Service Master Management Services, an Illinois company hired to supervise Little Rock School District's maintenance and custodial staff.
LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1989 SETTLEMENT PLAN & MAY SUBMISSION BRIEF summaryLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SETTLEMENT PLAN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION (Pages 5-26) BACKGROUND & PHILOSOPHY Statistics show that children who are provided with early childhood education have greater opportunities which enable them to succeed in the future. While the enrollment for early education programs continues to increase, there are many families who do not have access to affordable and accessible early childhood education. In order to combat this problem the LRSD proposes to expand existing and develop new early childhood education programs. The LRSD's plan is comprised of the following programs: HIPPY I ) ' .r . J - Aids train mothers to teach their four and five year old children through home-based curriculum /> - LRSD & PCSSD will collaborate and coordinate implementation II ,A' - HIPPY & Four Year Old Program will collaborate with regard to parental involvement and teacher training i r EVALUATION - Early Prevention School Failure Model conducted on participants at Kindergarten (pre and post tests) - Standardized achievement test at the end of the 3rd grade MAY SUBMISSION - Addition of "similar model" for evaluation at kindergarten - Deletion of "pre and post tests" and replaces with "as they enter and exit kindergarten" TIMELINES - HIPPY is a year round program - The following should be in place: - 14 Aids Selected and Trained - Families Recruited and TrainedHIPPY MAY SUBMISSION - Addition "the LRSD's HIPPY Program depends on external funding. ... cannot be continued at present levels without continued receipt of JTPA and Chapter 2 funds." CONTACT: Miarian Shead at 324-2266 FOUR YEAR OLD PROGRAM - High Scope Curriculum which emphasizes active learning - High Scope Curriculum complements HIPPY Curriculum MAY SUBMISSION - Addition to curriculum of "or similar curriculum." - LRSD & PCSSD will collaborate on parental involvement, inservice and training for teachers EVALUATION - Inservice evaluation will be summarized - Test data will be analyzed MAY SUBMISSION - Deletes "test data" and replaces with "student assignment data" TIMELINES - Program implemented in 3 incentive schools in 1988-89 school year - Program implemented in other incentive schools in 1989-90 school year - Program to be implemented in all elementary schools by 1993-94 school year NOTE WORDING IN PLAN BUT DELETED IN MAY SUBMISSION: "Scope of this program may be altered, affected and/or enhanced by the proposed assignment and construction proposals made in this plan."MAY SUBMISSION - Deleted program to be implemented in other incentive schools by by the 1989-90 school year and replaced with "By the 1991-92 school year the program will be implemented in the schools listed below: Badgett Frankl in Garland * Ish Mitchell * Rightsell * Rockefeller * Romine Stephens * Washington Woodruff" * Incentive Schools - Deleted "all schools in the district will implement the four year old Program by 1993-94 school year and replaced with "A long range implementation plan will be developed for additional four year old program...as a means to meet the needs of disadvantaged students and desegregate schools that are difficult to desegregate. The long range plan will address demographic, instructional, structural needs." < ! NOTE: Stay Order requires plan to be submitted by September 30, 1991 CONTACT: Pat Price at 324-2015 CITY WIDE EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION The purposes of the city wide early education is to provide: - Parenting education to mothers and fathers, family health care and nutritional guidance - Quality child-care arrangements for poor parents stressing social development and school readiness - Quality preschool program for disadvantaged three to five year old chiIdren The plan then goes onto discuss components of quality programing, including MAY SUBMISSION Deletes this entire section of the plan and rewrites this section in its enti rety. Of particular concern is the deletion of the components of quality programing and the insertion of a description of the Head Start, Model Cities and LRSD programs. The stipulation dated.7/2/91 rationalizes the deletion of same staffing patterns, teacher qualifications, and the same comprehensive services because "the plan is in conflict with some of the practices and policies of the Headstart and Model Cities programs." The May Plan inserts areas for cooperation between the three programs including parent involvement, staff development, student referrals, and information on student assignment process for kindergarten. In addition, the program purposes are kept in tact, except the May Plan deletes "family health care and nutritional guidance." Finally, the May Plan deleted all the timelines for implementation of city wide comprehensive early childhood program for LR and did not insert any new timelines. TIMELINES - By September 1990 the initial phase of program should be implemented. - By September 1993 LRSD & other agencies should have implemented a comprehensive and consistent early childhood education program for children in LR. - By October 1993 80% of disadvantaged eligible students should be enrolled in early childhood education programs. - By September 1994 pre-screening data at the beginning of the school year will indicate a 75% reduction in the number of children identified as moderate to high risk. ROCKEFELLER EARLY CHILDHOOD MAGNET (MAY SUBMISSION ONLY) - Early childhood education for children ages six weeks to four years old / - Early Childhood Education Demonstration Magnet between LRSD and area colleges to: - train college students in early education - pilot innovative educational approaches for young children - provide assistance in planning and implementation - Three year old student may continue into the four year old program - Siblings of children in program receive preference for Rockefeller assignmentROCKEFELLER EARLY CHILDHOOD MAGNET - Explore year-round program for children from infancy to sixth grade NOTE: Did Not Find Any Timeline Sheets For Early Childhood Magnet! SPECIAL PROGRAMS (Pages 27-39) JTPA SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM -Six week program JTPA eligible students who work either part or full time Students are tested to determine if remediation is needed in math and/or reading, if needed remediation is provided - Increase the number of student participants NO CONTROL OVER THIS - FEDS! - Allow "any student" (non-eligible JTPA students) to participate in remediation who needs assistance ! MAY SUBMISSION - Deletes "any student" and provides remediation only for JTPA certified/eligible students - Counseling Staff increased by two (1 male & 1 female) and psychologist contracted to help students with serious problems - College students or college bound seniors who shall be hired as as instructional aids - Clerical aids to be added to the program I EVALUATION - Pre & Post Test of Adult Basic Education MAY SUBMISSION - Deleted evaluation mechanism and did not replace TIMELINES - By 1993-94 school year "increase to 350 students who will show significant grow gains as a result of their participation." NOTE: PROGRAM CURRENTLY SERVING 300-350 STUDENTS LRSD NO CONTROL OVER INCREASE -FEDS CONTROL! HOW MEASURE?? - NO SPECIFIC TIMELINES! JTPA ASSET PROGRAM - Peer tutoring by JTPA certified students who work under the supervision of certified teachers n NOTE: ,+z p LRSD IS NOT DOING THIS PROGRAM WITH JTPA & WAS NOT DOING THIS PROGRAM IN DECEMBER OF 1990 WHEN THEY REPRESENTED TO THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT THAT THEY WERE!!! EVALUATION - Compare students receiving tutoring assistance with other students in areas of standardized test results, academic performance based on nine week grade reports, absentee records, drop-outs, follow-up reports and parental reinforcement activities NOTE: NO TIMELINE FOR EVALUATION - WHO? WHEN? TIMELINES - By 1988-89 school year program to be implemented in 4 junior high schools and revise program to include non-certified JTPA student tutors - By 1993-94 school year program available to all "at risk junior high populations and high school students at accessible sites, students will show improvement, tutors will increase their opportunities for future employment MAY SUBMISSION Inserts "Programs and individual components will be continued only if JTPA funding is available." - Deletes all timeline sheets but leaves the narrative NEW FUTURES HOMEWORK CENTERS & HOMEWORK TELEPHONE HOTLINE - Homework Centers in selected junior high schools - Homework Hotline in areas of English, math, science and social studies MAY SUBMISSION - Deleted Homework Hotline TIMELINE - Begin implementation 1988-89 school year (funded by business community)SCHOOL OPERATIONS (Pages 39-63) - Division of Schools will be responsible for monitoring and implementing the following aspects of LRSD's desegregation plan: - Organizational structure - Discipline - Guidance/Counseling - Internal integration - Extracurricular activities - Evaluation/Testing - Staffing - Planning/Implementation - Specific goals and timelines follow MAY SUBMISSION - Deletes Division of schools and the above aspects of the deseg plan Inserts "LRSD Office of Desegregation" will be responsible for moni tori ng - Revision of goals and timelines PROGRAM FOR ACCELERATED LEARNING/PALS (Pages 64-77) - Remediation for students grades K-12, with emphasis in reading and math at the elementary level & English, reading, science, social studies and math at the secondary level - Technology assisted instruction (computers, VCR's etc...) - Goal for student to attend computer lab for at least 70 minutes a week (35 minutes in reading and math) with assistance from a non-certified instructional aid - Develop a profile on elementary students that identifies their strengths and weaknesses & develop an improvement plan with parents which provides timelines for performance/achievement to be assessed - Provide a transitional program for secondary students who need assistance to function effectively in the regular classroom & develop a profile, etc., (see above) - Utilize multi-cultural, interdisciplinary, language-based, individualized instruction MAY SUBMISSION - Deletes PAL program and inserts remediation programs - Merges plan goals for elementary and secondary students & inserts that schools will remediate in areas in which the student has failed - Deletes remediation for reading, social studies and science!!EVALUATION - Improvement Plan, parents are provided with written information on their child's progress in meeting the performance goals of their plan - Evaluation Design and Checklist already developed TIMELINES - Implementation to begin in Fall 1988 - Cannot read timetables!! GIFTED EDUCATION (Pages 78-83) - Subject based instruction for grades K-12 based on ADE's standards - Collaboration with district in areas of curriculum, staff development and research and administration - Placement based on superior intellectual and creative ability ... "neither criterion shall be used if the result is disparate impact upon either racial group within the district." - Special attention to identify and place students from low and middle socio-economic levels MAY SUBMISSION - Deletes subject based & inserts services - Adds attention to identify and place "minority children I ' (A TIMELINES - Research administration of program to begin November 1988 - Investigate tri-district model for socio-economically deprived students to begin November 1990 - Cannot read other timelines! MULTI-ETHNIC CURRICULUM (Pages 84-99) - Integrate in subject areas, materials, libraries, bulletin boards, assemblies, etc...AN EVENT OR A THING NOT A PROCESS! - Collaboration for three districts in developing and implementing curriculum, studies fai rs, in-service training and access to higher educational TIMELINES FOR MULTI-ETHNIC CURRICULUM - By September 1989 ready for pre-school - grade 6 - By September 1990 ready for grades 7-12 - By September 1991 Review/Revision cycle for pre-school serve as a model for all three districts 12 to EVALUATION - Each building principal responsible - Section on multi-ethnic curriculum added to monitoring checklist MAY SUBMISSION - Deletion "ethnic" replaced with "cultural" - Added Speaker's Bureau to develop and promoted a better understanding of multi-cultural education in schools and community - Deleted timeline for curriculum to be ready for pre-school - grade 6 - Revised timeline for curriculum to be ready for grades 7-12 from 1990 to 1993 - Deleted monitoring checklist CONTENT AREA PROGRAMS (Pages 101 -108) - Ensure equality and excellence in curriculum & programs in the following: - Instructional methodology - Teacher/student interaction - Muiti-cultural materials - Textbooks w/ no race or gender bias - Organization instruction - Special activities Inservice - Staffing - Objective non-discriminatory criteria for student placement in advanced classed TIMELINES - Implement and incorporate organizational equity practices by Fall 89 & 90 MAY SUBMISSION - This section is revised and merged with multi-cultural curriculumFOCUSED ACTIVITIES K-6 (Pages 108-115) - Elementary schools to have a sound & strong education program with developed focused activities utilizing parent and community involvement - Elementary Academies (non-incentive & non-interdistrict) will receive an annual allocation for implementing focused activity for year which should focus on: 1) Promoting the school as a "community of learning" among parents, staff and students 2) Provide enrichment opportunities at the building level 3) Ensure equitable opportunities for participation - Collaboration with PCSSD in implementation of focused activities, curriculum and achieving greater racial balance & agreement that only magnets and incentive schools will have themes TIMELINES - By 1994 academy elementary schools will all have focused activities which will be integrated into the core curriculum, parental, staff and student involvement, academic performance at or above grade level for each student EVALUATION - Principals will appoint an activities coordinator and steering committee to develop and implement and evaluate planned activities - End of school year coordinator will include focused activities in a district wide report MAY SUBMISSION - Deletion of "academies" and insert "area schools" & deleted "K-6" - Deletion of themes for "incentive" and insert "interdistrict" schools - Addition of Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program whereby each area school will be able to apply for $75k over a 3 yr period to improve academic achievement of all students by reducing academic achievement di sparity - Deleted all timeline sheet and target date of 1994 in narrative - Deleted that academic performance of every student will be at or above grade levelPARKVIEWMAGNET SCHOOL (Pages 116-125) - Fine Arts Magnet and propose to phase in over a 3 yr period a science and math magnet for students graduating from Mann - Contains specific course offerings and new courses - Staff development (curriculum and inservice) - Parental involvement (sign contract) - Space needed for a research writing lab MAY SUBMISSION - Deleted specifics of the 3 year phase in of the science and math magnet - Deleted Russian language course (FAMOUS KNOWN BY ALL LOCAL PAPERS!) - Deleted staff development and lab facilities McClellan community school (may submission only) - Develop as a center to meet the needs of the community - During 1990-91 school year a bi racial planning committee began to worked with consultants to determine how to best utilize the school - Committee will report their progress and recommendations to the LRSD & ODM RECRUITMENT OF PRIVATE SCHOOL STUDENTS (Pages 125-126) - PTA's and parent recruiters will form strategies to recruit private school students back to the public schools - Efforts to be coordinated with Magnet Review Committee MAY SUBMISSION - Deleted coordination with Magnet Committee and inserted that the district will assess the effectiveness of recruitment on an annual basis and discuss with parties before seeking court approved alternative strategies FEDERAL PROGRAMS (Page 127) - LRSD will work with SDE to seek federal funding MAY SUBMISSION - Deletion of working with SDE, LRSD will identify and applyFecruary 22, 1991 RICIIVID FEB 25 1991 Judge Susan Webber Wright 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 'J. S. DISTRICT JUDGE Dear Judge Wright
