Staffing

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL received DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL NOV J 3 1995 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office Of Desegregation INTERVENORS Moniicnng RESPONSE TO ~JOSHUA MOTION... . REGARDING FACULTY AND STAFF DESEGREGATION For its response. the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. LRSD is in compliance with its desegregation plan with respect to faculty and staff desegregation. Joshua seeks to impose upon LRSD requirements which are not found in the LRSD desegregation plan. Joshua is entitled only to enforce the terms of the LRSD plan. The court must reject Joshua's efforts to impose upon LRSD obligations which are not contained in its desegregation plan. In exchange for the "commitments set forth in the Plans 2. and the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement, II Joshua agreed to release all claims against LRSD and to dismiss this litigation. The district court retains authority to monitor the implementation of the desegregation plan and the Settlement Agreement, but not to impose additional obligations on Iaihy\LRSD-Fac. Reathe parties. The relief requested by Joshua goes well beyond the requirements of LRSD's desegregation plan and should be rejected by the court. 3. The LRSD has long been unitary with respect to its faculty and staff. Vestiges of discrimination have been eliminated to the extent practicable. Unless Joshua can prove that new constitutional violations have occurred concerning faculty and staff within LRSD, the court is without authority to impose additional remedies. WHEREFORE, for the reason set forth above and in the accompanying brief, Joshua's "Motion" concerning faculty and staff desegregation within LRSD should be denied. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Christopher Heller John C. Fendley By: Christopher Hellerf Bar No. 81083 kaihyUlSD-Fac.Rai 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Response to Joshua Motion Regarding Faculty and Staff Desegregation has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 13th day of November, 1995: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller liuhyXLKSO-Fac.Ra 3IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL RECEIViO DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL NOV 1 3 1995 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office of Desegregation Mom wring INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN RESPORSg TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOTION REGARDING FACULTY AND STAFF ASSIGN P PRACTICES I. Introduction. In their Motion, the Joshua Intervenors ("Joshua) complain that the staff of the early childhood program at Rockefeller Elementary and of the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") Student Assignment Office do not include a sufficient number of African- Americans. Apparently referring to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring's ("ODM") September 15, 1995 "Status Report on Staffing, Joshua prays that this Court adopt "the ODM findings" H and "implement the remedies recommended by ODM."' Joshua's Motion, p. 3. In effect, Joshua is asking this Court to require that every 1 LRSD does not intend to suggest that it opposes the recommendations set forth in ODM's September 15, 1995 monitoring report. LRSD's position is that although LRSD may choose to accept those recommendations. desegregation plan recommendations. and the recommendations are not part of its it cannot be ordered to accept the louhyM-RSD-Fac.Nllschool, grade level and administrative department within LRSD meet some unspecified racial quota. The LRSD Desegregation Plan contains no such requirement. To impose such a requirement on LRSD would constitute a modification it the LRSD Desegregation Plan. Because Joshua cannot establish changed circumstances justifying modification, Joshua's motion should be denied. See Crumpton v. Bridgeport Educ. Ass'n, 993 F.2d 1023, 1028 (2nd Cir. 1993). Likewise, there is no constitutional requirement that every grade level and administrative office of LRSD have some quota of African-Americans. See Quarles v. Oxford Municipal Separate School Dist^, 868 F.2d 750, 756 (5th Cir. 1989)("[S]tudents do not have a 'constitutional right to attend a school with a teaching staff of any particular racial composition. t II ), quoting Oliver v. Kalamazoo Bd. of Educ.. 706 F.2d 757, 762 (6th Cir. 1983). Because LRSD has fulfilled its constitutional obligations with regard to faculty and staff, this Court lacks the authority to order additional remedies in that area. See Pasadena City Bd. of Educ. v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424, 436-37 (1976). II. Background. In 1971 the district court in Clark v. Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, 328 F.Supp. 1205, 1211 (E.D. Ark. 1971), held that LRSD had fulfilled its obligation to desegregate its faculty and staff. For more than two decades. LRSD has aggressively recruited qualified African-American teachers and administrators. As part of 1973 agreement in Clark which a k>lhy\LRSD-F>c.NI3 2resulted in a seven year moratorium on litigation, the parties stipulated that: "The Little Rock School District is an equal opportunity employer and its goal has been and continues to be, through normal attrition and consistent with the hiring of qualified individuals, to achieve total administrative and teaching staff ratio of one-third black personnel." Exhibit A, Stipulation filed July 6, 1973. In 1982, the district a court in Clark concluded, "[T]he Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system . fl Exhibit B, Memorandum and Order filed July 9, 1982, P- 16. The court specifically found that LRSD had complied with the court's orders regarding faculty and staff. See Exhibit B, p. 13. The district court in Clark rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the proportion of African-American faculty and staff should mirror the proportion of African-American students in LRSD stating, "The Court concurs with Dr. Lacey's view that the available labor market more appropriately determines the racial composition of the faculty and staff than does the ratio of students. II Exhibit B, p. 13. According to Arkansas Department of Education ("ADE"), African-Americans constitute less than 10% of the relevant labor market. See Exhibit C. LRSD has had at least triple that percentage for more than 20 years. See Clark v. Bd. of Educ. of the Little Rock School Dist., 465 F. 2d 1044, 1048 (Sth Cir. 1972)("The record shows that the faculty of the Little Rock School District consists of 70 percent white and 30 percent black k*tfay\LRSD-Fac.N 13 3teachers."). Currently, 35 Q. 'o of LRSD certified personnel are African-American. See Exhibit D. LRSD's superintendent is African-American, and three of seven board members, including the board's president, are African-American. LRSD's history of exceeding the legal requirements relating to faculty and staff explains why the LRSD Desegregation Plan contains no specific obligations in this area. with the exception of staffing at incentive schools. Moreover, LRSD's outstanding record with regard to faculty and staff is evidence of LRSD's good faith commitment to a constitutional course of action. See Freeman v. Pitts, 306 U.S. 467, 491-92 (1992). III. The LRSD Desegregation Plan. The LRSD Desegregation Plan provides: The superintendent and school board must examine the racial makeup of all categories of employees including the administrative, teaching and support staff so that future recruitment and placement of persons to fill positions will be done on an equitable basis. LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 2. As ODM has recognized, "The LRSD plan . . . makes only a philosophical commitment to 'equity' in staffing and reviewing staffing patterns." ODM Monitoring Report, September 15, 1995, p. 9. The LRSD Desegregation Plan does not define equity.^ For the purpose of interpretation and enforcement. consent decrees are to be construed as contracts. U.S. V. City of Fort ^See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 660 F.Supp. 637, 642 (E.D.Ark. 1987)("'Equity' is simply not a synonym for desegregation."). k>ihy\LRSD-Fc.NI3 4Smith. 760 F.2d 231, 233-34 (Sth Cir. 1985). Accordingly, words used in the LRSD Desegregation Plan should be given their "plain. ordinary meaning. II See Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Milburn. 269 Ark. 384, 386, 601 S.W.2d 841, 842 (1980). Webster's Dictionary defines "equity" as "freedom from bias or favoritism." Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1986). Therefore, LRSD's obligation with regard to faculty and staff is to hire and assign faculty and staff in a nondiscriminatory manner. LRSD has complied in good faith with its obligation to hire and assign faculty and staff in a nondiscriminatory manner. does not allege that LRSD has discriminated with regard hiring and assignment of African-American faculty and Joshua to the staff. Rather, Joshua complains that LRSD has failed to take affirmative steps to ensure that the early childhood program at Rockefeller Elementary and the LRSD Student Assignment Office include an unspecified quota of African-Americans. Because the LRSD Desegregation Plan contains no such requirement, Joshua's motion must be denied. See Crumpton. 993 F.2d at 1028. IV. Remedial Authority of District Court. Joshua argues that this Court has "equitable authority" to grant them the relief they seek. This argument fails for two reasons. First, Joshua has agreed that the LRSD Desegregation Plan is their complete and final remedy for the past discrimination of Webster's Dictionary defines "equitable It as II having or exhibiting equity : dealing fairly and equally with all concerned." Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1986). kBtfay\LRSD-Fc.N13 5LRSD. The creation by this Court of new obligations beyond the plan would constitute a modification of the plan which would require proof of changed circumstances. See Crumpton, 993 F.2d at 1028. Second, because LRSD is unitary with regard to faculty and staff, this Court is divested of authority to order any additional remedies relating to this aspect of school operations. See Pasadena City Bd. of Educ. v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424, 436 (1976). Each of these reasons for denying Joshua's motion will be discussed in detail below. A. Modification of a Consent Decree. As a part of the September 1989 settlement of this case. Joshua agreed that the LRSD Desegregation Plan would be the complete and final remedy for all past acts of discrimination by LRSD. See Exhibit E, Release of All Claims Against the LRSD. Joshua agreed to the dismissal with prejudice of this case and all consolidated cases involving LRSD, with the exception that this Court retained jurisdiction "to address issues regarding the implementation of the Plans. II Exhibit E, Release. The Settlement Agreement further provides: "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." Exhibit E, Settlement Agreement, p. 19. Like LRSD, Joshua is bound by the terms of the LRSD Desegregation Plan and the September 1989 settlement agreement, and this Court has no authority to expand the lathyVLRSD-Fac.NlS 6obligations of LRSD over its objections. See Crumpton. 993 F.2d at 1028
see also U.S. V. Overton, 834 F.2d 1171, 1173 (Sth Cir. 1987) . In Crumpton. SUpra, the defendants in school desegregation case filed a motion asking the district court to "clarify" a consent decree to make clear that the defendants were to give an absolute preference to minorities when laying off teachers. The district court granted the defendants motion and approved of the preference in favor of minority teachers. The teachers' association appealed contending that the preference constituted an impermissible modification of the consent decree. The first issue for the court of appeals was "whether the clarification was in fact a modification." Crumpton. 993 F.2d at 1028. In resolving this issue, the court first recognized that: While a consent decree is a judicial pronouncement, it is principally an agreement between the parties and as such should be construed like a contract. contract, the scope of consent decree [LJike a "must be discerned within its four corners. II United States v. Armour & Co.. 402 U.S. 673, 682, 91 S.Ct. 1752, 1757, 29 L.Ed.2d 256 (1971), and, hence, a court construing such a document is "not entitled to expand or contract the agreement of the parties as set forth in the consent decree." 1985). Berger v. Heckler. 771 F.2d 1556, 1568 (2d Cir. a a Id. Applying these principles, the court of appeals found that the "clarification" was in reality a modification because the consent decree made no mention of layoffs. Id., at 1029. In remanding the case for determination as to whether modification was a permissible. the court noted that "one party to a consent decree cannot unilaterally rewrite the agreement over another party's objections, in order to pursue a course of action favored by it ... katfay\UtSD-Fftc.N13 7where the course of action IS not authorized by the consent decree." Id., at 1030. As in Crumpton, Joshua requests that this Court 'define[] or interpret[] II the LRSD Desegregation Plan to require that LRSD maintain an unspecified quota of African-Americans within every area of its faculty and staff. There is no requirement in the LRSD Desegregation Plan that every administrative department and every grade level have some quota of African-Americans, and nothing within the four corners of the plan can reasonably be interpreted to create such a requirement. Therefore, Joshua's request for an interpretation is in reality of request for a modification. In Rufo V. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail. 502 U.S. 367 (1992), the Supreme Court set forth the standard for modification of consent decrees: [A] party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree. moving party meets this standard. the court If the should consider whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance. Id., at 393. Joshua does not allege changed circumstances which justify modification of the LRSD Desegregation Plan, and as a result, Joshua's motion must be denied. B. LRSD Is Unitary With Regard to Faculty and Staff. Once segregated by law, LRSD is obligated to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination to the extent practicable. Bd. of Educ. V. Dowell. 498 U.S. 237, 250 (1991). LRSD has met that obligation with regard to faculty and staff, and consequently, this Court kalhy\LRSD-Fac.NI3 8lacks the authority to order additional remedies in that area. See Spangler. 427 U.S. at 436-37. 1. Eliminating the Vestiges of Discrimination. The requirement to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination with regard to faculty and staff is three-fold. First, a school district must assign faculty and staff so that the racial composition of the faculty and staff of each school is substantially the same as the racial composition of the faculty and staff in the district as a whole. Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School Dist., 419 F.2d 1211, 1218 (Sth Cir. 1970). In 1971 the district court in Clark, 328 F.Supp. at 1211, held that LRSD had fulfilled its obligation to desegregate its faculty and staff. Second, following the initial reassignment of faculty and staff, a school district must hire, fire and assign faculty and staff in a nondiscriminatory manner. See, e.g., United States v. Desoto Parish School Bd., 574 F.2d 804, 819 (Sth Cir. 1978). Since at least 1971, LRSD has hired, fired and assigned faculty and staff in a nondiscriminatory manner. This fact distinguishes the cases cited by Joshua in support of its Motion. The orders in Davis v. School Dist. of the City of Pontiac. 487 F.2d 890 (6th Cir. 1973), and Smith v. St. Tammany Parish School Bd., 448 F.2d 414 (5th Cir. 1971), requiring that a particular position be filled by an African-American were part of a comprehensive remedy which included desegregation of the faculty and staff. Because the faculty and staff of LRSD has been desegregated since 1971, these cases are inapposite to the case at hand. Compare Cunico v. Pueblo School Dist. No. 60, 917 F.2d 431, 437 (10th Cir. 1990). 4 louhyUJtSD-Fac.Nn 9There is no requirement that a school district maintain the racial composition of the faculty and staff of each school at the district wide ratio. The Fifth Circuit noted in Desoto Parish, SU pra, that "Singleton does not require that such ratios be maintained permanently
rather, it contemplates an initial reassignment so the racial ratio at every school reflects the systemwide ratio, followed by the utilization of nona discriminatory hiring, firing, and assignment policy thereafter." Desoto Parish School Bd. , 574 F.2d at 819. That no such requirement exists is demonstrated by recent cases granting school districts unitary status. See Coalition to Save Our Children v. State Bd. of Educ., ___ F.Supp. ___ ___ , slip opin. p. 49 (D.Del. 1995)(granting unitary status where "[ajpproximately 80% of the schools in the 4 districts have fallen within a [plus or minus] 10% variance each year. With the exception of 1981, over 9 0% have fallen within a [plus or minus] 15% variance.")
