M to M (Majority to Minority) transfers

SUMMARY EVALUATIONS OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL BUILDINGS (cont'd) Site Gen'l Sup- Struc- Alarms/ Site p)ort ture S M Safety HPGC Office Principals Custo- dial Cafeteria/ Library Auditorium/ Gym Center Media Special Stor- Toilets/ Rooms age Sinks Overall Notes Junior High Schools Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Jr. Mann Magnet Pulaski Hts. Jr. Southwest 6 4+ 8 8 7 7 5+ 5 8 6 7+ 6+ 5- 4 8 7+ 6 6 6 8 6- 6- 6+ 6 8 6+ 6 5 5 8 5+ 6 + 7 1 8 5- 6 10 8 9+ 8 6 7 8 8 6- 4 6- 4 6+ 6 8 6- Undergoing major renovations 3 4- 6- 5+ 5- 8- 6+ 8+ 4+ 5 CT) 6 + 5 4 4 7 1 2 6 6 4 6 6 4 4 4 + 6 4 4 4 6 1 7+ 5 6 4 6 3 3 3 8 Notes 7 - Very excellent plant, very poorly utilized. 8 - Overall estimate when renovations completed. Value Scale 10 - Excellent 8 - Very Good 6 - Average, acceptable 4 - Fair 2 - Poor 0 - No good or non-existent ______A An M-to-M (Majority -to -Minority) transfer occurs when a student transfers from a district and school where his/her race is in the majority to a district and school where his or her race is in the minority. Q Who is eligible? A Students who reside in Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County Special School Districts are eligible to apply for an M-to-M transfer. Q When do I apply for an M-to-Ml A Students may apply for first semester M-to-M transfer through October 1st
second semester students may apply through February 1st. Q How do I get an M-to-M transfer application? A An M-to-M application will be mailed to you if you request one from the Magnet Review Committee Office - (501) 758-0156. Upon completion, form must be returned to student's resident school district. Eligible Pre-Kindergarten through 6th Grade students from Pulaski County Special School District, and eligible 6th-12tli grade students from both North Little Kock and Pulaski County Special School Districts, may apply for a Majority-to-Minority (M-to-M) tran.sfer to the following Little Rock School District schools: Q Is transportation provided? A Transportation is provided for students who live more than two miles from their assigned school. Q Why do students make M-to-M transfers? Badgett* Bale* Baseline* Brady* Chicot* Cloverdale* David O. Dodd Fair Park* Forest Park Franklin Incentive* Fulbright Garland Incentive* Geyer Springs* Ish Incentive* Jefferson King Interdislrict* Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Incentive* Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Incentive* Rockefeller Incentive* Romine Interdislrict* Stephens Incentive* Terry Wakefield Washington Magnet Watson* Western Hills Wilson* Woodruff* t* A The reasons are as varied as the students! However, listed below is a sample of responses received when we surveyed M-to-M transfer students and parents
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS - To attend a school closer to parents' workplace
Cloverdale Forest Heights Dunbar Magnet Henderson Magnet Mabelvale Pulaski Heights Southwest SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS - To go to school where a relative or friend teaches/attends
- To participate in the Talented and Gifted Program (TAG) in Pulaski County, or Quest Program in North Little Rock, or the Enhance the Chance (ETC) Program in Little Rock School District
Central McClellan Magnet Hall J. A. Fair Eligible Kindergarten through 6th Grade students from Little Rock School District may apply for a Majority-to-Minority (M-to-M) transfer to the following Pulaski County Special School District schools: - To continue enrollment at same school after moving to another district
- To take advantage of programs not offered in the resident district
Arnold Drive Baker Bayou Meto Cato Crystal Hill Communications Magnet* Jacksonville JoeT. Robinson Lawson Murrell Taylor Oakbrooke Oak Grove* Pine Forest Pinewood Sherwood Sylvan Hills Tolleson Warren Dupree - (For high school students), to attend a school near afterschool job
Eligible 7th through 12th grade students from Little Rock School District may apply for an M-to-M transfer to the following North Little Rock or Pulaski County Special School District schools: Ridgeroad (7th-8lh graders) Lakewood (7Ui-8lh graders) Ncnh Little Rock High-East Campus (9th -10th graders) NcHlh Little Rock High-West Campus (11th -12tli graders) - To attend a school near after-school activities (scouting, piano/dance lessons, etc.) Pulaski County Special School District PURSUE THE POSSIBILITY OF MAKING AN M-TO-M TRANSFER Jacksonville Ncxthside (7-9) Robinson Junior (7-9) Robinson High (10-12) Sylvan Hills Junior (7-9) Jacksonville High (10-12) Sylvan Hills High (10-12) Northwood Junior (7-9) Oak Grove High (7-12) Nwth Pulaski High (10-12) * 4 YEAR OLD PROGRAM AVAILABLEOf Dec 17.91 12:38 No .003 P.01 OmCE OF DESEGREGATION .MONlTORLNO 291 EAST MARKWl, SUITE 510 herhage WaSt building LITTLE ROCK, ARKAN.5A.S 72201 TO
' <irr James Jennings, .Associate Superiiiieiidcnt for Desegregniinn Monitoring anti Contmunity Sen'ice.s. iJttc Rock Schoo! Disblci 1, Tederai Monitor .\HO-M Iransfers 15, 1991 nr!'.' requested M to-M transfer information from tlic flrcc school disl.ncts. Vne -^'Ajrcs wc recei.ed from die districts Jo not correlate, however, probably because M-to-M numbers nuct'jate frequenuy as students trensfer back and forth between districts. In order to be prepared for Wednesday's Iicarlng. vve need a unifo
n
chart which reMccr-j M-t'-- M intei'y-'-tlob tliat Is 3S current and acc'Jiate as possible, Piease complete the blank .spaces pertsining 1'9 your district on the tbail below, using 12-1-91 as the date of the iiiforrriarion Supplied, and return by fax (371-0100) no later than 9
00 a.m. tomorrow, 12-17*51, 'ank you vc:y .'noch. ECK r- LRSD SENDING TO: LRSD NUSD PCSSD TOTAL t ~i 'lR5D Rh'CLlVJNG ndOM
i! NLKS'G PCSSD : xx.xxx V'' xxxxx TOTAL 3 7^ > ij-' : t 'y V 7 NLRSn XXXXX xxxxx x.xxxx xxxxx XXXiKX xxxxx XXXXX xxxxx PCSSD XVVXV xxxxx X-XXiXX xxxxx yvi'y xxxxx xxxxx TOTAL aA, ! i A,-. x.xx
':x XXXX.X 11 fixHi xx'':<x xxxxx J xxxx.x A > t il>. 1OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 TO: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services, Little Rock School District FROM
Brown, Federal Monitor RE: M-to-M Transfers DATE: December 16, 1991 Our office recently requested M-to-M transfer information from the three school districts. The figures we received from the districts do not correlate, however, probably because M-to-M numbers fluctuate frequently as students transfer back and forth between districts. In order to be prepared for Wednesdays hearing, we need a uniform chart which reflects M-to- M interaction that is as current and accurate as possible. Please complete the blank spaces pertaining to your district on the chart below, using 12-1-91 as the date of the information supplied, and return by fax (371-0100) no later than 9:00 a.m. tomorrow, 12-17-91. Thank you very much. SENDING TO: RECEIVING FROM: LRSD NLRSD PCSSD TOTAL LRSD NLRSD PCSSD TOTAL LRSD XXXXX XXXXX NLRSD XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX PCSSD XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX TOTAL XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX08/04/92 13:28 0301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 002/002 Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE August 4,1992 For more information: Dianne Woodruff, 324-2020 TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION FOR M-TO-M TRANS^R STUDENTS Transportation for Little Rock School District students involved in majority to minority transfers may be arranged for the 1992-1993 school year by contacting the LRSD Student Assignment Office at 324-2272, Transportation for all extracurricular activities outside of regular class times will be handled by the individual schools' activity sponsors. Transportation assignment information concerning M-to-M transfer students will be mailed to parents by August 21. Parents with questions about transportation arrangements may contact either Mike Whalen of the LRSD Transportation Department, telephone 570-4000, or their child's building principal. // II08/04/92 13:26 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 0002/002 Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE / - August 4,1992 For more information
Dianne Woodruff, 324-2020 ZRANSPORTATTON information for M-to-M trans^r stitdents Transportanou for Little Rock School District students involved in majority to minority transfers may be arranged for the 1992-1993 school year by contacting the LRSD Student Assignment Office at 324-2272, Transportation for aU extracunicular activities outside of regular class times will be handled by the individual schools' activity - , sponsors. Transportation assignment information concerning M-to-M transfer students will be mailed, to parents by August 21. Parents with questions about transportation arrangements may contact either Mike Whalen of the LRSD Transportation Department, telephone 570-4000, or their child's building principaL Il II FTOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date
October 29, 1993 To: Sue Pederson From: Connie Hickman Tanner Subject: M-to-M and private school recruitment data request As we discussed today, I anticipate receiving the following information, as of October 1, 1993, from you by Monday, November 15,1993: The total number of M-to-M students that transferred to LRSD from NLRSD and PCSSD organized by the receiving school and race of each student The number of new M-to-M students that transferred to LRSD this school year from NLRSD and PCSSD organized by the receiving school and race of each student The total number of M-to-M students that LRSD transferred to NLRSD and PCSSD organized by the sending school and race of each student The number of new M-to-M students that LRSD transferred this school year to NLRSD and PCSSD organized by the sending school and race of each student I would also like the number of private school students who transferred to the LRSD, resulting from the districts recruitment efforts during the 1992-93 school year, as of October 1,1993. Please organize this information by school including each students race by grade. I understand that you have not tracked this information in the past, and that you do not know if or how long it will take to retrieve this data. Please let me know when is a reasonable time that I can expect to receive your private school data, if it is available. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to call me at 376-6200.PCSSD November 1 5, 1993 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 925 East Dixon Road/P.O. Sox 8601 Little Rock. Arkansas 72216-3601 (501) 490-2000 11=? n '-'SB*' Mr. Mark Milhotlen, Controller Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Ci :f Desegrsga:
n i/ic uing NOV 1 6 1593 Dear Mark: \Ne3re in receipt ot Dr. Williams' letter of October 20, 1993, regarding the pooling of funds paid to the school districts by the State of Arkansas on behalf of interdistrict school M-to-M students as called for in the Settlement Agreement. He states that the Littie Rock School District (LRSD) has serious concerns and that in the next few days. After repeated telephone calls to LRSD attorneys and staff regarding those concerns, we have to date received no specifics from anyone on this issue. We believe the relationship between the school districts in Pulaski County is critical t.o the successful implementation of t-h e-- --d--e--s-e-ag r-eGg-a--t-io--n- plans. The Settlement Agreernent was entered in good faith by the parties, and I believe its provisions should e implemented. We remain willing to review any legitimate concerns that LRSD may have regarding this issue, but to do nothing is not acceptable. Please let me know if 1 can provide additional information. Sincerely, Donald M. Stewart, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent - Business Affairs bay cc
