FRIDAY, ELDREDGE &amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 By: --,---,,----------,--,,------ Christopher Heller One of its Attorneys LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT _By_--,-------,,--,=-----,----- President, Board of Directors * * * * * EXECUTED THIS --- day of -------, 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: ALLEN LAW FIRM A Professional Corporation 1200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 7i201 By: ____________ _ H. William Allen One of its Attorneys ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION ByC-h=a-i-rm,-a--n-, --B-o--a-r,d, --o-f- -D-.i-r-e-.c,t-o--r-s- - * * * * * EXECUTED this day of ______ , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: JACK LYON &amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower Little Rock, AR 72201 By ----~------------ Stephen W. Jones One of its Attorneys NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By=---=----,,_-...,,....-,=--::--:----:--- President, Board of Directors EXECUTED this day of ______ , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS (NAACP) LEGAL AND EDUCATIONAL DEFENSE FUND, INC. By _____________ _ Nonnan J. Chachkin One of its Attorneys and By~-=~=---,,,_------,------ LRSD Class Representative By=---=----,--,,.....,.~-=-__,,-,--....,...---- President, Little Rock, Arkansas Branch of the NAACP .. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. l 7 z:i c _ ...Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 - - - By -:J,_o,..h-n--=w-=--. -w-a-=1-=-k_e_r _______ One of its Attorneys 4 By _____ ~=------,-----,--.,-,---- NLRSD Class Representative and Pre idant of the North Little Rock, Arkansas Branch of the NAACP By ______________ _ PCSSD Class Representative * * * * * EXECUTED this day of -------, 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: MITCHELL &amp; ROACHELL 1014 W. Third Little Rock, AR 72201 BRYic-h,a-rd- -W,.. -R-o-a-c-h-e-ll- ------ One of its Attorneys KNIGHT INTERVENORS By ___________ -=-------,------- LRCTA Representative By --------,,--------,------- PACT Representative By __________ -,-____ _ NLRCTA Representative f . __., _ RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE NLRSD For and in consideration of its relinquishment of claims and commitments set forth in the Plans and the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement to which this release is attached (hereafter, "the Considerationa), the undersigned parties do hereby discharge the NLRSD, its release, acquit and forever directors, administrators, appointees, employees, agencies, departments, their predecessors and successors (hereafter collectively referred to as "the Released Parties") of and from any and all actions, causes of action, claims and demands which the undersigned now have or may hereafter have arising out of or in any way related to any acts or omissions of any and every kind to the date of the execution of this release by the released parties which in any way relate to racial discrimination, segregation in public education, or to violations of other constitutional or statutory rights of school children, based on race or color, in the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas. It is understood and agreed that the Consideration is valuable and is given in full and final compromise of disputed claims and that the giving of the Consideration is not to be construed as an admission of any liability on the part of any of the Released Parties beyond the liability found to date by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth ATTACHMENT D 2 Circuit and that the tenns of this release are contractual and not a mere recital. It is further understood and agreed that the litigation now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski Countv Special School District No. 1, et al, No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (including, but not limited to, Graves v. Board of Education of North Little Rock School District and Davis v. Board of Education of the North Little Rock School District (the "Litigation") is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the NLRSD and the former and current members of its board named in the Litigation. This dismissal is final for all purposes except that the Court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation of the Plans. We have read this release and had it explained to us by our attorneys who have signed as witnesses hereto and we understand that the above referenced relinquishment of claims and commitments are in full and final compromise of any and all claims and causes of action. We understand that in the event all parties for which there is a signature blank below do not sign this release, the release is effective and binding on those parties that do sign. l ' 3 EXECUTED this day of ______ , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: FRIDAY, ELDREDGE &amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By ___ ---:-:----,--=---=--=---,----- President, Board of Directors ByCh=ris-to-p-h-er- H-e-l-le-r ----- One of its Attorneys * * * * * EXECUTED THIS day of -------, 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: WRIGHT, LINDSEY &amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 By: ____ - _______ _ M. Samuel Jones One of its Attorneys PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 By __ - ______________ _ President, Board of Directors * * * * * EXECUTED this --- day of ______ , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: ALLEN LAW FIRM A Professional Corporation 1200 Worthen Bank Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 By _____________ _ H. William Allen One of its Attorneys ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION By...,,.