Stell v. Bd. of Educ.. 860 F.Supp. 1563, 1584 (S.D. Ga. 1994) (granting unitary status where 80% of schools in the district fell within a plus or minus 10% variance and 98% fell within a plus or minus 15% variance)
and, Tasbv v. Woolerv, 869 F.Supp. 454, 470 (N.D.Tex. 1994)(granting unitary status where 97 of 191 schools fell outside a plus or minus 15% variance). Finally, a school district must make a sustained, good faith effort to recruit African-Americans so that the proportion of African-Americans on its faculty and staff approximates the proportion of African-Americans in the relevant labor market. See kBQQr\LJ<SD-Fc.N13 10United States v. Paradise, 480 U.S. 149, (1987)(relevant labor market)
Oliver. 706 F.2d at 763 (6th Cir. 1983)("The record indicates 'the type of sustained good faith effort to recruit minority faculty members so as to remedy the effects of any past discriminatory practices.' [citation omitted] This is all the remedy to which the Kalamazoo students were entitled."). See also Fort Bend Independent School Dist. v. City of Stafford, 651 F.2d 1133, 1140 (5th Cir. 1981). For over two decades, LRSD has aggressively recruited African-Americans for faculty and staff positions. These efforts have resulted in the proportion of African-American faculty and staff of LRSD far exceeding the relevant labor market. For the 1995-96 school year, 35% of LRSD's certified personnel are African-American compared with 10% in the 5 relevant labor market. See Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, F.Supp. , slip opin. P- 44 , (D. Colo. 1995)(granting unitary status where "the District has achieved minority faculty percentages that far exceed those that exist in the available labor pool"). Therefore, LRSD has desegregated its faculty and staff
hired. fired and assigned faculty and staff in a nondiscriminatory manner for over 20 years
and recruited and retained African-Americans faculty and staff members well in excess of their proportion of the The parties recently met and agreed that the relevant labor market is certified personnel in Arkansas. The racial composition of the certified personnel in Arkansas was provided by the ADE. Although invited to participate, counsel for Joshua did not to do so. kallv\LRSD-F*c.NI3 11relevant labor market. In other words, LRSD has eliminated to the vestiges of discrimination with regard to faculty and staff to the extent practicable and is unitary with regard to this aspect of school operations. 2 . Equitable Authority of a District Court. Because LRSD is unitary with regard to faculty and staff, there is no constitutional violation for this Court to remedy and no basis for this Court's exercise of its II equitable authority. II A district court's equitable authority "may be exercised only on the basis of a constitutional violation" and the "nature of the violation determines the scope of the remedy." Swann v. Charlotte- Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 16 (1971). Once constitutional violation has been remedied. a district court's equitable authority ends. See Spangler. 427 U.S. at 436-37
a Authur V. Nyguist, ___ F.Supp. ___ ___, 1995 Westlaw 646372, p. 1 (W.D.N.Y 1995)("In supervising a desegregation case. a district court's authority is limited: 'A remedy is justifiable only insofar as it advances the ultimate objective of alleviating the initial constitutional violation'"). It is irrelevant that LRSD has not yet requested unitary status with regard to faculty and staff. See Hull v. Quitman County Bd. of Educ.. 1 F.3d 1450, 1454 (5th The LRSD Desegregation Plan is a six year plan. and the September 1989 settlement agreement releases LRSD from an further desegregation obligations at the end of those six years. Exhibit E. Thus, the September 1989 See settlement agreement contemplates that LRSD will be completely unitary after the six years of implementation of the LRSD Desegregation Plan. Overton. 834 F.2d at 1173. See Ialliy\LRS[>-Fc.N13 12cir. 1993) (district court may decline to order additional remedies where a school district is unitary despite the fact that school district has not requested unitary status). IV. Conclusion. Therefore, Joshua's Motion must be denied for two reasons. First, to grant Joshua's Motion would constitute a modification of the LRSD desegregation plan, and Joshua fails to allege changed circumstances which would make modification permissible. See Rufo, 502 U.S. at 393. Second, LRSD has fulfilled its constitutional obligation in desegregating its faculty and staff. and consequently, this Court lacks authority to order additional remedies with regard to that aspect of LRSD. Accordingly, LRSD prays that Joshua's Motion be denied. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Christopher Heller John C. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 kalhyVLRSD-Fac.NB By: 13 Christopher Hei Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 13th day of November, 1995: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 kthyUJlSD-FK:.N13 c
^istopher Heller< 14IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEJVED DELORES CLARK, et al.. Plaintiffs, Vs. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., ) ) ' Defendants. ) STIPULATION NOV I 3 1995 Office of Desegregafion Moriiicnng No. LR-64-C-155 3 DEFENDANTS f EXHIBIT f A Plaintiffs and defendants hereby stipulate as follows: 1. Defendants shall implement and administer for the 1973-74 school year and thereafter the student and faculty assignment procedures set forth in their Report about December 22, 1972 and in their Motions filed in this case on or about May 9, 1973. However, although the parties to this litigation believe that the ratio of black to white students in the district has now stabilized, if at the end of the 1974-75 school year, the overall proportion of black students then attending the primary schools in the western area of the city equals or exceeds two-thirds of the total student enrollment at such facilities, then the defendants will at that time re-evaluate the student assignment procedures and the grade structure presently in use for the purpose of formulating a procedure which would achieve the most equitable and efficient method of desegregation under the circumstances then existing. 2. Assignments of pupils to kindergarten facilities will be made on the basis of geographic attendance zones designed to assign such students to the facility which is generally closest to their residence. A kindergarten student may however elect to exercise a majority to minority transfer pursuant to which he or she may transfer from a facility in which his or her race is in the majority to a facility in which his or her race is a minority. A kindergarten student may also elect to attend a kindergarten facility located at a school where such student's brother or sister Is assigned to an elementary grade and insuch event, the kindergarten child will be eligible for transportation to the same extent as his or her brother or sister. 3. If permissible under applicable state and federal law, and if funding can be obtained, the defendants will, on an experimental basis. establish in 1973-74 a kindergarten program at selected eastern school facilities to serve four year old children residing in the vicinity of such kindergarten facilities. 4. The Little Rock School District is an equal opportunity employer and its goal has been and continues to be, through normal attrition and consistent with the hiring of qualified individuals, to achieve a total administrative and teaching staff ratio of one-third black personnel. 5. The defendants are opposed to, and do not employ, the concept of "tracking" of students. For purposes of this Stipulation, the term "tracking" refers to the labeling of students according to ability and on that basis permanently assigning them to a course of study to be followed throughout their secondary education. The defendants do however endorse and utilize the concept of "achievement grouping" in the elementary schools, and to a limited extent, in the secondary schools. Any achievement grouping in elementary schools will be carried out in the framework of presently existing heterogeneous student groupings. 6. The parties shall establish a bi-racial advisory committee composed of an equal number of black and white persons to aid the district' In resolving desegregation problems. The parties will determine the exact function, scope and composition of the committee at some date prior to the beginning of the 1973-74 school term. 7. For at least two years from June 28, 1973 or for as long as the defendants adhere to the commitments contained in this Stipulation, the plaintiffs and their counsel commit that they will Initiate no further legal proceedings concerning matters covered Page 2I by the terms of this Stipulation or the issues raised by the Report and Motions mentioned in Paragraph 1, and the objections to them heretofore made by plaintiffs, and further agree to assist the defendants in the defense of any litigation, initiated by others, which would tend to impair or hamper the successful operation of the desegregation program described herein. Plaintiffs and their counsel further commit to cooperate with the Board of Directors and administrative staff of the school district in promoting the successful operation of the district's educational program for the maximum educational advantage of all students in the district. Executed this day of June, 1973 by counsel of record for the parties, it being expressly understood that this Stipulation will be void and of no effect until ratified by the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District. JOHN W. WALKER Attorney for Plaintiffs ''ROBERT V. LIGHTS Attorney for Defendants The foregoing Stipulation was ratified by a vote of the majority of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District in its regular meeting on June 28, 1973 . ATTESTlT^ - . ( 1,. Secretary President Page 3 received NOV 1 3 1995 FILED U.8i OISTRCT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS M 91982 Otiioe 01 Desegregation MOnilwin^N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS - - WESTERN DIVISION Ci Byu R. S, CLERK DEP. CLERK DELORES CLARK, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS VS. NO. LR 64 C 155 THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The Board of Education of the Little Rock School District has petitioned the Court for approval of a revised elementary school student assignment plan, the "Partial K-6 Plan".^ The plan is referred to as In 1973, after years of litigation. 2 the plaintiffs and the school district reached a mutually satisfactory agreement involving a number of issues, including a student assignment plan, and a moratorium was declared with respect to further litigation. Beginning in the school year 1973-74, the elementary schools were essentially desegregated. Because the eastern parts of the district are essentially black residential areas and western parts of the district are essentially white residential areas, it has been necessary to employ extensive bussing to achieve school desegregation. Over the years, there has been a steady trend of increasing black enrollment and decreasing white enrollment in the elementary schools. The trend is present, although less pronounced, in the upper grades. 1. DX 20. 2. The original desegregation case against the Little Rock School District was filed in 1956. was The pending case, which in 1964. simply a continuation of the original litigation, was filed j DEFENDANTS I EXHIBITThe following chart 3 illustrates the trend which has been established and maintained since 1971: Little Rock Public Schools, Grades 1-12 Change in Student Enrollment, Fall 1971 to Fall 1981 Year Number of Whites Number of Blacks Decline in Whites Percent Decli In Whites 1971 13,413 9,814 1,256 b. 1972 11,926 9,909 1,487 11.1% 1973 10,999 10,096 927 7.8% 1974 10,303 10,246 696 6.3% 1975 9,760 10,730 543 5.3% 1976 9,320 10,991 440 4.5% 1977 8,708 11,089 612 6.6% 1978 7,979 11,142 729 8.4% 1979 7,454 11,517 525 6.6% 1980 6,806 11,780 648 8.7% 1981 6,291 11,813 515 7^5%' The trend is generally explained by a number of demographic factors, such as population shifts by whites to the suburbs, increase in black population in the district, differences in birth rates, and, to some extent, the element of "white 4 flight". As previously mentioned, the increasing disparity in the ratio between black and white students attending the district is most pronounced at the elementary school level. 5 The following chart illustrates that trend. 3. DX 19, page 17. 4. DX 19, pages 12-28
