IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT"'''^'- EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION y: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS i MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER On November 14, 1991, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit remanded the cause to the Court to review the parties' proposed modifications [May submissions] to the 1989 plans. 1 Little Rock School District, et al., Nos. 91-2640EA, 91- 2648EA, 91-2655EA, 91-2683EA, slip op. (8 th Cir. November 14, 1991) . In response to the order of the Eighth Circuit, the Court scheduled a hearing to begin on December 18, 1991. It informed the parties involved that. prior to reviewing their proposed modif ications, it would ask. the Pulaski County Special School District [PCSSD] to report on its financial situation and hear a ^The three school districts involved. Little Rock School District [LRSD], Pulaski County Special School District [PCSSD], and North Little Rock School District [NLRSD], and the Joshua Intervenors submitted proposed modifications to the settlement plan approved by the Eighth Circuit in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371 (Sth Cir. 1990).report from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on the budgetary processes for desegregation expenditures which are employed by the three school districts involved in the matter. The Court determined that before it could consider proposed modifications to the settlement plans, it needed to learn whether there are district budgetary processes in place which will enable the Court to monitor the implementation of the plans. At the conclusion of the second day of the hearing, the Court expressed concern about its ability to effectively monitor the settlement plan without budgets that reflect the three school districts' intentions. goals, and priorities regarding their desegregation efforts. The Court specifically mentioned the state of the Little Rock School District's [LRSD] budgetary process. In its opinion approving the settlement plans of the three districts, the Eighth Circuit noted the parties have committed to "solemn undertakings" and stated: We accept these undertakings, again with the reminder that compliance with them will be closely monitored. If the District Court becomes convinced in the future that money is being wasted, and that desegregation obligations contained in the settlement plans are being flouted, it will be fully authorized to take appropriate remedial action. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1390 (Sth Cir. 1990). The Eighth Circuit further directed the Court to "monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and agreement. -2-and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require." Id. at 1394. The Court monitors the use of settlement monies through the Office of Desegregation Monitoring [ODM]. In October 1991, the ODM informed the LRSD that it must be able to provide the Court with information which (1) accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds
(2) demonstrates the link between the district's legal requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements
(3) describes desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified
and (4) enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation obligations. a [Document # 1517] Pursuant to the directives from and the considerable latitude and discretion given the Court by the Eighth Circuit, the Court finds that the LRSD's current budgetary process does not meet the above requisites and that it is necessary for the LRSD to submit revised cost figures to the Court. 2 Therefore, (1) The LRSD must submit a revised 1991-92 budget which is directly correlated to the specific provisions of the settlement plan and which are reflected on updated implementation timelines contained in the plan. 2 In a note to its May submissions, the LRSD indicated that the cost figures originally submitted with its desegregation plan were outdated and it would provide revised cost figures in a separate desegregation budget. To date, the Court is unaware of any such revised figures having been submitted or filed. -3-a (2) The LRSD must submit a long-range budget projection on per annum basis which covers all anticipated desegregation expenditures over the entire term of the desegregation agreement. (3) The LRSD must submit.a long-range revenue projection covering the same period of time, which includes revenues anticipated not only from the settlement monies and settlement loan, but also from state and millage revenues and any other money sources. This long-term projection will provide a clear picture of the district's financial future and, thereby, enable the LRSD to predict with accuracy if and when a millage increase will be needed. The amount and time of any anticipated millage increase is to be indicated along with the date when the district will present a millage increase to the voters. (4) The LRSD has maintained that a significant portion of desegregation expenditures are "start up." The district must specifically identify which desegregation costs are "start up" and when these start up costs will terminate. (5) The revised budget shall be prepared in consultation with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and shall be submitted to the Court within thirty (30) days after the Court rules either from the bench or in a written order on the proposed modifications. - By this Order, the Court confirms its oral approval of the construction of the interdistrict school at the Crystal Hill site. Further, the Court confirms oral instructions made to the parties to explore alternative sites for the construction of King -4-Interdistrict School along the 1-630 corridor. DATED this ^/^^dav of January, 1992. '1^. trNlTED STATES DISTRICT J JUDGE r : OtJ ,PL!A
2V...,^. - -- .. 1-,3-h '1?^ BHEET IN i) FRCP -5-4- oirsidTSSaSBAs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT may -1 199
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER The Court held hearings on the parties' proposed modifications (May submissions) to the 1989 settlement plans on December 18-19, 1991
January 21-23, 27-28, 1992
and February 6-7, 1992. This Order addresses those proposed changes. In its order approving the individual settlement plans and settlement agreement submitted by the parties, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that ''[i]t may be necessary. in order to make a smooth transition. for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances." Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (Sth Cir. 1990). The Court rejected the parties' May submissions. finding that they exceeded the authority granted by the Eighth Circuit. Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 769 F. Supp. 1483 (E.D. Ark. 1991).4 The parties' motion for reconsideration was denied. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special Schools District No. 1, 769 F. Supp. 1491 (E.D. Ark. 1991). remanded the case and stated: On appeal, the Eighth Circuit The 1989 settlement which we approved last year should indeed be a benchmark for the future path of this case. The parties are not authorized to modify it at will Further, we agree, for the most part, that any changes approved should be concerned only with the details of plan, affecting it only at the margin, so to speak, wish to dispel, in particular, any notion that asserted lack of funds on the part of any of the three school districts would justify a reduction i.. commitment to desegregation represented in the 1989 plan . . . The desegregation obligations undertaken in the 1989 plan are solemn and binding commitments. The essence and core of that plan should not be disturbed. in particular, the We an in their The If a question is truly one only of detail, not affecting the major substantive commitments to desegregation. District Court has the authority to consider it. such changes, for example, as the District Court noted? may have merit, either because they advance desegregation, or for other reasons. they the Some Even changes that go beyond the level of detail, moreover, could be approved, but only if the parties affirmatively establish good reasons (not including lack of funds) for them. It may be helpful for us to state those elements of the 1989 plan that we consider crucial, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved. They are as follows. (1) double fundinc for stuHont'c: arronH-i-nrr retreat should be approved. They are as . funding students attending the incentive (virtually all-black) schools
incentive (virtually all-black) schools
(2) operation of the a^eed number of magnet schools according to the agreed timetable
(3) operation of the agreed number of i^terdist.-ict schools according to the agreed timetable
(4) intradistrict desegregation of PCSSD according to the agreed timetable
(5) the agreed effort to eliminate achievement disparity between the races
(6) the agreed elements of early-childhood education, at least in the incentive schools
and (7) appropriate involvement of parents. Appeal of Little Rock School District, Pulaski County Special -2-School District No. 1, North Little Rock School District, cLnd Mrs. Lorene Joshua, 949 F.2d 253, 255-56 (Sth Cir, 1991) , In remanding the case to the District Court, Circuit further stated: the Eighth The parties' agreement should be upheld if 1^ constitutional, workable, and fair to class members, vu the other hand, the application of this test is affected by the new procedural context in which we now find the The 1989 settlement is a benchmark. if it is On case. xue xaay Although changes can be made, the District Court and we must take into account the potential for confusion, that constant change creates. ' even chaos, , - The parties and the public deserve a period of stability. Changes in details, or aeserve a period of stability. Changes in details, or at the margin, will not seriously interfere with this goal. Changes of greater significance, however, may well do so, and that fact must be taken fully into when such changes are proposed and considered. goal. account We recognize that the language somewhat general. of this opinion is It leaves a considerable degree of latitude District Court. That Court must determine in the first instance, using criteria we have suggested, what changes are mere details and what changes are outside that category. 7^ --_ _i__ ____ its own best judgment, what changes should be~approved"" notwithstanding their going beyond the level of detail* because they would advance desegregation or for other- sound reasons. The District Court should proceed with that discretion and flexibility that characterizes courts of equity. . . .[W]e will give a healthy measure of deference to the reasoned choices made by the District Court. to the That It must also determine, in Id. at 257. With this background in mind, the Court addresses the parties' proposed modifications. The changes that the Court approves will not be enumerated or addressed, for the most part. The Court comments on changes it approves subject to certain conditions and discusses in detail the substantive changes it will not approve, generally following the order of the provisions and their section -3-headings as they are found in the plans. are attached to the Order. INTERDISTRICT PLAN Baker and Harris Elementary Schools The 1989 plans require the Pulaski The plans as approved County Special School District (PCSSD) to establish interdistrict schools at Baker Elementary School and Harris Elementary School. The PCSSD now proposes to modify the settlement plan and eliminate Baker Elementary as thematic interdistrict school with expanded seating. According to the proposed modifications, the 200 a additional seats originally planned for Baker the new interdistrict school at Crystal Hill. would be placed at The PCSSD proposes to eliminate Harris Elementary as an interdistrict school and establish a new interdistrict school to be built along the Highway 67/167 corridor. The PCSSD claims that Baker has been desegregated without having to convert it into an interdistrict school, the reason for its becoming an interdistrict school. thus obviating However, the Court finds that Baker's designation as an interdistrict school was intended not only to desegregate that school but also to aid in the desegregation of three additional elementary schools: Romine in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Lawson and 1, Other changes such as historical background and context, timelines, changes to correct language discrepancies and inconsistencies, and other changes which contribute to clarity or support intent, are not discussed. language discrepancies -4-Robinson in the PCSSD. Testimony and figures presented at the bearings indicate that failure to designate and promote Baker as an interdistrict school as originally planned may be impacting desegregation negatively in schools having difficulty achieving or maintaining compliance with the minimum required racial balance of their student enrollment. Because of the Court's concern about difficulties with racial balance at Baker, Romine, Lawson, and Robinson, and in the interest of adherence to the agreed number of interdistrict schools, the Court finds that Baker should interdistrict school. remain an The Court requires the district to look carefully at the quality of the programs at Baker, particularly the extended day program which was intended to attract students who would promote desegregation of the school. The extended day program must be expanded as necessary to accommodate additional students, particularly those transferring from the Romine area as emphasized in the plan. As promised in the original language of the plan. the PCSSD shall continue to provide its full compensatory education program at Baker so long as 35 or more black students have transferred from LRSD to Baker. The Court approves that portion of the modification that deletes the required addition of 200 seats at Baker. regard to Harris, testimony at the hearings convinced the Court that deleting the designation of Harris Elementary as an 2 PCSSD Superintendent Mr. Bobby Lester stated at the hearings that Baker is considered to be an interdistrict school. -5-interdistrict school and establishing instead a new interdistrict school in an easily accessible location is wise decision. a Because the Court finds that this proposed change will likely advance desegregation, it adopts the modification but delays until a later date ruling the PCSSD ^s motion to postpone for five years the construction of the new interdistrict school. The Eighth Circuit ordered in November 1991 that the agreed number of interdistrict schools be operated according to the agreed timetable. However, in a number of instances it was impossible to adhere to that order. For example, under the 198 9 plan. Crystal Hill was scheduled to open in 1990-91. It is now scheduled to be ready for the 1992-93 school year. Romine did not meet the original date but it is now open. As with the new interdistrict school to take the place of Harris, the dates for the establishment of Stephens and King are the subject of a pending motion and will be determined at a later date. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT As with the interdistrict plan, the Court determines that the ^^jority of the modifications proposed by the PCSSD are concerned with details and. therefore. are approved. However, certain modifications the Court finds substantive of two of the primary goals of the and student achievement. case. and unsupported in light i.e. racial integration PATWICK The PCSSD proposes to eliminate PATWICK, a program established -6-to enable parents to meet and work activities designed to aid their cooperatively with teachers in children's progress in school. Dr. Bobby Altom, the PCSSD's Assistant Superintendent for Instruction, testified that other parental involvement programs are being planned but are not identifiable at this time, of the Eighth Circuit's emphasis on parental involvement. In light the Court determines that PATWICK should remain in the plan until the district has designed, and the Court has parental involvement program that holds approved, a comparable promise of meeting the goals PATWICK was expected to achieve. Special Education The parties propose to delete certain language in the plan regarding the reduction of disparity between black and white students and the elimination of disproportionality within races in special education. While the Court approves the addition of new language regarding the relationship between disproportionality in special education. social deprivation and the original language regarding long-range goals must remain in order for the Court to monitor progress toward the goal of reducing achievement disparity between the races and reducing over representation of black students in special education classes. In the plan section dealing with special education screening and internal monitoring. changes have been proposed that would eliminate the requirement for a central office review committee. thereby reducing from three to two the levels in a screening process intended to prevent black students from being referred for -7-special education indiscriminately. At the hearing, a PCSSD witness testified that meaningful changes in the referral process should come from involvement at the local school level and that building practitioners should bear the burden of responsibility and accountability for the initial special education screening and review. The witness stated that the district will require those schools with over representation of black special education students to submit plan for correcting the placement disproportion. The Court is reluctant to condone alteration of a process which should prevent special education placement problems and obviate the need for process to correct such problems after they have materialized. However, the Court agrees that site-based decision-making may encourage accountability and responsibility at the local school level by increasing the involvement of those closest to the children. The Court approves the change in the number of review levels from three to two with the may require the district to restore the third
caution that it review level if monitoring reveals ineffective efforts to eliminate special education placements. disparity in Information/Special Services The parties propose to strike references to each school having programs which include school volunteers. parent advisory committee. parent/teacher/student discipline committee. a a a a a school/community partnership arrangement, and "any other organized structures which the principals and their respective communities feel necessary for positive schoolcommunity relations. Because -8-the Eighth Circuit considers parental involvement crucial to the success of the desegregation plan, the Court does not allow the change. Parent and community involvement in education must be enthusiastically invited and carefully managed throughout the district to sustain the interest and continued activities of parents, business people, retirees, and others in the schools. The district must strive to maintain positive relations with the public, supporting those efforts through such organized groups and programs as school/community partnerships. school volunteers. parent advisory committees, Biracial Committees, in the plan. and others named Secondary School Curriculum Coordinators The parties propose a modification that reduces the number of PCSSD secondary curriculum coordinators from thirteen to six.^ The 1989 plan promised that an instructional coordinator would be provided to support every discipline and that every teacher would have a coordinator to provide materials, demonstration teaching. instructional supervision, moral support, of each school's program effectiveness. and an annual assessment The Court is concerned that testimony regarding the curriculum coordinators indicated that the figure of thirteen was placed in the plan even though the PCSSD failed to consult with the district's assistant superintendent for instruction. In addition. Dr. Altom testified that the PCSSD did not believe that by was Testimony at the hearing was that seven and one-half curriculum coordinators presently were employed by the PCSSD. -9-describing thirteen positions in the plan it was committing to always having thirteen coordinators in place, testimony is combined with that heard during
When Dr. Altom's a hearing on August 7, 1991, on the parties' joint motion for partial stay pending appeal, the Court is particularly disturbed. In August 1991, the PCSSD lawyer stated that the PCSSD did not intend for the number of curriculum coordinators to be a component of the settlement plan and that the district was merely "loading" its plan. In spite of the discrepancy between the plan language and subsequent testimony, the Court approves the reduction in the number of secondary curriculum coordinators from thirteen to six in light of Dr. Altom's testimony that the reduction was made in the firm belief that removal of the positions would not result in substantial change in student performance as measured by the district's standardized tests. the exit exams at the secondary a level, and the MPT exams at the third. sixth, and eighth grade levels. However, the Court recognizes the significant role of curriculum coordinators in providing important services to teachers and in the development, implementation, and maintenance of quality academic programs. When a reduction in the number of coordinators results in shifting many duties to a smaller group of employees. there is a danger that the increased administrative and supervisory responsibilities will yield inadequate support for personnel and programs that directly impact student performance. If disparity in student achievement does not improve or if test scores decline. the Court may require that the full number of curriculum -10-coordinator positions be restored. The Court also notes that the parties propose to delete in the Compensatory Education section the full time instructional specialist at the elementary level and assign the specialist duties to the assistant principal or Chapter 1 coordinator at schools where black student enrollment exceeds 40%. ] the instructional specialist position at each Elsewhere in the plan, elementary school has been deleted and the assistant principal is referred to as assistant principal/Chapter coordinator or assistant principal/instructional specialist, Once again, the parties seek 1 to saddle one individual with multiple duties and accept the risk that all duties will not get done. While the Court approves the modifications, it will carefully monitor student achievement and the district may be required to restore the Minority Facilitator Recruitment Program deleted positions. The PCSSD also proposes to change certain features of the Minority Facilitator Recruitment Program, a program designed to recruit black teachers as facilitators in the district's Talented and Gifted Program. As the Court understands it, the proposed changes concern that portion of the program which offers tuition assistance for black teachers who work for the district and who are interested in completing graduate courses which will qualify them to teach gifted and talented students (TAG and ALPHA programs). The program provides that for every one year that the teacher works for the school district. the PCSSD will fund six hours of coursework. If the teacher does not maintain a certain grade point -11-average, he or she must refund the money. Also, if the teacher does not complete the program, the debt must be repaid. The PCSSD proposes to lower the grade point average (GPA) these black teachers must maintain from a 3.0 to a 2.8 on a four-point scale and to forgive the debt for black teachers who are fired. The Court is troubled by these proposed modifications and declines to approve them. Lowering the GP.z^ requirement for black teachers receiving district-subsidized tuition for the gifted education courses they take sets a separate and inferior standard of performance for black teachers. The proposed change suggests that minority teachers either will be unable to maintain a 3.0 grade average or will be attracted to the program by a substandard achievement requirement. In addition, at a time when national and local emphasis is focused on higher expectations for student performance and the importance of educators as role models responsible for leading children to meet those increased expectations, it is inappropriate to lower the achievement standard for any group of teachers. of debt for teachers who Furtheirmore, the proposed forgiveness fired is illogical and inconsistent with the requirement that the tuition money be repaid the district by any teacher who chooses not to continue the program or who fails to fulfill the obligation to work in the district for one year for every six hours of coursework funded by the district. Air Force ROTC Program The parties proposed in the 1989 settlement plans to move the PCSSD's Air Force ROTC program from Jacksonville High School to -12-North Pulaski High School. In its modifications, the PCSSD deleted the proposed transfer and stated in hearings that the Air Force refused to grant pemission to move the program. In this Court's Stay Order of August 22, 1991, transfer of the ROTC program was "stayed pending appeal, effective upon receipt by the Court of documentation of the PCSSD's efforts to move the program and the Air Force's denial of that move." To date, the Court has not received the information requested last August, obligated to furnish the required documentation Early Prevention of School Failure Program The parties remain to the Court. The Court approves the modification of language concerning measurement of the effectiveness of the Early Prevention of School Failure (EPSF) program and agrees that the Biracial Committee may have the opportunity to review and make recommendations regarding the effectiveness of such programs. Any decision regarding the effectiveness of the EPSF program is a curriculum issue, however. and not one within the exclusive province of the Biracial Committee. Furthermore, the Court understands that EPSF is a nationally validated program which is based upon young children's developmental stages. Any program which might replace EPSF, in whole or in part. must be comparable in validation scope and developmental grounding. Biracial Committee The Court notes that the parties have included a new plan subsection describing in some detail the composition and role of the PCSSD Biracial Committee. The Committee is to have 14 members -13-who are representatives of the district 's population and geography with each election zone to have two representatives, one black and one "other member. The parties have agreed that the Joshua Intervenors will appoint half (seven) of the Committee members, four of whom will be black. In another area of the plan, new language regarding the Biracial Committee has been introduced. providing for a 30 day period for the "advise and consent" of the Biracial Committee regarding unresolved desegregation grievances. While the Court approves the changes concerning the Biracial Committee, it understands that the primary role of this volunteer group is to monitor the progress of the district toward the goals of the desegregation plan. If the Committee is asked to take on additional duties. the members must be recruited with full knowledge of the scope of their responsibilities and the time required to fulfill them. the Biracial Committee with new duties and allowing a 30 day period for the group's action must not be allowed to detract from the basic monitoring function of the Committee. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Four-Year-Old Program Long-Term Plan Under the terms of the 1989 plan, all schools in the LRSD were to implement a four-year-old program by the 1993-94 school year. The May submission deletes that commitment and proposes to replace it with provisions contained in a long-range implementation plan which was filed with the Court on October 1, 1991, and discussed -14-in the February 6 hearing. During the hearing the Court expressed specific concerns with certain of the modifications proposed in the LRSD Four-Year-Old Program Long-Term Plan (Long-Term Plan) and questioned the impact upon the implementation of early childhood education programs, a provision of the desegregation plan which the Eighth Circuit has identified as a crucial feature. The Court agrees with the parties that four-year-old programs are both compensatory and desegregatory in nature since they impact disparity of academic achievement by better kindergarten and also act to attract white preparing children for children to the public schools. The parties have convinced the Court that, as a desegregation tool, it is wise to place four-year-old programs in those schools or areas which have Therefore, the LRSD will not be proved difficult to desegregate, required to place four-year-old programs in every elementary school. However, the parties have made solemn promises regarding early childhood education. The Court views the four-year-old program as a substantive component of the settlement plan which holds achievement disparity between black promote racial balance in the schools. great promise to reduce and white children and to The Long-Term Plan does not satisfy the original intent of the parties regarding the scope of the four-year-old program. The Court will not release the parties from serving the number of children who would have been served had every school offered a four-year-old program as agreed in the 1989 plan. Also, the Long-Tenn Plan contemplates converting Ish incentive school to an early childhood center. The Eighth Circuit -15-has said that the incentive schools are crucial and stressed the importance of a period of stability. Closing an incentive school altering the function of such a school is a highly disruptive event which the Court would be reluctant to approve absent compelling evidence that such a change would better of desegregation. serve the goals The LRSD Four-Year-Old Program Long-Term Plan is not approved. The parties are required to refine the provisions of the Long-Term Plan and again petition the Court for approval within 30 days of this Order. The revised Long-Tera Plan must: 1) identify the precise number of children to be served by the LRSD using the standard of 18 classroom, as agreed by the parties