-;----:-------,,---,,---,----- Chairman, Board of Directors * * * * * EXECUTED this --- day of -------, 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS (NAACP) LEGAL AND EDUCATIONAL DEFENSE FUND, INC. ByN~o-rn--ia-n- --J-.- =C,h-a--c-h:k-i-n- :--:------- By .,....,,.......,..,..----,c-::----------,----- LRSD Class Representative One of its Attorneys and BPyr=es-id-e-n-t-,: -L=it-tl-e- -R-o-c-k-, ----- Arkansas Branch of NAACP .... JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 7228J BJyo-h=n -W-.= W--a-lk-e-r- -,.--------- One of its . Attorneys 4 ByN=L-R-:S-D:: :-C::l:a--s-s:: :R-::e--p-r-e::s:-e-n--t-a-.t,i.v..e., ..--and President of the North Little Rock, Arkansas Branch of the NAACP By~---------...,,..,,-------------- PCSSD Class Representative * * * * * EXECUTED this --- day of ______ , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: MITCHELL &amp; ROACHELL 1014 W. Third Little Rock, AR 72201 By-_____________ _ Richard W. Roachell One of its Attorneys KNIGHT INTERVENORS ByLR~C-TA= .R.,e,p.-re=s-e-n-t-a-ti-v-e- -,,------ BPyA=CT- =Re-p-r-e-se-n-t-a-ti-v-e- -------- ByNL=RC-T=A --R-e-p:r-e=se-n-t~at-i-v-e- ------- H . WUJ..lAM Au.DI S..V.t&gt;M J.-.o:so:-- All.EN LA w FIRM A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION A TIDRNEYS AT LAW 1200 WORTiiEN BANlC BUll.DING LITn..E Roa:, ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 374-7100 'Tll.l:CCl'Y ,,01, )74, Jt,)J May 31, 1989 Re: Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al, NO. LR-C-82-866 Nl1'A MOSl;R llGAJ. ASSlST A! John W. Walker, Esq. Christopher Heller, Esq. Stephen W. Jones, Esq. HAND DELIVERED M. Samuel Jones, Esq. Richard W. Roachell, Esq. Dear Counsel: In accordance with Ill .A. of the Pulaski County Desegregation Settlement 1-.qreement of March, 19 89, we are enclosing an Arkansas Department of Education plan for monitoring implementation of compensatory education in the three school distrjcts. The settlement agreement does not provide for filing or even submission of this document to the Court at this time. However, we are sending copies to both Judge Woods and ~r. Mccutcheon so that they may be aware that this requirement of the settlement agreement has been met. We anticipate that the enclosed plan may be modified after receiving your comments and after we learn more about the monitoring role that will be undertaken by Eugene Reville. Sincerely you~s, ALLEN LA\&gt;! FI RM H. William Allen HWA/nm Enclosure cc: The Honorable Henry Woods The Honorable Aubrey V. Mccutcheon, Jr. bee: Dr. Ruth Steele Sam Bratton, Esq. Sharon Streett, Esq . Marion J. Starling, Jr., Esq. EXHIBIT :i ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PULASKI COUNTY DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement (the Agreement) provides for the State of Arkansas, through the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), to monitor the implementation of compensatory education programs by the school districts in Pulaski County. The ADE defines compensatory education programs as those programs which are directed at improving the academic performance of black students whose academic achievement has been adversely affected by racial discriminatory practices within the school. The state believes that the compensatory effects of the programs should be measured by the extent to which disparities in educational achievement between minority and majority students are reduced. Although the Agreement identifies compensatory education as the primary area for monitoring, the state's monitoring responsibility is necessarily broader in order to ensure an equitable education for all students and demonstrate fiscal accountability to the tax payers of Arkansas. Monitoring responsibilities for desegregation effectiveness by necessity mu s t permeate all elements of schooling to ensure equal opportunities through special state funded remedial programs. Therefore, it shall be the goal of the ADE to provide extensive monitoring and evaluation of the Agreement. The primary focus of the process shall be a continuous assessment of the remedial effectiveness of programs supported partially or fully by special state funding resulting from Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District, et al., No. LR-C-82-866. The programs and services receiving special funding include: 1. Compensatory Education 2. Magnet Schools 3. Magnet School Transportation 4. Majority to Minority Transfers The Agreement commits the state to: 1. Direct funding to the districts (within the limits provided in the Agreement) 2. Principles of desegregation a. Remediation of racial