testimony of Dr. Dewitt Davis. 3 . Composite from Exhibits 2 through 13. 2Little Rock Public Schools, Grades 1-6 Change in Student Enrollment, Fall 1971 to Fall 1981 Year Number of V/hites Number of Blacks Decline in Whites Percent Declir in Whites 1971 7,283 5,712 1972 6,497 5,933 786 10.8% 1973 5,700 5,822 797 12.3% 1974 5,012 5,805 688 12.1% 1975 4,560 5,864 452 9.1% 1976 4,374 5,928 186 4.1% 1977 4,066 6,022 308 7.1% 1978 3,871 6,218 195 4.8% 1979 3,459 6,637 412 10.7% 1980 3,152 6,661 307 8.9% 1981 2,501 6,953 651 20.8% During the 1977-78 school year. it became apparent that the student assignment plan implemented in earlier years was not accomplishing the desegregation goals established by the district. 7 The district took the initiative in correcting the problem. A "Reorganization Committee" was formed which studied various proposals and, as a product of that work. the district adopted a reorganization of the student assignment plan which was implemented in the 1978-79 school year. 6. The Court was given two sets of figures for student enrollment in the 1979-1980 school year. This chart is basea on the figures contained in Defendant's Exhibit 12. 7. Testimony of Dr. Leonard Thalmueller. 3Under the 1978-79 reorganization plan, the first three grades were designated primary grades and grades four through six were designated as intermediate grades. At that time blacks accounted for 63% of the students in grades one through six. One of the goals of reorganization was to maintain a black-white attendance ratio at each school which was within a ten percent variation from the district average at the elementary school level. 8 For example, as a result of the 1978-79 reorganization plan. Forest Park School had the lowest percentage of black students at 53% and Garland and Mitchell Schools had the highest percent at 70%. By 1980-81 the declining white enrollment, particularly in the primary grades, again resulted in significant deviations in the black-white ratio at a number of schools. For example. at Williams School, which is located in a predominently white residential area, only 8 white children enrolled in the first grade for the 1981-82 school year while 117 black children enrolled. There were seven schools, grades one through six, which had black enrollment of 80% or more. one in excess of 86%. Although the School District has been conscious of the trend of decreasing white enrollment and taken some measures to curtail the erosion. 9 nothing has significantly affected the trend. All of the persuasive evidence indicates the school district will have an enrollment which is essentially all black, particularly in the elementary grades, within the next few years. 8. Testimony of Dr. Thalmueller. 9. The administration has done an admirable job of offering quality education. Considerable effort has been directed toward providing curricula calculated to attract whites who have left the district's schools because of a oelief that the district was not offering quality education. These efforts include honors classes, ability grouping. emphasis on improvement in basic skills, etc. Addi- tionally, the administration has worked with the civic community and volunteer groups in efforts to encourage support for public schools and improvement in the quality of education provided. 4Faced with a significantly reduced white enrollment the primary grades and a vocal protest by white parents in against white racial insolation in some of the primary classes, the School Board adopted a "65-35" classroom assignment plan in the fall of 1981. The plan was a hurriedly conceivea stopgap measure to appease white parents of primary age children. The plan required that white children be assigned to home room classes with other whites until the percentage reached 35% in each class. The plan had the effect, of course, of creating some all black classes. The plan was disapproved by this Court following an evidentiary hearing in September, 1981. In the fall of 1981, the Little Rock School Board faced a host of problems which prompted reconsideration of the school attendance plan. For example, a significant disparity had developed in the black-white ratio of attendance at the various elementary schools and there was reason to believe the ratio would increase. Some of the black parents complained that their children were being bussed across the city to attend all black classes. Additionally, the last two milleage increase proposals had been defeated by the electorate and the district is faced with severe financial problems and an eroding financial base. The overall declining enrollment in the district and financial considerations dictated the closing of some school buildings. The Board took several steps in response to the problems. A "Patrons Reorganization Committee^ was appointed to receive and review various proposals for pupil assignment plans and determine the feasibility of implementing the proposals. The Committee was asked to conduct public hearings 10. The committee was a twenty member committee composeu of 10 blacks and 10 whites, 10 who were males and 10 females. 5in various parts of the city in order to get as much input from the public as possible. The Board arranged for a study of the district's desegregation efforts by the Technical Assistance Center of Stephen F. Austin State University. This "Desegregation Assistance Team" submitted a report of its findings and conclusions to the Board in December, 1981. 11 The Biracial Committee, which is an advisory com- mittee formed as a result of the agreement in 1973, was asked to review the various plans and proposals for changes in the attendance plan. The administrative staff was assigned the task of compiling information and lending support assistance to committees. The Board also investigated the possibility of seeking an interdistrict remedy through legal proceedings against the adjacent County School District and has hired a law firm to pursue that remedy. Some 15 proposed plans or concepts for elementary pupil assignment were submitted to the Board, Patrons Committee and Biracial Committee for consideration. The plans were reduced to three, and finally "Partial K-6 Plan" was adopted by the Board after a number of minor modifications. The Board apparently views Partial K-6 as a temporary plan which provides the best chance for maintaining an integrated school system pending a decision in the interdistrict remedy suit. Partial K-6 Plan produces a number of results the Board views as preferable over the present plan. 1. The plan eliminates the primary-intermediate grouping, (or 3-3) plan (or has the same effect by pairing schools). Apparently one of the recurring complaints about the present plan is that students are moved from school to school too frequently. 11. DX 19. 6and their classmates change every three years. K-6 permits elementary age children to attend the same school or at least attend with the same schoolmates for six years, thereby fostering a sense of security, continuity and stability. 2. Partial K-6 permits the organization of nine neighborhood schools. 3. Approximately 1,000 fewer students will be bussed under Partial K-6. The number of bus routes will be reduced from 104 to 72 with an estimated immediate savings of $132,000. Furthermore, the number of school opening and closing times can be reduced. 4. Two elementary school buildings will be closed under partial K-6. 5. Partial K-6 employs the concept of a magnet school with a curricula attractive to some parents who are concerned about the quality of education. 6. The number of schools with a black ratio of 80% or more will be reduced from seven to four. Plaintiffs oppose the plan for several reasons. The "objections to petition" will be discussed in the order raised in plaintiffs' response to the Board's petition. 1. The "plaintiffs object to additional black school closings". This objection revolves around the part of Partial K-b which proposes that Booker Junior High School be changed to an elementary school. Although it is asserted that Booker will be "closed", such is not the case. 7Because of declining enrollments in junior high school, the Board concluded that one junior high facility was not needed. Booker had the fewest number of students ana reassignment of its students to other schools caused the least disruption. Thus, Booker was selected for conversion to an elementary school. Under the final plan, the schools which will be closed are Jefferson and King. Jefferson is in a white neighborhood and King is in a black neighborhood. The Board commissioned an evaluation of school physical plants and a report was submitted to the Board (the Leggett report) which indicatea that the cost of refurbishing and repairing King Elementary would be $1,500,000. On the basis of that estimate. King was selected for closing. Plaintiffs' argument that converting Booker to an ele- mentary school causes a "burden" on blacks is puzzling, is the claim that such a move is calculated "to further as relieve white stufendts (sic) of educational presence in the Black community." First, if there is a burden on black junior high students, there is a corresponding buraen on white elementary students who will be transported to Booker. Second, the black neighborhood will certainly have the "presence" of those white elementary age students who attend Booker. Third, while black junior high students may be transported from the Booker neighborhood to other areas. black elementary age children will be relieved of that burden. It would seem that bussing older children is preferable to transporting elementary age children. With respect to the general allegations that school closings have, over the years, had the effect of relieving the "propo-rtionate burden" upon white children and enhancing it for black children, such is simply not supported by the evidence. First, all site selection for construction has 8been the subject of court approval. (Testimony of Lacey). Second, plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence tnat a school has been "closed or downgraded" because of improper consideration. Third, if there has been a "disproportionate burden" caused by transportation of students, it has fallen on white students, not black, and such will continue as the case under Partial K-6. (Testimony of Thalmueller and Lacey). The only bases for this objection are conclusory allegations which are not supported by persuasive evidence. 2. "Plaintiffs object to the efforts to develop four 'segregated' or 'racially' identifiable" schools. Under Partial K-6, four elementary schools will have a black enrollment of 90% or more. These schools are located in black residential areas. The black enrollment in the eighteen remaining elementary schools will range from 60% to 77%. Currently, the average black elementary enrollment in the district is 76%. Plaintiffs contend that creating four schools which have a black enrollment in excess of 90% is simply an effort to establish segregated schools and, that if allowed, "there will be no prohibition upon the defendants in establishing them for white school children". Plaintiffs further argue that by simply "adjusting" the attendance zones of the present plan a racial balance can be maintained in each school. The Board's decision to depart from the present plan was prompted by a number of factors. First, the present plan is not working. Although attendance zones can be drawn based upon school age census in the zone, predictions as to the number of students who actually enroll in school from that zone cannot be made with any degree of accuracy. Predictions as to enrollment by grade from a zone are even more troublesome. A good example of the problem is the 9situation last school year at Williams Elementary where b white children and 117 black children enrolled in the first grade. The problem of maintaining a racial balance at each school is compounded by the declining white enrollment at the elementary age level. In 1981-82, only 2,501 white elementary age students enrolled. This was a decline of 651 from the previous year. Obviously, if the trend continues. and there is no reason to believe otherwise, in a matter of two or three years there will be no "critical mass" of white students in any elementary school for the purpose of meaningful integration. Under the present plan, seven schools have a black enrollment of 80% or more. The Board's conclusion that "meaningful integration" did not exist at those schools is apparently supported by a majority of authorities on the subject of desegregation. Those authorities think that in order to have meaningful integration, 20% of the students must be of the second race. 12 Given the difficulties in predicting enrollment and the sharp decline each year in white enrollment, there is no reason to believe that a simple "adjustment" in attendance zones will reduce the number of schools with a black enrollment in excess of 80%. 3. Plaintiffs argue that Partial K-6 is "reimposition" of the concept of separate but equal. This argument would have some persuasiveness if there was any realistic hope of stabilizing the ratio of blacks and whites enrolled in elementary schools. Such stabilization plus a reasonable degree of predictability as to enrollment 12. DX 19, pages 7, 8. Testimony of Orfield, page 28. 10by grades from an attendance zone may permit the maintenance of a "balanced ratio" at each school. Unfortunately, such is not the case. Partial K-6 is simply recognition of the fact that a substantial number of black students are now being bussed across the district to attend classes which are essentially all black. Although maintaining a "balanced ratio" at each school IS a worthy goal of any desegregation plan, it is not the sole criterion. Most importantly, the four elementary schools in question are not part of a separate school system for blacks. Attendance is determined by neighborhood, not by race. Fur- thermore, under a modification to the plan, black students are given the opportunity of transferring from those four schools to other schools in the district. 4. Plaintiffs make a number of general objections to the plan which will be discussed collectively. Plaintiffs contend the plan violates a part of the moratorium agreement which required that the primary grades would be located in the black community when the black enrollment reached 65%. lished by the evidence. No such agreement has been estabFurthermore, if there was such an agreement, it has not been enforced because black enrollment in the primary grades has been in excess of 65% for several years. In any event, any informal agreement between the Parties reached in 1973 cannot reasonably be applied to dictate the terras of an attendance plan in 1982.- - so as During the evidentiary hearing plaintiffs contended that the facilities at the four essentially all black schools would be "overcrowded". Defendants' witnesses denied the 11allegation and contend that guidelines in the plan are calculated to insure quality education at the four schools. The Court is unwilling at this point to predict failure or the Board's stated goals of insuring quality education at the four schools. If any disparity develops in the facilities or the quality of education offered at the four schools, the plaintiffs can always file a motion seeking correction of the disparity. Plaintiffs contend the Partial K-6 plan is actually the same as the "65-35" plan offered by the Board and rejected by this Court in September, 1981. The argument is made that Partial K-6 effectively segregates by placing blacks in separate school buildings instead of separate classes, which was the effect of the 65-35 plan. There is little parallel between the two plans. The 65-35 plan was an ill-conceived reaction to vocal white parents who were alarmed about racial insolation in the primary grades. The partial K-6 plan is the product of a reorganization project which utilized the Patrons Committee, Biracial Committee and administrative staff in an effort to seek community involvement in a student attendance plan. Moreover, the factors influencing the adoption of the plan are legitimate considerations for any student assignment plan. The only weight which can be given the 65-35 plan in any evaluation of Partial K6 is on the issue of the Board's motive. The Court concludes that the Board is not motivatea by a desire to resegregate the schools in adopting.Partial K-6. Finally, plaintiffs contend that the district has not achieved unitary status in that "vestiges of discrimination" have not been totally eliminated. Particularly, plaintiffs claim that discrimination persists in the "faculty, staff. programs, activities, discipline and site selection policies and practices of the district". Since this same argument 12has come up at the last three hearings, the Court will address it although resolution is not essential'to the issue at hand. The claim is asserted that administrative and faculty positions are filled in a discriminatory manner. The issue regarding the recent employment of_a white superintenaent over plaintiffs' objections was decided following our evidentiary hearing in February, 1982, and need not be reviewed again. The question of faculty and administrative staffing has been monitored for years by Dr. J.J. Lacey, a black who is Special Assistant to the Superintendent for Desegregation in the district. Dr. Lacey knows and understands the require- ments of the Clark decrees and, without reviewing the details, the Court accepts Dr. Lacey's testimony that the district has been, and is, in compliance with those guidelines. Plaintiffs suggested, during the evidentiary hearings, that the black-white faculty and staff ratio should coincide with the ratio of black to white students. The Court concurs with Dr. Lacey's view that the available labor market more appropriately determines the racial composition of the faculty and staff than does the ratio of students. Plaintiffs claim all the "heads of departments" are white. This is not a fact but, in any event, the supervisor of all the academic department heads is Dr. Benjamin Williams, a black. The argument is made that currently there are no black principals of any of the three high schools, white principals and one position is vacant. There are two A black woman 1 J was recommended by Dr. Masem for the vacant position, but she was not hired by the Board. Plaintiffs also argue that 13. Dr. Paul Masem was Superintendent of the District for a little over three years and the Board voted to replai him. Dr. Masem's departure was not an amicable one am ce and he harbors some bitterness toward the District. 