In reading the opinion of the Eight.h Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the LRSD Case, I noticed that on page 28 it states that "Moreover, the state agreed to lend LRSD up to 520,000,000 over the next ten years, the loans to be forgiven if by December 21, 2000, the existing gap in achievement between black and white pupila in LRSD has been reduced to 10 per cent. >1 Prevision Six on page 25 of the Pulaski County School Desegregation Casa Settlement Agreement of March 1989, stipulates that "if at any time between the date of this agreement and December 31, 2000 the composite scores of LRSD black students (excluding special education students) on a standardized test agreed upon by the State and the LRSD are 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD white students (excluding special education students), the escrowed funds will be paid to LRSD and any outstanding loans will be forgiven. II There is a difference between these two statements. As an example, if the composite score of white students is at the 70th Percentile, according to the Eighth circuit statement, black students would have to score at the 60th Percentile in order the loan to be forgiven. According to the Settlement Agreement, sy would have to score at the 63rd Percentile because ^0% of iS 62. Did rhe ighth Circuit change the stated requirement of the Settlement Agreement? LRSD senior administrators are using the 1C figure instead of the "90% of" it is. of course, to their advantage. Settlement requirement because Which is correct? Since the State of Arkansas and the other school districts in this state have a stake in the 520,000,000, I think it would be equitable if 8 Settlement Agreement provisions are strictly enforced by the Court. Your cooperation in making a public statement regarding this ts'
e will be greatly appreciated. .are. A Axton co: Dr. - con Elliot Arka.-.eas Department of Education1 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AJl-. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. f
le9 U.S. DiSTrfcr ccvnT I I
kaxsas 91 JUL25 PM Us 33 CAaL E, i' 1 CLERK ipSTiEE. vir. LLtr I DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS STIPULATION REGARDING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT AND INTERDISTRICT PLAN MODIFICATIONS The undersigned parties agree and stipulate as follows: The Little Rock School District Proposed Desegregation Plan (May 1991 Plan) was filed in the District Court on May 1, 1991, with the agreement of all of the parties. except on a few specific points, the Knight Intervenors. 1 The May 1991 Plan contains certain changes from the Little Rock School District Proposed Desegregation Plan which was submitted to the District Court in January and March of 1989 (1989 Plans or settlement plans). Some of those proposed changes are described in the Memorandum and Order of the District Court filed June 21, 1991. An explanation of the changes noted by the District Court in that Order was provided in a Stipulation of Facts filed July 2, 1991. See LRCTA Objections filed 5/1/91 and Amended 5/3/91. be noted that the LRCTA Objections are directed toward LRSD's implementation of the 1989 settlement plana and not to differences It must between the settlement plans and the May 1991 plan. *5^ G BiI 2. 9 In a Memorandum and Order filed July 15, 1991, the District Court noted other differences between the settlement plans and the plan agreed to by the parties and submitted to the District Court on May 1, 1991, and refused to reconsider its Order of June I 21 rejecting the May 1991 Plan, The District Court said, however. that "the merits of transitional revisions will be considered more fully at a hearing subsequent to the parties' compliance with the terms of the June 21 Order". Memorandum and Order filed July 15, 1991, The purpose of this Stipulation is to provide in advance of that hearing an explanation of the differences between the settlement plans and the May 1991 Plan and to show the basis of the parties' agreement to those changes. The differences which were expanded in the July 2, 1991 Stipulation of Facts will not be repeated here. The parties agreed in the May 1991 Plan to use the term "norm-referenced tests" rather than "standardized tests" to clarify the difference among norm-referenced. criterion-referenced and minimum performance tests. since all of these tests are standardized. (p.l) .- 3 . 13 . 4. The parties added to the settlement plans a requirement for a management information system to be developed by LRSD which will have the capability to compare in later years students who participated in the four-year-old program to those who did not (p.l4) for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness of the four- ^Page references are to the May 1991 Plan unless otherwise noted. LUSO/liMi^iMnd 2old-program. 5. The Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet Program was incorporated in the May 1991 Plan from the Tri-District Plan (pp.25-27) because the parties believe that:(1) the high quality early childhood program will attract white students to Rockefeller who will elect to continue their education at Rockefeller and thereby enhance the desegregation effort there
(2) its location near an interstate highway makes Rockefeller an ideal magnet site because of its accessibility to students throughout the county
and (3) the early childhood program can help children from the Rockefeller attendance zone by enhancing their educational program in a desegregated setting. 6. The parties added a requirement to use the information generated by LRSD's monitoring of the four-year-old program nc less frequently than annually to improve that program (p.34). 7. The parties agreed to minor changes in the Summer Learning Program (pp.39-41) to reflect that fact that the Sxxmmer Learning Program was at the time the settlement plans were written and is now fully funded by the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) . The. enrollment requirements are governed by federal regulations. I The JTPA program cannot admit or serve non-certified participants". The settlement plans were therefore amended to eliminate the word "non-certified" (p.4O). All participants must meet JTPA eligibility requirements. 8. The Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE) (p.41) is no longer used for the Summer Learning Program. The TABE provides 3information related to student growth in terms of grade equivalent and is designed to assess adult education. A more appropriate measure of student growth was needed. Therefore, with JTPA approval, the Metropolitan Achievement Tests - Sixth Edition (MAT- 6) was substituted for the TABE. The May 1991 Plan eunends the settlement plans accordingly. Use of the MAT-6 enables the LRSD to ( use the same procedure for identifying students who need remediation during the summer as is used during the regular school year. 9. The parties added a requirement that the LRSD Student Hearing Officer will be responsible for developing and monitoring plans to reduce the disparity of disciplinary actions (p.50-51). This requirement strengthens the settlement plans with respect to the issue of disparate discipline and places a responsibility for reducing the disparity of disciplinary actions with the person most involved with student discipline and in the best position to"reduce the disparity. 10. The parties added a requirement {p.63) that LRSD remove any barriers to equitable participation of all students in all classes. 11. The parties strengthened the provisions of the settlement plans which protect against excessive pullouts and possible resegregation in academic support programs (p.75-76) by requiring written approval of the parent or guardian before students may be placed in academic support programs and specifically requiring that "pullouts' will be a last resort and will be kept at "a minimal 4level". 12. The parties added a specific process by which improvement plans will be developed for students participating in academic support programs (p.78-79). 13 . The parties broadened the scope of students who will be eligible to participate in LRSD's Gifted Education Program (p.88) by requiring "above average intellectual ability and creative ability" rather than "superior intellectual and creative ability". 14 , The parties also revised the language describing the LRSD Gifted Program to reflect changes in the delivery of services to identified students which were approved by the LRSD Board of Directors and the Arkansas Department of Education in 1989. (p.87) ( These changes resulted from LRSD's desegregation efforts during the 1983-89 school year to develop an equitable selection process for the Gifted and Talented Program. 15. The parties added a specific requirement (p.ll3) for the purchase of science and math materials to facilitate a "hands-on approach to those subjects and a requirement to provide in-service training to staff regarding the use of those materials. 16. The settlement plans were changed to incorporate from the Tri-District Plan the requirement that LRSD establish an Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program (pp. 127-30). 17. The notation in the settlement plans that "in 1989-90 an additional science teacher and a part-time Technical Writing teacher will be needed" was deleted because of LRSD's present ability to provide the courses described in the May 1991 Plan 5( 9 9 (including Technical Writing/Applied Statistics) with existing staff. 18 . The parties changed the listed prerequisites for physics at Parkview Science/Mathematics Magnet School {p.l46) to conform to LRSD's current prerequisites. The prerequisites listed in the settlement plans served to unnecessarily exclude a number of ( tudents from participation in this magnet school program. 19 . The McClellan Community School Program (p.148-49) was taken from the Tri-District Plan and included in the May 1991 Plan because of the success of that program. 20. The parties added a number of specific requirements to strengthen the LRSD Library/Media Program (p.167-63), including requirements for a school-wide reading motivation activity each year, the correlation of library instruction to classroom instruction, the requirement that library media specialists provide training for building staff in the use of materials and equipment. and the requirement that library media specialists perform an annual evaluation of the adequacy of multicultural materials in the library collection. 21. Because funding is now provided in LRSD for indirect special education services. the erstwhile problem "funding for indirect services" was deleted from the list of "areas of need" (p.l72) in the LRSD special education section of the settlement plans. 22 . The parties agreed to strengthen the LRSD Staff Development Program (p.191-92) to include a list of specific staff 6 1auhy'iSU:p LXSO/befdtftria( ( development requirements, including the participation in staff development planning of community resource persons and all district personnel responsible for delivering training, and a requirement that LRSD deal decisively with the issue of racism and involve all staff, students and parents in a comprehensive prejudice reduction program. The settlement plans required the LRSD Data Processing Division to support school based and central office based functions by providing dropout statistics, test scores. attendance data. disciplinary data and student assignment data (p.204-05). In the May 1991 Plan the parties provided the additional requirement that the data processing office provide "Student Achievement Data (to include the capacity to monitor test scores, grade distribution and other identified achievement data by race, gender, grade, subject, school and district wide)" (p.2O5). The settlement plans established secondary attendance zones for each incentive school (p.220-21). Students in the secondary attendance zone of an incentive school had the option to fill vacancies in that incentive school after grandfathered and primary attendance zone students were assigned (p. 221). This provision was eliminated by the parties in the May 19 91 Plan because it would reduce the pool of white students eligible to transfer to each incentive school. The elimination of the 23 . 24 . secondary attendance zone allows any white student in Little Rock School District to enroll in any incentive school. The secondary attendance zones would also have allowed West Little Rock black 7( ' 9 students to transfer to incentive schools to the detriment of primary attendance zone black students who might attempt to enroll at a later date and find no space available. 25 . The parties agreed in the settlement plans to reserve in .each incentive school a certain number of seats in each prekindergarten and kindergarten class for black and white students (c. 221) . In order to avoid having pre-kindergarten and kindergarten seats go unused while eligible neighborhood black students are bused to more distant schools, the parties have included in the May 1991 Plan language which will allow such students to fill the seats reserved for white students which, even after recruitment, would otherwise remain vacant. r 26. In order to maximize desegregation at all grade levels. the parties added to the settlement plans specific authorization for desegregation transfers by LRSD students to elementary area schools that are difficult to desegregate (p. 222). 27. In order to help harmonize procedxires among the three Pulaski County school districts and to benefit LRSD employees and their children, the parties agreed to add to the settlement plans a provision to allow enrollment of the children of LRSD employees at the schools where the employees work (p. 223-24). This provision does not apply to magnet schools and is subject to desegregation requirements and the capacity limits of the particular school. 