academic achievement disparities 1 - b. Standardized test validation c. Racial balance in special programs d. Minor.i ty recrui t .mcnt and employment 3. Site selection crlteria for school construction or ~xpa.nsion 4. Staff development release days for the three districts through 1990-1991 S. Tw~nt.y m.i l lion dollars loan to Little Rock School District to develop programs for rem~diating achievement disparities and for other programs and initiatives which fncilitate desegregation 6. Selection of an agreed standardized test to satisfy the lo~n forgiveness of the Agreement Further, Section III-A of the Agreement states: ,, .. The ADE shall provide regular written monitoring reports t~ the partiP.s and the court. MDn.itoring by the statP. shall be independent. of that of the other parties. 3. As a last resort, ADE may petition the court for modifications or changes in such programs being imp)emented by the districts \but not for il reduction in the agr~ed level of state funding). ~- Any recommendations made by J&gt;.DE shall not form the basis of any additional funding responsibilities of the state. Jl.l though, the J&gt;.DE: moni taring shall be independent of that of t:ie other parties, the districts are advised to establish a11 internal monitoring p1an. The purpose shall be to determine and document that: 1. Th~ desegregation plan was, or is being implemented on a timely basis, 2. lneguities do not exist and/or do not recur; and 3. All students are afforded an equitable education. 2 !SGNl TOHHIG ~he monjtoring process shall be conducted to ensure effectiveness of court order remedies and will include site visitations, review of plans, review of statistical and administrative data as well as perceptual responses from school personnel, patrons and students. Further, monitoring visits should provide evidence that the school s.ite is representative of the pluralistic nature of the Arr,erican Society. Moni tor:1 ng tcc1ms shall be selected by the Director, J:-.rkansas Dep,ntment of Educ at ion (ADE), General Di vision. The teams shall include ADE personnel and may iuclude others as designated by the Director. Monitoring visits .shall be conducted according to a schedule e;-:;tc:1blis11cd by the l\DE. The rnoni toring process shall include announced and unannounced visits. M~nltors shall record ~vents and conditions during site visits. Monitors shall observe and report. findings only. Each district shall include in the six-year pla11 and ~nnual .sc:h0ol .improveillcnt pL;.n:s appropriate objectives to c1ch.ieve c0mpliance with each court order related to the Agreement. The ADE shall monitor the six-yec1r plans and ;innual school improvemC'nt plans t0 dE::t~rmine prouress toward uchieving educatio11al equity. District plans should provide evidence of 88w.pliur.ce with co~rt orders and 3 process to ascertain progress . - 'The AD"E shall identify relevant dat.a necessary to formulate conclusions and recommendations. Data should provide: 1. Evidence that policies, pro~edures, rules and regulations ar~ developed and implemented to facilitate desegregation. 2. Evidence that plans r~lated to reducing achievement disparity between black and non-black students are progressively successful. 3. Ev.5.dencc that student assignments to schools, classes and pr,)grams at each organ.izat ional }eve) are made wit.hout b :i.as. 4. Evidence that staff development days authorized as a result of the Agreement are used to facilitate the desegregation process. S. Evidence that tr2vel time to and from schools is not disproportionate among black and non-blc:1.ck stude-nc.s and the percent~ge of black students transported for desegregation is not significantly greater than the pe-r&lt;::entr.19e of non-black students transported for d~segregation. G. Evidence that guidance and counseling is designed to meet the needs of a diverse student population. 7. Evidence of internal procedures for ensuring that materials for appraising or counseling students are nun-discriminatory. 8. EvidencP. that curricular content and instructional strategies are utilized to meet the diverse needs of the student population served. 9. Evidence that personnel is recruited, employed and ::1ssigned in a manner to meet the goals of a desegregating .school district. 10. Evidence that procedures related to extracurricula and (:o~urricula activities are developed and implemented to identify and eliminate conditions that result in participation that is disproportionate to the student population. 11. Evidence of diverse representation on appointed distr:i ctwide and school-bilsed commi tteP.s. 12. Evidence of efforts to ensure that parent attendance aL school functions is not disproportionate to the student population. 4 I i 1, -'-- 1). E~idence of success related to Majority to Minority 't "t alJsf er s. Evidence that magnet schools arc an effective lnlerdi~trict remedy for racial balance. The collection of data shall include at least the fol1owing: A. Enrollment/.Att.endanc1:: 1. Enrollm~nt by race, gender, school, grade, transported, nontransported and instructional programs. 