students per 2) accommodate in four-year-old programs a number of children which equals or exceeds the number which would have been included if all schools in the district had a four-year-old program as originally planned
3) place four-year-old programs in locations which will best further the goals of disparity reduction and racial balance
4) eliminate the closing of an incentive school
5) follow a time schedule in which implementation of four-year-old programs is completed by 1994-95, completion date identified in the Long-Term Plan
the and 6) limit reliance on four-year-old programs that are provided through agencies, such as Head Start, which the -16-district does not control and the goals of which do not parallel the settlement agreement goals of program scope, racial balance, location. and so forth. While the district IS encouraged to continue its cooperative relationship with agencies such as Head Start and the Cii.y of Little Rock Day Care Center, the parties may not shift to such programs the obligation the parties themselves assumed when they wrote the Special Programs 1989 plan. The LRSD proposes to eliminate Little Rock Job Corps Alternative Program from the settlement plan. Mr. James Jennings, LRSD Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services, testified that the Job Corps Center no longer offers the Alternative Program and that there are other programs in place that deal with high school students who are at risk of dropping out of school: the LRSD Alternative Learning Center in the old Carver building, the JTPA Summer Learning Program, and a Changing Directions program. Additionally, Mr. Jennings and Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs for the LRSD, mentioned programs such as New Futures for Little Rock Youth and the Cornerstone Project with which the district collaborates to provide various services which promote student success. The district also proposes to delete the Homework Telephone Hotline for English, math. establishment of a science, and social studies. (This phone service is not the same homework hotline -17-which the district is required to provide for incentive school students.) Mr. Jennings testified that the funding for this Hotline, which was to be provided by the business community, had not materialized. Instead, some students who attend the four LRSD junior highs involved in the New Futures program can phone a recorded homework assignment message and can participate in an after school tutorial program. There is also a corporate-sponsored state telephone homework line which Little Rock students The Court approves the changes regarding the Little may use. Rock Job Corps Alternative Program since Job Corps no longer offers the program. However, the district must continue to provide students who are experiencing attendance or disciplinary problems with other programs similar to the Job Corps Alternative Program, such as this may wax and wane but the district remains Programs obligated to assure that there are ongoing comprehensive and effective services for students needing specialized support. The district is expected to make wise use of all available community resources. to maintain strong coalitions with such organizations as Job Corps, New Futures, and Cornerstone, and to seek new resources to take the place of those no longer available. The Court will carefully monitor the district's use of community resources and the LRSD's programs, policies, and practices which are designed to enable students to remain in school, promote their academic success, alleviate behavior problems. and The requirement for the Homework Telephone Hotline, other than the homework phone line which serves incentive school students. may -18-be removed from the plan because similar services are being provided by other organizations. However, the Court may restore the requirement for the district to implement a homework hotline if comparable services become unavailable elsewhere and students are not receiving adequate help with homework through hotlines other means. or New Futures The 1989 plan contains certain references to operations of the New Futures program which largely have been deleted in the May submission. The Court understands that the program as originally described in the plan is now outdated, operations of the program have changed. as certain features and At the hearings, several references were made to New Futures by two district witnesses. This testimony indicated that the district continues to depend upon New Futures, especially in four junior high schools, to provide such services as after-school tutoring centers, phone recordings of homework assignments, and extended day programs. Also, LRSD financial statements contain New Futures budget allotments and debits which attest to the district's ongoing relationship with the program. It IS incongruous to remove plan references to New Futures while continuing to rely heavily upon New Futures as a partner. The Court will not approve deleting from the plan language which describes New Futures' functions in LRSD schools at the time the plan was written until the parties provide the Court updated information which will replace the obsolete description of New Futures and its role in the LRSD schools. -19-Academic Support Programs In the 1989 plan, the LRSD approach to academic remediation was largely embodied within a program known as Program for Accelerated Learning (PAL). When PAL was incorporated into the plan, there was general understanding among the parties as to what the program entailed because the LRSD had developed an extensive written description of PAL and had begun widespread inservice training on its implementation. Mrs. Matthis testified at the January 23, 1992 hearing that there has been dissatisfaction with the results of PAL as it has existed and that the district desires to modify PAL and change the district's overall approach to remediation. The parties proposed to delete PAL from the language of the plan, replacing it with generic reference to an a unspecified number of unnamed "LRSD academic support (remediation) programs." The Court is convinced that PAL as it has been implemented is an inadequate approach to remediation and does not wish the district to continue investing resources in an ineffective program
yet the Court cannot sanction a complete abandonment of PAL or deletion of all references to it in the plan until the parties are able to replace it with an interrelated, programmatic approach to remediation that is sufficiently detailed for the Court to monitor. Therefore, the parties must submit within 60 days a written plan for the entire academic support program that is proposed to replace PAL. The plan must include the following
1) the name and location of each academic support program
-20-2) Clearly stated goals and objectives for each program
3) a comprehensive description of each program's components and activities, including those which may be "extended day" in nature
4) an overview of how all the individual academic support programs will be coordinated for continuity of services to children and efficient use of resources
5) the number of students targeted for participation in each program by school and grade level
6) the number of teachers or other staff (identified by position) responsible for delivering each of the academic support programs
7) 8) implementation time lines
anticipated costs
9) an overview of the necessary staff training by content, by year, and by number of training participants
10) evaluation criteria that will indicate how effectively teachers are implementing new instructional approaches. an element termed "critical" by the LRSD witness at the hearings
and 11) evaluation criteria that will measure the degree to which each academic support program is successful in meeting its particular programmatic goals and objectives of remediating student achievement and contributing to the overall reduction -21-of disparity between black and white students/ According to LRSD financial data, materials and personnel for PAL have been underwritten by millions of dollars in settlement money. The district must salvage to the extent possible what has been invested in the PAL remediation approach. Staff positions, computer hardware, software programs. and other equipment and materials previously devoted to PAL should be properly reallocated toward the new approach to remediation. Additionally, in the LRSD remediation programs designed to address students' learning deficiencies, the parties propose to delete science and social studies as "core areas" through which requisite skills are maintained and reinforced at the secondary level. In their joint motion for partial stay pending appeal and during the hearing on the motion. the parties contended that science and social studies were deleted from the list of discrete academic support programs in order to emphasize remediation in the areas of English, reading, and math rather than "diluting" the program by including science and social studies.- At the hearing in January 1992, Mrs. Matthis indicated that removing students from class for remediation in social studies and science as well as for reading and math would result in increasing the isolation of students from the regular classroom, decreasing the cooperative *If it appears that the Court is being too particular in setting forth required components of proposed programs such as the academic support programs and the Four-Year-Old Program Long-Term Plan, it is because the parties have failed to provide the Court with well thought out, comprehensive program plans which can be closely monitored. -22-learning interaction among regular students and those participating in remediation programs, and decreasing the ability of these students to complete the number of courses required for graduation. (See Exhibit 19A, attached.) Mrs. Matthis also testified that remediation in math and reading would benefit student achievement in both science and social studies since math and reading skills are prerequisites to success in other curricular areas. She stressed that it is "critical" that the district provide the staff development necessary to ensure that teachers are able to assume greater responsibility for the total educational experience of students rather than only specific subject-oriented content. The Court allows the change regarding science and social studies as proposed and requires the district to provide all teachers with ongoing training to meet students' need for academic remediation in the most inclusive setting and comprehensive manner possible. The Court will closely monitor student progress on test scores in social studies and science. If students fail to progress in these areas or if improvement is not made in reducing overall achievement disparity between black and white students, the Court may require changes in the plan. The parties propose to modify the plan by adding language that gives the LRSD an option of merely informing parents rather than actively involving them in each identified phase of the remediation programs in which their children participate: individual assessment, individual improvement planning, formative assessments. -23-workshops, and. summative evaluations. Given the Eighth Circuit's emphasis on parental involvement, the Court denies the modification. Focused Activities Testimony indicated that approximately 8 0% of the black elementary students in Little Rock do not attend an incentive or magnet school but are educated instead in area schools. In order to advance desegregation and reduce achievement disparity among the large number of students served by area schools, the plan gives each area school the option of developing a program of focused activities which may center around a theme. The goals of focused activities are to promote a community of learning among parents, staff and students
to provide enrichment opportunities at the schools
and to ensure equitable opportunities for participation in the area schools. The parties also wish to continue a related program. the Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program for the area schools. The Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program provides up to $75,000 for each area school over a three year period to fund programs which will improve the education of all students and reduce student achievement disparity. The Court approves continuing the Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program, which the district will evaluate for continuation at the end of the 1992-93 school year. However, the Court recognizes the grant program as a complementary addition to, but not a replacement of. the original focused activities feature of the plan. Focused activities will -24-continue to be an option for area schools, may center around a theme, and will operate according to the original plan which provides for community and parental involvement and allocation of funds. an annual Junior High Schools The parties propose to eliminate from language concerning the possible construction the settlement plan of a new junior high school, leaving only "planning" for additional junior high capacity. Evidence presented at the hearing indicates that the LRSD is experiencing serious capacity problems at its junior high schools, with four of the district's eight junior highs at or above 100% capacity. (See Exh. # 27, attached). When this case began. there were three junior high schools located in the eastern or central sections of Little Rock: Booker, Dunbar, and Mann. Within the last few years, all of these schools have been converted to magnet schools. Dunbar and Mann have remained junior highs and Booker is an elementary magnet. Consequently, those children (most of whom are black) living in the east and central city have been largely displaced from that area's junior highs and must bear an unequitable burden of transportation to attend high schools in the western sections of town. nonmagnet junior Moreover, when capacity of the junior high schools is inadequate for the number of children eligible to attend them and the buildings become overcrowded, these schools are rendered unattractive to parents who hesitate to place their children in an environment that offers less than optimal learning conditions. -25-The Court does not approve the modification. The language of the plan does not require the LRSD to build immediately a new junior high school