Court filings regarding the Arkansas School Choice Act, Motion for Extension of Time to Respond, Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) budget, and Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool.

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

<dcterms_description type="array">

<dcterms_description>Court filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) Motion Respecting the Arkansas School Choice Act; District Court, Findings on the North Little Rock School District's Participation in Arkansas School Choice and its Effect on Schools in Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD); District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) Memorandum in Support of Motion Regarding School Choice; District Court, Motion for Extension of Time to Respond; District Court, Order regarding Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) budget; District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) objections to Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) proposed budget; District Court, Notice of Filing of Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors. IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD MOTION RESPECTING THE ARKANSAS SCHOOL CHOICE ACT PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS I. The Arkansas School Choice Act was enacted in 1989 and is codified at 6-18-206 - of the Arkansas Code. 2. Certain provisions of the Act permit the cross-district transfer of students under certain specified conditions and pursuant to certain limitations. 3. The North Little Rock School District is currently utilizing the School Choice Act to permit the transfer of substantial numbers of white PCS SD students all as depicted in Exhibit A, an analysis performed by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 4. It is the belief of the PCS SD that the volume of these transfers is having a current and will have a negative short-term affect upon its ability to fully desegregate its schools and to attain unitary status. 5. The PCSSD further believes that Section 6-18-206(f)(5) of the School Choice Act prohibits the current operation of the Act as it is currently being applied and implemented. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an Order of this Court suspending the current operation of the School Choice Act between the PCSSD and the NLRSD at least until such time as the PCSSD is declared unitary as to student assignment. Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES &amp; WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 0) ty Special 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April 18, 2005, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Horace Smith ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 7220 I Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 3 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General 's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett I 010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 I le I I I I I I I ~ I I I FINDINGS ON THE NORIB LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S PARTICIPATION IN ARKANSAS SCHOOL CHOICE AND ITS EFFECT ON SCHOOLS IN THE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 2004-05 February 2005 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas EXHIBIT I /I I I I I ~ Findings on the North Little Rock School District's Participation in Arkansas School Choice and its Effect on Schools in the Pulaski County Special School District 2004-05 Table of Contents Introduction . . ...... . ....... .. ....... . ..... . ...... . . .. .... . ..... . ... . ..... . ... 1 ADE Rules Governing the Guidelines, Procedures, and Enforcement of the Arkansas Public School Choice Act ..... . .. . . ..... .. . . ... . ...... 3 NLRSD School Choice Students 2004-05 . .... . ........... 1 . 10 Sources of NLRSD School Choic~ Students Residing in the PCSSD 2004-05 ... . .. . .. . . . . 11 Effect of School Choice Transfers to NLRSD on the Enrollment and Racial Composition of Affected PCSSD Schools 2004-05 . ... . .. ...... . .................. . . 12 Factors Affecting Parents' Decisions to Pursue School Choice . .. . ...... . ........ .. . . .. 13 le INTRODUCTION The Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), an arm of the Urrited States District Court, prepared this report. ODM assists the Court in monitoring the compliance of the three Pulaski County school districts with court orders and the desegregation plans that form the substance of their settlement agreements. Key Issues The Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) asserts that its ability to desegregate its schools is impeded by the continued loss of white students from the Sherwood area who transfer to the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) under the provisions of the Arkansas School Choice Act. The PCS SD further questions the "propriety" of the NLRSD enrolling white school choice students from PCSSD in predominantly white schools in the NLRSD. Purpose The PCS SD and NLRSD requested that ODM establish a data profile of the students transferring from the PCS SD to the NLRSD under the School Choice Act and provide data on the demographic effects of school choice transfers on both districts. This data will serve as a reference for the districts to use during discussions the parties scheduled for February 23, 2005. Background on Arkansas School Choice Public school choice in Arkansas allows students to attend a public school in a district other than the one in which they reside. The General Assembly passed the Arkansas Public School Choice Act of 1989 to give parents and guardians greater freedom to determine the most effective school for meeting their children's individual educational needs. Before a student can attend a school in a nonresident district, the student's parent or guardian must complete and submit an application to the nonresident district they desire the student to attend. The application to the nonresident district must be postmarked no later than July 1 of the year the student would begin the fall semester in the nonresident district. Under the Arkansas Public School Choice guidelines, no student may transfer to a nonresident district where the percentage of enro11ment for the student's race exceeds that of the student's resident district. Additionally, no student may transfer under Public School Choice if that transfer would conflict with a district's desegregation court order or a district's court-approved desegregation plan. Since the PCSSD is predominantly white and the NLRSD predominantly African-American, only white students may transfer to NLRSD via school choice. The Public School Choice Act charges the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) with the responsibility of morritoring school districts' compliance with provisions of the law. le I I ~ Information Sources The student enrollment and racial composition figures contained in this report were extracted from ODM's report entitled 2004-05 Enrollment and Racial Composition of the Pulaski County Special School District. The data we used to prepare that annual report were furnished to us by the three Pulaski County school districts. We drew our total numbers of school choice students in the NLRSD from a printout of school choice students provided by the NLRSD district. In addition, we used the same information to identify the specific PCSSD school attendance zones in which those students live. In addition to examining enrollment data, ODM monitors interviewed both the principals ofNLRSD schools receiving school choice students and the PCS SD schools most significantly affected by the loss of those students. Finally, we interviewed some of the parents of school choice students to detennine which factors affected parents' decisions to pursue the school choice option for their children. Terminology The Pulaski County desegregation litigation refers to only black and white racial designations. Traditionally,, we have counted students who are of racial or ethnic groups other than white or African-American (such as Hispanic or Asian) along with white students in statistical totals and comparisons in order to remain consistent with the two racial categories identified in the districts' desegregation plans. Page 2 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RULES GOVERNING THE GUIDELINES, P.ROCEDURES,AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARKANSAS PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE ACT August2003 1.00 PURPOSE 1.01 These rules-shall be known as the Arbnsas Department of-Education Rules Governing the Guidelines, Procedure$, and Enforcement of the Arlcansas Public School ChoiceAct 2.00 AUTHORITY 2.01 The Arkansas State B:aard ofEducatian'sauthority forpromulg~ting these .rules is pursuant to.Ark. Code Ann. "~11-105, 6-15-429, and .6-18- 206. 3.00 DEFINITIONS 3 .QI Student - for purposcs .. oftbis rule means ~ person legally enrolled or entitled to .be ,enwlled in Ii pilblit .school distriet in Arkansas. "3 .02 Resident district - for purposes of this rule means the.-ptiblicschool -district wherc .. a studentis considered to reside pursuant IQ Ark. Code:Ann. - 6-l8- 2!)2, 3.03 Ni:m-resident district for p.urposes_.ofthis rule-means the,pulilic school ,district a student. last made legal application to,attend pursuant" to the Arkansas :Pubiic School Choice Act:'for:the,currentschool year. 3 .04 -A_.p.plication -.for purposes f;lf tl:iis r-ule. mcans:a request submitted t0 .a non- resident district to transfer from a-student\s-rcsident district to a nonresident district on the official form approved.'by the Arkansas Department of Education. J .05 Boar-d - for purposes ofthis rule means.the Arkansas State Board of -Education. 3;06 Depal1ment-for.purposes of this rule means.the Arkansas Department of Education. 