2. Enrollment by rnce, gender, grade, transported, nontransported and instructional program fo~ each magnet school. ]. Nwnber of non promotes by race, gender, grade, school, teacher, transported and nontransported. B. Test Data 1. 2. 3. ArY.ansas Minimum Performance Test results by race, gender, grade, school and socioeconomic status (SES). Nwnber of eighth grade1.s failing to attain mastery after the first, second and third administration of test by race, gender, SES and school. Nw11ber of eighth graders that are non promotes for failing to a t tain mastery after third administration of test by race, gender, SES and school. 4. Metropolitan Achievement Test - 6th Edition or other national normed tests as may be adopted by the :Z..DE. Results should be given by race, gender, grade, school, SES and teacher. 5. Number of 11th and 12th graders by race, gender, school and guidance counselor who take the PSAT, ShT or ACT. c.. .Staff 1. Number of Full Time Equivalent (F.T.E.) classroom teacl1ers by race, gender, school, years of experience. 2. Number of F.T.E. school-based administrators by job category, race, gender, school, years of experience . 3. Nwnber of F.T.E. counselors by race, gender, school, years of experience. s - ~ . 5. 6. 7. ,... 0. Numher of F. 'J'. E . ):inderg3.rtP.n teachers by race, 0ender, school, years of experience. Number of F.T.E. lib.ra:cians by race, gender, school, years of experience. Number of F.T.E. department. hcr1ds by race, gender, scliool, years of experience. Number of F.T.E. secretaries by race, gender, school, years of experience. N'.m,ber :::,f F.T.E. centr:11 office positions by job ~ategory, race, gender, school, years of experience. D. Policy and Program Information 1. Administrative chart indicates titles, names, responsibilities and reporting responsibilities. 2. ?o}icies and regulations related to student entrance 3nd exit criteria for course offerings and special st.ate funded programs including: ~- Magnet Schools h. Comperisa tor:,, Educ:a tion c. Majority to Minority Transfers d. Transportation 3. Student assig1ment policies, rules and regulations. 4. District policies, rules, regulations and written administrative directives governing: a. Class Assignment h. Testing c. Guidance and Counseling d. Extracurricular Activities e. Student Rights and Responsibilities f. Library Usage g. Student Records 5. Copir.s of current negotiated agreements with all employee groups. E. Budget Information Quarterly (or monthly, if available) financial reports including: 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high scl1ool programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state dese...gregation funding). 6 2. Transportation cost and funding source. 3. ~11 legal fees reported by type of services. 4. Compensa~ory Education Program cost 5. Magnet school cost F. Student Discipline 1. Number of discipline referrals by school and teacher reported by race, gender, grade, subject and teachers' years of experience. 2. Student suspensions, exclusions and expulsions according to type of infractions, length of punishment by race, gender, school and teacher. G. Perceptional Data Results of survey to ascertain perception toward school quality, school services, district and buildin~ leadership, special state funded programs and educational equity summarized by race, gender, attendance zone, sc:hou1 and grade. H. Majority to Minority Transfer Number and percentage of students by gender, race, school and grade level, by sending and rE:ceiving district. ;..nalysis of data shall bE: conducted by appropriate ADE personnel ond other persons as designated by the ADE director. Additional data may be required of the districts, a~ deemed necessary by the ADE for the monitoring reports. A schedule for submitting the data shall be established by the ADE. Si!lce the monitor .i.ng is massive antl encompassir,g, thE: ADE shall establish monitoring priorities as follows: 1. Programs and services supported by special state desegregation funding including compensatory education, magnet schools, majority to minority transfers and related transportation. 2. Low achieving schools. 3. Schools with new principals. 4. Any situation identified as unusual. 5. Expanded monitoring as resources permit. 7 1t.0ni t.oring ncti vi ties shall be coordinated by the ADE Equity Assistance Center. The site visitation will be conducted by a t.cam of no less than two members and no more than five members. At least one te.am member will be an education professional from th~ J&gt;.DE. The Equity Assistance Ct:?nter may conduct random monitoring to ensure the quality of monitoring procedures. 