28. The LRSD Student Assignment Handbook which would have I been used for the 1989-90 school year was included in the 8( ' settlsment plans (p. 226, 233-48). That handbook includes a timeline and procedures which are now obsolete. For that reason, and because the student assignment handbook is a procedural document which is subject to change each year, the parties did not include that document in the May 1991 Plan. 29. The parties described Dunbar Junior High School in the settlement plans as a computer science/music school and set forth the specific programs and course offerings which would be available at Dunbar (p. 226-23, 230-36). By force of a 1989 district court ( order, which the parties did not seek to stay pending appeal. Dunbar has operated for the past two years as an international studies/gifted and talented magnet. The parties have expressed in the May 1991 Plan (p. 228-29) their agreement that Dunbar should continue to operate as an international studies/gifted and talented magnet because the benefits of implementing the program described in the settlement plans are outweighed by the detriments of the disruption which would be required to return to that program. 30. An international studies magnet program was established at Central High School by the terms of the Tri-District Plan. The parties agreed in the May 1991 Plan (p. 228) to continue this program. 31. Washington Elementary School was a racially identifiable black school during the 1989-90 school year and is described in the settlement plans as an interdistrict school. Under the terms of the Tri-District Plan, Washington was opened for the 1990-91 school year as a racially balanced (57% black) magnet school. The parties 9( 9 have agreed that the magnet program at Washington has been successful and therefore included Washington as a magnet school in the May 1991 Plan (p. 229). 32. LRSD agreed in the settlement plans to build two new interdistrict elementary schools (p. 258) . The first school was to have the capacity of 600 students. No capacity requirement for the second school was included in the plans. The parties have agreed in the May 1991 Plan to increase the capacity of the first LRSD interdistrict school, which the parties now agree will be nampH Martin Luther King Interdistrict School, to 696 students (p. 258). The language of the settlement plans expressing the possibility that Rockefeller may become an interdistrict school (p. ( 260) was deleted in accordance with the agreement described above that Rockefeller will remain an early childhood magnet and an incentive school. 34. The language of the settlement plans regarding computer laboratories in incentive schools, which required a minimum of 24 stations in each classroom (p. 267), was changed to reflect the fact that the minimum required number of stations is 25 and to clarify the intention of the parties that there will be one computer laboratory at each incentive school, not in each classroom. 35. The settlement plans restricted participation in the incentive school mentoring program to intermediate age students in grades four through six. The parties agreed in the May 1991 Plan to expand the mentoring program to include all students (p. 271). 10I 36. 9 The parties agreed in the May 1991 Plan to improve the incentive school component of the settlement plans by requiring an annual review of the incentive school curriculum and an annual inservice for incentive school staff members regarding any revisions in the incentive school curriculum (p. 288). 37. Thc parties agreed in the May 1991 Plan to strengthen the provision for Homework Centers in the incentive schools by saying that Homework Centers "will", rather than "should", be in place at each incentive school and by expanding the Homework Center program from a minimum of two days per week to a minimum of three days per week (p. 296). 38. The parties deleted the superfluous modifier "certified . before "instructional aides" (P- 296) because there 13 no certification program for instructional aides and the parties do not intend to limit employment as an instructional aide to those who are certified as teachers. 39. The settlement plans did not contain a program to provide financial assistance to instructional aides so that they may pursue education degrees and provide a pool of potential teachers for LRSD. Such a program was added in the May 1991 Plan (p. 297-98) . 40. The requirement that "Explorer Post Access/Membership" be available to incentive school students (p. 300) was deleted in the May 1991 Plan because elementary students do not meet the age requirements for Explorer Post membership. 41. Washington school, as noted above, was an incentive I school in the settlement plans, was changed to a magnet school in 11( the Tri-District Plan, and was proposed for continuation as magnet school in the May 1991 Flan. To ensure that students in the a Washington attendance zone will retain some of the benefits to which they would have been entitled had Washington become an interdistrict school, the parties agreed in the May 1991 Plan that ( such students "will have access to extended day activities, extended year activities and the scholarship program." (p. 303). 42. The settlement plans required that student evaluators in the incentive school assess the educational climate at each school twice a year (p. 306). The parties have determined in the May 1991 Plan that such evaluations need be performed only once each year. but that the group of evaluators should be expanded to include teachers and parents as well as students. 43. The parties have agreed in the May 1991 Plan to expand the Saturday program.^ at incentive schools to include physical education activities (p. 308) . 44. The parties have agreed to add representatives of the Joshua Intervenors to the incentive school staffing committee (p. 322) . 45. The requirement that an instructional specialist be hired to provide assistance to new teachers and others with special instructional needs (p. 328) was changed to reflect the fact that the LRSD Instructional Resource Center staff is of sufficient size to provide such assistance and that such assistance will also be provided by curriculum supervisors and the incentive schools coordinator. LIlSQ/liMMdMrkl 1246. In order to clarify and strengthen the provisions of the incentive schools staffing section of the settlement plans, the parties have included language in he May 1991 Plan which establishes committee composed of teachers, principals, administrators and parents to review the incentive school program and recommend change: for the 1991-92 school year, to pay teachers a stipend for their work on the committee, to share the coTn-mi-h-t-PP'g report with the parties. to require incentive school teachers to report to work five days early (except for Franklin school teachers) for in-service, to pay stipends to those teachers for this work, and to require Franklin school teachers to'report to work ten days early for in-service and to pay stipends to Franklin -teacher for this work (p. 329} . The 1991-92 school year is the (' firs year in which Franklin will operate as an incentive school. 47. The parties have-agreed to add to the setrlement plans a requirement that LRSD collect and review data on the needs and interests of its student population, particularly targeting at-risk students, including such information as "number per grade level. race/gender makeup, academic achievement needs/interests. disciplinary needs, health needs. social interaction- needs. and attendance and tardiness records (p. 335). 48. The parties have agreed to broaden the scope of any parenting education classes by eliminating the language that such classes are only "for mothers" (p. 344) . 49. The parties have agreed to expand the scope of math and science workshops to include parents as well as students (p. 353). 13I 9 9 50. The parties have agreed that coiamittee of administrators, parents and teachers should work o develop a a school improvement plan at each incentive school rather than simply establish school policies and procedures (p. 356). 51. The parties have agreed to expand the scope of parent recruitment for the incentive school program by requiring information sessions at churches throughout the entire community, rather than just the black community (p. 35S) . 52. The May 1991 Plan does not contain the requirement of the settlement plans that LRSD hire two parent recruiters (p. 360) because those two parent recruiters were hired in 1989, 53 . The parties have agreed to strengthen the monitoring provision of the settlement plans by including in the May 1991 Plan .resent for educational equity monitoring in all schools in LRSD by the Planning, Research and Evaluation staff with assistance from local bi-racial committees and including a requirement for quarterly evaluations of the incentive schools by the districtwide bi-racial committee and a requirement for semi-annual reports to the superintendent concerning such issues as separation of races in chool programs, achievement disparity, curriculum. staff development, extracurricular activities and student discipline (p. 371-72) . 54. The May 1991 Plan reflects the parties' agreement to strengthen the settlement plans with respect to the consultant/monitor by requiring quarterly visits to schools in PCSSD and NLRSD as well as LRSD (p. 374) . LUSO/lBMidMU-A 14r 55. The May 1991 Flan does not contain the description of the LRSD's computerized transportation system found in the settlement plans because the settlement plans described only what had been done in 1983-89 and what would be done in 1989-90. Everything described in the settlement plans has been completed (p. 376-77). 56. The settlement plans contained an LRSD data processing schedule for the 1989-90 school year (p. 379-80). This data processing schedule was not included in the May 1991 Plan because it is obsolete, it adds nothing of substance to the desegregation plan, and the data processing schedule will change from year to year. 57. The interdistrict school component of the settlement ( plans restricted participation in interdistrict schools to LRSD black students and PCSSD white students. The parties have agreed in the May 1991 Plan to expand the interdistrict school program to authorize NLRSD black students to transfer to Crystal Hill Interdistrict school if space is available after the transfer of LRSD black students to that school (p. 255). 58. The parties agreed in the May 1991 Plan to strengthen the summer school component of the interdistrict plan by requiring the cooperative summer school planning among the three districts "will" be conducted "each year" rather than "should" be "scheduled for early 1989" (p. 416). The parties also agreed to expand plans for tuition-free summer programs to those students "in danger of" grade retention rather than just those students already "recommended" for grade retention (p. 417). 15I 59. e e In the May 1991 Plan, the parties agreed to add to the settlement plans as an objective the establishment of a uniform records transfer policy and the requirement to appoint a committee to develop procedure and time lines for records transfer (p. 437) . The parties also agreed to add as an objective uniformity among the districts in reporting test results and analyzing disparities (p. 440) . 60. The settlement plans said that the directors or coordinators of counseling services for the three districts should meet monthly to share concerns and to plan for joint activities (p. 469) . xn he May 1991 Plan, that language is strengthened to require that those people "will" meet monthly. 61. In the May 1991 Plan, the parties agreed to add to the settlement plans an entire section on public relations (p. 476-39) which is taken from the Tri-District Plan. 62. The settlement plans contained a requirement that Russian be taught at Parkview Science Magnet School (p. 138). Following the rejection of the settlement plans by the district court. Russian courses were established at both the Central High School nternational Studies Magnet and the Dunbar Junior High School International Studies/Gifted and Talented Magnet. The parties have therefore expressed their agreement in the May 1991 Plan that there is no benefit to be gained by establishing a competing program at Parkview. 63 . The settlement plans were drafted during the Fall of 1988 and plans for each of the three school districts were submitted to 16( 9 9 the district court in January, 1989, Minor revisions to the LRSD Plan dealing primarily with the issue of grandfathering of student assignments required a resuhmission of Volume II of the LRSD Plan to the district court on March 23, 1989. The Interdistrict Plan was submitted to the district court in February of 1989. Two and cne-half years have passed since the settlement plans were drafted. Many of the dates by which the parties were supposed to implement various aspects of the plan have already passed
other deadlines are new impossible to meet. The parties have therefore agreed in the May 1991 Plan to change many of the dates in the settlement plans so that implementation can proceed on a reasonable schedule as it would have done had the plans been approved in 1989. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Breadway Little Rock, AR 72201 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 . BY
^ohn Walker Christopher Hei*
r WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Little Rock, AR 72201 Said Jone^ BY:_________ Ste'^ Jones C\ 6/ MITCHELL & ROACHELL, P.A. 1014 West Third Little Rock, AR 72201 BY
_________________ Richard Roachell (. 17 ( f 9 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Stipulation has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 19th day of July 1991: Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 ( Christopher Hei bthyVSUp UtSO/lstM^iMna 18 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 October 28, 1991 Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ruth: As you are aware, the District Court is obligated to monitor the use of settlement monies and does so through the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. ODM must be able to provide the Court with information which (1) accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds
(2) demonstrates the link between the districts legal requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements
(3) describes a desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified
and (4) enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation obhgations. For the past several weeks, my associate. Bob Morgan, has been working closely with your Manager of Support Services, Jim Ivey, and also with our financial consultants, the Arkansas Financial Group, to develop a system for adequately and fairly monitoring desegregation finances. During the course of this process it has become apparent that the settlement monies are being spent at a rate which wiU exhaust them long before the plan commitments and their scheduled fulfillment have been reahzed. Budgeting and fiscal management to ensure full implementation of the desegregation plan needs to be such that the district can answer the following questions: 1. 2. 3. What are the district guidelines for identifying expenditures as desegregation costs? What process is used to project the desegregation budget? How do these costs conespond to the specific provisions of the desegregation plan, i.e., what is the correlation between the settlement monies and specific desegregation objectives?Page Two October 28, 1991 4. If a cost item is determined to be both a desegregation and nondesegregation item (staff development might be a fair example), what criteria determines the apportionment of cost to the desegregation budget (Code 13) and the "regular" budget? 5. Who makes the decisions about which cost items are budgeted in Code 13? 6. Who makes the decisions about which costs are actually debited to Code 13? 7. What criteria determine how budgeting and debiting decisions are made? 8. What checks are buUt into the accounting/bookkeeping system to prevent arbitrary debiting of cost items to one budget category or another? 9. What are the districts spending priorities and how have they been determined? 10. What is the districts plan and corresponding timeline for reaching the 90% achievement goal for black students, thereby attaining forgiveness of state loans the district otherwise must repay? 11. What steps is the district taking to prevent a funding shortfall that will inhibit carrying out the desegregation plan to its fuU extent? Within the next ten days. Bob and I want to meet with you to discuss the answers to these . questions. We are aware of the enormity of the districts planning, budgeting, and accounting tasks
if we can be of any assistance as the above information is gathered, please dont hesitate to let me know. Very truly yours, Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor cc: Judge Susan Weber WrightOFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 October 28, 1991 Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ruth: As you are aware, the District Court is obhgated to monitor the use of settlement monies and does so through the Office of Desegregation Monitorin
g- ODM must be able to provide the Court with information which (1) accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds
(2) demonstrates the link between the districts legal requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements
(3) describes a desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified
and (4) enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation obligations. For the past several weeks, my associate. Bob Morgan, has been working closely with your Manager of Support Services, Jim Ivey, and also with our financial consultants, the Arkansas Financial Group, to develop a system for adequately and fairly monitoring desegregation finances. During the course of this process it has become apparent that the settlement monies are being spent at a rate which will exhaust them long before the plan commitments and their scheduled fulfillment have been realized. Budgeting and fiscal management to ensure full implementation of the desegregation plan needs to be such that the district can answer the following questions: 1. What are the district guidelines for identifying expenditures as desegregation costs? 2. What process is used to project the desegregation budget? 3. How do these costs correspond to the specific provisions of the desegregation plan, i.e., what is the correlation between the settlement monies and specific desegregation objectives?Page Two October 28, 1991 4. If a cost item is determined to be both a desegregation and nondesegregation item (staff development might be a fair example), what criteria determines the apportionment of cost to the desegregation budget (Code 13) and the "regular" budget? 5. Who makes the decisions about which cost items are budgeted in Code 13? 6. Who makes the decisions about which costs are actually debited to Code 13? 7. What criteria determine how budgeting and debiting decisions are made? 8. What checks are built into the accounting/bookkeeping system to prevent arbitrary debiting of cost items to one budget category or another? 9. What are the districts spending priorities and how have they been determined? 10. What is the districts plan and corresponding timeline for reaching the 90% achievement goal for black students, thereby attaining forgiveness of state loans the district otherwise must repay? 11. What steps is the district taking to prevent a funding shortfall that will inhibit carrying out the desegregation plan to its fuU extent? Within the next ten days, Bob and I want to meet with you to discuss the answers to these questions. We are aware of the enormity of the districts planning, budgeting, and accounting tasks
if we can be of any assistance as the above information is gathered, please dont hesitate to let me know. Very truly yours. Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor cc: Judge Susan Weber Wright"n 4 3 Little Rock School District December 12, 1991 T J? DEC 1 3 1991 Mr. Bob Morgan Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building, Suite 510 Ciiics o! Os
ic*i Hioring 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 4 W Dear Bob: Attached are our responses to the questions posed in Ann Brown's letter to Dr. Steele on October 28. I believe you will find them to be essentially the same as our previous verbal responses. , Please call if you have questions. Sincerely, T: Tony Wood Deputy Superintendent TW/ch 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)374-3361LRSD ANSWERS TO ODM QUESTIONS (Reference 10/28/91 Ann Brown letter to Dr. Steele) Question 1. What are the district guidelines for identifying expenditures as desegregation costs? Answer: Desegregation is one of the basic objectives of the District. Almost everything we do is directed to some degree to this goal. It is not possible therefore, and we have not attempted to identify all the cost associated with it. Our approach has been to identify personnel and materials that are required for the specific programs mandated by the Desegregation Plan, to set up budget accounts for those expenses, and charge to them as the programs are implemented. This approach may result in our charging less than possible to desegregation, but it should allow us to account for the settlement funds. It has never been the view of the LRSD that the settlement funds would cover the total cost of desegregation. Using the funds for court-mandated programs will allow us to use the money and to be able to show that it was used for proper purposes. For the purposes of showing that settlement funds are properly spent, budget/expense accounts are established for the specific programs in the Desegregation Plan. Expenses associated with those programs are charged to those accounts. Question 2. What process is used to project the desegregation budget? Answer: Building principals, department directors, and others responsible for various functions in the LRSD are designated as budget managers. Each spring the budget managers submit requests for each of the budget account codes assigned to them. If an individual has responsibility for a program mandated by the Desegregation Plan, he or she will have account codes for that. These budgets are approved by the Deputy Superintendent, Associate Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents (where appropriate). Manager of Support Services, and the Controller. All of these codes will show a fund code of 13. If a Desegregation Plan program requires office supplies, for example, there will be an amount coded in the budget for expenses of that description that are related to the desegregation program.QDM Response Page 2 Question 3. How do these costs correspond to the specific provisions of the desegregation plan, i.e., what is the correlation between the settlement monies and specific desegregation objectives? Answer: The costs can be tied to programs that are specified in the Desegregation Plan. This will not be obvious from accounting reports but can be done through discussion with budget managers and the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. Question 4. If a cost item is determined to be both a desegregation and nondesegregation item (staff development might be a fair example), what criteria determines the apportionment of cost to the desegregation budget (Code 13) and the "regular" budget? Answer: If, at budget time, it is determined that an individual will divide time between Desegregation Plan mandated programs and other activities, appropriate portions of that persons cost will be budgeted to the fund source codes. That persons cost will be automatically charged as budgeted through the year. For non-personnel costs, most of the expenses that can be charged to desegregation programs are easily identified, such as PAL computers and four-year- old program equipment. We have the capability to apportion costs, if needed. Question 5. Who makes the decisions about which cost items are budgeted in Code 13? Answer: The budget managers make this decision with review by the Deputy Superintendent, Associate Superintendents, the Manager of Support Services, and the Controller.QDM Response Page 3 Question 6. Who makes the decisions about which costs are actually debited to Code 13? Answer: The budget managers either make this decision or review monthly expense listings to make sure it is properly done. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation also reviews all Fund 13 expenses monthly. Since many Desegregation Plan projects are the responsibility of the Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs, she also closely reviews these expenses on a monthly basis. Further, our computer system will not allow a budget account to be overdrawn. To transfer additional money into an account from another account requires approval of the Manager of Support Services. These processes are the same as those used to control all LRSD expenses including those that must meet certain state regulations. practices are sound. Independent audits show that LRSD accounting Question 7. What criteria determine how budgeting and debiting decisions are made? Answer: The accounts are clearly named so there is little confusion. The budget managers code the expenses. Question 8. What checks are built into the accounting/bookkeeping system to prevent arbitrary debiting of cost items to one budget category or another? Answer: The procedures described above with the monthly reviews described are intended to catch any improper coding. If an expense is improperly coded to a valid account that has sufficient funds, manual reviews like those described above are the only possible ways to detect it. As stated above, these are the same procedures used throughout our system, and independent audits have consistently found our procedures to be sound.ODM Response Page 4 Question 9. What are the district's spending priorities and how have they been determined? Answer: The district must implement the programs mandated by the Desegregation Plan, must meet state education standards, must meet debt service commitments, and must make the capital improvements committed to voters in millage elections. All salary expenses are under contracts. There is little to prioritize. As Desegregation Plan programs are implemented and their effectiveness is determined, we can petition the court and the other parties to allow us to discontinue or modify those that are not effective. Until we reach that point, we can do little to prioritize our costs. Question 10. What is the districts plan and corresponding timeline for reaching the 90% achievement goal for black students, thereby attaining forgiveness of state loans the district otherwise must repay? Answer: The LRSD will implement the plan called "No More Excuses: A Plan to Increase Learning for All Students in the Little Rock School District." This plan, which was adopted by the Board of Directors on March 28, 1991, provides the framework for attaining the 90% achievement goal for black students (see attachment). Question 11. What steps is the district taking to prevent a funding shortfall that will inhibit carrying out the desegregation plan to its full extent? Answer: As stated in response #9 above, LRSD will measure effectiveness and attempt to remove ineffective programs in the plan. We will address overall funding problems through reducing programs that we can reduce, better management practices and, if necessary, a request for increased millages. F:odminto2.wpdNO MORE EXCUSES: A PLAN TO INCREASE LEARNING FOR ALL STUDENTS IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The purpose of this report is twofold: first, to identify and discuss problems and issues which the Little Rock School District must address if we are to substantially improve the level of learning in our schools
and second, to outline a plan to empower all our students to be successful learners. BACKGROUND import te ichc cur co: What students are learning in our schools is the most it issue School Board members, administrators, and must ccnsi C omunity. as decisions are made about education in The elimination of academic achievement disparities between black and white students, the enrollment in upper level courses, appropriate remediation for the students who are not learning, the use of school assignments, ibraries, homework minimum grade point requirements for graduation, the number and quality of reading assignments, multi-cultural education. "tracking," higher order thinking skills, and many other issues are all related to this central question: How can we get students to learn what we think they should know and how can we be sure they are learning as much and as well as they can? Last fall the administration was asked to consider a proposal to require a 2.0 grade point average as a requirement for graduation and to subm consideration by Decemiber. : a re: The a rt to t. inistra' ncc subm ua