Bobby G. Lester Billy Bowles Chris Heller Sam Jones Bob Morgan noy 15 ' 12 zs p.l ri & il rschvsd Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT NOV 1 5 1V93 Office of DesegregaSon Mcr:iici:na: October 20, 1993 deceived Pos^' brandjax transmittal memo 7^ TTi Mr. Bobby Lester Superintendent of Schools Pulaski County Special School 925 East Dixon Road P.O.-Bo.x 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216-8601 District Co. Oapt. PtxT Co. Phone t# I Pax fF c. 1^. b ' - i WSSCfl.-
-.-.. <wiw,abi Dear Mr. Lester: This communication is a response to your letter received October 11, 1993, in which you requested that the Little Rock School District pay the Pulaski County Soecial School District S167,113 for the 1992-93 school year. Your request was based on the pooling provision in e Desegregation Settlement Agreement. ' Recently, I met with several members of our staff and two of our attorneys, Chris Heller and Jerry Malone, to review this matter. The Desegregation Settlement A^eement was negotiated in good faith, and we would like to continue along those lines. However, you must remember there are numerous components of this provision. For the parties to deal with a specific component in isolation appears to minimize the intent and spirit of the pooling provision. We have some serious concerns regarding the financial and educational impact of this request on our students. Therefore, I have directed our attorneys to consult with you and your attorneys regarding all of the components of the pooling provision in lieu of merely focusing on one area of the agreemenT, I agree with you that it is best when the parties can reach accord without outside mvolvement. Our attorneys will make contact within the next few days to discuss our concerns. Sincerely, I Henry P/Williams Superintendent HP^/lks 810 West Mailkhain Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (301) 3^000 DEC 08 '93 16:07 1993-94 M-TO-M TRANSFERS LRSD TO PCSSD (Black Students) receiveo DEC Q 1993 P.l Receiving School Total Number Baker 65 Cato 4 Flit *Assigned 1993-94 25 1 College Station Crystal Hill 12 2 341 88 Dupree Fuller 1 1 3 0 Jacksonville 2 0 Lawson 25 15 Oak Grove 16 11 Oakbrooke 7 1 Pine Forest 3 0 Pinewood 4 1 Robinson 59 19 Sherwood 4 4 Sylvan Hills Taylor Tolleson 21 18 4 2 6 5 Total Elementary 577 88 Fuller Jr. High Jacksonville Northside 6 S Jacksonville Southside Jacksonville High North Pulaski Northwood Oak Grove High Robinson Jr. High Robinson High Scott Alternative Sylvan Hills Jr. High Sylvan Hills High Total Secondary GRAND TOTAL *Included in total number NOTE: 4 5 9 12 6 47 71 59 1 59 44 323 900 9 o 1 03 c 2 s *0 c 2 I a 9 fe Q 5 1 2 2 c 5 2 9 4 32 28 20 c o u & o O 0 32 19 151 344 We do not have M-to-M transfers between NLRSD and PCSSD.1993-94 DESEGREGATION TRANSFER APPLICATIONS Senior High: Total applications received 12th grade 11th grade 10th grade SUMMARY 3 30 214 247 12th grade: TO W FROM W 11th grade: 10 14 10 25 30 Central Hall - Fair - McClellan Central Hall Fair McClellan 10 25 1- 12 11 30 B T B T 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 3 3 2 4 3 3 1 5 3 4 4 8 3 5 10th grade: 44 17 61 Central 46 30 76 51 24 75 Hall 13 22 47 20 67 Fair 17 23 10 11 McClellan 80 13 93 152 62 214 152 62 214 9 6 1 Racial % Impact if all applications are granted/lOth grade Before After Central Hall Fair McClellan 587 260 295 425 64.4% 59.6% 67.5% 80.0% 572 313 339 343 66.9% 62.9% 67.5% 78.7%10th grade Deseg Transfer Applications: to Central T W B from Hall 12 19 from Fair 11 14 from McClel 26 28 44 17 61 7 3 2 to Hall from Central 19 21 39 from Fair 5 2 6 from McClel 27 28 51 24 75 1 to Fair from Central 18 26 9 from Hall 3 1 2 from McClel 27 10 37 47 20 67 to McClellan from Central 9 9 from Hall from Fair 1 1 2 10 1 11McClellan High School/1993-94 Assignments 10th grade 3-9-93 5-21-93 T i,21 339 B 336 2^1 88 69 NB 91 72 19 13 - Desegregation Transfers 4 - moved out of LRSD 17 11th grade 3-9-93 5-21-93 341 327 14 254 243 11 sr- - 84 " 3 3 - Desegregation Transfer 12th grade 3-9-93 5-21-93 236 234 2 163 162 1 13 12 17 :nO3L : 1933/03/02 3-:00L ft. te ". ltd T C u d X xcL^ale ft' ite
'<ax e ,aie other Count aCk white Percent othei rercent Percent Min Eiack Max 1 Slack He?. CapaJ-ty H fl -I t ves-a "1 i 12 1 1.1 Tt 5 i s? 10 5 204 0 177 5 331 3 89 ------G- 0 107 ----1 3 196 0 -fr 0 5 e- 0 6 i ij TO'Eai Tsttv Tjtrt- IrgTT -31 686 24- 4T : to in ''2 19 20 21 ? 23 t ? W tf ' r * .21 t-l r?* 28 I : :3O 31 32 33: i I 1 39- ! i_ 39 39 "to 2 - JJ
,SSi* trrrr- i- u 41 I 42 ' 48 -----O 8 583 7 06 -te3 gg.-Sl 62.5% 65.4% 60.2% ~t o .5 ei.ct 16.71 37.5% 33.6% 3 o . 8 % 38.3% 3e^^ 1 W 0% 0% S-rS^ 59.st .0% .Ot 45.0% 67,5% 45.01 57.57, 0 661 rcr 7<, T] toi tli n-r^ .\*
\ -*s-,> T.. -.v<..xr<*%rfWW <,lB< .3fl< i>-.SSl,MX.-7t J0A- - -> 7x-^ gjss>gt-^'in..-aiaaag^-.s^i^i^^gSSgsiT
i
gfe
j^ 21 21 22 23 22. 29 29 27 2 SO 03 8 OTTT CLN I HAL Hl-3pr'cCH0UI7 Cldss Black Slack TcTinaTtr^TT Total White 1 J White vr C HOOl Total Other ytfflaie Whiteha'l e LHOQL Other Jotal Total "Femalt' ' Other IcuhT Black Pe'f'Sijht 1993/05/21 White Other pc?tfrhT pgreeriT Min % 31 ask Max % BlACk PAGE I, 10 & M A <>> P I 4 2 > I il >ao 7?--J" c I e r* l Sso >i 5Tl [ r : i34 - i I: |3 <4 ISO i 53 . 10 1 1 3- 187 193 192 225 ~T^/' T- ------5- 379 618 1 n Max X'iipacltv Total 529 1 1A6 ? 90 1 16 TOT 105 160 T25 1 r 195 256 22b 0 tr 10 F 0 Cr 1 1 TT 0 -v 10 17 Tar 5 r 586 691 * 335------ 80.0% * sr. n 66.9% 60.5% 3'8.'3%------ 20.0% 62.9% 33.6% 37.0% 38.8% .0% ---0% 1.7% 2.5% 3: 1% 59.5% ------ror 65,0% 65.0% '63. U% 75.0% ------rtrtr 67.5% 67.5% B7.b% 50 ------0~ 667 66? 666 311 370 581 18 07 k3 1872 61.2% 36.6% 2.6% c ! 18 ' '4
. -' - C .6Xk >e 20 I 21 I 22 2S ze IT >0 91 c 7| sa 9 C 41 42 41 ' 4>^ 1 IL' esl se- 671 80i I s
J 41 e-si 8 4^ *l 681rsf z..
il 49 SP
i0 Tot^i aC 5 82 .05 a. y te White ife Tot Gt?. Kl.iLe Mc.i = rxer iOtc.1 rer.-.ale Other Count Ferceiit 5 1 .11 72. -154 104 79 213 156 1 48 61 5 47 63 12 3 95 107 113 0 0 - 344 0 0 4 ' 24 ^' 0 7_ 6 8 TJ 14 256 326 283 78.6% 60.2% 65.3% 55.1% 33T TT TO- TT 557 wliite J / 0 J / 01' Other Percent Percent ^3V 21.4% 37.1% 32.8% 42.0% 3T .1^ "'i- ?5.'- Min Elack Ma
-: % Slac.k Ka
-. Capacity 70% 40.0% 75.0% .0% 2,1% 1.8% 2.8%
v .0% 4S.0% 45.0% 45.0% .0% 51. 51.0^ 51 .S'i ~7Tr 0. 400 400 400 I ? ! ? h r
10 12 >3
Bi J>- Ss i . iS. 21 22 23 , u. u ** it aKhS^ XL ze M \ at 3B 30 40 42 43 i* 01 Lr.20 SCIIOQLl 002 KAuL UXOH OClIOut:- NEXT YEZ'
hool counts iCriOC'L 1993/05/21 PAGE I 2 Bladkp BiacR' < Jotaj Whjte White eeniatf Total Other'/O^her . Total Total . P"g Hld lg O tb* C T Cuurrt Black pyruerit White Other Per i.en t Per cert' Min % -e^hJrck- Max % ClBck- Max Capj-crtv NB ! S:- B i' B i- .- I?> - I -i -i K gh 0 0 0 9 -t-c V* Q e 0 e to at 90 at 82 33 36 3S I' !} 40 !*' 42 4S S 47 4 40 ^50 161 11 3Q7/ .
S3 107 202 ^"8 2147. Tea'. r**- tris- 61 47: -e<r 109 109 119 ' ii 'S-' 1 -e 3 '^5 ? -tr 1 . 5 '< 5 15 +5- 316 328 .0% * 00.0% . 63.9% < B5.2% '' 'Sg-et 93.3% 20.0% 34.5% 33-2%. 4 1 5% 6.7% .0%- 1.6% 1.5% 2.-^^ 40.0% ------ rev 45.0% 45.0% 75.0% ------ re%- 67.5% 67.0% '97 .'5%- 2Q ----- AGO 400 400""-- I I Total 300 293 593 166 19/. 350 9 9 19 951 61.3% 36.8% 1,9% Jii StI.'SaS j .>!- .e""" ^iStfs-eS^iShW
Mrt. g 'S :aw. t*..- Si jp' 12 jz4- 128 2B 80 81 97 3 40 42 44 I 461 46!^ ii""!! hii I4' la * 85 66 88 98 60 t 09 04 05 ee f r t^.
j. r! r e 2 s 1 r . c IO tai w: ack M White eiiiale White Male Sthei >tal Total xemale Other Count B13 c h Percent White Other Percent Percent Min % Black Max -t Black Ka?. Capacity e 12 19 s T la ao a
? is.. I s s i>- <1- -5"/
. o a 20 >0 3? 82 93 134 "'1 I oli ? r cl i: < Ci t. 140
i t o !*'- <2 43 146 Ci.7 !*^{ Toj Cisoi sr 10 11 (T 5 86 ~Ty 10 113 100 SI 15 199 201 153 7 4S 0 2 47 53 40 S' -1 95 IOS 92 ff 0 0 TT Q 1 1 3 ly 0 i. 5 if 22 295 312 * 266 .OT 68.2% 67.5% 64 . 63.5% :is^- 31.8% 32.2% 34.6% 34.6% TiT? 40.0% TKITJV .0% .0% .0% .3% 45.0%. 67.5% 1.0% 1.9% 45.0% 45.0% 67.5% 67.5% 0 306 305 305 tel 276 534 160 142 5 9 .. 895 65.3% 33.7% 1.0% 12 13 te ,. X . .S. VX * J, . s _ ~z s 1 17 la 2S. 21 22 23 1 i I W w 20 27 Uj s^ "'t k ''ts**!*^*.-.- xtiel z> BO st iSfesE^S: "St 94 88 at 87 98 9B 40 41 ie 43l 46| 46
47 49 40 SC 51 52 Cf ! I .SSI 3e sal i<p 60 "eil "-1 63: 64 I 6f
4- i'- e r I j: no eb' i. %3 01 LRSD bCHUULfOOS FAIR HibH ScHUOC Class BTaok Black Total White Ma Ie [ eifia is Si acl'v I e NEXT YEAR SCHOOL COUNTS SY SCHOOL 1993/05/21 PAGE 7 Whi te Total Other rema'le ' Wh te Ha le Other- Total Total Perna Ie other CdtniT BT ack Percent White - Other , Min % Percent percent B1 ack Max %%: "Max Bl acRT capacity -SP- 10 11 Total 1B t3 1 st i SB Z1 20 !* fw I > s C, 3 ,*<0 4S 45 !" 0 ------6 106 97 82 " 0 nr 112 103 TT 0 ns" 218 200 THT Q -------5" 60 55'- 0 ~3 52-.
so ' 0 8" 112 105 89- 0 IT 0 0 O o 1 T 0 CT 0 3 S 0 25------ 330 * .0% * 66.7% 66.1% 308 * ? Si*.91 291 310 601 170 1/*/* 3Ut 4 e TTBT 923 gz^'
oT 65.1% & 45?* *5 *i**. 'Li"" 4..-1- ?r a. jwr fras
t t- .0% 33:3T- 33.9% 35.1% 35. TV 3Z*.O1 <v-* *** .0% Tor .0% 1.01- TTST .9% 50.0% Tor TTSTOT *t.V 'e ** 75.0% Tor 67.5% 20 ------0- 306 67.5%.' 305 67:5r 3TIT SP *2 f I .3S. !=' :2 ! I I* = -. t 1- t I* J 40 I -rtei Hi# i >l> J 49! 90-^ I fti 1 ! ! 60 St 2 6S cs^ -i^r r 01 LRSD SCHOOL
01 HC CLCLLAH HIGit i K NEXT YEAR SCHOOL COUNTS SY SCHOOL T 1993/05/21 PAGE 1 1 < -'if - fil aik -.,. el ack- ' Totq.^,
wh2 te ^yhi te Total Other . Other Hat'C 0 rs-io - i ciii<il e E i t" 'ha tv' epifl.jle Other Total .Total , trooiTt Black.:- PyT'vg'rrt~~ White Pei'TTgTT'L Pai'ueiit Other , , Hin $ Hax % Max^ el J01'. elai-k 'Capac Tty < I 6 0 -r 126 0 tr n 0 * 139 ' 2i3 -257,^" 35
0 *5- 0 0 -Q- 0 -0- 0 .0% * t<0 ^1*0 ..SBs oc S.^2. UX<.Ss. V *-**- 69" "-------------- ?9-3t .0% go.&% < 75.0% ------rev AO.0% ------rev .0% vOV S-BVt*. 22O0..4i<1V4^- .^- ^-99%% --..--2255..O01%k 67*^%^ 20 e- In'* I..: TT W TT T 99.5% 39.9% " -t-rW 69'. Ot
cy.S^. e- 10 Total 3A0 351 691 115 109 223 6 10 92A 7A.8% 2A. 1% 1.1% 12 !< '"i S3t^ 20 < 1 < 31 32 23 20 SO c c 94 3S 33 i. n 33 so 2*' 42 h-^ c. 4S 4? rt 3 4 so SI < u e r 2 r c e i6>st.. n *.4 S'usaii.-^aefr.P^'z- 1 10 12 1 01 LRSD SCHOOL: 01g WC CLLLLAN HIGH 5CHQQL NEXT YEAR SCHOOL COUNTS BY SCHOOL 1993/05/21 PAGE 1 1 < n w 6 a Class Black ---------------MOlg" fi 1 ack r v 111 d Tt- Total White White Total Other White Other Total Total eptmt' Black Percent" White Other 'PuruyiTt 'Peruent' Min t el dck Max % 8 lack Max Capac ! ty < < K 10 11 TT 0 ro- 139 10A '"'82' Q -----IT 128 139 0 r 267 2^*3 0 0 0 s- 0 -e- Total 30 351 691 ---- -- Ss Ca e ' 9 a 27 29 a 90 'U' 3&
' iiO -rr 115 c 91 32 89 i. 9S 30 t I f 3B 30 *' 42 49 40 c t SO SI AO -32- 108 80 6tr ^1 ----- 0 e f 3 i'-u-y-v 6 0 3 if 10 iK K. 0 24 339 32? '234" .0% * ?9.-2t------ 78.8% * 'lk,3% 89.2% '*' .0% 20.81 20.At 24.5t 29.8t .0% -rOV .9% 1.2t tryt 40. Ot -------rW 45. Ot 43. Gt 45.01 75.0% ------rOV- 67.5% 67.5t" 87 rV^'- 20 -----------e 3@A -.'393 ------390 iu.'< i . !13 14 < 92A -7tK.e% 2U. 1% 1 . 1% 41 1_ -z3 F < ji. ixss-i 20 121 22 28 24 2B t . '^t-. -3^/ i.1 f 20 80 t < SB ai C SB I 40' ei 62 i 03 ' t f:kool NLZT 0- 1993/03/09 Blsck Kale Black Bemale Total White Elack Kale White Total Other Other Total Total 4 r 2 C ii I' 'f 9 ftIg g 1i I Female White Male Female Other Count Black Percent White Other Min Max Max Percent Percent Elack Black Capacity K SF ,10. 11 V 15 164. S4 0 s
111 147 79 0 5M. 254 02 42 33 03 Ji 41 32 05 83 70 0 0 JL 0 0 J. 1 2 0 0 _2. 4 3 0 25 A22. 3-41 236 .0% 80.0% 7.8, IX li.5^^ 69.1% * .0% 20.0% 2p.....6,a. 24.3% 29.7% .0% 40.0% .0% .5% 1.2% 1.3% .0% 75.0% .0% 45.0^ 67.5% 45.0% 45.0% 67.5% 67.5% 20 0 393 393 Total 370 403 77,3 123 lie 247 3 6 9 1029 15.li 24.0% ,9% 10 11 12 19 12 10 24 I 'i I 20 20 27 29 SO I 32 1 t9 3S M 35 se ^^1X4 i 4O' t I?