3.07 Minority - for purposcs ,of this rule minority includes thefollowing racial ,:groups: African American; Hispanic, Asian .or. Pacific Islander, American .1ndian or Alaskan Native. 3:0$. tv{ajoricy for pul,'poscs :of this rule majorify includes the following racial group: Caucasian: Page 3- 4.00 PROCESS AND PROCEDURES FOR SCHOOL DISTRJCTPARTICIPATION lN PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE PROGRAM 4.'0 i Each school district sh~II panicipa:te in publ-ic school choice consistent with this section. 4.02 Every.s.chool district must adopt a resolution setting forth specific standards for. acceptance and rejection of applications. 4.02.1 Such standards may include the capacity of .a schoQI program, cla:ss, grade level, or school building. 4.02.2 School districts shall not be required to add teachers, staff, or classrooms or .in any way exceed current requirements or standards established by existing law when considering whether to accept,'an application. 4.02.3 A school district's standards shall include a statement that priority will be given to applications.of siblings or step-siblings residing in the same residence :or household,of students already attending the district l?y-choice where an application has been filed. 4.02.4 A school .district's standar,ds for -a~ptancc and rejection -of applications shalLnot include a student'.s previous academic achie:v.ement, athletic or. extr.acumcular al,ilicy, handicapping cond.iti.ons; English pr.ofitiency lev.el, .or:prcvious rlisciplinary proceedings except that an expulsion from .. 'BDother school dis.trict .may be included as a standard. 4.03 Adistrictshall make public announcements overthe0broadcast media and in print media at such times and in such manner so as to inform parents or guardians ofstudents in agjoining distri:cts of the availability -of the program,'the July 1 application deadline, .and'the-rcq.uirements lind procedure for nonresidentstud~nts to participate in the program. 5.00 PROCESS AND PROCEDURES FOR APPLlCATJONS FOR TRANSFER PURSUANT TO TIIEPUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE PROGRAM 5;01 .Any s.tutlent may make application to enroJI and attend a scihool in a district in which the stdent do.es not reside, subject to the restrictions and procedures, contained in this rule-and regulation and Arkansas law. 5.:01 .1 Before,'2 student may attend a sch.o.ol in a nonresident district, the 'Student's parent or guardian must submit an application on the Page4 fonn approved by and provided by the Department (see attached .application) to the nonresident district. 5:Dl .2 The application to the nonresident district must be postmarked no later than.July 1 of the year the student would begin th.e fall semester in the nonresident school district. 5.02 Any student attending a residentdistrict classified as being. in academic distress shall be el~gible and entitled to apply to transfer to another geograph-ically contiguous nonresident district not in academic distress during the .time period a district .is classified as being in academic distress subject to the restrictions.allow~ in 5.02.1 and 8,0D. 5.02.J Any student submitting an 11pplicatfon under this section shall not be required to file the petition by the July 1 deadline, but.shall meet all other rcquirements:and conditions of this rule. 5 .03 Within thiny (30) days of receipt of.an application for public scho.ol choice transfer from.a nonresident.student, the nonresident district shall notify the parent or guardian and the resident dis.wict in writing . .( via first class United States mail) asto whether the nonresident district.accepted .or rejected.the student's application. 5.03'1 Tfthe application is rejected, the nonresident district must state in the notification letter -the . specific reasons for rejection. 5J'J3.2 Iftbe application is accepJcd, the nonresident district shall state in the notification letter: a. An abspJute-d.cadiine for the student tQ enroll in the .district, or the acceptance notification is mill; and b. Any instructions fQr the renewal procedures established by the district 5.04 Any :student that stibinitted -a valid applfoation -for transfer, which was deriicd a trans(er by the nonresident district, may petition the Board to r.econsider the applicationfor transfer. The petitioning party shall se.t forth its arguments 1l!ld evidence supportin_gthe request for the Board's reconsideration ofthe'11pplicati.on along with a copy of the nonresident district's :riotificatlori of.rejection letter. 5.04.I The_petitiori for reconsideration before the Board shall be .in ,w..iling and shall. be postmadced (via certified first class United States-mail; retum r.ecelpt requested) no later than ten (IO} days after the student or Stlldent'.-s parents or guardian receives notice ,of reject-ion .from1hc nonresidentdistrict. Any request for a hearing :l?cfore 'the lioard must tie made in the petition for. reconsideration. Page5 .5.04.2 The petitioning party must mail or personally file their peiition for reconsideration of the:application to tbe nonresident district with the Office of the Director of the Department 5.04.3 The nonresident district may sqbmit iri writing-additional faformatioq, evidence or arguments supporting its rejection of tbe student's application. 5.04.4 The Board, at its sole discretion, .may grant a .publfo hearing -on the petition for r.eeonsideration or con.sider without n public hearing the pet-ition; briefs and evidence submitted in. Writing before issuing its final decision on the petition for reconsideration of the application. 5.04.5 The Board may requirethe nonresident district .to reconsider its rejection ofthe student iipplicatioil 'by a date.established by the Bo.ard before deciding whether to_,grantthe petition for reconsideration:of the -application. 5;04.6 The Board, at its discretion, shall have the -authority to require any person.associated wjth the .studem application (i.e. student, parent, guardian, etc.), the-nonresident district or,the resident -district to appear iri person .or by _pleiiding before-the Board as .a witness-on the.matter of a.petition for reconsideration,-ofan appJication. 6.00 TRANSPORTATION OF STUD~TS&lt;IN PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE PROGRAM 6.01 Transportation of a ,studcht:from the r.eside.nt district to a -nomesident district is the responsibility of the ~tudent .or the student's parents,or guardians. -6.0l.l When -a student:transfer:s :under section .S,04, .. -the ,cost.of transportationofa student from the,resident district to the no~sident district shall be the responsibility of the resident district. 6.02 The -nonr.esident district may enter into a written agreement with the ~udent studenfs parents or,guardians, or resident school djstrfot to pr.ci:v1de tr:an~ortation to .er from any place in the resident .district to the nonresident -djstric'~ or both. 6.03 A nonr:esiderjt disefJct $h11U terminate transponlition services toa student .-upon-receiprofwr.itten no:tice (via certified first class United States mail, return T.ece"i_pt.requested}frorn 1hc-Beyilitmerit to cease and desist transporting a student:fromthe student-'s resident.district. Page 6 I ,_ I I I I 7 .Ob NONRESIDENT DISTRICT'S RESPONSfBILJTlES 7:01 The nonresident district shall acceptall credits toward graduation of a student that were awarded by another district. 7.02 The nonresident district shall .award a rliploma to a nonresident student accepted for transfer under the Public -School Choice Program if that student meets the nonresident district's graduation requirements. 7.03 The nonresident student accepted far: . iransfer under the Public Scho.ol Choice Program shall be counted as a.part cif the average daily membership of the nonresidentdisirict to which the student transfr;rred. i.oo PROVISIONS FORANDLIMitATIONS ON PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE TRANSFERS 8:02 8.03 No stl.!dentmay transfer to a nonresident districtw.herethe p.ercentage of enrollment for the student's race exceeds that percentage in the student's resident district, except as.provided in 8.01.1 and 8.0i.2. 8.0:l.l A-transfer is permitted if{l)theti:lUlsferis :betwceo distr~cts within the .same county; and{2) ifthe .trailsfei' does. not result in either districtexceedigg,Uie ,acceptable =gc or varil!nce for representation ofaninority/maj.ority~dents. The .acceptable range .of~ariance., is,detCffllined,as provjded ;in .Section 8.02, or R.O 12 A transferis permitted :if each school.:district within the county does.not have:"a ,.critical mass,of minority percentages of more than ten .percent (JO) ofany single race and the fr.ans fer is between two school tliStricts in the sanie:county. The Depart!J).ent shall each.year compute the minority/majority racial percentage(s}ofthe public sch6.61 population for each cotmty from the October Annual $chooJ Report. School districts may vary jn the underrepresentation or over~representation.cifminority/majbrity students bye maximum of'twcnty-fi:ve.p.ercent (25%) oftl')e difference in majo:rity/rhinoritypercenteges, for the county anletennined by the D~artment, Fpr.-:exa~p;le, when the Department has calculated the county'Hacial balance for eacb student race category, each district is allowed :~n ovcr-'represen.tation or under-representation of minority or ma jor1ty students ofa range, of up to twenty-five (25%) of the county's racial'balance. No student transfer sha'lrbe permitted under the Public School Choice Program when such.a ,transfer would .conflict with a district's Page 7 I desegregation court order or ad~trict's. court-approved desegregation plan. ' 9.00 REPORTING AND MONITORING OBLIGATIONS 9.;0 I The Department shall monitor schooldistricts for colnplianee with the Public School Choice law (Ark. Code Ann. 6-18-206) and these rules. 