13Dr. Ruth Patterson was denied a position because of racial reasons and that racial considerations influencea personnel decisions involving William Thrasher and Paul Margrow. These arguments are supported solely by conclusions ana opinions of the witnesses. In any event, the opinions ana conclusions from such witnesses as Dr. Patterson, who can hardly be characterized as a disinterested witness, are not persuasive evidence that the district pursues discriminatory personnel practices. 14 Plaintiffs point to the fact that whites predominate in the honors courses, advanced academic courses and language courses as a "vestige" of discrimination. While it is true that whites predominate in those courses, there is absolutely no evidence that such enrollment is the product of any discriminatory policy or practice pursued by the Board. To the contrary, advanced academic courses and language courses are "open" to anybody who elects to take the courses. 15 There is no evidence that the honors program is administered in anything other than an objective fashion. According to br. Benjamin Williams, the administration has been conscious of the disproportionate numbers of whites in these programs as well as the fact that blacks are represented in disproportionate numbers in the basic courses. If there was any explanation grounded in racially discriminatory practices. surely those reasons would have been produced. Reference was made to disciplinary action and.the claim that blacks are disciplined in disproportionate numbers to 14. Dr. Patterson has a lawsuit pending against the district asserting her claims that she has been subjected to discriminatory treatment. 15. Testimony of Dr. Williams. 14whites. Dr. Lacey monitors the discipline situation and says that he makes "every effort" to see that discriminatory practices play no part in disciplinary procedures. Plaintiffs produced no evidence that any practice or policy regarding discipline was discriminatory or applied in a discriminatory manner. The suggestion has been made that one vestige of discrimination is the fact that whites are represented in disproportionate numbers on the cheerleader squads. A reference is also made to discrimination in "extracurricular activities". There is no evidence before the Court as to how cheerleaders are selected, the composition of the cheerleader squads or even a description of the policy or practice adopted by the district which is supposed to discriminate against black students. The Court has no idea what other extracurricular activities" are involved in the allegation. Site selection for school closing and construction is alleged as a vestige of discrimination. That allegation has been discussed in preceding sections. Plaintiffs point to the fact that the Board has only one black member. 16 Plaintiffs claim the "at large" election procedure discriminates against blacks and that under Arkansas law the Board has the power to change the procedure so that members will be elected by wards. The Board's failure to ao so is asserted as further evidence of official discrimina- tion. Although plaintiffs' attorney assured the Court at trial that an Arkansas statute exists which confers that power upon the Board, he has been unable to furnisli the citation to the statute and the Court cannot find any sucn procedure in the Arkansas Code. In any event, the Board 16. T.E. Patterson, a black, had been a Board member for at least 10 years. In 1981, B.G. Williams, a black, ran against Patterson and defeated him. 15can hardly be criticized for failing to employ a proceaure which is nonexistent. Plaintiffs are critical of the Board for failing to take affirmative measures to halt the trend of increasing black enrollment in the district and stop the decreasing white enrollment. Specifically, plaintiffs' attorney re- peatedly asked witnesses if the Board had taken any steps to "de-annex" black residential areas from the district. Changes in district boundaries require, under Arkansas law, concurrence of the electorate in the affected districts. Arlc. Stat. 8 0-404, et seq. Unilateral action taken by the Little Rock School Board is ineffective. The surrounding Pulaski County District has publicly announced that it has no interest in merging with the Little Rock District. Aside from the legal impediments, it would seem that "de-annexing" black residential areas in order to deliberately get blacks out of the district is unprecedented and, undoubtedly constitutional. unIn summary, the Court finds no evidence of vestiges of discrimination in the district policies or practices. The Court adopts the opinion of Dr. Orfield and the Austin Study Group that the district has done an admirable job in the task of desegregation. Doubtless, there will always be allegations of racial discrimination when any school decision is reviewed in an adversary setting, particularly when there is an integrated enrollment of almost 18,000 pupils and 1,250 teachers and administrators operating under court order. Nevertheless, the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system and isolated complaints of discrimination without persuasive specific evidence to the contrary do not detract from that recora. 16Conclusions of Law The only serious question in this case is whether that portion of Partial K-6 which produces four elementary scaools with black enrollment in excess of 90% is unconstitutional. Although racial balance in each school is one method which may be used for dismantling dual school systems, there can be no serious claim that "racial balance" in the public schools is constitutionally mandated. Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 740-741 (1974)
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 22-25
and Pasadena City Bd. of Education v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424, 434. Furthermore, a small number of one-race, or virtually one-race, schools within a district is not in and of itself the mark of a system that still practices segregation by law. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Education, supra at 26. This is particularly true where, as here. the one race schools are the product of demographics over which the Board has no control. Pasadena City Bd. of Education, supra at 436. As a tool for accomplishing desegregation of elementary grades, the present plan has, perhaps, outlived its usefulness. The dual system has long since been eliminated and the Board should be permitted to consider factors other than balance" in structuring an elementary attendance pl "racial an. Neighborhood schools, a magnet school, financial considerations, and the desirable are legitimate factors which the educational benefits of : aspects of a K through 6 grouping 1 may be considered when weighing one attendance plan against another. Given the declining value of the present plan for desegregation purposes, the Board is certainly entitlea to adopt an attendance plan which meets constitutional standards and permits the district to achieve other educational goals. 17Under the circumstances of this case, Partial K-6 Plan is a constitutionally sound plan which may be implemented by the Little Rock School District. Dated this day of July, 1982, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 13 16 17 18 18 20 21 22 23 24 26 28 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 39 36 37 33 39 DRAFT ANALYSIS OF ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATION DATA (AUGUST 17,199S) CEHTIRi ARTK-M i Jki wHrre BLACK STATE ION AREA UAI g 302 BUSINUa eOUCATIOM BNOUiH joumiAuui arcecM pmmcm ap ANISH HEALTH RHYSJCAL eOUCATlON COAOtlHS mOUSTRIAL ANTS MATHEMATICS VOCAL MUSIC K-1> INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC K-1E GUIDANCE ELEMCNTARV GUIDANCE SECONOARY SOCIAL STUDIES OAT TRACE K-aaMENTARY 1.4 SLEMENTARV SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY SPEa GIFTED AND TALENTED ADULT ED. RSADING MEDIA SPECIALIST HOME ECONOMICS GENERAL SCIENCE BIOLOGY CHEMISTRY PHYSICS PHYSICAL SCIENCE SPECIAL EOUCATlON SPEECH PATHOLOGIST ADMINISTRATOR ELEMENTARY PRINCIPAL SECONDARY PRINCIPAL CERTIFICATION AREAS (ABOVE) ALL CERTIFICATION AREAS 21 640 59 129 48 73 1091 2983 1227 292 1187 298 544 127 441 2802 960 63 1137 61 79 86 31 88 1 1388 1021 297 178 391 173 29 1132 586 1512 20938 33921 FEMALE MALE 840 1514 4030 176 433 347 444 668 1182 373 4 1673 315 481 962 938 2476 34 7241 14449 329 880 232 1080 1479 1195 1333 1108 238 81 283 1293 742 234 1137 307 50877 82782 12 42 0 10 8 2 95 256 74 47 134 31 58 8 43 194 26 7 ^77 2 12 a 3 0 144 94 29 3 61 20 3 83 79 167 1976 3142 FEM AL ?<r TOTAL 1117 231 330 3 SO 36 13 52 103 2 2 120 58 SO 114 111 248 __8 438 1825 18 50 62 89 118 150 143 120 37 5 71 161 42 29 180 88 5308 8608 2013 5082 243 M2 439 S34 1886 4529 1708 306 2888 1203 1113 1201 1538 6721 448 7748 17588 411 1023 371 1168 1888 1346 3011 2343 681 277 811 1647 816 1478 1992 2074 79200 123454 S DEFENDANTS EXHIBIT % BLACK 1iO% - 84% 34% 84% 10.0% 24% 7.8% 3.01i 16.1% 84% 7.4%' 8.7% 104%' 104% 7.7% 7.2% 5.7% 11.4K 5.1% 54% 194% 9.2% 7.2% 11.1% 9.7% 9.1% 10.1% 24% 164% 11.0% 54% 7.6%l 13.8% 123< 9.1 9.1 WOV I 3 Office of Desegregation Monitoringf 5 receive LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACULTY & STAFF 1995-96 AZOV 1 J Office of ^esegregaticn Monii SCHOOL PERCENTAGE BLACK STUDENTS PERCENTAGE BLACK CERTIFIED POSITIONS VARIANCE PERCENTAGE BLACK SUPPORT POSITIONS nk^ VARIANCE Central High School Fair High School Hall High School McClellan Community High School Parkview High School Metropolitan Vocational High School Cloverdale Junior High School Dunbar Junior High School Forest Heights Junior High School Henderson Junior High School MabeIvale Junior High School Mann Junior High School f:\home\fl oa(w\lrsd2.cha 63.62% 72.74% 67.57% 80.91% 51.65% Not Available 87.29% 60.56% 76.70% 78.21% 74.27% 53.81% 37.96% 41.43% 30.99% 29.87% 32.84% 21.74% 45.28% 51.92% 39.06% 50.70% 28.85% 40.00% < 6.23% 9.70% .74%> < 1.86%> 1.11% < 9.99%> 6.45% 13.09% .23% 11.87% < 9.98%> 1.17% 73.81% 72.41% 66.67% 65.71% 59.26% 80.00% 88.89% 81.82% 52.00% 71.43% 52.38% 70.83% 5.02% 3.62% < 2.12%> < 3.08%> < 9.53%> 11.21% 18.18% 11.81% <18.01%> 1.42% <17.63%> . 82% 3 DEFENDANTS f EXHIBIT I .SCHOOL PERCENTAGE BLACK STUDENTS PERCENTAGE BLACK CERTIFIED POSITIONS VARIANCE PERCENTAGE BLACK SUPPORT POSITIONS VARIANCE Forest Park Elementary School Franklin Elementary School Fulbright Elementary School Garland Elementary School Geyer Springs Elementary Gibbs Elementary School Jefferson Elementary School M. L. King Elementary School Mabelvale Elementary McDermott Elementary School Meadowcliff Elementary School Mitchell Elementary School f:\home\lloaiw\lrsd2.cha 47.71% 92.75% 48.85% 91.50% 74.17% 54.61% 43.08% 55.04% 68.71% 53.13% 76.18% 98.34% 31.03% 46.34% 27.78% 61.54% 45.83% 26.67% 19.44% 37.21% 27.27% 24.24% 18.52% 44.44% 3 < 3.83%> 11.48% < 7.08%> 27.00% 10.97% < 8.19%> <15.42%> 2.35% < 7.59%> <10.62%> <16.34%> 9.58% 64.29% 91.43% 69.57% 82.14% 64.71% 81.25% 81.82% 52.38% 68.75% 55.56% 88.89% < 7.31%> 19.83% < 2.03%> 10.54% < 6.89%> 9.65% < 4.93%> 10.22% <19.22%> < 2.85%> <16.04%> 17.29%% SCHOOL PERCENTAGE BLACK STUDENTS PERCENTAGE BLACK CERTIFIED POSITIONS VARIANCE PERCENTAGE BLACK SUPPORT POSITIONS VARIANCE Pulaski Heights Junior High School Southwest Junior High School Badgett Elementary School Bale Elementary School Baseline Elementary School Booker Elementary School Brady Elementary School Carver Elementary School Chicot Elementary School Cloverdale Elementary School Dodd Elementary School Fair Park Elementary School f:\hofnc'.f1oa(w\lrsd2.cha 56.35% 80.87% 78.92% 70.85% 75.47% 53.19% 63.57% 51.52% 78.85% 85.16% 58.97% 'll .62^^ 21.88% 48.98% 42.11% 29.63% 44.00% 38.00% 25.00% 26.09% 33.33% 53.33% 32.00% 50.00% 2 <16.95%> 10.15% 7.25% < 5.23%> 9.40% 3.14% < 9.86%> < 8.77%> < 1.53%> 18.47% < 2.86%> 15.14% 73.68% Not Available 75.00% 68.42% 75.00% 93.75% 89.47% 62.50% 46.67% 73.33% 64.71% 71.43% 3.67% Not Available 3.40% < 3.18%> 3.40% 22.15% 17.87% < 9.10%> <24.93%> 1.73% < 6.89%> < .17%>SCHOOL PERCENTAGE BLACK STUDENTS PERCENTAGE BLACK CERTIFIED POSITIONS VARIANCE PERCENTAGE BLACK SUPPORT POSITIONS VARIANCE Otter Creek Elementary School Pulaski Heights Elementary School Rightsell Elementary School Rockefeller Elementary School Romine Elementary School Terry Elementary School Wakefield Elementary School Washington Elementary School Watson Elementary School Western Hills Elementary School Williams Elementary School Wilson Elementary School f:\home\floatw\lrsd2.cha 41.95% 46.27% 95.54% 64.87% 71.76% 44.44% 85.41% 64.75% 80.00% 65.82% 51.10% 77.69% 20.83% 26.92% 56.00% 18.42% 39.29% 30.30% 58.62% 42.86% 26.67% 36.36% 27.03% 32.14% 4 <14.03%> < 7.94%> 21.14% <16.44%> 4.43% < 4.56%> 23.76% 8.00% < 8.19%> 1.50% < 7.83%> < 2.72%> 63.64% 84.62% 95.24% 82.35% 76.19% 57.89% 66.67% 86.11% 75.00% 46.67% 60.00% 68.42% < 7.96%> < 3.02%> 23.64% 10.75% 4.59% <13.71%> < 4.93%> 14.51% 3.40% <24.93%> <11.60%> < 3.18%>SCHOOL PERCENTAGE BLACK STUDENTS PERCENTAGE BLACK CERTIFIED POSITIONS VARIANCE PERCENTAGE BLACK SUPPORT POSITIONS VARIANCE Woodruff Elementary School Alternative Learning Center (Junior High) Total All High Schools Total All Junior High Schools Total All Elementary- Schools Total LRSD NOTES: (1) (2) (3) (4) f:\home\floatw\lrsd2.cha 66.93% 41.67% 66.75% 69.55% 64.83% 66.28% 38.89% 55.56% 31.73% 38.83% 34.86% 35.16% 4.03% 16.73% 50.00% 80.00% 68.79% 70.01% 71.60% 70.91% <21.60%> 9.99% Percentage of black students will be based on Little Rock School District tenth day enrollment count 1995-96. Percentage of black certified positions and support positions will be based on Little Rock School District staffing/school personnel as of 10-13-95. Certified principal, positions classroom include teachers, principal, vocational assistant teachers, counselors, media specialists, resource/teacher, speech therapists, music, art, and P.E. Support positions include attendance clerk, cafeteria workers, custodians, media clerk, registrar, secretary, nurse, security instructional aides, and supervision aides. officer, 5RECEfVEO NOV I 3 J995 Office of Deseflregation l^onitcrin^ PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DESEGREGATION CASE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT March, 1989 (As Revised September 28, 1989) 2 defendants I exhibitPULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DESEGREGATION CASE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT March, 1989 (As Revised September 28, 1989)PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DESEGREGATION CASE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT CONTENTS Page I. Introduction 1 II. General Provisions 2 III. A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. O. P. Magnet Funding Calculation .............. Magnet Surplus Credit.................... Magnet Operational Charge................ Restrictions on Funding Magnet Schools . . Continuation of Existing Funding ........ Compensatory Education, Early Childhood Education and other Statewide Programs . . Conditions to Settlement ................ Act 34 Exemption ......................... Staff Development........................ Recognition of Autonomy.................. District Budgets ......................... Prohibition of Punitive Action .......... Rededicated Millages .................... Limit of Liability ....................... Majority to Minority Provisions.......... Consent Order............................. 2 2 3 4 4 6 6 7 8 9 10 10 10 11 11 12 State's Role in the Desegregation Process . . 13 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. . L. M. Monitoring Compensatory Education........ Statement of Support for the Plans .... Petition for Election..................... Statutes and Regulations Affecting Desegregation............................. Elimination of the Pulaski County Education Service Cooperative....................... Commitment to Principles ................. Remediation of Disparities in Academic Achievement............................... Test Validation........................... In-Service Training....................... Recruitment of Minority Teachers ........ Financial Assistance to Minority Teacher Candidates ............................... Minority Recruitment for ADE Staff .... School Construction...................... 13 13 14 14 14 15 15 16 16 16 17 17 18 11IV. Dismissal of Litigation 18 A. B. C. Dismissal of the State with Prejudice and Release................................... Agreement Regarding Litigation Among Joshua and the Districts......................... Reserved Issue ........................... 18 19 19 V. Attorneys Fees 20 VI. The LRSD Settlement 22 VII. A. B. Payment Schedule and Terms Loan Provisions.......... The PCSSD Settlement A. B. C. D. Financial Settlement 1. Magnet Payments . 2. Other Payments. . Staff Development. . Food Services. . . . Housing............ VIII. The NLRSD Settlement A. B. C. D. Magnet Payments....................... Compensatory Education Payments. . . . Additional Payments................... Description of Additional Compensatory Education Programs .................. IX, Execution ATTACHMENTS Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C Attachment D Release of Claims Release of Claims State LRSD Release of Claims' - PCSSD Release of Claims NLRSD 111 22 24 27 27 28 28 29 30 30 30 30 31 31 36 36I. Introduction The Little Rock School District ("LRSD") Desegregation Plan (January 31, 1989) , the Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 ("PCSSD") Permanent Desegregation Plan (October 3, 1988, as supplemented February 15, 1989) , the North Little Rock School District ("NLRSD") Desegregation Plan of March and October, 1986 (as amended or modified through February 15, 1989 or by operation of this settlement agreement) and the Interdistrict Desegregation P2an (February 15, 1989) (the "Plans") hold excellent promise for achieving unitary school systems in these three districts which are free from the vestiges of racial discrimination. Continued litigation regarding funding and other issues may make more difficult and further delay effective implementation of the constitutional obligations of the State of Arkansas and the three Pulaski County school districts (the "Districts"). This settlement of the issues concerning the Districts, the Joshua Intervenors ("Joshua"), the Knight Intervenors ("Knight") and the State of Arkansas in Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District, et al, No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors ("this Litigation") is in the best interest of the students, patrons and staffs of the Districts and the people of the State. 1The superintendents of the Districts support the settlement and it has received the unanimous approval of their respective boards of directors. The business community as represented by the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce also supports the settlement and the Plans. That group has pledged the strong support of its membership to help the Districts achieve many of the goals of the Plans. The black plaintiff intervenors ("Joshua"), the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., the Little Rock and North Little Rock chapters of the NAACP and the Greater Little Rock Christian Ministerial Alliance pledge their support to the Plans and this settlement. The settlement is also supported by Knight (LRCTA, PACT, NLRCTA and the AEA) . The Arkansas State Board of Education, the Arkansas Department of Education ("ADE") and the Governor of Arkansas support the settlement. 1-AII. General Provisions A. Magnet Funding Calculation Each Districts magnet students will be included in the calculation of that District's table rate in determining State aid to be paid under the MFPA formula or any future funding formula. B. Magnet Surplus Credit Any cash surplus remaining in the magnet school fund for given fiscal year after all expenses and receivables for that fiscal year have been accounted for (including payment to the host District for administrative costs) will be returned to the a a Districts and ADE as follows: (1) NLRSD will receive the difference between its table rate and $1,550 multiplied by its average daily membership in the magnet schools for the fiscal year to the extent surplus funds are available
(2) If additional surplus funds exist following the payment to NLRSD, PCSSD will receive the difference between its table rate and $1,550 multiplied by its average daily membership in the magnet schools for the fiscal year, to the extent surplus funds are available
(3) If additional surplus funds exist following the payments to NLRSD and PCSSD, 2LRSD will receive the difference between its table rate and $1,550 multiplied by its average daily membership in the magnet schools for the fiscal year, to the extent surplus funds are available. (4) If additional surplus funds remain following the payments to NLRSD, PCSSD and LRSD, the ADE will be refunded its magnet operation payments to the extent such funds are available. This provision will remain in effect for seven years beginning with the 1988-89 school year. The payment to the host District for administration of the magnet schools for the 1988-89 school year will be 3.09% of the magnet school fund. In future years. the payment to the host District for the administration of magnet schools will be the same percentage of the magnet fund as the state-determined percentage of the host District's budget attributable to administrative costs. C. Magnet Operational Charge The current per pupil operational charge for magnet students ($3,100) will remain in force until changed by the Magnet Review Committee, or in the event the Magnet Review Committee is restructured or eliminated, then by agreement of the parties, subject to the review of the district court in any event. 3The parties will review the operational charge on an annual basis but will not increase the charge solely for the purpose of creating a surplus. Calculations in paragraphs II.B., VII.A.1. and VIII.A assume a $3,100 operational charge. D. Restrictions on Funding Magnet Schools The State will have no further obligation to contribute any additional funds to magnet schools other than under paragraph II E. below. The Districts' obligation to contribute funds to magnet schools shall be limited to their paying their portion of the costs of the six existing magnet schools pursuant to the Court's order of February 27, 1987. Any reference to the six existing magnet schools in this settlement shall mean, for funding purposes, up to their present seating capacities. Those seating capacities are as follows: Carver 613 E. Williams Gibbs Booker Mann Parkview 515 351 660 935 991 Continuation of Existing Funding In addition to any payment described elsewhere in this agreement, the State will continue to pay the following costs: 4(1) The States portion of magnet school operational costs for the six existing magnet schools (Gibbs, Booker, Carver, Parkview, Mann and Williams) using the formula employed by the State during the 1987-88 school year modified by the inclusion of the number of students from each District attending magnet schools in the calculation of that (2) District's table rate for distribution of MFPA
Majority to minority student transfer incentive payments to the host and home Districts as described in the August 26, 1986 M to M stipulation
(3) The State's share of Magnet Review Committee expenses as currently allocated
(4) Transportation to the six existing (5) magnet schools
Transportation of majority to minority transfer students between the Districts as described in the August 26, 1986 M to M stipulation
and (6) The State's share of any and all programs for which the Districts now receive State funding. 5The funds paid by the State under this agreement are not intended to supplant any existing or future funding which is ordinarily the responsibility of the State of Arkansas. F. Compensatory Education, Early Childhood Education and other Statewide Programs The settlement payments described in this agreement are exclusive of any funds for compensatory education, early childhood development or other programs that may otherwise be due LRSD (or any successor district or districts to which students residing in territory now within LRSD may be assigned or for the benefit of such students if the State or any other entity becomes responsible for their education), PCSSD or NLRSD under present and future school assistance programs established or administered by the State. The State will not exclude the Districts from any compensatory education, early childhood development. or other funding programs or discriminate against them in the development of such programs or distribution of funds under any funding programs. G. Conditions to Settlement This settlement is conditioned upon approval by the Districts' boards of directors (already done) and the State Board of Education (already done), the certification of the classes and class representatives by the court (already done), the 6execution of the releases attached hereto as Attachments A, B, C and D, the dismissal of the State from this Litigation with prejudice consistent with the terms of Attachment A, the approval of the terms of the settlement by the court and the enactment of legislation prior to August 15, 1989 either (1) making provision for the funding of the Settlement or (2) authorizing the Arkansas State Board of Education (State Board) to enter into a consent order which directs the State Board to make the payments which would fund the obligations of the State under the Settlement (already done). As used in this agreement, "final approval" means after all these conditions have been satisfied. If final approval of this settlement agreement is not obtained. no statement in the agreement may be used for or against any party as an admission of liability or intent. H. Act 34 Exemption No sums received by the Districts pursuant to this settlement shall be regarded as included within the definitions of total local resources, net local resources, gross current revenue. or miscellaneous funds pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. Section 6-20-301, et seq. or pursuant to any amendments to those sections which may hereinafter be enacted. 7All funds received by the Districts pursuant to this agreement, including any interest or earnings thereon, will be exempt from Sections 8 and 11 of Act 34 of 1983 (A.C.A. Sections 6-20-307 and 6-20-319) as amended or as may be amended, with the following exceptions: (1) For the 1989-90 and later school years, all MFPA funds received by the Districts, as calculated in accordance with A.C.A. 6-20-302 (1987 Supp.), including the portion of that calculation represented by the Districts' magnet students, will not be exempt