* ! li-e.! J
ie ! 6t ! 56 { 56: i 60^ I 61 1 ! TEL: 8:43 No .001 P.Ol 1 Nov 22,93 1 UTTLS KOCK SCHOOL DISWCT OmCB OF DBSBOHBOATIOH Ml ManMa UtU Mack, AX 73M> FAX (501) 324-2281 DATX TO g- TA n p Y? r*OM S u p.rA e <\ SENDER'S PHONE # 324-2271 SUBJECT Special Instructions Nwakw PaM (imAwU >*<- rax PtwBC Mwater LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72202 November 18, 1993 TO: Ann Brown, Melissa Guldin, Bob Morgan, Margie Powell, Horace Smith, and Connie Hickman Tanner Office of Desegregation Monitoring FROM: Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent for //Vt Desegregation C. SUBJECT: Request for Information for Monitoring the Elementary Interdistrict .Schools Per your request of October 27, 1993, the following information is provided: 1) The number of M-to-M transfers to each interdislrict school by school year, race, gender, and sending school. TO BAKER INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL 1989-90 Information Not Available 1990-91 Information Not Available 1991-92 A total of 59 students were as sending schools not available. igned to Baker. Gender and 1992-93 Sending School Number Male Ferna1e Badgett Bale Baseline Brady Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Franklin 4 1 1 6 3 5 5 5 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 5 1 4 2 4 4Fulbright Geyer Springs Jefferson Meadowcliff Otter Creek Rightsell Romine Terry Washington Wilson 4 1 1 3 2 2 3 2 3 14 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 7 II TOTAL 1993-94 Badgett Bale Baseline Brady Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springe Jefferson McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Romine Terry Wakefield Washington Wilson TOTAL 2 2 1 3 1 2 7 65 32 33 Number Male Female 3 3 2 2 5 3 9 4 3 1 1 2 1 1 7 2 2 8 13 79 TO CRYSTAL HILL INTERDlSTRICT SCHOOL 1992-93 Sendincr School Badgett Bale Baseline Brady Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Number 1 13 10 11 16 9 16 8 2 2 1 3 1 2 8 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 7 37 Male 1 6 8 5 8 10 3 1 1 1 4 2 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 5 1 2 1 6 42 Female 7 2 6 8 4 6 5TEL: Nov 22,93 8:45 No .002 P.Ol 3 Number Male Female Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs ish Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Wilson Woodruff 3 18 16 10 5 3 3 9 12 8 11 .3 8 6 18 2 9 5 17 18 4 28 5 2 12 8 7 2 7 6 4 7 2 5 3 8 ] 3 2 9 6 2 15 4 1 6 8 3 5 3 1 2 6 4 4 1 3 3 10 1 6 3 8 12 2 13 1 TOTAL 305 161 144 1993-94 Number Male Female Badgett' Bale Baseline Brady Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Jefferson King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller' 1 12 12 14 16 11 22 7 4 20 16 7 5 9 6 11 16 12 17 1 3 5 7 1 3 10 7 9 & 13 4 3 12 9 5 1 3 2 8 10 8 10 1 2 1 3 9 2 7 7 5 9 3 1 8 7 2 4 6 4 3 6 4 7 1 4 4TEL: Nov 22.93 8:45 No.002 P.02 Number Male Female Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Kills Wilson Woodruf 17 3 8 7 6 21 9 28 6 7 1 2 1 6 6 5 16 4 10 2 6 6 15 4 12 2 TOTAL 339 179 150 2) Ths number of students from outside Pulaski County enrolled at each interdistrict school. TO KING 1993-94 Sending District Number Race Male Ferna1e Benton Bryant Conway England Lonoke 1 1 1 1 2 W W W w w 1 1 1 1 1 1 TOTAL 6 5 1 TO ROMINE 1991-92 None 1992-93 None 1993-94 None TO WASHINGTON 1991-92 None 1992-93 None 1993-94 None3} 'Hie number of intradi ftbrict trancfexs to each intcrdictrict school. TO KING 1993-94 Sending School- Number Male Black Female Ma] e Nonblack Female Bale Baseline Brady Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Jefferson McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Washington Watson Wilson 5 5 1 5 7 1 2 11 3 1 5 10 4 2 12 15 5 4 2 1 2 11 3 1 TOTAL 127 TO ROMINE 1991-92 Sending School Number 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 3. 1 1 2 1 1 6 4 7 7 6 3 1 3 6 1 1 53 Black Male 2 2 1 2 2 3 2 1 4 7 1 1 2 1 4 1 33 Female 2 4 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 22 Nonblack Male 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 19 FeiTial e Badgett Bale Baseline Brady Chi cot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park 2 11 5 16 3 3 15 5 1 5 2 8 1 1 6 2 1 5 2 Q 2 2 5 3 1 1 2 2I 1 11 Number Black Male Female Male Nonblack Female Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Jefferson King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightaell Rockefeller Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Wilson Woodruff 2 7 20 2 1 2 8 5 11 4 1 1 3 2 1 1 6 1 3 5 10 29 1 1 4 9 1 3 8 2 1 2 TOTAL 186 1992-93 Badgett Bale Baseline Brady Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens Terry 2 17 4 11 2 3 20 6 2 8 21 2 1 12 3 13 5 1 3 1 1 1 6 1 1 4 2 5 2 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 3 7 3 3 10 1 3 3 3 8 76 75 21 .1 1 1 4 14 1 4 1 7 1 5 3 4 4 4 1 1 1 6 2 1 4 11 2 5 3 1 3 8 2 4 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 6 1 3 2 1 1 4 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 37 TEL: Nov 22,93 8:49 No .003 P.Ol Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Wilson Woodruff Number 1 2 11 8 26 2 Male 1 2 4 1 4 1 Black Female Male Nonblack Female TOTAL 195 65 1993-94 Badgett Hale Baseline Brady- Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Terry- Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Wilson Woodruff 1 14 2 13 1 1 21 2 7 22 2 1 4 7 4 2 3 2 1 1 6 6 24 2 1 1 1 7 4 1 4 10 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 TOTAL 149 43 TO WASHINGTON 1991-92 Badgett Bale Baseline Brady Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park 4 9 9 26 14 16 5 13 3 3 6 2 1 3 7 2 5 1 3 10 2 I sa 32 30 3 1 2 1 4 1 3 7 2 1 2 1 5 1 4 1 41 2 1 2 3 4 3 1 3 3 6 2 2 2 1 1 2 11 33 1 5 3 11 6 2 2 7 1 1 7 3 1 3 2 1 32 2 2 1 3 9 4Number Male Black Ferna1e Male Nonblack Female. Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Jefferson King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Watson Western Hills WjIson Woodruff 14 9 38 8 10 30 13 9 29 10 6 9 8 14 20 6 4 16 13 7 G 23 2 4 3 6 3 3 10 5 1 2 2 3 2 4 7 6 1 3 4 1 1 3 1 5 5 10 5 2 9 8 1 3 2 3 4 2 6 12 4 3 1 1 4 3 2 3 1 12 2 8 3 13 1 2 2 1 2 1 10 5 1 1 8 2 10 3 3 4 11 5 1 3 2 3 1 1 10 1 TOTAL 400 93 111 111 85 1992-93 Badgett Bale Baseline Brady- Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Jefferson King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell 5 11 7 28 10 17 6 3 13 5 30 8 8 32 9 9 29 9 5 9 7 13 4 1 1 6 3 3 2 4 4 2 3 3 14 4 1 2 3 3 2 2 6 1 2 1 2 2 3 3 1 4 1 9 5 1 12 h 1 3 1 2 4 6 5 3 14 3 4 3 2 G 2 7 3 3 2 14 1 4 4 12 2 2 1 1 5 3 2 3 1 2 3 1 3Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Watson Western Hills Wilson Woodruff Number 21 6 1 IG 10 6 3 29 1 Male 9 Black Female 10 Male 2 4 Nonblack Female 2 TOTAL 373 1993-94 Badgett Bale Baseine Brady Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Jefferson King Mabelvale McDexmaott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Watson Western Hills Wilson Woodruff 2 10 7 24 13 15 4 18 13 3 22 7 3 27 6 9 18 7 4 11 7 12 19 5 1 15 7 8 2 33 ] NOTE: TOTAL 333 Information concerning 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 5 1 1 9 5 1 4 2 12 1 13 1 90 90 109 84 1 1 1 6 3 2 2 5 2 2 3 2 12 3 1 1 3 2 2 4 6 8 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 4 1 1 4 1 11 3 1 2 1 2 5 1 6 2 9 5 4 2 6 3 1 3 7 4 e 9 1 8 5 2 2 2 2 1 5 9 2 1 2 1 4 2 80 78 interdistrict and 3 9 1 3 2 1 2 1 8 3 1 13 95 4 6 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 18 1 80 intradietriCt transfers is based on the students' current address. We do not have address files reflecting the students' address at the time they were assigned./iu-ao/aa 15:1? QSUl 3:4 :
U31 L R School Dlst --- ODM 002/004 RECEn/EO OCT 2 6 1993 Qffic it Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH Ain>.,EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Date
October 26, 1993 To: From
Connie Tanner, Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring Sterling IngraJ^^irector Planning, Research and Evaluation Re: Interdistrict Transfers - 1992-93 School Year Attached you will find information for the 1992-93 school year student transfers to Crystal Hill Magnet School, Baker Interdistrict School and Romine Interdistrict School., Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or require further information. bjgiU-' io - MJ io
i I j
4 2UJ
L K scnooi uist oca 1^003. 004 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS ' 72201 1 9 9 2 - 9 3 tjaSD aTTOBNTS ASSIGNED TO CRYSTAL HTLI. SENDING SCHOOLi NUMBER OF STUDENTS Badgeti: Bale Baseline Brady Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Ish Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Wilson Woodruff TOTAL 1 13 10 11 16 9 16 8 3 18 16 10 5 3 3 9 12 8 11 3 8 6 18 2 9 5 17 18 4 28 5 30S..iu- -u, X J . xo UJUl jx-i U K 3CI1OOX vise --- uux lg|UU4/(J(J4 I LRSD 8TUDBST8 ASSIgWBD TP BAKER I i SENDDTG SCHOOL: NUMBER OF STUDENTS Badgett Bale Baseline Brady Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Jefferson Meadowcliff Otter Creek Rightsell RoBiine Terry Washington Wilson TOTAL ,4 1 1 3 's 5 4 il 1 3 2 2 3 2 3 14 i 5 i INTRA-DISTRICT TRANSFERS TO ROMIMB SENDING SCHOOL: NUMBER OF STUDENTS BLACK NON-BLACK Bale Baseline Brady Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garlamd Ish Jefferson McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Rightsell Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Wilson Woodruff TOTAL 10 5 15 2 23 5 3 '3 22 2 3 14 8 1 i 3 i 2 I ,3 9 31 i i 175 2 4 IS 2 11 5 3 3 21 2 3 11 3 1 1 3 1 1 4 2 3 6 8 1 8 1 0 0 12 0 0 0 1 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 23 0 ! I I I f I 1X$ 59INTER- and INTRADISTRICT TRANSFERS to the ELEMENTARY INTERDISTRICT SCHOOLS Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring February 1994 Receiving Schools Sending District LRSD NLRSD PCSSD 196990 199991 1991-92 1992-93 199394 196990 199991 1991-92 1992-93 199394 198990 199991 1991-92 1992-93 199394 Baker Crystal Hill King Romine Washington B W B VI B 59 VI 0 B W B VI B B W B W 6 W B W B W B VI B VI B VI B VI N/A N/A 165 261 N/A N/A 60 11 Informalion not available NIA N/A 155 210 N/A N/A 34 203 NIA N/A N/A 151 204 N/A 35 196 65 0 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 8 0 6 0 5 2 305 N/A 133 180 0 N/A 62 193 N/A - Not Applicable 339 86 84 158 0 41 65 175 N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 N/A NIA 0 73 N/A NIA 0 0 N/A NIA 0 65 0 0 0 0 N/A NIA NIA NIA N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A 0 0 N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 152 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 10 0 2 64 0 37 N/A N/A 0 61 0 74 0 65 0 65 Note: Although Washington Magnet is not among the six elementary interdistrict schools named in the desegregation plan, it nonetheless functions as an Interdistrict school under the terms of the settlement agreements and court orders. The chart above is based on the number of students each district sent (not received) to interdistrict schools and is extracted from the most recent information available: LRSD
Memos dated November 18. 1993 and December 6, 1993 from Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. NLRSD
November 26, 1991 memo and June 4,1993 M-to-M transfer listing from Mable Bynum, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation
district reports dated October 1, 1992 and October 1, 1993. PCSSD: Memos dated December 11, 1990, December 3,1991, January 12,1993, and December 14, 1993 from Eddie Collins, Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Services.M-to-M TRANSFERS TO WASHINGTON Washington became an interdistrict magnet school beginning with the 1990-91 school year. Below is Washingtons five year enrollment, based on October 1 enrollment figures. BLACK WHITE OTHER TOTAL % BLACK 1988-89 0 0 0 0 0 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 510 438 480 483 519 98 313 356 332 11 762 841 822 57 57 59 8 1 5 7 As reported by NLRSD and PCSSD, below is the number of students sent to Washington by NLRSD and PCSSD on M-to-M transfers. NLRSD PCSSD TOTAL 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 73 65 64 61 74 65 134 139 129 As reported by LRSD, below is the number of students Washington received from NLRSD and PCSSD on M-to-M transfers. NLRSD PCSSD TOTAL 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 57 65 55 43 74 58 100 139 113 Prepared by Office of Desegregation Monitoring June 8, 1993.XESJt TRANS DEPT TEL :570-4009 Nov 2501 17 26 No.019 P.02 *w' aS 'fi Little Rock School District Transportation Department April 19, 1994 Ms. Melissa R. Guldin Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern Division of Arkansas 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 LR, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Guldin, With regard, Mr. Montgomery has asked me to respond to your request for information. Whenever there is a new student or an address change for an M-to-M student, a request from the LRSD Student Assignment office is sent to this department by means of phone, mail, and fax. It takes approximately 3 days before a stop goes into effect from the time this information is received in our office. Bub routes are given to the M-to-M Drivers to pass out to the students whenever there is a change in a particular route. This action is because some M-to-M Schools do not feel that it is their students. responsibility to get this information to the This office has always made every effort possible to get current route information to parents/students and will continue to do so. Please feel free to contact this office for any further information or assistance. Sincerely, Jayne Agnes Safety Supervisor 810 West MarkJiani Street Little Rock, .IrkanSHs 72201 (5oi)aa4-2ooo1 I VTC . . ,.i SAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION DI 'T LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Sy: 'jj. :. PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE F APPEAL Notice is hereby given that the Little Rock School District, the Pulaski County Special School District and the Joshua Intervenors appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the order of the district court entered in this action on January 13, 1995 to the extent that order did not provide the full financial and other relief requested by these parties. Respectfully submitted. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS M. Samuel Jones 2000 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, 72201 (501) 371-0808 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK Christopher Heller 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 JOSHUA INTERVENORS JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. John W. Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 By: Christopher Hellef^ Bar No. 81083CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Appeal has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 16th day of February, 1995: Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg,, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 2 if- received ri DiS- I 'I'RIC' Oilice APR 2 2 1994 01 Deseyregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT APR f 5 JQ04 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS '' WESTERN DIVISION IV. Gy
