Loan agreement

Arkansas DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071 (501) 6^2-4475^ GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Divisj^^ arr. i .o January 31, 1994 FEB 1 1994 OUwo oi Cc
Mr. Jerry Malone 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Chris Heller 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Jeriry and Chris: The Arkansas Department of Education would like to schedule a meeting with one or both of you and district representatives to discuss the Little Rock loan provision. Page 26 of the September 1989 Settlement Agreement specifically states, "If at anytime between the date of this Agreement and December 31, 2000, the composite scores of LRSD black students (excluding special education students) on a standardized test agreed upon by the State and LRSD are 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD white students (excluding special education students), the escrowed funds will be paid to LRSD and any outstanding loans will be forgiven. H The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss the standardized test to be used to evaluate the progress of LRSD. Please call or write to schedule a meeting. Sincerely, Elizabeth Boyter cc: All Counsel of Record EB/say STATE 50 .Members: CARLE. .EAUi D '- F ELLt FaE R-OE \i ios- CFuirmn ELAISE SCOTT. Little Rock \ ice Chairman - RICHARD C. SMITH, JR..Tillar AILLIAM H. FISHER. Paragould -JAMES M. LLEWELLYN. JR.. Fen Smith JAMES A McLARTY Hl. Ne^^non : SRY. A'NadelrhiJ CHERRY WALKER. Lime Rock NANCY M. WOOD, Little Rock Ar. Laual Opponunii> Emploser 05/11/1999 07: 47 PHILLIPS o r} 4 pb 5016324336 I r I A * a * a Miebitta a PESEaFCH 4MD DESIGM PHONE No. : S17 349 7874 I ] vaiTBxitr W T 4 Sta 4 XOKl xsMoaxaaQM TO) Qayla Pofctac, XK Dapt. of Iduo. FROMt Buaan Phillipa Page Jul.23 1995 02 1:34rn S.x. PHILLIPS, CONSOLTAifT 0 r f J c K 4 2 3 4 X * r i a r 0 k * * 0 , ( 4 1 1 1 XI base 4 M I 4 F22 SATS I July 21, 1995 XKi Raaponsa to Saeonmandat ion tgon Joaana Lanka I have revlawod tho you forwarded to ao. memo Dr. and aappotftlim dooaoantatlon from LanMa Jtaa sworidad uaofui data Joanne Lonko auremarited the Iseusg Involved In ehooeiing r Little Rock settlement. Sefere coO^entlng raguirament and teat score altoraatiwe, i offer a faw regarding my interpretation ot ihB languaQe at the settlement. altoraatiws, The Little Rook Sattlafwant **Tfffrmnt and Bueeinetly * metric for tho mandato of the opoelfically on the 90% a few general cofpjnenta Thera ara savoral key phrasaa 3a the pdirtiea thlrv^ ehar-rwlth k7 Z Sattlemant daa<l i.n order to implement Its tarms. The ..ollowlng are some thoughts about thM definitions. ^'.4"* time" indioeteB thatt the event need happen and can be meaaurad at any hisM period during the school year. only once "atandardixed taat" ia a nationally normed, **2 *** payohetnetrie quality. the JaRaMorar Is Rook already adalntetara thija for the aattlanent mandate. - - . If Little lhstru*|}t, it would ba a logical choice 3. "composita saoraa" uae g thia teralnolegy suggesta an M A UMmx acoc* Off one that aaor4iffM^n <cadBio eubjeot.^ *.. ith raspec? to the 3a:::s^:co:e
brs:
r J52r..rbr}
other parte of the be attactea by wording in .kill. i. .Hue.. I*' I" alluded to, the beelo hatte^ Were 1 SaSm. equalising the totality of eduoefeioos score may be more appropriate. acre may be moat appropriate. I have been made about the broader complete battary iF r 05/11/1999 07:47 5016324336 duo&tion PESEAFCH AUD DESI6N Itttle Hock Sattlamant . . . p. 2 'paoial aduoation atuRtonta" this probably studanta in th* Littla aook eohoole whg haw^ toa*:l.n9, plaood Psaaumably, fcMtonca aduaatlon In apealaX dtw>at4*n atudanta astt aa^tlaaant, what about otHM an XSP refers t tha Sof Evaluation but b taatad. to all tino of not yot by Although ipaolal the language ^WcH *9 vocational atudonta, I diieabiiitlaa under floetlon 304? of tha aa absent***, ox atudAata with gualleyl^ ncnguslifylng .tud.nts with dlaabllltiaa (.f. , a nen-a^^alaX adai^tlan atudont with dyolaxla or vloualXy Inpalsod student t th* aro^ti >tn$|liah psoflolMney ba'tit 4 X oXavaxoom) 7 a will atuddnti onl.?2inL l*iMe an non-black students or only those of auropeen anmtry? ba* about hispanie Americans? inrttoded/ aeilit eil gradss ba tasted? results for different grade* to be oc^bi^d? studanta^ - Which gradat <loi tbl* all anoMtzy? How ora 6. "90% or greeter" the intent for the mean score at bltu^ : aeeme to indlcata an mean tcora for whitoa. at laast nine tantha of tha .. Thimaay be gn unreal lotic the time irana and ebstadOee to be everoome. approximately five yeart to drereaee learning deficit of poverty which have develed over ^udtote' lifsti^o?.' City, which spent latlllans in th* public doeegregation has bean to aohievement test ohstadtiaE axpactatlen given Little Rock haa a and tha effacte has orders, aklllsna .ta Sven Xanaas achools scores. algnifleantly unde
Increase In defining a presumption of I diaeriaiaiatien the federal .in the employment arena, government has 'uppert<< an 30 rule. percent applicants hired. **- - ^ . . . refer Thus, applicants are hired, at suet also taet ssBraa hi>4 ta the However, the 304 9 avallahla So hired to Moreover, if an eraploysr opportunity to deisonatrete' aecions. 2n oassB such se thiSx rule, if 7C of gualifiad whita leeet f giMlifiad minority applicants *oid ipreeuaption of diserin-.' this ^et
. the aniployer still a :>rMMBptlon dlaerlr.lnaticn. haa an * acwpdllKj intacsat to Justify its in cases such as Peers ?,i l,ga9 between ainority and aajorilj^ at issue. In such oasea^ adjainiatratoro to insure thd* ____ xiaon earn a high school diploma.
Rewe*eV|l minority scores to be a sertiin raguirsment seams to SuggestSn 9*ti3 rather than an aqual opportunity to e* ghposiaq a Tvoe gf ,fSbrentiaXs in paaaing ratsa W graduation taata have been [ Mir* ixpoead dutlaa On taat hftd X chajica to Nib oeurta have not required of majority acorsa. It to Such a specifled outcome 1 agree Lenka that J non* of 1 asoauo* no lonoitudlnal ___Z tgree with Dr. MJor types of atandaedited tast a B ------longitudinal ooapavisdde impl* interpretation of aara raw eeore di: the Little Hoek aettleraant. Jld the languaqa lands itaalf to :aa. Ona might. !or axampla,05/11/1989 07:47 5016024386 WE Mo. FESEaFCH AMD DESIGN : Si? 343 374 F45E 04 Jjl. 3 35 WttXa Rock Settleaiant . . . p. 3 I I -4 -I c m o co co <o oompute the baaio battery raw s^ra aMsae for blacks and whit lovol and check for attainment of the Jfjs arlterlon at each > Of Whether .11 Kowevvr, eempXy s at a* unanewesfd the ideation at yhothas is already a etsiseeat
a6dadard and 9radaa U9O of at d&Qh grada grade lavi. must nor:::kir:::ma::::::*^^ ukeiihooc that .uL nook < fltandBgagopgaft > reaaenabla appro.eh ay M to ak^ sing la comparison each year. 9o<^ he on the iui, ccmpsrsbl . would regale ^has aU etgdent .oo^.^
"rZ" n'r*"* ^**^^**** aoaled aaores jure typiedtlu daaianed to acais. Zine'T- Srae*'' "1^* motrib?^onecould eosled soot* for alttii^le Rock black is grades but exoluding epeoial edeeef .11 white students. ^yple^Jli^y designed 9>ua, uaUlB a. soaled to students (aumming the mean sealed score ahea^ .-w . O'eell 4^nprisoo would meet the tl ttlement Ifaguage. aoeerer, outside of the a^ttament te. -uch calculations -would Uv. llt<. wlevance. ^ett.amant a s 3ieiiltfTr, spirit and vine tha sr poaeibility would be t^..t a efcitaeion for success (e.g., -ator ierformonce level) and detarmina Thia rina! L ^*4 sWdents i, at least 90% of that inia Goea not soMCera axar^* onforme to the apirlt of 9rad0 level" os a t* >at suecass es the percent ei hitea. W<anta i at least . ----------- providing nts. As stated, the 9qni stand, t drd than to an adequate or >pprwn.<.t pretation that provides ed may result in tion of Stated, a * zeeeoai an standard which aay be y U the wording of the settlement I ideguata education ia oleaer to for minority s maximal performance education atandard. .e opportunity Thus, an ------ w I wuiii-'&y for Little Rook to eAxcstqtonal improvement for i,flpn to National PiggagaBfe^a enka'J psopaeal oe cenperid* the hid rreeponding netional data ceaeoM allow Little aook to deaenilkrata prd leal standard. J' blacks than ae nearly irapossibla to aeet. fcZ!l^'fca dlffarantial i' and realistic. in Littla Reck Thia method ra Oonforns t to densonatr oonforme to the iangue^e end inti th9a thoughts art in 4*aj feel free to contact JM ij! X cna being held to s strict of'the xettlemant. ata that such a l^th ths dilsRsca you axs facing, lay further aasiatanoa. u O 'i .DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 . GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division July 28, 1995 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Gene Wilhoit, Director Arkansas Department of Education Henry Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District Gayle Potter, Lead Planner, Design Team Recommendations from the Variables Committee The Variables Committee began meeting on May 18, concluded with recommendations on July 27, 1995. ______________ committee include Robert Clowers, Gene Parker, and Sterling Ingram from the Little Rock School District, as well as Vicki Kerr, and Gayle Potter from the Arkansas Department of Education. The committee was joined at times by others: Russ Mayo of the Little Rock School District and Gene Jones of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring.- 1994, and Members of the The Variables Committee provides within this document a description of the problem around which it was convened, a definition of important intervening variables which affect student achievement, a brief discussion of the assessment or testing instrument, and attachments with expert opinion. Problem Statement: . perception of a student achievement gap that is racially based, as evidenced by results on large-scale assessments. Considerations for Problem: Large scale assessment data analysis has been limited to sender alone. Data should be reviewed in the context of thefollowing four critical variables which intervene to affect achievement: socio-economic status, family structure, parent- education level, and early childhood education.Definitions of Variables
Socio-Economic Status: As determined by free and reduced lunch eligibility Collect SES data from free and reduced lunch information
also make use of the family link identifier - Eamily Structure: Household where student lives most of the time (both parents, father only, mother only, father and stepmother, mother and stepfather, foster parents, legal guardian, other) Collectfamily structure data from the Pupil Information Form Parent Education Level: Highest level of education completed by mother/father/legal guardian (e.g., elementary school, junior high, high school graduate, some college, college graduate, trade school, other) Collect parent education level by adding to the Pupil Infoimation Form Early Childhood Education: Any of a variety of organized pre-kindergarten experiences, such as.Headstart, HIPPY, 4-year old programs, other pre-school Collect this data from the Pupil Information Form ASSESSMENT OR TESTING INSTRUMENT
language of the settlement requires the composite scores Lxttle Rock School District black students (excluding special education students) to be 90% or greater of the composite scores of Little Rock School District white (excluding special education students) on a c test agreed upon by the State and the Little Rock 2^ District. This may occur at any date between the settlement agreement and December 31, 2000. -2-Committee discussions around ''standardized testing" included tests, performance assessments, portfolios' and norm-referenced tests. w fcj nk>_xx u. .a yk/X u *3 f ..V, '7---: Minimum Performance Test has been ^andoned, the new criterion-referenced tests based on the Curriculum Frameworks are under development, and no statewide ... f ciiiu. xiu oLctuewiae testing instrument is currently available The Arkansas n-iTPct- M>-Tt--!TnrT ------ ___ . Direct Writing Assessment purposes. English Language Arts and Mathematics Portfolios are under development, but it will take several years of professional development with teachers reliable scores could be produced for settlement purposes. xs not comprehensive before The only standardized test currently in use in the State and District IS the state-adopted based on our research and the norm referenced test. However, expert opinions from , , , ------ wjj/a.xxku\.