9.02 Each school district shall provide to the Department, within thirty (30) working. days. of receipt of a written request from the Department, any information or reports the Department deems necessary for. review and determination of thescho:ol district's compliance with the Public School Choice Jaw and these rules. 9;03 All s.chool dlstricts shaJJ.reporHo the Equity Assistance Center of the Department,on an annual basislhe race, .gender, and o.ther pertinent infonnation needed tl:i properly monitor compliance with theprovisions,.of this section. 9.04 The reports may be on tho.sefor.ms that are prescdbed by the Department, or the data may be submitted electronically :by the district using a format authorized by the Department. 9;05 The Department may withhold state aid from any school district that fails t(l) file its r,epoJt each year or.fails.to file any other information with a published deadline requested from school ,districts by the Equity Assistance Center, so fo~g .~s thircy,(3l&gt;} calendar d~ys are given between the request for the information and the published deadline, except when the requC$t .comes from a member pr committee of the General Assembly. 10.00 DISPUTES I 0.01 Any school district rriay petition the .StateBoard of Education to resolve alleged disputes0arising under subsectiens (!:!) - (f) oi'A.rk. Code Ann. ' 6- 18.:206. 10,02 Any,st::.hool district seeking to petition the-Stiite Board of Education must subi:nitwith its pet1.tion pr,o.of ofpublic nofrc~ of th.e. district's intenttq .petition:the State Board. The public notice shall.be piib1ished;.at least -an:ee per weekf or.twq consecutive weeks in a new~aper of general :circulation in ,all the school:distiicts impacted or involved in .the ,aUeted d.isp.ute. Hk03 The school dist:r-ictshall file its written petition with the Office .of the Director .of the Oe,piufunent at least thirty (30) working days prior to the Sta:te Board of.Edwcat10Ii rrieeting where the ~petition will be hear.d. Page 8 ,_ I I 10.04 10.05 The schoel di-striet :s'hair provide_proof in the petitidn that they have served (via certified first lass United'States-mai._, return receipt requested) a copy of their petition,to. the super-intendentc&gt;fa:11 other'scbool districts invoJved in the alleged dispute: The petition shall set forth in writing the,particular issues of dispute under the Public School Ch9ice pr~gram, .the specific relief for whieh the petitio11ii1fparty is requesting the Board to-address; and sha:11 list all school distri.cts and other relevant parties in the dispute, I 0.:06 The petition shall set forth what efforts.have been attempted by ail relevant school boards and superintendents of the involved school districts to resolve the alleged dispute. 10.07 The petition shall state in writing whether the \petitioning .school district requests A hearing before the Boar:d. I 0.08 The Bpa:rd, in it$ sdle discretion, shall determine whether to grant a pubHc hear.~g -on a.peiition or to take action on the petition and pleadings submitted without granting.:a: public bearing. 10.09 Any si.h00Ldistr,ict that is. listed as.:a party in a pe~ition to resolve a dispute .shall file a wr.itten-,response with tbc 'Officc: -of'the Director of the Deparnnent. The written CC$ponse sha:U be.submitted iorthe Board's consideration al:ong0with the. petition within ten (10)-working days of receipt of noti.ce ofibe p.etition. ro. LO The Board shall ~~e a written decision regarding all issues of alleged disp.ute mentioned in .the petition, anti the written decision shalJ be served on.-an the schooi districts listed as.parties of dispute in the petition (via certified fustc-l~s UniteciStates rnail, .retum receipt requested) within twenty (20) working days oftheiBoard'sfina-1 dec.ision. I OJ 1 Except for the procedures specifically set forth in Ark. Code Ann. 6-18- 20.6 and these ,rules, aHhear,ings conducted by the Board shall be c:.bnducted pursuantt,o,the Ar.kansa.s Administtative,Procedures Act, Ark. Cod.e Ann. 25-15-201 et. seq .. Page 9 ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'School Crestwood Elem Indian Hills Elem Lakewood Elem Meadow Park North Heights NLRHS-West District Totals NLRSD School Choice Students 2004-05 .Tptal l:. ru oll,ne~ " ... , Sche&gt;ol Phoice l;nrqllment . Data Su~mary I 81, cLI . White " !Total .'' Grade 'Level '.Enrollment I 104 I 212 I 376 Kindergarten 13 School choice students comprise 13% of 111 grade 6 the total enrollment and 18% of white students. 2nd grade 6 3rd grade g Crestwood is 72% white with school choice 4"' grade 10 students and 68% non-black without school choice students. 5"' grade 6 Total so I 11a I 390 I 508 Kindergarten 19 School choice students comprise 24% of 111 grade 22 the school's total enrollment and 32% of white students. 2nd grade 18 3rd grade 20 Indian Hills is 77% white with school choice 4"' grade 16 students and 69% white without them. 5"' grade 28 Total 123 I 100 I 25s I 361 Kindergarten 5 School choice students comprise 3% of the 11 grade 0 total school enrollment and 4% of white students. 2nd grade 1 3rd grade 2 Lakewood is 71 % white with school choice 4"' grade 1 students and 70% white without them. 5"' grade 2 Total 11 I 160 I 35 I 195 Kindergarten 1 Impact of the single school choice student 11 grade is statistically minimal. 2nd grade 3rd grade 4"' grade 5"' grade Total 1 I 261 I 203 I 470 Kindergarten 1 Impact of the single school choice student 1st grade is statistically minimal. 2nd grade 3rd grade 4"' grade 5"' grade Total 1 I s1s I 631 I 1,309 11 th grade No info Impact of the single school choice student 12th grade available is statistically minimal. Total 1 I s,61s I 3,ss1 I 9,496 Kindergarten 39 School choice students from PCSSD 1st grade 28 comprise 2% of the NLRSD enrollment. The district is 41 % white with the PCSSD 2nd grade 25 school choice students and 40% without 3"' grade 31 them. 4th grade 27 5th grade 36 No Info 1 Total 187 - - -------------- Sources of NLRSD School Choice Students Residing In the PCSSD 2004-05 PCSSD Schools E E .c a, a, iii j":' "O iii a, i ~ CD = :! C :f '&gt; &gt;CD ~ "O i :E C e 0 I 0 % :E C ::, i C ~ 0 i ! C C 0 0 .s en J C) I .!! J 1 1 J &gt;- i en ~ .5 Q. 'E u .II: ! .! ! ~ ftl ::, ftl ftl ~ Cl m 0 0 0 0 :c -, 0 a: a, ~ a&gt;,- :::, Crestwood 1 5 2 6 2 1 3 7 2 - - 6 7 - 4 4 50 lndlan HIiis - 2 2 15 8 1 - 8 - 1 1 32 42 - 1 10 123 Iii Lakewood Elem 1 2 8 2 - - - 1 - - - - 4 1 - - - 11 .c Meadow Park - - - - - - - u - - - - 1 - - - - 1 a, a0 , North Heights - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - 1 Di: .z.J NLRH-West - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - 1 Totals 2 9 6 21 10 2 4 15 2 1 1 43 51 1 5 14 187 Based on the information prnvided, we could not determine the PCSSD school zones in which these students reside. I The Effect of School Choice Transfers to NLRSD on the Enrollment and Racial Composition of Affected PCSSD Schools 2004-05 le I PCS SD' s Plan 2000 continues the standards for student assignment and guidelines for racial composition established in the district's 1992 desegregation plan. The plan defines a specific range in which the racial composition of each PCS SD school, except Bayou Meto, and the interdistrict schools (Clinton and Crystal Hill) is to fall. The minimum enrollment of African-Americans is to be 20% at each school; the maximum differs between the elementary and secondary organizational levels because the upper limits are based on a variance of 25% from the annual percentage ofblack enrollment at each of these two levels. The racial balance range for PCS SD elementary schools in 2004-05 is 20% to 49% black. The targeted range for secondary schools is 20% to 54% black. I I I I I I I I I I I The ideal compositi_on at the interdistrict schools will be as close to 50%-50% as possible, with the majority race of the host district remaining the majority race at the interdistrict school. Baker Interdistrict School is not subject this requirement. 2004-05 Actual Enrollment 2004-05 Enrollment Schools Wrth the addition of NLRSD school choice students Black White Total Pct. Black White Total Pct. Black Black Bayou Meto 10 383 393 3% 10 385 395 3% Cato 97 264 361 27% 97 273 370 26% Crystal HIii 401 413 814 49% 401 419 820 49% Clinton 337 305 642 52% 337 326 663 51% Dupree 134 1n 311 43% 134 187 321 42% Harris 196 46 242 . 81% 196 48 244 80% Jacksonville 282 263 545 52% 282 267 549 51% Oak Grove Elem. 98 290 388 25% 98 292 390 25% Oakbrooke 108 255 363 30% 108 270 378 29% Pinewood 178 252 430 41% 178 253 431 41% Scott 30 96 126 24% 30 97 127 24% Sherwood 144 248 392 37% 144 291 435 33% Sylvan Hills Elem. 137 237 374 37% 137 288 425 32% Sylvan Hills High 440 610 1,050 42% 440 611 1,051 42% Tolleson 116 189 305 38% 116 121 310 37% Page 12 1. le I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I Factors Affecting Parents' Decisions to Pursue School Choice The following information is based on our conversations with school administrators, parents, and daycare providers regarding some of the reasons PCSSD parents chose to send their children to NLRSD schools under school choice. Convenience Some parents and administrators mentioned that the geographic contiguity of Indian Hills Elementary, Crestwood Elementary, and Lakewood Elementary in the NLRSD to Sherwood neighborhoods of the PCSSD as a factor in school choice transfers. Numerous Sherwood-area parents work in North Little Rock ( e.g. Baptist Memorial Hospital) and find it easier to deliver their children to one of the aforementioned NLRSD schools during the morning commute and make arrangements for them to attend after-school programs located in close proximity to the schools. Proximity of Quality Pre-School Programs and After-School Care Our study shows that 123 school choice students attend Indian Hills Elementary in the NLRSD. This number far exceeds the next highest number of 50 at Crestwood Elementary. Our investigation of the seeming popularity of Indian Hills revealed that the proximity of the well-known First United Methodist Church pre-school and after-school programs is one of