l''rcCOniVWCi<, plXent CLEFiK V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF APPEAL Plaintiff Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the March 16, 1994 Order which requires the Little Rock School District pay the Pulaski County Special School District the sum of $167,113 within sixty days of the date of the entry of the Order. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 cEristopher Helle^^ Bar No. 81083CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Appeal has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 15th day of April, 1994: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Christopher Helle: 2 REC .1 FEB 2 7 1995 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT . EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EAoTERN district ARKANSAS Office of Desegregation Monitoring WESTERN DIVISION JAMES VV. McCORMACX By: CLEFiX LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTCEPPclerk V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS RESPONSE AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF JOSHUA, LRSD AND PCSSD'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL AND CROSS-MOTION FOR COMPLIANCE Statement of Facts The responding parties do not dispute the statement of facts set forth by the State and ADE. Argument A casual reader of the State's motion for stay would likely form the impression that a stay is sought to suspend collection of a "mere money judgment" that has arisen in a routine contract dispute. However, the "status quo II which the State seeks to FEB 2 4 iAC preserve is a far different thing than that which might be generated between a lender and a borrower who have a dispute concerning the repayment of a note. The unique context of the present dispute arises in the setting of the State, as an adjudicated violator of the Constitution, now having been found guilty of violating a settlement agreement which it promised to uphold as well as state law that it is charged with administering. Indeed, a core portion of the 11 status quo tl which the State seeks to preserve includes judicial findings that the State: "...is deliberately discriminating against the Districts with respect to the provision of loss funding for a decline in enrollment related to the loss of M-to-M students, H and that the Arkansas Department of Education "ha determined to discriminate against the three Pulaski County Districts with respect to M-to-M students. II Further, that the State, through the Arkansas Public School Computer Network (APSCN), in pursuing a state-wide computer network system, offered these three Districts implementation options that were "meaningless, worthless choices. designed for rejection on the part of the three Districts, . tl and that this activity was in violation of the Settlement Agreement. Moreover, the order for which the state now seeks a stay is replete with mandates and injunctive admonitions to recalculate and restore funds due the three Districts dating back to the 1992-93 school year. The State knows as well as any other party to this case the precarious financial condition of these Districts and the recent history of all three in pursuing oftentimes radical and controversial budget cuts necessary for them to remain financially solvent. It thus becomes particularly pernicious for the State to seek a delay in compliance with the 2order of this Court, particularly when its conduct has been so egregious, Recouproent It is ludicrous for the State to compare its ability to recoup monies that should be paid to these three Districts to the situation of the government's inability to recoup payments made to welfare recipients. (See State's brief at page 5). First, in contrast to welfare recipients, the State absolutely controls the flow of millions of dollars a year to these three school Districts and will remain in that position long after the resolution of any appeal in this case. The State is absolutely protected in its ability to recoup any funds it is ordered to pay now. Second, there are only three school districts for which calculations must be paid and to which money must be paid. The burden of paying the Districts and, if necessary, recouping the payments is extremely small compared to the burden of paying hundreds or thousands of welfare recipients. Further, in the unique circumstances of this case. it is appropriate for the District Court to assess the prospects for the likelihood of success of the State's appeal and to take that into account in determining whether to order a stay or whether to order the State to make immediate payment to the Districts.' 'On appeal, the State has the burden of proving both that the District Court abused its discretion in its interpretation of the settlement agreement or was II clearly erroneous fl at its factual findings, including those of deliberate in arriving discrimination against the three districts. These parties submit 3These parties submit that not only should the Court deny the State's stay request out of hand, but that the Court should exercise its equitable and legal authority to order the State to make the calculations it was ordered to make in the Order of January 13, 1995 and to remit the appropriate sums to these three Districts by March 15, 1995. ! Respectfully submitted: Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 i Attorneys for Little Rock School District John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 s S Attorneys for Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al. and Katherine Knight, et al. WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 S I ( By. 6 M. Saim Attorfr ji^l eys Special S ones III /(76060) or Pulaski County ool District that the State's prospects for success on appeal are relatively dismal. .atVLMiN JWl' 4On February CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1994, a copy of the foregoing was mailed to the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Sa: el ones, 113 / i k 5! i 09/07/95 12:52 WRIGHT, LINDSEY, 8, JENNINGS NO. 282 P002/010 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS PCSSD RESPONSE TO LRSD PRETRIAL INFORMATION CONCERNING POOLING OF M-TQ-M FUNDS The PCSSD Offers the following response to the pooling submission submitted by ths LRSD. As explained below, many of the contentions made by the LRSD are simply flat wrong. First, LRSD contends that the pooling provisions create a pool of money "for the education of all interdistrict school students." This leaves the impression that the pooled money is sufficient, on a per student basis, to fund the education of aii the intardistrict school students. However, let us remember that at any particular intardistrict school, the M-to-M students cannot comprise more than 49.99% of the student body. To exceed that number would disqualify the school for M-to-M transfer. Accordingly, at most, the pooled money might provide something slightly more than one-half of the money necessary to educate all the interdistrict school students since the host district will have to fund the shortfall out of its own general revenues.09x07/95 12:53 WRIGHT, LINDSEY, & JENNINGS NO.232 P003/010 Second, the LRSD contends that these provisions "were intended to require the same expenditure per student for each interdistrict school student. Expenditure per student does not equate to equalizing instructional budgets. Instructional budgets, whatever they may be determined to be by this Court, are necessarily something less than expenditures per student, the latter of which encompasses and allocates a broad array of non-instruotional coats including central administration, transportation, construction and maintenance and debt service. Indeed, after making this assertion, LRSD recognizes, in the next paragraph on page 2 of its submission, that expenditure per student is something different than instructional budgets. Third, the LRSD contends "if not for the agreement to equalize budgets, the amount spent by PCSSD to educate LRSD M-to- M transfer students would be significantly lower than the amount spent by LRSD to educate PCSSD transfer students." Says who? This existential leap of reasoning cannot be supported by any facts. The only significance to the $3600 and $2900 is the fact that when the M-to-M agreement was drafted in 1986, these were the sums each District spent on average in its regular schools. I The Court will recall the charts (attached as Exhibits 10 and 11) prepared by the ODM several months ago which were prompted by an analysis of double funding at the incentive schools. The Court will recall that the highest funded incentive school spent almost $9,000 per student while the lowest funded area school spent just over $2,000 per student. Thus, since the advent of double funding for the incentive schools, LRSD*8 overall average expenditure per student has been consistently skewed and overstated because the incentive school expenditures 2 B09/07/95 12:53 WRIGHT, LINDSEY, 8. JENNINGS NO. 282 P004/010 There were no interdistrict schools then, there were no interdistrict school programs than, and there were no instructional budgets for interdistrict schools. Since the PCSSD has programs and themes at its interdistrict schools that it does not have in its regular schools, it follows that the instructional programs cost more at those schools than at its regular schools. In what may amount to simply transcription errors, the LRSD has suggested a formula at page 3 which is mathematically impossible to implement. In subparagraph (c), the LRSD first proposes that the pooled funds should be divided by the total number of M-to-M transfer students attending interdistrict schools to calculate an amount per student. However, they then suggest that the amount per student as determined be multiplied by the number of students attending the school. Because the number of students attending the interdistrict schools is massively in excess of the number of M-to-M students attending those schools, this formula would outstrip the pool by several multiples. At page 4 of its submission, the LRSD quotes from a Don Stewart to Bobby Lester memo that: It has been observed that equalizing the instructional budgets of all Interdistrict Schools, as called for in the agreement, would not be practical and in fact might cause both districts to make major changes in the instructional programs of these schools solely for the purposes of this agreement rather than for instructional or desegregation reasons. are included to calculate its district-wide average. 309/07/95 12:54 URISHT, LINDSEY. 8. JENNINGS NO. 282 8005/010 Perhaps unbeknownst to the present LRSD administration, the "observer" referred to in the Stewart memo is Chip Jonas, the former manager of support services for the Little Rock School District. It was he, not someone from the PCSSD, who "observed" that equalizing instructional budgets would not be practical and might cause major changes in the instructional programs solely to comply with the agreement rather than for instructional or desegregation reasons. As the PCSSD observed in its own submission, it agreed to this at the suggestion of the LRSD. Also at page 4, the LRSD sets forth its belief: "[T]hat it has expended and continues to expand (sic) more money per student to educate PCSSD students in its interdistrict schools than PCSSD spends per student to educate LRSD students and (sic) PCSSD interdistrict schools." Nowhere in its submissions to date has the LRSD made any demonstration in support of its "belief". In fact, the PCSSD intends to offer proof at the hearing that it is the PCSSD which has the higher instructional budgets in its interdistrict schools. (See Exhibit 9 attached.) As to LRSD's belated counter-claim for $500,000, suffice it to say that LRSD articulates no cognizable legal reason why the PCSSD should ever have to pay the LRSD $.500,000 regardless of which settlement provisions have or may not have been met. ^Because Mr. Jones was, at the time, the Chief Financial Officer of the LRSD, his request, which was acceded to by the PCSSD, constitutes a novation or reformation of the original contract which is binding on the LRSD. 4I 09/07/95 12:55 WRIGHT, LINDSEY, a JENNINGS NO.282 P006/010 Indeed, on the page preceding the counterclaim, the LRSD graciously stated
LRSD does not believe their (sic) should be any redistribution of the state funds paid to LRSD and PCSSD for M-to-M transfer students who attend the interdistrict schools. The process of desegregation and continued cooperation among the parties would not be advanced by an effort by LRSD to recover the amount of any under-funding of its M-to-M transfer students... Enforcement of the pooling provision as originally proposed by the PCSSD will enhance the desegregation process because it will continue the incentive for both parties to encourage County students to transfer to the LRSD interdistrict schools since that process will both increase the size of the pool and narrow or eliminate the distribution presently owed the PCSSD. To sustain the position of the LRSD would be to discourage further interdistrict movement to the detriment of the ultimate desegregation goals. The position urged by the PCSSD is in fact a reflection of the original incentives built into the M-to-M stipulation. The more students the PCSSD can recruit the greater will be its share of the redistributed pool. This will by itself advance the desegregation goals of all of the parties. 509/07/95 12:56 WRIGHT, LINDSEY, 8. JENNINGS NO. 282 P007/010 The PCSSD motion should be granted. Respectfully submitted
WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 t / By. 'A- M. Samusfl iones III (76060) Attorneys fior Pulaski county speciil SmooI District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September 25, 1994, a copy of the foregoing was hand delivered to the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 410 W, Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr, Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas Ste. 510 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 I M. SaauellJonas, II I 6[PC55D WIEHDISIHICI SGIKXMS CUNTT^ EtaiENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 1 IWSraUCnOMALBaPPBESIgt-SS TOTAL Otlieft WSt. EXPEWSE -------------aBO ________6S4.67 $53.357-68 n O TI G \ o CL CRYSTAL ^8LL aaAStTAHY SOIOOL IHSTHUCTOWAL EXPENSES 1984-95 total OIWBTWSr.EXPBISE OTTLD^^EMkPeiAIMl xar 789j00 <81.4 .11 siofiLsr rM> OOI nit d' z BAKBIBJEMBKTAnV^XOOL STRUCTICHALEMPOtSES199-96 TOTAL OTHER 4WST. EXFOCE aTtLBCT.EXP.PgTAia* TMnEE SCHCKA. AVBWOE USS aoeic? m .828.86 $237^12 siiasi SOURCE: DtSTTWCTCOMPUTBR PRHTDUT majuoes EXPCMsra prom opol b oeseg. fdsl a "Z. I od LHSO INTEROISTBICT SCHOOLS WASHM8TOH ELatENTARY WSTWUCnOWALEXPgiSES 1984-95 TOTAL OniCT8ST.EXFEWSE OTH.IMST.EXP.FB1ACU "" ADM 67287 $41.95811 $6236 UJ cn o z. 2j> 4 -1 q: 3 u. l. kmb b^uoitary school MSTRUCTKMALEXFSiSeS 199<-9S TOTAL CnrHEHIHST.EXPOCE OTH. WST. EXP. FBI ADU ~~~ ADM 53848 $40,808^ $78^ o <)>' ins rj '^n n nOUHE ELEUanARV SCHOOL WSTRMCT1OWAL EXPENSES 1994- TOTAL OOHER WST. EXTBtSE OTH. WST. EXP-PER ADM THREE SCHOOL AVawGE MM 344.08 $70.74818 820861 W894 SOURCE: LRSD HNML BUDGET/JULY . 1996 3 \ Q) O09/07z'95 12:57 WRIGHT. LINDSEY, 8. JENNINGS NO. 282 P009/010 Per Pupil Expenditure by School 10e2-1M3 Actual School Number School Name Actual 91-92 Expenditure Budget 92-93 Actual 92-93 Enrollment Black % Per Pupil Expenditure Oct 1 1992 Oct 1 1892 92-93 Actual 51 47 46 24 33 48 50 31 52 18 20 38 29 37 22 42 30 45 28 32 40 17 44 19 23 25 36 39 34 26 49 41 Wakefield Terry Mablevale Rorest Park Meadowcllff Fullbright Otter Creek Cloverdale Watson Bracy .McDermott Pulaski Heigtita Western Hills Geyer Springs Baseline Washington Jefferson Woodruff Chicot Dodd Romine Bale Wilson Badgett Fair Park Franklin Rockefeller Rightsell Mitchell Garland ISh Steohens 51,080,201.87 51.201,389.07 51,206,535,14 $981,517,03 $1,076,268.43 $1,330,115.51 $851,542.87 $934,944.01 $1,131,45156 $1,041,098.68 $1,317,443.02 $839,547.56 $877,344.34 $707,928.80 $885,849,79 52,162.216.22 51,304.570.79 $649,511.89 $1,486,051.76 $849,570.99 51,103,629.12 $1,013,230.42 $1,111,388.63 $697,035.45 $883,765,97 $1,575,718,57 $1,637,994,32 51,162,902,06 $1,208,845,13 $1,289,211,46 $1,011,279,63 $1,163,545.97 $1,019,654.16 51,160,444.45 $1,147,518.12 $869,050.69 $1,002,625.92 $1,324,804.26 $802,665.92 $923,339.39 $1,112,392.78 $990,898.05 51,222.557.18 5903.190.50 $821,912.41 $719,345.29 $808,448.38 $2,223,513.84 $1,274,108.31 $639,833.62 $1,455,057.31 5809.999.35 51,231.023.03 $1,029,374,87 $1,131,098.45 $641,908.51 $872,728.18 $1,801,195.82 $1,707,964.33 $1,284,635.19 $1,280,639,42 $1,317,330.72 $1,160,352,63 51,274.741.49 $1,041,513.36 $1,175,147.95 $1,127,149.24 $1,009,041.26 $1,051,067.36 $1,317,057.53 $879,354.11 $919,636.35 $1,136,159.29 $1,009,510.96 $1,291,407.38 $969,181.35 $870,983.22 $755,880.79 $915,687.59 $2,242,77297 $1,340,589.71 $669,017.57 $1,532,460.98 $872,46296 $1.1^7,564.73 $1,040,097.06 $1,196,557.69 $724,769.38 $873,357.37 $1,733,066.35 $1,758,362,40 $1,238,081.45 $1,319,496.71 $1,384,930.53 $1,021,284.19 $1,255,977.41 500 541 500 444 440 530 3S3 366 451 398 509 379 335 282 339 822 483 234 535 304 361 321 355 202 243 411 361 249 264 256 187 209 69 44 56 45 66 42 41 80 74 69 54 52 62 63 77 59 42 63 65 60 77 77 75 76 79 86 69 96 88 91 97 97 $2,083.03 $2,172.18 $2,254.30 52,272.62 $2,388.79 $2,485.01 $2,491.09 $2,512.67 $2,519.20 $2,536.46 $2,537 15 $2,557.21 $2.599 95 $2,679.72 $2,701.14 $2,728.43 $2,775.55 $2,859.05 $2,364.41 $2,369.94 $3,178.85 $3,240.18 $3,370.59 $3,537.97 $3,594.06 $4,216.71 $4,870.81 $4,972.21 $4,998.09 $5,409.88 $5,461.41 $6,009.46 Note: FTE Ie from the 1993-1994 budget and does not reflect ohangee due to enrollment losses rto<i 0/ th* Cflte# of DMflrotKin Motwomfl Smm uoan infbfmilion SuppM bK i"Sctwoi Nmnber Scttool Name Actual 91-92 Expetxfitwe Budget 92-93 Per Pupil Expendifure by School 1993-1994 Budget Actual 92-93 Enrollment Black % Per Ptgyil Budget 93-94 Expenditure Oct 1 1992 Oct 1 1992 FTE 92 93 Actual EnroVment BJack % Per p^pji Oct 11993 Oct 1 1993 O tn \ o \ to Ln 47 24 46 33 51 20 38 50 48 29 30 52 37 18 31 45 35 22 32 28 42 44 23 17 19 40 25 36 34 39 20 41 49 Terry Fores* Park MaMevate MearkarcW WakeiieU McOermoB Pifaski Hek^rts OUet Creek Fidbo^ Western Hs -Jefferson Watson Geyer Sfeings Brwly Clowericble WooAvifl M.L. King Basefrre Dodd Chicot Washargton Wfeon Fair Park Bate Badgett Rcarahe Fivildki Rockefeter Mlthel Rigirtsell Garland Stephens hh $1,201.38907 $981,517.03 $1206,53514 $1.076269 43 $1.080201 67 $1,317.44302 $839.547 56 $851.54207 $1,330,115.51 $877.344 34 $1204.570 79 $1,131.45256 $707.92800 $1,041,090 68 $934.94401 $649,51189 $1,160.444 45 $869.05069 $1,147.510 12 $1,002,62592 $1,019,65416 $1,222,557 10 $903,19050 $00266592 $1,324,804 26 $821.91241 $1,274.108 81 $1.11239278 $719.345 29 $990,890 05 $923,33989 $639.83362 93-94 Budgeied $885.849 79 $849.570 99 $1,406,061.76 $2,162.21622 $1.111J88 63 $083,76597 $1,013.230 42 $697.035 45 $1,103.62912 $1,575,718.57 $1,637.994 32 $1,208,845 13 $1.16290206 $1,289.21146 $1,163.545 97 $1,011.27963 $008.448 36 $809.99985 $1,455.05731 $2223.513 84 $1,131,098 45 $872,728.18 $1,029.374 87 $641.90851 $1,231,028.03 $1,801,195.82 $1,707.964 33 $1,280.639 42 $1204.635 19 $1,317.830 72 $1,274,741 49 $1,160.35263 $1,175,147.95 $1,009.04126 $1,127.14924 $1,051.067 36 $1,041.51336 $1,291,407.88 $969,18135 $879,354 11 $1317,057,53 $870,983.22 $1,340,989.71 $1,136.159 29 $755.600 79 $1,009.51096 $919.63635 $669,017.57 $25,501.31 $915.687 59 $872.46296 $1.53246058 $2.24277297 $1,196.557 69 $873.35737 $1,040,097 06 $724,769 38 $1,147,564.73 $1,733.06685 $1,758,362 40 $1319,49671 $1,238,081.45 $1,384.93053 $1356.97741 $1.021384 19 541 444 500 440 500 509 379 353 S30 336 483 451 282 398 366 234 339 304 535 822 356 243 321 202 361 411 361 204 249 256 209 187 7^***"" <fcwno <fc 1o nrefcwm lossas 44 45 56 66 69 54 52 41 42 62 42 74 63 69 00 63 77 60 65 59 75 79 77 76 77 86 69 08 96 91 97 97 $2.17210 $1,2O1
97891 iZ2r2e2 $1,034.064 02 $225430 $1,149,041.07 $2.388 79 $1,044.33695 $208303 $1,101,790.19 $253715 $1.31425617 $2,557 21 $2491 09 $240501 $2,599.95 $1,049.04032 $911.09287 $1.39296559 $894.63277 $2,775.55 $1,360.88752 $251920 $1,195,073.02 $^679.72 3781,275 30 $2.53646 $1,090.13640 $251267 $2059 05 $1,091,282.28 $687.64224 O $1,658,064.16 $2701.14 $1,031,401.06 $2.06994 $880.21587 $2.864 41 $1,617.84551 $272843 52.389.30033 $3.37059 $1200.69651 $3.594 06 $918.16206 $3,240.18 $1,158,843.33 $3,587.97 $737.55185 $3,178.85 $1,329.91136 $421671 $1,636,195.14 $4,870 81 $1,877.36519 $4.99809 $1,370,625.10 $4.97221 $1278.75459 $5,409.88 $1,444.866 58 $6,009.46 $1,318.56268 $5,461 41 $70.411J25 45 37 46 33 41 42 40 30 47 34 45 43 34 43 42 27 4 41 35 64 90 40 32 43 28 45 62 72 50 44 50 46 561 458 488 434 447 509 390 341 520 332 504 442 288 397 306 236 553 343 292 509 721 354 263 303 189 334 345 340 230 109 205 145 43 44 64 71 75 51 48 41 45 66 42 00 72 66 79 62 65 es 70 63 74 76 74 70 74 87 71 93 97 08 97 $2.14256 $2257 78 $2354.59 $2406.31 $2464 86 $258204 $2635.70 $2,671,83 $2678.78 $2.69460 $2700.17 $2703 79 $272318 $2745.34 $282716 $2913.74 $2999 75 $3,007.00 $3.014 44 $3,178.48 $3,286.13 $3.39100 $3,491.11 $3.82457 $3.90239 $3,981.77 $4.74259 $5,521 66 $5.9^24 $6.76590 $7.04013 $9.09354 UKMdhlf IO U, CO s tn I r z o tn m po 01 z -Z. tn co Z p IvJ CO w "0 Q O \ O O 09/07x95 12:51 WRIGHT, LINDSEY, i JENNINGS dM -ft. NO. 232 P001/010 WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3689 (501) 371-0808 Facsimile Cover Sheet PLEASE DELIVER IMMEDIATELY TO: Ann Brown Data: September 7, 1995 12:37 pm Fax No.: 371-0100 FROM: M. Samuel Jones, III Our Fax No.: (501) 376-9442 TOTAL PAGES INCLUDING THIS PAGE: 10 REMARKS: Confirmation: by Regular Mail Q by Expedited Mail None DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED: Response regarding pooling Ref. No. 5406-14007 If all pages not received, please contact: Joanne at 371-0808, Ext. 293. Intended only for the use of the addressseis). It contains Information which Is confidential - ttof'^V-cHent pnvilage or otherwise not subject to disclosure. If you are not the Intended recipient ** ' ssponsible for deliverino the message to the intended recipient, any use of this distribution or copying of this communication, Is strictly prohibited. If you have In Pf8e notify us Immediately by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service, Thank You.r Memo To: From: Subject: Date: Mr. Larry Robertson Gene Jones Secondary Schools with Magnet Programs Report January 8, 1996 As a result of our conversation last Thursday, I am limiting my request for student discipline information to the current M-to-M magnet students at Central, Dunbar, Henderson, and McClellan. The names and ID numbers are listed below. Central 914776 McElderry, Jac 918071 Feldman, Jonat 934872 Batton, John 896275 Chidambaram,V 966053 Diblasi, Monica 966047 Boehm, Ellen 914786 Sanders, Janet 933787 Belotti, Leah 933813 Hollman, Virgin 933809 Penn, Michael 933788 Rawn, Jeremy 903566 Santini, James 913726 McElderry, Jos 957775 Holcomb, Jared 923081 Littlepage, Jon 918857 Young, Seth 918087 Rawn, Jason 914775 McElderry, Rob 918695 Parker, Wesley Dunbar 974390 Berry, Kath 974388 Berry, Kimberl 972777 Ryan, Eimear 972591 Carter, Sarah 969948 Proctor, Rebec 917606 Vinsant, Stevi 972953 Mathews, Hilla 933852 Johnson, Rober 928213 Morris, Ryan 932013 Anderson, DaviMr. Larry Robertson Page 2 January 8, 1996 Dunbar, contd 973678 Bassett, Matth 908271 Elfstrom, Caro 925340 Bowman, Lindsa 914798 Dowell, Jenife 900252 Grady, Natasha 968852 Heavener, Crist 973711 Pitchford, Meli 926423 Barlow, Clare 908226 Thomasson, Mel 959893 Brown, Jason 958889 Ebbs, Daniel 923067 Dorfman, Micha 908089 Webb, Justin 936999 Fraser, Daniel 895218 Wheat, Christo 894431 Perritt, Samuel 918823 Young, miranda 958445 Page, Lorita 929962 Burchfield, Eli 957783 Tricot, Karen 950448 Barlow, Kimber 967591 Grossman, Eliz 896280 Daniel, Jess 969532 McNeill, Russell 912915 Owers, Roderic Henderson 958254 Froehlich, Kell 972587 Blom, Erna 972589 Graham, Zacha 960400 Qualls, Kevin 973128 Vaughn, Jason 910212 Johnson, Jennif 957788 Droptiny, Aman 896105 Moore, Samuel 923134 Wofford, John 935323 Bell, Galen 936643 Ward, Harley 956343 Burrell, Joshua McClellan 973003 Waller, WendiMr. Larry Robertson Page 3 January 8, 1996 McClellan, contd. 160742 Perritt, Benjam 899622 Dyson, Misti 904292 Thomas, Kristy 966033 Baldy, Brandon 904246 Taylor, Susan Thank you for the help and cooperation you have extended to me.f FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRfOAV (1 922-1 984) ROBERT V. LIGHT. P.A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR.. P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRV. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY, P.A. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR., P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR., P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III, P.A. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II, P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR, P.A. JOSEPH B, HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN UI. P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S . MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M EBEL III, P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201*3493 TELEPHONE 501*376*2011 FAX NO. 501*376*2147 January 26, 1996 RECBWO 2 9 1996 CLYDE TAB* TURNER, P.A. CALVIN J. HALL. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. JERRY L. MALONE, P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY, P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH, JR., P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. H.CHARLES08CHWEN0.JR..P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER, P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH, P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. J. MICHAEL PICKENS. P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE, P.A. ANDREW T. TURNER DAVID M. GRAF CARLA G . SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. ALLISON GRAVES JONANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY 0. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN BETTY J. OEMORY BARBARA J. RAND JAMES W. SMITH CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT WILL BOND DANIEL L. HERRINGTON Office of Desegregation Monitoring COUNCCl WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE, JR.. P.A. B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY, P.A. WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR.. P.A. RlTIB't DIRECT NO. Hon. James W. McCormack Clerk of Court United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 W. Capitol, Suite 402 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 (501) 370-3323 Re: Little Rock School District, et al vs. Pulaski County Special School District, et al USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Mr. McCormack Enclosed herewith please find an original and three copies of the Little Rock School District's Proposed Findings and Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding the Pooling Agreement with regard to the above-captioned matter. Please file same and return a file marked copy to us. counsel of record. By copy of this letter we are serving all Sincerely, J^n C. Fendley, Jr. JCFjr/cf Enclosures cc: Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. John Walker (w/encl.) Sam Jones (w/encl.) Steve Jones (w/encl.) Richard Roachell )(w/encl.) Ann Brown (w/encl.) Mr. Timothy G. Gauger (w/encl.)Hon. Susan Webber Wright (w/encl.)IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-O82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL .Mw 2 9 1995 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office of desegregation ^^onitoring INTERVENORS LRSD'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND FACT . AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING THE POOLING AGREEMENT INTRODUCTION This action concerns implementation of the September 1989 Settlement Agreement ("Settlement Agreement") in the above-styled case. The Pulaski County Special School District ("PCSSD") moved for an order requiring the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") to pay PCSSD $167,113.00 in majority-to-minority ("M-to-M") payments received by LRSD from the State of Arkansas based on Section II, Paragraph O of the Settlement Agreement (the "Pooling Agreement"). LRSD responded to PCSSD's motion alleging that LRSD was released from its pooling obligations by PCSSD's anticipatory breach. Based on the party's pleadings, this Court ruled that. even assuming PCSSD was in breach, the clauses of the Pooling Agreement at issue were unrelated and ordered LRSD to pay PCSSD $167,113.00. LRSD appealed. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit vacated this Court's order and directed it to "take evidence regarding the purposes of the clausesat issue." See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 60 F.3d 435, 436 (Sth Cir. 1995). The Eighth Circuit specifically identified the following issues to be addressed on remand: (1) Was equalization
the Pooling Agreement means to facilitate a (2) What was meant by the term "equalize"
(3) Whether the schools are equalized