^xxo X.XV/Ul psychometricians, we have formed the opinion that a testing instrument has a different purpose than the settlement purpose and uses metrics which to the requirements of the settlement agraamexiu.. no^-referenced testing instrument is intended to compare the achievement'of students within the District to the achievement of students within the standardization group. Therefore, it would T compare the achievement of black students in uittle Rock to the achievement of black students in the standardization group and to compare the achievement of white students in Little Rock to the achievement t e standardization group. But that comparison is not the standard outlined in the settlement. are not well suited agreement A Therefore, it would group. of white students in Nevertheless, if a norm-referenced test is used to determine the n black students white students in the Little oc chool District for settlement purposes, scaled scores or raw scores would appear to be the better metrics according to expert opinion. (See attachments.) been informed that...... purposes to use. . However, we have , T . . "outside of the settlement mandate, such would have little relevance." (See Phillips' attachment.) If a norm-referenced testing instrument is used, tL- ____ consensus is that the state-mandated grade levels for testing Should be the focus of the application of the 90% the committee rule. The two attachments are opinions from Joanne Lenke, y sccacnments are opinions from Joanne Lenke, Executive ice resident and psychometrician at Psychological Corporation an an independent response by Susan Phillips, psychometrician. R * *** J tAAX * XX Jk Jk Jk aU O f O J ^Xx^^kllC awyer and faculty member o Michigan State University, aira Qf working papers from the committee for have included a Also I your perusal. Please contact me if you would like to meet with the Variable Committee for discussion. * a time convenient to both your schedules. We shall be happy to do so at -3-HARCOURT BRACE Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement 555 Academic Court San Antonio, Texas 78204-2498 Tel 210-299-1061 Fax 210-270-0327 \\ A' Os * \ u\ -9 t March 30, 1998 Mr. Frank Anthony Assistant Director of Accountability Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall, Room 305A Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 \^vv Dear Mr. Anthony: This letter is to summarize a conversation I had last week with Ed Jackson regarding the types of test scores reported for SAT9 that would be appropriate for reporting summary data for Arkansas students. Basically, there are two types of scores that are appropriate for reporting group summary data on SAT9Normal Curve Equivalents and Scaled Scores. Both are equal-interval measures and both may properly be subjected to arithmetic operations which are commonly used to summarize score datameans, standard deviations, coefficients of correlation. Normal Curve Equivalents(NCEs) can range from values of 1 to 99, while SAT9 Scaled Scores may range from 350 to more than 800. The advantage that Scaled Scores would have over NCEs is that they offer finer distinctions among students whose percentile ranks are at the extreme end of the score range, i.e. either 1 or 99. If we were reporting data for a group that included larger than usual numbers of students with very low achievement levels. Scaled Scores could make finer distinctions and allow us to measure gains for students who score in the 1 percentile. Scaled Scores then, are not only appropriate, but may also be a preferred measure for reporting dis-aggregated scores for African-American and White students! In my opinion, they also are consistent with the language of the desegregation decree under which you are operating. If I can be of any further assistance in this matter, please call me at (800) 228-0752, extension 5394. Sincerely, Thomas E. Brooks Manager, Applied Research Cc: Yvette Dillingham Maria Drees Bob Hudson Vicki Gray07/10/85 11:38 SaiO 270 0327 PSYCH CORP. 0002 TO: Department of Education from
Joanne Lenke, rE
Follow-up on Our DATE: July 10,1.995 Discussion In Phoenix of scores for Aswe discussed. I Xw a ratio of less than 90%. eimilar In order to achieve an middle CI me score range. ^cu can Black and While will see on the accompanying tables. I've examined raw oflhe"90%j yield a In order to achieve an MCE ratio of 90% nr better, between the performances of Black and White students are ^^^^^^'"gXtKlOpe'rcentiterankunns. - most rational approach to the Al,hough I underslec- national peers when their performance 1 hope that the informaUon I've additional information. I've provided Is helpful. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you needre. PHILLIPS PHONE No. : 517 349 7074 Jul.23 1995 l:34Fn S-K. PHILLIPS, CONSDLTAiiT ofc 4 < a IrlAkaciB Kall Kiehifiaa state ph O A ( 17 J ***, KI IviHltT HOKI OTXXCl 4 3 3 6 H a r 1 a r < a B a 4 . 0 k B 0 1 , ( J 7 J XI I a a <<( a47t74 TOt kemoranduk Gayla Potter, AK Dept, of Eduo. PHOHi Suaan Phillipa DATS! July 21, 1995 RS I Paoponaa to Raoommandation ftom Joanna Lnko I have taviowod tho memo and Supporting dooumsafeation from Joanne Lonko that - has provided uaaful data -uuuincujLV settlement u Choosing a metric for the mandate of the raguirament and teat score alternatr^"^^"^ specifically on the 90% 7of Se comments -i of the language of the settlement. you foewardod to no. Dr. . ----- Lonke summarized the issues involved Little Rock uaaful and Bucctnctly taat coiwnsnfcing regarding my interpretation 1 offer The Little-Rock Settlement Aqrraeaant Ihere i th. portion of th. -.1 me which must be defined in order L some thoughts about these definitions. that you shared with Ths following are 1. phrases in Little Rook Settlement to implement its terms. "If at any time" and can be measured ~ indicates that the event need happen only at any time period during the school year. once standardized test" a -------------------instrument, it would be settlement mandate. If Little a logical choice 3. "composite scores" intent that the performance Stanford, use of this terminology suggests cir -re. iS' suggests that cither " ba used. the measurement be this areas. on Battery Boorea other parts of the the Basic Battery or Coc^lete Tho choice may be affected settlement. by wording in W.Us is alluded to, thrbaSrLt7' ineguity in basic Alternatively, if mom ^ttery score may be most appropriate, equalizing the totalitv of statements have been made .about .core h.tt.ry appropriate.f Little Rock Eattleiaant . . P. 2 4. -pcxai education etudanto" thio probably refers otudonf in the Tittle PooR sohools who have an ISp" *t the time o- Praeumably, atudente referred for evaluation but not yet diBabilitlee a *il*blo for nonqualifying students with ( .g., a non-apaoial education student with dyoloxia or a "npaeial oduoatlon thio probably toeting. plaood who hava QtudentB education would an ISP to all aeo referred for evaluation but be teeted. clearly exempted by about othor groupo ouch as available for vioually impaired otudont in the rogul with limitod Englioh profioionoy ar bo toatod? alaeoroonj 7 Hill studanta 5. "white Btudanta" only those of Europe Which grades an does this include all ancestry? non-blaok students or What about hispanio Americans? results for included
must all grades be tested? results for different grades to ba combined? How are InteL for tb^r language seems to Indicate an nine tenths of the the timA -F This may be an unrealistic expectation given the time frame and obstacles to be overcome. Little Rock h" I years to overcome learning deficits and the the settlement language approximately five mean score of blacks to be at least nine tenths -----r. This may be overcome. Of poverty which have developed City, which has spent millions dasagregation orders, achlavsmsnt test scores. over students' lifetimes. effects on has been unable the public Even Kansas schools under to significantly increase In defining a presumption of discrimination the federal in the employment government has supported an 80% rule. applicants^hlred but to the . percent of available PP hired. under thia rule, if 70% of qualified white at^ least 56% of qualified minority applicants to avoid a presumption of discrimination. does not teat arena, However, the 80% Thus, applicants are hired, j ' ust be hired to avoid a Moreover, if on employer fails this opportunltv tn ziL rnis me emproyer stiii has an dctiona? demonstrate compelling interest to justify its also a teat, the employer still has In cases euch between minority nt issue. adrainiatrati as Pai^ra P., large differentials in passing rates and majority students on graduation tests have been In such cases, the courts have imposed duties caaea, P earn a high school diploma, minority scores to be minority students had a fair chance to However, these courts have not required requirement rather than a certain percentage of majority scores. Such a eeema to euggest an entitlement to a specified outcome an equal opportunity to aohlavo. Shopping R Type of Score 1 agree with Dr. Lenke that scores are well suited to the Jeoauee no longitudinal -- none of the major types of standardired test requirements of the Little Rock settlement. a B Upl. inJ:S:::at2:n are required, the language lends Itself erpretatlon of raw score differences. One might, for example. to. PHILLIPS PHOME Mo. 5 517 343 7374 Ju 1.23 1595 1:ooPM Little Rock fiattlemant . . p. 3 compute the bnoic battery raw moans tor oiacka and whitea at each orada level and check for attainment of the 90% oritarion at sack grade level However, thia laavea unanawered the question of whether all grades must Z^dei'^ac " stringent standard and use of a Lnj^Lt^e norfulflirt?** increases the likelihood that Little Will noc zuXfxH xtiB XQ&ndditio* eaora maanB for blacks whites thio The 90% across unanswered la already grades X more roasonablo approach do BO 90% criterion at whcthor all grades use of Rook - .w, ou,l d. roqu,l ro that a"ll y otudontmaka a clnglo eomparleon each' year. To Standardlred tost scaled scores be on the same, comparable scale. BcorsB are typically d.lgnad to deteraine^if tha'^mean ^^uB, using a scaled score metric, one could # uBvomxns xf Kha niBeui scaled - . > allow comparison of Thus, l____ mean scaled score for all Little Rock black across grades but excluding spacial education) for all white studants. the letter of the Such an Overall students (summing is 90% of the mean scaled score mandate. settlement language. comparison would meet the spirit and _,,_v 1 . , ---- outside oHf otwheev ers,ettlement such calculations would have little relevance. jjodlfvlRq the Standard Another possibility above grade lavsl" would be to set a criterion for success (e.g., "at or or a minimally acceptable performance level) and determine hether the percent of xor whites. but conforms to the spirit Bucceasful minority students is This does not at least 90% of that students. AAhs stated, standard than to an adequate or interpretation that conform exactly to the wording of the settlement of providing an adequate education the 90% for minority mandata is closer to a maximal performance appropriate education standard. Thus, an Buccaad mav i "p rov-i-d--e--s rreeaassoonnaabbllee opportunity for Little Rook to greater educational improvement for blacks than retention of an standard which may be perceived in as nearly impossible to meet. Coaparieon to Rational Differentialn tDor , cLorerneskoeo'sn fpHr onZpr os al -fo--r the bl ack/white differential in Little would allow Littl2^R^C^i reasonable and realistic: This method ittle Rock to demonstrate progress without being held to a strict However, it may be difficult to demonstrate that such a demonstrate reasonable and realistic^ Rook mBaBurrLnfn"'^'f be difficult to demonstrate asure conforms to the language and intent of the settlement. JlS with th. dU.a you f.cing, l.l fro. to contact me if 1 can ba of any futth.t aaal.tance. 1 sL LrmjE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECEIVED DIRECTOR'S OFFICE July 31, 1998 AUG 3 1998 department of EDUCATION ^GENERAL DIVISION Raymond Simon Director Arkansas Department of Education d Q< '1 .yj. P Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Desegregation Settlement Loan Dear Mr. Simon: I am writing in response to your June 26,1998 letter requesting that LRSD deposit an additional $270,000.00 in an account established for the possible repayment of the loan authorized by the 1989 Settlement Agreement in the Pulaski County school desegregation case. The issue you have raised is one of several outstanding issues concerning the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement. I would like to work with you and your staff to resolve ail of the outstanding issues as quickly as possible. From my perspective, the most important unresolved issue is whether LRSD has met the conditions for loan forgiveness set forth in Section VI-B (6) of the Settlement Agreement. We are supposed to use a standardized test to grade upon by the State and LRSDl to determine whether the scores of LRSD black students are within ninety percent (90%) of the scores of LRSD white students. A team composed of ADE and LRSD representatives was formed several years ago for the purpose of deciding which standardized test would be used to determine loan forgiveness under the Settlement Agreement, ihat team agreed to use the Stanford 8 Test with scaled scores as the metric. That agreement is reflected in ADEs August, 1997 Project Management Tool which was filed with the district court: In March 1997, recommendations were drafted proposing the use of he SAT-8 as the ADEs Monitoring Instrument and the use of an aggregate average for racial groups to measure achievement disparity using scaled scores as the metric' I recently read in the newspaper that another group within ADE will recommend the use of Stanford 8 scaled scores to determine loan forgiveness. It seems that the question of whether or not LRSD is entitled to loan forgiveness is a threshold issue which should be resolved at the same time as, if not before, the issue raised in your letter. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 324-2000 Desegregation Settlement Loan Page 2 Please let me know ADEs current position about how and when we will determine whether the settlement loan should be forgiven in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. I will be happy to meet with you so we can work together to resolve these issues as expeditiously as possible. Yours very truly, 'Leslie V. Gamine Superintendent of SchoolsO. ^2 > '*^1 **i Aikansas DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 RAYMOND SIMON, Director April 21, 1999 Tim Gauger Attorney Generals Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Request from Legislative Audit on Little Rock Loan Agreement Dear Tim: Legislative Audit has requested a written update on the status of the Little Rock Loan Agreement established in 1990. The Little Rock School District is in default with regard to the payment schedule, as well as in default in the amount of the one payment made to date. The district has been contacted about this lack of compliance with the terms of the loan agreement and has yet to provide any meaningful response. This apparent disregard by the district for the terms of the loan agreement has prompted Legislative Audit to ask our agency to seek implementation of the default provision of the agreement: Any installment of principal or interest not paid when due shall bear interest at the maximum rate allowed by law until paid in full. LRSD, if it defaults by not timely paying any of the installments due hereunder, shall pay to the State its reasonable attorneys fees incurred in connection with the enforcement of the n obligation. As the Department of Educations legal representative in this matter, please assist the agency with addressing this issue. Mr. Simon, as well as the State Board of Education, seek a timely resolution of this matter. Sincerely. Theresa Wallent Staff Attorney co: Mr. Raymond Simon, Director Dr. Bobbie Davis, Assistant Director, Internal Administration Mr. John Kunkel, Finance STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chainnan - BETTY PICKETT, Conway Vice Chairman - JoNELL CALDWELL. Bryant Members