but it does obligate the parties to conduct careful review of junior high capacity and its immediate and long term impact on programmatic needs and/or intradistrict and M-to- M needs, If results of the study, based on current and complete information, indicate that construction of a new LRSD junior high school is necessary, the Court will require the district construction timGlinss and. procGdurss Incentive Schools to submit Reserved Seating and Parent Recruitment - The parties propose change in the plan that would allow the district to place black children in vacant seats which had been reserved for white children at the kindergarten and pre-kindergarten levels in the incentive schools. Mr. James Jennings testified that the district now fills a a any unclaimed reserved seats after the first week of school. The Court is concerned about the impact of this change. When seats intended for white children are instead filled with black children, desegregation at the incentive schools is seriously impeded. No matter how successful subsequent recruitment might be, once seats at a particular grade level are filled with a racially imbalanced enrollment, the imbalance tends to persist at that grade level as those students matriculate from one year to the next. The parties have pledged to desegregate the incentive schools with aggressive and sustained recruitment of white children, including the strategy of targeting geographic neighborhoods for recruitment -26-to a specific incentive school and stressing group preference as an assignment option. In order for this type of group recruitment plan to work, there must be seats available at the incentive schools. In their June 1990 Joint Brief for Appellants, the parties explained to the Eighth Circuit that the incentive schools would be desegregated in phases "through combination of white recruitment into the Incentive Schools. and by reserving a a ^.siqnated number of seats in each incoming kindergarten class for the enrollment of white students. Joint Brief for Appellants at 36, Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1374 (Sth Cir. 1990)(Nos. 89-2288, 89- 2289, 89-2352 to 89-2354, 90-1165 to 90-1167, 90-1579 and 90- 1580) (emphasis original). First of all, the number of black students identifiable schools will be reduced in racially automatically through the plan. Our target is to reserve fifty percent of the seats in the incentive schools for white students each year, beginning with next year's kindergarten class. A certain number of those seats will be reserved whether or not the white students show up. And that number, we have discussed in the past with the Joshua Intervenors. The fifty percent target will work if all of our schools are allowed to go forward with the construction schedule of inter-district schools. If not we would still retain, at least, the district average of whi<.e students who would reserve, at least, that many seats throughout the entire six years, so that if, three or four years from now, a group of white students decided to go to the fourth grade at Rockefeller School, would be available for that purpose. That is our target. show up. If not. seats Id. at n.64. Provisions of the interdistrict plan target the ideal racial balance of the various types of LRSD schools: interdistrict schools -27-at 50 percent black/white with a variance of 60 to 40 percent of either race
magnet schools at between 50 and 55 percent black
and area schools at an enrollment of 55 percent black and 45 percent white with a variance of 5 percent. While the plan does not identify a specific target racial balance in the incentive schools, the parties' representations to the Eighth Circuit require that a racial balance at the incentive schools be 50 percent of each race, at least in the pre-kindergarten and kindergarten levels. This proportion is to guide the district in the number of seats which are initially reserved for pre-kindergarten and kindergarten students. The Court will reluctantly allow seats reserved for white students to be released after a reasonable period only if timely. vigorous, and sustained recruitment efforts to fill the seats with white children are unsuccessful. These recruitment efforts must be thoroughly documented by the districts to the extent that the Court can determine that--the parties are diligently trying to recruit white students to the incentive schools before any reserved seats. releasing The parties also propose to modify their plan language so as to limit the LRSD's incentive school recruitment efforts to potential kindergarten students. Such a change would allow the _ ^The Court, recognizes that the Eighth Circuit has defined racially identifiable black elementary school in LRSD as
elementary school that is 81% or more black (rounded in LRSD "a any uuc is ex-5 or more black (rounded up or down to the nearest whole number) ." _ Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 339 f 2d 1296 1988) . ' 1307 (Sth Cir. -28-LRSD to diminish efforts to recruit students into grades one through six and the four-year-old program in the incentive schools. Such a restriction would place a heavy burden for desegregating an entire school upon only one grade level. Given the plan's emphasis upon desegregating the incentive schools and the parties' representations to the Eighth Circuit of the plan's "automatic" desegregation features, the Court does not approve restricting recruitment to potential kindergarten students. The Court is mindful that all parties have made firm commitments to assist the LRSD in desegregation of the incentive schools. Although the Court will carefully monitor interdistrict collaboration in support of desegregation of all schools, it will pay close attention to the efforts directed toward the incentive schools and particularly scrutinize the LRSD's efforts to carry out diligently the incentive school recruitment activities as outlined in the plan and detailed in the LRSD Incentive School Marketing Plan, a strategic plan referred to by Mr. James Jennings at the hearing. The Court encourages the parties to implement any additional recruitment measures that will aid desegregation of the incentive schools as a whole. The Court is pleased to note that marked progress is being made in desegregating Rockefeller where the school's overall student enrollment is 31% white for the current year. Also encouraging is the present racial balance of the four- year-old classes (48% white) at Franklin. Progress at these two schools holds forth promise that desegregation of the incentive -29-schools ultimately can be achieved or at least significantly increased. The Court encourages the district to analyze the success factors that are contributing to the desegregation of these two schools to enhance desegregation of the remaining incentive schools. Pupil-teacher ratio and classroom aides ~ The plan describes in detail a wide range of special features which are unique to the incentive schools. These enhanced programs, activities, support systems, and funding levels are compensatory and remedial in that they are intended to help children overcome past discrimination and boost student achievement. They also are designed to promote racial desegregation by attracting white children to these predominately black schools. The Eighth Circuit has underscored the importance of the many special incentive is important for the settlement plans to be school aspects: "It scrupulously adhered to and here we have in mind especially the kinds of programs that the plan contemplates for the Incentive Schools..." 921 F.2d at 1386. Among the distinctive incentive school features is a pupilteacher ratio that is lower than that of other LRSD schools. In the 1989 plan, the parties promised that the incentive schools would have a maximum pupil-teacher ratio of 20 to one. This ratio is consistent with the February 9, 1988 opinion of the Eighth Circuit which states that "the most important element of the compensatory and remedial programs should be the reduction of class size in the racially identifiable black elementary schools to 20 -30-pupils per teacher," Little Rock School District v- Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 839 F.2d 1296, The low incentive school pupilteacher ratio 1307 (Sth Cir. 1988) . was again stressed by the Eighth Circuit in its order of December 12, 1990: "A salient feature of these [incentive schools] would be a maximum effective student-teacher ratio of twenty to one. 921 F.2d at 1379. The school district has used this reduced ratio in marketing the incentive schools, promising a "low pupil/teacher ratio: small classes of 20:1 which provide more time for teacher interaction with students" in a LRSD recruitment brochure which was used to attract new students to the incentive schools for the 1990-91 school year. The LRSD's Incentive School Strategic Marketing Plan for 1992-1997, published in May 1991, enumerates the many strengths and benefits of the incentive schools, listing among them smaller class sizes, lower student-adult ratios. and an instructional aide for every classroom. Clearly the LRSD has represented to the courts and to the community that incentive school students. teachers, principals, and parents could expect that the children would be taught in smaller classes with pupil to teacher ratios lower than that of other schools, indeed lower than that by state accreditation standards. required Yet language in the plan creates confusion about the twenty to one ratio and the number of students that actually will be seated in a classroom. The 1989 plan states that "there may be more than 20 students per classroom. however, there will be certified aide in each class and possibly a second teacher in those -31- aclasses." (LRSD Proposed Desegregation Plan, May 1, 1991, p. 256) In their June 1990 Joint Brief to the Eighth Circuit, the parties reaffirm their commitment to a "specific and detailed" plan for the incentive schools and state that "Incentive Schools would have a maximum effective pupil/teacher ratio of 20:1 by placing a second teacher or certified instructional aide in each class with more than 20 pupils (where classes of that size were permitted by state law)." Joint Brief for Appellants at 43, n.76. Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1374 (Sth Cir. 1990)(Nos. 89-2288, 89-2289, 89-2352 to 89-2354, 1165 to 90-1167, 90-1579 and 90-1580). 90- Earlier, in its Objections to the Findings and Recommendations of the Special Master, filed with the district court in May 1989 and included in the Joint Designated Record on Appeal, the LRSD had addressed the ambiguity of the plan that promised a 20 to 1 pupilteacher ratio but also allowed more than 20 students to a classroom: The Special Master expressed concern at an off-the- record conference that the pupil/teacher ratio was beina rnanrrorl 4_____ . _ . . changed to twenty-five to though the maximum class one. LRSD explained that even size would be twenty-five students, the pupil/teacher ratio would remain at twenty to one. LRSD provided the example of four classrooms with twenty-five students and one full-time teacher in each classroom. A full-time language arts teacher would be assigned to work with those four classrooms, overall ratio of one hundred students to five teachers or twenty to one. The Special Master indicated that such an arrangement would be acceptable provided that teachers and not certified aides were used to achieve the to one ratio. for an twenty Joint Designated Record, Vol. II at 2767, Little Rock School -32-District V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1374 (Sth Cir. 1990)(Nos. 89-2288, 89-2289, 89-2352 to 89-2354, 1165 to 90-1167, 90-1579 and 90-1580). 90- At the January 1992 hearings on proposed 1989 plan revisions, this Court noted Eighth Circuit orders which specifically refer to the twenty to one ratio. Responding to this Court's concern about what the parties had represented to the Eighth Circuit regarding the incentive school pupil-teacher ratio, the LRSD lawyer indicated that the Eighth Circuit's order of December 1990 was based in part upon oral arguments made before the judges in June 1990 when the parties explained the difference between a class with a maximxim of 25 students and a pupil-teacher ratio of twenty to one. The lawyer stated that "Judge Arnold is not a judge to waste words in an opinion, and the issue was before him concerning the difference between class size and pupil-teacher ratio. And we explained that we would have a class size with a maximxim of 25 students but an effective pupil-teacher ratio based on a total staff devoted to those students of 20 to one." However, this Court's review of the Eighth Circuit's own audio tapes of those oral arguments reveal that. while there was discussion of double funding and other aspects of the incentive schools, there was no reference whatever to the size of incentive school classes nor the pupil-teacher ratio. The numerous extraordinary features of the incentive schools have been represented to the Court and the of substance and not of mere semantics. community as a matter This Court finds that -33-sBBsasiQ^sssEaEgB^e^s^E Si providing a smaller-than-usual class size in the incentive schools was intended in the settlement agreement as a means to promote both academic achievement and racial balance in the schools. The Court notes that to have anticipated placing up to 25 students in each incentive classroom would have been a violation of Arkansas accreditation standards which permit an average of 25 students per elementary classroom only in the fourth, fifth, and sixth grades. Recognizing that language in the settlement plan allows for more than twenty children in a classroom. the Court orders that the maximum individual classroom enrollment at incentive schools will be as follows: 18 students in four-year-old classes. as agreed by the parties