the factors leading to Sherwood area parents seeking a placement at Indian Hills. The First United Methodist Church facility is located directly across the street from Indian Hills. According to the assistant director of the First United Methodist pre-school program, numerous parents who reside in the PCS SD enroll their children in the pre-school program at the church. Once those children reach school age, their parents pursue a school choice transfer so their children can attend the church's after-school program. The assistant director cited the proximity of the First United Methodist program to a public school, parents' familiarity with the staff, and a sense of continuity for the children as factors affecting school choice. In 1996, First United Methodist discontinued transportation from the Sherwood area schools to the after-school program, thus making Indian Hills Elementary a more attractive choice for parents whose children had attended the pre-school program. We found that some Sherwood area parents whose children participate in the Lakewood United Methodist Church Mother's Day Out program become interested in the adjacent Lakewood Elementary School as their offspring reach school age. Familiarity with other parents whose children attend Lakewood, in addition to an established routine, tend to attract parents to seek a school choice transfer to Lakewood. Our inquiry revealed that when Sherwood area parents in the PCSSD viewed their area school and an NLRSD school as equal, the availability and convenience of reliable after-school care became the deciding factor in pursuing school choice. Page 13 r - ' I I I I I I I I I I "Curb Appeal" Some PCSSD parents cited what they perceived to be the poor condition of some facilities in the district as a factor as they weighed where to send their children to school. Most educators no doubt view the "curb appeal" or attractiveness of a school building to be a shallow basis for selecting or rejecting a school. However, the reality is that to some patrons the building is a reflection of the school and if they don't find the edifice appealing, they won't bother to investigate the program. Page 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION REGARDING SCHOOL CHOICE PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Arkansas Public School Choice Act of 1989 is codified at ACA 6-18-206. Basically stated, it permits a degree of transfer between school districts under certain prescribed conditions and pursuant to certain statistical measures calculated by the Arkansas Department of Education. Currently, the North Little Rock School District is accepting a substantial number of white PCSSD students to its district, particularly at the elementary level, pursuant to School Choice. These students are being largely drawn from established PCSSD student assignment areas for Sylvan Hills Elementary, Sherwood Elementary, Oakbrook Elementary and Clinton lnterdistrict School. The PCSSD states that these transfers are compromising its ability to maintain the racial balance goals to which it committed in Plan 2000, all of which likewise date from 1989. 6-18-206 (f)(5) provides that: In any instance where the foregoing provisions [the transfer . provisions] would result in a conflict with a desegregation court order or a district's court-approved desegregation plan, the terms of the order or plan shall govern; The Arkansas Department of Education has promulgated rules governing the operation of School Choice. Rule 8.00 is headed Provisions for and Limitations on Public School Choice Transfers. Sub-part 8.03 states: No student transfer shall be permitted under the Public School Choice Program when such a transfer would conflict with a district's desegregation court order or a district's court-approved desegregation plan. 1 The North Little Rock School District is majority black. However, it was declared unitary as to racial balance several years ago. In the meantime, it has somehow managed to reconfigure certain elementary schools, including Indian Hills and Lakewood Elementary so that they are actually whiter than the schools in the PCSSD from which they currently draw School Choice children. (See Exhibits to motion). The PCSSD believes that these circumstances represent a conflict with both the M-to-M stipulation and order as well as Plan 2000. The M-to-M stipulation was agreed to and ordered by the Court during the second half of the 1980s. It sets forth the rules pursuant to which cross-district transfers can be made in this case. The PCSSD submits as a federal court order, it legally trumps the School Choice Act and precludes its operation, at least as it is currently being applied, in these instances. This is true not only because federal law predominates over state law in these circumstances but also because these transfers are artificially increasing both the overall minority population of the PCS SD as well as frustrating the PCSSD's ability to attain unitary status in respect of its overall and individual school racial balance. This Court should rule that the current application of the Arkansas School Choice Act should be suspended until the PCSSD has been adjudicated to be unitary. 1 Although subsection (t)(7)(g) authorizes the State Board of Education to resolve disputes arising under this section, the PCSSD is informed that the State Board has traditionally declined to exercise its discretionary authority for desegregation cases that remain in litigation. 2 Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES &amp; WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol A venue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501 ) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 Scho u / , Special CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April 18, 2005, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following : Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. l 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l Mr. Horace Smith ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General 's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett l O l O W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 :t::- FILED ,._.. ~DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT : DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS -. -;. WESTERN DIVISION APR 2 7 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT t:.MES W. McCORMACK, CLERK PLAINTIFFDEP CLERK v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL CASE NO.: 4:82-CV-00866 WRW DEFENDANTS DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. RECEIVED MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. APR 2 8 2005 INTERVENOR$ KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONI.TORING INTERVENOR$ - - MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND COMES NOW, the Defendant, North Little Rock School District, et al., by and through its attorney, Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones, P.A., and for this motion for extension of time to respond to PCSSD's Motion Respecting The Arkansas School Choice Act states as follows: 1. Service was perfected on Defendant April 18, 2005, via U.S. mail. The time to respond within the rules including the additional three days for mailing would be May 2, 2005. 2. We respectfully request an additional seven days in which to respond to Pulaski County Special School District's Motion Respecting The Arkansas School Choice Act. The requested extension would be up to and including May 9, 2005. 3. We have contacted the counsel for Pulaski County Special School District regarding the extension of time to respond. Counsel has no objections to the extension. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests the court to extend the time in which to respond up to and including May 9, 2005, and fo'r all other just and proper relief. April 27, 2005 By: Respectfully submitted, JACK, LYON &amp; JONES. P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Jjttle-ReGk.,..Arkansas 72201 '{:, )7-11. :_2- . -l / ; A,{.lcl-(_,J, ,_---- ~hen W. Jones (7S:08 ) Attorney for North Little ock School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen W. Jones, hereby certify that the foregoing , Motion for Extension of Time to Respond, has been served via United States mail, postage prepaid, this 2th day of April, 2005, to the following : Mr. M. Samuel Jones Ill Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates &amp; Woodyard, P.L.L.C. 425 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Ave. Lexington, MA 02173 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Horace Smith OOM One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 149 Little fwc-k--;-AR 72201 / ~ ' . ~i .l ,, . \ ---- / l.1.{,--L \ _ :~--. .,.~-- -.-siap;:w Jones :. / '. ,,/ Offices In: Conway, Arkansas Nashvill e, Tennessee JACK, lLYON &amp; JONES. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 3400 425 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 375- 1122 Telecopier: (501) 375-1027 April 27, 2005 James McCormack Court Clerk United States District Court Eastern District Western Division 402 US Post Office &amp; Courthouse 600 W. Capitol Ave Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 e-mail: s1ones@1l j.com di rect dial no. : (50 1) 707-5520 APR 2 3 2005 --OF-~ICE-'lf -- RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al. Case No. 4:82-CV-00866 WRW Dear Mr. McCormack: Enclosed for filing in the above referenced matter is the original and 10 copies of North Little Rock School District's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond . Please return the extra file stamped copies to the courier. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. /pea enclosures cc: Parties of Record Sincerely, GJodb OdCW114/ Paula Adams Legal Assistant t" ILt:.U U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS APR 2 8 2005 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK .By: ______ ~=-=-c= EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DEP CLERK WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL RECEIVED DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. APR 2 9 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONI.TORING ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS Pending is Defendant North Little Rock School District's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond (Doc. No. 3913) to PCCSD's Motion Respecting the Arkansas School Choice Act. There are no objections. For good cause shown and because there are no objections, NLRSD's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond is GRANTED. Accordingly, NLRSD must file a response by 5 p.m. Monday, May 9, 2005. -If. IT IS SO ORDERED thi.Jff_ d; of April, 2005. THIS DOCUMENT ENTEREDON ~ftlCT JUDGE '::' -::r'.ET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. .iT i RALE 58A~~a)fRCP 4-~?$_-s::; B~,4 -. ;. ,.., ... ~ 3' -,-,, 91 4 ri~9. Arkansas -~-::=-..,,,,_ ~ DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ,____- ~,..,~ 4 STATE CAPITOL MAU UTILE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://arkedu.state.v.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director of Education April 29, 2005 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers &amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III R-ECEIVED MAY 2 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates &amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol A venue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General 's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of April 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, , J~~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier TATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock Vice Chair - Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro Shelby Hillman, Carlisle Calvin King, Marianna Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff Naccaman Williams, Johnson An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for April 2005. Respectfully Submitted, Smith, Bar # 9 251 General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on April 29, 2005, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers &amp; Sneddon P. 0 . Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates &amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 S.cott Smith - - --- ----- - - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED MAY - 3 2005 REOF DESEGREGATION MONLTORING ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT - EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS M,~.Y 2 2005 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK .By: ______ --:::D-:=:EP,,.-:C:;:-L;::-;ER=K PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On April 29, 2005, I received the Office of Desegregation Monitoring's proposed budget for the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 fiscal years. I have attached a copy of the budget to this order, and if there are any objections, parties must respond within five (5) days; otherwise, the OD M's proposed budget will be accepted as p&amp;.ed and become effe~tive immediately. IT IS SO ORDERED_this .. day of May, 2005. TM&amp; DOCUMENT ENTERED ON OOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH~~ 58__.ANm:9(a) FRCP ON S: ;L,'(}~ BY ~ ae2 ' ; UNITED STATES DISTRJCT JUDGE WM. R. WILSON, JR. Office of Desegregation Monitoring A United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas -------------------- One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 April 29, 2005 The Honorable William R. Wilson United States District Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wilson: Attached for your approval are the revised proposed ODM budgets for 2004-05 and 2005-06. The format ofthe_budget document follows that of OD M's previous budgets, including annotations to explain revenue calculations, definitions of budget categories, and the budgeted allocations for the year by category. I will promptly provide any additional information upon request. Sincerely yours, Polly Ramer Office Manager Enc. e. -LRSD NLRSD PCSSD ANNOTATED ODM BUDGET FOR 2004-05 and 2005-06 REVENUE The Court's Interim Order of June 27, 1989 required that: ... (T]he amount previously ordered for the Pulaski County Educational Cooperative (Co-op) [$200,000.00] shall be applied toward the budget of the office of the Metropolitan Supervisor .... The balance of the budget will be apportioned among the school districts on a per pupil basis .... Eighth Circuit OroerofDecemberl2, 1990: ... [T]he office previously known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be reconstituted as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring .... 2004--05 Budget 2005-06 Budget 10/1/04 %of 2004--05 2003-04 2004--05 10/1/04 %of 2005-06 2004--05 Enroll- Total Budget Credit Budget Enroll- Total Budget Estimated ment Enroll- Allocatlon (Budget Payment ment Enroll- Allocation Credit ment not spent) ment (Budget not spent) 25,720 47.93 134,583 4,282 130,301 25,720 47.93 118,262 1,724 9,496 17.69 49,672 1,580 48,092 9,496 17.69 43,648 636 18,449 34.38 96,536 3,072 93,464 18,449 34.38 84,829 1,236 State of AR NIA NIA 200,000 N/A 200,000 N/A N/A 200,000 N/A 2005-06 Estimated Budget Payment 116,538 43,012 83,593 200,000 2005-06: The 2005-06 Budget Allocation, the 2004-05 Estimated Credit, and the 2005-06 Estimated Budget Payment are apportioned among the three school districts according to the October 2004 enrollment numbers. After the final 2005-06 enrollment has been tallied, we will adjust the figures accordingly and notify each district of the exact amount due for its share of ODM's 2005-06 budget. Described below is the step-by-step process, reflected in the chart above, that we use to determine each district's contribution to the ODM budget: I. The State of Arkansas' contribution ($200,000.00) is subtracted from ODM's total budget. 2. Based on the previous year's October 1 enrollment, the districts are charged their pro rata share of ODM's budget (minus the state's contribution). 3. Each district is credited with its pro rata share ( or estimated share) of OD M's unspent budget for the previous year. 4. Each district contributes that sum to ODM's budget or, if the credit has been estimated, each district will be notified of the exact amount due for its share of ODM's budget before the close of the current fiscal year. - EXPENDITURES Note: Definitions of expense categories are based on the Arkansas School Financial Accounting Manual. Communications: Services provided by persons or businesses to assist in transmitting and receiving messages or information. This category includes telephone services as well as postage machine rental and postage. 2003-04 Budget 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 8,000.00 _ 7,813.33 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures __ --_ 9,006.00 2004-05: The increase in the budget is due to the advertising expense for the vacant position of the Federal Monitor. Dues and Fees: Expenditures or assessment for membership in professional or other brganizations or associations or payments to a paying agent for services provided, such as conference registration fees. 2003-04 Budget 735.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 930.00 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 265.00 2003-04: Over budget due to the registration for an associate to attend the National Counselors' Conference was $45 more than budgeted, and the registration fee for the Federal Monitor to attend the International Association of Facilitators conference was $150 more than budgeted. Equipment: Expenditures for the initial, additional, and replacement items or equipment, such as furniture and machinery. 2003-04 Budget 500.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 2,590.99 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 0.00 2003-04: Over budget because one of the older computers crashed and had to be replaced. The total cost of the computer was $2,108.55. Management Services: Services performed by persons qualified to assist management either in the broad policy area orin general operations. This category includes consultants, individually or as a team, to assist the chief executive in conference or through systematic studies. 2003-04 Budget 5,000.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 0.00 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 0.00 Page4 - Periodicals: Expenditures for periodicals and newspapers for general use. A periodical is any publication appearing at regular intervals ofless than a year and continuing for an indefinite period. 2003-04 Budget 121 .00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 135.00 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 135.00 Printing and Binding: Expenditures for job printing and binding, usually according to specifications. This includes the design and printing of forms as well as printing and binding publications. 2003-04 Budget 6,000.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 5,033.07 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 5,245.00 Professional and Technical Services: Services which by their nature can be performed only by persons with specialized skills and knowledge. 2003-04 Budget 1,700.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 1,717.50 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 1,554.00 Rent: Expenditures for leasing or renting land and buildings for both temporary and long-range use. 2003-04 Budget 48,860.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 48,869.80 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 50,691 .00 2005-06: Office space could be reduced and therefore reduce the amount charged for rent by approximately $8,500. Repairs and Maintenance: Expenditures for repairs and maintenance services which restore equipment to its original state or are a part of a routine preventive maintenance program. This includes service contracts and contractual agreements covering the maintenance and operation of equipment and equipment systems. 