and, "instructional budgets" of interdistrict (4) Why is there no central account into which pooled moneys are deposited? Id., at 436-37. Following hearings during which both parties presented evidence. this Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 52. Any other statement in this opinion which may be deemed a finding of fact is also adopted as such. FINDINGS OF FACT A. Background. 1. The Pooling Agreement resolved two disputes between LRSD and PCSSD. The first dispute concerned $2 million to be paid by the State of Arkansas as a part of the Settlement Agreement. The original version of the Settlement Agreement contained formulas by which the State would make payments to LRSD and PCSSD. The final version of the Settlement Agreement converted those formulas to a fixed stream of payments. This conversion resulted in $2 million in State settlement funds to which both LRSD and PCSSD claimed entitlement. 23 . The second dispute related to M-to-M payments from the State. The M-to-M Stipulation provides, "The state shall pay the costs for full-time equivalent students who have been transferred to the host district. tl [Docket No. 706]. PCSSD argued that this provision required the State to pay the host district the home district's average per student cost. This would have increased the amount of M-to-M payments to PCSSD because LRSD's average per student cost was greater than PCSSD's. 4. PCSSD's argument was inconsistent with the State's interpretation of the M-to-M Stipulation and its practice of paying the host district its average per student cost. [Transcript, v. I*, p. 114-15
Transcript, v. II, p. 125]. Dr. Donald Stewart, PCSSD's Chief Financial Officer, testified: I supported Mr. Sam Jones' . . argument that we really should be receiving [LRSD's] average cost for educating a student because based on the theory well, I'm not sure based on what. would have given us more money. It was a good argument because it [Transcript, v. I, p. 115].^ 5. The Pooling Agreement provides: 1) In any application for aid pursuant to Section 6 of *The transcript of the September 9, 1995, hearing is cited as volume I, and the transcript of the December 14, 1995, hearing is cited as volume II. ^Dr. Stewart later offered as a basis for PCSSD's argument that LRSD students are more expensive to educate. However, Dr. Stewart admitted that he was not aware of any evidence that LRSD M-to-M transfer students would be more expensive to educate than PCSSD students. [Transcript, v. II, p. 123]. Dr. Stewart further admitted that even assuming PCSSD was spending a little more on LRSD M-to-M transfer students, PCSSD was not spending as much per student as LRSD. [Transcript, v. II, p. 124]. 3Act 24 of the 1989 Regular Session of the Arkansas General Assembly, the receiving district for M to M students may include in such application any M to M students it hosts who are eligible for participation pursuant to section 6(A) of said Act. 2) The State shall continue to make payments under the August 26, 1986 M to M stipulation so that the host district receives its average cost of educating a student for each M to M transfer student enrolled in the host district. 3) When at least one Interdistrict School is operating in LRSD and PCSSD, all M to M payments generated by Interdistrict School students paid by the State to LRSD and PCSSD (including payment to each district as sending district and receiving district), except transportation payments, will be pooled for the education of all Interdistrict School students. The instructional budgets of the Interdistrict Schools will be equalized. This provision does not change each district's obligation to construct and maintain the Interdistrict Schools within its boundaries. The State payments for M to M students not enrolled in Interdistrict Schools will continue in accordance with paragraph (2) above. 4) Beginning the first year an Interdistrict School is operating in LRSD and PCSSD, PCSSD will contribute $200,000 per year for five years to the pool of funds to be used by both districts Schools. to operate Interdistrict [Settlement Agreement 2, 5 0]. 6. Both LRSD (Romine and Washington) and PCSSD (Baker) had interdistrict schools operating in the 1991-92 school year. [Transcript, v. I, p. 97]. B. Was the Pooling Agreement a means to facilitate equalization? 7. Although PCSSD originally contended that the sentences in paragraph three of the Pooling Agreement concerning pooling and equalization were unrelated and "simply happen to appear in the same section of the Settlement Agreement," [Docket No. 2101], PCSSD's own witnesses testified at trial that the provisions are 4related. Dr. Stewart testified: Q: resolve And section "O" is all part of one agreement made to settlement? those issues that arose after the March A. That is correct. Q. And the component related to each other? parts of section "O" are all A. Yes. [Transcript, v. II, p. 11]. PCSSD Superintendent Bobby Lester's testimony was identical to that of Dr. Stewart. [Lester Depo., p. The fact that pooling and equalization are described in consecutive sentences in the same paragraph of the Pooling 6] . 8. Agreement also indicates that the provisions are related. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that the final sentence in that paragraph begins, "This provision . . II referring to the entire paragraph. [Settlement Agreement II, 5 0(3)]. 9. How the provisions are related was explained by Dr. Ruth Steele who was LRSD Superintendent from July of 1989 through June 30, 1992, [Steele Depo., p. 4], and who was involved in negotiating the Pooling Agreement. [S^ Steele Depo., p. 6-7]. Dr. Steele testified that the funds in the pool were to II be used for the education of students attending the interdistrict schools" and that "the amount that would be spent would be equalized so that no students from either district would be penalized in terms of a per pupil expenditure . . II [Steele Depo., p. 7]. 10. PCSSD came forward with no evidence which contradicted the testimony of Dr. Steele. Even assuming such evidence exists. 5this Court finds Dr. Steele's testimony to be credible and gives it substantial weight. Accordingly, this Court finds that the Pooling Agreement was a means to facilitate equalization. B. What is meant by the term "equalize"? 11. Both LRSD and PCSSD agree (and this Court finds) that the term "equalize" means an equal per pupil expenditure. 12. The only contemporaneous explanation of the meaning of the Pooling Agreement was made by Chris Heller, Attorney for LRSD, during hearings before Special Master Aubrey McCutcheon on September 26 and 27, 1989. [Transcript, v. I, p. 124
Transcript V. II, p. 14]. In explaining the Pooling Agreement to the Special Master, Heller stated: Another issue that has been resolved is that once interdistrict schools are operating in both Little Rock and Pulaski County, the state funding generated by those interdistrict[] students'* would be pooled and the operation budgets for those two schools or whatever number of schools would be interdistrict students, equalized so whether attending school that in Pulaski County or Little Rock, would have the same amount spent for their education. [Transcript, v. II, p. 13 (emphasis supplied)]. 13. Dr. Stewart agreed that the Pooling Agreement, as explained by Heller, required an equal per pupil expenditure: Q. Now, if we assume that equalizing instructional At these hearings, the parties were seeking approval of the Settlement Agreement, and the Special Master was attempting to determine whether there was, in fact, an agreement among the parties. [Transcript, v. II, p. 12]. lRSD and PCSSD agree that only M-to-M payments are to be pooled and not all state funding generated by interdistrict school students. [Transcript, v. II, p. 43-44]. 6budgets means that the same amount is going to be spent for the education of students, whether they go to school in the Pulaski County School District or the Little Rock School District, doesn't that mean you would have to build your budget based on an agreed upon equal per student expenditure? A. Under that assumption, yes. * * * Q. In order to have the same amount spent for their education, don't you have to develop a budget based on an equal per pupil expenditure? A. Technically, yes. [Transcript, V. II/ P- 43-44]. Dr. Stewart admitted that the "assumption" made in the above question was exactly what Heller reported to the Special Master was the intent of the Pooling Agreement. [Transcript, V. 11/ P- 43-44]. Dr. Stewart also admitted that a budget can be prepared based on a predetermined per pupil amount. [Transcript, V. II, P- 39] . An interdistrict school's budget could then be calculated by multiplying the number of students by the established per pupil budget. [Transcript, v. II, p. 44-45]. 14. The parties agree that the funds from the pool should be distributed on a per student basis but disagree as to which students should be counted for the purpose of distribution. r See Transcript, v. II, p. 41-42]. PCSSD contends that only M-to-M transfer students attending interdistrict schools should be considered. LRSD argues that all interdistrict school students should be considered. The Pooling Agreement is unambiguous in this regard. It provides. "[A]11 M-to-M payments generated by Interdistrict School students . will be pooled for the 7education of all Interdistrict School students." [Settlement Agreement II, 1 0(3) (emphasis supplied)]. Thus, the plain language of the Pooling Agreement states that the relevant student population for distribution of the pool is "all Interdistrict School Students. 15. Even assuming the Pooling Agreement to be ambiguous in this regard, the evidence presented a trial further supports the conclusion that the parties intended the pool to be distributed based on the total number of interdistrict school students. 16. In addition to resolving the disputes noted above, the Pooling Agreement served two additional purposes. First, both districts were concerned that the M-to-M Stipulation would work to the advantage of the other and viewed pooling as a hedge against this possibility. [Transcript, v. I, p. 10, 11 and 2 0
Lester Depo., p. 7]. Second, LRSD was concerned that LRSD students n attending PCSSD interdistrict schools would not have resources spent for their education equivalent to what would be spent on the students if they remained in LRSD. At the time of the agreement. LRSD was spending on average $800.00 to $900.00 more per student than PCSSD. [Transcript, v. I, p. 10]. 17. Dr. Steele testified: [M]y concern was always that you make sure that the students who move from our district to Pulaski County are not shortchanged in terms of any per pupil expenditure that [would be] spent for them
and that the pattern of ^John Walker, attorney for the Joshua Intervenors, shared LRSD'S concern because it would be his clients transferring from LRSD to PCSSD. [Transcript, v. I, p. 25-26]. 8funding for the interdistrict schools would be similar to that of the magnet schools, not necessarily in terms of the exact amount [spent per pupil], but that there would be an amount identified that would be spent for the students who attended those schools. [Steele Depo., p. 11]. Dr. Steele explained that the Pooling Agreement contemplated that II [tjhere would be a per pupil amount established" to equalize funding for the education of "the total student population in the interdistrict school." [Steele Depo., p. 9 (emphasis supplied)
see also Steele Depo, p. 15-16 and 23]. 18. Similarly, Earl Jones, who was LRSD Manager of Support Services from July of 1989 through June of 1991 and who was also present during the negotiation of the Pooling Agreement, [Transcript, v. II, p. 156 and 158], testified that the Pooling Agreement contemplated that LRSD and PCSSD would agree to a per pupil budget for all interdistrict school students. [Transcript, V. II, p. 159]. Jones explained that the requirement that the budgets of the interdistrict schools be equalized was important to LRSD because LRSD was concerned that students would not "enjoy the same type education" in PCSSD interdistrict schools and that equalization was a means "to help guarantee that that [would] happen. II [Transcript, V. II/ P- 178] . Jones noted that the ^Similarly, Dr. Steele testified that the funds in the pool were to "be used for the education of students attending the interdistrict schools" and that "the amount that would be spent would be equalized so that no students from either district would be penalized in terms of a per pupil expenditure . . II Depo., p. 7]. [Steele Dr. Steele stated that the Pooling Agreement was "based on the magnet school model. II Steele Depo., p. 8-9]. [Steele Depo., p. 7
see also Finally, Dr. Steele testified that PCSSD's interpretation of the Pooling Agreement was inconsistent with the intent of the parties. [Steele Depo., p. 15 and 16.] 9process by which the per pupil budget for the original magnet schools was established "could easily be used II to implement the Pooling Agreement. [Transcript, v. II, p. 159]. 19. PCSSD presented no evidence that the intent of the Pooling Agreement was to distribute the pool based on the number of M-to-M students in interdistrict schools. To the contrary, in a memo to Lester dated September 2, 1992, Dr. Stewart stated: I would suggest that the proper procedure [to implement the Pooling Agreement] would be to pool all funds. including PCSSD's $200,000.00 as called for in the agreement and then to divide these funds equally based on the number of students actually enrolled (three-quarter averaqe daily membership) in all Interdistrict Schools. [Exhibit 343 (emphasis supplied)
Transcript, v. I, p. 29]. With regard to Dr. Stewart's memo, Lester testified: Q. So if you're going to implement what Dr. Stewart said in [his September 2, 1992] memo, then we would take the total pool of M to M funds. plus the county's $200,000 and divide by the total number of interdistrict school students, third quarter enrollment, right? A. Right. [Lester Depo., p. 24 (emphasis supplied)]. Dr. Stewart agreed that his methodology fails to take into account two requirements of the Pooling Agreement: (1) that instructional budgets be equalized. and (2) that the funds be pooled for the benefit of all interdistrict school students. [Transcript, v. II, p. 42-43]. On the contrary. Dr. Stewart acknowledged that the interpretation of the Pooling Agreement urged by LRSD is entirely consistent with the language of the agreement. [Transcript, v. II, p. 44-45]. 20. On the bottom half of Exhibit 382, Dr. Stewart demonstrated the results if the pool was divided based on the total 10number of interdistrict school students. Dr. Stewart conceded that the methodology applied on the bottom half of Exhibit 382 was the only methodology which complied with the Pooling Agreement: Q. The point is, Doctor Stewart, that the only way we have talked about in court today or last time to implement the language in Section "O" is the way that is set forth on the bottom half of Court's exhibit 382? A. I would agree with that. [Transcript, v. II, p. 140]. 21. PCSSD argues that dividing the pool based only on the number of M-to-M students would create an incentive for the districts to recruit M-to-M transfers from the other district so they could receive a greater proportion of the pool. There are two flaws in PCSSD's argument. First, it fails to take into account the concomitant obligation of the districts to recruit their own students to become M-to-M transfers. g-q-, LRSD r See. Desegregation Plan, p. 144 ("The NLRSD and PCSSD will actively recruit students who are eligible for M-to-M transfers.")