tec rcr ts report December 3 and recommended that the 2.0 req-uirement be phased in starting with certain minimum requirements for the 1991-92 school year and implemented fully by 1994-95. The recommendation was presented to the Board at the December meeting and tabled for further consideration at a later meeting. Tn January, 1991, the Little Rock School District received riculum Audit conducted in September 1990 by a team of administrators and professors from the National Academy of School Executives. This audit was authorized by the Board when it adopted the budget in August 1990. The audit found that the District's curriculum is disjointed, uncoordinated, and inappropriately sequenced. It found that district-wide curricui im objectives do not exist, grading practices are 1 ent, promotion criteria are unclear. assessment is not ted to the curriculum, and curriculum guides lack internal ency. In short, even though the Little Rock School isurict is performing "reasonably well" according to the Curriculum Audit, much work needs to be done to improve curriculum design, content, delivery, sequence, and assessment of student learning.Following the December Board meeting, three public hearings were held to give District patrons an opportunity to express their views regarding the proposed 2.0 requirement. were evident during these hearings. Two opinions The first was that people were generally in favor of the schools setting higher learning expectations for students. The second opinion was that schools are responsible for seeing to it that students receive every possible opportunity to develop their intellectual abilities to the fullest extent and that this responsibility is not being met in all cases. Concern was also expressed for the student with identified learning deficits who might not ever be able to achieve the requirement of a 2.0 g.p.a. Since the public hearings, a survey was sent to teachers and principals requesting their opinions concerning the 2.0 g.p.a. requirement. The results showed support for the 2.0 but mos thought it should be phased in. The District's Biracial Advisory Committee took the position that the effectiveness of the current remedial and compensatory programs should be assessed before the Board decides to implement the 2.0 g.p.a. requirement. PROBLEMS AND ISSUES The problem of low student achievement in the Little Rock School District is not unique in our community. In a report entitled Accelerating Academic Achievement: A Summary of Findings from 20 Years of NAEP [National Assessment of Educational Progress, September 1990] the following points are made: 1. "Most of the data in this report show th our present education performance is low and not improving. II 2. "Research shows that student academic perforaance is likely to be greater when pupils work hard, when parents are actively involved in their children's education, and when teachers and school administrators incorporate research tested improvements in the classroom. Yet, this report ....shows that these things are not typically happening." 3. "Time devoted to some subject areas is limited... It 4 . Homework is often minimal or non-exisment. II 25. "Most classroom work is dominated by passive learning activities that feature teacher and textbook-presented information despite research findings indicating that these techniques are not the most effective. It 6. II Although parents are our children's first and most effective teachers, large proportions of students are not reading outside of school, are spending excessive hours watching television, and are spending little time on homework. If 7. II Students can read at a surface level, getting the gist of material, but they do not read analytically or perform well on challenging reading assignments. II 3 . "Small proportions of students write well enough to accomplish the purposes of different writing tasks
most do not communicate effectively. II 9. "Students' grasp of the four basic a thmetic operations and beginning problem solving is far from universal in elementary and junior high school... II 10. "Only small proportions of students appear to develop specialized knowledge needed to address science-based problems and the pattern of falling behind begins in elementary school. It 11. "Students are familiar with events that have shaped American history, but they do not appear to understand the significance and connection of these events." 12. II In recent assessments, more students appear to be gaining basic skills, yet fewer are demonstrating a erase of higher-level application of these skills II 13 . "Despite progress in narrowing the gaps, the differences in performance between white students and their minority counterparts remain unacceptably large." 14. "La enr sci e proportions of students....are not lied "ce c challengine mathematics and urseworx. II 315. II Across the last 20 years, little seems to have changed in the way students are taught. Despite much research suggesting better alternatives, classrooms still appear to be dominated by textbooks, teacher lectures, and short answer activity sheets." Other findings from the NAEP report are also highly disturbing: 31 percent of the 12th graders in 1988 read five or fewer pages per day from all. textbooks in both homework and school. 52 percent of the 12th graders in 1988 said they never or rarelv borrow books from the school or public library. 97 percent of the 4th graders reported that they completed workbooks or skill sheet assignments on what they read
only 45 percent said they talked in pairs or groups abou' their reading. More than 30 percent of the eighth and twelfth graders reported never talking to someone at home about things they read. Nearly three-fourths of the eighth graders had teachers who reported spending an hour or less on writing instruction and assistance each week or les
15 minutes per cav. At grade 12, half the students assessed in 1988 reported that they had written two or fewer papers as part of any school assignment in the six weeks before the assessment. Only 14 percent of the Sth graders and 9 percen' of the seniors reported weekly writing assignments of three or more pages. At grade 3, 49 percent of the teachers reported spending one to two hours a week teaching science. In 1986, one quarter of the assessed were no enrolled eleventh graders in a math course and ley. Mat: anorher one quarter were taking lower 1 math courses such as General emetics, ?re-algebra. or Algebra I. 4Slightly more than half said they were not taking any type of science course. More than two-thirds of the high school seniors typically do an hour or less of homework each day. Only 29 percent had two or more hours of homework each day. presented. These findings are by no means all that the NAEP Report Many others are equally distressing. The inescapable conclusion is that students, for the most part, do not learn nearly what they are able to learn. for several reasons: This appears to be the case (1) they are taught in ways that have been proven ineffective over and over by well-documented research
(2) the curriculum is content-deficient, and (3) expectations from both parents and educators are set at an unacceptably low level. While these findings are based on nationwide research, they are no atypical of what we find locally and should give us cause for e concern. In fact, the grade distribution. level of expectations, a large amount of test scores. "seatwork" in our classrooms, and the limited use of libraries are among the indicators in our own District that support these findings. As we examine our schools in relation to the NAEP report and decide whether to impose a minimum requirement for graduation, we must reflect upon events that have greatly affected our ability to deliver quality education to our students. 1983, we have been in court almost continuously. Since January, During that period, no less than four desegregation plans have been written. Weeks were spent in 1938 and 1989 negotiating a settlement with the State to bring an end to the desegregation litigation. District has experienced significant changes in The boundaries. Board governance. and adm ti its geocraph As was DO ted out in the Curriculum Audit, the District has had five different superintendents since 1982. The issues we have dealt with and the rapidity of the changes which have occurred in the District have contributed in varying degrees to weakening many of our internal processes and organizational procedures. We have seen job roles become less clearly defined, lines of authority eroded, and employees not held accountable for their work. The result as was vividly and painfully described in the Curriculum Audit is a district in which "Learning is not likely to get any better, and it could continue to get worse unless administrative direction. expertise. provided in the educational programs of the Li and interventi n are srrict." le Rock School In fulfill (p.l4)
y opinion. two things are necessary before we can he responsibilities we have as a school district toward 5our patrons and students. reviewed, revised. First, Board policies must be and in some cases improved. Coherent, consistent regulations, directives, and procedures must be developed where needed to support the enactment of these policies. Then all employees must be held accountable for carrying out Board policies and adhering to regulations, directives, and procedures developed to support them. Second, as the Audit pointed out, the curriculum must be reviewed, revised as necessary, developed in an appropriate scope and sequence, and capable of supporting carefully written educational objectives. In my opinion, we cannot afford to take three to five years to complete this redesign of our curriculum. It must be started now. Core areas of the curriculum (reading. language arts, math, science, social studies and fine arts) must be appropriately scoped and sequenced in time for use during the 1992-93 school year. This will require enormous work by a cadre or teac. ers and administrators, and it may very well require the expertise of curriculum designers who can work with our staff in putting our entire curriculum together in the proper scope. sequence, and format, K-12. reorganization of the central office admi It most certainly will require istration and an allocation of sufficient resources in order to accomplish this major goal. Not until these things are done can we move forward as a district to address in a meaningful way the evaluation of effective teaching and building management, assessment of student learning, overall school success, and the effectiveness of central office leadership. In_my opinion, it would be unfair to place the full burden of improvement in student learning on the students and the parents. It is our responsibility to take appropriate and immediate action to remove all barriers to improved performance and at the same time raise expectations for student achievement. RECOMMENDED PLAN OF ACTION TO ACCOMPLISH THE GOALS OF INCREASED LEARNING FOR ALL STUDENTS I am recommending the following: 1. A review and adoption of revised Board policies in Curriculum and Instruction by the Little Rock School Board at a work session to be held before the end of the current school year, preferably during the month of April. All other Board policies will be reviewed. revised as necessary, and adopted by September, 1991. A decision by the Board at this work session as to the educational outcomes we want our students to have whe.n they leave our schools. 63 . A decision at the work session regarding the priority the Board wishes to assign to the thirteen recommendations of the Curriculum Audit. 4 . An acknowledgement by the Board that the proper way for the schools to address dispar ies in academic achievement is first to have a written curriculum that is comprehensive, relevant, challenging, and properly scoped and sequenced in grades K-12 and then to teach the curriculum effectively to all students, setting forth clear expectations and using strategies that have been proven successful for student learning. 5. Authorization by the Board to design and develop a curriculum specifically for Little Rock School District students which incorporates the characteristics in recommendation number four. 6. Authorization by the Board to develop a comprehensive grade level assessment program to determine the extent to which our students are mastering the curriculum. 7. A revision of the District's grading policies to make them more consistent from school to school and from classroom to classroom. It should be clear that grades are to be assigned on the basis of mastery of specific curriculum content. 8. Periodic reports to the Board, preferably each semester, showing the distribution of student grades at the secondary level. These reports will indicate courses in which students have the greatest difficulty and will track the progress of individual students on a random basis from grade to grade. An ongoing review of the District's remedial a compensatory programs by the Biracial Advisory .d Committee with recommendations for changes presented to the Board yearly for the next three years. 10. The implementation of an Instructional Management System by the 1992-93 school year that will enable us to track the progress of individual students and provide corrective prescriptions to improve learning. 11. The immediate reorganization of the central office administration to provide concentrated effort in curriculum development and appropriate supervision of schools. To that end, the Associate Superintendent will devote her time primarily to curriculum design and development and staff development. The job roles of the curriculum supervisors will be redefined to include 7more programmatic responsibility for the delivery of the curriculum. A third administrator will be assigned to provide supervision to the schools as an assistant superintendent. The assistant superintendents will report to the Deputy Superintendent. 12. 13 . 14 . 16. The development and implementation of a leadership academy and training program for current and prospective principals, assistant principals, and central office administrators. The development and implementation of a teacher mentoring program as a key component of the District's staff development. The revision of the District's overall staff development program to provide greater concentration in the delivery of key components ro our personnel. Special emphasis will be given to effective teaching strategies and use of current technologies for teaching and learning. 15 . Development of school-based parent training programs in every school em.phasizing parent workshops and other sessions held at schools and other locations which emphasize the following: Discipline strategies and order in the home Time management for children and parents Planning and monitoring home study Building self-esteem for parents and children Communication within the home and with the school Substance abuse prevention Nutrition and health Development of an Early Childhood Education curriculum that includes components from successful programs in our District (e.g. HIPPY) and other districts. Assuming that the administration is directed to implement these recommendations and following documentation through systematic and comprehensive assessment that significant progress is being made, the Little Rock School Board should reconsider the timeframe for implementation of a 2.0 g.p.a. requirement for graduation after the end of the 1992-93 school year. The decision as to whether the requirement should be implemented and when, should be based upon the Board's analysis of how effectively the above recommendations are being followed. 8TIMELINES Proposed timelines for reconsideration of the 2.0 requirement is outlined for your consideration and approval: 1. Reports to the Board and community documenting progress made in achieving each of the sixteen recommendations in the "Plan to Increase Learning for All Students.' * * August 1991 January 1992 April 1992 July 1992 * November 1992 February 1993 May 1993 August 1993 and ongoing s to the Board an community regarding grade oisr bution and test scores for the Little Rock stude * * * * * July 1991 February 1992 July 1992 February 1993 July 1993 and ongoing Reports to the Board from the Biracial Advisory Committee concerning the District's remedial and compensatory programs. Should the Committee wish to make recommendations for changes, they will be included in these reports. August 1991 * June 1992 * * * 2 . 3 . * * * January 1993 June 1993 and ongoing twice yearly. 