and (2) the funds received by the Districts for any compensatory education. early childhood education. and other statewide programs contemplated by paragraph II.F. will be exempt only if the funds are exempt in all other districts in the State, and if so, those funds which are exempt cannot be counted by the Districts as expenditures satisfying Act requirement that 70% of net 34' s current revenue be used to pay certified personnel. I. Staff Development To facilitate the Plans, the ADE authorizes each District up to four "release days" per year for the 1989-90 and 1990-91 school years. Those would be divided as two release days per semester. Further, two such release days. one per semester. shall be provided for the 1991-92 school year. 8These "release days" will have the effect of shortening by four days in each of the first two years and two days in the last year, the student contact/instructional days contained within the Districts' school calendars. The parties recognize that any detriment which might result from the reduction of contact days will be outweighed by the benefits derived from the staff development training (which will include all appropriate desegregation training and specialized training in strategies designed to reduce the level of achievement disparity between black and white students) and the increased efficiency and competence of the trained teachers. It is further understood and agreed that these release days shall be in addition to any staff development days currently required or which might be required in the future by ADE or other State authority. J. Recognition of Autonomy The State, Joshua and LRSD recognize that PCSSD and NLRSD are independent, sovereign desegregating school districts operating pursuant to court orders and agreements and that this agreement is both necessary and desirable to facilitate their desegregation activities as well as their cooperative desegregation activities with the LRSD and others. 9K. District Budgets The Districts may utilize the receipt of funds paid pursuant to this settlement to balance previous years budgets and if this is done. neither the previous years deficit nor such fund usage will be regarded as a violation of State law. L. Prohibition of Punitive Action The State shall take no action (including the enactment of legislation) for the purpose of retaliating against the Districts (including retaliatory failure to increase State aid and retaliatory reduction in State aid) because of this Litigation or this settlement. The State will enact no legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the Districts to desegregate. Fair and rational adjustments to the funding formula which have general applicability but which reduce the proportion of State aid to any of the Districts shall not be considered to have an adverse impact on the desegregation of the Districts. M. Rededicated Millages The court ordered on December 29, 1986 (reinstated Jan. 7, 1987) the rededication of certain millages of the Districts. It was the intent of the Districts and the court that all millages due to expire before the year 2007 be rededicated. The motion seeking the extension, however, failed to list 10all of the millages and consequently not all of the millages sought to be rededicated have actually been rededicated. The parties agree that the courts order of December 29, 1986 (reinstated January 7, 1987) should be corrected to include all millages of the Districts which would otherwise expire before or during the year 2007. Pursuant to this settlement, a corrected order has been submitted to the court for approval following final approval of the settlement. Upon approval, the order will be delivered to the responsible county officials. N. Limit of Liability The State's financial liability under this Settlement beyond that set forth in II.E. and II.F. shall be limited to $129,750,000 to be paid as set forth in Sections V, VI, VII and VIII herein. 0. Majority to Minority Provisions (1) In any application for aid pursuant to Section 6 of Act 24 of the 1989 Regular Session of the Arlcansas General Assembly, the receiving district for M to M students may include in such application any M to M students it hosts who are eligible for participation pursuant to Section 6(A) of said Act. (2) The State will continue to ma)ce payments under the August 26, 1986 M to M stipulation so that the host district receives its average cost of 11educating a student for each M to M transfer student enrolled in the host district. (3) When at least one Interdistrict School is operating in LRSD and in PCSSD, all M to M payments generated by Interdistrict School students paid by the State to LRSD and PCSSD (including payments to each district as sending district and receiving district), except transportation payments, will be pooled for the education of all Interdistrict School students. The instructional budgets of the Interdistrict Schools will be equalized. This provision does not change each districts obligation to construct and maintain the Interdistrict Schools within its boundaries. The State payments for M to M students not enrolled in Interdistrict Schools will continue in accordance with paragraph (2) above. (4) Beginning the first year an Interdistrict School is operating in LRSD and PCSSD, PCSSD will contribute $200,000 per year for five years to the pool of funds to be used by both districts to operate Interdistrict Schools. P. Consent Order The parties consent to the entry of an order containing the requirements of Act 1 of 1989, Second Extraordinary Session, to the extent it is not inconsistent with this settlement. 12III. State's Role in the Desegregation Process A. Monitoring Compensatory Education The State shall be required (as a non-party) to monitor. through the ADE, the implementation of compensatory education programs by the Districts. If necessary as a last resort, ADE may petition the court for modification or changes in such programs being implemented by the Districts (but not for a reduction in the agreed level of State funding). If such petitions are filed. the undersigned parties will not object based upon lac)c of standing. ADE shall provide regular written monitoring reports to the parties and the court. Monitoring by the State shall be independent of that of the other parties. It is being done to ensure that the State will have a continuing role in satisfactorily remediating achievement disparities. Any recommendations made by ADE shall not form the basis of any additional funding responsibilities of the State. A State plan for monitoring implementation of compensatory education will be submitted to the parties within 60 days following execution of the settlement agreement. B. Statement of Support for the Plans The State, Districts and Joshua will provide to the court a statement of full support for the Plans 13upon final approval of the settlement. This statement of support will not be construed to burden the State with additional funding obligations beyond those existing at the time of the execution of this agreement except those specifically set forth in this agreement. C. Petition for Election The State will join LRSD if LRSD petitions the court to allow it to hold a millage election. D. Statutes and Regulations Affecting Desegregation The ADE will research and list laws that impede desegregation and submit legislation to repeal such laws to the General Assembly as soon as practicable. ADE will not knowingly promulgate or retain any regulations which impede desegregation. and the other parties will notify ADE of any regulations which they believe would have such an effect. If any regulation is demonstrated to have such an effect, the regulation will be modified or repealed or an exemptioA will be provided. The Districts, Knight and Joshua will assist the ADE in identifying existing and proposed statutes and regulations that impede desegregation. E. Elimination of State Funding for the Pulaski County Education Service Cooperative State funding for the Pulaski County Education Service has ceased and the funds were reallocated 14to the Metropolitan Supervisor by order of the Court. Should these funds no longer be required by the Metropolitan Supervisor, they will be used to assist the ADE in securing the services of trained consultants to develop effective compensatory, remedial education programs designed to eliminate achievement disparities between black and white students and for other purposes intended to enhance desegregation. F. Commitment to Principles The State remains committed to the following principles: a. There should be remediation of the a racial academic achievement disparities for Arkansas students. b. Special education classes and gifted and talented classes should not be racially identifiable. c. The ADE and the Districts should work cooperatively to promote the desegregation goals of the State and the Districts and to ensure educational excellence in the public schools in Pulaski County and throughout the State. G. Remediation of Disparities in Academic Achievement The ADE, with the assistance of the Court's desegregation expert(s), will develop and will search 15 ifor programs to remediate achievement disparities between black and white students. If necessary to develop such programs, the ADE will employ appropriately trained and experienced consultants in the field of remediation of racial achievement disparities and/or hire as staff members persons with such training and experience. The remediation of racial achievement disparities shall remain a high priority with the ADE. H. Test Validation ADE will conduct periodic reviews of tests used in the States testing program to determine if students race. sex, or culture adversely affect their test scores. If bias is found in any test. that test will not be used unless modified to eliminate the bias. I. In-Service Training ADE will establish in-service programs to assist in providing training for the staffs of desegregating school districts. Such programs will first be made available to the Districts. J. Recruitment of Minority Teachers The Districts will annually supply ADE information identifying the subject areas in which they have actual or foreseeable shortages of minority teachers. The ADE will then obtain from higher education sources information by race on new teacher 16graduates in those subject areas and make such information available to the Districts. ADE will seek to increase the pool of minority teachers available to the Districts and to other districts in the state through recruitment efforts both in and out of state, and at the same time shall develop annual profiles of teachers available by race, specialty. subject area and area of certification. K. Financial Assistance to Minority Teacher Candidates The ADE will work with the Arkansas Department of Higher Education to reduce any racial disparity that may exist in the distribution of existing scholarships and to secure passage of legislation to financially assist minority students attending Arkansas colleges and universities who commit to become teachers in Arkansas, including scholarships for freshmen and sophomores who are committed to pursuing a teacher-training program and juniors and seniors who have been accepted in teacher education programs. L. Minority Recruitment for ADE Staff The ADE will develop and implement a plan to identify jobs and consultant positions within the Department in which minorities are underrepresented and will recruit and employ minority applicants for those positions so as to create balanced. a desegregated staff at all levels. 17M. School Construction The ADE will develop criteria for site selection of new schools. major school expansion and school closings. ADE will require that a district applying to it for approval of new construction or major school expansion provide desegregation impact a statement setting forth evidence that the proposed improvements do not have a segregative effect. ADE will not recommend or approve the site of any school in any county contiguous to Pulaski County if the construction or expansion of the school at the requested location of such school will have a substantial negative impact on any District's ability to desegregate. IV. Dismissal of Litigation A. Dismissal of the State with Prejudice and Release The State conditions this settlement upon its dismissal from this Litigation with prejudice in accordance with the terms of Attachment A. The settlement is also conditioned upon the full execution of and compliance with the terms of the release of all claims against the State affixed hereto as Attachment A. The settlement of the State's liability, while contingent on the district court's approval, is not contingent upon court approval of any District's plan or finding of 18 aunitary status for any District. Further, the settlement is contingent upon a determination by the district court that the settlement is binding on the classes of all current, past and future LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD black students. their parents and next friends. As part of this settlement. the parties stipulate that the Joshua Intervenors are proper class representatives under and otherwise meet the requirements of Rule 23(a) and {b)2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and support their approval. The settlement is also conditioned upon the full execution of the releases of the Districts attached as Attachments B, C and D. The parties pledge to diligently pursue acceptance of the settlement by the court. B. Agreement Regarding Litigation Among Joshua and the Districts D 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. C. Reserved Issue / J The Districts and Joshua contend that ADE has the authority to regulate private schools and should exercise that authority to insure that private 19schools comply with the same educational standards that are applicable to public schools. ADE is not persuaded that it is vested with such authority. The parties therefore agree that the issue of State regulation of private schools is not settled by this agreement and may be presented to the court for resolution at a future date. As this settlement provides for the dismissal with prejudice of the State as a party to this Litigation, the ADE agrees to make a special appearance following such dismissal for the sole purpose of responding to a motion filed by any of the Districts or Joshua seeking the resolution of the single question of its legal authority to regulate private schools and require them to comply with certain educational standards. A finding that the ADE has such authority shall not be used by any party as the basis for any State liability for the period prior to such finding. V. Attorneys' Fees LRSD agrees to make no additional claims for attorneys' fees and to hold the State, PCSSD and NLRSD harmless for all pending LRSD claims for attorneys' fees against the State, PCSSD and NLRSD. If necessary to enforce the hold harmless agreement, the State will be entitled to deduct the amount of any payment for LRSD attorneys' fees made after the execution 20of this agreement from any payment due from the State to LRSD under this agreement more than five months after the attorneys' fees payment is made. The State, LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD will pay attorneys' fees and costs to the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF). The fees will be paid upon terms set forth below for the work performed in this Litigation and other litigation which preceded this Litigation beginning with Aaron v. Cooper, Graves v. Board of Education and their progeny. The payment to LDF is on behalf of, and for the work of, all attorneys who have worked with LDF on behalf of the interests of black children in the Districts, to desegregate schools therein. over the duration of the Litigation. The amount is exclusive of the payments heretofore made by any of the parties. The State's portion of the fee will be $750,000 (Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars)