see also Transcript, v. II, p. 143]. 22. Although dividing the pool based on the number of M-to-M Jones agreed that the methodology employed on the bottom half of Exhibit 382 correctly distributes funds from the pool. [Transcript V. II, p. 141]. Although PCSSD has more M-to-M transfers in its interdistrict schools, PCSSD came forward with no evidence that LRSD has not aggressively recruited PCSSD students to attend LRSD interdistrict schools. [S^ Transcript, v. II, p. 145 and 149]. PCSSD had a greater incentive than LRSD to send M-to-M transfer students under the M-to-M stipulation before the Pooling Agreement because it had a higher table rate, p. 40]. [Transcript, v. II, 11students would create an financial incentive for the districts to recruit students from the other district, it would create a financial disincentive for the districts to recruit their own students. 10 [Transcript, v, II, p. 67]. Dr. Stewart testified: Q. Under your original proposal for distributing funds from the pool [based on the number of M-to-M students in interdistrict schools], isn't there financial disincentive for Pulaski County to send students to Little Rock interdistrict schools? A. Well, yeah, I think we testified to that. I think we submitted evidence at the earlier hearing to that effect. [Transcript, v. II, p. 67]. Therefore, there is no net benefit to recruitment by dividing the pool based on only M-to-M students. [See Transcript, v. II, p. 172]. 23. Second, PCSSD's argument fails to recognize that the districts have limited control over parents' decisions to send children to an interdistrict school as an M-to-M transfer. r See Transcript, v. II, p. 172]. The record in this case is replete a with evidence of "white flight." As sad as it may be, there are still white parents who refuse to send their children to schools where white students are not a substantial majority. It would be unfair to interpret the Pooling Agreement in such a manner as to penalize LRSD because lingering racial prejudice makes it more difficult for it to recruit white PCSSD students than it is for 'Dr. Stewart testified that the M-to-M stipulation was designed to be an incentive to the sending district to recruit its own students to become M-to-M transfers. [Transcript, v. I, p. 116] . Thus, to the extent PCSSD's interpretation creates a disincentive, it is inconsistent with the intent of the M to M stipulation. 12PCSSD to recruit African-American LRSD students seeking an integrated education. 24. PCSSD also argues that LRSD agreed that funds in the pool should be divided based on M-to-M students rather than all interdistrict school students. Dr. Stewart testified that an LRSD employee told him that LRSD was going to send PCSSD a check based on calculations prepared by Stewart which divided the fund based on M-to-M students. [Transcript, V. I, p. 32]. However, subsequent correspondence between LRSD and PCSSD demonstrates that an agreement was never reached. Following the June, 1993 meeting during which Dr. Stewart claims he was told that LRSD would send PCSSD check. Dr. Stewart wrote LRSD and stated. "[I]f an a acceptable solution is not reached soon, we will have no choice but to involve the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and the Court. [Exhibit 350] Thus, Stewart acknowledged that no agreement had been reached. LRSD's formal response'* to PCSSD's demand was contained in LRSD Superintendent Dr. Henry Williams' October 20, 1993, letter to PCSSD. [Exhibit 380]. In that letter. Dr. Williams refused to pay PCSSD because PCSSD had failed to take into account all of the provisions of the Pooling Agreement. [Exhibit 380] . Accordingly, this Court finds that LRSD never agreed that the pool should be divided based on the number of M-to-M students. 25. Therefore, this Court finds that the funds in the pool '*Dr. Stewart initially testified that PCSSD never received and response from LRSD. [Transcript, v. I, p. 87]. stipulated that Dr. Stewart's testimony was erroneous. [Transcript, v. II, p. 51]. PCSSD later 13should be divided based on the total number of students in interdistrict schools. To determine the total number of students in interdistrict schools, this Court must decide when LRSD's Washington Elementary became an interdistrict school. 26. Under the Tri-District Plan, Washington Elementary was an interdistrict magnet school. [Docket No. 1291]. By stipulation dated February 12, 1991, it was agreed that Washington would continue to operate in this capacity. [Docket No. 1434]. The LRSD Desegregation Plan adopted April 29, 1992, provided that Washington would continue to be operated consistent with the "Interdistrict H Plan. [LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 144]. Accordingly, this Court assigned Washington the racial balance requirements of an interdistrict school in its May 1, 1992 Order approving the LRSD Desegregation Plan. [Docket No. 1587]. In recognition of the fact that Washington was operating as an interdistrict school. this Court released LRSD from it obligation to build Stephens Interdistrict School. [Docket No. 2351]. Hence, Washington has been an interdistrict school since at least the 1991-92 school year. and Washington's students should be considered in distributing the pool. 27. Therefore, this Court finds the funds in the pool should be distributed based on the total number of interdistrict school students. In determining each district's distribution from the pool, the total pool should be divided by the total number of interdistrict school students to determine a per student amount. This per student amount should then be multiplied by each 14district's total number of interdistrict school students such that each district receives funds from the pool equivalent to its proportion of the total number of interdistrict school students. D. Whether the "instructional budgets" of interdistrict schools are equalized? 28, To determine whether the II instructional budgets" of the interdistrict schools have been equalized, this Court must first decide what constitutes an "instructional budget. II "Instructional budget" is not a term of art in school finance, and it is not expressly defined in the Settlement Agreement. 29. With regard to the meaning of the phrase II instructional budget. II Dr. Stewart testified. II I don't know where the language came from[
] I don't know what it meant then, and I don't know what it means now. II [Transcript, v. II, p. 17
see also Transcript, v. P- 15-16] Dr. Stewart acknowledged that "[r]easonable 11/ people should be able to reach a reasonable decision about what it means. II [Transcript, v.II, p. 46]. Dr. Stewart agreed that once It instructional budget" is defined, there was no reason a per pupil amount could not be established for interdistrict school students: Q. Now, however[] we agreed to define "instructional budget", there is no reason we couldn't determine per student amount to agree and be spent for instructional budgets at each interdistrict school, is there? A. No. a [Transcript, v. II, p. 50-51]. '^Similarly, Lester testified he had no recollection of why the clause regarding equalizing instructional budgets was in the Pooling Agreement. [Lester Depo., p. 23]. 1530. There appears to be no dispute that the "instructional budget" does not include transportation costs and capital costs. [S^ Steele Depo., p. 12 and 13]. The language of the Pooling Agreement suggests that the phrase "instructional budget" was intended to exclude these costs. Transportation money received by the districts is specifically excluded from the pool. [Settlement Agreement, II, 0(3)]. Because transportation funds are not part of the pool, it follows that transportation costs should not be included in the "instructional budget." Similarly, the Pooling Agreement provides that it "does not change each district's obligation to construct and maintain the Interdistrict Schools in its boundaries. [Settlement Agreement, II, 5 O (3)]. Because H the Pooling Agreement has no impact on the districts' obligations to make capital expenditures, it follows that those costs should not be included in the II instructional budget." 31. PCSSD argues that personnel should not be included as part of the "instructional budget" because the per pupil cost of personnel varies from school to school.* [Transcript, v. I, p. 57- 58
see Lester Depo., P- 15]. In negotiating the Pooling Agreement, LRSD recognized that it would not guarantee that 'Dr. Stewart also identified as a problem any cost which will be incurred by a school regardless of the number of students in a building, [Transcript, v. I, p. 73]
the cost of ancillary programs such as music and physical education
and the cost of specialty programs. [Transcript, v. I, p. 75-76]. As with personnel costs. there is no way to account for the variation in fixed cost among schools. With regard to ancillary and specialty programs. equalization was intended to insure (at least to some degree) that these type programs in PCSSD interdistrict school were equivalent to the programs available in LRSD interdistrict schools. 16exactly the same amount of money would be spent for the education of every interdistrict school student. Even so, LRSD viewed equalization as means "to help guarantee that that [would] a happen. If [Transcript, v. II, p. 178]. The parties may disagree as to the extent that equalization will achieve LRSD's objective, but that is no basis for this Court to deny LRSD the benefit of its agreement. 32. Although PCSSD argues that personnel should not be included in the "instructional budget," Lester testified that "teachers II are an instructional cost. [Lester Depo, p. 12]. Lester further testified that PCSSD's largest instructional expense was personnel. [Lester Depo., p. 19]. Likewise, LRSD's largest instructional expense is personnel. If the parties had intended to exclude the largest instructional expense from the "instructional budget," they would have said so. Therefore, this Court finds that "instructional budget" includes all costs incurred at interdistrict schools except transportation costs and capital costs. [S^ Steele Depo., p. 12]. 33. Having defined "instructional budget" to include all costs except transportation and capital costs, this Court must now determine whether the II instructional budgets II of the interdistrict schools have been equalized. The answer to this question is no. **PCSSD also argues that the amount of money spent has little relationship to the quality of education provided. [Transcript, v. II, p. 93]. Although to some extent this may be true, this Court and the Eighth Circuit have recognized in the context of the incentive schools that the amount of money spent has a direct relationship to the type of educational services being provided. 1734. LRSD contends that the Pooling Agreement contemplated that a per pupil amount would be established for the "instructional budget" at all interdistrict schools by a process analogous to the magnet school model. [Steele Depo., p. 7-8, 8-9 and 11
Transcript V. II, p. 159]. PCSSD has not proposed a methodology to implement the requirement of the Pooling Agreement that instructional budgets be equalized. [Transcript, v. II, p. 42]. Lester testified that at the time the Pooling Agreement was reached the magnet school model was the only model for the districts to pool funds to operate the interdistrict schools. [Lester Depo., p. 26]. Therefore, this Court finds that the Pooling Agreement contemplated that a per pupil amount would be established for the "instructional budget" at all interdistrict schools by a process analogous to the magnet school model. This Court directs the parties to agree on a per pupil instructional budget for all interdistrict schools for the 1996-97 school year so that instructional budgets of the interdistrict schools will be equalized beginning that school year. 35. Although the instructional budgets of the interdistrict schools have not been "equalized. II PCSSD remains obligated to LRSD for its proportion of the pool. LRSD's overall average per pupil expenditures now exceed and always have exceeded that of PCSSD, [S^ Exhibit 345
Transcript, v. I, p. 43
and, Lester Depo., p. 13], and LRSD on average spends more per pupil than PCSSD in its interdistrict schools. [Transcript, v. II, p. 119
See Exhibit 381] . Because LRSD has spent more than PCSSD in its interdistrict schools. this Court finds that LRSD should not be barred from 18recovering under the Pooling Agreement based on the failure to "equalize. II E. Why is there no central account into which pooled moneys are deposited? 36. No central account was ever established, apparently, because no agreement was ever reached with regard to equalizing instructional budgets. Even so, this Court finds that a central pooling account is not essential to the functioning of the Pooling Agreement. The worksheets presented by Dr. Stewart at trial demonstrate that the Pooling Agreement can easily be administered by payments between the districts. This Court leaves it to the parties to determine the most efficient means of implementing this aspect of the agreement. 37. The overall cost of the Pooling Agreement is equally divided among LRSD and PCSSD. For example, although for the 1994- 95 school year PCSSD owes LRSD $520,512.00 [Exhibit 382], LRSD lost approximately $1.6 million in state aid it otherwise would have received. whereas PCSSD lost only approximately $600,000.00. 15 Thus, the payment of $520,512.00 to LRSD works to equalize to costs between the districts. [Transcript, v. II, p. 141-42]. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The present case concerns interpretation of a judicially approved settlement agreement which has been incorporated into a consent decree. For the purpose of interpretation. "consent ^The exact amount may be calculated by multiplying the loss in ADM by the SBER. [Transcript, v. II, p. 141]. 19decrees are to be construed as contracts. 11 United States v. City of Fort Smith. 760 F.2d 231, 233-34 (Sth Cir. 1985). "Therefore, fundamental principles of contract interpretation under relevant state law apply when a court is presented with the task of interpreting the provisions of a consent decree." United States v. City of Northlake. 942 F.2d 1164, 1167 (7th Cir. 1991). However, II [t]he interpretation of a consent decree should be a practical enterprise. influenced. perhaps, by technical rules of construction, but not controlled by them. II Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District, 60 F.3d 435, 436 (Sth Cir. 1995) . 2. Where a consent decree is free from ambiguity. its construction is a matter of law for the Court. See Floyd v. Otter Creek Homeowners's Ass'n. 742 S.W.2d 120, 123 (Ark. App. 1988)
see also San Francisco NAACP v. State Dept, of Educ.. 869 F.2d 412, 413 (9th Cir. 1990)("The scope of a consent decree must be discerned within its four corners, and not by reference to what might satisfy the purpose of one of the parties . . .") quoting. United States v. Armour & Co.. 402 U.S. 673, 682 (1971). This Court finds the Pooling Agreement is unambiguous with regard to the relevant population for dividing the pooled funds. The Pooling Agreement clearly states that the funds are to be pooled "for the education of all Interdistrict School students." [Settlement Agreement 2, 5 0(3)]. Therefore, the relevant population for dividing the pool is the total number of students attending interdistrict schools. PCSSD argues that a LRSD employee agreed that the pool 20 3.should be divided based on the number of M-to-M students. Even assuming this to be true, this argument fails for two reasons. First, it is well-settled under Arkansas law that only a school district's board of directors has authority to enter into contracts on behalf of the school district. See Responsive Environments Corp. V. Pulaski County Special School District. 366 F.Supp. 241, 245 (E.D.Ark. 1973)