4. Reconsideration of the recommendation to implement a 2.0 g.p.a. requirement for graduation from the Little Rock School District. * August, 1993 MONITORING AND EVALUATION Through the use of the reports outlined above, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors will have access to the data it needs to decide whether to implement a 2.0 g.p.a. graduation requirement. It is recommended that this year's as a seventh graders be used as the base population from which to crack an increase in students' ability to achieve a 2.0. If by the end of the 1992-93 seventh graders have demonstrated a 10 percent increase each year in the number of students achieving a 9C average, then it may be reasonable to assume that the 2.0 g.p.a. could be fairly required of the 1995-96 graduating class. This would extend by only one year the original time frame as described in the December report. Reports tracking the District's progress in achieving the recommendations in the report and student progress in achieving a 2.0 will be supplied to the parties in the desegregation case and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring with the view that what is learned in this process will be helpful both to educators and the community at large. Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent March 28, 1991 10INTERDISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN This plan was formulated by committees composed of representatives for the parties. The committees were: Student Assignments Programs/Academics Community and Board Relations School Operations The Student Assignment committee had oversight responsibilities for all others. LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, and Joshua all worked on this plan. The plan states, "Tlie NLRSD, however has agreed to participate in those programs and efforts where the NLRSD is specifically identified by name but only to the extent that the language is specifically related to the NLRSD. The mention of the NLRSD by name in one sentence or paragraph does not imply that the NLRSD is included in preceding or succeeding sentences or paragraphs. Terms such as multidistrict the districts, etc. do not include the NLRSD unless the NLRSD so chooses." This plans stated objectives are to develop and implement a comprehensive desegregation plan for school districts in Pulaski County, with all schools (students and faculty) racially balanced as outlined in "previous applicable court orders", except as otherwise noted in this plan. INTERDISTRICT SCHOOLS There will be Interdistrict Schools with ratios of 60-40% of either race with the "ideal goal" to be 50-50. The responsibility for managing each Interdistrict School lies primarily with the host district. Six Interdistrict Schools will be established in the near term: Baker Harris Romine Stephens Crystal Hill Area King 1989-90 1989-90 1989-90 1990-91 1990-91 1992-93 Facilities considered for construction or establishment in the ftiture may include schools in or near Chenal Valley and the Scipio A. Jones site. The Interdistrict Schools shall be populated primarily by black students from the LRSD and by white students from PCSSD OR beyond Pulaski County. PCSSD and LRSD will engage in early, rigorous and sustained recruitment efforts designed to maximize participation in all Interdistrict Schools."2 INCENTIVE SCHOOLS These schools are to be established for at least six years to accommodate that number of black students who, by attending these schools, make it possible to achieve a student population in the remaining Little Rock schools of 55% black and 45% white (with a variance of 5%). Recruitment may increase the percentage of white students to 60% (page 4). The Incentive Schools shall be: Franklin, Garland, Ish, Mitchell, Rightsell, Stephens, and Washington*. Desegregation of the Incentive Schools is to take place in phases. One phase is recruitment of white students. The other portion is to reserve seats in each incoming kindergarten class for the enrollment of white students. "Funding for the Incentive Schools shall be set at two times the level for the Elementary Academies to ensure that the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/activities. To meet that goal, the parties shall utilize the services of a consultant who has demonstrated experience in developing and successfully implementing such programs in a majority black educational setting." MAGNET SCHOOLS , The parties pledge to continue to operate the six present Magnet Schools with a balance of 50- 55% black. Magnets are open to students in all three districts. It further states that each districts black/white ratio goal shall conform to its plan. FURTHER SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION All construction shall be subject to the courts prior approval and shall support desegregation. TRANSPORTATION Children shall be provided transportation to schools (including its programs and activities). Transportation is provided to children who live two or more miles from school. Bus rides shall not exceed 45 minutes unless a student has voluntarily chosen an assignment with the longer bus ride. OTHER AREAS - Aim to have equal facilities. Funds for schools in lower SOCIOECONOMIC areas shall be "at least" equal to those in more affluent areas. - Students from outside Pulaski County may select a Pulaski County school if such selection benefits desegregation. - Racial ratios of each districts faculty shall be consistent with applicable law.. * Washington was a magnet in the Tri-District Plan. A new school was constructed and it still serves as Basic Skills/Math and Science Magnet.3 ACHIEVEMENT DISPARITIES Parties set as a high priority the elimination of achievement disparities between black and white students. The degree of disparity shall be judged by student performance on standardized tests. The ADE with the district shall evaluate all programs and personnel for effectiveness in this area. If racial disparities exist in programs and activities at any school, "they shall be identified, analyzed for cause, and shared with the appropriate monitoring authorities". Special attention shall be given to racial disparities in: special education, honors, GT, advanced placement, extracurricular activities, expulsions and suspensions, reward and punishment systems. A year-end determination of each districts effectiveness in implementing desegregation shall be conducted by the parties subject to the courts review. "The parties monitors shall be provided reasonable access to records and facilities, provided the requests for access are not disruptive, unreasonable, or intrusive." This plan takes "positive steps" to ensure that community "involvement is substantive and ongoing. The parties also establish a joint committee to review curriculum and programs." (page 10). INTERDISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN (page 11) Magnet schools and M to M transfers are seen as "building blocks" of student assignment and transfer plans. Great mention is made of themes for Interdistrict Schools, and it is stressed that their selection involves parents/patrons. Interdistrict Schools to be established are: Baker Baker is to have an extended day program. This program does exist. It has not become an Interdistrict School yet and in the current appeal, efforts are made to prevent it from ever becoming one. PCSSD attorneys state that it has become balanced by M to M transfers. They suggest that the 200 seats that were to be at Baker for black LRSD students move to Crystal Hill when it is built. Harris Despite the fact that this plan states that Harris has the immediate capacity for 2(M) LRSD black students, Harris has not become an Interdistrict School. Again, appeals are being made to remove it as an interdistrict school, and to assign the proposed 200 LRSD seats to an unspecified "new school".4 Romine Romine is an Interdistrict School, and James Jennings states in his report of 8/22/91 to the LRSD Board of Directors that recruitment of white students from western PCSSD is underway. He also states that Pulaski County is informing their students on magnet waiting lists about open seats at Romine. A recruitment committee "will be formed" of staff members and parents to recruit throughout the year. Evidently the school year will begin before the committee forms. Romine added a 4-year-old class in 1991-92. Such a program is required, under this plan, as is a theme which was to be selected as of February 24, 1989. Stephens A new Interdistrict Stephens was to be constructed by the 1990-19 school year or, "as soon as reasonably practical". It is to be located near the 1-630 corridor. Current plans announced in the Gazette call for an opening date in Fall 1992 with the school to be constructed at 14th and Marshall on the site of old West Side Junior High, after it is razed. Stephens Interdistrict School will have an early childhood program. Black students will be assigned from the old Stephens attendance area (near 18th and Pine/Cedar). Plans are to attract white students from PCSSD and the children of state government workers. Crystal Hill An Interdistrict School is to be located near 1-430 and Maumelle Blvd. Some PCSSD whites may receive mandatory assignments to this school from the Oak Grove and Pine Forest attendance areas. Black students are to be recruited from the Romine area and/or attendance zones. King This is a new school to be constructed as a "downtown Interdistrict School by the 1992-93 school year or as soon as reasonably practical". A Montessori (modified?) theme is to be explored by a committee with representatives from each party. A report/recommendation regarding this will go to the Court by February 1990. OTHER STUFF - Interdistrict magnets are open to children from outside Pulaski County. - Consider a cooperatively-operated alternative school in North Little Rock. - By the end of 1990-91, it will be determined if an interdisciplinary school can be constructed in the Chenal Valley area and remain in compliance with desegregation requirements. - M to M transfers occur only when they enhance desegregation programs.5 PETITION TO MODIFY NLR DESEGREGATION PLAN Racial Composition of NLR Secondary Schools On 9/1/88 the Court approved a request to reorganize secondary schools. Ole Main will house grades 11 and 12. Northeast will have grades 9 and 10. Lakewood, Ridge Road, and Rose City will house grades 7 and 8. The North Little Rock magnet review committee has targeted white students at Lakewood for recruitment to Mann Magnet and LRSD black students to Lakewood as M to M transfers. The parties agree to make no mandatory reassignment of students to alter racial composition of secondary schools before 1990-91 provided no school is more than 5 points outside permissible levels (on page 20, the plan states that racial composition of each school is within 25% of the school district as a whole). To aid desegregation, black students from Ridge Road, Rose City, and Central Junior High (which no longer operates as a junior high) will be recruited for Oak Grove in PCSSD. Other transfers between NLR and Oak Grove may be allowed (page 23). SOMPA SOMPA (System of MultiPluralistic Assessment) has been dropped as an instrument for student evaluation for GT. The Torrence test for creative positives has been adopted instead. The NLRSD has implemented DISTAR peer tutoring and computer-assisted instruction as recommended in the Cantalician(?) Study. Other elements recommended in the study - Adaptive Learning Environment Model (ALEM) and Exemplary Center for Reading Instruction (ECRI) have been adapted and combined with other programs (see page 24). Early Prevention of School Failure (EPSF) has been substituted for the Dallas Preschool Screening Test. All kindergarten children participate in the EPSF screening upon kindergarten entry. SUMMER SCHOOL Summer school programs are for both remediation and enrichment. LRSD will have a free summer program for "a select" number of students with achievement deficiencies in reading and math. The total number served is estimated to be 500 students grade 1-12. Summer Learning Program (Sth grade remediation) This is for students who fail the MPT. It operates six weeks during the summer in the areas of: reading, English/language arts, math, science and social studies. Students work only in areas of "identified need". The may work in one area for six weeks, or in two areas with three weeks spent on each area.6 JTPA Literacy Students (ages 14-21) in Summer Youth Employment Program must be assessed in reading and math, and provided remediation. Extended Year Services There are also provisions for year-round services for some handicapped children if it seems that too much skills regression can occur in the summer. Collaboration All three districts are supposed to collaborate on summer school offerings to provide information and options for students (page 32). A tuition-free summer program for primary children "is being formulated" as an early intervention strategy. Expected outcomes By the summer of 1993, it is anticipated that a comprehensive, equitable, county-wide summer program will be offered for students in Pulaski County. Evaluation and Monitoring Summer school enrollment will be evaluated/monitored according to grade level, gender, subject area, and race. Progress/failure will be monitored according to grade level, gender, subject area, and race. Clinical supervision will be provided for teachers. 1 Summer school staff members will complete a questionnaire at the end of each summer.78 SPECIAL EDUCATION (p. 58) The plan states that action should be taken to reduce the number of minority children in special education classes. The percentage of children assigned to such classes should be reflective of the percentage in the school population, and should be comparable to appropriate statistics of handicapped students. There are currently some collaborative efforts between the parties. Based on these successes, it is recommended in this plan that the parties work together on: I. Programs for the low-incidence handicapping conditions a. Visually impaired b. Hearing impaired c. Multi-handicapped d. Seriously emotionally disturbed 2. Staff development A. Central office staff b. Prlncipals/other school staff c. Teachers 3. Multi-district assessment committee a. establish consistent screening process b. establish evaluation instruments to be used c. establish consistent eligibility criteria for MR and SLD 4. Establish process and coordination in area of recruitment of minority teachers and support staff. 5. Establish multi-district system (forms and formats) for documenting due process procedures. Guidance and Counseling Program Cooperative Efforts (p. 83) In order to better serve minority students, the directors or coordinators of counseling for all three school districts should meet monthly to plan for areas of cooperation. To facilitate identification of all children requiring remediation, a joint testing program based on the MAT-6 will be considered. Joint test purchasing, scoring, and reporting are possibilities. A biracial multidistrict monitoring team of parents, teachers, administrators, etc., will monitor test preparation and testing conditions. Teachers will receive training in test interpretation to identify at-risk and gifted children. A system of timely transfers of records between the three districts will be developed. PARENT/COMMUNITY (See attached)well as developing new additional programs designed to facilitate substantive Involvement and cooperation of parents/citizens in the districts. The proposed plan, which will be implemented in the fall of 1989 and be an ongoing process, will include: A. Develop parent involvement/support activities which facilitate the teaching-learning process: 1. Establish Parents in Learning Program, a a community-supported effort to involve parents in the learning process which would utilize such programs as APPLE, "Just Say No," and HIPPY