2003-04 Budget 400.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 434.95 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 252.00 Page5 - Salaries: Salaries are the amounts paid to employees who are considered to be in positions of a permanent or temporary nature. 2003-04 Budget 405,419.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 405,251.10 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 332,042.00 Below is a breakdown of each employee's budgeted 2004-05 and 2005-06 salary, reflecting a 3 .29% annual base increase, which is equal to or less than the annual step increase on the salary scales of the local districts. Name of 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Employee Salary Salary Salary Ann Marshall 119,022 40,900 0 Gene Jones 1 58,828 61,530 63,438 Margie Powell 70,196 72,505 74,890 Horace Smith 70,196 72,505 74,890 Polly Ramer 52,689 54,422 56,212 Linda Bryant 29,219 30,180 31,173 Act11 of1999 2 5,269 0 0 1Gene Jones, who works 4/5 time, elected to receive payment for annual insurance premiums in lieu of the insurance benefits; his salary reflects that decision. 2Act 11 of 1999 allows an employee who completes their 2at11 year under the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System to enter the Teacher Deferred Retirement Option Plan (T-Drop) and receive compensation for unused leave. Benefits: Benefits are the amounts paid on behalf of employees and not included in the gross salary, but are over and above. Such payments are fiinge benefit payments. 2003-04 Budget 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures Expenditures 80,018.00 78,447.40 75,311 .00 Below is a breakdown b Name Car Social Retire- Hospital- Life Dental Hospital Short Total Allowance Security ment -ization Ins. Indemnity Tenn Benefits Marshall 300.00 2,380.21 411 .99 253.00 2.72 21.48 5.08 5.24 3,379.72 Jones 960.00 4,780.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,740.38 Powell 1,200.00 5,595.80 10,318.78 3,106.00 32.64 263.40 60.96 62.88 20,640.46 Smith 1,200.00 5,348.67 10,318.78 3,106.00 32.64 263.40 60.96 62.88 20,393.33 Ramer 0.00 4,015.33 7,619.02 3,106.00 32.64 263.40 60.96 62.88 15,160.23 Bryant 0.00 2,258.32 4,225.10 3,106.00 20.40 263.40 60.96 62.88 9,997.06 Page 6 -Below is a breakdown b cate o Name Car Social Retire- Hospital- Life Dental Hospital Short Total Allowance Security ment -ization Ins. Indemnity Tenn Benefits Jones 960.00 4,926.45 0.00 -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- 5,886.45 Powell 1,200.00 5,820.89 10,652.60 3,120.00 32.64 269.04 60.96 62.88 21 ,21-9.01 Smith 1,200.00 5,820.89 10,652.60 3,120.00 32.64 269.04 60.96 62.88 21 ,219.01 Ramer 0.00 4,300.22 7,869.68 3,120.00 32.64 269.04 60.96 62.88 15,715.42 Bryant 0.00 2,384.73 4,364.22 3, 120.00 20.40 269.04 60.96 62.88 10,282.23 Supplies: Expenditures for all supplies for the operation, including freight and cartage. Amounts paid for material items of an expendable nature that are consumed, worn out, or deteriorated in use or items that lose their identity through fabrication or incorporation into different or more complex units or substances. 2003-04 Budget 6,000.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 5,403.11 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 4,000.00 - Travel: Expenditures for transportation, meals, hotel, and other expenses associated with traveling or business, such as parking fees. Payments for per diem in lieu of reimbursements for subsistence (room and board) also are charged here. 2003-04 Budget 2,459.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 2,013.54 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 1,066.00 2004-05: The budget includes guest parking and reimbursement to support staff for the mileage they drive in their own vehicles on official business, an amount budgeted at $125.00. The remainder ($950.00) is for travel and lodging associated with one of the monitors attending the National Counselors' Conference, as explained above in the Dues and Fees section. 2005-06: The increase in budget is due an anticipated increase in conference costs. Insurance: Expenditures for all types of insurance coverage such as property, liability, fidelity, as well as the costs of judgments. 2003-04 Budget 712.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 572.00 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 572.00 - 2005-06: The increase in budget is due to a 5% increase in the annual premium. Page 7 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING BUDGET: 2004-05 and 2005-06 REVENUE State of Arkansas LRSD Budget allocation Minus credit from previous year Equals LRSD's share of the budget NLRSD Budget allocation Minus credit from previous year Equals NLRSD's share of the budget PCSSD Budget allocation Minus credit from previous year Equals PCSSD's share of the budget 2003-04 BUDGET 200,000.00 177,217.00 724.00 2003-04 Actual .......................... . 176,493.00 61 ,292.00 250.00 257.66 oooo uoOoHOO oo 61,042.00 62,864.34 127,415.00 520.00 Note: The sum of the credits in the above chart is the unspent amount of our previous year's budget, including bank interest earned. Every budget cycle, ODM applies this amount toward each school district's budgeted allocation. Both that allocation and the credit are determined for the proposed budget by the previous year's October 1 enrollment numbers, then adjusted accordingly when the enrollment numbers for the current year become available. EXPENDITURES Communications Dues and Fees Equipment Food Services Management Services Periodicals Printing &amp; Binding Prof &amp; Tech Services Rent Repairs &amp; Maintenance Resource Library Salaries Benefits Staff Development Supplies Travel 2003-04 BUDGET 8,000.00 735.00 500.00 0.00 5,000.00 121.00 6,000.00 1,700.00 48,860.00 400.00 0.00 405,419.00 80,018.00 0.00 6,000.00 2,459.00 2003-04 Actual 7,813.33 930.00 2,590.99 0.00 0.00 135.00 5,033.07 1,717.50 .,,_ :t,?PQ.0&lt;:t\ 434.95 ' . . ,, 400.o~F 0.00 2004-05 Estimated 9,006.00 265.00 i, 0.00 0.00 0.00 135.00 5,245.00 1,554.00 50,691 .00 52,564.og: 252.00 ' '400;9ct; 332,042.00 75,311 .00 0.00 4,000.00 1,066.00 572.00 500:oci;; Jra~Jfo1 ~- 446.739.0Q!; 0.00 F~LED N THE N U.S. DISTRICT COURT I U ITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTER~J DIGrn:cT r.;:::wiSAs EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCO;'.:.:/\CK, CLERK By LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ----:P=-L=-A-=--=-=-1N- :::T=-=-1F =fDE=.P,... .c,-LE-R- K v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al. CASE NO.: 4:82-CV-00866 WRW DEFENDANTS RECEIVED M~Y 10 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGAl\ON MONllORIMG INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NLRSD RESPONSE TO PCSSD MOTION REGARDING SCHOOL CHOICE The Arkansas Public School Choice Act of 1989, AC.A 6-18-206 sets forth the - public policy of the State of Arkansas in favor of parents and students having "greater freedom to determine the most effective school for meeting their individual educational needs." Id. , 6-18-206(a)(1 )(1999 Repl.) "The General Assembly further finds that giving more options to parents and students with respect to where they attend public school will increase the responsiveness and effectiveness of the State's schools .... " Id., at 6- 18-206(a)(2). As a result, the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas determined that "[a] public school choice program is hereby established to enable any pupil to attend a school in a district in which the pupil does not reside , subject to the restrictions contained in this section". Id., at 6-18-206(a)(4) (emphasis supplied). The PCSSD suggests that the NLRSD's acceptance of students transferring pursuant to the School Choice Act is somehow discretionary with the NLRSD. See 1 PCSSD Motion Respecting the School Choice Act, paragraph 3. This is not accurate. - While the Act does permit a receiving district to refuse to accept any school choice transfers at all, AC.A. 6-18-20(b)(3), it does not allow districts to discriminate between students as to who it will accept outside of a specific and limited list of statutory exceptions. Rather, it creates an obligation to accept transfers unless one of the specifically delineated exceptions applies. A fair reading of the Act makes it clear that any "rights" it creates attach to the parents and students, not to the district. The latter has only obligations. In fact, parents and students even have a right to appeal the denial of a school choice transfer to the Arkansas Board of Education. Ark. Dept. of Educ. Rules Governing School Choice Act, 5.04 (found at page 5 of Ex. A to PCSSD Motion). It is noteworthy that the individuals whose "rights" will be affected by the decision on this motion, that is, the parents and students, are unrepresented in this proceeding. The PCSSD now invites this Court to disregard summarily the rights of these parents and students and the express public policy of the State of Arkansas by declaring that the School Choice Act is incompatible with the M-to-M Stipulation and the desegregation plan of the PCSSD. This issue arises because of the differing racial restrictions contained in the School Choice Act and the M-to-M Stipulation. The latter requires that a transferring student be in the majority in both his school and his school district and be transferring under circumstances where he will be in a minority in both his new school and his new district. The School Choice Act, on the other hand, requires only that a student be transferring from a district where his race is in a greater proportion to a district where his race is in a lesser proportion. In the present case, the 2 transferring