the LRSD's portion shall be $2,000,000 (Two Million Dollars)
the PCSSD's portion shall be $300,000 (Three Hundred Thousand Dollars)
and NLRSD's portion shall be $100,000 (One Hundred Thousand Dollars), which shall include settlement of fees for the voting rights action also pending in this court of which settlement on the merits is contemplated shortly. All such payments shall be due and payable on final approval except for the payments due from the PCSSD and NLRSD. The PCSSD payment shall mature six years from the date of final approval of the settlement. The NLRSD shall make two payments each in the amount of $50,000 (Fifty Thousand Dollars) no later than 10 days of final approval of 21the settlement and July 1, 1990, respectively. The State will advance LRSDs share of the fees and reduce total payments due LRSD under this agreement by that amount. The amounts will be deducted in the final years of payment to LRSD. The parties are satisfied that over the thirty-three years of this Litigation, Joshua and its predecessor parties, all of whom have been represented by attorneys for the LDF have expended time and incurred costs for which they have not been compensated. The parties are also satisfied, upon a review of their own time records and costs in this Litigation over the last five years, that the payment is fair and reasonable and consistent with the payments made over that period of time to counsel for the other parties. The parties also agree for purposes of this settlement that Joshua is a prevailing party for purposes of relief. VI. The LRSD Settlement A. Payment Schedule and Terms The State will make the following payments to the LRSD (or any successor district or districts to which the territory now within LRSD may be assigned or for the benefit of the students in such territory if the State or any other entity becomes responsible for the education) on or before the dates indicated
22(1> Payments for compensatory education programs and other desegregation expenses will be as follows: Within 10 days of Final Approval $4,475,000 January 1, 1990 3,475,000 July 1, 1990 4,609,250 January 1, 1991 3,609,250 July 1, 1991 4,747,528 January 1, 1992 3,747,528 July 1, 1992 4,889,954 January 1, 1993 3,889,954 July 1, 1993 5,036,652 January 1, 1994 4,036,652 July 1, 1994 4,057,460 January 1, 1995 3,057,460 July 1, 1995 2,985,131 January 1, 1996 1,985,131 July 1, 1996 1,844,811 January 1, 1997 / 844,811 -V July 1, 1997 1,266,770 January 1, 1998 266,770 I I July 1, 1998 152,387 I January 1, 1999 152,387 $59,129,886 23 (2) The State will make additional payments to LRSD totaling $13,870,114 over a seven year period as set forth below: Within 10 days of Final Approval $2,000,000 7/1/90 $2,000,000 7/1/91 $2,000,000 7/1/92 $2,000,000 7/1/93 $2,000,000 7/1/94 - $2,000,000 7/1/95 $1,870,114 These payments are cash equivalent payments in lieu of formula guarantees for LRSD provided for in an earlier signed version of this settlement. B. Loan Provisions In addition to the above-mentioned payments, the State agrees to provide loans to LRSD (or any successor district or districts to which the territory now within LRSD may be assigned or for the benefit of the students in such territory if the State or any other entity becomes responsible for their education) between July 1 , 1989 and July 1, 1999 in cumulative amount of not more than a $20,000,000.00 on the following terms: (1) Each loan will be amortized over a 20-year period to be paid in full to an escrow account established by the parties as described below with 20 24equal annual payments of principal beginning seven years following the execution of the loan
(2) No more than $6,000,000 will be loaned in any biennium and no loan will be made before July 1, 1989
(3) Each loan will bear interest beginning seven years following the execution of the loan at the rate of three percent (3%) per annum. such interest to be paid annually at the time of the annual principal payments to an escrow account established by the parties as described below
(4) The proceeds of the loans shall be made payable to a trust governed by a trust committee consisting of the Director of the Department of Education (or designee), the LRSD Superintendent (or designee) and a designee of Joshua. The loan proceeds shall be used for desegregation purposes including, but not limited to, school construction or renovation, salaries of instructional personnel, purchase of instructional equipment and supplies, program development and implementation costs. 25consultants' fees and and staff development training of LRSD principals and teachers to promote desegregation. The loan proceeds will not be utilized directly or indirectly as a vehicle for generating income for LRSD through higher interest rates
(5) The loan(s) will be secured by a first lien in favor of the State on existing. extended or new millages (whichever the State chooses) , such first lien to be assured by an opinion letter to the benefit of the State from LRSD's bond counsel
(6) LRSD and the State will establish a joint escrow account into which all principal and interest due on loans made under this agreement will be paid. 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 LRSD are 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD white students (excluding special education students) , the escrowed funds will be 26paid to LRSD and any outstanding loans will be forgiven. If the 90% goal is not reached by December 31, 2000, the escrow funds will be paid to the State and any outstanding loans will continue to be repaid according to the schedule set forth in this agreement. The intent of this subsection is that LRSD will receive twenty million dollars plus any accrued interest if its goal of increasing student achievement as described in this subsection is reached and that the State will be repaid in full amount of all loans plus interest if LRSD does not reach its goal. VII. The PCSSD Settlement A. Financial Settlement PCSSD and Joshua have asserted claims and potential claims against the State on behalf of PCSSD students relating to miscalculation of MFPA, the State's role in the Granite Mountain transfer and compensatory education needs. The following provisions are made to settle all such claims and any others which have been or could have been made by PCSSD or Joshua against the State on behalf of PCSSD students. 271. Magnet Payments The ADE shall, beginning with the 1989-90 school year, make payments of school aid for PCSSD magnet students directly to PCSSD which shall in turn reimburse LRSD at the rate of $1,550 per PCSSD magnet school student being educated in LRSD magnet schools less any magnet surplus credit available under paragraph II.B. herein. The State may. at its option, continue the direct payment to the LRSD of the remaining $1,550 of magnet school operational costs for PCSSD magnet students or may make such aid payments for PCSSD magnet students directly to PCSSD. If the latter option is selected, then PCSSD shall make total payments to LRSD of $3,100 per year for each PCSSD magnet student or the appropriate pro rata share of said $3,100 if such students are magnet students for less than the full school year less any magnet surplus credit available under II.B. herein. 2. Other Payments (a) The State shall make the following six scheduled payments to PCSSD: Within 10 days of Final Approval $3,000,000 07/01/90 $3,000,000 07/01/91 $2,500,000 07/01/92 $2,500,000 07/01/93 $2,500,000 07/01/94 $2,500,000 28as (b) The State shall make the following payments cash equivalents in lieu of the Temporary Formula and the transportation aid adjustment set out in an earlier signed version of this settlement
Within 10 days of Final Approval $1,000,000 B. 7/1/90 7/1/91 7/1/92 7/1/93 7/1/94 7/1/95 Staff Development $1,500,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 PCSSD is exploring the utility of a program under which all certified staff would experience three college hours of course work in Black History or other similar course offering. PCSSD IS exploring and evaluating this concept to facilitate its efforts to reduce the achievement disparity between black and white students. ADE and PCSSD recognize and understand that such a program, if it required PCSSD to fully fund presently prevailing college tuition charges, would be prohibitively expensive. ADE pledges to use its best efforts to work with appropriate Arkansas colleges and universities to facilitate a special arrangement which would significantly reduce the cost of such a program to PCSSD and 29make it financially possible to implement. ADE assxunes no additional financial responsibility pursuant to this commitment. C. Food Services LRSD agrees to contract with PCSSD for any food products which LRSD can obtain from PCSSD at the same or lower cost than LRSD can obtain the same quality products from other vendors. D. Housing ADE agrees to use its best efforts to influence appropriate state agencies to assist PCSSD in its efforts to promote and secure scattered site housing in the PCSSD by securing and providing, to the extent feasible, state owned or controlled land suitable for such use. VIII. The NLRSD Settlement NLRSD and Joshua have asserted claims and potential claims against the State on behalf of NLRSD students relating to miscalculation of MFPA and to compensatory education needs. The following provisions are made to settle all such claims and any others which have been or could have been made by NLRSD or Joshua against the State on behalf of NLRSD students. A. Magnet Payments The ADE shall, beginning with the 1989-90 school year, make payments of school aid for NLRSD magnet students directly to NLRSD which shall in turn 30reimburse LRSD at the rate of $1,550 per NLRSD magnet school student being educated in LRSD magnet schools less any magnet surplus credit available under paragraph II.B. herein. The State may, at its option, continue the direct payment to the LRSD of the remaining $1,550 of magnet school operational costs for NLRSD magnet students or may make such aid payments for NLRSD magnet students directly to NLRSD. If the latter option is selected, then NLRSD shall make total payments to the LRSD of $3,100 per year per each NLRSD magnet student or the appropriate pro-rata share of said $3,100 if such students are magnet students for less than the full school year less any magnet surplus credit available under paragraph II.B. herein. B, Compensatory Education Payments Beginning with the 1989-90 school year and continuing through the 1995-96 school year, the State will, on July 1 of each year, pay NLRSD $389,025 (a total of $2,723,175 for the seven year period). C. Additional Payments As additional compensatory education assistance. beginning with the 1990-91 school year and continuing through the 1996-97 school year. the NLRSD will receive payments to support the reduction of the percentage of the total black student population that 31is in its special education program. The formula for such payments is as follows: (1) The first step is to determine a Base Year, or starting point. to which placements in further years will be compared. The October 1, 1987 general enrollment data and the December, 1987 special education count will be used to establish this base and calculations pursuant to this formula will be based on those counts in future years. On October 1, 1987, the NLRSD had 4083 black students, including those attending magnet schools. (Total Black Population "TBP") and 805 black students were in special education, including those attending magnet schools, (Blacks in Special Education "BSE") in December, 1987. Thus, 19.72% of the District's total black population was in special education ("Black Placement Rate"). (2) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (3) below and solely for determining the amount of these formula payments, the NLRSD will receive the State Base Equalization Rate (SBER) multiplied by the special education weights for the difference between the number of black students actually in special education and the number that would have been in special education if there had been no reduction in the BPR since the Base Year. Because of delayed year financing, the student counts will be taken in school 32years 1989-90 through 1995-96 but payments for those counts will be made in 1990-91 through 1996-97 using the payment year's SBER. By way of illustration. if the TBP in 1989-90 is 4212, applying the BPR for the Base Year would result in .1972 X 4212, or 830.6, black students in special education. If the actual number is 772, the District would be entitled to payment for the special education weights (average .714 per student) for 58.6 students. which would result in 41.8 weights. (3) Since the District cannot control placement decisions in other districts, for purposes of this formula black students who transfer into the NLRSD already placed in special education by their original school district will be excluded from the count of TBP and BSE for their first year of enrollment in the NLRSD to the extent that those incoming transfers exceed black students in special education who transfer from the NLRSD to other districts. For example, if 52 black special education students transfer into the NLRSD between the 1988-89 and 1989-90 school years while only 37 transfer out. 15 black students would be excluded from the TBP and BSE in 1989-90 for the purpose of this formula. Thus, the NLRSD would be counted as only having 4197 TBP instead of 4212 and 757 BSE instead of 772 and would be paid for the special education weights associated 33with the difference between 827.6 and 757 BSE, i.e., 70.6. (4) As further support for the reduction of black students placed in special education and solely for the purpose of determining the amount of the payments, the NLRSD will be entitled to payment for the special education weights associated with the difference between the number of students removed from special education in the NLRSD and placed in the regular program in the NLRSD and those moved from the regular NLRSD program and placed in special education in the NLRSD. For example, if between 1988-89 and 1989-90 the District removed 83 black students from special education and placed 64 in special education. the District would be paid for the special education weights for an additional 19 students, which would result in 13.6 weights. (5) A list of names (and identification numbers. if available) of the special education students referred to in paragraph ,3 and 4 above. will be provided to the Arkansas Department of Education, before any payment is made under these provisions. (6) Because of delayed year financing, the operation of this formula will not result in any additional funds until 1990-91. Presently, the SBER IS $1,944.55 and. assuming $74.00 per year 34 aincrease, it would be $2,018 in 1990-91. Using the above examples, this would generate $129,757. (7) The District may continue to receive payments under this formula only through the 1996-97 school year (inclusive) but in no event will the District receive more than $2,344,055 cumulatively through the operation of this formula. The limit of the State's obligation under this formula IS $1,276,825. If the eimount of the payments exceeds $1,276,825, LRSD and PCSSD agree to pay those excess amounts up to the point that either (a) the over-all payments to NLRSD under this formula reach $2,344,055 or (b) the expiration of the formula, whichever comes first. (8) Any payments required of LRSD and PCSSD under paragraph (7) will be shared on the basis of 75% for LRSD and 25% for PCSSD. (9) If, when the formula expires, the formula has generated less than $1,276,825, the State will pay the difference between what it has paid and $1,276,825 to LRSD and PCSSD on the basis of 75% to LRSD and 25% to PCSSD. (10) Any payments made pursuant to this formula will be separate from the District's usual MFPA payments. 