EDWIN B. ALDERSON, JR., El Dorado CARL E. BAGGETT, Rogers MARTHA DIXON, Arkadelphia WILLIAM B. FISHER, Paragould LUKE GORDY, Van Buren ROBERT HACKLER, Mountain Home JAMES McLARTY III, Newport RICHARD C. SMITH, JR., McGehee LEWIS THOMPSON, JR., Texarkana ANITA YATES. Bentonville An Equal Opportunity EmployerARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MEMORANDUM April 16,1999 TO: Theresa Wallent FROM: Bobbie Davis REGARD: Request from Legislative Audit On Little Rock Loan Agreement Legislative Audit has requested a written update on the status of the Little Rock Loan Agreement established in 1990. The Department to date has been provided verification of one deposit of $30,081.44 from Little Rock toward this repayment. As you will note from the attachments, the first payment of $300,000 was due September 24,1997. Therefore, Little Rock is in default with regard to the payment schedule as well as in default in the amount of the one payment that was made. I have attached a copy of a letter from Mr. Simon dated June 26,1998, in which he requested correction on the name of the escrow account as well as default payments. To date the Department has received no response to Mr. Simons request. Legislative Audit is exploring why the Department has not implemented the default provision in Section 11, page 5, of the Loan Agreement. A copy of the Loan Agreement is included in the attachments. Could you please assist me by drafting a correspondence to Mr. Tim Gaugher at the Attorney Generals office informing him of this concern and requesting his guidance and leadership in addressing this issue. Legislative Audit will need documentation of ail actions for their files. Please send copies of all correspondence and documents to my office. I will forward to Legislative Audit. As you will recall the State Board is also concerned with this issue. I would propose that this item be updated at the next State Board meeting. I feel confident that Mr. Simon would like for that report to be that Little Rock is current on all payments. If I need to provide other information, please let me know. Thank you for your assistance in handling this issue. Cc: Raymond Simon, Director John Kunkel, ADE Finance o .o Aikansas .a DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 RAYMOND SIMON, Director June 26,1998 Dr. Les Camine, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Camine
It has been brought to my attention by the Division of Legislative Audit that the Little Rock School District has not deposited the proper amount into the LRSD/State Loan Repayment Account. According to the Loan Agreement dated September 24,1990, the principal amount of each Note will be repaid in twenty (20) equal installments. Installments shall be due on the 7th through the 26th anniversary of the date of the note. The Note dated September 24,1990, was for $6,000,000. Therefore, the amount due September 24, 1997 was $300,000. In March 1998, John Kunkel of my staff contacted Mr. Mark Milhollen, for verification of the deposit. We were provided a copy of a bank statement for the Little Rock School District Special Desegregation Account #00-0073-610715. At that time.the bank records reflected a balance of $30,081.44. The balance consisted of $30,000 plus earned interest. The auditors also noted that the account name should be the same as required in the loan agreement. The Department is now requesting that the Little Rock School District change the name of the account to reflect tire name required in the loan agreement and deposit an additional $270,000 to be in compliance with Copies of the documents verifying these actions will be forwarded to the loan agreement. Legislative Audit, I appreciate your cooperation in correcting this error. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Raymond Simon cc
Tim Gauger, Attorney General's Office Ronnie Ridgell, Division of Legislative Audit STATE BOARD OF EDI CATION' Chairman BETTY PICKETT. C onxi
Vice Chairman - JoSELL CALDWELL. Bnanl .Members: EDW IN B. ALDERSON. JR.. El Dorado CARL E. BaGCETT. Rofrri MARTHA DIXO.N. Arkadelphia WILLIAM B. FISHER. Paragould LI KE CORDl. \an Buren ROBERT HACKLER. Mountain Home JA.MES McLARTl 111. Newport RICHARD C. S.MITH. JR.. .McGehee LEWIS THOMPSON. JR.. Teiarkina ANITA 1 ATES. BentonvilleC CVi-6tdiXl> STATE O F ARKANSAS general assembly little rock, ARKANSAS 72201 September 18, 2000 TO: The Honorable Mike Huckabee Governor, State of Arkansas RECEIVED FROM
RE: The Honorable Mark Pryor Attorney General, State of Arkansas Mr. Ray Simon, Director Arkansas Department of Education n Superintendent Little Rock School District Senator Jim Argue Senator Dave Bisbee Senator Jodie Mahony Suggested Resolution of Arkansas to Issues Pending Between the LRSD KOF OMQNJTQflJNG and the State SEP 2 4 20 A number of issues School District, each invX^^om^ofSllJ^ of Arkansas and the Little Rock each threaten to lead to protracted litigation We do tT A brief review of the pendittg issues might be helpM: Bonded Indebtedness Pe Little Rock School District current funding formula, i- s r .- . (FRSD), as the district at the 9S IS ma position to influence the th .0 school distnhts T bow to structure thepayment schedule farTO^l ?" J ' of detenruthrrg U.C State dupugh dte ftudiug fomrula wrll rag?SXMSl?or " amount of required state funding ir tkzi _________ dollars. This is money that would be owed to increased base funding. Unitary Statu.s approximately 270 school district that would receive The LRSD i the LRSD m a position to seek unitary status at t eld f tb^nn^^ designed to put achieves umtary status, the State wifibe in a position ^^RSD required it to pay LRSD for various deseerealin^ circumstances, which State should be relieved of its obligation to mat have changed and that the LRSD. The loss of all desegregatiol related st^e payments to the million dollars per year. Arfund $9 mfiU^ of tol ^RSD about $15 desegregation efforts including magnet .rbnnf represents money for transportation aid. The other $6 milhtn i? ^J^^o-niinority transfers, and compensation and health^LsimLle The prospect of expensive and protracted htigatto7 ^^^h sides, but the effect on Ute LRSDs efforts to end federal coXn^S? and that the -- amount represents money for majority-to-minority transfers, and count supervision. Loan Forgiveness* The LRSD and ADE have discussed LRSD has met the and debated the question of whether the pursuant to the 1989 settlement and ADE to agree upon of ,.L ta by the ADE a test thaTw^usId to ^^^^D ----------- uxat agreed to use a certain ^rmme loan forgiveness. LRSD entitled to loan forgiveness. ADE disa^ees ^RSD is contends that ADE agreed to Monitoring and Compliance including helping the PuS settlement agreement tbATDcr,--------- J ''^ous ways and in monitorine the LRSDs progress. There is .heex.e..,,ehADEhasco^ a SStdarm th! S" iTbe oeneiicial to the parties involved. met in a way that is most can have significant positive or and delay are acceptable means for seekg resolution Web Protracted litigation optimism that, when considered to^eth^l Z^ T ^gree of issues can be found. ^'^^^^*y^^oeptable resolution to all of these explore the possibilitv of. l ^^^i^st . . Possibility of a mediation process that would consider all of amumaliy satisfactory resolution. WewouldsuX, - _ services of a neutral arbiter who the issues at once and seek to find that the parties discuss the possibility of employing the serviwould structure the process, allow all parties to make their best case on these issues, gather information, and then propose a resolution that would embrace certain compromises between the parties. Hopefully, the proposal would be acceptable to all parties, and would resolve these ag^avating issues once and for all. Issues and concerns from the intervenors in the federal litigation should also be heard. We understand that the process may not be binding on the participants, but that each would participate in good faith and do their best to resolve these issues. The LRSDs removal from federal court supervision should be cause for celebration. The State has legitimate concerns about its future, extraordinary obligations to the LRSD. Let s try to find a resolution that allows the LRSD to celebrate its progress, allows the state to address pressing needs elsewhere, and most importantly, focuses our limited resources on the needs of our school children rather than on continuing litigation. To rely on the courts to resolve these issues before trying some other method seems to be a abdication of our public duties, and in the end, wastes precious, limited school resources. The LRSD needs to chart a course that leads to success without court supervision, and given the State s track record in court, the State needs to be proactive in finding a reasonable solution that does not obligate and divert additional resources. For either party to succeed, we mus-fiunravel this Gordian knot. We would appreciate your prompt response to this suggestion, and would be pleased to facilitate in any way you might deem helpful.AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL AND THE STATE OF ARKANSAS DISTRICT This Agreement is by and between the Little Rock School District ("LRSD"), and the State of Arkansas (the "State"), by and through the State Board of Education, the Arkansas Department of Education and Governor Mike Huck:ibee LRSD and the State shall the Parties. collectively be referred to as RECITALS WHEREAS, LRSD and the State are parties to the 1989 Settlement Agreement in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CIV-LR-82-866. ("1989 Settlement Agreement")
WHEREAS, the 1989 Settlement Agreement imposes certain obligations on the State but contains no provision stating when those obligations end, WHEREAS, LRSD will seek to be declared unitary and released from federal court momtoring and supervision but is concerned that if it is declared unitary the State may seek to terminate its obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, the State has advanced loans to the LRSD in the cumulative principal amount of $20,000,000.00 (twenty million dollars), and there is presently a dispute between the State and the LRSD as to whether those loans will be forgiven or must be repaid pursuant to Section VI.B.(6) of the 1989 Settlement Agreement
WHEREAS, under the States current funding formula for public school districts, LRSDs per pupil revenue affects the total amount of funding which the State must distribute through the formula
WHEREAS, how LRSD structures its bond debt affects LRSDs per pupil revenue. Page 1 of 8 IXQ . tv fAA WHEREAS, the State wants LRSD to structure its bond debt so as to minimize the financial impact on the State
WHEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree to the following terms and conditions: AGREEMENTS 1. LRSD agrees to pursue complete unitary status and release from court supervision, in good faith and using its best efforts, until such complete relief has been obtained or until the termination of this Agreement, whichever comes first 9 LRSD agrees to accelerate the sale of its bonds so that the required annual debt service payments will be 11,8 million dollars beginning with the 2002 calendar year. The State Board of Education does hereby approve the LRSDs bond application as submitted on February 19, 2001 3. In order to facilitate and encourage LRSDs efforts to attain complete unitary status and release from court supervision, the State agrees that it will not seek to modify or terminate any of the States obligations to the LRSD under the 1989 Settlement Agreement (including any reduction of the payments to LRSD resulting from the Settlement Agreement or court decisions enforcing the Agreement) from the date of execution of this Agreement up to and including June 1, 2008. This covenant shall remain in full force and effect (unless this Agreement terminates pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement) regardless of whether the LRSD. the Pulaski County Special School District, and/or the North Little Rock School District obtain partial or complete unitary status and release from court supervision. 3.1 Provided, however, that this Agreement does not limit, and should not be construed or interpreted as limiting in any way, the States ability to seek modification or termination of any of its obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement (including Page 2 of 8ijfj UU4 court decisions interpreting the Agreement) that relate exclusively to the North Little Rock School District, the Pulaski County Special School District, or any other party to the action. Further, this Agreement does not prohibit the State and the LRSD from jointly petitioning the court for modification or termination of any aspect of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, nor does it prohibit the State from asserting any and all defenses it may otherwise assert in response to any motion or allegation of the LRSD to the effect that the State has violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement. 3.2 The State agrees to coojierate with and assist LRSD in opposing any challenge to the legality of this Agreement or any effort by a third-party to modify or terminate the Statess obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Such cooperation and assistance shall include, but not be limited to any or all of the following: (1) filing joint pleadings supporting the legality of this Agreement