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 acti ,1i ties. REPORTING The ADF. sr1al l provide a written report to the parties and the Court on a semiannual schedule initially. These initial reports will be on FeDruary 1 (or nearest workday) and July 15 (or 11earest workday) of each year or as directed by the Court. The Equity Assistance Center shall be responsible for the written monitoring reports. TI1e written report shall contain a description of the progress of the desegregation process in Pulaski County. Programs and serviccs receiving special state funding resulting from Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District, et al., No. LR-C-82-866 shall receive reporting priority. The reports will contain both financial and program information. The Ji.DE Desegregation Assistance Team shall provide technical assistance and support as necessary to implement monitoring and reporting responsibilities. Current team members are: Administration Emma Bass Sterling Ingram Robert-. Shaver Gifted/Talented Martha Bass Federal Programs Clearence Lovell Elizabeth Gaston Jncentive Schools C;uolyn Elliott Glenda Peyton Marie Parker Ear)y Childhood TBA Curriculum Lynda White Horace Snith Janita Hoskyn 3 Student Services Brenda Matthews Ma1g.ie l'o,;ell Sue Swenson Sue McKenzie Special Education Diane Sydoriak Renny Abraham Staff Development C'-ayle Teal Jackie Dedman 2taff Attornev Sharon Streett Vocational Education Jean iJcEn':.ire MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WHEREAS, Section II.E of the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement (as revised September 28, 1989) (hereinafter the 11 Settlement Agreement 11 ) between the Little Rock School District ( 11 LRSD 11 ) and the State of Arkansas provides that the State of Arkansas , acting primarily through the Arkansas Department of Education ( "ADE " ) will continue to pay its share of the Magnet School operational costs and transportation costs for the six original magnet schools (Carver, Williams, Gibbs , Booker , Mann and Parkview) ; and WHEREAS, Section II .D of the Settlement Agreement limits the State ' s magnet funding obligation so that the State is required t o provide magnet funding only to the original six magnet schools; and WHEREAS, the total seating capacity for the six original magnet schools in 1989 was 4,065 seats ; and WHEREAS, Section II.D of the Settlement Agreement can be read as limiting the State's total magnet funding obligation to 4 , 065 seats or as limiting the State's magnet funding obligation on a school-by-school basis to the 1989 capacity at each of the six original magnet schools ; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Plan, LRSD reorganized its includes middle schools; and its Revised Desegregation and Education schools into a new configuration whi ch WHEREAS , the Magnet Review Committee requested and won the District Court ' s approval to change the grade structure of the interdistrict magnet schools and the number of seats within five of the six schools ; and WHEREAS, a consequence of LRSD' s change to the middle school configuration is that some of the six original magnet schools have a greater capacity than they did at the time of the 1989 Settlement Agreement and some of those schools have a smaller capacity than t hey did at the time of the 1989 Settlement Agreement ; and WHEREAS, ADE has filed an objection with the District Court , in which it asserts that the State ' s magnet school funding obligat ions are limited, on a school-by-school basis, to its share of funding for students up to the 1989 seating capacity at each of the six original magnet schools; and WHEREAS, LRSD has filed a motion with the Court requesting , among other things, that the Settlement Agreement be modified so as to increase the State's magnet school funding obligation beyond its s hare of funding for a total of 4,065 students for all six original magnet schools; - in the alternative, LRSD's motion requested that the Settlement Agreement be modified so as to increase the number of magnet seats funded by the State for certain individual magnet schools; and EX HI B l:T 5 WHEREAS, the LRSD and the State wish to amicably resolv~ their differences concerning the effect of LRSD ' s restructuring on the State ' s obligation to fund the six original magnet schools . THEREFORE , it is understood and agreed between ADE (on behalf of the State) and the LRSD as follows: LRSD shall withdraw its motion to modify the Settlement Agreement to the extent it seeks an increase, beyond a total of 4,065 seats, of the State ' s obligation to fund the six original magnet schools, and LRSD will not take an appeal from the District Court ' s order denying its motion to so increase the State's obligation. ADE shall withdraw its objection to District Court approval of a change in the number of seats proportionately funded by ADE at S of the 6 original magnet schools, provided that ADE will not be required to fund more than a total of 4,065 seats for all 6 original magnet schools collectively. The withdrawal of LRSD ' s and ADE's motions and objections is based upon their agreement that the restructuring of the LRSD's schools was intended , as part of LRSD's Revised Desegregation Plan, to enhance the quality of education in the LRSD and was not instituted solely as a means to increase the State's magnet school funding obligations. Nothing in this agreement should be construed, interpreted or asserted as a waiver of LRSD's or the ADE ' s ability to seek future modifications of the Settlement Agreement in regards to the seating capacities or funding of the magnet schools, or the LRSD's or ADE's right to object to proposed changes in seating capacities or funding obligations for the magnet schools, based upon factors other than the LRSD's restructuring of its schools under its Revised Desegregation Plan. ff Executed this!:!