students satisfy the school choice definition but only meet three of the four - requirements of the M-to-M definition since they would be transferring to a school where they would be in a majority status. This does not mean, however, that these transfers do not benefit the NLRSD in its desegregation efforts. These students create an additional pool of white students who may matriculate to the NLRSD's majority black secondary schools. Additionally, it is unknown how many of these students would actually attend schools in the PCSSD if their school choice transfers were denied. After all, 75-80% of them enter the NLRSD in kindergarten and have never been enrolled in the PCSSD. Affidavit of Bobby J. Acklin attached hereto. It is entirely possible that a significant proportion would opt out of the public schools entirely. Such an outcome would not help any district's desegregation efforts. Moreover, to accept the PCSSD's invitation would require this Court to ignore the standards for constitutional and statutory construction which seek to harmonize allegedly conflicting statutes and constitutional provisions. See, e.g., Nordgren v. Burlington Northern RR. Co.;- 101 F.3d 1246, 1253 (8th Cir. 1996) While the Supremacy Clause to the United States Constitution does empower federal courts to override state law, that power is used sparingly, and only when the provisions of federal law and the allegedly offending state law cannot be interpreted to be consistent with one another. See, e.g., DeCanas v. Bicas, 424 U.S. 351, 357 n.5 (1976), citing, Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner &amp; Smith v. Ware, 414 U.S. 717, 127 (1973). In the present case, there is simply no reason for this Court to embark on such a course of action . 3 As the PCSSD notes, the Act provides that school choice transfers will not be - permitted under circumstances where it would "conflict with a desegregation court order or a districts court-approved desegregation plan ." AC.A. 6-18-206(9)(5). The PCSSD specifically challenges school choice transfers to the NLRSD's Indian Hills and Lakewood Elementary Schools from the PCSSD's Clinton, Oakbrooke, Sherwood and Sylvan Hills Elementary Schools. However, it fails to specify why these transfers offend the provisions of its desegregation plan or the M-to-M Stipulation. The PCSSD states only that these transfers should be prohibited because they are "artificially increasing both the overall minority population of the PCSSD as well as frustrating the PCSSD's ability to attain unitary status in respect of its overall and individual school racial balance." PCSSD Memorandum in Support of Motion Regarding School Choice, at 2. -\ It does not explain how these transfers frustrate its ability to attain unitary status. Its suggestion that increasing the overall minority population of the PCSSD is somehow offensive to its plan is baffling . After all, the express purpose of M-to-M transfers is to effectuate the movement of black students from majority black districts to the majority white PCSSD and the movement of white students from the PCSSD to the majority black districts. In other words, they are intended to increase artificially the overall minority population of the PCSSD. To suggest that furthering this goal is now contrary to anyone's desegregation plan defies explanation. Moreover, this position is inconsistent with the PCSSD's past practice and current procedures. When the School Choice Act was initially passed in 1989, Arkansas Acts 1989 No. 609, the resident school district as well as the receiving school district both had to first agree to participate in school choice transfers. All three districts 4 in Pulaski County did so. Subsequently, the Act was amended to eliminate this - affirmative requirement and now only permits a school district to refuse to allow all school choice transfers into that district. There is no corresponding provision permitting a district to refuse to permit transfers out of that district, as the PCSSD seeks to do here. Notably, even when the program was voluntary for the PCSSD and the NLRSD was majority white, these two districts both participated in school choice transfers, specifically of black students from the NLRSD to the PCSSD and of white students from the PCSSD to the NLRSD. See Affidavit of Bobby J. Acklin. While both districts were majority white at that time, the NLRSD's proportion of black students was much greater than the PCSSD's. Allowing these transfers assisted the NLRSD in maintaining racial balance. The same is true today. While the Indian Hills and Lakewood Elementary - Schools are majority white and have a greater proportion of white students than the schools in the PCSSD in question, the additional white students from the PCSSD will later be available to advance to the NLRSD's majority black high schools. Such an outcome is certainly consistent with the NLRSD's desegregation plan as well as the purposes of the M-to-M Stipulation. The PCSSD, without further explanation, contends that these transfers somehow frustrate its ability to attain unitary status. There is no indication regarding why this is true. The NLRSD has already agreed not to accept students from the Clinton Elementary attendance zone since that school is presently majority black and that might imperil its eligibility for M-to-M transfer payments. Affidavit of Bobby J. Acklin. No such circumstances, however, attach to transfers from the Oakbrooke, Sherwood and Sylvan 5 Hills Elementary Schools. All three of those schools are well within the PCSSD's racial balance guidelines which provide that its elementary schools must be between 20% and 49% black. These schools are 30%, 37% and 37% black, respectively, placing all of them comfortably within the attendance guidelines set forth in the PCSSD's desegregation plan . Accordingly, there is no present threat to the PCSSD's plan compliance caused by the NLRSD's receipt of school transfers from these schools. Any suggestion to the contrary is at best convenient speculation without any supporting evidence. As discussed previously, the rules of statutory construction require that federal law, or in this case a desegregation plan , be construed consistently rather than inconsistently with state law. The PCSSD argues without explanation that the transfers in question interfere with its ability to attain unitary status even though it is clear that - they are consistent with the underlying purpose of M-to-M transfers and leave the PCSSD schools in question comfortably within their racial balance guidelines. Accordingly, there is no reason why this Court should apply the heavy hand of federal supremacy to frustrate the clear public policy of the State of Arkansas favoring more educational choices for parents and students. May 9, 2005 Respectfully submitted, JACK, LYON &amp; JONES. P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock; Arkansas 72201 ,-- (501) 75-1122 ,--, ~, ~' I- - I I / By:. ) c? L.(.. ,~- ~-----Stepnen W. Jones ~78 Attorney for North l:.jtt District 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen W. Jones, hereby certify that the foregoing, NLRSD RESPONSE TO PCSSD MOTION REGARDING SCHOOL CHOICE, has been served via United States mail, postage prepaid, this 9th day of May, 2005, to the following : Mr. M. Samuel Jones Ill Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates &amp; Woodyard, P.L.L.C. 425 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Ave. Lexington, MA 02173 7 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Horace Smith ODM One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 ( . / / AFFIDAVIT OF BOBBY J. ACKL.DJ I am Bobby J. Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation for the North Little Rock School District (1\TLRSD) and state as follows : 1. I was hired as the Assistant Superintendent for Student Affairs by the =:--lLRSD beginning the 1989-1990 school-year. In that capacity, I was responsible for student assignments and worked directly with the School Choice Act from its adoption. 2. In 1994 I became the Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation in the ::--TLRSD and have served in that capacity to the present date. In that position, I have monitored student assignment inciuding school choice transfers. 3. 'foe NLRSD has participated in the State's School Choice Act since its inception as have the other two school districts in Pulaski County. It is our understanding that the 1'1LRSD is obligated to accept students for School Choice transfers unless we lack teachers or classroom space; the transfer we cause a violation of state educational standards; or it would undermine desegregation. 4. Accepting black students from the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and white students from the Pulaski County School District (PCSSD) is consistent with the :v1&lt;\iorityto- Minority (M-to-M) program which is a part of all three districts desegregation plans. However, in some cases, a student might not meet the qualifications to participate in the M-to-:vf program but may meet the guidelines set forth in the School Choice .Act. Therefore, NLRSD accepts black students from some schools in the LRSD and non-black students from some schools in the PCSSD under the School Choice Act. \Ve also accept School Choice students from other sun-ounding school districts. We have done so since the inception of the School Choice Act. 5. The NLRSD is aware of the PCSSD's student assignment plan. Each year we request and receive a list of schools that are not eligible for M-to-M transfers from the PCS SD. Not only do we use this list to assign M-to-M transfer students but also use this list to govern what School Choice applications we approve. If a student does not qualify for an M-to-M transfer from a school in the PCSSD, we will not accept this student on a School Choice transfer. 6. lvfost of the elementary School Choice students enrolled in ?