(2) filing joint pleadings responding to any request to modify or terminate the States obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement
(3) filing a joint appeal of any order, decision or judgment which directly or indirectly undermines this Agreement
(4) filing a joint brief opposing any appeal of an order, decision or judgment upholding this Agreement or refusing to modify or terminate the 1989 Settlement Agreement, and (5) filing joint pleadings to remove or transfer any challenge to the legality of this Agreement to United States District Court and to consolidate the challenge with the Pulaski School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CIV-LR-82-866. 4. County In recognition of the LRSDs efforts to obtain unitary status and complete release from federal court supervision, and to facilitate the success of the LRSDs efforts, the State and the LRSD agree Page 3 of 8U . ** ^2 r/iA ittl UUO as follows
4.1 The State will forgive and release the LRSD from any obligation to repay the first $15,000,000.00 (fifteen million dollars) in loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VLB. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Any and all frmds in the joint escrow account establi.shed by the State and the LRSD pursuant to Section Vl.B of 4.2 4.3 the 1989 Settlement Agreement will be released to the LRSD as soon as practicable In addition, with respect to the remaining $5,000,000.00 (five million advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section Vl.B. of the the State will forgive and release the LRSD from dollars) in loans 1989 Settlement Agreement, any obligation to repay these Ioans If the LRSD obtains a final order granting it complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision on or before July I, 2004 Subject to the provisions of paragraph 4.3 of this Agreement, the LRSD is relieved of its obligation to make payments of pnncipal or interest on these loans into a joint escrow account established by the State and the LRSD Agreement. pursuant to Section Vl.B of the 1989 Settlement For purposes of paragraph 4.2, the phrase final order granting it complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision shall mean the entry of a final, appealable order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granting the LRSD complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision as of July I, 2004. In the event an order granting the LRSD complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision as of July I, 2004 is not entered by the District Court, or is entered by the District Court but is appealed and Page 4 of 8UO/XO/Ui inv 0.40 r/iA igl uuo subsequently reversed in whole or in part, the LRSD shall have the unconditional obligation to repay the loans referenced in paragraph 4.2 on a payment schedule of interest and principal as set forth in Sections VI.B(l) and (3) of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, and to immediately pay to the State the cumulative amount of any and all interest and principal payments that would have been due on the loans referenced in paragraph 4 2 4.4 The Parties shall promptly and jointly petition the Court for any modification of Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement that is necessary so as to fully effectuate and make binding the terms of paragraphs 4 through 4.3 of this Agreement, and shall take such further action as may be necessary to obtain such a modification, including but not limited to appealing any adverse decision or ruling of the District Court 4.5 In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, the Parties shall negotia te in good faith in an effort to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution of any disputes concerning the loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VLB of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. In the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resolution, the Parties may take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate with regard to said loans, including but not limited to seeking appropriate relief from the Court. In the event such relief is sought from the Court, neither the terms of this Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the parties related to its negotiation or execution, shall be construed or offered as evidence of any admission against interest: or waiver of any kind on the part of the State or the LRSD. Page 5 of 8UB/28/U1 THU 1(5:47 TAX 1^007 4.6 However, in the event this entire Agreement is not terminated pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, but the Court approval referenced in paragraph 4.4 of this Agreement is nonetheless not obtained, the provisions of paragraphs 4 through 4.6 of this Agreement shall be null and void but severable from the remainder of this Agreement, to the effect that all other promises and obligations of the Parties shall remain in full force and effect. In such an event, the Parties shall negotiate in good 5. 6. faith in an effort to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution of concerning the loans advanced to the LRSD any disputes pursuant to Section VI.B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement and, in the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resolution, the Parties may take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate with regard to said Ioans, including but not limited to seeking appropriate relief from the Court. In the event such relief is sought from the Court, neither the Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the Parties related to its terms of this negotiation or execution, shall be constmed or offered as evidence of any admission against interest or waiver of any kind on the part of the State or the LRSD. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date of execution This Agreement will terminate and the State will have no further obligations under this Agreement if the LRSD has failed to apply to the District Court for complete unitary status and release from court supervision by June 30, 2004. 7. The Parties agree that this Agreement shall be filed in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CrV-LR-82-866, and that the United States District Court shall have jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement, to resolve disputes between the Parties arising out of this Page 6 of 8UUZ MX r AA l^UU Agreement and to hear any challenge to the legality of this Agreement. 8. This Agreement expresses the entire agreement of the parties and may not be modified or altered except by a writing executed by the authorized representatives of the LRSD and the State It IS specifically contemplated that this Agreement may be modified or amended, with the approval of the LRSD and the State, after further consultation and discussion with the Joshua Intervenors. 9. All covenants, conditions, agreements and undertakings contained herein shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective legal successors in interest and assigns of the parties. 10 This Agreement is entered into as of the /^ay of March. 2001, by the undersigned oflBcers of the Little Rock School District and the Arkansas Department of Education, each of whom IS authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Parties. Page 7 of 8MU/ ^/ MX ltl uuu LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BY: Dr. Les Cj tine, Superintendent ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION BY: Rayland Simon, Director H:\hhgioo\tg>ugcr\Ark>nsfl AG - Dccg\fliisc\3_13_01 agnnftLwpd Page 8 of 8 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1803-1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913-1991) ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR. JOHN G. LILE GORDON S. RATHER. JR. TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD. JR. PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS. JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES III JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY III LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER. JR. CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES K. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADOEN ROGER D. ROWE JOHN 0. DAVIS WRIGHT. LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www.wlj.com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M.TODD WOOD Writer's Direct Dial No. 501-212-1273 mjonesQwij.com JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX. JR.** TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS JAMES M. MOODY. JR. KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. BALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON JENNIFER S. BROWN* C. TAD BOHANNON MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY** M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. MCKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE W. DUKE ROBERT W. GEORGE J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CHRISTINE J. DAUGHERTY, Ph.O. VIA FACSIMILE March 19, 2001 RiCBVED MAR 2 9 2001 * Licensed only in Fionda and Texas ** Licensed to practice before the Linked States Patent and Trademark Office a Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 400 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 RE: Proposed Agreement between the LRSD and the State of Arkansas Dear Chris: Thank you for sending over a draft of the agreement last week. As you know, I was in a two-week jury trial and the jury came back late Friday afternoon. I have reviewed the agreement and have had preliminary conversations with two school officials. We have not fully absorbed the intent and meaning of the proposed agreement and I have not had a chance to discuss it yet with you. Accordingly, the PCSSD must reserve the right, at this point in time, to object to Court approval of the agreement if it ultimately appears that such would be in the best interest of the PCSSD. 242298-vl Celebrating Years 19 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0WRIGHT. LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP March 19, 2001 Page 2 In the interim, I certainly look forward to discussing this with you in depth. Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP MSJ:ao M. Samuel Jones, III cc: Mr. John Walker Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Stephen W. Jones Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Celebrating 1 0 0 Years 19 0 0 2 0 0 0f EDWARD L. WRIGHT (jsoa-ieTTi ROBERT 5, LINuSEV 0*13.1891) ISAAC A SCOTT. JR. JOHN G. LtLE GONOON 8. RATHER. JR. TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID U. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS auFORO. JR. PATRICK J. SCSS ALSTON JENNINGS. JR. JOHH TISDALE KATNLYN CRAVES M SAMUEL JONES Hl JOHNWILL1AU st*ivev in L6E J. MULDROW N.M NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWt.N L. J.R CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER MCSPAODEN ROGER 0. ROWE ' JOHN 0. DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HSffKY VIA: FACSIMILE rvigntrax WRIGHT. LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SO! 3T CAPITOL AVENUc SUITE 2200 UTTLc ROCK. ARKANSAS TSlOUSSda {501)371-0808 FAX (SOI) 376-9*42 www.wlj.com Oi* COVKSIi. ALSTON JENNINGS ROnalO a uay JAMES R. VAN OOVER Writer's Direct Dial No. 501-212-1273 m)on8s@wq.com KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER ray f. COX. JR.- TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS JAUe> M. moody JR KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARY. OAVtS Claire shows Hancock KEVIN W KENNEDY JERRY J. SALlINGS william STUART JACKSON MICHAEL O 8AAMES STEPHEN R LANCASTER JU5Y ROBINSON WILBER KYLE R WILSON C. TAO BOHANNON MICHELE Simmons allgooo KRISTI U. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY* M. SEAN HATCH J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CKKISTIME J. DAUGHERTY, P(tO- MICHELLE M KAEMMERLING ERIK* ROSE MOMTOOM5P.Y SCOTT ANDREW IRBY MOLLY A. AOEE MtCNELlB MAROIS OiLLARD PATRICK D. WILSON (jEnsetfBfnoicaaaftmneLMea 3MU *hf u-.UH}.ii July 11, 2002 The Honorable Wm, R. Wilson, Jr. U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue. Suite 360 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v, Pulaski County Special School District
et al USDC Docket No.