_ day of June, 2000. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By=~--------------- Christopher Heller 2 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT AND THE STATE OF ARKANSAS This Agreement is by and between the Little Rock School Di:strict ("LRSD"), and the St ate of Arkansas (the ''State"), by and through the State Board of Education, the Arkansas Department of Education and Governor Jvfike Huckabee. LRSD and the State shall collectively be referred to as the Parties. RECITALS WHEREAS, LRSD and the Staie are parties to the l 989 Settlement Agreement in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D C. No. CIV-LR-82-866, ("] 989 Settlement Agreement"); WHEREAS, the 1989 Settlement Agreement imposes cen ain obligations on the State bur cont ains no provision st ating when those obligations end; WHEREAS, LRSD will seek to be declared unit ary and released from federal court monit oring and supervision but is concerned that if it is decl ared unitary the State may seek to 1erminat e it s obligations under the J 989 Settlement Agreement; \\THEREAS, pursuant to Section VJ .B. of the 1989 Settlement Agr eement, th e State has advanced loans to the LRSD in the cumulative principal amount of $20,000,000.00 (twemy milli on dollars), and there is present ly a dispu1e between the State and the LRSD as to whether tho se loans ,:vill be fo rgiven or must be repaid pursuant to Section VI.B.(6) of the ] 989 Settlement Agreement; WHEREAS, under the S1a1e's current funding formula fon public school distric1s, LRSD's per pupil revenue affects the total amount of fonding whi ch 1he State must distribute through the fo rmula; WHEREAS, how LRSD sm.,ctures its bond debt affects LfSD's per pupil revenue; Page J of 8 EX HIB IT b WHEREAS, the State wants LRSD to S1rucrure its bond debt' so as to minimize the financial impact on the State; WHEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree to the following te~s and conditions: AGREEMENTS 1. LRSD agrees to pursue complete unitary status and release from court supervision, in good I faith and using its best efforts, until such complete relief has been obtained or until the tennination of this Agreement, whichever comes first. 2. LRSD agrees to accelerate the sale of its bonds so that the required annual debt service payments will be 11. 8 million dollars beginning with the 2002 calendar year. The State Board of Education does hereby approve the LRSD's bond application as submitted on February )9, 2001. 3 . ln order to facilitate and encourage LRSD's efforts 10 attain complete unitary status and release from court supervision, the State agrees that it will not seek tci modify or terminate any of the State's obligations to the LRSD under the 1989 Settlement Agreement (including any reduction of the payments to LRSD resulting from the Settlement Agreement or court decisions enforcing the Agreement) from the date of execution of this Agreement up lO arid including June 1, 2008. This covenant shall remain in full force and effect (unless this Agreement terminates pursuant to pangraph 6 of this Agreement) regardless of whether the LRSD, the Pulaskj County Special School District, and/or the North Litile Rock School District obtain panial or complete unitary status and release from court supervision. 3 . l Provided, however, that this Agreement does 1101 li~it, and should not be construed or interpreted as limiting in any way, the State\ability to seek modification or tennination of any of its obligations under the 1989 Setllement Agreement (including P age 2 of 8 - as follows: 4_] The State will forgive and release the LRSD from any obligation to repay the first $15,000,000.00 (fifteen mmion dollars) in loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section YI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. ,Any and al1 funds in the joint escrow account established by the State and the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B of i the 1989 Settlement Agreement will be released to the LRSD as soon as practicable. 4.2 In addition, with respect to the remaining $5,000,000_00 (five million dollars) in loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section Vl_B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, the State will forgive and release the LRSD from any obligation to repay these loans if the LRSD obtains a final order granting it complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision on or before July l, 2004. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 4 .3 of this Agreement, the LRSD is rel~eved of its obligation to make payments of principal or interest on these Joans irno a joint escrow account established by 1he State and the LRSD pursuant to Section Vl.B of the l 989 Settlement Agreement. 