35D. Description of Additional Compensatory Education Programs Within fifteen days of the final approval of this settlement, the NLRSD will develop a description of the compensatory education programs to be developed with the additional compensatory education funds made available through this settlement and will petition the court to amend NLRSD's Plan accordingly. The State, Joshua, and the Districts will support the NLRSD in this effort. IX. Execution A. This Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement of March, 1989, is executed as revised by counsel with authority of their clients this 28th day of September, 1989. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTR: By(r Christopher Helle, One of Its Attorneys PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO._1 By:_ M.^^amue jOne of I 1 Jones . / ts Attorneys 36 * * * NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRIC By: StepW^n W. Jones One of Its Attorneys * ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Z} By: H. William Allen One of Its Attorneys JOSHUA INTERVENORS By: C6hn W. Walker One of Their Attorneys KNIGHT HT ^TERVENORS By: Pau^J. Ward One'^of Their Attorneys 31 /Shn M- WalkiPKRELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE STATE For and in consideration of its payments and commitments set forth in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement to which this release is attached (hereafter, "the Consideration"), the undersigned parties do hereby release, acquit and forever discharge the State of Arkansas, its constitutional officers, elected officials, appointees, employees, agencies, departments, their predecessors and successors including, but not limited to, the Arkansas State Board of Education and its members (hereafter collectively referred to as "the Released Parties") of and from any and all actions, causes of action, claims and demands which the undersigned now have or may hereafter have arising out of or in any way related to any acts or omissions of any and every kind to the date of the execution of this release by the released parties which in any way relate to racial discrimination or segregation in public education in the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas or to the violation of constitutional or other rights of school children based on race or color in the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas. It is understood and agreed that the Consideration is valuable and is given in full and final compromise of disputed claims and that the giving of the Consideration is not to be construed as an admission of any liability on the part of any of the Released Parties beyond ATTACHMENT A2 the liability found to date by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and that the terms of this release are contractual and not a mere recital. It is further understood and agreed that the litigation now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al. No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (the "Litigation") is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the Arkansas State Board of Education and the former and current members of that board named in the Litigation. We have read this release and had it explained to us by our attorneys who have signed as witnesses hereto and we understand that the above referenced payments or commitments are in full and final compromise of any and all claims and causes of action. We understand that in the event all parties for which there is a signature blank below do not sign this release, the release is effective and binding on those parties that do sign. EXECUTED this day of , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 200 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 By:_____________________ Christopher Heller One of its Attorneys LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By______________________________ President, Board of Directors3 EXECUTED THIS day of , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 By:____________________ M. Samuel Jones One of its Attorneys By______________________________ President, Board of Directors EXECUTED this day of , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: JACK LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower Little Rock, AR 72201 By:____________________ Stephen W. Jones One of its Attorneys NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By______________________________ President, Board of Directors EXECUTED this day of , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: (NAACP) LEGAL AND EDUCATIONAL DEFENSE FUND, INC. THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS By____________________ Norman J. Chachkin One of its Attorneys By__________________________ LRSD Class Representative By.____________________________ President, Little Rock, Arkansas Branch of the NAACP and JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. By_____ NLRSD Class Representative 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 and President of the North Little Rock, Arkansas Branch of the NAACP By__________________ John W. Walker One of its Attorneys By___________________________ PCSSD Class Representative4 * * EXECUTED this day of , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: MITCHELL & ROACHELL 1014 W. Third Little Rock, AR By____________________ Richard W. Roachell One of its Attorneys KNIGHT INTERVENORS 72201 By____________________ LRCTA Representative By___________________ PACT Representative By_____________________ NLRCTA RepresentativeRELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE LRSD For and in consideration of its relinquishment of claims and commitments set forth in the Plans and the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement to which this release IS attached (hereafter, "the Consideration"), the undersigned parties do hereby release, acquit and forever discharge the LRSD, its directors, administrators, appointees. employees, agencies, departments, their predecessors and successors (hereafter collectively referred to as "the Released Parties") of and from any and all actions, causes of action, claims and demands which the undersigned now have or may hereafter have arising out of or in any way related to any acts or omissions of any and every kind to the date of the execution of this release by the released parties which in any way relate to racial discrimination. segregation in public education, or to violations of other constitutional or statutory rights of school children, based on race or color. in the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas. It is understood and agreed that the Consideration is valuable and is given in full and final compromise of disputed claims and that the giving of the Consideration IS not to be construed as an admission of any liability on the part of any of the Released Parties beyond the liability found to date by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and ATTACHMENT B 2 that the terms of this release are contractual and not a mere recital. It is further understood and agreed that thelitigation now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al, No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (including, but not limited to. Cooper V. Aaron, Norwood V. Tucker and Clark v. Board of Education of the Little Rock School District) (the "Litigation") is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the LRSD and the former and current members of its board 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. We have read this release and had it explained to us by our attorneys who have signed as witnesses hereto and we understand that the above referenced relinquishment of claims and commitments are in full and final compromise of any and all claims and causes of action. We understand that in the event all parties for which there is a signature blank below do not sign this release, the release is effective and binding on those parties that do sign.3 EXECUTED this day of , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: ALLEN LAW FIRM A Professional Corporation 1200 Worthen Bank Bldg. ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Little Rock, AR 72201 By_____________________________ Chairman, Board of Directors By:____________________ H. William Allen One of its Attorneys EXECUTED THIS day of , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 Little Rock, AR 72201 By:_____________________ M. Samuel Jones One of its Attorneys By______________________________ President, Board of Directors EXECUTED this day of , 1989 by: * WITNESSED AND APPROVED: JACK LYON & JONES, P.A. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 3400 TCBY Tower Little Rock, AR 72201 By____________________ Stephen W. Jones One of its Attorneys By______________________________ President, Board of Directors * * EXECUTED this day of , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: (NAACP) LEGAL AND EDUCATIONAL DEFENSE FUND, INC. THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS By____________________ Norman J. Chachkin One of its Attorneys By__________________________ LRSD Class Representative and By_____________________________ President, Little Rock, Arkansas Branch of the NAACP/ 4 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 By____________________ John W. Walker One of its Attorneys By_____________________________ NLRSD Class Representative and President of the North Little Rock, Arkansas Branch of the NAACP By___________________________ PCSSD Class Representative EXECUTED this day of , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: MITCHELL & ROACHELL KNIGHT INTERVENORS 1014 W. Third Little Rock, AR 72201 By___________._________ LRCTA Representative By____________________ Richard W. Roachell One of its Attorneys By___________________ PACT Representative * By_____________________ NLRCTA RepresentativeRELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE PCSSD For and in consideration of its relinquishment of claims and commitments set forth in the Plans and the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement to which this release is attached (hereafter, "the Consideration"), the undersigned parties do hereby release, acquit and forever discharge the PCSSD, its directors, administrators, appointees, employees, agencies, departments, their predecessors and successors (hereafter collectively referred to as "the Released Parties") of and from any and all actions. causes of action, claims and demands which the undersigned now have or may hereafter have arising out of or in any way related to any acts or omissions of any and every kind to the date of the execution of this release by the released parties which in any way relate to racial discrimination, segregation in public education, or to violations of other constitutional or statutory rights of school children. based on race or color. in the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas. It is understood and agreed that the Consideration is valuable and is given in full and final compromise of disputed claims and that the giving of the Consideration is not to be construed as an admission of any liability on the part of any of the Released Parties beyond the liability found to date by the United States District Court for the Eastern ATTACHMENT C2 District of Arkansas and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and that the terms of this release are contractual and not a mere recital. It is further understood and agreed that the litigation now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al, No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (including, but not limited to. Zinnamon v. Pulaski County School District, LR-C-68-154) (the "Litigation") is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the PCSSD and the former and current members of its board named in the Litigation. This dismissal is final for all purposes except that the Court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation of the Plans. We have read this release and had it explained to us by our attorneys who have signed as witnesses hereto and we understand that the above referenced relinquishment of claims and commitments are in full and final compromise of any and all claims and causes of action. We understand that in the event all parties for which there is a signature blank below do not sign this release, the release is effective and binding on those parties that do sign.3 EXECUTED this day of , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 By:____________________ Christopher Heller
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.