4
82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: I have the Court's Letter-Order of July 11, 2002 and I write in my capacity as counsel for the Pulaski County Special School District I have tried to follow the recent proceedings and I have a general sense that the issues witnesses and exhibits have been pared down considerably. My sole interest in the hearings next week revolves around Joshuas designation of Ray Simmon. Director of The State Department of Education, as a witness virhom they intend to call. If memory serves, he is listed as witness number 29 on Joshua's witness list and will be called to give testimony concerning the agreement between the State and LRSD. That agreement respects terms and ccnditions of the loan forgiveness to Little Rock and also includes a bilateral agreement between Little Rock and the State concerning a sunset provision by which payments such as those for magnet schools and M to M transfers wiii cease. Let me first say 1 cannot fit this particular testimony and this agreement into the parameters or what understand to be the issues that will in fact be addressed next week. At the
do not recall an order which specifically addressed Mr. Simmon and this agreement. same time, I It IS my underetanding that this agreement has never been submitted directly to the Court for approval or disapproval. However, when it first suiTaced, I did have occasion to write Judge 3S04Q9-V1njLBUtfdx * WRIGHT. tINDSEY 4 JENNINGS LLP July 11, 20Q2 Page 2 Wright advising that the PCSSD had not been a party to either the negotiator of or the execution of this agreement and that we opposed it. If this evidentiary item is not going to be addressed during the unitary hearing, I would respectfuiiy request to be excused from those hearings. EverTif Ns going to be ad^ wouio asK trie inauigence of the Court to simply require the par to nSfy ^^^^0 approxirnateiy wnen dunng the proceedings this issue might be addressed so that participation couio be limited to that witness and this issue. my any kind of position to assess and address this matter today with the SDtendW morning would not be required, that would be dpiVllUlU It? KlrOW. Thank you very much. Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP MSJ:wrmh .x'^^amuely^Jones, 111 cc: Honorable J, Thomas Ray All Counsel of .Record 1 350409-vli Chris Heije7 , j.,15,01 agrmnt.wpri 0002 Page AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL AND THE STATE OF ARKANSAS DISTRICT i This Agreement is by and between the Little Rock State of Arkansas (the "State"), by and through School District CTRSD"), and the the Stare Board of Education, the Arkansas I I .! i i Department of Education and Governor Mike Huckabee. LRSD and the State shaU colbctively be referred to as the Parties, WHEREAS, LRSD and the State are recitals parties to the 1989 Settlement Agreement in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CIV-LR-82-866, (1989 .Senior Agreement"), WHEREAS, the 1989 Settlement Agreement anposes certain obligations on the State but contains no provision stating when those obligations end
WHEREAS, LRSD wiU seek to be declared unitary and released from federal monitoring and supervision but is concerned that if it is declared unitary the State terminate its obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agr^ment
court may seek to WHEREAS, pursuant to Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, the State has advanced baas to the LRSD in the cumulative principal amount of $20,000,000.00 (twenty million doflars), and there is presently a dispute between the State and the LRSD those loans will be forgiven Settlement Agreement
as to whether or must be repaid pursuant to Section V1.B.(6) of the 1989 I I fS WHEREAS, under the States cuiient funding formula for public school districts, LRSDs per pupil revenue affects the total amount of fending which the State must distribute through the formula
WHEREAS, how LRSD structures its bond debt affects LRSDs per pupil revenue
WHEREAS, the State wants LRSD financial impact on the State, to structure its bond debt so as to minimize the 1003 Pagezj ft WHEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree to the foflowmg terms and conditions: agreements ! f I 1. LRSD agrees to good pursue complete unitary status and release from court supervision, in faith and using its best efforts, until such complete relief has of this Agreement, whichever comes first. been obtained or until the terminatton 2. LRSD agrees to accelerate the sale of its bonds so that the required annual defat payments wiU be 11.8 million dollars beginning wiA the 2002 calendar service Education docs hereby approve the LRSDs bond application as submitted year. The State Board of 3. In order to facilitate and on February 19, 2001. release from court supervision, the State the States obligations to the LRSD i encourage LRSDs efforts to attain complete unitary status and agrees that it will not seek to modify or terminate any of under the 1989 Settlement Agreement (including reduction of the payments to LRSD resulting from the Settlement any enforcing the Agreement) from the date of execution of this Agreement or court dccisrons I, 2008. This covenant shall Agreement up to and including June remain in full force and effect (unless this Agreement terminates p pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement) regardless of whether the LRSD, the Pulaski County Special School District, and/or the North Little Rock School District obtain partial or complete umtary status and release from court supervision. I 3.1 Provided, however, that this Agreement docs not limit, and should not be construed or interpreted as modification or termination of limiting in any way, the States ability to seek any of its obligations under the 1989 Settlement I t I Agreement (including court decisions interpreting the Agreement) that relate exclusively to the North Linle Rock School District, the Pulaski County Special School District, or any other party to the action. Further, this Agreement docs not prohibit the State and the LRSD from jointly petitioning the court for modification or termination of any aspect of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, nor does it 2 w I I f@004 I I I r 3.2 4. prohibit the State from asserting any and all defenses it may otherwise assen in response to any motion or allegation of the LRSD violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement. The State agrees to cooperate with and the legality- of this Agreement the Statess obligations under the 1989 to the efiect that the State has assist LRSD in opposing any challenge to or any effort by a third-party to modify or terminate Settlement Agreement. Such and assistance shall include, but not be limbed to, filing jomt pleadings pleadings responding to cooperation any or all of the following,' (1) supporting the legality of this Agreement
(2) filing joint any request to modify or terminate the States obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement
(3) fihng a joint appeal of any order, decision or judgment which directly or mdirectly undeimmes this Agreement
(4) fihng a jomt bnef opposing any appeal of an order, decision or judgment upholding this Agreement or refhsmg to modify or termmate the 1989 Settlement Agreement
and (3) filing joint pleadings this Agreement to United States District Court to remove or transfer any challenge to the legality of with the Pulaski County School CIV-LR-82-866. In recognition of the LRSDs efforts from federal court supervision, and to facilitate the the LRSD agree as follows: 4.1 Page 3 j B and to consolidate the challenge Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. I to obtain unitary status and complete release success of the LRSDs efforts, the State and The State will forgive and release the LRSD from any obligation to repay the first 515,000,000.00 (fifteen million doUars) in loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section Vl.B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Any and all funds m the yimt escrow account established by the State and the LRSD pursuant to Section Vl.B ( the 1989 Settlement Agreement will be practicable. released to the LRSD as SOOS as 3 I ILChfis Heller - 'jTl s H agrrnnt.w^_ oos t 4.2 In addition, with loans advanced to the LRSD respect to the remaining $5,000,000.00 (five million dollars) in I Agreement, the State will forgive and release pursuant to Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement repay these loans if the LRSD obtains the LRSD from any obligation to 4.3 status and release from federal a final order granting it complete unitary Court supervision on or before July 1, 2004 Subject to the provisions of paragraph 4.3 of this Agreement, the LRSD is relieved of its obligation to make payments of principal or interest on these loans into joint escrow account established by the State and the LRSD a pursuant to Section i I I I i ! i I I i 4.4 I I VI.B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. For purposes of paragraph 4.2, the phrase "final order status and release from federal court graniing it complete unitary ^pealablc order of the United States District Conn for supervision" shall mean the entry of a final, the Eastern District of Arkansas granting the LRSD complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision as of July 1, 2004. In the event an order granting the LRSD complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision as of July 1, 2004 is not entered by the District Court, or is entered by the District Court but i appealed and subsequently reversed in whole or m part, the LRSD shall have the unconditional obligation to rep^ the loans referenced in paragraph 4.2 on a payment schedule of interest and principal as set forth in Sections VI.B(I) and (3) of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, and to immediately pay to the State the cumulative amount of any and aU interest and principal payments that would have been due on the loans referenced in paragraph 4.2. The Parties shall promptly and jointly petition the Court fer Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement that any modification of IS necessary so as to fully effectuate and make binding the terms of paragraphs 4 through 4.3 of this Agreement, and shafl take such fertile: action as may be necessary to obtain such a 4 J I i i I li I 1Haller agnrint.wpd 006 Page 5 ii' modification, mchidmg but not limiied to appealing any adverse decision of the District Court I I or ruling 4.5 In the event this Agreement is tenninaled pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, the Parties shall negotiate in good faith in an effon to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution of any disputes concerning the Ioans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. In the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resohition, the Parties may take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate with regard to said loans, including but limited to seeking appropriate relief from the Court. not In die event such relief is g sought from the Court, neither the terms of this Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the parties related to its negotiation or execution, shall be construed I i or offered as evidence of any admission against interest the part of the State or the LRSD. or waiver of any kind on 4.6 However, in the event this entire Agreement is not tenmnated pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, but the Court approval referenced in paragraph 4.4 of this Agreement is nonetheless not obtained, the through 4.6 of this Agreement .'.hall be null provisions of paragraphr 4 and void but severable from the I remainder of this Agreement, to the effect that aU other promises and obligations of the Parties shall rcmam in frill force and effect. In such an event, the Parties shaU negotiate in good faith in an effort to amve at a mutually agreeable resolution of any disputes conccminB the loans flrivani-wj to the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B of the 1989.Settlemenl Agreement and, in the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resolution, the Parties take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate with regard to said loans, inchiding but not limited to sexkmg appropriate relief from the Court. In the event such relief is sought from the Court, neither the terms of this Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the S i ng,iia.ia.i,. II I i I I I I I I H^Her 32.1 5 q'i agrmni wf^ Parties related to its negotiation or execution, shall be construed evidence of any aHmKoinn State or the LRSD. or offered as against interest or waiver of any kind on the part of the 5. 6. The effective date of this Agreement shaU be the date of execution. This Agreement will terminate and the State will have no further obligations under this Agreement if the LRSD has failed to atrolv to th? f sppty to the District Court for complete unitary status and release from court supervision by June 30,2004 7 The Parties agree that this Agreement shall be filed in the Pulaski County School c^, u,S.D C, No CIV.LR.82.6, Uoiod So. Dteio, Co lull too jodsdicaon ,0 erforoo te ,o>ol,o dlspuus b=n die Ponios out of this Agreement and to hear ariqtng 8. This Agreement expresses the entire any challenge to the legality of this Agreement. altered except by a writing executed by the authorized It IS specifically contemplated that this Agreement agreement of the parties and may not be modified approval of the LRSD and the State, after further intervenors. 9. All covenants, conditions, benefit of and be binding upon the respective legal 10. or representatives of the LRSD and the State, may be modified or amended, with the consultation and discussion with the Joshua agreements and undertakings contained herein shall mure to the This Agreement is entered into as of the successors in interest and assigns of the parties. oflScers of the Little Rock School District and the whom is authorized to ----- day of March, 2001, by the undersigned Arkansas Department of Education, each of execute this Agreement on behalf of the Parties. 007 Page 81 I 3^1S_q-I agrrnnt.wpd 008 nrr^ ( I I i ^age?] LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BY