-JLRSD from the PCSSD have never attended school in the PCSSD. Approximately 75% to 80% of the elementary School Choice students enrolled in ~LRSD enter at the kindergarten level. 7. On February 23, 2005 a meeting was held between representatives from the Office of Desegregation \1onico1ing (ODM), NLRSD, and PCS SD to discuss School Choice transfers. It was called to our attention that we accepted students from the Clinton Elementary attendance zone and should not have. We were not aware that Clinton Elementary was not eligible for School Choice. Once vve became a,vare of this we immediately stopped accepting students from Clinton Elementary attendance zone. We requested a map or other information indicating the Clinton Elementary attendance zone so that this mistake would not happen again, and, we are no longer accepting students from the Clinton Elementary attendance zone. 8. The PCS SD and :::--rLRSD representatives also agreed on the follov.i:ing items: a. That each district would provide and exchange information so that we can accurately calculate racial percentages in schools. b. That each distiict would provide lists of students which show what school attendance zone School Choice students are coming from. c. That we would use the student's current address to determine which school attendance zone students live in and not the last school attended. d. That both districts will adhere to the July 1 School Choice deadline. FURTHER AFFLA.l\'T SAYETH NOT. DATE: _tJ._-_&lt;j_._O_b _ State of 1\.rkansas County of Pulaski Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of May, 2005. ~kwt=-=-=-=--AA~&lt;...___~t~ Kotary Public Mv commission expUesc ~ L3 .:J.oo 1 - ~?mm====') ~: Sandra K. CoJlins !&lt; - ----------- &gt;' Not:iry Public, S!it~ o! A,kunsns { ~~ ~!,~ski Co,wy :&lt; , My Con:m:s~1ori Exp (', !.'lJ/2007 ~ 'J./J.&gt;.l;.J.J.&gt;).l./.,'.l.;;'r,'.llN.1.l '.' ; ;;,:;,.11,, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL LRSD OBJECTIONS TO ODM PROPOSED BUDGET RECEIVED MAY 1 0 2005 OFFICOF DESEGREGATION MONLTORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS For its objections to the budget proposed by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) for the 2005-06 school year, the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") states: 1. The ODM budget for 2005-06 continues to allocate costs to LRSD based solely on LRSD's student population with no recognition of the substantial reduction in the number of desegregation requirements left to be monitored with respect to LRSD. 2. Since the ODM formula for allocating costs among the three Pulaski County school districts and the State was developed, LRSD has achieved unitary status in every area except for one remaining requirement to evaluate certain academic programs. 3. The cost of any necessary monitoring of LRSD's compliance with the program evaluation requirement should not be significant since LRSD must submit to the Court "quarterly 1 - written updates on the status of the work being performed" with respect to those evaluations. Memorandum Opinion, June 30, 2004, p. 65 . 4. ODM proposes that LRSD pay about 48 percent of the funds required of the three Pulaski County school districts to fund ODM's operation. With only one remaining obligation to be monitored, LRSD should not be required to pay so large a share of the funds contributed by the Pulaski County school districts. 5. LRSD proposes that ODM develop a new budget tailored to the present circumstances which separates the costs of reviewing LRSD 's quarterly status reports and conducting any necessary monitoring to verify the contents of those reports. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD objects to ODM' s proposed budget for 2004-05 and proposes that ODM submit a revised budget which allocates costs to LRSD in - accordance with the actual cost of the monitoring necessary to assure LRSD's compliance with its sole remaining desegregation obligation. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE &amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BChristop;Hell ~ ~ 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on the 9th day of May, 2005: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES &amp;WOODYARD 425 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON &amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 3 Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner and Ivers 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 05/23/2005 16:54 --- 5016045149 WILSON UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTH:&gt;USE 600W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 Sill. WILSON JUDGE Mr. Sam Jones UTILE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3326 (601) 604-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 May23,200~ LETTER/ORDER VIA FAX MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES &amp; WOODY ARD 425 W. Capitol Ave., Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones J A.CK, LYON &amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER,P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSDv. PCSSD, 4:82CV00866-WRW LRSD Objections to ODM Budget Dear Counsel: PAGE 02/02 Please let me have your position on the LRSD's objection to the ODM proposed budget (filed May 9, 2005). It seems to me 'that LRSD bas a pretty good point, but I want your written responses, and perhaps we will have a hearing after your responses are filed. Please fax your i:esponse to me no later than 5 p.m., next Wednesday, June 1, 2005. Please file the original with the Clerk and send fax. copies to opposing counsel, the ODM, and to Judge Ray. Original to the Clerk of the Court cc: Office of Desegregation Monitoring, The Honorable Joe Thomas Ray Other Counsel of Record D!l:?--=--- Wm. R. \\ ilson. Jr. Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL urru ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://ark,du.stat,.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director of Education May 31, 2005 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III RECEIVED JUN -1 2005 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONlTORING Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers &amp; Sneddon Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates &amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of May 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier T.ATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock Vice Chair - Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro Shelby Hillman, Carlisle Calvin King, Marianna Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff Naccaman Williams, Johnson An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTE!{N DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUN - 1 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for May 2005. Respectfully Submitted, s&amp;~t.tillfr= General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 - - - - - --------- -------- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on May 31, 2005, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers &amp; Sneddon P. 0 . Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates &amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 _fl/k Scott Smi IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENOR$ KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENOR$ ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each. month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 silla~~:~,~~'.~~!?~!ii~t!~~.avaU~bl~~~~P.J'.~922.~~~~@~~e.;:aK~~~ifedJti'tr sfate fqunqa~tQ.t:Jl/iuJ1d1r:ig JqtEY.i,Q4/0S;:$UbJe.~t tg .. p_@nQq19.~ijclJysJmeo~ B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD RESPONSE TO LRSD OBJECTIONS TO ODM PROPOSED BUDGET The PCSSD for its response, states: RECEIVED JUN - 2 2005 :nur:~.~t,.l.fJllMO{!NfffItOE OIIf JDIIIG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS I. It admits the accuracy of Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the LRSD objection. 2. It acknowledges the logic of Paragraph 4 and 5 of the LRSD objection, but states that, at the same time, it would be unfair to reallocate costs historically attributed to the LRSD to the PCSSD since nothing about the reduction in monitoring associated with the LRSD increases any monitoring required of or appropriate for the PCSSD. Logically, what is ideal is for the ODM to reduce its overall expenditures to a level corresponding to its reasonably anticipated reduced monitoring activities.1 3. The PCS SD supported the LRSD in its pursuit of unitary status. If the proposed expenditure level of the ODM cannot be immediately adjusted to reflect its reduced responsibilities, then it should continue to absorb the current allocated expenses since its activities and successful claims for relief caused this current issue to arise in the first place. 1 In this regard, the PCSSD is fully aware of the difficulty of shrinking infrastructure as pointed out at page 2 of its reply to NLRSD response to PCSSD motion regarding school choice filed on May 31 , 2005. Stated another way, the PCS SD has done nothing to precipitate the instant objection nor has it done anything to warrant absorbing a greater proportion of the cost of the ODM. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays that it not be allocated any greater portion or proportion of the proposed budget than that which it currently absorbs and for all proper relief. Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES &amp; WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 1, 2005, a copy of the foregoing was served via facsimile and U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Horace Smith ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 3 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General 's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 021 73 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>