20 students in kindergarten, 23 students in grades one through three. and 25 students in grades four through six. class sizes which are consistent with certain of the state's accreditation standards. fi This Court is mindful of the Eighth Circuit's emphasis on the reduction of class size in the incentive schools to 20 pupils per teacher and that Court's caution about reducing the number of instructional aides in the incentive schools without significant justification. In order to effect a low pupilteacher ratio as provided in the settlement plan, the Court orders that there be at least one full time instructional aide per incentive school classroom in those schools where any classroom contains more than 6 The table on page 254 of the LRSD Proposed Desegregation Plan concerning capacity at incentive schools is being modified in accordance with this Order. -34-20 students. the district should choose to reduce class size to a maximum of 20 students in kindergarten through sixth grade classroom in an entire incentive school, the Court will allow that school to have two instructional aides for every three K-6 classrooms. In any case, an appropriate number of supervision aides will be provided at each incentive school, regardless of whether there is one instructional aide per classroom or, in those schools which elect to have no more than 20 children per K-6 classroom, two instructional aides per every three K-6 classrooms. Infomnation presented at the hearings indicated that over half of all incentive school classrooms presently have more than 20 students. The Court is sensitive to the tremendous disruption that changing schools causes for children and their parents. In adjusting to reduced class size for the 1992-93 school year. the Court will not require that students currently enrolled in the incentive schools be transferred mandatorily to some other school. Children attending an incentive school during the 1991-92 school year may remain at that school until they move on to junior high or voluntarily transfer to another school. No new student shall be enrolled in an incentive school if that student's enrollment would cause the ordered class size limits to be exceeded. However, the Court is willing to permit an exception if the new student's enrollment would improve racial balance. Academic Programs - Given the importance of parental involvement. the Court does not approve a change that would remove the requirement for the district to develop a parent component model -35-and incorporate it into the district's four-year-old program. The Court will approve a proposed change in the four-year-old program content model from the designated High/Scope Curriculum only if the shift is to comparable developmentally appropriate curriculum model which continues to foster the active and independent of each child. learning The Court is not convinced that school themes at the incentive schools should be deleted from the 1989 plan and does not approve their elimination. The Eighth Circuit has stressed the importance of parental involvement. School themes, developed at the local level by parents and staff, provide an important avenue for community participation. Themes have proven their value in magnet schools as successful desegregation tools which offer a focus for enrichment activities. help give schools an identity and individuality, and provide parents with more options for their children's education. Moveover, considerable money, materials, and personnel already have been invested in thematic development at the incentive schools
it will be a wise use of resources to continue to build on the thematic foundation which has already been laid. The parties propose to modify the plan to allow science laboratories to be either mobile or permanent. The modification would release the district from the requirement to have traditional laboratory in separate room reserved for that purpose. The district has cited lack of adequate space for housing permanent laboratories in some of the incentive schools as the basis of this proposed change. The Court is reluctant to approve a a a -36-modifications in the plan that stem from lack of planning foresight on the part of the parties, as is evident with the science laboratories, but will allow mobile science laboratories in those incentive schools where adequate space for a full size permanent science lab is not available. The mobile labs must be fully equipped so that students using them receive the same range and high quality of experience as students who are taught in permanent labs. At the August 1991 hearing on the motion for partial stay. LRSD Superintendent Dr. Ruth Steele stated that preparation of Parent Home Study Guides was linked to the completion of the district's new Computer Managed Instructional Technology and related cxirriculum reform. The Court allows the modification to delay development of Parent Home Study Guides. However, the guides must be completed and ready for parental use at or before the beginning of the 1993-94 school year, the date the district has indicated it will complete the guides. The LRSD seeks to eliminate its commitment to establish foreign language laboratories at each incentive school. Because children cannot be expected to achieve a degree of foreign language proficiency without the practice and reinforcement afforded by a language laboratory, the modification is not allowed. The Court notes language contained in the parties' joint brief filed in June 1990, enumerating the wide array of activities, enhanced programs, and support mechanisms that would be available at the incentive schools. The Eighth Circuit has emphasized the importance of the -37-incentive schools and this Court will not allow the district to diminish the scope and quality of the schools' instructional programs and enrichment activities. Year Round School The 1989 agreement offered year round school and summer school at all incentive schools. The parties propose to modify the settlement plan by replacing year round school with an extended-year program and providing summer school at possibly only one site. The Court approves the change but notes that there is a significant difference between a traditional summer school which emphasizes academic remediation and an extended-year program which may include remediation but also adds a variety of enrichment opportunities that enhance and extend children's learning beyond the regular school year. The parties remain obligated to provide incentive school children with summer learning experiences that go beyond the customary basic curriculxim of an ordinary summer remedial school. The extendedyear program for incentive school students must be located in a facility or facilities with < sufficient to accommodate all of the eligible students who attend the program. capacity wish to Washington Attendance Zone - The parties propose to add language offering certain incentive school educational services, such as extended day activities, extended year activities. and a scholarship program, to students who reside in the Washington attendance zone but cannot attend that school. The parties' July 25, 1991 stipulation indicates that these services are available to students who are enrolled in Washington. The parties' positions -38-are unclear. Before the Court will approve the modification, the parties must provide more details, such as: 1) the status of the LRSD's plan to include these newly- eligible children in the incentive school extended-year, and scholarship programs
extended day, 2) whether the LRSD has budgeted the money to underwrite incentive school services for additional students. e.g., transportation. after-school snacks. materials and supplies, additional personnel to satisfy the staffing requirement for Homework Centers, and so forth
and 3) how communication will be coordinated among the staff at Washington, staff at the incentive schools. and parents in order to develop individual Student Education Plans and otherwise assure continuity of services for the Washington students who elect to take advantage of proposed provision. this The Court will not approve the modification until details are forthcoming. Camp Pfeifer - Provisions throughout the parties' plans obligate , them to make use of community resources (such as New Futures and the Cornerstone Project, discussed above) which aid overall progress toward desegregation goals. Camp Pfeifer is a type of residential alternative program for children needing additional assistance in order to be successful students. The parties propose to add wording to the effect that district students will participate provided the funding of the Camp Pfeifer continues and -39-the program meets the needs of the students. The Court allows the new language with the understanding that the change does not relieve the parties from their obligation to manage their relationship with community agencies in all good faith with careful attention to maintaining ongoing communication, cooperative teamwork, and complementary support. The parties are wise to join with the community in strong working partnerships to build a solid support network for children. The Court will monitor changes which the parties may wish to make in their relationship with such community resources as Camp Pfeifer, New Futures, Cornerstone, and others to determine the impact of those changes on desegregation. In further considering the parties' reliance on various community resources, the Court notes that the parties have added language making the continuation of several programs contingent on the availability of outside funding. For example, in the Interdistrict May submissions (p. 415) and in the LRSD Proposed Desegregation Plan (pp. 10, 41, 46, 166, 304) , programs and services provided through such agencies as JTPA, HIPPY, Camp Pfeifer, and local cable education access channel are to continue only if other funding is available. The Court allows the modifications but stresses that funding availability refers only to the particular programs. The parties' obligation to provide comparable services is not negated by the unavailability of other funding. -40-Program Specialists and Other Recommended Positions - The parties propose to delete the positions of specialist for alternative classroom and program specialist and to base the position of assistant principal on enrollment. The Court disapproves the deletion of the program specialist in each incentive school as the position is necessary to support the thematic emphasis required in each school. In addition, the Court does not approve the language which would make student enrollment the sole determining factor for including an assistant principal as part of an incentive school's staff as there are other indicators of a school's need for the position. The district must place an assistant principal, or any other staff position which has been recommended in the plan. in accordance with equitably meeting the identified needs of the staff and students in a particular school. For example, an assistant principal may be needed to help with the additional documentation. services. and enhancements that are required at the incentive schools. An assistant principal can serve as a classroom observer and program monitor to assure the sustained quality of the incentive schools. As stated in the plan, positions recommended for each school are not all inclusive since additional or different positions may be identified during the needs assessment process. The district must make decisions regarding recommended staff positions based upon criteria linked to a current needs assessment of an individual school. this vein, the Court does not approve removing an alternative classroom specialist from the list of recommended staff and requires the district to determine the need -41-altsmativs classrooms and establish them where necessary to serve students who will benefit from the specialized alternative setting. staff Development - The parties propose to create at each incentive school a staff development committee composed of Instructional Resource Center specialists, teachers, parents, principals, and other administrators as appropriate. Because there is great value in parents' taking active part in all aspects of the incentive schools, the Court approves the school-based staff development committees. This change will provide an avenue for frequent parent input into the operation of the schools since the plan requires the committees to meet on a monthly basis to plan activities related to meeting the needs of students who are achieving below acceptable levels of mastery. The functioning of these school committees will be supported by the incentive school coordinator and staff development department which must ensure that there is a smooth transition from the LRSD Staff Development Planning Committee as originally provided in the plan to the individual development committees. school staff Incentive School Curriculum - The Court allows the deletion of the requirement to develop curriculum specific to the incentive schools. but if the regular core curriculum is used in the incentive schools, it must be amplified as necessary to properly incorporate and support the thematic emphasis of each incentive school. It will be appropriate for the district to seek parent. teacher. and other school staff input into the development of -42-curriculum that will incorporate individual school themes and serve the specific needs of students attending the incentive schools. Consultant/Monitor The original plan called for the Special Master to appoint a consultant/monitor to make quarterly- evaluations and recommendations to the Special Master. changes replacing the Special Master with The Court approves the the Court. It does not approve the language requiring the Court's Monitor, who directs the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), to make at least quarterly visits to all schools in the three districts nor to report to the Court on a quarterly basis. The ODM is an arm of the Court which is responsible only to the Court. Its schedule and activities are not determined by the parties. None of the language in the plan's Consultant/Monitor section shall be construed as a comprehensive description of the appropriate function of the Monitor nor shall it limit the activities of the ODM. Such determinations are reserved for the Court. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The Court determines that the modifications proposed by the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) the guidelines set forth by the Eighth are in conformity with Circuit. The changes concern details and adapt the original plan to existing circumstances. The Court notes, however, that the NLRSD plan makes reference to and includes a voluminous appendix. While the Court -43-questions the current significance of some of the documents included in the appendix, the NLRSD plan attached to this Order includes the appendix as presented by the parties modified plan. as part of their SUMMARY The Court hereby approves the revised plans as attached to this Order. The Little Rock School District is ordered to file with the Court, within 3 0 days from the date of entry of this Order, a Four-Year-Old Program Long-Term Plan. It is further ordered to file within 60 days from the date of entry of this Order a plan for the entire academic support program that is proposed to take the place of PAL. In addition, as this Court previously ordered on January 21, 1992, the LRSD must submit within 30 days from the date of entry of this Order a revised budget. The parties must file any motions for clarification and/or modification of this Order by May 14, 1992. DATED this 29th day of April, 1992. JNITED STATES DISTRICT JI UNITED JUDGE -44-TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS December 18, 1991 Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs SUBJECT: Remediation - Reading/English, Math, Science, and Social Studies Provided is additional information to suppon our argument for providing remediation within the regular classrooms and reducing pull-out programs 9 . Students educational programs should not be implemented in isolation. . Facilitates the reinstitution of tracking of students by their supposed academic potential as most remedial classes are more than 90% black. . Proposal institutes more cooperative learning among groups of young people with varying abilities. . Allow teachers to team teach in more flexibly-designed curriculum blocks that integrate several disciplines rather than presenting students with disconnected, rapidly separated 50-minute subjects. . Train teachers to acquire a repertoire of teaching strategies that will enable students to acquire skills in learning how to learn, problem solving, and communication skills. . Existing staffing decisions and the program deliver/ model need to be reviewed and revised in accordance with our revised curriculum. . Existing compensatory and remedial programs rarelv teach the development of higher-order skills. . The amount of time recommended in each content area bv ADE and National Association for Accredited Schools is prohibitive to student mobility in completing course requirements for graduation (20 credits) as well as devoting recommended time in each elementary discipline. EXHIBIT 19 ARemediation - Reading/English, Math, Science, and Social Studies Page 2 . Students are prevented from benefiting from panicipation in electives. Remediation becomes punitive and is resisted by students and their parents. Remedial and compensatory education services must be provided as additions, otherwise, providing remedial services in lieu of would be considered supplanting by our accrediting agencies (ADE and NCA). SCHEDULES Elementary Level Subject Recommended Time Grades 1-3: Language Arts Mathematics Social Living (science, geography, history, economics, health/safety Creative Recreation (art, music, P.E.) 180 min. daily - 900 weekly 45 min. daily - 225 weekly 60 min. daily - 300 weekly 45 min. daily - 225 weekly Total 330 min. daily - 1,650 weekly Grades 4-6: Language Arts Mathematics Social Studies Science Creative Recreation 150 min. daily - 750 weekly 60 min. daily - 300 weekly 45 min. daily - 225 weekly 30 min. daily - 150 weekly 45 min. daily - 225 weekly Total 330 min. daily - 1,650 weekly Secondary Level A minimum of 50 minutes per class is required with the exception of some vocational courses. Most of our classes are 55 minutes in length. Students must acquire a minimum of 20 credits to graduate and, by ADE statute, must exit school by age 21. The amount of time allocated to complete course work will not allow pull-out programs in all core areas.TO
FROM: SUBJECT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 July 11, 1991 Ruth Steele, Superintendent Long Range_Building Planning Committee James Jennings, Associate Superintendent BradyGadberry, Labor Relations Specialist Sterling Ingram, Director, Chip Jones, Manager of Planning, Support Services Research & Eval : ucng Range Building Planning Coanittee As we have considered the building dis.._c. schools, recommended uses of vacant buildincs. and secondary capacity. of buildings, X . School Sites The District currently owns-- four properties pouentia_ as sites for new or expanded schools, have Deen held with Philander that have fifth site. Smith College for Discussions a possible (a) One site is located at th e present Westside camous. Westsioe property is only a few blocks from 1-630 areas of the City and County acjacent to Arkansas Childrc ' " - accessible to all t: ve and o (b) c: ,inc-n
s\ already expressed located near them. xs xas en's Hospital (ACK). AC.H r enthusiastic support for a school support for xOr joint use of the prooertv develop a partnership to needs of children. They also would like to develom olans _ sc that LRSD and AC.H serve educational and health , . P-p-iininary site plans indicate that f a capacity of 656 K-6 students and 40 four-year-olds for a total located on the sit two-story building with e. use of space, but offers exiting facility. w 11 or 696 students can be This plan will require efficient the potential for a unique Rockefeller School is located on a tract well-suited for expansion. and of land that is Ample space is available for P-vide seats for students , school is also easily accessible and has been successful in attracting student Citv. east s from all over the EXHIBIT 27Ruth Steele June 25, Page 2 1S9 1 ! II. (C) (e) The current Stephens site is adequate to support a school for approximately 656 K-6 students and 40 four- students for a total of 696 students. The year-old current Stephens building would be replaced with a new structure. Rebuilding Stephens on the current site enables a site significant number of black students .to attend school without being bussed out of the neighborhood. to The site the former Kinc/Oakhurst physically attractive location situated east of Field . fortner School is a of Curran- Conway Field. The King site is also large enouch to accommodate approximately 840 K-6 students and 40 feur- .year-olds .fo-r a total of S80 students. The King site is also attractive because of its proximity to Curran-Conway Field. The District would seek to enter into a joint-use agreement with the City so that the students will develop interests in a variety of extra-curricular activities. Field. st In order to populate a school on the King site, it be necessary to transport some black students from predominately black will one attendance zone to predominately black attendance zone which would i the burden of busing-for-black students. another ncrease Philander Smith College has expressed an interest in developing a model teacher education training orocram and would like to develop a partnership with the District. They have rejected cur proposal to build a school on their campus, but we should continue to plan to develco cooperative efforts with Philander Smith'. Attendance Zone Data - Elementary Schools This section will address the attendance zone changes that are needed to objectives. First, King phens Schools will be rebuilt in the 1-630 Corridor. <St comply with two First, and schools will become interdist These Ct schools, and they will have a racial balance of 60 percent blac.k and 40 percent white. The white population in these schools will come primarily f^cm PCSSD. Second, bussing the District on zones as possible. is seeking to reduce the burden black students by eliminating as of many satellite The fulfillment of this objective is restricted by the minimum black percentage that is required in tul elementary area schools. As a result, some schools in all west satellite Little Rock must maintain some, if zone blocks in order to comply desegregation requirements. not all, of their with court-ordered c:\fnemos\: . wodRuth Steele June 25, 1991 Page J two objectives x..ese zwo cojectives are interrelated. The construction projects will make it possible for students who live attendance zone of incentive/interdistric in the --- schools to attend these These projects will also, to some reduce the burden of bussing on black students. schools. extent, A zotal of 2190 students currently reside in the attendance zones of the incentive schools. The total capacity of the seven incentive schools is 2405, r*' of 1:25. Although 215 vacancies will The total 1:25. using a teacher/pupil ratio exist if all azzendance zone students attend the incentive schools, of the vacancies can be filled by students who currently nearby satellite.^ zones. reside in satellite these zones allow the respective attendance zone A total of 281 students that can be eliminated reside in currently and s i 1 1 0 minimum desegregation schools to comply with This requirements. situation is complicated by the fact that 200 of the 281 satellite students live near the Stephens/Garland area. Ar her se azzendance zone. rious problem involves the Washington Magnet School Washington is the only elementary magnet zone,- This zone was drawn initiallv to accommodate 1050 incentive school students. school with an attendance converted to a Desegregation Plan. magne school The Diszric under the The school^was Tri-Distric,t recently received czu^z oval to continue to operate Washington as a magnet school. T..e attendance zone for Washingzon is too large to accommodat an of e the black students. Washington's capacity is are 892 black students who reside in the Washington The desegregation requirement for Washingt,.. As a result, only 60 percent '(488) of the black- a zendance zone studenzs nay attend Washington. 404 students must reassigned to non-attendance schools. from eas e Washington's azzendance zone. is 60% black. 404 mus be 814 . ^n to The remaining zone These reassignments usually involve busing students t Little Rock to southwest Little Rock. Most of the 404 students from the Washington attendance (235 studenzs) reside on the northeast edge of the District. The closest elementary schools to these students are Carver- Magnet School, Booker Magnet School, and Rockefeller Incentive School. zone The magnet shadow preferences for Carver and Booker (25 percent of building capacity) are too small to accommodate these students. percen the are small c: \fnemos\blscf>r.2. wpdRuth Steele June 25, 1991 Page 4 Ill. Attendance Zcne Data Secondary Schools In a separate process, calculate capacities for from' fomnula has a formula been developed secondary schools. to It is apparent .the study that very little capacity exists currently che junior high level and a significant amount of caoac at , . - -----wt caoacitv exisus the highs. However, the District seems ti n.aye reached the peak of junior high enrollment in 1990-91 and that enrollment will decrease for a couple of years begin to increase again slightly in 1993-94. indicate that senior high enrollment will in the senior highs. However of the Distric and then IV. 'ext five years but not to the extent . The projections increase over the is required. required in 1992-93 that additional capacity However, adjustments to attendance zones mav be iQ-)Lno _'_______ or subsequent years. (See Attachment 1) While educational trends indicate that articulation between seventh grades, eighth to ninth grades, and ninth to sixth o tenth grades is best with a grade s 9-12, appears that the it District ucture of K-6, changing its secondary grade struc secondary capacity problems. should not 7-S, and consider re as a means for solvin Junior high enrollment will range, from 93% without the additional seats for' the juni 90% to 94% rest r to 102% of capacity .------- junior high schoois"an,d with the proposed construction. Heights is expected to exceed the The enrollment a ... - - -- ----- -- current building capacity in 1993-94 and continue to increase in 1994-95 1995-96. Tne enrollment will range from capacity with the proposed construction. At The 37% to 97% and of Southwest Junior gh iu appears' that replacing 4 portable classrooms, 2 classrooms, . , - - ----------, adding and utilizing 3 classrooms in.the PDC will be the maximum advisable construction and-will provide additional space for attendance zone students. The other junior high school that should be expanded is Mabelvale. - - Replacing the pori.able c...assrooms and building 4 new classrooms will provide adequate space for Mabelvale and southwes much of the growth is occurring. Little Rock, where 1990 Census The Office of Desegregation is presently involved in analyzing A map overlay has been prepared that black/white population count for each census tract. The 1980 Census data will be added to the facilitate comparisons of data by race and each census tpact. the 1990 Census data. map overlay to tn a total population in Preliminary comparisons the population trends that expected to continue. were evident seem to indicate In particular, in 1930 can be the. population in c: \memos\i:l dcomZ. updRuth Steele June 25 Page 5 1991 central and east Little Rock will continue to decline, and the population in portion of southwest and northwest Little Rock will continue to increase. it 1 did was recently announced that the original 1990 census count include 5.3 million ..persons. Our analysis of the no original census data for Little Rock Our analysis seems to confirm that ese figures are too low. We are in the process of obtaining e revised census counts. It should be noted, however, that e revised counts have not been.,approved by the U. Bureau. S. Census Further analysis,
will be needed to identify trends in specific geographic areas. each census block. The next step is to analyze the data for several census blocks. (Note: Each census tract is made uo of The census block data report * has approximately 700 pages.) In addition to examining census block data, another map overlay will be drawn for the attendance zones. There will probably be numerous discrepancies between the boundaries for the census tracts and the boundaries for the attendance zones. In such cases, the census block data will be usedto determine the exact number V. of students in a particular attendance zone. T.ne census map for 1990 is not the same as the census 1930 . Most of the changes in map for he boundaries for the census tracts occurred in southwest Little Rock and the western edce of the City. These differences will have to be reconciled in order to be able to make valid comparisons. Professional Development Cente For many years, SU I oort tie the District's instructional specialists and functions have been spread across Little Rock with chance for a coordinated instructional management The Math, Reading, Science, Staff Development, Social and English Departments are currently located in the former Lee School Building, now called the Instructional system. Studies, Resource Special Education, Gifted and Talented, Pupil Services, and the Student Hearing Officer, are located in the District's Annex Building on West Markham, and Library Media Services is currently located at Franklin School. Center (IRC). Health Services, Markham, c: \mcmos\blscom2 . upd Ruth Steele June 25, Page 6 1991 For several years, the District has been concerned about the physical condition of the IRC building, but the District has not bad opportunity to provide a satisfactory solution^ Trr Dictritt Desegregation Plan In the Tri-District i I f d Magnet was proposed for Southwest Junior High. a University Lab - . . - As a result of ...IS proposal, the District chose the Southwest site for a new professio.nal development center that would provide state-of- the-art administrators. drawings of instructional space for students, teachers, and An architect for the District has develooed students, VI. provide a two-level 45,000 s<^are foot building which will - uf instructional specialists, a space for all of the multiple purpose auditorium, ctional specialists, . a professional library, wcrk/production r^ooms for teachers, classrooms, instructional classrooms, generous techrtology labs,"an instructional management - . center, and many Ou.'er functions. The professional development center will be located south of Southwes er functions. Street. facility (PDC) Junior High along Sryant The District considers the construction of critical to improving the potential this new , - r--------- for sLal cevelopment for the District's teachers and administrators. (The PDC has been designed so that it <__ additional junior high seatsif necessary. Dcr-.