I Dr. Les Canune, Superintendent ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION BY: 1 Rnymond Simon, Director t I H: aG - DW-P<wio.13.15.01 M=-twpd 1 )FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL 1^1001 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 Regions Center 400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE little rock, ARKANSAS 72201-34S3 telephone (SOD 376-2011 FAX NO. (5011 376-2147 CORPORATIONS THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE FOR
Ann Marshall 371-0100 FIRM NAME: FROM: Chris Heller DIRECT NUMBER 501-370-1506 MESSAGE
See attached. TOTAL NO. OF PAGES (including this information sheet): 8 DATE: March 15, 2001 TIME: A.M./P.M. TELECOPY OPERATOR: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: LIOIO-90 _____________ CLIENT NUMBERMATTER NUMBER CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE
The information in this facsimile grivileged and confidential information i individual or entity named above. intended recipient. or copy of the tran.LttL^^- tZsnsjnltCsJ. is Isgally ---- intended only for the use of the If the reader of this message is not the transmittal in rs error strictly prohibited. If you receive this distribution original transmittal to Service. Thanh you. , please rmmedrately notify us by telephone, and ~o us at the above address via the United States Postal and return the THURSDAY, JULY 22, 1999 LR schools : 1 put^Slmillion in loan account State, district disagree over repayment terms . BY CYNTHIA HOWELL .. ARKANSAS DEMOCRATGAZETTE , \ Little Rock School District offt
cials have put nearly $1 million into what they have titled LRSD/State Loan Repayment Ac- ' count in response to state officials who said the district isnt complying with a 1989 agreement for repaying a million state loan. . But Assistant Attorney General Tim Gauger said Wednesday that the district controls the accounL which is not an escrow account jointly established by the state and district as required by the 1989 agreement. After a July 12 directive from made a decision five years aan thof wo uro pnfitIpH tn ago that we are entitled to loan ____ , , , forgiveness.-, ..i Cohtlnu^trom Pago ., In anticipation of the state ask- settlementfthe'aistncF'would not ing a federal judge to enforce the have to'repay the state loan if be- settlement temis for tlie escrow fore December 2000 the composite account, school district attorneys scores' earned by black students have asked tlie Education Departon a standardized test reached at ment for. minutes and other docu- least 90 percent of the scores of ments dealing with test selection.^ white students. The test was to be I suppose it will go to court, agreed upon by the state and the Heller said. "This may prove to be district fortunate for us because we didnt Chris Heller, an attorney for the seem to be making any progress school district, said Wednesday with the state to get them to make that the fact that the district has a decision on what the test for loan not deposited money into a jointly forgiveness is going to be even *' though it seems that it has been decided twice that it should be the held account arises from the states failure to agree on a test to measure student achievement, which would determine whether the Little Rock debt would be for- given.' Two state Department of Edu- Stanford 8 scale scores. Gauger said the state will simply ask in its court filings that the district comply with the settlement in teiTOs of the jointly held escrow cation committees recommended account. * ' We are not going to allege that that scale scores from the Stanford they have not met the standard [for Achievement Test, eighth edition, tuvj. iw.v mve v.,v i.x be used to measure student loan forgiveness], Gauger said. achievement, Heller said. But he All we are asking is that they get the escrow current. In my mind, if said the proposals were never for- ------------- ----- mally adopted by Education De- you are holding the money, why partment administrators or the not put it into the joint escrow? state Board of Education. The district got its first mil- School district officials contend lion of the $20 million loan in Sep- i that the district meets the require- tember 19tW. It^was obligated by the state Board of Education^ Gauger said he plans to file a mo-
ments for loan forgiveness if the the original 1989 settlement agree- tion early next week for Chief U.S. Stanford scale scores are the mea- ment and by a more detaile^oan nistriet Tndpe Susan Webber ' sure. agreement in September 1990 to Uistnct Judge busan Webber , ..This issue should have and begin repaying that portion of the Wright to enforce the agreement against the district. He contends i could have been decided a long loan within seven years into a spe- time ago, and the decision should cial escrow account. The loan was ............... - to be repaid in 20 equal install- that the district owes $996,000 . that we are entitled to loan for- plus investment earnings. giveness, Heller said. We In the 1989 financial settle- , shouldnt be sued over the ques- tion of an escrow payment when niversary of the initial loan.' ments with a 3 percent interest rate going into effect on the Sth ailment, the state pledged a $20 million loan to the district to be paid over 10 years in increments of no more than $6 million every two years, TTie money was to help the the state could have and should According to a draft of the mo- tion Gauger intends to submit to the judge, the district was re- X pr X- - 1 X quired to make a principal pay- distnct offset desegregation-relat- of $300,000 into the escrow ed costs. account in September 1997 and an- According to the terms of that other $300,000 payment on the 1 See LOAN, Page 11A principal in September 1998, plus ' an interest payment of $171,000 at Simon asked Gamine to change the account name from Little Rock School District Special Desegregation Account to reflect the account name required in the 1990 loan agreement and to add $270,000 to the account, the balance the dis- trict owed at the time. Milhollen said Wednesday that he believes the district has com- -------- that time. Little Rock drew another $4.5 -- --------- million from the loan in Januaiy plied with Simon s requests from a 1992 and was to begin repaying year ago. as well as the terms ot that with an initial $225,000 in Jan- the September 1990 loan agree- mcnt We followed their recommen- into the escrow account, plus in- uary this year. According to the terms of the . 1989 agreemenL all money paid dations in the letter they wrote to --------- us. Milhollen said. We did what they asked us to do, which was to adjust the $30,000 to $300,000, and we titled the account like they vestment earnings, would be returned to the district once the student achievement goals are met. asked us to title it. Thats what they asked us to do. Otherwise, the escrowed money and subsequent payments on the debt would go to the state begin- Superintendent Les Gamine, Larry Berkley, School Board ning in 2001 president, said recently that he Superintendent Les Gamine, thinks the State Education Boards who acknowledged early last vote to force the district to make month that the district was in de- escrow payments was a matter ol fault of its payments, said this politics. . -.r -----------u nA knnn .People in the rest of the state don't want to think about forgiving a ^0 million loan to a school district in Little Rock, Berkley said. week that the money had been put into reserves but he hesitated to say more before the court case. Earlier, Carnine said the test issue should be resolved so that the dis- "I can understand that, but it may trict " could use its financial re- not be the smartest thing. There is sources on students. the potential that the state uld Mark Milhollen, tlie district's get dragged back into the desegre, manager of financial services, con- gallon case, which could end up firmed Wednesday that $968,375 costing the state more money. I was put into the LRSD/State loan don't think that is a wise move. rpnavmentaccountJune30,thelast The state was dismissed as a repayment account June 30, the last to the $30,815.89 already in the ac- repdyiiivnidLLuuiivuujicAaxv,xxAxji, day of the 1998-99 fiscal year. Added party in the now 16-year-old deseg- io iiie $30,315.83 already in the ac- rogation lawsud after the ap-. counL the account totals $999,190.89. proval of the 1989 fmancial settle-, Milhollen cited a June 1998 let- ment. However, Wright retains ju- ter from Ray Simon, director of the risdiction over the state to enforce Education Department, in which compliance with the agreement. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2000 Arkansas Democrat azcttc Deadline set for compliance on desegregation case escrow BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Arkansas Board of Educa- state Departnient of Education oftion on Monday set a March 1 deadline for -the Little Rock about $1.8 million set aside in an School District to establish and account held jointly by the dis- fully fund a joint escrow account trict and the state. Latest docu- to hold the districts repayments ments on file with state Educa- on a $20 million state desegrega- tion Department staff show that a tion loan. The board directed Assistant ance of about $999,000. Attorney General Tim Gauger to, file a complaint with U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, who ongoing dispute between the monitors the districts desegrega- state officials and the district _ . , tion efforts, if the escrow account over the terms of a 1989 financial funds in 1998 in the escrow ac- is not in place by the date. settlement between the district According to calculations by , and the state. The state a^eed at the time to loan the district the money witli ficials, the district should have district-held account has a baiThe state boards vote Monday is the latest development in an the understanding that the loan would be forgiven if the district could narrow the academic dis- . . parity between black and white ' tatives of the state and school dis- students on a standardized achievement test. The district has until Dec. 31 this year to meet the goal. In the meantime, the district was obligated by the settlement agreement to b6gin periodically setting aside count to repay the state in the event the goal is not met. The board directed Gauger last summer to pursue joint access to the Little Rock account as well as full funding. On a related matter, represen- trict have never identified the test that is to be used to measure the disparity in black and white i students achievement. Discussions on that issue are continuing. Charity Smith, an assistant director in the Education Department, said Monday.I Arkansas Demcxrrat ^(ijitazcHc | THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2000 LR schools set up plan to repay state . Move taken in time to keep from facing default lawsuit BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS BEHOCRArO.AZi
TTE Little Rock School District officials put almost SSOO.OOO into a state loan repayment account and took other steps by a deadline Wednesday to avoid being sued for default by the state. Mark Milhollen, district manager of financial sendees, transferred $465,632 into a loan repayment account, bringing the account to $1.48 million, the amount - owed to date.
Also Wednesday, district and 'state officials exchanged drafts of la memorandum of understanding
that would obligate the Little Rock /district to convert its loan repay
inent account into a joint escrow 'account that would be accessible two years. Ito both district and state officials, not just district officials. terms, the drstrict will not have io Last month, the Arkansas j repay the state loan if by Dcc.-31 Board of Education directed As- ! the composite scores earned .by sistant Attorney General Timothy black students on a standardized Gauger to file a complaint in fed- test reach at least 90 percent of tlie eral court against the states scores of white students. .largest school system if district of- ---------------------------------------------- The test is to be selected by tlie ficials failed by Wednesday to es- j state and the district. That test, tablish the joint account and make however, has not been selected. overdue payments on a $20 million The proposed memorandum of un- loan made by the state to offset derstanding notes that a disagree- district desegregation costs be- ment exists between the parties on tween 1990 and 1999. . The proposed memorandum of understanding was not finalized by the end of the day Wednesday. But Ray Simon, director of the Arkansas Department of Education, said the districts attempts to meet .Estate demands satisfied him. He .said he wanted time to review the :draft of the memo with his staff but did not expect to file a court ..'complaint. Even though the [joint escrow] '.account is not set up. Little Rock . has done what they needed to do, 'Simon said. I'm satisfied they . -ihave complied to this point with >*
the boards deadline. They have ,
made the good-faith effort to get .^something to us. Its just that our 'staff needs today [Wednesday] to .z look at it. In the two-page draft memoran- idum, the district pledges to repay See LOAN, Page 7B Loan Continued from Page 1B
principal and interest on the loan. The district also seeks to manage die account and have the authority to periodically draw from the account to offset lulls in llie flow of local tax revenues to tlie district'. Any amounts withdrawn from the joint account would-be repaid with interest within six months of tlie witlidrawal, accorfr ing to the proposed language'of the memo. Milhollen said another payment of $353,220 will be made' to the repayment account March To, and $75,000 more will be paid May Other payments of various amounts are scheduled into I at least the next two decades. The $20 million loan from the state was a provision of a 1989. financial settlement between the state and the school system. The state distributed the loan proceeds over 10 years in increments of no more than $6 million every According to the settlement whether the requirements for loan forgiveness have been met. The draft memo Birther says tlie district and the state wish to continue discussions aimed at resolving jlie dispute. If the district meets the student achievement goal, the money in the joint escrow account will be returned to the district. Otherwise it will be returned to the state. The district got its first $6 million of the $20 million loan in September 1990. The district was obligated by tlie original 1989 agreement and by a more detailed loan agreement in September 1990 to begin repaying that portion of the loan witliin seven years into a special escrow account. , The loan was to be repaid in'20 equal installments witli a 3 per- :ent interest rate. ii 'i