see also Hart v. Bridges, 786 S.W.2d 589 (Ark. App. 1990). The LRSD Board of Directors never voted to modify the Pooling Agreement as suggested by PCSSD. Second, modification an agreement requires consideration other than the consideration involved in the existing agreement. Sorrells v. Bailey Cattle Co.. 595 S.W.2d 950, 956 (Ark. App. 1980). There is no consideration which would support modifying the Pooling Agreement to benefit only M-to-M students. Therefore, this Court rejects PCSSD's argument that LRSD agreed to any modification the Pooling Agreement. 4. Where the plain language of consent decree IS ambiguous. extrinsic or parol evidence must be considered to determine the intent of the parties at the time they entered into the agreement. Dodson V. Dodson, 825 S,W.2d 608, 610-11 (Ark. App. 1992)
see also Northlake. 942 F.2d at 1167
San Francisco NAACP. 869 F.2d at 413. This Court finds the Pooling Agreement to be ambiguous with regard to two issues. 5. First, was the Pooling Agreement a means to facilitate equalization? For the reasons set forth above, this Court finds that it was. 6. Second, what is an "instructional budget"? For the 21 areasons set forth above, this Court finds that "instructional budget" was intended to include all costs incurred at interdistrict schools except transportation costs and capital costs. 7. Because of the ambiguity related to the above issues, it has been suggested that there was never any "meeting of the minds," and therefore, never a binding agreement. This is not so. A "meeting of the minds" requires merely "objective indicators of agreement. II Crain Industries, Inc, V. Cass, 810 S.W.2d 910, 916 (Ark. 1991). The Arkansas Court of Appeals has explained: Although it is essential to the finality and completeness of assent that all terms should be definitely agreed upon. [citation omitted] , it does not follow that the parties must share identical subjective opinions as to the meaning of those terms before a valid contract can be formed. Dziqa v. Muradian Business Brokers. 773 S.W.2d 106, 107 (Ark. App. 1989) . Therefore, a II meeting of the minds II requires only that the parties assent to the terms of the agreement and evidence an intent to be bound by those terms. 8. Heller described the terms of the Pooling Agreement to the Special Master, and counsel for both parties indicated their intent to be bound by those terms. [Transcript, v. I, p. 122-125]. Accordingly, this Court finds that there was a "meeting of the minds II sufficient to create a binding agreement. WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1. That the pool be distributed consistent with this Order for the 1991-92 school year to the present
and. 2. That the parties to agree on a per pupil instructional budget for the all interdistrict schools for the 1996-97 school 22year so that instructional budgets of the interdistrict schools will be equalized beginning that school year. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Christopher Heller John C. Pendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By:. L.:( 0 Christophe (^r No. 8: J. leTf^ Heller / I 1083 23CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the followir^ by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this of January, 1996: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 istopher her Heller] 24FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (I922-Ie4) ROBERT V. LIOHT. P.A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR.. P.A JOE 0. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY, P A H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. OSCAR e. OAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK, JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II, P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE, P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE, P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A, WADDELL. JR., P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX NO. 601-376*2147 January 26, 1996 JSN 2 9 1996 CLYDE 'TAI* TURNER. P.A. CALVIN J. HALL, P.A. SCOTT 3. LANCASTER, P.A. JERRY L. MALONE, P.A. M. OAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. H. CHARLES OSCHWENO, JR., P.A. HARRY A. LIOHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH, P.A. GUY ALTON WADE, P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER, P.A. J. MICHAEL PICKENS, P.A. TONIA P. JONES, P.A. DAVID 0. WILSON. P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. ANDREW T. TURNER DAVID M. GRAF CARLA G. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. ALLISON GRAVES JONANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY 0. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C . HICKMAN SETTY J. OEMORY BARBARA J. RAND JAMES W . SMITH CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT WILL BONO DANIEL L. HERRINGTON Office of Desegregation Monitonng cauMiu WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE. JR., P B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY. P.A. WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR.. P.A. TRITCR'S birsct mo. Hon. James W. McCormack Clerk of Court United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 W. Capitol, Suite 402 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 (601) 370*3323 Re: Little Rock School District, et al vs. Pulaski County Special School District, et al USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Mr. McCormack Enclosed herewith please find an original and three copies of the Little Rock School District's Notice of Filing of Depositions of Dr. Ruth Steele and Bobby Lester with regard to the above- captioned matter. to us. record. Please file same and return a file marked copy By copy of this letter we are serving all counsel of Sincerely, Ji in C./ Fendley, Jr I U 3 u -iCT JCFjr/cf Enclosures cc: Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. John Walker (w/encl.) Sam Jones (w/encl.) Steve Jones (w/encl.) Richard Roachell )(w/encl.) Ann Brown (w/encl.) Mr. Timothy G. Gauger (w/encl.)I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V, NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING OF DEPOSITIONS OF DR. RUTH STEELE AND BOBBY LESTER Little Rock School District, for its Notice of Filing, states: 1. The following documents are being filed and made a part of the record in the above-styled case: (a) Deposition of Dr. Ruth Steele, taken December 8, 1995
(b) Deposition of Bobby Lester, taken December 8, 1995 Respectfully submitted. Christopher Heller John C. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 501/376-2011 72201-3493 Attorneys for LRSD By: / <
f:\hcxDB\laodlayMnd\lnd-puljial CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing pleadini served on the following counsel on this day of has been 54 Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 f:\hoin6\fcndiey'J/d'Jnd-pul jw IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et. al. PIAIUTIEFS V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT DEFEZCANTS LORENE JOSHUA, et.al. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, et.al. INTERVENORS APPEARANCES DEPOSITION OF DR. RUTH STEELE TAKEN IN LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS FRIDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1995 AT INSTANCE OF DEFENDANTS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF: CHRIS HELLER, ESQ. CLAY FENDLEY, ESQ. Friday, Eldredge and Clark 400 West Capitol AV Little Rock, AR 72201 ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT: M. SAMUEL JONES, ESQ. Wright, Lindsey and Jennings 200 West Capitol AV Little Rock, AR 72201 COPY I irieieieificie'itieir GIBSON^RANTON REPORTING SERVICE2 APPEARANCES STIPULATIONS WITNESS SWORN EXAMINATION BY MR. JONES CONTENTS PAGE 1 3 4 4 COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 27 GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE fc
n.'3 STIPULATIONS The deposition of DR. RUTH STEELE, produced, sworn and examined in the offices of Wright, Lindsey and Jennings, 200 West Capitol Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas, commencing at 10:10 a.m. on Friday, December 8, 1995 in the captioned cause at the instance of the counsel for the Defendants, said deposition being taken according to the terms and provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is stipulated and agreed that all forms and formalities in the taking, transcribing, forwarding and filing of said deposition are hereby waived by the parties. the right being expressly reserved to object to the testimony of the witness at the time of trial as to responsiveness. competency, relevancy and materiality, other than those with respect to the form of the questions as propounded to the witness. GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE4 1 2 THEREUPON, DR. RUTH STEELE 3 having been called to testify, was duly sworn and testified 4 as follows: 5 EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. JONES: 7 Q Who are you? 8 A Ruth Steele. 9 Ruth, help me. Q Can you give me the dates in which you 10 became the Little Rock superintendent, and the date that you 11 left? 12 A In July of 1989 and to June 30, 1992. 13 Q And I trust Chris has told you why you're here? 14 A Yes . 15 Q Okay. Before I get into the obvious questions, have you 16 had occasion to review anything in writing to help you get 17 ready for the deposition today? 18 A A little bit of the settlement agreement, and some 19 factual information that showed some budget figures, and 20 things of that nature. 21 Q Can you be more specific on the latter? 22 A I think it was a work-up sheet that was produced by 23 someone at the Pulaski County School District, showing a 24 scenario of M to M payments, and that sort of thing. 25 Q Before you reviewed that recently, had you ever seen it GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE r5011 22M91 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5 or something like it? A Q No, I had not seen anything like that. Okay. reviewed? A Q A Q A No. Anything else that you can recall that you Any -- did you review anybody's testimony? No. Did Chris or anyone else summarize that for you? He talked a little bit about the not about anybody's testimony. Q A no, I don't think Or anybody's position, or anything like that? We just reviewed some general types of ideas, thoughts. comments from that Don had made, that Chip had made just to kind of help me to recollect some of the things that were occurring around the time frame that we're talking about. Q What I want to ask you to do -- understanding that we're going to get down to late September of 1989 -- can you capsule for me your recollection of what was still an issue regarding the financial settlement with the state as we entered those hearings before Mr. McCutcheon in late September of '89? A One of the issues had to do with the methods of funding for the interdistrict schools, and the problems about the actual payments, and how those would be handled. There had been a lot of prior issues over the release of GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE1 6 funds -- whether or not there was actually an agreement that 2 could be acted upon, based on the problems with the -- that 3 we had with the legislature first approving it, and then the 4 appropriations bill being struck, and then Nap Murphy losing 5 his key, and then the third and final decision from the 6 legislature about the capping the amount of money, and not 7 really agreeing in substance to anything other than a cap, in 8 terms of the money, except for those things which had already 9 been agreed to, like the M to M money, and transportation. 10 and that kind of thing. 11 And as the hearings began, do you have a recollection of 12 any issues that were still out there between the parties -- 13 particularly the county and Little Rock? 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 The discussions about the interdistrict schools. was one of the things discussed. with the That And then the discussion with McCutcheon over whether or not there was an executable agreement, it seems to me were those were primarily the things that I remember being an issue then. Do you remember anything occurring during the course of those hearings that prompted the parties to engage in further negotiations? I remember there was a there was a room that we several of us were coming in and out. There was an issue Q A Q A 24 over the funding of the interdistrict schools and the poolinc 25 of the how that would work. And there were some GIBSON-8RANTON REPORTING SERVICE7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 discussions between Chris and you, and others that you were engaged in some discussion around, around that. And the -- primarily that's what I recall was going on at that particular time. Q Do you recall any specifics at all about pooling -- where the term came from, what it meant -- anything like that? A be What I understood that it meant was that the money would that would be forthcoming from the state in terms of the sending and receiving districts, and the amount that would be contributed, that would be pooled
and that that would be used -- that pooled money would be used for the education of students attending the interdistrict schools. And that's what and that the amount that would be spent would be equalized so that no students from either district would be penalized in terms of a per pupil expenditure that would be identified for them as they attended those schools, in the event that two were eventually established -- one in Little Rock and one in Pulaski County. Q Do you have any recollection of why pooling came into existence? A It's -- my recollection is that it came into existence because we were attempting to establish, based on the magnet school model, that there would be an equitable, same amount of money that would be spent in the interests of furthering GIBS0N-8RANT0N REPORTING SERVICE1 8 desegregation to those types of schools. 2 That's what I recall. 3 Q I take it, then, that you do not have any recollection 4 that would involve settling an issue, like who got what part 5 of the funds the state was willing to provide? 6 A Well, the sending district was to receive --or was to 7 contribute half its table rate. And the host district was to 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 receive the full cost of educating the child, is what I remember about the distribution of the money
and that the $200,000 per year that Pulaski County was going to get for a five-year period would be contributed toward that pool. Do you have any recollection of why the county was going to contribute $200,000 a year? The only thing that I remember is that there were some difference in the amount of money per pupil that the county expended in educating its students, as compared with what Little Rock was spending to educate students
and that that amount of money was perhaps going to be used for that purpose -- to equalize all of that, as a part of that. Let me just try kind of a general question. Is there anything else that you can recall being either debated or resolved in that room outside of the court room during the course of those hearings? There were, as I recall from the discussions, there were -- there was agreement as to the fact that the interdistrict GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERUICE 8 9 Q A Q A -501^'224^4099 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 schools would be funded along the same general types of procedures as the magnet schools. amount established. There would be a per pupil There would be equalized funding, which would come from the pool that was generated through funds from Little Rock and from Pulaski County. And that the application of that would be for all of the students that were attending the interdistrict schools, not simply those sent or received
but that that would apply to the total student population in the interdistrict school.
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.