-icus currently occupies Services School. can be converted three classrooms The relocation of Library Media to Library Media at Franklin Services to the Professional Development Center will'allow Franklin's caoacitv to increase by 75 students.) Other Properties The^ District currently has several buildings that are not suited to meet the instruction goals of .the District, buildings or sites that do not fit several buildings tha The into the long range plans of the are the former Gillam School, Eastside ' Auditorium, the former King/Oakhurst School, and the fonaeT- Lee School (the current IRC). he orium, District School, and the (a) Gillam School - The District currently leases of the building to Watershed, Inc. a majority . - - Rental income oavs approximately 66% of the operating cost of the building. The is located on Confederate Boulevard in Little Rock. Preliminary Requests for Proposals being developed to attempt to sell the property to site Preliminary Requests east are profit agency. a non( b) Eastside Auditorium - The auditorium a Eastside has not ysed^ for many years. The other portion of the building is used primarily for Adult Education. The auditorium is in very poor condition and is not been for Adult Education. of without significant and very expensive habitable renovation.Ruth Steele June 25, 1991 Page 7 Eastside Rockefeller. is located near 1-630 and 1-30, not far from (c) Lee School^ (IRC) - The Lee School Building is in very condition, and the District should find new the staff housed there as soon as The site would not be appropriate for a school because of traffic congestion and its limited poor facilities possible. VII. Recommendations 1) Direc - The Lee School Building is the District housed find soon size. our attorney to prepare stipulations to proceed .with rebuilding Stephens School at its present location and new King school at the old Westside site (14th Marshall Streets). and Stephens will have a capacity of 696 (including 40 four-year old students). addition to the present attendance area of zone blocks 0573, 0441, 0572, 0574, 0583, part of the McDermott lite zone (zone block 0562) will be added Stephens School. During the construction of the students four-year old In 0441, 0574 , 0583 , part 0562) Stephens, the const current students reassigned to the closest schools will to new be available. temporarily The new attendance zone for Stephens will have approximately.. 370 K-6 students. The new King School will have a capacity of 69 6 students (including 40 four-year old students) .* zone for King School will The attendance blocks: consist of the following zone 0442, 0443, 0445, 0446, 0459, 0458, (from the current Mitchell attendance zone). 0444, 0457 0439 (from the current Rightsell attendance zone) 0438 (from the current Jefferson satellite zone) The boundaries for the new King School are 12th, High, 16th, and State attendance zone Streets. The new attendance zone for King School will have approximately 380 K-6 students. In order to comply with the racial balance requirement for interdistrict schools, 40 percent of the seats at the ' r ..w s, (,.1C new Stephens and the new King Schools have been reserved for white students.. This primary responsibility for recn at each school. means that PCSSD will have ting 40% of PCSSD will have he stude recruitment efforts to meet t' to s goa 1 . implement In addition s ma] or toRuth Steele June 25, Page 8 1991 recruitment to interdistrict schools, PC serious attention to the recruitment of PCSSD needs to give 2) the elementary magnet ipulation allows PCSSD to fill current s schools. more students to The magnet elementary magnet seats. 33.7 percent of the During the 1990-91 school year, PCSSD represented 23 percent of the total elementary magnet population. students percent the If PCSSD is unsuccessful the District will Garland school(s). in fulfilling its obligation, recomme^id closing Rightsell afford to reseirve seats The Distric will and/or not be able to for more than a year once the new _sc..ools .are* constructed. The number of seats to be reserved is approximately 500. The number of If PCSSD sends 500 M to M students to LRSD, approximately $2.0 million of will be generated to pay for school coeraticns. tesezrved seats are not filled by MtoM students. District will not be able to schools when school. seats are revenue If the the afford operating separate available to absorb an entire When the new King School is close Ish School and Mitchell and Rightsell. revise available for occupancy, the attendance. zones_^for The new attendance zones for Mitchell will be the following zone blocks: 0472, 0485 0451, 0452, 0453, 0476, 0477, 0479 , 0430, The boundaries' for 'the new Mitchell School attendance zone are 28th, Wolfe, 37th, and State Streets. Also, small area bounced by Roosevelt Road, Battery, 29th, High Streets, and a small area bounded by 22nd Street, a and Howard Street, Roosevelt Road, and High Street. ' attendance zone for Mitchell School will approximately 340 K-6 students. The new have The new attendance following zone blocks: zone for Rightsell will be the 0448, 0450, 0449, 0454, 0464, 0473 The boundaries of the new Rightsell 16th, High, 28th, and State Streets. a zone students. for Rightsell will have ttendance zone are The new attendance approximately 282 .X-6 Assign zone block 0553 to Jefferson and zone block 0552 to Forest Park.Ruth Steele June 25, Page 9 1591 4) Add approximately 270 seats to Rockefeller classroom addition. Move zone blocks 0210, and 0121 from the Washington with an 11 5) 6) 7) 8). 9) . Rockefeller attendance attendance 0111, zone 1 to 0112, the zone. The boundaries for this area are the Arkansas River, Interstate 30, part of East 13 Street, and part of East 6th Street. This area has approximately 135 K-6 students. ill be districts. filled by white The remaining 135 seats students from the three During the construction of the new Stephens, the curre students will be temporarily reassigned to the closest ,available.schools . For the schools that are vacated or for sites no longer utilized by the district, we will issue offering circulars to established non-profit organizations to seek we issue competitive proposals for the buildings. tr.d intended use - Offering price 2nd of the property will be among the evaluation factors. The sites that should be offered immediately _ for sale or lease are Gillam School, Lee School (subject to court ^approval for building the FDC) and Pankey. * ors. among the Direct attorney to prepare stipulations approval for a building replacement at Forest Junior High (as previously submitted to the Court) with a net increase of 6 classrooms, a 6 classroom addition to Southwest Junior High to replace 4 portable classrooms :or a net increase of 2, and a classroom addition, with a net increase of 4 classrooms to Mabelvale Junior High. our prepare seeking Heights ted to the Court) wi Direct attorney to prepare a stipulation approval the construction of a professional development center near Southwest Junior High. our for a a seeking LRSD, the other parties, and the Magnet Review Committee will study the of shadow preference for Booker, Carver, Consideration will be given to reducing the number of neighborhood students who are displaced by the current assignment process used for use and Gibbs. will be given students who these schools. assignment process usedMann jr.it i>iaoN4> P-.a*K K>
nt6 Ss-iiwes
M am Cemal UsCella.') r aif\-e* Cent! al Fair Kall McC)i:an Parkvt* Aeiossaae Cioacify 733 959 59* 692 702 *50 S.656 67 653 959 i,7< 692 603 751 *50 6.C39 1.691 934 1.218 1.085 5.5*6 1.891 90* 1.216 1.065 450 400 5.9*6 LRSO long-Sange Ar.encance Zone Pi Conaifwo^n 0< Nw Seal* 1W2-93 1993*M 795 74 9 1.C21 M9 702 631 764 0 5.SS1 795 7*9 1.C21 6t9 7Z2 -/A 831 764 0 5,551 1.751 918 1.088 1.221 0 *.966 1.751 918 1.066 0 4.966 1 C2 1 CJ 1 0 1 ifi 1 01 1.C2 0.00 0.96 0.93 0.56 1.06 1.C2 1.01 1.03 1.02 0.39 0.92 74 7*2 977 641 679 BM 605 0 5.5*9 Cl , Cl 1 02 ns 0.96 1.2 1.07 0.00 0.96 f? 799 1 C?3 Ml MS 914 627 0 5.701 CcMiucJier Ne* Statt 781 7*2 977 681 679 66* ks 0 5.<37 0.91 0.67 1.02 1.01 0.96 1.10 1.07 c.oo 0.90 612 799 1.023 661 665 91* 627 0 - 5.701 VAihout Conciruetion ot A>o*eact Snio( H^h Sctiooit C.93 1.C2 0.69 1.13 e.c: 0.90 0.93 1.02 0.89 1.13 0.00 0.90 1.825 1.C2 1.916 985 1.09 1.C26 1.069 1.339 5.338 5.90 1.23 5.00 0.96 1.0*3 l.*C2 0 5.38* Win Conatrueiion ol Aiopaee Snor Hifh Senoo)* 1.925 1.02 1.916 965 1.09 1.C26 1.389 1.339 0 5.338 - Sai.o on cu.i.nt ntoUm.nn 0. an.noanc. ion. (so,, noi >.ll.ct .nioUmani, Oy icnool). - S.ai, lo> Im.ioiatnot Uagn.i Scnoo at. count.d in io<al caoacily. Out no .luo.nt. at. .non lot in, - No .iio.anc. Ka, o..n mao. lo. u-io-u iiancl.i, a iniiaamtnci o.<.g..gatK>n i.an.l.... =age 1 0.90 1.23 0.00 0.96 1.0*0 1.402 0 0 5.36* 'jec'.icns 09 1 C7 C.9 1.30 0.00 1.01 5.95 1.07 0.96 0.9 1.10 c.oo 0.94 1.01 1.13 0.5S 1.29 c.oc 0.97 1.01 1.13 0.86 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.91 1.C35 *53 697 919 634 0 5.759 634 1.C35 653 657 919 0 5.759 1.530 1.439 0 5.451 1.561 1.030 1.021 1.439 0 0 5.451 995-S t C3 .C 1.0* 1.13 1 Cl 0.00 1.02 C.96 1 06 0.97 1.01 c.oo 0.95 1.C4. C.F* 1.33 5.03 0.98 1.0* 1.1* 0.6* 0.00 0.00 0.92 1.X7 1 35 6*3 7C3 6*9 612 0 5.M9 626 1.0C7 5*3 703 6*9 612 0 5.&9 1.973 1.03* 1.573 1.034 1.001 0 0 5.4*9 1 Zt 1 Z2 0.00 1.00 C '^7 0.95 1 22 1.38 C.9* 0 2 0.58 0.62 0 00 0 05 ) achooi* &cau they n* nc aiienaance
one.XiX. Timeiifies Litiie Hock School District Building Plan Timeline Court AppfcvaJ qI Building Plan AMtgn arehiiectc RockalatUr Stephan* King Fores Haighla Southwest Mabalvala POC Working Drawings Prepared Aockelaiiar r Stepheng Xing Forest Heiphts Southwest MaOeiviJa POC Cpoiracts Awarded Rockaiallar Sephans King ....... Fores
Heights Southwest Mabalvaia Relocation of Saphang' Sudanis Consinjclioo Phaea Rockelailar Saphans King Forest Haights Southwest MaPalvaia POC Occupancy Rockefeller Saphans King Forest Heights Souihwast Mabaivilia POC Spring Fail Winiw XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX 1M1 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX 1M2 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX Spring 1602 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX Summer 1M2 XXX XXX XXX XXX Fll 1002 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX \Vinier 1003 XXX XXX XXX Spring 1003 XXX XXX XXX Sommor 1003 XXX XXX . Fall XXX XXXIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 93 JU 30 PH 5: IP LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPL : HTS.CL.
: PLAINTIFF V. BY_ _ _ _ LR-C-82866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District (LRSD) hereby gives notice of the filing of the following budget documents required by the Court's June 15, 1993 Order: 1. An updated 1993-94 tentative LRSD budget document which includes: A. By school or department, budget detail showing function code, object code, and FTE that incudes any changes from the 1992-93 budget as to additions. deletions. and i reinstatements
B. Also by school or department, 1991-92 actual expenses. the 1992-93 budget, 1992-93 unaudited actual expenses. and the 1993-94 budget
C. Any other summaries and budgets shown in the table of contents of the tentative budget document. 2. A LRSD budget summary projecting revenues and expenses for each of the next five fiscal years which reflects annual incoming settlement monies (and any settlement loan funds the district anticipates drawing). The summary must also include anticipated yearly M-to-M revenues. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Bar No. 8108 .ristopher CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 30th day of June, 1993: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 ristopher Hell . -X ' * .it'- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION AUG 3 1592 Offics of Qessgi yui !n Mor:'ior-t'} LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING On January 21, 1992, this court ordered the Little Rock School District to submit certain information concerning its desegregation budget. The required budget information was filed on June 1, 1992. The budget projections which were previously submitted have now been revised based on current information. The revised budget projections are attached to this Notice of Filing. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: Christopher Helfer Bar No. 81083 kaihyiNoticB of FilialCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 31st, day of July, 1992: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher He knihy'Noikx of Filing 2 LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense 1992/93 - 1996/97 Revised 7-30-92 Response to Federal Court Order Dated January 21, 1992 Assumptions/Notes: 1. The years of the projection and the formats used were done through consultation Monitoring (ODM). with the Office of Desegregation Although the LRSD implemented the TriDistrict Plan and double funded the incentive schools in 1990- 91, these figures are not included. 2. These projections are estimates based on current information. Although the LRSD committed to the programs of Desegregation Plan, these figures should not be viewed is 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. the as precise commitments of funds. it is our hope that the objectives of the Plan can be met in more costeffective ways. It The LRSD is in the process of negotiating labor contracts with teachers and support personnel at this time. Consequently, projection of any salary costs starting with 1992-93 cannot be Consequently done with certainty. For the purpose of these projections, it is assumed that annual step and experience increases will be provided to all employees. We have also used a factor of 1% for inflationary increases in non-salary costs. The LRSD Board of Directors adopted a balanced budget for 1992-93 on July 23, 1992. None of the budget reductions will prevent LRSD from implementing its Desegregation Plan. modifications to the Desegregation Plan proposed by LRSD and The approved by the Court for Henderson and McClellan, however, will have to be adjusted in order to implement the proposed budget reductions at those schools. At this time, the LRSD takes no position as to the necessity for a millage increase. The reasons for taking this position are as follows: A) B) C) It is not practical to rely on a millage increase in the near future to balance the budget. The LRSD's ability to fund long-range capital improvement projects is linked to the issue of extended millage. The LRSD Board of Directors must set its priorities and develop a long-range plan priorities. and budget around these It is assumed that capacity for the incentive schools will be limited to a ratio of 20 students to 1 teacher. The projections show in summary the revenue and expense of the most significant federal programs.LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense Page 2 8. Another program that will grow further is the 4-year old program. This has been projected based on the requirements of the Desegregation Plan and previous submissions. 