'. The districts first payment'of $300,000 was due to the escrow account in September 1997. Over time the district set aside some repayment funds but not into a jointly held account and not (br the full amounts owed.' ' f Members of the state Board of Education began publicly , questioning the lack of a joint account and delinquent payments last summer. er( FRIDAY, MARCH 17, 2000 LR schools, I ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Attorneys for the Little Rock School District and the Arkansas attorney generals office have signed a memorandum of understanding whereby the district idedges that its payments on a $20 million state loan will go to a joint- lyjowned bank account. According to the memorandum, the school district has the authority to make investment decisions for the account. The district is obligated to provide the state Department of Education a monthly statement showing account activity. ''The agreement further gives the Little Rock district with permission from the Education De- state agree on loan repayment plan partment the ability to draw from the account at those times of the year when the flow of tax revenue to the district ebbs. Any such amounts withdrawn by the district must be repaid with interest within six montts. The memorandum follows a dispute between the state and district over the terms of the loan. The district obtained the low- interest loan as a result of a 1989 desegregation agreement with the state. The original agreement says that the district will not have to repay the loan if, by Dec. 31 of this year, it can narrow the achievement disparity between black and white students as measured by standardized tests. But the terms of the loan also called for the district to begin making payments in 1997 to a joint escrow account The state Board of Education complained that the district was making insufficient payments to an account that only the district controlled. State board members said in February that they would ask a federal judge to enforce the terms of the 1989 agreement if the district did not comply by March 1. The district complied by the specified date, and the two-page memorandum was worked out.October 17. 2 0 0 0 LR district, state work on solutions Desegregation, funding for schools on the agenda BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-OAZETTE At the urging of three Arkansas legislators, attorneys for the state and the Little Rock School District are quietly working toward a settlement of school-funding and desegregation issues that might otherwise cost the state millions and prolong the districts federal desegregation lawsuit. i Sen. Jim Argue, D-Little Rock, j said Monday that attorneys for the governors office, the state Department of Education and the attorney generals office have met at least twice in recent weeks with representatives of the Little Rock district on the complex issues. Those issues include the Little Rock districts possible payback of a million state loan, state funding of Little Rock magnet schools and the impact of a recent Little Rock tax increase on Jim Argue school funding elsewhere in" the state. Argue, who has served as an informal facilitator at the meetings, said he was cautiously optimistic that a resolution of the financial issues is forthcoming. I dont want to talk about what the compromises might look like because we are at a very delicate stage, Argue said. But I do think the parties are negotiating in good faith, he added. I do think they are keeping the interest of school kids at heart. Hopefully, we can bring a resolution to some really difficult issues and clear the path so that the Little Rock School Districts removal from federal court can be a moment of celebration. District officials are hoping that See ISSUES, Page 10A FH o o CiSm p sS-o ff- O'S O S 5o S3 5' a3_.ffp^|3 jap?is.gs-|-&s-| o 2
t&3S go-oE--csS:L && Og )5-2. oKE-S:-ic8n?B: s _ . 0-0 e!O-ff
S 2-^325^^ TO ?+ O'rtA!-3'<VP s3 c1 -50.^ o Di Di O trt ! .o O 00 fp !3 2 cn U u uu uQ I Vt s gas 3 Ss 2^g2 3-^ CT 3 O a *. '?c p S ' 3a S^-EH- S-p > |&S3g-o ^'S^Q.!^ g P ' "p-ga p S. Di (O 3 > 3^ Di 5. P3SP-5-B V'& &3 ffffBSgSgC.. fo Q-P"" S-~s-.^ O'? R ^oS-pSp-oSKoP-o& E.pff'Sgsg'Po^gso. g-H-ia. S & a g < l-Sf 11P S.0 o 3 g li ff- s-p"|g'isa' Sgsf PohS'p^p^W^ ? 3-2 3fB,23wS'^ y 3 O XO o a 5 >1 ^0.3 -3 & >3 CA CD p 3 CA O CA V) o (D Q SB'S =1" a o CA 3 g O w ^gg.hrJS o X n5 *< p o 2 s * 3-" a rt> 5 fp a o CA &3 g o<fi g" o Sh g-S !.'S 2 g 5 StA O Ca O O- r* e g 5 o O rt tv jr-gS- gs CA c g CP fP S?- P O 5 s rti o-" S-~g !c 5-cacpcpO^q2.o, 5o.-cp3Qi=:cp- 4 P' S o 2.P 2. P-3 p? 55 'P3 S 3s o cr Di CA - n gg O' p K? rs jS- a Q ti. (D T i off'S .. &&g g CS.2-3 Is Bo CA alg S-W &!? S-g-P I" 5'S S-a SS &S & 5- o s-bL K'o og-w BlS ct^.q 2 rt> ca M 2 fD o & f? 5^3 5KC^S.^oQ.- w3 2CD 2Di. S is BS.ffaffS'' B&p q I'P Qh C^1S.^,<P (?p &3'^ 3"' QpI| ?s 's^ t?ip && ia oSog'CS'SS' S? a.3'BSQ? I- CA CA s S 3 !?a s s a S-S o-&^S 2. rt f-i fP C3 El. . r- 3 &s sr "O fP O 3 - 3. rti O fP fcj 1-j o XJ o oa ^O--S2.* *0!- ^9
3 S3.2 2-3,3 o 2 o o 3 2-J?ao CP w ii^hir o 1 o 3 CA 2 o IS oa-2^^'3o g as 0-^0 g^giS-'ga^ffgSo g ^iS.O ffi o O 0-0 o o Bo Eco!?^ "- dap o * gl fP &< p n> (p o <p w .S H 2.H-Q.ctni a S 2. pP3 &Boo 212^3^5:3o c&x ^gP&^e&O'g g 3-^'^ S. 2 -2 2 "* ............gB c gg E'Q EP^r. EP 0.2'? Eg-?- 11 2 CA 3 C It CT S.g QC r w rr O3 g ^ '. 2 a&ff 3 3 ogrg.'^ o S.s:g E'a S a o. g Sg'gSS.wSso H S.3g.?.S'?5 teK
3. <P o c w CA CP X p CA 2 03 S 3 3 &g5 J? fp s CA o P r (P aP ggc- 3i p t*- S*- T" 3* cB g S' ? o 2 g o' g S' '!> 3,pGQ2SH ^pa3r3'B . ff 9 E- H- Ct 3 P C O 3- - " 3 &. B |e 8 g<|'g ff-g 3 hS g aSg'Jp .3 CP I2 o w 3 S2. lIl'? Ill CP S K- -3 g fP U3 S S S 1 CA 0-3 g Jj' - ?r 3 o o ' w !ZR 2i K ^S 3-'fl Cr.T3 ttO-O O O S O o fft o o 3 O CA n 2 BJ 2. CA iOf. M CiAs .-1 3M ^- 2> tJ r* s&'R g5 T.0.0 0??- S 0.1 o.Sa a'&SS5gS|& "S-SpS-a" gaS: Ssgs.gal ca 3" O 3 . P 3 s. 2 fp B.g-'g B rf 2- O'. 2 'OR.B tt'O'o'S^" P ' &.P35A& (S3Po"=c' Eg?g(g P 9 SSo P (S o *0 fp tn 3-a (TO (P B c/i O 3 o <P 3-
S S- B-ff o ff&d'^2 5'03 i^ffS'o 3. |ScSXS?^|'gS|ffBgt5. ss a 3-3-2 ^pw,. SfToW-oS "S .S C3_ O SpgS, CA Q 3 5.^g'?- ^3 2 2: fP T .Q o kTct M " CA P I (P -3 w'2 A.sirjslIjHi 'A P CA 3. ^^OCA S El' CA O S-2 3 O fti o pr a?-I CP CP O ! e-f' rt> |sB s
t 9Cr<'fDT3Oa3s: 32o332oo< 3 a .o CA CA p (p CA p I. CA S' & 2OmB*l2OO2 ^P ,,, CP 3 3 3'W =-5:^K o Q.-r*^2 & ft.fDT3M3'OOvO . 3 r TO . M n s o a(P aK-sB t unuAT, 2UU1^ r LR schools, state near deal on BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Attorneys for the state and Ijttle Rock School District are moving closer to settlii^ school-funding and desegregation issues that might otherwise cost the state millions and complicate district efforts to end federal court supervision. They are negotiating: The Little Rock districts possible payback of a $20 million state loan. Continued state funding of Little Rock magnet schools and other desegregation-related programs worth $15 million to $20 million a year to the district nie impact of a recent tax increase in Little Rock on the states funding obligations to other Arkansas school districts. Little Rock officials would like to settle issues with the state and other parties before the district submits a March 15 desegregation compliance report to a federal judge who oversees the 18-year-old Pulaski County school-desegregation case. If there are no objections to the compliance report or if there is no ' proof that the district Is out of compliance with its desegregation plan, then the district could be declared desegregated at the end of this school year and released from federal court monitoring. The word I get is that the negotiations are in the final stages
that we may have a deal that everyone is going to agree to, Sen. Jim Argue, D-Little Rock, said Friday. Argue is one of three state senators who wrote to Gov. Mike Huckabee, Little Rock Superintendent Les Gamine, state Department of Education Director Ray Simon and Attorney General Mark Pryor in September 2000 urging that the state and Little Rock address several issues as a package and avoid relying on the courts to resolve them. desegregation funds Argue served as an informal facilitator at some of the earlier meetings with the leaders from the agencies and the parties in Little Rocks school desegregation lawsuit On Friday, Argue said he didnt know the specifics of an emerging agreement. I do get the sense that both sides have given some and won some, he said, adding that the talks are now in the hands of Chris Heller, an attorney for the Little Rock district, and Timothy Gauger, an assistant attorney general. Heller said Friday that he and Gauger talk almost daily and, while they do not have a final draft of an agreement to take to their respective clients, he said there exists at least the nucleus of an agreement The Little Rock lawyer also said the district faces deadlines for resolving the issues and We need to know within a week or two whether there is substantial agreement. Michael Teague, a spokesman for the attorney generals office, declined to comment at length about tlie negotiations but called Hellers comments an accurate assessment of the talks. Simon said Friday that he was . See SCHOOLS, Page 3B ' Schools Continued from Page 1B frustrated by the slowness of the talks between the attorneys but optimistic about an ultimate agreement. He said he may have something to report to the state Board of Education at its Feb. 12 meeting. Simon said earlier this month that the attorneys had listened to the discussions of others involved in the issues and were now attempting to put into writing a possible agreement that all the interested parties could endorse. Asked specifically whether district and state representatives have agreed to a method for determining whether Little Rock must repay a million loan, Simon said, Were close. A proposal should be forthcoming. A 1989 agreement between the state and district said the district would not have to repay the loan if the composite scores earned by Little Rock black students on a nationally standardized test reached 90 percent or better of the average scores earned by white students by Dee. 31,2000. In the intervening years, the district and the state never formally agreed on the test to be used. Heller said Friday that the focus of the talks now is not so much on the $20 million as it is on developing a process for determining whether die loan should be forgiven. He said the process described in the 1989 agreement proved to be unworkable. He also said the district and Education Department administrators have desi^ated experts to make recommendations to negotiators about possible measures of student achievement. Those advisers are Steven Ross, a faculty member at the University of Memphis and an educational consultant to Little Rock School District
and Douglas Reeves, a national consultant to the Education Department on several issues. One of the most pressing of the deadlines faced by the negotiators is related to the 5-mill tax increase Little Rock voters approved last year. The district must complete scheduling the sale of bonds that will be financed with the money generated by the tax increase. The longer the district delays selling the bonds and incurring new debt, the greater the districts wealth. That poses a problem for state officials because all school districts are legally guaranteed at least 80 percent of the money that Little Rock raises in state and local money per student, excluding that money that goes to pay debts. Depending on how Little Rock officials structure the debt they incur, the state would have to increase aid by $40 million to $140 million, according to preliminary projections last year. Until the debt structure and states obligation to other districts are known, legislators could be hindered in setting appropriations for state services for the next two fiscal years. Another critical issue in the school talks is whether the state will attempt to stop subsidizing Little Rocks desegregation efforts if the district is declared unitary, or a fully desegregated school system, later this year. The state pays close to $20 million a year for desegregation-related programs, including magnet schools, student transfer programs,: transportation, and teacher retirement and health insurance costs. We think it helps everybody if the Little Rock School Board is free to consider unitary status without having to worry about potentially disastrous financial consequences, Heller said. Hopefully we can reach an agreement that will work for everybody.8A FRIDAY, MARCH 16, 2001 Deal can ease LR schools loan burden Lawyers for state, district work out possible solution BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRATCAZETTE Attorneys for the state and the Little Rock School District have reached a tentative agreement that would relieve the district of repaying mosL if not all, of a $20 million loan and preserve millions in state funds for magnet schools and other desegregation costs until at least 2008. In return, the Little Rock district will structure its finances, particularly money from a recent tax increase, so that the state will not be required to pump $125 million to other Arkan^ school districts. The proposed a^eement allows the school district to continue efforts to win release from federal court supervision without jeopardizing state funding for de- se^egation programs. Both the Arkansas Board of Education and the Little Rock School Board have scheduled meetings for Monday to decide whether to ratify the agreement that has been the topic of negotiations since last September. Im just pleased we were able to reach agreement, said Ray Simon, director of the Arkansas Department of Education. It brings closure to these issues and it allows us to focus on student achievement for all students. Simon said he will recommend that the state board approve the agreement when it meets at 2 pun. Monday via telephone conference call. We are wearing big smiles See LRSD, Page 8A STTTil E -ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Dese i I _ BE ii I I ^^iS^ockSciiool^^iS^ M . - citing statistics ds evidence ........ .nl^iiareffnrt<i to comply with a 1998 ^fTlWWCTTHGHEHS z-OlsMensabllqated to maintain a E^affthat is approximately PEBCENI BUCK 3n ~sr MCX ~1S1 WMiE/onn 1205 UW HGOROUS COURSES^ ranomiiffliT MCIEKE AJflebra I Geometry Algebra II Biology ChorrifettY Physics 5 w Tzr I 1M TOTO. % MCKASt 3t% -----73% -----HIT rar 'LO^' BUCK % MCHJtSE W% 8% ------0% 51% ~~TW% ADVHKD PUCEMENT COURSE ENROIIMENT n SUSPENSIONS BUCK 5341 WMIE 900 052 ran. _yB 1997-98 2000-'01 % change TOIM L5 OK BUCK fll ~7S7 09% KT COLLEGE ENTRANCE EXAM TESFIAKERS ^gZ5g3BBaBWHMARKEXAM:lJIElU^ or above proficiency Hl _JiBL = +31% HJKX _291 +50% WMIE __as +1% h GRA0E5SnNF0RDKHIEVEMENTTEST:MAni Scores in percentiles 50 percent= national average Ml JL 31 iUCK 23 WMIE _S S5 'SOURCE: Little Rock School District 1997-'98 t9900 % change ran nt 31% BUCK MB =1 EXnUCURnCULAR ACTMIY PARrailMIION 1997-'98 1999-'00 BUCK 2g WMIE/Oim 393 --------902 DROPOUT RATE AT HIGH SCHOOLS 1997-96 1999-00 ran. 5Mm%i BUCK Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/KIRK MONTGOMERYI P for desegregation programs that in- kllwv elude magnet schools, student transfers, and special transporta- Continued from Page 1A tion as well as money for extraor- afound here, Little Rock Super- dinary employee health insurance intendent Les Gamine said. We and retirement costs. The district, think the right things have been which has a $200 million budget, done and Im really excited for the gets approximately million a school district and for the kids year for those costs. here. This sets the tone for us to begin a whole new era. The negotiated agreement specifically says the state will not Sen. Jim Argue, D-Little Rock, try to modify or terminate any of its was equally pleased and said he obligation to Little Rock as enu- would encourage his fellow lawmakers to support the agreement. merated in a 1989 agreement until June 1, 2008. The newest agree- Its cause for celebration, he mentwhich would be an amendsaid. This agreement represents ment to the 1989 settlementdoes the resolution of some extremely not specify what happens at that important and chronically trouble- time. The state farther agreed to forgive and release the Little Rock some issues that we have focused oh for years. Argue was one of three lawmak- district from any obligation to re- ers who last fall encouraged state pay the first $15 million of a $20 and Little Rock district officials to million state desegregation loan pool together several outstanding given to the district over the course desegregation and financial issues of the 1990s. The state will forgive the re- and resolve them as a package. maining $5 million in loans if the Sen. Jodie Mahony, D-El Dorado, and Sen. Dave Bisbee, R-Rogers, district obtains a final order from were the other two. the federal courts granting it com- A lot of hard work has gone plete unitary status and release into this, Aiiue said. And I re- from federal court supervision by member that a lot of people July 1,2004. thought it was a pipe dream. It was $20 million loan was a con- an instance where we were looking tentious provision of the 1989 flnan- at four issues and we couldnt re- cial settlement between the state wed go right back to where we solve any of them as we dealt with mid the Pulaski County school dis- them individually. tricts. AccoMing to the 1989 agree- As for his legislative colleagues, ment, the district would not have to Im going to encourage them to repay the loan if the scores earned understand that all parties were at black students on standardized the table, that everybody is giving fest scores were raised to at least 90 and everybody is gaining, he said, percent of the scores earned by If they choose to spoil the deal, white students by Dec. 31,2000. ..^'d o- Ls, ..e However, the state and the Lit- were with four big problems and tie Rock district never agreed on no resolution. the standardized test or the type of Gov. Mike Huckabee was out of score that should be used to detertown Thursday but said through a mine whether the district met its spokesman that he wanted to re- obligation. .................. The Little Rock district is oblig- serve comment until after the boards acted on the agreement. The tentative agreement was ated by the new agreement to accelerate its efforts to sell construction bonds and raise its level of circulating among various state and local officials on the same day debt from about $6 million to about the Little Rock School District sub- $11.8 million by early 2002, saving District voters approved a 5-mill mitted to U.S. Chief District Judge the state up to $125 million. Susan Webber Wright, a 167-page report of statistics showing the dis- tax increase last year for renovat- tricts efforts to comply with its ing buildings and expanding tech- 1998 desegregation plan. nology systems. As soon as that dis- A motion accompanied the re- trict uses that money to finance port asking Wright to give all other construction debt, the money wont parties in the 18-year-old desegre- be counted as revenue available to gation lawsuit 20 days to make any educate students in the district. objections to the districts asser- Thats important to state offi- tions of compliance. The district cials because the amount of rev- also asked the judge to declare the enue per child in the Little Rock district unitary, or desegregated to district is the standard by which .................................. state funding for all other school the extent practicable, on June 30. A declaration of unitaiy status districts is calculated. Every dis- would mean that the district would trict is guaranteed 80 percent of be released from continued feder- the funding available in Little court monitoring and involve- Rock. Unless the district uses its ment in its operations. The district new revenue to finance construe- has been involved in federal tion, the state will have to pump in school desegregation lawsuits for more money for other school sys- more than 40 years. terns in 2001-02. The $125 million The current lawsuit began in cost could wipe out money that 1982, when the Little Rock district Huckabee and other lawmakers sued the state and the other two want to increase teacher salaries. Tulaoki CuuiiLy ouliuul uiauiuU, Those raises, if made law, are exseeking consolidation as an end to pected to cost $122 million annual- Pulaski County school districts, racial segregation in the Pulaski ly when fully implemented. County piAlic schools. The federal In the proposed agreement, the courts found that the defendants district and state pledge to work to- were at fault but stopped short of gether for unitary status for the Lit- consolidation. The districts and tie Rock district. The agreement the state ultimately agreed to a fi- states that it can be modified by nancial settlement of more than the district and state based on fur- $129 million to be paid out over the ther consultation and discussion course of the 1990s. However, the with attorneys for the Joshua interdistricts continue to receive money venors, who represent the black from the state for ongoing desegre- students in the district in the ongo- ing desegregation lawsuit John Walker, the attorney for gation expenses. The proposed agreement between the state and district was the intervenors, could not be not submitted to the judge with the reached for comment Thursday. compliance report, but the two are tied together. Some of the attorneys involved in crafting the agreement included Little Rock district attorneys Chris Heller for the Little Rock and School Board members have School District
Timothy Gauger said they want to pursue unitary and Scott Smith for the Departstatus without a fear that the state ment of Education, and Olan would try to withdraw its funding Reeves for the governors office.o CM CM LR, state boards sign school funding pact Agreement maintaining desegregation programs called a marvelous step forward o JI V. I ! Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/JASON ANTHES LiWe Rock School District Superintendent Les Carnine signs an agreement that will continue state funding for the school system's desegregation programs. BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Arkansas Board of Education and the Little Rock School Board endorsed a landmark agreement Monday that will continue state funding for the citys desegregation programs and save millions in state funding to other districts. The state Education Board adopted the agreement with an 8-1 vote and little discussion in a telephone conference call. The Little Rock School Board followed suit three hours later with a 7-O vote. We're cautiously optimistic the settlement with the Little Rock School District will lead to a permanent conclusion of what has been a long, tedious court battle, Gov. Mike Huckabee said Monday through a spokesman. Little Rock School Board President Katherine Mitchell called the agreement historic and thanked all who were involved in its production. Baker Kumis, another Little Rock board member, said
This is bigger news than a presidential library, a new arena or anything like that. This is a marvelous step forward. The agreement paves the way for the Little Rock district to pursue release from federal court monitoring of its long-standing desegregation efforts without jeopardizing about $20 million a year in state support for the districts magnet schools and other desegregation-related expenses. The eight-page agreement crafted by attorneys for the district and the state at the urging of a handful of legislators, says the state will not attempt to cut desegregation funding to the Little Rock School Dis- trict at least until after June 1,2008. The agreement further relieves the district of repaying mosL if not all, of a $20 million state desegregation loan. In return, the agreement obligates the Little Rock district to vigorously pursue release from federal court monitoring of its desegregation efforts. The district also has pledged to structure its finances specifically money raised by a recent 5-mill tax increase so the districts revenue per student wont increase dramatically. That would force the state to infuse as much $125 million into other school districts to help them keep up with funding levels in Little Rock The amount of funding Little Rock has per student is the standard by which state funding for all See AGREEMENT, Page 8A Agreement Continued from Page 1A other Arkansas school districts is calculated. Eveiy district is guaranteed at least 80 percent of the funding available to the Little Rock district. Hie district will accelerate the sale of construction bonds, increasing its debt from about $6 million to more than $11.8 million by early 2002. Money eamiarked for debt payments wont be counted as revenue for educating Little Rock students. After Mondays vote, attorneys for both agencies will submit a joint request to Chief U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright to modify an earlier. court-approved agreement between the state and the school district that included the $20 million loan. According to that 1989 agreement the Little Rock district was to repay the loan if standardized test scores of black students were not raised to at least 90 percent of the scores of white students by Dec. 31,2000. The loan proved to be a point of contention because the two agencies could never agree on the test The newest agreement calls for the state to forgive the first $15 million of the low-interest loan right away. The district will be relieved of the remaining $5 million payment if it is released from court supervision by July 1,2004. The district asked Wright for unitary status or a declaration that it is desegregated to the extent practicable just last week. Timothy Gauger, an attorney who represented the state in the agreement negotiations, said Monday that should the federal courts reject the modified language on the $20 million loan, the loan provision of the new agreement can be severed from the rest of the agreement, which would still stand. Ray Simon, director of the Department of Education, acknowledged that some of the states districts would like to share in a $125 million infusion of state aid based on Little Rocks increased wealth. Producing that money would likely jeopardize efforts going on now in the state Legislature by Huckabee and Education Department leaders to pass a $3,000 teacher raise over the next two years. The real detriment would have been to the state, trying to provide that money [to match the Little Rock funding], said Simon. State Education Board member Betty Pickett of Conway cast the sole no vote on e agreement She said later that she felt the state was pushed into the agreement by a provision of the state funding system that guarantees districts will get at least 80 percent of what Little Rock gets. That guarantee is commonly referred to as the federal range ratio. If that is too high a standard for us to keep and we have to manipulate it, maybe we should look at it Maybe we should do something about that rather than halving to enter into an agreement that has so many ramifications. During the meeting Pickett questioned whether the agreement would have to be renegotiated if the Little Rock district should win another tax increase within the next seven years. Gauger said that probably would be necessary. Reaction to the agreement from an organization that represents all school districts was tempered Monday. Charles Knox, associate director of the Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators, said those educators who have followed the case never really expected Little Rock would have to repay the loam As for the potential increase of as much as $125 million into the state funding system based on increased Little Rock wealth, educators generally recognized that the state couldnt afford it, Knox said. The Little Rock board approved the agreement as former superintendent Don Roberts and incoming Superintendent T. Kenneth James watched. The agreement signed Monday, by Simon and Little Rock schools Superintendent Les Gamine is the latest development tn a lawsuit filed by the Little Rock district in 1982 against the state and the other two' Pulaski County school districts.
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.