4-3 For puJ7Joses of paragraph 4.2, the phrase "final order granting it complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision" shall mean the entry of a final, appealable order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granting the LRSD complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision as of July 1, 2004. Jn the event an ord'er granting the LRSD complete unitary status and release from federal court super,vi sion as of July 1, 2004 is not entered by the District Court, or is entered by the District Coun but is appealed and Page 4 of 8 subsequently reversed in whole or in part, the LRSD shall have the unconditional obligation to repay the loans referenced in paragraph 4.2 on a payment schedule of interest and principal as set forth in Sections YI.B(l) and (3) of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, and to immediately pay to the St.ate the cuinulative amount of any and all interest and principal payments that would have been due on the loans referenced in paragraph 4.2_ 4.4 The Parties shal1 promptly and jointly petition the Court for any modification of Section VJ.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement fhat is necessary so as to fully effectuate and make binding the terms of paragraphs 4 through 43 of this Agreement, and shall take such further action as may be necessary to obtain such a modification, including but not limi1 ed to appealing any adverse decision or ruling of the District Court. 4.5 In the event this Agreement is tenninated pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, the Panies shall negotiate in good faith in an effort to arrive at a mutually agreeable re solution of any disputes concerning the loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B of the 1989 Setllement Agreement. ln the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resolution, the Parties may take whatever action they deem necessary and appropria1e with regard to said loans, including but not limited to sedung appropriate relief fi-om the Court. In the event such1relief is sought from the Court, neither the terms of this Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the panies related to its negotiation or execution. shall be construed or offered as evidence of any admission against interest or waiver of any kind on the part of the State or the LRSD Page 5 of 8 .. 4 .6 However, in the event this entire Agreement is not terminated pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, but the Coun approval referenced in paragraph 4.4 of this Agreement is nonetheless not obtained, the provisions of paragraphs 4 through 4 .6 of this Agreement shall be null and void but severable from the remainder of this Agreement, to the effect that all other promises and ~bligations of the Panies shal1 I remain in full force and effect. In such an event, the ,Parties shall negotiate in good faith in an effort to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution of any disputes concerning the loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section Vl.B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement and, in the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resolution, the Panies may take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate with regard to said loans, including but not limited to seeking appropriate reljeffrom the Coun. )n the event such relief is sought from the Court, neither the terms oftrus Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the Parties related to its negotiation or execution, shall be construed or offered as evidence of any admission against interest or waiver of any kind on the part of the State or the LRSD. 5. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date of execu1ion. 6. This Agreement will 1erminate and the State will have no further obligations under this Agreement if fhe LRSD has failed to apply to the District Court for complete unitary status and release from couT1 supervision by June 30, 2004 . 7. The Parties agree that this Agreement shall be filed m the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CJV-LR-82-866, and that the United States District Coun shall have jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement, to resolve disputes between the Parties arising out oft his Page 6 of 8 - Agreement and to hear any challenge to the legaJiry of this Agreement. 8. This Agreement expresses the entire agreement of the parties and may not be modified or altered except by a writing executed by the authorized representatives of the LRSD and the State. 1t is speci:fically contemplated that this Agreement may be modified or amended, with the approval of the LRSD and the State, after further consultation and discussion=with the Joshua Jnten,enors. I 9. AJJ covenants, conditions, agreements and undertakings contained herein shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective legal successors in interest and assigns of the parties. 10. This Agreement is entered into as of the ~ay of Ma~ch, 2001, by the undersigned officers of the Little Rock School District and the Arkansas Department of Education, each of whom is authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Parties. Page 7 of 8 "~ / , , / 'l n" , ~ nl'l.1 f 'T&gt;V / T'\V " l l"\ r- A""-, LITTI.,E ROCK SCHOOL DlSTRJCT BY: AR.KANSAS DEPARfMENT OF EDUCATION BY: / Page 8 of 8 This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.</dcterms_description>

</dcterms_description>

</item>
</items>