9. Any required new construction will be paid for with capital improvement funds from previous bond issues. We believe most of this is planned for. covered with second-lien issues possible extended millage. Any additional improvements will be or from bonds secured by 10. The 1993-94 reduction 11. 12. 13. Programs, equipment. reflects in program Some funding the completion #10, Academic Support is maintenance of this equipment. added of payments for PAL for replacement and The Desegregation Plan includes certain programs that require funds but are not provided separate accounting codes at this time. This means that cost information for implementation must be extracted from other budget line items. The opening dates of the new King and Stephens Schools shown as approved by the Court. are The fifth and sixth positions (from the left) of the LRSD standard account code desegregation expenses. will be used for identifying The Desegregation program numbers shown on the spread sheets are the codes to be used. 14. The Order specifies that start-up costs be identified, known "start up" costs are as follows: The A. Academic Support Program $1.0 million ends in 1992-93 B. Data Processing $.25 million in 1992-93 and $.50 million in 1993-94 through 1996-97 C. Four-Year Old Programs $34,500 for five new programs and $30,000 for playground equipment No other significant "start up" costs are projected. 15. Because of the new reporting codes used for 1992-93, reconciliation between 1991-92 and 1992-93 program budgets is The District will provide any specific answers which may arise because of the change in accounting coding imperfect. structure.Desegregation Budgeting Description - Future Year Procedures A. A list of Desegregation programs with 2-digit program numbers and a description of costs to be charged to each program will be prepared. B. The program number will be coded in the fifth and sixth positions of the account number so that costs may be charged to a Desegregation program from various operating units and functions for various objects and using money from various fund sources. C. Each budget manager will submit a proposal for spending allotted funds. These proposals will be conjunction with the Desegregation Plan audit. reviewed in Once specific plans for spending have been proposed, the Superintendent will prepare a proposal for Board approval. In addition the Superintendent will prepare a process for requiring Board approval for changes in planned expenditures above a to-be determined spending authority. Once the types of expenditures have been programmed, the Purchasing Department will not be authorized to issue a purchase order except for those items programmed and approved. D. The Superintendent will immediately begin directing a process for Board involvement in the long-range planning and budgeting process. E. The Superintendent will direct the new administration team to conduct a proposals. Desegregation Plan audit and related budgetLITTLE FIOCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 07-29-92 1991-92 1992-93 1993- 94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 40% PULLBACK DELINQUENT TAXES EXCESS TREASURERS FEES DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN UEU OF TAXES MISC. AND RENTS INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 38,196,979 21,081,833 4,250,186 140,858 241,476 224,667 406,878 354,446 100,857 39,088,120 21,694,578 4,250,186 140,000 300,000 224,667 461,000 300,000 100,857 40,093,227 22.453,744 4,577,692 144,200 309,000 226,914 484,050 309,000 102,874 41,416,117 23,196,645 4,615,022 148,526 318,270 229,183 508,253 318,270 104,932 42,786,512 23,966,307 4,753,473 152,982 327,818 231,475 533,665 327,818 107,030 44,206,276 24,718,335 4,896,077 157,571 337,653 233,789 560,348 337,653 109,171 TOTAL 64,998,181 66,559,408 68,700,700 70,855,217 73,187,080 75,556,873 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL SEVERANCE TAX 73,419 15,350 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 TOTAL 88,769 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD ORPHAN CHILDREN TRANSPORTATION COMPENSATORY EDUCATION M TO M TRANSFERS ADULT EDUCATION 27,264,460 8,637,482 4,500,000 73,426 1,513,699 824,870 147,050 3,000 2,379,879 858,743 1,770,486 697,589 27,042,713 8,926,606 1,500,000 73,419 1,341,887 821,449 229,403 3,000 2,692,563 548,034 2,490,900 697,589 28,394,849 8,094,112 73,419 1,500,000 903,594 240,873 3,000 3,300,000 575,436 3,600,000 718,517 29,814,591 6,042,591 73,419 1,545,000 993,953 252,917 3,000 3,564,000 604,207 5,200,000 740,072 31,305,321 3,829,942 73,419 1,591,350 1,093,349 265,563 3,000 3,849,120 634,418 5,460,000 762,274 32,870,587 683,125 73,419 1,639,091 1,202,683 278,841 3,000 4,157,050 666,139 5,733,000 785,143 TOTAL 48,670,683 46,367,563 47,403,799 48,833,751 48,867,755 48,092,076 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM FED GRANTS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 9,385 129,428 394,675 40,000 262,000 600,000 35,000 272,480 400,000 30,000 283,379 300,000 25,000 294,714 200,000 20,000 306,503 100,000 TOTAL 533,488 902.000 707,480 613,379 519,714 426,503 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 114,291,121 113,913,390 116,896,398 120,386,766 122,658,968 124,159,872UTTLEFIOCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-37 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 07-29-92 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994- 95 1995- 96 1996-97 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I CHAPTER II TITLE VI B OTHER 3,272,693 224,423 558,810 1,076,226 4,474,288 215,020 569,986 1,097,751 4,563,774 219,320 581,386 1,119,706 4,655,049 223,707 593,014 1,142,100 4,748,150 228,181 604,874 1,164.942 4,843,113 232,745 616,971 1,188,240 TOTAL 5,132,152 6,357,045 6,484,186 6,613,869 6,746,147 6,881,070 REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS 13,887,841 14,165,654 14,448,967 14,737,946 15,032,705 15,333,359 TOTAL REVENUE 119.423.273 120.270.435 123.380.584 127.000.636 129.405.115 131.040.941LITTLE KICK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 072992 1991-92 1992-93 1993- 94 1994- 95 1995 - 96 1996- 97 EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS DESEGREGATION SERVICES, SUPPLIES, EQUIP. DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY 65,368,035 8,020,788 15,997,240 15,267,935 7,950,100 0 65,063,011 9,162,732 17,013,029 14,536,674 9,597,115 500,000 66,364,271 9,208,546 19,148,407 14,972,774 9,090,123 600,000 67,691,557 9,254,588 22,515,161 15,421,957 8,845,248 700,000 69,045,388 9,300,861 23,246,037 15,884,616 8,258,921 800,000 70,426,296 9,347,366 23,732,324 16,361,155 8,041,468 900,000 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 112.604,098 115,872,561 119,384,121 124,428,511 126,535,823 128,808,608 EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS 5,132,152 6,357,045 6,484,186 6,613,869 6,746,147 6,881,070 EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS 13,887,841 14,165,654 14,448,967 14,737,946 15,032,705 15,333,359 TOTAL EXPENSES 131,624,091 136,395,260 140,317,274 145,780,327 148,314,675 151,023,037 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE 1,687,023 (1,959,171) (2,487,723) (4,041,745) (3,876,855) (4,648,736) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 634,842 2,321,865 362,694 (2,125,029) (6,166,774) (10,043,629) ENDING FUND BALANCE 2.321.865 362.694 (2.125.0291 (6.166.7741 (10.043.6291 (14.692.3651 FUND BALANCE ANALYSIS BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 2.321.865 362.694 3.874.971 5,833.226 6.956.371 INCREASE(DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE RECORD LOAN REVENUE BUDGET REDUCTIONS (1.959.171) (2.487,723) 3,000,000 3,000,000 (4,041,745) 3,000,000 3,000,000 (3,876,855) 2,000,000 3,000,000 (4.648.736) 3.000.000 ENDING FUND BALANCE 362.694 3.874.971 5.833.226 6.956.371 5.307.635 * $1.5CX3.OOO recorded as revenue in 1992-931105 1110 FOUR YR OLD PROGRA KINDERGARTEN 1120-99 REGULAR PROGRAMS 1210-99 SPECIAL ED PROGRAM 1320-99 VOCATIONAL PROGRAM 1410-99 ADULT EDUCATION 1510-99 COMPENSATORY ED 1910 GIFTED & TALENTED 2110-90 PUPIL SUPPORT 2210-99 STAFF SUPPORT SERVI 2310-20 ADM SUPPORT SERVIC 2410 PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE 2510-99 BUSINESS SUPPORT 2610-99 CENTRAL SUPPORT 3000'S 4000 5100 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTIONAL AREA 1991-92 TEACHER SALARY 138,077.08 2,760,904.00 28,381,519.29 3,989,261.59 4,023,283.53 1,013,772.90 1,143,799.80 2,570,622.02 2,667,369.46 198,491.86 3,895,984.12 287,255.96 COMMUNITY SERVICES NON PROGRAMMED BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OPERATING FUND 79,415.14 347,089.07 6,024,779.24 1,354,685.45 1,158,370.16 697,588.87 253,127.76 183,211.79 1,174,153.77 1,631,966.93 446,175.31 1,983,094.66 19,318,518.35 2,161,066.34 740,723.24 32,450.45 7,950,100.01 DESEG 94,937.48 6,072,099.95 10,538.70 107,559.18 35,631.06 1,589,524.16 309,073.21 1,479,959.60 441,244.35 107,262.02 1,041,101.85 465,561.53 504,079.83 3,738,667.07 TOTAL FEDERAL GRANTS MAGNET SCHOOLS TOTAL 302,717.88 338,788.30 130,394.89 3,123,267.62 55,541.49 371,072.25 301,061.72 88,318.56 429,905.44 8,567,902.51 276,198.03 592,044.13 5,333.69 181,901.87 658,847.84 414,539.17 4,792.23 302,192.60 114,004.58 1,207,390.15 1,050,413.66 503,364.75 51,070,341.61 45,536,516.54 15,997,239.99 5,132,152.12 13,887,841.24 312,429.70 3,537,898.51 49,046,300.99 5,933,401.65 6,220,045.30 863,614.82 5,985,026.13 1,564,454.95 5,083,769.09 6,494,896.88 1,174,230.08 7,193,730.95 21,414,826.09 2,913,883.83 1,546,995.67 7,950,100.01 131,624,091.50Prg # Pa# Description 1 5 2 5 5 28 6 28 7 39 Hippy 4 Yr Old Programs Student Hearing Officer Office of Desegregation Extra-Curricular 8 44 Teacher Recruiter 9 46 10 48 12 63 13 82 Staff Development Academic Support Multicultral Programs Incentive Grants 14 86 15 114 16 129 17 129 18 143 19 148 21 148 22 224 24 227 25 1-9 Original Magnets Sp Ed Learning Center Security Data Processing System M-to-M Magnet Schools King School Stephens School Monitoring Activities Computerized Transp Romine Theme 26 93 27 34 28 35 Community School In-School Suspension Job Fair 29 28 32 106 33 1-56 34 131 35 125 Testing Assistance Library Services Parent Recruiting VIPS - Recruiting Prejudice Reduction Plant Services 49 00 To Be Allocated Incentive Schools: 51 149 Office of Incentive Schools 52 152 53 153 Writing To Read Science Labs 54 153 55 153 56 153 57 154 59 158 61 171 64 172 Computer Labs Foreign Language Computer Loan Program Extended Day/Week Field Trips Transportation Instructional Aides 65 172 Extended Year 66 176 72 190 73 193 74 194 75 153 Incentive/Recognition Staffing Staff Development TeK:her Stipends Other Academic Programs SUB-TOTAL INCENTIVES GRAND TOTAL SETTLEMENT PLAN BUDGET Unaudited 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 214,295 278,772 284,347 290,034 295,835 301,751 811,591 88,332 452,998 31,072 45,924 400,069 2,846,490 164,490 658,575 3,738,667 56,291 703,830 200,727 354,920 0 0 373,686 0 17,267 295,276 914,101 4,063 0 588,441 22,367 62,714 0 268,247 0 13,314,433 261,482 1,096,193 1,325,132 2,682,807 15,997,240 1,202,033 1,238,094 1,520,236 1,810,843 1,847,060 99,087 101,069 103,090 105,152 107,255 433,133 441,796 450,632 459,644 468,837 0 0 0 0 0 42,204 43,048 43,909 44,787 45,683 447,446 456,395 465,523 474,833 484,330 2,785,221 1,840,925 1,877,744 1,915,298 1,953,604 240,315 320,000 3,800,000 110,307 617,038 411,583 721,442 0 0 391,495 10,000 85,816 115,000 748,258 1,500 11,350 716,504 27,000 65,863 5,000 200,000 13,886,365 63,147 15,000 15,000 15,000 7,500 5,000 863,000 37,500 20,000 549,695 260,000 21,500 914,823 59,500 225,000 55,000 3,126,664 17,013,029 245,121 320,000 3,876,000 112,513 629,379 773,930 543,085 2,603,300 0 399,325 10,200 87,532 115,000 763,223 1,530 11,577 730,834 27,540 67,180 5,000 200,000 15,927,943 65,041 15,450 15,450 15,450 7,725 5,150 868,890 38,625 20,600 566,186 267,800 22,145 942,267 61,285 231,750 56,650 3,220,464 19,148,407 250,024 255,024 260,125 320,000 320,000 320,000 3,953,520 4,032,590 4,113,242 114,763 117,058 119,400 641,967 654,806 667,902 789,409 805,197 821,301 553,947 565,026 576,326 2,655,366 2,707,000 407,311 10,404 89,283 115,000 778,487 1,561 11,809 745,451 28,091 68,524 5,000 200,000 19,198,082 66,993 15,914 15,914 15,914 7,957 5,305 915,557 39,784 21,218 583,171 275,834 22,809 970,535 63,124 238,703 58,350 3,317,078 22,515,161 2,708,473 2,761,140 415,457 10,612 91,068 115,000 794,057 1,592 12,045 760,360 28,653 69,894 5,000 200,000 19,829,446 69,002 16,391 16,391 16,391 8,195 5,464 943,023 40,977 21,855 600,666 284,109 23,494 999,651 65,017 245,864 60,100 3,416,591 23,246,037 2,762,643 2,816,363 423,767 10,824 92,890 115,000 809,938 1,624 12,286 775,567 29,226 71,292 5,000 200,000 20,213,235 71,072 16,883 16,883 16,883 8,441 5,628 971,314 42,207 22,510 618,686 292,632 24,198 1,029,641 66,968 253,239 61,903 3,519,088 23,732,3243 NOV IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION filed NOV 0 51992 0iiiC3 CARL R. BRENTS, CLERK By.. DEP. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On May 26, 1992, the Magnet Review Committee ("MRC") submitted to the Court for review and approval a budget for the 1992-93 school yeeir for the six original magnet schools. (Document #1609.) On July 31, 1992, the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") filed a Special Status Report setting forth its operating budget for 1992- 93. (Document #1649.) At a hearing on August 3, 1992, the Court heard testimony on budget reduction proposals by the LRSD in its 1992-93 operating budget. Some of those cutbacks resulted in staff reductions at the magnet schools. The Court, with some exceptions. approved the LRSD's proposed reductions in an order filed on August 4, 1992. On September 28, 1992, the MRC wrote the Court, expressing its concern about certain LRSD budget cuts. It also addressed staffing changes at two of the magnet schools which resulted in a white principal and assistant principal at Gibbs International Studies Magnet Elementary School and a black principal and assistant principal at Washington Basic Skills/Math-Science Magnet ElementarySchool. (Document #1693.) The MRC complains that the LRSD failed in its obligation to work with the MRC prior to implementing reorganization or budget reduction plans that would affect the programming or staff at the magnet schools. The LRSD filed a response to the MRC's letter, basically arguing that the role of the MRC has changed since the establishment of the magnet schools during a period of the "controlled choice desegregation plan. It contends that the MRC's role now is to recommend policy decisions which must be communicated in writing to the par
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 Resoources.

<dcterms_creator>Little Rock School District</dcterms_creator>