2. Provide workshops for parents on such topics as discipline, learning aids, study skills. academic tutoring, etc.
3. Parents and staff work cooperatively to develop 4. strategies to encourage positive home learning
Each school will establish a teacher/parent committee to design and implement school-based ties
activi- 5. Promote multi-ethnic in-school parent/teacher mittees
com- 6. Develop and expand the parent volunteer programs: a. Encourage all parents to become an active member of a parent involvement program
b. Recruit prospective committee members from diversified communities including retired teachers and community leaders
86 01803B. utilize parents in marketing educational programs and benefits that will result from desegregation: 1. Develop a resource list of parents who are willing to be contacted to talk with potential patrons
2. Establish parent recruitment teams in each school to encourage families to enroll in the public schools
3 . Seek positive media coverage featuring parents from all multiethnic backgrounds: a. Work through local parent/teacher organiza- tions to encourage positive media coverage
I C. b. c. Designate a contact person at each local school to report to an established information center
Produce video presentations of area schools for use by real estate offices, utility panies euid day care centers
com- Encourage community-wide multi-ethnic citizen/parent/ teacher/student committees for input into planning and decis ion-making: Establish building, district and multi-district 1. level committees which are racially, geographically and socio-economically representative to provide input and feedback on the operations of the schools and the districts
87 01804 D. Work, with the Chamber of Commerce Committee on Education on its advocacy for public school activities: 1. 2. 3 . Expand the school/business partnerships
Have a multi-district event to honor business part- ners in public schools
Encourage the Chamber to continue existing such as the teacher programs appreciation rally and the Excellence in Education Awards for educators and students. Special needs will be addressed in each school district's desegregation plan Participation and programs are contingent on additional staffing and funds in PCSSD 8S 0180509Z.T0 Ct * MH C ! Ml -x t n. yiu 2 s c hPah s s nt f< I 8 5 2 t r c Ui{ IK H I ? t J kr I t i ih! iin n f ! ? I 8 ,1 11 3 u 3 RX = c s t? I ii 8 1 i t s I 3 s 3 {I ? ! t o 0 t 0 XT I ' u u u b b b I L L L L L L L. r r s ( * e t r s sWWW CHRISTOPHER HELLER FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS AiraiNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BLTLDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 Telephone (501) 376-2011 Fix No. (501) 376-2147 Dinxt No. 370-1506 MEMORANDUM TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS DR. MAC BERND, SUPERINTENDENT DATE: EEBRUARY 22, 1993 I am writing to provide you a report about the significant developments in this case since the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved our desegregation plans and settlement agreement and to advise you about matters which are pending before the District Court. In its order approving the settlement plans and settlement agreement submitted by the parties, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that" [i]t may be necessary, in order to make a smooth transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances." Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (8th Cir. 1990). All three school districts proposed modifications to the settlement plans. The District Court issued a forty-four page order on May 1, 1992 approving some of the proposed modifications and rejecting others. The four desegregation plans presently in effect (one for each of the three school districts and the interdistrict desegregation plan) have been revised to include the modifications authorized by the May 1, 1992 order. The following documents define the desegregation obligations of the Little Rock School District and the other parties to this case, and are available to each of you at the Administration Building if you do not have a personal copy: 1. Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement - March, 1989 (as revised September 28, 1989)2. 3. 4. 5. The orders Desegregation Plan - Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 (there was an order filed on June 1, 1992 which corrects four typographical errors found in the bound volume) Desegregation Plan - Pulaski County Special School District - April 29, 1992 Desegregation Plan - North Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan - April 29, 1992 which have been issued by the District Court since the publication of the desegregation plans have been mailed to each of you. A complete collection of court orders is maintained at the Administration Building. Jerry Malone (370-1553) and I (370-1506) are always available to answer any questions or concerns you may have about this case or about our district's implementation of our desegregation plan. The most pressing issues now before the Court concern the structure of the Little Rock School District's budget and the implementation of its desegregation plan. In October 1991, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring informed the Little Rock School District that it must be able to provide the Court with information which: "(1) Accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds
(2) demonstrates the link between the district's legal requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements
(3) describes a desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified
and (4) enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation allegations, It On January 21, 1992, the District Court found that "the LRSD's current budgetary process does not meet the above requisites" and ordered the Little Rock School District to "submit a revised 1991-92 budget which is directly correlated to the specific provisions of the settlement plan" together with a long range budget projection and a long range revenue projection. On May 1, 1992 the District Court ordered the Little Rock School District to submit a revised budget. The Little Rock School District filed on June 1, 1992 a document titled "LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense - 1992/93 -- 1996/97". The Little Rock School District revised its budget projections based upon then current information and supplied the revised budget projections to the District Court on July 31, 1992. The Little Rock School District also filed a special status report which contained the budget proposal for the 1992-93 school year which had been approved by the Board. Following an August 3, 1992 hearing to discuss the Little Rock School District budget, the District Court issued an order on August 4 approving the proposed reductions except the elimination of a seventh period at McClellan Community High School. The 2Court also notified the Little Rock School District that it would require that music teacher positions in the seventh period at Henderson Junior High School be restored for the 1993-94 academy year. The Court promised that a more detailed order which would explain the Court's reasoning would follow. The detailed order was filed on December 30, 1992. The December order explained that the budget reductions made for the 1992-93 school year "will all be monitored closely and may have to be restored if the Court determines the cuts are having a negative impact on the district's desegregation efforts". The Court required the Little Rock School District to submit any future proposed budget changes to the Court and directed the Little Rock School District not to implement any changes prior to the Court's approval. The Court provided some insight into how future budget reduction proposals will be reviewed. For example, the Court expressed concern "about the district's decisions to tamper with popular programs like gifted and talented, music, magnet features, and eliminating staff at schools that are successful (such as the established magnets) and those schools trying to be successful (such as the incentive schools and the new magnets, McClellan and Henderson)." The Court also expressed concern about the impact of budget proposals on teacher morale and reductions which put the Little Rock School District at risk of non-compliance with State standards or statutes. The District Court also entered an order on November 5 concerning the impact of the 1992-93 budget reductions upon the magnet schools. The Court directed Little Rock School District to reinstate certain positions of the magnet schools and to present to the Court prior to pre-registration any changes in the magnet schools contemplated for the 1993-94 school year. Following the Board's decision on January 28, 1993 not to pursue a grant application to fund an Aerospace Technology School, the District Court notified the Little Rock School District that the hearing scheduled for February 1, 1993 to consider the Aerospace grant would instead be directed toward "other issues of concern to the Court". At that hearing, the Court expressed concern about the Little Rock School District's commitment to complying with its desegregation plan. The Court was particularly concerned that our budget make it difficult to discern budget priorities and to monitor spending on implementation of the desegregation plan. , The Court emphasized the need for good faith compliance with the desegregation plan in order for the Little Rock School District to eventually be released from District Court supervision and also emphasized that the Little Rock School District should make clear to the community that the desegregation plan is something to which we are committed. The result of the hearing is that the District Court will take a more active role in directing and monitoring the budget process and that the Little Rock School District will be required to hire one additional person to work on the budget. I have ordered a transcript of the hearing and you are all welcome to review it once it has been prepared, all previous hearings if anyone would like to review them). 3 (I have transcripts of almost a -9 e There will be a hearing at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, March 19, 1993 to review the effects of the Little Rock School District 1992-93 budget cuts which were addressed by the District Court in its December 30, 1992 order. The has Court asked me to remind you of its continuing concern about the Little Rock School District's budget process and to encourage you to attend the March 19, 1993 hearing. It would be helpful to review in advance of the hearing the budget cuts adopted by the Board this summer, together with the District Court's August 4 and December 30, 1992 orders concerning those cuts. I will continue to forward all orders to Dr. Bernd as soon as I receive them for immediate distribution to the Board. I will also provide periodic written reports to the Board concerning the legal proceedings in this case. 4CHRISTOPHER HELLER FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK A PARINEMHI? OF nrorVIDUAIJ AND FROFcSSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL 3LTLDING 400 WEST CAPITOL little ROCC, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 Telephone (501) 376-2011 Fk No. (501) 376-2147 Dirset No. 370-1506 MEMORANDUM TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS DR. MAC BERND, SUPERINTENDENT DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 1993 I am writing to provide you a repon about the significant developments in this case since the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved our desegregation plans and settlement agreement and to advise you about matters which are pending before the District Court. In its order approving the settlement plans and settlement agreement submitted by the parties, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that" [i]t may be necessary, in order to make a smooth transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (Sth Cir. 1990). All three school districts proposed modifications to the settlement plans. The District Court issued a forty-four page order on May 1, 1992 approving some of the proposed modifications and rejecting others. The four desegregation plans presently in effect (one for each of the three school districts and the interdistrict desegregation plan) have been revised to include the modifications authorized by the May 1, 1992 order. The following documents define the desegregation obligations of the Little Rock School District and the other parties to this case, and are available to each of you at the Administration Building if you do not have a personal copy: 1. Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement - March, 1989 (as revised September 28, 1989)1. 3. 4. 5. The orders Desegregation Plan - Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 (there was an order filed on June 1, 1992 which corrects four typographical errors found in the bound volume) Desegregation Plan - Pulaski County Special School District - April 29, 1992 Desegregation Plan - North Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan - April 29, 1992 which have been issued by the District Coun since the publication of the desegregation plans have been mailed to each of you. A complete collection of court orders is maintained at the Administration Building. Jerry Malone (370-1553) and I (370-1506) are always available to answer any questions or concerns you may have about this case or about our district's implementation of our desegregation plan. The most pressing issues now before the Court concern the structure of the Little Rock School District's budget and the implementation of its desegregation plan. In October 1991, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring informed the Little Rock School District that it must be able to provide the Court with information which
"(1) Accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds
(2) demonstrates the link between the district's legal requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements
(3) describes a desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified
and (4) enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation allegations. II On January 21, 1992, the District Court found that "the LRSD's current budgetary process does not meet the above requisites" and ordered the Little Rock School District to "submit a revised 1991-92 budget which is directly correlated to the specific provisions of the settlement plan" together with a long range budget projection and a long range revenue projection. On May 1, 1992 the District Court ordered the Little Rock School District to submit a revised budget. The Little Rock School District filed on June 1, 1992 a document titled "LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense - 1992/93 - 1996/97". The Little Rock School District revised its budget projections based upon then current information and supplied the revised budget projections to the District Court on July 31, 1992. The Little Rock School District also filed a special status report which contained the budget proposal for the 1992-93 school year which had been approved by the Board. Following an August 3, 1992 hearing to discuss the Little Rock School District budget, the District Court issued an order on August 4 approving the proposed reductions except the elimination of a seventh period at McClellan Community High School. The 2Court als^otified the Little Rock School District that it would require that music teacher positionsf^he seventh period at Henderson Junior High School be restored for the 1993-94 academy year. The Court promised that a more detailed order which would explain the Court's reasoning would follow. The detailed order was filed on December 30, 1992. The December order explained that the budget reductions made for the 1992-93 school year "will all be monitored closely and may have to be restored if the Court determines the cuts are having a negative impact on the district's desegregation efforts". The Court required the Little Rock School District to submit any future proposed budget changes to the Court and directed the Little Rock School District not to implement any changes prior to the Court's approval. The Court provided some insight into how future budget reduction proposals will be reviewed. For example, the Court expressed concern "about the district's decisions to tamper with popular programs like gifted and talented, music, magnet features, and eliminating staff at schools that are successful (such as the established magnets) and those schools trying to be successful (such as the incentive schools and the new magnets, McClellan and Henderson)." The Court also expressed concern about the impact of budget proposals on teacher morale and reductions which put the Little Rock School District at risk of non-compliance with State standards or statutes. The District Court also entered an order on November 5 concerning the impact of the 1992-93 budget reductions upon the magnet schools. The Court directed Little Rock School District to reinstate certain positions of the magnet schools and to present to the Court prior to pre-registration any changes in the magnet schools contemplated for the 1993-94 school year. Following the Board's decision on January 28, 1993 not to pursue a grant application to fund an Aerospace Technology School, the District Court notified the Little Rock School District that the hearing scheduled for February 1, 1993 to consider the Aerospace grant would instead be directed toward "other issues of concern to the Court". At that hearing, the Court expressed concern about the Little Rock School District's commitment to complying with its desegregation plan. The Court was particularly concerned that our budget make it difficult to discern budget priorities and to monitor spending on implementation of the desegregation plan. The Court emphasized the need for good faith compliance with the desegregation plan in order for the Little Rock School District to eventually be released from District Court supervision and also emphasized that the Little Rock School District should make clear to the community that the desegregation plan is something to which we are committed, The result of the hearing is that the District Court will take a more active role in directing and monitoring the budget process and that the Little Rock School District will be required to hire one additional person to work on the budget. I have ordered a transcript of the hearing and you are all welcome to review it once it has been prepared, all previous hearings if anyone would like to review em). (I have transcripts of almost 3There will be a hearing at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, March 19, 1993 to review the effects of the Little Rock School District 1992-93 budget cuts which were addressed by the District Court in its December 30, 1992 order. The has Court asked me to remind you of its continuing concern about the Little Rock School District's budget process and to encourage you to attend the March 19, 1993 hearing. It would be helpful to review in advance of the hearing the budget cuts adopted by the Board this summer, together with the District Court's August 4 and December 30, 1992 orders concerning those cuts. I will continue to forward all orders to Dr. Bernd as soon as I receive them for immeriiare distribution to the Board. I will also provide periodic written reports to the Board concerning e legal proceedings in this case. 4S5 a-' A, Little Rock School District issa u VED June 1, 1993 JUN 2 1993 CKics of Cesegre^ :icn Wouiionng Mr. Donald M. Stewart, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent of Business Affairs Pulaski County Special School District 1500 Dixon Road P. 0. Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 Dear Mr. Stewart: This letter is to inform you that a meeting should be scheduled to discuss the implementation of the pooling of Majority-to-Minority funds as required by the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. I would suggest that we meet sometime during the week of June 7. Please call Carol Hughett at 324-2009 to schedule an appointment. Sincerely, Ga: Ma: E ones hager of Resources and School Support cc: Bobby G. Lester Billy Bowles Mac Bernd Ann Brown Sam Jones Chris Heller Bob Morgan 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)374-3361TJ i i o ? (S B o 3 s o 3 a 3 Q. ? a -4 I?? a* B (Ji i o S O It G3 3 a
1 8 1 o s 8 V il yt O g c Q. co CQ 9 9 sr " fii vt < o 3 % o to a. tt 9 3 9 I s 3 3* 9 3 9 9 9 3 a - 3 3 3 s. 9 B S s 3 51 2 S 3 a ? 3 O S a -n & 5- 2 3 O 3 B ii. S. B TJ & 1 5 9 U 3 B O 9 3 9 o S co 3 M o > c 6 3 S - m 03 c (O 9 < < Z* Z* W 9 9 O O 9 3 9 S rp 5 S 3 a- 9 9 3 CO I-- 4k Ki r Oi Ki 00 K3 O Ki Ki K4 03 00 bo o o c 5 9 1 ^2 Oi 'ui cn 9 cn S QI yi SS KJ Gi co UI 82 2 hi o (0 8 OO UI o Gi o C3 b N) CO <5 S S O o 2 ? w B B < m (n St X B 3 3 9 9 3 9 o a 7* 7* 2 B B CD CD F 0 rt I S-S-OOr- > g* S S 3 S 3 3 2 3 B B B S S 3 O 9 9 a? 3 9 9 .3 3 9 ** ** in s ? 9 s ? 2 I S cn tn S = o Q 2 2 < 0 0 0 9 9 3 11 3 3 5! 3 3 9 9 2 c N) s o 3 8 3 3 2 c 9 O B 0) 'g) 00 u u fe K3 UI UI S p p p s s s s O) 03 O) K3 Oi I 01 O> 0> K> flO p 00 b> b CD 01 M O> 1 I 2. 9 s m m 9 2. 3 3 2 2. a a 3 S S c c 2 = -o 1* 9 90 CD CD 3. 3 W <- 5- B S 5 ? 3 3 3 .^, s 11 S s g ? s Ti Vi C tt 3 3 9 C 0 B ? tn 3 < 3 9 Tn O 3 S. 9 5 >n *3 2. 3 ? 3 2. 3 * "Si a w s 9 8 3 3. < c 3 w s. bT 9 U) 0 Ki -sj -J co UI cn 111 UI .U M 00 *03 'tn 'o s s O) UI OO co 4k N3 'kJ S3 3 B 5 T3 B 3 9 3 o o o 3 IS II Q. O CD A S & C a (I 2 St 3 o 2 3 3 c 3 a cn I cn 2 3 B SL 00 s N3 8 N3 UI O K3 -* 0) O) K) O M 00 S?!*2 *Q 'a O '-tJ b '-M Q U M N O S O A A 9 O A O O) yi o w a p p UI M N3 00 co <9 UI Ki UI cn Q cn c<i O Ci Gi "si 'oo 'tn tn 5 00 O Ki Ki 4K -* ->4 O 03 'cn 'tn 'jK '<D 6 00 Ki o cn o cn 8 y i 8 o Oi cn A Gi CD 00 00 N M -k N N3 -k O OO K3 o 2 'ui b) ui - 0> 2 UI O> M a bo UI 2 co (O tn 4k 00 t>3 *ui '.u *oo Cj3 cn co 'o '-"J 'co $ Oi -u *4 -k Ki CJI co 8 03 Q) S s 9 n <n ti le CO n 0 3- (D Q. C (D O oo 2 '6 Ki oo 'co K3 03 1 00 s M 03 o N3 UI CO C*) *00 Ki <O 'co M M S M S M W CD p CO Ki S S UI Ui cn o> UI co M CO 'oo 00 O 03 O CO co UI C^ Ci o UI co Ki co 'oo UI cn Ki K> 't3 *03 _ 00 00 o M lU C*i si co *4 S'cn Ki .U 00 cn ci b 2 ss Ki K .K 'Oi s UI N3 K3 03 'co 'q 00 UI cn *>4 w s 00 co lU 00 lU UI b 03 K3 00 St o UI M 00 N3 s g':i >4 O UI N3 g co 2 O 3 m 3 co < 2 0 fi) 3 (D 3 (O hJ <O S CO to co!' A) 8 2 6 < O 2 8 co w $ 9 tt 5 o 9 tt IO fo 2 2 < 00 9 B $ 9 -n c 3 a 0 O :o co o 2> CO 1*3PCSSD PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT June 9, 1993 JUN 1 1 1993 Office o( Deseycijaficn bicniiofirto Mr. Gary Jones Manager of Resources and School Support Little Rock School District 810 West Markham 1500 Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock. Arkansas 72216 (501) 490-2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Jones: As per our conversation this morning, attached is a work sheet which shows the the 1992-93 school year of implementing the language in the Settlement Agreement regarding pooling of M-to-M funds received for students attending interdistrict schools. effect during The work sheet does not include pre-kindergarten students attending those schools. II"f it -i-s ultimately decided that funds are to be received for those students, this calculation needs to be revisited and any necessary adjustment made at that time. The attached work sheet indicates that a check from you in the amount of $167,220 will tentatively settle this matter for 1992-93 until a decision students. is made on the funding of pre-kindergarten Please let me know if I can supply additional information. Sincerely, . Donald M. Stewart, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent - Business Affairs bay Enc. 1 cc: Bobby G. Lester Mac Bernd Billy Bowles Ann Brown i/ Chris Heller Sam Jones Bob Morgan <*> s o <o o cn _i co o o 03 O> gctc Ss I O 55 LU S H t O I Q S (73 5 UL o OS O Q -Z. CO O o o 0. Q_ co 05 CO cm' c Lli oi cn oi CM m Q cn co o z I z Q < 0. cn Q Z LL cn cn O O (jy cn O < 0. LL 2 Q Ul _i O o 0. < H o LU I E^ 01 Z' Qi z
I LU I 2 Q < I d co CM O cm' 05 co I co CO 051 tn _ /\ I co co co o o co CM in co CO ee^ o o co co CM O CM cm' 05 CM CM (n cn O o cn cn O < a. LX. 2 CM in co CM in co CO co O CM CM co o CM CO o o o_ o o CM fA- co o CO o o m co CE I z o G CM CO W- o 05 o' CM CO CO O o' GO e)* cn z LU 2 LU Q LU o O CL < 1- o LU I- < c o z Q Z D LL 2 Q < I d m CO CM CM_ oo' CO CM co co co 05 CO CM O CM m co" in CL (n < t- O 1- o 05 o GO CM (A LU < a: LU 0 < CC LU > < CO 05 CM to (A co o s o o co co <z> G CO o o in co 05 CO ee> LO LO co' LO co o (A O z o 5 z Q cn c o H (2 LU I o" co cn O X LU 13 tn z LU 2 & cn O Z O Q Q Z Q tn a: o (3 LU 5 o q' cn cn CJ 0. Cu 3 a I- O I 2 I o T 2 Z 1 2 I o T 2 LU I- Z < Q tn tn tn 0 < H o Q W (n o 0. Q < CL W Q Z LL. z o I 2 I o T 2 z I 2 I o T 2 < H o I- Q CO QC Q LU -I o o < o Q LU LU o LU Z I- Z LU Q D W * > z CL CO 2 Q < I d co CM I ijC 0 LU Q < q: ci o o co co co co co CO o in co cn _j O O z o (73 O cc H- W Q CC LU H Z 2 Q < I d m O 5 05 CM co CO co cn _i o o z o cz) H O Z 00 Q cn o CL Q tn tz -1 O) < t- O Q W (f) a (L CM r- 1 ic: cn LU Q < 0 0 co 2 UJ i d 2 LU _l LU CE LU it
< m < O t- Q w cn o 0. Q cr LU z Q (/) E 2 LU _1 LU LU Z 2 O X < o Q W 0^^803 ri JSSSf' /I'-- e-,-/ Little Rock School District n June 1, 1993 JUN 2 1993 Cfiics of Cesegregsycn Woi oring Mr. Donald M. Stewart, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent of Business Affairs Pulaski County Special School District 1500 Dixon Road P. O. Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 Dear Mr. Stewart: This letter is to inform you that a meeting should be scheduled to discuss the implementation of the pooling of Majority-to-Minority funds as required by the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. I would suggest that we meet sometime during the week of June 7. Please call Carol Hughett'at 324-2009 to schedule an appointment. Sincerely, Ga: Ma: ones hager of Resources and School Support cc: Bobby G. Lester Billy Bowles Mac Bernd Ann Brown Sam Jones Chris Heller Bob Morgan 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)374-3361 EIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. IjR-C-32-865 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS, LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS IN..SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER OF DISMISSAL l.ntroduction The settlement agreement in this case requires that the case smissed with prejudice with respect to LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD. settlement agreement was approved by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and by this court, but the required order of dismissal was overlooked and has not been entered. In accordance with the I-'' terms of the settlement agreement, LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD are entitled to an order of dismissal. The "RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE LRSD," which was appi^oved by this court and the court of appeals as Attachment B to the settlement agreement, contains the following requirement
It is further understood and agreed that the litigation now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, PqoX Schgoj District - ______ ASllftQi_Distrigt Np.Le et al. No. LR-C-82-866 and cases Western Division, entitled Xj_gulaski County Special consolidated therein and their predecessors {includincr. but not limited to. Cooper v. Aaron. Norwood Tucker v iJOOlgl P,i?trict) (the "Litigation") is to be dismissed Kail vi AVdiad with 3. so 11 <=. Ot ' 1 iprejudice as to the LRSD and the former and current members of board education named in the Litigation. This dismissal is final for all purposes except that the court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding the implementation of the Plans." its of in Pulaski County Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement, Attachment B, p. 2. The settlement agreement also requires that this case be dismissed with respect to PCSSD and NLRSD. Settlement Agreement, Attachment C, p. 2 and Attachment D, p. 2. The settlement agreement contains the following "Agreement Regarding Litigation Among Joshua And The Districts": "Joshua releases the Districts of all liability for issues which have been raised, or could have been raised, in this Litigation and commits that there will be no further litigation among or between Joshua, Knight and any of the districts, other than proceedings to enforce the terms of this settlement or the terms of the Plans." Settlement Agreement, p. 19. This litigation ended with the approval of the settlement agreement except that this court has retained jurisdiction. in 900 accordance with the agreement. to resolve issues related to implementation of the desegregation plans and enforcement of the settlement agreement. been entered. Arqrumant An order cf dismissal, however, has not yet The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved the parties' settlement agreement on December 12, 1990. LRSD V. PCSSD. 921 F.2d 1371 (Sth Cir. 1990) . The court of appeals directed the district court, on remand, "to approve the parties' settlement agreement as written by them." I^. at 1394. Kl.d hV) AVGIMJ On January 18, 1991, this court 01 :il 96 OS/I I 2 &ordered that "[tjhe parties' settlement agreement is hereby approved as written by them." According to the terms of the settlement agreement set forth above, LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD were entitled to an order of dismissal with prejudice upon this court's approval of the settlement agreement. The order required by the settlement agreement will not affect this court's authority, as described in the settlement agreement, to retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation of the desegregation plans and to conduct proceedings to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement or the desegregation plans. The question of whether a certain component of the settlement agreement should be implemented ha arisen once before. In LRSD V. PCSSD. 971 F.2d 160 (Sth Cir. 1992) , the court of appeals confronted the issue of whether the district court was required to extend certain millages in accordance with Item M of the settlement agreement. The district court had "thought it 'unwise to infer from the court of appeals' approval of the settlement agreement that [the district court was] required to extend the omitted millages," Id. at 164. The Eighth Circuit said: " ("What the district court failed to recognize is that we directed it to 'approve the parties' settlement agreement ag.__written by them." "[A]s written by them," the settlement agreement included Item M, which corrected the problem of the omitted millages The extension of the omitted millages is therefore settled as the law of the case." Li. at 165 (citations omitted, emphasis in original). 3 iOO haiH vj Avaiaa S6 Ot 11 11 : i IOne of the reasons the district court had given for declining o implement Item M was that even though the court of appeals had approved the settlement agreement in its entirety, it had not specifically mentioned Item M in its opinion. Xd. at 164. The court of appeals made it clear that the parties were entitled
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.